-—is
PB99-964005
EPA541-R99-023
1999
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Marine Corps Logistics Base OU4
Albany, GA
4/2/1999
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
UNIT IDENTIFICATION CODE: N67004
CONTRACT NO.: N62467-89-D-0317/086
FEBRUARY 1999
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
NORTH CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA
29418
-------
o
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
Unit Identification Code: M67004
Contract No.: N62467-39-D-0317/086
Prepared by:
Harding Lawson Associates
2590 Executive Center Circle, East
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Prepared for:
Department of the Navy, Southern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
- 2155 Eagle Drive
North Charleston, South Carolina 29418
Joel Sanders, Code 1868, Remedial Project Manager
February 1999
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
A.'fi 0 2 !999
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
4WD-FFB
Larry ?. Cole, Colonel
Commanding Officer
Marine Corps Logistics Base-Albany
Albany, Georgia 31704-1128
SUBJ: Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4 (including PSC 6, PSC 10, PSC 12. PSC 13 and PSC 22)
MCLB-Albany NPL Site
EPA ID= GA7170023694
Albany, GA 31704
Dear Sir:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 has reviewed the above
subject decision document and concurs with the remedy of Land Use Controls at PSC 6 and No
Action at PSC 10, PSC 12, PSC 13, and PSC 22 within Operable Unit 4. This remedy is
supported by the previously completed Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study and Baseline
Risk Assessment Reports. The combined remedy of Land Use Controls and No Action is
protective of human health and the environment.
As specified in the Land Use Control Implementation Plan, PSC 6 is restricted from
having any residential development. The Land Use Control Implementation Plan for PSC 6
further describes that any proposed changes in use of the site "are subject to approval by USEPA
Region IV and GEPD." EPA will review the need for future remediation, monitoring, or changes
in Land Use Controls under all applicable statutes, if any changes in use are proposed. In
addition, it is imperative that the current excellent coordination between the MCLB
Environmental personnel and the MCLB Construction personnel continue and that all proposed
projects that could impact the area encompassed by PSC 6 be reviewed by the MCLB
Environmental office. These measures will result in the elimination of any inadvertent
noncompliance with the Land Use Control requirements. Also, as stated in earlier
correspondence (Pope to Sanders, August 14, 1999) the Land Use Control Assurance Plan is now
required to be finalized within 90 days of the date of this concurrence letter.
-------
EPA appreciates the coordination efforts of MCLB Albany and the level of effort that
was put forth in the documents leading to this decision. EPA looks forward to continuing the
exemplary working relationship with MCLB Albany and Southern Division Naval Facilities
Engineering Command as we move toward final cleanup of the N'PL site.
Sincerely,
4»
Richard D. Green
Director
Waste Management Division
cc: Sid Allison, SOUTHDIV
^Captain Ference, MCLB-Albany
.Jerry Wallmeyer, REC (NASJAX)
Daniel Owens, SOUTHDIV
Harold F. Reheis, GAEPD
Madeleine Kellam, GAEPD
-^tlley Di'cya, USMC &ob V
bcc: Scott Gordon, EAD
Allison Abernathy, FFRRO/OSWER
David Levenstein, FFEO/OECA
05MC
ape Bozem
t/tl,
-------
ntcord of Dsciiion
Operabte Unit 4
Marirw Corps Logistics Base
Albany. Ootgia
Chapter Title
Page Ho,
1.0 DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION .... 1-1
1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION 1-1
1.2 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND BASIS .......][.... 1-1
1.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE '.'.'. 1-1
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY . . . . 1-2
1.5 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 1-3
1.6 SIGNATURE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY . . . . . 1-3
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY 2-l
2.1 SITE NAME. LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION ............. 2-1
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2-8
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ] 2-9
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE FINAL RESPONSE AT OU 4 2-9
2.5 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS . '..'.'.'. 2-10
2.6 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINANTS '.'.'.'. 2-14
2.6.1 Contaminant Delineation at OU 4 2-15
2.7 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS . . . '. 2-27
2.7.1 OU 4 BRA . . . '. [ 2-31
2.7.2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and
Remedial Alternatives 2-40
2.7.2.1 Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives 2-40
2.7.3 Response Action 2-43
2.8 EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.']'.'. 2-43
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Community Relations Responsiveness Summary
Appendix B: Land-Use Control Implementation Plan for Potential Source of
Contamination 6
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS. 12.98
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Title _ Paee No.
2-1 Vicinity Map ............................ 2-2
2-2 PSC 10, Depot Maintenance Area (DMA) ................ 2-3
2-3 PSC 22, DMA Old 90-Day Storage Area ............... '. 2-4
2-4 PSC 13, Industrial Wastewater Pipeline ............ ... 2-5
2-5 PSC 12, Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant ........... 2-6
2-6 PSC 6, Industrial Discharge Drainage Ditch and Sanitary Sewer Line . 2-7
2-7 Location Map for Geologic Section (Shown on Figure 2-8) ...... 2-11
2-8 Geologic Section of the Albany Area ... ........... 2-12
2-9 Potentiometric Surface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the Albany,
Georgia, Area, November 1985 .................... 2-13
2-10 Risk Summary, Base Worker, PSC 6 .......... ..... ... 2-37
2-11 Risk Summary, Child Transient, PSC 6 ..... ..... ...... 2-38
2-12 Risk Summary, Resident, PSC 6 ................... .2-39
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12,98 _jj_
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Table
Title
Page No.
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil,
Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil,
Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil,
Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil,
Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil,
PSC 10 ...... ...... 2-16
PSC 22 ........ .... 2-17
PSC 13 ............ 2-20
PSC 12 ............ 2-23
2-24
PSC 6
Analytes Detected in Surface Soil, PSC 6 .............. 2-25
Chemicals of Potential Concern at PSCs 10, 13, and 22 ....... 2-28
Chemicals of Potential Concern at PSC 12 .............. 2-28
Chemicals of Potential Concern at PSC 6 .............. 2-29
2-10 Risk Summary for PSCs 10, 13, and 22 ......... ....... 2-33
2-11 Risk Summary for PSC 12 .................... ! ! 2-33
2-12 Risk Summary for PSC 6 . ...................... 2-34
2-13 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ........ 2-41
ALB-OU4.ROO
SAS.12.98
-III-
-------
GLOSSARY
o
ABB-ES ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
bis below land surface
BRA baseline risk assessment
COPC chemical of potential concern
DCA dichloroethane
DCE dichloroethene
DMA Depot Maintenance Activity
DWTP domestic wastewater treatment plant
ERA ecological risk assessment
GEPD Georgia Environmental Protection Division
HHRA human health risk assessment
HI hazard index
HLA Harding Lawson Associates
IWP industrial wastewater pipeline
IWTP industrial wastewater treatment plant
LUC land-use control
LUCAP land-use control assurance plan
LUCIP land-use control implementation plan
MCLB Marine Corps Logistics Base
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
NA no action
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
OU operable unit
PCS polychlorinated biphenyl
PSC potential source of contamination
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI remedial investigation
RI/FS remedial investigation and feasibility study
RI/BRA remedial investigation/baseline risk assessment
ROD Record of Decision
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SOUTHNAV-
FACENGCOM Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
SVOC semivolatile organic compound
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12,98
-IV-
-------
1.0 DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECTSTOM
1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION. Operable Unit (OU) 4 is composed of the potential
sources of contamination (PSC) that are directly or geographically associated with
the Depot Maintenance Activity (DMA), which is located on the southeastern side
of Broom Boulevard. OU 4 consists of five PSCs, including PSC 10, DMA; PSC 22,
DMA Old 90-Day Storage Area; PSC 13, Industrial Wastewater Pipeline (IWP)• PSC
12, Industrial wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP); and PSC 6, Industrial Discharge
Drainage Ditch/Sanitary Sewer line.
1.2 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND BASIS This Record of Decision (ROD) document
presents the final response for OU 4 at the Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB),
Albany. It was developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act, and to the extent practicable, the National Contingency
Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the site's Administrative Record, which
is on file at the Environmental Branch Office, Installations and Logistics
Division, Building 5501, MCLB, Albany, Georgia, 31704, and at the information
repository in the Dougherty County Public Library, Albany, Georgia. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IV and State of Georgia concur with
the selected remedy.
1.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE A remedial investigation and baseline risk
assessment (RI/BRA) was conducted at OU 4 between April 1993 and May 1994. The
BRA examined a current land-use scenario, in which base workers are likely to be
exposed to contaminated media, and a hypothetical future residential land use of
OU 4, in which residential and transient individuals could be exposed. Child and
adult resident exposure scenarios were evaluated to estimate potential exposures
in the event housing is built very near the ditch. These hypothetical situations
represent the most sensitive receptor and conservative risk estimates for OU 4.
The BRA evaluated both cancer and noncancer risks. The ecological portion of the
BRA was completed only for PSC 6, the Industrial Discharge Drainage Ditch, due
to lack of habitat (animals, plants, birds, mammals, fish and reptiles) at the
other PSCs.
According to the NCP for Superfund sites, the acceptable cancer risk range is from
1 in 10,000 (1x10-*) to 1 in 1 million (IxlO'6) , depending on site-specific
conditions. Although the estimated risk of IxlO*6 is the point of departure in
determining the need for a response action, site-specific conditions at OU 4
indicate that application of the acceptable risk range is appropriate. The site-
specific condition supporting the use of the risk range includes the base
perimeter fence, which restricts public access to surface and subsurface soil,
surface water, and sediment at OU 4. The site-specific conditions for OU 4 are
such that most of the samples evaluated for cancer risk were below the ranges
prescribed by the NCP. This means that for several of the PSCs that make up OU
4, no response action was required. For noncancer risks, the similar point of
departure is a hazard index (HI) of 1. If the total estimated noncancer risk
exceeds this value, then site-specific conditions and effects from individual
compounds are evaluated to determine whether or not a response is necessary.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
-------
The BRA conducted for subsurface soil at PSCs 10, 13, and 22 resulted in risks
T^no?16 £ the USEPA Region 1V for Carcinogens (4X10'9) and noncarcinogens (H-
of 0.02). There was no surface water or sediment present at any of these sites
The BRA for PSC 12 included subsurface soil only; the BRA results were also
acceptable to USEPA Region IV (4xl(T9, HI of 0.008) such that no treatment
containment, or restricted access is required for PSCs 10, 12, 13, and 22. No
surface soil, surface water, or sediment samples were collected at PSCs 10 12
13, and 22 due to the areal extent of concrete surface cover at each PSC and
absence of these media.
Human health and ecological risks associated with exposure to the surface soil
surface water, and sediment at PSC 6 were evaluated and compared to the cancer
and noncancer risk criteria (IxlO"4 to IxlO'6, HI greater than 1). For current
and potential future land use, child transient cancer risks for potential
exposures to surface water, sediment, and surface soil are within the USEPA
acceptable cancer risk range, and noncancer risks are below the USEPA threshold
MI ot 1. The total resident (i.e. , child and adult resident combined) cancer risk
for potential future exposures to industrial discharge drainage ditch surface
soil, surface water, and sediment is 6X10'5, which is within the USEPA acceptable
cancer risk range. Total child resident noncancer risk for potential future
S^ „" S°Ll' surface ^ter, and sediment exposure is an HI of 3, which exceeds
the USEPA threshold HI of 1. Therefore, a response action is deemed necessary.
I.A DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY There are six OUs at MCLB, Albany and
OU A is the fifth of the six OUs to have completed RODs. The completed RODs for
OUs 1, 2, 3 and 5 address surface and subsurface soil, surface water and
sediment Groundwater will be addressed under a continuing basewide investigation
within OU 6 and is the principal potential threat remaining at MCLB, Albany This
OU is currently in the remedial investigation (RI) phase.
A No Action (NA) remedy was selected for PSCs 10, 12, 13, and 22. Under this
alternative, no treatment, containment, or additional restricted access is planned
for these PSCs. The selected remedy for PSC 6 is Land-Use Controls (LUCs) as
outlined in the Land-Use Control Implementation Plan (LUCIP) presented in
Appendix B of the ROD. The LUCIP for PSC 6 has been developed for the protection
of human health and the environment under existing and potential future
conditions.
The LUCIP will prohibit residential development within the drainage ditch and will
require the evaluation of the risk to the public and environment and/or grading
or covering the drainage ditch if residential housing is ever constructed in the
ditch. TKe term "LUCIP," as required by recent USEPA Region IV policy is
equivalent to the term "institutional control plan," which has been used in
previous MCLB, Albany decision documents.
Also required by recent USEPA policy is the development of a Land-Use Control
Assurance Plan (LUCAP). The LUCAP agreed to by the USEPA and MCLB, Albany sets
in place basewide periodic site inspection, condition certification, and agency
notification procedures.
These procedures are designed to ensure the continued maintenance by MCLB, Albany
personnel of those site-specific LUCs deemed necessary for future protection of
human health and the environment. A fundamental premise underlying execution of
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS1298 .j 2
-------
that agreement was that through the Navy's compliance with the procedures,
reasonable assurances would be provided to USEPA as to the permanency of the
remedy to be selected in reliance upon the use of specific LUCs.
Although the terms and conditions of the LUCAP are not specifically incorporated
or made enforceable herein by reference, it is understood and agreed by the Navy
and USEPA that the permanence of the contemplated remedy reflected herein shall
be dependent upon the Base's substantial good-faith compliance with the specific
LUC maintenance commitments reflected therein. Should such compliance not occur
or should the LUCAP be terminated, it is understood that the protectiveness of
the remedy concurred may be reconsidered and that additional measures may need
to be taken to adequately ensure necessary future protection of human health and
the environment. If the property is excessed by the Federal Government, the Navy
will pursue deed restrictions on the area encompassed by PSC 6, unless it is
determined at that time that the property is suitable for unrestricted use.
1.5 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. The final response actions selected for OU 4
address the surface and subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment.
Specifically, the final response for PSCs 10, 12, 13 and 22 is NA because no
remedial action is necessary to protect human health or the environment.
The final response action for PSC 6 requiring the implementation of LUCs will be
protective of human health and the environment. The response action at PSC 6
complies with Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the response action, and are cost effective.
The remedy at PSC 6 will allow hazardous substances to remain on site in PSC 6
surface soil, surface water, and sediment above health-based levels. Therefore,
a review will be conducted within 5 years to ensure that this remedy continues
to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
1.6 SIGNATURE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY.
\f. u-*U -
Signature Larry P. Cole Date
Colonel
Commanding. Officer, MCLB, Albany
AL6-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
-------
-------
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY
2.1 SITE NAME. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION. MCLB, Albany is an active facility
occupying 3,579 acres east-southeast of the city of Albany, Georgia (Figure 2-1) .
Land bordering MCLB, Albany, to the south, east, and northeast is primarily
agricultural or recreational open space. Most of the land to the northwest and
west of the base is residential and commercial.
MCLB, Albany currently serves as a military logistics center, controlling the
acquisition, storage, maintenance, and distribution of combat and support material
for the Marine Corps. In addition, the base is used for military training and
other functions as directed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
PSC 10. PSC 10 (DMA) is located on the southeastern side of Broom Boulevard
(Figure 2-2). The DMA (Building 2200) consists of several buildings (approxi-
mately 450,000 total square feet) and-maintenance areas, all involved in the
maintenance and refurbishment of military vehicles. The area between the build-
ings is covered by a concrete slab with a relatively uniform thickness of 8
inches. The surface area covered by concrete is approximately 45 acres. The
entire 45-acre area is fenced, and access is restricted.
PSC 22. PSC 22 (DMA Old 90-Day Storage Area) is located within the fenced area
of the DMA (PSC 10) along its southwest side (Figure 2-3). PSC 22 consists of
a metal-fabricated roofed shed approximately 30 feet by 180 feet in dimension.
The sides of the shed are not enclosed; however, access is limited by a chain-link
fence fixed to the pillars of the roof. The floor of the shed is concrete.
PSC 13. PSC 13 (IWP) carries industrial wastes from the DMA to the IWTP (Figure
2-4) . The pipeline is gravity-drained. As such, the depth of the pipeline varies
from approximately 6 feet below land surface (bis) on the west side of the DMA
to 12 feet bis just before entering the IWTP. The diameter of the pipeline varies
from 6 inches (west side of DMA) to 12 inches just before entering the IWTP.
PSC 12. PSC 12 (IWTP) is located at the intersection of Broom Boulevard and West
Matthews Boulevard (Figure 2-5). In 1957, a gravity separator and 25,000-gallon
holding tank were installed at the present IWTP site for partial waste treatment
prior to discharge to the industrial discharge drainage ditch. By 1977, the IWTP
was constructed and in operation, treating the waste stream for metals and pH
stabilization.
A Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action was implemented
at the IWTP as required in MCLB, Albany's Hazardous Waste Facility Permit. In
compliance with the permit, a six-well pump-and-treat remedial system is currently
in operation at PSC 12 to address chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and inorganic analytes; detected in the groundwater. The first recovery well in
the system began groundwater extraction in 1990.
PSC 6. PSC 6 (Industrial Discharge Drainage Ditch and Sanitary Sewer) consists
of the industrial discharge drainage ditch that runs from the IWTP to the Marine
Canal, and the sanitary sewer line that runs from the IWTP to the Domestic
Wastewater Treatment Plant (DWTP) (Figure 2-6) . The industrial discharge drainage
ditch is a man-made drainage canal that originates at Covella Pond in the central
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98 2-1
-------
(.300-) MARINE CORPS
LOGISTICS BASE
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
4lfl O1I4 ROB
SAS 13 9B
2-2
-------
Currenl hozqrdous *osl»
storage facility—
Industrial
USTi Underground storage tank
Potential Source of Contamination
.. (PSC) 10 study area
FIGURE 2-2
PSC 10
DEPOT MAINTENANCE AREA (DMA)
SCALE: 1 INCH = 450 FEET
RECORD OF DECISION
WARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY' GEORGIA
-------
••••*;.:- ••
,. .-..'. .V...V.V.. • ." .-.-Vyf. . .Y.Y. .-.Y.V, :
- • • Current .hazardous .vasie.-. !->*Y.;•/':'. .vX\\v: -XvivivXv • '• •/£
Induslfial.
fueling
slaiion .••.,'
Sandblast area
PSC 22
.DlS^ -•
former USIs
Building 2218
drain rack far
ordnance vehicle
<>
Recreation
area DMA
LEGEND
UST Undergrounj storage lank
-••••-. -, Polenlial Source ol Conlomination
",:^:.:.) (PSC) I0 sludy aua
DMA Depot Mdmlenonce ^chvily
POL Petroleum. :lis. lubrcconls
•' '•J DMA old 90-day slorogt oreo
SCALC: I INCH
FIGURE 2-3
PSC 22
DMA OLD 90-DAY STORAGE AREA
nnnn
uuuu
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
ik
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------
ui >J manhole locations
IWTP Industrial Waslewater Treatment Plant
PSC Potential Source of Contamination
8 t Diameter of pipeline.
PSC 13
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PIPELINE
> OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
MA"INE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------
- o
M C
U> *
O 0)
o
o
10
Concrete lined
lest lonk /
for landing ,
PSC 13
pipeline
^/-'/
. 5£.\__^.
