PB98-964019
EPA 541-R98-082
November 1998
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Marine Corps Logistics Base OU 5
Albany, GA
2/11/1998
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET, SW
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8909
I
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
4WD-FFB
Commanding General
Marine Corps Logistics Base-Albany
Albany, Georgia 31704-1128
SUBJ: Record of Decision
Operable Unit 5
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 No Further Response Action Planned decision for
Operable Unit 5. This remedy is supported by the previously completed Remedial Investigation,
Feasibility Study and Risk Assessment Report, as well as the Interim Remedial Action for the
grit disposal areas at PSC 8. The remedy of No Further Response Action Planned is protective
of human health and the environment.
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 NPL site.
/
Sincerely,
Richard D. Green
Acting Director
Waste Management Division
cc: Sid Allison, SOUTHD1V
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)
-------
Lt. Frantz, MCLB-Albany
Jerry Wallmeyer, REC (NASJAX)
Joel Sanders, SOUTHDIV
Harold F. Reheis, GAEPD
Madeleine Kellam, GAEPD
Kelley Dreyer, USMC
bcc: Scott Gordon, EAD
Allison Abernathy, FFRRO/OSWE
David Levenstein, FFEO/OECA
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 5
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
Unit Identification Code: M670O4
Contract No.: N62467-89-D-0317/079
Prepared by:
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
2590 Executive Center Circle, East
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Prepared for:
Department of tne Navy, Southern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
2155 Eagle Drive
North Charleston, South Carolina 29418
Joel Sanders, Code 1868, Remedial Project Manager
November 1997
-------
CERTIFICATION OF TECHNICAL
DATA CONFORMITY (MAY 1987)
The Contractor, ABB Environnental Services, Inc., hereby certifies that, to the
best of its knowledge and belief, Che technical data delivered herewith under
Contract No. N62467-89-D-0317/079 are complete and accurate and coaply with all
requirements of this contract.
DATE:
November 14. 1997
NAME AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL: Kathleen Kodak
Task Order Manager
NAME AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL: H. Kenneth Wilson
Project Technical Lead
(DFAR 252.227-7036)
-------
DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION
NO FURTHER RESPONSE ACTION PLANNED
SITE NAME AND ADDRESS
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Operable Unit 5
814 Radford Blvd
Albany, Georgia 31704-1128
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND BASIS
This Record of Decision (ROD) document presents the final response for Operable
Unit (OU) 5 at the Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB) in Albany, Georgia. 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 Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the
site's Administrative Record, which is on file at the Environmental Branch
Office, Facilities and Service Division, Building 5501, MCLB, Albany, Georgia
31704, and at the Information Repository in the Dougherty County Public Library,
Albany, Georgia. Based on the review of this OU 5 ROD and previous documents,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IV and State of Georgia
concur with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
OU 5 is located in the southwestern portion of the base and consists of two
potential sources of contamination (PSCs): PSC 8, the Grit Disposal Area and
PSC 14, the Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant (DWTP), which was constructed in
1952. In 1977, an industrial wastewater treatment plant (IWTP) was constructed
at MCLB, Albany to collect and treat wastes from various industrial shops located
on base. These wastes received primary treatment at the IWTP to remove hazardous
inorganic constituents. The IWTP effluent was then piped to the DWTP, mixed with
domestic waste, and treated again prior to discharge to the Flint River. Because
the DWTP received effluent from the IWTP, and the IWTP treated wastes from
electroplating and aluminum coating conversion processes ([F-006 and F-019
wastes] 40 Code of Federal Regulations 261.31), the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GEPD) determined that the sludge from the DWTP should also
be classified as a hazardous waste. In April 1990, DWTP operations were halted
and base wastewater was discharged to the city of Albany's publicly owned
treatment works.
Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command prepared closure
documents for the DWTP sludge drying beds in compliance with GEPD's Administra-
tive Order No. EPD-HW-616, dated November 15, 1990. The implementation of the
closure efforts, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, began in May
1991 with background soil sampling and ended in 1994 with excavation of sludge
drying bed material. The 10 sludge drying beds were issued a record of clean
closure on October 20, 1995.
A remedial investigation and baseline risk assessment (RI/BRA) was conducted at
OU 5 between 1994 and 1997. The field portion of the RI was conducted at OU 5
ALB-OUS.ROO
flSVV 1 1 97 .j.
-------
from March 1994 to November 1994. The RI at OU 5 indicated the presence of
Aroclor-1260 (a polychlorinated biphenyl [PCB]), polynuclear aromatic hydrocar-
bons (PAHs) and elevated concentrations of lead (up to 405 milligrams per
kilogram (mg/kgj) primarily in the grit disposal trench area. The subsurface
soil data indicated that no downward migration of these analytes had occurred at
OU 5.
Following the review of RI data and the preparation of a preliminary risk
evaluation, an ijyrerim response action was deemed necessary to reduce the
potential risks to human health and the environment posed by the PSC 8 surface
and subsurface ffoils. A focused feasibility study (FFS), which was completed in
April 1995, evaluated the following remedial alternatives: no action; capping;
excavation, followed by off-base incineration and disposal; and excavation,
followed by off-base stabilization and disposal in a Toxic Substance Control Act
(TSCA) facility. Based on the results of this FFS, a Proposed Plan was published
in April 1995 recommending the last alternative: excavation, followed by off-base
stabilization and disposal in a TSCA facility. An Interim ROD was signed and an
interim remedial action (IRA) design document was completed in June 1995.
Action (cleanup) levels were established for concentrations of PCBs, lead, and
PAHs in the soil. The action levels chosen for the PSC 8 IRA were (1) 1 mg/kg
for total PCBs, (2) 75 mg/kg for lead, and (3) 10 mg/kg for total PAHs. The IRA
was implemented during the months of January and February 1996. Approximately
79 cubic yards of contaminated grit and soil were excavated and transported to
Chemical Waste Management. Inc. (USEPA ID* ALD000622464), a TSCA-permitted
landfill in Emelle, Alabama, for stabilization and disposal. Confirmatory
samples were collected from the sidewalls and base of the excavated area to
ensure that the remaining soil and/or grit were below the cleanup levels. Once
the cleanup levels were satisfied, the trench area was restored by backfilling
with clean soil and reseeding the area.
Following the IRA, human health risk assessments (HHRAs) and ecological risk
assessments (ERAs) were performed using all USEPA Level IV data quality objective
data collected during the RI and IRA confirmatory data. The risk assessments
were performed on the following media: soil, surface water, sediment, and the
sludge drying-bed soil. Exposure pathways considered for the human health
portion of the BRA included ingestion, skin contact, and inhalation. Exposure
scenarios included a current land use of a base worker at OU 5 and a theoretical
future land use of residential development and associated utility construction
at OU 5. The potential risks resulting from human exposure to surface and
subsurface soil, sediment, and surface water were then calculated for each
exposure scenario. The ecological portion of the BRA assumed that animals would
be exposed directly to surface soil, sediment, and surface water, with additional
exposure from eating other animals and plants that may contain stored contami-
nants .
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 5
indicate that application of the acceptable risk range is appropriate. Site-
specific conditions at OU 5 supporting use of the risk range include the base
perimeter fence restricting public access to soils, surface water, and sediment;
the industrial site conditions; and the low probability of receptor contact with
ALB-OUS.ROO
ASW.11.97 _ji_
-------
contaminated soils. For noncancer risks, the similar point of departure is a
hazard index (HI) greater than 1.
The results of the HHRA indicate that potential current and future land use
cancer and noncancer risks at PSCs 8 and 14 are acceptable to USEPA Region IV.
Cancer risks for current and future land use at PSCs 8 and 14 are 8xlO"3 and
7xlO"6, respectively. These cancer risks do not exceed the USEPA acceptable
cancer risk range of 1x10"* to IxlCT6. Noncancer risks for future land use at
PSCs 8 and 14 are 0.1 and 0.7, respectively, and do not exceed an HI of 1. Based
on the results of the BRA, no further response actions'are planned for OU 5.
The ecological portion of the BRA (ERA) indicates that there is little risk of
adverse effects to receptor species at PSCs 8 and 14. Only chromium was
identified as potentially causing adverse effects to plants in the southwestern
potion of PSC 8. Aluminum, chromium, vanadium, and possibly zinc were identified
as potentially causing adverse effects to plants at PSC 14; however, it is likely
that only chromium in the sludge drying beds and the drainage ditches would cause
adverse effects to terrestrial plants. Maximum exposure concentrations of
several metals (including aluminum, cadmium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc)
contributed to a very low risk estimate for small, insectivorous birds. However,
exposures to these metals are not likely to result in adverse effects.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
OU 5 is the fourth of six OUs to be completed at MCLB, Albany. All four
completed RODs (OUs 1, 2, 3, and 5) address surface and subsurface soil, surface
water, and sediment. This final response declares that a No Further Response
Action Planned (NFRAP) decision be implemented at OU 5 for all soil, surface
water, and sediment. Therefore, this response requires no further remedial
treatment, containment, or land-use restrictions be implemented at PSCs 8 and 14.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The final response action proposed for OU 5 addresses the surface and subsurface
soils, surface water, and sediment. Specifically, the final response for PSCs 8
and 14 is NFRAP because no further remedial action is necessary to protect human
health and the environment. Because the remedy will not result in hazardous
substances remaining onsite above health-based levels, the 5-year review will not
apply to the action for PSCs 8 and 14.
Signature Gary S. McKissock Date
Major General
Commanding General, MCLB, Albany
ALB-OUS.ROO
ASW.1t 97 _jjj_
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 5
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Chapter . Title Page No .
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 1-1
1.1 PSC 8 1-1
1.2 PSC 14 1-1
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2-1
2.1 IAS 2-1
2.2 CONFIRMATION STUDY 2-1
2.3 RFI 2-2
2.4 SLUDGE DRYING-BED CLOSURE DOCUMENTS 2-2
2.5 RI/BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT (BRA) 2-3
2.5.1 Scope of RI 2-3
2.6 OU 5-RELATED DOCUMENTS 2-4
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3-1
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE FINAL RESPONSE AT OU 5 4-1
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5-1
5.1 GEOLOGY 5-1
5.2 HYDROGEOLOGY 5-1
5.3 ECOLOGY 5-1
5.4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINANTS 5-5
5.4.1 PSC 8, Grit Disposal Area 5-5
5.4.2 PSC 14, Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant 5-5
5.4.3 Contaminant Delineation at OU 5 5-5
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS AND INTERIM RESPONSE ACTIONS 6-1
6.1 COMPLETED IRAs AT PSC 8 6-1
6.2 OU 5 BRA 6-1
6.2.1 PSC 8 6-5
6.2.2 PSC 14 6-5
6.3 RATIONAL FOR NFRAP 6-9
7.0 EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 7-1
REFERENCES.
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Community Relations Responsiveness Summary
AL8-OU5 ROD
ASW 11.97 -jy.
