EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
PB96-964112
EPA/ROD/R05-96/309
December 1996
Wright-Patterson AFB,
(21 No Action Sites), Dayton, OH
9/30/1996
-------
-------
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
21 NO ACTION SITES
26 AUGUST 1996
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR 21 INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM SITES AT
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB
TABLE OF CONTENTS |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYM LIST
1.0. The Declaration... 1
1.1. Site Name and Location 1
1.2. Statement of Basis and Purpose 1
1.3. Description of Selected Remedy/Rationale for No Action 2
1.4. Declaration Statement
1.4.1. United States Air Force 3
1.4.2. United States Environmental Protection Agency 4
1.4.3. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 5
2.0. Decision Summary 6
2.1. Site Details 6
2.1.1. Site Name and Location 6
2.1.2. Size and Description 6
2.1.3. Geography/Topography 6
2.1.4. Climate 6
2.1.5. Basewide Geology 7
2.1.6. Basewide Surface Water and Groundwater
Resources 7
2.1.7, Natural Resources 9
2.1.8. Cultural and Historic Resources 10
2.1.9. Adjacent Land Use 10
2.1.10. History of Operable Units 11
2.1.10.1. Operable Unit 2 11
2.1.10.2. Operable Unit 3 12
2.1.10.3. Operable Unit 5 12
2.1.10.4. Operable Unit 6 ~ 13
2.1.10.5. Operable Unit 10 13
2.2. Installation Restoration Program History and Enforcement
Activities 14
2.2.1. Operable Unit 2 15
2.2.2. Operable Unit 3 15
2.2.3. Operable Unit 5 17
2.2.4. Operable Unit 6 18
2.2.5. Operable Unit 10 18
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR 21 INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM SITES AT
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
2.3. Highlights of Community Participation 19
2.4. Scope and Role of Operable Units within Base Strategy. 20
2.5. Summary of Site Characteristics 21
2.5.1. Operable Unit 2 21
2.5.2. Operable Unit 3 22
2.5.3. Operable Unit 5 23
2.5.4. Operable Unit 6 25
2.5.5. Operable Unit 10 25
2.6. Summary of Site Risks 27
2.6.1. Operable Unit 2 28
2.6.2. Operable Unit 3 29
2.6.3. Operable Unit 5 30
2.6.4. Operable Unit 6 32
2.6.5. Operable Unit 10 33
2.7. Description of the No Action Alternative 34
2.7.1. Operable Unit 2 35
2.7.2. Operable Unit 3 36
2.7.3. Operable Unit 5 37
2.7.4. Operable Unit 6 37
2.7.5. Operable Unit 10 37
2.8. Explanation of Significant Changes 38
2.9. Monitoring Program 38
3.0. Responsiveness Summary .,« 39
3.1. Overview... ^:. 39
3.2. Comment Summary ancLResponse to Local
Community Concerns^ 39
Attachment 1 - Comprehensive List of Community Relations
Activities Conducted for the No Action Sites ....42
Attachment 2 - Administrative Record Index 44
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Area Location Map
Figure 2 - Map of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
Figure 3 - Operable Units 2 & 3 Maps
Figure 4 - Operable Units 5 & 6 Maps
Figure 5 - Operable Unit 10 Map
List of Tables
Table 1 - No Action Sites' Proposed Plans Findings and Approval Dates
Table 2 - OU2 Summary of Baseline Risk Assessment Results
Table 3 - OU3 Summary of Baseline Risk Assessment Results
Table 4 - Risk from Industrial Exposures to OU5 Soil
Risk from Recreational Exposures to OU5 Surface Soil, Sediment or
Surface Water
Table 5 - OU6 Summary of Baseline Risk Assessment Results
Table 6 - OU10 Summary of Baseline Risk Assessment Results
IV
-------
-------
ACRONYM LIST
ARAB
AVE
B89CSP
BMP
BS
BUSTR
CCSA
CERCLA
CO
COCs
CSP
ERA
EFDZ
FS
FTA
GLT
gpd/ft2
GPM
HQ
IAG
ICI
IRP
LF
LFE
LTCSA
MCD
MCL
MRWF
MSL
NA
NCP
NEPA
NPL
NGVD
OEPA
OAC
OU
PAH
PCB
PCE
POL
Rl
RME
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Average Exposure
Building 89 Coal Storage Pile
Basewide Monitoring Program
Burial Site
Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks Regulations
Coal and Chemical Storage Area
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act
Consent Order (Administrative Orders on Consent)
Contaminants of Concern
Central Heating Plant
Ecological Risk Assessment
Earthfill Disposal Zone
Feasibility Study
Fire Training Area
Gravel Lake Tank
Gallons Per Day Per Square Foot
Gallons Per Minuter
Hazard Quotient
Interagency Agreement
International Consultants Incorporated
Installation Restoration Program
Landfill
Landfill 5 Extension
Long-Term Coal Storage Area
Miami Conservancy District
Maximum Contaminant Level
Mad River Wellfield
Mean Sea Level
No Action
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan
National Environmental Policy Act
National Priorities List
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio Administrative Code
Operable Unit
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
Polychlorinated Biphenol
tetrachloroethylene
Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants
Remedial Investigation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
-------
ROD
SAIC
SARA
SI .
SS
SSRAP
SVOC
TCE
TCSP
TF49A
TIC
USEPA
UST30119
VOCs
WPAFB
Record of Decision
Science Applications International Corporation
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Site Investigation
Spill Site
Site-Specific Removal Action Plan
Semi-volatile Organic Compound
Trichloroethylene
Temporary Coal Storage Pile
Tank Farm 49A
Tentatively Identified Compound
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Building 30119 Underground Storage Tanks
Volatile Organic Compounds
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
VI
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR 21 INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM SITES AT
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB
1.0. THE DECLARATION
1.1. Site Name and Location: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB)
Greene and Montgomery Counties, Ohio.
WPAFB is listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) and is not scheduled for closure
under the Base Realignment and Closure program. The following is a list of 21
individual sites within five Operable Units (OUs) which are recommended for No Action
(NA):
OU2: Burial Site 1 (BS1); Long-Term Coal Storage Area (LTCSA); Temporary Coal
Storage Pile (TCSP); Coal and Chemical Storage Area (CCSA); and Bldg 89
Coal Storage Pile (B89CSP)
OUS: Landfill 14 (LF14); Fire Training Areas 2, 3, 4 and 5 (FTA2, FTA3, FTA4,
FTA5); Spill Site 1 (SS1); Earthfill Disposal Zones 11 and 12 (EFDZ11,
EFDZ12)
OUS: Fire Training Area 1 (FTA1); Gravel Lake Tank Site (GLTS); Burial Site 4
(BS4)
OU6: Earthfill Disposal Zone 1 (EFDZ1)
OU10: Central Heating Plant 3 and associated Battery Burial Site (CHP-3); Landfill
13 (LF13); Tank Farm 49A (TF49A); Underground Storage Tanks at Building
30119(UST30119)
1.2. Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selection of the NA remedial alternative for
twenty-one Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Sites at WPAFB. The selection
process was conducted in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERGLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARAy, and the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The lead agency (WPAFB), and
support agencies, (USEPA and OEPA) support the decision for NA at these sites.
This decision is based on the Administrative Record for all of the sites. All documents,
correspondence, and other resources which comprise the Administrative Record upon
which this decision is based are identified in the attached index.
-------
1.3. Description of Selected Rationale For NA
WPAFB has selected the NA remedy for each of the 21 listed sites at WPAFB listed in
section 1.1 above. The NA decision for these sites deals only with soils at the sites.
Remedies for groundwater, surface water, and sediments at the NA sites will be
addressed under the Basewide Monitoring Program (BMP). Under this program,
WPAFB will study the types and movements of contaminants in groundwater, surface
water, and sediment across the base. The BMP will examine all of the OUs as well as
parts of the base that do not contain hazardous waste sites. Section 2.4 discusses the
role of this ROD and how it fits into the overall Base cleanup strategy in more detail.
WPAFB, USEPA, and OEPA have determined that the following land uses upon which
this ROD is based are the current land use scenarios for these five OUs. In addition,
these land use scenarios are highly likely to remain the same in the future.
OPERABLE UNIT LAND USE
OU2 Recreational and Industrial
OUS Recreational and Light Industrial
OUS Commercial/lndustrial/Recreational/Open
OUS Agricultural
OU10 Light Industrial/Office
The selected remedy of NA includes the following currently existing conditions:
Institutional controls and access/deed restrictions - all of these sites are located within
an active military installation with limited access. Additionally, some sites, such as
FTA5, have fencing around them, further limiting access. Digging/excavation at any of
these sites, especially those with waste/contamination left in place (for example, LF13,
CHP-3, FTA5), is currently restricted by the nature of the installation and should remain
minimal. If, in the future, portions of the Base are sold for residential development etc.,
the appropriate land use would need to be evaluated for those specific applications.
NA is protective of public health because there is no current exposure to the subsurface
contamination, however low, and future exposure is considered extremely unlikely
because of the nature of the land uses.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR 21 INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM SITES AT
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB
1.4.1. Declaration Statement: United States Air Force
It has been determined that no remedial action is necessary at any of the
following OU sites:
OU2: Burial Site 1; Long-Term Coal Storage Area; Temporary Coal
Storage Pile; Coal and Chemical Storage Area; and Bldg 89 Coal
Storage Pile
OU3: Landfill 14; Fire Training Areas 2, 3, 4 and 5; Spill Site 1; Earthfill
Disposal Zones 11 and 12.
OU5: Fire Training Area 1; Gravel Lake Tank Site; Burial Site 4
OU6: Earthfill Disposal Zone 1
OU10: Central Heating Plant 3 and associated Battery Burial Site; Landfill
13; Tank Farm 49A; Underground Storage Tanks at Building 30119
Based on the evaluation of analytical data and other information, the United
States Air Force has determined that no remedial action is necessary to ensure
protection of human health and the environment at these sites. The NA
alternative meets AFlARs established by federal, state, or local environmental
laws. In accordance with NCR Section 300.430 (f)(4)(ii), a review will be
conducted within five years after finalization of this Record of Decision to ensure
that this decision provides continued protection of human health and the
environment. This five-year review will be performed as part of the Basewide
Monitoring Program.
LAWRENCE P. FARRELL, JR
UeutMttntGwwmlUSAF
Vtea Command*
10 SEP 396
Date
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR 21 INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM SITES AT
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB
1.4.2. Declaration Statement: UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
It has been determined that no remedial action is necessary at any of the
following OU sites:
OU2: Burial Site 1; Long-Term Coal Storage Area; Temporary Coal
Storage Pile; Coal and Chemical Storage Area; and Bldg 89 Coal
Storage Pile
OU3: Landfill 14; Fire Training Areas 2, 3, 4 and 5; Spill Site 1; Earthfill
Disposal Zones 11 and 12.
OU5: Fire Training Area 1; Gravel Lake Tank Site; Burial Site 4
OU6: Earthfill Disposal Zone 1
OU10: Central Heating Plant 3 and associated Battery Burial Site; Landfill
13; Tank Farm 49A; Underground Storage Tanks at Building 30119
Based on the evaluation of analytical data and other information, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency has determined that no remedial action
is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment at these
sites. The NA alternative meets ARARs established by federal, state, or local
environmental laws. In accordance with NCP Section 300.430 (f)(4)(ii), a review
will be conducted within five years after finalization of this Record of Decision to
ensure that this decision provides continued protection of human health and the
environment. This five-year review will be performed as part of the Basewide
Monitoring Program.
WILLIAM E. MUNO
Director, Superfund Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V
Date
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR 21 INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM SITES AT
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB
1.4.3. Declaration Statement: Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
It has been determined that no remedial action is necessary at any of the
following OU sites:
OU2: Burial Site 1; Long-Term Coal Storage Area; Temporary Coal
Storage Pile; Coal and Chemical Storage Area; and Bldg 89 Coal
Storage Pile
OU3: Landfill 14; Fire Training Areas 2, 3, 4 and 5; Spill Site 1; Earthfill
Disposal Zones 11 and 12.
OU5: Fire Training Area 1; Gravel Lake Tank Site; Burial Site 4
OU6: Earthfill Disposal Zone 1
OU10: Central Heating Plant 3 and associated Battery Burial Site; Landfill
13; Tank Farm 49A; Underground Storage Tanks at Building 30119
Based on the evaluation of analytical data and other information, the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency has determined that no remedial action is
necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment at these
sites. The NA alternative meets ARARs established by federal, state, or local
environmental laws. In accordance with NCP Section 300.430 (f)(4)(ii), a review
will be conducted within five years after finalization of this Record of Decision to
ensure that this decision provides continued protection of human health and the
environment. This five-year review will be performed as part of the Basewide
litoring Prograc
DONALD R. SCHREGAF
Director, Ohio EnvironnXepffal Protection Agency
Date
-------
2.0. DECISION SUMMARY
2.1. Site Details
2.1.1. Name and Location
WPAFB is located in southwestern Ohio, east of the city of Dayton and adjacent to the
city of Fairborn. The Base is approximately 60 miles north of Cincinnati and 50 miles
west of Columbus. It lies in Montgomery and Greene counties. (See Figure 1).
2.1.2. Size and Description
The installation is composed of Wright and Patterson Fields, which are separated by
State Route 444. Wright Field comprises Area B, approximately 2,800 acres; and
Patterson Field comprises Areas A and C, approximately 5,711 acres. The Base is the
Headquarters to the Air Force Materiel Command and home to organizations such as
the Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, Air Force Institute of Technology and
the Aeronautical Systems Center. The Base has a significant proportion of its acreage
devoted to logistical support/warehouse land uses, research and development and
uses, and administrative and classroom space. Airfield functions constitute 24 percent
of all on-base land uses. The base has more than 2,500 acres of undeveloped land,
but much of that acreage is restricted from certain types of development by
environmental constraints, such as flood plains, steep slopes, Indian burial mounds,
and other cultural/natural features. Other constraints, such as a new national park,
laser testing facilities, explosive safety zones and clear zones for runways, also restrict
development in certain areas.
2.1.3. Geography/Topography
WPAFB lies within the Till Plains section of the Central Lowlands Physiographic
Province. The regional land surface typically appears flat to gently rolling. Area
streams and rivers have developed generally level flood plains, such as the Mad River
flood plain on which much of WPAFB is situated. Where the airfields are located, the
terrain is generally level. In the higher areas to the southeast where much of the Base
housing and support facilities are located, the terrain is gently rolling.
The land surface altitude at WPAFB varies from 800 feet above the National Geodetic
Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD) in Areas A and C, located within the Mad River flood
plain, to 975 feet above NGVD in Area B. Surface drainage from WPAFB runs
ultimately to the Mad River by way of Hebble and Trout Creeks and several small
unnamed tributaries.
2.1.4. Climate
The climate in the area is temperate and humid with a mean annual temperature of
52.3 degrees Fahrenheit (2F) and a mean annual precipitation of 36.25 inches.
-------
Precipitation is generally heavier in the spring and fall. The accepted last frost date for
this region is May 20th. In the autumn, the average initial occurrence of freezing
temperatures is in late October. Temperatures of 09F or below will be experienced in
about four years out of five, while 100QF or higher will occur in about one year out of
five.
2.1.5. Basewide Geology
The geology of the area consists of Ordovician and Silurian Age rocks overlain by
unconsolidated deposits of Pleistocene and Recent Age materials. The Richmond
Group of Ordovician Age is the bedrock unit underlying most of WPAFB. It consists of
up to 265 feet of interbedded shales and limestones that outcrop in portions of eastern
Montgomery and Western Greene Counties.
The Richmond Group is capped by thin, discontinuous erosion remnants of Brassfield
Limestone of Silurian Age in some areas of WPAFB. The Brassfield Limestone is a
relatively pure limestone up to 30 feet thick.
