Proposed Plan Closed Sanitary Landfill

Transcription

1 Fort George G. Meade Proposed Plan Closed Sanitary Landfill Public Meeting May 18, MAY2017

2 Public Meeting Purpose U.S. Army is inviting the public to comment on the proposed environmental actions for the Closed Sanitary Landfill. Comments may be submitted during the comment period beginning May 18, 2017, and ending June 24, Additional information on how to submit comments will be provided at the conclusion of this presentation. 2 18MAY2017

3 Presentation Agenda Status of the CERCLA Process for the Closed Sanitary Landfill Site Information Location History Field Investigations Summary of Findings Remedial Alternatives Preferred Alternative Public Comment Period Information 3 18MAY2017

4 Status of CERCLA* Process Remedial Investigation (RI) - characterization of site Feasibility Study (FS) - assessment of possible remedies Proposed Plan (PP) - solicit public input on preferred remedy Record of Decision (ROD) - legal documentation of remedy selection Remedial Design (RD) - remedy implementation plan Remedial Action (RA) - remedy implementation *Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Preliminary Assessment Site Inspection Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study Proposed Plan Record of Decision Remedial Design Remedial Action Long Term Management 4 18MAY2017

5 Proposed Plan Provides information necessary to allow the public to participate in selecting the appropriate remedial alternative for the Closed Sanitary Landfill The Proposed Plan Summarizes site history, investigations, and results of human health risk assessment Describes remedial alternatives considered Provides a comparative analysis of remedial alternatives based upon United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) established criteria Presents the preferred remedial alternative Contains information on community participation 5 18MAY2017

6 Presentation Agenda Status of the CERCLA Process for the Closed Sanitary Landfill Site Information Location History Field Investigations Summary of Findings Remedial Alternatives Preferred Alternative Public Comment Period Information 6 18MAY2017

7 Closed Sanitary Landfill Site Location 7 18MAY2017

8 Site Use and History Used as the Installation landfill from 1958 to 1996 and received mixed residential, commercial, and nonhazardous industrial waste Landfill Cells 1 and 2 closed under the Maryland Department of the Environment solid waste requirements through the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program Cell 1 (appx. 46 acres) capped and closed between 1995 to 1997 Cell 2 (appx. 24 acres) capped and closed between 1997 to 1998 Cell 3 (appx. 40 acres) lacks topographical expression and no RCRA landfill cap was required. Cell 3 currently being addressed separately (Remedial Investigation [RI], includes ecological risk for all 3 cells). 8 18MAY2017

9 Closed Sanitary Landfill Site Plan The remedial alternatives presented in this Proposed Plan will address shallow groundwater contamination associated with Landfill Cells 1 and 2. A separate remedial investigation in underway for the Cell 3 area. This Proposed Plan includes Ammunition Supply Point No 1. which is recommended for No Further Action. The concrete storage bunkers were demolished in MAY2017

10 Presentation Agenda Status of the CERCLA Process for the Closed Sanitary Landfill Site Information Location History Field Investigations Summary of Findings Remedial Alternatives Preferred Alternative Public Comment Period Information 10 18MAY2017

11 Field Investigations CERCLA RI fieldwork between 2001 and 2005 Surface and subsurface soil samples collected to assess potential direct contact exposures Soil gas monitoring Surface water and sediment samples collected to assess the impacts of runoff from the landfill areas Groundwater samples collected on and off post to evaluate the impact of the waste materials and other historical site activities 11 18MAY2017

12 Field Investigations - Soil Surface and subsurface soil samples collected from across the site indicated: Minimal impacts (other than capped sanitary waste) Polychlorinated biphenyls were detected above screening criteria at 1 location Arsenic was the only other analyte detected above the industrial screening criteria up to a concentration of 8.6 mg/kg. While this is slightly above the established Fort George G. Meade background concentration, arsenic is a common naturally occurring element in this area MAY2017

13 Field Investigations Surface Water and Sediment Data During the RI effort, surface water and sediment data collected across the Site did not have concentrations above screening criteria. Three surface water locations are sampled on a semi-annual basis as part of the ongoing Detection and Assessment Monitoring Program in place at the CSL MAY2017

