PB96-964607
EPA/ROD/R10-96/139
August 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Bangor Naval Submarine Base
(Operable Unit 7), Silverdale, WA
4/16/1996
-------
-------
FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 7
NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE, BANGOR
SILVERDALE, WASHINGTON
Prepared by
URS Consultants, Inc.
Seattle, Washington
Prepared for
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Poulsbo, Washington
April 1996
-------
-------
DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Naval Submarine Base, Bangor
Operable Unit 7
Silverdaie, Washington
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected actions for Operable Unit 7 (OU 7) at the Naval
Submarine Base (SUBASE), Bangor in Silverdaie, Washington. These actions were chosen in accordance
with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and, to the extent
practical, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The decisions
documented in this ROD are based on the Administrative Record for OU 7. OU 7 was created for
miscellaneous sites that were not related to sites in other operable units. OU 7 consists of 10 sites: Sites B,
2, 4, 7, 10, 18, 26, 30, E, and 11. Although not part of OU 7 as defined in the Federal Facility Agreement
(FFA), a decision was made to study three ecological areas—Cattail Lake, Hunter's Marsh, and Devil's
Hole—in conjunction with the 10 sites.
The lead agency for these decisions is the U.S. Navy (Navy). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) have participated in scoping the site
investigations and in evaluating alternatives for remedial action. The EPA and Ecology concur with the
selected remedies.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
The no-action alternative was determined most appropriate for Sites 4, 7, 18, and 30, and the three ecological
areas (Cattail Lake, Hunter's Marsh, and Devil's Hole) because associated site risks are within the
acceptable risk range established by the EPA. Because of some uncertainties in the risk results, Sites 10 and
26 require monitoring only. Further action alternatives were evaluated for the remaining Sites B, 2, E, and
11. Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the action sites, if not addressed by
implementing the response actions selected in this ROD, may pose a current or potential threat to public
health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDIES
The selected remedy for the action and monitoring sites are the following:
• Site B—The selected remedy is to provide a vegetative soil cover for preventing direct contact with
contaminated soil by site visitors and to determine whether groundwater discharge into Hood Canal
is affecting marine sediments or ecological receptors.
• Site 2—-The selected remedy for the stockpiled soil is to screen the metallic debris from the soil and
reclaim or properly dispose of the debris to prevent direct contact with and ingestion of
contaminated soil by humans and to protect ecological receptors. The screened stockpiled soil will
be tested and used on site for backfill or properly disposed of off site based on the analytical results.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
• Site 10—The selected remedy includes maintenance of the asphalt pavement, institution of
groundwater use limitations, and groundwater monitoring.
* Site 26—The selected remedy is sediment and clam tissue monitoring to track the detected chemicals
that exceeded Sediment Management Standards and to establish trends.
• Sites E and 11—The selected remedy is to transport the stockpiled soil off site for proper disposal to
prevent direct contact with and ingestion of the soil. The groundwater is being remediated by a
pump-and-treat system installed at a contiguous operable unit.
DECLARATION
No-Action Sites:
No remedial action is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment at the no-action
sites. No further monitoring or investigative studies will be conducted for these sites. A 5-year review is not
required.
The Navy used EPA guidelines and the information developed during the remedial investigation to evaluate
the potential adverse effects on human health and the environment associated with exposure to site
chemicals. The potential exposure of workers and residents to chemicals detected at each site was estimated
for current and future scenarios. The evaluation, performed according to EPA's NCP and policy guidance,
indicated that no action is necessary to be protective of human health and the environment and that
calculated risks from exposure to chemicals detected at the sites are within the EPA's acceptable risk range.
Action/Monitoring Sites:
Each selected remedy for the action sites is protective of human health and the environment, is in
compliance with federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. To the maximum extent practicable, these remedies use permanent on-
site solutions and innovative treatment or resource recovery technologies. The selected remedy for Site 2
involves on-site treatment of debris-contaminated soil and therefore satisfies the statutory preference for
remedies employing treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume. At Sites B, 10, and 26, and for the
stockpiled soil at Sites E and 11, treatment was found to be not practicable, and the remedies do not satisfy
the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element. The groundwater at Sites E and 11 is to be
included in the pump-and-treat program conducted under OU 2. The OU 2 remedy satisfies the statutory
preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal element to reduce toxicity, mobility, and
volume. At those sites where the selected remedial action results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site, each remedial action will be reviewed no less often than every 5 years to
ensure that human health and the environment are being protected.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
Signature sheet for the foregoing SUBASE, Bangor Operable Unit 7, Remedial Action, Record of Decision
between the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with concurrence by the Washington
State Department of Ecology.
3tai/Michael J. Landers Date
(SE, Bangor Commanding Officer
ited States Navy
3Q580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
Signature sheet for the foregoing SUBASE, Bangor Operable Unit 7, Remedial Action, Record of Decision
between the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with concurrence by the Washington
State Department of Ecology.
-TX i •'' -^ ;, .-/
/ \ / -^~ > y .
L /U;
Chuck Clarke Date
Regional Administrator, Region 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
Signature sheet for the foregoing SUBASE, Bangor Operable Unit 7, Remedial Action, Record of Decision
between the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with concurrence by the Washington
State Department of Ecology.
Mary Burg, Program Manager Date
Toxics Cleanup Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
305 80\9603.070VTEXT
-------
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page ix
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
CONTENTS
Section Page
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS xvii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 1
3.0 SITE HISTORY 3
3.1 SITE B, FLORAL POINT 3
3.2 SITE 2, CLASSIFICATION YARD/FLEET DEPLOYMENT PARKING 6
3.3 SITE 4, CARLSON SPIT " 6
3.4 SITE 7, OLD PAINT CAN DISPOSAL SITE . . , 6
3.5 SITE 10, PESTICIDE STORAGE QUONSET HUTS 10
3.6 SITE 18, PCB SPILL SITE . 10
3.7 SITE 26, HOOD CANAL SEDIMENTS . 10
3.8 SITE 30, RAILROAD TRACKS 14
3.9 SITE E, ACID DISPOSAL PIT; SITE 11, PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE DRUM
DISPOSAL AREA 14
3.10 CATTAIL LAKE ECOLOGICAL AREA 14
3.11 HUNTER'S MARSH ECOLOGICAL AREA 18
3.12 DEVIL'S HOLE ECOLOGICAL AREA 18
4.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 18
5.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNITS 21
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 22
6.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS 22
6.2 SITE-SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS 22
6.2.1 Site B, Floral Point 22
6.2.2 Site 2, Classification Yard/Fleet Deployment Parking 25
6.23 Site 4, Carlson Spit 25
6.2.4 Site 7, Old Paint Can Disposal Site 25
6.2.5 Site 10, Pesticide Storage Quonset Huts 25
6.2.6 Site 18, PCB Spill Site ~ 26
6.2.7 Site 26, Hood Canal Sediments 26
6.2.8 Site 30, Railroad Tracks . 27
6.2.9 Site E and Site 11 28
6.2.10 Ecological Areas 28
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page x
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO0058
CONTENTS (Continued)
7.0 NATURE AND EXTENT [[[ 29
7.1 SITE B, FLORAL POINT .............................................. 30
7.1.1 Geophysical Investigations ........................................ 30
7.1.2 Soil Vapor Survey ............. ................................. 32
7.1.3 Field Screening for Ordnance ..................................... 32
7.1.4 Shallow Soil Sampling and Analysis ................................. 32
7.1.5 Subsurface Soil Sampling and Analysis ............................... 32
7.1.6 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis . . . ............................. 35
7.2 SITE 2, CLASSIFICATION YARD/FLEET DEPLOYMENT PARKING .......... 35
7.2.1 Geophysical Investigations ..... ................................... 36
7.2.2 Stockpiled Soil Sampling and Analysis ......................... . ..... 36
7.23 Subsurface Soil Sampling and Analysis ..... . ......................... 36
7.2.4 Surface Water Sampling and Analysis ............................... 36
7.2.5 Freshwater Sediment Sampling and Analysis .......................... 36
7.2.6 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis ................................ 36
7.3 SITE 4, CARLSON SPIT ............................... . .............. 38
74 SITE 7, OLD PAINT CAN DISPOSAL SITE ............................... 38
7.4.1 Soil Vapor Survey ........... ................................... 41
7.4.2 Surface Soil Sampling and Analysis .................. . . . . ........... 41
7.4.3 Shallow Subsurface Soil Sampling and Analysis ........................ 41
7.4.4 Stream Sediment Sampling and Analysis . . ......................... . . 41
7.4.5 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis ........ . ......... . ............. 41
7.4.6 Surface Water Sampling and Analysis ............................... 41
7.5 SITE 10, PESTICIDE STORAGE QUONSET HUTS ......................... 41
7.5.1 Soil Sampling and Analysis ......................... ....... . ...... 42
7.5.2 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis ................................ 44
7.6 SITE 18, PCB SPILL SITE .................................. . ......... -.44
7.7 SITE 26, HOOD CANAL SEDIMENTS ................................... 44
7.7.1 Area A, Cattail Lake Beach/Magnetic Silencing Facility .......... . ..... . . 46
7.7.2 Area A, Floral Point ................................... ......... 46
7.7.3 Area B, Explosives Handling Wharf /Hunter's Marsh Beach ............... 48
7.7.4 Area C, Marginal Wharf ..................................... .... 50
7.7.5 Area C, Delta Pier ............................................. 53
7.7.6 Area C, Devil's Hole Beach ............... . ....................... 53
7.7.7 Area D, Keyport/Bangor Dock .................................... 54
7.7.8 Area D, Service Pier/Carlson Spit . . ................ ......... . ...... 54
7.8 SITE 30, RAILROAD TRACKS ............... . .................. . ...... 57
7.9 SITE E AND SITE 11 ................................................. 59
7.9.1 Geophysical Investigations ........................................ 59
7.9.2 Containment Cell Soil Sampling and Analysis ............... ........... 59
7.9.3 Shallow Soil Sampling and Analysis ................................. 61
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page xi
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
7.9.5 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis 61
7.10 CATTAIL LAKE ECOLOGICAL AREA 62
7.10.1 Sediment Sampling and Analysis 64
7.10.2 Surface Water Sampling and Analysis 64
7.11 HUNTER'S MARSH ECOLOGICAL AREA 64
7.11.1 Sediment Sampling and Analysis . 66
7.11.2 Surface Water Sampling and Analysis 66
7.12 DEVIL'S HOLE ECOLOGICAL AREA 66
7.12.1 Sediment Sampling and Analysis . 66
7.12.2 Surface Water Sampling and Analysis 66
8.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS " 68
8.1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 68
8.1.1 Site B, Floral Point 72
8.1.2 Site 2, Classification Yard/Fleet Deployment Parking 72
8.1.3 Site 10, Pesticide Storage Quonset Huts . , 72
8.1.4 Site E, Acid Disposal Pit; Site 11, Pesticide/Herbicide Bruin Disposal Area ... 75
8.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT . 75
8.2.1 Terrestrial Ecological Risk , 76
8.2.2 Marine Ecological Risk 78
8.2.3 Freshwater Ecological Risk 80
83 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS 81
8.3.1 Human Health Risk Assessment 83
8.3.2 Ecological Risk Assessment 85
9.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO-ACTION SITES 87
9.1 OU 7 SITES 88
9.1.1 Site 4, Carlson Spit 88
9.1.2 Site 7, Old Paint Can Disposal Site 88
9.1.3 Site 18, PCB Spill Site 88
9.1.4 Site 30, Railroad Tracks 88
9.2 ECOLOGICAL AREAS 88
9.2.1 Cattail Lake 88
9.2.2 Hunter's Marsh 88
9.2.3 Devil's Hole 89
10.0 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 89
10.1 SITE B, FLORAL POINT 89
10.2 SITE 2, CLASSIFICATION YARD/FLEET DEPLOYMENT PARKING 90
10.3 SITE 10, PESTICIDE STORAGE QUONSET HUTS 91
10.4 SITE 26, HOOD CANAL SEDIMENTS 91
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page xii
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
10.5 SITE E, ACID DISPOSAL PIT; SITE 11, PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE DRUM
DISPOSAL AREA . . . 91
11.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 92
11.1 SITE B, FLORAL POINT 92
11.1.1 Soil 92
11.1.2 Groundwater 93
11.2 SITE 2, CLASSIFICATION YARD/FLEET DEPLOYMENT PARKING 93
11.3 SITE 10, PESTICIDE STORAGE QUONSET HUTS 94
11.4 SITE 26, HOOD CANAL SEDIMENTS 94
11.5 SITE E, ACID DISPOSAL PIT; SITE 11, PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE DRUM.
DISPOSAL AREA 96
11.5.1 Stockpiled Soil 96
11.5.2 Groundwater 96
12.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . 99
12.1 SITE B, FLORAL POINT 100
12.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 101
12.1.2 Compliance With ARARs 101
12.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 101
12.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment 102
12.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 102
12.1.6 Implementability 102
12.1.7 Cost 103
12.1.8 State Acceptance 103
12.1.9 Community Acceptance 103
12.2 SITE 2, CLASSIFICATION YARD/FLEET DEPLOYMENT PARKING ... 104
12.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 104
12.2.2 Compliance With ARARs 104
12.2.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 104
12.2.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment 105
12.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 105
12.2.6 Implementability 105
12.2.7 Cost 105
12.2.8 State Acceptance 105
12.2.9 Community Acceptance 106
12.3 SITE 10. PESTICIDE STORAGE QUONSET HUTS 106
12.3.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 106
12.3.2 Compliance With ARARs 106
12.3.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence . 107
12.3.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment 107
12.3.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 107
305 80\ 9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page xiii
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CT00058
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
12.3.6 Implementability 108
12.3.7 Cost 108
12.3.8 State Acceptance 108
12.3.9 Community Acceptance 108
12.4 SITE 26, HOOD CANAL SEDIMENTS 108
12.4.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment ,. . . . 109
12.4.2 Compliance With ARARs 109
12.4.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 109
12.4.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment 109
12.4.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 109
12.4.6 Implementability 109
12.4.7 Cost * 109
12.4.8 State Acceptance 110
12.4.9 Community Acceptance 110
12.5 SITE E, ACID DISPOSAL PIT; SITE 11, PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE DRUM
DISPOSAL AREA . . . . 110
12.5.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 110
12.5.2 Compliance With ARARs . . Ill
12.5.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 112
12.5.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment 112
12.5.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 113
12.5.6 Implementability 114
12.5.7 Cost 114
12.5.8 State Acceptance 115
12.5.9 Community Acceptance 115
13.0 THE SELECTED REMEDY 115
13.1 ACTION SITES 115
13.1.1 Site B, Floral Point 116
13.1.2 Site 2, Classification Yard/Fleet Deployment Parking 116
13.1.3 Site E, Acid Disposal Pit; Site 11, Pesticide/Herbicide Drum Disposal Area . . 116
13.2 NO-ACTION-WITH-MONITORING SITES 117
13.2.1 Site 10, Pesticide Storage Quonset Huts 117
13.2.2 Site 26, Hood Canal Sediments 117
14.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATION 118
14.1 SITE B, FLORAL POINT 118
14.1.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 118
14.1.2 Compliance With ARARs 118
14.1.3 Cost-Effectiveness 120
14.1.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies
or Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable 120
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page xiv
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO0058
CONTENTS (Continued)
14.1.5 Preference for Treatment as Principal Element 120
14.2 SITE 2, CLASSIFICATION YARD/FLEET DEPLOYMENT PARKING 120
14.2.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 120
14.2.2 Compliance With ARARs 121
14.2.3 Cost-Effectiveness 122
14.2.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies
or Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable 122
14.2.5 Preference for Treatment as Principal Element . . 122
143 SITE 10, PESTICIDE STORAGE QUONSET HUTS 122
143.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 122
143.2 Compliance With ARARs , 122
1433 Cost-Effectiveness 123
143.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies
or Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable ..... 124
143.5 Preference for Treatment as Principal Element 124
14.4 SITE 26, HOOD CANAL SEDIMENTS 124
14.4.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 124
14.4.2 Compliance With ARARs 124
14.43 Cost-Effectiveness 125
14.4.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies
or Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable 125
14.4.5 Preference for Treatment as Principal Element 125
14.5 SITE E, ACID DISPOSAL PIT; SITE 11, PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE DRUM
DISPOSAL AREA 126
14.5.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 126
14.5.2 Compliance With ARARs 126
14.53 Cost-Effectiveness 127
14.5.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies
or Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable 128
14.5.5 Preference for Treatment as Principal Element 128
15.0 EXPLANATION/DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 128
16.0 REFERENCES 128
Appendix A Responsiveness Summary
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page xv
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
FIGURES
No.
1 General Location Map 2
2 Locations of Sites and Ecological Areas in Operable Unit 7 4
3 Site B—Floral Point , 5
4 Site 2—Classification Yard/Fleet Deployment Parking 7
5 Site 4—Carlson Spit 8
6 Site 1—Old Paint Can Disposal Site 9
7 Site 10—Pesticide Storage Quonset Huts 11
8 Site 18-PCB Spill Site 12
9 Site 26—Hood Canal Sediments 13
10 Site 30—Railroad Tracks 15
11 Site E—Acid Disposal Pit, Site 11—Pesticide/Herbicide Drum Disposal Area ~ 16
12 Cattail Lake Ecological Area 17
13 Hunter's Marsh Ecological Area 19
14 Devil's Hole Ecological Area 20
15 Area Physiography 23
16 Surface Water Hydrology 24
17 Site B—Floral Point Soil Boring, Sampling, and Monitoring Well Locations , 31
18 Site 2—Classification Yard/Fleet Deployment Parking Sampling and Monitoring Well
Locations , 37
19 Site 4—Carlson Spit Sampling Locations 39
20 Site 7—Old Paint Can Disposal Site Sampling and Monitoring Locations 40
21 Site 10—Pesticide Storage Quonset Huts Sampling and Monitoring Well Locations 43
22 Site 18—PCB Spill Site Soil Boring, Sampling, and Monitoring Well Locations 45
23 Area A—Marine Sediment Sampling Locations 47
24 Area B—Marine Sediment Sampling Locations 49
25 Area C—Marine Sediment Sampling Locations 51
26 Area D—Marine Sediment Sampling Locations 55
27 Site 30—Railroad Tracks Sampling Locations 58
28 Site E and Site 11—Sampling and Monitoring Well Locations . • 60
29 Cattail Lake Sampling Locations 63
30 Hunter's Marsh Sampling Locations 65
31 Devil's Hole Sampling Locations 67
32 Site 10—Proposed Locations of Extraction and Injection Wells 95
33 Site E and Site 11—Proposed Locations of Extraction and Injection Wells 98
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page xvi
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
TABLES
NQ. . Page
1 Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site B 33
2 Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site 2 38
3 Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site 7 42
4 Chemicals of Interest at Site 10 44
5 Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site 26, Explosives Handling Wharf 50
6 Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site 26, Marginal Wharf 52
7 Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site 26, Delta Pier 53
8 Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site 26, Keyport/Bangor Dock 56
9 Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site 26, Service Pier 57
10 Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site E and Site 11 62
11 Chemicals of Interest Detected at Cattail Lake Ecological Area 64
12 Chemicals of Interest Detected at Devil's Hole Ecological Area 68
13 Risk Assessment Summary for OU 7 Sites and Ecological Areas 69
14 Summary of Human Health Risk From Chemicals of Concern at OU 7 73
15 Small Mammal HQ Values for Soil . . . . 76
16 Ecological HQ Values for Freshwater Sediment and Surface Water 77
17 Summary of LIncertainties in the Risk Assessment 82
18 Risk Summary at No-Action Sites 87
19 Remedial Action Goals for Chemicals of Concern 90
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract Mo, N62474-89-D-Q2°5
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page xvii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ARAR
bgs
BH
CAD
CCA
CERCLA
CFR
cm
cm/s
cm/yr
coc
COI
COPC
cPAH
CSL
CWA
2,4-D
DDT
Ecology
EPA
FFA
FR
FS
ft
gpm
GPR
HI
HPAH
HO
IRIS
kVA
LPAH
MCL
MCLG
MLLW
mg/kg
mg/kg-dw
mg/kg-oc
MS
30580\9603.070\TEXT
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
below ground surface
boring hole
computer-aided design
chromated copper arsenate
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
Code of Federal Regulations
centimeter
centimeters per second
centimeters per year
chemical of concern
chemical of interest
chemical of potential concern
carcinogenic polycyciic aromatic hydrocarbon
Cleanup Screening Level
Clean Water Act
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
Washington State Department of Ecology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Facility Agreement
Federal Regulation
feasibility study
foot
gallons per minute
ground-penetrating radar
hazard index
high molecular weight PAH
hazard quotient
Integrated Risk Information System
kilovoltampere
low molecular weight PAH
maximum contaminant level
maximum contaminant level goal
mean lower low water
milligrams per kilogram
milligrams per kilogram dry weight
milligrams per kilogram carbon normalized
micTOgrams per kilogram
micrograms per liter
monitoring station
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page xviii
MSL
MTCA
MW
NAD
Navy
NCP
NPL
NTS
NUWC
NUWES
OU
PAH
PCB
PSAPCA
ppm
RAO
RBSC
RCRA
RCW
RDX
RfD
RI
RME
ROD
SARA
SMS
SOS
SUBASE
SVOC
2,4,5-T
TBC
TCLP
TOC
TPH
TNT
UCL
use
VOC
WAC
WWQC
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
mean sea level
Model Toxics Control Act
monitoring well
Naval Ammunition Depot
U.S. Navy
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
Naval Torpedo Station
Naval Undersea Warfare Center
Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station
operable unit
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
polychlorinated biphenyl
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
parts per million
remedial action objective
risk-based screening concentration
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Revised Code of Washington
Royal Demolition Explosive
reference dose
remedial investigation
reasonable maximum exposure
Record of Decision
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Sediment Management Standards
Sediment Quality Standards
Naval Submarine Base
semivolatile organic compound
2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic
to be considered
toxicity characteristics leaching procedure
total organic carbon
total petroleum hydrocarbons
trinitrotoluene
upper confidence limit
U.S. Code
volatile organic compound
Washington Administrative Code
Washington State Water Quality Criteria
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract ' Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 1
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
It is the policy of the U.S. Navy (Navy) to address contamination at its installations, under the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program, in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). At Naval Submarine Base (SUBASE),
Bangor remedial action will be implemented where necessary at Operable Unit 7 (OU 7) to minimize
potential health risks associated with soil and groundwater contamination. The remedial action will comply
with federal and state applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs).
2.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
SUBASE, Bangor is located on Hood Canal in Kitsap County, Washington, approximately 10 miles north of
Bremerton. (Figure 1). Land surrounding SUBASE, Bangor is generally undeveloped or supports limited
residential uses. Naval activities began at Bangor on June 4, 1944, when the U.S. Naval Magazine, Bangor
was officially established as a Pacific shipment point for ammunition and explosives. When World War II
ended, the Bangor Naval Complex became available for the storage of ordnance.
In 1950, the Naval Magazine facility was consolidated with the Naval Torpedo Station (NTS), Keyport to
form the Naval Ordnance Depot, Keyport. In 1952, the facility returned to independent status and became
the Naval Ammunition Depot (NAD), Bangor. In 1963, the Polaris Missile Facility, Pacific became an active
tenant of NAD, Bangor. During the late 1960s, conventional weapons used in the Vietnam conflict were
loaded on ships from the Bangor Marginal Wharf. NAD, Bangor was responsible for about one third of all
weapons sent to Vietnam between 1965 and 1970. In October 1970, NAD, Bangor was disestablished and
became NTS, Keyport. No munitions were shipped from NTS, Keyport between 1970 and early 1972. When
bombing runs were stepped up in Vietnam, NAD, Bangor returned to active status. The last shipment to
Vietnam was loaded in January 1973.
On November 29, 1973, the Secretary of the Navy announced that the Bangor Naval Complex had been
selected as the West Coast home port for the Trident Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile System.
SUBASE, Bangor was commissioned in February 1977, and the first submarine arrived in August 1982.
On July 22, 1987, Site A was listed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Priorities
List (NPL) of hazardous waste sites. On August 30, 1990, the remainder of the SUBASE, Bangor facility
was listed on the NPL.
On January 29, 1990, a cooperative three-party Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) was signed by the Navy,
the EPA, and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) for study and cleanup of possible
contamination on the SUBASE, Bangor property. The potentially contaminated sites at Bangor were
grouped into eight operable units based on geographic location, suspected contamination, or other factors
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
Seattle
Tacoma
WASHINGTON
OPERABLE UNIT 1 (OU 1)
Site A Bangor Ordnance Disposal Site
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU 2)
Site F Former Wastewater Lagoon
OPERABLE UNIT 3 (OU 3)
Site 16 Drum Storage Area
Site 24 Former Incinerator Site
Site 25 Former Treatment Plant Outfall
OPERABLE UNIT 4 (OU 4)
Site C-West Bldg 7700 Fill Area
Site C-East Ordnance Wastewater Disposal Area
OPERABLE UNIT 5 (OU 5}
Site 5 Former Metallurgy Lab Rubble
OPERABLE UNIT 6 (OU 6)
Site D Munitions Burn Area
OPERABLE UNIT 7 (OU 7)
SiteB Floral Point
SiteE Acid Disposal Pit
Site 2 Classification Yard/Fleet Deployment Parking
Site 4 Carlson Spit
Site 7 Old Paint Can Disposal Site
Site 10 Pesticide Storage Quonset Huts
Site 11 Pesticide/Herbicide Drum Disposal Area
Site IS PCB Spill Site
Site 26 Hood Canal Sediments
Site 30 Railroad Tracks
OPERABLE UNIT 8 (OU 8)
Site 27 Bldg 1014 Steam Cleaning Pit
Site 28 Bldg 1032 Drainage Ditch
Site 29 Public Works Maintenance Garage
NORTH
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 1
General Location Map
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington •
ROD
-------
SUBASE, BANG OR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page3
(see Figure 1). A separate study is being conducted for each operable unit to determine appropriate cleanup
actions.
OU 7 comprises 10 known or suspected former waste sites. Although not part of OU 7 as defined in the
FFA, three lake or wetland areas were included for study with the 10 sites: Cattail Lake, Hunter's Marsh,
and Devil's Hole. These ecological areas have been potentially affected by upgradient sites. Three
additional sites (27, 28, and 29), which were originally included in OU 7, were placed in OU 8 following the
detection of contaminants in surrounding or nearby properties. The OU 7 sites and ecological areas
(Figure 2) are as follows:
Site B, Floral Point
Site 2, Classification Yard/
Fleet Deployment Parking
Site 4, Carlson Spit
Site 7, Old Paint Can Disposal Site
Site 10, Pesticide Storage Quonset Huts
Site 18, PCB Spill Site
Site 26, Hood Canal Sediments
Site 30, Railroad Tracks
Site E, Acid Disposal Pit
Site 11, Pesticide/Herbicide Drum
Disposal Area
Cattail Lake Ecological Area
Hunter's Marsh Ecological Area
Devil's Hole Ecological Area
3.0 SITE HISTORY
3.1
SITE B, FLORAL POINT
Site B, Floral Point, is located at the northern end of SUBASE, Bangor (Figure 3). Amberjack Avenue,
which runs northeast to southwest along the shoreline, provides access to the site, and a gravel road extends
through the site, circling the point parallel to the shoreline. The only structures on the site are a small
observation hut facing Hood Canal and an L-shaped concrete foundation located in the approximate center
of the point. The interior of the point is vegetative with some trees and heavy underbrush. The area is
forested above and around the point, except where it has been cleared for roads and SUBASE, Bangor
facilities.
Pyrotechnic testing was reportedly conducted both for quality assurance and for research and development
during the 1950s and 1960s (U.S. Navy 1983). In 1953, Buildings 263 and 264 (now demolished) were
designated for the purpose of handling and storing pyrotechnics. Various materials tested included star
signals, smoke cans (aluminum types), smoke pots, and hand grenades. Black powder also was reportedly
burned at Site B. Floral Point was used for station dumping from approximately 1950 to 1968. Pit disposal,
landfiUing, and trash burning all were reported activities during this time period. For a short duration (1966
to 1967), the site was used for open burning of Royal Demolition Explosives (RDX) and trinitrotoluene
(TNT) residuals removed from the segregation facility leachate pit (U.S. Navy 1983). Garbage from Keyport
also was reportedly disposed of at this location (circa 1967 to 1972).
