FIVE YEAR REVIEWThe methods, findings, and conclusions of the OU4 Soil Repository Five-Year Review...
Transcript of FIVE YEAR REVIEWThe methods, findings, and conclusions of the OU4 Soil Repository Five-Year Review...
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 7
11201 Renner Boulevard Lenexa, Kansas 66219
NOV 1 4 2013'
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Request for Approval of Third Five-Year Review Report, Soil Repository Operable Unit 04, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska
FROM: Bill Gresham, Remedial Project Manager f~ Iowa/Nebraska Remedial Branch
THRU: Jim Stevens /~ · Office of Regional 7c:ounsel
Pradip L. Dalal, P.E., Chief ~ l ·~ Iowa/Nebraska Remedial Branch
TO: Cecilia Tapia, Director Superfund Division
This memorandum is to transmit the Third Five-Year Review Report on Operable Unit 04 of the Former Naval Ammunition Depot site, Hastings, Nebraska, prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Kansas City District. This report was prepared in accordance with section 121 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and 40 Code of Federal Regulations§ 300.430(f)(4)(ii). ·
The initial triggering action for the first statutory review was the initiation of construction activities at the OU 04 Soil Repository in August of 1996. The five-year review is required because hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain in the soil repository at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. This review evaluates protectiveness of the OU 4 remedy. Pursuant to a 1990 Record of Decision (ROD), that remedy included excavation of shallow contaminated soils and disposal of the excavated soils within the soil repository. As a result and in accordance with the Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Surface Soil Residential Properties ROD (2002), statutory reviews for the excavated OU 4 areas are not required.
A draft version of the report was previously reviewed by the EPA, and comments were forwarded to USACK USACE and the EPA revised the report to address the EPA's comments. Attached is a copy of the report for y,our consideration and approval. The final signed report and the supporting information will be added to the Administrative Records file for the site. .--·---~302.850-84____ ·--
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111Attachment ·_____Suo_erfund
Disapprove_~~~~h~···~·~~·-n==-;:~~~~r=~;j;) Pnnfed on Recycleli Paper
r.'P'f.1 UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS KANSAS CITY DISTRICTl!±.!J
FlNAL
THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
SOIL REPOSITORY (OPERABLE UNIT 4)
~ Former Naval Ammunition Depot
Hastings, Nebraska
Chief. Environmental Programs Branch Kansas City District
l9iP.ll lli&ll us Almy Corpe of Engtneera
April 2013
••
• FINAL .
THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
SOIL REPOSITORY (OPERABLE UNIT 4)
April 2013..
r.'Pr.1 l.:.=.!:.!J
Department of the Army U.S. Army Engineer District, Kansas City
601 E. 121h Street
700 Federal Building Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2896
j
•
••
This page intentionally left blank.
•
•
••
- -
-·
~·
Executive Summary
This report is the Third Five-Year Review for the Soil Repository (Operable Unit [OU] 4) for the
former Naval Ammunition Depot site located in Hastings, Nebraska.
Operable Unit 4 encompasses the former production and waste disposal areas located on the
Hastings East Industrial Park and the Soil Repository located east of the Hastings East Industrial
Park. The medium of interest for OU4 is shallow soil, defined as the layers of soil less than
10 feet below ground surface.
Previous five-year reviews included a discussion of the status for all OU 4 remedial actions.
However, none of the completed OU4 remedial actions, except for the Soil Repository, resulted
in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining on the exbavated properties
above levels that do not allow for unlimited use and unlimited exposure (UU/UE). As a result
and in accordance with the Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Surface Soil
Residential Properties (Operable Units 4, 15 and 16) Record of Decision (USACE 2002),
statutory reviews for excavated OU4 areas are not required.
Remediation waste was disposed on-site in the OU4 Soil Repository, preventing UU/UE.
Consequently, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,
Section 121 and the National Contingency ~Ian ( 40 Code of Federal Regulations 300) requires
five-year reviews be conducted to evaluate the performance of the OU4 Soil Repository to
determine if the remedy continues to be protective of human health and the environment.
This five-year review, and subsequent reviews, will focus on the protectiveness determination for
the Soil Repository, the one area of OU4 that is subject to a statutory five-year-review.
The methods, findings, and conclusions of the OU4 Soil Repository Five-Year Review are
documented in this report. This third review covers the period from August 2006 through August )
2011. The· initial triggering action for the First Five-Year Review was the initiation of the
constmction activities at the OU4 Soil Repository in August of 1996.
Based on the on-site inspections, interviews, operation and maintenance reports, and monitoring
data, the OU4 Soil Repository is functioning as intended by the decision document and continues
to be protective of human health and the environment. The access restrictions in place are
effective, and exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. The
operation and maintenance conducted has been effective in maintaining the Soil Repository such
that it is continuing to function as intended.
-The next Five-Year Review for the OU4 Soil Repository of the former Naval Ammunition Depot
will cover the time period from August 2011 through August 2016.
RichOP-Third 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_ April 2013 ES-1411512013
••
•
This page intentionally left blank.
•
)
R1chDP· Third 5-Year Review OU4_F/NAL_April 2013 ES-2 411512013
Table of Contents
List of Tables : iii List of Figures iii List of Appendices ! iii Acronyms and Abbreviations v
Executive Summary ES-1 1.0 Introduction . 1-1 2.0 Site Chronology 2-1 3.0 Site Background 3-1
3.1 Site Location and History 3-1 3.2 Geology ...3-3 3.3 Hydrogeology 3-3 3.4 Land Use 3-4 3.5 History of Contamination 3-6 3.6 Basis for Taking Remedial Action 3-6 3.7 Status of Operable Units 8,14,15, and 16 and Military Munitions Response Program 3-6
3.7.1 Operable Unit 8 3-7 3.7.2 Operable Unit 14 3-8 3.7.3 Operable Unit 15 ; 3-8 3.7.4 Operable Unit 16 3-9 3.7.5 Military Munitions Response Program 3-10
4.0 Operable Unit 4 Remedial Actions .....4-1 4.1 Remedy Selection 4-1 4.2 Remedy Implementation 4-2 4.3 Operations and Maintenance i 4-3 4.4 Current Status 4-4
5.0 Progress since Last Five-Year Review 5-1 5.1 Protectiveness Statements from Previous Review 5-1 5.2 Issues Identified during Previous Review... 5-1 5.3 Follow-Up Actions Taken 5-1
6.0 Five-Year Review Process 6-1 6.1 Administrative Components 6-1 6.2 Community Involvement : 6-1 6.3 Document Review 6-2 6.4 Data Review 6-2 6.5 Site Inspection.... 6-2 6.6 Interviews... :.6-2
7.0 Technical Assessment 7-1 7.1 Question A: Is the Remedy Functioning as Intended by the Decision Document? 7-1 7.2 Question B: Are the Exposure Assumptions, Toxicity Data, Cleanup Levels, and
Remedial Action Objectives Used at the Time of Remedy Selection Still Valid? 7-3 7.3 Question C: Has Any Other Information Come to Light That Could Call Into Question
the Protectiveness of the Remedy? 7-5
Third 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 4/15/2013
-
Table of Contents (Continued) ---,....------------- •7.4 Technical Assessment Summary ........;................................................................................7-5
8.0 Issues..............................................................................................................................................8-1 9.0 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions .....................................................................................9-1 10.0 Protectiveness Statement ..............................................................................................................10-1
10.1 Operable Unit 4 Soil Repository ..............:........................................................:................. 10-1 11.0 Next Review ..................................................................................................................................11-1 12.0 References....................................................................................................................................12-1
•
• Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_ Aprif 2013 ii 411512013
List of Tables
Table 1 Chronology of Events Sitewide and Operable Unit 4 Table 2 Chronology of Events Operable Units 8,14,15, and 16 Table 3 Soil Repository Monitoring Well Groundwater Data Summary Table 4 Soil Repository Leachate Data Summary
List ofFiqures
Figure 1 NAD-Wide Site Location Map Figure 2 Schematic Illustrating Hydrogeologic Units, Stratigraphy, Groundwater Model Layers, and
Monitoring Well Designations Figure 3 Operable Units at the Former NAD
List of Appendices
Appendix A Third Five-Year Review News Release Appendix B Documents Reviewed During Five-Year Review Appendix C Third Five-Year Review Site Inspection
Third 5- Year Review OU4_ FiNAL_April 2013 4/15/2013
•
This page intentionally left blank.
• r
• Thlfd 5-Year Review OU4_F/NAL_April 2013 iv 411512013
Acronyms and Abbreviations -----------'------- •
•
•
ARAR bgs BMC CERCLA
CFR EDA EPA HEIP MD MEC MMRP NAD NCP NDEQ NEARNG NYD O&M OU PAH RAO RCRA RDX ROD SEDA SVE TCE TNT USA CE voe
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement below ground surface Bomb and Mine Complex Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Code of Federal Regulations Explosives Disposal Area U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Hastings East Industrial Park munitions debris munitions and explosives of concern Military Munitions Response Program
, Naval Ammunition Depot National Contingency Plan Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality Nebraska Anny National Guard Naval Yard Dump operation and maintenance operable unit polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon Remedial Action Objective Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine Record of Decision Southeast Detonation Area soil vapor extraction trichloroethene 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene U.S. Army Corps of Engineers volatile organic compound
Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_Apr112013 411512013 v
Th11d 5-Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 411512013
This page intentionally left blank.
vi
•
•
• l
• Five-Year Review Summary Form
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: Former Naval Ammunition Depot
EPAID:NED980862668
NPL Status: ~ Final D Deleted D Other (specify)
Remediation Status (choose all that apply): D Under Construction ~ Operating D Complete
Multiple OUs? ~Yes D No Construction Complete Date: In progress
Has Site Been Put Into Reuse? D Yes ~No
REVIEW STATUS
Lead Agency: DEPA D State D Tribe ~ Other Federal Agency: USAGE
Author Name: Mr. Brian Roberts (CENWK-ED-EE) I
Author Title: Project Lead IAuthor Affiliation: USAGE, Kansas City District
Review Period: August 2006 to August 2011
Date(s) of Site Inspection: October 20, 2011
Type of Review:
• ~Post-SARA D Pre-SARA D NPL-Removal Only D Non-NPL Remedial Action Site D NPL State/Tribe-lead D Regional Discretion
Review Number: D 1 (first) D 2 (second) ~ 3 (third) D Other (specify)
Triggering Action: ~ Actual RA On-site Construction at OU4 D Actual. RA Start at OU4 · D Construction Completion \ ~ Previous Five-Year Review Report D Other (specify)
Triggering Action Date: July 2009 (Signature date of preceding Five-Year Review)
Due Date (five years after triggering action date): July 2014
• Third 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_Apnl 2013 vii4/1512013
••
Five-Year Review Summary Form (Continued)
Issues were as follows: •• Ten damaged areas on the Soil Repository cover were identified. It appears that these
areas were damaged by small burrowing animals.
• The high level sensor in the leachate collection tank was not functioning and prevents automatic operation ofthe leachate collection pump.
Recommendations and follow-up actions are as follows:
• The IO damaged areas on the Soil Repository cover were baclifilled with topsoil and seeded as part ofroutine repository operation and maintenc:nce activities.
• The high level sensor in the leachate collection tank was repaired on September JO, 2012, by the operation and maintenance subcontractor to restore automatic operation ofthe leachate collection system.
Protectiveness Statement(s):
This document with its protectiveness statement is applicable only for the Soil Repository
(Operable Unit [OU] 4). The remedy for the OU4 Soil Repqsitory continues to be protective of
human health and the environment. Exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are
being controlled. Current monitoring data indicate the remedies are functioning as designed. •Access restrictions remain in force at the Soil Repository and the integrity of the containment
system remains intact. Operations and maintenance activities defined in the OU4 Soil Repository
Operation and Maintenance Manual will be continued throughout the post-closure care period to
maintain long-term protectiveness of human health and the environment (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 2002d).
\.
Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 viii 411512013
•
•
•
1.0 Introduction
This report presents the Third Five-Year Review for the Soil Repository (Operable Unit [OU] 4)
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 'Liability Act (CERCLA)
site known as the former Naval Ammunition Depot (NAO) near Hastings, Nebraska. Operable
Unit 4 is shallow soil within the limits of the Hastings East Industrial Park (HEIP) and also
includes the Soil Repository constructed on U.S. Army property (Figure 1, "NAO-Wide Site
Location Map").
The former NAO was an active "load, assemble, and pack" ammunition facility during World
War II and the Korean Conflict. Environmental contamination of soil, the vadose zone and
groundwater at the former NAO resulted from the waste management practices during the facility
operational period and subsequent decommissioning processes. Additionally, post-NAO
operations have contributed to contamination at the site.
Executive Order 12580 delegates CERCLA authority to the U.S. Department of Defense as the
lead agency. Under authorization of the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) is the lead agency and the Northwestern Division, Kansas City District is
responsible for design, implementation, and maintenance of remedial actions for all OUs located
at the former NAO. The U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency (EPA) is a support agency
responsible for reviewing site activities, reviewing reports, and concurring with the remedy
selections at the former NAO. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) is a
support agency responsible for review of data, studies, reports, and plans, and to identify and
integrate state Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARAR) into the remedial
action process in accordance with the Interagency Agreement (EPA, 1999).
The USACE is submitting this Five-Year Review report pursuant to the CERCLA § 121 and the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 300).
CERCLA § 12l(c) states:
{f the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous 'substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less than each fi.ve years aper the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition. ({ upon such review it is the judgment of the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104} or [106}, the President shall take or require such action. Tlze President shall report to the Congress a list o(facilitiesfor which such review is required. and the results ofall such revie1vs, and any actions taken as a result ofsuc/1 reviews .
RichDP·Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 1-14/1512013
The agency interpreted this requirement further in the NCP; 40 CFR 300.430(f)(4)(ii):
{{a remedial action is seleded that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or •contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such actioil no less often than eve1J1 five years after the initiation ofthe selected remedial action.
Because remediation waste has been placed in the on-site OU4 Soil Repository that prevents
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, five-year reviews are required to be performed. The
purpose of this Third Five-Year Review is to evaluate the performance of the OU4 Soil
Repository to determine if the remedy continues to be protective of human health and the
environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of this Five-Year Review are documented
in this report. In addition, this report identifies any issues encountered during the review and the
recommendations to address them. This Third Five-Year Review covers the period from August
2006 through August 2011. The initial triggering action for the First Five-Year Review was the
initiation of the construction activities at the OU4 Soil Repository in August of 1996.
In addition to OU4, there are four other OUs at the former NAD. The five OUs at the former
NAD are as follows:
• OU4: HEIP - shallow soil (and Soil Repository)
• OU8: HEIP- vadose zone •• OU 14: Groundwater - entire former NAD
• OU15: Remainder of former NAD area - shallow soil and vadose zone (excludes OU4, OU8, and OU16)
• OU16: Bomb and Mine Complex (BMC), Explosives Disposal Area (EDA), and Naval Yard Dump (NYD)- shallow soil and vadose zone
Highlights of the progress at OU8, OU14, OU15, and OUJ6 since the previous five-year review
are presented in Section 3.7 of this report. In addition, Section 3.7 provides information on the
status of the Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) at the former NAD.
This report has been prepared in accordance with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review
Guidance (EPA, 2001). This report is in succession to the Second Five-Year Review Report,
Operable Unit 4 (Shallow Soil), Former Naval Ammunition Depot. Hastings, Nebraska
(USACE, 2009a).
• RichOP-Third 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_ Aprif 2013 1-2 4/1512013
• 2.0 Site Chronology
Table 1, "Chronology of Events - Sitewide and Operable Unit 4," presents a chronology of
sitewide events and those associated with OU4 at the former NAD. Table 2, "Chronology of ·
Events - Operable Units 8, 14, 15, and 16," presents a chronology of events for the remainder of
the fom1er NAD OUs .
•
• R1chDP-Third 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_Aprif 2013 2-1411512013
- -RichDP-Third 5-Year Review OUJ_F/NAL_April 2013 4115.12013
This page intentionally left blank.
2-2
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.0 Site Background
In 1983, groundwater contamination was discovered in several area wells around Hastings,
Nebraska. After an investigation by the EPA and the Nebraska Department of Environmental
Control and Health, several sites were combined into the Hastings Groundwater Contamination
Site. The Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site was listed on the National Priorities List in
1986 and is regulated under CERCLA. The Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site is
comprised of seven subsites, the largest being the fonner NAD. The USACE began remedial
investigation-related activities at the former NAD in 1987. Woodward-Clyde (now URS
Corporation) served as the prime Contractor to the USACE for the majority of the remedial
investigation activities.
