EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
PB96964501
PB96-964501
EPA/ROD/R09-96/143
June 1996
Camp Pendleton Marine
Corps Base (O.U. 1), CA
12/7/1995
-------
-------
MARINE CORPS BASE
CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA
RECORD OF DECISION FOR
OPERABLE UNIT 1 - SITE 9 AND
GROUP A NO ACTION SITES
DRAFT FINAL
REVISION: 1
2 October 1995
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables. v
List of Figures vi
ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS ix
1.0 DECLARATION 1-1
1.1 Site Name and Location 1-1
1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose 1-1
1.3 Assessment of Site 9 1-2
1.4 Description of the Selected Remedy 1-3
1.5 Statutory Determinations for OU1 1-5
1.6 Declaration Statement for Site 24 Soil and Groundwater
and Sites 9, 4, and 4A Soil 1-5
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY 2-1
2.1 Site Name, Location, and Description 2-1
2.1.1 Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond . . 2-1
2.1.2 Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Drainage Ditch and Concrete-
Lined Impoundment 2-2
2.1.3 Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility 2-2
2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities 2-2
2.2.1 Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond . . 2-3
2.2.2 Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Drainage Ditch and Concrete-Lined
Surface Impoundment 2-3
2.2.3 Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility 2-4
2.3 Highlights of Community Participation 2-5
2.4 Scope and Role of Operable Unit 1 2-6
2.5 Summary of Site Characteristics 2-6
2.5.1 Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond . . 2-7
2.5.1.1 Soils and Vadose Zone 2-7
2.5.1.2 Groundwater 2-8
2.5.1.3 Surface Water and Sediments 2-9
2.5.2 Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Drainage Ditch and Concrete-
Lined Surface Impoundment 2-10
2.5.3 Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility 2-11
2.5.3.1 Soils and Vadose Zone 2-11
2.5.3.2 Groundwater 2-12
2.5.4 Contaminant Fate and Transport 2-13
166rod.ctf
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
2.5.4.1 Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste
Stabilization Pond 2-14
2.5.4.2 Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Drainage Ditch
and Concrete-Lined Surface Impoundment. ... 2-15
2.5.4.3 Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility. . . 2-15
2.6 Summary of Site Risks 2-16
2.6.1 Human Health Risks 2-17
2.6.1.1 Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste
Stabilization Pond 2-20
2.6.1.2 Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Drainage Ditch
and Concrete-Lined Surface Impoundment.... 2-22
2.6.1.3 Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility. . . 2-23
2.6.2 Environmental Risks 2-23
2.6.2.1 Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste
Stabilization Pond 2-24
2.6.2.2 Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Drainage Ditch
and Concrete-Lined Surface Impoundment.... 2-25
2.6.2.3 Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility. . . 2-25
2.6.3 Conclusions. . . 2-26
2.6.3.1 Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste
Stabilization Pond 2-26
2.6.3.2 Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Drainage Ditch
and Concrete-Lined Surface Impoundment.... 2-27
2.6.3.3 Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility. . . 2-27
2.7 Description of Alternatives 2-27
2.7.1 Description of Soil Zones and Hot Spots 2-28
2.7.2 Alternative 1 - No Action 2-30
2.7.3 Alternative 2: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base
Landfill for Hot Spots, Zone I, and Zone II;
Groundwater - Institutional Controls 2-31
2.7.3.1 Alternative 2, Option 1 2-31
2.7.3.2 Alternative 2, Option 2 2-34
2.7.4 Alternative 3: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base Landfill
for Zone I and Hot Spots, Biological Land Treatment
for Zone II; Groundwater - Extraction, Ultraviolet/
Chemical Oxidation, and Reinjection 2-35
2.7.4.1 Alternative 3, Option 1 2-35
2.7.4.2 Alternative 3, Option 2 2-37
ii 166rod.df
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
2.7.5 Alternative 4: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base Landfill
for Zone I, In Situ Bioremediation/Bioventing for
Zone II; Groundwater - Extraction, Carbon Absorption,
and Reinjection 2-38
2.7.5.1 Alternative 4, Option 1 2-38
2.7.5.2 Alternative 4, Option 2 2-39
2.7.6 Alternative 5: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base Landfill
for Zone I, In Situ Bioremediation/Bioventing for
Zone II; Groundwater-Institutional Controls 2-40
2.7.6.1 Alternative 5, Option 1 2-40
2.7.6.2 Alternative 5, Option 2 2-40
2.7.7 Alternative 6: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base Landfill
for Zone I and Hot Spots, Biological Land Treatment
for Zone II; Groundwater-Institutional Controls 2-41
2.7.7.1 Alternative 6, Option 1 2-41
2.7.7.2 Alternative 6, Option 2 2-41
2.7.8 Alternative 7: Soil - No Action; Groundwater -
Institutional Controls 2-41
2.8 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 2-43
2.8.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. 2-43
2.8.2 Compiiance with ARARs 2-44
2.8.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 2-44
2.8.4 Reduction of Mobility, Toxicity, or Volume Through
Treatment 2-45
2.8.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 2-46
2.8.6 Implementability. 2-46
2.8.7 Cost . 2-48
2.8.8 State Acceptance 2-48
2.8.9 Community Acceptance 2-48
2.9 Selected Remedy 2-49
2.9.1 Major Components of the Selected Remedy 2-49
2.9.1.1 Site 9 Soil 2-49
2.9.1.2 Site 9 Groundwater 2-49
2.9.2 Estimated Cost of the Selected Remedy 2-50
2.9.3 Basis for Remedy Selectioa 2-50
2.9.3.1 Site 9 Soil 2-50
III 166rod.df
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
2.9.3.2 Site 9 Groundwater 2-51
2.10 Statutory Determinations 2-53
2.10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 2-53
2.10.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements 2-53
2.10.3 Cost-Effectiveness 2-54
2.10.4 Use of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies or Resource Recovery Technologies
to the Maximum Extent Practicable 2-54
2.10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element 2-55
3.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 3-1
4.0 REFERENCES 4-1
IV 166rod.df
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
List of Tables
(Tables are presented at the end of the section in which they are cited.)
Table 2-1 ' MCB Camp Pendleton RI/FS Groups
Table 2-2 Range of Background Values (Validated Data) Santa Margarita
Basin Alluvium
Table 2-3 Range of Background Values (Validated Data) Marine Terrace
Deposits
Table 2-4 Site 9 - Validated Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-5 Site 9 - Validated Metals Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-6 Site 9 - Comparison of Validated Groundwater
Concentrations to MCLs
Table 2-7 Site 9 - Comparison of Validated Surface-Water Concentrations
to Standards
Table 2-8 Sites 4 and 4A - Validated Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-9 Sites 4 and 4A - Validated Metals Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-10 Site 4 - Comparison of Validated Surface-Water Concentrations
to Standards
Table 2-11 Field-Collected Filamentous Algae Santa Margarita River
Sites Tissue Contaminant Concentrations
Table 2-12 Site 24 - Validated Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-13 Site 24 - Validated Metals Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-14 Site 24 - Comparison of Validated Groundwater Concentrations
to MCLs
Table 2-15 Pertinent Chemical and Physical Parameters of Chemicals
Detected at Group A Sites
Table 2-16 Site 9 Chemicals of Concern in Groundwater and Soil,
Concentrations, Frequency of Detection, Soil Background,
and Maximum Contaminant Levels
Table 2-17 Summary of Site 9 Cancer Risk and Noncancer Hazard for the
Reasonable Maximum Exposure to the Main Contributors
Table 2-18 Initial Screening of Technologies for Soil Group A, Site 9
MCB Camp Pendleton, California
Table 2-19 Initial Screening of Technologies for Groundwater Group A,
Site 9 MCB Camp Pendleton, California
Table 2-20 Evaluation of Process Options for Contaminated Soil Group A,
Site 9 MCB Camp Pendleton, California
Table 2-21 Evaluation of Process Options for Groundwater Group A,
Site 9 MCB Camp Pendleton, California
Table 2-22 Summary of Comparative Analysis MCB Camp Pendleton
166rod.df
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Table 2-23 Cost Analysis for Groundwater Remedial Action - Alternative 7
Ttable 2-24 Cost and Schedule Comparison for Site 9 Groundwater Remedial
Alternatives
List of Figures
(Figures are presented at the end of the section in which they are cited.)
Figure 1-1 Location Map
Figure 2-1 Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond, Summary
of Soil Analytical Results and Location of Geologic Cross-
Section 9B-9B'
Figure 2-2 Site 9-41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond, Geologic
Cross-Section 9B-9B1 Showing Approximate Vertical Extent of
Soil Contamination
Figure 2-3 Site 9-41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond, Summary
of Groundwater Analytical Results
Figure 2-4 Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Drainage Ditch and Concrete-Lined
Surface Impoundment, Borehole, and Sample Location Map
Figure 2-5 Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility, Summary of
Soil Analytical Results and Location of Geologic
Cross-Section 24A-24A1
Figure 2-6 Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility, Geologic
Cross-Section 24A-24A' Showing Approximate Vertical
Extent of Soil Contamination
Figure 2-7 Site 9, Delineation of Soil Contamination, Including Zone I,
Zone II, and Hot Spots
Figure 2-8 Site 9, Schematic for Alternative 2, TPH-Diesel Greater
than 100mg/kg
Figure 2-9 Site 9, Schematic for Alternative 3, TPH-Diesel Greater
than 100mg/kg
Figure 2-10 Process Flow Diagram for Groundwater Treatment System -
Alternative 3
Figure 2-11 Site 9, Schematic for Alternative 4, TPH-Diesel Greater
than 100mg/kg
Figure 2-12 Site 9, Schematic for Alternative 5, TPH-Diesel Greater
than 100mg/kg
Figure 2-13 Site 9, Schematic for Alternative 6, TPH-Diesel Greater
than 100mg/kg
VI 166rod.df
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
List of Appendices
Appendix A Verbatim Transcripts of Public Meetings Held 4 January and 28 June
1995 at the Senior Citizens Center Oceanside, California
Appendix B Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARS) for
Site 9
Appendix C Administrative Record File Index Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton,
California
VII 166rod.df
-------
(intentionally blank)
VIII 166rod.df
-------
ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS
AC/S.ES Assistant Chief of Staff, Environmental Security (Formerly ENRMO)
ACU Assault Craft Unit
ANOVA ' Analysis of Variance
ARAR Applicable of Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
atm-m3/mol Cubic Meters (Atmosphere) per Mole
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Control
AT&SF Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe (Railway)
AvGas Aviation Gasoline
BEIA Biomedical and Environmental Information Analysis
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDI Chronic Daily Intake
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLP Contract Laboratory Program
COC Chemical of Concern
COPC Chemical of Potential Concern
CRDL Contract-Required Detection Limit
DCA Dichloroethane
ODD Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene
DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethene
DPDO Defense Property Disposal Office
DRMO Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
ENRMO Environmental and Natural Resources Management Office
(Currently ACS.ES)
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FFA Federal Facility Agreement
FS Feasibility Study
HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Table
HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment
HI Hazard Index
IX
166rod.df
-------
ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS (continued)
HQ Hazard Quotient
HRSD Hazard Ranking System Database
HSDS . Hazardous Substances Data Bank
IAS Initial Assessment Study
IDL Instrument Detection Limit
ILCR Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
LCAC Landing Craft Air Cushion
LUFT Leaking Underground Fuel Tank
MCAS Marine Corps Air Station
MCB Marine Corps Base
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MEK Methyl Ethyl Ketone
mg/kg Milligrams per Kilogram
mg/kg-day Milligrams per Kilogram per Day
mg/l Milligrams per Liter
MWR Morale, Welfare.and Recreation
NCR National Contingency Plan
NEESA Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity (Currently NFESC)
NFESC Naval Facilities Engineering Services Center (Formerly NEESA)
NPL National Priorities List
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OU Operable Unit
PCS Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PCE Tetrachloroethene
POL Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
ppb Parts per Billion
ppm Parts per Million
POL Practical Quantitation Limit
PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal
RAO Remedial Action Objective
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RfD Reference Dose
166rod.df
-------
ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS (continued)
RG
Rl
RI/FS
RME
ROD
r-PRG
RWQCB
SARA
SF
SI
8MB
SPLP
STLC
SVE
SWDIV
SWRCB
TCA
TCE
IDS
TPH
UCL
UV
VOC
WET
Remediation Goal
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Record of Decision
Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goal
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Slope Factor
Site Inspection
Santa Margarita Basin
Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration
Soil Vapor Extraction
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command
California State Water Resources Control Board
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Upper Confidence Limit
Ultraviolet
Volatile Organic Compound
Waste Extraction Test
Micrograms per Deciliter
Micrograms per Kilogram
Micrograms per Liter
XI
166rod.df
-------
(intentionally blank)
XII 166rod.df
-------
1.0 DECLARATION
1.1 Site Name and Location
Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton, California, is located between San Diego
and Los Angeles (Figure 1-1). The vast majority of the base is situated in San Diego
County. A small portion of the northwest corner of the base is located in Orange County.
Installation Restoration Program sites at MCB Camp Pendleton were assigned to one of
four groups (A, B, C, or D) according to potential impact to human health and the
environment. Group A sites are believed to have the highest potential for such impact;
Group D sites have the lowest. This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses soil and
groundwater at Group A Sites 9 and 24 and soil at Group A Sites 4 and 4A. Site 9 is the
only site included in Operable Unit (OU) 1 because it is the only site within Group A that
was recommended for further evaluation via a feasibility study (FS). Site 9 - 41 Area
Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond, is located approximately 1 mile south of Las
Flores Creek and 1/2 mile east of the Pacific Ocean, in the southwestern part of MCB
Camp Pendleton. This ROD also includes the following sites, which were investigated
with Site 9 during the remedial investigation (Rl) of Group A sites and were
recommended for no action:
• Sites 4 and 4A (soil) - Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Drainage Ditch
and Concrete-Lined Surface Impoundment
* Site 24 (soil and 26 Area Morale, Welfare, and Recreation
groundwater) - Maintenance (MWR) Facility
This ROD does not include groundwater at Sites 4 and 4A because data from the Rl of
Group A sites indicate that groundwater beneath Sites 4, 4A, and 6 may be potentially
impacted by common sources. Therefore, evaluation of groundwater at Sites 4 and 4A
has been deferred for inclusion in the Site 6 groundwater evaluation to be presented in
the Rl report for Group C sites.
1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose
The purpose of this ROD is to set forth the remedial action for Site 9 groundwater, which
is contaminated with the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) trichloroethene (TCE) and
1-1 166rod.df
-------
tetrachloroethene (PCE). In addition, this ROD sets forth the basis for the no remedial
action decision for soil at Sites 9, 4, 4A, and 24 and for groundwater beneath Site 24.
This ROD presents the selected remedial action for the MCB Camp Pendleton OU1, Site
9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond. The remedial action was selected in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 and, to the extent practicable, the National
Contingency Plan (NCP).
Soil at Sites 4,4A, and 9 and soil and groundwater at Site 24 were determined to be in a
protective state; that is, the media at these sites pose no current or potential threat to
human health or the environment.
The above determinations are based on information presented in the remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) report dated 15 October 1993 and the
Administrative Record for MCB Camp Pendleton and comply with Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 300. The U.S. Department of the Navy, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the State of California concur with the
selected remedies for soil and groundwater at Sites 9 and 24 and soil at Sites 4 and 4A.
1.3 Assessment of Site 9
Constituents of concern identified in the soil at Site 9 are beryllium and petroleum
hydrocarbons. Beryllium is also a naturally occurring metal, and investigations showed
that, in Site 9 soils, naturally occurring background concentrations of this metal vary from
0.1 to 1.1 parts per million (ppm). The maximum concentration of beryllium detected in
the soil at Site 9 was 1.9 ppm. Concentration of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in
Site 9 soil vary from 0.5 to 6,700 ppm.
A health risk assessment was conducted to evaluate the current and potential risks
posed by the chemicals in the soil and groundwater at Site 9. The results of the human
health risk assessment (HHRA) indicated that beryllium in the soil is within the
acceptable range of risks. Federal or State agencies have not published carcinogenic or
noncarcinogenic risks associated with petroleum hydrocarbons. The leachability of
petroleum hydrocarbon constituents from soil to groundwater was a concern. However,
1-2 166rod.df
-------
subsequent tests performed to determine the teachability of site contaminants indicated
that contaminants of concern, including beryllium and petroleum hydrocarbons, will not
leach to and degrade the groundwater.
The Rl also identified PCE and TCE in the groundwater at Site 9. Neither PCE nor TCE
was detected in the soil at Site 9. Maximum concentrations of these compounds were
18 parts per billion (ppb) for PCE and 15 ppb for TCE. Although these concentrations
exceed the State and Federal primary drinking water maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) of 5.0 ppb, the results of the HHRA indicated that risks due to these compounds
in the groundwater at Site 9 are within the acceptable risk range.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from OU1, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
In accordance with the EPA's Interim Final Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision
Documents (EPA, 1989a), this section does not include a discussion of the no action
sites.
1.4 Description of the Selected Remedy
Rl sites at MCB Camp Pendleton were not preassigned to OUs. Instead, the parties to
the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) assigned sites to groups based on potential impact
to health and the environment. Those sites determined to pose the highest threat were
addressed first (i.e., Group A sites first). A listing of the Rl sites is provided in Section
2.0. Based on the results of the Rl of Group A sites, no action was determined to be
necessary for soil at Sites 9, 4, and 4A and for soil and groundwater at Site 24 to
achieve protection of human health and the environment. Removal actions are under
way, or in the planning stages, for Sites 3, 5, and 6.
Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond, is the only site specified for OU1,
which is the final remedial action for Site 9. Both soil and groundwater media are
included in OU1. Results of the Site 9 baseline risk assessment indicate that the soil
does not pose an unacceptable risk or hazard under the current military land use
scenario. However, if the land were to be used for a residential setting in the future,
beryllium could pose a potential human health risk. A residential use scenario was
1-3 166rod.df
-------
evaluated for Site 9 as a conservative measure for the HHRA, even though future
residential use is unlikely based on the MCB Camp Pendleton Masterplan. The
maximum soil concentration of beryllium (1.9 ppm) in one surface soil sample within the
Site 9 impoundment exceeded the background beryllium concentration (0.69 ppm).
Based on exposure to the maximum beryllium concentration for 30 years, the
incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) for the baseline future residential use scenario is
2x10-5, which is within the acceptable risk range. However, the average soil
concentration of beryllium within the Site 9 impoundment and the ILCR associated with
the average soil concentration in a residential lot at Site 9 should be no greater than that
associated with the background beryllium concentration at Site 9. Therefore, the
MCB Camp Pendleton risk managers determined that the no action alternative is
appropriate for soil.
For groundwater, the low levels of PCE and TCE present in the groundwater do not pose
a significant risk to human health using either the maximum or average concentrations of
these chemicals and the current military use scenario in the risk calculations. Using the
more stringent hypothetical residential land use scenario, the human health risks due to
these chemicals in groundwater are within the acceptable risk range of 10-4 to 1f>6.
Although these compounds do not pose a significant health risk under the current use
scenario, both compounds were detected in individual groundwater samples at
concentrations slightly exceeding State and Federal MCLs and, thus, a remedial action
is required for Site 9 groundwater. Natural attenuation with long-term monitoring is the
selected groundwater remedy for the site. In addition, institutional controls will be
implemented to prohibit the use of groundwater beneath and downgradient from Site 9.
Long-term monitoring of Site 9 groundwater will be conducted to verify that contaminant
concentrations are decreasing. If contaminant concentrations do not decrease within the
expected time frame, the Navy will reevaluate remedial action options.
The following are the major components of the selected remedy:
• Amendment of the Masterplan to restrict future access to the groundwater in the
immediate vicinity of Site 9 for the duration of the long-term monitoring or until the
contaminants in the groundwater no longer exceed MCLs. In the unlikely event
that Site 9 is converted to residential use, considerable regrading and import of
clean fill, as well as notification requirements to inform interested parties of
remaining site contaminants (beryllium and TPH) and their concentrations, would
be required.
1-4 166rod.df
-------
Groundwater will be sampled and analyzed semiannually for 10 years to verify
that dispersion and natural attenuation are occurring.
An evaluation will be performed once every 5 years to assess the effectiveness
and document the progress of the alternative.
Compliance demonstration monitoring consisting of eight sampling events,
evenly spaced throughout a 1 -year period, will be conducted during the eighth
year of groundwater monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the dispersion and
natural attenuation of the low concentrations of PCE and TCE in the
groundwater.
The no action remedy was selected for soil at Sites 4 and 4A and soil and groundwater
at Site 24.
1.5 Statutory Determinations for OU1
This remedy for OU1 uses permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to
the maximum extent practicable for this site. However, because treatment was found to
be impracticable for the principal threats presented by the site, this remedy does not
satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element.
Because this remedy for OU1 will result in hazardous substances remaining on site at
concentrations exceeding State and Federal MCLs, a review will be conducted within
5 years of the start of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy is continuing to
provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
The selected remedy for OU1 is protective of human health and the environment,
complies with Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-effective.
1.6 Declaration Statement for Site 24 Soil and Groundwater and Sites 9, 4, and
4A Soil
No unacceptable health risks are present in soils at Sites 4, 4A, and 9 or in soil and
groundwater at Site 24, as calculated for the risk assessment using a residential
exposure scenario. Therefore, no further action is necessary at theiTe sites to ensure
protection of human health or the environment. Consequently, 5-year periodic reviews
are not required for these sites.
1-5 166rod.df
-------
FOR THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP
PENDLETON:
C.VV. Reifike
Major General, U.S. Marine Corps
Commanding
Date
FOR THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
ijre Anderson
^Director, Federal Facilities Cleanup Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
Date7
FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
JonrrE. Scandura
Gnief, Southern California Operations
Office of Military Facilities
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Date /
Executive Officer
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region
Date
1-6
166rod.df
-------
o
CN
I
CO
CO
CM
Of
ojl
m
I OS ANGFI FS COUNTY I
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
BASE CAMP
PENDLETON
SANTA
CATALINA
ISLAND
52 MILES
SOURCE:
FIGURE 1-1
LOCATION MAP
MCB CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
CONTRACT NO. N68711-89-D-9296
NAVAL ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY,
1984, "INITIAL ASSESSMENT STUDY. MARINE CORPS BASE,
CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA," NEESA 13-057.
PREPARED BY SCS ENGINEERS, INC., SEPT.
INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION
-------
-------
Revision: 1
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY
2.1 Site Name, Location, and Description
MCB Camp Pendleton is the primary Marine Corps amphibious training center on the
west coast. Located between the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego, California, MCB
Camp Pendleton covers approximately 125,000 acres, almost entirely in San Diego
County (Figure 1-1). Camp Talega, in the 64 Area near the northwestern border of the
base, extends into Orange County. Surrounding communities include San Clemente to
the northwest, Fallbrook to the east, and Oceanside to the south. The base is bordered
to the west by the Pacific Ocean and encompasses 17 miles of coastal area; rolling hills
and valleys stretch inland an average of 10 to 12 miles.
2.1.1 Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
Site 9 is located within a designated maneuver area in the Las Flores 41 Area in
the southwestern part of MCB Camp Pendleton (Figure 1-1). The site is
southwest of Stuart Mesa Road and consists of an approximately 500- by
400-foot, engineered earthen impoundment (referred to as the waste stabilization
pond) and adjacent areas, including a fenced grease disposal pit to the east of
the waste stabilization pond (Figure 2-1). Mounds of dirt and dark stains are
currently visible on the bottom of the waste stabilization pond. The land
surrounding the site is covered with natural vegetation.
The 41 Area Stuart Mesa waste stabilization pond is located between two forks of
a natural drainage arroyo on a relatively low-lying wave-cut terrace. An
ephemeral stream trends north and east of the stabilization pond and drains
southwestward toward the Pacific Ocean. Along the southeast edge of the main
impoundment is a small low-lying area approximately 200 by 50 feet (Figure 2-1).
Site 9 is underlain by marine terrace deposits and is located outside the largest
groundwater basin (Santa Margarita basin) on the base. The Santa Margarita
basin provides the major source of drinking water consumed by MCB Camp
Pendleton. Base water-supply wells (drinking water wells) are not currently
located in the area hydrologically downgradient from Site 9. The site is located
within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of Interstate 5 (hydrologically downgradient), which marks
2-1 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
the boundary of groundwater resources that are currently designated as having
no beneficial uses according to the Comprehensive Water Quality Control Plan
for the San Diego Basin (California State Water Resources Control Board
[SWRCB], 1975).
2.1.2 Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Drainage Ditch and Concrete-Lined
Impoundment
Site 4 is identified as the MCAS drainage ditch. The air station is located in the
23 Area of the base (Figure 1-1). In May 1990, Site 4 was expanded to include
the concrete-lined surface impoundment, in response to the recommendation of
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This
impoundment is designated as Site 4A and is located between the MCAS
drainage ditch and the MCAS, southwest of Building 2378.
The MCAS drainage ditch is located along Vandegrift Boulevard in the Chappo
subbasin of the Santa Margarita basin. The ditch is approximately 5 feet deep,
20 feet wide, and is located between the MCAS flight-line operations and the
former Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe (AT&SF) railway tracks.
2.1.3 Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility
Site 24 is located within the floodplain of the Santa Margarita River. The MWR
maintenance facility is situated on a flat area surrounded by low hills on three
sides (Figure 1-1). The 26 Area is used primarily for warehouse and
maintenance facilities.
2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities
Construction of MCB Camp Pendleton started in March 1942, and the base was
dedicated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in September 1942. Although MCB Camp
Pendleton has been an important training facility since its inception in 1942, it was not
designated a permanent base until October 1944. The base currently supports more
than 36,000 military personnel and employs approximately 4,600 civilians (Innis-
Tennebaum Architects, Inc., 1990).
2-2 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
On 15 November 1989, MCB Camp Pendleton was added to the National Priorities List
(NPL), primarily because an herbicide was detected in two base drinking water
production wells. Site 9 is not located in the same basin as these production wells, and
the herbicide has not been detected in these wells during subsequent monitoring events.
2.2.1 Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
From 1963 to 1974 or 1975, the waste stabilization pond was operated as a
sewage lagoon for oxidation and percolation of raw sewage generated in 4t
Area. In 1975, a wet well and a lift station (Building 41300) were installed, and
raw sewage was pumped into a treatment facility in 43 Area. The sewer line to
the waste stabilization pond and the outfall pipe in the pond were left in place as
an emergency backup system and reportedly have been used occasionally until
very recently.
The waste stabilization pond, which contains water only briefly following heavy
rainfall, has been used for stockpiling soils contaminated with petroleum
hydrocarbons, primarily fuel and oil. A visual inspection of the area in 1988
indicated that waste oils and other liquids may have been placed at Site 9 in the
past. The area immediately northeast of the waste stabilization pond has been
used for disposal of wastes from mess hall grease traps, a practice that began
after sewage treatment operations at Site 9 were discontinued.
Although MCB Camp Pendleton obtains its entire domestic and agricultural water
supply from groundwater basins within its boundaries, no base water production
(drinking water) wells are located within 1 mile of Site 9. No water production
wells are located downgradient from Site 9, and the nearest upgradient water
production wells are more than 1 mile to the northeast.
2.2.2 Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Drainage Ditch and Concrete-Lined Surface
Impoundment
The drainage ditch reportedly was used from the 1940s through the early 1980s
for the disposal of liquid wastes generated by flight-line operations and also
received contaminated runoff from spills and aircraft washing (Naval Energy and
Environmental Support Activity [NEESA], 1984).
2-3 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
Hazardous substances reportedly placed in the drainage ditch include jet fuels,
aviation gasoline (AvGas), kerosene, paints (including zinc chromate), paint
strippers, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone, TCE,
trichloroethane (TCA), nitrocellulose lacquers and thinners, aliphatic thinners,
and isopropanol. An estimated 11,000 to 25,000 gallons reportedly was
discharged in or adjacent to the ditch prior to 1982 (NEESA, 1984). Other liquid
wastes, including oils, hydraulic fluids, battery electrolyte solutions, and aircraft
washing wastewater, reportedly were also discharged into the ditch, but
quantities of such materials could not be estimated. The on-site survey of the
ditch conducted for the initial assessment study (IAS) revealed an oily sheen on
the water at several locations and dead and discolored vegetation along the
length of the ditch, possibly due to pest control measures (NEESA, 1984). No
information is available on the quantities or specific types of wastes received by
the Site 4A impoundment. Sites 4 and 4A were included in the Rl of Group A
sites conducted between February 1992 and April 1993. The results of the Rl are
presented in the draft final Rl Report for Group A sites (Southwest Division Naval
Facilities Engineering Command [SWDIV], 1993).
2.2.3 Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility
The MWR maintenance facility provides maintenance services for approximately
200 buildings at MCB Camp Pendleton. Potential sources of contamination at
this site are the welding shop, the paint shop, and a former hazardous waste
storage area. Two base water production wells are located within 3/4 mile
downgradient from Site 24.
Site 24 was not investigated during the IAS or the site inspection (SI). During a
1990 inspection, Environmental and Natural Resources Management Office
(ENRMO) personnel collected surface soil samples in areas of visible soil
contamination (ENRMO, 1990). Compounds detected in the soil samples
included TPH, various heavy metals, benzene, and a number of semivolatile
compounds. The site was included in the Rl of Group A sites and the results are
presented in the draft final Rl report for Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993).
2-4 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
2.3 Highlights of Community Participation
The draft final FS report and the proposed plan for OU1, Site 9 - Stuart Mesa Waste
Stabilization Pond, were released to the public in January 1995 (SWDIV, 1994a and
1994b). These two documents, as well as the draft final Rl report for Group A sites
(SWDIV, 1993), were made available to the public in the information repositories
maintained at the base library and at the Oceanside Public Library. The public was also
informed of the availability of these documents in the Administrative Record, which is
maintained at the offices of the Assistant Chief of Staff, Environmental Security (AC/S,
ES) at Camp Pendleton, as well as at the SWDIV offices in San Diego. The notice of
availability for these two documents was published in the Blade-Citizen newspaper on
11 December 1994 and in the South County News on 29 December 1994. A public
comment period was held from 12 December 1994 through 27 January 1995. In
addition, a public meeting was held on 4 January 1995. Base, EPA, California
Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC), San Diego RWQCB, and SWDIV representatives were available to answer
questions about OU1 or the preferred alternative announced in the proposed plan.
Neither base residents nor citizens of the neighboring communities attended the public
meeting. A verbatim transcript of the public meeting is presented in Appendix A. In
addition, no questions or comments were received from any source during the public
comment period. Therefore, a responsiveness summary is not required and is not part
of the Administrative Record. This ROD presents the selected remedial action for MCB
Camp Pendleton OU1, Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond, chosen in
accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and, to the extent practicable, the
NCP. The decision for this site is based on the Administrative Record.
The public was notified, via Fact Sheet No. 3 (March 1995), that soil at Sites 4 and 4A
and soil and groundwater at Site 24 pose no threat to human health or the environment
and that no action is contemplated at these sites. The proposed plan (SWDIV, 1995) for
these sites was made available for public review from 10 June through 10 July 1995. A
notice of availability of the proposed plan for public review was published in the Blade-
Citizen newspaper on 8 June 1995, in the Scout (base) newspaper on 9 June 1995, and
in the San Clemente Sun Post newspaper on 9 June 1995. A public meeting was held
on 28 June 1995 to explain the proposed plan for Sites 4, 4A, and 24; answer questions;
and receive comments. Only two interested persons, both base residents, attended this
meeting. Neither person expressed any concerns regarding the proposed plan.
2-5 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
Therefore, a responsiveness summary is not required for these sites and is not part of
the Administrative Record. A verbatim transcript of the 28 June 1995 public meeting is
presented in Appendix A. The no action decision for soil at Sites 4 and 4A and for soil
and groundwater at Site 24 is in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and,
to the extent practicable, the NCR. The decision for these sites is based on the
Administrative Record.
2.4 Scope and Role of Operable Unit 1
As with many Superfund facilities, a large number of sites are to be investigated under
CERCLA at MCB Camp Pendleton. Unlike most other Superfund facilities, RI/FS sites at
Camp Pendleton were not preassigned to OUs. Instead, the parties to the FFA assigned
sites to groups based on their potential impact to human health and the environment.
Those sites that are determined to pose the highest threat are addressed first (e.g.,
Group A sites first). The sites are listed by group in Table 2-1. Based on the results of
the Rl of Group A sites, no action has been determined to be necessary for soil and
groundwater at Sites 9 and 24 and for soil at Sites 4 and 4A to achieve protection of
human health and the environment. Removal actions are under way or in the planning
stages at Sites 3, 5, and 6. Site 9-41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond, is
the only site specified for OU1. Both the soil and groundwater media were addressed in
the FS for OU1. The baseline risk assessment revealed that neither soil nor
groundwater pose a threat to human health or the environment at the site. However, two
chemicals, TCE and PCE, were detected in groundwater samples at concentrations
exceeding Federal and State MCLs. The purpose of this response is to prevent current
or future exposure to contaminated groundwater and to reduce concentrations of these
chemicals in groundwater through dispersion and natural attenuation. This will be the
final response action for Site 9.
2.5 Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides an overview of the assessments conducted during the Rl to
characterize soil and groundwater at Sites 9 and 24 and soil at Sites 4 and 4A. The
following information is presented:
• Suspected sources of contamination
• Quantities, types, and concentrations of hazardous substances
• Mobility, toxicity, and volume of contaminants
2-6 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
Lateral and vertical extent of contamination
Potential pathways for contaminant migration
Current risks and potential routes of human and environmental exposure.
The suspected sources of contamination at each site are identified in Section 2.2.
Summary tables presented in this section identify contaminants and associated
concentrations (Tables 2-2 through 2-14). A general discussion of the factors that
determine contaminant mobility is presented in Section 2.5.4, and the chemical
parameters that affect environmental transport and persistence are listed for each
contaminant in Table 2-15. The carcinogenicity of site contaminants is discussed in
Section 2.6. The volume of contaminated soil at OU1 (Site 9) was determined during the
FS. No attempt has been made to determine the volume of contamination at the other
sites because they do not require remedial action. The lateral extent of contamination is
depicted on the site maps, and the vertical extent of contamination is described in the
text by noting the maximum depth at which contamination was detected.
Criteria Used for Generating Tables and Rgures
Analytical data for each media at each site were summarized and compared against
Federal and State standards (described in detail in the Rl report), as appropriate. Tables
2-2 through 2-14 summarize contaminant concentrations, including background and
maximum values, detected at each site. TPH, analyzed by modified EPA Method 8015,
is reported as diesel or gasoline, depending on the calibration standard used. These
concentrations are listed at the end of each table, as applicable.
2.5.1 Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
This section presents brief summaries of analytical results from soil sampling,
three quarters of groundwater sampling, and one quarter of surface-water
sampling at Site 9.
2.5.1.1 Soils and Vadose Zone
Ranges of organic and metal concentrations detected in Site 9 soil samples
(validated analytical results) are presented in Tables 2-4 and 2-5, respectively,
along with preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) and background soil values, as
appropriate. Soil samples were collected from 19 borings to characterize Site 9.
Figure 2-1 shows soil sample locations, a summary of analytical results, and the
2-7 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
geologic cross-section location. Figure 2-2 presents a geologic cross-section
showing the approximate vertical extent of soil contamination at Site 9. Analytical
results are briefly summarized and evaluated below:
• The highest concentrations of TPH were detected at the north end of the
former effluent lagoon. A TPH concentration of 6,700 milligrams per
kilogram (mg/kg) was detected in soil boring 9B-17 at approximately
6 feet below surface. Below 6 feet, TPH concentrations were very low or
nondetect.
• TPH was generally detected in shallow soils. The borings within the
contour line shown in Figure 2-1 exhibit elevated concentrations of TPH at
the surface. In addition, these borings exhibit concentrations of beryllium
exceeding the PRG.