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
rrrr vf\ ^nTNJiMP DCDADTTTn *m\'TnCC : DCDADTTTn U.' A CTTC
jllbM). . olltJNAMt i RhrOKibDALilVlTlL:) • RhrUKiLD WAjito
B Floral Point j Pyrotechnics testing, i Explosives, organics,
municipal waste ; demolition debris
disposal '
1 i Old Paint Can , Disposal of paint Paint wastes
Disposal Site cans ;
26 Hood Canal Sediments j Pier and wharf i Fuels, pesticides
| activities, runoff j
' l from upland areas
4 Carlson Spit Detonation area for i Metals, explosives
E Acid Disposal Pit and Disposal of liquid Electroplating wastes.
and Pesticide/Herbicide i wastes, drums, and ! Otto fuels, pesticides
1 1 Drum Disposal Area containers - and herbicides
10 : Pesticide Storage Management of Pesticides and
Quonset Huts pesticides i herbicides
18 PCB Spill Site ' Repair and storage ! Transformer oils
of electrical • containing PCBs
transformers
30 Railroad Tracks Disposal of pesticide j Chlorinated pesti-
nnse water cides and herbicides
2 1 Classification Yard/ Disposal of small- i Small-caliber
Fleet Deployment caliber shells, drums, j projectiles, organic
1 Parking i and miscellaneous ! wastes, drums.
i ^ i
•••ECOLOGICAL -AREAS: HI ii> :•>>•':,
Cattail Lake : Runoff from Site 7 None known
and off-site areas
Hunter's Marsh Runoff from a site ' None known
in OU 4
Devil's Hole i Runoff from a site None known
• mOU6'
c«t«iL.fc.X
Uigncoc /**CV'S_r
Stonong F*aiffy f^ Cattail L Skft
p*»* Pnf '-^ ^/^udtuj/i Lone
j ^ MffliVf "HK^ Site 7i
tipto^vw — . ( ,
: Site 26 >1 ^-^
! <& >
; y ;| s^wo«Rd
u^ N ^*^\ Devil's Hole^
• dl^7 ' " *~*M '
/ ^ Site 4
/ . Sftjrjoon Si
X""5'! ••' :| - ':
] ) i« i! i
1 / ' : 3 "
i ' \ ' :- ;" I : '
. V f,, :;.,,,, /""; "r
i ; \ """ " J - ;
: |2 [Sfte ^K^. «*^Site 18|
' /* I" "•...••• ~* \ co
! , crcwn " k.lSite 30-^& I rs
' ^Sfe'3^^ Monitoring ' | -f «™MW»: \
i \
Site -^ No-Action j
i ™ Sitp
f P . ^ B Ecological
'J"Ay^ Area
NORTH ' SealenMte
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Locations of Sites and Ecological Areas in Operable Unit 7
CT00058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
ROD
-------
Magnetic
Silencing
Facility
Floral Point
iLEGEND
Surface Drainage
Etevaton Contour Lme (tt above MSL)
Approximate Area of investigation
i I Building
- Road
- - - • Dirt Road
0 100 200
SCALE IN FEET
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figures
Site B - Floral Point
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
ROD
CT058\$EC04\SITEB2.DRW 4TZ2S94
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 6
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
In recent times, chromated copper arsenate (CCA)-treated lumber (to replace creosote cross timbers at
Magnetic Silencing Facility at the request of the Department of Fisheries) and other construction materials
have been stored at Floral Point for limited periods.
Currently, Floral Point is an active recreational area used by base personnel. Recreational boating is
restricted within 500 feet of mean lower low water (MLLW).
32 SITE 2, CLASSIFICATION YARD/FLEET DEPLOYMENT PARKING
Site 2, Classification Yard/Fleet Deployment Parking, is located in the north-south trending ravine between
Nautilus Avenue and Trigger Avenue, north of the Trident Lakes Recreation Area (Figure 4).
The site has been divided into two subareas designated Sites 2A and 2B, based on known historical uses and
types of potential contaminants. Site 2A is situated at the head of the ravine in an area sloping gently to the
south and into the ravine. Site 2B occupies much of the remainder of the ravine, particularly the western
side, along a steep embankment and gully that v/ere once heavily vegetative but that were deforested in 1992
to accommodate site cleanup and drum removal activities.
Subarea 2A was a disposal area for small-caliber projectiles. These projectiles were disarmed, except for a
few tracer rounds in which the incendiary compound remains. Subarea 2B was an unauthorized disposal
area. Some of the wastes included paint sludge, waste oil, and drums. A cleanup of the surface debris at
Subarea 2A was conducted in 1986 and 1987. Old furniture, signs, empty ammunition boxes, cans, bottles,
and partially buried drums were removed during a time-critical removal action completed in 1993. The time-
critical removal action was started in 1992. Exploratory work discovered hazardous material in some of the
drums, and a second phase was completed the following years.
33 SITE 4, CARLSON SPIT
Carlson Spit (Figure 5) is located on Hood Canal just south of the Service Pier. The only structure on the
spit is an observation hut (Building 7041) facing Hood Canal. The area of investigation is the forested slope
above the spit and below Wahoo Road. There are no permanent surface hydrologic features or visible
contaminated areas. Currently the area is used for picnicking, fishing, and recreation. Historical air
photographs from the vicinity of the site allegedly showed scattered round holes in the area, which were
alleged to be the result of the disposal of ordnance ignition devices (Figure 5).
3.4 SITE 7, OLD PAINT CAN DISPOSAL SITE
Site 7, Old Paint Can Disposal Site, is a wooded area on the hillside above the south end of Cattail Lake
(Figure 6). There are no structures on the site. In the mid-1970s, during demolition of the old paint shop
(Building 1032) located in the Public Works Industrial Area, the contents of the shop were transported and
discarded over the embankment below Tinosa Road, at the south end of Cattail Lake. Approximately 25
containers, ranging from 1-gallon cans to 55-gallon drums, were disposed of empty or partially filled with
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
Hobb^Shop/
Sa!vaeStation
SITE 2A Southeast
Family
Housing
Trigger Avenue Gate
LEGEND
3J3 Approximate Area of Investigation
— - - Base Boundary
Railroad Track
Gravel Road
i
I —400— Elevation Contour Line (ft above MSL) \
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 4
Site 2 - Classification Yard/Fleet Deployment Parking
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington'
POD
OCTOMVFKJM DHW 3M5/33
-------
Hood
Canal
Hood Canal
Carlson Spit
V/-A ! !|
\ : v i s—n
\ -
LEGEND
Approximate Area of Investigation
Elevation Contour (ft above MSL)
Building and Number
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 5
Site 4 - Carlson Spit
'
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
Ron
-------
Approximate Area of investigation
Creek
Elevation Contour (ft above MSL)
100
SCALE IN FEET
200
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 6
Site 7 - Old Paint Can Disposal Site
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
ROD
CTO58VTG-1-6 DRW
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 10
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
various amounts of paint, thinner, and solvents. The cans and drums were removed from the site in 1981.
No visible evidence of spills or disposal activities remains at the site.
3.5 SITE 10, PESTICIDE STORAGE QUONSET HUTS
Site 10 is located just west of the Public Works Industrial Area proper, across Scorpion Avenue, on the west
side of Guardfish Street (Figure 7). The site is the former location of two wooden floor Quonset huts
(demolished in 1983) that were used prior to 1979 to store pesticides and herbicides. This site is currently
the paved parking area for Buildings 2011 and 2012. Access to the parking area is from Guardfish Street,
east of Scorpion Avenue. The entire area has been extensively and repeatedly excavated, leveled, and
developed. Chemicals known to have been stored in the Quonset huts included Hyvar X, bromacil,
2.4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T). The materials from
the demolished buildings were reportedly disposed of in the former barricaded railroad siding area (U.S.
Navy 1983).
A cement-floored auto hobby shop was located in a Quonset hut adjacent to Site 10. The hazardous waste
management history at the hobby shop is not well documented.
3.6 SITE 18, PCB SPILL SITE
Site 18 is located within the Public Works Industrial Area of the base. The site consists of an area
underneath and north of Building 1016 and an area on the north side of the railroad tracks, south of Building
1201 (Figure 8). From the 1940s until the 1970s, electrical transformers were repaired at the electrical shop
in BuiJding 1016. A leaking 5- to 10-kVA transformer was transferred here from Battle Point on Bainbridge
Island in 1966 or 1967. Approximately 5 to 10 gallons of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) fluid was reportedly
spilled on the ground at the northwest corner of Building 1016. The entire area is now paved, and a small
portion of the extension of Building 1016 may cover the spill area.
3.7 SITE 26, HOOD CANAL SEDIMENTS
Site 26, the Hood Canal Sediments, consists of eight small areas along the western shore of the base where
all the service piers are located. These areas are known as Cattail Lake Beach/Magnetic Silencing Facility,
Floral Point, Explosives Handling Wharf, Marginal Wharf, Delta Pier, Devil's Hole Beach, Keyport/Bangor
Dock, and Service Pier/Carlson Spit (Figure 9). Marginal Wharf was used for loading and offloading
ammunition during World War II and again when conventional weapons were shipped to Vietnam from the
late 1960s to 1973. The Keyport/Bangor small craft dock was built in 1951. Delta Pier, Service Pier,
Explosives Handling Wharf, and Magnetic Silencing Facility were built in the early 1980s to support
submarine base activities. Delta Pier, Service Pier, and Explosives Handling Wharf were built as self-
contained piers that piped stormwater runoff to shore through an oil/water separator. There is a diesel
fueling facility at Service Pier. Activities include boat servicing and maintenance operations.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
Former Quonset
Hut Location
Guardfish Street
Hood
Canal
; Mao
i Area ;
LEGEND
r
Approximate Area of Investigation |
Building and Number
!
Former Quonset Huts !
Paved Area
100
NORTH
SCALE IN FEET
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 7
Site 10 - Pesticide Storage Quonset Huts
CT00058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
ROD
CTO5S\FlG-!
-------
1044
L •_
Former
Paint Shop
L
Existing Product
Recovery System
Skate Rd
: Mao
Area
V -
LEGEND
Approximate Area of investigation
Building and Number
Former Building
i j Existing Product Recovery System
i—:
Railroad Track
100
SCALE IN FEET
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 8
Site 18 -PCB Spill Site
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
ROD
-------
Magnetic
Silencing
Facility
Cattail Lake
Beach
Floral
Point
Explosives
Handling (|
Wharf ^—
'.\ i/; Hunters
Marsh
Marginal
Wharf
Delta
Devil's Hole Pier
Beach
Keyport/
Bangor
Dock
Carlson Spit
. Base Boundary
Wetiands
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 9
Site 26 - Hood Canal Sediments
CTO 0056 !
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
ROD
CTO58VSECOT\RGl-1
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 14
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
3.8 SITE 30, RAILROAD TRACKS
Site 30 (Figure 10) is a portion of the railroad tracks north of Trigger Avenue Gate and on the west side of
Nautilus Road. The area of investigation includes the railroad tracks and a steep drainage ditch adjacent to
the tracks. The ditch drains to the south, and the roadbed has been leveled and filled with ballast to
accommodate the tracks. This site was reportedly used from 1977 to 1985 for the disposal of rinsewater
from a triple ringing process that used Nutra-sol to clean large tank sprayers and holding tanks of pesticides
and herbicides. The quantity of materials disposed of at this site is unknown.
3.9 SITE E, ACID DISPOSAL PIT; SITE 11, PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE DRUM DISPOSAL AREA
Site E and Site 11 (Figure 11) are situated in the south-central portion of SUBASE, Bangor one half mile
north of Thresher Avenue. Several unpaved roads provide access to and around the sites. During the course
of removal action at the sites, a fence with gates on the east and south sides was installed to control access to
the work areas.
Site E was reportedly used as an acid disposal site for electroplating wastes and Otto fuel from 1960 to 1973.
Reportedly, 1,500 to 2,000 gallons of electroplating wastes originating from Naval Undersea Warfare
Engineering Station (NUWES), Keyport were disposed of quarterly, and in 1970 a minimum of two
truckloads of an undetermined volume of Otto fuel were disposed of at this site (U.S. Navy 1983). The
former pit was approximately 10 by 15 feet wide and 3 to 5 feet deep. The pit was lined with gravel, and
there is no record that an impermeable barrier or liner was placed beneath the gravel.
Site 11 is a pesticide/herbicide drum disposal area. In 1968 or 1969, empty pesticide containers were buried
between two barricaded railroad siding areas. The burial pit was not lined and was approximately 10 to
20 feet deep and of unknown width and length. The drums and cans reportedly contained 2,4-D,
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and Tordon (U.S. Navy 1983). According to the former Pest
Control Manager, at the time of disposal the original containers were triple-rinsed and dried prior to
disposal. To confirm what was at Site 11, a drum removal action was initiated in 1992. Seventy-two 1- to
5-galion containers and thirteen 55-gallon drums were removed along with approximately 400 cubic yards of
soil containing pesticides.
Site E was combined with Site 11 into one investigation program because the two sites are contiguous and
because there was concern that drums at Site 11 had also been disposed of at Site E. Because of this joint
investigation program, these two sites will be discussed together throughout the ROD.
3.10 CATTAIL LAKE ECOLOGICAL AREA
Cattail Lake is located between Amberjack Avenue and Tinosa Road (Figure 12) and was created by the
construction of the waterfront road. Cattail Lake was investigated for potential ecological impact from
surface water runoff from Site 7.
305 80X9603.070VTEXT
-------
;LEGEND
i
Approximate Area of Investigation
Railroad Tracks
500
SCALE IN FEET
1000
j 1 i . — , •
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 10
Site 30 - Railroad Tracks
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Banger
Washington
ROD
I
CTO58\SEC01\FK31-12.0RW
-------
375
Forested Area
365
370
Forested Area
Forested Area
EMW-21L
EMW-23L
EMW-23U
SITE 11^
\ FMW-38
NORTH Scale In Feet
Noie:EMW-23U =
LEGEND
Monitoring Well
(U = upper, L = lower)
: Dirt Road
Fence
Elevation Contour
(feet above MSL))
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 11
Site E - Acid Disposal Pit
Site 11 - Pesticide/Herbicide Drum Disposal Area
i • CT00058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
ROD
-------
Magnetic Silencing
Facility
Hood Canal
Hood
Cana!
LEGEND
Approximate Limits of Investigation i
i
Elevation Contour (ft above MSL) |
Wetlands ,
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 12
Cattail Lake Ecological Area
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
POO
CT058\SEC01\RG-M7DRW
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 18
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
3.11 HUNTER'S MARSH ECOLOGICAL AREA
Hunter's Marsh (Figure 13) is a shallow pond and wetland area located near Tang Road, created as a result
of road construction. It is downgradient from OU 4 (Site C) and was investigated for potential ecological
impacts from that site. Hunter's Marsh is just east of the Explosives Handling Wharf and drains to the
shoreline.
3.12 DEVIL'S HOLE ECOLOGICAL AREA
Devil's Hole (Figure 14), located south of Sealion Road, was created when an existing bridge was filled in to
construct a road. The tributary that drains into Devil's Hole at its south end receives surface runoff from
OU 6 (Site D).
4.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A SUBASE, Bangor Community Relations Plan for the remedial activity on the base was prepared and is
available for review at the information repositories. Community relations activities have established
communication among citizens living near the site, the Navy, the EPA, and Ecology. Actions taken to satisfy
the requirements of federal law are listed below.
The remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) reports and the Proposed Plan for OU 7 at
SUBASE, Bangor were released to the public in April 1995. These two documents were made available to
the public by means of the Administrative Record and information repositories. The Proposed Plan was
mailed to all known interested parties on April 12, 1995. Notice of the availability of the Proposed Plan, plus
notice of a public meeting on the Proposed Plan and public comment period, was published in The Sun
(Bremerton, Washington) on April 13, 1995. A public comment period was held from April 14 to May 14,
1995. A public meeting was held on April 25, 1995, at Breidablik Hall, in Poulsbo, Washington. At this
meeting, representatives from the Navy answered questions about the proposed actions at OU 7. The
Responsiveness Summary at th'e end of this Record of Decision (ROD) summarizes the comments and
responses.
In addition, a number of other public participation activities took place during the RI. A fact sheet on OU 7
was mailed to the community in 1992. Two action memoranda regarding the time-critical removal actions at
Sites 2 and 11 were announced in the local newspaper in 1992 and 1993. A public comment period was held
on the two actions and no comments were received on either action. Information on these two removal
actions is available in the Administrative Record. Four technical review meetings were held with public
groups to discuss project status and the removal actions. The level of community interest in OU 7 has been
relatively low.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
Explosives
Handling
Wharf
LEGEND
[ -^ ,1 Aporoximate Area of investigation
-*~r Wedanos
! CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 13
Hunter's Marsh Ecological Area
CT00058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
ROD •
-------
Hood Canal
Hood
Canal
\ > ! ii
i ^
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Approximate Ljmrts of Investigation
Elevation Contour (ft above MSL)
Stream
BuikJmg and Number
I NORTH
0 100 200
——
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 14
Devil's Hole Ecological Area
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
ROD
CT058\SECOt\fiG-M6D«W
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 21
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
The Administrative Record is on file in the following location:
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
19917 Seventh Avenue N.E.
Poulsbo, Washington 98370
(360) 396-0857
The information repositories are in the following locations:
Central Kitsap Regional Library SUBASE, Bangor Branch Library
1301 Sylvan Way Naval Submarine Base, Bangor
Bremerton, Washington (Base access is required)
(206) 377-7601 (206) 779-9274
5.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNITS
The sites listed in the SUBASE, Bangor FFA were organized into eight operable units based on geographic
location, suspected contamination, or other factors. A separate study was planned for each operable unit to
determine appropriate cleanup actions. During the Rl of OU 5, buried drums at Site 11 were located and
excavated in a time-critical removal action. To prevent delay in the release of the final ROD for OU 5,
Site 11 and adjacent Site E were transferred from OU 5 to OU 7.
This ROD is the seventh final remedial action decision document for SUBASE, Bangor. RODs have been
signed for the following OUs:
ROD Date Signed
OU 1 December 1991
OU 2 September 1994
OU 3 April 1994
OU 4 July 1994
OU 5 September 1993
OU 6 September 1994
Other expedited decision documents include an interim remedial action ROD for Site F for the containment
of contaminant migration in groundwater; a time-critical removal action memorandum for Site 2 to excavate
buried drums from a road embankment; a time-critical removal action memorandum for Site 11 to excavate
buried, empty pesticide containers; and a time-critical removal action memorandum for OU 8 to provide an
alternative water supply to residents in the Mountain View Road area and to identify the nature and extent
of volatile organic contamination in the shallow aquifer.
30580\9603.
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 22
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
This ROD addresses OU 7, which consists of 10 sites (Sites B, 2, 4, 7, 10, 18, 26, 30, E, and 11) and three
ecological areas (Cattail Lake, Hunter's Marsh, and Devil's Hole). Figure 2 depicts the sites and ecological
areas. Further action is recommended for four of these sites, no action with monitoring for two sites, and no
further action for the remaining four sites and three ecological areas.
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
6.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
SUBASE, Bangor is located on the west side of Kitsap Peninsula. The Kitsap Peninsula separates Puget
Sound from Hood Canal, a long and narrow fjord-like embayment of marine water that joins the main body
of Puget Sound at Admiralty Inlet (Figure 1).
SUBASE, Bangor can be divided into three physiographic areas: the upland plateau of the northern part of
the base, the remnant glacial till plain at the southern end of the base, and the marine environment of Hood
Canal (Figure 15). SUBASE, Bangor consists of mixed coniferous forests, recovering logged areas and
grasslands, freshwater wetlands, freshwater lakes and ponds, and marine intertidaJ and subtidai zones. The
RI/FS reports (URS 1994a, 1994b) give detailed descriptions of the regional characteristics. Figure 16
illustrates surface water drainage system boundaries within SUBASE, Bangor.
62 SITE-SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS
6.2.1 Site B, Floral Point
Composed of approximately 5 acres, Floral Point is a natural shoreline bordered by Hood Canal to the north
and west (Figure 3). The area is relatively flat, with a gravel surface in the southeast area and a gravel road
circling an interior vegetative area. With an average elevation of 14 feet, the site slopes gently up toward the
center, at which point the site's highest elevation reaches 25 feet. Amberjack Avenue, which runs northeast
to southwest along the shoreline, provides access to the site, and a gravel road extends through the site,
circling the point parallel to the shoreline. The land east of Amberjack Avenue slopes downward to Flora]
Point, and there is a small unnamed surface drainage that empties into a low area near the southeast corner
of Floral Point.
There are no surface drainages at Site B. Due to the high permeability of the soils at this site, precipitation
infiltrates quickly and runoff is minimal (URS 1991). However, hydrogeologic data have demonstrated a
strong tidal influence on the groundwater, particularly at Floral Point. The groundwater in the coarse-
grained beach deposits that constitute the unconfined aquifer under Floral Point flows parallel to topography
outward into Hood Canal with a slight vertical downward gradient. Both a tidal study and field water quality
data indicate that fresh groundwater is subject to saltwater encroachment, particularly at shallower depths.
Hydraulic conductivity tests suggest high permeability of the formation (10"1 to 10~2 cm/s).
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
Remnant
J5 Till Plain
Physiographic Provinces
4 v Southern i
\ Washington .
I * Cascades .
\l l I
Coast \ t I
Ranges \ ^ \^^~~J~
I i Western I
/ t Cascades I
f Willamette 1 i
/ VaJtey / i
i
LEGEND
~ - * Base Boundary
250 Elevation Contour
(ft above MSL)
Drumiins
Physiographic Divisions
Wetlands
NOflTH
3000
Scale in Feet
6000
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 15
Area Physiography
CTO 0058
SUBASE. Bangor
Washington
ROD
-------
Base Boundary
Drainage Area Boundary
Stream
WORTH
3000
3CS
Scale In Feet
Contours in Feet
6000
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG -TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 16
Surface Water Hydrology
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
ROD
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 25
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
622 Site 2, Classification Yard/Fleet Deployment Parking
Site 2 is located in a north-south trending ravine north of the Trident Lakes Area (Figure 4). The ravine
originally was heavily forested and had a steeper western slope and a more gentle eastern slope, but it was
extensively deforested and excavated during the site investigation and subsequent removal action in 1992 and
1993. The total relief between the top of the site along Nautilus Avenue and the lower, southern end is
approximately 80 feet. At the southern portion of the site, the ravine widens and opens out onto the Trident
Lakes Area, which has been cleared and, in places, leveled for sports fields.
Surface water drainage from Site 2 is included in the Clear Creek drainage system. Site 2 surface water
flows southward through an artificial channel into the Trident Lakes, and into the western branch of Clear
Creek (URS 1991).
At Site 2, the Vashon Advance Outwash forms the shallow unconiined aquifer under the site. Static water is
usually at or near the elevation of the top of this unit where it underlies the hard clayey sands and gravels of
the Vashon Till. Fresh, chemically neutral water flows generally southwestward under a gentle gradient
trending roughly parallel to the topographic gradient.
623 Site 4, Carlson Spit
Site 4, Carlson Spit, is located on Hood Canal south of the Service Pier (Figure 5) and consists of a gravelly
shoreline spit and adjacent shoreline. Wahoo Road provides access to the area and a grave! track descends
from the paved road out onto the point. Below Wahoo Road, at an elevation of about 60 feet, the land
drops steeply down a heavily forested slope and out onto the spit. The body of the spit is a broad, flat area
generally clear of vegetation, with an average elevation of approximately 15 feet.
There are no surface drainages at Site 4. Due to the high permeability of the soils at this site, precipitation
infiltrates quickly and runoff is minimal (URS 1991).
62.4 Site 7, Old Paint Can Disposal Site
Site 7 is located on a hillside above the south end of Cattail Lake (Figure 6). The lake is located at the
north end of SUBASE, Bangor with access from Amberjack Avenue. The area is heavily vegetative and
slopes downward to a small stream and marsh area, which then drains into Cattail Lake. Site 7 occupies an
area approximately 200 by 300 feet on the gentle wooded slope between Tinosa Road and the creek that
flows into the south end of Cattail Lake.
623 Site 10, Pesticide Storage Quonset Huts
Site 10 (Figure 7) lies within the Public Works Industrial Area of the base and is located on an outcrop of
the Vashon Till. Surface elevation is approximately 300 feet above sea level and the area is heavily
vegetative to the west and south.
Groundwater flows generally southeastward under a gentle gradient trending roughly parallel to the area
topographic gradient.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 26
CTO 0058
62.6 Site 18, PCB Spill Site
Site 18 (Figure 8) is also located within the Public Works Industrial Area, on an outcrop of the Vashon Till.
Groundwater flows generally southeastward under a gentle gradient trending roughly parallel to the area
topographic gradient.
62.7 Site 26, Hood Canal Sediments
The shore of Hood Canal bordered by SUBASE, Bangor trends north-northeast. This site consists of eight
small areas along the western shore of the base (Figure 9). Immediately east of the shoreline, the relief
becomes relatively steep, as a bluff runs nearly the entire length of the base. The headlands consist of
unconsolidated to poorly cemented glacial deposits.
The Puget Sound Environmental Atlas (Evans-Hamilton 1987) indicates that marine surficiai sediments in the
SUBASE, Bangor region of Hood Canal consist primarily of silts and sands. Inshore regions around the
Keyport/Bangor Dock, Marginal Wharf, and Delta Pier are predominantly sand (90 percent). Marine
sediments in the area of the Explosives Handling Wharf and the Magnetic Silencing Facility, including Floral
Point, are gravelly sands with 30 percent gravel (Evans-Hamilton 1987). A sediment boring was taken in the
intertidal drainage region within the Explosives Handling Wharf to evaluate the nature and extent of any
chemicals of potential concern associated with the wharf and Hunter's Marsh. Four feet of fine sands and
gravelly fine sands were found to overlie dense clayey sands and gravels believed to be Vashon Till. Surficiai
sediments at Cattail Lake Beach are silty sands with origins primarily from fluvial sedimentation from Cattail
Lake. The relatively low-gradient deltaic deposit radiates northward from the lake. Sediment investigations
in the Cattail Lake Beach area reveal predominantly sands with minor amounts of fines.
Sediments in the SUBASE, Bangor area may be derived from several sources including seasonal runoff from
five local streams entering Hood Canal, stormwater discharges, and shoreline erosion from areas not
protected by bulkheads. Three of these streams pass through small lakes into Hood Canal (Cattail Lake,
Hunter's Marsh, and Devil's Hole). Overland flow from much of the western portion of SUBASE, Bangor is
routed to Hood Canal through a series of stormwater outfalls. The Marginal Wharf (built in 1945), the
Keyport/Bangor Dock (built in 1951), and the submarine base piers (built in the late 1970s and early 1980s)
act to limit the potential for local erosion and result in local trapping of sediments transported from other
areas. Recent sediment deposits in the Bangor area may also be derived from sources to the south, as
^ inferred from the direction and speed of surface and subsurface currents in Hood Canal (Evans-Hamilton
1987).
Studies of currents around SUBASE, Bangor piers by the U.S. Navy (1982) and studies by Shi (1978)
indicated that localized eddies are established in the vicinity of the Delta and Service Piers during both flood
and ebb tides. Cyclonic (clockwise) eddies form south of Delta Pier during ebb tides, and anticycionic
(counterclockwise) eddies form north of the pier during flood tide. Maximum flows measured within ebb
eddies were 24.4 cm/s, whereas maximum flows within a flood eddy were 21.3 cm/s (Shi 1978).
The only information available on sediment deposition rates measured in the vicinity of SUBASE, Bangor is
recent work in Dabob Bay. Sedimentation rates in Dabob Bay, located approximately 4.5 miles west of the
Bangor site, have been estimated at 0.27±0.12 cm/yr (Carpenter et al. 1985). The low accumulation rates
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 27
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
for Dabob Bay and probably most locations in Hood Canal including SLTBASE, Bangor are explained by the
distance from major rivers.
An exception to the low sedimentation rate is the estimated 15 ±8 cm/yr for the south side of
Keyport/Bangor Dock based on 1986 and 1991 pre- and post-dredging survey data obtained from the Navy.
Sediment accumulation in the Keyport/Bangor Dock area may be explained by storm events from the
southwest and net northerly longshore currents; the pier tends to trap sediments that are moving along the
shore in a northerly direction. Sediment may accumulate in a similar fashion along the south sides of Delta
Pier, Marginal Wharf, and Explosives Handling Wharf.
A boring taken near the northwest corner of Keyport/Bangor Dock showed loose, gravelly sands. The
thickness of these loose sediments was greater than the 12-foot total depth of the boring. In shallow inshore
regions of Hood Canal, variable tidal eddies appear to be the dominant force in the sediment depositional
trends.
Sediment stratigraphy at Service Pier, located south of Keyport/Bangor Dock and north of Carlson Spit,
revealed sediment deposition to be less than that at Keyport/Bangor Dock and more in line with that in
Dabob Bay. Borings taken at Service Pier North indicated 6 feet of sands and gravel overlying Vashon Till.
Service Pier South borings indicated the sand and gravel layer to be 10 feet in thickness, and only 2 feet thick
near shore.
Dredging was conducted at the northern end of Delta Pier for maintenance of the Trident Refit Facility dry
dock. Much of the sediment around Delta Pier originates from the Devil's Hole outfall. Borings indicate a
layer of loose, gravelly, slightly silty sand overlying very dense gravelly sand. This layer was 8 feet in
thickness close to the pier, and further north, away from the pier, 2 feet thick. Low-gradient deltaic deposits
have formed by fluvial sedimentation at Devil's Hole Beach.
Dredging was conducted in 1984 along the seaward side of Marginal Wharf. Subtidal regions are variable in
stratigraphic composition. A boring drilled between the shore and the wharf indicated surficial silt overlying
layers of loose sand, wood particles, and gravel.
62.8 Site 30, Railroad Tracks
Site 30 (Figure 10) is located at the southern boundary of SUBASE, Bangor. The terrain to the west is fairly
level, although it is marked by several of the drumlins that characterize the till plain at the southern end of
the base. The land immediately to the west is forested with undergrowth that is returning in areas formerly
cleared for other rail lines (now abandoned). To the east, across Nautilus Road, the land surface drops
steeply into the ravine that contains Site 2. Site 30 is characterized by gravel and large cobbles used as
railroad ballast. The groundwater is more than 100 feet below ground surface (bgs).
Surface water from the southern portion of Site 30 runs through a culvert and eventually drains into Hood
Canal.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 28
Contract No, N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
6.2.9 Site E and Site 11
Site E and Site 11 are located in the south-central portion of the base (Figure 11). The terrain at the sites
generally slopes downward to the northeast with a slight depression at the northwest end of Site 11. The
area surrounding the sites is undulating and is predominantly wooded. There is no defined drainage from
the sites to the West Fork of Clear Creek. The sites are between two north/south barricaded railroad
sidings. Sites 11 and E are located on the upper slopes of the Clear Creek system near the divide.