LEGEND FIGURE 2-5
I - J Hot port ol in>*sligol.on | p§Q ^2
PSC Potential source j« contamination j INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
t,.".„;;! Lending v«hicie oreo i
IWIP Industrial •jsiv»at»! lr«almenl
Boundary of
PSC 12
study area
160 320
SCALE; I INCH = 320 FEET
OF DECISION
;v. OPERABLE UNIT 4
"
-------
Sonilory s«»«r lins- ••'
Industrial discharge droinoQ9 dilch
PSC Potential source of contamination
OWIP Domestic waslewaler treatment plant
IWTP Industrial wastewater treatment plant
1.000 2.000
SOLE: 1 INCH = 2.000 TEEI
Source: Marine Corps Logistics Base General Base Development Map and USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
F*
(Hi
FIGURE 2-6
PSC 6
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE DRAINAGE DITCH
AND SANITARY SEWER LINE
, RECORD OF DECISION
•;•;•, OPERABLE UNIT 4
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------
portion of the base and extends downstream to its intersection with West Shaw
Road. Typically, water levels through the ditch are less than 1 foot in depth
while water levels during storm events can exceed 10 feet in depth. An underflow
weir and sedimentation basin are located at the downstream end of the ditch.
These structures prevent miscellaneous trash and debris from leaving the base
property.
The sanitary sewer line carried the treated effluent of the IWTP approximately
7,500 linear feet to the now inoperable base DWTP. Currently, the effluent
bypasses the DWTP and discharges directly into the city of Albany's publicly owned
treatment works. The pipeline is a 24- inch-diameter gravity-drained pipeline that
varies in depth from approximately 12 feet bis at the IWTP to 40 feet bis at the
DWTP.
2 .2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES. MCLB, Albany has generated various
types of solid and liquid wastes over the years, including hazardous wastes. The
hazardous wastes include electroplating wastes containing heavy metals, organic
solvents from stripping and cleaning operations, and waste fuel and oil.
The DMA (PSC 10) used solvents and other potential contaminants during routine
operations. Typically, when these compounds were no longer usable they were
either containerized and stored temporarily at the DMA Old 90-Day Storage Area
(PSC 22) before disposal, or were drained into the pipeline (PSC 13) for disposal.
Prior to 1957, the effluent from the pipeline was discharged into the industrial
discharge drainage ditch (PSC 6). In 1957, minimal treatment was performed prior
to discharge to the drainage ditch. In 1977, the IWTP began operation, and
effluent from the IWTP was directed into the sanitary sewer line (PSC 6) for
additional treatment at the DWTP prior to off-site discharge.
Environmental investigations of OU 4 began in 1985. The following reports
describe the results of investigations at OU 4 to date:
Initial Assessment Study (Envirodyne Engineers, 1985);
Conf irraacion Study Verification Seep Report (McClelland Engineers . Inc . ,
1987) ;
RCRA Facility Investigation Phase One Confirmation Study (Applied
Engineering and Science, Inc., 1989);
UST Investigation Building 2200, Shop 712 (Sirrine Environmental
Consultants, Inc.. 1992);
L'ST Investigation Building 2210 (Roy F. Weston. Inc.. 1992);
wj»T :.-:ves cigar ion Building 2213 (SEC Donohue, Inc. , 1992 and 1993);
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Workplan, Operable Unit 4 (ABB
Environmental Services, Inc. [ABB-ESj ,•'l993) ;
Remedial Investigation and Baseline Risk Assessment Report, Operable
Unit 6 (ABB-ES, 1998); and
SAS 129B
2-8
-------
Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 4- (Harding Lawson Associates [HLA]
1998). '
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. The Proposed Plan for OU 4
recommended NA for PSCs 10, 12, 13, and 22, and LUCs for PSC 6. This document
was made available to the public in the Information Repository located at the
Dougherty County Public Library and in the Administrative Record located at the
Environmental Branch Office, Building 5501, MCLB, Albany, Georgia, 31704-1128.
The public notice of the Proposed Plan was published in the Albany Herald on
October 13, 1998, and meeting notices were mailed to the MCLB, Albany Installation
Restoration community mailing list. A public meeting was held on October 22,
1998, to present the results of the RI and BRA, the preferred remedy, and to
solicit comments from the community. At this meeting, representatives from
Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM) , MCLB,
Albany, USEPA Region IV, Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD), and
HLA were available to discuss all aspects of OU 4 and the response actions under
consideration. The Community Relations Responsiveness Summary is included in
Appendix A of this decision document.
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE FINAL RESPONSE AT OU 4. MCLB, Albany contains 26 PSCs.
Of these PSCs, 14 were in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) process, 10 PSCs required preliminary screening
activities, and 2 PSCs were addressed under RCRA. The 14 PSCs in the CERCLA
process were divided into 5 individual OUs to address surface and subsurface soil,
surface water, and sediment. The list below identifies the PSCs within each OU
and presents the regulatory status of each.
OU 1, composed of PSCs 1, 2, 3, and 26 (signed ROD in August 1997)
• OU 2, composed of PSC 11 (signed ROD in September 1996)
OU 3, composed of PSCs 16 and 17 (signed ROD in August 1997)
OU 4, composed of PSCs 6, 10, 12, 13, and 22 (Proposed Plan completed
in July 1998)
OU 5, composed of PSCs 8 and 14 (signed ROD in December 1997)
OU 6, basewide groundwater (currently in RI phase)
The proposed response for OU 4 consists of two remedies: NA for PSCs 10, 12, 13,
and 22, and LUCs for PSC 6. Under the NA response, no treatment, containment,
or restricted access is required at PSCs 10, 12, 13, and 22 to protect human
health and the environment.
LUCs will be implemented at PSC 6. The human health BRA conducted at PSC 6
determined that exposure to surface soil posed an unacceptable risk to a potential
future resident. Therefore, LUCs are required to prohibit potential future
residential development of PSC 6. The LUCIP for PSC 6 is presented in Appendix B
of this ROD and will also become part of MCLB, Albany's Master Plan document.
If the property is excessed by the Federal Government, the Navy will pursue deed
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98 2-9
-------
restrictions on the areas encompassed by PSC 6, unless it is determined at that
time that the property is suitable for unrestricted use.
Groundwater beneath OU 4 will be addressed under a separate and ongoing basewide
groundwater investigation, which has been designated as OU <».
2.5 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS. This section summarizes the regional
geology, hydrogeology, and ecology in the vicinity of MCLB, Albany. The nature
and extent of contaminants for OU 4 is presented in Section 2.6. A more detailed
presentation of this information is available in the RI/BRA report for OU 4
(ABB-ES, 1998).
Geology. MCLB, Albany is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province,
which is made up of layers of sand, clay, sandstone, and limestone. These layers
of soil and rock extend to a depth of at least 5,000 feet bis. Each layer has
been identified and named by geologists according to its composition and physical
properties.
The soil and rock layers at MCLB, Albany, in descending order, are the clayey
overburden, the Ocala Limestone, and the Lisbon Formation. The overburden layer
is made up mostly of clay with some silt and sand. The Ocala Limestone is divided
into an upper unit and a lower unit. The upper unit is a lime mud or chalk. The
lower unit is hard, dense rock that has been dissolved by the movement of water
along fractures to form underground caves and springs. The Lisbon Formation is
a hard, clayey limestone. These are the soil and rock layers that control the
movement of underground water in the first 350 feet bis at MCLB, Albany. Figures
2-7 and 2-8 present a generalized geologic section of the Albany area.
Hydrogeology. Soil and rock layers are also grouped and named according to how
water moves through them. Layers that bear water to wells are called aquifers,
and layers that cannot bear water are called confining layers. The clayey
overburden and the upper unit of the Ocala Limestone are considered together to
be a confining layer. The lower unit of the Ocala Limestone is the major water-
bearing zone of the Floridan aquifer. The Lisbon Formation forms a confining
layer beneath the Floridan aquifer.
The Floridan aquifer is recharged by rainfall that slowly percolates down through
the confining units and through sinkholes. Movement of water in the Floridan
aquifer is generally west toward the Flint River, where it discharges to the river
through springs (Figure 2-9).
Most'irrigation wells and household water wells near MCLB, Albany draw water from
the Floridan aquifer. City water wells may also draw water from the Floridan
aquifer, although most of the city water is produced from deeper aquifers.
Ecology. The majority of forested land in the vicinity of the base is vegetated ,
with longleaf pine flatwoods, the most extensive plant community in the southern
coastal plain. Pine flatwoods grow in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North
Carolina.
The pine flatwoods habitat commonly found at MCLB, Albany supports diverse plant
and animal life, including invertebrates (e.g., insects and worms). reptiles, and
-LB'OIM ROD
SAS U 98 2-10
-------
- o
" £
<0 *
-g
D
N
LEGEND
• A' Una o( geologic section
3.25 7.5
SCALE: 1 INCH - 7.5 MILCS
Source ABB Erwironmtnlol Strvices, Inc., 1993,
from Hicks and others, 198?
!MK»\ll»M17.mc..HP-HP. 0>/1«/M ll.2» I? AuloCAD 81?
FIGURE 2-7
LOCATION MAP FOR GEOLOGIC SECTION
(SHOWN ON FIGURE 2-8)
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------
P£
in <*>
- o
w c
u> "
09 3)
ro
to
•,c it.i.
H/W },
Marine Corpi Loglitlci Bait
ItMlllhxIl LMlbM)
o-.
i -.' sr
L^;, . _ t
.- '«;. r "~^~'
' • ..
LEGEND
[ _ I Upper rioridon oquiler
!'•..!. Well ideniification
Geophysical logs
C Caliper
G Natural gamma
R Resistivity
»- \\i" C.i"l•' H".
1C • • • a'.'--
l»Ml / 0 C "" "-xx
"'", I '' >'- «l
, -- . ''I $
,..•-- Of w""> «i { /
I T .. - o.«""J'V'-<.. j "'% ,5
'•:' " ..KJI"'.''.1'1-4.? -;"";' / /' '". "7~~r"->-^-. <* /•
{£*"•" . -r~V>;4/V>_ .-'l
in
=-%,
^////^
X
X ' >
X!r
SCALE: I INCH = 5 MILES
Vtrtical icoK gitollr
,-'
-------
o
o
10
LEGEND
— 150 Polenliomelric isopHlh shows allilude ol which
water would havt stood in lightly cosed wells
Contour inlerval is 10 (eel- Oolum is Nolional
Geodelic Vertical Datum of 1929.
-^^— Direction of groundwater flow
,.1.011 well location
FIGURE 2-9
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE OF THE
UPPER FLORIDAN AQUIFER IN THE
ALBANY, GEORGIA, AREA
NOVEMBER 1985
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UMIT 4
&' MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
' ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------
amphibians. A number of mammals inhabit the pine flatwoods community, although
no mammal is exclusive to this habitat. Pine flatwoods also provide habitat for
a variety of birds, including seed- and insect-eaters, flycatchers, and aerial
predators (e.g., owls and hawks).
The presence of two rare and threatened species has been confirmed at the base.
The American alligator (Alligator missLssippiensis) , now classified as threatened,
has been documented in wetland habitats at the base; this semiaquatic species is
present throughout the southeast. Bachman's sparrow (AimophLla. aestivalis) a
Scace and federally listed "rare" species, is also a possible resident of the dry
open pine forests at MCLB, Albany; this large, secretive sparrow is a year-round
resident of southern Georgia. The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
a federally listed endangered species, occurs almost exclusively within this pine
flatwoods habitat; however, there are no known records for this species ar MCLB
Albany. . • '
2.6 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINANTS The nature, extent, and concentration
of hazardous substance contamination at OU 4 was studied during the RI conducted
between 1993 and 1994. Concentrations of analytes detected by laboratory analyses
are reported in micrograms per kilogram or milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for
soil samples and micrograms per liter for water samples. For instance, a
concentration of 8,600 mg/kg for iron means that 8,60*0 milligrams of iron are
present in each kilogram of soil. A kilogram is a unit measure of weight-equal
to about 2.2 pounds. One thousand micrograms equal 1 milligram, 1,000 milligrams
equal 1 gram, and 1,000 grams equal 1 kilogram. A liter is a unit measure of
volume roughly equal to a quart.
Source of Contamination. The source of contaminants at PSC 10 appears to be
discharges that may have occurred at locations within the DMA. The RI
investigated the potential for releases of contaminants onto paved surfaces and
subsequent runoff into the industrial discharge drainage ditch. Contaminants
discharged to unpaved surfaces or to subsurface soil (e.g., from leaking floor
drains or pipelines) would likely migrate through the vadose zone, potentially
affecting the groundwater. In paved areas, this transport would be governed by
gravity drainage of the host fluid (wastewater). In unpaved areas, infiltration
of precipitation water would accelerate this migration.
The source of contaminants at PSC 22 appears to be releases of contaminants from
the drums onto the paved surfaces and subsequent runoff into the industrial
discharge drainage ditch. Analytical results further indicate that these releases
did migrate into the subsurface soil (through possible cracks in the concrete
floor), thereby impacting groundwater in the area by leaching from precipitation.
PSC 13 consists of an underground pipeline that carries liquid industrial wastes
from the DMA to the IWTP. The results of a routine maintenance inspection
indicated several cracks at various locations along the pipeline. Upo-n further ,
inspection it was determined that releases from the pipeline had occurred;
however, restoration of the pipeline was performed by installing a resin-
impregnated, flexible tube into the. existing pipeline to prevent continuing
releases. Soil immediately beneath Che pipeline in the vicinity of releases may
have been affected. Because the pipeline runs underneath the concrete of the DMA;
it is unlikely that these contaminants leached to the groundwater by infiltration
SAS1298
2-14
-------
of precipitation. However, releases could have been sufficient in volume for the
contaminants to affect the groundwater in the area.
PSC 12 consists of a limited area surrounding the IWTP. No areas within the
boundaries of the IWTP were investigated. The IWTP has been in operation since
1977 and has been treating industrial wastes from the DMA since that time. The
IWTP was designed as a primary treatment facility (for pretreatment) and currently
operates in that manner. A groundwater remediation system consisting of
groundwater extraction and discharge into the IWTP is currently in operation.
Several potential sources for the constituents observed in the PSC 6, industrial
discharge drainage ditch, are known. These are primarily the covered DMA areas
that drain storm water runoff to PSC 6. Prior to 1957, the effluent from the
pipeline (PSC 13) was directed into an overflow weir, which subsequently was
discharged into the industrial discharge drainage ditch. However, these sources
do not account for the constituents observed upstream of these areas.
2.6.1 Contaminant Delineation at OU 4 This subsection is a summary of
contaminants detected at OU A, listed by PSC.
PSC 10. Sampling results for PSC 10 subsurface soil are presented in Table 2-1.
VOCs were detected in the unsaturated subsurface soil (approximately 45 feet bis.)
at three locations. However, the distribution of VOCs at this depth is attributed
to partitioning of compounds into groundwater during high water table conditions
onto the highly organic, clayey soil that is present at the base of the
overburden. The presence of these compounds in the groundwater is being addressed
under the ongoing basewide groundwater investigation, designated as OU 6. The
detection of one semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) at approximately 45 feet
bis is not believed to be associated with a contaminant release in this area.
Instead, detection of this compound is interpreted to be a sampling and/or
analysis artifact. The absence of this compound in the shallow subsurface soil
samples further supports this interpretation. Pesticide and polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) concentrations were below method detection limits in all samples.
In accordance with USEPA Region IV guidance, inorganic analytes with concentra-
tions that exceeded twice the average of detected concentrations in the background
subsurface soil samples have been included in the human health risk assessment
(HHRA).
PSC 22. Sampling results for PSC 22 subsurface soil are presented in Table 2-2.
Results of the laboratory organic analyses indicated the presence of VOCs, SVOCs,
pesticides, and PCBs in the samples collected between 2 and 12 feet bis and VOCs,
SVOCs, and pesticides in the samples collected at approximately 45 feet bis. Two
of the detected VOCs, acetone and methylene chloride, are believed to be sampling
and/or analysis artifacts. This conclusion is supported by the random
distribution of the detections for these compounds and the lack of historical
records indicating that these compounds were stored at PSC 22. The VOCs toluene,
trichloroethene (TCE), 1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE) (total), and 1,2-dichloro-
ethane (1,2-DCA) were detected more frequently and at higher concentrations in
the samples collected at the overburden-limestone interface, which is an
intermittently unsaturated zone, than the samples collected between 2 and 12 feet
bis. Further, because 1,2-DCE (total) and 1,2-DCA are degradation products of
TCE-and trichloroethane (TCA), it is likely that they were never released and are
present only as a byproduct of the degradation of TCE and TCA. The distribution
of these compounds in the samples collected at the overburden-limestone interface
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS. 12.98 2-15
-------
X
Table 2-1
Anaiytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 10
Record of
Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany. Georgia
, Analyte
Volada Oramnic Comoountm tua/ki
1.2-Dichloroethene (total)
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
Methylane chloride
Toluene
Trichloroethene
SwnivoUtia Oroanic Comoound* d
bis(2-Ethylh«xyl)phthalate
PaetickfM and PCB* (ira/fcnt
No. of Samples in
Which the Analyte
is Detacted/Total
No. of Samples
I)
2/8
2/8
3/8
2/8
1/8
2/8
*g/»cgj
1/8
Range of Detected
Concentrations
3to4
8 to 12
2to3
3 to 6
2 to 2
32to58
70to70
Mean
Concentration
4
10
2
5
2
45
70
Sample with
Maximum
Concentration
10B0440
10B0140
10B044Q
10B0140
10B014O
1080440
JOB044C
Concentrations were below detection limits in all PSC 10 subsurface soil samples.
Inorganic Arudvt« Img/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
8/8
2/8
7/8
8/8
4/8
4/8
8/8
8/8
3/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
3/8
3/8
4/8
8/8
3/8
8/8
8/8
2.060 to 24.900
4.8 to 5.8
0.47 to 1.1
3.9 to 936
0.14 to 9
0.76 to 19.7
241 to 3.990
4.2 to 68.6
63.4 to 123
2.1 to 46.4
1.160 to 61. 200
2.5 to 40.4
50.1 to 868
14.1 to 10.000
0.16 to 0.21
51 to 117
96.5 to 1.030
145 to 258
1.5 to 2
6.7 to 448
3.5 to 208
11.325
5.3
0.71
198.3
6.26
11.8
1 .586
19.3
84.2
18.2
27.456
12.8
320.5
2.842.5
0.18
86
619 1
196
1.7
112.1
74.9
10B021Q
10B0249
10B040*
1080240
108024ft
10B02«Q
1080140
108021ft
10B024O
10B0140
1080440
10B0140
10B0440
1080240
10B0440
1080240
1080140
T0802<*t
1080*40
10B0216
10B014O
Notesr PSC = potential source of contamination.
pgAg = microgram* per kilograms.
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyj.
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram.
