fort ritchie base realignment and closure · 4.2.16 national environmental policy act 4-6 4.2.17...

fto77

V*

Delivery Order No. 0005 Environmental Services

Program Support Contract Number

DACA31-94-D-0064

U.S. ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

FORT RITCHIE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

(BRAC) CLEANUP PLAN (BCP)

IWIHIBUTION gTATEMEMTT

Ippravd for pttbäm Dlrtrümttaa C&JlmlMd VERSION II

Preceding Pages Blank

FINAL DOCUMENT

March 1998

AEC Form 45, 1 Feb 93 replaces THAMA Form 45 which is obsolete.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden (or this collection ol information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time tor reviewing instructions, searcning existing ciaia sources, gatnenng ano mamiain.ng ."» uuu m*~»u, and completing and reviewing the collection of Information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of Information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate lor Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Pro|ect (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank)

i

2. REPORT DATE

March 1998

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Final Document \. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II Final Document

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

U.S. Department of the Army Contract No. DACA31-94-D-0064 Delivery Order No. 0005 6. AUTHOR(S)

T. Longe, J. Helstowski, R. Chuang, D. Johnston, G. McKown, K. Mason, R. Wikramanayake, C. Troxell

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. 2113 Emmorton Park Road Edgewood, MD 21040

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

ESPS05-9

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Environmental Center ATTN: SFIM-AEC-BCB Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

SFIM-AEC-ER-CR-98015

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Report is contained in one volume.

|)2a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for Public Release: Distribution is Unlimited

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE'

A

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II, summarizes the current status of the Fort Ritchie Army Garrison environmental restoration and associated environmental compliance programs and presents a comprehensive strategy for implementing response actions necessary to protect human health and the environment. Fort Ritchie is a 631-acre active military communications center to be closed in October 1998, as approved under the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1995. In addition to laying out the response action approach at the installation in support of base closure, the BCP defines the status of efforts to resolve technical issues so that continued progress and implementation of scheduled activities can occur. The BCP is a dynamic document, originally prepared as Version I in September 1996, that has been updated to incorporate newly obtained information. This Version II BCP was prepared with information available as of March 1998.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Fort Ritchie; Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP); Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS); Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE CODE

ll9. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT

UNCLASSIFIED

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

UNCLASSIFIED

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT

UNCLASSIFIED

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

None

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

FORT RITCHIE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC) CLEANUP PLAN (BCP)

VERSION II

FINAL DOCUMENT

Timothy A. Longe, Ph.D. Project Manager

ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc.

Gary L/McKown, Ph.D. Program Manager

ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc.

ICF KAISER ENGINEERS, INC. 2113 EMMORTON PARK ROAD EDGEWOOD, MARYLAND 21040

fNO

MARCH 1998 ^^MMakk

DTIC QUALITY INSPECTED 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1-1

1.1 BCP ORGANIZATION 1-1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE OBJECTIVES 1-2 1.3 BCP PURPOSE, UPDATES, AND DISTRIBUTION 1-3 1.4 BRAC CLEANUP TEAM/PROJECT TEAM 1-3 1.5 INSTALLATION DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY 1-3

1.5.1 General Property Description 1-3 1.5.2 History of Installation 1-5 1.5.3 Tenants 1-8 1.5.4 Environmental Setting 1-8

1.5.4.1 Topography 1-8 1.5.4.2 Geology 1-8 1.5.4.3 Hydrogeology 1-9 1.5.4.4 Surface Water Hydrology 1-9 1.5.4.5 Hazardous Substances and Waste Management Practices 1 -9

1.6 OFF-POST PROPERTIES 1-10 1.7 ADJACENT PROPERTIES 1-10

2.0 PROPERTY DISPOSAL AND REUSE PLAN 2-1

2.1 STATUS OF DISPOSAL AND REUSE (REDEVELOPMENT) PLAN 2-1 2.2 RELATIONSHIP TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS 2-1 2.3 PROPERTY TRANSFER METHODS 2-8

2.3.1 Federal Transfer of Property 2-8 2.3.2 Economic Development Conveyance 2-8 2.3.3 Negotiated Sale 2-8 2.3.4 Competitive Public Sale 2-8 2.3.5 Widening of Public Highways 2-8 2.3.6 Donated Property 2-8 2.3.7 Interim Leases 2-8 2.3.8 Other Property Transfer Methods 2-8

3.0 INSTALLATION-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM STATUS 3-1

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM STATUS 3-1 3.1.1 Restoration Sites 3-1 3.1.2 Installation-Wide Source Discovery and Assessment Status 3-1

3.2 COMPLIANCE PROGRAM STATUS 3-7 3.2.1 Storage Tanks 3-7

3.2.1.1 Underground Storage Tanks 3-7 3.2.1.2 Above-ground Storage Tanks 3-14

3.2.2 Hazardous Materials/Waste Management 3-18 3.2.2.1 Hazardous Material Management 3-18 3.2.2.2 Hazardous Waste Management 3-18

3.2.3 Solid Waste Management 3-19 3.2.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls 3-19 3.2.5 Asbestos 3-19 3.2.6 Radon 3-20 3.2.7 RCRA Facilities (Solid Waste Management Units) 3-20 3.2.8 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits 3-20 3.2.9 Oil/Water Separators 3-20 3.2.10 Lead-Based Paint 3-20 3.2.11 Unexploded Ordnance 3-20 3.2.12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing 3-21

DACA31-94-D-0064 i Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document

Table of Contents (Continued)

3.2.13 Pollution Prevention 3-21 3.2.14 Mixed Waste 3-21 3.2.15 Radiation 3-21 3.2.16 National Environmental Policy Act 3-21 3.2.17 Medical Waste 3-21 3.2.18 Air Permits 3-21

3.3 STATUS OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAMS 3-21 3.3.1 Sensitive Environments 3-21 3.3.2 Vegetation 3-22 3.3.3 Wildlife 3-22 3.3.4 Wetlands and Flood Plains 3-22 3.3.5 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species 3-22 3.3.6 Cultural Resources 3-24

3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION OF PROPERTY 3-24 3.4.1 Category 1: Areas Where No Release or Disposal (Including Migration) of Hazardous

Substances or Petroleum Products has Occurred 3-24 3.4.2 Category 2: Areas Where Only Release or Disposal of Petroleum Products has Occurred3-26 3.4.3 Category 3: Areas Where Release, Disposal, and/or Migration of Hazardous Substances has

Occurred but Require No Remedial Action 3-26 3.4.4 Category 4: Areas Where Release, Disposal, and/or Migration of Hazardous Substances has

Occurred and All Remedial Actions Have Been Taken 3-27 3.4.5 Category 5: Areas Where Release, Disposal and/or Migration of Hazardous Substances has

Occurred and Action is Underway but Not Final 3-27 3.4.6 Category 6: Areas Where Release, Disposal, and/or Migration of Hazardous Substances has

Occurred, but Required Response Actions Have Not Been Taken 3-27 3.4.7 Category 7: Areas that are Not Evaluated or Require Additional Evaluation 3-27 3.4.8 Suitability of Installation Property for Transfer by Deed 3-27

3.5 STATUS OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 3-28

4.0 INSTALLATION-WIDE STRATEGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION 4-1

4.1 OPERABLE UNIT DESIGNATION AND STRATEGY 4-1 4.1.1 Operable Unit Designations 4-1 4.1.2 Sequence of Operable Units 4-1 4.1.3 Environmental Early Actions Strategy 4-1 4.1.4 Remedy Selection Approach 4-1

4.2 COMPLIANCE STRATEGY 4-5 4.2.1 Storage Tanks 4-5 4.2.2 Hazardous Materials/Waste Management 4-5 4.2.3 Solid Waste Management 4-5 4.2.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls 4-5 4.2.5 Asbestos 4-6 4.2.6 Radon 4-6 4.2.7 RCRA Facilities 4-6 4.2.8 NPDES Permits 4-6 4.2.9 Oil/Water Separators 4-6 4.2.10 Lead-Based Paint 4-6 4.2.11 Unexploded Ordnance 4-6 4.2.12 NRC Licensing 4-6 4.2.13 Pollution Prevention 4-6 4.2.14 Mixed Waste 4-6 4.2.15 Radiation 4-6 4.2.16 National Environmental Policy Act 4-6 4.2.17 Medical Waste 4-7 4.2.18 Air Permits 4-7

4.3 NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES STRATEGIES 4-7 4.3.1 Vegetation 4-7

DACA31-94-D-0064 " Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document


4.3.2 Wildlife 4-7 4.3.3 Wetlands 4-7 4.3.4 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species 4-7 4.3.5 Cultural Resources 4-7 4.3.6 Other Resources 4-7

4.4 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT/STRATEGY 4-7

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM MASTER SCHEDULES 5-1

5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM 5-1 5.1.1 Response Schedules 5-1 5.1.2 Funding Requirements by Fiscal Year 5-1

5.2 COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS 5-1 5.2.1 Master Compliance Schedules 5-1 5.2.2 Funding Requirements by Fiscal Year 5-1

5.3 NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAMS 5-1 5.3.1 Natural and Cultural Resources Schedule 5-7 5.3.2 Funding Requirements by Fiscal Year 5-7

5.4 BCT/PROJECT MEETING SCHEDULE 5-7

6.0 TECHNICAL AND OTHER ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED 6-1

6.1 DATA USABILITY 6-1 6.1.1 BCT Action Items 6-1 6.1.2 Rationale 6-1 6.1.3 Status/Strategy 6-1

6.2 DATA INTEGRATION AND MANAGEMENT 6-1 6.2.1 BCT Action Items 6-1 6.2.2 Rationale 6-1 6.2.3 Status/Strategy 6-1

6.3 DATA GAPS 6-2 6.3.1 BCT Action Items 6-2 6.3.2 Rationale 6-2 6.3.3 Status/Strategy 6-2

6.4 BACKGROUND LEVELS 6-2 6.4.1 BCT Action Items 6-2 6.4.2 Rationale 6-2 6.4.3 Status/Strategy 6-2

6.5 RISK ASSESSMENT 6-2 6.5.1 BCT Action Items 6-2 6.5.2 Rationale 6-3 6.5.3 Status/Strategy 6-3

6.6 INSTALLATION-WIDE REMEDIAL ACTION STRATEGY 6-3 6.6.1 BCT Action Items 6-3 6.6.2 Rationale 6-3 6.6.3 Status/Strategy 6-3

6.7 INTERIM MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER 6-3 6.7.1 BCT Action Items 6-3 6.7.2 Rationale 6-3 6.7.3 Status/Strategy 6-3

6.8 EXCAVATION OF CONTAMINATED MATERIALS 6-7 6.8.1 BCT Action Items 6-7 6.8.2 Rationale 6-7 6.8.3 Status/Strategy 6-7

6.9 PROTOCOLS FOR REMEDIAL DESIGN REVIEWS 6-7 6.9.1 BCT Action Items 6-7 6.9.2 Rationale 6-7 6.9.3 Status/Strategy 6-7

DACA31-94-D-0064 "i F°rt Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Rnal Document


6.10 CONCEPTUAL MODELS 6-7 6.10.1 BCT Action Item 6-7 6.10.2 Rationale 6-7 6.10.3 Status/Strategy 6-7

6.11 CLEANUP STANDARDS 6-8 6.11.1 BCT Action Items 6-8 6.11.2 Rationale 6-8 6.11.3 Status/Strategy 6-8

6.12 INITIATIVES FOR ACCELERATING CLEANUP 6-8 6.12.1 BCT Action Items 6-8 6.12.2 Rationale 6-8 6.12.3 Status/Strategy 6-23

6.13 REMEDIAL ACTIONS 6-23 6.13.1 BCT Action Items 6-23 6.13.2 Rationale 6-24 6.13.3 Status/Strategy 6-24

6.14 REVIEW OF AND APPLICATION OF SELECTED TECHNOLOGIES FOR EXPEDITED SOLUTIONS 6-24

6.14.1 BCT Action Items 6-24 6.14.2 Rationale 6-24 6.14.3 Status/Strategy .' 6-24

6.15 HOT SPOT REMOVALS 6-24 6.15.1 BCT Action Items 6-24 6.15.2 Rationale 6-24 6.15.3 Status/Strategy 6-24

6.16 IDENTIFICATION OF CLEAN PROPERTIES 6-24 6.16.1 BCT Action Items 6-25 6.16.2 Rationale 6-25 6.16.3 Status/Strategy 6-25

6.17 OVERLAPPING PHASES OF THE CLEANUP PROCESS 6-25 6.17.1 BCT Action Items 6-25 6.17.2 Rationale 6-25 6.17.3 Status/Strategy 6-25

6.18 IMPROVED CONTRACTING PROCEDURES 6-25 6.18.1 BCT Action Items 6-25 6.18.2 Rationale 6-25 6.18.3 Status/Strategy 6-25

6.19 INTERFACING WITH THE COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN 6-25 6.19.1 BCT Action Items 6-25 6.19.2 Rationale 6-26 6.19.3 Status/Strategy 6-26

6.20 BIAS FOR CLEANUP INSTEAD OF STUDIES 6-26 6.20.1 BCT Action Items 6-26 6.20.2 Rationale 6-26 6.20.3 Status/Strategy 6-26

6.21 EXPERT INPUT ON CONTAMINATION AND POTENTIAL REMEDIAL ACTIONS 6-26 6.21.1 BCT Action Items 6-26 6.21.2 Rationale 6-26 6.21.3 Status/Strategy 6-26

6.22 PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES 6-26 6.22.1 BCT Action Items 6-27 6.22.2 Rationale 6-27 6.22.3 Status/Strategy 6-27

6.23 PARTNERING (USING INNOVATIVE MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION, AND COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUES) 6-27

6.23.1 BCT Action Items 6-27

DACA31-94-D-0064 iv Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document


6.23.2 Rationale 6-27 6.23.3 Status/Strategy 6-27

6.24 UPDATING THE EBS AND NATURAL/CULTURAL RESOURCES DOCUMENTATION 6-27 6.24.1 BCT Action Items 6-27 6.24.2 Rationale 6-27 6.24.3 Status/Strategy 6-27

6.25 IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY FOR ON-SITE DECISION MAKING 6-28 6.25.1 BCT Action Items 6-28 6.25.2 Rationale 6-28 6.25.3 Status/Strategy 6-28

6.26 STRUCTURAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS TO REUSE 6-28 6.26.1 BCT Action Items 6-28 6.26.2 Rationale 6-28 6.26.3 Status/Strategy 6-28

6.27 OTHER TECHNICAL REUSE ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED 6-28

7.0 REFERENCES 7-1

DACA31-94-D-0064 v Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 1-1. General Location of Fort Ritchie 1-6 Figure 1-2. Locations of Fuel Storage and Dispensing Activities (USTs and ASTs) 1-13 Figure 1-3. Location of Past Hazardous Substance Activities 1-14 Figure 1-4. Vicinity Map and Community Land Use, Fort Ritchie 1-15 Figure 2-1. Fort Ritchie Conceptual Redevelopment Plan 2-2 Figure 2-2. Development Districts and Parcelization Plan 2-3 Figure 2-3. Pen Mar Technology and Conference Center, 20 Year Illustrative Plan 2-6 Figure 2-4. Pen Mar Technology and Conference Center, Long Term Illustrative Plan 2-7 Figure 3-1. Environmental Restoration Early Action Sites 3-3 Figure 3-2. Fort Ritchie Operable Units 3-6 Figure 3-3. Distribution of Wetlands 3-23 Figure 3-4. CERFA Parcel Designation Map 3-25 Figure 3-5. Suitability of Property for Transfer 3-29 Figure 4-1. Sequence and Primary Document Timeline for Operable Unit 4-4 Figure 5-1. Projected Master Restoration Schedule 5-2 Figure 5-2. Projected Master Schedule for Mission/Operational-Related Compliance Programs 5-5 Figure 5-3. Projected Master Schedule for Closure-Related Compliance Programs 5-6 Figure 5-4. Projected Schedule for Natural and Cultural Resources Activities 5-8 Figure A-1. Past Restoration Schedule A-4

DACA31-94-D-0064 vi Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 1-1. Fort Ritchie BCP Distribution List 1-4 Table 1-2. Current BCT and Project Team Members 1-5 Table 1-3. Property Acquisition Summary 1-7 Table 1-4. Current Significant On-Post Tenants at Fort Ritchie 1-8 Table 1-5. Hazardous Waste Generating Activities at Fort Ritchie 1-11 Table 1-6. History of Installation Operations at Fort Ritchie 1-12 Table 2-1. Reuse Parcel Data Summary 2-4 Table 2-2. Existing Legal Agreements/Interim Leases 2-9 Table 3-1. Environmental Restoration Early Action Status 3-2 Table 3-2. Preliminary Location Summary of AREEs 3-4 Table 3-3. Environmental Restoration Site Study Area Summary 3-8 Table 3-4. Mission/Operational-Related Compliance Projects 3-13 Table 3-5. Closure-Related Compliance Projects 3-13 Table 3-6. Compliance Early Action Status 3-14 Table 3-7. Underground Storage Tank Inventory 3-15 Table 3-8. Above-ground Storage Tank Inventory 3-18 Table 3-9. CERFA Parcel Description 3-26 Table 4-1. Relationship Between Operable Units, Parcels, and Districts 4-2 Table 4-2. Cleanup Sequence 4-3 Table 4-3. Environmental Restoration Planned Early Actions 4-3 Table 4-4. Environmental Compliance Planned Early Actions 4-5 Table 5-1. BCT Meeting Schedule 5-9 Table 6-1. Future Land Use Risk Assessment for Development of Remedy Selections 6-4 Table 6-2. Levels of Concern for Soil 6-9 Table 6-3. Levels of Concern for Groundwater 6-13 Table 6-4. Levels of Concern for Surface Water 6-17 Table 6-5. Levels of Concern for Sediment 6-21 Table A-1. Projected Restoration Program Cost Requirements A-2 Table A-2. Projected Compliance Program Cost Requirements A-2 Table A-3. Projected Natural and Cultural Resources Program Cost Requirements A-2 Table A-4. Projected Total Environmental Programs Cost Requirements A-3 Table A-5. Historical Expenditure by Site A-3 Table B-1. Project Deliverables B-2 Table B-2. Site Deliverables by Phase B-5 Table B-3. Technical Documents/Data Loading Status Summary B-6

DACA31-94-D-0064 VM Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document

APPENDICES

Appendix

A FISCAL YEAR FUNDING REQUIREMENTS/COSTS A-1 B INSTALLATION ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION DOCUMENTS SUMMARY B-1 C DECISION DOCUMENT/ROD SUMMARIES C-1 D NFRAP SUMMARIES D-1 E CONCEPTUAL MODEL DATA SUMMARIES E-1 F ANCILLARY BCP MATERIALS F-1

DACA31-94-D-0064 viii Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACM Asbestos-Containing Material AJCC Alternate Joint Communications Center AR Army Regulation ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement AREE Area Requiring Environmental Evaluation AST Above-ground Storage Tank BCP..... BRAC Cleanup Plan BCT BRAC Cleanup Team BEC BRAC Environmental Coordinator BET BRAC Environmental Team Bldg Building BRAC Base Realignment and Closure CCR Cumulative Cancer Risk CEMML Center for Ecological Management of Military Lands CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERFA Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHI Cumulative Hazard Index COPC Chemical of Potential Concern COR Contracting Officer's Representative CRP Community Relations Plan CWA Clean Water Act DD Decision Document DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DISA Defense Information Systems Agency DoD Department of Defense DOT Department of Transportation DPW Department of Public Works DQO Data Quality Objective DRMO Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office EA Environmental Assessment EBS Environmental Baseline Survey EDC Economic Development Conveyance EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMD Environmental Management Division ERA Ecological Risk Assessment FFA Federal Facility Agreement FRP Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic FS Feasibility Study FY Fiscal Year gpm gallons per minute GSF Gross Square Feet HAZMAT Hazardous Materials HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment IMI International Masonry Institute IRA Interim Remedial Action IRDMIS Installation Restoration Data Management Information System IRP Installation Restoration Program ISA Initial Screening of Alternatives LBP Lead-Based Paint lbs pounds LRA Local Redevelopment Authority

DACA31-94-D-0064 ix Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (Continued)

LXM Long-Term Monitoring MDE Maryland Department of the Environment MITC Military Intelligence Training Center msl mean sea level NA Not Available N/A Not Applicable NCO Non-Commissioned Officer NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFA No Further Action NFRAP No Further Response Action Planned NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priorities List NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission O&M Operations and Maintenance OE Ordnance and Explosives OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OU Operable Unit PA Preliminary Assessment PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PCE Tetrachloroethene PMDC Pen Mar Development Corporation PP Proposed Plan PX Post Exchange RA Remedial Action RAB Restoration Advisory Board RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RD Remedial Design Rl Remedial Investigation ROD Record of Decision SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SB Subsurface Soil SD Sediment SI Site Investigation SS Surface Soil SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compound SW Surface Water TBD To-Be-Determined TCE Trichloroethene TRC Technical Review Committee TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TSDF Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility U.S United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACHPPM U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine USAEC U.S. Army Environmental Center USAEHA U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency USAISEC-CONUS... U.S. Army Information Systems Engineering Command - Continental United States USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency UST Underground Storage Tank UXO Unexploded Ordnance VOC Volatile Organic Compound WWII World War II XRF X-Ray Fluorescence

DACA31-94-D-0064 x Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

Fort Ritchie Army Garrison is a 631-acre active military communications center approved for closure under the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act of 1995. The official closure date for Fort Ritchie is October 1, 1998.

The purpose of this BRAC Cleanup Plan (BCP) is to: 1) summarize the current status of the Fort Ritchie Army Garrison environmental restoration and associated environmental compliance programs, 2) present the status of the Fort Ritchie disposal and reuse plan (redevelopment plan); and 3) present a comprehensive strategy for implementing response actions in support of installation closure, necessary to protect human health and the environment. The strategy integrates activities performed under both the environmental restoration program and the associated environmental compliance programs to support full restoration of the facility. The BCP is a dynamic document designed to be updated regularly to incorporate newly obtained information and to reflect the completion or change in status of any remedial actions (RAs). The Version I BCP for Fort Ritchie was prepared in September 1996; this Version II BCP was prepared with information available as of March 1998.

This BCP is a planning document. Information, schedules, and RAs presented in this BCP do not necessarily represent those that have been or will be approved by the United States (U.S.) Army or Federal and State regulatory agencies. It was necessary to make certain assumptions and interpretations to develop this document. As additional information becomes available, implementation programs and cost estimates could be dramatically altered.

1.1 BCP ORGANIZATION

The BCP is organized into seven sections:

• Section 1 - Introduction and Summary: describes the objectives of the environmental restoration program, explains the purpose of the BCP, introduces the Project Team formed to manage the program, and provides a brief history of the installation.

• Section 2 - Property Disposal and Reuse Plan: summarizes the current status of the Fort Ritchie property disposal planning process and describes the relationship of the disposal process with other environmental programs.

• Section 3 - Installation-Wide Environmental Program Status: summarizes the current status and past history of the Fort Ritchie environmental restoration program, associated environmental compliance programs, community relations activities, and the environmental condition of the installation property.

• Section 4 - Installation-Wide Strategy for Environmental Restoration: describes the installation-wide strategy for environmental restoration, including the strategies for dealing with each area requiring environmental evaluation (AREE) on the installation. This chapter also includes plans for managing underground tanks via the Underground Storage Tank (UST) program, and summarizes plans for managing responses under other compliance programs.

• Section 5 - Environmental Program Master Schedules: provides master schedules of planned and anticipated activities to be performed throughout the duration of the environmental restoration program, including associated compliance activities.

• Section 6 - Technical and Other Issues to be Resolved: describes specific technical and/or administrative issues to be resolved and presents a strategy for resolving these issues.

• Section 7 - References: provides a list of the references utilized in the preparation of the BCP.

DACA31-94-D-0064 1-1 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document

Section 1.0 Introduction and Summary

In addition to the main text, the following appendices are included in this document:

• Appendix A - Fiscal Year Funding Requirements/Costs: Tables presenting projected funding requirements, as well as a summary table of past costs for the environmental restoration program;

• Appendix B - Installation Environmental Restoration Documents Summary Tables: Listing of previous environmental restoration program deliverables by program and by site, as well as technical documents and data loading summaries;

• Appendix C - Decision Documents/ROD Summaries: Summaries of decision documents (DDs) for which an RA was selected;

• Appendix D - NFRAP Summaries: Summaries of each DD for each AREE for which a no further response action planned (NFRAP) decision has been made;

• Appendix E - Conceptual Model Data: Working conceptual models for AREEs; and

• Appendix F - Ancillary BCP Materials: Other ancillary materials relevant to the BCP.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the base closure environmental restoration program at Fort Ritchie are as follows:

Protect human health and the environment;

Strive to meet reuse goals established by the U.S. Army and the community;

Comply with existing statutes and regulations;

Conduct all environmental restoration activities in a manner consistent with Section 120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA);

Meet Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) deadlines as detailed in Chapter 5 of this BCP;

Conduct an Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) and prepare a Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) Letter Report;

Continue efforts to identify all potentially contaminated areas;

Incorporate any new sites into the FFA as appropriate;

Establish priorities for environmental restoration and restoration-related compliance activities (so that property disposal and reuse goals can be met);

Initiate selected removal actions to control, eliminate, or reduce the risks to manageable levels;

Identify and map the environmental condition of the installation property, concurrent with remedial investigation (Rl) efforts; consider future land use when characterizing risks associated with releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, or hazardous wastes;

Identify and map areas suitable for transfer by deed and areas unsuitable for transfer by deed;

Complete investigations as soon as practicable for each AREE in an order of priority which takes into account both environmental concerns and redevelopment plans;

Develop, screen, and select RAs that reduce risks in a manner consistent with statutory requirements;

Commence RAs for (1) environmental and (2) property disposal and reuse priority areas as soon as practicable;

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998

1-2 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II

Final Document


• Advise the real estate arm of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) of properties that are deemed suitable for transfer and properties that are not suitable for transfer because they are either not properly evaluated or pose an unacceptable human health or environmental risk;

• Conduct long-term RAs for groundwater and any necessary 5-year reviews for wastes left on site; and

• Establish interim and long-term monitoring (LTM) plans for RAs as appropriate.

1.3 BCP PURPOSE, UPDATES, AND DISTRIBUTION

This BCP presents, in summary fashion, the status of Fort Ritchie's environmental restoration and compliance programs and the comprehensive strategy for environmental restoration and restoration- related compliance activities. It lays out the response action approach at the installation in support of installation closure. In addition, it defines the status of efforts to resolve technical issues so that continued progress and implementation of scheduled activities can occur. The Fort Ritchie BCP Strategy and Schedule section is designed to streamline the necessary response actions associated with the properties within Fort Ritchie in order to facilitate the earliest possible disposal and reuse of the properties. Risk assessment protocols incorporate future land use in exposure scenarios. The official closure date for Fort Ritchie is October 1,1998.

The Final Version I BCP was submitted in September 1996. This Version II BCP and all future updates of the BCP will be distributed to each member of the Fort Ritchie BRAC Project Team and to additional individuals identified in Table 1-1. The BCP will also be available at the BRAC Information Repositories listed in Table 1-1.

1.4 BRAC CLEANUP TEAM/PROJECT TEAM

The Fort Ritchie BRAC Cleanup Team (BCT) is comprised of three members: the BRAC Environmental Coordinator (BEC), a representative from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region III, and a representative from the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). The BCT is led by the BEC. The BCT is responsible for the management of the BCP process and the preparation of this BCP. Additionally, the BCT members will serve as the decision makers for the efforts of the Project Team.

The Project Team consists of the BCT and additional individuals whom the BCT selects to assist in the environmental restoration process at Fort Ritchie. The Project Team is also led by the BEC. Project Team meetings are the means of conducting periodic program reviews and reaching consensus on decisions with Federal and State regulators. The BCT members and their roles regarding this project are presented in Table 1-2.

1.5 INSTALLATION DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY

Fort Ritchie is a U.S. Army Garrison under the control of the U.S. Military District of Washington. Fort Ritchie provides and maintains operational support for the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) - Western Hemisphere; the Alternate Joint Communications Center/Site R (AJCC); Headquarters, U.S. Army Information Systems Engineering Command - Continental United States (USAISEC-CONUS); and the 1108th U.S. Army Signal Brigade. It provides specified administrative, logistical, information systems, and physical security support to attached or satellite activities in accordance with directions from higher authorities. The installation also maintains morale, welfare, and recreation programs. In 1996, Fort Ritchie had a combined military and civilian work force of approximately 2,300 personnel. In 1997, approximately 1,000 personnel were employed at Fort Ritchie and 281 personnel were living on post.

1.5.1 General Property Description

Fort Ritchie is located approximately one mile south of the Maryland/Pennsylvania border in Washington County, Maryland. It is situated near the upper end of a small valley at the foot of Quirauk Mountain, in the Catoctin Range of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The installation consists of approximately 631 acres. Slightly more than half of the property is developed. Administrative buildings, maintenance facilities, community

DACA31-94-D-0064 1"3 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document


facilities, and housing areas are concentrated in the central and northeastern portions of the installation around Lake Royer and Lake Wastler. Undeveloped areas are heavily wooded, with freshwater streams and wetlands, and are concentrated in the southern and western portions of the installation. Figure 1-1 shows the general location of Fort Ritchie Army Garrison.

Table 1-1. Fort Ritchie BCP Distribution List.

Name Title Address

Bill Hofmann BRAC Environmental Coordinator U.S. Army Garrison Fort Ritchie ANRT-BRAC 152 Barrick Avenue Fort Ritchie, MD 21719

Harry Harbold Project Manager USEPA (3HW50) 841 Chestnut Building Philadelphia, PA 19107

Wendy Noe Project Manager MDE 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, MD 21224

Alan Freed Project Manager USAEC (SFIM-AEC-RPO) Building E4480, Edgewood Area Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010

Kelly Koontz Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District ATTN: CEMAB-PP-E P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore, MD 21203-1715

Charlotte Rodriguez Project Manager U.S. Military District of Washington Fort Lesley J. McNair ATTN: ANEN-ES Building 42 Washington, D.C. 20319-5050

Theresa Persick Project Manager HQDA, DAIM-FDP-B ASCIM, 600 Army Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20310-0600

Summit Plaza Free Library BRAC Information Repository Blue Ridge Summit, PA

Washington County Free Library BRAC Information Repository 100 S.Potomac Street Hagerstown, MD

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


Table 1-2. Current BCT and Project Team Members

Name Title Organization Phone Role/ Responsibility

Bill Hofmann BRAC Environmental Coordinator

Fort Ritchie Army Garrison

(717)878-5234 Project Management and Oversight

Harry Harbold Project Manager USEPA (215)566-3203 Project Oversight

Wendy Noe Project Manager MDE (410)631-3440 Project Oversight

Other Key Participants

Alan Freed Project Manager USAEC (410)671-1626 Contract Management and Oversight

Kelly Koontz Project Manager USACE (410)962-6804 Contract Management and Oversight

Sanjib Chaki Contracting Officer's Representative (COR)

USACE (410)962-2252 Contract Management and Oversight - Site Investigation

Contractor

Tim Longe Project Manager ICF Kaiser Engineers

(410)612-6368; Fax:612-6351

Technical Support EBS and BCP

Mike Ervine Project Manager ICF Kaiser Engineers

(410)612-6332; Fax:612-6351

Technical Support Site Investigation

1.5.2 History of Installation

The present site of Fort Ritchie was first developed as a resort community in the late 1800s. Lower Lake Royer was constructed by the Buena Vista Ice Company to provide a summer recreational area and to produce ice during the winter. Residential buildings and ice storage facilities were also constructed during this time but have since been demolished.

Five hundred eighty (580) acres of the site were purchased by the State of Maryland in 1926. Camp Ritchie was established on the property and was utilized as a brigade training area for the Maryland Army National Guard. The first permanent buildings were constructed on the installation during this time. These buildings were mainly constructed of stone and timber resources acquired from surrounding locales, and most remain standing at this time.

During World War II (WWII), Camp Ritchie was leased by the U.S. Army and utilized as the War Department Military Intelligence Training Center (MITC). The Army constructed 165 buildings on the installation during the WWII era to provide housing and training areas; most of these WWII era buildings are still standing. A total of 20,000 intelligence troops were housed and trained at Camp Ritchie between 1942 and 1945. Some of the training activities included firing of ordnance into the hillsides in the western section of the installation. Thus, much of the wooded portions of the post are impact areas, potentially containing unexploded ordnance (UXO). Acquisition of additional adjacent acreage increased the installation size from 580 to 637.57 acres by 1988. A property acquisition summary is provided in Table 1-3 (USACE, 1993b). On August 18, 1993, 6.36 acres were transferred to the Washington County Sanitary District.

In 1945, the MITC was deactivated, and the State of Maryland re-instituted Camp Ritchie as a National Guard Training Station. In 1948, the Army again acquired control of Fort Ritchie for the purpose of providing

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998 •


Final Document


Table 1-3. Property Acquisition Summary

Tract Number

Previous Land Owner

Acreage Acquisition

Date Fee

Land Easement Land

A Camp Ritchie N/A 0.31, Easement for 6" Water Line, Right- of-Way, and Well Sites

9/25/50

A-100-1 State of Maryland 631.52 N/A 9/13/51

A-100-2 State of Maryland 2.74 N/A 9/13/51

A-100-E-3 State of Maryland N/A 0.57, Perpetual Easement for Water Line and Road Right-of-Way

9/13/51

A-101 L Washington County N/A No Area, License for 6" Water Line 3/11/52

A-102L The Potomac Edison Company

N/A No Area, License for 6" Water Line 2/14/52

A-103-1 Western Maryland Railway Company

N/A No Area, Lease for Artesian Well Site 4/1/52


N/A No Area, Lease for 12" Water Line and 12" Sewer Line

4/1/52


N/A No Area, Lease for 6" Water Line, 4" Conduit, and 10" Outfall Sewer

4/1/52

104 The Aaron Straus & Lillie Straus Foundation, Inc.

0.95 N/A 5/18/65

105 The Aaron Straus & Lillie Straus Foundation, Inc.

0.44 N/A 5/18/65

106 E Great Rock Forest Corporation

N/A 0.33, Perpetual Easement for Roads and Utilities Right-of-Way

6/15/66

107 E Calvin G. Pryor, Sr. N/A 0.12, Perpetual Easement for Roads and Utilities Right-of-Way

6/13/66

108 E G. M. McAfee et ux N/A 0.13, Perpetual Easement for Roads and Utilities Right-of-Way

6/14/66

140 E The Potomac Edison Company

N/A 0.46, Perpetual Easement for Water Line 7/21/88

N/A = Not Applicable Source: USACE, 1993b

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


support for the AJCC located at Site R (USACE, 1993a). Support of the AJCC has been the primary mission of Fort Ritchie since the mid-1950s. Additionally, Fort Ritchie provides housing and morale support to Camp David and to the Naval Support Facility in Thurmont, Maryland. Finance and accounting services for the White House Communications Agency, Military Traffic Management Command, and other designated subordinate activities are conducted on the installation. Fort Ritchie is also the lead Federal agency supporting the City of Hagerstown, Maryland, Cooperative Administrative Support Unit initiative.