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 5
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany. Georgia
Figure . • Title \ Page No.
1-1 Vicinity Map 1-2
1-2 Site Plan, Operable Unit 5 1-3
2-1 Operable Unit 5, Sample Location Map 2-5
5-1 Location Map for Geologic Section (Shown on Figure 5-2) 5-2
5-2 Geologic Section of the Albany Area 5-3
5-3 Potentiometric Surface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the Albany
Area. November 1985 5-4
ALB-OUS ROD
ASW.11.97 -V-
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 5
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Table ^ Title Page No.
-------
GLOSSARY
ABB-ES
ARARs
bis
BRA
CFR
CPC
DQO
DWTP
ERA
EPC
FFA
FFS
GEPD
HI
ABB'Environmental Services, Inc.
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
below land surface
baseline risk assessment
Code of Federal Regulations
chemical of potential concern
data quality objective
domestic wastewater treatment plant
ecological risk assessment
exposure point concentration
Federal Facility Agreement
focused feasibility study
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
hazard index
IAS Initial Assessment Study
IRA interim remedial action
MCLB Marine Corps Logistics Base
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
Mg/kg micrograms per kilogram
NA No Action
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
NFRAP no further response action planned
NPL National Priority List
OU operable unit
PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PSC potential source of contamination
* registered trademark
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFI Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investiga-
tion
RI remedial investigation
RI/FS remedial investigation and feasibility study
RI/BRA remedial investigation/baseline risk assessment
ROD Record of Decision
ALB-005 ROD
ASW. 11.97
-VII-
-------
GLOSSARY (Continued)
SOUTHNAV-
FACENGCOM
SVOC
SWMU
TSCA
Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
semivolatile organic compound
solid waste management unit
Toxic Substances Control Act'
US EPA
USMC
VOC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Marine Corps
volatile organic compound
ALB-OUS ROD
ASW.lt 97
-VIM-
-------
1.0 SITE NAME. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION
Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB), Albany is an active facility occupying 3,579
acres east-southeast of the city of Albany, Georgia. 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.
Operable Unit (OU) 5 is located in the southwestern portion of the base, adjacent
to the Marine Corps Canal. Figure 1-1 identifies the location of MCLB, Albany
and the approximate location of OU 5, comprising Potential Sources of Contamina-
tion (PSCs) 8 and 14.
1.1 PSC 8. PSC 8 (the Grit Disposal Area; Figure 1-2) is undeveloped and
measures approximately 350 feet by 120 feet. It is located southeast of the
former Domestic Waste Water Treatment Plant ([DWTP], PSC 14) and was used between
1962 and 1979 for the disposal of material collected in the DWTP grit chamber.
The grit material consisted of items such as sand, broken glass, nuts, bolts, and
other dense, nonbiodegradable material.
A 1994 remedial investigation (RI) identified an approximate 30-foot-long trench
and apparent spoil pile on the northern half of PSC 8. In January and February
1996, 79 cubic yards of contaminated material were excavated from the trench area
for off-base treatment and disposal as part of an Interim Remedial Action (IRA).
The trench was subsequently backfilled and regraded with clean soil and reseeded.
1.2 PSC 14. PSC 14 (Figure 1-2), the DWTP, was operated from 1952 to 1990, for
the treatment of sanitary and pretreated industrial wastes generated at MCLB,
Albany. PSC 14 includes a control building, a grit chamber (previously
mentioned), primary and secondary settling tanks, two 120-foot diameter trickling
filter tanks, an anaerobic digester, and 10 sludge drying beds. Wastewater was
moved to, through, and from the DWTP via underground piping. PSC 14 is a grassy,
open, 5-acre site surrounded by pecan groves, PSC 8, and pine forest with locally
thick brush.
A18-OUSROD
11 97 1-1
-------
> >
ro
Marine Corps
canal
(approximately)
N
i\
Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany
OPERABLE UNIT S
(PSC 8 AND 14)
GEORGIA
LEQJND
PSC = Polintlol lourc* ol contamination
5.000 10.000
H \MB\V11W-?0*C. -POP 06/76/9' 09 ?l J9. AutoCAD BI2
FIGURE 1-1
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: I INCH =10.000 fECI
Approikn*t« ic*l»
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 5
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------
-------
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
MCLB, Albany currently serves as a U.S. military logistics center controlling the
acquisition, storage, -naintenance, and distribution of combat and support
material for the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). In addition, the base is used for
military training and other tasks and functions as directed by the Commandant of
the USMC.
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.
Beginning in 1985, three investigations were performed to assess and characterize
PSCs identified at MCLB, Albany. These investigations included the 1985 Initial
Assessment Study (IAS), the 1987 Confirmation Study, and the 1989 Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facility investigation (RFI). As a result
of these investigations, MCLB, Albany was placed on the National Priority List
(NPL) for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites (December 1989).
2 .1 IAS. An IAS was conducted by Envirodyne Engineers, Inc., at MCLB, Albany
in 1985 to identify and assess PSCs posing a potential threat to human health or
the environment due to contamination from past hazardous material disposal
practices. Eight PSCs (including PSC 8) were identified at MCLB, Albany based
on historical data, aerial photographs, field inspections, and personal
interviews. All eight PSCs were evaluated to determine contaminant character-
istics, migration pathways, and potential receptors (Envirodyne Engineers, Inc.,
1985).
The primary pathways identified for migration of contaminants included erosion,
surface water runoff, and groundwater transport. The predominant topographic
slope at OU 5 is to the southwest, where surface water ultimately discharges to
the Flint River via the Marine Corps Canal (Figure 1-1). The predominant
direction of regional groundwater flow is west toward the Flint River, which is
located approximately 2.7 miles from the base. Potential receptors identified
include aquatic organisms in the receiving waters, predators and other animals
relying on these areas for food and water, and humans using the Flint River for
recreational purposes.
The IAS concluded that six of the eight PSCs (PSCs 1. 2, 3. 5, 6, and 7)
warranted further investigation under the Navy Assessment and Control of
Installation Pollutants program to assess long-term impacts. The primary
recommendation of the study was to conduct a Confirmation Study to confirm or
disprove the existence of the suspected contamination and to quantify the extent
of any existing problems. Specifically, this Confirmation Study determined (1)
whether or not a threat to human health or the environment existed, (2) the
extent of contamination, and (3) the potential for contaminant migration.
2.2 CONFIRMATION STUDY. The Confirmation Study was conducted by McClelland
Engineers at the MCLB, Albany facility in 1986 ac nine PSCs: the six PSCs
recommended for further evaluation by the IAS and three additional PSCs
ALB-OUS.ROD
Ł?y/ v ?7 2-1
-------
identified as potential threats to human health and the environment (PSCs 9. 10.
and 11) (McClelland Engineers). Based on che Confirmation Study results.
additional investigation was recommended for PSCs 1. 3. 6. 9. and 11. CU 5 was
not included in the Confirmation Study.
2.3 RFI. Subsequent to the 1987 Confirmation Study, nine PSCs (PSCs 1. 2. 3.
5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11) were identified as solid waste management units (SVMUs)
by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD) in the Part 5 RCRA
Permit for MCLB, Albany. Terms of chis permit required that an RFI be conducted
at each of the PSCs to determine the nature and extent of releases and the
potential pathways of contaminant migration to the environment. Applied
Engineering and Science, Inc., completed the RFI and submitted a final report in
1989. Of the nine PSCs studied in the RFI, only PSCs 7 and 9 did not require
further investigation.
2.4 SLUDGE DRYING-BED CLOSURE DOCUMENTS. ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-
ES), under contract with the Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM), prepared closure documents for the DWTP sludge
drying beds in compliance with Administrative Order No. EPD-HW-616 dated November
15, 1990, issued by the GEPD. The closure documents, which consist of a Closure
Plan, a Contingency Postclosure Plan, and a Groundwater Monitoring Program Plan,
were completed in July 1991 (ABB-ES, 1991). The plans were developed as part of
the efforts to permanently close the DWTP, which potentially accumulated
wastewater treatment sludges classified as F-006 and F-019 wastes listed under
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 261.31 (hazardous wastes from nonspecific
sources).
Efforts to permanently close the sludge drying beds at the DWTP at MCLB, Albany
were conducted in conformance with . Section 391-3-11-.11(10) of the rules
promulgated pursuant to the Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act, Section 12-8-
60, et seq. as amended, and RCRA, 40 CFR, Part 270, Subpart G, "Interim Status."
Implementation of the closure efforts, under RCRA, began in May 1991 with
background soil sampling, followed by monitoring well installation and
groundwater sampling at the DWTP.
Background Samples. As part of confirmation soil sampling, eight background soil
samples were collected by ABB-ES in the vicinity of the sludge drying beds during
1991 and 1992: four from an October 1991 event and four more from a September
1992 sampling event. These samples were analyzed for Solid Waste Method 846 (SW-
846) volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs).
and metals.
Confirmation Soil Samples. As part of the efforts to verify "clean" closure at
the DWTP sludge drying beds, three soil sampling events were performed from
October 1991 to September 1992. The October 1991 soil sampling efforts also
included sampling of the sludge drying-bed concrete structure, as described in
the DWTP Closure Plan (ABB-ES, 1991). The analytical results and discussion of
all confirmation soil sampling can be found in the Confirmation Soil Sampling
Report (ABB-ES, 1993). All sampling procedures and analyses were in conformance
with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Level III data quality
objectives (DQOs).
ALB-OUS.ROO
ASW.11.97 2-2
-------
Postremoval Soil Sampling. Subsequent to the confirmation soil sampling, the top
8 inches of the material in sludge drying beds 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 10 were removed
and disposed of at an RCRA-permitted facility. Verification soil samples were
collected from the surface of each bed for VOCs, SVOCs, and specific metals
analysis. Concentrations of the analytes were compared to concentrations in
background samples, and no statistically significant differences were found wich
respect to metals concentration (ABB-ES, 1994).
2.5 RI/BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT (BRA). In July 1991, the Department of the
Navy, representing MCLB, Albany, entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement
(FFA) with the GEPD and the USEPA, Region IV. The FFA established a procedural
framework and schedule for developing, implementing, and monitoring appropriate
response actions at the facility in accordance with the provisions of Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, RCRA, the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP) , Superfund guidance and poli-
cy, and the Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act.
The conclusions of the three previous investigations indicated a need for
additional data collection over the entire installation. Between 1987 and 1991,
the total number of PSCs to be investigated at MCLB, Albany increased to 24.
Available data on the 24 PSCs were sufficient to indicate the requirement for a
remedial response as described in the NPL to characterize the extent of
contamination, assess releases, and develop responses. As a result of more
recent investigations, two additional PSCs, 25 and 26, were identified, resulting
in a total of 26 PSCs. According to the FFA, 14 of the PSCs require an immediate
RI and feasibility study (RI/FS), 3 PSCs require RCRA investigations, while the
remaining 9 PSCs require site-screening activities. As a result, ABB-ES was
contracted under the Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action, Navy contract
to prepare and execute RI/FS workplans, site-screening workplans, and associated
planning documents for PSCs at MCLB, Albany.