AIB-OU4 BOO
SAS 12 98
2-16
i
-------
Table 2-2
Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 22
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Analyte
No. of Samples in
Which the Analyte
is Detected/Total
No. of Samples
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Mean
Concentration
Sample with
Maximum
Concentration
Voletie Organic Compound* 0/g/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane 1/19
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) 2/19
2-Butanone 2/19
Acetone 8/19
Methyiene chloride 2/19
Toluene 4/19
Trichloroethene 5/19
S«mivo)«til« Organic Compound* U/g/kg)
Di-o-butylphthalate 2/19
Diethylphthalate 1/19
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 2/19
Pe»ticide»/PCB» U/g/kg)
4.4'-DDD 1/20
4,4'-DDE 2/20
Methoxychlor 5/20
alpha-Chlordane 4/20
gamma-Chlordane 5/20
Aroclor-1248 1/20
Inorganic An«lvte» (mg/kg)
Aluminum 19/19
Antimony 1/19
Arsenic 17/19
Barium 19/19
Beryllium 6/19
Cadmium 9/19
Calcium 19/19
Chromium 19/19
Cobalt 6/19
Copper • 18/19
Iron 19/19
Lead 19/19
Magnesium 19/19
Manganese 19/19
Mercury 6/19
4 to 4
6 to 16
2 to 4
3 to 33
3 to 4
1 to 5
6 to 20
53 to 280
43 to 43
54 to 85
0.99 to 0.99
0.31 to 2.7
0.85 to 23
0.4 to OT9
0.26 to 1.1
40 to 40
2,550 to 24.100
4.2 to 4.2
0.13 to 3
1.3 to 465
0.16 to 7.9
0.17 to 13.3
124 to 281,000
2.5 to 23.3
1.3 to 82.4
2.1 to 28.6
174 to 97,200
1.2 to 28.5
35.3 to 962
2 to 6,770
0.03 to 0.15
4
11
3
11
4
2
10
167
43
70
0.99
1.51
14.97
0.55
0.64
40
7,651
4.2
1.04
34.5
2.96
2.65
15,629
11.7
:26.4
7.3
15,781
6.3
186.3
492.9
0.06
22B0230
22B0645
22B0101
22B0101
22B0101
2280875
22B0444
22B0704
22B0504
22B0875
22B0504
22B0504
22B0540
22B0704
22B0504
22B0504
22B0230
2280140
22B0205
22B0540
22B0540
22B0540
22B0140
22B0205
22B0230
22B0230
22B0230
22B0540
22B0140
22B0540
22B0540
See notes at end of table.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
2-17
-------
Table 2-2 (Continued)
Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 22
Analyle
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany. Georgia
No. of Samples in
Which the Analyte Range of Detected M«
is Detected/Total Concentrations Concer
No. of Samples
Inoroaroe Analvtn tmo/kal lenmim.^*!
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
m Sample with
rtration _ Maximum
Concentration
6/19 1.61065.6 25.7 22B023O
10/19 81 to 545 228.7 22B054»
1/19 0.19 to 0.19
0.19 22BG8Q*
19/19 123 to 238 199 22B014O
3/19 0.22 to 1.2
0.62 22B054Q
19/19 12 to 84.9 51.6 22B0403
C . 19/19 2.3 to 136 20.5 22HOS4«]fc
Notes: PSC -
pgAs
PCB *
DOD =
DOE =
mo/kq
potential source of contamination. 1
= micrograms per kilogram.
polychlorinated biphenyJ.
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane. ' '
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene.
* milligrams per kilogram.
•
ALB ou4 HOO
SAS 12 98
2-18
-------
is interpreted to be the result of partitioning of the compounds in the
groundwater during high water table conditions onto the highly organic, clayey
soils that are present at the base of the overburden. The presence of these
compounds in the groundwater is being investigated under OU 6 Basewide
Groundwater.
Analytical results also indicated the presence of SVOCs, which may be attributable
to laboratory contamination. This interpretation is supported by the random
distribution of the detections and the lack of historical records indicating that
these compounds were stored at PSC 22. Pesticides were detected randomly and
typically only in the samples collected between 2 and 12 feet bis. The detection
of pesticides is interpreted to be the result of historical routine application
of pesticides at the facility and not due to a release of these compounds.
The concentration of inorganic analytes that exceeded twice the average of
detected concentrations in the background subsurface soil samples is included in
the HHRA, in accordance with USEPA Region IV guidance.
PSC 13. Sampling results for PSC 13 subsurface soil are presented in Table 2-3,
Analytical results indicated -the presence of VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and PCBs
at varying depths. Of the 11 VOCs present in subsurface soil samples, three of
the VOCs (acetone, 2-butanone, and 2-hexanone) are believed to be sampling and/or
analysis artifacts.
Two of the VOCs (benzene and xylenes [total]).are common constituents in fuel
products. These compounds were detected in only one sample. This sample was
collected in the area of a former underground storage tank (UST) not associated
with PSC 13. The remaining six VOCs (chlorinated solvents) typically occurred
in the samples at the overburden-limestone interface for each location. Samples
collected from the invert of the pipeline and between 2 and 12 feet bis did not
contain these compounds, with the exception of one sample. This suggests that
the observed compounds in the samples at the overburden-limestone interface could
not have originated from the shallow and intermediate sample depths in the areas
investigated. The presence of TCE and tetrachloroethene in the samples collected
at the overburden-limestone interface, which is an intermittently unsaturated
area, is interpreted to be the result of these compounds partitioning from the
groundwater during high water table conditions onto the highly organic, clayey
soils that are present at the base of the overburden. The presence of these
compounds in the groundwater is being investigated under OU6 Basewide Groundwater.
Of- the seven SVOCs detected, three are phthalate esters that were present in
samples collected above the invert of the pipeline. This indicates that the
phthalate esters are not associated with releases from the pipeline but may be
attributed to sampling artifacts. The remaining SVOCs are common constituents
in fuel- and waste-oil products. These compounds were detected in a single
sample, which was collected in the area of a former UST. Therefore, it is likely
that detection of these compounds in the subsurface soil is the result of a
release from the UST and not associated with a release from PSC 13.
The detection of pesticides in PSC 13 subsurface soil samples are in low
concentrations and randomly distributed. These pesticides are likely the result
of routine pesticide application procedures at the site. The detection of two
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98 2-19
-------
Table 2-3
Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 13
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Analyte
No. of Samples in
Which the Analyte
is Detected/Total
No. of Samples
Range of
Detected
Concentrations
Mean
Concentration
Sample with
Maximum
Concentration
Vo)«ti« Organic Compound* (pg/kg)
1.1-Dich!oroethane 1/53 6 to 6 6 13B0830
1,1-Dichloroethene 2/53 9 to 54 32 13B0330
1,2-Dichloroethane 1/53 4 to 4 4 13B0830
1.2-Dichloroethene (total) 3/53 23 to 280 133 13B0135
2-Butanone 3/53 3 to 14 7 13B0925
2-Hexanone 1/53 30 to 30 30 13B0925
Acetone 19/53 4 to 490 45 13B02304
Benzene 1/53 16 to 16 16 13B0925
Tetrachloroethene 1/53 18 to 18 18 13B0330
Trichloroethene 8/53 3 to 940 256 13B0330
Xytenes (total) 1/53 48 to 48 48 13B0925
S»mivolntil> Organic Compounds (fig/kg)
2-Methylnaphthalene 1/54 1,300 to 1,300 1,300 13B0915
Di-n-butylphthalate 12/54 240 to 800 585 13B02835
Di-n-octylphthalate 3/54 58 to 63 61 13B1025
Fluorene 1/54 53 to 53 53 13B0915
Naphthalene 1/54 280 to 280 280 13B0915
Phenanthrene 1/54 150 to 150 150 13B0915
bis(2-Ethylnexyl)phthalate 21/54 50 to 5,300 1,259 13B1025
P«»t>c»d»» and PCB« (figlkg)
4.4'-DDD 1/53 0.96 to 0.96 0.96 13B0435
4.4'-DDE 4/53 0.33 to 0.89 0.56 13B0104
Aldrin ' • 3/52 1.1 to 2.8 1.7 13B1104
Endrin 1/52 0.5 to 0.5 0.5 13B0915
Hoptachlor 1/53 1.1 to 1.1 1.1 13B0715
Methoxychlor 15/54 1 to 8.1 2.6 13B0415
alpha-Chlordane 3/53 1.2 to 10 6.4 13B0435
gamma-Chlordane 6/53 0.29 to 13 4.62 13B0435
Axoclor-1248 1/53 37 to 37 37 13B0435
A/ocIor-1260 1/53 21 to 21 21 13B0204
lrtpfo»nlc An«lvt«« (mg/kg)
Aluminum 54/54 1,780 to 20,700 10,946 13B0330
Antimony 5/54 3 to 5.8 4.3 13B1015
Arsenic 45/54 0.15 to 5 1.53 13B02410
See notes at end of table.
ALB-OU4.ROO
SAS.12,98
2-20
-------
Table 2-3 (Continued)
Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 13
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
No. of Samples in „
. . . Which the Analyte „*"
Analyte is Detected/To* „ °«
No. of Samples Conca
Inorganic AnaivM* (ma/ka) (continued)
ge of _ Sample with
Stations Concsntatfion ConSnwIon
Barium 54/54 1.2 to 1.200 75.4 13B02735
Beryllium 30/54 0.21 to 11.1 1.76 13B03030
Cadmium 34/54 0.17 to 75.6 5.96 13B1125
Calcium 54/54 85.3 to 3,880 701.5 13B02735
Chromium 54/54 2.5 to 85.3 16.9 13B02604
Cobalt 23/54 0.49
to 477 52.39 13B1125
Copper 44/54 1.3to75.3 12.3 13B1125
Iron 54/54 984 to 95,500 29,446 13B1125
Lead 54/54 1 to 172 18.7 13B1025
Magnesium 54/54 30 to 1,270 207.6 13B0330
Manganese 54/54 1.7 to
22.300 1.331.2 13B1125
Mercury 11/54 0.03 to 0.32 0.14 13B0535
Nickel 22/54 2.1 to 398 55 13B1125
Potassium 30/54 90 to 1,450 347.6 13B0330
Selenium 20/53 0.2 to 3.6 1.07 13B02410
Silver 8/35 0.46
Sodium 40/54 15.8
to 1.3 0.66 13B0230
to 300 194.7 13B0330
Thallium 15/54 0.17 to 10.6 1.91 13B0535
Vanadium 54/54 11.2
to 272 84 13B1125
Zinc 38/54 2.1 to 528 49.4 13B1125
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.
pg/kg = micrograms per kilogram.
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.
ODD = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane.
DDE = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
2-21
-------
PCBs is unclear. However, their detection is interpreted to be the result of
historical use of waste oils for dust suppression at the site rather than a
release of contaminants into the subsurface soil.
In accordance with USEPA Region IV guidance, inorganic analytes with concentra-
tions that exceeded twice the average of detected concentrations in the background
subsurface soil samples have been included in the HHRA.
PSC 12. Sampling results for PSC 12 subsurface soil are presented in Table 2-4.
Results of the laboratory analyses indicated the presence of VOCs, SVOCs, and
pesticides in the subsurface soils. The presence of the VOCs detected are
interpreted to be sampling and/or analysis artifacts rather than release. This
interpretation is supported by the random distribution and low concentrations at
which these compounds were detected in the subsurface soil samples. The VOCs
detected in subsurface soil samples resulted in a lack of comparability between
samples and their duplicates. This is interpreted to be sampling and/or analysis
artifacts. The detection of one pesticide in a single subsurface soil sample is
interpreted to be the result of routine pesticide application at the site, rather
than a release of compounds into the subsurface soil. No PCB concentrations were
detected above method detection limits in any samples.
The inorganic analytes with concentrations that exceeded twice the average of
detected concentrations in the background subsurface soil samples are included
in the HHRA.
PSC 6. Sampling results for PSC 6 subsurface soil are presented in Table 2-5.
Because the RI was conducted separately for the drainage ditch and the sanitary
sewer line, the analytical results will be discussed separately. The analytical
results indicated that one VOC (acetone) was present in subsurface soil samples.
The random distribution, low-level detections, and absence of any historical
evidence of a release of acetone suggest that acetone may not be related to the
site, but may be a sampling and/or analysis artifact.
Two SVOCs detected at low concentrations within subsurface soil samples appear
to be widespread; however, the levels do not exceed USEPA soil screening levels
for subsurface soil. Pesticides were detected in subsurface soil samples
collected from PSC 6; however, these pesticide detections appear to be isolated
in nature and not associated with a release. PCB concentrations were below method
detection limits in all samples.
Any inorganic analytes with concentrations that exceeded twice the average of
detected concentrations in the background subsurface soil samples have been
included in the HHRA.
The investigation of the industrial discharge drainage ditch resulted in the
detection of several organic compounds (Table 2-6) . Analytical results indicated
the presence of VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and PCBs. The low-level VOCs, SVOCs,
and pesticides detected in the surface soil are significantly less than USEPA
surface soil screening levels and are isolated in nature.
Analytical results indicated the presence of cwo PCBs in PSC 6 surface soil
samples. The detections are random in distribution; however, the values exceed
Che screening levels for these compounds. As a result, additional investigations
were conducted in these areas. Of che 22 samples collected, only a single sample
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12,98 2-22
-------
Table 2-4
Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 12
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany. Georgia
No. of Samples in
Analyte Which the Analyte Range of
is Detected/Total Concen
No. of Samples
VoUtiU Oroanic Compound* bra/ka)
Detected Mean Sample with
(rations Concentration Maximum
Concentration
2-Butanone 1/25 2 2 of 2 12B0704
Acetone 2/25 2 9 of 6 12B1020
Methylene chloride 2/25 3 5 of 4 12B1020
S«mh/olatfl« Oraanic Compound* (i/a/ka)
Di-n-octylphthalate 1/25 71 71 of 71 12B1104
bis(2-Bhylhexyl)phthalate 24/25 48 12,000 of 1,813 12B0304
Pesticide* and PCB* (j/a/ko)
4-4'-DDE 1/25 2.7 2.7 of 2.7 12B0104
Inorganic Anelvte* (ma/ka)
Aluminum 25/25 3,630 28,100 of 12,044 12B0225
Arsenic 22/25 0.47 3.4 of 1.35 12B0704
Barium 25/25 2 456 of 56.5 12B0125
Beryllium 20/25 0.15 4.3 of 0.97 12B0225
Cadmium 21/25 0.25 10.4 of 2.17 12B0625
Calcium 25/25 142 2,350 of 554 1280225
Chromium 25/25 , 2.7 58.8 of 27.1 12B0304
Cobalt 20/25
1.3 69.1 Of 15.1 12B0625
Copper 22/25 2.6 58.1 of 13.6 12B0225
lron 25/25 1,590 54,200 of 30,020 12B0725
Lead 25/25 3.8 36.1 of 13.3 12B0625
Magnesium 25/25 31.5 1,230 of 228.9 12B0225
Manganese 25/25 5.7 4,960 of 1 ,006.4 12B0625
Mercury 24/25 0.03 0.18 of 0.08 12B0225
Nickel 22/25
.9 125 of 18.9 12B0625
Potassium 22/25 87.8 1.300 of 285.1 12B0225
Selenium 4/25 0.17 0.24 of 0.2 12B1104
Silver 4/25 0.59 0.96 of 0.7 12B0125
Sodium 25/25 175 304 of 223 12B0225
Thallium 13/25 0.16 1.3 of 0.38 12B0225
Vanadium : 25/25 17.3 175 of 77.7 12B0225
2nc 25/25 2.5 169 of 30.1 12B0225
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.
/yg/kg = micrograms per kilogram.
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.
DDE = dichlorodiphenytdichloroethene.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
2-23
-------
Table 2-5
Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 6
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
No. of Samples in
Analyte Which the Analyte Range ol
is Detected/Total Concer
No. of Samples
VoUtiU Organic Compound! (iia/ka)
Detected Mean Sample with
^rations Concentration Maximum
Concentration
Acetone 11/16 4to11 5 06BQ118
SamKrolatk Organic Compounds (ua/kol
Dwr-octylphthalate 3/16 50 to 65 56 06B0235
bis(2-Ethyihexyl)phthalate 16/16 350 to 5,500 1,795 06B0425
PMtickJM and PCBa (jig/kg)
Aldrin 6/15 0.13 to 1.7 0.89 06BQ404
Endosulfan sulfate 1/15 1.9 to 1.9 1.9 06B0604
alpha-Chlordane 5/15 0.87 to 1.9 1.33 06B0130
gamma-Chlordane 6/15 0.51
Inoroanic Anclyl** (mo/ka)
to 3 1.72 0680130
Aluminum 16/16 3,850 to 21,700 . 9,614 0680321
Antimony 2/16 3.5 to 4.6 4.1 0680235
Arsenic 13/16 0.13 to 2 1.04 06B0604
Barium 16/16 3.4 to 786 95.1 0680420
Beryllium 11/16 0.19 to 7.2 2.01 06B0321
Cadmium 11/16 0.21 to 33.7 6.96 06B0321
Calcium 16/16 232 to
5,860 970 06B0321
Chromium 16/16 2.9 to 235 31.3 06B0235
Cobalt 10/16 1.3 to 182 33 06B0420
Copper 16/16 2.1 to 83.3 18.9 0680420
Iron 16/16 2.780 to
Lead 16/16 2 to
193,000 36,036 0680235
58.8 14.6 0680219
Magnesium 16/16 74.7 to 1,970 280.2 0680321
Manganese 16/16 2.7 to
13,600 1,886.4 0680420
Mercury . 7/16 0.04 to 0.11 0.07 06B0420
Nickel 10/16 2.4 to 138 34.8 0680321
Potassium 9/16 78.7 to 2,090 467.1 0680321
Selenium 3/16 0.18 to 0.24 0.2 06B0604
Silver 4/16 0.44 to 1.6 1 0680235
Sodium : 16/16 183 to 376 247 0680420
Thulium 6/16 0.16 to 2.9 1.08 0680321
Vanadium 16/16 15.5 to 226 83.9 06B0219
Zinc 16/16 4.2 to 309 49.5 0680321
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.
pg/kg = micrograms per kilogram.
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram.
ALB-OIM ROD
SAS.12,98
2-24
-------
Table 2-6
Analytes Detected in Surface Soil, PSC 6
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Analyte
Volatia Oraanic Compounds uva/ka)
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Samh/olatie Oroanic Compounds (ual
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo (a)anthraeene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Carbazole
Chrysene
Di-r?-butylphthalate
Dibenzo (a.h)anthracene
Ruoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1,2.3-cd)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Pmiticidaa/PCBa (j/a/ku)
4.4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4-DDT
Aldrin
Oieldrin
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin ketone
Heptachlor
Haptachlor epoxide
No. of Samples in
Which the Analyte
is Detected/Total
No. of Samples
5/18
4/18
2/18
2/18
2/20
2/20
8/20
8/20
11/20
9/20
8/20
4/20
9/20
4/20
3/20
12/20
2/20
8/20
10/20
11/20
6/20
2/20
17/20
14/20
1/20
1/20
1/20
1/20
1/20
1/20
1/20
3/20
Range of
Detected
Concentrations
2 to 39 '
2 to 34
2 to 2
1 to 3
79 to 86
94 to 96
81 to 460
77 to 380
37 to 570
60 to 240
100 to 520
65 to 140
43 to 530
77 to 610
56 to 87
35 to 1,000
52 to 71
57 to 280
37 to 660
45 to 680
61 to 410
5 to 10
0.99 to 220
1.5 to 570
0.18 to 0.18
32 to 32
0.67 to 0.67
0.38 to 0.38
0.35 to 0.35
0.13 to 0.13
13 to 13
7.8 to 25
Mean
Concentration
19
18
2
2
83
95
214
205
207
118
259
104
240
308
67
388
62
118
270
298
177
8
60.72
107
0.18
32
0.67
0.38
0.35
0.13
13
15.6
Sample with
Maximum
Concentration
06S09
06S09
06S03
06S03
06S15
06S03
06SO3
06S03
06S12
06S03
06S03
06S03
06S03
06S11
06S15
06S03
06S15
06S03
06S03
06S12
06S04
06S14
06S04
06S04
06S35
06S04
06S36
06S36
06S36
06S36
06S12
06S16
See notes at end of table.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
2-25
-------
Table 2-6 (Continued)
Analytes Detected in Surface Soil, PSC 6
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corp* Logistics Base
Albany. Georgia
No. of Samples in n«nn« o*
SS <=-
P*«ticidM/PC8B (wa/Vo) (contimMd)
alpha-Chlordane 8/20 0.77 to 21
gamma-Chlordan* 10/20 0.73 to 74
Arodor-1254 1/42 6.300 to 6.300
Arodor-1260 10/42 45 to 1,800
Inorganic AnalvtM (ma/kal
Aluminum 20/20 3,460 to 23.100
Antimony 9/20 3.4 to 46.2
Ars«nic 20/20 0.75 to 15.7
Barium 20/20 4.5 to 178
Beryllium 18/20 0.1 to 1.4
Cadmium 9/20 0.31 to 25.5
Calcium 19/20 140 to 37.7OO
Chromium 20/20 4.3 to 186
Cobatt . 16/20 0.98 to 4.6
Copper 20/20 1.8 to 33.4
Iron 20/20 3.540 to 114,000
Load 20/20 5.4 to 743
Magnesium 20/20 57 to 5.360
Manganese 20/20 16.8 to 740
Mercury 16/20 0.04 to 0.09
Nickel 14/20 1.6 to 10.7
Potassium 5/20 34 to 777
Selenium 12/15 0.2 to 1.3
Silver 6/20 0.75 to 3.4
Sodium • 19/20 33.1 to 393
Thallium 1/20 0.2 to 0.2
Vanadium 20/20 11 to 342
Znc ' 20/20 0.6210542
^
Mean
Concentration
9.72
18.49
6.300
555
8.352
10.8
3.22
38.3
0.33
4.32
2,736
42.4
2.3
10.5
21.218
73.3
398.7
273.5
0.06
3.5
243.7
0.47
1.79
124.1
0.2
76.9
71.77
Sample with
Maximum
Concentration
06S14
06S04
06S04
06SO4
06S02
06S04
06S14
06SO4
06S04
06S04
06S04
06S09
06S12
06S12
06S09
06S04
06S04
06S01
06S03
06S04
06S04
06S35
06S09
06S04
06S01
06S09
06S04
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.
pg/kg =* micrograms per kilogram.
