FINAL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN FORT GEORGE G. MEADE FORT MEADE, MARYLAND. Prepared Under:

FINAL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN FORT GEORGE G. MEADE FORT MEADE, MARYLAND Prepared Under: U.S. Army Environmental Command 2450 Connell Road, Building 2264, Rm 125 Fort Sam Houston, Texas 78234 Contract No. Contract No. W912HN-12-D-0021, DO 0011 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District 100 West Oglethorpe Avenue Savannah, Georgia 31402 Prepared by: Aerostar SES LLC 11181 St. Johns Industrial Parkway North Jacksonville, Florida 32246 904-565-2820 Project No. M1062.0011 December 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS... iii 1.0 OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLANS (CIPs)... 1 1.1 Purpose... 1 2.0 INSTALLATION AND IRP BACKGROUND... 2 2.1 Installation Location and Description... 2 2.2 History of Installation Operations... 2 2.3 Overview of the Army Cleanup Program... 3 2.3.1 Regulatory Policy... 4 2.3.2 Phases of Cleanup Process... 6 2.4 Cleanup Program at... 9 3.0 ACTIVE CLEANUP SITES AT FORT GEORGE G. MEADE... 10 3.1 FGGM-07 (DRMO Drum Site [OU- 5])... 11 3.2 FGGM-08 (Ammunition Supply Point [ASP] #No. 1)... 11 3.3 FGGM-13 (Pesticide Shop Building 6621)... 12 3.4 FGGM-17 (Closed Sanitary Landfill [CSL])... 12 3.5 FGGM-18 (ASP No. 2)... 13 3.6 Operable Unit-4 (OU-4)... 14 3.7 FGGM-37 (Kimbrough Army Hospital)... 15 3.8 FGGM-70 (Indoor Range, Former Building 6513 [OU-25])... 15 3.9 FGGM-74 (Architect of the Capitol)... 15 3.10 FGGM-83 (Former Trap and Skeet Range [OU-1])... 16 3.11 FGGM-87 (Nike Control Site [OU-3])... 16 3.12 FGGM-93 (Manor View Dump Site)... 17 3.13 FGGM-95 (Landfill Sites [Former])... 18 3.14 FGGM-96 (Motor Pools, Washracks, Bldgs [Former])... 18 3.15 Off-Post Groundwater Investigation-Nevada Avenue Area... 19 3.16 FGGM-003-R (Former Mortar Range Munitions Repsonse Area [MRA] and Munitions Response Sites [MRS])... 19 3.17 FGGM-007-R-01 (Inactive Landfill 2)... 20 3.18 CCFGGM-97 (Cell 3)... 20 4.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE... 21 4.1 Anne Arundel County... 21 4.1.1 Fort Meade... 21 4.1.2 Odenton... 22 4.2 History of Community Involvement... 23 4.3 Community Feedback... 23 4.3.1 Interview Participants... 24 4.3.2 Issue Identification Approach and Findings... 24 4.4 Responses to Concerns... 27 4.5 Summary of Communication Needs... 28 5.0 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES... 29 5.1 Points of Contact (POC)... 29 5.2 Information Repository/Administrative Records... 30 5.3 Fact Sheets... 31 i

5.4 Public Notices, Meetings, and Comment Periods... 31 5.5 Responsiveness Summaries... 32 5.6 Mailing List Update... 32 5.7 Speaker Bureaus/Open House... 32 5.8 CIP Updates... 33 5.9 Activity Schedule... 33 5.10 Community Grant Opportunities... 35 6.0 REFERENCES... 36 TABLES Table 1 Community Interview Responses... 24 Table 2 Community Involvement Activities during Restoration... 34 FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 2-4 Installation Location Map Active Cleanup Sites Active Cleanup Sites Active Cleanup Sites Active Cleanup Sites Active Cleanup Sites APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D CERCLA/RCRA Equivalents Information Repository and Administrative Records Locations Additional Contact Information Meeting Locations ii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AOI AR ARAR ASP AST BD/DR BRAC CERCLA CFR CIP COC COPC CRP CSF CSL DD DERP DoD DOL DPDO DPW-ED DRMO EE/CA ERD FFA FGGM FS FY HHRA IAP IRP KACC LTM LUC MC MCL MDE MEC MMPEH MMRP MNA MR MRS MRSPP NCP Area of Interest Administrative Record Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement Ammunition Supply Point Aboveground Storage Tank Building Demolition/Debris Removal Base Realignment and Closure Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Code of Federal Regulations Community Involvement Plan Contaminant of Concern Contaminant of Potential Concern Compliance Restoration Program Covered Storage Facility Closed Sanitary Landfill Decision Document Defense Environmental Restoration Program Department of Defense Directorate of Logistics Defense Property Disposal Office Directorate of Public Works-Environmental Division Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Federal Facilities Agreement Feasibility Study Fiscal Year Human Health Risk Assessment Installation Action Plan Installation Restoration Program Kimbrough Ambulatory Care Clinic Long-Term Management Land Use Control Munitions Constituents Maximum Contaminant Level Maryland Department of the Environment Munitions and Explosives of Concern MEC and Munitions Potentially Presenting an Explosive Hazard Military Munitions Response Program Monitored Natural Attenuation Munitions Response Munitions Response Site Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan iii

NFA NPL NTCRA O&M OU OWS PA PAH PCB PCE POC POL POW PP RA RAB RA-C RA-O RBC RCRA RD RFA RI RIP ROD SI SLERA SMP SSI SVOC SWMU TAPP TASC TCE TMP USAOC USDOI USEPA UST UXO VOC WWI WWII No Further Action National Priorities List Non-Time Critical Removal Action Operations and Maintenance Operable Unit Oil Water Separator Preliminary Assessment Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Polychlorinated Biphenyl Tetrachloroethene Point of Contact Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants Prisoner of War Proposed Plan Remedial Action Restoration Advisory Board Remedial Action - Construction Remedial Action - Operation Risk-based Concentration Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Remedial Design RCRA Facility Assessment Remedial Investigation Remedy-in-Place Record of Decision Site Inspection Screening-level Ecological Risk Assessment Site Management Plan Supplemental Site Inspection Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Solid Waste Management Unit Technical Assistance for Public Participation Technical Assistance Services for Communities Trichloroethylene Transportation Motor Pool U.S. Architect of the Capitol U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Underground Storage Tank Unexploded Ordnance Volatile Organic Compound World War I World War II iv

1.0 OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLANS (CIPs) This Community Involvement Plan (CIP) update has been prepared for the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) at (FGGM). The CIP provides guidance for public involvement associated with the Installation Restoration Program (IRP), Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP), and Compliance Restoration Program (CRP) cleanup sites at FGGM. Active sites within the program are currently in various phases of remedial action activities. The FGGM CIP has been prepared in accordance with current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The community involvement requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, the 1976 RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act of 1984, are outlined herein. 1.1 Purpose Applicable and effective communication, and the timely exchange of information are essential for maintaining community understanding and support for FGGM and to ensure the success of community involvement. The purposes of the community involvement process are to: Establish effective and comprehensive methods for informing the community of installation cleanup program actions; Solicit input and identify concerns that the local community may have regarding current and future cleanup program activities; and Maintain a strategy that supports pro-active, two-way communication between the Army and the local community. The CIP identifies activities that encourage two-way communication between the Army installation and the local community. This communication includes providing opportunities for the community to learn about and comment on the IRP, MMRP and CRP. This CIP has been developed to provide a line of communication for sharing public information. The 1

