I I I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS KANsAs CITY DISTRICT

FINAL

RECORD OF DECISION

OPERABLE UNIT 15 AND

SITEWIDE VAPOR INTRUSION

Former Naval Ammunition Depot Hastings, Nebraska ~

August 23, 2010

1111111 IIIII 11111 IIIII IIIII IIIII 11111 11111 IIII 1111 Supertund ~I "-..),0

I 30194078

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-=

DEPARTMENi' OF i'HE ARMX' KANSAS CITY DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

635 FEDERAL BUILDING . KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64106-2896

REPLY TO

ATTENTION OF: September 28, 2010

Engineering Construction Division Environmen~al Branch, Support Services Section

Mr. WillIam Gresham U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII 901 N. 5th Street . Kansas City, Kansas 66101

Mr. Jim Borovich Nebraska DepartmentofEnvironmental Quality Suite 400, The Atrium 1200 N Street Lincoln, NE 68509-8922

Subject: Final Record ofDecision, Operable Unit 15 and Sitewide Vapor Intrusion, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Ne1;>raska

Dear Mr. Gresham and Mr. Borovich:

This letter transmits the Final Record ofDecision (ROD), Operable Unit 15 and Sitewide Vapor Intrusion, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, dated August 23, 2010, for your documentation. The ROD mcludes the signed USEPA and Army Acceptance pages as well as the Nebraska Department ofEnvironmental Quality (NDEQ) concurrence letter.

Since both the USEPA and NDEQ reviewed and concurred with the Draft Final ROD, the only changes made to the Final version of the document are the document date 8nd the inclusion ofNDEQ's acceptance letter at the end of Section 4.

Please contact me ifyou have any questions or comments by phone at 816-389-3892 or by email at Brian.J.Roberts@usace.army.miJ.

Enclosures cc: PM-E (Read file)

. Distribution List

Sincerely,

~ Brian Roberts Project Manager

I I September 28,2010

Distribution List

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Organization Number of Copies

CENWK-ED-EE

(Mr. Brian Roberts - with two PDF CDs and one Source CD)

(Project File)

6

(includes 2 PDF CDs and

1 Source CD)

HTRW-CX

(Ms. Carol Dona)

4

USEPA

(Ms. Cecilia Tapia)

1

USEPA

(Mr. Bill Gresham - with one PDF CD)

1

USEPA

(Mr. Craig Smith)

1

USEPA

(Mr. Jim Stevens)

1

Professional Environmental Engineers, Inc. - EPA Contractor

(Mr. Filippe Cade)

1

NDEQ

(Mr. Jim Borovich)

2

CENWD-PDE

(Mr. Dave Nusz)

1

US Army Public Health Command (Provisional)

(Mr. Dennis Druck)

I

Central Community College Library (Ms. Sheri Dux-Ide us)

1

Hastings Public Library (Ms. Linda Gardner)

1

DeWitt Consultants

(Mr. Wayne Smith)

1

Shaw Environmental, .Inc.

(Mr. John Borthwick - with PDF/Source CDs)

(Mr. Edmundo Cintra - with PDF/Source CDs)

(Mr. Justin Barker)

(Mr. John Patin)

(Project File - with PDF/Source CDs)

5

(with 3 PDF and 3Source CDs)

TOTAL 27

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I ••• I~ UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

KANSAS CITY DISTRICT

FINAL

RECORD OF DECISION

OPERABLE UNIT 15 AND

SITEWIDE VAPOR INTRUSION

Former Naval Ammunition Depot Hastings, Nebraska ~

August 23, 2010

.;:,~\'1ffJ sr...~

ut·8· s~~" <:I<i, " ~ ~ ~"'L"RO'1t.~

.

I I

I I

Table ofContents______----'-'-____----"______I I

List of Tables ...........................................................................................................:.......................................ii List of Figures ...;..........................................................;............................................................................~ ......ii Acronyms and Abbreviations .....;................................................:......................... ~ .......:................................. iii

I 1.0 Declaration ........................................................................................................................................1-1· 1.1 Site Name and Location ....................................... ~ ............................................................... 1-1 1.2 .Statement of Basis and Purpose .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 . Description ofthe Selected Remedy ...............................................................;........·............ 1-:1I 1.4 - Statutory Determinations .............................................-......................................................... 1-1 1.5 Authorizing Signatures ..............................................;.......................................................... 1-2

I 2.0 Decision Summary..........................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 -Site Name, Location, and Brief Description ....................................................,....................;2~1

2.2 ·Site History ..................................................:............ ~ ..........................·................................. 2-2

I 2.2.1 Naval Ammunition Depot Operations and Decommissioning .................................. 2-3 .2.2.2 Post-Naval Ammunition Depot History and Uses .............................:...................... 2-3

2.3 Previous Investigations and Response -Actions ....;.........................................:..................... 2-4 .. 2.3.1 Operable Unit 15 .....................................................................................................2-5

I 2.3.2 Sitewide Vapor. Intrusion..........................................................................................2-7 2.4 Community Participation.........................................................·.............................................. 2-8 2.5

....:...........................................................................................................2-9 Scope and Role of Operable Unit 15 and Sitewide Vapor Intrusion .... ~ ................................ 2-9

I 2.6 Site Characteristics 2.6.1 Topography, Soil, and Geology ...............................................................................2-9 2.6.2 Site 4- Rifle and Pistol Range ..............................................................................2-10

I 2.6.3 Site 10 - Mark 8a Area ..........................................................................................2-10 2.6.4 Sitewide Vapor Intrusion.........................................................................................2-11

2.7 Current and Future Land and Resource Use......................................................................2-11

I 2.8 Summary of Site Risks .......................................................................................................2-11 2.8.1 Human Health Risks ..............................................................................................2-12 2.8.2 Ecologi~1 Risks ....................................................................................................2-13

I 2.8.3 Sitewide Vapor Intrusion Risks ..............................................................................2-13 2.9 . S~lected Final Remedy ...;..................................................................................................2-17 2.10 Documentation of Significant Changes...................................................................:...... ~ .... 2-17

I 3.0 Responsiveness Summary .............................................................................................................3-1 4.0 References ...................................................................................:.................................................4-1