PCS * polycnlorinated biphenyt.
ODD => dichlorodiphenyidichloroethane.
DOE = dichlorodiphenyldicrtloroethene.
DOT = dichlorodiphenyttrichloroethane.
mq/kq s milligrams per kilogram.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-26
-------
indicated the presence of a low-level PCB compound along the top of the industrial
discharge drainage ditch. This detection and location may be associated with the
maintenance dredging of the ditch. After submittal of these data to GEPD and
USEPA, all parties agreed that delineation of PCB contamination at PSC 6 had been
achieved.
In accordance with USEPA Region IV guidance, inorganic analytes with concentra-
tions that exceeded twice the average of detected concentrations in the background
surface soil samples have been included in the HHRA.
Surface water sampling was conducted at eight locations along the industrial
discharge drainage ditch. Analytical results indicated the presence of VOCs, one
SVOC, and one pesticide. The presence of VOCs detected (acetone, methylene
chloride, and 2-butanone) are significantly less than the USEPA surface water
screening levels. Furthermore, the VOCs are interpreted to be sampling and/or
analysis artifacts rather than a release of compounds into the surface water.
One SVOC, (bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate), was detected in a single surface water
sample; however, this resulted in a lack of comparability between the sample and
its duplicate. This is interpreted to be a sampling and/or analysis artifact.
The detection of one pesticide in a single surface water sample is interpreted
to be the result of routine pesticide application at the site, rather than a
release of compounds into the surface water. No PCB concentrations were detected
above method detection limits in any surface water samples. Because no background
screening values are available for surface water, the inorganic analytes that were
selected as chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) were retained as such because
maximum concentrations exceeded the selected risk-based screening concentrations .
Sixteen sediment samples were collected along the industrial discharge drainage
ditch. Analytical results indicated the presence of VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and
PCBs. The random distribution of acetone and methylene chloride, low-level
detections, and absence of any historical evidence of release of these compounds
suggest that these analytes may not be related to the site and are isolated in
nature. Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and di-n-butylphthalate were
detected at concentrations exceeding the sediment screening values. Eight
pesticides were detected in sediment samples collected along the drainage ditch.
Heptachlor epoxide was the only compound that had a single detected concentration
above sediment screening values. One PCB (Aroclor-1260) was detected in 12
sediment samples. These detections are widespread in distribution and exceeded
the sediment screening values for this compound. Because no background screening
values are available for sediment, the inorganic analytes that were selected as
COPCs were retained as such because maximum concentrations exceed the selected
risk-based screening concentrations.
2.7 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS. The OU 4 RI analytical data were
evaluated to determine whether or not the substances found on site occur naturally
or resulted from past waste disposal. Based on this evaluation, a list of COPCs
was developed for each environmental medium (e.g. , surface soil, subsurface soil,
etc.) sampled at OU 4. Tables 2-7 through 2-9 present the COPCs grouped as the
following data sets:
PSC 10, 13, and 22 subsurface soil;
PSC 12 subsurface soil; and
• PSC 6 surface water, surface soil, and sediment.
ALB-OU4.ROD
S AS. 12.98 2-27
-------
Chemicals
Iruxoinic An*JvtM
Arsenic
Chromium
Vanadium
Table 2-7
Chemicals of Potential Concern at PSCs 10,
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Notes: No surface soil, surface water, or sediment samples were evaluated at PSCs
risk assessment was not completed for these PSCs.
PSC = potential
source of contamination.
13, and 22
Human Health
Subsurface Soil
X
X
X
10, 13. and 22; therefore, an ecological
Table 2-8
Chemicals of Potential Concern at PSC 12
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Human Health
Chemicals
Subsurface Soil
Inorganic Arxlvt«»
Arsenic X
Chromium X
Notes: No surface soil, surface water, or sediment samples were evaluated at PSC 12; therefore, an ecological risk
assessment was not completed for this PSC.
PSC = potential source of contamination.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS 12.98 2-28
-------
Table 2-9
Chemicals of Potential Concern at PSC 6
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Human Health
Chemicals Surface Surface
Soil Water *
Volatile and Semh/olati* Oroanic Compounds
2-Butanone
Acetone
Trichloroethene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Acenaphthene X
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phlhalate
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene X
Benzo(a)pyrene X
Benzo(b)fluoranthene X
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene X
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene X
Di-n-butylphthalate
Naphthalene
Ruoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1,2.3-cd)pyrene X
2-Methylnaphthalene
Phenanthrene
. Dibenzofuran
Pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene X
Pesticides and PCBs
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
Ecological
rf-~, _. Surface Surface „ ..
dimeM Soil Water S**™1"
X
XXX
X
XXX
X
X X
XX X
X X
XX X
XX X
XX X
X X
XX X
X
X X
X X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
XX X
X X
X X
X
X X
XX X
X
X X
X X
See notes at end of table.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
2-29
-------
Table 2-9 (Continued)
Chemicals of Potential Concern at PSC 6
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany. Georgia
Human Health
Soil Water S*
PactiodM and PCS* (continuadl
4.4--ODT X
Arodor-1260 X
Arodor-1254 X
Dteldrin
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Heptachlor
Heptachtor epoxide
Inorganic Analvta*
Aluminum X X
Antimony X
Arsenic X X
Barium
Beryllium X X
Cadmium X
Chromium X
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron X X
Lead X
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium X
Zinc
Ecological
^•~__ Surface Surface „ ..
dimant Water Sediment
X XX
XX X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X X X
XX X
X X X X
XXX
X X X X
X XX X
X X X X
X
XXX
X X
X XX
X X X X
X XX
X
X X
X X
XX X X
X X X X
XXX
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.
DDD = dichlorodiphenyldicrtloroethane.
DOE = dicrtlorodiohenyidichloroethene.
DDT » dichlorod>pr>enynncnloroetnane.
ALB-OU* ROD
SAS 12 98
2-30
-------
The development of these data sets was based on the nature and extent of
contamination and fate and transport analyses. The subsurface soil contamination
identified at PSCs 10, 13, 22. and 12 consists of similar chemicals and may be
related to similar sources. The close proximity of PSCs 10, 13, and 22
necessitates evaluation as one area of contamination, whereas the geographically
distinct location of PSC 12 necessitates evaluation as a separate area. Surface
soil, surface water, and sediment at PSC 6 are geographically separated from other
areas at OU 4; therefore, PSC 6 is evaluated separately.
COPCs are chemicals that need further evaluation to determine if in fact the
concentrations found at the site pose a risk to human health and the environment.
2-7-1—ou 4 BRA A BRA was prepared for OU 4 in accordance with the USEPA Risk
Assessment Guidance (USEPA, 1988). This guidance reflects a conservative approach
to the BRA to ensure that subsequent cleanup decisions are protective of human
health and the environment. The BRA estimates or characterizes the potential
current and future risks to human health and the environment. Three factors were
considered when evaluating the potential risks associated with OU 4.
The extent of contamination present at the site and surrounding areas.
The pathways through which people and the environment are or may
potentially be exposed to contaminants at the site.
The potential toxic effects of site contaminants on humans and the
environment.
Exposure pathways considered for the human health portion of the BRA include
incidental ingestion, skin contact, and inhalation of fugitive dust generated
during excavation activities. These pathways were then applied to a current land-
use scenario in which base workers and child trespassers could possibly be exposed
to contaminated media. Although trespassers have not been observed at the site,
child trespassers could obtain access to the site. These pathways were also
applied to a future land-use scenario in which a child transient and a child and
adult resident could potentially be exposed to contaminated media.
There is no current land-use exposure to subsurface soils at PSCs 10, 12, 13, and
22 due to the concrete surface. For future land use at PSCs 10, 12, 13,' and 22,
excavation worker exposures to subsurface soil were evaluated. For this'exposure
scenario, both cancer and noncancer risk estimates are below the USEPA point of
departure such that no response was required.
The ecological portion of the BRA was completed only for PSC 6, the Industrial
Discharge Drainage Ditch, due to a lack of habitat (animals, plants, birds,
mammals, fish, and reptiles) at the other PSCs. Both terrestrial and aquatic
organisms were considered during the ecological assessment at PSC 6.
The human health portion of the BRA evaluated both cancer and noncancer risks.
According to the NCP for Superfund sites, the acceptable cancer risk range is from
1 in 10,000 (1x10'*) to 1 in 1 million (IxlO'5) , depending on site-specific
conditions. Although the estimated risk of IxlO'6 is the point of departure in
determining the need for a response action, site-specific conditions at OU 4
indicate that application of the acceptable risk range is appropriate. A site-
specific condition supporting the use of the risk range is the base perimeter
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98 2-31
-------
fence, which restricts public access to soil, surface water, and sediment at all
PSCs. In addition to the base perimeter fence, which restricts public access,
there are fences around PSC 12 and the DMA (PSC 10). For noncancer risks, the
similar point of departure is an HI of 1. If the total estimated noncancer risk
is greater than 1, site-specific conditions and effects from individual compounds
are evaluated to determine if a response action is necessary.
PSCs 10. 13. and 22. As part of the HHRA, data were evaluated and summarized,
medium-specific COPCs were selected, and potential human receptor exposures to
those COPCs were evaluated. Human health risks for each receptor were then
characterized for exposure ro the medium evaluated. A, summary of total risks for
each receptor, by pathway and medium, is presented in Table 2-10. There are no
exposures to subsurface soil under current land-use conditions due to the concrete
surface over the 45-acre site; therefore, potential risks for current land use
were not evaluated. For future land use, excavation worker exposures to
subsurface soil were evaluated. For this exposure scenario, both cancer and
noncancer risk estimates were below the USEPA point of departure such that no
response action was required.
PSC 12. Data were evaluated and summarized, medium-specific COPCs were selected,
and potential human receptor exposures to those COPCs were evaluated for the
PSC 12 HHRA. Human health risks for each receptor were then characterized fqr
exposure to the medium evaluated. A summary of total risks for each receptor,
by pathway and medium, is presented in Table 2-11. There are no exposures to
subsurface soil under current land-use conditions because 50 percent or more of
the site is covered by a concrete surface; therefore, potential risks for current
land use were not evaluated. For future land use, excavation worker exposures
to subsurface soil were evaluated. For this exposure scenario, both cancer and
noncancer risk estimates were below the USEPA point of departure; therefore, no
response action was required.
PSC 6. COPCs were selected, and potential human receptor exposures to those COPCs
were evaluated for the PSC 6 drainage ditch. Human health risks for each receptor
were then characterized for exposure to the medium evaluated. A summary of total
risks for each receptor, by pathway and medium, is presented in Table 2-12. For
current land-use assumptions, base worker cancer risks for potential exposures
to surface water, sediment, and surface soil were within the USEPA acceptable
cancer risk range of 1x10"* to IxlO"6, and noncancer risks were below the USEPA
point of departure, with His of less than 1 (Figure 2-10). For current arvd
potential future land use, child transient cancer risks for potential exposures
to surface water, sediment, and surface soil are within the USEPA acceptable
cancer risk range, and noncancer risks are below the USEPA threshold HI of 1
(Figure 2-11). Total resident (i.e., child and adult resident combined) cancer
risks for potential future exposures to industrial discharge drainage ditch
surface soil, surface water, and sediment are 6xlO"5, which is within the USEPA
acceptable cancer risk'range. Total child resident noncancer risk for potential
future surface soil, surface water, and sediment exposure is an HI of 3, which
exceeds the USEPA threshold HI of 1 (Figure 2-12). The results of the risk
assessment indicate that uses of the industrial drainage ditch for purposes other
than residential development are not associated with risks above USEPA acceptable
levels. However, use of the PSC 6 drainage ditch for residential development may
pose unacceptable noncancer risks to children. Therefore, based on the potential
noncancer risk for a future child resident, a response action at PSC 6 is
necessary.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS. 12,98 2-32
-------
Table 2-10
Risk Summary for PSCs 10, 13, and 22
Land Use
Future Land U»»
Excavation Worker:
Subsurface Soil
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Exposure Route
HI ELCR
Incidental ingestion o.02 4 x 10"*
Dermal contact 0.004 5 x 10"1'
Inhalation of fugitive dusts ND 1 x 10'"
Total: 0.02 4 x TO"*
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.
HI = hazard index.
ELCR = excess lifetime cancer risk.
ND = not calculated because toxicity data were not available to quantitatively evaluate risk.
Table 2-11
Risk Summary for PSC 12
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Land Use
Exposure Route
HI
ELCR
Future Land U««
Excavation worker:
Subsurface Soil
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Total:
0.008
0.0003
ND
0.008
4 x 10"'
5 x 10-"
3 x 10'"
4 x 10'"
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.
HI = hazard index.
ELCR = excess lifetime cancer risk.
ND = not calculated because toxicity data were not available to quantitatively evaluate risk.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
2-33
-------
Table 2-12
Risk Summary for PSC 6
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marina Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
UndlfaM
HQllta)
HI
ELCR
Current Land Uee
Baa* Worker:
Surface Water
Sediment
Surface Soil
Chad Transient:
Surface Water
Sediment
Surface Soil
Incidental ingestkxi
Dermal contact
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Total:
Total:
Total:
Total Baae Worker Riak (Surface Watar.
Sediment, end Surface Sol)
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Total:
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Total:
Total:
Total Chid Tranaiam Riak (Surface Watar,
Sediment, and Surface Soil
0.0007
3.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.02
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.02
0.1
0.1
0.09
0.2
0.3
0.07
0.1
0.2
0.6
1 x 10'7
9 x iff7
1 x 10-*
1 x 10*
5 x Iff7
2 x 10*
7 x 10'7
5 x 1ffT
1 x HO*
4 x HO*
1 x 10*
5 x 10*
6 x DO*
3 x 10*
4 x 10*
7 x 10*
1 x 10*
2 x 10*
3 x 10*
2 x 10*
See notes at end of table.
ALB-OU* ROD
5AS 12,98
2-34
-------
Table 2-12 (Continued)
Risk Summary for PSC 6
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Land Use
Exposure Route
HI
ELCR
Future Land Uae
Chid Transient:
Surface Water Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Sediment Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Surface Soil Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Total:
Total:
Total:
Total Chid Tranaiant Risk (Solace Watar,
Sedimant. and Surface Sol)
Chid Reaidant
Surface Water Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Sediment Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Surface Soil Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Total:
Total:
Total:
Total Chid Raaidant (Surfaca Water.
Sedimant, and Surfaca Sol):
0.02
0.1
0.1
0.09
0.2
0.09
0.07
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.7
1
0.6
2
1 x 10
5 x 10-"
6 x 10-*
3 x 10"*
4 x 10"°
6 x 10"*
1 x 10"6
2 x 10""
3 x 1Q-*
2 x 10-'
4 x 10"*
3 x 10*
7 x 10*
8 x 10"*
2 x 10"*
1 x 10"'
1 x 10's
4 x 10'°
1 x 10"'
3 x 10"'
See notes at end of table.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
2-35
-------
Land Use
Future Land Usa I continued)
Adult Reaidant
Surface Water
Sediment
Surface Soil
Table 2-12 (Continued)
Risk Summary for PSC 6
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Exposure Route | HI
Incidental ingestion 0.01
Dermal contact 0.04
Total: 0.05
Incidental ingestion 0.05
Dermal contact 0.04
Total: 0.09
Incidental ingestion 0.1
Dermal contact 0.4
Total: 0.6
Total Adidt Reaidant (Surface Water,
S«dim«nt. and Surface Soil: 0.6
Total Reaidant Rwk (Chid and Adult
Resident) NC
ELCR
2 x 10"*
3 x 10*
5 x 10*
4 x 10"6
2 x 10-*
6 x 10"*
6 x 10-*
1 x 10'6
2 x 10''
3 x 10'*
6 x 10-°
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.
HI = hazard index.
ELCR = excess lifetime cancer risk.
NC = not calculated because child and adult His are not additive.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS. 12.98
2-36
-------
1.00E-03
1.00E-07
10
0.01
Surface Watef
Sediment Surface Sol
Current Land DM
Total Base Worker
^ USEPA
^^ ttirHhokl
HI
Surt«o»W»»f
NOTES:
USEPA = U.S. Environmentil Protection Agency
PSC = Potential source of contamination
HI = Hazard index
Swfcrram Surface Sal
Currant Land Us*
Tol«l B»« Woftnr
FIGURE 2-10
RISK SUMMARY, BASE WORKER, PSC 6
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
H HEIDIVALBANV\F G2-10A °M5 071588HAS
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
2-37
-------
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-06
1.00E-07
a
Surface W«I«r
Sediment Surface Soil
Currant Hid Future Und Uae
Total Child Transient
Surface Water
NOTES;
USEPA * U.S. Environmental-Protection Agency
PSC = Polenliil source of contimi'nation
HI - Hizird index
SurtaoeSoil
Cunent and Future Land Uee
Total Child Trtramn
FIGURE 2-11
RISK SUMMARY, CHILD TRANSIENT, PSC 6
v7
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
HWEKXWIBANYVIG2.11 PM5. 071586HAS
ALB-OU4.ROO
SAS.12.98
2-38
-------
1.006-03
1.00E-04
a 1.006-05
S
1.00E-O6
1.006-07
Surtao* W.nr
USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PSC = Potential source of conlairiination
HI = Hazard index
Hazard index values are (or the child resident.
S*din»nt
Surtic* Soil
Toiil Child Rnidtffl
Fulura L«nd UM
FIGURE 2-12
RISK SUMMARY, RESIDENT, PSC 6
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
-i WE D
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS 12.98
-'2 BM5 C7-588HAS
2-39
-------
The results of the PSC 6 ERA suggest that terrestrial receptors are not likely
to be at risk from exposure to organic or inorganic analytes in PSC 6 surface
soil, sediment, or surface water. Populations of aquatic receptors in the PSC 6
industrial discharge drainage ditch are not likely to be at risk from exposure
to analytes in the PSC 6 ditch surface water or sediment.
2.7.2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and Remedial
Alternatives The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) requires
that all remedial actions meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs), the NCP, and associated guidance documents. Preferred SARA remedial
actions involve treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the toxicity,
mobility or volume of the hazardous contaminants. In accordance with SARA, a list
of ARARs was prepared to determine the appropriate extent of cleanup for surface
water, sediment, and surface soil at PSC 6 and to develop remedial action alterna-
tives. The ARARs, presented in Table 2-13, include both Federal and State
regulations and guidance criteria.