Regionally, the Vashon Till contains locally interbedded lenses of silt and sand that collect water during the
wet season. Borings at Site E and Site 11 in the Vashon Till indicate that it ranges between 6 to 25 feet in
thickness. A typical vertical hydraulic conductivity value for the regional till unit is 0.003 ft/day (1 x
10'6 cm/s) (Hart Crowser 1989).
Local precipitation is the primary source of water recharging the aquifers in the study area. Most of the
precipitation occurs during the months of November through April. Precipitation and subsequent infiltration
recharges the shallow aquifer by downward percolation through the till.
The groundwater flow direction in the shallow aquifer at Site E is to the northwest.
6.2.10 Ecological Areas
Five short, straight post-glacial drainages incise the margins of the upland plateau in the northern hail of
SUBASE, Bangor (USGS 1953a, 1953b) (Figure 16). These drainages lack tributary systems and have a
typical length of just over 1 mile. Their outlets into Hood Canal are spaced approximately 0.5 to 1 mile
apart. Three of these drainages have been dammed by shoreline road construction, creating Devil's Hole,
Hunter's Marsh, and Cattail Lake.
Cattail Lake
Cattail Lake (Figure 12) is fed by a stream that originates outside of the base boundary, and only a small
portion flows through the base. The lake is fairly shallow with depths that range from approximately 4 feet
near the inlet at its south end to approximately 12 feet near the outlet at the north end. The lake is
surrounded by steeply sloping areas to the west and southwest and relatively gently sloping areas to the east.
Tinosa Road borders the northern side of the lake, while the southern portion of the lake is surrounded by a
mosaic of palustrine emergent and palustrine scrub-scrub wetlands.
The Cattail Lake wetlands area is classified as Category II according to the Washington State four-tier rating
system (PRC 1991) and provides habitat for the indigenous three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
and freshwater sculpin (family Cottidae), as well as German brown trout (Salmo trutta), brook trout
(Salvelinus fontmalis), and large mouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) (URS 1992). It is fed by perennial
streams and supports rainbow and cutthroat trout (Salmo gairdneri and clarki). Cattail Lake and Devil's
Hole have supported reproducing pairs of osprey since the early 1980s. A beaver family also inhabits the
stream draining into Cattail Lake.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 29
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Hunter's Marsh
Hunter's Marsh (Figure 13) is located at the bottom of the drainages that incise the upland plateau hi the
northern part of SUBASE, Bangor just above the discharge point into Hood Canal. The marsh was created
as a result of road construction and is classified as a Category II wetland according to the Washington State
four-tier rating system (PRC 1991). Hunter's Marsh consists of open water, cattails, large areas of scrub-
scrub wetland dominated by willows and salmonberry, and forested areas dominated by red alder. It
supports a large population of spiders, insects, tree frogs, and waterfowl (URS 1992).
The depth of Hunter's Marsh ranges from approximately 0.5 foot to 5 feet at the outlet near its western
shore. To the east of the marsh, the topography is gently sloping, whereas to the west, north, and south of
the marsh, the relief is more pronounced.
Devil's Hole
Devil's Hole (Figure 14) is located at the bottom of the drainages that incise the upland plateau hi the
northern part of SUBASE, Bangor just above the discharge point into Hood Canal. It was created when an
existing bridge was filled in to construct a road.
Devii's Hole includes a variety of wetland habitats and a shallow impoundment with depths ranging from
approximately 4 feet near the inlet at its southern shore to approximately 9 feet at the outlet at its northern
shore. Classified as a Category I wetland according to the Washington State's four-tier rating system (PRC
1991), Devil's Hole provides habitat for released salmon (Oncorhynchus) to mature before they migrate into
Hood Canal (URS 1992). The area surrounding the lake slopes upward at a rate of approximately 25 feet
per 100 feet. The wetlands are associated with the eastern and southern drainages of the lake.
7.0 NATURE AND EXTENT
The RI for OU 7 (URS 1994a) included sampling and chemical analysis, geophysical investigations (Sites B,
2, E, and 11), soil vapor screening (Sites B and 7), and field screening for ordnance (Site B). Soil borings
were drilled at most of the sites to collect subsurface soil samples, and some were completed as monitoring
wells for groundwater characterization. At Site 26, shellfish and marine sediment samples were collected. In
general, samples were analyzed for concentrations of all compounds on the EPA target compound list, i.e.,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, and PCBs; for
analytes on the EPA target analyte list (metals and cyanide); and for ordnance compounds, herbicides, and
water quality parameters.
Sampling results for each site were screened against the most stringent ARAR (and for inorganics against
background values) and are provided in this section in tabular format. A complete listing of all sampling
results is provided in the RI report, Section 4, Nature and Extent of Detected Chemicals.
The tables in this section indicate the number of samples collected, number of detections, minimum and
maximum detected concentrations, calculated background concentration (inorganics only), and most stringent
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 30
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO0058
ARAR. For chemicals with no established ARAR, cleanup standards are based on to-be-considered (TBC)
guidance. Background concentrations for inorganic chemicals were established from samples collected at
locations outside suspected areas of contamination. Background concentrations for organic chemicals are
assumed to be zero because these chemicals are not naturally occurring. It is believed that the groundwater
sampling techniques caused elevated turbidity in the samples and that the results of total inorganics analyses
are thus not representative of groundwater characteristics. Therefore, groundwater data for dissolved
inorganics are presented because they are most representative of actual groundwater conditions. The
chemicals of interest (COIs) listed in the tables of this section are those chemicals that are present in a
particular medium at concentrations above background values and above the most stringent ARAR.
Chemicals in soil were not considered to be COIs if (1) they were detected in less than 10 percent of the
samples, (2) the maximum detected concentration was less than twice the larger of the background value or
ARAR, and (3) the 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) was less than the ARAR. All chemicals found
at concentrations above background values were evaluated in the risk assessment (Section 8).
7.1 SITE B, FLORAL POINT
RI field work at Site B consisted of Phase I and Phase II investigations that included magnetic,
electromagnetic, and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) geophysical surveys; soli vapor screening; ordnance
screening; installation and sampling of nine new and two existing monitoring wells; and excavation and
sampling of three test pits (Figure 17). The magnetic and electromagnetic geophysical surveys were
performed in November 1992, The GPR survey was performed in November 1991. Sampling at Floral Point
was conducted from January to April 1992 (Phase I) and August to November 1992 (Phase II).
Phase I sampling included a 30-point soil vapor survey, a 20-point Geld screening for ordnance in surface soil,
collection of subsurface soil samples from four boreholes and from the deepest borehole of the monitoring
well pair, and collection of groundwater samples (three rounds) from 11 wells. The water and soil samples
were analyzed for metals, VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), pesticides, chlorinated
herbicides, and ordnance compounds.
Phase II sampling included collection of shallow subsurface soil samples from three test pits, subsurface soil
samples from four boreholes, and groundwater samples (four rounds) from nine mooitormg wells.
Groundwater samples were collected from four different clusters of monitoring wells, referred to as
Clusters 1 through 4. Soil samples were collected from each of these clusters as well as from three test pits.
Phase II sampling included drilling and sampling four boreholes to replace rejected Phase I soil data. Three
test pits, located approximately in the center of Floral Point, were excavated to investigate an identified
geophysical anomaly. The test pit observations indicated the presence of buried v/aste debris, including metal
fragments tentatively described by SUBASE, Bangor personnel as possibly inert missile body panels or water
heaters (URS 1994a). The water and soil samples were analyzed for metals, VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, TPH,
pesticides, chlorinated herbicides, and ordnance compounds.
7.1.1 Geophysical Investigations
The magnetic and electromagnetic surveys indicated that most of Site B has been disturbed to various
degrees. The anomalies found imply past trench and fill activities and the presence of buried ferromagnetic
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
\
TEST PfT
T-R-2
/^
cc
*—
X>
i Map ',
Hood ; Area
Canal
\ LEGEND
Monitonng Well Locations
A&andoned ACIP Monitonng Well Locations '
Sort Boring
Surface Water Drainage
Dirt Road
0 100 200
SCALE IN FEET
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 17
Site B • Floral Point
Soil Boring, Sampling, and Monitonng Well Locations
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
ROD
CTOMVSEC02SFIG2-8.DRW
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 32
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
debris. The GPR survey identified numerous areas that showed evidence of buried cylindrical ferromagnetic
items and disturbed areas that could be classified as former landfill sites.
1.12 Soil Vapor Survey
The soil vapor survey showed only a single detection of 0.3 parts per million (ppm) total organic vapors at a
depth of approximately 6 inches at Soil Vapor Station 18, just north of Well Cluster 1. Survey results
indicate that concentrated VOC sources are not present in the near subsurface.
7.13 Field Screening for Ordnance
Field screening for ordnance hi surface soil near the concrete foundation showed no detections in 20
samples.
7.1.4 Shallow Soil Sampling and Analysis
Nine chemicals have been identified as COIs in shallow subsurface soil (0 to 3 feet bgs): seven SVOCs and
two PCBs (Table 1). Concentrations of beryllium and Aroclor 1260 were detected above ARARs but
exceeded ARARs in less than 10 percent of the samples, the maximum detected concentration was less than
twice the larger of the background value or Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method B, and the
95 percent UCL was less than the MTCA Method B value. Beryllium and Aroclor 1260 were therefore not
retained as COIs.
The seven SVOCs are all polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, and
dibenz(a,h)anthracene. PAH exceedances occurred primarily in Borehole 3, Test Pit 2, and Test Pit 3.
Concentrations of PAHs were highest in Test Pit 3, exceeding concentrations in Borehole 3 and Test Pit 2 by
more than an order of magnitude. The two PCBs identified as COIs—Aroclor 1248 and 1254—were found in
Test Pits 2 and 3 and Borehole 1.
7.1.5 Subsurface Soil Sampling and Analysis
COIs identified in subsurface soil (3 to 55 feet bgs) include two inorganics (arsenic and copper), five SVOCs
(the PAHs benzo[a]anthracene, chrysene, benzofkjfluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, and indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene),
and one PCB (Aroclor 1242). Beryllium and benzo(b)fluoranthene concentrations were above ARARs, but
these chemicals were not retained as COIs for the same reasons listed in Section 7.1.4 for beryllium and
Aroclor 1260.
The concentration of arsenic exceeded ARARs in four samples from 35-MW-l and 35-MW-4, at depths of 5
to 17.5 feet. Copper concentrations exceeded ARARs in one sample collected at 35-MW-l, at a depth of 5
to 7.5 feet bgs. PAH exceedances occurred at 35-MW-3 and Boreholes 1 and 3, at depths of 5 to 12 feet
bgs. Concentrations of Aroclor 1242 exceeded ARARs in two samples collected at Borehole 4, at depths of
5 and 12 feet bgs.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Table 1
Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site B
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 33
CO!
Number
of
Samples
Number «f
Detections
Miakntsm
Detected
Cone*
Maximum
Detected
C
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 34
Table 1 (Continued)
Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site B
CO!
Ntttftber
of
Samples
Nwjifc*r0f
Detections
Minimum
Detected
Ccmjc*
Maximum
Defected
C
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 35
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
7.1.6 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis
COIs identified in groundwater at Site B include five inorganics (arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese, and
thallium), one VOC (tetrachloroethene), two SVOCs (chrysene and bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate), one PCB
(Aroclor 1016), and TPH.
Groundwater samples were analyzed for both total and dissolved inorganics. Total inorganics were detected
much more frequently and at much higher concentrations than dissolved inorganics. The groundwater at this
site contains high concentrations of seawater, which affects the levels of some of the inorganics. Because of
the turbidity of many of the samples, dissolved metals concentrations were used to make decisions regarding
inorganics. The dissolved inorganics above ARARs were found scattered across the site at B18-7, B35-7,
20MW-1, 20MW-4, 35MW-1, 35MW-3, and 50MW-2.
TetrachJoroethene was detected in the groundwater sampling approximately 35 percent of the time, in the
western portion of the site in two 35-foot wells (Well Clusters 1 and 2) and at both the 20- and 35-foot
depths in the eastern portion of the site (Well Cluster 4).
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected above ARARs in 6 of 58 samples and in each of the five well
clusters. Chrysene, PCB (total), and TPH were detected once above ARARs (at 20MW-2, 20MW-4, and
35MW-2, respectively).
Because the groundwater at Floral Point flows into the marine waters of Hood Canal, the chemical
concentrations were also compared to marine Water Quality Standards. Five inorganics (cadmium, copper,
lead, nickel, and zinc) and three pesticides (endrin, heptachlor, and gamma-chlordane) exceeded state surface
water standards.
12 SITE 2, CLASSIFICATION YARD/FLEET DEPLOYMENT PARKING
Investigation sampling conducted at Site 2 included subsurface soil, Trident Lakes sediment, surface water
including Trident Lakes, and groundwater. Site 2 media were sampled during both Phase 1 (August to
October 1992) and Phase II (August to October 1993). During Phase I field activities, a buried drum was
accidently ruptured. Samples were collected of the drum's contents, runoff from the drum area, and shallow
soil to determine possible impacts on the vicinity of the ruptured drum. A drum removal action was initiated
as a time-criticaJ (or emergency) action because the buried drum contained hazardous substances. The work
on the removal action was halted in October 1992 because the excavation was beginning to undermine the
embankments supporting Nautilus Avenue. A second removal action was started in May 1993 to continue
the excavation under the embankment. More buried drums were discovered and removed hi this second
removal action. Remediation included digging drum trenches and test pits and stockpiling contaminated soil
for disposal. A significant .amount of metallic debris—including shells, projectiles, and steel banding—was
found during the removal actions. Information and results of the site cleanup and drum removal activities
can be found LD the removal action report (URS 1993c, 1994c; IT Corporation 1994). The Phase II
investigation was conducted in conjunction with the removal actions.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 36
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
The soil and metal debris were excavated during the drum removal action in June and September of 1993
(IT Corporation 1994). Containment Cell No. 1 was constructed for potentially contaminated soil and debris.
Containment Cell No. 2, which was used for noncontaminated excavated soil and debris, contained
approximately 15,000 cubic yards of soil; the soil in Cell No. 2 was used as backfill for the drum trench
excavation. The total volume remaining in both cells is approximately 5,000 cubic yards.
Groundwater and soil sampling data were collected from five monitoring wells, and sediment and water
samples were taken from Trident Lakes. No shallow soil samples were collected at Site 2. The locations of
the sampling points are shown in Figure 18. The water, soil, and sediments were analyzed for metals, VOCs,
SVOCs, PCBs, TPH, pesticides, chlorinated herbicides, and ordnance compounds.
7.2.1 Geophysical Investigations
To identify potential drum locations prior to the drum removal, GPR and electromagnetic geophysical
surveys were conducted at Site 2. The surveys indicated a number of subsurface anomalies that were
tentatively identified as buried drums. The results of the surveys were used to designate excavation areas for
the removal action.
122 Stockpiled Sor! Sampling aad Analysis
Aroclor 1260 was the only COI identified in stockpiled soil (Table 2). Arocior 1260 was detected in 5 of 10
samples from Containment Cell No. 1 at concentrations up to 2,700 fig/kg. No COIs were identified in soils
from Containment Cell No. 2.
The metallic debris was not sampled and analyzed and therefore is not listed in Table 2 as a COI.
7.23 Subsurface Soil Sampling and Analysis
No chemicals were detected above background and ARARs in the subsurface soil; thus, none were retained
as COIs.
12A Surface Water Sampling and Analysis
No COIs were identified in surface water from Trident Lakes.
12J5 Freshwater Sediment Sampling and Analysis
No COIs were identified in freshwater sediment from Trident Lakes.
72.6 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis
Table 2 lists the two COIs detected in groundwater samples collected at Site 2. Arsenic was detected at
2.40 fJig/L at MW-3, and manganese at 255 pg/L at MW-5.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
LEGEND
MO«TH I
SITE 2A Southeast
Family
Housing
MW-4
MW-5
SITE 2B
MW-6
Geophysical Investigation
Sediment Sample Locations
Monitoring Well Locations
Surface Water Runoff Samples
Potential Source of Contamination
Locaton of Removal Acton
Railroad Track
Base Boundary
Surface Runoff Plow Direction
500
SCALE IN FEET
1000
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 18
Site 2 - Classification Yard/Fleet Deployment Parking
Sampling and Monitoring Well Locations
CT00058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
ROD
OCT058VFK52-9.DRW 4/^93
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 38
Table 2
Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site 2
cot
Number of
Samples
Number
-------
Hood Canal
Carlson Spit
4-S-3
1
j
1
t
C
i
•tood
2ana/
U*pf~
Area 1
/'V-
?X ^
'V- LX^S
t
C^
\.
->
f
A
i
/~Y
/
A
A
\
\_
—
i
t
-Tl'
d"
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
1
8
J
1
J
•»
j
\ / ' / /
\ / ; / /
! \ ^ /
i ! / i
i /
\ \
\ LEGEND ^ Surface Water Drainage
i H Surface Soil Sampling Locations I
' lM Hand Auger Sampling Locations
^v~- Potential Source Area of Contamination
i ^ 0 50 100 i
! NOR^ ! Scale In Feet
CTO 0058
Figure 19 SUBASE, Bangor
Site 4 - Carlson Spit Sampling Locations Washington
ROD
CTO58\FIG2-10.DRW 3/15/93
-------
LEGEND _:
i 3 Hand Auger Sampling Locations
Surface Water Drainage
Monjtonng Well Locations
Segment Sampling Locations
Potential Source Area of Contamination
NORTH !
Hood
Canal
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 20
Site 7 - Old Paint Can Disposal Site
Sampling and Monitoring Locations
CTO 0058 I
SUBASE, Bangor I
Washington |
ROD i
CT058RG2-11 DRW
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 41
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Impacts to soil and groundwater from the use of Site 7 as a paint and solvent disposal area are minimal.
The detections of metals were commonly found at concentrations close to background values.
7.4.1 Soil Vapor Survey
The soil vapor survey showed low-level detections of total organic vapor, ranging from 0.1 and 0.3 ppm, from
five stations on the east side of the site. These results indicate that concentrated VOC sources are not
present in the near subsurface.
7.4.2 Surface Soil Sampling and Analysis
As shown in Table 3, two inorganic COIs were identified in surface soils: arsenic (6.10 mg/kg) and
beryllium (0.83 mg/kg). Both inorganics were detected in only one sample of nine, at concentrations less
than 1.5 times the background value. No VOCs were detected above ARARs.
7.43 Shallow Subsurface Soil Sampling and Analysis
One inorganic COI was identified in shallow subsurface soil—beryllium, at 0.92 mg/kg (Table 3). Beryllium
was detected in three of nine samples, at concentrations less than 1.5 times the background value.
7.4.4 Stream Sediment Sampling and Analysis
Two stream sediment samples were collected from the tributary stream (which originates off base) to Cattail
Lake; the samples were analyzed for total metals and VOCs. Because no ARARs exist for chemicals in
freshwater sediment, MTCA Method B soil cleanup levels were used as a TBC concentration for
comparison. Only beryllium exceeded both background and the TBC concentration. Beryllium was detected
in both sediment samples, at concentrations less than 1.5 times the background value.
7.4.5 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis
Manganese was reported above the background value and ARARs in the one sample analyzed for inorganics
and thus was retained as a COI. Manganese was found in this sample at a concentration less than 2 times
the background value.
7.4.6 Surface Water Sampling and Analysis
No COIs were identified in surface water.
7.5 SITE 10, PESTICIDE STORAGE QUONSET HUTS
Soil samples were collected at Site 10 and analyzed for pesticides and herbicides. Groundwater samples
were collected and analyzed for pesticides, herbicides, total and dissolved inorganics, VOCs, SVOCs, and
TPH. Phase I environmental sampling included installing and sampling one monitoring well and drilling and
sampling four soil borings. In the soil borings, soil samples were collected at three different levels down to
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CT00058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 42
Table 3
Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site 7
CO!
Nwntjer<>f
Samples
dumber of
BetectfoBS
Minimum
DefecHjo
Cenc.
Maximum
Detected
Ccmc*
Calculated
Background
Cone.
Potaitial ARARs
Vafce
Reference
SURFACE SOIL (0 - 1.5 feet bgs)
Total Metals (mg/kg)
Arsenic
Beryllium
9
9
1
1
6.10 J
0.83 J
6.10 J
0.83 J
4.40
0.80
1.43
0.233
MTCA
MTCA
SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOIL (1.5-3 feet bgs)
Total Metals (mg/kg)
Beryllium
9
3
0.82 J
0.92 J
0.80
0.233
MTCA
SEDIMENT
Total Metals (mg/kg)
Beryllium
2
2
0.565
0.74 J
050
0.233
MTCA"
GROUNDWATER
Dissolved Metals (Mg/L)
Manganese
1
1
407
407
215
80
MTCA
"MTCA Method B soil cleanup levels used as a TBC guidance concentration.
Notes:
ARAR Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
bgs Below ground surface
COI Chemical of interest
J Estimated value
MTCA Model Toxics Control Act Method B
Source: URS 1994a
5 feet bgs. In the monitoring well, soil samples were collected at 5 feet bgs and at the water table
(approximately 35 feet bgs). Three groundwater samples were collected from the well during Phase I.
During Phase II, two additional soil borings were drilled and analyzed for pesticides and herbicides. Phase II
work also included the collection and analysis of a single groundwater sample from the well. Figure 21
shows the sampling and monitoring well locations for Site 10. Table 4 Lists the COIs at Site 10.
7.5.1 Soil Sampling and Analysis
From the six soil borings and one monitoring well, 20 soil samples were collected. Dieldrin was detected
once in 14 samples at concentrations above MTCA Method B. However, the detection constituted less than
10 percent of the samples, the value was less than 2 times MTCA Method B, and the 95 percent UCL was
less than the MTCA Method B value. No COIs were identified in Site 10 soil samples.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
Former Quonset
Hut Location
LEGEND
Soil Bonng Locations
Monitoring Well Locations
Potential Source Area of Contamination
Building and Number
I « Former Buitdiing
: . . j Paved Area
NORTH
50
SCALE IN FEET
100
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 21
Site 10 - Pesticides Storage Quonset Huts
Sampling and Monitoring Well Locations
CT00058
SUBASE, Barrgor
Washington
ROD
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 44
Table 4
Chemicals of Interest at Site 10
COI
Number 6f
Sampler
Number sf
Drtertkms
Mi&hniHn
Defctffcrf
Conc>
Maximtim
Detected
Cone*
Calculated
Background
Cone
Potential ARAR*
Value
Reference
GROUNDWATER
Semivoiatile Organic Compounds (jtg/L)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2
2
3 J
9 J
N:/A
6
MCL
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (/*g/L)
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
1
1
3,100
3,100
NT/A
1.000
MTCA
Notes:
ARAR
COI
J
MCL
MTCA
NT/A
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
Chemical of interest
Estimated value
Maximum contaminant level
Model Toxics Control Act Method B
Not applicable—background concentrations assumed to be zero
Source: URS 1994a
7.5.2 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis
Two organic compounds were identified as COIs in Site 10 groundwater: bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and
TPH. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and TPH were each detected at concentrations above ARARs in one
sample from the single monitoring well at Site 10.
7.6
SITE 18, PCB SPILL SITE
Nine soil samples were collected between the ground surface and 3.4 feet bgs and analyzed for pesticides and
PCBs. Figure 22 shows the sampling locations for Site 18. No pesticide or PCB concentrations were
• detected above ARARs in the soils collected from Site 18 and therefore none were retained as COIs.
7.7
SITE 26, HOOD CANAL SEDIMENTS
A total of 171 intertidal and subtidal sediment samples were collected at Site 26. Shellfish samples were
collected at Cattail Lake Beach, Floral Point Beach, Explosives Handling Wharf, Marginal Wharf,
Keyport/Bangor Dock, and Service Pier. Bioassay samples were collected from 32 stations. Chemical
concentrations in sediment samples were compared with background values and the Sediment Quality
Standards (SQS) chemical criteria found in the Sediment Management Standards (SMS). Chemicals that
exceeded both were considered COIs. Inorganic concentrations detected in shellfish tissues were compared
with background values. A summary of the results by site from north to south (Area A through Area D) is
provided in the following subsections.
3 05 80\9603.070VTEXT
-------
1044 [ _ I
Former
Paint
Shop
Existing Product
Recovery System
Skate Rd
Note: P-S-8 and P-S-9 were drilled from under an open canopy which is part of Building 1016
Hood
Canal
LEGEND
t20!2J
j «
Soil Bonng Local tons
Monitoring Well Locations
Potential Source Area of Contamination
Building and Number
Former Buildilng
Paved Area
NORTH
50
Scale in Feet
100
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 22
Site 18 -PCB Spill Site
Soil Boring, Sampling, and Monitoring Well Locations
'
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bsngor
Wsshington
CT058VF1G2-14.WW 17^33
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract . Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 46
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO0058
The primary chemical groups detected in Hood Canal sediments were PAHs, phthalates, phenols, and
chlorinated pesticides. The highest chemical concentrations were detected in Area C, Marginal Wharf, and
Area D including both Keyport/Bangor Dock and Service Pier.
7.7.1 Area A, Cattail Lake Beach/Magnetic Silencing Facility
Cattail Lake Beach, located between the northern SUBASE boundary and the Magnetic Silencing Facility,
receives sediments primarily from the Cattail Lake drainage. Seven surface (intertidal) sediment samples
were collected during the Phase I sampling program. During Phase II, six subsurface samples were collected
from four locations. Three composite clam tissue samples were also collected in the intertidal zone. All
samples were analyzed for total metals, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and ordnance compounds. Sediment
samples were also analyzed for VOCs, total organic carbon (TOC), grain size, and additional conventional
parameters. Tissue samples were also evaluated for lipid content. The lipid content is used to "normalize"
non-ionic and nonpolar organic compounds that accumulate in fat tissues. Sediment toxicity tests and
benthic infauna were evaluated at one station (MS03). Biological results were used with the evaluation of
sediments for comparison with the Washington State SMS discussed in the marine ecological risk assessment
(see under Section 8.2.2, SMS Comparison).
Sediment Sampling and Analysis
The locations of the sampling stations for Cattail Lake Beach and Magnetic Silencing Facility are shown in
Figure 23. No chemicals detected in the sediments were reported at concentrations above SOS.
Tissue Sampling and Analysis
Nine inorganics were detected in all clam tissue samples at concentrations similar to or slightly above
background values. Picric acid, the only organic, was detected in one of three tissue samples.
7.72 Area A, Floral Point
Floral Point (southern portion of Figure 23) is a natural shoreline that has undergone extensive reworking by
the Navy for pyrotechnics testing, dumping of miscellaneous solid and liquid wastes, and landfilling from
Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Division Keyport. Currently, the beach south of Floral Point is
used by base personnel for shellfish harvesting and fishing every 3 to 5 years, on a rotational basis with other
beaches on the base. The beach at Floral Point and north is not used for sheilfishing because of the lack of
proper sediment substrate.
Sediment Sampling and Analysis
Intertidal and subtidal sediment samples were collected at Floral Point during the Phase I and Phase II
marine sampling programs. Surface sediment samples were collected during Phase I from one intertidal
station (MS08) and two subtidal stations (MS07 and MS09). In Phase II, additional surface sediment and
clam tissue samples were collected from intertidal Stations MS83 and MS 107, respectively. All samples were
analyzed for total metals, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and ordnance compounds. Sediment samples were also
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
,MS09
CATTAIL LAKE
BEACH
MS01 i
<**
f
MAGNETIC
SILENCING
FACILITY
FLORAL MS 107 MS83
POINT
Y-KMS03
"
MS59
Tissue Sampte
Subtidal Marine Sediment Sample
IntertKial Manne Sediment Sampie
Marine Bohng
Marine Bohng and Subtidai
Surtace Sediment Sample
Elevation Contour (ft above MLLW)
(5 fl intervals)
Water Level at Time of Aenal Photo
0 400
•
SCALE IN FEET
MS07
i NOTE:
| Vertical Datum Mean Lower Low Water (6.146 ft below 1929 Sea Level Datum)
i Washington State Plane Coordinate System {Zone 5801 North)
i Compiled by CAD Drawng Methods from Aerial Photograph dated 3/31/86
' SuppUed by SUBASE Bangor
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 23
Area A - Marine Sediment Sampling Locations
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
ROD
GlS.'Cl>oS&«utoc8(**tf«a a p
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest . Page 48
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO0058
analyzed for VOCs (Phase I surface samples only), TOC, and grain size. No chemicals were detected hi the
intertidal or subtidal sediments sampled at Floral Point Beach at concentrations above the SOS.
Tissue Sampling and Analysis
Ten inorganics were detected slightly above background values, and picramic acid was found in the tissue
sample collected at Station MS 107 located on the north side of the point.
7.73 Area B, Explosives Handling Wharf/Hunter's Marsh Beach
The Explosives Handling Wharf is shown in Figure 24. Hunter's Marsh is located directly east of the
Explosives Handling Wharf. North of the Explosives Handling Wharf is a public clamming beach that is
accessed by stairs from Tang Road near the intersection of Flier Road. There is also a stormwater outfall
that discharges surface water runoff from the roads onto the beach.
