EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Marine Corps Logistics Base EPA Id: GA7170023694 OU04 Albany GA 04/02/1999


EPA/ROD/R04-99/023
1999
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
EPA ID: GA7170023694
OU 04
ALBANY, GA
04/02/1999

-------
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
UNIT IDENTIFICATION CODE: N67004
CONTRACT NO.: N62467-89-D-0317/086
FEBRUARY 1999
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
NORTH CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA
29418

-------
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
Unit identification Code: M67004
Contract No.: N62467-89-D-0317/086
Prepared by:
Harding Lawson Associates
2590 Executive Center Circle, East
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Prepared for:
Department of the Navy, Southern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
2155 Eagle Drive
North Charleston, South Carolina 29418
Joel Sanders, Code 1868, Remedial Project Manager
February 1999

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
APR 0 2 1999
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
4WD-FFB
Larry P. Cole, Colonel
Commanding Officer
Marine Corps Logistics Base-Albany
Albany, Georgia 3 1704-1128
SUBJ: Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4 (including PSC 6, PSC 10, PSC 12, PSC 13 and PSC 22)
MCLB-Albany NPL Site
EPA ID# GA7170023694
Albany, GA 3 1704
Dear Sir:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 has reviewed the above subject decision
document and concurs with the remedy of Land Use Controls at PSC 6 and No Action at PSC 10, PSC 12,
PSC 13, and PSC 22 within Operable Unit 4. This remedy is supported by the previously completed Remedial
Investigation, Feasibility Study and Baseline Risk Assessment Reports. The combined remedy of Land Use
Controls and No Action is protective of human health and the environment.
As specified in the Land Use Control Implementation Plan, PSC 6 is restricted from having any
residential development. The Land Use Control Implementation Plan for PSC 6 further describes that any
proposed changes in use of the site "are subject to approval by USEPA Region IV and GEPD." EPA will
review the need for future remediation, monitoring, or changes in Land Use Controls under all applicable
statutes, if any changes in use are proposed. In addition, it is imperative that the current excellent coordination
between the MCLB Environmental personnel and the MCLB Construction personnel continue and that all
proposed projects that could impact the area encompassed by PSC 6 be reviewed by the MCLB
Environmental office. These measures will result in the elimination of any inadvertent noncompliance with the
Land Use Control requirements. Also, as stated in earlier correspondence (Pope to Sanders, August 14, 1999)
the Land Use Control Assurance Plan is now required to be finalized within 90 days of the date of this
concurrence letter.

-------
EPA appreciates the coordination efforts of MCLB Albany and the level of effort that
was put forth in the documents leading to this decision. EPA looks forward to continuing the exemplary
working relationship with MCLB Albany and southern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command as we
move toward final cleanup of the NPL site.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Green
Director
Waste Management Division
cc: Sid Allison, SOUTHDIV
iCSptain Ference, MCLB-Albany
Jerry Wallmeyer. REC (NASJAX)
Daniel Owens. SOUTHDIV
Harold F. Reheis, GAEPD
Madeleine Kellam, GAEPD	,
Dnju, ugmc 2>o\o	^
bcc: Scon Gordon. EAD
Allison Abernathy, FFRRO/OSWER
David Levenstein, FFEO/OECA
Bozem;

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Chapter	Title	Page No.
1.0 DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION		1-1
1.1	SITE NAME AND LOCATION		1-1
1.2	STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND BASIS		1-1
1.3	ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE		1-1
1.4	DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY		1-2
1.5	STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 		1-3
1.6	SIGNATURE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY . . .	1-3
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY 		2-1
2.1	SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION		2-1
2.2	SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 		2-8
2.3	HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 		2-9
2.4	SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE FINAL RESPONSE AT OU 4		2-9
2.5	SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS	2-10
2.6	NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINANTS	2-14
2.6.1 Contaminant Delineation at OU 4		2-15
2.7	SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS	2-27
2.7.1	OU 4 BRA 		2-31
2.7.2	Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and
Remedial Alternatives 		2-40
2.7.2.1 Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives ....	2-40
2.7.3	Response Action 	2-43
2.8	EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 		2-43
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Community Relations Responsiveness Summary
Appendix B: Land-Use Control Implementation Plan for Potential Source of
Contamination 6
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
-i-

-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Figure	Title	Page No.
2-1	Vicinity Map	2-2
2-2	PSC 10, Depot Maintenance Area (DMA)	2-3
2-3	PSC 22, DMA Old 90-Day Storage Area	2-4
2-4	PSC 13, Industrial Wastewater Pipeline 	 2-5
2-5	PSC 12, Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant 	 2-6
2-6	PSC 6, Industrial Discharge Drainage Ditch and Sanitary Sewer Line. 2-7
2-7	Location Map for Geologic Section (Shown on Figure 2-8) 	 2-11
2-8	Geologic Section of the Albany Area	2-12
2-9	Potentiometric Surface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the Albany,
Georgia, Area, November 1985 	 2-13
2-10	Risk Summary, Base Worker, PSC 6	2-37
2-11	Risk Summary, Child Transient, PSC 6	2-38
2-12	Risk Summary, Resident, PSC 6	2-39
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
-ii-

-------
LIST OF TABLES
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Table	Title	Page No .
2-1	Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 10 		2-16
2-2	Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 22 		2-17
2-3	Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 13 		2-20
2-4	Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 12 		2-23
2-5	Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 6 		2-24
2-6	Analytes Detected in Surface Soil, PSC 6	2-25
2-7	Chemicals of Potential Concern at PSCs 10, 13, and 22	2-28
2-8	Chemicals of Potential Concern at PSC 12	2-28
2-9	Chemicals of Potential Concern at PSC 6	2-29
2-10	Risk Summary for PSCs 10, 13, and 22	2-33
2-11	Risk Summary for PSC 12	2-33
2-12	Risk Summary for PSC 6	2-34
2-13	Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 		2-41
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98

-------
GLOSSARY
ABB-ES	ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
ARAR	applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
bis	below land surface
BRA	baseline risk assessment
COPC	chemical of potential concern
DCA	dichloroethane
DCE	dichloroethene
DMA	Depot Maintenance Activity
DWTP	domestic wastewater treatment plant
ERA	ecological risk assessment
GEPD	Georgia Environmental Protection Division
HHRA	human health risk assessment
HI	hazard index
HLA	Harding Lawson Associates
IWP	industrial wastewater pipeline
IWTP	industrial wastewater treatment plant
LUC	land-use control
LUCAP	land-use control assurance plan
LUCIP	land-use control implementation plan
MCLB	Marine Corps Logistics Base
mg/kg	milligrams per kilogram
NA	no action
NCP	National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
OU	operable unit
PCB	polychlorinated biphenyl
PSC	potential source of contamination
RCRA	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI	remedial investigation
RI/FS	remedial investigation and feasibility study
RI/BRA	remedial investigation/baseline risk assessment
ROD	Record of Decision
SARA	Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SOUTHNAV-
FACENGCOM Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
SVOC	semivolatile organic compound
ALB-OU4 ROD
S AS.12.98	-iV-

-------
1.0 DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
1.1	SITE NAME AND LOCATION. Operable Unit (OU) 4 is composed of the potential
sources of contamination (PSC) that are directly or geographically associated with
the Depot Maintenance Activity (DMA), which is located on the southeastern side of
Broom Boulevard. OU 4 consists of five PSCs, including PSC 10, DMA; PSC 22, DMA Old
90-Day Storage Area; PSC 13, Industrial Wastewater Pipeline (IWP); PSC 12,
Industrial wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP); and PSC 6, Industrial Discharge
Drainage Ditch/Sanitary Sewer line.
1.2	STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND BASIS. This Record of Decision (ROD) document
presents the final response for OU 4 at the Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB),
Albany. It was developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act, and to the extent practicable, the National Contingency
Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the site's Administrative Record, which is
on file at the Environmental Branch Office, Installations and Logistics Division,
Building 5501, MCLB, Albany, Georgia, 31704, and at the information repository in
the Dougherty County Public Library, Albany, Georgia. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IV and State of Georgia concur with the selected
remedy.
1.3	ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE. A remedial investigation and baseline risk assessment
(RI/BRA) was conducted at OU 4 between April 1993 and May 1994. The BRA examined
a current land-use scenario, in which base workers are likely to be exposed to
contaminated media, and a hypothetical future residential land use of OU 4, in
which residential and transient individuals could be exposed. Child and adult
resident exposure scenarios were evaluated to estimate potential exposures in the
event housing is built very near the ditch. These hypothetical situations represent
the most sensitive receptor and conservative risk estimates for OU 4. The BRA
evaluated both cancer and noncancer risks. The ecological portion of the BRA was
completed only for PSC 6, the Industrial Discharge Drainage Ditch, due to lack of
habitat (animals, plants, birds, mammals, fish and reptiles) at the other PSCs.
According to the NCP for Superfund sites, the acceptable cancer risk range is from
1 in 10, 000 (1x10"') to 1 in 1 million (1x10"), depending on site-specific
conditions. Although the estimated risk of 1x10" is the point of departure in
determining the need for a response action, site-specific conditions at OU 4
indicate that application of the acceptable risk range is appropriate. The site
specific condition supporting the use of the risk range includes the base perimeter
fence, which restricts public access to surface and subsurface soil, surface water,
and sediment at OU 4. The site-specific conditions for OU 4 are such that most of
the samples evaluated for cancer risk were below the ranges prescribed by the NCP.
This means that for several of the PSCs that make up OU 4, no response action was
required. For noncancer risks, the similar point of departure is a hazard index
(HI) of 1. If the total estimated noncancer risk exceeds this value, then site-
specific conditions and effects from individual compounds are evaluated to
determine whether or not a response is necessary.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
1-1

-------
The BRA conducted for subsurface soil at PSCs 10, 13, and 22 resulted in risks
acceptable to the USEPA Region IV for carcinogens (4x10) and noncarcinogens (HI
of 0.02) . There was no surface water or sediment present at any of these sites. The
BRA for PSC 12 included subsurface soil only; the BRA results were also acceptable
to USEPA Region IV (4x10"', HI of 0.008) such that no treatment, containment, or
restricted access is required for PSCs 10, 12, 13, and 22. No surface soil, surface
water, or sediment samples were collected at PSCs 10, 12, 13, and 22 due to the
areal extent of concrete surface cover at each PSC and absence of these media.
Human health and ecological risks associated with exposure to the surface soil,
surface water, and sediment at PSC 6 were evaluated and compared to the cancer and
noncancer risk criteria (1x10"' to 1x10" , HI greater than 1) . For current and
potential future land use, child transient cancer risks for potential exposures to
surface water, sediment, and surface soil are within the USEPA acceptable cancer
risk range, and noncancer risks are below the USEPA threshold HI of 1. The total
resident (i.e. , child and adult resident combined) cancer risk for potential
future exposures to industrial discharge drainage ditch surface soil, surface
water, and sediment is 6x10" , which is within the USEPA acceptable cancer risk
range. Total child resident noncancer risk for potential future surface soil,
surface water, and sediment exposure is an HI of 3, which exceeds the USEPA
threshold HI of 1. Therefore, a response action is deemed necessary.
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY. There are six OUs at MCLB, Albany, and
OU 4 is the fifth of the six OUs to have completed RODs. The completed RODs for OUs
1, 2, 3 and 5 address surface and subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment.
Groundwater will be addressed under a continuing basewide investigation within OU
6 and is the principal potential threat remaining at MCLB, Albany. This OU is
currently in the remedial investigation (RI) phase.
A No Action (NA) remedy was selected for PSCs 10, 12, 13, and 22. Under this
alternative, no treatment, containment, or additional restricted access is planned
for these PSCs. The selected remedy for PSC 6 is Land-Use Controls (LUCs) as
outlined in the Land-Use Control Implementation Plan (LUCIP), presented in Appendix
B of the ROD. The LUCIP for PSC 6 has been developed for the protection of human
health and the environment under existing and potential future conditions.
The LUCIP will prohibit residential development within the drainage ditch and will
require the evaluation of the risk to the public and environment and/or grading or
covering the drainage ditch if residential housing is ever constructed in the
ditch. The term "LUCIP," as required by recent USEPA Region IV policy, is
equivalent to the term "institutional control plan, " which has been used in
previous MCLB, Albany decision documents.
Also required by recent USEPA policy is the development of a Land-Use Control
Assurance Plan (LUCAP). The LUCAP agreed to by the USEPA and MCLB, Albany sets in
place basewide periodic site inspection, condition certification, and agency
notification procedures.
These procedures are designed to ensure the continued maintenance by MCLB, Albany
personnel of those site-specific LUCs deemed necessary for future protection of
human health and the environment. A fundamental premise underlying execution of
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
1-2

-------
that agreement was that through the Navy's compliance with the procedures,
reasonable assurances would be provided to USEPA as to the permanency of the remedy
to be selected in reliance upon the use of specific LUCs.
Although the terms and conditions of the LUCAP are not specifically incorporated
or made enforceable herein by reference, it is understood and agreed by the Navy
and USEPA that the permanence of the contemplated remedy reflected herein shall be
dependent upon the Base's substantial good-faith compliance with the specific LUC
maintenance commitments reflected therein. Should such compliance not occur or
should the LUCAP be terminated, it is understood that the protectiveness of the
remedy concurred may be reconsidered and that additional measures may need to be
taken to adequately ensure necessary future protection of human health and the
environment. If the property is excessed by the Federal Government, the Navy will
pursue deed restrictions on the area encompassed by PSC 6, unless it is determined
at that time that the property is suitable for unrestricted use.
1.5 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. The final response actions selected for OU 4
address the surface and subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment. Specifically,
the final response for PSCs 10, 12, 13 and 22 is NA because no remedial action is
necessary to protect human health or the environment.
The final response action for PSC 6 requiring the implementation of LUCs will be
protective of human health and the environment. The response action at PSC 6
complies with Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the response action, and are cost effective.
The remedy at PSC 6 will allow hazardous substances to remain on site in PSC 6
surface soil, surface water, and sediment above health-based levels. Therefore, a
review will be conducted within 5 years to ensure that this remedy continues to
provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
1. 6 SIGNATURE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY
Signature Larry P. Cole	Date
Colonel
Commanding Officer, MCLB, Albany
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
1-3

-------
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY
2.1 SITE NAME. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION. MCLB, Albany is an active facility
occupying 3,579 acres east-southeast of the city of Albany, Georgia (Figure 2-1).
Land bordering MCLB, Albany, to the south, east, and northeast is primarily
agricultural or recreational open space. Most of the land to the northwest and west
of the base is residential and commercial.
MCLB, Albany currently serves as a military logistics center, controlling the
acquisition, storage, maintenance, and distribution of combat and support material
for the Marine Corps. In addition, the base is used for military training and other
functions as directed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
PSC 10. PSC 10 (DMA) is located on the southeastern side of Broom Boulevard
(Figure 2-2). The DMA (Building 2200) consists of several buildings (approximately
450,000 total square feet) and maintenance areas, all involved in the maintenance
and refurbishment of military vehicles. The area between the buildings is covered
by a concrete slab with a relatively uniform thickness of 8 inches. The surface
area covered by concrete is approximately 45 acres. The entire 45-acre area is
fenced, and access is restricted.
PSC 22. PSC 22 (DMA Old 90-Day Storage Area) is located within the fenced area of
the DMA (PSC 10) along its southwest side (Figure 2-3). PSC 22 consists of a metal-
fabricated roofed shed approximately 30 feet by 180 feet in dimension. The sides
of the shed are not enclosed; however, access is limited by a chain-link fence
fixed to the pillars of the roof. The floor of the shed is concrete.
PSC 13. PSC 13 (IWP) carries industrial wastes from the DMA to the IWTP (Figure
2-4). The pipeline is gravity-drained. As such, the depth of the pipeline varies
from approximately 6 feet below land surface (bis) on the west side of the DMA to
12 feet bis just before entering the IWTP. The diameter of the pipeline varies from
6 inches (west side of DMA) to 12 inches just before entering the IWTP.
PSC 12. PSC 12 (IWTP) is located at the intersection of Broom Boulevard and West
Matthews Boulevard (Figure 2-5). In 1957, a gravity separator and 25,000-gallon
holding tank were installed at the present IWTP site for partial waste treatment
prior to discharge to the industrial discharge drainage ditch. By 1977, the IWTP
was constructed and in operation, treating the waste stream for metals and pH
stabilization.
A Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action was implemented
at the IWTP as required in MCLB, Albany's Hazardous Waste Facility Permit. In
compliance with the permit, a six-well pump-and-treat remedial system is currently
in operation at PSC 12 to address chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
inorganic analytes detected in the groundwater. The first recovery well in the
system began groundwater extraction in 1990.
PSC 6. PSC 6 (Industrial Discharge Drainage Ditch and Sanitary Sewer) consists of
the industrial discharge drainage ditch that runs from the IWTP to the Marine
Canal, and the sanitary sewer line that runs from the IWTP to the Domestic
Wastewater Treatment Plant (DWTP) (Figure 2-6). The industrial discharge drainage
ditch is a man-made drainage canal that originates at Covella Pond in the central
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-1

-------
COLUMBUS
ALABAMA
GEORGIA
182
DAWSON
ALBANY
caoo) MARINE CORPS
7^ LOGISTICS BASE
75
19
BAINBRIDGE
84r
VALDOSTA
FLORIDA
10
TALLAHASSEE
20
*aB £mv?Cnm-:nTal C'ovCtJ. inc.. 1993
FIGURE 2-1
VICINITY MAP
£•; RECORD OF DECISION
\*;v, OPERABLE UNIT 4
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
u t,i
-------
in >
* C
tft 0D
- o
n c
\o *
a 3
o
o
rs>
O)
v . . $> 9-' \ !
W. ¦;¦ i -
)
'c'S \S A>
*¦ m

%>
Grit chamber ond
od uparolor
Formtr
Current hazardous wost#
storogt taciWy
v. Indujtrwl N-¦¦.¦¦¦>-
""*• r^-._ IS
USI' W hordstand"' ^ondbla^l or«a
BuUding 2218
drain rock
ordnonce vehicle
~ mss
SCALE: 1 INCH = 450 FEET
RECORD OF DECISION
av**7T^a K OPERABLE UNIT 4
LEGEND
USTB Underground storoge tank
Potential Source ol Contamination
(PSC) 10 study area
FIGURE 2-2
PSC 10
DEPOT MAINTENANCE AREA (DMA)
"ARWE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
\ y.T w <*¦ ¦' h *k . *-• »i *•
-------
¦ 3P
a
o
rv)
/y:s.
P8C 22

Sondblost oreo

,,.JI
Recreation
area DMA
75
LEGEND
UST Undjfgroun,: slO'Ojt lank
- ¦= j Poitniiai Score* ol CcmlaminaHan
I ¦ ..... ,1 (PSC) 10 siud> o».*o
Dui Depot Ud,nl#nonct
POL Pttroltum. :>is, luBfitonls
[ | Ou* aid 90-dSf sloragt area
..s.: r.M: .1 •• s» > x • .1r « -
SCALt: I INCH *
50
ISO FtEI
uuuu
N
\\
FIGURE 2-3
PSC 22
DMA OLD 80-DAY STORAGE AREA
RECORD of decision
*-A OPERABLE UNIT 4
marine CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
'UYVS^
-------
0) >
> E
0) CO
73
O
D
ro
Sonitory
sewer
(P5C 6)
¦ Concrete1
.'lined
I lesl tank
sewer line and monhole locottons
"^7" j Industrial waste^o^ pipeline ond
. /iJ manholi locotions
nvTP Industrial Wosttwater Ireofment Plonl
PSC Pclenliol Source of Conlominotlon
8 » Oiomeler of pipeline.
,"'„v m ¦* o*'» * '«"« "• "4
FIGURE 2-4
PSC 13
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PPELME
SCALE: 1 INCH = 400 FEET
RECORD OF DECISION
'•'VT.y* '• OPERABLE UNIT 4
CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------

- v\\
Nn\
N\\
' .~
' /
/
v.'
\ V\C\
Vn
- V
\
/
V I
-V
' *:

*V
\\
P5C 13
pipeline
\
/
LEGEND
[ - I (lot poil of in,*}!.jjtion
PSC Potential source ccntammotion
p -J Lcna'ng v«h.ci« oreo
ia'IP In^i/S'iioi treatment plant
• • •• • ;
X v V\
\
\ \ \
lest Irock areo
./-Concrete lined ^
'-/M test lank /
for landing i /
..hid.,
\ \ /

Boundary of
PSC 12
study area
160 320
SCAlf: I INCH = }20 rcn
FIGURE 2-5
PSC 12
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
~
N
I
RECORD OF DECISION
a';5SjCS:v. operable unit 4
t®P
vSX'S#' MARINE C0RPS LOGISTICS base
ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------
V
tWTP i
Sonitory i>nt-
OWTP
Induitrlol dischorgt
-------
portion of the base and extends downstream to its intersection with West Shaw Road.
Typically, water levels through the ditch are less than 1 foot in depth while water
levels during storm events can exceed 10 feet in depth. An underflow weir and
sedimentation basin are located at the downstream end of the ditch. These
structures prevent miscellaneous trash and debris from leaving the base property.
The sanitary sewer line carried the treated effluent of the IWTP approximately
7,500 linear feet to the now inoperable base DWTP. Currently, the effluent bypasses
the DWTP and discharges directly into the city of Albany's publicly owned treatment
works. The pipeline is a 24-inch-diameter gravity-drained pipeline that varies in
depth from approximately 12 feet bis at the IWTP to 40 feet bis at the DWTP.
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES. MCLB, Albany has generated various
types of solid and liquid wastes over the years, including hazardous wastes. The
hazardous wastes include electroplating wastes containing heavy metals, organic
solvents from stripping and cleaning operations, and waste fuel and oil.
The DMA (PSC 10) used solvents and other potential contaminants during routine
operations. Typically, when these compounds were no longer usable they were either
containerized and stored temporarily at the DMA Old 90-Day Storage Area (PSC 22)
before disposal, or were drained into the pipeline (PSC 13) for disposal. Prior to
1957, the effluent from the pipeline was discharged into the industrial discharge
drainage ditch (PSC 6) . In 1957, minimal treatment was performed prior to discharge
to the drainage ditch. In 1977, the IWTP began operation, and effluent from the
IWTP was directed into the sanitary sewer line (PSC 6) for additional treatment at
the DWTP prior to off-site discharge.
Environmental investigations of OU 4 began in 1985. The following reports describe
the results of investigations at OU 4 to date:
• Initial Assessment Study (Envirodyne Engineers, 1985);
• Confirmation Study Verification Step Report (McClelland Engineers. Inc.,
19 8 7);
• RCRA Facility Investigation Phase One Confirmation Study(Applied Engineering
and Science, Inc., 1989);
• UST Investigation BuiIding 2200, Shop 712 (Sirrine Environmental Consultants,
Inc., 1992);
• UST Investigation Building 2210 (Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1992);
• UST Investigation Building 2218 (SEC Donohue, Inc., 1992 and 1993);
• Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study Workplan, Operable Unit 4 (ABB
Environmental Services, Inc. [ABB-ES], 1993);
• Remedial Investigation and Baseline Risk Assessment Report, Operable Unit 4
(ABB-ES, 1998); and
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-8
-------
• Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 4 (Harding Lawson Associates [HLA],
1998).
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. The Proposed Plan for OU 4 recommended
NA for PSCs 10, 12, 13, and 22, and LUCs for PSC 6. This document was made
available to the public in the Information Repository located at the Dougherty
County Public Library and in the Administrative Record located at the Environmental
Branch Office, Building 5501, MCLB, Albany, Georgia, 31704-1128. The public notice
of the Proposed Plan was published in the Albany Herald on October 13, 1998, and
meeting notices were mailed to the MCLB, Albany Installation Restoration community
mailing list. A public meeting was held on October 22, 1998, to present the results
of the RI and BRA, the preferred remedy, and to solicit comments from the
community. At this meeting, representatives from Southern Division, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command (SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM), MCLB, Albany, USEPA Region IV,
Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD), and HLA were available to discuss
all aspects of OU 4 and the response actions under consideration. The Community
Relations Responsiveness Summary is included in Appendix A of this decision
document.
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE FINAL RESPONSE AT OU 4 MCLB, Albany contains 26 PSCs.
Of these PSCs, 14 were in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) process, 10 PSCs required preliminary screening
activities, and 2 PSCs were addressed under RCRA. The 14 PSCs in the CERCLA process
were divided into 5 individual OUs to address surface and subsurface soil, surface
water, and sediment. The list below identifies the PSCs within each OU and presents
the regulatory status of each.
OU
1,
composed
of
OU
2,
composed
of
OU
3,
composed
of
OU
4,
composed
of
in
July 1998)

OU
5,
composed
of
OU
6,
basewide
gro
The proposed response for OU 4 consists of two remedies: NA for PSCs 10, 12, 13,
and 22, and LUCs for PSC 6. Under the NA response, no treatment, containment, or
restricted access is required at PSCs 10, 12, 13, and 22 to protect human health
and the environment.
LUCs will be implemented at PSC 6. The human health BRA conducted at PSC 6
determined that exposure to surface soil posed an unacceptable risk to a potential
future resident. Therefore, LUCs are required to prohibit potential future
residential development of PSC 6. The LUCIP for PSC 6 is presented in Appendix B
of this ROD and will also become part of MCLB, Albany's Master Plan document. If
the property is excessed by the Federal Government, the Navy will pursue deed
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-9
-------
restrictions on the areas encompassed by PSC 6, unless it is determined at that
time that the property is suitable for unrestricted use.
Groundwater beneath OU 4 will be addressed under a separate and ongoing basewide
groundwater investigation, which has been designated as OU 6.
2.5 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS. This section summarizes the regional
geology, hydrogeology, and ecology in the vicinity of MCLB, Albany. The nature and
extent of contaminants for OU 4 is presented in Section 2.6. A more detailed
presentation of this information is available in the RI/BRA report for OU 4 (ABB-
ES, 1998) .
Geology. MCLB, Albany is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, which
is made up of layers of sand, clay, sandstone, and limestone. These layers of soil
and rock extend to a depth of at least 5,000 feet bis. Each layer has been
identified and named by geologists according to its composition and physical
propert ies.
The soil and rock layers at MCLB, Albany, in descending order, are the clayey
overburden, the Ocala Limestone, and the Lisbon Formation. The overburden layer is
made up mostly of clay with some silt and sand. The Ocala Limestone is divided into
an upper unit and a lower unit. The upper unit is a lime mud or chalk. The lower
unit is hard, dense rock that has been dissolved by the movement of water along
fractures to form underground caves and springs. The Lisbon Formation is a hard,
clayey limestone. These are the soil and rock layers that control the movement of
underground water in the first 350 feet bis at MCLB, Albany. Figures 2-7 and 2-8
present a generalized geologic section of the Albany area.
H vdroqeoloq v. Soil and rock layers are also grouped and named according to how
water moves through them. Layers that bear water to wells are called aquifers, and
layers that cannot bear water are called confining layers. The clayey overburden
and the upper unit of the Ocala Limestone are considered together to be a confining
layer. The lower unit of the Ocala Limestone is the major water-bearing zone of the
Floridan aquifer. The Lisbon Formation forms a confining layer beneath the Floridan
aquifer.
The Floridan aquifer is recharged by rainfall that slowly percolates down through
the confining units and through sinkholes. Movement of water in the Floridan
aquifer is generally west toward the Flint River, where it discharges to the river
through springs (Figure 2-9).
Most irrigation wells and household water wells near MCLB, Albany draw water from
the Floridan aquifer. City water wells may also draw water from the Floridan
aquifer, although most of the city water is produced from deeper aquifers.
Ecology. The majority of forested land in the vicinity of the base is vegetated
with longleaf pine flatwoods, the most extensive plant community in the southern
coastal plain. Pine flatwoods grow in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North
Carolina.
The pine flatwoods habitat commonly found at MCLB, Albany supports diverse plant
and animal life, including invertebrates (e.g., insects and worms), reptiles, and
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-10
-------
0) >
> E
0) CD
73
O
D
ro
N
ll
LEQBB
A' Line of geologic section

©
SCALE: 1 INCH - 7.5 MILES
Sourer ABB Environmental Strvici], Inc., 1993.
Irom Hicks ond olhtrs, 1987
« \o;:>?o\DttM r& w aiflt/H n « » m«c«o "1
FIGURE 2-7
LOCATION MAP FOR GEOLOGIC SECTION
(SHOWN ON FIGURE 2-8)
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------
s
o
&
!«*». I
A'
nu,<
Marin* Corpi Logistics Bast
CM
R u'i'-
- «, '
•> ..
r+
-------
0) >
> E
0) CD
73
O
D
ro
i
CO

uwo/i m

•no«j
H&4S
no*»
1)10)4

<21042
>l04«
i S;0"4
_ . MOM •
• ixj4' V
*uf>\ ^ r>
041 #
\
hm

0» #
Ih«4'
121041
>-
H|X
L/0GIST1&S BASE ' I
CO 3
o o
•. a
K04
ARINE CORP
1 71049
now
21010
¦ xoia
ISIOJS

9 rnoii
T .25 2.5 MILES
l"0i»
»1«0»0
SCALE: 1 INCH - 2.5 MILES
approximately /
stoia
ifrom: Hillts ond others. 1987 [
LEGEND
— 150 ^olcoliomclric 'SOptfth shows oMIudc ol which
water woutd ha«« stood in tightly cosed wills
Contour interval jj 10 f««t 0o»u^> i$ No>>onol
Gtodthc Vtrlical Datum ct 1929.
Direction ol groundwater flow
w*ll location
*. * ' .v. 6 «-»/ 1 1 '*¦ v> : * .1 K c :
FIGURE 2-9
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE OF THE
UPPER FLORIDAN AQUIFER IN THE
ALBANY, GEORGIA, AREA
NOVEMBER 1985
<;?-v. is. RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
'#
-------
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) , now classified as threatened, has
been documented in wetland habitats at the base; this semiaquatic species is
present throughout the southeast. Bachman's sparrow fiimophila 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.
2. 6 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINANTS. The nature, extent, and concentration of
hazardous substance contamination at OU 4 was studied during the RI conducted
between 1993 and 1994. Concentrations of analytes detected by laboratory analyses
are reported in micrograms per kilogram or milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for soil
samples and micrograms per liter for water samples. For instance, a concentration
of 8,600 mg/kg for iron means that 8,600 milligrams of iron are present in each
kilogram of soil. A kilogram is a unit measure of weight equal to about 2.2 pounds.
One thousand micrograms equal 1 milligram, 1,000 milligrams equal 1 gram, and 1,000
grams equal 1 kilogram. A liter is a unit measure of volume roughly equal to a
quart.
Source of Contamination. The source of contaminants at PSC 10 appears to be
discharges that may have occurred at locations within the DMA. The RI investigated
the potential for releases of contaminants onto paved surfaces and subsequent
runoff into the industrial discharge drainage ditch. Contaminants discharged to
unpaved surfaces or to subsurface soil (e.g., from leaking floor drains or
pipelines) would likely migrate through the vadose zone, potentially affecting the
groundwater. In paved areas, this transport would be governed by gravity drainage
of the host fluid (wastewater). In unpaved areas, infiltration of precipitation
water would accelerate this migration.
The source of contaminants at PSC 22 appears to be releases of contaminants from
the drums onto the paved surfaces and subsequent runoff into the industrial
discharge drainage ditch. Analytical results further indicate that these releases
did migrate into the subsurface soil (through possible cracks in the concrete
floor), thereby impacting groundwater in the area by leaching from precipitation.
PSC 13 consists of an underground pipe-line that carries liquid industrial wastes
from the DMA to the IWTP. The results of a routine maintenance inspection indicated
several cracks at various locations along the pipeline. Upon further inspection it
was determined that releases from the pipeline had occurred; however, restoration
of the pipeline was performed by installing a resin-impregnated, flexible tube into
the, existing pipeline to prevent continuing releases. Soil immediately beneath the
pipeline in the vicinity of releases may have been affected. Because the pipeline
runs underneath the concrete of the DMA, it is unlikely that these contaminants
leached to the groundwater by infiltration
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-14
-------
of precipitation. However, releases could have been sufficient in volume for the
contaminants to affect the groundwater in the area.
PSC 12 consists of a limited area surrounding the IWTP. No areas within the
boundaries of the IWTP were investigated. The IWTP has been in operation since 1977
and has been treating industrial wastes from the DMA since that time. The IWTP was
designed as a primary treatment facility (for pretreatment) and currently operates
in that manner. A groundwater remediation system consisting of groundwater
extraction and discharge into the IWTP is currently in operation.
Several potential sources for the constituents observed in the PSC 6, industrial
discharge drainage ditch, are known. These are primarily the covered DMA areas that
drain storm water runoff to PSC 6. Prior to 1957, the effluent from the pipeline
(PSC 13) was directed into an overflow weir, which subsequently was discharged into
the industrial discharge drainage ditch. However, these sources do not account for
the constituents observed upstream of these areas.
2.6.1 Contaminant Delineation at OU 4 This subsection is a summary of
contaminants detected at OU 4, listed by PSC.
PSC 10. Sampling results for PSC 10 subsurface soil are presented in Table 2-1.
VOCs were detected in the unsaturated subsurface soil (approximately 45 feet bis.)
at three locations. However, the distribution of VOCs at this depth is attributed
to partitioning of compounds into groundwater during high water table conditions
onto the highly organic, clayey soil that is present at the base of the overburden.
The presence of these compounds in the groundwater is being addressed under the
ongoing basewide groundwater investigation, designated as OU 6. The detection of
one semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) at approximately 45 feet bis is not
believed to be associated with a contaminant release in this area. Instead,
detection of this compound is interpreted to be a sampling and/or analysis
artifact. The absence of this compound in the shallow subsurface soil samples
further supports this interpretation. Pesticide and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
concentrations were below method detection limits in all samples. In accordance
with USEPA Region IV guidance, inorganic analytes with concentrations that exceeded
twice the average of detected concentrations in the background subsurface soil
samples have been included in the human health risk assessment (HHRA).
PSC 22. Sampling results for PSC 22 subsurface soil are presented in Table 2-2.
Results of the laboratory organic analyses indicated the presence of VOCs, SVOCs,
pesticides, and PCBs in the samples collected between 2 and 12 feet bis and VOCs,
SVOCs, and pesticides in the samples collected at approximately 45 feet bis. Two
of the detected VOCs, acetone and methylene chloride, are believed to be sampling
and/or analysis artifacts. This conclusion is supported by the random distribution
of the detections for these compounds and the lack of historical records indicating
that these compounds were stored at PSC 22. The VOCs toluene, trichloroethene
(TCE), 1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE) (total), and 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) were
detected more frequently and at higher concentrations in the samples collected at
the overburden-limestone interface, which is an intermittently unsaturated zone,
than the samples collected between 2 and 12 feet bis. Further, because 1,2-DCE
(total) and 1,2-DCA are degradation products of TCE and trichloroethane (TCA), it
is likely that they were never released and are present only as a byproduct of the
degradation of TCE and TCA. The distribution of these compounds in the samples
collected at the overburden-limestone interface
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS. 12 98
2-15
-------

Table 2-1

Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 10

Record of Decision

Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia

Analyte
No. of Samples in
Which the Analyte
is Detected/Total
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Mean
Concentration
Sample with
Maximum
Concentration

No. of Samples

Volatile Oraanic Compounds (ua/kq)

1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
2/8
3 to 4
4
10B0440
Acetone
2/8
8 to 12
10
10B0140
Carbon disulfide
3/8
2 to 3
2
10B0440
Methylene chloride
2/8
3 to 6
5
10B0140
Toluene
1/8
2 to 2
2
10B0140
Trichloroethene
2/8
32 to 58
45
10B0440
Semivolatile Oraanic Compounds (ua/kq'

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
1/8
70 to 70
70
10B0440
Pesticides and PCBs (ua/kq)

Concentrations were below detection limits in all PSC 10 subsurface soil samples.

Inorqanic Analvtes mq/kq)

Aluminum
8/8
2,.060 to 24.900
11,325
10B0210
Antimony
2/8
4.8 to 5.8
5.3
10B0240
Arsenic
7/8
0.47 to1.1
0.71
10B0400
Barium
8/8
3.9 to 936
198.3
10B0240
Beryllium
4/8
0.14 to 9
6.26
10B0240
Cadmium
4/8
0.76 to 19.7
11.8
10B0240
Calcium
8/8
241 to 3.990
1,586
10B0140
Chromium
8/8
4.2 to 68.6
19.3
10B0210
Cobalt
3/8
63.4 to 123
84.2
10B0240
Copper
8/8
2.1 to 46.4
18.2
10B0140
Iron
8/8
1,160 to 61,200
27,456
10B0440
Lead
8/8
2.5 to 40.4
12.8
10B0140
Magnesium
8/8
50.1 to 868
320.5
10B0440
Manganese
8/8
14.1 to 10.000
2.842.5
10B0240
Mercury
3/8
0.16 to 0.21
0.18
10B0440
Nickel
3/8
51 to 117
86
10B0240
Potassium
4/8
96.5 to 1,030
619.1
10B0140
Sodium
8/8
145 to 258
196
10B0240
Thallium
3/8
1.5 to 2
1.7
10B0440
Vanadium
8/8
6.7 to 448
112.1
10B0210
Zinc
8/8
3.5 to 208
74.9
10B0140
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.

|jg/kg = micrograms per kilograms.
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyL
Mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram.

ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS. 12 98
2-16
-------
Table 2-2
Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 22
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Analyte
No. of Samples in
Which the Analyte
is Detected/Total
No. of Samples
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Mean
Concentration
Sample with
Maximum
Concentration
Volatile Oraanic Compounds (ua/kq)

1,2-Dichloroethene
1/19
4 to 4
4
22B0230
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
2/19
6 to 16
11
22B0645
2-Butanone
2/19
2 to 4
3
22B0101
Acetone
8/19
3 to 33
11
22B0101
Methylene chloride
2/19
3 to 4
4
22B0101
Toluene
4/19
1 to 5
2
22B0875
Trichloroethene
5/19
6 to 20
10
22B0444
Semivolatile Oraanic Compounds (ua/kq'

Di-n-butylphthalate
2/19
53 to 280
167
22B0704
Diethylphthalate
1/19
43 to 43
43
22B0504
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
2/19
54 to 85
70
22B0875
Pesticides/PCBs (ua/ka)

4.4-DDD
1/20
0.99 to 0.99
0.99
22B0504
4.4-DDE
2/20
0.31 to 2.7
1.51
22B0504
Methoxychlor
5/20
0.85 to 23
14.97
22B0540
alpha-Chlordane
4/20
0.4 to 0.79
0.55
22B0704
gamma-Chlordane
5/20
0.26 to 1.1
0.64
22B0504
Aroclor-1248
1/20
40 to 40
40
22B0504
Inoraanic Analvtes (mq/kql

Aluminum
19/19
2,550 to 24,100
7,651
22B0230
Antimony
1/19
4.2 to 4.2
4.2
22B0140
Arsenic
17/19
0.13 to 3
1.04
22B0205
Barium
19/19
1.3 to 465
34.5
22B0540
Beryllium
6/19
0.16 to 7.9
2.96
22B0540
Cadmium
9/19
0.17 to 13.3
2.65
22B0540
Calcium
19/19
124 to 281,000
15,629
22B0140
Chromium
19/19
2.5 to 23.3
11.7
22B0205
Cobalt
6/19
1.3 to 82.4
26.4
22B0230
Copper
18/19
2.1 to 28.6
7.3
22B0230
Iron
19/19
174 to 97,200
15,781
22B0230
Lead
19/19
1.2 to 28.5
6.3
22B0540
Magnesium
19/19
35.3 to 962
186.3
22B0140
Manganese
19/19
2 to 6,770
492.9
22B0540
Mercury
6/19
0.03 to 0.15
0.06
22B0540
See notes at end of table.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS. 12.98
2-17
-------
Table 2-2 (Continued)
Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 22

Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia

Analyte
No. of Samples in
Which the Analyte
is Detected/Total
No. of Samples
Range of
Detected
Concentrations
Mean
Concentration
Sample with
Maximum
Concentration
Inoraanic Analvtes (mq/kql (continued)
Nickel
6/19
1.6 to 65.6
25.7
22B0230
Potassium
10/19
81 to 545
228.7
22B0540
Selenium
1/19
0.19 to 0.19
0.19
22B0804
Sodium
19/19
123 to 238
199
22B0140
Thallium
3/19
0.22 to 1.2
0.62
22B0540
Vanadium
19/19
12 to 84.9
51.6
22B0402
Zinc
19/19
2.3 to 136
20.5
22B0540
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.
|jg/kg = micrograms per kilogram.
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.
DDD = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane.
DDE = dichlorodiphenylchloroethene.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS. 12 98
2-18
-------
is interpreted to be the result of partitioning of the compounds in the groundwater
during high water table conditions onto the highly organic, clayey soils that are
present at the base of the overburden. The presence of these compounds in the
groundwater is being investigated under OU 6 Basewide Groundwater.
Analytical results also indicated the presence of SVOCs, which may be attributable
to laboratory contamination. This interpretation is supported by the random
distribution of the detections and the lack of historical records indicating that
these compounds were stored at PSC 22. Pesticides were detected randomly and
typically only in the samples collected between 2 and 12 feet bis. The detection
of pesticides is interpreted to be the result of historical routine application of
pesticides at the facility and not due to a release of these compounds.
The concentration of inorganic analytes that exceeded twice the average of detected
concentrations in the background subsurface soil samples is included in the HHRA,
in accordance with USEPA Region IV guidance.
PSC 13. Sampling results for PSC 13 subsurface soil are presented in Table 2-3.
Analytical results indicated the presence of VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and PCBs at
varying depths. Of the 11 VOCs present in subsurface soil samples, three of the
VOCs (acetone, 2-butanone, and 2-hexanone) are believed to be sampling and/or
analysis artifacts.
Two of the VOCs (benzene and xylenes [total]) are common constituents in fuel
products. These compounds were detected in only one sample. This sample was
collected in the area of a former underground storage tank (UST) not associated
with PSC 13. The remaining six VOCs (chlorinated solvents) typically occurred in
the samples at the overburden-limestone interface for each location. Samples
collected from the invert of the pipeline and between 2 and 12 feet US did not
contain these compounds, with the exception of one sample. This suggests that the
observed compounds in the samples at the overburden-limestone interface could not
have originated from the shallow and intermediate sample depths in the areas
investigated. The presence of TCE and tetrachloroethene in the samples collected
at the overburden limestone interface, which is an intermittently unsaturated area,
is interpreted to be the result of these compounds partitioning from the
groundwater during high water table conditions onto the highly organic, clayey
soils that are present at the base of the overburden. The presence of these
compounds in the groundwater is being investigated under 0U6 Basewide Groundwater.
Of the seven SVOCs detected, three are phthalate esters that were present in
samples collected above the invert of the pipeline. This indicates that the
phthalate esters are not associated with releases from the pipeline but may be
attributed to sampling artifacts. The remaining SVOCs are common constituents in
fuel- and waste-oil products. These compounds were detected in a single sample,
which was collected in the area of a former UST. Therefore, it is likely that
detection of these compounds in the subsurface soil is the result of a release from
the UST and not associated with a release from PSC 13.
The detection of pesticides in PSC 13 subsurface soil samples are in low
concentrations and randomly distributed. These pesticides are likely the result of
routine pesticide application procedures at the site. The detection of two
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS. 12 98
2-19
-------
Table 2-3
Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 13
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Analyte
No. of Samples in
Which the Analyte is
Detected/Total No. of
Samples
Range of
Detected
Concentrations
Mean
Concentration
Sample with
Maximum
Concentration
Volatile Oraanic Comooundsfua/ka)

1,1-Dichloroethane
1/53
6 to 6
6
13B0830
1,1-Dichloroethene
2/53
9 to 54
32
13B0330
1,2-Dichloroethane
1/53
4 to 4
4
13B0830
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
3/53
23 to 280
133
13B0135
2-Butanone
3/53
3 to 14
7
13B0925
2-Hexanone
1/53
30 to 30
30
13B0925
Acetone
19/53
4 to 490
45
13B02304
Benzene
1/53
16 to 16
16
13B0925
Tetrachloroethene
1/53
18 to 18
18
13B0330
Trichloroethene
8/53
3 to 940
256
13B0330
Xylenes (total)
1/53
48 to 48
48
13B0925
Semivolatile Oraanic Compound (ua/kq)

2-Methylnaphthalene
1/54
1,300 to 1,300
1,300
13B0915
Di-n-butylphthalate
12/54
240 to 800
585
13B02835
Di-n-octylphthalate
3/54
58 to 63
61
13B1025
Flourene
1/54
53 to 53
53
13B0915
Naphthalene
1/54
280 to 280
280
13B0915
Phenanthrene
1/54
150 to 150
150
13B0915
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
21/54
50 to 5,300
1,259
13B1025
Pesticides and PCBs (ua/kql

4,4-DDD
1/53
0.96 to 0.96
0.96
13B0435
4,4-DDE
4/53
0.33 to 0.89
0.56
13B0104
Aldrin
3/52
1.1 to 2.8
1.7
13B1104
Endrin
1/52
0.5 to 0.5
0.5
13B0915
Heptachlor
1/53
11 to 11
1.1
13B0715
Methoxychlor
15/54
1 to 8.1
2.6
13B0415
alpha-Chlordane
3/53
1.2 to 10
6.4
13B0435
gamma-Chlordane
6/53
0.29 to 13
4.62
13B0435
Aroclor-1248
1/53
37 to 37
37
13B0435
Aroclor-1260
1/53
21 to 21
21
13B0204
Inoraanic Analvtes (mq/kql

Aluminum
54/54
1,780 to 20,700
10,946
13B0330
Antimony
5/54
3 to 5.8
4.3
13B1015
Arsenic
45/54
0.15 to 5
1.53
13B02410
See notes at end of table.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS. 12.98
2-20
-------
Table 2-3 (Continued)
Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 13

Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia

Barium
54/54
1.2 to 1.200
75.4
13B02735
Beryllium
30/54
0.21 to 11.1
1.76
13B03030
Cadmium
34/54
0.17 to 75.6
5.96
13B1125
Calcium
54/54
85.3 to 3,880
701.5
13B02735
Chromium
54/54
2.5 to 85.3
16.9
13B02604
Cobalt
23/54
0.49 to 477
52.39
13B1125
Copper
44/54
1.3 to 75.3
12.3
13B1125
Iron
54/54
984 to 95,500
29,446
13B1125
Lead
54/54
1 to 172
18.7
13B1025
Magnesium
54/54
30 to 1,270
207.6
13B0330
Manganese
54/54
1.7 to 22,300
1,331.2
13B1125
Mercury
11/54
0.03 to 0.32
0.14
13B0535
Nickel
22/54
2.1 to 398
55
13B1125
Potassium
30/54
90 to 1,450
347.6
13B0330
Selenium
20/53
0.2 to 3.6
1.07
13B02410
Silver
8/35
0.46 to 1.3
0.66
13B0230
Sodium
40/54
15.8 to 300
194.7
13B0330
Thallium
15/54
0.17 to 10.6
1.91
13B0535
Vanadium
54/54
11.2 to 272
84
13B1125
Zinc
38/54
2.1 to 528
49.4
13B1125
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.
|jg/kg = micrograms per kilogram.
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyL
DDD = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane.
DDE = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS. 12 98
2-21
-------
PCBs is unclear. However, their detection is interpreted to be the result of
historical use of waste oils for dust suppression at the site rather than a release
of contaminants into the subsurface soil.
In accordance with USEPA Region IV guidance, inorganic analytes with concentrations
that exceeded twice the average of detected concentrations in the background
subsurface soil samples have been included in the HHRA.
PSC 12. Sampling results for PSC 12 subsurface soil are presented in Table 2-4.
Results of the laboratory analyses indicated the presence of VOCs, SVOCs, and
pesticides in the subsurface soils. The presence of the VOCs detected are
interpreted to be sampling and/or analysis artifacts rather than release. This
interpretation is supported by the random distribution and low concentrations at
which these compounds were detected in the subsurface soil samples. The VOCs
detected in subsurface soil samples resulted in a lack of comparability between
samples and their duplicates. This is interpreted to be sampling and/or analysis
artifacts. The detection of one pesticide in a single subsurface soil sample is
interpreted to be the result of routine pesticide application at the site, rather
than a release of compounds into the subsurface soil. No PCB concentrations were
detected above method detection limits in any samples.
The inorganic analytes with concentrations that exceeded twice the average of
detected concentrations in the background subsurface soil samples are included in
the HHRA.
PSC 6. Sampling results for PSC 6 subsurface soil are presented in Table 2-5.
Because the RI was conducted separately for the drainage ditch and the sanitary
sewer line, the analytical results will be discussed separately. The analytical
results indicated that one VOC (acetone) was present in subsurface soil samples.
The random distribution, low-level detections, and absence of any historical
evidence of a release of acetone suggest that acetone may not be related to the
site, but may be a sampling and/or analysis artifact.
Two SVOCs detected at low concentrations within subsurface soil samples appear to
be widespread; however, the levels do not exceed USEPA soil screening levels for
subsurface soil. Pesticides were detected in subsurface soil samples collected from
PSC 6; however, these pesticide detections appear to be isolated in nature and not
associated with a release. PCB concentrations were below method detection limits
in all samples.
Any inorganic analytes with concentrations that exceeded twice the average of
detected concentrations in the background subsurface soil samples have been
included in the HHRA.
The investigation of the industrial discharge drainage ditch resulted in the
detection of several organic compounds (Table 2-6). Analytical results indicated
the presence of VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and PCBs. The low-level VOCs, SVOCs, and
pesticides detected in the surface soil are significantly less than USEPA surface
soil screening levels and are isolated in nature.
Analytical results indicated the presence of two PCBs in PSC 6 surface soil
samples. The detections are random in distribution; however, the values exceed the
screening levels for these compounds. As a result, additional investigations were
conducted in these areas. Of the 22 samples collected, only a single sample
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS. 12 98
2-22
-------

Table 2-4

Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 12

Record of Decision

Operable Unit 4

Marine Corps Logistics Base

Albany, Georgia

No. of Samples in

Sample with
Maximum
Concentration
Analyte
Which the Analyte
is Detected/Total
No. of Samples
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Mean
Concentration
Volatile Oraanic Compounds (ua/kq)

2-Butanone
1/25
2
2 of 2
12B0704
Acetone
2/25
2
9 to 6
12B1020
Methylene chloride
2/25
3
5 of 4
12B1020
Semivolatile Oraanic Compound (ua/ka)

Di-n-octylphthalate
1/25
71
71 of 71
12B1104
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
24/25
48
12,000 of 1,813
12B0304
Pesticides and PCBs (ua/ka)

4,4-DDE
1/25
2.7
2.7 of 2.7
12B0104
Inoraanic Analvtes (ma/ka)

Aluminum
25/25
3,630
28,100 of 12,044
12B0225
Arsenic
22/25
0.47
3.4 of 1.35
12B0704
Barium
25/25
2
456 of 56.5
12B0125
Beryllium
20/25
0.15
4.3 of 0.97
12B0225
Cadmium
21/25
0.25
10.4 of 2.17
12B0625
Calcium
25/25
142
2,350 of 554
12B0225
Chromium
25/25
2.7
58.8 of 27.1
12B0304
Cobalt
20/25
1.3
69.1 of 15.1
12B0625
Copper
22/25
2.6
58.1 of 13.6
12B0225
Iron
25/25
1,590
54,200 of 30,020
12B0725
Lead
25/25
3.8
36.1 of 13.3
12B0625
Magnesium
25/25
31.5
1,230 of 228.9
12B0225
Manganese
25/25
5.7
4,960 of 1,006.4
12B0625
Mercury
24/25
0.03
0.18 of 0.08
12B0225
Nickel
22/25
1.9
125 of 18.9
12B0625
Potassium
22/25
87.8
1,300 of 285.1
12B0225
Selenium
4/25
0.17
0.24 of 0.2
12B1104
Silver
4/25
0.59
0.96 of 0.7
12B0125
Sodium
25/25
175
304 of 223
12B0225
Thallium
13/25
0.16
1.3 of 0.38
12B0225
Vanadium
25/25
17.3
175 of 77.7
12B0225
Zinc
25/25
2.5
169 of 30.1
12B0225
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.

|jg/kg = micrograms per kilogram.

PCB = polychlorinated biphenyL

DDE = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene.

mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram.

ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-23
-------

Table 2-5

Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 6

Record of Decision

Operable Unit 4

Marine Corps Logistics Base

Albany, Georgia

Analyte
No. of Samples in
Which the Analyte
is Detected/Total
No. of Samples
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Mean
Concentration
Sample with
Maximum
Concentration
Volatile Oraanic Compounds (ua/kq)

Acetone
11/16
4 to 11
5
06B0118
Semivolatile Oraanic Compound (ua/ka)

Di-n-octylphthalate
3/16
50 to 65
56
06B0235
bis(2-Ethylhexyl )phthalate
16/16
350 to 5,500
1,795
06B0425
Pesticides and PCBs (ua/ka)

Aldrin
6/15
0.13 to 1.7
0.89
06B0404
Endosulfan sulfate
1/15
1.9 to 1.9
1.9
06B0604
alpha-Chlordane
5/15
0.87 to 1.9
1.33
06B0130
gamma-Chlordane
6/15
0.51 to 3
1.72
06B0130
Inoraanic Analvtes (ma/ka)

Aluminum
16/16
3,850 to 21,700
9,614
06B0321
Antimony
2/16
3.5 to 4.6
4.1
06B0235
Arsenic
13/16
0.13 to 2
1.04
06B0604
Barium
16/16
3.4 to 786
95.1
06B0420
Beryllium
11/16
0.19 to 7.2
2.01
06B0321
Cadmium
11/16
0.21 to 33.7
6.96
06B0321
Calcium
16/16
232 to 5,860
970
06B0321
Chromium
16/16
2.9 to 235
31.3
06B0235
Cobalt
10/16
1.3 to 182
33
06B0420
Copper
16/16
2.1 to 83.3
18.9
06B0420
Iron
16/16
2,780 to 193,000
36,036
06B0235
Lead
16/16
2 to 58.8
14.6
06B0219
Magnesium
16/16
74.7 to 1,970
280.2
06B0321
Manganese
16/16
2.7 to 13,600
1,886.4
06B0420
Mercury
7/16
0.04 to 0.11
0.07
06B0420
Nickel
10/16
2.4 to 138
34.8
06B0321
Potassium
9/16
78.7 to 2,090
467.1
06B0321
Selenium
3/16
0.18 to 0.24
0.2
06B0604
Silver
4/16
0.44 to 1.6
1
06B0235
Sodium
16/16
183 to 376
247
06B0420
Thallium
6/16
0.16 to 2.9
1.08
06B0321
Vanadium
16/16
15.5 to 226
83.9
06B0219
Zinc
16/16
4.2 to 309
49.5
06B0321
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.

|jg/kg = micrograms per kilogram.

PCB = polychlorinated biphenyL

mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram.

ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-24
-------

Table 2-6

Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 6

Record of Decision

Operable Unit 4

Marine Corps Logistics Base

Albany, Georgia

Analyte
No. of Samples in
Which the Analyte
is Detected/Total
No. of Samples
Range of
Detected
Concentrations
Mean
Concentration
Sample with
Maximum
Concentration
Volatile Oraanic Compounds (ua/kq)

Acetone
5/18
2 to 39
19
06S09
Methylene Chloride
4/18
2 to 34
18
06S09
Toluene
2/18
2 to 2
2
06S03
Trichloroethene
2/18
1 to 3
2
06S03
Semivolatile Oraanic Compound (ua/ka)

Acenaphthene
2/20
79 to 86
83
06S15
Anthracene
2/20
94 to 96
95
06S03
Benzo(a)anthracene
8/20
81 to 460
214
06S03
Benzo(a)pyrene
8/20
77 to 380
205
06S03
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
11/20
37 to 570
207
06S12
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
9/20
60 to 240
118
06S03
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
8/20
100 to 520
259
06S03
Carbazole
4/20
65 to 140
104
06S03
Chrysene
9/20
43 to 530
240
06S03
Di-n-butylphthalate
4/20
77 to 610
308
06S11
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3/20
56 to 87
67
06S15
Fluoranthene
12/20
35 to 1,000
388
06S03
Fluorene
2/20
52 to 71
62
06S15
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
8/20
57 to 280
118
06S03
Phenanthrene
10/20
37 to 660
270
06S03
Pyrene
11/20
45 to 680
298
06S12
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
6/20
61 to 410
177
06S04
Pesticides/PCBs (ua/ka)

4,4-DDD
2/20
5 to 10
8
06S14
4,4-DDE
17/20
0.99 to 220
60.72
06S04
4,4-DDT
14/20
1.5 to 570
107
06S04
Aldrin
1/20
0.18 to 0.18
0.18
06S35
Dieldrin
1/20
32 to 32
32
06S04
Endosulfan II
1/20
0.67 to 0.67
0.67
06S36
Endosulfan sulfate
1/20
0.38 to 0.38
0.38
06S36
Endrin
1/20
0.35 to 0.35
0.35
06S36
Endrin ketone
1/20
0.13 to 0.13
0.13
06S36
Heptachlor
1/20
13 to 13
13
06S12
Heptachlor epoxide
3/20
7.8 to 25
15.6
06S16
See notes at end of table.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-25
-------

Table 2-6 (Continued)

Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, PSC 6

Record of Decision

Operable Unit 4

Marine Corps Logistics Base

Albany, Georgia

Analyte
No. of Samples in
Which the Analyte
is Detected/Total
No. of Samples
Range of
Detected
Concentrations
Mean
Concentration
Sample with
Maximum
Concentration
Pesticides/PCBs (ua/kq) (continued)

alpha-Chlordane
8/20
0.77 to 21
9.72
06S14
gamma-Chlordane
10/20
0.73 to 74
18.49
06S04
Aroclor-1254
1/42
6,300 to 6,300
6,300
06S04
Aroclor-1260
10/42
45 to 1,800
555
06S04
Inoraanic Analvtes (mq/kql

Aluminum
20/20
3,460 to 23,100
8,352
06S02
Antimony
9/20
3.4 to 46.2
10.8
06S04
arsenic
20/20
0.75 to 15.7
3 22
06S14
Barium
20/20
4.5 to 178
38.3
06S04
Beryllium
18/20
0.1 to 1.4
0.33
06S04
Cadmium
9/20
0.31 to 25.5
4.32
06S04
Calcium
19/20
140 to 37,700
2,736
06S04
Chromium
20/20
4.3 to 186
42.4
06S09
Cobalt
16/20
0.98 to 4.6
2.3
06S12
Copper
20/20
1.8 to 33.4
10.5
06S12
Iron
20/20
3,540 to 114,000
21,218
06S09
Lead
20/20
5.4 to 743
73.3
06S04
Magnesium
20/20
57 to 5,360
398.7
06S04
Manganese
20/20
16.8 to 740
273.5
06S01
Mercury
16/20
0.04 to 0.09
0.06
06S03
Nickel
14/20
1.6 to 10.7
3.5
06S04
Potassium
5/20
34 to 777
243.7
06S04
Selenium
12/15
0.2 to 1.3
0.47
06S35
Silver
6/20
0.75 to 3.4
1.79
06S09
Sodium
19/20
33.1 to 393
124.1
06S04
Thallium
1/20
0.2 to 0.2
0.2
06S01
Vanadium
20/20
11 to 342
76.9
06S09
Zinc
20/20
0.62 to 542
71.77
06S04
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.

|jg/kg = micrograms per kilogram.

PCB = polychlorinated biphenyL

DDD = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane

DDE = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene.

DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.

mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram.

ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-26
-------
indicated the presence of a low-level PCB compound along the top of the industrial
discharge drainage ditch. This detection and location may be associated with the
maintenance dredging of the ditch. After submittal of these data to GEPD and USEPA,
all parties agreed that delineation of PCB contamination at PSC 6 had been
achieved.
In accordance with USEPA Region IV guidance, inorganic analytes with concentrations
that exceeded twice the average of detected concentrations in the background
surface soil samples have been included in the HHRA.
Surface water sampling was conducted at eight locations along the industrial
discharge drainage ditch. Analytical results indicated the presence of VOCs, one
SVOC, and one pesticide. The presence of VOCs detected (acetone, methylene
chloride, and 2-butanone) are significantly less than the USEPA surface water
screening levels. Furthermore, the VOCs are interpreted to be sampling and/or
analysis artifacts rather than a release of compounds into the surface water. One
SVOC, (bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate), was detected in a single surface water sample;
however, this resulted in a lack of comparability between the sample and its
duplicate. This is interpreted to be a sampling and/or analysis artifact. The
detection of one pesticide in a single surface water sample is interpreted to be
the result of routine pesticide application at the site, rather than a release of
compounds into the surface water. No PCB concentrations were detected above method
detection limits in any surface water samples. Because no background screening
values are available for surface water, the inorganic analytes that were selected
as chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) were retained as such because maximum
concentrations exceeded the selected risk-based screening concentrations.
Sixteen sediment samples were collected along the industrial discharge drainage
ditch. Analytical results indicated the presence of VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and
PCBs. The random distribution of acetone and methylene chloride, low-level
detections, and absence of any historical evidence of release of these compounds
suggest that these analytes may not be related to the site and are isolated in
nature. Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and di-n-butylphthalate were
detected at concentrations exceeding the sediment screening values. Eight
pesticides were detected in sediment samples collected along the drainage ditch.
Heptachlor epoxide was the only compound that had a single detected concentration
above sediment screening values. One PCB (Aroclor-1260) was detected in 12 sediment
samples. These detections are widespread in distribution and exceeded the sediment
screening values for this compound. Because no background screening values are
available for sediment, the inorganic analytes that were selected as COPCs were
retained as such because maximum concentrations exceed the selected risk-based
screening concentrations.
2.7 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS. The OU 4 RI analytical data were
evaluated to determine whether or not the substances found on site occur naturally
or resulted from past waste disposal. Based on this evaluation, a list of COPCS was
developed for each environmental medium (e.g. , surface soil, subsurface soil,
etc.) sampled at OU 4. Tables 2-7 through 2-9 present the COPCs grouped as the
following data sets:
• PSC 10, 13, and 22 subsurface soil;
• PSC 12 subsurface soil; and
• PSC 6 surface water, surface soil, and sediment.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-27
-------
Table 2-7
Chemicals of Potential Concern at PSCs 10, 13, and 22
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Chemicals
Human Health
Subsurface Soil
Inorganic Analvtes
Arsenic
Chromium
Vanadium
Notes: No surface soil, surface water, or sediment samples were evaluated at PSCs 10,
13, and 22; therefore, an ecological risk assessment was not completed for
these PSCs.
PSC = potential source of contamination.
Table 2-8
Chemicals of Potential Concern at PSC 12
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Chemicals
Human Health
Subsurface Soil
Inorganic Analvtes
Arsenic
Chromium
Notes: No surface soil, surface water, or sediment samples were evaluated at PSC 12;
therefore, an ecological risk assessment was not completed for this PSC.
PSC = potential source of contamination.
ALB-OU4 ROD
S AS.12.98 2-28
-------
Table 2-9
Chemicals of Potential Concern at PSC 6
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
Chemicals
Human Health
Surface
Soil
Surface
Water
Sediment
Ecological
Surface
Soil
Surface
Water
Sediment
Volatile and Semivolatile Organic Compounds
2-Butanone
Acetone
Trichloroethene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Acenaphthene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene x
Benzo(a)pyrene x
Benzo(b)fluoranthene x
Benzo(g h i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene x
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene x
Di-n-butylphthalate
Naphthalene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene x
2-Methylnaphthalene
Phenanthrene
Dibenzofuran
Pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene x
Pesticides and PCBs
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
See notes at end of table.
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS.12.98
2-29
-------

Table 2-9 (Continued)
Chemicals of Potential Concern at PSC 6

Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia

Human Health
Ecological
Chemicals
Surface
Surface
Sediment
Surface
Surface
Sediment

Soil
Water
Soil
Water
Pesticides and PCBs (continued)

4,4-DDT

X
X
X
Aroclor-1260
X

X
X

X
Aroclor-1254
X

Dieldrin

X
alpha-Chlordane

X
gamma-Chlordane

X
Heptachlor

Heptachlor epoxide

X
Inorqanic Analvtes

Aluminum
X
X
X
X
X
X
Antimony
X

X
X

X
Arsenic
X
X
X
X
X
X
Barium

X
X
X
Beryllium
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cadmium
X

X
X
X
X
Chromium
X

X
X
X
X
Cobalt

X
Copper

X
X
X
Cyanide

X
Iron
X
X
X

X
X
Lead
X

X
X
X
X
Manganese

X
X
Mercury

X
Nickel

X
Silver

X
X
Thallium

X
X
X
X
Vanadium
X

X
X
X
X
Zinc

X
X
X
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.
DDD = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane.
DDE = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene.
DDT = dichlorodiphenytrichloroethane.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-30
-------
The development of these data sets was based on the nature and extent of
contamination and fate and transport analyses. The subsurface soil contamination
identified at PSCs 10, 13, 22, and 12 consists of similar chemicals and may be
related to similar sources. The close proximity of PSCs 10, 13, and 22 necessitates
evaluation as one area of contamination, whereas the geographically distinct
location of PSC 12 necessitates evaluation as a separate area. Surface soil,
surface water, and sediment at PSC 6 are geographically separated from other areas
at OU 4; therefore, PSC 6 is evaluated separately.
COPCs are chemicals that need further evaluation to determine if in fact the
concentrations found at the site pose a risk to human health and the environment.
2.7.1 OU 4 BRA A BRA was prepared for OU 4 in accordance with the USEPA Risk
Assessment Guidance (USEPA, 1988). This guidance reflects a conservative approach
to the BRA to ensure that subsequent cleanup decisions are protective of human
health and the environment. The BRA estimates or characterizes the potential
current and future risks to human health and the environment. Three factors were
considered when evaluating the potential risks associated with OU 4.
• The extent of contamination present at the site and surrounding areas.
• The pathways through which people and the environment are or may
potentially be exposed to contaminants at the site.
• The potential toxic effects of site contaminants on humans and the
environment.
Exposure pathways considered for the human health portion of the BRA include
incidental ingestion, skin contact, and inhalation of fugitive dust generated
during excavation activities. These pathways were then applied to a current land-
use scenario in which base workers and child trespassers could possibly be exposed
to contaminated media. Although trespassers have not been observed at the site,
child trespassers could obtain access to the site. These pathways were also applied
to a future land-use scenario in which a child transient and a child and adult
resident could potentially be exposed to contaminated media.
There is no current land-use exposure to subsurface soils at PSCs 10, 12, 13, and
22 due to the concrete surface. For future land use at PSCs 10, 12, 13, and 22,
excavation worker exposures to subsurface soil were evaluated. For this exposure
scenario, both cancer and noncancer risk estimates are below the USEPA point of
departure such that no response was required.
The ecological portion of the BRA was completed only for PSC 6, the Industrial
Discharge Drainage Ditch, due to a lack of habitat (animals, plants, birds,
mammals, fish, and reptiles) at the other PSCs. Both terrestrial and aquatic
organisms were considered during the ecological assessment at PSC 6.
The human health portion of the BRA evaluated both cancer and noncancer risks.
According to the NCP for Superfund sites, the acceptable cancer risk range is from
1 in 10,000 (1X10"') to 1 in 1 million (1X10"), depending on site-specific
conditions. Although the estimated risk of 1X10" is the point of departure in
determining the need for a response action, site-specific conditions at OU 4
indicate that application of the acceptable risk range is appropriate. A site-
specific condition supporting the use of the risk range is the base perimeter
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-31
-------
fence, which restricts public access to soil, surface water, and sediment at all
PSCs. In addition to the base perimeter fence, which restricts public access, there
are fences around PSC 12 and the DMA (PSC 10). For noncancer risks, the similar
point of departure is an HI of 1. If the total estimated noncancer risk is greater
than 1, site-specific conditions and effects from individual compounds are
evaluated to determine if a response action is necessary.
PSCs 10, 13, and 22. As part of the HHRA, data were evaluated and summarized,
medium-specific COPCs were selected, and potential human receptor exposures to
those COPCs were evaluated. Human health risks for each receptor were then
characterized for exposure to the medium evaluated. A summary of total risks for
each receptor, by pathway and medium, is presented in Table 2-10. There are no
exposures to subsurface soil under current land-use conditions due to the concrete
surface over the 45-acre site; therefore, potential risks for current land use were
not evaluated. For future land use, excavation worker exposures to subsurface soil
were evaluated. For this exposure scenario, both cancer and noncancer risk
estimates were below the USEPA point of departure such that no response action was
required.
PSC 12. Data were evaluated and summarized, medium-specific COPCs were selected,
and potential human receptor exposures to those COPCs were evaluated for the PSC
12 HHRA. Human health risks for each receptor were then characterized for exposure
to the medium evaluated. A summary of total risks for each receptor, by pathway and
medium, is presented in Table 2-11. There are no exposures to subsurface soil under
current land-use conditions because 50 percent or more of the site is covered by
a concrete surface; therefore, potential risks for current land use were not
evaluated for future land use, excavation worker exposures to subsurface soil were
evaluated. For this exposure scenario, both cancer and noncancer risk estimates
were below the USEPA point of departure; therefore, no response action was
required.
PSC 6. COPCs were selected, and potential human receptor exposures to those COPCs
were evaluated for the PSC 6 drainage ditch. Human health risks for each receptor
were then characterized for exposure to the medium evaluated. A summary of total
risks for each receptor, by pathway and medium, is presented in Table 2-12. For
current land-use assumptions, base worker cancer risks for potential exposures to
surface water, sediment, and surface soil were within the USEPA acceptable cancer
risk range of 1X10"' to 1X10" , and noncancer risks were below the USEPA point of
departure, with His of less than 1 (Figure 2-10) . For current and potential future
land use, child transient cancer risks for potential exposures to surface water,
sediment, and surface soil are within the USEPA acceptable cancer risk range, and
noncancer risks are below the USEPA threshold HI of 1 (Figure 2-11). Total resident
(i.e., child and adult resident combined) cancer risks for potential future
exposures to industrial discharge drainage ditch surface soil, surface water, and
sediment are 6x10" , which is within the USEPA acceptable cancer risk range. Total
child resident noncancer risk for potential future surface soil, surface water, and
sediment exposure is an HI of 3, which exceeds the USEPA threshold HI of 1 (Figure
2-12) . The results of the risk assessment indicate that uses of the industrial
drainage ditch for purposes other than residential development are not associated
with risks above USEPA acceptable levels. However, use of the PSC 6 drainage ditch
for residential development may pose unacceptable noncancer risks to children.
Therefore, based on the potential noncancer risk for a future child resident, a
response action at PSC 6 is necessary.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-32
-------
Table 2-10
Risk Summary for PSCs 10, 13 and 22

Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia

Land Use Exposure Route
HI
ELCR
Future Land Use

Excavation Worker:

Subsurface Soil Incidental ingestion
0.02
4 x 10"9
Dermal contact
0.004
5 x 10"
Inhalation of fugitive dusts
ND
1 X 10"
Total:
0.02
4 X 109
Notes: PCS = potential source of contamination.
HI = hazard index.
ELCR = excess lifetime cancer risk.
ND = not calculated because toxicity data were not available to quantitatively evaluate risks.
Table 2-11
Risk Summary for PSC 12

Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia

Land Use Exposure Route
HI
ELCR
Future Land Use

Excavation worker:

Subsurface Soil Incidental ingestion
0.008
4 x 10"9
Dermal contact
0.0003
5 x 10"
Inhalation of fugitive dusts
ND
3X10"
Total:
0.008
4 X 109
Notes: PCS = potential source of contamination.
HI = hazard index.
ELCR = excess lifetime cancer risk.
ND = not calculated because toxicity data were not available to quantitatively evaluate risks.
ALB-OU4 ROD
S AS.12.98 2-33
-------

Table 2-12
Risk Summary for PSC 6

Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia

Land Use
Exposure Route
HI
ELCR
Current Land Use
Base Worker:
Surface Water
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Total:
0.0007
0.01
0.01
1 x 10"7
9 x 10"7
1 x 10"6
Sediment
Indigestion
Dermal contact
Total:
0.01
0.01
0.02
1 x 10"6
5 x 10"7
2 x 10"6
Surface Soil
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Total:
0.01
0.03
0.04
7 x 10"7
5 x 10"7
1 x 10"6

Total Base Worker Risk (Surface Water,
Sediment, and Surface Soil)
0.07
4 x 10"6
Child Transient:
Surface Water
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Total:
0.02
0.01
0.1
1 x 10"6
5 x 10"6
6 x 10"6
Sediment
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Total:
0.09
0.2
0.03
3 x 10"6
4 x 10"6
7 x 10"6
Surface Soil
Incidental ingestion
Dermal contact
Total:
0.07
0.01
0.02
1 x 10"6
2 x 10"6
3 x 10"6

Total Child Transient Risk(Surface Water,
Sediment, and Surface Soil)
0.6
2 x 10"6
See notes at end of table.
ALB-OU4 ROD
S AS.12.98 2-34
-------

Table 2-12 (Continued)
Risk Summary for PSC 6

Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia

Land Use
Exposure Route
HI
ELCR
Future Land Use

Child Transient:

Surface Water
Incidental ingestion
0.02
1 x 10"6

Dermal contact
0.1
5 x 10"6

Total:
0.01
6 x 10"6
Sediment
Indigestion
0.09
3 x 10"6

Dermal contact
0.2
4 x 10"6

Total:
0.09
6 x 10"6
Surface Soil
Incidental ingestion
0.07
1 x 10"6

Dermal contact
0.1
2 x 10"6

Total:
0.2
3 x 10"6

Total Child Transient Risk (Surface Water,
Sediment, and Surface Soil)
0.6
2 x 10"6
Child Resident

Surface Water
Incidental ingestion
0.05
4 x 10"6

Dermal contact
0.1
3 x 10"6

Total:
0.1
7 x 10 s
Sediment
Incidental ingestion
0.5
8 x 10"6

Dermal contact
0.2
2 x 10"6

Total:
0.7
1 x 10 s
Surface Soil
Incidental ingestion
1
1 x 10"5

Dermal contact
0.6
4 x 10"6

Total:
2
1 x 10 s

Total Child Resident (Surface Water,
Sediment, and Surface Soil):
3
3 x 10-6
See notes at end of table.
ALB-OU4 ROD
S AS.12.98 2-35
-------

Table 2-12 (Continued)
Risk Summary for PSC 6

Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia

Land Use
Exposure Route
HI
ELCR
Future Land Use (continued)

Adult Resident

Surface Water
Incidental ingestion

0.01
2 x 10"6

Dermal contact

0.04
3 x 10"6

Total:
0.06
5 x 10-6
Sediment
Incidental ingestion

0.05
4 x 10"6

Dermal contact

0.04
2 x 10"6

Total:
0.09
6 x 10-6
Surface Soil
Incidental ingestion

0.1
6 x 10"6

Dermal contact

0.4
1 x 10"6

Total:
0.5
2 x 10-6

Total Adult Resident (Surface Water,
Sediment, and Surface Soil):

0.6
3 X 10-6

Total Resident Risk (Child and Adult
Resident)

NC
6 x 10-6
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination
HI = hazard index.
ELCR = excess lifetime cancer risk.
NC = not calculated because child and adult His are not additive.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-36
-------
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
Jt
tr 1.0QE-05
100E-06
1 OOE-07
Surtacs Sol Total Basa WofK*r
Sunaca Water
USEPA
inrMAOM
ranpt
Currant Land Un
3
1
0.01
. USEPA
Surtaoa Wal«f
SaArntm
Surface So*
Total Bait Vtortrtr
Cu«f»ni Land Um
NDTES:
USEPA 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agtncy
PSC « PottntiH tourci ol contiminilion
HI * Hizird rndtn
FIGURE 2-10
RISK SUMMARY, BASE WORKER, PSC 6

RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
H\HEIDI\ALBANY\FIG2-1 OA PM5 C7198HAS
ALB-OU4.ROD
SAS. 12.98 2-37
-------
1.00E-03
1.00£>04
r
.OOE-06
1.00E-07
US EPA
Surtao* Witai
Rmdrrmnl SufliOB Soil
Ctrait and FutiM Larf Uh
Toltl CMd TranMfl
0.01
SurfmWMr
USEPA
HI
NOTES:
USEPA « U.S. Environmtntil Protection Agency
PSC * Pottntnl iourc* of contamination
HI * Hizird index
Surf** Sol
Currvvrl and F mum Ltnri Um
FIGURE 2-11
RISK SUMMARY, CHILD TRANSIENT, PSC 6
RECORD Of DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
H\HEIDI\ALBANY\FIG2-1 OA PM5 C7198HAS
ALB-OU4 ROD
S AS.12.98 2-38
-------
100C-C3
1.00E-04
i.ooe-os
1.00E-O6
1 006-07
U5EPA
Surtaoa Witar
Sur(tc4 Sol
Future Land Ua«
ToUl
USE PA
TonlChMd Ami
Surfao* Wtw
NOTES.
USEPA = U.S Enviranmenta! Protection Agency
PSC * Potential source of contamination
HI * Hazard index
Huard index values arc for the child resident.
Suriic* Soil
Future Lart* U»t
FIGURE 2-12
RISK SUMMARY, RESIDENT, PSC 6
S&ni,*. RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
H\HEIDI\ALBANY\FIG2-1 OA PM5 C7198HAS
ALB-OU4 ROD
S AS.12.98 2-39
-------
The results of the PSC 6 ERA suggest that terrestrial receptors are not likely to
be at risk from exposure to organic or inorganic analytes in PSC 6 surface soil,
sediment, or surface water. Populations of aquatic receptors in the PSC 6
industrial discharge drainage ditch are not likely to be at risk from exposure to
analytes in the PSC 6 ditch surface water or sediment.
2.7.2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and Remedial
A1ternatives The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) requires that
all remedial actions meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs), the NCP, and associated guidance documents. Preferred SARA remedial
actions involve treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the toxicity,
mobility or volume of the hazardous contaminants. In accordance with SARA, a list
of ARARs was prepared to determine the appropriate extent of cleanup for surface
water, sediment, and surface soil at PSC 6 and to develop remedial action alterna-
tives. The ARARs, presented in Table 2-13, include both Federal and State
regulations and guidance criteria.
The combined media of surface water, sediment, and surface soil at PSC 6 were found
to pose an unacceptable risk to a potential future child resident due to elevated
concentrations of inorganics in the surface soils. Remedial alternatives identified
to reduce this potential future risk include NA (in accordance with the NCP), LUCs,
and Limited Action, such as fencing and signs at PSC 6. These remedial alternatives
were then evaluated for compliance with the USEPA screening criteria.
2.7.2.1 Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives The three remedial alternatives
under consideration for PSC 6 were evaluated based on nine criteria, in accordance
with USEPA guidance (USEPA, 1988). These criteria are identified below.
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment.
2. Compliance with ARARs.
3. Long-term effectiveness and performance.
4. Reductions in toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment.
5. Short-term effectiveness.
6. Implementability.
7 . Cost.
8. State acceptance.
9. community acceptance.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. The LUCs and Limited
Action will provide the necessary protection at PSC 6 to prevent exposure to the
COPCs in the surface water, sediment and surface soil of PSC 6. The NA alternative
does not meet these criteria.
Compliance with ARARs. None of the alternatives will satisfy all of the ARARs
because no treatment is proposed for the surface water, sediment, and surface soil
of PSC 6. However, the potential unacceptable risk is limited to long-term
residential use of the site.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. Both the LUCs and Limited Action will
provide the long-term protection from the COPCs in surface water, sediment, or
surface soil at PSC 6. The NA alternative will not meet these criteria.
H\HEIDI\ALBANY\FIG2-1 OA PM5 C7198HAS
ALB-OU4 ROD
S AS.12.98 2-40
-------
Table 2-13

