The documents on this page require the Adobe PDF Reader. Click here to download the reader.
ES1 The objective of this site inspection (SI) was to determine whether the former
Hammond Bombing and Gunnery Range in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana warrants further
evaluation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) beyond the SI stage. There are five munitions response sites (MRS) located
within the Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) property at Hammond Bombing and Gunnery
Range, as follows:
- Bomb Target #1 (MRS01);
- Multiple Use Target (MRS02);
- Bomb Target #2 (MRS03);
- Rifle Range (MRS04); and
- Gunnery Range (MRS05).
In addition, a potential area of interest (AOI), an area with possible cratering, was identified
during the technical project planning (TPP) meeting, as described below.
ES2 The recommendations for the MRSs could include no further Department of
Defense (DoD) action indicated (NDAI), further evaluation as part of a remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS), or a time critical removal action (TCRA).
ES3 The investigation of Hammond Bombing and Gunnery Range, which operated
as a bombing and gunnery range from August 1942 to September 1945, was performed to
confirm known target locations and to evaluate evidence for the presence of munitions and
explosives of concern (MEC) and munitions constituents (MC) at the site. To accomplish this
objective, qualitative reconnaissance (QR) and MC sampling were performed. Munitions
reportedly used at the site include AN-M30 100-lb. general purpose bombs, MK I 100-lb.
general purpose bombs, M38A2 100-lb. practice bombs, M85 100-lb. concrete practice bombs,
M5 2.25-inch practice rockets, M1A1/M3/M5 spotting charges, 0.50-caliber machine gun
ammunition, AN-MK4 3-lb. practice bombs, AN-MK5 3-lb. practice bombs, AN-MK23 3-lb.
practice bombs, AN-MK43 4.5-lb. practice bombs, and general small arms ammunition.
ES4 The SI technical approach was agreed to at the February 14, 2008 TPP meeting
by the TPP Team. Based on historical information, it was agreed at the TPP meeting that
MRS01, MRS02, and MRS03 would likely proceed to RI/FS and MRS04 and MRS05 would
likely proceed to NDAI. It was proposed during the TPP process and documented in the
Site-Specific Work Plan (SS-WP) that collection of eight multi-incremental surface soil
samples (with one triplicate) and conducting approximately 19.1 miles of QR would be
sufficient to meet the SI project objectives. No sediment, groundwater, or surface water samples were planned at the TPP meeting. However, well data were obtained after the TPP
meeting that showed numerous wells are present in the vicinity of the site, including several
within the site area. Therefore, three groundwater samples were added to the planned sampling
activities, dependent on the availability of access to onsite wells.
ES5 During the TPP meeting, Deputy Sheriff Tom Davidson of the Tangipahoa
Parish Sheriff's Department indicated that he is familiar with the history of Hammond
Bombing and Gunnery Range because he helped research a book titled Hammond Army Air
Field and Early Aviation in the Hammond Area (Ford 1996). At the TPP meeting, Sheriff
Davidson pointed out locations on the map and referred to them as a "demolition area" within
the Gunnery Range MRS; a "rifle range berm area" within the Rifle Range MRS; "strafing
targets" within the Gunnery Range MRS; and an "area of potential cratering" north of the
Bomb Target #2 MRS. The area of potential cratering Deputy Sheriff Tom Davidson referred
to is identified as a potential area of interest (AOI) because it is located outside of the MRS
boundaries. Additionally, Mr. Davidson suggested that the location of the Multiple Use Target,
as presented in the Archives Search Report (ASR) Supplement (USACE 2004b), is
approximately 4,500 feet too far to the north and the firing point does not lie outside the FUDS
boundary. An adjusted boundary for the Multiple Use Target is presented on the report figures,
consistent with Mr. Davidson's description.
ES6 The SI evaluation included performing approximately 22.4 miles of QR
(3.3 additional miles to that agreed to in the TPP meeting). The QR did not locate any MEC at
any of the MRSs, but MD was observed within the overlapping portions of the Rifle Range and
Gunnery Range MRSs, and just to the north of the Gunnery Range MRS, in the potential area
of interest (AOI) reference by Mr. Davidson and as identified in the SS-WP (adjusted Multiple
Use Target). A total of 66 observations (Figure ES-1) were noted by the SI field team to
include soil type, topography, vegetation and evidence of past DoD use (Appendix E) and no
indications of past DoD use were observed besides the two 0.50-caliber MD items. No
military-related structures or craters were observed. Some large depressions that initially
appeared to be craters were observed, but could not be confirmed to be craters based on lack of
metallic material within or surrounding the depressions.
ES7 During the SI, eight multi-incremental surface soil samples (including one
triplicate) and three groundwater samples (including one duplicate) were collected at the site.
Six of the surface soil samples were biased samples located within Hammond Bombing and
Gunnery Range MRSs, one was located in the area of potential cratering AOI, and the
remaining sample, an ambient background sample, was located south of the site MRSs. One of
the groundwater samples was collected within a site MRS (Bomb Target #1), while the other
two groundwater samples were collected along the western and southern edges of the site,
outside of the MRSs. The biased samples were collected in areas considered to have the
highest likelihood for residual MEC and MC contamination, if present (see Figure ES.1).
ES8 APPL, Inc. in Fresno, California analyzed the surface soil samples for
explosives and select metals (aluminum, antimony, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc).
Groundwater samples were analyzed for explosives, perchlorate, and select metals (aluminum,
antimony, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc). No metals were detected above background in surface soil or groundwater samples collected at the site. No perchlorate was detected in
groundwater samples collected at the site. No explosive compounds were detected in the
groundwater samples. One explosive compound, "nitroglycerin", was detected in one surface
soil DU sample. The sample with the nitroglycerin detection was not collected within an MRS,
but was collected within the AOI identified by the Tangipahoa Sheriff during the TPP meeting
as an "area of potential cratering." Therefore, based on the sampling and analysis conducted,
no MC contamination was identified at the site MRSs. Since no receptor pathways were
complete for any MRSs (based on lack of MC contamination), no human health screening level
risk assessments nor screening level ecological risk assessments were required. MC
contamination was identified at the AOI. Being the AOI is not an MRS it was not evaluated for
risk. This detection is indicative of a potential MC release or an effect of tree stump blasting,
as described in Subchapter 5.8.1.
ES9 Based on the qualitative MEC risk evaluation, there is the possibility that human
receptors might come into contact with explosively hazardous MEC at Bomb Target #1, the
Multiple Use Target, and Bomb Target #2. Therefore, there is the potential for an explosive
safety risk at these MRSs. However, no explosive hazards remain at the Rifle Range or
Gunnery Range and, therefore, no explosive safety risk is considered to be present at these
MRSs. Based on results of the MC and MEC risk evaluations, it is recommended that MRS01,
MRS02, and MRS03 proceed to RI/FS and MRS04 and MRS05 proceed to NDAI. It is also
recommended that the area of potential cratering AOI be investigated further and the location
of the Multiple Use Target be evaluated to see if it is placed correctly on historical maps.