The combined media of surface water, sediment, and surface soil at PSC 6 were
found to pose an unacceptable risk to a potential future child resident due to
elevated concentrations of inorganics in the surface soils. Remedial alternatives
identified to reduce this potential future risk include NA (in accordance with
the NCP), LUCs, and Limited Action, such as fencing and signs at PSC 6. These
remedial alternatives were then evaluated for compliance with the USEPA screening
criteria.
2.7.2.1 Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives The three remedial alternatives
under consideration for PSC 6 were evaluated based on nine criteria, in accordance
with USEPA guidance (USEPA, 1988). These criteria are identified below.
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment.
2. Compliance with ARARs.
3. Long-term effectiveness and performance.
4. Reductions in toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment.
5. Short-term effectiveness.
6. Implementability.
7. Cost.
8. State acceptance.
9. Community acceptance.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. The LUCs and Limited
Action will provide the necessary protection at PSC 6 to prevent exposure to the
COPCs in the surface water, .sediment and surface soil of PSC 6. The NA
alternative does not meet these criteria.
Compliance with ARARs. None of the alternatives will satisfy all of the ARARs
because no treatment is; proposed for the surface water, sediment, and surface soil
of PSC 6. However, the potential unacceptable risk is limited to long-term
residential use of the site.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. Both the LUCs and Limited Action will
provide the long-term protection from the COPCs in surface water, sediment, or
surface soil at PSC 6. The NA alternative will not meet these criteria.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98 2-40
-------
Table 2-13
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Standards, Requirements, Criteria, or Limitations
Citation
F«d«f.l
Clean Air Act (CAA), National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
USEPA Regulations on Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans
Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) Regulations for Air
Contaminants
RCRA General and Location Standards for Permitted Hazardous Waste
Facilities
USEPA Rules for Controlling PCBs under the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA)
Endangered Species Act
RCRA Facility Location Regulations
RCRA Closure and Postclosure Requirements
RCRA Regulations for Generation of Hazardous Waste
RCRA Transportation Regulations and DOT Standards
RCRA Subtitle 0 Solid Waste Regulations
CAA - NAAQS's for Particulates
RCRA Standards for Environmental Performance of Miscellaneous Units
RCRA Regulations on Land Disposal Restrictions (Land Ban)
RCRA Regulations for Use and Management of Containers
RCRA Regulations for Waste Piles
RCRA Incinerator Standards
OSHA - General Industry Standards, Recordkeeping and Reporting, and
Standards for Hazardous Waste Site Operations
USEPA Rules for Controlling PCBs under TSCA
USEPA Solid Waste Management Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FFRA)
and Regulations
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and FWS and NFWS Advisories
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980
National Historic Preservation Act
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
Field Manual for Grid Sampling of PCS Spill Sites to Verify Cleanup
40 CFR 50, 40 CFR 61
40 CFR 52, Subpart L - Georgia
29 CFR 1910.1000
40 CFR 264, Subparts A though F
40 CFR 761.125, Subpart D, G and K
16 USC 1531, 50 CFR Parts 81, 225. and 402
40 CFR 264.18
40 CFR 264, Subpart G
40 CFR 262
40 CFR 263. 49 CFR, Parts 171 through 179
40 CFR 241 and 257
40 CFR 50
40 CFR 264, Subpart X
40 CFR 268
40 CFR 264, Subpart I
40 CFR 264, Subpart L
40 CFR, Subpart O
29 CFR Part 1926, 29 CFR Part 1904,
29 CFR Part 1910
40 CFR 761, Subparts D, G, and K
40 CFR 258, Subpart F
40 CFR 165
16 USC 661
16 USC 2901, 50 CFR Part 83
16 USC 470
32 CFR Part 229, 43 CFR Parts 107 through
171.500
USEPA-560/5-86-017
See notes at end of table.
ALB-OU4.ROD
5AS.12.S8
2-41
-------
Table 2-13 (Continued)
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Standards, Requirements, Criteria, or Limitations
Citation
State
Georgia Air Quality Control Law, and Georgia Air Quality Control Rules
Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act
Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Rules
Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act
Endangered Wildlife and Wildflower Preservation Act of 1973
Code of Georgia, Title 12, Chapter 9 DNR,
Chapter 391-3-1
Code of Georgia, Title 12, Chapter 8,
Articles 3 and 60
Rules and Regulation of the State of Georgia,
Title 391, Article 3, Chapter 11
OCGA Section 12-8-20 et seq. and Rules,
Chapter 391-3-4
OCGA Section 12-6-172 et seq. and Rules,
Chapter 391-4-10
Notes: CFR - Code of Federal Regulations.
DNR = Department of Natural Resources.
DOT = Department of Transportation.
NFWS = National Fish and Wildlife Service.
OCGA = Official Code of Georgia Annotated.
PCS = polychlorinated biphenyl.
RCRA ~ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
USEPA s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USC - U.S. Code.
FWS - Fish and Wildlife Service.
AU3-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.9B
2-42
-------
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility or Volume. None of the proposed remedial
alternatives will reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminated surface
water, sediment, or surface soil at PSC 6.
Short-Term Effectiveness. LUCs and Limited Action will be effective over the
short-term in restricting residential development and land use of PSC 6. The NA
alternative will not satisfy this criteria.
Implementability. LUCs can be readily implemented through the LUCIP for PSC 6.
This LUCIP is provided as an attachment to this document as well as within MCLB
Albany's Master Plan and within the LUCAP. There is no implementation required
for the NA alternative. The Limited Action alternative will require the
installation of a security fence and signs along the length of PSC 6. The length
of PSC 6 is 14,000 feet, but fencing is required on both sides of the ditch (for
a total of 28,000 feet). This alternative would also restrict the accessibility
of the site, i.e., the types of maintenance equipment that could be used at the
site.
Cost. There are no capital or operational costs associated with the NA and LUC
alternatives. The estimated cost .for this fence and signage is approximately $10
per linear foot. This would result in a capital cost of approximately $280,000
for PSC 6. Estimated maintenance cost would be approximately $2,000 per year'for
the replacement of damaged or vandalized fencing. This results in a total
estimated cost of $340,000 for PSC 6 over a 30-year period.
State and Community Acceptance. The USEPA guidance also requires that the
remedial alternatives be evaluated for regulatory acceptance and public acceptance
(total of nine criteria). These evaluations were addressed through the release
of the OU 4 Proposed Plan on-October 13, 1998, and the 30-day public comment
period, ending November 11, 1998. Comments were received from the public during
the public meeting held on October 22, 1998. A summary of the comments received
is included in the Responsiveness Summary, Appendix A.
2.7.3 Response Action.
PSCs 10. 12. 13. and 22. Based on the results of the BRA, a NA decision is
proposed for PSCs 10, 12, 13, and 22. This alternative does not require any
treatment, containment, or land-use restrictions for these PSCs.
PSC ,5- The noncancer risk (HI of 3) associated with the future child resident
exceeded the USEPA point of departure (HI greater than 1) thereby requiring a
response action. As a result of the remedial alternative evaluation, LUCs will
be implemented at PSC 6 prohibiting future residential development of the site.
A review will be conducted in 5 years after commencement of response action to
ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health
and the environment. Other activities required to ensure adequate protection of
human health and the environment may still be conducted at PSC 6 under the
attached LUCIP (see Appendix B).
2^J—EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHAKGES. As the lead agency, SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM
prepared and issued the Proposed Plan for OU 4 on October 5, 1998 (HLA, 1998).
This Proposed Plan described the rationale for a final response of NA at PSCs 10,
12, 13, and 22, and LUCs at PSC 6. The GEPD, USEPA Region IV, and public concur
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS. 12.98 2-43
-------
with this final response. Therefore, no significant changes were made to the
Proposed Plan. This response action may be reevaluated in the future if
conditions at OU 4 indicate that an unacceptable risk to public health or the
environment may exist at this site.
ALB-OIM.ROD
SAS.12.98
2-44
-------
REFERENCES
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES). 1993. Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study Workplan, Operable Unit 4, Marine Corps Logistics Base,
Albany, Georgia. Prepared for Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM), North Charleston, South Carolina (April).
ABB-ES. 1998. Remedial Investigation and Baseline Risk Assessment Report for
Operable Unit 4, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia. Prepared for
SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston, South Carolina (May).
Applied Engineering and Science, Inc. 1989. RCRA Facility Investigation, Phase
One, Confirmation Study.
Envirodyne Engineers. 1985. Initial Assessment Study of Marine Corps Logistics
Base, Albany, Georgia. Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity 13-
065 (September).
Harding Lawson Associates. 1998. Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 4, Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North
Charleston, South Carolina (July).
McClelland Engineers, Inc. 1987. Final Report, Confirmation Study Verification
Step Report, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia, Prepared for
SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston, South Carolina.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1992. Initial Site Characterization Report, UST Release,
Buildings 2210 and 9700, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia.
Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston, South Carolina.
SEC Donohue, Inc. 1993. Corrective Action Plan, Building 2218, Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North
Charleston, South Carolina.
Sirrine Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1992. UST Investigation Building 2200,
Shop 712. '
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. Washington, D.C. (October).
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS. 12.98 Ref-1
-------
-------
ATTACHMENT A-1
TRANSCRIPTS OF THE
PUBLIC HEARING ON OPERABLE UNIT 4,
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------
-------
1.0 OVERVIEW
Sou^h r n r S » Cn Remedial Investigation and Baseline Risk Assessment,
Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM)
fJsSTSrt a "SP°nSen aCtj-°n f°r the f ive Potential Sources of Contamination
(PSCs) that make up Operable Unit (OU) 4. SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM ' s recommended
No Action at pscs
Following the 30 -day public comment period and the Public Meeting held on the
evening^ of Thursday, October 22, 1998, on the OU 4 Proposed Plan this
responsiveness summary was prepared to summarize public comments and provide
written responses. This responsiveness summary includes:
Background on Community Involvement
• Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period and Agency
*VcSO iS
Part I: Summary and Response to Local Community Concerns
Part II: Comprehensive Response to Specific Legal and Technical
Questions
bv^r/N °f DeClsi°n I*111 be P"Pared for OU 4 based on a review of these comments
by the Navy and regulatory agencies.
2.0 BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
An active community relations program providing information and soliciting input
has been conducted by MCLB, Albany for the entire National Priority List (NPL)
site Interviews of citizens on .base and in the city of Albany were conducted
in the winter of 1990 to identify community concerns. No significant concerns
that required focused response were identified. Most comments received were
concerning the potential for contamination of water resources. However those
interviewed indicated that they place great trust in MCLB, Albany and their
f r°rHS r° ratify past waste disposal practices. In addition, the base has
formed a Technical Review Committee (TRC) that includes members representing the
city of Albany, Dougherty County, and the local academic community These TRC
community members were contacted in July 1996 to determine their continued
interest in serving in serving on the committee. Each member confirmed his or
her interest in serving on the TRC. In addition, parties on the MCLB, Albany
Environmental Branch mailing list were contacted to solicit new community members
tor the TRC. Since this solicitation, the TRC has grown from 10 to 17 members
Since September 1996, the MCLB, Albany Environmental Branch has held several
meetings with the TRC to update them on the status of the investigation
remediation, and closure of the 26 PSCs. The local media have also been kept
informed^since MCLB, Albany was placed on the NPL. Installation Restoration
^°?ram !act sheets have been prepared and made available at the Environmental
uttice of MCLB, Albany. Documents concerning Operable Unit (OU) 4 are located
in the Information Repository at Dougherty County Public Library and the
Administrative Record at the Base Environmental Branch office. Public interest
in operations and environmental restoration at MCLB, Albany has increased
recently. The MCLB, Albany Environmental Branch staff is responding to that
interest through increasing their accessibility to the public
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12,98
A-1
-------
3.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND
RESPONSES
The public comment period on the final Proposed Plan for OU 4 was held from
October 13 to November 11, 1998. This includes a Public Meeting that was held
on the evening of Thursday, October 22, 1998. Comments received during this time
are summarized below. Part I of this section addresses community concerns and
comments that are non-technical in nature. Comprehensive responses to specific
regulatory and technical comments and questions are provided in Part II. Comments
in each Part are categorized by relevant topics.
The responses to public comments are presented below. Responses are not presented
for each individual comment received. Rather, individual public comments have
been organized into subj ect areas, and responses have been prepared for each
subject. This approach is consistent with USEPA guidance for preparing
Responsiveness Summaries as described in the USEPA's Community Relations in
Superfund: A Handbook (1992).
PART I - SUMMARY AND RESPONSE TO LOCAL COMMUNITY CONCERNS
Remedial Alternative Preferences
(1) Regarding the LUC proposed for PSC 6, a citizen asked what is being done to
"correct" the situation at the site (i.e., address contamination) and if
something can be done now rather than having to revisit the remedial decision
in the future.
Response: The LUC proposed for PSC 6 does not include active cleanup
activities for the site. The LUC does prohibit future residential
development along the ditch to ensure , that prolonged exposure to site
contaminants that could pose unacceptable health risks do not occur. Current
site conditions do not pose risks to workers, a child trespasser, or future
adult resident.
A number of responses could have been considered to actively address
contamination at PSC 6, but given the limited risk (i.e., for potential
future child residents) , the cost of implementing these actions exceeds their
benefits. Prohibiting future residential development of the site will
eliminate unacceptable future risks at the sites.
(2) A citizen stated that the proposed LUCs imply that PSC 6 is contaminated;
however, the contamination will remain in place. Confusion remains as to
whether or not contamination is present.
Response: Contaminants are present at PSC 6. This determination is based on
the collection and analysis of soil, sediment and surface water samples
during RI activities at the site. The analytical results were compared to
Federal and State standards for the detected compounds. If the concentration
of a compound detected at the site exceeded those standards, it was
considered a contaminant of concern requiring further evaluation. The
contaminants of concern at PSC 6 include chromium, vanadium and arsenic.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98 A-2
-------
The risk assessment component of the RI evaluated whether or not rh«
contaminants of concern pose unacceptable risks to hu^an health and the
c corders exposure to
oegd
workers) and Ltenti "^Cl°ns. <•••*'• Periodic exposure by maintenance
woricers; and potential future site conditions (e.g. residential use nf rh*
site including children who might live at PSC 6§and play "n ^contaminated
Jn'theTd faCVWater' °r -<*i*ent). The risk assessment for PSC 6 "suited
in the identification of an unacceptable risk to a hypothetical future chi^d
resident who may live at PSC 6 and play in the drainage ^d\tch Therefore
-•«• PSC 6
' a0 ***** " *" distribute<*
>-' e-,-^*.^*, j.iij.ui.uuii.j.un sneet on LUCs was distribtir-eH =1- *-^« ~..i,i •
The sheet stated that signs and fencing arfex^ples of physta 'm^ans^r
implementing LUCs at some sites. Some community members felt this imnlf^H
that all LUC sites receive signs and fencing, and^ecommended them for ?SC 6
Remedial Alternative Safety Concerns
by contamination at OU 4? If so, how does the Proposed
impacts? *
Response: An ecological risk assessment was conducted for PSC 6 (wildlife
arpresenXte0d" n 'the^O C°ntaminated ^surface soil at other OU 4 PSCs) and
!vnn = LLlbra^y' ThlS rlSk assessment evaluated potential impacts ^"wildlife
exposed to the contaminants in PSC 6 surface soil, sediment, and surface
-^"fZ™™*™^* that the cont«.in.ted media do not
to protect wildlife «ieretore no response action is
(2) I]
Hit-^i-, u -n mowing are performed in or around the
ditch, how will contamination of equipment be prevented?
Response: Equipment used in routine maintenance activities at PSC 6 will be
handled and stored in accordance with standard practices to minimize the
amount of contaminated material remaining on that equipment Also it is not
expected that residual contaminated material on equipment poses any heaS
risk to workers. The adult worker scenario was considered in the risk
assessment, which found that an adult worker would not be exposed to an
unacceptable risk by working at PSC 6. exposed to an
<3) S?? 3T °r C°n"°ls Wil1 be implemented to keep people away from PSC 67
will the site be fenced or posted with warning signs?
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98 .. _
A-3
-------
Response: There are no plans to erect fences or warning signs at FSC 6
because a base perimeter fence restricts public access onto MCLB, Albany.
Because MCLB controls land use and development on the installation, land use
restrictions on residential development will prevent child residents from
playing in the drainage ditch. Furthermore, there is not an unacceptable
risk for a child who simply passes through the ditch, but risk exists for
a child resident who may live at PSC 6 and play in contaminated soil, surface
water, or sediment. Under current conditions, the distance between PSC 6
and base housing, and the fact that children do not play in the western
portion of the base and are not authorized to be there also mitigates against
prolonged exposure that could result in unacceptable risks. Based on these
site-specific conditions, land use controls are a protective response to the
potential risks.
Public Participation Process
(1) A notice on the OU 4 Proposed Plan public meeting was posted at the northern
end of Ramsey Road. Why wasn't this done for previous meetings?
Response: During IR site tours conducted in September 1998 for Ramsey Road
area residents and TRC members, it was determined that MCLB was not meeting
the community's communication needs. One way to improve communication with
residents in this neighborhood was to post an OU 4 meeting notice on Ramsey
Road.
To publicize past public meetings, MCLB published legal notices in the Albany
Herald, mailed notices to the TRC members and the community mailing list,
and sent public service announcements to local media. However, public
interest in operations and environmental restoration at MCLB has recently
increased, and the Marine Corps posted the OU 4 meeting notice to respond
to that interest.
(2) We appreciate the sign for our neighborhood, but there are also neighbors
to the west and to the south. Were they also informed of the meeting?
Response: As previously noted, the OU 4 public meeting and similar meetings
were publicized through mailings to the community mailing list, paid legal
notices in the Albany Herald, and public service announcements to local
media. The OU 4 meeting notice was published on October 13, 1998. Based on
public input, MCLB will look to expand public meeting publicity efforts to
better serve communities in the immediate vicinity of the base.
(3)' Do you plan to conduct the next TRC meetings as a public availability
session, similar to the public meeting on the OU 4 Proposed Plan?
Response: A Proposed Plan public meeting has requirements (such as
preparation of an official transcript) that do not apply to TRC meetings.
The next Proposed Plan public meeting will be for OU 6 and will use the
public availability format.
»
As for the TRC meetings, they are open to the public and typically include
updates on recent restoration activities. A period is also provided for
questions and comments from the TRC and the general public attending the
meeting. Specific meeting formats, agendas, times, and locations are decided
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98 A-4
-------
by the TRC members themselves. MCLB will continue to facilitate TRC meetings
as needed.
Decision Process
(1) Will you explain the process and schedule for the Proposed Plan and Record
of Decision?
Response: The OU 4 Proposed Plan was released on October 13, 1998 for a 30-
day public comment period. At the end of this comment period, all comments
received including those expressed at the October 22, 1998 public meeting
were consolidated and responded to in this responsiveness summary. Based
on this public input, the base and regulatory agencies determined that the
proposed response actions for OU 4 are protective of health and the
environment. The ROD was then prepared to document the response action(s)
to be implemented. The ROD will be reviewed and signed by the MCLB
Commanding Officer, and letters of concurrence will be submitted by the USEPA
and GEPD. It is expected that the OU 4 ROD will be signed within two months
of the public comment period close.
(2) One citizen was concerned that her preference for fencing and warning signs
along the PSC 6 drainage ditch was being ignored.