3.1 Site Location and History The former NAD is a Formerly Used Defense Site located in south-central Nebraska. The 48,753
acre NAD, built in the early 1940s, is located approximately l 05 miles west of Lincoln and 25
miles south of Grand Island, in Adams and· Clay Counties. A Site Location Map is shown on
Figure 1. The northwest comer of the site is located approximately 2 miles east of the city of
Hastings along U.S. Highway 6. The boundary of the former NAD extends eastward to State
Route S-18A and southward to State Route 74. A Union Pacific Railroad track delineates the
western boundary. A monument, located in the northeast comer of the site, establishes a latitude
40°35'04" north and longitude 98°21 '07'' west.
The city of Hastings has a population of approximately 24,907 (2010 census). The City is an
important agribusiness center to the surrounding region. Also in the area, are the city of Clay
Center and the village of Glenvil, with populations of approximately 760 and 3 I 0, respectively
(2010 census). These nearby populations have changed little over the last 10 years.
The former NAD site was used for ordnance production, and served as an active "load, assemble,
and pack" ammunition facility during World War II and the Korean Conflict. Most of the
materials used during assembly of the ordnance were manufactured at other locations and
shipped to the facility. The principal production areas included the following:
• Rocket motor loading facility
• Bag charge filling plant
• 40-millimeter loading and filling area
• Medium caliber projectile loading plant
• Case overhaul and tank repair facility
RichDP· Third 5-Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 3-1411512013
• 20-millimeter loading and filling area
• BMC
All of these production areas, except the BMC, were located in the extreme western portion of
the former NAD in an area now referred to as the HEIP (Figure 1 ). A large array of storage
bunkers, inert storage buildings, and a complex network of roads and railroad spurs were
constructed at the facility to support the production areas. In addition, two sewage treatment
plants, various water supply wells, and an extensive network of utilities served the former NAD.
Other areas of interest on the site include the following, as shown on Figure 1:
• NYD
• Agricultural Research Service, Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center areas 8a and 8b (Agricultural Research Service, Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center)
• EDA
• Southeast Detonation Area (SEDA)
Decommissioning of the facilities began in 1958 and was completed in 1967. Activities included
the destruction of various buildings, general wash down of structures, and disposal of remaining
ammunition by either off-site disposal or on-site burning. • Initial investigations began with the HEIP in 1987 since this area comprises most of the primary
production facilities of the former NAO .. Subsequent investigations targeted the following former
disposal sites:
• EDA
• NYD
• SEDA
• BMC
Selected smaller areas involving secondary production areas, railroad facilities, motor pools, c,ind
areas of land disturbance within the former NAO boundaries were also investigated. As the
number of investigations increased, the former NAO was subdivided into "operable units." The
CERCLA process encourages the use of OUs to group large sites for more logical or efficient
execution of environmental restoration activities. As a result, five OUs have been established for
restoration at the fom1er NAD.
RichDP·Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 3-2 411512013
• The OUs each address a specific area or media, and are as follows:
• OU4: HEIP - shallow soil (and soil repository)
• OU8: HEIP - vadose zone
• OU14: Groundwater- entire former NAD
• OU15: Remainder of former NAD area - shallow soil and vadose zone (excludes OU4, OU8, and OUl6)
• OU16: BMC, EDA, and NYD- shallow soil and vadose zone
Operable unit numbers are chronologically assigned to the subsites of the Hastings Groundwater
Contamination Site; therefore, there are gaps in the OU designations for the former NAD
Hastings.
3.2 Geology
• Surface soils consist of loess deposits, about 50 feet in thickness, overlying sand and gravel. The
overburden is a sequence of unconsolidated Pleistocene sand and gravel. These deposits range
from 200 to 300 feet thick, and also contain layers of clay and silt, which act as confining I_ayers.
The unconsolidated Pleistocene deposits overlie the Niobrara Fomiation, which is comprised of
Cretaceous age chalky shale and chalk . I
3.3 Hydrogeology The groundwater of the High Plains Aquifer lies beneath most of the former NAD,
approximately 95 to 115 feet below ground surface (bgs) and generally flows in a southeastern
direction. In the southeastern portion of the former NAD, the groundwater surface may be
encountered at depths as shallow as 70 feet bgs in topographic low areas. The saturated aquifer
thickness ranges from 120 feet in the northern portion of the fom1er NAO area to 160 feet in the
southern portion. The subsurface beneath the region has been divided into the following
hydrogeologic units:
• Unsaturated zone
• Unconfined aquifer
• Upper-confining layer
• Semi-confin'ed aquifer
• Lower-confining unit
• The unsaturated zone consists of topsoil, loess, sand, and gravel, approximately 95 to 120 feet
thick. The unconfined portion of the aquifer, referred to as the unconfined aquifer, consists of
those materials found between the groundwater surface and the upper-confining layer. This unit
R1chDP· Third 5-Year Review 0U4_FJNAL_Apnl 2013 3-3411512013
1s composed primarily of saturated fluvial sand and, to a lesser extent, sand and gravel artd
clayey or silty sand. The saturated thicknes~ of this unit varies, but is generally less than 15 feet. •
A clay layer, up to 11 feet thick, is present in the northern portion of the former NAD. lil areas
where it is present this clay layer appears to act as a confining layer within the aquifer, and is
therefore also referred to as the upper-confining layer. The composition of this layer is silty clay,
clayey silt, and clayey sand. The semi-confined portion of the aquifer, also referred to as the
semi-confined aquifer, is the primary hydrogeologic unit in the region. This unit consists of those
materials found between the upper-confining layer, where present, and the lower-confining unit.
The semi-confined aquifer makes up the entire aquifer thickness in those areas· where the
upper-confining layer is absent. Its materials consist of sand and grayel, with thin discontinuous
silty clay and clayey sand layers inter-bedded within the unit. The thickness of the semi-confined
aquifer ranges from approximately 120 to 140 feet. The lower-confining unit beneath the aquifer
corresponds to the silty clay and clayey silt deposits overlying bedrock. Figure 2, "Schematic
Illustrating Hydrogeologic Units, Stratigraphy, Groundwater Model Layers, and Monitoring
Well Designations," shows a general picture of the geology and hydrogeology of the former
NAD, as well as the layers used for the groundwater modeling and the naming designation of
constructed wells.
3.4 Land Use After decommissioning the NAD in the mid-l 960s, large tracts of land were either sold for
private use or transferred to other governmental agencies. Figure I shows the current land •ownership at the former NAD. The primary property owner within the former NAD is the federal
government. The U.S. Department of Agriculture received approximately 35,000 acres of the
NAD, which were developed into the Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center. The
facility is engaged in research regarding the production of sheep, cattle, and swine. The Nebraska
Army National Guard (NE ARNO) currently operates the Greenlief Training Site for National
Guard personnel on approximately 3,200 acres of the fom1er facility. Under a license from the
state of Nebraska, other federal government agencies occupy portions of the former NAD,
including the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service's Research Tree Tract and the
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service's McMurtrey Marsh Waterfowl
Production Area. The former administrative and military housing areas are currently the location
of the Central Community College of Hastings. Other fom1er production areas were sold to
private investors and residents. These properties include the 4,000-acre area of the HEIP and a
smaller tract of land occupying the site of the former BMC. In total, over 60 different parties
maintain ownership and/or operations within the former NAD boundaries.
• RichDP-Third 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 3-4 4/1512013
v
•
•
•
At this time future land use is uncertain. The NCP preamble states ( 40 CFR 300.430[ d]):
In general, the evaluation of residual risk and hazard will look at future land use that is reasonable, from land use development patterns, and may be associated with the highest (most sign(ficant) risk, in order to be protective. These considerations will lead to the assumption ofresidential land use as the fi1ture land use in many cases. Where the likely future use is unclear, risk assuming residential land use can be compared to risks associated with other land uses, such as industrial, to estimate tlze risk consequences if tlze land is usedfor something other than the expectedfuture uses.
This approach to addressing uncertainties regarding future land use is adopted and amplified by
EPA (l 995a) guidance on land use assumptions for the evaluation ofresidual risk and hazard:
Especially where. there is some uncertainty regarding the anticipated future land use, it may be useful to compare the potential risks associated with several land use scenarios to estimate the impact on human health and the environment should the land use unexpected~v change. The magnitude of such potential impacts may be an important consideration in determining whether and how institutional controls should be used to restrict fi1ture uses. If the evaluation of residual risk and hazard evaluates a future use under which exposure is limited, it will not serve the traditional role, evaluating a "no action " scenario.
Consideration of residential land use is consistent with the practice for other federal facilities or
with the sitewide risk assessment previously conducted at the former NAD. The EPA guidance
indicates that residential use is the most frequently chosen future land use at federal facilities,
even when residential use is not necessarily anticipated (EPA, 1996). Therefore remedial cleanup
goals are often set for residential use, as they are more likely to have stricter standards.
The majority of the acreage at OU4 is being used for light industrial uses consistent with the
Hastings HEIP industrial zoning. In addition to light industrial land use at the HEIP, there is row
crop production and there are approximately 10 to 12 fonner NAD buildings that have be~n converted for r~sidential use prior to the implementation of the current zoning ordinance. The
OU4 Soil Repository is located approximately 2,000 feet east of the HEIP on U.S. Department of
Defense property that is currently being leased by the NE ARNG. The southern, eastern, and
western boundaries of the Soil Repository are adjacent to NE ARNG controlled land while the
northern boundary lies parallel and adjacent to East J Street. North of .East J Street is farmland
that is used for row crop production. The entire perimeter of the Soil Repository area is enclosed
by 6-foot high .chain link fencing with three strands of barbed-wire runni11g along the top. Since
the last five-year review conducted in 2006, there have been no significant changes in land use at
the site or in the vicinity of OU4 that would have an effect on previously .conducted risk and
hazard evaluations .
RichOP-Third 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 3-5411512013
3.5 History of Contamination Contamination is primarily due to waste management practices and decommissioning activities
conducted at the previously named production areas and other facilities located in the former
NAO. During active operations, discharge of wastewater to surface impoundments and natural
drainage areas occurred from daily wash downs of equipment and buildings. Additionally,
several trenches and disposal areas were developed for disposal of solid waste and explosives.
These wash down and disposal activities are considered to be responsible for much of the
contamination .. Subsequent occupants of the former NAO also contributed to contamination at
the site.
Contaminants in surface soils at OU4 posing unacceptable risks that have required response
actions include explosives (2,4,6-trinitrotoluene [TNT]), metals (lead, cadmium), and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Remediation of the vadose zone has been performed by soil
vapor extraction (SVE) technology to remediate VOC-contamination-impacting groundwater.
Due to explosive and VOC contamination of the groundwater, an extraction and treatment
system is being installed to treat contaminated groundwater in accordance with the Sitewide
Groundwater Record of Decision (ROD) (US ACE, 2010a).
3.6 Basis for Taking Remedial A.ction The USA CE completed a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study of OU4 in January 1990. The
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and baseline risk assessment identified areas of soil
containing unacceptable levels of TNT, lead, cadmium, and PAHs.
Remedial actions were performed at OU4 to address contaminant concentrations exceeding
risk-based cleanup levels presented in the ROD and the ROD Amendment (EPA, 1990, 1995b ).
For OU4 soils, the estimated potential excess cancer risks were primarily associated with
inadvertent ingestion of arsenic and PAH-contaminated soils or direct dennal contact with
TNT-contaminated soils (EPA, 1990, l 995b ). Noncarcinogenic adverse health effects with
Hazard Indices greater than 1 were due to oral or dermal contact with the soil, and in· all cases
TNT was the largest contributor to the Hazard Index (EPA, 1990). The remedial actions for
PAH-contaminated soils were perfom1ed in accordance with the 2002 ROD (USACE, 2002a) for
residential properties and the 2004 Explanation of Significant Differences for nonresidential
properties (USACE, 2004a). The over-riding basis for taking remedial action was the protection
of human health and the environment, as required by CERCLA.
3.7 Status of Operable Units 8, 14, 15, and 16 and Military Munitions Response Program··
This section provides a status update for OU8, OU14, OU15, and OU16 and includes actions
taken at these OUs after issuance of the previous Second Five-Year Review (USACE, 2009a).
RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 411512013 3-6
•
•
• Response
• This section also includes a status update for the MMRP. As previously stated, this five-year
review is being conducted for the OU4 Soil Repository. Future Five-Year Review Reports will
be required for OU 14 and OU 16. The status of the other OUs is being presented in this review
for informational purposes. Figure 3, "Operable Units at the Former NAD," shows the locations
of the OUs on the fom1er NAO.
3.7.1 Operable Unit 8 Operable Unit 8 addresses remediation in the vadose zone within the HEIP. The'vadose zone is
the unsaturated portion of the soil above the groundwater table. The chemicals of concern in the
vadose zone are · VOCs including TCE, I, 1, I-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethene, and
1, 1-dichloroethene. Operable Unit 8 areas were addressed during two phases. Phase I for
remedial activities at Buildings 104 and 135 (USA CE, 1993) and Phase II for remedial activities
at Building 130, the South Disposal Area, and the NYD areas (USACE, 1995a, 1996). Source
materials were removed in all identified source areas in Phases I and II via SVE technology. It should also be noted that two separate soil and debris removal actions occurred at the NYD in
I
1990 and 1996 prior to installation of the SVE system. The Final Phase I and II Removal Action
Reports for OU8 were issued in 2002 and 2003, respectively (USACE, 2002b, 2003).
• There are no long-tenn operation and maintenance (O&M) activities associated with the Phase I
and II SVE Systems. Well abandonment and removal of SVE equipment have been completed .
The SVE Well Abandonment Strategy Plan and Addendum No. 1 for OU8 detail all activities
associated with well abandonment (USACE, 2005, 2008a). Abandonment of wells was
performed in accordance with state of Nebraska standards (Title 178, Chapter 12) (Nebraska
Health and Human Services, 2004 ).
The Sitewide Groundwater ROD (USACE, 2010a) serves as the final decision document
requiring no further action for the five OU8 vadose zone source areas. These five vadose zone
source areas are as follows:
• Building I 04
• Building 124
• Building 130
• Building 135
• South Disposal Area
The ROD for OU16 (USACE, 201 la) was prepared and is the final decision document for the
NYD vadose zone source area remediated under the Phase II SVE removal action .
• R1chDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_Apri/ 2013 3-7411512013
3.7.2 Operable Unit 14 Operable Unit 14 addresses remediation of VOC (TCE, I, I, I-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethene,
I, 1-dichloroethene) and explosive (TNT and hexahydro-l ,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine [RDX]) • contaminated groundwater throughout the former NAD. Groundwater was first characterized
during remedial investigation activities from 1987 to 1990. The following actions associated
with OUl4 have been completed:
• Replacement of public water supply well CMS-19 and distribution system
• Provision of bottled water, as ah interim action, to residences located near the BMC
• Installation of new water wells, as an alternate water supply, at three locations in 2002
• Groundwater cleanup actions at the Multiple Technology Facility
• Monitoring well abandonment
• Completion of the Groundwater Feasibility Study Report and Addendum
• Issuance of the Final Proposed Plan and ROD for Sitewide Groundwater
Currently, the OU 14 remedial action construction efforts for Sitewide Groundwater are ongoing.
The Sitewide Groundwater ROD (USA CE, 20 I Oa) requires that during its five-year reviews a
determination be made as to whether or not the Remedial Action Objectives (RAO) have been
achieved including an evaluation of the remediation timeframe in the context of the CERCLA •balancing criteria. The groundwater remedial construction efforts are ongoing. However,
remediation of the northern plume groundwater contamination has been started. A determination
on the efficacy of the groundwater remediation efforts and the ability to meet the RA Os will be
made in a subsequent Five-Year Review.
In accordance with the Sitewide Groundwater ROD (USA CE, 20 I Oa), the Department of the
Army provided notices of groundwater contamination and land use controls to federal, state, and
local governments as well as the owners and occupants of properties subject to the controls at the
site. These notices were issued on November 29, 20 I 0, within 90 days of the signing of the
Sitewide Groundwater ROD. The frequency of subsequent notifications will be described in the
Remedial Action Monitoring Plan (USACE, 2012). The Army remains responsible for ensuring
that the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment. The Arn1y will fulfill
its responsibility and obligations under CERCLA and the NCP as it implements, maintains, and
reviews the selected remedy.