Sediment Sampling and Analysis
Sediment samples from seven intertidal and seven subtidal stations (including two subtidal marine borings)
were collected during Phase I and Phase II. Sediment cores were advanced at three stations and subsamples
were collected from a depth of up to 12 feet below mudline. Ail samples were analyzed for total metals,
SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and ordnance compounds. Sediment samples were also analyzed for VOCs
(Phase I surface samples and Phase II cores only), TOC, and grain size. Table 5 lists the chemicals detected
in the sediments sampled at the Explosives Handling Wharf that were above ARARs.
Only two compounds (4-methylphenol and pentachlorophenol) were detected hi intertidal sediments at
concentrations above the SQS. The highest concentrations of phenols were found at Stations MS11
(4-methylphenol) and MS 16-11 (pentachlorophenol). At MS 16-II, concentrations of pentachlorophenol
increased in the subsurface sediments from 0.029 mg/kg (0 to 2 feet) to 2.4 mg/kg (4 to 6 feet). However,
the SOS exceedance for pentachlorophenol at the 4- to 6-foot depth is considered to be below the
biologically active zone. Pentachlorophenol was not detected below 6 feet, where dense impermeable glacial
till was encountered.
Tissue Sampling and Analysis
One composite clam tissue sample was collected at Station MS62 hi the intertidal zone north of the
Explosives Handling Wharf near the stormwater discharge pipe. This location was selected based on
chemicals detected in the sediments during Phase I sampling (e.g., 4-methylphenol). The tissue sample was
evaluated for lipid content and for total metals, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and ordnance compounds.
No SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, or ordnance compounds were detected. The clam tissue sample contained 12
inorganics with concentrations above corresponding background levels. Aluminum, iron, and selenium were
present at concentrations approximately 2 times background. There was no obvious relationship between
chemicals detected in clam tissue and chemicals detected hi either intertidal or subtidal marine sediments.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
MS15
EXPLOSIVES
HANDLING
WHARF
MS17
| NOTE:
i Vertical Datum Mean Lower Low Water
i (6.146 ft below 1929 Sea Level Datum)
| Washington State Plane Coordinate System
j (Zone 5801 North)
Compiled by CAD Drawing Methods from
Aena! Photograph dated 3/31/86
Supplied by SUBASE Bangor
,' Hunter's
> Marsh ~
Subtidal Marine Sediment Sample
Interttia! Mame Sediment Sample
Marine Boring
Oil/Water
Separater
Manne Bomg and Subtidal
Surface Sediment Sample
Etevation Contour (ft above MLLW)
(5 ft ntervais)
Water Level at Time of Aenaf Photo i
0 400
••••=
SCALE IN FEET
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 24
Area B - Marine Sediment Sampling Locations
CTOOQ58
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
ROD
CT05»AREAS.DflW 4/7/93
Gl&cwM/auvxatf »
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 50
Table 5
Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site 26, Explosives Handling Wharf
COI
Number of
Samples
Nvmtor of
Detection
Minimum
I>6*Ctetf
Cone*
^Viaxtnrasn.
P*te*te4
Cone-
Calculated
Italkgrouatf
C0BC+
Potential ARAK$
Value
Reference
INTERTIDAL MARINE SEDIMENTS
SemivolatiJe Organic Compounds (mg/kg-oc)
4-Methylphenoi
Pentachlorophenol*
13
13
6
3
0.009 J
0.029 J
1.2
2.4
NT/A
N/A
0.670
0.360
SOS
SOS
'Exceeded the SOS below the biologically active zone
Notes:
ARAR
COI
J
mg/kg-oc
N/A
SOS
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
Chemical of interest
Estimated value
Milligrams per kilogram carbon normalized
Not applicable—Background concentrations assumed to be zero
Sediment Quality Standards of the Washington State Sediment Management Standards (WAC 173-204)
Source: URS 1994a
•7.7.4 Area C, Marginal Wharf
Surface sediments (0 to 2 cm) were collected at 4 intertidal and 10 subtidal stations (including 2 subtidai
marine borings) at Marginal Wharf during Phase I and Phase II sampling (northern portion of Figure 25).
Sediment cores were collected during Phase II at five subtidal stations at Marginal Wharf. One composite
clam tissue sample was collected in the intertidal zone at Marginal Wharf South. Samples from both media
were analyzed for total metals, VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and ordnance compounds. Sediment
samples were also analyzed for VOCs (Phase I surface samples and Phase II cores only), TOC, and grain
size. Tissue samples were also evaluated for lipid content.
Sediment toxicity tests were analyzed for seven stations and benthic infauna for one station at Marginal
Wharf. Results of the biological testing were used in the evaluation of sediments for comparison with the
SMS discussed in the marine environmental risk assessment (Section 8.2.2).
Sediment Sampling and Analysis
As shown in Table 6, one organic compound (bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate) was detected at a concentration
above the SQS in intertidal sediments. The exceedance occurred in one sample collected at MS24. In
subtidal marine sediments, four inorganics (copper, lead, mercury, and zinc) and eight organics
(bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate, dibenzofuran, and six PAH compounds) were detected at concentrations above
both background and the SOS. Inorganics exceeded the SQS at subtidal stations along the face of Marginal
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
LEGEND
-»- Subtidal Marine Sediment Sample
-T}- Irrtertidal Marine Sediment Sample
Marine Boring
MARGINAL
WHARF MS63'
MS64
. MS21
MS67i MS89
Marine Bormg and Subtida!
Surface Sediment Sample
— 25 _ Elevation Contour (ft above MLLW)
(5 ft intervals)
- - - - Water Level at Time of Aerial Photo
DELTA
PIER
Hood Canal
DEVIL'S HOLE
BEACH
.
Vertical Datum Mean Lower Low Water (6.146 ft below 1929 Sea Level Daium)!
Washington State Plane Coordinate System (Zone 5801 North) !
r—:—TCompitedby CAD Drawing Methods from Aerial Photograph dated 3/31/86 j
Supplied by SUBASE Bangor ;
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
I ACTION NAVY
Figure 25
Area C • Marine Sediment Sampling Locations
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Banger
Washington
ROD
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 52
Table 6
Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site 26, Marginal Wharf
CO!
Number
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 53
Wharf (MS64 and MS25). Similarly, organics exceeded the SOS at subtidal stations along the face of
Marginal Wharf (MS27, MS63, MS64, and MS90). Inorganic and organic concentrations decreased with
sediment depth.
Tissue Sampling and Analysis
No chemicals were detected in shellfish tissue above background values.
7.7.5 Area C, Delta Pier
Eight surface sediment samples and one field duplicate sample were collected from five subtidal and three
intertidal stations at Delta Pier (central portion of Figure 25) during Phase I. During Phase II, an 8-foot
core was advanced at Station MS33 along with a surface sediment grab sample (upper 2 cm). Sediment
samples were analyzed for total metals, VOCs (Phase I and Phase II cores only) SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs,
TOC, grain size, and ordnance compounds. One organic (bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate) was detected in subtidal
sediments at a concentration exceeding the SOS (Table 7). The exceedance was reported in one sample
collected at MS29.
Table 7
Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site 26, Delta Pier
COl
Ntsraber
of
Samples
Number
of
Detections
Minimum
Delected
Co»t,
Maximum
Itetected
€o»c
Caktttaied
Background
Cone*
Potential A2&R&
Value
.Refer eoce
SUBTCDAL SEDIMENTS
Organics (mg/kg-oc)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
8
5
6.6
58
N/A
47
SOS
Notes:
ARAR
COI
mg/kg-oc
N/A
SOS
u
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
Chemical of interest
Milligrams per kilogram carbon normalized
Not applicable—background concentrations assumed to be zero
Sediment Quality Standards of the Washington State Sediment Management Standards (WAC 173-204)
Nondetected value
Source: URS 1994a
7.7.6 Area C, Devil's Hole Beach
Marine sediments were collected within the fluvial deposit of sediment discharged from Devil's Hole to
assess potential impacts from areas upstream of Devil's Hole (see Figure 25). A total of four surface
sediment samples were collected during Phase I from three intertidal stations (MS35, MS37, and MS38) and
one subtidal station (MS36). During Phase II, a 12-foot core was advanced at Station MS36. Sediment
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 54
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
samples were analyzed for TOC, grain size, total metals, VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and ordnance
compounds. None of the sediment samples reported detections above the SOS.
7.7.7 Area D, Keyport/Bangor Dock
Surface sediments (0 to 2 cm) were collected at two intertidal and eight subtidal stations during Phase I and
Phase II sampling at the dock (northern portion of Figure 26). During Phase II, a sediment core was
advanced to 12 feet near the seaward face of the dock, and subsamples were collected and analyzed from the
upper 6 feet. One composite clam tissue sample was collected inside the dock area (Station MS96).
Samples from both media were analyzed for total metals, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and ordnance
compounds. Sediment samples were also analyzed for VOCs, TOC, and grain size. Tissue samples were
also evaluated for lipid content.
Sediment Sampling and Analysis
No COIs were identified in intertidal sediments at Keyport/Bangor Dock. In subtidal sediments, 1 inorganic
(mercury) and 12 organics (bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate and 11 PAH compounds) were detected at
concentrations above both background and the SOS (Table 8). For all COIs, exceedances occurred at
subtidal stations along the face of Keyport/Bangor Dock (MS40, MS41, MS42, and MS70).
Tissue Sampling and Analysis
No SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, or ordnance compounds were detected. The clam tissue sample contained 16
inorganics at concentrations comparable to or above background levels. Aluminum, magnesium, and sodium
were present at concentrations approximately 2 times background.
7.7.8 Area D, Service Pier/Carlson Spit
Surface sediments (0 to 2 cm) were collected at 15 subtidal stations (including 2 subtidal marine borings)
during Phase I and Phase II sampling at Service Pier and Carlson Spit (central portion of Figure 26). An
additional subtidal sample was collected south of Carlson Spit. No intertidal samples were collected because
of the coarse-grained nature of the sediments. During Phase II, six sediment cores were advanced to 12 feet,
and subsamples were coDected and analyzed from the upper 6 feet. One composite clam tissue sample was
collected in the intertidal zone inside the pier area (MS95). Samples from both media were analyzed for
total metals, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and ordnance compounds. Sediment samples were also analyzed for
VOCs, TOC, and grain size. The tissue sample was also evaluated for lipid content.
Sediment Sampling and Analysis
In subtidal sediments, eight organics (dibenzofuran and seven PAH compounds) were detected at
concentrations above the SOS (Table 9). For all COIs, exceedances occurred at subtidal stations
immediately adjacent to Service Pier (MS44, MS45, and MS46). Sediment toxicity tests were analyzed for 12
stations and benthic infauna for 1 station at Service Pier. Biological testing results are discussed in the
marine environmental risk assessment.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
Hood
Canal
LEGEND
+
KEYPORT/BANGOR MS7°
DOCK MSTI
MS41
SERVICE
PIER MS86
'+.
CARLSON MS7B
SPIT
—25—
Issue Sampte
Subtidal Marine Sediment Sample
intertida! Mahne Sediment Sample
Marine Boring
Marine Boring and Subtidal
Surface Sediment Sample
Elevation Contour (ft above MLLW)
(5 ft intervals}
Water Level at Time of Aenal Photo
NORTH i
/ NOTE:
/ Vertical Datum Mean Lower Low Water (6.146 ft below 1929 Sea Level Datum)!
Washington State Plane Coordinate System (Zone 5801 North)
Compiled by CAD Drawing Methods tram Aenal Photograph dated 3/31/86
Supplied by SUBASE Bangor
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 26
Area,D - Marine Sediment Sampling Locations
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washmaton
ROD
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 56
Table 8
Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site 26, Keyport/Bangor Dock
€OI
Nttmber
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 57
Table 9
Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site 26, Service Pier
COJ
Number of
Samples
Number $f
Detections
Mininmm
D*H*ted
. €QIIC<
Maximum
Detected
Cone*
Calculated
Balfegrowitf
€
-------
Southeast
Family
Housing
! NORTH
LEGEND
a Hand Auger Sampling Locations
Itii&IS. Approximate Area of Investigation
— - Base Boundary
1 M ; 11 i Railroad Tracks
1000
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 27
Site 30 - Railroad Tracks Sampling Locations
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangbr
Washington
ROD
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 59
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
During Phase II, nine samples were collected from three sampling locations (R-S-7, R-S-S, and R-S-9).
These samples were collected from depths of 0.2 to 0.5 foot bgs, 0.5 to 1.0 foot bgs, and 2.5 to 3 feet bgs,
with a duplicate sample collected at location R-S-9 (6 to 12 inches bgs). All shallow subsurface soil samples
were analyzed for chlorinated herbicides, pesticides, and PCBs.
Groundwater at this site was not analyzed. The RI proposed groundwater sampling during Phase II if
chemicals were detected in soil at elevated concentrations during Phase I. No chemicals were detected in the
soil at concentrations above ARARs during the first phase; therefore, the groundwater was not sampled.
No chemicals with concentrations above ARARs were detected at Site 30.
7.9 SITE E AND SITE 11
The RI at Site E and Site 11 included a magnetic and GPR geophysical survey, and environmental sampling
of shallow soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater. The magnetic and GPR'surveys were conducted in June
1991. Soil sampling was conducted during the first phase of drilling in June 1991. Shallow and subsurface
soil samples were obtained during the drilling of two monitoring wells, EMW-22L and EMW-23L. The
second phase of drilling and sampling included EMW-21U, EMW-21L, EMW-24U, EMW-24L, and
EMW-22U. Soil sampling depths of the monitoring well boreholes ranged from ground surface to
approximately 210 feet bgs. Sampling locations are shown in Figure 28.
A drum removal was initiated in July 1991 as a time-critical (or emergency) action because buried drums
containing hazardous material were discovered at the site during the first sampling round and posed a
possible threat of release to the environment (URS 1993a). The soils that were excavated during the
removal action were placed in a containment cell, as were the drums and containers that were removed. Soil
samples from the containment cell and from the excavated pits were collected and analyzed for inorganics,
VOCs, SVOCs, chlorinated herbicides, pesticides, and ordnance compounds.
Groundwater samples were collected from seven monitoring wells and analyzed for total and dissolved
inorganics, VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, chlorinated herbicides, and ordnance compounds.
7.9.1 Geophysical Investigations
A magnetic and GPR survey to locate subsurface debris at Site 11 indicated two strong anomalous areas, one
minor anomaly (potentially buried pipe or scrap metal), and a lesser magnetic anomaly (attributed to metal
scrap on or near the ground surface, or steel well casings). The survey results were used to establish two
excavation areas.
7.9.2 Containment Cell Soil Sampling and Analysis
On July 16 and 17, 1991, trenches were excavated in the locations of the geophysical anomalies and soil
samples were collected from each trench. The samples were analyzed for pesticides, chlorinated herbicides,
and ordnance compounds. During this exploratory excavation, a drum with the label "Estron 99
(concentrated) Weedkiller" was encountered at an approximate depth of 5.5 feet. This drum was punctured
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
365
370
375
Forested Area
0 120
NORTH Scale In Feet
Note:EMW-23U = EMW-17
LEGEND
Monitoring Well
(U = upper, L = lower)
: Dirt Road
Fence
Elevation Contour
(feet above MSL))
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 28
Site E and Site 11
Sampling and Monitoring Well Locations
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington • j
ROD
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 61
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
by the backhqe and liquid was observed in the drum. The quantity of liquid was determined to be a de
minimus amount. A sample of the fluid was collected and analytical results indicated a low concentration of
2,4,6-TNT (339 jig/L). This fluid was also analyzed for chlorinated herbicides, but none were detected (URS
1992). Trenching logs are provided in the RI report (URS 1994a).
Subsequently, a more extensive drum and soil removal activity was conducted during the period June to
September 1992. Thirteen 55-gallon drums, 72 small containers, debris, and contaminated soil were removed
from the excavation trench and two interior excavation pits. A separate area (the Site E acid pit) was also
excavated.
Excavated soils, drums, and containers were staged in the containment cell that occupied an area of
approximately 100 by 50 feet. Approximately 400 cubic yards were removed from the Site 11 excavation
trench, and approximately 250 cubic yards were removed from the Site E acid pit. Confirmation soil samples
were collected from the excavation trench and acid pit trench. No organic compounds were detected in these
samples, and no inorganics exceeded MTCA levels. The trenches were subsequently filled to grade with
uncontaminated excavated material and clean backfill.
Samples of excavated soil were collected from eight subsections of the containment cell. No metals, VOCs,
or SVOCs were detected above MTCA levels. One pesticide, DDT (at concentrations of up to
80,000 ;-tg/kg), exceeded ARARs. All drums and drum contents were removed from the site and disposed of
properly. The excavated soils remain in the containment cell. Analytical sample results for organic and
inorganic chemicals from the excavation samples, confirmation samples, containment cell samples, and drum
samples are described in the removal action report for Site 11 (URS 1993a).
Table 10 shows the chemicals that were detected above background levels and ARARs at Sites E and 11.
7.93 Shallow Soil Sampling and Analysis
No chemicals detected in shallow soil (0 to 5 feet bgs) exceeded ARARs, and therefore none were retained
as COls.
7.9.4 Subsurface Soil Sampling and Analysis
Arsenic and beryllium were detected in subsurface soil (more than 3 feet bgs) at concentrations above
ARARs. However, the detections were in less than 10 percent of the samples, the maximum detected
concentration was less than 2 times the lower of the background or MTCA Method B value, and the
95 percent UCL was less than the MTCA value. Therefore no chemicals were retained as COIs.
7.9.5 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis
Three inorganics—antimony, arsenic, and beryllium—were reported at concentrations above ARARs and
background in the dissolved groundwater samples and were retained as COIs. The detected inorganics were
within 2 to 3 times the background concentration and likely represent normal variations in background
concentrations. The higher concentrations were found in the lower aquifer. Two VOCs (benzene and
tetrachloroethene), one SVOC (bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate), and the ordnance compound RDX were detected
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 62
Table 10
Chemicals of Interest Detected at Site E and Site 11
COI
Itamfcr 6|
Samples
Number Of
Detections
Minimum
Detected
Cone*
Maximum
Detected
Cone,
Cakidaied
Background
€«HC»
PcXejtfiaf AJURs
Yahm 1 Reference
EXCAVATED SOIL IN CONTAINMENT CELL
Pesticides (jig/kg)
4.4'-DDT
8
7
3.000
80,000 J
N/A
2.940
MTCA
GROUNDWATER
Dissolved Metals (/ig/L)
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
14
14
14
2
4
4
59.5 J
1.3 J
2.2
62.4
6.5
2.2
20
2.3
1.15
6
0.05
0.0203
MCL
. MTCA
MTCA
Volatile Organic Compounds (ng/L)
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
20
20
3
1
1
2 J
Semivolatiie Organic Compounds (jtg/L)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
21
6
1 J
4J
2 J
N/A
N/A
1.51
0.858
59
N/A
6
MTCA
MTCA
MCL
Ordnance (/tg/L)
RDX
19
1
5.4 J
5.4 J
N/A-
0.795
MTCA
Notes:
ARAR Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
COI Chemical of interest
J Estimated value
MCL Maximum contaminant level
MTCA Model Toxics and Control Act Method B
N/A Not applicable—background concentrations assumed to be zero
RDX Royal Demolition Explosive
Source: URS 1994a
at concentrations above ARARs. The VOCs were detected in EMW-22L, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in
several wells, and RDX in EMW-23L. RDX was not disposed of at Sites E and 11 and was detected only in
the lower aquifer. It is suspected to be from the former wastewater lagoon upgradient at Site F, in OU 2.
Other than bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate the organic COIs were detected in the lower aquifer in EMW-22L.
7.10
CATTAIL LAKE ECOLOGICAL AREA
Cattail Lake is located downstream of Site 7 and its discharge flows into Hood Canal. Sediment and surface
water were sampled to determine potential chemical impacts on Cattail Lake. Lake sediment and surface
water samples were collected along the major axis of Cattail Lake (Figure 29). Sediment samples were
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
Hood
Canal
Sediment Sampling Locations
Surtace Water Sampling Locations
Approximate Limits of Investigation
4 Wetlands
i NORTH
200
SCALE IN FEET
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 29
Cattail Lake Sampling Locations
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangof
Washington
ROD
CT05S\SEC01 \flG2-33 DRW 47/93
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Pa^e 64
collected from three depths at each of five locations. Surface water samples were collected from the farthest
upstream and farthest downstream sediment sampling stations. AH samples were analyzed for inorganics,
VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and ordnance compounds. In the surface water samples, the inorganics
analyses included both total and dissolved inorganics.
7.10.1 Sediment Sampling and Analysis
Because no ARARs exist for chemicals in freshwater sediment, MTCA Method B soil cleanup levels were
used as a TBC concentration for comparison. Arsenic exceeded both background and the TBC
concentration in 4 samples out of 10. Detected concentrations of arsenic ranged from 1.02 to 1.59 times the
background values. Beryllium exceeded both background and the TBC concentration in all samples
collected. Detected concentrations of beryllium ranged from 1.7 to 5.2 times the background values. The
pesticide aldrin was detected above the TBC concentration in 1 sediment sample out of 10, at Sampling
Station CT01. . • • •
7.10.2 Surface Water Sampling and Analysis
As shown in Table 11, dissolved arsenic was the only COI identified in surface water. However, no
background concentrations were determined for comparison with dissolved inorganics results.
Table 11
Chemicals of Interest Detected at Cattail Lake Ecological Area
COI
Number of
Samples
Noraber of
DetectfoBS
Minimum
Etefecterf
Cone*
Maximum
Detected
CDBC.~
Calculated
Background
Cone*
Potential ARARs
Vate*
ReC*renc
-------
I1 //
Hood
Canal
j
/
Maf
Are
h
f
)
a
-\
v^ ,
M
i
•
Explosives
Handling
Wharf
Approximate Area of Investigation
Sediment Sampling Locations
Surface Water Sampling Locations
Wetlands
Outfall and Stream
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
H
NORTH
i MMB 1
SCALE IN 'FEET
Figure 30
Hunter's Marsh Sampling Locations
CT00058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
ROD '
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 66
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
7.11.1 Sediment Sampling and Analysis
Because no ARARs exist for chemicals in freshwater sediment, MTCA Method B soil cleanup levels were
used as a TBC concentration for comparison. Beryllium exceeded both background and the TBC
concentration in all samples collected. Detected concentrations of beryllium ranged from 1.4 to 2.9 times the
background values. Silver and the PAH benzo(a)pyrene were both detected above the TBC concentration in
one sediment sample of nine, at Sampling Station HM01.
7.11.2 Surface Water Sampling and Analysis
No COIs were identified in Hunter's Marsh surface water samples.
7.12 DEVIL'S HOLE ECOLOGICAL AREA
Fourteen lake sediment samples were collected from five sampling stations (DH01 through DH05) at the
Devil's Hole ecological area (Figure 31). One surface sediment sample each was collected from
Stations DH01 through DH05. Nine subsurface sediment samples were collected at depths of 0.2 to 0.5 foot,
0.5 to 1.5 feet, and 1.5 to 2.5 feet bgs at Stations DH01, DH02, and DH05. One surface water sample each
was collected from Stations DH01, DH02, and DH05.
7.12.1 Sediment Sampling and Analysis
Because no ARARs exist for chemicals in freshwater sediment, MTCA Method B soil cleanup levels were
used as a TBC concentration for comparison. Arsenic exceeded both background and the TBC
concentration in 7 samples out of 14. Detected concentrations of arsenic ranged from 1.3 to 3.1 times
background values. Beryllium exceeded both background and the TBC concentration in 12 samples out of
14. Detected concentrations of beryllium ranged from 1.1 to 4.4 times the background value. The PAH
compounds benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzQ(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, and
indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene were detected above the TBC concentration in sediment samples from DH02, DH03,
and DH05, with the highest concentrations at DH02.
1.122 Surface Water Sampling and Analysis
Three COIs were identified in Devil's Hole surface water: arsenic, mercury, and selenium (Table 12).
Dissolved arsenic and total selenium each exceeded ARARs in the surface water sample collected at DH02.
Total mercury exceeded ARARs in the surface water sample collected at DH01.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
-»- Sediment Sampirxj Locations
A Surface Water Sampling Locations
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 31
Devil's Hole Sampling Locations
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
or\n
nUU
CT058\nG2-32.D«W 4/7/83
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Paee 68
Table 12
Chemicals of Interest Detected at Devil's Hole Ecological Area
cor
Number of
Samples
Number of!
Jtetoetioro
Minimum
Detected
Ccmir.
Maximum
Detected
C01IC.
Calculated
Background
Oortte.
Potential ARARs
Valse
Reference
SURFACE WATER
Metals (/ig/L)
Mercury
Selenium
3
3
1
2
0.80
3.80
0.80
5.20
0.2
3
0.012
5
wwoc
WWQC
Dissolved Metals (jtg/L)
Arsenic
3
1
.1.10
1.10
N/C
0.0842
MTCA
Notes:
ARAR
COI
MTCA
N/C
wwoc
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
Chemical of interest
Model Toxics Control Act Method B
No background concentrations evaluated
Washington State Water Quality Criteria
Source: URS 1994a
8.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
As part of the RI for OU 7, a baseline human health risk assessment and an ecological risk assessment were
conducted. These risk assessments are summarized in Sections 8.1 and 8.2, respectively. The human health
and ecological risk values calculated for each site and ecological area are summarized in Table 13. An
uncertainty analysis is presented in Section 8.3.
8.1
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
The purpose of the baseline human health risk assessment is to estimate the probabilities of adverse health
effects resulting from current and future hypothetical exposures to on-site chemicals in the absence of
remediation. The risk assessment is a multi-step process consisting of data evaluation, chemical toxicity
assessments, and exposure assessments. By means of the information gathered in each of these steps, cancer
and noncancer risks are quantified in a final step termed risk characterization.
Cancer risk is expressed as an excess probability that an individual will develop cancer if exposed to a
chemical over a lifetime. The risk value represents the size of the group of people in which one person
would develop cancer from exposure to a chemical. For example, a risk value of 1.0 x 10"' represents a risk
of 1 person in 10,000,000. The EPA requires that cleanup action be considered if cancer-causing chemicals
pose a risk greater than 1 in 10,000 (1.0 x 10"4). No action is required for risks less than 1 in 1,000,000
(1.0 x 10"6). Risks in between these values represent marginal risks that may require action, depending on
the situation.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 69
Table 13
Risk Assessment Summary for OU 7 Sites and Ecological Areas
Site
Site B
Site 2
Site 4
Site 7
Site 10
Site 18
Site 26
Site 30
Site H and
Site 11
MctttlHfl
Soil
Groundwater
Stockpiled soil
Site soil
Groundwater
All media
Groundwater
Soil
Groundwater
All media
Sediments
Marine clam tissue
Soil
Stockpiled soil
Site soil
Groundwater
Human Health Scenario
Residential
Industrial
Recreational
Residential
Residential
Industrial
Recreational
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Industrial
Recreational
Recreational
Industrial/recreational
Residential
Industrial
Residential
Residential
Maximum Human
Health RME fit
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
5.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
11 (ITU)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
2.7 (Otto fuel)
Summary HtMttft
HeaHh RME Cancer
WsK
1.6 x 104
1.4 x 10 5
1.0x10^
2.7 x 10 3
1.4 x 10 3
1.4 x 10-*
< 1.0x10^
<1.0x lO^5
<1.0 x 10-*
< 1.0x10*
<1.0x-10-*
<1 x lO^5
i.o x Kr6
< 1 x 10-*
<1.0x 10^
<1.0x 10*
<1.0x ID"6
1.8 x 10 5
1.8 x 10 *
<1.0 x 10 6
l.lxlO3 '
M»?tlm
-------
SUBASE, BANCiOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Aclivity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295.
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 70
Table 13 (Continued)
Risk Assessment Summary for OU 7 Sites and Ecological Areas
Site
Cattail Lake
Devil's Mole
Hunter's
Marsh
iVfedhim
All media
All media
All media
Hainan Health Sceruirk*
Recreational
Recreational
Recreational
Maximum Human
Health RME HJ
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
summary Hwmaa
Health RME Cancer
W$K
< 1.0x10^
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 71
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Noncancer risk, or the risk of adverse health effects other than cancer, is expressed as a hazard quotient
(HQ). The HQ represents a ratio of the estimated intake dose of the chemical to the acceptable daily intake
level established by the EPA. Generally, an HQ greater than 1.0 is considered an unacceptable risk. The
sum of the HQs is called the hazard index (HI). An HI greater than 1.0 is unacceptable and may require
cleanup action; an HI less than 1.0 is considered acceptable.
To select the chemicals to be evaluated in the human health risk assessment, chemicals detected in the
various media at OU 7 were screened by comparing their concentrations to EPA risk-based screening
concentrations (RBSCs). The RBSCs for soil are based on a cancer risk of 1.0 x 10"7 and a noncancer risk,
or HO, of 0.1. The RBSCs for groundwater are based on a cancer risk of 1.0 x 10'6 and a noncancer HO
of 1.0.
This screening process included all detected organic chemicals and only the inorganic chemicals that were
detected at a concentration above the OU 7 background value at least once. Inorganic chemicals with
maximum detected concentrations below the background value were eliminated from further assessment.
Essential nutrients were also eliminated. Chemicals with concentrations exceeding the RBSCs were
considered chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) and evaluated further to assess their risk to human
health.
Once the COPCs were identified, the risk assessment continued with an evaluation of potential current and
future human exposures and chemical toxicity to potential receptors. Default exposure assumptions are
defined in current EPA risk assessment guidance (U.S. EPA 1989b). Site-specific exposure assumptions are
explained in the RI/FS (URS 1994a, 1994b). Toxicity information obtained from EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) database was applied to each COPC.
