The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFinal_CPT_SMP_FY23_20230131APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Mid-Atlantic Norfolk, Virginia Final Site Management Plan Fiscal Year 2023 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Cherry Point, North Carolina January 2023 FES0613220646VBO iii Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... vii 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1 2 MCAS Cherry Point Description and Environmental History ............................................................... 2-1 2.1 Base Description ............................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Regional Physiography, Climate, and Surface Water Hydrology .................................................... 2-1 2.3 Geology and Hydrogeology ............................................................................................................ 2-2 2.3.1 General Regional Geologic and Hydrogeologic Framework .............................................. 2-2 2.3.2 Regional Water Usage ....................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.3 Soils .................................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 Ecology ............................................................................................................................................ 2-5 2.5 CERCLA Process ............................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.5.1 Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation or Site Inspection .......................................... 2-5 2.5.2 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study .......................................................................... 2-6 2.5.3 Proposed Remedial Action Plan and Record of Decision .................................................. 2-8 2.5.4 Remedial Design and Remedial Action .............................................................................. 2-9 2.5.5 Remedy-in-Place and Response Complete ........................................................................ 2-9 2.6 Environmental History .................................................................................................................. 2-10 2.6.1 Installation Restoration Program History ........................................................................ 2-10 2.6.2 Munitions Response Program History ............................................................................. 2-11 2.6.3 Current Site Status ........................................................................................................... 2-11 3 Descriptions of PA/SI Sites................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 MCAS Cherry Point ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Site 100 – Marine Corps Outlying Landing Field (MCOLF) Atlantic ................................................ 3-1 3.3 Marine Corps Auxiliary Landing Field Bogue .................................................................................. 3-2 3.4 Marine Corps Outlying Landing Field Oak Grove ............................................................................ 3-2 4 Descriptions of RI/FS Sites ................................................................................................................ 4-1 5 Descriptions of PRAP and ROD Sites .................................................................................................. 5-1 6 Descriptions of RD and RA Sites ........................................................................................................ 6-1 7 Descriptions of RIP and RC Sites ........................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1 IRP RIP Sites .................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.1 Operable Unit 1 ................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1.2 Operable Unit 2 ............................................................................................................... 7-13 7.1.3 Operable Unit 3 ............................................................................................................... 7-18 7.1.4 Operable Unit 4 ............................................................................................................... 7-22 7.1.5 Operable Unit 14 ............................................................................................................. 7-24 7.2 IRP RC Sites ................................................................................................................................... 7-28 7.2.1 OU1 NFA Sites (Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 83) ................................................................... 7-28 7.2.2 OU2 Site 46 – Polishing Ponds No.1 and No. 2 ................................................................ 7-31 7.2.3 Operable Unit 5 ............................................................................................................... 7-32 7.2.4 Operable Unit 6 ............................................................................................................... 7-34 7.2.5 Operable Unit 13 ............................................................................................................. 7-36 7.2.6 Operable Unit 15 ............................................................................................................. 7-38 7.3 MRP RC Sites ................................................................................................................................. 7-39 SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA iv FES0613220646VBO 8 Descriptions of Preliminary Screening Areas and Site Screening Areas ............................................... 8-1 8.1 Preliminary Screening Areas ........................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1.1 POEIs 22 and 23 – Radioactive Waste Storage Areas #1 and #2 ....................................... 8-1 8.2 Site Screening Areas ....................................................................................................................... 8-2 8.2.1 POEI 35a – High Power Engine Run-up Area and Test Cells .............................................. 8-2 8.2.2 Site 85 – Hobby Shop Disposal Area .................................................................................. 8-2 9 Removal Actions and Remedial Actions ............................................................................................ 9-1 9.1 Operable Unit 1 .............................................................................................................................. 9-1 9.1.1 Site 16 – Landfill at Sandy Branch ...................................................................................... 9-1 9.1.2 OU1 Central Groundwater Plume Interim Remedial Action ............................................. 9-1 9.1.3 Site 51 – Building 137 Former Plating Shop....................................................................... 9-2 9.1.4 Site 51 – Building 137 Former Plating Shop and Site 52—Building 133 Former Plating Shop and Ditch ....................................................................................................... 9-2 9.1.5 Sandy Branch Tributary #2 ................................................................................................ 9-2 9.1.6 OU1 Central Groundwater Plume In Situ Enhanced Bioremediation Pilot Study ............. 9-2 9.1.7 OU1 Central Groundwater Plume Permeable Reactive Barrier Pilot Study ...................... 9-3 9.1.8 OU1 Central Groundwater Plume Remedial Action .......................................................... 9-3 9.2 Operable Unit 2 .............................................................................................................................. 9-4 9.2.1 Site 10 – Old Sanitary Landfill ............................................................................................ 9-4 9.3 Operable Unit 3 .............................................................................................................................. 9-4 9.3.1 Site 6 – Fly Ash Ponds ........................................................................................................ 9-4 9.3.2 Site 7 – Old Incinerator and Adjacent Area ....................................................................... 9-4 9.4 Operable Unit 6 .............................................................................................................................. 9-5 9.4.1 Site 12 – Crash Crew Training Area ................................................................................... 9-5 9.5 Site 85 – Hobby Shop Disposal Area ............................................................................................... 9-5 10 Five-Year Reviews .......................................................................................................................... 10-1 10.1 Five-Year Review – 2002 ............................................................................................................... 10-1 10.2 Five-Year Review – 2007 ............................................................................................................... 10-1 10.3 Five-Year Review – 2012 ............................................................................................................... 10-2 10.4 Five-Year Review – 2017 ............................................................................................................... 10-2 11 Site Management Schedules ........................................................................................................... 11-1 11.1 Multi-site and Basewide Activities for FY 2023 ............................................................................ 11-1 11.1.1 Preparation of the Site Management Plan Update for FY 2024 ...................................... 11-1 12 References ..................................................................................................................................... 12-1 Tables 2-1 Current Status of FFA and Additional Sites 2-2 Summary of Environmental Studies, Investigations, and Actions Completed for ER Program Sites Identified in the FFA 2-3 Document Submittals for FFA Sites 7-1 Summary of LUCAP Boundaries 7-2 Summary of Samples Collected as Part of the LTM Program 11-1 Enforceable/Potentially Enforceable Milestones for FY 2023 through FY 2025 11-2 Schedules and Milestones CONTENTS FES0613220646VBO v Figures 2-1 Base Location Map 2-2 CERCLA Process 2-3 Current Status of FFA and Additional Sites 2-4 Operable Units Location Map 3-1 PFAS PA/SI Site Locations 3-2 PFAS Site Inspection Areas North Quadrant – MCAS Cherry Point 3-3 PFAS Site Inspection Areas East Quadrant – MCAS Cherry Point 3-4 PFAS Site Inspection Areas South Quadrant – MCAS Cherry Point 3-5 PFAS Site Inspection Areas West Quadrant – MCAS Cherry Point 3-6 PFAS Site Inspection Areas – MCOLF Atlantic 3-7 PFAS Site Inspection Areas – MCALF Bogue 3-8 PFAS Site Inspection Areas – MCOLF Oak Grove 7-1 Operable Unit 1 FFA Sites 7-2 OU1 Central Groundwater Plume FFA Sites 7-3 Operable Unit 2 FFA Sites 7-4 Operable Unit 3 FFA Sites 7-5 Operable Unit 4 FFA Site 7-6 Operable Unit 14 FFA Site 7-7 Operable Unit 5 FFA Sites 7-8 Operable Unit 6 FFA Site 7-9 Operable Unit 13 FFA Sites 7-10 Operable Unit 15 FFA Site 7-11 Former Skeet and Trap Range #1 8-1 POEIs 22 and 23 8-2 FFA Site POEI 35a (SSA 35a) 8-3 FFA Site 85 FES0613220646VBO vii Acronyms and Abbreviations µg/L microgram per liter °F degrees Fahrenheit AFFF aqueous film-forming foam AM action memorandum amsl above mean sea level AOC area of concern AS air sparge BERA Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment bgs below ground surface BRAC Base Realignment and Closure CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Community Involvement Plan CLEAN Comprehensive Long-term Environmental Action—Navy COC contaminant of concern COPC contaminant of potential concern cVOC chlorinated volatile organic compound DD Decision Document DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid DoD Department of Defense DPT direct-push technology DRMO Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office EAD Environmental Affairs Department EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis ERA Ecological Risk Assessment ER Environmental Restoration ER,N Environmental Restoration, Navy ESD Explanation of Significant Differences FFA Federal Facility Agreement FFS Focused Feasibility Study FRCE Fleet Readiness Center East FS Feasibility Study FY fiscal year HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment HI hazard index HRC Hydrogen Release Compound IAS Initial Assessment Study IC institutional control IR Installation Restoration IRACR Interim Remedial Action Completion Report IRI Interim Remedial Investigation IROD Interim Record of Decision SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA viii FES0613220646VBO IRP Installation Restoration Program IWTP Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant LTM long-term monitoring LUC land use control LUCAP Land Use Control Assurance Plan MC munitions constituents MCALF Marine Corps Auxiliary Landing Field MCAS Marine Corps Air Station MCOLF Marine Corps Outlying Landing Field MEC munitions and explosives of concern mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mgd million gallons per day MIP Membrane Interface Probe MMRP Military Munitions Response Program MNA monitored natural attenuation MRP Munitions Response Program NACIP Navy Assessment and Control of Installation Pollutants NADEP Naval Aviation Depot NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Navy Department of the Navy NC SSL North Carolina Soil Screening Levels NC2L North Carolina Groundwater Standards NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NFA no further action No. number NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priorities List NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NTCRA Non-Time-Critical Removal Action O&M operation and maintenance OU Operable Unit PA/SI Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances POEI point of environmental interest POL petroleum, oil, and lubricants PRAP Proposed Remedial Action Plan PRB permeable reactive barrier PRG preliminary remediation goal PSA Preliminary Screening Area RA Remedial Action RAB Restoration Advisory Board RACR Remedial Action Completion Report RAO remedial action objective RASO Radiological Affairs Support Office RC Response Complete ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS FES0613220646VBO ix RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RD Remedial Design RFA RCRA Facility Assessment RFI RCRA Facility Investigation Rhēa Rhēa Engineers & Consultants, Inc. RI Remedial Investigation RIP remedy-in-place ROD Record of Decision RRR Relative Risk Ranking SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan SAR SWMU Assessment Report SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SC Site Closeout SI Site Inspection SLERA Screening-level Ecological Risk Assessment SMP Site Management Plan SOP standard operating procedure S.R. State Road SSA Site Screening Area SSI Supplemental Site Investigation SSP site screening process STP sewage treatment plant SV sampling visit SVE soil vapor extraction SVOC semivolatile organic compound SWMU solid waste management unit TCE trichloroethene TCRA Time-Critical Removal Action TDM Technical Direction Memorandum Tetra Tech Tetra Tech EC, Inc. TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon TSDF Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility U.S. United States USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey UST underground storage tank VGM voluntary groundwater monitoring VI vapor intrusion VOC volatile organic compound VSI Visual Site Inspection WCSD Watershed Contaminated Source Document ZVI zero-valent iron FES0613220646VBO 1-1 SECTION 1 Introduction This document presents the Site Management Plan (SMP) for Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point, North Carolina, for fiscal year (FY) 2023. The SMP presents planned activities to be conducted at MCAS Cherry Point during FY 2023 and beyond and provides projections for long-term progress in accordance with the Department of Defense (DoD) Environmental Restoration (ER) Program. The ER Program consists of the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) for non-munitions-related sites and the Munitions Response Program (MRP) for sites containing military munitions. This document has been prepared for the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC), Mid-Atlantic Division, under the Comprehensive Long-term Environmental Action—Navy (CLEAN) Contract N62470-21-D-0007, Contract Task Order 6437, by CH2M HILL, Inc. (CH2M). The SMP will also be submitted to representatives of the MCAS Cherry Point Environmental Affairs Department (EAD), the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 4 and meets the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) signed in 2005 by NAVFAC, EAD, NCDEQ, and USEPA. In the event of any actual or apparent conflict between any term(s) of this SMP and any term(s) of the FFA, the term(s) of the FFA will control. ER activities that are associated with MCAS Cherry Point are covered under the FFA, for which USEPA is the lead regulatory agency. The outlying and auxiliary landing fields (Marine Corps Outlying Landing Field [MCOLF] Atlantic, MCOLF Oak Grove, and Marine Corps Auxiliary Landing Field [MCALF] Bogue) are not included in the FFA. NCDEQ is the lead regulatory agency for non-FFA sites associated with MCAS Cherry Point. The purpose of the SMP is to provide a management tool for the MCAS Cherry Point ER Partnering Team, which includes representatives from NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic, MCAS Cherry Point EAD, NCDEQ, USEPA, CH2M, HANA Engineers & Consultants, LLC (HANA), and Bethel-Tech Atlantic JV (Bethel Tech). It is intended to be used in the planning and scheduling of environmental remedial response activities to be conducted at MCAS Cherry Point under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The SMP provides brief site descriptions and summaries of previous investigations, establishes activity schedules, and provides proposed deadlines for completion of deliverables. The SMP is a working document that will be revised yearly to maintain up-to-date documentation and a current summary of environmental actions at MCAS Cherry Point. This SMP updates and supersedes the FY 2022 SMP finalized in April 2022. The MCAS Cherry Point ER Partnering Team prioritized activities and proposed schedules based on the following factors: • Addressing those sites with highest potential risk to human health and the environment first. • Meeting requirements of USEPA, NCDEQ, NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic, and MCAS Cherry Point EAD. The SMP consists of 12 sections: • Section 1 establishes its purpose. • Section 2 describes MCAS Cherry Point and its environmental history. • Sections 3 through 8 present brief site descriptions and histories, summaries of previous investigations, and planned activities for FY 2023 for each of the IRP and MRP sites listed in the FFA or identified more recently for additional investigation under CERCLA. Each section is organized according to its corresponding phase of the CERCLA process and includes associated tables and figures. Section 8 includes other sites (Preliminary Screening Areas [PSAs] and Site Screening Areas [SSAs]) that have been identified as requiring either desktop audits (PSAs) or screening-level investigations (SSAs) for possible inclusion in the CERCLA Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process. • Section 9 presents the historical and proposed removal and remedial actions (RAs) at MCAS Cherry Point. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 1-2 FES0613220646VBO • Section 10 presents the major conclusions of Five-Year Reviews at MCAS Cherry Point. • Section 11 presents 5-year schedules for environmental investigation and remediation activities at those sites where activities are currently planned for FY 2023 through 2027. • Section 12 provides the references cited throughout this document. FES0613220646VBO 2-1 SECTION 2 MCAS Cherry Point Description and Environmental History 2.1 Base Description MCAS Cherry Point is a military installation located north of the town of Havelock in southeastern Craven County. The air station and its associated support locations occupy approximately 29,000 acres (Figure 2-1). MCAS Cherry Point was commissioned in 1942. There are approximately 14,000 Marines, Sailors, and civilian employees currently aboard. The mission of MCAS Cherry Point is to maintain and support the facilities, services, and material for the Second Marine Aircraft Wing, the Fleet Readiness Center—East (formerly the Naval Aviation Depot [NADEP]), along with other activities and units as designated by the Commandant of the Marine Corps in coordination with the Chief of Naval Operations. MCAS Cherry Point has facilities for training and support of the Atlantic Fleet Marine Force aviation units and is designated as a primary aviation supply point. The boundaries of MCAS Cherry Point include the Neuse River to the north, Hancock Creek to the east, North Carolina Highway 101 to the south, and an irregular boundary approximately ¾‑mile west of Slocum Creek to the west. MCAS Cherry Point also includes several outlying airfields, including MCOLF Atlantic, MCALF Bogue, and MCOLF Oak Grove. MCOLF Atlantic is approximately 26 miles east of MCAS Cherry Point; MCALF Bogue is approximately 12.5 miles southwest of MCAS Cherry Point; and MCOLF Oak Grove is approximately 16 miles northwest of MCAS Cherry Point (Figure 2-1). According to the Initial Assessment Study (IAS), MCOLF Atlantic and MCALF Bogue were established when condemnation actions in December 1942 combined tracts of land for use as an outlying training field (Water and Air Research, Inc., 1983). In 1943, MCOLF Oak Grove was commissioned as a Marine Corps Auxiliary Air Facility (HMM Associates, Inc., 1993). 2.2 Regional Physiography, Climate, and Surface Water Hydrology MCAS Cherry Point is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The area encompassing MCAS Cherry Point lies in the Neuse River drainage basin, which is one of two major river basins that flow into Pamlico Sound. The topography of this portion of the Coastal Plain Province is relatively flat. Surface elevations in the Coastal Plain range from sea level to about 50 feet above mean sea level (amsl), with an average elevation of 20 feet amsl. Coastal areas are swampy and of generally low relief and are characterized by large tidal streams and their tributaries. The land surface across the facility slopes generally east to west toward Slocum Creek. Land-surface elevations range from 25 feet amsl near Roosevelt Boulevard to approximately 1 foot amsl at Slocum Creek. Typical elevations are generally between 20 and 25 feet amsl, with a few local topographic highs between 25 and 29 feet amsl. Elevations along the surface water drainage features that border much of MCAS Cherry Point are generally between 1 and 5 feet amsl. Stormwater drainage across MCAS Cherry Point is directed to surface water bodies by a series of storm sewers, drainage ditches, and tributaries. Some tidal influences are likely in Slocum Creek and Hancock Creek, which are classified as Class SC estuarine water by the NCDEQ. These waters are suitable for fish and wildlife and for secondary recreation (i.e., not considered suitable for swimming). Proximity to the Atlantic Ocean significantly influences the climate of MCAS Cherry Point. The climate is warm and humid with short, mild winters and long, hot summers. Winter temperatures average 46 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and those in summer average 77°F. Precipitation is not evenly distributed, with the greatest monthly precipitation occurring during July, August, and September (6 to 8 inches per month). In the other months, monthly rainfall averages 3 to 4 inches. Recharge to the surficial (water table) aquifer system is from precipitation. Average precipitation for the Coastal Plain is approximately 50 inches per year (Giese, Eimers, and Coble, 1997). The SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 2-2 FES0613220646VBO generalized water budget for the Coastal Plain includes evapotranspiration of about 33 inches per year, recharge to the water table aquifer of about 12 inches per year, and overland runoff to streams of about 5 inches per year. Of the 12 inches per year of recharge to the water table aquifer, approximately 11 inches per year moves laterally and discharges to streams; the remaining 1 inch or less per year moves vertically downward through confining units into deeper confined aquifers (Giese, Eimers, and Coble, 1997). Tropical hurricanes pass offshore twice in an average year, but infrequently strike the coast with full force. 2.3 Geology and Hydrogeology 2.3.1 General Regional Geologic and Hydrogeologic Framework The regional geologic and hydrogeologic framework for North Carolina presented here is based principally on information compiled and developed as part of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Regional Aquifer-System Analysis. The Coastal Plain Province of North Carolina is underlain by an eastward-thickening wedge of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay with scattered beds of shells and loosely consolidated beds of limestone, sandy limestone, and shell limestone (Winner and Coble, 1996). The sedimentary sequence ranges in age from Quaternary to Cretaceous and reaches a thickness of 10,000 feet at the Atlantic coast. Near MCAS Cherry Point, the Coastal Plain Province sediments are estimated to be approximately 2,500 feet thick (Lloyd and Daniel, 1988). The lower sedimentary sequence is predominantly non-marine deltaic in origin and consists of discontinuous and heterogeneous sand-and-clay sequences. The upper sequences are predominantly marine in origin and include near-shore and estuarine deposits. The sedimentary deposits overlie pre-Cretaceous crystalline basement rock. Historical Coastal Plain Province sedimentation and deposition were controlled by fluctuations in sea level on a subsiding continental margin. For the outlying fields, the unconsolidated coastal plain sands encountered ranged from fine to medium grained, with some fines present. An exception to this lithology description occurred at MCOLF Atlantic, where an isolated area of fill was encountered from 4 inches to 4.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). In addition, several lithology variations occurred at MCOLF Oak Grove. Specifically, silt was encountered from the surface to 2 feet bgs, a clayey silt was encountered from 2 to 14 feet bgs, and all of this was underlain by a fine to medium grained sand from 14 to 20 feet bgs. An isolated area of sandy gravel was also encountered from the surface to 1 foot bgs and 19.5 to 20 feet bgs, interbedded with a fine to medium grained sand. MCAS Cherry Point is underlain by 17 hydrostatic units: nine aquifers separated by eight confining units (Eimers, Daniel, and Coble, 1994). Of these regional hydrostratigraphic units, the youngest five aquifers are most relevant to remedial activities at MCAS Cherry Point. These aquifers and associated confining units, from the youngest to the oldest, are: the surficial aquifer, the Yorktown Confining Unit, the Yorktown Aquifer, the Pungo River Confining Unit, the Pungo River Aquifer, the Upper Castle Hayne Confining Unit, the Upper Castle Hayne Aquifer, the Lower Castle Hayne Confining Unit, and the Lower Castle Hayne Aquifer. These uppermost units are described in the following subsections. 2.3.1.1 Surficial Aquifer The surficial aquifer is the first-encountered groundwater beneath MCAS Cherry Point, and is the unconfined, water table aquifer. It is exposed at the ground surface and in streambeds throughout MCAS Cherry Point where the water table intersects the ground surface. The aquifer consists of unconsolidated and interfingering beds of fine sand, silt, clay, shell, and peat beds, with scattered deposits of coarser-grained material of relic beach ridges and flood plain alluvium. The average saturated thickness of the aquifer is 40 to 50 feet. The surficial aquifer is recharged from rainfall and is the source of recharge to the underlying confined aquifers as well as the source of base flow to streams. The surficial aquifer has an estimated hydraulic conductivity of 15 to 20 feet per day. The surficial aquifer has been frequently subdivided for evaluation purposes into two different groundwater zones: the Upper and Lower surficial aquifers. This is, in part, due to minor differences in aquifer properties, but also in order to facilitate spatial delineation of contamination vertically. The Upper surficial aquifer is defined as the upper 10 to 15 feet of saturated thickness and is generally monitored by wells installed across or near the SECTION 2—MCAS CHERRY POINT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY FES0613220646VBO 2-3 water table. The Lower surficial aquifer is defined as the lower 20 to 30 feet of the aquifer and is monitored by wells installed just above the Yorktown Confining Unit. The Upper surficial aquifer generally contains finer-grained materials than the Lower surficial aquifer. However, the Upper and Lower surficial aquifers are in direct hydraulic communication and there is no confining unit or geologic boundary between them. 2.3.1.2 Yorktown Confining Unit The Yorktown Confining Unit underlies the surficial aquifer and serves as a hydrogeologic barrier to the underlying Yorktown Aquifer. The confining unit consists largely of clay and sandy clay that locally includes beds of fine sand or shells. These confining sediments comprise the youngest beds of the Yorktown Formation. The average thickness of the Yorktown Confining Unit is about 22 feet (Winner and Coble, 1996). 2.3.1.3 Yorktown Aquifer The Yorktown Aquifer comprises predominantly fine sand, silty and clayey sand, and clay; shells and shell beds occur throughout and are reflective of marine and near-marine depositional environments. The fine sand is the dominant aquifer material, making up generally between 70 and 80 percent of the Yorktown Aquifer in Craven County. The estimated average hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer is approximately 22 feet per day. The Yorktown Aquifer ranges in thickness from 20 to 35 feet (Eimers, Daniel, and Coble, 1994). 2.3.1.4 Pungo River Confining Unit The upper clay beds of the Pungo River Formation and lowermost clays of the Yorktown Formation make up the Pungo River Confining Unit and overlie the Pungo River Aquifer. The confining unit contains less than 10 percent sand and has an average thickness of 55 feet (Winner and Coble, 1996). 2.3.1.5 Pungo River Aquifer The permeable sediments of the upper and middle Pungo River Formation form the Pungo River Aquifer. The aquifer consists of fine- to medium-grained marine sand with considerable phosphate content. Based on fossil content, these sediments were deposited in an offshore setting, with some coarse sand beds representative of nearshore or estuarine environments. In eastern Craven County, the aquifer is about 90 percent sand. The western extent of the aquifer lies about 10 miles west of MCAS Cherry Point, and its thickness averages about 15 feet near its western limits. In the western portions of Craven County, where the Yorktown aquifer is absent, the Pungo River aquifer is directly overlain by the surficial aquifer. The average estimated hydraulic conductivity of the Pungo River aquifer is 32 feet per day (Winner and Coble, 1996). Recharge to the aquifer is by leakage through the upper confining unit from the Yorktown Aquifer, with upward discharge to major stream valleys. Near the western limits of the aquifer, the Neuse River may cut into the Pungo River Aquifer. 2.3.1.6 Castle Hayne Confining Unit Regionally, the Castle Hayne confining unit and Aquifer are considered one hydrostratigraphic unit. In the vicinity of the MCAS Cherry Point, the USGS has subdivided this unit into Upper and Lower Castle Hayne Confining Units and Upper and Lower Castle Hayne Aquifers. For the purpose of this regional description of the hydrostratigraphic units of the North Carolina Coastal Plain, the Castle Hayne is not subdivided. The Castle Hayne confining unit consists of clay, sandy clay, and clay with sandy streaks. The average thickness of the confining clays is 14 feet. In some areas, the confining unit contains sufficient sand to allow significant leakage between the Castle Hayne and the overlying aquifers (Winner and Coble, 1996). 2.3.1.7 Castle Hayne Aquifer The Castle Hayne Aquifer consists of the Castle Hayne Limestone and rocks of the River Bend Formation. The aquifer is predominantly limestone and sand with minor amounts of clay. These sediments were deposited under marine conditions and include shell, dolomitic, and sandy limestones. The limestone varies from loosely consolidated to hard and recrystallized. The fine- to coarse-grained sand beds vary in carbonate content. Clay marl beds, when present, are generally less than 10 feet thick. Clay is also present as matrix material in sand and limestone beds. The aquifer typically consists of alternating beds of limestone, sandy limestone, and sand. In the SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 2-4 FES0613220646VBO lower part of the aquifer, sand is the dominant aquifer material. The average thickness of the Castle Hayne Aquifer is 178 feet (Winner and Coble, 1996). The Castle Hayne Aquifer is the most productive aquifer in this area of the North Carolina Coastal Plain. The hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer varies significantly, with a range from 15 feet per day where the aquifer is relatively thin and sandy to 200 feet per day where the aquifer is thick and composed of permeable limestone. The average hydraulic conductivity estimated for the entire aquifer is 65 feet per day (Winner and Coble, 1996). 2.3.1.8 Paleochannel Occurrence Paleochannels are remnants of former river or stream channels that have been filled and overlain by younger sediments. Studies conducted by the USGS found that Pleistocene age paleochannels eroded the Yorktown and Pungo River Confining Units and deposited younger-aged sediments in some areas beneath MCAS Cherry Point. As a result, the uppermost aquifers may be in direct hydraulic communication with each other at locations where a paleochannel truncates the confining units that normally separate the aquifers physically and hydraulically (USGS, 1994, 1996, 2004). The USGS identified a paleochannel within the southwestern portion of Operable Unit (OU) 1 at MCAS Cherry Point that truncated the Yorktown and Pungo River Confining Units. The USGS conducted continuous coring from stratigraphic test wells, borehole geophysical logging, and vertical seismic and high-resolution seismic reflection profiling to delineate the extent of the OU1 paleochannel (USGS, 1996, 2004). Investigation activities at OU1 have provided additional evidence of the existence of a paleochannel and have refined the delineation of the paleochannel boundary in this area. Groundwater levels outside of the paleochannel in the southwestern portion of OU1 show a marked discontinuity across the Yorktown Confining Unit, which acts as an aquitard, and show a downward vertical gradient from the surficial aquifer to the Yorktown Aquifer. Groundwater levels within the paleochannel generally show similar groundwater levels between the surficial and Yorktown Aquifers and show an upward vertical gradient from the surficial aquifer to the Yorktown Aquifer. The fine-grained units within the paleochannel are likely not as effective of an aquitard as the Yorktown Confining Unit or are discontinuous in spatial extent. 2.3.2 Regional Water Usage The primary source of water for municipal, residential, and agricultural use in the vicinity of MCAS Cherry Point is from the aquifers of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Total groundwater withdrawals from the Coastal Plain aquifers in North Carolina are estimated to be more than 250 million gallons per day (mgd) (Giese, Eimers, and Coble, 1997). As a result of the extensive use of groundwater and the potential impacts from over pumping of the aquifers, the North Carolina Division of Water Resources has established Capacity Use Area Number (No.) 1 under the Water Use Act of 1967. Capacity Use Area No. 1 encompasses portions of seven counties in the central North Carolina Coastal Plain, which includes the Cherry Point area of Craven County. The most important aquifer in the vicinity of MCAS Cherry Point in Capacity Use Area No. 1 is the Castle Hayne Aquifer, which can yield very large quantities of potable water. Within Capacity Use Area No. 1, greater than 50 percent of the groundwater use is for mining, followed by use for public supplies. MCAS Cherry Point uses between 2.5 and 4.5 mgd derived from about 25 wells that range in depth from 195 to 330 feet (Castle Hayne Aquifer). The groundwater in the vicinity of MCAS Cherry Point is classified by the State of North Carolina as Class GA. Class GA groundwater is considered to be existing or potential sources of drinking water. 2.3.3 Soils MCAS Cherry Point is located on the Talbot Terrace Plain, which was formed by sediments deposited in a lagoon approximately 220,000 years ago. The soils have developed into medium-textured materials that are underlain by beds of sandy sediments. Soil-forming processes have produced different soils mainly because of differences in natural drainage as influenced by relief and proximity to streams. The well-drained soils near the stream valleys SECTION 2—MCAS CHERRY POINT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY FES0613220646VBO 2-5 have light-colored topsoils that are low in organic matter and yellowish or brownish subsoils. The poorly drained soils, which are located in the interstream areas and in depressions, have dark topsoils that are higher in organic matter and grayish subsoils. Soils on this landscape are similar in some of their physical properties. They are strongly to very strongly acidic and have good workability, high available water capacity, moderate permeability, and low natural fertility. The better-drained soils are well suited for most uses. A seasonal high water table generally occurs during months of low evapotranspiration (November to March), and ponding in topographic depressions occurs in areas of wetter soils. Areas of MCAS Cherry Point are in the flood plains along streams dissecting the Talbot Terrace. These poorly to very poorly drained areas flood frequently. The soils are very young and are formed in stratified loamy and sandy alluvium. These flood plains merge with loamy brackish marsh areas as they near the Neuse River. A few areas of stream terrace occur along the Neuse River and the larger creeks. These are mostly sandy soils. Some of the low- lying areas are subject to flooding. 2.4 Ecology MCAS Cherry Point is located on a peninsula between the Neuse River to the north and Core and Bogue Sounds to the south. The major portion of MCAS Cherry Point is located between Hancock and Slocum Creeks. Loblolly pine dominates much of the forested land on the broad interstream areas at MCAS Cherry Point. These forests are managed for loblolly pine timber production. The lower slope forests contain a mesic mixed hardwood community. Important canopy components of this community include sweetgum, white oak, pignut hickory, and beech. The major understory trees found in the mixed hardwood forest are American holly and flowering dogwood. The inland flood plains of the tributary streams are dominated by the blackwater-swamp-community type. Important components of this community include swamp tupelo, bald cypress, red maple, sweetgum, and a variety of oaks. The mid-canopy of the swamp forest is dominated by ironwood. According to the document Threatened and Endangered Species Management Plan (Appendix C in MCAS, 2001), there are no federally endangered species found on MCAS Cherry Point. MCAS Cherry Point supports one animal species (the bridle shiner) and two plant species (Chapman’s Sedge and Springflowering Goldenrod) that are state listed. MCAS Cherry Point has an active fish and wildlife management program with on-staff foresters, wildlife biologists, and game wardens. The objectives of the management program are to protect all native wildlife resources available on a continuing basis and to enhance fish and wildlife resources. The game warden staff assists federal and state authorities in enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. 2.5 CERCLA Process The objectives of the CERCLA process are to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination at a site and to identify, develop, and implement appropriate remedial actions to protect human health and the environment. The major elements of the CERCLA process are presented on Figure 2-2 and discussed in further detail in the subsections below. The documents prepared for the IRP and MRP are maintained in information repositories for public review, as detailed in the CIP. MCAS Cherry Point has developed a Community Involvement Plan (CIP) (CH2M, 2012i) and established a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) comprised of members of the community, local environment group members, and state and federal officials, who meet periodically when new information is available or as needed to maintain community involvement with environmental restoration activities. An updated CIP is expected to be finalized in FY 2022 that will include an effort to re-establish the currently inactive RAB. Minutes from RAB or other public meetings are available to the public in the administrative record, found on the MCAS Cherry Point ERP Public Web Site (http://go.usa.gov/Dy59). 2.5.1 Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation or Site Inspection The IRP and MRP begin with concerns about a site, area, or potential contaminant source. The Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation or Inspection (PA/SI) phase of the CERCLA process evaluates potential sites to SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 2-6 FES0613220646VBO determine if the sites should be eliminated from further consideration (i.e., no further action [NFA]), identified for an action to address actual or imminent threats to human health or the environment, or further evaluated through the performance of an RI/FS. 2.5.1.1 Preliminary Assessment The PA is a limited-scope assessment designed to distinguish between sites that clearly pose little or no threat to human health or the environment and those that may pose a threat and require further investigation. This stage typically involves a review of historical documents and a visual site inspection. Environmental samples are rarely collected during a PA; rather, a PA is intended to be a relatively quick, low-cost compilation of existing information about a site. The PA may result in a determination of NFA; completion of an SI if there is insufficient information to reach an NFA decision; a removal action if significant threat to human health or the environment exists; or an RI/FS if remediation is deemed necessary. 2.5.1.2 Site Investigation or Site Inspection The SI is the most common step after a PA is completed and an NFA determination cannot be made. The SI involves an onsite investigation intended to gather more information needed in determining whether there is a release or potential release, and to characterize the nature of the release and associated threats or potential threats to human health and the environment. The SI typically includes the collection of environmental samples to identify if contaminants are present at a site and a screening-level risk assessment to determine if they have been released at levels posing an unacceptable risk to human health to the environment. The sites that do not require further investigation or response are designated as NFA. If there is insufficient information to reach an NFA decision, a removal action or an RI/FS may be recommended. In some cases, if the results of the SI are inconclusive, an Expanded SI phase is initiated to confirm whether there is site-specific contamination or hazards prior to moving forward with an RI. 2.5.2 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study The purpose of the RI/FS is to determine the nature and extent of contamination and, if sufficient need is documented by site sampling and a risk assessment, to evaluate proposed remedies. The RI and FS can be conducted concurrently; data collected in the RI influence the development of remedial alternatives in the FS, which in turn affect the data needs and scope of treatability studies and additional field investigations. This phased approach encourages the continual scoping of the site characterization, thereby minimizing the collection of unnecessary data and maximizing data quality. 2.5.2.1 Remedial Investigation The RI is the investigative phase of the response action designed to characterize site conditions, determine the nature and extent of contamination, assess the risks to human health and the environment posed by site contamination, and provide a basis for decisions on further response actions or NFA. The RI provides information to refine the conceptual site model and forms the basis for the development of remedial action objectives (RAOs) and remedial strategies that will comprise the FS. SECTION 2—MCAS CHERRY POINT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY FES0613220646VBO 2-7 Figure 2-2. CERCLA Process 2.5.2.2 Feasibility Study The FS is the mechanism for the development, screening, and detailed evaluation of alternative RAs. The overall objectives of an FS are to develop and evaluate potential remedies that permanently and significantly reduce the threat to public health, welfare, and the environment and aid in selection of a cost-effective remedial action alternative that mitigates the threat(s). 2.5.2.3 Removal Action A removal action is a response implemented in an expedited manner to address releases or threatened releases in order to mitigate the spread of contamination. Removal actions may be implemented at any time during the CERCLA process. Removal actions include Time-Critical Removal Actions (TCRAs) and Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions (NTCRAs). All TCRAs and NTCRAs conducted under the CERCLA program are facilitated by the MCAS Cherry Point Environmental Affairs Department in conjunction with the Navy. Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation or Inspection (PA/SI) Identify possible contaminant releases that need further investigation Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Determine the nature and extent of contaminant releases Assess long-term risks Evaluate alternative remedies Proposed Plan Present the proposed remedial action for public comments No Further Action No Further Action Interim (removal) action Record of Decision (ROD) Documents the agreed upon remedial action Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) The actual cleanup: Design and construct remedy Interim (removal) action Environmental Restoration Process SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 2-8 FES0613220646VBO Actions taken immediately to mitigate an imminent threat to human health or the environment, such as the removal of corroded or leaking drums, are classified as TCRAs. The planning period for a TCRA is 6 months or less before fieldwork is initiated. An Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) is not required for a TCRA, although an Action Memorandum (AM) and Work Plan must be completed. Removal actions that may be delayed for 6 months or more without significant additional harm to human health or the environment are classified as NTCRAs. For an NTCRA, an EE/CA is prepared rather than the more extensive FS. An EE/CA focuses only on the substances to be removed rather than on all contaminated substances at the site. A removal action can become the final remedial action if the risk assessment results indicate that NFA is protective of human health and the environment. A removal action can be either the final remedy or an interim action followed by a remedial action as the final remedy, based on the extent to which the threats are mitigated by the action. A removal action, when implemented as the final remedy, can be used for fast and significant reductions in risk and to mitigate long-term threats. In cases where the removal action is the final remedy, the removal action may lead to either Response Complete (RC) or Site Closeout (SC). If the RA was accomplished during the RI/FS phase, any final determination of RC and/or SC must be documented in the Record of Decision (ROD). If the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) nine criteria were not addressed as part of the EE/CA or AM, a focused FS would be needed, followed by a ROD. 2.5.2.4 Treatability Study Treatability studies involve testing and evaluation of a treatment technology to determine the effectiveness of that technology at a particular site or to establish site-specific design parameters. The primary objectives of treatability testing are to provide sufficient data to allow treatment alternatives to be fully developed and evaluated during the FS and to support the remedial design (RD) of a selected alternative. Treatability studies may be conducted at any time during the CERCLA process. The need for a treatability study generally is identified during the FS. Treatability studies may be classified as either bench-scale (laboratory study) or pilot-scale (field studies). For technologies that are well-developed and tested, bench-scale studies are often sufficient to evaluate performance. For innovative technologies, pilot tests may be required to obtain the desired information. Pilot tests simulate the physical and chemical parameters of the full-scale process and are designed to bridge the gap between bench-scale and full-scale operations. Treatability studies may also be needed during the RD/RA phase to obtain more detailed information about the unit operations, performance, and cost for designing a full-scale treatment system. Generally, a pilot-scale system is deployed onsite to collect the required information. 