• Beryllium is a naturally occurring background metal in soil (Tables 2-2 and
2-3). A site-specific statistical evaluation was performed for beryllium
concentrations in the soil at Site 9. Statistical results indicate that a
beryllium concentration of 0.69 mg/kg (or less) is the 95 percent upper
confidence limit (UCL) of the background distribution. Only one sample
collected from 0 to 5 feet below ground surface (maximum depth for
ecological risk assessment or HHRA) exceeded the 95 percent UCL of
the background distribution for beryllium at Site 9: a sample collected at 1
foot below ground surface in boring 9B-14 with a beryllium concentration
of 1.9 mg/kg.
2.5.1.2 Groundwater
Validated groundwater analytical results are summarized in Table 2-6 and
illustrated in Figure 2-3. Groundwater analytical results for Site 9 are
summarized as follows:
• PCE concentrations of 6.0, 10, and 4.0 micrograms per liter (ng/l) were
detected in well 9W-07A during the first, second, and third rounds of
groundwater sampling, respectively. The MCL for PCE is 5.0 \ig/\. Well
9W-07A is the shallow well of a three-well cluster and is screened from
29 to 39 feet below grade.
• 1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) was detected at a concentration of 2.0 ng/l
in well MW-05 during the first round of groundwater sampling. The MCL
for 1,2-DCA is 0.5 jig/l. Well MW-05 was dry during fourth quarter 1992
sampling (second round) and could not be accessed for sampling during
the third round because of flooding. 1,2-DCA was not detected during the
second quarter 1993 sampling. Figure 2-3 includes second quarter 1993
(Phase 2 Rl) analytical results for this well and other wells in which MCLs
were exceeded during at least one quarter of sampling and for which
samples could not be collected during the three previous quarters.
2-8 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
TCE concentrations of 11 and 15 ^g/l were detected in well MW-04D
during the first and second rounds of groundwater sampling, respectively.
The MCL for TCE is 5.0 p.g/1. Well MW-04D was not sampled during the
third round of groundwater sampling because of flooding. TCE was
detected at a concentration of 5.0 ng/l during second quarter 1993
sampling. Well MW-04D was installed during the previous SI and is
screened from approximately 16 to 31 feet below grade.
Antimony and nickel exceeded MCLs in upgradient and downgradient
wells. Statistical evaluations (SWDIV, 1993) indicate that these
concentrations are representative of background.
Mercury was detected in wells 9W-07A and 9W-07B during third quarter
1992 sampling but was not detected in several subsequent sampling
events (fourth quarter 1992 and first and second quarters 1993) and, thus,
appears to be related to field or laboratory contamination. Consequently,
mercury is not included in Figure 2-3.
TPH (analyzed using EPA Method m8015 with a diesel standard) was
detected at a maximum concentration of 470 ng/l in well 9W-07A during
third quarter 1992 sampling. TPH was not detected in this well during
subsequent rounds of sampling. An MCL has not been established for
TPH and, thus, TPH is not plotted in Figure 2-3.
Groundwater analytical data indicate that an area of volatile organic
contamination (TCE, PCE, and 1,2-DCA) is present downgradient from the
former effluent lagoon at Site 9. This area is shown by a contour line in
Figure 2-3. No contaminants were detected in the wells upgradient from the
former effluent lagoon.
2.5.1.3 Surface Water and Sediments
Following January 1993 flooding, two surface-water samples were collected from
the impoundment to supplement the ecological risk assessment. Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) metals analyses of these samples yielded the
following maximum metals concentrations:
Aluminum - 355 milligrams per liter (mg/l)
Arsenic -1.46 fig/I
Barium - 28.2BE
Copper - 25 ng/l
Iron - 758 ng/l
Manganese - 53.4
Nickel- 8.1 Bjig/l
Vanadium - 3.0B
Zinc - 9.2B ng/l.
2-9 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
These validated analytical results are compared with standards in Table 2-7.
Antimony, beryllium, cadmium, cyanide, cobalt, chromium, mercury, selenium,
and thallium were not detected in the surface-water samples.
2.5.2 Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Drainage Ditch and Concrete-Lined Surface
Impoundment
This section presents brief summaries of analytical results from soil and sediment
sampling, surface-water sampling, and an evaluation of biota at Sites 4 and 4A.
Soil samples were collected from surface sediments (Site 4), hand-auger borings
(Site 4), and angle borings (Site 4A). Ranges of organic and metal
concentrations detected in Site 4 soil samples are listed in Tables 2-8 and 2-9,
respectively, along with risk-based PRGs (r-PRGs) and background soil values,
as appropriate. No contaminants were detected at concentrations exceeding
r-PRGs in the soil samples collected at Sites 4 and 4A. Consequently, no map
showing soil contamination was prepared. Figure 2-4 is a boring location map.
Soil analytical data are presented in Appendices X and Z of the draft final Rl
report for Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993).
Surface-water samples collected from the MCAS drainage ditch showed
generally low concentrations of potential contaminants. Validated surface-water
analytical results are summarized in Table 2-10. Analyte concentrations were
below State and Federal surface-water standards (SWRCB, 1992; EPA, 1992a).
Filamentous algae were collected from the Santa Margarita River as part of the
second round of bioassay sampling in June/July 1993. Locations 6BADSM1 and
6BADSM2 are representative of downstream and upstream locations,
respectively, from the entry of the combined drainage from Sites 4 and 6. As
such, results from these sampling locations were used to evaluate possible
contamination from the Site 4 drainage ditch. Location 6BADSM2 is
approximately 100 feet upstream from the combined Site 4 and Site 6 drainage,
and location 6BADSM1 is approximately 100 feet downstream. Aquatic sediment
bioassay results for these locations are presented in Appendix U of the draft final
Rl report for Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993). Biota collected at the time of
sampling was limited to filamentous algae. Analytical results for the field-
2-10 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
collected algae samples are presented in Table 2-11. Concentrations at these
locations do not represent toxic levels of metals.
2.5.3 Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility
This section presents brief summaries of analytical results from soil sampling and
three rounds of groundwater sampling at Site 24.
2.5.3.1 Soils and Vadose Zone
Ranges of organic and metal concentrations detected in Site 24 soil samples are
presented in Tables 2-12 and 2-13, respectively, along with r-PRGs and
background soil values, as appropriate. Only two isolated soil samples at Site 24
contained constituent concentrations exceeding r-PRGs or a TPH concentration
of 100 mg/kg, as shown in Figure 2-5. Soil analytical results are summarized
below (EPA data qualifiers are explained in the tables):
• A gamma-BHC (Lindane) concentration of 3.0 micrograms per kilogram
(|J.g/kg) and alpha- and gamma-chlordane concentrations of 6.7 and
3.6ng/kg, respectively, were detected at a depth of 6 feet and an
anomalous pyrene concentration of 44 fig/kg was detected at a depth of
20 feet in boring 24B-1, near the drum storage area. These
concentrations are below the associated r-PRGs. No other constituents
were detected in the three borings sampled around this location.
• Aroclor-1254, a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), was detected at a
concentration of 480 ng/kg in the surface sample from boring 24B-4,
adjacent to the paint shop. This concentration is below State and Federal
cleanup levels. No PCBs were detected in seven deeper samples to a
depth of 30 feet below surface at this boring.
• Maximum alpha- and gamma-chlordane concentrations of 7.5JX and
4.3JX ng/kg were detected at a depth of 1.5 feet in boring 24B-6, adjacent
to the welding shop. These concentrations are below the r-PRGs.
Chrysene and fluoranthene were also detected at concentrations below
the r-PRGs in this sample but were not detected in deeper samples. No
contaminants were detected in the deepest sample from this boring, at
15.8 feet. A lead concentration of 295N mg/kg in the surface sample from
boring 24B-5 was the maximum for the site and is well below lead model
action levels (Section 2.6).
• Maximum site concentrations of the following compounds were detected
in boring 24B-8, located in a ditch into which two spills of heating fuel and
hydraulic oil reportedly drained in 1990: 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyldi-
chloroethane (4,4'-DDD), 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene (4,4'-DDE),
2-11 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
4,4'-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (4,4'-DDT), bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate, fluoranthene, and pyrene. The maximum TPH concentration at
this site was also detected in this boring.
Beryllium was detected in borings throughout the site at concentrations
exceeding the r-PRG but poses a cumulative ILCR of less than 10-6.
Metals concentrations reported for a sample collected from granitic
bedrock at a depth of 24.8 feet in boring 24B-3 are 1.5 to 3.0 times those
typically found in background samples collected from the alluvium.
Observed concentrations in soils are consistent with the expected range
of background concentrations for the metals of concern. The sample with
the highest beryllium concentration (collected at 24.8 feet below surface
in boring 24B-3) is a background sample.
Only minimal soil contamination was detected at known contaminant sources
throughout Site 24, as shown in Figure 2-6. Soil constituents at Site 24 do not
pose an unacceptable threat to human health or the environment (Section 2.6).
2.5.3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater analytical results are summarized in Table 2-14. Complete
analytical data are presented in Appendix Y of the draft final Rl report for Group
A sites (SWDIV, 1993). Well locations are shown in Figure 2-5.
Potential groundwater contaminants at Site 24 do not pose an unacceptable
threat to human health or the environment. Except for a one-time concentration
of chromium, which is considered suspect, antimony, nickel, and selenium are
the only compounds detected at Site 24 at concentrations exceeding MCLs.
Groundwater metals concentrations exceeding MCLs may be due to the
influence of shallow granitic bedrock beneath the site or other sources (SWDIV,
1993). These metals are not considered site-related given the operational history
of Site 24; the mobility of antimony, nickel, and selenium in the soil; and the
results of the Rl. In addition, nickel, antimony, and selenium exceed MCLs in
upgradient and downgradient wells throughout the base; results of statistical
evaluations of wells throughout the base show that the upgradient and
downgradient populations of these metals are not significantly different at the 95
percent confidence limit; and several potential sources have been identified for
these metals. The absence of other compounds at this site indicates that
2-12 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
antimony, nickel, and selenium concentrations are not related to the site and that
groundwater has not been impacted by the site.
2.5.4 Contaminant Fate and Transport
The fate and transport of chemicals of concern (COCs) at MCB Camp Pendleton
sites are important factors for risk assessment. The potential routes of migration
in the environment and pathways of human exposure are determined by the
physical and chemical properties of the chemicals released. These
considerations are discussed in greater detail in Section 5.0 of the draft final Rl
Report for Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993). Table 2-15 lists pertinent chemical and
physical parameters of chemicals detected at sites included in this ROD. This
information is provided for reference for the site-specific discussions.
Several of the physiochemical properties commonly used to assess the mobility
of a contaminant are listed in Table 2-15 for the contaminants detected in soils at
Sites 4, 4A, 9, and 24. The Henry's law constant describes the partition of a
chemical between water and air. Compounds that are highly soluble in water are
more likely to be degraded by hydrolysis than by some other mechanism.
Compounds with low water solubility (high Henry's law constant) are less likely to.
adsorb to soils and are more likely to evaporate and be dispersed in air. A
Henry's law constant less than 1x10"7 cubic meters (atmosphere) per mole
(atm-m3/mol), the Henry's law constant for water, indicates that the compound is
less volatile than water and will concentrate in water as it evaporates.
Volatilization becomes an increasingly important migration mechanism for
compounds with Henry's law constants less than 1x10"5 atm-rr^/mol.
Compounds with intermediate values can be expected to volatilize slowly. Metals
and other ions do not volatilize in the environment.
The octanol/water partition coefficient (KoW) is defined as the ratio of a chemical's
concentration in the octanol phase to its concentration in the aqueous phase of a
two-phase octanol/water system. Values of KOW for organic chemicals have been
measured as low as 1Q-3 and as high as 107. For this reason, the log values of
Kow are frequently used. The values of KgW represent the tendency of a chemical
to partition between the organic phase and an aqueous phase. Chemicals with
low values of log KOW (<2) are considered relatively hydrophilic: they tend to
2-13 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
have high water solubilities, small soil/sediment adsorption coefficients, and small
bioconcentration factors for aquatic life. Conversely, chemicals with values of log
Kow >2 to 4 are hydrophobic: they tend to have greater bioconcentration, more
strongly adsorb to soil, and do not readily leach to groundwater. The partition of
organic chemicals between water and soils is described by the soil partition
(adsorption) coefficient, K^. As with KOW> larger K^ values (log K^ >2 to 4)
indicate greater bioconcentration and adsorption to soil and less leaching into
water.
The distribution (or adsorption) coefficient (K^) is the ratio of dissolved chemicals
between water and the sorptive surfaces of soil. The ratio is the concentration in
soil divided by the concentration dissolved in water. The effect of the adsorption
to soil is retardation of these chemicals in relation to normal groundwater flow.
This retardation is contingent on the minerals along the groundwater pathway
and the chemistry of the groundwater. The greater the Kj, the greater the
absorption or retardation.
The solubility column in Table 2-15 refers to the ability of a chemical to dissolve
in water. Solubility is an important factor in the transport of chemicals in the
environment. Chemicals that have high solubility dissolve easier in water and are
less likely to adsorb onto soil or to evaporate. The higher solubility of a chemical
could also increase its ability to leach into groundwater.
The half-life of a chemical is defined as the expected time for the concentration of
the chemical to decrease by one-half when present in water or soil. Half-life
ranges (high and low) for chemicals in surface water and soil are presented in
days. Chemicals with longer half-lives are more persistent in environmental
media.
2.5.4.1 Site 9-41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
The primary contaminants at Site 9 are beryllium in soil and TCE and PCE in
groundwater. As a conservative assumption, contaminant concentrations in
current and future land use scenarios are assumed to be the same.
2-14 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
Beryllium is the sole contributor to risk in soil above the target risk criterion of
10'6. Although beryllium is present in both soil and groundwater, but statistical
testing for background chemicals eliminated beryllium for groundwater. Because
beryllium is found in both media, transport effects are assessed as being
adequately described by the sampling data. Leachability testing was performed
on soil samples collected in the areas of highest beryllium concentrations. The
results indicate that beryllium is not leaching to groundwater. TCE and PCE
were not detected in the soil but are present in groundwater at Site 9. Modeling
of the Site 9 groundwater showed that dispersion and natural attenuation should
reduce the levels of TCE and PCE below MCLs within 10 years.
2.5.4.2 Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Drainage Ditch and Concrete-Lined Surface
Impoundment
Although the results of the risk assessment indicated that soils at Sites 4 and 4A
present no significant risks, a brief discussion of the fate and transport of the
primary compounds detected at these sites is provided for information purposes.
The primary compounds detected at Sites 4 and 4A are organochlorine
pesticides, including 4,4'-DDT and its degradation products. High log KOW values
(>3) indicate that these compounds are not likely to migrate in the soil. As a
conservative measure for future land use scenarios, the concentrations in surface
soil and the vadose zone are assumed to remain the same.
The primary contributors to risk at Sites 4 and 4A are 4,4'-DDT (log KOW 6.19)
and dieldrin (log «ow 4.09) (Howard, 1991). Chemicals with log KOW values
above 3.0 are expected to have retarded movement in soil; as such, degradation
processes should be predominant and impact on groundwater should not be
significant. This is confirmed by groundwater monitoring results (i.e., pesticides
were not detected in monitoring wells at Sites 4 and 4A).
2.5.4.3 Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility
Although the results of the risk assessment indicated that soil and groundwater at
Site 24 present no significant risks, a brief discussion of the fate and transport of
the primary compounds detected at this site is provided for information purposes.
2-15 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
Primary contributors to risk in soil at Site 24 are as follows:
Chemical log K
-------
Revision: 1
respectively, of the draft final Rl report for Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993). This summary
addresses Group A Sites 9, 4,4A, and 24.
2.6.1 Human Health Risks
The HHRA was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the NCP
(EPA, 1990). The overall objective of the HHRA is to provide a conservative
estimate of the ILCR and the potential noncarcinogenic health impact (hazard
index [HI]) from chemical contaminants. Contaminants were evaluated for
potential impact on human health for the no action alternative, which consists of
the current site disposition with no remediation. The assessment was
augmented with additional scenarios for future land uses.
The quantitative results were compared to target risk criteria. A reasonable
maximum exposure (RME) ILCR of 10-6 is considered the "point of departure"
above which risk management should be considered, according to 40 CFR
300.430(e)(2)(i)(A)(2). An ILCR above 1CH generally requires remediation to
achieve acceptable concentration goals representing risks below the point of
departure of 10-6. An HI greater than the target criterion of 1.0 is to be addressed
by the risk managers and may require remediation.
Contaminant Identification
The environmental sampling data were collected according to knowledge-based,
purposive sampling decision logic, with additional samples to provide data on
areas of high, medium, and low contamination. The extent of contamination for
each of the sites was based on the analyte concentration within a boring
exceeding a risk-based criterion concentration referenced to either 1Q-6 ILCR or
1.0 HI. Background was determined empirically from the Rl sampling and
analytical data for geologically consistent areas (i.e., marine terrace for Site 9).
The Student's t-test was used for soil and the analysis of variance (ANOVA)
statistical procedure was used for groundwater to eliminate detected chemicals
representing background.
Exposure Assessment
Exposure scenarios were developed based on current military land use and
future military, residential, and commercial/industrial land uses. The RME
2-17 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
receptor was assumed to be located on the site for all exposure scenarios.
Pathways related to surface soil were evaluated and summed in all cases.
Vadose zone contaminants were evaluated for their potential to migrate in the
soil. As expected, those with log KQW values greater than 3.0 were generally not
detected in groundwater, whereas those with log K
-------
Revision: 1
daily exposure levels for humans, including sensitive individuals. Estimated
intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical
ingested from contaminated drinking water) can be compared to the RfD. RfDs
are derived from human epidemiological studies or animal studies to which
uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g., to account for the use of animal data
to predict effects on humans). These uncertainty factors help ensure that the RfD
values do not underestimate the potential for adverse noncarcinogenic effects.
Risk Characterization
Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying the intake level with
the cancer SF. These risks are probabilities that are generally expressed in
scientific notation (e.g., 1x1 Or6 or 1E-06). An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1x10-
6 indicates that, as a plausible upper bound, an individual has a one-in-one
million chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a
carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the specific exposure conditions at the
site.
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single contaminant in a single
medium is expressed as the hazard quotient (HQ) (or the ratio of the estimated
intake derived from the contaminant concentration in a given medium to the RfD
of the contaminant). The HI is calculated by adding the HQs for all contaminants
within a medium or across all media to which a given population may reasonably
be exposed. The HI provides a useful reference point for gaging the potential
significance within a single medium or across media.
Lead was evaluated separately using both the Federal (EPA, 1991) and State
(Cal/EPA, 1992b) lead models. Evaluation of maximum soil concentrations and
groundwater concentrations for lead using the Federal and DTSC blood lead
models (SWDIV, 1993, Appendix S) indicated blood lead levels of less than 10
micrograms per deciliter (ng/dl) for 95 percent of children using the Federal
model and for 99 percent of children using the State model, age range 0 to 6
years. This meets the target criteria for health protection specified by the EPA
(1991).
2-19 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
Uncertainty
Uncertainty in risk characterization combines the uncertainties of both the toxicity
assessment and the exposure assessment. The numerical uncertainty of the risk
assessment may be as much as one order of magnitude (EPA, 1989b, p. 8-17).
Contributors to the uncertainty of the risk assessment include the following:
Toxicity value availability
Future land use uncertainty
Data evaluation involving laboratory contamination
Summing of cancer risks (EPA, 1993)
Use of absorption factors rather than chemical-specific values.
A more detailed uncertainty discussion is presented in Section 6.6.2 of the draft
final Rl report for Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993).
The results of the baseline HHRA for soil at Sites 9, 4, and 4A and soil and
groundwater at Site 24 are summarized in the following sections. The complete
baseline HHRA for Group A sites is presented in Section 6.0 of the draft final Rl
report for Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993).
2.6.1.1 Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
Several additional rounds of groundwater sampling have been conducted since
the completion of the baseline HHRA at Site 9. Groundwater data for this site
have since been reevaluated and the results are as presented in the draft final FS
for Site 9 (SWDIV, 1994a).
Subsequent to the completion of the baseline HHRA, additional groundwater
monitoring wells (Phase 2 Rl) were installed at Site 9 and four additional quarters
of groundwater data were collected from all Site 9 wells (Phases 1 and 2).
Groundwater data collected through the end of 1993 (five quarters) were
reevaluated using ANOVA to assess the concentrations of arsenic in upgradient
and downgradient wells to determine whether arsenic concentrations represent
background rather than site-related contamination. The results showed that no
significant difference exists between the upgradient and downgradient groups of
data and that arsenic concentrations are not site related. The statistical
calculations are provided in Appendix G of the draft final FS report (SWDIV,
2-20 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
1994a). The HHRA summary presented herein has been revised to reflect this
information.
The COCs for soil and groundwater at Site 9 identified as a result of the HHRA
are listed in Table 2-16, along with COG concentration ranges, frequency of
detection, soil background data, MCLs, and representative concentrations.
Groundwater at Site 9 is not used for drinking water. No production (drinking
water) wells are located downgradient from Site 9 and no plans have been made
to install new production wells in this area. However, as a conservative measure,
groundwater risks were summed with soil-related pathways for future land use
because groundwater use is hypothesized for future scenarios.
Site 9 was initially evaluated in a screening risk assessment using maximum
detected concentrations and a residential exposure scenario. The screening was
conservative because default parameters were used for the pathway-specific
critical receptor. Site 9 did not meet the target criteria in this screening and was
evaluated further. Instead of maximum concentrations, representative con-
centrations of the COPCs were used (SWDIV, 1993, Table 6-3). These
concentrations were assumed to remain the same over time. For current land
use, the military exposure scenario was used based on a 25-year civil servant
and a 3-year military person. For future land use, options were evaluated for
military (same as current land use), residential, and commercial/industrial
development. The most likely receptor was used for each case: adult and child
for residential, and adult for commercial/industrial and military scenarios.
The baseline HHRA for Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993) presented arsenic as the
main contributor to groundwater cancer risk and chronic health impact. After
additional monitoring wells were installed and additional rounds of data were
statistically evaluated, arsenic was shown to be within background. The other
contributors to the groundwater cancer risk identified in the Rl report were TCE,
PCE, and chloroform. No other significant site-related groundwater contributors
to chronic health impact were identified.
Beryllium was identified as the sole site-related contributor to the cancer risk for
soil. No significant soil contributors to chronic health impact were identified for
2-21 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
the current military scenario. The chronic health impact for the future residential
scenario resulted in an HI of 1.2. However, the main contributors target different
organs, and the HI was below 1.0 for any one target organ.
The carcinogenic (cancer) risk and noncarcinogenic (chronic health impact)
hazard for the main site-related contributors are summarized in Table 2-17. The
RME concentration was used to calculate the risk for the current military civil
servant scenario and the future residential scenario. The risk due to chloroform
using RME concentrations was not significant; thus, the two remaining
contributors were TCE and PCE. The sum of the cancer risk for groundwater
and soil pathways resulted in 2x106 (2 in 1 million) for the military scenario and
2x10'5 (2 in 100,000) for the residential scenario. Beryllium exceeded soil
background in only one sample (1.9 mg/kg detected; 0.69 mg/kg background)
and was the main contributor to the summed site risk for the current military
scenario. Site 9 is unlikely to be developed as a residential area according to the
base Masterplan (Innis-Tennebaum Architects, Inc., 1990).
2.6.1.2 Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Drainage Ditch and Concrete-Lined Surface
Impoundment
Risk characterizations using maximum detected concentrations and RME
scenarios for soil at Group A Sites 4 and 4A are summarized in this section. A
conservative estimate of potential risk to human receptors due to COCs was
calculated for soil. The risk characterization is based on a hypothetical
residential exposure scenario and evaluated potential risks for critical human
receptors.
No site-related carcinogens were identified at Site 4. The maximum
concentration risk characterization for Site 4 resulted in an estimated HI of less
than 0.1. For Site 4A, the estimated site-related ILCR values are 5x10~8 for
exposure to surface soil via incidental ingestion and 2x1 Or7 for exposure via
dermal absorption. The sum of both values is less than the target risk of 1Cr6.
The estimated HI for both exposure routes is less than 0.1.
The risk characterization using maximum concentrations indicated no potential
cancer risk or adverse health impact exceeding target criteria for critical receptors
2-22 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
exposed to surface soil at the point of contamination via either direct ingestion or
dermal absorption. Because there is no adverse health impact above target
criteria based on the primary exposure pathways for residential receptors (the
most conservative scenario), adverse impact above target criteria is not expected
for either current or future human receptors.
2.6.1.3 Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility
Risk characterizations using maximum detected concentrations and RME
scenarios for Group A Site 24 are summarized in this section. A conservative
estimate of potential risk to human receptors due to COCs was calculated for
each media involved in a potentially complete exposure pathway. The risk
characterizations were based on a hypothetical residential exposure scenario
and evaluated potential risks for critical human receptors.
The maximum concentration risk characterization for Site 24 resulted in
estimated site-related ILCR values of 6x10"8 for exposure to surface soil via
incidental ingestion and 2x1 Or7 for exposure to surface soil via dermal absorption.
No site-related carcinogens were identified for groundwater. All of the estimated
site-related ILCR values are below the target level of 10~6.
The HI for exposure to surface soil via both exposure routes was less than 0.1.
The HI for exposure to groundwater was estimated to be 0.1, well below the
target criterion of 1.0.
The risk characterization using maximum concentrations indicated that COCs in
surface soil or groundwater pose no potential cancer risk or adverse health
impact exceeding target criteria for the critical receptors. Although TPH was
detected in soil, the toxic volatiles and semivolatiles usually associated with TPH
were not. Because TPH was detected at low concentrations in soil and was not
detected on a consistent basis in groundwater, adverse human health impact is
not expected.
2-23 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
2.6.2 Environmental Risks
The results of the baseline ecological risk assessment for soil at Sites 9, 4, and
4A and soil and groundwater at Site 24 are summarized in the following sections.
The complete baseline ecological risk assessment for Group A sites is presented
in Section 7.0 of the draft final Rl report for Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993).
2.6.2.1 Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
Site 9 is surrounded by a large berm that generally prevents storm-water runoff
except during prolonged periods of very heavy rainfall. Wind erosion is
minimized because vegetation covers most of the site. Groundwater underlying
this site does not discharge to surface water. Therefore, chemicals that leach
into groundwater are effectively removed or isolated from environmental
receptors.
Environmental receptors may be exposed to organic chemicals in soils via
dermal contact or ingestion of soil. Exposure to chemicals in surface waters may
result from ingestion of the water.
Results of the site characterization indicated adequate habjtat within Site 9 for
terrestrial plants, terrestrial animals (including raptors and various mammals),
and soil invertebrates. The aquatic habitat in the area is minimal. No aquatic life
was observed during the site characterization.
Inhalation exposure to the chemicals detected in Site 9 soils may be minimal
because many of the chemicals are not volatile. Dermal absorption and toxicity
were not addressed for this assessment.
Although some native plants are present, Site 9 contains few or no sensitive plant
communities. Least Bell's vireo was the only special-status vertebrate species
observed at Site 9 during surveys in August and September 1992.
Chemicals for which maximum concentrations at Site 9 exceed background
and/or potential adverse effect levels are barium, cadmium, copper, lead,
mercury, vanadium, zinc, and TPH-diesel. Results of toxicity and
2-24 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
bioaccumulation testing of plants and earthworms from the bioassays indicate
potential toxic effects to animals and plants from surface soils (SWDIV, 1993).
However, the minimal toxicity observed at the site cannot be ascribed to any
particular contaminant on the basis of the test results.
Uncertainties and limitations are associated with the use of literature toxicity
information, calculated and laboratory criteria rather than site-specific conditions,
and other assumptions listed in Section 7.0 of the draft final Rl report for Group A
sites (SWDIV, 1993).
2.6.2.2 Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Drainage Ditch and Concrete-Lined Surface
Impoundment
Aquatic sediment toxicity testing indicates no apparent risk from contaminated
sediment. Downstream sediments in the Santa Margarita River and sediments
with metals concentrations similar to the Site 4 drainage were not toxic to aquatic
plants and animals (SWDIV, 1993).
Based on the analyses of toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial organisms,
concentrations of chemicals in soil, sediment, and surface water do not pose
ecological risks to terrestrial or aquatic organisms. No special-status species
were found on Sites 4 or 4A during surveys in August and September 1992.
Effects are not likely to occur given the conservative assumptions used in this
assessment, lack of observable effects on plants in the field, and low probability
of effects related to metals in the bioassays (with Site 3 soils and Site 6 soils and
river sediments). In addition, none of the compounds detected in surface water
exceed Federal or State standards. The concentrations of aluminum, barium,
iron, and manganese in surface water exceed literature toxic effect levels and
may be high enough to cause adverse effects to aquatic organisms. Available
information from the literature and the results of the bioassays (particularly for the
Santa Margarita River) do not indicate a need for remediation at Site 4 to protect
ecological receptors.
2-25 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
2.6.2.3 Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility
Semivolatile and volatile chemicals, as well as several chlorinated compounds,
were detected in Site 24 soils. Copper, lead, and zinc were detected in Site 24
soil at levels that may cause effects in some sensitive plants or invertebrates.
Although the bioaccumulative potential for the semivolatile and volatile chemicals
may be low, chlorinated chemicals may potentially remain within the food chain at
Site 24. Subsequent risk to higher trophic organisms may occur because of the
presence of these chemicals. However, no effects on plants were observed in
the small areas where these elevated concentrations occurred, and the
disturbance caused by remediation would probably exceed the effects due to
these elevated chemical concentrations. Thus, remediation is not suggested.
The only special-status vertebrate species observed on Site 24 was the orange-
throated whiptail. However, the greater mastiff bat may also occur in the area.
Up to 20 mammal, 20 to 25 bird, and 6 amphibian and reptile species probably
are present in the site vicinity. Wildlife receptors are somewhat limited on the site
proper owing to the general lack of favorable habitat.
2.6.3 Conclusions
The conclusions of the baseline risk assessments for soil at Sites 9, 4, and 4A
and soil and groundwater at Site 24 are summarized in the following sections.
2.6.3.1 Site 9-41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
Site 9 is heavily vegetated, but is not located in an ecologically sensitive area. In
addition, no endangered species inhabit the site. Consequently, at a 17
December 1993 meeting, Navy and MCB Camp Pendleton management, in
consultation with the parties to the FFA, recommended that any remedial action
at Site 9 be implemented to meet the human health (residential scenario) criteria
of 10'6 ILCR rather than ecological goals (SWDIV, 1994c).
Beryllium concentrations detected in soil and PCE and TCE concentrations
detected in groundwater do not pose an unacceptable risk under the current
military scenario. Under a hypothetical future residential scenario beryllium in the
2-26 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
soil poses a cancer risk of 2x10-5, which is within the acceptable risk range. No
other chemicals of concern exceed the point of departure for cancer risk of 1O6.
The noncancer HI is less than the acceptable 1.0 level for the current military
scenario. Site 9 contaminants could pose a cummulative hazard under a
hypothetical future residential scenario above 1.0, but the main contributors
target different orgrans and the HI was below 1.0 for any one target organ. The
cancer risk due to soil and groundwater contaminant at Site 9 is within the
generally acceptable risk management range of 10-4 to 1f>6 (40 CFR
300.430[e][2][i][A][2]). Therefore, no active remediation is required. However,
because PCE and TCE have been detected in groundwater at concentrations
exceeding MCLs, institutional controls and groundwater monitoring were selected
as the remedial alternative (natural attenuation) for organic contaminants in
groundwater. Contaminants in groundwater may exceed MCLs, which are based
on risk values, but not present an unacceptable risk because mean and upper
concentrations rather than maximum concentrations are used in risk calculations
and MCLs are usually based on the lower end of the acceptable risk range (i.e.,
10-6).
Actual or threatened release of hazardous substances from this site, if not
addressed by implementation of the response action selected in this ROD, may
present an imminent and substantial danger to public health, welfare, and the
environment.
2.6.3.2 Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Drainage Ditch and Concrete-Lined Surface
Impoundment
The cancer risk for Sites 4 and 4A soil was below the NCR point of departure of
10-6. The noncarcinogen health HI was less than the acceptable 1.0 level. The
risk/hazard estimates were made using maximum concentrations under a
hypothetical future residential scenario. The sites pose no significant risk to the
environment. Soil at Sites 4 and 4A is protective of human health and the
environment and, thus, no remediation is warranted. Groundwater at Sites 4 and
4A will be further evaluated along with Site 6, and the results will be presented in
the Rl report for Group C sites.
2-27 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
2.6.3.3 Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility
The cancer risk at Site 24 was below the NCR point of departure of 10~6. The
noncarcinogen health HI was less than the acceptable 1.0 level. The risk/hazard
estimates were made using maximum concentrations under a hypothetical future
residential scenario. The site poses no significant risk to the environment. No
endangered species were observed at Site 9, and the site generally lacks
favorable habitat. Site 24 is already protective of human health and the
environment and, thus, no remediation is warranted.
2.7 Description of Alternatives
This section summarizes the remedial alternatives. The description of alternatives is
limited to the alternatives developed during the FS process for OU1 Site 9. Remedial
alternatives were not developed for Sites 4 and 4A (soil) or Site 24 (soil and
groundwater) because these sites were found to be in a protective state, and no action is
warranted.
Under CERCLA, a process has been established to develop, screen, and evaluate
appropriate remedial alternatives. A wide range of cleanup options was considered for
remedial action at Site 9. Remedial alternatives were not developed for the other sites
because Site 9 is the only one of these sites requiring remedial action. The alternatives
for Site 9 satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 300.430 (a)(1)(iii)(c), which specifies that
alternatives be developed to include no action and institutional actions.
The initial process options considered during the preliminary screening process are
presented in Tables 2-18 and 2-19. The process options were evaluated and retained or
eliminated from further consideration on the basis of technical feasibility. Tables 2-18
and 2-19 also present the rationale for eliminating process options.
A secondary screening was then performed to evaluate the remaining process options
on the basis of three criteria: implementability, effectiveness, and cost. The process
options that remained after step one were subjected to a more detailed evaluation based
on these three criteria. The results of this step are presented in Tables 2-20 and 2-21 for
soil and groundwater, respectively. After this evaluation was completed, seven
alternatives were developed for detailed analyses. Only the most feasible process
2-28 I66rod.dfl
-------
Revision: 1
options for each technology type were retained for detailed analysis. Although seven
alternatives do not represent every possible combination of soil and groundwater
alternatives, professional judgment was used to combine the most feasible soil actions
with the most feasible groundwater actions for the site conditions. The following sections
summarize the seven alternatives. Detailed alternative descriptions, including cost
estimates and breakdowns, are presented in the draft final FS report (SWDIV, 1994a).
2.7.1 Description of Soil Zones and Hot Spots
The soil component of each alternative was grouped into three types. Zone I soil
contains beryllium concentrations exceeding the proposed remedial goal (RG).
Zone II soil contains TPH-diesel concentrations exceeding 100 mg/kg (Option 1)
or 1,000 mg/kg (Option 2). Volumes of soil with concentrations of metals that
potentially exceed State or Federal hazardous waste leaching criteria are
designated as hot spots. Figure 2-7 presents a graphic delineation of soil
contamination, showing Zone I, Zone II, and hot spot soils.
Unlike the individual chemical constituents of petroleum hydrocarbons, cancer
risk factors associated with TPH-diesel are not published by either State or
Federal regulatory agencies. Guidance on recommended maximum
concentrations of TPH-diesel in soil is based primarily on the protection of
groundwater and on site-specific conditions. The overriding consideration is the
teachability of hydrocarbons from contaminated soil to groundwater. According
to the guidance provided in the Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) Field
Manual (SWRCB, 1989) and depending on a number of factors (e.g., depth to
groundwater and annual precipitation), the concentrations of TPH-diesel that may
be left in place at Site 9 varies from 100 to 1,000 ppm. For this reason, two
options were developed for consideration by the risk managers in conjunction
with the soil remediation alternatives, as follows:
• Option 1 - Remediate all soils containing TPH-diesel concentrations
of 100 ppm or greater, a volume of approximately 21,000
cubic yards of soil
• Option 2 - Remediate soils containing TPH-diesel concentrations of
1,000 ppm or greater, a volume of approximately 6,480
cubic yards.