1.5.3 Tenants

Currently, three tenant agencies operate at Fort Ritchie at a significant level. In general, all of the activities of these tenants are administrative or communications related, and there are no major activities that involve hazardous materials. These agencies and their primary missions are listed in Table 1-4.

Table 1-4. Current Significant On-Post Tenants at Fort Ritchie

Tenant M ission/Operation

1108th U.S. Army Signal Brigade, Headquarters

Evaluate information systems; develop and conduct testing strategies and methodologies for information systems for the Army's long-range communications plans

U.S. Army Information Systems Engineering Command - Continental United States (USAISEC-CONUS), Headquarters

Engineer, install, and test information systems equipment and facilities within the continental United States, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and Panama

Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)

Provide information products and services to the Department of Defense (DoD)

1.5.4 Environmental Setting

This section provides a brief description of the environmental setting at Fort Ritchie including topography, geology, hydrogeology, and surface water hydrology.

1.5.4.1 Topography

Fort Ritchie lies within the Blue Ridge District of the Appalachian physiographic province. This district is approximately 3 miles wide and consists of Catoctin and South Mountains and their intervening valleys. Elevations within the Blue Ridge District reach a maximum of 2,145 feet at the peak of Quirauk Mountain.

The terrain is steep and stony on the western (undeveloped) portion of Fort Ritchie and relatively level on the eastern (developed) portion of the installation. Elevations range from 2,050 feet above mean sea level (msl) along the western border of the property to approximately 1,320 feet above msl near the facility's two lakes. The western and southern areas of the installation are rocky, woodland areas (USACE, 1993a).

1.5.4.2 Geology

The soils in the Fort Ritchie area are mainly upland soils, which developed in place from materials weathered from the underlying rock. The Dekalb-Leetonia-Edgemont-Laidig soil association dominates the Fort Ritchie area. This is a shallow soil which extends to bedrock and consists of very stony, moderately coarse-textured to medium-textured soils. Parent materials for these soils are mainly sandstones and quartzites. These soils are strongly to very strongly acidic and are generally nonproductive for agricultural purposes (Slaughter, 1962).

The Catoctin rock formation was formed during the late Precambrian era through volcanic activity that occurred in northern and central Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and eastern West Virginia. The Catoctin

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998

Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II

Final Document


Metabasalt is composed of metamorphosed volcanic greenstone, purple slate, and tufaceous rock. This formation is underlain by highly metamorphosed Precambrian granite gneiss and metabasalt, and metamorphosed Cambrian shale and sandstone.

Outcrops of the Catoctin Metabasalt are found within the Fort Ritchie installation. Quartzite outcrops can also be observed on the installation, primarily in the undeveloped western portions of the post. The thickness of the Catoctin Metabasalt and the Precambrian basement rocks ranges over 1,000 feet in Washington County (Slaughter, 1962). The geology in the Fort Ritchie vicinity is characterized by asymmetrical folds and fractures. Rock deformation is greatest along the west flank of South Mountain, where complex fracture systems now exist. Rock cleavage patterns in the immediate area are often at angles to the bedding planes. There are no known or inferred geologic faults in the vicinity of Fort Ritchie. There is no evidence of subsidence, though solution cavities are known to exist.

1.5.4.3 Hydroqeoloqy

The extent and distribution of the fracture within the Catoctin formation, as well as the rock cleavage patterns, strongly influence groundwater movement The Precambrian metabasalt, which underlies the Catoctin formation, is characterized by a low water storage capacity. In general, productive wells in this water province yield 40 to 50 gallons per minute (gpm). The most productive wells in the Catoctin formation, as well as the rock cleavage patterns, strongly influence groundwater movement (Slaughter, 1962). The surficial aquifer at Fort Ritchie is less than 5 feet below the ground surface in some areas. Springs are commonly found on the installation, emerging at points between weathered and fresh strata.

1.5.4.4 Surface Water Hydrology

Fort Ritchie is located within the Potomac River watershed, which constitutes a major tributary to the Chesapeake Bay. Small springs and groundwater seeps are common along the slopes and at the bases of the mountains which surround the installation. The surface water runoff from the post and surrounding area flows into channels, ditches, and culverts at the installation, and collects in Lake Royer and Lake Wastler. These lakes have a combined holding capacity of 79 million gallons of water. Lake Wastler is at a higher elevation and discharges into Lake Royer. Lake Royer discharges into the South Fork of Falls Creek, which flows northwest into Pennsylvania (USACE, 1993a).

Falls Creek empties into the east branch of Antietam Creek, which turns south and reenters Maryland. Antietam Creek is the largest freshwater stream in the Fort Ritchie area, with a watershed of approximately 187 square miles. Monthly discharge records for Antietam over a three-year period, collected near Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, indicated an average flow of 1.14 to 1.59 cubic feet per second per square mile (USACE, 1993a).

There is one major complex of wetlands on the installation. This wetland complex consists of the areas immediately adjacent to the freshwater stream which drains into and feeds Lake Royer. Other isolated palustrine wetlands occur throughout the wooded portions of the installation downgradient of numerous unmapped springs.

1.5.4.5 Hazardous Substances and Waste Management Practices

Fort Ritchie is classified as a small quantity hazardous waste generator, USEPA identification number MD8210020758 (USACE, 1993a). Permitted activities at Fort Ritchie that are regulated under the provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) include storage and use of hazardous substances, and generation, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes.

Hazardous substances used at Fort Ritchie include solvents, petroleum products, flammable liquids, herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides. Hazardous substances are stored and/or used in approximately 26 buildings throughout the installation. As a small quantity generator, Fort Ritchie is not permitted to store hazardous wastes for long-term periods. Management of hazardous substances at Fort Ritchie has historically focused on utilizing as much of the hazardous item as possible, then transporting unusable or unwanted portions to an off-site treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF). Table 1-5 outlines the current hazardous waste generating activities at Fort Ritchie.



Table 1-6 identifies the historical hazardous substance activities conducted at Fort Ritchie by type of operation. Figure 1-2 identifies the current location of USTs and above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) at Fort Ritchie. Figure 1-3 identifies the various locations where historical hazardous substance activities have occurred.

1.6 OFF-POST PROPERTIES

There are currently no off-post properties owned by Fort Ritchie. Although Fort Ritchie does not own any off-post property, Fort Ritchie provides support to three off-post properties that are operated by the AJCC (Site R, Site C, and Site D). Site R and Site D are owned by AJCC and Site C is leased land. Site R is an underground communication facility in southern Adams County, Pennsylvania. Site C is a microwave terminal and relay station adjacent to Fort Ritchie on Quirank Mountain, and Site D is a microwave relay station in Damascus, Maryland. These properties are not part of the Fort Ritchie property to be closed under the BRAC program and will only be discussed further in this document in terms of tenant operations.

1.7 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

Fort Ritchie is located in a mountainous area within a rural-residential setting in the southwest corner of the town of Cascade in Washington County. Three other small townships, Highfield, Pennersville, and Blue Ridge Summit, are located within 1 mile northeast of the installation. Cascade is an older retirement resort area with no industrial activities and limited commercial activities. Single-family homes are situated along Ritchie Road on the southwestern border of the installation. Several parks and natural areas are in close proximity to the installation, including South Mountain State Park, Catoctin Mountain National Park, Cunningham Falls State Park, and Michaux State Park in Pennsylvania. Figure 1-4 shows the surrounding land use for Fort Ritchie.

Washington County contains nine municipalities and had a total population of 85,948 in 1995. The total population of the county is expected to approach 100,000 by the year 2020 (Economic Development Commission, 1995). The largest population center in Washington County, approximately 20 miles southwest of Fort Ritchie, is the city of Hagerstown with a population of 35,445 residents in 1995.


i- CO

c E ■B £ o 3

Q W W T3

C CO

c g

o

O

DC r o u.

o < O) c

"■S3

(0 k. 0 c si (0 1-

c o

"35 o a (0

c IT o >4

2 •£ "° S DC 3 a> o O ^

.2 "C

<D 0) re

o

E «a

>

|> "«3 u <

_ c

xi

re 2 OjB

05 CD CO

CO" CO

"o J2 03 0 0 0 0 §

«So N 3 -a

J N

■B -9 x gS ™ E to c co "T £== E 3 g> = 0 .> ,_

Si CD _>

«»-:§ CO CO =1

W" TO"92 ■a °?xi ■5-| £ — « c CD c « > Osg CO ü *-_ e -a to O 3 0

XI

oje

a

05 oo

CO

en c

3 ''S I S

,„"-'£ i2 03 co ■r? CD ~jj

o Ü

co ffl

0 >

"55 ä .=

0 0

-0 XI 03

CO

O 12 •- O £ 0 o 0 X

P 0"^ ■§.-■£ g

£8 TO Q- If O XJ Ü O z <° CO a)

en D) o IS o t

CL ü

* g ffl o o ~ O co" -c 0

§"1 o -a

-£. <° Q. o

co-'c

.§ en 0 c *s 0 0 0) XI CO

x> 0 0 CO

O 0 C"

:> DC 6 Q

m

co

en >> CD -

~ (D 0 0 (1) 8 I--5 & k_ c Cl> "i^a 8 O ti 0 m 0 o oi" F - a. 0

j= c 0 0 T1 0

r XJ 'fl

O 0 C0TJ Ü CO 0 'x

0 0

ffl 0 2 0> o „ 0 X! 0 ^•^ 0 >> 0 en CD ■H 1 SL C cii

.M , me

lOil

ami

ium

0 0

r <) 0 — 0 0 -p C r (O 0

0 0

"l_

0 *s 0

JD

T3 0 Ü

0 U_

0

0 0 C o Ä *- c *-r 0 c ^ 0 O Q.

O 0'

ol 0 x:

■o 8 g | «■^

2 E 0 =3

"0--Ö

0 _- 3 § co ^=

T3 O

■E'-S XTT?

0 c xi t

0 cc x . ^ CO

ü 2

ctl 0 — ^ 0

|| Q. 0

T3 0 0

X3 0 ^5 C

'E 0 C o Ü

Ö co

CO T3 c o Q- o o o o" co h-

•0 0 ü ^ . "o •;=; o o i- x; Q. CO

T3

0 CO

O^

D

co CX) CO

CD"

o 0 o i_ 0

n «0 03 03 CO 03 o -w CO c o 0 >-

t 0 0 0|

s'S ^~ T3

0 «

Is 0 CO

T> 0

0 03 0 "O .c 5 El B 0

8| "O c= 0 E 0 0

X Ü o 0.

X

E

o 03

03" 0

0 C o 1—

0 Q. O 0 > 0

XI

^2 o- 5^ co 0 03 "3 " 0 o —

^X!

_0 XI 0 E

_ E crj0

0 > ü 0 0 X a. 0 1- 03 O

o x Q_

tn "£ 0 > o 03 03 0 'c 0

jD 0 0 0

„ 1—

X C .2 fl) ■e o ^ c o o CO Ü

XI

0 CO

01

Q

03 o CN

03 0

0 X!

XI

0 c 0 > o 0 03 C

"0 0

JP. o

.52 _03 0-0 0 O 0 CD 3

'■S 0 £ S 0 03 0

r- -- tu ^ E «0 o xi 0 -2 - C 0 «

03

0

O o C 0

0 03

0 3 .

er ^ ffl o c: 03

■^=0 0 0 N § 0 0 >

O JC

c XI u w >. l— r

0

0

JO

0 0 x: 0 0

*= XI 0 >-

X) 0

u >>

.0 0

b 0 c " 0 0 N

CO CO '0 0

O -1—• O

C 0 0 x: 5 O

1_ C 01

ffl

CM OS CO

ffl

CO CO CD

ffl X

•c 0 o *=

co CO

■c o

££ m co co

ffl

££ CD CO CO

0 0

03 c 0

XJ c 0 _

o 0 •»= 0 0 x N Q.

■B CD

|ffl <-C -a 0 2 0 -c 0 o II 0 O a >>

O H

Q a.

— r D r a> tn 0 E O en O Cl) u

0 Q "D

C >

CO n m c- (3 c_ cu m j.

(- c ti a CO

CO (L ID n (r n

CD CO co

c CO CD

mo CD Ü <

rr rr m r 0

u_

^f CO 05 O) 05

no

ÜO.S < CO CO


Table 1-6. History of Installation Operations at Fort Ritchie

Period Type of Operation Hazardous Substance Activities Map Reference

1800S-1926 Buena Vista Ice Company ice generation

Unknown None

1926-1942 Maryland National Guard brigade training

Fuel storage and dispensing, ordnance/weapons training and disposal, waste disposal, incineration, construction

Installation-wide

1942-1945 War Department Military Intelligence Training Center (MITC)

Ordnance/weapons training, fuel storage/dispensing, waste disposal, incineration, construction

Installation-wide

1945-1948 National Guard Training Center Ordnance/weapons training and disposal, fuel storage and dispensing, waste disposal, incineration, construction

Installation-wide

1948- present

Administrative, logistical, information systems, housekeeping, physical security, and engineering support for tenant activities

Maintenance operations, incineration, hazardous material/hazardous waste use and storage, waste disposal, fuel storage and dispensing, wastewater treatment, construction

Installation-wide

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document

36

35

34

One Acre Grid Square Coordinate Locatiion: (3,35)

24

© 23

uare Dn: (3,35)

©

CASCADE,MÄR

jS

WELL NO. 8

WELL NO. 5

-O- 1002

WELL NO. 6

o -MO&

WELL NO. 7

JDARY ANCE ^o)-

TOI HIGHF1B.D

CÄSCÄDE7"MARYLAND

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10 1

9 ^

WZ Ro^

8 ®

10 T£&^

MAIN K/ ENTRANCE

CASCADE, MARYLAND

STATE ROUTE 550

TO mURMONT

Q J!

LAND

STATE ROUfe 550

TO Tmmuo^T § LEGEND:

%

PERMANENT BUILDING

SEMI-PERMANENT BUILDING

TEMPORARY/DEMOLISHED BL

ROADS, PARKING, ETC, PAV

= EARTH OR GRAVEL ROAD, T

— 1

BRAC PROPERTY BOUNDARY

USTs

ASTs

7on n

<g) U 7nn znn con

LEGEND:

SV

PERMANENT BUILDING


TEMPORARY/DEMOLISHED BUILDING

ROADS, PARKING, ETC, PAVED

= EARTH OR GRAVEL ROAD, TRAIL, ETC.


USTs

ASTs

T r\r\

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

1 6 7 8 9 IC

(g> IM

j i : !

i : : i :

it; ! i

! !

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

IS

9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 :

<g) \k

-+-

r 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4

17

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 5

1

! ■ 1 .

■ !

ENVIR i CONTRACT NO. DACAi

1 , i j

i !

^ ICF KAISER

40 41 42 43 PREPARED KDM T

CHECKED TL IC

DATE 03-24-98

■ ■

IS

300

SCALE

0 300 600

t8 49 50 51 52

US ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTEF

ACT NO. DACA31-94-D-0064 FIGURE 1-

21 13 EMMORTON PARK RD.

EDGEWOOD, MD. 21040 (410) 612-6350

FORT RITCHIE

:F KAISER LOCATION FUEL STORAC

:D KDM TASK NO: 66225 DISPENS > TL

03-24-98

ICF DWG NO:

FRBCP1-2

ACTIVITI (USTs AND

• ~-V-' • '-■ <:~ $> l<?

0 300 600 900

FEET

52

r

US ARMY »NMENTAL CENTER -94-D-0064

3 EMM0RT0N PARK RD.

;EWOOD, MD. 21040 0) 612-6350

NO: 66225

DWG NO:

3BCP1-2

FIGURE 1-2 FORT RITCHIE

LOCATION OF FUEL STORAGE AND

DISPENSING ACTIVITIES

(USTs AND ASTs)

3.0

■■ftTTV

r^;-*-!^-* I !

:Ö

pEE3i obj

^o°^Ä

i©

<5ä> s>a& *' • . /*Vf.* ^""^ gut*4*

\t-± SrP

;© J?V f -jfi* ** OB-

8ECONDAF: K BNTRANCI

. k^ (CLOSED)

CASC

V ;*> I ** •■ '

(5Vi.-l-.y- ;.CASTLE. DR..'

>:

-m+nr?

• ®F^:^-r"^^fi—w—- • -.-■ _ , frimm* 'y*7kr-MBMMIflBBMIinBI»n;n-"^^1>«li«iHMnnnttiiinB-r^--y^

"1 : '"^::^il^y-fe--; •• r.::.$■':. :;-■';;:: sr_ i^^m ,,, !..., ..-, u.rgSV

&£wö MAIN

ENTRANCE

m <\i :w^

life

SECONDARY ENTRANCE

'(CLOSED)

KOfiO- I

£55-

;■'•.

_r_

"®Mln

IZZI

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

, ,"'" " \" '"--ey - ■ i •

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34~35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

LEGEND:

PERMANENT BUILDING 0


DEMOLISHED BUILDING

■-.-:-~:-.-.: ROADS, PARKING. ETC, PAVED

-■--: "•:■:-.: EARTH OR GRAVEL ROAD, TRAIL, ETC.


0 ORDANANCE/WEAPONS, TRAINING, AND DISPOSAL

© -MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS

(B) INCINERATION

© HAZARDOUS MATERIAL/HAZARDOUS WASTE USE AND STORAGE

® WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS

SCALE

SOURCE: 1993 U.S. ARMY,

©

ENVIRC CONTRACT NO. DACA3

21

♦ ICF KAISER Et

PREPARED JNW

CHECKED JHH

DATE 1 -22-98

TAS

K ENTRANCE k^ (CLOSEO)

-;0 ■-!■■

.0 m HtSHFlELO

CASCADE. MARYLAND

s?«r «WTF 550 TO TMÜBMWfT '

■jr^-

32 33 34 36 38 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

IT BUILDING

MANENT BUILDING

:D BUILDING

*RKING. ETC, PAVED

GRAVEL ROAD. TRAIL, ETC.

PERTY BOUNDARY

"/WEAPONS. TRAINING. AND DISPOSAL

CE OPERATIONS

DN

i MATERIAL/HAZARDOUS WASTE USE AND STORAGE

'OSAL AREAS

800

52

1600

SCALE FEET

SOURCE: 1993 U.S. ARMY. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY MAP (EXISTING CONDITIONS)

US ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

CONTRACT NO. DACA31-94-D-0064

2113 EMMORTON PARK RD.

♦ ICF KAISER EDGEWOOD. MD. 21040 (410) 612-6350

PREPARED JNW

CHECKED JHH

DATE 1-22-98

TASK NO: 66225

ICF DWG NO:

FRBCP1-3


LOCATION OF PAST HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE

ACTIVITIES

£

K III H Z III O

a S|

o

I lit 1 uie

m CN CM CO CD

o o

fee

Ul

z o o

2.0 PROPERTY DISPOSAL AND REUSE PLAN

This chapter describes the status of the disposal planning process (redevelopment plan) for Fort Ritchie and the relationship between the disposal process and environmental programs at the installation. It also identifies property transfer methods being utilized or considered in the disposal process.

2.1 STATUS OF DISPOSAL AND REUSE (REDEVELOPMENT) PLAN

The Fort Ritchie Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) Executive Council, created by the Washington County Commissioners, has been tasked with the responsibility of developing a reuse plan that will provide an orderly transition of the installation personal property and facilities to uses that support local goals for economic and community development. The LRA Executive Council consists of local businesses and community leaders which ensure community involvement.

In 1996, the LRA established a conceptual redevelopment plan as a vehicle to provide overall guidance toward achieving the following goals:

1. Replacing job losses caused by installation closure;

2. Providing the first step toward long-term economic stability for the area; and

3. Focusing on broadening the tax base in Washington County.

The objective of this plan is to focus on broad generic areas of reuse that will be refined and reviewed in detail throughout the redevelopment process. The conceptual redevelopment plan is shown in Figure 2-1. This plan has allowed the LRA to move forward on the long range strategic plan while ensuring that near term tactical opportunities that fit within overall broad based long-term objectives, have not been lost.

The LRA recently (1997) prepared a Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan for Fort Ritchie. As part of this process, an analysis of the physical assets of the existing facility and market opportunities, has been conducted. Based upon this analysis, the property has been divided into four districts: the Original Core, Central Flats, North Slope, and Valley Edge. These four districts have been further divided into 17 parcels as represented in Figure 2-2 and Table 2-1. Five potential land uses were considered: industrial, office, conference and training, retail, and residential (LRA, 1997).

Alternatives were developed and further evaluated based on the following criteria:

1. Economic benefit to the community in terms of new jobs and property taxes;

2. Amount of capital investment required to prepare the site and buildings; and

3. Net revenues that would accrue.

As a result of this evaluation, the preferred plan proposes the development of a high technology office/R&D, corporate conference and training campus to be called the Lakeside Corporate Center at Pen Mar. The 20 year and long-term plans are presented as Figures 2-3 and 2-4. Further detail is available in the LRA's Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan (LRA, 1997). The Strategic Planning Committee will continue the process of reviewing community input, the needs of the homeless, and the greater needs of economic development to offset the impact of Fort Ritchie closure.

2.2 RELATIONSHIP TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

Disposal and reuse activities at Fort Ritchie are intimately linked to environmental investigations, restoration, and compliance activities for two basic reasons:

• Federal property transfers to nonfederal parties are governed by CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(B)(i);and

• Residual contamination may remain on certain properties after RAs have been completed or put into place, thereby restricting the future use of those properties.

DACA31-94-D-0064 2"1 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 F'nal Document

Q_

upuj

co i_u Q_ h- CJ) 3 ccgiu O <=> > UL CJ LU

CD UJ

>- DC <C CD

ZD O ca

or Q_

co

oc

>- oc -a: o

o 03

Q CO CC 1— o ZQ |— s cc UJ <C CC =D CD O o o <r w cc u_ CJ cc

cc CD

>- CD O

._ UJ LU

«lie! g CC H- LU £ l_ •* a

5igiSs3 — ° — _ UJ

a [C 2 o I— — UJ uj _j a g <t CC CC Q_ UJ 5 s

m

o i—i DU

<$=

< o

V) o TQ

o ot CM P-2

o o

ia: <2<

o CM

O UJQ O IO i-z * >z mz o Q< UJ-1

o o go. 1

££ LUZ o <zr> o D-O o

5= eg D ' ■£ K CM

u • ? Ml

ill* 5 s- » • « — ft* o-

5 B Q S u. I

o r CM CO

c O- Ü (1)

to C) n CD 0)

CO OC

3 (/} (0 +* (0 Q "3 u k. (0 Q. d) w 3 Q)

OC

CM

a n m H

E ©

"5

cc

Ü Q

ü Q

CL

Ü Q

0.

O Q

0.

O Q

0.

O Q

a.

o Q

Q.

O Q

0.

Ü a

Q.

Tra

nsf

er

Mec

han

ism

o Q LLI

Ü D 111

o Q LU

o D LU

Ü Q UJ

o Q LU

Ü Q LU

O Q LU

Ü Q LU

Pro

ject

ed

Tra

nsf

er

Dat

e

CO CD -•—' o

O

00 CJ)

O

O

CO

CJ

O

co

o O

CO

-♦—• ü

O

co

Ü o

oo o o O

00 0)

Ü O

CO

O

O

Kno

wn

Site

s0

> >

> > > 0

c o

> > >

to 3 <D <r ■a o> (0 o Q. O &. Q.

■D C <

o

a. ™ u (0 V O

|.i Is O 3 D. n

0

1 1> .9 'E

b aj .".=B So

■t—»

</>

I§ .9 to

as ^ | CO

CO c g

"+-• T3 T3

CO

O -z.

1 >• 'c

co "c; D> o .£ Q. -O O-

1° CD c

0 E

O) Q. c o to S> X 0

LU -D

l

u? . co CD

Q. CO

§ ©

§° TJ C

0 co

Q..E CO c"

o

o .£5

Eg O O Q 0.

>- 0

■IS r° E2 o c o O

>_ <2 cö

Ü § S

8 « ro ° to

CO o 0

1°- Ü E 1 £ O CO 0 ü .©'S

~ o

x"8 "

o-g

°l ü CO

t Ü 0 C

■a 3

O cö Q. 0

0 ^ 1 3 -C

CO 3 9-

E to o

X 0 E

o) o) Q- c c o "K '-J3 0 CO CO > ,>< X 0 LU 0 -O

o

0.

Q CO 1-

Q CD H

Q CO

a CO H

Q CO 1-

a «0 0)

u <

5 CO

2 o

co 1^;

co

LO CD

d

o co co T—

o

PA

RC

E

LA

- CM CO ■* co 1^- in OJ CO

o ™ «0

Q

CO ^

öcSslo

CO ^-~

t£ c3

OLLS co

CO co O Q. CO

0

CO

T3 C CO

0 CO 3

CO co

,_ ■o CO c _)

0

3 CO

en

o X3 1_

a c CO LL 'c CO

c o

N CO

tz o

CO 1»

to c CO CO 5 c ni Cl> o (0

o Q. CO

CL o

4—* CO

F 0 IN ^ O CO

■ ■ r 3

0 CI) CO o Ü r TJ

*!Li c ni CO CO

c ■a

O

•4—•

N c

o

CO CO X

II c n II

>

0 Ü c CO

0 > c o O

c o to o a. l.

o O +-'

0

C 0

o.t5 E ^ 0 Q. 0 LL O

|£.§ Q co 0

.y g-e E w cö 2 co 2 C CO o o c

LU CD 0-

■a 0

o) E § 0

LU i ♦- CO co , O O 0- H

O O LL Q Q

LU CD a. a. H

0

c CO

ü

ü 0

CO

0

CO

CO _0

CO

C 3 o

XI

"0 o L_

CO a. 0 CO

0 k.

0

0 > ^. co t: c S CD O) x: T- 0 j-

IS ü ^

CO CO

< E 5| 0 CO 1c 0 o > .■t; *= CL =

o ■c 0 O X

LL LU

® C

C CL

0 (D S E — Q. CO O si 0 XJ o 0 <ir

CD *_, c:

3 r CD CO o

o 'co

fc 3

U (1) Ü o a r

> cfl n m r o c CD m u. t- r c a> CO

en CL cu n II 3 CD (0 m

L CO CD

mu CD

Ü < rr

et m r o U-

t CD O O

D •3- m o) en Ol

T- IT) CO o

en

< CO -C () n < CO CO a w S

c ' O <D

05 CC

ID Q. O

■o 0) 3 C

'■3 c o o ? (0 E E 3 (/) (0

<+* «J Q "5 u ^ re a a> (A 3 v

DC

CM

re I-

4rf c .2 "5. o a>

CC

Ü Q

CL

Ü D

0L

O Q

Q.

Ü 0

CL

O Q

CL

© .«2

c « 2 o

Ü Q LU

Ü Q LU

Ü D LU

Ü Q LU

O D LU

Pro

ject

ed

Tra

nsf

er

Dat

e

co CT> o O

co

■+—»

Ü O T—

CO

CJ

O

co CT> O O

CO 0

0

0

o o> c •-

> > >

— —

0) 0) 3 0)

CC

■o 0> (0 o Q. O L.

Q. ■o C < c o

"■3 D. "C o (0 0) Q

.is re .2

CD to CC

1 re . g? c

■5 « g. -Q o U. ?0 c/1 ■— > ol-S §-§ o

*= CD 2 CO O X — (v.*

LU O LO

re E re

2 1.2 l S

co re TO.©_ c s o

3 £ CO -D Ü

u- & s CO > o

CD O -i- O ,_

o *- re CM X)

O TO c E • .E .2 E 'S*

iss«

<D~-^

S ° re •5 ■£ co CO O c

c-2 3iT .£ CD -Q Trt

= CD CD

U- ,. co 0 CO O c - CDx> r-

0 «""S £ « re CM C X5 T- O O

.E > -§. E ~üEU X 3 0 0

LU co 0 re

•0 c g CD re S 5 £c

"§ .E ° CO XI

©'5 tk .Q -Q CO

c° ^ 0 00 CD 05 2 O 3 0_

1 S3 -53 © CD -r-j -I-'

« S-0

-~ © £ ^i

§ © I g 0 XJ ore re »_ 0 0. > 0 re co

0 ro

"*" "D

•j§ « © i2 0-2

°- D) 1 .E

CO CO 3 XI 0 0 x: 0 5 CM in

© JS CL CO O ^ ■

C © T3 CD CO C C 3

C 0J 3 'in > u 3 £ —

■? © R>

>>

o

Q.

Q m

D CD 1-

Q CO H

Q m

Q CO

JO V) tt)

o <

o q CT> CO

CO

LD iS cö So

PA

RC

E

LA

CO o> 0 - 0

rt- T-

4-i o

5 x: © "to" ■CD. CD

Z co £2- re

0 O) m 0 CO

T) c re CD CO

re 3 CO 0 CD Q. CO co re

CO ■0 S ■0 CO c -J

CD re 0 3 O c m

LL C O

'c 're

CO c 0

N re sz

re c CO re 5 c m a) 0 0

CL ro

0. 0 re

F CD U) .5 0 CO

■ • r 3

©

CO

CD re O O c re c

■0

O

c X) re N

c

0

re 2

re I

11 c 11 II

>

(D O c re >. (D > c o Ü

CD

E

o

o a. i_ o ü c CD

O- CD E T3 O CD D CD (DLL O C

I s §1 Q re © CD

.0 tr0 © EW re9 O CO ^ CD c co ^ CO o o c , O •- CD O

LU CD CL I-

Ü O LL Q Q D co 2 CO LU CD CL 1-

CD TO c re .c o o ■♦-•

o CD

!rT 3 CO

re CO

.©

re c 3 o

re o. CD CO

CD

CD > _A

'co N- c £ CD CD

© J" •- <f

15 O ^ co re < E 5|

CD CO <D > o

a: r § o x LL LU

£ re .E 0- XJ c

CD 0

.2 E — O- co o © m

s: re 0 x:

2-D o © < CC

2= c 3 C 0) 0) o c O '5 3 «I 8

<D m u-

D) ro

ill- ID D.

OC 3

§j CO Ü

|o Sei CC CD t " O

in

s

Tf CO O) O) O)

< CO ro O LU 2

Fort Rifrdwe tooa«

® L5 J? 3;f »?K

<D

'. 4

äcrsrfo! Assocrares., In»:

I*.» O.WCI3COIII fr-s«

AiJ5clH>*er, fe*:

Comipwhiensfw

tteuse i Plcrr for

Fort Räteni«

(*>•

legend

I Iftwussd S»»sir*g ftw*ök»gs

■& Väcl»H*ler. kite.

Fort Ritchie Local Redevelopment Authority

© 0 150 300 600

Ü

äasaki Associates, Inc. Comprehensive

- Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Afschuler, Inc. Reuse Plan for

URS /Greiner, Inc. Fort Ritchie

Deloille ft Touch UP - Fantur Hl« Chesop«nk« Group f*\\ Wliiteford, Taylor % Prsston I.I.P \3bj Wasringtcn County, MI

Legend

■■ Raused Existing Buildings ■■ Potential New Buildings

v Inc.

>vite & Alschuler, inc.

Comprehensive

Reuse Plan for

Fort Ritchie

Pen Mar Technology &

Conference Center

Long Term Illustrative Plan

Fantur

Ion I.LP

FIGURE 2-4

February 21,1997 ©

Section 2.0 Property Disposal and Reuse Plan

A 1992 CERFA amendment to CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(B)(i) defines when "all RA has been taken" based on two conditions. First, the construction and installation of an approved remedial design must be complete. Second, the remedy must be demonstrated to the Administrator to be operating properly and successfully. The amendment further states that implementation of long-term pumping and treating, or operation and maintenance, after the remedy has been demonstrated to the regulatory agencies [MDE/USEPA] to be operating properly and successfully, does not preclude the transfer of the property. This deed requirement applies only to property on which a hazardous substance was stored for one year or more, or is known to have been disposed of or released. Thus, any required remedial and/or removal response actions must be selected and implemented for such contaminated properties before transfers to private parties can occur.

At Fort Ritchie, a non-National Priorities List (NPL) facility, the State is the lead regulatory authority and will be responsible for regulatory approval of the remedial design. The requirement for complying with CERCLA 120(h) and the possibility of residual contamination will be factored into the property disposal and reuse process at Fort Ritchie.

2.3 PROPERTY TRANSFER METHODS

The various property transfer methods being utilized or considered in the disposal process at Fort Ritchie are described in this section. Transfer methods which may not be currently applicable but which may be considered in future disposal planning actions at the installation have also been identified.

2.3.1 Federal Transfer of Property

Transfer actions between Federal agencies are not applicable at Fort Ritchie.

2.3.2 Economic Development Conveyance

The Fort Ritchie property will be transferred to the Pen Mar Development Corporation (PMDC) as an Economic Development Conveyance (EDC). This is a method of transferring real property to a LRA to help spur local economic development and job creation. An EDC may be with or without initial payment at the time of transfer, and may be at or below the estimated fair market value of the property.

2.3.3 Negotiated Sale

After transfer to the PMDC, a negotiated sale could take place at Fort Ritchie.

2.3.4 Competitive Public Sale

After transfer to the PMDC, competitive public sales could take place at Fort Ritchie.

2.3.5 Widening of Public Highways

There is no indication at this time that any property at Fort Ritchie will be transferred for the widening of public highways.

2.3.6 Donated Property

There is no indication at this time that any property at Fort Ritchie will be donated.

2.3.7 Interim Leases

Currently, the only interim lease at Fort Ritchie includes five buildings leased by the PMDC. The PMDC is responsible for subletting these buildings, including the space intended for the International Masonry Institute (IMI). After transfer of the Fort Ritchie property to the PMDC, all lease agreements and land negotiations will be conducted by the PMDC. Table 2-2 identifies the grantee, property/facility, effective date, and termination date of each current interim lease agreement.

2.3.8 Other Property Transfer Methods

There are no other property transfer methods identified for Fort Ritchie at this time.

DACA31-94-D-0064 2^8 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document

Section 2.0 Property Disposal and Reuse Plan

Table 2-2. Existing Legal Agreements/Interim Leases

Title of Interim Lease/Legal Agreement

Building Number/Areas Date of Agreement Reuse Parcels

PMDC 320, 321,& 322 June 9,1997 for a period of 5 years

4

PMDC 4, 500, & 601 October 1, 1997 for a period of 5 years

1.12.&6

PMDC Pen Mar Development Corporation

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document

3.0 INSTALLATION-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM STATUS

This section provides a summary of the current status of environmental restoration projects, installation- wide assessment activities, ongoing compliance activities, cultural and natural resources programs, and community involvement at Fort Ritchie. This section also describes the environmental condition and suitability for transfer of the property.