2.5.3 Proposed Remedial Action Plan and Record of Decision The remedy selection process involves identifying a preferred response action strategy from those alternatives evaluated in the FS. The preferred alternative is based first on each alternative’s ability to satisfy the threshold criteria, and then on trade-offs among alternatives considering the primary balancing criteria. Further, results of the risk assessment need to be factored into the selection of the remedy. The remedy selection process includes a Proposed Plan, sometimes referred to as a Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP), and ROD. 2.5.3.1 Proposed Plan or PRAP A Proposed Plan or PRAP presents the remedial alternatives developed in the FS and recommends a preferred remedial method. The public has an opportunity to comment on the Proposed Plan or PRAP during an announced formal public comment period. Site information is compiled in an administrative record for public review. A public meeting is also held to provide supporting information. 2.5.3.2 Record of Decision At the end of the Proposed Plan or PRAP public comment period, an appropriate remedial alternative is chosen to protect human health and the environment. The ROD document is then issued, describing the remedy selection SECTION 2—MCAS CHERRY POINT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY FES0613220646VBO 2-9 process and the remedy selected. All parties directly involved in the ER Program (Department of the Navy [Navy], MCAS Cherry Point, USEPA, NCDEQ, and the public) must agree on the selected alternative. Any public comments received are addressed as part of the responsiveness summary in the ROD. A public notice is issued after the ROD is signed and available for public inspection. A public notice is also published for any significant post-ROD changes. Once the ROD has been signed, the RD/RA process is initiated. 2.5.3.3 Interim Record of Decision In some cases during earlier points in the CERCLA process, typically the RI/FS stage, it may be determined that an interim remedial action is warranted. Possible reasons for implementing an interim RA might include: (1) taking quick action in the short term from an imminent threat to the environment when developing a final remedy would require additional data collection and a longer time frame to complete, or (2) taking temporary measures to stabilize a site and prevent further migration of contaminants. Such interim actions are documented in an Interim Record of Decision (IROD). The interim remedial action in an IROD may or may not become a component of the remedy in the final ROD, but in all cases a final ROD must be prepared for the site. 2.5.4 Remedial Design and Remedial Action Following signature of the ROD, the RD and RA phases are implemented. The technical specifications for cleanup remedies and technologies are designed in the RD phase. The RA is the actual construction or implementation phase of the cleanup process. 2.5.4.1 Remedial Design The purpose of the RD phase is to convert the conceptual design for the selected remedy from the FS into a full- scale, detailed design for implementation. RD includes preparation of technical RD Work Plans, drawings, specifications, and RA Work Plans. 2.5.4.2 Remedial Action Upon completion of the RD, implementation of the RA (the remedy selected in the ROD) begins. The RA start-date is defined as the date the contractor has mobilized and begun substantial and continuous physical onsite remedial action. The start date is important because it triggers the beginning of the Five-Year Review cycle if one is required. The RA phase involves two main components, remedial action construction and remedial action operation. Interim RAs are implemented to provide temporary mitigation of human health risks or to mitigate the spread of contamination in the environment. Similar to removal actions, RAs may be implemented at any time during the process. Examples of Interim RAs include installing a pump-and-treat system for groundwater or installing a fence to prevent direct contact with hazardous materials. For Interim RAs, a focused FS is prepared rather than the more-extensive FS. As with the removal action, an interim action may become the final RA if the results of the risk assessment indicate that NFA is required to protect human health and the environment. 2.5.5 Remedy-in-Place and Response Complete 2.5.5.1 Remedy-in-Place For long-term remedies where it is anticipated that RAOs will be achieved over a long period, the Remedy-in-Place (RIP) milestone signifies the completion of the RA construction phase and that the remedy has been implemented and has been demonstrated to be functioning as designed (i.e., all testing has been accomplished and the remedy will function properly). Once RIP is completed for a site, an Interim Remedial Action Completion Report (IRACR) is prepared to document that the remedy is constructed and operating successfully. 2.5.5.2 Response Complete At any point during the CERCLA process, a decision can be made that no further response action is required; properly documented (necessary regulatory notification or application for concurrence has occurred), these SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 2-10 FES0613220646VBO decisions constitute RC and/or SC. RC is the point at which the remedy has achieved the required reduction in risk to human health and the environment (cleanup goals/RAOs have been met). Once RC is completed for a site under a ROD, a Remedial Action Completion Report (RACR) is prepared to demonstrate that the remedy is complete and the RAOs are met. RC is followed by individual site closeout. Once all RIPs and RCs have been documented for every site at the facility and the terms of the FFA have been met, site closeout and National Priorities List (NPL) deletion is requested. 2.5.5.3 Five-Year Reviews Five-year reviews are generally required by CERCLA or program policy when hazardous substances remain on a site above levels that permit unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Five-year reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy and whether it still protects human health and the environment. Generally, reviews are performed 5 years after the initiation of a CERCLA response action and are repeated every 5 years as long as future uses remain restricted. USEPA or the lead agency for a site can perform these reviews, but USEPA is responsible for assessing the protectiveness of the remedy. 2.6 Environmental History 2.6.1 Installation Restoration Program History MCAS Cherry Point has been actively involved with environmental investigations and remediation programs since 1983, beginning with the Navy Assessment and Control of Installation Pollutants (NACIP) Program. The NACIP Program was modeled after the USEPA Superfund Program, authorized by CERCLA in 1980. An IAS was the first investigation of potentially hazardous sites conducted under NACIP in 1983. The purpose of the IAS was to collect and evaluate evidence of pollutants that may have contaminated a site or that pose an imminent human health hazard. Fourteen of the 32 sites identified in the IAS (Sites 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 21) were determined to require further investigation (Water and Air Research, 1983). The Navy’s IRP was initiated in 1986, following enactment of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) legislation, and replaced the NACIP. In 1988, A. T. Kearney, Inc. conducted a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Assessment (RFA) at MCAS Cherry Point, the first step under the RCRA corrective action process. The RFA included a preliminary review of all available relevant documents, a Visual Site Inspection (VSI), and a Sampling Visit (SV), if appropriate, at the 114 solid waste management units (SWMUs) and two areas of concern (AOCs) identified. The SWMUs were divided into five groups based on their operation purpose: Flight Line, Naval Air Rework Facility, Maintenance and Support, Centralized Storage and Treatment, and Initial Assessment Study Unit. The designations for the SWMUs associated with each group are preceded with F, N, S, C, and I as appropriate. Based on the observations made during the VSI, a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) and a more-comprehensive inspection of production and the waste management/handling area were recommended (A. T. Kearney, 1988). In 1989, the Navy entered into a RCRA Administrative Order of Consent with the USEPA to perform RFIs at 35 of the 114 SWMUs identified in the RFA. On December 16, 1994, MCAS Cherry Point was scored and ranked by USEPA for inclusion on the CERCLA NPL. Under CERCLA, the Navy acts as the lead agency, in partnership with USEPA and NCDEQ, to address environmental investigations at the facility through the IRP. Because of the NPL and Consent Order, ongoing IRP investigations are being conducted to meet the requirements of both RCRA and CERCLA. Since the Consent Order was signed, additional sites have been identified. Module L of the MCAS Cherry Point’s current RCRA Part B permit identifies 152 SWMUs and 1 AOC. The initial Part B Permit was finalized and converted from an Interim Part B permit application under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 265 to a final Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF) Part B permit per 40 CFR Part 264 in December 2004, expiring in December 2014. The renewed (current) Part B Permit was issued by NCDEQ, Division of Waste Management, on November 18, 2016, with a 10-year term, expiring on November 18, 2026. SECTION 2—MCAS CHERRY POINT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY FES0613220646VBO 2-11 On May 12, 2005, the Navy, USEPA, and NCDEQ executed an FFA. The FFA effectively terminated the RCRA Administrative Order of Consent. Under the FFA, all past and future work at IRP sites, SWMUs, and AOCs will be reviewed and a course of action for future work requirements at each site will be developed. The FFA includes specific requirements for the preparation and contents of the SMP. The SMP is updated annually and includes the sites currently under investigation following the CERCLA process and the proposed deadlines for completion of deliverables, as specified in the FFA. As part of the requirements established under CERCLA, an administrative record file has been established for the IRP at MCAS Cherry Point. The administrative record is a compilation of all documents that the DoD uses to select a RA or removal action for a site. Regardless of the nature of the site, an administrative record must be maintained. The administrative record will also serve as the basis for any future legal review of decisions made by the DoD concerning RA taken at a site. Access to the MCAS Cherry Point administrative record file is available via a NAVFAC website: http://go.usa.gov/Dy59. For those without personal access to the internet, a computer terminal that is prioritized for internet access to the MCAS Cherry Point Administrative Record is available at the public library in Havelock, North Carolina. Five-Year Reviews were completed for MCAS Cherry Point in 2002 (CH2M, 2002c), 2007 (CH2M, 2008d), 2012 (CH2M, 2013a), and 2017 (CH2M, 2018a). In 2017, RAs or Interim RAs at six OUs and associated sites were identified at MCAS Cherry Point for review: OUs 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, and 14. With the exception of OU1, all ongoing RAs were determined to be protective of human health and the environment. A deferred protectiveness statement for human health and the environment was issued for seven sites within OU1, as the RA is currently being implemented at those sites. The next Five-Year Review is scheduled for completion in early 2023. An update to the MCAS Cherry Point CIP, which provides information on community participation, was completed in FY 2012 (CH2M, 2012i). Preparation of an updated CIP is being performed in FY 2022. Currently, the MCAS Cherry Point RAB is inactive as public interest in Base environmental activities has waned in recent years. As a part of the CIP update, interest in reestablishing the inactive RAB is being assessed. 2.6.2 Munitions Response Program History DoD established the Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP), which was shortened to the MRP by the Navy, under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) in September 2001. The purpose is to address munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) (i.e., unexploded ordnance and waste military munitions) and munitions constituents (MC) (i.e., chemical residues of munitions) at locations that are not operational ranges. A requirement was established obligating identification, characterization, and the tracking of data on military munitions and military munitions responses at these locations. By September 2002, all locations other than operational ranges requiring a military munitions response were inventoried. DoD set a goal for RIP or RC at all MMRP sites by the end of FY 2020. DoD and the Navy are establishing policy and guidance for munitions and response actions under the MRP; however, the key program drivers developed to date conclude that munitions response actions will be conducted under the process outlined in the NCP, as authorized by CERCLA. Therefore, the Navy and Marine Corps will work with the MCAS Cherry Point Partnering Team to follow the CERCLA process to address MRP sites identified at the Air Station. 2.6.3 Current Site Status The status of each site identified in the FFA or sites identified more recently for additional investigation under CERCLA is summarized in Table 2-1 and Figure 2-3. This table and figure also include several additional sites that were identified historically but were subsequently determined to require NFA under CERCLA. The FFA sites were grouped into OUs on the basis of proximity, common waste types, and common activities. All but one of the FFA sites are part of the IRP; the single site associated with the MRP is Former Skeet and Trap Range #1. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 2-12 FES0613220646VBO FFA site deliverables may be considered either primary or secondary documents. Primary documents identified in the FFA are: 1. RI/FS (including Baseline Risk Assessment for human health and the environment) and FFS Work Plans 2. Remedial Investigation Reports (including Baseline Risk Assessments for human health and the environment) 3. FS and FFS Reports 4. Proposed Plans 5. Records of Decision 6. Final Remedial Designs Secondary documents identified in the FFA are: 1. Health and Safety Plans 2. Non-Time Critical Removal Action Plans (40 C.F.R. § 300.415(b) (4) (ii)) 3. Pilot/Treatability Study Work Plans 4. Pilot/Treatability Study Reports 5. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Reports 6. Well Closure Methods and Procedures 7. Preliminary/Conceptual Designs, or Equivalents 8. Prefinal Remedial Designs 9. Removal Action Memoranda The locations of the FFA sites at MCAS Cherry Point are shown on Figure 2-4. Table 2-2 lists each of the studies conducted to date at the sites identified in the FFA as requiring additional investigation. Table 2-3 lists the document submittals for each OU. Underground storage tank (UST) sites are addressed under the MCAS Cherry Point UST Program and are not included in this SMP. In accordance with the FFA, if residual groundwater and soil contamination is detected at a UST site that is not related to the UST, the groundwater and soil will be addressed as part of a nearby existing FFA site or as a new site. Descriptions of each IRP and MRP site are provided in Sections 3 through 8 by phase in the CERCLA process (Section 3: PA/SI, Section 4: RI/FS, Section 5: PRAP/ROD, Section 6: RD/RA, Section 7: RIP/RC, and Section 8: other sites (PSAs and SSAs) that have been identified as requiring either desktop audits [PSAs] or screening-level investigations [SSAs] for possible inclusion in the CERCLA RI/FS process). Section 9 presents the historical and proposed RAs at MCAS Cherry Point. Section 11 presents 5-year schedules for environmental investigation and remediation activities at those sites where activities are currently planned for FY 2023 through 2027. OU Current Site/SWMU Description Other Identifications Current Status Draft PFAS SI Report March 2023 Final PFAS SI Report September 2023 MCALF Bogue Facility-wide PFAS Investigation PA/SI Final PFAS SI Report February 2023 MCOLF Oak Grove Facility-wide PFAS Investigation PA/SI Final PFAS SI Report February 2023 Site 100 - MCOLF Atlantic Facility-wide PFAS Investigation PA/SI Final PFAS SI Report December 2022 OU1 Site 16 Landfill at Sandy Branch SWMU I-16 RIP (LUCs) Final CGWP PM Report October 2022 Draft ISEB Reinjection TM December 2023 Final 2023 GW LTM Report October 2024 Final CGWP GW LTM Report October 2022 Final ISEB Reinjection TM March 2024 Final ISEB Reinjection SAP January 2023 Draft 2023 LTM Report June 2024 Final CGWP PM Report October 2022 Draft ISEB Reinjection TM December 2023 Final 2023 GW LTM Report October 2024 Final CGWP GW LTM Report October 2022 Final ISEB Reinjection TM March 2024 Draft BLDG 423 Pipeline TM January 2023 Draft 2023 LTM Report June 2024 Final ISEB Reinjection SAP January 2023 Final BLDG 423 Pipeline TM April 2023 Final CGWP PM Report October 2022 Draft ISEB Reinjection TM December 2023 Final Bldg. 137 VI PS Report October 2024 Final 2021 GW LTM Report October 2022 Final ISEB Reinjection TM March 2024 Final 2023 GW LTM Report October 2024 Final ISEB Reinjection SAP January 2023 Draft Bldg. 137 VI PS Report May 2024 Draft 2023 GW LTM Report June 2024 Final CGWP PM Report October 2022 Draft ISEB Reinjection TM December 2023 Final 2023 GW LTM Report October 2024 Final CGWP GW LTM Report October 2022 Final ISEB Reinjection TM March 2024 Final ISEB Reinjection SAP January 2023 Draft 2023 LTM Report June 2024 Final CGWP PM Report October 2022 Draft ISEB Reinjection TM December 2023 Final 2023 GW LTM Report October 2024 Final CGWP GW LTM Report October 2022 Final ISEB Reinjection TM March 2024 Final ISEB Reinjection SAP January 2023 Draft 2023 LTM Report June 2024 Final CGWP PM Report October 2022 Draft ISEB Reinjection TM December 2023 Final 2023 GW LTM Report October 2024 Final CGWP GW LTM Report October 2022 Final ISEB Reinjection TM March 2024 Final ISEB Reinjection SAP January 2023 Draft 2023 LTM Report June 2024 Final GW LTM Report - Fall 2020 December 2022 Final GW LTM Report - 2022 October 2023 Draft GW LTM Report - 2024 April 2025 Final GW LTM Report - 2021 January 2023 Draft GW LTM Report - 2023 April 2024 Final GW LTM Report - 2024 August 2025 Draft GW LTM Report - 2022 April 2023 Final GW LTM Report - 2023 August 2024 VOCs in Groundwater near Building 4032 OU1 Industrial Area Sewer System Building 133 Plating Shop and DitchSite 52OU1 OU2 Site 10 Old Sanitary Landfill PA/SIFacility-wide PFAS Investigation SWMU C-4 RIP (ISEB and ZVI Injections, LTM, and LUCs) Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant Site 47 Site 51 Building 137 Plating Shop VOCs in Groundwater near the Stripper Barn SWMUs I-10a, I-10b RIP (LTM and LUCs) MCAS Cherry Point FY 2025 Activities Table 2-1. Current Status of FFA and Additional Sites FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Site 42 OU1 OU1 OU1 CERCLA INSTALLATION RESPONSE PROGRAM (IRP) PA/SI SITES OU1 Site 98 Site 92 CERCLA IRP REMEDY-IN-PLACE (RIP) SITES FY 2024 ActivitiesFY 2023 Activities Page 1 of 5 OU Current Site/SWMU Description Other Identifications Current Status FY 2025 Activities Table 2-1. Current Status of FFA and Additional Sites FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina FY 2024 ActivitiesFY 2023 Activities Final GW LTM Report - Fall 2020 December 2022 Final GW LTM Report - 2022 October 2023 Draft GW LTM Report - 2024 April 2025 Final GW LTM Report - 2021 January 2023 Draft GW LTM Report - 2023 April 2024 Final GW LTM Report - 2024 August 2025 Draft GW LTM Report - 2022 April 2023 Final GW LTM Report - 2023 August 2024 OU3 Site 6 Fly Ash Ponds SWMU I-6 RIP (LUCs) OU3 Site 7 Old Incinerator and Adjacent Area SWMU I-7 RIP (LUCs) Final GW LTM Report - Fall 2020 December 2022 Final GW LTM Report - 2021 January 2023 Draft GW LTM Report - 2023 April 2024 Final GW LTM Report - 2023 August 2024 Final GW LTM Report - Fall 2020 December 2022 Final GW LTM Report - 2022 October 2023 Draft GW LTM Report - 2024 April 2025 Final GW LTM Report - 2021 January 2023 Draft GW LTM Report - 2023 April 2024 Final GW LTM Report - 2024 August 2025 Draft GW LTM Report - 2022 April 2023 Final GW LTM Report - 2023 August 2024 OU 1 Site 83 Building 96 Former Pesticide Mixing Area NFA; Site Closure in 2012 OU5 Site 1 Borrow Pit/Landfill SWMU I-1 NFA Site 2 Borrow Pit/Landfill SWMU I-2 NFA; Site Closure in 2012 OU6 POEI 35a (SSA 35a) High Power Engine Run-Up Area and Test Cells NFA OU13 Site 19 Borrow Pit/Landfill (South of Runway 32) NFA; Site Closure in 2013 OU13 Site 21 Borrow Pit/Landfill (South of Runway 32) SWMU I-21 NFA; Site Closure in 2013 OU13 Site 44B Former Sludge Application Area SWMU C-10 NFA; Site Closure in 2013 OU14 SWMU 17; SWMU I-17 OU 1 OU1 OU 1 Building 130 VOC-Contaminated Groundwater NFA; Site Closure in 2008 NFA; Site Closure in 2010 (Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40 were addressed together in a single PRAP document and a NFA ROD) NFA; Site Closure in 2010 (Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40 were addressed together in a single PRAP document and a NFA ROD) NFA; Site Closure in 2010 (Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40 were addressed together in a single PRAP document and a NFA ROD) Former Skeet and Trap Range #1 SWMU I-18 NFA; Site Closure in 2010 (Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40 were addressed together in a single PRAP document and a NFA ROD) Site 15 Site 17 DRMO Drainage Ditch Site 12 Crash Crew Training Area Site 90 Site 40 NADEP Former Drum Storage Area Site 40; SWMU N-22 Hobby Shop OU 1 OU6 OU 1 Site 18 Facilities Maintenance Compound RIP (LTM and LUCs)SWMU I-4Borrow Pit/Landfill (North of Runway 14)Site 4 SWMUs I-12, F-13, F-14 MUNITIONS RESPONSE PROGRAM (MRP) SITES REQUIRING NO FURTHER ACTION UNDER CERCLA IRP SITES REQUIRING NO FURTHER ACTION UNDER CERCLA Site 14 Motor Transportation SWMU I-14 NFA; Site Closure in 2010 (Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40 were addressed together in a single PRAP document and a NFA ROD) Ditch and Area Behind NADEP SWMU I-15 OU2 Vehicle Maintenance Area (Hobby Shop)Site 76 NFA; Site Closure in 2012 OU4 RIP (LTM and LUCs) RIP (LTM and LUCs) Page 2 of 5 OU Current Site/SWMU Description Other Identifications Current Status FY 2025 Activities Table 2-1. Current Status of FFA and Additional Sites FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina FY 2024 ActivitiesFY 2023 Activities Site 82 Slocum Creek in the Vicinity of OU2 and OU3 NFA Site 85 Hobby Shop Disposal Area NFA; Site Closure in 2003 POEI 3 Cleaning Vats Building 137 NFA POEI 5 Lead Foundry Building 137 NFA POEI 6 Sump Building 245 NFA POEI 11 Condensate Catch Bucket Building 4173 NFA POEI 16 Hazardous Waste Accumulation Area Building 4525 NFA POEI 17 Ditch Next to Coal Storage Yard NFA POEI 22 (PSA 22)Radioactive Waste Storage Area #1 Between buildings 133 & 421 NFA POEI 23 (PSA 23)Radioactive Waste Storage Area #2 Building 134 NFA UST 41 S-A Fuel Line Leak Site formerly of OU12 NFA; regulated as UST site SWMU 3 EOD Range Site 3; SWMU I-3; formerly of OU11 NFA SWMU 5 Storage Tank for Waste POL Site 5; SWMU I-5; formerly of OU8 NFA SWMU 11 MAG 14 Supply Site Site 11; SWMU I-11 NFA SWMU 20 Training Area Four Site 20; SWMU I-20 NFA SWMU 33 VMGR 252 Accumulation Area Site 33; SWMU F-22; formerly of OU10 NFA SWMU 34 Crash Crew Accumulation Area Site 34; SWMU F-38; formerly of OU10 NFA under CERCLA; managed under RCRA. SWMU 35 MAG 14 Accumulation Area Site 35; SWMU F-42; formerly of OU10 NFA SWMU 36 H&HS 28 Accumulation Area Site 36; SWMU S-6; formerly of OU10 NFA under CERCLA; managed under RCRA. SWMU 37 MWCS 28 Accumulation Area Site 37; SWMU S-11; formerly of OU9 NFA under CERCLA; managed under RCRA. SWMU 38 DRMO Hazardous Waste Storage Facility Site 38; SWMU C-1; formerly of OU11 NFA SWMU 39 Facilities Maintenance Hazardous Waste Storage Facility Site 39; SWMU C-2; formerly of OU11 NFA SWMU 43 Sewage Treatment Plant Site 43; SWMU C-5; formerly of OU11 NFA SWMU 45 Current Sludge Application Areas Site 45; SWMU C-11; formerly of OU11 NFA SWMU 46 Polishing Ponds No. 1 and No. 2 Site 46; SWMU C-12; formerly of OU2 NFA SWMU 48 MASS 1 Wash Rack Site 48; SWMU S-10 NFA SWMU 49A MWCS 28 Oil/Water Separator and Leach Field near Building 4337 (MASS - 1) Site 49A; SWMU C-17; formerly of OU9 NFA under CERCLA; managed under RCRA. SWMU 49B MACS 6 Oil/Water Separator and Leach Field near Building 1786 Site 49B; SWMU C-17; formerly of OU9 NFA under CERCLA; managed under RCRA. OU15 OU15 Page 3 of 5 OU Current Site/SWMU Description Other Identifications Current Status FY 2025 Activities Table 2-1. Current Status of FFA and Additional Sites FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina FY 2024 ActivitiesFY 2023 Activities SWMU 50 PCB Transformer Spill Site 50; AOC C-A NFA SWMU 54 MACS 6 Battery Room Leach Field NFA under CERCLA; managed under RCRA. SWMU 67 FS Smoke Buildings 1234 and 1235 NFA SWMU 68 Cryogenics Area NFA SWMU 71 Building 3909 Weapons Cleaning Area NFA under CERCLA; managed under RCRA. SWMU 80 MALS 14 Gunshop, OWS 10 NFA SWMU 84 Golf Course Maintenance Area NFA under CERCLA; managed under RCRA. SWMU 99 Old Hospital Area NFA SWMU C-3 PCB-Contaminated Soil Pile NFA SWMU C-4 Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (Structures)formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU C-6 Fly Ash Holding Tank NFA SWMU C-7 Coal Yard Catchment Basin NFA SWMU C-8 Construction Landfill formerly of OU4 NFA; regulated under State Solid Waste Program SWMU C-9 Asbestos Disposal Area formerly of OU4 NFA; regulated under the State Solid Waste Program. SWMU C-13 Drainage System NFA under CERCLA; managed under RCRA. SWMU C-15 Oil/Water Separators NFA under CERCLA; managed under RCRA. SWMU C-16 PCB Transformer Storage Area NFA SWMU F-1 HMS 14 Wash Rack NFA SWMU F-2 HMS 14 UST NFA SWMU F-3 Hangar 250 Sump NFA SWMU F-4 VMGR 252 Aircraft Wash Rack NFA SWMU F-5 VMAQ 2 Aircraft Wash Rack NFA SWMU F-6 VMA 332 Aircraft Wash Rack NFA SWMU F-7 HMS 32 Wash Rack NFA SWMU F-8 MAG 32 Waste Oil UST NFA SWMU F-9 MAG 32 Waste Hydraulic Fluid Storage Tank NFA SWMU F-10 MAG 32 Paint Booth NFA SWMU F-11 VMA 542 Waste Oil Aboveground Storage Tank NFA SWMU F-12 MAG 32 Aircraft Wash Rack and Sump NFA SWMU F-15 Crash Crew Fuel Tanker NFA SWMU F-16 HMS 14 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-17 HMS 14 Spent Battery Storage Area NFA SWMU F-18 HMS GSE #1 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-19 HMS GSE #2 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-20 VMGR 253 #1 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-21 VMGR 253 #2 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-23 VMAQ 2 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-24 HMS 14 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-25 VMA 332 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-26 VMA 533 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-27 SOES Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-28 VMAT 203 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-29 HMS 32 #1 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-30 HMS 32 #2 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-31 HMS 32 GSE #1 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-32 HMS 32 GSE #2 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-33 VMA 223 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-34 VMA 542 #1 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-35 VMA 542 #2 Accumulation Area NFA OU1 OU1 Page 4 of 5 OU Current Site/SWMU Description Other Identifications Current Status FY 2025 Activities Table 2-1. Current Status of FFA and Additional Sites FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina FY 2024 ActivitiesFY 2023 Activities SWMU F-36 VMA 231 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-37 VMA 332 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-39 HMS 32 Accumulations Area NFA SWMU F-40 Crash Crew Burn Pit Accumulation Area NFA SWMU F-41 MAG 32 #1 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU N-1 Paint Shop Water Curtain formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-2 Plating Shop Cleaning Vats formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-3 Metal Plating Shop Degreaser formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-4 Metal Cleaning Shop Vats formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-5 Cleaning Shop Vats formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-6 Chemical Stripline Cleaning Vats formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-7 Photo Lab and Cleaning Shop Holding Tank formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-8 Silver Recovery Tank in Photo Shop formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-9 Roto Head Repair Shop Parts Cleaner formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-10 Down Draft Paint Sump formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-11 Zinc Rinse Paint Sump formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-12 Plating System Tank formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-13 Anodizing Solution Tank formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-14 Typical Container Accumulation Area formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-15 Electroplating Shop Sump formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-16 Paint Shop Water Curtain formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-17 Cleaning Vats formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-18 Aircraft Paint Stripping Shop Sump formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-19 Central Transfer Area formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-20 Down Draft Aircraft Paint Booth formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU N-21 Plastic Media Blasting Cyclone formerly of OU1 NFA SWMU S-1 Boat Dock Waste Oil Aboveground Storage Tank NFA SWMU S-2 Navy Boat Dock Accumulation Area Navy Boat Dock #2 Site NFA; release regulated under UST program SWMU S-3 Generator Shop Accumulation Area NFA SWMU S-4 MWSS 271 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU S-5 MWSS 274 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU S-7 MACS 6 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU S-8 MACS 6 Wash Rack NFA SWMU S-9 MASS 1 Accumulation Area NFA SWMU S-12 Pesticide Mixing Area New Shop NFA Notes:Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA)Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) FFA site primary documents are in Bold text.Remedy In Place (RIP)Remedy In Place (RIP) UST = Underground Storage Tank No Further Action (NFA)No Further Action (NFA) PM = Performance Monitoring PS = Pilot Study OU1 SWMU = Solid Waste Management Unit Page 5 of 5 Table 2-2. Summary of Environmental Studies, Investigations, and Actions Completed to Date at ER Program Sites Identified in the FFA FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Site 14 IAS - 1983 RFA - 1988 SAR - 1994 2002; 2009 N/A N/A 2010 2010 NFA NFA 2010 Site 15 IAS - 1983 RFA - 1988 IRI - 1988 RFI - 1993 2002; 2009 N/A N/A 2010 2010 NFA NFA 2010 Site 16 IAS - 1983 RFA - 1988 IRI - 1988 RFI - 1991 TDM - 1992 & 1994 AS/SVE PS - 1996 Debris Piles - 1997 AS/SVE system installed in 1998 as part of the removal action; system shut down in 2005. 1996 2002; 2009; 2012 N/A N/A 2015 2017 2017 LUC Remedial Design 2018 LUC Implementation Site 17 IAS - 1983 RFA - 1988 RFI - 1992 PCB-contaminated soil and sediment - 1995 2002; 2009 N/A N/A 2010 2010 NFA NFA 2010 Site 18 IAS - 1983 RFA - 1988 IRI - 1988 2002; 2009 N/A N/A 2010 2010 NFA NFA 2010 Site 42 Pump and Treat System - 1996; Biobarrier PS - 2011-2012; Permeable Reactive Barrier PS - 2012 1996 2002; 2009 2011 N/A 2014 NADEP Groundwater - 1996 2016 Groundwater Pump and Treat System; Interim GW monitoring 2004-2005; 2017 Remedial Design WP; 2019 Remedial Action WP Installation of GW Pump and Treat System - 1998 (system shut down in 2003); Interim GW monitoring 2004-2005; Installation of ISEB and ZVI barriers 2019; GW monitoring 2018-current Site 47 Infiltration & Leakage Study - 1992 Bioremediation / HRC TS - 2001; Biobarrier PS - 2011-2012; 1999 2002; 2009 2011 N/A 2014 NADEP Groundwater - 1996 2016 2017 Remedial Design WP; 2019 Remedial Action WP Installation of ISEB and ZVI barriers 2019; GW monitoring 2018-current Site 51 Bioremediation / HRC TS - 2005; Biobarrier PS - 2011-2012; Permeable Reactive Barrier 2002; 2009 2011 N/A 2014 NADEP Groundwater - 1996 2016 Building Decontamination and Renovation; 2017 Remedial Design; 2019 Remedial Action WP Building Decontamination and Renovation - 1994; Installation of ISEB and ZVI barriers 2019; GW monitoring 2018-current Site 52 Bioremediation / HRC TS - 2005; Biobarrier PS - 2011-2012; Permeable Reactive Barrier PS - 2012 2002; 2009 2011 N/A 2014 NADEP Groundwater - 1996 2016 Building Decontamination and Renovation, Groundwater Pump and Treat System; Interim GW monitoring 2004-2005; 2017 Remedial Design; 2019 Remedial Action WP Building Decon and Renovation - 1994; Installation of GW Pump and Treat System - 1998 (system shut down in 2003); Interim GW monitoring 2004-2005; Installation of ISEB and ZVI barriers 2019; GW monitoring 2018-current Site 83 SAR - 1998 2002; 2009; N/A N/A 2012 2012 NFA NFA 2012 Site 92 Biobarrier PS - 2011-2012; Permeable Reactive Barrier PS - 2012 1996 2002; 2009 2011 N/A 2014 NADEP Groundwater - 1996 2016 Groundwater Pump and Treat System; Interim GW monitoring 2004-2005; 2017 Remedial Design WP; 2019 Remedial Action WP Installation of GW Pump and Treat System - 1998 (system shut down in 2003); Interim GW monitoring 2004-2005; Installation of ISEB and ZVI barriers 2019; GW monitoring 2018-current Preliminary Investigations OU No.Site No. 1 Preliminary Studies Site ClosureRemoval Actions RIPS/TS Remedial ActionRemedial DesignDDRODFS PRAPRI/FS Interim ROD Page 1 of 3 Table 2-2. Summary of Environmental Studies, Investigations, and Actions Completed to Date at ER Program Sites Identified in the FFA FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Preliminary Investigations OU No.Site No.Preliminary Studies Site ClosureRemoval Actions RIPS/TS Remedial ActionRemedial DesignDDRODFS PRAPRI/FS Interim ROD 1 Site 98 Site Check - 1994 RRR - 1995 Biobarrier PS - 2011-2012; Permeable Reactive Barrier PS - 2012 2002; 2009 2011 N/A 2014 NADEP Groundwater - 1996 2016 Groundwater Pump and Treat System; Interim GW monitoring 2004-2005; 2017 Remedial Design WP; 2019 Remedial Action WP Installation of GW Pump and Treat System - 1998 (system shut down in 2003); Interim GW monitoring 2004-2005; Installation of ISEB and ZVI barriers 2019; GW monitoring 2018-current Site 10 IAS - 1983 RFA - 1988 IRI - 1988 RFI - 1991 TDM - 1992 & 1994 SVE PS - 1996 1997 1997 1997; 2010 N/A 1996; 2011 N/A 1999; 2011 1999 - Soil Vapor Extraction System to treat four hot spots; LUCs, LTM of groundwater; 2011 - Add soil cover at Hot Spot 2 Soil Vapor Extraction System - 1997 (shut down in 2003); LUCs implemented - 1996; LTM of groundwater; 2011 - Add soil cover at Hot Spot 2; 2020 - VI LUC implemented Site 46 RFA - 1988 1997 1997 1997 N/A 1996 N/A 1999 LUCs, LTM of groundwater LUCs implemented - 1996; LTM of groundwater Site 76 RRR - 1995 1997 1997 1997 N/A 1996 N/A 1999 LUCs, LTM of groundwater LUCs implemented - 1996; LTM of groundwater ; 2020 - VI LUC implemented Site 6 IAS - 1983 RFA - 1988 IRI - 1988 RFI - 1993 1996 1996 1996 N/A 1996 2000 Record Maintenance; ICs for groundwater and soil; LTM of groundwater; sludge removal and site revegetation Sludge removal and site revegetation - 1996; ICs for groundwater and soil - 2000; LTM of groundwater (ended 2011) Site 7 IAS - 1983 RFA - 1988 IRI - 1988 RFI - 1993 TDM - 1993 Removal/demolition of AS system scheduled to begin May 2007 1996 1996 1996 N/A 1996 2000 Record Maintenance, LUCs for groundwater and land, fencing and warning signs, in-situ bioremediation (air sparge system), LTM of groundwater LUCs for groundwater and land - 1996; fencing and warning signs - 1998; in- situ bioremediation (air sparge system) - 2000 (system shut down in 2003, removed in 2007); LTM of groundwater (ended 2011) 4 Site 4 IAS - 1983 RFA - 1988 IRI - 1988 RFI - 1993 TDM -1993 2001 2004 N/A 2005 2005 LUCs, LTM of groundwater LUCs being implemented, LTM of groundwater Site 1 IAS - 1983 RFA - 1988 IRI - 1988 RFI - 1993 2003 2005 N/A 2005 2006 NFA NFA 2006 Site 2 IAS - 1983 RFA - 1988 IRI - 1988 RFI - 1993 2003 2005 N/A 2005 2006 LUCs, LTM of groundwater (ended 2011) LUCs, LTM of groundwater (ended 2011)2012 6 Site 12 IAS - 1983 RFA - 1988 RFI - 1993 TDM - 1993 Soil removal began March 2007 and was completed in May 2007 2005 2006 N/A 2006 2006 Soil removal, LTM of groundwater, LUCs Soil removal, LTM of groundwater, LUCs 2008 3 2 5 Page 2 of 3 Table 2-2. Summary of Environmental Studies, Investigations, and Actions Completed to Date at ER Program Sites Identified in the FFA FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Preliminary Investigations OU No.Site No.Preliminary Studies Site ClosureRemoval Actions RIPS/TS Remedial ActionRemedial DesignDDRODFS PRAPRI/FS Interim ROD Site 19 IAS - 1983 RFA - 1988 IRI - 1988 RFI - 1993 2002 2004 N/A 2005 2005 LUCs, LTM of groundwater (ended 2012) LUCs, LTM of groundwater (ended 2012)2013 Site 21 IAS - 1983 RFA - 1988 IRI - 1988 RFI - 1993 TDM - 1993 2002 2004 N/A 2005 2005 LUCs, LTM of groundwater (ended 2012) LUCs, LTM of groundwater (ended 2012)2013 Site 44B RFI - 1993 2002 2004 N/A 2005 2005 LUCs, LTM of groundwater (ended 2012) LUCs, LTM of groundwater (ended 2012)2013 14 Site 90 2008 2009 N/A 2009 2009 LUCs - 2010 LTM - 2011 LUCs, LTM of groundwater 15 Site 82 2002 2003 NFA NFA 2003 POEIs 22 and 23 (SSAs 22 and 23 Site Visit - 1998 N/A 2008 POEI 35a (SSA 35a) Site Evaluation - 2001 2004 2004 Site 85 SSA - 2003 Solid Waste Removal - 1998 2003 2003 Former Skeet and Trap Range #1 SI - 2010 Expanded SI - 2012 2013 2012 Basewide MCAS Cherry Point PA - 2022 DD - Decision Document ERA - Ecological Risk Assessment FFA - Federal Facilities Assessment FS - Feasibility Study IAS - Initial Assessment Study IRI - Interim Remedial Investigation PA - Preliminary Assessment POEI - Point of Environmental Interest PRAP - Proposed Remedial Action Plan PS - Pilot Study RFA - RCRA Facility Assessment RFI - RCRA Facilities Investigation RI - Remedial Investigation ROD - Record of Decision RRR - Relative Risk Ranking SA - Site Assessment SAR - SWMU Assessment Report SI - Site Investigation SRI - Supplemental Remedial Investigation SSA - Site Screening Assessment SSP - Site Screening Process Report TDM - Technical Direction Memorandum TS - Treatability Study 13 Page 3 of 3 Table 2-3. Document Submittals for FFA Sites FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina OU No./Site Activity Author Sites Included Final Submittal/ Completion Date ROD/IROD Signature Date Visual Site Inspection Water and Air Research 15 1982 Initial Assessment Study Water and Air Research 14, 15, 16, 17,18, 42, 51, 52 March 1983 RCRA Facility Assessment A. T. Kearney 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 42, 51, 52 June 1988 Interim Remedial Investigation NUS Corporation 15, 16, 17, 18 October 1988 Wastewater Treatment Facility Assessment ATEC 42 May 1991 RCRA Facilities Investigation NUS Corporation 16, 17 May 1991 RFI Trip Report Halliburton NUS 51, 52 November 1991 Phase I Technical Direction Memorandum Halliburton NUS 16 November 1992 21 Unit RCRA Facilities Investigation Halliburton NUS 15 June 1993 90% Completion Report Dames & Moore 51, 52 September 1993 Infiltration and Leakage Study Halliburton NUS 47 November 1993 SWMU Assessment Report U.S. Marine Corps 14 May 1994 Phase II Technical Direction Memorandum Halliburton NUS 16 June 1994 Site Check R. E. Wright Associates 98 May 1995 Relative Risk Ranking Baker Environmental 98 November 1995 Focused Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Brown & Root Environmental 16, 42, 92 February 1996 Remedial Action Report OHM Remediation Services 51, 52 August 1996 Interim Record of Decision for NADEP Groundwater Brown & Root Environmental 42, 52, 92, 98 August 1996 September 10, 1996 Basis of Design Report Brown & Root Environmental 16 April 1997 Sampling and Analysis Plan for Air Sparging and SVE OHM Remediation Services 16 December 1997 Debris Pile Time-Critical Removal Action OHM Remediation Services 16 January 1998 SWMU Assessment Report Brown & Root Environmental 83 March 1998 Slocum Creek Fish Ingestion Report Tetra Tech OU1, OU2, OU3, OU4 June 1999 Remedial Action Report OHM Remediation Services 42, 92 November 1999 Work Plan CH2M 47 January 2000 Long-Term Remedial Action Plan OHM Remediation Services 42 January 2000 4th Quarter O&M Status Report for 1999 OHM Remediation Services 16, 42 February 2000 Long-Term Remedial Action Plan OHM Remediation Services 16 April 2000 Remedial Action Report OHM Remediation Services 16 November 2000 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan Tetra Tech 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 42, 47, 51, 52, 83, 92, 98 November 2000 O&M Status Report OHM Remediation Services 16 February 2001 Treatability Study Work Plan CH2M 47 March 2001 O&M Status Report OHM Remediation Services 42 May 2001 Slocum Creek Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Tetra Tech OU1, OU2, OU3, OU4 November 2001 Remedial Investigation Brown & Root Environmental 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 42, 47, 51, 52, 83, 92, 98 May 2002 Annual Report 2001 Shaw 16 March 2002 Long Term Remedial Action Plan Shaw 16 June 2002 Long Term Remedial Action Plan P&T/IWTP Shaw 42, 92 June 2002 Annual Report 2002 Shaw 42, 92 June 2002 Ecological Risk Assessment Step 3A Addendum CH2M 14, 15, 16, 18, 42, 47, 51, 52, 83, 92, 98 July 2003 Treatability Study Technical Memoranda CH2M 47 August 2003 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Work Plan CH2M 14, 15, 16, 18, 42, 47, 51, 52, 83, 92, 98 May 2004 Quarterly O&M Status Report 3rd quarter 2003 CH2M 16 September 2004 O&M Status Report, Pump & Treat System, 2nd quarter 2003 CH2M OU1 December 2004 O&M Status Report, 2nd quarter 2004 CH2M OU1 June 2005 O&M Status Report, 3rd quarter 2003 CH2M 16 June 2005 O&M Status Report, 1st quarter 2004 CH2M 16 June 2005 Annual O&M Status Report, 4th quarter 2003 CH2M 16 June 2005 Quarterly O&M Status Report 4th quarter 2003 CH2M 16 June 2005 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment CH2M OU1 August 2005 Post-BERA Investigation Work Plan for Operable Unit 1 CH2M OU1 July 2006 Technical Memorandum, May 2005, VGM at OU1 AGVIQ CH2M JVI OU1 July 2006 OU1 Treatability Study CH2M OU1 December 2007 1 Page 1 of 7 Table 2-3. Document Submittals for FFA Sites FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina OU No./Site Activity Author Sites Included Final Submittal/ Completion Date ROD/IROD Signature Date Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA), Sandy Branch Tributary 2 CH2M OU1 January 2008 Action Memorandum, Sandy Branch Tributary 2 CH2M OU1 April 2008 Technical Memorandum, Additional Investigation at 16GW04 CH2M 16 May 2008 Removal Action Work Plan, Sandy Branch Tributary 2 Rhēa OU1 June 2008 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Additional Investigations at OU1, Site 17 CH2M 17 July 2008 OU1 Remedial Investigation Addendum CH2M OU1 April 2009 Remedial Action Closeout Report, Sandy Branch Tributary 2 Rhēa OU1 June 2009 AS/SVE System Removal Work Plan Rhēa 16 June 2009 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Site 83 Rhēa 83 June 2009 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Vapor Intrusion Investigation CH2M OU1 August 2009 Supplemental Investigation Report, OU1 Site 17 CH2M 17 September 2009 AS/SVE System Decommission Report Rhēa 16 February 2010 NFA Proposed Plan Rhēa 14, 15, 17, 18, 40 March 2010 Supplemental Investigation Report, OU1 Site 83 Rhēa 83 June 2010 NFA Record of Decision CH2M 14, 15, 17, 18, 40 September 2010 September 29, 2010 Vapor Intrusion Investigation Report (Phase I)CH2M OU1 January 2011 AS/SVE System Decommission Work Plan Rhēa 16 February 2011 Sampling and Analysis Plan, OU1 Central Groundwater Plume Pilot Study CH2M OU1 March 2011 Implementation Plan, OU1 Central Groundwater Plume Pilot Study CH2M OU1 March 2011 Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report, OU1 Site 83 CH2M 83 May 2011 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Vapor Intrusion Investigation (Phase 2)CH2M OU1 May 2011 Technical Memorandum, Site 16 Human Health Risk Assessment CH2M 16 June 2011 OU1 Central Groundwater Plume FS CH2M OU1 September 2011 OU1 Biobarrier Pilot Study Report CH2M OU1 January 2012 Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report, OU1 Site 16 CH2M 16 March 2012 Proposed Plan, OU1 Site 83 Rhēa 83 March 2012 Restoration Work Plan, Site 83 Rhēa 83 April 2012 Vapor Intrusion Investigation Report (Phase II)CH2M OU1 May 2012 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Permeable Reactive Barrier Pilot Study CH2M OU1 May 2012 Work Plan, Permeable Reactive Barrier Pilot Study CH2M OU1 May 2012 Record of Decision, OU1 Site 83 Rhēa 83 August 2012 October 16, 2012 Technical Memorandum, Biobarrier Pilot Study 12-month Results CH2M OU1 December 2012 Construction Closeout Report, OU1 Site 83 Restoration Rhēa 83 March 2013 Sampling and Analysis Plan, OU1 Central Groundwater Plume Pre-Remedial Design Groundwater Monitoring CH2M OU1 November 2013 Work Plan, Decommission of OU1 Pump and Treat System Rhēa OU1 March 2014 Technical Memorandum, Biobarrier Pilot Study 24-month Results CH2M OU1 March 2014 Proposed Plan, OU1 Central Groundwater Plume Sites 42, 47, 51, 52, 92, and 98 CH2M 42, 47, 51, 52, 92, 98 April 2014 Implementation Report, Permeable Reactive Barrier Pilot Study CH2M OU1 May 2015 Proposed Plan, OU1 Site 16 Rhēa 16 September 2015 Record of Decision, OU1 Central Groundwater Plume Sites 42, 47, 51, 52, 92, and 98 CH2M OU1 September 2016 September 21, 2016 Summary of the Updated Human Healt Risk Assessment, OU1 Site 16 CH2M 16 May 2017 Site 16 ROD CH2M 16 September 2017 January 10, 2018 Operable Unit 1 Vapor Intrusion, 2016 Baseline Long-Term Monitoring Report, and Building 137 Additional Investigation CH2M OU1 October 2017 Remedial Design for Land Use Controls, Operable Unit 1, Site 16 CH2M 16 March 2018 Remedial Design for Operable Unit 1, Central Groundwater Plume – Sites 42, 47, 51, 52, 92, and 98,CH2M OU1 March 2018 Interim Remedial Action Completion Report, OU1 Site 16 CH2M 16 January 2020 Building 137 Autoclave Room Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System Pilot Study Sampling and Analysis Plan CH2M OU1 November 2020 Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System Pilot Study Work Plan, Operable Unit 1, Building 137 Autoclave Room CH2M OU1 November 2020 2018 LTM Report CH2M OU1 September 2021 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Building 423 Pipeline Release Site Inspection CH2M 47 December 2021 1 Page 2 of 7 Table 2-3. Document Submittals