3.7.3 Operable Unit 15 Operable Unit 15 addresses remediation of two areas, Site 4 and Site I 0, located within the
former NAO. The remedy at Site 4 (Rifle and Pistol Range) focused on lead contamination in the •
RichDP-Third 5-Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 3-8411512013
•
•
•
shallow soil. The remedy at Site 10 addressed VOC contamination in the vadose zone. Site 4 and
Site 10 did not represent a.n immediate threat to public health and the environment, and were
performed as nontime critical removal actions (USA CE 2000a, 2001 ). The selected removal
actions for Site 4 and Site 10 are protective of human health and the environment, comply with
applicable requirements of-CERCLA and the NCP, and are consistent with and will contribute to
the overall remedy ( 40 CFR 300). The removal actions for Site 4 and Site 10 are considered
complete. Site 4 was restored in November 2002 and the final inspection by the EPA and NDEQ
\ was conducted in November 2003. The Final Removal Action Report for Site 4 was issued in
October 2004 (USACE, 2004b). At Site 10, the SVE equipment skid was removed and the
associated wells have been abandoned. The Final Removal Action Report for Site 10 was issued
in October 2006 (USACE, 2006a). A Sitewide Vapor Intrusion assessment was performed and
concluded that vapor intrusion was not a significant exposure pathway that would present
unacceptable risk to potential receptors (USA CE, 20 lOb). The OU 15 Baseline Risk Assessment
was issued in October 2008 (USACE, 2008b). The ROD for OU15 and Sitewide Vapor Intrusion
(USA CE, 201 Ob) serves as the final no further action decision document for OUl 5 and Sitewide
Vapor Intrusion from the vadose zone and groundwater.
3. 7.4 Operable Unit 16 Operable Unit 16 consists of three areas located within the former NAD. These subsites include
the shallow soil and the vadose zones at the EDA, NYD, and the BMC. The shallow soil removal
actions associated with the EDA were completed with the OU4 remedial actions in 1998
(USACE, 1994, 2000b ). In 1990, a surficial cleanup was completed at the NYD that included the
removal and disposal of waste and debris including approximately 1,200 drums
· (USACE, l 995b). In 1996, a removal action was performed at the NYD that included the
removal and disposal of VOC-contaminated soil and debris. At the BMC there were two removal.
actions and two remedial actions performed to address contaminated shallow soils. The first
BMt removal action was completed in 2001 to address explosives contaminated soil north of
Buildings 178 and 179 (USACE, 2000c, 2000d, 2002c). In 2006, the second BMC removal
action was completed to address lead-contaminated soil near Building 207 (USA CE, 2009b ). The
two remedial actions performed at the BMC were conducted under the residential and
nonresidential OU4 PAH remedial actions. In 2002, the residential PAH remedial actions were
completed (USA CE, 2004c). The nonresidential P AH remedial action was completed in 2006
(USA CE, 2006b ). The remedy to address VOC contamination in the vadose zone at the NYD
was performed as part of the OU8 Phase II SVE removal action completed in 2001.
The OU16 Focused Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study was approved by the EPA in June
2011 (USACE, 201 lb). The OU16 Proposed Plan was completed and set forth the final OU16
preferred remedial alternatives for public review and comment (USACE, 201 lc). The OU16
ROD is the final decision document memorializing the selected preferred remedial alternatives
R1chDP-Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_Apnl 2013 3-94/1512013
and addressed substantive comments received during the public review period. The OU 16 ROD
was issued in September 2011 (USACE, 201 la).
•
The status updates for the four OUs listed in this section are provided for information and are not
intended to provide a protectiveness statement for these OUs.
3.7.5 Military Munitions Response Program The·MMRP, formerly the Ordnance and Explosives Cleanup Program, addresses the potential
explosives safety, health, and environmental issues caused by past U.S. Department of Defense
munitions related activities. Previously conducted munitions related response actions at the
former NAO have been conducted in accordance with the policy and guidance requirements of
the Environmental Quality, Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Program Policy
(USACE, 2004d). The 1999 Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis conducted by the
USA CE ( 1999) segregated the property into five sectors, or munitions response areas, designated
as 'A' through 'E.' No munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) were detected in any of these
sectors; however, the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis stated that sufficient
circumstantial evidence of the presence of unexploded ordnance exists in Sectors B and C to
require institutional controls.
Institutional controls were recommended for Sectors B and C (these sectors include areas
operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Meat Animal Research Center and the former
BMC area). As a result, a Public Awareness Brochure was drafted in conjunction with and
published by Adams County Emergency Management. Various meetings were held with local
officials and emergency response personnel.
•
A recent incident occurred that indicated that clarification and additional communication of
response procedures may be necessary. During site grading activities on August 10, 2010,
materials were discovered at the DTE Rail Services facility. At the time of discovery, it was
unknown if the materials were inert munitions debris (MD) or potentially MEC. DTE Rail
Services, a privately owned company, operates a facility on property leased from the City of
Hastings, Nebraska. This property is located on the northwestern boundary of the former NAO .
. Upon discovery of the suspected munitions materials, DTE Rail Services stopped grading work
and notified the City of Hastings. Assistance from Fort Riley Explosives Ordnance Disposal was
requested by the City of Hastings. The initial response was conducted in a timely manner;
however, when additional materials were discovered, response procedures were not correctly
followed.
• RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_Apfll 2013 3-10 4/1512013
• As a result of this incident, the following procedures were recommended and are consistent with
the interim guidance provided by the USA CE, Huntsville Center of Expertise on March 16, 2006
(Department of the Army, 2006).
The following procedure is to be followed in the event of a discovery of suspected MEC:
I. Once potential MEC is discovered, it is the property owner's or his/her agent's responsibility to notify the "local emergency response authority."
2. The "local emergen~y response authority" will have personnel that are qualified to detennine if discovered materials are MEC or MD.
3. The Nebraska State Patrol (Hazardous Devices Unit) is the "local emergency response authority" in Nebraska ..
4. If the Nebraska State Patrol determines there is a safety issue/MEC, they will contact the nearest Explosives Ordnance Disposal Unit for support.
5. If the Nebraska State Patrol determines the materials are MD and not MEC, then the materials are considered property of the private owner.
• 6. It is up to the owner to determine the proper manner for disposal of MD. It is
recommended that the material is disposed of in a manner that limits the potential for similar discoveries in the future; the final selected disposal method is up to the property owner.
The Nebraska State Patrol Hazardous Devices Coordinator contact information is as follows:
Sergeant Jud Mc Kins try Hazardous Devices Coordinator Nebraska State Patrol 3800 NW 12th Street Lincoln, Nebraska 68521 402.540.0041 (Cell) 402.479.4915 (Office) 402.479.8496 (Fax) E-mail: [email protected]
In accordance with the OU16 ROD (USACE, 20lla), the EPA create a new OU, OU21, to
address the military munitions contamination throughout the facility, which will be investigated
and cleaned up, as appropriate, under the Interagency Agreement (EPA, 1999):
/
RichDP- Third 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 20 I3 3-114/1512013
RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 411512013
This page intentionally left blank.
3-12
•
•
•
° "
- I
•
•
•
4.0 Operable Unit 4 Remedial Actions
Operable Unit 4 addresses shallow soils froin 0 to 10 feet bgs within the limits of the HEIP and
also includes the Soil Repository constructed on U.S. Department of Defense property east of the
HEIP (Figure 3). The Soil Repository was constructed to dispose of contaminated shallow soil
excavated during the OU4 remedial action and the EDA remo_val action. The Soil Repository
was closed in July 1998 and thereafter was placed in post-closure O&M.
Previous five-year reviews included a discussion of the status for all OU 4 remedial actions. A
list of all completed OU4 actions is provided in Table 1, "Chronology of Events - Sitewide and
Operable Unit 4." None of the completed OU4 remedial actions, except for the Soil Repository,
resulted . in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining on the excavated
properties above levels that do not allow for unlimited use and unlimited exposure (UU/UE). As
a result and in accordance with the Carcinogenic Polycyciic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Surface
Soil Residential Properties (Operable Units 4, 15 and 16) Record of Decision (USACE 2002a),
UU/UE statutory reviews for excavated OU4 areas are not required.
The initial remedy to address shallow soil included excavation of contaminated soils and
disposal of the excavated soils within the Soil Repository. Remediation waste was disposed
on-site in the OU4 Soil Repository, preventing unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. As a
result, the Comprehensive Environmental . Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,
Section 121 and the National Contingency Plan ( 40 Code of Federal Regulations 300) requires
five-year reviews be conducted to evaluate the perfonnance of the OU4 Soil Repository to
determine if the remedy continues to be protective of human health and the ~nvironment.
The shallow soil remedial actions have been completed in accordance with the approved RODs
(EPA, 1990, l 995b; USACE, 2002a, 2004a) and the associated Remedial Action Reports
(USA CE; 2000e, 2004c, and 2006b). Consequently, this current five-year review, and
subsequent reviews, will focus on the protectiveness determination for the Soil Repository, the
one area of OU4 that is subject to a statutory five-year-review.
4.1 Remedy Selection The remedy for OU4 was described in the EPA Superfund, Record ofDecision: Hastings Ground
Water Contamination (EPA, 1990). The ROD provided a remedy involving excavation of
shallow contaminated soils (less than 10 feet in depth) and· disposal of the excavated soils within
the Soil Repository. Chemicals of concern found in the OU4 surface soils included metals
(cadmium and lead), TNT, and carcinogenic PAHs. The need for remediation of the
contaminated surface soil was due to the determination that potential human health risks posed
by exposure to the soil were unacceptable. Pre-design investigations were conducted in the early
RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_Apnl 2013 4-1411512013
1990s to better define the area and volumes of contaminated soil at OU4. Following the studies,
the Post-ROD Technical Memoi·andum_, Operable Unit 4, Hastings East Jndustri_al Park Subsite,
Hastings. Nebraska (USACE, 1995c) was issued, which adopted more recent methodologies for • calculating cleanup levels, revised cleanup levels for lead and carcinogenic· P AHs, and revised·
design requirements. An on-site Soil Repository was included in the remedy for disposal of
excavated soil, except for soil exhibiting high concentrations of TNT and carcinogenic P AHs,
which was transported off site. for incineration and disposal. The ROD (EPA, 1990) specified
that soil containing concentrations of TNT _that corresponded to an excess lifetime cancer risk of
great~r than 104 (660 milligrams per kilogram) were to be taken to a permitted off-site facility
for·incineration and disposal. The design requirements for the Soil Repository adopted Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D landfill requirements instead of the more
stringent RCRA Subtitle C requirements presented in EPA's original ROD (EPA, 1990, 1995b).
The post-ROD document established a remedy for OU4 that included excavation, treatment, and
disposal of approximately 50,000 ~ubic yards of surface soils contaminated with metals
(cadmium and lead), TNT, and carcinogenic PAHs.
4.2 Remedy Implementation The Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary, Hastings Groundwater Contamination,
Hastings East Industrial Park, Hastings, Nebraska was signed by the EPA in February 1995
(EPA, l 995b ). Construction activities associated with the OU4 Soil Repository were initiated in
August 1996 and completed in June 1998, supporting various surface soil remedial actions at the •former NAO. The Soil Repository features a single cell measuring approximately 240 feet by
475 feet and contains approximately 46, 700 cubic yards of contaminated soil (USA CE, 2000e ). ( '
Soil containing metals (cadmium and lead) that exceeded cleanup concentrations were stabilized
with lime prior to disposal within the Soil Repository. Approximately 30 cubic yards of soil
containing TNT and carcinogenic P AH concentrations that exceeded a 1 x 10-4 risk level were
excavated and shipped off site for incineration and disposal. Post-excavation sampling of this
area (Area J5) indicated that the remaining PAH concentrations in the bottom of the excavation
and the sidewalls were below the residential cleanup levels (USACE, 2000e). Soil containing
P AH contamination at or below the 1 x 10-4 risk level were not excavated but were left in place
in accordance with the ROD Amendment (EPA, I 995b ). Following the establishment of PAH
cleanup goals for the NAO, additional remedial actions for PAHs at residential and
nonresidential properties were conducted in accordance with the ROD (USACE, 2002a) and the
Explanation of Significant Differences (USACE, 2004a). Because only one area required
remediation for PAHs and the excavated soil was treated and disposed off-site, no
PAH-contaminated soil was disposed in the Soil Repository.
• RichDP·1hird 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_Apnl 2013 4-2 411512013
• Remediation goals established in the ROD (EPA, 1990) were achieved in the excavation areas .
However, some soils remain at depths (4 to 10 feet bgs) within the HEIP that are characterized
by TNT concentrations that exceeded the ROD cleanup goal of 2.5 milligrams per kilogram. The
OU4 remedy was based on reasonable assumptions that these deeper soils do not pose a future
health threat because of incomplete exposure pathways nor do they represent a continuing threat
to groundwater. The OU4 Remedial Action Report (USACE, 2000e) presents a chronology of
the remedial actions performed including the post-excavation confirmation sampling results.
The final USA CE construction inspection of the Soil Repository was conducted in June 1998. In
September 1998, the EPA and NDEQ conducted a joint inspection in accordance with the NCP
(40 CFR 300.515[g]) of the Surface Soil Remediation, OU4 remedial action. This inspection was
to determine if the remedy had been conducted in accordance with the ROD Amendment and
with the approved remedial design (EPA, l 995b ). In January 2000, the EPA approved the Soil
Repository Closure Report, Operable Unit No. 4, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot,
Hastings, Nebraska (USACE, 2002d) and determined that the ROD Amendment goals
(EPA, l 995b ), as established, had been met. The closure of the Soil Repository was performed
by the remedial contractor as part of the remedial activities for OU4. The Final Soil Repository
Closure Report served as the closure plan for the Soil Repository (USACE, 2002d).
• 4.3 Operations and Maintenance Post-closure care including monitoring, inspection, maintenance, and repairs of the Soil
Repository is addressed in the Operable Unit No. 4 Soil Repository Operations & Maintenance
Manual, Former Blaine Navaf.Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska (USACE, 2002e), which
serves as the post-closure care plan for the OU4 Soil Repository. Operation and maintenance
activities conducted prior to June 2001 (USA CE, 2002e) were completed in accordance with the
O&M Manual provided in Volume 2 of the original construction specifications
(USACE'., 1995d). Post-closure care activities are to be continued for a minimum of 30 years
after closure as described in NDEQ Title 132, Chapter 7 (1'994).
Routine and nonroutine field inspections are conducted at the Soil Repository by the O&M
Confractor. After issuance of the O&M Manual, the frequency of routine inspections was
reduced from quarterly to semi-annually (USACE, 2002e). Nonroutine inspections are initiated
following major stonn events in the Hastings area.
The majority of post-closure maintenance and repair activities for the OU4 Soil Repository is on
an ''as-needed" basis. All items found damaged during field inspections are noted on a site
drawing and repaired in accordance with the specifications for the design.
• Major repair activities conducted at the Soil Repository during the First Five-Year Review
period consisted primarily of modification to the edges of the Soil Repository cover in June 1999
RichDP· Th11tf 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 4-34/1512013
(USA CE, 2002f). To date, the modification has been successful at retarding erosion of the cover
edges. Other repairs completed during the first five-year period included the seeding of areas on
the north face of the cover where the vegetation coverage was poor. The reseeding was • completed in June 2001.
On July 1, 2008, the second five-year site inspection of the Soil Repository was conducted.
During the inspection, monitoring well MW149BB was found to have grout materials inside the
well and inside the aboveground protective casing. Additionally, there were a few areas with
standing water at the toe of the slope around the outer perimeter of the Repository. On October 8,
2008, three additional drain lines were installed under the access road at the northwest, northeast,
and southeast comers of the Repository to eliminate the standing water. The southwest comer of
the Repository had a drain line installed under the access road in 2004. A new puinp and sensors
for the leachate collection system were also installed on this date. Because of the nature of the
damage observed during the site inspection, monitoring well MW I 49BB was abandoned on
November 20, 2008. Monitoring well MW149BB was not part of the groundwater monitoring
well network, therefore it was not replaced.
The reports for the OU4 Soil Repository post-closure activities are submitted annually by the
USACE's O&M contractor. These reports document maintenance and repair activities performed
as well as the results from the monitoring well groundwater sampling program. Information and
data for the OU4 Soil Repository post-closure O&M activities are presented in the 2009/2010 •
Annual Report for the OU4 Soil Repository (USACE, 2010c}.