Under the RI/FS process, groups of PSCs are defined as OUs due to their
proximity, similarity of waste, and similarity of investigative techniques or
potential response actions. OU 5, consisting of PSCs 8 and 14, was developed due
to the close proximity of the two PSCs, similarity of contamination, and its use
as a former municipal wastewater treatment facility by the installation. The
final draft RI/BRA report for OU 5 was released in June 1997. The results and
scope of the RIs at OU 5 are presented below.
2.5.1 Scope of RI The RI defined the nature and extent of contamination in
surface and subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment at OU 5. These
investigations were conducted in two phases. The first phase of investigation
included a geophysical survey, soil gas survey, Geoprobe* investigations, and an
in-line video camera inspection of the DWTP pipelines. The geophysical survey
was used to determine the vertical and horizontal extent of disposal trenches,
locate buried metallic objects, and identify areas of previously disturbed or
excavated soil. The soil gas survey was used to identify in situ organic vapors
of selected volatile compounds that may have settled into the subsurface soil.
The Geoprobe® was used to sample and analyze subsurface soil for contamination
from 3 to 22 feet below land surface (bis). The video camera inspection of the
DWTP pipelines was used to locate possible breaks that might have allowed
wastewater to leak into the surrounding soils.
AL8-OO5.ROO
ASW 11 97 2-.1
-------
The second phase of the RI consisted of surface soil sampling (zero to 12 inches
bis), soil borings and subsurface soil sampling (1 to 57 feet bis), grit material
sampling, and collection of one surface water and sediment sample. The objective
of these activities was to determine if contamination exists and co determine if
contaminants have migrated from their original location. Background sampling was
also conducted to provide site-specific data on naturally occurring elements in
MCLB, Albany soil and organic constituents commonly found along roadsides or in
developed areas. Analytical results from this RI are presented in Chapter 5.0
of this Record of Decision (ROD).
PSC 8 : Five surface soil samples (08S001 through 08S005) plus a duplicate sample
of 08S001 were collected at PSC 8 (Figure 2-1). Additionally, one surface soil
sample (08S006BK) was collected at PSC 8 for PSC-specific background data. Four
soil borings (08B001BK through 08B004), including one PSC-specific background
soil boring, were advanced at PSC 8 during the 1994 field confirmatory
investigation. Two subsurface soil samples were typically collected from each
boring. In addition, 15 subsurface soil samples (08B005 through 08B021) were
collected within the trench-and-spoil pile area at PSC 8 as part of the 1996 IRA
to confirm cleanup (Note: 08B018 and 08B019 were collected but not analyzed
during the IRA). The soil at three of these sampling locations (08B00904,
08B01401, and 08B01501) was excavated during the 1996 IRA. Soil borings were
completed from 30 to 57 feet bis, including the background soil boring, which was
completed to 40 feet bis. Two grit composite samples (08U01 and 08U02) and a
duplicate sample (08U01D) were collected within the shallow trench at PSC 8. The
grit samples were composited from zero to 4 feet bis. The media at both grit
disposal sample locations were eventually excavated during the IRA. No surface
water or sediment was present at PSC 8 during the RI.
PSC 14: Seventeen surface soil samples (14S001 through 14S0016) and one
duplicate sample (14S008D) were collected from the DUTP area. Additional surface
soil samples were collected from within two grass-lined drainage swales (14S01
and 14S02) adjacent to the DUTP sludge drying beds. All locations are indicated
on Figure 2-1. 14S014BK was collected as a background sample. Fourteen soil
borings (14B001 through 14B015), including one PSC-specific background soil
boring (14B012BK) . were advanced at PSC 14 at the locations indicated on Figure
2-1 (Note: No samples were collected from 14B006 due to difficulties during
drilling operations.). Two subsurface soil samples were typically collected from
each boring. Soil borings were completed to 48 feet bis except for the
background soil boring, which was completed to 40 feet bis. One surface water
sample (14U01), a duplicate sample (14W01D), and one sediment sample (14D01) were
collected from PSC 14 at the location indicated on Figure 2-1.
Laboratory tests were conducted on samples of surface soil, subsurface soil,
grit, surface water, and sediment from OU 5. Samples were analyzed in onsite
labs and in federally approved off-site labs. Samples, with few exceptions, were
analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
inorganic constituents.
2.6 OU 5-RELATED DOCUMENTS. The following reports are available for review by
the public at Dougherty County Public Library in Albany, Georgia, and at the
MCLB, Albany Environmental Branch office. These reports describe the detailed
methodology and results of investigations at OU 5.
ALB-OUS ROD
ASW 11.97 2-4
-------
s
: „ - .
"~ ";>i^J ,x ) J'' !-v%-«w'
\ •«" __TA -^ /,-' ' --•'
*v ^- - »s.- ,\ /. ' '
,-,M „ *v I
U5CMO
SAMPLE LOCftTXM I
ntcom of oecocn
oraum tut >
tuna com lOGisnct ns«
. ctoicu
-------
ABB-ES. 1991. Closure and Contingency Post-Closure Plan for the Sludge Drying
Beds at the Domestic Uastevater Treatment Plant, Marine Corps Logistic Base.
Albany, Georgia (July).
ABB-ES. 1993. Confirmation Soil Sampling Report for the Sludge Drying Beds ac che
DWTP, MCLB Albany, Georgia (March).
ABB-ES. 1993. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Xorkplan for
Operable Unit Five (OU 5), MCLB Albany, Georgia (November).
ABB-ES. 1993. Sampling and Analysis Plan for OU 5, MCLB Albany, Georgia
(November).
ABB-ES. 1994. Technical Memorandum. OU 5, MCLB Albany, Georgia (May).
ABB-ES. 1994. Preliminary Risk Evaluation, OU 5, MCLB Albany, Georgia (December).
ABB-ES. 1994. Verification Soil Sampling Report for the DWTP Sludge Drying Beds,
MCLB, Albany, Georgia (December).
ABB-ES. 1995. Focused Feasibility Study, PSC 8, OU 5, MCLB Albany, Georgia
(April).
ABB-ES. 1995. Proposed Plan for PSC 8 IRA, OU 5, MCLB Albany, Georgia (April).
ABB-ES. 1995. Record of Decision, Interim Remedial Action for PSC 8, OU 5, MCLB
Albany, Georgia (June).
ABB-ES. 1995. Interim Remedial Action Design for PSC 8, OU 5. MCLB Albany,
Georgia (June).
ABB-ES. 1997. Final Draft Remedial Investigation/Baseline Risk Assessment for
OU 5, MCLB Albany, Georgia (May).
ABB-ES. 1997. Proposed Plan for OU 5, MCLB Albany, Georgia (September).
Applied Engineering and Science, Inc. 1989. RCRA Facility Investigation, Phase
One, Confirmation Study, MCLB Albany, Georgia.
Crawford, V.I. 1979. Environmental Engineering Survey, Marine Corps Logistics
Base (MCLB), Albany, Georgia. Prepared for Southern Division, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM).
Envirodyne Engineers, Inc. 1985. Initial Assessment Study, Marine Corps Logistics
Base, Albany, Georgia.
McClelland Engineers. 1987. Final Report, Confirmation Study Verification Step,
Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southern Division (SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM).
1974. Multiple Use Natural Resources Management Plan for Marine Corps Supply
Center, Albany, Georgia.
SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM. 1993. Master Plan, MCLB, Albany, Albany, Georgia.
ALB-OU5 ROD
ASW.11.97 2-€
-------
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Proposed Plan for OU 5 recommends no further response action planned (NFRAP)
for all surface soil, subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment. This
document is available to the public in the Information Repository locatea at the
Dougherty County Public Library and in the Administrative Record located at the
Environmental Branch Office, Building 5501, MCLB, Albany, Georgia, 3170^-1128.
The public notice of the Proposed Plan was published in the Albany Herald on
October 7, 1997; the MCLB, Albany newspaper, The Emblem, in October of 1997; and
was announced on several local radio stations. The public comment period for the
Proposed Plan was October 6 to November 4, 1997. A public meeting was held on
October 16, 1997, at the Human Resources Building, Building 3010, MCLB, Albany.
At this meeting, representatives from SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM; MCLB, Albany; USEPA
Region IV; GEPD; and ABB-ES were available to discuss all aspects of OU 5 and the
response actions under consideration. A Community Relations Responsiveness
Summary, identifying all community participation at OU 5, is included as
Appendix A.
ALB-OU5 HOD
ASW.11.97 3-1
-------
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE FINAL RESPONSE AT OU 5
MCLB, Albany contains 26 PSCs, and of these, 14 required an RI/FS , 10 are in site
screening, and 2 are being addressed under RCRA. The 14 PSCs requiring an RI/FS
were divided up into 5 individual OUs to address surface and subsurface soil.
surface water and sediment. OU 6 addresses basewide groundwater at MCLB, Albany.
The list below identifies the PSCs within each OU and presents the regulatory
sjxtus of each:
OU 1 - composed of PSCs 1, 2, 3, and 26; completed ROD in August 1997.
OU 2 - composed of PSC 11; completed ROD in September 1996.
OU 3 - composed of PSCs 16 and 17; completed ROD in August 1997.
OU 4 - composed of PSCs 6, 10, 12, 13, and 22; currently in RI phase.
OU 5 - composed of PSCs 8 and 14; subject of this ROD.
OU 6 - basewide groundwater; currently in RI phase.
The selected response for OU 1 consisted of two remedies: PSCs 1 and 2 required
No Action (NA) , and PSCs 3 and 26 required institutional controls. Under the NA
response, no treatment, containment, or restricted access was required at PSCs
1 and 2 to protect human health and the environment. Land-use restrictions
(institutional controls) were implemented at PSCs 3 and 26.
The selected remedy for OU 2 was NA, and OU 3 had individual remedies for each
of the PSCs. PSC 16 required institutional controls, and PSC 17 required NFRAP.
The draft Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment report for OU 4 was
published in September 1995 (ABB-ES, 1995a). The final draft version is
scheduled for November 1997.
The final response for OU 5 is NFRAP for all soil, surface water, and sediment.
This response requires no further remedial treatment, containment, or land-use
restrictions be implemented at FSCs 8 and 14. All potential exposure risks to
soil, surface water, and sediment to human health and the environment were deemed
acceptable by the USEPA Region IV. The final OU 5 response was selected after
the public comment period ended on November 4, 1997. Groundwater beneath OU 5
will be addressed under a separate and ongoing basewide groundwater investiga-
tion, which has been designated at OU 6.
These response actions were concluded in accordance with the NCP and USEPA
regulatory guidance for Superfund sices. The groundwater at MCLB, Albany is the
principal, potential threat remaining at MCLB, Albany. OU 6 is being addressed
under an ongoing basewide investigation. A final workplan for additional data
acquisition is scheduled for January 1998.