for FFA Sites FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina OU No./Site Activity Author Sites Included Final Submittal/ Completion Date ROD/IROD Signature Date Hydrogeologic and Geotechnical Analysis Schnabel Engineering 10 December 1981 Initial Assessment Study Water and Air Research 10 March 1983 RCRA Facility Assessment A. T. Kearney 10, 44A, 46 June 1988 Interim Remedial Investigation NUS Corporation 10 October 1988 Groundwater Assessment Ensafe 10 December 1988 Evaluation of Sludge Impoundment Area Halliburton NUS 10 December 1991 RCRA Facility Investigation NUS Corporation 10 May 1991 Phase I Technical Direction Memorandum Halliburton NUS 10 November 1992 21 Unit RCRA Facilities Investigation Halliburton NUS 44A June 1993 Phase II Technical Direction Memorandum Halliburton NUS 10 June 1994 Relative Risk Ranking Baker Environmental 76 November 1995 Proposed Remedial Action Plan Brown & Root Environmental 10, 44A, 46, 76 June 1996 Basis of Design Report for Air Sparging System Brown & Root Environmental 10 April 1997 Remedial Investigation Brown & Root Environmental 10, 44A, 46, 76 April 1997 Feasibility Study Brown & Root Environmental 10, 44A, 46, 76 July 1997 Sampling and Analysis Plan OHM Remediation Services 10, 44A, 46, 76 November 1997 Air Sparge Work Plan OHM Remediation Services 10 December 1997 O&M Plan for SVE OHM Remediation Services 10, 44A, 46, 76 June 1998 Record of Decision Tetra Tech 10, 44A, 46, 76 March 1999 September 29, 1999 LTM Remedial Action Plan OHM Remediation Services 10, 44A, 46, 76 May 1999 Remedial Action Report OHM Remediation Services 10, 44A, 46, 76 May 1999 Remedial Design Work Plan for Baseline LTM CH2M 10, 44A, 46, 76 May 1999 Slocum Creek Fish Ingestion Report Tetra Tech OU1, OU2, OU3, OU4 June 1999 Land Use Control Assurance Plan U.S. Marine Corps 10, 44A, 46, 76 October 2000 O&M Status Report OHM Remediation Services 10, 44A, 46, 76 December 2000 O&M Status Report OHM Remediation Services 10, 44A, 46, 76 January 2001 Remedial Design/Remedial Action Report CH2M 10, 44A, 46, 76 October 2001 Slocum Creek Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Tetra Tech OU1, OU2, OU3, OU4 November 2001 Remedial Action Report Shaw 10 January 2002 Long Term Remedial Action Report Shaw 10 May 2002 LTM Work Plan CH2M 10, 44A, 46, 76 October 2002 LTM Annual Report CH2M 10, 44A, 46, 76 July 2003 O&M Status Report, 2nd quarter 2003 CH2M 10 September 2004 Final Technical Memorandum re: January 2004 SVE Hot Spot Area sampling Rhēa 10 January 2004 2003 LTM Report CH2M OU2 June 2005 Final Technical Memorandum re: April 2005 SVE Hot Spot Area sampling Rhēa 10 August 2005 2004 LTM Report Rhēa OU2 December 2005 Technical Memorandum re: April 2005 SVE Hot Spot Area sampling Rhēa 10 May 2006 2005 LTM Report Rhēa OU2 June 2006 2006 LTM Report Rhēa OU2 October 2007 OU2 Site 10 Proposed Sampling Tech Memo Rhēa 10 June 2008 2007 LTM Report Rhēa OU2 October 2008 2008 LTM Report Rhēa OU2 September 2009 Work Plan, OU2 Site 10 SVE System Decommission Rhēa 10 April 2010 Construction Closeout Report, OU2 Site 10 SVE System Decommission Rhēa 10 July 2010 2009 LTM Report Rhēa OU2 August 2010 Focused Feasibility Study, OU2 Site 10 Rhēa 10 February 2011 Proposed Plan, OU2 Site 10 Rhēa 10 March 2011 OU2 LTM Optimization Report CH2M OU2 May 2011 Amended Record of Decision, OU2 Site 10 Rhēa 10 July 2011 September 26, 2011 2010 LTM Report Rhēa OU2 September 2011 Remedial Design, OU2 Site 10 Rhēa 10 December 2011 2011 LTM Report Rhēa OU2 December 2011 2 Page 3 of 7 Table 2-3. Document Submittals for FFA Sites FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina OU No./Site Activity Author Sites Included Final Submittal/ Completion Date ROD/IROD Signature Date Sampling and Analysis Plan, OU2 LTM CH2M OU2 June 2012 Construction Closeout Report, OU2 Site 10, Hotspot 2 Rhēa 10 August 2012 Interim Remedial Action Completion Report Rhēa 10 December 2012 2012 LTM Report Rhēa OU2 June 2013 2013 LTM Report Rhēa OU2 January 2014 2014 LTM Report Rhēa OU2 October 2014 2015 LTM Report Rhēa OU2 November 2015 2016 LTM Report Rhēa OU2 May 2017 2017 LTM Report Rhēa OU2 February 2018 2018 LTM Report Rhēa OU2 September 2018 Record of Decision Explanation of Significant Differences CH2M OU2 February 2020 Sampling and Analysis Plan, OUs 2, 4, and 14 Bethel-Tech OU2 October 2021 Spring 2020 LTM Report Bethel-Tech OU2 November 2021 Initial Assessment Study Water and Air Research 6, 7 March 1983 RCRA Facility Assessment A. T. Kearney 6, 7 June 1988 Interim Remedial Investigation NUS Corporation 6, 7 October 1988 21 Unit RCRA Facilities Investigation Halliburton NUS 6, 7 June 1993 10 Unit Technical Direction Memorandum Halliburton NUS 6, 7 August 1993 Proposed Remedial Action Plan Brown & Root Environmental 6, 7 June 1996 Remedial Investigation Brown & Root Environmental 6, 7 December 1996 Feasibility Study Brown & Root Environmental 6, 7 December 1996 Remedial Action Report OHM Remediation Services 6, 7 January 1998 Sampling and Analysis Plan OHM Remediation Services 6, 7 January 1999 Work Plan for Air Sparge System OHM Remediation Services 7 January 1999 Remedial Design Work Plan for Baseline LTM CH2M 6, 7 May 1999 Slocum Creek Fish Ingestion Report Tetra Tech OU1, OU2, OU3, OU4 June 1999 O&M Plan OHM Remediation Services 6, 7 May 2000 LTM Remedial Action Plan OHM Remediation Services 6, 7 June 2000 Remedial Action Report OHM Remediation Services 6, 7 August 2000 Record of Decision Tetra Tech 6, 7 August 2000 October 24, 2000 Land Use Control Assurance Plan U.S. Marine Corps 6, 7 October 2000 O&M Status Report OHM Remediation Services 6, 7 April 2001 Remedial Design/Remedial Action Report CH2M 6, 7 October 2001 Slocum Creek Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Tetra Tech OU1, OU2, OU3, OU4 November 2001 LTM Remedial Action Report - Air Sparging Shaw 7 April 2002 Remedial Action Report Shaw 7 May 2002 LTM Work Plan CH2M 6, 7 September 2002 Annual Report Shaw 7 February 2003 LTM Monitoring Report CH2M 6, 7 October 2003 LTM Annual Report CH2M 6, 7 October 2003 LTM Quarterly Sampling Tech Memo CH2M 6,7 January 2004 Quarterly LTM Report CH2M 6,7 March 2004 2003 LTM Report CH2M 6,7 June 2005 2004 LTM Report Rhēa OU3 December 2005 2005 LTM Report Rhēa OU3 June 2006 Site 7 System Removal After Action Report Rhēa 7 July 2007 Interim Remedial Action Completion Report CH2M 6,7 September 2007 2006 LTM Report Rhēa OU3 October 2007 2007 LTM Report Rhēa OU3 September 2008 2008 LTM Report Rhēa OU3 September 2009 2009 LTM Report Rhēa OU3 July 2010 2010 LTM Report Rhēa OU3 September 2011 Remedial Action Completion Report CH2M OU3 May 2012 2 3 Page 4 of 7 Table 2-3. Document Submittals for FFA Sites FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina OU No./Site Activity Author Sites Included Final Submittal/ Completion Date ROD/IROD Signature Date Initial Assessment Study Water and Air Research 4 March 1983 RCRA Facility Assessment A. T. Kearney 4 June 1988 Interim Remedial Investigation NUS Corporation 4 October 1988 21 Unit RCRA Facilities Investigation Halliburton NUS 4 June 1993 10 Unit Technical Direction Memorandum Halliburton NUS 4 August 1993 Slocum Creek Fish Ingestion Report Tetra Tech OU1, OU2, OU3, OU4 June 1999 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan Tetra Tech 4 June 1999 Slocum Creek Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Tetra Tech OU1, OU2, OU3, OU4 November 2001 Remedial Investigation Tetra Tech 4 June 2002 Focused Feasibility Study CH2M 4 June 2004 Proposed Remedial Action Plan CH2M 4 April 2005 Record of Decision CH2M 4 September 2005 September 14, 2005 Remedial Design CH2M 4 April 2006 Interim Remedial Action Completion Report CH2M 4 October 2006 2006 LTM Report CH2M OU4 April 2007 2007 LTM Report CH2M OU4, OU5, OU6, OU13 August 2008 2008 LTM Report Rhēa OU4, OU5, OU6, OU13 September 2009 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Additional Investigation Activities Rhēa OU4 June 2010 2009 LTM Report Rhēa OU4, OU5, OU13 July 2010 2010 LTM Report Rhēa OU4, OU5, OU13 July 2011 Technical Memorandum, Supplemental Investigation Rhēa OU4 September 2011 2011 LTM Report Rhēa OU4, OU5, OU13 June 2012 2012 LTM Report Rhēa OU4, OU13 June 2013 2013 LTM Report Rhēa OU4 April 2014 2014 LTM Report Rhēa OU4 March 2015 2015 LTM Report Rhēa OU4 August 2016 2016 LTM Report Rhēa OU4 June 2017 2017 LTM Report Rhēa OU4 August 2018 2018 LTM Report Rhēa OU4 March 2019 Sampling and Analysis Plan, OUs 2, 4, and 14 Bethel-Tech OU4 October 2021 Spring 2020 LTM Report Bethel-Tech OU4 November 2021 LTM Optimization Technical Memorandum CH2M OU4 January 2022 Initial Assessment Study Water and Air Research 1, 2 March 1983 RCRA Facility Assessment A. T. Kearney 1, 2 June 1988 Interim Remedial Investigation NUS Corporation 1, 2 October 1988 21 Unit RCRA Facilities Investigation Halliburton NUS 1, 2 June 1993 Work Plan CH2M 1, 2 February 2002 Remedial Investigation CH2M OU5 August 2005 Focused Feasibility Study CH2M OU5 October 2005 Proposed Remedial Action Plan CH2M OU5 November 2005 Record of Decision CH2M OU5 May 2006 July 21, 2006 Remedial Design CH2M OU5 October 2006 Interim Remedial Action Completion Report CH2M OU5 September 2008 2007 LTM Report CH2M OU4, OU5, OU6, OU13 August 2008 2008 LTM Report Rhēa OU4, OU5, OU6, OU13 September 2009 2009 LTM Report Rhēa OU4, OU5, OU13 July 2010 2010 LTM Report Rhēa OU4, OU5, OU13 July 2011 Remedial Action Completion Report CH2M OU5 January 2012 2011 LTM Report Rhēa OU4, OU5, OU13 June 2012 5 4 Page 5 of 7 Table 2-3. Document Submittals for FFA Sites FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina OU No./Site Activity Author Sites Included Final Submittal/ Completion Date ROD/IROD Signature Date Initial Assessment Study Water and Air Research 12 March 1983 RCRA Facility Assessment A. T. Kearney 12 June 1988 21 Unit RCRA Facilities Investigation Halliburton NUS 12 June 1993 Work Plan CH2M 12 January 1999 Supplemental Investigation Plan AGVIQ/CH2M 12 September 2003 Remedial Investigation CH2M 12 May 2005 Focused Feasibility Study CH2M OU6 January 2006 Record of Decision CH2M 12 August 2006 September 28, 2006 Remedial Design CH2M OU6 June 2007 Remedial Action Work Plan CH2M OU6 February 2007 Remedial Action Completion Report CH2M OU6 August 2008 2007 LTM Report CH2M OU4, OU5, OU6, OU13 August 2008 2008 LTM Report Rhēa OU4, OU5, OU6, OU13 September 2009 Initial Assessment Study Water and Air Research 19, 21 March 1983 RCRA Facility Assessment A. T. Kearney 19, 21 June 1988 Interim Remedial Investigation NUS Corporation 19, 21 October 1988 21 Unit RCRA Facilities Investigation Halliburton NUS 19, 21, 44B June 1993 10 Unit Technical Direction Memorandum Halliburton NUS 21 August 1993 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan Tetra Tech 19, 21, 44B June 1999 Remedial Investigation Tetra Tech 19, 21, 44B March 2002 Focused Feasibility Study CH2M 19, 21, 44B July 2004 Proposed Remedial Action Plan CH2M 19, 21, 44B March 2005 Record of Decision CH2M 19, 21, 44B September 2005 September 14, 2005 Remedial Design CH2M 19, 21, 44B April 2006 May and November 2005 VGM Report CH2M OU13 2006 Remedial Design CH2M OU13 April 2006 Interim Remedial Action Completion Report CH2M OU13 October 2, 2006 2006 LTM Report CH2M OU13 April 2007 2007 LTM Report CH2M OU4, OU5, OU6, OU13 August 2008 2008 LTM Report Rhēa OU4, OU5, OU6, OU13 September 2009 2009 LTM Report Rhēa OU4, OU5, OU13 July 2010 2010 LTM Report Rhēa OU4, OU5, OU13 July 2011 2011 LTM Report Rhēa OU4, OU5, OU13 June 2012 Remedial Action Completion Report Rhēa OU13 May 2013 2012 LTM Report Rhēa OU4, OU13 June 2013 13 6 Page 6 of 7 Table 2-3. Document Submittals for FFA Sites FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina OU No./Site Activity Author Sites Included Final Submittal/ Completion Date ROD/IROD Signature Date Site Characterization and Evaluation Report for BRAC Halliburton NUS 90 December 1994 Site Assessment Report Law Engineering 90 June 1995 Site Assessment Addendum Law Engineering 90 March 1996 Corrective Action Plan Law Engineering 90 January 1997 RAC Action Work Plan J.A. Jones Environmental 90 June 2000 Remedial Investigation Work Plan CH2M 90 August 2002 Phase I Remedial Investigation Interim Report CH2M 90 October 2003 Phase II Remedial Investigation Interim Report CH2M 90 June 2005 Phase III Remedial Investigation Interim Report CH2M 90 December 2007 Remedial Investigation Report CH2M 90 December 2008 Feasibility Study Report CH2M 90 April 2009 Proposed Plan CH2M 90 April 2009 Record Of Decision CH2M 90 August 2009 September 28, 2009 Remedial Design for Land Use Controls CH2M 90 March 2010 Sampling and Analysis Plan for Baseline LTM Sampling CH2M 90 September 2010 Sampling and Analysis Plan, LTM CH2M 90 July 2011 Interim Remedial Action Completion Report CH2M 90 June 2011 2011 LTM Report CH2M 90 May 2012 2012 LTM Report CH2M 90 June 2013 2013 LTM Report Rhēa 90 October 2014 2014 LTM Report Rhēa 90 September 2015 2015 LTM Report Rhēa 90 August 2016 2016 LTM Report Rhēa 90 December 2017 2017 LTM Report Rhēa 90 September 2018 2018 LTM Report Rhēa 90 March 2019 LTM Optimization Technical Memorandum CH2M 90 September 2021 Sampling and Analysis Plan, OUs 2, 4, and 14 Bethel-Tech 90 October 2021 Spring 2020 LTM Report Bethel-Tech 90 November 2021 Proposed Remedial Action Plan Tetra Tech 82 October 2002 Record of Decision Tetra Tech 82 March 2003 June 11, 2003 Wetland Delineation report for Site 85 Brown & Root Environmental 85 February 1998 Action Memorandum, Debris Removal OHM Remediation Services 85 November 1998 Site Screening Process Work Plan CH2M 85 April 2001 Site Screening Process Report CH2M 85 November 2002 Site Screening Area Decision Document CH2M 85 September 2003 Soil/Groundwater Study R. E. Wright Associates 35a September 1996 Evaluation Report CH2M 35a June 2004 Decision Document CH2M 35a June 2004 Site Inspection Work Plan CH2M November 2008 Site Inspection Report CH2M October 2010 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Expanded Site Inspection CH2M December 2011 Expanded Site Inspection Report CH2M November 2012 Decision Document CH2M March 2013 14 Former Skeet & Trap Range #1 15 Site 85 POEI 35a Page 7 of 7 !( !( !( !( !( !( NEUS E R I V E R BOGUE SOUND PAMLICOSOUND MCASCHERRY POINT CORE SOUNDATLANTIC OCEAN MCOLFOAK GROVE MCALFBOGUE MCOLFATLANTIC £¤70 Atlantic Florence Morehead City New Bern Pamlico Beach Swansboro ´ 0 84Miles Legend !(CityFreeway or Other Major RoadMajor RoadSecondary RoadWater BodyBase Boundary 1 inch = 8 miles Figure 2-1Base Location Map MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina \\brooksidefiles\GIS_SHARE\ENBG\00_Proj\N\Navy\CLEAN\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2020\Figure_2-1_BaseLocationMap.mxd5/31/2019jcarr3 Basemap Data Source: Esri EN0518151023RDD CHERRY_Process_FLOW_Chart_V5.ai FIGURE 2-3 Current Status of FFA ĂŶĚ ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů Sites MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Remedy (action)Implementation Record of Decision(ROD) ProposedPlan FeasibilityStudy No Action/No Further Action Take InterimAction Take InterimAction RemedialInvestigation PreliminaryAssessment/SiteInspection No Yes Legend: Contamination and/or risk warrantingfurther investigation or action identified. Significant contamination and imminent/substantial risk identified. No contamination warranting additional study or action identified. Notes: 1. Formal public input solicited during Proposed Plan and Interim Action steps of the CERCLA process. 2. Sites in blue have been addressed under the RCRA or UST Programs at MCAS Cherry Point. Operable Unit Site Name Proposed Remedial Action Proposed Remedial AcPlan (PRAP) No Yes Yes Yes YesNo Yes Operable Unit Site Name Remedial Investigation (RI) No sites are currently at this stage. Interim Action Operable Unit Site Name Feasibility Study (FS) Operable Unit Site Name ROD OU 1 No sites are currently at this stage. Site 42 OU 1 Site 47 OU 1 Site 51 OU 1 Site 52 OU 1 Site 92 OU 1 Site 98 Operable Unit Site Name OU 2 Site 10 OU 2 Site 76 Remedy (action) Remedy (ac on) Implementation Operable Unit Site Name Former Skeet and Trap Range #1 OU 1 Site 83 OU 5 Site 1 OU 5 Site 2 OU 6 Site 12 OU 6 POEI 35a (SSA 35a) OU 13 Site 19 OU 13 Site 21OU 13 Site 44B OU 15 Site 82 POEI 3 POEI 5 POEI 6POEI 11 POEI 16POEI 17 POEI 22 (PSA 22) POEI 23 (PSA 23) UST 41 SWMU 3SWMU 5 SWMU 11SWMU 20 SWMU 33SWMU 34 SWMU 35 SWMU 36 SWMU 37 SWMU 38 SWMU 39 SWMU 43 SWMU 45 SWMU 46 SWMU 48 SWMU 49A SWMU 49B OU 1 SWMU 50SWMU 54 SWMU 67SWMU 68 OU 1 SWMU 71SWMU 80 SWMU 84SWMU 99 SWMU C-3SWMU C-4 SWMU C-6 SWMU C-7 SWMU C-8 SWMU C-9 SWMU C-13 SWMU C-15 SWMU C-16 SWMU F-1 SWMU F-2 SWMU F-3 SWMU F-4 SWMU F-5SWMU F-6 SWMU F-7 No Action/NoFurtherAction Decision Document Operable Unit Site Name SWMU C-15SWMU C-16 SWMU F-1SWMU F-2 SWMU F-3 SWMU F-4 SWMU F-5SWMU F-6 SWMU F-8 SWMU F-9 SWMU F-10 SWMU F-11 SWMU F-12 SWMU F-15 SWMU F-16 SWMU F-17 SWMU F-18 SWMU F-19 SWMU F-20 SWMU F-21 SWMU F-23SWMU F-24 SWMU F-25SWMU F-26 SWMU F-27SWMU F-28 SWMU F-29SWMU F-30 SWMU F-31SWMU F-32 SWMU F-33 SWMU F-34 SWMU F-35 SWMU F-36 SWMU F-37 SWMU F-39 SWMU F-40 SWMU F-41 SWMU N-1 SWMU N-2 SWMU N-3 SWMU N-4SWMU N-5 SWMU N-6SWMU N-7 SWMU N-8SWMU N-9 SWMU N-10SWMU N-11 SWMU N-12SWMU N-13 SWMU N-14 SWMU N-15 SWMU N-16 SWMU N-17 SWMU N-18 SWMU N-19 SWMU N-20 SWMU N-21 SWMU S-1 SWMU S-2 SWMU S-3 SWMU S-4SWMU S-5 SWMU S-7SWMU S-8 SWMU S-9SWMU S-12 No Action/No Further Action OU 3 Site 6 OU 3 Site 7 OU 4 Site 4 OU 14 Site 90 Site 85 OU 1 Site 14 OU 1 Site 15 OU 1 Site 17 OU 1 Site 18 OU 1 Site 40 No sites are currently at this stage. No sites are currently at this stage. OU 1 Site 16 Site 100 - MCOLF Atlantic MCALF Bogue MCOLF Oak Grove Operable Unit Site Name Preliminary Assessment (PA) /Site Inspection (SI) MCAS Cherry Point POEI 35A Former Skeet and Trap Range #1 OU1 OU2 OU4 OU15 OU13 OU3 OU6OU14 OU5 SITE 85 POEI 22 POEI 23 Figure 2-4Operable Units Location MapMCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina/ 0 1,500 3,000Feet LegendOU BoundarySite BoundaryBuildingsRunwayRoadBase Boundary Surface WaterSlocum Creek R:\USNavFacEngCom405450\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\424578_SMP_FY_2017\Figure 2-4 - Operable Units Location Map.mxd5/20/2016CGauthier_ch2mhillen Neuse R i v e r Hancock Creek FES0613220646VBO 3-1 SECTION 3 Descriptions of PA/SI Sites This section discusses the site history, summarizes previous investigations, and presents future activities for the portions of MCAS Cherry Point, including the outlying fields, that are in the PA/SI phase of the CERCLA process. PA/SI activities are underway for these locations since it is likely that aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) was stored and potentially used at these facilities during mission- related activities. Specifically, this includes portions of MCAS Cherry Point and three outlying fields: Site 100 – MCOLF Atlantic, MCALF Bogue, and MCOLF Oak Grove. See Figure 3-1 for the locations of the PA/SI sites. There are currently no other sites in the PA/SI phase of the CERCLA process. Because PFAS science and regulation is rapidly evolving, all data collected will be screened against current DoD-approved screening levels at the time of reporting. History – MCAS Cherry Point and Outlying Fields, PFAS Event Site Date Desktop Evaluation to Verify Off-Base Drinking Water Sources Navy Priority 1 PFAS Sites 2016 Sampling and Analysis Plan for Investigation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Drinking Water Site 100, MCOLF Atlantic 2017 Preliminary Assessment for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Site 100, MCOLF Atlantic 2019 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Site Inspection for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Site 100, MCOLF Atlantic 2019 Preliminary Assessment for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances MCOLF Oak Grove 2019 Preliminary Assessment for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances MCALF Bogue 2020 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Site Inspection for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances MCOLF Oak Grove 2020 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Site Inspection for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances MCALF Bogue 2021 Preliminary Assessment for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances MCAS Cherry Point 2022 3.1 MCAS Cherry Point Based on the historical activities at MCAS Cherry Point, a PA was conducted to identify areas where AFFF containing PFAS was potentially used during mission-related activities. The PA was finalized for MCAS Cherry Point in April 2022 (CH2M, 2022) and 119 out of 206 evaluated areas were recommended for further investigation (Figures 3-2 through 3-5). Future Activities AFFF has likely been used at numerous locations across MCAS Cherry Point during mission-related activities; therefore, a PA/SI is underway to identify potential sites within the Air Station where a potential release of PFAS may have occurred, and to evaluate the presence of PFAS in site media. The Cherry Point PA report was finalized in FY 2022. A MCAS Cherry Point PFAS SI SAP will be finalized in FY 2022 and the SI field investigation will also be performed in FY 2022. The SI Report is anticipated to be finalized in FY 2023. 3.2 Site 100 – Marine Corps Outlying Landing Field (MCOLF) Atlantic MCOLF Atlantic occupies 1,477 acres of land adjacent to the Town of Atlantic, North Carolina in northeastern Carteret County (Figure 3-6). The facility has been in operation intermittently since December 1942 and supports SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 3-2 FES0613220646VBO training operations for MCAS Cherry Point, which is approximately 26 miles to the west. The facility has three approximately 3,500-foot runways and two helicopter landing zones and provides facilities for air-to-ground exercises and limited ground operations (USMC, 2009). Past and current operations at the facility include rotary- wing operations in support of nearby target ranges and training activities (including tactical, air-to-ground, electronic warfare, and low altitude exercises) (USMC, 2009). The facility is also used as a Forward Arming and Refueling Point for MCAS Cherry Point and other Navy and Army facilities. MCOLF Atlantic, designated as Site 100, was identified as an outlying field where historical environmental releases of PFAS potentially occurred during mission-related activities (CH2M, 2016b). Based on the historical activities at Site 100 – MCOLF Atlantic, a PA was conducted to identify areas where AFFF containing PFAS was potentially used during mission-related activities. The PA was finalized for MCOLF Atlantic in May 2019 (CH2M, 2019a) and 11 out of 22 evaluated areas were recommended for further investigation during the SI (Figure 3-6). The SI field activities were performed in accordance with the Atlantic PFAS SAP (CH2M, 2019b). Field activities were conducted in three phases: • Phase 1 – Exploratory borings—February 2019 • Phase 2 – Monitoring well installation—June-July 2019 • Phase 3 – Groundwater, surface water, and sediment sampling—August 2019 Based on the SI sample results, a Phase II SI was recommended by the Tier I Partnering Team. A PFAS Phase II SI SAP was finalized (CH2M, 2021a) and the additional field investigation was completed in FY 2021. Future Activities An SI report will be written to summarize all SI field events and is planned to be finalized in FY 2023. 3.3 Marine Corps Auxiliary Landing Field Bogue MCALF Bogue encompasses 837 acres and is located approximately 12.5 miles southwest of MCAS Cherry Point (Figure 3-7). This outlying field was established by condemnation actions in December 1942 (Water and Air Research, 1983). MCALF Bogue includes a main runway that lies within the center of the outlying field. It is bordered by Route 24 to the north; the Hunting Island Creek to the west; Guthrie Point, Taylor Bay and Shelly Point to the south, and Goose Creek to the east. Access to MCALF Bogue is via an access road that connects to Route 24 along the northern boundary of the outlying field. Based on the historical activities at MCALF Bogue, a PA was conducted to identify areas where AFFF containing PFAS was potentially used during mission-related activities. The PA was finalized for MCALF Bogue in March 2020 (CH2M, 2020c) and 14 out of 34 evaluated areas were recommended for further investigation during an upcoming SI (Figure 3-7). A PFAS SI SAP was finalized in FY 2021 (CH2M, 2021b). The SI sampling event was performed in FY 2022. Future Activities An SI report will be written to summarize the field event and laboratory analytical results. The SI report is planned to be finalized in FY 2023. 3.4 Marine Corps Outlying Landing Field Oak Grove MCOLF Oak Grove encompasses 976 acres and is located approximately 16 miles northwest of MCAS Cherry Point (Figure 3-8). In 1943, MCOLF Oak Grove was commissioned as a Marine Corps Auxiliary Air Facility (HMM Associates, Inc., 1993). Prior to this time, Oak Grove was undeveloped agricultural property. MCOLF Oak Grove consists of a main runway that lies within the center of the outlying field. It is bordered to the south and west by the Trent River, to the north by Hargett Road (State Road [S.R.] 1121), and to the east by private property SECTION 3—DESCRIPTIONS OF PA/SI SITES FES0613220646VBO 3-3 (HMM Associates, Inc., 1993). Access to MCOLF Oak Grove is via an access road that connects to S.R. 1121 along the northern boundary. Based on the historical activities at MCOLF Oak Grove, a PA was conducted to identify areas where AFFF containing PFAS was potentially used during mission-related activities. The PA was finalized for MCOLF Oak Grove in October 2019 (CH2M, 2019c) and 7 out of 22 evaluated areas were recommended for further investigation as part ofan SI (Figure 3-8). A PFAS SI SAP was finalized in 2020 (CH2M, 2020d) and the SI field work began in January 2021. Additional SI sampling was performed in early FY 2022. Future Activities An SI report will be written to summarize the SI field events and laboratory analytical results. The SI report is planned to be finalized in FY 2023. !( !( !( !( !( !( NEUS E R I V E R BOGUE SOUND PAMLICOSOUND MCASCHERRY POINT CORE SOUNDATLANTIC OCEAN MCOLFOAK GROVE MCALFBOGUE MCOLFATLANTIC £¤70 Atlantic Florence Morehead City New Bern Pamlico Beach Swansboro ´ 0 84Miles Legend !(CityFreeway or Other Major RoadMajor RoadSecondary RoadWater BodyPA/SI Site Location Boundary 1 inch = 8 miles Figure 3-1 PFAS PA/SI Site Locations MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina \\brooksidefiles\GIS_SHARE\ENBG\00_Proj\N\Navy\CLEAN\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\674979_SMP_FY19\Figure_3-1_PA_SI_Site_Locations.mxd5/11/2018cg021858 Basemap Data Source: Esri RUNWAY 23 GROUPAV-8B HARRIER CRASH2003 AIRCRAFT CRASH CRASH CREW FIRE STATION AND OPERATIONS GROUPBUILDING 1791 - CRASH CREW FIRE STATIONBUILDING 4601 - CRASH CREW LOGISTICS BUILDINGP-19 AFFF RELEASEBUILDING 1406 – VMU-2 MAINTENANCE HANGARBUILDING 4419-MWSS-271 CRASH CREW RECOVERY BUILDINGBUILDING 3975- FORMER CRASH CREW STORAGE BUILDING WWTP SLUDGE LAND APPLICATION GROUP #2SITE 45B (1998 BOUNDARY) RUNWAY 14 GROUP1973 RF-4B AIRCRAFT CRASH1985 BRUSH FIRE1998 CH-53 AIRCRAFT CRASHCH-53 SEA STALLION HARD LANDING SITE 4 (OU4) - BORROW PIT/LANDFILL GROUPSITE 4 (OU4) BORROW PIT/LANDFILLSWMU C-8-CONSTRUCTION LANDFILLSWMU C-9-ASBESTOS DISPOSAL AREA TAXIWAY 12 GROUP1987 AV-8B HARRIER CRASHP-19 ROLLOVER WWTP SLUDGE LAND APPLICATION GROUP #1SITE 45A (1998 BOUNDARY)SITE 45A (2001 BOUNDARY)PRESCRIBED BURN1994 AV-8B HARRIER CRASH #1 FIRE STATION #2 GROUPBUILDING 192 - FIRE STATION #2BUILDING 4343-FIRE STATION #2 STORAGE BUILDINGBUILDING 4562-FIRE STATION #2 STORAGE BUILDING GOLF COURSE GROUPGOLF COURSE FIRE TRAINING FACILITY GROUPBUILDING 4461 - FIRE TRAINING FACILITY Neuse River Hancock CreekSlocumCreek West Quad East Quad MCAS CHERRYPOINT WWTP OUTFALL SLOCUM GATE TIMBER FIRE SOLID WASTE DUMPSTER FIRE CONSTRUCTIONDEBRIS ROLL-OFF FIRE RUNWAY 14 RUNWAY 23TAXIWAY 12BUILDING 4223 - ENVIRONMENTALAFFAIRS DEPARTMENT (EAD) OFFICE ROOSEVELTE STREETRAVENROAD KAY ROADF STREET GR APEROADQ UAILROAD FALCO N ROAD BARREL 2 ROADMANGOR OADG ATESROAD WILSONDRI V E GOOSEROADU S H W Y 7 0 CALA SITE RO A D 4TH AVENUE LANDFILLLOOP PICNIC ROADCOOKTRAILSEEDTREET RAILBARREL1ROADPOWERLINE TRAIL BROWNTRAILROG E RS ROADCROOKEDROAD ORA N G E R O A DCEMETERYROADL O NGLEA F ROAD7TH A V E N UELARK ROADDUFFYROADHAW KR OADCRYOGE NICSDR I VECATFISHPO NDROAD BO YSTOWNROADHAN C O C K MARINAROAD ROOSEVELT BOULEVARD SKEETRANGEROADCLUB DRIVETARKILNROADCREEK ROAD JEFFERSONDRIV EC OPPERHEADTRAILHANCOCKC REEKTRAILBASECAMPROADACCESSROAD SL OCUM ROAD MEA D OWLARKROADS A NDYROAD RANGEROADNEWCAMP R O A D OLDHOME R O A D MONROEDRIVE MANGUSTRAILOLDCARROADTYRETRAIL SURVIVALTRAINING ROADANDERSONCREEKROAD LIVE OAKROADFigure 3-2 PFAS Site Inspection Areas - North Quadrant MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina \\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure3-02_PFAS_NorthQuadrant.mxd5/1/2022jcarr3 Legend Water Centerline Road Centerline Confirmed PFAS Release Area Potential PFAS Release Area Sludge Application Areas Based on Interviews - Potential PFAS Release Area Base Boundary Imagery: Esri, 2019 Unknown Locations - North Quadrant Runway 14:-1973 RF-4B Aircraft Crash -1985 Brush Fire-1998 CH-53 Aircraft Crash Taxiway 12:-1987 AV-8B Harrier Crash Runway 23:-2003 Aircraft Crash 0 0.50.25 Miles ´ SITE 45F(1998 BOUNDARY) WWTP SLUDGE APPLICATION GROUP #5SITE 45C (1998 BOUNDARY)SITE 45C (2001 BOUNDARY) North Quad West Quad South Quad Hancock Creek 1998 AV-8BHARRIER FIRE CRASH CREW TRAINING GROUPSITE 12 (OU6) - CRASH CREW TRAINING AREAP-19 TRAINING SPILL2017 AV-8B HARRIER FUEL FIRE 2003 E-2CHAWKEYE CRASH 1990s AV-8BHARRIER CRASH RUNWAY 14 TAXIWAY 12RUNWAY 23RUNWAY 32 RUNWAY 5RTAXIWAY 8 RUNWAY 32 GROUP1971 TA-AF AIRCRAFT FIRE1982 BELLANCA CRASH1990 OV-10 AIRCRAFT CRASH1996 AV-8B HARRIER CRASH2001 AV-8B HARRIER CRASH #12001 AV-8B HARRIER CRASH #22003 C-2A GREYHOUND CRASH2005 AIRCRAFT LANDING GEAR FAILURE2018 AV-8B HARRIER CRASH S N IP E ROAD HYENAROADFLYINGFOXROADBEEROAD GA Z E L L E R OAD GULLROADM A N G U S TR A ILGROUPERROAD LEECHR O A D ALPACA ROAD Q U AIL ROAD BOR E SITE RO ADTYRE TRAIL Figure 3-3 PFAS Site Inspection Areas - East Quadrant MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina 0 800 1,600400 Feet \\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure3-03_PFAS_EastQuadrant.mxd5/1/2022jcarr3 Legend Confirmed PFAS Release Area Potential PFAS Release Area Sludge Application Areas Based on Interviews - Potential PFAS Release Area Water Centerline Approximate Groundwater Flow Direction Anticipated Overland Flow Direction Road Centerline Base Boundary ´ Imagery Source: ©2019 Esri Unknown Locations - East QuadrantRunway 32: -1971 TA-AF Aircraft Fire-1982 Bellanca Crash -1990 OV-10 Aircraft Crash-1996 AV-8B Harrier Crash WWTP SLUDGE APPLICATION GROUP #3SITE 44B (OU13) - FORMER SLUDGE APPLICATION AREASITE 45D (1998 BOUNDARY)SITE 45D (2001 BOUNDARY)SITE 45F (2001 BOUNDARY)EMERGENCY CRASH TRAINING AREA1995 AV-8B HARRIER ENGINE FLARE-OUT1987 AIRCRAFT ROLL2000-2002 AV-8B HARRIER CRASH WWTP SLUDGE APPLICATION GROUP #4SITE 45E (1998 BOUNDARY)SITE 45E (2001 BOUNDARY)1990 AV-8B HARRIER FIRE #1 RUNWAY 5R AND TAXIWAY GROUP1974 AV-8A HARRIER CRASH #11974 AV-8A HARRIER CRASH #21981 A-6E INTRUDER FIRE1981 HH-46A SEA KNIGHT FIRE1982 AV-8B HARRIER FIRE1988 C-12 AIRCRAFT CRASH1993 AV-8B HARRIER FIRE1993 AV-8B HARRIER CRASH1999 AV-8B HARRIER CRASH2005 AV-8B HARRIER CRASH #1 2008AV-8B HARRIER CRASHRUNWAY 5RTAXIWAY 8RUNWAY 32 HANCOCK CREEKC OU G A R R O A D ONSLOW DRIVE STAG ROADANTELOPE ROADMOOSE ROADGATE SERVICE ROAD S H EEP R O AD FIKE STREET A N T E A T E R R O A D M AR YLO U ROAD FONTANA BOULEVARD Figure 3-4 PFAS Site Inspection Areas - South Quadrant MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina 0 800 1,600400 Feet \\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure3-04_PFAS_SouthQuadrant.mxd5/1/2022jcarr3 Legend Water Centerline Road Centerline Confirmed PFAS Release Area Potential PFAS Release Area Sludge Application Areas Based on Interviews - Potential PFAS Release Area Base Boundary ´ Imagery: Esri, 2019 Unknown Locations - South Quadrant Runway 5R and Taxiway:-1974 AV-8A Harrier Crash #1 -1974 AV-8A Harrier Crash #2-1988 C-12 Aircraft Crash -1993 AV-8B Harrier Crash East QuadWest Quad North Quad BOAT STORAGE YARD FIRE STATION #1 GROUPBUILDING 193 - FIRE STATION #1BUILDING 4203 - FIRE STATION #1 STORAGE BUILDING OU14 FUEL PIT GROUPOU14 FUEL PITS2005 AV-8B HARRIER FIRE SANITARY WASTEWATERTREATMENT PLANT GROUPSITE 43 (OU11) - SANITARY WASTEWATERTREATMENT PLANTSITE 46 (OU2) - POLISHING PONDSSLOCUM CREEK WWTP OUTFALL BUILDING 2000 -FORMER FIRE STATION #3 BUILDING 4259 -SEWAGE PUMPING STATION DUMP TRUCK FIRE WASH RACK NEARBUILDING 1701 MWSS-271P-19 TEST AREA BUILDING4875 - FIRE STATION #3 BUILDING 250 -VMGR-252 MAINTENANCE HANGAR FORMERBUILDING 198 FIRES SITE 85 -HOBBY SHOP DISPOSAL AREA SITE 6 (OU3) -FLY ASH PONDS FORMERFIRE STATION #4 BARRACKSPARKING LOT VEHICLE FIRE MWSS-274P-19 TEST AREA BUILDINGS 3977, 3979, AND 3980 OU1 FUEL PITS GROUPOU1 FUEL PITS1985 A6 AIRCRAFT FIRE SITE 14 - MOTOR TRANSPORT GROUPSITE 14 - MOTOR TRANSPORTBUILDING 160 - STATION LIGHT VEHICLE MOTOR TRANSPORT BUILDING 4247 -HAZARDOUS MATERIAL STORAGE BUILDING 245 -PAINT AND FINISHING HANGAR BUILDING 1665 - VMA 231MAINTENANCE HANGAR BUILDING 3998 - VMAT -203 MAINTENANCE HANGAR BUILDING 4036 -AIRCRAFT ACOUSTICAL ENCLOSURE BUILDING 1667 - VMA223/542 MAINTENANCE HANGAR BUILDING 137 - PLATING,FABRICATION, AND MAINTENANCE SHOPS BUILDING 131 -MALS 14/VMR-1MAINTENANCE HANGAR BUILDING 423 -CENTRAL TRANSFER AREA BUILDING 4035 - FRCE PLATING FACILITY SITE 42 -INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATERTREATMENT PLANT BUILDING 4334 -BEVERAGE CONTAINER RECYCLECENTER STORAGE BUILDING 133 - FRCE/MCCSENGINE OVERHAUL TEST BUILDING SITE 47 -INDUSTRIAL AREA SEWER SYSTEM BUILDING 533 -SOIL CONTAINMENT PAD SITE 15 -DITCH AND AREA BEHIND FRCE BUILDING 149 - MALS-14HAZARDOUS FLAMMABLES STOREHOUSE LUKE ROWE'S GUT RUNWAY 14 RUNWAY 5RSLOCUMCREEK North Quad North Quad South Quad SCHOOLHOUSE BRANCHROOSEVELT BOULEVARDC STREET2ND AVENUECROSSLAND DRIVEA STREETHOLLY DRIVEC O M M U N IT YLOOP TENTLOOP CEDARDRIVEONSLOW DRIVE 6TH AVENUE EFFLUENT R O A D JA CKS ON D RI V E COLI N DRI VE7TH AVEN UE W A S T E W A T E R LOOPPOPLARDRI VEFRANKLIN ROAD MOCKINGBIRDHILL ROAD 5TH AVENUE CENTER DRIVE HERCULES LOOPBEACHEY ROADHARRIER ROADHARRISON DRIVE SKYHAWK ROAD LENOIR ROAD HS T R E E T JUKEROAD BEAUFORT ROADF STREET L IL Y LANE E STREETWOODSIDEDRI VEPHANTOM ROADOAKDRIVE CURTIS ROADARMADI LLOROADBEAVERROADSQUIRREL ROADRABBIT ROADRECREATION LANE3RDAVENUE OTTERROAD INTRUDERDRIVEG STREETI STREETD STREETJS T R E E T LOBLOLLYLANE NANDINAL A NEMACKEREL ROAD 1STAVENUE JONES ROAD CORSAIR ROAD WILLOWLANEAVIATIONROADMCX ROADWISTERIALA NEBASSWOOD DRIVECLEVELANDDRIVECYPRESSL A NE PORCUPINER O A D P A N T H E R S ROADWRIGHTROAD4TH AVENUE HUMMINGBIRDROAD SLOCUM ROAD Figure 3-5 PFAS Site Inspection Areas - West Quadrant MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina 0 800 1,600400 Feet \\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure3-05_PFAS_WestQuadrant.mxd5/1/2022jcarr3 Legend Confirmed PFAS Release Area Potential PFAS Release Area Former Fire Training Area Based on Interviews Water Centerline Road Centerline Wetland Base Boundary ´ Imagery Source: ©2019 Esri +U CORE SOUND BARRY BAY M151 Jeep Emergency Response Sewage Treatment Lagoons Sewage Treatment Lagoons WWTP Effluent Spray Area ExpansionBuilding 7022 (Sewage PumpingStation Shed-Shelter) Building 7023 (Sewage & CombinationIndustrial Waste Treatment Building [WWTP]) 2000-2002 Forest Fire - Area #2 Original WWTP Effluent Spray Area Current FARP EmergencyResponse Parking Area #2 Current FARP Activities (2010 - present) Current FARP EmergencyResponse Parking Area #1 2000-2002 Forest Fire - Area #1 Historical Crash Crew Staging Area #1 Historical Crash Crew Staging Area #2 CH-46 HelicopterEmergency Response Historical South Runway FARP Activities Historical Crash Crew Staging Area #3 ´ 0 0.20.1 Miles Legend +U On-Base Supply Well Potential PFAS Release Area Stormwater Utility Line Wastewater Utility Line Rivers Drainage Ditch, Stream, or Creek Former Building or Structure Creek or Stream Base Boundary 1 inch = 0.2 mile Figure 3-6 PFAS Site Inspection AreasMarine Corps Outlying Landing Field Atlantic MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina \\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure3-06_PFAS_Atlantic.mxd5/1/2022jcarr3 Imagery: Esri 2017 "S "S Taylor BayHunting Island Creek AIRFIELD RUNWAYS EMERGENCY RESPONSETRAINING AREA #2 EXPEDITIONARY FIREFIGHTINGRESCUE (EFR) TRAINING AREA AREA SITE 29 - CRASH CREW TRAINING AREA Hunting Island Creek CRASH CREW TRAINING AREA #2 CH-BO-MW25 8 0 2 9 HISTORICAL BALD CYPRESS ROAD DISPOSAL AREA EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING AREA #1 1982 A-6 INTRUDER AIRCRAFT CRASH LOCATION FORMER BUILDINGS 8107 AND 8108 - TRAINING AREA COMBAT ARMS LOADING AREA (CALA) WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP) GROUP CRASH CREW OPERATIONS GROUP AIRFIELD RUNWAYS GROUP Bogue Sound GooseCreek Goose Creek Hunting Island Creek Taylor Bay Hunting Island Creek B O G U E A C C E S S R O A D H EML OCKTRAILELMCIRCLEWHITEOAKROADSASSAFRASROADMAPLELANECOTTON W O OD T R AILCHESTNUT ROADASPENROADSOURGUM TRAILBIRCHTRAILWALNUTTRAILCHINKAPIN ROADBEECHTRAILHICKORYTRAILR E C R E A TIO N ROAD B AL D CYPRESSROADRED OAK ROAD HAWTHORNROADD O G W O O D TRAILOWS-58 OWS-59 Figure 3-7 PFAS Site Inspection Areas Marine Corps Auxilary Landing Field Bogue MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina 0 700 1,400350 Feet \\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure3-07_PFAS_Bogue.mxd5/1/2022jcarr3 Legend "S Oil Water Separator Potential PFAS Source Areas Confirmed PFAS-release Site 29 Former Excavation Grids Site 29 Contamination Site 29 Former Burn Pit River/Creek Centerline Road Building Stormwater Utility Line/Drainage Ditch Wastewater Utility Line Water Utility Line Electric Utility Line ´ Imagery: Esri 2020 !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( Q U O N S E T ROAD HUT ROADGUARDROAD OXBOWROADOAK GROVEACCESS ROAD PRESCRIBEDBURN AREA FORESTRY VEHICLEPARKING AREA FARP AREA NORTH SIMULATEDAIRCRAFT TRAININGAREA WEST FARP AREA SOUTH SIMULATED AIRCRAFTTRAINING AREA EAST AIRFIELD RUNWAYSTRENT RIVERTRENT RIVER ´ 0 500 1,000 Feet Legend !(Stormwater Utility Inlet Stormwater Utility Line River/Creek Centerline Probable Groundwater Divide(Based on Topography) Road Potential PFAS Source Area Base Boundary 1 inch = 1,000 feet Figure 3-8 PFAS Site Inspection AreasMarine Corps Outlying Landing Field Oak Grove MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina \\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure3-08_PFAS_OakGrove.mxd5/1/2022jcarr3 Imagery: Esri, 2017 FES0613220646VBO 4-1 SECTION 4 Descriptions of RI/FS Sites There are currently no IRP or MRP sites in the RI/FS phase of the CERCLA process. FES0613220646VBO 5-1 SECTION 5 Descriptions of PRAP and ROD Sites There are currently no IRP or MRP sites in the PRAP or ROD phase of the CERCLA process. FES0613220646VBO 6-1 SECTION 6 Descriptions of RD and RA Sites There are currently no IRP or MRP sites in the RD and RA phase of the CERCLA process. FES0613220646VBO 7-1 SECTION 7 Descriptions of RIP and RC Sites The following subsections discuss the site histories for the 26 IRP sites and one MRP site that are in the RIP or RC phase of the CERCLA process. Remedies are in-place (e.g., recurring ISEB and ZVI injections, MNA and/or LUCs) for 16 of the IRP sites, which constitute all or portions of 6 OUs (1, 2, 3, 4, 13, and 14). Response is complete with NFA for 10 IRP sites, which form all or portions of five OUs (1, 2, 5, 6, and 15), and one MRP site. 7.1 IRP RIP Sites 7.1.1 Operable Unit 1 OU1 is an industrial area in the southern portion of MCAS Cherry Point that covers approximately 565 acres. There are 12 FFA sites within OU1 (Sites 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 42, 47, 51, 52, 83, 92, and 98), assigned on the basis of their proximity to each other within the industrialized section of MCAS Cherry Point. Six of these sites have been identified as contributing chlorinated volatile organic compound (cVOC) contamination to groundwater (Sites 42, 47, 51, 52, 92, and 98) and constitute the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume1. The boundaries of OU1 and the site locations within OU1 are shown on Figure 7-1. Eight sites within OU1 were identified in the IAS and RFA, including Sites 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 42, 51, and 52. The remaining four sites, 47, 83, 92, and 98, were identified during various subsequent studies conducted at OU1. Between January 1985 and February 1987, an Interim Remedial Investigation (IRI) was conducted at OU1 to identify contaminated sites, and included Sites 15, 16, 17, and 18. An RI and FS were recommended (NUS, 1988). An RFI was conducted for Sites 16 and 17 in 1991. A Focused RI/FS was conducted for OU1 groundwater in 1996 and identified data gaps and recommended a treatability study at Sites 16, 42, and 92, such as a bench-scale enhanced oxidation study (B&R, 1996a). An IROD for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume (B&R, 1996c) documented that a groundwater extraction and treatment (commonly called “pump-and-treat”) system be installed for groundwater remediation. This pump-and-treat system was installed in 1998. As a result of decreasing efficiency and the potential for interference with ongoing attempts to further define the nature and extent of groundwater contamination beneath OU1 by altering local groundwater gradients, the pump-and-treat system was shut down in February 2005. Quarterly and annual reports of system status and routine monitoring were submitted during the period of operation. The system components were initially left in place to allow for later reuse. Decommissioning of the system consisted of removing treatment system components, capping underground lines, and converting extraction wells into monitoring wells, and was completed in April 2014. In 1996, a pilot-scale air sparge/soil vapor extraction (AS/SVE) system was installed at Site 16 to perform groundwater remediation (B&R, 1997c). In 1997, a TCRA was conducted at Site 16 that included removal of debris piles containing asbestos, steel storage tanks, and soil contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons (OHM, 1998a). A full-scale AS/SVE system was installed in 1998 as part of an NTCRA. The MCAS Cherry Point ER Program Partnering Team agreed to shut down the AS/SVE system in February 2005 because it was not achieving the RAOs. The system components were initially left in place to allow for later reuse. In 2008, an evaluation was performed to determine the condition of the system components and the actions necessary to restore the system to operation. The evaluation revealed that the system components had degraded such that reuse without substantial equipment replacement and rehabilitation would not be possible. The major system components were removed in 2009 and the remainder of the system was decommissioned (including well abandonment) in 2011. 1 The OU1 Central Groundwater Plume has been referred to in previous documents as the “OU1 Central NADEP Groundwater Plume,” the “OU1 Central Hotspot Groundwater Plume,” or variations of both. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-2 FES0613220646VBO An RI was completed in 2002 and included all of the sites within OU1. The 2002 RI Report recommended an FS and additional ecological evaluation for OU1 (Tetra Tech, 2002b). Voluntary groundwater monitoring (VGM) was conducted at select OU1 monitoring wells on a semiannual basis in 2004 and 2005. The objectives of the VGM program were to track potential plume migration and to maintain awareness of plume configuration. The Final 2005 OU1 VGM Report was submitted in July 2006 (AGVIQ/CH2M, 2006a). A more comprehensive groundwater sampling event involving most of the monitoring wells at OU1 was conducted in April 2006. Data from this event have been reported in an OU1 RI Addendum (CH2M, 2009a). Fish tissue samples were collected from Slocum Creek adjacent to OUs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in 1998, and the results indicated no potential unacceptable risk to human health from fish tissue ingestion (Tetra Tech, 1999b). In 1999, surface water and sediment samples were collected adjacent to OUs 1, 2, 3, and 4 as part of a Screening-level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) in Slocum Creek (Tetra Tech, 2001). No consistent patterns of contamination were observed. The results indicated that ecological risks in Slocum Creek surface water and sediments from organic chemicals were low, while risks from some metals in sediments were higher. However, a decline in metals concentrations over time was noted and it was also suggested that the locations of elevated concentrations of some metals in sediments were correlated with the outfalls of the former MCAS Cherry Point sewage treatment plant (STP) as well as the Havelock STP, neither of which are part of any OUs. The SLERA Report concluded that further detailed ecological study in Slocum Creek was not necessary. The results of Step 3A of the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) presented in the 2002 OU1 RI Report (Tetra Tech, 2002b) indicated that ecological risks were present from a few organic chemicals and metals in surface soil and sediment in specific areas at OU1. A Step 3A Addendum Report was prepared in 2003 (CH2M, 2003b), and refined the ERA results from the earlier RI Report. The Step 3A Addendum identified several inorganic and organic contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) for both terrestrial and aquatic receptors and recommended that potential risk from these contaminants be evaluated in a Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA) for OU1. The Step 3A Addendum Report also identified Site 17 as a potential source of COPCs to School House Branch. It was recommended that Site 17 be excluded from the BERA and that investigation activities be conducted separately. The BERA, which was executed in May 2004 and finalized in August 2005 (CH2M, 2005c), concluded that significant ecological risk was present for aquatic, lower trophic level receptors (benthic macroinvertebrates) in Sandy Branch Tributary #2 and its adjacent flood plain areas from exposure to inorganic and organic COPCs. As recommended in the BERA, additional sampling within Sandy Branch Tributary #2 and adjacent flood plain areas was performed in March 2006 in accordance with the plan presented in the technical memorandum titled, Post-BERA Investigation Work Plan for Operable Unit 1, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina (CH2M, 2005b). The purpose of the sampling activities was to delineate the spatial extent of COPCs. Furthermore, the memorandum focused the BERA-identified COPC list to 10 chemicals or chemical groups and established preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) to apply toward an eventual sediment cleanup in the Tributary #2 system. The March 2006 Post-BERA sampling results were discussed by the MCAS Cherry Point ER Partnering Team at several meetings in 2006 and 2007. Through these discussions, a “clean-up” strategy for Sandy Branch Tributary #2 and adjacent flood plain areas was planned that would be carried out as an NTCRA. The NTCRA was intended to remove COPC-contaminated media to levels protective of at-risk ecological receptors (i.e., benthic macroinvertebrates). In preparation for the NTCRA, an EE/CA was prepared and finalized in January 2008 (CH2M, 2008a). The EE/CA compared and evaluated several removal action alternatives and formed the basis of the selection of a sediment and soil removal technique for the NTCRA. The Removal Action Work Plan was completed in May 2008 (Rhēa, 2008) and the NTCRA was conducted in June to August 2008. The Final Construction Closeout Report was submitted in June 2009 (Rhēa, 2009). A Final RI Addendum Report submitted in April 2009 updates the OU1 site conceptual model and presents the results of additional investigation activities related to the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume that have been conducted since the 2002 RI Report. A key element of the RI Addendum is better delineation of the nature and extent of cVOC groundwater contamination beneath and near Building 133. A baseline groundwater sampling event at Building 133, which was performed in advance of a treatability study to evaluate an enhanced SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-3 biodegradation technology for treating cVOCs in groundwater, indicated that the cVOC plume within Building 133 extended beyond previously delineated boundaries and had concentrations significantly higher than previously found. FS activities began for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume following the completion of the OU1 RI Addendum in April 2009; the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume FS was finalized in August 2011 (CH2M, 2011g). A vapor intrusion (VI) investigation was conducted for the Central Groundwater Plume portion of OU1 to determine if vapors emanating from the plume pose an indoor air human health risk to potential occupants of buildings situated above the plume. The VI investigation began in 2008 and was multi-phased in nature. The VI Evaluation report detailing the results of the first phase of the investigation was finalized in January 2011 (CH2M, 2011a). Based on the findings and recommendations for further investigation activities from the Phase I evaluation, the Phase II VI investigation activities were completed in May and June 2011 and the Phase II VI Investigation Report was finalized in May 2012 (CH2M, 2012d). The conclusions of the VI investigation indicated that vapor mitigation is not required for existing buildings within OU1 based on current conditions. However, the final report recommended that a performance monitoring program be included as part of the selected remedy for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume. The performance monitoring program would consist of the routine collection of subslab and indoor air samples at selected buildings in the vicinity of the plume and routine building survey updates. In addition, the final report recommended that additional VI investigation activities be conducted if either new construction is planned or if construction activities involving penetration of the foundation slab is implemented at existing buildings in the plume area. The Proposed Plan for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume sites was finalized in April 2014 (CH2M, 2014a). Two separate groundwater zones were defined as part of remedial alternative evaluation and selection: The Source Zone corresponds to areas with the highest dissolved-phase contaminant of concern (COC) concentrations (concentrations greater than 1,000 micrograms per liter [µg/L]) and the Downgradient Zone corresponds to areas with lower dissolved phase COC concentrations. The preferred remedy in the Proposed Plan consists of: • In situ enhanced bioremediation in the Source Zone • Zero-valent iron (ZVI) permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) in the Downgradient Zone • Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) and land use controls (LUCs) across both Source and Downgradient Zones • Subslab soil vapor and indoor air monitoring in selected buildings The public meeting to present the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume Sites Proposed Plan was held in May 2014 and the public review and comment period extended into June 2014. The ROD was signed on September 21, 2016. The OU1 RD was finalized in March 2018. The first OU1 Central Groundwater Plume VI long-term monitoring (LTM) field event took place in early 2016. A report documenting the results of the VI LTM field event was finalized in October 2017. Based on conclusions drawn from the VI LTM report and a recommendation in the 2017 Five-Year Review, a VI mitigation system is planned for installation in the Building 137 autoclave room. The baseline OU1 Central Groundwater Plume groundwater LTM field event was performed in 2018 prior to the northern lobe ZVI and ISEB injections, which were performed in 2019. The other FFA sites at OU1, which are not source areas for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume (Sites 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 83), are at the RA and RIP/RC stages in the CERCLA process. An NFA ROD was signed for Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40 (CH2M, 2010c) in September 2010 (see Section 7.2.1). An NFA ROD for Site 83 (Rhēa, 2012c) was signed in October 2012 (see Section 7.2.1.5). SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-4 FES0613220646VBO History – Operable Unit 1 Event Site Date IAS 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 42, 51, 52 1983 RFA 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 42, 51, 52 1988 IRI 15, 16, 17, 18 1988 Focused RI/FS 16, 42, 92 1996 Interim ROD 42,52, 92, 98 1996 Slocum Creek Fish Ingestion Report OU1 1999 RI/FS Work Plan OU1 2000 Slocum Creek SLERA OU1 2001 RI OU1 2002 ERA Step 3A OU1 2003 BERA OU1 2005 VGM OU1 2004 to 2005 EE/CA for Sandy Branch Tributary #2 2008 Action Memorandum for Sandy Branch Tributary #2 2008 Removal Action Work Plan, Sandy Branch Tributary #2 2008 RI Addendum OU1 2009 SAP – OU1 VI Investigation OU1 2009 RA Closeout Report for Sandy Branch Tributary #2 2009 Proposed Plan for Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40 OU1 2010 NFA ROD for Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40 OU1 2010 VI Evaluation Report (Phase I) OU1 2011 SAP – OU1 VI Investigation (Phase 2) OU1 2011 Implementation Plan – Near Source In Situ Enhanced Bioremediation Pilot Study OU1 2011 SAP – Near Source In Situ Enhanced Bioremediation Pilot Study OU1 2011 FS OU1 2011 VI Evaluation Report (Phase II) OU1 2012 Implementation Plan – Permeable Reactive Barrier Pilot Study OU1 2012 SAP – Permeable Reactive Barrier Pilot Study OU1 2012 Technical Memorandum: Near Source In Situ Enhanced Bioremediation Pilot Study Results OU1 2014 Proposed Plan for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume Sites 42, 47, 51, 52, 92, and 98 OU1 2014 Implementation Report – Permeable Reactive Barrier Pilot Study OU1 2015 SAP – VI LTM OU1 2015 Central Groundwater Plume ROD (Sites 42, 47, 51, 52, 92, 98) OU1 2016 Summary of the Updated HHRA – Site 16 OU1 2017 OU 1 VI, 2016 Baseline LTM Report, and Building 137 Additional Investigation OU1 2017 Site 16 ROD OU1 2017 RD for LUCs, OU1, Site 16 OU1 2018 SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-5 History – Operable Unit 1 Event Site Date RDWP for OU1, Central Groundwater Plume Sites 42, 47, 51, 52, 92, and 98 OU1 2018 Completion of Remedial Action Construction for OU1, Central Groundwater Plume – Sites 42, 47, 51, 52, 92, and 98 OU1 2019 RAWP for OU1, Central Groundwater Plume Sites 42, 47, 51, 52, 92, and 98 OU1 2020 IRACR for OU1 Site 16 OU1 2020 Building 137 VI Mitigation System Pilot Study SAP OU1 2020 Building 137 VI Mitigation System Pilot Study Work Plan OU1 2020 2018 Baseline CGWP Groundwater LTM Report OU1 2021 Building 423 Pipeline Site Inspection, OU1 – Site 47 Industrial Area Sewer System SAP OU1 2021 7.1.1.1 Site 16 – Landfill at Sandy Branch Site 16 is a former borrow pit area that was subsequently used as a dump site. The site is located in the western portion of OU1, and is bounded to the north by Sandy Branch, to the west by East Prong Slocum Creek, to the south by a wetland area and unnamed tributary to East Prong Slocum Creek, and to the east by a road off Roosevelt Boulevard. The site is currently used for storage and solid waste handling (i.e., transfer) and to store bulk materials (e.g., rip-rap, gravel, fill dirt, mulch). It is no longer used for solid waste recycling activities. There are several buildings, a cardboard compactor, and an auto impound lot located on the site. Site 16 was originally identified as being 11 acres, but aerial photographs and site reconnaissance have indicated that the site is larger (approximately 19 acres). Between 1946 and 1948, up to 20,000 gallons of waste oil, one or more 55-gallon drums of potassium cyanide, and unspecified quantities of other wastes (municipal-type refuse) were reportedly disposed of at Site 16 (Water & Air Research, 1983). Aerial photographs reportedly indicate possible dumping after 1949. Shallow groundwater contamination from VOCs and metals, found during the Technical Direction Memorandum (TDM) Phase I study, was attributed to the landfill and upgradient leaking industrial sewer lines (Halliburton NUS, 1992). The TDM Phase II study was conducted in 1994, and results indicated organic compound contamination in soil. In shallow groundwater, VOC contamination was identified in four areas (Halliburton NUS, 1994a). In 1996, a pilot-scale AS/SVE system was installed for groundwater remediation (B&R, 1997a). In 1997, a TCRA was conducted that included removal of debris piles containing asbestos, steel storage tanks, and soil contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons (OHM, 1998a). A full-scale AS/SVE system was installed in 1998 as part of an NTCRA. The Partnering Team agreed to shut down the AS/SVE system in February 2005 because it was not achieving the RAOs. In March 2005, the AS/SVE system was shut down and the Site 16 AS/SVE system closeout report was finalized in August 2006 (AGVIQ/CH2M, 2006b). The major equipment components of the AS/SVE system were removed in October 2009, with the wells retained for possible future use. The remainder of the system was decommissioned (including well abandonment) in 2011. Closeout reports for the AS/SVE system were submitted in February 2010 (Rhēa, 2010d) and May 2011 (Rhēa, 2011c). During the October 2006 meeting, the MCAS Cherry Point Partnering Team discussed the results of an analysis performed for Site 16 using the screening-level contaminant fate and transport model BIOCHLOR. The results indicated that concentration of TCE at monitoring well 16GW04 may be of concern should impacted groundwater discharge to the adjacent surface water body (East Prong Slocum Creek). To determine if the high concentration of TCE is restricted to the area around 16GW04, and whether or not the concentration is related to onsite sources, the Partnering Team agreed to conduct additional soil and groundwater sampling in the vicinity of 16GW04. The sampling event was conducted in June 2007. The results of the sampling event were included in a technical memorandum, which concluded that no potential sources of the cVOCs in groundwater had been found in soil in the vicinity of monitoring well 16GW04 (CH2M, 2008b). Beginning in August 2007, the Partnering Team SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-6 FES0613220646VBO agreed to sample monitoring well 16GW04 on a quarterly basis to monitor the levels of VOCs in the groundwater in the vicinity of the well. Subsequent to the 2007 Monitoring Well 16GW04 area investigation, the OU1 RI Addendum (CH2M, 2009a) concluded that the cVOC contamination found in 16GW04 and other areas of Site 16 was the result of the downgradient migration of cVOC contamination that is part of the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume. In June 2008, quarterly monitoring of 16GW04 was discontinued at the direction of the Partnering Team, as the well was to be further sampled as part of additional investigation activities planned for the Central Groundwater Plume. The Partnering Team also agreed in 2008 to initiate an FS for Site 16 (as part of an FS for Sites 16 and 83) to address the human health risks from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in surface soil identified in the 2002 OU1 RI (Tetra Tech, 2002a). During preliminary Site 16 and 83 FS activities, it was determined that additional investigation activities were warranted at Site 83 and the Partnering Team decided to address Site 16 separately. A Site 16 human health risk evaluation for soil was completed in May 2011 to update the HHRA performed as part of the 2002 OU1 RI that included Site 16 as part of a larger soil grouping. The 2011 risk evaluation included the earlier Site 16 soil data from the 2002 OU1 RI along with more recent soil data collected as part of the 2005 BERA. The evaluation concluded that the only scenario with potentially unacceptable risks was the future residential scenario, with arsenic being one of the major drivers of carcinogenic risk. However, arsenic concentrations in soil at Site 16 are consistent with MCAS Cherry Point background concentrations and are attributable to natural conditions. By adjusting the risk calculations to account for the naturally occurring arsenic, the hypothetical carcinogenic risk to a future resident was within the target acceptable risk range. A Supplemental RI Report prepared for Site 16 in 2012 included a summary of the investigation results and human health and ecological risk evaluations performed at Site 16. The Supplemental RI Report concluded that no further action is warranted for Site 16 and recommended that the site proceed to an NFA Proposed Plan and ROD (CH2M, 2012b). Although investigation activities at Site 16 have not revealed specific evidence of potentially unacceptable human health or ecological risks, the MCAS Cherry Point ER Partnering Team acknowledged that the full extent of potential subsurface debris at Site 16 had not been and could not be feasibly evaluated. Consequently, the Partnering Team selected a preferred remedy of LUCs for Site 16, and the Proposed Plan was finalized in September 2015 (Rhēa, 2015). A 2017 Updated HHRA recommended no further evaluation or action for soil at Site 16 (CH2M, 2017a), which was consistent with the findings of the HHRA included in the Site 16 Supplemental RI. Risk associated with soil contact by future residents is slightly above acceptable levels but is not likely considering the industrial nature of the site. The Site 16 ROD was finalized in September 2017 and signed on January 10, 2018 (Rhea, 2017). The LUC RD for Site 16 was finalized in March 2018, and the LUCs were implemented and will be maintained by the Navy and MCAS Cherry Point. The IRACR for Site 16 was finalized in 2020, documenting successful implementation of the LUC remedy (CH2M, 2020a). Existing LUCs include restricting land use to industrial purposes only and prohibiting intrusive activities below ground surface unless permitted by regulatory authorities. There is no evidence that Site 16 is contributing to the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume. Site History – Operable Unit 1, Site 16 Event Date Reported disposal of waste oils (~20,000 gallons), 55-gallon drums of potassium cyanide and municipal-type refuse at the dump area 1946-1948 Phase I/Phase II TDM 1992/1994 Installation of pilot AS/SVE system 1996 Debris pile TCRA 1997 NTCRA 1998 Installation of full-scale AS/SVE system 1998 RA Report 2000 Shutdown of AS/SVE system 2005 Site 16 AS/SVE System Shutdown Report 2006 SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-7 Site History – Operable Unit 1, Site 16 Event Date Technical Memorandum for the Results of Additional Sampling near Monitoring Well 16GW04 2008 Site 16 AS/SVE System Removal Work Plan 2009 Site 16 AS/SVE System Removal/Closeout Report 2010 Supplemental RI Report 2012 Proposed Plan for Site 16 2015 Summary of the Updated Human Health Risk Assessment – Site 16 2017 Site 16 ROD 2017 RD for LUCs, 2018 IRACR for Site 16 LUCs 2020 Future Activities The cVOCs in groundwater beneath Site 16 are being addressed as part of the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume sites since the cVOC contamination found beneath Site 16 was the result of the downgradient migration of cVOC contamination that is part of the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume rather than onsite sources. Site 16 is within the LUC boundary for LUCs implemented as part of the remedy for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume. As a result, these additional LUCs not specific to Site 16 prohibit all uses of groundwater from the surficial aquifer beneath Site 16 (except for monitoring and remediation purposes) and prohibit unauthorized intrusive activities below the water table unless prior written approval is obtained from the USEPA and NCDEQ. The LUCs at Site 16 will continue to be in effect and will remain unchanged as part of the long-term management of OU1. 7.1.1.2 Sites Contributing to the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume (Sites 42, 47, 51, 52, 92, and 98) The 1996 Focused RI/FS report identified a volatile organic compound (VOC) plume at OU1. At that time, the plume had been delineated to include the majority of the southern portion of OU1, including a small portion of Building 133. Six sites within OU1 have been identified as contributing to VOC groundwater contamination within the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume. The locations of these sites are shown on Figure7-2. These sites include: • Site 42 – Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP) • Site 47 – Industrial Area Sewer System • Site 51 – Building 137 Former Plating Shop • Site 52 – Building 133 Former Plating Shop and Ditch • Site 92 – VOCs in Groundwater near the Stripper Barn • Site 98 – VOCs in Groundwater near Building 4032 An enhanced bioremediation treatability study involving the injection of Hydrogen Release Compound (HRC) into surficial aquifer groundwater at Site 51 was initiated in 2001. The work plan for the treatability study also initially included investigation activities in portions of Sites 47 and 92; however, the treatability study targeted Site 51. Groundwater monitoring of VOCs and geotechnical parameters was conducted prior to the HRC injection in late 2001 and during six post-injection monitoring events conducted over a 1-year period. At the end of the 1-year period, the concentration of total cVOCs had been reduced more than 90 percent in the heart of the plume, but individual constituents remained at concentrations that exceeded regulatory screening criteria (CH2M, 2003c). The study concluded that additional treatment would be required to further reduce concentrations. In addition, an enhanced bioremediation treatability study involving the injection of EHC into surficial aquifer groundwater was initiated in 2005 at Buildings 137 and 133 for Sites 51 and 52, respectively. The purpose of the treatability study was to determine the effectiveness of the technique to remediate what were understood from previous investigations to be relatively small cVOC plume areas in the shallow groundwater beneath each site. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-8 FES0613220646VBO The treatability study included four post-injection monitoring events over a 10-month period. The final post- injection performance monitoring event was completed in November 2005. The results are summarized in a December 2007 Treatability Study Report (CH2M, 2007) that indicated that the EHC injection was initially effective in reducing cVOC concentrations in wells located near the injection points and that cVOC mass reduction was achieved. However, the concentrations of some of the contaminants rebounded significantly with time, in part due to under-dosing of the injected substrate as well as the likely presence of contributing cVOC sources such as dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) in the aquifer. A baseline groundwater sampling event was conducted prior to the EHC injection in December 2004 to establish pre-treatability study conditions. The results of the baseline sampling event showed that the cVOC concentrations beneath Building 133 (Site 52) were significantly higher than had been previously found, and that the cVOC plume at OU1 extended beyond the previously delineated boundaries identified in the 2002 OU1 RI. Based on these results, in spring 2005, a field investigation was conducted at Building 133, using direct-push technology (DPT) and membrane interface probe (MIP) technology to determine the extent of the groundwater plume. Soil and groundwater samples were collected using DPT, and the MIP technology was used to collect instantaneous readings of possible contamination in groundwater. The results indicated the likely presence of trichloroethene (TCE) in DNAPL form beneath Building 133. In February and March 2006, 65 monitoring wells were installed in and around Building 133, and two monitoring wells were installed near Sandy Branch Tributary #2. In April and May 2006, groundwater samples were collected from 183 monitoring wells, including the newly installed wells. In August 2008, an additional investigation was performed at OU1 to further define the horizontal and vertical extent of cVOC groundwater contamination in the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume. Five new monitoring wells were installed, and groundwater samples were collected from the new wells and five existing monitoring wells. The results from the 2006 and 2008 sampling are presented in the OU1 RI Addendum (CH2M, 2009a). A VI evaluation was initiated in 2008 to assess potential human health risks from the migration of cVOC vapors from the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume into the interiors of buildings located above the plume. The VI investigation is multi-phased in nature, proceeding in a step-wise approach to evaluate the potential indoor air VI pathway. As part of the VI evaluation, a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) was prepared in 2009 to conduct groundwater and soil gas sampling near selected OU1 buildings (CH2M, 2009b). The Phase I OU1 VI field sampling was conducted in November 2009. A VI Evaluation report that included the results of the Phase 1 field sampling was finalized in January 2011 (CH2M, 2011a). In May 2011, the Phase II VI Evaluation SAP was finalized (CH2M, 2011c) and Phase 2 field sampling was performed in May and June 2011. The Phase II VI Investigation Report was finalized in May 2012 (CH2M, 2012d) and determined that vapor mitigation is not required for existing buildings based on current conditions. It was recommended that a performance monitoring and construction planning program be incorporated into the selected remedy for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume to continue VI evaluation in the future. In accordance with this recommendation, performance monitoring began in 2016 to evaluate VI. Previous VI investigations identified TCE in indoor air within the Building 137 autoclave room. Further investigation indicated that VI in the Building 137 autoclave room was occurring through unsealed cracks in the slab and through the slab matrix (CH2M, 2017), likely due to a source present in soil beneath the slab. In April and May 2009, additional groundwater investigation activities were conducted within the Central Groundwater Plume at OU1 with two objectives: (1) to further define the horizontal and vertical extent of cVOC groundwater contamination, and (2) to provide data to further evaluate the efficacy of natural attenuation on cVOCs within the Central Groundwater Plume. Fourteen new monitoring wells were installed to address plume delineation data gaps, and a large-scale groundwater sampling event was conducted in which the 14 new wells and 160 existing wells were sampled for VOCs and natural attenuation parameters. The results of the 2009 additional investigation activities were reported in a technical memorandum in January 2010 (CH2M, 2010d) and the data were utilized in the FS for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume, which was finalized in FY 2011. Two pilot studies were completed between 2011 and 2013 to investigate the efficacy of potential groundwater remediation options to address the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume. The purpose of these pilot studies was to gather information to aid in the selection of potential remedies to address the plume and also to possibly SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-9 contribute in the Remedial Design phase. The first was a field-scale pilot study to evaluate the site-specific effectiveness of in situ enhanced bioremediation downgradient of Building 133 near the source of the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume. This pilot study also generated critical data necessary for the optimization of full- scale implementation following remedy selection. It included the installation of 14 injection wells (seven nested pairs, each consisting of one upper surficial and one lower surficial aquifer well) along a “biobarrier” alignment, the installation of five monitoring wells (two upper surficial and three lower surficial aquifer wells), the injection of reagents (i.e., emulsified vegetable oil and a bioaugmentation culture), and post-injection performance monitoring via five rounds of groundwater sampling and analysis. The Pilot Study Implementation Plan (CH2M, 2011c) and SAP (CH2M, 2011d) were finalized in March 2011, and pilot study field activities were completed in June 2011. Post-injection groundwater monitoring activities were completed in 2013 and the results of the pilot study are documented in a technical memorandum finalized in April 2014 (CH2M, 2014b). The pilot study demonstrated that an in situ enhanced bioremediation biobarrier is a suitable remedy component for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume. TCE concentration reductions of over 90 percent were achieved at individual wells in the upper surficial aquifer, while TCE reductions in the lower surficial aquifer reached 56 percent. The pilot study also generated critical information regarding full-scale implementation issues such as pH buffering, optimal injection well spacing, and methane gas generation. A second pilot study began in 2011 to construct a PRB containing ZVI in the downgradient portion of the Central Groundwater Plume near East Prong Slocum Creek. The Implementation Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan for the PRB pilot study were finalized in May 2012 (CH2M, 2012e, 2012f). The primary objective of the pilot study was to evaluate the site-specific effectiveness of a PRB for reducing COC concentrations in the downgradient portion of the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume in order to be protective of surface water and sediment in East Prong Slocum Creek from discharging groundwater. A secondary objective was to determine if currently available trenching and PRB installation technology could achieve a target depth of 45 feet at MCAS Cherry Point. The PRB installation, site restoration, and installation of additional monitoring wells for PRB performance monitoring were completed in August and September 2012. The PRB is approximately 600 feet in length and consists of a combination of ZVI and sand. Post-PRB installation performance monitoring activities began in fall 2012 and continued through 2013. The results of the PRB pilot study are documented in the Pilot Study Implementation Report finalized in May 2015 (CH2M, 2015). The pilot study demonstrated that a ZVI PRB is a suitable remedy component for protection of downgradient surface water bodies from impacted groundwater of the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume. Significant reductions of COCs were observed downgradient of the PRB in the surficial aquifer. However, the pilot study revealed that 35 feet is the maximum-attainable trenching and installation depth at the site using currently available technology. The Proposed Plan for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume sites was finalized in April 2014 (CH2M, 2014a). The selected remedy consists of in situ enhanced bioremediation in the upgradient source zone, two ZVI PRBs in the downgradient zone, MNA and LUCs across the full extent of the plume, and subslab soil vapor and indoor air monitoring in selected buildings for ongoing evaluation of potential VI. The ROD was signed on September 21, 2016 (CH2M, 2016a). The RD for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume sites was finalized in March 2018 (CH2M, 2018b). LTM of groundwater began in April 2018. The in situ enhanced bioremediation (ISEB) and Northern Lobe ZVI barrier were installed in 2019. The RA Work Plan for the ISEB and Northern Lobe ZVI barrier were finalized in 2020, after implementation of the remedy components (TetraTech, 2020). A Construction Completion Report was completed in FY 2021 to document the ISEB and ZVI installation. Performance monitoring associated with the ISEB barrier and Northern Lobe ZVI barrier was performed in 2019 – 2020, and an OU1 Central Groundwater Plume IRACR was completed in FY 2022 to document the RIP. During a valve replacement project near Building 423, within OU1 Site 47, that required excavation of the valve and adjacent pipe, it was discovered that a section of the pipeline was corroded. Because of the corrosion, wastewater in the pipeline could have discharged directly to the surrounding soil. A Building 423 pipeline investigation was performed in FY 2022 to determine if the corroded section of pipeline caused a release to the soil and/or groundwater. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-10 FES0613220646VBO Construction and startup of the Building 137 vapor intrusion mitigation system pilot study was performed in FY 2022. Future Activities A report documenting the results of the performance monitoring performed in 2019 and 2020 is anticipated to be finalized in FY 2023. Continued monitoring of the Building 137 vapor intrusion mitigation system will occur in FY 2023, and a pilot study summary report is anticipated to be finalized in FY 2024. A technical memorandum discussing the field event and laboratory analytical results of the Building 423 (Site 47) pipeline site investigation is planned to be finalized in FY 2023. Closure of the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume sites will be attained when groundwater and VI concerns at each of the sites and throughout the extent of the plume have been addressed and the RAOs have been achieved. Individual Site Descriptions The site history, previous studies, COCs, and RAs that have occurred to date for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume sites are discussed in the following subsections. Site 42 – Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant The IWTP is near the center of OU1, north of A Street, with a former discharge location south of an unnamed tributary to Sandy Branch. Site 42 specifically consists of the soil and groundwater around the IWTP structure (SWMU C-4). Wastes streams in the Industrial Area Sewer System (Site 47) discharge to the IWTP, which currently discharges treated effluent to the Air Station STP. Sludge from the IWTP was formerly disposed of by landfilling or lagoon storage (e.g., OU2, Site 10) (Water & Air Research, 1983). The RFA indicated that the IWTP was used to treat wastes from industrial sources such as metal plating, painting, aircraft maintenance, vehicle maintenance, and stormwater from bermed containment areas (A. T. Kearney, 1988). A pump-and-treat system was installed in 1998 to remediate the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume, and the treatment components of this system were located at the IWTP. As a result of decreasing efficiency and the potential for interference with ongoing attempts to further define the nature and extent of groundwater contamination beneath OU1 by altering local groundwater gradients, the groundwater pump-and-treat system was shut down in February 2005. The system components were initially left in place to allow for later reuse. Decommissioning of the system consisted of removing treatment system components, capping underground lines, and converting extraction wells into monitoring wells, and was completed in April 2014. Site History – Operable Unit 1, Site 42 Event Date Construction of IWTP 1957 Upgrades to IWTP 1968, 1972, 1992, and 1998 Sludge stockpiled or land-applied 1957 to 1980s* Wastewater Treatment Facility Assessment 1991 Pump-and-treat system installed 1998 RA Report 1999 Shutdown of pump-and-treat system 2005 Decommissioning of pump-and-treat system 2014 Note: * The end date for the sludge stockpiling/land application activities has not been documented. It is estimated that these activities ended in the 1980s, based on documentation of an IWTP upgrade in the early 1990s. It is also documented that sludge was disposed of offsite as early as 1992. SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-11 Site 47 – Industrial Area Sewer System Site 47 is a system of underground pipes and aboveground drains that transfer industrial wastewater from various parts of the facility to the IWTP or STP (A. T. Kearney, 1988). Portions of the sewer system were constructed in 1942; the system has been expanded several times to connect facilities that formerly discharged to the sanitary or storm sewer systems. Site 47 only includes the industrial sewers within OU1 that currently discharge to the IWTP. These sewers extend along A Street from Building 130 and Tank Farm A northeast of OU1 to Building 4225 in the southwestern portion of OU1. Industrial processes that currently or historically created wastewater discharge to the sewer system include metal plating, metal finishing, solvent degreasing, paint stripping, painting, fuel storage, fueling, aircraft washing, and general maintenance. Concentrated wastes are no longer discharged to the industrial sewers but are containerized and transported to the IWTP. Leaks have been detected at several locations within the sewer system in the past. Inspections and repairs are conducted as part of the facility’s ongoing maintenance process. An infiltration and leakage study was conducted at Site 47 in 1993 to identify the sewer segments to be repaired or replaced. Soil and groundwater samples were collected to determine if contamination had leaked from the segments (Halliburton NUS, 1993a). As a result of these studies, certain segments of the sewer system have been repaired. Site History – Operable Unit 1, Site 47 Event Date Construction of the industrial sewer system 1942 Leaks detected in pipes and drains, which carried industrial wastewater, from metal plating, metal finishing, solvent degreasing, paint stripping, painting, fuel storage, fueling, aircraft washing and general maintenance activities Ongoing Infiltration and Leakage Study 1993 Site 51 – Building 137 Former Plating Shop Site 51 is a former plating shop that was located within Building 137 inside Fleet Readiness Center East (FRCE), in the central portion of OU1. The Plating Shop operated from 1942 to 1990 and consisted of an area of approximately 4,000 square feet that included a 3-foot-deep sump for containment of spillage and tank overflows. The area has been cleaned and renovated, and an autoclave has been constructed over a portion of the former plating shop. The wastes generated in the plating shop consisted of plating solution overflow and rinse water containing zinc and chromium that were discharged to the sump. The sump was constructed of steel and set into the concrete pit, which was covered with wooden grating. Concrete piers were present in the sump so that tanks and equipment could be mounted above the sump. The sump discharged to the industrial sewer system (Site 47) until 1987, when the sump was plugged, and the plating shop converted to a closed-loop system. From then until the plating shop was moved in 1990, wastes were transported to the IWTP (Site 42) in containers for batch treatment. Site History – Operable Unit 1, Site 51 Event Date Wastes at the site include plating solution overflow and rinse water containing zinc and chromium. 1942–1990 RFI Trip Report 1991 90% Completion Report 1993 RA Report 1996 HRC Treatability Study Work Plan 2001 HRC Treatability Study (Injection) 2001 HRC Treatability Study Technical Memorandum 2004 EHC Treatability Study Work Plan 2004 SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-12 FES0613220646VBO Site History – Operable Unit 1, Site 51 Event Date EHC Treatability Study (Injection) 2005 EHC Treatability Study Report 2007 Site 52 – Building 133 Former Plating Shop and Ditch Site 52 is a former plating shop that was located within Building 133 in FRCE, in the central portion of OU1. The plating shop operated from 1942 to 1990 and consisted of an area of approximately 2,000 square feet that included a 2.5-foot-deep sump for containment of spillage and tank overflows. The wastes generated in the plating shop consisted of plating solution overflow and rinse water that discharged to the sump. The sump was constructed of steel and set into the concrete pit, which was covered with wooden grating. Concrete piers were present in the sump so that tanks and equipment could be mounted above the sump. The sump wastes discharged to a former open stormwater ditch behind Building 133 prior to the installation of the industrial sewer system (Site 47). This former ditch was believed to route stormwater and wastewater to the north of Building 133 and discharge into Sandy Branch Tributary #2. An addition constructed on the southeastern side of the building subsequently covered this ditch. Following the construction of the addition, the sump discharged to the industrial sewer system (Site 47) until 1987, when the sump was plugged, and the plating shop converted to a closed-loop system. From then until the plating shop was moved in 1990, wastes were transported to the IWTP (Site 42) in containers for batch treatment. The plating shop area has been cleaned and renovated and is currently used to process and store nonhazardous parts and supplies. The 1983 IAS identified the drainage ditch along Runway 5 as Site 15 and indicated that it was the ditch described as having received wastewater discharges from Building 133. However, former FRCE employees have indicated that the ditch that received Building 133 wastewater discharges was actually the former ditch that is now covered by an addition to Building 133 and surrounding pavement. The IAS indicated that wastes generated in FRCE were reportedly washed down floor drains in Building 133 that discharged to this drainage ditch; some solid materials were also reportedly dumped along the edge of the ditch. These wastes likely included petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL), organic solvents, cyanides, and metals. Site History – Operable Unit 1, Site 52 Event Date Approximately 200,000 to 250,000 gallons per day of wastes (POL, organic solvents, cyanides, and metals) generated in FRCE were washed down floor drains that discharged to the drainage ditch 1940s to 1975 Plating solution overflow and rinse water 1942–1990 RFI Trip Report 1991 90% Completion Report 1993 RA Report 1996 EHC Treatability Study Work Plan 2004 EHC Treatability Study (Injection) 2005 EHC Treatability Study Report 2007 Site 92 – VOCs in Groundwater near the Stripper Barn Site 92 is a plume of cVOC-contaminated groundwater near the Stripper Barn portion of Building 137, in the central portion of OU1. The area around the site is covered with buildings and concrete, and portions of the industrial sewer system (Site 47) are located beneath and around the Stripper Barn. SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-13 The Stripper Barn is the area where paint is removed from aircraft. In the past, large quantities of solvent were used to remove paint; during the paint removal process, spent solvent flowed into the industrial sewer system. The current paint removal method requires approximately 90 percent less solvent, and spent solvent is captured for proper disposal. Any historical spills that occurred outside the building may have flowed toward storm drains located northeast of the Stripper Barn. Site History – Operable Unit 1, Site 92 Event Date Leaking underground industrial sewer lines Unknown RA Report 1999 Long-term Action Plan Pump-and-Treat/IWTP 2002 Site 98 – VOCs in Groundwater near Building 4032 Site 98 is a small plume of VOC-contaminated groundwater near Building 4032, located southeast of the IWTP in the central portion of OU1. Site 98 was discovered by MCAS Cherry Point during an investigation of USTs at Building 4032 in 1994 and was identified as a new site for inclusion in the FFA in 1999. The area around the site is paved with some grassy areas. Site History – Operable Unit 1, Site 98 Event Date VOC-contaminated groundwater (source unknown) Unknown Site Check 1995 Relative Risk Ranking (RRR) 1995 7.1.2 Operable Unit 2 Background OU2 is located in the west-central portion of MCAS Cherry Point and covers approximately 104 acres. OU2 is bounded by the STP and OU3 to the north, Roosevelt Boulevard to the east, a residential area to the south, and Slocum Creek to the west. There are three FFA sites grouped within OU2 because of their proximity to the Old Sanitary Landfill (Site 10): • Site 10 – Old Sanitary Landfill • Site 46 – Polishing Ponds No. 1 and No. 2 • Site 76 – Vehicle Maintenance Area (Hobby Shop) The location and boundaries of OU2 and the site locations within OU2 are shown on Figure 7-3. The IAS conducted in 1983 identified Site 10. Site 46 (Polishing Ponds No.1 and No. 2) was identified in the RFA conducted in 1988, and the RRR identified Site 76 (Vehicle Maintenance Area [Hobby Shop]) in 1995. Between 1984 and 1987, an IRI was conducted to identify contaminated sites and included the collection of soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, and leachate seep samples and aquifer testing at Site 10. Contamination, primarily VOCs, was verified in the shallow groundwater, soil, and sediment. For the RFI conducted between 1989 and 1991, soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment samples were collected, and a soil-gas survey and aquifer testing were conducted at Site 10 based on data gaps identified from previous investigations (NUS, 1991). The Phase I TDM conducted in 1992 included magnetometer survey, soil sampling, and the excavation of test pits (Halliburton NUS, 1992). Additional test pits and/or soil borings were recommended to further delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of soil contamination, primarily VOCs and metals, in the area just south of Turkey Gut. During the Phase II TDM, a terrain conductivity survey, additional test pit excavation, and soil sampling were SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-14 FES0613220646VBO conducted. No further investigation of soils was recommended just south of Turkey Gut based on low concentrations and localized contamination found in soil. Additional soil borings were recommended in the central portion of the landfill to further delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of soil contamination, primarily VOCs and metals (Halliburton NUS, 1994a). An RI for OU2 was conducted in 1994 and 1995, and included borehole geophysical logging; soil, groundwater, surface water, leachate seep, and sediment sample collection; and surface water level monitoring (B&R, 1997c). The RI concluded that groundwater in the surficial aquifer was contaminated with a wide range of organic contaminants (VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds [SVOCs], and pesticides) and metals. In addition, there were several VOC “hot spot” areas of soil contamination identified. An FS was recommended to evaluate potential RAs. Remedial alternatives for OU2 were evaluated in the FS (B&R, 1997c), presented in the PRAP (B&R, 1996b), and finalized in the ROD for OU2 (Tetra Tech, 1999a). The selected remedy included natural attenuation of groundwater, SVE at four Site 10 soil “hot spots,” institutional controls (ICs), and LTM of groundwater, surface water, and sediment to ensure the effectiveness of natural attenuation. LUCs were established for all or portions of the three sites, which restrict site use to industrial use only, restrict access to certain areas with installed fences and signs, prohibit intrusive activities, and prohibit groundwater use (CH2M, 2002c). The Land Use Control Assurance Plan (LUCAP) elements in place at OU2 are listed in Table 7-1 and shown on Figure 7-3. In 1996, an SVE pilot study was conducted, and in 1997 a full-scale SVE system to treat soil at four Site 10 soil “hot spot” areas was installed. According to the Five-Year Review conducted at MCAS Cherry Point in 2002, the SVE system had been operating as designed since March 1998; VOC mass removal continued to occur at significant rates in Hot Spots 1 and 3, while little to no removal was observed at Hot Spots 2 and 4 (CH2M, 2002c). The Five-Year Review also indicated that soil hot spots existed outside of the area of influence of the system and recommended that additional investigation activities be conducted, and alternate remedial technologies be evaluated. The SVE treatment of the soil hot spots was discontinued in August 2003 because the system was no longer removing significant contaminant mass and was not performing as a cost-effective remedial approach. Quarterly and annual reports of system status and routine monitoring were submitted during the period of operation. A Work Plan was finalized in April 2010 for the removal of the equipment and components of the SVE system (Rhēa, 2010c). The system removal was completed in April 2010 and a Construction Closeout Report was finalized in July 2010 (Rhēa, 2010e). Fish tissue samples were collected from Slocum Creek adjacent to OUs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in 1998, and the results indicated no unacceptable risk to human health from fish tissue ingestion (Tetra Tech, 1999b). In 1999, surface water and sediment samples were collected adjacent to OUs 1, 2, 3, and 4 as part of a SLERA in Slocum Creek (Tetra Tech, 2001). No consistent patterns of contamination were observed. The results indicated that ecological risks in Slocum Creek surface water and sediments from organic chemicals were low, while risks from some metals in sediments were higher. However, a decline in metals concentrations over time was noted and it was also suggested that the locations of elevated concentrations of some metals in sediments were correlated with the outfalls of the former MCAS Cherry Point STP as well as the Havelock STP, neither of which are part of any OUs. The SLERA report concluded that further detailed ecological study in Slocum Creek was not necessary. In December 2006, the Cherry Point Partnering Team agreed that there was no CERCLA contamination related to Site 46 within OU2. Consequently, the polishing ponds were removed from the LUC boundaries for OU2 (see Section 7.2.2). As discussed in Section 7.1.1.2, soil sampling conducted at the Site 10 hot spots between 2004 and 2008 revealed that the soil in Hot Spots 1, 3, and 4 were below the applicable screening criteria. However, an area of soil contamination remained at Hot Spot 2 above North Carolina Soil Screening Levels (NC SSLs). A Focused FS that evaluated additional remedial alternatives for soil at Hot Spot 2 and a Proposed Plan were both finalized in 2011. The preferred alternative included the installation of a soil cover over the portion of Hot Spot 2 where soil concentrations exceeded screening criteria. An OU2 ROD Amendment was signed in September 2011 documenting the remedy selection, and the soil cover was installed in early 2012. SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-15 Annual LTM of groundwater began in October 2002. In 2007, LTM sampling at OU2 was changed from an annual to a quarterly basis. An effort to evaluate and optimize the OU2 LTM program based on the findings to date was completed in May 2011. The LTM Evaluation recommended changes to the OU2 LTM program for groundwater and surface water monitoring for team consideration. A new LTM SAP documenting the changes to the OU2 LTM program was finalized in May 2012 (CH2M, 2012g), and the new OU2 LTM program began in late FY 2012. During the 2017 Five-Year Review (CH2M, 2018a) the following issues were identified for OU2: • Chlorobenzene exceeded the residential groundwater North Carolina VI screening level during groundwater LTM sampling events at OU2. • The selected remedy for OU2 does not address potential VI concerns related to future building construction. A recommendation was made to amend the LUCs to include the evaluation of VI potential prior to beginning any construction or building modification and to document this LUC amendment in a ROD Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD). A ROD ESD was finalized in FY 2020 to document the modified LUC boundaries (CH2M, 2020b). Site History – Operable Unit 2 Event Site Date POL, solvents, and sludge disposed of at Old Sanitary Landfill 10 1950s to 1980s Hydrogeologic and Geotechnical Analysis OU2 1981 IAS OU2 1983 RFA 10, 46 1988 IRI OU2 1988 Groundwater Assessment OU2 1988 Evaluation of Sludge Impoundment Area OU2 1991 RFI OU2 1991 Phase I TDM OU2 1992 Phase II TDE OU2 1994 PRAP OU2 1996 RI OU2 1997 FS OU2 1997 SAP OU2 1997 Basis of Design Report for SVE System 10 1997 SVE Work Plan 10 1997 O&M Plan for SVE 10 1998 ROD OU2 1999 LTM RA Plan OU2 1999 RA Report OU2 1999 RD Work Plan for Baseline LTM OU2 1999 Slocum Creek Fish Ingestion Report OU2 1999 LUCAP OU2 2003 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Status Report OU2 2000, 2001 RD/RA Report OU2 2001 Slocum Creek SLERA OU2 2001 RA Report OU2 2002 Long-term RA Report OU2 2002 LTM Work Plan OU2 2002 SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-16 FES0613220646VBO Site History – Operable Unit 2 Event Site Date LTM Annual Report OU2 2003 Site 10 SVE System shut down 10 2003 Technical Memorandum, January 2004 SVE Hot Spot Area sampling 10 2004 2003 LTM Report OU2 2005 Technical Memorandum, April 2005 SVE Hot Spot Area sampling 10 2005 2004 LTM Report OU2 2005 Technical Memorandum, January 2006 SVE Hot Spot Area sampling 10 2006 2005 LTM Report OU2 2006 Technical Memorandum, November 2006 re: Site 10 Hot Spot 2 Soil Delineation 10 2007 2006 LTM Report OU2 2007 2007 LTM Report OU2 2008 2008 LTM Report OU2 2009 2009 LTM Report OU2 2010 Site 10 SVE System Decommission Work Plan 10 2010 LTM Evaluation OU2 2011 2010 LTM Report OU2 2011 2011 LTM Report OU2 2011 OU2 ROD Amendment 10 – Hot Spot 2 2011 LTM SAP OU2 2012 2012 LTM Report OU2 2013 2013 LTM Report OU2 2014 2014 LTM Report OU2 2014 2015 LTM Report OU2 2015 2016 LTM Report OU2 2017 2017 LTM Report OU2 2018 2018 LTM Report OU2 2018 OU2 ROD ESD OU2 2020 OUs 2, 4, and 14 LTM SAP OU2 2021 Spring 2020 LTM Report OU2 2021 Future Activities LTM will continue until it is confirmed that the constituents detected in groundwater do not exceed the performance standards identified in the ROD (CH2M, 2002b). A summary of the wells sampled at OU2 as part of the ongoing LTM program is included in Table 7-2. The updated groundwater LTM SAP, which includes OU2, OU4, and OU14, that was finalized in FY 2021 will be implemented in FY 2023 (late calendar year 2022). LUCs remain in place across the area of OU2, as documented in Table 7-1 and shown on Figure 7-3. SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-17 7.1.2.1 Site 10 – Old Sanitary Landfill Site 10, the Old Sanitary Landfill, is approximately 40 acres and is located west of Roosevelt Boulevard, south of the STP (Site 43), and east of Slocum Creek. Site 10 is divided by Turkey Gut, a small perennial stream that flows northwest into Slocum Creek. The site consists of a sanitary landfill, former sludge impoundments, and a former drum storage area that was used to store petroleum products. The former drum storage area is currently used to store miscellaneous equipment and is fenced and covered with gravel. Site 10 served as the primary landfill at MCAS Cherry Point beginning in 1955. Before the late 1970s, all landfilling activities were carried out south of Turkey Gut. Subsequently, landfilling operations also occurred north of Turkey Gut. Landfill operations ceased at Site 10 in the early to mid-1980s. Industrial wastes reportedly disposed of in the landfill included POLs, solvents, and sludge. The quantity of wastes is unknown but is estimated to be thousands of tons. Hazardous liquids and POLs were also spread on the landfill surface and burned, deposited in unlined pits on the south side of Turkey Gut, and buried at the landfill. After the OU2 SVE system was shut down in 2003, periodic (roughly annual) soil sampling commenced at Site 10, Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4. Soil sampling occurred in January 2004, April 2005, January 2006, and November 2006. The January 2004 sampling results indicated that soil VOC concentrations at Hot Spots 1 and 4 were below the screening criteria and these hot spots were removed from further annual sampling. The April 2005 sampling results indicated that VOCs in soils at Hot Spot 3 were below the screening criteria, and this hot spot was also removed from the annual sampling. The January 2006 sampling results defined specific VOCs that exceeded the screening criteria at Hot Spot 2, and further sample analyses at Hot Spot 2 were restricted to these analytes. The November 2006 Hot Spot 2 sampling results indicated several VOCs that exceeded screening criteria. Based on these results, the MCAS Cherry Point ER Program Partnering Team agreed to conduct additional soil sampling in order to further delineate the soil contamination within Hot Spot 2. Samples were collected in July and December 2007. These samples did not successfully delineate the contamination, and additional samples were collected in 2008 to complete Hot Spot 2 investigation activities. Since OU2 has a ROD in place, a Focused FS (FFS) that evaluated additional remedial alternatives for soil at Site 10, Hot Spot 2 was finalized in February 2011 (Rhēa, 2011a). The Proposed Plan for Site 10, Hot Spot 2 was finalized in April 2011 (Rhēa, 2011b). The preferred alternative presented in the Proposed Plan included the installation of a soil cover over areas of Hot Spot 2 where soil concentrations exceeded NC SSLs to prevent direct exposure and limit infiltration and migration of soil/waste contamination to groundwater. The preferred alternative also included groundwater monitoring to ensure protection of Slocum Creek from groundwater discharge to surface water. The OU2 ROD Amendment was signed in September 2011 (Rhēa, 2011d). LUCs established under the 1999 ROD for OU2, which restrict site use to industrial use only, restrict access to certain areas with installed fences and signs, prohibit intrusive activities, and prohibit groundwater use, apply to the entire area of Site 10 and were not changed by the 2011 Amended ROD. In preparation for the implementation of the soil cover remedy at Hot Spot 2, a RD/RA Work Plan was prepared and finalized in December 2011 (Rhēa, 2011e). The soil cover was successfully installed at Site 10, Hot Spot 2, in January and February 2012. The Construction Closeout Report documenting the soil cover installation was finalized in August 2012 (Rhēa, 2012b). The IRACR documenting the soil cover remedy for Site 10, Hot Spot 2 was finalized in December 2012 (Rhēa, 2012d). Site History – Site 10, Hot Spot 2 Event Date Focused FS 2010 Site 10 SVE System Construction Closeout Report 2010 Proposed Plan 2011 Amended ROD 2011 RD/RA Work Plan 2011 SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-18 FES0613220646VBO Event Date Soil Cover Installation 2012 Construction Closeout Report – Site 10 RA 2012 IRACR 2012 Future Activities LUCs that include all of Site 10 remain in place. LTM activities at OU2 will continue until it is confirmed that the constituents detected in groundwater do not exceed the performance standards identified in the ROD (CH2M, 2002b). 