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM STATUS

The Environmental Management Division (EMD) of Fort Ritchie manages and coordinates all environmental programs on the installation. The goal of these environmental programs is to protect human health and the environment.

3.1.1 Restoration Sites

Limited restoration activities have occurred at Fort Ritchie. To date, restoration activities include removal of contaminated soil at the Former Skeet Shooting Range and the Post Exchange (PX) Auto Service Station. The status of early actions that have been taken at these sites are summarized in Table 3-1. The location of these sites are identified in Figure 3-1.

3.1.2 Installation-Wide Source Discovery and Assessment Status

An EBS of Fort Ritchie was conducted in 1995. The results of the survey are summarized in the EBS Report and the CERFA Letter Report (an appendix of the EBS Report). The final versions were issued in June 1996. The EBS Report summarizes the status of Fort Ritchie's environmental programs, and the CERFA Letter Report summarizes the areas that were identified in the EBS Report as requiring environmental evaluation. Additional information regarding the CERFA parcels is presented in Section 3.4. Table 3-2 lists the AREEs identified in the EBS as having potential sources of contamination.

In support of the BRAC environmental restoration program, an environmental Site Investigation (SI) was initiated in late 1996, to determine whether there have been releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants to the AREEs identified in the EBS. The results of the investigation will be used by the Army, in consultation with the regulators, to decide which areas or operable units (OUs) will proceed to cleanup action or will be removed from further investigation to allow for transfer and reuse. Figure 3-2 illustrates the 16 OUs identified for environmental investigation:

OU1 - Golf Course Maintenance Shop;

OU2 - Former Incinerator Area;

OU3 - Lake Royer and Lake Wastler;

OU4 - Motor Pool;

OU5 - Department of Public Works (DPW) Maintenance Equipment Area;

OU6 - Autocraft Shop;

OU7 - Abandoned Firing Ranges;

OU8 - PX Auto Service Station;

OU9 - Administration Building Area;

OU10 - Wise Road Disposal Area;

OU11 - Wetland Area;

OU12 - Former Hospital Area;

OU13 - Ordnance and Explosives/Unexploded Ordnance (OE/UXO) Impact Areas;

OU14 - Former Burn Area;

OU15 - Reservoir Road Disposal Area; and

OU16 - Electrical Substation.

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document

Section 3.0 Installation-Wide Environmental Program Status

Table 3-1. Environmental Restoration Early Action Status

Site Action Purpose Status

Former Skeet Shooting Range

Soil sampling of Armory site and adjacent property was conducted in 1992.

Determine presence of lead contamination

The approximate off- property horizontal extent of lead contamination has been determined. Additional sampling up to a radius of 950 feet from the range has been completed (USACHPPM, 1995).

Environmental Assessment (EA) for Armory construction was conducted in 1993.

Assess environmental impact of Armory construction

Soil sampling was conducted in 1995.

Determine extent of off- property lead contamination

PX Auto Service Station, Bldg 515

18-25 gallons of gasoline on soil surface was cleaned up with sorbents and leak was repaired in 1984.

Source removal Contaminated soil was removed in conjunction with UST replacement activities.

Hydrologie study was conducted in 1991.

Determine extent of soil and groundwater contamination

Contaminated soil was removed during UST replacement activities in 1992.

Remove residual contamination

Bldg Building EA Environmental Assessment PX Post Exchange UST Underground Storage Tank

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document

12345 678 9 10 11 12 13 14 15*16 17 IB 19 20 21 22 23 24

■«?■■■ ■A &•

V ?s* *

\'t

IfiLxO <> & 00

#: ^

&W

**%** M**^ ö

*&<

&: i"^f""i .0 ;a. ' !

"i:V; ~i\lr~" !.v :\v- 10 <£

>>V1 vî-Df- .|.-.'TO>£Ê

''S A* .«8«

r. t 'U *> ±

\ffA

m^;^ ■<$.*■ of»- I

"*# ff-r S- D 9:„0'

v.î .Jv* ' i

*§w<^ wfc -. ■0 ^

w >

ARSONNS I

S3

■..#.

E3' I CASTLE DR,.

/isit nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnw

fi-

D , g:^nnn nnnji n -ffTinnfürn nn &~e.M. ™|

ft * ■*■*"■>/ ■(«s"^

MtHUt,

Ip

;:C3 =?

~°l' ■<'•. eÜJi.

"|jCZ3 •- cafes a

BWF7U A\

urn (A m

1' KO 5$»-

1*1 ^w?

01' ;<** •«0*?.

o SECONDARY ENTRANCE

'(CLOSED) '

POST EXCHANGE SERVICE STATION

C£3

■C?

s SKEET RANGE-

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

LEGEND:

I !

wm

PERMANENT BUILDING


DEMOLISHED BUILDING


EARTH OR GRAVEL ROAD, TRAIL, ETC.


ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION EARLY ACTION

0 E

SOURCE: 1993

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

&

CONTRACT

♦ ICFKA

PREPARED JN\

CHECKED JHh

DATE 1-22-

SECONDARY

ID

*?:**• .'r\ TO HKHFia.l)'

CASCADE. MARYLAND

STATE ROUTE 550

TO ThVRÜÖKf •V

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

BUILDING

4ENT BUILDING

BUILDING

ING, ETC, PAVED

^AVEL ROAD, TRAIL, ETC.

*TY BOUNDARY

vL RESTORATION EARLY ACTION

800 1600

SCALE FEET

SOURCE: 1993 U.S. ARMY, ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY MAP (EXISTING CONDITIONS)




♦ ICF KAISER EDGEWOOD. MD. 21040 (410) 612-S350

PREPARED JNW

CHECKED JHH

DATE 1 -22-98

TASK NO: 66225

ICF DWG NO:

FRBCP3-1

FIGURE: 3-1 FORT RITCHIE

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

EARLY ACTION SITES

<3>

o CO

»I O

> C HI CD n

« c o

CO c E .E o 18 0. DC

(0 LU LU DC < O > (0

E E 3 (0 c

_o

to o o

«3 C

0)

a. ■

a n CO

H

(0

c ^ e il "53 •*■*

3 </) CD

DC

•c O a or

DC ■C

.2 (0

JSP w a> > c

75 c 0) E c 2 > c

111

CO

o

Is* o 3 OO

c CO

CO a) ü c as ao XI

CO

CO

o "2 CO N CO sz

CD CO CO 0

01 1_

0

2 ^ a. o •o ex co E Q3 3 CO 0

2 2 8 K CO CL

X

00 O a>

I

o CO 0

< o 8 CD

CO en

CO

o

° 2 OO

CO CD

o CO

0 CO c CO k_

0

73

8 S3 'ü o CO CO CO

CO o 'c CO co i_ o c:

0 co CO 0

c 0

o Q.

CO 0 CO c CO

DC

T3 0 C o

•o c CO

<

CO

o

I« o 3 OO

0

3 T3 0 C O ra

0 0 a. c

"2" 8 "a 5 c 0 co o jS 0 o, CO

B'S <" XI CO . 3 E n ^ a

o = S ■a 0--= g co c co ... o K m E 2 co c-

■= 2-b" o o 0 0 « 0

■a 0 " c a.—)

m « "Ö S,o <■>

o o E co Q.2

o co

32 CQ a. o x CO

2 o o 73 <

CO

o

o 3 OO

0 CO co 0 0 1—

ro v^ c 8 o Q. CO

= o ° -3 8^ 3 &- 5 E •a 3 c 0 CO o CO 4= 0 0 o ~ c CO T3

c CO CO

XI Z3 CO

CO Z3 o

T3

CO 0 Ü c CO

-4—'

CO X!

CO 3 N CO

CO

öl 0 CO

2 co fej=

CO

X

CO

0

0

E g.

':3 cr

UJ

C5 c: CO

CD

01 a r-- c ■

CO ro i> r^

5 CO CD

Q, u Q CÜ

CO

Ü

§5 oo

0 0

CO

CO c o

co ■a

o CO

co -y CO >

o CO

X < 0 G_ j:

■o O C CO 10 -o co" 52 g co c g CO c o £ b ro

o o

0 g ® C .- CO

« 0 "a

■s ;^. -s Ü CO 0 CO 0

CO 0 0 oo 0 D> CU Q5 « > cr £ .£

X

0 CO

0 a: 0 0 *L CO 1_

0 E

CO

o

■a _

OO

0 co 2H %™ 0 -j

8-b- o 0 c > 0 O

" I xi 0 73 '* «0 0 CO "d ZI 0

■8 « = E "o 0 ^ 0 NT3 = 0 0 .0 £=» *- Q. C O CO — 0 — J2 l§b § CD — >

0 § a| -^£^

111 ^ 0 c 5 0 0 ™ 0 _ &- a> 0) CD ü 2 *" 0 O ^ CL

co 0

X

in co

32 m

i

a. o sz

CO 0 Ü c 0 c 0

g 0

o O

CO

o 13

T3 c " o 3 OO

T3 0

Q. 0

Ü

t3 O i_

Q.

E 0 T-

"Ö 29 £1 C33

0 1-

Q. C

5 0 « CO CO "D 0 0

2.-Ö

CO CD

^.i CO X3

3$ ■§^' CO § N O

5 E

©■a co .55

| 0

CD 0 DC E

X

0

0

0

o cc 0 .*: 0

CO

3 ü 3

c £5 "2^ o =3 o => OO OO

T3 0

CL 0

O

T3 O

3 0 CO

"5 £5 £. CO

0 ^ Q. C

5 0 CO "O 0 0

CO CD

co -a

SS ■g-fa- ss N O

f I »1 CO «

$8 m 0

DC E

0

0

0 Q. a. 3

co 0

0

0

CO

0 co 0

ti 8 §g iS X3 W 0 XI = 3 a. 0 CO co JUT

ol ■0 0

0 ^

f §

_0 T3

0 — C

C CO 0 0

(D -0

2 0 0

0 0 £2 S1^ •= 0i-0

o T=> c

CO 0 o

X

o o r» CO

32 m

o o Q.

O

o

X) 0

c 0 0 XI

CO 0 x:

CO

UJ UJ DC < 0 co 0 X

CO 0 x:

c o

XI

0 o 2 "5, x

c 0 I- 0 CO 0 o

CO T3

0 C O P Q ■-

y 0 < CO c

O 0 " := (D

CO

a. co

0 ■o c 3

X H < _ CO D.C0D

a o

'to

0 > UJ

0

0

CM I

CO

0

CO u_

c o

■> c

UJ CO

o- 0 X 0 0

0 5 co £ §

■^ 3 X^ b co 0 50

Ü!

0 I— 0 CO

3

UJ UJ X <

XI 0 13 0 =. a. m O o J2 ~

S E o £ c xi * 2 ro 0 1-1- Q-> 0 0 c a. Q UJ O

5C0_, X CO => Q LU O

0 = r 3 c- CD 0) O 'en e O 0) 0

r > Q

CO n m r (1 c; <D m LL h r c rr 0!

m QL cu n [1 3

a tn m

c (0 a>

mu 0} 1c Ü <

ir nr m r 0 u.

CD O O

Q

^ CO (35 O) en

no < co-c O Q. H < en jo Q uj 2

o

c & .2 W " E

o.

c CD

E

> c

UJ a

■o

T3 V 3 C

"«3 c o o 0) uu UJ

< o ET (0 E E 3 to c

_o "•3 (0 u o _l

Er (0 c I V

Q.

■ CO 03 n ra I-

^ TJ

* (0

3

CO c c\T o T— O +3 13 X TJ

2 E

T— __ T—

o _ o"

5 UJ

CO CO 3 CO co r: Lo o CO CO ^_,

o 3

+_, *- 3 T- ^_. ■*~ ■*-•

relim

ii ec

omi Ü

1» o 3

o 3

§5 Bog o3? ° 2

o 3

° 2 a. oc ÜO OO ÜO O O co OO OO OO

a)

3

■o

cÊ

CD CO

0) CD

E^ 3 CD

® E o E

cÊ CJ CJ o

E Q)

13« -52 'I " ra S o 2 ca -c co "8 2

h it to 2

E-l 0 TO Ü: en

x: co" 5 o 5 Q. l^ra 11 CO T3 1? c EQ

2 CO CO £= o CD U. «1

(0

c "■5 c il

'»- o

co e-

jö cu

co »—

oj ra to to" F CD

to 5 CO CO

2 •*- o

Oüflj |ZE

CO co" o

° a

1^

ro co" E ^ C CJ

to iS ra f5

"«5 *■»

3 </> a>

OC

«2 'w E g>

co .£

5 a> co D.

3 "a O c 02 co re <° iü cu

CO CO

g o «"E — CO

3 2^ o _ ra o ra co Q- co cu P ° != £ Q. CO

to CO xi J5 3 S CO CL

CO^ 3 ^3 O CD

T3 ■^-'

5^ CO CO

ro"2 =5t CO o *3 0 o 0) N -= X) O) t- CO CD N

a u £ Ü CO 2 -a .£ CO CO & ra a> 2 c CO 03 .11 J=

»- CL _Q

°.!= CD

co 5 .<£ x: DC

ô p en c XI Exf -«= c £f

c o

F ^ § en a re o c J= O Q) it; 0.-0

M- "O o < . CO

E O X

° Ü o s #3 (0 .O) *3 (0 0> > c

75 4-» c a>

V) O) c

c

-Q--8 E * 3 CO

-„ co c ?, ■*= °

all

O) i- c o

E fc 3 C

•goo 0 Xl 3 01 3 "D 0 Ü £

CD O ^ co > -sz ra m CO a) g to CD 0) m

^-o E gra^ £2.-0 «

C CO

.2 :D ro ra ^^ II lö £ C_ Z3 rj

o 2 ra

c o 'o-to E CD 3 C "Do -° .£ CO CD — Hi t* c

UJ m uu

X X X X X X X

w CO CD

T— v- LO < c D) CO 1- *_*

o a o

T3

m ■

c

2 < 10

CO CD

<

a> "co

■a c 3 2 O

CJ CO a. E CO

CD 1—

w a> Q UJ

o CO

CO

(7) O D. CO

b

10 CO o Q.

CD O c co c

< 15 CO o

UJ cu CO T3 T3 CD-

DC <

o CO O

b T3

0) N 6 CO

CD

CO

b 0 CC CO £

"D CD

X3

i_ u CO L_ O o < CO

o 'o CC CO O TJ o 3 t CD CO Q. ra

"CD

CC < CD

CO 1c o o

X 0)

CD CO

X 0.

CD

cr a: 3 c 3 § 5

CO CD

CD .!=!

_ — c D C <D

o » i

c -°

a) m U- c £ D)J5 ^Q- tt> a.

^1 CD Ü

»Ü

«2 cr m r o IL

c r 3 CO

CD o CO (11

n X > m UJ r 0 (0 ni UL o O a. co

2x- O Q- CO

c o en 3 co >

LU *o >. co CO CD

i_

_c CD

F CO 0 CJ

c 0) Jt— CD en o c XI

CO CC SI

CO UJ

> c

UJ

c

0 CO CO

m re c

0 X3 CO Ü

Q. Q. <

0 co

.i-E co o CO ^

P "O t 0 III 3 0

OC < CD

CD

CC co 0

E c o -C

om

xplo

d

CO > C 0 CD r O o c x: <UIZZD

s

uj co - O O CC CD $ O X < UJ 2 Z 3

■*r co oi en en

no < W f. 1 < CO CO O LU .

m

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2?

©

44 45 46 47 48

SOURCE: IE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Si

CONTRACT

♦ ICFK

PREPARED Jf

CHECKED Jh

DATE 1 -21

UM-

LEGEND: 1

2

3

4

5

6 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE SHOP

INCINERATOR AREA

UKE ROYER AND LAKE WASTLER

MOTOR POOL

DPW MAINTENANCE EOUIPMENT AREA

AUTOCRAFT SHOP

ABANDONED RIFLE RANGES

BUILDING SIS PX SERVICE STATION

ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AREA

WISE ROAD DISPOSAL AREA

WETLAND AREA

FORMER HOSPITAL AREA

OE/UXO IMPACT AREA

FORMER BURN AREA

RESERVOIR ROAD WASTE DISPOSAL AREA

ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION

PERMANENT BUILDING


DEMOLISHED BUILDING

44 45 46 4? 48 49 50 51 52 SCALE

D

ROADS. PARKING. ETC. PAVED

EARTH OR GRAVEL ROAD. TRAIL. ETC.


GENERAL LOCATION OF OPERABLE UNIT

800 1600

FEET

7 38 39 40 41 42 43





♦ ICF KAISER EDGEWOOD. MD. 21040 (410) 612-6350

PREPARED JNW

CHECKED JHH

1-22-98

TASK NO! «6225

ICF DWG NO:

FRBCP3-2


FORT RITCHIE OPERABLE UNITS

&.


All of the OUs were identified for chemical sampling and analysis except for OU13, where an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) sampling program has been initiated. Due to the nature of the investigation work, OU13 is being addressed as a separate investigation.

Initial field activities were conducted at OUs 1 through 12 between October 1996 and January 1997. A baseline risk assessment was performed, based on the initial sampling data, to characterize the toxicity and potential effects on human health and ecological receptors associated with any hazardous substances present at Fort Ritchie. Based on the results of the risk assessment and planned future land use, recommendations were made for each OU. A summary of the SI findings to date and preliminary recommendations are presented in Table 3-3. Additional investigation at OU1, OU4, OU5, OU13, OU14, OU15, and OU16 is planned for Spring 1998 (ICF KE, 1998).

3.2 COMPLIANCE PROGRAM STATUS

The Fort Ritchie EMD maintains several environmental compliance programs for the installation. Currently, only mission- and operational-related compliance projects are being conducted at Fort Ritchie. Mission- and operational-related projects are those which have been or would be conducted for the normal operation of the installation. These projects are unrelated to activities necessitated by the installation closure under BRAC. General compliance activities address the management of USTs, ASTs, hazardous materials and waste, solid waste, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon, water discharges, oil/water separators, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing, pollution prevention, mixed waste, radiation, lead-based paint (LBP), UXO, and medical waste. These compliance programs are identified in Table 3-4 and detailed in the following sections.

Closure-related compliance projects are those conducted specifically as a result of environmental compliance and restoration activities related to BRAC closure and property disposal. Closure-related compliance projects for Fort Ritchie are listed in Table 3-5.

A number of compliance-related activities at Fort Ritchie have been completed as part of the installation's compliance program to remove contamination sources and reduce risk posed by releases or potential releases. These actions include asbestos abatement, PCB removal, and UST removal and replacement. These early actions are identified in Table 3-6.

3.2.1 Storage Tanks

USTs and ASTs have historically been and are currently utilized for the storage of petroleum products and waste at Fort Ritchie. Compliance activities and environmental restoration activities related to these storage tanks are described in the following subsections.

3.2.1.1 Underground Storage Tanks

The USEPA has delegated the management of the UST program to the State of Maryland. MDE has primary enforcement responsibility, and USEPA's approval effectively suspends the applicability of certain Federal regulations in favor of MDE's program, thereby eliminating duplicative requirements. Therefore, UST closure and investigation activities at Fort Ritchie have been conducted under the Maryland UST program.

Approximately 300 USTs, primarily containing No. 2 Fuel Oil, have been documented to exist at one time or another on the Fort Ritchie property according to UST Action Plan summaries. Numerous tanks have been replaced, removed, and/or abandoned throughout the history of the site. As of March 1998, 73 USTs are currently in use at the installation. All existing tanks are registered with the State of Maryland. The original single-walled, steel tanks were replaced by double-walled, fiberglass tanks. All UST removal and RAs implemented at Fort Ritchie since the 1980s were supervised and approved by MDE. Table 3-7 provides an inventory of USTs currently existing at Fort Ritchie.

DACA31-94-D-0064 3_7 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document

o to CO 3

r CO

O CO

o CD

E m o> p

(0

E E 3

</) (0

>. T3 3

to v

"tö c o

o en CD

CC

CO «_

CD

E c o ^

■> c

UJ

CO I

CO o

(0 I-

(0 c o

'■3 ra

■o c CD E E o ü CD

DC F

urth

er in

vest

igat

ion

is

reco

mm

ende

d to

con

firm

P

CE in

sha

llow

gr

ound

wat

er a

nd a

sses

s th

e so

urce

and

ext

ent.

Fur

ther

act

ion

is

reco

mm

ende

d to

lim

it ec

olog

ical r

isk

in lo

caliz

ed

area

s by

"ho

t spo

t" s

oil/a

sh

rem

oval

.

Fur

ther

inve

stig

atio

n is

re

com

men

ded

to c

onfir

m

the

pote

ntia

l im

pact

on

ecol

ogic

al r

ecep

tors

. T

his

incl

udes

fis

h tis

sue

sam

plin

g an

d lim

ited

sedi

men

t bi

oass

ays

and

chem

ical

ana

lyse

s.

Ris

k to

Hum

an H

ealth

an

d th

e E

nvir

onm

ent8

X X tt) 1» 3 *>* 3 U.

c (D

h. 3 o C

CR

= 9

x10

"band

C

HI

= 1

(site

wor

ker)

EC

O:

Ver

y lim

ited

o CO Q. E Ü p CD o Q.

X X CD i- 3 *-» 3 U. 3s c <D i- i» 3 o

O

•O .* P tD en to .t; -z:

'of 3 T- O CO

X'Z CD

ill Ö OI o O ÜÜ5 u te

rres

tria

l pla

nts,

in

vert

ebra

tes,

ve

rmiv

orou

s bi

rds,

and

om

nivo

rous

ani

mal

s.

X X CD k-

3

3 U. SJ c CD i~ i_ 3 o C

CR =

6x10'b

and

CH

I =

1 (r

ecre

atio

nal

visi

tor)

EC

O:

Pot

entia

l im

pact

s to

pis

civo

rous

bi

rds

and

bent

hic

orga

nism

s

Che

mic

als

of

Pot

entia

l C

once

rn0

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene,

al

umin

um,

arse

nic,

ch

rom

ium

, an

d iro

n in s

urfa

ce s

oils

; Iro

n in s

ubsu

rfac

e so

ils;

PC

E in

gro

undw

ater

Aro

clor

1260

, S

VO

Cs,

OC

DD

, an

timon

y, a

rsen

ic,

copp

er,

and

thal

lium

in

sur

face

soi

l and

re

sidu

al a

sh;

Iron

in

subs

urfa

ce s

oils

Pes

ticid

es a

nd T

CE

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

and

se

dim

ent;

met

als

and

SV

OC

s in

se

dim

ent

c o

"■3 ra CD Q.

O »^ o

ra Q

p CD tn

2 Q_

o CO •3-

T— Bui

ldin

g 90

7 (o

ld

inci

ne

rato

r)-

1930

s to

194

0s

Bui

ldin

g 90

8 (n

ewer

in

cine

rato

r) -

19

52

to

1975

Bui

ldin

g 90

9 (s

tora

ge

area

) -

1943

to

Pre

sent

Lake

Roy

er -

late

18

00s

to P

rese

nt;

dred

ged

in 1

981

Lake

Was

tler -

prio

r to

192

6 to

Pre

sent

; dr

edge

d in 1

993

Mat

eria

ls S

tore

d or

Rel

ease

d

Pes

ticid

es,

fung

icid

es,

inse

ctic

ides

, he

rbic

ides

, fe

rtiliz

ers, p

aint

s,

solv

ents

, th

inne

rs,

fuel

oil

PC

B-c

onta

inin

g tr

ansf

orm

ers,

A

STs

, ba

tterie

s (o

n tra

ys),

pain

t ca

ns,

inci

nera

tor

was

te

Haz

ardo

us

subs

tanc

es

rele

ased

into

st

orm

wat

er d

rain

s (h

ouse

hold

or

auto

mot

ive

chem

ical

s re

leas

ed b

y re

side

nts)

c .o a ü <o a> Q G

olf

Cou

rse

Mai

nten

ance

S

hop

(Bui

ldin

g 5)

For

mer

In

cine

rato

r A

rea

(Bui

ldin

gs

907,

908

, 90

9)

Lake

Roy

er

and

Lake

W

astle

r

CE

RF

A

Par

cel0

c\f

CC I

o

<£ rr-

Reu

se

Par

cel0

<: z

<: z

<. z

n

O T— CM m

tn a co . <" CD CD m

SZ CD

CI> CD

en m Q. CD

r a. tn

r2 ro T) *? CD CD O TJ

CO O

SI CD

x> CD t: •E ra =

S|£ f §c§ — v^ & C/) -*: O)

o to it- 's 3 O

"g It •S ° o 5, „ a. J2 tn co CO CD DC

S|§ s »I 5 S S

JC £ CD

•g-gj

I'ra« c CD

a

CD 3 U

O UJ > CC

F o u o

CD c CD x: Ö JÜ o ® n> o CO ü

na x: o > o CO "Efi CD CD 'C

CO H CO h- CT> ■*" O eT UJ O UJ ra 3

O > o 0- CO r-

XI CD

LL

O U) CO tn C o CO

■o c CD i- F o C

3 o ® ifl — I _■! C 'o t: <S t/> o E

sts x

ra X .c? X

CO CO t:

co f

W CD ü _

CL O

o V a. 6 N

•1 o S ^•F Q.-C

<o o o Z O

o. CO

.^■g

5 o XI •= 2 u CD >*

O D-

D . D CD ^ Ü D Ü zOOn.

Q. E

_ co O co

E! CD

"1 CO CD 0-

O 3 O | ra en V "5

., CD Ü (- tn ■n m CD o w

E CD CD r m O i

ro CD m D)CC

CO c

2 > en" co

El < o

CD g

8-9

Et CO x

C CD CD Tl ES

.i: ra

c^ ra UJ X & S> ro '£ » -R 3 ro g>

E E 8 O 3 UJ o o < u.

h- tr oc - O co ü uj x o < o o o uj

p = r 3 r CD (0 o

o <o

E U CD ü

o D T3

r >

ra n en r o c CD m u_ h r c D) ro m u. CD n II 3 CD C

m CD

m o CD

Ü < (I

rr: m

o

s o o Q ■>t on O) Ol m A in en t«) o < to x: C> n < to CO a UJ 2

o CO CO 3

r CO O CO

o F m HI n

o

0 3 C

"■3 C O Ü

re E E 3 to re 0

■o 3

CO 0

55 c _o

"43 re k. o w 0 cc re 4^ c 0 E c o k.

"> c

UJ

CO I

CO 0 £t re

"O

S5 ^ (0 cr i_

Fur

ther

inve

stig

atio

n is r

ecom

men

ded

to

conf

irm a

nd a

sses

s th

e so

urce

and

ext

e of

PC

E a

nd T

CE in

sh

allo

w g

roun

dwat

e 5 ,-. © tD

to T3 JJ o .£ g

Pre

limin

a ec

omm

enda

rthe

r in

vest

ig

reco

mm

ende

nf

irm a

nd c

o di

tiona

l dat

a d

herb

icid

es

allo

w g

roun

d

< Li. z cc LL .52 O CO CO CO

4^ £ o z ^-,

ii

X

II

X re 0 «D — .. Ü .. O -

Ris

k to

Hum

an H

e an

d th

e E

nvir

onm

X X

22 3 4-* 3

U_

c 0 1» 3 o hu

man

exp

osur

e pa

thw

ays

(site

wor

k

EC

O:

No

ecol

ogic

a co

ncer

ns

X X 0 k. 3 ** 3 U.

c 0 k. k. 3 o C

CR

= 1 x

10'

" and

2

(site

wor

ker)

EC

O:

Ver

y lim

ited

pote

ntia

l im

pact

X X 0 1» 3

4-» 3

UL > C 0 k. k. 3 o C

CR

= 1 x

10"a

nd

2

(site

wor

ker)

EC

O:

No

ecol

ogic

a co

ncer

ns

^ -v 0 0 C TJ <D Ü o k.

O o a-ssi CO

0 1 CO

0 "B

lical

s IC

on

bsur

f or

inat

P

CE

ro

und

Dyr

en

id

s in s

an

d or

in

0

Ars

enic

, be

nzo(

a)py

ren

met

als,

and

pe

stic

ides

in s

so

il

lenr

nt

ia

n su

C

hi

nts,

in

g

-*m CO 0 "O 7=

c o^ o tD g 5 r

o

Iron

i so

ils;

solv

e T

CE

0 N CO -j= . . tf 0) C % CO r= Q. 2 0 2 0 O 0 < JD fc Q. CO -C

3 o

a. O)

c o.2 re

sent

ved

in

34

nee

-19

74

ding

s 19

75 •4—'

c 0 en

Dat

e O

pera

)

2to

P

ZMA

T ds

mo

5)

ding

7

inte

na

ding

) -

rese

n

erb

ui

Ost

o 0. o

■3- in <c 0 O) = CO = Q. jC C£ CO CD x -C o> T- C- CO r- m e-tn 2 O T-

0 T-

TJ 58 ® en CÖ

0 £"° O 0 0 _ OT3 0

■4—»

CO

0 i_ CO 0

0 fi CO Q.

Ä 0) iü •— CO !^ «re re 5 -— oi -K co s T3 > 0) 5 cz

Mat

eria

ls

or R

ele

Mot

or o

il, b

di

esel

oil; t

re

porte

d sp

19

94 a

nd 1

te

mpo

rary

of

che

mic

a CO

o ■p. CO N CO x: W

aste

oil,

an

tifre

eze,

pe

stic

ides

, he

rbic

ides

, fu

el,

was

te

from

oil/

wa

o co CO a 0 en W

aste

oil,

an

tifre

eze,

pe

stic

ides

, pe

trole

um

solv

ent

■'-'c 0 0

o "■3 a. o « a M

otor

Poo

l (B

uild

ing

700)

M

aint

enan

c S

hop

and

Ref

uelin

g S

tatio

n

DP

W

mai

nten

anc

Equ

ipm

ent

Are

a (B

uild

ings

73

1 to

736

)

Aut

ocra

ft S

hop

(Bui

ldin

g 40

1)

IX. 0 DC o i*

X X

X X

W « P^ t^ jvT u a. CD

f- T-

o'- (0 o 3 Ü O <: in a> m *"" z

C3C ^

ra 3 ■* in co o

to' S a> >_ to m

£ £ § CD C to <a co Q-_CD

- d'B TJ?<J CD o ^

1 "I to

> g to -^ en 0»r a. <- .

CD LU > *

o

CD

•2-5 O

■a I? S " ° S ^ a. 5 <fl <D (0 <D DC Sil cS CD I,

~ 0) J£ £ CD

■SIS

CO

CD LL

0 C <D

„ CD c

«"§2

UJ uj

O Q. h-

c to

C0OT

C <D CD i:

•3 m o § U. CD — p

c = 2 P i 8 § | 3 y-? CD to

u UJ > CC ■c c CD O

i - J= CO CD 0

00 Ü CO

0

(0 ~ O

5 'S cn.^

-0C 3 CO O O '5 t: UJIIZZ to 0 m"- SS t: c H 3 0 <

J3 'S ^ 3 ra to '-C=

CO 81^2 LDIIZZ

O > to c CD CD O .*-

•P» 3 2 w £

£? P 3 m^ ,^■0 CO CD

rf Ü a. to C\I rvi

co O CO

■si -S CO *- ~ i=;

P Q CO

(/]

c «r CD > CD "^ TJ >

CN co

3

LL LL C

c

CD §

Ü |

CD O I ^ ■§ O .t: iS CO P C > ■= N 0. CO C 0 CO •*—

CD

5 5 o

o Ü CD

LU CO X °

C3)

LL (0 ID £^ to 3 c CO t

c CD

ffl CO S CO

a. c M_ CD

0 e en x5 CO CD 0 to

3 F

P 0 3 tr

fc to fc Q. 5 o

JC to CD

to J O CD 3 0 CD

CO Q.

CJ

co 0-

ü Ü DC Ü O

co to 3

CD (0 3 en

LL DC Ml

1 B J= CO

< o tr O 0 $ DC DC _5

Ü UJ I D_ KJ JD U TD OO Ü O

CD = r 3 C CD to O

O 'to

fc O CD o

0 a XJ r > CO n CO c: 0 c CD m LL

t- c O) CO

en Q_ CD n rr i 0 to m

c CO CD

m U CD

Ü < a.

(i. m T* 0

LL

■*

CD O O

Q

■«t CO 05 C35 (T>

»- CO 05

CO 0 < CO JC C) n < CO co O LU ;>

CO c. CO

O CO

ej (- CD m 10 n>

o Q.

co r <D F- r o

> r

UJ

TJ CD

C "■3 C o O

? CO E E

</) co CD k. < >

TJ 3

<n o

c o

(A 0)

CC

c 0) E c 2 > c

UJ

CO I CO

& re H

Pre

limin

ary

Rec

omm

enda

tions

' < Li. Z

< LL z

< LL z

Ris

k to

Hum

an H

ealth

and

the

Env

iron

men

t0

X

II

DC

Ü

O

if X 0) k. 3

4-« 3 u. 5> c 0) i» v. 3 Ü

tö X X c

Q) 1- ^ T- (p

;S ii ii ii y. T I T. x 8 o o Ü O - T- ^-v _ . fO

T- co -^ co a) ca CD 2/

_ b > b co b 'to o X -rö - £ - £ 8

Dro -* rr h ocjr- cc ~ o b o ü 8 ü b o b o

o z i' X V k. 3 4-* 3 U.

5s c CD k. k. 3 o hu

man

exp

osur

e pa

thw

ays

EC

O:

No

ecol

ogic

al c

once

rns.

X T—

II

a: o o X X

CD k. 3

3 LL. S> C CD k. k. 3 o 10

"4and C

HI

= 2

(site

wor

ker)

EC

O:

No

ecol

ogic

al c

once

rns.

Che

mic

als

of

Pot

entia

l C

once

rn0

Ars

enic

, le

ad,

and

thal

lium

in s

urfa

ce

soil

No

chem

ical

s of

po

tent

ial c

once

rn

iden

tifie

d

Ars

enic

, be

nzo(

a)py

rene

, m

etal

s, a

nd

pest

icid

es in

sur

face

so

il

Dat

e of

O

pera

tion

?rx

CO CO Is- CD

o ^ to CD"

CO CD

T- CL

Mat

eria

ls S

tore

d or

R

elea

sed

Lead

and

inor

gani

cs

asso

ciat

ed w

ith r

ifle

rang

e ac

tiviti

es

Gas

olin

e, h

eatin

g oi

l, et

hyle

ne g

lyco

l, le

ad a

cid

batte

ries,

was

te m

otor

oil;

le

ak o

f 1,

570

gallo

ns o

f un

lead

ed g

asol

ine

fuel

in

1984

(co

ntam

inat

ed s

oil

and

tank

rep

lace

men

t in

19

92)

No.