2-29 166rod.dll
-------
Revision: 1
These options are evaluated for Alternatives 2 through 6 but not for Alternative 7
because the latter alternative was developed after further leachability testing
showed that TPH is not leaching to groundwater.
Beryllium was detected at a concentration exceeding the proposed RG in only
one sample. For evaluation purposes, beryllium-contaminated soil is assumed to
extend 3 feet below ground surface within a 5-foot radius around this sample.
The associated volume of soil is approximately 9 cubic yards. This soil is within
the TPH-diesel plume and is referred to as Zone I.
Localized areas of lead- and cadmium-impacted soil, referred to as hot spots,
were detected in borings 9B11, 9B16, and 9B17 and are also within the TPH-
diesel soil plume. Soils in these areas would be considered potentially
hazardous waste.
Lead and cadmium contamination is assumed to be limited to about the first
3 feet of soil. The volume of hot spot soil is estimated at 30 cubic yards. For
purposes of the FS, the volume was estimated by assuming that the lead and
cadmium hot spots extend 3 feet below ground surface within a 5-foot radius of
borings 9B11, 9B16, and 9B17.
2.7.2 Alternative 1 - No Action
The no action alternative involves no institutional controls, containment, removal,
or treatment. The no action alternative must be considered in order to comply
with the provisions of the NCP.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The no action alternative includes no treatment and no control of exposure
pathways. Under this alternative, long-term risks would be the same as those
calculated in the baseline risk assessment. The target risk criterion of 1O6 and
HI criterion of 1.0 would be exceeded for the soil exposure pathway for the adult
and child receptors in the future residential land use exposure scenario. No
unacceptable site-related risks would result from the groundwater exposure
pathway.
2-30 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
Compliance with ARARs
I'
The only location-specific applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
(ARAR) applicable to Site 9 under the no action alternative is the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act of 1972. Although migratory birds have been observed in the vicinity
of Site 9 (SWDIV, 1993), they are not known to be affected by current site
conditions; therefore, the no action alternative meets this ARAR.
TCE and PCE exceed the MCLs and, thus, groundwater ARARs (Appendix B of
the draft final FS report [SWDIV, 1994a]). Although current conditions do not
meet these groundwater criteria, contaminant concentrations only slightly exceed
the criteria. Natural attenuation would likely reduce the concentrations to levels
less than the proposed RGs and, thus, would ultimately meet groundwater
ARARs. Because of uncertainties associated with the hydrogeologic regime and
the contaminant source, it is difficult to model or otherwise evaluate the length of
time required to reduce on-site groundwater contaminant concentrations to levels
less than the proposed RGs. However, the proposed RGs would likely be met
within 10 to 30 years. In accordance with NCP requirements (EPA, 1990,
pp. 8732-8743), treatment may not be warranted because groundwater is unlikely
I to be used in the foreseeable future. However, action-specific ARARs require
monitoring until compliance is achieved; therefore, the no action alternative does
not comply with action-specific ARARs.
2.7.3 Alternative 2: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base Landfill for Hot Spots.
Zone {. and Zone II: Groundwater - Institutional Controls
2.7.3.1 Alternative 2, Option 1
This alternative involves excavation and disposal of contaminated soil and
institutional control of contaminated groundwater. Contaminated soil in hot spots,
Zone I, and Zone II would be disposed of at a Class I landfill permitted under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Soil containing beryllium (Zone I) and cadmium and lead (hot spots) would be
excavated, segregated, transported to the disposal facility, and stabilized if
necessary. Zone II soil containing TPH-diesel concentrations exceeding 100
mg/kg and heavy metal concentrations below soluble threshold limit
!
2-31 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
concentration (STLC) levels would be disposed of at the landfill. The schematics
of the soil excavation operation are presented in Figure 2-8,
The institutional controls proposed for contaminated groundwater would involve
amending the base Masterplan to restrict future access to the groundwater in the
immediate vicinity of the site and groundwater monitoring to assess contaminant
levels and potential migration. Water levels would be measured and
groundwater samples would be collected from the existing site monitoring wells.
If downgradient migration of the groundwater plume were to continue, the plume
would discharge into the ocean after migrating about 3,900 feet. This alternative
involves no treatment of the groundwater; instead, it relies on dispersion and
natural attenuation over time.
Groundwater monitoring would continue for 10 years. The results of groundwater
monitoring would be evaluated every 5 years to assess the need for any
additional remedial activities. Groundwater monitoring would be conducted on a
semiannual basis, and a compliance monitoring program consisting of eight
sampling rounds would be conducted during the eighth year.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Implementation of Alternative 2 would have no significant additional
environmental or health impacts; it would reduce potential risks from soil and
groundwater exposure pathways. The residual risk for soil would be the same as
the risk level associated with background soils (i.e., background beryllium
concentrations exceed the remedial action objective ([RAO] of 10"6). Although
groundwater contaminants would not be treated under this alternative, exposure
pathways would be minimized through institutional controls.
Location- and action-specific ARARs would likely be attained during
implementation of Alternative 2. Although groundwater would not be treated,
groundwater modeling has shown that the low concentrations of organics present
at the site would disperse and naturally attenuate to concentrations less than the
proposed RGs before reaching the nearest receptors at the ocean.
2-32 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
Compliance with ARARs
Alternative 2 is expected to achieve location-specific ARARs. Actions would be
coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department
of Fish and Game, as appropriate. Work plans for site operations would specify
that migratory birds and endangered species not be harmed or injured. An on-
site archaeologist would monitor excavation activities during remediation to
comply with the National Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act.
ARARs for waste piles identified under Title 22 and Title 23, California Code of
Regulations (CCR), would be addressed through implementation of work plans.
Design and site operations would incorporate requirements, in accordance with
the action-specific ARARs. Stockpiled contaminated soil would be placed on
liners, and run-on and runoff would be controlled. Fugitive dust would be
monitored and controlled through the use of suppressants.
TCE and PCE concentrations at the site exceed groundwater protection
standards. Current conditions do not meet Federal action-specific groundwater
ARARs because contaminant concentrations exceed MCLs, albeit only slightly.
Despite uncertainties concerning the hydrogeologic regime and contaminant
source, natural attenuation should reduce concentrations to below MCLs in less
than 10 years. Under this alternative and in accordance with NCR requirements
(EPA, 1990, pp. 8732-8734), groundwater contaminant concentrations would be
monitored for 10 years and use restrictions would be implemented so that the
groundwater is not used for drinking water.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
The long-term effectiveness of this alternative for soil would be significantly
enhanced through the permanent removal of contaminated soil from the site,
resulting in the adequate and reliable reduction of potential human health risks at
the site. Institutional controls for groundwater would provide some reliability by
reducing risks but would not eliminate risks or achieve significant long-term
effectiveness.
The risk calculated for the hypothetical future land use residential scenario
results in an ILCR of 2x10-5. The ILCR resulting from background concentrations
of beryllium remaining in the soil after completion of this remedial alternative
2-33 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
would be reduced by 4x10~6. This alternative would also reduce the health
impact. The HI for the background beryllium soil concentration of 0.69 mg/kg is
less than 0.1. The remaining concentrations of TPH-diesel in the soil would
present no associated health impacts.
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Alternative 2 does not entail on-site treatment of contaminated soil or
groundwater. Soil contaminant mobility would be reduced by off-base chemical
fixation and solidification of soil from Zone I and hot spots prior to disposal at a
Class I landfill. This soil accounts for about 39 cubic yards, which is not
significant compared with the total volume to be excavated under this alternative.
Although the off-base treatment would significantly immobilize the contaminants
in the soil, it would also increase the volume of the contaminated soil by 25 to 40
percent due to the addition of chemical reagents. Fixation and solidification are
not irreversible; however, depending on the type of soil stabilization used, the
contaminants could remain in stasis for thousands of years. Disposal of soil at a
Class I landfill would not reduce either toxicity or volume.
The remaining 21,000 cubic yards of soil, designated as Zone II, are of concern
because the TPH-diesel concentrations exceed the proposed RG of 100 mg/kg.
Zone II soil would be transported and disposed of at an appropriately permitted
landfill. Landfill disposal of soil does not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume and
is primarily a containment remedy. However, the contamination in Zone II is
biodegradable, and the type and quantity of the remaining residuals would
depend on the natural attenuation rate in the landfill.
Institutional controls for groundwater would not reduce toxicity, mobility, or
volume of the contaminants. The contaminants at Site 9 would remain in the
groundwater and move in the general direction of groundwater flow before
discharging to the ocean. However, natural attenuation is expected to reduce
PCE and TCE concentrations in on-site wells, and modeling indicates that
contaminant concentrations would be below MCLs, and possibly nondetect,
before the water reaches the ocean.
2-34 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
The total cost of Alternative 2, Option 1, is approximately $4.1 million. Cost
assumptions and details are presented in Appendix E of the draft final FS report
(SWDIV, 1994a).
2.7.3.2 Alternative 2, Option 2
Option 2 differs from Option 1 in that the volume of TPH-contaminated soil to be
excavated and transported off base for disposal is limited to the area where TPH-
diesel concentrations exceed 1,000 mg/kg. The criteria assessment for
groundwater and soil in Zone I and hot spots is identical to Option 1 (Section
2.7.3.1), as are the ARARs; long-term effectiveness; and reduction of
contaminant toxicity, mobility, or volume. Option 2 differs from Option 1 in short-
term effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
Option 2 would involve handling a smaller volume of contaminated soil than in
Option 1, resulting in short-term benefits. A smaller area of the site would be
disturbed, and potential environmental impacts would be reduced in the short-
term. Fewer trucks would be needed to transport the soil off site, with a
concomitant lower potential for accidents. The time required to achieve site
protection would be approximately 20 working days. The total cost of Alternative
2, Option 2, is approximately $1.5 million.
2.7.4 Alternative 3: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base Landfill for Zone I and
Hot Spots. Biological Land Treatment for Zone II: Groundwater -
Extraction. Ultraviolet/Chemical Oxidation, and Reiniection
2.7.4.1 Alternative 3, Option 1
Alternative 3 involves off-base disposal of contaminated soils from Zone I and the
hot spots and on-site biological land treatment of contaminated soil from Zone II.
Soils from Zone 1 and the hot spots (approximately 39 cubic yards) would be
excavated, screened, segregated, and then transported by truck to a Class I
landfill for disposal and stabilization, as required. The contaminated soil in Zone
II (approximately 21,000 cubic yards of soil with TPH-diesel concentrations
exceeding 100 mg/kg) would be transported to a biological land treatment facility
2-35 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
that would be constructed on site, as described in Section 4.1.1.5 of the draft final
FS report (SWDIV, 1994a). The biological land treatment would achieve the
remediation criteria of 100 mg/kg for TPH-diesel contamination.
Groundwater within the Site 9 channel deposits would be extracted and treated
using an on-site pump-and-treat system and an ultraviolet (UV)/chemical
oxidation system to destroy TCE and PCE and, thus, meet the proposed RGs.
The treated groundwater would then be reinjected into the water-table aquifer on
the upgradient edge of the plume to increase the hydraulic head and, in turn,
increase the removal rate of the plume from the aquifer. The assumed locations
of the extraction and reinjection wells and the schematics of the soil excavation
operation are shown in Figure 2-9. Figure 2-10 presents a process flow diagram
for the groundwater treatment system.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The removal and treatment of groundwater and soil would reduce risks from soil
and groundwater exposure pathways. Alternative 3 would likely attain ARARs;
however, residual risk from background beryllium concentrations would still
exceed the RAO of 10'6.
Compliance with ARARs
Chemical-specific ARARs for groundwater would likely be achieved within
7 years as a result of implementing Alternative 3. Reduction of TCE and PCE
concentrations in the groundwater would likely meet proposed RGs. These
levels would be achieved at the point-of-compliance.
Location-specific ARARs would be attained through coordination with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service at the California Department of Fish and Game. Work
plans for site operations would specify that migratory birds and endangered
species not be disturbed, harmed, or injured during operations. Compliance with
the National Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act would be attained by
monitoring excavation activities.
Implementation of Alternative 3 would likely meet RCRA action-specific ARARs.
Requirements for closure, container storage, and excavation would be
incorporated into design specifications and site operations for Alternative 3. Land
2-36 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
treatment unit and stockpile design, construction, operation, and closure
requirements would also be attained. The treatment process would adhere to
requirements for underground injection of treated groundwater. Monitoring would
be a component of this alternative. Implementation would adhere to provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Low concentrations of volatiles would be emitted to the
atmosphere and would be monitored during the equipment start-up phase to
check that they are below harmful levels. If necessary, these off-gases could be
treated with vapor-phase carbon.
Groundwater treatment is expected to meet State action-specific ARARs. State
Title 23 requirements for land treatment units and stockpiles, including siting,
design, construction, operation, closure, and monitoring, would be incorporated
into the design and site operations.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
As with Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would include excavation of approximately
21,000 cubic yards of soil, including Zone I soil, and would reduce the beryllium
levels in soil to the existing background concentration of 0.69 mg/kg. Therefore,
the residual risk associated with the soil would be the same as for Alternative 2.
The resulting noncancer health risk would be an HI of less than 0.1.
Groundwater treatment is expected to reduce concentrations to below MCLs
within a 7-year treatment period.
Reduction of Mobility. Toxicity. or Volume Through Treatment
Alternative 3 would satisfy the statutory preference for using treatment as a
principal element to provide significant reductions in contaminant toxicity,
mobility, or volume. Biological treatment of Zone II would reduce the TPH-diesel
concentrations to 100 mg/kg by converting the hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide
and water. Chemical fixation and stabilization of soil from Zone I and hot spots
would reduce contaminant mobility prior to landfilling. Although contaminant
immobilization would be attained, the addition of chemical reagents would
increase soil volume by 25 to 40 percent. Landfill disposal would not reduce
toxicity or volume.
Extraction and treatment of groundwater containing PCE and TCE would
substantially reduce the toxicity and volume of these contaminants. Extraction
2-37 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
and reinjection of the groundwater through pumping would reduce the mobility of
the contaminants. UV/chemical oxidation would effectively destroy PCE and
TCE, transforming them into simpler, less toxic compounds. This treatment
technology is considered irreversible.
Cost
The total cost of Alternative 3, Option 1, is approximately $2.4 million. Cost
assumptions and details are presented in Appendix E of the draft final FS report
(SWDIV, 1994a). The time required for completion of soil remediation activities
would be approximately 28 weeks. Under this alternative, UV/chemical oxidation
treatment of groundwater would continue for 7 years and monitoring would
continue for 10 years.
2.7.4.2 Alternative 3, Option 2
Option 2 differs from Option 1 in the extent, volume, and TPH-diesel
concentrations of the soil that would be excavated and treated. The remedial
technologies employed to address the groundwater contamination and the soil
contamination in Zone I and hot spots are identical for both options.
Option 2 would involve handling a smaller volume of contaminated soil than in
Option 1. A smaller area of the site would be disturbed, and potential
environmental impacts would be reduced in the short-term. The total cost of
Alternative 3, Option 2, is approximately $1.4 million. The time required to
achieve site protection would be approximately 2 months for soil.
2.7.5 Alternative 4: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base Landfill for Zone I. In
Situ Bioremediation/Bioventinq for Zone II: Groundwater -
Extraction. Carbon Adsorption, and Reiniection
2.7.5.1 Alternative 4, Option 1
Alternative 4 differs from Alternative 3 in that the TCE and PCE in the extracted
groundwater would be removed by adsorption onto a liquid-phase activated
carbon bed instead of being destroyed in a UV/chemical oxidation system. Soil
remediation would include excavation, screening, and transportation of Zone I
2-38 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
soil (containing beryllium) to a Class I landfill for disposal. The TPH-diesel
contamination in Zone II would be remediated using in situ
bioremediation/bioventing. The hot spots would not be excavated because they
do not contain concentrations of contaminants exceeding the proposed RGs and,
therefore, do not require remediation.
Because the depth of the soil contamination varies from 2 feet at the south end of
the waste stabilization pond to 9 feet at the north end of the pond, a combination
of in situ biological treatments would be used for the TPH-diesel contamination in
Zone II. In the south end of Zone II, between borings 9B11 and 9B16, the top 2
to 3 feet of surface soil would be bioremediated by regular tilling, supplemented
by irrigation, pH adjustment, and nutrient addition, as appropriate. Given the low
concentrations of TPH-diesel in this area, remediation could be complete within a
few months.
Bioventing would be used to remediate TPH-diesel contamination in the rest of
Zone II. Depending on site conditions, bioventing could be performed using
either wells or trenches for air injection or extraction. One configuration for
placement of air injection trenches at Site 9 is shown in Figure 2-11.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Implementation of Alternative 4, Option 1, would reduce risk due to soil and
groundwater exposure pathways and provide for the overall protection of human
health and the environment. Alternative 4 should attain ARARs and pose no
significant additional impact to the environment or human health.
Compliance with ARARs
As with Alternative 3, chemical-specific ARARs for groundwater should be
achieved within 7 years. The discussion of location-specific ARARs for
Alternative 3 is equally applicable to Alternative 4 (Section 2.7.4.1).
Action-specific ARARs for Alternative 4 include groundwater treatment design
and operation. These requirements would be incorporated into the design and
site operations for this alternative. Requirements pertaining to underground
injection of treated groundwater and air emissions are the same as those
2-39 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
discussed for Alternative 3 (Section 2.7 A A) and would also be attained for
Alternative 4.
Cost
The total cost of Alternative 4, Option 1, is approximately $1.3 million. Cost
assumptions and details are presented in Appendix E of the draft final FS report
(SWDIV, 1994a).
2.7.5.2 Alternative 4, Option 2
Option 2 differs from Option 1 in that the volume of soil requiring treatment is
limited to approximately 6,480 cubic yards of soil containing TPH-diesel
concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/kg. The bioventing system would be
designed to treat a smaller area than for Option 1. In addition, only the shallow
areas of contamination around borings 9B16 and 9B11 would be remediated by
in situ bioremediation because the shallow depth of contamination (1 to 3 feet)
makes implementation of bioventing difficult.
The long-term effectiveness and overall protection would be about the same for
both options because the area of high TPH-diesel contamination that presents
the greatest potential for leaching into the groundwater would be equally
remediated in both options. Because the area of the site that would be disturbed
during implementation of Option 2 is smaller, potential environmental impacts
would be reduced in the short-term. The total cost of Alternative 4, Option 2, is
approximately $1.1 million.
2.7.6 Alternative 5: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base Landfill for Zone I. In
Situ Bioremediation/Bioventinq for Zone II: Groundwater -
Institutional Controls
2.7.6.1 Alternative 5, Option 1
The soil remediation component of Alternative 5 is identical to that of
Alternative 4 (Section 2.7.5.1), and the groundwater component is identical to
that of Alternative 2 (Section 2.7.3.1). A schematic of the soil remediation is
presented in Figure 2-12.
2-40 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
This alternative is intended to manage risks associated with soil and groundwater
contamination by limiting access to the groundwater for beneficial use and by
remediating Zone II soil via in situ treatment.
The total cost of Alternative 5, Option 1, is approximately $680,000. Cost
assumptions and details are presented in Appendix E of the draft final FS report
(SWDIV, 1994a). This alternative would require about 2 years or more for soil
remediation, and groundwater monitoring would continue for 10 years.
2.7.6.2 Alternative 5, Option 2
The soil remediation component for Option 2 of this alternative is identical to that
for Option 2 of Alternative 4, as described in Section 2.7.5.2. The groundwater
component is the same as for Option 1 of Alternative 5 (Section 2.7.6.1).
The total cost of Alternative 5, Option 2, is approximately $523,000. The duration
for completion of soil remediation is estimated at just over 1 year.
2.7.7 Alternative 6: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base Landfill for Zone I and
Hot Spots. Biological Land Treatment for Zone II: Groundwater -
Institutional Controls
2.7.7.1 Alternative 6, Option 1
The soil remediation component of Alternative 6 is identical to that of
Alternatives (Section 2.7.4.1), and the groundwater component is identical to
that of Alternative 2 (Section 2.7.3.1). A schematic of the soil excavation
operation is shown in Figure 2-13.
The total cost of Alternative 6, Option 1, is approximately $1.8 million. Cost
assumptions and details are presented in Appendix E of the draft final FS report
(SWDIV, 1994a). Under Alternative 6, Option 1, soil remediation would require
about 2 years or longer and groundwater monitoring would continue for 10 years.
2-41 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
2.7.7.2 Alternative 6, Option 2
The soil component of this alternative is identical to that described for Alternative
3, Option 2 (Section 2.7.4.2). The groundwater institutional controls are identical
to those described for Alternative 2 (Section 2.7.3.1). The total cost of Alternative
6, Option 2, is approximately $816,000.
2.7.8 Alternative 7: Soil - No Action: Groundwater - Institutional Controls
Alternative 7 consists of no action for soil and institutional controls for
groundwater. The soil component of the alternative involves no institutional
controls, containment, removal, or treatment. The groundwater component
involves risk management through an amendment of the base Masterplan to
restrict future access to the groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the site and
monitoring of contaminant concentrations and migration. Monitoring would
consist of semiannual groundwater sampling for 10 years, with compliance
monitoring consisting of eight sampling events during the eighth year. An
alternative evaluation would be conducted once every 5 years to assess the
effectiveness and document the progress of the alternative. Samples would be /
analyzed for TPH by modified EPA Method 8015 and for volatile organics by EPA
Method 8240, using CLP protocol.
The no action soil alternative would include no treatment and no control of
exposure pathways. Long-term risks would be the same as those calculated in
the baseline risk assessment; that is, within the acceptable risk range. However,
the target risk criterion of 10~6 and the HI of 1.0 would be exceeded for the soil
exposure pathway for the adult and child in a residential land use exposure
scenario. The sole contributor to surface soil risk is beryllium. Beryllium
exceeded background in only one sample. The average concentration of
beryllium in Site 9 soil presents risks within the background range. As previously
discussed, the base Masterplan currently specifies that the Site 9 area is to be
used for training, and no plans have been announced to use the area for any
other purpose in the future.
Additional sampling and analysis using the waste extract test (WET) and
synthetic precipitation leaching procedure (SPLP) analyses indicated that the
2-42 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
metals and TPH in the soils at the site are not likely to leach into groundwater.
Analytical results were nondetect for all samples collected. Based on the results
of these tests, TPH was excluded as a contaminant requiring action at Site 9.
Groundwater modeling indicates that the currently low concentrations of organics
would be reduced to levels below the MCLs, and possibly to nondetect levels, by
dispersion and natural attenuation before reaching the nearest receptors at the
ocean. In spite of the uncertainties associated with using an uncalibrated model,
computer modeling has shown that natural attenuation can be expected to
reduce contaminant concentrations in site groundwater to below MCLs (Appendix
B, Table B-1) within a 10-year period.
Location-specific ARARs applicable to other alternatives at Site 9 are not
pertinent to Alternative 7, no action for soil.
TCE and PCE concentrations in site groundwater exceed groundwater protection
standards. Under current conditions, action-specific groundwater criteria are not
attained (Table B-4). However, contaminant concentrations exceed these criteria
only slightly in two wells, and the concentrations likely would be reduced to levels
below the MCLs through natural attenuation in less than 10 years.
Concentrations would be monitored under this alternative and land use
restrictions would be implemented.
The total cost of Alternative 7 is approximately $338,595. Cost assumptions and
details are presented in Appendix E of the draft final FS report (SWDIV, 1994a).
2.8 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
This section presents a comparative analysis of the evaluation of remedial action
alternatives. The relative advantages and disadvantages are discussed with respect to
the nine evaluation criteria required by the NCP and CERCLA Section 121. The
comparative evaluation for Site 9 - Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond, is presented in
the following sections and is summarized in Table 2-22. As previously discussed, Site 9
is the only site in OU1.
2-43 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
2.8.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Each of the alternatives would provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment with the exception of Alternative 1 - No Action.
Alternative 2 would achieve protection by preventing exposure to soil via removal
and disposal in an approved landfill. Potential groundwater exposure risks would
be reduced through access restrictions and natural attenuation. Alternatives 3
and 4 would reduce risks from soil and groundwater through treatment.
Alternatives 5 and 6 combine treatment of the soil with access restrictions and
natural attenuation of the groundwater.
For Alternative 7, the calculated risk using the hypothetical residential scenario
and RME concentrations is within the generally acceptable risk range of 10"4 to
10'6. The target risk criterion of 10~6 would be exceeded for the soil exposure
pathway for the adult/child receptor in the residential land use exposure scenario.
However, land use for Site 9 is restricted to training purposes and future use of
Site 9 is not likely to be residential. Beryllium is the sole contributor to risk in
surface soil and exceeds background levels in only one sample. Using average
concentrations, the calculated risk is within the background range. Leachability
testing of the soil indicates that the metals and petroleum hydrocarbon
constituents would not leach to groundwater. Combining these factors,
Alternative 7 would provide for adequate overall protection of human health and
the environment.
2.8.2 Compliance with ARARs
Alternatives 3 and 4 would meet ARARs. Alternatives 2, 5, 6, and 7 would meet
location- and action-specific ARARs; chemical-specific ARARs would be attained
over time through groundwater attenuation. Alternative 1 would not meet
ARARs. The ARARs for the selected remedy, Alternative 7, are listed in
Appendix B. ARARs for all remedial alternatives are presented in the draft final
FS report (SWDIV, 1994a).
2-44 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
2.8.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 3 and 4 would afford the highest degrees of long-term effectiveness
and permanence because they involve treatment to reduce hazards posed by
both soil and groundwater at Site 9. Alternatives 3 and 4 differ only in the
technology used to treat the chlorinated hydrocarbons in groundwater. Transport
of spent carbon off site would pose potential transportation risks for Alternative 4.
Both UV/chemical oxidation (Alternative 3) and carbon adsorption (Alternative 4)
can reduce TCE and PCE concentrations in groundwater to levels below
proposed RGs. Alternatives 3 and 4 would require maintenance of the
groundwater pump-and-treat system in addition to continued groundwater
monitoring. Soil treatment, as part of both of these alternatives, would reduce
contaminant concentrations to below proposed RGs.
Alternatives 5 and 6 employ the same soil technologies as Alternatives 3 and 4
but provide no active groundwater treatment. Bioventing in Alternatives 5 and 6
may potentially remove some contamination from groundwater through the
subsurface movement of air, which in turn could enhance volatilization of
contaminants. However, this impact is expected to be minimal because the
effective bioventing zone would be a considerable distance from the groundwater
plume. No incremental human health risks are attributable to groundwater
contaminants; therefore, these four alternatives are comparable with respect to
long-term effectiveness and permanence for the groundwater component.
Alternatives 2 and 7 are similar in that less than 1 percent of the soil is treated in
Alternative 2 and none of the soil is treated in Alternative 7. Both alternatives rely
on use restrictions to minimize exposures associated with the groundwater
pathway. As with Alternatives 5 and 6, institutional controls would minimize
potential risk from groundwater by removing the receptor even though no
incremental human health risks are attributable to groundwater contaminants.
With the exception of the no action alternative, all of the alternatives involve long-
term groundwater monitoring and maintenance requirements. Monitoring is
assumed to continue for 10 years or until groundwater concentrations no longer
exceed the proposed RGs. Reviews would be required every 5 years to verify
whether goals have been met or further action is required.
2-45 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
2.8.4 Reduction of Mobility. Toxicity. or Volume Through Treatment
Alternatives 3,4, 5, and 6 use treatment to address the principal threats posed by
soil and, thus, would satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element. For all four alternatives, TPH-diesel concentrations in soil from Zone II
would be reduced, through biological treatment, to less than 100 mg/kg for Option
1 and less than 1,000 mg/kg for Option 2. For Alternatives 3 and 6, the mobility
of contaminants in Zone I and the hot spots would be reduced through chemical
fixation and stabilization. For Alternatives 4 and 5, the mobility of contaminants
in Zone I soil would be reduced through chemical fixation and stabilization. The
soil volume would be increased by approximately 25 to 40 percent.
Alternative 2 (Option 1 and Option 2) does not provide for on-site treatment of
contaminated soil or groundwater. About 40 cubic yards of the soil excavated
under this alternative is expected to require chemical fixation off base prior to
disposal in a Class I landfill. Chemical fixation would reduce contaminant
mobility but would also increase the volume of the soil. The remaining 21,000
cubic yards of soil would not be treated.
Although no treatment is proposed for the soil component in Alternative 7, the
volume of soil is significantly smaller than for Alternatives 1 through 6
(approximately 9 cubic yards compared with 21,000 cubic yards). This difference
is due to the change in the proposed RG evaluated for Alternative 7 compared
with the other alternatives. Leachability testing results indicated that
concentrations of diesel in the soil are not likely to leach. As a result, only soils
with metals contamination that might pose a potential human health risk are
addressed by Alternative 7, thus eliminating the large volume of soils containing
only petroleum hydrocarbons.
In Alternatives 3 and 4, toxicity of contaminants in groundwater would be reduced
through treatment. Alternative 3 uses UV/chemical oxidation and Alternative 4
uses carbon adsorption to treat PCE and TCE. Carbon adsorption can effectively
remove PCE and TCE to levels below the proposed RGs.
No treatment of the groundwater is provided under Alternatives 2, 5, 6, and 7.
2-46 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
2.8.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
This criterion is not applicable to Alternatives 1 and 7 because these alternatives
involve no actions that would disturb the site. The short-term effectiveness of
Alternatives 4 and 5 is expected to be the greatest. Alternatives 4 and 5 would
pose the least potential risk to workers, the community, and the environment.
Because these alternatives incorporate in situ soil treatment technologies, only a
small volume of soil would be excavated compared with the volume for the other
alternatives, thus significantly reducing fugitive dust emissions. Also, because a
smaller area would be disturbed under these alternatives, environmental impacts
would be minimized.
Short-term protection is expected to be achieved under Alternative 2 in
approximately 1 month through removal of soils and restrictions on groundwater
use. Soil protection would be achieved in approximately 6 months for
Alternatives 3 and 6 and in approximately 2 years for Alternatives 4 and 5.
Groundwater protection would be achieved in approximately 7 years for
Alternatives 3 and 4.
2.8.6 Implementability
This criterion is not applicable to Alternative 1. Because Alternative 7 includes
only institutional controls for groundwater and no action for the soil, it is
considered the easiest alternative to implement.
Alternative 2 ranks second under this criterion. Technologies included in this
alternative include groundwater monitoring and excavation and disposal of soil in
Zone I, Zone II, and hot spots. These are well-known technologies. If the
planned operations require expansion, adequate area is available in the vicinity
of Site 9 and would require minimal site preparation. Groundwater monitoring will
track the effectiveness of the soil removal and any attenuation of contaminant
concentrations in groundwater.
Alternatives 4 and 5 employ the same soil treatment technologies: excavation
and off-base disposal of Zone I soils (as with Alternative 2) and bioventing of the
Zone II soils. Because of the added treatment technologies, Alternatives 4 and 5
2-47 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
are slightly more complex and entail more operational requirements than
Alternative 2. Off-base disposal for Zone I soils would be easily implemented.
Although bioventing is fairly innovative, the process has been instituted at several
sites and should be implementable at Site 9. Bioventing technology treatment
levels are limited. These limitations would be evaluated by conducting a
treatability study prior to implementation. If more stringent levels are required for
Alternatives 4 and 5, the treatment process could easily be continued until the
required levels are attained (provided that the levels are not beyond the capability
of the technology). Adequate monitoring and proper maintenance would be
required for the operation of the in situ bioremediation/bioventing systems.
Alternatives 3 and 6 are similar in complexity to Alternatives 4 and 5 with respect
to soil treatment but include biological land treatment and require more
excavation and the construction of an on-site landfarming facility. Monthly
monitoring would be required to evaluate the progress of the system. This
remedial technology is proven and reliable for treatment of TPH-diesel-
contaminated soil.
Alternatives 3 and 4 also include treatment processes for the groundwater and,
thus, entail more complex operations than those for Alternatives 2, 5, and 6.
Alternatives 3 and 4 both include treatment for organics in the groundwater. The
systems can be sized to handle larger volumes of water if necessary. Carbon
adsorption is more established than UV/chemical oxidation, and UV/chemical
oxidation requires greater maintenance. However, both technologies are readily
obtainable as skid-mounted units. The effectiveness of these technologies would
be evaluated by monitoring effluent streams and the groundwater. Additional
hydrogeologic studies and treatability studies would be needed to help ensure
the success of these alternatives.
2.8.7 Cost
With the exception of Alternative 1, Alternative 7 has the lowest capital,
operations and maintenance (O&M), and present-worth costs, at $338,595.
Alternative 5 has the second lowest cost, with total costs of $680,000 for Option 1
and $523,000 for Option 2. Alternative 4 has the third lowest cost, with total
costs of $1.3 million for Option 1 and $1.1 million for Option 2. Alternative 5 does
2-48 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
not include groundwater treatment, thus resulting in lower O&M and groundwater
present-worth costs than for Alternative 4. Alternative 6 has total costs of $1.8
million for Option 1 and $816,000 for Option 2. Alternative 3 has total costs of
$2.4 million for Option 1 and $1.4 million for Option 2. The slightly higher cost for
Alternative 3 is attributed to the treatment of PCE and TCE in groundwater.
Alternative 2 has the highest capital and overall costs because it involves off-
base landfill disposal, with total costs of $4.1 million for Option 1 and $1.5 million
for Option 2.
2.8.8 State Acceptance
The State of California has reviewed and approved the OU1 FS and proposed
plan and concurs with the preferred and selected option (Alternative 7) for Site 9.
2.8.9 Community Acceptance
No comments were received from the public during the public comment period for
the OU1 proposed plan. In addition, a public meeting was held on
4 January 1995 for the purpose of presenting the preferred alternative to the
public; no parties outside the project team attended the meeting. Therefore, it is
assumed that base residents and members of the surrounding communities have
no objection to the preferred alternative (Alternative 7) specified in the proposed
plan.
2.9 Selected Remedy
The selected remedy for Sites 4, 4A, and 24 is no action. The selected remedy for
OU1 - Site 9, Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond, is Alternative 7: Soil - No Action;
Groundwater - Institutional Controls. The specific components of this alternative are
presented in Section 2.7.8 and are further described in this section.
2.9.1 Major Components of the Selected Remedy
The major components of the selected remedy are described in this section.
2-49 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
2.9.1.1 Site 9 Soil
No action is the selected remedy for soil at Site 9. Soils at the site will be left in
place as they presently exist. No containment, excavation, removal, or treatment
will be performed. Institutional controls will be used in the unlikely event that Site
9 is used for residential purposes in the future.
2.9.1.2 Site 9 Groundwater
The groundwater component of the selected remedy involves risk management
through an amendment to the base Masterplan restricting future access to
groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the site and initiating monitoring of
contaminant concentrations and migration. Monitoring will consist of semiannual
groundwater sampling and analysis of 12 wells for 10 years, with compliance
monitoring consisting of eight sampling events to be conducted during the eighth
year, as required by 23 CCR 2250.10(g)(2). An alternative evaluation will be
performed once every 5 years to assess the effectiveness and document the
progress of the alternative, as required by CERCLA Section 121. Groundwater
samples will be analyzed for TPH by modified EPA Method 8015 and for volatile
organics by EPA Method 8240, using EPA CLP protocol. Results of the
semiannual groundwater monitoring will be provided to the appropriate regulatory
agencies by the Navy.
2.9.2 Estimated Cost of the Selected Remedy
Estimated capital costs for Alternative 7 are limited to $2,200, representing a
dedicated groundwater sampling pump and miscellaneous support equipment.
Net annual O&M costs are $32,970 per year, including analytical costs,
maintenance, labor, and disposal of purged water. The eighth year compliance
monitoring costs, estimated at $131,680, also include analytical costs, labor, and
disposal. The 5-year alternative reevaluation costs are estimated at $5,200.
Assuming an annual inflation rate of 5 percent and applying a discount rate of 10
percent, a cumulative total cost of $338,595 is estimated after 10 years of
monitoring. A detailed cost analysis is provided in Table 2-23.
