PB96-964604
EPA/ROD/R10-96/136
May 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Fairchild Air Force Base,
Priority 2 Sites, Spokane County, WA
12/20/95
-------
-------
DISCLAIMER
The policies and procedures set forth in this document are intended
solely for the guidance of government personnel, They are not intended,
nor can they be relied on, to create any rights, substantive or procedural,
enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. The Agency
reserves the right to act at variance with these policies and procedures
and to change them at any time without public notice.
CAVEAT
The text of this document has been recreated by means of a scanned
copy of the original document. NTIS is not responsible for discrepancies
that may appear between this copy of the document and the original EPA
document.
NOTE
Some parts of this document may be illegible. This is the best copy of
the document currently available.
-------
-------
MAR 1 5 1996
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM
RECORD OF DECISION FOR PRIORITY 2 SITES
AT FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON
FINAL
SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
-------
NOTICE
This report has been prepared for the United States Air Force by ICF Technology Incorporated
to aid in the implementation of a final remedial action plan under the United States Air Force
Installation Restoration Program. The limited objectives of this report and the ongoing nature of
the Installation Restoration Program, along with the evolving knowledge of site conditions and
chemical effects on the environment and health, must be considered when evaluating this report,
since subsequent facts may become known which may make this report premature or inaccurate.
Acceptance does not mean that the United States Air Force adopts the conclusions,
recommendations or other views expressed herein, which are those of the contractor only, and
do not necessarily reflect the official position of the United States Air Force.
Government agencies and their contractors registered with the Defense Technical Information
Center (DTIC) should direct requests for copies of this report to: DTIC, Cameron Station,
Alexandria, VA 22304-6145.
Non-Government agencies may purchase copies of this document from: National Technical
Information service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield. VA 22161.
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
Record of Decision for Priority 2 Sites
at Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington
Final
Prepared by:
ICF Technology Incorporated
601 Williams Blvd., 4th Floor
Richland. WA 99352
Prepared for:
USAF/AMC
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
Environmental Services Office
Environmental Restoration Division (AFCEE/ERD)
Brooks Air Force Base. TX 78235-5328
September 1995
USAF Contract No. F33615-90-D-4010. Delivery Order No. 0005
USAF Project No. GJKZ 91-5006. Modification No. 4
ICF Proiect Manager
Quality Assuranpeolficer
Laboratory Quality Assurance Officer
USAF Technical Program Manager
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
QMS *c 0 7ZJ-C '88
Public reporting Durden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions
-=arcning existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information Send comments
irding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information including suggestions for reducing this burden to Wasmnoter
.eaaauarters Services, Directorate for information Operations and Reports. 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway. Suite 1204 Arlington VA 22202-4302 ana tc
the O«:ce c« Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Proiect [0704-0188i Wasnmgton DC 20503
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave bianx}
2. REPORT DATE
September 1995
3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
Final
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Recorc o,' decision for Priority 2 Sites at Faircnild Air Force Base. Washington
6. AUTHOR(S)
Miter Ha/'. J:™ Cunnmanarr Peter Battuello. and Jim Busn
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
C-F33615-90-D-4010
Delivery Order 0005
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
ICF Technology Incorporated
607 Wiiiiams Boulevard. 4tn Fioor
Richianc. Washington 99352
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
NIA
9. SPONSORING MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Air Force Center lor Environmental Excellence
HC ACCEE.ERD
800: Inner Circie Drive. Suite 2
Brooks A:r Force Base. Texas 78235-5328
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
NIA
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This report contains public comments from the Priority 2 Sites Proposed Plan public meeting held in Spokane. Washington on May 10, 7995.
,2a. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
HO AFCEE ERO. Brooks Air Force Base, Texas
32 CES CEV. Fairchild Air Force Base. Washington
HO AMC'CEVR. Scot: Air Force Base. Illinois
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle. Washington
Wasnmgton Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington
12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
1 3. ABSTRACT iMax^mum 200 word:
At Faircniia Air Force Base. Washington a United States Air Force prime contractor completed limited field investigations for 20 Prionty
2 sites. Of those 20 sites, the contractor completed remedial investigations and feasibility studies for eight Priority 2a sites. This
document presents the record of decision for the selected remedial actions for 20 Priority 2 sites. Fairchild Air Force Base is a National
^rionry LJS: site and is conducting remedial activities in accordance with a Federal Facility Agreement with the United States Environmental
°'oted:or Agency and the Washington Department of Ecology.
14. SUBJECT TERMS
Flecora o' Decision
National Priorities List
Priority 2 sites
Priority 2a sites
Faircniia Air Force Base
Federal Facility Agreement
15. NUMBER OF PAGES
780
Nof including Appendices
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
iJnc'assrfiec
18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF THIS PAGE
Unclassified
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified
20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified
7540-0'.-280-5500
Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-8!
Prescribed by ANSI Std 239-18 298-1C
=A=B\BOD -SN
FINAL • 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
--AWROWRMTMTF
-------
PREFACE
This report presents the record or decision for the sr;oriiy 2 sites si Fairchild Air Force Base.
Spokane County, Washington.
This repo't was prepared in Septemoer 1995. Mr. Michael Benavldes is the Air Force Center for
Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) .Contracting Officer. Mr. Jonathan HaJiscak of AFCEE
provided technical oversight for tnis activity.
Approval
Thomas Mc.Kinney (/
Prcgram Director
iCF "echnclogy Incorporated
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION
\
•v
SITE NAMES AND LOCATIONS
Fairchild Air Force Base
Spokane County, Washington
This document is the record of decision for the following 20 on-base Priority 2 Sites at Fairchild
Air Force Base (Fairchild AFB) located in Spokane County, Washington. United States Air
Force (Air Force) designations for these sites are in parentheses.
• Site FT-2 (FT-32), Former Fire Training Area;
• Site IS-2 (SS-30), Former Civil Engineering Warehouse;
• Site IS-3 (OT-16), Reciprocating Engine Shop, Building 2150;
• Site IS-4 (OT-1 7), Jet Engine Test Stand, Building 3000;
• Site PS-1 (ST-06), Bulk Fuel Storage Area;
• Site PS-3 (SS-07), Area C Pumphouse, Building 159;
• Site PS-4/PS-9 (SS-08), Pumphouse B, KC-135 Crash Site;
• Site PS-5 (SS-09), Fuel Oil Storage Tank at Wherry Housing;
• Site PS-7 (ST-10), Deep Creek Steam Plant, Building 1350;
• Site PS-10 (SD-31), Fuel Truck Maintenance Facility, Building 1060;
• Site SW-2 (DP-20), Waste Disposal Area Northeast of Wherry Housing;
• Site SW-3 (DP-21), Demolition Waste Disposal Area;
• Site SW-4 (DP-22), Former Coal Storage Area;
• Site SW-5 (OT-23), Former Incinerator at DRMO Yard;
• Site SW-7 (DP-24), Asphalt Waste Pile Area;
• Site SW-9 (RW-25), Radioactive Waste Disposal Area;
• Site SW-10 (DP-12), Disposal Area Near Jet Engine Test Stand;
• Site SW-11 (DP-13), Former Aircraft Reclamation Yard at Wherry Housing;
• Site SW-12 (DP-14), Disposal Area East of Weapons Storage Area; and
• Site WW-2 (WP-29), Waste Water Treatment Plant.
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial actions for the Priority 2 Sites,
Fairchild AFB, Spokane County, Washington, which were chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and to the extent
'practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
This decision is based on the Administrative Record for this site.
-------
The lead agency for this decision is the Air Force. The United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) approves of this decision and, along with the State of Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology), has participated in the scoping of the site investigations, the evaluation of
the remedial investigation data, and the development of remedial alternatives. The State of
Washington concurs with the selected remedies.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITES
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the on-base Priority 2 Sites, if not
addressed by implementing the response actions selected in the Record of Decision (ROD),
may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDIES
This ROD addresses soil and ground water contamination at the Priority 2 sites. This is the
third of four RODs planned for Fairchild AFB. The first ROD, signed in February 1993,
addressed contamination at the Craig Road Landfill Operable Unit. The second ROD, signed in
June 1993, addressed contamination at the Priority 1 Operable Units. The fourth ROD will
address the Priority 3 Sites.
The major components of the selected remedies for the 20 Priority 2 Sites are highlighted
below. Further explanations regarding the remedial alternatives and selected remedies are
located in sections 8.0, 9.0, and 10.0 of the ROD Decision Summary.
Limited Field Investigations (LFI) conducted by the Air Force concluded no further action was
necessary at the following 12 sites:
• Site IS-2, Former Civil Engineering Warehouse;
• Site PS-3, Area C Pumphouse, Building 159;
• Site PS-4/PS-9, Pumphouse B, KC-135 Crash Site;
• Site SW-2, Waste Disposal Area Northeast of Wherry Housing;
• Site SW-3, Demolition Waste Disposal Area;
• Site SW-4, Former Coal Storage Area;
• Site SW-5, Former Incinerator at DRMO Yard;
• Site SW-7, Asphalt Waste Pile Area;
• Site SW-9, Radioactive Waste Disposal Area;
• Site SW-1 0, Disposal Area Near Jet Engine Test Stand;
• Site SW-1 2, Disposal Area East of Weapons Storage Area; and
• Site WW-2, Waste Water Treatment Plant.
The No Further Action Decision documents for the 12 no action sites and the Priority 2 sites LFI
report can be found in the administrative record which is available for review.
-------
Based on results of the LFI, the Air Force recommended a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) for the remaining Priority 2 Sites, those of which with higher priority being
referred to as Priority 2a Sites. An RI/FS was completed for the following eight Priority 2a Sites:
• Site IS-3, Reciprocating Engine Shop, Building 2150;
• Site IS-4, Jet Engine Test Stand, Building 3000;
• Site PS-1, Bulk Fuel Storage Area;
• Site PS-5, Fuel Oil Storage Tank at Wherry Housing;
• Site PS-7, Deep Creek Steam Plant, Building 1350;
• Site PS-10, Fuel Truck Maintenance Facility, Building 1060;
• Site SW-1 1, Former Aircraft Reclamation Yard at Wherry Housing; and
• Site FT-2, Former Fire Training Area.
The selected remedial actions for these eight Priority 2a Sites are:
Reciprocating Engine Shop, Building 2150 (IS-3)
The selected remedy at IS-3 is Institutional Controls. This decision is based on the results of
the human health risk assessment, which determined that conditions at the site posed no
unacceptable dsks to human health or the environment. When Building 2150 is demolished,
underlying soil will be assessed for polychlorinated biphenyls to assure compliance with state
and federal regulations.
Jet Engine Test Stand, Building 3000 (IS-4)
The selected remedy is Institutional Controls and Monitoring. This remedy consists of the
following elements:
• Maintaining institutional controls in the form of restricting site access and requiring a
permit from the Fairchild AFB Civil Engineering Squadron for intrusive activities until
cleanup levels are achieved; and
• Monitoring natural degradation of diesel range petroleum in site soil will continue
until the contamination level decreases below the state cleanup standard which is
protective of human health and the environment.
• Contaminants detected in the deep ground water beneath and up gradient of this
site are no.t believed to be associated with this site and will be addressed under the
Priority 3 Operable Units.
-------
Bulk Fuel Storage Area (PS-1)
The goals of remedial action at PS-1 are to remediate ground water to state and federal levels
and to remediate soil to state cleanup levels that are protective of ground water. The selected
remedy for soil remediation is Open System Bioventing. The selected remedy for ground water
is Institutional Controls and Monitoring. These alternatives consist of the following elements:
• Implementing an in-situ bioventing treatment system for diesel range petroleum
contaminated soil;
• Maintaining institutional controls in the form of restricting site access and requiring a
permit from the Fairchild AFB Civil Engineering Squadron for intrusive activities until
state and federal based cleanup levels are achieved; and
• Monitoring site and down gradient ground water to assess natural degradation and
migration of diesel range petroleum and benzene.
Fuel Oil Storage Tank at Wherry Housing (PS-5)
The goals of remedial action at PS-5 are to remediate ground water to state cleanup levels and
to remediate soil to state cleanup levels that are protective of ground water. The selected
remedy for soil is Institutional Controls. The selected remedy for ground water is Institutional
Controls and Monitoring. These alternatives consist of the following elements:
• Maintaining institutional controls in the form of restricting site access and requiring a
permit from the Fairchild AFB Civil Engineering Squadron for intrusive activities until
state based cleanup levels are achieved.
• Monitoring site ground water and down gradient ground water to assess natural
degradation and migration of diesel range petroleum.
Deep Creek Steam Plant, Building 1350 (PS-7)
The goals of remedial action at PS-7 are to remediate ground water to state cleanup levels and
to remediate soil to state cleanup levels that are protective of ground water. The selected
remedy for soil is Institutional Controls and for ground water is Institutional Controls and
Monitoring. These alternatives consist of the following elements:
• Maintaining institutional controls in the form of restricting site access and requiring a
permit from the Fairchild AFB Civil Engineering Squadron for intrusive activities until
state cleanup levels are achieved. Remaining soil contamination will be addressed
when the building is demolished; and
• Monitoring site ground water and down gradient ground water to assess natural
degradation and migration of diesel range petroleum.
-------
Fuel Truck Maintenance Facility, Building 1060 (PS-10)
The goal of remedial action at PS-10 is to remediate soil to state cleanup levels that are protective
of ground water. The trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination detected in ground water at this site
will be addressed under the Priority 3 Operable Unit. The selected remedies for soil are
Excavation and Off-Site Disposal, and Institutional Controls and Monitoring. These alternatives
consists of the following elements:
• Maintaining institutional controls in the form of restricting site access and requiring a
permit from the Fairchild AFB Civil Engineering Squadron for intrusive activities until
cleanup levels are achieved;
• Excavation and off-site disposal of approximately 67 cubic yards of TCE contaminated
soils. Contaminated soils will be treated using high temperature incineration prior to
disposal; and
• Monitoring natural degradation of diesel range petroleum in site soil will continue until
the contamination level decreases below the state cleanup standard.
Former Aircraft Reclamation Yard at Wherry Housing (SW-1 1)
The Air Force has determined that no further remedial action is necessary at Site SW-1 1. This
decision is based on the results of the human health risk assessment, which determined that
conditions at the site posed no unacceptable chemical risks to human health or the environment.
Former Fire Training Area (FT-2)
The goals of remedial action at FT-2 are to remediate ground water and soil to state cleanup
levels. The selected remedy for both soil and ground water is Institutional Controls and
Monitoring. These alternatives consist of the following elements:
• Maintaining institutional controls in the form of restricting site access and requiring a
permit from the Fairchild AFB Civil Engineering Squadron for intrusive activities until
state cleanup levels are achieved.
• Monitoring of site soil and ground water and down gradient ground water to assess
natural degradation and migration of diesel range petroleum.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedies are protective of human health and the environment, comply with Federal
and State requirements that are legally applicable, or relevant and appropriated to the remedial
action, and are cost effective. The remedies utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable and satisfy the statutory preference for remedies
which reduce contaminant toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element. Because the
-------
remedial actions at Sites IS-3, IS-4, PS-1, PS-5, PS-7, PS-1 0, and FT-2 may require five or
more years to attain cleanup levels, a review of the selected remedies will be conducted for
each of these sites within five years. The purpose of the five year review is to assure that the
remedies remain protective of human health and the environment.
-------
Signature for the foregoing On-Base Priority 2 Operable Unit Record of Decision by the United
States Air Force with concurrence of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and
the Washington State Department of Ecology.
Mary E. Burg, Progranrj Manager Date
Toxics Cleanup Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
-------
Signature for the foregoing On-Base Priority 2 Operable Unit Record of Decision by the United
States Air Force with concurrence of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and
the Washington State Department of Ecology,
Chuck Clarke ' Date
Regional Administrator, Region X
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10
-------
\
Signature for the foregoing On-Base Priority 2 Operable Unit Record of Decision by the United
States Air Force with concurrence of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and
the Washington State Department of Ecology;
CHARLES T. ROBERTSON, JR. Date
Lieutenant General, USAF
Air Mobility Command
Chairperson, Environmental Protection Committee
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
12 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Air Force
ARAR
Battelle
BOAT
CEE
CERCLA
CRL
CRP
Ecology
EPA
Fairchild AFB
FFA
HQ
IRP
JRB
LFi
LDR
MCL
MTCA
NCP
NEFA
NPL
O&M
OU
PCB
POL
P ~ 0
R33L
RI/FS
RME
ROD
SAIC
SARA
TCE
VOC
United States Air Force
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
Battelle Memorial institute. Denver Operations
Best Demonstrated Available Technology
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Craig Road Landfill
Community Relations Plan
Washington State Department of Ecology
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Fairchild Air Force Base
Federal Facilities Agreement
Hazard Quotient
Installation Restoration Program
JRB Associates
Limited Field Investigation
Land Disposal Restriction
Maximum Contaminant Level
Model Toxics Control Act
National Contingency Plan
National Environmental Policy Act
National Priorities List
Operations and Maintenance
Operable Unit
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Petroleum. Oils, and Lubricant
Remedial Action Objective
Risk Based Screening Level
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Reasonble Maximum Exposure
Records of Decision
Science Applications International Company
Superfund Amendments and Reauthonzation Act
Trichloroethylene
'Volatile Organic Compound
IX
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 .0 INTRODUCTION ..... ................... •. ........................ 1-1
1 .1 SITE NAMES AND LOCATIONS ................................ 1-1
.2.0 INSTALLATION ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................... 2-1
3.0 PREVIOUS INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM INVESTIGATIONS
AT FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE .................................... 3-1
4.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ......................... 4-1
5.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNITS ........................ 5-1
6.0 SITE INVESTIGATION RESULTS ............................... ..... 6-1
6.1 IS-3. RECIPROCATING ENGINE SHOP. BUILDING 2150 ............. 6-4
6.1 .1 Background ......................................... 6-4
6.1 .2 Nature and Extent of Contamination . . ' ..................... 6-6
6.1 .2.1 Sump Assessment ...... : ...................... 6-6
6:1 .2.2 Sump Sediments ............................... 6-6
6.1 .2.3 Sump Water ................. : ................. 6-6
6.1 .3 Summary of Site Risks . . • ............................... 6-7
6.1.3.1 Contaminants of Concern ......................... 6-7
6.1.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment ................... 6-7
6.1 .3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment ....................... 6-7
6.1 .4 Conclusions ....................................... 6-7
6.2 SITE IS-4. JET ENGINE TEST STAND. BUILDING 3000 .............. 6-8
6.2.1 Background ............ . ............................. 6-8
6.2.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination ........ ............... 6-8
6.2.2.1 Soils ................. ...... ................ 6-10
6.2.2.2 Ground Water ................................ 6-10
6.2.2.3 Ditch Surface Soil and Surface Water .............. 6-11
6.2.3 Summary of Site Risks ................................ 6-11
6.2.3.1 Contaminants of Concern ................ 6-11
6.2.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment ........... ...... 6-11
6.2.3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment . . ..................... 6-12
6.2.4 Conclusions ............................. ........... 6-12
6.3 SITE PS-1. BULK FUEL STORAGE AREA ........................ 6-12
6.3.1 Background ......................................... 6-12
6.3.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...................... 6-13
6.3.2.1 Subsurface Soils .............................. 6-15
6.3.2.2 Ground Water ................... • ............. 6-15
6.3.3 Summary of Site Risk ........................... ...... 6-16
6.3.3.1 Contaminants of Concern ........................ 6-16
6.3.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment ................... 6-17
6.3.3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment ...................... 6-17
6.3.4 Conclusions ........................................ 6-17
6.4 SITE PS-5. FUEL OIL STORAGE TANK AT WHERRY HOUSING ...... 6-17
6.4.1 Background ... ................................... 6-17
6.4.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination .......... : .......... 6-19
Xj
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
6.4.2.1 Geophysical Sur/ey ........................... 6-19
6.4.2.2 Subsurface Soils ............................ 5-19
6.4.2.3 Ground Water ................................ 6-19
6.4.3 Summary of Site Risks ................................ 6-20
6.4.3.1 Contaminants of Concern ........................ 6-20
6.4.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment ................... 6-20
6.4.3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment ................... 6-20
6.4.4 Conclusions ...................................... 6-20
6.5 SITE PS-7. DEEP CREEK STEAM PLANT. BUILDING 1350 .......... 6-21
6.5.1 Background ..................... ................... 6-21
6.5.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination .................... 6-21
6.5.2.1 Ground Water ............................... 6-23
6.5.3 Summary of Site Risks ............................... 6-23
6.5.3.1 Contaminants of Concern ...................... 6-24
6.5.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment ................. 6-24
6.5.3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment ................... 6-24
6.5.4 Conclusions ..................................... 6-24
6.6 SITE PS-10, FUEL TRUCK MAINTENANCE FACILITY. BUILDING 1060 . . 6-25
6.6.1 Background ........................................ 6-25
6.6.2 Nature and Extent of contamination . . . ................... 6-27
6.6.2.1 Seismic Survey ................................ 6-27
6.6.2.2 Subsurface Soils ............................. 6-27
6.6.2.3 Surface Soils ............ ..................... 6-28
6.6.2.4 Ground Water ................................ 6-28
6.6.3 Summary of Site Risks ............... ................ 6-28
6.6.3.1 Contaminants of Concern ....................... 6-29
6.6.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment ................... 6-29
6.6.3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment ..................... 6-29
6.6.4 Conclusions ........................................ 6-30
6.7 SITE SW-1 1 , FORMER AIRCRAFT RECLAMATION YARD AT WHERRY . 6-30
6.7.1 Background . ....................................... 6-30
6.7.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...................... 6-32
6.7.2.1 Soils ....................................... 6-32
6.7.3 Summary of Site Risks ................................ 6-33
6.7.3.1 Contaminants of Concern ........................ 6-33
6.7.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment ................... 6-33
6.7.3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment ...................... 6-33
6.7.4 Conclusions ............................. ........... 6-34
6.8 SITE FT-2. FORMER FIRE TRAINING AREA ...................... 6-34
6.8.1 Background ........................................ 6-34
6.8.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...................... 6-35
6.8.2.1 Subsurface Soils .............................. 6-35
6.8.2.2 Surface Soils ................................. 6-37
xii
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
6.8.2.3 Ground Water ....................... ......... 6-37
6.8.3 Summary of Site Risks ................................ 6-38
6.8.3.1 Contaminants of Concern ........................ 6-38
6.8.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment .................. 6-39
6.8.3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment ...................... 6-39
6.8.4 Conclusions .................. ' ..................... 6-39
7.0 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES ................................... 7-1
7.1 DEVELOPMENT OF CLEANUP LEVELS .......................... 7-2
8.0 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ............ ' .......................... 8-1
8.1 NO ACTION ................................. ' .............. 8-1
8.2 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AND MONITORING ................... 8-1
8.2.1 Sites IS-4. PS-10. and FT-2 .............................. 8-4
8.2.2 Site PS-1 ....................................... .... 8-4
8.2.3 Sites PS-5 and PS-7 .................................. 8-4
8.3 BIOVENTING .............................................. 8-5
8.3.1 Sites IS-4. PS-1 . and FT-2 ........... .................... 8-7
8.3.2 Sites PS-5 and PS-7 ................................... 8-7
8.4 STEAM-ENHANCED SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION ................... 8-7
8.5 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION ................................... 8-9
8.6 EXCAVATION AND SOIL WASHING ........... . ................. 8-9
8.6.1 Site IS-4 ............................................ 8-9
8.6.2 Site PS-1 ........................................... 8-9
8.6.3 Site PS-10 ........................................ 8-10
8.6.4 Site FT-2 .......................................... 8-10
8.7 EXCAVATION AND OFFSITE DISPOSAL ........................ 8-10
8.7.1 Site IS-4 .......................................... 8-10
8.7.2 Site PS-1 ........................................... 8-10
8.7.3 Site PS-1 0 • ......................................... 8-10
8.7.4 Site FT-2 ................. -. ........................ 8-10
8.8 EXCAVATION AND LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL
DESORPTION . . . . ...................................... . . 8-11
8.8.1 Site IS-4 ................... ' ........................ 8-11
8.8.2 Site PS-1 .......................................... 8-11
8.8.3 Site PS-5 .......................................... 8-11
8.8.4 Site PS-7 ........................................ 8-11
8.8.5 'Site PS-10 ....................................... 8-11
8.8.6 Site FT-2 ............... ........................... 8-12
8.9 BIOSPARGING ........................................... 8-12
8.10 STEAM INJECTION WITH VAPOR EXTRACTION .................. 8-12
8.1 1 PUMP AND TREAT WITH TREATMENT USING CARBON
ADSORPTION ............................................ 8-15
9.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND THE SELECTED REMEDIES ........ 9-1
9.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA ...................................... 9-1
xjjj
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
9.5 SITE PS-5 GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION .................. 9-16
9.5.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment ..... 9-17
9.5.2 Compliance with ARARS ............................... 9-17
9.5.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence ................. 9-17
9.5.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the
Contaminants Through Treatment ........................ 9-17
9.5.5 Short-term Effectiveness ............................. 9-18
9.5.6 Implementability ..................................... 9-18
9.5.7 Cost ........................................... 9-18
9.5.8 State Acceptance ........ .......................... 9-18
9.5.9 Community Acceptance ............................. 9-18
9.5.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy ...................... 9-20
9.6 SITE PS-5 SOIL CONTAMINATION ............................. 9-20
9.6.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment . • ..... 9-20
9.6.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS ............................ 9-21
9.6.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence ................. 9-21
9.6.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the
Contaminants Through Treatment ........................ 9-21
9.6.5 Short-term Effectiveness ............................. 9-21
9.6.6 Implementability ..................................... 9-22
9.6.7 Cost .............................................. 9-22
9.6.8 State Acceptance ..................................... 9-22
9.6.9 Community Acceptance ............................... 9-22
9.6.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy ....................... 9-22
9.7 SITE PS-7 GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION ................... 9-24
9.7.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment ..... 9-24
9.7.2 Compliance with ARARS .................... ........... 9-24
9.7.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence ................. 9-25
9.7.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the
Contaminants Through Treatment ............. .......... 9-25
9.7.5 Short-term Effectiveness ............................... 9-25
9.7.6 Implementability ...................................... 9-25
9.7.7 Cost ..... ......................................... 9-26
9.7.8 State Acceptance .................................... 9-26
9.7.9 Community Acceptance .............................. 9-26
9.7.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy ....................... 9-26
9.8 SITE PS-7 SOIL CONTAMINATION ............................. 9-28
9.8.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment ...... 9-28
9.8.2 Compliance with ARARS .............................. 9-28
9.8.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence ................. 9-29
9.8.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the
Contaminants Through Treatment ........................ 9-29
9.8.5 Short-term Effectiveness ............................... 9-29
xv
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
9.8.6 Implementability .................................... 9-29
9.8.7 Cost ............................................. 9-30
9.8.8 State Acceptance ................................... 9-30
9.8.9 Community Acceptance .............................. 9-30
9.8.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy ..................... 9-30
9.9 SITE PS-10 SOIL CONTAMINATION ....................... 9-32
9.9.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment . 9-32
9.9.2 Compliance with ARARS ...... ......... . ........... 9-33
9.9.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence .............. 9-33
9.9.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the
Contaminants Through Treatment .......... .............. 9-34
9.9.5 Short-term Effectiveness ...................... ......... 9-34
9.9.6 Implementability ......................... ............ 9-34
9.9.7 Cost ............................................. 9-35
9.9.8 State Acceptance .................................... 9-35
9.9.9 Community Acceptance .............................. 9-35
9.9.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy ..................... 9-35
9.10 SITE FT-2 GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION ................... 9-37
9.10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment ...... 9-37
9.10.2 Compliance with ARARS .............................. 9-38
9.10.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence ................. 9-38
9.10.4 Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume of the
Contaminants Through Treatment ...................... 9-38
9.10.5 Short-term Effectiveness ............................... 9-38
9.10.6 Implementability ................................ 9-38
9.10.7 Cost ....................... ' ................. 9-39
9.10.8 State Acceptance ..... ' ....................... 9-39
9.10.9 Community Acceptance ...................... 9-39
9.10.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy ................. 9-39
9.1 1 SITE FT-2 SOIL CONTAMINATION ..... • ....................... 9-41
9.11.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment ...... 9-41
9.1 1 .2 Compliance with ARARS .............................. 9-41
9.11.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence ....... . . . . 9-42
9.1 1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the
Contaminants Through Treatment ........................ 9-42
9.1 1 .5 Short-term Effectiveness ............................... 9-42
9.1 1 .6 Implementability ..................................... 9-43
9.11.7 Cost .......... .................................... 9-43
9.1 1 .8 State Acceptance .................................... 9-43
9.1 1 .9 Community Acceptance ............................... 9-43
9.1 1.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy .................. 9-43
1 0.0 SELECTED REMEDIES ........................................... 10-1
10.1 RECIPROCATING ENGINE SHOP, BUILDING 2150 (IS-3) ........... 10-1
xvi
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
10.2 JET ENGINE TEST STAND. BUILDING 3000 (IS-4) 10-1
10.3 BULK FUEL STORAGE AREA (PS-1) 10-3
10.4 FUEL OIL STORAGE TANK AT WHERRY HOUSING (PS-5) 10-5
10.5 DEEP CREEK STEAM PLANT. BUILDING 1350 (PS-7) 10-6
10.6 FUEL TRUCK MAINTENANCE FACILITY. BUILDING 1060 (PS-10) 10-8
10.7 FORMER AIRCRAFT RECLAMATION YARD AT WHERRY
HOUSING (SW-11) 10-10
10.8 FORMER FIRE TRAINING AREA (FT-2) 10-10
11.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 11-1
111 PROTECTIVENESS OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT .' 11-2
11.1.1 Site IS-3 11-2
11.1.2 Site IS-4 11-3
11.1.3 Site PS-1 11-4
11.1.4 Site PS-5 11-5
11.1.5 Site PS-7 11-5
11.1.6 Site PS-10 11-6
11.1.7 Site SW-11 11-7
11.1.8 Site FT-2 11-7
11.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS 11-8
11.2.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs 11-8
11.2.2 Action-Specific ARARs .-....- 11-9
11.2.3 Location-Specific ARARs 11-10
11.2.4 Other Guidance 11-10
11.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS : ; . . 11-10
11.3.1 Site IS-3 11-10
11.3.2 Site IS-4 11-10
11.3.3 Site PS-1 11-10
11.3.4 Site PS-5 11-11
11.3.5 Site PS-7 11-11
11.3.6 Site PS-10 11-11
11.3.7 Site SW-11 11-11
11.3.8 Site FT-2 11-11
11.4 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
POSSIBLE 11-11
11.5 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT 11-12
12.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 12-1
XVII
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
XVIII
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1 -1. FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE PRIORITY 2A SITES 1-3
6-1, IS-3 SITE PLAN 6-5
6-2. IS-4 SITE PLAN 6-9
6-3 PS-1 SITE PLAN • '. 6-14
6-4 PS-5 SITE PLAN 6-18
6-5. PS-7 SITE PLAN : 6-22
6-6. PS-10 SITE PLAN 6-26
6-7 SW-11 SITE PLAN • 6-31
6-8. FT-2 SITE PLAN 6-36
8-1 CLOSED SYSTEM BIOVENTING 8-6
8-2. STEAM-ENHANCED SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION 8-8
8-3. BIOSPARGING ' 8-13
8-4 STEAM INJECTION WITH VAPOR EXTRACTION 8-14
8-5, PUMP AND TREAT WITH CARBON TREATMENT 8-16
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
9.1.1 Threshold Criteria 9-1
9.1.2 Primary Balancing Criteria 9-1
9.1.3 Modifying Criteria . . . 9-4
9.2 SITE IS-4 SOIL CONTAMINATION . . . . 9-4
9.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 9-4
9.2.2 Compliance with ARARS 9-5
9.2.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence . 9-5
9.2.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the
Contaminants Through Treatment 9-5
9.2.5 Short-term Effectiveness 9-5
9.2.6 Implementability 9-6
9.2.7 Cost 9-6
9.2.8 State Acceptance 9-6
9.2.9 Community Acceptance .'. 9-6
9.2.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy 9-8
9.3 SITE PS-1 GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION 9-8
9.3.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 9-9
9.3.2 Compliance with ARARS 9-9
9.3.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence . 9-9
• 9.3.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the
Contaminants Through Treatment 9-9
9.3.5 Short-term Effectiveness 9-9
9.3.6 Implementability 9-10
9.3.7 Cost 9-10
9.3.8 State Acceptance 9-10
9.3.9 Community Acceptance : 9-10
9.3.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy 9-12
9.4 SITE PS-1 SOIL CONTAMINATION 9-12
9.4.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 9-13
9.4.2 Compliance with ARARS 9-13
9.4.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence 9-13
9.4.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the
Contaminants Through Treatment 9-13
9.4.5 Short-term Effectiveness 9-14
9.4.6 Implementability 9-14
9.4.7 Cost 9-14
9.4.8 State Acceptance 9-14
9.4.9 Community Acceptance 9-16
9.4.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy 9-16
xiv
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
LIST OF TABLES
9-1 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED FOR SOILS AT THE PRIORITY
2a SITES 9-2
9-2. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED FOR GROUND WATER AT THE
PRIORITY 2a SITES 9-3
9-3. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE !S-4 SOIL 9-7
9-4. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE PS-1
GROUND WATER 9-11
9-5. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE PS-1 SOIL 9-15
9-6. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE PS-5
GROUND WATER 9-19
9-7 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE PS-5 SOIL 9-23
9-8. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE PS-7
GROUND WATER .' . . 9-27
9-9. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE PS-7 SOIL 9-31
9-10. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE PS-10 SOIL 9-36
9-11. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE FT-2
GROUND WATER 9-40
9-12. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE FT-2 SOIL 9-44
:w*aafwnm.ua xx FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In March 1989, Fairchiid Air Force Base (Fairchild AFB) was listed on the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Priorities List (NPL) of hazardous waste sites
to be addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA). as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). In
March 1990. the United States Air Force (Air Force), EPA, and the Washington State Department
of Ecology (Ecology) signed a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) establishing a cleanup
schedule for the base.
In accordance with Executive Order 12580 (Superfund Implementation) and the National
Contingency Plan (NCP), the Air Force performed a Limited Field Investigation (LFI) for 20 Priority
2 Sites at Fairchild AFB. Twelve sites were determined to require no further action. The Air
Force completed a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the remaining eight sites
which are designated Priority 2a Sites. The purpose of the RI/FS was to determine the nature
and extent of contamination at these sites, to evaluate current and potential risks to human health
and the environment posed by this contamination, and to evaluate various cleanup alternatives.
The RI/FS addressed contamination associated with surface water, ground water, soil, and
sediment.
The Air Force Installation Restoration Program (IRP) was initiated through the 1981 Executive
Order 12316 that directed the military branches to design their own program of compliance with
the NCP established by CERCLA. The IRP is designed to identify and assess potential
contamination at past hazardous waste disposal and spill sites on Air Force installations and to
remediate those sites when necessary.
A detailed discussion of the IRP including the history of the program, the program objectives, and
the program organization is presented in the Fairchild AFB Priority 2a Sites Remedial
investigation' feasibility Study Work Plan (ICF 1993b).
1.1 SITE NAMES AND LOCATIONS
Fairchild AFB is located approximately 12 miles west of Spokane, Washington. Through June
1994. Fairchild AFB was home to the 92nd Bombardment Wing under the Air Combat Command.
Since July 1994. Fairchild AFB has hosted the 92nd Air Refueling Wing under the Air Mobility
Command. Fairchild AFB is also home to the 141st Air Refueling Wing of the Washington Air
National Guard. Fairchild AFB occupies approximately 4,300 acres and contains one major
runway with numerous taxiways. The base has approximately 1,600 housing units, an elementary
school, a hospital, and numerous support facilities. Since 1942, various quantities of hazardous
wastes have been generated and disposed of at Fairchild AFB. The sources of waste include
fuel management, industrial and aircraft operations, and fire training activities.
1-1 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
The Air Force recently completed environmental investigations for 20 Priority 2 Sites at Fairchild
AFB. Washington. The LFI concluded no further action was necessary at the following 12 of
these sites:
• Site IS-2. Former Civil Engineering Warehouse:
Site PS-3, Area C Pumphouse. Building 159;
Site PS-4/PS-9. Pumphouse B. KC-135 Crash Site:
• Site SW-2, Waste Disposal Area Northeast of Wherry Housing:
• Site SW-3. Demolition Waste Disposal Area:
• Site SW-4, Former Coal Storage Area:
Site SW-5, Former Incinerator at DRMO Yard:
Site SW-7. Asphalt Waste Pile Area;
• Site SW-9, Radioactive Waste Disposal Area:
• Site SW-10, Disposal Area Near Jet Engine Test Stand:
• Site SW-12, Disposal Area East of Weapons Storage Area: and
Site WW-2. Waste Water Treatment Plant.
The No Further Action Decision documents for the 12 no action sites and the Priority 2 Sites LFI
report can be found in the administrative record file which is available for review.
Based on results of the LFI. the Air Force recommended an RI/'FS for the remaining Priority 2
Sites (also referred to as Priority 2a Sites). An RI/FS was completed for the following eight
Priority 2a Sites:
Site IS-3, Reciprocating Engine Shop. Building 2150;
Site IS-4, Jet Engine Test Stand, Building 3000;
Site PS-1, Bulk Fuel Storage Area;
• Site PS-5, Fuel Oil Storage Tank at Wherry Housing;
Site PS-7, Deep Creek Steam Plant. Building 1350;
• Site PS-10, Fuel Truck Maintenance Facility, Building 1060
• Site SW-T1, Former Aircraft Reclamation Yard at Wherry Housing: and
• Site FT-2, Former Fire Training Area.
The location of the base and the eight Priority 2a Sites are shown in Figure 1-1.
TOO 1 -2 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
-A=B\BOCT.SeC-! BOD
1-3
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
--APBMWOSEC-. BOO 1 -4 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
2.0 INSTALLATION ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following bullets provide a general overview of the environmental setting at Fairchild AFB.
Contaminant Sources and Contamination. Fairchiid AFB has been in use since
1942. The Phase I IRP report categorized past activities of potential concern as
management of petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POL), firefighter training, solid
waste disposal, industrial shop activity, and waste water treatment (JRB
Associates [JRB] 1985). A variety of contaminants, including petroleum residues.
solvents, and metals, are present at the Priority 2a Sites.
• Regional Topography. Topographic relief at Fairchild AFB is approximately 100
feet. The maximum surface elevation is 2.470 feet above mean sea level at the
west end of the main runway; the minimum elevation is 2,370 feet above mean
sea level at the south boundary of the base.
Regional Geology. Fairchild AFB overlies a series of Quaternary sediments which
were deposited during and after the recession of flood waters from the Lake
Missoula Floods. The sediments are primarily interbedded fine-grained sands and
silts, with clays and gravels found locally. In several locations, loess deposits are
interbedded with the alluvium. The Quaternary sediments are underlaid by Tertian/
basalts of the Columbia River Group. Basalt flows beneath Fairchild AFB
occasionally breach the surface and are composed of the Wanampum and the
Grande Ronde Formations. At most observed locations, the alluvial sediments'are
in gradational contact with the weathered flow top of the basalts.
• Ground Water. Ground water in the vicinity of Fairchild AFB occurs in the alluvial
sediments and in fracture systems or interbeds in the basalt flows. Regional
ground water flow across the base trends to the east-northeast. This trend
coincides with a regional northeast trend in ground water flow toward the Spokane
River. However, bedrock beneath the base is very irregular and creates local
variations in ground water flow directions.
Ground water is typically encountered eight to 20 feet below the ground surface.
In several locations, including IS-4, PS-1. and PS-10, the hydraulic connection
between the alluvial and shallow bedrock aquifers is impeded by a low-
permeability clay layer. Ground water flow within the bedrock is predominantly
within the upper fractured portion of the upper basalt flow, or in the porous
interbed at its base. Vertical ground water movement through the upper basalt
flow is typically slow due to tightness or absence of fractures within the center of
the basalt formation.
Surface Water. Fairchild AFB is located in the south-central portion of the Deep
Creek Watershed. This watershed drains approximately 120 square miles of
Spokane and Lincoln Counties. Deep Creek flows to the east-northeast and
C 2-1 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
discharges to the Spokane River approximately 12 miles northeast of the base.
The nearest naturally-occurring surface drainage to Fairchild AFB is a tributary of
Deep Creek located along the southwest boundary of the base. No part of
Fairchild AFB is located within any 100 year flood plain.
There are eight storm and waste water drainage systems at Fairchild AFB. Six
systems of ditches, piping, and culverts discharge primarily storm water to various
wetlands in the southern portion of the base, to the holding pond at the
Conventional Weapons Storage Area, and off-base to the north, west, and south.
The remaining two systems of open ditches and storm sewers convey storm water
and waste water from industrial and base support activities to two on-base waste
water lagoons. The larger lagoon (WW-1) discharges from the base through No
Name Ditch and is regulated under the base's NPDES permit.
• Air. Air quality at Fairchild AFB meets standards for all Clean Air Act criteria
pollutants (particulates, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, lead, ozone, and carbon
monoxide). Inventory emission data for Spokane County for 1987 indicate
releases from Fairchild AFB accounted for approximately 0.3% of the county
paniculate emissions and 1.1% of the carbon monoxide emissions. Air releases
from Priority 2a Sites are discussed in the Remedial Investigation Report (ICF
1995a).
• Biology. Fairchild AFB is located where the open, semi-arid grassland habitat of
the Columbia Basin changes to the Ponderosa pine habitat of the Okanogan
Highlands. The southern portion of the base is relatively undisturbed and is
dominated by native bunch grasses. The disturbed and developed portions of the
base to the north (e.g., the runway, flightline, and industrial/administrative areas)
are dominated by turf grass and ornamental trees in the northern edges/extent of
the base. A mixture of native and non-native grasses dominate the central portion
of the base. Few trees and shrubs are found on the base.
Wetlands east of the weapon storage area are dominated by grasses, sedges,
and Russian-olive trees at different stages of maturity. The wetlands are home to
a variety of water fowl, dominated by mallard ducks. They feed primarily on
aquatic plants and insects. Upland birds such as ring-necked pheasants and gray
partridges reside in adjacent grasslands feeding on plants, seeds, and insects.
Several raptor species, including red-tailed hawks, marsh hawks, and American
kestrels, are in many areas of the base preying on numerous species of birds and
small mammals.
The mammals observed on the base are white-tailed deer, Columbian ground
squirrels, coyotes, and badgers. Of these, the white-tailed deer and Columbian
ground squirrels are primarily herbivores, feeding on grasses and leaves of trees
and shrubs. The ground squirrels also eat seeds and insects. Badgers are
primarily carnivores, feeding on small mammals and birds. The coyote is an
omnivore, feeding on fruits and other plant parts and small animals.
'ARWOM6&2.ROO 2-2 FINAL-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
CA=B-'ROO\S£C-2 SOD
No federal or state threatened or endangered species or critical habitats are
known to be associated with Fairchild AFB.
Demographics. On-base workers and residents are a significant local population.
Approximately 8,500 military personnel and civilians reside and/or are employed
on the base. There are 1.580 family housing units and 661 dormitory units on the
base; approximately 5.300 military personnel and dependents reside on-base.
Housing areas are located in the north-central and northeast portions of the base.
The nearest community is Airway Heights, located approximately 2 miles northeast
of Fairchild AFB. Airway Heights has a population of approximately 2,100. The
community of Medical Lake is located approximately 3 miles south-southwest of
the base and has a population of approximately 3,700. Rural residences outside
Fairchild AFB include trailer parks north and east of the base and scattered
residences to the east and south. The total population of residents living within
a one-half mile radius of Fairchild AFB is estimated to be less than 1,000.
Land use in the vicinity of Fairchild AFB is primarily agricultural, industrial,
commercial, and residential. Agricultural use includes both non-irrigated and
irrigated cultivation of small grains and hay, and cattle grazing. Land on the base
is both developed and undeveloped. Undeveloped land includes mixed grasses
and shrubs and some wetlands.
Climate. The climate at Fairchild AFB is semi-arid with warm, dry summers and
cold, damp winters. The average annual precipitation at Fairchild AFB is 15.7
inches (ICF 1995a). Approximately 70% of the annual precipitation falls between
the first of October and the end of March: greater than 50% falls as snow. The
growing season in the Spokane region usually extends from mid-April to
mid-October with irrigation required for all crops except dryland grains. Winter
weather includes many foggy and cloudy days, below freezing temperatures, and
occasional snowfall several inches in depth. Sub-zero temperatures are
uncommon. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports the
average annual evapotranspiration for Spokane County is 12.8 inches per year
(JRB1985).
Between January 1988 and December 1993 the mean annual temperature was
47.3°F. The highest temperature recorded during this six year period was 99° F
on 13 and 14 August 1992. The lowest temperature observed was -16C F on 29
December 1990.
Most of the year, the prevailing wind direction at Fairchild AFB is from the
southwest, with an average annual wind speed of 6 to 10 miles per hour.
However, during the winter months the prevailing wind direction is east-northeast.
Calm conditions occur approximately 20% of the year (Air Force 1990). The wind
rose provided in Figure 1-1 shows the average wind speed and direction based
on data from October 1979 to September 1989.
2-3 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
\
2-4 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
3.0 PREVIOUS INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM INVESTIGATIONS AT
FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE
JRB, an Air Force contractor, conducted Phase I Installation Assessment/Record Search activities
at Fairchild AFB in 1984. Phase I activities included a records search, personnel interviews, site
inspections, and follow-on recommendations. The objective of Phase I was to identify and
assess sites that might pose a problem due to past hazardous waste or substance disposal or
spills. The Phase I identified a total of 22 potential sites. 12 of which were recommended for
further investigation under Phase II (JRB 1985).
The Air Force began Phase II. Stage 1. Confirmation/Quantification studies in 1986 through a
contract with Battelle Memorial Institute. Denver Operations (Battelle). Battelle prepared a
Technical Operations Plan for the Phase II work in 1986 (Battelle 1986). Phase II, Stage 1
activities involved extensive data collection activities, including sampling and analysis of
potentially contaminated ground water and soils. Results of the Phase II. Stage 1, activities are
documented in the Phase II. Stage 1 report (Battelle 1989).
The results of the Phase II, Stage 1 activities provided a basis for recommendations for Phase II,
Stage 2. Confirmation/Quantification studies to further characterize sites. Stage 2 activities began
in September 1988 with development of a Work Plan (Battelle 1988); field activities were
completed in March 1990.
In 1990 while the Stage 2 work was ongoing, Fairchild AFB entered into a FFA under CERCLA
Section 120 with the EPA and the Ecology. This agreement divided the existing sites under
investigation at Fairchild AFB into Operable Units which included Priority 1 Sites, and Potential
Operable Units which included Priority 2 Sites. The FFA specified a schedule for conducting
RI/FS activities for the Priority 1 Sites and identified procedures for determining the disposition
of the Priority 2 Sites. Through a contract with Science Applications International Company
t SAIC). the Air Force published the results of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 investigations for the
Priority 1 Sites (SAIC 1990a), and Priority 2 Sites (SAIC 1990b). The Air Force completed RI/FS
activities at the Priority 1 Sites with the signing of the ROD for Craig Road Landfill in February
1993 and the signing of the ROD for the On-Base Priority 1 Sites in July 1993.
In 1991. the Air Force. EPA, and Ecology determined additional characterization of the Priority 2
Sites was needed to better scope the RI/FS activities for these sites. Through a contract with ICF
Technology Incorporated, the Air Force performed LFIs for these sites in 1991 and 1992. Based
on results of the LFIs. the Air Force recommended an RI/FS for eight Priority 2 Sites discussed
in this document.
The results of previous IRP investigations at Fairchild AFB include numerous work plans, informal
technical information reports, and investigation and study reports. Records of Decisions (RODs)
have been prepared and approved for all Priority 1 Sites. These sites are currently in the
remedial design, remedial action, long-term monitoring, and/or long term operational phases of
the remedial activity. All project documents are contained in the Fairchild AFB administrative
record and are available for review.
3-1 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3-2 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
4.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Air Force developed a Community Relations Plan (CRP) in March 1990 as part of the overall
management plan for environmental restoration activities at the base. The CRP was designed
to promote public awareness of the investigations and public involvement in the decision-making
•process. The CRP summarizes concerns that Fairchild AFB. in coordination with EPA and
Ecology, are aware of based on community interviews and comments obtained at a public
workshop Since this initial workshop. Fairchild AFB has sent out numerous fact sheets and has
held annual workshops and/or public meetings in an effort to keep the public informed and to
hear community concerns.
The Remedial Investigation Report for the on-base Priority 2a Sites (ICF 1995a) was released to
the public on February 3. 1995, the Feasibility Study (ICF 1995b) and Proposed Plan (ICF 1995c)
were released on May 2. 1995. The Proposed Plan was mailed to each address on the mailing
list These documents, as well as previous reports from the RI/FS investigation, were made
available to the public in both the Administrative Record and the Information' Repository
maintained at the locations listed below:
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD (contains all project deliverables):
Spokane Falls Community College Library
West 3410 Fort George Wright Drive
Spokane. WA 99204
(509) 533-3800
INFORMATION REPOSITORY (contains limited documentation):
Airway Heights City Hall
South 1208 Lundstrom
Airway Heights. WA 99101
(509) 244-5578
Business Hours are. Monday through Friday 8 00 a.m. - 5:00 p m
The notice of the availability of these documents was published in The Spokesman Review on
April 30. 1995. The public comment period was held from May 2, 1995 to May 31. 1995. In
addition, a public meeting was held on May 10. 1995. Prior to this meeting, copies of the
Proposed Plan were sent to over 200 local residents and other interested parties. At this
meeting, representatives from the Air Force. EPA. and Ecology answered questions about
problems at the Priority 2a Sites and the remedial alternatives under consideration. A response
to the comments received during the public comment period is included in the Responsiveness
Summary, which is part of this ROD (Appendix B). This ROD is based on the Administrative
Record.
4-1 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
=APB\fwo\sec-.Roo 4-2 FINAL-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
5.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNITS
Potential source areas at Fairchild AFB have been grouped into separate operable units. A
different schedule has been established for each of the operable units. The Craig Road Landfill
(CRL) site comprises the first Priority 1 Operable Units (OU-1) at Fairchild AFB. A ROD was
signed in February of 1993 for the CRL site and a cleanup action is in progress. The second
Priority 1 Operable Units (OU-2) consisted of five soil and ground water contamination sites. A
ROD was signed in July of 1993 for the OU-2 sites. Selection of cleanup actions for Priority 2
Operable Units (OU-3) is being made in this ROD. The cleanup actions described in this ROD
address select onsite ground water contamination and source areas associated with surface and
subsurface contamination at the sites. In doing so. the cleanup actions described in this ROD
address current and potential risks to human health and the environment associated with the on-
base Priority 2a Sites.
The Priority 3 Operable Units are in the Site Inspection phase at this time. Ground water
contamination at IS-4 and PS-10 will be investigated as part of the Priority 3 Operable Units. A
ROD for the Priority 3 Operable Units may be signed as early as 1999.
=^3=00 SE= 5 ROD 5-1 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
--A.=aRoo«c.s.Roo 5-2 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
6.0 SITE INVESTIGATION RESULTS
Since 1993. environmental samples (i.e.. soil-gas, soil, sediment, surface water, and ground water
samples) have been collected at the Priority 2a Sites during five separate sampling events. The
following is a brief discussion of activities conducted.
• March-April 1993-Activities included the installation of all soil borings and ground
water monitoring wells at PS-1, PS-5. PS-7. PS-10, and FT-2. A soil-gas survey
was conducted at PS-1 to assess the extent of subsurface fuel contamination.
A geophysical survey was conducted at PS-5 to assess the extent of phase-
separated hydrocarbons observed during the LFI removal action. A sump
assessment, including the collection of sediment and water samples was
completed at IS-3. A sump assessment was performed at PS-7 to evaluate
hydraulic characteristics of the shallow aquifer at the site. The field staff collected
(excluding QA/QC samples) 161 soil/sediment. 24 water, and 187 soil gas
samples'
• July 1993-Activities included the installation of ground water monitoring wells and
the removal of petroleum contaminated soil at IS-4. Additional soil samples were
collected at SW-11 to assess metals contamination in shallow soil. The second
quarterly ground water sampling was also conducted. The field staff collected
(excluding QA/QC samples) 27 soil and 31 water samples.
• October 1993-Activities included completion of soil borings as part of the
corrective action (see Section 2.2.3.8) and the third quarterly ground water
sampling. The field staff collected (excluding QA/QC samples) 57 soil and 36
water samples.
January 1994-Activities included the fourth and final round of quarterly ground
water sampling. The field staff collected (excluding QA/QC samples) 34 water
samples.
• March 1994~Activities (principally the collection of surface soil samples at PS-10
to determine concentrations of volatile organic compounds [VOC] and petroleum)
had decreased because of volatilization or natural degradation. The field staff
collected (excluding QA/QC samples) 3 soil samples.
Samples collected during these activities were sent for laboratory analyses. Results were
evaluated to determine nature and extent of contamination, and to perform human health and
ecological risk assessments.
Basewide natural background levels for metals in soil were determined using 30 soil samples
from uncontaminated sites at Fairchiid AFB. The data were fitted to either a normal or lognormal
distribution per Ecology guidance (Ecology 1992). The natural background level was assumed
to be the 95% upper tolerance limit for the 90th percentile of the data. For non-detection data,
6-1 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
half the detection limit was substituted for the raw data. Outliers more than four standard
deviations from the-mean were excluded from the data set. Site specific natural background
levels were also determined at PS-1. SW-11. and FT-2 using a smaller number of samples
collected near the sites. Basewide natural background levels for dissolved and total metals in
ground water were determined using 21 ground water samples. Methodology for calculating
ground water natural background levels was the same as for soil.
The maximum concentrations of chemicals detected during the LFI and Rl at the Priority 2a Sites
were compared to screening levels to determine which chemicals would be evaluated in the risk
assessment (see Appendix A). The screening levels were Washington State MTCA Method B
cleanup levels, chemical-specific Risk Based Screening Levels (RBSLs), and, where appropriate.
natural background levels. RBSLs used to select the chemicals of concern, were based on the
residential exposure scenarios described in Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfuna. Human
Health Evaluation Manual. Part B: Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals.