Response: Public input is encouraged as community acceptance is required in
the proposed plan/ROD process. During the OU 4 public comment period, MCLB
solicited public comments at the public meeting, by electronic mail, regular
mail and by telephone. As stated above, the MCLB and regulatory agencies
consider all comments received and determine whether the proposed response
action is appropriate or if modifications are required.
(3) Can a vote be taken on whether or not the public would like to see signs and
fences posted at PSC 6?
Response: The Marine Corps acknowledges that several community members
recommend fencing and warning signs as part of LUCs at PSC 6. However, the
response actions selected under CERCLA address potential risks identified
during the remedial investigation and risk assessment for the site, and are
protective of human health and the environment. In this case the additional
cost of constructing fences and signs is not warranted to protect human
health because the potential risks are associated with residential
development at PSC 6. These risks can be effectively addressed through
implementation of land use controls that restrict residential development.
PART II - COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC LEGAL AND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS
Legal Applications
(1) The LUCs proposed are for PSC 6 specifically. Does this mean that PSC 6 has
to be cleaned up if the base is sold, and what area is covered under the
LUCs?
Response: If a new land use is considered for PSC 6, either by the Marine
Corps or a future property owner, the ROD would be re-evaluated to determine
ALB-OU4.HOD ,
SAS.12.98 _
-------
if response actions that actively address site contamination are needed under
the proposed land use. The LUCs at PSC 6 cover the portion of the drainage
ditch from Covella Pond in the central portion of MCLB extending west to the
Marine Canal at the western base boundary.
(2) Have environmental samples been collected from the Marine Canal?
Response: Yes, samples were collected from the Marine Canal. These included
surface water samples collected upstream and downstream of the underflow weir
in September 1996. The samples were analyzed for pesticides, base neutrals
acid extractables, PH, TCLP [toxicity characteristic leaching procedure]
volatiles, and TCLP metals. All results .indicated no compounds detected
above method detection limits except barium (0.74 ppm [parts per million]
upstream and 0.82 ppm downstream). Additionally, two composite soil samples
were collected near Mock Road and five soil samples were collected further
downstream in 1994. The samples were analyzed for base neutrals acid
extractables. All results indicated that no compounds were detected above
method detection limits. The Marine Canal downstream (west) of the Base is
beyond the control of the Marine Corps.
(3) Has USEPA ever collected samples from the Marine Canal and if not, would they
consider sampling the Marine Canal?
Response: The USEPA representative at the public meeting could not recall
any such sampling, nor was such sampling done for the IR program at MCLB
The USEPA representative indicated that sample collection and analysis of
the Marine Canal can be considered.
Enforcement
(1) In the event of an ownership transfer of MCLB property, who will enforce
environmental stipulations such as LUCs for that property?
Response: If the Base were to either close or be realigned such that the
property encompassing OU 4 would be made available for community reuse MCLB
Albany, USEPA, and GEPD would need to evaluate the continued need for any
form of LUC in light of intended reuse (e.g., residential versus industrial
or recreational). If LUCs are necessary, it is anticipated that such
controls would be included as restrictions in the transfer deed for the
property and be enforceable as such under State property law.
Remedial Investigation/Baseline Risk Assessment
(1) When estimating potential health risks for the residential land-use scenarios
for a child resident, exposure periods of 6 years, 30 days, and 350 days out
of the year were used. How were these periods established and who established
them?
Response: The health risk assessment methodology used in CERCLA was developed
by USEPA in the 1980s in coordination with the scientific community and after
public comment. For the OU 4 risk assessment, risk assessors for the State
of Georgia and USEPA worked with MCLB to identify potential contaminant
exposure pathways to humans and the environment, for both existing and future
site conditions. The risk assessment methods are inherently conservative
AL&.OU4.ROD
SAS.12,98
-------
to ensure that receptors with the greatest potential exposure and risk are
protected. For example, if a worker is digging in the soil daily for 30 days
is protected, then other receptors with less potential exposure are also
protected.
(2) Do you follow up with public health assessments of people who may have been
exposed to site contaminants? Are elderly persons taking medication
considered?
Response: No, public health studies of specific populations have not been
conducted at MCLB. Rather, the human health risk assessments consider
exposures to contaminants of concern at the site for various populations
under existing and future conditions. This requires the establishment of
a reference dose, which is the amount of contamination an individual can be
exposed to without experiencing adverse health effects. Calculation of the
reference dose considers sensitive subpopulations, including children,
newborns, unborn children, the elderly, and the infirm.
(3) Have activities taken place at PSC 6 to remove contaminants from the ditch?
When and why were groundwater monitoring wells installed in the vicinity of
OU A?
Response: No removal actions or interim remedial actions have been conducted
to remove contaminants at PSC 6. Monitoring wells were installed in the
vicinity of OU A during the spring and early summer of 1998 as part of the
ongoing basewide groundwater study designated as OU 6.
(A) A member of the public noted a report that approximately 950,000,000 gallons
of water flows into the PSC 6 drainage ditch. Is this correct and does this
water flow at any time into the Marine Canal?
Response: The commenter was referring to the OU A RI/BRA report, Paragraph
1.2.1.5 which states "from 1955 to 1977, an estimated 950,000,000 gallons
of rinse, stripping, cleaning, and plating solutions were discharged from
the DMA into the Industrial Discharge Drainage Ditch." Prior to 1990, this
wastewater was treated at the Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant (DWTP).
Currently, the source water generated at the DMA is pretreated at the
industrial wastewater treatment plant and discharges directly to the City
of Albany publicly owned treatment works.
(5) Could rinse water and other wastewater from maintenance of equipment
returning from the Desert Storm mission have been transported by surface
runoff into the drainage ditch? If so, what are the potential health effects
from exposure to this wastewater?
Response: Due to the Marine Corp's intensive decontamination procedures for
vehicles returning from field engagements including Desert Storm, it is
unlikely that contaminants were imported to the base. Additionally, any
solid material removed during vehicle maintenance at OU A sites is handled
in accordance with existing solid waste disposal procedures, and liquid waste
is treated as industrial wastewater. This precludes contaminant transport
. by surface runoff into the drainage ditch. The purpose of the OU A RI was
to determine the extent and nature of contamination associated with historic
hazardous waste disposal or releases at those sites.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
-------
(6) Did the PSC 6 drainage ditch flood during the flood of 1994?
Response: No, water from the Flint River did not back-up on base. However,
there was standing water in the Marine Canal west of MCLB. '
(7) Regarding arsenic, chromium, and vanadium detected at OU 4, at what levels
do they become a human health threat and is this information accessible to
the general public?
Response: This information is presented in Chapter 6 of the OU 4 RI/BRA
Report available in the Dougherty County Library. The contaminants of
concern identified in the RI were used to calculate potential health-based
cleanup goals for the site.
(8) Will PSC 6 ever be considered non-contaminated without active cleanup. In
other words, will the drainage ditch cleanse itself naturally over time?
Response: Many metals occur naturally in the soil at MCLB. However, soil at
PSC 6 was found to contain concentrations of chromium, vanadium and arsenic
exceeding natural (or background) levels. These will likely remain in the
PSC 6 soil. Land use controls proposed for the site will prevent prolonged
human exposure to the site soil that could pose health risks. The site soil
and land use controls would be re-evaluated if the Marine Corps were to
transfer the property or to change the land use.
(9) How long was the RI at OU 4?
Response: The investigation began in 1993. A draft OU 4 RI/BRA report was
submitted to USEPA and GEPD in 1994. Comments received from these agencies
required additional data collection, and the document was revised
accordingly. A final draft was then issued, and the final OU 4 RI/BRA was
released in September 1998.
(10) Are the three chemicals shown in the OU 4 meeting materials (arsenic,
chromium, and vanadium) naturally occurring?
Response: Arsenic, chromium, and vanadium are naturally occurring. However,
the concentrations of these substances detected at PSC 6 suggest that they
are associated with past waste disposal at the site.
ALB.OU4.ROD
SAS.12.9S
-------
ATTACHMENT A-1
TRANSCRIPTS OF THE
PUBLIC HEARING ON OPERABLE UNIT 4,
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the Commanding General Marine
Corps Logistics Base, I want to welcome you to our Operable Unit 4 proposed plan
public meeting. My name is Captain Tony Ference. I am the Installation Restoration
Program Manger, essentially the environmental cleanup program.
With us tonight we have the Environmental Protection Agency personnel representa-
tive, we have Georgia Environmental Protection Division, we have Southern
Division Naval Facilities Command, who are all part of this team that is working
on the cleanup on base. In addition, we have members of the Technical Review
Committee, also members of the team.
The objectives for the meeting - I'd like to review the Operable Unit 4 background
and site history, present the proposed action for those sites for Operable Unit
4 and get your input - that is the main purpose of this public meeting - get your
input, community input, on this proposed plan.
Operable Unit 4 is comprised of 5 potential sources of contamination, generally
located on the western edge, excuse me, western side of the base; from the center
of the base on west. Potential Source of Contamination 6, the long feature- that-
is our drainage canal as well as an old domestic wastewater treatment plant
pipeline. Potential Source of Contamination 13 is an industrial waste pipeline
which connects PSC 10 and PSC 12. PSC 10 is the Maintenance Center; that's the
main hub where we break down equipment and refurbish equipment and move it off
to the Marine Corps and PSC 12 is the industrial wastewater treatment plant So
that pipeline moves industrial waste from the Maintenance Center over to the
Industrial Waste Treatment Plant. And finally PSC 22, which is an old 90-dav
hazardous waste storage facility.
Currently, this is what those sites look like today. PSC 6, the drainage canal
This is the maintenance center area; PSC 10 is approximately 45 acres under
concrete. PSC 22 is an old 90-day hazardous waste storage facility PSC 12 is the
Industrial Waste treatment plant and PSC 13 is an underground pipeline so that
is not pictured here.
The process at Operable Unit 4: first, was an initial assessment study which was
conducted on board the base to identify areas for further studies - areas of past
waste disposal practices that we need to investigate to find out if there has been
any adverse contamination taking place. The confirmation came in-the confirmation
study was to confirm areas which need further study. We are a resource
conservation recovery act permit holder. We hold a permit for hazardous waste
generation. We are required to do a resource conservation recovery act facility
investigation to help us determine the nature and extent of contamination
identify potential contaminant movement, and all that moves us toward after we
were listed on the national priorities list, we are now part of the superfund
program and we get into the RI, remedial investigation, process. And this is where
we do our specific investigation for the areas.
Once that is completed, you take the investigation information and conduct a risk
assessment to determine what risks do,these contaminants pose. That comes under
the Baseline Risk Assessment, evaluate the investigation and the risk assessment
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS. 12.98
A-1-1
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
determine vhac you plan on doing, publish that in a proposed plan, there is a iC-
day public comment period which began the 13ih of October and runs through the
of November. That is what period we are in right now, this is part
of that:
public comment period, public meeting. And then finally, after we have addressed
the public's concerns, we move on to a record of decision. This is what we're
doing and we move on and make that happen.
The remedial investigation findings: analytical results from the subsurface
sampling at the Operable Unit 4 site, they were tabulated and chemicals of
potential concern were identified. For PSC's 10, 12, 13, and 22, that's the
Maintenance Center, the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant, the pipeline, and
the old 90-day hazardous waste storage facility, they included arsenic, chromium,
and vanadium. There was no surface water or sediment present at these sites to
be evaluated. For example, the Maintenance Center which covers 10, 13, and 22 is
45 acres of concrete covered area. And the Industrial Wastewater Treatment plant
is also an area of concrete that covers a significant portion of that area.
Chemicals of potential concern for Potential Source of Contamination 6, for our
drainage canal, included volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds such as TCE,
most of you have probably heard of trichloroethylene (TCE); polychlorinated
biphenyl "(PCBs) ; pesticides and metals. And these compounds were actually in the
surface soil, surface water, and sediment in the areas in PSC 6, the drainage
canal, as well as the old pipeline. There is a complete list for chemicals of
potential concern for all of the PSC's found in the proposed plan. Once you
find-once you complete your investigation and determine what is out there, you
need to conduct a risk assessment and determine what you found, what type of risk
does this pose to the public.
For all of the sites except the drainage canal, the current risks as well as
potential future risks, for potential future uses of the areas, from its
subsurface soil, those risks met EPA standards to protect human health. And these
risk elements do not consider the fact that the base is 100% fenced in with
restricted access. The Maintenance Center is much more tightly controlled than
that. That entire 45 acre, and then some, Maintenance Center area is fenced in
and restricted only to Maintenance Center workers for access. And the Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Plant is also completely fenced in and that access is
restricted to workers. And the risk assessment along with these issues of the
fencing and the restricted access moves towards a conservative approach, which
we want, so we can make risk estimates extra protective. Because that's the main
goal, let's look at the risk in a worst case scenario.
For the drainage canal , Potential Source of Contamination 6 , the risks from
exposure to surface soil, surface water, and sediment did not meet the USEPA
standards to protect human health, when we looked at current and potential future
uses. One of those future uses was a residential area; a child resident. And
that's one that sticks in my mind that, in particular, showed as him not meeting
the standards. Now this area is far from any residential area on base, 3 to 5
miles, I would say, for the drainage canal . But we have to evaluate that. It is
not fenced in; it is not restricted. So let's look at it as a potential
ALB-OU4.ROD
S AS, 12 98 A- 1-2
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
residential area. And that took place; it did not meet the standards. And again,
this includes risks from hypothetical resident use of the area. So if it does not
meet the standards, then what should we do about'that?
For the drainage canal, Potential Source of Contamination 6, what we are proposing
is land use controls which will prohibit and prevent any future residential
development. And by doing that, it will protecting human health and the
environment from the existing conditions and also under potential future site
conditions.
For the other Potential Sources of Contamination, currently the only exposure to
any of those sites is to workers in the Maintenance Center or the Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Plant, and even when the risk assessment for those areas was
conducted, they met the standards for the - the EPA risk standards. They found
that the potential health risks are within the range, therefore, proposing no
treatment, no containment, and no additional restricted access as being necessary
or planned for these areas.
Some things to consider when looking at this proposed plan and the second being
especially important to the community, I know. First the proposed plan addresses
only soil, surface water and sediment. This will not address the ground water
beneath these sites; and we are not ignoring the ground water underneath these
sites. We are addressing the groundwater on the base as one entire unit, because
you can't set up boundaries and say we are going to treat this portion of the
groundwater or this portion of the groundwater. It is all interconnected and
essentially one body of water. We need to look at that, study it, and determine
what to do with that as one unit. And so groundwater, which we are not forgetting
about, is being addressed in an ongoing study under Operable Unit 6. I am sure
there are some questions as to the status of that. Right now on my desk, I am
reviewing, and I started about a day ago, reviewing the first preliminary draft
of the remedial investigation and risk assessment for Operable Unit 6, with the
goal of having my input back to the contractor if not tomorrow then Monday so that
by the week of the 16th of November, we can have our preliminary draft to the EPA
and EPD regulators for their review.
And finally, we get to the meat of the presentation, the main point, the main
purpose of the presentation is to have your involvement. And you can provide your
comments at tonight's meeting during the question and answer period. What I would
like to do is focus all of the questions on Operable Unit 4 specifically, because
those are the legally required portions that we must identify - the person who
made the question, identify the question, have them properly recorded, and then
once we have finished with questions pertaining to Operable Unit A, we can conduct
a more informal session about other questions that you may have. But if possible,
you can provide your comments at tonight's meeting, through regular mail, we have
some comments sheets in the back; you can email myself or Ms. Hegwood who is from
the public affairs office, some of you know her. There are two phone numbers down
there. The first one is the public affairs office and the second one is my phone
number from Environmental. And the proposed plan, on the 13th when we published
that this public comment period was beginning, the proposed plan as well as the
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS. 12.98 „ A-1-3
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
remedial investigation risk assessment were delivered to the library for review
open to the public to read for your further information.
With that said, I would open the floor to any questions pertaining to Operable
Unit 4. <=> r
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
In your conditions of human health risk assessment findings
on PSC 22, you say they are within the USEPA rules and
regulations, then why are you offering to pay the employees
over there hazardous pay?
Sir, I am not familiar with hazardous pay for employees over
at the Maintenance Center. I am not familiar with that, but
I would say that it is not related to PSC 22, the former 90-day
hazardous waste facility.
How about PSC 12?
I am not sure. Industrial Wastewater Treatment plant workers,
I'm not sure. That is not a part of this program. I'm not
trying to push off that question. I don't have the answer to
that question.
With your land use restriction on the canal, which is PSC 6,
you are intending to do a land use restriction in the way of
if you leave the area, that land will be dedicated back to the
federal government and you will have control over it, and if
anybody were to try and sell it, it would have to be'cleaned
up, is that correct?
In a land use control, there are deed restrictions, but the
main thing with land use control is it prevents a change of
land use. If there is going to be a change of land use, whether
it be transfer or ownership or whether it be that we want to
build some residential housing in that area, then the decision
has to be reviewed and action may need to take place before
something along those lines would take place.
In this period of time, if the proposed land use restriction
is in place and the MCLB leaves the area, who will do the
enfprcing of that land use restriction.
The Marine Corps is responsible for that property, sir.
So the Marine Corps would come back in?
Well, before the Marine Corps ever left or turned over
ownership of that property, we would be responsible under Base
Realignment and Closure, I suppose.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.9B
A-1-4
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
S.onia Gooden:
All right, so if you intended on at any given particular time
to leave this given area, before you left, you would have to
clean up that particular area before you moved out, is that
correct?
The decision would be revisited, sir; and I don't know and I
can't say how that would be revisited; whether an additional
investigation would take place or excavation; I'm not sure how
that would be handled. But I know if there is going to be a
change in land use, essentially; the decision is taken back
and reviewed to determine if additional work needs to take
place. I don't know if that would be additional sampling
following by additional remediation or just direct remediation
based on the sampling that is already done.
With this land use restriction, what is being done to correct,
or can you correct, the situation on PSC 6 at this particular
time or is it something that you will just have to wait until
you want to leave and then clean it up? Can you do anything
about it now?
Sir, there could be a number of things conducted. You could
probably excavate the entire 7 mile canal, but there is no risk
there that rates that type of excavation or remediation and
the benefits to do that would far outweigh-I mean would be
exceeded by the cost of doing such a thing.
Well, what I'm trying to get at is, if you are willing to put
a land use restriction on PSC 6, then you are trying to tell
us there is something wrong there, but then again you're trying
to tell me that, "hey, we don't need to do anything about'it"
because there is nothing wrong with it. Which is it, is it
contaminated or is it not contaminated?
Sir, there are contaminants there, so it is not as clean as
a fresh piece of dirt that's never been trod upon. However,
the risks for the area-there is no risk for the personnel that
work in that area. The hypothetical risk that exceeded the
standards was for a child resident playing in that area,
playing in that canal, every day and that's not the case of
what takes place in that area. There are no child residents
over there. But is there chemicals of potential concern present
there, yes, sir, there are.
Okay.
What type of controls do you implement in order to keep humans
off of that area that you are concerned about, that institu-
tional controls have been placed on? Do you fence it?
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
A-1-5
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Captain Ference:
Sonia Gooden:
Captain Ference:
Joe Daniel:
No, ma'am, it is not going to be fenced.
It is not fenced. Is there any signs up at all that would give
a trespasser or a child, any individual, that they should be
on the property, playing in the dirt, playing in the ditch.
No, ma'am, because of the proximity of base housing and where
children reside being so far away and the fact that children
do not play over in the western portion of base, or are not
authorized over on that portion of base. That-the only thing
that is being proposed is we do not want to develop this for
residential land use. In fact one of the risk assessments, was
child trespasser. I don't want to misstate, I want to make
sure, but generally, that is one of the things looked at is
the trespassers.
We evaluated a base worker, a child transient, and where's
Doctor Dulaney?