target audiences are local citizens and neighbors; installation residents and tenants; federal, state, and local officials and agencies; and local businesses and civic interest groups. 2.0 INSTALLATION AND IRP BACKGROUND 2.1 Installation Location and Description FGGM is located in the northwestern corner of Anne Arundel County, roughly equidistant between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, Maryland, along the Little Patuxent and Patuxent Rivers. The resident and working population of FGGM totals approximately 60,000 people. FGGM s mission is to provide required services, infrastructure, a safe and secure community, and a quality of life that supports mission readiness and the Fort Meade community. This wide range of support is provided to multiple partner organizations from all four DoD military services, as well as several Federal agencies. The location of FGGM is shown on Figure 1. 2.2 History of Installation Operations FGGM was first authorized by congress in 1917 as one of 16 training cantonments built for troops during World War I (WWI), and was known as Camp Meade. During that time, more than 100,000 troops were trained at the 4,000-acre facility. The U.S. Army Tank School operated at the installation from 1918 to 1932. In 1928, the installation became a permanent military reservation, at which time it was given its current name. From 1940 to 1946, 3.5 million men and women trained at FGGM during World War II (WWII). In 1941, the facility expanded to 13,596 acres to accommodate the additional activities. Since 1946, FGGM has been involved in training troops at various times. In 1988, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) identified FGGM for realignment as an administrative installation, and identified approximately 9,000 acres of ranges and similar training areas for closure. Currently, over 8,000 acres have been transferred to the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) Patuxent Research Refuge for use as a wildlife refuge. After the 1988 BRAC realignment, the installation consisted of 5,142 acres. The current 2

installation boundaries include the area formerly known as the cantonment area, which is currently used for administrative, recreational, and housing facilities. Since 1995, FGGM has actively participated in developing and maintaining a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB). In 1989, FGGM was placed on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. In July 1998, FGGM was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) with a score of 54. 2.3 Overview of the Army Cleanup Program The DERP was formally established by Congress in 1986 and provides for the cleanup of DoD sites under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense. The key objective of the cleanup program is to reduce, or eliminate when possible, threats to human health and the environment that result from historical use or disposal practices. There are four categories included in the DoD environmental restoration program: the IRP category, the MMRP category, the CRP category, and the Building Demolition/Debris Removal (BD/DR) program category. These program categories address the types of releases that are covered under the DERP. In addition, the Compliance Cleanup (CC) program manages the cleanup of contamination not covered under DERP. FGGM sites discussed in this CIP fall within the IRP, MMRP, and CRP categories. The IRP is a comprehensive program to identify, investigate and clean up hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants at Army installations. DERP guidance requires that sites in the IRP program be prioritized for cleanup based primarily on relative risk by grouping sites or areas of concern into high, medium, and low priority categories. Relative risk is evaluated using three factors: the contaminant hazard factor (i.e., the types of contaminants present and how hazardous they are); the migration pathway factor (whether the contaminants are moving, and in what direction); and the receptor factor (potential of humans or plants/animals to be exposed to the contaminants). For further information on how relative risk is evaluated for IRP sites, refer to the DoD Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer (1996). 3

The MMRP addresses non-operational range lands that are suspected or known to contain unexploded ordnances (UXO), discarded military munitions, or munitions constituent contamination. In the MMRP, relative cleanup priorities are assigned using the DoD Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP) (32 CFR Part 179). Data is gathered during a comprehensive site evaluation to identify munitions contaminant types, sources, transport processes, receptors, and exposure pathways. The data is evaluated to determine if a munitions response (MR) area requires further investigation, and to assign a priority for subsequent action. The CRP is a program that manages the cleanup of former Compliance-related Cleanup (CC) program sites that meet the criteria for DERP eligibility as part of the IRP. The CC program manages the cleanup of sites not funded under DERP that are both federally owned, and nonfederally owned, but federally supported. CRP and CC sites include releases from hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities; solid waste landfills undergoing RCRA closure; and releases from RCRA underground storage tanks (USTs) in service prior to 1986. Like the IRP and MMRP, CRP and CC sites follow CERCLA and RCRA guidelines for cleanup and closure. FGGM does not have any sites that fall within the category of Building Demolition/Debris Removal (BD/DR), which refers to the demolition and removal of unsafe buildings and structures at facilities or sites that are or were owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed by the DoD. Each Army installation must implement a cleanup strategy that protects human health and the environment and reduces relative risk. 2.3.1 Regulatory Policy The DERP is the statutory authority that establishes an environmental restoration program for DoD. The scope of the DERP is defined in 10 USC 2701(b), which states: Goals of the program shall include the following: (1) identification, investigation, research and development, and cleanup of contamination from hazardous substances, and 4

pollutants and contaminants; (2) correction of other environmental damage (such as detection and disposal of unexploded ordnance) which creates an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or to the environment; (3) demolition and removal of unsafe buildings and structures, including buildings and structures of the DoD at sites formerly used by or under the jurisdiction of the Secretary. When Congress established the DERP, they directed that DoD cleanup efforts be consistent with the CERCLA. CERCLA requires that cleanup efforts at federal facilities be conducted in accordance with the requirements in Section 120 (a), 42 USC 9620 of CERCLA. Executive Order 12580 delegates authority for implementing CERCLA to various federal officials, including the DoD. In order to have a common framework for managing a national cleanup program, the Army uses CERCLA as the primary legislative authority for managing environmental cleanup. According to CERCLA and the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), the Department of the Army is the lead agency responsible for all remedial actions at the installation that are not solely related to USTs, with oversight by the USEPA and the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). However, the RCRA regulates how the remedial actions, pertaining to solid and hazardous wastes and USTs, should be managed to avoid potential threats to human health and the environment. RCRA is implemented by the USEPA, but it allows for the authorization of the state governments to enforce hazardous waste regulatory programs. The role of the state is outlined in CERCLA 120(f) and 40 C.F.R. 300.500 and grants the state the opportunity to identify the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) to be used for cleanup requirements as ARARs, and to review and comment on all draft documents. When a state law or regulation becomes an ARAR, the remedial action must meet those requirements. Subsequent to the RCRA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, FGGM applied for a RCRA Part B Permit, and began investigating potential Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) in 1987. At the same time, site investigations had begun at 5

the Active Sanitary Landfill, the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) site, the Clean Fill Dump site, and the Post Laundry Facility site. Contaminants such as solvents, pesticides, metals, waste fuels, and waste oils were identified in soil and groundwater. Based on the results of these investigations, FGGM was added to the NPL on July 28, 1998. The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances throughout the Unites States. Sites that score higher than 28.5 on the Hazard Ranking System (a screening device to evaluate a site s relative threat to human health or environment) are eligible for inclusion on the NPL. Installations on the NPL are tracked under the USEPA s Superfund Program and may require further investigation by the USEPA. FGGM has an NPL score of 54. In 2009, FGGM entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) with the USEPA, the USDOI, and the U.S. Architect of the Capitol (USAOC). The general purpose of an FFA is to ensure that environmental impacts are thoroughly investigated, and necessary remedial action is taken to protect public health, welfare, and environment; establish a framework and schedule for response actions; and facilitate involvement of all parties in those actions. 2.3.2 Phases of Cleanup Process The investigation and restoration of sites contaminated by past practices is conducted in steps, or phases, with provisions for emergency removal actions or other rapid responses if an imminent danger to public health is identified. The main steps, or phases, in the cleanup process are briefly described below. The names used here are specific to the CERCLA process. The equivalent phase names used in the RCRA program are provided in Appendix A. Preliminary Assessment (PA) This is the initial review and analysis of available information to determine whether a release is likely to have occurred. The PA describes the potential source and nature (type) of releases, includes a preliminary evaluation of threats to the health and welfare of the public and the environment, and recommends subsequent phases in the cleanup process. The 6