This is a more conservative approach than basing the RBSLs on a commercial/industrial
scenario. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) were also used to screen ground water
contaminants of concern. Chemicals measured at concentrations that exceeded a Method B
cleanup level or an RBSL and the natural background levels (if available) were retained as
potential contaminants of concern. Chemicals that did not have Method B cleanup levels,
RBSLs. or natural background levels were also retained as potential contaminants of concern.
The potential for health effects associated with exposure to such chemicals cannot, however, be
quantified because their toxicity has not been determined. Exposure to such chemicals is not
necessarily without risk or hazard, the risk or hazard simply cannot be quantified.
Cancer risk assessments and noncancer hazard assessments are used to estimate current and
future risk if a site is not cleaned up. As part of the remedial investigation, the Air Force prepared
a risk and hazard assessment for each site to evaluate potential human health and environmental
risks resulting from exposure to site contamination.
The human health risk assessment for the Priority 2a sites estimated the potential for contracting
cancer or other adverse health effects from residential and Air Force Personnel/Contractor
(industrial) exposure scenarios to site contamination. Standard EPA default exposure
assumptions were used to characterize human health risk for a residential scenario and for an
Air Force Personnel/Contractor (industrial) scenario. The exposure assumptions for these
scenarios are described in EPA Region 10: Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund (August 16, 1991). Calculation of the excess lifetime cancer risk and the noncancer
hazard for each Priority 2a site was based on the 95th percentile upper confidence limit on the
arithmetic mean concentration for the Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) scenario, and on
the arithmetic mean for the average case scenario. This assessment uses reasonable
conservative assumptions to determine risk, such as daily exposure to contamination for 30
years. The risk assessment also considers changes in uses of land or ground water that may
occur in the future. The range of acceptable risk for carcinogens, as stated in the NCP, is one
additional chance in one million (1 x 10"6) to one additional chance in ten thousand (1 x 10"*).
The hazard assessment estimates risk for exposure to non-carcinogens. For non-carcinogens,
6-2 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
acceptable levels are generally those to which the human population may be exposed throughout
a 30 year period .without adverse health effects. Non-carcinogenic risks are estimated by
calculating a Hazard Quotient (HQ). According to both federal and state hazardous waste laws.
an acceptable risk level for non-carcinogens is a HQ value less than 1.0.
Several sources of uncertainty affect the estimates of excess lifetime cancer risk and noncancer
hazard as presented in the risk assessment. The sources are generally associated with:
• Sampling and analysis of soil and ground water;
• Assigning the source of contamination:
• • Exposure assumptions, including estimates of exposure point concentrations;
Evaluation of the toxicity of the contaminants of concern; and
• Methods and assumptions used to characterize the cancer risk and noncancer
hazard.
Uncertainties associated with sampling and analysis include the inherent variability (standard
error) in the analysis, representativeness of the samples, sampling errors, and heterogeneity of
the sample matrix. While the quality assurance/quality control program used in conducting the
sampling and analysis serves to reduce errors, it can not eliminate all errors associated with
sampling and analysis.
Simplifying assumptions were made about the environmental fate and transport of the site
contamination, specifically, no contaminant loss or transformation has or will occur. Thus, the
estimation of exposure point concentrations in the risk calculations is an additional source of
potential error.
The estimation of exposure requires many assumptions to describe potential exposure situations.
There are uncertainties regarding the likelihood of exposure, frequency of contact with
contaminated media, the concentration of contaminants at exposure points, and the time period
of exposure. These then to simplify and approximate actual site conditions. In general, these
assumptions are intended to be conservative and yield an overestimate of the true risk or hazard.
The toxicological database is also a source of uncertainty. The EPA has outlined some of the
sources of uncertainty in Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, Guidelines for the Health
Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures, and Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume
1, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. Interim Final. These sources include extrapolation
from high to low doses and from animals to humans; species, gender, age, and strain differences
in uptake, metabolism, organ distribution, and target site susceptibility; and human population
variability with respect to diet, environment, activity patterns, and cultural factors.
6-3 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
In the risk characterization, the assumption was made that the total risk of developing cancer
from exposure to site contaminants is the sum of the risk attributed to each individual
contaminant. Likewise, the potential for the development of noncancer adverse effects is the sum
of the hazard quotients estimated for exposure to each individual contaminant. This approach
does not account for the possibility that chemicals act synergistically or antagonistically.
An ecological risk assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential adverse impacts to plants
and animals resulting from exposure to contamination associated with the Priority 2a Sites. The
assessment investigated potential impacts to burrowing and ground-dwelling animals exposed
to surface and sub-surface soil contamination at the sites as well as impacts to wildlife exposed
to contaminated surface water and sediments.
The following paragraphs summarize remedial investigation activities and the results of the risk
assessment at the Priority 2a Sites. Tables of analytical results and risk calculations are
presented in Appendix A. Site locations are shown in Figure 1-1.
6.1 IS-3. RECIPROCATING ENGINE SHOP, BUILDING 2150
IS-3 consists of Building 2150, the former reciprocating engine test facility, located in the upper
central portion of Fairchild AFB near Arnold Street between 2nd Avenue and 3rd Avenue. A site
plan is shown in Figure 6-1. The area of concern at IS-3 is a sump located in the basement of
Building 2150.
6.1.1 Background
Building 2150 was constructed in 1942 as part of the initial base construction. The structure was
specifically designed and built as a radial engine test facility and was used from 1942 until
approximately 1956 to test gasoline-powered reciprocating aircraft engines. Since 1956,
Building 2150 has been used for several purposes including entertainment, a communications
center, and for incineration of classified documents in Test Cell 3. More recently, the Air Force
used the building as a temporary storage area for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCS) laden
transformers during basewide PCS removal. Six large PCB-containing transformers originally
installed in the building were removed at that time. The transformers were stored in steel pans
to contain any spills or fluid leaks. A contractor completed removal of the PCS materials stored
in the building in 1991. Currently Building 2150 is locked and not in use.
During a site inspection, a red, oily liquid, probably aircraft engine lubricating oil, was observed
on the floor at several locations in the basement. Several small steel drums were found
containing red, oily liquid. An 8.5 foot deep sump is located in the basement. Automatic pumps
installed in the sump had lifted sump water from the basement level into a storm sewer line
outside the building on the north side. The sump contained water during the investigation. The
source of the water was apparently floor drainage from connected floor drains although this
could not be conclusively proven. There was no evidence to suggest leakage from the sump to
ground water had occurred.
--AFff.ROMK.aRoo 6-4 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
CO.
o
S=
«e
en
2
3
-------
Previous IRP investigations reported one PCB (Aroclor-1260) in three samples collected from
pooled oil on the basement floor ranging in concentration from 8.8 mg/kg to 44.0 mg/kg. PCBs
were not detected in oil collected from the steel drums.
6.1.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination
The remedial investigation focused on an assessment of the sump in Building 2150 as a possible
contaminant release point and its contents as a possible contamination source. All analytes
having the potential to be contaminants of concern are listed, along with their associated risk and
hazard, in site specific risk screening tables in Appendix A. In these tables, the maximum
concentrations of analytes detected on site during the LFI and Rl are compared to several
screening levels (for more information see introductory text in Section 6.0). Tables in Appendix A
also list frequency of analyte detections and average analyte concentrations.
6.1.2.1 Sump Assessment. No conclusions could be drawn from a review of
Building 2150 engineering drawings as to whether a connection exists between floor drains and
the sump. The source of the water in the sump is unknown, but may be due to roof leakage and
condensation. After pumping about one third of the liquid from the sump, exposed portions of
the sump walls were inspected for integrity. No breaches were visible. Basewide ground water
maps show ground water near Building 2150 at approximately 5 to 8 feet below the sump water
level. This difference instead indicates there is not a large leak from the sump to ground water
and ground water could not infiltrate into the sump. There is not sufficient data, however, to
determine if sump water infiltrates to ground water through a very small leak or leaks
intermittently.
6.1.2.2 Sump Sediments. Analyses of the sump sediments detected concentrations of
fuel-related VOC. metals, and PCB. P-cymene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 1.2.4.-trimethylbenzene,
1.3,5-trimethylbenzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes were reported in the sump
sediment at concentrations below screening levels.
Metals detected above natural background levels included antimony, cadmium, chromium, lead,
and mercury. PCB (Aroclor-1254) was detected in the sump sediment at a maximum
concentration of 0.31 mg/kg.
6.1.2.3 Sump Water. Water removed from the sump contained VOC, SVOC. metals, and
PCB. The VOC detected were toluene. 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and 1,2,4-tnchlorobenzene. The
only SVOC detected in the samples collected was bis(2-ethyihexyi)phthalate. This compound
is commonly found in environmental samples and has been documented as an artifact of sample
handling or laboratory methods. Metals analyses for sump water showed concentrations of lead
and zinc above the high normal ground water background levels. PCB as Aroclor-1242 was
detected at a concentration of 0.21 ng/L, which is below the PCB MCI of 0.5
6-6 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
6.1.3 Summary of Site Risks
For the purpose of completing risk characterization, the Air Force assumed the sump leaks at
appreciable rates to the surrounding soil and ground water. Based on this scenario, residential
exposure to ground water was evaluated. Air Force personnel and contractors are the only
receptor populations likely to become exposed to the contamination inside Building 2150.
Therefore, the risk assessment focused on quantifying the risk to this receptor group from direct
exposure to water and sediments in the sump.
6.1.3.1 Contaminants of Concern. Six chemicals observed in the sump sediment were
identified as potential contaminants of concern: lead, p-cymene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
PCB-1254, and 1,2,4- and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene. However, because of limited toxicity reference
data, health risks or hazards could not be quantified for lead, p-cymene. or the
trimethylbenzenes. PCB-1254 and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate exceeded a risk screening level
based on carcinogenicity and were retained as contaminants of concern in sump sediments.
. Health risks and hazards were evaluated for these two cpmpounds.
The concentrations of lead and PCB-1242 in the sump water exceeded a risk screening level
concentration. The risk of health effects associated with exposure to lead cannot be quantified,
however, because EPA has not provided a reference dose or a slope factor with which to
quantify risk. The Air Force estimated the risk associated with exposure to PCB-1242 by the
drinking water ingestion pathway.
6.1.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment. For site IS-3, current risk under the Air Force
Personnel/Contractor scenario is principally due to direct exposure to PCB-1254 in sump
sediments and ingestion of PCB-1242 in sump water. The risk associated with exposure to
PCB-1254 in sump sediments is 4 x 10~7 and the risk associated with ingestion of sump water
containing PCB-1242 is 2 x 10"6. The cumulative risk for exposure to sump sediments and water
is 2 x 10 , which is within the acceptable range. The current hazard associated with exposure
to sump sediments under the same scenario is principally due to exposure to bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate. That hazard is 0.0002, which is below the screening threshold of 1.0. The
hazard associated with exposure to sump water is not quantifiable because the EPA has not
published a reference dose for oral exposures to PCBs. All risks and hazards calculated for
Site IS-3 are based on RME assumptions. If contaminants leaked to the subsurface soil or
ground water they would be diluted and the associated risk and hazard would be reduced.
6.1.3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment. There is no indication site conditions are
impacting the wildlife or plant communities. There is no apparent ecological risk to target
species at IS-3.
6.1.4 Conclusions
An assessment of the integrity of the sump indicated the possibility of a large leak of
contaminated sump water to ground water is extremely small, but the possibility of a small leak
does exist.
6-7 FINAL • 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
The building is presently unoccupied and locked. Institutional controls limit access to contractors
or Air Force personnel conducting site investigations, so the potential for direct contact with the
sump water and sediments by on-base residents and the general public is virtually non-existent.
The Air Force recommends draining the sump completely to visually inspect the integrity of the
sump walls and to determine if sump water is or has been in communication with ground water.
The Air Force is also reviewing plans to demolish this building, at which time soils surrounding
the sump will be sampled and analyzed for PCB contamination. If cleanup levels are exceeded,
contaminated soils will be removed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal,
state, and local regulations.
6.2 SITE IS-4, JET ENGINE TEST STAND, BUILDING 3000
Site IS-4 is a former jet engine testing facility located south of the east end of the instrument
runway in the central eastern portion of the base. The site is inactive and all structures have
been razed. Currently, the site consists of former engine test cells, a storm water ditch that
trends to the east-northeast immediately north of the test stand, and a large rubble pile that
served as a blast shield during testing activities. A site map is presented as Figure 6-2.
6.2.1 Background
From 1953 to 1989. IS-4 was used for jet engine testing activities. Engine testing operations prior
to 1979 resulted in uncontrolled releases of jet fuel to the fuel stand surface, a dry well, and an
oil water separator. After 1979, the Air Force reportedly used spill control procedures to contain
fuel releases and no longer used the dry well.
Site investigations detected the presence of fuel residues in soils adjacent to the oil-water
separator. Petroleum was detected at concentrations up to 3,979 mg/kg in soils adjacent to the
dry well and up to 1.947 mg/kg in soils adjacent to the southern test cell. Toluene, xylene,
ethylbenzene. naphthalene, methylnaphthalene. and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were also
observed in soil samples. Ground water sampling yielded diesel range petroleum at a maximum
concentration of 3.0 mg/L from MW-192 in November 1992, and showed BTEX concentrations
in all samples collected from this well.
In July 1993, 1,060 yd3 of petroleum-contaminated soil was excavated from the site and
transported to a thermal desorption facility for treatment.
6.2.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination
Field activities included excavating a test pit, collecting surface soil samples, installing and
sampling soil borings, and installing and sampling shallow monitoring wells. Approximately
1.800 yd3 of diesel range petroleum contaminated soil remains at the site (see Figure 6-2). All
analytes having the potential to be contaminants of concern are listed, along with their
associated risk and hazard, in site specific risk screening tables in Appendix A. In these tables,
the maximum concentrations of analytes detected on site during the LFI and Rl are compared
6-8 FINAL-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
?AFB\ROO\SEC
6-9
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
to several screening levels (for more information see introductory text in Section 6.0). Tables in
Appendix A also list frequency of analyte detections and average analyte concentrations. The
following sections summarize the results of remedial investigation sample analyses at Site IS-4.
6.2.2.1 Soils. A total of 1,060 yd3 of petroleum-contaminated soils were excavated from
a test pit near the dry well during remedial investigation activities. The test pit identified the
eastern, northern, and partly the southern extent of vadose petroleum contamination. The
vertical extent of contamination is limited by a massive plastic clay layer, at a depth of
approximately five feet, that is prominent across the site.
Field screening for petroleum showed petroleum residues ranging from 1 0 mg/kg to 2,000
mg/kg with higher concentrations near the dry well and near the southern portion of the test pit.
Soil samples collected from the walls and floor of the test pit yielded BTEX and a variety of
substituted benzene compounds commonly found in jet fuel.
The maximum petroleum concentrations were observed immediately south of the former dry
well at concentrations up to 4,800 mg/kg. Several VOCs, all of which are attributable to fuel
releases, were detected in soils at concentrations below screening levels.
6.2.2.2 Ground Water. The Air Force installed four monitoring wells in the shallow
alluvial aquifer beneath the site and three monitoring wells in a deeper confined aquifer to
assess the vertical migration of observed ground water contamination. Contaminants present
in the shallow aquifer are limited to metals, diesel range petroleum, and two SVOCs.
Concentrations of zinc, cadmium, lead, and manganese were detected at concentrations
exceeding natural background levels. Diesel range petroleum concentrations ranged from 0.05
mg/L to 0.87 mg/L in ground water samples collected in March 1993. Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate and dimethylphthalate were the only SVOCs detected in ground water
beneath IS-4. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and dimethylphthalate are common laboratory
contaminants and their presence is considered an artifact of field or laboratory cross
contamination. Still, these phthalates were retained for risk characterization.
Analyses conducted on samples collected from wells in the deeper aquifer yielded
concentrations of carbon tetrachloride in MW-214 and MW-216 ranging from 2.1 p.g/L to 4.5
ng/L In addition, carbon tetrachloride has been detected in ground water upgradient from the
site. Samples from deeper aquifer Well MW-214 also contained TCE at 1 ng/L. Carbon
tetrachloride and TCE were not detected in any of the shallow aquifer monitor wells, nor in any
site soil samples. An unfiltered ground water sample collected in the shallow confined aquifer
using a hydropunch contained carbon tetrachloride at 6.6 ^ig/L This data and the fact that the
shallow aquifer and the deep confined aquifer are not in communication indicates that carbon
tetrachloride and TCE found in the deep aquifer is unrelated to IS-4 site activity.
Metals detected above natural background levels in deeper aquifer ground water include
cadmium, chromium, and zinc. Diesel range petroleum concentrations in deeper ground water
ranged from 0.53 mg/L to 0.87 mg/L.
6-10 FINAL-8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
6.2.2.3 Ditch Surface Soil and Surface Water. Soil and water samples collected from the
storm water ditch located immediately north of IS-4 were used to assess possible interaction
between surface water in the ditch and ground water in the vicinity of IS-4.
Results of the ditch sampling show the presence of methylene chloride and metals including
cobalt, copper, manganese, and nickel in ditch bank sediments. Methylene chloride is a common
laboratory contaminant. Metals detected in ditch surface water include arsenic, silver,
manganese, lead, and zinc. However, there is no correlation between contaminants detected in
the ditch and those detected in soil or ground water at IS-4.
6.2.3 Summary of Site Risks
Potential receptors to environmental contamination at IS-4 are Air Force personnel and contractors
conducting activities at the site. Because the site is within one quarter of a mile of the flightline
and access to the area is monitored, only Air Force personnel and contractors have access to the
. site. Given the remote location and the limited access, the Air Force concludes there is no realistic
exposure scenario for current base residents, visitors, or trespassers. However, exposures for
hypothetical future residents to current concentrations were evaluated.
Current exposure pathways at IS-4 are limited to ingestion or direct dermal contact with surface
water and contaminated soil. The analytical data for soils at IS-4 indicates VOC in soil are present
at concentrations well below their risk screening levels. Therefore, volatilization of chemicals in
the soil will be in only trace amounts and subsequent inhalation exposure is not considered a
complete exposure pathway.
6.2.3.1 Contaminants of Concern. Rve metals and seven organic compounds were
retained as potential contaminants of concern for the risk assessment of IS-4 ground water. The
metals included arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and manganese. The organic compounds
included benzene, carbon tetrachloride, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, ethylbenzene, toluene, total
xylenes, and 2-methylnaphthalene.
Based on the maximum concentrations measured in soil, two metals and four organic compounds
were retained as potential contaminants of concern for the risk assessment of exposures to IS-4
soils. The metals were cobalt and manganese. The organic compounds detected in soil are
presumed to be fuel components including sec-butylbenzene, n-propylbenzene, and 1,2,4- and
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene. Risk or hazard assessments were not calculated on these four organics
or on cobalt because there is no reference toxicity data for these compounds.
Based on the maximum concentrations measured in surface water, three metals were retained as
potential contaminants of concern for the risk assessment of IS-4 surface water. These are
arsenic, chromium, and manganese.
6.2.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment. For site IS-4, current risk, based on RME
assumptions, under the Air Force Personnel/Contractor scenario is principally due to ingestion of
arsenic contaminated ground water and rounds up to 3 x 10 "*. Hazard associated with exposure
to site ground water under the same scenario is 8 which is principally due to ingestion of
6-11 FINAL-8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
manganese. The ground water exposure pathway is incomplete and may never exist given the
adequacy of the base water supply system. Ground water contamination will be addressed
under the Priority 3 Operable Unit. Hazard associated with exposure to site soil under the
same scenario is 0.4 and is due to ingestion of manganese and petroleum. The soil exposure
hazard is at an acceptable level. These values do not include risk or hazard related to site
surface water because contamination in surface water is not related to this site. It was,
nevertheless, evaluated in the Rl and is presented in the tables in Appendix A, raising the
cumulative risk to 4 x 10"5, and cumulative hazard to 9. Risk associated with exposure to
petroleum contaminated soil can not be quantified.
6.2.3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment. The ecological risk to target species visiting the
site and the nearby ditch does not exceed acceptable levels. The ecological quotients for the
contaminants of concern are at least two orders of magnitude less than one.
6.2.4 Conclusions
Ground water contamination at IS-4 is not attributable to site activities. Ground water
contamination at this site will be addressed as part of the Priority 3 Operable Unit. Because of
this, cleanup alternatives were not evaluated for ground water.
There is no unacceptable risk or hazard associated with exposure to soil at IS-4. Petroleum
contamination in soils still present at the site exceeds Washington State cleanup levels. Also,
petroleum in soil could serve as a source for ground water contamination. For these reasons,
soil cleanup alternatives were evaluated.
6.3 SITE PS-1, BULK FUEL STORAGE AREA
PS-1 is the main bulk fuel storage facility at Fairchild AFB. Figure 1 -1 shows its location. The
site consists of four above ground fuel tanks, and their asphalt covered, bermed containment
areas. The four above ground tanks store approximately three million gallons of JP-4.
6.3.1 Background
PS-1 has been in operation for approximately 40 years. The four tanks, 2400, 2405, 2406, and
241 0, were built between 1952 and 1960. Most fuel moves to and from the tank farm via
underground pipes. Delivery outlets are located along the rail siding and at the fuel truck
loading station on the southwest boundary. When the underground distribution pipelines are
not operating, trucks load fuel from PS-1 for delivery to the flightline.
The Bulk Fuels Storage Area and supply pipeline to the flightline are monitored for leakage
through a combined effort of inventory control, pressure testing and tracer analysis. Inventory
of the fuel in the four tanks is conducted on a daily basis. The supply lines extending from the
tanks to the flightline are pressure tested on an annual basis and the last test was completed in
August, 1995. The testing procedure is outlined in AFM 85-16 and it requires the lines to be
pressurized to 1.5 times normal system pressure. The lines are also tested by means of tracer
6-12 FINAL-8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
analysis. Tracer Research Inc. has tested the lines in 1991, 1992, 1993 and most recently in
August. 1995. a volatile tracer chemical is added to the fuel in '.he tanks and it is allowed to
travel throughout the lines. All of this testing over the past few years has been satisfactory. In
addition, new tank bottoms have been installed in Tanks 1 and 4 and the design of new tank
bottoms for Tanks 2 and 3 is complete The project will be ready to advertise in October 1995.
IRP activities have been ongoing at PS-1 since 1986 Samples from shallow monitoring wells
collected regularly from 1986 through 1991 yielded inconsistent concentrations of BTEX
constituents and other VOC. In 1990 Fairchild AFB personnel encountered petroleum
contaminated soil while installing a spill containment basin and tank near the fuel truck loading
rack. A soil sample yielded barium, ethylbenzene, xylenes and petroleum. The source of the
barium anomaly is unknown but it may be due to natural variations in soil composition. A ground
water sample from the excavation contained benzene and other BTEX constituents.
During previous IRP activities in November 1991. the Air Force installed four monitoring wells,
MW-194. MW-195. MW-196, and MW-197, into the shallow aquifer,' Petroleum was detected at
the method detection limit in MW-197. Lead detected in unfiltered ground water samples was
attributed to suspended sediment in the samples, not to contamination at the site.
In recent years, the Air Force has documented evidence of three JP-4 releases at PS-1:
• Release 1. At a fuel transfer pipeline south of storage tank 2406. The Fairchild
AFB Liquid Fuels Department reported approximately 4,500 gallons were released
and 3,000 gallons recovered from a 1990 leak (Mason 1991).
• Release 2. At a fuel transfer pipeline near Building 2404. During an excavation
at PS-1. the Fairchild AFB Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) department
unearthed soil contaminated by an estimated 2.000 gallons of JP-4 (Rosa 1992).
• Release 3. Under the road bed north of storage tank 2410. During road
construction in 1993 the Fairchild AFB CEE department unearthed JP-4
contaminated soil (Rosa 1993).
6.3.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination
The remedial investigation activities at PS-1 included a soil-gas survey, installing and sampling
soil borings, and installing and sampling shallow monitoring wells. Results of the remedial
investigation indicate approximately 37.900 yd3 of contaminated soil and 1.8 million gallons of
contaminated ground water are present at PS-1 All analytes having the potential to be
contaminants of concern are listed, along with their associated risk and hazard, in site specific
risk screening tables in Appendix A. In these tables, the maximum concentrations of analytes
detected on site during the LFI and Rl are compared to several screening levels (for more
information see introductory text in Section 6.0). Tables in Appendix A also list frequency of
analyle detections and average analyte concentrations. Figure 6-3 shows the extent of this
remaining contamination.
6-13 FINAL-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
=AFBVROO\SEC-8 ROD
6-14
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
6.3.2.1 Subsurface Soils. Numerous VOC and SVOC were detected in soil borings
surrounding the fuel truck loading pad. The borings in this area include B-1 2, B-1 2R, B-1 3, B-1 4,
B-1 5, the MW-208 boring, and B-208R. Most of the compounds detected are known constituents
of jet fuel. These include BTEX compounds, sec-butylbenzene, p-cymene, naphthalene,
2-methylnaphthalene, n-propylbenzene. isopropylbenzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and
1 ,3,5-trimethylbenzene.
Concentrations of diesel range petroleum as high as 9,185 mg/kg were detected in soils north
of the truck loading rack where fuel contamination was observed in 1 990. Elsewhere across the
site diesel range petroleum concentrations ranged from 7.5 mg/kg to 3,500 mg/kg.
Analyses show all metals concentrations are generally below or near site-specific natural
background levels. A single detection of silver and cadmium in B-1 5 are the only occurrences
of metals substantially above natural background levels in soils at PS-1 . These values are
attributable to natural variations in soil composition. Beryllium, manganese, and lead also
exceeded natural background but by only a small amount, and the lead exceedance is confined
to the LFi investigations. None of the Rl lead analyses exceeded background.
6.3.2.2 Ground Water. In March 1993, the Air Force installed two monitoring wells,
MW-207 and MW-208. With the exception of hexachlorobutadiene and two trichlorobenzene
isomers. the VOC and SVOC detected in ground water were recognized either as constituents
of JP-4 or degradation products of fuel constituents. Hexachlorobutadiene is a constituent of
hydraulic fluids and is a solvent for natural and synthetic rubber products. It has often been
observed in roadway runoff and may be a laboratory artifact. The two trichlorobenzene isomers
(1 .2.3- and 1 ,2,4-) are common laboratory solvents and are also likely laboratory artifacts.
Concentrations of petroleum in MW-208 ranged from 290 fig/L to 7,000 ng/L The maximum
concentration observed in MW-207 was 160 jig/L Arsenic, selenium, barium, and manganese,
were detected above natural background levels in filtered samples. The source of these metals
in ground water is not known. Operations at PS-1 would not have required these metals nor
caused them to accumulate.
MW-1 96 and MW-208 were the only wells displaying contaminant concentrations exceeding state
ground water cleanup standards. Compounds detected in these wells include BTEX, petroleum,
and various fuel related VOCs. Benzene was detected at concentrations exceeding the MTCA
Method A cleanup standard four times in MW-208 and once in MW-1 96. Arsenic, manganese
and selenium concentrations were also present in filtered water samples collected from these
wells. Contamination in MW-208 was attributable either to contaminant migration along a utility
corridor under the access throughway or from an undocumented release from the rail or truck
headers. Migration of contaminants may occur along this utility corridor or along a water line
which extends along the perimeter of the entire facility. Contamination in MW-1 96 is likely a
result of impacts from Release No. 2 which occurred after installation of the well.
CAFB SOD-SEC 6 ROC 6-15 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
6.3.3 Summary of Site Risk
Vadose zone contamination encountered during the remedial investigation is present from the
surface to 10 feet deep and was not detected below the upper 2 feet of a clay layer that was
encountered across the site. This layer appears to prevent the downward migration of fuel
residues.
Under present conditions, exposure to Site PS-1 ground water is unlikely. The base water
supply is drawn from a source approximately ten miles from the base and is unaffected by
contaminants in PS-1 ground water.
One current use receptor group was identified for PS-1: Air Force personnel and contractors.
Other current receptor groups considered in this baseline risk assessment, on-base residents,
base visitors, and trespassers were not evaluated for PS-1. However, exposures for
hypothetical future residents to current concentrations were evaluated. The site is fenced with
barbed wire and distant from areas where these receptor groups might be found.
6.3.3.1 Contaminants of Concern. For soil samples, the maximum concentration of
beryllium exceeded risk screening levels and state soil cleanup levels that apply to this site.
Manganese was retained as a potential contaminant of concern because it exceeded state
cleanup levels and natural background levels. Therefore beryllium and manganese were
evaluated in the risk assessment.
Seven volatile organic compounds were retained as potential contaminants of concern for PS-1
soils. All VOC detected in soil at PS-1 were at concentrations below their respective risk
screening levels. Sec-butylbenzene, n-butylbenzene, p-cymene, 2-methylnaphthalene, n-
propylbenzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene were retained as potential
contaminants of concern. These compounds are known constituents of refined fuel. In addition
to. these VOC compounds, petroleum hydrocarbons mixtures were detected in soil at a
maximum concentration of 9,185 mg/kg.
For ground water samples, the concentrations of arsenic, barium, beryllium, manganese, and
nickel exceeded their risk screening levels; however, the concentrations of barium, beryllium
and nickel were lower than natural background levels and were not retained for further
evaluation. Arsenic, Manganese, and selenium exceeded natural background levels and were
retained for further evaluation.
Benzene, ethylbenzene, hexachlorobutadiene, isopropylbenzene, 1,2,4-trichloro-benzene, and
xylenes exceeded their risk screening levels and were retained as potential contaminants of
concern. In addition, sec-butylbenzene, p-cymene, 2-methyl-naphthalene, n-propylbenzene,
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene were retained as
potential contaminants of concern. With the exception of hexachlorobutadiene and the two
trichlorobenzene isomers, all of the organic compounds retained as potential contaminants of
concern are recognized as either constituents of refined fuels or degradation products of fuel
constituents.
6-16 FINAL-8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
6.3.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment. For site PS-1. current risks, based on RME
assumptions, under the Air Force Personnel/Contractor scenario are principally due to ingestion
of benzene and arsenic contaminated ground water and round up to 1 x 10"3. Current hazards
under the same scenario are principally due to ingestion of manganese and arsenic
contaminated ground water and round up to 12. Exposure to soils results in a risk of 2 x 10"7,
and a hazard of 4 x 10~2, both below screening thresholds. Risk associated with petroleum
contamination can not be quantified. The noncancer hazard and cancer risk associated with the
ground water ingestion pathway are hypothetical and are based on possible future use of ground
water containing contaminants at current concentrations. There currently are no residents at site
PS-1 and the shallow water-bearing unit is not used as a domestic water supply.
6.3.3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment. There is no apparent ecological risk associated
with conditions at PS-1. The ecological hazard quotient for benzene is between 0.3 and 0.4. The
quotients of the other contaminants of concern are at least an order of magnitude less than one.
6.3.4 Conclusions
There is no unacceptable risk or hazard associated with exposure to PS-1 soil. Evaluation of the
soils contamination at the site shows the state cleanup level for petroleum in soil is exceeded.
For this reason, soil cleanup alternatives were evaluated.
Ingestion of contaminated ground water is the principal source of unacceptable cancer risk for
the industrial exposure scenarios. In addition, the maximum benzene concentration significantly
exceeds the MCL of 5 pg/L. and concentrations of petroleum exceed state cleanup standards
for ground water. For these reasons, ground water cleanup alternatives were evaluated. •
6.4 SITE PS-5, FUEL OIL STORAGE TANK AT WHERRY HOUSING
Site PS-5 is located in the west-central portion of Fairchild AFB along the eastern edge of the
Wherry Housing Area, an on-base family housing development. The location of the site is shown
in Figure 1-1: a site plan is presented as Figure 6-4.
6.4.1 Background
The source of observed environmental contamination is a 20.000-gallon above ground steel
storage tank previously located at the site. The Air Force removed the tank in 1985. During its
operational lifetime, the tank stored No. 2 heating oil for on-base residences. Soil and ground
water contamination is attributed to uncontrolled releases of heating oil to the ground and to a
dry well located at the former fuel loading platform.
Previous IRP investigations confirmed fuel residues were present in soils and ground water at the
site Petroleum concentrations up to 21.644 mg/kg in soil were detected. A total BTEX
concentration of 8.6 \ig/L was detected in ground water samples collected from monitoring wells
6-17 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
DRAWING No. ROO-PS5
C
UJ
ce
CD
HOUSE
8LDG
7087
EXTENT OF
RESOUAL TPH-0
COMTAMMAnON IN
CROUH) «*ItS
(9' TO 10' OEPTVI)
AMD SOL
(8' TO 9' OCPTO).
AREA OF
REMOVED
SOILS
MW-41
•
MW-46
B-49
• GROUND WATER
REMOVED ABOVE
GROUND TANK
UNDERGROUND
STEAM LINE
MW-42
MW-213
FAIRCHILD
AIR FORCE BASE
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
FIGURE NO. 6-4
PS-5
SITE PLAN
=Ar9\ROC\SEC-« ROD
6-18
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
at the site. In 1992 the Air Force proceeded with an independent removal action involving the
excavation and offsite treatment of approximately 850 yd3 of petroleum-contaminated soil. The
removal action successfully removed the majority of vadose zone contamination from the site.
6.4.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination
this section presents a detailed discussion of the individual field activities conducted at PS-5
during the remedial investigation. Approximately 185 yd3 of contaminated soil and 11,210
gallons of mildly contaminated ground water remain at PS-5. All analytes having the potential
to be contaminants of concern are listed, along with their associated risk and hazard, in site
specific risk screening tables in Appendix A. In these tables, the maximum concentrations of
analytes detected on site during the LFI and Rl are compared to several screening levels (for
more information see introductory text in Section 6.0). Tables in Appendix A also list frequency
of analyte detections and average analyte concentrations. Figure 6-4 shows the estimated extent
of this remaining contamination.
6.4.2.1 Geophysical Survey. The Air Force performed a terrain conductivity survey to
assess the lateral extent of the phase-separated hydrocarbons observed during the independent
removal action. A low conductivity anomaly observed on the west side of Offut Street extended
beneath the street and occupied a small area on the east side of the street. The anomaly
suggested a layer of phase-separated hydrocarbons. An intrusive investigation designed to
evaluate this anomaly found no evidence of hydrocarbon contamination in waters or soils.
6.4.2.2 Subsurface Soils. Diesel range petroleum was detected in soils at 342 mg/kg
in B-47, one of the five borings installed at this site. Samples from B-48 submitted for laboratory
analyses yielded VOC at concentrations ranging from 0.033 mg/kg (chlorobenzene) to
0.066 mg/kg (1,1 dichloroethane). These dataware rejected, however, due to laboratory quality
failures There was no evidence PS-5 represents a source for chlorinated organic compounds.
Field observations, boring logs, and laboratory analyses indicate soil contamination remaining
at PS-5 is limited to the capillary fringe portion of the soil profile and is confined to the area
immediately south of the former source area. No evidence of fuel saturated soils was observed
during soil boring activities.
6.4.2.3 Ground Water. Diesel range petroleum concentrations were detected in all four
existing wells at the site at concentrations ranging from 0.06 to 1.8 mg/L during spring and
summer of 1993. Later sampling did not detect diesel range petroleum.
VOC in ground water are limited to substituted benzene compounds found in two wells. Low
concentrations of sec-butylbenzene. isopropylbenzene, and 1,3,5- trimethylbenzene were
reported in one well during the summer and fall of 1993, and sec-butylbenzene was detected
slightly above detection limits in another well in the fall of 1.993. These compounds are directly
attributable to fuel residues. Concentrations of aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper.
iron/lead, manganese, and zinc were detected in ground water above natural background levels.
6-19 FINAL • 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
6.4.3 Summary of Site Risks
The independent removal action successfully removed the majority of fuel contaminated soils.
Contaminated soils remaining at the site are found in a thin (less than 12 inch), stratigraphic layer
between 8 and 10 feet deep. The nature of the overlying soils (massive, organic-rich loam)
significantly restricts the movement of volatile compounds. This reduces the potential for
volatization to the atmosphere, unless excavation activities expose remaining contamination.
Potential current receptors to environmental contamination at PS-5 are Air Force personnel and
contractors, on-base residents, trespassers, and visitors to the site. Exposures for hypothetical
future residents were also evaluated at current concentrations. Evaluations of migration
pathways show that fuel residues in soil, ground water, and air are the only exposure pathways
applicable to PS-5.
6.4.3.1 Contaminants of Concern. Comparing maximum soil contamination
concentrations to screening levels shows diesel range petroleum as the only potential
contaminant of concern. Samples from the side wall of the removal action excavation yielded
a maximum of 6,700 mg/kg of diesel range petroleum. Although this concentration exceeds the
state cleanup standard, it is representative of a small area only.
Comparison of the maximum concentrations of contaminants in groundwater revealed five metals
and four organic compounds exceeding state cleanup levels or risk screening levels. Arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, lead, and manganese were the metals identified as potential contaminants
of concern. Among the organic compounds, benzene, sec-butylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene,
and xylenes were identified as potential contaminants of concern. Heating oil No. 2 was also
identified as a potential contaminant of concern.
6.4.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment. For site PS-5, current risk and hazard, based
on RME assumptions, under the residential exposure scenario can be calculated only for ground
water exposure. For site PS-5, current calculable risks and hazards under the residential
exposure scenario are principally due to ingestion of manganese and arsenic contaminated
ground water and round up to values equivalent to the site cumulative values of 1 x 10 for risk
and 30 for hazard. Both risk and hazard associated with exposure to PS-5 ground water exceed
acceptable levels. At present ground water exposure pathways are incomplete and may never
exist given the adequacy of the base water supply system. It is not possible to quantify the risk
for petroleum contaminated soil and ground water.
6.4.3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment. Based on the nature and extent of observed
contamination and potential exposure pathways, the Air Force concludes there is no apparent
ecological risk to target species at PS-5.
6.4.4 Conclusions
ingestion of manganese and arsenic contaminated ground water is the principal source of
unacceptable risk and hazard at PS-5. But under present conditions, exposure to Site PS-5
ground water is unlikely. The base water supply is drawn from a source approximately ten miles
6-20 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
from the base and is unaffected by contaminants in PS-5 ground water. However, concentrations
of petroleum in soil and ground water exceed state cleanup levels and petroleum contaminated
soil is a potential source of ground water contamination. Therefore, soil and ground water
cleanup alternatives were evaluated.
6.5 SITE PS-7. DEEP CREEK STEAM PLANT, BUILDING 1350
Site PS-7 is located in the south central portion of Fairchild AFB and is part of the Air Force
Survival School. A site location map is provided in Figure 1:1. The site formerly used two 12,000
gallon and one 500 gallon UST that supplied fuel to the Deep Creek Steam Plant in Building
1350. A site plan for PS-7 is presented in Figure 6-5.
6.5.1 Background
Contaminants of concern at PS-7 are residual constituents of No. 6 and No. 2 fuel oil. Two
12.000 gallon USTs were used to store No. 6 oil that fueled the two steam plant boilers located
inside Building 1350. A 500 gallon UST stored No. 2 fuel oil for preheating the boilers. Prior to
1982. waste solvents from maintenance activities at Fairchild AFB were added to the larger USTs
and burned with the No. 6 oil. In 1988, the Air Force converted the boilers to burn No. 2 fuel oil
exclusively This conversion included the installation of a 10,000 gallon above ground tank, and
removed the UST system from service. During the history of the steam plant. Fairchild AFB
personnel observed fuel oil and ground water seeping through cracks in the steam plant
subgrade foundation.
IRP investigations conducted between October 1986 and June 1989 included the installation and
sampling of eight soil borings and three ground water monitoring wells. Results of sampling
reported the presence of petroleum contamination in soil at concentrations up to 1.439 mg/kg.
Ground water analyses did not detect the presence of petroleum contamination.
in 1992. the Air Force conducted an independent removal action at PS-7 that involved the closure
and removal of the three USTs. During the removal action, the Air Force contractor excavated
approximately 100 yd3 of petroleum-contaminated soil. Samples collected during the removal
action indicate petroleum concentrations above the state cleanup level of 200 mg/kg are still
present along the northern edge of Building 1350 and along the western edge of the former UST
excavation. The maximum petroleum concentration. 8326 mg/kg, was detected at a depth of 9.5
feet in the southwest corner of the excavation.
6.5.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination
The remedial investigation at PS-7 included installing and sampling three ground water
monitoring wells to determine the presence or absence of petroleum residues in ground water.
Three pre-existing monitoring wells were also sampled. The remedial investigation determined
approximately 60 yd3 of petroleum contaminated soil and 84,000 gallons of petroleum
contaminated ground water are still present at PS-7. All analytes having the potential to be
contaminants of concern are listed, along with their associated risk and hazard, in site specific
6-21 FINAL-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
52*0 Sfio
ttS"^1- s r*1"
£SsS i2fess
D
I
ex
o
OS
^<
e-
S'
a:
a
C-o BOC
6-22
FINAL • 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
risk screening tables in Appendix A. In these tables, the maximum concentrations of analytes
detected on site during the LFI and Rl are compared to several screening levels (for more
information see introductory text in Section 6.0). Tables in Appendix A also list frequency of
analyte detections and average analyte concentrations. Figure 6-5 shows the estimated extent
of this remaining contamination.
6.5.2.1 Ground Water. The Air Force installed three monitoring wells to assess
petroleum contamination in the shallow aquifer at PS-7. Ground water samples were collected
from the three new wells and from three existing monitoring wells (MW-71, MW-72. and MW-73)
quarterly for one year, commencing in April 1993.
Chloroform was detected in wells MW-71, MW-73, and MW-204 at a maximum concentration of
7.5 p,g/L Bromodichloromethane was detected in MW-71 in October 1993 and in MW-71, MW-73.
and MW-205 in January 1993. In all cases, bromodichloromethane was detected with chloroform.
These two compounds may originate from the chlorinated water supply used to irrigate the lawns
at this site Chlormation of potable water is known to produce both of these compounds. Other
VOC detected in ground water samples included naphthalene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,4-
dichlorobenzene and 1,2.3-trichlorobenzene.
SVOC detected in the ground water samples included bis(2-etnylhexyl)phthalate, benzyl alcohol,
and 2-methylphenol at maximum concentrations of 14 ^g/L. 30 pg/L and 21 pg/L, respectively.
Petroleum detected in ground water samples from MW-206 at a maximum concentration of
2.300 /jg/L in October 1993. Petroleum was also detected in October 1993 in wells MW-72 at
3.200 ng/l_ and in MW-73 at 1.200 jig/L No petroleum was detected in the April 1993. July 1993.
or January 1994 ground water samples from these wells.
No metals above natural background levels were detected in any ground water samples.
6.5.3 Summary of Site Risks
The sources of contamination (the two 12.000-gallon UST containing No. 6 fuel oil and the 500
gallon UST containing No. 2 fuel oil) have been removed and contaminated soil remediated at
PS-7 Although some contaminated soil does remain on the site. No. 6 fuel oil is immobile in the
environment and is not expected to migrate from the source area. No. 6 fuel oil has not been
detected in ground water collected from wells on the site, except at MW-206 and only during the
October 1993 sampling activity. No petroleum was detected from this well during the next
sampling round.
No. 6 fuel oil has an extremely low volatility, so air is not considered as a migration pathway. The
site is covered with clean fill, asphalt, and buildings; therefore, contaminated dust and the venting
of any volatile compounds from the subsurface soil is negligible.
6-23 FINAL-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
Because the residual petroleum contamination is several feet below ground surface, contact with
this residue is limited to Air Force personnel or contractors performing excavations at the site.
However, exposures for hypothetical future residents to current concentrations were also
evaluated.
6.5.3.1 Contaminants of Concern. CWoroform and bromodichloromethane detected
in the ground water may originate from the chlorinated potable water supply used for irrigating
the lawn or from leaky water pipes at PS-7. Process information and the history of operations
at PS-7 does not indicate any other sources for these compounds. They are carcinogens.
however, so they were included as potential contaminants of concern.
The concentrations of manganese in ground water exceed the risk screening level, but did not
exceed natural background levels. Manganese was not considered a concern at PS-7 because
its concentration was well below basewide natural background levels. Petroleum in ground water
is a contaminant of concern. However, the risk from exposure to petroleum is not quantifiable.
IRP investigations indicate that components of No. 6 fuel oil are the only contaminants present
in soil. During the independent removal action conducted in 1992, soil samples detected fuel
constituents ranging in concentration from 400 to 8,326 mg/kg. Although toxicity parameters do
not exist for No. 6 fuel oil, it was included as a potential contaminant of concern and was
evaluated for noncancer hazard.
6.5.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment. For site PS-7, current risk and hazard, based
on RME assumptions, under the Air Force Personnel/Contractor scenario can be calculated only
for ground water exposure. For site PS-7, current calculable risks and hazards under the Air
Force Personnel/Contractor scenario are principally due to ingestion of chloroform and
bromodichloromethane contaminated ground water and round up to 3 x 10"7 for risk and 4 x 10"3
for hazard. Neither of these values exceeds screening thresholds. Risk associated with
petroleum contaminated soil and ground water can not be quantified.
6.5.3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment. Site PS-7 does not provide good habitat for
wildlife. There are no contaminants of concern nor complete exposure pathways to target
species or plant communities at the site. Because there is no evidence the site impacts target
species or plant communities, there is no apparent ecological risk at PS-7. and ecological
quotients were not developed.
6.5.4 Conclusions
Under present conditions, exposure to ground water at PS-7 is unlikely. The base water supply
is drawn from a source approximately ten miles from the base and is unaffected by contaminants
in PS-7 ground water. The Air Force is reviewing plans to demolish Building 1350, at which time
steps would be taken to manage and dispose of the remaining petroleum contaminated soil in
accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
6-24 FINAL • 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
Evaluation of the remaining soil and ground water contamination at PS-7 shows there are no
exceedances of risk or hazard screening thresholds. Petroleum concentrations in soil and
ground water exceed state cleanup levels, and since petroleum contaminated soil is a potential
source of ground water contamination, soil and ground water cleanup alternatives were
evaluated.
6.6 SITE PS-10, FUEL TRUCK MAINTENANCE FACILITY, BUILDING 1060
PS-10 is located on the west side of Fairchild AFB, south of the fuel truck maintenance shop
(Building 1060). north of Parallel Taxiway 1. and northeast of Priority 1b SW-1 The location of
PS-10 is shown on Figure 1-1. The source of contamination at PS-10 is an unlined drainage
ditch that begins approximately 100 feet south of Building 1060. There is visible evidence of
petroleum contamination along the ditch. A site plan for PS-10 is shown in Figure 6-6.
6.6.1 Background
Building 1060 was constructed in 1959 to house a liquid oxygen/nitrogen production facility. It
was later converted to a corrosion control paint shop in 1973. Liquid wastes were discharged
to floor drains-inside Building 1060 and to the grate-covered concrete channel in the adjacent
parking lot. The drains and the concrete channel discharge to an oil/water separator located
south of Building 1060. Overflow from the oil/water separator flowed into an unlined drainage
ditch designed to convey overflow to the base storm water system. The chemicals discharged
to the ditch were mostly lubricating oils and industrial cleaners.
Since 1981. Building 1060 has served as a fuel truck maintenance facility. In 1987. the discharge
line from the oil/water separator to the drainage ditch was disconnected and discharge was
routed to an underground collection tank Shallow soil samples collected in and adjacent to the
ditch in October 1990 contained TOE at concentrations ranging from 6.0 pg/L to 8.7 /jg/L.
Five surface soil samples collected near the oil/water separator in 1991 exhibited petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination ranging from 1,602 mg/kg to 14,911 mg/kg. TCE and other VOC
were detected in three of the samples ranging from 0.01 mg/kg to 56.8 mg/kg. The highest
concentrations of VOC were detected in the sample collected closest to the oil-water separator.
Cadmium, lead, chromium, thallium, and zinc were all present in surface samples at
concentrations exceeding natural background levels: both cadmium and thallium were detected
at concentrations above regulatory levels
Petroleum concentrations in three borings (B-I7. B-I8. B-I9) ranged from 33,223 mg/kg at the
surface to 73 mg/kg at 6 feet. TCE and other VOC also were detected in the samples. TCE
levels ranged from 581.1 mg/kg at the surface to 0.2 mg/kg at 6 feet. SVOC. including
2.4-dimethylphenol. 2-methylphenol. and 2-methylnaphthalene, were detected at 54.8 mg/kg,
62.5 mg/kg. and 0,238 mg/kg, respectively, with the highest levels detected in surface samples
(less than 6 inches below the surface). Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in eight of eleven
6-25 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
I a
2 §
11
_i £
i 4
o
-------
soil samples ranging from 0.2 to 13.4 mg/kg. Thallium was the only metal detected above natural
background levels in samples from these borings. Sampling results suggest TCE contamination
in site soil is due to discharges of liquid industrial waste from the Building 1060 oil/water
separator. The RCRA waste code for TCE is F001.
6.6.2 Nature and Extent of contamination
The Air Force installed monitoring wells and soil borings, and collected soil and ground water
samples as part of the remedial investigation at PS-10. Based on information gathered during
this remedial investigation. The Air Force estimates approximately 67 yd3 of TCE and 600 yd3 of
petroleum contaminated soil remain in the ditch at PS-10. All analytes having the potential to be
contaminants of concern are listed, along with their associated risk and hazard, in site specific
risk screening tables in Appendix A. In these tables, the maximum concentrations of analytes
detected on site during the LFI and Rl are compared to several screening levels (for more
information see introductory text in Section 6.0). Tables in Appendix A also list frequency of
analyte detections and average analyte concentrations. Figure 6-6 shows the estimated extent
of this contamination. •
6.6.2.1 Seismic Survey. The Air Force conducted a seismic refraction survey to better
assess the depth and configuration of the basalt bedrock surface encountered during monitoring
well installation. Interpretation of well logs in combination with results of the seismic survey
identified three major stratigraphic layers: (1) an alluvial veneer ranging from 0 to 45 feet thick;
(2) a highly weathered basalt rubble with intermixed sands and silts; and (3) basalt bedrock. A
scour channel in the bedrock generates a change in alluvial thickness of 35 feet over a horizontal
distance of 50 feet. Unconfined ground water is seasonally present in the alluvium. Confined
ground water occurs in the bottom portion of the weathered basalt layer. Contacts between
stratigraphic layers act as barriers to the vertical migration of ground water.
6.6.2.2 Subsurface Soils. Five soil borings (B-16 through B-20) were installed at PS-10
in March 1993 Five additional borings (B-16R through B-20R) were drilled at PS-10 in
October 1993.
VOC contamination occurs primarily at a depth of 6 to 10 feet and most often is concentrated
at a depth of 6 to 8 feet. Known fuel constituents and their degradation byproducts including
ethylbenzene. toluene, xylenes. t-butylbenzene. naphthalene, p-cymene. 1,2.4-trimethylbenzene,
and 1,3.5-trimethylbenzene are present above detection limits. Methylene chloride was observed
at a maximum concentration of 0.02 mg/kg. and 1.1 -dichloroethene was observed at a maximum
concentration of 0.13 mg/kg. Methylene chloride is a common laboratory contaminant. TCE was
not detected in soil samples collected in 1993. only in soils in 1991.
Petroleum were observed in all borings except B-20. Petroleum concentrations appear close to
the surface with concentrations up to 4,140 mg/kg in soils at B-18, and decrease with depth to
about 4 feet. Below 4 feet deep, petroleum was not detected in soils. The highest
concentrations of petroleum were detected in surface soils collected during the 1991
investigation.
6-27 FINAL-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
Metals above natural background levels were observed at a depth of 6 to 10 feet deep in 8-16
through B-20. These concentrations, however, approximate natural background levels. Cobalt
and lead slightly exceed their respective natural background levels. Metals concentrations above
natural background levels were not observed in any other depth intervals except at B-16 where
cadmium, chromium, and copper were detected from the surface to 2 feet deep at concentrations
exceeding twice natural background levels.
Thallium was detected in the three soil borings and several surface soil samples collected in
1991. but not during subsequent sampling events using more sophisticated analytical methods.
This suggests thallium detected during this previous IRP investigation may be due to spectral
interference from aluminum; a common occurrence for the analysis used during the 1991
investigation.
6.6.2.3 Surface Soils. Three surface soil samples were collected, from the surface
depression in March 1994 to assess if TCE and petroleum concentrations had decreased since
the earlier surface sampling events. TCE concentrations were measured at 73.2 mg/kg,
5.36 mg/kg, and 65.0 mg/kg. Petroleum concentrations were 15,000 mg/kg, 36,000 mg/kg, and
32.000 mg/kg. Comparison of these results with the earlier analyses are inconclusive as to the
natural degradation of TCE and petroleum in surface soil at PS-10.
6.6.2.4 Ground Water. The Air Force constructed three ground water monitoring wells
(MW-201, MW-202 and MW-203) at PS-10. MW-165 was installed during previous IRP
investigations at Priority 1 Site SW-1.
TCE and cis-1.2-dichloroethene were detected in samples collected from MW-201 and MW-202
at concentrations above the MCL of 5 /ug/L and 70 fjg/L, respectively. Maximum concentrations
were 410 pg/L in MW-201 and 830 /jg/L in MW-202. These compounds were also detected in
MW-165. but at much lower concentrations. Trans-1,2- dichloroethene. another degradation
by-product of TCE. was observed in the MW-201 sample collected in July 1993 at a concentration
of 3.0 |ig/L
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was the only SVOC detected during ground water sampling. It was
detected at a concentration of 24 ng/L in the MW-202 sample from April 1993. Petroleum was
not detected in ground water samples above laboratory detection limits. No metals (total or
dissolved) were detected above natural background levels.
6.6.3 Summary of Site Risks
The results of the IRP investigations indicate TCE and several degradation by-products are
concentrated in the soil in the surface depression adjacent to the former discharge line and
drainage ditch. Cis-1,2-dichloroethene was detected at a maximum depth of 6 to 8 feet deep.
Petroleum were detected along the entire extent of the drainage ditch, but are mainly
concentrated in surface and near surface soils (less than 2 feet deep). Petroleum were not
detected in ground water at PS-10, but future migration to ground water is possible.
6-28 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
The potential exists for release of contaminants into air if contaminated soils are disturbed. The
concentration of contaminants in the soil are low. therefore, air does not appear to be a primary
migration pathway.
PS-10 is located next to the flightline in a light industrial zone that is fenced with barbed wire and
routinely patrolled by Air Force Security. Access to the site is limited to Air Force personnel and
contractors There are no residential areas adjacent to PS-10 and no other attractions that might
induce trespassers or visitors to the site. Therefore. Air Force personnel and contractors are the
only receptor group that will be evaluated for the current use scenario. However, exposures for
hypothetical future residents were also evaluated.