I I I I

Ri;hDP-OU15 RODjdoc 8.23.10

I

I I

List of Tables _"'----_______--,-,-___--,-,-_"'---'-__-'--

I Table 1 .Sites Retained for Further Investigation .............................................................................2-7 Table 2 Operable Unit 15 Cancer Risk Summary .....................;..... ~ ........,.............,...................... 2-14 Table 3 Operable Unit 15 Noncancer Hazard Index Summary ................................,.................... 2-15 I Table 4 Indoor Air Risk Summary .................................................................................................2-16

I List ofFigures _________----~----- I Figure 1 Vicinity Map ...............................................................................:....................................... 2-2 Figure 2 Property Ownership at the Former NAD ..........................................,.......;......................... 24 I Figure 3 Operable Unit 15 Areas of Interest.....................................................................................2-6

I I I I I I I I I I Iii

I

I I

AcronymsandAbb~v~ffons______________________________I I Army

bgs

I BLRA CERCLA

COPC

I EE/CA EPA ERA

I HElP HGCS mg/kg

I NAD NCP·

I NDEQ OU RAB

I ROD VOC

I I I I I I I I

United States Army below ground surface Baseline Risk Assessment Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act chemical(s)·ofpotential concern

. Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis U.S. Erivironmental Protection Agency Ecological Risk Assessment Hastings East Industrial Park Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site milligram(s) per kilogram Naval Ammunition Depot National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Nebraska Department ofEnvironmental Quality operable unit Restoration Advisory Board Record of Decision volatile organic compound

RichDP-OUI5 RODJ,doc 8.23.10 iii

I

I I

This page intentionally left blank. I I I I I I I I I I I II

Ii I II

:

RlchDP-OUI5 RODJ.doc I8.23.10 iv

I

I I I 1.0 Declaration

I 1.1 Site Name and Location Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site Hastings, Nebraska

I CERCLIS Identification Number: NED 980862668 FUDS PropertylProject Number: B07NE0007-08 Former Naval Ammunition Depot Subsite

I Operable Unit 15 and Sitewide Vapor Intrusion

This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses Operable Unit (OU) 15 and Sitewide Vapor Intrusion.

I 1.2 Statement ofBasis and Purpose

I This decision document presents the final action for OU15 and Sitewide Vapor Intrusion at the former Naval Ammunition Depot (NAD) in Hastings, Nebraska. The selected action was chosen

I in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on information found in the Administrative Record file for this

I site. The selected action was jointly selected by the United States Army (Army) and the U.S.

I Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with concurrence by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ).

1.3 Description of the Selected Remedy

I Remediation of the former NAD is being addressed by OUs. The OUs at the former NAD

I address contamination in shallow soil, vadose zone, and groundwater. Operable Unit 15 is one

of five OUs at the former NAD and consists of shallow soil and the vadose zone within designated areas. The fmal action for OU15 and Sitewide Vapor Intrusion is No Further Action.

I Previous removal actions at OU15 have addressed any identified risks to human health and the environment. As a result, OU 15 is suitable for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

I Also, in accordance with the Sitewide Vapor Intrusion Assessment, no Sitewide Vapor Intrusion has been identified as a significant exposure pathway into current or future buildings, and no pathways have been identified that would present an unacceptable risk to potential receptors.

I 1.4 Statutory Determinations

I The final action for OU15 and ,Sitewide Vapor Intrusion is No Further Action. Operable Unit 15

and Sitewide Vapor Intrusion pose no unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.

I Ri:hDP.OU15 RODJ,doc 8.2110 1-1

I

I I

Because this remedy will not result in hazardous substance.s, pollutants, or contaminants

remaining on-site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a five-year Ireview will not be required for this remedial action.

1.5 Authorizing Signatures I Acceptance of this ROD is indicated by the signatures of the Superfund Division Director, EPA Region 7, and the Department of the Army Representative. Copies of the signature pages follow

on pages 1-3 and 1-5. I I I I I I I, I I I I I I

RlchOP-0IJ15 RODJ.doc I8.2110 1-2

I

I I

EPA ACCEPTANCE' OF THE RECORD OF DECISION

I OPERABLE~T15AND

SITEWIDE VAPOR INTRUSION FORMER NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT

I HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

I The signature of the Superfund Division Director, u.S. Environmental Protection Agency

I Region 7, denotes acceptance of the Record ofDecision for the final action for Operable Unit 15 and Sitewide Vapor Intrusion at the former Naval Ammunition Depot near Hastings~ Nebraska.

I I

Cecilia Tapia Typed or Printed Name

I Director, Superfund Division

I Title

I I I I I I I I RJdrDP.OU15 RODJdoc

12110 1-3

I

I

This page intentionally left blank. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

RichDp·OUI5 RODJdoc 8.23.10 1-4 I

I I

ARMY ACCEPTANCE OF THE RECORD OF DECISION

I OPERABLE~T15AND

SITEWIDE VAPOR INTRUSION FORMER NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT

I HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

I The signature of the District Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District, denotes acceptance of the Record of Decision for the final action for Operable Unit 15 and Sitewide Vapor Intrusion at the former Naval Ammunition Depot near Hastings, Nebraska.

I I I

ANTHONY J. HOFMANN

I Typed or Printed Name

I Colonel, EN Commanding Title

I Date of Signature

I -I

I I I I I RJcIrDP.OU15 ROD.J.doc 1-51.1110

I

I

This page intentionally left blank. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

RichDP-OUI5 RODJdoc 1-6 I8.23.10

I I I 2.0 Decision Summary

I This section provides an overview of the site, identifies the selected final remedy, and explains

how the remedy fulfills statutory and regulatory requirements.

I 2.1 Site Name, Location, and Brief Description Site Name:

I Location:

CERCLIS Identification Number:

I Lead Agency:

I . Federal Support Agency:

State Support Agency:

I Source ofCleanup Monies:·

I Site Type:

I Site Description:

I I I I

Operable Unit:

I I I

Former Naval Ammunition Depot

Hastings, Nebraska

NED 980862668

U.S. Army

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 7

NebraskaDepartment ofEnvironmental Quality

Defense Environmental Restoration Account

U.S. Department of Defense

Former U.S. Department of Defense Industrial Complex with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater

The former NAD consists of approximately 48,800 acres located immediately east of Hastings, Nebraska, in eastern Adams County and western Clay County (Figure 1,

"Vicinity Map"). The facility was active: during World War II and the Korean Conflict. AftC?r decommissioning in the mid-1960s, the site has been developed for industrial and agricultural land· use with a small number of residences. Hastings has a population of approximately

24,000 and is an important agribusiness center to the surrounding region.