relative risk is evaluated during this phase. The decision to close out a site may be made at the end of the PA phase if there is enough data to support that decision. The rationale supporting a closeout decision should be documented in a No Further Action (NFA) Decision Document (DD) and reviewed by the appropriate stakeholders. Site Inspection (SI) This phase is conducted for areas of concern that are identified during the PA, or for munitions response areas. The SI determines the relative cleanup priority, characterizes the presence or absence of contamination, and determines the next appropriate phase. Screening level human health and/or ecological risk assessments may be performed for MMRP sites during this phase. A decision to close out a site may be made at the end of the SI phase if there is enough data to support that decision. The rationale supporting a closeout decision must be recorded in an NFA DD. Remedial Investigation (RI)/ Feasibility Study (FS) The nature (types) and extent (vertical and horizontal boundaries) of the contamination, and severity of any threat to human health and environment are determined in the remedial investigation. Human health and/or ecological risk assessments are conducted during the RI phase. Potential remedial (cleanup) alternatives are developed and evaluated during the FS phase to address any threats to human health and the environment. The remedial alternatives are evaluated based on an established set of USEPA criteria. The criteria evaluation allows the Army to identify the remedial alternative that best meets the applicable, relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and mitigates threats to human health and the environment. Proposed Plan (PP) The PP is a synopsis of the RI/FS that summarizes for the public what the remedial alternatives are, how they were evaluated, how they compared to one another, and which alternative the Army identified as the preferred 7

remedy. The PP is distributed to the public and to the regulatory community for review and comment before a final remedy is selected. A summary fact sheet is also made available to the public at this point in the process. Record of Decision (ROD) or Decision Document (DD) After the public and relevant regulators review and comment on the PP, the selected remedy is revised as needed and documented in a ROD or a DD. A ROD or DD is a legal document that specifies the selected remedy, its objectives, and its endpoint. While the Army is always a signatory to a ROD for one of its installations, federal or state regulatory signatures also may be required based on a site s NPL and/or RCRA status. Further information on this process is available in A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents (USEPA, July 1999). Remedial Design (RD) This phase begins after the final remedy has been selected and documented in a ROD. The RD phase includes establishing information and performance objectives, obtaining design information from the military installation, and discussing the design concept with technical experts. Remedial Action-Construction (RA-C) The RA-C phase is the construction of and/or implemented cleanup remedy noted in the ROD and designed in the RD phase. When the RA-C phase is complete, the Army classifies the site as remedyin-place (RIP). Remedial Action-Operation (RA-O) The RA-O phase takes place while the remedy is operating or in progress, and the performance of the remedy is monitored to measure progress toward the remediation goals. Long-Term Management (LTM) Post-project activities such as long-term monitoring or LTM may also be required to document the continued effectiveness of the selected remedy. At the point in the restoration process when restoration goals 8

have been met and NFA is warranted, closeout occurs. For any site that is not restored to a condition that allows unlimited use/unrestricted exposure, the protectiveness of the remedy is reviewed during the five-year review process. 2.4 Cleanup Program at The IRP was initiated at FGGM in November 1980, followed by the MMRP in May 1989, and the CRP in September 1990. Restoration sites at FGGM include areas impacted by historic operations, such as a former pesticide shop, former Nike missile control site, weapons and firing ranges, disposal pits, former landfills and dump sites, former laundry facilities, motor pools, and miscellaneous storage sites. Since 1980, multiple site investigations and groundwater monitoring events have been conducted by the U.S. Army and other various agencies at sites across FGGM in accordance with the requirements under CERCLA, RCRA and MDE. Sites currently under the FGGM IRP are defined as: FGGM-07, Operable Unit (OU) -5, Former DRMO Drum Site; FGGM-08, Ammunition Supply Point (ASP) -1, within the Closed Sanitary Landfill (CSL); FGGM-13, Former Pesticide Shop; FGGM-17, CSL; FGGM-18, ASP-2; FGGM-37, Kimbrough Hospital B2480; FGGM-70, Building 6513; FGGM-74, Architect of the Capitol; FGGM-83, OU-1, Former Trap and Skeet Range; FGGM-87, OU-3, Former Nike Control Site; FGGM-93, Manor View Dump Site; FGGM-95, Former Dump Sites; FGGM-96, Motor Pools, Washracks, and misc; 9

Operable Unit (OU) -4, which includes FGGM-33, FGGM-45, FGGM-47, FGGM-49, FGGM-51, FGGM-86, FGGM-88, FGGM-89, FGGM-90, FGGM-91, and FGGM-92, as well as CCFGGM-97, Cell 3, within the CSL. The Off-post Groundwater Investigation-Nevada Avenue Area is also under investigation. Sites currently under the FGGM MMRP are defined as the Former Mortar Range (FGGM- 003-R-01, FGGM-003-R-02), and Inactive Landfill 2 (FGGM-007-R-01). The site currently under the FGGM CRP is defined as CCFGGM-97. Contaminants of concern include metals; pesticides; petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL); polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); volatile organic compounds (VOCs); and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) influencing the soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater at the installation. Individual site cleanup/exit strategies are discussed in Section 3.0. In accordance with DoD guidance (DoD Manual 4715.20, March 2012) and U.S. Army environmental policy (AR 200-1, 2007), this installation-specific CIP is an integral requirement of the IRP and is implemented by Army personnel. The plan serves as a guide and toolbox for IRP-related personnel and contractors, as well as for installation officials and personnel, in their efforts to inform and involve the local community. This plan is available to the public as part of the Administrative Record (AR) and Information Repository. The repository location and contact information are provided in Appendix B. 3.0 ACTIVE CLEANUP SITES AT FORT GEORGE G. MEADE The schedule for active FGGM IRP, MMRP, and CRP sites can be found in the annual Installation Action Plan (IAP) and Site Management Plan (SMP). Site descriptions and cleanup/exit strategies are discussed in the following sections and as modified in the annual SMP and IAPs. The locations of the active cleanup sites are shown on Figures 2, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4. 10

3.1 FGGM-07 (DRMO Drum Site [OU- 5]) Site FGGM-07, also identified as Operable Unit (OU) 5, consists of approximately nine acres located near the southern installation boundary. The former DRMO drum site boundary encompasses the covered storage facility (CSF) located in the former salvage yard of the former Defense Property Disposal Office (DPDO). The salvage yard was used as an open storage and disposal area for automobiles, drums, and other machinery and debris. It operated from at least 1988 to 1994. In 1995, a total of 3,500 tons of contaminated soil, two transformers, one high voltage box, and over 260 drums (found to contain solvents, degreasers, petroleum products, metals, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]) were removed from the site. The site was paved and operations resumed. The industrial site is currently used the Logistics Readiness Center (LRC). The contaminants of concern (COCs) at FGGM-07 are VOCs in the groundwater, metals and PCBs in the soil, and VOCs and SVOCs in the sediment. VOCs were detected in the groundwater, with primarily tetrachloroethene (PCE) exceeding USEPA MCLs. The deep and diffuse plume with contaminants above MCLs extends over one mile from the site onto property owned by USDOI. A Final FS, approved in 2007, recommended natural attenuation monitoring; however, a supplemental technical report initiated a meeting with the USEPA and MDE in 2010, in which an active remedy was determined to be necessary, as well as additional RI-level data to address existing data gaps. Completion of the RI/FS is in progress. The cleanup/exit strategy for FGGM-07 involves additional CERCLA processes including LTM, and land use controls (LUCs), and ROD. 3.2 FGGM-08 (Ammunition Supply Point [ASP] #No. 1) Site FGGM-08 is also known as Ammunition Supply Point No. 1 (ASP 1), and is located within the Closed Sanitary Landfill (CSL), FGGM-17. Chemical munitions such as smoke grenades and riot control agents were used and stored at the site. In the 1950s, an unknown number of chemical agent identification sets were also stored at the site. The COCs at FGGM-08 are metals in the soil. 11