The bedrock reflects a preglacial drainage system which is masked by overlying
unconsolidated Pleistocene Age glacial till and outwash deposits. These materials
were deposited during the last period of Wisconsin glaciation, and are present
throughout the area. Glacial till consists of a heterogeneous mixture of cobbles, gravel,
sand, silt and clay that were deposited directly by the glacier as it moved over the
region. These deposits, interbedded with water-bearing sand and gravel zones, locally
may form confining aquifers or may limit recharge to underlying unconsolidated
aquifers.
As the glacier retreated, melt streams flowing through the valleys and lowlands
deposited large accumulations of sand and gravel identified as outwash deposits.
These deposits attain a maximum thickness of 250 feet around Dayton and usually
overlie till deposits. Outwash deposits form the most prolific aquifer of the Ohio region.
Recent Age alluvium deposited in relatively thin sequences by modem streams is
present in the ground surface adjacent to all major streams. The alluvium consists of
both sorted and unsorted accumulations of sand, silt, gravel, and clay.
2.1.6. Basewide Surface Water and Groundwater Resources
The majority of WPAFB lies within the flood plain of the Mad River Valley. The Mad
River originates in western Ohio approximately 40 miles north of Springfield and flows
generally south and southwest past WPAFB to its confluence with the Great Miami
River in Dayton. The Mad River flows along the western boundary of Area C and
passes to the north and northwest of Area B. The section of the Mad River that runs in
the area of the Base has been designated by the State of Ohio as a state water
resource that is a warm water habitat which provides primary contact recreation. It also
acts as a source for agricultural and industrial water supply. The River generally follows
-------
the course of the Mad River Buried Valley Aquifer, an inconspicuous bedrock valley that
has been filled with unconsolidated sediments consisting primarily of glacial outwash
deposits with discontinuous zones of glacial till. The glacial outwash deposits are very
permeable and exhibit high transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity, while the till
deposits can act as aquitards with relatively low hydraulic conductivity. Vertical
hydraulic gradients vary throughout the area, and both upward and downward gradients
have been recorded in monitoring well clusters at WPAFB.
Water is present in the unconsolidated deposits and the underlying bedrock. Water
occurs in intergranular pore spaces in the unconsolidated deposits. In bedrock, water
occurs in fractures, joints, and solution openings in the shale and limestone. The
unconsolidated alluvium, outwash, and till interact to form a complex aquifer system at
WPAFB. Outwash is locally separated from overlying alluvial materials by 2 to 7 feet of
dense, unsorted till composed of clay, silt, gravel, and sand. In many areas, the till
layer is thin or absent and alluvium directly overlays the outwash deposits. Also, in
many areas two till layers occur within the glacial outwash, dividing it locally into
separate hydraulic units. The till, wherever it occurs, can be described as a
semiconfining layer with many holes, tears, and missing pieces.
Most of Area C, which lies behind Huffman Dam, is subject to flooding. The 10-year
floodplain of the Mad River and WPAFB is 804.7 feet above mean sea level (MSL),
while the 100-year flood plain, based on recent modeling studies conducted by the
Army Corps of Engineers, is at an elevation of 814.3 feet above MSL:
Alluvial deposits may be locally productive, yielding 100 to 500 gallons per minute
(gpm). Normal practice in the Dayton area, however, is to obtain water supplies from
the more productive, underlying glacial outwash deposits. The alluvium, where present
at WPAFB, is typically 40 to 60 feet thick and occurs under water table conditions. The
alluvial deposits provide base flow to streams during low flow periods.
Outwash deposits yield greater than 1,000 gpm. At WPAFB, the hydraulic conductivity
of the outwash ranges from 1,000 to 3,000 gallons per day per square foot (gpd/ft2).
The buried valley aquifer, a Federally designated Sole Source Aquifer, is used by
WPAFB for water supply and is also the primary unit from which municipal supplies are
drawn at the nearby Dayton Municipal Wellfield on Rohrer's Island. The city of
Fairbom's North Wellfield (adjacent to OU2) also draws water from this aquifer.
Fairbom uses this wellfield only during periods of drought for emergency use and twice
a year during hydrant flushing. Groundwater occurs in the outwash deposits under both
water table and artesian conditions and locally may provide base flow to streams during
low flow conditions in areas where it is at or near the ground surface. Total depth of the
sole source aquifer varies between approximately 50-250 feet depending on position
within the buried valley and also depending on water producing horizons within that
range.
Groundwater contained in the scattered sand and gravel sequences of till provides
domestic supplies on the order of 10 gpm. The till is generally more than 20 feet thick
and may overlie units of greater productivity. The bedrock deposits are a minor source
of groundwater. The shale and interbedded limestone of the Richmond Group yield
8
-------
water of sufficient quantity only for household use. The Brassfield Limestone generally
yields greater quantities of water than the Richmond Group and is suitable for both farm
and home use.
Water level measurements from across the base indicate that the Mad River Buried
Valley Aquifer is unconfined within and around WPAFB except in some localized areas
where perched water tables exist or in areas that are overlain by till. Good hydraulic
connection exists between the aquifer and the river, as indicated by the high dry-
weather flow index of the Mad River. The upland areas in this region serve in part as
recharge areas for the buried valley aquifer. These upland areas, including a
groundwater mound in southeastern Fairborn, form groundwater divides which control
groundwater flow in and around Areas A and C, much like the surface water drainage
basin.
The city of Dayton conducted an assessment of water quality in the Mad River
Wellfield, concluding that, with the exception of 15 of Dayton's wells that contain
detectable levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the Mad River Wellfield
produces high quality drinking water. Low levels of VOCs have been found present in
groundwater samples from some of the on-Base water supply wells.
There are four lakes on base: Upper Twin Lake (4.67 acres), Lower Twin Lake (3.17
acres), Gravel Lake (6.73 acres), and Bass Lake (42.0 acres). Twin and Gravel lakes
are more properly classified as ponds because of their shallow depth. The lakes are
used for fishing and recreational activities by base employees and their families.
2.1.7. Natural Resources
General land use classifications of terrestrial communities found on WPAFB include
hardwood forest, characteristic of second growth oak/sugar maple. Black cherry and
flowering dogwood, honeysuckle, autumn olive, and various herbaceous plant species
are typical of the area. The most commonly observed species of fauna in the forested
areas are white-tailed deer, raccoon, eastern chipmunk, eastern cottontail rabbit, and
opossum.
The ruderal communities are characterized by areas of disturbance including residential
housing complexes, commercial and industrial complexes, the Twin Base Golf Course,
and other developed WPAFB areas. Commonly observed native vegetation associated
with residential complexes includes sugar maple, cottonwood, and oak. Non-native
ornamental trees and shrubs are also present. Mammals include eastern cottontail
rabbit, chipmunk, opossum and gray squirrel. Birds include those seen in the forest
along with pigeon, killdeer, English sparrow, mockingbird, and red-winged blackbird.
Huffman Prairie is a 109-acre remnant of a once much larger prairie. It is one of the
largest remnants of native prairie in the state. The Ohio Natural Areas Council declared
Huffman Prairie a State Natural Landmark in 1985. Dominant native grass species of
this prairie are Indian grass and big and little bluestem. Nesting bird species in
Huffman Prairie include Bobolink, Henslow's sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, and
-------
Eastern meadowlark. There are at least 20 different species of grasses found in the
prairie. The fauna includes many species commonly observed in the other
communities. However, the more abundant species are the red-winged blackbird,
Eastern meadowlark, and groundhogs.
To the north of Gravel Lake, there is a 5-acre tract of Type 3 Emergent Wetland,
designated by Ohio Department of Natural Resources in September 1987. A seven
acre riverine wetland is located on the east shore of the Mad River, just upstream of the
mouth of Trout Creek. A wetlands delineation has recently been completed at the
Base. Aquatic and wetland communities are found in several isolated wetlands on the
beds and banks of Hebble Creek, Trout Creek, and portions of the Mad River as well as
the lakes on base.
The base has confirmed the presence of the Indiana bat, a federal endangered
species, in the Mad River valley area. The base is home to several other endangered,
potentially threatened, and special interest species of animal and plant, including but
not limited to the Eastern Massasauga rattlesnake, upland sandpiper, and glade
mallow.
2.1.8. Cultural and Historic Resources
Based on a survey of WPAFB, there are five known historic sites on the installation.
Two Indian mound sites and the Huffman Prairie Flying Field, the location of early
Wright brothers aircraft development, are both listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. The Huffman Prairie Flying Field is a National Historic Landmark and is part of
the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park.
A 1990 study of historical mapping of the WPAFB area identified 117 potential historical
archaeological sites of the European settlement period such as farmsteads, mill races,
and cemeteries. These archaeological sites have been plotted and characterized as to
their potential importance.
Several hundred buildings on Base are currently being evaluated for eligibility for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places. For example, Building 10280 contains a
mural that was painted by German prisoners of war and Building 10280 is a warehouse
where the prisoners were fed while on work detail. Written plans have been generated
in an effort to continue to preserve historic sites on base.
2.1.9. Adjacent Land Use
Adjacent land uses include agricultural, residential, institutional, commercial, and
industrial. Commercial strip development in Fairborn and Riverside are situated across
from the installation on State Route 444 and Springfield Pike and adjacent to the Page
Manor residential area to the southwest. Adjacent industrial activities are situated to
the northeast and northwest. Wright State University is adjacent to the south central
portion of the installation. Open space remains primarily along the northern/
10
-------
northwestern boundary (the Huffman Reserve) and to the east. Residential
development is established all along the southern/southeastern boundary and occurs
sporadically along other perimeter areas.
More detailed information regarding the previous topics may be found in the Final Site-
Wide Characterization Report written for WPAFB by International Consultants
Incorporated (ICI) and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), 3 March
1995. The report was written as a compilation of regional and Base-wide data to be
used as a reference for all National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) studies.
2.1.10. Description of OUs
A site by site description of the NA sites (each shown in bold) is given below by OU.
Figure 2 shows the location of each OU relative to one another at WPAFB. Receptors
of significance for each of the OUs are also discussed below.
2.1.10.1. OU2
OU2 consists of a group of eight sites located close together in the northeastern portion
of Area C. (See Figure 3.) These sites are SS 2, 3, and 10, the CCSA, TCSP, LTCSA,
BS1, and B89CSP. Five of these eight sites, (SS2, 3, and 10 being the exception) are
being closed out in this ROD. (SS2, 3, and 10 are being evaluated in a feasibility study
(FS) to determine the appropriate remedial action for the fuel contamination). Each
OU2 site is within 1,000 feet of an adjacent site and all fall within a rectangular area of
approximately 105 acres (although the combined area of all the sites is significantly
less). The CCSA is an area of less than 1 acre located immediately south of the
Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants (POL) Storage Area. The TCSP covers 3.7 acres and
lies at the north end of the POL Storage Area. The LTCSA, about 5.5 acres in size, is
located in the northeastern portion of OU2 near the WPAFB east boundary and the city
of Fairborn's North Well Field. BS1 is located in the northeastern corner of OU2 and is
adjacent to the WPAFB east boundary and the city of Fairborn's North Well Field. The
site encompasses approximately 5.5 acres. The B89CSP consists of approximately 6.2
acres located in the south end of OU2 and runs along the edge of the base just
northeast of bldg 89.
OU2 is located near the city of Fairborn's West Park Well Field and North Well Field.
The West Park Well Field has been taken out of service and abandoned. The North
Well Field is an active well field on reserve status, used during periods of increased
demand or in drought conditions. Private residences and a public recreational facility
are located within a few hundred feet of some OU2 sites. Undeveloped areas of OU2
are occasionally used for training and storage activities. Some training activities are
conducted within the area of BS1. The areas adjacent to the B89CSP, the CCSA, and
BS1 are commonly used for materials storage.
11
-------
2.1.10.2. OU3
OU3 consists of 10 IRP sites. (See Figure 3.) OU3 is located in Area C near the main
runway, adjacent to the Mad River and within the Mad River floodplain. The area
includes forests, open fields, and several gravel-covered sites used to conduct fire
training exercises in support of flightline operations. There are no buildings within OU3,
and the land use is restricted to recreational (hunting and camping) and light industrial
(fire training) activities. Three jurisdictional wetlands and two areas of wetland habitat
have been identified within OU3. The presence of these wetlands, along with abundant
vegetation and animal life, indicates the area supports native species commonly found in
southwestern Ohio. OU3 lies within the Mad River floodplain, in and near the clear zone
of an active runway complex, and its use is limited to occasional recreation and industrial
activity. Thus, OU3 is expected to remain undeveloped for an indefinite period. Three
LFs [LF11 and LF12, not part of this ROD) and LF14], four FTAs (FTAs 2, 3, 4, and 5),
and one spill site (SS 1) are located within OU3. In addition, two former EFDZs (EFDZs
11 and 12), are located immediately north of OU3. Eight of these sites (all but LF11 and
12) have been selected for NA.
The land at OU3 is nearly flat, with some elevated soil areas within FTAs 2 and 5, and at
LF11 (due to consolidation/mounding of the buried waste). OU3 lies against the eastern
bank of the Mad River and within the floodplain behind Huffman Dam. Most of OU3 lies
within the 10-year Mad River floodplain. Surface water at OU3 either drains directly into
the Mad River or into small unnamed tributaries that carry runoff from the flightline and
other areas into the Mad River. Boreholes drilled at seven locations within OU3
encountered bedrock at depths ranging from 58 feet (north of LF11) to 163 feet below the
ground surface (east of LF12). Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 4
feet (at LF12) to nearly 20 feet (at LF11), with an average depth of about 10 feet beneath
the ground surface.
2.1.10.3. OU5
OU5, located in the southwest comer of Area C, is a collection of discrete sites that
have, or may have been used for handling or disposal of hazardous chemical materials
in the past, and areas located adjacent to these sites. (See Figure 4.) OU5 IRP sites
include LFS (not part of this ROD), FTA 1, the GLTS, and BS4. The LFS Extension
(LFE) is a large area adjacent to LFS, initially believed to be part of the LF, but not an
IRP site. Within OU5 are three lakes (East Twin Lake, West Twin Lake, and Gravel
Lake) and two wetlands. Other areas included in OU5 are the area south of LFS to
Hebble Creek and the area north of FTA1 to Hobble Creek. These areas, along with
the Lakes, are referred to as the area south of LFS. They are located within OU5 but
are not IRP sites.
LFS is a 23-acre site located north of the Twin Lakes between Riverview and Prairie
Roads. General refuse from Areas A and C was reportedly disposed of at this LF
during the period of 1945 to 1991. LFS is currently undergoing a-Removal Action and is
not part of this ROD. A second Removal Action is also being conducted at LFS which is
a groundwater pump and treat system.
12
-------
Portions of OU5 extend beyond the WPAFB boundaries onto adjacent property owned
by the Miami Conservancy District (MCD). (See Figure 3). MOD maintains the area
between the WPAFB boundary and Huffman Dam as a nature preserve. Immediately
adjacent and downgradient from OU5, west of Huffman Dam, the city of Dayton
maintains two wellfields collectively referred to as the Mad River Wellfield (MRWF).
The first, known as Rohrer's Island, provides drinking water to the city of Dayton. The
second, known as the Huffman Dam Wellfield, serves as a hydrologic barrier between
Rohrer's Island and sources of existing and potential groundwater contamination
located to the east by capturing groundwater that passes beyond WPAFB boundary
before it reaches Rohrer's Island.
The area south of LF5 and Twin Lakes is used as a family campground. Base
personnel and retired military and their families use the area for fishing, picnicking, and
camping. The lakes are stocked with catfish and trout periodically throughout the year.