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Record of Decision

Operable Unit 4

Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia

Standards, Requirements, Criteria, or Limitations
Citation
Federal

Clean Air Act (CAA), National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
40 CFR 50, 40 CFR 61
and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

USEPA Regulations on Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
40 CFR 52, Subpart L - Georgia
Plans

Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) Regulations for Air
29 CFR 1910.1000
Contaminants

RCRA General and Location Standards for Permitted Hazardous Waste
40 CFR 264, Subparts A through F
Facilities

USEPA Rules for Controlling PCBs under the Toxic Substances Control
40 CFR 761.125, Subpart D, G, and K
Act (TSCA)

Endangered Species Act
16 USC 1531, 50 CFR Parts 81, 225, and 402
RCRA Facility Location Regulations
40 CFR 264.18
RCRA Closure and Postclosure Requirements
40 CFR 264, Subpart G
RCRA Regulations for Generation of Hazardous Waste
40 CFR 262
RCRA Transportation Regulations and DOT Standards
40 CFR 263, 49 CFR, Parts 171 through 179
RCRA Subtitle D Solid Waste Regulations
40 CFR 241 and 257
CAA - NAAQS's for Particulates
40 CFR 50
RCRA Standards for Environmental Performance of Miscellaneous Units
40 CFR 264, Subpart X
RCRA Regulations on Land Disposal Restrictions (Land Ban)
40 CFR 268
RCRA Regulations for Use and Management of Containers
40 CFR 264, Subpart I
RCRA Regulations for Waste Piles
40 CFR 264, Subpart L
RCRA Incinerator Standards
40 CFR, Subpart O
OSHA - General Industry Standards, Recordkeeping and Reporting, and
29 CFR Part 1926, 29 CFR Part 1904,
Standards for Hazardous Waste Site Operations
29 CFR Part 1910
USEPA Rules for Controlling PCBs under TSCA
40 CFR 761, Subparts D, G, and K
USEPA Solid Waste Management Act
40 CFR 258, Subpart F
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FFRA)
40 CFR 165
and Regulations

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and FWS and NFWS Advisories
16 USC 661
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980
16 USC 2901, 50 CFR Part 83
National Historic Preservation Act
16 USC 470
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
32 CFR Part 229, 43 CFR Parts 107 through

171.500
Field Manual for Grid Sampling of PCB Spill Sites to Verify Cleanup
USEPA-560/5-86-017
See notes at end of table.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-41
-------
Table 2-13 (Continued)
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Record of Decision

Operable Unit 4

Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia

Standards, Requirements, Criteria, or Limitations
Citation
State

Georgia Air Quality Control Law, and Georgia Air Quality Control Rules
Code of Georgia, Title 12, Chapter 9 DNR,

Chapter 391-3-1
Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act
Code of Georgia, Title 12, Chapter 8,

Articles 3 and 60
Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Rules
Rules and Regulation of the State of Georgia,

Title 391, Article 3, Chapter 11
Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act
OCGA Section 12-8-20 et seq. and Rules,

Chapter 391-3-4
Endangered Wildlife and Wildflower Preservation Act of 1973
OCGA Section 12-6-172 et seq. and Rules,

Chapter 391-4-10
Notes: CFR = Code of Federal Regulations.

DNR = Department of Natural Resources.

DOT = Department of Transportation.

NFWS = National Fish and Wildlife Service.

OCGA = Official Code of Georgia Annotated.

PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

USC = U.S. Code.

FWS = Fish and Wildlife Service.

ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-42
-------
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume. None of the proposed remedial
alternatives will reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminated surface
water, sediment, or surface soil at PSC 6.
Short-Term Effectiveness. LUCs and Limited Action will be effective over the
short-term in restricting residential development and land use of PSC 6. The NA
alternative will not satisfy this criteria.
Implementabilitv. LUCs can be readily implemented through the LUCIP for PSC 6.
This LUCIP is provided as an attachment to this document as well as within MCLB,
Albany's Master Plan and within the LUCAP. There is no implementation required for
the NA alternative. The Limited Action alternative will require the installation
of a security fence and signs along the length of PSC 6. The length of PSC 6 is
14,000 feet, but fencing is required on both sides of the ditch (for a total of 28,
000 feet). This alternative would also restrict the accessibility of the site,
i.e., the types of maintenance equipment that could be used at the site.
Cost. There are no capital or operational costs associated with the NA and LUC
alternatives. The estimated cost for this fence and signage is approximately $10
per linear foot. This would result in a capital cost of approximately $280,000 for
PSC 6. Estimated maintenance cost would be approximately $2,000 per year for the
replacement of damaged or vandalized fencing. This results in a total estimated
cost of $340,000 for PSC 6 over a 30-year period.
State and Community Acceptance. The USEPA guidance also requires that the remedial
alternatives be evaluated for regulatory acceptance and public acceptance (total
of nine criteria). These evaluations were addressed through the release of the OU
4 Proposed Plan on October 13, 1998, and the 30-day public comment period, ending
November 11, 1998. Comments were received from the public during the public meeting
held on October 22, 1998. A summary of the comments received is included in the
Responsiveness Summary, Appendix A.
2.7.3 Response Action.
PSCs 10, 12, 13, and 22. Based on the results of the BRA, a NA decision is
proposed for PSCs 10, 12, 13, and 22. This alternative does not require any
treatment, containment, or land-use restrictions for these PSCS.
PSC 6. The noncancer risk (HI of 3) associated with the future child resident
exceeded the USEPA point of departure (HI greater than 1) thereby requiring a
response action. As a result of the remedial alternative evaluation, LUCs will be
implemented at PSC 6 prohibiting future residential development of the site. A
review will be conducted in 5 years after commencement of response action to ensure
that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment. Other activities required to ensure adequate protection of human
health and the environment may still be conducted at PSC 6 under the attached LUCIP
(see Appendix B) .
2.8 EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. As the lead agency, SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM
prepared and issued the Proposed Plan for OU 4 on October 5, 1998 (HLA, 1998). This
Proposed Plan described the rationale for a final response of NA at PSCs 10, 12,
13, and 22, and LUCs at PSC 6. The GEPD, USEPA Region IV, and public concur
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-43
-------
with this final response.
Proposed Plan. This response
at OU 4 indicate that an una
exist at this site.
Therefore, no significant
action may be reevaluated
cceptable risk to public he
changes were made to the
in the future if conditions
alth or the environment may
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
2-44
-------
REFERENCES
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES). 1993. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study Workplan, Operable Unit 4, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia .
Prepared for Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM), North Charleston, South Carolina (April).
ABB-ES. 1998. Remedial Investigation and Baseline Risk Assessment Report for Operable
Unit 4, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia. Prepared for
SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston, South Carolina (May).
Applied Engineering and Science, Inc. 1989. RCRA Facility Investigation, Phase One,
Confirmation Study.
Envirodyne Engineers. 1985. Initial Assessment Study of Marine Corps Logistics Base,
Albany, Georgia. Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity 13065 (September) .
Harding Lawson Associates. 1998. Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 4, Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia . Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston,
South Carolina (July).
McClelland Engineers, Inc. 1987. Final Report, Confirmation Study Verification Step
Report, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia . Prepared for
SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston, South Carolina.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1992. Initial Site Characterization Report, UST Release, Buildings
2210 and 9700, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia . Prepared for
SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston, South Carolina.
SEC Donohue, Inc. 1993. Corrective Action Plan, Building 2218, Marine Corps Logistics
Base, Albany, Georgia . Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston, South
Carolina.
Sirrine Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1992. UST Investigation Building 2200, Shop 712.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA . Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. Washington, D.C. (October).
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
Ref-1
-------
ATTACHMENT A-1
TRANSCRIPTS OF THE
PUBLIC HEARING ON OPERABLE UNIT 4,
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------
1. 0 OVERVIEW
Based on the results of the Remedial Investigation and Baseline Risk Assessment,
Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM)
recommended a response action for the five Potential Sources of Contamination
(PSCs) that make up Operable Unit (OU) 4. SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM's recommended
alternatives consisted of No Action at PSCs 10, 12, 13, and 22, and Land-Use
Controls (LUCs) at PSC 6.
Following the 30-day public comment period and the Public Meeting held on the
evening of Thursday, October 22, 1998, on the OU 4 Proposed Plan, this
responsiveness summary was prepared to summarize public comments and provide
written responses. This responsiveness summary includes:
• Background on Community Involvement
• Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period and Agency
Responses
Part I: Summary and Response to Local Community Concerns
Part II: Comprehensive Response to Specific Legal and Technical
Quest ions
A Record of Decision will be prepared for OU 4 based on a review of these comments
by the Navy and regulatory agencies.
2.0 BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
An active community relations program providing information and soliciting input
has been conducted by MCLB, Albany for the entire National Priority List (NPL)
site. Interviews of citizens on base and in the city of Albany were conducted in
the winter of 1990 to identify community concerns. No significant concerns that
required focused response were identified. Most comments received were concerning
the potential for contamination of water resources. However, those interviewed
indicated that they place great trust in MCLB, Albany and their 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 the local academic community. These TRC community members were
contacted in July 1996 to determine their continued interest in serving in serving
on the committee. Each member confirmed his or her interest in serving on the TRC.
In addition, parties on the MCLB, Albany Environmental Branch mailing list were
contacted to solicit new community members for the TRC. Since this solicitation,
the TRC has grown from 10 to 17 members. Since September 1996, the MCLB, Albany
Environmental Branch has held several meetings with the TRC to update them on the
status of the investigation, remediation, and closure of the 26 PSCs. The local
media have also been kept informed since MCLB, Albany was placed on the NPL.
Installation Restoration Program fact sheets have been prepared and made available
at the Environmental Office of MCLB, Albany. Documents concerning Operable Unit
(OU) 4 are located in the Information Repository at Dougherty County Public Library
and the Administrative Record at the Base Environmental Branch office. Public
interest in operations and environmental restoration at MCLB, Albany has increased
recently. The MCLB, Albany Environmental Branch staff is responding to that
interest through increasing their accessibility to the public.
ALB-OU4
SAS 12 98
A-1
-------
3.0
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND RESPONSES
The public comment period on the final Proposed Plan for OU 4 was held from October
13 to November 11, 1998. This includes a Public Meeting that was held on the
evening of Thursday, October 22, 1998. Comments received during this time are
summarized below. Part I of this section addresses community concerns and comments
that are non-technical in nature. Comprehensive responses to specific regulatory
and technical comments and questions are provided in Part II. Comments in each Part
are categorized by relevant topics.
The responses to public comments are presented below. Responses are not presented
for each individual comment received. Rather, individual public comments have been
organized into subject areas, and responses have been prepared for each subject.
This approach is consistent with USEPA guidance for preparing Responsiveness
Summaries as described in the USEPA's Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook
(1992) .
PART I - SUMMARY AND RESPONSE TO LOCAL COMMUNITY CONCERNS
Remedial Alternative Preferences
(1) Regarding the LUC proposed for PSC 6, a citizen asked what is being done to
"correct" the situation at the site (i.e., address contamination) and if
something can be done now rather than having to revisit the remedial decision
in the future.
Response: The LUC proposed for PSC 6 does not include active cleanup
activities for the site. The LUC does prohibit future residential development
along the ditch to ensure that prolonged exposure to site contaminants that
could pose unacceptable health risks do not occur. Current site conditions do
not pose risks to workers, a child trespasser, or future adult resident.
A number of responses could have been considered to actively address
contamination at PSC 6, but given the limited risk (i.e., for potential
future child residents), the cost of implementing these actions exceeds their
benefits. Prohibiting future residential development of the site will
eliminate unacceptable future risks at the sites.
(2) A citizen stated that the proposed LUCs imply that PSC 6 is contaminated;
however, the contamination will remain in place. Confusion remains as to
whether or not contamination is present.
Response: Contaminants are present at PSC 6. This determination is based on
the collection and analysis of soil, sediment and surface water samples
during RI activities at the site. The analytical results were compared to
Federal and State standards for the detected compounds. If the concentration
of a compound detected at the site exceeded those standards, it was
considered a contaminant of concern requiring further evaluation. The
contaminants of concern at PSC 6 include chromium, vanadium and arsenic.
ALB-OU4
SAS.12.98 A-2
-------
The risk assessment component of the RI evaluated whether or not the
contaminants of concern pose unacceptable risks to human health and the
environment. This evaluation considers exposure to site contaminants under
both existing site conditions (e.g., periodic exposure by maintenance
workers) and potential future site conditions (e.g., residential use of the
site including children who might live at PSC 6 and play in contaminated
soil, surface water, or sediment). The risk assessment for PSC 6 resulted in
the identification of an unacceptable risk to a hypothetical future child
resident who may live at PSC 6 and play in the drainage ditch. Therefore,
land use controls prohibiting future residential usage of PSC 6 are proposed
to address this risk.
(3) A generic information sheet on LUCs was distributed at the public meeting.
The sheet stated that signs and fencing are examples of physical means for
implementing LUCs at some sites. Some community members felt this implied
that all LUC sites receive signs and fencing, and recommended them for PSC 6.
Response: The information sheet listed a range of potential measures for LUC
implementation, including physical methods as well as legal means such as
those proposed for PSC 6. The specific plan to implement LUCs at PSC 6 are
included in the OU 4 Proposed Plan. These site-specific LUCs were selected
based on the potential future risk to a child resident and the site's
geographic location. The information sheet will be revised based on the
public comment.
Remedial Alternative Safety Concerns
(1) Is wildlife affected by contamination at OU 4? If so, how does the Proposed
Plan address these impacts?
Response: An ecological risk assessment was conducted for PSC 6 (wildlife are
not exposed to the contaminated subsurface soil at other OU 4 PSCs) and is
presented in the OU 4 RI/BRA Report available in the Dougherty County Public
Library. This risk assessment evaluated potential impacts to wildlife exposed
to the contaminants in PSC 6 surface soil, sediment, and surface water. The
assessment concluded that the contaminated media do not pose unacceptable
risks to wildlife and therefore no response action is needed to protect
wildlife.
(2) If maintenance activities such as lawn mowing are performed in or around the
ditch, how will contamination of equipment be prevented?
Response: Equipment used in routine maintenance activities at PSC 6 will be
handled and stored in accordance with standard practices to minimize the
amount of contaminated material remaining on that equipment. Also, it is not
expected that residual contaminated material on equipment poses any health
risk to workers. The adult worker scenario was considered in the risk
assessment, which found that an adult worker would not be exposed to an
unacceptable risk by working at PSC 6.
(3) What type of controls will be implemented to keep people away from PSC 6?
Will the site be fenced or posted with warning signs?
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS. 12 98
A-3
-------
Response: There are no plans to erect fences or warning signs at PSC 6
because a base perimeter fence restricts public access onto MCLB, Albany.
Because MCLB controls land use and development on the installation, land use
restrictions on residential development will prevent child residents from
playing in the drainage ditch. Furthermore, there is not an unacceptable risk
for a child who simply passes through the ditch, but risk exists for a child
resident who may live at PSC 6 and play in contaminated soil, surface water,
or sediment. Under current conditions, the distance between PSC 6 and base
housing, and the fact that children do not play in the western portion of the
base and are not authorized to be there also mitigates against prolonged
exposure that could result in unacceptable risks. Based on these site-
specific conditions, land use controls are a protective response to the
potential risks.
Public Participation Process
(1) A notice on the OU 4 Proposed Plan public meeting was posted at the northern
end of Ramsey Road. Why wasn't this done for previous meetings?
Response: During IR site tours conducted in September 1998 for Ramsey Road
area residents and TRC members, it was determined that MCLB was not meeting
the community's communication needs. One way to improve communication with
residents in this neighborhood was to post an OU 4 meeting notice on Ramsey
Road.
To publicize past public meetings, MCLB published legal notices in theAlbany
Herald, mailed notices to the TRC members and the community mailing list, and
sent public service announcements to local media. However, public interest in
operations and environmental restoration at MCLB has recently increased, and
the Marine Corps posted the OU 4 meeting notice to respond to that interest.
(2) We appreciate the sign for our neighborhood, but there are also neighbors to
the west and to the south. Were they also informed of the meeting?
Response: As previously noted, the OU 4 public meeting and similar meetings
were publicized through mailings to the community mailing list, paid legal
notices in the Albany Herald, and public service announcements to local
media. The OU 4 meeting notice was published on October 13, 1998. Based on
public input, MCLB will look to expand public meeting publicity efforts to
better serve communities in the immediate vicinity of the base.
(3) Do you plan to conduct the next TRC meetings as a public availability
session, similar to the public meeting on the OU 4 Proposed Plan?
Response: A Proposed Plan public meeting has requirements (such as
preparation of an official transcript) that do not apply to TRC meetings. The
next Proposed Plan public meeting will be for OU 6 and will use the public
availability format.
As for the TRC meetings, they are open to the public and typically include
updates on recent restoration activities. A period is also provided for
questions and comments from the TRC and the general public attending the
meeting. Specific meeting formats, agendas, times, and locations are decided
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS. 12 98
A-4
-------
by the TRC members themselves. MCLB will continue to facilitate TRC meetings
as needed.
Decision Process
(1) Will you explain the process and schedule for the Proposed Plan and Record of
Decis ion?
Response: The OU 4 Proposed Plan was released on October 13, 1998 for a 30-
day public comment period. At the end of this comment period, all comments
received including those expressed at the October 22, 1998 public meeting
were consolidated and responded to in this responsOiveness summary. Based on
this public input, the base and regulatory agencies determined that the
proposed response actions for OU 4 are protective of health and the
environment. The ROD was then prepared to document the response action (s) to
be implemented. The ROD will be reviewed and signed by the MCLB Commanding
Officer, and letters of concurrence will be submitted by the USEPA and GEPD.
It is expected that the OU 4 ROD will be signed within two months of the
public comment period close.
(2) One citizen was concerned that her preference for fencing and warning signs
along the PSG 6 drainage ditch was being ignored.
Response: Public input is encouraged as community acceptance is required in
the proposed plan/ROD process. During the OU 4 public comment period, MCLB
solicited public comments at the public meeting, by electronic mail, regular
mail and by telephone. As stated above, the MCLB and regulatory agencies
consider all comments received and determine whether the proposed response
action is appropriate or if modifications are required.
(3) Can a vote be taken on whether or not the public would like to see signs and
fences posted at PSC 6?
Response: The Marine Corps acknowledges that several community members
recommend fencing and warning signs as part of LUCs at PSC 6. However, the
response actions selected under CERCLA address potential risks identified
during the remedial investigation and risk assessment for the site, and are
protective of human health and the environment. In this case the additional
cost of constructing fences and signs is not warranted to protect human
health because the potential risks are associated with residential
development at PSC 6. These risks can be effectively addressed through
implementation of land use controls that restrict residential development.
PART II - COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC LEGAL AND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS
Legal Applications
(1) The LUCs proposed are for PSC 6 specifically. Does this mean that PSC 6 has
to be cleaned up if the base is sold, and what area is covered under the
LUCs?
Response: If a new land use is considered for PSC 6, either by the Marine
Corps or a future property owner, the ROD would be re-evaluated to determine
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98 A-5
-------
if response actions that actively address site contamination are needed under
the proposed land use. The LUCs at PSC 6 cover the portion of the drainage
ditch from Covella Pond in the central portion of MCLB extending west to the
Marine Canal at the western base boundary.
Have environmental samples been collected from the Marine Canal?
Response: Yes, samples were collected from the Marine Canal. These included
surface water samples collected upstream and downstream of the underflow weir
in September 1996. The samples were analyzed for pesticides, base neutrals
acid extractables, pH, TCLP [toxicity characteristic leaching procedure]
volatiles, and TCLP metals. All results indicated no compounds detected above
method detection limits except barium (0.74 ppm [parts per million] upstream
and 0.82 ppm downstream). Additionally, two composite soil samples were
collected near Mock Road and five soil samples were collected further
downstream in 1994. The samples were analyzed for base neutrals acid
extractables. All results indicated that no compounds were detected above
method detection limits. The Marine Canal downstream (west) of the Base is
beyond the control of the Marine Corps.
Has USEPA ever collected samples from the Marine Canal and if not, would they
consider sampling the Marine Canal?
Response: The USEPA representative at the public meeting could not recall any
such sampling, nor was such sampling done for the IR program at MCLB. The
USEPA representative indicated that sample collection and analysis of the
Marine Canal can be considered.
Enforcement
(1) In the event of an ownership transfer of MCLB property, who will enforce
environmental stipulations such as LUCs for that property?
Response: If the Base were to either close or be realigned such that the
property encompassing OU 4 would be made available for community reuse, MCLB,
Albany, USEPA, and GEPD would need to evaluate the continued need for any
form of LUC in light of intended reuse (e.g., residential versus industrial
or recreational) . If LUCs are necessary, it is anticipated that such controls
would be included as restrictions in the transfer deed for the property and
be enforceable as such under State property law.
Remedial Investigation/Baseline Risk Assessment
(1) When estimating potential health risks for the residential land-use scenarios
for a child resident, exposure periods of 6 years, 30 days, and 350 days out
of the year were used. How were these periods established and who established
them?
Response: The health risk assessment methodology used in CERCLA was developed
by USEPA in the 1980s in coordination with the scientific community and after
public comment. For the OU 4 risk assessment, risk assessors for the State of
Georgia and USEPA worked with MCLB to identify potential contaminant exposure
pathways to humans and the environment, for both existing and future site
conditions. The risk assessment methods are inherently conservative
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS. 12 98
A-6
-------
to ensure that receptors with the greatest potential exposure and risk are
protected. For example, if a worker is digging in the soil daily for 30 days
is protected, then other receptors with less potential exposure are also
protected.
(2) Do you follow up with public health assessments of people who may have been
exposed to site contaminants? Are elderly persons taking medication
considered?
Response: No, public health studies of specific populations have not been
conducted at MCLB. Rather, the human health risk assessments consider
exposures to contaminants of concern at the site for various populations
under existing and future conditions. This requires the establishment of a
reference dose, which is the amount of contamination an individual can be
exposed to without experiencing adverse health effects. Calculation of the
reference dose considers sensitive subpopulations, including children,
newborns, unborn children, the elderly, and the infirm.
(3) Have activities taken place at PSC 6 to remove contaminants from the ditch?
When and why were groundwater monitoring wells installed in the vicinity of
OU 4?
Response: No removal actions or interim remedial actions have been conducted
to remove contaminants at PSC 6. Monitoring wells were installed in the
vicinity of OU 4 during the spring and early summer of 1998 as part of the
ongoing basewide groundwater study designated as OU 6.
(4) A member of the public noted a report that approximately 950,000,000 gallons
of water flows into the PSC 6 drainage ditch. Is this correct and does this
water flow at any time into the Marine Canal?
Response: The commenter was referring to the OU 4 RI/BRA report, Paragraph
1.2.1.5 which states "from 1955 to 1977, an estimated 950,000,000 gallons of
rinse, stripping, cleaning, and plating solutions were discharged from the
DMA into the Industrial Discharge Drainage Ditch." Prior to 1990, this
wastewater was treated at the Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant (DWTP).
Currently, the source water generated at the DMA is pretreated at the
industrial wastewater treatment plant and discharges directly to the City of
Albany publicly owned treatment works.
(5) Could rinse water and other wastewater from maintenance of equipment
returning from the Desert Storm mission have been transported by surface
runoff into the drainage ditch? If so, what are the potential health effects
from exposure to this wastewater?
Response: Due to the Marine Corp's intensive decontamination procedures for
vehicles returning from field engagements including Desert Storm, it is unlikely
that contaminants were imported to the base. Additionally, any solid material
removed during vehicle maintenance at OU 4 sites is handled in accordance with
existing solid waste disposal procedures, and liquid waste is treated as industrial
wastewater. This precludes contaminant transport by surface runoff into the
drainage ditch. The purpose of the OU 4 RI was to determine the extent and nature
of contamination associated with historic hazardous waste disposal or releases at
those sites.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS. 12 98
A-7
-------
(6) Did the PSC 6 drainage ditch flood during the flood of 1994?
Response: No, water from the Flint River did not back-up on base. However,
there was standing water in the Marine Canal west of MCLB.
(7) Regarding arsenic, chromium, and vanadium detected at OU 4, at what levels do
they become a human health threat and is this information accessible to the
general public?
Response: This information is presented in Chapter 6 of the OU 4 RI/BRA
Report available in the Dougherty County Library. The contaminants of concern
identified in the RI were used to calculate potential health-based cleanup
goals for the site.
(8) Will PSC 6 ever be considered non-contaminated without active cleanup. In
other words, will the drainage ditch cleanse itself naturally over time?
Response: Many metals occur naturally in the soil at MCLB. However, soil at
PSC 6 was found to contain concentrations of chromium, vanadium and arsenic
exceeding natural (or background) levels. These will likely remain in the PSC
6 soil. Land use controls proposed for the site will prevent prolonged human
exposure to the site soil that could pose health risks. The site soil and
land use controls would be re-evaluated if the Marine Corps were to transfer
the property or to change the land use.
(9) How long was the RI at OU 4?
Response: The investigation began in 1993. A draft OU 4 RI/BRA report was
submitted to USEPA and GEPD in 1994. Comments received from these agencies
required additional data collection, and the document was revised
accordingly. A final draft was then issued, and the final OU 4 RI/BRA was
released in September 1998.
(10) Are the three chemicals shown in the OU 4 meeting materials (arsenic,
chromium, and vanadium) naturally occurring?
Response: Arsenic, chromium, and vanadium are naturally occurring. However,
the concentrations of these substances detected at PSC 6 suggest that they
are associated with past waste disposal at the site.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS. 12 98
A-8
-------
ATTACHMENT A-1
TRANSCRIPTS OF THE
PUBLIC HEARING ON OPERABLE UNIT 4,
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the Commanding General, Marine
Corps Logistics Base, I want to welcome you to our Operable Unit 4 proposed plan
public meeting. My name is Captain Tony Ference. I am the Installation Restoration
Program Manger, essentially the environmental cleanup program.
With us tonight we have the Environmental Protection Agency personnel representa-
tive, we have Georgia Environmental Protection Division, we have Southern Division,
Naval Facilities Command, who are all part of this team that is working on the
cleanup on base. In addition, we have members of the Technical Review Committee,
also members of the team.
The objectives for the meeting - I'd like to review the Operable Unit 4 background
and site history, present the proposed action for those sites for Operable Unit 4
and get your input - that is the main purpose of this public meeting - get your
input, community input, on this proposed plan.
Operable Unit 4 is comprised of 5 potential sources of contamination, generally
located on the western edge, excuse me, western side of the base; from the center
of the base on west. Potential Source of Contamination 6, the long feature; that
is our drainage canal as well as an old domestic wastewater treatment plant
pipeline. Potential Source of Contamination 13 is an industrial waste pipeline
which connects PSC 10 and PSC 12. PSC 10 is the Maintenance Center; that's the main
hub where we break down equipment and refurbish equipment and move it off to the
Marine Corps and PSC 12 is the industrial wastewater treatment plant. So that
pipeline moves industrial waste from the Maintenance Center over to the Industrial
Waste Treatment Plant. And finally PSC 22, which is an old 90-day hazardous waste
storage facility.
Currently, this is what those sites look like today. PSC 6, the drainage canal.
This is the maintenance center area; PSC 10 is approximately 45 acres under
concrete. PSC 22 is an old 90-day hazardous waste storage facility. PSC 12 is the
Industrial Waste treatment plant and PSC 13 is an underground pipeline so that is
not pictured here.
The process at Operable Unit 4: first, was an initial assessment study which was
conducted on board the base to identify areas for further studies - areas of past
waste disposal practices that we need to investigate to find out if there has been
any adverse contamination taking place. The confirmation came in—the confirmation
study was to confirm areas which need further study. We are a resource conservation
recovery act permit holder. We hold a permit for hazardous waste generation. We are
required to do a resource conservation recovery act facility investigation to help
us determine the nature and extent of contamination, identify potential contaminant
movement, and all that moves us toward, after we were listed on the national
priorities list, we are now part of the superfund program and we get into the RI,
remedial investigation, process. And this is where we do our specific investigation
for the areas .
Once that is completed, you take the investigation information and conduct a risk
assessment to determine what risks do these contaminants pose. That comes under the
Baseline Risk Assessment, evaluate the investigation and the risk assessment,
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-1
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
determine what you plan on doing, publish that in a proposed plan, there is a 30-
day public comment period which began the 13:- of October and runs through the 11:-
of November. That is what period we are in right now, this is part of that public
comment period, public meeting. And then finally, after we have addressed the
public's concerns, we move on to a record of decision. This is what we're doing and
we move on and make that happen.
The remedial investigation findings: analytical results from the subsurface
sampling at the Operable Unit 4 site, they were tabulated and chemicals of
potential concern were identified. For PSC's 10, 12, 13, and 22, that's the
Maintenance Center, the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant, the pipeline, and
the old 90-day hazardous waste storage facility, they included arsenic, chromium,
and vanadium. There was no surface water or sediment present at these sites to be
evaluated. For example, the Maintenance Center which covers 10, 13, and 22 is 45
acres of concrete covered area. And the Industrial Wastewater Treatment plant is
also an area of concrete that covers a significant portion of that area.
Chemicals of potential concern for Potential Source of Contamination 6, for our
drainage canal, included volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds such as TCE,
most of you have probably heard of trichloroethylene (TCE); polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCBs); pesticides and metals. And these compounds were actually in the
surface soil, surface water, and sediment in the areas in PSC 6, the drainage
canal, as well as the old pipeline. There is a complete list for chemicals of
potential concern for all of the PSC's found in the proposed plan. Once you find-
once you complete your investigation and determine what is out there, you need to
conduct a risk assessment and determine what you found, what type of risk does this
pose to the public.
For all of the sites except the drainage canal, the current risks as well as
potential future risks, for potential future uses of the areas, from its subsurface
soil, those risks met EPA standards to protect human health. And these risk
elements do not consider the fact that the base is 100 fenced in with restricted
access. The Maintenance Center is much more tightly controlled than that. That
entire 45 acre, and then some, Maintenance Center area is fenced in and restricted
only to Maintenance Center workers for access. And the Industrial Wastewater
Treatment Plant is also completely fenced in and that access is restricted to
workers. And the risk assessment along with these issues of the fencing and the
restricted access moves towards a conservative approach, which we want, so we can
make risk estimates extra protective. Because that's the main goal, let's look at
the risk in a worst case scenario.
For the drainage canal, Potential Source of Contamination 6, the risks from
exposure to surface soil, surface water, and sediment did not meet the USEPA
standards to protect human health, when we looked at current and potential future
uses. One of those future uses was a residential area; a child resident. And that's
one that sticks in my mind that, in particular, showed as him not meeting the
standards. Now this area is far from any residential area on base, 3 to 5 miles,
I would say, for the drainage canal. But we have to evaluate that. It is not fenced
in; it is not restricted. So let's look at it as a potential
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-2
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
residential area. And that took place; it did not meet the standards. And again,
this includes risks from hypothetical resident use of the area. So if it does not
meet the standards, then what should we do about that?
For the drainage canal, Potential Source of Contamination 6, what we are proposing
is land use controls which will prohibit and prevent any future residential
development. And by doing that, it will protecting human health and the environment
from the existing conditions and also under potential future site conditions.
For the other Potential Sources of Contamination, currently the only exposure to
any of those sites is to workers in the Maintenance Center or the Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Plant, and even when the risk assessment for those areas was
conducted, they met the standards for the - the EPA risk standards. They found that
the potential health risks are within the range, therefore, proposing no treatment,
no containment, and no additional restricted access as being necessary or planned
for these areas .
Some things to consider when looking at this proposed plan and the second being
especially important to the community, I know. First the proposed plan addresses
only sail, surface water and sediment. This will not address the ground water
beneath these sites; and we are not ignoring the ground water underneath these
sites. We are addressing the groundwater on the base as one entire unit, because
you can't set up boundaries and say we are going to treat this portion of the
groundwater or this portion of the groundwater. It is all interconnected and
essentially one body of water. We need to look at that, study it, and determine
what to do with that as one unit, And so groundwater, which we are not forgetting
about, is being addressed in an ongoing study under Operable Unit 6. I am sure
there are some questions as to the status of that. Right now on my desk, I am
reviewing, and I started about a day ago, reviewing the first preliminary draft of
the remedial investigation and risk assessment for Operable Unit 6, with the goal
of having my input back to the contractor if not tomorrow then Monday so that by
the week of the 16'- of November, we can have our preliminary draft to the EPA and
EPD regulators for their review.
And finally, we get to the meat of the presentation, the main point, the main
purpose of the presentation is to have your involvement. And you can provide your
comments at tonight's meeting during the question and answer period. What I would
like to do is focus all of the questions on Operable Unit 4 specifically, because
those are the legally required portions that we must identify - the person who made
the question, identify the question, have them properly recorded, and then once we
have finished with questions pertaining to Operable Unit 4, we can conduct a more
informal session about other questions that you may have. But if possible, you can
provide your comments at tonight's meeting, through regular mail, we have some
comments sheets in the back; you can email myself or Ms. Hegwood who is from the
public affairs office, some of you know her. There are two phone numbers down
there. The first one is the public affairs office and the second one is my phone
number from Environmental. And the proposed plan, on the 13:- when we published that
this public comment period was beginning, the proposed plan as well as the
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-3
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
remedial investigation risk assessment were delivered to the library for review,
open to the public to read for your further information.
With that said, I would open the floor to any questions pertaining to Operable Unit
4 .
Carl Buckhalter:
In your conditions of human health risk assessment findings on
PSC 22, you say they are within the USEPA rules and regulations,
then why are you offering to pay the employees over there
hazardous pay?
Captain Ference:
Sir, I am not familiar with the hazardous pay for employees over
at the Maintenance Center. I am not familiar with that, but I
would say that it is not related to PSC 22, the former 90-day
hazardous waste facility.
Carl Buckhalter:
How about PSC 12?
Captain Ference: I am not sure. Industrial Wastewater Treatment plant workers,
I'm not sure. That is not a part of this program. I'm not trying
to push off that question. I don't have the answer to that
quest ion.
Carl Buckhalter: With your land use restriction on the canal, which is PSC 6, you
are intending to do a land use restriction in the way of if you
leave the area, that land will be dedicated back to the federal
government and you will have control over it, and if anybody
were to try and sell it, it would have to be cleaned up, is that
correct ?
Captain Ference: In a land use control, there are deed restrictions, but the main
thing with land use control is it prevents a change of land use.
If there is going to be a change of land use, whether it be
transfer or ownership or whether it be that we want to build
some residential housing in that area, then the decision has to
be reviewed and action may need to take place before something
along those lines would take place.
Carl Buckhalter: In this period of time, if the proposed land use restriction is
in place and the MCLB leaves the area, who will do the enforcing
of that land use restriction.
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
The Marine Corps is responsible for that property, sir.
So the Marine Corps would come back in?
Well, before the Marine Corps ever left or turned over ownership
of that property, we would be responsible under Base Realignment
and Closure, I suppose.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-4
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Carl Buckhalter: All right, so if you intended on at any given particular time
to leave this given area, before you left, you would have to
clean up that particular area before you moved out, is that
correct ?
Captain Ference: The decision would be revisited, sir; and I don't know and I
can't say how that would be revisited; whether an additional
investigation would take place or excavation; I'm not sure how
that would be handled. But I know if there is going to be a
change in land use, essentially, the decision is taken back and
reviewed to determine if additional work needs to take place.
I don't know if that would be additional sampling following by
additional remediation or just direct remediation based on the
sampling that is already done.
Carl Buckhalter: With this land use restriction, what is being done to correct,
or can you correct, the situation on PSC 6 at this particular
time or is it something that you will just have to wait until
you want to leave and then clean it up? Can you do anything
about it now?
Captain Ference: Sir, there could be a number of things conducted. You could
probably excavate the entire 7 mile canal, but there is no risk
there that rates that type of excavation or remediation and the
benefits to do that would far outweigh-I mean would be exceeded
by the cost of doing such a thing.
Carl Buckhalter: Well, what I'm trying to get at is, if you are willing to put
a land use restriction on PSC 6, then you are trying to tell us
there is something wrong there, but then again you're trying to
tell me that, "hey, we don't need to do anything about it"
because there is nothing wrong with it. Which is it, is it
contaminated or is it not contaminated?
Captain Ference: Sir, there are contaminants there, so it is not as clean as a
fresh piece of dirt that's never been trod upon. However, the
risks for the area-there is no risk for the personnel that work
in that area. The hypothetical risk that exceeded the standards
was for a child resident playing in that area, playing in that
canal, every day and that's not the case of what takes place in
that area. There are no child residents over there. But is there
chemicals of potential concern present there, yes, sir, there
are.
Carl Buckhalter:
Sonia Gooden:
Okay.
What type of controls do you implement in order to keep humans
off of that area that you are concerned about, that institu-
tional controls have been placed on? Do you fence it?
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-5
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Captain Ference: No, ma'am, it is not going to be fenced.
Sonia Gooden:
Captain Ference:
Joe Daniel:
It is not fenced. Is there any signs up at all that would give
a trespasser or a child, any individual, that they should be on
the property, playing in the dirt, playing in the ditch.
No, ma'am, because of the proximity of base housing and where
children reside being so far away and the fact that children do
not play over in the western portion of base, or are not
authorized over on that portion of base. That-the only thing