6.6.3.1 Contaminants of Concern. Four metals and eight organic compounds were
retained as potential contaminants of concern for soil at PS-10. Cobalt and lead slightly
exceeded their respective natural background levels. Manganese exceeded the state cleanup
level and the natural background levels. Thallium exceeded the state soil cleanup level, the risk
screening level for noncancer effects, and the natural background levels.
Organic compounds identified as potential contaminants of concern for soil are t-butylbenzene.
p-cymene petroleum, and 1.2.4- and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene. There are no screening criteria for
these compounds and risks associated with exposures can not be quantified because there is
no toxicity data. Other organic compounds identified as contaminants of concern include
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate which exceeded the risk screening level for carcinogenicity, TCE which
exceeded the state cleanup level and the risk screening level for carcinogenicity.
One metal and four organic compounds were identified as potential contaminants of concern in
the ground water at PS-10. Cadmium was present at a concentration that slightly exceeded the
risk screening level for noncancer effects. Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene exceeded the MCL, state
ground water cleanup level, and the risk screening level for noncancer effects. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate and TCE exceeded their respective MCLs. state cleanup levels, and risk screening
levels for carcinogenicity Sec-butylbenzene was identified based on the lack of screening
concentration levels.
6.6.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment. For site PS-10. current hazard, based on RME
assumptions, under the Air Force Personnel/Contractor scenario are principally due to ingestion
of manganese and thallium contaminated soils creating a hazard that rounds up to 0.2. which
is below the screening threshold. Current cumulative risk under the same scenario is principally
due to ingestion of TCE contaminated soil creating a risk that rounds up to 1 x 10 , which is
within the acceptable range. These values do not include risk or hazard related to site ground
water, because contamination in ground water will be evaluated under the Priority 3 Operable
Unit It was. nevertheless, evaluated in the Rl and is presented in the tables in Appendix A. Risk
due to exposure to petroleum contaminated soil can not be quantified
6.6.3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment. The ecological quotients for target species
exposed to the contaminants of concern are at least an order of magnitude less than 1.0.
Therefore the ecological risk to target species at the site is not a concern.
6-29 FINAL • 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
6.6.4 Conclusions
Under present conditions, exposure to PS-10 ground water is unlikely. The base water supply
is'drawn from a source approximately ten miles from the base and is unaffected by contaminants
m PS-10 ground water. Petroleum and TCE contamination in soils at PS-10 may volatilize to the
ambient air or leach to ground water. Petroleum was not detected in ground water at PS-10, but
future migration to ground water is possible. TCE was detected in site ground water. Ground
water contamination at PS-10 will be addressed under the Priority 3 Operable Unit.
The results of the risk assessment indicate exposure to TCE contaminated soil at PS-10 does not
pose an unacceptable risk or hazard. The maximum petroleum and TCE concentrations in ditch
soils significantly exceeds their state cleanup levels, and petroleum and TCE in soil could serve
as a source for ground water contamination. For these reasons, soil cleanup alternatives were
evaluated.
6.7 SITE SW-11, FORMER AIRCRAFT RECLAMATION YARD AT WHERRY
Site SW-11 is located in the north central portion of Fairchild AFB southwest of Building 2245.
A location map is provided in Figure 1-1. Currently, the site consists of a park (Warrior Park) and
recreational area. Formerly, this area served as an aircraft salvage and reclamation facility. A
site map is presented in Figure 6-7.
6.7.1 Background
A thorough search of available records found no mention of any potential contamination at
SW-11. Aerial photographs show the site was an active salvage yard from approximately 1945
through 1958. Approximately 10% of the former salvage yard site is currently covered with grass;
90% of the site surface is unvegetated consisting of packed soil and fill material.
Investigations in 1991 at SW-11 included a geophysical survey, six test pits, and collection of soil
samples. The first three test pits were excavated to determine if debris was buried at SW-11.
The last three test pits were excavated to investigate anomalies in the geophysical survey results.
While excavating the test pits, scattered pieces of metallic debris were observed protruding
through the excavated soil surface across the site.
Samples collected from soils in a utility trench dug around the perimeter of the site contained
silver, barium, cadmium, antimony, thallium, zinc, and lead above natural background levels.
An assessment of engine valves removed from the excavations concluded the valves present a
potential safety hazard because some of the valves contain 10 to 15 grams of elemental sodium
which reacts violently if exposed to water.
6-30 FINAL-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
01 •
I < 2
* » 5
O Q UJ
u; w f~
z r 9
i g - S w a z
L J CXI
CO
35
OS
£
U
z
I
-------
No site specific ground water investigations were performed during any previous investigations
at SW-11. Ground- water was not encountered in any of the test pits or boreholes. Regional
mapping indicates depth to ground water is approximately 17 feet. Because of the low mobility
of metal contamination and lack of apparent soil contamination at depth, ground water was not
considered a source or pathway for metals contamination.
6.7.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination
The remedial investigation field activities at SW-11 included installing and sampling hand augered
soil borings. All analytes having the potential to be contaminants of concern are listed, along
with their associated risk and hazard, in site specific risk screening tables in Appendix A. In
these tables, the maximum concentrations of analytes detected on site during the LFI and Rl are
compared to several screening levels (for more information see introductory text in Section 6.0).
Tables in Appendix A also list frequency of analyte detections and average analyte
concentrations.
6.7.2.1 Soils. Activities in March 1993 at SW-11 included installation of ten shallow soil
borings and collection of soil samples. In July 1993. four borings were re-drilled adjacent to the
original boring locations. Soil samples were collected continuously at 1/2-foot intervals to a
depth of 3.5 to 4.0 feet. Debris was encountered in several of these borings including wire mesh
material and scraps of metal, and pea-sized shards of oxidized metals.
Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, and nickel detected at concentrations above
local natural background levels were the contaminants of initial concern at this site. The
maximum concentrations of these metals were detected in B-30 and B-32 with concentrations
above state cleanup levels for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead observed in 8-25, B-26,
B-27. B-28, B-30. and B-32. Samples collected near the surface (0.0 to 0.5 feet) contain the most
metallic debris, but these soils consist of hard packed fill material. The least contaminated
interval is between 1.5 feet and 2 feet deep. The deepest interval shows an intermediate level
of contamination. High concentrations of metals are often associated with metallic debris
observed in soil samples.
Analysis of samples by particle size showed metals contamination preferentially adheres to fine
grained sediment particles less than 53 ^/m in diameter. Chromium and lead show the strongest
tendency to adhere to this potentially respirable sediment fraction, followed by cadmium and
copper. Arsenic, cobalt, and nickel show no strong grain size preference.
To determine the ability of contaminants to leach into the vadose zone or into ground water, soil
sampling was extended several feet below the deepest observed debris. If contaminant leaching
were consequential, high concentrations of metals would be expected in the soil column
immediately beneath the near surface debris layer. The lack of cadmium, chromium, and lead
contamination in soil samples between 1.5 feet and 2 feet suggests leaching of these
constituents is not significant. Leachability tests performed showed less than 0.1% of metals
would leach from the soil column, even in saturated conditions.
--»PBWXMEC.SWO 6-32 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
With the exception of thallium, metal concentrations detected during the remedial investigation
were consistent with those found during previous IRP investigations. Evidence suggests the ICP
thallium detections were due to analytical interference and are likely representative of aluminum
concentration.
6.7.3 Summary of Site Risks
Because of the low mobility of metals contamination and the lack of apparent soil contamination
at depth ground water is not considered a source or pathway for metals contamination.
Most of the year, the prevailing wind at Fairchild AFB is from the southwest with an average
annual wind speed of 6 to 10 miles per hour. During the winter months wind is typically from the
east-northeast. Calm conditions occur approximately 20% of the year. Maximum exposure to
fugitive dust from SW-11 is expected to occur down wind, i.e., northeast and to a lesser extent
west-southwest, from the site. Approximately 10% of SW-11 is covered with turf grass which
reduces fugitive dust emissions. Runoff from the site flows toward the adjacent streets and is
collected in storm drains. In addition, the upper portions consist of hard packed fill material
which does not generate excessive dust.
Because soil contamination is generally greatest near the surface and because SW-11 is located
in an area easily accessible, the potential receptor groups include Air Force personnel,
contractors on-base residents, visitors, and trespassers.
6.7.3.1 Contaminants of Concern. No solvents, fuels, or other organic compounds or
mixtures were identified as potential contaminants of concern during site scoping activities.
Therefore, analysis of soil samples was limited to metals. Ground water was not identified as a
media of concern and was not evaluated during this investigation.
Four metals were identified as potential contaminants of concern. Arsenic exceeded the risk
screening level based on carcinogenicity and the state cleanup level. Cadmium exceeded the
risk screening level based on noncancer effects and the state cleanup level. Copper exceeded
the risk screening level based on noncancer effects. Lead exceeded the site natural background
levels and the basewide natural background levels. Lead also exceeded the screening level EPA
has established for cleanup of residential areas. 400 mg/kg.
6.7.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment. For site SW-11, current risk and hazard are
principally due to ingestion of arsenic and cadmium contaminated soil. Based on RME
assumptions, under the Air Force Personnel/Contractor scenario, cumulative site risk and hazard
are 2 x 10"6 and 0.09. respectively, both of which are in or below the acceptable range.
The hard packed nature of the unvegetated surface soil impedes the exposure process by which
all of these risks are generated.
6.7.3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment. There is no significant ecological risk from
contaminants of concern to target species at SW-11.
6-33 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
6.7.4 Conclusions
The physical hazard from sharp metallic debris in the soils is considered a complete exposure
pathway even though the metallic debris at SW-11 lies beneath a layer of hard packed fill.
Additional hazards are aircraft engine valves containing metallic sodium, distributed from near
the surface to several feet below ground level. The sodium in the valves represents a physical
hazard if exposed to moisture because elemental sodium reacts violently with water.
Investigation of the valves indicates they are slowly corroding in the subsurface where the sodium
would be released slowly and react harmlessly.
Because there is no unacceptable risk or hazard, there is no exposure to metals contamination.
and the contamination consists largely of fragments, shards, and particles of metallic debris, no
remedial action to address chemical hazards is necessary. In order to reduce the possibility of
human contact with the physical hazards at the site (metallic debris and elemental sodium), the
Air Force will consider covering the site with several inches of topsoil and establishing turf grass.
Institutional controls will further restrict site activity to prevent or oversee intrusive activity.
6.8 SITE FT-2, FORMER FIRE TRAINING AREA
The site is a former fire training area located on the east side of Fairchild AFB, south of
abandoned Taxiway No. 10, west of the current fire training area, and north of the Weapons
Storage Area. The site is currently inactive. The most conspicuous feature near FT-2 is a large
pile of asphalt debris left over from runway construction in 1958. A wind sock located at the
edge of the taxiway is a site landmark. Figure 1 -1 shows the site location.
6.8.1 Background
Previous IRP investigations completed in 1991 identified stained and discolored soil, petroleum
odors, and areas of suppressed vegetation at the FT-2 Site. Further studies confirmed the
presence of petroleum contaminated soils beneath the largest area of suppressed vegetation.
Interviews with Air Force personnel familiar with the site and review of historic documentation
confirmed this area was used for fire training activities during the 1950s and 1960s.
Partially buried metallic debris was visible on the south side of the site, including fragments of
steel matting used for temporary runway surfaces, aircraft parts (apparent air-foil and fuselage
sections), and metal scraps. A terrain conductivity survey was performed to determine the extent
of this debris. It identified buried metallic objects which were later identified as metal debris, a
corroded and collapsed steel barrel, and steel wire during test pit excavations.
Soil samples collected during 1991 contained residues of AVGAS and JP-4 (BTEX, diesel range
petroleum, and lead), and metallic debris from engines and aircrafts.
--WWOSEC..MO 6-34 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
6.8.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination
The remedial investigation at FT-2 included installing shallow monitoring wells, drilling soil
borings, collecting ground water samples, and collecting surface and subsurface soil samples.
Investigation results identified approximately 5,600 yd of petroleum contaminated soil and
176,000 gallons of petroleum contaminated ground water present at the site. The highest
chemical concentrations in soil were located in the suppressed vegetation zones in the center
of the site. All analytes having the potential to be contaminants of concern are listed, along with
their associated risk and hazard, in site specific risk screening tables in Appendix A. In these
tables, the maximum concentrations of analytes detected on site during the LFI and Rl are
compared to several screening levels (for more information see introductory text in Section 6.0).
Tables in Appendix A also list frequency of analyte detections and average analyte
concentrations. Figure 6-8 shows the extent of subsurface fuel residue contamination identified
at FT-2.
6.8.2.1 Subsurface Soils. Eight soil borings. B-21 through B-23 and B-35 through B-39.
were installed in March 1993. Six additional borings (B-22R. B-23R, B-35R, B-38R, B-39R and
B-45R) were drilled in October 1993.
A variety of BTEX and refined fuel residues were detected in soil borings at the site. These
residues included n-butylbenzene, sec-butylbenzene, p-cymene, 2-methylnaphthalene, n-
propylbenzene. 1,2.4-trimethylbenzene. and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene. Chlorinated hydrocarbons
including methylene chloride, TCE. 1,1-dichloroethane, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, and
pentachlorophenol. These compounds were attributed to flammable materials used for fire
training exercises. Maximum concentrations of these compounds were detected in soils within
and near the suppressed vegetation zones.
SVOC associated with fuel residues were detected in B-45R soils. These included 3.4-
methylphenol. naphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene. This boring lies in the center of the largest
suppressed vegetation zone.
In several borings, metals were detected at concentrations greater than site natural background
levels. With the exception of vanadium, a fuel oil additive, metals above site natural background
levels are mostly near the soil surface. The predominance of metals in surface soil is a result of
historic activities which have littered the site with a variety of metallic debris. Metals attributed
to this debris include aluminum, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead,
magnesium, molybdenum, and zinc.
Fuel residues are the largest contaminant source in subsurface soils at FT-2, and the largest
source for ground water contamination. Petroleum and fuel residues were measured in B-23,
B-36. B-37. and B-45R. Concentrations are highest in B-45R in the center of a suppressed
vegetation zone where a maximum concentration of 4,500 mg/kg was observed. Figure 6-8
shows extents of remaining petroleum contamination in soil at the site. The width of this
contaminated zone is also defined by surface expression of fuel residues described in the next
section.
6-35 FINAL-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
-Arff.ROOVSEC-* BOO
6-36
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
6.8.2.2 Surface Soils. Ten surface soil samples were collected at FT-2, six within the
suppressed vegetation zone (S-08, S-09. S-10. S-11, S-12, and S-13) and four from the
surrounding area (S-04. S-05. S-06, and S-07). Several VOC were detected at low concentrations
at each location. Compounds detected included BTEX and refined fuel residues seen elsewhere
at FT-2. Chlorinated hydrocarbons detected included methylene chloride, 1,2-dichlorobenzene.
and 1.2-dichloroethane.
Pentachlorophenol, the only SVOC detected, was present in S-11 at a concentration of
1.28 mg/kg. One of its known uses is as a wood preservative. Its source is unknown; however.
this chemical, like the VOCs found at the site, may be present in some flammable materials used
for fire training exercises.
Fuel residues were present above regulatory levels in several surface soil samples concentrations
ranging from 472 mg/kg to 5,398 mg/kg. These detections all occurred within the suppressed
vegetation zones.
Metals with concentrations above site natural background levels were detected in all surface
samples except sample S-07 and background samples S-27, S-28, S-29, and S-30. Specific
metals include aluminum, cadmium, chromium,'copper, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc. Their
presence is attributed to old airplane parts that litter FT-2. No vanadium was detected above
natural background levels in surface soils, indicating this metal is associated with the subsurface
fuel residue contamination. Maximum metal concentrations are in the suppressed vegetation
zones. Concentrations in surface soils decrease outside this zone.
Analysis of samples by particle size showed metals contamination preferentially adheres to fine
grained sediment particles less than 53 pm in diameter. Metals of concern which show the
strongest tendency to adhere to this potentially respirable sediment fraction include cadmium.
chromium, copper, lead, and zinc.
6.8.2.3 Ground Water. The Air Force installed four monitoring wells, MW-208. MW-209
MW-210, and MW-211, during remedial investigation activities. Most contaminants found in
ground water from these wells were attributed to flammable materials used for fire training
exercises. These materials include petroleum products derived from leaded aviation gas. jet fuel.
and cnlorinated solvents found in flammable materials. Carbon tetrachloride was detected in
MW-209 during three separate sampling events and at low concentrations (under 2 ng/L). Its
presence in this up gradient well indicates this contamination is from another source west of
FT-2.
Contaminants detected in well MW-211 were dimethylphthalate (20 jig/L) (a plasticizer used in
resins and lacquers) and petroleum fuel residues (22.000 \ig/L). This petroleum value could not
be verified, however, due to missing analytical laboratory data.
6-37 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
Several solvent and fuel related VOCs were detected in downgradient wells MW-21 0 and MW-21 2
during all sampling events. VOCs detected included sec-butylbenzene. 1,1-dichloroethylene.
1.1 -dichloroethane, and cis-1 ,2-dichloroethylene. Concentrations were close to the 2.0 yg/L
detection limit for all compounds except cis-1 ,2-dichloroethylene. which ranged from 6.0 ng/L to
31
Dissolved metals were detected above natural background levels in the two downgradient wells,
MW-21 0 and MW-21 2. Manganese, iron, lead, and nickel were reported in MW-21 0 ground water,
and silver and zinc were detected in MW-21 2 ground water. Manganese concentrations ranged
from 1 .84 mg/L to 2.39 mg/L well above the natural background level of 0.1 1 mg/'L The other
metals were found at concentrations close to natural background levels.
6.8.3 Summary of Site Risks
Likely exposure scenarios to contaminants in FT-2 soil and ground water include inhalation of
dust, ingestion of soils or ground water, and inhalation of volatiles in ground water.
There are no permanent surface water features at FT-2. Runoff from the site can occur during
periods of rainfall or snow melt; however, relatively flat topography and vegetation of the site
serve to maximize infiltration and minimize runoff. Any runoff from the site would be expected
to flow southeast toward the Weapon Storage Area.
The potential exists for release of contaminants into air if contaminated soils are disturbed. Most
of the year, the prevailing wind is from the southwest with an average annual wind speed of 6
to 10 miles per hour. During the winter months wind is typically from the east-northeast. Calm
conditions occur approximately 20% of the year. Maximum exposure to fugitive dust from FT-2
is expected to occur in adjacent unoccupied grassy areas located down wind.
Soil contaminants that leach to ground water migrate eastward as indicated by detections of
metals and some VOC in downgradient wells. However, ground water at FT-2 is not currently
used as a water supply source so current ground water exposure scenarios were not evaluated.
Access to the site is currently limited to Air Force personnel and contractors. There are no
residential areas adjacent to FT-2 and no other attraction that might induce trespassers or visitors
to the site. Therefore, Air Force personnel and contractors are the only receptor group that were
evaluated for the current use scenario. However, exposures for hypothetical future residents
were also evaluated.
6.8.3.1 Contaminants of Concern. Three metals and nine organic compounds were
retained as potential contaminants of concern in soils. Cobalt exceeded the natural background
levels, copper exceeded the risk screening level for noncancer effects, and lead exceeded natural .
background levels. Cobalt and lead do not. however, have toxicity values with wmch to estimate
noncancer hazard or cancer risk. Copper was retained as a contaminant of concern. Of the
organic compounds, eight were considered potential contaminants of concern based on the lack
of state cleanup levels, risk screening levels, and natural background levels. The noncancer
6-38 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
hazard and cancer risk cannot be quantified for these chemicals. Pentachlorophenol, however,
was measured at.a maximum concentration that exceeded the risk screening level based on
carcinogenicity, therefore it was evaluated as a contaminant of concern.
One metal, three organic compounds, and petroleum were retained as potential contaminants
of concern in ground water. Manganese was present at a maximum concentration that exceeded
both the state cleanup level and the risk screening level for noncancer effects as well as its
natural background levels. Carbon tetrachloride and 1,1-dichloroethylene exceeded both their
Method B cleanup levels and risk screening levels for carcinogenicity. These three chemicals
were carried through the risk assessment as contaminants of concern. Sec-butylbenzene was
identified based on the lack of screening concentration levels. Although toxicity parameters do
not exist for petroleum, it was included as a potential contaminant of concern and was evaluated
for noncancer hazard.
6.8.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment. For site FT-2, current risk, based on RME
assumptions, under the Air Force Personnel/Contractor scenario is principally due to ingestion
of 1.1-dichloroethene and carbon tetrachloride contaminated ground water and rounds up to
2 x 10"6 Current hazard under the same scenario is principally due to ingestion of manganese
contaminated ground water and rounds up to 4. Risk associated with ingestion of ground water
is within the acceptable range, while hazard associated with ingestion of ground water exceeds
acceptable levels. At present, the ground water pathway is not complete and may never be given
the adequacy of the base water supply system. Calculable site values for risk and hazard related
to soil are due to ingestion of contaminated soil and amount to 1 x 10"8 for risk and 1 x 10"3 for
hazard. Risk and hazard associated with ingestion of soil are below screening thresholds. Risk
associated with petroleum contamination can not be quantified.
6.8.3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment. There is no unacceptable ecological risk from
contaminants of concern to target species at Site FT-2.
6.8.4 Conclusions
There is no unacceptable calculable risk or hazard associated with FT-2 soil. Petroleum levels
exceeded the state cleanup standard for soils, and contaminated soils could potentially serve as
a source of ground water contamination. For these reasons, soil cleanup alternatives were
evaluated.
There is no unacceptable calculable risk associated with FT-2 ground water. Manganese
contamination in ground water yields a hazard index of 4. but is expected to decrease in parallel
with petroleum degradation. Petroleum concentrations in ground water currently exceed the state
cleanup level of 1.000 jjg/L For this reason, ground water cleanup alternatives were evaluated.
6-39 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
--A=*f»i»sEc.6«oo 6-40 FINAL-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
7.0 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
'During the Rl contaminants were identified and retained as contaminants of concern for each
Priority 2a site subject to the LFI. Potential contaminants of concern were selected based on
their RBSLs (HQ > 0.1 or risk > 1 x 10~7for soil and HQ > 1 or risk > 1 x lO^for ground water)
and whether their maximum concentrations exceed MTCA Methods A or B, MCLs, or high normal
background concentrations. When the risk assessment was completed preliminary contaminants
of concern were selected based on the contaminants exceeding HQ of 1, and risk exceeding
1 x 10"6, and whether their maximum concentrations exceed MTCA Method B or Method A limits,
or MCLs. Finally, to establish final contaminants of concern, EPA, Ecology, and the Air Force
conducted a risk management screening on preliminary contaminants of concern. A complete
discussion of risk management decisions made for Priority 2a sites is presented in Appendix C.
Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) are established to protect human health, public welfare, and
the environment from potential hazards posed by final contaminants of concern at any given site.
The RAOs for a given media are the same for all Priority 2a sites.
Remedial Action Objectives for Ground Water (Applicable to Sites PS-1, PS-5, PS-7, and FT-2):
• To prevent ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact with final ground water
contaminants of concern on-site or off-site with cancer risk in excess of 1 x 10"6
or non-cancer HQ of 1, or concentrations in excess of MCLs or MTCA cleanup
levels.
• To remediate contaminated ground water to a safe level for off-site human
consumption.
To prevent migration of contaminated ground water above cleanup levels into
uncontaminated zones.
Remedial Action Objectives for Soils (Applicable to Sites IS-4, PS-1, PS-5, PS-7, PS-10, and FT-2):
• To prevent ingestion, inhalation of dusts and airborne contaminated particles, and
dermal contact with final soil contaminants of concern on-site or off-site with
cancer risk in excess of 1 x 10"6 or non-cancer hazard of 1, or concentrations in
excess of MTCA cleanup levels.
To remediate contaminated soil to a level that is protective of human health and
the environment.
• To prevent migration of final contaminants of concern to ground water.
7-1 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
7.1 DEVELOPMENT OF CLEANUP LEVELS
Site IS-3: The results of the risk assessment indicate there would be no unacceptable risks to
human health posed by exposure to the water or sediments in the sump. However, because
the sediments contain PCBs above the MTCA Method B soil cleanup level of 0.1 3 mo/Kg, and
because some uncertainty remains about the possibility of past releases of contaminants from
the sump into the surrounding soils, the Air force is planning to remove the remaining water and
sediment from the sump. In addition, when the building is demolished, the Air Force will
analyze soils surrounding the sump for PCB contamination. If contamination is found, the
affected soils will be treated or disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and
local regulations.
Sites IS-4, PS-1 , PS-5, PS-7, and FT-2: The results of the risk assessment indicate that there
would be no unacceptable risks to human health posed by exposure to the final soil
contaminants of concern at these sites. However, soils contaminated with petroleum which
could serve as a source of ground water contamination remain at IS-4. Additionally, petroleum
is present at Sites PS-1, PS-5, PS-7 and FT-2 in both soil and ground water at concentrations
that exceed the MTCA Method A cleanup level of 200 mg/Kg. At site PS-1 , benzene was found
in ground water af levels above the MCL of 5 |ig/L, and with cancer risk of 1x10"*.
The following cleanup levels have been selected for cleanup actions at Sites IS-4, PS-1, PS-5,
PS-7, and FT-2:
• The cleanup level for petroleum contaminated soil at Sites IS-4, PS-1, PS-5, PS-7,
and FT-2, based on MTCA Method A, is 200 mg/Kg.
• The cleanup level for petroleum contaminated ground water at Sites PS-1, PS-5,
PS-7, and FT-2, based on MTCA Method A, is 1 ,000 |ig/L
• The cleanup level for benzene contaminated ground water at Site PS-1, based on
MCLs, is 5
Site PS-10: The results of the risk assessment indicate there is a cancer risk of 1 x 10s due to
TCE-contaminated soil at the site. Also, soil contaminated with petroleum is present at the site
and could serve as a source of ground water contamination.
• The following cleanup levels have been selected for cleanup action at Site PS-10:
• The cleanup level for petroleum contaminated soil at Site PS-10, based on MTCA
Method A, is 200 mg/Kg.
• The cleanup level for TCE contaminated soil at Site PS-10, based on MTCA Method
B, is 91 mg/Kg.
7-2 FINAL - 8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
Site SW-11: Because the Air Force considers the buried debris at this site a physical and not
a chemical hazard, a risk assessment for chemical exposures was not performed. Although
some contaminants were detected at the site at concentrations above their cleanup levels, they
are in the form of metal aircraft parts and fragments found in the soil, and don't represent a
chemical threat to human health or the environment. Consequently, no cleanup action objectives
have been established for Site SW-11. and it is not discussed further in the proposed plan.
7-3 FINAL-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7-4 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
8.0 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
A range of cleanup alternatives was initially identified in the feasibility study. These alternatives
were evaluated based on effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Based on the initial
screening, the most promising alternatives were developed into site-specific final alternatives that
were then subjected to a detailed analysis. The following is a list of the nine criteria for
evaluating cleanup alternatives. These criteria are discussed in greater detail in Section 9.0.
• Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment;
• Compliance with State and Federal Regulations;
• Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence;
• Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment;
• Short-term Effectiveness:
• Implementability;
Cost (Net Present Value):
• State Acceptance: and
• Community Acceptance.
8.1 NO ACTION
The "No Action" alternative was considered for ground water at PS-1, PS-5, PS-7, and FT-2. This
alternative was considered for soil at IS-4, PS-1, PS-5, PS-7, PS-10, and FT-2.
The NCP requires the "No Action" alternative be evaluated at every site to establish a baseline
for comparison. This alternative involves conducting no further actions at the site. In the case
of petroleum contamination, natural microbial biodegradation or physical weathering is expected
to occur. Eventually the concentration of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination may reduce to
the point where state or federal based remedial action objectives are achieved.
8.2 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AND MONITORING
Institutional controls and monitoring was considered for ground water at PS-1, PS-5, PS-7. and
FT-2. This alternative was considered for soil at IS-4, PS-1, PS-5, PS-7, PS-10, and FT-2.
Institutional controls are non-engineering remedial mechanisms that may be used to prevent
exposure to contaminants remaining at hazardous waste sites at concentrations above health-risk
levels. Section 300.430 of the NCP states that institutional controls (1) may be used to
supplement engineering controls as appropriate to prevent or limit exposure to contaminated
sites, (2) may be used during the conduct of the RI/FS or implementation of a response action
8-1 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
and, where necessary, as a component of a final remedy, and (3) should not be substituted for
active response measures as the sole remedy unless such measures are determined not to be
practicable. While institutional controls will typically be used in conjunction with engineering
controls as part of a remedial action, they may be the only means available to achieve
protection of human health and the environment.
At Fairchild AFB, there are two principal institutional control mechanisms through which
personnel are protected from contamination. These include Work Clearance Permits, and base
planning (both in civilian administrative processes as well as military administrative processes).
The first mechanism to preserve the safety of personnel with respect to contamination is the
Work Clearance Permit. No digging below two inches can be undertaken without a Work
Clearance Permit, and the Work Clearance Permit triggers several other review processes
which include base civil engineering and environmental review. The Work Clearance Permit
also prevents the installation of any new wells without the review process. This review process
includes the following activities:
1) The Air Force has implemented Instruction 32-1031, which Fairchild AFB
complied with by issuing Regulation 85-1. Regulation 85-1 requires all base
personnel and contractors to complete a Work Clearance Permit (Air Force Form
103) to gain authorization to commence any activity which results is uncovering
earth below two inches.
2) The permitting process requires the permittee to first review utility maps and then
proceed to gain clearance from several base engineering groups (such as Base
Communications, Electrical Shop, Cathodic Protection, the Fire Department,
Underground Cable, and several other departments) including the Environmental
Flight. The Environmental Flight would alert the permittee of any potential
environmental hazards. In addition, the permittee is required to review maps
obtained from the Drafting Element. Sites with environmental hazards are
plotted on these maps. In this manner, the permittee has a two fold notice of the
potential for hazardous environmental conditions on any given site.
The second mechanism is administrative instruments within the base planning process. These
are typically referred to as Base Comprehensive Plans or Base Master Plans. At Fairchild, the
particular instrument that will directly oversee these IRP sites is the Fairchild Air Force Base
Commander's Summary.. This plan details the base's long-range, comprehensive approach to
directing its evolution and solving facility and community needs. It sets forth solutions and
priorities for development of the Fairchild community and protection of the Fairchild
neighborhood through establishing various development constraints. Development constraints
include building constraints and environmental constraints, both of which include environmental
aspects. Building constraints include protective allowances for historical sites, noise regulation,
and establishment of safety zones. Environmental constraints specifically control development
around IRP sites, landfills, and potential wetlands. The Base Commander's Summary serves a
8-2 FINAL-8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
function similar to land use planning and zoning activities in civilian communities, and contains
controls specifically designed to prevent development or community interaction with 1RP sites
until after remedial actions are completed.
In the event of base closure, future use activities are protected at military bases through civilian
administrative processes and base planning instruments. Civilian administrative processes
designed to ensure protection of human health and the environment include conformance with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For example, development projects are required
to go through the NEPA process. An environmental impact statement is required for significant
projects (an environmental assessment for smaller projects) and identifies historical use and
potential contamination related to the site proposed for development. In real estate transactions
owners are required to reveal any known or potential environmental contamination related to the
site. Thus outside of the base planning process, there are administrative processes which assist
in protecting the public from exposure to contamination.
If the base should be closed in the future, the need for additional characterization and remedial
action to address site-related contamination will be reevaluated by the Air Force, EPA, and
Ecology in conjunction with the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act. The Air
Force. EPA. and Ecology may consider deed restrictions precluding the site from residential or
agricultural uses. If deed restrictions were determined to be necessary; they would be
implemented prior to transfer of the site property to any other entities.
Monitoring is incorporated with institutional controls as a mechanism to observe the decrease
in contamination over time and to detect evidence of migration. It is incorporated at all sites
where environmental media are known to have been contaminated; where there is risk that the
contamination may migrate; and where the contamination is reasonably accessible. For sites
presented in this ROD, monitoring is not conducted in conjunction with institutional controls in
three instances: for soils and ground water at IS-3, and for soils only at PS-5 and PS-7. At IS-3
no contamination is definitively known to have been released from the sump, the soil and ground
water near the sump is difficult to.access, and the Air Force plans to demolish the building in the
future and will further investigate the sump environment when the building structures and flooring
are removed. At sites PS-5 and PS-7 the soil contamination is buried beneath several feet of
clean fill or under asphalt paving or building related structures and therefore poses no risk at the
surface. The subsurface vadose zone contamination is not expected to migrate. The ground
water will be monitored at PS-5 and PS-7, detecting any impact the vadose contamination may
have upon the ground water.
Soil and ground water monitoring will be conducted in a phased manner starting on a
semiannual basis. In conjunction with historic data, if a clear decline in contamination can be
demonstrated, and that decline is consistent with current projections, sampling may be reduced
to annual, biannual and eventually longer terms as negotiated at that time by the Air Force. EPA,
and Ecology.
In the case that subsequent monitoring determines contamination to be migrating or increasing
the potential for harm to human health or the environment, the site will be reassessed. The
remedies for contamination at these sites are based on the physical conditions identified through
8-3 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
the LF1 and subsequent Rl process. The subsequent remedial action analyses conducted in the
FS were based on those findings. Should those findings prove to have been in error, and
monitoring determines the contamination is in fact moving in a manner that threatens human
health and the environment, the site will be Devaluated, and if warranted, additional
characterization will be conducted at the site, and the remedies reassessed.
This alternative involves no active treatment of contaminated media. Remediation of petroleum
related compounds would occur through natural attenuation, primarily microbial biodegradation,
along with volatilization, dispersion, and physical weathering. Chlorinated organic solvents, such
as TCE. can biodegrade under certain circumstances, but little short term reduction is expected.
This alternative is considered because of the relatively low cancer risk and noncancer hazard
posed by many of the sites. Biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons occurs naturally where
microbial populations and beneficial conditions (e.g. water, oxygen, temperature, nutrients) are
present, but usually takes longer to reach state, federal, or risk based cleanup levels than more
aggressive remedial actions. Monitoring would be conducted to confirm that passive
biodegradation is occurring and the contaminants of concern are not migrating offsite.
8.2.1 Sites IS-4, PS-10, and FT-2
Because these sites are adjacent to the flightline access is limited to authorized contractors and
Air Force personnel. Institutional controls include requiring a Work Clearance Permit before
proceeding with intrusive activities. Personnel conducting intrusive activities would be warned
about site conditions and would be required to take appropriate health and safety precautions
to avoid exposure to contaminants. Due to their locations, it is unlikely that residents would have
any reason to access these sites. Ground water sampling at FT-2 and soil sampling at IS-4,
PS-10, and FT-2 would monitor contaminant degradation and migration. Institutional controls
would be kept in place until cleanup levels are achieved, therefore protecting against human
exposure to contaminants.
8.2.2 Site PS-1
This site is accessible to Base personnel. Institutional controls include requiring a Work
Clearance Permit before proceeding with intrusive activities. Personnel conducting intrusive
activities would be warned about site conditions and would be required to take appropriate
health and safety precautions to avoid exposure to contaminants. Soil and ground water
sampling would monitor contaminant degradation and migration. Institutional controls would be
kept in place until cleanup levels are achieved, therefore protecting against human exposure to
contaminants.
8.2.3 Sites PS-5 and PS-7
While both of these sites are readily accessible to base personnel, removal actions at these sites
have extracted near surface contaminated soil and replaced it with clean fill. Remaining
contamination lies several feet beneath the surface at these sites and poses no health risk to
persons at the surface. Institutional controls would be initiated requiring a Work Clearance
8-4 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
Permit before proceeding with intrusive activities at these sites. Personnel conducting intrusive
activities would be warned about site conditions and would be required to take appropriate
health and safety precautions to avoid exposure to contaminants. Ground water sampling would
monitor contaminant biodegradation and any tendency for migration at both sites. Institutional
controls would be kept in place until cleanup levels are achieved, therefore protecting against
human exposure to contaminants. Soil monitoring at these sites is unnecessary. The cleanup
level for petroleum contaminated soil is based on protection of ground water. Ground water
monitoring at these sites will assess if there is any petroleum migration from the soil.
8.3 BIOVENTING
Bioventing was considered for soil at IS-4. PS-1. PS-5. PS-7. and FT-2.
Bioventing is an innovative method for promoting in place bioremediation of organic
contamination in soil (principally petroleum hydrocarbons). Bioventing is an effective.
unobtrusive, low maintenance alternative for remediating petroleum hydrocarbons to meet
cleanup goals. It has been extensively tested, but is still considered innovative. The Air Force
has developed considerable expertise in this technology and has initiated a pilot bioventing
project at PS-1. Initial results from the PS-1 pilot project indicate open system bioventing will
increase the oxygen content and biodegradation activity in site soil.
It can be accomplished using either a closed or an open system. Open system bioventing
consists of a series of vents through which air is injected without extraction. The benefits of this
system include an increased residence time of oxygen (which enhances natural biodegradation)
and the absence of extracted air to treat. Disadvantages are uncertainty in distribution, and the
potentia for moving soil vapors into buildings. Open system bioventing would be applied to sites
located away from buildings.
Closed system bioventing includes a network of injection and extraction vents to gain greater
control over the flow of injected air. The disadvantage of this system is the need to manage
contaminant vapor emissions. If operated properly, the rate of air flow should not generate
organic vapors after biodegradation has begun. Closed system bioventing is applied to sites
located near buildings. If an active system is not in place to remove injected air from the soil,
the air could migrate into basements. This could lead to a dangerous situation if the air contains
a high concentration of VOCs. Figure 8-1 shows a schematic diagram of a closed system
bioventing design.
Before full scale implementation at sites other than PS-1, the effectiveness of bioventing would
be tested using a pilot scale system. A soil monitoring program would be implemented to
evaluate the effectiveness of the system and to assess contaminant migration. During cleanup,
institutional controls would be maintained to prevent human exposure to contamination.
^ ROO 8-5 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
DRAWING No BIOVENT
AIR INJECTION
EXTRACTION
NOTE
OPEN SYSIEM BIOVENTING
IS IDENTICAL EXCEPT THAT
THERE WILL BE NO
EXTRACTION SYSTEM
TREATED
ACTIVATED EMISS|ON
CARBON
LOW HP DIAPHRAGM
COMPRESSOR
FAIRCHILD
AIR FORCE BASE
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
FIGURE NO. 8-1
CLOSED SYSTEM
BIOVENTING
-------
8.3.1 Sites IS-4, PS-1, and FT-2
These sites are suitable for open system bioventing. Contaminants of concern at these sites
include biodegradable petroleum residues. Buildings.are located far enough away from
contaminant plumes so that soil vapor migration is not a problem. The system would be
operated until soil cleanup levels are achieved, therefore protecting ground water from further
contamination.
8.3.2 Sites PS-5 and PS-7
These sites are candidates for closed system bioventing. Biodegradable petroleum residues are
the only contaminants of concern at these sites. In order to prevent the migration of soil vapors
into occupied buildings, vapor extraction wells would be installed. Soil vapor would be treated
to remove hazardous components and to comply with Washington State and Spokane County
air standards before being released to the atmosphere. The system would be operated until soil
cleanup levels are achieved, therefore protecting ground water from further contamination.
8.4 STEAM-ENHANCED SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
Steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction was considered for soil at IS-4, PS-1, PS-5, PS-7, PS-10,
and FT-2.
Steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction involves injection of steam into soils to facilitate
volatilization of organics. Volatilized organic vapors are vacuum extracted from the soil and
treated. In place physical removal methods, such as soil vapor extraction, would not be
successful at removing diesel range petroleum fractions because the majority of its constituents
have low volatilities at ambient temperatures. Enhancing traditional soil vapor extraction by
injecting steam into the vadose zone would result in volatilizing these otherwise low volatility
constituents so that they can be vacuum extracted from the soil. This technology also works well
with chlorinated solvents such as TCE and more volatile petroleum hydrocarbons such as
gasoline or other light fuels. The system would be operated until soil cleanup levels are
achieved, therefore protecting ground water from further contamination. Figure 8-2 shows a
schematic diagram of a steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction system.
Before full scale implementation, the effectiveness of steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction would
be tested using a pilot scale system. A soil monitoring program would be implemented to
evaluate the effectiveness of the system and to assess contaminant migration. During cleanup,
institutional controls would be maintained to prevent human exposure to contamination.
8-7 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
DRAWING No STEAMSVE |
STORAGE DRUM
• —
^ —
WAItK HJtL
1 I
RAU FP
SANITARY
v SEWER
—
STEAM
•*
V
^^_2'
i^^-
CONTAMINATION __.
_— . •**
LJWU \JJ I O 1
1 I ° ) \
t
CARBON
ADSORBER
2±±s\\
WATER >\ C
PUMPS -21
WELL
CASING
STEAM
m
ri
ri
_
=
KNOCKOUT
OIL/WATER _
SEPARATOR
'
— x \ VAPORS^
AIR
OMPRESSOR
^ — MONITORING
• WELL
^— 2" WELL
• CASING
^
PUMPED LIQUIDS
VAPORS
..,«-
CONTAMINATED
N>— WELL SCREEN Liuuiui AND
V
w
*"
'
\
> —
LIQUIDS
•»V 1 CONTAMINANT
|(^/-JAND STEAM VAPO
f
t
K
t
t
t
""*"-
VAPORS EXTRACTED
USING COMPRESSOR
~~-~ — LIQUID
PUMP
v
773 AOSMBQt — EU1SSION
— ^ MR
COMPRESSOR
RS
VADOSE
liu rumr
CONDENSED LIQUIDS)
CAPILLARY
FRINGE
SATURATED
ZONE
FAIRCHILD
AIR FORCE BASE
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
FIGURE NO. 8-2
STEAM -ENHANCED
SOIL VAPOR
EXTRACTION
-------
8.5 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
Soil vapor extraction was considered for soil at PS-10.
Soil vapor extraction is an EPA presumptive remedy for removing VOCs from soils. This method
works by essentially vacuuming contaminant vapor from the soil. The VOCs present in the soil
are volatilized, and extracted from the soil through a system of vents. This technique is not
effective at extracting low volatility fractions of diesel fuel or jet fuel. Soil vapor extraction does,
however, help to oxygenate soils which facilitates biodegradation of petroleum residues.
Implementating a soil vapor extraction program at PS-10 would reduce TCE contamination to
below state cleanup levels. Increased aerobic biodegradation brought about by a soil vapor
extraction system may not reduce petroleum concentrations to below state cleanup standards,
therefore, this alternative would probably be coupled with an approach directed at the petroleum
residues. The system would be operated until soil cleanup levels are achieved, therefore
protecting ground water from further contamination.
Before full scale implementation, the effectiveness of soil vapor extraction would be tested using
a pilot scale system. A soil monitoring program would be implemented to evaluate the
effectiveness of the system and to assess contaminant migration. During cleanup, institutional
controls would be maintained to prevent human exposure to contamination.
8.6 EXCAVATION AND SOIL WASHING
Excavation and soil washing was considered for soil at IS-4, PS-1. PS-10, and FT-2.
This alternative involves excavation of soils, followed by a wash process. For petroleum derived
contaminants, removal can be accomplished by steam washing. The excavated area would be
backfilled with the washed soil or other clean soil and graded and seeded to prevent erosion.
Since all contaminated soil is removed from the site, ground water is protected from
contamination.
8.6.1 Site IS-4
Approximately 1800 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil would be removed and washed.
8.6.2 Site PS-1
Approximately 16.000 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil would be removed and
washed. PS-1 is an active bulk fuel storage terminal, therefore coordinating excavation actives
and fuel handling operations would require careful planning. Excavation of soil beneath the fuel
tanks is impossible.
8-9 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
8.6.3 SrtePS-10
Approximately 600 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil would be removed and washed.
Approximately 67 cubic yards of TCE contaminated soil'would be excavated, washed, and
landfilled. In order to meed Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs), TCE contamination must be
reduced to 6.0 mg/kg before landfilling. Soil washing is capable of meeting that requirement but
incineration is the Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT) for TCE contaminated.
8.6.4 Site FT-2
Approximately 5,600 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil would be removed and washed.
8.7 EXCAVATION AND OFFSITE DISPOSAL
Excavation and offsite disposal was considered for soil at IS-4. PS-1, PS-10. and FT-2.
This alternative involves soil excavation, followed by transport of the contaminated soil to an
approved landfill (such as a Class I Subtitle C landfill). The excavated area would be backfilled
with clean soil and graded and seeded to prevent erosion. Since all contaminated soil is
removed from the site, ground water is protected from contamination.
8.7.1 Site IS-4
Approximately 1800 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil would be removed and landfilled.
8.7.2 Site PS-1
Approximately 16,000 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil would be removed and
.landfilled. Since PS-1 is an active bulk fuel storage terminal, coordinating excavation actives and
fuel handling operations would require careful planning. Excavation of soil beneath the fuel tanks
is impossible.
8.7.3 Site PS-10
Approximately 600 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil would be removed and landfilled.
Approximately 67 cubic yards of TCE contaminated soil would be excavated, incinerated, and
landfilled. In order to meet LDRs, TCE contamination must be reduced to 6.0 mg/kg before
landfilling. Incineration is capable of meeting that requirement and is the BOAT for TCE
contaminated soil.
8.7.4 Site FT-2
Approximately 5,600 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil would be removed and
landfilled.
8-10 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
8.8 EXCAVATION AND LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Excavation and low temperature thermal desorption was considered for soil at IS-4, PS-1. PS-5.
PS-7. PS-10, and FT-2.
This alternative involves soil excavation and heating of the soil to volatilize organic contaminants.
Resultant gasses are captured and treated. The excavated area would be backfilled with clean
soil and graded and seeded to prevent erosion. Thermal desorption is an EPA presumptive
remedy for removing VOCs from soils and is also effective on petroleum contamination. Since
all contaminated soil is removed from the site, ground water is protected from contamination.
Thermal desorption vendors have various recycling uses for treated soils, including use as fill and
cement makeup material.
8.8.1 Site IS-4
Approximately 1800 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil would be removed and thermally
desorbed.
8.8.2 Site PS-1
Approximately 16,000 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil would be removed and
thermally desorbed. Since PS-1 is an active bulk fuel storage terminal, coordinating excavation
actives and fuel handling operations would require careful planning. Excavation of soil beneath
the fuel tanks is impossible.
8.8.3 Site PS-5
Approximately 185 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil would be removed and thermally
desorbed. Since contaminated soil lies in a thin horizontal layer 10 feet beneath the surface.
approximately 1.850 cubic yards of overburden would have to be excavated to access the
contaminated soil.
8.8.4 Site PS-7
Approximately 60 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil would be removed and thermally
desorbed About half the contaminated soil lies beneath Building 1350, making excavation
impractical until Building 1350 is razed.
8.8.5 Site PS-10
Approximately 600 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil would be removed and landfilled.
Approximately 67 cubic yards of TCE contaminated soil would be excavated, thermally desorbed,
and landfilled. In order to meet LDRs, TCE contamination must be reduced to 6.0 mg/kg before
landfilling. Thermal desorption is capable of meeting that requirement but incineration is the
BOAT for TCE contaminated soil.
\
8-11 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
8.8.6 Site FT-2
Approximately 5,600 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil would be removed and
landfilled.
8.9 BIOSPARGING
Biosparging was considered for ground water at PS-1. PS-5, PS-7. and FT-2.
This alternative involves sparging (pumping air) into groundwater, at a rate sufficient to aerate
the water to promote biodegradation but not volatilize hydrocarbon vapors. Petroleum
compounds, specifically benzene, are readily biodegradable. The moist conditions in the
saturated zone support biodegradation. Biosparging provides oxygen which is also necessary
for aerobic biodegradation to occur. Figure 8-3 shows a schematic diagram of a biosparging
system.
Before full scale implementation, the effectiveness of biosparging would be tested using a pilot
scale system. A ground water monitoring program would be implemented to evaluate the
effectiveness of the system and to assess contaminant migration. During cleanup, institutional
controls would be maintained to prevent human exposure to contamination.
8.10 STEAM INJECTION WITH VAPOR EXTRACTION
Steam injection with vapor extraction was considered for ground water at PS-1, PS-5, PS-7, and
FT-2.
This alternative involves injecting steam into the groundwater to vaporize organic contaminants.
Vaporized contaminants rise into the unsaturated soil column where organic vapors are vacuum
extracted and treated to comply with Washington State and Spokane County air standards.
Liquids resulting from the steam may also carry organic contaminants. These are pumped from
wells to the surface, and are treated above ground. In place physical removal methods, such
as soil vapor extraction, are not successful at removing diesel and higher boiling range petroleum
hydrocarbons from saturated zones because the majority of these compounds have low
volatilities at ambient temperatures. Enhancing traditional soil vapor extraction by injecting steam
into the saturated zone would result in volatilizing these otherwise low volatility constituents and
allow them to be removed. The system would be operated until ground water cleanup levels are
achieved. Figure 8-4 shows a schematic diagram of a steam injection with vapor extraction
system.
Before full scale implementation, the effectiveness of steam injection with vapor extraction would
be tested using a pilot scale system. A ground water monitoring program would be implemented
to evaluate the effectiveness of the system and assess contaminant migration. During cleanup,
institutional controls would be maintained to prevent human exposure to contamination.
FAFBWX»EC«.ROO 8-12 FINAL-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
8-13
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
DRAWING No STEAMINJ
CONTAMINATION
, LIQUIDS
KNOCKOUT
TANK
•£7H
^-^ AIR
COMPRESSOR
CONTAMINANT
AND STEAM VAPORS
EMISSION
2" WELL
CASING
-MONITORING
WELL
LIQUID EXTRACTION
WELL
•2" WELL
CASING
PUMPED LIQUIDS
-VAPOR EXTRACTION
WELL
\VAPORS EXTRACTED
USING COMPRESSOR
VADOSE
ZONE
V
CAPILLARY
FRINGE
HYDRAULIC
GRADIENT
VAPORS
STEAM
MOBILIZED
HYDROCARBONS
SCREEN
SUMP
^ \
CONTAMINANT
PLUME
LIQUID PUMP (TO
PUMP MOBILIZED
HYDROCARBONS)
SATURATED
ZONE
FAIRCHILD
AIR FORCE BASE
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
FIGURE NO. 8-4
STEAM INJECTION
WITH VAPOR
EXTRACTION
-------
8.11 PUMP AND TREAT WITH TREATMENT USING CARBON ADSORPTION
Pump and treat with treatment using carbon adsorption was considered for ground water at PS-1,
PS-5, PS-7, and FT-2.
This alternative involves pumping groundwater then treating the water by passing it through
granular activated carbon. As ground water cascades through a bed of carbon, organic
contaminants are adsorbed onto the carbon from the water. Use of granular activated carbon
as the treatment portion of a ground water pump and treat system, can be considered an EPA
presumptive remedy. Granular activated carbon is an established treatment method used in
pump and treat systems, and carbon treatment systems are readily available. Once contaminants
are brought to the surface, treatment is straight forward. The drawback to pump and treat
systems is the uncertainty that all contaminated ground water can be captured and that residual
free phase contamination would continue to recontaminate the ground water thus prolonging the
remedial action.
Before full scale implementation, the effectiveness of pump and treat using carbon adsorption
would be tested using a pilot scale system. A ground water monitoring program would be
implemented to evaluate the effectiveness of the system and assess contaminant migration.
During cleanup, institutional controls would be maintained to prevent human exposure to
contamination. Figure 8-5 shows a schematic diagram of a pump and treat system.
8-15 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
e
o
3o
5E
o
UJ
CO
3"
o
06
£
C/3
1
in
'
o: O
»— CD
11
o
o
IK
a
d
<±>
L>
;
\
\
8-16
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
9.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND THE SELECTED REMEDIES
Alternatives for remediating the Priority 2a sites are evaluated in the "Feasibility Study for
Priority 2a sites at Fairchild AFB" (ICF 1995b). Each alternative was evaluated against the nine
criteria discussed below. The alternatives were compared to one another to identify the
advantages, disadvantages, and relative trade-offs among the alternatives. The complete
evaluation is presented in Chapter 6 of the feasibility study. The following sections summarize
the evaluation process and present the selected remedies for addressing environmental
contamination at each site. Tables 9-1 and 9-2 list remedial alternatives evaluated and the
selected remedy(ies) for each site and media.
9.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA
The EPA provide nine criteria to identify the selected remedy for a given site. The criteria are
arranged in three categories: Threshold, Primary Balancing, and Modifying criteria.- A remedial
alternative must first comply with the two threshold criteria in order to be considered further in
the remedial alternative selection process. Once'an alternative satisfies the threshold criteria, it
is evaluated against the five primary balancing criteria. Modifying criteria are used in the final
evaluation of the .remedial alternatives.
9.1.1 Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. This describes whether a cleanup
action provides adequate protection and how potential risks are eliminated, reduced, or
controlled through treatment or institutional controls, both during and after remediation.
Compliance with Federal and State Regulations. This describes whether a cleanup action will
meet all federal and state ARARs.
9.1.2 Primary Balancing Criteria
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence. This describes the ability of a cleanup action to
reliably protect human health and the environment over time after completion of cleanup. It
addresses risks that may remain at the site.
Reduction of Toxicrty, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment. This describes how well the
treatment technologies that may be used in a cleanup action work. Reduction of toxicity
indicates contamination is destroyed. When mobility is reduced, contaminants are no longer able
to migrate from the site. Reduction of volume indicates contamination is physically removed from
the site.
9-1 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
9
8
TABLE 9-1. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED FOR SOILS AT THE PRIORITY 2a SITES
SITE
IS-4
PS-1
PS-5
PS-7
PS 10
FT-2
NO
ACTION
X
X
X
X
X
X
INSTITUTIONAL
CONTROLS &
MONITORING
ro
X
pqw
[X](->
IX]
IX]
BIOVENTING
X (Open
system)
[X] (Open
system)
X (Closed
system)
X (Closed
system)
X (Open
system)
STEAM-
ENHANCED
SOIL VAPOR
EXTRACTION
X
X
X
X
X
X
SOIL VAPOR
EXTRACTION
-
-
-
X
-
EXCAVATION
& SOIL
WASHING
X
X
X
X
EXCAVATION
& OFFSITE
DISPOSAL
X
X
[X]
X
EXCAVATION
& THERMAL
DESORPTION
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
rb
(a)
Institutional controls without monitoring
10
CO
(ft
m
I
00
m
3J
X = Evaluated alternative
[X] = Selected Remedy
CO
CO
en
-------
TABLE 9-2. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED FOR GROUND WATER AT THE
PRIORITY 2a SITES
SITE
PS-1
PS-5
PS-7
FT-2
NO
ACTION
X
X
X
X
INSTITUTIONAL
CONTROLS &
MONITORING
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
BIOSPARGING
X
X
X
X
STEAM INJECTION
WITH VAPOR
EXTRACTION
X
X
X
X
PUMP & TREAT
WITH TREATMENT
USING CARBON
ADSORPTION
X
X
X
X
X = Evaluated Alternative
[X] = Selected Remedy
*»FB\BOO\SEC-9 ROD
9-3
FINAL • 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
Short-term Effectiveness. This describes how fast the cleanup action is able to protect human
health and the environment and its potential to create adverse effects during construction and
implementation.
