06D

85M1

020

Public MeetingProposed Plan Proposed Plan

Munitions Response SitesMunitions Response SitesLHAAPLHAAP-- 001001--R, South Test Area/Bomb Test Area and R, South Test Area/Bomb Test Area and ,,

LHAAPLHAAP--003003--R, Ground Signal Test AreaR, Ground Signal Test AreaLonghorn Army Ammunition PlantLonghorn Army Ammunition Plant

July 21, 20116 00

06D

6:00 p.m.Karnack Community Center

Karnack, Texas

85M1

020

2

,

Why are we here?Why are we here?• To present an overview of the Proposed Plan

for Munitions Response Sites (MRS) LHAAP-001 R d LHAAP 003 R001-R and LHAAP-003-R

• To present the preferred recommendation• To answer your questions and receive your

comments about the planT id i f ti h• To provide information on how you can commentF ti d i th t ti

06D

For questions during the presentation, please state your name first for the court

t

85M1

020 reporter.

3

Why is the Proposed Plan I t t?

Why is the Proposed Plan I t t?Important?Important?

• Part of the regulatory CERCLA process –Milit M iti R PMilitary Munitions Response Program (MMRP) is consistent with the CERCLA ProcessProcess

• Presents the recommendation that was reviewed and accepted by the Army USEPAreviewed and accepted by the Army, USEPA, and TCEQP id t it f th bli t

06D

• Provides an opportunity for the public to comment prior to final documentation of the recommendation in the Record of Decision

85M1

020 recommendation in the Record of Decision

4

What is the Process?What is the Process?O tli f CERCLA* f th l f NPL itOutline of CERCLA* process for the cleanup of NPL sites

PA/SI

• Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation (Placed on National Priorities List (NPL) in August 1990)

RI/FS

ugust 990)- MMRP Site Inspection (SI) (2002 -2004)

• Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study includes risk assessments (1986 -1996 for LHAAP-27 and LHAAP-54)

Proposed Planfor LHAAP-001-R and

LHAAP-003-R

ROD

RDPublic meeting

& comments

LHAAP-27 and LHAAP-54) - EE/CA including a streamlined risk

assessment for MEC (2007)

• Proposed Plan & Public Comment Period (July 21 August 20 1997 for LHAAP 27 and LHAAP 54)

LHAAP 003 R

RA

RD& comments 21 –August 20, 1997 for LHAAP-27 and LHAAP-54)

• Record of Decision (NFA-1998 for LHAAP-27 and LHAAP-54)

• Remedial DesignWe are here

06D

RA-O/LTM

SC

• Remedial Action (MEC Removal for MRS - 2008)• Remedial Action – Operations/Long-term

Monitoring• Operating Properly & Successfully

OPS

We are here

85M1

020

*Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

SC • Operating Properly & Successfully• Site Closure

5

Where are LHAAP-001-R and LHAAP 003 R?LHAAP-003-R?

LHAAP-003-R is located in the southeastern portion of LHAAP and is approximately 80 acres

06D

LHAAP-001-R is located in the southern portion of LHAAP and is approximately 79 acres

85M1

020

6

How did we get hereLHAAP 001 R?

How did we get hereLHAAP 001 R?LHAAP-001-R?LHAAP-001-R?

• LHAAP-001-R was constructed in 1954 and was used for testing photoflash bombs until 1956used for testing photoflash bombs until 1956

• During the late 1950s illuminating signal devices were demilitarized within pits excavated in the pvicinity of the test pad

• During the early 1960s leaking production items may have been demilitarized by detonation

• Leaking white phosphorus were supposedly disposed of although no primary source

06D

disposed of although no primary source documentation was located

• The area has been relatively inactive since 1960s

85M1

020 The area has been relatively inactive since 1960s

7

How did we get hereLHAAP-003-R?

How did we get hereLHAAP-003-R?LHAAP 003 R?LHAAP 003 R?