7.1.2.2 Site 76 – Vehicle Maintenance Area (Hobby Shop) Site 76 is a fenced area located south of Site 10 and consists of a garage building and parking lot where personal vehicles are repaired. The area covers approximately 250 feet by 250 feet and is bounded to the west by a wooded area adjacent to Slocum Creek, a residential area to the east, Site 10 to the north, and a wooded area to the south. Site 76 is the only site at OU2 that is currently active. Ongoing site activities include general auto maintenance and auto body repair. Based on a review of historical aerial photographs, the Site 76 area was developed between 1958 and 1964. LUCs established under the 1999 ROD for OU2, which restrict site use to industrial use only, restrict access to certain areas with installed fences and signs, prohibit intrusive activities, and prohibit groundwater use, apply to the entire area of Site 76 with the exception of the area restricted with fences and signs. Site History – Operable Unit 2, Site 76 Event Date General Auto Maintenance 1960s to present RRR 1995 Future Activities LUCs that include the area of Site 76 remain in place. LTM activities at OU2 will continue until it is confirmed that the constituents detected in groundwater do not exceed the performance standards identified in the ROD (CH2M, 2002b). 7.1.3 Operable Unit 3 7.1.3.1 Background OU3 is located in the west-central portion of MCAS Cherry Point and covers approximately 19 acres. OU3 is bounded by Slocum Road to the north, the STP and OU2 to the south, Slocum Creek to the west, and an adjacent wooded area to the east. OU3 consists of two FFA sites (Site 6 – Fly Ash Ponds and Site 7 – Old Incinerator and Adjacent Area) that were grouped into one OU because of their proximity and common waste types. The location and boundaries of OU3 and the site locations within OU3 are shown on Figure 7-4. Sites 6 and 7 were identified in the IAS conducted in 1983. Between 1984 and 1987, an IRI was conducted that included groundwater sampling at Site 6. In 1991 and 1993, soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment samples were collected at Sites 6 and 7 as part of the 21-unit RFI. During 1992, soil and groundwater samples were collected as part of the 10-Unit TDM. Recommendations included additional soil sampling to evaluate the presence or absence of combustion byproducts such as PAHs; groundwater, surface water, and sediment sampling; and evaluation of the interaction between groundwater, surface water, and sediment and the lime/alum ponds (Halliburton NUS, 1993b). SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-19 An RI was conducted from 1994 to 1996, and included the collection of soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment samples; borehole geophysical logging; and surface water level monitoring. Analytical results for Site 6 indicated that this area has been relatively unaffected by fly ash disposal activities or incineration/burning at Site 7; however, minimal residual material remained onsite. The COCs at OU3, as documented in the IROD signed in 1996 (B&R, 1996f), are PAHs and metals in soil, and benzene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 2-methylnaphthalene, and metals in groundwater. Fish tissue samples were collected from Slocum Creek adjacent to OUs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in 1998; the results indicated no unacceptable risk to human health from fish tissue ingestion (Tetra Tech, 1999b). In 1999, surface water and sediment samples were collected adjacent to OUs 1, 2, 3, and 4 as part of a SLERA in Slocum Creek (Tetra Tech, 2001). No consistent patterns of contamination were observed. The results indicated that ecological risks in Slocum Creek surface water and sediments from organic chemicals were low, while risks from some metals in sediments were higher. However, a decline in metals concentrations over time was noted and it was also suggested that the locations of elevated concentrations of some metals in sediments were correlated with the outfalls of the former MCAS Cherry Point STP as well as the Havelock STP, neither of which are part of any OUs. The SLERA report concluded that further detailed ecological study in Slocum Creek was not necessary. Remedial alternatives for OU3 were evaluated in the FS (B&R, 1996d), presented in the PRAP (B&R, 1996b), and finalized in the ROD for OU3 (Tetra Tech, 2000). The selected sitewide RA for OU3 was monitored natural attenuation (MNA) and ICs for groundwater, and air sparge and ICs for soil (OHM, 1998b). The boundaries of the various LUCs in place at OU3 are listed in Table 7-1. A final IRACR was submitted in September 2007 and documented the attainment of the soil remedial goals. Annual LTM of groundwater began in October 2002. In 2007, the LTM sampling frequency at OU3 was increased to a quarterly basis and in 2010 the sampling frequency was reduced to every third quarter (9 months). In 2011, LTM sampling was discontinued when the constituents detected in groundwater no longer exceeded the performance standards identified in the ROD for four consecutive sampling events (CH2M, 2002a). The final RACR was submitted in April 2012 (CH2M, 2012c) and documented that the RA for OU3 has met the RAOs stated in the ROD. Site History – Operable Unit 3 Event Date IAS 1983 RFA 1988 IRI 1988 21-unit RFI 1993 10-unit TDM 1993 PRAP 1996 RI 1996 FS 1996 IROD 1996 RA Report 1998 SAP 1999 RD Work Plan for Baseline LTM 1999 Slocum Creel Fish Ingestion Report 1999 O&M Plan 2000 LTM RA Plan 2000 RA Report 2000 ROD 2000 LUCAP 2003 SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-20 FES0613220646VBO Site History – Operable Unit 3 Event Date O&M Status Report 2001 RD/RA Report 2001 Slocum Creek (SLERA) 2001 LTM Work Plan 2002 LTM Report 2003 LTM Annual Report 2003 LTM Quarterly Sampling Tech Memo 2004 2003 LTM Report 2005 2004 LTM Report 2005 2005 LTM Report 2006 2006 LTM Report 2007 IRACR 2007 2007 LTM Report 2008 2008 LTM Report 2009 2009 LTM Report 2010 2010 LTM Report 2011 RACR 2012 Future Activities The LUCs at OU3 will continue to be in effect and will remain unchanged as part of the long-term management of OU3. 7.1.3.2 Site 6 – Fly Ash Ponds Site 6 formerly consisted of three unlined ponds bounded by Slocum Creek to the west, Luke Rowe’s Gut to the south, and Slocum Creek Road to the north and east. The ponds covered approximately 2.5 acres and were approximately 10 to 15 feet deep. The ground surface west of the former pond locations slopes steeply to approximately 5 feet amsl, giving way to a flat and heavily vegetated area adjacent to Slocum Creek. There are wetland areas adjacent to Slocum Creek and Luke Rowe’s Gut, and a portion of the site lies within the 100-year flood plain of Slocum Creek. Fly ash and cinders from the old power plant were disposed of in the ponds from the 1940s until about 1970. The ponds were then reportedly used for the disposal of lime/alum sludge from the potable water treatment plant from December 1980 until the new water treatment plant became operational in mid-1994. It was also reported that up to 5,000 gallons of waste POLs were disposed of in the ponds (Water & Air Research, 1983). A review of historical aerial photographs indicated that the ponds were not constructed until the late 1950s. Earlier aerial photographs indicate the presence of a natural pond and/or shallow depressions. The third pond appeared in an aerial photograph from 1978 (B&R, 1996e). In 1996, as part of the closure of the Air Station water treatment plant, the ponds at Site 6 were removed. This non-Environmental Restoration, Navy (ER,N) funded effort was accomplished by solidifying and excavating the pond sludge, removing piping and debris, leveling the berms, and re-vegetating the site. The site was revegetated with pine seedlings in 1996 by MCAS Cherry Point personnel as part of a “Longleaf Pine Initiative” to return the land to its natural state (OHM, 1998b). LTM began in October 2002 and was discontinued in 2011 when it was confirmed that the constituents detected in groundwater no longer exceeded the performance standards defined in the OU3 ROD. SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-21 Site History – Operable Unit 3, Site 6 Event Date Disposal of fly ash and cinders 1940s to 1970 Solidification and excavation of pond sludge, removal of piping and debris, berm leveling 1996 Re-vegetation of site 1996 Future Activities The LUCs at Site 6 will continue to be in effect and will remain unchanged as part of the long-term management of OU3. 7.1.3.3 Site 7 – Old Incinerator and Adjacent Area Site 7 formerly consisted of an incinerator and open burning ground that covered approximately 5 acres. It is bounded by the STP to the south and east, Luke Rowe’s Gut to the north, and Slocum Creek to the west. The former incinerator was reportedly located adjacent to Luke Rowe’s Gut in the eastern part of the site. The open burning area was reportedly south of Luke Rowe’s Gut near its confluence with Slocum Creek. From the 1940s until approximately 1955, waste POLs, FRCE wastes, and other wastes (including municipal refuse) were burned in the incinerator or on the adjacent open burning grounds. Fly ash disposal and open burning were suspected in the western portion of Site 7. The fly ash is believed to have originated from the incinerator and was reportedly mixed with other wastes. Fly ash was also found in the eastern portion of the site in some places. Aerial photographs indicate that the incinerator was removed between 1981 and 1984. As part of the selected remedy at Site 7, a fence and warning signs were installed, and soil samples were collected (OHM, 1998b). In 2000, an air sparge system was installed for enhanced bioremediation of a localized area of soil contamination. According to the 2002 Five-Year Review, the AS system at Site 7 was in operation 90 percent of the time and was generally functioning as designed. Based on the February 2001 soil sampling results, it was noted that the extent of benzene contamination in soil at Site 7 extended beyond the radius of influence of the current AS system to the southwest and northeast (OHM, 2000). As a result, additional AS points were installed to address the extended area of contamination. Based on soil and groundwater monitoring results indicating that the AS system had effectively remediated the soil hot spot, the AS system was shut down in mid-2003 (CH2M, 2003a). The MCAS Cherry Point Partnering Team agreed in October 2006 to remove the components of the AS system at Site 7, as it was not anticipated that any future use would be required. The AS system was removed in May 2007. LTM began in October 2002 and was discontinued in 2011 when it was confirmed that the constituents detected in groundwater no longer exceeded the performance standards defined in the OU3 ROD. Site History – Operable Unit 3, Site 7 Event Date Waste POLs, FRCE wastes and municipal wastes burned in incinerator and in open burning grounds 1940s to 1953 Work Plan for AS System 1999 AS System Installation 2000 LTM RA Report—AS 2002 RA Report 2002 Annual Report 2003 Shutdown of AS System 2003 Removal/Demolition of AS System 2007 Site 7 AS System Removal After Action Report 2007 SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-22 FES0613220646VBO Future Activities The LUCs at Site 7 will continue to be in effect and will remain unchanged as part of the long-term management of OU3. 7.1.4 Operable Unit 4 7.1.4.1 Site 4 – Borrow Pit/Landfill OU4 consists of one FFA site, Site 4, and is located in the northwest-central portion of MCAS Cherry Point and covers approximately 130 acres. Site 4 is a Borrow Pit/ Landfill North of Runway 14 and is bounded by Mill Creek to the south and west, Access Road to the north, and Duffy Road to the east. The location and boundaries of OU4 are shown on Figure 7-5. Site 4 consists of several borrow pits that were used for waste disposal, as well as a fenced and lined drum storage area that is located in the north-central portion of the site. Site 4 was identified in the IAS and RFA, which indicated that the borrow pits were initially excavated in the 1940s. The borrow pits had been excavated to a depth below the water table, and a drain was reportedly cut to Slocum Creek. The disposal of construction and demolition debris and asbestos waste began in the 1950s. Other wastes, including wastes from FRCE, may have also been disposed of at Site 4; however, no records were maintained on the types or amounts of wastes. The date that disposal activities ceased at the site is not known (Water & Air Research, 1983). The majority of historical activities at Site 4 took place in the western portion of the site, where the borrow pits used for waste disposal were located. The area was permitted in 1997 as an active land clearing and inert debris landfill and is currently used for recycling of unpainted/untreated wood, yard waste, and inert construction debris. The drum storage area, located in the northeastern corner of OU4, was visible in the 1988 aerial photograph. The area is now used for the storage of new material for FRCE. Sampling was conducted between 1984 and 1987 as part of an IRI. During the 21-unit RFI, VOCs were found in groundwater. A 10-Unit TDM was conducted in 1992. Elevated lead concentrations were found during the RI in Mill Creek sediments in the eastern part of Site 4. Subsequent investigation revealed that the lead concentrations increased upstream from OU4 and were greatest near an inactive skeet and trap range located to the northeast. It was concluded that the lead in Mill Creek sediments did not originate from site activities at OU4, but from the skeet and trap range. Because the lead originated from military munitions at an operational military range, it was determined that the lead was not a RCRA solid waste or the result of a release regulated under CERCLA. The range is being addressed by the MCAS Cherry Point EAD, and an investigation of lead contamination on the inactive range has been performed. Therefore, USEPA and NCDEQ agreed to remove the lead from consideration as a COC in the OU4 remedy selection process. Fish tissue samples were collected from Slocum Creek adjacent to OUs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in 1998 and the results indicated no unacceptable risk to human health from fish tissue ingestion (Tetra Tech, 1999b). In 1999, surface water and sediment samples were collected adjacent to OUs 1, 2, 3, and 4 as part of a SLERA in Slocum Creek (Tetra Tech, 2001). No consistent patterns of contamination were observed. The results indicated that ecological risks in Slocum Creek surface water and sediments from organic chemicals were low, while risks from some metals in sediments were higher. However, a decline in metals concentrations over time was noted and it was also suggested that the locations of elevated concentrations of some metals in sediments were correlated with the outfalls of the former MCAS Cherry Point STP as well as the Havelock STP, neither of which are part of any OUs. The SLERA report concluded that further detailed ecological study in Slocum Creek was not necessary. The Navy and MCAS Cherry Point initiated VGM in October 2003 to monitor VOC and SVOC concentrations that were found to exceed State groundwater quality standards during the RI. VGM was conducted on a semiannual basis in 2004 and 2005 and continued beginning in 2006 as LTM as part of the selected remedy in the OU4 ROD. In 2007, the LTM sampling frequency changed to a quarterly basis. In 2012, the sampling frequency was returned to semiannual. SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-23 The Final FFS for OU4 was submitted in May 2004. The OU4 PRAP was finalized in April 2005, followed by the Final OU4 ROD, which was signed in September 2005 (CH2M, 2005d). The OU4 ROD identified two COCs: 1,1,2,2- tetrachloroethane and benzene (CH2M, 2006a). The Selected Remedy includes MNA and LUCs for groundwater. The LUCs limit exposure to groundwater by prohibiting the use of surficial aquifer groundwater, except for monitoring. The RD was finalized in April 2006. The LUC elements implemented at OU4 are listed in Table 7-1 and are shown on Figure 7-5. A summary of the wells that are sampled at OU4 as part of the LTM program is included in Table 7-2. An IRACR for OU4 was signed in October 2006, which signified that the LUCS are in place and have been recorded in the appropriate documents. The RA includes both LUCs and MNA of groundwater for wells that have shown concentrations of COCs above North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standards (NC2L). To address persistent benzene concentrations detected above North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standards in the monitoring well that is sampled as part of LTM activities at OU4, the Navy conducted additional investigation activities in the vicinity of this monitoring well to delineate the extent of benzene in groundwater and to collect some soil samples. A SAP for this investigation was finalized in June 2010 (Rhēa, 2010f) and the investigation activities were conducted in three phases between July 2010 and March 2011. Benzene was detected in groundwater above the NC2L during all three events but was not detected in any of the soil samples. The results of the investigation were reported in a Technical Memorandum submitted in September 2011 (Rhēa, 2011f) that recommended investigating the feasibility of in situ groundwater treatment via sulfate injection to accelerate the anaerobic degradation of benzene. Additional soil and groundwater samples were collected from the site in November 2011 for use in a bench-scale treatability study to evaluate the injection substrate Electron Acceptor Solution (EAS) as a means to stimulate anaerobic biodegradation of dissolved-phase benzene at OU4. Target iron and sulfate reducing bacteria that are necessary for a successful bench-scale treatability study were not detected in groundwater or soil samples. During the January 2012 partnering meeting, the Partnering Team decided to discontinue the bench-scale study and continue with the original MNA remedy, given that the maximum benzene concentrations were relatively low, and the plume did not appear to be migrating based on the LTM data. The team also decided to add a newly installed monitoring well, 4GW10, to the current LTM well network and to reduce the sampling frequency from quarterly to semiannually. Site History – Operable Unit 4, Site 4 Event Date Disposal of demolition and asbestos wastes 1950s, 1982 to mid-1990s Permitted landfill, used for recycling of untreated wood, yard waste and inert construction waste 1997 to present IAS 1983 RFA 1988 IRI 1988 21-unit RFI 1993 10-unit TDM 1993 Slocum Creek Fish Ingestion Report 1999 RI/FS Work Plan 1999 Slocum Creek SLERA 2001 RI 2002 VGM 2003 to 2005 FS 2004 PRAP 2005 ROD 2005 RD 2006 SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-24 FES0613220646VBO Site History – Operable Unit 4, Site 4 Event Date LTM Sampling 2006 to present May 2006 LTM Report 2006 IRACR 2006 Annual 2006 LTM Report 2007 Annual 2007 LTM Report 2008 Annual 2008 LTM Report 2009 2009 LTM Report 2010 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Additional Investigation Activities 2010 2010 LTM Report 2011 Additional Investigation Activities Technical Memorandum 2011 2011 LTM Report 2012 2012 LTM Report 2013 2013 LTM Report 2014 2014 LTM Report 2015 2015 LTM Report 2016 2016 LTM Report 2017 2017 LTM Report 2018 2018 LTM Report 2019 Spring 2020 LTM Report 2021 OUs 2, 4, and 14 LTM SAP 2021 LTM Optimization Tech Memo 2022 Future Activities The LUC elements implemented at OU4 (Table 7-1) remain in place and are shown on Figure 7-5. Ongoing LTM will continue until it is confirmed that the constituents detected in groundwater do not exceed the performance standards defined in the OU4 ROD (CH2M, 2006a). A summary of the wells that are sampled at OU4 as part of the LTM program is included in Table 7-2. The next OU4 LTM event is planned for FY 2024 (late calendar year 2023). Remedy optimization alternatives are currently being considered to accelerate site cleanup. 7.1.5 Operable Unit 14 7.1.5.1 Site 90 – Building 130 VOC-contaminated Groundwater OU14 consists of one FFA site, Site 90, and consists of a plume of groundwater contaminated with cVOCs that was first identified near Building 130, which is used as a hangar. It is located in the west-central portion of the MCAS Cherry Point flightline complex, and consists of a broad expanse of concrete tarmac, buildings, taxiways, and some grassy areas adjacent to Runway 14L. The location and boundaries of OU14, Site 90, are shown on Figure 7-6. Prior to the RI completed in 2008 (CH2M, 2008c), there had been no ER Program investigations or remedial activities specific to Site 90; however, numerous groundwater samples were collected as part of investigations of the abandoned aviation fuel pipelines in the Building 130 area. All releases from pipelines and associated USTs and above-ground storage tanks are managed by and under investigation by the MCAS Cherry Point UST Program. SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-25 In July 1994, soil and groundwater samples were collected in the Site 90 area to support a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) project. The purpose of the investigation was to identify contamination that may require cleanup before the demolition of existing structures and site preparation required for construction of facilities in support of anticipated base realignment; Building 130 was designated as BRAC Site 7. The study indicated that VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, metals, and low levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were present in soil and groundwater near Building 130. No significant risks were identified; however, the report stated that remediation was needed for soils impacted with TPH above State criteria (Halliburton NUS, 1994b). Between January and March 1995, soil and groundwater samples were collected as part of a Site Assessment. The focus of the study was the abandoned underground aviation fuel line system. The results indicated TPH contamination in soil and a broader distribution of contamination types in groundwater. The data appeared to indicate that multiple releases of jet and gasoline-grade fuels had occurred at several different locations over time in the area. The presence of free product petroleum was also observed beneath the western end of Building 130 (Law Engineering, 1995). In June 1995, soil and groundwater samples were collected and aquifer testing was performed as part of a Site Assessment addendum. The study was conducted to further evaluate the extent of petroleum free-product accumulation, the extent of soil and groundwater contamination, and to assess the potential for human exposure to subsurface contaminants. TPH and VOC contamination in the soil was found. The groundwater data suggested that while most of the contamination was located along the abandoned fuel piping along Sixth Avenue, multiple releases of jet and gasoline-grade fuels had occurred at several different locations over time in the area. Further investigation of the extent of dissolved-phase groundwater contamination upgradient and downgradient of Building 130 was recommended. In 2000, groundwater samples were collected at Site 90 as part of the OU1 RI, and petroleum-related compounds and cVOCs were detected in groundwater (Tetra Tech, 2002b). Based on these groundwater results, it was decided that Site 90 be addressed separately from OU1 as part of a new Operable Unit, OU14, and an RI for OU14, Site 90 was initiated in 2001 with the preparation and regulatory approval of the RI Work Plan. Phase I fieldwork for the RI was completed in October 2002 and included groundwater and soil sampling. The Phase I results, and the results of independent groundwater sampling for cVOCs conducted by the UST Program, indicated that the cVOC plume in the Hangar 130 area extended further downgradient than previously thought. Consequently, a Phase I RI Interim Report was prepared that recommended that a Phase II investigation be performed to determine the full extent of the cVOC plume in the surficial aquifer (CH2M, 2003e). The Phase II RI investigation consisted of the sampling of approximately 60 monitoring wells along the flightline area extending from Site 90 to the northwest and was performed in October 2003. Based on the results of the Phase II investigation findings, a Phase III investigation was recommended. The Phase III investigation was conducted in April 2005, which included monitoring well installation and additional sampling. The Final Phase II Interim Report was submitted in June 2005. During initial examination of the Phase III RI results, it was determined that data gaps still existed with regard to potential surface water and sediment contamination in the drainage ditch to the northwest of OU14. Based on the data gaps, a SLERA was conducted for OU14 (Site 90) as part of the ongoing Phase III RI. Because the area that includes Site 90 is industrialized and is comprised of paved surfaces (e.g., runways, taxiways, aircraft parking areas) and buildings, there was no habitat or ecological resources present within the site boundaries that were addressed as part of the SLERA. Instead, aquatic receptors in a downgradient stream (water column biota and benthic macroinvertebrates) were evaluated for potential risk from exposure to cVOC-contaminated groundwater originating from Site 90 that could possibly discharge to surface water and sediment of the stream. This perennial stream, which is an unnamed tributary of Mill Creek, is approximately 1,400 feet long and 1,000 feet northwest of Site 90. Surface water and sediment samples were collected in April 2006, and the SLERA was performed in June 2006 in accordance with NCDENR Guidelines for Performing Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessments within the North Carolina Division of Waste Management (NCDENR, 2003), as well as applicable USEPA and Navy guidance (USEPA, 1997; CNO, 2003; NAVFAC, 2004). The SLERA concluded that contaminated groundwater is not SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-26 FES0613220646VBO contributing significant levels of contaminants of potential ecological concern to the downgradient aquatic habitat and no further ecological investigation is warranted for OU14. The Final OU14 RI Report was submitted in December 2008 and includes the results of the human health and ecological risk assessments. Based on an evaluation of the data collected during all phases of the RI, including historical data, cVOC contamination is limited to surficial aquifer groundwater, while petroleum UST-related contamination is prevalent throughout the site in soil and surficial aquifer groundwater. The Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) results showed no risks above acceptable ranges from exposure to surface water, sediment, or groundwater from the Yorktown Aquifer. With respect to surficial aquifer groundwater, the HHRA results indicated potentially unacceptable risks for hypothetical future potable water use by an adult resident (iron), future child resident (benzene, arsenic, iron, and manganese), and lifetime resident (vinyl chloride and arsenic). No risks or hazards above acceptable ranges were identified for the construction worker, current/future industrial worker, or an adult/ adolescent trespasser/visitor. The results of the VI screening showed no indication of the need to mitigate vapor issues under current industrial exposures, based on a comparison of estimated indoor air concentrations to occupational exposure limits. The evaluation showed a potential risk (potential carcinogenic risk greater than 1×10-6) from inhalation of estimated vapor concentrations of 1,2-dichloroethane, benzene, TCE, and vinyl chloride vapors by the current/future industrial worker (onsite workers) and the future resident. However, only estimated benzene vapor concentrations exceeded the upper limit of the acceptable carcinogenic risk range of 1×10-4 and non-carcinogenic hazard index (HI) of 1. Not considering vapor concentrations of chemicals currently used at Site 90 and its vicinity, estimated potential benzene and vinyl chloride vapor concentrations resulting from groundwater contamination are expected to exceed North Carolina’s Ambient Air Quality Limits (North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15A, Subchapter 2D; NC2D) for annual exposure to carcinogens in all scenarios. However, because of the nature of screening vapor evaluations, the exceedances were qualified as potentially overstated. No COPCs exceeded the occupational exposure limits—that is, no immediate action is needed for current OU14 site workers or for future workers at any location under current occupational exposure conditions. Based on the results documented in the RI Report, it was recommended that an FS be completed to evaluate remedial alternatives to address potential human health risks (calculated in HHRA and exceedances of NC2L Groundwater Standards) related to cVOCs in the surficial aquifer groundwater. Remedial alternatives for petroleum contamination are under the purview of the UST Program. The OU14 FS report was submitted and finalized in 2009 (CH2M, 2009c). The VI screening indicated a need for further evaluation of the VI pathway to refine the understanding of the potential pathway for future onsite industrial workers and future residents if new buildings or structures are to be built. Therefore, indoor air vapor issues will be evaluated in the future, if necessary, prior to construction of new buildings. Remedial alternatives for groundwater would indirectly address vapor issues. The Proposed Plan for OU14 was completed in April 2009 (CH2M, 2009d); the selected remedy was MNA for groundwater and LUCs to address groundwater and potential VI issues. The public meeting to present the OU14 Proposed Plan was held in May 2009 and the public review and comment period extended into June 2009. The Final ROD for OU14 was submitted in August 2009 (CH2M, 2009e) and was signed on September 28, 2009. The RD for the LUC portion of the selected remedy was finalized in March 2010 (CH2M, 2010a). This RD defines the LUC boundaries for OU14 and describes how LUCs will be implemented and enforced. The LUC elements implemented at OU14, Site 90, are listed in Table 7-1 and are shown on Figure 7-6. The MNA portion of the remedy was implemented in stages, commencing with a baseline round of groundwater monitoring to establish initial groundwater conditions at the time of remedy implementation and to provide additional data to allow the optimal placement of additional monitoring wells to complete the network for LTM going forward. The SAP for the baseline round of LTM was finalized in September 2010 (CH2M, 2010e) and the sampling activities were completed in June 2010. Following the evaluation of the data from this sampling event, additional LTM monitoring well locations were recommended and an LTM SAP for OU14 was finalized in June SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-27 2011 (CH2M, 2011f) and revised in April 2014 (CH2M, 2014c). The LTM program at OU14 consists of annual groundwater sampling from 70 surficial aquifer monitoring wells to evaluate the progress of the MNA groundwater remedy (Table 7-2). The first annual round of LTM groundwater sampling was conducted in June 2011. The LTM Report presenting the first round of LTM results was finalized in May 2012 (CH2M, 2012h). An IRACR for OU14 was prepared to document the implementation of the RA (LUCs and MNA of groundwater) and the establishment of RIP. The IRACR was finalized in June 2011 (CH2M, 2011e). Groundwater plume status and indoor air/VI issues were evaluated in 2015. Since then, the LUC boundaries have been updated and are shown on Figure 7-6. Site History – Operable Unit 14, Site 90 Event Date VOC-contaminated groundwater Unknown Site Characterization and Evaluation Report for BRAC 1994 Site Assessment Report 1995 Site Assessment Addendum 1996 RI Work Plan 2002 Phase I RI Interim Report 2003 Phase II RI Interim Report 2005 RI 2008 FS 2009 Proposed Plan 2009 ROD 2009 RD for LUCs 2010 SAP for Baseline Round of LTM 2010 LTM SAP 2011 IRACR 2011 2011 LTM Report 2012 2012 LTM Report 2013 2013 LTM Report 2014 SAP Revision 1 for Groundwater LTM 2014 2014 LTM Report 2015 2015 LTM Report 2016 2016 LTM Report 2017 2017 LTM Report 2018 2018 LTM Report 2019 LTM Optimization Tech Memo 2021 OUs 2, 4, and 14 LTM SAP 2021 Spring 2020 LTM Report 2021 Future Activities Ongoing LTM will continue until it is confirmed that the constituents detected in groundwater do not exceed the performance standards defined in the OU14 ROD. A summary of the wells that are sampled at OU14 as part of the LTM program is included in Table 7-2. The updated SAP and recommendations in the Remedy Optimization technical memorandum will be implemented in FY 2023 (late calendar year 2022). Note that there are ongoing SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-28 FES0613220646VBO and future facility funded military construction projects within the OU14 LUC boundary which have the potential to impact the LTM activites along with their associated deliverables. 7.2 IRP RC Sites 7.2.1 OU1 NFA Sites (Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 83) A complete description of OU1, a listing of its 12 associated FFA sites, and the environmental history of OU1 is presented in Section 6.1. The sites described in the following subsections are the remaining five FFA sites within OU1 for which the MCAS Cherry Point Partnering Team agreed that NFA was required. Four of these sites (14, 15, 17, and 18) were addressed in an NFA Proposed Plan (Rhēa, 2010a) and an NFA ROD (CH2M, 2010c) that was signed in September 2010. The NFA Proposed Plan for Site 83 was finalized in March 2012 (Rhēa, 2012a) and the NFA ROD (Rhēa, 2012c) was signed in October 2012. See Figure 7-1 for the site locations. 7.2.1.1 Site 14 – Motor Transportation Site 14 is located in the central portion of OU1 at the intersection of C Street and Second Avenue (Figure 7-1) and is bisected by Curtis Road. Site 14 is approximately 9 acres and is flat and covered with asphalt and gravel. The area and buildings are used for parking lots, wash racks, and vehicle maintenance. The unpaved area adjacent to Building 157 is used for heavy equipment storage and the paved area adjacent to Building 160 is used to store motor pool vehicles. According to an employee, waste oil was applied to the unpaved parking lots for dust control in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1977, a spill of approximately 2,000 gallons of aviation fuel, most likely JP-5, occurred at Building 160. In April 1994, as part of a SWMU Assessment Report (SAR), MCAS Cherry Point collected soil samples for oil and grease analysis in response to the previously unreported release of waste oil to the unpaved parking lots (USMC, 1994). Two additional soil samples were collected in 1997 and analyzed for organic compounds (except pesticides/ polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]) and metals. The SAR recommended surfactant placement on the ground surface. The results of the 2002 OU1 RI activities included the detection of lead in soil at concentrations above background, which may have been the result of the application of waste oil on the site for dust control or related to the UST sites (Tank Farm C) within the Site 14 boundary. Lead was found in groundwater; however, it was likely the result of leaking gasoline storage tanks and not the result of lead leaching from the soil. A site closure request letter, dated October 4, 2002, was sent to NCDEQ, which stated that the CERCLA program would address cVOC compounds at Tank Farm C. The MCAS Cherry Point Partnering Team agreed in December 2006 that the area within the boundary of Site 14 had been closed under the UST program. Additionally, it was agreed that the cVOC groundwater contamination below the area of a former UST program remediation system, south of the ER Program Site 14 boundary and outside the Tank Farm C boundary, would be addressed under CERCLA. In 2007, the MCAS Cherry Point Partnering Team agreed that no further investigation activities were required for Site 14. Site 14 was addressed in an NFA Proposed Plan (Rhēa, 2010a) and NFA ROD (CH2M, 2010c) that included Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40. The NFA ROD for these sites was signed in September 2010. Site History – Operable Unit 1, Site 14 Event Date Application of waste oil to unpaved parking lots 1950s and 1960s Spill of ~2,000 gallons of aviation fuel (most likely JP-5) at Building 160 1977 Removal of fuel and contaminated soil 1977 SAR 1994 Proposed Plan for Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40 2010 NFA ROD for Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40 2010 SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-29 7.2.1.2 Site 15 – Ditch and Area Behind FRCE (Formerly Naval Aviation Depot) Site 15 is located along the southeastern edge of OU1 and was described in the IAS as an unpaved 25-acre area between FRCE and a drainage ditch adjacent to Runway 5 (Figure 7-1). In 2008, the MCAS Cherry Point Partnering Team agreed that no further investigation activities were required for Site 15. Site 15 was addressed in an NFA Proposed Plan (Rhēa, 2010a) and NFA ROD (CH2M, 2010c) that included Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40. The NFA ROD for these sites was signed in September 2010. Site History – Operable Unit 1, Site 15 Event Date VSI 1983 Proposed Plan for Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40 2010 NFA ROD for Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40 2010 7.2.1.3 Site 17—DRMO Drainage Ditch Site 17 is a drainage ditch, approximately 300 feet long, located in the southeastern portion of OU1, next to the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) (Figure 7-1). The ditch discharges to the storm sewer drainage system. Water flows to the east toward the Runway 5 Ditch then southwest to Schoolhouse Branch and ultimately into East Prong Slocum Creek. The adjacent 1-acre area was historically used for material storage that included dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), spent photographic fluid after silver recovery, and PCB-containing transformers. POL was reportedly used for dust control in the storage yard. It was reported that transformers were infrequently drained into the ditch from 1961 to 1968 (Water & Air Research, 1983). A removal action was conducted in 1995 to remove PCB-contaminated soil and sediment. Confirmation samples collected during the removal action indicated that the PCB-contaminated soil had been excavated. However, the 2002 OU1 RI indicated the possibility that PCB-contaminated soil above the 10 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) action level still existed at Site 17 (Tetra Tech, 2002b). Additional investigation activities were conducted in August 2008 to either confirm that concentrations of PCBs and the pesticide dieldrin are below regulatory screening criteria or indicate that the earlier removal action was inadequate and additional remedial action is warranted. The results indicated that PCB concentrations in soil were below the 10 mg/kg action level. For dieldrin, soil concentrations were below earlier results from the same locations, but 4 out of 6 samples exceeded the NC SSL of 1.13 micrograms per kilogram. In groundwater, 4 of 10 temporary well samples contained Aroclor-1260 in excess of the federal Maximum Contaminant Level of 0.5 µg/L and 2 of 6 samples contained dieldrin in excess of the NC2L of 0.0022 µg/L. It was concluded that the dieldrin in soil and groundwater was the result of Basewide pesticide applications rather than a site-specific release. With regard to PCBs, a new, permanent monitoring well was installed at Site 17 in April 2009, and a groundwater sample was collected in May 2009 and analyzed for PCBs. No PCBs were detected in the sample, and the MCAS Cherry Point Partnering Team agreed at the May 2009 partnering meeting that no further action was necessary at Site 17. Site 17 was addressed in an NFA Proposed Plan (Rhēa, 2010a) and NFA ROD (CH2M, 2010c) that included Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40. The NFA ROD for these sites was signed in September 2010. Site History – Operable Unit 1, Site 17 Event Date 300-ft drainage ditch located adjacent to a 1-acre storage area adjacent where DDT, photographic fluid (after silver recovery), and transformers containing PCBs were stored. Transformers were drained into the ditch, and PCB spills occurred at the site when transformers were drained. POL was reportedly used for dust control at the site. 1961 to 1968 Removal Action 1995 Supplemental Investigation Field Activities 2008 SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-30 FES0613220646VBO Site History – Operable Unit 1, Site 17 Event Date Supplemental Investigation Report 2009 Proposed Plan for Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40 2010 NFA ROD for Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40 2010 7.2.1.4 Site 18—Facilities Maintenance Compound Site 18 is a fenced outdoor storage area approximately 0.5-acre in size located in the southwest corner of OU1 (Figure 7-1). The site is bounded by Schoolhouse Branch to the south, a railroad track to the west and north, and Cunningham Boulevard to the east. The area was historically used for transformer storage. Minor occasional leaks of PCB-laden fluid had been reported, but no specific quantities were documented (Water & Air Research, 1983). Transformers were stored on a bermed concrete pad. During the field investigation for the Remedial Investigation Interim Report (NUS, 1988), no PCBs were detected in the soils. NFA was recommended at Site 18 (NUS, 1988). In 2007, the MCAS Cherry Point Partnering Team agreed that no further investigation activities were required for Site 18. Site 18 was addressed in an NFA Proposed Plan (Rhēa, 2010a) and NFA ROD (CH2M, 2010c) that included Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40. The NFA ROD for these sites was signed in September 2010. A small area of cVOC groundwater contamination north of Site 18 is not related to the site and is being addressed as part of the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume. Site History – Operable Unit 1, Site 18 Event Date Transformer storage area – occasional leaks of PCB-laden fluid at the site Not specified Proposed Plan for Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40 2010 NFA ROD for Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40 2010 7.2.1.5 Site 83 – Building 96 Former Pesticide Mixing Area Site 83 is a former pesticide mixing area, approximately 1 acre in size, located in the southwest portion of OU1, near Site 16 (Figure 7-1). Two former buildings were located at the site, Building 96 (former pesticide shop) and Building 418, with a corrugated metal roof joining the two buildings. A bermed concrete wash rack was located adjacent to Building 418. A drain from the wash rack and a nearby catch basin drain formerly discharged in the area of a steep bank to the west that leads to a wetland located in Site 16 and adjacent to East Prong Slocum Creek. The area around former Building 96 is covered by asphalt/concrete with a grassy area to the west. This area is relatively flat until the edge of the steep slope to the west leading to the wetland. Building 96 was constructed before 1948 and was reportedly used as a pesticide mixing and storage area from 1965 to 1981, when a new pesticide shop (SWMU S-12) was built across Roosevelt Boulevard. Building 96 was subsequently used for equipment storage and administrative space until 1997. The buildings have since been removed, and in early 2006 the concrete foundation and pad of Building 96 were removed during a non-CERCLA demolition project. Geotextile was placed over the former foundation location and covered with gravel. Site 83 was first identified by MCAS Cherry Point in 1997. A SAR was conducted in 1998 that included the collection of soil, groundwater, and sediment samples. Groundwater and soil contamination was identified, and additional investigation of Site 83 was recommended as part of the comprehensive evaluation of OU1 (B&R, 1998). Soil samples that were collected from the Site 83 area during the 2002 OU1 RI were found to have elevated levels of inorganics, PAHs, and pesticides. In early 2009, the MCAS Cherry Point Partnering Team agreed to conduct additional investigation activities at Site 83 to confirm earlier results and to further delineate the extent of pesticide contamination in soil and groundwater. Following the finalization of an approved SAP for the additional SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-31 investigation activities, the field investigation was conducted in August 2009. A report of the findings of this investigation was finalized in May 2010 (Rhēa, 2010b). An additional assessment of human health risk based on the findings of the Site 83 supplemental investigation was conducted in 2010 and concluded that for both current and potential future land use, Site 83 does not pose unacceptable health risks to the any of the evaluated receptors. Subsequently, a Supplemental RI Report was prepared that included a summary of the investigation results and human health and ecological risk evaluations performed at Site 83. The Site 83 Supplemental RI Report was finalized in May 2011 (CH2M, 2011b) and concluded that no further action is warranted for Site 83 and recommended that the site proceed to an NFA Proposed Plan and ROD. The NFA Proposed Plan for Site 83 was finalized in March 2012 (Rhēa, 2012a) and the NFA ROD (Rhēa, 2012c) was signed in October 2012. Vegetation clearance during the 2009 supplemental investigation exposed significant erosion caused by stormwater flow on the steep bank leading from the former pesticide shop location down toward the wetland area adjacent to East Prong Slocum Creek. Gullies and erosion channels had developed at various points along the slope of the bank, creating an ongoing erosion problem. In October 2012, an erosion control and vegetation restoration project was completed at Site 83. Approximately 2,600 tons of fill material was placed along the bank to create a slope ratio of 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical. Nearly half of the fill material was reclaimed from soil excavated during the OU1 PRB pilot study in August 2012 (see Section 5.1.1.2), after chemical testing of the excavated soil to determine its suitability for use as fill material. Three shallow swales to transport stormwater flow from the top to the base of the restored bank were created, and a soil berm was constructed between the swales to restrict stormwater flow to these channels. The bank as well as the swales were underlain with a synthetic cellular confinement material (i.e., geogrid) for reinforcement. The swales were topped with erosion- resistant gravel and energy-dissipating rip rap was placed at the bottom of each swale at the toe of the bank. Outside of the swales, the berm and the slope of the bank were topped with topsoil and re-seeded; approximately 115 trees were also planted on the slope. The Construction Closeout Report documenting the bank restoration activities was finalized in March 2013 (Rhēa, 2013a). Site History – Operable Unit 1, Site 83 Event Date Use as a pesticide mixing area 1965-1981 SAR 1998 SAP – OU1, Site 83 Additional Investigation Activities 2009 Field Investigation 2009 Site Soil Investigation Report 2010 Supplemental RI Report 2011 Proposed Plan 2012 ROD 2012 Construction Closeout Report – OU1, Site 83 Restoration 2013 7.2.2 OU2 Site 46 – Polishing Ponds No.1 and No. 2 A complete description of OU2 is presented in Section 7.1.2. OU2 Site 46 is located to the north of Site 10, and consists of two inactive, unlined ponds (Figure 7-3). The ponds are approximately 12 feet deep and formerly served as wastewater aeration basins for the STP from 1942 until 1996. The treated wastewater was discharged to Slocum Creek via a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)-permitted outfall. The STP was upgraded and no longer requires the use of the ponds for aeration. The ponds have been retained for potential stormwater management in the future, and concurrence will be obtained from the USEPA and NCDEQ before use of these inactive ponds. MCAS Cherry Point submitted a Closure Plan for this site to the State of North Carolina in December 1988. USEPA Region 4, which formerly had primacy, agreed to waive the closure requirements, allowing the ponds to be addressed under the NCDEQ RCRA authority. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-32 FES0613220646VBO Due to the previous RCRA activities at Site 46 and its proximity to other sites, Site 46 was incorporated into the ER Program LUCs for OU2. In December 2006, the Cherry Point Partnering Team agreed that there was no CERCLA contamination related to Site 46 and that the polishing pond footprints could be removed from the LUC boundaries for OU2. The LUC related to prohibition of groundwater use was retained for the small land area in between the polishing ponds and Slocum Creek (see Figure 7-3), as documented in a letter from NAVFAC Mid- Atlantic to USEPA dated May 19, 2008. Site History – Operable Unit 2, Site 46 Event Date Wastewater aeration basins 1942-1996 Removal of polishing ponds from OU2 LUC boundaries; retention of the small area in between the polishing ponds and Slocum Creek within the LUC boundaries for the prohibition of groundwater use 2008 7.2.3 Operable Unit 5 7.2.3.1 Background OU5 is located in the northeastern portion of MCAS Cherry Point. OU5 consists of two FFA sites, 1 and 2, that were grouped into one operable unit because of their proximity, history, and common waste types. Site 19 (Borrow Pit/Landfill North of Runway 32) was formerly part of OU5 but was transferred to OU13 because the site is closer to the other OU13 sites. The location and boundaries of OU5 are shown on Figure 7-7. Sites 1 and 2 were identified in the IAS and RFA. Between 1985 and 1987, groundwater samples were collected at Site 1 as part of an IRI to identify contaminated sites. The IRI concluded that groundwater had not been affected by historical waste practices at Sites 1 and 2, and that no further investigation was recommended (NUS, 1988). A 21 Unit RFI was conducted in 1991 that included groundwater sampling. No releases to groundwater were confirmed; however, seepage was observed, and as a result, it was not possible to conclude that there had not been any releases from the borrow pits. Therefore, additional groundwater monitoring and sampling of surface water and sediment surrounding the sites were recommended (Halliburton NUS, 1993a). During the OU5 RI investigation, soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment samples were collected. The RI results did not indicate any significant risks to human health or the environment; however, VOC concentrations slightly exceeded State groundwater standards in several monitoring wells. The RI was finalized in August 2005. The Navy and MCAS Cherry Point initiated VGM in October 2003 at OU5 to monitor VOC concentrations found to exceed State groundwater quality standards during the RI field investigation. VGM was conducted on a semiannual basis into 2006, when the LTM program that is part of the remedy specified in the OU5 ROD replaced it. In 2007, the sampling frequency for LTM changed to a quarterly basis. The Final RI for OU5 was submitted in August 2005. The FFS was finalized in October 2005. The Final OU5 PRAP was submitted in November 2005. The OU5 ROD was finalized in May 2006 and signed July 21, 2006. It was determined that NFA was necessary at Site 1; therefore, the ROD only addresses an RA at Site 2. Three COCs were identified at OU5 in a single monitoring well: TCE, vinyl chloride, and benzene (CH2M, 2006b). The Selected Remedy for Site 2 included MNA for groundwater and LUCs to limit exposure to and prohibit the use of surficial aquifer groundwater, except for monitoring. Upon finalization of the ROD, the RD for OU5 was completed in October 2006 and outlined the implementation of MNA and LUCs at Site 2. An IRACR for OU5 was signed in September 2008, which documented that the LUCS were in place and were recorded in the appropriate documents. LTM was discontinued in 2011 after all COC concentrations in four consecutive rounds of sampling were below their respective performance standards. As a result, all RAOs for OU5 had been achieved. A RACR establishing RC for OU5 was finalized in January 2012 (CH2M, 2012a) and site closure activities have been completed, including well abandonment and the removal of established LUCs. SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-33 Site History – Operable Unit 5 Event Date IAS 1983 RFA 1988 IRI 1988 21-unit RFI 1993 Work Plan 2002 VGM 2003 to 2006 RI 2005 FFS 2005 PRAP 2005 ROD 2006 LTM 2006 to present RD 2007 2006 LTM Report 2007 2007 LTM Report 2008 IRACR 2008 2008 LTM Report 2009 2009 LTM Report 2010 2010 LTM Report 2011 2011 LTM Report 2012 RACR 2012 7.2.3.2 Site 1 – Borrow Pit/Landfill Site 1 is located west of an unpaved access road in the northeastern portion of MCAS Cherry Point. It is a former borrow pit area that was later used for waste disposal. The total disturbed area of Site 1 was estimated to be approximately 4 acres. The northern boundary of Site 1 is approximately 100 feet south of Reed’s Gut, and the other boundaries include an unnamed tributary to the west, a line 200 feet north of an unpaved road to the south, and the unpaved access road to the east. The area was originally used as a borrow pit area but was later used as a disposal site. Site use reportedly began in the mid- to late-1950s and continued for an unknown period of time. No records were kept detailing the quantities or types of wastes that were disposed of at the site. Some chemical waste, crushed 55-gallon drums, and construction and demolition debris were reported to have been disposed of at the site, but only small amounts of rubble and trash were seen onsite during the IAS (Water & Air Research, 1983). Site History – Operable Unit 5, Site 1 Event Date Former borrow pit and disposal area Late 1950s to unknown 7.2.3.3 Site 2 – Borrow Pit/Landfill Site 2 is located east of an unpaved access road in the northeastern portion of MCAS Cherry Point, directly opposite Site 1. Like Site 1, it is a former borrow pit area that was later used for waste disposal. The total disturbed area of Site 2 was estimated to be approximately 6 acres. Site 2 is bounded on the east and northeast by an unnamed tributary to Reed’s Gut, an unpaved road to the south and southwest, and the unpaved access road to the west. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-34 FES0613220646VBO The area was originally used as a borrow pit area but was later used as a disposal site. Site use reportedly began in the mid- to late 1950s and continued for an unknown period of time. No records were kept detailing the quantities or types of wastes that were disposed of at the site. Some chemical waste, crushed 55-gallon drums, and construction and demolition debris were reported to have been disposed of at the site, but only small amounts of rubble and trash were seen onsite during the IAS (Water & Air Research, 1983). Site History – Operable Unit 5, Site 2 Event Date Former borrow pit and disposal area Late 1950s to unknown 7.2.4 Operable Unit 6 7.2.4.1 Site 12 – Crash Crew Training Area OU6 includes one FFA site, Site 12, the Crash Crew Training Area, and consists of the eastern portion of Runway 28, an east-west trending runway along the eastern edge of MCAS Cherry Point. A second site, Site 35, was initially included in OU6 because of its proximity to Site 12. However, Site 35 was identified as a RCRA SWMU and therefore was remediated under the provisions of RCRA. The boundaries and location of OU6 are shown on Figure 7-8. Site 12 is located along the south-central portion of Runway 28. The runway is bordered by grassy areas to the north, south, and east, with dense woods beyond the extent of the grass. Hancock Creek is located approximately 700 feet east of the eastern end of Runway 28. The Crash Crew Burn Pit is a circular concrete pad currently used to burn waste JP-5 to train crash crews to extinguish fires. The concrete burn pit was reportedly constructed in 1985 and is approximately 100 feet in diameter with a 5-inch-high curb around the circumference (Halliburton NUS, 1993a). The burn pit itself is drained through subsurface piping to a nearby oil-water separator, as is a circular trench drain that rings the outside of the burn pit to capture fire water not contained within the burn pit. After training exercises or a heavy rainfall, facilities maintenance personnel pump all liquids from the oil-water separator and transport them to the IWTP. Site 12 was identified in the IAS and RFA, which indicated that Site 12 had been used for crash crew training activities since the mid-1960s. According to the IAS, waste POLs and waste burnable (i.e., likely nonchlorinated) solvents were formerly burned in one of two circular bermed areas on Runway 28, but that only contaminated fuel was burned at the time the report was written. The IAS also indicated that spills and leaks from the burn pits were evident at the time of the report, and that stained and oily soil was present in the drainage swale south of Runway 28. Between 1985 and 1990, effluent from the oil-water separator was discharged through a NPDES- permitted outfall to the nearby drainage swale (Halliburton NUS, 1993a). Around 1990, the effluent pipe of the separator was welded shut. Sampling was conducted during a 21-unit RFI in 1991. TPH contamination was detected in the soil and sediment samples, and additional sampling of all media was recommended (Halliburton NUS, 1993a). Additional samples were collected in 1993 as part of the 10-unit TDM. TPH contamination was found to be limited in area and depth; however, further investigation of inorganic constituents in soil and groundwater was recommended at Site 12 (Halliburton NUS, 1993b). During a 1999 site visit, some clarification was obtained regarding the nature of the burn pits that pre-dated the current concrete burn pit constructed in 1985. According to interviewed crash crew personnel, the former burn pits were constructed of dirt placed on top of the asphalt runway surface and shaped into circular berms. The crash crew personnel recalled the existence of two dirt burn pits of this type and indicated that fuels (including gas and diesel) and magnesium aircraft parts were formerly burned in the pits. A review of historical aerial photographs revealed five separate locations where earthen burn pits had once been located since the early 1960s, with either two or three of the burn pits being present at any one time. The Final RI conducted for OU6 concluded that, based on the limited number of constituents that pose potential human health risk only within an unrealistic exposure pathway, an FS did not appear to be warranted for OU6, SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-35 and NFA was recommended (CH2M, 2005c). However, regulator concerns regarding the extent of sampling beneath historical burn pit locations were expressed, and a Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) was initiated in October 2003. The investigation included additional soil and groundwater sampling beneath the former burn pit locations. The final SSI was submitted in May 2005. The Final RI was submitted in August 2005 and concluded that an FS addressing all exceedances of North Carolina standards was not warranted at OU6. No definitive connection was drawn between Site 12 activities and the constituents identified during the RI, except at former Burn Pit E. Based on infrequent detections of constituents exceeding North Carolina standards, the minimal extent of groundwater contamination, and the lack of human health or ecological risk for realistic exposure pathways, it was recommended that a FFS be prepared for Site 12, addressing only the delineated areas of arsenic, benzene, naphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene contamination in subsurface soil and groundwater beneath the former location of Burn Pit E. The final FFS was submitted in January 2006. The PRAP for OU6 was submitted for public review and comment in May 2006. The Remedial Alternative selected in the PRAP was excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soil, along with MNA and LUCs for groundwater. The ROD was signed September 28, 2006 (CH2M, 2006c). The draft RD was submitted on February 20, 2007. In February 2007, the RA Work Plan (AGVIQ/CH2M, 2007b) was submitted and the removal of contaminated soils at OU6 began in March 2007 and was completed in May 2007. The Draft IRACR was submitted in July 2007, but finalization of the document was suspended after successful completion of the remediation and the likely closure of OU6 was found to be imminent in early 2008. The RA completed at Site 12 is discussed in Section 4.3. The Navy and MCAS Cherry Point initiated VGM at OU6 in May 2005 to monitor VOC concentrations found to exceed State groundwater quality standards identified in the FS. VGM was conducted on a semiannual basis until 2007, when the OU6 LTM program established in the ROD replaced it. In late 2008, LTM activities were terminated at OU6, as all organic compound COCs were found during four or more consecutive quarterly sampling events to either be no longer detected or at concentrations below the performance standards specified in the OU6 ROD. In addition, the recurring elevated arsenic concentrations in a single monitoring well were found to be the result of a damaged well screen; upon retrofit of the monitoring well, the arsenic concentrations were found to be below regulatory screening criteria in multiple sampling events. A RACR establishing RC for OU6 was finalized in August 2008. Site History – Operable Unit 6 Event Date Crash Crew Training activities—burning of waste POLs, solvents, and contaminated fuels mid-1960s to unknown IAS 1983 RFA 1988 21-unit RFI 1993 10-unit TDM 1993 Work Plan 1999 Supplemental Investigation Plan 2003 SSI 2005 RI 2005 VGM 2005 to 2006 FFS 2006 PRAP 2006 ROD 2006 RD 2007 RA Work Plan 2007 SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-36 FES0613220646VBO Site History – Operable Unit 6 Event Date Completed Removal Action 2007 LTM Sampling 2007 to 2008 2007 LTM Report 2008 RACR 2008 2008 LTM Report 2009 7.2.5 Operable Unit 13 7.2.5.1 Background OU13 is located in the southeastern portion of MCAS Cherry Point near Runway 32 and covers approximately 61 acres. Several sites were grouped within OU13 because of their proximity to each other. There are two FFA sites (Sites 19 and 21) within the boundaries of OU13. OU13 also includes releases to groundwater from Site 44B, which was a former sludge application area. OU13 is not currently used for any active purpose other than providing a buffer of cleared land adjacent to Runway 32. The location and boundaries of OU13 and the site locations within OU13 are shown on Figure 7-9. Sites 19 and 21 were identified in the IAS and RFA, and Site 44B was identified in the 21-unit RFI. Between 1985 and 1987, groundwater samples were collected at Sites 19 and 21 as part of an IRI to identify contaminated sites. In November 1991, additional groundwater samples were collected at OU13 as part of the 21-unit RFI to support a Corrective Measures Study and to verify releases from various sites. During the RI field activities for OU13 conducted in 1994 and 1999, soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, and fish tissue samples were collected. An FS was recommended to evaluate remedial alternatives associated with potential unacceptable risks to human health based on concentrations of VOCs, pesticides, and/or inorganic constituents that exceeded screening criteria in groundwater and surface water (Tetra Tech, 2002a). The Navy and MCAS Cherry Point initiated VGM in October 2003 to monitor VOC concentrations that were found to exceed State groundwater quality standards during the RI. VGM was conducted on a semiannual basis until 2006, when it was supplanted by the LTM program for OU13 specified in the ROD. In 2007, the LTM sampling frequency was increased to quarterly. The OU13 FFS was submitted in July 2004. The OU13 PRAP was finalized in April 2005, followed by the OU13 ROD, which was signed in September 2005. The COCs identified for OU13 included 1,1-dichloroethene, methylene chloride, vinyl chloride, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (CH2M, 2005a). The selected remedy includes MNA for groundwater and LUCs, which will limit exposure to groundwater and will prohibit the use of groundwater except for monitoring. The Final RD was submitted in April 2006. A summary of the wells sampled at OU13 as part of the LTM program is included in Table 7-2. An IRACR for OU13 was prepared to document the completion of the RA and the RIP. Specifically, the RA chosen included both ICs, in the form of LUCs, and MNA of groundwater for wells that have shown concentrations of COCs above NC2L standards. The IRACR was finalized in September 2006. LTM was discontinued in 2012 after all COC concentrations in four consecutive rounds of sampling were below their respective performance standards. As a result, all RAOs for OU13 had been achieved. A RACR establishing RC for OU13 was finalized in May 2013 (Rhēa, 2013b). Site History – Operable Unit 13 Event Date 21-unit RFI 1993 RI/FS Work Plan 1999 SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-37 Site History – Operable Unit 13 Event Date RI 2002 VGM 2003 to 2005 FFS 2004 PRAP 2005 ROD 2005 RD 2006 May and November 2005 VGM Report 2006 RD 2006 IRACR 2006 LTM Sampling 2006 to present May 2006 LTM Report 2006 2006 LTM Report 2007 2007 LTM Report 2008 2008 LTM Report 2009 2009 LTM Report 2010 2010 LTM Report 2011 2011 LTM Report 2012 2012 LTM Report 2013 RACR 2013 7.2.5.2 Site 19 – Borrow Pit/Landfill (North of Runway 32) Site 19 consists of an area of approximately 16 acres that includes several former borrow pits that were reportedly used for waste disposal. Site 19 is located on the northern side of Runway 32, with Hancock Creek and the tributary Shop Branch to the north and east. There are wetland areas adjacent to Hancock Creek and Shop Branch. Parts of Site 19 were first disturbed in 1949 and used through the early 1960s. Fly ash from the steam plant, wastes from FRCE, and asbestos-lined piping may have been disposed of in the borrow pits (Water & Air Research, 1983). No records were kept detailing quantities or specific types of wastes. Site History – Operable Unit 13, Site 19 Event Date Several borrow pits used for waste disposal (fly ash from steam plant, wastes from FRCE, asbestos-lined piping) 1949 to early 1960s IAS 1983 RFA 1988 IRI 1988 7.2.5.3 Site 21 – Borrow Pit/Landfill (South of Runway 32) Site 21 consists of an area of approximately 36 acres that includes several borrow pits that were reportedly used for waste disposal. Site 21 is located south of Runway 32, and Shop Branch runs through Site 21 before crossing under the runway. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-38 FES0613220646VBO Parts of the area were first disturbed in 1949 and used through the early 1960s. Fly ash from the steam plant, wastes from FRCE, and asbestos-lined piping may have been disposed of in the borrow pits (Water & Air Research, 1983). No records were kept detailing quantities or specific types of wastes. Site History – Operable Unit 13, Site 21 Event Date Several borrow pits used for waste disposal (fly ash from steam plant, wastes from FRCE, asbestos-lined piping) 1949 to early 1960s IAS 1983 RFA 1988 IRI 1988 10-unit TDM 1993 7.2.5.4 Site 44B – Former Sludge Application Area Site 44B consists of a relatively flat 11-acre area adjacent to Site 21 where sludge from the STP was applied. The area was reportedly a landfill in the 1950s and 1960s, and the waste reportedly included asbestos pipe. Between September and November 1987, liquid sludge from the STP digesters was reportedly land-applied at Site 44B. The sludge may have contained organic compounds and other constituents that were not digested during the sewage treatment process. Site History – Operable Unit 13, Site 44B Event Date Sludge and asbestos pipes disposed of in landfill 1950s and 1960s 7.2.6 Operable Unit 15 7.2.6.1 Site 82 – Slocum Creek in the Vicinity of OU2 and OU3 OU15 is defined as Site 82 – Slocum Creek in the vicinity of OU2 and OU3, which is located in the west-central portion of the Air Station. OU15 extends across Slocum Creek from the southern boundary of OU2 to the northern boundary of OU3 and covers an area of approximately 60 acres (Figure 7-10). Slocum Creek is a public trust, tidally influenced, tributary of the Neuse River, which in turn flows into Pamlico Sound. It is approximately 6 miles in length from the mouth of Slocum Creek at the Neuse River to the headwaters of its two main branches, Southwest Prong and East Prong. It is fed by several tributaries, including Tucker Creek, Mill Creek, and several smaller feeder creeks. As part of discussions between the regulatory agencies and the MCAS Cherry Point Partnering Team, it was decided that Slocum Creek would be separated from the individual adjacent OUs. This decision allowed remedial actions to be implemented at OU2 and OU3 while additional investigations and risk assessments were conducted for the adjacent section of Slocum Creek (OU15). The additional studies were conducted to determine potential risks to human health and the environment from any past contaminant migration from OU2 or OU3 into Slocum Creek. During historical investigations at OU2 and OU3, there were constituents that exceeded State water quality standards in samples collected from Slocum Creek. Chemicals were also detected in sediment at concentrations above ecological screening values. For some chemicals, the standards and screening values were exceeded in samples upstream of OU2 and OU3. Therefore, it was concluded that OU2 and OU3 were not the source (or only source) of these chemicals. Fish tissue samples were collected from Slocum Creek adjacent to OUs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in 1998 and the results indicated no unacceptable risk to human health from fish tissue ingestion (Tetra Tech, 1999b). In 1999, surface SECTION 7—DESCRIPTIONS OF RIP AND RC SITES FES0613220646VBO 7-39 water and sediment samples were collected adjacent to OUs 1, 2, 3, and 4 as part of a SLERA in Slocum Creek (Tetra Tech, 2001). No consistent patterns of contamination were observed. The results suggested a low risk potential, except for metals in sediment at localized areas. A Final PRAP was submitted for OU15 in October 2002, and an NFA ROD was signed in June 2003. Site History – Operable Unit 15, Site 82 Event Date PRAP 2002 ROD 2003 7.3 MRP RC Sites Former Skeet and Trap Range #1 Former Skeet and Trap Range #1 is located within MCAS Cherry Point along the Neuse River adjacent to the golf course and is a part of the MCAS Cherry Point NPL site (Figure 7-11). The former shooting station was located in an area that is currently a forested riparian buffer zone between the golf course greenway and the Neuse River. The shooting station was oriented to the north with almost the entire shotfall zone being in the Neuse River. According to the Range Identification and Preliminary Range Assessment (USACE, 2001), MCAS Cherry Point requested the construction of six skeet or trap sets and two shotgun flexible mounts on September 8, 1943. Both skeet and trap shooting were conducted at the range site. Skeet shooting consisted of a shooter moving through a series of eight stations shooting at clay target disks, which are thrown from elevated towers. Trap shooting consisted of a shooter standing at one location shooting at clay target disks that are thrown from a pithouse. Shooting is done with shotguns using varying sizes of lead shot. The site was in use before the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulated the use of lead shot to protect waterfowl from the effects of lead poisoning. The Skeet Range appears on maps from 1949 through 1955 and is no longer used for the firing of live ammunition, as the site is now associated with the golf course (USACE, 2001). The Range Identification and Preliminary Range Assessment (USACE, 2001) states that the types of munitions used at the range included 12-gauge shotguns and number 7½ shot. No information is available regarding the quantity of munitions that were used. Field activities for an SI were completed in May 2009 and included the collection of surface water samples that were analyzed for total and dissolved metals, hardness, PAHs, and water quality parameters; sediment samples that were analyzed for metals, PAHs, grain size, and total organic carbon; and surface soil samples that were analyzed for metals, PAHs, and perchlorate. Findings of the field activities are documented in the SI report finalized in October 2010 (CH2M, 2010b). The Navy conducted an Expanded SI to collect additional samples to further characterize PAH concentrations in surface water and sediment in and around the Former Skeet and Trap Range #1. The Expanded SI SAP was finalized in December 2011 (CH2M, 2011h) and the Expanded SI fieldwork was conducted in February 2012. Based on detections of several PAHs in soil, surface water, and sediment during the SI and Expanded SI, the Navy developed a Watershed Contaminated Source Document (WCSD) to determine whether these detections are related to Former Skeet and Trap Range #1 or the result of non-site-related, anthropogenic sources of contamination. The WCSD was included as an appendix to the Expanded SI report, which was finalized in November 2012 (CH2M, 2012j). The Expanded SI report concluded that there were no unacceptable risks to human health and ecological receptors at the site, and recommended NFA for Former Skeet and Trap Range #1. The USEPA and NCDEQ documented their concurrence with the NFA determination in correspondence dated November 5, 2012 (CH2M, 2013b). SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 7-40 FES0613220646VBO Site History – Former Skeet and Trap Range #1 Event Date Field Investigation May 2009 Site Inspection Report 2010 Expanded SI SAP 2011 Expanded SI Report 2012 Decision Document 2013 Table 7-1. Summary of LUCAP Boundaries FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Operable Unit Sites LUCAP Controls Estimated Area (Acres)Date Implemented Intrusive Activities Prohibited - Soil 19 Industrial Use Only 19 Industrial Use Only 95 Restricted Access - Fencing/Signs Required 86 Intrusive Activities Prohibited 95 Aquifer Use Prohibited 100 Industrial Use Control - Vapor Intrusion evaluation required prior to new construction, slab or foundation changes, or land use changes 95 February 19, 2020 Industrial Use Only 13 No Use Authorized (Site 7 only) 6 Restricted Access - Fencing/Signs Required 7 Intrusive Activities Prohibited 6 Aquifer Use Prohibited 19 Intrusive Activities Prohibited - Groundwater 110 Aquifer Use Prohibited 110 Aquifer Use Prohibited 189 Intrusive Activities Prohibited - Groundwater/Vapor Intrusion evaluation required for building construction or modification 18914 90 March 17, 2010; Updated April 26, 2018 September 29, 1999 3 6, 7 October 24, 2000 10, 762 1 16 December 13, 2017 4 4 May 31, 2007 Page 1 of 1 Table 7-2. Summary of Samples Collected as part of the LTM Program FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina OU2 OU4 Surficial Aquifer Monitoring Well Surficial Aquifer Monitoring Well OU2-10EGW02* OU4-MW13 13GW139A OU14-66GW138 OU1-MW53 OU1-52GW101 OU2-10GW09* 4GW10 13GW142 OU14-66GW14 OU1-16GW11 OU1-52GW102 OU2-10GW10*13GW146 OU14-66GW28 OU1-16GW21 OU1-52GW103 OU2-10GW11 13GW149 OU14-66GW29 OU1-52MW77 OU1-52GW104 OU2-10GW94 13GW157 OU14-66GW33 OU1-52MW78 OU1-52GW105 OU2-10GW98 13PR53 OU14-66GW34 OU1-52MW79 OU1-52GW106 OU2-85GW01 56GW02 OU14-66GW36 OU1-52MW80 OU1-52GW107 OU2-10GW100* 66GW04 OU14-66GW37 OU1-52MW81 OU1-52GW108 66GW11 OU14-66GW47 OU1-52GW98 OU1-52GW109 66GW15 OU14-72GW04 OU1-52GW99 OU1-52GW110 66GW25 OU14-72GW06 OU1-52GW100 72GW11 OU14-72GW07 74GW15 OU14-72GW09 OU1-16GW06 OU1-52GW85 74PR25 OU14-72GW12 OU1-16GW10 OU1-52GW87 OU14-13GW02 OU14-72GW15 OU1-16GW36 OU1-52GW88 OU14-13GW10 OU14-72GW18 OU1-16GW37 OU1-52GW89 OU14-13GW11 OU14-72GW19 OU1-MW38 OU1-52GW90 OU14-13GW12 OU14-72GW21 OU1-MW39 OU1-52GW91 OU14-13GW120A OU14-72GW26 OU1-MW55 OU1-52GW92 OU14-13GW135 OU14-72GW28 OU1-42GW22 OU1-52GW93 OU14-13GW143 OU14-72GW29 OU1-42GW23 OU1-52GW94 OU14-13GW144 OU14-90GW02 OU1-52GW84 OU1-52GW95 OU14-13GW17 OU14-90GW03 OU14-13GW20 OU14-90GW05 OU1-16GW28 OU1-16GW59 OU14-13GW21 OU14-90GW09 OU1-16GW29 OU1-16GW60 OU14-13GW25 OU14-90GW10 OU1-16GW34 OU1-16GW61 OU14-13GW29 OU14-90GW13 OU1-16GW35 OU1-16GW62 OU14-13GW33 OU14-90GW21 OU1-16GW53 OU1-16GW63 OU14-56GW07 OU14-90GW22 OU1-16GW54 OU1-16GW64 OU14-56GW13 OU14-90GW23 OU1-16GW55 OU1-16GW65 OU14-66GW05 OU14-90GW24 OU1-16GW56 OU1-16GW66 OU14-66GW10 OU14-90GW25 OU1-16GW57 OU1-16GW67 OU1-16GW58 OU1-16GW68 OU1-MW53 OU1-MW55 OU1-16GW11 S3W3 OU1-16GW21 51EX18 52OU1-MW77 51EX19 52OU1-MW78 OU1-42GW05 52OU1-MW79 OU1-42GW08 52OU1-MW80 OU1-42GW15 52OU1-MW81 OU1-42GW16 OU1-52GW98 OU1-42GW17 SITEWIDE OU14 Surficial Aquifer Monitoring WellSurficial Aquifer Monitoring Well OU1 Source Area - ISEB Biobarrier Downgradient Area - Northern Lobe ZVI PRB Downgradient Area - Southern Lobe ZVI PRB Page 1 of 3 Table 7-2. Summary of Samples Collected as part of the LTM Program FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina OU2 OU4 Surficial Aquifer Monitoring Well Surficial Aquifer Monitoring Well OU14 Surficial Aquifer Monitoring WellSurficial Aquifer Monitoring Well OU1 OU1-52GW99 OU1-42GW20 OU1-52GW100 OU1-42GW21 OU1-52GW101 OU1-GW75 OU1-52GW102 OU1-GW76 OU1-52GW103 OU1-MW01 OU1-52GW104 OU1-MW59 OU1-52GW105 OU1-MW64 OU1-52GW106 OU1-51EX10 OU1-52GW107 OU1-N2GW15 OU1-52GW108 OU1-N2GW44 OU1-52GW109 OU1-47GW07 OU1-52GW110 OU1-47GW08 OU1-16GW06 OU1-47GW09 OU1-16GW10 OU1-47GW10 OU1-16GW36 OU1-47GW11 OU1-16GW37 OU1-47GW12 OU1-MW38 OU1-47GW25 OU1-MW39 OU1-MW20 OU1-MW55 OU1-MW21 OU1-42GW22 OU1-MW23 OU1-42GW23 OU1-51EX12 OU1-52GW84 OU1-51EX13 OU1-52GW85 OU1-51EX16 OU1-52GW87 OU1-51EX17 OU1-52GW88 OU1-52GW08 OU1-52GW89 OU1-52GW15 OU1-52GW90 OU1-52GW16 OU1-52GW91 OU1-52GW17 OU1-52GW92 OU1-52GW18 OU1-52GW93 OU1-52GW19 OU1-52GW94 OU1-52GW22 OU1-52GW95 OU1-52GW26 OU1-16GW28 OU1-52GW30 OU1-16GW29 OU1-52GW31 OU1-16GW34 OU1-52GW32 OU1-16GW35 OU1-52GW33 OU1-16GW53 OU1-52GW34 OU1-16GW54 OU1-52GW35 OU1-16GW55 OU1-52GW38 OU1-16GW56 OU1-52GW39 OU1-16GW57 OU1-52GW43 OU1-16GW58 OU1-52GW44 OU1-16GW59 OU1-52GW46 OU1-16GW60 OU1-52GW47 OU1-16GW61 OU1-52GW48 OU1-16GW62 OU1-52GW52 Page 2 of 3 Table 7-2. Summary of Samples Collected as part of the LTM Program FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina OU2 OU4 Surficial Aquifer Monitoring Well Surficial Aquifer Monitoring Well OU14 Surficial Aquifer Monitoring WellSurficial Aquifer Monitoring Well OU1 OU1-16GW63 OU1-52GW53 OU1-16GW64 OU1-52GW57 OU1-16GW65 OU1-52GW58 OU1-16GW66 OU1-52GW61 OU1-16GW67 OU1-52GW62 OU1-16GW68 OU1-52GW67 OU1-14GW18 OU1-52GW68 OU1-14GW53 OU1-52GW70 OU1-16GW01 OU1-52GW71 OU1-16GW02 OU1-52GW72 OU1-16GW03 OU1-52GW73 OU1-16GW04 OU1-52GW74 OU1-16GW08 OU1-52GW76 OU1-16GW09 OU1-52GW82 OU1-16GW30 OU1-52GW83 OU1-16GW31 OU1-52GW86 OU1-16GW41 OU1-52GW96 OU1-16GW42 OU1-52GW97 OU1-16GW50 OU1-MW73 OU1-16GW52 OU1-N2GW07 OU1-MW12 OU1-N2GW17 OU1-MW28 OU1-N2GW25 OU1-MW48 OU1-N2GW29 OU1-MW50 OU1-N2GW41 OU1-MW51 OU1-N4GW09 OU1-MW51 OU1-N4GW09 LTM at each OU will continue until performance standards listed in the ROD are not exceeded. Blue indicates wells for which samples are analyzed for selected natural attenuation parameters in addition to site contaminants of concern (COCs). *Four of the sampled wells at OU2 include analyses for natural attenuation parameters in addition to site COCs. The four wells are determined separately for each sampling event. Green indicates wells for which samples are analyzed for DHC and functional genes, selected natural attenuation parameters, plus site COCs. Page 3 of 3 SITE 47INDUSTRIAL AREA SEWER SYSTEM SITE 16LANDFILL AT SANDY BRANCH SITE 15DITCH AND AREA BEHIND NADEP SITE 14MOTOR TRANSPORTATION SITE 42INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE 52BUILDING 133 FORMER PLATING SHOP AND DITCH SITE 18FACILITIES MAINTENANCE COMPOUND SITE 98VOCS IN GROUNDWATER NEAR BUILDING 4032 SITE 17DRMO DRAINAGE DITCH SITE 92VOCS IN GROUNDWATER NEAR THE STRIPPER BARN SITE 83BUILDING 96 FORMER PESTICIDE MIXING AREA SITE 51BUILDING 137 FORMER PLATING SHOP POEI 23RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE AREA #2 POEI 22RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE AREA #1 Figure 7-1Operable Unit 1 FFA Sites MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina/ 0 900450 Feet Legend OU Boundary Site Boundary Base Boundary Buildings Road Runway RailroadSurface Water Industrial Area Sewer System \\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure7-01_OU1_FFA_Sites.mxd 5/1/2022 jcarr3 Groundwater Flow Direction SITE 47INDUSTRIAL AREA SEWER SYSTEM SITE 42INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE 52BUILDING 133 FORMER PLATING SHOP AND DITCH SITE 98VOCS IN GROUNDWATER NEAR BUILDING 4032 SITE 92 VOCS IN GROUNDWATER NEAR THE STRIPPER BARNSITE 51BUILDING 137 FORMER PLATING SHOP Figure 7-2 OU1 Central Groundwater Plume FFA SitesMCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina/ 0 1,075537.5 Feet Legend OU Boundary Site BoundaryBase Boundary Buildings Runway Road Industrial Area Sewer System Surface Water Groundwater Flow Direction \\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure7-02_OU1_CentralGroundwaterPlume.mxd 5/1/2022 jcarr3 HOT SPOT 3 HOT SPOT 4 SITE 10OLD SANITARY LANDFILL SITE 46POLISHING POND 2 SITE 46POLISHING POND 1 HOT SPOT 1 HOT SPOT 2 SITE 76VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AREA (HOBBY SHOP) Figure 7-3Operable Unit 2 FFA SitesMCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina LegendOU BoundarySite BoundaryHot SpotsBuildingsBase Boundary RoadGroundwater Use ProhibitedIntrusive Activities Below Water Table ProhibitedRestricted Access - Fence & Signs RequiredIndustrial Use Control – Site Use Restricted/Vapor IntrusionSlocum CreekGroundwater Flow Direction / 0 400200Feet \\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure7-03_OU2_FFA_Sites.mxd 5/1/2022 jcarr3 SITE 6FLY ASH PONDS SITE 7OLD INCINERATOR AND ADJACENT AREA SLOCUM ROAD GRAVEL ROADWASTEWATER LOOPOTTER ROAD BEAVER ROADFigure 7-4 Operable Unit 3 FFA SitesMCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Legend OU Boundary Site Boundary Base Boundary BuildingsWetlands RoadSurface Water Groundwater Use ProhibitedIntrusive Activities ProhibitedRestricted Access - Fence & Signs Required Site Use Restricted - Industrial Use Only Site Use Restricted - No Use Authorized / 0 200100 FeetSlocum CreekLuke Rowe's Gut Groundwater Flow Direction \\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure7-04_OU3_FFA_Sites.mxd 5/1/2022 jcarr3 SITE 4 - BORROW PIT/LANDFILL ACCESS ROAD KAY ROADDUFFY ROADC A LA S IT E R O A DLANDFILL ROADA M M O R O A DLIZA R D R O AD SALAMANDER ROADLANDFI LL LOOP ROADBAC K U P W ELL 18 PICNIC ROADFigure 7-5 Operable Unit 4 FFA SiteMCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina/ 0 500250 Feet Legend OU BoundaryLand Use Control Boundary;Surficial Groundwater Use Prohibited Buildings Runway Road Surface WaterRunway 14Mill Creek Groundwater Flow Direction \\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure7-05_OU4_FFA_Site.mxd 5/1/2022 jcarr3 SITE 90VOC-CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER Figure 7-6 Operable Unit 14 FFA SiteMCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina/ 0 900450 Feet Legend Surface Water Railroad Proposed (Revised) LUC Boundary OU/Site Boundary Buildings Road Runway L u k e Ro we's Gu t \\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure7-06_OU14_FFA_Site.mxd 5/1/2022 jcarr3 OU5 - SITE 1 - BORROW PIT/LANDFILL OU5 - SITE 2 - BORROW PIT/LANDFILL Figure 7-7 Operable Unit 5 FFA SitesMCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina/ 0 225112.5 Feet Legend OU/Site Boundary Base Boundary Road Surface Water Reed's Gut Groundwater Flow Direction \\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure7-07_OU5_FFA_Sites.mxd jcarr3 5/1/2022 SITE 12CRASH CREW TRAINING AREA Figure 7-8 Operable Unit 6 FFA SiteMCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina/ 0 300150 Feet Legend OU Boundary Site Boundary Runway Buildings Surface Water Groundwater Flow Direction\\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure7-08_OU6_FFA_Site.mxd jcarr3 5/1/2022 H a n co ck C reek SITE 21 - BORROW PIT/LANDFILL SITE 19 - BORROW PIT/LANDFILL SITE 44B - FORMER SLUDGE APPLICATION AREA Figure 7-9 Operable Unit 13 FFA SitesMCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina/ 0 600300 Feet Legend OU/Site Boundary Base Boundary Buildings Road Runway Surface Water Groundwater Flow DirectionRunway 32Shop Branch\\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure7-09_OU13_FFA_Sites.mxd jcarr3 5/1/2022 SITE 82 Figure 7-10 Operable Unit 15 FFA SiteMCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina/ 0 500250 Feet Legend OU/Site Boundary Base BoundaryBuildings Road Surface Water Slocum Creek\\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure7-10_OU15_FFA_Site.mxd jcarr3 5/1/2022 ") ") ") !( 765feet 680feet 600feet 375feet Figure 7-11 Former Skeet and Trap Range #1MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina/ 0 100 200 Feet Legend Installation Boundary Former Skeet and Trap Range #1 Theoretical Skeet Shotfall Zone Area of Maximum Skeet Shotfall Theoretical Trap Shotfall Zone Area of Maximum Trap Shotfall ")High House ")Low House !(Control House ")Pit House §¨¦US-70 Former Skeet and Trap Range #1 Neuse River \\dc1vs01\GISNavyClean\MIDLANT\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\SMP\FY2023\Figure7-11_FomerSkeetAndTrapRange1.mxd jcarr3 5/1/2022 FES0613220646VBO 8-1 SECTION 8 Descriptions of Preliminary Screening Areas and Site Screening Areas 8.1 Preliminary Screening Areas The sites described in this section were identified in the FFA as PSAs requiring desktop audits. These sites may have been previously referred to as points of environmental interest (POEIs). POEI terminology was retained for documents that had already been produced when the FFA was signed. 8.1.1 POEIs 22 and 23 – Radioactive Waste Storage Areas #1 and #2 POEI 22 is located near Buildings 133 and 421, and POEI 23 is located in Building 134, within FRCE (Figure 8-1). POEI 22 consists of a concrete pad and curb covered with an overhead roof that is fenced to control site access, while POEI 23 consists of a room located in the southeast corner of Building 134. These POEIs were identified during February and April 1998 site visits. The areas were historically used to store low-level radioactive solids (aircraft engine and transmission parts). Consensus was reached by the MCAS Cherry Point Partnering Team in September 2000 to retain these areas as POEIs pending receipt of additional information regarding actual operations at the sites in question. Interviews were conducted with Station Radiological Affairs Support Office personnel and the following information was provided: • All operations at these sites were conducted in strict adherence to Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Ionizing Radiation (MCAS Cherry Point INST IR-001, published and maintained by Occupational Safety and Health Division, NADEP, MCAS Cherry Point). • The material stored at these POEIs was very low-level radioactive magnesium thorium and was a byproduct of the manufacture of J79 transfer, rear, and inlet gearbox casings. All parts were machined in Building 133, and waste scrap, millings, etc., were strictly managed in accordance with IAW IR-001 (placed in sealed 55-gallon drums, properly labeled, stored and disposed of by safety office personnel [Code 6.8.810]). By following the SOP, there was extremely low probability for a release at the POEIs. Based on this information, closure of POEIs 22 and 23 was recommended in October 2000 as part of a POEI Closure Document prepared by the Navy. In January 2001, the USEPA responded by letter to the POEI Closure document (USEPA, 2001). The letter indicated that the USEPA was waiting on feedback from its radiological support staff and was not yet able to provide concurrence on the proposed closure of Radioactive Waste Storage Areas #1 and #2 (P-22 and P-23). The USEPA also requested a copy of the SOPs for Ionizing Radiation. In 2006, the Navy’s Radiological Affairs Support Office (RASO) completed a final status survey, which included measurements and sampling at these two storage areas. The survey results showed that there was no residual radiological activity exceeding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) release limits. In April 2006, based on the survey report, RASO determined that POEIs 22 and 23 met the NRC criteria for unrestricted use. In April 2008, the Navy submitted a letter to USEPA documenting the findings of the 2006 RASO survey and requesting closure of POEIs 22 and 23. USEPA responded in May 2008 with a concurrence letter approving the designation of NFA for POEIs 22 and 23. As a result, these sites are closed and are no longer active PSAs. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 8-2 FES0613220646VBO 8.2 Site Screening Areas The sites described in this section have been identified in the FFA as requiring screening for possible inclusion in the CERCLA RI/FS process. Some of the sites on this list may have been previously referred to as POEIs. POEI terminology was retained for documents that had already been produced when the FFA was signed. 