OU15 and Sitewide Vapor Intrusion

RJchDP-OUI5 RODJ,doc B.23.10 2-1

I

----- --------- -- - -- -------------

N

J.. I

Hansen I.. __ ... ___ J; -.., __ .. ___ .. __ .. .. __ .. ___ .. ___ .. .. _

I I

I~nd o

Glenvil (>

Fonner NAD

I 19 km0...-----'.....5.5 mi

Harvard ¢

Figure 1 Vicinity Map

2.2 Site History

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

A briefhistory of active operations and the years following decommissioning of the former NAD I is summarized in this section.

I RichDP-OUI5 ROD_(doc I 8_23_10 2-2

I

I I

2.2.1 Naval Ammunition Depot Operations and Decommissioning

I The NAD was built in the early 1940s following government purchase of approximately

I 48,800 acres of land in Adams and Clay Counties. The NAD was an active "load, assemble, and pack" ammunition facility during World War II and the Korean Contlict. During peak periods,

the NAD was responsible for producing nearly one-half of the ordnance used by the United States Navy during World War II and the Korean Contlict.

I The principal production areas of the NAD included a rocket motor loading ~acility, a bag charge filling plant, a 40MM loading and filling' area, medium and major caliber projectile loading

I plants, a case overhaul and tank repair facility, a 20MM loading and filling area, and the Bomb

I and Mine Complex~ Most of these production areas were located in the western portion of the NAD. A large array of storage bunkers and:acomplex network ofroads and railroad spurs were constructed at'the NAD to support theptoduction areas. Other infrastructure included two sewage treatmentplaitts, water supply wells, and an extensive network ofutilities.

I Environmental contamination at the NAD resulted from the waste management practices during the facility operational period and subsequent decommissioning processes. Additionally,

I post-NAD operations have contributed to the contamination at the site.

Decommissioning of the NAD facilities began in 1958 and was completed in 1967.

I 2.2.2 Post-Naval Ammunition Depot History and Uses

I Beginning in the mid-1960s, large tracts of the NAD were' sold to various individuals,

businesses, and municipalities or transferred to other governmental agencies. The primary recipient of NAD property was the u.s; Government. ~e U.S. Department of Agriculture

I received over 35,000 acres of the NAD property that were developed as the Roman L. Hruska

I U.S. Meat Animal Research Center. The Army received over},OOOacres that were leased to the

Nebraska Army National Guard and developed as a training facility. The western 6,000 acres of the NAD were used to establish Central Community College and a privately developed industrial park referred to as the Hastings East Industrial Park (HElP).

I Currently, over 60 different owners hold property in Various areas of the former NAD (Figure 2,

"Property Ownership at the Former NAD"). Land at the former NAD is largely oWned by the

I . .

federal government (Army and U.S. Department of Agriculture). Land use on the HElP is limited to industrial development by existing Adams County zoning ordinances.

I I I

RJchDP-OUI5 RODJdoc 8,2110 2-3

I

Legend

C u.IIa fII P:_NavalAmIllUlltoln Depot

- - - . C4U1t¥ 8oun1111Y

Property OYIIIW~hIp Boundart..

~ c..... c_&ntWc.u••

~U.l.A"Y ~ ...un,. East Indultrlal Park

mITIlJ] Pltva.".,..

~ us. D......of A,rtCUltln

Figure 2 Property Ownership at the Former NAD

I I I I I I I I I I

N I-4' AT o ~ 1.25 2.5 IMiles

I I

2.3 Previous Investigations and Response Actions As a result of finding groundwater contamination at the former NAD in the mid-1980s, the EPA

included the western portion of the former NAD as part of the Hastings Groundwater I Contamination Site (HGCS), a regional area of groundwater contamination in south-central

Nebraska. The HGCS was added to the National Priorities List in 1986. As investigations at the I former NAD continued in the late 1980s and 1990s, the entire NAD was made part ofthe HGCS.

I IRichDP-OU15 ROD_f.doc 2-48.23.10

I

I I

The u.s. Army Corps of Engineers began initial environmental investigations of the former

I NAD in 1987. Initial investigations focused on the primary production facilities of the former

I I

NAD located within the HElP sirice this area comprises most of the production facilities of the former NAD. Subsequent investigations of the former NAD targeted other production facilities and waste disposal areas including the Bomb and Mine Complex, Explosives Disposal Area, Naval Yard Dump, and South Disposal Area. Selected smaller sites involving secondary production areas, railroad facilities, motor pools, and areas of land disturbance within the former NAD were also investigated.

I As the number of, investigations increased; the former NAD was subdivided into OUsbased on

I geographical areas of concern or media of interest. The media of interest at the former NAD are shallow soil, vadose zone, and groundwater. Shallow soil is defined as the layers of soil less than 10 feet below ground surface (bgs). The. vadose zone is defined as the layers of soil from 10 feet bgs to the top ofgroundwater.

I The five OUs at the former NAD subsite of the HGC$ are identified as follows:

I • OU4: HElP - shallow soil

• OU8: HElP - vadose zone

I • OUI4: Groundwater - entire former NAD

I • OUI5: Remainder of former NAD area - shallow soil and vadose zone (excludes

OU4, OU8, and OUI6)

• OUI6: Bomb and Mine Complex, Explosives Disposal Area, and Naval Yard Dump­shallow soil and vadose zone

I I

The HGCS has other OUs, whiCh are being addressed.byother parties. The geographic locations of the HElP, Bomb and Mine Complex, Explosives Disposal Area, and Naval Yard Dump are shown on Figure 2.

I Numerous investigations and response actions have been compl~ted for OU4, OU8, OUI5, and OU16 as part of the overall site strategy to remediate the former NAD.