Previous investigations have collected soil, subsurface-soil, surface water, and sediment samples from the site. Shallow and deep groundwater has been monitored at the CSL site. Soil samples were collected around magazine locations in ASP-1 to assess for potential soil contamination from leaks or spills. A risk analysis of the results indicated that concentrations are below site-specific action levels. The cleanup/exit strategy for FGGM- 08 includes closure as part of the upcoming CSL ROD. 3.3 FGGM-13 (Pesticide Shop Building 6621) Site FGGM-13, the former Pesticide Shop, is located near York Avenue and Gordon Street. From 1958 to 1978, it was used as a pesticide shop. During this time, it was also used as a maintenance facility for landscaping equipment. In 1996, the building was demolished and the site graded. FGGM-13 is currently vacant grassy land surrounded by a fence. The COCs at FGGM-13 are pesticides in soil and pesticides and VOCs in groundwater. A Final RI/FS and ROD were completed in 2012. The remedial alternative selected was excavation of contaminated soil, enhanced reductive dechlorination (ERD) of groundwater with LTM and LUCs. The selected remedy was modified by a 2014 Explanation of Significant Difference to account for an increase in soil quantity. A RD and an RD Addendum were developed to direct the implementation of the selected remedy in 2013 and 2014. Implementation of the selected remedy was conducted December 2013 through June 2014 and included the excavation and off-site disposal of over 1,000 tons of contaminated soil, and the injection of over 17,000 gallons of ERD treatment. LTM of groundwater and annual LUC inspections will continue in accordance with the ROD and RD, and and 5-year reviews will be conducted in accordance with CERCLA. 3.4 FGGM-17 (Closed Sanitary Landfill [CSL]) FGGM-17 is located along the installation s eastern boundary, south of State Route 32, and includes ASP-1. The site, formerly known as the Active Sanitary Landfill, operated from 1958 to 1976 using the trench fill method. The landfill was constructed as an unlined facility with no leachate collection, and was used for disposal of mixed residential, 12

commercial, and non-hazardous industrial wastes. The Active Sanitary Landfill was divided into three cells. Cell 1 and 2 are divided by a drainage swale and were capped in 1992. Cell 3 is addressed separately as CCFGGM-97. The landfill was officially closed in 1996, at which point it was renamed the CSL. The COCs at FGGM-17 are arsenic, iron, manganese, nitrate, and benzene in shallow groundwater. Previous investigations included characterizing the depth and nature of waste materials, as well as assessing potential exposure pathways. A comprehensive semi-annual groundwater and surface water monitoring program is in place at FGGM-17. A landfill gas collection system was installed in 2000 to control emissions from the site. An off-site investigation conducted in 2013 and 2014 detected arsenic and benzene concentrations in the upper Patapsco Aquifer exceeding MCLs. An FS, finalized in 2014, evaluated alternatives for handling COCs at the property boundary. The PP/ROD is anticipated in 2017, and is expected to include LUCs, an active treatment component, and continued post-closure care and monitoring of the landfill. 3.5 FGGM-18 (ASP No. 2) Site FGGM-18 is also known as ASP 2, and is located in the north-central portion of Patuxent Research Refuge North Tract. Chemical munitions such as smoke grenades and riot control agents were used and stored at ASP 1. In the 1950s, an unknown number of chemical agent identification sets were also stored at ASP 1, and were then transferred to ASP 2. The final disposition of the sets is not known. The site is currently vacant and unused. The COCs at FGGM-18 are metals in soil. A PA was completed for the site in 1996 and found no COCs above site specific action levels; however, the site was in use after the sampling, so an additional PA/SI was later performed. Surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for COCs. A Supplemental Site Inspection (SSI) was recommended to be conducted for soils to further assess the site. The SSI will determine if the site receives an NFA or continues through the CERCLA process. 13

3.6 Operable Unit-4 (OU-4) OU-4 comprises the following sites: FGGM-33, Battery Shop Building 2283; FGGM-45, Calibration Laboratory 2220; FGGM-47, Post Laundry Facility 2250; FGGM-49, DOL Buildings 2286 and 2246; FGGM-51, Spill Site Building 2217; FGGM-86, Former MP Maintenance Facility Builidng 2286; FGGM-88, Former Tank Maintenance Facility Shop 1 Building 2207; FGGM-89, Former Tank Maintenance Facility Shop 2 Former Building 2217; FGGM-90, Former Tank Cleaning Warehouse Building 2240; FGGM-91, Former Missile Repair Shop Building 2220; FGGM-92 Former Heavy Gun Cleaning and Repair Shop Buildings 2244, 2245, 2246, 2246D, and 2253, and Other sites including Monitoring Wells 125d & 126d, and FGGM-96 Areas of Interest including Buildings 2213, 2266, 2276, 2287, 2288, WR-5, and Debris Stain 1975. Site-specific descriptions can be found in the SMP (SMP) and IAP (IAP). In 2009, groundwater samples from monitoring wells showed that comingled groundwater plumes with elevated levels of VOCs were present in the Lower Patapsco Aquifer, extending into the town of Odenton, Maryland. The Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) for OU-4 states that FGGM-47, -49, and -86 are the primary contributors to the OU-4 groundwater plumes. A non-time critical removal action (NTCRA) work plan was approved in 2013, with the objective to expedite an interim cleanup measure and improve groundwater quality across the OU-4 area. Interim remedial activities to stop migration of contamination include in-situ chemical injections, air sparge/soil vapor extraction, and a large-scale pump and treat hydraulic containment system which has been in operation since 2014. Groundwater monitoring and operation and maintenance (O&M) activities are underway. The site is currently in the RI/FS phase. The cleanup/exit strategy involves continued groundwater monitoring and O&M of the interim remedial systems, and completion of the RI/FS, PP, and ROD. 14

3.7 FGGM-37 (Kimbrough Army Hospital) Site FGGM-37, also known as Building 2480 Kimbrough Ambulatory Care Center (KACC), is located near Llewellyn and Wilson Avenues. The site appears to have operated as a motor pool and vehicle service and staging area from 1943 to 1952, and has been used as a hospital since Building 2480 s construction in 1968. Hospital operations were downsized to clinic operations in the early 1990s. Chemicals were stored in flammable storage cabinets and on shelves for use in the pharmacy, laboratories, x-ray rooms, etc. The site was identified during the 1996 SWMU study due to the building routinely discharging waste from silver recovery units from photographic processing for proper disposal. The COCs at FGGM-37 are metals in groundwater. An SSI was recommended to be conducted for groundwater to further assess the site. The SSI will determine if the site receives an NFA or continues through the CERCLA process. 3.8 FGGM-70 (Indoor Range, Former Building 6513 [OU-25]) Site FGGM-70 is located near York Avenue and Simonds Street. Building 6513 was identified as a SWMU in 1996 due to its use as an indoor shooting range with unknown disposal practices. A 550-gallon heating oil UST was formerly located at the site, but was removed in 1997. Building 6513 was demolished in 2001. Groundwater and soil sampling were conducted during previous investigations. A risk analysis found COC concentrations elevated the risk numbers above site-specific action levels. A SSI for groundwater is underway to determine whether the site is recommended for NFA or continues through the CERCLA process. 3.9 FGGM-74 (Architect of the Capitol) Site FGGM-74 consists of the USAOC parcel located along the southern border of FGGM, near State Route 32. In 1993, the parcel was authorized for transfer from the Army to the USAOC in order to service the needs of the Library of Congress and other legislative branch agencies, as well as for long-term storage. The improved areas are primarily used for storing documents; however, approximately 10 acres on the western portion have been 15