Implementabiltty. This describes how suitaole a remedy is from a technical and administrative
standpoint, including the availability of materials and services needed for the chosen solution.
It considers how successful the technology has been on other similar sites.
Cost. This describes what the estimated costs are of the alternative. Estimated capital costs.
annual operation and maintenance costs, and net present value for each alternative are
presented in following sections.
9.1.3 Modifying Criteria
State Acceptance. This describes whether, based on its review of the project documents and
proposed plan, the state agrees with, opposes, or has no comment on the selected remedy. The
State of Washington concurs with all selected remedies presented in this Record of Decision.
Community Acceptance. This describes what the community's comments or concerns are
about the selected remedy and whether the community generally supports or opposes them.
9.2 SITE IS-4 SOIL CONTAMINATION
The following remedial alternatives were evaluated for IS-4 soil contamination:
• No Action;
• Institutional Controls and Monitoring;
• Bioventing (Open System);
• Steam-Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction;
• Excavation and Thermal Desorptio'n:
Excavation and Soil Washing; and
• Excavation and Offsite Disposal.
The selected remedy for remediating petroleum contamination in soils at Site IS-4 is institutional
controls and monitoring. Based on current information, this alternative provides the best balance
of trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to the nine criteria provided by EPA. This
section profiles the performance of the selected remedy against the nine criteria, noting how it
compares to the other alternatives under consideration.
9.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
All of the alternatives, except "No Action", will provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment by eliminating, reducing, or controlling risk through removal, treatment, or
institutional controls, institutional controls and monitoring will rely on natural biodegradation to
reduce toxicity of petroleum. Institutional controls, already in place, will control human contact
9-4 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
with contaminants. Monitoring will add to protectiveness of this alternative by detecting any
tendency for migration of contaminants so that appropriate actions can be taken to prevent offsite
migration. Monitoring will also be used to measure the natural biodegradation of petroleum
residues. Natural treatment has the advantage of eliminating worker risk associated with physical
hazards and contaminant exposure during excavation or drilling.
9.2.2 Compliance with ARARS
All action alternatives comply with location, action, and chemical-specific ARARs by reducing the
volume or toxicity of petroleum residues in site soil.
The 'No Action' alternative is not protective of human health and the environment. It is therefore
dropped from consideration at this site.
9.2.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
All alternatives offer some degree of long term effectiveness and permanence because petroleum
compounds are either biodegraded in place, or extracted and removed from the site. Excavation
combined with offsite disposal, soil washing, or thermal desorption are the most effective because
all contaminated media is removed from the site. Offsite disposal without treatment is the least
preferred option under CERCLA in part because it simply relocates the contamination rather than
reducing or eliminating it. Soil washing and thermal desorption are better alternatives, because
they treat the soil and effectively destroy both low and high volatility organics. The steam-
enhanced soil vapor extraction will remove most organics, regardless of volatility. Open system
bioventing and institutional controls and monitoring may provide long term effectiveness and
permanence but may not remediate all organic components equally well.
9.2.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the Contaminants Through
Treatment
Excavation combined with offsite disposal, soil washing, and thermal desorption will result in
approximately a 100% reduction in volume of onsite petroleum contamination. The steam
enhanced soil vapor extraction alternative will also reduce the volume of petroleum residues, but
less than excavation alternatives. Open system bioventing and institutional controls and
monitoring rely on biodegradation to reduce toxicity of petroleum residues. Biodegradation
reduces toxicity by transforming the hazardous components of petroleum residues into carbon
dioxide, water, and fatty acids. The non-hazardous components that remain are tar like and tend
to form a viscous weathered residue. Reduction of toxicity or volume resulting from all alternatives
is irreversible.
9.2.5 Short-term Effectiveness
Excavation combined with offsite disposal, soil washing, and thermal desorption would meet
cleanup levels in the shortest time frame. Health and safety requirements will have to be
implemented for workers performing the cleanup activities to protect them from physical hazards
associated with excavation and exposure to contaminated media. Steam-enhanced soil vapor
9-5 FINAL - 8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaced 29 September 95 Version)
-------
extraction and open system bioventing would take a longer time frame to achieve cleanup levels
than the excavation based alternatives. For both these alternatives, precautions will need to be;
taken to protect workers from physical hazards associated with drill rigs and exposure to
hydrocarbon vapors. Institutional controls and monitoring would take the longest time frame to
reach cleanup levels. Institutional controls and monitoring has the advantage that there are no
physical hazards associated with heavy equipment and worker exposure to contaminants. No
detrimental impact on the surrounding communities is expected from any of the alternatives.
9.2.6 Implementability
All the alternatives will meet administrative implementability requirements, however, steam-
enhanced soil vapor extraction will require management of air emissions and soil washing will
require management of air emissions and discharged water. All alternatives are also technically
implementable, although, steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction, open system bioventing and soil
washing may require treatability testing to confirm that they are effective at the site. These
"remedies have been used successfully to address similar contaminants at other Superfund sites,
and the skilled workers and materials needed to construct the remedies are readily available in the
area.
9.2.7 Cost
The capital cost, annual operation and maintenance costs, and net present value for each
alternative are listed in Table 9-3. The highest cost alternatives involve soil excavation. Offsite
disposal, soil washing, and thermal desorption have estimated net present values of $674,105,
$507,250, and $406,015, respectively. Aggressive in place alternatives are the next most
expensive. Steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction and open system bioventing have estimated net
present values of $365,055 and $268,522, respectively. Institutional controls and monitoring has
an estimated net present value of $123,870. Institutional controls alone has an estimated net
present value of $14,500.
9.2.8 State Acceptance
The State of Washington has concurred with the selected remedy for this site.
9.2.9 Community Acceptance
On May 10,1995, Fairchild AFB held a public meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan for the
Priority 2 Sites. Prior to this meeting, copies of the Proposed Plan were sent to over 130 local
residents and other interested parties. Comments received during the public meeting and during
the 30 day public comment period indicate local businesses are concerned that institutional
controls (with or without long term monitoring) is not an aggressive enough remedy and
circumvents the intent of the Model Toxins Control Act. The Air Force addresses this comment in
the Responsiveness Summary contained in Appendix B.
9-6 FINAL - 8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaced 29 September 95 Version)
-------
TABLE 9-3. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE IS-4 SOIL
ALTERNATIVE
No Action
Institutional Controls & Monitoring
[Selected Remedy]
(3 years O&M)
Bioventmg (Open System)
(2 years O&M)
Steam-Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction
(2 years O&M)
Excavation & Thermal Desorption
Excavation & Soil Washing
Excavation & Offsite Disposal
COST ESTIMATES
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
$14,500
$0
$14,500
$113,445
$1,300
$123,870
$240,463
$1 ,300
$268,522
$304,800
$2,600
$365.055
$231 ,855
$0
$406,01 5
$279,650
$0
$507,250
$316,305
$0
$674,105
Net present value based on 5% annual discount rate
O&M = Operations and Maintenance
-AcB\ROO\SEC-9 HOD
9-7
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
9.2.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy
The selected remedy for remediation of petroleum contaminated soil at IS-4 is institutional
controls and monitoring. Institutional controls already in place restrict civilian site access. Any
intrusive activities at the site require a Work Clearance Permit. The site is located adjacent to the
flightline, so only Air Force personnel or authorized contractors can gain access. Personnel
requesting site access will be warned about site conditions and will be required to take
appropriate health and safety precautions to avoid exposure to contaminants. Soil sampling will
be conducted to monitor petroleum degradation and migration.
Institutional controls and monitoring will protect human health by preventing exposure to
contaminated soil while petroleum contamination biodegrades. Contaminant migration to ground
water is not expected because the site is located in a low permeability clay basin, limiting the
possibility of contaminant migration from site soil. Implementation of the selected remedy poses
no technical, administrative, or logistical problems. Institutional controls and monitoring is one
of the most cost effective alternatives and has the advantage that workers will not be exposed
to physical and contaminant hazards associated with excavating or drilling. The Air Force
believes, based on information currently available, institutional controls and monitoring provides
the best balance of trade-offs among the other alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria.
Ecology and EPA concur with this opinion. The Air Force expects the selected remedy will satisfy
the statutory requirements in CERCLA section 121 (b), will be protective of human health and the
environment, will comply with ARARs, is cost-effective, and utilizes a permanent solution to the
maximum extent practicable. Because the selected remedy relies on passive natural
biodegradation of contaminants, it will not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element.
9.3 SITE PS-1 GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
The following remedial alternatives were evaluated for PS-1 ground water contamination:
• No Action;
• Institutional Controls and Monitoring;
• Biosparging;
• Steam Injection with Vapor Extraction; and
• Pump and Treat using Carbon Adsorption.
The selected remedy for remediating contaminants of concern in ground water at Site PS-1 is
institutional controls and monitoring. Contaminants of concern in ground water at PS-1 are
petroleum residues and benzene. Based on current information, this alternative provides the best
balance of trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to the nine criteria EPA provides to
evaluate alternatives. This section profiles the performance of the selected remedy against the
nine criteria, noting how it compares to the other alternatives under consideration.
9-8 FINAL-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
9.3.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
All of the alternatives, except 'No Action', will provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment by eliminating, reducing, or controlling risk through removal, treatment, or
institutional controls. Institutional controls and monitoring will rely on natural biodegradation to
reduce toxicity of petroleum and benzene. Institutional controls, already in place, will control
human contact with contaminants. Monitoring will add to protectiveness of this alternative by
detecting any tendency for migration of contaminants so that appropriate actions can be taken to
prevent offsite migration. Monitoring will also be used to measure the natural biodegradation of
petroleum residues and benzene. Natural treatment has the advantage of eliminating worker risk
associated with physical hazards and contaminant exposure during intrusive activities.
9.3.2 Compliance with ARABS
All action alternatives comply with location, action, and chemical-specific ARARs by reducing the
volume or toxicity of petroleum residues in site ground water.
The "No Action" alternative is not protective of human health and the environment. It is therefore
dropped from consideration at this site.
9.3.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
All alternatives offer some degree of long term effectiveness and permanence because petroleum
is either biodegraded in place, or extracted from the ground water and removed from the site.
Institutional controls and monitoring and biosparging can give good long term effectiveness and
permanence but may not remediate all organic components equally well. Steam injection with
vapor extraction and pump and treat with carbon adsorption reduce the volume of contaminants to
yield long term effectiveness and permanence.
9.3.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the Contaminants Through
Treatment
It is estimated pump and treat with carbon adsorption will reduce the volume of contaminants of
concern in ground water by up to 1 00%. Steam injection with vapor extraction will also result in
volume reduction of petroleum residues and benzene, but probably less than pump and treat.
Biosparging and institutional controls and monitoring rely on biodegradation to reduce toxicity of
contaminants of concern. Biodegradation reduces toxicity by transforming the hazardous
components of contaminants of concern into carbon dioxide, water, and fatty acids. The non-
hazardous components that remain are tar like and tend to form a viscous weathered residue.
Reduction of toxicity or volume resulting from all alternatives is irreversible.
9.3.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
Biosparging would be the fastest alternative to reach cleanup levels. Steam injection with vapor
extraction and pump and treat using carbon adsorption would be slower to reach cleanup levels
than biosparging. Institutional controls and monitoring would require the longest time frame to
9-9 FINAL - 8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaced 29 September 95 Version)
-------
achieve cleanup levels. For steam injection with vapor extraction, biosparging, and pump and
treat using carbon adsorption, precautions would need to be taken to protect workers from
physical hazards associated with drill rigs and exposure to hydrocarbon vapors. Institutional
controls and monitoring has the advantage that there are no physical hazards associated with
heavy equipment and worker exposure to contaminants. No detrimental impact on the
surrounding communities is expected from any of the alternatives.
9.3.6 Implementability
All the alternatives will meet administrative implementability requirements. Steam injection with
soil vapor extraction will, however, require management of air emissions and discharged water,
and pump and treat will require management of pumped ground water. All alternatives are also
technically implementable, although, steam injection with vapor extraction and biosparging may
require treatability testing to confirm they are effective. These remedies have been used
successfully to address similar contaminants at other contaminated sites, and the skilled workers
and materials needed to construct the remedies are readily available in the area.
9.3.7 Cost
The capital cost, annual operation and maintenance costs, and net present value for each
alternative are listed in Table 9-4. The highest cost alternative, steam injection with vapor
extraction, has an estimated present net value of $1,039,434. Pump and treat using carbon
adsorption and biosparging have estimated net present values of $938,461 and $286,994,
respectively. Institutional controls and monitoring is the least expensive with an estimated net
present value of $134,763. Institutional controls alone has an estimated net present value of
$14,500.
9.3.8 State Acceptance
The State of Washington has concurred with the selected remedy for this site.
9.3.9 Community Acceptance
On May 10, 1 995, Fairchild AFB held a public meeting to discuss the Proposed plan for the
Priority 2 Sites. Prior to this meeting, copies of the Proposed Plan were sent to over 130 local
residents and other interested parties. Comments received during the public meeting and during
the 30 day public comment period indicate local businesses believe institutional controls (with or
without monitoring) are not adequately aggressive, and circumvents the intent of the MTCA. The
Air Force addresses this comment in the Responsiveness Summary contained in Appendix B.
9-10 FINAL-8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaced 29 September 95 Version)
-------
TABLE 9-4. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE PS-1
GROUND WATER
ALTERNATIVE
COST ESTIMATES
No Action
Capital Cost: $14,500
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $0
Net Present Value: $14,500
Institutional Controls & Monitoring
[Selected Remedy]
(4 years O&M)
Capital Cost: $118,103
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $1,300
Net Present Value: $134,763
Biosparging
(2 years O&M)
Capital Cost: $247,630
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $2,600
Net Present Value: $286,994
Pump & Treat using Carbon Adsorption
(12 years O&M)"
Capital Cost: $510,583
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $43,455
Net Present Value: $938,461
Steam Injection with Vapor Extraction
(4 years O&M)
Capital Cost: $521,251
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $2,600
Net Present Value: $1,039,434
Net oresent value based on 5% annual discount rate.
O&M = Operations ana Maintenance.
O&M t.rne estimate assumes current plume configuration and no natural attenuation Complimentary natural
attenuation could reduce O&M time to less tnan 4 years for pump'& treat using carbon aosorption.
9-11
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
9.3.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy
The selected remedy for remediation of petroleum residues and benzene contaminated ground
water at Site PS-1 is institutional controls and monitoring. During site cleanup, human health will
be protected by institutional controls already in place. Any intrusive activities require a Work
Clearance Permit. Personnel requesting site access will be warned about site conditions and will
be required to take appropriate health and safety precautions to avoid exposure to contaminants.
Ground water sampling will be conducted to monitor contaminant of concern degradation and
migration.
Institutional controls and monitoring will protect human health and the environment by reducing
the toxicity of contaminants of concern in site ground water. Implementation of the selected
remedy poses no technical, administrative, or logistical problems. The selected remedy one of
the most cost effective alternatives for all alternatives considered. The selected remedy has the
advantage that workers will not be exposed to physical and contaminant hazards associated with
intrusive activities. The Air Force believes, based on information currently available, the selected
remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs with respect to the evaluation criteria. Ecology
and EPA concur with this opinion. The Air Force expects the selected remedy will satisfy the
statutory requirements in CERCLA section I21(b), will be protective of human health and the
environment, will comply with ARARs, is cost-effective, and utilizes a permanent solution to the
maximum extent practicable. Because the selected remedy relies on passive natural
biodegradation of contaminants, it will not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element.
9.4 SITE PS-1 SOIL CONTAMINATION
The following remedial alternatives were evaluated for PS-1 soil contamination:
• No Action;
• Institutional Controls and Monitoring;
Bioventing (Open System);
• Steam-Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction;
• Excavation and Thermal Desorption:
• Excavation and Soil Washing; and
Excavation and Offsite Disposal.
The selected remedy for remediating petroleum contaminated soils at Site PS-1 is open system
bioventinq. Based on current information, this alternative appears to provide the best balance
of trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to EPA's nine criteria. This section discusses
the performance of the selected remedy against the nine criteria, noting how it compares to the
other options under consideration.
--APBvwasK-9 ROO 9-12 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
9.4.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
All of the alternatives, except "No Action", will provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment by eliminating, reducing, or controlling risk through removal, treatment, or
institutional controls. Open system bioventing will rely on natural biodegradation to reduce toxicity
of petroleum Institutional controls already in place a permit system for intrusive activities. These
controls will regulate human contact with contaminants. Soil sampling will add to the
protectiveness of this alternative by ensuring contamination does not migrate offsite and by
measuring natural biodegradation of petroleum. Natural treatment has the advantage of
eliminating worker risk associated with physical hazards and contaminant exposure during
excavation. Alternatives which involve excavation incur the additional hazard of operating heavy
equipment adjacent to jet fuel storage tanks and pipelines.
9.4.2 Compliance with ARABS
All action alternatives comply with location, action, and chemical-specific ARARs by reducing the
volume or toxicity of petroleum residues in site soil.
The "No Action" alternative is not protective of human health and the environment. It is therefore
dropped from consideration at this site.
9.4.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
All alternatives offer some degree of long term effectiveness and permanence because petroleum
contamination is either biodegraded in place, or extracted and removed from the site. Excavation
combined with offsite disposal, soil washing, or thermal desorption are the most effective because
all contaminated media is removed from the site. Offsite disposal without treatment is the least
preferred option under CERCLA in part because it simply relocates the contamination rather than
reducing or eliminating it. Soil washing and thermal desorption provide better long term
alternatives, because they treat the soil and destroy both low and high volatility organics. Steam-
enhanced soil vapor extraction will, remove most organics, regardless of volatility. Institutional
controls and monitoring and open system bioventing may provide good long term effectiveness
and permanence but may not remediate all organic components equally well.
9.4.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the Contaminants Through
Treatment
Excavation combined with offsite disposal, soil washing, and thermal desorption all result in
approximately a 100% reduction in volume of onsite petroleum contamination. Steam-enhanced
soil vapor extraction alternative will also reduce the volume of petroleum, but less than the
excavation alternatives. Open system bioventing and institutional controls and monitoring rely on
biodegradation to reduce toxicity of petroleum. Biodegradation reduces toxicity by transforming
the hazardous components of petroleum into carbon dioxide, water, and fatty acids. The non-
hazardous components which remain are tar like and tend to form a viscous weathered residue.
Reduction of toxicity or volume resulting from all alternatives is irreversible.
9-13 FINAL-8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaced 29 September 95 Version)
\
-------
9.4.5 Short-term Effectiveness
Open system bioventing would be the fastest alternative to achieve cleanup levels. Excavation
combined with offsite disposal, soil washing, and thermal desorption would be the next fastest
alternatives to reach cleanup levels. Health and safety requirements would have to be
implemented for workers performing the cleanup activities to protect them from physical hazards
associated with excavation adjacent to jet fuel storage tanks and pipelines, and exposure to
contaminated media. Institutional controls and monitoring would take longer to reach cleanup
levels than excavation based alternatives. The steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction alternative
would take the longest time frame to meet cleanup levels. For steam-enhanced soil vapor
extraction and open system bioventing, precautions would need to be taken to protect workers
from physical hazards associated with drill rigs and exposure to hydrocarbon vapors. No
detrimental impact on the surrounding communities is expected from any of the alternatives.
9.4.6 Implementability
All the alternatives meet administrative implementability requirements. Steam-enhanced soil vapor
extraction will, however, require management of -air emissions and soil washing will require
management of air emissions and discharged water. Steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction, soil
washing, and open system bioventing may require treatabiiity testing to confirm they are effective.
An open system bioventing pilot project is currently in operation. Initial results indicate open
system bioventing will significantly enhance the oxygen content of the soil thereby increasing the
biodegradation rate of petroleum contaminants in the soil. Issues related to worker safety,
disruption of facility operations, and impacts to the structural integrity of site facilities make
alternatives involving excavation at this site technically non-implementable. All the alternatives
considered have been used successfully to address similar contaminants at other contaminated
sites, and the skilled workers and materials needed to construct the remedies are readily
available in the area.
9.4.7 Cost
The capital cost, annual operation and maintenance costs, and net present value for each
alternative are listed in Table 9-5. The highest cost alternatives involve soil excavation. Offsite
disposal, soil washing, and thermal desorption have estimated net present values of $10,902,695,
$6,623,074, and $5,274,100, respectively. Aggressive in place alternatives are the next most
expensive. Steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction and open system bioventing have estimated
net present values of $1,129,234 and $266,380, respectively. Institutional controls and
monitoring, is the least expensive alternative with an estimated net present values of $122,511.
Institutional controls alone has an estimated net present value of $14,500.
9.4.8 State Acceptance
The State of Washington has concurred with the selected remedy for this site.
9-14 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
TABLE 9-5. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE PS-1 SOIL
ALTERNATIVE
No Action
Institutional Controls & Monitoring
(2 years O&M)
Bioventing (Open System)
[Selected Remedy]
(2 years O&M)
Steam-Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction
(4 years O&M)
Excavation & Thermal Desorption
Excavation & Soil Washing
Excavation & Off site Disposal
COST ESTIMATES
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance.
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
$14,500
$0
$14,500
$113,021
$1,300
$122,511
$241 ,475
$1 ,300
$266,380
$549,425
$2,600
$1,129,234
$1 ,742,640
$0
$5,274,100
$2,192,874
$0
$6,623,074
$3,505,395
$0
$10,902,695
Net orese.it value based on 5% annual discount rate.
O&M = Operation and Maintenance
CAFB\«OD\SEC-S HOD
9-15
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
9.4.9 Community Acceptance
On May 10, 1995, Fairchild AFB held a public meeting to discuss the Proposed plan for the Priority
2 Sites. Prior to this meeting, copies of the Proposed Plan were sent to over 1 30 local residents
and other interested parties. Comments received during the public meeting and during the 30 day
public comment period indicate local businesses are concerned about the efficiency and short term
effectiveness of the open system bioventing alternative. Community response to the Proposed
Plan is presented in the Responsiveness Summary located in Appendix B.
9.4.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy
The selected remedy for remediation of petroleum contamination in PS-1 soil is open system
bioventing. An open system bioventing pilot project is already in progress. Initial test results
indicate open system bioventing will increase the oxygen content of the soil and enhance natural
-bioremediation of petroleum products in the soil. During site cleanup, human health will be
protected by institutional controls already in place. Any intrusive activities require a Work
Clearance Permit. Personnel requesting site access will be warned about site conditions and will
be required to take appropriate health and safety precautions to avoid exposure to contaminants.
Contaminant migration to ground water is not expected because the site is located on top of a low
permeability clay layer, limiting the possibility of petroleum migration from site soil. Implementation
of the selected remedy poses no technical, administrative, or logistical problems since a pilot x
system is already in place. Open system bioventing is one of the most cost effective alternatives
and has the advantage that workers will not be exposed to physical and contaminant hazards
associated with excavation adjacent to jet fuel storage tanks and pipelines. The Air Force
believes, based on information currently available, the selected remedy provides the best balance
of trade-offs among the other alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria. Ecology and EPA
concur with this opinion. The Air Force expects the selected remedy will satisfy the statutory
requirements in CERCLA section 121 (b), will be protective of human health and the environment,
will comply with ARARs, is cost-effective, utilizes a permanent solution to the maximum extent
practicable, and will satisfy the statutory preference for treatment.
9.5 SITE PS-5 GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
The following remedial alternatives were evaluated for PS-5 ground water contamination:
• No Action;
• Institutional Controls and Monitoring;
• Biosparging;
• Steam Injection with Vapor Extraction; and
• Pump and Treat using Carbon Adsorption.
9-16 FINAL-8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaced 29 September 95 Version)
-------
The selected remedy for remediating petroleum contamination in ground water at Site PS-5 is
institutional controls and monitoring. Based on current information, this alternative appears to
provide the best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to the nine criteria EPA
uses to evaluate alternatives. This section profiles the performance of the selected remedy
against the nine criteria, noting how it compares to the other options under consideration.
9.5.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
All of the alternatives, except "No Action", will provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment by eliminating, reducing, or controlling risk through removal, treatment, or
institutional controls. Institutional controls and monitoring relies on natural biodegradation to
reduce toxicity of petroleum. Institutional controls, already in place, will regulate human contact
with contaminants. Monitoring will add to protectiveness of this alternative by detecting any
tendency for migration of contaminants so that appropriate actions can be taken to prevent offsite
migration. Monitoring will also be used to measure the natural biodegradation of petroleum
residues Natural treatment has the advantage of eliminating worker risk associated with physical
hazards and contaminant exposure during intrusive activities.
9.5.2 Compliance with ARARS
All action alternatives comply with location, action, and chemical-specific ARARs by reducing the
volume or toxicity of petroleum residues in site ground water.
The "No Action" alternative is not protective of human health and the environment. It is therefore
dropped from consideration at this site.
9.5.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
All alternatives offer some degree of long term effectiveness and permanence because petroleum
is either biodegraded in place, or extracted from the ground water and removed from the site.
Institutional controls and monitoring and biosparging may provide good long term effectiveness
and permanence but may not remediate all organic components of petroleum equally well. Steam
injection with vapor extraction and pump and treat with carbon adsorption reduce the volume of
contaminants to yield long term effectiveness and permanence.
9.5.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the Contaminants Through
Treatment
It is estimated pump and treat with carbon adsorption will reduce the volume of petroleum in
ground water by up to 100%. Steam injection smith vapor extraction will result in petroleum
volume reduction, but probably less than pump and treat. Biosparging and institutional controls
and monitoring rely on biodegradation to reduce toxicity of petroleum. Biodegradation reduces
toxicity by transforming the hazardous components of petroleum into carbon dioxide, water, and
fatty acids. The non-hazardous components which remain are tar like and tend to form a viscous
weathered residue. Reduction of toxicity or volume resulting from all alternatives is irreversible.
9-17 FINAL-8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaced 29 September 95 Version)
-------
9.5.5 Short-term Effectiveness
Steam injection with vapor extraction would be the fastest alternative to meet cleanup levels.
Biosparging and pump and treat using carbon adsorption would be the next fastest alternatives to
meet cleanup levels. Institutional controls and monitoring would require the longest time frame to
achieve cleanup levels. For steam injection with vapor extraction, biosparging, and pump and
treat 'using carbon adsorption, precautions would need to be taken to protect workers from
physical hazards associated with drill rigs and exposure to hydrocarbon vapors. Institutional
controls and monitoring has the advantage that there are no physical hazards associated with
heavy equipment and worker exposure to contaminants. No detrimental impact on the
surrounding communities is expected from any of the alternatives.
9.5.6 Implementability
All of the alternatives will meet administrative implementability requirements, however, steam
injection with soil vapor extraction will require management of air emissions and discharged water,
and pump and treat will require management of pumped ground water. All alternatives are also
technically implementable, although, steam injection with vapor extraction and biosparging may
require treatability testing to confirm they are effective. These remedies have been used
successfully to address similar contaminants at other contaminated sites, and the skilled workers
and materials needed to construct the remedies are readily available in the area.
9.5.7 Cost
The capital cost, annual operation and maintenance costs, and net present value for each
alternative are listed in Table 9-6. The highest cost alternative is pump and treat using carbon
adsorption with an estimated present net value of $938,461. Steam injection with vapor extraction
and biosparging have estimated net present values of $325,510 and $268,596, respectively. The
in place alternative, institutional controls and monitoring, is the least expensive with a net present
value of $132,093. Institutional controls alone has an estimated net present value of $14,500.
9.5.8 State Acceptance
The State of Washington has concurred with the selected remedy for this site.
9.5.9 Community Acceptance
On May 10, 1995, Fairchild AFB held a public meeting to discuss the Proposed plan for the Priority
2 Sites. Prior to this meeting, copies of the Proposed Plan were sent to over 130 local residents
and other interested parties. Comments received during the public meeting and during the 30 day
public comments period indicate local businesses believe institutional controls (with or without
monitoring) is not adequately aggressive, and circumvents the intent of the MTCA. The Air Force
addresses this comment in the Responsiveness Summary contained in Appendix B.
9-18 FINAL - 8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaced 29 September 95 Version)
-------
TABLE 9-6. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE PS-5
GROUND WATER
ALTERNATIVE
No Action .
Institutional Controls & Monitoring
[Selected Remedy]
(2 years O&M)
Biosparging
(2 years O&M)
Steam Injection with Vapor Extraction
(2 years O&M)
Pump & Treat using Carbon Adsorption
(12 years O&M)*
COST ESTIMATES
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
$14,500
$0
$14,500
$117,274
$1,300
$132.093
$241 ,920
$2,600
$268,596
$291 ,838
$2.600
$325,510
$510,583
$43,455
$938,461
Net cresent value cased on 5% annual discount rate.
O&M = Ooerations and Maintenance.
O&M time estimate assumes current plume configuration and no natural attenuation. Complimentary natural
attenuation couid reduce O&M time to less than 2 years for pump and treat using carbon adsorption.
9-19
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
9.5.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy
The selected remedy for remediation of petroleum contaminated ground water at Site PS-5 is
institutional controls and monitoring. Institutional controls already in place require a Work
Clearance Permit before any intrusive activities are conducted. Personnel requesting intrusive
access will be warned about site conditions and will be required to take appropriate health and
safety precautions to avoid exposure to contaminants. Ground water sampling will be conducted
to monitor petroleum degradation and migration.
Institutional controls and monitoring will protect human health by preventing exposure to
contaminated soil while petroleum biodegrades. Implementation of the selected remedy poses
no technical, administrative, or logistical problems. Institutional controls and monitoring is one
of the most cost effective alternatives and has the advantage that workers and residents in
adjacent housing will not be exposed to physical and contaminant hazards associated with
intrusive activities or steam production. The Air Force believes, based on information currently
available, the selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs among the other
alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria. Ecology and EPA concur with this opinion.
The Air Force expects the selected remedy will satisfy the statutory requirements in CERCLA
section 121 (b), will be protective of human health and the environment, will comply with ARARs,
is cost-effective, and utilizes a permanent solution to the maximum extent practicable. Because
the selected remedy relies on passive natural biodegradation of contaminants, it will not satisfy
the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element.
9.6 SITE PS-5 SOIL CONTAMINATION
The following remedial alternatives were evaluated for PS-5 soil contamination:
• No Action;
• Institutional Controls (Without Monitoring);
• Bloventing (Closed System);
• Steam-Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction: and
• Excavation and Thermal Desorption;
The selected remedy for remediating petroleum contaminated soils at Site PS-5 is institutional
controls (without monitoring). Based on current information, this alternative appears to provide
the best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to the nine criteria EPA uses
to evaluate alternatives. This section profiles the performance of the selected remedy against
the nine criteria, noting how it compares to the other options under consideration.
9.6.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
All of the alternatives, except "No Action", will provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment by eliminating, reducing, or controlling risk through removal, treatment, or
institutional controls. Institutional controls will rely on natural biodegradation to reduce toxicity
9-20 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
of petroleum. Institutional controls, already in place, will control human contact with
contaminants. Natural treatment has the advantage of eliminating worker risk associated with
physical hazards and contaminant exposure during intrusive activities.
9.6.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
All action alternatives comply with location, action, and chemical-specific ARARs by reducing
either toxiciry or volume of petroleum in site soil.
The "No Action" alternative is not protective of human health and the environment. It is
therefore dropped from consideration at this site.
9.6.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
All alternative is offer some degree of long term effectiveness and permanence because
petroleum is either biodegraded in place! or extracted and destroyed offside.. Excavation and
thermal desorption it the most effective because all contaminated media is removed from the
site. Excavation and thermal desorption effectively destroys both low and high volatility
organics. Steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction will remove most organics, regardless of
volatility. Closed system bioventing and institutional controls may provide good long term
effectiveness and permanence but may not remediate all organic components of petroleum
equally well.
9.6.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the Contaminants Through
Treatment
Excavation and thermal desorption will result in approximately a 100% reduction in volume of
petroleum contamination. Steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction will result in a reduction of
volume of petroleum, but less than excavation and thermal desorption. Closed system
bioventing and institutional controls rely on biodegradation to reduce toxiciry of petroleum.
Biodegradation reduces toxicity by transforming the hazardous components of petroleum into
carbon dioxide, water, and fatty acids. The non-hazardous components which remain are tar
like and tend to form a viscosity weathered residue. Reduction of toxicity or volume resulting
from all alternatives is irreversible
9.6.5 Short-term Effectiveness
Excavation and thermal desorption and steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction would be the
fastest alternatives to meet cleanup levels. Closed system bioventing would be the next fastest
alternative to achieve cleanup levels. For these alternatives, health and safety requirements
would have to be implemented for workers performing the cleanup activities to protect them
from physical hazards associated with excavation, drilling, and exposure to contaminated
media. Institutional controls and monitoring would take the longest time frame to achieve
cleanup levels. Institutional controls has the advantage that there are no physical hazards
associated with heavy equipment al ad worker exposure to contaminants. No detrimental
impact on the surrounding communities is expected from any of the alternatives.
9-21 FINAL - 8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version^
-------
9.6.6 Implementability
All the alternatives will meet administrative implementability requirements, however, steam
enhanced soil vapor extraction will require management of air emissions. All alternatives are
also technically implementable, although, steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction and closed
system bioventing may require treatability testing to confirm they are effective. These remedies
have been used successfully to address similar contaminants at other contaminated sites, and
the skilled workers and materials needed to construct the remedies are readily available in the
area.
9.6.7 Cost
The capital 4 Host, annual operation and maintenance costs, and net present value for each
alternative are listed in Table 9-7. Aggressive in place alternatives are the most expensive at
this site. Steam- enhanced soil vapor extraction and closed system bioventing have estimated
net present values of $326,750 and $274,026. respectively. Excavation and thermal
desorption has an estimated net present value of $1 88,232. Institutional controls has an
estimated net present value of $ 4, 500.
9.6.8 State Acceptance
The State of Washington has concurred with the selected remedy for this site.
\
9.6.9 Community Acceptance
On May 10, 1995, Fairchild AFB held a public meeting to discuss the Proposed plan for the
Priority 2 Sites. Prior to this meeting, copies of the Proposed Plan were sent to over 1 30 local
residents ant other interested parties. Comments received during the public meeting and
during the 30 day public comments period indicate local businesses believe institutional controls
(with or without monitoring) is not adequately aggressive, and circumvents the intent of the
MTCA. The Air Force addresses this comment in the Responsiveness Summary contained in
Appendix B.
9.6.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy
The selected remedy for remediation of petroleum contamination in PS-5 soil is institutional
controls (without monitoring). Institutional controls already in place require a Work Clearance
Permit before any intrusive activities are conducted. Personnel requesting intrusive access will
be warned about site conditions and will be required to take appropriate health and safety
precautions to avoid exposure to contaminants.
Institutional controls will protect human health by preventing exposure to contaminated soil
while petroleum biodegrades. Implementation of the selected remedy poses no technical,
administrative, or logistical problems. Institutional controls is one of the most cost effective
alternatives and has the advantage that workers and residents in adjacent housing will not be
exposed to physical and contaminant hazards associated with any intrusive activities. Ground
9-22 FINAL - 8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
TABLE 9-7. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE PS-5 SOIL
ALTERNATIVE
COST ESTIMATES
No Action
Capital Cost: $14,500
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $0
Net Present Value: $14,500
Institutional Controls (Without
Monitoring) [Selected Remedy]
Capital Cost: $14,500
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $0
Net Present Value: $14,500
Excavation & Thermal Desorption
Capital Cost: $164,267
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $0
Net Present Value: $188,232
Bioventing (Closed System)
(2 years O&M)
Capital Cost: $243,330
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $1,300
Net Present Value: $274,026
Steam-Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction
(2 years O&M)
Capital Cost: $292,997
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $2,600
Net Present Value: $326,750
Net present vaiue dased on 5% annual discount rate.
O&M = Operations and Maintenance.
FAFB\HOO\SEC-9 BOO
9-23
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
water monitoring (discussed under the PS-5 ground water section) will be used to guard against
migration of contamination from site soil into ground water. The Air Force believes, based on
information currently available, the selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs
among the other alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria. Ecology and EPA concur
with this opinion. The Air Force expects the selected remedy will satisfy the statutory
requirements in CERCLA section 121 (b), will be protective of human health and the
environment, will comply with ARARs, is cost-effective, and utilizes a permanent solution to the
maximum extent practicable. Because the selected remedy relies on passive natural
biodegradation of contaminants, it will not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element.
9.7 SITE PS-7 GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
The following remedial alternatives were evaluated for PS-7 ground water contamination:
• No Action;
• Institutional Controls and Monitoring
• Biosparging;
• Steam Injection with Vapor Extraction; and
• Pump and Treat using Carbon Adsorption.
The selected remedy for remediating petroleum contaminated ground water at Site PS-7 is
institutional controls and monitoring. Based on current information, this alternative appears to
provide the test balance of trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to the nine criteria
EPA uses to evaluate alternatives. This section profiles the performance of the selected
remedy against the line criteria, noting how it compares to the other options under
consideration.
9.7.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
All of the alternatives, except "No Actions will provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment by eliminating, reducing, or controlling risk through removal, treatment, or
institutional controls. Institutional controls and monitoring will rely on natural biodegradation to
reduce toxicity of petroleum. Institutional controls, already in place, will regulate human contact
with contaminants. Monitoring will add to protectiveness of this alternative by detecting any
tendency for migration of contaminants so that appropriate actions can be taken to prevent
offsite migration. Monitoring will also be used to measure the natural biodegradation of
petroleum residues. Natural treatment has the advantage of eliminating worker risk associated
with physical hazards and contaminant exposure during intrusive activities.
9.7.2 Compliance with ARARS
All action alternatives comply with location, action, and chemical-specific ARARs by reducing
either the volume or toxicity of petroleum in site ground water.
The "No Action" alternative is not protective of human health and environment. It was therefore
dropped from consideration at this site.
9-24 FINAL - 8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
9.7.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
All alternatives o'ffer some degree of long term effectiveness and permanence because petroleum
is either biodegraded in place, or extracted from the ground water and removed from the site.
Institutional controls and monitoring and biosparging can provide good long term effectiveness
and permanence but may not remediate all organic components of petroleum equally well.
Steam injection with vapor extraction and pump and treat with carbon adsorption reduce the
volume of contaminants to yield long term effectiveness and permanence.
9.7.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the Contaminants
Through Treatment
It is estimated pump and treat with carbon adsorption will reduce the volume of petroleum in
ground water by up to 100%. Steam injection with vapor extraction will result in a reduction of
contaminant volume, but probably less than pump and treat. Open system bioventing and
institutional controls and monitoring rely on natural biodegradation to reduce toxicity of
petroleum. Biodegradation reduces toxicity by transforming the hazardous components of
petroleum into carbon dioxide, water, and fatty acids. The non-hazardous components which
remain are tar like and tend to form a viscous weathered residue. Reduction of toxicity or volume
resulting from all alternatives is irreversible.
9.7.5 Short-term Effectiveness
Steam injection with vapor extraction and biosparging would be the fastest alternatives to meet
cleanup levels. Pump and treat using carbon adsorption would be the next fastest alternative
to meet cleanup levels. Institutional controls and monitoring would take the longest time frame
to achieve cleanup levels. For steam injection with vapor extraction, biosparging, and pump and
treat using carbon adsorption, precautions would need to be taken to protect workers from
physical hazards associated with drill rigs and exposure to hydrocarbon vapors. Institutional
controls and monitoring has the advantage that there are no physical hazards associated with
heavy equipment and worker exposure to contaminants. No detrimental impact on the
surrounding communities is expected from any of the alternatives.
9.7.6 Implementability
All the alternatives will meet administrative implementability requirements, however, steam
injection with soil vapor extraction will require management of air emissions and discharged
water, and pump and treat will require management of pumped ground water. All alternatives
are also technically implementable, although, steam injection with vapor extraction and
biosparging may require treatability testing to confirm they are effective. These remedies have
been used successfully to address similar contaminants at other contaminated sites, and the
skilled workers and materials needed to construct the remedies are readily available in the area.
9-25 FINAL-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
9.7.7 Cost
The capital cost, annual operation and maintenance costs, and net present value for each
alternative are listed in Table 9-8. The highest cost alternative is pump and treat using carbon
adsorption with an estimated present net value of $939,312. Steam injection with vapor extraction
and biosparging have estimated net present values of $349,693 and $276,138, respectively.
Institutional controls and monitoring has an estimated net present value
$134,232. Institutional controls alone has an estimated net present value of $14,500.
9.7.8 State Acceptance
The State of Washington has concurred with the selected remedy for this site.
9.7.9 Community Acceptance
On May 10, 1995, Fairchild AFB held a public .meeting to discuss the Proposed plan for the Priority
2 Sites. Prior to this meeting, copies of the Proposed Plan were sent to over 130 local residents
and other interested parties. Comments received during the public meeting and during the 30 day
public comments period indicate local businesses believe institutional controls (with or without
monitoring) is not adequately aggressive, and circumvents the intent of the MTCA. The Air Force
Addresses this comment in the Responsiveness Summary contained in Appendix B.
9.7.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy
The selected remedy for remediation of petroleum contamination in PS-7 ground water is
institutional controls with monitoring. Institutional controls already in place require a Work
Clearance Permit before any intrusive activities are conducted. Personnel requesting intrusive
access will be warned about site conditions and will be required to take appropriate health and
safety precautions to avoid exposure to contaminants. No. 6 fuel oil is the primary source of
petroleum contamination at PS-7. Residual fuel oil is viscous, and is unlikely to migrate through
the soil into the ground water. Ground water sampling will be conducted to monitor petroleum
degradation and confirm no additional fuel oil migrates to ground water.
Institutional controls and monitoring will protect human health by preventing exposure to
contaminated soil while petroleum biodegrades. Implementation of the selected remedy poses no
technical, administrative, or logistical problems. Institutional controls and monitoring is one of the
most cost effective alternatives and has the advantage that workers will not be exposed to physical
and contaminant hazards associated with intrusive activities. The Air Force considers, based on
information currently available, the selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs among
9-26 FINAL - 8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
TABLE 9-8. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTW •* "ES FOR SITE PS-7
- GROUND WATER
ALTERNATIVE
No Action
Institutional Controls & Monitoring
[Selected Remedy]
(3 years O&M)
Biosparging
(2 years O&M)
Steam Injection with Vapor Extraction
(2 years O&M)
Pump & Treat using Carbon Adsorption
(12 years O&M)*
COST ESTIMATES
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
$14,500
$0
$14,500
$118,027
$1 ,300
$1 34,232
$244,378
$2,600
$276,138
$299,61 1
$2,600
$349,693
$510,965
$43,455
$939,312
Net present value based on 5% annual discount rate.
O&M = Operations and Maintenance.
O&M time estimates assume current plume configuration and no natural attenuation. Complimentary natural
attenuation may reauce O&M time to less than 3 years for pump and treat using carbon adsorption
C-9 aoo
9-27
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
the other alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria. Ecology and EPA concur with this
opinion. The Air Force expects the selected remedy will satisfy the statutory requirements in
CERCLA section 1 21 (b), will be protective of human health and the environment will comply
with ARARs, is cost-effective, and utilizes a permanent solution to the maximum extent
practicable. Because the selected remedy relies on passive natural biodegradation of
contaminants, it will not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element.
9.8 SITE PS-7 SOIL CONTAMINATION
The following remedial alternatives were evaluated for PS-7 soil contamination:
• No Action;
• Institutional Controls (Without Monitoring);
• Bioventing (Closed System);
• Steam-Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction; and
• Excavation and Thermal Desorption.
The selected remedy for remediating petroleum contaminated soils at Site PS-7 is institutional
controls (without monitoring. Based on current information, this alternative appears to provide
the best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to the nine criteria EPA uses
to evaluate alternatives. This section profiles the performance of the selected remedy against
the nine criteria, noting how it compares to the other options under consideration.
9.8.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
All of the alternatives, except "No Action", will provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment by eliminating, reducing, or controlling risk through removal, treatment, or
institutional controls. Institutional controls will rely on natural biodegradation to reduce toxicity
of components of No. 6 fuel oil. Institutional controls, which include an excavation permit
process already in place, will control human contact with contaminants. The protectiveness of
institutional controls will be verified by ground water sampling (discussed in the selected
remedy for PS-7 ground water section) which will be used to confirm no contaminants migrate
into ground water. Natural treatment has the advantage of eliminating worker risk associated
with physical hazards and contaminant exposure during intrusive activities.
9.8.2 Compliance with ARARS
All action alternatives comply with location, action, and chemical-specific ARARs by reducing
either toxicity or volume of petroleum in site soil
The "No Action" alternative is not protective of human health and the environment. It was
therefore dropped from consideration at this site.
9-28 FINAL - 8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
9.8.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
All alternatives offer some degree of long term effectiveness and permanence because petroleum
is either biodegraded in place, or extracted and destroyed offsite. Excavation and thermal
desorption is the most effective because all contaminated media are removed from the site.
Thermal desorption effectively destroys both low and high volatility organics. Steam-enhanced
soil vapor extraction will remove most organics, regardless of volatility. Closed system bioventing
and institutional controls may provide good long term effectiveness and permanence but may
not remediate all organic components of petroleum equally well.
9.8.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the Contaminants Through
Treatment
Excavation and thermal desorption will result in approximately a 100% reduction in volume of
petroleum contamination. Steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction alternative will result in a
reduction of volume of petroleum, but less than excavation and thermal desorption. Closed
system bioventing and institutional controls rely on biodegradation to reduce toxicity of
petroleum. Biodegradation reduces toxicity by transforming the hazardous components of
petroleum into carbon dioxide, water, and fatty acids. The non-hazardous components which
remain are tar like and tend to form a viscous weathered residue. Reduction of toxicity or volume
resulting from all alternatives is irreversible.
9.8.5 Short-term Effectiveness
Excavation and thermal desorption and steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction would be the
fastest alternatives to reach cleanup levels. Health and safety requirements would have to be
implemented for workers performing the cleanup activities to protect them from physical hazards
associated with excavation activities, drill rigs, and exposure to contaminated media. Closed
system bioventing would be the next fastest alternative to meet cleanup levels. For this
alternative precautions would need to be taken to protect workers from physical hazards
associated with drill rigs and exposure to hydrocarbon vapors. Institutional controls would take
require the longest time frame to achieve cleanup levels. Institutional controls has the advantage
that there are no physical hazards associated with heavy equipment and worker exposure to
contaminants. No detrimental impact on the surrounding communities is expected from any of
the alternatives.
9.8.6 Implementability
All the alternatives will meet administrative implementability requirements, however, steam-
enhanced soil vapor extraction will require management of air emissions. Technical
implementability is an issue for excavation and thermal desorption because the majority of the
soil contamination at this site lies beneath Building 1350. Excavation of the contaminated soil
would threaten the structural integrity of the building. All other alternatives are technically
implementable, although, steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction and closed system bioventing
FAFBwoo-.sEc.9Roo 9-29 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
may require treatability testing to confirm they are effective. These remedies have been used
successfully to address similar contaminants at other contaminated sites, and the skilled workers
and materials needed to construct the remedies are readily available in the area.
9.8.7 Cost
The capital cost, annual operation and maintenance costs, and net present value for each
alternative are listed in Table 9-9. Aggressive in place alternatives are the most expensive at this
site. Steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction and closed system bioventing have estimated net
present values of $321,846 and $267,335, respectively. Excavation and thermal desorption has
an estimated net present value of $171,376.
9.8.8 State Acceptance
The State of Washington has concurred with the selected remedy for this site.
9.8.9 Community Acceptance
On May 10, 1995, Fairchild AFB held a public meeting to discuss the Proposed plan for the Priority
2 Sites. Prior to this meeting, copies of the Proposed Plan were sent to over 130 local residents
and other interested parties. Comments received during the public meeting and during the 30 day
public comments period indicate local businesses believe institutional controls (with or without
monitoring) is not adequately aggressive, and circumvents the intent of the MTCA. The Air Force
addresses this comment in the Responsiveness Summary contained in Appendix B.
9.8.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy
The selected remedy for remediation of petroleum contamination in PS-7 soil is institutional
controls (without monitoring). Institutional controls already in place require a Work Closure Permit
for intrusive activities. Personnel requesting intrusive access will be warned about site conditions
and will be required to take appropriate health and safety precautions to avoid exposure to
contaminants. Most contaminated soil is located beneath Building 1350. The primary component
of petroleum contamination at this site is No. 6 fuel oil. Fuel oil is viscous, and is unlikely to
migrate through the soil or into the ground water. Ground water sampling (discussed in the
selected remedy for PS-7 ground water section) will be used to confirm no fuel oil migrates into
ground water.
Institutional controls will protect human health by preventing exposure to contaminated soil while
petroleum biodegrades. Implementation of the selected remedy poses no technical,
administrative, or logistical problems. Institutional controls is one of the most cost effective
alternatives and has the advantage that workers will not be exposed to physical and contaminant
hazards associated with excavating or intrusive activities. Ground water monitoring (discussed
under the PS-7 ground water section) will be used to guard against migration of contamination
from site soil into ground water. The Air Force considers, based on information currently
9-30 FINAL-8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
TABLE 9-9. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE PS-7 SOIL
ALTERNATIVE
COST ESTIMATES
No Action
Capital Cost: $14,500
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $0
Net Present Value: $14,500
Institutional Controls (Without
Monitoring) [Selected Remedy]
Capital Cost: k $14,500
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $0
Net Present Value: $14,500
Excavation & Thermal Desorption
Capital Cost: $159,036
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $0
Net Present Value: $171,376
Bioventing (Closed System)
(2 years O&M)
Capital Cost: $240,960
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $1,300
Net Present Value: $267,335
Steam-Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction
(2 years O&M)
Capital Cost: $291,240
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $2,600
Net Present Value: $321,846
Net present value based on 5% annual discount rate
O&M = Operation and Maintenance
CAFB>HOO1SEC-9 BOD
9-31
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
available, the selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs among the other
alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria. Ecology and EPA concur with this opinion.
The Air Force expects the selected remedy will satisfy the statutory requirements in CERCLA
section 121 (b), will be protective of human health and the environment, will comply with ARARs,
is cost-effective, and utilizes a permanent solution to the maximum extent practicable. Because
the selected remedy relies on passive natural biodegradation of contaminants, it will not satisfy
the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element.
When Building 1350 is demolished, the Air Force will address underlying soil contamination.
9.9 SITE PS-10 SOIL CONTAMINATION
The following remedial alternatives were evaluated for PS-10 soil contamination:
• No Action:
• Institutional Controls and Monitoring;
Soil Vapor Extraction;
• Steam-Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction;
• Excavation and Thermal Desorption:
• Excavation and Soil Washing; and
• Excavation and Offsite Disposal (Including Pre-disposal Incineration).
The selected remedies for remediating contaminated in soils at Site PS-10 are excavation and
offsite disposal for TCE contamination and institutional controls and monitoring for petroleum
contamination. Excavation and offsite disposal will target TCE contamination and institutional
controls and monitoring will be used to remediate petroleum contamination. Based on current
information, these alternatives appears to provide the best balance of trade-offs among the
alternatives with respect to EPA's nine criteria. This section discusses the performance of the
selected remedies against the nine criteria, noting how it compares to the other options under
consideration.
9.9.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
For petroleum contamination, the "No Action", steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction, and soil
vapor extraction are not protective of human health and the environment. 'No Action" would
allow human exposure- to contaminated surface soil, and provide no control over migration of
contamination. Soil vapor extraction and steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction are not protective
because they are rendered ineffective by the shallow and narrow site geometry The remaining
alternatives will provide at least adequate protection of human health and the environment by
eliminating, reducing, or controlling risk through removal, treatment, or institutional controls.
Institutional controls and monitoring is protective of human health and the environment because
it relies on biodegradation to reduce the toxicity of contaminants while institutional controls limit
human contact with contaminated soil. Monitoring will add to protectiveness of this alternative
by detecting any tendency for migration of contaminants so that appropriate actions can be
taken to prevent offsite migration. Monitoring will also be used to measure the natural
9-32 FINAL • 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
biodegradation of petroleum residues. Natural treatment has the advantage of eliminating
worker risk associated with physical hazards and contaminant exposure during excavation.
Excavation combined with soil washing, thermal desorption, or offside disposal are all protective
of human health and the environment These alternatives completely remove contaminated soil
from the site and either treat or dispose of it offside.
For TCE contamination, excavation and thermal desorption, excavation and soil washing, and
excavation and offsite disposal (including pre-disposal incineration) are the only alternatives
which are protective of human health and the environment. Under LDRs incineration is the
BOAT for TCE contaminated soil. Alternatives based on biodegradation are not protective
because TCE degrades to vinyl chloride which is a more hazardous waste than TCE.
9.9.2 Compliance with ARABS
For petroleum contamination, soil vapor extraction and steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction
do not comply with ARARs because they are rendered ineffective by the shallow and narrow
site geometry. Institutional controls and monitoring, and excavation combined with soil
washing, thermal desorption, or offside disposal all comply with ARARs.
For TCE contamination, excavation and soil washing, excavation and thermal desorption, and
excavation and offside disposal (including pre-disposal incineration) are the only alternatives
that comply with ARARs. Alternatives based on biodegradation do not comply with ARARs
because TCE degrades to vinyl chloride which is a more hazardous waste than TCE. Under
LDR, incineration is the BOAT for TCE contaminated soil.
The "No Action", steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction, and soil vapor extraction alternatives
do not comply with the threshold criteria for petroleum and TCE. They will therefore be dropped
from further consideration at this site. The only alternatives to meet threshold criteria for TCE
contaminated soil are excavation based.