I 2.3.1 Operable Unit 15 Operable Unit 15 is composed of all areas of the former NAD that are not included in any of the other OUs; Preliminary evaluations ofOU15 conducted in 1993 and 1994 included the review of

I previous investigations, historiCal aerial photographs, and field and aerial reconnaissance. These

I evaluations identified 22 areas of interest (referred to as "sites") as shown on Figure 3, "Operable· Unit 15 Areas ofInterest."

I RlclrDfl<JUI5 RODJ.doc 8.23.10 2-5

I

Legend

~R~ Grouna....ter Flow Chctlal

.. CIty Bound8ty

- '" County Soundwy

0015Ar..s Net Requiring Remechlicn

• 001 S Remedillle<l,Ar..,

RkhDP·OU1S ROD ldoc

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Figure 3 Operable Unit 15

1

5 C_"'."*"'AnlWNllllnlla-~Or....nr"'SII • fbira.d C.......... 1111 o.n-YIN

J Ned! Tr"" DepGI

,. MIlk II"'"

11 F.......

12 MIIk.AIa

13 F......

14 SeI* Tr....DtfIIII

IC IiniIs fit Former N8w1 ArnmuIIIicn oepct

- ~y. M8jor ROlid

- RailrOild. MaIn lines

Areas of Interest

I rf.iiif.il ~ Iu.s.N<MY ~IlSTRCT

Ca<PS!:F ENGINEERS KAAlSAS c:rry. UIS$O..IRI

I I I

o 0.5 1 N

~ AM'

2-6 8.23.10

I I

Based on additional research, interviews offormer NAD employees, field reconnaissance, and

I further evaluation of the data from previous investigations, six of the sites were'identified as not

I requiring'any further investigation. The remaining 16 areas were retained for further evaluation

in 1994 resulting in the identification of nine areas that were retained for site investigations as listed in Table 1, "Sites Retained for Further Investigation."

I Site investigations for the retained sites wen;: conducted in 1996 through 1999 and: included sampling and analysis of surface soils and the vadose zone. Groundwater monitoring wells were

also installed at Site 10.

I . ,

Out of the nine sites retained for further investigation and evaluated in the Baseline Risk Assessment (BLRA), only two, Sites 4 and 10, posed levels of contamination resulting in

I unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. An Engineering Evaluation and Cost

I Analysis (EE/CA) was prepared for these sites and removal actions were completed to mitigate the risks to human health and the environment. As a result of the removal actions at these two sites, the residual risks fell within the generally acceptable risk range. Additional details are

provided in Section 2.S ..

I Table 1 Sites Retained for Further Investigation

I Site

4I 3

5

I 6

7

I 10

12

I 14

SEDA

Description

Major Caliber Breakdown Facility

Rifle and Pistol Range

Concrete Pads at Nebraska Army National Guard Greenlief Training Site

Railroad Classification and Dunnage Yard

North Transfer Depot

Mark 8a Area

Mark 8b Area

South Transfer Depot

Southeast Detonation Area (SEDA)

I 2.3.2 Sitewide Vapor Intrusion Volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination within the vadose zone was limited to various· operational facility locations 3.I,ld waste disposal areas at the site. Vadose zone removal actions

I were completed between 1995 and 2005 using soil vapor extraction remediation at source areas

I within OUS, OUI5, and OU16. As a result, the remediated source areas are no longer continuing sources of contamination to groundwater as determined in the Soil Vapor, Intrusion Assessment

summarized in Sections 2.6.4· and 2.S.3.

I RJchDP-OUI5 RODJ,doc B,23,10 2-7

I

I I

A vapor intrusion assessment, was completed in 2008 to evaluate whether VOC contamination

within the groundwater and/or areas of the vadose" zone represent' an unacceptable risk to Ipotential receptors at the formerNAD.

2;4 Community Participation I The Army has maintained an active Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) since 1996. The purpose of the RAB is to foster communication between the Army, EPA, NDEQ, and the local Icommunity concerning environmental issues at the former NAD. The RAB, is comprised of local citizens, public officials, and representatives from the Army, EPA, and NDEQ. The RAB meetings are held quarterly and the public is welcome to attend. I In addition to the RAB meetings, the Army has held public availability sessions to discuss proposed removal actions and public meetings to discuss Proposed Plans for various response I actions at the former NAD. A public' availability session was held' on' October 25, 2000, to present the recommendations of the OUI5 EE/CA to the public. 'Notices for the public

availability session and the public comment period were advertiSed in the local print media, the I Hastings Tribune. No written comments were received during the comment period and no' significant changes were made to the recommended removal action, which was completed in I2005.

The Proposed Plan for OU15 and Sitewide Vapor Intrusion was made available to the public on I January 26, 2010. A copy of the Admiriistrative Record file, which contains the Proposed Plan and its supporting documentation (EE/CA, Final Action Memorandum, Removal Action Reports, BLRA, Sitewide Vapor Intrusion Assessment, and other related reports), is available at the I following two locations:

IHastings Public Library Fourth and Denver Streets Hastings, Nebraska 68901 I(402) 461-2346

Central Community ColJege Library East U.S. Highway 6 I Nuckolls Building Hastings, Nebraska 68901 (402) 461-2538 I

The notice ofavailability of the Proposed Plan and date of the public meeting were published in the HastingsTribune for one week from' January 29 through February 5, 2010, to encourage the I' public to participate in the decision making process by providing comments on the Proposed

Plan and attending the public meeting. The public comment period was held from February 1 through March 5, 2010. A public meeting was held on February 8, 2010, at the, Dawson I RlchDP-OUI5 RODJdoc I8.23,10 2-8

I

I I

Building; Central Community College, East U.S. Highway '6 and South Technical Boulevard in

I Hastings, Nebraska, where representatives ofthe Army, EPA, and NDEQ presented the Proposed

I Plan and were available to answer questions .. There were no questions or comments presented by the public 'at the public meeting.

2.5 Scope and Role ofOperable Unit 15 and Sitewide Vapor Intrusion

I' Operable Unit 15 addresses contamination of two areas, Sites 4 and 10. The contamination at

I Site 4, Rifle and Pistol Rang~, consisted of lead in the shallow soil. The contamination addressed at Site 10, Mark 8a Area,consistedofVOCs in the vadose zo.ne~ .