4.4 Current Status The Soil Repository is operating as planned, and will continue to be monitored and maintained
until at least 2028 (30-year post-closure care period). As previously mentioned, the reports for
the OU4 Soil Repository post-closure activities are submitted annually by the USACE's O&M
contractor. Information and monitoring data for the OU4 Soil Repository post-closure O&M
activities are presented in the 2009/2010 Annual Report for the OU4 Soil Repository
(USA CE, 20 I Oc). This report provides a summary of the inspections, maintenance and repair
activities, groundwater monitoring program, leachate collection system monitoring, and
recommendations for monitoring and repair activities.
The following iqstitutional controls for OU4 are currently in place to prevent and limit public
access:
• Soil Repository - Chain link fence with barbed wire and locked gate on U.S. Army owned property
• NE ARNG - Fenced U.S. Am1y owned property with guard shack and perimeter patrols •
RichDP-Third 5-Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 4-4 411512013
•
•
•
5.0 Progress since Last Five-Year Review
The Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance (EPA, 2001) recommends that a section
describe progress since the previous five-year review, including a description of -the
protectiveness statements from the last review, the status of recommendations from the last
review, and status of any other priority issues.
5. 1 Protectiveness Statements from Previous Review The Second Five-Year Review (USACE, 2009a) stated the completed remedy at the OU4 Soil
Repository continued to be protective of human health and the environment. Exposure pathways
that could result in unacceptable risks were being controlled. Access restrictions· remained in
force and the integrity of the containment system remained intact. Monitoring data verified the
remedy was functioning as designed. Operations and maintenance activities defined in the OU4
Soil Repository O&M Manual should be continued throughout the post-closure care period to
maintain long.:term protectiveness of human health and the environment (USACE, 2002e).
5.2 Issues Identified during Previous Review There were three issues identified during the Second Five-Year Review (USACE, 2009a) that
required follow-up actions. The first issue related to the Residential Properties PAH remedy: The
other two issues related to the soil repository. The issues were as follows:
• Residential property (R5) was not sampled for P AHs because the owner denied access to the property for sampling.
• A damaged monitoring well (MW149BB) was observed at the on-site Soil Repository.
• Standing water was observed between the toe of the Soil Repository slope and the perimeter access road.
5.3 Follow-Up Actions Taken As identified in Section 5.2, during the previous five-year review (USACE, 2009a), an issue was
raised concerning the lack of carcinogenic PAH sampling at residential property R5. Residential
property R5 was identified in the carcinogenic PAH Technical Memorandum as one of the
properties that would be investigated and sampled for carcinogenic PAHs (USACE, 2000a).
Prior to issuance of the residential carcinogenic PAH ROD (USACE, 2002a), the owner of
residential property R5 denied access to his property for sampling. Because of the denied access,
residential property R5 was not sampled for PAHs. The PAH ROD (USACE, 2002t) indicated
that the R5 property would not be remediated with the residential properties .
RichDP-Third 5-Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 5-1411512013
Based on the concern over the lack of sampling at residential property R5, the USACE
reassessed the history of the former NAD activities associated with property R5 and the •
decisions leading to inclusion of property R5 in the residential carcinogenic PAH Technical
Memorandum for sampling (USACE, 2000a). Based on the reassessment, it was determined that
the USACE sampled Site 6, a property adjacent to the R5 property (USACE, 2007). Site 6 was
formerly used as the Railroad Classification and Dunnage Yard for the former NAD. The
sampling data verified that Site 6 did not contain levels of PAHs or other contaminants above the
established cleanup levels as documented in the Project Work Plan, Operable Unit 15, Former
Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska (USACE, 1995e).
As stated in the carcinogenic PAH Technical Memorandum (USACE, 2000f), only residences
that occupy former NAD structures or were located in close proximity to production buildings or
former NAD operational areas would be sampled. A review of historical aerial photographs
(EPA, 1985) revealed that residence R5 was located approximately 300 feet from the former
NAD rail lines and does not fall into any categories that would require investigation and
sampling for P AHs. Based upon this information, the R5 property was removed from the list of
residential properties requiring sampling for P AHs. The EPA concurred with the USA CE
recommendation to eliminate R5 from further sampling (EPA, 2008).
The two issues related to the soil repository identified during the previous review were corrected •
by O&M personnel. On October 8, 2008, three additional drain lines were installed under the
access road at the northwest, northeast, and southeast corners of the Repository to eliminate the
standing water; the southwest corner of the Repository had a drain line installed under the access
road in 2004. The damaged monitoring well (MW149BB) was abandoned on November 20,
2008.
• RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_Aprif 2013 5-2 411512013
•
•
•
6.0 Five-Year Review Process
This section describes activities performed during the Five-Year Review process. The following
sections have been used to aid personnel completing the Five-Year Review inspection,
interviews, news releases, etc.
6. 1 Administrative Components The USACE is responsible for design, construction, and maintenance of the remedial activities
associated with the former NAD. For the current review process, the following individuals have
been identified:
• Mr. Brian Roberts is the project lead for the USACE, the lead agency for the former NAD.
• Mr. Bill Gresham is the remedial project manager for the EPA, Region 7, a support agency overseeing the USACE remedial design and remedial action activities at the formerNAD.
• Mr. Jim Borovich is the project manager for the NDEQ, a support agency responsible for the review of data, studies, reports, and plans, and to identify and integrate state ARARs into the remedial action process .
6.2 Community Involvement A public notice was placed in the Hastings Tribune on October 18, and October I 9, 2011,
notifying the public of the start of this five-year review process ,(Appendix A, "Third Five-Year
Review News Release"). During the Restoration Advisory Board Meeting held at the Central
Community College on October 20, 2011, the meeting attendees were infom1ed of the start of the
five-year review and given a brief description of what the five-year review process encompasses.
Interviews were conducted with the on-site O&M operators of the Soil Repository from
HydroGeoLogic, Inc. (USACE contractors). No issues were raised during the interviews that
would affed the overall protectiveness of the remedy.
A notice will be issued in the local print media indicating the completion and availability of this
Third Five-Year Review in the Administrative Record. The USACE has maintained an ongoing
commitment to community involvement during this five-year review period. The community has
been infonned of progress at the site through fact sheets, published public notices, public
meetings, and incorporation of the Administrative Record in the local library. Input from
community members living or working near the site was routinely received through written
correspondence ·and during Restoration Advisory Board Meetings .
RichDP·Third 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 6-14115.12013
6.3 Document Review This Third Five-Year Review consisted of reviewing relevant documents. Documents reviewed •included all relevant decision documents and remedial/removal action reports listed in
Appendix B, "Documents Reviewed During Five-Year Review." In addition, applicable as-built
drawings and O&M requirements were also reviewed.
6.4 Data Review Data reviewed during this Third Five-Year Review included the Soil Repository groundwater
monitoring well data (Table 3, "Soil Repository Monitoring Well Groundwater Data Summary")
and leachate data from the collection tank (Table 4, "Soil Repository Leachate Data Summary").
These tables show data collected during this review period. The reviewed groundwater
monitoring well data covers the time frame from August 2006 through August 2011. The Soil
Repository groundwater and leachate monitoring data is presented in the 200912010 Annual
Report for the Operable Unit 4 Soil Repository, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings,
Nebraska (USACE, 2010c).
6.5 Site Inspection A site inspection was conducted on October 20, 2011. Parties present at the inspection included
Brian Roberts of USACE-Kansas City District, Northwest Division; Bill Gresham of EPA
Region 7; Jim Borovich of NDEQ; John Borthwick and Karl Eisenhart of Shaw Environmental,
Inc. The following agencies and contractors were notified of the site inspection: • • USACE
• Shaw Environmental, Inc.
• EPA·
• NDEQ
• HydroGeoLogic, Inc.
The site inspection was performed to assess the protectiveness of the completed Soil Repository
remedy. The completed site inspection form is provided in Appendix C, "Third Five-Year
. Review Site Inspection." The site i11spection was also addressed at the October 20, 2011,
quarterly Restoration Advisory Board meeting.
6.6 Interviews Interviews were conducted with the following individuals connected to the OU4 Soil Repository
in October 20 I 1 :
· • Representatives of the NE ARNG •
RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 6-2 411512013
• O&M site manager and staff for the Soil Repository • • Director of the Adams County Emergency Management Agency
• Fire Prevention Officer of the Hastings Fire Department
Documentation of the interviews is provided in the site inspection form included in Appendix C .
•
• RichOP- Third 5-Year Review OU4_F/NAL_April 2013 6-3411512013
RichDP· Third 5- Year Review DU4_F/NAL_April 2013 411512013
This page intentionally left blank.
6-4
•
•
\
• "
• 7.0 Technical Assessment
The technical assessment of a remedy is required by the EPA in accordance with the
Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance (EPA, 2001). The technical assessment provides a
framework for organizing and evaluating data and information to ensure that relevant issues are
considered when determining the protectiveness of the OU4 Soil Repository remedy.
7.1 Question A: Is the Remedy Functioning as Intended by the Decision Document?
Question A is used to determine if the appropriate performance standards, institutional controls,
or maintenance activities are being achieved. This determination is done to ensure that the
protectiveness of the remedy is not at risk and the exposure pathways are being controlled. The
following issues have been addressed:
• Whether the remedial action operates and functions as designed and if it has achieved or will achieve cleanup goals: Yes
• • Whether maintenance procedures will maintain the effectiveness of the response
actions: Yes
• System operations/O&M costs: See Section 7.1
• Whether necessary access controls and institutional controls are m place and successfully prevent exposure: Yes
• Whether monitoring activities are being conducted and are adequate to determine remedy protectiveness: Yes
• Opportunities for optimization: See Section 7.1
• Potential remedy problems: See Section 7.1
The following sections summarize this determination for the OU4 Soil Repository.
A review of applicable documents and design objectives indicates that the Soil Repository is
functioning as intended by the ROD Amendment (EPA, 1995b). The Soil Repository was
designed to satisfy RCRA Subtitle D landfill requirements and includes the following major
design elements: liner system; leachate collection and removal system; cover system that
includes a granular drainage layer, soil layer, and grass vegetative cover to rninimize soil
erosion; stormwater run-on and run-off control system; and groundwater monitoring system .
• J
R1chOP- Third 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 7-1411512013
In accordance with the O&M Manual, the following activities were performed as part of the
2009/2010 Soil Repository O&M activities (USACE 2010c): •• Periodic inspecti~n
• Maintenance of the Soil Repository
• Leachate collection system testing and monitoring
• Annual groundwater monitoring and sampling
• Monitoring well pad installation
• Pump repair
• Five-Year cover elevation survey
Routine maintenance performed during the 2009/2010 reporting period consisted of:
• Mowing the grass on the Repository cap
• Spraying for weed control
• Inspection of the cap and perimeter slopes
• Making minor repairs to the leachate collection system
• Road maintenance
• Filling in animal burrows with soil • Based on collected data associated with the groundwater monitoring program (Table 3), the
primary design objective of containment of contaminated soils within the lined Soil Repository
appears to have been achieved due to very low levels of chemicals of concern detected within the
underlying groundwater. 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene was not detected, and concentrations of cadmium
and lead, when detected, were less than the regulatory limits. Similarly, leachate data (Table 4)
showed that TNT was not detected, and concentrations of cadmium and lead were less than
discharge limits.
As discussed in the 2009/2010 Annual Report (USACE, 2010c), the five-year cover (landfill
cap) elevation survey indicates that there have been no major changes in the cover control points;
two-thirds of the control points have shown minor settlement between 0.0 l and 0.2 foot and the
integrity of the cap has been maintained.
Inspections have also indicated that the perimeter security fencing 1s intact and effective at
preventing unauthorized access to the facility.
During the 2009/20 I 0 reporting period, approximately 5,300 gallons of leachate were collected,
which is consistent with previous annual reports, indicating that the landfill cover is properly • RichDP-Tllird 5-Year Review DU4_FINAL_Apnl 2013 7-2 411512013
•
•
•
functioning to limit infiltration of stormwater into the Soil Repository. Inspection of the leachate
collection system indicated that repairs to the leachate high level sensor within the Soil
Repository leachate tank were required to restore automatic pumping capability. The high level
sensor has been repaired and the leachate collection pump is now being automatically operated.
Operation and maintenance of the Soil Repository and leachate collection system continues to be
effective at maintaining the remedy. The groundwater monitoring well network, with wells
located up- and down-gradient of the Soil Repository, provides sufficient data to assess if
statistically significant increases have occurred in the underlying groundwater. Based on data
collected from the groundwater monitoring program, the primary design objective of
containment of contaminated soils within the lined Soil Repository has been achieved. In 2009,
the frequency of the groundwater sampl~ng for the monitoring program changed to an annual
sampling event; pri~r to 2009, the groundwater sampling was performed semiannually. As
documented in· the 2009/2010 Annual Report for the OU4 Soil Repository (US ACE, 201 Oc ), an
agreement was reached with the EPA and NDEQ that shallow monitoring wells MW-147B (up .
gradient well), MW-146B, MW-150B, and MW-164B will be sampled in odd number years
(2009, 2011, etc.) and shallow monitoring wells MW-145B, MW-148B, MW-149B, and
MW-165B will be sampled in the even number years (2010, 2012, etc.). A summary of the data
collected during the first 10 years of the Soil Repository groundwater monitoring program can be
found in the 10-Year Summary Report for the OU4 Soil Repository O&M (USA CE, 2009c). The
latest available groundwater results presented in the 2009/2010 Annual Report (USA CE, 201 Oc),
and Table 3 of this report provides data collected during this review period. These data verify
that the Soil ~epository containn1ent system is effective in preventing contaminants from leaving
the containment system and impacting the groundwater below the Soil Repository.
Cost for the O&M of the Soil Repository remain in-line with original estimates and are not
currently anticipated to substantially change. Please see Appendix C for more infomrntion on
optimization and O&M issues identified at the Soil Repository.
7.2 Question B: Are the Exposure Assumptions, Toxicity Data, Cleanup Levels, and Remedial Action Objectives Used at the Time of Remedy Selection Still Valid?
Question B is used to determine if the remedy will remain protective if regulations, land use, or
standards have changed. The following sections summarize whether the exposure assumptions,
toxicity data, cleanup levels, arid RA Os used at the time of remedy selection are still valid.
As discussed in Section 4.1, the major components of the OU4 remedy were excavation of
contaminated surface soils, treatment by either on-site stabilization or off-site incineration, and
disposal of stabilized soil in an on-site RCRA Subtitle D landfill (the Soil Repository). The soil
excavation was governed by cleanup levels specified in the original ROD for OU4 (EPA, 1990)
RichDP-Third 5-Year Review OU4JINAL_Apri/ 2013 4/1512013 7-3
Levels, Still
and the ROD Amendment (EPA; l 995b ). As discussed in Section 3 .6, additional remedial
actions for PAH-contaminated soils at OU4 (and other NAD locations) were performed in
accordance with the 2002 ROD (USACE, 2002a) for Residential Properties and the 2004 • Explanation of Significant Differences for Nonresidential Properties (USACE, 2004a). The
cleanup levels for these activities were based on an assessment of risk associated with potential
exposure to soil in OU4. Since this five-year review focuses on the· Soil Repository component
of the remedy, the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs associated
with the soil excavation are not discussed here. The Soil Repository was selected as part of the
remedy based on the known effectivene,~s of such a remedy to reduce exposure and leaching to
groundwater. Since the goal was to prevent exposure to material contained in the Soil
Repository, there were no specific exposure assumptions, toxicity values or clean-up values used
in the selection of the Soil Repository as a component of the remedy.
As documented in the 10-Year Summary Report for the OU4 Soil Repository O&M
(USACE, 2009c), the 2009/2010 Annual Report for·the OU4 Soil Repository (USACE, 2010c),
and the Five-Year Review Site Inspection (Appendix C), there have been no substantial changes
to the physical conditions of the Soil Repository for this Third Five-Year Review, which would
affect the protectiveness of the remedy. Access at the Soil Repository continues to be restricted
to authorized personnel and the contaminated soil remains encapsulated within the Repository
containment system. Land use at the Soil Repository has not changed and there are no pathways
for exposure to the contaminated material. The exposure pathways are incomplete due to the •Repository's lined containment system that has effectively encapsulated the waste.