leased back to the Army for use as a transportation motor pool (TMP). Contamination at the site is a result of past Army activities. The site was evaluated in 1994, and reportedly contained a temporary warehouse area with several USTs, buildings formerly used as the fort commissary, and buildings associated with the TMP facility. A stream flows south through the site and wetlands are present in the vicinity of the stream. The COC for FGGM-74 is lead in soil. COCs for groundwater are addressed separately under OU-4. The Final RI was submitted in 2013, and the FS and ROD were completed in 2014. The site is currently in the RD phase. The cleanup/exit strategy states that remedial action (RA) is planned, and will involve lead hotspot removal. Additionally, 5-year reviews will be conducted in accordance with CERCLA. 3.10 FGGM-83 (Former Trap and Skeet Range [OU-1]) Site FGGM-83 is a former 44-acre trap and skeet range within a 66-acre vacant parcel used by FGGM from the mid-1970s through 1994. The site is located near State Route 175 and 20 th Street. It formerly consisted of a firing line, skeet houses, and a man-made pond. The site is currently vacant wooded land. The COCs at FGGM-83 are metals and PAHs in soil. Previous investigations have collected soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater samples at the site. COCs were detected at concentrations exceeding regulatory criteria. A revised Final RI has been approved by the USEPA and a Focused FS is underway. The cleanup/exit strategy for FGGM-83 involves additional CERCLA processes including PP and ROD. 3.11 FGGM-87 (Nike Control Site [OU-3]) Site FGGM-87 is a former missile master complex that supported the Nike missile program from 1955 to 1972, and is located near 20 th Street and Annapolis Road. The site is part of OU-3, and consists of four buildings: 1974, 1976, 1977, and 1978. Two of the buildings stored hazardous materials. Building 1974 was used as a generator building. The 16

contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) at FGGM-87 are metals, SVOCs, and VOCs in the soil and groundwater. Previous RI investigations have collected multiple soil and groundwater samples. Sediment sampling and analyses took place adjacent to the site in 2010. A trichloroethylene (TCE) groundwater plume is located approximately 100 feet from Building 1976. Additional RI data collection is underway to address existing data gaps and contamination in near-surface groundwater and potential vapor intrusion concerns in Building 1976. Completion of the RI/FS is in progress. A ROD is planned. The cleanup/exit strategy for FGGM-87 involves additional CERCLA processes including an FS, PP, and ROD. 3.12 FGGM-93 (Manor View Dump Site) Site FGGM-93 is located near MacArthur Road and 2 nd Corps Boulevard. The dump site was discovered in 2003 when earth moving activities for the construction of new Army family housing uncovered methane-generating municipal waste. The PA/SI found that construction and demolition debris/fill extended onto Manor View Elementary School Property. The COCs at FGGM-93 are metals and VOCs in soil, groundwater, soil gas, and indoor air. An RI was completed to evaluate groundwater, soil gas, sediment/surface water, soil, and air. An interim landfill gas migration control system was installed in 2005. A passive vent trench was installed and later upgraded to an active soil vapor extraction system as an interim measure. A NTCRA EE/CA was completed in 2012, removing 27,700 tons of nonhazardous methane generating waste. The remaining waste and debris have a vegetated soil cover at least 18 inches thick. A revised HHRA, FS, and ROD were completed in 2014. The remedy selected within the ROD was maintenance of existing soil cover, LUCs, and LTM. LTM of soil gas, indoor air, and groundwater; LUCs; and maintenance of the soil cover will continue as presented in the ROD and as outlined in the RD. Additionally, 5-year reviews will be conducted in accordance with CERCLA. 17

3.13 FGGM-95 (Landfill Sites [Former]) Site FGGM-95 consists of multiple Areas of Interest (AOIs) combined into one site due to proximity and/or similarity in contaminants. The AOIs were initially identified from PA/SI studies that indicated features reminiscent of past landfill-related activities. The COPCs at FGGM-95 are metals, SVOCs, and VOCs in soil and groundwater. FGGM-95 includes the following open AOIs: Possible Dump Site 1957 A, Possible Dump Site 1957 B, Possible Dump Site 1957 E (Former Burning Waste Site), and Inactive Landfill 4 SSIs are planned for these AOIs to determine whether they will be recommended for NFA or will proceed through the CERCLA process with an RI/FS. An RI is underway for Inactive Landfill 4. 3.14 FGGM-96 (Motor Pools, Washracks, Bldgs [Former]) Site FGGM-96 consists of multiple AOIs intended for further investigation. In the mid- 1990s, the USEPA conducted a historic aerial photography study of the installation, while the Army conducted a SWMU Study. The intention was to identify potential chemical storage and release sites. Dozens of motor pools, washracks, vehicle service and staging areas and other buildings were identified. A PA/SI identified the AOIs that required additional environmental actions. The COCs for FGGM-96 are metals, SVOCs, and VOCs in soil and groundwater. FGGM-96 includes the following open AOIs: Buildings 546, 940, 1007/MP-15, 2120c, 2128, 2227/2224, 2482, 2490, 2501, 2630, 2724, 2728, 2810/2811/2832, 4411, 4680, 8485/8486, 8549/8550/8551, Motor Pools 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, and 18, and Other sites including Chisholm and 6 th St, Incinerator Building 1943, Stained Soils 3 rd St, and sites recommended for NFA including MP-6 and Building 9581. SSIs are planned for these AOIs to determine whether they will be recommended for NFA or will progress through the CERCLA process with an RI/FS. 18

3.15 Off-Post Groundwater Investigation-Nevada Avenue Area This site is located off-post in the area surrounding Nevada Avenue, Odenton. In June 2009, interim measures activities began to investigate groundwater contamination identified in monitoring wells along the southeastern boundary of FGGM. Multiple private wells were sampled; PCE near or exceeding the MCL was detected in three private wells on Nevada Avenue. The PCE contamination was concluded to come from a separate source area other than previously known or suspected sources on FGGM. Bottled water has been provided to affected residents since 2009. The COCs are VOCs in the groundwater. Field activities were completed in 2013. Results suggest that groundwater is flowing in a south-southeasterly direction. It was concluded that the PCE was originating from an area north-northwest of Nevada Avenue, and not from the previously investigated area on FGGM. Additional investigative activities are required to determine if FGGM is the source of contamination. The cleanup/exit strategy states that quarterly monitoring will continue, as well as providing bottled water to residents. Further groundwater investigations will be performed or existing data will be used to determine whether PCE is emanating from FGGM. Based on the results of the investigation, an exit strategy will be formed. 3.16 FGGM-003-R (Former Mortar Range Munitions Repsonse Area [MRA] and Munitions Response Sites [MRS]) Site FGGM-003-R-01 is the Former Mortar Range s Mortar Area MRS, which consists of approximately 62 acres on the southwestern portion of the installation, and was in use from the early 1920s to the mid-1940s. Evidence suggests that only practice mortar rounds were fired at the Mortar Area MRS. Unused small round ammunition was reportedly discarded here. Site FGGM-003-R-02 is the Former Mortar Range s Training Area MRS, which consists of approximately 260 acres surrounding the Mortar Area MRS (FGGM-003-R-01). Five munitions debris items were found during MEC fieldwork. The items were indicative of troop training and disposal. 19