I The Sitewide Vapor Intrusion Assessment evaluated whether vapor intrusion into buildings is a

potential exposure pathway and whether such a pathway would present an unacceptable risk to potential receptors.·

I 2.6 Site Characteristics' A brief description of general site characteristics is summarized in this section.

I I 2.6.1 Topography, Soil, and Geology

The geology and hydrogeology 'of the former NAD· and surrounding area have been studied extensively through env'ironmental investigations of the site. A briefdescription of the geology is provided in this subsection; however, more detailed information can be found in the Administrative Record file.

I The topography of the region is gently sloping, with the land surface sloping regionally to the south-southeast at approximately 5 feet per mile .. The principal surface drainages ofOU15 are

I tributaries of Big Sandy Creek and a small reservoir, which is located in the southeast portion of the Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center.

I In general, the unsaturated zone across the site (Le., those soils from the ground surface to

I groundwater) consists of topsoil, loess (silty clay), and sand and gravel deposits ranging in total thickness frorri approximately 85 to 110 feet. This zone is comprised of shallow soil and the vadose zone as described in Section 2.3. The groundwater surface is located approximately 95 to 120 feet bgs across most ofthe former NAD.

I The groundwater aquifer underlying' the former NAD is the Pleistocene Aquifer. This aquifer is the primary source of groundwater used throughout the area for irrigation, industrial and

I commercial supplies, and domestic and livestock-uses.

I I RichDP-OUI5 RODjdoc

8.23.10 2-9

I

I I

2.6.2 Site 4 - Rifle and Pistol Range Site 4 consists of an ,unfenced, bermed area approximately 300 feet long and 140 feet wide that Iwas previously used as' the backstop of a firing range. 'The area surrounding the site is nearly flat grassland. This site is located in the northwest portion ofthe Nebraska Army National Guard Greenlief Training Site ongovemment-owned property managed by the Army. There are no I residences or businesses on'or in the immediate vicinity of the site.

Through site investigations, it was determined that Site 4 contained lead ~ontamination ,above health';'based remediation goals in surface soil. A removal action was identified with the goal of

removing surface soils from an area measuring 75 feet by 35 feet and 1 foot deep contain'ing lead Iat levels in excess of established sitewide remediation goals for lead in soil of 400 milligrams per kilogram (mglkg). This remediation goal is considered protective of-area residents, maintenance employees, and/or ecological receptors that may come in contact with the remediated soil. I A removal action was performed at Site 4 to address the lead~contaminated surface soil. Approximately 360 tons of contaminated soil were removed from Site 4 and disposed of in a I Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Subtitle C disposal facility located in Peoria, Illinois. Confirmation sampling was conducted to ensure that lead concentrations in the remaining Isurface soil were below the remediation goal for lead of 400 mglkg. Site restoration activities consisted of backfilling and regrading the excavation and surrounding area until a relatively uniform grade was achieved. All disturbed areas were reseeded. The removal action was I completed'in 2003.

2.6.3 Site 10 - Mark 8a Area I Site lOis located approximately one-half mile east of the city of Glenvil. This is a fenced site, approximately 190 acres in size that was used by the United States Navy to assemble depth Icharge devices. The site includes privately owned buildings, which includes one residence. The remaining buildings are empty, unusable, or used for storage of grain, 'farm equipment, and/or materials. I Site investigations revealed that Site 10 contained levels of VOCsin the vadose zone that posed a continuing threat of VOC migration to groundwater. Groundwater sampling in the vicInity of I Site 10 indicated that groundwater had been impacted by .vOCs at levels above Maximum Contaminant Levels for drinking water. The vadose zone at the NAD extends from 10 feet bgs Ito groundwater, which is approximately at a depth of 95 to 120 feet. A removal action was

initiated with the 'goal of reducing the ,potential for further degradation of the groundwater to levels above Maximum Contaminant Levels by VOC-impacted soil and/or soil vapor in the I vadose zone at Site 10.

I , RichDP-OU15 RODJ.~ I

B,2110 2-10

I

I I

A removal action using a soil vapor extraction system was' performed at Site 10 for the

I '. remediation of the VOC-contaminated vadose zone. ' Remediation of the Site 10 vadose zone

I was completed in 2005 by achieving VOC concentration remediation goals as established in the

Final Action Memorandum for OUI5. Remediation of the groundwater at Site 10 is being addressed as part ofOU14 (Sitewide Groundwater).

I 2.6.4 Sitewide Vapor Intrusion A vapor intrusion assessment was performed to determine whether vapor intrusion into current or future buildings is a potential exposure pathway and whether such a pathway would present an

I unacceptable risk to potential receptors.- The focus' of this assessment was on site-specific VOC

I data from groundwater and soil gas .. This assessmen.t was conducted to determine the potential significance ofvapor intrusion.'

I The results of the' Sitewide Vapor Intrusion Assessment ·indicate that vapor intrusion from groundwater or vadose zone soils is not a significant exposure pathway at the former NAD as summarized in Section 2.8.3. The Sitewide Vapor Intrusion Assessment was completed in 2008.

I 2.7 Current and Future Land and Resource Use

I The regional economy in central Nebraska is primarily based on agriculture. Most land 'in the region is used in the production of crops or livestock. The region has "a relatively low population density. The 2000 U.S. Census reported populations of31,151 and 7,039 for Adams and Clay Counties, respectively.' The majority of the Adams County popUlation resides in the city of

I Hastings, which had a population of 24,064 in 2000; . The Clay County towns of Clay Center and Glenvil had populations 0[861 'and 332, respectively.

'1 Current land use at the former NAD is primarily agricultural. Industrial land use is limited to the

I privately developed HElP in the western portion of the formerNAD. Central Community

College developed its campus on a portion of the former NAD to the west of the HElP. There are approxirtuitely 20 residences on the former NAD. Over 60 owners are currently known to

hold property in the area that comprises the former NAD.

I Although federal agencies control the majority of lands on the former NAD, the privately owned lands are subject to the zoning laws of Adams and Clay Counties. Adams County rezoned the

I HElP in November 1998, from mixed use to heavy industrial land use. Current nonindustrial

I properties were "grandfathered~" but future residential land development is restricted. If present trends continue, the dominant land use at the former NAD will remain industrial and agricultural.