There are no costs associated with the no action remedy for Sites 4,4A, and 24.
2-50 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
2.9.3 Basis for Remedy Selection
The no action remedy was selected for Sites 4, 4A, and 24 because these sites
are currently in a protective state and pose no threat to human health or the
environment.
The basis for the remedy selected for soil and groundwater at OU1 - Site 9 is
described in the following sections.
2.9.3.1 Site 9 Soil
Using the future residential land use scenario, the human health risk due to
beryllium in the soil results in an ILCR of 2x10"5, which is within the acceptable
range of 1x1 Or6 to 1x1Q-4 as determined by the EPA. The future residential land
use scenario represents the most conservative approach for a health risk
assessment.
The probability that Site 9 will ever be used for anything other than training is
extremely low. The base Masterplan restricts the use of this area of the base to
training. In addition, beryllium exceeded area background concentrations in only
one sample collected from a single boring at a depth of 1 foot at this site. This
sample contained a beryllium concentration at 1.9 ppm. In the unlikely event that
the impoundment is used for residential purposes at some time in the future,
considerable grading and import of clean fill would be required. Site preparation
would, in all probability, reduce the likelihood of dermal contact or ingestion of
soil containing elevated levels of beryllium because beryllium-containing soil
would be at depths estimated to be between 5 and 6 feet after site grading.
The primary concern for the TPH-diesel concentrations in soil at Site 9 is that
these hydrocarbons, as well as beryllium in the soil, could leach to and degrade
the quality of the groundwater. In addition, cadmium and lead were detected in
the soil at concentrations below risk-based levels but greater than 10 times the
STLC. To assess the leaching potential of these chemicals, soil samples were
collected from the locations and depths containing maximum concentrations of
beryllium and TPH-diesel and were submitted to the laboratory for analysis using
the SPLP analysis (EPA Method 1312) for volatile organics and the WET
2-51 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
procedure for beryllium, cadmium, and lead. The test results showed that these
compounds were not detected in the extract solution. Based on the results of
these teachability tests, TPH-diesel, beryllium, cadmium, and lead are not
expected to leach to or degrade the groundwater.
2.9.3.2 Site 9 Groundwater
As previously discussed, concentrations of PCE and TCE do not pose a
significant risk to human health based on either the maximum or average
concentrations and the current military use scenario. Although these compounds
do not pose a significant health risk, both have been detected in individual
samples at concentrations exceeding State and Federal MCLs. Several available
treatment alternatives can effectively remove these constituents from
groundwater. The difficulty lies not in successfully treating the groundwater but in
pumping sufficient quantities of groundwater from the aquifer. The Rl indicated
that much of Site 9 is underlain by highly impermeable marine terrace deposits.
Wells installed in these deposits could not be tested using conventional pumping
techniques because they yielded extremely small quantities of groundwater. The
implementability of any groundwater treatment alternatives involving groundwater
extraction would necessarily be hampered by the low permeability of the marine
terrace deposits and, consequently, the low yield of wells completed in these
deposits. In addition, given the results of the Rl, wells completed in these
deposits would not likely be suitable as a source of municipal or domestic water
supply. Wells completed in the marine terrace deposits do not produce sufficient
water to support any form of residential structure.
Computer modeling suggests that the low concentrations of contaminants in
Site 9 groundwater will not reach the ocean. The computer model used was not
extensively calibrated to the hydrogeologic conditions at Site 9. As such, the
results of the computer modeling performed for this site should not be considered
definitive, but rather a best estimate based on available information. The
computer modeling results suggest that an impact on marine receptors is highly
unlikely. No users of groundwater are present downgradient from Site 9,
between the site and the ocean, and the groundwater flow path is through the
nonbeneficial zone, approximately 0.25 mile west of Site 9 (parallel to
Interstate 5). Although PCE and TCE concentrations detected in groundwater
2-52 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
beneath the waste stabilization pond exceed MCLs, the groundwater fate and
transport model indicates that contaminant concentrations will be reduced to
below MCLs by dispersion and natural attenuation within 10 years. As indicated
in the preamble to the NCP, the use of natural attenuation as a remediation
technique is consistent with the EPA's groundwater protection policy for
situations in which active restoration is not practical or warranted due to site
conditions and groundwater is not likely to be used in the foreseeable future
(EPA, 1990). Alternative 7 specifies that groundwater will be sampled and
analyzed semiannually for 10 years to monitor dispersion and natural attenuation
and whether that contaminant levels are decreasing, as expected, or increasing
as a result of some unknown source.
The base Masterplan will be amended to restrict future access to groundwater,
for any purpose, in the immediate vicinity of Site 9 during the long-term
monitoring period and until contaminants in the groundwater at the site no longer
exceed MCLs. As required by current regulations, a compliance monitoring
program consisting of eight rounds of groundwater sampling will be conducted
during the eighth year to assess the effectiveness of the dispersion and natural
attenuation of the low concentrations of PCE and TCE in the groundwater.
Compliance with ARARs will be achieved over time through natural groundwater
attenuation. If concentrations of PCE and TCE are not being reduced by
dispersion and natural attenuation within the expected time frame, the Marine
Corps will reevaluate the situation and consider other treatment alternatives.
Compliance with water-quality objectives and the need for further action will be
reevaluated periodically during the groundwater monitoring period.
2.10 Statutory Determinations
This section discusses how the selected remedy for Site 9 meets statutory requirements
of CERCLA Section 121. Under CERCLA Section 121, the selected remedy at a
Superfund site must entail remedial actions that achieve adequate protection of human
health and the environment. In addition, CERCLA Section 121 establishes several other
statutory requirements and preferences specifying that, when complete, the selected
remedial action must comply with ARARs established under Federal and State
environmental laws unless a statutory waiver is justified. The selected remedy must also
be cost-effective and must entail permanent solutions and alternative treatment
2-53 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Finally, the statute includes a preference for remedies that employ, as their principal
element, treatment technologies that permanently and significantly reduce the volume,
toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes.
2.10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The human health risk associated with Site 9 is within the NCR criteria range of
IxlO-4 to 1x10-6 and the HI is less than 1.0. The results of the ecological risk
assessment indicate no significant risk to the environment. The selected remedy
was chosen because PCE and TCE concentrations exceed MCLs in two wells.
The selected remedy will control the potential risk posed by the site by limiting
access, restricting land use, and monitoring groundwater during natural
attenuation.
2.10.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
The selected remedy will comply with all Federal and any more stringent State
ARARs. No waivers are required. The ARARs for the selected remedy for Site 9
are discussed in Appendix B, along with any changes to ARAR determinations
subsequent to the draft final FS for Site 9 (SWDIV, 1994a).
2.10.3 Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy was evaluated for cost-effectiveness in the context of the
other six alternatives identified. The only alternative less expensive is the no
action alternative, which would not comply with ARARs. Even though the
selected remedy is not an active treatment, it must include monitoring to comply
with ARARs. The selected remedy is the least expensive alternative that will
comply with ARARs and be protective of human health and the environment.
2-54 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
2.10.4 Use of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies or Resource Recovery Technologies to the
Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent
solutions and treatment technologies can be used for Site 9 in a cost-effective
manner. Active treatment of soil and groundwater is not required because the
risk associated with the site is within the NCP acceptable range of KH to 10-6,
the HI is less than 1.0, and there is no significant risk to the environment. The
practicality of implementing an active treatment for groundwater depends on the
ability to pump sufficient quantities of groundwater. It was determined during the
Rl that Site 9 is underlain by highly impermeable marine terrace deposits that
severely restrict the amount of groundwater that can be pumped from the
formation, thereby limiting the effectiveness of and increasing the period of time
associated with an active treatment system.
Computer modeling of the groundwater at Site 9 indicated that contaminant
concentrations will be reduced to levels below MCLs within 10 years by
dispersion and natural attenuation. Although the computer model was not
extensively calibrated to site conditions, it represents the best estimate based on
available site conditions. The combination of the low levels of contaminanta
present in the groundwater and the site conditions makes an active treatment
system less desirable than dispersion and natural attenuation, which can achieve
the same objectives in the same amount of time and at considerably lower cost.
Table 2-24 presents a comparison of the costs and time estimates for completion
for the different groundwater treatment alternatives identified. As indicated in the
preamble to the NCP (EPA, 1990, p. 8734), the use of natural attenuation as a
remediation technique is consistent with the EPA's groundwater protection policy
for situations in which active restoration is not practical or warranted due to site
conditions and groundwater is not likely to be used in the foreseeable future.
2.10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The requirement that treatment be a principal element of the remedy is not
satisfied for the selected remedy for Site 9. Active remediation is not required
given the results of the risk assessment. The selected remedy was chosen
because the PCE and TCE concentrations in groundwater exceed MCLs. The
2-55 166rod.df1
-------
Revision: 1
treatment alternatives identified require pumping of sufficient quantities of
groundwater, which was determined to be impractical because of the
impermeable marine terrace deposits underlying the site. Natural attenuation is
consistent with the EPA's groundwater protection policy for situations in which
active restoration is not practical and groundwater is not likely to be used in the
foreseeable future.
2-56 166rod.df1
-------
TABLE 2-1
MCB CAMP PENDLETON RI/FS GROUPS
Group A - Sites with Limited Previous Investigation
Site 3 - Pest Control Wash Rack
Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Drainage Ditch and Concrete-Lined Surface
Impoundment
Site 5 - Firefighter Drill Field
Site 6 - DPDO (DRMO) Scrap Yard and Building 2241
Site 9-41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility
Group B - Landfills and Surface Impoundments
Sjte 7 - Box Canyon Landfill
Sites 8 and 8A - Las Pulgas Landfill and Las Flores Creek
Site 14 - San Onofre Landfill
Site 19-31 Area ACU-5 (LCAC) Surface Impoundments
Site 20 - 43 Area Las Pulgas Vehicle Wash Rack
Site 22 - 23 Area Unlined Surface Impoundment
Group C - Remaining Sites in the Santa Margarita Basin (SMB)
Site 1 - Refuse Burning Grounds in SMB (2 locations)
Site 2 - Grease Disposal Pits in SMB (2 locations)
Site 10-26 Area Sewage Sludge Composting Yard
Site 16-22 Area Buildings 22151 and 22187 Ditch Confluence and Ditch
Site 17-22 Area Building 22187 Marsh and Ditch
Site 27 - 22 Area Ditches Behind Building 22210
Site 28 - 26 Area Trash Hauler's Maintenance Area
Site 29 - 25 Area Skeet Range
Site 30 - Firing Range Soil Fill in 31 Area
Site 31 - Building 210801 Transformer (no sampling)
Site 35 - Former Sewage Treatment Plant Facility in 25 Area
Site 43 - SMB Groundwater Study
Site 44 - SMB Surface Water and Sediment Study
Site 45 - Santa Margarita Coastal Wetland Study
Group D - Remaining Sites outside the Santa Margarita Basin (SMB)
Site 1 - Refuse Burning Grounds outside SMB (7 locations)
Site 2 - Grease Disposal Pits outside SMB (4 locations)
Site 18-13/16 Area Building 1687 Spill and Ditch
Site 32 - Drum Storage Area and Drainage Between Buildings 41303 and
41366
Site 33 - 52 Area Armory (Building 520452) and Drainage to Southeast
Site 34 - Combat Engineers Maintenance Facility, Buildings 62580-62583
Site 36 - Debris Pile Area Behind Ponds at Sewage Treatment Plant 11
Site 37 - Pesticide- and POL-Handling Areas at San Clemente Ranch
Site 38 - 52 Area Sewer Line, Building 52188
Site 39 - 41 Area Sewer Line, Buildings 41300 and 41346
Site 40 -13 Area Sewer Line, Building 13103
Site 41 -13 Area Sewer Line, Building 13128
Site 42 -13 Area Sewer Line, Building 13129
Groundwater Study outside SMB
Surface Water ana Sediment Study outside SMB
Coastal Wetland Study outside SMB.
ACL) - Assault craft unit.
DPDO - Defense Property Disposal Office.
DRMO - Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office.
LCAC - Landing craft air cushion.
MCAS - Marine Corps Air Station.
MWR - Morale, Welfare, and Recreation.
POL - Petroleum, oil, and lubricants.
SMB - Santa Margarita basin.
-------
TABLE 2-2
Range of Background Values from Validated Data
Santa Margarita Basin Alluvium
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thaliium
Vanadium
Zinc
Range of Background Values (mg/kg)
Minimum
2,950
ND<2.3
ND<0.16
8.4B
ND<0.09
ND<0.22
1,750
3.0
ND<1.7
ND<1.5
3,070
ND<0.7
865B
16
ND<0.02
ND<0.10
ND<1.7
351 B
ND<0.08
ND<0.27
ND<112
ND<0.17
5.3B
ND<13
Maximum
38,200
9.2BN
12
424
1.2
2.3
44,800
64
16
41
45,900
45
12,400
1,060
0.08
3.3"
42
8,320
0.53B
0.63B
5,590
1.5B
96
441
Background population is specific to lithology and geography. Background values are from all depths. Data
base is presented in Appendix N of the draft final Rl Report for Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993). Borings in this
data base were selected based on the absence of site contaminants. Values have been rounded off to whole
numbers for values exceeding 10, to one decimal place for values less than 10, and to two decimal places for
values less than 1.0.
"Duplicate analysis exceeds control limits.
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) qualifiers:
B - Reported value greater than or equal to the instrument detection limit (IDL) but less than the contract-
required detection limit (CRDL).
N - Spiked sample recovery not within control limits.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
ND - Not detected.
Rl - Remedial investigation.
SWDIV - Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
166rodw.t22
-------
TABLE 2-3
Range of Background Values from Validated Data
Marine Terrace Deposits
Analyte
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Range of Background Values (mg/kg)
Minimum
3,120
ND<1.3
ND<2.2
ND<0.10
ND<1.20
ND<139
ND<3.2
ND<1.4
ND<2.6
2,680
ND<1.0
ND<335
32
ND<0.12
ND<2.0
ND<4.5
ND<441
ND<1.6
ND<554
ND<1.3
7.8B
ND<6.0
Maximum
33,000
4.9
665
1.1B
4.7
15,400
71
41
87
37,900
27
12,300
1,550
0.11
2.2B
50
6,940
3.6
1,720
3.0B
81
114
Background population is specific to lithology and geography. Background values are from all depths. Data
base is presented in Appendix N of the draft final Rl Report for Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993). Borings in this
data base were selected based on the absence of site contaminants. Values have been rounded off to whole
numbers for values exceeding 10, to one decimal place for values less than 10, and to two decimal places for
values less than 1.0.
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) qualifiers:
B - Reported value greater than or equal to the instrument detection limit (IDL) but less than the contract-
required detection limit (CRDL).
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
ND - Not detected.
Rl - Remedial investigation.
SWDIV - Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
166rodw.t23
-------
TABLE 2-4
Site 9 - Validated Organic Concentrations in Soil
Analyte
Acetone
2-Butanone
4,4'-DDT
Diethylphthalate
Endosulfan sulfate
Ethylbenzene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Fluorene
Methylene chloride
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
di-n-Octylphthalate
Phenanthrene
Toluene
Total xylenes
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
Diesel
Gasoline
Range of Concentrations
fog/kg)
Minimum
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Maximum
110
16
34J
1.400J
30J
190
240
2.600J
6
22,000
4,500
21 OJ
5,700
1,100
1,100
820
6,700,000
11,000
PRG
(M9/kg)
27,000,000
13,500,000
1,900
216,000,000
27,000,000
46,000
10,800,000
85,000
10,800,000
5,400,000
54,000,000
540,000,000
27,000,000
Summary of validated soil analytical results from all depths for all organic compounds detected at Site 9.
Validated analytical data are presented in Appendices X and Z of the draft final Rl Report for Group A sites
(SWDIV, 1993). Concentrations have been rounded off to whole numbers for values exceeding 10, to one
decimal place for values less than 10, and to two decimal places for values less than 1.0.
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) qualifiers:
J - Estimated valued. Mass spectral data indicate the presence of a compound below the stated practical
quantitation limit (PQL).
ND - Not detected.
PRG - Preliminary remediation goal, as calculated for the human health risk assessment.
Rl - Remedial investigation.
SWDIV - Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
jig/kg - Micrograms per kilogram.
166rodw.t24
-------
TABLE 2-5
Site 9 - Validated Metals Concentrations in Soil"
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Analyte
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Cation exchange
capacity0
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Electrical
conductivity"
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
pH9
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Total organic carbon
Total phosphorus
Vanadium
Zinc
Range of Concentrations (mg/kg)
Minimum
3,230
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.4
ND
ND
ND
0.14
3,430
ND
1 ,OOOB
31
ND
ND
ND
7.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
7,440
392
8.4B
ND
Maximum
30,400
4.3
349
1-9
13
5,770
2.6
53
27
205
0.21
37,900
207
8,320
721
1.3
15
46
7.6
3,740
3.1B
3.4
630B
22,800
663
125
598
Range of Background Values (mg/kg)b
Minimum
3,120
ND<1.3
ND<2.2
ND<0.10
ND<1.2
ND<139
NA
ND<3.2
ND<1.4
ND<2.6
NA
2,680
ND<1
ND<335
32
ND<0.12
ND<2.0
ND<4.5
NA
ND<441
ND
ND<1.6
ND<554
NA
NA
7.8B
ND<6
Maximum
33,000
4.9
665
1.1B
4.7
15,400
NA
71
41
87
NA
37,900
27
12,300
1,550
0.11
2.2B
50
NA
6,940
ND
3.6
1,720
NA
NA
81
114
PRG
(mg/kg)
0.36
18,900
0.15
270
1,350
1,160
27,000
81
1,350
5,400
1,350
1,350
2,430
54,000
166rodw.t25
-------
TABLE 2-5
Site 9 - Validated Metals Concentrations in Soil"
(Sheet 2 of 2)
Summary of validated soil analytical results from all depths for all metals detected at Sites 4 ands 4A. Data base for background values is presented in Appendix
N and validated analytical data are presented in Appendices X and Z of the draft final Rl report for Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993). Concentrations have been rounded
off to whole numbers for values exceeding 10, to one decimal place for values less than 10, and to two decimal places for values less than 1.0.
'Includes inorganics and general chemistry analytes.
"Range of background concentrations for the marine terrace deposits; validated analytical results.
GCation exchange capacity units are milliequivalents per 100 grams (meq/100g).
"Electrical conductivity units are millimhos (mmhos).
"pH in units.
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) qualifiers:
B - Reported value greater than or equal to the instrument detection limit (IDL) but less than the contract-required detection limit (CRDL).
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
ND - Not detected.
PRG - Preliminary remediation goal, as calculated for the human health risk assessment.
Rl - Remedial investigation.
SWDIV - Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
166rodw.t25
-------
TABLE 2-6
Site 9 - Comparison of Validated Groundwater
Concentrations to MCLs
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Analyte
Alkalinity, bicarbonate
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
2-Butanone
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Dalapon
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury0
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrate
pHd
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Sulfate
Tetrachloroethene
Thallium
Toluene
Total dissolved solids
Range of Concentrations (ug/I)
Minimum
118
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
37,400
115,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
32,200
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.40
ND
ND
ND
108,000
76,000
ND
ND
ND
600,000
Maximum
400
2,780
19B"
14
292
0.2B
296
5.0
13
227,000
731,000
76
10B
6.5B
0.5
2.0
5.0
3,410
154,000
779
66
11B
1,1 00"
18,000
7.8
16,300
2.6B
6.1 B
309,000
372,000
10
1.1 BW
0.9J
2,030,000
Federal MCL
(M9/I)
6.0"
50
1,000
4.0"
5.0
100
200
5.0
70
2.0
100"
10,000 (as N)
50
5.0
2.0b
1,000
CAMCL
(ug/i)
50 .
1,000
10
50
0.50
6.0 -
2.0
45,000
(as N03)
10
5.0
166rodw.t26
-------
TABLE 2-6
Site 9 - Comparison of Validated Groundwater
Concentrations to MCLs
(Sheet 2 of 2)
Analyte
Trichloroethene
Vanadium
Zinc
Diesel
Range of Concentrations (ug/l)
Minimum
ND
ND
ND
ND
Maximum
15
9.6B
183
470
Federal MCL
(M9/I)
5.0
CAMCL
fog/")
5.0
Summary of validated analytical results for compounds detected during third and fourth quarter 1992 and first
quarter 1993 sampling. Validated analytical data are presented in Appendices W and Y of the draft final Rl report
for Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993). Concentrations have been rounded off to whole numbers for values exceeding
10, to one decimal place for values less than 10, and to two decimal places for values less than 1.0.
"Within background levels (Section 2.5.1.2).
"Promulgated MCL, but not in effect until January 1994.
cMaximum concentration detected during third quarter 1992, within a few days of detection of a mercury
concentration of 15 jig/l in a field blank. Suspect contamination in the sample bottle. Mercury was not detected
during the subsequent sampling rounds.
dpH in units.
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) qualifiers:
B - Reported value greater than or equal to the instrument detection limit (IDL) but less than the contract-
required detection limit (CRDL).
J - Estimated value. Mass spectral data indicate the presence of a compound below the stated practical
quantitation limit (PQL).
W - Postdigestion spike for graphite furnace atomic absorption analysis exceeds control limits, while sample
absorption is less than 50 percent of spike absorption.
CA - California.
MCL - Maximum contaminant level.
ND - Not detected.
Rl - Remedial investigation.
SWDIV - Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
- Micrograms per liter.
166rodw.t26
-------
TABLE 2-7
Site 9 - Comparison of Validated Surface-Water Concentrations to Standards
Analyte
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Copper3
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel3
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc3
Range of Concentrations
(ug/l)
Minimum
342
1.3B
26BE
9,090
23B
638
5,300
20
ND
3,7806
11,800
3.0B
3.7B
Maximum
355
1.4B
28BE
9,680
25
758
5,460
53
8.1 B
3,8308
12,300
3.0B
9.2B
Aquatic Life Standards (ug/1)
California
(SWRCB, 1992)
Acute
-
360
—
-
8.4
-
-
—
722
—
--
—
59.5
Chronic
—
190
—
—
6.0
—
-
—
80
~
-
~
54
Federal
(EPA, 1992a)
Acute
750
360
—
—
8.4
~
—
~
722
—
~
—
59.5
Chronic
87
190
-
--
6.0
1,000
~
—
80
-
-
-- "
54
Summary of validated analytical results for compounds detected during third and fourth quarter 1992 and first quarter
1993 sampling. Validated analytical data are presented in Appendices W and Y of the draft final Rl report for Group A
sites (SWDIV, 1993). Concentrations have been rounded off to whole numbers for values exceeding 10, to one decimal
place for values less than 10, and to two decimal places for values less than 1.0.
'Standards are hardness-dependent; standards developed using calculated hardness (as CaCO3) value of 45 milligrams
per liter for Site 9 surface water.
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) qualifiers:
B - Reported value greater than or equal to the instrument detection limit (IDL) but less than the contract-required
detection limit (CRDL).
E - Reported value is estimated because of interference.
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ND - Not detected.
Rl - Remedial investigation.
SWDIV - Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
SWRCB - California State Water Resources Control Board.
ng/l - Micrograms per liter.
- No standard.
166rodyv.t27
-------
TABLE 2-8
Sites 4 and 4A - Validated Organic
Concentrations in Soil
Analyte,
Acetone
di-n-Butylphthalate
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Hexachloroethane
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Diesel
Gasoline
Range of Concentrations (ug/kg)
Minimum
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Maximum
7.0J
430J
100
170
75JX
5.6J
720J
750J
33
6.0
68,000
3,700
Risk-Based
PRG
(MO/kg)
27,000,000
27,000,000
2,700
1 ,900
1,900
40
46,000
45,700
54,000,000
58,000
Summary of validated soil analytical results from all depths for all organic compounds detected ai
Sites 4 and 4A. Validated analytical data are presented in Appendices X and Z of the draft final
Ri report for Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993). Concentrations have been rounded off to whole
numbers for values exceeding 10, to one decimal place for values iess than 10, and to two decimal
places for values less than 1.0.
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) qualifiers:
J - Estimated valued. Mass spectral data indicate the presence of a compound below the stated
practical quantitation limit (PQL).
JX - Value is less than the sample quantitation limit that would have been displayed for U.
ND - Not detected.
PRG - Preliminary remediation goal, as calculated for the human health risk assessment.
RI - Remedial investigation.
SWDIV - Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
M.g/kg - Micrograms per kilogram.
166rodw.t28
-------
TABLE 2-9
Sites 4 and 4A - Validated Metals Concentrations in Soil8
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Total organic carbon
Vanadium
Zinc
Range of Concentrations (mg/kg)
Minimum
5,940
ND
ND
68
ND
ND
2,090
8.3
ND
ND
ND
8,760°
ND
2,630
119N
ND
ND
2,520
ND
ND
ND
485
25
24E
Maximum
29,400
4.1BN
4.4B
268
0.82B
1.7
16,400
33
12B
32
1.3
32,200
41
10,400
576
0.12
16
9,030
2.0B
1,160
1.7B
7,610
84
138
Range of Background Values" (mg/kg)
Minimum
2,950
ND<2.3
ND<0.16
8.4B
ND<0.09
ND<0.22
1,750
3.0
ND<1.7
ND<1.5
ND
3,070
ND<0.7
865B
16
ND<0.02
ND<1.7
351 B
ND<0.27
ND<112
ND<0.17
NA
5.3B
ND<13
Maximum
38,200
9.2BN
12
424
1.2
2.3
44,800
64
16
41
ND
45,900
45
1,060
576
0.08
42
8,320
0.63B
5,590
1.5B
NA
96
441
Risk-Based
PRG
(mg/kg)
108
0.36
18,900
0.15
270
1,350
1,080
5,400
27,000
81
5,400
1,350
21.6
2,430
54,000
166rodw.t29
-------
TABLE 2-9
Sites 4 and 4A - Validated Metals Concentrations in Soil"
(Sheet 2 of 2)
Summary of validated soil analytical results from all depths for all metals detected at Sites 4 and 4A. Data base for background values is presented in Appendix N
and validated analytical data are presented in Appendices X and Z of the draft final Rl report for Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993). Concentrations have been rounded
off to whole numbers for values exceeding 10, to one decimal place for values less than 10, and to two decimal places for values less than 1.0.
"Includes inorganics and total organic carbon.
"Range of background concentrations for the Santa Margarita basin; validated analytical results.
Duplicate analysis exceeds control limits.
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) qualifiers:
B - Reported value greater than or.equal to the instrument detection limit (IDL) but less than the contract-required detection limit (CRDL).
E - Reported value is estimated because of interference.
N - Spiked sample recovery not within control limits.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
NA - Not analyzed.
ND - Not detected.
PRG - Preliminary remediation goal, as calculated for the human health risk assessment.
Rl - Remedial investigation.
SWDIV - Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
166rodw.t29
-------
TABLE 2-10
Site 4 - Comparison of Validated Surface-Water
Concentrations to Standards
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Analyte
Acetone
Alkalinity, bicarbonate
Alkalinity, carbonate
Alkalinity, total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
di-n-Butylphthalate
Calcium
Chloride
Chloromethane
Chromium"
Copper*
Diethylphthalate
Iron
Lead8
Magnesium
Manganese
4-Methylphenol
Molybdenum
Nitrogen, NO2+NO3
PH"
Potassium
Sodium
Sulfate
IDS
Toluene
Vanadium
Zinc8
Gasoline
Range of Concentrations (ug/1)
Minimum
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Maximum
5.0
664,000
80,000
664,000
34,600
34
394
645
2.1
129,000
493,000
30
34
40
2.5
46,700
20
59,300
3,720
790
155
5,890
8.2
12,900
494,000
297,000
1,820,000
9
115
140
130
Aquatic Life Standards (ug/1)
California
(SWRCB, 1992)
Acute
360
6,329
78
609
446
Chronic
190
754
46
24
404
Federal
(EPA, 1992a)
Acute
750
360
860,000
6,329
78
609
17,500"
446
Chronic
87
190
230,000
754
46
1,000
24
404
166rodw.210
-------
TABLE 2-10
Site 4 - Comparison of Validated Surface-Water
Concentrations to Standards
(Sheet 2 of 2)
Summary of validated analytical results for compounds detected during third and fourth quarter 1992 and first quarter
1993 sampling. Validated analytical data are presented in Appendices W and Y of the draft final Rl report for Group A
sites (SWDIV, 1993). Concentrations have been rounded off to whole numbers for values exceeding 10, to one decimal
place for values less than 10, and to two decimal places for values less than 1.0.
"Standards are hardness-dependent; standards were developed using a calculated hardness (as CaCO3) value of
485 milligrams per liter for Site 4 surface water.
bpH in units, not ^ig/l.
NA - Not analyzed.
ND - Not detected.
Rl - Remedial investigation.
SWDIV - Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
IDS - Total dissolved solids.
ug/l - Micrograms per liter.
166rodw.210
-------
TABLE 2-12
Site 24 - Validated Organic Concentrations in Soil
Analyte
Acetone
Aroclor-1254
Benzene
Benzoic acid
BHC (gamma) (Lindane)
2-Butanone
Butylbenzylphthalate
di-n-Butylphthalate
Chlordane (alpha)
Chlordane (gamma)
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chrysene
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
Diethylphthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
phtnalate
Fluoranthene
Methylene Chloride
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Nitrobenzene
Pyrene
Toluene
Diesel
Gasoline
Ranqe of Concentrations (uq/kq)
Minimum
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Maximum
37
480
3.0J
110J
3.0
5.0J
300J
85J
7.5JX
4.3JX
7.0J
4.0J
77J
200
72
140
2.2
59J
1.600J
550J
538
97J
180J
470J
350D
180,000
2,400
Risk-Based
PRG
(uq/kq)
27,000,000
22,000
1,080,000,000
490
13,500,000
54,000,000
27,000,000
490
490
105,000
49,200
2,700
1,900
1,900
40
216,000,000
46,000
10,800,000
85,000
130,000
135,000
8,100,000
54,000,000
Summary of validated soil analytical results from all depths for all organic compounds detected at Site
24. Validated analytical data are presented in Appendices X and Z of the draft final Rl report for
Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993). Concentrations have been rounded off to whole numbers for values
exceeding 10, to one decimal place for values less than 10, and to two decimal places for values less
than 1.0.
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) qualifiers:
J - Estimated valued. Mass spectral data indicate the presence of a compound below the stated
practical quantitation limit (PQL).
JX - Value is less than the sample quantitation limit that would have been displayed for U.
D - Identifies compound in an analysis that has been run at a dilution to bring the concentration of that
compound within the linear range of the instrument. D qualifiers are only placed on samples that
have been run initially with results above acceptable ranges.
ND - Not detected.
PRG - Preliminary remediation goal, as calculated for the human health risk assessment.
Rl - Remedial investigation.
SWDIV - Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
- Micrograms per kilogram.
166rodw.212
-------
TABLE 2-11
Field-Collected Filamentous Algae
Santa Margarita River Sites
Tissue Contaminant Concentrations
Inorganics
(mg/kg dry weight)
Silver
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Mercury
Potassium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Sodium
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Selenium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
6BAS1
Downstream of Site 4
Drainage
0.37
398
0.72
125
0.1
18,100
0.14
1
0.56
2.1
676
0.03
1,340
802
3,630
0.72
388
1.5
0.54
2.5
0.14
0.14
4
9.1
B
*
B
U
*
U
U
U
B
*
U
B
U
B
U
BWN
U
U
U
B
E
6BAS2
Upstream of Site 4
Drainage
0.36
170
0.74
32.6
0.1
32,300
0.14
1
0.56
1.1
225
0.03
1,220
1,230
98.4
0.72
392
1.5
0.1
2.5
0.14
0.14
2.1
4.6
U
*
B
B
U
*
U
U
U
B
*
U
U
B
U
UWN
U
U
U
B
E
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) qualifiers:
B - Reported value is greater than or equal to instrument detection limit (IDL) but less than the contract-required
detection limit (CRDL).
E - Reported value is estimated because of interference.
N - Spiked sample recovery not within control limits.
U - Value is less than the IDL or was not detected.
W - Postdigestion spike for graphite furnace atomic absorption is out of control limits, while sample absorption is less
than 50 percent of spike absorption.
* - Duplicate analysis not within control limits.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
166rodw.211
-------
TABLE 2-13
Site 24 - Validated Metals Concentrations in Soil"
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Range of Concentrations (mq/kq)
Minimum
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.8B
0.03B
ND
0.01 B
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Maximum
19,500
16N
3.0
105
0.69B
4.0
8,210
50
10B
216
26,900
295NC
8,380
251
0.31
0.82°
19
6,500
0.53B
Range of Background Values (mq/kq)b
Minimum
2,950
ND<2.3
ND<0.16
8.4B
ND<0.09
ND<0.22
1,750
3.0
ND<1.7
ND<1.5
3,070
ND<0.70
865B
16
ND<0.02
ND<0.1
ND<1.7
351 B
ND<0.27
Maximum
38,200
9.2BN
12
424
1.2
2.3
44,800
64
16
41
45,900
45
12,400
1,060
0.08
3.3°
42
8,320
0.63B
Risk-Based
PRG
(mg/kg)
108
0.36
18,900
0.15
270
1,350
1,080
27,000
81
1,350
5,400
1,350
166rodw.213
-------
TABLE 2-13
Site 24 - Validated Metals Concentrations in Soil"
(Sheet 2 of 2)
Analyte
Sodium
Thallium
Total organic
carbon
Vanadium
Zinc
Ranqe of Concentrations (mq/kq)
Minimum
ND
ND
8,410
ND
ND
Maximum
1.700E
0.49B
8,410
46
254
Ranqe of Backqround Values (mq/kq)b
Minimum
ND<112
ND<0.17
NA
5.3B
ND<12.6
Maximum
5,590
1.5B
NA
96
441
Risk-Based
PRG
(mo/ka)
21.6
2,430
54,000
Summary of validated soil analytical results from all depths for all metals detected at Site 24. Data base for background values is presented in Appendix N and
validated analytical data are presented in Appendices X and Z of the draft final Rl report for Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993). Concentrations have been rounded off
to whole numbers for values exceeding 10, to one decimal place for values less than 10, and to two decimal places for values less than 1.0.
"Includes inorganics and total organic carbon.
"Range of background concentrations for the Santa Margarita basin; validated analytical results.
'Duplicate analysis not within control limits.
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) qualifiers:
B - Reported value greater than or equal to the instrument detection limit (IDL) but less than the contract-required detection limit (CRDL).
E - Reported value is estimated because of interference.
N - Spiked sample recovery not within control limits.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
NA - Not analyzed.
ND - Not detected.
PRO - Preliminary remediation goal, as calculated for the human health risk assessment.
Rl - Remedial investigation.
SWDIV - Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
166rodw.213
-------
TABLE 2-14
Site 24 - Comparison of Validated Groundwater Concentrations to MCLs
Analyte
Alkalinity, bicarbonate
Alkalinity, total
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Boron
Calcium
Chloride
Chloromethane
Chromiumb
Copper
di-n-Butylphthalate
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrogen, NO2+NO3
Potassium
Total dissolved solids
Selenium
Sodium
Sulfate
Vanadium
Zinc
Diesel
Range of Concentrations (uq/l)
Minimum
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
39,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4,290
28
ND
ND
ND
ND
646,000
ND
156,000
80,000
ND
ND
ND
Maximum
475,000
475,000
14,800
49a
9.5
9.5
1.4
881
596,000
2,243,000
17
137
13
3.0
13,000
3.5
120,000
501
39
633a
3,930
17,300
4,740,000
21
667,000
437,000
60
696
720
EPA MCL
(ug/i)
6.0a
50
1,000
6.0a
100
100
50
100"
10,000
(asN)
50
CAMCL
(ug/J)
50
1,000
4.0
50
50
45,000 -
(as NO3)
10
Summary of validated analytical results for compounds detected during third and fourth quarter 1992 and first
quarter 1993 sampling. Validated analytical results are presented in Appendices W and Y of the draft final Rl
report for Group A sites (SWDIV, 1993). Concentrations have been rounded off to whole numbers for values
exceeding 10, to one decimal place for values less than 10, and to two decimal places for values less than 1.0.