• LHAAP-003-R was used intermittently starting in 1963 for aerial and on-ground testing and destruction of devices including pyrotechnic signal devices red phosphorus smokeincluding pyrotechnic signal devices, red phosphorus smoke wedges, infrared flares, illuminating mortar shells and cartridges, button bombs and various types of explosive simulatorssimulators

• The site was used intermittently over a 20-year period for testing and burn-out of rocket motors from Nike-Hercules, Pershing, and Sergeant missiles

• From 1988 through 1991, the site was used for burn-out of rocket motors in Pershing missiles destroyed in accordance

06D

rocket motors in Pershing missiles destroyed in accordance with the INF Treaty between U.S. and the former Soviet UnionOccasionall leaking hite phosphor s m nitions ere

85M1

020 • Occasionally, leaking white phosphorus munitions were burned at the site as a demilitarization activity

8

What investigations have been conducted?What investigations have been conducted?What investigations have been conducted?What investigations have been conducted?• MMRP sites LHAAP-001-R and LHAAP-003-R are co-

located with the IRP sites LHAAP-27 and LHAAP-54, ,respectively. Between 1982 and 1996 several investigations were conducted in a phased approach to determine the nature and extent of contamination atdetermine the nature and extent of contamination at LHAAP-27 and LHAAP-54. Media investigated included soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment. Based on the results of the investigations and the risk assessmentthe results of the investigations and the risk assessment conducted for the sites, a NFA ROD under CERCLA for HTRW was signed with regulatory concurrence in January

f 1998 f LHAAP 27 d LHAAP 54

06D

of 1998 for LHAAP-27 and LHAAP-54• Perchlorate was identified as an emerging contaminant and

perchlorate data for soil and groundwater was collected

85M1

020

p gafter the ROD was signed

9

What investigations have been conducted?ti d

What investigations have been conducted?ti dcontinued…continued…

• From 2002 to 2007, investigations related to the MMRP were conducted at LHAAP. As a result of the records review for the U.S. Army CTT Range/Site Inventory in 2002, the South Test Area/Bomb Test Area and Ground Signal Test Area were designated LHAAP-001-R and LHAAP-003-R, respectively For these two MRS, investigations were conducted to determine the presenceinvestigations were conducted to determine the presence or absence of MEC and/or MC including WP and perchlorateIn 2009 USEPA collected additional gro nd ater samples

06D

• In 2009, USEPA collected additional groundwater samples from the existing monitoring wells to confirm groundwater conditions at LHAAP-001-R and LHAAP-003-R. The U.S.

85M1

020 Army collected split samples at the same time from both sites

10

LHAAP-001-R Sampling Locations06

D85

M102

0

11

LHAAP-003-R Sampling Locations06

D85

M102

0

12

What were the investigation findingsfor LHAAP-001R?

What were the investigation findingsfor LHAAP-001R?

• Investigations verified MEC presence at LHAAP-001-R and recommended surface and subsurface removal of MEC items with land use control to reduce risks within the site

• Analytical results indicated that no WP was identified at detectable• Analytical results indicated that no WP was identified at detectable concentrations in any soil samples collected and there was no indication of the presence of MC in any pre or post-detonation samplesP hl t i iti ll d t t d i t ll ith i• Perchlorate was initially detected in two wells with a maximum concentration below the groundwater MSC for industrial use (GW-Ind) value of 72 µg/L. The initial detections of perchlorate in groundwater were not confirmed in subsequent sampling

• During the 2009 USEPA groundwater sampling, perchlorate was detected in three wells with one of the three above the GW-Ind value of 72 µg/L at a concentration of 76 µg/L. The USEPA’s perchlorate detection of 76 µg/L was an estimate from a diluted sample. The

06D

detect o o 6 µg/ as a est ate o a d uted sa p e eU.S. Army collected split samples at the same time that the USEPA collected samples from the site. Perchlorate was detected in two wells for the Army split samples, with a maximum concentration below the GW-Ind value of 72 µg/L. The perchlorate results below

85M1

020 µg p

the GW-Ind value are consistent with historical results at the site.

13

What were the investigation findingsfor LHAAP-003R?

What were the investigation findingsfor LHAAP-003R?for LHAAP-003R?for LHAAP-003R?

• Investigations verified MEC presence at LHAAP-003-R and recommended surface clearance of MEC items with land use

t l t d i k ithi th itcontrol to reduce risks within the site• Analytical results indicated that no WP was identified at

detectable concentrations in any soil samples collected and th i di ti f th f MC ithere was no indication of the presence of MC in any pre or post-detonation samples

• During all sampling events prior to 2009, perchlorate was ith t d t t d d t t d t ieither not detected or was detected at a maximum

concentration that was well below the GW-Ind value of 72 µg/L

06D

• For both the USEPA and the U.S. Army results, perchlorate was detected in only one well at a concentration that was well below the GW-Ind value of 72 µg/L

85M1

020

µg

14

Was any action taken at LHHAP-001-R?Was any action taken at LHHAP-001-R?