ALB-OU5 ROD
ASW.11 97
-------
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This section summarizes the regional geology, hydrogeology, and ecology in che
vicinity of MCLB, Albany. The nature and extent of contaminants is also
presented for OU 5. A more detailed presentation of this information is
available in the RI/BRA report for OU 5 (ABB-ES, 1997).
5.1 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, che 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
chalky paste. 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 5-1 and 5-2 present a generalized geologic section of the Albany
area.
The undifferentiaced overburden was encountered at thicknesses varying between
30 feet and 48 feet at OU 5. The deepest boring at OU 5 was drilled to 57 feet
bis. Only the upper unit of the Ocala Limestone was encountered.
5.2 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 5-3).
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.
5.3 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.
ALB-OU5 ROD
ASW 1 1 97
-------
N
LEGEND
A' Line of geologic section
3.25 7.5
SCALE: I INCH - 7.5 MIlCS
Sourct: ABS [iwlionmtftlol Stnlctl. 199],
Irom Hickl OIK! ollwri. I9B7
\«IH\nu?\OH600[)»CJIP-PDP
16
-------
MO -
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Uwn*B*UMM
LEGEND
[/• /'] Upper Floridon oquifar
<•*> Wall idtnlificolion
Geophysical logs
C Coliper
Q Nalurol gommo
ft Resistivity
SCALE: t INCH - 5 MILES
Vrriic*! fecit grrttiy f»*oorr»tfd
from: Hicks and Others (1987)
FIGURE 5-2
GEOLOGIC SECTION OF THE ALBANY AREA
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 5
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------
SCALC: 1 INCH = ?.5 MILES
APPBOXMATELr
LEGEND
150 Poltnllomtlrlc lioplilh ihool ollltudt ol • Mch
wottr would hovt ilood In tightly coitd wtlls.
Doshid whtrt approiimolily locattd. Contour
inUnol It 10 Utl. Oalum is National Cwdttic
Vtilical Datum ol 1929.
^— Oirtction of groundwottr flow
n«oit Will location
\<1B\OU?\OI?IOOD*C, BPN-IW ie/26/9' IS )t I?. iuloCAO 012
FIGURE 5-3
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE OF THE
UPPER FLORIOAN AQUIFER IN THE
ALBANY AREA, NOVEMBER 1985
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 5
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------
The pine flatwoods habitat commonly found at MCLB, Albany supports diverse plant
and animal life, including invertebrates (e.g., insects and worms), reptiles, and
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 mississippiensis) , no>r" classified as
threatened, has been documented in wetland habitats at the base; this semi-
aquatic species is present throughout the southeast. 'Bachman's sparrow
(Aimophila aestivalis), a State 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 at MCLB, Albany.
5.4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINANTS. The nature, extent, and concentration
of hazardous substance contamination at OU 5 was studied during an RI conducted
between 1994 and 1997. Potentially hazardous substances detected at OU 5 and the
media affected are listed in tables below by PSC and media sampled and analyzed.
Concentrations of analytes detected by laboratory analyses are reported in
micrograms per kilogram (>*g/kg) or milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for soil
samples and micrograms per liter for water samples. For instance, a concentra-
tion of 8,600 mg/kg for iron means that 8,600 milligrams of iron are present in
each kilogram of soil. A kilogram is a unit measure of weighc 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.
5.4.1 PSC 8. Crit Disposal Area Sampling results for surface and subsurface
soil at PSC 8 are presented in Tables 5-1 and 5-2, respectively. As previously
mentioned, grit material at PSC 8 was removed during the IRA in 1996 and is,
therefore, not included in these data. No surface water or sediment was present
at PSC 8. No other sources or potential sources of contamination were identified
at PSC 8. Groundwater beneath OU 5 will be addressed as pare of the ongoing
investigation of OU 6.
5.4.2 PSC 14. Domestic Wastevater Treatment Plant Sampling results for surface
and subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment at PSC 14 are presented in
Tables 5-3 through 5-5, respectively. No other sources or potential sources of
contamination were identified at PSC 14.
5.4.3 Contaminant Delineation at OU 5 This subsection is a summary of
contaminants detected at OU 5. This analytical information is post-IRA and in
conformance with USEPA's Level IV DQOs.
VOCs. Carbon disulfide and total xylenes observed at OU 5 are apparently not
site related given that they were also detected in the background surface soil
samples at similar concentrations. Total xylenes were also detected in one
background subsurface soil sample. Chloroform was observed in one shallow
subsurface soil sample (14B00107) and four subsurface soil samples (14B00135,
ALBOU5ROD
flSW 11 97 5-5
-------
Table 5-1
Analytes Detected in PSC 8 Surface Soil (Post-IRA)
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 5
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany. Georgia
Analyte
Frequency
of Detection'
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Mean of Detected
Concentrations2
Background Screening
Concentration1
Volatie Organic Compound* 0/g/kg)
Carbon disultlde 1/4
Xylenes (total) 2/4
Pe«ticid>» and PCB» (//g/kg)
4.4>-DDE 2/4
4,41-DDT 1/4
Inorganic An«lvte« (mg/kg)
Aluminum 4/4
Arsenic 4/4
Barium 4/4
Beryllium 4/4
Cadmium 1/4
Calcium 4/4
Chromium 4/4
Cobalt 4/4
Copper 1/4
Iron 4/4
Lead 4/4
Magnesium 4/4
Manganese 4/4
Nickel 4/4
Potassium 3/4
Vanadium 4/4
Znc 3/4
'2.5
1 to 1
41.9 to 7.2
*2.9
5.800 to 8.120
1 to 1.3
28.8 to 71.2
0.09 to *0.16
1.5
'204.5 to 4.060
'4.95 to 52.9
1.1 to 4.6
9.9
•3,155 to 10.200
*8.4 to 20.6
*163 to 3,510
232 to 362
2.2 to 4.7
*291.4to4.030
11.2 to 22.9
14.8 to 58
2.5
1
4.6
2.9
6.769
1.1
48.4
0.14
1.5
1.592
20.9
2.5
9.9
6.159
13.8
1,338
300
3.5
1.954
16.8
38.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.718
5.8
74.4
0.52
1.4
570
28.2
6.8
5.8
15.748
23.6
212
1.346
8.0
330
43.8
10.4
1 Frequency of detection is the number of samples in which the analyte was detected divided by the total number of
samples analyzed. The samples analyzed include samples 08S0100. 08S0200, 08S0400. and 08S0500. 08S0100D is a
duplicate sample of 08S0100.
1 The mean of detected concentrations is the arithmetic mean concentration of all samples in which the analyte was
detected.
1 Twice the arithmetic average of inorganic analyte concentrations detected in a basewide background sample population.
* Value is the average of a sample and its duplicate.
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.
IRA « interim remedial action.
pg/kg » micrograms per kilogram.
NA - not available.
PCS = polychlorinated biphenyt.
DDT» dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.
DDE = dichlorodiphenytdichloroethene.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram. ^^
ALfi.OU5.ROO
ASW.11.97
5-6
-------
Table 5-2
Analytes Detected in PSC 8 Subsurface Soil (Post-IRA)
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 5
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Analyte
VolariU Oraanic Compound* (
Xylenes (total)
S«mivolati* Organic Compoui
Benzo(a)antrtracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Butylbeniylphthalate
Chrysene
Diethylphthalate
Rupranthene
lndeno(1,2.3-cd)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Pcaticid** and PCBa (j/a/ko)
Aroclor-1254
A/oclor-1260
Inorganic Analvtac (ma/ka)
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Frequency of
Detection'
pg/kg)
1/3
nd» (f/g/kg)
1/13
1/12
V3
1/13
1/3
2/13
1/12
1/13
3/13
1/13
2/13
3/3
3/3
2/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
1/3
3/3
14/14
3/3
3/3
2/3
1/3
Range of Detected
Concentrations
'3.25
*B9.5
*79
4105.5
«63
'107.5
53 to '175
*114
*84
42to*165
'34.5
*35to70
1.220 to 9,900
*5.2 to 14.8
0.22 to 0.23
85 to '1,274.5
'6.95 to 13.6
'2.775
*0.47
1.410 to 6.210
'1.85 to 30.9
'57.15 to 127
8.7 to 75-2
3.1 to 4.6
1
Mean of Detected
Concentrations2
3.3
89.5
79
106
63
108
114
114
84
84.7
34.5
52.5
5.000
10.3
0.23
465
10.7
2.8
0.47
3.393
13.5
101
33.7
3.9
1
Background Screening
Concentration3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
29,464
137
5.4
54,532
49.8
41.8
37.8
53.954
36.6
1.484
2,716
51.6
0.88
See notes at end of table.
ALB-OU5 ROD
ASW.11.97
5-7
-------
Analyte
Frequency of
Detection'
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Mean of Detected
Concentrations1
Background Screening
Concentration1
Vanadium 3/3 *20.75 to 48 35 141
Zinc 3/3 '1.95 to 3.4 2.9 121
Table 5-2 (Continued)
Analytes Detected in PSC 8 Subsurface Soil (Post-IRA)
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 5
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany. Georgia
1 Frequency of detection is the number of samples in which the analyte was detected divided by the total number of
samples analyzed. The samples analyzed include samples 08800205, 08800305, 08B00405, 08B00505, 08800604.
08B00704, 08B00804, 08B01005. 08B01101. 08801201, 08B01301. 08B01601. 08801701. 08802004, and 08B02101 (plus the
duplicates of 08B00205. 08B00505, and 08B02101).
1 The mean of detected concentrations is the arithmetic mean concentration of all samples in which the analyte was
detected.
1 Twice the arithmetic mean of inorganic analyte concentrations detected in a basewide background sample population.
* Value is the average of a sample and its duplicate.
Notes: PSC - potential source of contamination.
IRA * interim remedial action.
//g/kg = micrograms per kilogram.
NA = not available.
PCB - polychlorinated biphenyl.
mg/kg ° milligrams per kilogram.