"Considered to be within background range (Section 2.5.3.2).
"Promulgated MCL, but not in effect until January 1994.
°Only detected above the MCL in one well during the first quarter of sampling. Two subsequent quarters
of sampling at this well showed concentrations considerably below the Federal or State MCL
(approximately 10 times lower).
MCL - Maximum contaminant level.
ND - Not detected.
Rl - Remedial investigation.
SWDIV - Southwest Division Naval Facilities Eningeering Command.
Micrograms per liter.
166rodw.214
-------
TABLE 2-15
Pertinent Chemical and Physical Parameters of Chemicals Detected at Group A Sites
(Sheet 1 of 4)
Chemical
Acetone
Aluminum
Antimony
Aroclor-1254
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Benzoic acid
Beryllium
gamma BHC
Boron
2-Butanone
Butylbenzylphthalate
di-n-Butylphthalate
Cadmium
alpha-Chlordane
beta-Chlordane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
CAS No.
67-64-1
7429-90-5
7440-36-0
11097-69-1
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
71-43-2
65-85-0
7440-41-7
58-89-9
7440-42-8
78-93-3
85-68-7
84-74-2
7440-43-9
5103-71-9
5103-74-2
67-66-3
74-87-3
MolWt
58.09
26.98
121.75
327
74.92
137.34
78.11
122.13
9.01
290.85
10.81
72.1
312.39
278.38
112.40
409.8
409.8
119.39
50.49
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-m'/mol)
3.67E-05C
2.80-3.20E-041
5.43E-030
7.00E-08"
2.92E-06C
1.05E-05'
1.03E-06"
5.30E-051
4.85E-051"
8.31E-05"1
4.35E-030
2.40E-02"
LogK...
0.24°
6.47"
2.13°
1.87*
3.61°
0.29C
4.91"
4.72"
5.54m
5.54m
1.97=
0.91"
K.C'
2.2
1.0E+05-
1.0E+09"
83
54.4
4.5
17,000
3,280
3,090-
43.651 m
1,995,262m
31
4.3
Ka
1.474
200"
60<
55.61
36.448
6501
7.3°
3>
3.015
11390
113,900
6.5'
20.77
2.881
Solubility
(mg/l)
1,000,000
(miscible)"
insoluble"
insoluble*
0.0027-0.91 '
676'
871 '
1791C
2,700"
426'
19.30O1
239,000'
2.69"
11.2"
4691
0.056"1
0.0561"
7,950°
3,960,000
SW Half-Life
Low (days)"
1
0.42'
5
0.20"
1
1
1
<10m
<10m
28
7
SW Half-
Life High
(days)"
7
16
3.6"
7
7
14
180
28
Soil Half-
Life Low
(days)"
1
15'
5
1
1
2
2-3m
2-3m
28
7
Soil Half-Life
High (days)6
7
>50!
16
7"
7
7
23
154m
210"
180
28
166rodw.215
-------
TABLE 2-15
Pertinent Chemical and Physical Parameters of Chemicals Detected at Group A Sites
(Sheet 2 of 4)
Chemical
Chromium (Total)
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Dalapon
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethene (Total)
4.4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
Diethylphthalate
Endosulfan sulfate
Ethylbenzene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachloroethane
Iron
CAS No.
7440-47-3
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
57-12-5
75-99-0
107-06-2
156-59-2(cis)
156-60-5(trans)
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
60-57-1
84-66-2
1031-07-8
100-41-4
117-81-7
206-44-0
86-73-7
67-72-1
7439-89-6
MolWt
52
228.3
58.93
63.54
26.02
142.97
98.96
96.95
320
318
355
380.93
222.26
422.91
106.16
390.54
202
166.23
236.74
55.85
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-mVmol)
0.1064-218'
(Pa-atm-m3/mol)
6.43E-08"
9.77E-04C
6.56E-03'
7.96E-061
6.80E-05'
5.13E-04"
5.80E-05"
4.80E-07*
2.60E-05"
8.44E-03"
1.10E-05"
6.46E-06"
6.42E-05*
2.80E-030
LogK,,
5.61"
0.78°
148°
1.86c(cis),
2.06° (trans)
6.2'
r
6.19*
4.32"
2.47*
3.66°
3.15"
5.11"
4.9s
4.2'
3.82°
Koc'
200,000
59
770,000
4,400,000
243,000
1,700
142
1,100
1.2
38,000
7,300
K,
8501
134,000
45'
35'
39.53
515,900
2,948,000
162,810
1,139
95.14
737
58,558
25,460
4,891
25'
Solubility
(mg/l)
21 .71
0.0021
0.3681
96.41
99. 1'
502,000"
8,524°
6,300C
o.osf
0.121
0.0251
0.17"
1,080"
0.117-0.22°
161"
0.3"
0.21'
1.69*
50C
4.641
SW Half-Life
Low (days)"
0.18
14
100
0.125
(cis/trans)c
730
0.63
7
175
3
3
5
0.88
32
28
SW Half-
Life High
(days)"
0.54
60
180
5,694
6.1
350
1,080
56
10
23
2.6
60
180
Soil Half-
Life Low
(days)"
371
14
100
730
730
730
175
3
3
5
140
32
28
Soil Half-Life
High (days)"
1,000
60
180
5,694
5,694
5,694
1,080
56
10
23
440
60
180
166rodw.215
-------
TABLE 2-15
Pertinent Chemical and Physical Parameters of Chemicals Detected at Group A Sites
(Sheet 3 of 4)
Chemical
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Methylene chloride
2-Methylnaphthatene
4-Methylphenol
Molybdenum
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrate
Nitrobenzene
di-n-Octylphthalate
Phenanthrene
Potassium
Pyrene
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Tetrachloroethene
Thallium
CAS No.
7439-92-1
7439-95-4
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
75-09-2
91-57-6
106-44-5
7439-98-7
86-30-6
91-20-3
7440-02-0
14797-55-8
98-95-3
117-84-0
85-01-8
7440-09-7
129-00-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-23-5
127-18-4
7440-28-0
MolWt
207.19
24.305
54.94
200.59
84.94
142.21
108.13
95.94
198.24
128.16
58.71
123.12
390.57
178
39.01
202
78.96
107.87
22.99
165.82
204.37
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-m'/mol)
4.40E-02'
2.60E-041
9.60E-07"
6.60E-04"
4.83E-04k
2.44E-05"
1.41E-12"
1.59E-041
5.04E-06"
1.49E-02°
LogK,,,,
1.25C
4.11
1.94"
2.57-3.13"
3.3"
1.79°
9.2"
4.46"
4.88*
3.40C
K«a
8.8
7,940
17
832-1,820"
940
56.2-270"
14,000
38,000
K,
9QOf
65'
101
5.896
5319.8
11.39
0
629.8
1501
6.87-1 76'
9,380
25,460
3001
451
1.5001
Solubility
(mgn)
93.61
18.3001
5.60E-02"
1,300°
25.4
22,600"
40h
31.7*
1,210*
1,900"
3"
1'
0.13'
27.1001
1581
150.3°
0.6871
SW Half-Life
Low (days)"
0.09
2.25'
0.04
10
0.5
13.41
0.13
0.03
180
SW Half-
Life High
(days)"
0.23
410'
0.67
34
20
197
1.04
0.09
360
Soil Half-
Life Low
(days)"
365
0.04
10
16.6
13.41
16
210
180
Soil Half-Life
High (days)"
180
0.67
34
48
197
200
1,900
360
166rodw.215
-------
TABLE 2-15
Pertinent Chemical and Physical Parameters of Chemicals Detected at Group A Sites
(Sheet 4 of 4)
Chemical
Toluene
Total xylenes
Trichloroethene
2,4,5-TP
Vanadium
Zinc
CAS No.
108-88-3
1330-20-7
79-01-6
93-72-1
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
MolWt
92.13
106.17
131.4
269.51
50.94
65.37
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-m'/mol)
5.94E-03°
7.04E-03*
1.03E-02C
1.31E-08"
LogK,,.
2.73°
3.26*
2.42°
3.41"
KOC'
300
240
126
5,250
*d
201
160.8
84.42
3517.5
1,000'
40'
Solubility
(mg/l)
534.8°
198*
1,100°
140"
4.4801
951'
SW Half-Life
Low (days)"
4
7
180
SW Half-
Life High
(days)"
22
28
365
Soil Half-
Life Low
(days)"
4
7
180
12"
Soil Half-Life
High (days)"
22
28
365
17°
•Half-life' is defined as the expected time for the concentration of a chemical to decrease by one-half when present in water or soil.
•EPA, 1987.
"Howard et al., 1991.
'Howard et al., 1990.
"ATSDR, 1992a.
•EPA, 1992d.
'BEIA, 1989.
"Calculated using method from Lyman et al., 1991.
"ATSDR, 1992b.
'Mackay et al., 1992.
'HRSD, 1991.
"Howard, 1989.
'HSDB, 1992.
"ATSDR, 1993a.
"Howard, 1991.
"ATSDR, 1991.
"ATSDR, 1993b.
Tinsley, 1979.
atm-m3/mol - Cubic meters (atmosphere) per mole.
mg/l - Milligrams per liter.
mol wt - Molecular weight.
Pa.atm-m3/mol - Vapor pressure x cubic meters (atmosphere) per mole.
SW - Surface water.
166rodw.215
-------
Table 2-16
Site 9 Chemicals of Concern" in Groundwater and Soil,
Concentrations, Frequency of Detection, Soil Background,
and Maximum Contaminant Levels
Soil
Chemical of
Concern
Beryllium
Frequency of
Detection
7/7
Concentration
Range
Min - Max
(mg/kg)
0.15-1.9
Background
Range
Min - Max
(mg/kg)
<0.1-1.1
Background
Frequency of
Detection
40/71
Background
95% UCL
(mg/kg)
0.69
Average
Concentration
(mg/l)
0.42
RME
Concentration11
(mg/l)
1.9°
Groundwater
Chemical of
Concern"
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Frequency of
Detection
6/66
14/66
Concentration*
Range
Min - Max
(mg/l)
0.0007-0.015
0.004-0.018
Maximum
Contaminant Level'
(mg/l)
0.005
0.005
Average
Concentration
(mg/l)
0.0014
0.0013
RME
Concentration"
(mg/l)
0.0022
0.0019
"Chemicals of concern were evaluated in the risk assessment and determined to pose a risk. Data presented are from the Rl for Site 9.
The reasonable maximum concentration is the calculated 95 percent UCL. One-half the detection limit was used for nondetected values.
The maximum detected concentration was used because the 95 percent UCL exceeded it.
Tetrachloroethene exceeded its MCL in only one well, 9W-07A. Trichloroethene exceeded its MCL in only one well, MW-04D.
The groundwater concentrations are from 5 rounds of groundwater monitoring from the third quarter of 1992 to the first quarter of 1994.
The Federal and State MCLs are the same.
MCL - Maximum contaminant level.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
mg/l - Milligrams per liter.
Rl - Remedial investigation.
RME - Reasonable maximum exposure.
UCL - Upper confidence limit.
166RODW.216
-------
Table 2-17
Summary of Site 9 Groundwater Cancer Risk and Noncancer Hazard
for the Reasonable Maximum Exposure to the Main Contributors
Exposure
Scenario
Exposure
Pathway
Route of
Exposure
Chemical
of Concern
Cancer
Chronic
Daily Intake
(mg/kg-day)
Slope Factor
(mg/kg-day)'1
Risk
(CDI x SF)
Noncancer
Chronic
Daily Intake
(mg/kg-day)
Reference
Dose
(mg/kg-day)
Hazard
Index
(CDI/RfD)
Current
Military Civil
Servant
Soil
Pathway Total
Total for
Current Military
Civil Servant
Ingestion
and Dermal
Beryllium
2.6E-07
4.3E+00
1E-06
1E-06
1E-06
7.3E-07
5.0E-03
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Future
Adult Resident
Child Resident
Adult Resident
Groundwater
Groundwater
Pathway Total .
Soil
Soil
Pathway Total
Total for Future
Resident
Adult/Child
Ingestion
and Dermal
Route
Total
Inhalation
Route
Total
Ingestion
and Dermal
Ingestion
and Dermal
PCE
TCE
PCE
TCE
Beryllium
Beryllium
3.0E-05
2.4E-05
9.6E-06
8.4E-06
2.7E-06
1 .7E-06
5.2E-02
1.1E-02
2.0E-03
6.0E-03
4.3E+00
4.3E+00
1E-06
3E-07
1E-06
2E-08
5E-08
7E-08
2E-06
1E-05
7E-06
2E-05
2E-05
6.8E-05
5.6E-05
2.3E-05
2.0E-05
3.2E-05
4.9E-06
1.0E-02
6.0E-03
1.0E-02
6.0E-03
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
CDI - Chronic daily intake.
mg/kg-day - Milligrams per kilogram per day.
PCE - Tetrachloroethene.
RfD - Reference dose.
SF - Slope factor.
TCE - Trichloroethene.
166RODW.217
-------
RAWING o,.-;,.;,; D9Q7
UMBER 2431b6-B29/
O "Z.
^
!i
^
m
c o
if
£> r-
E~
¥
TABLE 2-18
INITIAL SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR SOIL
GROUP A, SITE 9
MCB CAMP PENDLETON. CALIFORNIA
GENERAL RESPONSE ACTION REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY PROCESS OPTION DESCRIPTION SCREENING COMMENTS
Notionol Contingency Plon
F Removal
Disposal
i
— i
Removal '
Ex Situ Treatment
Ui-'po-al
In Situ Treatment |
LEGEND:
Y///~% Technologies elimin
oted
' ' '
i Off B
( Chemical |
1 Fixation/So
i Soil Wo
1 Physical |
1 Solvent Ex
uiLircactoi l-
1 Biological [
Thermal r Slagg
^S/rQu 'p
i Landfill | [ ,£-*—<-£-*.
\ Off B
1 Backfilling Backf
• Biological 1
1 1 Vitrific
' Chemical ~| Fixation/So
— '
ase Contaminated soil is transported to on off-base landfill. Potentially applicable
Sse////A Contaminated soil is transported to on on-base landfill. Not applicable
al" above
action Metals are solubilized and removed from the Potentially applicable for metals
dification Reagents are added to the soil matrix to reduce the Potentially applicable for metals
nlwUliljr uf WUJ....MU..U Jr.J ..HH.uve wwalw lm,,Jll,,y.
shing Contaminants that physically adhere to soil are Potentially applicable
1 removed by washing with water and reagents under
traction Organic contaminants are removed via o liquid— solid Potentially applicable for total
extraction process using a fluid solvent. petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)
urry phase)) Excavated soil is mixed with water and nutrients to Potentially applicable for TPH
lose Excavated soil is mixed with nutrients and contained; Potentially applicable for TPH
;sorption Organic contaminants are volatilized at high Potentially applicable for TPH
in a controlled environment.
"ng Contaminants are either volatilized and treated Potentially applicable
' or liquified into a slag.
ation Contaminated soil is burned in air in a controlled Potentially applicable for TPH
ase////l Treated soil is transported to on on— base landfill. Not applicable
' ^
ase Treated soil is transported to an .approved. Potentially applicable
ling . Treated soil is used as a backfill for the excavated Potentially applicable
ting Indigenous microbial degradation of organics is Potentially applicable for TPH
enhanced by uc g in _u
diction Nutrients and an oxygen source (and possibly microbes) Potentially applicable for TPH
biodeg/adation. Indigenous microbes may be used.
qc'tion fS'vti] Volatile organics are removed by inducing an air flow Not applicable for metal constituents
extraction wells.
lanced SVE Heat is used to enhance the volatilization of organic Potentially applicable for TPH
process.
otion Electrical power is used to melt contaminated soil Potentially applicable
action objectives
-------
S243166-B299
az
>- CD
11
E?
1
TABLE 2-19
INITIAL SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR GROUNDWATER
GROUP A, SITE 9
MCB CAMP PENOLETON. CALIFORNIA
(SHEET 1 of 2)
GENERAL RESPONSE ACTION REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY PROCESS OPTION DESCRIPTION SCREENING COMMENTS
No Action 1 Not Applicable 1 Not Applicable I
Containment j
Access Restrictions 1 Use Restrictions |
Y/////S.. . V. ../////A
f/x/// Sheet Piling'/////
Lit u uction |
Removal I ^//Surface Discharge/^
Discharge 1
1 C"f T
In _titu rcati icnt
LEGEND:
Y7/7A Technologies eliminated during screening proc
... i vs/s, , < < >->•-, , , , ////i
V///////A*ri™//j////S
\ ////// A y},"////////
1 9 1
V///iu™Cfi. .U[59n.ar9c///y
| Biological | Y////&?r?™?$fa;S/////
parginy
nu - i 1
ysical J
1 Chemical • (/^/Chemical freatrnent/^^
ess.
No action is taken Consideration required by the
National Contingency Plan
Use of groundwater in the area of influence Potentially applicable
is restricted by amending base mosterplan.
New wells are installed In uncontaminoted areas or Not applicable
existing water-supply systems are extended.
Ongoing monitoring of wells is conducted. Potentially applicable
Trenches around areas of contamination are Not applicable for the
filled with a soil (or cement) bentonite slurry. site conditions
Grout is pressure injected in a regular pattern Not applicable for the
of drilled holes. site conditions
Steel sheets arc permanently driven into the • Not applicable for the
ground to create a wall to retard the flow of the _it. renditions
groundwoter plume. Slte condlllons
Grout is pressure injected at depth through Not applicable for the
closely spaced drilled holes to fill soil pores. site conditions
Groundwater is extracted from a series of extraction Potentially applicable
wells.
Uncon tarn ina ted water is injected via injection wells Potentially applicable
to hydraulicatly increase the flow to extraction wells.
Perforated pipes in trenches are backfilled with porous Not applicable given the
material to collect contaminated water. depth of groundwater
Extracted untreated water is discharged to a nearby Not applicable
stream.
Extracted water is discharged to a wastewater treatment Nat applicable
plant.
Extracted water is discharged to a deep well injection Not applicable
1 Extracted water is discharged to a publicly owned ... ....
treatment works (POTW) facility for treatment. appiicaoie
Extracted water is discharged to a stream or into the Not applicable
ocean.
Oxygen and nutrients are injected into groundwater to Not applicable to tetrachloroethene (PCE
promote biodegradation of contaminants by indigenous because biodegradation of PCE is
microorganisms. extremely slow
Air or nitrogen is injected into the groundwater plume Potentially applicabie
to volatilize, collect, and treat volatile and semi volatile
organic compounds.
A buried bed of adsorbents is used to intercept a Potentially applicable
moving plume and remove contaminants from
groundwater.
Chemical reagents are used to destroy or render Not applicable
contaminants Insoluble and immobile.
-------
GENERAL RESPONSE ACTION
TABLE 2-19 (continued)
INITIAL SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR GROUNDWATER
GROUP A, SITE 9
MCB CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA
(SHEET 2 of 2)
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY
PROCESS OPTION
DESCRIPTION
SCREENING COMMENTS
?*
LEGEND:
3 Technologies eliminated during screening process.
See "Removal" above
Biological
Physical
-f Chemical \-
On—Base Discharge
•I Off-Base Discharge
-^Suspended Growth Bioreactorj
Air Stripping
—I Adsorption
—j^^Mernbrane" Separation^^'j
-[/^C'hemjcol^ PreciDitotio'n^//]
—j^CoaguiotiQ^Ftoccu fa tjony]
--j^^Copfe'cipito'tipn^/^
UV/Oxidation
Reinjection
Surface Discharge
Surface Discharge
A mat of biomass attached to an inert support media
is used to degrade orgonics in an aqueous waste.
A suspension of bacteria in an aqueous waste is
aerated to degrade the organics ono" create new
bacteria.
Volatile contaminants are stripped off by contacting
groundwater with air in a high interfociol area system.
Contaminants adhere to o solid-phase medium
placed in contact with groundwater.
Small molecules pass through a porous membrane
under elevated pressure; larger molecules ore
prevented from passing through membrane.
Ions on a solid-phase medium selectively swap with
ionic contaminants in the water, facilitating removal.
Contaminants are transformed into a less soluble
state via chemical reaction, facilitating precipitation
and eventual removal of contaminants.
Reagents are added to neutralize surface charges of
fine contaminant particles and to entrap them,
facilitating precipitation.
Ionic contaminants are removed via adsorption onto
or coagulation/enmeshment with another precipitating
solid.
Simultaneous application of a strong chemical oxydizer
and an ultraviolet (UV) light source destroys certain organic
contaminants in groundwoter.
Treated groundwoter is reinjected into the same aquifer.
Treated groundwater is discharged to o nearby stream.
Treated groundwater is discharged to o POTW.
Treated groundwater is discharged to a stream
or the ocean.
Not applicable
Not applicable
Potentially applicable for organics
Potentially applicable for orgonics
Not applicable
Not applicable for orgonics
Not applicable
Applicable only as a support technology
Not applicable for organics
Potentially applicable for organics
Potentially applicable
Potentially applicable
Not applicable
Potentially applicable
-------
DO
I
pe.
-------
00
o
to
CD
I
TABLE 2-20
EVALUATION OF PROCESS OPTIONS FOR CONTAMINATED SOIL
GROUP A. SITE 9
MCB CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA
(SHEET 2 of 2)
r CD
< 2
a: =>
GENERAL RESPONSE ACTION
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY
PROCESS OPTION
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST0
j In Situ Treatment
Physical
Therm ally Enhancedxd
or Extraction.-!
[ Vapor
Biological
Bioremediation
High; effective and reliable in meeting proposed PRGs
for TPH and metals. The generation of high volumes
of gases and vapors may pose health ana safety risks
during implementation.
Moderate; effective for removal of TPH from soil
but poses potential risks to groundwater.
Moderate; effective for meeting proposed RGs for TPH
but ineffective for metals. No significant risk
to human health or the environment.
Moderate; effective for meeting proposed RGs for TPH
but ineffective for metals. May pose risk to
ground water.
Low; technology has recently been taken off
the market for refinement.
Moderate; readily implementable; risks associated
with the higher mobility of contaminants must
be addressed.
High
High; readily implementable; compon
services ore commercially available.
Moderate; readily implementable (technically);
risks associated with the introduction of nutrients,
pH adjustment, and other factors must be addressed.
Moderate to high
Selected as representative process option for incorporation
into remedial action alternatives based on effectiveness.
implementobility, and cost.
Process options that will not be incorporated into
remedial action alternatives.
Relative to other process options in the same technology type.
-------
o
to
m
TABLE 2-21
EVALUATION OF PROCESS OPTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER
GROUP A. SITE 9
MCB CAMP PENDLETON. CALIFORNIA
(SHEET 1 of 2)
GENERAL RESPONSE ACTION
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY
PROCESS OPTION
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
No Action |-
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Low; does not achieve remedial action objectives
or proposed remediation goals (RGs).
Not applicable
• j Institutional Actions
[ Access Restrictions
Use Restrictions
Monitoring
Groundwater Monitoring
{/Permeable^ Treotment^Bed^
Moderate; although contamination is not reduced,
the effectiveness of reducing risks depends on
continued future implementation.
Moderate; does not achieve proposed RGs.
Method is reliable and proven.
High; readily implementable.
High; additional wells can be easily installed;
potentially acceptable to agencies because of low
contaminant concentrations and absence of current
receptors-
Moderate; effective and reliable for removal of contaminated High; readily implementable.
groundwoter.
High; effective and reliable for removal of contaminated
groundwater.
Low; complex site hydrogeology would hinder the
effectiveness of this option.
Moderate; effective and reliable in achieving proposed RGs,
although groundwater brackishness may interfere with the
effectiveness. Groundwater flow rates may render the
technology ineffective. Performance is difficult to monitor.
High; readily implementable; water supply required for
injection.
High; materials and equipment are readily available. Moder
Low; shoring may be required during excavation; slow 9
rate of collection is controlled by groundwater movement;
adsorbent material may require frequent replacement.
LEGEND:
Technologies eliminated during screening process.
-------
o
to
CD
I
to
CD
Si
^
TABLE Z-21 (continued)
EVALUATION OF PROCESS OPTIONS FOR QROUNDWATER
GROUP A. SITE 9
MCB CAMP PENOLETON, CALIFORNIA
(SHEET 2 of 2)
GENERAL RESPONSE ACTION REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY
PROCESS OPTION
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABIUTY
' See "Removal* obov«
Physical
Air Stripping
Adsorption
—1—- Chemical
—| UV/Chemical Oxidation
I On—Base Discharge
Reinjection
Surface Discharge
1 Off-Base Dischar
rge {-
-[///Surface 'Discharge'/^/]
High; effective and reliable in achieving proposed RGs
for volatile organic compounds. Air emissions may pose o
health risk.
High; effective and reliable in achieving proposed RGs.
Spent adsorbent may pose a health risk.
Moderate; proven effective for similar contaminants.
Relatively new process. No health impact expected.
High; minimal health risks. Does not address reduction
of contaminants, but is used in conjunction with
treatment.
High; meets remedial action objectives. Dependent
on effectiveness of treatment process. No impact
to human health or the environment.
High; meets remedial action objectives. No impact
to human health or the environment.
High; commercially available technology;
skilled workers not required; air emissions
approval required.
High; spent adsorbent will require regenerate
or disposal; commonly used technology.
Moderate; materials and equipment are readily available;
skilled workers are required; residuals require disposal.
High; readily implementable if cleanup goals ore met
through treatment.
High; associated equipment and methods well
established; no construction problems expected;
discharge permit is required.
High; associated equipment and methods well
established; no construction problems expected;
discharge permit is required-
Low to moderate
High
LEGEND:
Technologies eliminated during screening process.
-------
TABLE 2-22
Summary of Comparative Analysis
MCB Camp Pendleton
Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
Short-Term Effectiveness
Inplementability
Cost ($ millions)
Option 1
Option 2
Alternatives
1
No
No
NA
No
NA
NA
0
0
2
Yes
Yes"
Low
Low
Mod
High
4.1
1.5
3
Yes
Yes
High
High
Mod
Mod
2.4
1.4
4
Yes
Yes
High
High
High
High
1.3
1.1
5
Yes
Yesa
Mod
High
High
High
0.7
0.5
6
Yes
Yesa
Mod
High
Mod
Mod
1.8
0.8
7
Yes
Yesa
Low
Low
NA
High
0.4
"ARARs achieved over time through natural groundwater attenuation.
Alternative 2: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base Landfill for Hot Spots, Zone I, and Zone II.
Groundwater - Institutional Controls (monitoring and use restrictions).
Alternative 3: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base Landfill for Zone I and Hot Spots; Biological Land Treatment for Zone II.
Groundwater - Extraction, Ultraviolet (UV)/Chemical Oxidation, and Reinjection.
Alternative 4: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base Landfill for Zone I; In Situ Bioremediation/Bioventing for Zone II.
Groundwater - Extraction, Carbon Adsorption, and Reinjection.
Alternative 5: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base Landfill for Zone I; In Situ Bioremediation/Bioventing for Zone II.
Groundwater - Institutional Controls.
Alternative 6: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base Landfill for Zone I and Hot Spots; Biological Land Treatment for Zone II.
Groundwater - Institutional Controls.
Alternative 7: Soil - No Action.
Groundwater - Institutional Controls.
ARARs - Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
Mod - Moderate.
NA - Not applicable.
166rodw.222
-------
TABLE 2-23
Cost Analysis for Groundwater
Remedial Action - Alternative 7
1
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
Total
2
Treatment
Unit
Operation*1"
($)
0
0
0
0
0
5,200
0
0
0
0
5,200
3
Monitoring1'0
($)
0
32,920
32,920
32,920
32,920
32,920
32,920
131,680
32,920
32,920
32,920
4
Maintenance*'"
($)
0
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
5
Annual
Operations
and
Maintenance
(O&M) Cost*
($)
0
32,970
32,970
32,970
32,970
38,170
32,970
131,730
32,970
32,970
38,170
Salvage Value at 1 0 percent of Monitoring Equipment Capital
($2,500)
10,400
427,960
500
438,860
6
Inflation
Rate at
5%'
0.00
1.0500
1.1025
1.1576
1.2155
1.2763
1.3401
1.4071
1.4774
1.5513
1.6289
1.6289
7
Discount
Rate at
10%8
0.00
0.9091
0.8264
0.7513
0.6830
0.6209
0.5645
0.5132
0.4665
0.4241
0.3855
0.3855
8
Capital
Cost*
($)
2,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(157)1
2,343
9
Present
Worth of
O&M Cost"
($)
0
31,471
30,039
28,674
27,371
30,248
24,941
95,125
22,723
21,691
23,969
0
336,252
10
Cumulative
Total Cost'
($)
2,500
33,971
64,010
92,684
129,055
150,303
175,244
270,369
293,092
314,783
338,752
338,595
338,595
•Refer to Table H-2 of the draft final FS for Site 9 (SWDIV, 1994a).
Cost of annual treatment includes system evaluation every 5 years.
cAnnual estimated monitoring costs, including semiannual monitoring and seventh year compliance monitoring (eight times in 1 year).
"Annual estimated maintenance costs.
"Equal to column 2 + column 3 + column 4.
'Inflation factor = (1 + inflation rate/100)" where n = year.
8Discount rate factor = 1/([1 discount rate/100]") where n = year.
hPresent worth of O&M cost = column 5 x column 6 x column 7.
n
'Cumulative total cost for year n = £ (column 8 + column 9),.
i = 0
'Salvage value = Capital cost x column 6 x column 7 x 0.10.
166rodw.223
-------
TABLE 2-24
Cost and Schedule Comparison for Site 9
Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
Groundwater
Cost for
Treatment
Time Estimate
to Reach MCLs
Alternative 3
Extraction, Ultraviolet
(UVyChemical
Oxidation, and
Reinjection
$0.95 million
10 years
Alternative 4
Extraction, Carbon
Adsorption, and
Reinjection
$0.94 million
10 years
Alternative 7
Institutional
Controls
$0.4 million
1 0 years
The other alternatives are either no action or institutional controls for groundwater similar to
Alternative 7.
MCLs - Maximum contaminant levels.
166rodw.224
-------
CD
I
ID
CD
P
5m
,93
9B-16
DEPTH (ft)
1.00
6.00
13.00
17.00
TPH-D
(mg/kg)
350
ND
ND
ND
Be
(mg/kg)
0.28 B
0.33 B
0.22 S
0.59 B
9B-14
DEPTH (ft)
1.00
5.75
9.50
17.00
TPH-D
(mg/kg)
81
ND
ND
ND
Be
(mg/kg)
1.9
ND
ND
ND
'-06B
9W-06C
TOPOGRAPHIC REFERENCE:
MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT MAPS 13B. 13D. AND UC
DATE: DECEMBER 1987
BOREHOLE OR SURFACE SEDIMENT
SAMPLE LOCATION
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
SURFACE-WATER SAMPLING LOCATION
DENOTES EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
WHERE AT LEAST ONE CONTAMINANT
EXCEEDS THE PRELIMINARY
REMEDIATION GOAL (PRO) OR TOTAL
PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON
CONCENTRATIONS EXCEED 100 PARTS
PER MILLION; QUERIED WHERE INFERRED
LOW CONCENTRATIONS OF BERYLLIUM
(WITH B QUALIFIERS) OUTSIDE THE
DELINEATED AREA OF CONTAMINATION
ARE NOT PLOTTED, EVEN THOUGH
CONCENTRATIONS EXCEED THE PRO
APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER FLOW
DIRECTION
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION LOCATION
SHOWING APPROXIMATE VERTICAL
EXTENT OF SOIL CONTAMINATION
BERYLLIUM
NOT DETECTED
MILLIGRAMS PER KILOGRAMS
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
ANALYZED BY METHOD m8015 WITH
A DIESEL CALIBRATION STANDARD
FIGURE 2-1
SITE 9
41 AREA STUART MESA
WASTE STABILIZATION POND
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND
LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION 9B-9B'
MCB CAMP PENDLETON
CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
CONTRACT NO. N88711-89-D-9298
INTERNATIONAL
I TECHNOLOGY
I CORPORATION .
-------
CD
I
9B
S
20
HORIZONTAL SCALE
INTERSECTION
WITH 9A-9A'
9B-4
IMPOUNDMENT
CLAY LINER -
VERTICAL SCALE
ssssa^^Si
0 10 20 FEET
X X X.X XXX
XV X X X S. V. V-X
XXSXNVXSSXNNS
^sss\x^s\N\\^sssw;
\XXNXW\NXXXVXX,NNXXXX
VXX\XV\\^VXXVXXX,XXWXXXX\.XA
X X.S XX
9B'
N
90
t
g
NOTES:
1. LITHOLOGIES REPRESENT THE PREDOMINANT
SOIL TYPE.
2. REFER TO FIGURE 2-1 FOR LOCATION
OF GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION 9B-9B'.
3. WATER-LEVEL ELEVATIONS MEASURED ON
28 AUGUST 1392.
4. FT MSL DENOTES FEET ABOVE MEAN
SEA LEVEL.
LEGEND:
APPROXIMATE WATER TABLE
SCREENED INTERVAL AND LETTER DESIGNATION FOR
PARTICULAR WELL IN THAT CLUSTER
SOIL CONTACT, QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN
LITHOLOGIC CONTACT. QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN
LITHOLOGIC UNITS:
ARTIFICIAL FILL; BOUNDARIES DEFINED BY SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT; SOIL TYPES PRESENTED IN BORING LOGS
QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Qol):
PREDOMINANTLY CLAY, HIGH AND LOW PLASTICITY
PREDOMINANTLY SILT OR SILT WITH CLAY
PREDOMINANTLY SAND, POORLY AND WELL GRADED
PREDOMINANTLY SILTY SAND, SAND WITH
SILT, AND CLAYEY SAND
FIGURE 2-2
SITE 9-41 AREA STUART MESA
WASTE STABILIZATION POND
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION 9B-9B'
SHOWING APPROXIMATE VERTICAL EXTENT
OF SOIL CONTAMINATION
MCB CAMP PENDLETON
CAIJFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
BEDROCK UNIT:
BEDROCK OF THE CAPISTRANO FORMATION;
SILTSTONES AND CLAYSTONES
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
CONTRACT NO. N687T1-B9-D-8296
SOIL EXHIBITING CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS
THAT MAY POSE A THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH
(i.e., EXCEEDING PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS
FOR SOIL) OR CONCENTRATIONS OF TOTAL PETROLEUM
HYDROCARBONS EXCEEDING 100 PARTS PER MILLION
I INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
I CORPORATION
-------
I DRAWN I J. WALL CHECKED BY
BY | 7-13-95 | APPROVED BY I / ;
-------
' "V05/05W
?<4PW2)
TRICHLOROnHENE (uoAg)
TOPOGRAPHIC RFFF-RENCE:
MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT MAPS 150, 16C,
228 AND 23A
DATE: DECEMBER 1987
LEGEND:
SURFACE-WATER SAMPLE LOCATION
SITES 4 and 4A
MCAS DRAINAGE DITCH AND CONCRETE-LINED
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT BOREHOLE
AND SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
MCB CAMP PENDLETON
CALIFORNIA
BOREHOLE OR SURFACE SEDIMENT
SAMPLE LOCATION
» BASE PRODUCTION WELL: USGS WELL NO.
10S/05W-23J01 (|T WELL NUMBER)
1 NO COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN THE SOIL EXCEEDING RISK-BASED
PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS (r-PRGs). EXCEPT FOR BERYLLIUM,
OR 100 PARTS PER MILLION FOR TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS.
