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

••

•


•

)

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

•


• 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


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


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


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


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.

•


•

• 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

•


•

• 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

•


•

• 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.

•


•

• 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


.,

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 '

•


•

• RichDP-Tllird 5-Year Review OU4_FINAL_Aprif 2013 12-6 411512013

•

Tables

•

• RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 411512013

•


•

• 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

•

_,


•

• RichOP- Third 5· Year Review OU4_FINAL_April 2013 4/1512013

•

Figures

•

• RichDP· Third 5· Year Review OU4JINAL_April 2013 411512013

•


•

•

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 .

•


•

• 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 .

•


•

• 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





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_

FIVE YEAR REVIEWThe methods, findings, and conclusions of the OU4 Soil Repository Five-Year Review...

Documents

Transcript of FIVE YEAR REVIEWThe methods, findings, and conclusions of the OU4 Soil Repository Five-Year Review...