The human exposure assessment evaluates concentrations of COPCs at locations where human contact may
occur (the exposure point) and evaluates potential exposures via various exposure routes. The exposure
assessment evaluates both average case exposures and reasonable maximum exposures (RMEs). Average
case exposures are based on average concentrations (arithmetic means) and standard exposure parameters.
RME estimates are based on the highest of two values: either the maximum concentration or the
upper-bound exposure (95 percent UCL). Important factors considered in the human exposure assessment
include exposure pathways through environmental media, points of contact for human receptors (land use),
exposure routes, estimates of intake, and the range defined by the average estimates and the RME.
Human health risks for sites in OU 7 were evaluated for current recreational and occupational (industrial)
land uses, as well as future residential land uses. Risks associated with future residential scenarios are
typically greater than those for recreational and industrial scenarios. Future residential exposures assume
long durations of exposure, contain inherent degrees of uncertainty, and should be carefully interpreted;
nevertheless, they provide a conservative estimate of risk. The risk due to chemicals in groundwater was
evaluated based on the future residential scenario.
The toxicity assessment characterizes the toxicological properties and effects of each COPC, including all
aspects of its absorption, metabolism, elimination, and mode of action. Special emphasis is placed on the
establishment of dose-response characteristics, which are used to define the cancer and noncancer risk values
used in the risk assessment.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 72
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
The risk characterization integrates the results of the exposure and toxicity assessments, comparing the dose
estimates with the appropriate toxicological endpoints to determine the likelihood of adverse effects on
human receptors.
In the risk characterization for the sites in OU 7, any chemical with a risk greater than 1.0 x 10"6 or an HO
greater than 1.0 was considered a chemical of concern (COC). Table 14 shows the COCs resulting from the
human health risk assessment. The chemicals are grouped by site and by receptor (i.e., industrial,
residential, or recreational) for both noncancer (hazard quotient) and cancer risks. The noncancer and
cancer risk estimates are further grouped by average exposure estimate and RME. The human health risk
assessment in the RI/FS indicates that the risk is not significant at Sites 4, 7, 18, 26, and 30, and the
ecological areas, Cattail Lake, Hunter's Marsh, and Devil's Lake. Therefore these sites and ecological areas
are not listed in Table 14 and are not discussed further in this section.
During the RI, analyses of groundwater revealed large differences in concentrations of inorganics between
total and dissolved organics in most of the well samples. These differences reflect the amount of suspended
participate matter present in the groundwater samples. High turbidity was noted in many samples, reducing
the probability that such samples are representative of groundwater characteristics that would be associated
with a drinking water well. Because of the high turbidity of the groundwater samples, the human health risks
presented in the following subsections are based on the results of the dissolved inorganics analyses.
Upon initial inspection of the results, the inorganic arsenic found in clams at Floral Point Beach appeared to,
pose an unacceptable cancer risk via the ingestion of clams contaminated with arsenic. However, arsenic is
not considered a COC because 95 percent of the arsenic found in shellfish is in a nontoxic form. There is
evidence that arsenic in shellfish tissue exists in a complex methylated organic form (PSEP 1988). Complex
organic forms of arsenic are generally less readily absorbed and are less toxic than elemental arsenic (URS
1993b).
8.1.1 Site B, Floral Point
The risk assessment for Site B, Floral Point, indicates a marginal cancer risk for the ingestion of soil by an
industrial receptor because of the PAHs found at the site. Using a future residential drinking water scenario,
an unacceptable cancer risk was identified for groundwater. However, the nonpotable nature of the
groundwater makes exposure via this pathway unlikely.
8.12 Site 2, Classification Yard/Fleet Deployment Parking
Primarily due to the presence of Aroclor 1260 (a PCB), an unacceptable cancer risk was identified for the
ingestion of stockpiled soil by a future resident or an industrial worker. No unacceptable risks were
identified for site soil and groundwater.
8.13 Site 10, Pesticide Storage Quonset Huts
Due to the presence of TPH found in one sample of groundwater, an unacceptable noncancer risk was
identified for the ingestion of groundwater by a future resident. No other chemicals in groundwater were
identified as risk drivers.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
- Date: 04/03/96
Page 73
Table 14
Summary of Human Health Risk From Chemicals of Concern at OU 7
Parameter
Coftceatrafkms (ppm)* ,
A*g
RME
Hazard Quotient
Avs
«ME
Cancer Risk
Av*
RME
SITE B
RESIDENTIAL
SoU
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Arsenic
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a.h)anthracene
Summary Risk (SoU)
0.16
0.13
4.2
0.81
0.64
0.66
0.27
0.66
1.1
0.29
0.42
0.28
5-5
2.1
1.6
1.7
0.45
1.6
2.9
0.50
0.016
0.016 •
0.068
0.068
1.7 x 10'7
1.4 x 10'7
1.0 x 10*
8.3 x lO'7
6.6 x 10'7
6.8 x lO'7 '
2.7 x 10'7
1.1 x 10*
3.0 x lO'7
, 5.0 x 10*
5.2 x 10*
3.5 x 10*
1.6 x 10'3
2.4 x 10'3
1.9 x 10'3
2.0 x 10'3
5.3 x 10*
1.9 x ID"3
3.4 x 10'3
5.9 x 10*
1.6 x 10-4
Groundwater
Aroclor 1016
Arsenic
TPH
Summary Risk (Groundwater)
Summary Cancer Risk
0.00013
0.0060
0.00613
0.00016
0.0073
0.00746
0.30
N/A
030
0.65
4
4.65 •
1.9 x 10*
1,9 x lO"
3.8 x 10-3
4.3 x 10'3
1.4 x 10'3
1.4 x 10'3
2.7 x lO"3
1.9 x 10*
INDUSTRIAL
Soil
Arsenic
3enzo(a)anthracene
rJenzo(a)pvrene
3enzo(b)fluoranthene
3enzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Summary Risk
4.2
0.81
0.64
0.66
0.66
1.1
5-5
2.1
1.6
1.7
1.7.
2.9
0.0089
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.0089
1.6 x 10*
2.5 x 10*
2.0 x 10*
2.1 x 10*
2.0 x 10*
3.5 x 10*
1.4 x 10'3
SITE 2
RESIDENTIAL
Stockpiled SoU
Aroclor 1260 0.65 1.1
0.0094
0.058
65 x lO'7
1.4 x 10'-
INDUSTRIAL
Stockpiled Soil
Aroclor 1260
0.65
i.l
0.0094
0.058
65 x 10'7
1.4 x 10*
30580 \9603.070 \TBL14
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 74
Table 14 (Continued)
Summary of Human Health Risk From Chemicals of Concern at OU 7
Parameter
Cofteeatrafkms (ppm)*
Ayg
RME
Hazard Quotient
ATg
RME
Cancer Risk
Avg [ RME
SITE 10 '
RESIDENTIAL
Groundwater
TPH
Summary Risk
3,100
3,100
11
11
11
11
<1.0 x 10*
< 1.0 x 10*
<1.0x 10*
< 1.0x10*
SITE E AND SITE 11
RESIDENTIAL
Stockpiled Soil
DDT
17.0
32.0
0.037
0.24
8.1 x 10'7
1.8 x 10'-
Groundwater
Otto fuel
RDX
Arsenic
Summary Risk (Groundwater)
0.00040
0.00050
0.0023
0.00040
0.0014
0.00275
1.5
0.0025
0.12
1.62
2.7
0.013
0.25
2.9 .
< 1.0 x 10*
1.1 x 10'7
7.8 x 10*
7.9 x 10*
< 1.0.x 10*
1.9 x 10*
9.4 x 10*
1.13 x lO'3
INDUSTRIAL
Stockpiled Soil
DDT
17.0
32.0
N/A
0.031
N/A
1.8 x 10*
'Risk and concentration of inorganics in groundwater are based on dissolved fraction.
Notes:
N/A
ppm
RDX
RME
TPH
Not available
Parts per million
Royal Demolition Explosive
Reasonable maximum exposure
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
Source: URS 1994a
3058C \9b03.070 \TB LI 4
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 75
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
8.1.4 Site E, Acid Disposal Pit; Site 11, Pesticide/Herbicide Drum Disposal Area
Due to the presence of DDT, an unacceptable cancer risk was identified for the ingestion of stockpiled soil
by a resident or an industrial worker. Using a residential drinking water exposure scenario, a minor cancer
risk was identified for groundwater due to the presence of arsenic and the explosives RDX and Otto fuel.
Otto fuel in groundwater poses a noncancer risk.
8.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
The ecological risk assessment was separated into terrestrial, marine, and freshwater evaluations. Sites B, 7,
E, and 11 were evaluated for terrestrial ecological risk; Site 26 was evaluated for marine ecological risk; and
Site 2 and the three ecological areas (Cattail Lake, Devil's Hole, and Hunter's Marsh) were evaluated for
freshwater ecological risk.
Sites 4, 10, 18, and 30 were not included in the ecological risk assessment. The exclusion of these sites from
the ecological risk assessment was based on marginal detections (Site 4), paved sites (10 and 18), and a site
nonconducive to plant and animal habitat (Site 30).
The approach to the ecological risk assessment followed both federal (U.S. EPA 1986a, 1989a, 1989b, 1990,
1992a, 1992b) and Washington State (Ecology 1991) guidance. Exposure modeling was used to evaluate
potential risks. Exposure models use results of chemical analysis, chemical biotransfer factors, and exposure
factors to provide conservative dose estimates for ecological receptors. Estimated doses are compared with
conservative toxicity reference values to evaluate potential risks. There is considerable uncertainty associated
with exposure modeling because the biotransfer and exposure factors are not unique to the site.
The ecological risk assessment described in the RI used a variety of techniques to assess risk. In the
terrestrial environment (described in Section 6.2 of the RI report), three media were evaluated individually:
soil, surface water, and freshwater sediments. Soil was evaluated for adverse effects to plants and soil
invertebrates based on literature values. Surface water and freshwater sediments were evaluated by
comparison to environmental criteria, guidelines, or literature values. In addition to the evaluation of risk
from individual media, risk arising from exposure to a variety of media was evaluated by food chain
modeling.
In the ecological risk assessment for the marine environment described in Section 6 of the RI report, three
empirical techniques (sediment chemistry, bioassays, and benthic infauna) and one modeling approach were
used to assess risk. The chemical concentrations measured in marine sediments were compared to criteria,
guidelines, and literature values (including equilibrium partitioning of nonpolar organic compounds).
Sediment bioassays with two test organisms were performed on samples collected from 29 stations at Site 26.
Benthic infauna were evaluated at Cattail Lake Beach, Explosives Handling Wharf, Service Pier, Marginal
Wharf, and Keyport/Bangor Dock. Food chain exposures were modeled with six species exhibiting different
kinds of feeding behavior: the littleneck clam (Prototheca staminea), the bent-nose clam (Macoma nasuta), a
generic infaunal polychaete, the English sole (Paraphrys vetulus), the surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata), and
the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus). The species were selected because they adequately
30580W603.070VTEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-S9-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 76
represent the main trophic groups of all SUBASE marine habitats. The marbled murrelet was also selected
because it is a fish-eating bird of the area and is a federally listed threatened species.
In addition, the marine sediment chemicals were compared with the SQS of the State of Washington SMS.
The detected chemicals were carbon normalized, as required, and compared to the SQS. Those that
exceeded these standards were grouped into a cluster (a cluster being a dock or area), and the average of the
three highest chemicals exceeding the SOS was compared to the Cleanup Screening Levels (CSLs). Areas
with no exceedances of CSLs were classified as clusters of low concern. Bioassays were conducted at Site 26
areas; clusters with CSL exceedances were compared with bioassay results for that area.
Ecological COCs were identified as chemicals with an HQ greater than 1.0. Table 15 provides the receptor-
specific HO values for small mammals, which were modeled using the Townsend's vole. No chemicals were
determined to have an HQ greater than 1.0 for mallard ducks, which were used to model risks to
omnivorous birds. Table 16 lists the HQs for freshwater sediment and surface water based on food chain
modeling. The following subsections discuss the risk to ecological receptors.
Table 1.5
Small Mammal HQ Values for Soil
CfeemicaJ of Coiteerrt
4.4'-DDT
Arsenic
Barium
Copper
Lead
Vanadium
Total
Hazard Quotient
SfteJS
<0.01
0.28
0.21
0.16
U
1>3
3.6
Site 7 f Sft«$,E,aQd.21
CNE
CNE
CNE
CNE
IA
CNE
\A
6J ;;:::;:::;::|
CNE
CNE
CNE
CNE
CNE
63
Notes:
5
CNE
HO
Shaded, bold face indicates HO greater than or equal to 1.0.
Chemical not evaluated (not a chemical of potential concern for this medium at this site)
Hazard quotient
Source: URS 1994a
8.2.1 Terrestrial Ecological Risk
Site B, Floral PoitU
Lead and vanadium are ecological COCs at Site B. Potential adverse effects to soil organisms may occur at
highly localized point sources. The concentration of barium in the soil may affect certain plant species.
Ground-dwelling small mammals may experience some localized risk from multiple chemicals in the soil.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 77
Table 16
Ecological HQ Values for Freshwater Sediment and Surface Water
Chemical irfCoiKem
Aquatic HQ | Sediment HQ
Cattail Lake Ecological Area
AJdrin
Nickel
Total
CNE
CNE
<0.1
195
1.02
2^7
Devil's Hole Ecological Area
Di-n-octylphthalate
delta-BHC
Mercury
Selenium
Chromium
Total
1.-0
CNE
35.8
1.-0
CNE
.37J5 j
<0.01
M
CNE
CNE.
1,02
3J&
Hunter's Marsh Ecological Area
AJuminum
Iron
Total
17*8 ;
2,1 j
&,9 \
CNE
CNE
<1
Notes:
::3:
CNE
HO
Shaded, bold face indicates HQ greater than or equal to 1.0.
Chemical not evaluated (not a chemical of potential concern for this medium at this site)
Hazard quotient
Source: URS 1994a
Although the individual HQs of arsenic, barium, and copper are not above 1.0, these inorganics are retained
in Table 15 because they contribute to the overall risk of soil at Site B (the cumulative soil HO for Site B
equals 3.6).
Site 7, Old Paint Can Disposal Site
The only ecological COC at Site 7 is lead. With the possible exception of lead, the levels of chemicals in the
soil, sediments, and stream water at Site 7 do not indicate adverse risks to receptor organisms. The
protective nature of exposure modeling, the conservative endpoint used, and magnitude of the HQs suggest
low risk.
Site £, Acid Disposal Pit; Site 11, Pesticide/Herbicide Drum Disposal Area
Localized risk to ground-dwelling small mammals from DDT may occur within the pesticide disposal area.
Other detected chemicals are not anticipated to pose risks to the vole (Table 15). Possible food chain
transfer of DDT may occur from the vole population, and DDT was considered to be a COC; however, due
to the conservative exposure parameters, risk is likely to be minimal.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S.. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 78
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO0058
8.2.2 Marine Ecological Risk
Site 26, Hood Canal Sediments
In the Hood Canal sediments, a "weight-of-evidence" approach was used to reach an overall conclusion
regarding the level of risk posed to marine organisms by COPCs in each area. COPCs with an HQ greater
than 0.1 were termed "risk drivers."
Cattail Lake Beach/Magnetic Silencing Facility. Risk at Cattail Lake Beach and the Magnetic Silencing
Facility is negligible, based on low concentrations of chemicals and a low cumulative HO for intertidai clam
tissue (0.15), low concentrations of chemicals in sediments, and acceptable sediment bioassay results. No risk
drivers were identified.
Floral Point Beach. Ecological risk to selected receptors at Floral Point Beach is low. This conclusion is
based on infrequent detections of xenobiotic compounds in the sediments and tissues, and low HQ for
identified COPCs. No risk drivers were identified.
Explosives Handling Wharf. Risk at Explosives Handling Wharf is negligible. This conclusion is based on
low HQs calculated for both intertidai and subtidal sediment and interstitial water COPCs. There were no
indications of bioaccumulating chemicals in intertidai clam tissues, and the modeling shows low potential for
biomagnification to chronically toxic levels in the aquatic food chain. Laboratory biological tests of intertidai
sediments showed no apparent toxic effects, and the presence of a healthy and diverse subtidal benthic
infaunal population was noted. No risk drivers were identified.
Marginal Wharf. Sediments tested for toxicity were collected from stations showing the highest
concentrations of COPCs in both intertidai and subtidal zones. Even though these chemicals show no acute
or chronic affects to the benthic infaunal community, bioaccumulation is a possible concern. Risk to the
subtidal ecosystem at Marginal Wharf arises from body burden results for polychaetes, M. nasuta, and
English sole. The subtidal area of highest risk is located along the Marginal Wharf face. The area offshore
of the wharf may be at less risk, as evidenced by the number of chemicals exceeding environmental effects
data and the lack of toxic responses in biological indicators.
Risk drivers for Marginal Wharf (subtidal zone) are the following:
PAH Pesticides Other
Phenanthrene Endrin Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Delta Pier. Risk at Delta Pier is negligible, based on low concentrations of COPCs in sediments, and low
predicted body burdens in infauna species and English sole. No risk drivers were identified.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest . Page 79
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Devil's Hole Beach. Some risk to marine biota at Devil's Hole Beach was identified, although the effect is
localized to a single station. Risk drivers for Devil's Hole Beach subtidal zone are the pesticides endrin and
endrin aldehyde.
Keyport/Bangor Dock. The subtidal zone of Keyport/Bangor Dock poses a risk to marine biota. Sediments
tested for toxicity were collected from all stations in the subtidal zone. Based on the results of these tests,
COPCs show no acute effects to the benthic infaunal community; however, chronic adverse effects and
bioaccumulation of chemicals are potential concerns. There is risk to the subtidal ecosystem from
phenanthrene, fluoranthene, and benzo(a)anthracene based on sediment chemistry, predicted interstitial
water measurements, and body burden results for polychaetes, M. nasuta, and English sole. There is also
risk from mercury based on sediment chemistry and body burden modeling results (M. nasuta only). The
area of highest risk is located along the pier face (Stations MS40, MS41, MS42, and MS70). Stations
offshore of the pier may be at less risk, as evidenced by the number of chemicals exceeding environmental
effects data and the lack of toxic responses in biological indicators.
Risk drivers for Keyport/Bangor Dock (subtidal zone) are as follows:
Inorganics PAH
Mercury Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Service Pier/Carlson Spit Risk to marine biota in the immediate vicinity of Service Pier and Carlson Spit is
caused by high levels of PAHs and chlorinated pesticides at concentrations that exceed environmental effects
data using either whole sediment indices or the equilibrium partitioning approach. Furthermore, the
potential for bioaccumulation and biomagniflcation through the aquatic food chain to toxic levels is predicted.
Confirmatory toxicity tests demonstrated significant responses at stations inshore of the pier, and benthic
infaunal community analysis, the most sensitive of the biological indices, suggests a depression in total
numbers of an otherwise common species of arthropod.
Stations offshore of the pier may be at less risk; no environmental effects data were exceeded and no toxic
responses were observed in the bioassays.
The following chemicals are identified as risk drivers at Service Pier/Carlson Spit:
PAH Pesticides Other
Phenanthrene Endrin Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene Endrin aldehyde
Benzo(a)anthracene
Fluorene
Acenaphthene
Chrysene
Benzofluoranthenes
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 80
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Sediment Management Standards Comparison
In addition to the Site 26 ecological risk assessment (Hood Canal Sediments) described above, the risk from
the chemicals in the sediments was evaluated under the Sediment Management Standards (SMS). Bioassay
tests were conducted at five of the eight areas investigated within Site 26. However, data are available only
for two of the three required bioassay tests under the SMS. using the evaluation techniques in the SMS, only
one area—Marginal Wharf—was found to be a "cluster of potential concern." All other areas were "clusters
of low concern." The clustering analysis and the results of the bioassays are summarized below.
• Cattail Lake Beach/Magnetic Screening Facility. The average of the three highest concentrations
for SMS chemicals was below the corresponding cleanup screening level (CSL) of minor adverse
effects. Bioassay test results were below the sediment quality standards (SOS) of no adverse effects.
• Floral Point Beach. The average of the three highest concentrations for SMS chemicals was below
the corresponding CSL. Bioassay tests were not analyzed at Floral Point Beach.
« Explosives Handling Wharf. The average of the three highest concentrations for SMS chemicals
was below the corresponding CSL. Bioassay test results were below the SQS.
* Marginal Wharf. One chemical, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, was shown to have an average
concentration (average of three highest stations) that exceeded the CSL. Bioassay tests were
analyzed at seven stations at Marginal Wharf, but not at the same three stations with the highest
chemistry. Bioassay test results were below the SQS.
• Delta Pier. The average of the three highest concentrations for SMS chemicals was below the
corresponding CSL. Bioassay tests were not analyzed at Delta Pier.
• Devil's Hole Beach. The average of the three highest concentrations for SMS chemicals was below
the corresponding CSL. Bioassay tests were not analyzed at Devil's Hole Beach.
• Keyport/Bangor Dock. The average of the three highest concentrations for SMS chemicals was
below the corresponding CSL. Bioassay test results were below the SOS.
• Service Pier/Carlson Spit. The average of the three highest concentrations for SMS chemicals was
below the corresponding CSL. Two bioassay test results (one Rhepoxynius abronius, one Neanthes)
exceeded the CSL, and the benthic infaunal data for arthorpods exceeded the SOS.
8.23 Freshwater Ecological Risk
Site 2, Classification Yard/Fleet Deployment Parking (Trident Lakes)
Based on water quality comparisons, some aquatic organisms in Trident Lakes may experience adverse
effects from aluminum and iron, although these chemicals appear unrelated to Site 2 and reflect uncertainties
in the toxicity reference values (e.g., particulate aluminum in samples). The organic chemical concentrations
found in lake sediments were below toxicological reference values.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 81
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Cattail Lake Ecological Area
Based on the single round of surface water sampling, the maximum COPC concentrations in lake water are
below chronic toxicity reference values. Risk from COPCs in sediments is considered low based on the HQs.
Aldrin may provide some localized risk to benthic organisms. A fishery resource exists in Cattail Lake;
however, given the low frequency of aldrin in the sediments, the potential for food chain transfer of this
chemical appears to be low. From the data available, there is no indication that chemicals from Site 7 have
adversely affected Cattail Lake (Table 16). Although trace levels of ordnance compounds from a composite
fish tissue sample were found during an earlier investigation, ordnance compounds were not detected in lake
surface water or sediments during the RI/FS sampling.
Devil's Hole Ecological Area
With the possible exception of mercury at one sample location in Devil's Hole that exceeded the chronic
toxicity reference value, the surface water data do not suggest significant adverse impacts to aquatic
organisms. The concentrations of mercury in sediments were less than background, and mercury was not
detected in two other surface water samples. The potential for risk to receptor organisms from COPCs in
the sediments is low (Table 16).
Hunter's Marsh Ecological Area
Seasonal variation of COPCs in this marsh affects predictions of risk. Aluminum and iron exceeded water
quality criteria in one of three sampling rounds. Concentrations in the sediments are not elevated with
respect to background. It is suspected that the exceedances are related to suspended participate matter in
the samples. Risk from COPCs in sediments is considered low to negligible based on the HQs.
83 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
Sources of uncertainty identified in the risk assessments are summarized in Table 17. For each source of
uncertainty, the possible effect on the risk estimate (i.e., underestimation or over estimation), the degree of
such effect, and the steps taken to mitigate the uncertainty are noted. A more detailed summary of the
uncertainty associated with the risk analyses is provided in the RI report (URS 1994a).
Risk assessment is based upon a combination of scientific methods applied with varying levels of certainty.
The quality, accuracy, and reliability of the final risk assessment are directly proportional to the least certain
variable used in the analysis. It is important to emphasize that the baseline risk assessment is primarily a
decisionmaking tool for assessing the need for remedial action. The results of risk assessment are presented
in terms of the potential for adverse effects based upon a number of very conservative assumptions. This
conservatism is an effort to err on the side of the protection of public health and ecosystems.
The sources of uncertainty may be related to the sampling and subsequent analysis of data. If limited data
or data of questionable validity are used, samples with extreme concentrations (high or low) may bias the
exposure estimates. With small data sets, it is very difficult to identify anomalous results and to perform
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
FinaJ Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 82
Table 17
Summary of Uncertainties in the Risk Assessment
Satsrce«f Uncertainty
Direction*
Magnitude*
Action or Restift
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Sampling
Small sample sets
Limited background data
Filtered monitoring well samples
+ /-
+ /-
+
2
2
1
Statistical distribution used with caution
Used quality-assured data
Used filtered water to better represent
drinking water
Exposure Parameters
Exposure assumptions
No attenuation of chemical concentrations
Scenario assumptions
-f-
+
+
2
1
2
Used conservative values
Conservatively assumed that no
attenuation would occur
Used conservative assumptions
Toxicity Values
Lack of dermal toxidty values
Extrapolation from animal studies to
human toxjcity
Toxicological values based on specific
pathologies from
experimental/epidemiologicai studies
Lack of toxicological data for some
chemicals
-
+
+
-
2
3
2
2
Used oral toxicity values
Used conservative approach incorporating
safety factors and upper-bound estimates
Used conservative approach to estimating
risk
Used surrogate values where possible
Risk Characterizations
Assumption of additive interactions
Evaluating nsk for individual sites and
separate OUs within SUBASE, Bangor
+ /-
-
2
2
Assumed additive risks
Multiple exposures not included in
individual assessments
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
Availability of toxicity information
Greater availability of data for aquatic
and mammal receptors
Extrapolation of toxicity values for other
species
Literature toxicity values are based on
oral exposure to pure chemicals
Synergistic or antagonistic effects on
toxicity not evaluated
-
+
+
+
+
2
2
2
3
2
Used surrogate values
Greater emphasis on these species
Used conservative assumptions
Overestimate of exposure
Overestimate of exposure
'Direction of effect:
bMagnitude of effect:
Source: URS 1994a
potentially overestimate risk
potentially underestimate nsk
small effect on risk estimates
medium effect on risk estimates
large effect on risk estimates
30580 \ 9603.070 \ TB L17
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 83
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
sufficient statistical analysis. In addition, assumptions and analytical methodologies used during the risk
assessment may be sources of uncertainty.
83.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
Some of the major issues of uncertainty related to the assessment of human health risk are discussed below.
Sampling
The most prevalent source of uncertainty is related to the small sample sets used for some analyses of soil
and water, especially groundwater analyses. In addition, background values for each medium were based on
a limited amount of data.
It should be noted that results of groundwater analyses for Site 10, where risk was discovered, were based on
only a single sample; therefore, the risk given for this site and appropriate media are heavily skewed and
possibly overestimated or underestimated.
Statistical Distribution Uncertainty
The exposure concentrations were based on assumptions of a normal sample distribution and used the
existing untransformed .data sets. These assumptions could introduce uncertainty, although estimates based
on [-distributions should not be seriously affected by slight deviations from normality.
Small data sets influenced the use of some statistical evaluations. Care was taken during analysis to avoid
using the UCL of arithmetic mean concentrations if they exceeded maximum detected values. In those cases,
the maximum detected value was used to calculate risk. The final set was analyzed in detail and compared
nondetection values with detected concentrations.
Uncertainty in Exposure Parameters
Many of the exposure parameters used in the risk assessment were default values recommended by the EPA.
These default parameters, which are used nationwide, do not necessarily reflect actual behavior at OU 7 and
were used in the absence of site-specific information.
In addition, some assumptions regarding the land uses at OU 7 were highly speculative. It was assumed that
any site not physically secured could be used for recreation. Anecdotal information from Navy personnel
provided justification for the majority of these scenarios. Future residential scenarios were also highly
speculative due to the improbability of future land use changes at SUBASE, Bangor, although this approach
was considered most conservative. Overall, it is difficult to predict future land use for any military base due
to the inherent uncertainties of such an undertaking.
The Floral Point human health risk was calculated by including groundwater data that pertain to the future
residential scenario. The probability of the groundwater being used is extremely low due to its elevated
salinity (related to its proximity to Hood Canal).
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 84
Contract No. N62474-S9-D-9295
CTO 0058
In general, an assumption was made for all sites that a receptor population could possibly be exposed to
several contaminated areas within a general proximity. This sort of assumption is generally thought to be a
conservative approach; however, an underestimation of risk might occur if certain hotspots had been
overlooked during sampling.
Toxicity Value Uncertainty
Because dermal toxicity values are unavailable, oral toxicity values have been used for evaluating dermal
exposures. This approach is recommended by the EPA in the dermal assessment manual (U.S. EPA 1992a).
It does not seem appropriate to use fractional absorption factors in these analyses. The approach taken is
the most conservative arid may overestimate risks from this exposure pathway.
Although an attempt has been made to account for the uncertainties in calculation of reference doses and
slope factors, considerable uncertainty does exist relative to the use of these values for human health risk
assessment. The main reasons for this uncertainty are the following: (1) the applicability of extrapolating
from animal data to assess human health effects and (2) the accuracy of analyses of sensitive populations,
including differences in responses to toxic exposures between children and adults.
For some specific chemicals, toxicological values are based on specific pathologies identified by experimental
studies and epidemioiogical research. However, actual exposure from specific media, and possible
deleterious effects, may not coincide with the specific pathology on which the toxicological values were based.
This anomaly may overestimate levels calculated for noncancer and cancer risk. For example, beryllium,
manganese, nickel, and vanadium toxicological values are largely based on studies that use an inhalation
exposure route. The air pathway was not considered an appropriate exposure pathway for the scenarios in
this risk assessment; however, it was deemed conservative to proceed with analysis using these values for
evaluating exposure from ingestion. It should be noted that all reference doses and slope factors are based
on oral exposures only and not on inhalation (reference concentrations) factors.