2.8 Summary of Site Risks

I Risk assessment studies have been completed to evaluate the potential risk to human health and the environment associated with exposure to contaminants from OU15 or Sitewide Vapor

/lj;/rf)P-OUI5 RODJ<tx:I 2-11/i23.10

I

I I

Intrusion. The previous studies included a BLRA, an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA), and a Sitewide Vapor Intrusion Assessment. The results of these studies are summarized in this Isection.

2.8.1 Human Health Risks I Baseline Risk Assessment. A BLRA was prepared to evaluate the potential risks to human health and the environment associated with exposure to chemicals of potential concern (COPC) under baseline conditions (i.e., in the absence of any response action and in the case of Sites 4 and 10, I No Further Action). The OU15 BLRA evaluated the nine sites identified for further investigation, as summarized in Section 2.3.1. Subsequent to the preparation of the Draft BLRA Iin 1997, which identified unacceptable risks from contamination at Sites 4 and 10, these two sites were remediated to acceptable levels as detailed in Section 2.6. The Final BLRA, prepared

in 2008, considered the completed removal actions in the site risks evaluation. Chemicals of I potential concern identified for evaluation in the BLRA included VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds, explosives, polychlorinated biphenyls, pesticides, metals, and cyanide. I Two types of risks were calculated: cancer risk and noncancer risk. Cancer risk is generally expressed in scientific notation and represents the incremental probability of an individual Ideveloping cancer over a lifetime as a result of site-related exposure to potential carcinogens. The EPA's generally acceptable cancer risk range for site-related exposures is 1 x 10-4 to 1 X 10-6

(1 in 10,000 to I in 1,000,000). For noncancer risks, a Hazard Index is calculated, which is a I measure of the adverse health effects associated with exposure to chemicals that are not known to cause cancer. A Hazard Index of 1 or less indicates that adverse noncancer health effects are extremely unlikely while a Hazard Index greater than 1 indicates that such effects may occur. I The BLRA evaluated the cancer and noncancer risks posed by COPCs in surface and subsurface soil, sediment, and surface water. I Receptors and media identified in the BLRA were potential visitors, residents, on-site workers, and on-site trench workers exposed to soil, sediment, or surface water. A summary of the I highest estimated cancer risks and noncarcinogenic Hazard Indices for sites retained for further investigation as part of OU15 are presented in Table 2, "Operable Unit 15 Cancer Risk Summary" and Table 3, "Operable Unit 15 Noncancer Hazard Index Summary." Site 4 is not I included in the tables since a removal action was completed to acceptable levels as indicated in Section 2.6.2. Although a removal action was completed in the Site 10 vadose zone as indicated Iin Section 2.6.3, the tables present risks from Site 10 surface and subsurface soil not associated with the removal action.

I The receptor exposed to the highest risk was a resident from Site 12 with a cancer risk of6 x 10-5

and a resident from Site 10 with a noncancer Hazard Index of 1.0. The resident's cancer risk falls within the generally acceptable risk range of 1 x 10-4 to 1 X 10-6 while the noncancer Hazard I RichDP-<JUI5 RODJ,doc I8.2110 2-12

I

I I

Index does not .exceed the target Hazard Index of 1, which indicates that adverse noncancer

I health effects are extremely unlikely. On-site workers are exposed to somewhat less· risks with a

I 2 x 10-5 cancer risk and a noncancer Hazard Index of 0.00002, both from Site 12.. Visitors and

on-site trench workers are exposed to much less risk, as presented in Tables 2 and 3 ..

I Risks from groundwater at the OUI5 sites are being addressed under the final response action· for OUI4 (Sitewide Groundwater).

2.8.2 Ecological Risks

I In addition to the BLRA, an ERA was completed to quantify the magnitude of risk to the ecological population (vegetation and wildlife) at the former NAD. The functional ecological

groups and the wildlife representatives selected for evaluation in the ERA were:

I • Mammals - mink, red fox, and whitetail deer

I • Birds (avian) - swallow, robin, woodcock, turkey, Cooper's hawk, and red-tailed hawk

I The chemicals of potential ecological concern evaluated in the ERA were explosives, semivolatile organic compounds, pesticides, metals, and cyanide.

I

The potential for ecological resources to be adversely affected by site-related contaminants was determined to be negligible at all OUI5 sites except Site 4 prior to the removal action. The potential for unacceptable ecological. risk posed by the lead cont~mination was considered

I significant for individual avian organisms, but not for the local avian population due to the site's small size and non-native rangeland habitat. The Site 4 soil excavation removal action has reduced the potential ecological risks to acceptable levels.

2.8.3 Sitewide Vapor Intrusion Risks

I A vapor intrusion assessment was performed as d~tailedin Section 2.6.4, to determine whether

I vapor intrusion into current or future buildings· is a potential exposure pathway and whether such

a pathway would present an unacceptable risk to potential residential receptors.

I To identify the COPCs.in groundwater, VOCs detected in groundwater and their maximum concentrations were compiled from the site analytical database. Based on EPA screening guidelines using this information, vapor intrusion could not be ruled outaS a complete exposure pathway. As a result, a site-specific pathway assessment was performed based on EPA

I guidelines using the Johnson and Ettinger model and additional site-specific information. The estimated risks from indoor air for a residential receptor based on groundwater concentrations are an estimated lifetime cancer risk of 8x 10-6 and a Hazard Index of 0.06. The estimated risks I

I Ri:/lDP-OU15 ROD_f.doc 8.23.10 2-13

I

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table 2 Operable Unit 15 Cancer Risk Summary

Exposure Scenario Site 3 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 10 Site 12 Site 14 SEDA

I lfaldtnt I Soil 4 x 10-5 9X 10-6 --­ 1X 10­5 2 X 10­5 6 x 10­5 9 X 10-6 NC2

Sediment --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --- NC2

Surface Water --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --- NC2

Total 4 x 10­5 9X 10-6 --­ 1X 10­5 2 X 10­5 6X 10­5 9 X 10-6 NC2

I """8. Worlw J Soil --­ --­ --­ --­ 6 X 10-6 2 X 10­5 4 X 10-6 ---Sediment --­ --­ --­ --­ -... --­ --­ ---

Surface Water --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ ---Total --­ --­ --­ --­ 6 X 10-6 2 x 10­5 4 X 10-6 ---

I VItItar I Soil 3 x 10-6 8X 10­7 --­ 9 X 10­7 1 X 10-6 5X 10-6 8 X 10-7 NO

Sediment --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --- NC2

Surface Water --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --- NC2

Total 3 x 10-6 8 X 10­7 --­ 9 X 10­7 1X 10-6 5X 10-6 8 X 10­7 NC2

I On-$Ift TIWtCh WorW I Soil1 5 X 10-6 --­ 3x10-10 --- NC2 --­ --­ ---Sediment --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ ---Surface Water --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ ---Total 5 x 10­8 --­ 3x10-10 --- NC2 --­ --­ --­

Note(s).­

1 Visitors, residents, and on-site workers were evaluated for exposure to surface soil. On-site trench workers were evaluated for exposure to subsurface soil. While trench workers would also be exposed to site surface soil, the other, more conservative scenarios that were evaluated for surface soil exposure would also be protective for trench workers.