BERYLLIUM CONCENTRATIONS (ALTHOUGH ABOVE THE r-PRG)
REPRESENT BACKGROUND AND, THUS, ARE NOT PLOTTED.
ug/kg MICROGRAMS PER KILOGRAM
0
PREPARED FOR
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
CONTRACT NO. N68711-eO-O-9298
INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION
-------
to
K)
CD
I
ID
CO
-------
I DRAWN I J. WALL CHECKED BY
I BY I 7-13-95 APPROVED BY
ELEVATION (FT MSL)
-------
to
to
to
in
II
9B-17
DEPTH (ft)
1.75
3.25
5.75
9.25
12.50
18.30
TPH-D
(mgAg)
350
35
6.700
1.3
NO
7.4
Be
(mg/kg)
0.51 B
0.27 B
0.61 B
0.24 B
NO
NO
Cd
(mgAg)
1.2
13.4
1.4
NO
NO
NO
Pb
98-14
DEPTH (ft)
1.00
5.75
9.50
17.00
TPH-D
(mgAg)
81
ND
ND
ND
Be
(mgAg)
1.9
ND
ND
ND
x / ^ •- .-^
/ 9812«^-- /
98-11
DEPTH (ft)
1.00
1.75
4.25
10.0
12.00
TPH-D
(mgAg)
1.600
54
ND
60
53
Be
(mgAg)
0.34 B
0.36 B
0.21 B
0.23 B
0.31 B
Pb
(mgAg)
84.4
8.1
3.7
25.3
3.2
9B-10
DEPTH (ft)
0.75
1.50
5.00
7.75
15.50
19.80
TPH-D
(mgAg)
210
570
180
ND
ND
ND
Be
(mgAg)
0.44 B
0.15 B
0.21 B
0.14 B
0.64 B
0.52 B
LEGEND:
BOREHOLE OR SURFACE SEDIMENT
SAMPLE LOCATION
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
SURFACE-WATER SAMPLING LOCATION
DENOTES AREA WHERE THE TOTAL
PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION
EXCEEDS 100 mgAg OR BERYLLIUM
EXCEEDS THE BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION;
QUERIED WHERE INFERRED
APPROXIMATE GROUNOWATER FLOW
DIRECTION AND GRADIENT IN SHALLOW
(UNCONFINEO) AQUIFER MEASURED
28 AUGUST 1992 (3rd QTR. 1992)
EXTENT OF TPH-D CONTAMINATION TO
A DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 9 FEET
EXTENT OF TPH-D CONTAMINATION TO
A DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 6 FEET
EXTENT OF BERYLLIUM CONTAMINATION TO
A DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 3 FEET
EXTENT OF TPH-D CONTAMINATION TO
A DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 2 FEET
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
ANALYZED BY METHOD m8015 WITH
A DIESEL CALIBRATION STANDARD
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
LEAD
FEET
NOT DETECTED
MILLIGRAMS PER KILOGRAM
EPA QUALIFIER FOR REPORTED VALUE
LESS THAN THE CONTRACT-REQUIRED
DETECTION LIMIT BUT GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE INSTRUMENT
DETECTION LIMIT
FIGURE 2-7
SITE 8
DELINEATION OF SOU. CONTAMINATION,
INCLUDING ZONE I, ZONE B, AND HOT SPOTS
MC8 CAMP P6NOLETON
CALFORMA
PREPARED FOR
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
CONTRACT NO. N687t1-89-O-82»e
Be
Cd
Pb
ft
NO
mgAg
B
TOPOGRAPHIC REFERENCE:
MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENOLETON
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT MAPS 13B, 13D. AND 14C
DATE: DECEMBER 1987
I INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
I CORPORATION
-------
9W-07A
LEGEND:
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER FLOW
0 007 ft/ft DIRECTION AND GRADIENT IN SHALLOW
^ (UNCONRNED) AQUIFER MEASURED
28 AUGUST 1992 (3rd Qtr. 1992)
LOCATIONS WITH CADMIUM OR LEAD CONCEN-
TRATIONS POTENTIALLY EXCEEDING SOLUBLE
THRESHOLD LIMIT CONCENTRATIONS (STLCs) OR
BERYLLIUM CONCENTRATIONS EXCEEDING THE
PROPOSED REMEDIATION GOAL (RG).
SOIL MOVEMENT
TRUCK HAULING CONTAMINATED SOIL
MILLIGRAMS PER KILOGRAM
NOTE:
ALTERNATIVE 2: SOIL - EXCAVATION AND
OFF-BASE LANDFILL FOR HOT SPOTS,
ZONE I. AND ZONE II; GROUNDWATER
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS.
TOPOGRAPHIC REFERENCE;
MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENOLETCN
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT MAPS 138, 130, 14A
AND 14C DATE: DECEMBER 1987
350 FEET
FIGURE 2-8
SITE 9
SCHEMATIC FOR ALTERNATIVE 2
TPH-DIESEL GREATER THAN 100 mg/kg
MC8 CAW PENDLETON
CALFOAMA
PREPARED FOR
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
CONTRACT Nearo-ae-D-asse
I INTKRNATIONAL
I TECHNOLOGY
I CORPORATION
-------
NT OF
ROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION
9W-07A LtktJNUL
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
0 INJECTION WELL LOCATION
EXTRACTION WELL LOCATION
ULTRAV10LET(UV)/CHEMICAL OXIDATION SKID
APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION
AND GRADIENT IN SHALLOW (UNCONFINED)
AQUIFER MEASURED 28 AUGUST 1992
(3rd Qtr. 1992)
DENOTES EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION WHERE THE
CONCENTRATION OF AT LEAST ONE CONTAMINANT
EXCEEDS THE PROPOSED REMEDIATION GOALS
(RGs). QUERIED WHERE INFERRED
LOCATIONS WITH CADMIUM OR LEAD CONCEN-
TRATIONS POTENTIALLY EXCEEDING SOLUBLE
THRESHOLD LIMIT CONCENTRATIONS (STLCs) OR
BERYLLIUM CONCENTRATIONS EXCEEDING THE
PROPOSED.
SOIL MOVEMENT
TRUCK HAULING CONTAMINATED SOIL
(NOT TO SCALE)
MILLIGRAMS PER KILOGRAM
NOTES:
ALTERNATIVE 3: SOIL - EXCAVATION AND OFF-BASE LANDFILL
FOR ZONE I AND HOT SPOTS, BIOLOGICAL LAND TREATMENT
FOR ZONE II; GROUNDWATER - EXTRACTION, UV/CHEMICAL
OXIDATION, AND REINJECTION.
THIS SCHEMATIC SHOWS THE GENERAL TREATMENT AREA
AND INDICATES IT WILL BE FENCED. THE FENCE AND
BIOLOGICAL LAND TREATMENT AREA WILL NOT EXTEND
THROUGH THE RIPARIAN AREA AND ASSOCIATED DRAINAGE.
TOPOGRAPHIC. REFERENCE:
MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDIETON GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
MAPS 13B. 130. 14A AND 14C DATE: DECEMBER 1987
SCALE
175
FIGURE 2-9
350 FEET
SITE 8
SCHEMATIC FOR ALTERNATIVE 3
TPH-DIESEL GREATER THAN 100 mg/kg
MC8 CAMP PENDUETON
CALFORMA
PREPARED FOR
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
CONTRACT Na87H-B8-0-8296
I INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
1 CORPORATION
-------
CD
I
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
STORAGE TANK
(1.000 GALLONS)
CHEMICAL DRUM
(55-GALLON)
8*
ELECTRICAL CONDUIT
AND GROUNDWATER
PIPING WITH
SECONDARY
CONTAINMENT
& INTERSTITIAL
MONITORING
GROUNDWATER
EQUALIZATION
TANK
(1,000 GALLONS)
BACKWASH WATER
STORAGE TANK
(1,000 GALLONS)
CONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD
WITH CONTAINMENT BERM
SOLIDS TO
NONHAZARDOUS
DISPOSAL
(INTERMITTENT)
REINJECTION WELL
50-FOOT DEEP
EXTRACTION WELL
FIGURE 2-10
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FOR
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
(ALTERNATIVE 3)
MCB CAMP PENDLETON
CALIFORNIA
NOTE:
ALTERNATIVE 3: SOIL - EXCAVATION AND OFF-BASE
LANDFILL FOR ZONE I AND HOT SPOTS, BIOLOGICAL
LAND TREATMENT FOR ZONE II; GROUNDWATER -
EXTRACTION, ULTRAVIOLET (UV)/CHEMICAL OXIDATION.
AND REINJECTION.
LEGEND
t~») CHECK VALVE
f~* CONTROL VALVE
9 PRESSURE GAGE
PREPARED FOR
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
CONTRACT NO. N68711-89-D-9298
j INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
I CORPORATION
-------
ROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION
9W-07A
©
Q
0.007 ft/ft
S"'
C"
V
LEGEND:
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
INJECTION WELL LOCATION
EXTRACTION WELL LOCATION
CARBON ADSORPTION SKID
APPROXIMATE GROUNOWATER FLOW
DIRECTION AND GRADIENT IN SHALLOW
(UNCONF1NED) AQUIFER MEASURED
28 AUGUST 1992 (3rd Qtr. 1992)
DENOTES EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
WHERE THE CONCENTRATION OF AT
LEAST ONE CONTAMINANT EXCEEDS THE
PROPOSED REMEDIATION GOALS (RGs).
QUERIED WHERE INFERRED
BERYLLIUM CONCENTRATION EXCEEDING
THE PROPOSED RG
SOIL MOVEMENT
TRUCK HAULING CONTAMINATED SOIL
AREA TO BE TILLED
BIOVENTING PIPE LOCATION-
SOLID AIR CONDUIT
BIOVENTING PIPE LOCATIONS-
SLOTTED PIPING
NOTE:
ALTERNATIVE 4: SOIL - EXCAVATION AND
OFF-BASE LANDFILL FOR ZONE I, IN SITU
BIOREMEDIATION/BIOVENTING FOR ZONE II;
GROUNDWATER - EXTRACTION, CARBON
ADSORPTION. AND REINJECTION.
SCALE
^Z?S
175
FIGURE 2-11
350 FEET
TOPOGRAPHIC RFFERENCE:
MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLTTON
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT MAPS 1JB. 130. UA
AND 14C DATE: DECEMBER 1987
SITE 9
SCHEMATIC FOR ALTERNATIVE 4
TPH-DIESEL GREATER THAN 100 mg/kg
MCB CAM> PENDLETON
CMJFORMA
PREPARED FOR
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
CONTRACT N68TO-88-0-S286
J INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
I CORPORATION
-------
f-01
9W-07A
LEGEND:
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
TOPOGRAPHIC REFHJEHC&
MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT MAPS 13B. 130. 14A
AND 14C DATE: DECEMBER 1967
APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER FLOW
0 007 ft/ft DIRECTION AND GRADIENT IN SHALLOW
j -' (UNCONF1NED) AQUIFER MEASURED
28 AUGUST 1992 (3rd Qtr. 1992)
• BERYLLIUM ABOVE PROPOSED
REMEDIATION GOAL (RG)
SOIL MOVEMENT
TRUCK HAULING CONTAMINATED SOIL
AREA TO BE TILLED (IN SITU BIOREMEDIATION)
BIOVENTING PIPE LOCATION-
SOLID AIR CONDUIT
BIOVENTING PIPE LOCATIONS-
SLOTTED PIPING
NOTE:
ALTERNATIVE 5: SOIL - EXCAVATION AND
OFF-BASE LANDFILL FOR ZONE I, IN SITU
BIOREMEDIATION/BIOVENTING FOR ZONE II;
GROUNDWATER - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS.
SCALE
-U
175 350 FEET
FIGURE 2-12
SITE 9
SCHEMATIC FOR ALTERNATIVE 5
TPH-DIESEL GREATER THAN 100 mg/kg
MCB CAMP PENDLETON
CALFORMA
PREPARED FOR
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
CONTRACT N687Tf-89-D-«296
I INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
I CORPORATION
-------
MW-01
CONTAMINATED
SOIL JQi'BE'
EXTENT OF SOIL
CONTAMINATIO
9W-07A
0.007 ft/ft
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER FLOW
DIRECTION AND GRADIENT IN SHALLOW
(UNCONFINED) AQUIFER MEASURED
28 AUGUST 1992 (3rd Qtr. 1992)
LOCATIONS WITH CADMIUM OR LEAD CONCEN-
TRATIONS POTENTIALLY EXCEEDING SOLUBLE
THRESHOLD LIMIT CONCENTRATIONS (STLCs) OR
BERYLLIUM CONCENTRATIONS EXCEEDING THE
PROPOSED REMEDIATION GOAL (RG).
SOIL MOVEMENT
TRUCK HAULING CONTAMINATED SOIL
NOTES;
ALTERNATIVE 6: SOIL - EXCAVATION AND OFF-BASE
LANDFILL FOR ZONE I AND HOT SPOTS. BIOLOGICAL
LAND TREATMENT FOR ZONE II; GROUNDWATER -
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS.
THIS SCHEMATIC SHOWS THE GENERAL TREATMENT AREA
AND INDICATES IT WILL BE FENCED. THE FENCE AND
BIOLOGICAL LAND TREATMENT AREA WILL NOT EXTEND
THROUGH THE RIPARIAN AREA AND ASSOCIATED DRAINAGE.
TOPOGRAPHIC REFERENC&
MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENM£TON
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT MAPS 13B. 130. 1*A
AND 14C DATE DECEMBER 1987
350 FEET
FIGURE 2-13
SITE 9
SCHEMATIC FOR ALTERNATIVE 6
TPH-DIESEL GREATER THAN 100 mg/kg
MC8CAMP PENDLETON
CAUFORMA
PREPARED FOR
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
CONTRACT N687H-89-O-6296
I INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
I CORPORATION
-------
3.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
As previously discussed in Section 2.3, documents leading to the decisions presented in
this ROD were released to the public in January and March 1995. These documents
were made available to the public in the information repositories maintained at the base
library and at the Oceanside Public Library. The public was informed of the availability of
these documents in the Administrative Record, which is maintained at the AC/S.ES
offices at MCB Camp Pendleton and at the SWDIV offices in San Diego. Notices of
availability were published in the local newspapers. Also published in the local
newspapers were notices of the public meetings and public review and comment
periods. Verbatim transcripts of the public meetings are presented in Appendix A. No
questions or comments were received from any source during the public comment
period. Therefore, a responsiveness summary is not required and is not part of the
Administrative Record. This decision document presents the selected remedies for MCB
Camp Pendleton OU1 - Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Stabilization Pond, Site 24 - MWR
Maintenance Facility, and Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Ditch and Concrete-Lined Surface
Impoundment (soil only), chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA
and, to the extent practicable, the NCP. The decisions for these sites are based on the
Administrative Record.
3-1 166rod.df
-------
(intentionally blank) /
V '
3-2 166rod.df
-------
4.0 REFERENCES
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1991, Endosulfans, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, 18 February.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1992a, Aluminum, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, July.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1992b, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, 18 February.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1993a, Chlordane, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, 19 February.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1993b, Mercury, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, 19 February.
ATSDR, see Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
BEIA, see Biomedical and Environmental Information Analysis.
Biomedical and Environmental Information Analysis, 1989, The Installation Restoration
Program Toxicoloty Guide, Volumes 2 and 3, Health and Safety Research Division, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, for Harry G. Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research
Laboratory.
Cal/EPA, see California Environmental Protection Agency.
California Environmental Protection Agency, 1992a, "California Cancer Potency
Factors," memorandum, Standards and Criteria Work Group, Office of the Science
Advisor, Sacramento, CA, 18 June.
California Environmental Protection Agency, 1992b, Supplemental Guidance for Human
Health Multimedia Risk Assessments of Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities,
Department of Toxic Substances Control, July.
California State Water Resources Control Board, 1975, Comprehensive Water Quality
Control Plan for the San Diego Basin, California Water Quality Control Board, San Diego
Region, July.
California State Water Resources Control Board, 1989, Leaking Underground Fuel Tank
Field Manual: Guidelines for Site Assessment, Cleanup, and Underground Storage
Tank Closure, issued by the Leaking Underground Fuel Tank Task Force, October.
California State Water Resources Control Board, 1992, Amendments of the Water
Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of California, Resolution No. 91-33,
adopted and effective 11 April 1991, Amendments November 1992.
ENRMO, see Environmental and Natural Resources Management Office.
Environmental and Natural Resource Management Office, 1990, "Investigation of
Unlawful Disposal of Hazardous Wastes/Materials, MWR Maintenance Complex,
26 Area," 18 June.
4-1 166rod.df
-------
EPA, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Hazard Ranking System Database, 1991, Federal Register, December.
Hazardous Substances Data Bank, 1992, On-Line Data Service, National Library of
Medicine, Bethesda, MD; CD-ROM version, Micromedex, Inc., Denver, CO.
Howard, P.H., 1989, Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data of
Environmental Chemicals, Vol. I: Large Production and Priority Pollutants, Lewis
Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Ml.
Howard, P.H., ed., 1991, Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for
Organic Chemicals, Vol. Ill: Pesticides, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Ml.
Howard, P.H., G.W. Sage, W.F. Jarvis, and DA Gray, 1990, Handbook of
Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic Chemicals, Vol. II: Solvents, Lewis
Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Ml.
Howard, P.H., et al., 1991, Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates, Vol. II:
Solvents, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Ml.
HRSD, see Hazard Ranking System Database.
HSDB, see Hazardous Substances Data Bank.
Innis-Tennebaum Architects, Inc., 1990, "Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton,
California, Masterplan," Volumes 1 and 2, Draft, prepared for Southwest Division Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, August.
Lyman, W.J., et al., 1991, Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods,
McGraw-Hill, Washington, DC.
Mackay, D., W.Y. Shui, and K.C. Ma, 1992, Illustrated Handbook of Physical-Chemical
Properties and Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals, Volume I: Monoaromatic
Hydrocarbons, Chiorobenzenes, and PCBs; Volume II: Folynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated Dioxins, and Dibenzofurans, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca
Raton, LA.
NEESA, see Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity.
Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity, 1984, "Initial Assessment Study of
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California," NEESA 13-057, prepared by SCS
Engineers, Inc., September.
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1993, "Draft Final Rl Report
for Group A Sites, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton, California," prepared by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., 15 October.
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1994a, "Draft Final
Feasibility Study for Group A Sites, Site 9 - Operable Unit 1, Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California,"
prepared by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., 21 September.
4-2 I66rod.df
-------
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1994b, "Marine Corps Base
Camp Pendleton Superfund Site: Navy Proposes Plan for Remedial Action at Operable
Unit 1," November.
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1994c, "Minutes of 17
December 1993 Meeting on Remediation Goals," Project Note No. CLE-IO1-01F166-I2-
0068, prepared by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., 1 February.
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1995, "Marine Corps Base
Camp Pendleton Superfund Site: Department of Defense United States Marine Corps,
Notice of Availability, Public Comment Period, and Public Meeting for the Camp
Pendleton Installation Restoration Program Administrative Record, Information
Repositories, and Proposed Plan for No Remedial Action at Sites 4, 4A, and 24," June.
SWDIV, see Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
SWRCB, see California State Water Resources Control Board.
Tinsley, R., 1979, Physical Chemical Properties of Industrial Materials, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, NY.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987, Superfund Public Health Evaluation
Manual, EPA 540/1-86/060, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989a, Interim Final Guidance on Preparing
Superfund Decision Documents: The Proposed Plan, The Record of Decision,
Explanation of Significant Differences, The Record of Decision Amendment, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, OSWER Directive 9355.3-02, June.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989b, Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), Interim Final,
EPA/540/1-89/002, Office of Emergency Response, Washington, DC, December.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 1990, "National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan," Final Rule (40 CFR 300), Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 46,
8 March.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991, User's Guide for Lead: A PC Software
Application of the Uptake/Biokinetic Model, Version 0.50, First Draft, ECAO-CIN,
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH, January.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992a, "Quality Criteria for Water 1992," poster,
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992b, Integrated Risk Information System, on-
line lexicological data base, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992c, Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables, FY 1992, OERR 9200.6-303-(92-1), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington, DC, March.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992d, Handbook of RCRA Ground-Water
Monitoring Constituents: Chemical & Physical Properties, 40 CFR, Part 264,
Appendix IX, September.
4-3 166rod.df
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993, An SAB Report: Superfund Site Health (
Risk Assessment Guidelines, Review of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response's Draft Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Human Health Evaluation
Manual by the Environmental Health Committee, EPA-SAB-EHC-93-007, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board (A-101), February.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994, Profiles for Perchloroethylene and
Trichloroethylene, Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center, Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH, June.
4-4 166rod.df
-------
APPENDIX A
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC MEETINGS HELD
4 JANUARY AND 28 JUNE 1995
AT THE SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER
OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
-------
-------
P.O. Box 108
Covina, California 91723
//CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS
A California Corporation
WHEN EVERY WORD COUNTS
(800) 242-1996
(818)915-1996
PUBLIC MEETING
Taken by
Commencing
Location
Day, Date
Reported by
Pursuant to
Original to
ED MINUGH
7:15 p.m.
455 Country Club Lane
Oceanside, California
Wednesday, January 4,
92054
1995
ELANA K. FITZGERALD, CSR No.
Oral agreement
ED MINUGH
9651, RPR
Corporate Office: Eastland Securities Bldg. • 599 S. Barranca Ave. • Penthouse • Covina, CA 91723
ORANGE COUNTY
Newport Center
(714) 648-2435
LOS ANGELES
Broadway Plaza
(213) 387-9630
SAN BERNARDINO
Andreson Building
(909) 888-8992
PALM SPRINGS
Wells Fargo Bank Building
(619) 323-9908
SAN DIEGO
Imperial Bank Tower
(619) 233-1996
-------
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EXHIBIT NO,
B
C
D
EXHIBITS
DESCRIPTION
Public Meeting Attendance Record
and Agenda, 11 pages
Overview of Superfund Program, 8 pages
MCB Camp Pendleton Installation
Restoration Sites by Group, l page
Sign-in Sheet, 1 page
MARKED FOR
IDENTIFICATION
8
8
8
-------
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 1995
7:15 P.M.
-oOo-
MR. NORQUIST: Good evening. Thank you brave souls for
joining the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in this public
presentation of the remedial action plan for Site 9. As I look
around, I see faces that I work with every day and faces that I
have met over the last couple of weeks as part of the technical
review committee and from southwest division and the contractor,
IT Corporation. I do not recognize anyone from the public
outside the base or outside the contractual regulatory agencies
dealing with the installation restoration program or the
technical review committee from Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton. If that is not the case, I would like any individual
outside that spectrum, anyone from the public, from the
community, to identify themselves if you would.
(Pause in proceedings)
And for the record, there are no hands or no
identification of any individuals outside of the Base Staff
Regulatory Committee. Okay. That being the case, I'll discuss
and hear some input from perhaps you regulatory agencies, USEPA,
Ms. Sheryl Lauth, in the area of toxic control, Mr. Isaac
Hirbawi and Mr. John Odermatt from the Regional Quality Control
Board, San Diego County.
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS, INC.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And what I would like to determine is the
requirement for a public meeting when there is no public
present. It's a consensus that the full requirement for a
public meeting does not exist if the public is not present.
MR. ARMAS: Can I make a move that maybe we close the
meeting whenever you feel, as you walk through, close the
meeting and maybe wait till 7:30. Some of us — so maybe if an
individual was to walk in we could answer questions and from
there maybe officially say we waited long enough.
Is that a consensus? Can I recommend that?
Counsel, would you agree?
MR. SCHARFEN: I think that is a reasonable response in
this situation. Good faith effort to make the information
available to the public.
MR. NORQUIST: Our court recorder here is Elana
Fitzgerald; is that correct?
THE REPORTER: (Nods head).
MR. NORQUIST: She will provide a transcript of what we
have determined and we will adjourn these proceedings at this
point and we will wait until 1930 at which time we'll see if
anyone does show up from the public and we can go through one on
one with them perhaps a presentation. If not, we will terminate
the proceedings at that time.
MR. ARMAS: And for the record maybe could you very
quickly go through the scope of what the meeting is for. The
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
specific scope as you probably have it there. So if you could
add that on the record.
MR. NORQUIST: This meeting is convened to enable Marine
Corps Base Camp Pendleton to meet its moral obligation and legal
requirement to present its plan for remedial action for Site 9
aboard Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton to the public and to
allow public input and comment on that remedial action plan
prior to implementation. The public not being present at this
time for that input, we would adjourn for about 15 minutes or so
to allow them to come on board and for us to present that to
them.
MR. NORQUIST: Did you want anything further?
MR. ARMAS: I think that's good, Stan. Just make sure we
go on the record as to what the scope is.
MR. NORQUIST: We certainly can skip some of these.
Tonight's agenda, complete agenda, was to discuss the CERCLA
process and Sheryl Lauth from USEPA was going to do that. The
IR program, installation restoration, for Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton was going to be presented by Ms. Jane Joy and then
alternatives for remedial action as applied to Site 9 was to be
presented by Robin Smith of International Technologies
Corporation. After that, Jane Joy was going to review the
alternative of the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, had
selected and go through the considerations that were involved
in — in arriving at that determination for that course of
/-•7\ T TT7Or>HTT A m?T3n C TT>TOM
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
remedial action and then after that we would open it up to the
public for comment, receive those comments and then adjourn the
meeting. We have published in the local media a notice of this
meeting and provided opportunity for comments with the addresses
and the time frame for those responses to be provided.
MR. SCHARFEN: I think we can attach our information
sheet to the record.
MR. NORQUIST: Urn-hum.
MR. SCHARFEN: Anything that we have that was available
for the public we should attach to the record.
MR. NORQUIST: Major Scharfen recommended that we attach
our proposed plan to the record which we will certainly do and
publish that record.
Is there any other considerations that you feel we
might address as a body?
MR. ARMAS: Just that we could have everybody that is
here today sign the official record so that also could be
attached to the minutes of the meeting as those present today
that would be really good.
MR. NORQUIST: Just make sure that each of us here sign
the roster before we leave.
Keith LeBouef, if you would have that up here at
the table and let's make sure that we all sign it.
MR. UETZ: General Norquist, were any written notices
received pursuant to the notice?
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. NORQUIST: To date have any written comments been
received? No?
MS. JOY: (Inaudible).
THE REPORTER: I couldn't hear that.
MR. NORQUIST: I'll repeat what she said. No comments
have been received. The comment period is open until the 27th
of January of '95.
Okay. This meeting stands adjourned and after
about 10, 15 minutes you will hear me announce that v/e're
dismissed unless we have someone else here.
(Recess)
MR. NORQUIST: Okay. If I can have your attention,
please. The time is about 1933, that's 7:33 p.m. for some of
you. Has anyone come in from the community? If so, identify
yourself, please. No identification. No one has come in from
the community.
For the record, let it be shown that at 1900 Marine
Corps Base Camp Pendleton opened its public presentation on its
plan, proposed plan for remedial action for Site 9 of the
installation restoration program aboard Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton. There was no public representation outside the base
or immediate contractual or regulatory staff dealing with the
Site 9 remedial action process and therefore the presentation
was not presented and the meeting adjourned at 1934, 7:34 p.m.
This meeting stands adjourned. I thank you very much.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Exhibits A through D marked)
(The public meeting was concluded
at 7:34 p.m.)
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
SS
I, ELANA K. FITZGERALD, CSR No. 9651, a Certified
Shorthand Reporter for the State of California do hereby
certify:
That said public meeting was taken before me at the time
and place therein stated and was thereafter transcribed into
print under my direction and supervision, and I hereby
certify the foregoing public meeting is a full, true and correct
transcript of my shorthand notes so taken.
I further certify that I am not of counsel or attorney
for either of the parties hereto or in any way interested in
the event of this case and that I am not related to either of
the parties thereto.
Witness my hand this 10th day of January, 1995
ELANA
CSR No. 9651,
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFIED COPY CERTIFICATE
I, Elana K. Fitzgerald, a Certified Shorthand Reporter,
No. 9651, hereby certify that the attached public meeting is a
correct copy of the original transcript of the public meeting,
taken before me on January 4, 1995, as thereon stated.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed at San Diego, California, this 10th day of
January, 1995.
ELANA K. FI
CSR NO. 9651,
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS, INC.
-------
Please Print Name
Mailing Address
PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD DEP
Date
Street, P. O. Box or Route & Box
City, State, Zip Code
Name of Official, Organization, or Group you represent
Check Appropriate Blocks
I I want to make a statement
I I will hand in a written statement
j I do not plan to make a statement
I I am a property owner in the
project area
I am a resident in the project area
A.1
-------
MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP PENDLETON
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM
PROPOSED PLAN FOR SITE 9
PUBLIC MEETING
4 JANUARY 1995
AGENDA
7:00 PM
Welcoming Remarks
and Introductions
LtCol Norquist
Deputy, Environment
Assistant Chief of Staff,
Environmental Security
The CERCLA Process
Ms. Sheryl Lauth
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Status of the
Camp Pendleton Installation
Restoration Program
Ms. Jayne Joy
Environmental Engineering Division
Assistant Chief of Staff,
Environmental Security
Alternatives Evaluated for Site 9
Ms. Robin Smith
Feasibility Study Manager
IT Corporation
Proposed Plan for Site 9
Ms. Jayne Joy
Public Comments
8:30 PM
Adjourn
-------
Marine Corps Base
Camp Pendleton
Superfund Site
Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Southwest Division
Camp Pendleton, California
November 1994
NAVY PROPOSES PLAN FOR
REMEDIAL ACTION AT
OPERABLE UNIT 1
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy), in
jooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB), and the California
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), is soliciting public
comment on the results of environmental investiga-
tions and the proposed remedial alternatives for soil
and groundwater at operable unit 1 (OU1) at the
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California
(MCB CamPen) Superfund site (Figure 1). OU1
consists of unsaturated soil and groundwater at the
location known as Site 9-41 Area Stuart Mesa
Waste Stabilization Pond (Figure 2). The Navy is
the lead federal agency for site activities, EPA is the
lead regulatory agency, and RWQCB and DTSC are
support agencies for proposed cleanup actions.
NOTE: Terms in italics are explained in the
Glossary of Terms.
Section 117 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA), requires that the public be advised of any
proposed remedial actions, and afforded the
opportunity to comment, either orally or in writing, on
such plans. This proposed plan documents a
proposed no action alternative for addressing
rh«miral«s rtatarfprl in lou/ rnnrentratinrHS in
LOS
ANGELES
MARINE CORPS
BASE CAMP
PENOLETON
LAS FLORES
41 AREA;
SITE 9
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION MAP
unsaturated soils at Site 9 (Figure 2), and proposes
institutional controls, in the form of long-term
monitoring (10 years) and restrictions on the use of
groundwater in the vicinity of Site 9 for drinking
water purposes, as the preferred alternative for
dealing with low concentrations of chemicals
detected in the groundwater at Site 9. The no action
alternative for soil has been proposed because the
baseline risk assessment, contained in the Draft
Final Remedial Investigation Report for Croup A
-------
APPROXIMATE GROUNOWATER
FLOW DIRECTION
SCALE:
=E
200 400
SITE 9 - 41 AREA STUART MESA
WASTE STABUZATION POND
-------
Sites (Navy, October 1993), concluded that based
on current and future military land use scenarios,
)xJ hence exposure pathways, the chemical
concentrations present in soil do not pose risks to
human health which are appreciably greater than the
risks associated with background concentrations of
contaminants in the soil. Similarly, there are no
threatened or endangered species or sensitive
habitat areas at Site 9 that would be adversely
affected by the low concentrations of chemicals in
the soil.
The 1993 Remedial Investigation (Rl) Report
contains the results of environmental investigations
and the baseline risk assessment conducted for soil
and groundwater at Site 9. The 1994 Feasibility
Study identifies and evaluates various remediation
alternatives for Site 9. Both documents are part of
the MCB Camp Pendtetor. Administrative Record
and are available for public review at the Camp
Pendleton Base Library and at the Oceanside Public
Library. The public comment period on the
Feasibility Study and this Proposed Plan is
scheduled to begin 12 December 1994 and end 27
January 1995. A public meeting will also be
Conducted during the public comment period. The
Navy will consider all comments received from the
public on the Feasibility Study and the Proposed
Plan in making the final decision regarding the Site
9 - 41 Area Waste Stabilization Pond cleanup.
Facility Description
MCB Camp Pendleton is located between the cities
of Los Angeles to the north and San Diego to the
south (Rgure 1). It is the Marine Corps' primary
amphibious training center for the West Coast.
Construction of MCB Camp Pendleton began in
March 1942, and the base was dedicated in
September 1942 by President Franklin 0. Roosevelt.
The base encompasses approximately 125,000
acres, most of which is in San Diego County.
Surrounding communities include San Clemente to
the northwest, Fallbrook to the east, and Oceanside
to the south. The base is bordered to the west by
the Pacific Ocean, which includes 17 miles of
undisturbed coast. Since its inception, the primary
mission of the base has been training. The base
currently supports more than 36,000 military
personnel and their dependents, and employs
approximately 4,600 civilians.
Site Background
Site 9, also known as the 41 Area Stuart Mesa
Waste Stabilization Pond, is located in an
uninhabited area approximately one-quarter mile
from Stuart Mesa road in the 41 Area and
approximately one-quarter mile east of Interstate 5.
The abandoned surface impoundment covers an
area approximately 400 by 500 feet. The waste
stabilization pond was operated as a sewage lagoon
for oxidation and percolation of raw sewage
generated in the 41 Area from 1963 until 1974 or
1975. In 1975, a wet well and lift station were
installed in 41 Area to pump raw sewage to a
treatment facility in 43 Area, and the use of the
stabilization pond was discontinued. The waste
stabilization pond, which contains water only briefly
following heavy rainfall, has also been used for
stockpiling of soils contaminated with petroleum
hydrocarbons, primarily fuel and oil.
Scope and Role of Operable Unit 1
MCB Camp Pendleton and the Department of the
Navy have been actively involved in the Installation
Restoration (IR) Program process since 1980. The
IR Program consists of the following phases:
• Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI).
The goal of the preliminary assessment is to
review base activities and identify all sites that
may require remediation. The site inspection is an
on-site investigation to augment data collected
during the preliminary assessment and to genecate
sampling and other field data required to evaluate
whether additional investigation or action is
appropriate.
• Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS).
The objective of the remedial investigation is to
assess the nature and extent of contamination to
a level of detail sufficient to support a risk
assessment and feasibility study. During the
feasibility, study, the data compiled during the
remedial investigation are used to develop and
evaluate options for remedial action.
• Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA). The
goal of the remedial design is to conduct technical
analyses, following selection of a remedy for a
site, as necessary to provide detailed plans and
specifications for implementation of the remedial
action. Remedial action is remediation of the site.
-------
Forty-two sites have been identified for inclusion in
the Rl/FS phase, including regional groundwater,
surface water, sediment, and wetland studies. The
sites were divided into four manageable gtoups:
groups A, B, C, and D. Group A consists of six
sites. The October 1993 Remedial Investigation
Report for Group A Sites describes in considerable
.detail the site histories, physical characteristics of
each site, a description of the remedial investiga-
tions conducted at each site, and the nature and
extent of contamination at each of the Group A
sites. The Rl Report also includes the findings of
the baseline human health and ecological risk
assessments for the Group A sites, which include
Site 9 - Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond.
Expedited removal actions will be conducted at three
of the Group A Sites (3, 5, and 6) in accordance
with EPA guidelines.
Operable Unit 1 consists only of Site 9 - Stuart Mesa
Waste Stabilization Pond. Both the soil and the
groundwater beneath the waste stabilization pond
have been contaminated with low levels of
chemicals. The September 1994 Feasibility Study
identified and evaluated several remedial
alternatives for both the soil and the groundwater.
The findings contained in the Rl Report and the
Valuations of the remedial alternatives contained in
the Feasibility Study Report are the basis for
determining the preferred alternative outlined in this
Proposed Plan.
Summary of Site Risks
The Rl identified beryllium and total petroleum
hydrocarbons in the diesel fuel range (TPH-diesel)
as soil contaminants that require evaluation for
potential remedial action. The naturally-occurring
background concentration for beryllium in soils
located outside of the Waste Stabilization Pond (Site
9) is estimated to be in the range from <0.1 to
1.1 parts per million (ppm). In order to estimate the
actual range of natural background soil
concentrations for beryllium, the Navy collected and
chemically analyzed 71 soil samples from the vicinity
of Site 9. The maximum beryllium concentration
observed at Site 9 was 1.9 ppm detected in a single
soil sample located inside the Waste Stabilization
Pond. The range in concentrations of total
petroleum hydrocarbons for diesel fuel in soils from
)ite 9 was <0.5 (Non-Detectable) to 6,700 ppm.