The Soil Repository was designed to satisfy RCRA Subtitle D landfill requirements (40 CFR
Part 258 - Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills) and NDEQ requirements (Title 132
Integrated Solid Waste Management Regulations). As the Soil Repository· work has been
completed, the ARARs defined in the ROD Amendment applicable to the Soil Repository have
been met (EPA, l 995b ). There have been no substantive changes in these ARARs that have
changed the landfill closure design, post-closure care, or groundwater monitoring requirements
affecting the protectiveness of the remedy. Since the closure of the Repository, there have been
no changes in the regulatory levels for lead and cadmium concentrations as detem1ined by the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. As part of the O&M activities, samples are collected
from the leachate collection tank for characterization purposes prior to disposal. The results from
sampling events during this review period (Table 4) indicate that metals (lead, cadmium) and
TNT concentrations in the leachate water are below the allowable discharge criteria and are also
below maximum contaminant levels and the groundwater cleanup level for TNT. The
groundwater monitoring program continues to demonstrate that the soils contained within the
soil repository are not impacting areas outside of the lined containment system. Further
• RichOP-Third 5-Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 7-4 4/1512013
•
•
•
discussion of leachate and groundwater data collected during this review period is provided in
Section 6.4.
7.3 Question C: Has Any Other Information Come to Light That Could Call Into Question the Protectiveness of the Remedy? ·
Question C is used to determine if any other factors that are not included in questions A and B,
such as ecological risks, natural disasters, etc., could place the protectiveness of the remedies at
risk or cause exposure pathways to change. No other information has currently come to light that
could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy,
Periodic and annual inspections and O&M activities have 0been performed to ensure that the
integrity of the Soil Repository is being maintained. No ecological targets were identified during
the Five-Year Review. In addition, no exposure pathways exist for exposure of ecological
receptors. Therefore, monitoring of ecological targets is not necessary. No weather-related events
are known to have affected the protectiveness of the·,remedy. There is no other information that
calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy. As previously discussed, the groundwater·
monitoring activities continue to demonstrate that the Soil Repository containment system is
functioning as designed to keep the Soil Repository waste from impacting the surrounding soil
and groundwater.
7.4 Technical Assessment Summary According to the reviewed data, the OU4 Soil Repository remedy is functioning as intended in
accordance with the applicable decision documents (EPA, 1990, l 995b ). There have been no
known changes in the physical conditions of the OU4 Soil Repository that would affect the
protectiveness of this remedy. Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements established in
the decision documents referenced in Section 12.0 for the Repository design, closure, post
closure care, and monitoring have been met. Based on the data reviewed and the inspections
performed during this five-year review, the OU4 Soil Repository remedy is still protective of
human health and the environment.
RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_F/NAL_April 2013 4/1512013 7-5
Into
I.
•
This page intentionally left blank.
•
• RichDP-Third 5-Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 7-6 411512013
• 8.0 Issues
Based on the October 20, 2011 site inspection at the OU4 Soil Repository - even though it was
performed outside the period covered by this review of August 2006 through August 2011 - the
following issues were identified that require follow-up actions:
• Ten damaged areas on the Soil Repository cover were observed. It appears that these areas were damaged by small burrowing animals.
• The high level sensor in the leachate collection tank was not fimctioning and prevents automatic operation of the leachate collection pump located at the bottom of the Soil Repository.
Recommendations and follow-up actions necessary to address these issues are presented in the
next section of this report .
•
• RichDP·Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_Aprif 2013 8-1411512013
•
This page intentionally left blank.
•
• RichOP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 8-2 4/15,.~013
• 9.0 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions
Recommendations and status, as of the date of this document, of follow-up actions are as
follows:
• The JO damaged areas on the Soil Reposit01y cover were baclifilled with topsoil and seeded as part ofthe routine reposit01y O&M activities. The O&M subcontractor will repair, damaged cover areas as they are discovered.
• The high level sensor in the leachate collection tank was repaired· by the O&M szlbcontractor on September 10, 2012, to restore automatic operation of the leachate collection system. ·
The O&M subcontractor notified the USACE that these repairs were completed.
• ,·
• RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 9-14/15/2013
•
This page intentionally left blank.
•
• RichDP-Third 5-Year Review OU4_FINAL_ApF112013 9-2 4115/2013
10.0 Protectiveness Statement·A Five-Year Review should determine whether the remedy at the site is protective or will be
protective of human health and the environment. This protectiveness statement is applicable only
to the OU4 Soil Repository. Although the status of the other OUs at the site has been
summarized in this document, the protectiveness of thes.e OUs will be addressed separately and
are not covered under this document.
10.1 Operable Unit 4 Soil Repository The OU4 Soil Repository remedy continues to be protective of human health and the
environment. Exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.
Current monitoring data indicate the remedy is functioning as designed. Access restrictions
remain in force at the Soil Repository and the integrity of the containment system remains intact.
Operations and maintenance activities defined in the OU4 Soil Repository O&M Manual will be
continued throughout the post-closure care period to maintain long-term protectiveness of human
health and the environment (USACE, 2002e) .
•
• RichDP· Third 5· Year Rev•ew OU4_FINAL_Apnl 2013 10-1411512013
I.
•
This page intentionally left blank.
•
• RichDP-Third 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 10-2 4/1512013
• 11.0 Next Review
The next comprehensive Five-Year Review for the OU4 Soil Repository at the fonner NAD will
be required within 5 years of the signature date of this third review .
•
• RichOP-Th11d 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 11-1411512013
RicnDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_Aprif 2013 411512013
This page intentionally left blank.
.,
11-2
•
•
• ' "
• 12.0 References
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 258, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Office of the Federal Register, Washington, D.C., September 29, 2010, <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html> Accessed September 2011.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 300, National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, Revised August 6, 2009, U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access, Washington, D.C., Available online at <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html> Accessed February 2011.
Department of the Army, 2006, Memorandum from Carol A. Youkey, P.E., Chief of Expertise for Ordnance and Explosives Directorate, "Procedure for Preliminary Assessment (PA) and Site Inspection (SI) Teams that Encounter Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) While Gathering Non-UXO Field Data, Military Munitions Center of Expertise (MM CX) Interim Guidance Document (IGO) 06-05," CEHNC-OE-CX, Huntsville Center, Corps of Engineers, Huntsville, Alabama, March 16.
• Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, 1994, Integrated Solid Wasie Management Regulations, Title 132 Regulations, Lincoln, Nebraska, August.
Nebraska Health and Human Services, Regulation and Licensure, 2004, Title 178, Water Well Standards, Chapter 12, Water Well Construction, Pump Installation, and Water Well Decommissioning Standards, Available online at <http://www.nebraska.gov/> (March 26, 2005).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1993, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Operable Unit No. 8, Hastings East Industrial Park. Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings. Nebraska, prepared by Woodward-Clyde Federal Services, Overland Park, Kansas, August.
USACE, . 1994, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Ana~ysis, Operable Unit No. 16, Explosives Disposal Area, Fonner Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, prepared by WoodwardClyde Federal Services, Overland Park, Kansas.
USACE; I 995a, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Operable Unit No. 16, Naval Yard Dump. Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, prepared by Woodward-Clyde FederaJcServices, Overland Park, Kansas.
USACE, 1995b, Removal Action Decision Document for Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot. Operable Unit 16, Ni1val Yard Dump, Hastings. Nebraska, Final, Kansas City, September.
. I
• USACE, I 995c, Post-ROD Technical Memorandum, Operable Unit 4, Hastings East Industrial Park Subsite, Hastings, Nebraska, prepared by Woodward-Clyde Federal Services, Overland Park, Kansas.
RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_Apri/ 2013 12-14115!2013
USACE, l 995d, Soil Repository Operation and Maintenance Manual, Operable Unit No. 4, Surface Soil Remediation, Hastings East Industrial Park Subsite, Hastings, Nebraska, 100 Percent Submittal, October.
•
USACE, 1996, Design Investigation Report, Operable Unit 8, Phase II, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, prepared by Woodward-Clyde Federal Services, Overland Park, Kansas.
USACE, 1999, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Former Naval Ammunition Hastings,' Nebraska, Final, Parsons Engineering Science Inc., Norcross, Georgia, June.
Depot,
USACE, 2000a, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Operable Unit 15, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, Revision B, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas, October.
USACE, 2000b, Removal Action Report, Explosives Disposal Area, Operable Unit No. 16, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Final, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas, January ..
USACE, 2000c, Action Memorandum, Bomb and Mine Complex, Operable Unit 16, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, Revision 0, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas, December.
USACE, 2000d, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Bomb and Mine Complex, Operable Unit No. 16, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, Revision 0, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas.
•
USACE, 2000e, Remedial Action Report. Operable Unit No. 4, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Final, Revision 0, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas.
USACE, 2001, Action Memorandum, Operable Unit 15, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, Revision 0, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas, July.·
USACE, 2002a, Record of Decision, Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Surface Soil, Residential Properties (Operable Units 14, 15 and 16), Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Kansas City, Missouri, July.
USACE, 2002b, Removal Action Report, Operable Unit No. 8, Phase 1, Former Naval Ammunition Depot. Hastings. Nebraska, Final, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas, April.
USACE, 2002c, Removal Action Report, Bomb and Mine Complex. Operable Unit 16. Former Naval Ammunition Depot. Hastings. Nebraska, Final, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas City, February.
• RichOP-Third 5-Year Review OU4_F/NAL_Apnl 2013 12-2 411512013
• USACE, 2002d, Soil Repositmy Closure Report, Operable Unit No. 4, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings. Nebraska, Final; Revision 0, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas, March.
USACE, 2002e, Operable Unit No. 4 Soil Repositmy Operations & Maintenance Manual, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings. Nebraska, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas, March.
USACE, 2002f, Five-Year Review Report, Operable Unit 4 Soil Repository, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, Revision 0, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas, April.
USACE, 2003, Removal Action Report, Phase II Soil Vapor Extraction, Operable Unit 8, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas, January.
USACE, 2004a, Explanation ofSignificant Differences, Modifj;ing the 2002 Record ofDecision, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Sw:face Soil (Operable Units 4, 15 and 16), Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., Overfand Park, Kansas, July. ·
USACE, 2004b, Removal Action Report, Site 4 R(fle and Pistol range, Operable Unit 15,
• Former Blaine Nav~d Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, Revision 0, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas, October .
USACE, 2004c, Remedial Action Report, cPAHs in Surface Soils, Residential Properties, Operable Units 4, 15. and 16, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, Revision 0, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas, January.
USACE, 2004d, Environmental Quality, Formerzy Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Program Policy, ER 200-3-1, Washington, D.C., May 10.
USACE, 2005, SVE Well Abandonment Strategy Plan, Operable Unit 8, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Draft Final, Revision C, prepared by Shaw, Environmental, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas, September.
USACE, 2006a, Removril Action Repoi·t. Site JO Soil Vapor Extraction, Opel·able Unit 15, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, Revision 0, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas, October.
USACE, 2006b, Remedial Action Completion Report, PAHs in Surface Soils, Nonresidential Properties, Operable Units 4. 15, and 16. Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, Revision I, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas, December.
• USACE, 2008a, Addendum No. 1 to the SVE Well Abandonment Strategy Plan, Operable Unit 8, Former Nmjal Ammunition Depot. Hastings, Nebraska, Draft Final, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., Lenexa, Kansas, July.
RichDP-Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 12-34/1512013
USA CE, 2008b, Operable Unit 15 Baseline Risk Assessment, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., Lenexa, Kansas, October. •
USACE, 2009a, Second Five-Year Review Report, Operable Unit 4 (Shallow Soil), Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., Lenexa, Kansas, June 12.
USACE, 2009b, Removal Action Completion Report. Bomb and Mine Complex, Building 207, Operable Unit 16, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc.; Lenexa, Kansas, January.
USACE, 2009c, Operation and Maintenance Report, JO-Year Summary.for Operable Unit 4 Soil Reposit01y, Former Naval Ammunition Depot. Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by HydroGeoLogic, Inc., Lenexa, March.
USACE, 2010a, Record of Decision, Sitewide Groundwater, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., Lenexa, Kansas, August 4.
USACE, 201 Ob, Record of Decision, Operable Unit 15 and Sitewide Vapor Intrusion, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., Lenexa, Kansas, August 23.
USA CE, 201 Oc, 200912010 Annual Report for Operable Unit 4 Soil Reposit01y, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Draft, prepared . by HydroGeoLogic, Inc., Lenexa, November.
•
USACE, 201 la, Record of Decision, Operable Unit 16, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc, Lenexa, Kansas, September.
USACE, 201 lb, Focused Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Operable Unit 16, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc, Lenexa, Kansas, June.
USACE, 201 lc, Proposed Plan, Operable Unit 16, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc, Lenexa, Kansas, June.
USACE, 2012, Remedial Action Monitoring Plan, Extraction and Treatment System, Sitewide Groundwater Remediation, Operable Unit 14, Former Naval Ammzinition Depot, Hastings. Nebraska, Draft Final, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc, Lenexa, Kansas, November.
U.S. Census Bureau, Available online at http://www.census.gov/popfinder/, Accessed September 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1990, EPA Super.fund, Record of Decision: Hastings GroundttYtler Contamination, EPA ID: NED980862668, EPA/ROD/R07-90/035, OU4, OUl I, Hastings, Nebraska, September 28, Washington, D.C., <http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0790035 .pdf> (September 2011 ). • RichDP-Third 5- Year Review DU4_FINAL_Apnl 2013 12-4 411512013
• EPA, 1995a, Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process, OSWER 9355.7-04, May 25, Washington, D.C., Available online at <http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/landuse.pdf> (June 12, 2006).
EPA, 1995b, Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summwy, Hastings Groundwater Contamination, Hastings East Industrial Park, Hastings, Nebraska, Washington D.C., February.
EPA, 1996, Remedy Selection and Land Use at Federal Facilities, EPA/540/R-96/020, OSWER 9272.0-08, August, , Washington, D.C., Available online at <http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/pdf/fedrpt.pdf> (June 12, 2006).
EPA, ,11999, Letter Correspondence from William E. Ryan, Colonel, U.S. Army addressed to Michael J. Sanderson, Director Superfund Division, lnteragency Agreement for Hastings Naval Ammunition Depot Subsite, Hastings Ground Water Contamination Site Hastings, Nebraska, Docket No. VII-98-F-0022, Kansas City, Kansas, March 23.
EPA, 2001, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, EPA 540-R-01-007, OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P, June, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington D.C., Available online at <http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/5 year/ guidance. pdf> (June 12,' 2006) .
•
• RichDP- Third 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 12-5411512013 '
•
This page intentionally left blank.
•
• RichDP-Tllird 5-Year Review OU4_FINAL_Aprif 2013 12-6 411512013
•
Tables
•
• RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 411512013
•
This page intentionally left blank.
•
• RichDP- Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 411512013
Table 1 Chronology of Events Sitewide and Operable Unit 4
Event Date
Sitewide
Naval Ammunition Depot operation Early 1940s-1958
Naval Ammunition Depot decommissioning and transfer of property to government and private owners
1958 1967
Groundwater contamination discovered in area wells 1983
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site added to the National Priorities List 1986
Sitewide remedial investigation conducted 1987-1988
Feasibility Study Report, Hastings East Industrial Park (HEIP) June 1990
Remedial Investigation Report, HEIP August 1990
Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report, HEIP December 1992
Operable Unit 4
Record of Decision (ROD), Operable Unit 4, shallow soils at the HEIP September 1990
Remedial Design Investigation Report, HEIP Site, issued June 1992
Post-ROD Technical Memorandum, Operable Unit 4 March 1994
Supplemental Remedial Investigation Design Report, HEIP October 1994
Amended ROD signed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency February 1995
Design Analysis Report, Operable Unit 4, Surface Soil Remediation, HEIP October 1995
Soil Repository construction initiated August 1996
Surface soil excavation activities initiated October 1996
Surface soil excavation activities completed January 1998
Soil Repository construction completed June 1998 .