ALB-OUS ROD
ASW 11 97
5-8
-------
Analytes Detected
Table 5-3
in PSC 14 Surface Soil and Sediment
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 5
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Analyte
Vofotito Organic Compounds
Carbon disulfide
Frequency of
Detection' <^
b/g/kg)
11/17
Xylenes (total) 11/17
SemivoUtfl* Ordanic Compound* (i/o/ka)
4-Chloroaniline
Benzo(a)antnracan«
Benio(a)pyrene
Benzo (b)f luoranthene
Benzo(g,h.i)perytene
Benzo(k)fluoranthen«
Cnrysene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Fluoranthene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Phenantfirene
Pyrene
PMticide* and PCB« Ora/kol
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4.4'-ODT
Aroclor-1260
alpha-Chlordana
gamma-Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endosulfan sulfate
Inorganic Analvtaa (ma/kal
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
1/17
2/17
2/17
3/17
3/17
2/17
3/17
1/17
3/17
3/17
2/17
3/17
1/17
14/17
5/17
3/17
3/17
3/17
1/17
2/17
18/18
15/18
18/18
17/18
6/18
18/18
18/18
Range of Detected
Concentrations
2 to 17
1 to 11
63
28 to 66
34 to 64 •
20 to 68
231048
41 to 51
25 to 68
350
29 to 150
19 to 46
25 to 86
29 to 110
11
1.6 to 76
6.1 to 28
33 to 64
3.6 to 6.2
3.3 to 5.3
9.4
19 to 25
1,100 to 15.400
*1. 4 to 3.2
12.3 to 65.3
0.04 to 0.56
0.72 to 5.2
'162 to 2.150
47.15to 123
Mean of Detected
Concentrations2
5.3
4.8
63
47
49
43.7
33
46
46.3
350
79
30.3
55.5
61.3
11
16
13.2
48.3
5.3
4.3
9.4
22
9,155
2.2
28.1
0.19
2.5
608
33.7
Background Screening
Concentration3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.718
5.8
74.4
0.52
1.4
570
28.2
See notes at end of table.
AlB-OUS.flOD
Af\- 11.97
5-9
-------
Table 5-3 (Continued)
Analytes Detected in PSC 14 Surface Soil and Sediment
Record of Decision
Operable Unit S
Marina Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
. Frequency of • Range of Detected
ay^e Detection' Concentrations
Inoruanic Analvtoa (ma/ka) (Com.)
Cobalt 17/18 0.42 to 6.5
Copper 7/18 7.6 to 37.8
Iron 18/18 1,780 to 23,100
Lead 18/18 *5.2 to 50.4
Magnesium 18/18 70.1 to 955
Manganese 18/18 10.7 to 325
Mercury 5/18 0.03 to 0.16
Nickel 13/18 2.4 to 8.3
Potassium 12/18 90.2 to 834
Selenium 2/18 0.54 to 0.58
Silver 5/18 1 to 7.6
Sodium 1/18 15.3
Thallium 5/18 0.35 to 0.4
Vanadium 18/18 3.1 to 65.7
Znc 12/18 2.7 to 141
Meartof Detected
Concentrations*
1.8
20
11.641
14.8
273
142
0.1
4.3
249
0.56
3.5
15.3
0.37
37.1
37.1
Background Screening
Concentration1
6.8
5.8
15,748
23.6
212
1,346
0.1
8.0
330
1.66
1.36
114.8
0.34
43.8
10.4
' Frequency of detection is the number of samples in which the analyte was detected divided by the total number of
samples analyzed. The samples analyzed include samples 14001. 14S00100 through 14S0013 (plus the duplicate
14S0080D), 14S001500. 14S001600. 14S01. and 14S02. The sample from 14S009 was not analyzed for volatile organic
compounds, semivolatjle organic compounds, or pesticides.
* The mean of detected concentrations is the arithmetic mean concentration of all samples in which the analyte was
detected.
1 Twice the arithmetic average of inorganic analyte concentrations detected in a basewide background population.
4 Value is the average of a sample and rts duplicate.
Notes: PSC » potential source of contamination.
A/g/kg > micrograms par kilogram.
MA - not available/not applicable.
PCB » polychlorinated biphenyt.
ODD » dichtorodiphenytdichloroathan*.
DDE « dichtorodiphenyldichloroethene.
DOT - dichlorodiphenyttrichloroethane.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram.
ALB-OUSROO
ASW.lt.97
5-10
-------
Table 5-4
Analytes Detected in PSC 14 Subsurface Soil
Record of Decision
Operable Unit S
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany. Georgia
Analyte
Volatia Organic Compound*
Acetone
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Frequency of
Detection'
(PS/kg)
2/13
1/13
2/13
Xylenes (total) 2/13
Semivoiatie Organic Compound* uva/ka)
bis(2-Ethylhexyt)phthalate
Pher.antrtrene
Peattcidca and PCBa lualka}
4,4'-DDE
Endosulfan sulfate
Inorganic Analvtea (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
4/13
1/13
1/13
2/13
13/13
5/13
13/13
13/13
6/13
9/13
13/13
10/13
4/13
13/13
13/13
11/13
13/13
11/13
4/13
3/13
1/13
Range of Detected
Concentrations
37 to 210
4
6 to 7
43to4
140 to 250
28
3
2.7 to 13
6,290 to 27,800
*2.05 to 6.9
5.4 to 29.1
0.1 2 to 0.93
0.79 to 3.3
167 to 8,650
11. 3 to 78.7
0.72 to 7.8
1.9 to 24.7
6.530 to 136,000
3.9 to 15.1
83.5 to 256
*1 1.75 to 118
2.3 to 24.1
101 to 242
40.49 to 0.68
26
Mean of Detected
Concentrations1
124
4
6.5
3.5
178
28
3
7.9
13,525
4
12
0.35
1.6
1,618
27
3
8.8
34.080
7.7
144
54.3
6.5
157
0.57
26
Background Screening
Concentration'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
29,464
2.4
137
5.4
9.8
54,532
49.8
41.8
37.8
53,954
36.6
1.484
2.716
51.6
1.396
0.88
195.4
See notes at end of table.
ALfl-OUS ROD
II 97
5-11
-------
Table 5-4 (Continued)
Analytes Detected in PSC 14 Subsurface Soil
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 5
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany. Georgia
Analyte
Frequency of -
Detection'
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Mean of Detected
Concentrations2
Background Screening
Concentration3
Vanadium 13/13 44.3 to 240 96.3 141
Znc 8/13 2.7 to 30.2 11.7 121
' Frequency of detection is the number of samples in which the analyte was detected divided by the total number of
samples analyzed. The samples analyzed include samples 14B001 to 14BOOS (plus duplicate of 14B005), 14S006 to 148011
{plus duplicate of 14B009), and 14B013 to 14B015.
1 The mean of detected concentrations is the arithmetic mean concentration of all samples in which the analyte was
detected.
* Twice the arithmetic mean of inorganic analyte concentrations detected in a basewide background sample population.
* Value is the average of a sample and its duplicate.
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.
pg/kg = micrograms per kilogram.
MA = not available/not applicable.
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.
DDE = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram.
ALB-OUS ROD
ASW. 11.97
5-12
-------
Table 5-5
Analytes Detected in PSC 14 Surface Water
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 5
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
. . Frequency of .
Anayte _M . ,
' Detection'
Praticide* and PCB« (ualti
EndosuKan sulfate 2/2
Inoroanic Analvte* (i/g//)
Aluminum 2/2
Barium 2/2
Calcium 2/2
Copper 2/2
Iron 2/2
Lead 1/2
Magnesium 2/2
Manganese 2/2
Potassium 2/2
Sodium 2/2
Znc 2/2
Range of Detected
Concentrations
*0.199
*424.5
415.7
*4.830
*3.55
•394
41.35
41,315
*26.8S
*3.355
*217
415.7
Mean of Detected
Concentrations3
0.19
425
15.7
4.830
3.6
394
1.4
1.315
26.9
3.355
217
15.7
Background Screening
Concentration'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 Frequency of detection is the number of samples In which the analyte was detected divided by the total number of
samples analyzed. The samples analyzed include sample 14WQ01 (plus the duplicate 14W001D).
2 The mean of detected concentrations is the arithmetic mean concentration of all samples in which the analyte was
detected. It does not include those samples in which the analyte was not detected.
1 Background data are unavailable for surface water.
4 Value is the average of a sample and its duplicate.
Notes: PSC - potential source of contamination.
PCB • porychiorinated bipheny).
pg/t = micrograms per liter.
NA » not available/not applicable.
ALB-OUS ROD
ASW 11 97
5-13
-------
14B00235, 14B00440, and 14B00540) in the vicinity of a chlorine dosing manhole
at the DWTP (Figure 2-1). Chloroform present in the deep subsurface soil samples
probably resulted from vertical migration beneath the chlorine dosing manhole and
horizontal migration via groundwater. Observations show that chloroform has been
delineated at OU 5 for all nongroundwater media except for deep subsurface soil.
specifically near the vicinity of the seasonal water table. Chloroform in
groundwater will be addressed under OU 6, an ongoing basewide groundwater OU.
Acetone and methylene chloride were also detected in subsurface soil samples
collected at PSC 14. These compounds are apparently not related to the site for
the following reasons: (1) they are randomly distributed in PSC 14 subsurface
soils, (2) there is no historical evidence of their release, and (3) they
commonly occur as artifacts in the sampling and analytical process.
SVOCs. After the IRA, soil samples with total polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
(PAH) concentrations below 1,000 jig/kg were observed to be present in the
vicinity of the former trench-and-spoil pile at PSC 8. The highest individual
PAH concentration, f luoranthene. was detected at 175 /*g/kg. At PSC 14, five
isolated soil sample locations (three surface soil and two subsurface soil) were
observed to contain total PAHs with individual concentrations up to 150 /ig/kg.
Only one PAH compound was observed in each of these PSC 14 subsurface soil
samples. One occurrence of 4-chloroaniline at 63 Mg/kg was detected in the
former sludge drying beds. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in seven
subsurface soil samples and one sediment sample at PSC 14.. Two of the subsurface
soil samples were collected outside of the PSC boundary; therefore, the
occurrences of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate are isolated and do not appear to be
site related.
Pesticides and PCBs. Except for the material removed during the IRA, all
pesticides identified in samples collected at OU 5 were observed to be present
in concentrations less than 80 jig/kg. Pesticides were also detected in the
background locations at concentrations up to 140 pg/kg. Pesticides are likely
due to historical widespread application in the pecan groves near the DWTP and
grit accumulation. After the IRA, PCBs with concentrations up to 70 pg/kg were
detected in samples collected in the vicinity of the former trench-and-spoil pile
at PSC 8. Aroclor-1260 was also observed at PSC 14 in two surface soil samples
and the sediment sample at a maximum concentration of 64 pg/kg. These PCBs are
apparently attributed to past sludge removal practices.
Inorganic Analvtes. Elevated concentrations of four inorganic analytes at PSC 8
(barium, lead, magnesium, and zinc) can be attributed to grit and periodic
cleaning of the DWTP trickling stones and appear to be confined to the PSC 8 area
in surface samples only. Elevated concentrations of five inorganic analytes
(calcium, iron, magnesium, vanadium, and zinc) at PSC 14 appear to be primarily
concentrated in surface soil in and around the sludge drying-beds apparently due
to sludge maintenance activities. Elevated concentrations of eight inorganic
constituents were also detected in the sediment sample (14D01). Of the eight,
six had concentrations greater than the upgradient surface soil samples (14S01
and 14S02) , indicating that sedimentation occurred in this area of intermittent
ponding from former sludge drying-bed maintenance activities.