2.1.10.4. OU6
OU6 includes LF1, LF2, and EFDZ1. All of these sites are located in the southwest
corner of Area B within the Mad River floodplain. (See Figure 4). LF1 is a 4-acre site
just northwest of the Air Force Museum. It was operated from the 1920s through 1940
for disposal of Area B refuse, surface disposal and burning. LF2 is a 15-acre site
located just west of the Area B runway. It was operated from the early 1940s through
1951 as a dump for Area B refuse. Fill material was placed into gravel pits in direct
contact with ground water. LF1 or LF2 will be capped under a separate project as part
of the Landfill Caps Presumptive Remedy Removal Action, discussed further in section
2.4. These two LFs will not be discussed further in this ROD. In OU6, EFDZ1 is the
only site being proposed for NA at this time.
EFDZ1 consists of both on-base (EFDZ1A and EFDZ1B) and off-base (EFDZ1C) areas
separated by Harshman Road. EFDZ1 encompasses 23 acres and lies entirely upon a
portion of the Miami Valley Aquifer, a federally designated sole source aquifer. The off-
base portion of EFDZ1 (EFDZ1C, located west of Harshman Road) is currently used as
a community park maintained by the city of Riverside. This area is approximately 4
acres and consists of a playground, recreational areas, open fields, and a few asphalt
covered areas used as walking paths, parking areas, and access roads. The on-base
portion of EFDZ1 is located approximately 600 yards from the U.S. Air Force Museum,
and is very close to the flight line in the clear zone of- an active, though seldom-used
runway complex. There are no buildings located at EFDZ1, and the land is not used for
commercial or residential purposes. Because of the current land use restrictions,
EFDZ1 is likely to remain undeveloped and unpopulated, except for the community and
recreational activities.
2.1.10.5. OU10
OU10 is a wedge-shaped section of land, approximately 119 acres in size. It lies
between Wright and Skeel Avenues in the northeastern portion of the Base and
13
-------
bordering the city of Fairborn. (See Figure 5). OU10 consists of a group of four IRP
sites including LF13, TF49A, UST30119, and CHP-3 and the associated battery
burial site. Three other areas of potential contamination were also investigated under
the Rl. These areas, though not IRP sites, include the Building 13 sump pit area, an
area with minor soil contamination near the Base Headquarters (Building 10) flagpole,
and a former dry cleaning operation in Building 89. OU10 land use is currently, and is
expected to remain, light industrial/office complex, unlikely to be used for recreational or
residential purposes in the future.
2.2. IRP History and Enforcement Activities
In 1981, the IRP was initiated at WPAFB and began with a Phase I, Problem
Identification and Records Search. Phase II, Stages 1 and 2 were subsequently
conducted for the 33 sites initially identified. WPAFB entered into the Administrative
Orders on Consent (also referred to as The Consent Order or CO) with OEPA in
February 1988. The CO specifies requirements for conducting Preliminary
Assessments, Site Investigations (SI), RIs and FSs, Remedial Designs, and Remedial
Actions on base. Please see Attachment 2 (Administrative Record Index) for
documents pertaining to the histories of these activities conducted to date under
CERCLA and the IRP program.
WPAFB was placed on the NPL by the USEPA in 1989. WPAFB entered into a
Federal Facilities Agreement (also referred to as the Interagency Agreement or IAG)
with USEPA, signed in March 1991, that establishes a procedural framework and
schedule for implementing and monitoring response actions at the Base.
As part of the IRP, an RI/FS Work Plan was developed for 39 potential waste disposal
sites. Twenty-five other sites were also identified and have undergone PAs and Sis.
All of these remaining sites, along with the original 39, were grouped into 11 OUs
across the base. All of the sites were addressed in the RI/FS by OU for additional
investigation or for longterm groundwater monitoring. The sites proposed for NA in this
document are from five of these OUs, namely OUs 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10. Table 1 shows a
list of these sites, as well as the approval dates of the Proposed Plans that were used
to document the decisions of NA required at these 21 sites.
RIs were performed at all five OUs. The RIs included soil, groundwater, surface water,
and sediment sampling. Soil gas sampling and geophysical surveys were also
conducted to help delineate areas of contamination and buried waste. The results of
this investigation were used to: (1) characterize the nature and extent of contamination at
these OU sites; (2) to evaluate the potentiahfor contaminant transport through surface
water runoff, wind erosion, and infiltration of rainwater; and (3) to assess the associated
risk to human health and the environment, if any, posed by these sites, Rl Reports were
written for each of the five OUs discussed in this ROD, which document the
investigation results. The reports have all been reviewed and approved by regulatory
agencies and have also been made available for public review in the Administrative
Record and Information Repository. (See section 2.3.).
14
-------
Histories of each of the NA sites is given below by OU. NA sites are bolded.
2.2.1. OU2
Historically, the OU2 NA sites were used for storage. The CCSA was maintained in the
area from the late 1940s to the early 1970s. Twenty-five gallon containers of muriatic
acid and sulfuric acid were stored on the site along with 2.5 gallon containers of carbon
tetrachloride. The site is currently a flat, grass-covered field.
Coal storage activities began at the TCSP site between 1946 and 1948 and ended
between 1954 and 1956. All coal remnants were removed in September 1960. The
northeast portion of this site is currently a flat, grassy area and the southeast portion is
paved with asphalt. Railroad tracks and a fence separate the northeast and southeast
portions of the site.
Coal storage activities began at the LTCSA in 1953 and ended in 1988. Prior to coal
storage, the site was used for open storage. The site is currently a grassy area and
was used in 1995 for a staging and treatment site for a soil remediation project as part
of the UST program.
BS1 contains remnants of old abandoned garden plot areas that were once suspected
to be waste burial trenches and two possible pits where sludge from fuel storage tanks
may have been buried. The area is now a grass covered field. A concrete pad exists
on the site where a truck trailer for the civil engineering activities was stored. Utility
poles and road salt have also been stored on the site.
B89CSP was used for coal storage activities from 1940 or 1942 and ended about 1974.
Some coal remains in the southern portion of the site while most of the rest of the site is
either paved or covered with grass. There are no current coal storage activities on the
site.
These five NA sites within OU2, (along with Spill Sites 2, 3, and 10) have been the
focus of an IRP investigation since 1991. The Field Sampling Plan was approved by
OEPA and USEPA in June 1992 and Rl activities were conducted between July 1992
and December 1994. The OU2 Rl Report was approved by OEPA and USEPA in
August 1995.
2.2.2. OU3
The eight sites recommended for NA were historically used for the disposal of
construction debris or to conduct fire training exercises using petroleum-based fuels (jet
fuels). The selection of the NA remedy is based upon the results of a series of
investigations, including an Rl that was completed in 1994. These investigations
identified low concentrations of contaminants that consist primarily of petroleum fuels and
their combustion and decomposition products.
15
-------
EFDZs 11 and 12 were reportedly used to contain construction debris from a runway
improvement project completed in the 1940s.
LF14 is believed to have been used as a construction rubble and earthfill site during the
late 1950s and the early 1960s.
SS1, located just west of FTAs 3 and 4, is a small area where a quantity of jet fuel,
estimated at 1,000 to 2,000 gallons, was accidentally released in 1972. The fuel was
reportedly intercepted before it reached the Mad River, but no record of the amount of
fuel recovered during the cleanup is available.
FTAs 2 through 4 include a number of small, gravel-covered bum pits that were used to
conduct fire training exercises from the mid-1950s to the early 1980s. FTAs 2 through 4
have been inactive since that time.
FTAS, the only active FTA at WPAFB, is used to train Base fire department personnel on
the fire suppression, rescue, and recovery techniques needed to effectively respond to
aircraft crashes at the Base. Until recently, jet fuel (principally JP-4) was applied to a
simulated aircraft structure and ignited to conduct fire training exercises at the Base. A
new fire training facility was constructed at FTAS in the summer of 1995 that uses a
propane-based fire control system to simulate aircraft fires. Because petroleum-based
fuels will no longer be used, the existing underground jet fuel storage tank, oil/water
separator, piping systems, 25,000 gallon waste water tank, and any contaminated soil at
FTAS have been removed according to the BUSTR program for the State of Ohio.
Obtaining "Clean Closure" from the State Fire Marshal is currently in progress.
The most extensive investigation was conducted during the period from 1992 through
1994, when an Rl was performed at OU3. This investigation included: (1) sampling and
analysis of surface and subsurface soils; (2) the installation of groundwater monitoring
wells and two rounds of groundwater sampling and analysis; and (3) sampling and
analysis of sediment and surface water in local drainage channels and the Mad River.
In addition to the extensive investigation of the eight sites addressed in this ROD,
bioremediation activities have been performed in FTAS to degrade jet fuel that was
accidentally released in 1986. This spill involved approximately 2,700 gallons from a
3,000-gallon tank at FTAS that was used to support fire training exercises at that facility.
Some of the jet fuel was recovered using a scavenger pump system installed in one of six
shallow wells in the spill area. In-situ biological treatment was used to biodegrade the fuel
that was not recovered.
A one-year bioventing test and evaluation project was recently conducted at FTAS by the
Air Force Center for Environmental,Excellence to demonstrate the feasibility of using
bioventing to reduce total petroleum hydrocarbons in fuel-contaminated soil and soil gas.
The project was also implemented to further degrade remaining fuel in the soils at FTAS
that was not recovered/degraded by prior actions. The one-year measurements made at
FTA5 monitoring points showed significantly lower rates of hydrocarbons than were
initially observed.
16
-------
These actions, the pending removal of the jet fuel storage tank, piping systems, and
associated soils at FTA5, and the elimination of petroleum-based fuels from future fire
training exercises, provide an adequate response to the petroleum contamination at this
facility. No further response or enforcement actions are anticipated at FTA5 or the other
seven sites addressed by this ROD.
2.2.3. OU5
The sites within OU5 have been the focus of IRP investigation since 1982. The Site-
Specific Work Plan for the Rl was approved by OEPA and USEPA in March 1993. The
Rl was conducted between April 1993 and August 1994. The OU5 IRP sites (FTA1,
BS4, and GLTS) listed for NA in this ROD are bolded. The other areas of potential
contamination within OU5 which warranted further investigation [LFE and the Area
South of LF5] that are non-IRP sites are also discussed below but are not in bold.
FTA 1 was in operation from 1950 to 1955 and is currently used as a civil engineering
training site for airfield repair exercises. During its operation, fuels were burned and
extinguished in pits surrounded by earthen dikes after first saturating the ground with
water to reduce infiltration. The typical fuels and contaminants used for fire training
exercises included, but may not be limited to, oily wastes, hydrocarbons, halogenated
solvents, and leaded gasoline.
BS4 is located along a narrow, wooded stretch of Marl Road. The site is approximately
2,000 feet long and 30 to 40 feet wide. The period of use or types of wastes disposed
of at BS4 are not known. Approximately 10 to 15 scattered drums that were visible on
the ground surface throughout the site were removed as part of a drum removal action
in 1990. Access to BS4 is not controlled for on-Base personnel.
The GLTS is located at the southeast comer of Gravel Lake. The site was reported to
contain a sludge burning vat and four tanks from the 1940s. Access to the site is not
controlled for on-Base personnel.
An area immediately adjacent to LF5 is known as the LFE. The LFE was originally
considered part of LF5 because of markings on a set of historical records; however,
field data indicate that the LFE was not used for waste disposal. It is not an IRP site,
however, because it was studied under the OU5 Rl, and sampling results indicate that
no cleanup is warranted.
The Area South of LF5 between East Twin Lake and Gravel Lake contains a zone of
petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in soff, as determined by a soil gas investigation.
It is not an IRP site, however, because it was studied under the OU5 Rl, and sampling
results indicate that no cleanup is Warranted.
2.2.4. OU6
17
-------
OU6 is comprised of LF1, LF2, and EFDZ1. Historically, EFDZ1 is one of eight disposal
sites used by WPAFB in the 1940s for disposal of earthfiil. Earthfill material is typically
characterized by soil and rock waste, but may include materials from demolition of
buildings and other structures. Review of available historical aerial photographs
indicates that earthfiil activities were conducted during the 1940s and ceased by 1949.
At that time, the site was vegetated and a concrete pad had been constructed for use
as a parking area for aircraft. A historical drawing was used to estimate that 80,000
cubic yards of earthfiil material may have been deposited in the 1940s. There is no
indication that EFDZ1 ever received hazardous materials.
An SI was performed at EFDZ1 in 1992. Although no contamination was present at the
site, EFDZ1 was carried into the Rl for the purpose of additional groundwater monitoring
to verify NA was warranted. A Site-Specific Work Plan for OU6, including EFDZ1, was
approved by OEPA and USEPA in August 1993. The Rl began in July 1993 and ran
through December 1994. The OU6 Rl Report was approved by OEPA and USEPA in
December 1995.
2.2.5. OU10
Historically, the OU10 IRP sites, two UST locations, and other areas of concern
investigated during the Rl were used for Base support activities such as aircraft storage
and maintenance, utility and laundry services, warehousing, and administrative
activities. The OU10 IRP sites (LF13, CHP-3, TF49A, and UST30119) listed for NA in
this ROD are bolded. The other areas of potential contamination within OU10 (PCE
anomaly at comer of Bldg 89, Bldg 13 Sump Pit, and the Flagpole Anomaly) that are
non-IRP sites are also discussed below but are not in bold.
LF13 was filled with aircraft parts and construction and demolition debris in the 1940s
and is currently used as a paved parking area.
CHP-3 (Building 170) was in operation from 1939 to 1980. The associated areas of
concern include a former coal storage area, a former compressor oil sump, and a
battery burial site.
PCE anomaly at comer of Bldg 89: From 1971 to 1980 Building 89 housed a laundry
and dry-cleaning operation as part of the Base Exchange system. PCE is a commonly
used dry-cleaning solvent and was found in shallow soil gas at the northeast comer of
Building 89 during a survey conducted in 1993v
Building 13 Sump Pit Area: The Building 13 sump pit was used to store waste oils until
1985. The sump has since been removed and backfilled, and the area associated with
the sump has undergone investigation and remediation under the BUSTR program.
The site was carried forward into the OU10 Rl for further groundwater investigation.
18
-------
Flagpole Anomaly: A volatile organic compound (VOC) anomaly was discovered near
the Base Headquarters flagpole during a 1993 soil gas investigation conducted under
the OU2 Rl. The source of this soil gas anomaly is unknown.
Actions at UST Sites: Two UST farm sites, namely TF49A and UST30119, were
originally on the list of IRP sites to be investigated according to CERCLA regulations.
However, because the sites involve USTs, they have been investigated and remediated
under BUSTR (Ohio Administrative Code [OAC] 1301: 7-9-13). These sites were not
included in the OU10 Rl to avoid overlap with and duplication of measures completed
under the BUSTR regulations. However, the sites were included in the OU10 Proposed
Plan and are included in this ROD in order to close out the sites from the IRP. The
BUSTR cleanup requirements of these two sites are acceptable for closure under the
IRP.
TF49A was UST farm used for storing various liquids including aviation gasoline, JP-4,
JP-5, Stoddard solvent, and plane deicing fluids.
UST30119 was a Base Exchange Service Station with five USTs used to store gasoline
and waste oils.
2.3. Highlights of Community Participation
WPAFB currently has an Environmental Advisory Board which consists of
representatives from local government agencies, businesses, and the community
groups which actively play a role in the IRP process. The group meets quarterly to
discuss and concur on a variety of topics with regard to the environmental program at
WPAFB. The group has the opportunity to review and comment on all documents
addressing the IRP sites.