Soil Repository final inspection June 1998
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality conducted a joint inspection of the Soil Repository under the National Contingency Plan
September 1998
Modifications to the Repository cover edge drainage rock completed July 1999
Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Technical Memorandum April 2000
Final Soil Repository Closure Report January 2000
Final Remedial Action Report, Operable Unit 4 January 2000
Five-Year Review inspection conducted December 2001
Initial Five-Year Review Report Operable Unit 4 Soil Repository Issued April 2002
ROD Carcinogenic PAH in Surface Soils Residential Properties August 2002
RichDP-Ttlird5-Year Review OU4_FINAL_April2013 4/15/2013
-
Table 1 (continued) Chronology of Events Sitewide and Operable Unit 4
Event Date
Residential Carcinogenic PAH remedial action construction initiated September 2002
Residential Carcinogenic PAH remedial action construction completed November 2002
Residential Carcinogenic PAH final inspection November 2002
Explanation of Significant Difference, modifying 2002 ROD Carcinogenic PAH in surface soils July 2004
Nonresidential Carcinogenic PAH remedial action construction initiated September 2004
Nonresidential Carcinogenic PAH remedial action construction completed October 2004
Nonresidential Carcinogenic PAH final inspection October 2004
Final, Remedial Action Report PAHs in Surface Soils, Residential Properties, Operable Units 4,15, and 16
January 2004
Nonresidential Carcinogenic PAH, property NR7 remedial action construction initiated October 2006
Nonresidential Carcinogenic PAH, property NR7 remedial action construction completed November 2006
Nonresidential Carcinogenic PAH, property NR7 final inspection November 2006
Final, Revision 1, Remedial Action Completion Report PAHs in Surface Soils, Nonresidential Properties, Operable Units 4,15, and 16
December 2006
Second Five-Year Review Inspection of the Operable Unit 4 Soil Repository July 2008
Second Five-Year Review Report, Operable Unit 4 (Shallow Soil) issued June 2009
Third Five-Year Review Inspection conducted October 2011
RichDP-Third 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_Apnl 2013 H1SI2013
Table 2 Chronology of Events Operable Units 8,14, 15, and 16
Event Date
Operable Unit 8
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Operable Unit 8 August 1993
Operable Unit 8, Phase 1 Removal Action Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) System installation October 1996 to June 1997
Phase 1, SVE System operation including rebound analysis September 1997 to November 1999
Phase II, SVE System operation including rebound analysis November 1999 to November 2001
Removal Action Report, Operable Unit 8, Phase 1 April 2002
Removal Action Report, Operable Unit 8, Phase II January 2003
Long-term rebound analysis October 2004
SVE Well Abandonment Strategy Plan, Operable Unit 8 September 2005
Addendum No. 1 to SVE Well Abandonment Strategy Plan, Operable Unit 8 July 2008
Initiation of SVE Well Abandonment activities August 2005
Completion of SVE Well Abandonment activities November 2008
Final Record of Decision (ROD), Sitewide Groundwater August 2010
Operable Unit 14
Provision of bottled water 1991 to 2002
Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report Operable Unit 14 December 1992
Multiple Technologies Facility operations 1995 to August 2000
Alternate water supply construction activities September 2002 to October 2002
Alternate water supply wells beginning operation October 2002
Action Memorandum for alternate water supply Operable Unit 14 November 2002
Final Groundwater Feasibility Study Report, Operable Unit 14 March 2004
Tier 1 Monitoring Well abandonment Summer 2004 to fall 2004
Final Feasibility Study Report Addendum, Sitewide Groundwater April 2008
Final Proposed Plan, Sitewide Groundwater April 2008
Final ROD, Sitewide Groundwater August 2010
Sitewide Groundwater Remedial Design Activities initiated August 2010
Start of Phase I Construction Activities June 2011
RichDP-Third 5- Year Review OU4_ FINAL_April 2013 4/15/2013
Table 2 (continued) Chronology of Events Operable Units 8,14,15, and 16
Event Date
Operable Unit 15
Preliminary Contamination Assessment Summary Report, Southeast Detonation Area April 1993
Preliminary Screening of Operable Unit 15 for Potential Sources of Contamination June 1993
Preliminary Contamination Assessment Summary, Operable Unit 15 November 1994
Remedial Investigation Report, Operable Unit 15 August 1998
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Operable Unit 15 October 2000
Final Ecological Risk Assessment, Operable Unit 15 August 200
Final Action Memorandum Operable Unit 15 July 2001
Site 4 Removal Action construction initiated May 2002
Site 4 Removal Action construction completed June 2002
Site 4 Final Inspection May 2003
Site 10 Removal Action construction initiated September 2001
Site 10 Removal Action construction completed November 2001
Site 10 SVE System operation March 2002 to October 2004
Final Removal Action Report, Site 4 Rifle and Pistol Range October 2004
Final Removal Action Report, Site 10 Soil Vapor Extraction October 2006
Baseline Risk Assessment, Operable Unit 15 October 2008
Sitewide Vapor Intrusion Assessment December 2008
Final Proposed Plan, Operable Unit 15 and Sitewide Vapor Intrusion January 2010
Final ROD, Operable Unit 15 and Sitewide Vapor Intrusion August 2010
Operable Unit 16
Initial waste removal cleanup at Naval Yard Dump 1990
Preliminary Contamination Assessment Summary Report, Operable Unit 16 October 1993
EE/CA Operable Unit 16 Explosives Disposal Area (EDA) November 1994
Removal Action Decision Document Operable Unit 16 EDA September 1995
Second waste removal cleanup at Naval Yard Dump 1996
Trichloroethene Source Removal Report, Naval Yard Dump (Operable Unit 16) October 1996
Supplemental Preliminary Contamination Summary, Operable Unit 16, Bomb and Mine Complex (BMC)
January 1997
EDA Removal Action construction initiated June 1997
EDA Removal Action construction completed September 1997
RichDP-Third 5-Year Review OU4_FMl_April 2013 411512013
Table 2 (continued) Chronology of Events Operable Units 8,14,15, and 16
Event Date
EDA Final Inspection July 1998
EE/CA Operable Unit 16 Naval Yard Dump May 1999
Removal Action Report, EDA (Operable Unit 16) January 2000
EE/CA Operable Unit 16 BMC February 2000
BMC Removal Action construction initiated November 2000
Final Action Memorandum Operable Unit 16 BMC December 2000.
BMC Removal Action construction completed April 2001
BMC Final Inspection . September 2001
Final Removal Action Report, BMC (Operable Unit 16) February 2002
BMC Action Memorandum for Time Critical Removal Action, Building 207 issued September 2006
BMC Removal Action, Building 207, construction initiated October 2006
BMC Removal Action, Building 207, construction completed and inspected November 2006
Final Focused Feasibility Study, Operable Unit 16 November 2008
Final BMC Removal Action Completion Report, Building 207 issued January 2009
Final Focused Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Operable Unit 16 June 2011
Final Proposed Plan, Operable Unit 16 June 2011
Final Record of Decision, Operable Unit 16 September 2011
RichDP- Third 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_Apnl 2013 411512013
Table 3 Soil Repository Monitoring Well Groundwater Data Summary •
Monitoring Well Sample Date 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene Cadmium
Regulatory Limit1 2 5
MW145B 28-Nov-06 ND (0.28) ND (1)
23-May-07 ND (0.16) 0.17
13-Dec-07 ND (0.16) ND (0.5)
13-May-08 ND (0.16) ND (0.5)
10-Dec-08 ND (0.27) ND (0.5)
25-May-10 ND (0.26) 0.16
MW146B · 28-Nov-06 ND (0.19) ND (1)
23-May-07 ND (0.16) 0.052
13-Dec-07 ND (0.33) ND (0.5)
13-May-08 ND (0.16) ND (0.5)
13-May-08 ND (0.16) ND (0.5)
10-Dec-08 ND (0.16) ND (0.16)
27-May-09 ND (0.3) ND (0.5)
26-May-11 ND (0.21) ND (0.5)
MW147B 28-Nov-06 ND (0.25) ND (1)
23-May-07 ND (0.17) 0.25
13-Dec-07 ND (0.29) 0.099
10-Dec-08 ND (0.26) ND (0.5)
27-May-09 ND (0.16) ND (0.5)
26-May-11 ND (0.22) ND (0.5)
MW148B 28-Nov-06 ND (0.2) ND (1)
23-May-07 ND (0.16) 0.068 ·-·
13-Dec-07 ND (0.22) ND (0.5)
13-May-08 ND (0.17) ND (0.5)
10-Dec-08 ND (0.16) ND (0.5)
25-May-10 ND (0.22) ND (0.5)
25-May-10 ND (0.19) ND (0.5)
Lead
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
15
0.028
0.12
0.11
(0.5)
(0.1)
0.2
0.088
0.33
(0.1)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.37)
(0.16)
(0.5)
0.28
0.19
0.16
(0.16)
(0.31)
0.14
0.04
(1)
(1)
(0.5)
(0.11)
(0.5)
.
•
ND (0.5)
• RichDP· Th!fd 5· Year Review OU4 _FINAL_ Aprtl 2013 4/15/2013
Table 3 (continued) Soil Repository Monitoring Well Groundwater Data Summary
Monitoring Well Sample Date 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene Cadmium Lead
Regulatory Limit1 2 5 15
MW149B 28-Nov-06 ND (0.2) ND (1) ND (1) MW149B
23-May-07 ND (0.17) ND (0.5) ND (1)
MW149B
13-Dec-07 ND (0.24) ND (0.5) ND • 0)
MW149B
13-May-08 ND (0.17) ND (0.5) ND (0.5)
MW149B
10-Dec-08 ND (0.22) ND (0.5) ND (0.5)
MW149B
25-May-10 ND (0.27) ND (0.5) ND (0.5)
MW150B 28-Nov-06 ND (0.18) ND (1) ND (1) MW150B
23-May-07 ND (0.16) 0.054 0.33
MW150B
13-Dec-07 ND (0.27) ND (0.5) ND 0)
MW150B
. 13-May-08 ND (0.16) ND (0.5) ND (0.5)
MW150B
10-Dec-08 ND (0.16) ND (0.5) ND (0.5)
MW150B
27-May-09 . ND (0.16) ND (0.5) ND (0.069)
MW150B
26-May-11 ND (0.24) 0.28 ND (0.5)
MW164B 28-Nov-06 ND (0.22) ND 0) ND (1) MW164B
23-May-07 ND (0.16) 0.08 0.28
MW164B
13-Dec-07 ND (0.18) 0.057 ND (1)
MW164B
13-May-08 ND (0.16) ND (0.5) ND (0.5)
MW164B
10-Dec-08 ND (0.16) ND 0.12 ND (0.067)
MW164B
27-May-09 ND (0.23) ND (0.5) ND (0.094)
MW164B
26-May-11 ND (0.48) ND (0.5) 0.15
MW165B 28-Nov-06 ND (0.26) ND (1) 0.61 MW165B
23-May-07 ND (0.16) 0.055 0.11
MW165B
13-Dec-07 ND (0.22) 0.062 ND (1)
MW165B
13-May-08 ND (0-16) ND (0.5) ND (0.5)
MW165B
10-Dec-08 ND (0.21) ND (0.14) ND (0.1)
MW165B
25-May-10 ND (0.2) 0.32 0.19
RichDP-Third 5- Year Review OW„FINAL, April 2013 4/1512013
'
Table 3 (continued) Soil Repository Monitoring Well Groundwater Data Summary
• Note(s): All results in micrograms per liter.
Regulatory Limits: cadmium is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Maximum Contaminant Limit, 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene isLifetime Health Advisory, and lead is the EPA Action Level.
ND denotes not detected, value in parentheses is the reporting limit.
RichDP-Third 5-Year Review 0U4_FINAL_April 2013 4/15/2013
1.
' the
• Table 4 Soil Repository Leachate Data Summary
Discharge Event Event Event Event Event Event Compliance 29 30 Event 31 32 33 34 35
Sample 15-Mar- 23-0ct- 27-May- 18-Mar- 5-0ct- 25-May- 26-May-Date Criteria1 07 08 09 09 09 10 11
..Parameter
TNT 20 . ND (0.19) ND (0.16) ND (0.16) ND (0.17) ND (0.19) ND (0.17) ND (0.17)
Cadmium 38 0.056 ND(0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) 0.23 ND (0.5) ND (0.5)
Lead 24 0.43 ND (0.17) 0.47 0.28 0.3 ND (0.5) 0.16
Note(s):
From USAGE (2010) 200912010 Annual report for the Soil repository, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, HydroGeoLogic, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas.
All units in micrograms per liter.
ND denotes not detected, value in parentheses is the reporting limit.
TNT denotes 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene.
•
• RichOP-Third 5· Year Review 0U4_FINAL_April 2013 411512013
•
_,
This page intentionally left blank.
•
• RichOP- Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 4/1512013
•
Figures
•
• RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4JINAL_April 2013 411512013
•
This page intentionally left blank.
•
•
LEGEND
CLAY CENTER
LIMITS OF FORMER NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT
CENTRAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE
HASTINGS EAST INDUSTRIAL PARK
U. S. ARMY (GOVERNMENT CONTROL)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (GOVERNMENT CONTROL)
PRIVATE PROPERTY
n
11206 THOMPSON AVE. LENEXA, KANSAS 66219
(913) 451-1224
SHAW Environmental, Inc.
TTwTr HTJH
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS KANSAS CITY. MISSOURI
NAD-WIDE SITE LOCATION MAP FORMER NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA
DESIGNED BY J Barker 04/07/04 CHECKED BY E.Cinlra 09/22/09
DRAWN BY T. Richardson 04/07/04 APPROVED BY J Borthwick 09/22/09
REVISION NO.
.
.
Stratigraphic .Description
Hydrogeologic Description
Well Construction
Groundwater Model Layers
Loess
Pleistocene Sand & Gravel
Unsaturated Zone
Shallow Soil Zone
Vadose Zone
T 10 Ft.
Unconfined Aquifer
Upper-Confining Layer
Semi-Confined Aquifer
Lower-Confining Unit
CO CO t CO
21
O
Groundwater Surface
Layer 1
Layer 2
0)
or
i
z
Note: *
Presence and thickness of layers 2 and 3B vary throughout site.
11206 THOMPSON AVE. LENEXA, KANSAS 66219
Shaw* SHAW Environmental. Inc.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
FORMER NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT HASTINGS, NEBRASKA
SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATING HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS, STRATIGRAPHY, GROUNDWATER MODEL
LAYERS, AND MONITORING WELL DESIGNATIONS
DESIGNED BY
NTS
DRAWN BY T. Richardson 10/28/08 APPROVED BY J . Borthwick
CHECKED BY E. Cintra
REVISION NO.
1
'
-
I HARV~RD LEGEND )> :0 ~ !~ Operable Units3: • '< <J> l o 0 :o f/7/71 OU4/8 - Hastings East Industrial Park (HEIP)0 acc . z ~ and Soil Repositorylz • -i -I 1-<-< •.
I OU14 - SITEWIDE GROUNDWATER CJ OU14 - Sitewide Groundwater BURLINGTON NORTHERN & SANTA FE RR
t I I •,. } 1 ~ _s !,- -t;_~ rr-r fl- , 1
,- )OU4/8 - HASTINGS / :/ EAST INDUSTRIAL PARK (HEIP) I ~ ~ j
r't . J r
I "' '"--=t--ou4 - SOIL R~POSITORY- ~ I I ~ I l I
I r [ \
l OU~-~~O~V~D~PO~L 1R~~D~l 1 ~~~--~~-~~~- L -~-~~~-~1~~~~-~~- l ~ 1 ~ - ~--~ l L~10U16 - BOMB & MINE COMPLEX (BMC)
I I\ OU16 - NAVAL YARD DUMP (NYD) I
•.. I.r . J GLENVILI
OU15 - SITE 1O_(MARK SA AREA) tI 1 l c'.ltv;.
01\1,ol ~c,~c"?/?1
I r
I
1 @
D OU15 - Site 4 (Rifle and Pistol Range) and Site 10 (Mark Sa Area)
D 0~16 - Bomb & Mine Complex (BMC), Explosives Disposal Area (EDA), and Naval Yard Dump (NYD)
N 7500 0 7500 Feet
I- IA - NA083 State Plane Coordinates
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT~ 11206 THOMPSON AVE
Sli CORPS OF ENGINEERS~e LENEXA, KS KANSAS CITY, MISSOURIaw 6621s
Drawn by
FORMER NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT HASTINGS, NEBRASKA
S. SIGNISKI U.S Anny Corps ot Engineers
OPERABLE UNITS AT THE FORMER NAO
Checked by
K.EISENHART Dale Fogure No
OCTOBER 2011 3
•
Appendix A Third Five-Year Review News Release
•
• R1chDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_Ap1112013 4/1512013
m U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Region 7 and Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) to conduct
Third Five-Year Review for Operable Unit 4 at the Former Naval Ammunition Depot (NAD) Site
Hastings, Nebraska The USACE, EPA, and NDEQ have initiated the five-year review process at the former NAD Hastings Site. The review is required by the Superfund law to verify the cleanup continues to be protective of human health and the environment. The Administrative Record is available at the following locations during normal business hours:
Hastings Public Library Central Community College Library 517 West 4 t h Street East U.S. Highway 6 Hastings, Nebraska 68901 Nuckolls Building
Hastings, Nebraska 68901 Questions or requests for information can be submitted to:
Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers Mr. Brian Roberts Project Manager
601 East 12 h Street, Room 439 Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2896
816.389.3892 [email protected]
RichDP-Third 5-Year Review 0U4 FINAL April2013 4715720(3
t
•
AppendixB Documents Reviewed During Five-Year Review
•
• RichDP-Tllird 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 411512013
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1992, Remedial Design Investigation Report, Hastings East Industrial Park, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, prepared by Woodward-Clyde Federal Services, Overland Park, Kansas, June.