Toxicity values for carcinogenic PAHs were based on that of benzo(a)pyrene. This approach has been
recommended by EPA guidance (U.S. EPA 1989b). The main chemicals affected by this protocol would be
benzo(a)anthracene and chrysene.
In addition, toxicological data are not available for some chemicals. Because none of these chemicals were
found at significant levels (>1 ppm), no risk analysis was performed. Chemicals without appropriate
toxicological data, but with ARARs such as drinking water standards, were evaluated separately (e.g., lead).
Risk Quantification of TPH Using Provisional Toxicological Values
Risk evaluation of TPH is difficult, given that no promulgated toxicity values are available; however,
provisional values are available for various specific TPH compounds (DoUarhide 1992). The original
assessment assumed detected TPH to be marine diesel fuel; therefore, the provisional reference dose (RiD)
for TPH-diesel (0.008 mg/kg/day) was used. Current EPA guidance suggests applying these values in the
absence of other information.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 85
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO0058
The studies on which the TPH numbers are based were in vivo animal studies, which used inhalation doses
of the various specific fuels. In addition, the detected TPH concentrations may represent weathered fuels,
from which many of the toxic volatile components (e.g., benzene) have evaporated. Extrapolation across
exposure pathways, and across species, indicates high uncertainty of these toxicological values and, thus, the
risks calculated using these values are highly uncertain. The following HQs, relative to ingestion of TPH via
groimdwater, were calculated based on the given exposure point concentrations: Site 10's exposure point
concentration of 3.1 ppm resulted in an HQ of 11, and Floral Point's exposure point concentration of
0.89 ppm resulted in an HQ of 5.3.
Operable Unit Uncertainty
OU 7 is one of many operable units at SUBASE, Bangor that have been analyzed for human (and
ecological) risk. It is difficult to perform a complete and accurate risk assessment of separate units within a
larger source of exposure. It is possible that risk found at an adjacent operable unit may be contributing to
total risk within OU 7. Multiple exposures between operable units would result in a cumulative risk greater
than the risk evaluated for this assessment of OU 7. In addition, COCs found at OU 7 sites might have then-
source within other operable units upwind or upgradient from OU 7. Potential upstream contamination
sources have been evaluated for Devil's Hole (which is downstream of OU 6) and Hunter's Marsh
(downstream of OU 4).
Summary Risk Uncertainty
Risks were summarized for each medium and chemical at each OU 7 site and ecological area. The
assumptions that allow this protocol are extremely conservative. Uncertainties lie in assuming that the routes
of absorption and target organs are congruent for each specific COC. This, in reality, is not necessarily
accurate. In addition, potential synergistic interactions between chemicals could result in a cumulative risk
much greater than that calculated for individual chemicals. This would most likely be true for hepatotoxms,
with exposures to multiple chemicals resulting in a large cumulative risk for hepatic pathologies.
832 Ecological Risk Assessment
Some of the major uncertainty issues are summarized below for the ecological assessment.
Selection of COPCs
The initial selection of COPCs for the terrestrial habitat was considered conservative. Only those inorganic
COPCs with RME concentrations below background levels were deleted as COPCs; all remaining detected
chemicals were retained as COPCs and evaluated further.
Chemical-Specific Toxicity
Chemical-specific toxicity information varies widely depending on the kinds of organisms and exposure media
that may be of concern. For many of the COPCs, toxicity information that could be used to assess potential
ecological risks was not available. The lowest toxicity values within the structural compound class were used
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 86
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
as surrogate values. For some compound classes, the use of such surrogate values may be highly
conservative and result in an overestimation of risk. For some chemicals, sufficient information was not
available to determine surrogate toxicity values. Although these substances were carried through the
exposure analysis, the missing toxicity information precluded interpretation of that exposure and resulted in
an underestimation of potential risk.
Receptor-Specific Toxicity
In general, chemical-specific or surrogate toxicity values are more widely available for aquatic receptors and
mammals than for birds. These limitations result in greater emphasis on assessment of risks to aquatic and
mammalian receptors and an underestimation of risks to avian receptors.
For mammals and birds, toxicity values were often available for only one kind of a receptor within a
phylogenetic class. This toxicity value has been extrapolated directly to other wildlife species. Because the
lowest literature toxicity reference value was generally selected, this may result in an overestimation of risk.
Significant Endpoints
Preferably, toxicity values representing ecologically significant endpoints at the chronic no observed effects
levels or lowest observed effects levels were selected. However, in some cases is was necessary to apply
safety factors to extrapolate from another endpoint (e.g., median lethal dose to a no observed effects level).
The extrapolation of toxicity values from one endpoint to another was based on published equations that may
not be directly applicable to the specific organisms or chemicals in this evaluation.
Exposure Levels
Toxicity values obtained from the literature to develop toxicity reference values are based on oral doses of
pure chemicals. Exposure to chemicals in natural environments is modified because chemicals are often
associated with other media, such as soil, or are incorporated into different organisms, such as plants and
small mammals. It is generally assumed that chemicals in soil, plants, and prey will not be absorbed as
readily through the digestive tract as will pure chemicals. The exposure models used in this screening level
assessment assume that the chemical is in the most readily available form and there is 100 percent
absorption into the body; therefore, the model probably overestimates actual exposure.
Certain chemicals can lexicologically interact, having either synergistic or antagonistic effects on the toxicity
of the individual chemical. However, neither the magnitude nor the direction of COPC interactions is
understood, so potential toxicological interactions were not evaluated in the assessment.
The exposure modeling approach used in the risk assessment contains many assumptions that could affect
the estimated levels of exposure used to evaluate potential risks. For example, the amount of chemical
accumulating in plants was estimated at 5 percent of the RME soil concentration. In addition, modeled
receptors were conservatively assumed to obtain 100 percent of their diets from the study areas.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 87
Risk from chemical exposure to terrestrial receptors was based on RME estimates. RME point
concentrations were calculated using the 95 percent UCL on the arithmetic mean. These estimates of
exposure do not account for spatial variability in chemical concentrations in soil. For example, the exposure
point concentration may be high but may result in a single elevated hit from a sample population. For
animals with localized home ranges, such as the vole, a discontinuous distribution of chemicals in soil would
mean that only certain members of the population would be potentially exposed. Consequently, population-
level effects may be considerably overestimated when using average chemical concentrations.
9.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO-ACTION SITES
The baseline risk assessment concluded that conditions at the sites and ecological areas discussed in
Sections 9.1 and 9.2 pose no unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. No remedial action is
necessary at these sites to ensure protection of human health and the environment. The results of risk
assessment for the no-action sites are summarized in Table 18.
Table 18
Risk Summary at No-Action Sites
Site or
Ecologies!
Area
4
7
18
30
Cattail
Lake
Hunter's
Marsh
Devil's
Hole
Median*
Soil
Soil
Sediment
Surface water
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
Surface water
Sediment
Surface water
Sediment
Surface water
Sediment
Chemical
of Concern
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Hamas Heafch Risk
Carcinogenic
< KT6 (acceptable)
< 1CT6 (acceptable)
< 10"6 (acceptable)
<10'6 (acceptable)
< 10"6 (acceptable)
<10^ (acceptable)
<10^ (acceptable)
<10"6 (acceptable)
< 10"6 (acceptable)
< 10"6 (acceptable)
< 1CT6 (acceptable)
< 10"6 (acceptable)
<10~6 (acceptable)
Nt)»€ara]9K>genic HQ
< 1 (acceptable)
< 1 (acceptable)
< 1 (acceptable)
< 1 (acceptable)
< 1 (acceptable)
< 1 (acceptable)
< 1 (acceptable)
< 1 (acceptable)
< 1 (acceptable)
< 1 (acceptable)
< 1 (acceptable)
< 1 (acceptable)
< 1 (acceptable)
Note: •
HO Hazard quotient
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 88
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
9.1 OU 7 SITES
9.1.1 Site 4, Carlson Spit
No ordnance compounds were detected at Carlson Spit, the detected inorganic analytes present no significant
risk, and no remedial action is necessary. Risks from both cancer-causing and noncancer-causing chemicals
were found to be acceptable for any type of exposure (see Table 13). No ARARs were exceeded.
9.12 Site 7, Old Paint Can Disposal Site
Site 7 showed no significant risk and no remedial action is necessary. Several inorganics were detected in
site soil, sediment, and groundwater with concentrations exceeding ARARs, but the highest concentration
was less than 2 times the background value. Risks from both cancer-causing and noncancer-causing
chemicals were found to be acceptable for any type of exposure (see Table 13).
9.13 Site 18, PCB Spill Site
Site 18 showed no significant risk from exposure to the detected organic and inorganic chemicals, and no
remedial action is necessary. Risks from both cancer-causing and noncancer-causing chemicals were found
to be acceptable for any type of exposure (see Table 13). No chemicals exceeded ARARs.
9.1.4 Site 30, Railroad Tracks
Site 30 demonstrated no significant risk and no remedial action is necessary. Risks from both cancer-causing
and noncancer-causing chemicals were found to be acceptable for any type of exposure (see Table 13). No
chemicals exceeded ARARs.
92 ECOLOGICAL AREAS
92.1 Cattail Lake
Cattail Lake showed no significant risk and no remedial action is necessary. Risks from both cancer-causing
and noncancer-causing chemicals were found to be acceptable for any type of exposure (see Table 13). No
chemicals exceeded ARARs.
922 Hunter's Marsh
Hunter's Marsh showed no significant risk and no remedial action is necessary. Risks from both cancer-
causing and noncancer-causing chemicals were found to be acceptable for any type of exposure (see
Table 13). No chemicals exceeded ARARs.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 89
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
923 Devil's Hole
Devil's Hole showed no significant risk and no remedial action is necessary. Arsenic, mercury, and selenium
were detected at concentrations above ARARs in site surface water (Table 12). The inorganic ARAR
exceedances are believed to be due to the brackish nature of Devil's Hole surface water. Risks from both
cancer-causing and noncancer-causing chemicals were found to be acceptable for any type of exposure (see
Table 13).
10.0 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from Sites B, 2, 10, 26, E, 11, if not addressed by
implementing the response actions selected in this ROD, may present a hazard to public health, welfare, or
the environment. Sampling results and the risk assessment indicate some human health risk to hypothetical
future residents from stockpiled, surface, and subsurface soils, and groundwater. Consistent with EPA's
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP) and under the guidance of CERCLA as
well as State of Washington MTCA regulations, remedial action is warranted to address these potential risks
to human health and the environment and to address those areas where chemicals exceed federal or state
standards.
The human health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment (Sections 6.1 through 6.3 of the RI report
[URS 1994a]) identified COCs that contribute an excess lifetime cancer risk greater than 10"4 (1 in 10,000) or
a noncancer cumulative HQ greater than 1.0. Table 19 presents those chemicals identified as COCs in the
risk assessments. MTCA provides cleanup standards for most of the chemicals and pathways of concern at
OU 7.
The remedial action goals shown in Table 19 are based on attaining acceptable risk levels and achieving
ARARs. The COCs shown include mixtures of chemicals of a given type of compound (such as carcinogenic
PAHs) that have exceeded standards in a particular medium at the site. The cumulative excess cancer risk
associated with each site will be reduced to, at most, 1 x 10"5, consistent with MTCA.
The following sections present the remedial action objectives for soil and groundwater at OU 7.
10.1 SITE B, FLORAL POINT
The human health risk assessment for Site B showed that soil poses an unacceptable risk due to cancer-
causing chemicals (refer to Table 13). Although the cancer and noncancer risk for chemicals in groundwater
was determined to be unacceptable, the groundwater at this site naturally contains salt water from Hood
Canal, precluding its use as a future source of drinking water. However, chemicals detected in groundwater
may have impacts on the marine environment.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Final Record of Decision
Date: 04/03/96
Page 90
Table 19
Remedial Action Goals for Chemicals of Concern
Site
B
2
10
E and 11
Medium
Shallow and subsurface soil
Stockpiled soil
Groundwater
Stockpiled soil
Groundwater
Chemka!
Arsenic
Total PAHs (carcinogenic)1
Total PCBsb
PCBs
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
DDT
Otto fuelc
Remedial Action Goal
Conc^nl ration
(fpm)
20
1
1
1
1
2.94
0.0002
Source
MTCA Method A
MTCA Method A
MTCA Method A
MTCA Method A
MTCA Method A
MTCA Method B
Method detection limit
"Total carcinogenic PAHs include benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fiuoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene.
bPCB mixtures include Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260.
The indicator chemical for Otto fuel is propylene glycol dinitrate.
Notes:
PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PCBs Polychlonnated biphenyls
The following remedial action objectives are identified for Site B:
• Prevent direct contact and ingestion of shallow and subsurface soil containing PAH and
PCB concentrations above the state cleanup level of 1 ppm for soil to 15 feet bgs and
arsenic concentrations above 20 ppm.
• Confirm through monitoring of the Hood Canal sediments and clam tissue that groundwater
discharge from Floral Point into Hood Canal is not negatively affecting the sediments or
clam tissues.
102 SITE 2, CLASSIFICATION YARD/FLEET DEPLOYMENT PARKING
The human health risk assessment of Site 2 showed that a marginal cancer risk is posed by the stockpiled
soils due to the presence of PCBs. The chemical concentrations in surface water, sediment, site soils, and
groundwater do not pose a health risk.
The following remedial action objective is identified for Site 2:
• Prevent direct contact with and ingestion of stockpiled soil and underlying soil (down to 15
feet bgs) that contain PCB concentrations above the state cleanup level of 1 ppm.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 91
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
103 SITE 10, PESTICIDE STORAGE QUONSET HUTS
The human health risk assessment showed that the soil at Site 10 presents no risk. Although dieldrin was
detected in the shallow subsurface soil at concentrations above ARARs, the soil is covered by asphalt, and
there is no risk posed to human or ecological receptors. The cancer risk from the groundwater at the site is
within the acceptable range. However, the noncancer risk to potential future residents from groundwater is
unacceptable due to the presence of gasoline.
The following remedial action objective is identified for Site 10:
• Prevent ingestion of groundwater containing TPH concentrations above the state cleanup
level of 1 ppm throughout the aquifer.
10.4 SITE 26, HOOD CANAL SEDIMENTS
The risk to human health at Site 26 has been determined to be within the acceptable range for ingestion of
shellfish and sediments in all areas. Minor risk to the environment was found in marine sediments at
Marginal Wharf, Keyport/Bangor Dock, and Service Pier. Comparison to the SMS showed the marine
sediments at Marginal Wharf were a "cluster of potential concern." All other areas were "clusters of low
concern" (see Section 8.2.2). Consistent with the requirements of the SMS, continued monitoring of the
sediments is appropriate.
The following remedial action objective is identified for Site 26:
• Confirm that chemical concentrations in the sediment's biologically active zone are not
increasing.
10.5 SITE E, ACID DISPOSAL PIT, SITE 11, PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE DRUM DISPOSAL AREA
The human health risk assessment for Site E and Site 11 indicates marginal cancer risk from DDT in the soil
stockpiled in the containment cell. Site soil that remains in place presents no risk. The groundwater
presents marginal risk for both cancer-causing and noncancer-causing chemicals (inorganics and ordnance
compounds). Arsenic was the only inorganic that showed a risk and it may be due to background variations.
The following remedial action objectives are identified for Site E and Site 11:
• Prevent direct contact with and ingestion of stockpiled soil and underlying soil down to
15 bgs that contains DDT in concentrations above the state cleanup level of 2.94 ppm.
• Prevent ingestion of groundwater containing Otto fuel concentrations above 0.0002 ppm.
Propylene glycol dinitrate is one of several chemical compounds in Otto fuel and is used as
the indicator chemical. There is no cleanup value for Otto fuel. The calculated preliminary
remediation cleanup goal is 0.000038 ppm (calculated from U.S. EPA 1989b, Vol. 1, Part B:
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 92
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO0058
Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals}. However, the method detection
limit for Otto fuel is 0.0002 ppm and in accordance with state regulations is used as the
cleanup goal.
11.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
11.1 SITE B, FLORAL POINT
11.1.1 Soil
The top 2 feet of soil at Floral Point is contaminated primarily with PAHs, PCBs, and arsenic. Lead
presents some ecological risk. The most conservative value for cancer risk to human health, based on a
residential scenario, suggests a cancer risk of 1.6 x 10"4.
Alternatives considered for the remediation of Floral Point are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Alternative I—No Action
This alternative would mandate that no remediation measures take place at the site, although groundwater
monitoring would be performed. Retention of the no-action alternative is required by the NCP and is the
baseline used to evaluate other alternatives.
Alternative 2—Monitoring/Institutional Controls
This alternative would include groundwater monitoring and implementation of institutional controls in the
master plan by the Navy, such as fencing, site use limitations, and restricted site access. Institutional controls
do not affect contamination fate and transport but instead reduce the exposure of humans to chemicals by
restricting access. The proposed fence is a 6-foot-high chainlink fence with double-strand barbed wire
topping. Approximately 2,500 linear feet of fencing would be needed.
Alternative 3—Vegetative Soil Cover
This alternative would include the construction of a soil cover of approximately 375,000 square feet and the
Navy's maintenance of the cover. The proposed cover would be designed in conjunction with a development
plan to provide a natural recreational area at the site. The test pit area would be covered with a vegetative
and graded soil cover.
Alternative 4A—Excavation, Off-Site Transport, and Disposal Without Stabilization
This alternative would involve excavation of the top 2 feet of soil equaling 750,000 cubic feet or 28,000 cubic
yards of soil, followed by transport and disposal. Disposal of excavated soils is regulated by Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) land disposal restrictions. This alternative would be used instead of
Alternative 4B if chemical analysis of the transported soil shows that stabilization is not required.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 93
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Alternative 4B—Excavation, Off-Site Transport, and Disposal With Stabilization
This alternative would be the same as Alternative 4A but would include stabilization of the soil prior to
disposal. This alternative would be used in lieu of Alternative 4A if stabilization is required.
11.12 Groundwater
Concentrations of arsenic and some organics, including low-level pesticides and PCBs, in groundwater
exceeded levels allowed by the strictest environmental regulations. The cancer risk from groundwater was
found to be unacceptable; the noncancer risk was acceptable. The risk scenario included hypothetical future
residents drinking water from the site over a 30-year period. The groundwater at this site contains salt water
from Hood Canal, making it undrinkable. Monitoring of potential effects from discharges of the
groundwater from this site into Hood Canal will be accomplished under remedial activities for Site 26, Hood
Canal Sediments. A minimum of two rounds of sediment and clam tissue samples from Floral Point Beach
will be collected to verify that chemicals in the groundwater have not affected the marine environment (see
Section 11.4).
11.2 SITE 2, CLASSIFICATION YARD/FLEET DEPLOYMENT PARKING
The soil in Containment Cell No. 2 contains levels of PCBs above cleanup levels and lead and steel in the
form of small-caliber ordnance and scrap metal mixed in the soil. There is no human health risk from the
groundwater. Three alternatives were considered for remediation of the stockpiled soil.
Alternative 1—No Action
No further action would be taken at this site, and no groundwater monitoring would be conducted.
Retention of the no-action alternative is required by the NCP and is the baseline used to evaluate other
alternatives.
Alternative 2—No Action With Monitoring
This alternative would involve long-term groundwater monitoring to determine whether the contaminants in
the stockpiled and deep soil of the site constitute a problem for groundwater quality. A public health
evaluation of the stockpiled soil would be conducted every 5 years. The Navy would include provisions in the
base master plan to restrict site access and maintain site fencing.
Alternative 3—Size Screening and Removal of Metallic Debris
This alternative would involve size screening of the remaining 5,000 cubic yards of soil and debris currently
stored in Containment Cell Nos. 1 and 2. Although the lead bullets showed toxicity characteristics leaching
procedure (TCLP) concentrations in excess of hazardous waste thresholds, it is proposed that the screened
metallic debris be transported to a local metal reclamation facility to beneficially reuse these waste materials
or that it be sent to an off-site landfill for disposal. If testing of the soil after it has been screened indicates
no lead or PCB concentrations above cleanup levels, the soil would be used for backfill at the site. If testing
305 80\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 94
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
indicates that the screened residuals contain chemicals above ARARs, then the material would be disposed
of at an off-site facility.
113 SITE 10, PESTICIDE STORAGE QUONSET HUTS
Although pesticides were found in the soil, they present no human health risk because direct contact is
prevented by the existing asphalt paving. No action was the only alternative considered for soil, with the
provision that the existing asphalt be maintained.
The groundwater at this site is contaminated with TPH. The most conservative cancer risk to human health,
associated with the residential scenario, is an HQ of approximately 11. The cancer risk is less than 1 in
1,000,000. Groundwater is not currently used for drinking. Alternatives considered for groundwater include
no action and extraction combined with reinjection.
Alternative I—No Action With Monitoring
This alternative would mandate no remedial measures, but it would include confirmational sampling using
the existing monitoring well (10-MW-l) to confirm the presence of TPH. If the presence of TPH in
10-MW-l is confirmed, the site would be investigated further, and a use restriction placed by the Navy on
the groundwater in the base master plan. Maintenance of the existing pavement to prevent direct contact
with site soil would be part of this alternative.
Alternative 2—Extraction and Reinjection
This alternative would include removal of contaminated groundwater using an array of extraction wells, as
well as maintenance of the existing pavement to prevent direct contact with site soil. Wells in the extraction
system would be located to mitigate further migration of the groundwater contamination. Groundwater
would be extracted through one well and treated for TPH using granular activated carbon. The treated
water would then be reinjected into the aquifer (Figure 32). With an assumed design flow of 13 gallons per
minute (gpm), it is estimated that less than 2 years would be needed to remediate the TPH. This estimate
does not take into account such factors as natural biodegradation or additional source contaminants entering
the groundwater.
11.4 SITE 26, HOOD CANAL SEDIMENTS
The only alternative considered for detailed analysis is no action. No action includes monitoring sediments
and clam tissue to determine whether concentrations of chemicals are increasing, decreasing, or not changing
and ensure continued protection of the environment.
Under this alternative, Site 26 sediments would be left in place and a monitoring program would be
instituted that would include periodic sampling of sediments with a minimum of two rounds (maybe three) in
5 years. Sampling would take place at Marginal Wharf, Keyport/Bangor Dock, and Service Pier. In
addition, sediment and clam tissue samples would be collected from the vicinity of Floral Point Beach to
confirm that chemicals in the groundwater from Floral Point (Site B) are not affecting the marine
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
Former Quonset
Hut Location
LEGEND
T^
| 7D41
r~
Monitoring Wen
Extraction Welt
Infection Well
Building and Number
Former Quonset Huts
Paved Area
NORTH
100
SCALE IN :
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 32
Site 10 - Proposed Locations of Extraction and Injection Wells
- - -• i
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington
ROD
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 96
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
environment. The monitoring program would identify trends in contaminant levels. If contamination is
increasing in concentration and/or area! extent, the need for additional source control activities, additional
sediment sampling, and implementation of engineered sediment controls would be assessed.
11.5 SITE E, ACID DISPOSAL PIT; SITE 11, PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE DRUM DISPOSAL AREA
11.5.1 Stockpiled Soil
The stockpiled soil at Sites E and 11 contained DDT. The risk for the residential scenario is 1.8 x 10"5.
Alternatives considered for the remediation of the stockpiled soil are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Alternative I—No Action
This alternative would mandate no remediation measures. Retention of the no-action alternative is required
by the NCP and is the baseline used to evaluate other alternatives.
Alternative 2—Off-Site Transport and Disposal
This alternative would involve loading approximately 400 cubic yards of containment cell soil onto hazardous
waste transport trucks and transporting the soil for off-site disposal at a RCRA subtitle C or D facility
depending on the sampling results of the stockpiled soil.
Alternative 3—On-Site Incineration
This alternative would involve bringing a small transportable incineration unit to SUBASE, Bangor and
incinerating the containment cell soil on site. Mobilization, site preparation, setup, and testing of the
incineration unit would take approximately 2 months, and incineration of the soil would take approximately
2 weeks, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. An estimated 400 cubic yards, weighing 520 tons, would
be incinerated to reduce DDT concentrations below MTCA cleanup levels. Because the stockpiled soil has
been determined not to be a RCRA-listed waste, it is anticipated that the treated soil may be disposed of on
site as backfill. However, the treated soil would first be characterized to ensure that it is not a RCRA
hazardous waste or a state dangerous waste.
Alternative 4—Off-Site Incineration
This alternative would involve loading the contaminated soil onto hazardous waste transport trucks and
transporting it to a RCRA-approved incineration facility. The ash from the incinerator would be disposed of
at a landfill near the incinerator facility.
11.5.2 Groundwater
The source of groundwater contamination at this site is due at least in part to upgradient sources for
organics and to natural conditions for inorganics. The upgradient source for the ordnance compounds is
Site F, a former ordnance wastewater lagoon in OU 2. The inorganics at Sites E and 11 within 2 to 3 times
the background value and are found mostly in the lower aquifer, suggesting that they are the result of natural
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 97
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
background. The remedial action being undertaken at Site F is pumping and treating the groundwater and
continued monitoring. Sites E and 11 are within the zone of capture of the Site F groundwater extraction
system and will be treated by the Site F remedial action. The Site F treatment unit, granular activated
carbon, is effective in removing organic chemicals present at Sites E and 11.
Alternatives 2 through 4 were developed prior to final selection of the OU 2 action at Site F and are
presented here to be consistent with the feasibility study (URS 1994b).
Alternative I—No Action With Monitoring
The alternative would mandate no remediation measures, but would include groundwater monitoring and a
review of the OU 2 pump-and-treat remediation to confirm that groundwater at Sites E and 11 is being
cleaned up. This alternative assumes that the pump-and-treat option selected at Site F in OU 2 will also
treat the groundwater at Sites E and 11. The groundwater monitoring will be conducted with the Site F
ongoing monitoring program. If it is determined that hazardous substances remain on the site, a review will
be conducted within 5 years. The Navy would place a groundwater use restriction in the master plan to
prevent groundwater use while chemical levels in groundwater exceeded cleanup levels.
Alternative 2—Limited Action /Institutional Controls
This alternative would include fencing the site, monitoring (including annual reports) existing monitoring
wells at the site for 30 years, and placing a groundwater use restriction in the master plan for the base to
prevent future use of groundwater at the site.
Alternative 3—Extraction, Treatment, and Reinfection
This alternative would include monitoring and reporting similar to Alternative 1 and placing a groundwater
use restriction in the SUBASE Bangor master plan similar to the one in Alternative 2. This alternative also
would include removal of contaminated groundwater using an array of extraction wells. The extent of the
groundwater contamination at the site is not well defined, but the volume of the contaminated plume is
estimated at 350 feet by 450 feet by 80 feet. Wells in the extraction system would be located to mitigate
further migration of the groundwater contamination. One well capable of extracting 5 gpm is suggested and
two wells (one upstream and one downstream) would be used as injection wells (see Figure 33).
Treatment for Otto fuel would use granular activated carbon. The groundwater treatment standards would
be based on Safe Drinking Water Act standards.
Alternative 4—Extraction, Treatment, and Disposal
This alternative would be similar to Alternative 3, except that the treated water would be discharged to a
basin to replenish groundwater. The basin would be large enough to adequately contain the water that is
discharged and allow it to infiltrate the groundwater system. Groundwater would be pumped using the
extraction well shown in Figure 33. A groundwater use restriction would be placed in the base's master plan.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
Monitoring Well Extraction Well
(U- upper, L. lower,
DlrtRoad
Fence
Groundwater
Contour
Oct/Nov1992
(feet beiow MSD
Note:EMW-17 = EMW-23U
_, . „
Elevation Contour
(feet above MSL)
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 33
Site E and Site 11
Proposed Locations of Extraction and Injection Wells
CTO 0058
SUBASE, Bangor
Washington.
ROD
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 99
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
12.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATES
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the specific statutory requirements listed below be addressed
in the ROD and be supported by the feasibility study. Under CERCLA, remedial actions must meet the
following requirements:
• Protect human health and the environment
• Attain ARARs unless justifications are provided for invoking a waiver
• Be cost-effective
* Use permanent solutions and alternative technologies or resource recovery technologies to
the maximum extent practicable
• Satisfy the preference for treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
In addition, CERCLA emphasizes long-term effectiveness and encourages the evaluation of innovative
technologies.
To address these requirements, EPA has developed nine evaluation criteria that serve as the basis for
conducting the detailed feasibility study evaluation and, subsequently, for selecting an appropriate remedial
action. EPA groups the nine criteria into the following three categories, based on each criterion's role
during remedy selection.
• Threshold criteria
- Overall protection of human health and the environment
- Compliance with ARARs
• Primary balancing criteria
- Long-term effectiveness and permanence
- Reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume
- Short-term effectiveness
- Implementability
- Cost
• Modifying criteria
- State acceptance
- Community acceptance
A description of each criterion is presented below.
• Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether adequate
protection of health and the environment is provided during and after remedial activities.
30580\9603.-070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 100
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Compliance with ARARs addresses whether the alternative meets all applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements of federal and state laws and regulations.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of the remedy to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over time once cleanup levels have
been met.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment is the anticipated performance
of the treatment technologies.
Short-term effectiveness refers to the speed with which the remedy achieves protection, as
well as the potential of the remedy to cause adverse impacts on human health and the
environment during construction and implementation.
Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed.
Cost includes capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, and present-worth cost
estimates including inflation.
State acceptance refers to whether the alternative addresses the technical and administrative
concerns of the state.
Community acceptance pertains to whether the alternative adequately addresses concerns of
the local community.