14 Field Investigations - Groundwater RI fieldwork included monitoring well installation and sampling in on and off-post areas Long term monitoring of groundwater has been occurring semi-annually since 1994 Shallow GW, UPA, 16 wells sampled in March & September Deep GW, LPA, 10 wells sampled in March This extensive data set indicates that generally arsenic, benzene, and nitrate are consistently detected above associated drinking water standards primarily in the area southeast of Cell 1 in the Upper Patapsco Aquifer. Sporadic detections of other metals have occurred and were assessed as part of the risk assessment process 14 18MAY2017

15 Benzene and Arsenic Detection in Shallow Groundwater September 2016 Nitrate above drinking water standard of 10 parts per million isolated to MW13S Benzene above drinking water standard of 5 parts per billion at one location (MW19) at 10 parts per billion Arsenic above drinking water standard of 10 parts per billion at two locations (MW14 and MW-19) 15 18MAY2017

16 Off-post Investigations In response to requests from the Maryland Department of the Environment additional work was conducted in 2013 and 2014 to assess if benzene and arsenic extended offpost One additional monitoring well (MW19A) was installed on-post to determine groundwater flow direction adjacent to Cell 1 and confirm groundwater impacts between Cell 1 and MW19. 6 geoprobe borings were advanced off-post in the Anne Arundel County Right-of-Way Groundwater samples were collected for benzene and arsenic (total and dissolved fraction) 16 18MAY2017

17 Results of Off-post Investigations Benzene was not detected off-post above its drinking water standard (detected at a maximum concentration of 1.8 parts per billion) Arsenic was detected above the drinking water standard in samples from two off-post locations (SB05 and SB-06) (up to 44 parts per billion) 17 18MAY2017

18 Results of Off-post Investigations (cont.) On-post area with elevated arsenic and benzene detections Off-post borings with detections of arsenic above drinking water standard 18 18MAY2017

19 Summary of Groundwater Conditions Benzene and arsenic are present above drinking water standards (Maximum Contaminant Levels) at the Fort Meade installation boundary in a localized portion of the southwest corner of the Closed Sanitary Landfill Arsenic concentrations above standards are present offpost The RI confirmed that the Upper Patapsco (water table) and Lower Patapsco (confined) aquifers are hydraulically unrelated. Sporadic and scattered detections of other metals (iron and manganese) driving risk have been documented by the ongoing long term semi-annual monitoring Groundwater is the only medium driving unacceptable risks 19 18MAY2017

20 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment Receptors evaluated in the HHRA included: Current on-post workers Current trespassers Future on post and off post construction workers Future on post and off post adult and child residents Future on post groundskeepers, club house workers, and golfers 20 18MAY2017

21 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment Cont. Results of the HHRA Current on-post workers No unacceptable risk Current trespassers No unacceptable risk Future on post and off post construction workers No unacceptable risk Future on post adult and child residents Unacceptable risks from shallow groundwater via ingestion pathway Future off post adult and child residents No unacceptable risk Future on post groundskeepers, club house workers, and golfers No unacceptable risk 21 18MAY2017

22 Presentation Agenda Status of the CERCLA Process for the Closed Sanitary Landfill Site Information Location History Field Investigations Summary of Findings Remedial Alternatives Preferred Alternative Public Comment Period Information 22 18MAY2017

23 Feasibility Study Feasibility Study evaluated options to address low-level scattered metals and benzene/arsenic exceedances at the installation boundary Land-use controls (prohibiting groundwater use) included in all alternatives On-post implemented through the groundwater use restriction (administrative controls) Anne Arundel County has a restriction in place to prohibit residential potable well installation within the Upper Patapsco as a result of documented radium Specific alternatives also evaluated to stop further migration of benzene and arsenic off-post 23 18MAY2017

24 Remedial Alternative Evaluation As required by law, the alternatives were evaluated against nine criteria: 1. Overall protection of human health and the environment. Determines if the alternative provides adequate protection and describes how the alternative eliminates, reduces or controls risks. 2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). Determines if the alternative meets all Federal and State environmental laws. 3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence. Determines the alternative s ability to provide reliable protection of human health and the environment over time. 4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment. Refers to the preference for an alternative that reduces health hazards, the movement of harmful substances, or the quantity of harmful substances at the site MAY2017