USACE, 1994, Supplemental Remedial Design Investigation Report, Hastings East Industrial Park, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, prepared by Woodward-Clyde Federal Services, Overland Park, Kansas, October.
USACE, 1995, Post-ROD Technical Memorandum, Operable Unit 4, Hastings East Industrial Park Subsite, Hastings, Nebraska, prepared by Woodward-Clyde Federal Services, Overland Park, Kansas.
USACE, 1995, Soil Reposit01y Operation and Maintenance Manual, Operable Unit No. 4, Surface Soil Remediation, Hastings East Industrial Park Subsite, Hastings, Nebraska, 100 Percent Submittal, October.
USA CE, 2000, Removal Action Report, Explosives Disposal Area, Operable Unit No. I 6, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Final, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas, January.
USACE, 2000, Remedial Action Report, Operable Unit No. 4, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot. Final, Revision 0, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas.
• USACE, 2002, Soil Repository Closure Report, Operable Unit No. 4, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, Revision 0, prepared by IT c;:orporation, Overland Park, Kansas, March.
USACE, 2000, Operable Unit No. 4 Soil Repository Operations & Maintenance Manual, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas, January.
USACE, 2002, Five-Year Review Report, Operable Unit 4 Soil Repository, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, Revision 0, prepared by. IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas, April.
USA CE, 2002, Record ofDecision, Carcinogenic Po~vcyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Surface Soil, Re<~idential Properties (Operable Units I 4, I 5 and I 6), Fonner Naval Ammunition Depot. Hastings, Nebraska, Kansas City, Missouri, July.
USACE, 2004, Remedial Action Report, cPAHs in Surface Soils, Residential Properties, Operable Units 4, 15. and I 6, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot. Hastings. Nebraska, Final, Revision 0, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas, January.
USACE; 2004, Explanation of Sign(licant Differences, Mod(/j•ing the 2002 Record of Decision. Po~vc_vclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Swface Soil (Operable Units 4, 15 and 16). Former Naval
• Ammunition Depot. Hastings. Nebraska, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas, July .
R1chOP- Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 411512013
USA CE, 2005, Recurring Review Report for Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, FUDS • Property Number: B07NE0007, Hastings, Adam and Clay County, Nebraska, Kansas City, Missouri, September.
USACE, 2006, Remedial Action Completion Report. PAHs in Surface Soils, Nonresidential Properties, Operable Units 4, I5, and I6, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, Revision I, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas, December.
USACE, 2007, Letter from B. Roberts (CENWK) to T. Lorenz (EPA), Reassessment of cPAH Sampling Requirements at Residential Property RS, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, December 19.
USACE, 2009, Second Five-Year Review Report, Operable Unit 4 (Shallow Soil), Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by Shaw Environmental,. Inc., Lenexa, Kansas, June 12.
USACE, 2009, Removal Action Completion Report, Bomb and Mine Complex, Building 207, Operable Unit I 6, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., Lenexa, Kansas, January.
USACE, 2009, Operation and Maintenance Report, JO-Year Summary for Operable Unit 4 Soil Repository, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by HydroGeoLogic, -Inc., Lenexa, March.
USACE, 2010, 200912010 Annual Report for Operable Unit 4 Soil Repository, Former Naval •Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Draft, prepared by HydroGeoLogic, Inc., Lenexa, November.
USACE, 2010, Record of Decision. Sitewide Groundwater, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., Lenexa, Kansas, August 4.
USACE, 2011, Focused Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Operable Unit 16, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc, Lenexa, Kansas, June.
USACE, 2011, Proposed Plan. Operable Unit 16, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by Shaw Enviromnental, Inc, Lenexa, Kansas, June.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1990, EPA Super.fund, Record of Decision: Hastings Groundivater Contamination, EPA ID: NED980862668, EPA/ROD/R07-90/035, OU 4, 11, Hastings, Nebraska, September 28, Washington, D.C., <http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0790035.pdt> (July 2006).
EPA, 1995, Amended Record of Decision, Decision Summary, Hastings Groundwater Contamination. Hastings East Industrial Park, Hastings. Nebraska, Washington D.C., February .
• RichDP-Thtrd 5-Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 2 411512013
• EPA, 2008, Letter Correspondence from T. Lorenz (EPA) to B. Roberts (CENWK), Exclusion of · "R5" Property from OU4 Cleanup, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, March 27 .
• I
• RichOP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 3411512013 .
•
This page intentionally left blank.
•
• RichDP-Third 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 44/151'2013
•
Appendix.C Third Five-Year Review Site Inspection
•
• RichDP- Third 5- Year Review OU4_F/NAL_Apnl 2013 4/1512013
• Table of Contents for Appendix C_____________
List of Attachments ......................................................................................................................................... i
NAO Hastings Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist ........................................................................... 1
J
Attachment 1 Site Map Attachment 2 Notes from October 20, 2011 Site Inspection Attachment 3 Copy of Special Use Permit ·
•
• RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 411512013 .
•
This page intentionally left blank.
•
• RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 4115/2013
NAD Hastings Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: NAD Hastings Date of Inspection: October 20, 2011
Location and Region: Hastings, Nebraska EPA Region 7
EPA ID: NED980862668
Agency, office, or company leading the Five-Year Review: USACE-CENWK
Inspectors Name: Bill Gresham (EPA Region VII), Jim Borovich (NDEQ), Brian Roberts (USACE), John Borthwick (Shaw), Karl Eisenhart (Shaw)
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) S Landfill cover/containment S Access controls S Institutional controls • Groundwater pump and treatment • Other
• Monitored natural attenuation • Groundwater containment • Vertical barrier walls • Surface water collection and treatment
Attachments: Attachment 1, "Site Map" (Figure 1, "Soil Repository Surface Features, Operable Unit 4 Soil Repository, Site Inspection "); Attachment 2, "Notes from October 21, 2011, Site Inspection "; Attachment, 3, "Copy of Special Use Permit.
II. INTERVIEWS
1. O & M Site Manager : Herb Scott
Interviewed in person on October 20. 2011 Phone no. 402.984.5332
Problems, suggestions: Main problem has been small burrowing animals on the landfill cap. These areas are repaired but they continue to reoccur after they are repaired. The other problem has been the high-level switch in the leachate collection tank that is malfunctioning and requires that the leachate pump in the bottom of the landfill be operated manually. Due to the burial depth of the tank, the controls cannot be accessed with -excavating a pit. HGL management will be contacted to arrange for a subcontractor to come on-site to assess the malfunctioning controls.
2. O & M Staff: Alan Scott
Interviewed in person on October 20. 201 Phone no. 402.705.2388
Problems, suggestions: As discussed above, the main problem has been holes in the landfill cap due to burrowing animals. The edge rock and perimeter drainage repairs continue to be holding up well.
RichDP-Third 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 4/15/2013
"
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e.. State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.
Agency: Adams Countv Emergency Management Agency
Contact: Charles "Chip" Volcek Emergency Management Director October 25, 2011 402.461.2360 Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems, suggestions: No concerns regarding soil repository operation. Suggested that the Hastings Fire Department be contacted to determine the fire jurisdiction boundary and who has jurisdiction at the soil repository area. Believes this area falls under the Hastings Rural Fire District's jurisdiction.
Agency: Hastings Fire Department
Contact: Linda Waldron Fire Prevention Officer 10/28/11 402.461.2350 Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems, suggestions: Officer Waldron indicated that the Hastings Rural Fire Department has jurisdiction over the soil repository area. She said that in case of a fire emergency to call 911 who would dispatch the equipment and personnel to the site. She said that the Hastings Rural Fire Department stores equipment in the Lincoln Park Station that would be dispatched to fires in that area. No other concerns or suggestions.
4. Other interviews
Soil Repository: Adjacent property operator, Nebraska Army National Guard Greenlief Training Center: spoke with Sergeant Joe Janke (402) 309-7862, Staff Sergeant Joe Haag, and Lieutenant Easterday regarding the soil repository. They did not have any concerns or were not aware of any operations issues related to the soil repository. Sergeant Joe Janke requested a point of contact and phone number for the HGL O&M site manager. Sergeant Joe Janke was given Herb Scott's phone number in case he needed to contact him in the future.
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)
l . O & M Documents Soil Repository ONLY
S O&M Manual Soil Repository • Readily available • Up to date • N/A IS) As-built drawings • Readily available • Up to date • N/A H Maintenance logs • Readily available • Up to date • N/A Remarks: On-site repository for contaminated materials is maintained by USACE and associated subcontractors. Groundwater samples are collected once each year.
2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan fx] Readily available • Up to date • N/A
Remarks:
3. O & M and OSHA Training Records 13 Readily available • Up to date • N/A
Remarks:.
4. Settlement Monument Records S Readily available • Up to date
Remarks: In the 2009/2010 Annual Report for the OU4 Soil Repository
5. Groundwater Monitoring Records E Readily available • Up to date • N/A
Remarks:
6. Leachate Extraction Records S Readily available • Up to date • N/A
Remarks: In the 2009/2010 Annual Report for the OU4 Soil Repository
RichDP- Third 5- Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 4/15/2013
7. Discharge Compliance Records • Air • Readily available • Up to date 0 N/A S Water (effluent) , 0 Readily available • 0 Up to date Remarks: In the 2009/2010 Annual Report for the OU4 Soil Repository
IV. O&M COSTS
O & M Organization • • State in-house • PRP in-house • Other
D Contractor for State • Federal Facility in-house Contractor for Federal Facility
O&M Cost Records S Readily available 0 Funding mechanism/agreement in place O&M cost estimate ; •
Up to date
• Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From 08/2006 To 12/2007 $36,459 • Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost
From 01/2008 To 12/2008 $47,897 • Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost
From 01/2009 To 12/2009 $48,921 • Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost
From 01/2010 To 12/2010 $22,267 • Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost
From 01/2011 To 08/2011 $38,798 • Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O & M Cost During Review Period
Describe costs and reasons: costs are in line with anticipated costs for this period.
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTRO LS 0 Applicable • N/A
A. Fencing: Perimeter fencing is intact including the 3 strands of barbed wire at the top of the fence. Restricted Access signs are in good condition and posted on all side of the soil repository.
B. Other Access Restrictions
RichDP-Third 5-Year Review OU4_FINAL_Apnl 2013 4/15/2013
c. Institutional Controls (IC): Current~v /Cs are adequate.
I. Implementation and enforcement •Site conditions imply !Cs not properly implemented D Yes ~No
Site conditions imply !Cs not being fully enforced D Yes ~No
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) Inspected by on-site O&M contractor
Frequency Afonthly
Responsible party/agency Government (USACE) contractor: HvdroCeologic. Inc.
Contact: Chris Williams O&M Project Manager 913.317.8860 Name Title Date Phone no.
Reporting is up-to-date ~Yes DNo
Reports are verified by the lead agency ~Yes DNo
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met ~Yes D No
Violations have been reported D Yes ~No
Special Use permit: ~ Copy attached
A copy ofthe Conditional Use Permit is attached to this inspection.
2. Vandalism/trespassing ~ No vandalism evident
Remarks:
3. Land use changes on site ~NIA
Remarks: No land use changes.
4. Land use changes off site D~N/A
Remarks: None in the vicinity of the site.
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS • A. Roads ~ Applicable ON/A ~
I. Roads damaged D Location shown on site map ~ Roads adequate ON/A
Remarks: Access drive and perimeter stone road in good condition.
B. Other Site Conditions: A chain-link and barbed-wire perimeter fence surrounds the Soil Repository.
Remarks: Entrance to Soil Repository is south through J-Street Cate on northwest portion of Nebraska Army National Guard training center.
VII. LANDFILL COVERS~ Applicable D NIA
A. Landfill Surface
L Settlement (Low spots) D Location shown on site map ~ Settlement not evident
Areal extent Depth
Remarks: None
2. Cracks D Location shown on site map ~ Cracking not evident
Lengths Widths Dep~h
Remarks: None • RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_ FINAL_April 2013 4i151201J
• 3. Erosion D Location shown on site map ~ Erosion not evident
Areal extent Depth
Remarks: None
4. Holes ~ Location shown on site map
Areal extent: I 0 small areas Depth: .In swface topsoil layer due to small burrowing animals.
Remarks: See attached map for location
5. Vegetative Cover Grass
Remarks: Good stand ofturfon entire landfill cap.
6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) Rock cover on side slopes ofcap.
Remarks: Rock on side slopes is intact and no signs oferosion or undermining present.
7. Bulges: No bulges evident on the landfill cover or side slopes.
8. Wet Areas/Water Damage: No wet areas or water damage evident. In October of 2008, three additional cross drains were installed under the perimeter road to provide positive drainage (see attached figure).
B. Cover Penetrations None noted.
I. Monitoring Wells (within surface area oflandfill)
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled ~ Good condition
D Needs Maintenance
• Remarks: Because MW 14988 was damaged beyopd repair, it was abandoned in November 2011 .
2. Leachate Extraction System ~ Properly secured/locked D Functioning ~ Routinely sampled
D Good condition ~Needs Maintenance
Remarks: High level sensor in the leachate tank IS in need of repair/replacement. O&M subcontractor is investigating the problem.
c. Cover Drainage Trench ~ Functioning
I. Outlet Pipes Inspected ~ Functioning
Remarks: None
2. Outlet Rock Inspected ~Functioning
Remarks: None
D. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge: As noted above, three additional cross drains were installed under the perimeter road to provide positive drainage (see attached figure).
I. Siltation:
Areal extent: NIA Depth: NIA
Remarks: None
2. Vegetative Growth: Extent: The entire landfill cover has several inches of well established grass cover growing on it. Depth: The depth of the grass cover was approximately 4 ·inches at the time of the site inspection.
Remarks: None
• RichOP-Third 5-Year Review OU4_F/NAL_April 2013 411512013
3. Erosion Erosion not evident
Areal extent: NIA Depth: NIA
Remarks: None • X. OTHER REMEDIES
Other remedies and associated decision documents for other OUs are currently "In-Progress. See Section XI. (Overall Observations) for additional comments.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A. Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).
The remedy objective for the soil repository is to prevent contaminants in the disposed soil from migrating outside ofthe containment.
Other remedies implemented at the site include the following:
Completion of the OU/4 Record of Decision. Currently OU14 is in the remedial design and construction phase.
Completion ofthe OU/6 Record ofDecision. The OU16 Naval Yard Dump is under Long-Term Management.
Jn accordance with the OU/6 Record ofDecision, a new OU will be established at the former NAD to address military munitions in accordance with the lnteragency Agreement.
B. Adequacy of O&M: As documented in the 200912010 Annual Report for the OU4 Soil Reposit01y and observed during the·site inspection, the current O&M efforts are being effective at maintaining the current and •long-term protectiveness ofthe remedy.
c. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost of scope of O&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future.
None expected.
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
The· high level sensor in the leachate collection tank needs to be repaired or replaced in order to allow the leachate collection system to fi111ction automatically. Current(v, the leachate collection system must be operated manually to pump out the leachate.from the bottom ofthe soil reposit01y.
• RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_F/NAL_April 2013 411512013
•
Attach111ent 1 Site Map
•
• RichDP· Third 5-Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 411512013
LEGEND
• • • LIMITS OF FORMER NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT
CENTRAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE
HASTINGS EAST INDUSTRIAL PARK
U. S. ARMY (GOVERNMENT CONTROL)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (GOVERNMENT CONTROL)
PRIVATE PROPERTY
J F \ . 11206 THOMPSON AVE. M V v LENEXA. KANSAS 66219
SHAW Environmental, Inc.
Trwjf U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
NAD-WIDE SITE LOCATION MAP FORMER NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT
HASTINGS. NEBRASKA
DESIGNED BY J Barker 04/07/04 CHECKED BY E. antra 09/22/09
DRAWN BY T. Richardson 04/07/04 APPROVED BY J.Borthwick 09/22/09
SCALE:
r » IO.OOT
FIGURE NO.