2 fu

el o

il; d

iese

l fue

l; ha

zard

ous

subs

tanc

es

rela

ted

to th

e he

alth

clin

ic,

dent

al c

linic

, te

leco

mm

unic

atio

ns

faci

lity, a

nd p

hoto

grap

hic

labo

rato

ry

c o

"•3 a "C u W

D

Aba

ndon

ed

Firin

g R

ange

s

Pos

t E

xcha

nge

Ser

vice

Sta

tion

(Bui

ldin

g 51

5)

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Bui

ldin

g A

rea

(100

-, 20

0-,

and

300-

serie

s bu

ildin

gs)

CE

RFA

P

arce

l0

cc oc cc _ I I x zz. n n n o ^T CO 00

oc CL

C\J_

CO

DC OC DC CC X X X CL £ j co « t in N to r— T— T— T~

Reu

se

Par

cel"

o CM o

to 3 ■ O

N- co CD

e5 co CO CO Q- 03

"~ c B

8 « ®

•E ra 5

S|^ £ §1 H -£ en O en i—

g CD UJ

5 MIL •2=0

CD = C 'S ° O 3 — O- 5 en a) to _g CC a ~ a

|||

.* £ CD

■sis

CO O) en

CO 3 h <D

ü ~

I* c n = ra

° S- 2 O

U.D ZO

x 8s C CD

C CO

3 "' Ö 11 01- 5 3 <D §8| = X o O UJ >

X CD

T> c

« £ o 1 =s 9> _ CD CO > COT

(0 CD ■c j= ™-R,c = o 3 o ™ eo ~ E ö E

-CC 3 Ü 3 '5 -c o UJ x to o <!>"- »«

■c c = o

JD CO = O) — O

e > xo x ü UJ x

CN

2 = D)

IT c

ra"o

en CD O Q.

O O P Ä 6; CO CD > ci >

8. in CD cr

Ü) CD he E

o

11 01 r CD m _ CO en > tn eii o CD

u m CO n

Cll n <r CO tu n en cr

_J m in O cr o

co o>

c"E J2 « o „- 0- c »_ CD ° E CO CD 0 CO

1 B sz to O 5

c > co c « OW.O

•2 c o

E.2 o co

O O u.

< li-

CC oc Ü UJ O O

£= c 3 C CD en o c o w a " « 8 c -Q ro STrö cO| tD CD U-

c 5 en jo

CD Q. CC =

°4 m o ■fo Ig oc m

o LL

Tf CO cn en tn

CO o < w -S Oa S < to J D UJ 5

»I S

c CO E c o > c

LU <D

"co 0) 3

_C

C o o

re E E 3

CO (0 0) < •o 3 *-»

CO 0

55 c

_o re

w <o

DC re 4- C 0) E c o ^

■> c LU

i co aj

re I-

(0 c

11 is a. o o a>

CC

re ■& c c O «>

o D.

C o re w a> a O •^ o

re Q

a» _ O 0)

S.8 (0.0) re ,0» C CC 0 re "::■:

o CO Q

.< - U- CD CC Q W « u a.

W CD

cc£

o

0

-5 Is CO 5 o'or CO *=• ^ -£; -

■£ -o O CD o . " m 0) S "> « 0 £ ■£ f= "O o a) p -o ^ re to € o g o Er-5 5 cj E p. co en

0) 0 Q. E o o o

CD

b ■*~ c x 2 I"-to

CO co

CO

o Ü

T .. X

S. -L X

c CO (1) 2! 3

X -t—1 m

1- 3 3 o Q. LL

II

X -C- o ^

CO 5

CO o '°">~P, O CO O =>

UJ 10 > CD

CO

"£•■?

3~ _ o

m « OT 0 CD CD

XI — O -■O CO o c t

^ O 3 < .i= CO

CO O

CO O CO

X CO co

CD" •t—• CO CO CO

0 f -g § 1 CTJ.E

TJ CO °"co X co

Q. CO CO CD

5 O <

CC I_ £-, CM CM

<: z

< LL z

II X- O o Ü '- .. X X X P

10 >T ii .-a

ö| .o 0 0 k_

o P

c 0 o Q.

T3 0

0 >

Ö Ü LU

CO Q. E

c f. 0 3

CO CO

0 c-

o o JO

T3 0 CO

T3 C CO

co -2 0 0 0 0

Q- E 5

CO o 05

0

c

0 CM 0 O)

E p

^ CO

co co H-

58 » ° - S CD -^ E CO ■ — -

>t CD

■5=: S CO

J Ö 2 Sm-a Q. C D) C 9- o CO o

^^ CO oS

Q. E 3 •o

T3 cz ^3 0 0 0

DC X

£2. CM

< LL z

0

0

0 Ü CD O O CJ 0 0

-I—»

0 Q.

O Ö 8 LlJ

O CD CO o 0 o

c O E

£ re CD

ü g £ oof Z ex 5

is

S5 "£ Ä 0 0 CD

&ct

4-; 0

00 ! o co"n E SI«-S co oo ^ CO -n "O

.£ re ro en 2 -co o) ^ cö en ^! co co -i- .£

LO i^-

co" ^

O) O *; c x: c ^00

m -S.o.

0 •g "o !Q aj "0 x: c

0

jo 0 CO —

■:: CD »- 0-^0

■5>§ y "O

3 O O — T3 > 0 >"E V. -Z M s 0

S5 ir N cat to p O co m *- O T *n r— J** rr< i—

0 0

0 -t: E °- o o

LL X

CD O

co

OJ

« R 0) *ü: ^: 

S- > «u <3)

o <" o o a. Q.''- _ ZZ O £ § LU

ST.

Ö ^ LL U

■n E — to 3 ■c

(0 CD > .c

CJ a. CD

CC

CO

z z o CD CD o CO CD

CO n ss CD LL

^ £ CD > o ■c 5 c

i s CD CO

CO

-L-g W c o

p s CD ra 3 o "D - u, o c LL CD

1 8 CD

E 3

E E o o

X CD

■a c 3 X O CD ÜLU > CL

CO N

a>

CD

5 1 CO

T- CD «•ät

3 2 o J2 CO £ ö £ . il 3 o 3 '5 f Ü LU I CO C)

CD LL

o co 'S t- r 3 o J3 en 3 Ul — o CO to

C])

x ox r Ü LU X O > CO

CD Cl> Ü CO rn t

CM

CM

CD

3 D)

LL C c 3 o .c CO

CD

CO

c o t: () o

m c

CO o CL

E CO CO

CD

■a c 3 o

c o CL CO CD

CC

j_ »^ co ^ -t;

CC £

c > co c Ü LU ,

■R ™ CD >-

I S « CO

J! cii _ 5) ai ° E II

I" O CO

CO CD £ < Ü 03 O O LL

ü Ü 1 if s CC oc Ü LU Ü o

3 r CD CO fi E O to

O CD CJ

o Q T3

r >

CO

r CL O

CO

c CD m LL

t- r c a CO

to CL CD n ir 3

CD CO CO

C

CO CD

CD U CD O CJ < £ CC CC CD •C ' o

O) o> O)

co o

üiS <co« Q LU 2

q w " E

g 0.

c CD E c o > c

111 CD

X3

T3 CD 3 C +3 C o o ? to E E 3

CO CO CD u < TJ +-» CO 0)

■•■*

25 c o

CD CC

75 ■♦^ c 0) E c o > c

UJ

I — CO

£1 CO

Pre

limin

ary

Rec

omm

enda

tions

'

EE

/CA

; sa

mpl

ing

for

expl

osiv

es

Col

lect

sub

surf

ace

soil

sam

ples

Con

duct

vis

ual

sear

ch t

o de

linea

te

boun

darie

s of

was

te

mat

eria

l; la

nd s

urve

y

Col

lect

and

ana

lyze

so

il sa

mpl

es f

or P

CB

s

Ris

k to

Hum

an H

ealth

an

d th

e E

nvi

ron

men

t6

Not

eva

luat

ed a

s pa

rt of

ris

k as

sess

men

t

TO C

TJ C CD D. c g re 3 re >

LU

TO c

TJ C CD

CL c g

re 3 re >

UJ

TO c Tl C CD 0. c O

re 3 re >

LU

Che

mic

als

of

Pot

entia

l Con

cern

0

Eva

luat

ed u

nder

a

sepa

rate

OE

/UX

O

stud

y

Dat

e of

O

pera

tion

c

o c c 3

c

o c

c: 3 A

ppro

xim

atel

y 19

52 to

198

4 >* <D CD en ^5 S EQ- 'x o

g« 9-in 9-ex < r-

Mat

eria

ls S

tore

d or

Rel

ease

d

Ord

nanc

e an

d ex

plos

ives

Hou

seho

ld w

aste

, m

isce

llane

ous

debr

is,

& in

cine

rato

r as

h

Hou

seho

ld w

aste

, m

isce

llane

ous

debr

is,

& in

cine

rato

r as

h

en m O Q.

c o a o w a> a O

E/U

XO

Im

pact

A

reas

c 3 m CD

E re °% Li. < R

eser

voir

Roa

d D

ispo

sal

Are

a

c re-B .y. re

O rj .22 3 UJ C/5

CE

RFA

P

arce

l0

5(1)

20

(1)

21(4

)HR

tr i

cr i

CO

cr i

Reu

se

Par

cel"

r^

o ■3-

tf

■<fr

■*

a

o co in CO

CD ,_

CD CD K: to to co CX CD

T> CD O ~°

I "I t> CD t £ Sa si£ CD CO -g C > CO => ~ "> "> "£ °> O w T- Q.'= . £ <D ai CD > ^

S CO LL

^ §? •

to CD OC TT > -C ^ & <».5»g co ,n ^ » P

VI

= 5 c to

3 u — ^ tS CO ^ c

3 O CD LL CD — c

C = 2 P c '" E 5 CD N ü tu > cr

CD Ü CO CD

■§"■5 en — —-CT o tr tn o

to o to •c c 3 O tn ~

-Q CO 3 (31 <n —

to _- CD o >

•sf CD 3 «■o

10 CD ü Q. D- £ O ro Q to

Ig P! ° 3 ü g

n c CD CO o fc o in O Ü

> Q co r

a. CO c

CD m LL 1- c c a CO

"to D- CD n :T T)

CD CO m

C CO CD

33 U CD

'sz Ü < a.

[i m r o

^> r o o 3

to 3 to

V) _

(1)

3 g

o ^ to o> ^- CO

II o „- 0- c »_ CD o E

_tn T3 to CD ü to

>, c CD

Q. CO .9-

LU -g ^

■go* CC "D «

-'S c B üirLLiÖOODQ-

iS (0 W .2 C3) to ^

'S §5 g< ■§

- "o> -• ^ CD C O O-

cr

CO 0-

< LL cr LU JC CO o o ä

I s CD < Ü u3 LU

O X 3

o o m o Q.

s o o Q Tf m CD O) CD

ss a>

< CO jr CJ n < C/J to Q UJ S


Table 3-4. Mission/Operational-Related Compliance Projects

Project Status Regu latory Program

USTs All existing USTs meet all applicable requirements MDE, RCRA - Subtitle 1

Hazardous Waste Management

Storage and disposal as required RCRA - Subtitle C

PCBs PCB testing efforts complete - transformers found to contain PCBs have been removed

TSCA

Asbestos Abatement through properly managed O&M activities MDE, OSHA

NPDES Monitoring of outfalls as required MDE, CWA

LBP Three testing efforts completed; additional analysis recommended

MDE, OSHA

NRC Licensing Maintenance of equipment containing radionuclides NRC

CWA Clean Water Act OSHA Occupational Safety and Health LBP Lead-Based Paint Administration MDE Maryland Department of the PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

Environment RCRA Resource Conservation and NPDES National Pollution Discharge Recovery Act

Elimination System TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission UST Underground Storage Tank O&M Operations and Maintenance

Table 3-5. Closure-Related Compliance Projects

Project Status Regulatory Program

BRAC Cleanup Plan Version 1 - Final Version II - Final

BRAC

Environmental Baseline Survey Final BRAC

Environmental Impact Statement Draft BRAC

Ordnance, Ammunition and Explosives - Archive Search Report

Complete BRAC

Programmatic Agreement for the Closure and Disposal of Fort Ritchie

Complete BRAC

Site Investigation Ongoing BRAC

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


Table 3-6. Compliance Early Action Status

Site Number Action Purpose Status

Post-wide UST removals/ replacements

All older USTs have been removed and/or replaced.

Comply with State and U.S. Army regulations

All existing USTs comply with applicable regulations and requirements.

Post-wide PCB removal

All known PCB- containing transformers have been removed and destroyed in accordance with TSCA.

Comply with PCB mitigation laws

All transformers have been tested for PCBs and those found to contain PCBs have been removed. All capacitors, hydraulic equipment, heat transfer equipment, and electromagnets have been tested and found to be free of PCBs.

Post-wide asbestos abatement of high risk or unsafe ACMs

Project is ongoing. Friable and damaged ACMs are removed and disposed of as they are discovered.

Comply with State, Federal, and U.S. Army regulations

On-going program

ACM Asbestos-containing material PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act UST Underground Storage Tank

Between 1989 and 1990, a complete regulation assessment of USTs at the installation was conducted. Based on this assessment, an installation-wide removal/replacement action was implemented. From 1991 to 1992, 59 USTs containing No. 2 Fuel Oil were removed from the 400 housing area. Overall, a total of 186 housing USTs were removed from the post between 1991 and 1995.

During the implementation of the installation-wide removal/replacement action, approximately 12% of all regulated, unregulated, and position quarters housing area tanks required RAs. Spill events were recorded from two tanks at housing unit 486 and from the tank at unit 724. Both incidents were leaks, and sorbents were used to clean up the spilled material. In addition, RAs included soil sampling and the installation of monitoring wells.

Between 1991 and 1995, 85 USTs were excavated and two USTs (in Bldgs 327 and 360) were abandoned in place in the administrative area of Fort Ritchie. Of these tanks, 70 were replaced with new tanks, and four of these replaced tanks were later removed. Two-thirds of all USTs identified as administration tanks indicated a release of petroleum product and required remediation. Spills occurred and were remediated at the Golf Course Maintenance Shop (Building 5), the Service Station (Building 515), and the Motor Pool (Building 700).

3.2.1.2 Above-ground Storage Tanks

AST compliance programs at Fort Ritchie are conducted under U.S. Army Regulation (AR) 200-1 and the Federal requirements including Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 110, 112, and 116. A total of seven ASTs are known to have been on the installation at one time or another. Three ASTs have since been removed. One AST was removed in 1986 from Building 502, the old Fire Station, and one AST was removed in 1993 from Building 101. One AST was also removed from Building 605, the old service station; the time of removal is not known. There are currently four remaining ASTs. Two ASTs at the Auto Craft Shop (Building 401) contain waste oil and waste antifreeze, and two ASTs in the DPW maintenance

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document

c B q 05

»I P

c £

> c

UJ (D T3

C o

75

c > c Ü c re H a) D) re

0) Ä TJ C 3 O O)

■o c 3

CO

.2

.a re

(0 c o

<

3

3 UL

CD

o Z

0

o Z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0 c o Z

0

o Z

0 c o Z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0 c: o z

0 c o z

0

o z

0

o z

0 c o z

0 £Z o z

0 CZ o z

0 c o z

0 c o z

CO

c .

E E o o

0 c o Z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0

o z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0

o z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0

o z

0 c o z

0

o z

0 a o z

0 c o z

0

o z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0 c o z

0

o z

OT 3 : ■♦■» re

0 CO

c

0 CO 3 c

0 CO 3 c

0 CO

c

0 CO

c

0 CO

c

0 CO

c

0 CO 3 c

0 CO 3 c

0 CO 3 c

0 co 3 c:

0 CO 3 c

0 CO 3 c

0 CO 3 c

0 CO 3 c

0 CO 3 c

0 CO 3 c

0 CO 3 c

0 CO 3 c

0 CO 3 c

0 CO 3 c

0 CO 3 c

0 CO 3 c

0 CO 3 c

73 :

0) o to

o re .. ■

0) J3 -■'.::.■, 3 ■

CO

"05 CO 0

b

O 0 3 u. CM

d z

O 0 3

LL

CM

O z

O 0

LL

CM

d z

O 0 3

LL

CM

d Z

O 0

LL

CM

d Z

O 0 3

LL

CM

d Z

O 0 13

LL

CM

d z

"0 CO 0

a

O 0

LL

CM

d z

O 0 3

LL

CM

d z

O 0 3

LL

CM

d z

O 0 3

LL

OJ

d z

o 0 3

u_ CM

d z

o 0 3

LL

CM

d z

o 0

LL

CM

d z

0 0) 0 Q

o 0

LL

CM

d z

o 0

LL

CM

d z

o 0

LL

CM

d z

0 CO 0

b

o 0

LL CM

d z

o 0 rj

LL CM

d z

o 0

LL

CM

d z

Cap

acity

(g

allo

ns)/

T

ank

Mat

eria

l

o o o co"

CL cc LL

Ö O O

CO"

0L oc LL

Ö O o_ T—

o o o CD

o o o co-

15 0

GO Ö O O co-

o o If) CM"

CL OC LL

Ö O in CM"

CL cc LL

Ö O o_

"0 0 +->

oo Ö o o_

o o in CM-

CL CC LL C> O in CM-

CL CC LL

c3 o

o o o CM"

CL CC LL

Ö O in CM"

CL CC LL

Ö o <o T-

o o

CL CC LL

Ö o o

CL CC LL

c5 m in

CL CC LL

Ö o o CD-

o o in CM"

o o LO

CM"

CL CC LL

Ö o <q

o o CD

Yea

r In

stal

led

co CD CD

CD CD

CD CD

■Si- CD CD

co CD CD

co CD CD

CO CD CD

CD CD

CO CD CD

o oo CD

CO CD CD

CD CD

CD CD

00 CD

CD CD

CD CD

co CD CD

CO CD CD

CO CD CD

CD CD

CD CD

CD CD

CD CD

CO CD CD

c ■ ■ .2 re ü o CM

co TJ CD

co CO

TJ CQ

LO

CD TJ co

co •o m

CV1 o

Ol

CO

CO T—

cn TJ m

CO CM

CO ■a

CQ

<M

CO "O

CQ

O CO

CO TJ CQ

co

CO TJ CQ

co I

CD co

CO CO

T>

CQ

CD CO

1 co co

CO CD -a CQ

CO

CQ

CO

co TJ

CO

CO

1 00

CO CO

■o

CQ

o in

CO T3

CQ

m

CO TJ

CQ

CM m

CO ■a

CQ

a 1

CM in

CO T3

CQ

o CD

CO T3

m

Q CM CD

CO

CQ

o o CM

co -a CQ

T- o CM

CO ■a

CQ

CM o CM

cn TJ CO

Site

No.

/P

arce

l

z z <: z z

<: z

<: z

<: z Z

<: z z

<: z

<: z

<: z

<: z z

<: z

<: z z

<: z

<: z z

<: z

<: z

<: z

Tank

No.

co

o o o

C\J o o

CM CD O

CO CD O

CD CD O

o o

o o

<*

o

LO in o

CD

o CD o o

o o

CO CD o

CD o o

o o

o in o

CO co o

co o o o

CM oo o

CM o in

o

CO CO

TJ 0 Ü

c ,-„ 0

a> X3 0 m C1 <.■> en a. m CL >

2 0<<;

3^ - - CQ

o o Z Z

C0CL ^.

CO LL z z

3 C <o o o-5> O a, •o > c - 10 ST io CO:E tt) CQ LL

c 5 D) JO «1- 0) D.

CC =i

ii mo •|o I2E CC CD

■c o LL

■* CO 05 OJ CT>

CO o < 05-c OlS < 05 J0 Q LU ^

o c 2 O 05

" E

> c m a)

V 3 C

'** c o o

o c V >

C (0 h- (I) D) ^ O

CO XJ c 3 O i— O) v. 0

■o c

r--' ■ CO

o SI ro I-

w c o

"•3 Ü <

3 0 CD 0 CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■** C C c C c c c C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c 3 U. o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

z z z z z z z z z z z z Z z z z z z z Z Z Z z z z

•** oä c 0) X)

E 0 -« C T3

E o 0 CD CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

-8 3 ci5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ü c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c CO D. c c C c c c c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o XI 0 o o o o o o o z Z Z Z z z z z z z z Z z z z z z < cr z Z Z z z Z z

3 p *-» <0 § c

CO 0) CD CD CD 0 0 0 0 ■o „, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO t= £ (0 CO CO CO CO U) CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

< 0. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c ■ C c c c c c c c c

T3 a> o

4-»

CO — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — a) u c

O O O o o O O b Ö b b b Ö Ö b Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö b Ö CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ro 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

(A u. LL LL LL LL u_ LL u. LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL

3 CO

C\J CM CM 'S CO

"05 CO

CM CM CM CM 0 CO

CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

d d d CD 0 d d d d 0 O O O o o o o o o O O O O O O z z Z a b z z z z b z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

pa

city

lio

ns)

/ M

ater

ial

0. Q. CL D_ CL CL CL CL CL CL CC CL

CL CC CL CL

DC CC CC OC cr OC n. cr CC LL cr LL cr cr LL a. LL Li- LL LL LL LL LL o Ö LL O LL LL

ro ro .* o o o O ö o Ö es o o O Ö O Ö o Ö Ö o o Ö O O o O O O °2 c o o o o o o o o o o O O o o o o o o o O O O o o o

ro in o_ CD o_ lO o o o o o O O o in o o in o" o in o" O O o o H c\f T~ T~ Y— CM 1_ CO T~ T—

1_ ■^

Y— CM CM T~ T— CM T— T" CM T~ CD -3- T~ CD

■o in «- Jä> co .,_ co co ,_ co CO r-

CD CD co i— T- CD T- co T- T- CO T- T- T- T- T- co CO

10 "S a> CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CO CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD i CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD

>- w c CL

M- CO m h- CO c

_o o CO CO co o o CM cp CO co in

co 1

^r •** cö CM 4 CO CM re o LD T— CM CO in co CD r~ O CO CO CO 1— co CD CD o o T— o O CO ■* CD o CM o o O O o CM CM CO CO CO CO ■* ^J- ^r ■* CD o o ^j- O O o O o CO CM CO CO CO CO cö CO co CO CO CO CO co CO co CO CO TT "3- CO in in in in -1 CD CD CD CD CD CD O) CD CD CD o> cn CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD

■a XI x> XI -a XI X> •a XI ■o •a "O ■a u T3 X! "a "O ■o ■a XI XI X) XI XI

CÜ m m CO m CO CO CD m CO CD CD CO CO CO CD CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

ö aj

iteN

P

arci

<: <: <: <: <; <: <: < < <: ^ < <: ^ < <: <: <: ^ <: ^ <: <: <: <: z z z z z z z Z z z Z Z z z z z z z z z Z z z z z

CO --

Tank

No.

o CO CD (M "ii- TJ- CM CD h- in 00 CD CD o co CM ■* ■* in CO r~- CD CO co r- in in CD 1^ ■t T— r— CO CM h- CM CM h- CM CM CM CM CM m h~ o o O o o o O O o o o o o o o o o o O o O o O o o

CO ro

X3 0 S IE

*~ 0 ^cr i2 0 3 .-9

CO LL

XI 0 c

xi >- ro 0 .y 0 Q.Q

If CDQ. 2CC CO CO LL Z I-

CO = c 3 C (l> (/) o E .p « O Ä o

c - D rofT ra r (1 c cu CO Li. (-" r c CD (TJ

mU- C0 Q. f 3

« m ÄS B O

2(7 ■S a: ■r m •c o

s

Tj- CO O) o o

co o < CO -c o a. . Q UJ ,

O -

cS O V)

CD

E c p

•a

(0 c o

3 CD

3 <D CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD a. CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 "S c c a C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c 3 n o n o o o o o o o o o o c o o o o o o o "■ .;■ zzzzzzzzzz z z z z z z z z z z z

w ••— c 0)

E E O CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD a ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ü C C C C

O O O O c c c c c: c c c c c : c c c c c c c o o o o o o o o o c > o o o o o o o

z z z z z z z z z z z z z ^ : z z z z z z z

<= o .<= o

3

«0 o c 0} CD CD 0 CD CD CD CD CD CD T3 ' ,

0) CO 0) CO 0) C JD -O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 CDCDCDCD dCDc/)05C00)0)0) 0) CO 0) 0)

3 3 3=) 33333 TO § C C C C C <; Q_

5 TO^=> = 3333 ^)^3^> C C C £Z :ccc cccc

■o -p 0) -tr E n CO 3 ,, s

jnce

St

jel O

il je

l Oil

e(R

egu

e (P

rem

CD — — ;^ ;= r;ü

^OOOO o o o o o ~r" CD CD CD CD CD 3 3 3 3 CD

CD CD CD 3 3 <

CD = 0 0 D 3 O => =1

*5 LL LL i| ^ .Q CM CM o o

.5 U. IL LL IL | O CM CM CM CM O

.E LL LL .' O CM CM "

= _ LL m _LLLL_ 5 CD CM ■*£ CDCMCM0' n 03 W 03 03

3 . . CO 0) /n o o to ra 0/5 Z Z Ü Ü

0) .... CO TO O O O O TO O Z Z Z Z O

CO o o a z z c B.CO 6 5 .5 d d .5 3QZ5 DZZQ

apac

ity

allo

ns)/

k M

ater

ial

0/FR

P

00/F

RP

00

/FR

P

LL OC 1

O O O O O c

"55 a. c

c o o c

,000

/FR

P

00

00

,500

,0

00/F

RP

,0

00/S

teel

,5

00/S

teel

Ü & c o o o o « <q in 0- o" «- ^ CM T- T-

O O O O O _*: O °- °. °- O J= 1- ■* ■* ■* T- 3

_* o o c

3 CM CD -i ̂ CO CO CO CM CO TT T-

"O in m £- .2 CO CM CM CM 5Jj "m 000505 < o < 7, Z 05 <

r-T-COCO co t- -3- m 3505O5O) 0)050)05 3505050) 050)0)0)

>" </) T- 1- 1- T- T- T- y- -r- T- a) 0 T— ' c CL CL

co ^9 c .2 en a. CO < CO <

CO <f <f

?9 ^ ? So ootog £ £ Z Z 'S 05 in in in in i^ oo T- co in in h- o

Ü O T- T- T- o in m m in

T- T- r- CM O O in m m in en CD

o o o CO CD N

o o T- K; COCO^«- N f» Is- !—«3 CO CO 12

—I 0)0)03 0 Di Di Di a n oi o) o: ra oi ra o o),i, a aa a "O -O T3 TO TJ H "D T) "D TJ T3 "O "O T3"O"O"OiüXJ-0"0X)

CQ CD CO CO CD CQ CQ CO CG CD CD CD CD COCDCDCOl^CaCQCDCD

O "a) Z O < < < < < < < <: <: <: < < <: <<<< <<;<;<; « W z z z z ™ 0-

z z z z z z z z z ZZZZ ZZZZ

0) "».

jfZ o o o c n n s co ro ^f \f en o) N in oi

in CM T- 05 05 CO

i^coi-co r>» m T- CM co co CD co -"3-cooo

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o III 1

3 C 0) tn o c ° "5 § ^1° c -D

2 ST«

c 5 oi jo

a) o. CC =

i| m o ■so is cc m, •c o LL

0 3 C

"■3 C o Ü

o 4-» c 0 > c ^: c n

D) (0 o

03 73 C 3 O

o> ■■= SB ~ 0

T3 C

CO

CQ

05 TO

0 E o "c

05 CC

0 S ® TO X) .O _TO

"Q-'TO Q. > <<

3 -Q o o CD LL Z Z

0)D_ Pen CD LL

•* co o o Q t m O) o> a> ZZ "5

O) CO o < CO L. o n < w (S a LU i


yard in the Building 900 Area contain diesel fuel and gasoline. One of these tanks was originally associated with the newer incinerator. No record of spills occurred at any of these tanks. Table 3-8 provides a current inventory of ASTs at Fort Ritchie.

Table 3-8. Above-ground Storage Tank Inventory

Tank No. Location

Year Installed

Capacity (gallons) Contents Status

N/A Auto Craft Shop, Bldg 401 1993 550 Waste Oil In Use N/A Auto Craft Shop, Bldg 401 1993 275 Waste Antifreeze In Use N/A DPW Maintenance, Bldg 900 1985 500 Diesel In Use N/A DPW Maintenance, Bldg 900 1985 500 Gasoline In Use

Bldg Building DPW Department of Public Works N/A Not Applicable, tank numbers have not been assigned to these tanks.

3.2.2 Hazardous Materials/Waste Management

Hazardous waste compliance programs at Fort Ritchie are conducted under AR 200-1; the Federal requirements found in 40 CFR 260 through 269, 40 CFR 117, and 40 CFR 171 et seq.; Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations; and the Maryland hazardous waste management regulations. Hazardous wastes currently generated on site are managed in accordance with all applicable State and Federal regulations.

Fort Ritchie is classified as a small-quantity hazardous waste generator, USEPA identification number MD8210020758 (USACE, 1993a). Activities at Fort Ritchie that are regulated under the provisions of RCRA include storage and use of hazardous substances, and generation, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. Hazardous substances used at Fort Ritchie include solvents, petroleum products, flammable liquids, herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides.

A total of 13 hazardous substance spills occurred from April 1993 through March 1998. Types of substances spilled include No. 2 Fuel Oil, waste oil, diesel fuel, and hydraulic fluid. In each case, the quantities that were released were relatively small (0.5 to 310 gallons), and actions were taken in accordance with the Fort Ritchie Installation Spill Contingency Plan to minimize the extent of environmental release of the spilled substance. Several spills also occurred before 1993.

3.2.2.1 Hazardous Material Management

Hazardous substances are stored and/or used in approximately 26 buildings throughout the installation. As a small-quantity generator, Fort Ritchie is not permitted to store hazardous wastes for long-term periods. Management of hazardous substances at Fort Ritchie has historically focused on utilizing as much of the hazardous item as possible, then transporting unusable or unwanted portions to an off-site TSDF.

3.2.2.2 Hazardous Waste Management

Disposal of the majority of hazardous wastes generated at Fort Ritchie is handled under a shipping contract administered by the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO). Limited quantities of non- hazardous chemical solutions used in photographic processing are disposed of in the sanitary sewer system. Hazardous wastes generated at Fort Ritchie are collected and temporarily stored at two hazardous waste sheds at Building 837. This location serves as a redistribution center and as the pick-up location for hazardous items that become classified as waste. Prior to 1989, hazardous substances were collected for shipment on pallets in Building 700. Containerized wastes are shipped to various TSDFs.

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


3.2.3 Solid Waste Management

Solid waste management compliance programs at Fort Ritchie are conducted under AR 200-1 and 420-47; Federal requirements found in 40 CFR 240 through 246 and 40 CFR 257 through 258; DOT regulations; and Maryland solid waste management regulations. Solid wastes currently being generated at Fort Ritchie are managed in accordance with all applicable State and Federal regulations. Fort Ritchie does not have a permitted landfill on site. Non-recycled, non-hazardous solid waste is hauled off the site to the Washington Township, Pennsylvania, transfer station. The transfer station is operated by a private contractor who then transports wastes to a State-sanctioned landfill in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. In 1996, 19,082 cubic yards of solid waste were generated. The installation estimates that it currently generates about 100 tons of refuse per month in regular household waste (i.e., paper, plastics, glass, metal, food, office supplies, yard and grounds waste).

In the past, on-site incinerators were used to dispose of solid waste. The original stone incinerator, Building 907, was constructed in the 1930s and operated into the 1940s. Typical solid wastes, including small quantities of miscellaneous chemicals, were placed directly into the incinerator and burned. Ash was deposited in two areas, one along Wise Road and the other near the former Skeet Range. A new replacement incinerator, Building 908, was constructed in the 1950s and had a capacity of 3,500 pounds (lbs)/hr. No. 2 Fuel Oil stored in a 275-gallon AST was used as startup fuel for this incinerator. During operation, approximately 2,000 gallons of No. 2 Fuel Oil were used monthly. In 1973, the incinerator was retrofitted with an air pollution control device which had maintenance problems. As a result, the burner was shut down shortly thereafter.

Fort Ritchie owned and operated a wastewater treatment facility until August 31, 1993, when ownership and operations were transferred to Washington County. Digested sewage sludge from this facility was disposed of under an MDE permit in the Washington County Sanitary Landfill.

3.2.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PCB management compliance programs at Fort Ritchie are conducted under AR 200-1; Federal requirements found in 40 CFR 761; and DOT regulations. Disposal of PCB-containing material associated with Fort Ritchie activities is managed through the DRMO.

A site inspection was conducted by MDE in 1989 to document PCB-containing equipment. Seven known nameplate PCB-containing transformers were identified during this investigation and subsequently removed and disposed. Capacitors, hydraulic equipment, heat transfer equipment, and electromagnets were checked for PCB-containing materials; however, PCBs were not found in any of these items.

All 242 transformers at Fort Ritchie have been tested for the presence of PCBs. Eleven transformers were found to contain PCBs and have been disposed of according to TSCA requirements.

3.2.5 Asbestos

Asbestos-containing material (ACM) is regulated by USEPA, OSHA, and MDE. Asbestos at Fort Ritchie is managed in compliance with the U.S. Army guidance Lead-Based Paint and Asbestos in U.S. Army Properties Affected by Base Realignment and Closure.

A post-wide asbestos survey of Fort Ritchie was conducted by Dewberry & Davis to identify the presence of ACMs and to recommend appropriate abatement actions. An Asbestos Users Guide and Management Plan was developed in September 1993, based on the findings of the survey. ACMs were identified, located, and quantified. All buildings at Fort Ritchie that were built after 1980 were assumed to be asbestos-free.

Remedial actions have been implemented in conjunction with building demolition and in several other instances to mitigate exposure to asbestos. In 1992, asbestos was removed from two buildings. In 1993, ACMs were removed and disposed of in conjunction with the demolition of seven WWII-era buildings. The mechanical rooms of all housing units were insulated with non-ACMs when new furnaces were installed. There are no plans at this time to remove ACMs from other buildings since the ACMs are non-friable or in



good condition. ACMs will continue to be maintained in good condition through Fort Ritchie's operations and maintenance (O&M) program.

3.2.6 Radon

The radon reduction program at Fort Ritchie is conducted under AR 200-1, Chapter 11, U.S. Army Radon Reduction Program. Radon testing of Fort Ritchie was conducted in Fall 1989, and radon was not found to exceed acceptable levels in any test location on the installation.