2 NC denotes noncarcinogenic. The identified contaminants of potential concern are not suspected carcinogens.

Values are for reasonable maximum exposure. Risks provided are Total (Ingestion +Dermal) exposure.

Site 4cancer risks are not included since a removal action was performed to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Residential cleanup goals.

-- denotes that an exposure scenario is unlikely and risks were not calculated. SEDA denotes Southeast Detonation Area.

RichDP-OUI5 RODJdoc 2-148.23.10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Soil --­ --­ --­ --­ 0.2 0. 00002 C2 ---Sediment --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ ---Surface Water --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ ---Total --­ --­ --­ --­ 0.2 0.00002 C2 ---

Table 3 Operable Unit 15 Noncancer Hazard Index Summary

I Resident I Exposure Scenario Site 3 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 103 Site 12 Site 14 SEOA

Soil 0.4 C2 --- C2 ~13 0.0001 C2 0.2 Sediment --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ 0.07 Surface Water --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --- --­ 0.03 Total 0.4 C2 --- C2 ~13 0.0001 C2 0.3

I On-S/N Wolktr I

I Vlfltor I

I

Soil 0.008 C2 --- C2 0.03 0.000005 C2 0. 004 Sediment -­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ 0.008 Surface Water --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ 0. 007 Total 0.008 C2 --- C2 0.03 0.000005 C2 0.019

On-8/tfTtenc:hJVorJrtr Soil1 C2 --­ 0.00 3 --­ 0. 003 --­ --­ ---Sediment --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ ---Surface Water --- --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ ---Total C2 --­ 0.003 --­ 0.003 --­ -- ---

I

Note(s):

1 Visitors, residents, and on-site workers were evaluated for exposure to surface soil. On-site trench workers were evaluated for exposure to subsurface soil. While trench workers would also be exposed to site surface soil, the other, more conseNative scenarios that were evaluated for surface soil exposure would also be protective for trench workers.

2 Cdenotes carcinogenic. The identified contaminants ofpotential concem are all suspected carcinogens which do not have established reference doses and could therefore not be evaluated for potential noncarcinogenic effects

3 The Site 10 surface soil reasonable maximum exposure Hazard Index (HI) for the resident receptor exceeds the threshold value of 1.0. The HI values for all other Site 10 surface soil receptors are less than the threshold value of 1.0. The chemical contributing the majority of the hazard is iron (HI of 1.0), with lesser contributions from arsenic, antimony, and nickel. None of these chemicals affect the same target organs. When the Site 10 HI was re-evaluated based on target organ specific effects, none of the HI values exceeded the target HI of 1.0, indicating that exposure to Site 10 surface soil is unlikely to pose a health hazard to the populations evaluated.

Values are for reasonable maximum exposure. Risks provided are Total (Ingestion + Dermal) exposure.

Site 4hazard indices are not includedsince a removal action was performed to U. S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Residential cleanup goals.

-- denotes that an exposure scenario is unlikely and risks were not calculated. SEDA denotes Southeast Detonation Area.

RichDP-OU/5 RODJdoc 8.23.10 2-15

--

------

--

--

--

I I

for the potential residential receptor based on soil gas concentrations are an estimated lifetime cancer risk of 4 x 10-7 and a Hazard Index of 0_001. A summary of the estimated indoor air Icancer risks and noncarcinogenic Hazard Indices for groundwater and soil gas contaminants is presented in Table 4, "Indoor Air Risk Summary."

IVapor intrusion is not a significant exposure pathway as the estimated cancer risks are within or below the EPA's generally acceptable risk range of 1 x 10-4 to .. X 10-6 and the noncarcinogenic

risks are below a Hazard Index of 1. I Table 4 Indoor Air Risk Summary I

Chemical Cancer Risks1 Hazard Index1

Based on Groundwater Concentrations I - 0.0004

Benzene

Acetone

3 x 10-9 0.00003 I 7 x 10-9 0.00001

2-Butanone

Bromodichloromethane

- 0.00000008 I 0.00004

Carbon tetrachloride

Carbon disulfide -4 x 10-7 - I4 x 10-9 0.000005

Chlorofonn

Chlorodibromomethane

9 x 10-8

1,1-Dichloroethane 0.00003

1,2-Dichloroethane

-

I 7 x 10-9

1,1-Dichloroethene 0.03 I 0.003

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

0.01 I1 x 10-81,2-Dichloropropane 0.0003

Methylene Chloride 3x 10-10 0.0000004

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.005 I 7 x 10-9 0.00007

Tetrachloroethene

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

7 x 10-7 0.0005 I 0.00002

Trichloroethene

Toluene

7x1()-6 0.01 I3 x 1Q-8Vinyl Chloride 0.000002

Xylenes 0.00003

TOTAL

- I8x1()-6 0.06

RichDP.OUI5 RODJ,doc I2-168.2110

I

I I I Table 4 (Continued)

Indoor Air Risk Summary

Chemical I Cancer Risks1

I Based on Post·Remedial Soil Gas Concentrations

1,1-Dichloroethene

I 1,1,1-Trichloroethane

Tetrachloroethene

I Trichloroethene

TOTAL

Note(s):

--

3 x 1()-7

1x 1()-7

4X1()-7

Hazard Index1

0.0007

0.0001

0.0002

0.0002

0.001

I 1 Indoor air concentrations and risk estimated using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's spreadsheets.. Values are for residential receptor and are based on maximum groundwater and post-remedial soil gas concentrations. - denotes risk not estimated as chemical not considered carcinogenic, or reference concentrations not available to evaluate noncancer

1 risks.