12.1 SITE B, FLORAL POINT
Contamination at the site consists of PCBs, PAHs, and arsenic, although the inorganic probably reflects
naturally occurring concentrations. Currently, chemicals may be released from this site to surface water and
there is a possibility of direct contact or dust inhalation. Remedial action alternatives for soils at Site B
include the following:
Alternative 1 No action
Alternative 2 Monitoring/institutional controls (monitoring, installation of a fence,
and/or site access restrictions)
Alternative 3 Vegetative soil cover
Alternative 4A Excavation, off-site transport, and disposal without stabilization
Alternative 4B Excavation, off-site transport, and disposal with stabilization
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 101
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
12.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 would do nothing physically over time to protect human health and the environment. Human
health risk at the site is on the order of 1.6 x 10^ for the residential scenario. Consequently, Alternative 1
does not meet this threshold criterion.
Alternative 2 would prevent the recreational visitor from being exposed to and accidentally ingesting soil
affected by COCs. Direct contact risks would still be present for the industrial worker, but would be
significantly diminished.
Alternative 3 would protect human health. The vegetative soil cap would prevent direct contact with soil,
prevent contamination of surface water runoff, prevent airborne transport of soil particles, and may reduce
surface water percolation through the contaminated soil. Long-term maintenance of the cap would be
necessary for the alternative to remain protective.
Alternatives 4A and 4B, excavation and off-site disposal, are designed to be protective of human health and
the environment. Soils of concern would be removed from the site, preventing further risk from direct
contact and potential contamination of surface water. Toxicity would not be reduced; the greatest risk would
occur during implementation of this remedy. Truck transport of large volumes of soil to a landfill would
create the remote possibility for accidental releases to the environment along the transportation route.
12.12 Compliance With ARARs
Alternative 1 would not comply with ARARs. Washington State standards for direct contact are currently
exceeded for PAHs and PCBs under the MTCA Method B calculations.
Alternative 2 would not meet chemical-specific ARARs because it does not include any action to treat or
contain soil contamination.
Alternative 3 would comply with ARARs through containment of contaminated soil.
Alternatives 4A and 4B could be designed to address all ARARs. Important ARARs associated with these
alternatives are RCRA hazardous waste and state dangerous waste regulations. The excavated soil would be
evaluated to determine whether it is hazardous or dangerous waste. If the soil is designated as either,
specific handling, transportation, treatment, and disposal requirements would apply. Alternative 4B would be
selected if stabilization is needed.
12.13 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 1 would do nothing to reduce existing residual risk to human health, safety, public welfare, and
the environment. However, the magnitude of that risk is low and may be acceptable.
Alternative 2 could reduce the residual risk to human health and the environment in the long term if the
institutional controls are effectively maintained. As long as these controls remained effective, the risk of
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 102
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO0058
direct contact with chemicals left in place would be greatly diminished. Release of some chemicals from the
soil would continue as at present; however, the magnitude of the residual risk is low.
Alternative 3 would leave the contaminated soil in place. Proper construction and maintenance to ensure the
integrity of the soil cover would reduce the residual risk to human health and the environment in the long
term. Regular maintenance of the soil cover and repair of erosion would minimize the future risks.
Alternatives 4A and 4B would provide permanent long-term effectiveness through the removal of the soil of
concern. The long-term effectiveness and permanence of the off-site RCRA-approved landfill would depend
on the integrity of the landfill. The shipment and landfilling of contaminated soil would create a potential
future liability for the Navy.
12.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
None of the alternatives include treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of existing
contaminated material. Alternative 4B would include stabilization of the COCs, which would reduce the
mobility of these specific chemicals at the disposal facility.
12.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative 1 would not involve remedial action; therefore this criterion is not applicable.
Alternative 2 would include actions that would be effective in the short term.
The Alternative 3 soil cover would take about 6 months to complete. Potential health risks to the
community and workers during implementation are considered low. The construction site would be fenced,
and the public would experience additional truck traffic and heavy equipment noise. Dust control measures
would be implemented during construction.
Alternatives 4A and 4B would involve considerations similar to those of Alternative 3 with respect to
protection of the community and workers. Protective measures would include the use of appropriate
personal protective equipment, dust control, surface water runoff control, decontamination of all equipment,
and adherence to transportation guidelines. Excavation, transport, and disposal are estimated to take up to 6
months.
12.1.6 Implementabiliry
Alternative 1 would not involve remedial action; therefore this criterion is not applicable.
Alternative 2 would be easily implementable since the property is under Navy control. Restrictive covenants
would require coordination with Ecology and other agencies during any future property transfers from the
Navy to other parties to ensure that financial and technical provisions are made for the continued operation
and maintenance of the necessary institutional controls.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 103
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Alternative 3 would use a standard and accepted technology that would meet anticipated performance
criteria. Integrity of the cap would be monitored by routine visual inspection. No difficulties are anticipated
in obtaining the permits and approvals required to implement this alternative. The technical components in
this alternative are standard to the construction industry and should not pose significant material or
contractor availability problems.
Alternatives 4A and 4B would be easily implementable. The off-site disposal locations have stabilization
operations at the facilities receiving the waste. There are no known difficulties associated with obtaining
permits or approvals related to these alternatives. The equipment and practices necessary to implement
these alternatives are standard in the industry.
12.1.7 Cost
Alternative 1 would not include capital costs; however, annual operation and maintenance costs Jor
environmental sampling and analysis and reports to regulatory agencies are estimated at $39,000. The
present-worth cost (5 percent discount rate, 30-year life) would be $600,000.
Alternative 2 estimated costs for implementing the monitoring/institutional controls would be $46,000, most
of which would be for 2,500 linear feet of 6-foot-high chainlink fence topped with barbed wire. Annual
operation and maintenance costs are estimated to be $40,000, the majority of which would be for sampling
and monitoring. The present-worth cost would be approximately $661,000.
Alternative 3 estimated capital costs would be $568,000, and the estimated annual operation and maintenance
costs would be $17,000. The present-worth cost would be approximately $829,000.
Alternative 4A estimated capital cost would be $11,788,000 to excavate and dispose of a total 28,000 cubic
yards of soil off site without treatment. The estimated annual operation and maintenance cost is zero
because the soil would be removed from the site. The present-worth cost would be approximately
$11,788,000.
Alternative 4B estimated capital cost would be $17,453,000 to excavate and dispose of a total 28,000 cubic
yards of soil off site following chemical stabilization pretreatment. The estimated annual operation and
maintenance cost would be zero because the soil would be removed from the site. The present-worth cost
would be approximately $17,453,000.
12.1.8 State Acceptance
Ecology concurs with the selected remedial action at Site B and has been involved in the development and
review of the Rl, feasibility study, Proposed Plan, and ROD. Comments from Ecology have resulted in
substantive changes in these documents, and the agency has been integrally involved hi determining which
cleanup standards apply to environmental media.
12.1.9 Community Acceptance
Comments received during the public comment period indicate that the public accepted the Proposed Plan.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 104
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
122 SITE 2, CLASSIFICATION YARD/FLEET DEPLOYMENT PARKING
Contamination at Site 2 consists of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of soil excavated and stockpiled during
the two drum removals. The soil contains PCB concentrations that exceed the most stringent cleanup level
and lead and steel from small-caliber shells and projectiles and steel-banding debris. Currently, chemicals
may be released from this site to surface water and there is a possibility of direct contact or dust inhalation.
Remedial action alternatives for stockpiled soil at Site 2 include the following:
Alternative 1 No action
Alternative 2 No action with monitoring
Alternative 3 Size screening and removal of metallic debris from stockpiled soil
122A Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 would not protect human health and the environment and therefore does not meet this
threshold criterion. Human and environmental exposures to chemicals in the stockpiled soil could occur over
time.
Alternative 2 would include groundwater monitoring to determine whether chemicals are migrating from the
stockpile to groundwater. This alternative would protect most of the people on the base, but would provide
only limited protection to the occasional industrial worker and would not protect the environment.
Alternative 3 would result in long-term reduction of risk associated with lead and metal debris. Short-term
risk to workers would be mitigated through adequate health and safety measures during screening and
removal activities. After the stockpile has been screened and classified, the site would be returned to a more
natural setting by backfilling the disturbed area with the screened soil, if the soil meets MTCA Method A
cleanup standards for PCBs.
1222 Compliance With ARARs
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not comply with ARARs. Chemicals would remain in the stockpiled soil at
concentrations above state cleanup levels.
Alternative 3 would comply with ARARs.
12.23 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 1 and 2 would do nothing to reduce existing residual risk to human health, safety, public welfare,
and the environment. However, the magnitude of that risk is low.
Alternative 3 would permanently reduce the risk to human health and the environment. The metallic debris
would be removed from the site, along with any PCB-contaminated soil that exceeds the state cleanup level.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 105
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
122.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the existing chemicals through
treatment.
Alternative 3 would reduce the mobility of lead in the metallic debris by screening the debris for reclamation
and beneficial reuse. If off-site disposal of PCB-contaminated soil is necessary, no treatment would occur to
reduce the toxicity or mobility of the PCBs.
12.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not involve remedial action; therefore this criterion is not applicable.
Alternative 3 would reduce the risk due to lead debris and PCBs in the stockpiled site soil within several
months. Dust control and stormwater control measures would be implemented during the remedial action to
- reduce risks to workers and the environment.
12.2.6 Implementabiliry
v Alternative 1 would not involve remedial action; therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
Alternative 2, groundwater monitoring using existing wells, is readily irnplementable. Monitoring would have
to be coordinated with ongoing remedial efforts.
Alternative 3, size screening, has already been completed for the soil previously staged in Containment Cell
No. 2. A local vendor has been identified to accept the metallic debris containing high concentrations of
lead. Off-site transport and disposal of soil containing PCBs, if necessary, is readily irnplementable.
122.7 Cost
Alternative 1 would incur no capital or operating and maintenance costs.
Alternative 2 would not incur capital costs. Operating and maintenance costs would be $66,000. The
present-worth cost would be approximately $1,014,000.
Alternative 3 would incur a one-time capital cost of approximately $399,000 and no operating and
maintenance costs. Thus, the present-worth cost would be approximately $399,000.
122.8 State Acceptance
Ecology concurs with the selected remedial action at Site 2 and has been involved in the development and
review of the Rl, feasibility study, Proposed Plan, and ROD. Comments from Ecology have resulted in
substantive changes in these documents, and the agency has been integrally involved in determining which
cleanup standards apply to contaminated soil.
305 80\9603.070VTEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 106
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
122.9 Community Acceptance
Comments received during the public comment period indicate that the public accepted the Proposed Plan.
123 SITE 10, PESTICIDE STORAGE QUONSET HUTS
Dieldrin was reported in soil samples from this site at levels slightly above ARARs. TPH was detected in
groundwater at concentrations that exceeded ARARs. Both soil and groundwater were evaluated for
remedial action alternatives.
Only the no-action alternative was evaluated for the soil because although contaminants were detected in
subsurface soil, the area is covered with asphalt. Furthermore, no unacceptable cancer or noncancer risks
were found in the soil.
The groundwater alternatives include the following:
Alternative 1 No action with monitoring (which includes sampling and groundwater use restrictions)
Alternative 2 Extraction, treatment, and reinjection into the aquifer
123.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Soil Alternative 1 would protect human health and the environment through long-term maintenance of the
existing asphalt. There would be no other limitations on site usage.
Groundwater Alternative 1 would involve sampling the groundwater twice to confirm the presence of TPH
and, if necessary, placing groundwater use restrictions in the base master plan to prevent use of site
groundwater. This would prevent exposure to COCs on site.
Groundwater Alternative 2 would protect human health and the environment through extraction, treatment,
and reinjection of the groundwater into the aquifer. Ingestion of the affected groundwater would be
prevented by institutional controls in the short term and by shallow aquifer cleanup in the long term. The
groundwater extraction system would be designed to lessen further migration of the groundwater
contamination. Existing and future groundwater wells would be routinely monitored.
1232 Compliance With ARARs
Soil Alternative 1 would comply with chemical-specific ARARs through maintenance of the existing asphalt
pavement. Furthermore, it is expected that dieldrin would degrade to lower levels as a result of natural
degradation.
Groundwater Alternative 1 would not provide any direct action to reduce the COC concentrations to
chemical-specific ARARs. It would restrict the use of groundwater to nondrinking water uses and prevent
exposure to groundwater contamination.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract . Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 107
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Groundwater Alternative 2 would require at least a few years of continuous operation to attain groundwater
ARAR levels. In the interim, institutional controls would be used to prevent domestic use of site
groundwater. The drinking water ARARs would continue to be exceeded during construction and part of
the implementation of the remedy. However, ARAR compliance would eventually be achieved.
1233 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Soil Alternative 1 would reduce the existing risk to human health, safety, public welfare, and the
environment.
Groundwater Alternative 1 would effectively protect human health and the environment in the long term
through groundwater use restrictions. TPH in the groundwater would slowly abate through natural
degradation.
Groundwater Alternative 2 would be effective in the long term. The groundwater pump-and-treat system
would permanently clean up the petroleum contamination and reduce risks to acceptable levels. The
principal elements of this remedial alternative would be extraction wells, reinjection wells, and water
treatment, storage, and transport facilities. All of these elements are reliable, proven technologies.
123.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Soil Alternative 1 would continue to restrict the mobility of existing contaminants through the maintenance of
the existing asphalt.
Groundwater Alternative 1 would not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the existing contaminated
material.
Groundwater Alternative 2 would reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of COCs in groundwater by
treatment. The extraction system would prevent migration of contamination, thus reducing contaminant
mobility until treatment to performance criteria is complete.
123.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
Soil Alternative 1 would be effective in the short term through maintenance of the asphalt cover.
Groundwater Alternative 1 would be effective in the short term through base groundwater use restriction.
Groundwater Alternative 2 would require the design of an extraction, treatment, and reinjection system.
Several years of system operation would be required to achieve the cleanup goals. Groundwater use
restrictions would be implemented immediately to prevent human exposure to petroleum in groundwater.
Proper use of personal protective equipment for site workers, as defined in the site health and safety plan,
would provide sufficient protection from exposure.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 108
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
123.6 Implementability
Soil Alternative 1, which would involve maintenance of the asphalt, is readily implementable.
Groundwater Alternative 1 is easily implementable.
Groundwater Alternative 2 would use standard and accepted technologies that are easily implemented.
123.7 Cost
Soil Alternative 1 would include no capital costs. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated at
$7,000. The present-worth cost would be approximately $108,000.
Groundwater Alternative 1 would involve no capital costs. Annual operating and maintenance costs of $8,600
would include monitoring, annual reports to federal and state agencies, and the 5-year public health
evaluation. The two rounds of confirm a tional sampling would confirm whether TPH is present. The
present-worth cost would be approximately $132,000.
Groundwater Alternative 2 would require an estimated capital cost of $560,000, and the estimated annual
operating and maintenance cost would be $313,000. The present-worth cost for this alternative would be
$5.371,000 for a 10-year project life. These costs are highly uncertain given the lack of information
concerning the source and extent of the TPH in groundwater. The TPH may originate off site.
123.8 State Acceptance
Ecology concurs with the selected remedial action at Site 10 and has been involved in the development and
review of the Ri, feasibility study, Proposed Plan, and ROD. Comments from Ecology have resulted in
substantive changes in these documents, and the agency has been integrally involved in determining which
cleanup standards apply to environmental media.
123.9 Community Acceptance
Comments received during the public comment period indicate that the public accepted the Proposed Plan.
12.4 SITE 26, HOOD CANAL SEDIMENTS
No human health COCs in the Hood Canal sediments or clam tissues were found at any of the eight areas in
Site 26. .Arsenic was not considered a COC because 95 percent is in a nontoxic form. Some ecological
COCs (PAHs, pesticides, mercury, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and dibenzofuran) were found at Marginal
Wharf, Keyport/Bangor Dock, and Service Pier. Comparison to the ecological SMS showed the marine
sediments at Marginal Wharf were a "cluster of potential concern." All other areas were "clusters of low
concern."
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 109
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CT00058
Only the no-action alternative was evaluated for Site 26. This alternative includes sediment and clam tissue
monitoring and reporting. As discussed in Section 11.4, clam tissue would be monitored at Floral Point
Beach.
12.4.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 should protect human health and the environment sufficiently in the long term. No human
health risk was identified for sediments or clam tissues.
Minor risk to the environment was found in marine sediments at Marginal Wharf, Keyport/Bangor Dock,
and Service Pier. Sediment monitoring would identify trends in contaminant levels. If contamination is
increasing in concentration and/or areal extent, the need for additional source control activities, additional
sediment sampling, and implementation of engineered sediment controls would be assessed.
12.4.2 Compliance With ARARs
Alternative 1 complies with Ecology's SMS. All marine sediment areas, except Marginal Wharf, are
considered "clusters of low concern." The Marginal Wharf area is considered a "cluster of potential concern."
Active cleanup is not recommended.
12.43 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
The continued use of a source control program for all pier activities at Marginal Wharf, Keyport/Bangor
Dock, and Service Pier would prevent sediment concentrations to rise above risk-based levels in the future.
12.4.4 Reduction of Toxiciry, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Alternative 1 would not reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the existing contaminated sediments
through treatment.
12.4.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
The sediment monitoring would be effective in the short term.
12.4.6 implementability
Monitoring is easily implemented without interfering with current activities.
12.4.7 Cost
The estimated operation and maintenance costs for Alternative 1 would be $100,000 based on two 2-year
monitoring cycles for Floral Point Beach, Marginal Wharf, Keyport/Bangor Dock, and Service Pier marine
areas. This cost estimate would include time for field preparation, field sampling, interpretation, and
reporting and all analytical costs (chemical and biological). The present-worth cost of this alternative would
be $100,000 (based on a 5-year project life)..
30580X9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 110
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO0058
12.4.8 State Acceptance
Ecology concurs with the selected remedial alternative at Site 26 and has been involved in the development
and review of the RI, feasibility study, Proposed Plan, and ROD. Comments from Ecology have resulted in
substantive changes in these documents, and the agency has been integrally involved in determining which
cleanup standards apply to environmental media.
12.4.9 Community Acceptance
Comments received during the public comment period indicate that the public accepted the Proposed Plan.
12.5 SITE E, ACID DISPOSAL PIT; SITE 11, PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE DRUM DISPOSAL AREA
Marginal and conditional human health risk from Sites E and 11 was identified based on the presence of the
pesticide DDT hi stockpiled soil, and arsenic and ordnance compounds in groundwater. No risks were
shown to be present in the site soil. Since the development of the groundwater alternatives, the groundwater
contamination at Sites E and 11 has been found to be within the zone of influence of the pump-and-treat
remediation at OU 2 (Site F). Site F is hydrogeologically upgradient of Sites E'and 11. The following
alternatives were evaluated for both the stockpiled soil and groundwater:
Stockpiled Soil
Alternative 1 No action
Alternative 2 Off-site transport and disposal
Alternative 3 On-site incineration
Alternative 4 Off-site incineration
Groundwater
Alternative 1 No action with monitoring (monitoring in conjunction with ongoing OU 2
remediation)
Alternative 2 Monitoring/institutional controls (monitoring, groundwater use restrictions)
Alternative 3 Extraction, treatment, and reinjection into aquifer
Alternative 4 Extraction, treatment, and disposal into recharge basin
12.5.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Stockpiled Soil
Alternative 1 would not protect human health and the environment over time. The containment cell soil
contains DDT, which poses a risk and would not be remediated under this alternative. Concentrations of
DDT in the containment cell soil would decrease very slowly through natural attenuation. However, leaving
excavated soil in a containment cell may not be protective of human health and the environment in the long
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 111
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
term due to wind and wear of the plastic cover. Consequently, Alternative 1 does not meet this threshold
criterion.
Alternative 2 would protect human health and the environment at the site by permanently removing the
contaminated soil from the containment cell. Short-term risks to workers can be mitigated through the use
of proper health and safety measures during removal activities.
Alternative 3 would use a mobile incinerator to SUBASE, Bangor. The on-site incinerator would be RCRA
approved and equipped with air pollution control and monitoring equipment necessary to meet RCRA
requirements. Because the organic contamination would be destroyed through incineration, Alternative 3
would offer significant long-term protection.
Alternative 4 would transport the contaminated soil to an off-site incinerator for destruction of the pesticides.
This action would provide long-term protection of human health and the environment.
Groundwater
Alternative 1, no action, would protect human health and the environment if implemented in conjunction
with the associated remedial action at OU 2.
Alternative 2, monitoring and groundwater use restrictions, would be protective of human health and the
environment in the long term.
Alternative 3 would protect human health and the environment through extraction, treatment, and reinjection
of the groundwater. Ingestion of the affected groundwater by the public would be prevented by institutional
controls in the short term and by shallow aquifer cleanup in the long term.
Alternative 4 would protect human health and the environment through extraction, treatment, and disposal of
groundwater into a recharge basin.
12.5J! Compliance With ARARs
Stockpiled Soil
Alternative 1 would not comply with ARARs. Currently, MTCA Method B requirements are exceeded for
DDT in the containment cell soil.
Alternative 2 would achieve compliance with ARARs by removing the stockpiled soil from the site.
Transportation and disposal of the stockpiled soil would be conducted in compliance of all state and federal
regulations.
.Alternatives 3 and 4 would be designed and implemented to comply with all state and federal ARARs.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 112
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Groundwater
Alternative 1 in and of itself would not comply with ARARs but would if implemented in conjunction with
the selected remedial action of OU 2.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would comply with ARARs.
12.53 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Stockpiled Soil
Alternative 1 would not abate the existing risk to human health, safety, public welfare, and the environment
from the COCs. Human or environmental exposures to the stockpiled soil are possible over the long term.
Alternative 2 would provide a permanent reduction in the site risks through transport of the soil in the
containment cell to an off-site disposal facility.
AJternatives 3 and 4 would destroy the contaminants and would be highly effective in long-term protection
against risk from pesticides and other organics. Following incineration, the residues would either be
backfilled or landfilled.
Groundwater
By itself, Alternative 1 would not effectively provide long-term human health and environmental protection.
However, implemented in conjunction with the selected action in OU 2, Alternative 1 would provide long-
term protection.
Alternative 2 would protect human health and the environment in the long term. Groundwater use
restrictions to prohibit the domestic use of shallow aquifer water would prevent risk to human health, and no
environmental risks are associated with groundwater.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would be effective in the long term by permanently removing contamination from the
groundwater.
12.5.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Stockpiled Soil
Alternative 1 would not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of existing chemicals.
Alternative 2, off-site transportation and disposal of stockpiled soil, does not include treatment to reduce the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of existing chemicals.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 113
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Alternatives 3 and 4 would reduce the toxicity and mobility of contaminants in the containment cell soil by
treatment. The ash from the incinerator could be used as backfill or landillied (after testing) in
Alternative 3, or with Alternative 4, the soils could be landfilled directly following incineration.
Groundwater
Alternative 1 would not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances present. However,
the risk to human health would be eliminated by treatment under OU 2.
Alternative 2 would not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination in the groundwater.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would reduce toxicity, mobility, and volume of the chemicals of concern in groundwater
by treatment.
12.5.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
Stockpiled Soil
Alternative 1 does not involve a remedial activity; therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
Alternative 2 would be effective in the short term. The alternative can be implemented quickly. Proper
excavation techniques, compliance with transportation requirements, and use of personal protective
equipment would prevent short-term adverse effects.
Alternatives 3 and 4 could be designed and constructed to protect human health and the environment in the
short term. Personal protective equipment would be used to protect workers during implementation of these
alternatives. Decontamination procedures would be employed to prevent the spread of contamination via
vehicles, clothing, etc. Air pollution monitoring and control equipment would be used to prevent hazardous
emissions resulting from the incineration process. Both alternatives could be implemented within 1 or
2 years.
Groundwater
Alternative 1 would not likely pose any additional health risks during implementation of the monitoring
program with properly trained and protected personnel during sampling operations.
Alternative 2 would not likely pose additional health risks in implementing groundwater use restrictions or
conducting the monitoring program.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would take several months for design and construction and 30 years of operation for the
remedial action to be completed. Significant adverse health effects on site workers during construction
would not be expected. Proper use of personal protective equipment for site workers would provide sufficient
protection.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 114
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO0058
12.5.6 Implementability
Stockpiled Soil
Alternative 1, no action, would not involve the implementability criterion.
Alternative 2, off-site transport and disposal, could be easily implemented.
Alternatives 3 and 4, incineration, would be easily implemented. The incineration alternatives would meet
anticipated performance criteria. Both types of incineration facilities are standard and well-proven
technologies. Operation and maintenance functions would be performed under the incineration facility's
regular operational activities. No difficulties are anticipated in obtaining the permits and approvals required
to implement either incineration alternative. Implementability may be lower for on-site incineration than for
off-site due to possible resistance by local residents to incineration technology. The equipment necessary to
implement Alternatives 3 and 4 is readily available.
Groundwater
Alternative 1, groundwater monitoring using existing wells, would be easily implemented
Alternative 2, monitoring/institutional controls, such as groundwater use restrictions, and continued
groundwater monitoring, would be easily implemented.
Alternatives 3 and 4, extraction and treatment, use standard and accepted technologies. Adequate space
exists to construct all of the anticipated facilities at Sites E and 11. Electric power and other utilities are also
available:
12.5.7 Cost
Stockpiled Soil
Alternative 1 would have no costs associated with it.
Alternative 2 would have a one-time capital cost of $256,000. There would be no operation and maintenance
costs associated with this alternative.
The estimated capital cost for Alternative 3 (on-site incineration) would be $1,200,000 and for Alternative 4
(off-site incineration), $1,169,000. No annual operation and maintenance costs would be expected for either
alternative because the contamination would be completely destroyed and the clean residues would be either
backfilled or landfilled.
Groundwater
Alternative 1 would have no capital costs. Operation and maintenance costs of approximately $93,000 per
year would be expected for quarterly sampling and analysis, annual reports to the state, and for performing a
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 115
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
public health evaluation every 5 years. Assuming a monitoring period of 5 years, the estimated present-worth
cost would be $404,000.
For Alternative 2, capital costs of $28,000 would be primarily for installation of a fence. Operation and
maintenance costs of approximately $94,000 per year would be for quarterly samp-ling and analysis, annual
reports to the state, performing a public health evaluation every 5 years, and maintaining the fence. The
public health evaluations would be performed every 5 years as long as hazardous substances remain on site.
Assuming a monitoring period of 30 years, the estimated present-worth cost would be $1,434,000.
For Alternative 3, the estimated capital cost would be $606,000, and the estimated annual operation and
maintenance costs would be $385,000. The present-worth cost would be $6,523,000, assuming a 30-year
project life.
For Alternative 4, the estimated capital cost would be $494,000, and the estimated annual operation and
maintenance costs would be $369,000. The present-worth cost would be $6,166,000, assuming a 30-year
project life.
12.5.8 State Acceptance
Ecology concurs with the selected remedial action at Sites E and 11 and has been involved in the
development and review of the RI, feasibility study, Proposed Plan, and ROD. Comments from Ecology
have resulted in substantive changes in these documents, and the agency has been integrally involved in
determining which cleanup standards apply to environmental media.
12.5.9 Community Acceptance
Comments received during the public comment period indicate that the public accepted the Proposed Plan.
13.0 THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based on consideration of CERCLA requirements, the detailed analysis of the alternatives using the nine
EPA criteria, and the public comments received, the Navy, the EPA, and Ecology have selected the most
appropriate remedies for the OU 7 action sites (Sites B, 2, and E and 11) and no-action-with-monitoring
sites (Sites 10 and 26), at SUBASE, Bangor.
13.1 ACTION SITES
The Navy, the EPA, and Ecology have determined that the most appropriate remedies for Sites B, 2, and E
and 11 are the following:
• Site B (Alternative 3—vegetative soil cover)
* Site 2 (Alternative 3—soil screening)
305 80^9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest , Page 116
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
• Sites E and 11 soil (Alternative 2—off-site soil disposal)
• Sites E and 11 groundwater (Alternative 1—groundwater monitoring)
13.1.1 Site B, Floral Point
The vegetative soil cover, with incidental surface water control, best achieves the remedial action objectives
established for Site B. The soil cover will prevent direct human or animal contact of contaminated soil and
therefore is protective of human health and the environment. The proposed cover will be designed in
conjunction with a site development plan to provide public access to the shoreline. The selected remedy
includes the following components:
• Covering the site with a soil cover
• Vegetating the soil cover
• Constructing swales to control or reduce infiltration of rainwater
• Maintaining the soil cover to prevent future contact with the contaminated soil
The selected remedy for groundwater at Site B is a 5-year monitoring program of marine sediments and
clam tissue, to be included under Site 26. The monitoring program will achieve the remedial action objective
of determining whether the COCs detected in Site B groundwater are impacting the sediment and clarn
tissues on Floral Point Beach. The groundwater discharges into the marine environment off of Floral Point.
13.12 Site 2, Classification Yard/Fleet Deployment Parking
Screening metallic debris from the stockpiled soils and properly disposing of the screened soil best achieves
the remedial action objective of preventing human contact with contaminated soil and is protective of human
health and the environment. The selected remedy includes the following components:
• Screening of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of stockpiled soil for metallic debris (primarily
steel banding, lead and steel bullets, and shell casings)
• Waste characterization of the collected metallic debris and screened soil
* Disposal of the metallic debris. Depending on the waste characterization results, the
metallic debris will be disposed of at an approved landfill or transported to a metal
reclamation facility.
• Disposal of the screened soil. Depending on the waste characterization results, the screened
soil will be disposal of at an approved landfill or used as backfill material for the disturbed
area at Site 2.