WPAFB offered opportunities for public input and community participation during the
RIs and the Proposed Plans for all of the sites in this ROD. The Proposed Plans were
made available to the public in both the Administrative Record and the Information
Repository. The notice of availability for the Proposed Plans was published in the
Dayton Daily News (local paper) on 17 and 19 May 96, and in The Skywrighter (Base
newspaper) on 17 May 96. A public comment period was held from 17 May 96 through
17 Jun 96. The public comment period was not extended as there were no requests for
an extension. The Base held a public meeting on 21 May 96 at Fairbom High School to
discuss the investigatory activities that took place ai the sites. Representatives from
the USEPA, OEPA and WPAFB were all present and answered questions about the
Base and the 21 sites recommended for NA. Information was provided which was used
as the foundation for proposing NA for each of the individual sites.
A summary of the questions and responses from the public meeting is included in the
Responsiveness Summary (Section 3.O.). These community participation activities
fulfill the requirements of Sections 113(k)(2)(B)(i-v) and 117(a)(2) of CERCLA and are
summarized in Attachment 1 of this ROD.
19
-------
2.4. Scope and Role of OUs within Base Strategy
As discussed above, the IRP at WPAFB has divided the Base into eleven OUs. Each OU
includes a group of sites located in close proximity to each other in different portions of
the base. Contamination has been identified at LFs, chemical disposal sites, bum pits,
EFDZs, construction debris staging areas, coal storage areas and other waste disposal
operations. These activities have contributed to soil, sediment, surface water, and
groundwater contamination at the Base.
The base has divided the Rl process into two parts, namely source area investigations
done by OU, and the BMP (formerly called the Groundwater Operable Unit). All of the
sites in this ROD have been potentially or actually contaminated through historic water
disposal practices. In most cases, the RIs that occurred at the sites discussed in this
ROD addressed only the source areas. Groundwater, surface water and sediment
flowing from these sites will be addressed and monitored under the BMP which is
discussed in more detail in section 2.7 of this ROD.
WPAFB has undertaken a streamlined cleanup approach, which allows WPAFB to
identify and close out those sites which do not require remediation. This ROD is part of
this process. The sites that are the subject of this ROD have been grouped together
because, based on the assessment information collected to date, no remedial action is
necessary to protect human health and the environment at any of these NA sites. By
using this approach, WPAFB is able to concentrate resources on the OUs requiring
remediation. The remedies selected to date at WPAFB range from NA to engineered
caps, leachate collection and treatment systems, and LF gas collection and treatment
systems. Two RODs have already been signed for the base, namely, the "On-Source"
and "Off-Source" RODs at OU1. This ROD will be the third one for WPAFB.
Remedial actions for several IRP sites are being addressed in a streamlined method.
LFs located in several OUs with similar types of contamination (e.g. LF11) are identified
in the Base-wide Removal Action Plan for Landfill Capping. This Base-wide program
speeds up the process of cleaning up a LF site by using remedies already approved by
USEPA. USEPA refers to these actions as presumptive remedies, since they have
been proven to effectively reduce risks to human health and the environment from
contaminants that are commonly identified at CERCLA sites. For example, as a result
of the Site-Specific Removal Action Plan (SSRAP), LFS has been designated for an
early action LF cap as a presumptive remedy. Potential exposure to soil contaminants
at this site will be effectively eliminated by the cap. Sites that are remediated under the
streamlined method forego the standard FS process because a remedy has already
been selected in the presumptive remedy.
The sites that are the subject of this ROD have been grouped together because, based
on the assessment information collected to date, no remedial actions are necessary to
protect human health and the environment at any of these NA sites. The base has
divided the Rl process into two parts, namely Source Area investigations done by OU,
and the BMP, formerly called the Groundwater Operable Unit. In most cases, the RIs that
occurred at the sites in this ROD addressed only the source areas. Groundwater flowing
20
-------
from these sites will be addressed and monitored under the BMP which is discussed in
more detail in section 2.7 of this ROD.
2.5. Summary of Site Characteristics
The following is a summary of each of the NA sites' characteristics, listed by OU.
2.5.1. OU2
The Rl performed at OU2 showed that no remedial action is needed at the OU2 NA
sites because soil contamination is found below action levels at the OU2 NA sites.
Therefore, the NA sites do not pose a danger to human health or the environment.
Additionally, these sites are located within the boundaries of WPAFB (a restricted
military installation) and institutional controls are in place. WPAFB will remain an active
Air Force base for the foreseeable future.
Contaminants detected during the investigations at the NA sites were primarily
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals, and petroleum hydrocarbons. Both PAHs
and metals are constituents of coal and are commonly found in the soils as a result of
leaching from coal piles. PAHs also result from the degradation of petroleum products
that may have been disposed of on the ground. Other contaminants found at these
sites include sporadic identification of pesticides from application to grassy areas and
some PCE found in the soil near the B89CSP. There were no discernible plumes of
metals, pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, or PAHs seen migrating to the
groundwater as a result of contamination at these NA sites. Site-specific summaries of
the investigation results at the NA sites are presented below. A detailed discussion of
the types and behaviors of chemicals at the OU2 NA sites is presented in the OU2 Rl
Report.
CCSA: During the 1991 SI, three soil borings were completed at the CCSA. No
organic contaminants were positively identified in these samples. A soil sample
collected at the surface showed elevated metals that exceeded background criteria.
These metals may reflect residual coal or trace metals from fertilizers used to maintain
the grassy area where the sample was taken. Deeper soil samples did not show
elevated metal contamination and there was no evidence of migration to groundwater.
TCSP: Samples taken to characterize the TCSP include one boring taken during the
1991 SI, and three soil borings and one monitoring well taken during the Rl. In the
1991 surface soil sample the metals that exceeded background levels include
aluminum, chromium, potassium, and vanadium. The SI showed no migration of coal
related contaminants to the groundwater; however, it indicated that petroleum related
contamination from the nearby POL Storage Area may be affecting groundwater
contamination. In the Rl, the soil borings did show elevated levels of beryllium and
mercury over background values as well as PAHs and pesticides in the shallow
samples.
21
-------
BS1: During the Rl at BS1, only very low levels of the organic contaminants benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were found. Low levels of PAHs were detected, with
the greatest number and highest concentration at one location in the northwest corner
of the site. Pesticides were widespread across the site but their concentrations were
very low. The metals aluminum, arsenic, vanadium, and zinc were more common and
occurred at higher concentrations in surface soils than at depth. Antimony
concentrations appeared to increase with depth.
LTCSA: Low levels of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were also found at
the LTCSA. Only one PAH, benzo(a)pyrene, was elevated at one location. Pesticides
were widespread across the site but their concentrations were very low. The metals
aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, iron, lead, nickel, thallium,
vanadium, and zinc were more common and occurred at higher concentrations in
surface soils than at depth. Antimony concentrations appeared to increase with depth.
Metals concentrations were generally higher near the east and south sides of the site.
B89CSP: At the B89CSP, low levels of benzene, toluene, xylene and carbon disulfide
were detected in the surface soil. In the soil samples at greater depths PCE was also
detected. Benzo(a)pyrene was the only noteworthy PAH. Soil near B89CSP also
contained 22 of 23 target metals. Antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium,
copper, magnesium, mercury, selenium, silver, and sodium each had at least one
exceedence of the OU2 background value in soils.
A detailed discussion of the types and behaviors of chemicals at OU2 is presented in
the Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 2.
2.5.2. OU3
Previous environmental studies at OU3, including the Rl completed in 1994, identified
organic (petroleum products and solvents) and inorganic (metals and salts) chemicals in
soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater. Most of the chemicals detected in soil
consisted of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals. Fewer chemicals were detected in
sediment, surface water, and groundwater within the OU. Of the chemicals identified in
these media, PAHs in sediment, pesticides in surface water, and metals in groundwater
were the most commonly detected constituents. Most of the petroleum hydrocarbons
detected at OU3 originated from fire training exercises that were conducted in the FTAs.
PAHs are among the principal combustion products of petroleum-based fuels. The
pesticides detected at OU3 resulted from the use of insecticides and herbicides both
within and upgradient of the OU. Many of the metals originated from disposal activities
within the OU; however, some metals were used in fire training exercises (from aircraft
fuselages used to simulate crash/fire scenarios) and others, particularly those detected in
groundwater (for example, arsenic and manganese) are naturally occurring substances.
The most prevalent chemical constituents detected at OU3 were petroleum hydrocarbons
(for example, jet fuete), their combustion products (PAHs), metals (aluminum, arsenic,
manganese, and zinc), and pesticides (DDT and dieldrin). These substances were most
often identified in surface soils (0 - 2 ft). Under most conditions, they remain stable for
22
-------
long periods in the environment. The organic compounds evaporate slowly, all tend to
bind tightly with soils, and with the exception of some of the metals, these substances are
only slightly soluble in water. Consequently, these substances tend to remain in a fixed
location in the environment (except for the water soluble metals). They are not likely to
move except through soil erosion and/or surface water transport during periods of heavy
rain (for example, severe rain storms and associated floods).
EFDZ 11 and 12 were monitored during the OU3 Rl to confirm the results of the SI and
perform longterm groundwater monitoring. Soil and groundwater sampling results
indicated that only low levels of VOCs were detected in the groundwater and only VOC
and semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC) tentatively identified compounds (TICs)
were present in the soils. The data obtained from two rounds of groundwater sampling
performed during the Rl identified no compounds at concentrations above OU3
background values.
LF14 soil results indicated that surface soils contain PAHs, TPH, pesticides,
polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs), dioxins/dibenzofurans, and metals. However, the
maximum concentrations of these substances detected in surface soil were low or near
background levels except beryllium and lead. Aluminum and copper were detected in the
subsurface soils. Generally, the contaminant concentrations diminish with depth, and are
not high enough to pose a risk. Based on human health risk for groundwater ingestion,
there is no risk in excess of USEPA targets under future land use at LF14.
FT As 2 and 5 sampling results indicate soils contain VOCs, including BTEX, SVOCs,
PAHs, TPH, pesticides/herbicides, and metals. Generally, the contaminants, except
metals, were more concentrated in subsurface soils. Groundwater contained low
concentrations of VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, and metals at very low concentrations. Except
for benzene and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, these compounds were detected at
concentrations below their MCLs in groundwater. The relatively low levels of soil
contaminants do not pose human health or environmental risk at levels that warrant
cleanup actions.
FTAs 3, 4, and SS1 results indicate surface contamination of VOCs (including BTEX),
SVOCs (including PAHs), TPH, pesticides/herbicides, and metals. The maximum
concentrations of these contaminants in surface soils were typically higher than in
subsurface soils. The relatively low levels of soil contaminants do not pose human health
or environmental risk at levels that warrant a remedial response action. No chemical "hot
spots" were identified within OU3 and no groundwater plumes were detected. A detailed
discussion of the types and behaviors of chemicals,at OU3 is presented in the Final
Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Llnif 3.
2.5.3. OU5
Potential contamination from past waste disposal activities was found during the OU5
investigations. The OU5 Rl identified organic and inorganic chemicals, consisting
primarily of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals. Site-specific information is listed
below, with the IRP sites listed in bold.
23
-------
FTA 1: Potential contamination from past fire training exercises was found during the
Rl. WPAFB identified VOCs, SVOCs, and metals. The contaminants were all detected
below action levels and pose minimal risk to human health. In general, all VOCs were
detected at very low concentrations. Various SVOCs were detected in soil samples.
GLTS: The GLTS soil was characterized during the SI. The list of analytes sampled
for was chosen based on site-specific contamination known to be present at the site.
The GLTS was not investigated further during the Rl because of the general absence of
site-related soil contamination discovered during the SI. Low levels of toluene were
detected. No SVOCs were detected, although low levels of SVOC tentatively identified
compounds (TICs) were detected. Lead exceeded the SI representative background
concentration in only one sample. The contaminants were all detected below action
levels and pose minimal risk to human health.
BS4: BS4 soil was also characterized during the SI. The list of analytes sampled for
was chosen based on site-specific contamination known to be present at the site. BS4
was not investigated further during the Rl because of the general absence of site-
related soil contamination. Various VOCs were detected at low concentrations. Pyrene
was the only SVOC detected in BS4 soil and has been shown to exist naturally in soils.
SVOC TICs were also detected in BS4 soil, and may be related to the same natural
source as the pyrene or may be decay products of pyrene. Lead exceeded the SI
representative background concentration in only one sample. Soil and sediment
samples were also measured for alpha and beta particle radioactivity, and are similar to
background particle counts. Gross alpha and beta particle activities were measured in
four groundwater samples. In two samples, gross alpha and beta exceeded both
federal and state maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Confirmatory groundwater
sampling was performed under the Rl to verify the results. Two samples showed an
alpha activity greater than background. Samples from these wells were analyzed for
isotopes contributing to the gross alpha activity. Uranium and Radium-228 account for
nearly all of the gross alpha activity in groundwater samples. The contaminants were
all detected below action levels and pose minimal risk to human health.
Other areas of investigation at OU5:
LFE: The Rl identified low levels of VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and metals in soil
from the LFE. The contaminants were all detected below action levels and pose
minimal risk to human health. VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides were detected at
generally low levels. Because the LFE is situated adjacent to LF5 and below the
extension of the Patterson Field runway and in line with prevailing wind directions, the
SVOCs may be associated with surface deposits of windblown coal ash or combustion
products from jet engine exhaust. Various metals were also detected in the LFE that
exceeded the representative background value.
Area South of LF5: The area south of LF5 between East Twin Lake and Gravel Lake
contains a zone of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in soil, as determined by a soil
gas investigation. Contaminants detected during the Rl include VOCs, SVOCs,
pesticides, PCBs, and metals. The contaminants were all detected below action levels
and pose minimal risk to human health. Low levels of VOCs and SVOCs were detected
24
-------
within the zone of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. SVOCs were also detected in
near surface samples (0 to 2 ft depth) and are likely representative of small amounts of
paving material from the roadway or small amounts of coal ash. Low levels of three
pesticide compounds were detected in the area south of LF5. Low levels of two PCB
compounds were also detected. Various metals were detected in the area south of LF5
that exceeded the representative background value.
A detailed discussion of the types and behaviors of chemicals at OU5 is presented in
the Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 5.
2.5.4. OU6
Potential' contamination from past waste disposal activities was found during a series of
investigations. The OU6 Rl identified organic and inorganic chemicals, consisting
primarily of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals, in the surface (0 - 3 inches deep) and
subsurface (> 3 inches deep) soils at EFDZ1. Herbicide and pesticide residue from the
regional use of insecticides were also identified. No buried waste was encountered
during drilling activities at the EFDZ1 site.
The majority of petroleum hydrocarbons, their by-products, and the metals detected at
EFDZ1 do not dissolve readily in water and bind tightly to the soils. PAHs are also
present at EFDZ1. The presence of PAHs in the surface soils is likely influenced by the
asphalt walking path in the community park and automobile exhaust and road runoff
from Harshman Road, a heavily traveled thoroughfare adjacent to EFDZ1. It is unlikely
these chemicals will migrate to other areas through natural processes (i.e., rain
infiltration and percolation through soils, surface water runoff, and erosion).
Petroleum hydrocarbons, which are the most commonly detected contaminants at NA
sites, are biodegradable. In the presence of oxygen, petroleum hydrocarbons in surface
soils degrade rapidly. Even where oxygen is not present, such as in certain subsurface
soils, biodegradation is rapid enough to significantly reduce contamination after a few
years of normal biological activity when certain conditions exist. As such,
biodegradation of the petroleum hydrocarbon within the EFDZ1 site will continue, with or
without any engineered remedy.
A detailed discussion of the types and behaviors of chemicals at the EFDZ1 site is
presented in the Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 6.