• Between August and November 2008, a MEC removal action was conducted; surface clearance of

6 fapproximately 65 acres and subsurface removal to the depth of detection in the approximately 14-acre open burn/open detonation area was performed at th itthe site− a total of 384 MEC/MPPEH items − 14 inert items− a total of 22,139 Ibs munitions debris− a total of 1,876 Ibs cultural debris

• LUCs were developed that included restrictions

06D

• LUCs were developed that included restrictions against intrusive activities including digging; signage at the perimeter of the site; and an education program for future refuge visitors staff and

85M1

020 program for future refuge visitors, staff, and volunteers

15

Locations at LHAAP-001-Rwhere MEC/MPPEH was removed?where MEC/MPPEH was removed?

06D

85M1

020

16

Was any action taken at LHHAP-003-R?Was any action taken at LHHAP-003-R?

• Between August and November 2008, a MEC removal action was conducted; surface clearance

fwas performed at the site− a total of 12 MEC/MPPEH items located and

destroyed− 1 inert item located and destroyed− a total of 6,880 Ibs munitions debris removed− a total of 5 981 Ibs cultural debris removeda total of 5,981 Ibs cultural debris removed

• LUCs were developed that included restrictions against intrusive activities including digging; signage at the perimeter of the site; and an education

06D

at the perimeter of the site; and an education program for future refuge visitors, staff, and volunteers

85M1

020

17

Locations at LHAAP-003-R where MEC/MPPEHH was removed?where MEC/MPPEHH was removed?

06D

85M1

020

18

What are Risk Assessments?What are Risk Assessments?• Use data to evaluate potential risks to receptors• Risks to human health or the environment outside of the acceptable

range are the drivers for remedial action− Cancer risk is expressed as a probability;Cancer risk is expressed as a probability;

risk acceptable to EPA is in the range of 1×10-6 to 1×10-4 or 1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in 10,000

− Non-cancer hazard is expressed as the hazard index (HI); The HI is they sum of the individual hazard quotients (intakeThe HI is they sum of the individual hazard quotients (intake dose/reference dose); HI acceptable to EPA is < 1

− If the risks are acceptable, proposed plan is for no further action• Exposure depends on current and future land and groundwater use

iscenarios− Use scenario at LHAAP: industrial/recreational (national wildlife

refuge)− Human receptor at LHAAP: Hypothetical future maintenance worker

06D

• Risks associated with MEC items are categorized into three classes − MEC factors: related to type of MEC, the sensitivity, the quantity, depth− Site characteristics factors: accessibility and stability of areas where

MEC items are located

85M1

020

− Human factors: related to population density and population activities

19

Is there Human Health Risk at LHAAP-001-R?Is there Human Health Risk at LHAAP-001-R?• Because there was no WP identified at detectable concentrations in

any soil samples collected and there was no indication of the presence of MC in any pre or post-detonation samples, there is no risk associated with WPAlth h th MC d t fi th d t i ti f• Although the MC data summary confirms the determination of no risk to human health or the environment in soil as identified in the EE/CA, additional groundwater sampling conducted by USEPA in 2009 resulted in some uncertainty with regard to MC in groundwater.2009 resulted in some uncertainty with regard to MC in groundwater. Both metals and perchlorate were detected above screening levels by USEPA, although the single exceedance of the perchlorate GW-Ind in one well was not confirmed by U.S. Army’s split sample result

• The streamlined risk evaluation indicated moderate MEC risk to human health. The surface MEC removal action located and removed MEC items thereby reducing the risk to the future land user The subsurface removal provided an effective solution for

06D

user. The subsurface removal provided an effective solution for reducing risk of exposure by reducing the potential for any direct contact with MEC or MPPEH

• LUCs were identified, designed, and implemented for the site to

85M1

020

promote ongoing protection of human safety against potential explosive hazards that might remain in the subsurface

20

Is there Human Health Risk at LHAAP-003-R?Is there Human Health Risk at LHAAP-003-R?B th WP id tifi d t d t t bl• Because there was no WP identified at detectable concentrations in any soil samples collected and there was no indication of the presence of MC in any pre or

t d t ti l th i i k i t d ithpost-detonation samples, there is no risk associated with WP

• In all sampling events, perchlorate was detected at concentrations well below the GW-Ind, therefore, there was no need to evaluate risk associated with perchlorate

• The streamlined risk assessment indicated low MEC riskThe streamlined risk assessment indicated low MEC risk to human health. The surface MEC removal action located and removed MEC items thereby reducing the risk to the future land user

06D

risk to the future land user • LUCs were identified, designed, and implemented for the

site to promote ongoing protection of human safety against potential explosive hazards that might remain in

85M1

020 against potential explosive hazards that might remain in the subsurface

21

Is there Ecological Risk at LHAAP-001-R and LHAAP 003 R?