25 Remedial Alternative Evaluation Cont. 5. Short-term effectiveness. Addresses time needed to complete the alternative, and any adverse effects to human health or the environment during implementation. 6. Implementability. Addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of an alternative, including the availability of materials and services. 7. Cost effectiveness. Evaluates the estimated capital, operating and maintenance costs of each alternative in comparison to other, equally protective alternatives. (30 years) 8. State/Support agency acceptance. [The Army is the lead regulatory agency] Indicates whether the State agrees with, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative. 9. Community acceptance. Assessed after the public comment period. Includes components of the alternatives that the public supports, has reservations about, or opposes MAY2017

26 Feasibility Study Alternatives Alternative GW-1 - No Action Alternative GW-2 Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)/Land Use Controls Monitor benzene and arsenic along the property line to assess rates of natural decline Approximate capital costs = $9,900 Approximate present worth operation and maintenance costs = $28,600 Alternative GW-3 Aquifer Air Sparging /Land Use Controls/Long- Term Monitoring of Groundwater 1,000 ft sparge curtain placed along the property line Approximate capital costs = $436,300 Approximate present worth operation and maintenance costs = $1,242,300 Alternative GW-4 Permeable Reactive Barrier/Land Use Controls/Long-Term Monitoring of Groundwater 1,000 ft PRB to a depth of 40 ft Approximate capital costs = $3,539,400 Approximate present worth operation and maintenance costs = $404, MAY2017

27 Remedial Alternative Evaluation Alternative GW-1: No Action Not protective under possible future use scenarios, Does not meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), No long-term effectiveness or permanence, No reduction in toxicity or mobility, Not effective in the short-term given one element of this criterion is time until protection is achieved, Readily implemented, and No cost MAY2017

28 Remedial Alternative Evaluation Alternative GW-2: Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)/Land Use Controls Human health risk controlled for future use scenarios, Partially complies with ARARs identified, Long-term effectiveness through control of exposure, No reduction in toxicity or mobility, Effective in short-term and poses no risks to implement, Readily implemented, and Low to moderate cost MAY2017

29 Remedial Alternative Evaluation Alternative GW-3: Aquifer Air Sparging/Land Use Controls/Long-Term Monitoring of Groundwater Protective of human health through implementation of LUCs and active remediation to prevent contaminant migration, Complies with ARARs identified, Effective in the long-term through active groundwater treatment, Effective in reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment, Effective in short-term, marginal risks are presented from remedy implementation, Low to moderate implementability challenges, and Moderate to high cost MAY2017

30 Remedial Alternative Evaluation Alternative GW-4: Permeable Reactive Barrier/Land Use Controls/Long-Term Monitoring of Groundwater Protective of human health through implementation of LUCs and active remediation to prevent contaminant migration, Complies with ARARs identified, Effective in the long-term through active groundwater treatment, Effective in reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment, Effective in short-term, marginal risks are presented from remedy implementation, Moderate implementability challenges, and High cost MAY2017

31 Presentation Agenda Status of the CERCLA Process for the Closed Sanitary Landfill Site Information Location History Field Investigations Summary of Findings Remedial Alternatives Preferred Alternative Public Comment Period Information 31 18MAY2017

32 Preferred Alternative GW-3 Aquifer Air Sparging/Land Use Controls/Long- Term Monitoring of Groundwater is the recommended remedial alternative in the Proposed Plan Is protective of human health and the environment by eliminating potential exposures (groundwater use restriction) Incorporates active remediation (air sparging) to reduce toxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants at the southeast property boundary Equally effective as Alternative GW-4 yet significantly more cost effective Long-term monitoring program tracks system performance. Landfill post-closure monitoring and reporting would also continue under the Detection and Assessment Monitoring Program already in place 32 18MAY2017