2.5.5. OU10
The OU10 Rl identified organic and inorganic chemicals consisting primarily of VOCs
and metals. Other contaminants detected at the NA sites included chemicals that are
byproducts of the burning or natural decomposition of petroleum hydrocarbons. These
chemicals are now common in the environment from sources such as automobile
exhaust. Chemicals were found in the surface (0 - 2 feet deep) and subsurface (> 2
feet deep) soils at the sites. The VOCs, their byproducts, and the metals detected
25
-------
within the sites often do not dissolve readily in water and may bind tightly to the soils. It
is unlikely that they will migrate to areas outside the Base through natural processes
(such as rain infiltration and percolation through soil, surface water runoff, or wind
erosion). Organic compounds are biodegradable. In the presence of oxygen, organic
compounds in surface soils may degrade rapidly. Even where oxygen is not present,
such as in certain subsurface soils, biodegradation is rapid enough to significantly
reduce contamination after a few years of normal biological activity. Site-specific
information is listed below. The IRP sites are listed in bold.
The BUSTR-regulated investigations for TF49A and UST30119 indicated that the soil
and groundwater at each site had been contaminated as a result of tank (or associated
piping) leaks. The tanks and the contaminated soil were removed in accordance with
the BUSTR regulations. The groundwater contamination at TF49A was below the
BUSTR action levels, whereas the groundwater contamination by benzene at
UST30119 was slightly above the action levels. However, a qualitative evaluation of the
routes of exposure to UST30119 groundwater indicated that it does not pose a
significant risk to human health, welfare, or the environment.
LF13: Groundwater samples were collected from within and downgradient of the site.
In general, concentrations of organic and inorganic compounds and conventional
groundwater parameter results indicate that LF13 is not a significant source of
contamination to groundwater. Arsenic levels were elevated compared to local
background wells (i.e., immediately upgradient of LF13) but were not elevated with
respect to general background wells (i.e., background wells from other portions of the
Base).
CHP-3: The CHP-3 area is divided into three separate study areas: the former coal
storage area, the former compressor oil sump, and the battery burial site. Seventeen
SVOCs were identified and eight metals were detected at slightly elevated levels in a
surficial soil/material sample collected from the former coal storage area. A native clay
deposit underlies the surficial material, and none of the analytes found to be elevated in
the surficial sample appear to be leaching through the clay deposit. Sixteen SVOCs
were detected in a composite soil sample from the former compressor oil sump area.
Of these, only three were found at concentrations greater than the OU10 background
soil sample concentrations. No VOCs were detected in the soil samples collected from
this area whereas concentrations of antimony, calcium, magnesium, and sodium were
slightly greater than background soil concentrations.
The concentrations of eight metals were found to be,elevated in a near-surface soil
sample from the battery burial site. As at the fgrnier coal storage area, the battery
burial site is underlain by a native clay deposit and the metals contamination does not
appear to be leaching through the clay deposit.
Other areas of investigation at OU10: (The following areas of concern are not IRP
sites but were studied as part of the OU investigation.) Soil and groundwater samples
were collected from the vicinity of the Former Dry Cleaning Operation in Building 89.
The soil contaminant (PCE) distribution observed may indicate that contamination may
originate from the groundwater plume in the area as opposed to a source of
26
-------
contamination in the soil. For this reason, the soil in this area is not believed to be a
significant source of contamination to the groundwater. In addition, the groundwater
PCE distribution may indicate an undocumented contaminant release near or possibly
beyond the Base property line. The BMP will be the vehicle for monitoring the
groundwater contamination in this area.
Building 13 Sump Pit: Groundwater samples were collected from wells in this area.
VOCs were detected in these samples, but concentrations are similar to concentrations
observed in marginally upgradient monitoring wells. The area does not appear to be a
source of VOC contamination. Sixteen metals were present at concentrations greater
than the background concentrations, but these concentrations appear to be attributable
to the sampling technique and the well construction.
Flagpole Anomaly: PCE was detected in the soil gas from this area during a pre-OU10
Rl. Soil and groundwater samples were collected from this area during the OU10 Rl,
and PCE was detected in samples from both media. Given the low concentrations
observed and the distribution of PCE, the area does not appear to be a major source of
groundwater contamination.
A detailed discussion of the types and behaviors of chemicals at OU10 is presented in
the Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 10.
2.6. Summary of Site Risks
As part of the RIs, baseline risk assessments were performed to identify contaminated
soil and sediment which may pose an unacceptable risk through both the ingestion and
dermal exposure (direct contact) routes. Tables 2-6 show the risks associated with the
NA sites from each of the OUs in this ROD. These tables are taken from the NA
Proposed Plans for each of the OUs, with the exception of OU6 which was written for
this ROD.
The format for the risk assessments (with the exception of OU2) was a result of the
Consensus Statement for Streamlining the RI/FS Process (Consensus Statement).
This document provides a conceptual framework for streamlining the RI/FS process as
it applies to the IRP at WPAFB. The conceptual framework identified in the Consensus
Statement includes a tiered approach for performing risk assessments. The first tier is
a semi-quantitative risk assessment that determines if site contaminant concentrations
are greater than, less than, or within the USEPA's target risk range [i.e., carcinogenic
risk range of 10"6 (one additional death in one million) to 10"4 (one additional death in
ten thousand) or a hazard index of 1 for non-carcinogens]. Under this framework, sites
that fall below the target risk range may be proposed for NA.
Human health risks or hazards are defined for two classes of chemical contaminants,
carcinogens and non-carcinogens. Exposure to carcinogenic chemicals may result in
an increased risk of a specific type of cancer. The risk of cancer calculated in a
baseline risk assessment is expressed as the chance of the occurrence of that type of
cancer per numbers of the population. These cancers are over and above the
27
-------
background rate of cancer in the U.S. which is about one in every four people (that is,
they represent an excess cancer risk). A risk level of one in a million (1 x 10~6) means
that one additional person out of 1 million people could develop cancer as a result of
exposure to the environmental contaminant. The USEPA has established that an
excess cancer rate of one in a million people to one in ten thousand (1 x 10~6 to 1x10'
4) people as the target risk range for determining the effectiveness and health
protectiveness of an environmental remedial action. Cancer risks greater than one in
ten thousand generally require a remedial action to reduce the risks to the population.
For non-carcinogenic contaminants the likelihood of adverse health effects is expressed
as a numerical ratio called the Hazard Quotient (HQ). Values for the HQ of greater
than 1.0 indicate that non-carcinogenic adverse health effects may be likely to occur.
Two sets of exposure assumptions were used for each exposure scenario and risk
calculation. The first was the reasonable maximum exposure or RME. The RME
utilizes exposure assumptions that are intended to represent the high end of the range
of possible exposures to provide a conservative overestimate of risk. The second set of
exposure assumptions used was the central tendency (CT) estimate. The CT
represents the average exposure (AVE). OU-specific risk assessment information is
provided below. The site-specific risks in Tables 2 through 6 at the end of this
document were generated using these risk levels for comparison purposes.
The methods used for the ecological risk assessment (ERA) were qualitative or semi-
quantitative in nature and were adjusted for site-specific requirements. Some of the
Oils in more industrialized areas (OUs 2 and 10) did not warrant as rigid ERAs. The
objectives of the ERA was to assess general characteristics of biological communities
such as plants, animals, and aquatic communities; determine the location, extent, and
characteristics of ecological resources such as forest and wetland habitats; and identify
any overt effects of contamination on biological communities.
Details of the risk assessments performed at each OU are described below.
2.6.1. OU2
WPAFB conducted a baseline human health and ERA as part of the Rl, using USEPA-
approved risk assessment methods. The OU2 sites were grouped into exposure units,
by environmental media (such as soil and groundwater) based on the likelihood of
people, plants and animals coming in contact with these media. These exposure units
included (1) the POL Storage Area vicinity sitea (Spill Sites 2, 3, and 10, CCSA, and
TCSP); (2) BS1 and the LTCSA; and (3) BuiTding 89 Coal Storage Area. Results of the
risk assessment are summarized in Table 2.
The exposure scenarios chosen for OU2 were representative of the exposures possible
or likely to occur at the O02 sites and included an adolescent recreator, a commercial
industrial worker exposed to the surface soil, and a construction worker exposed to
subsurface soil. A full discussion of the assumptions and calculations are provided in
the OU2 Rl Report. Both the RME and the CT results are shown in Table 2.
28
-------
The human health baseline risk assessment concluded that there was only a minimal
human health risk posed by the soils at the OU2 sites. The primary contaminants of
concern (COCs) identified were PAHs and metals common to coal and urban pollution.
Carcinogenic risk was contributed by the PAHs benzo(a)pyrene and
dibenz(a,h)anthracene and the metals beryllium and arsenic. While the total risk for the
RME commercial/industrial worker at the LTCSA/BS1 was two in ten thousand, no
single carcinogenic risks for these contaminants exceeded the risk level of one in ten
thousand for the RME assumptions and the CT assumptions were all less than the
USEPA target value. The non-carcinogenic HQs exceeded one for commercial/
industrial and construction workers for the RME but not for the CT. Manganese and
antimony were the primary contributors to the elevated HQs. Manganese was found in
every sample taken at OU2 and at levels comparable to background. Antimony was
found very sporadically at OU2 and the levels found are in agreement with other soil
investigations conducted at WPAFB.
An ERA was performed for OU2 and a one-mile zone surrounding OU2. The ERA was
performed for terrestrial receptors including plant and animal species, surface water
and sediment species. There are no permanent resident species on OU2 or the one-
mile zone that are listed or proposed federally threatened and endangered species.
One state listed endangered species, the upland sandpiper, may nest in the grassy
areas of the TCSP, LTCSP and BS1. These birds are not permanent.residents of the
areas and their occurrence is sporadic.
Hebble Creek flows through a culvert near OU2. Aquatic life samples and sediments
were evaluated more than two miles downstream of OU2. Hebble Creek was
determined to not have a detrimental effect on the fisheries or aquatic conditions of the
Mad River. The contaminants evaluated in the ERA were from a large area. It is
difficult to isolate the effects of the smaller NA sites on the ecology of the area. The
CCSA and the TCSP are in the vicinity of the highly industrialized POL Storage Area.
This area is not a suitable area for plant or animal species other than groundhogs or
rodents. Metals, PAHs, and pesticides were identified to possibly contribute to the
detriment of the plant and animal species in the OU2 area. The uncertainties
associated with the ERA, the conservative safety factors used for the upland sandpiper,
and the estimation that upland sandpipers are not expected to spend more than 10
percent of their time in the OU2 area resulted in the conclusion that no significant
ecological harm is likely to occur due to contaminants at OU2.
2.6.2. OU3
A baseline human health and ERA was conducted using the results of the Rl at OU3.
This risk assessment evaluates threats to people, plants, and animals when the site is left
in its current condition (that is, when no site cleanup is done). The risk assessment
calculated the potential excess lifetime cancer risks for current and future recreational
visitors and trespassers at OU3. These calculations provided estimated upper limits of
additional cancer cases that could occur as a result of repeated exposures to site related
contaminants under current conditions and future land use situations. Because current
29
-------
and future land use restrictions will limit exposure to site related contaminants, the actual
human health risks at OU3 will be less than the risk estimates derived from the baseline
risk assessment.
The OU3 sites were grouped into exposure units by environmental media (such as soil,
sediment, surface water, and groundwater) based on the likelihood of people, plants, and
animals coming in contact with these media. Six of the NA sites were grouped into three
exposure units to evaluate the risk posed by soil contaminants. These exposure units
included 1) LF 14; 2) FTAs 2 and 5; and 3) FTAs 3 and 4 and SS1. EFDZs 11 and 12
were not included in the baseline risk assessment because contaminants detected at
these sites were present in amounts that occur naturally.
In the human health risk assessment, two organic compounds [benzo(a)pyrene and
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene], and one metal (beryllium) were identified as COCs in soils. All
were within USEPA's cancer risk range (increased lifetime cancer risk of 1 in 10,000 to 1
in 1,000,000 for an individual). All other sample results were below the risk range. The
possible ways to be exposed to these COCs include ingestion (eating), dermal (skin)
contact, and inhalation. Risks for each COC were calculated assuming an individual
would be exposed to a contaminant through all these routes at the same time, which is a
very unlikely situation. Based upon current and expected future land use, maintenance
workers (such as groundskeepers), industrial users (such as fire fighters), trespassers,
and recreational users (such as hunters and Boy Scouts) are the primary types of people
who may be exposed to these COCs. Residents were not considered in the risk
assessment because the NA sites are located on Air Force property with restricted use.
The baseline ecological risk assessment evaluated risks to plants and animals from
exposure to soil contamination. Species studied included native plants, small mammals,
and predatory mammals and birds. First, exposure quotients for site contaminants were
calculated for several species. The risk assessors used general assumptions about how
much contamination the animals and plants would be exposed to and how toxic the
contaminants are. Some species had exposure quotients greater than one for some
chemicals, which means the animals and plants are at risk from the contamination. For
those contaminants with exposure quotients greater than one, a more detailed calculation
was done using more specific information. The detailed evaluation results showed that
no contaminants in NA site soils were COCs for non-threatened and endangered species.
Table 3 shows a summary of the Baseline Risk Assessment Results at OU3.
2.6.3. OU5
A baseline risk assessment was conducted, including an ERA, as part of the OU5 Rl,
using USEPA-approved risk assessment methods. The semi-quantitative risk
assessment for OU5 utilizes a structured, sequential analytical process that identifies
the COCs for OU5; estimates acceptable levels of COCs under particular land-use
scenarios; and compares OU5 contaminant concentrations with estimated acceptable
levels of COCs.
30
-------
The risk assessment is intended to evaluate health risks from exposure to chemical
sources under a NA alternative. This process utilized in this semi-quantitative risk
assessment is based on evaluation criteria for each media [i.e., risk-based preliminary
remediation goals (PRGs)] for soil, surface water and sediment, and ambient water
quality criteria for surface water. PRGs were developed to evaluate RME as well as
AVE.
The OU5 sites were grouped into exposure units, by environmental media (such as soil,
sediment, surface water, and groundwater) based on the likelihood of people and
aquatic animals coming in contact with these media. The exposure units evaluated in
the risk assessment included.(1) LFE, (2) area south of LF5, (3) FTA 1, (4) BS4, (5)
GLTS, (6) West Twin Lake, (7) East Twin Lake, (8) Gravel Lake, (9) Trout Creek, (10)
Hebble Creek, and (11) Mad River. Because LF5 is in the process of being closed
under the IRP, it is not included in the OU5 baseline risk assessment.
Land use classification for the OU5 sites is commercial/ industrial. Soils from LFE, area
south of LF5, FTA 1, BS4 and GLTS will be available for worker exposures. The typical
worker exposed to OU5 surface soil is a maintenance worker that cuts the grass during
the spring, summer and fall months of the year.
The remainder of OU5 is classified as recreational/open. Recreational use of the
surface water bodies were evaluated semi-quantitatively through evaluation of COC
concentrations with appropriate aquatic water quality criteria and relevant PRGs. There
is also a small section of soils south of the LF that is subject to recreational use.
Exposures to the surface water bodies and surrounding land areas are usually limited to
the warmer months.
Groundwater within WPAFB boundaries and beneath OU5 is currently not used for
human consumption. However, according to USEPA policies for risk assessment, it is
assumed that the OU5 groundwater will be available for future residential use.
Although future residential exposures to OU5 groundwater was evaluated in the OU5
risk assessment, groundwater throughout WPAFB will be evaluated as part of the BMP.
Results of the BMP will help to determine the need for remediation of any groundwater
contaminants to reduce the potential for future risk due to groundwater exposures.
The top half of Table 4 shows the results of the comparisons of site-related COCs to
the health-based criteria, (e.g. RME and AVE PRGs) for industrial exposures. COC
levels below the RME PRG indicates contamination that Is acceptable for more
extensive (higher) industrial exposures. For most sites, with the exception of LFE, West
Twin Lake and the small wetland, exposures were below the RME PRG. COC levels
below AVE PRGs indicate contamination that is acceptable for average industrial
exposures. Exposures at the remaining sites (LFE, West Twin Lake and the small
wetland) were all below the AVE PRG. Therefore, the typical types of industrial
exposures assumed to be associated with OU5 (ground maintenance) are not thought
to be associated with any health risks beyond the target risk range.