3.2.7 RCRA Facilities (Solid Waste Management Units)

Fort Ritchie does not have any RCRA facilities.

3.2.8 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits

Point source wastewater discharges generated at Fort Ritchie are regulated under AR 200-1; the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; the Clean Water Act (CWA); the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program (40 CFR 122, 125, and 136); National Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403); and Maryland regulations.

Fort Ritchie currently has two permitted surface water discharge points. One is located at the Water Treatment Plant (Building 835), and the other point is the oil/water separator at the Motor Pool (Building 700). These outfalls are permitted to discharge into Lake Royer and Lake Wastler under NPDES permit MD-0003221 and State of Maryland discharge permit 91-DP-2516.

Through the Department of the Army application process, Fort Ritchie has submitted an application to acquire an installation-wide stormwater permit. All applicable contracts at the installation include appropriate erosion and sediment control plans (USACE, 1993a).

3.2.9 Oil/Water Separators

Oil/water separators at Fort Ritchie are managed under the Installation Spill Contingency Plan and in accordance with applicable Federal regulations including the CWA 313(a); 40 CFR 110, 112, and 122; DoD directives; and AR 200-1.

Five oil-water separator units currently exist at the installation. Four of the units, located at the Auto Craft Shop (Building 401), the Vehicle Wash Rack (Building 731), the PX Gas Station (Building 515), and the Fire Station (Building 519), discharge into the sanitary sewer system. Effluents are treated prior to release to a surface water body; thus, no NPDES permits are required for these units. One oil/water separator located at the Motor Pool (Building 700) discharges to the lake, and an NPDES permit exists for this outfall.

3.2.10 Lead-Based Paint

Three reports document the main testing efforts for LBP at Fort Ritchie. A test conducted in 1991 involved 30 representative housing units, some random playground equipment, and a few shed doors behind the housing units. Another effort in 1994 tested 22 miscellaneous administration buildings. A detailed X-ray fluorescence (XRF) testing of all child care facilities was performed in 1995 due to the greater potential risk posed to young children. Some positive results were found in all three investigations. All three testing efforts recommended further analysis in order to determine which building components should be focused on for an effective LBP abatement effort if an abatement effort was undertaken. All structures constructed before 1978 are presumed to contain LBP. LBP removal and encapsulation for 11 buildings were initiated in July 1995. LBP management and education are currently part of Fort Ritchie's LBP mitigation efforts.

3.2.11 Unexploded Ordnance

The presence of UXO in an area of the installation designated as the impact area and the area of the new PX and Commissary, has been verified by installation personnel, records (i.e., USACE, 1997), construction and demolition activities, and visual inspections. The impact area was the site of WWII outdoor readiness training

DACA31-94-D-0064 3_2° Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document


activities. An EE/CA investigation is currently being conducted to determine the extent of UXO in this area (OU13).

3.2.12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing

Fort Ritchie has four NRC licenses for various equipment and devices that contain radionuclides and are used by the 572nd Military Police Company. These equipment and devices will continue to be managed appropriately until closure when they will be removed properly.

3.2.13 Pollution Prevention

Pollution prevention at Fort Ritchie is managed in accordance with Chapter 6 of AR 200-1 and applicable Federal and State regulatory requirements. Pollution prevention activities at Fort Ritchie include waste minimization and recycling. Pollution prevention activities will continue to be implemented as appropriate until closure.

3.2.14 Mixed Waste

No mixed waste is generated at Fort Ritchie.

3.2.15 Radiation

In 1990, the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA), now the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine (USACHPPM), reviewed Fort Ritchie's environmental radiation protection program. USAEHA also conducted an industrial radiation survey in 1991. Safety and protection policies and procedures concerning operational and personnel movement limitations to limit exposure, were developed from inspection reports and will continue to be followed until closure.

3.2.16 National Environmental Policy Act

Environmental program status of the property has not been determined pursuant to NEPA at this time.

3.2.17 Medical Waste

Medical waste is generated from the Health Clinic (Building 341) and the Dental Clinic (Building 332). Medical waste is collected separately and stored in a special dumpster outside Building 341. The waste is periodically removed from Fort Ritchie by a specialty contractor.

3.2.18 Air Permits

Fort Ritchie does not have an air permit because there are no major air emission sources at Fort Ritchie.

3.3 STATUS OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAMS

This section presents the current status of the natural and cultural resources programs at Fort Ritchie. These programs include the identification and management of sensitive environments; vegetation, wildlife, and wetlands; rare, threatened, and endangered species; and cultural resources. Natural and cultural resources at Fort Ritchie are managed in accordance with AR 420-74 and 420-40; DoD Directive 4700.4 and 4710.1; and applicable Federal and State regulations and statutes.

3.3.1 Sensitive Environments

Fort Ritchie is surrounded by wooded and residential areas with limited commercial activity. Thus, woodlands and agricultural environments are predominant in the Fort Ritchie area. The woodlands are dominated by deciduous tree species, including oak (Quercus spp.), hickory {Carya spp.), maple (Acer spp.), tulip poplar (Lirieodendron spp.), and black gum (Nyssa spp.). Due to the history of agricultural land use in the Fort Ritchie vicinity, no old-growth forest habitat is likely to occur.

Surveys of natural and cultural resources on the Fort Ritchie installation have recently been conducted. These survey efforts include an inventory of vascular plants and vertebrates, a jurisdictional wetland



delineation, and a comprehensive investigation of historic and archaeological sites that are located on the installation. Preliminary findings from these investigations indicate that there are several sensitive environments on the installation.

3.3.2 Vegetation

Staff from the Center for Ecological Management of Military Lands (CEMML) of Colorado State University conducted an installation-wide survey of vascular plants. Initial data collection for this survey began in 1993, and field efforts were completed in 1995. The report of findings for this field effort included descriptions of methodologies and findings. Data collected during field efforts included the identification of species, relative abundance of species, habitat descriptions, and determination of species status. Forest stand delineations were also conducted at Fort Ritchie. These delineations intended to identify sections of wooded areas that were suitable for forest management, based on species composition, age, and size classes. Results of the vascular plant survey, forest stand delineations, and recent aerial photos were used to create a vegetation map of the installation.

3.3.3 Wildlife

There are several protected wildlife areas in close proximity to Fort Ritchie, including South Mountain State Park, Catoctin Mountain National Park, Cunningham Falls State Park, and Michaux State Park. These areas support a variety of wildlife, including black bear (Ursus americanus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), red fox (Vulpes), Eastern cottontail (Sylvaligus floridanus), and others. The Fort Ritchie area is located along the western periphery of the Atlantic flyway used by migrating waterfowl, waterbirds, and neotropical migrants.

Baseline surveys of terrestrial invertebrates/vertebrates, including birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, dwelling at the Fort Ritchie installation, were conducted by Shippensburg University from May through October 1994 (Shippensburg, 1995). The species of birds utilizing Fort Ritchie habitats were determined through observations made along 24 transects which were established in four major habitat types found on the installation. Mammals were surveyed using traplines that were set up at 33 sampling stations. Four days of surveying were devoted to searching for amphibians and reptiles under rocks and fallen logs. Results of the survey efforts included a list of species, determination of species status, and limited wildlife resource management recommendations.

3.3.4 Wetlands and Flood Plains

An installation-wide survey and delineation of jurisdictional wetlands was conducted in April 1992. Jurisdictional wetlands were determined through methodologies outlined in the 1987 version of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. A final report of findings from the wetland delineation field efforts was prepared and submitted in July 1992. Results of the delineation efforts indicated that there is one major complex of wetlands on the installation. This wetland complex consists of the areas immediately adjacent to a freshwater stream which drains into Lake Royer. Other isolated palustrine wetlands probably occur throughout the wooded portions of the installation downgradient of numerous unmapped springs. The locations of wetlands at Fort Ritchie are shown in Figure 3-3.

3.3.5 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

Identification of rare, threatened, and endangered species at Fort Ritchie was accomplished through the use of both wildlife and vascular plants surveys, described above. The results of these surveys indicated that no Federally-listed endangered species were confirmed on the installation. However, four plant species that are Federally-listed as Category 2 species of concern were confirmed on the installation, and one mammal that is State of Maryland-listed as a species of special concern was confirmed on the site. Additionally, it was determined that the forested stream areas of the installation constitute excellent potential habitat for one Federally-listed candidate mammal species, the smoky shrew (Sorex fumeus). There are no resident endangered species in the area, although bald eagles (Haliaeotus leucocephalus), listed as Federally threatened, have been sighted in the area.


f 36 ! j ' M ' i i 35:

^H One Acre Grid Square ^| Coordinate location:: (3,35)

34' I ! : • :

33 i ' ; ■ ;

32 ! j

1

31| 1 ! ! 1 ' ■

30' l i : ' !

1 29 ' i !

28 1

' 1 | i

1

27 1

, p 1

26

25 !

24 '

23 i ;

22 1

21 _ j._ . 1 ..LJ.. 20

1

19 1

18 ...... , !

1 ' ;

17 i 16 ! i

1

15 1

! !

i' 14 1

13 i ; 1

12| 1 u*-

11 >^l

10! 1 : Jr i' 1

9 ! !

8

1

7| \ ; ;' yf^yi 6 , \ J/ / ^-^^^" 5' i ; \-f^*^ ( '. ■ y^

♦i \ 3^^ 3

2

1

Jo*"*" K' . : ... j .

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 © NOTE: THE V APPRC GENER

^; ^

c? &

0& it

So o °

**'' 't;> ... ' <<L

.% V «e4

TO KM'

\ ^.r- :TA A* ,<3<

.i

in 2 * :

■51

8 !

■JG? ̂ ><■"*

»' DR.

#*/.

fits''**.*'

■ z

fi*-0

jm'-J^ *^oNNflf **; ^-•y-tMlUHHnnniwnimnnn

WEST .WNfTU ^VE.

eC3 .=??..

I u

T ft

1.

_ u ■;- j nnnnnnBnn.nnnnnfinnn {j afe c AYE <| c=s C*JC=J cni-'D

If.

ft."

a "3 c—] c^iS"—i i—is? ";

•awTiz 4i

■■C3»,

ptrcf **°

SECONDARY ENTRANCE

(CLOSED)

"Si

C

SECBRO

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

?!

43 44 45

LEGEND:

$? PERMANENT BUILDING


DEMOLISHED BUILDING

0 E s

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24


EARTH OR GRAVEL ROAD. TRAIL,


WETLAND AREA

) BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE AND SHOULD BE USED FOR

*NNING PURPOSES ONLY.

ETC.

(£)

SOURCE: 1993

E CONTRA Cl 1 cr~ "} ♦ ICI

NOTE: THE WETLANt APPROXIMATE GENERAL PL*

*Kfi

PREPARED JN\

15 CHECKED JHI

DATE 1 -22-

«?p.

r»0

X.

k** :<3<

^

i ^•' ■**<*

pp-

•■ TO

!B\

&**&**§

8 SECONDARY K KNTRANCE •s^ (CLOSED)

*£fo V *E: /?/? ,0 TO HISHFIELO

CASCADE. MARYLAND

JS^-V^

i "=> «STLE DR. _ J ö I, mnnnnnnmnmnnnD _

J« <=ti <=>t> c AVT. .«|c=3 cÄDb« c=,c=3t c—"5 i—-; gg-3 • •■cages-raV-

3s| e=>5 i=§ . a «Sera en CDgeD czig Ug c=a |=2=r □; - - C r=?j C=J c=i3c=i ca'g

■ci^:..,~

BUnnnfinnO'nnniinnnnn i i>-r UA(>J

SM7T TOUT!" 550 A TO ThWUOKT ' Y

*& JKC$R0

IY

: i. ! ' i. . ;. .. .. i

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

DING

F BUILDING

LDING

ETC, PAVED

:L ROAD, TRAIL, ETC.

BOUNDARY

IOWN ARE I USED FOR

ONLY.

800 1600 3

SCALE FEET




♦ ICF KAISER 2113 EMM0RTON PARK RD. EDGEW00D, MD. 21040 (+10) 612-6350

PREPARED JNW

CHECKED JHH

DATE 1 -22-98

TASK NO: »6225

ICF OWG NO:

FRBCP3-3


DISTRIBUTION OF

WETLANDS

& ■-.


3.3.6 Cultural Resources

A final report on the review of all pertinent historical documentation and field surveys for cultural and historical resources was submitted by Dames & Moore in August 1995. An archeological resource sensitivity model was developed for Fort Ritchie during this investigation to assist in predicting the locations of unrecorded archeological sites. The findings from this investigation along with the application of the sensitivity model indicated that there are two archeological sites at the southwest end of Lake Royer. These sites have been determined to be of no archeological significance. It is not anticipated that additional sites will be found on the installation due to the high degree of disturbance that has occurred in the portions of the installation that are most likely to contain archeological sites.

A historic district has been designated at Fort Ritchie. This district was designed to account for all of the structures and sites associated with the development of Fort Ritchie from 1926 to 1945. Recommendations from cultural resources studies include application for inclusion of the Fort Ritchie Historic District in the National Historic Register.

3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION OF PROPERTY

In October 1992, Public Law 102-426 (CERFA) amended Section 120(h) of CERCLA and established new requirements with respect to contamination assessment, cleanup, and regulatory agency notification/ concurrence for Federal facility closures. CERFA requires the Federal government, prior to termination of Federal activities of real property, to identify property where no hazardous substances were stored, released, or disposed. The primary objective of CERFA is for Federal agencies to expeditiously identify real property offering the greatest opportunity for immediate reuse and redevelopment. Although CERFA does not mandate the U.S. Army to transfer real property so identified, the first step in satisfying the objective is the requirement to identify real property where no CERCLA-regulated hazardous substances or petroleum products were stored, released, or disposed.

The environmental condition of the Fort Ritchie property is provided in Figure 3-4. This map is based on the CERFA Letter Report (ICF KE, 1996b), but has been updated to include information collected during the SI (ICF KE, 1997b). Parcel descriptions are included in Table 3-9 and column 3 of Table 3-3 refers to CERFA parcels presented in Figure 3-4. Fort Ritchie was parcelized based on seven categories of environmental conditions. The following subsections describe each category of environmental condition and list the areas of Fort Ritchie which fall under each category. The eighth subsection lists parcels which are suitable to transfer. The definitions of the parcel categories have been revised based on updated BRAC guidance (DoD, 1996).

3.4.1 Category 1: Areas Where No Release or Disposal (Including Migration) of Hazardous Substances or Petroleum Products has Occurred

This area type is defined as a geographically contiguous and mappable area where the results of investigations show that no hazardous substances or petroleum products were released into the environment or site structures, or disposed of on site property (including no migration of these substances from adjacent areas). This area type is color-coded white in Figure 3-4. A determination of this area type cannot be made, however, unless a minimum level of information gathering and assessment has been completed. In accordance with Section 120(h)(4) of CERCLA as amended by CERFA, all such determinations (i.e., "uncontaminated") of this area type must be made on the basis of: a records search of the area in question and adjacent property; a review of the chain of title documents for the area; a review of aerial photographs of the area; a visual inspection of the area and adjacent property; and interviews with current and former employees regarding their knowledge of past and current activities on the property. These efforts can be functionally accomplished via an EBS or properly scoped Preliminary Assessment of the property in question. If information gathered from these efforts indicates that hazardous substances or petroleum products have been released, disposed of, or stored in the area, the geographic location becomes one of the other area types.


■

36 i ! ! i ■ I ! I . I ! I ■ '

i |

35 ^^M One Acre Grid Square ^^^^^■Coorüinaie Location: (X3,YJ35

34 | i i

! j

! • ! 1 ! ! : 1 ! I

! ! 1

33 i i

!

1

i

! : . i 1 ' |

i ! !

32 1 ! i

i !

1 ! ! !

I ! i ! 1

31 1 i

• 1

; i i I i

i

30

i j

29 ! i

i I

28 j i

27

26

25

i i J

!

i i

! ! • ; |

1 \

24 1 - 1 ! 1 :

i i :

Q 23 i j i : 1 1 i

i ' ! ' ' : ;

1 ' i ; ■ I , 1

! ! ! 1 i ! I ; i ' i ■ : 1

3,Yß5)

5(1)

-S-

*P °> s^-V

©

i ; ] i

! i i ! [

i

- -—7 i i

i i

i ; • ; i

i

i !

8(3)HR-A

|

i |

i — —:— ~~- i \ i \

7> A

9(7)HR/PR-

tf^

1N°

^ v8>

ROAD,

t^

?iG

Mdehln« Gun Rqng«/- p« Rang«/ i 3ng« (60 Targ«t«D

o«°*

£

»** ! «^

el

sK&SS

PARADE GROUND

WEU

*OUND

i I i I I ; I i

t ; I 2

i j

I

i :

| j

PARCEL CATEGORIES

CATEGORY COLOR DEFINITION

WELL NO. 8

4DE, MARYLAND

Q

i ♦ ♦

White

Blue

Lt. Green

Dk. Green

Yellow

6 Red

Gray

Areas where no rei hazardous substanc products has occur

Areas where only r of petroleum produ

Areas where releas migration of hazard occurred, but at cc do not require a re action.

Areas where releas migration of hazard occurred, and all re necessary to protec the environment ha\

Areas where releas migration of hazard occurred, and remo actions are under v remedial actions ha taken.

Areas where releas migration of hazard« occurred, but requir yet been implement«

Areas that are not additional evaluation

♦CERFA Parcel Categories reflect the Addendum to the Fall 1995 BRAC G

** Release from a UST is indicated by diameter circle around the UST.

PARCEL LABEL DEFINITI

18 (7) HR/ PR

T Petroleum Relea

PARCEL CATEGORIES*

CATEGORY COLOR DEFINITION

i ♦ ♦

White

Blue

Lt. Green

Dk. Green

Yellow

6 Red

Gray

Areas where no release or disposal of hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred.

Areas where only release or disposal of petroleum products has occurred.

Areas where release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances has occurred, but at concentrations that do not require a removal or remedial action.

Areas where release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances has occurred, and all remedial actions necessary to protect human health and the environment have been taken.

Areas where release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances has occurred, and removal or remedial actions are under way, but all required remedial actions have not yet been taken.

Areas where release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances has occurred, but required actions have not yet been implemented.

Areas that are not evaluated or require additional evaluation.

*CERFA Parcel Categories reflect the September 1996 Addendum to the Fall 1995 BRAC Guidance.

** Release from a UST is indicated by a 0.25-acre diameter circle around the UST.

PARCEL LABEL DEFINITIONS:

18 (7) HR/ PR

® Petroleum Release

24J ! i

I 1

! 't ',

1 23 |

i .

j

! i

i 1 ;

i

1 22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

i U-

: i ; i : i

! ! I .

1 ! ! 1 1 ' j ! - -...J ._!

1 :

! ! !

!

j 1 || | j 1 ] ! ! i

1 1

1 i : ! | 1 l i

! '■ ' j : ■ i i I i 1 ! i

! i | ! i 1

i I ,

■

i : \ I .

! S ! i

i • ! I i :

i • ]

! '

! 1 :

iii. ! : i

i ! i I ! :

! i ! : ~ i l ! j ; i

1 i : j j ;

i ; i

i—. +

! i r

! 'ill

M

i 2(

i j

3)HR-i 1 ^A

11 i-

i

j 1 i —^

i

<S\ TV i ^v, ....... J

r^&'f.-^Ti 1 . . - :■ i ■-..,^■■4 ,^-fT..^-..„.7.L,..,-. . j.. . \. .-i-

;§?0*W?r? ©

I PI«tol Ra„0^ (60 Targ.t.)

-., v^.' 'ä!S"^S- ,

HF1ELD V

MARYLAND

STATE ROUJE SSO

TO THURMONT


18_ (7) HR/ PR

Petroleum Release

Hazardous Substance !

Parcel Category

LEGEND:

D

— Parcel Number

PERMANENT BUILDING


TEMPORARY/DEMOLISHED BUILD


EARTH OR GRAVEL ROAD, TRAIL


USTs

ASTs


18^ (7) HR/ PR

Petroleum Release

Hazardous Substance Release

Parcel Category

Parcel Number

LEGEND:

m

PERMANENT BUILDING


TEMPORARY/DEMOLISHED BUILDING


EARTH OR GRAVEL ROAD, TRAIL, ETC.


USTs

ASTs

•'•, •' .._«»-*' ■£•", ;;, •- ,

6 7 8 9 10

^Pp^^^S m^m§&00; ^^^^mm^^^rn- ^m^m^^-^jm^^^^^^^mm-^m^i^i^n-- ,: :"fäiB;£;Sh."

■JSIJSSW^--*';:.'

w

WISE ROAD DISPpSAL AREA

22(7)HR

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

^^^Ip^p^p^Sgpp^ÄK^ ^<S?^f ^«'*:« -'1'' =rK-'<^W,?f 'S^S^KSiiT.u.r

<£) *V^'—'/V;;v ^1?V^ ,

\

(4)Hfc

—-f-

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 "^27~~2B~ 29 30

*.VÄ^\i3^V:;^:ff(v^!|^^

■/-'" ai

42,18 41,19 41,17 38,20

37,28 37,28 37,19 37,18 36,20

35,24 35,24 35,22 34,22 34,21

34,19 32,27 32,26 31,29 31,19

25,18 24,18 24,17 23,18 22,19

22,19 20,T7 20,17 20,16 20,15

20,15

141 151 160 202

834 835/6 327 330 334/5

603 605 302 302 303

346 700 716 724 515

490 493 486 491 480

489 481 479 477 470

475

1 2 2 2 2

8 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

\%

44 45 46 47 48 49

1 2 2 2 2

38 39 40 41 42 43

EN CONTRACT NO

* ICF KAI<

PREPARED CST

CHECKED JLH

DATE 03/24/S

! II II i

0

S^ ' j

i

L. .

1

i

300

SCALE

■ j

i i !

300

„j

1

i i

i

3 47 48 49 50 51 52

US ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL


* ICF KAISER

PREPARED CST

CHECKED JLH DATE 03/24/98


EDGEWOOD, MD. 21040 (410) 612-6350

TASK NO: 66225

ICF DWG NO:

CIN-RITC

CEN FIG FO

CERF DES

i

0 300

/ N

600 300 900

SCALE FEET

52

US ARMY )NMENTAL CENTER 1-94-D-0064

113 EMM0RT0N PARK RD. 3GEW00D, MD. 21040 1-10) 612-6350

3K NO: 66225

DWG NO:

N-RITC


CERFA PARCEL DESIGNATION

MAP


Table 3-9. CERFA Parcel Descriptions.

Parcel No. Description Color

1(1) Reserved Land Buffer White 2(3) HR Wetlands Area Lt. Green 3(7)HR Reservoir Rd Disposal Area Gray

Burn Area 4(3)HR Firing Ranges Lt. Green

Service Station (Building 515) 5(1) Unexploded Ordnance Impact Area White 6(3)HR Former Shooting Range Lt. Green 7(7) HR DEH Maintenance Area Gray 8(3) HR Former Pistol Range Lt. Green

700 Family Housing Area 9(7)HR/PR Motor Pool Gray

Upper and Lower Lakes 10(7)HR Incinerator Area Gray 11(4)HR Lakeside Club Parking Lot Dk.

Green 12(7)HR Golf Course Maintenance Gray 13(1) Parade Ground White 14(4)HR Building 152 parking lot Dk.

Green 15(4)HR Office, Bldg 148 Roadside Dk.

Green 16(1) Reservoir White 17(3)HR Admin Area Lt. Green 18(2)PR Installation-wide Petroleum Releases Blue 19(7)HR Substation Gray 20(1) 400 Family Housing Area White 21(4)HR Skeet Range Dk.

Green 22(7)HR Wise Road Disposal Area Gray

3.4.2 Category 2: Areas Where Only Release or Disposal of Petroleum Products has Occurred

This area type is defined as a geographically contiguous and mappable area where the results of investigations show only the release or disposal of petroleum products has occurred. This area type is color- coded blue in Figure 3-4. A determination of this area type must be made in accordance with the same requirements in Section 120(h)(4) of CERCLA as listed in the above paragraph.

3.4.3 Category 3: Areas Where Release, Disposal, and/or Migration of Hazardous Substances has Occurred but Require No Remedial Action

This area type is defined as a geographically contiguous and mappable area where environmental evidence demonstrates that hazardous substances have been released or disposed, but are present at concentrations that require no response action to protect human health and the environment. This area type is color-coded light green in Figure 3-4.

It should be noted that the designation of a Category 3 area cannot be made with confidence unless a minimum level of information gathering and assessment has been completed. As such, all determinations

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


should be made on the basis of a Site Inspection, or equivalent level of effort, which includes biased field sampling and laboratory analysis to support a conceptual understanding of the area.

3.4.4 Category 4: Areas Where Release, Disposal, and/or Migration of Hazardous Substances has Occurred and All Remedial Actions Have Been Taken

This area type is defined as a geographically contiguous and mappable area where all RAs necessary to protect human health and the environment have been conducted. This area type is color-coded dark green in Figure 3-4. Category 4 areas include those areas in which an EBS report documents that hazardous substances are known to have been released or disposed of on the property, but all RAs necessary to protect human health and the environment, with respect to any hazardous substances remaining on the property, have already been taken to meet the provisions of CERCLA Section 120(h)(3). Clarification of the meaning of "all remedial action has been taken" is found in Section 12(h)(4)(B)(i) of CERCLA. BRAC Cleanup Teams preparing suitability of property for transfer maps should be aware that "all remedial action has been taken" means that the construction and installation of an approved remedial design has been completed and that the remedy has been demonstrated to USEPA to be operating properly and successfully (in practice, usually a year).

3.4.5 Category 5: Areas Where Release, Disposal and/or Migration of Hazardous Substances has Occurred and Action is Underway but Not Final

This area type is defined as a geographically contiguous and mappable area where the presence of sources or releases of hazardous substances is confirmed based on the results of sampling and analysis available in electronic databases and/or environmental restoration and compliance reports. This area type is color-coded yellow in Figure 3-4. By definition, this area type contains contaminant concentrations above action levels. Such concentrations do not meet the criteria that would allow a determination of a Category 3 area. Remedial systems for Category 5 areas are partially or entirely in place but have not been fully demonstrated.

3.4.6 Category 6: Areas Where Release, Disposal, and/or Migration of Hazardous Substances has Occurred, but Required Response Actions Have Not Been Taken

This area type is defined as a geographically contiguous and mappable area where the presence of sources or releases of hazardous substances is confirmed based on the results of sampling and analysis as contained in electronic databases and/or environmental restoration and compliance reports. This area type is color-coded red in Figure 3-4. This area type contains concentrations of contaminants above action levels. Such concentrations do not meet the criteria that would allow a determination of a Category 3 area. Additionally, required remedial systems have not been selected or implemented.

3.4.7 Category 7: Areas that are Not Evaluated or Require Additional Evaluation

This area type is defined as a geographically contiguous and mappable area where the presence of sources or releases of hazardous substances or petroleum products (including derivatives) is suspected, but not well characterized, based on the results of a properly scoped records search, chain of title review, aerial photography review, visual inspection, set of employee interviews, and possibly sampling and analysis. This area type is color-coded gray in Figure 3-4. They do not, with certainty, fit any of the previous area types because evaluation efforts have not occurred, are ongoing, or are inconclusive.

3.4.8 Suitability of Installation Property for Transfer by Deed

SARA Title I, Section 120 of CERCLA requires that any deed for transferred Federal property, on which any hazardous substance was:

• stored for one year or more;

• known to have been released; or

• known to have been disposed of;

contain, to the extent that such information is available based on a complete search of agency files, the following information:



• A notice of the type and quantity of such hazardous substances;

• A notice of the time at which such storage, release, or disposal took place;

• A description of the RA taken, if any; and

• A covenant warranting that all RAs necessary to protect human health and the environment with respect to any such substance remaining on the property have been taken before the date of such transfer, and any additional RAs found to be necessary after the date of such transfer shall be conducted.

The U.S. Army has begun the identification of property suitable for transfer under CERCLA through the CERFA identification process. The CERFA process is a screening mechanism to identify those properties immediately transferable. Properties identified as immediately transferable have had no activities which could potentially preclude them from transfer under CERCLA. A number of parcels at Fort Ritchie have been identified as suitable to transfer (Figure 3-5). However, the potential presence of UXO precludes the transfer of the remaining parcels identified based on CERFA guidelines as suitable for transfer (classified as Categories 1 to 4 on Figure 3-4). As the OE/UXO study continues, pending BCT approval, additional parcels at Fort Ritchie are expected to become transferable.

3.5 STATUS OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Information regarding the following community relations activities that have taken place at Fort Ritchie is available through the BCT:

• Information Repositories - Information repositories on the Fort Ritchie BRAC have been set up at the Blue Ridge Summit and Washington County Libraries;

• Administrative Record;

• Community Relations Plan;

• Restoration Advisory Board - A Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) consists of twenty-four members including twenty-one community members, the BEC, and the USEPA and MDE representatives. The RAB has held meetings on the fourth Wednesday of each month since February 28,1996;

Mailing List;

Fact Sheets;

Open Houses;

Tours; and

Public Meetings.

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document

1

■ ! i

I I

ICASCADE, MARYLAND \

! I

*j-

tin ■'-'"»I ̂ lE .- ....«•

1 1 1

\RY 3E

i i

! ^L^StRtt^ifiD?

STATT1 »OWE j^o_

MAIN I I I ENTRANCE __.;

! I

3?- i i . I 4-

I ! ! I

;£. ..J._.._J

4 35 36 37" 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

ILDING

NT BUILDING

JILDING

BLE TO TRANSFER

SUITABLE TO TRANSFER

IG, ETC. PAVED

VEL ROAD, TRAIL, ETC.

Y BOUNDARY

800 1600

SCALE FEET




2113 EMMORTON PARK RD. ♦ ICF KAISER EDCEWOOD, MD. 21040

(410) 612-6350

PREPARED JNW

CHECKED JHM

DATE 1-22-98

TASK NO! i«225

ICF OWO NO:

FRBCP3-6

35


SUITABILITY OF PROPERTY TO

TRANSFER

4.0 INSTALLATION-WIDE STRATEGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

This chapter describes and summarizes the installation-wide environmental restoration and compliance strategy for Fort Ritchie. With the closure announcement, the installation's strategy shifted from supporting an active U.S. Army mission to responding to disposal and reuse considerations. Accordingly, an EBS has been conducted and a SI has been initiated. The strategy for determining the most effective response mechanism for contaminant sources and contaminated areas during the early stages of the restoration process at the installation, will be developed on a case-by-case basis by the BCT.

4.1 OPERABLE UNIT DESIGNATION AND STRATEGY

OUs define an installation's remedial strategy. They are derived from an evaluation of hydrogeologic and chemical analytical data within an investigative area, or by comparing data between areas. OU types may be based on geographic area, common media (soil, groundwater, surface water, other), common treatment technology, priorities, or schedules. OUs establish a logical sequence of discussions that address contamination releases in a comprehensive fashion.

4.1.1 Operable Unit Designations

OUs are defined as discrete response actions or steps toward comprehensive environmental restoration and may be further subdivided or integrated where conceptual models of sources, contaminant migration, and receptors indicate the need for delineation of source-control and groundwater response actions. Given this flexibility, and the findings to date, the BCT has defined 16 interim OUs. Table 4-1 depicts the relationship between OUs, reuse parcels, CERFA parcels, and districts.

4.1.2 Sequence of Operable Units

A comprehensive OU strategy has been developed by the Fort Ritchie BCT. This strategy consolidated restoration sites into OUs for investigation, and then defined a logical sequence of addressing all past releases associated with these sites. The site cleanup sequence at Fort Ritchie is summarized in Table 4-2. When developed, Figure 4-1 will identify the timeline for generation of primary documents necessary to complete site cleanup actions. The schedule will be developed using a critical path analysis method.

4.1.3 Environmental Early Actions Strategy

Additional early actions that would accelerate cleanup activities have not been identified at this time. Information regarding additional removal actions, interim RAs, or treatability studies will be provided by the BCT (Table 4-3).

4.1.4 Remedy Selection Approach

Remedies will be selected for the appropriate OUs after adequate characterization of the nature and extent of contamination has been completed. The remedies will be selected in accordance with statutory and National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) criteria. The Fort Ritchie BCT will involve all parties, who have an impact on the actions selected at the installation, in the remedy selection process. Particular attention will be given to the following during the evaluation of alternatives:

• Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). Applicable requirements for anticipated RAs will be identified by the BCT. The effectiveness of alternatives in reducing concentrations of contaminants below chemical-specific ARARs will be evaluated. Waivers will be considered where treatment to standards is technically impractical;

• Land Use/Risk Assessment. Risk assessment protocols will incorporate future land use in exposure scenarios;

DACA31-94-D-0064 4~1 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document

Section 4.0 Installation-Wide Strategy for Environmental Restoration

Table 4-1. Relationship Between Operable Units, Parcels, and Districts

Operable Unit1 Description Reuse Parcel2 CERFA Parcel3 District2

1 Golf Course Maintenance Shop (Building 5)

N/A 12(7)HR N/A

2 Former Incinerator Area (Buildings 907, 908, 909)

N/A 10(7)HR N/A

3 Lake Royer and Lake Wastler

N/A 9(7)HR/PR N/A

4 Motor Pool (Building 700)

10 9(7)HR/PR North Slope

5 DPW Maintenance Equipment Area

(Buildings 731 to 736)

N/A 7(7)HR N/A

6 Autocraft Shop (Building 401)

5 17(3)HR Central Flats

7 Abandoned Firing Ranges 14to17 4(3)HR 6(3)HR 8(3)HR 20(1)

Valley Edge

8 PX Auto Service Station (Building 515)

N/A 18(2)HR Central Flats

9 Administration Building Area (100-, 200-, and

300-Series Buildings)

1 to 4 14(4)HR 15(4)HR 17(3)HR 18(2)PR

Original Core

10 Wise Road Disposal Area N/A 22(7)HR N/A

11 Wetland Area N/A 2(3)HR N/A

12 Former Hospital Area 8 to 9 5(1) North Slope

13 OE/UXO Impact Areas 14 to 17 5(1) 20(1)

21(4)HR

Valley Edge

14 Former Burn Area 14 3(7)HR Valley Edge

15 Reservoir Road Disposal Area

14&17 3(7)HR Valley Edge

16 Electrical Substation 4 19(7)HR Original Core

DPW Department of Public Works N/A Not Applicable OE/UXO Ordnance and Explosives/Unexploded Ordnance PX Post Exchange 1 OUs are illustrated on Figure 3-2. 2 Reuse parcels and districts are illustrated on Figure 2-2. 3 CERFA parcels are illustrated on Figure 3-4.

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


Table 4-2. Cleanup Sequence

Reuse Parcel Site

Environmental Risk

Reuse Priority

Cleanup Sequence

Reconcile Comments

The cleanup sequence at Fort Ritchie has not been established at this time.