33 Air Sparge Conceptual Layout 33 18MAY2017

34 Air Sparging Diagram Injected air volatilizes organic contaminants (i.e. benzene) and precipitates inorganic contaminants (i.e. arsenic) from the groundwater 34 18MAY2017

35 Presentation Agenda Status of the CERCLA Process for the Closed Sanitary Landfill Site Information Location History Field Investigations Summary of Findings Remedial Alternatives Preferred Alternative Public Comment Period Information 35 18MAY2017

36 Proposed Plan The Proposed Plan is available for public review from May 18 th 2017 to June 24 th, 2015 in the Administrative Record located: Fort Meade Environmental Division Anne Arundel County Library (Odenton Regional Library) Building 2460, 85 th Medical Battalion Avenue 1325 Annapolis Road Fort Meade, MD Odenton, MD Monday Friday: 8 am to 4 pm Mon-Th: 9 am-9 pm; Fri & Sat: 9am-5 pm Public comments will be reviewed and considered before remedy selection is finalized and documented in the ROD. The ROD for the Closed Sanitary Landfill will be finalized in MAY2017

37 Written Comments Comments will be accepted until June 24 th, Send comments to one of the following: Ms. Mary Doyle U.S. Army Garrison- Fort George G. Meade Public Affairs Office 4409 Llewellyn Ave. Fort Meade, MD (301) Mr. Robert Stroud USEPA Region III 701 Mapes Road Fort Meade, MD (301) Ms. Elisabeth Green, Ph.D. Maryland Department of Environment 1800 Washington Blvd, Suite 625 Baltimore, MD (410) MAY2017

38 Questions/Comments? 38 18MAY2017

39 Acronyms ARAR CERCLA DoD FS LTM LUC MCL MDE PP Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Department of Defense Feasibility Study Long Term Monitoring Land Use Control Maximum Contaminant Level Maryland Department of the Environment Proposed Plan 39 18MAY2017

40 Acronyms (Cont d) RA RD RI ROD USEPA Remedial Action Remedial Design Remedial Investigation Record of Decision U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 40 18MAY2017

41 Glossary Administrative Record: This is a collection of documents (including plans, correspondence and reports) generated during site investigation and remedial activities. Information in the Administrative Record is used to select the preferred remedial alternative and is available for public review. Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs): The requirements found in federal and State environmental statutes and regulations that a selected remedy must attain. These requirements may vary among sites according to the remedial actions selected. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA): This federal law was passed in 1980 and is commonly referred to as the Superfund Program. It provides for liability, compensation, cleanup, and emergency response in connection with the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites that endanger public health and safety or the environment. Feasibility Study (FS): This CERCLA document reviews the risks to humans and the environment at a site, and evaluates multiple remedial technologies for use at the site. Finally, it identifies the most feasible Response Actions MAY2017

42 Glossary (Cont d) Long Term Monitoring (LTM) LTM is conducted to monitor the performance of the remedy over time. LTM includes groundwater sampling and reporting. Land Use Controls (LUCs) LUC are physical, legal, or administrative mechanisms that restrict use of or limit access to, real property, to manage risks to human health and the environment. Physical mechanisms encompass a variety of engineered remedies to contain or reduce contamination and/or physical barriers to limit access to real property, such as fences or signs. Preferred Remedy The remediation approach that appears to best meet acceptance criteria; the remedial option proposed for implementation in the ROD. Record of Decision (ROD): This legal document is signed by the Army and the USEPA and will be reviewed by the MDE for concurrence. It provides the cleanup action or remedy selected for a site, the basis for selecting that remedy, public comments, responses to comments, and the estimated cost of the remedy. Remedial Investigation (RI): An investigation under CERCLA that involves sampling environmental media such as air, soil, and water to determine the nature and extent of contamination and human health and environmental risks that result from the contamination MAY2017

43 U.S. Army Garrison Fort George G. Meade Directorate of Public Works-Environmental Division Building 2460, 85th Medical Battalion Avenue Fort Meade, Maryland Points of Contact: Mr. George B. Knight, PG, Environmental Restoration Manager Ms. Denise Tegtmeyer, PE, Senior Project Manager, Sundance Consulting, Inc MAY2017

44 End of Brief 44 18MAY2017