The bottom half of Table 4 shows the results of the comparisons of site-related COCs
to health-based criteria for recreational exposures to surface water and sediment.
31
-------
Detected COCs in surface soil and sediment are safe for all types of recreational
exposures. Because of the potential for recreational fishing in some surface water
bodies associated with OU5, recreational exposures to surface water in West Twin
Lake, East Twin Lake, Gravel Lake and Mad River were also evaluated. Detected
levels of COCs in West Twin Lake, East Twin Lake and Gravel Lake were acceptable
for average recreational exposures, which includes consumption of fish. Mad River
appears to be associated with risk from longer-term recreational exposures. However,
this result was associated with one detection of the chemical pentachlorophenol.
Repeated sampling of Mad River did not indicate other detections of this chemical. In
addition, no source of pentachlorophenol could be detected in OU5. Therefore, the
typical types of recreational exposures assumed to be associated with OU5
(recreational fishing and occasional ingestion) are not thought to be associated with any
health risks beyond the target risk range.
The ERA was limited to species living in the surface water and sediment. The
evaluation of surface water indicated that surface water criteria were exceeded in
Hebble Creek for lead and zinc; in Mad River for silver; in the large wetland for
pentachlorophenol, copper, and lead; and in the small wetland for lead. In addition, to
comparisons with surface water quality criteria, the Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II
was used to investigate potential impacts to surface water habitats. Using this method,
habitat quality at most site-related stations was rated as good.
2.6.4. OU6
The human health risks presented by chemicals at the EFDZ1 site were determined by
evaluating the risk posed by the specific exposure route and environmental media. The
environmental media evaluated in the risk assessment for EFDZ1 were soils and
groundwater. Results of the risk assessment are summarized in Table 5. Exposure
routes include incidental ingestion (eating), dermal (skin) contact, and inhalation.
Potential receptors evaluated for the EFDZ1 soils included a lawn maintenance worker,
an excavation worker, and an adolescent recreational receptor; potential receptors
evaluated for the EFDZ1 groundwater included an adult and child resident.
Five compounds, including benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, endrin ketone,
aluminum, and thallium, were identified as COCs in soils. One compound, antimony,
was identified as a COC in groundwater.
Risks for each COC were calculated assuming an individual would be exposed to a
contaminant through all the exposure routes'. None of these values exceed USEPA's
target risk range for cancer causing substances (1 X 10"4 to 1 X 10"6). Risks for non-
cancer related health effects were;below USEPA's hazard index of 1.0 for all of the
exposure units, which means the potential for adverse health effects to occur are low;
the hazard index is derived by summing the chemical-specific HQs for all environmental
media and exposure pathways.
32
-------
Ecological Risk Assessment: The ecological risks posed by chemicals present in
EFDZ1 soils were evaluated by comparing the conditions and chemicals detected during
the Rl to the conditions of the other OU6 sites, LF1 and LF2. The EFDZ1 chemicals
were evaluated in terms of three criteria: 1) whether the EFDZ1 chemical exposure
concentrations exceeded the maximum exposure concentration at LF1 or LF2; 2)
whether the chemicals present at EFDZ1 exceeded National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) guidelines; and 3) whether the chemicals were present only at
EFDZ1 and not at LF1 or LF2.
Cobalt in EFDZ1 subsurface soils exceeded LF1 and LF2 exposure concentrations;
manganese in EFDZ1 surface and subsurface soils exceeded LF1 and LF2 exposure
concentrations. Fluoranthene and manganese in EFDZ1 surface soils exceeded NOAA
guidelines; magnesium, sodium, cobalt, manganese, and zinc in EFDZ1 subsurface
soils exceeded NOAA guidelines. Compounds present only in EFDZ1 surface soils
included di-n-butyl phthalate, MCPA, and MCPP; compounds present only in EFDZ1
subsurface soils included ethylbenzene, total xylenes, diethyl phthalate, di-n-butyl
phthalate, MCPA and MCPP.
Cobalt presented a potential ecological risk for LF1 and LF2; as such, it is expected to
present a potential risk at EFDZ1. Ecological risk is not commonly associated with
magnesium, manganese, and sodium and no toxicological benchmarks were found in
the literature for these compounds. Based on a comparison to LF1 and LF2 exposure
concentrations, the remaining compounds do not pose a risk at EFDZ1. For those
compounds that were detected only at EFDZ1, all exposure concentrations fell below
acceptable USEPA standards for ecological toxicity, indicating no risk from these
chemicals.
2.6.5. OU10
The two UST sites were remediated under BUSTR and pose minimal risk to human
health, welfare, and the environment. The closure for TF49A is documented in the
report by Four Seasons Environmental, Inc., May 1994, (UST Closure Report). The
closure for UST30119 is documented in the reports by 1) Petro Environmental
Technologies, Inc., August 1993, Underground Storage Tank Closure Assessment
Report for Wright-Patterson Air Force Base; and 2) TolTest, Inc., September 1994,
Closure Report Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Tank 57).
WPAFB conducted a baseline human health and ERA as part of the Rl, using USEPA-
approved risk assessment methods. Observed contamination within each area was
evaluated with respect to levels of contamination present in background samples
(samples believed to be unaffected by activity at OU10). Contaminants found to be
present at elevated concentrations in onsite samples (that are not considered essential
nutrients) were considered COCs. Ten organic contaminants (including PCE) and
twelve metals were found to be COCs in soil from OU10.
Currently, exposure to contaminated soil within OU10 is limited, and minimal risk
results. Most of a commercial/industrial worker's potential excess lifetime cancer risk
33
-------
estimated for OU10 soils is attributable to the presence of arsenic. However, onsite
concentrations of arsenic were similar to concentrations observed in samples collected
from an urban/industrial area outside OU10 and a relatively pristine off-base location
(Sand Hill Park in Fairborn). Although arsenic does not appear to be related to OU10
activity, a conservative approach was taken and it is included in risk assessment
calculations.
Because of the commercial/industrial nature of OU10, most of the identified potential
source areas are covered and exposure pathways do not currently exist. If at some
point in the future the asphalt or other material covering contaminated soil at CHP^3
and the associated battery burial site is removed, potential risk at the site would
increase. Potential future risks due to ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of
subsurface soil contaminants from these NA areas range from 1x10'5 to 6x10~6.
These levels are within the USEPA target risk range. Table 6 summarizes the results of
the human health risk assessment for OU10.
The baseline ERA evaluated risks to plants and animals from exposure to soil
contamination. Species studied include native plants, small mammals, and birds. The
risk assessment was based on general assumptions about how much contamination
the animals and plants would be exposed to and how toxic the contaminants are.
Terrestrial habitat at OU10 is limited. Existing land use influences habitat quality. The
land use consists of a mixture of typical urban/industrial development with widely
scattered areas of ornamental or planted trees, shrubs, and grass. Thus the number of
wildlife species that may be potentially affected is limited. The natural habitat at OU10
appears to support only common bird and mammal species. Only four common bird
species and one mammal species were observed onsite, namely the American robin,
cardinal, house sparrow, European starling, and gray squirrel. Recent surveys have
confirmed the presence of two types of threatened and endangered species at the
Base. These species include the Indiana bat and the eastern massasauga snake.
Neither of these species have been observed and, due to habitat, are not reasonably
expected to be present within OU10.
2.7. Description of the NA Alternative
Selection of the NA alternative for these twenty-one sites is based on several factors.
No pathways of exposure presenting a risk were identified in the RIs for these sites,
precluding the need for any feasibility studies. The NA alternative for these sites is the
preferred remedy presented in the Proposed Plan, released for public review and
comment on 21 May 96.
The need for a five-year review of the selected remedial alternative of NA, in
accordance with NCP Section 300:.430 (f)(4)(ii), is necessary because the NA
alternative relies on currently existing restricted land uses. The BMP is in place at
WPAFB to monitor groundwater quality and the types and movements of contaminants
in groundwater at key locations throughout the base. Under the BMP, WPAFB will
examine groundwater from all of the OUs as well as from parts of the Base that do not
contain hazardous waste sites. It will be the vehicle used to assure that no releases of
34
-------
contaminants occur from any of these NA sites and will be used to conduct the
CERCLA five-year review.
2.7.1. OU2
The reasoning to support the NA alternative for soils at the five OU2 sites is
summarized as follows:
CCSA: No organic contaminants were positively identified in this area. Metal
contaminants were found in surface soil only and there is no evidence of migration to
deep soil or groundwater. The CCSA is in the vicinity of the highly industrialized POL
Storage Area and institutional controls are already in place to limit access and/or use
the area.
TCSP: The soil contaminants found at this site, PAHs and metals, have an affinity to
soil and there is no evidence of migration to deep soil or groundwater from these coal
constituents.
BS1: The baseline risk assessment concluded that there was only minimal risk to
humans and non-threatened and endangered species. The primary contaminants were
PAHs and metals common to coal and urban pollution. No carcinogens in the soil
exceeded a risk level of one in ten thousand, even with the assumptions used in the
risk assessment. While some of the non-carcinogenic hazard quotients were greater
than one for the RME, none of the CT values were greater than one. Additionally, BS1
was determined not to be a LF but rather a garden plot area.
LTCSA: The baseline risk assessment concluded that there was only minimal risk to
humans and non-threatened and endangered species. The primary contaminants were
PAHs and metals common to coal and urban pollution. No carcinogens in the soil
exceeded a risk level of one in ten thousand, even with the RME. While some of the
non-carcinogenic HQs were greater than one for the RME, none of the CT values were
greater than one. The soil contaminants found at this site, PAHs and metals, have an
affinity to soil and there is no evidence of migration to deep soil or groundwater from
these coal constituents.
B89CSP: The baseline risk assessment concluded that there was only minimal risk to
humans and non-threatened and endangered species. The primary contaminants were
PAHs and metals common to coal and urban pollution. No carcinogens in the soil
exceeded a risk level of one in ten thousand, even with the RME. While some of the
non-carcinogenic HQs were greater than one for the RME, none of the CT values were
greater than one. The soil contaminants found at this site, PAHs and metals, have an
affinity to soil and there is no evidence of migration to deep soil or groundwater from
these coal constituents.
Based on these considerations, WPAFB has concluded that NA is necessary to protect
industrial workers, recreational users, construction workers, or animal and plant life
from contaminants at the OU2 NA sites. Institutional controls are already in place at all
35
-------
of the sites to limit access to or use of the sites. Such restrictions and institutional
controls are legal (not remedial) actions.
The physical disturbance associated with remedial action at any of these OU2 sites will
be detrimental to the upland sandpiper nesting areas and may cause more damage to
the environment and greater risk to the upland sandpiper than the contamination in the
soils at the OU2 NA sites.
The preferred alternative to protect human health, welfare, and the environment at the
OU2 NA sites is NA. Recreational and industrial use of the land at these sites reduces
the risk to people, plants, and animals by limiting exposure to these areas.
Contamination in the soils at the OU2 NA sites and the risk it causes does not create
any danger. Therefore, the NA alternative is adequate to protect human health and the
environment, and meets the requirements for both short-term and long-term
effectiveness and permanence set forth in the NCR.
2.7.2. OU3
The reasoning to support the NA alternative for soil contamination at all of the OU3 NA
sites is summarized as follows:
The risk assessments concluded there was only minimal risk to humans and non-
threatened and endangered species.
The NA sites are mostly unused. Future development, other than the limited industrial
development at FTA5, is unlikely because these sites are located on an Air Force
reservation, in the clear zone of an active runway complex, and on the floodplain of the
Mad River. Institutional controls are already in place to limit access to or use of the
sites. Deed restrictions will be established to ensure that no further excavation will
occur. Such restrictions and institutional controls are legal (not remedial) actions.
The environmental impact of any remedy may cause more damage to the environment
and greater risk to the Indiana bat than the contamination in NA site soils. This is
because any construction of a remedial action in this densely wooded area would result
in disturbance of wildlife habitats.
Based on these considerations, WPAFB has concluded that no remedial action is
necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment under current and
future land use.
The preferred alternative to protect public health and the environment at the OU3 sites
is NA. Recreational and limited industrial use of the land at these sites reduces the risk
to people, plants, and animals who visit/reside in these areas. Contamination in the
soils at the NA sites and the risk it causes does not create any danger. Therefore, the
NA alternative is adequate to protect human health and the environment at OU3.
36
-------
2.7.3. OU5
The reasoning to support the NA alternative for soil contamination at the OU5 NA sites
is summarized as follows:
FTA 1, GLTS, BS4: The risk assessment concluded there was only minimal risk to
human health, with no COCs exceeding the RME PRG for either occupational or
recreational exposures at any of these sites.
Based on these considerations, WPAFB has concluded that no remedial action is
required to protect maintenance workers, trespassers, recreational users or animal and
plant life from contaminants at the OU5 NA sites. This alternative protects human
health and the environment because exposure of people, plants and animals to
contaminants in environmental media at the NA sites is likely to be rare.
Concentrations of chemicals in media are not high enough to justify a different remedy.
2.7.4. OU6
The preferred alternative to protect human health, welfare and the environment at the
EFDZ1 site is NA. Recreational and limited industrial use of the land at these sites
reduces the risk to people, plants and animals who visit/reside in this area.
Contamination in the soils at the EFDZ1 site and the risk it causes does not create any
danger. Therefore, the NA alternative is adequate to protect human health and the
environment.
2.7.5. OU10
The reasoning to support the NA alternative for soil contamination at the NA sites is
summarized as follows:
BUSTR-Regulated Sites: TF49A has been remediated in accordance with the State of
Ohio BUSTR program (OAC 1301: 7). Cleanup of the site has been approved by the
State of Ohio. The remediation included the removal of tanks and contaminated soil
from the site, and thus the risk of exposure to contaminated soil at that site was
eliminated. The removal action is documented in a report completed by Four Seasons
Environmental, Inc. in May 1994 (UST Closure Report).
Soil contaminated by fuel and waste oil from USTs at UST30119 has been remediated
in accordance with the State of Ohio BUSTtf program (OAC 1301: 7). Cleanup of the
site has been approved by the State of Ohio. This included removal of tanks and
contaminated soil from two areas at the site, and thus the risk of exposure to
contaminated soil at that site was eliminated. The removal actions are documented in
reports completed by Petro Environmental Technologies, Inc. (in August 1993,
Underground Storage Tank Closure Assessment Report for Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base) and by TolTest, Inc. (in September 1994, Closure Report Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base Tank 57),
37
-------
IRP Sites: Since LF13 is covered, exposure pathways to LF materials are incomplete
and the resulting risk is minimal. Also, the Base land use is not expected to change
from industrial/commercial to a less restrictive land use, so the potential for exposure to
soil contaminants will not increase.
Current exposure to soils at CHP-3 is considered unlikely because of the partial
concrete and asphalt cover, so the resulting current risk is minimal. Also, even under
future exposure scenarios, the resulting risks from exposure to the soils in this area are
minimal. Finally, since the Base land use is not expected, to change from industrial/
commercial to a less restrictive land use, the potential for exposure to soil contaminants
will not increase.
Based on these considerations, WPAFB has concluded that NA is adequate to protect
human health and the environment under current and future land use at these NA sites
inOUIO.
2.8. Explanation of Significant Changes from NA Proposed Plans
The Proposed Plans for the subject sites were released for public comment on 17 May
96. The Proposed Plans identified NA as the preferred alternative for all of the 21 sites.
No written or verbal public comments were received outside of those from the public
meeting. As a result, no significant changes to the proposed remedies of NA, as they
were originally identified in the Proposed Plans, are necessary.