As a means of estimating the human health risks
caused by exposure to contaminants, EPA has
established an acceptable range of risk levels, which
are presented as incremental lifetime cancer risks
(ILCRs) for carcinogens (cancer-causing chemicals)
and hazard indices (His) for noncartinogens (non-
cancer-causing chemicals). EPA considers an ILCR
range of 1x10~* (one in a million) to 1x10"* (one in
ten thousand) an acceptable range for carcinogens.
EPA considers an HI value of less than one for
noncardnogens to be protective of human health.
The results of the human health risk assessment
indicate that all current and future risks are within
EPA's acceptable risk range. Therefore, the soil at
Site 9 does not pose a risk to human health or the
environment.
Unlike the individual chemical constituents of
petroleum hydrocarbons, cancer risk factors
associated with TPH-diesel (a mixture of chemicals)
are not published by either State or Federal
regulatory agencies. Guidance concerning recom-
mended maximum concentrations of TPH-diesel in
soil is based primarily on the protection of
groundwater, and is based on site-specific
conditions. The overriding consideration is the
teachability of hydrocarbons from contaminated soil,
to the groundwater. According to the guidance
provided in the California State Water Resources
Control Board publication Leaking Underground Fuel
Tank (LUFT) Field Manual, TPH-diesel concentra-
tions of 1,000 ppm can be allowed to remain in
place at Site 9. The LUFT Manual guidance was
initially used in the absence of site-specific
teachability studies.
Groundwater contaminants at Site 9 that require
evaluation for potential remedial action are
tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE).
The presence of these contaminants in groundwater
did not result in an ILCR exceeding 1x10**,
regardless of.whether the maximum or average
concentration was used in the risk calculation, and
based on a current military use scenario. The
results of the human health risk assessment indicate
that future risk, utilizing an improbable residential
land use scenario, is within EPA's acceptable risk
range. However, both chemicals have been, on
occasion, detected in groundwater samples at
concentrations exceeding the State and Federal
maximum contaminant levels (MCL) of 5.0 parts per
billion (ppb). PCE was detected in only one
groundwater monitoring well at a maximum
concentration of 18 ppb, while TCE was detected in
a different well at a maximum concentration of 15
ppb. The range of contaminants observed in
-------
groundwater during six separate sampling events
are as follows:
(PCS)
TikMaredhtn
(TCE)
Ma
(H*)
m.
(PPO)
• 5
4-18
1-15
18
15
Summary of Alternatives
Seven alternatives were identified as potential
remedial alternatives for Site 9. Each alternative
addressed both the soil and the groundwater media.
For purposes of evaluating the treatment
alternatives, contaminated soil at Site 9 was
grouped into three types. Zone 1 soil contains
beryllium concentrations exceeding the proposed
remediation goal (PRG) of 0.69 ppm, which is the
"background concentration for beryllium in soils at
'Site 9. Zone II soil contains TPH-diesel concentra-
tions exceeding 100 ppm (Option 1) or 1,000 ppm
(Option 2). Volumes of soil with concentrations of
metals that potentially exceed State or Federal
hazardous waste leaching criteria are designated as
"hot spots.'
The seven remedial alternatives which were
evaluated in the Feasibility Study are:
• Alternative 1: No Action
• Alternative 2: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base
Disposal (Landfill) for Hot Spots, Zone I, and
Zone II
Groundwater - Institutional Controls (groundwater
monitoring for 10 years and land use restrictions
so that the groundwater is not used for drinking
water)
• Alternative 3: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base
Disposal (Landfill) for Zone I and Hot Spots;
Biological Land Treatment for Zone II
Groundwater - Extraction, ultraviolet
) (L/VyChemical Oxidation, and Reinjection, with
groundwater monitoring
• Alternative 4: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base
Disposal (Landfill) for Zone I; In Situ
Btoremediation/Bbventing for Zone II
Groundwater - Extraction, Carbon Adsorption,
and Reinjection, with groundwater monitoring
• Alternative 5: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base
Disposal (Landfill) for Zone I; In Situ
Bioremediation/Bioventing for Zone II
Groundwater - Institutional Controls (groundwater
monitoring for 10 years and land use restrictions
so that the groundwater is not used for drinking
water)
• Alternative 6: Soil - Excavation and Off-Base
Disposal (Landfill) for Zone I and Hot Spots;
Biological Land Treatment for Zone II
Groundwater - Institutional Controls (groundwater
monitoring for 10 years and land use restrictions
so that the groundwater is not used for drinking
water)
• Alternative 7: Soil - No Action
Groundwater - Institutional Controls (groundwater
monitoring for 10 years and land use restrictions
so that the groundwater is not used for drinking
water)
The detailed analysis of alternatives provides the
information necessary for decision-makers to select
a site remedy. Each alternative was assessed in
accordance with the EPA's Guidance for Conducting
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies
under CERCLA, with consideration of the following:
• Overall protection of human health and the
environment
• Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
• Long-term effectiveness and permanence
• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
• Short-term effectiveness
• Implementability
• Cost.
Two other criteria, State acceptance and community
acceptance, will be assessed after public comment
on the FS and this Proposed Plan.
The alternative analysis, discussed in detail in the
FS, is summarized as follows:
-------
QrftNte
Owal
Protection of-
HunwiH^ti
•ndtw
CompAtrm wNh
ARAM (Note 1)
Long-Twin
EHtettvwwM and
Reduction of
TaddV. MobKy,
orVokm
Short-T«im
EttacOMMM
Co*(Sn*or»)
Optonl
OpfcnZ
1
No
No
NA
NO
NA
0
0
2
Y*1
Low
Low
Mod
wgn
4.1
13
AH
3
YM
Hgh
rtgh
Mod
2.4
1.4
^««t^4»
•TTOT
• 4
YM
Ugh
High
rtgh
wgn
1.3
l.i
FM
5
Yet1
Mod
Wgh
rtgh
Hgn
a?
03
•
YM*
Mod
Wflh
Mod
i^uJ
13
03
7
YM*
Low
Low
NA
ngn
0.4
Description of the Preferred Alternative
As previously mentioned, each of the seven
jpedial alternatives considered both the soil and
aitxjndwater media. Based on the detailed
information provided in the Rl Report and the FS
Report, the Navy has identified Alternative 7 as the
preferred alternative. The rationale for the selection
of Alternative 7 is as follows:
Soil Media: No Action
The human health risk associated with the beryllium
in the soil, utilizing the future residential land use
scenario, is an ILCR of 2X1CT5, which is within the
acceptable range determined by the EPA of 1x10~*
to 1x10"*.. The future residential land use scenario
represents the most conservative approach when
conducting human health risk assessments. The
probability that Site 9 will ever be used for anything
other than training is extremely tow. In addition,
beryllium was detected in only one boring in the Site
9 impoundment at levels that exceeded the area
background concentrations of beryllium. The single
sample found to contain 1.9 ppm of beryllium was
from a depth of 1 foot below the surface at one
)ecific location. In the unlikely event that the
.•hpoundment is utilized for residential purposes at
some time in the future, considerable grading and
import of clean fill would be required. Thus, site
preparation would in all probability result in a lesser
likelihood for dermal contact or ingestion of soil
containina elevated levels of ben/ilium
The primary concern for the TPH-dlesel
concentrations in soil at Site 9 is that these
hydrocarbons as well as other metals present in the
soil, could leach to the groundwater and degrade the
quality of the shallow groundwater. In order to
assess the potential for such leaching, soil samples
were collected from the locations and depths
containing maximum concentrations of beryllium and
TPH-diesel and submitted to the laboratory for
analysis using the synthetic precipitation leaching
procedure (SPLP; U.S. EPA Method 1312) for
volatile organics, and the waste extraction test
(WET) for beryllium, cadmium, and lead. The test
results showed that these compounds were not
detected in the extract solution. Based on the
results of these teachability tests, TPH-diesel,
beryllium, cadmium, and lead are not expected to
leach to, or degrade, the groundwater.
Groundwater Institutional Controls and Long-Term
Groundwater Monitoring
As previously mentioned, concentrations of
tetrachtoroethane (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCEj
do not pose a significant risk to human health using
either the maximum or average concentration of
those chemicals, and utilizing the current military
use scenario in the risk calculations. Although these
compounds do not pose a significant health risk,
both have been detected in individual samples at
concentrations which exceed the State and Federal
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). As shown in
the FS Report, there are several treatment
alternatives which can effectively remove these
constituents from groundwater. The difficulty does
not lie in the ability to successfully treat the
groundwater, but in the ability to pump sufficient
quantities of groundwater from the aquifer.
It was determined during the remedial investigation
that much of Site 9 is underlain by highly
impermeable marine terrace deposits. Wells
installed in these deposits could not be tested using
conventional pumping techniques because these
wells yielded extremely small quantities of
groundwater. Based on the results of the Rl, it is
not likely that wells completed in these deposits
would be considered suitable as a source of
municipal or domestic water supply. In addition,
implementability of any groundwater treatment
alternatives which involve groundwater extraction will
necessarily be hampered by the low permeability of
the marine terrace deposits, and consequentfy the
-------
Computer modeling suggests that the low
concentrations of contaminants in Site 9
jroundwater will not reach the ocean. The computer
model used was not extensively calibrated to the
hydrogeologic conditions at Site 9. For these
reasons, results of computer modeling performed for
this site should not be considered definitive, but a
best estimate based upon available information.
However, the computer modeling results suggest
that an impact on marine receptors is not likely.
There are no users of groundwater downgradient
between Site 9 and the ocean, and the groundwater
flow path is through the nonbeneficia! zone which is
located approximately one-quarter mile west of Site
9 (parallel to Interstate 5). Although levels of PCE
and TCE above MCLs were detected in groundwater
beneath the Waste Stabilization Pond, the ground-
water fate and transport model indicates that
concentrations of contaminants will be reduced to
below maximum contaminant levels by dispersion
and natural attenuation within 30 years. As
indicated in the preamble to the National Oil and
Hazardous Pollution Contingency Plan, the use of
natural attenuation as a remediation technique is
-pnsistent with EPA's groundwater protection policy
J/hen active restoration is not practical or warranted
due to site conditions, and groundwater is unlikely to
be used in the foreseeable future. Alternative 7
specifies that groundwater will be sampled and
analyzed semi-annually for 10 years to ensure that
dispersion and natural attenuation is occurring, and
that contaminant levels are not increasing as a
result of some unknown source. During the long-
term monitoring period, and until contaminants in the
groundwater at the site are at or below Maximum
Contamination Levels (MCLs), the base masterplan
will be amended to restrict future access to the
groundwater in the immediate vicinity of Site 9. As
required by current regulations, a compliance
monitoring program consisting of eight rounds of
groundwater sampling will be conducted after 7
years to assess the effectiveness of the dispersion
and natural attenuation of the low concentrations of
PCE and TCE in the groundwater. Compliance with
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) will be achieved over time
through natural groundwater attenuation.
Compliance with water quality objectives and the
ieed for further action will be re-evaluated
periodically during the groundwater monitoring
period.
Glossary of Terms
Remedial Alternative - One of several alternatives
for remediating, or cleaning up, a site.
Operable Unit - Made up of one or more sites with
similar characteristics that may require the same or
similar methods of remediation.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) -
Commonly referred to as the Superfund, authorized
Federal action to respond to the release, or
substantial threat of release, into the environment of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
which may present an imminent or substantial
clanger to public health or welfare.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) - Reauthorized CERCLA and amended
the authority and requirements of CERCLA and
associated laws.
Proposed Plan - A document intended to facilitate
public participation in the remedy selection process
by identifying the preferred alternative for a remedial
action at a site or operable unit and explaining the
reasons for the preference.
Unsaturated Soil - Soil in which the space between
grains is not filled with water.
Groundwater - Water beneath the ground surface
found in between soil grains and cracks in rocks.
Baseline Risk Assessment - The process of defining
the actual and potential risks of various types of
pollution to human health and the environment The
'environment* in this context refers to all animals
and plants, in addition to air, water, and soil, and
how they may be affected by exposure to
significantly higher levels of hazardous materials.
Exposure Pathways - Means by which humans or
animals may be exposed to contaminants, including
dermal exposure, ingestion, inhalation, food chain,
etc.
Background Concentrations - Naturally occurring
concentrations of certain compounds in soil and/or
groundwater, including minerals, heavy metals, and
organic compounds. Background concentrations are
often determined statistically, and are expressed as
mean (average) or reasonable maximum exposure
(RME) levels.
-------
feasibility Study - An engineering evaluation of
>averal alternatives which may be used to remediate
& site. Criteria used to evaluate the alternatives
include overall protection of human health and the
environment, compliance with applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements, long-term
effectiveness and relevance, reduction of toxicity,
short-term effectiveness, implementability, and cost
Administrative Record - A record of all information
considered or relied upon in selecting a remedy.
The record must be maintained 'at or near" the
facility at issue and must be available to the public.
Installation Restoration (IR) Program - Navy program
to identify, assess, characterize, and clean up or
control contamination from past hazardous waste
disposal operations and hazardous material spills at
Navy and Marine Corps activities.
Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk (ILCR) - The risk
of developing cancer, due to exposure to a
contaminant, which is in addition to the cancer risk
'pm all other sources during a lifetime.
Hazard Index (HI) - Potential for noncancer toxicity
from exposure to site-related contamination. The HI
is found by dividing the daily intake by the reference
dose, or the estimate of the quantity of the
contaminant which may be taken daily without
significant risk of toxicity.
Land Use Scenario - Various purposes for which
land may be used, such as residential, industrial,
military, etc.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) - State and Federal laws
and regulations which may be relevant or
appropriate when remediating a site.
Aquifer - A layer of rock, sand, or gravel located
beneath the ground surface capable of storing water
within cracks and pore spaces, or between grains.
When water contained within an aquifer is of
sufficient quantity and quality, it can be used for
drinking and other purposes. The water contained
in an aquifer is called groundwater.
Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) -
A laboratory procedure wherein reagent water is
used to extract volatites and cyanides from soil
samples. The extracted fluid is then analyzed by
gas chrcmatogram. The procedure is designed to
measure teachability of contaminants from soil.
Waste Extraction Test (WET) - A laboratory
procedure designed to measure the teachability of
compounds, particularly heavy metals, from soil.
Citric acid is used as the extracting fluid.
Permeability - The rate at which groundwater may
diffuse through soil.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
If you have any questions about Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton OUI please contact:
Ms. Jayne Joy
Division Head (IR)
Assistant Chief of Staff,
Environmental Security
Box 555008
MCB Camp Pendleton, CA
92055-5008
(619) 725-9752
Ms. Tracy Sahagun
IR Coordinator
Assistant Chief of Staff,
Environmental Security
Box 555008
MCB Camp Pendleton, CA
92055-5008
(619) 725-9741
Mr. Edward K. Dias
Remedial Project Manager
Southwest Division,
Naval Facilities Engineering
Command
1220 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92132-5181
(619) 532-3575
-------
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Navy invites the public to become involved in the process of selecting the final remedy.
Comments from residents of MCB Camp Pendleton and the surrounding communities are
valuable in helping the Navy select a final remedy for the site. Based on new information
or public comments, the Navy may change the preferred alternative or choose another
alternative.
There are two ways for you to provide your comments during the public comment period
between 2 December 1994 and 27 January 1995. You may send written comments to GY
Sgt Ruth Carver at the following address:
GY Sgt Ruth Carver
Joint Public Affairs Office
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton
Building 1160
Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5001
(619) 725-5569
Alternatively, you may submit your comments to the Navy during the public meeting which
will be held as follows:
Date: 4 January 1995
Place: Oceanside Senior Citizens Center
455 Country Club Lane
Oceanside, California
Time: 6:30 p.m.
A court reporter will be present at the meeting to record comments for a written record. The
public meeting will be an information open house until 7:00 pm when the proposed plan will
be presented and public comments taken.
After the public comment period is over, the Navy will review and consider the submitted
comments before making a final decision on the remedial action alternative to be used at
the site. Comments received from the public will be addressed in a Responsiveness
Summary which will be included in the Administrative Record. The complete Administrative
Record is available for review at the following locations:
Oceanside Public Library Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton
300 North Hill Street Base LJbrary
Oceanside, CA 92054 Building 1122
(619) 966-4690 Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5001
(619) 725-5669
-------
D10B2.013
mmntiiMiiiiinnri —•••-"
OVERVIEW OF
pc!i>?jyp
AS IT RELATES TO
FEDERAL FACILITIES
m o o
[p > rn
2 n1 o
> ' o
•n
Tl
i
o\
!
i
VP
-------
!
i
i
SUPERFUND PROGRAM AS IT RELATES TO FEDERAL FACILITIES
THE SUPERFUND PROCESS
SITE DISCOVERY
PA/SI
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
SITE INSPECTION
RI/FS
ROD
RDIRA
01082.024
REMOVAL ACTIONS
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
FEASIBILITY
STUDY
PROPOSED
PLAN
REMEDIAL
DESIGN
REMEDIAL
ACTION
1
gKDSSS^
-------
TJP ^ AC/S, Environmental Security
Installation Restoration
Program
Installation Restoration (IR) Program History
> Placed on the National Priority List on 15 Nov 89
-* EPA ranking score of 32.5
+ Federal Facilities Agreement
- Signed in October 1990
- Revised in October of 1992
'- Placed the Sites into Groups
+ IR Program has 42 Sites, typical sites include
-* Abandoned dumps/grease pits
•» Pesticide handling areas
- Ditches associated with operations
-»Landfills and surface impoundments
-------
AC/S, Environmental Security
Installation Restoration
Program
~*£r
--•^vw
Status of the Installation Restoration
Program
> Group "A" Completed Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study:
- One Site Feasibility Study/Proposed Plan
-> Three Sites Removal Actions
-^ Three Sites No Further Action
> Group "B" Completed the Remedial Investigation
> Group "C" Completed the Field Investigation
> Group "D" Begin Field Investigation in FY96
-------
THE CERCLA PROCESS
PA/SI
I
RI/FS
ROD
I
RD/RA
Site
Discovery
t
Preliminary Assessment
Site Inspection
NPL
T
Remedial
Investigation
Feasibility
Study
I
Proposed
Plan
T
Removal
Actions
Record of Decision
Remedial
Design
Remedial
Action
De-Listing
-------
Criteria
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost ($ millions)
Option 1 (100ppmTPH)
Option 2 (1 ,000 ppm TPH)
Alternatives
1
No
No
NA
No
NA
NA
0
0
2
Yes
Yesa
Low
Low
Mod
High
4.1
1.5
3
Yes
Yes
High
High
Mod
Mod
2.4
1.4
4
Yes
Yes
High
High
High
High
1.3
1.1
5
Yes
Yesa
Mod
High
High
High
0.7
0.5
6
Yes
Yesa
Low
High
Mod
Mod
1.8
0.8
7
Yes
Yes3
Low
Low
NA
High
0.4
aARARs achieved over time through natural groundwater attenuation.
NA - Not applicable.
-------
AC/S, Environmental Security
Installation Restoration
Program
» Proposed Plan for Site 9
> Preferred Action Alternative No. 7
•* Soil - No Action
-> Groundwater - Institutional Controls & Restricted Use
^The Pendleton Team, including regulatory
agencies, has agreed on this alternative
-------
AC/S, Environmental Security
Installation Restoration
Program
Rationale
> Levels of Contamination
^Soil
-* Background Concentration of Beryllium
- Leaching Test Results
> Groundwater
- No Downgradient Drinking Water Wells
-»Fate and Transport
- Low Well Yield
-------
EXHIBIT
DEPO OF:
DATE-
MCB CAMP PENDLETON INSTALLATION P, ATJA „ nT7 ., n
RESTORATION SITES BY GROUP ELAN? KITZGERALD
1
Group A (Sites with Limited Previous Investigation)
Site 3 - Pest Control Wash Rack
Sites 4 and 4A - MCAS Drainage Ditch and Concrete-Lined Surface Impoundment
Site 5 - Firefighter Drill Field
Site 6 - DPDO (DRMO) Scrap Yard and Building 2241
Site 9-41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
Site 24 - 26 Area MWR Maintenance Facility
Group B (Landfills and Surface Impoundments)
Site 7 - Box Canyon Landfill
Sites 8 and 8A - Las Pulgas Landfill and Las Flores Creek
Site 14 - San Onofre Landfill
Site 19-31 Area ACU-5 (LCAC) Surface Impoundments
Site 20 - 43 Area Las Pulgas Vehicle Wash Rack
Site 22 - 23 Area Unlined Surface Impoundment
Group C (Remaining Sites in the Santa Margarita Basin (SMB))
Site 1 - Refuse Burning Grounds in SMB (2 locations)
Site 2 - Grease Disposal Pits in SMB (2 locations)
Site 1 0 - 26 Area Sewage Sludge Composting Yard
Site 16-22 Area Buildings 22151 and 22187 Ditch Confluence and Ditch
Site 17-22 Area Building 22187 Marsh and Ditch
Site 27 - 22 Area Ditches Behind Building 22210
Site 28 - 26 Area Trash Hauler's Maintenance Area
Site 29 - 25 Area Skeet Range
Site 30 - Firing Range Soil Fill in 31 Area
Site 31 - Building 210801 Transformer (no sampling)
Site 35 - Former Sewage Treatment Plant Facility in 25 Area
SMB Groundwater Study
SMB Surface Water and Sediment Study
Santa Margarita Coastal Wetland Study
Group D (Remaining Sites outside the SMB)
Site 1 - Refuse Burning Grounds outside SMB (7 locations)
Site 2 - Grease Disposal Pits outside SMB (4 locations)
Site 18-13/16 Area Building 1687 Spill and Ditch
Site 32 - Drum Storage Area and Drainage Between Buildings 41303 and 41366
Site 33 - 52 Area Armory (Building 520452) and Drainage to Southeast
Site 34 - Combat Engineers Maintenance Facility, Buildings 62580 - 62583
Site 36 - Debris Pile Area Behind Ponds at Sewage Treatment Plant 1 1
Site 37 - Pesticide- and POL-Handling Areas at San Clemente Ranch
Site 38 - 52 Area Sewer Line, Building 52188
Site 39 - 41 Area Sewer Line, Buildings 41300 and 41346
Site 40 - 13 Area Sewer Line, Building 13103
Site 41 - 13 Area Sewer Line, Building 13128
Site 42 - 13 Area Sewer Line, Building 13129
Groundwater Study outside SMB
Surface Water and Sediment Study outside SMB
Coastal Wetland Study outside SMB
-------
_ EXHIBIT
DEPO OF: PU0UC,
DATE: 1'
ELANA K. FITZGERALD
/
2^
3
j _
4
7
0
?-.
S
-ar-ry /\ r
" ..... "
1. /SAAC.' -M IREAIO.) , DTSC..
//
"
n
'
si -^ \ o
20
2-2..
^
.4
l
-------
-------
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX 108
COVINA.CA91723
(800)242-1996
FAX (818) 915-0197
REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
455 COUNTRY CLUB LANE
OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1995
6:30 p.m. - 7:13 p.m.
REPORTED BY:
ELANA K. SHIRLEY
C.S.R. NO. 9651
PY
CORPORATE OFFICE: Eastland Securities Bldg. • 599 S. Barranca Ave. • Penthouse • Covina, CA 91723
IRVINE LOS ANGELES ONTARIO PALM SPRINGS SAN BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO
Jamboree Broadway Ontario Wells Fargo Vanir Emerald
Center Plaza Airport Ctr. Bank Building Tower Shapery Center
-------
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1995
6:30 P.M.
-oOo-
LIEUTENANT COLONEL NORQUIST: Good evening. I'm
Lieutenant Colonel Stan Norquist assigned to Marine Corps Base
Camp Pendleton and the Assistant Chief of Staff of the
Environmental Security Office. And on behalf of the Commanding
General, Major General ReinJce, of Camp Pendleton, I am pleased
to welcome you to this public forum to — open for public
comment, the proposed plan for Sites 4, 4-A on Marine Corps Air
Station and Site 24 located in Area 26 aboard the base.
A court reporter is here tonight recording the
official transcript of the record of this meeting, and that
transcript will be available post this meeting for all
interested parties.
I would like to determine at this time if there are
any present who are not military, not employed by Marine Corps
Base Camp Pendleton, not contracted by the Marine Corps Base
Camp Pendleton or not a regulator involved in the Technical
Review Committee for Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.
Are there any members of the public present that do
not fall into that category?
The record will show that there are no private
citizens or representatives of the general public present
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS, INC.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
outside the employ of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton or the
regulatory representatives to the Technical Review Committee for
the Installation Restoration Program at Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton.
What I would propose, then, is that we recess this
meeting for a period of about 15 minutes to see if any of the
public do arrive, and after 15 minutes, we'll reconvene the
meeting. If no one does, then we will determine at that time if
this satisfies the requirement for the public meeting and close
the meeting at that time.
Any comments or suggestions? Let's recess this
meeting then for 15 minutes.
(Recess)
LIEUTENANT COLONEL NORQUIST: Okay. Good evening. We'll
reconvene now the public meeting for comment — opportunity for
public comment on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton's proposed
plan for Installation Restoration 4 and 4-alpha at Marine Corps
Air Station and Site 24 in the MWR Repair Facility or
Maintenance Facility in the 26 area.
We do have some members of the public. We have two
members of the public who have arrived. So we will provide the
proposed plan as advertised.
So on behalf of the Commanding General Marine Corps
Base Camp Pendleton, I would like to welcome you to this forum
to provide opportunity for comment, fulfill the basis both legal
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS, INC.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and moral obligation to the public, to provide that opportunity
for comment on the proposed plan for remediation or addressal
(sic) of those sites.
A court reporter is present and a transcript — and
we will provide a transcript for an official record, which will
be available following — in the weeks following this forum.
We would ask you to hold your questions until the
formal presentation is complete, and many of the people who have
been involved in the Technical Review Committee and in the
investigation of the sites and in the oversight, the regulatory
oversight of that process, are with us tonight. And I would
like to take some time to introduce those key personnel right
now.
First, I would like to introduce the Assistant
Chief of Staff of Environmental Security for Marine Corps Base
Camp Pendleton, Mr. Keith LeBouef. And then as I introduce the
members of the Technical Review Committee who are here and the
contracting agents who are here, I would ask you to just say a
brief word on your involvement with the Committee and your
oversight and what your role is.
Mr. Ed Dias is from the Southwest Division
Department of the Navy. Mr. Dias.
MR. DIAS: Yeah, I am from Southwest Division in San
Diego. I manage the contract for the Marine Corps Base. We
have (inaudible) working on the IR Program, and — and we try to
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS, INC.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
meet the deadlines in FTA. Okay. Thank you.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL NORQUIST: Thank you.
From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, we
have Ms. Sheryl Lauth.
MS. LAUTH: Hi. I'm Sheryl Lauth, and I'm the project
manager for the E.P.A. We're the lead regulatory agency that
oversees the cleanup of Camp Pendleton.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL NORQUIST: From the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board, we have Mr. John Odermatt.
MR. ODERMATT: I'm with the Regional Water Quality
Control Board, State of California agency, a support agency to
the EPA, and providing regulatory oversight of the remedial
investigations and cleanup of Camp Pendleton.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL NORQUIST: Representing International
Technologies, which is the prime contractor in execution of the
Investigation and Remedial Action Development Program, is Mr. Ed
Minugh.
MR. MINUGH: Good evening. Yes, I'm Ed Minugh. I am the
project manager from IT Corporation. Our — we're a contractor
to the Naval Facilities Engineering Command for the
Environmental Engineering Services associated with the remedial
investigation feasibility study here at Camp Pendleton.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL NORQUIST: The Assistant Chief of
Staff of the Installation Restoration Program Manager is
Mr. Keith LeBouef. Keith.
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS, INC.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. LEBOUEF: I'm here at Camp Pendleton in Environmental
Security. I control the — well, I'm the manager of the
Installation Restoration Program, and my name and number appears
in a fact sheet that you may have. And if you have any
questions, you can direct them to my number.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL NORQUIST: Just a few notes, by the
way, of background. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, the base
was founded in 1942. It was contracted in 1942. It is a
126,000-acre facility, 17 miles of coast, separates San Diego
from Los Angeles, and is a great, we think, divider from the
problems of Los Angeles County and the northern counties and
associated environmental issues infringement upon San Diego
County.
So it is the home of the First Marine Expeditionary
Force. That is the unit that consists of the First Marine
Division, the First Four-Service Support Group and the Third
Marine Aircraft Wing. Those are the primary major subordinate
commands, and those are the units that were primarily involved
in much of the deployment activity over the last several years
to Somalia, to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and many of those
operations.
In addition to its national security admission —
and that is the primary purpose for Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton's existence — Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton is
proud of its record of and its ability to integrate the
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS, INC.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
environmental sensitivities and regulations of today into the
mission and the accomplishment of the mission, the national
security of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. It is a host of
numerous endangered species, some of which include the Least
Bells Vireo, the California Least Turn, the Western Snowy Plover
and others. And it is also the employer of 36,000 military and
4,600 — approximately 4,600 civilian employees in the region.
So it's a very diverse and extremely active dynamic base. It's
alive and — both with its mission and with its environment.
You are going to hear tonight some now on what our
plan is to address sites that have been listed as requiring the
attention of our Installation Restoration Program, and I will
turn that over now to Mr. Keith LeBouef.
MR. LEBOUEF: Well, thank you Lieutenant Colonel.
I would like to welcome and encourage your
participation in the ongoing cleanup effort aboard Camp
Pendleton. Please hold all questions until the end of my
presentation. At that time— time has been arranged following
the presentation to fully answer all questions. This
presentation should take about 15 minutes.
I would like to, just for the record, state three
weeks prior to this meeting, we published a public notice in the
Scout. Two weeks prior, we published a half-a-page ad on the
proposed plan. One week prior we had a short article placed in
the Scout. Two weeks prior, we put a proposed plan in the Sun
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS. INC.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Coast. And the Plan Committee, one week prior, we put — placed
a public notice in the Sun Coast, which is a paper in San
Clemente. Also three weeks prior, in the Blade Citizen, the
proposed plan was placed in the public section of the newspaper.
One week prior to this meeting, a public notice referring to the
Oceanside senior citizen facility, denoting what time the
meeting was going to start. Also, these proposed plans were
placed at both of our information repositories.
And now I would like to get into my presentation.
Right now, I am here to provide information on the IR program.
We refer to it as the Installation Restoration program. I want
to completely discuss the investigations that have taken place
at these three sites we refer to as Site 4, 4-A and 24, provide
descriptions of these sites. We have slides showing different
angles of the sites. Also, we have a site map with sampling and
some of the investigation work that we have conducted at these
sites.
Also, I would like to finish — I mean furnish
information on the proposed plan. This plan is a proposed plan.
It's the proposed action we have — we recommend for these
sites. And a lot of effort and a lot of analysis has gone into
this plan to get where we are today.
We also encourage the public participation and
involvement in this program. It's a long — several years' of
work needs to be done and we have several opportunities that the
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS, INC.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
public can get involved. And I will be stating them towards the
end of the presentation, how the public can get involved.
The main reason we are here is to answer all
questions and especially listen to any concerns that anyone may
have.
The Installation Restoration program was
established to allow the base to comply with new environmental
laws addressing past hazardous waste handling practices. In
1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
Liability Act was enacted. It was amended in 1986 by SARA,
Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act.
Okay. In 1990, October of that year, the Federal
Facilities Agreement was signed by regulatory agencies and the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy. This agreement outlined the
roles, responsibilities and schedules to clean up the base.
Many agencies and community representatives play a
major role in the IR program. We have a Technical Review
Committee, which is composed of Fish and Wildlife, the City of
Oceanside, also community representatives. We have a few base
residents on this committee that review all of the documents we
make available to the public. And this Technical Review
Committee meets on a quarterly basis. And we also — any
member, we send documentation to them to comment on any of the
findings or the results of our studies.
It is broken down into three sites. We refer to
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS, INC.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
them as Site 4, Site 4-A, Site 24, but they're actually — a
drainage ditch at Site 4. You can see in Figure 1 of the fact
sheet that you may have picked up — I will go ahead and show
you the map here. Pretty hard to read on the overhead here,
but — basically, here's the main gate, Vandegrift is the main
thoroughfare through the base. Site 4 is right near the Air
Station, and Site 4-A — 4 and 4-A are adjacent to each other.
And then Site 24 is up there by Lake O'Neill. Site 24 is the
Morale, Welfare and Recreation Maintenance Facility. The slide
depicts the concrete impoundment. That's at the Air Station.
What you have is a blowup of that concrete impoundment here.
This line here is the main boulevard, Vandegrift, back there
(indicating). This is the Air Station and Santa Margarita River
flows nearby. This ditch — which in the slide is the grassy
area to the left of the impoundment, this ditch (indicating) ,
that's just a small section of it. It runs the length of almost
the Air Station down and empties into the Santa Margarita River.
This Site 4, which is the ditch, is these arrows (indicating).
The flow of the ditch during rain season goes that way
(indicating) , and those marks in red are — or kind of a
maroon-type color, are the sample sites where samples were
taken. Some sites were — two samples were taken and noted by
times two. Three samples were taken here (indicating). Also,
the triangles denote surface water samples that were taken.
The 22 area is across the boulevard and it's more
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS, INC.
10
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of an industrial site. Then you have a row of aircraft hangars
on the other side of this ditch (indicating) that a lot of the
runoff from aircraft maintenance is suspected in, over the
years, of flowing into this ditch. That's why we decide —
that's why it was placed on a list to investigate it.
Also, this concrete impoundment, the concern was
whenever a fire suppression system floods the hangars, the
discharge may flow into this impoundment. And the concern was
if there was cracks in the concrete, there may be some
possibility solvents that were washed out of the hangars into
the impoundment and leaked into the ground soil. It's kind of a
unigue angle. Borings were taken underneath the concrete itself
and sampled.
At the very end of the presentation I will mention
the results.
Oh, also, groundwater at Site 4 — the groundwater
is being further investigated with other sites in the area and
is not included in this proposed plan.
Okay. Site 24. Here we have some more shots of —
this is the opposite direction. You can see the ditch over on
the right-hand side. It is kind of — it was the dry season.
This photo was taken several years ago. We have recently gone
out there just three or four days ago and it's pretty lush with
green vegetation. The right side of it is where they are
installing that channel, along Vandegrift, and that's why the
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS, INC.
i i
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
dirt is disturbed like that. This is the — what the concrete
impoundment looks like now. Several years ago they have gone
back in and put a liner on it to keep it from leaking. It
allows them to have more control over the discharges that are
discharged into that impoundment. And half of it is dry just
because of the dry weather we have been having.
Okay. And now we'll go to Site 24. Site 24 is the
MWR Maintenance Facility. On the map it is located at Building
2662. This road right here (indicating) is Vandegrift. This
building supports 20 other buildings on base, taking care of
their maintenance, from broken windows to painting the
exteriors, interiors, and also working on appliances that may
have gone — broke down. This facility is made up of a welding
shop, which is located in the far right in the picture over
there (indicating) and a paint shop is in the foreground left
(indicating). And that's a picture of the welding shop. The
area on the slide to the right where the little shed is in the
fenced-in area is a former hazardous storage area, where they
stored barrels of solvents, paints, and maybe some cleaners.
And we were real concerned about that area. So several samples
in that location were taken. Soil borings, sub-surface soil,
surface soil and sediment samples were taken. Also, no
groundwater was found. It is pretty elevated terrain there.
And the effort that was put forth was substantial.
Site 4 and 4-A, I combined since they are so close to each
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS. INC.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
other. Four soil borings, eight soil borings were taken at Site
24, a total of 12, which are basically holes that are altered
into the ground and at different levels in depth. Samples —
soil samples were taken. We have taken 55 of those. Then there
was surface soil and sediment samples that were taken, 33 of
those. Surface water samples were taken, a total of 10. There
was no water — surface water found at the facility, the
maintenance facility.