that is being proposed is we do not want to develop this for
residential land use. In fact one of the risk assessments, was
child trespasser. I don't want to misstate, I want to make sure,
but generally, that is one of the things looked at is the
trespassers.
We evaluated a base worker, a child transient, and where's
Doctor Dulaney?
Dr. Marland Dulaney: Yeah, a child transient is the equivalent of a child
trespasser.
Captain Ference:
Dr. Dulaney:
So that was evaluated within the risk assessment.
That was evaluated and that was within the acceptable range.
What we are saying is if a child were to play there all the
time, it wouldn't be safe. Because the child would be there
every day, 350 days a year for six years. That is not safe. But
if a child were to cut through there, just playing or going from
one place to another, if an adult were to do it, if an older
child were to do it, that would be safe.
Sonia Cooden:
Do you have wildlife on the property of the Marine Base in the
confines of that 3500 acres. Do you have wildlife and deer and
quail?
Captain Ference:
Sonia Gooden:
Yes, ma'am.
How would you, are you going to-some of them have natural
habitats and our question, I think, would probably be would the
wildlife be affected. Since Dr. Dulaney said 365 days a year for
a child, how would-what type of response would we have on the
wildlife that would be out there in that area?
Captain Ference: There was an ecological risk assessment conducted. I don't have
the numbers. An ecological risk assessment was conducted; that
was considered. I don't have the specifics, it is in the
remedial investigation risk assessment and I don't have the
numbers off the top of my head. If you would like, upon review
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-6
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
of that information if you see something that you have a concern
about, I would love to have a comment so we can address it. I
don't know if Dr. Dulaney can answer that.
Dr. Dulaney: We looked at individual species that were considered to be very
sensitive and most likely to occur in those areas, mice, rats
are very common. And there was no ecological threat there. We
don't look at deer, but usually the mice are going to be very
good indicators of it and that one wasn't a problem. As a
general rule, what we know about the environment if these
specific species that we select are not going to be a problem,
as a general rule, much higher species are not as well.
Larry Gooden: This is in the canal, right?
Captain Ference: Yes, sir.
Larry Gooden: How do you prevent-do you ever do maintenance in that canal as
far as like keeping up landscape or you have people out there
that might be mowing or you may have a blockage or something.
How do you take care of that problem if you have a group of
people going in to stop a blockage that might occur in the canal
or somebody happen chance go in with a tractor or a mower and
they may carry some of it off on equipment. How do you prevent
that? Is there signs that might restrict a person going in there
with any type of equipment that might by chance slip by and got
into that area because they was doing landscaping or some type
of grounds work? Because I know that we had the city come out
on that farm out there they didn't even know that was a
superfund site and had wells out there. So how well are you
protected against that issue if you've got tractors and mowers
and things going out there and you are sitting in your office
saying, "Whoa, that stuff is not supposed to be out there." And
he's tracking stuff off in his boots or whatever.
Captain Ference: Well, sir, the adult worker situation was considered in the risk
assessment. And those risks met the standards for an adult
worker for that area. So no there, there is not going to be any
restrictions in that area.
Larry Gooden: So if that guy was mowing out there and he had a problem with
his equipment and he got off and got his hands in it, and he was
wiping the sweat off his face, there is no contact problem.
Captain Ference: Yes, sir.
Larry Gooden: So how is that person aware of this situation if he's out there?
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-7
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Joe Daniel: Captain Ference, why don't you have Dr. Dulaney elaborate on
that ?
Larry Gooden: Before you do, also with the wildlife, the herons go out there
and they eat frogs, crawfish, and they carry off other frogs,
too.
Dr. Dulaney: And unfortunately we can't study every animal species that is
out there, so we pick the ones that we know, through the
literature that's available, are the most sensitive, are the
most likely. Mice, for example, if there is going to be
something in the soil or down, in the water, mice have a-they
are very useful because they have a small body weight. They are
very active. They dig in the soil a lot and they have a very
high contact with this. They have a better chance of coming into
contact with the contaminants. Herons do feed in these kinds of
areas, but they feed over a much larger area. A mouse can only
go in a very small range. His home range is something about the
size of this room. So when you study something in a small area,
if he's in a real high contact, and he's safe, then the process
is that that animal is safe; then something that feeds on him
is safe. Now there are certain chemicals, as we all know, that
go up in the food chain, lead and some PCB's and things like
that and we take extra precautions for that kind of stuff. Even
adding all these layers of protection to it, there wasn't a
problem with the ecological risk. So that's how we deal with
this. It is not quite as straight forward as with human health.
Dr. Dulaney: But to answer your question for human health, the reason why the
child was above the regulations is because I have some dirt
eaters at home. You know how kids are in the backyard, you know,
they are just covered with dirt all the time. We assumed that
they were going to do this 350 days a year, rain, shine, every
day except for 2 weeks of vacation, and they were going to do
this for 6 years. Those very, very stringent conditions, it
wasn't safe. But someone who was working, say an excavation
worker, someone who is going in there digging; that's a very
high intensity, you get real messy and dirty. But how many times
do you do it? You certainly don't do it 350 times a year for 16
years. Now if you did, that might represent a problem. But we
looked at, I believe it was 30 days; someone out there digging
for 30 days and got very, very-they ate about half a gram of
soil a day, got it on their skin, got very messy, and even that
worst case scenario, for that person, it was not a problem.
Larry Gooden: Even in heavy rain, overrun.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-8
-------
Public Meeting Hold October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Dr. Dulaney:
Larry Gooden:
Dr. Dulaney:
Larry Gooden:
Dr. Dulaney:
Right.
Even days later, it may be saturated ground and some seeping
out, carrying sediment off.
Right. And that is something that you want to take into account
and our people did do that because when it rains it spreads out
and mixes with other soil and we-one of the other things we did,
we assumed the worst case scenario, the dirtiest soil was
characteristic of the entire site. Not all the soil was that
contaminated.
So are you saying this problem is going to take care of itself
over time?
I'm a toxicologist. I don't know that. In my experience though,
I've worked on hazardous waste sites for over 11 years now, and
many times nature can. Now metals, there's not much you can do
about it. They're naturally occurring; metals are just part of
nature. Many of the other things that you did find, many of them
will take care of themselves and if there is going to be a
change, I work on a lot of BRAC sites, and I can tell you that
they go back and they look at this pretty tightly. So any
concerns you have for BRAC, they're pretty good at going back
and looking at this stuff again.
Carl Buckhalter:
What is a BRAC?
Dr. Dulaney: That is the Base Realignment and Closure. Sorry, we use a lot
of acronyms. I'm sorry.
LuAnn Turnage: Who is the all-knowing person or committee that establishes
these 6-year periods, 30-day periods, 350 days out of the year?
How do you arrive at these amounts?
Dr. Dulaney: I'm it tonight. These were defined by EPA scientists back in the
late 80's and they are thoroughly reviewed as we go along. When
we first start a risk assessment, we meet with the risk
assessors for the state of Georgia and for the EPA. I'm a board
certified toxicologist. The state has 2 board certified
toxicologists, the EPA has one. And we all sit down in a room
and say this is what we want to do and they come back and say,
no, no, that's not conservative enough, we want you to do this,
this and this. And we argue back and forth until we come up with
a series of assumptions that are protective. And the idea is if
you protect the most sensitive person, the person that is out
there in the mud everyday, that 6-year old child, if you protect
that person, you protect everybody else. If you protect the guy
that's out digging in the soil, in the mud,
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-9
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
for 30 days and he comes home covered with mud, and he's
protected, then anybody that's walking through there, that cuts
through there, that gets dirt on his shoes cutting through the
canal, is also protected. And that's why we do it. We actually
set the standard so conservative that everybody else underneath
here is protected as well. It is very rare that you are going
to have construction for 30 days for something that small. But
it is so conservative that we say that because it is up here and
you, me, and everybody else is down here and we're all protected
as well.
LuAnn Turnage
Do you normally follow up-once you make this summary, do you
follow up with public health assessments with people who have
been exposed or been compromised with these contaminants; such
as - you know, I can understand what you're saying about a 6-
year old child. But let's take an elderly person that takes
heart medication, are you taking into consideration medications
that may be coming from outside and we are not talking about a
super healthy individual.
Dr. Dulaney:
LuAnn Turnage:
Yes, ma'am.
But through groundwater contamination, of course, even working
in the yard.
Dr. Dulaney:
Okay, one of things, if you read the risk assessment, it uses
a term called the "reference dose." And the definition of the
reference dose is it is the dose that is acceptable for you to
be exposed to every day and be safe. And this includes sensitive
sub-populations. And the reference dose includes children,
neonates, unborn children, elderly, infirm, it includes
everybody. So when the EPA sets this number and they put it out
for general review in the entire scientific community, it
usually comes back shot full of holes because everybody is
saying, you know, some people are saying "it's not conservative
enough" some people are saying "it needs to be less
conservative." And then they all get together and they try it
again. This is an iterative process. When they come to an
agreement, usually the entire scientific community says, "well,
there is some things I don't like about it, but I agree this is
safe." And I can tell you as a toxicologist that every reference
dose that is used by the EPA and everyone they used here is
safe. The numbers that they are providing are safe.
Carl Turnage:
A couple of questions. In the past, on PSC 6, has any cleanup
been done to the ditches to try to remove the canal-try to
remove any of the contaminants?
Captain Ference:
No, sir.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-10
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Carl Turnage:
Captain Ference:
Carl Turnage:
Captain Ference:
Joe Daniel:
Captain Ference:
Joe Daniel:
Captain Ference:
Joe Daniel:
Carl Turnage:
Captain Ference:
Joe Daniel:
LuAnn Turnage
Joe Daniel:
Rob Pope:
LuAnn Turnage
Rob Pope:
Joe Daniel:
What about the-are you going to have land use restrictions on
that area, the canal area?
Yes, sir.
What about the off-Base area, from there to the river?
No, sir. The Marine Canal? No, Sir. What was found, Joe, I don't
mean to put you on the spot. What was found was in the sediment
and surface soil, is that correct, for PSC 6?
That's correct.
And in the vicinity across from Maintenance Center?
Right.
And that is further downstream from where these areas were.
That's correct.
So let's assume that from the base to the river it's clean?
Has there been any sampling on the Marine Canal?
The area downstream, from the southwest corner of the base, is
beyond the control of the Marine Corps. There are other inputs
to that canal, so the Marine Corps cannot account for everything
that's downstream from there. There are industries; there are
other inflows of surface water runoff, for instance, so that is
beyond, literally-physically beyond the control of the Marine
Corps.
Has the EPA ever tested that ditch?
Rob, can you comment on that?
Not to my knowledge. Not in conjunction with the Marine Base,
Albany.
Would you consider testing it?
It is something that could be considered, yes. Didn't the
drainage basin, both inside and outside the base, get sampled?
There was some, as I-speaking from memory here, I believe there
was a study done by another agency. I'm not sure if it was the
EPA or what agency did it. But I think that there was a study
ALB-OU4 ROD
S AS.12.98 A-1-11
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
done an some media, either water or sediment for that canal. But
I don't have specific information.
LuAnn Turnage: I just remember reading in the PSC's, the list of PSC's, in that
drainage canal, there was like 950,000 tons of solids going down
that ditch, is that correct? Or have I got it confused with
another ditch?
Captain Ference:
Judy Kimble:
Captain Ference:
Judy Kimble:
I don't have a number off the top of my head, ma'am. I'd have
to refer to the investigation.
I'd like to know when the equipment was coming back from the
Gulf, where was all this sand and water placed into. Where did
it go when they washed off the equipment?
Ma'am, are you referring to sand from Desert Storm?
Right.
Captain Ference: I was not here when the equipment came back, however, I was in
Saudi Arabia when we were packing up equipment to bring it back
and if you could see the amount of agricultural inspection that
we had to pass in order to put a piece of equipment back on
ship, you would be amazed. If they found any sand whatsoever in
the equipment, it was sent back to the wash line. We spent many,
many hours washing equipment so that when we brought equipment
back, there would be no sand.
Judy Kimble: Why was there sand in the equipment my husband worked on? There
was canteens and knives and all that when he went to work on the
equipment. And him, and I think he said he knew at least 75
people, broke out in a rash which no doctor can diagnose. The
government has denied it, but he had no problems until he worked
on the equipment that came back. It did have sand in it and it
did have canteens and other stuff in it.
Captain Ference: I don't know the answer to that, ma'am.
Judy Kimble: Where did it go, did it go into this ditch or did it go into a
certain place because there was stuff on it.
Captain Ference: One thing I do know is that when they offload ships - and it is
only from my experience with the Marine Corps, when they offload
ships, oftentimes it is by a landing craft which is they will
load equipment, wheeled vehicles, tracked vehicles, up onto the
landing craft, they will swim that landing craft ashore, drop
the gate, and the vehicles, Humvees, all of that will drive
right across the beach. I assume that most of what
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-12
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Judy Kimble:
Captain Ference:
Judy Kimble:
Captain Ference:
Judy Kimble:
Captain Ference:
Judy Kimble:
Captain Ference:
Judy Kimble:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
came here probably came from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and
I would assume-I don't mean to assume-
How did it get in there with the-you can tell that it came from
over there by the stuff that was in it. Do you understand what
I'm saying?
Yes, ma'am, I don't know the answer to that.
He has been really sick with that stuff and nobody can seem to
help it because they can't diagnose what he's got.
I don't know the answer to that one, ma'am, I'm sorry.
But I'm concerned if it's going in that water, too; if it's gone
into the ditch or wherever this water is flowing, then, you
know, who knows what's in there. If it broke these people out
that can't even be diagnosed, you know what is it going to do
if somebody else gets in there and gets in ingested into their
system. There is no telling what it is going to do to them.
In the investigation, the only chemicals that were found are
those that were outlined in the investigation. I don't know if
the source would be due to anything like that. I would say that
based on my knowledge of off-loading ships, I don't know of a
way to get equipment off a ship onto a rail car with-actually,
if you pulled into a port. But oftentimes that is not the case,
they swim the equipment to shore. I'm not saying that some sand
didn't come from over there.
Right, 'cause he's got some of the sand; we just tried to find
something to do with it.
I'm not sure, ma'am, I'm sorry.
That's okay. It's the same answer I get from everybody, so I'm
used to it.
With the 1994 flood was the PSC 6 canal flooded?
This is Mr. Buckhalter's question and no, none of the base is
flooded, is that correct? I'm looking up at Mr. A1 Hargrove,
Compliance in the Environmental Branch, and he is saying no.
None of the base was flooded.
Captain Ference:
Mr. Hargrove, could you comment on that?
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-13
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Mr. Hargrove:
Captain Ference:
Mr. Hargrove:
Sonia Gooden:
Captain Ference:
Marie Estes:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Karen Hall:
Captain Ference:
There was no water backed up on base. However, further down the
canal, downstream, there was water.
No water backed up on base from the river.
Right. Back the canal on downstream from there, there was water
in the canal.
The canal itself did flood, at Mock Road, yes. Remember it went
over the road and Proctor and Gamble was flooded.
Any further comments, Al? Ms. Gooden said that it was flooded
over Mock Road, any comment on that, how far up into base did
that back up?
It came from the base into the canal and went out, but it was
flooded as it went out.
I lost my train of thought. Oh, Mr. Buckhalter, does that answer
your question?
Yes, sure.
Any other Operable Unit 4 questions? Yes, sir.
With the investigative findings of arsenic, chromium, and
whatever it is, is that below the MCL?
MCL, Sir, is a water-a drinking water standard. Joe, do you
Let's back up then. What levels of arsenic-those three metals,
what levels are they to a human that they found?
Well, that is what's evaluated in the risk assessment.
Okay. Has it come out?
Yes, sir, that's part of the same report that is up in the
library. The remedial investigation, base-line risk assessment,
then the risk assessment is what I've alluded to earlier; and
that's up there along with the proposed plan.
They keep talking about safe levels and all that kind of stuff,
the EPA said this much is safe, whatever, is there any way that
we can get a copy of how much of all of these chemicals that we
have found is safe? I mean, for human beings?
In response to that question, just for the record, there has
been some information on sheets handed out to EAGLE by Mr. Rob
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-14
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Marie Estes:
Captain Ference:
Marie Estes:
Captain Ference:
Marie Estes:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Joe Daniel:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Pope and they will be getting out information to you, Ms. Hall.
If there is further information, please submit a comment and
we'll see what type of information we can get for you.
In *94 when we had the flood, did the water come over PSC 3 and
into the swamp that's directly across the street from my house?
Wouldn't that water have been contaminated from the PSC 3 and
the PSC 26?
I'm sorry, could you repeat the question.
The PSC 3 and PSC 26, it sits directly across Ramsey Road.
I'm sorry, if you don't mind, I do want to get back to that; but
I want to focus on Operable Unit 4 and then move on to other
questions after that if that would be OK.
That's fine.
On your findings and once you get the minutes of this meeting,
what is the timeframe and who does it have to go through before
you receive the ROD for the Operable Unit 4?
The end of the public comment period is 11:- of November, and
there is a responsiveness to comments that addresses comments,
correct ?
It's a responsiveness summary.
A responsiveness summary that addresses the comments. And then
from those comments we move on to the record of decision and
that goes to the commanding officer for signature to implement
the plan.
You do not have to send it to the EPA, EPD or anybody else?
I'm sorry, what's that, the responsiveness to comments?
Well, no, what I'm saying is your ROD, doesn't everybody have
to sign off on that?
Yes, sir. The Georgia Environmental
What is your time frame on that. I know that's not to the day,
but I mean given-
They have seen the record of decision already and there have
been comments made and changes made to the decision which is
based on this particular proposed plan. This is a draft record
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-15
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Joe Daniel:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Sonia Gooden:
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
of decision. This is what we are writing as a draft and they
have given comments already and we have made changes on that.
And for time frame, we' re looking at early December as a
signing, a formal signing of the record of decision.
Well, maybe what I'm trying to clarify here is when the initial
proposal made and when will it, are you all talking about a
year, two years, six months, what?
No, the initial proposal, the formal initial proposal, proposed
plan, was 13 October and that is also when the comment period
begins. That is the formal issuance of the proposed plan. We
have the 30 day comment period, address the comments, address
any concerns, and move toward a record of decision signing which
will be approximately 2 months after the proposed plan.
All right, with this proposal, what is the time frame of the
information that you are basing this proposal on. In other
words, how long have you been studying the PSC 6, 13, 22,
whatever it is. How long has it been proposed for, you know,
your test wells, whatever else you have to do to come up with
the situation where you feel safe enough to give say a
recommendation for cleanup or what to do about it?
The initial investigation, I believe, was in *95? That's before
Operable Unit 6 was open?
The initial draft on Operable Unit 4, I believe was in *94. We
received comments on that from the state and EPA and reworked
the document, collected additional information, submitted a
final draft, and then a final and then submitted the proposed
plan. So it's been several years.
Were there any test wells involved in the information collection
of PSC 6?
Test wells have been installed in the vicinity of Operable Unit
4, but they are for base-wide groundwater, Operable Unit 6,
which is in the investigation I'm trying to read currently.
Please bear with me. You have just given us a sheet, October
1998, it said land use controls-institutional controls. We're
talking fences, signs, prohibition against excavation,
construction, drilling, disturbances of the soil, property
zoning restrictions. We understand that you will not pass title
to land without this deed restriction. But this is material that
you have here tonight that clearly states on how you will
implement land use controls. It's calling for fencing, signs,
how many fences and signs have you implemented out there on
A-1-16
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
the base with all the PSC's you've put institutional controls
on?
Captain Ference: That is not a cookbook for every PSC. Those are examples of
possible land use controls. For example, PSC 3, there is a
restriction against digging because there is a cap on the land
fill. PSC 16 is a PCB area by the chow hall, if you remember,
and that area, after excavation, was undermining the foundation
so they capped-they filled it with clean fill, capped it with
a concrete cap, put a fence and signs around PSC 16. That is one
I can think of off the top of my head.
Sonia Gooden: All right, but there are others out there that's had institu-
tional controls placed on them. PSC 3, 26, it says right here:
signs and fences are examples of physical methods while legal
methods refer to deed restrictions. So my question is, is why
are we given this information, we assume that you have signed
and fenced these pieces of property, the hazardous waste sites
that has institutional controls on them, and yet they haven't
been fenced and posted.
Captain Ference: No, ma'am. If that's what that implies, then I apologize,
because that is just an information sheet that explains types
of land use controls and you decide what land use control you
are going to do at a potential source of contamination based on
the risk and the situation for each location; at PSC 16, we
needed to go full board. Cap it, fence it, put up signs.
However, other areas, that's not required to be protective of
human health and the environment. So if that implies that is
what is required for all land use control, then that is not what
we are trying to get across with that. That is just an
informational on types of land use controls and legal
restrictions on future land use.
Joe Daniel: Captain Ference, can I elaborate on that? I'd like to refer
Sonia to the land use control implementation plan, it is part
of the proposed plan. Those are the land use controls that we
are proposing specific to Operable Unit 4. What you have is a
fact sheet, that is a generic sheet listing the types of land
use controls that may be used in general.
Sonia Gooden: Well, can you see how we can get very confused between what you
have done and what you are passing out as information to the
community. It is very confusing that this sheet here clearly
states the very first sentence, the term land use controls or
LUC's refers to the physical or legal signs or legal statement
that protects public health by limiting human activities at
sites where chemicals will remain in place after cleanup. Signs
and fences are examples of physical methods.
ALB-OU4 ROD
S AS.12.98 A-1-17
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
This is a definition of land use controls. But yet, whenever you
refer to land use controls in your remediation, it means
something totally different than what we have in our hands.
Joe Daniel: Right, it's taken out of context when read independently. We
have the specific land use controls attached to the proposed
plan. But we appreciate that input and thanks for that
clarification.
Larry Gooden: Getting back to you again on the comment on the 30-day, working
30 days consecutively in the area of that canal. Are these
people who are working in the area as ground keepers, are they
schooled or informed of the situations in the area; if they
happen to be working in that area. If there is by chance some
stuff dug up, by chance that you are not aware of, and it's
carted off, what's the consequences of that? And how do you
really determine that a 30-day consecutive is hazardous to you?
How do you know 2 weeks is not the hazardous point? How do you
determine 30 days is the hazardous point? If a person has been
working in another area and he's got cuts or open wounds and he
goes over here and works 2 hours over here and he's trampling
around in that stuff. How do you know that's not hazardous to
him?
Captain Ference: Well, the second question is sort of toward Dr. Dulaney and I'll
field the first question.
Dr. Dulaney: Okay, what we did was we assumed that a 30-day period is how
long this person was going to be working. If it is safe to work
for a 30 days, then it is safe to work for 20 days, because you
are there less. There is less exposure. And there is a general
rule, the less your exposure, the less your risk. Ten days the
same way, five days is exactly the same way. So 30 days we
thought was so conservative that it wouldn't occur. What might
occur if somebody's out there for a week, 10 days? If 30 days
is safe, 10 days is safe.
Now the other scenario that you have, we don't take into account
the-we assume that this is a healthy worker. That's really about
the only thing that we can do. We do assume, though, that they
got a fairly large amount of it on their skin. Much more of it
than the studies have actually shown when we go back and
reevaluate the science, we are so conservative for skin
absorption that we are actually over-estimating the risk. So we
are assuming that there is a very thick layer of material on
your skin that is the most highly contaminated out there, or
very high contamination out there. And that's always on your
skin. And even in that situation, you are still safe.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-18
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Larry Gooden:
Captain Ference:
Larry Gooden:
Captain Ference:
Larry Gooden:
Dr. Dulaney:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
So that individual working out there, he's not aware of that,
though. He's not informed at all, that he has a right to know.
No, sir.
Because he was working along and accidentally got a tractor
stuck and he tried to get it unstuck, he swashing around in that
stuff, it splashes on his face, whatever, how could you say that
that guy's not contaminated.
For the training question, because the risk does not exceed the
acceptable levels of the EPA, no there is no training that says
watch out for this; because, in essence, there is
You would sign off on this saying you would be-you would
validate yourself to be in that vicinity. Let's say you had to
do it, would you sign off and go there tonight and say it's
safe?
Oh, sure. That's one of the reasons that they have people like
me that do this kind of stuff. If I didn't think it was safe,
I wouldn't be here telling you this. I can tell you that right
now. If I didn't think it was safe, I would not be standing
here.
On the PSC, what length of period are we talking about or will
it ever be clear as far as non-contaminated without you doing
something to it?
Sir, are you referring to Operable Unit 4, Potential Sources of
Contamination?
Yes, sure.
That's what's in the investigation. We have found contamination
and that is what is being addressed.
Well, I know. What I'm saying is, you are not going to do
anything at this present time. Is it going to clear itself up?
The drainage canal, is it going to clear itself up with more
water running through it?
Well, sir, many—I can't speak to every specific one and such as
Dr. Dulaney mentioned, the metals, those are persistent and they
are naturally occurring. The—for many other compounds, they are
naturally degraded. Even very persistent compounds are naturally
degraded, just more slowly over time. They won't reproduce and
expand. I can't answer
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-19
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
Carl Buckhalter:
Captain Ference:
Dr. Dulaney:
Captain Ference:
John Smith:
Captain Ference:
LuAnn Turnage:
Captain Ference:
LuAnn Turnage:
Captain Ference:
LuAnn Turnage:
Captain Ference:
Sonia Gooden:
Captain Ference:
With these three chemicals that you have listed here, are they
naturally occurring?
Yes, Dr. Dulaney answered that question, arsenic, chromium, and
vanadium are naturally occurring.
They may not be natural from this situation, but they are
naturally occurring.
Any additional Operable Unit 4 questions?
Where is PSC 3 located? Is it located on the north side of the
base?
PSC 3 is located on the north side of the base. And if you have
any questions about that, sir, we can address that immediately
after we wrap up all the Operable Unit 4 issues.
All the operable unit maps that were on the home page, there are
three circles that are not identified. But they are on all the
maps of the OU's. What are they?
I think I know what you are referring to.
Yes, it was on yours a moment ago.
Okay, I see what they are. Cul-de-sacs. This is where we have
a trailer court; there is where the officers' club is, it's the
circle they park around; and this is the circular right in front
of the headquarters building.
Okay.
That's an easy one, I like those.
Do you plan on conducting your next TRC meetings very similar
to how you've done this one?
Well, this is actually a public meeting on the proposed plan.
And the next public meeting on the proposed plan for Operable
Unit 6, yes, will be conducted just like this. I don't have a
date for you. As for TRC meetings, since we've had a heightened
awareness in the community, we will have to plan on a larger
room to conduct those meetings with TRC members and anyone that
is available for attending. I don't know if that answers your
question or not, ma'am.
This is the public meeting for a proposed plan. They will be
handled like this. TRC meetings are handled somewhat different-
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-20
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
ly, but they do begin with presentations from our staff as TRC
members.
Sonia Gooden: Why is this the first time we have ever seen a sign at the end
of Ramsey Road announcing the public meeting? We've never had
one before. Why now?
Captain Ference: I can't answer why not before. But I can answer why there is one
now. There is one now because during our tours with the EAGLE
members as well as TRC members, it was identified that the base
was not meeting the communication needs with the community, its
closest neighbors north of the base. We wanted to try to improve
that. That was one method of improving that and making sure that
we got the word out.
The audience expressed their appreciation by applause.
Larry Gooden: One thing I want to bring up though is that you do have a list
of membership of members that are on the committee that are
local officials who claim that they have never gotten an
invitation to these TRC meetings and their names are on these
lists and we've confronted these people and they say "we've
never gotten anything on it." So how did you derive their names
are on this list and they have never received any invitation to
a meeting?
Captain Ference: First, what I would like to mention is I did give two lists, I
believe I copied two lists, I believe I copied two lists. One
was a TRC member list. And that was a small list on one page;
I believe it was one page. And the other list was about 4 pages
of names and addresses which included some officials. And those
are on the TRC mailing list, not the TRC members. As for members
that have told you they have not received anything, I don't have
an answer on why that hasn't happened in the past. We're going
to try to improve on that in the future. There was one other
portion of your question that I'm missing.
Larry Gooden: I think that was it. Why they were never informed they were part
of this, even the mailing. They never received anything. When
we, as EAGLEs dealt with the issue of the landfill, one of your
members, Jim Tolbert of the Albany Planning Commission, and his
name is part of the membership, right. And he said he didn't
have any knowledge of the superfund.
Melissa (cannot understand name)
I happen to work with Mr. Tolbert. I don't think that's what he
said. I think he said he had not been able to attend the
meetings just because of schedule conflicts.
ALB-OU4 ROD
S AS.12.98 A-1-21
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
[several people were talking at once about what Mr. Tolbert said]
Larry Gooden.: Okay, but that answers that.
Luann Turnage:
Captain Ference:
Sonia Gooden:
Captain Ference:
Sonia Gooden:
Captain Ference:
Sonia Gooden:
We appreciate the sign for our neighborhood, but there are also
neighbors to the west and to the south. Did you all inform them
of the meeting also?
Only through the TRC mailing list and the legal notice in the
paper on the 13'-.
Is there going to be an opportunity for us to say we feel or I
would personally like to interject I would like to see some
fence and signs around the institutional control property. Does
that matter, that that's what I would like to see?
We'd like to have that input, ma'am, if you would do that
through our public comment or e-mail or mail or phone.
Can you take a vote on whether the public would like to see
signs posted and fences put around these areas. I mean, can't
you find out what our feelings are? This is a public comment
period.
Yes, ma'am, it is important to find out what the feelings are
and to address those. But the bottom line is to look at what do
the risks proposed by this site rate to be protective of human
health and the environment. But we have to take your comments
and your consideration and address those and we will. But if a
particular location does not necessarily rate some fences to be
protective and it costs $50,000 to fence an area, and the
community votes and would like for that to take place, I can't
stand here and say that's what would take place because that
wouldn't be smart use of taxpayer's money to pay $50,000 to
fence off an area that may or may not need it.
Okay, bear with me, please. You don't want to spend $50,000 to
fence an area off and post it. But there's over $7 million a
year spent on the study of contamination at that base. When the
human health and welfare is involved, whether it is an employee
of the base, a maintenance worker, a trespassing child, if there
is one Nth of question whether that person's health could be at
risk, don't you think $50,000 is a minimum amount to protect
that person. Because in a couple of years, perhaps you will be
gone from here. Someone else will take over and things can get
dusty. Files-the integrity of records can get transposed.
Digital communications now is taking your records into the
computer system. So my question is we can address this now, we
won't look at future problems down the
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-22
-------
Public Meeting Held October 22, 1998
Operable Unit 4 Proposed Plan
road. If you deemed it necessary to put something as coarse and
solid as a deed restriction on a piece of property, why can't
you fence and post it. Fence it and put signs up, even if it is
$50,000. It eliminates future concern.
Captain Ference: I would like to see that, ma'am, if you would, submit that as
one of the issues that we're going to have to respond to and
we'll discuss it with both the regulatory agencies. I don't have
the answers. I can't stand here and say we will do it or a vote
of the community will say that we're going to do it. I can't
make that decision right here. It's a team and there are other
things to be said. But we definitely appreciate that concern and
would like to see it if you would write that down on one of the
comment sheets as well.
Carl Buckhalter: With my proximity of less than 200 feet from your adjoining
property, I have a problem in so much as trying to help myself
watch what's happening across the way. How can you help me
identify the boundary marks of one or more than one PSC's that
are connected or in close proximity and I'm saying this from our
tour. I did not-I was not aware of a road or any other open area
that was not contaminated between one PSC and another PSC. Can
you help me identify them?
Captain Ference: You are referring to the PSC's on the northern end of Base?
Carl Buckhalter: That is correct.
Captain Ference: If we could, can I come back to that. We'd like to press
forward. Are there any further questions on Operable Unit 4? I
liked to wrap the Operable Unit 4 up and then address some of
the larger questions from you all for other areas, but keeping
in mind that we are currently working right now with your
attorneys in identifying all those questions so we do have an
opportunity to answer them-make sure we have a clear set of
questions and we can answer them. That is the best way we can
get answers back to you. But I would still like to tackle a few
that are not pertaining to Operable Unit 4 once we've wrapped
up here. Any more Operable Unit 4? [No additional questions.]
Captain Ference: Okay, with that in mind, I would like to thank you all for
participating in the Operable Unit 4 public meeting and call the
meeting to a close.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
A-1-23
-------
APPENDIX B
LAND-USE CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR
POTENTIAL SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION 6
-------
LAND-USE CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PSC 6
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, Georgia
This document identifies Land-Use Controls restricting (a) human access to and
contact with surface soil, surface water, and sediment contaminated with inorganic
constituents through residential development of the site and (b) certain activities
occurring on or around Potential Source of Contamination (PSC) 6 of the Marine
Corps Logistics Base (MCLB), Albany. Figure B-l presents the general configuration
of PSC 6 within MCLB, Albany.
As a result of previous investigations, MCLB, Albany was placed in Group 7 of the
National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, according to Title
40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 300 (40 CFR 300, July 1991). Harding
Lawson Associates was contracted under the Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental
Action, Navy contract (contract number N62467-89-D-0317), to prepare and execute
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Workplans, Site Screening Workplans,
and associated documents for 26 PSCs at MCLB, Albany. PSC 10 (Depot Maintenance
Activity [DMA]), PSC 22 (DMA Old 90-Day Storage Area), PSC 13 (Industrial
Wastewater Pipeline [IWP]), PSC 12 (Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant [IWTP]),
and PSC 6 (Industrial Discharge Drainage Ditch/Sanitary Sewer Line) comprise
Operable Unit (OU) 4 at MCLB, Albany.
A remedial investigation (RI) and baseline risk assessment (BRA) was conducted at
OU 4 from April 1993 through May 1994. The public health and ecological BRA
determined that the surface soil, surface water, and sediment at PSC 6 poses a
potential noncancer risk to a future resident above the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IV criteria (ABB-ES, 1998). Based on the results
of the BRA, USEPA Region IV and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(GEPD) required the implementation of Land-Use Controls to prohibit potential
future residential development of PSC 6.
Site Description and Location
PSC 6 (Industrial Discharge Drainage Ditch and Sanitary Sewer) consists of the
industrial discharge drainage ditch that runs from the IWTP to the Marine Canal,
and the sanitary sewer line that runs from the IWTP to the Domestic Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The industrial discharge drainage ditch is a man-made drainage
canal that originates at Covella Pond in the central portion of the base and
extends downstream to its intersection with West Shaw Road. Typically, water levels
through the ditch are less than 1 foot in depth while water levels during storm
events can exceed 10 feet in depth. An underflow weir and sedimentation basin is
located at the downgradient end of the ditch. These structures prevent
miscellaneous sediment and debris from leaving the base property.
The RI confirmed the presence of low concentrations of volatile organic compounds,
semivolatile organic compounds, and inorganics in the surface soil, surface water,
and sediment at PSC 6. These compounds are possibly associated with past disposal
activities (ABB-ES, 1998).
These RI data were evaluated to determine whether the substances found on site
occur naturally or resulted from past waste disposal. Based on this evaluation,
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
B-1
-------