9.9.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
For petroleum contamination, all alternatives offer some degree of long term effectiveness and
permanence because petroleum is either biodegraded in place, or extracted and removed from
the site. Excavation combined with offside disposal, soil washing, or thermal desorption are the
most effective and permanent because contaminated media is removed from the site. Offsite
disposal without treatment is the least preferred option under Superfund. Thermal desorption is
a better alternative, because it treats the soil and effectively destroy both low and high volatility
organics. Institutional controls and monitoring provide good long term effectiveness and
permanence, however, it may not remediate all organic components of petroleum equally well.
9-33 FINAL - 8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
For TCE contamination, excavation combined with soil washing, thermal desorption. or off site
disposal (including predisposal incineration) are highly effective and permanent because all
contaminated media is removed from the site and treated. Resulting decontaminated soil would
be landfilled.
9.9.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the Contaminants Through
Treatment
For petroleum contamination, excavation combined with offsite disposal, soil washing, or thermal
desorption will result in approximately a 100% reduction in volume of onsite petroleum
contamination. Institutional controls and monitoring rely on biodegradation to reduce toxicity of
petroleum. Biodegradation reduces toxicity by transforming the hazardous components of
petroleum into carbon dioxide, water, and fatty acids. The non-hazardous components which
remain are tar like and tend to form a viscous weathered residue. Reduction of toxicity or volume
resulting from all alternatives is irreversible.
For TCE contamination, excavation and offsite disposal, including predisposal incineration, will
reduce the toxicity of TCE contaminated soil. Excavation combined with soil washing or thermal
desorption will reduce the volume of contaminated media. Reduction in toxicity or volume
resulting from these alternatives is irreversible.
9.9.5 Short-term Effectiveness
\
For petroleum contamination, excavation combined with thermal desorption, soil washing, and
offsite disposal would be the fastest alternatives to meet cleanup levels. Health and safety
requirements would have to be implemented for workers performing the cleanup activities to
protect them from physical hazards associated with excavation, intrusive activities, and exposure
to contaminated media. The institutional controls and monitoring alternative would take longer
than the other alternatives to meet cleanup levels. Institutional controls and monitoring has the
'advantage that there are no physical hazards associated with heavy equipment and worker
exposure to contaminants. No detrimental impact on the surrounding communities is expected
from any of the alternatives.
For TCE contamination, all excavation based alternatives would meet cleanup levels very quickly.
Health and safety requirements would have to be initiated for workers involved in the excavation.
soil washing, thermal desorption, and incineration phases of the process.
9.9.6 Implementabiltty
For petroleum contamination, all the alternatives will meet administrative implementability
requirements, however, soil washing will require management of air emissions and discharged
water. All alternatives are also technically implementabie, although, soil washing may require
treatability testing to confirm it is effective. These remedies have been used successfully to
address similar contaminants at other contaminated sites, and the skilled workers and materials
needed to construct the remedies are readily available in the area.
9-34 FINAL-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
For TCE contamination, all excavation based alternatives will meet both administrative and
technical implementability requirements. Soil washing will require air emission and water
discharge management, and thermal desorption may require air emission management. Soil
washing may require treatability testing to confirm effectiveness.
9.9.7 Cost
For petroleum contamination, the capital cost, annual operation and maintenance costs, and
net present value for each alternative are listed in Table 9-1 0. The highest cost alternatives
involve soil excavation. Excavation, of 600 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil,
combined with soil washing and thermal desorption have estimated net present values of
$304,975 and $244,195, respectively. Institutional controls and monitoring for petroleum
contaminated soil has an estimated net present value of $125,182.
For TCE contamination, the capital cost, annual operation and maintenance cost, and net
present value of for excavation and offsite disposal is shown in Table 9-10. The net present
value of excavation and offsite disposal (including predisposal^ incineration) for 67 cubic yards of
TCE contaminated soil is $356,780.
9.9.8 State Acceptance
The State of Washington has concurred with the selected remedy for this site.
9.9.9 Community Acceptance
On May 10, 1995, Fairchild AFB held a public meeting to discuss the Proposed plan for the
Priority 2 Sites. Prior to this meeting, copies of the Proposed Plan were sent to over 130 local
residents and other interested parties. Comments received during the public meeting and
during the 30 day public comments period indicate local.businesses believe institutional controls
(with or without monitoring) is not adequately aggressive, and circumvents the-intent of the
MTA. The Air Force addresses this comment in the Responsiveness Summary contained in
Appendix B.
9.9.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy
The selected remedies for remediating TCE and petroleum contaminated in soils at Site PS-10
are excavation and offsite disposal, including predisposal incineration, and institutional controls
and monitoring, respectively. Excavation and offside disposal will target TCE contamination
and institutional controls and monitoring will be used to remediate petroleum contamination.
Institutional controls already in place require a Work Clearance Permit to conduct intrusive
activities. The site is located adjacent to the flightline, so only Air Force personnel and
authorized contractors can gain access. Personnel requesting intrusive site access will be
warned about site conditions and will be required to take appropriate health and safety
precautions to avoid exposure to contaminants. Soil sampling will be conducted to monitor
petroleum degradation.
9-35 FINAL - 8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
TABLE 9-10. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE PS-10 SOIL
ALTERNATIVE
COST ESTIMATES
No Action
Capital Cost: $14,500
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $0
Net Present Value: $14,500
Institutional Controls & Monitoring
[Selected Remedy]
(4 years O&M)
Capital Cost: $113,849
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $1,300
Net Present Value: $125,182
Steam-Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction
(2 years O&M)
Capital Cost: $296.937
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $2,600
Net Present Value: $340,392
Excavation & Thermal Desorption
Capital Cost: $181,635
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $0
Net Present Value: $244,195
Soil Vapor Extraction
(2 years O&M)
Capital Cost: $264.157
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $2,600
Net Present Value: $328,970
Excavation & Soil Washing
Capital Cost: $216.875
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $0
Net Present Value: $304,975
Excavation & Offsite Disposal
[Selected Remedy]
Capital Cost: $217,825
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $0
Net Present Value: $356,780
Net present value based on 5% annual discount rate.
O&M = Operation and Maintenance.
'APB\BOD\S£C-9 ROD
9-36
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
The selected remedies will destroy TCE contamination and protect human health by preventing
exposure to contaminated soil while petroleum biodegrades. Implementation of the selected
remedies pose no technical, administrative, or logistical problems. The selected remedies are
the most cost effective alternatives and have the advantage that workers will be exposed to a
minimum of physical and contaminant hazards associated with excavating. The Air Force
considers, based on information currently available, the selected remedies provide the best
balance of trade-offs among the other alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria. Ecology
and EPA concur with this opinion. The Air Force expects the selected remedy will satisfy the
statutory requirements in CERCLA section 121(b), will be protective of human health .and the
environment, will comply with ARARs, is cost-effective, and utilizes a permanent solution to the
maximum extent practicable. Because institutional controls and monitoring relies on passive
natural biodegradation of contaminants, it will not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment
as a principal element.
9.10 SITE FT-2 GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
The following remedial alternatives were evaluated for FT-2 ground water contamination:
• No Action:
• Institutional Controls and Monitoring;
• Biosparging;
• Steam Injection with Vapor Extraction; and
Pump and Treat using Carbon Adsorption.
The selected remedy for remediating petroleum contamination in ground water at Site FT-2 is
institutional controls and monitoring. Based on current information, this alternative appears to
provide the best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to EPA's nine criteria.
This section discusses the performance of the selected remedy against the nine criteria, noting
how it compares to the other options under consideration.
9.10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
All of the alternatives, except "No Action", will provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment by eliminating, reducing, or controlling risk through removal, treatment, or
institutional controls. Institutional controls and monitoring will rely on natural biodegradation to
reduce toxicity of petroleum. Institutional controls, already in place, will regulate human contact
with contaminants while they biodegrade. Monitoring will add to protectiveness of this alternative
by detecting any tendency for migration of contaminants so that appropriate actions can be
taken to prevent offsite migration. Monitoring will also be used to measure the natural
biodegradation of petroleum residues. Natural treatment has the advantage of eliminating worker
risk associated with physical hazards and contaminant exposure during intrusive activities.
9-37 FINAL-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
9.10.2 Compliance with ARABS
All action alternatives comply with location, action, and chemical-specific ARARs by reducing
either volume or toxicity of petroleum in site ground water.
The "No Action" alternative is not protective of human health and the environment from
consideration at this site.
9.10.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
All alternatives offer some degree of long term effectiveness and permanence because
petroleum is either biodegraded in place, or extracted from the ground water and removed from
the site. Institutional controls and monitoring and biosparging may provide good long term
effectiveness and permanence but may not remediate all organic components of petroleum
equally well. Steam injection with vapor extraction and pump and treat with carbon adsorption
reduce the volume of contaminants to yield long term effectiveness and permanence.
9.10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the Contaminants Through
Treatment
It is estimated pump and treat with carbon adsorption will reduce the volume of petroleum in
ground water by up to 100%. Steam injection with vapor extraction will result in petroleum
volume reduction, but probably less than pump and treat. Open system bioventing and
institutional controls and monitoring rely on biodegradation to reduce toxicity of petroleum.
Biodegradation reduces toxicity by transforming the hazardous components of petroleum into
carbon dioxide, water, and fatty acids. The non-hazardous components which remain are tar
like and tend to form a viscous weathered residue. Reduction of toxicity or volume resulting
from all alternatives is irreversible.
9.10.5 Short-term Effectiveness
Steam injection with vapor extraction would be the fastest alternative to meet cleanup levels.
The next fastest alternatives to meet cleanup levels would be biosparging and pump and treat
with carbon adsorption. For steam injection with vapor extraction, biosparging, and pump and
treat using carbon adsorption, precautions would need to be taken to protect workers from
physical hazards associated with drill rigs and exposure to hydrocarbon vapors. Institutional
controls and monitoring would require the longest time frame to achieve cleanup levels.
Institutional controls and monitoring has the advantage that there are no physical hazards
associated with intrusive activities equipment and worker exposure to contaminants. No
detrimental impact on the surrounding communities is expected from any of the alternatives.
9.10.6 Implementability
All the alternatives will meet administrative implementability requirements, however, steam
injection with soil vapor extraction will require management of air emissions and discharged
water, and pump and treat will require management of pumped ground water. All alternatives
9-38 FINAL-8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
are also technically implementable, although, steam injection with vapor extraction and
biosparging may require treatability testing to confirm they are effective. These remedies have
been used successfully to address similar contaminants at other contaminated sites, and the
skilled workers and materials needed to construct the remedies are readily available in the area.
9.10.7 Cost
The capital cost, annual operation and maintenance costs, and net present value for each
alternative are listed in Table 9-11. The highest cost alternative is pump and treat using carbon
adsorption with an estimated present net value of $936,760. Steam injection with vapor
extraction and biosparging have estimated net present values of $391.476 and $297,888,
respectively. Institutional controls and monitoring is the least expensive alternative with a net
present value of $1 34,461. Institutional controls alone has an estimated net present value of
$14,500
9.10.8 State Acceptance
The State of Washington has concurred with the selected remedy for this site.
9.10.9 Community Acceptance
On May .10, 1995, Fairchild AFB held a public meeting to discuss the Proposed plan for the
Priority 2 Sites. Prior to this meeting, copies of the Proposed Plan were sent to over 130 local
residents and other interested parties. Comments received during the public meeting and during
the 30 day public comments period indicate local businesses believe institutional controls (with
or without monitoring) is not adequately aggressive, and circumvents the intent of the MTCA.
The Air Force Addresses this comment in the Responsiveness Summary contained in Appendix
B.
9.10.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy
The selected remedy for remediation of petroleum contamination in FT-2 ground water is
institutional controls with monitoring. Institutional controls already require a Work Clearance
Permit before any intrusive activities are conducted. Personnel requesting intrusive access will
be warned about site conditions and will be required to take appropriate health and safety
precautions to avoid exposure to contaminants. Ground water sampling will be conducted to
monitor petroleum degradation and confirm no additional petroleum migrates into ground water.
The Air Force is considering installing additional ground water monitoring wells to better define
the contaminant plume and monitor the decay of petroleum.
Institutional controls and monitoring will protect human health by preventing exposure to
contaminated ground water while petroleum biodegrades. Implementation of the selected
remedy poses no technical, administrative, or logistical problems. Institutional controls and
monitoring is one of the most cost effective alternatives and has the advantage that workers will
not be exposed to physical and contaminant hazards associated with intrusive activities. The Air
9-39 FINAL - 8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
TABLE 9-11. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE FT-2
GROUND WATER
ALTERNATIVE
No Action
Institutional Controls & Monitoring
[Selected Remedy]
(5 years O&M)
Biosparging
(3 years O&M)
Steam Injection with Vapor Extraction
(2 years O&M)
Pump & Treat using Carbon Adsorption
(12 years O&M)*
COST ESTIMATES
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation & Maintenance:
Net Present Value:
$14,500
$0
$14,500
$117,833
$1 ,300
$134,461
$250,775
S2,600
$297,888
$315,925
$2.600
$391 ,476
$509.820
$43,455
$936,760
Net present value based on 5% annual discount rate.
O&M = Operations and Maintenance.
O&M time estimate assumes current plume configuration and no natural attenuation. Comoiememary natural
attenuation may reduce O&M time to less than 5 years for pump ana treat using caroon adsorption.
?AFB\ROO\SeC-9 ROD
9-40
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
Force, based on information currently available, considers the selected remedy as providing the
best balance of trade-offs among the other alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria.
Ecology and EPA concur with this opinion. The Air Force expects the selected remedy will satisfy
the statutory requirements in CERCLA section 121 (b), will be protective of human health and the
environment, will comply with ARARs, is cost-effective, and utilizes a permanent solution to the
maximum extent practicable. Because the selected remedy relies on passive natural
biodegradation of contaminants, it will not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element.
9.11 SITE FT-2 SOIL CONTAMINATION
The following remedial alternatives were evaluated for FT-2 soil contamination:
• No Action;
• Institutional Controls and Monitoring;
• Bioventing (Open System);
• Steam-Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction;
• Excavation and Thermal Desorption;
• Excavation and Soil Washing; and
• Excavation and Offside Disposal. •
The selected remedy for petroleum contaminated soils at Site FT-2 is institutional controls and.
monitoring Based on current information, this alternative appears to provide the best balance of
trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to the nine criteria EPA uses to evaluate
alternatives. This section discusses the performance of the selected remedy against the nine
criteria, noting how it compares to the other options under consideration.
9.11.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
All of the alternatives, except "No Action", will provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment by eliminating, reducing, or controlling risk through removal, treatment, or
. institutional controls. Institutional controls and monitoring will rely on natural biodegradation to.
reduce toxicity of petroleum products. Institutional controls, already in place, will control human
contact with contaminants. Monitoring will add to protectiveness of this alternative by detecting
any tendency for migration of contaminants so that appropriate actions can be taken to prevent
offside migration. Monitoring will also be used to measure the natural biodegradation of petroleum
residues. Natural treatment has the advantage of eliminating worker risk associated with physical
hazards and contaminant exposure during any intrusive activities.
9.11.2 Compliance with ARARS
All action alternatives comply with location, action, and chemical-specific ARARs by reducing
either the toxicity or volume of petroleum contamination in site soil.
9-41 FINAL - 8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
The "No Action" alternative is no protective of human health and the environment. It is therefore
dropped from consideration at this site
9.11.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
All alternatives offer some degree of long term effectiveness and permanence because petroleum
products are either biodegraded in place, or extracted and removed from the site. Excavation
combined with offside disposal, soil washing, or thermal desorption are the most effective because
all contaminated media is removed from the site. Offside disposal without treatment is the least
preferred option under CERCLA. Soil washing and thermal desorption are better alternatives,
because they treat the soil and effectively destroy both low and high volatility organics. Steam-
enhanced soil vapor extraction will remove most organics, regardless of volatility. Open system
bioventing and institutional controls and monitoring may provide good long term effectiveness and
permanence but may not remediate all organic components of petroleum equally well.
9.11.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the Contaminants Through
Treatment
Excavation combined offside disposal, soil washing, and thermal desorption all result in
approximately a 100% reduction in volume of onsite petroleum contamination. Steam-enhanced
soil vapor extraction alternative will also reduce the volume of petroleum contamination, but less
than the excavation alternatives. Open system bioventing and institutional controls and monitoring
rely on biodegradation to reduce toxicity of petroleum. Biodegradation reduces toxicity by
transforming the hazardous components of petroleum into carbon dioxide, water, and fatty acids.
The non-hazardous components which remain are tar like and tend to form a viscous weathered
residue. Reduction of toxicity or volume resulting from all alternatives is irreversible.
9.11.5 Short-term Effectiveness
Open system bioventing would be the fastest alternative to meet cleanup levels. For this
alternative, precautions would need to be taken to protect workers from physical hazards
associated with drill rigs and exposure to hydrocarbon vapors. Excavation combined with offsite
disposal, soil washing, and thermal desorption would be the next fastest alternatives to achieve
cleanup levels. Health and safety requirements would have to be implemented for workers
performing the cleanup activities to protect them from physical hazards associated with excavation
and exposure to contaminated media. Institutional controls and monitoring will require more time
than excavation based alternatives to achieve cleanup levels. Institutional controls and monitoring
has the advantage that there are no physical hazards associated with heavy equipment and
worker exposure to contaminants. Steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction would be the slowest
alternative to meet cleanup levels. For this alternative, precautions would be taken to protect
workers from physical hazards associated with drill rigs and exposure to hydrocarbon vapors. No
detrimental impact on the surrounding communities is expected from any of the alternatives.
9-42 FINAL - 8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
9.11.6 Implementability
All the alternatives' will meet administrative implementability requirements. Steam-enhanced soil
vapor extraction will, however, require management of air emissions and soil washing will require
management of air emissions and discharged water. All alternatives are also technically
implementable, although, steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction, open system bioventing and soil
washing may require treatability testing to confirm they are effective. These remedies have been
used successfully to address similar contaminants at other contaminated sites, and the skilled
workers and materials needed to construct the remedies are readily available in the area.
9.11.7 Cost
The capital cost, annual operation and maintenance costs, and net present value for each
alternative are listed in Table 9-12. The highest cost alternatives involve soil excavation.
Offside disposal, soil washing, and thermal desorption have estimated net present values of
$6,397,835, $3,929,971, and $3,129,985, respectively. Aggressive in place alternatives are the
next most expensive. Steam-enhanced soil vapor extraction and open system bioventing have
estimated net present values of $782,766 and $261,678, respectively. Institutional controls and
monitoring has an estimated net present value of $122,511. Institutional controls alone has an
estimated net present value of $14,500.
9.11.8 State Acceptance
The State of Washington has concurred with the selected remedy for this site.
9.11.9 Community Acceptance
On May 10, 1995, Fairchild AFB held a public meeting to discuss the Proposed plan for the Priority
2 Sites. Prior to this meeting, copies of the Proposed Plan were sent to over 130 local residents
and other interested parties. Comments received during the public meeting and during the 30 day
public comments period indicate local businesses believe institutional controls (with or without
monitoring) is not adequately aggressive, and circumvents the intent of the MTCA. The Air Force
addresses this comment in the Responsiveness Summary contained in Appendix B.
9.11.10 Summary of the Selected Remedy
The selected remedy for remediation of petroleum contamination in FT-2 soil is institutional
controls and monitoring. Institutional controls already in place require a Work Clearance Permit for
intrusive activities. The site is located adjacent to the flightline, so only Air Force personnel and
authorized contractors can gain access. Personnel requesting site access will be warned about
site conditions and will be required to take appropriate health and safety precautions to avoid
exposure to contaminants. Soil sampling will be conducted to monitor petroleum degradation and
migration.
9-43 FINAL - 8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
TABLE 9-12. .REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES FOR SITE FT-2 SOIL
ALTERNATIVE '
COST ESTIMATES
No Action
Capital Cost: $14,500
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $0
Net Present Value: $14,500
Institutional Controls & Monitoring
[Selected Remedy]
(2 years O&M)
Capital Cost: $113,021
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $1,300
Net Present Value: $122,511
Bioventing (Open System)
(2 years O&M)
Capital Cost: $239,133
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $1,300
Net Present Value: $261,678
Steam-Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction
(3 years O&M)
Capital Cost: $438,743
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $2,600
Net Present Value: $782,766
Excavation & Thermal Desorption
Capital Cost: $1,077,225
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $0
Net Present Value: $3,129,985
Excavation & Soil Washing
Capital Cost: $1.350,571
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $0
Net Present Value: $3.929,971
Excavation & Offsite Disposal
Capital Cost: $2,101,035
Annual Operation- & Maintenance: $0
Net Present Value: $6,397,835
Net present value based on 5% annual discount rate
O&M = Operation and Maintenance.
FAFB\ROO\SEC-9 ROD
9-44
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
Institutional controls and monitoring will protect human health by preventing exposure to
contaminated soil while petroleum products biodegrade. Implementation of the selected remedy
poses no technical, administrative, or logistical problems. Institutional controls and monitoring
is one of the most cost effective alternatives and has the advantage that workers will not be
exposed to physical and contaminant hazards associated with excavating or intrusive activities.
The Air Force considers, based on information currently available, the selected remedy provides
the best balance of trade-offs among the other alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria.
Ecology and EPA concur with this opinion. The Air Force expects the selected remedy will satisfy
the statutory requirements in CERCU\ section 121 (b), will be protective of human health and the
environment, will comply with ARARs, is cost-effective, and utilizes a permanent solution to the
maximum extent practicable. Because the selected remedy relies on passive natural
biodegradation of contaminants, it will not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element.
FAFB\ROO\SEC-9 ROD
9-45 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
9-46 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
10.0 SELECTED REMEDIES
The following sections describe the remedies selected for each of the Priority 2a Sites.
10.1 RECIPROCATING ENGINE SHOP, BUILDING 2150 (IS-3)
The selected remedy for IS-3 is Institutional Controls. This selection is based on the results of
the human health risk assessment, which determined that conditions at the site posed no
unacceptable risks to human health. When Building 2150 is demolished, underlying soil will be
assessed for PCBs and. remediated if necessary.
10.2 JET ENGINE TEST STAND, BUILDING 3000 (IS-4)
The remedial action goal at IS-4 is to remediate soil to state cleanup levels. Contaminants
detected in the deeper water bearing zones beneath and up gradient of this site are not
associated with site activities and will be addressed under the Priority 3 Operable Unit. The
selected remedy for soil contamination is Institutional Controls and Monitoring. The Air Force
believes Institutional Controls and Monitoring provides the best balance of trade-offs with respect
to the evaluation criteria (see also Section 9.2.10). This remedy consists of the following
elements:
• Maintaining institutional controls requiring a Work Clearance Permit for intrusive
activities:
• Allow natural attenuation to reduce the concentration of petroleum contamination:
and
• Monitoring the degradation of diesel range petroleum contamination in soil until
the contamination level decreases below the state cleanup level of 200 mg/kg.
The estimated costs associated with this remedy are tabulated as shown.
IS-4
Capital Costs
Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Net Present Value
SOIL
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AND MONITORING
$113,445
$1,300
$123,870
SAPB\BOO\SEC-10BOO
10-1
FINAL • 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
The following paragraphs present specific components of this remedy:
A) Maintaining institutional controls requiring a Work Clearance Permit for intrusive
activities.
Intrusive activities require a Work Clearance Permit. The site is located adjacent to the flightline,
and only authorized Air Force personnel or authorized contractors can gain access. Personnel
requesting intrusive site access will be warned about site conditions and will be required to take
appropriate health and safety precautions to avoid exposure to contaminants. In the event of
base closure, the Air Force, in conjunction with EPA and Ecology, will evaluate the need for
additional site activities relative to the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act.
B) Allow natural attenuation to reduce the concentration of petroleum contamination.
Natural attenuation includes a number of components that collectively contribute to the reduction
in contamination. It is particularly effective for petroleum compounds and soluble or volatile
compounds. Natural bacteria consume the individual components that make up the most
common petroleum contaminants. In complex petroleum mixtures, components that are not
consumed or are very recalcitrant, generally are also less bioavailable. The rate at which
microbes degrade organic compounds depends on a variety of factors. Some of the more
important ones include temperature; moisture; pH; oxygen availability; active surface area; the
presence or absence of other chemical compounds which may act as nutrients, stimulants,
toxins, or retardants; and competition from other bacterial species. Soluble materials disperse
as ground water moves through the system, and volatile materials evaporate. Contaminants
exposed to the surface are subject to photo-oxidation and ultraviolet degradation. Physical
degradation may also play a role for contaminants at the surface as compaction or freeze-thaw
action affect active surface area, particle size, and aeration.
C) Monitoring the degradation of diesel range petroleum in site soil until the
contamination level decreases below the state cleanup level of 200 mg/kg.
Soil sampling will be conducted to monitor the degradation and migration of petroleum
contamination. Soil monitoring will be conducted in a phased manner starting on a semiannual
basis. In conjunction with historic data, if a clear decline in contamination can be demonstrated,
and that decline is consistent with current projections, sampling may be reduced to annual,
biannual, and eventually longer terms as negotiated at that time. The point of compliance will
be throughout the site. It is estimated that soil cleanup levels can be achieved in a 3-year time
frame. If monitoring indicates this remedy will not attain cleanup levels within a reasonable time
frame, which shall not exceed 30 years, the need for remedial action will be reevaluated by the
Air Force, EPA, and Ecology.
10-2 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
10.3 BULK FUEL STORAGE AREA (PS-1)
The goals of the remedial action at PS-1 are to remediate ground water to state and MCL
cleanup levels and to remediate soil to state cleanup levels. The selected remedy for soil
remediation is Open System Bioventing. The selected remedy for ground water is Institutional
Controls and Monitoring. The Air Force believes open system bioventing, and institutional
controls and monitoring provide the best balance of trade-offs with respect to the evaluation
criteria (see also Sections 9.3.10 and 9.4.10). These remedies consist of the following elements:
• Maintaining institutional controls requiring a Work Clearance Permit for intrusive
activities;
• Implementing an in place bioventing treatment system for diesel range petroleum
contaminated soil until the contamination level decreases below the state cleanup
level of 200 mg/kg:
• Allow natural attenuation to reduce the concentration of petroleum contamination;
and
• Monitoring ground water across the site and down gradient to assess degradation
and migration of diesel range petroleum and benzene until the contamination
levels decrease below the state cleanup levels of 1,000 pg/L and MCL of 5 fjg/L,
respectively.
The estimated costs associated with these remedies are tabulated as shown.
PS-1
Caoitai Costs
Annual Operation and
Maintenance Costs
Net Present Value
SOIL
OPEN SYSTEM BIOVENTING
$241.475
$1,300 .
$266,380
GROUND WATER
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
AND MONITORING
$118.103
$1,300
$134.763
The following paragraphs present specific components of these remedies:
A) Maintaining institutional controls requiring a Work Clearance Permit for intrusive
activities.
During site cleanup, human health will be protected by institutional controls, some of which are
already in place. Any intrusive activities require a Work Clearance Permit. Personnel requesting
intrusive site access will be warned about site conditions and will be required to take appropriate
10-3
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
health and safety precautions to avoid exposure to contaminants. In the event of base closure,
the Air Force, in conjunction with EPA and Ecology, will evaluate the need for additional site
activities relative to the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act.
B) Implementing an in place bioventing treatment system for diesel range petroleum
contaminated soil until the contamination level decreases below the state cleanup
level of 200 mg/kg.
An open system bioventing pilot project is already in progress at the site. Initial test results
indicate open system bioventing will increase the oxygen content of the soil and enhance natural
biodegradation of petroleum in the soil. Information from the pilot project will be used to
enhance the efficiency of an expanded bioventing system which will treat an estimated 16.000
cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil. Bioventing effectiveness will be evaluated through
soil sampling. The system will be operated until the soil cleanup level of 200 mg/kg for
petroleum contamination is achieved. The point of compliance will be throughout the site.
Necessary operation time is expected to be less than one year.
C) Allow natural attenuation to reduce the concentration of petroleum contamination.
Natural attenuation includes a number of components that collectively contribute to the reduction
in contamination. It is particularly effective for petroleum compounds and soluble or volatile
compounds. Natural bacteria consume the individual components that make up the most
common petroleum contaminants. In complex petroleum mixtures, components that are not
consumed or are very recalcitrant, generally are also less bioavailable. The rate at which
microbes degrade organic compounds depends on a variety of factors. Some of the more
important ones include temperature; moisture; pH: oxygen availability; active surface area; the
presence or absence of other chemical compounds which may act as nutrients, stimulants,
toxins, or retardants; and competition from other bacterial species. Soluble materials disperse
as ground water moves through the system, and volatile materials evaporate. Contaminants
exposed to the surface are subject to photo-oxidation and ultraviolet degradation. Physical
degradation may also play a role for contaminants at the surface as compaction or freeze-thaw
action affect active surface area, particle size, and aeration.
D) Monitoring ground water across the site and down gradient to assess degradation
and migration of diesel range petroleum and benzene until the contamination level
decreases below the state cleanup level of 1,000 /jg/L and MCL of 5 /jg/L,
respectively.
Ground water sampling will monitor contaminant of concern degradation and migration. Ground
water monitoring will be conducted in a phased manner starting on a semiannual basis. In
conjunction with historic data, if a clear decline in contamination can be demonstrated, and that
decline is consistent with current projections, sampling may be reduced to annual, biannual and
eventually longer terms as negotiated at that time. The MCL for benzene in groundwater is
5 jig/L The point of compliance will be throughout the plume. It is estimated that ground water
--AFBVROOVSECMO ROD 1Q-4 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
cleanup levels can be achieved in a 4-year time frame. If monitoring indicates this remedy will
not attain cleanup levels within a reasonable time frame, which shall not exceed 30 years, the
need for remedial action will be reevaluated by the Air Force, EPA. and Ecology.
10.4 FUEL OIL STORAGE TANK AT WHERRY HOUSING (PS-5)
The goals of the remedial action at PS-5 are to remediate ground water to state cleanup levels
and to remediate soil to state cleanup levels. The selected remedy for soil is Institutional
Controls. The selected remedy for ground water is Institutional Controls and Monitoring. The
Air Force believes institutional controls and institutional controls and monitoring provide the best
balance of trade-offs with respect to the evaluation criteria (see also Sections 9.5.10 and 9.6.10).
These remedies consist of the following elements:
• Maintaining institutional controls requiring a Work Clearance Permit for intrusive
activities:
Allow natural attenuation to reduce the concentration of petroleum contamination;
and
• Monitoring ground water across the site and down gradient to assess degradation
and migration of diesel range petroleum contamination until the state cleanup level
of 1.000 pg/L is achieved.
The estimated costs associated with these remedies are tabulated as shown.
PS-5
Capital Costs
Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Net Present Value
SOIL
INSTTTUTIONAL CONTROLS
$14,500
$0
$14500
GROUND WATER
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
AND MONITORING
$117.274
$1,300
$132.093
The following paragraphs present specific components of these remedies:
A) Maintaining institutional controls requiring a Work Clearance Permit for intrusive
activities.
Institutional controls already in place require a Work Clearance Permit before intrusive activities
are conducted. Personnel conducting intrusive activities will be warned about site conditions and
will be required to take appropriate health and safety precautions to avoid exposure to
10-5
FINAL • 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
contaminants. In the event of base closure, the Air Force, in conjunction with EPA and Ecology,
will evaluate the need for additional site activities relative to the Community Environmental
Response Facilitation Act.
B) Allow natural attenuation to reduce the concentration of petroleum contamination.
Natural attenuation includes a number of components that collectively contribute to the reduction
in contamination. It is particularly effective for petroleum compounds and soluble or volatile
compounds. Natural bacteria consume the individual components that make up the most
common petroleum contaminants. In complex petroleum mixtures, components that are not
consumed or are very recalcitrant, generally are also less bioavailable. The rate at which
microbes degrade organic compounds depends on a variety of factors. Some of the more
important ones include temperature: moisture; pH; oxygen availability; active surface area; the
presence or absence of other chemical compounds, which may act as nutrients, stimulants,
toxins, or retardants; and competition from other bacterial species. Soluble materials disperse
as ground water moves through the system, and volatile materials evaporate. Contaminants
exposed to the surface are subject to photo-oxidation and ultraviolet degradation. Physical
degradation may also play a role for contaminants at the surface as compaction or freeze-thaw
action affect active surface area, particle size, and aeration,
C) Monitoring ground water across the site and down gradient to assess degradation
and migration of diesel range petroleum contamination until the state cleanup level
of 1 .000 fj/L is achieved.
Ground water sampling will be conducted to monitor petroleum degradation and migration.
Ground water monitoring will be conducted in a phased manner starting on a semiannual basis.
In conjunction with historic data, if a clear decline in contamination can be demonstrated, and
that decline is consistent with current projections, sampling may be reduced to annual, biannual
and eventually longer terms as negotiated at that time. The point of compliance will be
throughout the plume. It is estimated that ground water cleanup levels can be achieved in a 2-
year time frame. If monitoring indicates this remedy will not attain cleanup levels within a
reasonable time frame, which shall not exceed 30 years, the need for remedial action will be
reevaluated by the Air Force, EPA, and Ecology.
The degradation of soil contamination will be evaluated at the five year review. The state cleanup
standard for petroleum in soil is 200 mg/kg. The point of compliance will be throughout the
entire site. It is estimated that soil cleanup levels can be achieved in a 4-year time frame.
10.5 DEEP CREEK STEAM PLANT, BUILDING 1350 (PS-7)
The goals of the remedial action at PS-7 are to remediate ground water to state cleanup levels
and to remediate soil to state cleanup. The selected remedy for soil is Institutional Controls and
for ground water is Institutional Controls and Monitoring. The Air Force believes institutional
IO ROD 10-6 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
controls and institutional controls and monitoring provide the best balance of trade-offs with
respect to the evaluation criteria (see also Sections 9.7.10 and 9.8.10). These remedies consist
of the following elements:
• Maintaining institutional controls requiring a Work Clearance Permit for intrusive
activities:
• Allow natural attenuation to reduce the concentration of petroleum contamination;
and
• Monitoring ground water across the site and down gradient to assess degradation
and migration of diesel range petroleum contamination until the state cleanup level
of 1,000 ^g/L is achieved.
The estimated costs associated with these remedies are tabulated as shown.
PS-7
Caoital Costs
Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Net Present Value
SOIL
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
$14500
$0
$14,500
GROUND WATER
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
AND MONITORING
$118,027
$1,300
$134,232
The following paragraphs present specific components of these remedies:
A) Maintaining institutional controls requiring a Work Clearance Permit for intrusive
activities.
Institutional controls already in place require a Work Clearance Permit before intrusive activities
are conducted. Personnel requesting intrusive access will be warned about site conditions and
will be required to take appropriate health and safety precautions to avoid exposure to
contaminants. In the event of base closure, the Air Force, in conjunction with EPA and Ecology,
will evaluate the need for additional site activities relative to the Community Environmental
Response Facilitation Act.
B) Allow natural attenuation to reduce the concentration of petroleum contamination.
Natural attenuation includes a number of components that collectively contribute to the reduction
in contamination. It is particularly effective for petroleum compounds and soluble or volatile
compounds. Natural bacteria consume the individual components that make up the most
common petroleum contaminants. In complex petroleum mixtures, components that are not
consumed or are very recalcitrant, generally are also less bioavailable. The rate at which
microbes degrade organic compounds depends on a variety of factors. Some of the more
important ones include temperature; moisture; pH; oxygen availability; active surface area; the
' AF8\ROO\SEC-10. ROO
10-7
FINAL • 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
presence or absence of other chemical compounds which may act as nutrients, stimulants.
toxins, or retardants; and competition from other bacterial species. Soluble materials disperse
as ground water moves through the system, and volatile materials evaporate. Contaminants
exposed to the surface are subject to photo-oxidation and ultraviolet degradation. Physical
degradation may also play a role for contaminants at the surface as compaction or freeze-thaw
action affect active surface area, particle size, and aeration.
C) Monitoring ground water across the site and down gradient to assess degradation
and migration of diesel range petroleum contamination until the state cleanup level
of 1 ,000 jjglL is achieved..
Ground water sampling will be conducted to monitor petroleum degradation and migration.
Ground water monitoring will be conducted in a phased manner starting on a semiannual basis.
In conjunction with historic data, if a clear decline in contamination can be demonstrated, and
that decline is consistent with current projections, sampling may be reduced to annual, biannual
and eventually longer terms as negotiated at that time. The point of compliance will be
throughout the plume. It is estimated that ground water cleanup levels can be achieved in a 3-
year time frame, If monitoring indicates this remedy will not attain cleanup levels within a
reasonable time frame, which shall not exceed 30 years, the need for remedial action will be
reevaluated by the Air Force, EPA, and Ecology.
The degradation of soil contamination will be evaluated at the five year review. The state cleanup
standard for petroleum in soil is 200 mg/kg. The point of compliance will be throughout the
entire site. It is estimated that soil cleanup levels can be achieved in a 3-year time frame.
10.6 FUEL TRUCK MAINTENANCE FACILITY, BUILDING 1060 (PS-10)
The goal of the remedial action at PS-10 is to remediate soil to state cleanup levels.
Contaminated ground water will be addressed as part of the Priority 3 Operable Unit. The
selected remedies are Excavation and Offsite Disposal, and Institutional Controls and Monitoring.
The Air Force believes excavation and offsite disposal, and institutional controls and monitoring
provide the best balance of trade-offs with respect to the evaluation criteria (see also
Section 9.9.10). These remedies consists of the following elements:
• Maintaining institutional controls requiring a Work Clearance Permit for intrusive
activities;
• Excavation and offsite disposal of approximately 67 cubic yards of TCE
contaminated soils. Pre-disposal treatment of soil includes high temperature
incineration. The excavation will be backfilled with clean soil and graded;
• Allow natural attenuation to reduce the concentration of petroleum contamination;
and
WBWXM6C..O ROO 10-8 FINAL • 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
• . Monitoring natural degradation of diesel range petroleum contamination in site soil
until the contamination level decreases below the state cleanup level of
200 mg/kg.
The estimated costs associated with these remedies are tabulated as shown.
PS-10
Capital Costs
Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Net Present Value
SOIL (TCE)
EXCAVATION AND
OFFSITE DISPOSAL
$217,825
$0
$356.780
SOIL (PETROLEUM)
INSTmJTIONAL CONTROLS
AND MONITORING
$113,849
$1.300
$125.182
The following paragraphs present specific components of these remedies:
A) Maintaining institutional controls requiring a Work Clearance Permit for intrusive
activities.
Institutional controls already in place require a Work Clearance Permit before intrusive activities
are conducted. The site is located adjacent to the flightline, and only Air Force personnel and
authorized contractors can gain access. Personnel requesting intrusive site access will be
warned about site conditions and will be required to take appropriate health and safety
precautions to avoid exposure to contaminants. In the event of base closure, the Air Force, in
conjunction with EPA and Ecology, will evaluate the need for additional site activities relative to
the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act.
B) Excavation and offsite disposal of approximately 67 cubic yards of TCE
contaminated soils. Pre-disposal treatment of soil includes high temperature
incineration. The excavation will be backfilled with clean soil and graded.
Approximately 67 cubic yards of TCE contaminated soil will be excavated, treated at an offsite
high temperature incinerator, and landfilled. In order to meet LDRs, TCE contamination must be
reduced to 6.0 mg/kg before landfilling. Incineration is capable of meeting that requirement and
is the BOAT. Soil sampling will confirm all soil exceeding the MTCA Method B cleanup level for
residential use. based on direct contact, of 91 mg/kg will be removed from PS-10 and treated.
The point of compliance will be throughout the site from the ground surface to 15 feet below the
ground surface. It is estimated the cleanup action can be completed in a 1 -year time frame.
C) Allow natural attenuation to reduce the concentration of petroleum contamination.
Natural attenuation includes a number of components that collectively contribute to the reduction
in contamination. It is particularly effective for petroleum compounds and soluble or volatile
compounds. Natural bacteria consume the individual components that make up the most
FAFB\ROO\SEC-10 HOD
10-9
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
common petroleum contaminants. In complex petroleum mixtures, components that are not
consumed or are very recalcitrant, generally are also less bioavailable. The rate at which
microbes degrade organic compounds depends on a variety of factors. Some of the more
important ones include temperature; moisture; pH; oxygen availability; active surface area; the
presence or absence of other chemical compounds which may act as nutrients, stimulants,
toxins, or retardants; and competition from other bacterial species. Soluble materials disperse
as ground water moves through the system, and volatile materials evaporate. Contaminants
exposed to the surface are subject to photo-oxidation and ultraviolet degradation. Physical
degradation may also play a role for contaminants at the surface as compaction or freeze-thaw
action affect active surface area, particle size, and aeration.
D) Monitoring natural degradation of diesel range petroleum contamination in site soil
until the contamination level decreases below the state cleanup level of
200 mg/kg.
Soil sampling will be conducted to monitor petroleum degradation. Soil monitoring will be
conducted in a phased manner starting on a semiannual basis. In conjunction with historic data,
if a clear decline in contamination can be demonstrated, and that decline is consistent with
current projections, sampling may be reduced to annual, biannual and eventually longer terms
as negotiated at that time. The point of compliance will be throughout the site. It is estimated
that soil cleanup levels can be achieved in a 4-year time frame. If monitoring indicates this
remedy will not attain cleanup levels within a reasonable time frame, which shall not exceed 30
years, the need for remedial action will be reevaluated by the Air Force, EPA, and Ecology.
10.7 FORMER AIRCRAFT RECLAMATION YARD AT WHERRY HOUSING (SW-11)
The Air Force has determined no further remedial action is necessary at site SW-11 to ensure
protection of human health and the environment. This decision is based on the results of the
human health risk assessment, which determined conditions at the site posed no unacceptable
chemical risks to human health or the environment. The Air Force will consider planting and
maintaining a vegetative cap to mitigate physical hazards associated with buried metallic debris.
10.8 FORMER FIRE TRAINING AREA (FT-2)
The goals of the remedial actions at FT-2 are to remediate ground water to state cleanup levels
and to remediate soil to state cleanup levels that are protective of ground water. The selected
remedy for both soil and ground water is Institutional Controls and Monitoring. The Air Force
believes institutional controls and monitoring provides the best balance of trade-offs with respect
to the evaluation criteria (see also Sections 9.10.10 and 9.11.10). These remedies consist of the
following elements:
Maintaining institutional controls requiring a Work Clearance Permit for intrusive
activities;
=APBVBOD\SEC-
-------
« Allow natural attenuation to reduce the concentration of petroleum contamination;
and
• Monitoring site soil and ground water and down gradient ground water to assess
degradation and migration of diesel range petroleum contamination until state
cleanup levels of 200 mg/kg and 1,000 /jg/L, respectively, are achieved.
The estimated costs associated with these remedies are tabulated as shown.
FT-2
Caortai Costs
Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Net Present Value
SOIL
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
AND MONITORING
$113,021
$1,300
$122.511
GROUND WATER
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
AND MONITORING
$117,833
$1,300
$134,461
The following paragraphs present specific components of these remedies:
A) Maintaining institutional controls requiring a Work Clearance Permit for intrusive
activities.
Institutional controls already in place require a Work Clearance Permit for intrusive activities. The
site is located adjacent to the flightline. and only Air Force personnel or authorized contractors
can gam access. Personnel requesting intrusive site access will be warned about site conditions
and will be required to take appropriate health and safety precautions to avoid exposure to
contaminants. In the event of base closure, the Air Force, in conjunction with EPA and Ecology,
will evaluate the need for additional site activities relative to the Community Environmental
Response Facilitation Act.
B) Allow natural attenuation to reduce the concentration of petroleum contamination.
Natural attenuation includes a number of components that collectively contribute to the reduction
in contamination. It is particularly effective for petroleum compounds and soluble or volatile
compounds. Natural bacteria consume the individual components that make up the most
common petroleum contaminants. In complex petroleum mixtures, components that are not
consumed or are very recalcitrant, generally are also less bioavailable. The rate at which
microbes degrade organic compounds depends on a variety of factors. Some of the more
important ones include temperature; moisture; pH; oxygen availability; active surface area; the
presence or absence of other chemical compounds which may act as nutrients, stimulants,
toxins, or retardants; and competition from other bacterial species. Soluble materials disperse
as ground water moves through the system, and volatile materials evaporate. Contaminants
exposed to the surface are subject to photo-oxidation and ultraviolet degradation. Physical
degradation may also play a role for contaminants at the surface as compaction or freeze-thaw
action affect active surface area, particle size, and aeration.
10-11
FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
C) Monitoring site soil and ground water and down gradient ground water to assess
degradation and migration of diesel range petroleum contamination until state
cleanup levels of 200 mg/kg and 1,000 /jg/L. respectively, are achieved.
Soil and ground water sampling will be conducted to monitor petroleum contamination
degradation and migration. Soil and ground water monitoring will be conducted in a phased
manner starting on a semiannual basis. In conjunction with historic data, if a clear decline in
contamination can be demonstrated, and that decline is consistent with current projections,
sampling may be reduced to annual, biannual, and eventually longer terms as negotiated at that
time. For both soil and ground water, the points of compliance will be throughout the site and
plume, respectively. It is estimated that the soil and ground water cleanup levels can be
achieved in 4-year and 5-year time frames, respectively. If monitoring indicates this remedy will
not attain cleanup levels within a reasonable time frame, which shall not exceed 30 years, the
need for remedial action will be reevaluated by the Air Force, EPA. and Ecology.
WBWJOSEC..O ROD 10-12 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
11.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under CERCLA Section 121, selected remedies must be protective of human health and the
environment, comply with ARARs, be cost effective, and utilize permanent solution and alternative
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practical. In addition,
CERCLA includes a preference for remedies that employ treatment to significantly and
permanently reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes.
A range of cleanup alternatives for each site was initially identified in the feasibility study. These
alternatives were screened by comparing effectiveness, implementability, and cost. The surviving
alternatives were subjected to a detailed analysis to arrive at the selected remedies.
Remedies selected for the sites presented in this ROD are Institutional Controls; Institutional
Controls and Monitoring; Open System Bioventing; and Excavation followed by Incineration and
Off-Site Disposal. All selected remedies are protective of human health and the environment and
comply with ARARs. The principal contaminants at these sites are petroleum fuels variously
occurring in soil and ground water along with TCE in soil at PS-10 and benzene in ground water
at PS-1.
Institutional controls is the selected remedy for soil contamination at PS-5 and PS-7 and for
contamination at IS-3. Institutional controls and monitoring is the remedy selected for soils at
sites IS-4 and FT-2, for petroleum contaminated soil at PS-10, and for ground water at sites PS-1,
PS-5, PS-7, and FT-2. Open system bioventing is the selected remedy for petroleum
contaminated soil at PS-1. Excavation followed by incineration and off-site disposal is the
remedy selected for TCE contaminated soils at PS-1. No further action is recommended at
SW-11.
At IS-3. the selected remedy is Institutional Controls. This selection is based on the results of
the human health risk assessment, which determined that conditions at the site pose no
unacceptable risks to human health. When Building 2150 is demolished, underlying soil will be
assessed for PCBs and remediated as necessary.
The selected remedy for soil contamination at IS-4 is Institutional Controls and Monitoring. This
remedy was selected because site geology appears to limit migration to ground water, there are
no difficulties in implementation, and it is cost effective. Monitoring will identify when degradation
has reached a point where soil petroleum concentrations are below the state cleanup standard.
The selected remedy for soil and ground water contamination at FT-2 is Institutional Controls and
Monitoring. This remedy was selected because of its short and long term effectiveness, ease of
implementation and low cost. Monitoring will identify when degradation has reached a point
where soil and ground water petroleum concentrations are below the state cleanup standards.
Institutional Controls is the remedy selected for vadose zone soil contamination at sites PS-5 and
PS-7. This remedy involves no active treatment for contaminated media and relies on
remediation through natural degradation. This remedy was selected because of the relatively low
.TO 11-1 FINAL-29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
cancer risk and noncancer hazard posed by these sites, and because the contamination is
buried in the vadose zone where it is unlikely to migrate. At each of these sites ground water
monitoring will be conducted to confirm contaminants of concern are not migrating off-site.
The selected remedy for ground water remediation at PS-5 and PS-7 is Institutional Controls and
Monitoring. This remedy was selected because the principal source has been removed (thus
reducing the risk of migration). It is also easily implemented, and cost effective.
The selected remedy for soil remediation at PS-1 is Open System Bioventing. The selected
remedy for ground water is Institutional Controls and Monitoring. Since the Air Force has already
established a pilot scale bioventing treatment system at the site, and it is working well, it is logical
to expand the pilot system to remediate soils at this location. For ground water, institutional
controls and monitoring is the selected remedy because site geology appears to limit migration.
Also the site is operational, which militates against the implementation of active remedies.
Moreover the cost of active remedies like pump and treat systems is prohibitively high due to the
large volume of water that would have to be treated.
Two remedies were selected for soil at PS-10. For TCE contaminated soil the selected remedy
is Excavation and Off-site Disposal. For petroleum contaminated soil the selected remedy is
Institutional Controls and Monitoring. For the TCE contaminated soils the remedy was selected
because it is the only remedy that meets BOAT for spent solvents required by the LDRs, and is
fully protective of human health and the environment. For petroleum contaminated soils this
remedy was selected because the contamination is widely underlain by a dry vadose zone in
which migration is unlikely In addition, the remedy can be implemented easily, and is cost
effective.
The Air Force has determined no further remedial action is necessary at site SW-11 to ensure
protection of human health and the environment. This decision is based on the results of the
human health risk assessment, which determined conditions at the site posed no unacceptable
chemical risks to human health or the environment.
11.1 PROTECTIVENESS OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The following sections describe by site how the selected remedies meet the statutory requirement
to be protective of human health and the environment.
11.1.1 SttelS-3
For site IS-3, current risk under the Air Force Personnel/Contractor scenario is principally due to
direct exposure to PCB-1254 in sump sediments and ingestion of PCB-1242 in sump water. The
risk associated with exposure to PCB:1254 in sump sediments is 3 x 10"5 and the risk associated
with ingestion of sump water containing PCB-1242 is 6 x 10"6. The cumulative risk for exposure
to sump sediments and water is 4 x 10"5, which is within the acceptable range. The current
hazard associated with exposure to sump sediments under the same scenario is principally due
to exposure to bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. That hazard is 0.0002, which is below the screening
.BOO 11-2 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
threshold of 1.0. The hazard associated with exposure to sump water is not quantifiable because
the EPA has not published a reference dose for oral exposures to PCBs. All risks and hazards
calculated for site IS-3 are based on RME assumptions. If contaminants leaked to the subsurface
soil or ground water they would be diluted and the associated risk and hazard would be reduced.
The selected remedy will not affect the risk or hazard associated with direct contact with sump
contents. The remedial investigation, however, concluded no complete exposure pathways exists
because the building is locked and is no longer used. Therefore, the selected remedy,
institutional controls, will be protective of human health by preventing exposure to contaminants.
Prior to demolition of Building 2150, sump water and sediments will be removed and disposed
of in accordance with state and federal regulations.
11.1.2 Site IS-4
For site IS-4, current values of risk, based on RME assumptions, under the Air Force
Personnel/Contractor scenario can be calculated only for exposure to ground water. Ground
water contamination will be investigated under the Priority 3 Operable Unit. The remedy for this
site will not affect ground water contamination because the source of ground water contamination
is up gradient from this site. As a result, the risk for ground water ingestion at this site, 3 x 10"5,
will not change, and will continue to make up the bulk of the cumulative risk, 3 x 10"5, for this
site. Hazard associated with exposure to site soil under the same scenario is 0.4 and is due to
ingestion of manganese and petroleum. The soil exposure hazard is at an acceptable level.
Soils will be remediated, and total site risk and hazard will be reduced, but it is not possible to
quantify the decrease in risk from soil remediation. The current cumulative hazard value, slightly
over eight, under the same scenario is principally due to manganese in ground water which
yields a hazard value of eight. As stated above, the selected remedy does not affect ground
water, and as a result, this value will not change. These values do not include risk or hazard
related to site surface water because contamination in surface water is not related to this site.
It was, nevertheless, evaluated in the Rl and is presented in the tables in Appendix A, raising the
cumulative risk to 4 x 10"5, and cumulative hazard to nine.
The remaining contaminated soil is either beneath concrete and asphalt pavement or beneath
several feet of clean fill. Currently, IS-4 is an inactive engine test facility located adjacent to the
flightline. Development of the site for residential use is remote. Development of IS-4 for industrial
use is. to a lesser degree, also unlikely.
Concentrations of diesel range petroleum residues in soil currently exceeds state standards.
Migration of these residues to ground water is not expected because the site is located in a low
permeability clay basin, limiting the possibility of contaminant migration from site soil. Soil
sampling will establish a trend in contamination levels to evaluate whether they are decreasing
and whether the cleanup levels will be achieved through natural biodegradation within a
reasonable period of time. Furthermore, the soil monitoring program along with the scheduled
five year review will evaluate contamination migration tendencies, satisfy the CERCLA requirement
for contaminants remaining on site, and will determine if the remedy remains protective of human
health and the environment.
FAWTOSEC.M >«o 11-3 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
11.1.3.SitePS-1
For Site PS-1, current risks, based on RME assumptions, under the Air Force
Personnel/Contractor scenario are principally due to ingestion of benzene and arsenic
contaminated groundwater and round up to a cumulative risk of 1 x 10"3. This calculation is
significantly influenced by the maximum concentration of benzene detected in one well. The
risk'posed to Air Force Personnel/Contractors by the average concentration of benzene in
groundwater is 5 x 10"*, which is within the acceptable risk range. The cumulative risk posed by
average concentrations of all the COCs in groundwater to the same receptor group is 6 x 10/5,
also within the acceptable risk range. The selected remedy for groundwater at PS-1 is
Institutional Controls and Monitoring. This action will be protective of human health and the
environment by preventing exposure to groundwater and determining whether the COC
concentrations decrease. The selected remedy, bioventing, for soils at PS-1 will reduce
concentrations of benzene in soils, which will reduce the potential for migration of benzene to
groundwater.
Petroleum contamination in soil currently exceeds state standards. Contamination was not
reported below the upper 2-feet of a clay layer observed site-wide beneath PS-1. Migration to
confined ground water is not expected because this clay layer limits the possibility of petroleum
contamination vertically migrating from site soil. Bioventing, the selected remedy, will enhance
natural biodegradation of petroleum in the soil. Soil sampling will be used to evaluate the
effectiveness of the selected remedy and whether the cleanup levels can be achieved with
open system bioventing within a reasonable period of time. During remediation, human
exposure will be limited by institutional controls which require a permit to conduct intrusive
activities. Furthermore, the soil monitoring program along with the scheduled five year review
will evaluate contamination migration tendencies, satisfy the CERCLA requirement for
contaminants remaining on site, and will determine if the remedy remains protective of human
health and the environment.