That's a paint shop. Another shot of it. Okay.
Monitoring wells were drilled at three different
depths: One was shallow, then medium and deep. Sixteen wells
were put in at Site 4, six wells were put in at Site 24, and a
total of 81 groundwater samples were collected.
I will just reemphasize, groundwater at Site 4 and
4-A is being further evaluated with other sites in the area and
is not included in this proposed plan. Okay.
The data that was analyzed from the samples that
were taken were placed in a remedial investigation report, and
it was published in October of 1993. Within this report, there
was a human health and ecological risk assessment. It takes the
results of the samples of the concentrations of chemicals and
breaks that down into a human health risk and an ecological
risk. How dangerous is it? Then the conclusions. The
conclusions were that conditions at these three sites are
already protected of human health and the environment. With
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS, INC.
13
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2'0
21
22
23
24
25
this information, the proposed plan was prepared, and in that
proposed plan we are recommending no remedial action for the
soil at Site 4 and 4-A and the soil and groundwater at Site 24.
These investigations can be found at information
repositories at the base library and also at the downtown
Oceanside library, where there are several reports and
statistics on what contain — what was contained in the samples,
what was found, if anything, and it explains kind of a process
that has taken place to determine the contaminants. Also, the
Marine Corps encourages public participation in the
decision-making process. We print fact sheets periodically,
almost quarterly, that we can mail out. If you would like to
get out — on our mailing list, just make sure you sign in, and
you may be receiving several of these in the mail.
Also, the proposed plans are published in the
papers, are available at the repositories. And we also have an
administrative record which is kept in the Environmental
Security Office. If the public would like to come in and take a
look at the administrative record, they are welcome to do so.
Also, if they live in San Diego, it's available at
Southwest Division. Ed Dias can help you out there if you would
like to take a look at that. The final decision has not been
made on these three sites. The public comment period goes
through July 10th, and any public comment that is made, we will
receive and consider. We will review it and consider it.
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS. TMP
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So let's see. At this time, that concludes my
presentation, but I would just like to say a couple of
administrative things.
There is a court reporter present. So if you have
any questions, please state your name just so it goes on the
record, and we can document that — that questions have taken
place.
I would also like to introduce the remedial program
managers — that we did before — very quickly. We have Ed
Diaz, John Odermatt from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Sheryl Lauth from Environment — Environmental Protection
Agency. She flew down from San Francisco. Jayne Joy is our
Environmental Engineering Division head, she may be able to
answer some questions too. We also have quality — our water
quality person here if there are water quality issues. And we
also have Mr. Ed Minugh from the IT Corporation that actually
physically went out — well, not physically, but his company
physically went out, took samples at these sites and is very
familiar with the sites.
So right now, if there are any questions, please,
the floor's open. All right.
Let the record show there's no questions at this
time.
Now, at the very end of tonight's discussion, there
is a formal comment period. If there is any comments that you
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS, INC.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would like to make to the team that has investigated these
sites, please do so at this time. We will stay here until it's
completed. If — if you don't have a set comment — if you
don't have a formal comment right at this time, you can — we
have comment sheets that you can — that you can write the
comments down and send them in by July 10th of this — of next
month, and they will be considered. Please postmark them
before — or by July 10th, and we will receive it and consider
those. This is the address where those comments can be sent to:
Joint Public Affairs Office. If you have any questions on the
IR program, you can call that number and either they will refer
you to my phone or we'll have someone return the phone call.
GUNNERY SERGEANT RUTH CARVER: Excuse me, please. That
number is incorrect, but in the publication you did here
pre-1995, the phone number is correct.
MR. LEBOUEF: Okay.
GUNNERY SERGEANT RUTH CARVER: The phone number is
correct here. That number is incorrect.
MR. LEBOUEF: Okay. So on the back page of your proposed
plan, right towards the top of the page, that phone number is
correct. It's 725-5569. Or also, you can — in the fact sheet,
there's a list of names, addresses and numbers of the TRC
numbers. Any one of those individuals can assist you on any
information that you desire.
Well, thank you for attending and we'll close the
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS, INC.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
meeting at this time.
(The meeting was adjourned
at 7:13 p.m.)
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS, INC.
17
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
ss.
I, ELANA K. SHIRLEY, Certified Shorthand Reporter No.
9651, in and for the State of California, do hereby certify:
That the foregoing transcript of proceedings was taken
before me on June 28, 1995, at the place set forth, and was
taken down by me in shorthand, and thereafter transcribed into
typewriting under my direction and supervision; and I hereby
certify that the foregoing transcript of proceedings is a true
and correct transcript of my shorthand notes so taken.
I further certify that I am not of counsel or attorney
of the parties hereto or in any way interested in the event of
this case and that I am not related to either of the parties
thereto.
Witness my hand this 10th day of July, 1995.
5LANA K. SHIRLEY
CSR No. 9651, RPR
CALIFORNIA DEPOSITION REPORTERS, INC.
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS (ARARS) FOR SITE 9
-------
-------
Revision: 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables. B-i
1.0 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS. . . B-1
2.0 SELECTED REMEDY - ALTERNATIVE 7 - ARARS B-3
3.0 SUMMARY OF ARARS FOR THE REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED FOR SITE 9 B-9
4.0 REFERENCES B-11
List of Tables
Table B-1 Numerical Values of Chemical-Specific ARARs for Groundwater
Table B-2 Federal Chemical-Specific ARARs
Table B-3 State Chemical-Specific ARARs
Table B-4 Federal Action-Specific ARARs for Remedial Alternative 7
Table B-5 State Action-Specific ARARs
B-i 166rodab.df
-------
-------
Revision: 1
APPENDIX B
1.0 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS
Section 121(d) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) states that remedial actions at CERCLA sites must attain
(or the decision document must justify the waiver of) any Federal or more stringent State
environmental standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations that are determined to be
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate (referred to as applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements [ARARs]).
Applicable requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other
substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated
under Federal or State law that specifically address the situation at a CERCLA site. If
the requirement is not legally applicable, it is evaluated to determine whether it is
relevant and appropriate. Relevant and appropriate requirements are those cleanup
standards, standards of control, and other substantive environmental protection
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or State law that,
although not applicable, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to the
circumstances of the proposed response action and are well-suited to the conditions of
the site (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 1988). The criteria for
determining relevance and appropriateness are listed in Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Section 300.400(g)(2).
In order to qualify as a State ARAR under CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan
(NCP), a State requirement must be all of the following:
A State law
An environmental or facility siting law
Promulgated (of general applicability and legally enforceable)
Substantive (not procedural or administrative)
More stringent than the Federal requirement
Identified in a timely manner
Consistently applied.
In order to constitute an ARAR, a requirement must be substantive. Therefore, only
substantive provisions of requirements identified as ARARs in this analysis will be
considered ARARs. The ARARs for the selected remedy are summarized in the
following sections and attached tables. The complete ARAR analysis for the seven
B-1 166rodab.df1
-------
Revision: 1
remedial alternatives considered for Site 9 is presented in Appendix B of the draft final
feasibility study (FS) report for Site 9 (Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering
Command [SWDIV], 1994).
B-2 166rodab.df1
-------
Revision: 1
2.0 SELECTED REMEDY - ALTERNATIVE 7 - ARARS
The selected remedy, Alternative 7, consists of no action for soil. The remedial
investigation (Rl) indicated that soil concentrations were below hazardous waste toxicity
characteristic levels established under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Leachability testing indicated that the soil contaminants would not migrate to
groundwater. The risk assessment identified no unacceptable threat to human health or
the environment. No ARARs were identified for leaving the soil in place.
The selected remedy involves no treatment for the groundwater because the results of
the risk assessment indicated no threat to human health or the environment. However,
because tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) were detected at
concentrations exceeding maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), the selected remedy will
be achieved through institutional controls restricting access and monitoring during
natural attenuation.
In the draft final FS report, the Department of the Navy addressed the issue of whether
cleanup to background was technologically or economically feasible. The DON
concluded that, because of the absorption of constituents to low-permeability marine
terrace deposits and low extraction well yields in those deposits, achieving background
levels of constituents is not technologically feasible within a reasonable time frame,
consistent with the requirements of 22 CCR 66264.94, 23 CCR 2550.4, and California
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Resolution Nos. 68-16 and 92-49.
Federal MCLs were identified as the controlling cleanup level/concentration limits, as
indicated in Section 3.4.3.5 and Appendix A of the draft final FS report (SWDIV, 1994).
Federal MCLs were deemed to be adequately protective of human health and the
environment. The Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) signatories agreed on and
approved this conclusion in the draft final FS report. The Department of the Navy hereby
adopts this determination for this Record of Decision (ROD).
The Department of the Navy has determined that, under 22 CCR 66264.94 and the Safe
Drinking Water Act, the Federal MCLs are Federal ARARs for groundwater remediation
cleanup levels in this case. 22 CCR 66264.94 is considered "relevant and appropriate"
for this remedial action and is a Federal ARAR because it was approved by the EPA in
its 23 July 1992 authorization of the State of California's RCRA program and is federally
B-3 166rodab.df1
-------
Revision: 1
enforceable (see 57 Federal Register [FR] 32727, 23 July 1992, and 55 FR 8742,
8 March 1990).
The Department of the Navy recognizes that the key substantive requirements of
22 CCR 66264.94 (as well as the identical requirements of 23 CCR 2550.4 and Section
III.G of SWRCB Resolution No. 92-49) require cleanup to background levels of
constituents unless such restoration proves to be technologically or economically
infeasible and an alternative cleanup level of constituents will not pose a substantial
present or potential hazard to human health or the environment. In addition, the
Department of the Navy recognizes that these provisions are more stringent than the
corresponding provisions of 40 CFR 264.94 and, although they are Federally
enforceable via the RCRA program authorization, they are independently based on State
law to the extent that they are more stringent than the Federal regulations.
The Department of the Navy and the State of California have not agreed whether State
Water Resources Control Board Resolution Nos. 92-49 and 68-16 are ARARs for the
remedial action at Site 9. Therefore, this Record of Decision documents each of the
parties positions on the resolutions, but does not attempt to resolve the issue.
The Department of the Navy asserts that Title 22 CCR Section 66264.94 is a Federal
ARAR. The State of California disagrees. This regulation is a part of the state's
authorized hazardous waste control program. It is the state's position that it is a State
ARAR and not a federal ARAR. See 55 Fed. Reg. 8765, March 8, 1990, and U.S. v.
State of Colorado, 990 F.2d 1565, (1993).
The Department of the Navy has determined that SWRCB Resolution Nos. 68-16 and
92-49 and 22 CCR 2550.4 do not constitute ARARs for this remedial action because
they are State requirements and are not more stringent than the Federal ARAR
provisions of 22 CCR 66264.94. The NCR set forth in 40 CFR 300.400(g) provides that
only State standards more stringent than Federal standards may be ARARs (see also
Section 121(d)(2)(A)(ii) of CERCLA).
The provisions of 22 CCR 66264.94 and 23 CCR 2550.4 that address groundwater
concentration limits are identical. Therefore, 23 CCR 2550.4 is not more stringent than
22 CCR 66264.94 and its provisions are not State ARARs. SWRCB Resolution
No. 92-49 was promulgated by the SWRCB as policies and procedures to be followed by
B-4 166rodab.df1
-------
Revision: 1
Regional Water Boards for oversight of investigations and cleanup and abatement
decisions. It is, therefore, not of general applicability and is not an "applicable" ARAR.
However, it was evaluated as a potential "relevant and appropriate" State ARAR.
Section III.G of SWRCB Resolution No. 92-49 provides in relevant part that regional
boards shall ". . . , in approving any alternative cleanup levels less stringent than
background, apply Section 2550.4. . ." Because this resolution incorporates and relies
upon the provisions of 23 CCR 2550.4, which are not more stringent than 22 CCR
66264.94, SWRCB Resolution No. 92-49 is also not more stringent and, hence, its
provisions are not State ARARs.
In the draft final FS report, the Department of the Navy indicated that SWRCB
Resolution No. 68-16 was a potential ARAR governing further migration of the
groundwater plume. Upon further consideration, the Department of the Navy has
determined that further migration of already contaminated groundwater is not a
discharge governed by the language in SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16. More
specifically, the language of SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16 indicates that it is prospective
in intent, applying to new discharges in order to maintain existing high-quality waters. It
is not intended to apply to restoration of waters that have already been degraded.
However, the Department of the Navy has applied the principles of SWRCB Resolution
No. 68-16 through its interpretation of 22 CCR 66264.94 in a manner consistent with
SWRCB Resolution No. 92-49.
The remaining substantive provisions of 22 CCR 66264.92, 66264.93, and 66264.94
were reviewed and determined to be "relevant and appropriate" Federal ARARs. The
v
corresponding provisions of Title 23, Chapter 15, were also evaluated and deemed to be
no more stringent than the referenced sections of Title 22 CCR and, therefore, are not
State ARARs with one exception: The substantive provisions of 23 CCR 2550.10(g)(2)
were determined to be more stringent and, therefore, are State ARARs. Section
2550.10(g)(2) requires eight evenly spaced sampling events during a 1-year period to
demonstrate compliance.
The selected remedy includes groundwater monitoring to satisfy the ARARs during
natural attenuation of the contamination to MCLs. The selected remedy does not include
excavation, soil storage, transportation, or disposal. Location-specific ARARs identified
for other remedial alternatives that included these activities are not ARARs for the
selected remedy.
B-5 166rodab.df1
-------
Revision: 1
State of California's Position Regarding Resolution Nos. 68-16 and 92-49 of the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
The State of California disagrees with the Department of the Navy's assertion that
SWRCB Resolution Nos. 68-16 and 92-49 are not ARARs and believes that both
resolutions.are applicable requirements for the remedial action. Both resolutions require
compliance with more than 22 CCR 66264.94. Resolution No. 92-49 requires
compliance with 23 CCR 2550.4, but sections III.F. and III.G. also have additional
requirements that must be met. Resolution No. 68-16 requires, among other things, that
any change in existing high quality of water (including changes caused by the migration
of polluted groundwater) not unreasonably affect the beneficial uses of the water. In
addition, although not material under the circumstances covered by this ROD, both
resolutions apply to nonhazardous wastes as well as hazardous wastes, resulting in a
broader range of potential applicability than 22 CCR 66264.94. To the extent that
Resolution Nos. 92-49 and 68-16 include provisions that are the same as 22 CCR
66264.94, the State believes that it is appropriate for the Department of the Navy to defer
to the State's interpretation of 22 CCR 66264.94. However, for the reasons that follow,
the State has decided to exercise its discretion not to invoke dispute resolution for this
Record of Decision.
1. The State believes that natural attenuation is the best remedy for this site.
2. The groundwater plume is migrating toward an area that has no designated
beneficial uses, according to the RWQCB's Water Quality Control Plan (Basin
Plan), and is already within several hundred feet of that area.
3. The Navy will ensure that any polluted groundwater will not be used.
4. It is not technically feasible to pump groundwater at the site due to the absorption
of constituents to low permeability marine terrace deposits and low extraction
yields in those deposits.
5. The Navy has determined that the in-situ cleanup levels for the groundwater
should be at Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). The State believes that
Resolution No. 92-49 requires that the cleanup levels be set at the lowest levels
technically and economically achievable, not to exceed water quality objectives.
For these constituents, the water quality objectives are MCLs. The Navy has not
demonstrated that MCLs are the lowest levels that are achievable through natural
attenuation, and, in fact, the Navy's reliance on natural attenuation suggests that
the levels of pollutants in groundwater will be reduced to levels below MCLs in
the course of time. Nonetheless, the State has determined that the groundwater
plume will migrate to the area that has no designated beneficial uses before it
attains MCLs. Once the plume reaches the area that has no designated
beneficial uses, there will be no further benefit in achieving additional reductions
B-6 166rodab.df1
-------
Revision: 1
in the levels of the pollutants. Therefore, the remedial action will comply with
Resolution 92-49.
6. The natural attenuation remedy selected for this site does not include
containment of the plume. DON has projected that the plume will migrate
downgradient towards the "non beneficial use area" west of Highway I-5. It is
anticipated that water quality will be degraded in currently unaffected areas along
the path of migration. However, the modelling that was done to project the
migration of the plume focused upon the velocity of migration without any
consideration of the rate of attenuation affecting the concentration of pollutants in
the plume during the migration. Therefore, it cannot be determined with any
certainty whether or not the concentration of pollutants in the migrating plume will
exceed applicable water quality objectives or MCLs during the course of the
migration. Under these circumstances the State cannot determine whether or not
the proposed remedial alternative will comply with SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16,
which would not condone degradation in excess of water quality objectives.
Nonetheless, the State recognizes the technical impracticability of containing the
plume (e.g., low well yield), the fact that the plume is within several hundred feet
of the area with no designated beneficial uses and is migrating in that direction,
and the Navy's assurance that any groundwater that becomes polluted will not be
used. Based upon these particular factual circumstances, the State has
determined that, based upon principles set forth in Resolution No. 68-16, it would
be in the best interests of the people of the State to approve the proposed
remedial action (including the anticipated transient degradation associated with
the migration of the plume), and that the State should exercise its discretion to
refrain from taking any enforcement action based upon Resolution No. 68-16 for
transient water quality degradation associated with the proposed remedial action
in this case.
B-7 166rodab.df1
-------
Revision: 1
(intentionally blank)
B-8 166rodab.df1
-------
Revision: 1
3.0 SUMMARY OF ARABS FOR THE REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED FOR SITE 9
No ARARs were identified for soil cleanup levels because the soil does not exhibit the
characteristics of a regulated waste. Action-specific ARARs for soil remediation were
evaluated for CERCLA actions such as excavation, storage of soil in waste piles, on-site
land treatment, and in situ bioremediation/bioventing. RCRA requirements generally
were determined to be relevant and appropriate for proposed RCRA-type soil and
groundwater remedial activities (e.g., treatment or storage). Title 23, Chapter 15,
requirements for discharges of waste to land that are more stringent than or
supplemental to RCRA ARARs were determined to be applicable.
Groundwater at Site 9 is contaminated with chlorinated solvents. Under Federal and
State RCRA requirements, groundwater withdrawn from the aquifer is considered
nonhazardous based on results of the Rl. However, RCRA groundwater protection
standards and MCLs have been determined to be relevant and appropriate and are the
controlling ARARs for the proposed CERCLA actions at the site. The proposed actions
are limited to institutional controls and monitoring or treatment and reinjection into the
source aquifer.
Numerical limits for groundwater are presented and the controlling numerical values
associated with Federal or State ARARs for each chemical of concern are identified in
Table B-1.
Surface water is seasonal on site. Potential ARARs for surface-water discharge from
rainfall runoff were identified. No numerical values were provided because surface water
at Site 9 is not impacted and remediation of surface water is not proposed.
Air Pollution Control District (APCD) rules governing emissions to air were identified for
on-site actions such as excavation, storage, and treatment of soil and groundwater.
Rules addressing emissions involving fugitive dust, particulate matter, and treatment unit
activities are the controlling ARARs.
Location-specific ARARs were identified for Federal and State endangered species and
migratory birds because regulated species were observed on or near the site during the
Rl (SWDIV, 1993). Requirements for protection of archaeological and historic resources
were also identified even though initial surveys did not indicate the presence of such
B-9 166rodab.df1
-------
Revision: 1
resources at Site 9. The location-specific ARARs were identified for remedial
alternatives that include excavation, storage, or disposal of soil on site.
The ARARs for Site 9 remedial Alternative 7 are detailed in Tables B-1 through B-5. The
ARARs for Site 9 remedial Alternatives 1 through 6 are detailed in Appendix B of the
draft final FS for Site 9 (SWDIV, 1994).
B-10 166rodab.df1
-------
Revision: 1
4.0 REFERENCES
California State Water Resources Control Board, 1975, Comprehensive Water Quality
Control Plan for the San Diego Basin, California Water Quality Control Board, San Diego
Region, July.
EPA, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1993, "Draft Final Rl Report
for Group A Sites, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton, California," prepared by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., 15 October.
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1994, "Draft Final Feasibility
Study for Group A Sites, Site 9 - Operable Unit 1, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California," prepared by Jacobs
Engineering Group Inc., 21 September.
SWDIV, see Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
SWRCB, see California State Water Resources Control Board.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, CERCLA Compliance With Other Laws
Manual, Draft Guidance, EPA/540/G-89/006, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, DC, August.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Drinking Water Regulations and Health
Advisories, Office of Water, November.
B-11 166rodab.df1
-------
TABLE B-1
Numerical Values of Chemical-Specific ARARs for Groundwater
Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
MCB Camp Pendleton
Chemicals
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Trichloroethene (TCE)
California Primary MCL"
(H9/I)
5
5
Federal
MCL"
(M9/I)
5
5
Federal
MCLGb
Oig/1)
0
0
Controlling
ARARC
(Mg/1)
5d
5d
Organic constituents detected once but not confirmed in repeated (two or more quarterly rounds) subsequent
sampling are considered questionable and are not included in this table.
"22 CCR 64444.5.
"40 CFR Parts 141 and 143 and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Drinking Water Regulations and
Health Advisories, Office of Water, November.
The controlling ARAR determination was not based on stringency alone (Appendix B, Section 2.2.1, draft final FS
report [SWDIV, 1994]); the MCLs were determined to be the controlling ARAR under the RCRA groundwater
protection standard (22 CCR 66264.94); remediation to background levels was determined to be technologically
infeasible (Sedtion 3.4.3.5 of the draft final FS report [SWDIV, 1994]).
*The Federal MCL under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 USC 300(f), and 22 CCR 66264.94 is the controlling
ARAR.
ARARs - Applicable or relevent and appropriate requirements.
CCR - California Code of Regulations.
FS - Feasibility study.
MCB - Marine Corps Base.
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations.
MCL - Maximum contaminant level.
MCLG - Maximum contaminant level goal.
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
SWDIV - Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
USC - United States Code.
u.g/1 - Micrograms per liter.
166roddf.tb1
-------
TABLE B-2
Federal Chemical-Specific ARARs"
Site 9-41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
MCB Camp Pendleton
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
ARAR
Determination
Comments'
GROUNDWATER
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 USC 300(f)b
Maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs)
pertain to known or anticipated adverse
health effects (also known as recommended
maximum contaminant levels [MCLs]).
National primary drinking water standards
are health-based standards for public water
systems (MCLs).
Public water system.
Public water system.
Public Law No. 99-339;
100 Statute 642 (1986);
40CFR 141,SubpartF
40CFR141.11 -
141.16, excluding
141.11(d)(3);40CFR
141.60-141.63
Not ARARs
Not applicable
Relevant and
appropriate
MCLGs that have nonzero values are relevant and
appropriate for groundwater determined to be a
current or potential source of drinking water (40
CFR 300.430[e][2][i][B] through [D]). Groundwater
in the vicinity of Site 9 has been designated for
municipal/domestic use (potential drinking water)
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), San Diego Region (California State
Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB], 1975).
However, nonzero MCLGs do not exist for the
groundwater chemicals of concern at Site 9.
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) defines
MCLs as relevant and appropriate for groundwater
determined to be a current or potential source of
drinking water in cases where MCLGs are not
ARARs. The San Diego RWQCB has designated
groundwater for municipal/domestic use (potential
drinking water) in the vicinity of Site 9 (SWRCB,
1975).
-------
TABLE B-2
Potential Federal Chemical-Specific ARARs" by Media
Site 9-41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
MCB Camp Pendleton
(Sheet 2 of 2)
'Chemical-specific concentrations used for remedial action alternative evaluation may not be listed as ARARs in this table but may be based on other factors. Such factors may
include the following:
• Human health risk-based concentrations (risk-based preliminary remediation goals; 40 CFR 300.430[e][2][i][A][1] and [2]).
• Ecological risk-based concentrations (40 CFR 300.430[e][2][i][G]).
• Practical quantitation limits of contaminants (40 CFR 300.430[e][2][i][A][3]).
"Statutes and policies, and their citations, are provided as headings to identify general categories of potential ARARs. Specific potential ARARs follow each general heading.
ARARs - Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations.
MCB - Marine Corps Base.
MCLs - Maximum contaminant levels.
MCLGs - Maximum contaminant level goals.
NCR - National Contingency Plan.
RWQCB - California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
SWRCB - California State Water Resources Control Board.
SDWA - Safe Drinking Water Act.
USC - United States Code.
References:
California State Water Resources Control Board, 1975, Comprehensive Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Diego Region, July.
-------
TABLE B-3
State Chemical-Specific ARARs"
Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
MCB Camp Pendleton
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
ARAR
Determination
Comments
GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, or SOIL
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
State maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs).
Drinking water.
22 CCR 64444.5
Relevant and
appropriate
For groundwater cleanup and
groundwater monitoring.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
Incorporated into all Regional Board
basin plans. Designates all groundwater
and surface waters of the State as
drinking water except where the total
dissolved solids (TDS) concentration is
greater than 3,000 parts per million
(ppm), the well yield is less than
200 gallons per day (gpd) from a single
well, the water is a geothermal resource
or in a water conveyance facility, or the
water cannot reasonably be treated for
domestic consumption using either best
management practices or best
economically achievable treatment
practices.
Groundwater or
surface water of the
State.
SWRCB Resolution No.
88-63 (Sources of Drinking
Water Policy)
Applicable
Substantive provisions are ARARs;
see Appendix B, Section 2.2.1.2, of
the draft final feasibility study for
Site9 (SWDIV..1994).
-------
TABLE B-3
State Chemical-Specific ARARs8
Site 9-41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
MCB Camp Pendleton
(Sheet 2 of 2)
'Chemical-specific concentrations used for remedial action alternative evaluation may not be listed as ARARs in this table but may be based on other factors. Such factors may
include the following:
• Human health risk-based concentrations (risk-based preliminary risk goals; 40 CFR 300.430[e][2][i][A][1] and [2]).
• Ecological risk-based concentrations (40 CFR 300.430[e][2][i][G]).
• Practical quantitation limits of contaminants (40 CFR 300.430[e][2][i][A][3]).
ARARs - Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
Cal/EPA - California Environmental Protection Agency.
CCR - California Code of Regulations.
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations.
DISC - Department of Toxic Substances Control.
gpd - Gallons per day.
MCB - Marine Corps Base.
MCL - Maximum contaminant level.
ppm - Parts per million.
RWQCB - California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
SWDIV - Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
SWRCB - California State Water Resources Control Board.
IDS - Total dissolved solids.
-------
TABLE B-4
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
for Remedial Alternative 7
Site 9-41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
MCB Camp Pendleton
(Sheet 1 of 3)
Remedial Alternative 7 - No action for soil; groundwater monitoring and institutional controls.
Action
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 USC 6901 et seq.'
Container storage
On-site waste
generation
Containers of RCRA hazardous waste must
be maintained in good condition, compatible
with hazardous waste to be stored, and
closed during storage except to add or
remove waste.
Inspect container storage areas weekly for
deterioration.
Place containers on a sloped, crack-free
base and protect from contact with
accumulated liquid. Provide containment
system with a capacity of 10 percent of the
volume of containers of free liquids.
Remove spilled or leaked waste in a timely
manner to prevent overflow of the
containment system.
Keep incompatible materials separate.
Separate incompatible materials stored near
each other by a dike or other barrier.
At closure, remove all. hazardous waste and
residues from the containment system and
decontaminate or remove all containers and
liners.
Person who generates waste shall determine
if the waste is a hazardous waste.
Storage of RCRA hazardous waste not
meeting small-quantity generator criteria
held for a temporary period greater than
90 days before treatment, disposal, or
storage elsewhere in a container.
Generator of hazardous waste in
California.
22 CCR 66264. 171,
66264.172, and 66264.173
22 CCR 66264.174
22 CCR 66264.175(a) and
(b)
22 CCR 66264.177
22 CCR 66264.178
22 CCR 66262.10(a) and
66262.1 1
Comments
Extracted groundwater
may be temporarily stored
in containers on site.
Extracted groundwater
may be temporarily stored
in containers on site.
Extracted groundwater
may be temporarily stored
in containers on site.
Extracted groundwater
may be temporarily stored
in containers on site.
Extracted groundwater
may be temporarily stored
in containers on site.
Applicable to alternatives
that will generate waste.
Not an ARAR for no
action.
-------
TABLE B-4
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
for Remedial Alternative 7
Site 9-41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
MCB Camp Pendleton
(Sheet 2 of 3)
Remedial Alternative 7 - No action for soil; groundwater monitoring and institutional controls.
Action
I
Requirement
I
Prerequisite
I
Citation
I
Comments
Groundwater
monitoring and
response
Groundwater protection standards:
Owners/operators of RCRA treatment,
storage, or disposal facilities must comply
with conditions in this section designed to
ensure that hazardous constituents entering
the groundwater from a regulated unit do not
exceed the concentration limits for contami-
nants of concern, set forth under Section
66264.93, in the uppermost aquifer
underlying the waste management area
beyond the point of compliance.
Owners/operators of RCRA surface
impoundment, waste pile, land treatment
unit, or landfill shall conduct a monitoring
and response program for each regulated
unit.
Establish a water-quality protection standard
consisting of constituents of concern under
Section 66264.293, concentration limits
under Section 66264.294, and the point of
compliance under Section 66264.295.
Uppermost aquifer underlying a waste
management unit beyond the point of
compliance; RCRA hazardous waste,
treatment, storage, or disposal.
Surface impoundment, waste pile, land
treatment unit, or landfill for which
constituents in or derived from waste in
the unit may pose a threat to human
health or the environment.
Regulated unit.
22 CCR 66264.94(a)(1)
and (3), (c), (d), and (e)
22 CCR 66264.91 (a) and
(c), except as it cross-
references permit
requirements
22 CCR 66264.92, except
as it cross-references
permit requirements
Relevant and appropriate
for groundwater at Site 9
because of similarities to
RCRA-type actions
proposed.
Relevant and appropriate
for groundwater at Site 9
because of similarities to
RCRA-type actions
proposed and RCRA-type
contamination.
Relevant and appropriate
for groundwater at Site 9
because of similarities to
RCRA-type actions
proposed and RCRA-type
contamination.
Clean Air Act (CAA), 40 USC 7401 et seq."
Discharge to air
Provisions of State implementation plan
(SIP) approved by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 110
of CAA.
No person shall discharge into the atmos-
phere, from any single source of emissions,
any air contaminant darker than number 1
on the Ringelmann chart for more than 3
minutes in any 60-minute period.
Major sources of air pollutants.
Discharge of any air contaminant other
than uncombined water vapor.
40 USC 7410; portions of
40 CFR 52.220 applicable
to San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District
(APCD)
APCD Rule 50(d)(1)
Specific pertinent rules
are listed below.
Diesel generator
emissions are expected
for groundwater
monitoring.
-------
TABLE B-4
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
for Remedial Alternative 7
Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
MCB Camp Pendleton
(Sheet 3 of 3)
Remedial Alternative 7 - No action for soil; groundwater monitoring and institutional controls.
Action
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
Comments
Discharge of
paniculate matter
Particulate matter from any source may not
be discharged to the atmosphere in excess
of 0.1 grain per dry standard cubic foot
(0.231 gram per dry standard cubic meter) of
gas (except stationary internal combustion
engines, sulfur recovery plants, burning of
carbon-containing material, or sources of
fumes and dust under Rule 54).
Discharge of particulate matter into
atmosphere.
APCD Rule 52
Diesel generator
emissions are expected
for groundwater
monitoring.
"Statutes and policies, and their citations, are provided as headings to identify general categories of potential ARARs. Specific potential ARARs follow each general
heading.
APCD - Air Pollution Control District (San Diego County).
ARARs - Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
CAA - Clean Air Act.
CCR - California Code of Regulations.
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations.
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
MCB - Marine Corps Base.
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
SIP • State implementation plan.
USC - United States Code.
166roddf.tb4
-------
Revision 1
TABLE B-5
State Action-Specific ARARs
Site 9-41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
MCB Camp Pendleton
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Remedial Alternative 7 - No action for soil; groundwater monitoring and institutional controls.
Requirement
I
Citation
Comments
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)*
Authorizes the State and Regional Water Boards to establish,
in water-quality control plans, beneficial uses and numerical
and narrative standards to protect both surface water and
groundwater quality. Authorizes Regional Water Boards to
issue permits for discharges to land, surface water, or
groundwater that could affect water quality, including National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, and
to take enforcement action to protect water quality.
California Water Code, Division 7,
Sections 13241, 13269, 13243,
13263(a), and 13360 (Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act)
Other provisions of Porter-Cologne
Water Quality Control Act
See Appendix B, Section 2.2.1.2, of the draft
final feasibility study (FS) report for Site 9
(SWDIV, 1994).
Not ARARs; see Appendix B, Section
2.2.1.2, of the draft final FS report for Site 9
(SWDIV, 1994).
Describes the water basins in the San Diego region,
establishes beneficial uses of groundwater and surface waters,
establishes water-quality objectives, including narrative and
numerical standards, establishes implementation plans to meet
water-quality objectives and protect beneficial uses, and
incorporates Statewide water-quality control plans and policies.
Comprehensive Water Quality
Control Plan for the San Diego
Basin (Water Code §13240)
Substantive provisions are ARARs; see
Appendix B, Section 2.2.1.2, of the draft
final FS report for Site 9 (SWDIV, 1994).
Incorporated into all Regional Board basin plans. Requires
that, unless certain findings are made, waters of the State be
maintained at a quality that is better than needed to protect all
beneficial uses. Discharges to high-quality waters must be
treated using best practicable treatment or control necessary
to prevent pollution or nuisance and to maintain the highest
quality water. Requires cleanup to background water quality or
to lowest concentrations technically and economically feasible
to achieve. Beneficial uses must, at least, be protected.
SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16,
Policy with Respect to Maintaining
High Quality of Waters in California
(Water Code §13140)
Disagreement between DON/USEPA and
State regarding status as ARAR; see
Section 2.0 of this appendix.
Establishes policies and procedures for the oversight of
investigations and cleanup and abatement activities resulting
from discharges of waste that affect or threaten water quality.
Requires cleanup of all waste discharged and restoration of
affected water to background conditions. Requires actions for
cleanup and abatement to conform to Resolution No. 68-16
and applicable provisions of Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 15,
as feasible.
SWRCB Resolution No. 92-49,
Policies and Procedures for
Investigation and Cleanup and
Abatement of Discharges Under
Water Code §13304 (Water Code
§13307)
Disagreement between DON/USEPA and
State regarding status as ARAR (see
Section 2.0 of this appendix): however, all
parties agree that the selected remedy will
comply.
166roddf1.tb5
-------
Revision 1
TABLE E-5
State Action-Specific ARARs
Site 9 - 41 Area Stuart Mesa Waste Stabilization Pond
MCB Camp Pendleton
(Sheet 2 of 2)
Remedial Alternative 7 - No action for soil; groundwater monitoring and institutional controls.
Reauirement I Citation
Compliance demonstration must include eight evenly
distributed sampling events for each monitoring point for 1
year.
Establishes numerical water-quality objectives for the
protection of human health and freshwater aquatic life for a
large number of toxic pollutants. Also establishes narrative
objectives and toxicity objectives. Provides a program of
implementation and specifies proposals to adopt numerical
standards for water bodies that are predominantly reclaimed
water and agricultural drainage.
23CCR2250.10(g)(2)
Water Code Section 13170; Clean
Water Act Section 303(c)(1)
(Water Quality Control Plan for
Inland Surface Waters of California)
Comments
Applicable for groundwater monitoring and
response because it is more stringent than
Federal ARARs.
Applicable to seasonal surface water, except
as invalidated by judicial determinations; see
Appendix B, Section 2.2.2.2, of the draft
final FS report for Site 9 (SWDIV, 1994).
'Statutes and policies, and their citations, are provided as headings to identify general categories of potential ARARs. Specific potential ARARs follow each general
heading.
ARARs - Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
OCR - California Code of Regulations.
FS - Feasibility study.
MCB - Marine Corps Base.
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
RWQCB - California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
SWDIV - Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
SWRCB - California State Water Resources Control Board.
166roddf1.tb5
-------
-------
-------
------- |