The site was previously used as a golf course, but is now occupied by administrative buildings and open space. The RI identified safety hazards associated with MEC and munitions potentially presenting an explosive hazard (MMPEH) at the Mortar Area MRS and Training Area MRS. An HHRA and Screening-level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) determined low probability and that there are no unacceptable risks related to MC, and that MEC presents the only known safety hazard. The ROD was signed in 2012, and the selected remedy is LUCs with LTM. LUCs include administrative measures and a variety of engineered constructed barriers to restrict human activity. The cleanup/exit strategy involves continued annual LUC inspections and surface sweeps for MEC. Additionally, 5-year reviews will be conducted in accordance with CERCLA. 3.17 FGGM-007-R-01 (Inactive Landfill 2) Site FGGM-007-R-01 consists of approximately 10 acres of landfill within the 23-acre site located south of Tipton Airfield. The site initially operated as a soil borrow area from 1938 to 1943. Sometime after 1952, it began operating as an unlined rubble disposal area until approximately 1986. The area could not be cleared of ordnance due to the presence of rubble and wetlands. The site was originally associated with a BRAC property, but remains under FGGM accountability. The COCs at FGGM-007-R-01 are MEC in soil. Groundwater is addressed separately under BRAC. During RI fieldwork, piles of rubble of more recent origin were observed. In 1998, a DD was signed that mandated the installation of a perimeter fence. The fence is inspected annually to repair any damage. The cleanup/exit strategy involves continued annual inspections to the fence and signage under LTM. 3.18 CCFGGM-97 (Cell 3) Site CCFGGM-97, Cell 3, is located within the CSL (FGGM-17). The cell was reportedly closed in 1976 with the placement of a two-foot soil cover. Domestic and medical wastes were uncovered during regrading activities near the western boundary of former sanitary landfill Cell 3, indicating that Cell 3 may be larger than initially thought. Cell 3 is not a 20

defined disposal area, so it was not capped or included in the RCRA permit. COCs have not been identified for CCFGGM-97 yet. In 2007, the groundwater RI for the CSL conducted six test pit trenches across Cell 3 and identified buried waste in the soil at Cell 3, but was not evaluated in its entirety. An RI/FS is currently underway to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site. The cleanup/exit strategy for CCFGGM-97 is expected to continue through the CERCLA process. 4.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE 4.1 Anne Arundel County Anne Arundel County, located in eastern Maryland, was established in 1650. Census data from 2010 for Anne Arundel County showed the following: 537,656 people 212,562 housing units o 49.4% male o 50.6% female Anne Arundel County Population by Race: 75.4% Caucasian 15.5% African American 5.4% Other 0.3% American Indian/Alaska Native 3.4% Asian Anne Arundel County Population by Age: 12.8% - 0 to 9 years 26.4% - 10 to 29 years 20.6% - 30 to 44 years 28.4% - 45 to 64 years 11.8% - 65+ years 4.1.1 Fort Meade Fort Meade is a census-designated place in northwestern Anne Arundel County. 21

Census data from 2010 for Fort Meade showed the following: 9,327 people 2,731 housing units o 52.4% male o 47.6% female Fort Meade Population by Race: 62.0% Caucasian 23.9% African American 10.5% Other 0.7% American Indian/Alaska Native 2.9% Asian Fort Meade Population by Age: 26.4% - 0 to 9 years 41.9% - 10 to 29 years 24.1% - 30 to 44 years 7.1% - 45 to 64 years 0.5% - 65+ years 4.1.2 Odenton The town of Odenton is located in the central western portion of Anne Arundel County, and borders the eastern portion of FGGM. Census data from 2010 for Odenton showed the following: 37,132 people 15,319 housing units o 47.7% male o 52.3% female Odenton Population by Race: 65.3% Caucasian 23.0% African American 5.8% Other 0.4% American Indian/Alaska Native 5.5% Asian 22

Odenton Population by Age: 14.6% - 0 to 9 years 25.3% - 10 to 29 years 25.7% - 30 to 44 years 24.5% - 45 to 64 years 9.9% - 65+ years 4.2 History of Community Involvement FGGM has an active RAB that was established in 1995 for environmental restoration work at FGGM. The RAB meets the third Thursday of every other month at 7:00 p.m., and consists of community members, Army representatives, and federal/state/local regulators. A RAB is a partnership between the surrounding community, the installation, the state, and the USEPA that provides a forum for discussions to increase community understanding and support for cleanup efforts. It helps with improving the soundness of government decisions and ensuring cleanups are responsive to community needs. FGGM maintains a regularly updated website to provide public access to announcements and available documents. Click on the Clean-up program or RAB links at the following website: http://www.ftmeade.army.mil/directorates/dpw/environment. FGGM has historically participated in community outreach activities with annual exhibits or handouts at events such as FGGM s Earth Day and Safety Expo. FGGM also conducts public outreach through the on-post newspaper SoundOff!, as well as FGGM s official Facebook page and Twitter accounts, available at: https://www.facebook.com/ftmeade; https://twitter.com/ftmeademd; https://twitter.com/ftmeadealert. 4.3 Community Feedback This section describes the methodology that FGGM used to collect community input during the CIP process. This section also summarizes the communication preferences and concerns of the interviewees. 23

4.3.1 Interview Participants To prepare this CIP, the Army conducted community interviews from May 17 to May 19, 2016, with people who work and/or live in the communities adjacent to FGGM. Interviewees included general community members and residents who live and/or work in close proximity to the installation, local government officials, educators, and business persons. 4.3.2 Issue Identification Approach and Findings The primary purpose of collecting input from the community is to identify issues and concerns so that the Army can address them via community involvement efforts. To obtain this information, a total of 26 people from the surrounding communities were surveyed and interviewed regarding the issues and concerns associated with the installation. The comments and insights from members of the community provided information to help design the FGGM community involvement programs. These findings are representative only of the individuals who participated in the community interviews and should not be construed as directly representative of the larger population. The interview questions and responses are provided in Table 1. Table 1. Community Interview Responses Question 1.) In which community do you live, and for how long? *Respondents either lived or worked in the city of Odenton. The length of time represents either time spent living or working in Odenton. Response Live in Odenton: 10 Live in a different, nearby community: 16 Communities other than Odenton included (several towns listed were used in multiple answers): Severn, Gambrills, Baltimore, Pasadena, Glen Burnie, Hyattsville, Mt. Airy, Crownsville, Columbia, Crofton, Annapolis, and Hanover Less than 5 years = 15 5 to 10 years = 1 10 to 20 years = 4 20+ years = 6 24

Question Response 2.) What is your occupation? Answers included the following (several professions listed were used in multiple answers): Retired, Lawyer, Office Manager, Small Business Owner, Sales Associate, Chamber Executive, Real Estate, Community Coordinator, Librarian, Supervisor, Police Officer, Firefighter, Contractor, Student, Property Manager, Food Service Employee, Vendor, Teacher, Barista 3.) Are you familiar with the environmental restoration programs at (Fort Meade)? Do you feel that you have been kept adequately informed about the installation s environmental programs? 4.) Are there specific environmental issues within the community that you are concerned about? If so, what are they? Do you feel they are being adequately addressed? 5.) Are you aware that Fort Meade has a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)? A RAB serves as a forum for two-way communication between the installation, the community and other stakeholders, such as the state, regarding the investigation and restoration. Yes = 5 No = 18 Somewhat = 3 Yes = 4 No = 15 Somewhat = 3 Not Applicable (No Interest) = 4 Yes = 12 No = 14 Answers included the following: Groundwater contamination (4), general Fort Meade environmental cleanup (1), trash and litter (1), County Dump (1), public portrayal of issues (1), road construction (2), general pollution (2) (Note: Several interviewees indicated multiple answers) Yes = 4 No = 8 NA = 14 Yes = 9 No = 17 25