Table 4-3. Environmental Restoration Planned Early Actions

Site Action Objective Time Frame

The BCT has not identified any restoration early actions for Fort Ritchie.

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


The sequence and timelines for OUs have not been determined at this time.

Figure 4-1. Sequence and Primary Document Timeline for Operable Unit

DACA31-94-D-0064 4'4 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document


• Applicable Remedies. The presumptive remedy selection approach advocated in USEPA's 30- day study will be applied in selected cases. Focused Feasibility Studies (FSs) will be developed where appropriate; and

• Future Land Use. Cleanup goals need to be factored into future land use and/or deed restrictions.

The BEC will hold Project Team meetings to discuss conceptual remedies early in the FS process during the initial screening of alternatives (ISA) stage to ensure the FS focuses on the appropriate types of remedies for each site orOU.

4.2 COMPLIANCE STRATEGY

This section describes the strategies for addressing compliance-related environmental issues at Fort Ritchie prior to closure and/or property transfer. These environmental compliance strategies have been developed to ensure that installations are compliant with Federal and State regulatory programs, and DoD and U.S. Army directives and regulations throughout the BRAC process. Table 4-4 identifies the environmental compliance early actions for Fort Ritchie.

Table 4-4. Environmental Compliance Planned Early Actions

Site Action Objective Time Frame

There are no identified compliance early actions for Fort Ritchie at this time.

4.2.1 Storage Tanks

Seventy-three (73) USTs and 4 ASTs currently remain in use at Fort Ritchie and are in compliance with State and Federal regulations. Management of these storage tanks will continue to meet all Federal and State regulations. There are also four USTs that have been abandoned in place at Fort Ritchie.

4.2.2 Hazardous Materials/Waste Management

The majority of hazardous wastes generated at Fort Ritchie will continue to be disposed of under a shipping contract administered by the DRMO. These wastes are shipped to various TSDFs in the surrounding states for disposal. Limited quantities of non-hazardous chemical solutions used in photographic processing will continue to be disposed of in the sanitary sewer system.

4.2.3 Solid Waste Management

Non-hazardous solid waste will continue to be hauled by contractors and disposed of off site in a State- sanctioned landfill and/or recycled.

4.2.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PCB testing of all transformers on post revealed that three transformers at Building 119 on pole 253 were the only remaining PCB-containing transformers on post. The three transformers have been replaced. All other transformers are PCB-free.

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


4.2.5 Asbestos

An asbestos removal policy was developed for the installation in 1992 based on the results of a 1991/1992 asbestos survey. Ongoing asbestos abatement activities will continue as needed until the closure of Fort Ritchie.

4.2.6 Radon

Testing efforts and available information indicate that radon is not a concern for any of the buildings on the Fort Ritchie property.

4.2.7 RCRA Facilities

Fort Ritchie does not have any RCRA permitted facilities.

4.2.8 NPDES Permits

The existing NPDES outfalls will continue to be permitted and monitored under Fort Ritchie's current NPDES permit.

4.2.9 Oil/Water Separators

The five oil/water separators on the Fort Ritchie property will continue to operate with four of them discharging to the sanitary sewer system and the fifth discharging to Lake Wastler.

4.2.10 Lead-Based Paint

Installation buildings have been tested for the presence of LBP in three main testing efforts. Ongoing LBP activities will continue as needed until the closure of Fort Ritchie.

4.2.11 Unexploded Ordnance

All UXO impacted areas will continue to be restricted until such areas are cleared of UXO.

4.2.12 NRC Licensing

Fort Ritchie has four NRC licenses for various equipment and devices that contain radionuclides and are used by the 572nd Military Police Company. Fort Ritchie will continue to operate in compliance with NRC regulations and requirements.

4.2.13 Pollution Prevention

Fort Ritchie will continue to practice pollution prevention until closure. The possibility of recycling any materials during remedial activities will be considered during the design phase.

4.2.14 Mixed Waste

Mixed waste is not generated at Fort Ritchie; therefore, there are no compliance requirements or strategies under this program for Fort Ritchie.

4.2.15 Radiation

There are currently no radiation compliance issues at Fort Ritchie.

4.2.16 National Environmental Policy Act

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the transfer of Fort Ritchie was conducted by Lewis Berger and Associates, Inc. The Draft EIS Report was released to the public on 1 August 1997.



4.2.17 Medical Waste

Medical waste is generated by two Fort Ritchie tenants, the U.S. Army Health Clinic and the U.S. Army Dental Clinic. Medical waste will continue to be transported and disposed of off site until closure.

4.2.18 Air Permits

Fort Ritchie does not have an air permit because Fort Ritchie does not have any major air emission sources. Fort Ritchie will continue to comply with applicable air requirements and regulations.

4.3 NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES STRATEGIES

This section discusses the strategies that will be developed for natural and cultural resources programs at Fort Ritchie in an effort to manage these resources throughout the BRAC cleanup and installation closure process.

4.3.1 Vegetation

Fort Ritchie will continue to maintain the existing vegetation until closure.

4.3.2 Wildlife

Fort Ritchie will continue to maintain the existing wildlife habitats until closure.

4.3.3 Wetlands

Fort Ritchie will continue to comply with wetlands regulations for the installations' wetland area throughout the property disposal process.

4.3.4 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

Fort Ritchie will continue its effort to protect the floral and faunal species of concern that have been identified at the installation.

4.3.5 Cultural Resources

Fort Ritchie will continue to comply with applicable regulations for the historic district.

4.3.6 Other Resources

No other natural or cultural resources have been identified at Fort Ritchie.

4.4 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT/STRATEGY

The Community Relations Plan (CRP) facilitates communication between the U.S. Army; other Federal, State, or local agencies; and interested groups and other community residents concerning restoration activities at Fort Ritchie. This communication ensures that all parties involved or interested are provided accurate, consistent information in a timely manner concerning related cleanup activities, contaminants, and possible effects of any contamination. It provides a mechanism for all parties to provide input into the decision-making process of the environmental restoration program.

The strategy for a proactive community relations program at Fort Ritchie, in accordance with CERCLA Section 117, includes:

• Holding regular RAB meetings;

• Holding informal and formal public meetings as required during the response process;

• Providing an opportunity for public comment on removal actions;

• Maintaining an information repository at the installation; and

• Publishing facts sheets on the progress of environmental restoration and disposal programs.

DACA31-94-D-0064 4^7 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM MASTER SCHEDULES

Master Schedules of anticipated activities in Fort Ritchie's environmental programs will include the following: environmental restoration activities, compliance activities, and natural and cultural resources activities. These schedules will be developed from detailed network and operational schedules that will be prepared to support site-specific work plans and compliance agreements. Each of these schedules will display the critical path analysis for the respective installation program.

5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM

This section presents response schedules and outlines fiscal year (FY) requirements for Fort Ritchie's environmental restoration program.

5.1.1 Response Schedules

The schedule for environmental response actions for Fort Ritchie is shown in Figure 5-1. The installation's ability to meet the milestones of the schedule hinges on (1) the preparation of draft reports and baseline risk assessments (i.e., not impeded by discovery of additional sources in the OUs), and (2) expedited review of submitted documents. The schedule is detailed in Figure 5-1. The following actions will be taken by the BCT to expedite the schedule:

• Draft documents will be reviewed in a timely fashion;

• Documents will be revised for quick turnaround/resubmission as Final; and

• Public comment periods for all documents will be reduced to 30 days.

5.1.2 Funding Requirements by Fiscal Year

The detailed funding requirements information by FY is presented in Table A-1. The total funds allocated for installation-wide environmental restoration in FY 1998 are $2,330,000. The total funds allocated for FY 1997 through FY 2001 are $14,203,000.

5.2 COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS This section presents master compliance schedules and outlines fiscal year requirements for Fort Ritchie's environmental compliance programs.

5.2.1 Master Compliance Schedules

There are no mission/operational-related compliance programs or closure-related compliance programs at Fort Ritchie at this time; therefore, there are no master compliance schedules. If necessary, they will be provided as Figure 5-2 and 5-3, respectively.


The detailed requirements information by fiscal year is not available at this time. When available, it will be incorporated into this document by reference, and summary information on funding requirements will be presented in Appendix A.

5.3 NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAMS

This section presents master natural and cultural resources activity schedules and outlines fiscal year requirements for Fort Ritchie's natural and cultural resources programs.


CO

5

0)

'g a.

IS

F :

Ho

.[ S E

on« 04 OJ ■ £■

gi en

zr w

co h- , to to to to to to to to 0)CT>0)CJ)0)0>CIOOJOI

a - CO CM T- CM

O) O) fj) CT> ^ to to r*-

h-totDtotor^r^Ni^-i^- 0)0)plOlO)0)OlO)Oi'(J»

s ^

5 5 to ' to to to to to to r-

T- N C\J o o SÜ T- T- O

(D o i- in n

;: r> ^ ^

*- to CM

001010)010)01IJl01010)ClO)PUi01 CO CO CM CM Ol CO

y- CO CO

U- 2 g g 5

CM Si CO *~ •f

O 5 g

- _- ci ci ci ci ci en oi

i- »- cvj CM

I- 2

*- CM *-

Oi Cl Cl Cl -- q to n s w w r

Oi o> D tn Qi ^ ^ (0 W N

5 2 5

01 Ol T- CO

I- Z Ul 2 in o < z «t 2 h- O

o

I 6 < o u a u S 5

5 DC E t- I C/l • ?

UI w g < X

I 5

(0 a) < O

c/3 O UJ

X c LiJ 3 a Li] (0

o c/> O

g o en

< o

0- cr a.

g g

2 c O U-

g « < O x 3

<n ^ c U)

^ fc H a> ^ 5

o

3 < g? ► O) —

3 ~* > 2 T

Q < ra 2 .O LL

C -3

a) O

> 0 Z A«

h_

§ a.

0 1, JSL n Fi~»j n

< S 1

S "^ 01 —

r- >S j1;" KJJUTTllil

> 2 ►—

kr*n ^ C-

£ 4 t r-La fini-j .pg d-k < K—l _

EE" ► 1 et

5 ft ■0

.a <s u. i "5

cr c W

n ¥ _ 0 It' ^C CD 0 Kl M i^ 3

_ <ihM ! *ln 1) ftiM

"O 0 CD 2 Ä s: u § ■ lo c a m o . V c

0 CO en ä s 3 o < _ 3 I w a. a. CD a lp Z) D

CC 0» "o -a v.

3 s c£*^ "5 "5 cr a: CM

> n 2

If

f 0

n a

T> Q ■ CD < ■ ■ O 1 CD 5 1

"g ■ .0 ■

0. J± H ♦ i PlÄi •7 M » CD <s

3 Q

D) > O S 1" ii. Z

O

Q 09

S i S E I 5

en i 1^

f^ CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ' CO f* N 1— ; 1^. , r- r-. h- f- S CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO : CO co 01 : OJ OJ ; OJ 5 : 55

OJ 05 c5 in

01 CO

en CO 0 c5 OJ

01 m T

O) (O

c» ■ o> oj gi oj oj CJ 0 co in co en ^ i^

OJ OJ 01 OJ ^ CO

OJ pi OJ OJ OJ 0 ^

pi OJ 01 01 01 ^ ?3 co ' ^ to ?5 in

■E S3 S> T CM ^ £- CO i- t- CJ CJ CM C °i OJ C £ü C £2 C (O .Q O *- CM CM CM

T- co ^2 CD fO CM T^ OJ ^ > £y ^ 'N ;? fe 'c •D m *c *3" IT) in ^ © Ifl to O) T- CO CM CO 3 CD 0 co r*. CO (jj OJ T- T- z i .5 : § •C ' CM ^ C .2 ;= LL 3 "O 13 3 13 0 "O c •C (D *~ *" ■*" ^ ,~ *~ to x: 3 3 CD CD tD 3 0 CD *" U. 73

g "- .C CD XZ jC © 3 CO u_ a> 0 > CD 3 U_ tD CD

1 ,S :cn 5 5

•= 3 H H h- 3 3 3 h- 3 3 CD ■x it ; H i== 1— 3 \- i- 5 .H 5 : 3 5 U- l- 1- 1- \- h H ;£ il

£: °o CO CD CO CO CO CO CO CO co r^ f^ r^ r^ r-- t-- r^ r- f^- r». N co CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO co h- 1^ OJ 01 01 ^ CM CM ^ CM CM

pi OJ 3" : CM CM Si r

p? OJ 01

73

pi to

c

OJ

C

OJ

in

O) OJ pi v N: 0 £J ^ co

■^ 0) ^

cn m h- to

CO to

OJ pi JJJ OJ OJ J3J OJ to CD ^r co ^ co ^ ^ £ü o5 N £ü ^ ^ tO IO D dj ,- T- r-

91 OJ OJ CO CM tO ^ CM ^ CM CM a,

OJ

73

OJ OJ OJ § 0 0 f z; 1; T-, tD CD

pi CM CM

OJ OJ 01 01 CM CM cS ^ Si ä ci r ^ 73 73 T~ 55 1 1 0

g 0 5

O 2

3

1-

■C 3 3 li. H f

3 JO 1-

c c 0 0 5 2

c 0 5

c 3 x: 3 *~ *" ^ O -C H h- C CD C ^ h- O 3 O ^ 2 1- 2

3 C }- x: 0 1- 2

CD CD 73 73 > CD CD s g g

•D

g

73 0 0 73

| g g | ■D 73 73 0 0 0

g 5 g I- 0

5 "in OT

™ ct

c 0

TJ 73 O CO

73 CO

■0 CO

73 73 73 73 in h- -<*

•D O

"o -a O CO

■0 "O "O -O "O T3 "O TJ m 0 0 0 0 co co

TJ 73 T3 CM CM CO

73 in

73 73 73 til in O

73 in

73 73 73 73 0 in in in CO TT T-

73 73 CO OJ CM ^r T- CO f*~ in eo 0 CM co »- (^ <<r -~- CO CO T~ TT i- tfl 1- T CM

3 T- CO V- CD LO

O

to ^_^ r c _ © ■c tr ■c t: 73 ■a-

3 O

5 0 ai c

~CL

E (0

CO

CD

0 0 £ w 0 0 0 0 00

0 '> 0

O

3 O c

.2

Q- Q. .2 O — CD CD — ir,

S t 1 5 5 CD _: _: = W ^ 0 0 to f «= g = 1 $ S 1 I

'S a,

CD en to .c a.

ca CD cr

0

c ^ c

0. <a

CC

0 to

a a. 0 0 X CC

0 t) c 2 c 2

f 0 c a u D

§ I 1 !;

1

c 3

O a 0 tr a:

|

c CO

^ cr en H co x 0 -r a. _ en —

c 0

c

"0

g

CT C

Q. E (0

CO

0) c

"Q. to 6 s CO J^

CO CO >, — CO) ö < £

CO Q) 3

C CD

E CD CT CO C CO

.5*

« §

8- 0

C

'S CJ

5

■ 0 co 0 c c (3

0 "5 O « Ü « « "c en _ OJ _ ,y CD ^ 5 1 ?| gL H

c 5 5 5 » ^. 2 0 c C C C 0 >

co m in to to (T) = 0 0 0 0 59 0

.1 £ .1 | 1 « 0 H

73 0

CD Q_

c 0

0 « 0 "ca 0 ro CT _D)

« ■= "55 s; oj g s £ s CO CO -r-

cä

O

1 c

O co 0 CO

« O « O = E -F E to ~ « •£

c J: c H CM CM ■* ,^-

J

* C 5 t

i * 3 CC

ca Q

.1 1 1 i = tD

c 0

> a." Ü CD

b » = 0 5 5 §

9 O

5= O

■9 ■£ > 2 <" w

N 000 0 OOOO

1 H 0 =

0 5 > OL .S 01 to

a 1—

5 » 9 a

'n 0 5

'c 0 5

5 CO

2 9 5 a ^

0 co 5

CO

CO

D O ■g ü 0 a 0 0 c

O oj CD CD CD 0 "J 5 co co to co i~ 0

E 2 c CD ^ D

Q £ I '3 0 2

0 Ü 0 CD 0 CD

CO CO CO

u 0

CO

75 0 t3 0 0 0 0 0

CO CO CO CO h CO £= "S to ca 1- Q Q °I2

u. -g —

Q *r to f^ a> 0 O 0 CM in (O f. 01 0 ■*- r- r- r^ r* (O a> co CO co co co eo - O) at 0> 01 o> 01 O) o> en O O 0 0 c 3 0 2 ra tn

CL Q .

< ü

Q 2

en < O) ET) C O (T < 0) OJ

2 CQ <1) N

< <r ra < a. a. c h-

s cr t- i o £ E

= £

to o LL u!

5 at < c ai a

c 03

5 r

u 0}

i o o n

E 13

"O C

c o a 0)

CE

a. Q)

cr < O

a. a: <

LU

« C

2 5

c 0) e E

fc 2 c o

< ■cr re

c T3 ■a o tu in Q. o

X in i in * <T £ "(J (I)

C/5 m (0 >

0) "re c >

0) o Ml

o Ml CO >

0) u UJ o O U_ LL u. UJ UJ a CL

S E

Section 5.0 Environmental Program Master Schedules

There is no master schedule for mission/operational-related compliance programs at this time.

Figure 5-2. Projected Master Schedule for Mission/Operational-Related Compliance Programs

nAracM o/i nnnR/i " " 5-5 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ccDcnsa (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II *,: rVÖoQ Final Document March 1998


There is no master schedule for closure-related compliance programs at this time.

Figure 5-3. Projected Master Schedule for Closure-Related Compliance Programs

DACA31-94-D-0064 5'6 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document


5.3.1 Natural and Cultural Resources Schedule

The natural and cultural resources schedule for Fort Ritchie is provided as Figure 5-4.


The detailed requirements information by fiscal year is not available at this time. When available, it will be incorporated into this document by reference, and summary information on funding requirements will be presented in Appendix A.

5.4 BCT/PROJECT MEETING SCHEDULE

Meetings are scheduled to promote an expedited restoration schedule for Fort Ritchie. Meetings are scheduled as required by the applicable process and are typically held as follows:

BCT Meetings - monthly or as needed;

Document Presentation Meetings - within 10 days of document submittal;

Technical/Issue Resolution Meetings - as necessary to facilitate continued movement of the restoration program or compliance activities;

Restoration Advisory Board - monthly or as needed; and

BRAC In-Progress Review Meetings - weekly, monthly or as necessary.

A list of currently scheduled meetings is provided in Table 5-1.


o 3

•D CD

O CO

CO O SU

2 Ü o 3 •"- Ü CO

<o cn CD '-

cn 3 ■ o CO o> CO 3 cc <

CD

3 CO

(I) 05

m ^ x: U- ■? o n in

O

CO

ra

2 c CD O

CO o CJ c a> CD ft

c CO

3 o c o

—7 U E xi 3

CO 1-

CD CO

t's o .2 O I

a. o CO ■£• ü *

LU

■= o '" '■& — is

iu 'S o ob^ c o o>

■go? 2 « ™ •= I 3 § CD < -1 >- CD CJ —

PfXO

g c/> o g CD C S = 2 t 'G 2> 3 CO X CJ LL C . CO

(J »- o

2 •S'LT 3 = Q.Ü

_ a> 5 cn co = co ■■- O CO O •

cn o ~ ""* I co2

Sgli l|o|

■SPs|

rx o co Q

&• 5 CO ^ c

CD O > o CD CJ Ü C CD CD

CC t

o *s O E x>

CO 1-

a>" co ü

F u o O J.

O CD to x:

— E ? CD CO £ Ü o. w. CD CD orW V^ f= sz t- ••= .•= O)

UJg 3 o -o -2.

CO

.£ coQ Ego

S '-5 o

Pffll

o

O CO ■i= CO ffl or

Eg? CO T^ a)"g c S ra =

co 3 — CD CO CD

,5QOI

S,» "".

-^ c -; O „, CO ^

.— cr dj a. co ~ E £ "5 O G>~ O < EC

;pr

r 0 f> r- CO CD 0)

^ rn >, < c- o < cn CD fc x:

1- >. m XI

o c o

Q_ f- (> <D I Ü

CD E

■So O Q)

f S X Q

O cö = 5R O C O) c co cn 3 °- *- 6?o

? o< I§ Sl ^_r CO O

co co P- 5 £ Ö h- a. o

g a. a.

o

fe

co 2

CD > a? o m co CD CD

o

■c 2

U- CD ü U- O Ä CO 2 CO a. Q


Table 5-1. BCT Meeting Schedule

Date/Frequency

January 2,1996

May 22,1996

June 1996

February 25,1997

April 24, 1997

September 11,1997

TBD

4th Wednesday of Every Month

4th Wednesday of Every Month

Monthly

Topic

BCP Kick-off meeting

BCP Version I Coordination Meeting

Public Meeting

Public Meeting - Reuse Plan

Public Meeting - EIS

Public Meeting - EE/CA

Public Meeting - OE/UXO

BCT Meeting

RAB Meeting

PMDC Executive Council Meeting

BCP BRAC Cleanup Plan BCT BRAC Cleanup Team EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis EIS Environmental Impact Statement PMDC Pen Mar Development Corporation RAB Restoration Advisory Board TBD To-Be-Determined

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document

6.0 TECHNICAL AND OTHER ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

This chapter summarizes technical and other issues that are yet to be resolved. These issues include information management; the usability of historical data; data gaps; natural (background) levels of elements and compounds in soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment; risk assessment; state cleanup standards; and program initiatives to complete cleanup requirements as required to meet property transfer schedules.

6.1 DATA USABILITY

This section summarizes issues that need to be resolved with regard to managing information gathered and used in the installation environmental restoration and compliance programs.

6.1.1 BCT Action Items

Future action items may focus on improving coordination of, access to, and management of environmental restoration and real estate-type data generated at Fort Ritchie.

6.1.2 Rationale

As the number of agencies and contractors associated with the Fort Ritchie disposal and environmental restoration program grows, it will be important that all parties involved be able to share data for decision making. The establishment and maintenance of an electronic database of sampling and analysis data and spatial data (e.g., real estate maps) is the most efficient method of sharing data among parties.

6.1.3 Status/Strategy

Strategies have been developed to address data usability requirements as part of the Quality Assurance program for Fort Ritchie. Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) have been developed to ensure data collected during the field investigation/RA process will be of known defensible quality suitable for achieving project objectives.

6.2 DATA INTEGRATION AND MANAGEMENT

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the validity of using historical data sets in the installation environmental restoration program. Future action items may focus on continuing to ensure the acceptability of data generated through: 1) compliance with USEPA guidance on data validation; and 2) execution of field work in accordance with procedures established in approved Sampling and Analysis Plans.


The BCT will continue to ensure all parties involved in environmental restoration activities at Fort Ritchie are able to share data for decision making.

6.2.2 Rationale

Historical analytical data can contribute to the completion of site characterizations and risk assessments by filling data gaps. Current and future data from each data collection system (e.g., field laboratories, field screening techniques) are critical to the completion of all site characterization efforts, comprehensive conceptual model development, risk assessments, and ultimately the selection of RAs to protect human health and the environment.


Data gathered for environmental restoration efforts at Fort Ritchie are stored in database format.


Section 6.0 Technical and Other Issues to be Resolved

6.3 DATA GAPS

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the determination and collection of data needed to complete the Fort Ritchie environmental restoration program.


Future action items may include the assessment of data gaps for the ongoing development of an environmental restoration strategy.

6.3.2 Rationale

Effective identification and filling of data gaps will permit the development of comprehensive conceptual site models for site characterization and risk assessment. Effective analysis of data gaps will also facilitate the completion of investigation efforts so that appropriate RAs can be identified and evaluated. This information will also facilitate the identification of clean areas at Fort Ritchie.


Areas requiring additional characterization sampling have been proposed in the SI Report and Workplan Addendum (ICF KE, 1997b and ICF KE, 1998). However, the BCT has not made a final determination regarding additional field work at this time. The future strategy may incorporate the use of BCT meetings to resolve data gap issues prior to the execution of additional field work.

6.4 BACKGROUND LEVELS

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to documenting background levels for the Fort Ritchie environmental restoration program.


Background levels will be reviewed and evaluated in conjunction with the SI Report.

6.4.2 Rationale

Background concentration values of analytes in the soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment have been established. The values are representative of analyte concentrations which are naturally occurring and analyte concentrations which are due to anthropogenic sources. USEPA and MDE are expected to concur with these values.


Background concentrations for surface soil, subsurface soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment were established during the SI. Background locations were selected to represent the most upgradient areas of Fort Ritchie which do not lie within an OU or otherwise potentially contaminated areas.

6.5 RISK ASSESSMENT

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the completion of risk assessments required to complete the Fort Ritchie environmental restoration and compliance programs.


The Risk Assessment will be reviewed in conjunction with the SI Report. Future action items may include continuing evaluation of the role of anticipated land use as a criterion in selection assumptions in the exposure assessment.



6.5.2 Rationale

Based on the results of the Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan, future land use ranges from residential to industrial. This risk assessment must take all potential future uses into account during exposure analysis.


A draft baseline risk assessment has been conducted, as part of the SI based on the initial sampling data, to identify and characterize the toxicity and potential effects on human health and ecological receptors associated with any hazardous substances present at Fort Ritchie. The risk assessment forms the basis for determining whether or not further investigation/RA is necessary at Fort Ritchie and justification for performing any action that may be required. The risk assessment will be expanded/updated based on additional data collected.

The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) examines plausible exposure scenarios under both current land use and future land use conditions. Under the current land use scenario, the HHRA looked at both a site worker/caretaker and a teenage trespasser/visitor as receptors. Under the future land use scenario, a child resident, adult resident, excavation worker, and/or dredge worker are examined as potential receptors. Ecological receptors identified in the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) include terrestrial plants, soil invertebrates, terrestrial wildlife, and aquatic life.

6.6 INSTALLATION-WIDE REMEDIAL ACTION STRATEGY

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to an installation-wide RA strategy. An RA strategy has not been developed for Fort Ritchie to address the ongoing environmental restorations. The future land use risk assessment for remedy selections is presented in Table 6-1.


The RA strategy for cleanup at Fort Ritchie has not yet been established. The BCT will develop this strategy after reviewing the SI Report, and revise the remediation schedule accordingly.

6.6.2 Rationale

The installation-wide RA strategy would be structured to achieve expedited RAs while controlling costs.


The activities presented in the Work Plan (ICF KE, 1997a) are currently being implemented and additional investigations outlined in the Workplan Addendum (ICF KE, 1998) are planned for Spring 1998. The schedule for investigation and cleanup activities is presented on Figure 5-1.

6.7 INTERIM MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to monitoring groundwater and surface water.


No BCT action items have been identified at Fort Ritchie at this time regarding interim monitoring of groundwater and surface water.

6.7.2 Rationale

Long-term monitoring may be necessary as part of remedial efforts for selected sites at Fort Ritchie.


Because there are no BCT action items for interim monitoring, there is no strategy.


to a

S o O in — a) ° rr

W 

TJ

«5 to Q. a)

O O 0 (0 *- CO

B 0) o coo

CO CD

to

1 CD | .2 to c to

a> to 2 c

*- C o

CD O c to

"CD CO 2 c

i; c o

25 CD co CO

«-1 <°5 O 0~ m Jü to o -2 o to

c

c

O CD -M CD m ro

o ~ u to c 0 TO — o CO

O CD >^^ -CDU) 'to 2

£ C 3 CD

< O co en » 01 O (5 cr 3 cr _i

fz O T3 CO O O CD 3 O O CD 3

CD <*•» CD 8g> c .£ to to

(p o

p S to

> c to O '*— 0) <n u <

c o ro a> v_ O CD

DC

CD C o z

■o c

CO -^z

o ^

O £

C to c a> c 'to 2

to

.1 s> c c

< X2

V) c a> CO

CD >. CD CL

o '■3 u a> a>

CO

(A 3

c V 1-

CD CD o

of. O (D

2 £ CD O

I1

XI ^^

-° O CD 2 "cl

2l

_ to CO (B -1 5 -* "D .2 to c

So«

, CD Ol _ O C

8 »o CL c 5 >- 3 ® 5 o c •- .2

CD

CO CD

Si 5 C.2-C0 CL 5 cr£ G5UJ<

o

CO

TO O o

> 3 Ü III I 81*5

CC 3 cc > o 'to "g « 2 E to «5

3 < E ID cr ■ to"

o <D 8 8 O 2 > co c to

■♦-» « C c 5E

£} "*> «j a)

tco

0) E a o

ü ö X o f to > <o > s. w s. a> 3

> a)

CO <: < 5? Q? < < < D c

k. z z CO as CO ra z z z

o Ü c o Ü

c T3 C

c 0)

"5" m" to

to

CÜ

CO

CD

E «*- -a o "5 Ü O 0) w 0) (0 (A <

o (0

c (0 c

05 g

o t t (0

c to

O -2 > <" co J2 E

i CO ,

a. 'S CO E

y -a ° 5 > re

to

s 0 < <

_co o CO

^ "55

a.

O iS

CL

O £ > v co « E

• ™ • 1 CO 3 CO c E z z z E co i2 E

.2 <0 CO C/5 CD CG CO o CQ CO CD CO CQ CO ^ CD co E co

co a? m co E co E

0) (A

c o CO E CO CO TJ CO CO CO CO CO

KJ

D T3 V- C 0) n (0 _i 5 o> ■o k- 3 c

3 3 U.

T-

o a

X) CD C o

CD c o <

CD C o

CD c o

0 C o

1 Z z z Z z z a> J3 CO 1- T3 •D

to •o 5 ■D -o TJ

c c <= m C c C to — c °

tO M-

c ° CO H_ ®

o cj c u to

to «_ c °

CO »_ c °

TO M-

C ° to

tn £

o c o c o c t o c o c o c ••= o 0 Q_

¥°- to ro to

•J= o CO :s= CD a. c?° .!= to

jS CO '5 to

~ O 3

■ i= 10 tO ■^ -0 — iS to c

a> Q-'6 g>o «

.— to CD ■^ -Q o <S to to

•i= O to -i= CD p.

c?o_

to to to

■•;= o to -^= (0 p.

c?o_ iS TO <"

CD tO o ■D E «

2-0 3 i "D CO

CD <S T3 E

Ü CD

0 o to

■c 3 CO

C m <" CD « £

T3 E ~ 2 a> CD iT3 10

(D to 3

? ^^ 2 0) 3

c « ® 0 to o •D E <5 y ffl 3 i T3 to

C -z; 0 <" ? 2 •D E <5 2 0 3 i T3 10

O - C\J CO •<* in CD

•D

1-1 O >. o

C D- O

TO CD O

0

■O 0 > -c

■— o *- £ >-i9 0 o o

CO 0- >

Ü OcoO > UO CO 0- >

Q CO 5 CO CO CO

C o x:

3 , _ O 0

O) to J£ o 0 CO D) X3

CO 0 x: to o 3 0 CO i_

o 0 g £> ^ CO cr^ CO 0 > 0 TO

0

^co5 000 poo .E to TO ■D "C t 0 3 3

CO CO CO

to o o _J

c

0 0 o X 0

_co TO o

E 0

o 0 x:

to O O > 0 > 0 5

2 r- co" to D o E o

•D 0 O

_0

c ~° o "

0 CO TO X)

0 2 3 o to k_ 0 TO

CO c

j«: c

' c 0

C o CO

CE o to o to

^ to c to CO TO CO v. CO 0 -c: o 0 0 c x:

ll O CO

XI 0 03 -i to _

0

CO 0 D. E to to

'6 to 0 o TO t 3 to XI 3 to o z

0 XI TO '> TO

CO x:

XI 3

CL .— ■S ° osco c co 0 0 .2 u ED.-? TO <t CO CL~ XI 0 O 3 Q Z CO

£■§ 0 to O 3 c „ o o o c o 2 £ S c > TO CO c c E-S TO TO "c -S o o 0

0- ^ CD Q Z CO

0C-

f 8

8ä - 3 S I o > o to o

s% ° TO C

_0 0 w

■2 " to

2 ^ O D.T3 '-'

CO 0 E

0 O <D

^ O 0 .>. CO = c S- 8 D 01 . t£ S 3 -O O c

•E-LLT ^- o S CL

3 c T3 TO

Ol1^

ix^ co 2 x: 3 co-fS

0

0

to 0 Q. E to CO

'5 co

0 o TO •c 3 10 O z

CO = C n C 0

o o

'to fc

O (1) o

■D r > Q to n tn c-. o c 01 m LL r- r c Ol ra m CL 0 n rr r>

0 to m

c CB 0

CD O 0 O <

rr LL m r o

LL

TT CD O O

Q TT m oi a> Ol

ri£ Ol

< CO f- C) n < en (C Q LU S

o TJ CD CU > C n o en

<l>

(1) DC en <l)

XI o in 3

TJ 0) 3 C

'£* E O O

(0 c

_o u

V co >. •a a> E o>

DC

c d) E a o v >

a

c CD

E en w 0> w (0 <

d) 0) => TJ C (0

_J a> 3 3

Li.