ALB-OUS.ROO
ASW.11 97 5-14
-------
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS AND INTERIM RESPONSE ACTIONS
The OU 5 RI analytical data were evaluated to determine whether the individual
compounds were site related (i.e., resulting from historical waste disposal
practices) or consistent with base background data. Based on this evaluation,
a list of chemicals of potential concern (CPCs) was developed for each medium
investigated at OU 5. Tables 6-1 and 6-2 present the CPCs for each PSC and
medium. These CPCs were then evaluated within the BRA to determine the need for
a response action.
6.1 COMPLETED IRAs AT PSC 8. After a review of the OU 5 RI data, an IRA was
implemented to reduce potential human health and ecological exposure risks from
grit at PSC 8. To prepare for the IRA, a focused feasibility study (FFS) was
completed in April 1995. The FFS included identification of applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), identification of treatment
alternatives and comparison with the nine USEPA criteria (including compliance
with ARARs) . The treatment alternatives for the PSC 8 IRA included (1) no
action; (2) capping; (3) excavation, followed by incineration and disposal; and
(4) excavation, followed by off-base stabilization and disposal at a Toxic
Substance Control Act (TSCA) landfill.
The IRA Proposed Plan was published in the Albany Herald and the Atlanta
Constitution newspapers on April 25, 1995. The IRA Proposed Plan summarized the
FFS and recommended excavation, followed by off-base stabilization and disposal
at a TSCA landfill. A public comment period followed and a Public Meeting was
held in May 1995, at MCLB, Albany. The ARARs, identification and evaluation of
alternatives, and the selected remedy for the IRA are summarized in the IRA ROD
(ABB-ES, 1995b) . The IRA was performed in January and February 1996 and involved
excavation of 79 cubic yards of contaminated grit and soil from the PSC 8 trench
area followed by off-base treatment and disposal at a TSCA landfill.
6.2 OU 5 BRA. A BRA was prepared for post-IRA conditions at OU 5 in accordance
with the USEPA Risk Assessment Guidance (USEPA, 1988). This guidance reflects
a conservative approach to risk assessment to ensure that subsequent cleanup
decisions are protective of human health and the environment. The BRA estimates
or characterizes the potential present and future risks to human health and the
environment. Three factors were considered when evaluating the risks associated
with OU 5:
• 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
ingestion, skin contact, and inhalation. These pathways were then applied to a
current land-use scenario in which an older child trespasses on OU 5. A
ALB-OUS ROD
ASW.1197
-------
Table 6-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern at PSC 8
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 5
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany. Georgia
Human
Surfac
Carbon disurfide
Xylenes (total)
4,4'-DOE
4.4'-DDT
Cadmium
Health Ecological
« Soil Surface
X
X
X
X
X
Soil
Chromium X X
Copper
Zinc
X
X
Note: PSC = potential source of contamination.
DOE = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene.
DDT » dichlorodiphenyttrichloroethane.
DDD » dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane.
ALB-Ol/S.ROO
ASW. 11 97 5_2
-------
Table 6-2
Chemicals of Potential Concern at PSC 14
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 5
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Chemicals
Human Health
Surface Soil and
Sediment
Subsurface Soil
Ecological
Surface Soil and
Sediment
Surface Water
Carbon disulfide
Xylenes (total)
4-Chloroaniline
Benzo (a)anth racene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo (k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
bis(2-Ethylhexy<)phthalate
Fluoranthene
lndeno(1,2.3-cd)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
4.4--DDD
4.4--ODE
4,4'-ODT
Aroclor-1260
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endosulfan surfate
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
See notes at end of table.
ALB-OUS.HOO
ASW 11 97
6-3
-------
Table 6-2 (Continued)
Chemicals of Potential Concern at PSC 14
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 5
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Chemicals
Human Health
Surface Soil and
Sediment
Subsurface Soil
Ecological
Surface Soil and
Sediment
Surface Water
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Znc
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.
ODD = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane.
ODE = dichlorodiphenyldichloroettiene.
DDT = dichlorodiphenyttrichloroethane.
ALB-OUS.ROO
ASW.11.97
6-4
-------
theoretical future land use of OU 5 involving residential development and
associated utility construction was also considered.
The human health portion of the BRA evaluated both the potential cancer and
noncancer risks for each exposure scenario. According to the NCP for Superfund
sites, the acceptable cancer risk range is from 1 in 10,000 (IxlO"4) 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 5' indicate that application of the
acceptable risk range is appropriate. Site-specific conditions at OU 5
supporting use of the risk range include the base perimeter fence restricting
public access to soils, surface water, and sediment; the industrial site
conditions; and the low probability of receptor contact with contaminated soils.
For noncancer risks, the similar point of departure is a hazard index (HI)
greater than 1. If the total estimated noncancer risk exceeds one, then site-
specific conditions and effects from individual compounds are evaluated to
determine if a response is necessary.
The ecological portion of the BRA assumed that animals would be exposed directly
to surface soil, surface water, and sediment with additional exposure from eating
other animals and plants that may contain stored contaminants.
The OU 5 human health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment (ERA) were
performed on the following media: soil, surface water, sediment, and the sludge
drying-bed soil. Grit was excavated from PSC 8 prior to conducting the risk
assessment and, therefore, was not evaluated in the BRA.
6.2.1 PSC 8 Table 6-3 summarizes the potential cancer and noncancer risks for
each exposure scenario at PSC 8. The potential cancer and noncancer risks for
a base worker, under a current land-use exposure scenario, are 3xlO"8 and 0.02,
respectively. These risks are well below the USEPA points of departure (IxlO"6
and HI less than 1.0). Under a future residential scenario, both the cancer and
noncancer risks (8xlO~8 and 0.1) are also below the USEPA criteria.
Table 6-4 summarizes chemicals identified at PSCs 8 and 14 that are potential
ecological risk contributors. The PSC 8 ERA results show that adverse effects
to receptor species from exposure to maximum and average exposure point
concentrations (EPCs) in surface soil will be minimal. Only chromium was
identified as potentially causing adverse effects to plants in a surface soil
sample (08S005 at 52.9 mg/kg) on the southwestern portion of PSC 8; no analytes
were identified as causing adverse effects to wildlife species or to soil
invertebrates.
6.2.2 PSC 14 Table 6-5 summarizes the potential cancer and noncancer risks for
each exposure scenario at PSC 14. For current land-use assumptions, base worker
cancer risks for potential exposures to surface soils do not exceed the USEPA
acceptable cancer risk range of 1x10"' to IxlO"6, and noncancer risks are below
a level of concern, with His of less than 1. For potential future land use,
resident cancer risks for surface soil are also below a level of concern, with
cancer risks within the USEPA acceptable cancer risk range of 1x10'* to IxlO"6.
Noncancer risks for potential surface soil exposures do not exceed an HI of 1 for
either the child or adult resident. Cancer and noncancer risk estimates for the
excavation worker are below a level of concern.
AL8-OU5.ROO
ASW.1197 6-5
-------
Table 6-3
Human Health Risk Summary for PSC 8
Operable Unit 5
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 5
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Land Use
Noncancer HI
Cancer Risk
Currant Land U««
Surface Soil:
Base Worker
Future Land U««
Surface Soil:
Resident
0.02
0.1
3x10"
8x10
Notes: PSC » potential source of contamination.
HI = hazard index.
3x10-*= 0.00000003 or 3 in 100.000,000.
ALB-OU5 BOO
ASW. 11 97
6-6
-------
Analyte potentially contributes to adverse affects (or this group of receptors.
PSC " potential source of contamination.
-------
Table 6-5
Human Heatth Risk Summary for PSC 14
Operable Unit 5
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 5
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Land Use
Noncancer HI
Cancer Risk
Currant Land U««
Surface Soil:
Base Worker
Land U««
Surface Soil:
Resident
Subsurface Soil:
Excavation Worker
0.2
0.7
0.008
3x10"
7x10"*
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.
HI = hazard index.
3 x 10"* = 0.000003 or 3 in 1 million.
ALB-OCIS ROD
ASW 11 97
6-8
-------
The PSC 14 ERA results show chat adverse effects to receptor species from
exposure to maximum and average EPCs in surface soil and/or sediment and surface
water will be minimal. Aluminum, chromium, vanadium, and zinc were identified
as potentially causing adverse effects to plants; however, given the history of
the site, it is likely that only chromium in the sludge drying beds and the
downgradient drainage ditches may cause adverse effects to terrestrial plants.
Maximum exposure concentrations of several metals (including aluminum, cadmium,
thallium, vanadium, and zinc) contributed to a very low risk estimate for small,
insectivorous birds; treated individually,' s«all bird exposures to any one of
these metals would not result in adverse effects. Furthermore, cumulative
average exposures to these metals are not Ifkely to result in adverse effects for
small, insectivorous birds. No analytes were identified as causing substantial
adverse effects to soil invertebrates.
The RI/BRA report (ABB-ES, 1997) details the OU 5 RA results. The PSC 8 Remedial
Action Report (ABB-ES, 1996) details the IRA. Both documents are available at
the MCLB, Albany Environmental Office and Dougherty County Library.
6.3 RATIONAL FOR NFRAP. Based on the results of the BRA, an NFRAP decision is
proposed for all soils, surface water, and sediment at PSCs 8 and 14. This
alternative specifies no further treatment, containment, or land-use restrictions
for these PSCs. Remedial alternative identification and screening was not
conducted for PSCs 8 and 14 as the soil, surface water, and sediment at these
sites do not pose an unacceptable threat to human health or the environment.
The proposed NFRAP response action for surface and subsurface soil, surface
water, and sediment at OU 5 is based on two factors:
removal of contaminated grit in the trench at PSC 8 in 1996. and the
sludge removal followed by RCRA closure of the sludge drying beds at
PSC 14 in 1994; and
current and potential future risks (as identified in the BRA) do not
exceed the USEPA acceptable risk criteria and, therefore, are
protective of human health and the environment.
Further, the exposure scenarios considered in the BRA were based on conservative
USEPA guidance. For example, the BRA disregarded current base access restric-
tions (which deter human exposure) while considering future residential use of
a former DWTP.
The NFRAP alternative does not require any additional remedial construction
activities or access restrictions at OU 5. This response action may be
reevaluated in the future if conditions at OU 5 change and unacceptable risks
result.
ALB-OUS ROD
ASW 11 97 Q.Q
-------
7.0 EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
As lead agency. SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM prepared and issued the Proposed Plan for OU 5
on September 5, 1997. This Proposed Plan described the rationale for a final
response of NFRAP for all surface soil, subsurface soil, surface water, and
sediment at OU 5. The GEPD, USEPA Region IV, and public concur 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^fat OU 5
indicate that an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment would
result from exposure to the various media.
ALB-OU5.ROD
flSW.11 97 7-1
-------
REFERENCES
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES). 1991. Closure and Contingency Pose-
Closure Plan for the Sludge Drying Beds at the Domestic Wastevater Treatment
Plant, Marine Corps Logistic Base, Albany, Georgia. Prepared for Department
of the Navy, Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(SOUTHNAVFACENGCOH), North Charleston, South Carolina (July).