8.2.1 POEI 35a – High Power Engine Run-up Area and Test Cells POEI 35a consists of the eastern end of Runway 28, near OU6 (Figure 8-2). The runway surface in this area is mostly asphalt, with a number of relatively small concrete pads. The runway represents a topographic high in the immediate area and is bordered by grassy areas with dense woods beyond. Most of the area is used for engine high power run-up activities and consists of a series of test pads where aircraft engines are mounted on racks and run at high speeds for maintenance purposes. The southwestern portion of POEI 35a is used for experimentation regarding long-term storage and preservation of aircraft. POEI 35a was identified during a 1997 regulator site visit as a potential contaminant source area based on the nature of historical site activities. Shallow groundwater flow at Site 35a generally flows east toward Hancock Creek. The water table is encountered at approximately 11 feet bgs. In 1996, soil and groundwater samples were collected at POEI 35a, and TPH, oil and grease, and inorganic constituents were detected in the soil samples (R. E. Wright, 1996). Lead and a trace of one VOC were detected in the groundwater. Based on these results, a POEI Evaluation was conducted in 1999 that included the collection of soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment samples. The POEI Evaluation sampling results were presented in the Final POEI Evaluation Report in January 2004 (CH2M, 2004b), which concluded that there had not been a significant release of contaminants to the environment from Site 35a. The detected constituents that exceeded human health screening criteria did not appear to be related to site-specific activities, and NFA was recommended (CH2M, 2004a). A Decision Document (DD) signed in June 2004 documented regulatory concurrence with the NFA recommendation (CH2M, 2004a). Site History – POEI (SSA) 35a Event Date Aircraft engine maintenance/test area Present Soil/Groundwater Study 1996 Work Plan for OU6 1999 Evaluation Report 2004 DD 2004 8.2.2 Site 85 – Hobby Shop Disposal Area Site 85 was identified as a waste disposal area, approximately 0.33 acre in size, located near the eastern shoreline of Slocum Creek (OHM, 1998c). Site 85 is situated immediately west of the base auto hobby shop (OU2, Site 76) (Figure 8-3). Much of Site 85 consists of a relatively flat forested area bordering the tidal open waters of Slocum Creek to the west. In the eastern part of the site, a short slope leads eastward toward the adjoining developed areas (CH2M, 2001a). Site 85 historically contained a significant amount of surface debris that had been disposed of at the site. No records indicating the quantities or types of wastes disposed of at the site are known to exist, nor is it specifically known when disposal activities occurred. The exposed debris included empty 55-gallon drums, empty 5- to 15-gallon steel pails, automobiles, concrete debris, office equipment, rubber tires, fire hoses, steel matting, pipes, a set of metal spectator bleachers, and various other items (OHM, 1998c). SECTION 8—DESCRIPTIONS OF PRELIMINARY SCREENING AREAS AND SITE SCREENING AREAS FES0613220646VBO 8-3 In 1997, site inspections revealed evidence that MCAS Cherry Point residents, including children, had trespassed onto Site 85, and had used the site for play activities. A rope swing was found hanging from a tree. As a result of this discovery, an emergency response action was taken to secure the site with fencing to prevent potential human exposure. A wetlands delineation was completed in 1997 to minimize wetlands impacts during a planned debris removal at Site 85 (B&R, 1998). Debris removal activities were completed in 1998. Approximately 30 to 40 cubic yards of metal and debris were removed from the site (OHM, 1998c). In 2001, a Site Screening Process (SSP) investigation was conducted at Site 85. The SSP investigation included the collection of soil and groundwater samples to determine if residual contamination remained at the site following the debris removal, and whether groundwater had been impacted by past disposal activities. The SSP Report concluded that there was not significant contamination, and NFA was recommended (CH2M, 2003d). A DD signed in September 2003 documented regulatory concurrence with the NFA recommendation. Site History – Site 85 Event Date Waste Disposal Area—empty drums, automobiles, concrete debris, office equipment, rubber tires, fire hoses, steel matting, pipes and other items were found Unknown Wetland Delineation report for Site 85 1998 Action Memorandum, Debris Removal 1998 Site Screening Process Work Plan 2001 Site Screening Process Report 2002 Site Screening Area DD 2003 POEI 23RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE AREA #2 POEI 22RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE AREA #1 Figure 8-1POEIs 22 and 23 MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina/ 0 300150Feet LegendPOEI BoundaryBuildingsBuildings - Demolition ScheduledRoadRunway Paved DrivewayRailroadSurface WaterGroundwater Flow Direction R:\USNavFacEngCom405450\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\424578_SMP_FY_2017\Figure 8-1 - POEIs 22 and 23.mxd CGauthier_ch2mhillen 5/23/2016 POEI 35AHIGH POWER ENGINE RUN-UP AREA AND TEST CELLS Figure 8-2FFA Site POEI 35a (SSA 35a) MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina/ 0 300150Feet LegendPOEI BoundaryRunwayBuildingsSurface Water Groundwater Flow Direction R:\USNavFacEngCom405450\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\424578_SMP_FY_2017\Figure 8-2 - FFA Site POEI 35a SSA 35a.mxd CGauthier_ch2mhillen 5/23/2016 SITE 85HOBBY SHOP DISPOSAL AREA ONSLOW DRIVE NASH ROAD MACON ROADCROSSLAND DRIVEFigure 8-3FFA Site 85MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina/ 0 300150Feet LegendSite BoundaryBase BoundaryRoadBuildingsSurface Water Slocum CreekGroundwater Flow Direction R:\USNavFacEngCom405450\CherryPoint\GIS_Folders\MapFiles\424578_SMP_FY_2017\Figure 8-3 - FFA Site 85.mxd CGauthier_ch2mhillen 5/23/2016 FES0613220646VBO 9-1 SECTION 9 Removal Actions and Remedial Actions Remediation activities that are conducted as part of the final remedy for a site (i.e., resulting from a ROD or other DD) are defined under CERCLA as RAs. Remediation activities that take place prior to the selection of a final remedy for a site include removal actions and Interim RAs. Removal actions involve the physical removal of site contaminants and are taken to prevent immediate and substantial harm to human health (TCRAs) or to reduce the potential for harm to human health (NTCRAs). Interim RAs are other types of remediation activities intended to prevent a potential release of contaminants, reduce the severity of a contaminant release, or minimize the further migration of contaminants. Historical removal actions, RAs, and Interim RAs that have been conducted or are pending at MCAS Cherry Point FFA sites are described below, listed according to the OU and site. The Navy will continue to identify potential removal actions and RAs, where warranted, as investigation activities continue. 9.1 Operable Unit 1 9.1.1 Site 16 – Landfill at Sandy Branch In 1996, a pilot-scale AS/SVE system was installed for groundwater remediation (B&R, 1997b). A full-scale AS/SVE system was installed in 1998 as part of a NTCRA. The Partnering Team agreed to shut down the AS/SVE system in February 2005 because it was not achieving the RAOs. In March 2005, the AS/SVE system was shut down and the Site 16 AS/SVE system closeout report was finalized in August 2006 (AGVIQ/CH2M, 2006b). The major equipment components of the AS/SVE system and the SVE wells were removed in October 2009. The associated Construction Closeout Report was submitted in February 2010 (Rhēa, 2010d). The remaining air sparge wells and conveyance lines were decommissioned in March 2011 and the associated Construction Closeout Report was submitted in May 2011 (Rhēa, 2011c). In 1997, a TCRA was conducted in the southern portion of Site 16 that included the removal of debris piles containing asbestos, steel storage tanks, and soil contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons (OHM, 1998a). The following materials were reportedly excavated and disposed: • 538 tons of TPH-contaminated soil • 386 tons of asbestos-contaminated soil • 238 tons of TPH and asbestos-contaminated soil • 139 tons of lead-contaminated soil • 790 cubic yards of asbestos pipe material 9.1.2 OU1 Central Groundwater Plume Interim Remedial Action The Interim ROD for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume Interim RA (B&R, 1996c) called for the installation of a pump-and-treat system for groundwater remediation. The groundwater extraction wells were installed in 1998 and the system recovered groundwater for discharge to the IWTP for treatment from 1999 until the system was shut down in 2005. Before system startup, an upgrade to the IWTP was implemented to ensure adequate treatment. As a result of decreasing efficiency and the potential for interference with ongoing attempts to further define the nature and extent of OU1 groundwater contamination by altering local groundwater gradients, the groundwater extraction and treatment system was shut down in February 2005. The system components were initially left in place in order to allow for later reuse. Decommissioning of the system consisted of removing treatment system components, capping underground lines, and converting extraction wells into monitoring wells, and was completed in April 2014. Alternative remediation technologies to address the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume were evaluated as part of the OU1 FS activities (see Section 5.1.1.1). SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 9-2 FES0613220646VBO 9.1.3 Site 51 – Building 137 Former Plating Shop An enhanced bioremediation treatability study involving the injection of the substrate HRC into surficial aquifer groundwater was initiated at Site 51 in May 2001. The work plan for the treatability study also associated the treatability study with portions of Sites 47 and 92; however, the treatability study specifically targeted Site 51. The purpose of the treatability study was to determine the effectiveness of enhanced bioremediation using HRC to remediate a small plume of cVOCs in the shallow groundwater beneath Site 51. Groundwater monitoring of VOCs and geotechnical parameters was conducted before the HRC injection in late 2001 and during six post-injection monitoring events conducted during a 1-year period. At the end of the 1-year period, the concentration of total cVOCs had been reduced more than 90 percent in the heart of the plume, but individual constituents remained at concentrations that exceeded regulatory screening criteria (CH2M, 2003c). The study concluded that additional treatment would be required to further reduce residual concentrations. 9.1.4 Site 51 – Building 137 Former Plating Shop and Site 52—Building 133 Former Plating Shop and Ditch A second enhanced bioremediation treatability study involving the injection of the substrate EHC into surficial aquifer groundwater was initiated in late 2004. The purpose of the treatability study was to determine the effectiveness of enhanced bioremediation using EHC to remediate areas of cVOC contamination in the shallow groundwater beneath Site 51 and Site 52. Groundwater monitoring of VOCs and geotechnical parameters were conducted before the EHC injection in late 2004. The treatability study included four post-injection monitoring events during an 8-month period. The final post-injection performance monitoring event was completed in November 2005. The results were evaluated to determine the effectiveness of the EHC injection and were summarized in a treatability study report that was finalized in December 2007 (CH2M, 2007). The report concluded that the EHC injection was initially effective in reducing cVOC concentrations in wells located near the injection points and that cVOC mass reduction was achieved. However, the concentrations of some of the contaminants rebounded significantly with time, in part due to under-dosing of the injected substrate as well as the likely presence of contributing cVOC sources such as DNAPLs in the aquifer. 9.1.5 Sandy Branch Tributary #2 In 2007, the MCAS Cherry Point ER Program Partnering Team developed a clean-up strategy for Sandy Branch Tributary #2 and adjacent flood plain areas that would be carried out as a NTCRA. The NTCRA would remove sediments and soil contaminated with various COPCs (several inorganics, pesticides, PAHs, and other SVOCs) to levels protective of at-risk ecological receptors (i.e., benthic macroinvertebrates). In preparation for the NTCRA, an EE/CA was prepared and finalized in January 2008 (CH2M 2008a). The EE/CA compared and evaluated several removal action alternatives and formed the basis of the selection of a sediment and soil removal technique for the NTCRA. The selected remedial alternative was the mechanical excavation of stream sediments and flood plain soil/sediment followed by backfilling with clean fill material. The Removal Action Work Plan to implement the NTCRA was finalized in May 2008, and the NTCRA was completed between June and August 2008. Approximately 124 cubic yards of stream sediments and 811 cubic yards of flood plain sediments were excavated and disposed of at a North Carolina-permitted Subtitle D landfill approved by the USEPA to receive CERCLA wastes. The Remedial Action Closeout Report was finalized in June 2009. 9.1.6 OU1 Central Groundwater Plume In Situ Enhanced Bioremediation Pilot Study In August 2010, the MCAS Cherry Point Partnering Team agreed to conduct a field-scale pilot study at OU1 to evaluate the site-specific effectiveness of in situ enhanced bioremediation downgradient of Building 133 near the source of the Central Groundwater Plume. The purpose of this pilot study was to gather information to aid in the selection of a final remedy to address the plume and also to possibly contribute in the Remedial Design phase. The pilot study included the installation of 14 injection wells (seven nested pairs, each consisting of one upper SECTION 9—REMOVAL ACTIONS AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS FES0613220646VBO 9-3 surficial and one lower surficial aquifer well) along a “biobarrier” alignment, the installation of five monitoring wells (two upper surficial and three lower surficial aquifer wells), the injection of reagents (i.e., emulsified vegetable oil and a bioaugmentation culture), and post-injection performance monitoring via 5 rounds of groundwater sampling and analysis. The Pilot Study Implementation Plan (CH2M, 2011c) and Sampling and Analysis Plan (CH2M, 2011d) were finalized in March 2011, and pilot study well installation and reagent injection field activities were completed in May and June 2011. Post-injection groundwater monitoring activities were completed in 2013 and the results of the pilot study are documented in a technical memorandum finalized in April 2014 (CH2M, 2014b). The pilot study demonstrated that an in situ enhanced bioremediation biobarrier is a suitable remedy component for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume. TCE concentration reductions of over 90 percent were achieved at individual wells in the upper surficial aquifer, while TCE reductions in the lower surficial aquifer reached 56 percent. The pilot study also generated critical information regarding full-scale implementation issues such as pH buffering, optimal injection well spacing, and methane gas generation. 9.1.7 OU1 Central Groundwater Plume Permeable Reactive Barrier Pilot Study In March 2011, the MCAS Cherry Point Partnering Team agreed to move forward on a pilot study to construct a PRB in the downgradient portion of the Central Groundwater Plume near East Prong Slocum Creek. The PRB installation, site restoration, and installation of additional monitoring wells for PRB performance monitoring was completed in August and September 2012. The PRB is approximately 600 feet in length and consists of a combination of ZVI and sand. The primary objective of the pilot study was to evaluate the site-specific effectiveness of a PRB for reducing COC concentrations in the downgradient portion of the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume in order to be protective of surface water and sediment in East Prong Slocum Creek from discharging groundwater. A secondary objective was to determine if currently available trenching and PRB installation technology could achieve a target depth of 45 feet at MCAS Cherry Point. Post-PRB installation performance monitoring activities began in fall 2012 and continued through 2013. The results of the PRB pilot study are documented in the Pilot Study Implementation Report finalized in May 2015 (CH2M, 2015). The pilot study demonstrated that a ZVI PRB is a suitable remedy component for protection of downgradient surface water bodies from impacted groundwater of the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume. Significant reductions of COCs were observed downgradient of the PRB in the surficial aquifer. However, the pilot study revealed that 35 feet is the maximum-attainable trenching and installation depth at the site using currently available technology. 9.1.8 OU1 Central Groundwater Plume Remedial Action In 2019, the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume remedial action was implemented, which consisted of an expanded in situ enhanced bioremediation biobarrier downgradient of Building 133 near the source of the Central Groundwater Plume and installation of the ZVI PRB injections to intercept the northern lobe of the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume. The in situ enhanced bioremediation biobarrier consists of 54 vertical injection wells (27 pairs of upper and lower surficial aquifer injection wells) that are generally oriented perpendicular to the direction of groundwater flow to intercept groundwater immediately downgradient of the Building 133 source area. Emulsified vegetable oil substrate injections and bioaugmentation activities were completed at each injection wells from March to April 2019. The northern lobe ZVI PRB included the injection of microscale ZVI into 36 vertical soil borings (advanced to 50 feet below ground surface) in two rows, spaced approximately 15 feet apart. Injections were delivered predominantly via direct-push injection techniques (with a few initially delivered by the pneumatic injection process) at a 0.7 percent iron-to-soil ration, by mass. The microscale ZVI slurry was mixed in batches in a dual-tank injection unit with guar gum added to the mixture to keep the ZVI in suspension. Details on the in situ enhanced bioremediation barrier and northern lobe ZVI PRB installation are provided in the Construction Completion Report OU1 Remedy Implementation (Tetra Tech, 2020). SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 9-4 FES0613220646VBO 9.2 Operable Unit 2 9.2.1 Site 10 – Old Sanitary Landfill Prior to the OU2 ROD, a SVE pilot study was conducted in 1996 at Site 10 for the remediation of VOCs in soil. In 1997, a full-scale SVE system was installed to treat soil contaminated with VOCs at four soil hot spot areas within Site 10. The Selected Remedy in the OU2 ROD signed in 1999 included MNA of groundwater, SVE at major soil hot spots within Site 10, LUCs, and LTM of groundwater, surface water, and sediment to ensure the effectiveness of natural attenuation (Tetra Tech, 1999a). The boundaries of the various LUCs in place at OU2 are listed in Table 7-1. A fence line repair and replacement was conducted in 2003. The SVE treatment of the soil hot spots at Site 10 was discontinued in August 2003 because the system was no longer removing a significant mass of contamination and was not performing as a cost-effective remedial approach. After the SVE system was shut down, periodic (roughly annual) soil sampling was conducted at Site 10, Hot Spots 1, 2, 3, and 4 between 2004 and 2006. The sampling results indicated that soil VOC concentrations at Hot Spots 1, 3, and 4 were below the screening criteria and these hot spots were removed from further sampling. Further soil sampling was conducted at Hot Spot 2 in 2007 and 2008 to complete the delineation of contamination. A Work Plan was finalized in April 2010 for the removal of the equipment and components of the Site 10 SVE system (Rhēa, 2010c). The system removal was completed in April 2010 and a Construction Closeout Report was finalized in July 2010 (Rhēa, 2010e). Since OU2 has a ROD in place, to address Hot Spot 2 soil contamination an FFS that evaluated additional remedial alternatives for soil at Site 10, Hot Spot 2 was finalized in February 2011 (Rhēa, 2011a). The Proposed Plan for Site 10, Hot Spot 2 was finalized in April 2011 (Rhēa, 2011b). The preferred alternative presented in the Proposed Plan consisted of the installation of a soil cover over areas of Hot Spot 2 where soil concentrations exceed NC SSLs to prevent direct exposure and limit infiltration and migration of soil/waste contamination to groundwater. The preferred alternative also included groundwater monitoring to ensure protection of Slocum Creek from groundwater discharge to surface water. An OU2 ROD Amendment was completed and signed in September 2011 (Rhēa, 2011d). In preparation for the implementation of the soil cover remedy at Hot Spot 2, a Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan was prepared and finalized in December 2011 (Rhēa, 2011e). The soil cover was successfully installed at Site 10, Hot Spot 2, in January and February 2012. The Construction Closeout Report documenting the soil cover installation was finalized in August 2012 (Rhēa, 2012b). The IRACR documenting the soil cover remedy for Site 10, Hot Spot 2 was finalized in December 2012 (Rhēa, 2012d). 9.3 Operable Unit 3 9.3.1 Site 6 – Fly Ash Ponds In 1996, as part of the closure of the Air Station water treatment plant, the ponds at Site 6 were removed by solidifying and excavating the pond sludge, removing piping and debris, leveling the berms, and re-vegetating the site. The site was revegetated with pine seedlings in 1996 by MCAS Cherry Point personnel as part of a “Longleaf Pine Initiative” to return the land to its natural state (OHM, 1998b). 9.3.2 Site 7 – Old Incinerator and Adjacent Area In 2000, an AS system was installed at Site 7 to remediate a localized area of benzene soil contamination. AS was selected in favor of SVE due to the very shallow water table at the site, which would have been problematic for SVE. Based on the results of confirmatory soil samples collected in February 2001, it was noted that the extent of benzene contamination in soil at Site 7 extended beyond the radius of influence of the current AS system to the SECTION 9—REMOVAL ACTIONS AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS FES0613220646VBO 9-5 southwest and northeast (OHM, 2000). As a result, additional AS points were installed to address the extended area of contamination. Based on soil and groundwater monitoring results indicating that the AS system had effectively remediated the soil hot spot, the AS system was shut down in mid-2003 (CH2M, 2003a). The MCAS Cherry Point ER Program Partnering Team agreed in October 2006 to remove the components of the AS system at Site 7, as it was not anticipated that any future use would be required. The AS system was removed in May 2007. 9.4 Operable Unit 6 9.4.1 Site 12 – Crash Crew Training Area In accordance with the Remedial Action Work Plan, Operable Unit 6, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina (AGVIQ/CH2M, 2007a), the removal of contaminated soils in the vicinity of former Burn Pit E began in March 2007 and was completed in May 2007. The purpose of the project was to remove a tar-like layer in subsurface soil that was a potential source of ethylbenzene, naphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene to groundwater. The excavation had a total depth of approximately 7.5 feet bgs and the total excavated volume was approximately 2,859 cubic yards, including asphalt. Excavation was accomplished using a hydraulic excavator. The top 3 feet of soil was stockpiled as anticipated “clean” overburden. Soils excavated from 3 to 7 feet bgs were stockpiled as waste. Verification samples were collected from the potentially clean overburden stockpiles to verify that the overburden could be used as backfill at the site. Due to NC SSL exceedances observed in the verification samples, the stockpiled overburden material was not used as backfill at the site, and additional backfill material from an offsite source was used to fulfill the deficit in backfill quantities. Characterization sample results indicated that the overburden material could be disposed of at a Subtitle D landfill. The final limits of excavation were verified by confirmation samples collected at six sidewall and four bed (floor) of excavation locations. The confirmation samples were analyzed for ethylbenzene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene. Confirmation sample concentrations were less than NC SSLs, thereby confirming that impacted soil had been removed in accordance with the soil RA requirements. The site was then backfilled with clean fill, compacted, and the surface restored with an asphalt pavement consisting of a stone base, 8 to 12 inches thick, covered by 3 inches of asphalt. Upon completion of the asphalt installation, a new monitoring well, 12GW08, was installed in the center of the excavation area, in accordance with the RA Work Plan, to allow LTM of groundwater directly beneath the former location of contaminated soils. LTM of groundwater associated with the MNA component of the remedy began in June 2007. In late 2008, LTM activities were terminated at OU6, as all COCs were found during four or more consecutive quarterly sampling events to either be no longer detected or at concentrations below the performance standards specified in the OU6 ROD. A RACR establishing RC for OU6 was finalized in August 2008. 9.5 Site 85 – Hobby Shop Disposal Area Site 85 is a Site Screening Area that contained a significant amount of largely surface debris that had been disposed of at the site. The exposed debris included empty 55-gallon drums, empty 5- to 15-gallon steel pails, automobiles, concrete debris, office equipment, rubber tires, fire hoses, steel matting, pipes, and metal spectator bleachers (OHM, 1998c). In 1997, an emergency response action was taken to secure the site with fencing to prevent potential human exposure after it was determined that the site had been used for play activities by MCAS Cherry Point residents. A wetlands delineation was completed in 1997 to minimize wetlands impacts during a planned debris removal at Site 85 (B&R, 1998). A removal action was conducted in 1998 to remove exposed solid waste and debris. Approximately 30 to 40 cubic yards of metal and debris were removed from the site (OHM, 1998c). FES0613220646VBO 10-1 SECTION 10 Five-Year Reviews Four CERCLA Five-Year Reviews (2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017) have been conducted at MCAS Cherry Point to evaluate the ongoing protectiveness to human health and the environment of the various remedial activities that have been conducted to date. The major conclusions of the Five-Year Reviews are presented in this section. The next Five-Year Review is scheduled to begin in FY 2022 and to be finalized in FY 2023. 10.1 Five-Year Review – 2002 A CERCLA Five-Year Review was first conducted by the Navy at MCAS Cherry Point in 2002. The Five-Year Review Report was finalized in November 2002 (CH2M, 2002c), and addresses remedies and RAs that have been implemented within all OUs for which there is a ROD or action memorandum in place, and at which contaminants remain at concentrations exceeding criteria that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The objectives of the Five-Year Review are to determine whether the remedies or RAs are functioning as designed and whether they remain protective of human health and the environment in accordance with the requirements outlined in the ROD or action memorandum for each OU. RAs or Interim RAs at three OUs and associated sites were included in the 2002 Five-Year Review: • OU1 – Central Groundwater Plume and Site 16 • OU2 – Site 10 • OU3 – Site 7 The triggering action for the first Five-Year Review at MCAS Cherry Point was the initiation of the Interim RA at the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume, which was the installation of a groundwater extraction and treatment (pump- and-treat) system. The Five-Year Review found that, in general, the RAs or Interim RAs were functioning as designed, but it was recommended that chronic operational problems be addressed for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume pump- and-treat system, the Site 16 AS/SVE system, and the OU2, Site 10 SVE system. The RAs and Interim RAs were found to be protective of human health and the environment. 10.2 Five-Year Review – 2007 The second CERCLA Five-Year Review was conducted at MCAS Cherry Point in 2007, and the Five-Year Review Report was finalized in February 2008 (CH2M, 2008d). RAs or Interim RAs at seven OUs and associated sites were included in the 2007 Five-Year Review: • OU1 – Central Groundwater Plume and Site 16 • OU2 – Site 10 • OU3 – Site 7 • OU4 – Site 4 • OU5 – Site 2 • OU6 – Site 12 • OU13 – Sites 19, 21, and 44B The Five-Year Review found that, in general, the RAs or Interim RAs were functioning as designed, with the exceptions of the Interim RAs for OU1, both of which were shut down in 2005 due to performance issues, and OU2, Site 10, Soil Hot Spot 2. Potential RAs for OU1 are currently being evaluated, and a Final ROD for OU1 is scheduled to be completed in FY 2013. The RA for OU2, Site 10, Soil Hot Spot 2 has since been completed, in February 2012. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 10-2 FES0613220646VBO The RAs for the other OUs were found to be functioning as designed and are expected to be protective of human health and the environment as groundwater cleanup goals are achieved over time through MNA. In the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled through ICs and LUCs that prevent exposure to site contaminants. 10.3 Five-Year Review – 2012 The third CERCLA Five-Year Review was conducted at MCAS Cherry Point in 2012, and the Five-Year Review Report was finalized in March 2013 (CH2M, 2013c). RAs or Interim RAs at six OUs and associated sites were evaluated in the 2012 Five-Year Review: • OU1 – Central Groundwater Plume and Site 16 • OU2 – Site 10 • OU3 – Site 7 • OU4 – Site 4 • OU13 – Sites 19, 21, and 44B • OU14 – Site 90 In addition, two OUs that had achieved RC since the 2007 Five-Year Review (OUs 5 and 6), were included for discussion to document their attainment of RC. The Five-Year Review found that the RAs for OUs 2, 3, 4, and 13 were functioning as designed and are expected to be protective of human health and the environment as groundwater cleanup goals are achieved over time through MNA. In the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled through ICs and LUCs that prevent exposure to site contaminants. The RA for OU14 was also found to be protective of human health and the environment; however, it was recommended that the LUC boundaries be evaluated in comparison to recent LTM results to determine if revisions to the boundaries are necessary. For OU1, there is no RA in place and the interim RAs were shut down in 2005 due to performance issues. The Five- Year Review found that human health and the environment are currently protected in the short-term because there are no complete exposure pathways. The only unacceptable risk identified for this OU is to future residents. However, for the remedy to be protective in the long term, LUCs must be established and in effect during the time it takes to select and implement a final remedy that encompasses the entire OU1 groundwater contamination area. The Proposed Plan for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume sites was finalized in April 2014, the ROD was signed on September 21, 2016, and it is anticipated that the OU1 RD will be finalized in March 2018. 10.4 Five-Year Review – 2017 The fourth CERCLA Five-Year Review was conducted at MCAS Cherry Point in 2017, and the Five-Year Review Report was finalized in April 2018 (CH2M, 2018a). RAs or Interim RAs at six OUs and associated sites were evaluated in the 2017 Five-Year Review: • OU1 – Site 16; Central Groundwater Plume sites: Site 42, Site 47, Site 51, Site 52, Site 92, and Site 98 • OU2 – Site 10, Site 46, and Site 76 • OU3 – Site 6 and Site 7 • OU4 – Site 4 • OU13 – Site 19, Site 21, and Site 44B • OU14 – Site 90 The Five-Year Review found that the RAs for OUs 3, 4, and 13 were functioning as designed and are expected to be protective of human health and the environment as groundwater cleanup goals are achieved over time through MNA. In the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled through ICs and LUCs that prevent exposure to site contaminants. SECTION 10—FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS FES0613220646VBO 10-3 For OU1, the Five-Year Review deferred a statement of protectiveness of human health and the environment, pending implementation of the remedies for OU1 Central Groundwater Plume and OU1 Site 16. For the remedy to be protective in the long term, LUCs must be established and enforced. The RAs for the OU1 Central Groundwater Plume sites and the Site 16 LUCs are now in place. For OU2, the Five-Year Review stated that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment in the short term. The current LUCs have been effective in protecting human health and the environment by controlling the exposure pathways that could result in potentially unacceptable risks to landfill waste, soil, and groundwater. Current information indicates that the MNA remedy for groundwater is protective, and the protectiveness will continue to be verified through the LTM results. Current monitoring data indicate that the remedy is functioning as required to achieve groundwater cleanup goals. While exposure pathways to the landfill waste, soil, and groundwater that could result in potentially unacceptable risks are controlled by the Site 10, Hot Spot 2 soil cover, LUCs, and the natural attenuation and LTM of groundwater, the potential for a VI pathway to be complete if a building were constructed on or near the site in the future should be considered based on past and current chlorobenzene concentrations in site groundwater. An ESD was finalized in 2020 that added a VI LUC within OU2 to address the short-term protectiveness assessment. For OU14, the Five-Year Review stated that the remedy is protective in the short term, as the COC plume has travelled outside the LUC boundaries. The LUC boundaries have been revised to encompass all locations with COC exceedances. The MNA/LTM remedy for groundwater is functioning based on current information, and the protectiveness of the remedy will continue to be verified through LTM of groundwater and management of LUCs. FES0613220646VBO 11-1 SECTION 11 Site Management Schedules This section presents the updated project schedules for Basewide activities, for each of the sites discussed in Section 3, and for sites that will begin study, investigation, or remedial activities in FY 2023. These schedules are adjusted annually in the SMP and periodically throughout the fiscal year as future site activities are further defined, Partnering Team priorities shift, and various administrative issues, including funding, are addressed. Information concerning Basewide activities and the OUs and sites that will be active during FY 2023 is included in this section. A summary table of enforceable and potentially enforceable milestones is included as Table 11-1 and is appended to the FFA as Appendix B. The project schedule for Basewide and site-specific activities is presented in Table 11-2. The project schedule includes a detailed listing of activities projected for near-term FY 2023 and long-term milestones, the duration of each activity, the deliverables, and submittal dates. The review and comment periods are generally based on the government/agency review times specified in the FFA for MCAS Cherry Point. All draft primary documents have a 45-day review period, with the exception of this SMP, which has a 30-day review period. A 15-day period is allocated to respond to and reach concurrence on review comments as well as to prepare and submit the final document. However, the Cherry Point Partnering Team has the ability to adjust review periods based on team consensus, which may be reflected in Table 11-1. 11.1 Multi-site and Basewide Activities for FY 2023 11.1.1 Preparation of the Site Management Plan Update for FY 2024 The SMP will be updated for MCAS Cherry Point for FY 2024 through FY 2028. The SMP will meet the requirements of CERCLA as set forth in the FFA. The SMP will be used as a management tool by the MCAS Cherry Point Partnering Team and their respective organizations (NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic, MCAS Cherry Point, USEPA, and NCDEQ) in the planning and scheduling of environmental remedial response activities to be conducted at MCAS Cherry Point. The SMP is a working document that is updated yearly to maintain current documentation and a summary of environmental actions at the base. Table 11-1. Enforceable/Potentially Enforceable Milestones for FY 2023 through FY 2025 FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Operable Unit or Site Scheduled Submittal Date FY23 FY24 FY25 11/1/2022 Draft Five-Year Review 3/17/2023 Final Five-Year Review 3/30/2023 Draft PFAS SI Report 6/15/2023 Draft FY2024 SMP 8/31/2023 Final FY2024 SMP 9/4/2023 Final PFAS SI Report 6/15/2024 Draft FY2025 SMP 8/31/2024 Final FY2025 SMP 6/13/2025 Draft FY2026 SMP 8/9/2025 Final FY2026 SMP 10/7/2022 Final CGWP PM Report 10/14/2022 Final LTM Report - 2021 1/6/2023 Draft BLDG 423 Pipeline TM 1/27/2023 Final ISEB Reinjection SAP 4/14/2023 Final BLDG 423 Pipeline TM 12/22/2023 Draft ISEB Reinjection PM Report 3/29/2024 Final ISEB Reinjection PM Report 5/2/2024 Draft BLDG 137 VI PS Report 6/21/2024 Draft LTM Report - 2023 10/10/2024 Final BLDG 137 VI PS Report 10/18/2024 Final LTM Report - 2023 12/28/2022 Final GW LTM Report - Fall 2020 1/13/2023 Final GW LTM Report - 2021 4/28/2023 Draft GW LTM Report - 2022 10/6/2023 Final GW LTM Report - 2022 4/26/2024 Draft GW LTM Report - 2023 8/2/2024 Final GW LTM Report - 2023 4/25/2025 Draft GW LTM Report - 2024 8/1/2025 Final GW LTM Report - 2024 12/28/2022 Final GW LTM Report - Fall 2020 1/13/2023 Final GW LTM Report - 2021 4/26/2024 Draft GW LTM Report - 2023 8/2/2024 Final GW LTM Report - 2023 Basewide OU4 OU1 OU2 Page 1 of 2 Table 11-1. Enforceable/Potentially Enforceable Milestones for FY 2023 through FY 2025 FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Operable Unit or Site Scheduled Submittal Date FY23 FY24 FY25 12/28/2022 Final GW LTM Report - Fall 2020 1/13/2023 Final GW LTM Report - 2021 4/28/2023 Draft GW LTM Report - 2022 10/6/2023 Final GW LTM Report - 2022 4/26/2024 Draft GW LTM Report - 2023 8/2/2024 Final GW LTM Report - 2023 4/25/2025 Draft GW LTM Report - 2024 8/1/2025 Final GW LTM Report - 2024 MCOLF Oak Grove 2/10/2023 Final PFAS SI Report MCALF Bogue 2/3/2023 Final PFAS SI Report MCOLF Atlantic 12/16/2022 Final PFAS SI Report Note: FFA site primary documents are in Bold text. OU14 Page 2 of 2 ID Task Name Start Finish Duration 1 Basewide Tue 2/1/22 Mon 8/7/28 1700 days 2 Main Base SI Report Fri 11/18/22 Mon 9/4/23 207 days 3 Pre-Draft SI Fri 11/18/22 Thu 1/19/23 45 days 4 Submit Pre-Draft SI Thu 1/19/23 Thu 1/19/23 0 days 5 Review Pre-Draft SI Fri 1/20/23 Thu 3/2/23 30 days 6 Draft SI Fri 3/3/23 Thu 3/30/23 20 days 7 Submit Draft SI Thu 3/30/23 Thu 3/30/23 0 days 8 Review Draft SI Fri 3/31/23 Thu 6/22/23 60 days 9 RTC Draft SI Fri 6/23/23 Mon 8/21/23 42 days 10 Approve Final SI Tue 8/22/23 Mon 8/28/23 5 days 11 Submit Final SI Tue 8/29/23 Mon 9/4/23 5 days 12 SMP Update - FY2023 Fri 4/1/22 Wed 8/31/22 109 days 13 Pre-Draft SMP Fri 4/1/22 Thu 5/12/22 30 days 14 Submit Pre-Draft SMP Thu 5/12/22 Thu 5/12/22 0 days 15 Review Pre-Draft SMP Fri 5/13/22 Mon 5/30/22 12 days 16 Draft SMP Tue 5/31/22 Wed 6/15/22 12 days 17 Submit Draft SMP Wed 6/15/22 Wed 6/15/22 0 days 18 Review Draft SMP Thu 6/16/22 Wed 7/27/22 30 days 19 RTC Draft SMP Thu 7/28/22 Wed 8/17/22 15 days 20 Approve Final SMP Thu 8/18/22 Wed 8/24/22 5 days 21 Submit Final SMP Thu 8/25/22 Wed 8/31/22 5 days 22 SMP Update - FY2024 Mon 4/3/23 Thu 8/31/23 109 days 23 Pre-Draft SMP Mon 4/3/23 Fri 5/12/23 30 days 24 Submit Pre-Draft SMP Fri 5/12/23 Fri 5/12/23 0 days 25 Review Pre-Draft SMP Mon 5/15/23 Tue 5/30/23 12 days 26 Draft SMP Wed 5/31/23 Thu 6/15/23 12 days 27 Submit Draft SMP Thu 6/15/23 Thu 6/15/23 0 days 28 Review Draft SMP Fri 6/16/23 Thu 7/27/23 30 days 29 RTC Draft SMP Fri 7/28/23 Thu 8/17/23 15 days 30 Approve Final SMP Fri 8/18/23 Thu 8/24/23 5 days 31 Submit Final SMP Fri 8/25/23 Thu 8/31/23 5 days 32 SMP Update - FY2025 Mon 4/1/24 Fri 8/30/24 110 days 33 Pre-Draft SMP Mon 4/1/24 Fri 5/10/24 30 days 34 Submit Pre-Draft SMP Fri 5/10/24 Fri 5/10/24 0 days 35 Review Pre-Draft SMP Mon 5/13/24 Wed 5/29/24 13 days 36 Draft SMP Thu 5/30/24 Fri 6/14/24 12 days Contractor Thu 1/19/23 Navy Contractor Thu 3/30/23 Regulator Contractor Regulator Contractor Thu 5/12/22 Navy Contractor Wed 6/15/22 Regulator Contractor Contractor Fri 5/12/23 Navy Contractor Thu 6/15/23 Regulator Contractor Contractor Fri 5/10/24 Navy Contractor 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2024 Task Milestone Summary Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone Rolled Up Progress Split External Tasks Project Summary Group By Summary Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Progress Deadline Table 11-2 Schedules and Milestones FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Thu 5/5/22 Page 1 of 13 ID Task Name Start Finish Duration 37 Submit Draft SMP Fri 6/14/24 Fri 6/14/24 0 days 38 Review Draft SMP Mon 6/17/24 Fri 7/26/24 30 days 39 RTC Draft SMP Mon 7/29/24 Fri 8/16/24 15 days 40 Approve Final SMP Mon 8/19/24 Fri 8/23/24 5 days 41 Submit Final SMP Mon 8/26/24 Fri 8/30/24 5 days 42 SMP Update - FY2026 Tue 4/1/25 Fri 8/29/25 109 days 43 Pre-Draft SMP Tue 4/1/25 Mon 5/12/25 30 days 44 Submit Pre-Draft SMP Mon 5/12/25 Mon 5/12/25 0 days 45 Review Pre-Draft SMP Tue 5/13/25 Thu 5/29/25 13 days 46 Draft SMP Fri 5/30/25 Fri 6/13/25 11 days 47 Submit Draft SMP Fri 6/13/25 Fri 6/13/25 0 days 48 Review Draft SMP Mon 6/16/25 Fri 7/25/25 30 days 49 RTC Draft SMP Mon 7/28/25 Fri 8/15/25 15 days 50 Approve Final SMP Mon 8/18/25 Fri 8/22/25 5 days 51 Submit Final SMP Mon 8/25/25 Fri 8/29/25 5 days 52 SMP Update - FY2027 Wed 4/1/26 Tue 8/31/27 370 days 53 Pre-Draft SMP Wed 4/1/26 Tue 5/12/26 30 days 54 Submit Pre-Draft SMP Tue 5/12/26 Tue 5/12/26 0 days 55 Review Pre-Draft SMP Wed 5/13/26 Fri 5/29/26 13 days 56 Draft SMP Mon 6/1/26 Mon 6/15/26 11 days 57 Submit Draft SMP Mon 6/15/26 Mon 6/15/26 0 days 58 Review Draft SMP Tue 6/16/26 Mon 7/27/26 30 days 59 RTC Draft SMP Tue 7/28/26 Mon 8/17/26 15 days 60 Approve Final SMP Tue 8/18/26 Mon 8/24/26 5 days 61 Submit Final SMP Tue 8/25/26 Mon 8/31/26 5 days 62 SMP Update - FY2028 Mon 3/29/27 Tue 8/31/27 112 days 63 Pre-Draft SMP Mon 3/29/27 Wed 5/12/27 33 days 64 Submit Pre-Draft SMP Wed 5/12/27 Wed 5/12/27 0 days 65 Review Pre-Draft SMP Thu 5/13/27 Mon 5/31/27 13 days 66 Draft SMP Tue 6/1/27 Tue 6/15/27 11 days 67 Submit Draft SMP Tue 6/15/27 Tue 6/15/27 0 days 68 Review Draft SMP Wed 6/16/27 Tue 7/27/27 30 days 69 RTC Draft SMP Wed 7/28/27 Tue 8/17/27 15 days 70 Approve Final SMP Wed 8/18/27 Tue 8/24/27 5 days 71 Submit Final SMP Wed 8/25/27 Tue 8/31/27 5 days 72 Five Year Review - 2023 Tue 2/1/22 Mon 8/7/28 1700 days Fri 6/14/24 Regulator Contractor Contractor Mon 5/12/25 Navy Contractor Fri 6/13/25 Regulator Contractor Contractor Tue 5/12/26 Navy Contractor Mon 6/15/26 Regulator Contractor Contractor Wed 5/12/27 Navy Contractor Tue 6/15/27 Regulator Contractor 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2024 Task Milestone Summary Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone Rolled Up Progress Split External Tasks Project Summary Group By Summary Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Progress Deadline Table 11-2 Schedules and Milestones FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Thu 5/5/22 Page 2 of 13 ID Task Name Start Finish Duration 73 Pre-Draft FYR Tue 2/1/22 Mon 6/6/22 90 days 74 Submit Pre-Draft FYR Mon 6/6/22 Mon 6/6/22 0 days 75 Review Pre-Draft FYR Tue 6/7/22 Mon 10/10/22 90 days 76 Draft FYR Tue 10/11/22 Mon 10/31/22 15 days 77 Submit Draft FYR Tue 11/1/22 Tue 11/1/22 0 days 78 Review Draft FYR Tue 11/1/22 Mon 1/23/23 60 days 79 RTC Draft FYR Tue 1/24/23 Mon 3/6/23 30 days 80 Approve Final FYR Tue 3/7/23 Fri 3/10/23 4 days 81 Submit Final FYR Mon 3/13/23 Fri 3/17/23 5 days 82 Five Year Review - 2028 Mon 2/1/27 Mon 8/7/28 396 days 83 Pre-Draft FYR Mon 2/1/27 Fri 6/4/27 90 days 84 Submit Pre-Draft FYR Fri 6/4/27 Fri 6/4/27 0 days 85 Review Pre-Draft FYR Mon 6/7/27 Fri 10/8/27 90 days 86 Draft FYR Wed 3/1/28 Tue 3/21/28 15 days 87 Submit Draft FYR Wed 3/22/28 Wed 3/22/28 0 days 88 Review Draft FYR Wed 3/22/28 Tue 6/13/28 60 days 89 RTC Draft FYR Wed 6/14/28 Tue 7/25/28 30 days 90 Approve Final FYR Wed 7/26/28 Mon 7/31/28 4 days 91 Submit Final FYR Tue 8/1/28 Mon 8/7/28 5 days 92 Operable Unit 1 Wed 12/11/19 Wed 3/22/28 2161 days 93 Building 137 VI PS Summary Report Fri 7/28/23 Thu 10/10/24 315 days 94 Pre-Draft Report Fri 7/28/23 Thu 12/28/23 110 days 95 Submit Pre-Draft Report Thu 12/28/23 Thu 12/28/23 0 days 96 Review Pre-Draft Report Fri 12/29/23 Thu 2/29/24 45 days 97 Draft Report Fri 3/1/24 Thu 5/2/24 45 days 98 Submit Draft Report Thu 5/2/24 Thu 5/2/24 0 days 99 Review Draft Report Fri 5/3/24 Thu 7/4/24 45 days 100 RTC Draft Report Fri 7/5/24 Thu 8/15/24 30 days 101 CMT Resolution Draft Report Fri 8/16/24 Thu 9/26/24 30 days 102 Approve Final Report Fri 9/27/24 Thu 10/3/24 5 days 103 Submit Final Report Fri 10/4/24 Thu 10/10/24 5 days 104 BLDG 423 Pipeline SAP Wed 12/11/19 Thu 12/23/21 532 days 105 Pre-Draft SAP Wed 12/11/19 Tue 4/28/20 100 days 106 Submit Pre-Draft SAP Tue 4/28/20 Tue 4/28/20 0 days 107 Review Pre-Draft SAP Wed 4/29/20 Tue 6/30/20 45 days 108 Draft SAP Wed 7/1/20 Tue 7/21/20 15 days Mon 6/6/22 Tue 11/1/22 Fri 6/4/27 Wed 3/22/28 Contractor Thu 12/28/23 Navy Contractor Thu 5/2/24 Regulator Contractor Team Regulator Contractor Tue 4/28/20 Navy Contractor 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2024 Task Milestone Summary Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone Rolled Up Progress Split External Tasks Project Summary Group By Summary Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Progress Deadline Table 11-2 Schedules and Milestones FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Thu 5/5/22 Page 3 of 13 ID Task Name Start Finish Duration 109 Submit Draft SAP Tue 7/21/20 Tue 7/21/20 0 days 110 Review Draft SAP Wed 7/22/20 Fri 11/20/20 88 days 111 RTC Draft SAP Thu 11/26/20 Mon 11/29/21 263 days 112 Approve Final SAP Tue 11/30/21 Thu 12/16/21 13 days 113 Submit Final SAP Fri 12/17/21 Thu 12/23/21 5 days 114 BLDG 423 Pipeline TM Mon 7/25/22 Fri 4/14/23 190 days 115 Pre-Draft TM Mon 7/25/22 Fri 10/14/22 60 days 116 Submit Pre-Draft TM Fri 10/14/22 Fri 10/14/22 0 days 117 Review Pre-Draft TM Mon 10/17/22 Fri 12/16/22 45 days 118 Draft TM Mon 12/19/22 Fri 1/6/23 15 days 119 Submit Draft TM Fri 1/6/23 Fri 1/6/23 0 days 120 Review Draft TM Mon 1/9/23 Fri 3/10/23 45 days 121 RTC Draft TM Mon 3/13/23 Fri 3/31/23 15 days 122 Approve Final TM Mon 4/3/23 Fri 4/7/23 5 days 123 Submit Final TM Mon 4/10/23 Fri 4/14/23 5 days 124 CGWP IRACR Fri 7/23/21 Thu 6/30/22 245 days 125 Pre-Draft IRACR Fri 7/23/21 Thu 9/2/21 30 days 126 Submit Pre-Draft IRACR Thu 9/2/21 Thu 9/2/21 0 days 127 Review Pre-Draft IRACR Fri 9/3/21 Thu 10/14/21 30 days 128 Draft IRACR Fri 10/15/21 Thu 10/21/21 5 days 129 Submit Draft IRACR Thu 10/21/21 Thu 10/21/21 0 days 130 Review Draft IRACR Fri 10/22/21 Thu 12/23/21 45 days 131 RTC Draft IRACR Fri 12/24/21 Thu 5/12/22 100 days 132 Approve Final IRACR Fri 5/13/22 Thu 6/23/22 30 days 133 Submit Final IRACR Fri 6/24/22 Thu 6/30/22 5 days 134 CGWP PM Report - 2020 Mon 6/8/20 Fri 10/7/22 610 days 135 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 6/8/20 Fri 7/2/21 280 days 136 Submit Pre-Draft PM Report Fri 7/2/21 Fri 7/2/21 0 days 137 Review Pre-Draft PM Report Mon 7/5/21 Fri 4/8/22 10 mons 138 Draft PM Report Mon 4/11/22 Fri 4/15/22 5 days 139 Submit Draft PM Report Fri 4/15/22 Fri 4/15/22 0 days 140 Review Draft PM Report Mon 4/18/22 Fri 6/17/22 45 days 141 RTC Draft PM Report Mon 6/20/22 Fri 9/23/22 70 days 142 Approve Final PM Report Mon 9/26/22 Fri 9/30/22 5 days 143 Submit Final PM Report Mon 10/3/22 Fri 10/7/22 5 days 144 CGWP GW LTM Report - 2021 Mon 1/3/22 Fri 10/14/22 205 days Tue 7/21/20 Regulator Contractor Regulator Contractor Fri 10/14/22 Navy Contractor Fri 1/6/23 Regulator Contractor Regulator Contractor Thu 9/2/21 Navy Contractor Thu 10/21/21 Regulator Contractor Regulator Contractor Fri 7/2/21 Navy Contractor Fri 4/15/22 Regulator Contractor 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2024 Task Milestone Summary Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone Rolled Up Progress Split External Tasks Project Summary Group By Summary Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Progress Deadline Table 11-2 Schedules and Milestones FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Thu 5/5/22 Page 4 of 13 ID Task Name Start Finish Duration 145 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 1/3/22 Fri 3/25/22 60 days 146 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 3/25/22 Fri 3/25/22 0 days 147 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 3/28/22 Fri 5/27/22 45 days 148 Draft LTM Report Mon 5/30/22 Fri 6/17/22 15 days 149 Submit Draft LTM Report Fri 6/17/22 Fri 6/17/22 0 days 150 Review Draft LTM Report Mon 6/20/22 Fri 8/19/22 45 days 151 RTC Draft LTM Report Mon 8/22/22 Fri 9/30/22 30 days 152 Approve Final LTM Report Mon 10/3/22 Fri 10/7/22 5 days 153 Submit Final LTM Report Mon 10/10/22 Fri 10/14/22 5 days 154 ISEB Reinjection SAP Mon 3/7/22 Fri 1/27/23 235 days 155 Pre-Draft SAP Mon 3/7/22 Fri 5/27/22 60 days 156 Submit Pre-Draft SAP Fri 5/27/22 Fri 5/27/22 0 days 157 Review Pre-Draft SAP Mon 5/30/22 Fri 7/29/22 45 days 158 Draft SAP Mon 8/1/22 