2.9. Monitoring Program
USEPA, OEPA, and WPAFB have determined that conditions at these NA sites
addressed in this ROD pose no current or potential threats to human health or the
environment at levels that warrant any remedial action. While some of the sites may
exhibit amounts of contaminants that may pose slightly elevated human health and
ecological risk, no cleanup action is warranted because of the low frequency of human
exposure, and the likelihood that any attempt to reduce ecological risk will result in more
harm than good to the environment.
USEPA and OEPA require that groundwater, surface water, and sediment at these NA
sites be monitored under the BMP. If, after conducting such a review, it is determine that
the NA remedy is no longer protective, alternatives for addressing the risk posed by
contaminants at these sites will be evaluated and a remedy implemented. At a minimum,
if monitoring indicates that contaminant concentrations have increased, alternatives such
as additional institutional controls, and/or treatment will be evaluated to reduce the risk to
acceptable levels.
38
-------
3.0. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
3.1. Overview
WPAFB has presented the preferred alternative of NA at twenty-one IRP sites across
the base. Pursuant to CERCLA Section 117, Proposed Plans were issued for the 21
Sites, a public meeting was held, and verbal questions and comments were received at
the public meeting. Below is a summary of public comments received at the 21 May 96
Public Meeting:
3.2. Comment Summary and Response to Local Community Concerns
1) Question: A citizen asked for a further explanation of risk assessment, and the
judgment that is made for an area depending on its future use. Is the base assuming
that the land will be used for industrial activity or residential homes, and if it is for private
use, would that mean that additional cleanup would be required?
Answer: Each OU is considered separately based on site-specific considerations.
One consideration would be the current situation at the site and the degree of human
exposure. A commercial industrial site would pose daily exposure for the workers. This
would be the case scenario for OU2. As for OU3, land use would be considered as a
recreational scenario, in that the area is used in hunting season three months out of the
year. The other consideration is the future use of the site. The base used the
commercial-industrial scenario for soils; however, in order to be conservative, a
residential scenario was determined when looking at future groundwater usage. The
base has received approval from the regulatory agencies to assume that there will not
be residential development at some of the more industrialized areas of the base.
However, where appropriate, for example, around OU6 where there is residential land
use adjacent to the site, the base assumed actual current residential use. All of the
assumptions used are very conservative as to be the most health protective. Generally,
the Base has assumed that the sites proposed for NA will remain on an active AF Base.
If at some time in the future, these parcels of land are sold for residential development,
a further evaluation would need to be made regarding their disposition for residential
use. That does not necessarily mean that additional cleanup would be required.
2) Question: Have any of the LFs become wider than they were originally thought to
have been?
Answer: Generally, no. Exact LF dimensions may have been adjusted however.
Using geophysics we are able to determine what lies beneath the surface of the LFs
without being intrusive. Regarding the LFs around OU6, we have excellent historical
photos of the pits located just off of Glendean. As a result, the base feels very
confident that the LF boundaries have been adequately delineated and investigated.
3) Question: Is there any record of any wildlife being poisoned on the base?
39
-------
Answer: No. The ecological assessments we do in conjunction with the human health
risk assessments are very exhaustive. We have a pretty good size deer, fox, and
woodchuck population to name a few of the wildlife inhabiting the Base. Based on the
number of wildlife, we evidently have a very healthy ecosystem on Wright-Patterson.
When we find contamination, we discover the particular type and whether it produces a
danger to the wildlife. Based on a situation where there may be an ecological effect,
we would decide to undertake a cleanup. We also consider the effects of the
investigations and remedial actions on the wildlife inhabitants.
4) Question: With the aquifer located so close to the surface, how can you physically
say the soil is all right but the water which comes from that same soil may later show
contamination? Is this based on science or a legal determination that you can separate
the two?
Answer: It is primarily a scientific rationale. Soil contamination is confined to a specific
area and is more easily remedied. Groundwater contamination is much more difficult to
address because it is at very low levels, is constantly moving, and is often difficult to
determine the exact source of the groundwater contamination. The base is dealing with
contaminants in the very low part-per-billion range, which is, for the most part, barely
above drinking water standards. The base is addressing the groundwater
contamination on a regional scale.
In addition, the levels of contamination found in the soils pose very little, if any, risk.
The levels are not high enough to provide a continued source of contamination. The
soils would have been addressed if there was evidence to indicate that they would
cause groundwater contamination.
5) Question: What is the allowable level of benzene compared to what is present at
the base?
Answer: Five-parts-per-billion is the maximum contaminant level. Most of the benzene
contamination is located right around OU2, and it's associated more with the fuel spills,
which are being evaluated under a separate document for potential remedial actions.
For the NA sites, the levels of benzene found were just above 5 parts-per-billion. In
OU3, the level was 6 or 7 parts-per-billion.
6) Question: A resident on Glendean, which is still on well water, asked if the
chemicals derived from debris deposited in Pit A contaminate his drinking water.
Answer: The base has tested the well water at the Glendean residents' homes twice
for any contamination, and has not found any contamination in their water. The Base
will continue to monitor the water in that area to assure that no contamination migrates
from the LF to residential wells. The base will continue to sample the monitoring wells
at the downgradient edge;of the LF and perform long-term monitoring of the
groundwater at that site. If there appears to be any potential threat to the residential
well water supply, the Air Force will immediately take steps to take care of the problem.
40
-------
7) Question: A resident on Glendean asked why the soil taken from the monitoring
well borings in front of his house was containerized in 55-gallon drums.
Answer: In technical terms, the soil is investigative derived waste. Until it is analyzed,
it is considered a hazardous material. Until the soil is proven to be clean, the base is
cautious and takes protective measures in dealing with the waste by drumming it and
sampling it to assure that it is not contaminated. Once it is determined that the soil is
not contaminated, it is usually spread back out at the drilling site.
41
-------
-------
Attachment 1
Comprehensive List of Community Relations Activities
Conducted for the NA Sites
WPAFB conducted community interviews with the mayors and other local officials in the
cities of Dayton and Fairborn (1986).
WPAFB published the Community Relations Plan (1986). The Plan was updated in
1993.
WPAFB issued news release announcing the Consent Order between Ohio and
WPAFB (February 1988).
WPAFB established the Administrative Record/Information Repository at Wright State
University Library, Archives Section (1988).
WPAFB updated the Community Relations Plan (1989).
WPAFB issued news release announcing Interagency Agreement between USEPA and
WPAFB (March 1991).
WPAFB placed an ad in the Dayton Daily News on 11 Aug 93 stating the
commencement of the OU6 Rl.
WPAFB published an article in the Skywrighter on 5 Nov 93 stating the commencement
oftheOUIORI.
Copies of the NA Proposed Plans were provided for Environmental Advisory Board
Review on the following dates: OU2 - Feb 96, OU3 - Jun 95, OU5 - Feb 96, OU6 - Mar
96, OU10-Jan96.
WPAFB issued a news release announcing the finalization of Rl reports for OUs 2, 3,
and 5.
WPAFB issued a news release accepting public comments on No Action Proposed
Plans for OUs 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10 on 20 May 96.
WPAFB issued a news release stating that the OU10 Rl was complete. An article was
issued in the Fairbom News on 25 Apr 96 and the Skywrighter on 3 May 96 stating
such.
WPAFB issued a paid public notice advising the Base and surrounding local
communities of the 21 May 96 public meeting and the public comment period on the
Proposed Plans. Notices were placed in the Dayton Daily News on 17 and 19 May 96
and in the Skywrighter on 17 May 96.
42
-------
WPAFB held a public meeting at Fairborn High School in Fairborn, OH to discuss the
Proposed Plan on 21 May 96 and respond to citizen's questions and concerns about
the Proposed Plans.
43
-------
Attachment 2
Administrative Record Index for NA Sites
Provided is a listing of all the documents pertaining to the NA sites by OU. These
documents are available for Review in the Administrative Record. The documents
pertaining to all sites are listed at the end. "Enforcement" contains regulatory approval
letters and "Public Participation" contains news articles and public releases.
OPERABLE UNIT 2
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Burial Site 1
MICROFICHE*: BURIAL1-E1 SITE CODE: BURIAL 1 FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: Engineering-Science
DOCUMENT DATE: 16 May 88 DATE ENTERED: 8Nov89
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Long-Term Coal Storage Pile
MICROFICHE*: LTCSP-E1 SITE CODE: LTCSP FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: Engineering-Science
DOCUMENT DATE: 16 May 88 DATE ENTERED: 8Nov89
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Coal and Chemical Storage Area
MICROFICHE*: CCSA-E1 SITE CODE: CCSA FILE STRUCTURE:
E1
AUTHOR: 2750 ABW/EM WPAFB
DOCUMENT DATE: 22 Aug 88 DATE ENTERED: 8 Nov 89
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Coal Storage (Building 89)
MICROFICHE*: CS89-E1 SITE CODE: CS 89 FILE
STRUCTURE: E1
44
-------
AUTHOR: 2750 ABW/EM WPAFB
DOCUMENT DATE: 26 Apr 89 DATE ENTERED: 14 Dec 90
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Temporary Coal Storage Pile
MICROFICHE*: TCSP-E1 SITE CODE: TCSP FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: 2750 ABW/EM WPAFB
DOCUMENT DATE: 26 Apr 89 DATE ENTERED: 14 Dec 89
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Spill Site 1
MICROFICHE*: SPILL1-E1 SITE CODE: SPILL 1 FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: Engineering-Science
DOCUMENT DATE: 16 May 88 DATE ENTERED: 8 Nov 89
TITLE: Field Sampling Plan for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at
Operable Unit 2 (Northeastern Area)
MICROFICHE*: M-I4 (OU2) SITE CODE: Multiple FILE STRUCTURE: 14
(OU2)
AUTHOR: Engineering-Science
DOCUMENT DATE: 30 Jun 92 DATE ENTERED: 3 Mar 93
TITLE: Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 2 (Referenced
Sites: Spill Sites 2, 3,10; Burial Site 1; Coal and Chemical Storage; Temporary Coal
Storage; Long-Term Coal Storage Pile; Building 89 Coal Storage Pile)
MICROFICHE* SPILL2.3-I5 SITE CODE: SPILL2,3 FILE STRUCTURE: 15
AUTHOR: Engineering-Science
DOCUMENT DATE: 31 Aug 95 DATE ENTERED: 31 Jan 96
TITLE: No Action Proposed Plan for Sites within Operable Unit 2 (Coal and
Chemical Storage Area, Temporary Coal Storage Pile, Long-Term Coal Storage Area,
Burial Site 1, Bldg 89 Coal Storage Pile)
MICROFICHE*: M-H3 SITE CODE: Multiple FILE STRUCTURE: H3
45
-------
AUTHOR: Department of Energy Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program
(HAZWRAP)
DOCUMENT DATE: 1 May 96 DATE ENTERED: 15 May 96
OPERABLE UNIT 3
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Fire Training Area 2
MICROFICHE*: FTA2-E1 SITE CODE: FTA 2 FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: Engineering-Science
DOCUMENT DATE: 16 May 88 DATE ENTERED: 8 Nov 89
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Fire Training Area 3
MICROFICHE*: FTA3-E1 SITE CODE: FTA 3 FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: Engineering-Science
DOCUMENT DATE: 16 May 88 DATE ENTERED: 8 Nov 89
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Fire Training Area 4
MICROFICHE*: FTA4-E1 SITE CODE: FTA 4 FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: Engineering-Science
DOCUMENT DATE: 16 May 88 DATE ENTERED: 8 Nov 89
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Fire Training Area 5
MICROFICHE*: FTA5-E1 SITE CODE: FTA 5 FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: Engineering-Science
DOCUMENT DATE: 16 May 88 DATE ENTERED: 8 Nov 89
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Earthfill Disposal Zone 11
MICROFICHE*: EFDZ11-E1 SITE CODE: EFDZ11 FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: 2750 ABW/EM WPAFB
DOCUMENT DATE: 31 Jan 89 DATE ENTERED: 8 Nov 89
46
-------
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Earthfill Disposal Zone 12
MICROFICHE #: EFDZ12-E1 SITE CODE: EFDZ 12 FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: 2750 ABW/EM WPAFB
DOCUMENT DATE: 1 Feb 89 _ DATE ENTERED: 8 Nov 89 _
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment- Landfill 14
MICROFICHE*: LF14-E1 SITE CODE: LF 14 FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: 2750 ABW/EM WPAFB
DOCUMENT DATE: 30 Oct 89 _ DATE ENTERED: 14 Dec 90 _
TITLE: Final Report, Groundwater Quality Restoration Program (Oct 87-Jan 90)
MICROFICHE*: FTA5-D1 SITE CODE: FTA 5FILE STRUCTURE: D1
AUTHOR: Biosystems
DOCUMENT DATE: 1 Aug 90 _ DATE ENTERED: 4 Jun 91 _
TITLE: Analysis of Soil Gas Survey Results for Fire Training Areas 2 and 5
MICROFICHE*: FTA2,5-l2a SITE CODE: FTA 2, 5 FILE STRUCTURE: I2a
AUTHOR: Engineering-Science
DOCUMENT DATE: 1 Jan 92 _ DATE ENTERED: 25 Mar 92 _
TITLE: Analysis of Soil Gas Survey Results for Fire Training Areas 3 and 4 and
Spill Site 1, Landfills 11 and 12