Dr. Marland Dulaney: Yeah, a child transient is the equivalent of a child
trespasser.
Captain Ference:
Dr. Dulaney:
Sonia Gooden:
So that was evaluated within the risk assessment.
That was evaluated and that was within the acceptable range.
What we are saying is if a child were to play there all the
time, it wouldn't be safe. Because the child would be there
every day, 350 days a year for six years. That is not safe.
But if a child were to cut through there, just playing or going
from one place to another, if an adult were to do it, if an
older child were to do it, that would be safe.
Do you have wildlife on the property of the Marine Base in the
confines of that 3500 acres. Do you have wildlife and deer and
quail?
Captain Ference: Yes, ma'am.
Sonia Gooden:
Captain Ference:
How would you, are you going to-some of them have natural
habitats and our question, I think, would probably be would
the iwildlife be affected. Since Dr. Dulaney said 365 days a
year for a child, how would-what type of response would we have
on the wildlife that would be out there in that area?
There was an ecological risk assessment conducted. I don't have
the numbers. An ecological risk assessment was conducted; that
was considered. I don't have the specifics. It is in the
remedial investigation risk assessment and I don't have the
numbers off the top of my head. If you would like, upon review
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
A-1-6
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Dr. Dulaney:
Larry Gooden:
Captain Ference:
Larry Gooden:
Captain Ference:
Larry Gooden:
Captain Ference:
Larry Gooden:
of that information if you see something that you have a
concern about, I would love to have a comment so we can address
it. I don't know if Dr. Dulaney can answer that.
We looked at individual species that were considered to be very
sensitive and most likely to occur in those areas, mice, rats
are very common. And there was no ecological threat there. We
don't look at deer, but usually the mice are going to be very
good indicators of it and that one wasn't a problem. As a
general rule, what we know about the environment if these
specific species that we select are not going to be a problem,
as a general rule, much higher species are not as well.
This is in the canal, right?
Yes, sir.
How do you prevent-do you ever do maintenance in that canal
as far as like keeping up landscape or you have people out
there that might be mowing or you may have a blockage or
something. How do you take care of that problem if you have
a group of people going in to stop a blockage that might occur
in the canal or somebody happen chance go in with a tractor
or a mower and they may carry some of it off on equipment. How
do you prevent that? Is there signs that might restrict a
person going in there with any type of equipment that might
by chance slip by and got into that area because they was doing
landscaping or some type of grounds work? Because I know that
we had the city come out on that farm out there they didn't
even know that was a superfund site and had wells out there.
So how well are you protected against that issue if you've got
tractors and mowers and things going out there and you are
sitting in your office saying, "Whoa, that stuff is not
supposed to be out there." And he's tracking stuff off in his
boots or whatever.
Well, sir, the adult worker situation was considered in the
risk assessment. And those risks met the standards for an adult
worker for that area. So no there, there is not going to be
any restrictions in that area.
So if that guy was mowing out there and he had a problem with
his equipment and he got off and got his hands in it, and he
was wiping the sweat off his face, there is no contact problem.
Yes, sir.
So how is that person aware of this situation if he's out
there?
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
A-1-7
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Joe Daniel:
Larry Gooden:
Dr. Dulaney:
Dr. Dulaney:
Larry Gooden:
Captain Ference, why don't you have Dr. Dulaney elaborate on
that?
Before you do, also with the wildlife, the herons go out there
and they eat frogs, crawfish, and they carry off other frogs,
too.
And unfortunately we can't study every animal species that is
out there, so we pick the ones that we know, through the
literature that's available, are the most sensitive, are the
most likely. Mice, for example, if there is going to be
something in the soil or down, in the water, mice have a—they
are very useful because they have a small body weight. They
are very active. They dig in the soil a lot and they have a
very high contact with this. They have a better chance of
coming into contact with the contaminants. Herons do feed in
these kinds of areas, but they feed over a much larger area.
A mouse can only go in a very small range. His home range is
something about the size of this room. So when you study
something in a small area, if he's in a real high contact, and
he's safe, then the process is that that animal is safe; then
something that feeds on him is safe. Now there are certain
chemicals, as we all know, that go up in the food chain, lead
and some PCB's and things like that and we take extra
precautions for that kind of stuff. Even adding all these
layers of protection to it, there wasn't a problem with the
ecological risk. So that's how we deal with this. It is not
quite as straight forward as with human health.
But to answer your question for human health, the reason why
the child was above the regulations is because I have some dirt
eaters at home. You know how kids are in the backyard, you
know, they are just covered with dirt all the time. We assumed
that they were going to do this 350 days a year, rain, shine,
every day except for 2 weeks of vacation, and they were going
to do this for 6 years. Those very, very stringent conditions,
it wasn't safe. But someone who was working, say an excavation
worker, someone who is going in there digging; that's a very
high intensity, you get real messy and dirty. But how many
times do you do it? You certainly don't do it 350 times a year
for; 6 years. Now if you did, that might represent a problem.
But we looked at, I believe it was 30 days; someone out there
digging for 30 days and got very, very—they ate about half a
gram of soil a day, got it on their skin, got very messy, and
even that worst case scenario, for that person, it was not a
problem.
Even in heavy rain, overrun.
ALB.QU4.ROO
SAS.12.98
A-1-8
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Dr. Dulaney:
Larry Gooden:
Dr. Dulaney:
Larry Gooden:
Dr. Dulaney:
Carl Buckhalter:
Dr. Dulaney:
LuAnn Turnage:
Dr. Dulaney:
Right.
Even days later, it may be saturated ground and some seeping
out, carrying sediment off.
Right. And that is something that you want to take into account
and our people did do that because when it rains it spreads
out and mixes with other soil and we-one of the other things
we did, we assumed the worst case scenario, the dirtiest soil
was characteristic of the entire site. Not all the soil was
that contaminated.
So are you saying this problem is going to take care of itself
over time?
I'm a toxicologist. I don't know that. In my experience though,
I've worked on hazardous waste sites for over 11 years now|
and many times nature can. Now metals, there's not much you
can do about it. They're naturally occurring; metals are just
part of nature. Many of the other things that you did find
many of them will take care of themselves and if there is going
to be a change, I work on a lot of BRAC sites, and I can tell
you that they go back and they look at this pretty tightly
So any concerns you have for BRAC, they're pretty good at going
back and looking at this stuff again.
What is a BRAC?
That is the Base Realignment and Closure. Sorry, we use a lot
of acronyms. I'm sorry.
Who is the all-knowing person or committee that establishes
these 6-year periods, 30-day periods, 350 days out of the year?
How do you arrive at these amounts?
I'm it tonight. These were defined by EPA scientists back in
the late 80's and they are thoroughly reviewed as we go along.
When we first start a risk assessment, we meet with the risk
assessors for the state of Georgia and for the EPA. I'm a board
certified toxicologist. The state has 2 board certified
toxicologists, the EPA has one. And we all sit down in a room
and say this is what we want to do and they come back and say,
no, no, that's not conservative enough, we want you to do this!
this and this. And we argue back and forth until we come up
with a series of assumptions that are protective. And the idea
is if you protect the most sensitive person, the person that
is out there in the mud everyday, that 6-year old child, if
you protect that person, you protect everybody else. If'you
protect the guy that's out digging in the soil, in the mud,
AL6-OU4.ROD
SAS. 12.98
A-1-9
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
LuAnn Turnage:
Dr. Dulaney:
LuAnn Turnage:
Dr. Dulaney:
Carl Turnage:
for 30 days and he comes home covered with mud, and he's
protected, then anybody that's walking through there, that cuts
through there, that gets dirt on his shoes cutting through the
canal, is also protected. And that's why we do it. We actually
set the standard so conservative that everybody else underneath
here is protected as well. It is very rare that you are going
to have construction for 30 days for something that small. But
it is so conservative that we say that because it is up here
and you, me, and everybody else is down here and we're all
protected as well.
Do you normally follow up—once you make this summary, do you
follow up with public health assessments with people who have
been exposed or been compromised with these contaminants; such
as - you know, I can understand what you're saying about a 6-
year old child. But let's take an elderly person that takes
heart medication, are you taking into consideration medications
that may be coming from outside and we are not talking about
a super healthy individual.
Yes, ma'am.
But through groundwater contamination, of course, even working
in the yard.
Okay, one of things, if you read the risk assessment, it uses
a term called the "reference dose." And the definition of the
reference dose is it is the dose that is acceptable for you
to be exposed to every day and be safe. And this includes
sensitive sub-populations. And the reference dose includes
children, neonates, unborn children, elderly, infirm, it
includes everybody. So when the EPA sets this number and they
put it out for general review in the entire scientific
community, it usually comes back shot full of holes because
everybody is saying, you know, some people are saying "it's
not conservative enough"; some people are saying "it needs to
be less conservative." And then they all get together and they
try it again. This is an iterative process. When they come to
an agreement, usually the entire scientific community says,
"well, there is some things I don't like about it, but I agree
this is safe." And I can tell you as a toxicologist that every
reference dose that is used by the EPA and everyone they used
here is safe. The numbers that they are providing are safe.
A couple of questions. In the past, on PSC 6, has any cleanup
been done to the ditches to try to remove the canal—try to
remove any of the contaminants?
Captain Ference: No, sir.
ALB-DIM.ROD
SAS, 12.98
A-1-10
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Carl Turnage:
Captain Ference:
Carl Turnage:
Captain Ference:
Joe Daniel:
Captain Ference:
Joe Daniel:
Captain Ference:
Joe Daniel:
Carl Turnage:
Captain Ference:
Joe Daniel:
LuAnn Turnage:
Joe Daniel:
Rob Pope:
LuAnn Turnage:
Rob Pope:
Joe Daniel:
What about the-are you going to have land use restrictions on
that area, the canal area?
Yes, sir.
What about the off-Base area, from there to the river?
No, sir. The Marine Canal? No, sir. What was found, Joe, I
don't mean to put you on the spot. What was found was in the
sediment and surface soil, is that correct, for PSC 6?
That's correct.
And in the vicinity across from Maintenance Center?
Right.
And that is further downstream from where these areas were'.
That's correct.
So let's assume that from the base to the river it's clean?
Has there been any sampling on the Marine Canal?
The area downstream, from the southwest corner of the base,
is beyond the control of the Marine Corps. There are other
inputs to that canal, so the Marine Corps cannot account for
everything that's downstream from there. There are industries;
there are other inflows of surface water runoff, for instance,
so that is beyond, literally-physically beyond the control of
the Marine Corps.
Has the EPA ever tested that ditch?
Rob, can you comment on that?
Not to ray knowledge. Not in conjunction with the Marine Base,
Albany.
Would you consider testing it?
It is something that could be considered, yes. Didn't the
drainage basin, both inside and outside the base, get sampled?
There was some, as I—speaking from memory here, I believe there
was a study done by another agency. I'm not sure if it was the
EPA or what agency did it. But I think that there was a study
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
A-1-11
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
LuAnn Turnage:
Captain Ference:
Judy Kimble:
Captain Ference:
Judy Kimble:
Captain Ference:
Judy Kimble:
Captain Ference:
Judy Kimble:
Captain Ference:
done on some media, either water or sediment for that canal.
But I don't have specific information.
I just remember reading in the PSC's, the list of PSC's, in
that drainage canal, there was like 950,000 tons of solids
going down that ditch, is that correct? Or have I got it
confused with another ditch?
I don't have a number off the top of my head, ma'am. I'd have
to refer to the investigation.
I'd like to know when the equipment was coming back from the
Gulf, where was all this sand and water placed into. Where did
it go when they washed off the equipment?
Ma'am, are you referring to sand from Desert Storm?
Right.
I was not here when the equipment came back, however, I was
in Saudi Arabia when we were packing up equipment to bring it
back and if you could see the amount of agricultural inspection
that we had to pass in order to put a piece of equipment back
on ship, you would be amazed. If they found any sand whatsoever
in the equipment, it was sent back to the wash line. We spent
many, many hours washing equipment so that when we brought
equipment back, there would be no sand.
Why was there sand in the equipment my husband worked on? There
was canteens and knives and all that when he went to work on
the equipment. And him, and I think he said he knew at least
75 people, broke out in a rash which no doctor can diagnose.
The government has denied it, but he had no problems until he
worked on the equipment that came back. It did have sand in
it and it did have canteens and other stuff in it.
I don't know the answer to that, ma'am.
Where did it go, did it go into this ditch or did it go into
a certain place because there was stuff on it.
One thing I do know is that when they offload ships - and it
is only from my experience with the Marine Corps, when they
offload ships, oftentimes it is by a landing craft which is
they will load equipment, wheeled vehicles, tracked vehicles,
up onto the landing craft, they will swim that landing craft
ashore, drop the gate, and the vehicles, Humvees, all of that
will drive right across the beach. I assume that most of what
ALB.OU4.ROD
SAS.12,98
A-1-12
-------
t
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
t
Judy Kimble:
Captain Ference:
Judy Kimble:
came here probably came from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and
I would assume-I don't mean to assume-
How did it get in there with the-you can tell that it came from
over there by the stuff that was in it. Do you understand what
I'm saying?
Yes, ma'.am, I don't know the answer to that.
He has been really sick with that stuff and nobody can seem
to help it because they can't diagnose what he's got.
Captain Ference: I don't know the answer to that one, ma'am, I'm sorry.
Judy Kimble:
Captain Ference:
Judy Kimble:
But I'm concerned if it's going in that water, too; if it's
gone into the ditch or wherever this water is flowing, then,
you know, who knows what's in there. If it broke these people
out that can't even be diagnosed, you know what is it going
to do if somebody else gets in there and gets in ingested into
their system. There is no telling what it is going to do to
them.
In the investigation, the only chemicals that were found are
those that were outlined in the investigation. I don't know
if the source would be due to anything like that. I would say
that based on my, knowledge of off-loading ships, I don't know
of a way to get equipment off a ship onto a rail car with-
actually, if you pulled into a port. But oftentimes that is
not the case, they swim the equipment to shore. I'm not saying
that some sand didn't come from over there.
Right, 'cause he's got some of the sand; we just tried to find
something to do with it.
Captain Ference: I'm not sure, ma'am, I'm sorry.
Judy Kimble:
That's okay. It's the same answer I get from everybody, so I'm
used to it.
Carl Buckhalter: With the 1994 flood was the PSC 6 canal flooded? '
Captain Ference:
This is Mr. Buckhalter's question and no, none of the base is
flooded, is that correct? I'm looking up at Mr. Al Hargrove,
Compliance in the Environmental Branch, and he is saying no.
None of the base was flooded.
Captain Ference: Mr. Hargrove, could you comment on that?
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS. 12.98
A-1-13
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Mr. Hargrove: There was no water backed up on base. However, further down
the canal, downstream, there was water.
Captain Ference: No water backed up on base from the river.
Mr. Hargrove: Right. Back the canal on downstream from there, there was water
in the canal.
Sonia Gooden: The canal itself did flood, at Mock Road, yes. Remember it went
over the road and Proctor and Gamble was flooded.
Captain Ference: Any further comments,- Al? Ms., Gooden said that it was flooded
over Mock Road, any comment on that, how far up into base did
that back up?
Marie Estes: It came from the base into the canal and went out, but it was
flooded as it went out.
Captain Ference: I lost my train of thought. Oh, Mr. Buckhalter, does that
answer your question?
Carl Buckhalter: Yes, sure.
Captain Ference: Any other Operable Unit 4 questions? Yes, sir.
Carl Buckhalter: With the investigative findings of arsenic, chromium, and
whatever it is, is that below the MCL?
Captain Ference: MCL, sir, is a water-a drinking water standard. Joe, do you
Carl Buckhalter: Let's back up then. What levels of arsenic-those three metals,
what levels are they to a human that they found?
Captain Ference: Well, that is what's evaluated in the risk assessment.
Carl Buckhalter: Okay. Has it come out?
Captain Ference: Yes, sir, that's part of the same report that is up in the
library. The remedial investigation, base-line risk assessment,
then the risk assessment is what I've alluded to earlier; and
that's up there along with the proposed plan.
*
Karen Hall: They keep talking about safe levels and all that kind of stuff,
the EPA said this much is safe, whatever, is there any way that
we can get a copy of how much of all of these chemicals that
we have found is safe? I mean, for human beings? Jttb
Captain Ference: In response to that question, just for the record, there has
been some information on sheets handed out to EAGLE by Mr. Rob
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.9B A-1-14
-------
t
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Captain Ference:
Sonia Gooden:
Captain Ference:
Joe Daniel:
Sonia Gooden:
t
the base with all the PSC's you've put institutional controls
on?
That is not a cookbook for every PSC. Those are examples of
possible land use controls. For example, PSC 3, there is a
restriction against digging because there is a cap on the' land
fill. PSC 16 is a PCB area by the chow hall, if you remember
and that area, after excavation, was undermining the foundation
so they capped-they filled it with clean fill, capped it with
a concrete cap, put a fence and signs around PSC 16. That is
one I can think of off the top of my head.
All right, but there are others out there that's had institu-
tional controls placed on them. PSC 3, 26, it says right here:
signs and fences are examples of physical methods while legal
methods refer to deed restrictions. So my question is, is why
are we given this information, we assume that you have signed
and fenced these pieces of property, the hazardous waste sites
that has institutional controls on them, and yet they haven't
been fenced and posted.
No, ma'am. If that's what that implies, then I apologize,
because that is just an information sheet that explains types
of land use controls and you decide what land use control you
are going to do at a potential source of contamination based
on the risk and the situation for each location; at PSC 16,
we needed to go full board. Cap it, fence it, put up signs!
However, other areas, that's not required to be protective of
human health and the environment. So if that implies that is
what is required for all land use control, then that is not
what we are trying to get across with that. That is just an
informational on types of land use controls and legal
restrictions on future land use.
Captain Ference, can I elaborate on that? I'd like to refer
Sonia to the land use control implementation plan, it is part
of the proposed plan. Those are the land use controls that we
are proposing specific to Operable Unit 4. What you have is
a fact sheet, that is a generic sheet listing the types of land
use controls that may be used in general.
Well, can you see how we can get very confused between what
you have done and what you are passing out as information to
the community. It is very confusing that this sheet here
clearly states the very first sentence, the term land use
controls or LUC's refers to the physical or legal signs or
legal^statement that protects public health by limiting human
activities at sites where chemicals will remain in place after
cleanup. Signs and fences are examples of physical methods.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS 12.98
A-1-17
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Joe Daniel:
Larry Gooden:
Captain Ference;
Dr. Dulaney:
This is a definition of land use controls. But yet, whenever
you refer to land use controls in your remediation, it means
something totally different than what we have in our hands.
Right, it's taken out of context when read independently. We
have the specific land use controls attached to the proposed
plan. But we appreciate that input and thanks for that
clarification.
Getting back to you again on the comment on the 30-day, working
30 days consecutively in the area of that canal. Are these
people who are working in the.area as groundkeepers, are they
schooled or informed of the situations in the area; if- they
happen to be working in that area. If there is by chance some
stuff dug up, by chance that you'are not aware of, and it's
carted off, what's the consequences of that? And how do you
really determine that a 30-day consecutive is hazardous to you?
How do you know 2 weeks is not the hazardous point? How do you
determine 30 days is the hazardous point? If a person has been
working in another area and he's got cuts or open wounds and
he goes over here and works 2 hours over here and he's
trampling around in that stuff. How do you know that's not
hazardous to him?
Well, the second question is sort of toward Dr. Dulaney and
I'll field the first question.
Okay, what we did was we assumed that a 30-day period is how
long this person was going to be working. If it is safe to work
for a 30 days, then it is safe to work for 20 days, because
you are there less. There is less exposure. And there is a
general rule, the less your exposure, the less your risk. Ten
days the same way, five days is exactly the same way. So 30
days we thought was so conservative that it wouldn't occur.