Fri 8/19/22 15 days 159 Submit Draft SAP Fri 8/19/22 Fri 8/19/22 0 days 160 Review Draft SAP Mon 8/22/22 Fri 11/11/22 60 days 161 RTC Draft SAP Mon 11/14/22 Fri 1/13/23 45 days 162 Approve Final SAP Mon 1/16/23 Fri 1/20/23 5 days 163 Submit Final SAP Mon 1/23/23 Fri 1/27/23 5 days 164 ISEB Reinjection Performance Monitoring TM Mon 7/10/23 Fri 3/29/24 190 days 165 Pre-Draft TM Mon 7/10/23 Fri 9/29/23 60 days 166 Submit Pre-Draft TM Fri 9/29/23 Fri 9/29/23 0 days 167 Review Pre-Draft TM Mon 10/2/23 Fri 12/1/23 45 days 168 Draft TM Mon 12/4/23 Fri 12/22/23 15 days 169 Submit Draft TM Fri 12/22/23 Fri 12/22/23 0 days 170 Review Draft TM Mon 12/25/23 Fri 2/23/24 45 days 171 RTC Draft TM Mon 2/26/24 Fri 3/15/24 15 days 172 Approve Final TM Mon 3/18/24 Fri 3/22/24 5 days 173 Submit Final TM Mon 3/25/24 Fri 3/29/24 5 days 174 CGWP GW LTM Report - 2023 Mon 1/8/24 Fri 10/18/24 205 days 175 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 1/8/24 Fri 3/29/24 60 days 176 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 3/29/24 Fri 3/29/24 0 days 177 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 4/1/24 Fri 5/31/24 45 days 178 Draft LTM Report Mon 6/3/24 Fri 6/21/24 15 days 179 Submit Draft LTM Report Fri 6/21/24 Fri 6/21/24 0 days 180 Review Draft LTM Report Mon 6/24/24 Fri 8/23/24 45 days Contractor Fri 3/25/22 Navy Contractor Fri 6/17/22 Regulator Contractor Contractor Fri 5/27/22 Navy Contractor Fri 8/19/22 Regulator Contractor Regulator Contractor Fri 9/29/23 Navy Contractor Fri 12/22/23 Regulator Contractor Regulator Contractor Fri 3/29/24 Navy Contractor Fri 6/21/24 Regulator 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2024 Task Milestone Summary Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone Rolled Up Progress Split External Tasks Project Summary Group By Summary Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Progress Deadline Table 11-2 Schedules and Milestones FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Thu 5/5/22 Page 5 of 13 ID Task Name Start Finish Duration 181 RTC Draft LTM Report Mon 8/26/24 Fri 10/4/24 30 days 182 Approve Final LTM Report Mon 10/7/24 Fri 10/11/24 5 days 183 Submit Final LTM Report Mon 10/14/24 Fri 10/18/24 5 days 184 CGWP GW LTM Report - 2025 Tue 7/1/25 Wed 3/22/28 712 days 185 Pre-Draft LTM Report Tue 7/1/25 Mon 9/22/25 60 days 186 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 9/22/25 Mon 9/22/25 0 days 187 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Tue 9/23/25 Mon 11/24/25 45 days 188 Draft LTM Report Tue 11/25/25 Mon 12/15/25 15 days 189 Submit Draft LTM Report Mon 12/15/25 Mon 12/15/25 0 days 190 Review Draft LTM Report Tue 12/16/25 Mon 2/16/26 45 days 191 RTC Draft LTM Report Tue 2/17/26 Mon 3/9/26 15 days 192 Approve Final LTM Report Tue 3/10/26 Mon 3/16/26 5 days 193 Submit Final LTM Report Tue 3/17/26 Mon 3/23/26 5 days 194 CGWP GW LTM Report - 2027 Thu 7/1/27 Wed 3/22/28 190 days 195 Pre-Draft LTM Report Thu 7/1/27 Wed 9/22/27 60 days 196 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Wed 9/22/27 Wed 9/22/27 0 days 197 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Thu 9/23/27 Wed 11/24/27 45 days 198 Draft LTM Report Thu 11/25/27 Wed 12/15/27 15 days 199 Submit Draft LTM Report Wed 12/15/27 Wed 12/15/27 0 days 200 Review Draft LTM Report Thu 12/16/27 Wed 2/16/28 45 days 201 RTC Draft LTM Report Thu 2/17/28 Wed 3/8/28 15 days 202 Approve Final LTM Report Thu 3/9/28 Wed 3/15/28 5 days 203 Submit Final LTM Report Thu 3/16/28 Wed 3/22/28 5 days 204 Operable Unit 2 Mon 11/30/20 Mon 7/31/28 2001 days 205 OU2 GW LTM Report - Fall 2020 Mon 11/30/20 Wed 12/28/22 543 days 206 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 11/30/20 Fri 8/27/21 9.75 mons 207 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 8/30/21 Wed 9/1/21 3 days 208 RTCs Pre-Draft LTM Report Thu 9/2/21 Wed 6/8/22 10 mons 209 Draft LTM Report Thu 6/9/22 Wed 6/29/22 15 days 210 Submit Draft LTM Report Wed 6/29/22 Wed 6/29/22 0 days 211 Review Draft LTM Report Thu 6/30/22 Wed 10/12/22 75 days 212 RTC Draft LTM Report Thu 10/13/22 Wed 12/14/22 45 days 213 Approve Final LTM Report Thu 12/15/22 Wed 12/21/22 5 days 214 Submit Final LTM Report Thu 12/22/22 Wed 12/28/22 5 days 215 OU2 GW LTM Report - 2021 Fri 11/19/21 Fri 1/13/23 301 days 216 Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 11/19/21 Thu 6/2/22 7 mons Contractor Contractor Mon 9/22/25 Navy Contractor Mon 12/15/25 Regulator Contractor Contractor Wed 9/22/27 Navy Contractor Wed 12/15/27 Regulator Contractor Contractor Navy Contractor Wed 6/29/22 Regulator Contractor Contractor 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2024 Task Milestone Summary Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone Rolled Up Progress Split External Tasks Project Summary Group By Summary Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Progress Deadline Table 11-2 Schedules and Milestones FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Thu 5/5/22 Page 6 of 13 ID Task Name Start Finish Duration 217 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Thu 6/2/22 Thu 6/2/22 0 days 218 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 6/3/22 Thu 8/4/22 45 days 219 Draft LTM Report Fri 8/5/22 Thu 8/25/22 15 days 220 Submit Draft LTM Report Thu 8/25/22 Thu 8/25/22 0 days 221 Review Draft LTM Report Fri 8/26/22 Fri 11/11/22 56 days 222 RTC Draft LTM Report Mon 11/14/22 Fri 12/30/22 35 days 223 Approve Final LTM Report Mon 1/2/23 Fri 1/6/23 5 days 224 Submit Final LTM Report Mon 1/9/23 Fri 1/13/23 5 days 225 OU2 GW LTM Report - 2022 Mon 12/5/22 Fri 10/6/23 220 days 226 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 12/5/22 Fri 2/3/23 45 days 227 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 2/3/23 Fri 2/3/23 0 days 228 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 2/6/23 Fri 4/7/23 45 days 229 Draft LTM Report Mon 4/10/23 Fri 4/28/23 15 days 230 Submit Draft LTM Report Fri 4/28/23 Fri 4/28/23 0 days 231 Review Draft LTM Report Mon 5/1/23 Fri 7/21/23 60 days 232 RTC Draft LTM Report Mon 7/24/23 Fri 9/22/23 45 days 233 Approve Final LTM Report Mon 9/25/23 Fri 9/29/23 5 days 234 Submit Final LTM Report Mon 10/2/23 Fri 10/6/23 5 days 235 OU2 GW LTM Report - 2023 Mon 12/4/23 Fri 8/2/24 175 days 236 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 12/4/23 Fri 2/2/24 45 days 237 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 2/2/24 Fri 2/2/24 0 days 238 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 2/5/24 Fri 4/5/24 45 days 239 Draft LTM Report Mon 4/8/24 Fri 4/26/24 15 days 240 Submit Draft LTM Report Fri 4/26/24 Fri 4/26/24 0 days 241 Review Draft LTM Report Mon 4/29/24 Fri 6/28/24 45 days 242 RTC Draft LTM Report Mon 7/1/24 Fri 7/19/24 15 days 243 Approve Final LTM Report Mon 7/22/24 Fri 7/26/24 5 days 244 Submit Final LTM Report Mon 7/29/24 Fri 8/2/24 5 days 245 OU2 GW LTM Report - 2024 Mon 12/2/24 Fri 8/1/25 175 days 246 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 12/2/24 Fri 1/31/25 45 days 247 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 1/31/25 Fri 1/31/25 0 days 248 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 2/3/25 Fri 4/4/25 45 days 249 Draft LTM Report Mon 4/7/25 Fri 4/25/25 15 days 250 Submit Draft LTM Report Fri 4/25/25 Fri 4/25/25 0 days 251 Review Draft LTM Report Mon 4/28/25 Fri 6/27/25 45 days 252 RTC Draft LTM Report Mon 6/30/25 Fri 7/18/25 15 days Thu 6/2/22 Navy Contractor Thu 8/25/22 Regulator Contractor Contractor Fri 2/3/23 Navy Contractor Fri 4/28/23 Regulator Contractor Contractor Fri 2/2/24 Navy Contractor Fri 4/26/24 Regulator Contractor Contractor Fri 1/31/25 Navy Contractor Fri 4/25/25 Regulator Contractor 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2024 Task Milestone Summary Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone Rolled Up Progress Split External Tasks Project Summary Group By Summary Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Progress Deadline Table 11-2 Schedules and Milestones FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Thu 5/5/22 Page 7 of 13 ID Task Name Start Finish Duration 253 Approve Final LTM Report Mon 7/21/25 Fri 7/25/25 5 days 254 Submit Final LTM Report Mon 7/28/25 Fri 8/1/25 5 days 255 OU2 GW LTM Report - 2025 Mon 12/1/25 Fri 7/31/26 175 days 256 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 12/1/25 Fri 1/30/26 45 days 257 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 1/30/26 Fri 1/30/26 0 days 258 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 2/2/26 Fri 4/3/26 45 days 259 Draft LTM Report Mon 4/6/26 Fri 4/24/26 15 days 260 Submit Draft LTM Report Fri 4/24/26 Fri 4/24/26 0 days 261 Review Draft LTM Report Mon 4/27/26 Fri 6/26/26 45 days 262 RTC Draft LTM Report Mon 6/29/26 Fri 7/17/26 15 days 263 Approve Final LTM Report Mon 7/20/26 Fri 7/24/26 5 days 264 Submit Final LTM Report Mon 7/27/26 Fri 7/31/26 5 days 265 OU2 GW LTM Report - 2026 Mon 11/30/26 Fri 7/30/27 175 days 266 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 11/30/26 Fri 1/29/27 45 days 267 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 1/29/27 Fri 1/29/27 0 days 268 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 2/1/27 Fri 4/2/27 45 days 269 Draft LTM Report Mon 4/5/27 Fri 4/23/27 15 days 270 Submit Draft LTM Report Fri 4/23/27 Fri 4/23/27 0 days 271 Review Draft LTM Report Mon 4/26/27 Fri 6/25/27 45 days 272 RTC Draft LTM Report Mon 6/28/27 Fri 7/16/27 15 days 273 Approve Final LTM Report Mon 7/19/27 Fri 7/23/27 5 days 274 Submit Final LTM Report Mon 7/26/27 Fri 7/30/27 5 days 275 OU2 GW LTM Report - 2027 Tue 11/30/27 Mon 7/31/28 175 days 276 Pre-Draft LTM Report Tue 11/30/27 Mon 1/31/28 45 days 277 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 1/31/28 Mon 1/31/28 0 days 278 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Tue 2/1/28 Mon 4/3/28 45 days 279 Draft LTM Report Tue 4/4/28 Mon 4/24/28 15 days 280 Submit Draft LTM Report Mon 4/24/28 Mon 4/24/28 0 days 281 Review Draft LTM Report Tue 4/25/28 Mon 6/26/28 45 days 282 RTC Draft LTM Report Tue 6/27/28 Mon 7/17/28 15 days 283 Approve Final LTM Report Tue 7/18/28 Mon 7/24/28 5 days 284 Submit Final LTM Report Tue 7/25/28 Mon 7/31/28 5 days 285 Operable Unit 4 Mon 11/30/20 Fri 8/4/28 2005 days 286 OU4 GW LTM Report - Fall 2020 Mon 11/30/20 Wed 12/28/22 543 days 287 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 11/30/20 Fri 8/27/21 9.75 mons 288 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 8/30/21 Wed 9/1/21 3 days Contractor Fri 1/30/26 Navy Contractor Fri 4/24/26 Regulator Contractor Contractor Fri 1/29/27 Navy Contractor Fri 4/23/27 Regulator Contractor Contractor Mon 1/31/28 Navy Contractor Mon 4/24/28 Regulator Contractor Contractor 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2024 Task Milestone Summary Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone Rolled Up Progress Split External Tasks Project Summary Group By Summary Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Progress Deadline Table 11-2 Schedules and Milestones FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Thu 5/5/22 Page 8 of 13 ID Task Name Start Finish Duration 289 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Thu 9/2/21 Wed 6/8/22 10 mons 290 Draft LTM Report Thu 6/9/22 Wed 6/29/22 15 days 291 Submit Draft LTM Report Wed 6/29/22 Wed 6/29/22 0 days 292 Review Draft LTM Report Thu 6/30/22 Wed 10/12/22 75 days 293 RTC Draft LTM Report Thu 10/13/22 Wed 12/14/22 45 days 294 Approve Final LTM Report Thu 12/15/22 Wed 12/21/22 5 days 295 Submit Final LTM Report Thu 12/22/22 Wed 12/28/22 5 days 296 OU4 GW LTM Report - 2021 Fri 11/19/21 Fri 1/13/23 301 days 297 Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 11/19/21 Thu 6/2/22 7 mons 298 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Thu 6/2/22 Thu 6/2/22 0 days 299 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 6/3/22 Thu 8/4/22 45 days 300 Draft LTM Report Fri 8/5/22 Thu 8/25/22 15 days 301 Submit Draft LTM Report Thu 8/25/22 Thu 8/25/22 0 days 302 Review Draft LTM Report Fri 8/26/22 Fri 11/11/22 56 days 303 RTC Draft LTM Report Mon 11/14/22 Fri 12/30/22 35 days 304 Approve Final LTM Report Mon 1/2/23 Fri 1/6/23 5 days 305 Submit Final LTM Report Mon 1/9/23 Fri 1/13/23 5 days 306 OU4 GW LTM Report - 2023 Mon 12/11/23 Fri 8/9/24 175 days 307 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 12/11/23 Fri 2/9/24 45 days 308 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 2/9/24 Fri 2/9/24 0 days 309 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 2/12/24 Fri 4/12/24 45 days 310 Draft LTM Report Mon 4/15/24 Fri 5/3/24 15 days 311 Submit Draft LTM Report Fri 5/3/24 Fri 5/3/24 0 days 312 Review Draft LTM Report Mon 5/6/24 Fri 7/5/24 45 days 313 RTC Draft LTM Report Mon 7/8/24 Fri 7/26/24 15 days 314 Approve Final LTM Report Mon 7/29/24 Fri 8/2/24 5 days 315 Submit Final LTM Report Mon 8/5/24 Fri 8/9/24 5 days 316 OU4 GW LTM Report - 2025 Mon 12/1/25 Fri 7/31/26 175 days 317 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 12/1/25 Fri 1/30/26 45 days 318 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 1/30/26 Fri 1/30/26 0 days 319 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 2/2/26 Fri 4/3/26 45 days 320 Draft LTM Report Mon 4/6/26 Fri 4/24/26 15 days 321 Submit Draft LTM Report Fri 4/24/26 Fri 4/24/26 0 days 322 Review Draft LTM Report Mon 4/27/26 Fri 6/26/26 45 days 323 RTC Draft LTM Report Mon 6/29/26 Fri 7/17/26 15 days 324 Approve Final LTM Report Mon 7/20/26 Fri 7/24/26 5 days Navy Contractor Wed 6/29/22 Regulator Contractor Contractor Thu 6/2/22 Navy Contractor Thu 8/25/22 Regulator Contractor Contractor Fri 2/9/24 Navy Contractor Fri 5/3/24 Regulator Contractor Contractor Fri 1/30/26 Navy Contractor Fri 4/24/26 Regulator Contractor 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2024 Task Milestone Summary Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone Rolled Up Progress Split External Tasks Project Summary Group By Summary Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Progress Deadline Table 11-2 Schedules and Milestones FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Thu 5/5/22 Page 9 of 13 ID Task Name Start Finish Duration 325 Submit Final LTM Report Mon 7/27/26 Fri 7/31/26 5 days 326 OU4 GW LTM Report - 2027 Mon 12/6/27 Fri 8/4/28 175 days 327 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 12/6/27 Fri 2/4/28 45 days 328 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 2/4/28 Fri 2/4/28 0 days 329 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 2/7/28 Fri 4/7/28 45 days 330 Draft LTM Report Mon 4/10/28 Fri 4/28/28 15 days 331 Submit Draft LTM Report Fri 4/28/28 Fri 4/28/28 0 days 332 Review Draft LTM Report Mon 5/1/28 Fri 6/30/28 45 days 333 RTC Draft LTM Report Mon 7/3/28 Fri 7/21/28 15 days 334 Approve Final LTM Report Mon 7/24/28 Fri 7/28/28 5 days 335 Submit Final LTM Report Mon 7/31/28 Fri 8/4/28 5 days 336 Operable Unit 14 Mon 11/30/20 Mon 8/7/28 2006 days 337 OU14 GW LTM Report - Fall 2020 Mon 11/30/20 Wed 12/28/22 543 days 338 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 11/30/20 Fri 8/27/21 9.75 mons 339 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 8/30/21 Wed 9/1/21 3 days 340 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Thu 9/2/21 Wed 6/8/22 10 mons 341 Draft LTM Report Thu 6/9/22 Wed 6/29/22 15 days 342 Submit Draft LTM Report Wed 6/29/22 Wed 6/29/22 0 days 343 Review Draft LTM Report Thu 6/30/22 Wed 10/12/22 75 days 344 RTC Draft LTM Report Thu 10/13/22 Wed 12/14/22 45 days 345 Approve Final LTM Report Thu 12/15/22 Wed 12/21/22 5 days 346 Submit Final LTM Report Thu 12/22/22 Wed 12/28/22 5 days 347 OU14 GW LTM Report - 2021 Fri 11/19/21 Fri 1/13/23 301 days 348 Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 11/19/21 Thu 6/2/22 7 mons 349 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Thu 6/2/22 Thu 6/2/22 0 days 350 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 6/3/22 Thu 8/4/22 45 days 351 Draft LTM Report Fri 8/5/22 Thu 8/25/22 15 days 352 Submit Draft LTM Report Thu 8/25/22 Thu 8/25/22 0 days 353 Review Draft LTM Report Fri 8/26/22 Fri 11/11/22 56 days 354 RTC Draft LTM Report Mon 11/14/22 Fri 12/30/22 35 days 355 Approve Final LTM Report Mon 1/2/23 Fri 1/6/23 5 days 356 Submit Final LTM Report Mon 1/9/23 Fri 1/13/23 5 days 357 OU14 GW LTM Report - 2022 Mon 12/5/22 Fri 8/4/23 175 days 358 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 12/5/22 Fri 2/3/23 45 days 359 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 2/3/23 Fri 2/3/23 0 days 360 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 2/6/23 Fri 4/7/23 45 days Contractor Fri 2/4/28 Navy Contractor Fri 4/28/28 Regulator Contractor Contractor Navy Contractor Wed 6/29/22 Regulator Contractor Contractor Thu 6/2/22 Navy Contractor Thu 8/25/22 Regulator Contractor Contractor Fri 2/3/23 Navy 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2024 Task Milestone Summary Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone Rolled Up Progress Split External Tasks Project Summary Group By Summary Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Progress Deadline Table 11-2 Schedules and Milestones FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Thu 5/5/22 Page 10 of 13 ID Task Name Start Finish Duration 361 Draft LTM Report Mon 4/10/23 Fri 4/28/23 15 days 362 Submit Draft LTM Report Fri 4/28/23 Fri 4/28/23 0 days 363 Review Draft LTM Report Mon 5/1/23 Fri 6/30/23 45 days 364 RTC Draft LTM Report Mon 7/3/23 Fri 7/21/23 15 days 365 Approve Final LTM Report Mon 7/24/23 Fri 7/28/23 5 days 366 Submit Final LTM Report Mon 7/31/23 Fri 8/4/23 5 days 367 OU14 GW LTM Report - 2023 Mon 12/4/23 Mon 9/13/27 986 days 368 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 12/4/23 Fri 2/9/24 50 days 369 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 2/9/24 Fri 2/9/24 0 days 370 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 2/12/24 Fri 4/12/24 45 days 371 Draft LTM Report Mon 4/15/24 Fri 5/3/24 15 days 372 Submit Draft LTM Report Fri 5/3/24 Fri 5/3/24 0 days 373 Review Draft LTM Report Mon 5/6/24 Mon 8/9/27 851 days 374 RTC Draft LTM Report Tue 8/10/27 Mon 8/30/27 15 days 375 Approve Final LTM Report Tue 8/31/27 Mon 9/6/27 5 days 376 Submit Final LTM Report Tue 9/7/27 Mon 9/13/27 5 days 377 OU14 GW LTM Report - 2024 Mon 12/2/24 Fri 8/1/25 175 days 378 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 12/2/24 Fri 1/31/25 45 days 379 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 1/31/25 Fri 1/31/25 0 days 380 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 2/3/25 Fri 4/4/25 45 days 381 Draft LTM Report Mon 4/7/25 Fri 4/25/25 15 days 382 Submit Draft LTM Report Fri 4/25/25 Fri 4/25/25 0 days 383 Review Draft LTM Report Mon 4/28/25 Fri 6/27/25 45 days 384 RTC Draft LTM Report Mon 6/30/25 Fri 7/18/25 15 days 385 Approve Final LTM Report Mon 7/21/25 Fri 7/25/25 5 days 386 Submit Final LTM Report Mon 7/28/25 Fri 8/1/25 5 days 387 OU14 GW LTM Report - 2025 Mon 12/1/25 Fri 7/31/26 175 days 388 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 12/1/25 Fri 1/30/26 45 days 389 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 1/30/26 Fri 1/30/26 0 days 390 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 2/2/26 Fri 4/3/26 45 days 391 Draft LTM Report Mon 4/6/26 Fri 4/24/26 15 days 392 Submit Draft LTM Report Fri 4/24/26 Fri 4/24/26 0 days 393 Review Draft LTM Report Mon 4/27/26 Fri 6/26/26 45 days 394 RTC Draft LTM Report Mon 6/29/26 Fri 7/17/26 15 days 395 Approve Final LTM Report Mon 7/20/26 Fri 7/24/26 5 days 396 Submit Final LTM Report Mon 7/27/26 Fri 7/31/26 5 days Contractor Fri 4/28/23 Regulator Contractor Contractor Fri 2/9/24 Navy Contractor Fri 5/3/24 Regulator Contractor Contractor Fri 1/31/25 Navy Contractor Fri 4/25/25 Regulator Contractor Contractor Fri 1/30/26 Navy Contractor Fri 4/24/26 Regulator Contractor 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2024 Task Milestone Summary Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone Rolled Up Progress Split External Tasks Project Summary Group By Summary Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Progress Deadline Table 11-2 Schedules and Milestones FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Thu 5/5/22 Page 11 of 13 ID Task Name Start Finish Duration 397 OU14 GW LTM Report - 2026 Mon 11/30/26 Fri 8/6/27 180 days 398 Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 11/30/26 Fri 1/29/27 45 days 399 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Fri 1/29/27 Fri 1/29/27 0 days 400 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 2/1/27 Fri 4/2/27 45 days 401 Draft LTM Report Mon 4/5/27 Fri 4/23/27 15 days 402 Submit Draft LTM Report Fri 4/23/27 Fri 4/23/27 0 days 403 Review Draft LTM Report Mon 4/26/27 Fri 7/2/27 50 days 404 RTC Draft LTM Report Mon 7/5/27 Fri 7/23/27 15 days 405 Approve Final LTM Report Mon 7/26/27 Fri 7/30/27 5 days 406 Submit Final LTM Report Mon 8/2/27 Fri 8/6/27 5 days 407 OU14 GW LTM Report - 2027 Tue 11/30/27 Mon 8/7/28 180 days 408 Pre-Draft LTM Report Tue 11/30/27 Mon 1/31/28 45 days 409 Submit Pre-Draft LTM Report Mon 1/31/28 Mon 1/31/28 0 days 410 Review Pre-Draft LTM Report Tue 2/1/28 Mon 4/3/28 45 days 411 Draft LTM Report Tue 4/4/28 Mon 4/24/28 15 days 412 Submit Draft LTM Report Mon 4/24/28 Mon 4/24/28 0 days 413 Review Draft LTM Report Tue 4/25/28 Mon 7/3/28 50 days 414 RTC Draft LTM Report Tue 7/4/28 Mon 7/24/28 15 days 415 Approve Final LTM Report Tue 7/25/28 Mon 7/31/28 5 days 416 Submit Final LTM Report Tue 8/1/28 Mon 8/7/28 5 days 417 MCOLF Oak Grove Mon 2/14/22 Fri 2/10/23 260 days 418 Oak Grove SI Report Mon 2/14/22 Fri 2/10/23 260 days 419 Pre-Draft SI Mon 2/14/22 Fri 5/20/22 70 days 420 Submit Pre-Draft SI Fri 5/20/22 Fri 5/20/22 0 days 421 Review Pre-Draft SI Mon 5/23/22 Fri 7/22/22 45 days 422 Draft SI Mon 7/25/22 Fri 9/2/22 30 days 423 Submit Draft SI Fri 9/2/22 Fri 9/2/22 0 days 424 Review Draft SI Mon 9/5/22 Fri 11/4/22 45 days 425 RTC Draft SI Mon 11/7/22 Fri 12/16/22 30 days 426 CMT Resolution Draft SI Mon 12/19/22 Fri 1/27/23 30 days 427 Approve Final SI Mon 1/30/23 Fri 2/3/23 5 days 428 Submit Final SI Mon 2/6/23 Fri 2/10/23 5 days 429 MCALF Bogue Mon 2/14/22 Fri 2/3/23 255 days 430 Bogue SI Report Mon 2/14/22 Fri 2/3/23 255 days 431 Pre-Draft SI Mon 2/14/22 Fri 5/20/22 70 days 432 Submit Pre-Draft SI Fri 5/20/22 Fri 5/20/22 0 days Contractor Fri 1/29/27 Navy Contractor Fri 4/23/27 Regulator Contractor Contractor Mon 1/31/28 Navy Contractor Mon 4/24/28 Regulator Contractor Contractor Fri 5/20/22 Navy Contractor Fri 9/2/22 Regulator Contractor Team Regulator Contractor Fri 5/20/22 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2024 Task Milestone Summary Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone Rolled Up Progress Split External Tasks Project Summary Group By Summary Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Progress Deadline Table 11-2 Schedules and Milestones FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Thu 5/5/22 Page 12 of 13 ID Task Name Start Finish Duration 433 Review Pre-Draft SI Mon 5/23/22 Fri 7/22/22 45 days 434 Draft SI Mon 7/25/22 Fri 9/2/22 30 days 435 Submit Draft SI Fri 9/2/22 Fri 9/2/22 0 days 436 Review Draft SI Mon 9/5/22 Fri 11/4/22 45 days 437 RTC Draft SI Mon 11/7/22 Fri 12/16/22 30 days 438 Approve Final SI Mon 12/19/22 Fri 1/27/23 30 days 439 Submit Final SI Mon 1/30/23 Fri 2/3/23 5 days 440 Site 100 - MCOLF Atlantic Mon 9/20/21 Fri 12/16/22 325 days 441 Site 100 - Atlantic SI Report Mon 9/20/21 Fri 12/16/22 325 days 442 Pre-Draft SI Mon 9/20/21 Mon 4/18/22 151 days 443 Submit Pre-Draft SI Mon 4/18/22 Mon 4/18/22 0 days 444 Review Pre-Draft SI Tue 4/19/22 Mon 6/20/22 45 days 445 Draft SI Tue 6/21/22 Mon 7/11/22 15 days 446 Submit Draft SI Mon 7/11/22 Mon 7/11/22 0 days 447 Review Draft SI Tue 7/12/22 Mon 9/12/22 45 days 448 RTC Draft SI Tue 9/13/22 Mon 12/5/22 60 days 449 Approve Final SI Tue 12/6/22 Fri 12/9/22 4 days 450 Submit Final SI Mon 12/12/22 Fri 12/16/22 5 days Navy Contractor Fri 9/2/22 Regulator Contractor Regulator Contractor Mon 4/18/22 Navy Contractor Mon 7/11/22 Regulator Contractor Regulator 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2024 Task Milestone Summary Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone Rolled Up Progress Split External Tasks Project Summary Group By Summary Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Progress Deadline Table 11-2 Schedules and Milestones FY 2023 Site Management Plan MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina Thu 5/5/22 Page 13 of 13 FES0613220646VBO 12-1 SECTION 12 References A. T. Kearney, Inc. 1988. Interim RCRA Facility Assessment Report, U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. June. AGVIQ/CH2M. 2006a. Technical Memorandum, May 2005, Voluntary Groundwater Monitoring at Operable Unit 1. Final. July. AGVIQ/CH2M. 2006b. System Closeout Report, Air Sparge/Soil Vapor Extraction System, Operable Unit 1, Site 16, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. August. AGVIQ/CH2M. 2007a. Annual 2006 Long-term Monitoring Report, Operable Unit 13, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. April. AGVIQ/CH2M. 2007b. Remedial Action Work Plan, Operable Unit 6, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. February. Brown & Root Environmental (B&R). 1996a. Focused Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report for OU1 Groundwater, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. February. B&R. 1996b. Proposed Remedial Action Plan for OU2, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. June. B&R. 1996c. Interim Record of Decision for OU1, NADEP Central Hot Spot Area Groundwater, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. August. B&R. 1996d. Feasibility Study for OU3, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. December. B&R. 1996e. Remedial Investigation, OU3, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. December. B&R. 1996f. Interim Measures Record of Decision, OU3, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. December. B&R. 1997a. Basis of Design Report for Air Sparging System at Site 10, OU2, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. April. B&R. 1997b. Basis of Design Report for OU1, Site 16—Landfill at Sandy Branch, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. April. B&R. 1997c. Feasibility Study for OU2, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. July. B&R. 1998. Wetland Delineation Report for Site 85, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. February. CH2M HILL (CH2M). 2001a. Final Site Screening Process Work Plan for Site 85, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. April. CH2M. 2002a. Long-Term Monitoring Work Plan for OU3 Groundwater, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. August. CH2M. 2002b. Long-term Monitoring Work Plan for OU2 Groundwater, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. September. CH2M. 2002c. Five Year Review Report, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. November. CH2M, 2003a. Technical Memorandum, OU3 Site 7 System Operational Hiatus, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. February. CH2M. 2003b. Step 3A Addendum to the Ecological Risk Assessment, OU1, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. July. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2022 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 12-2 FES0613220646VBO CH2M. 2003c. Treatability Study Technical Memoranda, OU1, Site 47, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. August. CH2M. 2003d. Site Screening Area Decision Document for Site 85, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. September. CH2M. 2003e. Phase I Remedial Investigation Interim Report for OU14, Site 90, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. October. CH2M. 2004a. Point of Environmental Interest Decision Document for Site 35a, High Power Engine Run-Up Area and Test Cells, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. January. CH2M. 2004b. Point of Environmental Interest Evaluation Report, Site 35A, High Power Engine Run-Up Area Test Cells, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. January. CH2M. 2004c. Decision Document for the Outlying Field Sites, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. January. CH2M. 2005c. Final Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment, Operable Unit 1, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. August. CH2M. 2005a. Record of Decision for Operable Unit 13 (Sites 19, 21, and 44b), Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. September. CH2M. 2005b. Post-BERA Investigation Work Plan for Operable Unit 1, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. November. CH2M. 2005c. Remedial Investigation Report for OU6, Site 12, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. December. CH2M. 2005d. Record of Decision for Operable Unit 4, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. September. CH2M. 2006a. Remedial Design for Operable Unit 4, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. April. CH2M. 2006b. Record of Decision for Operable Unit 5, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. May. CH2M. 2007. Groundwater Treatability Study, Operable Unit 1, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. December. CH2M. 2008a. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA), Sandy Branch Tributary #2, Operable Unit 1, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. January. CH2M. 2008b. Technical Memorandum for the Results of Additional Sampling near Monitoring Well 16GW04, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. May. CH2M. 2008c. OU14, Site 90 Remedial Investigation, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. December. CH2M. 2008d. Five-Year Review Report, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. February. CH2M. 2009a. OU1 Remedial Investigation Addendum, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. April. CH2M. 2009b. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Vapor Intrusion Investigation, Operable Unit 1, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. June. CH2M. 2009c. Feasibility Study, Operable Unit 14, Site 90, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. April. CH2M. 2009d. Proposed Plan, Operable Unit 14, Site 90, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. April. SECTION 12—REFERENCES FES0613220646VBO 12-3 CH2M. 2009e. Record of Decision, Operable Unit 14, Site 90, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. August. CH2M. 2010a. Remedial Design for Land Use Controls, Operable Unit 14, Site 90, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. March. CH2M. 2010b. Site Inspection Report for Former Skeet and Trap Range #1, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. October. CH2M. 2010c. Record of Decision, Operable Unit 1, Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. August. CH2M. 2010d. Draft Technical Memorandum, 2009 Additional Investigation Activities, Operable Unit 1, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. January. CH2M. 2010e. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Baseline Long-Term Monitoring Groundwater Sampling Event at Operable Unit 14, Site 90, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. September. CH2M. 2011a. Vapor Intrusion Investigation Report, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. January. CH2M. 2011b. Supplemental Remedial Investigation, Site 83, Operable Unit 1, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. May. CH2M. 2011c. Operable Unit 1 Central Groundwater Plume Near-Source In-Situ Bioremediation Pilot Study Implementation Plan, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. March. CH2M. 2011d. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Operable Unit 1 Central Groundwater Plume Near-Source In-Situ Bioremediation Pilot Study, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. March. CH2M. 2011e. Interim Remedial Action Completion Report, Operable Unit 14, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. June. CH2M. 2011f. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Groundwater Long-term Monitoring at Operable Unit 14, Site 90, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. June. CH2M. 2011g. Operable Unit 1 Central Groundwater Plume Feasibility Study, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. August. CH2M. 2011h. Sampling and Analysis Plan (Field Sampling Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan), Former Skeet and Trap Range #1, Expanded Site Inspection, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. December. CH2M. 2012a. Remedial Action Completion Report, Operable Unit 5, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final January. CH2M. 2012b. Supplemental Remedial Investigation, Site 16, Operable Unit 1, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. February. CH2M. 2012c. Remedial Action Completion Report, Operable Unit 3, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. April. CH2M. 2012d. Phase II Vapor Intrusion Investigation Report, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina, Final. May. CH2M. 2012e. Operable Unit 1, Central Groundwater Plume, Zero-Valent Iron Permeable Reactive Barrier Pilot Study Implementation Plan, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. May. CH2M. 2012f. Tier II Sampling and Analysis Plan, Groundwater Treatment Zero-Valent Iron Permeable Reactive Barrier Pilot Study, Operable Unit 1, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. May. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2022 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 12-4 FES0613220646VBO CH2M. 2012g. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Optimized Long-term Monitoring Plan, Operable Unit 2, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. May. CH2M. 2012h. Long-term Monitoring Report, Operable Unit 14, Site 90, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina Final. May. CH2M. 2012i. Community Involvement Plan, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. August. CH2M. 2012j. Expanded Site Inspection Report for Former Skeet and Trap Range #1, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. November. CH2M. 2013a. Five-Year Review Report, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. March. CH2M. 2013b. Decision Document, Former Skeet and Trap Range #1, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. March. CH2M. 2013c. Five-Year Review Report, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. March. CH2M. 2014a. Proposed Plan, Operable Unit 1, Central Groundwater Plume Sites 42, 47, 51, 52, 92, and 98, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. April. CH2M. 2014b. In Situ Enhanced Bioremediation Pilot Study, 16-Month, 18-Month, and 24-Month Post-Injection Activities Update, Central Groundwater Plume, Operable Unit 1, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. April. CH2M. 2014c. Sampling and Analysis Plan Revision 1 for Groundwater Long-Term Monitoring at Operable Unit 14 (OU14) Site 90 MCAS Cherry Point NC. Final. April. CH2M. 2015. Operable Unit 1, Central Groundwater Plume, Zero-Valent Iron Permeable Reactive Barrier Pilot Study Implementation Report, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. May. CH2M. 2016a. Record of Decision, Operable Unit 1, Central Groundwater Plume, Sites 42, 47, 51, 52, 92, and 98, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. June. CH2M. 2016b. Technical Memorandum – Results of Desktop Evaluation to Verify Off-Base Drinking Water Sources. September. CH2M. 2017a. Summary of the Updated Human Health Risk Assessment – OU1 Site 16, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. May. CH2M. 2017b. Operable Unit 1 Vapor Intrusion, 2016 Baseline Long-Term Monitoring Report, and Building 137 Additional Investigation, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. October. CH2M. 2017c. Sampling and Analysis Plan for Investigation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Drinking Water, Outlying Landing Field Atlantic, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Havelock, North Carolina. Final. June. CH2M. 2018a. Five-Year Review Report, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. April. CH2M. 2018b. Remedial Design, Operable Unit 1, Central Groundwater Plume, Sites 42, 47, 51, 52, 92, and 98, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. March. CH2M. 2018c. Remedial Design for Land Use Controls, Operable Unit 1, Site 16, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. March. CH2M. 2019a. Preliminary Assessment for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, Marine Corps Outlying Landing Field Atlantic, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. May. CH2M. 2019b. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Site Inspections for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, Marine Corps Outlying Landing Field Atlantic, Marine Corps Airs Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. May. SECTION 12—REFERENCES FES0613220646VBO 12-5 CH2M. 2019c. Preliminary Assessment for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, Marine Corps Outlying Landing Field Oak Grove, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. October. CH2M. 2020a. Interim Remedial Action Completion Report, Operable Unit 1, Site 16, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. January. CH2M. 2020b. Record of Decision Explanation of Significant Differences, Operable Unit 2, Change to the Land Use Control Remedy Component, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. February. CH2M. 2020c. Preliminary Assessment for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, Marine Corps Auxiliary Landing Field Bogue, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. March.Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). 2003. Navy Guidance for Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Originally published April 5, 1999. Website version last updated February 28, 2003 <http://web.ead.anl.gov/ecorisk/process/pdf/index.cfm>. CH2M. 2020d. Sampling and Analysis Plan for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, Marine Corps Outlying Landing Field Oak Grove, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. July. CH2M. 2020e. Building 137 Autoclave Room Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System Pilot Study Sampling and Analysis Plan, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. November. CH2M. 2020f. Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System Pilot Study Work Plan, Operable Unit 1, Building 137 Autoclave Room. Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. November. CH2M. 2021a. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Phase II Site Inspection for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, Marine Corps Outlying Landing Field Atlantic, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. June. CH2M. 2021b. Sampling and Analysis Plan for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Site Inspection, Marine Corps Auxiliary Landing Field Bogue, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. June. CH2M. 2022. Preliminary Assessment for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, Marine Corps Air Station, North Carolina. Final. April. Eimers, J. L., C. C. Daniel, and R.W. Coble. 1994. Hydrogeology and Simulation of Ground-Water Flow at U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 1987-90. Giese, G. L., J. L. Eimers, and R. W. Coble. 1997. Simulation of Ground-Water Flow in the Coastal Plain Aquifer System of North Carolina, USGS Professional Paper 1404-M. Halliburton NUS. 1992. Technical Direction Memorandum for Units 10 and 16, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. November. Halliburton NUS. 1993a. RCRA Facilities Investigation, 21 Units, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. June. Halliburton NUS. 1993b. Technical Direction Memorandum, 10 Units, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. August. Halliburton NUS. 1994a. Phase II Technical Direction Memorandum for Units 10 and 16, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. June. Halliburton NUS. 1994b. Site Characterization and Evaluation Report for BRAC Sites 6 and 7 for Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. December. HMM Associates, Inc. 1993. Environmental Baseline Survey for Transfer (EBST), Hazardous/Toxic Waste Real Estate Survey, Marine Corps Outlying Field, Oak Grove, North Carolina. November. Law Engineering. 1995. Leaking Underground Pipeline Site Assessment Report, Building 130, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. June. Lloyd, Jr., O. B. and C. C. Daniel, III. 1988. “Hydrogeologic Setting, Water Levels, and Quality of Water from Supply Wells at the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina.” USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 88-4034. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2022 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 12-6 FES0613220646VBO Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point (MCAS). 2001. Final Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan: Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. September. MCAS. 2003. Land Use Control Assurance Plan for Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. January. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC). 2004. Navy Guidance for Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. <http://web.ead.anl.gov/ecorisk/>. NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic. 2008. Letter to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Subject: Documentation of Change in the Land Use Control Boundary for Operable Unit 2, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. May 19. North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2003. Guidelines for Performing Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessments Within the North Carolina Division of Waste Management. NCDENR Division of Waste Management. October. NUS Corporation (NUS). 1988. Remedial Investigation Interim Report, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. October. NUS. 1991. Draft Final RCRA Facility Investigation Report: Units 5, 10, 16, and 17, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. May. OHM Remediation Services Corp. (OHM). 1998a. CERCLA Time-Critical Removal for OU1, Site 16 Debris Piles, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. January. OHM. 1998b. Remedial Action Report, OU3, Sites 6 and 7, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. January. OHM. 1998c. Action Memorandum, Debris Removal, Site 85, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. November. OHM. 2000. Remedial Action Report for OU3, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. August. R. E. Wright Environmental, Inc. 1996. Soil/Groundwater Study, Engine High Power Run-Up Area, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. September. Rhēa Engineers & Consultants, Inc. (Rhēa). 2008. Final Removal Action Work Plan, OU1, Tributary 2, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. May. Rhēa. 2009. Final Construction Closeout Report, Operable Unit 1, Sandy Branch Tributary, Non Time Critical Removal Action, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. June. Rhēa. 2010a. Proposed Plan, Operable Unit 1, Sites 14, 15, 17, 18, and 40, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. March. Rhēa. 2010b. Site Soil Investigation Report, Operable Unit 1 – Site 83, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. June. Rhēa. 2010c. Work Plan, Operable Unit 2 Site 10, Soil Vapor Extraction System Decommission, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. April. Rhēa. 2010d. Construction Closeout Report, OU1 Site 16 Air Sparge/Soil Vapor Extraction System Decommission, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. February. Rhēa. 2010e. Construction Closeout Report, OU2 Site 10 Soil Vapor Extraction System Decommission, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. July. Rhēa. 2010f. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Operable Unit 4, Site 4, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. June. Rhēa. 2011a. Focused Feasibility Study, Operable Unit 2, Site 10 Hot Spot 2, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. February. SECTION 12—REFERENCES FES0613220646VBO 12-7 Rhēa. 2011b. Proposed Plan, Operable Unit 2, Site 10 Hot Spot 2, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. April. Final. Rhēa. 2011c. Construction Closeout Report, Operable Unit 1 Site 16 Air Sparge System Decommission, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. May. Rhēa Engineers & Consultants, Inc. 2011d. Final Record of Decision Amendment, Operable Unit 2, Site 10, Hot Spot 2, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. September. Rhēa. 2011e. Final Remedial Design and Remedial Action Work Plan, Operable Unit 2, Site 10, Hot Spot 2, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. December. Rhēa. 2011f. Technical Memorandum, Operable Unit 4 Evaluation, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. September. Rhēa. 2012a. Proposed Plan, Operable Unit 1, Site 83, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. March. Rhēa. 2012b. Construction Closeout Report, Operable Unit 2, Site 10, Hotspot 2 Remedial Action, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. August. Rhēa. 2012c. Record of Decision, Operable Unit 1, Site 83, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. August. Rhēa. 2012d. Interim Remedial Action Completion Report, Operable Unit 2, Site 10, Hot Spot 2, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. December. Rhēa. 2013a. Construction Closeout Report, Operable Unit 1, Site 83, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. March. Rhēa. 2013b. Remedial Action Completion Report, Operable Unit 13, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. May. Rhēa. 2015. Proposed Plan, Operable Unit 1, Site 16, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. September. Rhēa. 2017. Record of Decision, Operable Unit 1, Site 16, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. September.Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. (Tetra Tech). 1999a. Final Record of Decision for OU2, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. March. Tetra Tech. 1999b. Fish Ingestion Report for Slocum Creek, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. June. Tetra Tech. 2000. Record of Decision for OU3, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. August. Tetra Tech. 2001. Screening Level and Step 3A Ecological Risk in Slocum Creek Adjacent to OUs 1, 2, 3, and 4, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. November. Tetra Tech. 2002a. Remedial Investigation for OU4, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. September. Tetra Tech. 2002b. Remedial Investigation Report for OU1, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Final. November. Tetra Tech. 2020. Construction Completion Report OU1 Remedy Implementation, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Havelock, North Carolina. July. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2001. Range Identification and Preliminary Range Assessment, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, New Bern, North Carolina. December. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim Final. EPA 540-R-97-006. June. USEPA. 2001a. Draft Letter, Points of Environmental Interest (POEI’s) at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Cherry Point, North Carolina. January. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1994. Hydrogeology and Simulation of Ground-Water Flow at U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina, 1987-90. Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4186. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2022 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 12-8 FES0613220646VBO USGS. 1996. Application of Geophysical Methods for the Delineation of Paleochannels and Missing Confining Units Above the Castle Hayne Aquifer at U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. Water-Resources Investigation Report 94-4186. USGS. 2004. Data from Stratigraphic Test Holes Drilled at the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina, 1994-2001, and Periodic Water Levels, 2000-2003. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004-1434. United States Marine Corps (USMC). 1994. Solid Waste Management Unit Assessment Report, SWMU I-14, Motor Transportation, Cherry Point, North Carolina. May. USMC. 2009. Environmental Assessment MCAS Cherry Point Range Operations, MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. February. Water and Air Research, Inc. 1983. Initial Assessment Study of Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina, Prepared for Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity (NEESA). March. Winner, Jr., M. D. and R. W. Coble. 1996. Hydrogeologic Framework of the North Carolina Coastal Plain. USGS Professional Paper 1404-I. 1996.