MICROFICHE*: M-l2a(1) SITE CODE: Multiple FILE STRUCTURE:
AUTHOR: Engineering-Science
DOCUMENT DATE: 1 Jan 92 DATE ENTERED: 25 Mar 92 _
TITLE: Site Specific Work Plan for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at
Operable Unit 3 (Landfills 1 1 ,12,14; Spill Site 1 ; Fire Training Areas 2, 3, 4, 5)
47
-------
MICROFICHE*: M-I4(OU3) SITE CODE: Multiple FILE STRUCTURE:
I4(OU3)
AUTHOR: SAIC
DOCUMENT DATE: 1 Dec 92 DATE ENTERED: 16Aug93
TITLE: Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 3 (Referenced
Sites: Landfills 11, 12, 14; Fire Training Areas 2, 3, 4, 5; Spill Site 1)
MICROFICHE*: LF11,12-15 SITE CODE: LF11.12 FILE STRUCTURE: 15
AUTHOR: SAIC
DOCUMENT DATE: 31 Jul 95 DATE ENTERED: 31 Jan 96
TITLE: No Action Proposed Plan for Sites within or near Operable Unit 3 (Landfill
14; Fire Training Areas 2, 3, 4, 5; Spill Site 1; Earthfill Disposal Zones 11, 12)
MICROFICHE*: M-H3 SITE CODE: Multiple FILE STRUCTURE: H3
AUTHOR: Department of Energy Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program
(HAZWRAP)
DOCUMENT DATE: 31 Oct 95 DATE ENTERED: 15 May 96
OPERABLE UNIT 5
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Fire Training Area 1
MICROFICHE*: FTA1-E1 SITE CODE: FTA 1 FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: Engineering-Science
DOCUMENT DATE: 16 May 88 DATE ENTERED: 8Nov89
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Burial Site 4
MICROFICHE*: BURIAL4-E1 SITE CODE: BURIAL4 FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: 2750 ABW/EM WPAFB
DOCUMENT DATE: 17 Mar 89 DATE ENTERED: 8 Nov 89
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Gravel Lake Tanks
48
-------
MICROFICHE*: GLT-E1 SITE CODE: GLT FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: 2750 ABW/EM WPAFB
DOCUMENT DATE: 17 Apr 89 DATE ENTERED: 8 Nov 89
TITLE: Analysis of Soil Gas Survey Result for Fire Training Area 1
MICROFICHE*: FTA1-l2a SITE CODE: FTA 1 FILE STRUCTURE: I2a
AUTHOR: Engineering-Science
DOCUMENT DATE: 1 Jan 92 DATE ENTERED: 25 Mar 92
TITLE: Site Specific Work Plan for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at
Operable Unit 5 (Landfill 5; Fire Training Area 1)
MICROFICHE*: LF5.FTA1-I4 SITE CODE: LF5, FTA1 FILE STRUCTURE: 14
AUTHOR: International Technology
DOCUMENT DATE: 3 Mar 93 DATE ENTERED: 16Aug93
TITLE: Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 5 (Referenced
Sites: Landfill 5, Fire Training Area 1, Burial Site 4, Gravel Lake Tanks)
MICROFICHE*: LF5-I5 SITE CODE: LF5 FILE STRUCTURE: IS
AUTHOR: IT Corp
DOCUMENT DATE: 4Aug95 DATE ENTERED: 31 Jan 96
TITLE: No Action Proposed Plan for Sites within or near Operable Unit 5 (Fire
Training Area 1, Gravel Lake Tanks, Burial Site 4)
MICROFICHE* M-H3 SITE CODE: Multiple FILE STRUCTURE: H3
AUTHOR: International Technology ,;
DOCUMENT DATE: 1 May 96 DATE ENTERED: 15 May 96
49
-------
OPERABLE UNIT 6
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Earthfill Disposal Zone 1
MICROFICHES: EFDZ1-E1 SITE CODE: EFDZ 1 FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: Engineering-Science
DOCUMENT DATE: 16 May 88 DATE ENTERED: 8 Nov 89
TITLE: Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Site-Specific Work Plan at
Operable Unit 6
MICROFICHE*: LF1,2-14 SITE CODE: LF 1, 2 FILE STRUCTURE: 14
AUTHOR: Metcalf and Eddy
DOCUMENT DATE: 30 Aug 93 DATE ENTERED: 20 Apr 94
TITLE: Remedial Investigation Report Operable Unit 6 (Landfills 1 and 2 and
Earthfill Disposal Zone 1), including Addendum to Section 6.0 (dated May 96)
MICROFICHE*: LF1.2-I5 SITE CODE: LF1.2 FILE STRUCTURE: 15
AUTHOR: Metcalf & Eddy
DOCUMENT DATE: 31 Dec 95 DATE ENTERED: 15 May 96
TITLE: No Action Proposed Plan for the Earthfill Disposal Zone 1 Site Within
Operable Unit 6
MICROFICHE*: EFDZ1-H2 SITE CODE: EFDZ1 FILE STRUCTURE: H2
AUTHOR: International Technology
DOCUMENT DATE: 30 Apr 96 DATE ENTERED: 15 May 96
OPERABLE UNIT 10
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Landfill 13
MICROFICHE*: LF13-E1 SITE CODE: LF 13FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: Engineering-Science
50
-------
DOCUMENT DATE: 16 May 88 DATE ENTERED: 8 Nov 89
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Central Heating Plant 3 (Building 170)
MICROFICHE #: CHP3-E1 SITE CODE: CHP 3 FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: Engineering-Science
DOCUMENT DATE: 16 May 88 DATE ENTERED: 8 Nov 89
TITLE: Site Investigation/Site Assessment at Tank Farm 49A
MICROFICHE*: TF49A-F1 SITE CODE: TF 49A FILE STRUCTURE: F1
AUTHOR: PEI Associates
DOCUMENT DATE: 6 Dec 88 DATE ENTERED: 3 Mar 93
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Tank Farm 49A
MICROFICHE*: TF49A-E1 SITE CODE: TF49A FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: 2750 ABW/EM WPAFB
DOCUMENT DATE: 19 Dec 88 DATE ENTERED: 8 Nov 89
TITLE: Preliminary Assessment - Underground Storage Tank (Building 30119)
MICROFICHE*: UST119-E1 SITE CODE: UST119 FILE STRUCTURE: E1
AUTHOR: 2750 ABW/EM WPAFB
DOCUMENT DATE: 12Jul90 DATE ENTERED: 14 Dec 90
TITLE: Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Site-Specific Work Plan at
Operable Unit 10
MICROFICHE #: LF13.CHP3-I4 SITE CODE: LF 13, CHP3 FILE STRUCTURE:
14
AUTHOR: CH2M Hill
DOCUMENT DATE: 31 Jan 94 DATE ENTERED: 15 Jul 94
51
-------
TITLE: Remedial Investigation Report Operable Unit 10 (Landfill 13, Central
Heating Plant 3 and Associated Battery Burial Site, TCE/PCE Groundwater Plume, and
Related Potential Source Areas)
MICROFICHE*: LF13.CHP3-I5 SITE CODE: LF13, CHP3 FILE STRUCTURE: 15
AUTHOR: CH2M Hill
DOCUMENT DATE: 31 Dec 95 DATE ENTERED: 24 Apr 96
TITLE: No Action Proposed Plan for Sites within or near Operable Unit 10
(Landfill 13, Central Heating Plant 3, Tank Farm 49A, Underground Storage Tank Bldg
30119)
MICROFICHE #: M-H3 SITE CODE: Multiple FILE STRUCTURE: H3
AUTHOR: CH2M Hill
DOCUMENT DATE: 1 May 96 DATE ENTERED: 15 May 96
DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO ALL NO ACTION SITES
TITLE:Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan for 39 Sites (with Amendments)
MICROFICHE #: M-I1 SITE CODE: Multiple FILE
STRUCTURE: II
AUTHOR: Engineering-Science
DOCUMENT DATE: 30Jun90 DATE ENTERED. 3 Mar 93
TITLE: Fact Sheets
MICROFICHE #: M-N2,5,6 SITE CODE: Multiple FILE
STRUCTURE: N2.5.6
AUTHOR: WPAFB
DOCUMENT DATE: As of 24 Apr 96 DATE ENTERED: 24 Apr 96
TITLE: Enforcement - Correspondence with Regulatory Agencies
MICROFICHE #: M-L4 SITE CODE: Multiple FILE STRUCTURE: L4
52
-------
AUTHOR: Air Force and EPA
DOCUMENT DATE: As of 24 Apr 96 DATE ENTERED: 24 Apr 96
TITLE: Public Participation
MICROFICHE*: M-N2,5,6 SITE CODE: Multiple FILE
STRUCTURE: N2,5,6
AUTHOR: Public/Air Force
DOCUMENT DATE: As of 24 Apr 96 DATE ENTERED: 24 Apr 96
TITLE: Presentation Charts/Handouts for Public Meeting held 21 May 1996 on No Action
Proposed Plans for Selected Sites within Operable Units 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10
MICROFICHE #: M-N4 SITE CODE: Multiple FILE
STRUCTURE: N4
AUTHOR: DOE/HAZWRAP, International Technology, CH2M Hill
DOCUMENT DATE: 21 May 96 DATE ENTERED:
53
-------
WrIglU-PaUerson AFB
SOURCE: PROJECT-WORK-PLAN, ES INC., 1992
AREA LOCATION MAP
-------
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB
OPERABLE UNIT 5
OPERABLE UNIT 3
Dayton
Airport
OPERABLE UNIT 2
OPERABLE UNIT 10
OPERABLE UNIT 6
FIGURE 2
-------
LONG TEPU
COAL STORAGE AREA
COAL
STOfiACE AREA
,-\-CQN. AND CHEUCAL
"v. STORAGE AREA
8LXOINC 89
COL STORAGE PILE
SITE I
»*u ana*
\
^'-BURIAL SITE i
Operable Unit 2
yfnght-Potterson AfB
Doyton, Ohio
Ha
-------
WPAFB Area C
ous
Boundary
Huffman Dam
Walltiald
-- Area B :;,
. B««« Boundary
(Ar*. C)
NO ACTION SITES - OUS
NO ACTION SITE - OU6,
FlfMIDC J
-------
LEGEND
Apo'oxffnalt Locaoon ol
Sludy Afe»
VOC SOIL VAPOR ANOMALY
AND FORMER DRYCLEANER
OPEF1ATION
BASE HEADQUARTERS'^, FORMER COAL
. , '- .
' y-'..<..'/«. >-. s^f^; .^-'-i^. v --;
OAL *f- '^_ J* X'* - ''' --:*--- ' --V^V--- -'*" ''
\-;?fc'&.-'\ -
VOC ANOMALY
AT THE
FLAGPOLE
*"^" f *
- FORMER i
~ ~ COMPRESSOR -
. ' OIL SUMP
i , v, .__i.
PLANT3
-Wflght Avonuo-
NO ACTION SITES - OU10
FIGURE 5
-------
NO ACTION SITES
PROPOSED PLAN FINDINGS AND APPROVAL DATES
Document
Type
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Proposed
Plan
Site
WIMS-
ES I.D.
LF 14
LF24
LF25
DP 48
ST53
OT55
OT56
FT 38
LF 62
OT42
ST51
ST64
FT37
FT39
OT57
DP 45
OT54
FT 35
FT 36
LF13
Site Name
Earthfill Disposal Zone 1
Earthfill Disposal Zone 1 1
Earthfill Disposal Zone 12
Burial Site 4
Gravel Lake Tanks
Temporary Coal Storage
Area
Coal Storage Building 89
Fire Training Area 4
Landfill 14
Central Heating Plant 3 and
Battery Burial Site
Tank Farm 49A
Underground Storage Tanks,
Bldgll9
Fire Training Area 3
Fire Training Area 5
Coal and Chemical Storage
Area
Burial Site 1
Long-Tern Coal Storage Pile
Fire Training Area 1
Fire Training Area 2
Landfill 13
Operable
Unit
6
3
3
5
5
2
2
3
3
10
10
10
3
3
2
2
2
5
3
10 '
Selected
Remedy
NTRAP
NFRAP
NFRAP
NFRAP
NFRAP
NFRAP
: NFRAP
NFRAP
NFRAP
NFRAP
NFRAP
NFRAP
NFRAP
NFRAP
NFRAP
NFRAP
NFRAP
NFRAP-- '
NFRAP
NFRAP
Threat/
Problem
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
No threats
identified
NFRAP
Category
* *
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
L'SEPA
PP
Approval
Date
5/220/96
12/21/95
12/21/95
6/4/96
6/4/96
6/4/96
6/4/96
12/21/95
12/21/95
5/9/96
5/9/96
5/9/96
12/21/95
12/21/95
6/4/96
6/4/96
6/4/96
6/4/96
12/21/95
5/9/96
OEPA
PP
Approval
Date
4,26/96
6/21/96
6/21/96
5/7/96
6/4/96
4/26/96
4/26/96
6/21/96
6/21/96
4/26/96 .
4/26/96
4/26/96
6/21/96
6/21/96
4/26/96
4/26/96
4/26/96
5/7/96
6/21/96
4/26/96
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base tracking system
Air Force Category decisions based on results of an RI/FS (III)
TABLE 1
-------
OU2 SUMMARY OF BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Site
Long Term Coal
Storage/ Burial
Site 1- Surface soil
Long Term Coal
Storage/ Bunal
Site 1 -Surface soil
Long Term Coal
Storage/ Burial
Site 1- Subsurface
soil
Building 89 Coal
Storage Pile-
Surface soil
Building 89 Coal
Storage Pile
Subsurface Soil
Receptor
Adolescent
Recreator
Commercial/
Industrial
worker
Construction
Worker
Commercial
Industrial
Worker
Construction
Worker
Carcinogenic* Risk
Acceptable for
All Exposures'
Acceptable for
Average
Exposures:
Non-Carcinoeenic** Risk
Acceptable for
All Exposures'
Acceptable for
Average
Exoosures:
'Reasonable maximum exposure assumptions used.
2 Central tendency or average exposure assumptions used.
*Risk for cancer causing chemicals is evaluated relative to the target risk range (1 x 10"6 to 1 x 10J). Risks greater than
1 x 10"* (1 in 10,000) may require remedial actions.
**Risk for non-carcinogenic chemical is evaluated with the Hazard Quotient. A value greater than 1.0 indicates that
adverse health effects may be likely to occur under the given exposure assumptions.
TABLE 2
-------
OU3 Summary of Baseline Risk Assessment Results
Exposure Unit
Landfill 14
FTAs 2 and 5
FTAs3and4, and SSI
Human Health
COCs
benzo(a)pyreneu)
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene(:)
benzo(a)pyrene(:)
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene(2)
berylliurhcl)
benzo(a)pyrene(2)
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene(2)
Risk
2x 10^-*
5x lO'7***
5xlO'7***
5x lO'7***
2x 10'5
8xlO'7***
SxlO'7***
Ecological
ecoCOCs
cadmium
chromium
mercury
cadmium
chromium
mercury
selenium
vanadium
cadmium
chromium
mercury
vanadium
Risk **
18
10
27
15
4
11
1
2
24
5
14
2
COC contaminant of concern
ecoCOC ecological contaminants of concern
(1) skin contact pathway, adults (current land use)
(2) ingestion pathway, workers (current land use)
* indicates increased lifetime cancer risk of 2 in 1,000,000 for an individual
** indicates exposure quotient (XQ) for threatened and endangered (T&E) species (calculated as reasonable maximum exposure
concentration of COC x exposure factor / toxiciry threshold concentration)
*** indicates a value that is below the target risk range for cancer (in other words, less than 1 in 1,000,000 for an individual)
TABLE 3
-------
Risk from Industrial Exposures to OU5 Soil
RME PRG* AVE PRG"
I 1
Site
Landfill 5 Extension
Area South of LF5
Fire Training Area 1
Burial Site 4
Gravel Lake Tank Site
West Twin Lake
East Twin Lake
Gravel Lake
Trout Creek
Hebble Creek
Large Wetland
Small Wetland
Mad River
River Road Ditch
Safe For All Industrial
Exposures
£
Safe For Average
Industrial Exposures
Longer-term Exposure
May Be Associated
With Some Concern
A Reasonable Maximum Exposure Preliminary Remediation Goal for industrial exposures.
8 Average Exposure Preliminary Remediation Goal for industrial exposures.
Risk from Recreational Exposures to OU5 Surface Soil, Sediment
or Surface Water
RME PRG* AVE PRG8
1 1
Site
Area South of LF5
Gravel Lake Tank Site
West Twin Lake
East Twin Lake
Gravel Lake
Trout Creek
Hebble Creek
Large Wetland
Small Wetland
Mad River
Safe For All
Recreational
Exposures
Safe For Average
Recreational
Exposures
A
A
A
Longer-term Exposure
May Be Associated
With Some Concern
Ac
Exposures to soil or sediment
A Exposures to surface water
A Reasonable Maximum Exposure Preliminary Remediation Goal for recreational exposures
B Average Exposure Preliminary Remediation Goal for recreational exposures
C Mad River exceeded the AVE PRG because of one detection of pentachlorophenol; however, no source of
pentachlorophenol was detected in OU5.
TABLE 4
-------
OU6 Summary of Baseline Risk Assessment Results
Exposure Medium
Surface Soil
Ambient Air
Exposure Point
Landfill Surface
Breathing Zone
Receptor
Lawn
Maintenance
Worker
Recreational
Lawn
Maintenance
Worker
Recreational
Safe under Current
Exposures
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Safe under Future
Exposures
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
TABLE 5
-------
OU10-SUMMARY OF BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Site"
Former Dry Cleaning
Operation in Building 89
CHP-3
Base Headquarters Flagpole
Anomaly
Safe under Current ! Safe under
Exposure Scenarios Scenarios
Future Exposure
Yes Yes
Yesb Yes
Yes Yes
Exposures to contaminated soils at Landfill 13 and the Building 13 sump pit area are considered unlikely and so a nsk assessment w as not completed for these areas Exposures 10
contaminated soils at Tank Farm 49A and Building 30119 are considered unlikely because these areas have been remediated in accordance with Ohio Underground Sioraee Tank
Regulations (OAC 1301:7-9-13)
s Soil exposure under current conditions is considered unlikely because of the partial concrete and asphalt cover
TABLE 6
-------
-------
-------
------- |