Question 6.) Are you interested in the environmental restoration activities at Fort Meade? If so, could you characterize your level of interest? For example: Would you simply like to hear about restoration activities in the news, or would you be interested in attending public meetings or participating in the RAB? If not, why? 7.) How would you prefer to get information regarding the environmental restoration program at Fort Meade? What is the best way to get information about the environmental restoration program to the community? Feel free to name specific social media and news outlets. 8.) Are you aware Fort Meade has a public Information Repository containing documents pertaining to the investigation and restoration efforts? Yes = 17 No = 9 Response Interested in keeping up with restoration activities in the news = 11 Interested in attending meetings/participating in RAB = 6 Respondents who indicated that they were not interested gave the following reasons (several respondents listed the same answers): Everything seems okay, too busy, don t feel that their input matters, not interested in environmental issues. Social Media = 10* Internet Website = 7 Newspaper = 6 Mailers/Flyers = 6 TV News = 5 Email = 5 Radio = 3 Billboard = 2 Most respondents felt that the way they prefer to get information would also be the best way to reach other community members. Others suggested creating targeted email lists, and having Army representatives attend local organizations and participate in community meetings and outreach programs.* *See Section 4.5 for additional information. Yes = 5 No = 16 26

Question 9.) Do you have suggestions for how Fort Meade could more effectively communicate regarding the installation restoration programs in Anne Arundel County? 10.) Do you have trust that the Army is adequately addressing Fort Meade s environmental restoration? If not, who in the community would you trust most to provide information about the restoration activities at Fort Meade? 11.) Are you familiar with your neighbors /other community members thoughts regarding the restoration? 12.) What would be the best location for Fort Meade to hold any public meetings related to environmental restoration? Response Broaden outreach = 10 More newspaper coverage = 3 More social media presence = 3 More meetings open to public = 2 More fliers/mailers/emails = 4 Army presence at community events = 2 None = 4 (Note: Several interviewees indicated multiple answers) Yes = 20 No = 4 Somewhat = 2 A non-government agency = 1 A community council = 3 The EPA = 2 Yes = 5 No= 21 Odenton Library = 8 High school Auditorium = 5 Volunteer Fire Station = 4 On-Post = 4 Senior Center = 3 Not Sure = 2 4.4 Responses to Concerns Based on the results of the interview process, the surrounding community is generally unaware of the restoration program and its process. While many respondents had not been aware of the existence of the restoration program, a majority indicated that they were interested in environmental restoration activities. Of these, most would like to hear about progress and keep up with restoration activities on the news, while a smaller group indicated an interest in attending public meetings or participating in the RAB. Several respondents stated that FGGM had a strong history of community involvement. The majority of interviewees were unaware of the information available to them, such as the existence of the RAB or Information Repository. 27

Several respondents expressed concern related to FGGM s groundwater contamination. Approximately half of these individuals felt that the issue had been going on for too long and would not be resolved until all residents were connected to county water, while the other half felt that the issue was being adequately addressed. One interviewee who expressed a concern with general environmental issues at FGGM expressed a desire to see the installation cleaned up and used to its full potential, but felt that restoration was progressing satisfactorily. One individual who frequently deals with environmental assessments indicated a concern that other professionals within the community (such as environmental professionals conducting due diligence work) did not have adequate knowledge about the remediation, and may perpetuate a negative stereotype if they were not aware of updated information. Other concerns expressed by respondents were not associated with FGGM. While some respondents expressed a desire for increased communication with regard to the environmental restoration program, others indicated that they trusted the Army to conduct environmental restoration activities appropriately and did not have a need to know more. Those who did not trust (or only somewhat trust) the Army indicated that they would prefer some kind of community council or the USEPA to provide information about restoration activities at FGGM. Individuals were advised of future RAB meeting times and locations; six indicated an interest in attending. One individual felt that the Army had been reactive instead of proactive with regards to UXO contamination. Those who indicated a familiarity with other community members thoughts regarding restoration stated that there was a desire to see the installation used to its full potential. Others indicated a frustration with the length of time bottled water has been supplied to residents in affected areas without a long-term solution, as well as a reported decrease in property values. 4.5 Summary of Communication Needs Most of the interviewees expressed a desire for broader media coverage over a range of media types, with social media (primarily Facebook), an internet website, and newspaper listed as the top responses. One individual suggested a billboard to raise awareness of the existence of the FGGM website. Several respondents listed fliers and mailers as a method 28

to raise awareness. Others suggested creating targeted email lists, and having Army representatives attend local organizations and events, such as the carnival or Odenton Town Center Oversight Committee, and participate in community meetings and outreach programs. The on-post newspaper SoundOff! was suggested as an additional newspaper source. While many individuals suggested social media as a preferred outlet to broaden the installation s coverage and potential audience, one respondent stated that many residents in the area are older and from the boom town era when the area was growing, and would respond better to traditional media outlets. 5.0 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES The community involvement activities presented in this section are based on regulatory guidance outlined in the USEPA s Superfund Community Involvement Handbook (USEPA, 2005) and the RCRA Public Participation Manual (USEPA, 1996). The activities are presented below in the order of those required to occur at particular milestones throughout the program followed by those that are appropriate for the program based on community interest or project circumstances. 5.1 Points of Contact (POC) For questions related to the environmental cleanup actions at FGGM, community members should contact the following representatives. Installation Restoration Program Manager U.S. Army Garrison, Directorate of Public Works Environmental Division Mailing address: 4216 Roberts Ave, Suite 5115 Fort Meade, MD 20755 301-677-7999 george.b.knight7.civ@mail.mil FGGM Public Affairs Office 4409 Llewellyn Avenue Fort Meade, Maryland 20755 301-677-1361 FGGM website http://www.ftmeade.army.mil/directorates/dpw/environment Click on the Clean-up program or RAB links 29

Additional contact information including media, citizens groups, regulatory and federal, state and local elected officials are provided in Appendix C. 5.2 Information Repository/Administrative Records An Information Repository is established and maintained at the Odenton Regional Public Library in Odenton. A public Information Repository is required under CERCLA to provide interested parties with background and technical information about the environmental cleanup program at FGGM. The Information Repository includes work plans, technical reports, summary documents, and other information of public interest (e.g., fact sheets). Examples of items currently contained in the Information Repository include: The IAP; SMP; Site Assessments; Site Investigation Reports; Proposed Plans; Action Memos and Records of Decisions; Cleanup Work Plans and Remediation Completion Reports; and Five-Year Reviews. The AR for FGGM is located and maintained on-post at FGGM s Directorate of Public Works Environmental Division (DPW-ED), Building 2460. For sites undergoing CERCLA investigations, the NCP requires that an AR be established at or near the facility under investigation. The AR includes information that may form the basis for selecting a response or RA. It includes all documents leading to the selection of any response action at the installation and contains documents similar to those located in the Information Repository. The addresses for the locations of the Information Repository and Administrative Records are presented in Appendix B. 30