1 SHEET NO. REVISION NO.
1
.
•
Attach1nent 2 Notes from 2011 Site Inspection
•
• RichDP-Third 5-Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 411512013
• Project Name: N AD-Hastings
Time/Date: i :00 PM/October 20, 2011
Weather Conditions: Sunny, Mild - 50°F
Field Activity Subject: Third Five-Year Site Inspection of the Soil Repository
Attendees/Affiliation: Brian Roberts/USACE-NWK, Bill Gresham/EPA-Region 7, Jim
Borovich/NDEQ, John Borthwick/Shaw, and Karl Eisenhart/Shaw
Prior to the site inspection at the Soil Repository, a project managers' meeting was held at
9:30 AM to discuss the requirements of the five-year review process, the distribution of the OU4
Fact Sheet, and the site inspection. Bill Gresham said that in addition to property owners near the
Soil Repository, the Fact Sheet should also be distributed to other stakeholders including the city
of Hastings, Hastings Utilities, USDA, National Guard, Little Blue Natural Resources District,
and the media. A public notice announcing the start of the OU4 Five-Year Review was posted in
the Hastings Tribune on October 18 and 19, 2011.
• Following the project managers' meeting, the inspection team convened at the Soil Repository at
I :00 PM. Figure E-1 shows the general layout and the locations of the Soil Repository's main
design features. The following items were noted during the inspection:
• The perimeter fence was walked and inspected. No issues were noted.
• The gravel perimeter road around the soil repository was inspected. No issues were . noted.
• The Soil Repository cap surface was walked by the inspection team and visually inspected. Based on this inspection, 10 small areas damaged by burrowing animals were marked. These areas require backfilling with topsoil by the O&M subcontractor. The approximate locations of the areas requiring repair are shown on Figure E-1.
• The side slope rock around the perimeter of the repository was inspected. No displacement, erosion or subsidence under the rock was observed.
• The perimeter drainage rock and cross drains were inspected. No erosion or other issues noted. Three additional cross drains ,were added after the previous five-year review (see Figure E-1 ).
• • Leachate tank and pumping system - The leachate collection tank was full and the
O&M subcontractor was going to collect samples from the tank later in the day for analysis. The on-site O&M subcontractor told the inspection team that the high level sensor in the leachate tank was in need of repair or replacement. The faulty sensor is preventing the leachate collection system from functioning automatically as originally designed. The USACE PM requested that the O&M subcontractor contact his manager to schedule the necessary personnel to repair the faulty sensor.
RichDP· Third 5-Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 411512013
• Monitoring well 149BB located on the north side of the soil repository (up to side • gradient) was abandoned in 2008 because it was damaged beyond repair. This was an item requiring action noted in the previous five-year review inspection.
Following the inspection the soil repository gate was secured.
•
• RichDP-Third 5-Year Review OU4_FINAL_Ap11f 2013 4115/2013
•
Attachnient 3 Copy ofSpecial Use Pennit
•
• RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_F/NAL_Apnl 2013 411512013
ARBlPLANNING & ZONING COM. 415 N. ADAMS CENTRAt RO. ... PJO.BOX983 HASTINGS, NE 68902-0983
451-7173
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION I
LANDOWNER] DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE • pciu: cum ujf Jitmniiijiim, KAHSAS v m DISTRICJ SfEVE ELSTOH
ADDRESS 6Q1 EAST 12th ST, KANSAS CITY, MO 64106-2896
TELEPHONE 816-426-2694 & 3004 • V I L L A G E . COUNTY X
L E S A L DESCRIPT ION: SEE ATTACHED MAP T7N.R9W NUjJlf SgcftWi £t
Tmturttshtp 1 AJgrfh f*~V%r THE 6TH P.M. ADAMS COUNTY, NEBR.
PROPOSED ACTIVITY a construct aoll repository for containment of
surface Bails In accordance with. CERCLA.
S I T E PLAN SUBMITTED WITH TH IS A P P L I C A T I O N , have received
F APPROVED, THIS PERMIT A P P L I C A T I O N IS SUBJECT TO RENEWAL DN A TWELVE (12 ) MONTH B A S I S IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 5 - 1 0 2 <E>.
AMOUNT DF F E E
DATE F E E P A I D . S i g n a t u r e o f l a n d o w r f e r ( s )
AREA PLANNING & ZONING RECOMMEND AT I ON ^ jPRiDVED>DENIED
DATE 3 - ^ 2 0 - 9 ^ "
ST IPULATIONS s 6 i r u r r u A f i t j X v r i * ^ 4 * & ^ ' ' ^ X r w r o J J ^ U ^ ,
NDF SUPERVISORS ACTIONS ^^PFgOVEDYDENIED
BOARD
DATE
STIPULATIONSt
fag tout: (La <UjA* mc
Administrator Area Planning Jk Zoning
_
AREA PLANNI~G AND ZONINEi COMMISSION 415 NORTH ADAMS CENTRAL ROAD . .P. O. BOX 983 HASTINGS, NEBRASKA 68902-0993
The meeting of the Area Planning and Zoning Commission scheduled for Monday,' March 20, 1995 wa• conducted a~ 7130 P.M. in the Adams County District· court Room at the Adams County Courthouse, Ha5tings, Nebraska. This was declared by thm Chairman to be an open and public meeting. =·
j \
l • Chairman Edmondson called t:tie meeting i:o order. -~
2. Roll Call; Mr. Utecht CP) Supervisors Present• Mr. Dyer CP) Monte Malouf Mr. Ackerman CP) Mr. Edmondson CP) Mr. Waeks <A> Mr. Drummond CA) Staff Present; Mr. Sidlo CP> Ks.thy Colburn Mr. Strasburg CA> Mr • Mari c:k CP>
A quorum is present. .l
3. Pledge of Allegiance.
4. Motion that this is an open and public m~eting .and that all members received a copy. of the _agenda for this masting. ·
5. Approval of Minutes of Previ.ous Meeting. The February 27, · 1995 m~ating minutes Wll!!re approved as c_irculated. ")
6. Communication .und Special Appearance Request - City of Hast"ingfl! Request for comment re1 preliminary plat for Thom Subdivision
Mr. Harry Milligan reported that ths Area Planning & Zoning. Commission ha• up to foul" weeks to comment on the Thom Subdivision Preliminary Plat. Dur comments will be reported to the City of Hastings Planning Commission ~ednesday, March 29th at 4 P.M. at the city office.
Mr. Thom ha• asked that city water and sewer connattions ba waived.
The pl.at is within the one mi.le Juri•~lc:tion .of the City of Ha.stinga. ·The City of Ha.•tings recommends water and sawer requirements not be waived. There is public sewer within one-half mile :frcm t.hls .subdivision•...~tar also is avalia!:Jle •t complex three-fourths of a.mile south.and west of thi• •ubdivision.
Regulations require 25 l.ots- Ol" more in e subdivbion be an SU).
Mr. Thom asked that curbs and ~utt~rs be ~a1ved~
One to one and one-hillf lots avajlable,·potential buyers could pu~chase more than one lot. )
....
-1
Requirements of the fire department ares
28 feet wide streets with no parking along the streets turn-arounds on intersections
There won't be enough water pressure to fight a fire unless hooked up to the city water supply
1,911 ft. flood evevation is the habitable floor level including the basement
Wait Miller also commented on similar aspects of the application.
The board discussed the followl'nga
The original approved plat of May, 1994 included only 9 lots now proposing 25 + lots
Waivers from the plat excluding the subdivision from city water and sewer could cause problems when the city annexes in the future
Concern with extreme amounts of lawn chemicals leaching downstream into possible drinking water sources
Concern of not enough water pressure to fight a fire from private water wells
Motion was made by Dyer, seconded by Ackerman to recommend denial of the Thorn Subdivision to the Hastings City Council. Roll call ayesi Utecht, Edmondson, Dyer, Marick, Sidlo, Ackerman. Nayst None. Absent and not votings Weeks, Drummond, Strasburg.
7. Unfinished Business
a. Continued Applications none b. Tabled Applications none c. Postponed Applications none d. Unfinished Items none
8. New Applications
a.. Public Hearings Case No. 95-03.1 CORP OF ENOINEERB Conditional Use Permit to contruct a soil repository
Kathy read the legal ad that ran in the Tribune March 10, 1995.
Mr. Elstona As a part of the cleanup of the NAD we are asking for approval of a soil repository to place excavated contaminated soils. This is the third time we have come before the Planning & Zoning Commission, so hopefully the third time is charm.
At the last meeting the commission voted against the 1st proposed site.. Also at the last meeting we discussed the possibility of an alterntive site located on the northwest corner of the National Guard Training Site.
-2
-
-
There were no objections to this site at the last meeting.
"Since that meeting we coordinated with the National Guard and Mr Thorn. Mr Thorn came up with a suitable site. (Which was indicated on the map by Mr. Elston east of the 2nd proposed site, north of Mr. Thom*s residence). The soil repository shown here consists of a fenced in area of about 10 acres of which about 3 acres will be the s o i l repository area. The detail of the layout will be determined later for the size o f the repository. We feel that this location is directed to the concerns and impact of the water wells, as we discussed before the ground water flows to the southeast. So a l l the property to the southeast is federal property, and we have heard no objections from adjacent land owners to that site.
We appreciate the time you have given us and are now asking in order to continue with our cleanup that the commission will approve this proposed site.
Mr. Edmondsoni Will there be monitoring wells?
Mr. Elston: Yes there will be monitoring wells throughout this area?
Mr. Edmondson: You have plenty of access roads to get to that site?
Mr. Elstoni Yes i t accesses off the main road. There is also an existing gate there that can be opened up. This will be totally enclosed by a 6 ft. high fence.
Mr. Edmondson: Does anyone else wish to comment either for or against this proposed site?
Mr. Kelleys Good evening, I am Jeff Kelley. 1 am a program specialist in the superfund section of the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. We support the local approval process for this landfill, and await the board's determination to approve this site. '
The department concurred in the original record of decision for this site.in 1930, which called for a landfill. The department is pleased that the Corps of Engineers is complying with the local siting criteria as outlined in Legislative B i l l #813. DEQ considers the local siting approval process an important requirement in these efforts toward a cleanup action at the NAD.
Me congratulate the Corps, and the Nebraska National Guard, for being responsive to the concerns raised by citizens at the last two meetings. We know that the National Guard has a limited number of acres available for their•training activities, and. we thank them for their efforts to provide the acreage necessary for the landfill in the northwest corner of their property. The Department has checked the new location, and found that the state siting requirements have been met.
Our department has reviewed, and will continue to review, a l l documents prepared by the Corps. The superfund section and integrated solid waste section at DEB review the documents concrning design, construction, and monitoring for compliance with state law and the protection of human health and the environment. When the county approves a location, we will continue to check on the Corps' progress and make sure that the landfill is designed and built correctly by the Corps. Thank you.
-3
-
-
-
,_
Mr. King1 My 11.ame is Ronald King•. I am representing the Enviroi:imental Protection Agency. My puYpose here t~night ·is tip inform the Ad.ams County Zoning Commi"Ssion that EPA sent a latter to MTs. Kathy Colburn dated l
f•March 16 1 1995 that EPA has reviewed the plans ·and specifications §Ubmittfi!d by the u.. s. Army Corps of Engineers <USACE) regaY"ding the soil repository plann~d. for construction near the Hestinge East Industrial Park in Hastings, Nebraska. EPA concur• with the design of the repository as it complies with relevant feder&l 5tandardm contained in 40 C.F'.R. Part 25S and provides for the protection of human health and the envi ronmf!!nt. ·
In addition, based upon· curr~ntly available inf~rmatio~, EPA con~urm withthe alternate locat~on for the •oil Y'epots'l:tory identl'fied by the UBACE subsequent to the February 27, 1995 Zoning Commission haaring. In addition the EPA recommends that the Adams County Zoning Commission approve thia alternate location• Much.like Jeff Kelley with the Department of Environmental Quality, we also will be monitoring and i
assuring that the design and the construction of this alternate location J
·I 1
will be monitored in the future. ·~
Mr. Edmondson asked if anyone else would like to gpeak for or against , -~ this nev site. No one he•u·d •. "'-.....!
ATe there any comments.from the board.
Mr. Utecht1 Mr. Chairmen I move we adopt caae D 95-03.l. Seconded by Dyer. Roll cell Ayes1 Marick, Sidlo, Edtilondson, Dyer, Utecht, Ackerman. Nays1 None. Absent1 Weeks, S~rasburg, Drummond.
\ This case waa unanimously recommanded for ~pproval to the Board of .-"
f Supervisors which will be heard Tuesday, March 21, 1995 at 10;30 A.M• •Mr. Edmondsona Some conditions l would like to place.see along with this approval is that we receive reports every six months as to the progress of the conmtruction, to be sent to Kathy Colburn who will keep us informed•. Also, would it be ;allowad for· commission membey(s) i;o
, enter the rep~sitory site to sae how construction is progressing?
Mr. Eluoni Ws don't have a problem with that.
Mr. l;dmondsom These conditions ~hetn will be .added to the motion. Mr. \,Jt"c:ht, I so\ move, secondttd by Dyer. Ro11 cal h ·411 ayes.
Mr. Dyera I think this board·atppreciates the fact that t~ CORPS worked very diligently to try to work and cooperate with the paople in the ar~a·~~d with this board, a~~ we really appreciate that •
. CASE NO. '95-03.3 ·
Mr. Utecht; I move that we dev~ate from the regular· order of 'th~ agenda to hur case 95-03.3 sec:onde·d by Sidlo to approve a nonconfo1"ming tract for construction of a residence for Rcichelle Phillips •.
Mr. Edmondson1 Is Mis. Phillips present? Please come forward and tell' u~ what you want to do hare.
-4 •
Mm. Phillipsu I have purc:ha1ied a hoU1!1e south of ProSt!ISl" ttlat I want to move onto thim prqperty. I was not aware when I bought the property that it is not. large enough to put a house on until I went to get a building permit I have been living on that property for seven years. . It was sold to me es a rnidenc(a so I had no idea that everything wasn't.· ) alright. ·
Kath~a In feet, this property has been mold twice ~ince the Coat'• owned it as a.nonconforming tract. Thttre was an originill house there. In 1979 Mr. Coat's raqueatad a Conditional Una Permit to place a mobile home. The Planning Commission approved the placement of the accessoryliving facility for a farmhand. Sometime later the.house was. removed for •oms r'eaaon or another, 1Nvlng only the traller home and attendant buildings. Mil. Phillips hi\S l'"emovad the mobjle hornet off of the property and .now wishes to move a hou•a from south of Prosser to this site to ·uve in. Mr. Harper will not· iss1.111 a buUding pf!!rmit until this tract i• approved by the Planning ac Zoning Com1nission. Wa found a state statute 76-2 Section 110 regarding land conveyance that legally allows the property to be legal for Mw. Phillips to c:omstruct a house on this site since there was no opposition or protest to the survtay as filed within 120 days of fl.Ung in 1986. Thia trac:t i-s of sufficient size for regul•tion setbacks. Th• frontage is 1498.2 ft and is 402.6 feet deep ClS.B47 Acres)
Mr. Edmondsona It is an improvement to the tract to replace the mobile h9me with the house. ·
Theihouse is the parmonag~ to the Christ.Lutheran Church south of Prosser, a. really nice bu~ lding.•
)Motion by Utecht, seconded by seconded by Ackerman. Roll call ayesa Dyer, Marick, Sidlo, Edmondilon, Utecht, Ackerman. Nays1 none. Absentc Weeks, Dr-ummon.d, Strasburg•
.This cas~ is unenimously necommendad for approval to the Board of Supervisors. It won't be· heard. ·until Tti:eaday, March ~e, 199:5 af.ter '9130 A.M." .
CASE·o 95-03.2.·cDBG APPLICATION SURVEY RESULTS
Kat~y read the legal ad that ran in thm Tribune March 10, 1995.
Mr. Edmondson1 · l turn the hearing over to Mr. Stahr, our grant writer and con•ult~nt who will give us the results.of the county survey recently.completed.
Mr. Orv•~ St;a;thr gave a Rreaentation on the survey results, a C:!)py of which i• attached and ~hat the next· steps will be after the grant is· received. Wa should hear the Y.esul ts sometime after July 1st.
9. Additional. New Business . ...
a. Motion by Dyer and seconded to approve· the claims. All ayes, motion carried.
Chairman Edmondson declare~ the meetin~ adjourned at 9140 P.M.
,...5_