Petroleum concentrations in ground water currently exceed state cleanup standards. Sampling
of down gradient monitoring wells indicates contaminants are not migrating off site. The
selected remedy, institutional controls and monitoring, will rely on natural biodegradation to
reduce petroleum and benzene concentrations to below state cleanup levels.
Arsenic and manganese concentrations in ground water are expected drop in parallel with
petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations. Manganese is more soluble under reducing conditions.
The effect of petroleum or other organic material leads the environments to become more
reducing. As the organic materials are remediated, the environment returns to oxidizing
conditions. These changes lead to variation in the amount of dissolved manganese in ground
water and the corresponding redistribution of manganese in soils. Under these conditions
arsenic behaves similarly. A complete discussion of this process in found in the remedial
investigation report. Ground water sampling will be used to confirm biodegradation will reduce
contaminant levels within a reasonable time frame. Human exposure to contaminants will be
limited by the same institutional controls discussed in the soil section. Furthermore, the ground
water monitoring program along with a scheduled five year review will evaluate contamination
migration tendencies, satisfy the CERCLA requirement for contaminants remaining on site, and
will determine if the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.
11-4 FINAL-8 DECEMBER 1995
(Replaces 29 September 95 Version)
-------
11.1.4 Site PS-5
For site PS-5. current risk and hazard, based on RME assumptions, under the residential
exposure scenario can be calculated only for ground water exposure. Soils will be remediated.
and total risk and hazard will be reduced, but it is not possible to quantify the decrease in risk
from soil remediation. For site PS-5. current calculable risks and hazards under the residential
exposure scenario are principally due to ingestion of manganese and arsenic contaminated
ground water and round up to values equivalent to the site cumulative values of 1 x 10"3 for risk
and 30 for hazard. The selected remedy should reduce cumulative site risk to a value ranging
from 1 x 10"5 to 1 x 10"6, depending on the degree to which arsenic is remediated. The selected
remedy should reduce the cumulative site hazard to approximately 0;3.
Petroleum concentrations in soil currently exceeds state cleanup levels. Institutional controls will
limit exposure to contaminated soil while petroleum contamination naturally biodegrades. Most
contaminated soil remaining at the site lies beneath several feet of clean fill, so exposure is likely
only during intrusive activities. Institutional controls already in place require a permit for intrusive
activities. The scheduled five year review will evaluate contamination migration tendencies and
degradation, satisfy the CERCLA requirement for contaminants remaining on site, and will
determine if the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.
Petroleum concentrations in site ground water exceed state cleanup standards. The selected
remedy, institutional controls and monitoring will rely on natural biodegradation to reduce
petroleum concentrations to below the state cleanup level.
Arsenic and manganese concentrations in ground water are expected drop in parallel with
petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations. Manganese is more soluble under reducing conditions.
The effect of petroleum or other organic material leads the environments to become more
reducing. As the organic materials are remediated, the environment returns to oxidizing
conditions. These changes lead to variation in the amount of dissolved manganese in ground
water and the corresponding redistribution of manganese in soils. Under these conditions
arsenic behaves similarly. A complete discussion of this process in found in the Remedial
Investigation report. Ground water sampling will be used to confirm biodegradation will reduce
contaminant levels within a reasonable time frame. Human exposure to contaminants will be
limited by the same institutional controls discussed in the soil section. Furthermore, the ground
water monitoring program along with a scheduled five year review will evaluate contamination
migration tendencies, satisfy the CERCU\ requirement for contaminants remaining on site, and
will determine if the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.
11.1.5 Site PS-7
For site PS-7, current risk and hazard, based on RME assumptions, under the Air Force
Personnel/Contractor scenario can be calculated only for ground water exposure because soil
contamination is due to a petroleum mixture. Soils will be remediated, and total risk and hazard
will be reduced, but it is not possible to quantify the decrease in risk from soil remediation. For
site PS-7. current calculable risks and hazards under the Air Force Personnel/Contractor scenario
are principally due to ingestion of chloroform and bromodichiorometnane contaminated ground
wo 11-5 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
water (both contaminants are likely to have been caused by lawn irrigation) and round up to
3 x 10~7 for risk and 4 x 10'3 for hazard. Neither of these values exceeds any screening
thresholds now and are expected to only decrease in time.
Petroleum concentrations in soil currently exceed state cleanup standards. Institutional controls
wilt limit exposure to contaminated soil while petroleum contamination naturally biodegrades.
Most remaining contaminated soil lies beneath several feet of clean fill or beneath Building 1350,
so exposure is likely only during soil excavation. Institutional controls require a permit for
intrusive activities. The scheduled five year review will evaluate contamination migration
tendencies and degradation, satisfy the CERCLA requirement for contaminants remaining on site,
and will determine if the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.
Petroleum concentrations in ground water exceed state cleanup standards. The selected
remedy, institutional controls and monitoring will rely on natural biodegradation to reduce
concentrations of petroleum to below the state cleanup level and reduce the risk associated with
chloroform. Ground water sampling will be used to confirm biodegradation will reduce
contaminant levels within a reasonable time frame. Human exposure to contaminants will be
limited by the same institutional controls discussed in the soil section. Furthermore, the ground
water monitoring program along with a scheduled five year review will evaluate contamination
migration tendencies, satisfy the CERCLA requirement for contaminants remaining on site, and
will determine if the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.
11.1.6 Site PS-10
For site PS-10, current hazard and risk, based on RME assumptions, under the Air Force
Personnel/Contractor scenario determined for soil are presented in this ROD. Current hazard
under the same scenario are principally due to manganese and thallium in soils creating a hazard
that rounds up to 0.2, which is below the screening threshold. The selected remedy should
reduce the cumulative site hazard even further. Current risk under the same scenario are
principally due to TCE in soil creating a risk that rounds up to 1 x 10"6, which is within the
acceptable range. The selected remedy should reduce the cumulative site risk to approximately
1 x 10'7. These values and remedies do not include or affect risk or hazard related to site
ground water, because contamination in ground water will be evaluated under the Priority 3
Operable Unit. It was, nevertheless, evaluated in the Rl and is presented in the tables in
Appendix A.
The selected remedy for TCE contaminated soil, excavation, incineration, and landfilling, will
prevent exposure to contamination by removing it from the site and incinerating it. Soil samples
will be collected to assure all TCE contaminated soil above action levels is removed.
Petroleum contamination in soil currently exceeds state standards. Institutional controls and
monitoring, the selected remedy, will rely on natural biodegradation to reduce concentrations of
petroleum to below the state cleanup level. Soil sampling will be used to evaluate the
effectiveness of the selected remedy and whether the cleanup levels can be achieved through
natural biodegradation within a reasonable period of time. During remediation, human exposure
will be limited by institutional controls which require a permit to conduct intrusive activities.
i 1 TOO 11-6 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
Furthermore, the soil and ground water monitoring programs along with a scheduled five year
review will evaluate contamination migration tendencies, satisfy the CERCLA requirement for
contaminants remaining on site, and will determine if the remedy remains protective of human
health and the environment.
11.1.7 Site SW-11
For site SW-11, current risk and hazard, based on RME assumptions, under the Air Force
Personnel/Contractor scenario, are 2 x 10"6 and 0.09 respectively, both of which are in or below
the acceptable range. This indicates there are no risk based contaminants of concern. As a
result there is no remedial action proposed for the site. In time, the conditions are expected to
only improve. The Air Force is considering covering the site with a vegetated cap to reduce the
chance of injury from debris near the surface.
11.1.8 Site FT-2
For site FT-2, current risk, based on RME assumptions, under the Air Force Personnel/Contractor
scenario is principally due to ingestion of 1,1-dichloroethene and carbon tetrachloride
contaminated ground water and rounds up to 2 x 10"6, essentially the same value as the
cumulative risk for the site. The selected remedy should reduce this value to an amount less
than 1 x 10"6, reducing cumulative site risk to a similar amount. Current hazards under the same
scenario are principally due to ingestion of manganese contaminated ground water and round
up to 4. The selected remedy should reduce the cumulative site hazard to approximately 0.3.
Calculable site values for risk and hazard related to soil are confined to ingestion and amount
to 1 x 10"8 for risk and 1 x 10"3 for hazard, both of which are below screening thresholds and
contribute insignificantly to site cumulative risk or hazard.
Petroleum concentrations in soil currently exceed state cleanup levels. The selected remedy,
institutional controls and monitoring, will limit exposure to contaminated soil while petroleum
contamination naturally biodegrades. Institutional controls already in place require a permit which
ensures appropriate health and safety precautions for any personnel involved in intrusive
activities. Soil sampling will establish a trend in contamination levels to evaluate whether they
are decreasing and whether the cleanup levels can be achieved through natural biodegradation
within a reasonable period of time. Furthermore, the soil monitoring program along with the
scheduled five year review will evaluate contamination migration tendencies, satisfy the CERCLA
requirement for contaminants remaining on site, and will determine if the remedy remains
protective of human health and the environment.
Manganese concentrations in ground water are expected drop in parallel with petroleum
hydrocarbon concentrations. Manganese is more soluble under reducing conditions. The effect
of petroleum or other organic material leads the environments to become more reducing. As the
organic materials are remediated, the environment returns to oxidizing conditions. These changes
lead to variation in the amount of dissolved manganese in ground water and the corresponding
redistribution of manganese in soils. A complete discussion of this process in found in the
Remedial Investigation report.
TOO 11-7 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
Petroleum concentrations in site ground water exceed state cleanup standards. The selected
remedy, institutional controls and monitoring, will rely on natural biodegradation to reduce
concentrations of petroleum to below the state cleanup level. Ground water sampling will be
used to confirm biodegradation will reduce contaminant levels within a reasonable time frame.
Human exposure to contaminants will be limited by the same institutional controls discussed in
the-soil section. Furthermore, the ground water monitoring program along with a scheduled five
year review will evaluate contamination migration tendencies, satisfy the CERCU\ requirement
for contaminants remaining on site, and will determine if the remedy remains protective of human
health and the environment.
11.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
The selected remedies will comply with the listed federal and state ARARs. No waiver of any
ARAR is being sought or invoked for any component of the selected remedies. The ARARs
identified for the on-Base Priority 2 sites are listed in the following sections.
11.2.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs
The following chemical specific ARARs were identified for the remedial actions selected in this
document:
MTCA Method A (Chapter 173-340 WAC, subsection 704). Method A cleanup
levels are applicable for establishing soil and ground water cleanup levels.
MTCA Method B (Chapter 173-340 WAC, subsection 705). Method B risk-based
cleanup levels are applicable for establishing soil and ground water cleanup
levels.
SDWA (40 CFR Part 141, Subpart B). Provides MCLs for public drinking water
supplies. MCLs established for the SDWA are relevant and appropriate for setting
ground water cleanup levels.
MTCA Ground Water Cleanup Standards (Chapter 173-340 WAC, subsection 720).
Used to establish ground water cleanup levels.
MTCA General Soil Cleanup Standards (Chapter 173-340 WAC, subsection 740).
Used to establish soil cleanup levels at nonindustrial sites.
MTCA Soil Cleanup Standards for Industrial Sites (Chapter 173-340 WAC,
subsection 745). Used to establish soil cleanup levels where the department has
determined that industrial site use represents the reasonable maximum exposure.
I , ROO 11-8 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
11.2.2 Action-Specific ARARs
The following action specific ARARs were identified for the remedial actions selected in this
document:
TSCA (40 CFR Section 761.60(a)(4)). Applicable to the storage and disposal of
PCB-contaminated products and wastes. This ARAR applied only to the PCB-
contamination observed at Site IS-3.
RCRA Subtitle C (40 CFR 261 and 262). Establishes standards for the
identification of hazardous waste and for generators of hazardous wastes,
specifically the treatment, storage, and shipping of wastes. LDRs under RCRA
(40 CFR 268) are applicable to disposal of hazardous wastes generated during
investigations and hazardous wastes excavated and removed during remedial
actions.
• Dangerous Waste Regulations (Chapter 173-303 WAC). Applicable for onsite
treatment, storage, or disposal of dangerous or hazardous wastes generated
during remedial actions.
• Washington State Standards for Solid Waste Handling and Disposal (173-304
WAC). Sets minimum functional standards for the proper handling and disposal
of solid waste materials.
Minimum Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Wells (Chapter 173-360
WAC). Provides applicable regulations for the location, design, construction, and
abandonment of water supply and resource protection wells.
Controls for New Sources of Toxic Air Pollutants (Chapter 173-460 WAC).
Requires the use of Best Available Control Technology for new sources of toxic
air pollutants. Pursuant to CERCLA, all air emissions associated with the remedial
actions will comply with the substantive requirements of Chapter 173-460 WAC as
implemented by the Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority. The ambient
impact of emissions of toxic air contaminants from the bioventing system at PS-1
will be evaluated against Acceptable Source Impact Levels.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 USC 1801 -1803 and 49 CFR Parts 171
and 172). Applicable for transportation of potentially hazardous materials,
including field samples and investigation derived wastes.
FAFWWMEG.I 1 ROD 11 -9 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
11.2.3 Location-Specific ARARs
The following location specific ARAR was identified for the remedial actions selected in this
document:
• Protection of Wetlands (40 CFR 6. Appendix A). Applicable to the protection of
wetlands present in the ditch at Site IS-4.
11.2.4 Other Guidance
An additional guideline to be considered for remedial actions selected in this document is as
follows:
EPA OSWER (40 CFR 300.440), Revised Procedures for Planning and
Implementing Offsite Response Actions. November 13, 1987. This rule provides
procedures for offsite disposal of CERCLA wastes.
Guidance applicable to the performance of CERCIJ^ response actions and considered when
evaluating implementation and to a lesser extent cost includes:
OSHA (29 CFR, 1900 Series). Applicable to ensure worker health and safety
during any site action.
11.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS
The selected remedies are overall the most effective for their cost.
11.3.1 SrtelS-3
Institutional controls provide the most cost effective means of preventing exposure to
contaminated sediments in the sump.
11.3.2 Site IS-4
Contaminants, located beneath pavement and clean fill, are expected to naturally biodegrade.
Therefore, institutional controls and monitoring provides the most cost effective remedy for this
site.
11.3.3 Site PS-1
Bioventing is more cost effective than other soil treatment/disposal alternatives. Institutional
controls and monitoring is the most cost effective alternative for monitoring and preventing
exposure to ground water contamination. Specific ground water contaminants are expected to
naturally biodegrade.
ROD 11-10 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
11.3.4 SitePS-5
Institutional controls is the most cost effective alternative for controlling exposure to subsurface
soil contamination while petroleum naturally biodegrades. Similarly, institutional controls and
monitoring is the most cost effective alternative for monitoring of natural biodegradation and
preventing exposure to ground water contamination.
11.3.5 Site PS-7
Institutional controls is the most cost effective alternative for controlling exposure to subsurface
soil contamination while petroleum naturally biodegrades. Similarly, institutional controls and
monitoring is the most cost effective alternative for monitoring natural biodegradation and
preventing exposure to ground water contamination.
11.3.6 Site PS-10
The net present value of excavation, incineration, and offsite disposal of TCE contaminated soil
is high. It is, however, the BOAT under LDRs. For petroleum contaminated soil, institutional
controls and monitoring is the most cost effect alternative. This alternative is protective of human
health and meets ARARs.
11.3.7 Site SW-11
There are no chemical hazard contaminants of concern at this site. "No Action" is therefore the
most appropriate and cost effective alternative.
11.3.8 Site FT-2
Institutional controls and monitoring is the most cost effective alternative for preventing exposure
while soil and ground water contamination naturally biodegrades.
11.4 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE
Many of the selected remedies make use of biodegradation processes that irreversibly destroy
petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. Biodegradation irreversibly reduces the toxicity of
petroleum hydrocarbons by reducing them into carbon dioxide, water, and nonhazardous fatty
acids. Likewise, physical removal and incineration of TCE contaminated soil at PS-10 provides
a permanent reduction in contaminant levels. For PS-1 soil, bioventing, an innovative technology
which enhances natural biodegradation, is the selected remedy. With the exception of TCE
contamination in PS-10 site soil, the contaminants of concern at all sites are biodegradable
hydrocarbons.
--AWOMEC.11 TOO 11-11 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
Removal actions at IS-4, PS-5. and PS-7 have already eliminated most of the contaminated soil
from these sites. Biodegradation is expected to irreversibly reduce the remaining petroleum
hydrocarbons, thus eliminating a potential source of contamination to ground water. At site PS-
10, excavation and incineration of TCE contaminated soil will permanently eradicate any
continuing source of ground water contamination.
Bioventing is an effective, unobtrusive, low maintenance alternative for remediation petroleum
hydrocarbons. It has been extensively tested, but is still considered innovative. Bioventing will
be used to enhance biodegradation of petroleum contaminated soil at PS-1. Removal of soil
contamination will eliminate the source of hydrocarbons to site ground water.
11.5 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
The selected remedy for site PS-1 soil satisfies the statutory preference for treatment by utilizing
in place treatment as a primary method to permanently reduce toxicity of petroleum residue
contamination in the environment.
The selected remedy for TCE contaminated soil at site PS-10 satisfies the statutory preference
for treatment by using high temperature incineration to destroy contaminants.
The remaining selected remedies will rely on natural biodegradation to reduce toxicity of
contaminants of concern.
i wo 11-12 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
12.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the on-base Priority 2 Sites was released for public comment on May 1.
1995. Public comments on the Priority 2 Sites Proposed Plan were evaluated at the end of the
3'0-day comment period, and it was determined no significant changes to the Proposed Plan
were necessary. Preferred alternatives are now selected remedies.
PAFBROOSEC-12ROO 12-1 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
12-2 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL
DATA AND RISK CALCULATIONS
-------
-------
TABLE A-1. CONCENTRATIONS OF THE CONTAMINANT OF CONCERN AT SITE IS-3
MEDIA
Sump Sediments
coc
PCS (Aroclor-1254)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
0.31 mg/kg
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
0.24 mg/kg
(based on 1 sample
and a duplicate)
TABLE A-2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF NON-METAL ANALYSES FOR SEDIMENT
SAMPLES AT IS-3 COLLECTED DURING THE Rl
ANALYTE
PCB-1254 (SW80801
NUMBER OF
DETECTIONS/ANALYSES
2/2
MAXIMUM DETECTION
(mg/kg)
0.31
VOC (SW8260)
Toluene
p-Cymene (p-lsopropyltoluene)
1 .4-Dicniorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
1 2.4-Trimethylbenzene
1 3.5-Trimethylbenzene
m p-Xylene(s)
c-Xylene
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
0.1 4R
0.28R
1.6R
0.32R
1.10R
0.73R
1.20R
0.48R
SVOC (SW8270)
Dis(2-etnylnexyl)Pntnalate
1 4-Dichlorobenzene
1/1
1/1
7.0
4.0
R = Data are rejected
A-1
-------
TABLE A-3. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN
SEDIMENT AT IS-3
CHEMICAL
SUMP SEDIMENTS (mg/kg)
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (Vl)(h)
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Zinc
1,210
059
1.6
312
27
4,250
21. U
144
5,520
157
1,080
324
1 37
62
268
21
109
1,890
—
—
1.4
5,600
40
...
400
3,000
...
—
400
24
1,600
...
240
.
24,000
...
...
004
—
...
...
...
...
...
...
—
...
...
...
...
...
11
82
1,900
27
...
140
1,000
3,800
82
550
...
140
...
8,200
13,000
03
13
190
043
8,800
15
22
34.000
50
53,000
670
005
13
2,500
05
600
68
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
TABLE A-3. RISK BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN
SEDIMENT AT IS-3 (Continued)
CHEMICAL
SUMP SEDIMENTS (mg/kg) ia)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION16'
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d|
RBSL
NONCARCINOGENS(0)
HNBC(f)
POTENTIAL COC(9)
ORGANICS
p-Cymene
1 ,4 Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) 1254
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Tr imethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Xylenes
028R
40
032R
70
031J
014R
1.1R
073R
1 68R
.
160
8.000
71
013
16,000
...
...
160,000
10
...
46
0008
—
—
...
...
—
270
2,700
550
5,500
...
55,000
...
...
...
...
...
...
---
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
All Values rounded to two significant digits
The screening ww conservatively performed on the maximum concentration detected over all depths analyzed Chemicals detected in surface soil will be evaluated m the exposure assessment
The Model Toxics Conrro* Act /MTCA) cleanup regulation (Chapter 173-340 WAC) Method B Is Intended to provide conservative cleanup levels tor sttes undergoing cleanup Based on the lowest calculated value using carunogenlc
and non-carcinogenic loxicity criteria
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance |1991b) the soil RBSL for carcinogens is based on a t x 10 risk
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance |1991b), (he soil RBSL for noncarclnogens Is based on • 0 1 hazard quotient
High Normal Background Concentrations were calculated and referenced In SAIC (1991) There is no background data for organic chemicals See text
Potential chemicals of concern Include metals that exceed (or do not have) the lowest criteria presented and exceed the background UTL as well as organic compounds that exceed (or do not have) the lowest criteria presented
Chemicals without an RBSL lack toxicity criteria Based on EPA Region 10 guidance |1991b), aluminum, calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron, and sodium may generally be eliminated from the human health risk assessment al
the screening stay* based on qualitative Judgement Based on FPA Region 10 guidance (IG9tb|, if chromium, cadmium, elemental mercury, or caiclnogenic forms of nkkel are present as contaminants of concern in soil, they
should not b* eliminated based on soil Ingestlon screening criteria However. It concentrations are less than background they will not be evaluated further
Chromium delected In sediment samples was assumed to be hexavalenl to maintain a conservative risk assessment approach
• No Value
COC - Contaminant of Concern
RBSl «= Risk Based Screening Level
-------
TABLE A-4. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CHEMICALS OF CONCERN IN SUMP
WATER AT IS-3
CHEMICAL
SUMP WATER Oig/L) (a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
MCL(b)
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
RBSL
CARCINOGENS (d)
RBSL
NONCARCINOGENS(e)
HNBC(n
POTENTIAL
COC(9)
INORGANICS
Lead
Zinc
30
140
15
...
...
4,800
—
—
...
1,100
20
40
YES
NO
ORGANICS
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
bis(2-Ethy Ihexyl) phthalate
Polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB)-1242
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1.3
67
021
8R
051
75
6
0.5
1.000
70
1.8
6.2
0.014
1,600
80
3.5
61
0.01
...
...
200
73
97
20
...
...
...
—
NO
in)
YES
(h)
NO
All values rounded to two significant digits
Federal Maximum Contaminant Level* (MCL) lot drinking Mater
The Model Tonics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup regulation (Chapter t A3 340 WAC) Method 8 is intended to provide conservative cleanup levels lor site:> undergoing cleanup Based on iho lowest calculated value using
carcinogenic and non carcinogenic tonic I ty cfiterla
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance |1&91b), the ground water RBSl for carcinogens is based on a t x 10 6 risk HBSls toi volatile chemicals with tin inhalation slope factor were calculated based on mijesiiun and
Inhalation of volatile* (rom ground water
Based on EHA Hegion 10 guidance (1991b>. the ground water HHSL tor noncarcmugens is based on a 0 1 hazard quotient RBSLs lor volatile chemicals with inhalation reteience dose* were calculated based on mgestion
and inhalation of volatile* from ground water
High Normal Background Concentrations (HNBCj were calculated for ground waicr and referenced in SAIC (I9y|) Idere is no background lor organic chemicals HNUC relerefiieJ. in the. table tor information puip^e* it
la unlikely thai sump water ts in direct communication with ground water and concentrations delected in sump water may be largely diluted i( they contact ground water in the futuie
Potential chemicals of concern include chemicals that exceed |or do not have) the lowest criteria presented and that exceed background However bused on EPA Region 10 guidance (199 Hi) aluminum, calcium
magnesium, potassium, iron, and sodtum may generally be eliminated from the human health nsK assessment at the screening stage based on qualitative judgement
Not chosen a* a potential chemical of concern because presence is due to blank contamination The concentration of bis(2 ethylhexyI)phthalate and toluene in the equipment blank was 1 / 0 and 1 OH respectively
- No Value
COC » Contaminant o( Concern
RBSL - Risk-Based Screening Level
-------
TABLE A-5. CONCENTRATION OF THE CONTAMINANT OF CONCERN
AT SITE IS-4
MEDIUM
Soil
coc
TPH-D (JP-4)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
6.000 mg/kg
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
1,194 mg/kg
TABLE A-6. SUMMARY OF PETROLEUM RESIDUE FIELD
SCREENING ANALYSES AT IS-4
SCREENING
SAMPLE NO.
H-1
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
H-7
H-8
H-9
H-10
H-11
H-1 2
H-1 3
H-1 4
H-1 5
H-1 6
H-1 7
H-1 8
H-1 9
H-20
H-21
DEPTH
(feet bgs)
2
2
3
1
3
1
2
4
4
4
3.5
3.5
3
3
2.5
2.5
2
4
2
2
2
RESULTS OF SCREENING
ANALYSES (mg/kg of
petroleum residue)
100-200
1 0 - 50
10-50
10-50
10-50
200
500
50 - 1 00
<10
<10
1000
>1000
>1000
10-50
500
2000
200
50
500 - 1 000
500- 1000
100
A-5
-------
TABLE A-6. SUMMARY OF PETROLEUM RESIDUE FIELD
SCREENING ANALYSES AT IS-4 (Continued)
SCREENING
SAMPLE NO.
H-22
H-23
H-24
H-25
H-26
H-27
H-28
H-29
H-30
H-31
H-32
H-33
H-34
H-35
H-36
H-37
DEPTH
(feet bgs)
3
3
3
2
4
4
3
3
3
1.5
2.5
3
2
4
3
4
RESULTS OF SCREENING
ANALYSES (mg/kg of
petroleum residue)
2000
1000
50
10
10
200
500
100
10
200 - 500
10
. 1 0 - 50
500
100
2000
2000
A-6
-------
TABLE A-7. SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYSES FOR THE TEST PIT AT IS-4
(a)
SAMPLE ID
FAFB-IS-4-S09
FAFB-IS-4-S10
FAFB-IS-4-S11
FAFB IS-4 S12
FAFBIS-4S13
FAFB-IS-4S14
FAFB-IS-4-S15
FAFB-IS4S16
FAFB-IS-4 S17(d)
[FAFB-IS-4-S31,
Duplicate]
FAFB-IS-4-S18
FAFB-IS-4-S19
FAFB-IS-4-S20
DEPTH
(feet)
30-35
3.0-3.5
3.5-4.0
2025
3.0-3.5
4045
3.0-3.5
2530
4.0-4.5
5.0-5.5
3.5-4.0
3.5-4.0
VOC(D>
SW8260 (mg/kg)
0 0059UJ
0 0059UJ
0.0064UJ
Isopropyltoluene 0.29J
Naphthalene 0.68J
m-.p-Xylene(s) 283
o-Xylene 1 05
1,3.5-Trimethylbenzene 7.6
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 11.0
Chloroform 0.0098J
o-Xylene 00068
1,3,5 Trimethylbenzene 0 01 5J
Ethylbenzene 00062UJ
m-.p-Xylene(s) 0.93J
o-Xylene 0.0062UJ
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1.4J
1,2,4-Trimelhylbenzene 2.9J
0.0061 UJ
m-,p-Xylene(s) 0.045J
o-Xylene 0.021J
1,3,5 Trimethylbenzene 1.7J
[1.4UJ1
00065UJ
0.0055UJ
Ethylbenzene 12 U
m-,p-Xylene(s) 93.3J
o-Xylene 31 8J
n-Propyl Benzene 7 4J
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 42J
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 110J
sec-Butylbenzene 5.6J
TOG
SW9060 (mg/kg)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1544
[N/A]
N/A
542
N/A
TPH(C'
CA8015 (mg/kg)
Diesel 5U
Diesel 5U
Diesel 5U
Diesel 1,900
Diesel 5U
Diesel 300
Diesel 440
Diesel 5U
Diesel 1 ,800 [2,500]
Diesel 5U
Diesel 5U
Diesel 4,900
METALSld) 6010
(mg/kg)
N/A
N/A
N/A •
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mg 5780
Tl 1 1 6(e)
Zn 70.1
[N/A]
N/A
N/A
N/A
-------
TABLE A-7. SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYSES FOR THE TEST PIT AT IS-4(a) (Continued)
SAMPLE ID
FAFB-IS-4 S25
FAFB-IS-4-S26
FAFB-IS-4-S27
FAFB-IS-4-S28
FAFB-IS-4-S29
FAFB-IS-4-S30
DEPTH
(feet)
3.6-3.8
4.3-4.5
3.2-33
6.5-6.8
2025
3.2-3.5
voc(D)
SW8260 (ing/kg)
0.0057UJ
m-,p-Xylene(s) 3.2J
Isopropyltoluene 1.3J
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 3.2J
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 8J
sec-Butylbenzene 045J
Isopropyltoluene 6.0J
Ethylbenzene 6.6J
m-.p-Xylene(s) 13J
o-Xylene 0.28J
n-Propyl Benzene 6.6J
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 24J
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 73J
0.0056UJ
m-.p-Xylene 0.79J
o-Xylene 0.90J
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 8.7J
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 5.3J
m-,p-Xylene 10. OJ
o-Xylene 5.2J
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 9.9J
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 12J
TOG
SW9060 (mg/ky)
146
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TPH(c)
CA8015 (mg/kg)
Diesel 5U
Diesel 2,200
Diesel 4,800
Diesel 5U
Diesel 6,000
Diesel 3,800
METALS(d) 6010
(mg/kg)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
>
CO
(a)
(b)
(c)
Several samples were analyzed by two separate analytical laboratories. Values presented ace maximum detections or minimum detection limits
Refer to Appendix H for complete analyte list and compound specific detection limits
TPH analyses quantified to a JP-4 standard did not detect fuel constituents above the MDL of between 11 mg/kg to 13 mg/kg All JP-4 analyses
were qualified as estimated
All metal analyses by ICP (SW6010) unless otherwise noted
Thallium was not detected by Method 7840. The detection of thallium is, therefore, considered a result of analytical interference common to
Method 6010
N/A = Not Analyzed
U = No compounds detected. The value listed is the detection limit of the analysis.
J - Value is estimated.
-------
TABLE A-8. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CHEMICALS OF CONCERN IN GROUND
WATER AT IS-4
CHEMICAL
GROUND WATER fog/l.) (a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
MCL(b)
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
RDSL
CARCINOGENS(d)
RBSL
NONCARCINOGENS(e)
HNBC(f)
POTENTIAL
OOC(g>
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (Vl)(h)
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
11.000
11
2,600
21
69,000
41
35
20,000
91
19,000
2,800
14,000
11.0
26,000
57
130
—
50
2,000
5
...
100
1,300
15
...
...
...
50
...
...
...
...
005
1,100
8
80
590
...
...
•
80
...
48
...
110
4,800
...
005
...
...
...
...
...
...
—
...
—
...
...
...
1 1
260
1.8
...
18
140
...
...
18
18
...
26
1,100
16,000
2
2.700
30
30
35,000
20
...
1,500
5
330
40
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ORGANICS
Benzene
Carbon telrachloride
Chloroform
71
45
2NJ
5
5
35
034
06
07
...
26
...
...
YES
YES
NO
-------
TABLE A-8. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CHEMICALS OF CONCERN IN GROUND
WATER AT IS-4 (Continued)
CHEMICAL
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimelhylphthalate
Ethytbenzene
2-Melhylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Toluene
Total petroleum
hydrocarbons
Trichloroethene
Xylenes (total)
GROUND WATER (/ig/L) (a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
22
18
77
200
13
13
180
30
1.0
3,200
MCL(b)
6
—
—
700
—
—
1,000
__.
5
10,000
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
6.2
320
16,000
800
—
320
1,600
4.0
16,000
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d)
6.1
—
—
—
—
—
...
...
25
—
RBSL
NONCARCINOGENS(e)
73
73
36,000
160
150
97
290*0
26
80
HNBC(f)
—
...
...
—
—
—
...
...
POTENTIAL
COC(9)
YES<"
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
>
o
All values rounded to two significant digit*
federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for drinking water
1 he Model Tomes Control Act (MTCA) cleanup regulation (Chapter 1 73 340 WAC) Method B is intended to provide conservative cleanup levels lor sites undergoing cleanup Based on me luwesi calculated value using t arunoyemc
and non carcinogenic tOKicity criteria
Based on EPA Region to guidance (199Ib), the ground water HBSL tor carcinogens is based on a 1 x 10 6 risk RBSLs lur volatile chemicals with an inhalation slope factor were calculated based on mgestign and mhulaiiun u(
volallies from ground water
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (t99lb). the ground water RBSL for noncarunoyens is based on a 0 1 haza/d quotient HBSLs (or vulaiile chemicals with inhalation leletenLe duses were takukited based on ingcMton and
Inhalation of volatile* from ground water
High Normal Background Concentrations (MNBC) were calculated and referenced in SAIt; )1>J91} There is no background for organic chemical*
Potential chemicals of concern include chemicals thai exceed (or do not have) the lowest criteria presented anJ thai exceed background However based on EPA Region 10 guidance (l^Jlbj aluminum calcium magnesium,
potassium, iron, and sodium may generally be eliminated from the human health risk assessment at the screening stage based on qualitative judgement
To maintain a conservative risk assessment approach, chromium was assumed to be hexavalent
Chosen aft a potential chemical ol concern, however, presence of this contaminant may be due to blank contamination
The noncarcmogenlc RBSL is based on a provisional oral reference dose tor JP 4 (LPA 1992) JP 4 was used historically at IS 4
- No Value
CGC = Contaminant of Concern
RBSL = Risk Based Screening Level
-------
TABLE A-9. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR'POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN
SOIL AT IS-4
CHEMICAL
SOIL (ALL DEPTHS) (mg/kg) (a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION (b)
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d)
RBSL
NONCARCINOGENS(e)
HNBC(f)
POTENTIAL COC(9)
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
14,000
81
59
200
020
10,000
14
21
24
58,000
26
5,700
1,500
043
23
2,500
1,300
100
81
—
---
1.4
5,600
40
400
—
3,000
....
...
—
400
24
1,600
—
• „.
560
24,000
—
004
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
—
—
...
—
.
11
82
1,900
27
140
1,000
...
—
—
3,800
8.2
550
—
—
190
8,200
13,000
03
13
190
043
8,800
15
14
22
34,000
50
53,000
670
005
13
2,500
600
69
68
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ORQANICS
sec Butylbenzene
Chloroform
56
001
—
160
—
10
—
270
—
—
YES
NO
-------
TABLE A-9. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN
SOIL AT IS-4 (Continued)
CHEMICAL
Ethylbenzene
p-Cymene
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
n-Propylbenzene
Total petroleum
hydrocarbons
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3.5-Trimethy Ibenzene
Xylenes
SOIL (ALL DEPTHS) (mg/kg)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION*61
7.9
60
001
068
74
6,000
110
42
110
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
8.000
—
130
320
—
—
—
—
160,000
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d)
—
—
8.5
—
...
—
.
—
—
RBSL
NONCARCINOGENS(e)
2,700
—
1,600
1,000
...
2.200
—
•
55,000
HNBC(()
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
POTENTIAL COC(9)
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
ro
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(0
(9)
(h)
All Values rounded to two significant digits
The screening was conservatively performed on the maximum concentration detected over all depths analyzed. Chemicals detected in soil will be evaluated
in the exposure assessment
The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup regulation (Chapter 173-340 WAC) Method B is intended to provide conservative cleanup levels for sites
undergoing cleanup Based on the lowest-calculated value using carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity criteria
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (1991b), the soil RBSL for carcinogens is based on a 1 x IO"7 risk
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (1991b), the soil RBSL for noncarcinogens is based on a 0.1 hazard quotient
High Normal Background Concentrations were calculated and referenced in SAIC (1991) There is no background data for organic chemicals See text
Potential chemicals of concern include metals that exceed (or do not have) the lowest criteiia presented and exceed the background UTL as well as organic
compounds that exceed (or do not have) the lowest criteria presented Chemicals without an RBSL lack toxicity criteria Based on EPA Region 10 guidance
(1991 b), aluminum, calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron, and sodium may generally be eliminated from the human health risk assessment at the screening
stage based on qualitative judgement Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (1991b), if chromium, cadmium, elemental mercury, or carcinogenic forms of
nickel are present as contaminants of concern in soil, they should not be eliminated based on soil ingestion screening criteria. However, if concentrations
are less than background, they will not be evaluated further.
The noncarcinogenic RBSL is based on a provisional oral reference dose for JP-4 (EPA 1992) JP-4 was used historically at IS 4
--- = No Value
COC = Contaminant of Concern
RBSL = Risk-Based Screening Level.
-------
TABLE A-10. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CHEMICALS OF CONCERN IN SURFACE
WATER AT IS-4
CHEMICAL
SURFACE WATER (jig/L) (a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
MCL(b)
MTCA
METHOD B(c|
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d)
RBSL
NONCARCINOGENS(e)
POTENTIAL COC(f)
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Chromium (VI)
Lead
Manganese
Silver
Zinc
83
25
98
850
11
68
50
100
15(9)
—
50
—
008
810
—
—
15,600
16,500
005
...
...
—
11
18
18
18
1,100
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(0
(g)
All values rounded to two significant digits.
Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for drinking water
The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup regulation (Chapter 173-340 WAG) Method B is intended to provide conservative cleanup levels for
s.ites undergoing cleanup The values presented are based on ambient water quality criteria The lower of two criteiia was used (fresh water chronic
versus ingestion of water and organisms).
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (1991b), the surface water RBSL for carcinogens is based on a 1 x 10-6 risk
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (1991b), the surface water RBSL for noncarcinogens is based on a 0 1 hazard quotient
Potential chemicals of concern include.chemicals that exceed (or do not have) the lowest criteria presented. However, based on EPA Region 10
guidance (1991 b), aluminum, calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron, and sodium may generally be eliminated from the human health risk assessment
at the screening stage based on qualitative judgement
Action level for ground water tap samples (exceeded if one level of concentration in more than 10% of targeted tap samples is greater than the
specified value (90th percentile)
— = No Value
COC = Contaminant of Concern
RBSL = Risk-Based Screening Level
-------
TABLE A-11. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER FOR A
HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT IS-4
CHEM!CAL(a)
Carbon tetrachloride'b^
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Elhylbenzene
Toluene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium'0'
Manganese
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
1.9
7.6
39
21
37
3.0
77
830
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
4.5
10
200
27
49
16
14
3,900
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
28E-05
1.1E-04
5.7E-04
3.2E-04
57E-05
46E-05
12E-04
1 3E-02
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 2E-04
28E-04
55E-03
1 OE-06
1 3E-04
44E04
40E-04
1 1E-01
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kg-day)
7E-04
2E02
1E-01
2E-01
3E04
5E04
5E-03
5E-03
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
4E02
6E-03
6E03
2E-03
2E 01
9E02
2E02
3E + 00
3E + 00
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
2E-01
1E-02
5E-02
5E06
4E-01
9E01
8E-02
2E + 01
2E+01
(a)
(b)
(c)
Ground water ingeslion doses have been calculated tor those chemicals ot concein with oral reference doses. The following chemicals are not presented
due to lack of toxicity criteria: benzene, lead, 2-methyl naphthalene, and xylenes
Carbon tetrachloride was only detected in deep aquifer monitoring wells. Theiefore, the average and RME exposure point concenliations were based on
deep aquifer samples
The maximum detected value for chiomium was 41 jig/L which was detected once in the deep aquifer The risk calculation, however, is based on the
shallow aquifer detected concentrations because of the frequency of detection was higher
-------
TABLE A-12. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER FOR A HYPOTHETICAL
RESIDENT AT IS-4
CHEMICAL'"'
Benzene
Carbon letrachloride'b>
bis (2-Ethylhexyl)
phlhalate
Arsenic
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
U9/L)
96
1.9
76
37
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(MQ/L)
14
45
10
49
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 9E-05
36E-06
1.5E-05
7.3E-06
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1.7E-04
5 3E-05
1 2E-04
5.7E-05
ORAL
SLOPE FACTOR
(mg/kg-day) -1
29E-02
1 3E-01
1 4E-02
1 75E + 00
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
5E-07.
5E 07
2E 07
1E-05
1E-05
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
5E-06
7E-06
2E-06
1E-04
1E-04
Ul
(a)
(b)
Ground water ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancer slope factors The following chemicals are not
presented due to lack of toxicity criteria: cadmium, chromium, ethylbenzene, lead, manganese, 2-methyl naphthalene and xylenes
Carbon tetrachloride was only detected in deep aquifer monitoring wells Therefore, the aveiage and RME exposure point concentrations were based on
deep aquifer samples
-------
TABLE A-13. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF VOLATILES DURING
SHOWERING BY A HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT IS-4
CHEMICAL1"'
Ethy (benzene
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/m3)(b)
214E-01
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(n.g/m3)
1.1E+00
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 7E-04
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
20E-03
INHALATION
REFERENCE DOSE
(mg/kg-day)
3E01
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
1E03
1E-03
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
6E03
6E 03
(b)
Dose for the inhalation of volatiles from showering pathway have been calculated for volatile chemicals of concern with inhalation reference doses The
following chemical is not presented due to lack of inhalation toxicity criteria: benzene, carbon tetrachloiide, 2-methylnaphthalene, toluene, and xylenes
Average and RME Exposure Point Concentrations were derived using the Foster and Chrostowski (1987) model These values lepiesent the average an
concentration for total shower exposure
-------
TABLE A-14. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF VOLATILES DURING SHOWERING FOR
A HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT IS-4
CHEMICAL(a)
Benzene
Carbon
tetiachloiide
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/ni3)(b)
58E-02
9 1E 03
RMfc
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/m3)(b)
8.6E-02
2.2E-02
AVERAGE
IIFEHME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg day)
58E-06
9.1E-07
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
5.9E-05
1 5E-05
INHALATION
SLOPE FACTOR
(mg/kg day)-1
29E-02
1 3E-01
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
2E-07
1E-07
3E-07
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK .
2E-06
2E-06
4E-06
(a)
Dose for the inhalation of volatiles from showering pathway have been calculated for volatile chemicals of concern with inhalafion slope factors
The following chemical is not presented due to lack of inhalation toxicity criteria ethylbenzene. bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 2 -methylnaphthalene,
toluene and xylenes
Average and RME Exposure Point Concentrations were derived using the Foster and Chrostowski (1987) model These values represent the average
air concentration for total shower exposure
-------
TABLE A-15. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT IS-4
CHEMICAL'0'
Carbon tetrachloride^
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium'0)
Manganese
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
1.9
76
39
21
37
30
77
830
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
45
10
200
27
49
16
14
3,900
r AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1.8E-05
7.4E-05
3.8E-04
2.0E-04
37E-05
30E-05
7.6E-05
8 IE 03
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
44E-05
1 OE-04
2.0E-03
2.6E-04
48E-05
16E-04
1.4E-04
3.8E-02
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kg-day)
7E04
2E-02
1E-01
2E-01
3E-04
5E-04
5E-03
5E03
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
3E-02
4E-03
4E 03
1E03
1E01
6E 02
2E-02
2E+00
2E + 00
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
6E02
5E-03
2E-02
1E-03
2E-01
3E01
3E-02
8E+00
8E + 00
>
00
(a)
(b)
Ground water ingeslion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral reference doses. The following chemicals are not presented
due to lack of toxicity criteria: benzene, lead, 2-melhyl naphthalene, and xylenes
Carbon tetrachlonde was only detected in deep aquifer monitoring wells Therefore, the average and RME exposure point concentrations were based on
deep aquifer samples
The maximum detected value for chromium was 41 ^g/L which was detected once in the deep aquifer The exposure point concentration, however, is based
on the samples collected from the shallow aquifer because the frequency of detection was higher for chromium.
-------
TABLE A-16. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER FOR AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT IS-4
CHEMICAL*8'
Benzene
Carbon
tetrachloride(b>
bis
(2 Elhylhexyl)
phthalate •
Arsenic
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
96
1 9
76
37
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
OiQ/L)
14
4.5
10
49
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1.3E-05
2 6E-06
1 1E-05
52E-06
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
4.9E-05
1 6E05
3.4E-05
1.7E-05
ORAL
SLOPE FACTOR
(mg/kg-day)-1
2 9E-02
1 3E-01
1.4E-02
1.75E + 00
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
4E-07
3E-07
IE -07
9E-06
1E-05
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
1E-06
2E-06
5E-07
3E-05
3E 05
>
CO
(a)
(b)
Giound watei ingeslion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancel slope factors The following chemicals are
not presented due to lack of toxicity criteria: cadmium, chromium, ethylbenzene, lead, manganese, 2-methyl naphthalene and xylenes
Carbon tetrachloride was only delected in deep aquifer monitoring wells.
based on deep aquifer samples
Therefore, the average and RME exposure point concentrations were
-------
TABLE A-17. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY A HYPOTHETICAL
RESIDENT AT IS-4(a)
CHEMICAL(b>
Manganese
Total petroleum
hydrocarbons (as JP-4)
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
830
1,200
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
3,900
6,000
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
9.0E-04
1 OE-03
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
•(mg/kg-day)
1.4E-02
2.2E-02
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kg-day)
5E03
8E-02
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
2E01
2E04
2E01
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
3E*00
3E 01
3E + 00
(b)
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario where data were available and useable
Soil ingestion doses were calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral reference doses The following chemicals were not presented due lo lack
of toxicity criteria: sec-butylbenzene, lead; n-propylbenzene, 1,2,4-trimelhylbenzene, and 1,3,5 trimethylbenzene
-------
TABLE A-18. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT IS-4(a)
CHEMICAL(b)
Manganese
Total petroleum
hydrocarbons (as JP-4)
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
830
1,200
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
3,900
6.000
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
4 1E-04
1 OE-03
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg day)
1 9E 03
3 OE 03
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kg-day)
5E 03
BE 02
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
8E 02
7E-03
9E 02
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
4E01
4E 02
4E-01
(a)
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario were data were available and useable
Soil ingestion doses were calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral reference doses The following chemicals were not presented due
to lack of toxicity criteria sec-butylbenzene; lead; n-propylbenzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene. and 1.3.5 trimethylbenzene
-------
TABLE A-19. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF SOIL BY A HYPOTHETICAL
RESIDENT AT IS-4(a)
CHEMICAL(b)
Manganese
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
830
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
3,900
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
38E-05
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg day)
23E-07
INHALATION
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 43E-05
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
3E-03
3E-03
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
2E-02
2E02
-------
TABLE A-20. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH FOR THE INHALATION OF SOIL BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT IS-4(a)
CHEMICAL(b|
Manganese
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
830
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
3.900
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
35E 08
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1.6E-07
INHALATION
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 43E-05
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
2E03
2E 03
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
1E-02
IE 02
(b)
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario were data were available and useable
Inhalation of soil doses were calculated foi those chemicals of concern with inhalation reference doses The following chemicals were not
presented due to lack of toxicity criteria: sec-butylbenzene; lead; n-propylbenzene; total petroleum hydrocarbons, 1,2,4 Irimethylbenzene,
and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene.
>
ib
-------
TABLE A-21. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SURFACE WATER BY
AIR FORCE PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT IS-4(a)
CHEMICAL*8'
Arsenic
Chromium
Manganese
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
36
50
2658
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
5.4
96
850
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
35E-07
49E-07
26E-05
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kgday)
16E-05
2.8E-05
25E-03
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kg-day)
3E-04
5E03
5E 03
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
1E-03
1E04
5E-03
6E03
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
5E-02
6E03
5E01
6E01
Surface water ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oial leference doses, therefoie, although lead is a
chemical of concern, the noncancer hazard for this metal cannot be quantified because there is no oral reference dose for lead
>
rb
-------
TABLE A-22. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED THE INGESTION OF SURFACE WATER BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT IS-4
CHEMICAL1"1
Arsenic
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
36
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
5.4
AVERAGE
1 IFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (I.ADD)
(mg/kgday)
5E 08
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg day)
64E06
ORAL
SLOPE FACTOR
(mg/kg day)- 1
1 75E + 00
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
9E08
9E08
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK '
1E 05
IE 05
Surface water ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancel slope factors The following chemicals aie
not presented clue to lack of toxicity criteria chromium, lead, and manganese
ro
en
-------
TABLE A-23. SUMMARY OF NONCANCER HAZARD AT FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE
BASE SITE IS-4
RECEPTOR/PATHWAY
AVERAGE
HAZARD INDEX
RME HAZARD
INDEX
Air Force Personnel/Contractors
Inhalation of Soil Paniculate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
Ingestion of Surface Water
CUMULATIVE HAZARD INDEX
2E-03
9E-02
2E+00
6E-03
2E+00
1E-02
4E-01
8E+00
6E-01
8E+00
Residential Exposure with Current Conditions
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
Inhalation of Volatiles During Showering
CUMULATIVE HAZARD INDEX
3E-03
4E-01
3E+00
1E-03
3E + 00
2E-02
3E+00
2E+01
6E-03
2E+01
A-26
-------
TABLE A-24. CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK AT FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE
BASE SITE IS-4
RECEPTOR/PATHWAY
AVERAGE RISK
RME RISK
•Air Force Personnel/Contractors
Inhalation of Soil Paniculate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
Ingestion of Surface Water
CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK
...
—
1 E-05
9E-08
1E-05
—
—
3E-05
1E-05
4E-05
Residential Exposure with Current Conditions
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
Inhalation of Volatiles During Showering
CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK
—
•
1E-05
3E-07
1E-05
—
—
1E-04
4E-06
1E-04
A-27
-------
TABLE A-25. CONCENTRATIONS OF THE CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AT
SITE PS-1
MEDIUM
Soil
Ground water
coc
TPH-D
TPH-D
Benzene
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
9.185 mg/kg
7.000 ug/L
950 ug/L
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
435.2 mg/kg
1.080 ^g/L
121 ag/L
A-28
-------
TABLE A-26. RESULTS OF Rl NON-METALS SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSES
AT PS-1
ANALYSE
.TPH-D (CA 8015)
NUMBER OF
DETECTIONS/ANALYSES
16/37
LOCATIONS*
B-12. 13. 15, MW-208
MAXIMUM
DETECTION (mg/kg)
9185J
VOC (SW8260)
n-Butylbenzene
sec-Butyibenzene
t-Butylbenzene
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
p-Cymene (p-
Isopropy (toluene)
1 4-Dichlorodenzene
Etnylbenzene
Tricniorofluoromethane
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)
Metnyiene Chloride
Naphthalene
n-Propylbenzene
' 2.4-Trimethylbenzene
i 3.5-Tnmethylbenzene
m.p-Xylene
o-Xyiene
i -Metnyietnylbenzene
6/53
6/53
2753
1/53
5/53
1/53
13/53
2/53
10/53
1/53
7/53
9/53
12/53
9/53
•17/53
20/53
1 7/53
15/53
1/53
B-13. 15. 208R
B-12R. 15. 208R
B-13. 15
B-12R
B-12. 12R, 14. 15. 40
B-12R
B-12. 12R. 13, 15.
208R. MW-208
B-13, 14
B-12, 12R. 15. 208R
B-12
B-12, 12R. 15, 208R
B-12, 12R, 40R, 208R.
MW-208
B-12, 12R, 13, 15. 208R
B-12R, 15. 208R. MW-
208
B-12. 12R, 13, 15, 40,
208R, MW-208
B-12. 12R, 13, 15, 40.
208R. MW-208
B-12. 12R. 13, 15. 40.
208R. MWB-208
B-12. 12R. 13, 15. 40.
208R MW-208
B-12R
2.20
1.50
742R
0.73
0.14
0.07
2.80
0.02R
4.80
0.01 R
1.4
0.62
5.20
2,70
43.0
17.0
240
8.80
0.83
SVOC (SW8270)
2-Methyinaphthaiene
Naontnaiene
4/25
3/25
B-12, 12R. 13, 15
B-12. 12R. 15
6.34
4.53
BOLD = Location of maximum detection.
J = Data are estimates
R = When placed next to a numerical detection, this means data are rejected.
A-29
-------
TABLE A-27. RESULTS OF Rl NON-METALS GROUND WATER SAMPLE
ANALYSES AT PS-1
ANALYTE
TPH-D (CA 8015)
NUMBER OF
DETECTIONS/ANALYSES
7/13»b»
LOCATIONS13'
MW-207 208
MAXIMUM
DETECTION (^g/L)
7000J
VOC (SW8260)
sec-Butylbenzene
Benzene
Toluene
p-Cymene (p-lsopropyltoluene)
Ethylbenzene
Hexacnlorobutadiene
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)
Naphthalene
n-Propylbenzene
1 ,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1 2.4-Trichlorobenzene
1 .2.4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimetnylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
1 -Methylethylbenzene
2/13
5/13
1/13
2/13
5/13
1/13
5/13
5/13
.4/13
1/13
1/13
5/13
2/13
5/13
5/13
4/13
MW-196. MW-208
MW-196, MW-208
MW-208
MW-208
MW-196, MW-208
MW-208
MW-196, MW-208
MW-208
MW-208
MW-208
MW-208
MW-208
MW-208
MW-208
MW-208
MW-208
12.0
950
4.0
35.0
590
24.0
63.0
170
78.0
130
50.0
550
380
1700
120
52
SVOC (SW8270)
2.4-Dimethylpnenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
1/7
3/7
3/7
MW-208
MW-208
MW-208
38.0
51.0
110
Ia| BOLD = Location of maximum detection.
(b' Includes one detection noted by the laboratory as 'Unknown Extractable Hydrocarbon.1
J = Data are estimates.
R = Data are rejected.
A-30
-------
TABLE A-28. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN
SOIL AT PS-1
CHEMICAL
SOIL (ALL DEPTHS) (mg/kg) (a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION (b)
MTCA
METHOD B (c)
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d)
RBSL NON-
CARCINOGENS(e|
PS 1
HNBC(f)
POTENTIAL
COC(9)
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
10,000
15
123
066
056
8.700
18
15
18
27,000
46
6,900
840
18
2.300
68
480
54
53
1 4
5,600
023
40
400
3,000
...
—
...
400
1,600
...
240
...
560
24.000
...
004
001
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
82
1.900
140
27
140
1,000
...
...
3,800
550
...