2.9 Selected Final Remedy

I, As indicated previously, this ROD presents the final action of No Further Action for OUI5 and

1 Sitewide Vapor Intrusionat the former NAD. This final action has been coordinated with and

has the support of the EPA and NDEQ.

1 Previous removal actions at OUI5 have addressed any identified risks to human health and the

environment. As a result, OUI5is suitable for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

1 Also, in accordance with the Sitewide Vapor Intrusion Assessment, no Sitewide Vapor Intrusion

has been identified into the current or future buildings as a significant exposure pathway, and no

pathways have been identified that would present an unacceptable risk to potential receptors.

1 2.10 Documentation ofSignificant Changes

1 . The Proposed Plan for OUI5 and Site-wide Vapor Intrusion was released for public comment on

January 26, 1010. The Proposed Plan identified No Further Action as the preferred alternative

for the subject sites. No written or verbal public comments were received, including the public

meeting. As a result, no significant changes to the proposed remedy ofNo Further Action, as

1 originally presented in the Proposed Plan, are necessary.

1 1 1 RJchDP-OU15 RODJ,doc 2·178.23.10

1

I I

This page intentionally left blank.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

RkhOP-0U15 RODJ,doc I2-188.23.10

I

I I· I 3.0 Responsiveness Summary

I The Responsiveness Summary ofa Record of Decision is intended to provide responses from the

Army to significant comments received during the Proposed Plan public comment period. There

were no public comments on the Proposed Plan.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RichDP-OUI5 ROD_f.doc

B.23.10 3-1

I

I I

This page intentionally left blank.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

RichDf>.OUI5 RODJ,doc I8.23.10 3-2

I

I I I 4.0 References.

I America's United Infonnation, 2000, Local Census, http://www.localcensus.comlcounty / AdamslNebraska.

Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Chapter I, Title 40, Part 300, National Oil and Hazardous

I Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, U.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Washingtpn, D.C., August 24, 2005 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html>, August 2006;

I U.s. Anny Corps of Engineers, 1990, Remedial Investigation Report, Hastings East Industrial Park, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by Woodward-Clyde, Overland Park,. Kansas, August.

I U.S. ArIny Corps of Engineers, 1992, Supplemental Remedial1nvestigation Report, Hastings East Industrial Park, Hastings, Nebraska, Draft Final, prepared by Woodward-Clyde, Overland Park, Kansas, December.

I U.s. Anny Corps of Engineers, 2006, Removal Action Report, Site 10 Soil Vapor Extraction,

I Operable Unit 15, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, Revision 0, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas, October.

U.s. Anny Corps of Engineers, 2008, Sitewide Vapor Intrusion Assessment, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, Revision 0, prepared by Shaw Environmental,

I Inc., Overland Park, Kansas, December.

I U.s. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999, Interagency Agreement under CERCLA Section 120, April.

I U.s. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999, Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records ofDecision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPAl5401R-98/031, Washington, D.C., July.

I V.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, 1993, Preliminary Contamination Assessment Summary Report,

Southeast Detonation Area, Hastings, Nebraska, Draft, prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Overland Park, Kansas, April.

I U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, 1993, Preliminary Screening of Operable Unit 15 for Potential Sources ofContamination, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Kansas City, Missouri.

I I V.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, 1994, Draft Preliminary Contamination Assessment Summary,

Operable Unit No. 15; Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, prepared by Woodward-Clyde, Overland Park, Kansas.

I V.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, 1998, Remedial Investigation Report, Operable Unit 15, Former Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, NebraskG, Final, prepared by Woodward-Clyde, Overland Park, Kansas, August.

I RichDP-OU15 RODJdoc 8.2110 4-1

I

I I

u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, 2000, Ecological Risk Assessment Plan, Operable Unit No. 15, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas, August. I u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, 2000, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Operable Unit No. J5, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by IT I Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas, October.

u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, 2000, Field Investigation Repo.rt, Operable Units 14 and 15, IFormer Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas.

Iu.s. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001, Action Memorandum, Operable Unit No. 15, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by IT Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas, July. I u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004, Removal Action Report, Site 4 Rifle and Pistol Range, Operable Unit No. 15, Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas, October. I u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008, Operable Unit 15 Baseline Risk Assessment, Former Naval Ammunition Depot Hastings, Nebraska, Final, prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc., IOverland Park, Kansas, October.

I I I I I I I I

/U:hDP-OU15 RODJ,doc I8.23.10 4-2

I

I I·

STATE OF NEBRASKA Dave HeIneman

I G:lvemor

I I Colonel Anthony J. Hofinann

Commander; CENWK-DE .

I U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Kansas City District 601 East 12th Street Kansas City; Missouri 64106-2896

AUG 18 2010

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Michael J. Linder Director

Suite 400, The Atrium 1200 'N' Street

P.O. Box 98922 LIncoln, Nebraska 68509-8922

Phone (402) 471-2186 FAX (402) 471-2909·

website: www.deq.state.ne.us

I RE: Concurrence ofRecord ofDecision for Operable Unit 15·& Sitewide Vapor Intrusion Assessment Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska NDEQ ns Facility 63971, NDEQ Program # OU15

I Dear Colonel Hofmann:

I The Department haS completed its review of the Draft Final version (dated July 2010) of the Record ofDecision (ROD) for Operable Unit 15 (OUI5) and a Sitewide Vapor Intrusion Assessment at the Former Blaine Naval Ammunition Depot (NAD) site in Hastings, Nebraska. The ROD selects as its remedial action the No·Further Action option .. This option reflects the completion ofvarious past removal

I actions for the operable unit which have addressed the identified risks to human health and the environment.

I The Department concurs with the No Further Action as an appropriate remedy. Should you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact Jim Borovich of the Waste Management Division's Remediation Section at 4021471-2223.

I Sincerely,

1 I cc: Bill Gresham, EPA Region VII

I ill

1 I I I

An Equal OpportunltJlAffirmatiue Action Employer

@ Printed wtth eat Ink on recydad paper •