A
X
pk a
(Heine)
Coruta
Pond
Somen
To
Afertft#
Canal
y—hvdmWcl dhchory frolnoy JWch
1.000 2.000
SCALE: 1 WCH = 2.000 FEET
LEGEND
PSC Potential source of contamination
DWTP Domestic wastewater treatment plant
IWTP Industrial wastewater treatment plant
Source: Marine Corps Logistics Base General Base Development Map and USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
FIGURE B-1
PSC 6
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE DRAMAGE DITCH
AND SANITARY SEWER UNE
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UMT 4
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
ALBANY, GEORGIA
-------
a list of chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) was developed for each
environmental medium (e.g., surface soil) sampled at OU 4. A BRA was then prepared
in accordance with USEPA Risk Assessment Guidance. This guidance reflects a
conservative approach to BRA to ensure that subsequent cleanup decisions are
protective of human health and the environment. Exposure pathways to the COPCs
evaluated in the BRA included a current land-use scenario in which it was assumed
that an older child trespasses at OU 4, as well as a future land-use scenario in
which it was assumed that OU 4 is used for residential development (i.e., children
and adults live at OU 4) .
Human health and environmental risks associated with exposure to surface soil,
surface water, and sediment were evaluated in the BRA for PSC 6. These estimated
risks were deemed acceptable by the USEPA except for the potential, future child
resident land-use scenario. The noncancer hazard index (HI of 3) exceeded the USEPA
point of departure (HI greater than 1) thereby requiring an appropriate human
health-based exposure restriction in this particular case. The elevated HI was due
to the presence of multiple inorganics in the surface soil, surface water, and
sediment. Therefore, USEPA Region IV and GEPD required that Land-Use Controls be
implemented that restrict future residential development of PSC 6, as defined on
Figure B-l.
Land-Use Control Objectives
The OU 4 Proposed Plan calls for the initial implementation and continued
application of appropriate restrictions on future usage of the property
encompassing PSC 6 while it is owned by the Federal government. These restrictions
will apply until/unless site remediation is conducted to restore the site for
unrestricted use. Should the Navy later decide to transfer, by deed, ownership in
the property encompassing PSC 6 to any private person or entity, then the
provisions of paragraph Deed Covenants and Conveyance of Title as set forth on page
B-4 of this Land-Use Control Implementation Plan (LUCIP) shall apply. Until that
time, the following Land-Use Controls will remain in effect:
Land-Use Controls Implemented to Achieve Objectives
MCLB, Albany Security. Physical access to the property surrounding PSC 6 is
controlled by base security measures, including fencing, pass and identification
procedures, guardhouse, and periodic security patrols.
Authorized Activities. The following activities are permissible within the
confines of PSC 6:
• such activities or uses that will not result in the development of the
site for residential purposes or pose a continuous, long-term exposure
to child residents located near the site, and thus will present no
greater risk of harm to health, safety, public welfare, or the
environment; and
• such activities required to ensure adequate protection of human health
and the environment.
Unauthorized Activities. Those activities and uses that are inconsistent with the
objectives of this LUCIP, and which, if implemented at PSC 6, could pose an
increased risk of harm to health, safety, public welfare, or the environment may
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
B-3
-------
not be conducted at PSC 6. The following activities are not permissible within the
confines of PSC 6:
• construction of facilities specifically intended for use as residential
housing;
• installation and/or storage of chemicals, waste chemical products, or
equipment with the potential for chemical leakage; and
• such activities or uses not specifically stated under "authorized
activities" listed above that will result in the development of the site
for residential purposes or pose a continuous, long-term exposure to
child residents located near the site.
Proposed changes in Use. Any proposed changes in permissible uses at PSC 6 that may
result in the development of PSC 6 for residential use shall be evaluated by a
licensed engineering professional and MCLB, Albany Environmental Branch Office to
determine whether or not the proposed changes will present a significant risk of
harm to health, safety, public welfare, or the environment. Any such changes in use
of the site are subject to approval by USEPA Region IV and GEPD.
Deed Covenants and Conveyance of Title. Should the decision later be made to
transfer ownership of the property encompassing PSC 6 to any private person or
entity, then the Navy shall either (1) take all actions necessary to remediate the
site to then existing residential cleanup standards prior to effecting such
transfer, or (2) deed record with the Dougherty County Register of Deeds
appropriate restrictive covenants prohibiting future residential usage of the
property. Should the Navy not have the requisite legal authority to record such
deed restrictions, then it shall take all steps necessary to ensure that the
cognizant Federal agency with such authority does so unless the property is
remediated to residential standards prior to such transfer. Should cleanup of the
site not be effected to residential standards, then notification will be given to
USEPA Region IV and GEPD at least 30 days prior to any conveyance of title to the
site to any third party(ies) and the purchaser(s) of the site will be advised via
the deed documentation as to then existing site conditions and any/all associated
Land-Use Controls and long-term monitoring requirements.
Posting. This LUCIP will be referenced in all MCLB, Albany Utility Maps and in
MCLB, Albany's Master Plan. In conjunction with MCLB, Albany's Base Master Plan and
utility maps, this LUCIP is included in the Land-Use Control Assurance Plan
Agreement. No maintenance or construction activities are planned without referring
to these documents.
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
B-4
-------
REFERENCE
ABB Environmental Services. 1998. Remedial Investigation and Baseline Risk
Assessment Report for Operable Unit 4, Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB),
Albany, Georgia. Prepared for Department of the Navy, Southern Division,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, North Charleston, South Carolina
(February).
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
B-5
-------
Harding Lawson Associates
February 18, 1999
HLA-ES TN: 2520.027
Mr. Robert Pope
USEPA Region IV, 4WD-FFB
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Ms. Madeleine Kellam
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
205 Butler Street, S.E., Suite 1252
Atlanta, Georgia 30304
SUBJECT: Operable Unit 4 Final Record of Decision
Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia
Contract No.: N62467-89-D-0317/086
Dear Mr. Pope and Ms. Kellam:
On behalf of MCLB, Albany and SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, Harding Lawson Associates has prepared
the referenced Final Record of Decision for Operable Unit 4, and enclosed two copies for your review.
Please contact Dan Owens at (843) 820-733 1 or me at (850) 942-7454, extension 246 if you have any
questions regarding this package.
Sincerely,
HARDING LAWSON ASSOCIATES
Joseph H. Daniel, P.G.
Installation Manager
2 Enclosures
cf: D. Owens, Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
J. Sanders, Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Capt. A. Ference, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany
F. Lesesne, Harding Lawson Associates
-------
CERTIFICATION OF TECHNICAL
DATA CONFORMITY (MAY 1987)
The Contractor, Harding Lawson Associates, hereby certifies that, to the best
of its knowledge and belief, the technical data delivered herewith under
Contract No. N62467-89-D-0317/086 are complete and accurate and comply with
all requirements of this contract.
DATE: February 18, 1999
NAME AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL: Joseph H. Daniel, P.G.
Task Order Manager
NAME AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL: Frank Lesesne
Project Technical Lead
(DFAR 252.227-7036)
ALB-OU4 ROD
SAS 12 98
-------