140
190
8,200
14,000
19
200
0?5
028
8,400
18
18
16
29,000
18
6,000
730
17
2.600
05
590
54
52
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ORGANICS
Benzene
sec-Butylbenzene
n-Butylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
073
1.5
220
007
1.5
...
...
1,600
22
...
...
...
...
...
550
...
NO
YES
YES
NO
-------
TABLE A-28. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
IN SOIL AT PS-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL
p-Cymene
Diesel (total petroleum
hydrocarbons)
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
Methylene chloride
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
n-Propylbenzene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
(m,p, and o)
SOIL (ALL DEPTHS) (mg/Kg) (a>
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION (b)
28
9,185
48
1.4
062
63
5.2
27
014
43
8
33
MTCA
METHOD B (c)
•
—
8,000
—
130
...
320
...
16,000
...
160,000
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d)
...
...
...
...
85
...
...
—
...
...
...
RBSL NON
CARCINOGENS'6'
...
2200(h)
2,700
1,100
1,600
1,100
...
5,500
55,000
PS 1
HNBC(f)
...
...
...
—
...
...
...
...
POTENTIAL
COC(9)
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
CO
ro
10
Ul
All values founded to two significant digit;,
The screening was conservatively performed on (tie maximum concentration detected over all depths analyzed Contaminants delected in surface soil will be evaluated m the exposure assessment
The Model Toxics Control Act |MTCA) cleanup regulation (173 340 WAC) Method B is intended to provide conservative cleanup levels tor sites undergoing cleanup Based on the lowest calculated value using
carcinogenic and non carcinogenic tomcity criteria
Based on EPA Region tO guidance (EPA 1991 lbid| the suit HBSL is based on A I x 10 / risk
Bated on EPA Region 10 guidance (EPA 1891 Ibid), the soil RBSL it based un a i> 1 ha/urd quotient
The PS 1 High Normal Background Concentrations (HNBC) ware calculated and referenced in Appendix J Iheie is no background duta tor organic* See text
Potential contaminant* of concern Include metals thai exceed (or do not have) the lowest criterion presented and exceed the HNBC as well as organic compounds that exceed (oi do not have) the lowest criterion
presented Contaminants without an RBSL lack loxicity criterion Based on EHA Region 10 guidance (EPA 1991 Ibid), aluminum calcium magnesium, potassium. Iron and sodium may generally ba eliminated from
ttia human health risk assessment al the screening stage based on qualitative judgement Based on bPA Region 10 guidance (fcPA 1991b) it chromium cadmium elemental mercury, or carcinogenic to/ms ot nickel
a/* p/ewnted as contaminant* ot concern in soil. Mt«y should not be eliminated based on soil mgestion sc/eening criterion However if concenl/aUons are less than background, they will not be evaluated further
The noncarcmogenic RBSL Is based on a provisional oral reference dose (or JP 4 which, for the purpose* of this risk assessment will be assumed to be similar to diesel
- No Value
CUC - Contaminants ot Concern
RBSL * Risk Based Screening Level
-------
TABLE A-29. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN GROUND
WATER AT PS-1
CHEMICAL
GROUND WATER fog/L) (a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
MCL(b)
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d)
RBSL NON-
CARCINOGENS(e)
PS-1
HNBC(f)
POTENTIAL
COC(9>
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Copper
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
18,000
70
430
30
170,000
13
22
29,000
65
51,000
7,000
45
84
4,100
39
15
54,000
53
64
—
50
2,000
4
—
1,300
-:-
15(n)
—
—
100
50
—
—
.
005
1,100
002
...
590
—
—
—
80
80
320
—
48
...
110
4,800
005
—
002
...
...
...
—
...
—
—
—
...
—
...
...
...
.
1.1
260
18
...
...
140
18
73
...
...
18
...
26
1,100
16,000
2
2,700
6
...
50
30
35,000
20
1,500
610
350
4
5
...
330
40
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
ORGANICS
Benzene
sec-Butylben/ene
p-Cymene
Diesel (total petroleum
hydrocarbons)
950
12
35
70
5
---
""
35
—
""
060
...
...
...
2,900
...
...
YES
YES
YES
NO
-------
TABLE A-29. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN GROUND
WATER AT PS-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL
2,4-Oimethy (phenol
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
n-Propylbenzene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3.5-Trimethylbenzene
Total Xylenes (m,p, and o)
GROUND WATER kg/I) (a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
38
590
24
63
51
170
78
4
50
130
550
380
1,735
MCL(b>
700
—
—
—
—
—
1,000
70
...
...
10,000
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
320
800
—
0.56
32
—
1,600
80
...
—
—
16,000
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d)
—
—
1.1
—
—
...
...
...
—
—
—
...
...
RBSL NON-
CARCINOGENS(e)
73
160
73
2.8
150
97
20
...
80
PS 1
HNBC(<)
...
—
...
POTENTIAL
COC(9)
NO
YES
YES"'
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(0
(9)
(h)
(i)
(i)
All values rounded lo two significant digits
Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for dunking water
The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup regulation (173-340 WAC) Method B is intended to provide conservative cleanup levels for sites undergoing
cleanup. Based on the lowest-calculated value using carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity criteria
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (EPA 1991 Ibid), the ground water RBSL is based on a 1 x 10 risk RBSLs for volatile contaminants wan an inhalation
slope factor were calculated based on ingestion and inhalation of volaliles from ground water
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (EPA 1991 Ibid), the ground water RBSL for non-carcinogens is based on a 0 1 hazard quotient RBSLs foi volatile
contaminants with inhalation reference doses were calculated based on ingestion and inhalation of volatiles from ground water
Site PS-1 High Normal Background Concentrations (HNBC) were calculated and referenced in Appendix J
Potential contaminants of concern include contaminants that exceed (or do not have) the lowest criterion presented and that exceed backyiound Howevei,
based on EPA Region 10 guidance (EPA 1991 Ibid), aluminum, calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron, and sodium may generally be eliminated from the
human health risk assessment at the screening stage based on qualitative judgement
Action level exceeded if the level of concentration in more than 10% of targeted tap samples is.gieater than the specified value (90th peicenlile)
Chosen as a potential contaminants of concern; however, presence of this contaminant may be due to blank contamination
The noncarcinogenic RBSL is based on a provisional oral teference dose for JP 4 which, for the purposes of this risk assessment, will be assumed to be
similar to diesel
— = No Value
COC = Contaminants of Concern
RBSL = Risk-Based Screening Level
-------
TABLE A-30. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY A HYPOTHETICAL
RESIDENT AT PS-1(a)
CHEMICAL.'6'
Beryllium
Manganese
Total petroleum
hydrocarbons (as
JP-4) .
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
0270
400
440
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
03
450
770
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
29E 07
4 3E 04
4 7E-04
RME
AVERAGE
DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 1E 06
1 6E 03
30E-03
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kg-day)
5E 03
5E 03
8E 02
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
6E05
9E02
6E 03
1E01
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
2E 04
3E01
3E 02
3E 01
CO
01
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario Contaminant concentrations foi volatile organics in surface soil were either
rejected due to holding times or non-detected
Soil ingestion doses were calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral reference doses The following chemicals were not presented due
to lack of toxicity criteria: sec-butylbenzene; n-butylbenzene; p-cymene; 2-methylnaphthalene; n propylbenzene; 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene;
and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene.
-------
TABLE A-31. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY A HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT PS-1(a)
CHEMICAL(b)
Beryllium
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
0.270
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
030
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
37E-08
RME LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
4.7E-07
ORAL SLOPE
FACTOR
(mg/kg-day) -1
43E+00
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
2E07
2E07
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
2E-06
2E 06
(a)
(b)
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario Contaminant concentrations for volatile organics in suiface soil weie either rejected
due to holding times or non-detected.
Soil ingestion doses were calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancer slope factois The following chemicals were not presented clue to
lack of toxicity criteria sec-butylbenzene; n-butylbenzene, p cymene, manganese, 2 methylnaphthalene; n-propylbenzene; total petroleum hydrocarbons,
1,2,4 trimethylbenzene; and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
u
en
-------
TABLE A-32. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT PS-1(a)
CHEMICAL(b|
Beryllium
Manganese
Total petroleum
hydrocarbons
(as JP 4)
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
0270
400
440
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
03
450
770
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 3E 07
2 OE 04
22E04
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 5E-07
2?E04 •
38E 04
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RED)
(mg/kg-day)
5E 03
5E 03
8E 02
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
3E-05
4E-02
.3E 03
4E-02
RME
HAZARD
QLJOTIENT
3E-05
4E-02
5E-03
4E 02
>
OJ
(a)
(b)
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario Contaminant concentrations tor volatile organics in surface soil were either ie|ected
due to holding times or non-detected
Soil ingestion doses were calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral reference doses The following chemicals were not presented due to lack
of toxicity criteria: sec-butylbenzene, n-butylbenzene; p-cymene; 2-methylnaphthalene; n-propylbenzene, 1.2.4 trimethylbenzene.and 1.3 5-ttimethylbenzene
-------
TABLE A-33. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY AIR FORCE PERSONNEL/
CONTRACTORS AT PS-1 (a)
CHEMICAL(b)
Beryllium
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
0270
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
030
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-DAY)
1 9E-08
RME LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kgDAY)
53E-08
ORAL SLOPE
FACTOR
(mg/kg-DAY) -1
43E + 00
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
8E-08
8E08
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
2E-07
2E07
(a)
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario Contaminant concentiaiions for volatile oiganics in surface soil were eithei
rejected due to holding times or non-detected.
Soil mgestion doses were calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancer slope factors The following chemicals weie not presented
due to lack of toxicity criteria: sec-butylbenzene, n-butylbenzene; p-cymene, manganese; 2-methylnaphthalene, n-propylbenzene. total petroleum
hydrocarbons, 1,2,4-tnmethylbenzene, and 1,3,5-tnmethylbenzene
CO
oo
-------
TABLE A-34. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF SOIL BY A HYPOTHETICAL
RESIDENT AT PS-1(a)
CHEMICAL(b|
Manganese
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
400
HME EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mcj/kg)
450
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-DAY)
1 8E-08
RME AVERAGE
DAILY DOSE
(ADD)
(mg/kg-DAY)
2 7E 08
INHALATION
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kg-DAY)
1 43E 05
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
1E 03
1E 03
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
2E03
2E03
(b)
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario Contaminant concentrations for volatile organics in suifaue soil were either
rejected due to holding times or non-detected
Soil ingeslion doses were calculated for those chemicals of concern with inhalation reference doses The following chemicals were not presented
due to lack of loxicity criteria: beryllium; sec-butylbenzene; n-butylbenzene, p-cymene; 2-methylnaphthalene, n-propylbenzene, total petroleum
hydrocaibons; 1.2.4 tiimelhylbenzene, and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
co
CO
-------
TABLE A-35. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF SOIL BY A HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT PS-1(a)
CHEMlCAL(b)
Beryllium
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
0270
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
030
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
16E-12
RME LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-flay)
1 4E-10
ORAL SLOPE
FACTOR
(mg/kg-day) -1
84E + 00
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
1E-11
1E-11
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
1E-09
IE 09
(a)
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario. Contaminant concentrations for volatile organics in surface soil were either
rejected due to holding times or non-detected
Soil ingestion doses were calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancer slope factors. The following chemicals were not presented
due to lack of toxicity criteria: sec-butylbenzene, n-butylbenzene; p-cymene, total petroleum hydrocarbons; manganese, 2-methylnaphthalene,
n-propylbenzene; 1,2,4-tnmethylbenzene; and
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
-------
TABLE A-36. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF SOIL BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT PS-1(a)
CHEMICAL(b)
Manganese
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
400
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
450
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kgday)
1 7E 08
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1.9E-08
INHALATION
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kgday)
t 43E-05
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
IE 03
1E 03
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
1E03
1E 03
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario. Contaminant concentrations for volatile oiganics in surface soil were either rejected
due to holding times or non-detected
(b) Soil ingestion doses were calculated for those chemicals of concern with inhalation reference doses The following chemicals were not presented due to
lack of toxicity criteria beryllium; sec-butylbenzene; n-butylbenzene; p cymene. 2 melhylnaphthalene, n-propylbenzene, total petroleum hydrocarbons, 1,2.4-
trimethylbenzene; and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
-------
TABLE A-37. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF SOIL BY AIR FORCE PERSONNEL/
CONTRACTORS AT PS-1|a)
CHEMICAL(b|
Beryllium
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
0270
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
030
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1.6E-12
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg day)
45E-12
ORAL
SLOPE
FACTOR
(mg/kg-day)-1
84E + 00
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
1E-11
1E-11
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
4E-11
4E 11
>
(V)
Suilace and subsuitace soil were combined to evaluate this scenario Contaminant concentrations foi volatile organics in surface soil were either
rejected due to holding times or non-detected
' ' Soil ingestion doses were calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancel slope factors The following chemicals weie not presented due to
lack of toxicity criteria, sec-butylbenzene; n-butylbenzene, p-cymene, total petioleum hydrocarbons, manganese, 2-methylnaphlhalene, n-piopylbenzene,
1,2,4-tnmethylbenzene; and 1,3.5 trimethylbenzene
-------
TABLE A-38. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER BY A
HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT PS-1
CHEMICAL'8'
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Isopropylbenzene
1 ,2.4-Trichloiobenzene
Xylenes (m,p-mixed)
Arsenic
Manganese
Selenium
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
Ug/L)
120
45
17
11
560
25
2.000
6 1
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
fc9/L)
590
24
63
35
1,800
70
7.000
11
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
2.0E-03
6.8E-05
2.6E-04
1.6E-04
8.5E-03
3.8E-04
3.0E-02'
9.2E-05
RME AVERAGE
DAILY DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 6E-02
6 6E-04
1 7E-03
1 OE 03
4 9E-02
1 9E-03
1 9E-01
26E-05
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kg-day)
1E-01
2E-04
4E-02
IE -02
2E + 00
3E-04
5E-03
5E-03
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
2E-02
3E-01
6E-03
2E-02
4E-03
1E+00
6E + 00
5E-03
7E + 00
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
2E-01
3E-00
4E-02
1E-01
2E-02
6E+00
4E + 01
2E-01
5E + 01
(a)
Ground water ingeslion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral reference doses The following chemicals are not presented
due to lack of toxicity criteria benzene, sec-butylbenzene, n-propylbenzene, p-cymene, naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene. 1,3,5 trimethylbenzene 1.2.4-
trimethylbenzene, and 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene
-------
TABLE A-39. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER FOR A
HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT PS-1
CHEMICAL*8'
Benzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Arsenic
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
120
45
25
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
950
24
70
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
2.3E-04
87E-06
48E-05
RME LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1.1E-02
2.8E-04
8.2E-04
ORAL SLOPE
FACTOR
(mg/kg-day)- 1
29E-02
78E-02
1 75E + 00
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
7E-06
7E-07
BE 05
9E-05
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
3E-04
2E-05
IE -03
2E-03
Ground water ingeslion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancer slope factors The following chemicals are
not presented due to lack of toxicity criteria: sec-butylbenzene, n-propylbenzene, p-cymene, naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, ethylbenzene,
isopropylbenzene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, xylenes, manganese, selenium, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and 1,2,3 tnchlorobenzene
-------
TABLE A-40. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF VOLATILES DURING SHOWERING BY
A HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT PS-1
CHEMICAL(A|
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/m3) (b)
8.8E-01
8 8E 02
6.2E-01
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCFNTRATION
(iiKj/m3) (b)
3 3E + 00
34E-01
20E-01
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
• (mg/kg day)
6.9E-04
69E05
4 9E 04
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg day)
56E03
57F 04
3 IP 04
INHALATION
REFERENCE DOSE
(mg/kg day)
3E 01
3E03
3E 03
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
2E 03
2E02
2E01
2E 01
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
2E 02
2E 01
1E 01
3E 01
>
tn
(a)
Dose lor the inhalation ol volatiles (mm showering pathway have been calculated foi volatile chemicals ol concern with inhalation reference doses
The following chemical is not presented due to lack of inhalation toxicity criteria benzene, sec-butylbenzene, n-butylbenzene, hexachlorobutadiene.
n propylbenzene. p-cymene. naphthalene, 2 inethylnaphthalene. 1.3.5-trimethylbenzene. 1,2.4 tiimethylbenzene, 1.2,3 trichlorobenzene, and xylenes
Average and RME Exposure Point Concentrations were derived using the Fostei and Chiostowski (1987) model These values lepiesent the average
air concentration for total shower exposure
-------
TABLE A-41. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF VOLATILES DURING SHOWERING FOR
A HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT PS-1
CHEMICAL(a)
Benzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/m3) (b)
99E-01
18E-02
RME EXPOSURE
POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/m3) (b)
58E+00
93E-02
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 OE-04
1 8E-06
RME LIFETIME
AVERAGE
DAILY DOSE
(LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
43E-03
68E-05
INHALATION
SLOPE
FACTOR
(mg/kg-day) -1
29E-02
7 BE 02
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
3E06
1E07
3E 06
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
1E-04
5E 06
1E 04
Dose for the inhalation of volatlles from showering pathway have been calculated for volatile chemicals of concern with inhalation slope factois
The following chemical is not presented due to lack of inhalation toxicity criteria: sec-butylbenzene, ethylbenzene, isopropylbenzene, n propylbenzene,
p-cymene, naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,2,3 trichlorobenzene, and xylenes
'b' Average and RME Exposure Point Concentrations were derived using the Foster and Chrostowski (1987) model These values lepiesent the aveiaye an
concentration for total shower exposure
O)
-------
TABLE A-42. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER BY
AIR FORCE PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT PS-1
CHEMICAL'"'
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloiobutadiene
Isopropy (benzene
1 .2.4 Trichlorobenzene
Xylenes (m.p mixed)
Arsenic
Manganese
Selenium
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
120
45
17
11
560
25
2,000
6 1
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
fcg/i.)
590
24
63
35
1,800
70
7,000
11
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD) '
(mg/kg-day)
1 OE 03
4.4E-05
1 7E 04
1 1E-04
5 5E 03
25E 04
2.0E-02
1 1E-04
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
58F-03
24F 04
6 2E 04
34E 04
1 8E 02
69E 04
6.9E-02
38E 04
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RED)
(mg/kg-day)
1F 01
2E 04
4E-02
IE 02
2F + 00
3E 04
5E-03
5E-03
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
IF 02
2E 01
4E 03
it; 02
3E 03
8E 01
4E+00
2F 02
5E+00
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
6E02
1E fOO
2F 02
3L 02
9E-03
2EfOO"
1Et01
8E-02
1E+01
>
-vl
(a)
Ground water ingeslion doses have been calculated foi those chemicals of concern with oral reference doses The following chemicals are not presented
due to lack of toxicity criteria benzene, sec-butylbenzene, n-propylbenzene, p-cymene, naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, 1,2.4-
trimethylbenzene. and 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene
-------
TABLE A-43. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT PS-1
CHEMICAL(a)
Benzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Arsenic
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
fcg/L)
120
45
25
HME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
fcg/L)
950
24
70
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
16E-04
63E-06
35E-05
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
3.3E-03
84E-05
24E-04
ORAL
SLOPE
FACTOR
(mg/kg-day)'1
2.9E-02
7.8E-02
1 75E + 00
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
5E-06
5E-07
6E-05
6E-05
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
IE -04
7E-06
4E-04
1E-03
(a)
Ground water ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oial cancer slope factors The following chemicals ate noi
presented due to lack of toxicity criteria: sec-butylbenzene, n-propylbenzene, p-cymene, naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, ethylbenzene, isopropylbenzene,
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, xylenes, manganese, selenium, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4 tiimethylbenzene, and 1,2,3 trichlorobenzene
*>.
CO
-------
TABLE A-44. SUMMARY OF NONCANCER HAZARD AT FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE
BASE SITE PS-1
RECEPTOR/PATHWAY
AVERAGE HI
RME HI
Air Force Personnel/Contractors
Inhalation of Soil Paniculate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
CUMULATIVE HAZARD INDEX
1E-03
4E-02
5E+00
5E+00
1E-03
4E-02
2E + 01
2E+01
Residential Exposure with Current Conditions
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
Inhalation of Volatiles During Showering
CUMULATIVE HAZARD INDEX
1E-03
1E-01
7E+00
2E-01
7E+00
2E-03
3E-01
5E+01
3E-01
5E+01
TABLE A-45. CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK AT FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE
BASE SITE PS-1
RECEPTOR/PATHWAY
AVERAGE RISK
RME RISK
Air Force Personnel/Contractors
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK
1E-11
8E-08
6E-05
6E-05
4E-11
2E-07
1E-03
1E-03
Residential Exposure with Current Conditions
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
Inhalation of Volatiles During Showering
CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK
1E-11
2E-07
9E-05
3E-06
9E-05
1E-09
2E-06
2E-03
1E-04
2E-03
A-49
-------
TABLE A-46. CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AT SITE PS-5
MEDIUM
Soil
Ground water
COG
TPH-D
TPH-D
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
6.700 mg/kg
1,800 ng/L
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
346 mg/kg
446.1 ,ig/L
TABLE A-47. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF NON-METALS SOIL ANALYSES
SAMPLES AT PS-5
ANALYTE
TPH-D (CA8015)
NUMBER OF
DETECTIONS/
ANALYSES
1/14
LOCATIONS
B-47
MAXIMUM
DETECTION
(mg/kg)
342J
VOC (SW8260)
Benzene
Toluene
1,1-Dichloroetnane
. 1.2-Dichloroethane
Tncnloroethylene
m.p-Xylene(s)
o-Xylene
Chlorobenzene
1/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
B^8
B-48
B^8
B-48
B-48
8^8
B-48
B-48
0.05323R
0.04417R
0.06569R
0.05210R
0.04530R
0.06455R
0.03398R
0.03284R
TABLE A-48. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF NON-METALS GROUND WATER
ANALYSES SAMPLES AT PS-5
ANALYTE
TPH-D (CA8015)
NUMBER OF
DETECTIONS/
ANALYSES
9/18
LOCATIONS*
MW-41, 42. 46, 213
MAXIMUM
DETECTION
Ug/U
1800
VOC (SW8260)
sec-Butylbenzene
p-Cymene
Isooropylbenzene
1 .2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3.5-Trimethylbenzene
6/18
Z'18
3/18
2/18
3/18
MW-42. 213
MW-42
MW-42
MW-42
MW-*2
4.0
1.0R
10
10
2.0R
BOLD * _ocanon of maximum detection.
3 3 Data are
A-50
-------
TABLE A-49. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN SOIL AT PS-5
CHEMICAL
SOIL (ALL DEPTHS) (mg/kg)(a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION16'
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
RBSL
CARClNOGENS(d)
RBSL NONCARCINOGENS (e)
POTENTIAL
COC(f)
ORGANICS
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Heating oil No 2 (total
petroleum hydrocarbons)
Xylenes
99
0012
6,700
76
8,000
16,000
160,000
—
...
2,600
5.000
54,000
NO
NO
YES
NO
(a)
(b)
(c)
(e)
(I)
All values rounded to two significant digits
The screening was conservatively performed on the maximum concentration detected over all depths
The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup regulation (Chapter 173 340 WAG) Method B is intended to provide conservative cleanup levels for
sites undergoing cleanup Based on the lowest-calculated value using carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxiciry criteria
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (1991b), the soil RBSL for carcinogens is based on a 1 x 10 7 risk
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (1991b), the soil RBSL for noncarcinogens is based on a 0 1 hazard quotient
Potential contaminants of concern (PCOC) include contaminants that exceed the lowest screening level and exceed background, or do not have
toxicity values with which to calculate a screening level. Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (EPA 1991 Ibid), aluminum, calcium, magnesium,
potassium, iron, and sodium may generally be eliminated from the human health risk assessment at the screening stage based on qualitative
judgement
— = No Value.
PCOC = Potential Contaminant of Concern
COG = Contaminant of Concern.
RBSL = Risk-Based Screening Level
-------
TABLE A-50. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CHEMICALS OF CONCERN IN GROUND
WATER AT PS-5
CHEMICAL
GROUND WATER (^g/L) (a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
MCL
-------
TABLE A-50. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CHEMICALS OF CONCERN IN GROUND
WATER AT PS-5 (Continued)
CHEMICAL
GROUND WATER fog/L) (a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
MCL(b)
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
RBSL
CARCINOGENS11'1
RBSL
NONCARCINOGENS(e|
HNBC(f)
POTENTIAL
COC(9)
ORGANICS
Benzene
sec-Butylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
Toluene
Diesel (total petroleum
hydrocarbons)
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
1.0
40
14
1.0
30
1,800
1.0
154
5
...
700
1,000
.
10,000
34
800
1,600
—
16,000
06
...
...
160
28
97
—
80
...
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
Ul
CJ
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(9)
(h)
(i)
All values are rounded to two significant digits
Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for drinking water
The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup regulation (Chapter 173-340 WAG) Method B is intended to provide conservative cleanup levels for
sites undergoing cleanup Based on the lowest-calculated value using carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity criteria
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (1991b), the ground water RBSL for carcinogens is based on a 1 x 10-6 risk RBSLs for volatile chemicals with
an inhalation slope factor were calculated based on ingestion and inhalation of volatiles from ground water
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (1991b), the ground water RBSL for noncarcinogens is based on a 0 1 hazard quotient RBSLs for volatile
chemicals with inhalation reference doses were calculated based on ingestion and inhalation of volatiles from ground water
High Normal Background Concentrations (HNBC) were calculated and referenced in SAIC (1991)
Potential chemicals of concern (PCOC) include chemicals that exceed the lowest screening and exceed the background, or do not have toxicity
values with which to calculate a screening level. However, based on EPA Region 10 guidance (1991b), aluminum, calcium, magnesium, potassium,
Iron, and sodium may generally be eliminated from the human health risk assessment at the screening stage based on qualitative judgement
Action level: exceeded if the level of concentration in more than 10% of targeted tap samples is greater that the specific value (90th percentile)
Chromium was assumed to be hexavalent to maintain a conservative risk assessment approach
--- = No Value
PCOC = Potential Contaminant of Concern
COG = Contaminant of Concern
RBSL = Risk-Based Screening Level
-------
TABLE A-51. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH INGESTION OF GROUND WATER BY A HYPOTHETICAL
RESIDENTIAL AT PS 5
CHEMICAL*8'
Benzene
Arsenic
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
054
26
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(MQ/L)
1.0
57
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kgday)
97E-07
50E-05
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 2E-05
67E-04
ORAL
SLOPE
FACTOR
(mg/kg-day)-1
29E-03
175E+00
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
3E-08
9605
9E-05
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
3E-07
1E03
1E03
(a)
Ground water ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancer slope (actors The following chemicals are not
presented due to lack of oral toxicity criteria: cadmium, chromium, manganese, sec-butylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene and xylene
>
tii
-------
TABLE A-52. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH INHALATION OF VOLATILES DURING SHOWERING BY A
HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENTIAL AT PS-5
CHEMICAL.'8'
Benzene
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/m3) (b)
33E-03
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/m3) (h)
6 fE 03
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
3 3E-07
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
4.5E-06
INHALATION
SLOPE FACTOR
(mg/kg-day)-1
2.9E-02
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
1E08
1E 08
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK '
IE 07
1E-07
la)
(b)
Dose for the inhalation of volatiles from showering pathway have been calculated for chemicals of concern with inhalation toxicity criteiia
following chemical is not piesented due to lack of inhalation toxicity criteria: sec-butylbenzene. 1.3.5-tiimelhylbenzerie, and xylenes
The
Average and RME Exposure Point Concentrations were derived using the Foster and Chroslowski (1987) model
air concentration for total shower exposure
These values represent the average
en
en
-------
01
o>
TABLE A-53. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH INHALATION OF VOLATILES DURING SHOWERING
BY A HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT PS-5
CHEMICAL(a)
Isopropylbenzene
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/m3)(b)
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/m3)
29E-03 1 5.3E-03
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
23E-06
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
91E-06
INHALATION
REFERENCE
DOSE
(mg/kg-day)
3E 03
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
8E04
8E 04
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
3E 03
3E 03
(a)
(b)
Dose foi the inhalation of volatiles from showering pathway have been calculated for chemicals of concern with inhalation loxicity culeria The
following chemical is not presented due to lack of inhalation toxicity criteria, sec-butylbenzene, 1,3,5 tumethylbenzene, and xylenes
Average and RME Exposure Point Concentrations were derived using the Foster and Chrostowski (1987) model These values ispresent the
average air concentration for total shower exposure (see Appendix X)
-------
TABLE A-54. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH INGESTION OF GROUND WATER BY A HYPOTHETICAL
RESIDENT AT PS-5
CHEMICAL(a)
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (Vl)(b)
Manganese
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
0-9/L) .
13
26
42
13
1,300
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
U9/I-)
150
57
11
45
4,200
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
20E-04
3 9E-04
63E-05
20E-04
2 OE 02
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
,DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
4 1E 03
1 6E 03
3 OE-04
1 2E-03
1 2E 01
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RfD)
(mg/kg-day)
2E + 00
3E04
5E-04
5E 03
5E 03
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
5E 06
1E+00
1E 01
4E 02
4E + 00
5E + 00
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
2E 03
5E+00
6E01
2E 01
2E+01
3E t01
>
tn
Ground water ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral reference doses The following chemicals are not
presented due to lack of oral toxicity criteria, benzene, sec-butylbenzene and 1,3,5 trimethylbenzene
Chromium was assumed to be hexavalent to maintain a conservative risk assessment approach
-------
TABLE A-55. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH INGESTION OF GROUND WATER BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT PS-5
CHEMICAL'"'
Benzene
Arsenic
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
054
26
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(MQ/L)
10
57
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
75E-07
3.6E-05
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
35E-06
20E-04
ORAL SLOPE
FACTOR
(mg/kg-day)- 1
29E-03
1 75E + 00
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
2E09
6E05
6E05
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
1E-08
3E04
3E-04
(a)
Ground tvaler ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancer slope factors The following chemicals are not
presented due to lack o( oral toxicity criteria: cadmium, chromium, manganese, sec-butylbenzene, 1,3,5 tnmethylbenzene and xylene
01
oo
-------
TABLE A-56. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH INGESTION OF GROUND WATER BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT PS-5
CHEMICAL*8'
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Manganese
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
fog/L)
13
26
42
13
1,300
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
fcg/L)
150
57
11
45
4,200
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1.3E-04
25E-04
4 1E-05
1.3E-04
1.3E-02
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1.5E-03
5 6E-04
1.1E-04
4 4E-04
4.1E-02
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RfD)
(mg/kg-day)
2E + 00
3E-D4
5E-04
5E-03
5E-03
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
6E-05
BE -01
BE -02
2E-02
2E + 00
4E + 00
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
7E-04
2E + 00
2E-01
9E-02
8E + 00
1E + 01
on
(O
(a)
Ground water ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral reference doses The following chemicals are not
presented due to lack of oral toxicity criteria: benzene, sec-butylbenzene and 1,3,5-trimelhylbenzene
(b)
Chromium was assumed to be hexavalent to maintain a conservative risk assessment approach
-------
TABLE A-57. SUMMARY OF NONCANCER HAZARD AT FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE
BASE SITE PS-5
RECEPTOR/PATHWAY
AVERAGE HI
RME HI
Air Force Personnel/Contractors
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
CUMULATIVE HAZARD INDEX
—
...
4E+00
4E+00
—
—
1E + 01
1E+01
Residential Exposure with Current Conditions
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
Inhalation of Volatiles During Showering
CUMULATIVE HAZARD INDEX
—
—
5E+00
8E-04
5E-^00
—
—
3E+01
3E-03
3E+01
TABLE A-58. CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK AT FAIRCHILO AIR FORCE BASE SITE PS-5
RECEPTOR/PATHWAY
AVERAGE RISK
RME RISK
Air Force Personnel/Contractors
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
TOTAL RISK
—
—
6E-05
6E-05
3E-04
3E-04
Residential Exposure with Current Conditions
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
Inhalation of Volatiles During Showering
TOTAL RISK
„.
—
9E-05
1 E-08
9E-05
.
—
1E-03
1E-07
1 E-03
A-60
-------
TABLE A-59. CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AT SITE PS-7
MEDIUM
Soil
Ground water
coc
TPH-D
TPH-D
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
8,330 mg/kg
3,200 ng/L
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
894 mg/kg
658cg/L
TABLE A-60. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF Rl NON-METAL ANALYSES FOR GROUND
WATER SAMPLES AT PS-7
ANALYTE
TPH (E 4181)
NUMBER OF
DETECTIONS/
ANALYSES
4/28
LOCATIONS*
MW-72, 73, 206
MAXIMUM
DETECTION
ta/L)
3200
VOC (SW8260)
Bromoaichloromethane
1,,4-Dichlorobenzene
Napnthalene
1 ,2.3-Trichlorobenzene
Chloroform
1 ,2,4-Trimetnylbenzene
5/28
1/28
3/28
1/28
14/28
2/28
MW-71
MW-71
MW-73, 204, 206
MW-204
MW-71 , 72, 73, 204, 205
MW-206
1.8
1.00
12.0
2.00
7.5
1.00
SVOC (SW8270)
bis(2-ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Benzyl Alcohol
Dimethyl Phthalate
2-Methyiphenol
5/28
4/28
1/28
1/28
MW-71, 72. 73. 205
MW-71 , 204, 205, 206
MW-72
MW-206
22.0
30.0
34.0
21.0
BOLD = Location of maximum detection.
TABLE A-61. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF NON-METAL ANALYSES FOR REMOVAL
ACTION* CONFIRMATORY SOIL SAMPLES AT PS-7
ANAYLTE
TPH (SW3550/E418.1)
NUMBER OF
DETECTIONS/
ANALYSES
7/16
MAXIMUM
DETECTION
(mg/kg)
8326
SAMPLE NUMBER
PS7-43092-2C
In February 1992, the Air Force removed and treated approximately 400 yd3 of petroleum
contaminated soil from PS-7. Approximately 60 yd3 of contaminated soil remains beneath
Building 1350 and an adjacent asphalt parking lot.
A-61
-------
TABLE A-62. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN
GROUND WATER AT PS-7
CHEMICAL
GROUND WATER &ig/L)w
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
MCL
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d)
RBSL
NONCARCINOGENS(e)
HNBC(f)
POTENTIAL
COC(9)
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
2.400
93
73,000
3,500
23,000
230
3,200
27,000
---
2,000
—
—
. ...
...
—
...
—
1,100
...
—
...
80
...
...
—
—
...
...
...
—
...
...
260
...
—
...
18
—
16,000
2,700
35,000
1,500
—
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ORGANICS
Benzyl alcohol
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
1 ,4-Dlchlorobenzene
Dlmethylphthalate
2 Methylphenol
Naphthalene
30
1 0
34
1.0
30
21
12
...
—
75
...
—
.
4,800
071
7.2
1.8
16,000
—
32
...
06
03
35
—
...
—
1,100
73
37
200
36,000
180
150
—
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
ro
All value* rounded lo two significant figures
Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for drinking mater
The Model Toxlca Control Act (MICA) cleanup regulation (Chapter 173 340 WAC) Method B IB Intended to provide cleanup levels for sites undergoing cleanup Based on the lowest calculated value using carcinogenic and non
carcinogenic toidcKy criteria
Baaed on EPA Region 10 guidance |1991b| the ground water RBSL for carcinogens Is based on a 1 x 10 * risk RBSL for volatile chemicals with an Inhalation slope factor were calculated based on mgestlon and inhalation of
volaWe* from ground water
Baeed on EPA Region 10 guidance |l99tb|, the ground water RBSL for noncaiclnogens Is based on a 0 1 hazard quotient RBSL for volatile chemicals with Inhalation inference doses were calculated based on mgeslion and
Inhalation at volatile* from ground water
The High Normal Background Concentrations were calculated and referenced In SAIC (1891) There Is no background data for organic chemicals
Potential COG Include chemical! thai exceed (or do not have) the lowest criteria presented and that exceed background concentrations However, baaed on EPA Region 10 guidance (199tb|. aluminum, calcium, magnesium
potassium. Iron, and sodium may generally be eliminated from the human health risk assessment at the screening stage baaed on qualitative judgement
The two greb samples from the LFI were not Included wtth the ground water samples collected during the Rl
- No Value
COC - Contaminants of Concern
RBSL - Risk Based Screening Level
-------
TABLE A-63. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR , OTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN S.OIL AT PS-7
CHEMICAL
SOIL (ALL DEPTHS) (mg/kg)|a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION161
MTCA
METHOD B
-------
TABLE A-64. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER BY A
HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT PS-7
CHEMICAL
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(MQ/L)
065
2.1
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
1.0
34
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
98E-06
31E-05
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 2E-05
4.0E-05
ORAL
SLOPE FACTOR
(mg/kg-day) -1
6E-02
6 1E-03
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
8E-08
2E-08
1E-07
RME
CARCINOGENI
C RISK
7E-07
2E-07
9E-07
TABLE A-65. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF VOLATILES DURING SHOWERING BY A
HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT PS-7
CHEMICAL(a)
Chloroform
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/m3)(b>
1.1E-02
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/m3)(b)
1.8E-02
AVERAGE
LIFETIME AVERAGE
DAILY DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1.1E-06
RME
LIFETIME AVERAGE
DAILY DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1.3E-05
INHALATION
SLOPE FACTOR
(mg/kg-day) -1
8 IE 02
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
9E-08
9E-08
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
1E-06
1E-06
(a)
(b)
Dose for the inhalation of volatiles from showering pathway have been calculated tor chemicals of concern with inhalation loxicity ciiiena
following chemical is not presented due to lack of inhalation toxicity criteria: bromodichloromethane
The
Average and RME Exposure Point Concentrations were derived using the Foster and Chrostowski (1987) model
air concentration for total shower exposure.
These values represent the aveiaye
-------
TABLE A-66. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH INGESTION OF GROUND WATER BY A
HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT PS-7
CHEMICAL1"1
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
065
2.1
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
fog/i )
1.0
34
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 3E-06
4 OE 06
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
2.7E-05
9.3E-05
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RID)
(mg/kg-day)
2E-02
IE 02
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
5E-04
3E-03
4E 03
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
IE -03
9E-03
IE -02
TABLE A-67. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT PS-7
CHEMICAL
Bfomodichloromethane
Chloroform
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
065
2.1
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
1 0
34
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
9.1E-07
2.9E-06
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
3.5E-06
1.2E-05
ORAL
SLOPE FACTOR
(mg/kg-day)-1
6E-02
6.1E-03
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
5E-08
2E-08
7E-08
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
2E-07
7E-08
3E-07
TABLE A-68. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT PS-7
CHEMICAL(a)
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
065
2.1
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
0«g/L)
1 0
3.4
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
6.4E-06
2. IE-OS
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
98E-06
3.3E-05
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RfD)
(mg/kg-day)
2E-02
1E-02
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
3E-04
2E-03
2E-03
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
5E-04
3E-03
4E-03
-------
TABLE A-69. CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK AT FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE
BASE SITE PS-7
RECEPTOR/PATHWAY
AVERAGE RISK
RME RISK
Air Force Personnel/Contractors
Inhalation of Soil Paniculate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
CUMULATIVE RISK
...
—
7E-08
7E-08
—
—
3E-07
3E-07
Residential Exposure with Current Conditions
Inhalation of Soil Paniculate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
Inhalation of Volatiles During Showering
CUMULATIVE RISK
...
—
1E-07
9E-08
2E-07
—
...
9E-07
1E-06
2E-06
TABLE A-70. SUMMARY OF NONCANCER HAZARD AT FAIRCHILD AIR
FORCE BASE SITE PS-7
RECEPTOR/PATHWAY
AVERAGE HI
RME HI
Air Force Personnel/Contractors
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
CUMULATIVE HAZARD INDEX
—
—
2E-03
2E-03
—
—
4E-03
4E-03
Residential Exposure with Current Conditions
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
CUMULATIVE HAZARD INDEX
—
—
4E-03
4E-03
—
—
1E-02
1E-02
A-66
-------
TABLE A-71. CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AT SITE PS-10
MEDIUM
Soil
coc
TCE
TPH-D
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
581.1 mg/kg
36.000 mg/kg
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
18.2 mg/kg
2,397 mg/kg
TABLE A-72. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF LFI NON-METAL ANALYSES FOR SOIL
SAMPLES AT PS-10
ANALYTE
TPH 418.1
NUMBER OF
DETECTIONS:
ANALYSES
11/21
LOCATIONS
B-I7. B-I8, B-I9.
SS-1. &SS-5
MAXIMUM
DETECTION
(mg/kg)
33,224
DEPTH OF MAX.
• DETECTION
(feet)
1
VOC (SW8260)
Tricnioroethylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
1 i-Dichloroethane
1.1-Dichloroethene
Tetracnloroetnylene
Methyiene Chloride
1 1 .2-TnchloroetHane
Chloroform
1 1 ,2.2-Tetrachloroethane
Toial Xylenes
15/21
1/21
4/21
2/21
2/21
2/21
2/21
1/21
1/21
2/21
3/21
2/21
B-I7. B-I8, B-I9,
SS-1, &SS-3
SS-1
B-I8, SS-1
B-18
B-18 SS-1
B-I8
B-18
SS-1
SS-1
B-I8, SS-1
B-18, SS-1
B-18
581
0.064
0.229
0.040
0.126
0.126
0.033
0.018
0.014
0.024
0.031
0.046
1
2
2
2
2
2
4
Surface
Surface
2
2
2
SVOC (SW8270)
2-Metnylphenol
2-Metnylnapnthalene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)Phthalate
2.4-Dimethylphenol
1/21
1/21
10/21
3/21
B-18
B-18
B-17. B-18, B-19,
SS-1, & SS-3
B-18 SS-5
62.5
0.238
13.43
54.8
1
4
1
1
BOLD = location of maximum detection.
A-67
-------
TABLE A-73. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF Rl NON-METAL ANALYSES FOR SOIL
SAMPLES AT PS-10
ANALYTE
TPH (E 418.1)
NUMBER OF
DETECTIONS/
ANALYSES
9/26
LOCATIONS*
B-16. 17. 18, 19. SS-1.
SS-2. 4 B-I9
MAXIMUM DETECTION
(mg/kg)
36000
VOC (SW8260)
t-Butylbenzene
Toluene
p-Cymene (p-lsopropyttoluene)
cis-1 .2-Oichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
1 .2.3-Trichloropropane
1 ,2.4-Trimelhylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
m,p-Xylene(s)
o-Xylene
2/53
1/53
3/53
2/53
2/53
10/53
3/53
1/53
6/53
3/53
3/53
3/53
8-17 18R
B-20
B-17, 18, 18R
B-20, 20R
B-17 20R
B-16. 17. 16R. 17R. 18R. 19R.
20R
B-17, 18, 18R
B-20
B-17. 19 20, 17R, 18R, 20R
B-19. 18R, 20R
B-17, 20R
B-17 20
00091
0.00948ft
0.019
0.017
0.0059
00073
0.0071
00077R
0.11
0.13
0.047
00908R
VOC (SW8010)
TCE
3/3
SS-1, SS-2. B-i9
73.2
SVOC (SW8270)
bis(2-etnylhexyl)Phthalate
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Hexachloroethane
5/53
4/53
1/53
B-17, 18, 19
3-16R, 17R, 18R
B-18
1.20
270
0.412
BOLD = location of maximum detection.
R = Data are rejected.
A-68
-------
TABLE A-74. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
IN SOIL ATPS-10
CHEMICAL
SOIL (all depths) (mg/kg)(a|
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION*6'
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d>
RBSL
NONCARCINOGENS(e)
HNBC(f)
POTENTIAL
coc'f
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
15,000
9
160
39
11,000
85
34
52
68,000
72
5,900
1,600
012
18
1,900
940
24
130
280
...
1.4
5,600
40
...
400
...
3,000
...
...
400
24
1,600
—
...
5.6
560
24,000
004
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
—
...
...
...
...
82
1,900
27
140
...
1,000
...
...
...
3,800
82
550
...
...
19
190
8,200
13,000
13
190
043
8,800
15
14
22
34,000
50
53,000
670
005
13
2,500
600
025
70
68
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
-------
TABLE A-74. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
IN SOIL AT PS-10 (Continued)
CHEMICAL
SOIL (all depths) (mg/kg)(a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION'13'
MTCA
METHOD B(c>
RBSL
CARCINOGENS*6'
RBSL
NONCARCINOGENS(e)
HNBC(()
POTENTIAL
COC(B)
ORGANICS
Benzene
l-Butylbenzene
Chloroform
p-Cymene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Hexachloroethane
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroeihane
Tetrachloroelhene
Toluene
Total petroleum
hydrocarbons
Trichloroethylene
1 ,2,4 Trimethylbenzene
006
001R
002
002R
013
013
002R
55
004
13
041
002
001
003
003
023
36,000
580
0 II
1 5
160
...
8,000
1 7
800
1,600
8.000
71
71
130
320
50
20
" 16,000
90
22
...
10.5
...
...
01
—
...
46
46
85
03
1.2
...
58
...
270
2,700
250
550
550
2,700
550
27
1,600
1,100
13
270
5,500
...
...
—
...
—
...
...
...
...
...
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
-------
TABLE A-74. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
IN SOIL AT PS-10 (Continued)
CHEMICAL
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Xylenes
SOIL (all depths) (mg/kg)(a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION^1
0 13
005
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
160,000
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d)
RBSL
NONCARCINOGENS(e)
—
55,000
HNBC(f)
POTENTIAL
coc'a'
YES
NO
(a)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(0
(9)
All values founded to two significant digits.
The screening was conservatively performed on the maximum concentration detected over all depths analyzed Chemicals detected in surface soil
will be evaluated in the exposure assessment
The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup regulation (Chapter 173-340 WAC) Method B is intended to provide conservative cleanup levels for
sites undergoing cleanup Based on the lowest-calculated value using carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity criteria
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (1991b), the soil RBSL for carcinogens is based on a 1 x 10 7 risk
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (1991b), the soil RBSL for noncarcinogens is based on a 0 1 hazard quotient.
The High Normal Background Concentrations (HNBC) were calculated and referenced in SAIC (1991 a) and in Appendix J. There is no background data
for organic chemicals See text.
Potential COC include metals that exceed (or do not have) the lowest criterion presented and exceed the HNBC as well as organic compounds that exceed
(or do not have) the lowest criterion presented Chemicals without an RBSL lack toxicity criteria Based on Region 10 guidance (1991b), aluminum, calcium,
magnesium, potassium, iron, and sodium may generally be eliminated from the human health risk assessment at the screening stage based on qualitative
judgement. Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (1991b), if chromium, cadmium, elemental mercury, or carcinogenic forms of nickel are present as
contaminants of concern in soil, they should not be eliminated based on soil ingestion screening criteria However, if concentrations are less than
background, they will not be evaluated further
— = No Value
COC = Contaminants of Concern.
RBSL = Risk-Based Screening Level
-------
TABLE A-75. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN GROUND
WATER AT PS-10
CHEMICAL
GROUND WATER kg/L)(a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
MCL(b>
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d)
RBSL
NONCARCINOGENS(e)
HNBC(f)
POTENTIAL
coc'9!
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
680
31
23
21
71,000
3,200
13
20,000
93
2,400
24,000
42
...
2,000
4
5
...
...
15
...
—
1,100
002
8
...
...
80
4,800
...
—
002
---
—
...
260
20
1 8
...
18
...
1,100
16,000
2,700
6
35,000
20
1.500
40
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ORGANICS
sec-Butylbenzene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroelhene
trans- 1,2-Dichloroethene
20R
830
30
...
70
100
80
160
...
...
37
73
YES
YES
NO
>
to
-------
TABLE A-75. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CHEMICALS OF CONCERN IN GROUND
WATER AT PS-10 (Continued)
CHEMICAL
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Trichloroethylene
GROUND WATER (ng/l)(a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
24
410
MCL(b)
60
5
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
62
40
RBSI
CARCINOGENS(d)
61
25
RBSL
NONCARCINOGENS(e)
73
HNBC(f)
POTENTIAL
COC(9)
YES(i|
YES
>
CO
(a)
-------
TABLE A-76. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER BY A
HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT PS-10
CHEMICAL (a)
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
bis(2 Ethy Ihexyl) phthalate
Cadmium
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
U9/L)
270
98
0001(b)
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
830
24
2
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
4.1E-03
1 5E-04
1.5E-08
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
2.3E-02
1.0E-03
55E-05
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RfD)
(mg/kg-day)
1E02
2E02
5E-04
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
4E-01
7E03
3E05
4E-01
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
2E + 00
3E02
1E-01
2E + 00
>
-fc.
(a) Ground water ingeslion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral lefeience doses
(t>) The maximum detect for cadmium was less than the detection limit for some samples. Therefore, the average exposure point concentiation was calculated
without using a nondetect value that was greater than the maximum detect
-------
TABLE A-77. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER FOR A
HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT PS-10
CHEMICAL(a)
Trichloroethene
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
fcg/L)
155
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
410
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
3.0E-04
RME LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
5.0E-03
ORAL CANCER
SLOPE FACTOR
(mg/kg-day)"1
1.1E-02
CANCER RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
3E-06
3E-06
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
5E-05
5E-05
(a)
Ground water ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancer slope factors The following chemicals are
not presented due to lack to toxicity criteria: cadmium, cis-1,2-dichloroethene and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Although the trichloroethene slope
factor was withdrawn by EPA, the Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (ECAO) indicates that the withdrawn slope factor may be used
to conservatively estimate cancer risk for trichloroethene
-si
ui
-------
TABLE A-78. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF VOLATILES DURING SHOWERING FOR
A HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT PS-10
CHEMICAL(a)
Trichloroethene
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/m3)^
79E-01
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/m3)*6'
29E+00
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
7.9E-05
RME
AVERAGE
DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
20E-03
INHALATION
SLOPE
FACTOR
(mg/kg-day)"1
1 4E-02
CANCER RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
1E 06
1E06
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
3E 05
3E05
>
o>
(a)
(b)
Ground water ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancer slope factors The following chemicals are
not presented due to lack to toxicity criteria: cadmium, cis-1,2-dichloroethene and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Although the trichloroethene slope
factor was withdrawn by EPA, the Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (ECAO) indicates that the withdrawn slope factor may be used
to conservatively estimate cancer risk for trichloroethene
Average and RME Exposuie Point Concentrations were derived using the Foster and Chrostowski (1987) shower model These values represent the
average and RME air concentration for total shower exposure.
TABLE A-79. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT PS-10
CHEMICAL'8'
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
bis(2 Ethylhexyljphthalate
Cadmium
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
U9/L)
270
98
0001(b)
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
UQ/L)
830
24
2
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
2.6E-03
9.6E-05
1.0E-08
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
81E-03
2.3E-04
2.0E-05
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RfD)
(mg/kg-day)
IE -02
2E-02
5E-04
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
3E-01
5E-03
2E-05
3E-01
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
BE -01
IE -02
4E-02
8E-01
(a)
(b)
Ground water ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral reference doses
The maximum delect for cadmium was less than the detection limit for some samples. Therefore, the average exposure point concentration was calculated
without using a nondetect value that was greater than the maximum detect
-------
TABLE A-80. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT PS-10
CHEMICAL*8'
Trichloroethene
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
fc9/L)
155
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
410
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
20E-04
RME LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 4E-03
ORAL CANCER
SLOPE
FACTOR
(mg/kg-day)"1
1.1E-02
CANCER RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
2E 06
2E 06
RME .
CARCINOGENIC
RISK .
2E 05
2E 05
(a)
Ground water ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancer slope factors The following chemicals are
not presented due to lack to toxicily criteria: cadmium, cis-1,2-dichloroethene and bis(2 ethylhexyl)phthalate Although the trichloroethene slope
factor was withdrawn by EPA, the Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (ECAO) indicates that the withdrawn slope factor may be used
to conservatively estimate cancer risk for trichloroethene
TABLE A-81. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY A HYPOTHETICAL
RESIDENT AT PS-10(a)
CHEMICAL'6'
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
bis(3-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Manganese
Thallium
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
00023
042
496
84(c)
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
00025
13
560
24
-------
TABLE A-82. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY A HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT PS-10(a)
CHEMICAL(b>
1,1-Dichloroethene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Trichlofoethene
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
00023
0.42
18
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
00024
13
580
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
32E-10
58E-06
25E-06
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
{mg/kg-day)
38E-09
2.0E-05
9.0E-04
ORAL
SLOPE
FACTOR
(mg/kg-day) -1
6E-01
1 4E-02
1 1E-02
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
2E-10
8E-10
3E-08
3E08
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
2E09
3E-07
1E-05
1E-05
>
CD
(a)
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario where data was available and useable.
Soil ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancer slope factors The following chemicals of concern aie not
presented due to lack of toxicity criteria: t-butylbenzene; cobalt; p-cymene; lead; manganese, thallium, total petroleum hydrocarbons, 1,2,4 trimethylbenztine,
and 1,3,5 tnmethylbenzene
-------
TABLE A-83. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT PS-10(a)
CHEMICAL(b)
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
bis(3-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Manganese
Thallium
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
00023
042
496
84
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1.1E-09
2.1E-07
2.4E-04
4.1E-06
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg day)
1.2E-09
6.5E-06
2.7E-04
1.2E-05
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RfD)
(mg/kg-day)
9E-03
2E-02
5E-03
8E-05
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
IE 07
1E-05
5E-02
5E-02
1E-01
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
1E-07
3E-04
5E-02
1E-01
2E-01
>
(O
(b)
(c)
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario where data was available and useable
Soil ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral reference doses The following chemicals of concern are not presented
due to lack of toxicity criteria: t-butylbenzene, cobalt, p-cymene; lead, total petroleum hydrocarbons; 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene, and 1.3,5-trimethylbenzene
Thallium is thought to be an artifact from sampling. See text
TABLE A-84. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY AIR FORCE PERSONNEL/
CONTRACTORS AT PS-10(a)
CHEMICAL(b)
1,1 -Dichloroethene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Trichloroethene
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
00023
042
18
RME EXPOSURE
POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
00024
13
580
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1.6E-10
29E-08
1 2E-06
RME LIFETIME
AVERAGE
DAILY DOSE
(LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-10
2.3E-06
1 OE-04
ORAL SLOPE
FACTOR
(mg/kg-day) -1
6E-01
1.4E-02
1.1E-02
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
1E-10
4E-10
1E08
IE -08
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
2E-10
3E-08
1E-06
IE -06
(a)
(b)
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario where data was available and useable.