^~
.x,
ABB-ES. 1993. Confirmation Soil Sampling Report for the Sludge Drying Beds at
the DWTP, HCLB Albany, Georgia. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North
Charleston, South Carolina (March).
ABB-ES. 1994. Verification Soil Sampling Report for the DWTP Sludge Drying Beds,
MCLB, Albany, Georgia. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM. North Charleston,
South Carolina (December).
ABB-ES. 1995a. Draft Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment, Operable
Unit 4, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia. Prepared for
SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston, South Carolina (September).
ABB-ES. 1995b. Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision, Operable Unit 5,
Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENG-
COM, North Charleston, South Carolina.
ABB-ES. 1996. Remedial Action Post-Construction Report for Potential Source of
Contamination 8, Operable Unit 5, MCLB, Albany, Georgia. Prepared for
SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston. South Carolina (June).
ABB-ES. 1997. Final Draft Remedial Investigation and Baseline Risk Assessment
Report for Operable Unit 5, Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB), Albany,
Georgia. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston. South Carolina
(June).
Environdyne Engineers, Inc. 1985. Initial Assessment Study, Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North
Charleston, South Carolina.
McClelland Engineers. 1987. Final Report, Confirmation Study Verification Step,
Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENG-
COM, North Charleston, South Carolina.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1988. Guidance for Conducting
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (October).
ALB-OUS flOO
Asw.n.97 Ref-1
-------
APPENDIX A
COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
1.0 OVERVIEW
Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM) held
a public meeting on October 16, 1997, at Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB),
Albany to discuss the Proposed Plan for No Further Response Action Planned at
Operable Unit (OU) 5 and solicit comments and questions from the public. Three
citizens attended this public meeting and expressed an interest in the process
and an appreciation for the work performed by SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM and MCLB, Albany.
No written comments or questions were received during the 30-day public comment
period.
2.0 BACKGROUND OF 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 onbase 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
efforts to rectify 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 Che local academic community. These TRC
community members were contacted in July 1996 to determine their continued
interest 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 for the TRC.
Since this solicitation, the TRC has grown from 10 to 17 members. In addition,
the MCLB, Albany Environmental Branch has held two meetings with the TRC
(December 3, 1996 and April 8, 1997) 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 program fact sheets have been prepared and made available at the
Environmental Office of MCLB, Albany. Documents concerning OU 5 are located in
the Information Repository at Dougherty County Public Library and the Administra-
tive Record at the Base Environmental Branch office.
3.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND AGENCY RESPONSE
3.1 PUBLIC MEETING
Twenty-three verbal questions were received during the public meeting held on
October 16, 1997. Five questions pertained to the OU 5 remedial investigation
and former domestic wastewater treatment plant (DWTP) operations; 1 question
pertained to future DWTP operations; 15 questions pertained to the ongoing OU 6
basewide groundwater investigation; and 2 questions pertained to basewide storm-
water management. Upon review of these comments, it was determined that no
significant changes to the OU 5 No Further Response Action Planned remedy, as it
ALB-OU5 ROD
ASW.11 97 A-1
-------
was originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary. Transcripts of
the public meeting are provided in Attachment A-l of this Responsiveness Summary.
3.2 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
The 30-day public comment period was held for the OU 5 Proposed Plan from
October 6 to November 4, 1997, at MCLB, Albany. No additional technical comments
or questions w»re received during the public comment period.
ALB-OUS ROD
ASW.11.97
-------
ATTACHMENT A-1
TRANSCRIPTS OF THE OCTOBER 16, 1997,
PUBUC HEARING ON OPERABLE UNIT 5,
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------
/.'fi'
• - -
PUBLIC HEARING ON OPERABLE UNIT 5
HELD AT MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, ALBANY, GEORGIA
ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1997 AT 7 P.M.
Lt. Frantz: We have two visitors here tonight — we have Lincoln and John. And
welcome. I'd like to welcome you to our public meeting where we're going to talk about
Operable Unit 5 and our proposed plans for closing out those two sites that are included in
Operable Unit 5.
I'd like to also welcome you on behalf of the Commanding General, Major General
Gary S. McKissock. He recently-we were in the news with him signing some records of
decisions for other sites. He really does support our program wonderfully. Before we go too
much further, I would like to make a few introductions. At the back of the room, we have
Mr. Robert Pope from United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, and Ms.
Madeleine Kellam from Georgia Environmental Protection Division. We also have Mr. Jerry
Palmer, he's my boss; he kind of oversees all the environmental activities on the base,
including the installation restoration program. Behind you there is Mr. Joel Sanders from
Southern Division. He takes care of a lot of the contract actions that we have with our
contractor, ABB Environmental Services. And from ABB we have Mr. Joe Daniel and Ms.
Kathy Hodak. We hire them because they have experts in geology, chemistry, and
toxicology. You name it, they've got it.
The objectives of tonight's meeting are to review Operable Unit 5 background and
site history and some of the current actions that have recently happened, present our
proposed response actions which after reading the posters, you can see both response actions
for both PSC 8 and 14, are no further remedial action planned — response action planned and
also to get some community input on our proposed plan to see that the community at large
will agree with what we plan to do.
The location of Operable Unit 5, which consists of two sites: Potential Source of
Contamination 8, which is a grit disposal area and Potential Source of Contamination 14,
which is our no-longer-in-operation domestic wastewater treatment plant.
PSC 8, the grit disposal area, was used from 1962 to 1979 for disposal of grit
chamber waste; it is a chamber that tends to catch some of the non-biodegradable waste that
comes into the domestic wastewater treatment. And PSC 8 was an area just across a road and
what they did was take grit out of the chamber and put it into that pile.
Okay, at PSC 8, during the remedial investigation, risk assessment phase, what we
found at PSC 8 were polychlorinated biphenyls and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. The PAH's
are typically associated with petroleum products and we also found chromium, which is a
heavy metal, in the soil. These are the contaminants that drove the cleanup—or required the
cleanup.
What we investigated at this site were surface soil, subsurface soil, sediment and
surface water. At this particular site, there was no surface water or sediment on the site, so
-------
we didn't have to investigate those, but we did do the surface soil and subsurface soil. We
did end up performing a cleanup action at PSC 8. We excavated and disposed of off-site the
contaminated soil at a land fill specifically approved for receiving hazardous waste. We
received approximately ~ or we excavated 79 cubic yards. If anybody has any questions or
needs any additional information at any time, just stop me.
Next we have PSC 14, which was our domestic wastewater treatment plant. From
about 1952 to 1988, this plant processed sanitary waste coming from the base. In
approximately 1977, pretreated industrial wastewater was also sent through the domestic
wastewater treatment plant, which is why the plant was included in the remedial investigation
phase. We also had sludge drying beds that were the end process for the domestic wastewater
treatment plant; and because this plant treated industrial waste, the sludge that was the end
product became a listed Resource Conservation Recovery Act waste and we were required to
remove the residual sludge that was left in the pits after we closed down the system.
The investigation consisted of surface and subsurface, including video inspections of
the piping that ran to the system, in which we did see some deteriorated piping. We found
some PAH's in the soil and the sludge drying bed material. Chloroform was found on site,
which was likely related to chlorine use in the chlorine dosing tank. And we did find some
metals in surface soil in one of the seven samples. Pesticides were found on the site, but they
were not in amounts higher than you would see on any other agricultural site. There was a
pecan grove right next to the domestic wastewater treatment plant.
The cleanup action, as I discussed before, PSC 14 included removal of sludge from
the drying beds and we did receive a clean closure certification ~ or they approved our
closure as we did it, including all the post removal confirmation sampling, etc.
Okay, what exactly—after all these cleanup actions and investigations and looking at
the risk assessment and evaluating the risks at these sites, what is the next step? We are
proposing for PSC 8 no further response action and that is because we removed the
contaminated grit and addressed the human health and environmental concerns and the risk
assessment found that current and potential future risks are within USEPA standards that are
meant to protect human health and environment.
Similarly at Potential Source of Contamination 14, we now propose no further
response actions planned, because closure of the sludge drying beds and removal of the
sludge in those beds addressed the human health and environmental concerns. And again, the
risk assessment found that the current and potential future risks were within USEPA
standards.
Some of the things to finally consider, we have certainly taken steps to protect human
health and the environment from unacceptable risks. This proposed plan addresses soil, both
surface and subsurface, surface water, and sediment only. And we say only, groundwater is
being handled under a separate operable unit, which is called Operable Unit 6, Base Wide
Groundwater. The existing and potential risks that are found at that site at this time are
within the USEPA guidelines that protect human health; and I stated, a Base-wide study of
-------
groundwater is underway. So the decisions we are making today are only for surface soil.
subsurface soil, sediment, and surface water.
Q. What would the full range be in addition to soil, surface—
Surface water? Groundwater is the only other media and you can have air. Air is a
medja, but it is not a media of concern here at this base.
s.
Okay, the reason you are all here is because we believe that community involvement
is important. You can provide any comments, concerns, questions, anything you may have at
tonight's meeting. You can send them in in regular mail. We have comment sheets in the
back if you want to go home and think about it or you just don't feel comfortable saying it
here. You can take these home, think about it, write it down and send it in. We do respond
to every comment. You may send comments in on electronic mail, this is my E-mail address
here at the base, or you may call our office and talk to myself, Mr. Palmer. You may call
the state or federal regulators, I have information for them. Their telephone information is in
the environmental update which you all have a copy of.
The actual proposed plan which we also have copies of in the back and other site
documents, including the remedial investigation, the risk assessment, the closure
documentation for the sledge drying beds, and the removal after action reports are all
available at the public library or in my office here on base. If you'd like to get more in
depth, these documents are quite thick, but if you want more information or to get into the
nitty gritty, you are welcome to take a look at those.
That is all I have as far as a formal presentation. Our team, which includes the
federal regulators, the Navy and the Marine Corps, and ABB, who is our contractor and
consultant on this — we're all dedicated to protecting human health and the environment.
That is the Marine Corps job, to protect the US, and we certainly don't want to poison the
US from within. So we are here to try and fix some of those past mistakes. That's all I have.
If there are any other questions or concerns or if you haven't had a chance to look at
the posters, you are welcome to come up and do that. We will be here until the last person
leaves to discuss and answer questions.
Q. Are there any plans to reopen PSC 14?
No. In fact, the plans are to demolish that so the Marine Corps can save some money
on maintenance. We still have to maintain our buildings if they are there, so we are going to
go ahead and tear it down.
Q. When will the groundwater testing start?
The groundwater testing is underway. The US Geological Survey is scheduled to
complete their report mid-November. We have—we being the Navy and ABB have completed
a preliminary review of our site of that same investigation. Right now we are in the phase
-------
where we are trying to figure out what kind of information we have, what kind of questions
can be answered with that, and what kind of data we need to make the final decisions. So we
are rolling up all the data that we've got so far, finding out where we're at, and then we'll
go from there to find out what other information we need to make decisions that are
protective of human health and the environment.