CO

n re H

TJ _ 0

(0 OJ "Sal i o c * o CD CO O c

CD CO O c

CD o CO

CD o CO

CD CO Ü c

Q. <D ir C O CO O i: c O ir c o Q_ Q. * c o

S3 Oj); u^ O CD ~ O 0)5 CO CO O Q) ~

<D CD ?5 ;„-0 c= C 3 (D TO

CD m a CD m CO O •£ O CO

c CD Q.

o

c CD CL O

CD m re

£ ~ C 3 CD SC C 3 CD ^ C 3 CD < t OTJ (1) 10

O o 0 3 co X O XI CO O O CD 3

S OTJ (0 O O CD 3

?C O TJ CO O O CD 3

C

(0 CO 05 t_ CO

CD > «

CO D)

CD .£

§.«1 CO £ X! C O CD

w

co CO

CO CD ro

I? co re

Adj

ac

Use

OJ c

'co 3

.1 ä c c £2

c CD

TJ 'co

"« E co "> n '-

CL^Z CD

.2? 5

1 3> .£ .E co £2.2

O TJ 3 5- c st CD "5 3 CO I < XJ. O co o CC D co co < n _i

a) (0 co CD

, CD

CO 3 CO CD

to 'Q.

c £ v. 3 o

CD CD > a> ^ i_

TJ CO CO 0 C O 3 C CO C j- O cc . •- C O) CO (D

CD O

Ig CO ~ x iS

to i= CO CO OJ c c 11 ■a 3

CO ^ »-

° "cö ® CC co OJ

IP < CO T! c re a>

5

CO o I i_ CD

E CO

o e < LL. < o o_ co < m LL <

"t 0) +* +rf re c ? x>

a) .£ § §

■S m

2 "° re a> JS CO CO CO CD CD S 0)

7 ,o fc ,o 3 CO <. <: < < > u5 A to

> CD LJ 0 ^

C z z z Z co a. CO a. Z

Ü TJ C C o » CO

Ü is O •s CO CÜ **—

o o co a> o JJ TO si 3 .Q

CO 3

Ü CL

(0 c <n

05 Ü CO

re c 1

CO "a aS ^ £ 2

TJ <: z CO J2 Z

I CO t

o CO

z E

O T3

^ < ■z. z

•o <. z

re CO CO CD m CO £ CO CO CD CO CÜ CD c

o o

CO CO CO co E co CO CO CO CO CO

k. a> re 5

TJ C 3 O i_ -O X) JD

O CD CD CD

<! o C o <: <: C

o z Z z z z z

1_

CD

CO ■o X! ■a TJ 5 c C c

re- S C ° CO

CO ». CO CO M- CO _

c ° CO c ° c ° (0 o c 5 £

o c o c O c t *= o CO -i=

•~ o co -^ '^•2J2 ■J= O 3

Sfl ~ co <fl CD Q. "c0 CD CL CD CL'5 CD CL '

E t?5_ a. ??5_ EPS 8 g?ol •— CO ■= CD •— CO -^ — CO CD — co co — X5 ° co io CO 0 co io CO re co co re co c C -= 0 a. C -= CD c « t= c -= CD 0) CO o -o E « n >- x: y CD 3 i= TJ CO

£ o o

o 5 u ■o E co 9 CD 3 in ffl

CD re 3 -o £ co 2 CD 3

JE T> co

7i *- TJ " CD <D -= TJ CO

CD C o z

3 o 1"- CO a> o

1—

T— CM 1—

TJ C 3 O CL E_ o >- U§ y J= c Q- §,m

^ TJ O 05 CD to = C « '*

CD a> c CO

o -5 x I «IÜ £ >-to CD O O co a. a.

ü O CD > ÜX co a. a.

05

^co§ CD 05 CD COO .£ CO CO TJ t t CD 3 3

CO CO CO

QCO 5 CO CO CO

0 c CO

05 o o x: o

S 05 O _^3C0 CL re 05 ~ o o

-= < CO

Q Z CO

I- - Q $ CD Q Z CO

TJ c 3 O i_ OJ ^: o co .a 05 co 3 CO o CD

°? a>

X2 CO

co Ü O _j

O) c

TJ CD 05 O

tn CO o '£ 05 x: o 0)

TJ c o

II o co o CO

^ CO n CO CO CO CO ^

CO Ü o > 05 > CD

o .c

b" to i_

05 OJ i_ CO sz o 05

g o

CD > c o

TJ 05 CO CO

XI

05 o l_

3 O CO 1_

05 to

Cfl c

j»: c '^_

TJ 05 i— 3

3

j05 X5 CO > CO

o c

CO CO 05 .£ o *- 05 05 c x:

li o co

TJ CD

.si re ?L co c x: c *- CD C 05

b CD 0 CO O 3

o o o c o £ c 5 CO CO c c I-e iS £

§1 CD c f1 ° h- O

co => O E o

XJ 05

O

Ö O 0 i_ 0

CO 0

Q.

E co co

'5 co 0 o CO t 3 CO

X5 3 CO

0 .co • y 0^

CO o 5|o to c 1-.

J£ 0 co ■9 u CO iS J2 3 oon CLTJ ^ cfl 0 £ cq 0 2 re g^_

XJ Z. xj 0 o 0 ^Zt5 ; O 0 ^ CO =

(DU)" c x: 0 3 TJ 0 U^ o jlco Cm OJ -LU

TJ CO =

§ LU co o O O.H | cflt -2 c- 3 re o _ x: 3 o

CO »Z

0 o

co co

CO o

o '5 O 05 -o > "ST"« c Or

c

o m u. c S

0 Q. CC 3

CO -^ m o |o Id Lt CD

■C o

LL

■sr co OJ O) CJ5 -to? co o < 03-c

< 03 « Q LU 5

n T) CO 0) > C o o cn m 03 cr

CO 0) r> o

TJ a) 3 C

'■3 c o o en c o

'■I— u a> co

CO ><

TJ 0)

E a> cr

c <D

E a. o a> > a> a

E a> E CA (A V (0 (0 < <A

a>

TJ C re -i <D

3 U_

re

TJ co CO a> 0) CD CD —

+■* Ü O CD CO re <o CO CO CO o c a. a) CD;*:

C O 05 O)

■? C X CO

Q- Q- ^ c o

Antic

i U

s

CD CO k- D O O

co c CD Q. o

co c CD Q. O

O CD '.= CD ai re o -2 O CO ~ C 3 CD

O O CD 3

(0 CD

c (0 CD CD

o CD Ü

> lo 0) (A CO CO co

Adj

ac

Use

D5 C co

o

Q- co c CD Q.

Q.

CO c CD D.

c c 'Eis "O 3

I o o < .o

a> u CD — (/I (0 CO cn £ CO 3 3 ■4-*

Q. CD c c o«. lo

CO 3 D-° ?<! c

c co

3 Ü

o f J to u] 2

V— CD O) C

CD O >_ c <S ' <D E co co o 2 =

iss. ° §.o CD ,<2 o

rö-2 .y re

-S>3 o< o UL <.e CCÜC UJ CO

k_

a> *rf +rf CB C

Q> .E Ü TJ «5 a) t CO 3

CO CO

C a> o c — o la O l- t- H V- Ü ~ CO z z Z z H—

O CO «

Ü

LLI UJ UJ UJ o 5 2 2 2 (A a) re CO CO CO CO *■* o t

re s CO CO CO to C UJ UJ UJ UJ re CO CO CO CO c = Ja CO CO CO CO

E m

CO D < < < < CO ^ X. * X. *•* co CO CO CO c

Ü cr UJ

oc UJ

DC LU

DC UJ

DC tr DC DC ^ => z> 3 3 d) r- H t- h- ** 3 3 3 3 (0

TJ c

U_ LL. LL LL

O O O O H H t- 1-

3 H H f- h- o O O O O i» UJ UJ LU UJ Ü ~3 -3 -3 "3

m CO CD CD z> => 3 3 CO to CO CO

(A ■X (A £

3 CO ■* in CD

o T— y—

"

C 3 O i— cn J£ o co

JD CD CO 3 CO u CD n co co _CD

JD CO H

CO o o _1

cn c T) 01 01 CJ X CD

_JO

CO o

CD

■D C O ^_:

II 8§ ^ CO

co re CO v;

8"c CD CD C £

Is o <o

"O CD

«■i

co .£ £g c cu

;2 re C TJ E CD CD CO O 3 C *- o o C3 C

o 2

c 5

co co c c

E-2 co re c o CO

CD x:

CD = c 3 c\ CD CO o fc O CO

O CD Ü o Q r

> CO n en c- a c 0) m UL

t- r c O) CO

m 0-

CD n nr 71

CD C_

m CD

CD U CD

< a.

CC CD

r o

s o o o •q- CO 05 O) m

?5K CJ>

< CO sz C) n < CO CD

Q LU 2


6.8 EXCAVATION OF CONTAMINATED MATERIALS

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the excavation of contaminated materials. At this time, excavation of contaminated material has not been planned at Fort Ritchie.


No BCT action items for the excavation of contaminated materials have been identified at Fort Ritchie at this time.

6.8.2 Rationale

Excavation of contaminated materials may be required as part of the environmental restoration efforts at Fort Ritchie.


A strategy for excavation of contaminated materials will be established subsequent to additional characterization at Fort Ritchie.

6.9 PROTOCOLS FOR REMEDIAL DESIGN REVIEWS

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the development of protocols for the review of remedial designs. At this time, protocols have not been developed.


No BCT action items have been identified at Fort Ritchie at this time. Future action items may include the development of protocols for the review of remedial designs.

6.9.2 Rationale

Review of remedial designs is critical to ensure that cleanup goals will be achieved and that they are technically and administratively feasible.


Because there are no BCT action items for developing protocols for remedial design reviews, there is no strategy.

6.10 CONCEPTUAL MODELS

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the development of conceptual models for environmental restoration efforts at Fort Ritchie. At this time, conceptual site models have not been prepared for Fort Ritchie.

6.10.1 BCT Action Item

No BCT action items have been identified at Fort Ritchie at this time. Future action items may include the development of conceptual models.

6.10.2 Rationale

The conceptual site models will be developed based on the results of past investigations and ongoing RAs.


Because there are no BCT action items for conceptual models, there is no strategy.



6.11 CLEANUP STANDARDS

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the development of cleanup standards. Cleanup standards will be used to identify remedial alternatives capable of achieving cleanup goals and determine the time when remediation will be complete.


The BCT will review the cleanup standards prior to the implementation of any RA at Fort Ritchie.

6.11.2 Rationale

Cleanup standards will be established after review and evaluation of the risk assessment and potential reuse and based on the level of concern (LOC) concentrations identified during the SI. LOC values are media-specific, chemical concentrations, which are derived from ARARs.


The LOCs established for soil, groundwater, and surface water were selected based upon the most stringent values available from either USEPA Region III or MDE. Since regulatory standards are not available for sediment, several reference sources were used to develop a list of sediment guidance values. LOCs for human health and the environment are presented in Tables 6-2 through 6-5.

6.12 INITIATIVES FOR ACCELERATING CLEANUP

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the development of initiatives for accelerating cleanup at Fort Ritchie. During 1992 and 1993, the U.S. Army developed a general Acceleration Plan for contaminated sites that was reviewed, and concurred with, by the regulatory agencies. The cleanup acceleration initiatives applicable to Fort Ritchie are:

• Overlap SI at identified OUs with any necessary Remedial Design (RD) and RA phases;

• Acceleration of procurement actions;

• Concurrent U.S. Army/regulatory review of all work plans, investigation reports, and secondary documents;

• Compression of time allocated to produce revised documents and comment response packages;

• Compression of field schedules;

• Supplementing existing work plans for future work instead of producing new work plans (includes Quality Assurance Project Plans and Health and Safety Plans);

• Initiating field work after review and resolution of comments on draft work plans;

• Using SI data packages as the decision point for NFRAP, RAs, or continued study; and

• The use of presumptive remedies.


The BCT will attempt to incorporate all applicable initiatives for accelerating cleanup into the restoration program at Fort Ritchie.

6.12.2 Rationale

It is desirable to initiate accelerated cleanups at Fort Ritchie to facilitate the property transfer process.


Table 6-2 Levels of Concern for Soil

\Ct'-~'-.i'r':;\, "'■<. USEPA Region III RBC Value* *; %" s~ > "; Analyte "':' i " ■ Residential Industrial

Inorganics (mg/kg) i^,,^ a -Jr ■ Aluminum 780ÖÖ 100ÖÖÖ0

Antimony 31 820

Arsenic 0.43 3.8

Barium 5500 140000

Beryllium 0.15 1.3 Cadmium 39 1000 Calcium (a) 4000000 4000000 Chromium 390 10000

Cobalt 4700 120000 Copper 3100 82000 Iron 23000 610000

Lead (b) 400 1000 Magnesium (a) 800000 800000 Manganese 1800 47000

Mercury 23 610

Nickel 1600 41000 Potassium (a) 1000000 1000000 Selenium 390 10000 Silver 390 10000 Sodium (a) 1000000 1000000 Thallium (c) 6.3 160 Vanadium 550 14000 Zinc 23000 610000 Total Cyanide 1600 41000

Volatiles(ug/kg) -■•;*-<>>f^x-i:^-,-■ .,»-»,,,.;.,;,. .^v,:..,

Acetone 7800000 200000000 Benzene 22000 200000 Bromodichloromethane 10000 92000 Bromoform 81000 720000 Bromomethane 110000 2900000 2-Butanone 47000000 1000000000 Carbon Disulfide 7800000 200000000 Carbon tetrachloride 4900 44000 Chlorobenzene 1600000 41000000 Chloroethane 31000000 820000000 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether (d) 2000000 51000000 Chloroform 100000 940000 Chloromethane 49000 440000 Dibromochloromethane 7600 68000 1,1-Dichloroethane 7800000 200000000 1,2-Dichloroethane 7000 63000 1,2-Dichloroethene(total) 700000 18000000 1,1-Dichloroethene 1100 9500 1,2-Dichloropropane 9400 84000 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (e) 3700 33000 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (e) 3700 33000 Ethylbenzene 7800000 200000000 2-Hexanone (f) -- - 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 6300000 160000000 Methylene chloride 85000 760000 Styrene 16000000 410000000 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 3200 29000 Tetrachloroethene 12000 110000 Toluene 16000000 410000000 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1600000 41000000 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2700000 72000000

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


Table 6-2 (continued) Levels of Concern for Soil

USEPA Region III RBC Value* Analyte Residential Industrial

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 11000 100000 Trichloroethene 58000 520000

Vinyl Acetate 78000000 1000000000 Vinyl chloride 340 3000 Xylenes (total) 160000000 1000000000

Semivolatiles (ug/kg) Acenaphthene 4700000 120000000 Acenaphthylene (g) 2300000 61000000 Anthracene 23000000 610000000 Benzo(a]anthracene 880 7800 Benzo[a]pyrene 88 780 Benzo[b)fluoranthene 880 7800 Benzo[g.h,i]perylene (g) 2300000 61000000 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 8800 78000

Benzoic acid 310000000 1000000000 Benzyl alcohol 23000000 610000000 bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane (h) -- •- bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether 580 5200 bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether 9100 82000 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether 4500000 120000000 Butyl benzyl phthalate 16000000 410000000 di-n-Butylphthalate 7800000 200000000 Carbazole 32000 290000 4-Chloroaniline 310000 8200000 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol (h) •- - 2-Chloronaphtha!ene 6300000 160000000 2-Chlorophenol 390000 10000000 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether (h) -- - Chrysene 88000 780000 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 88 780 Dibenzofuran 310000 8200000 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 7000000 180000000 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 7000000 180000000 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 27000 240000 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 1400 13000 2,4-Dichlorophenol 230000 6100000 Diethylphthalate 63000000 1000000000 Dimethyl phthalate 780000000 1000000000 2,4-Dimethylphenol 1600000 41000000 2,4-Dinitrophenol 160000 4100000 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 160000 4100000 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 78000 2000000 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 46000 410000 Fluoranthene 3100000 82000000

Fluorene 3100000 82000000 Hexachlorobenzene 400 3600 Hexachlorobutadiene 8200 73000 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 550000 14000000 Hexachloroethane 46000 410000 lndeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 880 7800

6000000 61000000

100000Ö0Ö

Isophorone 670000 2-Methylnaphthalene (g) 2300000

3900000 2-Methylphenol 4-Methvlphenol 390000 10000000 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol (h) -- -- Naphthalene 3100000 82000000 2-Nitroaniline 4700 120000

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document



fUSEPA Region HI RBC Value* Analyte Residential Industrial

3-Nitroaniline 230000 6100000 4-Nitroaniline 230000 6100000 Nitrobenzene 39000 1000000 2-Nitrophenol (f) -- -- 4-Nitrophenol 4800000 130000000 N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 91 820 N-nitrosodiphenylamine 130000 1200000 di-n-Octylphthalate 1600000 41000000 2,2'-oxybis-(1 -chloropropane) (i) 9100 82000 Pentachlorophenol 5300 48000 Phenanthrene (g) 2300000 61000000 Phenol 47000000 1000000000 Pyrene 2300000 61000000 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 780000 20000000 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 7800000 200000000 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 58000 520000 Pesticides/PCBs (ug/kg) Aldrin 38 340 Aroclor 1016 5500 140000 Aroclor1221 (j) 320 2900 Aroclor 1232 (j) 320 2900 Aroclor 1242 (j) 320 2900 Aroclor 1248 (j) 320 2900 Aroclor 1254 1600 41000 Aroclor 1260 320 2900 alpha-BHC 100 910 beta-BHC 350 3200 delta-BHC (e) -- -- gamma-BHC (Lindane) 490 4400 Chlordane 490 4400 alpha-Chlordane (k) 490 4400 gamma-Chlordane (k) 490 4400 4,4'-DDD 2700 24000 4,4'-DDE 1900 17000 4,4'-DDT 1900 17000 Dieldrin 40 360 Endosulfan I (I) 470000 12000000 Endosulfan II (I) 470000 12000000 Endosulfan sulfate (I) 470000 12000000 Endrin 23000 610000 Endrin aldehyde (m) 23000 610000 Endrin ketone (m) 23000 610000 Heptachlor 140 1300 Heptachlor epoxide 70 630 Methoxychlor 390000 10000000 Toxaphene 580 5200 Herbicides (ug/kg) , 2,4-D 780000 20000000 Dalapon 2300000 61000000 2,4-DB 630000 16000000 Dicamba 2300000 61000000 Dichloroprop (f) -- -- Dinoseb 78000 2000000 MCPA 39000 1000000 MCPP (h) -- -- Silvex 630000 16000000 2,4,5-t 780000 20000000

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document



USEPA Region III RBC Value* Analyte Residential Industrial

Dioxins/Furans (ug/kg) 1,2,3,4,6.7,8-HpCOD (n) 0.4 4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF (n) 0.4 4 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF (n) 0.4 4 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD (n) 0.04 0.4 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD (n) 0.04 0.4

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD (n) 0.04 0.4 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF (n) 0.04 0.4 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF (n) 0.04 0.4 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF (n) 0.04 0.4 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF (n) 0.04 0.4 Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (n) 4 40 Octachlorodibenzo-p-furan (n) 4 40 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD (n) 0.008 0.08 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF (n) 0.08 0.8 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF (n) 0.008 0.08 2378-TCDD (n) 0.004 0.04 2378-TCDF (n) 0.04 0.4

TPH(ugAg}. Diesel Fuel (h) -- Gasoline (h) -- ■-

Heavy Oil (h) -- ~ Jet Fuel (h) -- -- Kerosene (h) ■- -- Mineral Oil (h) •- - Naphtha (h) -- -- Paint Thinner (h) -- ■■

Stoddard Solvent (h) -- -• [Total Unknown (h) -- "

* Soil screening values are USEPA Region III Residential or Industrial Soil RBCs (USEPA 1996).

(a) = Average Daily Intake Value given (b) = Because lead does not have an RBC, the 1000 mg/kg industrial and 400

mg/kg residential soil screening level (USEPA 1994) was used for soil. (c) = The most conservative'RBC for thallium salts was used. (d) = No Value Given; Tentatively Identified Compound (e) = Value given for 1,3-Dichloropropene (f) = No value given; chemical of potential concern (g) = Value given for Pyrene (lowest PAH RBC value) (h) = No value given (i) = Value given for Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether (j) = The value for carcinogenic PCBs was used. (k) = Value given for Chlordane (I) = Value given for Endosulfan (m) = Value given for Endrin (n) = The RBCs for dioxin congeners other than 2,3,7,8-TCDD were derived

by multiplying the RBC for 2,3,7,8-TCDD by the respective toxic equivalency factor (TEF).

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


Table 6-3 Levels of Concern for Groundwater

Federal and Stat

AnalYte

3 Groundwater Le

Maryland MCLfuoAV

vels of Concern

> Federal MCUuq/U

RBC* (uc/U

Inorganics x >M_ , , Aluminum "NA "NVG 37000 Antimony 6 6 15 Arsenic 50 50 0.045 Barium 2000 2000 2600 Beryllium 4 4 0.016 Cadmium 5 5 18 Calcium (i) NA NL 400000 Chromium 100 100 180 Cobalt NA NL 2200 Copper (c) NA 1300 1500 Iron NA NL 11000 Lead (c) 50 15 15 Magnesium (i) NA NL 80500 Manganese NA NVG 840 Mercury (a) 2 2 11 Nickel (b) 100 100 730 Potassium (i) NA NL 100000 Selenium 50 50 180 Silver 50 NVG 180 Sodium (i) NA NVG ; 100000 Thallium 2 2 2.9 Vanadium NA NVG 260 Zinc NA NVG 11000 Total Cyanide NA 200 730 Volatiles Acetone NA NL 3700 Benzene 5 5 0.36 Bromodichloromethane NA 100 0.17 Bromoform NA 100 2.4 Bromomethane NA NVG 8.7 2-Butanone NA NL 1900 Carbon Disulfide NA NL 1000 Carbon tetrachloride 5 5 0.16 Chlorobenzene 100 NL 39 Chloroethane NA NVG 8600 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether NA NL 150 Chloroform NA 100 0.15 Chloromethane NA NVG 1.4 Dibromochloromethane NA NL 0.13 1,1-Dichloroethane NA NL 810 1,2-Dichloroethane 5 5 0.12 1,2-Dichloroethene(total) (g) 70 70 55 1,1-Dichloroethene 7 7 0.044 1,2-Dichloropropane 5 5 0.16 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (f) NA 0 0.077 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (f) NA NVG 0.077 Ethylbenzene 700 700 1300 2-Hexanone (m) NA NL NVG 4-Methyl-2-pentanone NA NL 2900 Methylene chloride 5 NL 4.1 Styrene 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

100 100 1600 NA NVG 0.052

Tetrachloroethene 5 5 1.1 Toluene 1000 1000 750 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 100 120 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 200 790

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


Table 6-3 (continued) Levels of Concern for Groundwater

Federal and State

Analvte

Groundwater Le

Maryland MCL fuq/L)

/els of Concern

Federal MCL fua/L)

RBC fuq/U

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 5 0.19

Trichloroethene 5 5 1.6

Vinvl Acetate NA NL 37000

Vinyl chloride 2 2 0.019

Xvlenes (total) 10000 10000 12000

Semivolatiles Acenaphthene NA NVG 2200

Acenaphthylene NA NL 1100

Anthracene NA NVG 11000

Benzo(a]anthracene NA NVG 0.092

Benzo[a]pyrene 0.2 0.2 0.0092

Benzo[b]fluoranthene NA NVG 0.092

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene NA NVG 1100

Benzo[k]fluoranthene NA NVG 0.92

Benzoic acid NA NL 150000

Benzyl alcohol NA NL 11000

bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane NA NL NA

bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether NA NL 0.0092

bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether NA NVG 0.26 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether NA NL 2100

Butyl benzyl phthalate NA NVG 7300

di-n-Butylphthalate NA NL 3700

Carbazole NA NL 3.4

4-Chloroaniline NA NL 150

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol NA NL NA

2-Chloronaphthalene NA NL 2900

2-Chlorophenol NA NVG 180

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether NA NL NA

Chrysene NA NVG 9.2

Dibenz(a,h]anthracene NA NL 0.0092

Dibenzofuran NA NL 150

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 600 270

1,3-Dichlorobenzene NA NVG 540

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 75 0.44

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine NA NL 0.15

2,4-Dichlorophenol NA NVG 110

Diethylphthalate NA NVG 29000

Dimethyl phthalate NA NVG 370000

2,4-Dimethylphenol NA NL "" NL

NVG ~ NVG

730

2,4-Dinitrophenol NA 73 73 2,4-Dinitrotoluene NA

2,6-Dinitrotoluene NA 37

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate NA NL 4.8 1500 Fluoranthene NA NL

NVG Fluorene NA 1500

Hexachlorobenzene 1 1 0.0066

Hexachlorobutadiene NA NVG 0.14

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 50 50 NVG NVG NVG

NL NL

'""" NL '"" ~NL

NVG NL

0.15 0.75 Hexachloroethane NA

NA lndeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.092 71

1100 Isophorone NA

2-Methylnaphthalene NA

2-Methylphenol NA NA NA

1800

4-Methylphenol 180 NA 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol

Naphthalene NA 1500 2.2 2-Nitroaniline NA

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document



■ :■■■■: Federal and Statt

Analvte

i Groundwater Le

■?•". Maryland '■■''•■ MCUuq/U

vels of Concern

Federal MCUuq/U

RBC* fucTLl

3-Nitroaniline NA NL 110 4-Nitroaniline NA NL 110 Nitrobenzene NA NL 3.4 2-Nitrophenol (m) NA NL NVG 4-Nitrophenol NA NVG 2300 N-Nitroso-di-n-oroovlamine NA NL 0.0096 N-nitrosodiphenylamine NA NL 14 di-n-Octylphthalate NA NL 730 2,2'-oxybis-( 1 -chloropropane) NA NVG 0.26 Pentachlorophenol 1 1 0.56 Phenanthrene NA NVG 1100 Phenol NA NVG 22000 Pyrene NA NVG 1100 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 70 190 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol NA NL 3700 2.4,6-Trichlorophenol NA NVG 6.1 Pesticides/PCBs Aldrin NA NVG 0.004 Aroclor 1016 (e) 0.5 0.5 2.6 Aroclor 1221 (e) 0.5 0.5 0.034 Aroclor 1232 (e) 0.5 0.5 0.034 Aroclor 1242 (e) 0.5 0.5 0.034 Aroclor 1248 (e) 0.5 0.5 0.034 Aroclor 1254 (e) 0.5 0.5 0.73 Aroclor 1260 (e) 0.5 0.5 0.034 alpha-BHC NA NL 0.011 beta-BHC NA NL 0.037 delta-BHC (m) NA NL NVG gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.2 0.2 0.052 Chlordane 2 2 0.052 alpha-Chlordane (d) NA 2 0.052 gamma-Chlordane (d) NA 2 0.052 4,4'-DDD NA NL 0.28 4,4'-DDE NA NL 0.2 4,4'-DDT NA NL 0.2 Dieldrin NA NVG 0.0042 Endosulfan I (k) NA NL 220 Endosulfan II (k) NA NL 220 Endosulfan sulfate (k) NA NL 220 Endrin 2 2 11 Endrin aldehyde (h) NA 2 11 Endrin ketone (h) NA 2 11 Heptachlor 0.4 0.4 0.0023 Heptachlor epoxide 0.2 2 0.0012 Methoxychlor 40 40 180 Toxaphene 3 3 0.061 Herbicides 2,4-D 70 70 61 Dalapon 200 200 1100 2,4-DB NA NL 290 Dicarnba NA NVG 1100 Dichloroprop (m) NA NL NVG Dinoseb 7 7 37 MCPA NA NVG 18

NA MCPP NA NL Silvex 50 50 290

370 2.4,5-T NA NVG

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document



Federal and Statt

Analvte

i Groundwater Le

Maryland MCL (uq/U

vels of Concern

Federal MCL (uq/U

RBC* (uq/U

Dioxins/Furans 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD NA NL 0.00004

1,2,3.4,6,7,8-HpCDF NA NL 0.00004

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF NA NL 0.00004

1,2,3,4,7.8-HxCDD NA NL 0.000004

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD NA NL 0.000004

1.2,3,7.8,9-HxCDD NA NL 0.000004

1,2.3,4,7,8-HxCDF NA NL 0.000004

1,2.3,6.7,8-HxCDF NA NL 0.000004

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF NA NL 0.000004

2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF NA NL 0.000004

Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin NA NL 0.0004

Octachlorodibenzo-p-furan NA NL 0.0004

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD NA NL 0.0000008

1,2,3.7,8-PeCDF NAj NL 0.000008

2,3,4.7.8-PeCDF NA NL 0.0000008

2378-TCOD 0.00003 0.00003 0.0000004

2378-TCDF NA NL 0.000004

TPH Diesel Fuel NA NL NA

Gasoline NA NL NA

Heavy Oil NA NL NA

Jet Fuel NA NL NA

Kerosene NA NL NA

Mineral Oil NA NL NA

Naphtha NA NL NA

Paint Thinner NA NL NA

Stoddard Solvent NA NL NA

Total Unknown NA NL NA

•Groundwater screening water levels are Region III Tap Water RBCs (USEPA 1996) NA = Not available NVG = No value given NL = Not listed (a) = Inorganic (b) = MCLG & MCL is being remanded (c) = *MCL=action level (d) = Value used for Chlordane (e) = Value used for PCBs (f) = Value used for 1,3-dichloropropene (g) = Value for cis-1,2-dichloroethene (h) = Value for Endrin (i) = Average Daily Intake value given (j) = Because lead does not have an RBC, the 15 ug/L action level (USEPA 1990)

was used, (k) = RBC value used for Endosulfan (I) = RBC value used for Pyrene (m) = No value given; chemical of potential concern (n) = No Value Given; Tentatively Identified Compound (o) = The most conservative RBC for thallium salts was used.

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


Table 6-4 Levels of Concern for Surface Water

•; 4 Selected Values from Federal and Maryland Quality Criteria for Water

Federal L.OC Maryland LOC >.?..,--. :" Analvte ua/t ua/I

Inorganics. . i,„ v . _■ :.j.,.. Aluminum (b"") 87 NL Antimony (c) 14 NL Arsenic (c,r) 0.018 50 Barium (e,r) - 4 2000 Beryllium (c") 0.0037 NL Cadmium (b",q2J 1.1 1.1 Calcium NVG NL Chromium (b,r,l) 11 11 Cobalt (b) 23 NL Copper (b",q2) 12 12 Iron (c*) 300 NL Lead (b",q2) 3.2 3.2 Magnesium NVG NL Manganese (c*) 50 NL Mercury (b,q2) 0.012 0.012 Nickel (b,r) 160 100 Potassium NVG NL Selenium (b,q2) 5 5 Silver (b,qT) 0.12 4.1 Sodium NVG NL Thallium (c) 1.7 NL Vanadium (e) 20 NL Zinc (b,q") 110 110 Total Cvanide (b.q2) 5.2 5.2 Volatiles Acetone (e) 1500 NL Benzene (c,r) 1.2 5 Bromodichloromethane (c) 0.27 NL Bromoform (c) 4.3 NL Bromomethane NL NL 2-Butanone (e) 14000 NL Carbon Disulfide (e) 0.92 NL Carbon tetrachloride (c) 0.25 NL Chlorobenzene (e) 64 NL Chloroethane NL NL 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether NL NL Chloroform (c) 5.7 NL Chloromethane NL NL Dibromochloromethane (c) 0.41 NL 1,1-Dichloroethane (e) 47 NL 1,2-Dichloroethane (c) 0.38 NL 1,2-Dichloroethene(total) (e) 590 NL 1,1-Dichloroethene (c,r) 0.057 7 1,2-Dichloropropane (c) 0.52 NL cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (e^f) 0.055 NL trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (eA,f) 0.055 NL Ethylbenzene (e) 7.3 NL 2-Hexanone (e) 99 NL 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (e) 170 NL Methylene chloride (c) 4.7 NL Styrene NL NL 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (c) 0.17 NL Tetrachloroethene (c*) 0.8

9.8 NL

Toluene (e) NL trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (e,g) 590 NL 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane (e,r) 11 200 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (c) 0.6 NL Trichloroethene (c,r) 2.7 5 Vinyl Acetate (e) 16 NL

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998

6-17 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure (8RAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II

Final Document


Table 6-4 (continued) Levels of Concern for Surface Water

Selected Values from Federal and Maryland Quality Criteria for Water

Federal LOC Maryland LOC Analvte ua/1 ua/1

Vinyl chloride (c') 2 NL Xylenes (total) (e) 13 NL Semivolatiles Acenaphthene (b*) 520 NL Acenaohthvlene NL NL Anthracene (e) 0.73 NL Benzo[a]anthracene (e) 0.027 NL Benzo[a]pyrene (e) 0.014 NL Benzo[b]fluoranthene NL NL Benzo[q,h,i]perylene NL NL Benzo(k](luoranthene NL NL Benzoic acid (e) 42 NL Benzyl alcohol (e) 8.6 NL bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane NL NL bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether NL NL bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether NL NL 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether (+) 1.5 NL Butyl benzyl phthalate (+) 19 NL di-n-Butylphthalate (e) 35 NL Carbazole NL NL 4-Chloroaniline NL NL 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol (aA) 30 NL 2-Chloronaphthalene NL NL 2-Chlorophenol (c) 120 NL 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether NL NL Chrysene (c) 0.0028 NL Dibenz[a,h]anthracene NL NL Dibenzofuran (e) 3.7 NL 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (o*) 763 NL 1,3-Dichlorobenzene (c) 400 NL 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (c) 400 NL 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine (c) 0.04 NL 2,4-Dichlorophenol (c) 93 NL Diethylphthalate (e) 210 NL Dimethyl phthalate NL NL 2,4-Dimethylphenol (c) 540 NL 2,4-Dinitrophenol (c) 70 NL 2,4-Dinitrotoluene (c") 0.11 NL 2,6-Dinitrotoluene (p*) 230 NL bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate (c) 1.8 NL Fluoranthene (e) 6.16 NL Fluorene (+) 3.9 NL Hexachlorobenzene (c) 0.00075 NL Hexachlorobutadiene (c) 0.44 NL Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (b*) 5.2 NL Hexachloroethane (c) 1.9 NL lndeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene NL NL

NL Isophorone (c) 8.4 2-Methylnaphthalene (e,h) 2.1 NL 2-Methylphenol (e) 13 NL 4-Methylphenol (e,i) 13 NL 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol (c-) 13.4

620 NL

Naphthalene (b*) NL NL 2-Nitroaniline NL

3-Nitroaniline NL NL 4-Nitroaniline NL NL Nitrobenzene (c) 17 NL 2-Nitrophenol (b.M 150 NL 4-Nitrophenol (b,jA) N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine (c)

150 NL 0.005 NL

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document



-..: ■■•;.-. ,!:.:>:; {Selected Values from Federal and Maryland

Quality Criteria for Water ^ ;; :

Federal LOC Maryland LOC , Analvte ua/t ua/I

N-nitrosodiphenylamine (c) 5 NL di-n-Octylphthalate NL NL 2,2'-oxybis-(1 -chloropropane) NL NL Pentachlorophenol (c) 0.28 NL Phenanthrene (b, ++) 6.3 NL Phenol (b*) 2560 NL Pyrene (c) 960 NL 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (+) 110 NL 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol (b, ++) 63 NL 2.4,6-Trichloroohenol fc) 2.1 Nl Pesticides/PCBs Aldrin (c,s) 0.00013 0.00079 Aroclor 1016 (c,s) 0.000044 0.00079 Aroclor1221 (c,s) 0.000044 0.00079 Aroclor 1232 (c,s) 0.000044 0.00079 Aroclor 1242 (c,s) 0.000044 0.00079 Aroclor 1248 (c,s) 0.000044 0.00079 Aroclor 1254 (c,s) 0.000044 0.00079 Aroclor 1260 (c,s) 0.000044 0.00079 alpha-BHC (c) 0.0039 NL beta-BHC (c) 0.014 NL delta-BHC (c) 0.019 NL gamma-BHC (Lindane) (c,q2) 0.019 0.08 Chlordane (c) 0.00057 NL alpha-Chlordane (c,k) 0.00057 NL gamma-Chlordane (c,k) 0.00057 NL 4,4'-DDD (c) 0.00083 NL 4,4'-DDE (c) 0.00059 NL 4,4'-DDT (c,s) 0.00059 0.00024 Dieldrin (c,s) 0.00014 0.00076 Endosulfan I (b) 0.056 NL Endosulfan II (b) 0.056 NL Endosulfan sulfate (b,l) 0.056 NL Endrin (b,q) 0.0023 0.0023 Endrin aldehyde (b,m) 0.0023 NL Endrin ketone (b,m) 0.0023 NL Heptachlor (c") 0.00021 NL Heptachlor epoxide (c) 0.0001 NL Methoxychlor (b) 0.03 NL Toxaohene (b.r) 0.0002 0.0002 Herbicides 2,4-D NVG NL Dalapon NL NL 2,4-DB NL NL Dicamba NL NL Dichloroprop NL NL Dinoseb NL NL MCPA NL NL MCPP NL NL Silvex NVG NL 2.4.5-T NL NL Dloxins/Furans 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD NL NL 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF NL NL 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF NL NL 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD NL NL 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDO NL NL 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD NL NL 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF NL NL 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF NL NL

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document



Selected Values from Federal and Maryland Quality Criteria for Water

Federal LOC Maryland LOC Analvte ua/1 ua/1

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF NL NL 2.3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF NL NL Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin NL NL Octachlorodibenzo-p-furan NL NL 1,2,3,7.8-PeCDD NL NL 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF NL NL 2.3,4.7,8-PeCDF NL NL

2378-TCDD (tAs) 0.00001 0.0000012 2378-TCDF NL NL

TPH Diesel Fuel NL NL

Gasoline NL NL

Heavy Oil NL NL

Jet Fuel NL NL

Kerosene NL NL

Mineral Oil NL NL

Naphtha NL NL Paint Thinner NL NL Stoddard Solvent NL NL Total Unknown NL NL

NL = Not listed NVG = no value given (a )= Fresh Criterion Maximum Concentration (acute). Quality Criteria tor Water (USEPA, 1995) (b) = Fresh Criterion Continuous Concentration (chrorrtc). Quality Criteria for Water (USEPA, 1995) (c) = Water & Organisms, Quality Criteria for Water (USEPA, 1995) (d) = Organisms Only, Quality Criteria for Water (USEPA, 1995) (e) = Tier II Suter and Tsao (1996) chronic value (f) =Value for 1,3-Dichloropropene (g) =Value for 1,2-Dichloroethene (h) = Value for 1-Methylnapthalene (i )= Value for 2-Methylphenol (j) = Value used for Nitrophenols (k) = Value used for Chlordane (I) = Value used for Endosulfan (m) = Value used for Endrin (n) = Value used for Heptachlor (o) = Value used for Dichlorobenzenes (p) = Value used for 2,4-Dinitrotoluene (q1) = md freshwater acute (q2) = md freshwater chronic (r) = md HH drinking water (s) = md HH fish consumption (!) = Value used for Chromium VI (*) = Published value used (") = Hardness dependent (100mg/CaCO3 used) ("") = pH dependent criteria (aluminum value appropriate for

pH ranges from 6.5 to 9.0: 7.8 pH used for pentachlorophenol) (+) = Tier II chronic value from USEPA (1996) (++) = Proposed criterion (A) = Value presented is the L.O.E.L. (Lowest Observed Effect Level) (" )= The chronic NAWQC for heptachlor (0.0038 ug/1) is based on final residue values;

for benchmarks to protect aquatic life, a secondary chronic value was calculated.