Soil Ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancer slope factors. The following chemicals of concern are
not presented due to lack of toxicity criteria: t-butylbenzene; cobalt; p-cymene; lead; manganese; thallium; total petroleum hydrocarbons,
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene; and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
-------
TABLE A-85. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF SOIL BY A HYPOTHETICAL
RESIDENT AT PS-10(a)
CHEMICAL(b)
Manganese
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
496
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
560
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
23E-09
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
33E-08
INHALATION
REFERENCE
DOSE (RfD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 43E-05
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
2E04
2E04
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
2E 03
2E03
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario where data was available and useable.
Inhalation of surface soil doses were calculated for those chemicals of concern with inhalation reference doses. The following chemicals of concern were
not presented due to lack of toxicity criteria: t-butylbenzene; cobalt; p-cymene; 1,1-dichloroethene; bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, lead, thallium,
total petroleum hydrocarbons; trichloroethene; 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
CO
o
TABLE A-86. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF SOIL BY A HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT*3'
CHEMICAL'6'
1,1-Dlchloroethene
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
00023
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
00025
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 3E-14
RME LIFETIME
AVERAGE
DAILY DOSE
(LADD)
(mg/kgday)
63E-14
INHALATION
SLOPE
FACTOR
(mg/kg-day) -1
1 75E-01
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
2E 15
2E-15
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
1E-14
1E-14
(a)
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario where data was available and useable
Inhalation of surface soil doses were calculated for those chemicals of concern with inhalation cancer slope factors The following chemicals of concern
were not presented due to lack of toxicity criteria: t-butylbenzene, cobalt, p-cymene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, lead; manganese, thallium, total petroleum
hydrocarbons; trichloroethene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
-------
TABLE A-87. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF SOIL BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT PS-10(a)
CHEMICAL(b|
Manganese
Average
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
496
RME
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
560
Average
Average Daily
Dose (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
2 IE 08
RME
Average Daily
Dose (ADD)
(mg/kgday)
2.4E-08
Inhalation
Reference
Dose (RfD)
(mg/kg-day)
1.43E-05
HAZARD INDEX
Average
Hazard Quotient
IE 03
1E-03
RME
Hazard Quotient
2E-03
2E-03
(a)
(b)
>
00
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario where data was available and useable
Inhalation of surface soil doses were calculated for those chemicals of concern with inhalation reference doses The following chemicals of concern were
not presented due to lack of toxicity criteria: t-butylbenzene; cobalt; p-cymene; 1,1-dichloroethene; bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate; lead; thallium,
total petroleum hydrocarbons; trichloroethene; 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene; and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
TABLE A-88. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF SOIL BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS18'
Chemical(b)
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Average
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
00023
RME
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
00025
Average
Lifetime Average
Daily Dose (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1.4E-14
RME
Lifetime Average
Daily Dose (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
3.8E-14
Inhalation
Slope Factor
(mg/kg-day) -1
1.75E-01
TOTAL RISK
Average
Carcinogenic
Risk
2E-15
2E-15
RME
Carcinogenic
Risk
7E-15
7E-15
(a)
(b)
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario where data was available and useable
Inhalation of surface soil doses were calculated for those chemicals of concern with inhalation cancer slope factors The following
chemicals of concern were not presented due to lack of toxicity criteria: t butylbenzene; cobalt; p-cymene; bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate;
lead; manganese; thallium; total petroleum hydrocarbons, trichloroethene; 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene; and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene.
-------
TABLE A-89. SUMMARY OF NONCANCER HAZARD AT FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE
BASE SITE PS-10
RECEPTOR/PATHWAY
AVERAGE HI
RME HI
Air Force Personnel/Contractors
Inhalation of Soil Paniculate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
CUMULATIVE HAZARD INDEX
1E-03
1E-01
3E-01
4E-01
2E-03
2E-01
8E-01
1E + 00
Residential Exposure with Current Conditions
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
Inhalation of Volatiles During Showering
CUMULATIVE HAZARD INDEX
2E-04
3E-01
4E-01
7E-01
2E-03
1E + 00
2E + 00
—
3E + 00
TABLE A-90. CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK AT FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE
BASE SITE PS-10
RECEPTOR/PATHWAY
AVERAGE RISK
RME RISK
Air Force Personnel/Contractors
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK
2E-15
1 E-08
2E-06
2E-06
7E-15
1E-06
2E-05
2E-05
Residential Exposure with Current Conditions
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
Inhalation of Volatiles During Showering
CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK
2E-15
5E-08
3E-06
1E-06
4E-06
1E-14
1E-05
5E-05
3E-05
9E-05
A-82
-------
TABLE A-91. RESULTS OF SAMPLING AT SITE SW-11
MEDIUM
Soil
ANALVTE
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Nickel
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
12.0 mg/kg
158 mg/kg
35.0 mg/kg
13.5 mg/kg
1,230 mg/kg
1.340 mg/kg
37.0 mg/kg
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
5.95 mg/kg
14.37 mg/kg
35 mg/kg
6.3 mg/kg
1,230 mg/kg
116.1 mg/kg
37 mg/kg
There are no chemical chemicals of concern at this site. The metallic debris that lies beneath
the hard pan at this site is a physical hazard, not a CERCLA risk to human health and the
environment. Because the nature of the risk posed by this site differs from the other sites, SW-11
has not been evaluated in the strict manner of a CERCLA or IRP site. The risks posed by SW-11
are mainly physical hazards from sharp metallic debris at or near the surface, and valves located
near the surface that may contain small amounts of reactive sodium. The metallic debris is not
subject to transportation or degradation. Evidence of corrosion among buried valves has been
gathered. Corrosion will gradually expose the sodium, allowing it to react with water in small
amounts. Once the reaction has occurred, the sodium forms sodium hydroxide (NaOH), a strong
base. Percolating rainwater will rapidly dilute the small amount of NaOH to the point where it is
harmless.
A-83
-------
TABLE A-92. SUMMARY OF Rl METALS DETECTION DATA FOR SOIL SAMPLES
AT SW-11 (MARCH 1993)
METAL
ANALYTE(a)
Al
As (SW7060)
Ba
Cd (SW7131)
Ca
Cr (SW7191)
Co
Cu
Fe
Pb (SW7421)
Mg
Mn
Ni
K
Na
V
Zn
NUMBER OF
DETECTIONS/
ANALYSES
33/34
33/34
34/34
34/34
34/34
34/34
31/34
34/34
34/34
34/34
34/34
34/34
34/34
34/34
34/34
34/34
34/34
DETECTIONS > SW-11 HNBC
NUMBER OF DETECTION
ABOVE SW-1 1
HNBC/ANALYSES
8/34
4/34
0/34
16/34
0/34
9/34
1/34
5/34
5/34
8/34
6/34
3/34
3/34
4/34
0/34
2/34
10/34
LOCATIONS*6'
B-26. 27, 30. 32
B-26, 30. 30R
B-27, 30, 32
B-25, 26, 27, 28. 29. 30, 31. 32
N/A
B-25, 26. 27, 30. 32
B-28
B-27, 30
B-25. 27. 28, 32
B-25, 26, 27. 28, 30, 32
B-25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31. 32
B-2S. 27. 30
B-27, 30
B-26. 27
N/A
B-28
B-25. 26. 27, 28, 29. 30. 32
MAXIMUM
DETECTION
(mg/kg)
24.567
11.8
256.3J
158
N/A
35.2J
9.71
. 1.234J
25,400
1.338
5.992
488
37.2
2.619
N/A
44.1
427
All analyses by ICP (SW6010) unless otherwise noted.
BOLD = Location of maximum detection.
HNBC = Site SW-11 High Normal Background Concentration (see Appendix J).
J = Data are estimates.
N/A = Not Applicable.
A-84
-------
TABLE A-93. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
IN SOILS ATSW-11
CHEMICAL
SOIL (ALL DEPTHS) (mg/kg)(a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION'6'
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d)
RBSL
NON CARCINOGENS'6'
SW-11
HNBC(f)
BASEWIDE
HNBC
POTENTIAL
coc'9'
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
24,600
11.0
168
158
16,400
350
914
1,230
25,400
1,340
5,990
488
370
2,620
780
—
1.4
5,600
40
...
400
...
3,000
—
—
...
400
1,600
...
...
—
004
—
...
...
...
...
—
...
...
...
...
...
...
82
1,900
27
...
140
1,000
...
...
...
3,800
550
...
1 1 ,200
8.7
172
0327
20,100
96
9.1
437
22,200
198
4,760
473
1.1.8
2,070
410
13.100
126
191
0432
8,780
152
139
21 6
34,500
504
5,340
669
134
2,490
604
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
in
-------
TABLE A-93. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
IN SOIL AT SW-11 (Continued)
CHEMICAL
Vanadium
Zinc
SOIL (ALL DEPTHS) (mg/kg)(a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION'6'
44.0
427
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
560
24,000
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d)
...
—
RBSL
NON-CARCINOGENS'8'
190
8,200
SW-11
HNBC(()
406
52.2
BASEWIDE
HNBC
694
683
POTENTIAL
COC(9)
NO
NO
CD
O>
(a)
(c)
(e)
(9)
(h)
All values rounded to three significant digits
The screening was conservatively performed on the maximum concentration detected over all depths analyzed Chemicals detected in surface
soil will be evaluated in the exposure assessment
The Model Toxics Control Act cleanup regulation (Ecology 1991) Method B is intended to provide conservative cleanup levels for sites
undergoing cleanup Based on the lowest-calculated value using carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity criteria
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (EPA 199lb), the soil RBSL for carcinogens is based on a 1 x 10 7 risk
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (EPA 1991b), the soil RBSL for non-carcinogens is based on a 0 1 hazard quotient
The High Normal Background Concentrations were calculated and referenced in SAIC (SAIC 199la) There is no background data for organic
chemicals
Potential contaminants of concern include metals that exceed (or do not have) the lowest criterion presented and that exceed background UTL
as well as organic compounds that exceed (or do not have) the lowest criterion presented Chemicals without an RBSL lack toxicity criteria
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (EPA 1991), aluminum, calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron, and sodium may generally be eliminated
from the human health risk assessment at the screening stage based on qualitative judgement Based on EPA Region 10 guidance, if
chromium, cadmium, elemental mercury, or carcinogenic forms of nickel are present as contaminants of concern in soil, they should not be
eliminated based on soil ingestion screening criteria However, if concentrations are less than background, they will not be evaluated further
Chosen as a potential contaminant of concern; however, presence of this contaminant may be due to blank contamination
— = No Value
COG = Contaminant of Concern
RBSL = Risk-Based Screening Level
-------
TABLE A-94. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY A HYPOTHETICAL
RESIDENT AT SW-11(a)
CHEMICAL (b)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
59
14.4
197
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
78
70
365
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
62E-06
1 5E-05
21E-04
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
29E-05
26E-04
1.4E-03
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kg-day)
3E-04
5E-04
4E-02
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
2E02
3E-02
5E-03
6E02
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
1E-01
5E-01
3E-02
6E01
>
CD
11 Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario where data was available and useable
(b| Ingestion of soil doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral reference doses The following chemical is not presented due
to lack of toxicity criteria: lead
TABLE A-95. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT SW-11(a)
CHEMICAL(b)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
59
14.4
197
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
78
70
365
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
27E-06
7.0E-06
9.6E-05
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
38E-06
34E-05
18E-04
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kg-day)
3E-04
5E-04
4E-02
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
9E-03
1E-02
2E03
2E02
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
1E02
7E02
5E03
8E02
'a) Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario where data was available and useable.
(b* Soil ingestlon doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral reference doses. The following chemical is not presented due
to lack of toxicity criteria: lead
-------
TABLE A-96. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH DERMAL CONTACT WITH SOIL BY A
HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT SW-11(a)
CHEMICAL*6'
Cadmium
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
144
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
70
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 2E-05
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
55E-05
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kg-day)
5E-04
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
3E-03
3E03
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
1E-01
1E 01
(a)
(b)
00
CD
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario where data was available and useable.
Dermal contact with soil doses has been calculated for those chemicals of concern with dermal absorption information The following chemicals
are not presented due to lack of toxicity criteria: arsenic, copper and lead The dermal absorption used for cadmium is 1% (EPA 1992 Dermal
Guidance).
TABLE A-97. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH DERMAL CONTACT WITH SOIL BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT SW-11(a)
CHEMICAL'6'
Cadmium
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
144
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
70
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
49E-07
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
42E-06
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kg-day)
5E04
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
1E03
1E03
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
8E 03
8E03
(a)
(b)
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario where data was available and useable
Dermal contact with soil doses has been calculated for those chemicals of concern with dermal absorption information The following chemicals are
not presented due to lack of toxicity criteria: arsenic, copper and lead The dermal absorption used for cadmium is 1% (EPA 1992 - Dermal
Guidance).
-------
TABLE A-98. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY A HYPOTHETICAL
RESIDENT AT SW-11(a)
CHEMICAL(b)
Arsenic
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
59
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
78
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg day)
8 1E-07
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LAOF))
(mg/kg-day)
1 2E 05
ORAL
SLOPE FACTOR
(mg/kg-day) -1
1 75E + 00
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
1E-06
IE -06
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
2E05
2E05
00
CO
*a' Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario where data was available and useable.
(b' Ingestion of soil doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancer slope factors The following chemicals are not
presented due to lack of toxicity criteria: cadmium, copper and lead.
TABLE A-99. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT SW-11(a)
CHEMICAL(b)
Arsenic
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
59
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
7.8
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-07
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 3E-06
ORAL
SLOPE
FACTOR
(mg/kg-day) -1
1 75E+00
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
7E-07
7E-07
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
2E-06
2E06
(a) Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario where data was available and useable.
(b) Soil ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancer slope factors The following chemical is not presented
due to lack of toxicity criteria: cadmium, copper and lead
-------
TABLE A-100. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF SOIL BY A HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT
ATSW-11(a)
CHEMICAL**1*
Arsenic
Cadmium
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
5.9
14.4
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
7.8
70
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
3.5E-11
8.6E-11
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
20E-10
18E-09
INHALATION
SLOPE FACTOR
(mg/kg-day)-1
15E+01
63E+00
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
5E-10
5E-10
1E-09
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
3E09
1E-08
1E-08
(a)
(b)
tO
o
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario where data was available and useable.
Inhalation of soil doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with inhalation cancer slope factors The following chemicals are not
presented due to lack of toxicity criteria: copper and lead
TABLE A-101. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF SURFACE SOIL PARTICULATES BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT SW-11(a)
CHEMICAL(b)
Arsenic
Cadmium
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
59
14
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
78
70
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
35E-11
86E-11
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
12E-10
1.0E-09
INHALATION
SLOPE FACTOR
(mg/kg-day)-1
1.5E-I-01
63E + 00
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
5E-10
5E-10
1E 09
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
2E-09
6E-09
8E-09
(a' Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario where data was available and useable.
(b) Inhalation of soil paniculate doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with inhalation slope factors The following chemicals are
not presented due to lack of toxicity criteria: copper and lead
-------
TABLE A-102. CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK AT FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE
BASE SITE SW-11
RECEPTOR/PATHWAY
AVERAGE RISK
RME RISK
.Air Force Personnel/Contractors
Inhalation of Soil Paniculate
Ingestion of Soil
Dermal Contact with Soil
Ingestion of Groundwater
CUMULATIVE RISK
1E-09
7E-07
—
—
7E-07
8E-09
2E-06
—
~
2E-06
Residential Exposure Under Current Conditions
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Dermal Contact with Soil
Ingestion of Groundwater
Inhalation of Volatiles During Showering
CUMULATIVE RISK
1E-09
1E-06
—
—
~
1E-06
1E-08
2E-05
...
—
—
2E-05
A-91
-------
TABLE A-103. SUMMARY OF NONCANCER HAZARD AT FAIRCHILD
AIR FORCE BASE SITE SW-11
RECEPTOR/PATHWAY
AVERAGE HI
RME HI
Air Force Personnel/Contractors
Inhalation of Soil Paniculate
Ingestion of Soil
Dermal Contact with Soil
Ingestion of Groundwater
CUMULATIVE HAZARD INDEX
...
2E-02
1E-03
—
2E-02
—
SE-02
8E-03
—
9E-02
Residential Exposure Under Current Conditions
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Dermal Contact with Soil
Ingestion of Groundwater
Inhalation of Volatiles During Showering
CUMULATIVE HAZARD INDEX
—
6E-02
3E-03
•
—
6E-02
...
6E-01
1E-01
—
—
l_ 7E-01
A-92
-------
TABLE A-104. CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AT SITE FT-2
MEDIUM
Soil
Ground water
cdc
TPH-D
TPH-G
TPH
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
5,400 mg/kg
540 mg/kg
22.000
-------
TABLE A-105. SUMMARY OF Rl NON-METALS SOIL ANALYSES RESULTS AT FT-2
ANALYTE
TPH (E 418.1)
TPH-D. Gasoline (CA8015)
TPH-D. Diesel (CA8015)
NUMBER OF
DETECTIONS/
ANALYSES
14/34
7/14
-------
TABLE A-105. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF NON-METALS SOIL ANALYSES
SAMPLES AT FT-2 (Continued)
ANALYTE
NUMBER OF
DETECTIONS/
ANALYSES
LOCATIONS
MAXIMUM
DETECTION
(mg/kg)
SVOC (SW 8270)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
4-Methylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Pentacnlorophenol
3/41
1/44
5/44
3/44
1/44
MW-209 210. 211. 212
B-45R
B-21,23, 4SR
B-23, 45R
S-11
0.53
0.47
46.4
35.1
1.28
(a) Includes one detection noted by the laboratory as "Unknown Volatile Hydrocarbon.'
'b> All detections noted by the laboratory as "Unknown Extractable Hydrocarbon."
BOLD = Location of maximum detection.
R = Data are rejected.
A-95
-------
TABLE A-106. SUMMARY OF Rl NON-METALS GROUND WATER RESULTS
ANALYSES AT FT-2
ANALYTE
TPH-D (CA8015)
NUMBER OF
DETECTIONS/
ANALYSES
10/20
LOCATIONS
MW-209 210. 211. 212
MAXIMUM
DETECTION
U9/L)
22.000J
VOC (SW 8260)
sec-Birtylbenzene
Carbon Tetracnionde
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Di'--iloroetnylene
cis-1 ,2-Dicnloroethylene
Pentafluorobenzene
7/20
3/20
9/20
4/20
11/20
1/20
MW-210
MW-209
MW-210, 212
MW-210, 211, 212
MW-210, 211, 212
MW-210
360
1.60
8.00
2.40
31.0
10.6R
SVOC (SW 8270)
Dimethylpnthalate
EDB (SW8011)
1/20
0/15
MW-211
N/A
20.0
N/A
BOLD = Location of maximum detection.
R = Data are rejected.
N/A = Not applicable.
A-96
-------
TABLE A-107. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
IN SOILS AT FT-2
CHEMICAL
SOIL (ALL DEPTHS) (mg/kg)(a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION*6'
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d|
RBSL
NON CARCINOGENS1"'
FT-2
HNBC(f)
POTENTIAL
COC(g)
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
30,000
80
540
15
9,300
44
79
1,200
50,000
1,500
6,000
780
38
250
2,300
20
780
140
550
—
1.4
5,600
40
—
400
—
3,000
—
—.
. —
400
400
1,600
—
240
...
560
24,000
004
...
...
—
•
...
—
—
...
—
—
...
—
...
—
...
82
1,900
27
...
140
1,000
...
...
...
3,800
...
550
...
140
...
190
8,200
15,000
10
270
22
8,300
19
14
25
44,000
400
4,400
1,000
2
12
3,200
05
750
94
100
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ORGANICS
n-Butylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
p Cymene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
60
3.1
30
003
.,.
...
8,000
...
...
• —
.
—
...
...
2,700
...
...
—
YES
YES
YES
NO
-------
TABLE A-107. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
IN SOIL AT FT-2 (Continued)
CHEMICAL
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Isopropytbenzene
Methylene chloride
2-Methylnaphthalene
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
Penlachlorophenol
n-Propylbenzene
Toluene
Total petroleum
hydrocarbons
Trichloroethylene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Xylenes
SOIL (ALL DEPTHS) (mg/kg)(a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION'151
0.09
0.53
80
30
068
46
0.47
35
10
60
12
5,400
1.0
44
11
52
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
800
71
8,000
—
130
—
—
320
83
—
16,000
91
---
—
160,000
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d)
...
46
—
...
85
...
—
...
0.5
—
—
-.-
5.8
---
—
—
RBSL
NON CARCINOGENS*6'
550
550
2,700
1,100
1,600
—
1,400
1,100
820
5,500
""
200
...
...
55,000
FT-2
HNBC(f)
...
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
—
—
—
—
---
POTENTIAL
COC(9)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
All values founded to two significant digits
The screening was conservatively performed on (he maximum concentration detected ovat all depths analyzed Chemicals detected in iurtdt,« soil
will be evaluated in the exposure assessment
The Model loxics Control Act cleanup regulation {Ecology 1991) Method B.is intended to provide conservative cleanup levels lor sites undergoing cleanup Based on the lowest calculated value using carcinogenic, dnd non-
carcmogenic toxicity cnlena
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (LPA iyuib| the soil HBSl lor carcinogens is based on a 1 » 10 7 risk
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (EPA tOBIb) the soil RBSL for non-carcinogens Is based on a 0 1 hazard quotient
The Site Fl-2 High Normal Background Concentrations are calculated In Appendix J There is no background data lor organic chemicals
Potential contaminants of concern include metals that exceed (or do not have) the K assessment at the screening stage bubed on qualitative (tuJyemenl
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance, if chromium, cadmium, elemental mercury or carcinogenic forms of nickel are present as contaminants ol concern in soil they should not be eliminated based on soil mgestion screening criteria
However. If concentrations a/e less than background, they will not be evaluated further
•= No Value
COC - Contaminant of Concern
RBSL • Risk Baaed Screening Level
-------
TABLE A-108. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN
GROUND WATER AT FT-2
CHEMICAL
GROUND WATER (Mg/L)(a)
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
MCL(b)
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d)
RBSL
NON-CARCINOGENS(e)
HNBC(f)
POTENTIAL
coclf»
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
2,400
150
0.70
51,000
16,000
11
18,000
2,400
76
3,800
16
26,000
10
67
—
2,000
5
—
...
15
...
—
...
50
—
...
...
...
1,100
8
...
...
...
...
80
320
...
48
...
110
4,800
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
—
...
...
...
...
260
1.8
—
...
...
...
18
73
—
18
...
26
1,100
16,000
2,700
...
...
35,000
20
...
1,500
350
...
5
330
40
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ORGANICS
sec-Butylbenzene
Carbon Tetrachlorlde
1 , 1 -Dlchloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
22
16
80
24
...
5
5
7
—
034
800
007
...
0.7
...
002
...
2.6
100
33
...
...
...
...
YES
YES
NO
YES
-------
TABLE A-108. RISK-BASED SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN
GROUND WATER AT FT-2 (Continued)
CHEMICAL
Cls-1,2-
Dichloroelhylene
Dimethylphthalate
Total petroleum
hydrocarbons
GROUND WATER Gig/L)(a>
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
31
20
22,000
MCL(b)
70
—
MTCA
METHOD B(c)
80
16,000
"""*•
RBSL
CARCINOGENS(d)
—
—
~-~
RBSL
NON-CARCINOGENS(e)
73
36,000
*~"
HNBC(f)
---
—
...
POTENTIAL
coc(e)
NO
NO
YES
>
8
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1)
(9)
All values rounded to two significant digits.
Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for drinking water.
The Model Toxics Control Act cleanup regulation (Ecology 1991) Method B is intended to provide conservative cleanup levels for site
undergoing cleanup. Based on the lowest-calculated value using carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity ciiteria.
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (EPA 1991b), the ground water RBSL for carcinogens is based on a 1 x 10 6 risk RBSLs for volatile
chemicals with an inhalation slope factor were calculated based on ingestion and inhalation of volatiles fiom ground water
Based on EPA Region 10 guidance (EPA 1991 b), the ground water RBSL for non-carcinogens is based on a 0 1 hazard quotient RBSLs for
volatile chemicals with inhalation reference doses were calculated based on ingestion and inhalation of volatiles from ground water.
The Site FT-2 High Normal Background Concentrations (HNBC) were calculated and Referenced in Appendix J There is no background for
oiganic chemicals Cadmium was not detected during background studies
Potential contaminants of concern include chemicals that exceed (or do not have) the lowest ciiterion presented and that exceed
background concentrations However, based on EPA Region 10 guidance (EPA 1991b), aluminum, calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron,
and sodium may generally be eliminated from the human health risk assessment at the screening stage based on qualitative judgement
Action level: exceeded If the level of concentration in more than 10% of targeted tap samples is greater than the specified value (90th
percentile)
— = No Value.
COG = Contaminant of Concern
RBSL = Risk-Based Screening Level
-------
TABLE A-109. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY A HYPOTHETICAL
RESIDENT AT FT-2(a)
CHEMICAL(b)
Copper
Pentachlorophenol
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
160
052
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
240
053
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
78E-05
2.5E-07
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 7E-04
26E-07
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kgday)
4E-02
3E-02
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
4E-03
2E05
4E-03
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
2E 02
6E05
2E02
(b)
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario
Soil ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals with oral reference doses The following chemicals are not presented due to
lack of loxicity criteria: sec-butylbenzene; n-butylbenzene; cobalt, p-cymene, lead, 2-methyl naphthalene; n-propylbenzene; 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene,
and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
TABLE A-110. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY A HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT FT-2(a)
CHEMICAL(b)
Pentachlorophenol
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
052
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
053
AVERAGE
LIFETIME AVERAGE
DAILY DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
72E-08
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
83E-07
ORAL
SLOPE FACTOR
(mg/kgday)-1
1 2E-01
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
9E09
9E 09
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
1E07
1E07
'a) Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario.
'b' Soil Ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals with oral slope factors. The following chemicals are not presented due to lack of
toxlclty criteria: sec-butylbenzene; n-butylbenzene; cobalt; copper; p-cymene; lead; 2-methyl naphthalene; nickel; n propylbenzene;
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene; and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
-------
TABLE A-111. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT FT-2(a)
CHEMICAL(b)
Copper
Pentachlorophenol
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
160
052
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
240
053
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
7.8E-0&
25E-07
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 7E-04
26E-07
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kg-day)
4E02
3E-02
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
2E-03
8E-06
2E-03
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
3E 03
9E 06
3E-03
o
fO
(a)
(b)
Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario.
Soil myeslion doses have been calculated for those chemicals with oral reference doses. The following chemicals aie not presented due to lack of toxicity
criteria: sec-butylbenzene, n-butylbenzene; cobalt; p-cymene; lead; 2-methyl naphthalene; n-propylbenzene; 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene, and
1,3,5 trimethylbenzene
TABLE A-112. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF SOIL BY AIR FORCE
PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT FT-2(a)
CHEMICAL(b)
Pentachlorophenol
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
052
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(nrig/kg)
053
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
36E-08
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
93E-08
ORAL
SLOPE FACTOR
(mg/kg-day) -1
1 2E-01
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
4E-09
4E-09
HME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
1E-08
1E08
'a' Surface and subsurface soil were combined to evaluate this scenario
'b' Soil ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals with oral slope factors The following chemicals are not presented due to lack of
toxicity criteria: sec-butylbenzene; n-butylbenzene; cobalt, copper; p cymene, lead; 2-methyl naphthalene; nickel; n propylbenzene,
1,2.4 trimethylbenzene; and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
-------
TABLE A-113. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER FOR A
HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT FT-2
CHEMICAL.'8'
Carbon tetrachlorlde
1,1 -Dlchlor oethene
Manganese
Nickel
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
067
070
883
24
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
d9/L)
081
088
2.290
277
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1 OE-05
1 1E-05
1 3E-02
36E-04
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg day)
2.2E-05
2.4E-05
6.3E-02
80E-04
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kg-day)
7E04
9E-03
5E03
2E02
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
1E-02
1E03
3E + 00
2E02
3E + 00
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
3E-02
3E03
1E + 01
4E-02
1E + 01
o
CO
(a)
Ground water ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral toxicity criteria. The following chemical is not
presented due to lack of oral toxicity criteria: sec-butylbenzene
TABLE A-114. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER FOR A
HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT FT-2
CHEMICAL'"'
Carbon tetrachloride
1 , 1 -Dichloroelhene
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
067
070
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
Ufl/L)
081
088
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
1.3E-06
1.4E-06
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
95E-06
1 OE-05
ORAL
SLOPE FACTOR
(mg/kg-day)-1
1.3E-01
6E-01
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
2E-07
8E-07
1E-06
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
1E-06
6E-06
7E06
(a)
Ground water ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral cancer slope factors The following chemicals are not
presented due to lack of oral toxicity criteria: manganese, nickel and sec-butylbenzene
-------
TABLE A-115. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF VOLATILES DURING SHOWERING
BY A HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT AT FT-2
CHEMICAL!"*
Carbon tetrachloride
1,1-Dlchloroethene
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/mVb|
32E-03
41E-03
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/m3)(b)
6.3E-03
8.7E-03
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
32E-07
4.1E-07
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
4.6E-06
64E-06
INHALATION
SLOPE FACTOR
(mg/kg-day) -1
53E-02
1 2E+00
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
2E09
5E07
5E-07
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
2E-08
BE 06
8E-06
(a)
(b)
_
2
Dose for the inhalation of volatiles from showering pathway have been calculated for volatile chemicals of concern with inhalation toxicity criteria The
following chemical Is not presented due to lack of inhalation toxicity criteria: sec-butylbenzene
Average and RME Exposure Point Concentrations were derived using the Foster and Chrostowski (1987) model. These values represent the average
air concentration for total shower exposure.
TABLE A-116. NONCANCER HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER FOR
AIR FORCE PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT FT-2
CHEMICAL'"'
Carbon tetrachloride
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Manganese
Nickel
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
067
070
883
24
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
081
088
2,290
277
AVERAGE
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
66E-06
69E-06
86E03
24E-04
RME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (ADD)
(mg/kg-day)
79E-06
86E06
22E02
27E-04
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE (RFD)
(mg/kg-day)
7E-04
9E03
5E-03
2E-02
HAZARD INDEX
AVERAGE
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
9E-03
8E04
2E+00
1E-02
2E + 00
RME
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
1E-02
1E-03
4E+00
1E-02
4E + 00
Ground water ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concern with oral toxicity criteria. The following chemical is not
presented due to lack of oral toxicity criteria: sec-butylbenzene
-------
TABLE A-117. CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OF GROUND WATER FOR
AIR FORCE PERSONNEL/CONTRACTORS AT FT-2
CHEMICAL'"'
Carbon tetrachloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
AVERAGE
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
(M9/L)
067
070
RME
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION
fc9/L)
081
088
AVERAGE
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
94E-07
9.8E-07
RME
LIFETIME
AVERAGE DAILY
DOSE (LADD)
(mg/kg-day)
2.8E-06
31E06
ORAL
SLOPE FACTOR
(mg/kg-day) -1
1.3E-01
6.0E-01
TOTAL RISK
AVERAGE
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
1E-07
6E-07
7E-07
RME
CARCINOGENIC
RISK
4E-07'
2E-06
2E-06
Ground water ingestion doses have been calculated for those chemicals of concein with oral cancer slope factors The following chemicals are not
presented due to lack of oral toxiclty criteria: manganese, nickel and sec-butylbenzene
o
ui
-------
TABLE A-118. SUMMARY OF NONCANCER HAZARD AT FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE
BASE SITE FT-2
RECEPTOR/PATHWAY
AVERAGE HI
RME HI
Air Force Personnel/Contractors
Inhalation of Soil Paniculate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
CUMULATIVE HAZARD INDEX
—
2E-03
2E+00
2E+00
—
3E-03
4E + 00
4E+00
Residential Exposure with Current Conditions
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
Inhalation of Volatiles During Showering
CUMULATIVE HAZARD INDEX
4E-03
3E+00
._
3E+00
•
2E-02
1E+01
—
1E+01
TABLE A-119. CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK AT FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE
BASE SITE FT-2
RECEPTOR/PATHWAY
AVERAGE RISK
RME RISK
Air Force Personnel/Contractors
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK
—
4E-09
7E-07
7E-07
—
1 E-08
2E-06
2E-06
Residential Exposure with Current Conditions
Inhalation of Soil Particulate
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion of Ground Water
Inhalation of Volatiles During Showering
CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK
—
9E-09
1E-06
5E-07
2E-06
—
1E-07
7E-06
8E-06
2E-05
A-106
-------
APPENDIX B
RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY
-------
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
#1 COMMENT: Were radioactively contaminated clothes buried at Site SW-12?
RESPONSE: No. Air Force investigations indicate, however, the possibility that
radioactively contaminated clothing were disposed in the waste burial trench at Site SW-6.
SW-6 is located in the weapons storage area and is being investigated as part of a
separate Installation Restoration Program project.
#2 COMMENT: Where is Site SW-12 relative to the Radioactive Waste Burial Trench
(Site SW-6)?
RESPONSE: The burial trench at SW-6 is located approximately 4000 feet west of Site
SW-12.
#3 COMMENT: Is there a proposed schedule for the demolition of Building 2150?
RESPONSE: The Air Force plans to demolish Building 2150. Due to the availability of
funds the demolition is expected to be several years in the future.
#4 COMMENT: What was the disposition of the 1300 cubic yards of soil removed from Site
IS-4 during the Remedial Investigation?
RESPONSE: The contaminated soil removed from IS-4 was transported to a low-
temperature thermal desorption facility for treatment and final disposition.
#5 COMMENT: Why is enhanced bioremediation, which is commonly considered a cost
effective alternative for remediating hydrocarbons, not being considered for the Priority 2
Sites?
RESPONSE: The Air Force did evaluate enhanced bioremediation during the remedy
selection process. The "Feasibility Study for Priority 2a Sites at Fairchild Air Force Base"
(ICF 1995b) identified enhanced bioremediation, including the addition of nutrients and
"engineered" microbes, as an in place technology for remediating hydrocarbon
contaminated sites. Enhanced bioremediation for hydrocarbon contaminated sites did
not pass the site specific technology screening which included a qualitative assessment
of implementability, effectiveness, and cost. The limiting factor was implementability. The
use of infiltration galleries and spray irrigation to introduce an oxygen or other nutrient
source to the vadose zone is often unsuccessful because the rapid decomposition of the
nutrient source precludes effective distribution in the subsurface. Additionally, the need
for fluid media to distribute the nutrients to the vadose zone enhances the potential for
mobilizing hydrocarbon contamination.
The specific technology referred to by the commenter was reviewed and is not
considered unique from the range of bioremediation applications encompassed by the
enhanced bioremediation alternative.
B-1
-------
#6 COMMENT: Why is enhanced bioremediation not considered for hydrocarbons at IS-4,
and PCBs at IS-3?
RESPONSE: For IS-4 the response to comment #5 applies. Because of confining
subsurface geometry at this site, the introduction of water, as a carrier media for biologic
nutrients, makes implementing an enhanced bioremediation program unfeasible because
infiltration of the water is limited to a confined area. Enhanced bioremediation was not
' considered as an effective method for degrading halogenated compounds such as those
encountered at IS-3. This application has produced positive results at some sites but is
still considered in the development stage.
#7 COMMENT: Why are institutional controls being considered when technologies are
available to cleanup sites? Why monitor for only the short term, then close the site and
move on to the next one?
RESPONSE: Institutional Controls are proposed in order to prevent uncontrolled
exposures to contamination at these sites. Additionally, long term monitoring programs
are proposed to monitor the natural degradation of organic contaminants. Based on the
risks posed by the contaminated sites and the nine criteria used to screen and select
remedial approaches, the need for an "active" remediation technology was not considered
necessary at these sites.
#8 COMMENT: Where does the water in the storm water ditch at Site IS-4 discharge?
RESPONSE: The storm water ditch at IS-4 is designed to discharge to the waste water
lagoons located at Priority 1 Site WW-1.
#9 COMMENT: The property owners to the east of the base refer to "No Name Ditch" as the
Fairchild Air Force Base Easement.
RESPONSE: The Air Force recognizes the property owners use of the term "Fairchild Air
Force Base Easement."
#10 COMMENT. Which aquifer, either the alluvial or basalt, is the contamination at PS-1
impacting?
RESPONSE: Ground water contamination at PS-1 was detected in the alluvial ground
water system.
#11 COMMENT: Is there free flowing ground water between the alluvial and basalt aquifers
at Site PS-1?
RESPONSE: The Air Force has no evidence indicating ground water flows freely between
the alluvial and basalt aquifers at this site.
B-2
-------
#12 COMMENT: What is the source of data used to describe the thickness of basalt flows
beneath the base?
RESPONSE: Approximately 11 ground water monitoring wells penetrating the base of
Basalt Flow A have been installed as part of the Installation Restoration Program at
Fairchild Air Force Base. Information from these wells has been supplemented with
private water well logs provided by the Department of Ecology to determine the
approximate thickness of Basalt Flow A. The results are consistent with published studies
that report on the regional geology and the nature of the Columbian Basin basalts in
general.
#13 COMMENT: Why is the basalt at PS-1 described as being encountered between 50 and
200 feet below ground surface when east of the base it is not encountered until greater
than 250 feet?
RESPONSE: Geologic data compiled during the Installation Restoration Program shows
the depth to basalt varies from 0 feet on the west end of the base to greater than 250 feet
near the Craig Road Annex. This data is consistent with the accepted geologic model
for the Spokane West Plains and East Central Washington. This model, originally
proposed by Harlan Bretz in 1927, theorizes catastrophic flood events scoured large
channels (commonly referred to as Coulees) into the basalt in eastern Washington.
Evidence to support this theory is seen at Sprague Lake, Grand Coulee, and the
Channeled scablands. The area east of the Craig Road Annex is interpreted as a scour
channel or coulee that has been filled with alluvial sediments.
#14 COMMENT: What is the estimated efficiency of bioventing at PS-1 assuming a JP-4
concentration of 10,000 mg/kg? Are there actual numbers available from the on-going
pilot tests.
RESPONSE: An Air Force bioventing study at a JP-4 contaminated site at Tyndall Air
Force Base achieved an average hydrocarbon reduction of 2,900 mg/kg over a 200 day
period. Initial hydrocarbon concentrations were between 5,100 mg/kg and 7,700 mg/kg.
This represents a reduction in total hydrocarbons of 40%. In the Tyndall study a careful
evaluation of the relationship to air flow rates and biodegradation and volatilization was
made. The study concluded the optimal air flow rate for biodegradation resulted in 90%
removal by biodegradation and 10% removal by.volatilization. A detailed discussion of
the Air Force's bioventing studies is contained in 'Test Plan and Technical Protocol for
a Field Treatabillty Test for Bioventing." (EPA 1992). This document may be provided
upon request.
At Site PS-1, the Air Force is conducting a pilot test of the bioventing alternative. By
measuring the increase in oxygen availability in the soil, the preliminary test results
provide the following biodegradation rates:
• Site PS-2 - 510 to 5,100 mg fuel/kg soil/year
Site PS-1 A -1,800 to 8,300 mg fuel/kg soil/year
Site PS-1 B -160 to 2,200 mg fuel/kg soil/year
Building 2034 - 380 to 2,900 mg fuel/kg soil/year
Building 2035 - 350 to 3,200 mg fuel/kg soil/year
B-3
-------
The PS-1 pilot test is ongoing and the preliminary results have not been confirmed.
Specific information about these studies can be found in the "Draft Bioventing Pilot Test
Interim Results Report" (Engineering Science 1994).
#15 . COMMENT: What is the expected percent reduction in hydrocarbon concentrations over
a 2 year period using bioventing?
' RESPONSE: Based on preliminary results for on-going bioventing programs at PS-1, the
Air Force would expect to see a reduction in hydrocarbons ranging from 320 to 16,600
mg of fuel/kg of soil over a 2 year period.
#16 COMMENT: What are the actual costs for institutional controls for contaminated soil at
Sites PS-5 and PS-7?
RESPONSE: Projected costs for implementing institutional controls at PS-5 and PS-7 are
$10,150.00 for each site. These costs include implementing the controls, preparing
closure documentation, taxes and insurance costs, legal fees, and a 30% contingency.
#17 COMMENT: Why is there a $14,500 charge for a "No Further Action" alternative at each
site? Does the 314,500 also include costs for government agency involvement in the
closure process?
RESPONSE: The cost models used for developing costs for the preferred alternatives are
designed to develop qualitative costs that allow the Air Force to compare different
remedial alternatives on an equal basis. The $14,500.00 cost for the "No Further Action"
alternative considers closure documentation, legal fees, taxes and insurance, and a 30%
contingency. The cost model does not include monies for government agency
involvement in the closure process.
#18 COMMENT: What makes the subsurface structure at PS-10 more complicated than the
other sites?
RESPONSE: The depositional/erosional setting at PS-10 is directly related to the
catastrophic flood events which occurred between approximately 40,000 and 15,000 years
ago. These events are collectively referred to as the "Missoula Floods." These floods
scoured large channels in the basalt throughout eastern Washington. At PS-10 basalt is
found at the surface across some potions of the site and is not encountered until 45 feet
at other locations. These radical changes in depth to basalt complicate ground water
investigations at PS-10.
COMMENT: What information is available to support the statement that the source of
TCE contamination at PS-10 is not attributable to site activities?
RESPONSE: The second bullet in the Priority 2 Sites Proposed Plan (ICF 1995c) under
Site Investigation Results is incorrect. The remedial investigation concluded the migration
pathway for TCE from soil to ground water was not identified. Based on the TCE
concentrations in soil and ground water, the Air Force considers releases from PS-10 the
most likely source of the observed ground water contamination, although it is unlikely this
contamination is directly from the contaminated area described in the plan. The reference
to an off-site location implies the Air Force needs to accomplish additional facility
B-4
-------
discovery activities; an action that is unwarranted based on the current understanding of
the site. The Air Force considers the potential for TCE contamination in ground water
having come from another site as remote.
#20 COMMENT: Where does the ditch at PS-10 discharge?
RESPONSE: The ditch at PS-10 discharges to a storm water grate located at the extreme
southeast corner of the site, adjacent to the runway. Under normal conditions, however,
surface runoff infiltrates to the ground prior to reaching the storm water grate. Chemical
data collected during the remedy selection process confirms contaminants infiltrate prior
to reaching the storm water system.
#21 COMMENT: Is PS-10 a possible source of the TCE contamination observed in "No Name
Ditch" and in water wells east of the base?
RESPONSE: The possibility that PS-10 is a source of the contamination observed in "No
Name Ditch" is extremely unlikely. Sampling of sediments in the PS-10 ditch shows there
is no contamination near the storm water grate that this ditch discharges to. This
indicates contaminated surface runoff from PS-10 has not entered the storm water
system.
Ground water contamination observed at PS-10 is likely not the source for contamination
observed in water supply wells east of the base. The distance between PS-10 and these
wells is considered too great for transport of the contaminants of concern. Additionally,
other areas of contamination are located on the eastern half of the base and are more
likely to represent the source of contaminants found in water supply wells.
#22 COMMENT: Has ground water beneath the ditch at PS-10 been sampled?
RESPONSE: Yes. Ground water monitoring wells were installed as part of the remedial
investigations at this site. Trichioroethylene was detected during each of four sampling
events completed between April 1993 and February 1994.
#23 COMMENT: Why aren't off-base residents considered when referring to possible
exposure scenarios or institutional controls?
RESPONSE: The risk characterization completed during the remedialinvestlgation phase
of the remedy selection process evaluated the following human receptor scenarios: Base
personnel and contractors, base residents, visitors, trespassers, and off-base residents.
Institutional controls are exercised over the actual area of contamination and prevent
uncontrolled access and exposure to that contamination. The Air Force continues to
share information with the local residents regarding potential personal exposure caused
by contaminants at the P2 sites.
#24 COMMENT: Is the Air Force neglecting retired military personnel residing near the base?
RESPONSE: Fairchild Air Force base has provided routine sampling of water supply wells
and has provided alternative water supplies to numerous "neighbors" potentially impacted
by ground water contamination attributable to historic base activities.
B-5
-------
#25 COMMENT: How long will it take for TCE contaminated ground water to reach newly
installed water wells on east side of the base?
RESPONSE: The Air Force does not anticipate, under current conditions, contaminated
ground water will impact the newly installed water supply wells located east of the base.
Remedial actions currently underway are expected to address this concern. As
remediation progresses the Air Force will evaluate its effectiveness and determine if
' additional measure are needed to mitigate the continued migration of ground water
contaminants.
#26 COMMENT: What areas were used for fire training exercises and are all those areas
encompassed by site FT-2?
RESPONSE: The Air Force used three areas in the southeastern portion of the base for
fire training between approximately the mid-1950s and 1990. FT-2 is only one of these
locations and was used from the mid 1950s to the early 1960s. The other two areas are
the current fire training site (IRP site FT-1 located at Building 1570), and in an area
immediately north of the current fire training site.
#27 COMMENT: Why has no material been provided to the public regarding investigations
at the other Fire Training Areas?
RESPONSE: This information was provided to the public during the presentation of the
proposed plan for the Priority 1 a Sites.
#28 COMMENT: Are there other sites besides the Priority 2 Sites that the Air Force is
addressing under the CERCLA process?
RESPONSE: Yes. The Air Force has completed the remedy selection at 8 sites referred
to as the Priority 1 sites and will be investigating under the CERCLA process the Priority
3 sites which are as yet to be defined.
#29 COMMENT: Is the Department of Ecology allowing the Air Force to conduct long term
monitoring without an active remediation program at the petroleum contaminated sites
because Fairchild is a government installation? Would the Department of Ecology allow
a private property owner outside the base with the same type of contamination to watch
it for 10 or 20 years, without completing an active remediation?
RESPONSE: The long term monitoring program represents more than just a method of
watching the contamination. Monitoring is designed to track the biologic degradation of
hydrocarbon contamination over time. If monitoring does not show positive results, the
Air Force will reevaluate its preferred alternative and look to other techniques for
achieving the cleanup action objectives established for individual sites.
Ecology's overall perspective is a concern for groundwater contamination, not as much
a concern about the petroleum-contaminated soil in and of itself. In cases where there
is petroleum-contaminated soil and no potential groundwater exposures related to that
B-6
-------
petroleum-contaminated soil, there is a tendency to not undergo the expenditures for
treatment-oriented approaches. This tendency applies to any site (federal or otherwise)
similar to the Priority 2 sites. It is not a special opportunity for federal facilities, nor a
tendency that applies more to federal facilities than private ones.
#29 COMMENT: Can the Air Force provide a dollar figure for the past 5 years showing what
percent of the environmental budget has been spent on taking care of the problem versus
how much has been spent on administrative costs?
The Air Force is continuing to compile Installation Restoration Program costs for Fairchild
and will provide this information in the Final Record of Decision.
#30 COMMENT: Why did the Air Force put a park where they have cadmium as a
contaminant when cadmium is known to cause Lou Gehrig's disease?
RESPONSE: The Air Force identified potential contamination concerns during the
development of Warrior Park. Once the concerns were identified, the Air Force took
action to mitigate potential exposure while the conditions were investigated. The risk
characterization conducted during the remedial investigation concluded there is not an
unacceptable adverse human health risk associated with chemical contamination at the
park.
Review of the toxicological literature shows there is no relationship between chronic
cadmium exposure (which is what would be expected at SW-11) and amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig's Disease).
B-7
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
ADDITIONAL SCREENING OF
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
-------
-------
ADDITIONAL SCREENING OF CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
The following contaminants of concern made it through the initial screening process and were
evaluated for risk and hazard at each site. During a meeting at Fairchild AFB in February 1995
with EPA, Ecology, and base representatives, risk management decisions were made to remove
several of these contaminants of concern from further consideration in the Priority 2a Feasibility
Study report (ICF 1995b). Other contaminants of concern were dropped from consideration for
other reasons, as stated in the following text.
SITE IS-3
There is no additional screening of contaminants of concern at IS-3.
SITE IS-4
Soil:
• Manganese. This metal occurs naturally in background soils. It is dissolved in
reducing environments associated with decay of organic contamination,
remobilized by ground water transport, and redeposited along flow pathways
where aerobic conditions prevail (see detailed discussion in Remedial Investigation
report, Section 2.4.2.5 [ICF 1995a]).
SITEPS-1
Soil:
• Arsenic. There were no detections of arsenic above the site-specific natural
background levels of 18.9 mg/kg. It was dropped as a contaminant of concern.
• Beryllium. There were no detections of beryllium above a basewide natural
background levels analysis performed prior to the remedial investigation which
showed background beryllium at 0.78 mg/kg. Beryllium was dropped as a
contaminant of concern.
• Manganese. Refer to the discussion provided for manganese in soil at IS-4.
Ground Water:
• Arsenic. Arsenic behaves similarly to manganese by dissolving in reducing
environments (Masscheleyn 1991). Refer to the discussion of manganese in soils
at IS-4.
C-1 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
Manganese. Refer to the discussion provided for manganese in soil at IS-4.
Hexachlorobutadiene. There was only one detection of hexachlorobutadiene out
of 13 analyses at this site. This compound was also detected in an associated
trip blank at the site. It is likely a laboratory artifact and was dropped as a
contaminant of concern.
SITE PS-5
Ground Water:
• Arsenic. Refer to discussion provided for arsenic in soil at IS-4.
• Beryllium. There were no detections of beryllium above natural background
levels in ground water at this site. It was dropped as a contaminant of concern.
• Cadmium. There was one isolated detection of cadmium at 11 fjg/L in an
unfiltered sample out of 5 analyses, and no detections in any filtered samples.
The laboratory detection limit was 5 fjg/L The lack of repeatable samples, and
the fact that there is no likely source for this contaminant led to a risk
management decision to drop it as a contaminant of concern.
• Manganese. Refer to discussion provided for manganese in ground water at IS-4.
SITE PS-7
Ground Water:
• Bromodichloromethane. Risk calculations showed this compound posed no
unacceptable risk or hazard to human health or the environment and so was
dropped as a contaminant of concern. It is likely a by-product of lawn irrigation.
SITE PS-10
Soil:
• Arsenic. There were no detections of arsenic above natural background levels
at the site. It was dropped as a contaminant of concern.
• Manganese. Refer to discussion provided for manganese in soil at IS-4.
C-2 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
SITESW-11
There is no additional screening of contaminants of concern at SW-11.
SITE FT-2
Soil:
• Arsenic. There were no detections of arsenic above natural background levels
at the site. It was dropped as a contaminant of concern.
• Methytene Chloride. There were only 2 detections of this compound out of 44
analyses. The maximum detection was 0.68 mg/kg, and the detection limit was
0.5 mg/kg. A risk management decision was made to drop this compound as a
contaminant of concern because there were so few detections and because it was
so close to the detection limit.
Ground Water:
• Manganese. Refer to discussion provided for manganese in soil at IS-4.
• Carbon Tetracnloride. Carbon Tetrachloride was detected in only one well
upgradient of the site in only 3 out of 20 analyses. In addition, cumulative cancer
risk, to which carbon tetrachloride is the smaller contributor, falls within the
acceptable range. As a result carbon tetrachloride was dropped as a contaminant
of concern.
• 1,1 -DCE. 1,1-DCE was detected in only one downgradient well and will be
addressed in the next phase of.the IRP.
C-3 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
C-4 FINAL - 29 SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
APPENDIX D
REFERENCES
-------
-------
REFERENCES
Air Force 1990. United States Air Force. Automated Weather Service, Climate Brief, Fairchild Air
Force Base. Washington. Summary of monthly data collected from October 1979 to September
1989 for wind speed and direction.
Air Force 1993. United States Air Force. Handbook to Support the Installation Restoration
Program (IRP) Statements of Work for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies. IRP Program
Office, Air Base Support Directorate, Human Systems Division, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas.
Battelle, 1986. Battelle Denver Operations. Technical Operations Plan, Fairchild AFB.
Washington. Prepared for United States Air Force Occupational and Environmental Laboratory,
Brooks AFB, Texas.
Battelle, 1988. Battelle Denver Operations. Installation Restoration Program Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study Report. Stage 2 Work Plan. Fairchild AFB. Washington. Prepared
for United States Air Force Occupational and Environmental Laboratory, Brooks AFB, Texas.
Battelle, 1989. Battelle Denver Operations. Installation Restoration Program Phase II -
Confirmation/Quantification. Stage 1 Report. Fairchild AFB. Washington. Prepared for United
States Air Force Occupational and Environmental Laboratory, Brooks AFB, Texas.
Ecology, 1992. Washington State Department of Ecology. Statistical Guidance for Ecology Site
Manager. August 1992.
Engineering Science 1994. Draft Bioventing Pilot Test Interim Results Report. Prepared for Air
Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE), Brooks AFB, Texas, 1994.
EPA 1987. United States Environmental Protection Agency. OSWER Directive 9834.11, Revised
Procedures for Planning and Implementing Offsite Response Actions. U.S. EPA, Washington,
D.C., November 13, 1987.
EPA 1989. United States Environmental Protection Agency. OSWER Directive 9355.3-02,
Guidance for Preparing Superfund Decision Documents. Interim Final. U.S. EPA, Washington
D.C., July 1989.
EPA 1992. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Test Plan and Technical Protocol
for a Field Treatabilitv Test for Bioventino. Prepared for Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence (AFCEE), Brooks AFB, Texas, May 1992.
ICF 1992. ICF Technology, Inc. Final Limited Field Investigation Report for Priority 2 Sites,
Fairchild AFB. Washington. Prepared for United States Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence/Environmental Restoration Division (AFCEE/ERD), Brooks AFB, Texas, September
1992.
ICF 1993. ICF Technology, Inc. Final Fairchild Air Force Base Priority 2a Sites Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan. Prepared for United States Air Force Center for
Environmental Excellence, Environmental Restoration Division (AFCEE/ERD), Brooks AFB, Texas,
July 1993.
D-1
-------
ICF 1995a. 1GF Technology, Inc. Final Fairchiid Air Force Base Priority 2s Sites Remedial
Investigation Report. Prepared for United States Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence,
Envirofwrvental Restoration Division (AFCEE/ERD), February 1995.
IGF 1995b; ICF Technebgy, Inc. Final Fairchiid Air Force Base Priority 2a Sites Feasibility Study
Report. Prepared for United States Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, Environmental
Restoration Division (AFCEE/ERD), April 1995.
ICF 1995c. IGF Technology, Inc. Final Fairchiid Air Force Base Priority 2a Sites Proposed Plan.
Prepared for United Ststss Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, Environmental
Restoration Division (AFCEE/ERD), May 1995.
-------
-------
------- |