What might occur if somebody's out there for a week, 10 days?
If 30 days is safe, 10 days is safe.
•
Now the other scenario that you have, we don't take into
account the-we assume that this is a healthy worker. That's
really about the only thing that we can do. We do assume,
though, that they got a fairly large amount of it on their
skin. Much more of it than the studies have actually shown when
we go back and reevaluate the science, we are so conservative
for skin absorption that we are actually over-estimating the
risk. So we are assuming that there is a very thick layer of
material on your skin that is the most highly contaminated out
there, or very high contamination out there. And that's always
on your skin. And even in that situation, you are still safe.
AlB-OtM.fiOD
SAS.12.98
A-1-18
-------
§
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Larry Gooden:
t
Larry Gooden:
Captain Ference:
Larry Gooden:
Dr. Dulaney:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Carl -Buckhalter:
So that individual working out there, he's not aware of that,
though. He's not informed at all, that he has a right to know.'
Captain Ference: No, sir.
Captain Ference:
Because he was working along and accidentally got a tractor
stuck and he tried to get it unstuck, he swashing around in
that stuff, it splashes on his face, whatever, how could you
say that that guy's not contaminated.
For the training question, because the risk does not exceed
the acceptable levels of the EPA, no there is 'no training that
says watch out for this; because, in essence, there is----
You would sign off on this saying you would be-you would
validate yourself to be in that vicinity. Let's say you had
to do it, would you sign off and go there tonight and say it's
safe?
Oh, sure. That's one of the reasons that they have people like
me that do this kind of stuff. If I didn't think it' was safe,
I wouldn't be here telling you this. I can tell you that right
now. If I didn't think it was safe, I would not be standing
here.
On the PSC, what length of period are we talking about or will
it ever be clear as far as non-contaminated without you doing
something to it?
Sir, are you referring to Operable Unit 4, Potential Sources
of Contamination?
Yes, sure.
That's what's in the investigation. We have found contamination
and that is what is being addressed.
Well, I know. What I'm saying is, you are not going to do
anything at this present time. Is it going to clear itself up?
The drainage canal, is it going to clear itself up with more
water running through it?
Well, sir, many-I can't speak to every specific one and such
as Dr. Dulaney mentioned, the metals, those are persistent and
they are naturally occurring. The-for many other compounds,
they are naturally degraded. Even very persistent compounds
are naturally degraded, just more slowly over time. They won't
reproduce and expand. I can't answer
ALB-OU4.ROO
SAS.12.98
A-1-19
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Dr. Dulaney:
Captain Ference:
John Smith:
Captain Ference:
LuAnn Turnage:
Captain Ference:
LuAnn Turnage:
Captain Ference:
LuAnn Turnage:
Captain Ference:
Sonia Gooden:
Captain Ference;
With these three chemicals that you have lisced here, are they
naturally occurring?
Yes, Dr. Dulaney answered that question, arsenic, chromium.
and vanadium are naturally occurring.
They may not be natural from this situation, but: they are
naturally occurring.
Any additional Operable Unit 4 questions?
Where is PSC 3 located? Is it located on the north side of the
base?
PSC 3 is located on the north side of the base. And if you have
any questions about that, sir, we can address that immediately
after we wrap up all the Operable Unit 4 issues.
All the operable unit maps that were on the home page, there
are three circles that are not identified. But they are on all
the maps of the OU's. What are they?
I think I know what you are referring to.
Yes, it was on yours a moment ago.
Okay, I see what they are. Cul-de-sacs. This is where we have
a trailer court; there is where the officers' club is, it's
the circle they park around; and this is the circular right
in front of the headquarters building.
Okay.
That's an easy one, I like those.
Do you plan on conducting your next TRC meetings very similar
to how you've done this one?
Well, this is actually a public meeting on the proposed plan.
And the next public meeting on the proposed plan for Operable
Unit 6, yes, will be conducted just like this. I don't have
a date for you. As for TRC meetings, since we've had a
heightened awareness in the community, we will have to plan
on a larger room to conduct those meetings with TRC members
and anyone that is available for attending. 1 don't know if
that answers your question or not, ma'am.
This is the public meeting for a proposed plan. They will be
handled like this. TRC meetings are handled somewhat different-
ALfl.OU4.ROO
SAS, 12,98
A-1-20
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Sonia Gooden:
Captain Ference;
ly, but they do begin with presentations from our staff as TRC
members.
Why is this the first time we have ever seen a sign at the end
of Ramsey Road announcing the public meeting? We've never had
one before. Why now?
I can't answer why not before. But I can answer why there is
one now. There is one now because during our tours with the
EAGLE members as well as TRC members, it was identified that
the base was not meeting the communication needs with the
community, its closest neighbors north of the base. We wanted
to try to improve that. That was one method of improving that
and making sure that we got the word out.
ause.
Larry Gooden:
Captain Ference:
t
The audience expressed their appreciation by appl
One thing I want to bring up though is that you do have a list
of membership of members that are on the committee that are
local officials who claim that they have never gotten an
invitation to these TRC meetings and their names are on these
lists and we've confronted these people and they say "we've
never gotten anything on it." So how did you derive their
names are on this list and they have never received any
invitation to a meeting?
First, what I would like to mention is I did give two lists
I believe I copied two lists. One was a TRC member list And
that was a small list on one page; I believe it was one page
And the other list was about 4 pages of names and addresses
which included some officials. And those are on the TRC mailing
list, not the TRC members. As for members that have told you
they have not received anything, I don't have an answer on why
that hasn't happened in the past. We're going to try to improve
on that in the future. There was one other portion of your
question that I'm missing.
I think that was it. Why they were never informed they were
part of this, even the mailing. They never received anything
When we, as EAGLEs dealt with the issue of the landfill one
of your members, Jim Tolbert of the Albany Planning Commission
and his name is part of the membership, right. And he said he
didn't have any knowledge of the superfund.
Melissa (cannot understand name)
I happen to work with Mr. Tolbert. I don't think that's what
he said. I think he said he had not been able to attend the
meetings just because of schedule conflicts.
Larry Gooden:
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
A-1-21
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
t
[several people were talking at once about what Mr. Tolbert said'
Larry Gooden: Okay, but that answers that.
Luann Turnage: We appreciate the sign for our neighborhood, but there are also
neighbors to the west and to the south. Did you all inform them
of the meeting also?
Captain Ference: Only through the TRC mailing list and the legal notice in the
paper on the 13th.
Sonia Gooden:
Captain Ference;
Sonia Gooden:
Captain Ference:
Sonia Gooden:
Is there going to be an opportunity for us to say we feel or
I would personally like to interject I would like to see some
fence and signs around the institutional control property. Does
that matter, that that's what I would like to see?
We'd like to have that input, ma'am, if you would do that
through our public comment or e-mail or mail or phone.
Can you take a vote on whether the public would like to see
signs posted and fences put around these areas. I mean, can't
you find out what our feelings are? This is a public comment
period.
Yes, ma'am, it is important to find out what the feelings are
and to address those. But the bottom line is to look at what
do the risks proposed by this site rate to be protective of
human health and the environment. But we have to take your
comments and your consideration 'and address those and we will.
But if a particular location does not necessarily rate some
fences to be protective and it costs $50,000 to fence an area,
and the community votes and would like for that to take place,
I can't stand here and say that's what would take place because
that wouldn't be smart use of taxpayer's money to pay $50,000
to fence off an area that may or may not need it.
Okay, bear with me, please. You don't want to spend $50,000
to fence an area off and post it. But there's over $7 million
a year spent on the study of contamination at that base. When
the human health and welfare is involved, whether it is an
employee of the base, a maintenance worker, a trespassing
child, if there is one Nth of question whether that person's
health could be at risk, don't you think $50,000 is a minimum
amount to protect that person. Because in a couple of years,
perhaps you will be gone from here. Someone else will take over
and things can get dusty. Files-the integrity of records can
get transposed. Digital communications now is taking your
records into the computer system. So my question is we can
address this now, we won't look at future problems down the
ALB-OUVROO
SAS.12,98
A-1-22
-------
t
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable flftit 4 Proposed Plan
Captain Ference:
t
road. If you deemed it necessary to put something as coarse
and solid as a deed restriction on a piece of property, why
can't you fence and post it. Fence it and put signs up, even
if it is $50,000. It eliminates future concern.
I would like to see that, ma'am, if you would, submit that as
one of the issues that we're going to have to respond to and
we'll discuss it with both the regulatory agencies. I don't
have the answers. I can't stand here and say we will do it or
a vote of the community will say'that we're going to do it.
I can't make that decision right here. It's a team and there
are other things to be said. But we definitely appreciate that
concern and would like to see it if you would write that down
on one of the comment sheets as well.
With my proximity of less than 200 feet from your adjoining
property, I have a problem in so much as trying to help myself
watch what's happening across the way. How can you help me
identify the boundary marks of one or more than one PSC's that
are connected or in close proximity and I'm saying this from
our tour. I did not-I was not aware of a road or any other open
area that was not contaminated between one PSC and another PSC.
Can you help me identify them?
Captain Ference: You are referring to the PSC's on the northern end of Base?
Carl Buckhalter: That is correct.
'l Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Captain Ference:
If we could, can I come back to that. We'd like to press
forward. Are there any further questions on Operable Unit 4?
I liked to wrap the Operable Unit 4 up and then address some
of the larger questions from you all for other areas, but
keeping in mind that we are currently working right now with
your attorneys in identifying all those questions so we do have
an opportunity to answer them-make sure we have a clear set
of questions and we can answer them. That is the best way we
can get answers back to you. But I would still like to tackle
a few that are not pertaining to Operable Unit 4 once we've
wrapped up here. Any more Operable Unit 4? [No additional
questions.]
Okay, with that in mind, I would like to thank you all for
participating in the Operable Unit 4 public meeting and call
the meeting to a close.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS. 12.98
A-1-23
-------
-------
t
APPENDIX B
LAND-USE CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR
POTENTIAL SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION 6
t
-------
-------
t
LAND-USE CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PSC 6
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
This document identifies Land-Use Controls restricting (a) human access to and
contact with surface soil, surface water, and sediment contaminated with inorganic
constituents through residential development of the site and (b) certain
activities occurring on or around Potential Source of Contamination (PSC) 6 of
the Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB), Albany. Figure B-l presents the general
configuration of PSC 6 within MCLB, Albany.
As a result of previous investigations, MCLB, Albany was placed in Group 7 of the
National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, according to
Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 300 (40 CFR 300 July 1991)
Harding Lawson Associates was contracted under the Comprehensive Long-Term
Environmental Action, Navy contract (contract number N62467-89-D-0317) to prepare
and execute Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Workplans, Site Screening
Workplans, and. associated documents for 26 PSCs at MCLB, Albany PSC 10 (Depot
Maintenance Activity [DMA]), PSC 22 (DMA Old 90-Day Storage Area) PSC 13
(Industrial Wastewater Pipeline [IWP]), PSC 12 (Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Plant [IWTP]), and PSC 6 (Industrial Discharge Drainage Ditch/Sanitary Sewer Line)
comprise Operable Unit (OU) 4 at MCLB, Albany.
A remedial investigation (RI) and baseline risk assessment (BRA) was conducted
at OU 4 from April 1993 through May 1994. The public health and ecological BRA
determined that the surface soil, surface water, and sediment at PSC 6 poses a
potential noncancer risk to a future resident above the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IV criteria (ABB-ES, 1998). Based on the results
of the BRA, USEPA Region IV and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(GEPD) required the implementation of Land-Use Controls to prohibit potential
future residential development of PSC 6.
Site Description and Location
PSC 6 (Industrial Discharge Drainage Ditch and Sanitary Sewer) consists of the
industrial discharge drainage ditch that runs from the IWTP to the Marine Canal,
and the sanitary sewer line that runs from the IWTP to the Domestic Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The industrial discharge drainage ditch is a man-made drainage
canal that originates at Covella Pond in the central portion of the base and
extends downstream to its intersection with West Shaw Road. Typically, water
levels through the ditch are less than 1 foot in depth while water levels'during
storm events can exceed 10 feet in depth. An underflow weir and sedimentation
basin is located at the downgradient end of the.ditch. These structures prevent
miscellaneous sediment and debris from leaving the base property.
The RI confirmed the presence of low concentrations of volatile organic compounds,
semivolatile organic compounds, and inorganics in the surface soil, surface water,'
and sediment at PSC 6. These compounds are possibly associated with past disposal
activities (ABB-ES, 1998).
These RI data were evaluated to determine whether the substances found on site
occur naturally or resulted from past waste disposal. Based on this evaluation,
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
-------
CD *•
"I
CD
ro
nllary stwtr Una
Industrial discharge drainage ditch -/
1.00O 2.OOP
SCALE: t INCH = 2.OOO FEET
LEGEND
PSC Potential source of contamination
DWTP Domestic wastewater treatment plant
IWTP Industrial wastewater treatment plant
Source: Marine Corps Logistics Base Genera! Base Development Map and USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
FIGURE B-1
PSC6
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE DRAINAGE DITCH
AND SANITARY SEWER LiriE
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------
•
•
a list of chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) was developed for each
environmental medium (e.g., sufface soil) sampled at OU 4. A BRA was then
prepared in accordance with USEPA Risk Assessment Guidance. This guidance
reflects a conservative approach to BRA to ensure that subsequent cleanup
?eC]f0?nSDf 6 protectlve of huma* health and the environment. Exposure pathways
to the COPCs evaluated in the BRA included a current land-use scenario in which
it was assumed that an older child trespasses at OU 4, as well as a future land
use scenario in which it was assumed that OU 4 is used for residential development
(i.e., children and adults live at OU 4) .
Human health and environmental risks associated with exposure to surface soil
surface water, and sediment were evaluated in the BRA for PSC 6. These estimated
"± 7' dr accePtable by the USEPA except for the potential, future child
- ^ SCenari0' ^ n°ncancer hazard inde* (HI of 3) exceeded the
Hw du t 6XPOSUre ? StrCti°n in tMs Particular Case' Theelevated
llTr H V pre!T%0f mUltiple inorSanics ^ the surface soil, surface
water and sediment. Therefore, USEPA Region IV and GEPD required that Land- Use
Controls be implemented that restrict future residential development of PSC 6
as defined on Figure B-l.
Land-Use Control Objectives
The OU 4 Proposed Plan calls for the initial implementation and continued
application of appropriate restrictions on future usage of the property
encompassing PSC 6 while it is owned by the Federal government ?hesl
restrictions will apply until/unless site remediation is conducted to restore the
site for unrestricted use. Should the Navy later decide to transfer, by deed
ownership in the property encompassing PSC 6 to any private person or entity then
the provisions of paragraph Deed Covenants and Conveys nf TJH. as set forth
on page B-4 of this Land-Use Control Implementation Plan (LUCIP) shall apply
Until that time, the following Land-Use Controls will remain in effect:
Land-Use Controls Implemented to Achieve .Objectives
MCLB, Albany Security. Physical access to the property surrounding PSC 6 is
controlled by base security measures, including fencing, pass and identification
procedures, guardhouse, and periodic security patrols.
Authorized Activities. The following activities are permissible within the
confines of PSC 6:
• • such activities or uses that will not result in the development of
the site for residential purposes or pose a continuous, long- term
exposure to child residents located near the site, and thus will
present no greater risk of harm to health, safety, public welfare,
or the environment; and
such activities required to ensure adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
Unauthorized Activity. Those activities and uses that are inconsistent with
the objectives of this LUCIP, and which, if implemented at PSC 6, could pose an
increased risk of harm to health, safety, public welfare, or the environment may
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS. 12.98
B-3
-------
not be conducted at PSC 6. The following activities are not permissible within
the confines of PSC 6:
• construction of facilities specifically intended for use as
residential housing;
* installation and/or storage of chemicals, waste chemical products,
or equipment with the potential for chemical leakage; and
* such activities or uses not specifically stated under "authorized
activities" listed above that will result in the development of the
site for residential purposes or pose a continuous, long-term
exposure to child residents located near the site.
Proposed Changes in Use. Any proposed changes in permissible uses at PSC 6 that
may result in the development of PSC 6 for residential use shall be evaluated by
a licensed engineering professional and MCLB, Albany Environmental Branch Office
to determine whether or not the proposed changes will present a significant risk
of harm to health, safety, public welfare, or the environment. Any such changes
in use of the site are subject to approval by USEPA Region IV and GEPD.
Deed Covenants and Conveyance of Title. Should the decision later be made to
transfer ownership of the property encompassing PSC 6 to any private person or
entity, then the Navy shall either (1) take all actions necessary to remediate
the site to then existing residential cleanup standards prior to effecting such
transfer, or (2) deed record with the Dougherty County Register of Deeds
appropriate restrictive covenants prohibiting future residential usage of the
property. Should the Navy not have the requisite legal authority to record such
deed restrictions, then it shall take all steps necessary to ensure that the
cognizant Federal agency with such authority does so unless the property is
remediated to residential standards prior to such transfer. Should cleanup of
the site not be effected to residential standards, then notification will be given
to USEPA Region IV and GEPD at least 30 days prior to any conveyance of title to
the site to any third party(ies) and the purchaser(s) of the site will be advised
via the deed documentation as to then existing site conditions and any/all
associated Land-Use Controls and long-term monitoring requirements.
Posting. This LUCIP will be referenced in all MCLB, Albany Utility Maps and in
MCLB, Albany's Master Plan. In conjunction with MCLB, Albany's Base Master Plan
and utility maps, this LUCIP is included in the Land-Use Control Assurance Plan
Agreement. No maintenance or construction activities are planned without
referring to these documents.
AL8-OU4.ROD
SAS.12,98 B-4
-------
REFERENCE
ABB Environmental Services. 1998. Medial Investigation and Baseline Risk
Assessment Report for Operable Unit 4, tfarine Corps logistics Base (MCLB),
Albany, Georgia. Prepared for Department of the Navy, Southern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, North Charleston, South Carolina
(February).
t
t
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS. 12.98
B-5
-------
I
f
-------
Harding Lawson Associates
February 18,1999 HLA-ES TO: 2520.02?
Mr. Robert Pope Ms. Madeleine Kellam
USEPA Region IV, 4WD-FFB Georgia Department of Natural Resources
61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Environmental Protection Division
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 205 Butler Street, S.E., Suite 1252
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
SUBJECT: Operable Unit 4 Final Record of Decision
Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia
Contract No.: N«4*7-8WMB17/086
Dear Mr. Pope and Ms. Kellam:
On behalf of MCLB, Albany and SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, Harding Lawson Associates has prepared
the referenced Final Record of Decision for Operable Unit 4, and enclosed two copies for your review. '
Please contact Dan Owens at (843) 820-7331 or me at (850) 942-7454, extension 246 if you have any
questions regarding this package.
Sincerely,
HARDING LAWSON ASSOCIATES
Joseph H. Daniel, P.O.
' Installation Manager
2 Enclosures
cf: D. Owens, Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
J. Sanders, Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Capt. A. Ference, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany
F. Lesesne, Harding Lawson Associates
E"'J rt?t •"_: arj
= '""*"'•* Ser-, ;ei . 259" Execj:-.* Cer!e-O'd
-------
t
-------
0 = 00)
- **1
_
±00
EE.-0
00
02 =
§ Zo.!2.£
Reproduced by NTIS
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
TA/5 r^oit was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 605-6050.
About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information—then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; multimedia/training products; computer software and
electronic databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and
technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide.
Approximately 100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS
collection annually.
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at 1-800-553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 and request the free
NTIS Products Catalog, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http://www.ntis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
information—U.S. and worldwide
-------
------- |