13.13 Site E, Acid Disposal Pit; Site 11, Pesticide/Herbicide Drum Disposal Area
The off-site disposal of the stockpiled soil at an approved landfill best achieves the remedial action objective
of preventing direct human contact with contaminated soil and is protective of human health and the
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 111
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
environment. The selected remedy involves transporting and disposing of approximately 400 cubic yards of
contaminated stockpiled soil to a RCRA-approved landfill.
The groundwater at Sites E and 11 is currently being treated under OU 2. The selected remedy at Sites E
and 11 will entail monitoring of groundwater for ordnance compounds and a 5-year evaluation of the
effectiveness of OU 2 remediation in removing Otto fuel. A groundwater use restriction would be put in the
base's master plan.
132 NO-ACTION-WITH-MONITORING SITES
The Navy, the EPA, and Ecology have determined that the most appropriate remedies for Sites 10 and 26
are the following:
• Site 10 soils (Alternative 1—no action)
• Site 10 groundwater (Alternative 1—no action)
• Site 26 sediments (Alternative 1—no action)
13.2.1 Site 10, Pesticide Storage Quonset Huts
Because the cancer and noncancer risks for future residents from chemicals in soil at Site 10 were found to
be acceptable based on EPA criteria and the site is covered with an asphalt pavement, only the no-action
alternative was considered. Included under this alternative is long-term maintenance of the existing asphalt
pavement to protect human health and the environment.
The combination of long-term groundwater monitoring and implementation of institutional controls through
groundwater use limitations best achieves the remedial action objective of preventing ingestion of
groundwater containing TPH and is protective of human health and the environment. The selected
groundwater remedy includes the following components:
• Conducting confirmatory groundwater sampling
• Establishing restrictions to prevent groundwater use
In the event that the presence of TPH in the groundwater is confirmed, the site would be investigated
further.
1322 Site 26, Hood Canal Sediments
Based on the information currently available, the marine sediments at Marginal Wharf, Keyport/Bangor
Dock, and Service Pier pose a minor risk to the environment. The risks associated with human ingesiion of
the sediment and derma] contact with it were determined to be acceptable based on EPA criteria.
Therefore, only one alternative (no action) is proposed for Site 26.
Under this alternative, a monitoring program conducted over a 5-year period will include at least two
monitoring cycles for sampling of sediment and marine biota. Sampling will take place at Marginal Wharf,
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 118
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO0058
Keyport/Bangor Dock, and Service Pier. In addition, sediment and clam tissue samples will be collected
from the vicinity of Floral Point Beach to confirm that chemicals in the groundwater from Floral Point (Site
B) are not affecting the marine environment. The monitoring program will identify trends in contaminant
levels. If contamination is increasing hi concentration and/or area! extent, the need for additional source
control activities, additional sediment sampling, and implementation of engineered sediment controls will be
assessed.
14.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATION
Under CERCLA, Section 121, the selected remedies must be protective of human health and the
environment, comply with ARARs, be cost-effective, and use permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, CERCLA
includes a preference for remedies that employ treatments that permanently and significantly reduce the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as their principal element. The following sections discuss
how the selected remedies for Sites B, 2, 10, 26, and E and 11 meet these statutory requirements.
14.1 SITE B, FLORAL POINT
The selected remedial alternative for soil at Site B is Alternative 3. Alternative 3 will provide a vegetative
(planted with grass) soil cover to prevent direct contact between contaminated soil and site visitors. The
selected remedial alternative for groundwater at Site B is a 5-year monitoring program of marine sediment
and clam tissue, as outlined for Site 26.
14.1.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 3 for soil will protect human health and the environment by containing the contaminated soil with
a cover. The cover will prevent direct contact with soil, contamination of surface water runoff, and airborne
transport of soil particles and will reduce surface water percolation through the contaminated soil. Also,
swales will be constructed to reduce infiltration of rainwater. Long-term maintenance of the cover and
swales will be necessary for the alternative to remain protective.
The no-action alternative for groundwater, in conjunction with the Site 26 marine monitoring program, will
confirm that the marine environment is not being impacted by groundwater from Floral Point. Other
alternatives to protect human health were not considered because of the saltwater intrusion into groundwater
of Floral Point.
14.12 Compliance With ARARs
The selected remedy of a vegetative cap and monitoring of marine sediments to assess any effects of residual
chemicals in groundwater will comply with all state and federal ARARs. Action-specific, chemical-specific,
and location-specific ARARs are presentee} below, along with TBC policies, guidance, and regulations that
have been developed to implement ARARs.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 119
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Action-, Chemical", and Location-Specific ARARs
• Washington Clean Air Act (Chapter 70.94 RCW, WAC 173-400, 403, ,460; also 40 CFR 60). These
requirements are applicable to sources of fugitive dust that are generated during the remediation
efforts and that must be controlled to avoid nuisance conditions.
• State Minimum Standards for the Construction and Maintenance of Wells (WAC 173-160-415).
These regulations are applicable to decommissioning of water and resource protection wells.
• Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) Regulation 1, Section 9.15. These regulations
require the use of best available control technology to control fugitive dust emissions.
• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.; 50 CFR 402); Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et seq.). Although no known threatened or endangered species have
been observed at this site, eagles have been observed at SUBASE, Bangor. The bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act. Any action that would affect the critical habitat of the bald eagle would
be subject to these ARARs.
* State of Washington Hazardous Waste Cleanup—Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA; WAC 173-
340). These regulations establish procedures for selection of cleanup actions, remediation, and
monitoring of sites contaminated with hazardous waste, and are applicable to setting cleanup
standards for soil.
• Clean Water Act—Water Quality Standards (CWA Section 303; also 40 CFR 131). State criteria
for some pollutants are required to enforce federal water quality criteria. These water quality
regulations are applicable to surface water, as well as groundwater discharge to surface water for the
protection of public health, fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
• State of Washington Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters (WAC 173-201A). State water
quality standards are applicable for the protection of aquatic life in fresh and marine surface waters.
These state standards enforce the requirements of the Clean Water Act and are applicable to the
groundwater discharged to surface water.
TEC Guidance
Two Ecology documents—Statistical Guidance for Ecology Site Managers and Guidance on Sampling and Data
Analysis Methods—art identified as TBCs in implementing the requirements of MTCA. In addition,
Section 304 of the Clean Water Act requires the EPA to publish and periodically update ambient water
quality criteria. These criteria are not rules and do not have regulatory impact, but are considered TBC
guidelines for marine water based on acute and chronic effects of chemicals on marine organisms. These
criteria are presented in Quality Criteria for Water (U.S. EPA 1986b) and Water Quality Criteria Summary
(U.S. EPA 1991).
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 120
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
14.13 Cost-Effectiveness
The estimated present-worth cost for the soils remedy (Alternative 3) is $829,000. Alternative 4A, which
provides a somewhat higher degree of permanence, and Alternative 4B, which includes treatment, cost more
than 10 times as much as the selected remedy. The selected remedy provides an overall effectiveness
proportional to costs and represents a reasonable value for the money that will be spent.
The selected remedial alternative for groundwater is being conducted in conjunction with the Site 26 remedy
and is cost-effective.
14.1.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or Resource Recovery
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedies for soil and groundwater represent the best balance of tradeoffs among the
alternatives evaluated. They provide a high degree of permanence, do not negatively affect human health or
the environment during remediation, can be completed hi a short time, and are cost-effective. Treatment
was found to be not practicable at Site B because treatment of very large volumes of low-level contamination
in soil and groundwater would involve costs and short-term risks that are disproportionate to the incremental
degree of risk reduction. The selected remedies meet the statutory requirement to use permanent solutions
and treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
14.1.5 Preference for Treatment as Principal Element
The selected remedies do not satisfy the preference for treatment to address the potential risks posed by soil
and groundwater. As explained above, treatment was found to be not practicable at Site B.
142 SITE 2, CLASSIFICATION YARD/FLEET DEPLOYMENT PARKING
The selected alternative for the stockpiled soil at Site 2 is Alternative 3. Alternative 3 wili screen metallic
debris—primarily metal banding, steel and lead bullets, and bullet shells—from the stockpiled soil. The
metallic debris will be transported to a metal reclamation facility or disposed of off site at an approved
landfill. The screened soil will be tested for PCBs. If totai PCBs are detected below the remedial action
goals listed in Table 17, the soil will be used as backfill. If the screened soil contains chemicals above the
remedial action goals, the residuals will be characterized (including comparisons to dangerous waste
thresholds under state law) and disposed of properly.
142.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 3 will result in long-term reduction of risk associated with lead debris. Short-term risk to
workers will be mitigated through adequate health and safety measures during screening and removal
activities.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 121
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
1422 Compliance With ARARs
Alternative 3 will comply with all state and federal ARARs. If chemicals in the soil exceed ARARs, the soil
will not be used as backfill, but will be disposed of in a manner consistent with state and federal regulations.
Action-, Chemical-, and Location-Specific ARARs
• Washington State Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303); Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Regulations (40 CFR 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, and 268). These
regulations establish the procedures for the designation of waste as hazardous or dangerous. They
are applicable to the stockpiled soil for characterizing solid wastes generated during cleanup
activities and determining handling and disposal requirements for wastes that may contain hazardous
substances.
• Transportation of Hazardous Materials (WAC 446-50). Protects persons and property from
unreasonable risk of harm or damage due to incidents or accidents resulting from the transport of
hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. This regulation is applicable if solid waste generated
during cleanup is determined to be dangerous or hazardous and is transported off site.
• State Minimum Standards for the Construction and Maintenance of Wells (WAC 173-160-415).
These regulations are applicable to the decommissioning of monitoring wells.
• PSAPCA Regulation 1, Section 9.15. Requires the use of best available control technology to
control fugitive dust emissions.
• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.; 50 CFR 402); Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et seq.}. Although no known threatened or endangered species have
been observed at this site, eagles have been observed at SUBASE, Bangor. The bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus] is protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Fish and
W'ildlife Coordination Act. Any action that would affect the critical habitat of the bald eagle would
be subject to these ARARs.
« Toxic Substance Control Act (40 CFR 761). Requires that PCBs at concentrations exceeding
50 mg/kg be destroyed by incineration or be disposed in a hazardous waste disposal facility.
• State of Washington Hazardous Waste Cleanup—Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA;
WAC 173-340). Establishes procedures for selection of cleanup actions, remediation, and
monitoring of sites contaminated with hazardous waste. This regulation is applicable to setting
cleanup standards for soil.
TEC Guidance
Two Ecology documents—Statistical Guidance for Ecology Site Managers and Guidance on Sampling and Data
Analysis Methods—are identified as TBCs in implementing the requirements of MTCA.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 122
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO0058
Cost-Effectiveness
The estimated present-worth cost of Alternative 3 is $399,000. Alternative 2, which does not provide
treatment or resource recovery technologies, would cost more than the selected remedy due to long-term
maintenance of the untreated waste. The selected remedy provides an overall effectiveness proportioned to
costs and represents a reasonable value for the money that will be spent.
142.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or Resource Recovery
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy represents the best balance of tradeoffs among the alternatives evaluated. It provides a
high degree of permanence, uses treatment to the maximum extent practical, will not negatively affect human
health or the environment during remediation, can be completed in a short time, and is cost-effective. The
selected remedy meets the statutory requirement to use permanent solutions and treatment technologies to
the maximum extent practicable.
14.2.5 Preference for Treatment as Principal Element
The selected remedy satisfies the preference for treatment by sending waste metallic debris that could be
classified as hazardous waste to a reclamation facility for beneficial reuse.
143 SITE 10, PESTICIDE STORAGE QUONSET HUTS
The selected remedial alternative for groundwater at Site 10 is Alternative 1, no action, which includes long-
term groundwater monitoring and limitations on groundwater use. The no-action alternative was also the
selected alternative for Site 10 soil.
143.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Soil Alternative 1 will protect human health and the environment through a long-term maintenance program
for the existing asphalt, thereby preventing human or environmental exposure to chemicals in soil.
Groundwater Alternative 1 will protect human health and the environment through groundwater use
restriction.
143.2 Compliance With ARARs
The selected remedy for soil will comply with state and federal ARARs through maintenance of the existing
asphalt pavement.
The selected remedy for groundwater will not provide any direct action to reduce the concentrations of
chemicals of concern to chemical-specific ARARs. It will restrict the use of groundwater to nondrinking
water uses and prevent exposure to groundwater contamination.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 123
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
Action-, Chemical, Location-Specific ARARs
• State Minimum Standards for the Construction and Maintenance of Wells (WAC 173-160). These
regulations are applicable to the construction, testing, and decommissioning of resource protection
wells.
• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.; 50 CFR 402); Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et seq.}. Although no known threatened or endangered species have
been observed at this site, eagles have been observed at SUBASE, Bangor. The bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus} is protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act. Any action that would affect the critical habitat of the bald eagle would
be subject to these ARARs.
» Safe Drinking Water Act and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) and maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) (40 CFR 141; 57 FR 31776);
National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations secondary MCLs (40 CFR 143). The Safe
Drinking Water Act establishes maximum contaminant levels and maximum contaminant level goals.
The MCL is the maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water that is delivered to any user
of a public water system, and is an enforceable regulation. The MCLG is the maximum level of a
contaminant in drinking water at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on human health
would occur and that allows an adequate margin of safety. The MCLGs are nonenforceable health
goals. The secondary MCLs are nonenforceable limits that are intended as guidelines.
• State Board of Health Drinking Water Regulations (WAC 246-290). Establishes maximum
contaminant levels as standards for public drinking water systems, similar to federal MCLs.
• State of Washington Hazardous Waste Cleanup—Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA; WAC 173-
340). MTCA establishes procedures for selection of cleanup actions, remediation, and monitoring of
sites contaminated with hazardous waste. This regulation is applicable to setting cleanup standards
for grpundwater and soil.
TEC Guidance
Two Ecology documents—Statistical Guidance for Ecology Site Managers and Guidance on Sampling and Data
Analysis Methods—arc identified as TBCs in implementing the requirements of MTCA.
1433 Cost-Effectiveness
The estimated present-worth costs for the selected remedies for soil and groundwater are $108,000 and
$132,000, respectively. These costs are for long-term maintenance, monitoring, and reporting. Groundwater
Alternative 2, which includes treatment, would cost approximately 40 times as much as the selected remedy.
The selected remedy provides an overall effectiveness proportional to costs and represents a reasonable value
for the money that will be spent.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 124
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
143.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or Resource Recovery
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedies represent the best balance of tradeoffs among the alternatives evaluated. They
provide a high degree of permanence, will not negatively affect human health or the environment during
remediation, can be completed in a short time, and are cost-effective. Treatment was found to be not
practicable at Site 10 because basing the decision for treatment on a single sample was considered too costly
for the incremental degree of risk reduction. The selected remedies meet the statutory requirement to use
permanent solutions and treatment to the maximum extent practicable.
143.5 Preference for Treatment as Principal Element
The selected remedies do not satisfy the preference for treatment to address the potential risks posed by soil
and groundwater. As explained above, treatment was found to be not practicable at Site 10.
14.4 SITE 26, HOOD CANAL SEDIMENTS
Alternative 1, the no-action alternative with sediment and clam tissue monitoring, was selected for Site 26.
14.4.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 is protective of human health and the environment; the risks associated with the clams and
sediments are within acceptable limits using EPA guidelines. The 5-year monitoring program will be used to
confirm that source control activities are effective in reducing contamination on site. The monitoring
program will also confirm that the groundwater from Floral Point is not affecting the Floral Point Beach
sediments or clam tissue.
14.42 Compliance With ARARs
Alternative 1 will comply with Ecology's SMS for all chemicals. Currently there are exceedances of Ecology's
SOS and CSL for several chemicals at Marginal Wharf, Keyport/Bangor Dock, and Service Pier. However,
when the top three exceedances at these areas are averaged, only bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate exceeds the CSL
at Marginal Wharf. Therefore, the Marginal Wharf area is considered a "cluster of potential concern." All
other areas are considered "clusters of low concern."
Action-, Chemical-, Location-Specific ARARs
• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.\ 50 CFR 402); Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et seq.). Although no known threatened or endangered species have
been observed at this site, eagles have been observed at SUBASE, Bangor. The bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act. Any action that would affect the critical habitat of the bald eagle is
subject to these ARARs.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 125
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CT00058
• Ambient Water Quality Criteria (CWA Section 304; Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. EPA 1986b).
Water quality criteria are enforceable standards for protection of human health and aquatic Life for
surface waters and sediments.
• Water Quality Standards (CWA Section 303; 40 CFR 131; WAC 173-201A). State criteria for some
pollutants and required to enforce federal water quality criteria. Establishes use classification and
water quality standards for surface waters for the protection of public health, fish, shellfish, and
wildlife.
• State of Washington Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters (WAC 173-201A). State water
quality standards are applicable for the protection of aquatic life in fresh and marine surface waters.
These state standards enforce the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
® Sediment Management Standards (WAC 173-204). Establishes standards for the quality of surface
sediments, addresses the application of these standards as the basis for the management*and
reduction of pollution discharges, and provides a management and decision process for the cleanup
of contaminated sediments.
TEC Guidance
Two Ecology documents—Statistical Guidance for Ecology Site Managers and Guidance on Sampling and Data
Analysis Methods—are identified as TBCs in implementing the requirements of MTCA. In addition. Marine
Water Quality Criteria (CWA Section 304; Water Quality Criteria Summary, U.S. EPA 1991) are TBC
guidelines for marine sediments and impacts on marine water based on acute and chronic effects of
chemicals on marine organisms.
14.43 Cost-Effectiveness
The estimated present-worth cost for Alternative 1 is $100,000, based on two 2-year monitoring cycles for
Flora] Point Beach, Marginal Wharf, Keyport/Bangor Dock, and Service Pier marine areas. This cost
. estimate includes sampling, analysis, and reporting. The selected remedy provides an overall effectiveness
proportional to costs and represents a reasonable value for the money that will be spent.
14,4.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or Resource Recovery
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
Treatment was not considered at Site 26 because existing risks are below cleanup levels and costs for
treatment and potential short-term risks would be disproportionate to any risk reduction.
14.4.5 Preference for Treatment as Principal Element
Based on the information currently available, all marine sediment areas of Site 26 are considered to be
"clusters of low concern." Therefore, as explained above, treatment was not considered.
305 80V9603.070 \T EXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 126
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
14.5 SITE E, ACID DISPOSAL PIT; SITE 11, PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE DRUM DISPOSAL AREA
The selected remedial alternative for the stockpiled soil is Alternative 2. Alternative 2 will transport
stockpiled soil off site and dispose of it at a RCRA Subtitle C landfill.
The selected remedial alternative for groundwater at Sites E and 11 is Alternative 1, no action with
monitoring, which includes monitoring the existing groundwater wells and placing restrictions on groundwater
use. The groundwater remediation being conducted at OU 2 addresses the chemicals found in Sites E and
11 groundwater.
14.5.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 2 for the stockpiled soil will result in protection of human health and the environment by
permanently removing the contaminated soil previously excavated from the site. Short-term risks to workers
will be mitigated through the use of proper health and safety measures during removal activities.
Alternative 1 for the groundwater monitoring, in conjunction with the groundwater pump-and-treat
alternative selected for OU 2, will protect human health and the environment through treatment of the
groundwater.
1452 Compliance With ARARs
Alternative 2 for the stockpiled soil and Alternative 1 for groundwater will comply with all state and federal
ARARs.
Action-, Chemical-, Location-Specific ARARs
• Washington State Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303); Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Regulations (40 CFR 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, and 268). These regulations
establish the procedures for the designation of waste as hazardous or dangerous. They are
applicable to the stockpiled soil for characterizing solid wastes generated during cleanup activities
and determining handling and disposal requirements for wastes that may contain dangerous or
hazardous substances.
• Transportation of Hazardous Materials (WAC 446-50). Protects persons and property from
unreasonable risk of harm or damage due to incidents or accidents resulting from the transport of
hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. This regulation is applicable if solid waste generated
during cleanup is determined to be dangerous or hazardous and is transported off site.
© State Minimum Standards for the Construction and Maintenance of Weils (WAC 173-160). These
regulations are applicable to the construction, testing, and decommissioning of resource protection
wells and must be met during remediation and monitoring.
« PSAPCA Regulation 1, Section 9.15. Requires the use of best available control technology to
control fugitive dust emissions.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 127
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295"
CTO 0058
• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.; 50 CFR 402); Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et seq.}. Although no known threatened or endangered species have
been observed at this site, eagles have been observed at SUBASE, Bangor. The bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act. Any action that would affect the critical habitat of the bald eagle is
subject to these ARARs.
• Safe Drinking Water Act and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) and maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) (40 CFR 141; 57 FR 31776);
National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations secondary MCLs (40 CFR 143). The Safe
Drinking Water Act establishes maximum contaminant levels and maximum contaminant level goals.
The MCL is the maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water that is delivered to any user
of a public water system, and is an enforceable regulation. The MCLG is the maximum level of a
contaminant in drinking water at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on human health
would occur and that allows an adequate margin of safety. The MCLGs are nonenforceable health
goals. The secondary MCLs are nonenforceabie limits that are intended as guidelines.
• State Board of Health Drinking Water Regulations (WAC 246-290). Establishes maximum
contaminant levels as standards for public drinking water systems, similar to federal MCLs.
• State of Washington Hazardous Waste Cleanup—Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA; WAC
173-340). MTCA establishes procedures for selection of cleanup actions, remediation, and
monitoring of sites contaminated with hazardous waste. This regulation is applicable to setting
cleanup standards for soil and groundwater.
TBC Guidance
Two Washington State Department of Ecology documents—Statistical Guidance for Ecology Site Managers
and Guidance on Sampling and Data Analysis Methods—are identified as TBCs in implementing the
requirements of MTCA.
The EPA Off-Site Policy (50 FR 45933, Nov. 5, 1995, Procedure for Planning and Implementing Off-Site
Response Actions) is a TBC for off-site disposal of wastes. It prohibits use of a RCRA facility for off-site
management of Superfund hazardous substances if that facility has significant RCRA violations.
14.53 Cost-Effectiveness
Alternative 2 for the stockpiled soil has a one-time capital cost of $256,000. There are no operation and
maintenance costs associated with this alternative.
Alternative 1 for groundwater, no action, has an estimated present-worth of $404,000 for monitoring and
reporting, assuming a 5-year monitoring program. The present-worth cost will rise if longer term monitoring
is required. The duration of monitoring is dependent on the progress of groundwater remediation at OU 2.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 128
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
14.5.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or Resource Recovery
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedies for the stockpiled soil and groundwater represent the best balance of tradeoffs among
the alternatives evaluated. They will provide a high degree of permanence, will not negatively impact human
health or the environment during remediation, can be completed in a short time, and are cost-effective. The
selected remedies meet the statutory requirement to use permanent solutions and treatment technologies to
the maximum extent practicable. Treatment of contaminated groundwater is being provided as part of the
remedial action at OU 2.
14.5.5 Preference for Treatment as Principal Element
The selected remedy for the stockpiled soil does not satisfy the preference for treatment to address the risks
posed by the soil. Treatment is not practicable for small volumes of stockpiled soil.
The selected remedy for groundwater satisfies the preference for treatment to address the risks posed by
chemicals in groundwater. Treatment is being provided as part of the groundwater extraction-and-treatment
svstem at OU 2.
15.0 EXPLANATION/DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
No significant changes from the Proposed Plan (URS 1995) have occurred in preparing the ROD.
16.0 REFERENCES
Carpenter, R., M. L, Peterson, and J. T. Bennett. 1985. "210Pb-Derived Sediment Accumulation and Mixing
Rates for the Greater Puget Sound Region." Mar. Geo. 64:5 291-312.
Evans-Hamilton. 1987. Puget Sound Environmental Atlas. Volumes I and II. Prepared by Evans-Hamilton,
Inc., and D.R. Systems, Inc. for the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Seattle, Washington.
Dollarhide, Joan S.; U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. 1992. Memorandum to Carol
Sweeney, U.S. EPA, Region 10? re: Oral Reference Doses and Oral Slope Factors for JP-4, JP-5,
Diesel Fuel and Gasoline. March 24, 1992.
Hart Crowser, Inc. 1989. Current Situation Report, Naval SUBASE, Bangor, Bremerton, Washington. Seattle,
Washington. May 2, 1989.
IT Corporation. 1994. "As-Built" Construction Report, Site 2—Submarine Base Bangor. Silverdale,
Washington. December 1994.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 129
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (PRC). 1991. Preliminary Survey of Major Wetlands, Trident
SUBASE Bangor, Bremerton, Washington. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, Washington, D.C.
Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP). 1988. Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Contamination in Puget
Sound—Seafood—Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
Puget Sound Estuary Program. Tetra Tech, Inc., Seattle, Washington.
Shi, N.C. 1978. "A Study of the Nearshore Current Observations in Hood Canal, Washington." Master's
Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
URS Consultants, Inc. (URS). 1995. The Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 7, Naval Submarine Base, Bangor,
Washington. Prepared for U.S. Navy CLEAN, N62474-89-D-9295. Seattle, Washington. April 1995.
. 1994a. Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 7, SUBASE, Bangor. Prepared for U.S.
Navy CLEAN, N62474-89-D-9295. Seattle, Washington. October 1994.
. 1994b. Final Feasibility Study Report for Operable Unit 7, SUBASE, Bangor. Prepared for U.S. Navy
CLEAN, N62474-89-D-9295/ Seattle, Washington.
1994c. Technical Memorandum for Oversight of Drum Removal Action, Site 2, Naval Submarine Base
(SUBASE), Bangor, Bangor, Washington. Prepared for U.S. Navy CLEAN, N62474-89-D-9295.
Seattle, Washington. September 1, 1994.
. 1993a. Removal Action Report for Site 11, SUBASE, Bangor. Prepared for U.S. Navy CLEAN,
N62474-89-D-9295. Seattle, Washington.
. 1993b. Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 4, Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island.
Prepared for U.S. Navy CLEAN, N62474-89-D-9295. Seattle, Washington.
. 1993c. Removal Action Report, Site 2, Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, Washington. Prepared for
U.S. Navy CLEAN, N62474-89-D-9295. Seattle, Washington. January 1993.
. 1992. Site Characterization Report, SUBASE, Bangor. Prepared for U.S. Navy CLEAN, N62474-89-
D-9295. Seattle, Washington.
. 1991. Final Project Work Plan, SUBASE, Bangor. Prepared for the U.S. Navy CLEAN, N62474-89-
D-9295. Seattle, Washington.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1992a. Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and
Applications. EPA 600/8-91/01 IB, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, D.C.
. 1992b. Proposed Freshwater Sediment Quality Criteria. Office of Water Research.
30580\9603.070\TEXT
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract .. Date: 04/03/96
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page 130
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0058
. 1991. Water Quality Criteria Summary. Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.
. 1990. Statement of Work RI/FS Risk Assessment and Statement of Work for the Rl/FS Environmental
Evaluation for Superfund Sites. Region 10, Seattle, Washington.
. 1989a. Exposure Factors Handbook. Final Report. EPA/600/8-89/043. Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C.
. 1989b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Vol. 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual and
Vol. 2, Environmental Evaluation Manual. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, D.C.
. 1986a. Guidance for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment. Federal Register-51(185): 34014-34025.
. 1986b. Quality Criteria for Water. EPA 440/5-86-001. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, D.C. May 1, 1986.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1953a. Poulsbo.7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map. Reston, Virginia. (Photo-
revised 1981).
. 1953b. Lofail 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map. Reston, Virginia. (Photo-revised 1968 and 1973.)
U.S. Navy (Navy). 1983. Navy Assessment and Control of Installation Pollutants: Initial Assessment Study of
Naval Submarine Base Bangor. Bremerton, Washington.
. 1982. Tidal Currents by the Service Pier and Delta Pier at the U.S. Naval SUBASE, Bangor,
Bremerton, Washington. Prepared by Lt. Commd. L.C. Loehr, USNR-R, Naval Reserve Submarine
Group Seven 422. Department of the Navy, Commander Submarine Squadron 17. Silverdaie,
Washington.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1991. Sediment Management Standards, Chapter 173-
204 WAC. Olympia, Washington.
30580\96Q3.070\TEXT
-------
APPENDIX A
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 7 Final Record of Decision
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract Date: 12/15/95
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Page A-l
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO0058
APPENDIX A
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The responsiveness summary addresses public comments on the Proposed Plan for remedial action at
Operable Unit (OU 7), Naval Submarine Base (SUBASE), Bangor. The public comment period on the
Proposed Plan was held from April 13 to May 14, 1995. A public meeting was held on April 25, 1995, to
present and explain the Proposed Plan and solicit public comments. The meeting was held at Breidablik
Hall in Poulsbo, Washington, and ah1 questions and comments received during the meeting were recorded for
the record by a court reporter. Questions raised and answers given during the public meeting are
summarized below.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR OU 7, SUBASE, BANGOR
Comment 1. Was there any medical waste found at Floral Point, Site B?
Response L No medical waste was found during the site investigation activities at Floral Point.
Comment 2. What will the monitoring frequency be at Sites 10 and 26 as the recommended alternatives
for these sites?
Response 2. Groundwater will be sampled for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) at least once at
Site 10 to confirm if there is an ongoing petroleum hydrocarbon problem. If the
analyses indicate detections above regulatory concern, additional samples will be
collected quarterly. If no detections above regulatory levels are found, no additional
sampling will be conducted.
Marine sediments will be sampled twice in a 5-year period to assess trends of sediment
chemistry.
30580\9512.024 \ APPENDIX-A
-------
-------
-------
------- |