Q. So we can expect a meeting, then, right before Thanksgiving?
s.
No. When I-say when we are in that stage, we have not completed—we have not
started the remedial investigation and risk assessment portion of that, which generally cakes
about the longest. So right now we are gearing up to get into the main investigation, you
might say.
Q. Do you expect by March of next year, perhaps?
Lt. Frantz: What is our schedule, Joe?
J. Daniel: We expect to be meeting with the regulators in December to discuss the
information we've presented so far, pertaining to groundwater, address data gaps there. And
then from there we will develop a work plan for the next stage of the remedial investigation
of groundwater and hope to get in the field in January or February to proceed with that. We
have several months of field work; be sampling water wells, installing new wells, hope to
conclude that by May of next year and then we'll get into the report findings.
Q. So are you going to monitor some of the residents wells along this road here?
J. Daniel: Currently, we are just working on base, if there is any contamination
here.
Lt. Frantz: And, Joe, that's right near PSC 3, the Branch Road, we do have wells
that we sample off base. That's part of the Base-wide groundwater investigation. And in fact
we have a quarterly sampling event and every six months we write a report to the state and
federal environmental protection agency.
Q. Essentially, does the groundwater move in this direction toward the river,
diagonally from this area?
J. Daniel: The hydro-geologic framework here is very complicated and it is hard
to say that in one area it all flows in one direction, depending on where you are in the
subsurface, it can flow a lot of different directions. In general though, the regional flow is
toward the Flint River, westwardly.
Q. Is there any recharge sites in this plane here?
J. Daniel: Yes, the Dougherty plane, the whole plane is considered a recharge
area for the Floridan aquifer.
-------
Q. Is the canal, which I think is Dry Creek? Does Dry Creek—
Lt. Frantz: Marine Canal? The Marine Canal is the one that takes all of our storm
water runoff to the Flint River-directly to the Flint River.
Q. The Dry Creek -- Piney Woods Creek, does that flow through?
Lt. Frantz: The upper northwest. <-
J. Daniel: You can see on the map up there, the blue line that snakes across the
Northwest corner - it flows north up to the reservoir, which is a different pan of the Flint
River.
Q. You all have a test well somewhere right in there, don't you?
Lt. Frantz: Yeah, right next to it. And that well, these wells that you see here were
purposely put in these areas because we are almost positive they're clean. What they are is
US Geological Survey, we put these in for them so they could do their investigation. So the
reason those were put where they are at is because we suspect that to be completely clean.
Q. When you all test these wells, what kind of chemicals are you looking for?
Lt. Frantz: 173 chemicals?
J. Daniel: Yeah, there are 170 odd different analytes that we test for.
Lt. Frantz: Including volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic
compounds, pesticides and PCB's and inorganic analytes, such as metals.
Q. So all of these would be just to get a base-line of what's there?
Lt. Frantz: That and the USGS wants to get a handle on how the hydro-geology
and the system—the hydro-geologic system beneath this base works. They took quite a few
samples at different depths to find out what the hydraulic conductivities were, both vertical
and horizontal. They want to try and get a feel for how the groundwater works under the
base. And we'll need—the information they are trying to gather—in a situation like this, it is
important to understand where your contaminants are now, where they're going, and how
fast they're getting there so that you can do something to protect human health and the
environment in the event it goes off-Base.
M. Kellam: You might point out that the USGS wells are to understand the flood
system, but there are a lot of other monitoring wells. Somebody from ABB could probably
give you the number of monitoring wells that are also on the base.
Lt. Frantz: 277. And for the most part, every one of those wells have been
sampled more than once — at least once, but many of them more than once. We have an
-------
entire network of wells across the base to track what is in those. And we have wells in the
residuum or shallow wells, we have wells in the upper section of the upper Floridan aquifer.
and that's a little different hydro-geologic structure than the lower water bearing zone of the
same aquifer. So we have wells in all three of those zones. We have wells of all kinds, of all
shapes, of all depths.
Q. Have you all noticed that you all have subsurface and fresh water tables in this
area? " +
J. Daniel: There are some zones where we get perched water.
Lt. Frantz: For the most part, the residuum is composed mostly of clay.
J. Daniel: Generally the wells that are installed in the upper layer, that's sandy
clay at the surface and then at depths of about 45 feet or so it's a very highly plastic clay. So
that has —we've seen water perched there at times.
Lt. Frantz: In general during the dry season, like it is now, we won't find any
water in any of the residuum wells, in any of the top-most layer wells. But during rainy
season, we do find some water in those.
Q. Tell me about the video inspection for PSC 14, what was that about?
Lt. Frantz: They ran a little video camera, they pulled it through a pipe and this
video camera took pictures of the inside of the pipe so that we could determine where, there
was a break or a crack or a leak and in fact they used that data to help guide their sampling,
did you not?
J. Daniel: Yes.
Lt. Frantz: Anywhere we found a crack in the pipe or a hole in the pipe or any
irregularity in the pipe where it looked like it might leak water out, ABB took samples from
that area to find out if we had any leaks that caused contamination.
Q. And pretreatment of the industrial waste, what is that?
Lt. Frantz: We have the central wastewater treatment plant receives industrial
waste from the maintenance center, the Defense Maintenance Agency — they change their
name every once and a while.
J. Palmer: The Maintenance Center-Multi-Commodity Maintenance Center; they
rebuild tanks and trucks and so on.
Lt. Frantz: From that industrial activity, they receive industrial waste, which
includes waste from chrome plating activities, from aluminum—they call it aluminum
conversion activities —
-------
J. Palmer: Blast grit, solvents from painting, grease, oil, acids from batteries.
Lt. Frantz: The industrial wastewater that they receive is pretty nasty. It has a
treatment system composed of-—
J. Palmer: We just changed over to ferrous sulfate treatment process that really
cleans up-we changed over about 3 months ago and the affluent testing is much better, to the
nine of about 300% better.
Lt. Frantz: What this treatment plant does, it raises and lowers the Ph of the water.
when they raise the Ph, it starts the metal coagulating and settling down and that stuff is
pulled out and they raise it back up again. I'm not a wastewater treatment plant specialist,
but they use chemicals to draw out the metals and other things in there. There is an aeration
basin. Floe tanks-flocculation tanks, and then it goes into—the sludge goes into above ground
sludge drying beds that are not in any way hooked to the soil and once the sludge is dried up
then it's put in containers and shipped off to a waste facility that accepts that. It is a RCRA
waste, a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act waste. So we have to pay to get rid of it
and it is put in special landfills specially designed to accept these kind of wastes. And then
the wastewater-the pretreated wastewater goes into the City of Albany publicly owned
treatment plant; Albany's Wastewater Treatment Plant. But before it goes there it is routinely
tested by the City. We actually have to pay the city to test our water so that they make sure
our water does not contain levels of contamination that their wastewater treatment plant can't
handle. And so that we don't end up with a similar situation out in town.
Lt. Frantz: We certainly expect a lot more interest when we have the public
meeting about ground water. These sites that we're taking care of now, when you can dig
something out of the ground and clean up the site that way, that's easy. We're gearing up for
the hard stuff.
Q. Has anyone from the public—there are two subdivisions; there is one here, on
the west side of the base, on the south side, there are about maybe 15 or 20 homes there.
Lt. Frantz; Yes, as a matter of fact, a gentleman by the name of Robert Freeman --
you guys know him, too — he asked us, he said, "You know, I live right next to an NPL site
and I feel that you ought to test my groundwater" because he has his own well and he also--
his well supplies several other families that rent on his property. So he asked us to sample
his water and we did so.
Q. So in other words if someone concerned owns a well along this area, can we
refer them to you?
Lt. Frantz: If they do have a concern specifically about our base, yes. I think ~
especially, Mr. Freeman lives in about the middle of all this. And we have also tested this
well, in the corner of the base, and between Mr. Freeman's house, which is right over here,
and this well, their drinking water is actually in very good condition. The only thing we
-------
found in Mr. Freeman's water were nitrates and they were well below—I mean, we found
nitrates but they were below MCL's.
Q. And then there is a church on down beyond Gaissett Road, do you see the
church there? There are about 5 or 6 homes there. They have called us concerned about the
landfill.
Lt. Frantz: Okay, the landfill that is down here?
Q. Correct. And they have expressed some concerns for having the water tested
for a variety of chemicals.
Lt. Frantz: Right. One of the things that we can certainly say about this area, we
don't have any potential sources of contamination anywhere near this area; and the ones that
we do know about have some groundwater contamination are located here, here, and here.
So what we would probably tell them—I can't—I guess I couldn't answer that. It would have
to be on a siruational basis. But since Mr. Freeman and those families are right near the
DMA, which is that-one of our biggest sites, and it does have a groundwater plume, we felt
it prudent and the neighborly thing to do to test that water. We have to be careful because
testing groundwater does cost quite a bit of money to test for all the analytes under the safe
drinking water act is very expensive.
Q. There is a proposal to drill a well at the east end of the base proper there,
about 300 yards from Piney Wood Creek there, the land you all sold from the base here. A
man already has a permit to drill a well there. What would you advise?
Lt. Frantz: Once again, that is, that is pretty much a virgin area as far as the base
is concerned. We have already tracked our known groundwater plumes, and they don't even
go this way; they go more this way and up into here and back in here. So they are not—
relatively, they are not even going towards any of those people's land that you are talking
about.
Q. You might want to use it for a testing well, too.
Lt. Frantz: I don't know. Would we want to use something like that for a
background type well.
J. Daniel: Where is the well you are talking about?
Spectator: It is not there yet. It is going to be—
Lt. Frantz: Like I've said, we've got a network ot wells all across the base.
?.
[The spectator indicated on the map where the proposed well was-to be located. There
was discussion about a subdivision on land previously owned by the base.]
8
-------
Q. I'm real surprised. We have had from the Health Department several phone
calls in that area of concern with other matters related to the landfill. We've been to 2 or 3
of these meetings and—
Lt. Frantz: Well, the landfill, and that's the new Dougherty County landfill, right,
at the end of Gaissett Road. Back in the pecan orchard back there.
Spectator: It is just south of that Morningstar Church. In fact there is a pond there
and I think the landfill is real close to where that pond is.
J. Daniel: Lieutenant, getting back to OU5, I think we ought to find out if there are
any other questions/concerns about OU5 and wrap up that conversation and then we can
pursue some of these other questions.
Lt. Frantz: That's a good idea. If there are no other questions on Operable Unit 5,
Marie, you can shut down.
[There was no additional discussion on Operable Unit 5.]
The foregoing is an accurate transcript of the public meeting held at Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia, on Thursday, 16 October 1997, beginning at 7:00 p.m. and
concluding at 7:35 p.m.
Marie Ringholz, Certified
GS-3 19-08, Closed Microphone Reporter
MCLB, Albany, GA
------- |