Is there Ecological Risk at LHAAP-001-R and LHAAP 003 R?and LHAAP-003-R?and LHAAP-003-R?

• No. The BERA concluded that no unacceptable risk was present in the Low Impact Sub-Area where LHAAP-001-p pR and LHAAP-003-R are located. Summary results from the BERA indicated

perchlorate was not selected as a final constituent of- perchlorate was not selected as a final constituent of potential ecological concern because all estimated receptor ecological effects quotient were less than 1

- there was no evidence of a perchlorate source area - no WP or explosives were identified in any soil samples- no indication of the presence of explosives in any pre or

06D

no indication of the presence of explosives in any pre or post-detonation samples confirming the determination of no risk to the environment for LHAAP-001-R and LHAAP-003-R

85M1

020 003-R

22

What are the Recommendations?What are the Recommendations?• In addition to the LUCs already in place as a result of the 2008 MEC

removal action, limited groundwater monitoring for perchlorate is proposed for LHAAP-001-R and LHAAP-003-R. The purpose of the additional monitoring is to confirm perchlorate levels in groundwater are below the GW-Ind. Furthermore, implementation, maintenance, inspection, reporting and enforcement of the LUCs will continue to promote the ongoing protection of human safety against explosivepromote the ongoing protection of human safety against explosive hazards that might remain at the sites in the subsurface

• Because there are no unacceptable risks and groundwater monitoring and the appropriate LUCs have been implemented nomonitoring and the appropriate LUCs have been implemented, no remediation alternatives or Remedial Action Objectives are required. If after three rounds of groundwater sampling at LHAAP-001-R and one round of groundwater sampling at LHAAP-003-R the results that

06D

one round of groundwater sampling at LHAAP-003-R the results that are evaluated on or before the first five year review indicate detections at levels below the GW-Ind value of 72 µg/L for perchlorate, groundwater monitoring will cease and the wells will be

85M1

020 p , g gplugged and abandoned

23

Wh h ?Wh h ?Why are you here?Why are you here?

Public opinions and comments help ensure that all factors have been considered in

making the recommendation

06D

85M1

020

24

How do you comment?How do you comment?yy• Proposed Plan and comment forms are

available in the Proposed Plan for LHAAP-available in the Proposed Plan for LHAAP-001-R and LHAAP-003-R in the Administrative Record atAdministrative Record atMarshall Public Library300 S Al Bl d300 S. Alamo BlvdMarshall, Texas 75670

06D

Business Hours: Monday – Thursday (10:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m.) F id S t d (10 00 5 30 )

85M1

020 Friday – Saturday (10:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.)

25

How do you submit a written comment?

How do you submit a written comment?comment?comment?

• Send written comments to Dr Rose M ZeilerDr. Rose M. ZeilerSite ManagerLonghorn Army Ammunition Plant P.O. Box 220Ratcliff, Arkansas, 72951Direct No : (479) 635-0110Direct No.: (479) 635 0110E-mail address: rose.zeiler@us.army.mil(Forms are also available here for you to pick up)

06D

• Comments must be post marked by August 13, 2011

85M1

020 g ,

26

Public ParticipationPublic ParticipationPublic ParticipationPublic Participation

• Public comment period runs throughAugust 13, 2011

• A transcript of tonight’s meeting will be• A transcript of tonight s meeting will be posted in the Administrative Record at Marshall Public LibraryMarshall Public Library

• Significant public comments will be summarized and addressed as part of the

06D

summarized and addressed as part of the responsiveness summary in the ROD

85M1

020

27

Q estions or Comments?Q estions or Comments?Questions or Comments?Questions or Comments?

Please state your name for the court reporter.

Please state your name for the court reporter.court reporter.court reporter.

06D

85M1

020

28