5.3 Fact Sheets Fact sheets will be prepared, as appropriate, to support FGGM s community outreach program. Fact sheets are designed to provide information about site history, planned technical activities, schedule updates, and special-interest items. Fact sheets are distributed to RAB members, other stakeholders, and the Public Affairs Office, and are also available on the FGGM website and in the Information Repository. 5.4 Public Notices, Meetings, and Comment Periods The installation will comply with the requirements for public notification, the review of proposed plans and public comment periods. Public notices will be placed in local newspapers to serve as official notification to the local community of plans for environmental activities, upcoming public involvement opportunities, and the availability of documents at the Information Repository. Public meetings, both informal and formal, are intended to inform the community about ongoing site activities and to discuss and receive feedback from the public on proposed courses of action. All meetings will be announced through public notices, news releases, direct mailings, or a combination of the three. Meetings will be held at a location that is easily accessible to the general public. RAB meetings are currently held at the Courtyard Marriott at 2700 Hercules Road in Annapolis Junction, Maryland. Fact sheets, including contact information for additional information, and meeting minutes will be prepared to support all Proposed Plans and, as necessary, to support other meetings and presentations. Suggested meeting locations are provided in Appendix D. Public comment periods and the opportunity for public meetings will be held at specific phases or milestones in the cleanup process depending on the regulation that is guiding the cleanup at a particular site. A public comment period lasts for at least 30 calendar days under CERCLA guidance, allowing time for review and comment on the proposed action. Significant comments received during the comment period will be responded to through a responsiveness summary. 31

5.5 Responsiveness Summaries A responsiveness summary will be prepared and issued to address comments received from the public. At the conclusion of public comment periods, the Army will prepare, or support the state regulator in preparing, a responsiveness summary or meeting minutes that summarize and respond to the comments received during the public comment period, including those comments given at the public meeting. The responsiveness summary is issued as part of the document under comment and made available in the Information Repository listed in Appendix B. 5.6 Mailing List Update Mailing lists are an important component of effective community outreach which ensure that interested community members, as well as other stakeholders and communities impacted by or interested in response activities, are kept informed of activities and opportunities for community involvement. An email mailing list is used to distribute news releases, fact sheets, and other types of pertinent information for project activities. The installation will update this emailing list as necessary and appropriate, and will provide information during all community participation activities as to how individuals and groups can be added to the mailing list. Additionally, a physical mailing list can be developed upon request for those community members and stakeholders who prefer to receive project information in a physical format. 5.7 Speaker Bureaus/Open House As program milestones are achieved, project representatives notify and meet with stakeholders (including regulatory agency representatives and the public) to discuss project status and field questions about proposed restoration actions. Additionally, speakers from the installation may be available upon request to meet with and discuss restoration program activities with civic and/or environmental organizations. Interested organizations should contact the POC listed in Section 5.1. 32

5.8 CIP Updates The CIP will be updated at least every five years or earlier if there are significant program changes. This CIP is a working document to guide the project staff. All or part of this Plan may require revision due to new information or changes in community concerns and needs. The plan will be re-evaluated at these times to ensure that the schedule of community participation activities is appropriate. 5.9 Activity Schedule Cleanup activities are updated annually in the publicly available SMP and IAP, and discussed in bimonthly RAB meetings and various site-specific planning documents. Sites can be in different phases in the process depending on when each site was discovered, the relative risk or cleanup priority of the site, and funding available for cleanup. The community involvement activities are summarized in Table 2. 33

Public Participation Activities Table 2. Community Involvement Activities During Restoration Preliminary Assessment Site Inspection Pre- Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study Proposed Plan Remedial Investigation Pre- Record of Decision Record of Decision Contact State/Local Officials R R R R O O News Release/Public O O O O R R O Notice Workshops O O O Community Interviews O R Community Relations (Involvement) R R R R R R Plan Establish Information Repository and Inform Public Environmental Restoration Program Steps O R R R R RD, RA, & LTM/LT O Source NCP 40 CFR 300.300 (c) NCP 40 CFR 300.430 (c)(2)(i) NCP 40 CFR 300.430(c)(2)(ii)(A-C) CERCLA 117(d) & 113(k) NCP 40 CFR 300.430(c)(2)(iii) & 300.815(a-c) Discuss Technical Assistance for Public Participation (TAPP) with RAB O (1) 32 CFR 202/ NCP 40 CFR 300.430(c)(2)(iv) Fact Sheet O O R(2) R Public Notice R R R Public Meeting (3) Public Comment Period Responsiveness Summary Revise Proposed Plan (4) Second Comment Period (4) Revise CIP R R R R R(3) R R(5) O O NCP 40 CFR 300.435(c)(3) CERCLA 117(a) & (d) NCP 40 CFR 300.430(f)(3)(i)(A) & 300.430(f)(6) CERCLA 113 & 117(a)(2) NCP 40 CFR 300.430(f)(3)(i)(D) CERCLA 117(a)(2) NCP 40 CFR 300.430(f)(3)(c) CERCLA 113 & 117(b) NCP 40 CFR 300.430(f)(3)(i)(F) NCP 40 CFR 300.430(f)(3)(ii)(B) NCP 40 CFR 300.430(f)(3)(ii)(B) NCP 40 CFR 300.435(c)(1) R = Required O = Optional (1) = Applicable only to installations with an active RAB. If site is listed on NPL after the RI begins, then the availability of TAPP is publicized at that time. (2) = Either a fact sheet summarizing the PP, or the complete PP document, must be made available to the public for review (USEPA, 2005). (3) = The opportunity for a public meeting is required. If such a meeting is held, then a transcript must be kept and made available to the public. (4) = Revise PP and provide second comment period if significant changes regarding proposed selected remedy are made prior to the ROD and (5) = Responsiveness summary will be prepared assuming comments are received from the public. 34

5.10 Community Grant Opportunities The Technical Assistance for Public Participation (TAPP) is funding available to community members of an established RAB who need technical assistance in interpreting scientific or engineering issues connected with proposed cleanup activities. If an Army installation does not have an established RAB, community members are not eligible for TAPP. Community members of an established RAB who are interested in applying for TAPP must contact their applicable POC to confirm eligibility and request Army funding. The Technical Assistance Services for Communities (TASC) program, which is partially funded by grants from the USEPA, helps communities understand the environmental cleanup and site reuse process. This program provides communities with independent educational and technical information needed to actively participate in solving environmental problems. While TASC primarily supports the Superfund program, support may also be provided to communities impacted by the RCRA or federal facilities or dealing with air or water environmental problems. Specific information regarding the TASC program is available at the following website: www.epa.gov/superfund/technicalassistance-services-communities-tasc-program. 35

6.0 REFERENCES DoD Manual 4715.20, Defense Environmental Restoration Program Management, March 2012. DoD Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer, 1996. ESRI et al., 2012. Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, USGS, Intermap, ipc, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand). World Street Map. (Accessed [http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/world_street_map] May 2012) Redlands, CA. ESRI, Other Federal Lands; ESRI Data and Maps CD-ROM, 2002. Office of the Secretary of Defense, Restoration Advisory Board Handbook, February 2007. Osage of Virginia, Inc., Final Community Involvement Plan,, Maryland, December 2013 Stell Environmental, Draft Site Management Plan Annual Update, Fort George G. Meade Maryland, June 2016 U.S. Army, Army Regulation (AR) 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement, 2007. U.S. Army, Army Regulation (AR) 360 1, The Army Public Affairs Program, October 15, 2000. USAEC, The Installation Action Plan, October 2015 36

USAEC, Restoration Advisory Board and Technical Assistance for Public Participation Guidance, 2005. USEPA, A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents, July 1999. USEPA, National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (The NCP), January 1992. USEPA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Public Participation Manual, 1996. USEPA, Superfund Community Involvement Handbook, 2005. www.aacounty.org www.census.gov www.epa.gov www.factfinder.census.gov 37

FIGURES

Legend Approximate Installation Boundary c FORT GEORGE G. MEADE FIGURE 1 - INSTALLATION LOCATION MAP COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN FORT GEORGE G. MEADE FORT MEADE, MARYLAND REFERENCE: MAP OF FORT GEORGE G. MEADE PREPARED BY: ESRI 1 inch = 5,000 feet