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


Table 6-5 Levels of Concern for Sediment

'■v;•.■ -;:,; ^Selected Levels of Concern for Sediment Media - ,-,

Analyfe'1-'':•* ; LOC* '" Inorqanics (mq/kq) . - , Aluminum NA Antimony (d) 2 Arsenic (a) 5.9 Barium NA Beryllium NA Cadmium (a) 0.596 Calcium NA Chromium (a) 37.3 Cobalt NA Copper (a) 35.7 Iron (b) 20000 Lead (a) 35 Maqnesium NA Manganese (b) 460 Mercury (a) 0.174 Nickel (a) 18 Potassium NA Selenium NA Silver (d) 1 Sodium NA Thallium NA Vanadium NA Zinc (a) 123 Total Cyanide NA Volatiles (uq/kq) .■■■.; Acetone (e) 8.77 Benzene (f) 57 Bromodichloromethane NA Bromoform NA Bromomethane NA 2-Butanone (e) 271 Carbon Disulfide (e) 0.856 Carbon tetrachloride (e) 47.6 Chlorobenzene (e) 417 Chloroethane NA 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether NA Chloroform (e) 99.4 Chloromethane NA Dibromochloromethane NA 1,1-Dichloroethane (e) 27.2 1,2-Dichloroethane(e) 255 1,2-Dichloroethene(totaI) (e) 400 1,1-Dichloroethene (e) 31.2 1,2-Dichloropropane NA cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (e,q) 0.0512 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (e,q) 0.0512 Ethylbenzene (e) 89.7 2-Hexanone (e) 22.6 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (e) 33.2 Methylene chloride (e) 375 Styrene NA 1,1,2.2-Tetrachloroethane (f) 940 Tetrachloroethene (e) 416 Toluene (e) 49.8 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (e,s) 400 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (e) 30.3

.•/*: > : ■.-_ Selected Levels of Concern for Sediment Media :

Analvte " LOC* 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (e) 1251 Trichloroethene (e) 218 Vinyl Acetate (e) 0.84 Vinyl chloride NA Xvlenes (total) (e) 156 Semivolatiles (uq/kq) Acenaphthene (c) 1300 Acenaphthylene NA Anthracene (b) 220 Benzo[a]anthracene (a) 31.7 Benzo[a]pyrene (a) 31.9 Benzo[b]fluoranthene (b,k) 240 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene (b) 170 Benzo[k]fluoranthene (b) 240 Benzoic acid NA Benzyl alcohol (e) 1.07 bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane NA bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether NA bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether NA 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether (e) 1241 Butyl benzyl phthalate (e) 10900 di-n-Butylphthalate (f) 11000 Carbazole NA 4-ChloroaniIine NA 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol NA 2-Chloronaphthalene NA 2-Chlorophenol NA 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether NA Chrysene (a) 57.1 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene (b) 60 Dibenzofuran (e) 418 1.2-Dichlorobenzene (e) 332 1.3-Dichlorobenzene (e) 1682 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (e) 347 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine NA 2.4-Dichlorophenol NA Diethylphthalate (e) 606 Dimethyl phthalate NA 2,4-Dimethylphenol NA 2,4-Dinitrophenol NA 2,4-Dinitrotoluene NA 2,6-Dinitrotoluene NA bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate (e) 893000 Fluoranthene (a) 111 Fluorene (b) 190 Hexachlorobenzene (b) 20 Hexachlorobutadiene NA Hexachlorocyclopentadiene NA Hexachloroethane (f) 1000 lndeno[1,2.3-cd]pyrene (b) 200 Isophorone NA 2-Methylnaphthalene (d) 65 2-Methylphenol (e) 11.8 4-Methylphenol (e,y) 11.8 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol NA Naphthalene (d) 340 2-Nitroaniline NA

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


Table 6-5 (Continued) Levels of Concern for Sediment

Selected Levels of Concern for Sediment Media

Analvte LOC* 3-Nitroaniline NA

4-Nitroaniline NA

Nitrobenzene NA

2-Nitrophenol NA

4-Nitrophenol NA

N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 418

N-nitrosodiphenylamine NA

di-n-Octylphthalate NA

2,2'-oxybis-( 1 -chloropropane) NA

Pentachlorophenol NA

Phenanthrene (a) 41.9

Phenol (e) 32

Pyrene (a) 53

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (f) 9200

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol NA

2.4,6-Trichloroohenol NA

Pestlcldes/PCBs (uq/kq) Aldrin (b) 2

Aroclor 1016(b) 7

Aroclor1221 (e) 118

Aroclor 1232 (e) 602

Aroclor 1242(e) 170

Aroclor 1248(b) 30

Aroclor 1254(b) 60

Aroclor 1260(b) 5

alpha-BHC (b) 6

beta-BHC (b) 5

delta-BHC (b.m) 3

qamma-BHC (Lindane) (a) 0.94

Chlordane (a) 4.5

alpha-Chlordane (a,I) 4.5

qamma-Chlordane (a.l) 4.5

4,4'-DDD (a) 3.54

4,4'-D0E (a) 1.42

4,4'-DDT (b) 8

Dieldrin (a) 2.85

Endosulfan I (0 2.9

Endosulfan II (e) 5.5

Endosulfan sulfate (f,u) 5.4

Endrin (a) 2.67

Endrin aldehyde (a,v) 2.67

Endrin ketone (a,v) 2.67

Heptachlor (h) 0.3

Heptachlor epoxide (a) 0.6

Methoxychlor (e) 18.8

Toxaphene (0 28

Herbicides (ug/kg)

2,4-D NA

Dalapon NA

2,4-DB NA

Dicamba NA

Dichloroprop NA

Dinoseb NA

Selected Levels of Concern tor Sediment Media

Analvte LOCT MCPA NA MCPP NA Silvex NA 2.4.5-T NA Dioxins/Furans (uq/kq) 1.2.3.4.6.7.8-HpCOD NA 1,2.3.4,6,7.8-HpCOF NA 1,2.3.4.7.8,9-HpCDF NA 1.2.3.4.7.8-HxCDD NA 1.2.3.6.7.8-HxCDD NA 1.2.3.7.8.9-HxCDD NA 1.2.3.4.7,8-HxCDF NA 1,2.3.6.7,8-HxCDF NA 1,2.3.7,8,9-HxCOF NA 2.3,4.6,7.8-HxCDF NA Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin NA Octachlorodibenzo-p-furan NA 1.2.3,7.8-PeCDD NA 1,2,3.7,8-PeCDF NA 2.3.4.7.8-PeCDF NA 2378-TCDD NA 2378-TCOF NA TPH (uq/kq) Diesel Fuel NA Gasoline NA Heavy Oil NA Jet Fuel NA

" Kerosene NA Mineral Oil NA Naphtha NA. Paint Thinner m Stoddard Solvent ^ Total Unknown NA||

NA = Not available

(a) = Threshold effect level (TEL) Irom Smith et al. (1996).

(b) = Lowest effect level (LEL) from OMEE (1993).

(c) = Draft Sediment Quality Criterion (SQC) from USEPA (1993)

(d) = Effects Range-Low (ER-L) from Long and Morgan (1990).

(e) = Sediment Quality Benchmark (SQB) by equilibrium partitioning from

Jones et al. (1996). based on 1% organic carbon content.

(f) = Sediment Quality Benchmark (SQB) by equilibrium partitioning Irom

USEPA (1996). based on 1% organic carbon content.

(g) = 1.3-Dichloropropene value

(h) = No Effect LevSl (NOEL) from OMEE (1993).

(k) = Benzo(k)fluoranthene value

(I) = Chlordane value

(m) = BHC value

(s) = 1,2-Dichloroethene value

(u) = Endosulfan value

(v) = Endrin value

(y) = 2-Methylphenol value

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document



Initiatives for accelerating cleanup that can be implemented by the BCT include the following:

Evaluate the use of OUs that reflect current environmental restoration investigations to expedite the investigation and review process;

Target Source Areas - Target source areas for early RAs;

Identify ARARs - Early in the project, develop a list of ARARs by obtaining lists of ARARs from the State and other agencies and examine the remedies for similar sites in the same State to identify which ARARs are likely to apply;

Risk-based Cleanup - Pursue negotiations with the regulators to agree on risk-based cleanup standards based on future land usage;

Agreements - The use of an Interagency Agreement, such as a DoD/Maryland Memorandum of Agreement to expedite cleanup, needs to be explored;

Defined Document Review Process - Negotiate terms with the regulatory reviewers to streamline the review process by agreeing to a definitive time cycle;

Concurrent Reviews - Develop a complete list of reviewers early and pursue parallel review tracks to eliminate delays;

Team Approach - Build a strong team - consisting of the BEC, U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC), USACE representatives, contractors, and Federal and Maryland regulatory personnel - that has the authority, responsibility, and accountability for implementing innovative solutions to remediate and close sites in a timely, cost-effective manner;

Joint Preparation - Expedite document preparation and review/approval by forming a working team with USEPA and MDE when preparing required documents such as action memoranda;

Community Involvement - Involve the community during the remedial process to encourage support at the time of site closure. By informing the community during the process, the likelihood of opposing comments during the public comment period will be lessened;

Innovative Technologies - Pursue collaborative projects using innovative technologies being researched at the USAEC or USACE or those suggested by the contractor;

Generic Procedures - Develop generic procedures and Scopes of Work for common problems or common types of contaminated sites (such as fuel contamination in soil). These procedures should be flexible enough for site-specific modifications to be made;

Innovative Contracting - Maximize flexibility of contracting procedures, investigate the use of level-of-effort, direct/cost reimbursement, award incentives, and other flexible contracting methods; and

Personnel and Resource - Determine personnel expertise and funding required to handle existing and proposed environmental restoration/compliance programs, including support to the BCT.

6.13 REMEDIAL ACTIONS

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the execution and completion of RAs.


No BCT action items have been identified at this time regarding remedial actions.

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


6.13.2 Rationale

Technical issues must be addressed in a timely manner to ensure that the RA schedules are not adversely affected. It is desirable that RAs required at Fort Ritchie be completed prior to closure.


Because there are no BCT action items for RAs there is no strategy.

6.14 REVIEW OF AND APPLICATION OF SELECTED TECHNOLOGIES FOR EXPEDITED SOLUTIONS

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the review and application of selected technologies to expedite remedial solutions.


No BCT action items have been identified at Fort Ritchie at this time. Future action items may include the review of selected technologies for expedited RAs on an as-needed basis.

6.14.2 Rationale

It is desirable to expedite evaluation of remedial technologies at Fort Ritchie in order to facilitate the property transfer process.


Because there are no BCT action items for review of technologies, there is no strategy.

6.15 HOT SPOT REMOVALS

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the removal of hot spots. As defined in the DoD guidance, this review item involves implementation of rapid removal of "hot spots" while investigations continue.


No BCT action items have been identified at Fort Ritchie at this time. Future action items may include the review of identified hot spots to determine if removal of the hot spots will expedite cleanup and property transfer efforts. If these efforts will be expedited by a hot spot removal, the BCT may elect to incorporate this approach into the RA strategy for the installation.

6.15.2 Rationale

Hot spot removals may expedite any required cleanup efforts and facilitate property transfer. If appropriate, hot spot removals may be used to achieve these goals.


The BCT may elect to implement removal actions in hot spot areas identified during the SI after confirmation sampling is conducted.

6.16 IDENTIFICATION OF CLEAN PROPERTIES

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to identification of clean properties at Fort Ritchie. The primary method for identification of clean parcels will be dependent upon MDE concurrence with the revised CERFA parcels identified in this report and the findings of the SI.

DACA31-94-D-0064 6"24 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05 9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document



No BCT action items have been identified at Fort Ritchie at this time regarding identification of clean properties.

6.16.2 Rationale

Initial identification of clean properties may expedite property transfer efforts.


Because there are no BCT action items for the identification of clean properties, there is no strategy. The BCT may use the updated CERFA Parcel Map as the initial identifier of clean parcels.

6.17 OVERLAPPING PHASES OF THE CLEANUP PROCESS

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to potential overlap of cleanup process phases.


No BCT action items have been identified at Fort Ritchie at this time. Future action items may include BCT review of the remedial design to evaluate where opportunities exist for combining RAs in order to eliminate duplication of effort.

6.17.2 Rationale

Overlapping RAs can eliminate redundant efforts and facilitate property transfer.


Because there are no BCT action items for overlapping phases of cleanup effort, there is no strategy.

6.18 IMPROVED CONTRACTING PROCEDURES

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to improving contracting procedures. Efficient and cost-effective contracting procedures are necessary to expedite the restoration process.


There are no BCT action items for improved contracting procedures.

6.18.2 Rationale

Timelines in the contracting process are important for expeditiously completing restoration activities.


Because there are no BCT action items for improving contracting procedures, there is not strategy.

6.19 INTERFACING WITH THE COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the community reuse plan. Interfacing with the community reuse plan is desirable to expedite the implementation of RAs.


The LRA has developed a draft Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan for Fort Ritchie (as mentioned in Section 2.2). The BCT provides support in the development and implementation of the plan.



6.19.2 Rationale

Coordination with the community reuse plan contributes to the selection of appropriate cleanup standards and facilitates implementation of remedial alternatives, ultimately resulting in the successful transfer of property.


The BCT works with the LRA and other local agencies to ensure that reuse activities are compatible with restoration activities.

6.20 BIAS FOR CLEANUP INSTEAD OF STUDIES

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to emphasizing cleanup instead of studies. Whenever possible, the BCT may select early cleanup rather than additional studies of potentially contaminated sites. This approach will expedite early achievement of cleanup goals and transfer of property.


No BCT action items have been identified at Fort Ritchie at this time. Future action items may include the BCT making every effort to implement any necessary remedial action as soon as possible to facilitate the transfer of Fort Ritchie.

6.20.2 Rationale

Early implementation of remedial alternatives will reduce the need for additional studies of contaminated sites and will accelerate completion of cleanup activities. This acceleration will in turn facilitate property transfer efforts.


Where applicable, the BCT will promote cleanup rather than studies.

6.21 EXPERT INPUT ON CONTAMINATION AND POTENTIAL REMEDIAL ACTIONS

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to expert input on contamination and potential RAs. It is necessary that proper resources are used to evaluate contamination and associated RAs.


No BCT action items have been identified at Fort Ritchie at this time. Future action items may include the BCT utilizing MDE, USEPA, USAEC, and contractors to ensure that the proper resources are used to evaluate contamination and potential RAs.

6.21.2 Rationale

The use of several entities involved in the restoration at Fort Ritchie promotes an expedited property transfer process.


The USEPA, MDE, USAEC, USACE, and contractors will continue to ensure that the property resources are used to evaluate contamination and potential RAs.

6.22 PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to presumptive remedies. USEPA has issued guidance on presumptive remedies for a few specific contamination scenarios. For example, one of the presumptive remedies for vadose zone volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination is soil vapor

DACA31-94-D-0064 ^-26 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document


extraction. Presumptive remedies may be applicable to Fort Ritchie if contamination scenarios are similar to those in the presumptive remedy guidance.


No BCT action items have been identified at Fort Ritchie at this time. Future action items may include the BCT considering presumptive remedies to expedite implementation of the installation's RA strategy.

6.22.2 Rationale

The use of presumptive remedies may potentially accelerate the cleanup process by allowing for expedited implementation of cleanup technologies.


Because there are no BCT action items for presumptive remedies, there is no strategy.

6.23 PARTNERING (USING INNOVATIVE MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION, AND COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUES)

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to partnering. Partnering is the process of fostering cooperation and communication between key players in the BRAC process.


The BCT will continue fostering partnerships currently active at Fort Ritchie, including the RAB, LRA, and BCT itself. Partnering actions at Fort Ritchie include scheduled meetings and document reviews.

6.23.2 Rationale

Close cooperation and coordination between Fort Ritchie, USAEC, the community, and regulators helps foster good working relationships. It can also accelerate implementation of the installation's RA strategy by keeping key players informed of the status of environmental efforts, soliciting their input, and addressing potential concerns in the remediation process.


The BCT plans to continue its activities and encourage information exchange between the LRA, USAEC, USACE, and the community.

6.24 UPDATING THE EBS AND NATURAL/CULTURAL RESOURCES DOCUMENTATION

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to updating the Fort Ritchie EBS and natural and cultural resources documentation. The CERFA Letter Report, including parcel classifications has been updated for use in this document based on the results of ongoing activities at Fort Ritchie.


The CERFA parcel map must be updated based on the results of the SI.

6.24.2 Rationale

Updates of the CERFA Letter Report are necessary to reflect changes in parcel classification based on completion of RAs. It is anticipated that parcel reclassification will ultimately result in most, if not all, of Fort Ritchie becoming eligible for property transfer.


The CERFA parcel map has been updated and presented in this document as Figure 3-4, for use by the BCT.



6.25 IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY FOR ON-SITE DECISION MAKING

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to implementing policy for on-site decision making. If decisions leading to investigation, remediation, and transfer of Fort Ritchie can be made on site, implementation of the installation-wide RA strategy can be expedited.


No BCT action items have been identified at Fort Ritchie at this time regarding the implementation of policies for on-site decision making.

6.25.2 Rationale

Decisions which can be made by on-site personnel may significantly expedite the Fort Ritchie property transfer process.


Because there are no BCT action items for on-site decision making, there is no strategy.

6.26 STRUCTURAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS TO REUSE

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to structural and infrastructure constraints to reuse.


The BCT supports the LRA in the evaluation of the existing structures and infrastructure at Fort Ritchie. Constraints to reuse will be identified prior to transfer.

6.26.2 Rationale

Potential structural and infrastructure constraints must be overcome, or alternative reuses must be identified, to allow transfer of the Fort Ritchie property.


As a component of the Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan, the LRA evaluated the existing building character/quality and the condition of the infrastructure at Fort Ritchie. Conclusions and recommendations based on this detailed evaluation are available in the LRA Report (LRA, 1997).

6.27 OTHER TECHNICAL REUSE ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

At the present time, no other technical reuse issues have been identified.


7.0 REFERENCES

Center for Ecological Management of Military Lands (CEMML) - Floristics Laboratory. June 20, 1994. Vascular Plant List of Fort Ritchie, Howard, and Washington Counties, Maryland and Alternative Joint Communications Center - Adams County, Pennsylvania (Combined List). Submitted to the Directorate of Public Works, Fort Ritchie, MD.

Dames & Moore. August 1995. Annex to Real Property Master Plan - Cultural Resources Management Plan and Historic Property Rehabilitation Guidelines for Fort Ritchie, MD.

Department of Defense (DoD). June 1,1994. Memorandum, Subject: Finding of Suitability to Transfer.

Department of Defense (DoD). September 9, 1993. Memorandum, Subject: Fast Track Cleanup at Closing Installations.

Department of Defense (DoD). Fall 1993. BRAC Cleanup Plan (BCP) Guidebook, Implementing President Clinton's Decision to Promote Early Reuse of Closing Bases by Expediting Environmental Cleanup.

Department of Defense (DoD). September 1996. Addendum to the BRAC Cleanup Plan Guidebook. Fall 1995/September 1996 Revision.

Dewberry & Davis. September 3, 1993. Fort Ritchie and Site R Asbestos Users Guide and Management Plan. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District.

Dewberry & Davis. July 10, 1992. Fort Ritchie Jurisdictional Wetlands Investigation. Submitted to the Directorate of Public Works, Fort Ritchie, MD.

Economic Development Commission of Washington County, MD. 1995. 1995 Economic Data Summary, prepared for the Washington County Board of County Commissioners and the Mayor and Council of the city of Hagerstown.

Fort Ritchie Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA). 1997. Executive Summary, Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan. Draft Document.

Hill, Robert. October 1995. Communications with Robert Hill, Maryland Department of the Environment Inspector, regarding UST compliance activities at Fort Ritchie.

Hillmann Environmental Company of Virginia. November 1993. Environmental Assessment, Maryland National Guard Construction Site, Fort Ritchie, MD.

ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. June 1996a. Fort Ritchie Environmental Baseline Survey. Submitted to U.S. Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. June 1996b. Fort Ritchie Sampling and Analysis Recommendation. Submitted to U.S. Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. January 1997a. Fort Ritchie Army Garrison Site Investigation and Cleanup. Work Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan. Final Document. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District.

ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. September 1997b. Fort Ritchie Army Garrison Site Investigation and Cleanup. Site Investigation Report. Draft Document. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District.


Section 7.0 References

ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. January 1998a. Fort Ritchie Army Garrison Site Investigation and Cleanup. Work Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum. Draft Document. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District.

ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. February 1998b. Fort Ritchie Army Garrison Site Investigation Report. Draft Final Document. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District.

Lewis Berger & Associates, Inc. August 1997. Environmental Impact Statement for Fort Ritchie. Draft Document.

Marne, Philip. August 1995. Communications with Philip Marne, Fort Ritchie Environmental Office.

Olsen, Thomas. October 19, 1995. Report of interview of Thomas Olsen, former installation grounds employee, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Ritchie.

Public Law 102-426.1992. Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA).

Shippensburg University Vertebrate Museum. June 12, 1995. Final Report - Inventory of Terrestrial Vertebrates at Fort Ritchie and Site R Military Reservation, MD and PA. Submitted to the Directorate of Public Works, Fort Ritchie, MD.

Slaughter, T. and J. Darling. 1962. The Water Resources of Allegany and Washington Counties (Baltimore, MD: State of Maryland Department of Geology, Mines, and Water Resources), p. 336, as cited in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1993.

U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM). March 1995. Hazardous and Medical Waste Study No. 37-2517-95: Former Skeet Shooting Range Investigation, Fort Ritchie, MD.

U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM). November 1995. Hazardous and Medical Waste Study No. 37-26-4436-95: Former Skeet Shooting Range Investigation, Phase II, Fort Ritchie, MD.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District (USACE). February 4, 1993a. Fort Ritchie Installation Environmental Assessment Based on the Real Property Master Plan.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Atlantic Division, Washington District (USACE). 1993b. Fort Ritchie Military Reservation, Real Estate Tract Map. Revised November 12, 1993.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District (USACE). August 1995. Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Ritchie, MD, and Site R, PA. Prepared for U.S. Army Garrison Fort Ritchie, MD.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District (USACE). January 1997. Ordnance, Ammunition and Explosives - Archive Search Report.

U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA). July 29 - August 7, 1991. Geohydrologie Study No. 38-26-K974-91: AAFES Service Station, Building 515. Fort Ritchie, MD.

U.S. Army Garrison Fort Ritchie, MD. UST Action Plan Summaries.

U.S. Army Garrison Fort Ritchie, MD. 1990. Real Property Master Plan.

U.S. Army Garrison Fort Ritchie, MD. May 23,1990. Installation Spill Contingency Plan.

U.S. Army Garrison Fort Ritchie, MD. October 28, 1993. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan.


Section 7.0 References

U.S. Army Garrison Fort Ritchie, MD. December 1994. Environmental Compliance Assessment System, Internal Assessment Report.

U.S. Army Garrison Fort Ritchie, MD. December 1997. Programmatic Agreement for the Closure and Disposal of Fort Ritchie, MD.


Appendix A Fiscal Year Funding Requirements/Costs

APPENDIX A

FISCAL YEAR FUNDING REQUIREMENTS/COSTS

DACA31-94-D-0064 A-1 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document


Table A-1. Projected Restoration Program Cost Requirements

Program FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 Total

Installation-Wide Environmental Restoration

$2,278,000 $2,330,000 $5,460,000 $2,565,000 $1,570,000 $14,203,000

FY - Fiscal Year

Table A-2. Projected Compliance Program Cost Requirements

Program FY1997 FY 1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY 2001 Total

■'

There are no anticipated Compliance Program costs for Fort Ritchie.

FY - Fiscal Year

Table A-3. Projected Natural and Cultural Resources Program Cost Requirements

Program FY1997 FY1998 FY 1999 FY2000 FY2001 Total

There are no anticipated Natural and Cultural Resources Program costs for Fort Ritchie.

FY - Fiscal Year

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998

A-2 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II

Final Document


Table A-4. Projected Total Environmental Programs Cost Requirements

Program FY1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 Total

Installation-Wide Environmental Restoration

$2,278,000 $2,330,000 $5,460,000 $2,565,000 $1,570,000 $14,203,000

FY - Fiscal Year

Table A-5. Historical Expenditure by Site

Program FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 Total

■

A summary of historical expenditures by site has not been prepared for Fort Ritchie at this time.

FY - Fiscal Year

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998

A-3 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II

Final Document


The past restoration schedule is unavailable at this time.

Figure A-1. Past Restoration Schedule

DACA31-94-D-0064 A-4 port Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document

Appendix B Installation Environmental Restoration Documents Summary Tables

APPENDIX B

INSTALLATION ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION DOCUMENTS SUMMARY TABLES

DACA31-94-D-0064 B"1 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document


Table B-1. Project Deliverables

Year Project

Title Report

No. Sites

Examined Deliverable

Date/By Whom

1990 Real Property Master Plan 1 Installation-wide 1990/ US Army Garrison Fort Ritchie

1990 Installation Spill Contingency Plan 2 Installation-wide May 1990/ US Army Garrison Fort Ritchie

1991 Industrial Radiation Survey 3 Installation-wide Apr. 1991/ USAEHA

1991 Geohydrologie Study No. 38-26-K974-91

4 PX Auto Service Station

July-Aug. 1991/ USAEHA

1991 Lead Based Paint Survey for Housing Units

5 Housing units Nov. 1991/ Dewberry & Davis

1991-92 An Asbestos Users Guide and Management Plan

6 Installation-wide Sept. 1993/ Dewberry & Davis

1991-96 Fort Ritchie UST Final Action Plan Summaries

7 Installation-wide US Army Garrison Fort Ritchie

1992 UST Removal - Additive I: Fort Ritchie Housing Units

8 Housing units May1992/Goode Environmental Services

1992 Fort Ritchie Jurisdictional Wetlands Investigation

9 Installation-wide July 1992/ Dewberry & Davis

1992 Follow-up Sampling Report (Letter Report)

10 Former Skeet Shooting Range

Sept. 1992/ Spotts, Stevens and McCoy

1993 Environmental Sampling Report (Letter Report)


Jan. 1993/ Spotts, Stevens and McCoy

1993 Fort Ritchie Installation Environmental Assessment Based on the Real Property Master Plan

12 Installation-wide Feb. 1993/ USACE, Baltimore District

1993 Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan

13 Installation-wide Oct. 1993/ US Army Garrison Fort Ritchie

1993 Environmental Assessment, Maryland National Guard Construction Site


Nov. 1993/ Hillmann Environmental Company of VA

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998

B-2 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II

Final Document


Table B-1. Project Deliverables (Continued)

Year Project

Title Report

No. Sites


Date/By Whom

1994 Tank Closure Reports 15 Installation-wide Jan. 1994/ ENSAT

1994 Final Report - Air Pollution Emission Statement for Fort Ritchie

16 Installation-wide Sept. 1994/ Geomet Technologies, Inc.

1994 Lead Based Paint Survey for Administrative Buildings

17 Administrative Buildings

Nov. 1994/Powell Construction

1994 Environmental Compliance Assessment

18 Installation-wide Dec. 1994/ US Army Garrison Fort Ritchie

1995 Hazardous and Medical Waste Study No. 37-2517-95; Former Skeet Shooting Range Investigation


Mar. 1995/ USACHPPM

1995 Final Report - Inventory of Terrestrial Vertebrates at Fort Ritchie and Site R Military Reservation, MD and PA

20 Installation-wide June 1995/ Shippensburg Univ. Vertebrate Museum

1995 Annex to Real Property Master Plan - Cultural Resources Management Plan and Historic Property Rehabilitation Guidelines for Fort Ritchie

21 Installation-wide Aug. 1995/ Dames & Moore

1995 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

22 Installation-wide Aug. 1995/ USACE, Baltimore District

1995 Hazardous and Medical Waste Study No. 37-26-4436-95; Former Skeet Shooting Range Investigation, Phase II


Nov. 1995/ USACHPPM

1996 Environmental Baseline Survey, Final Document

24 Installation-wide June 1996/ ICFKE

1996 Fort Ritchie Sampling and Analysis Recommendation

25 Installation-wide June 1996/ ICFKE

1996 BRAC Cleanup Plan, Version I, Final Document

26 Installation-wide Sept. 1996/ ICFKE

1997 Ordnance, Ammunition and Explosives - Archive Search Report

27 Installation-wide Jan. 1997/ USACE

1997 Site Investigation Report, Draft

28 Installation-wide Sept. 1997/ ICFKE

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


Table B-1. Project Deliverables (Continued)

Year Project

Title Report

No. Sites


Date/By Whom

1997 Environmental Impact Statement, Draft Document

29 Installation-wide August 1997/ Lewis Berger & Associates, Inc.

1997 Programmatic Agreement for the Closure and Disposal of Fort Ritchie, MD

30 Installation-wide Dec. 1997/ US Army Garrison Fort Ritchie

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


Table B-2. Site Deliverables by Phase*

Site EA SI FS DD EE/CA LTM NFRAP Close -Out

Abandoned Firing Ranges

12 28

Administrative Building Area (100-, 200-, and 300-series buildings)

12 28

Autocraft Shop (Building 401)

12 28

DPW Maintenance Equipment Area (Buildings 731 to 736)

12 28

Electrical Substation

Former Burn Area 12

Former Hospital Area 12 28

Former Incinerator Area (Buildings 907, 908, 909)

12 28

Former Skeet Range 12, 14 28, 19, 23

Golf Course Maintenance Shop (Building 5)

12 28

Lake Royer and Lake Wastler

12 28

Motor Pool (Building 700) Maintenance Shop and Refueling Station

12 28

OE/UXO Impact Areas 12 28

PX Service Station (Building 515)

12 28,4

Reservoir Road Disposal Area

12

Wetland Area 12 28

Wise Road Disposal Area

12 28

EA - Environmental Assessment EE/CA - Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis DD - Decision Document FS - Feasibility Study * The numbers in the body of this table correspond to the deliverables listed in Table B-1

LTM - Long-Term Monitoring NFRAP - No Further Response Action Planned SI - Site Investigation

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document


Table B-3. Technical Documents/Data Loading Status Summary

Date IRP Title Site/OU Contractor Service Center

IRDMIS Status/Other

There are no plans to load the Fort Ritchie data into IRDMIS at this time.

IRDMIS - Installation Restoration Data Management Information System IRP - Installation Restoration Program OU - Operable Unit

DACA31-94-D-0064 ESPS05-9 March 1998


Final Document

Appendix C Decision Document/ROD Summaries

APPENDIX C

DECISION DOCUMENT/ROD SUMMARIES

Decision Documents/ROD summaries have not yet been prepared for Fort Ritchie.

DACA31-94-D-0064 C-1 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document

Appendix D NFRAP Summaries

APPENDIX D

NFRAP SUMMARIES

Appendix D is not applicable to Fort Ritchie at this time.

DACA31-94-D-0064 D-1 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document

Appendix E Conceptual Model Data Summaries

APPENDIX E

CONCEPTUAL MODEL DATA SUMMARIES

There are no conceptual model data summaries at this time.

DACA31-94-D-0064 ^-1 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document

Appendix F Ancillary BCP Materials

APPENDIX F

ANCILllARY BCP MATERIALS

There are no ancillary BCP materials at this time.

DACA31-94-D-0064 F"1 Fort Ritchie Base Realignment and Closure ESPS05-9 (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP), Version II March 1998 Final Document