EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
PB96-964613
EPA/ROD/R10-96/152
October 1997
Eielson Air Force Base,
Fairbanks-North Star Borough, AK
9/30/1996
-------
-------
United States Air Force
Environmental Restoration Program
Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska
Sitewide Record of Decision
FINAL
September 1996
-------
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision " Eielson AFB
Eielson Air Force Base
Final Sitewide
Declaration of the Record of Decision
Site Name and Location
Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the final remedial action selected for Eielson Air Force Base (AFB),
Alaska, chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA),
the May 1991 Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) entered into by the U.S. Air Force, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the state of Alaska, and to the extent practicable, the
National Contingency Plan. This decision is based on the administrative record file for this site.
The state of Alaska concurs with the selected remedy.
Assessment of Areas Evaluated in the Sitewide Investigation
The sitewide investigation at Eielson AFB evaluated basewide contamination that is not confined or
attributable to specific source areas identified and addressed in the FFA as well as cumulative risks to
human health and the environment posed by contamination on a sitewide basis. No previously
unidentified groundwater contamination was found in the sitewide investigation. The following
surface'water bodies were evaluated to determine whether they were affected by contamination from
one or more source areas: Garrison Slough, French Creek, Moose Creek, Piledriver Slough,
Flightline Pond, and Lily Lake. Of these surface water bodies, Garrison Slough is the only one that
poses an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. Polycholorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
were found in the fish tissue and sediments of Garrison Slough. Soils in a trench adjacent to Garrison
Slough were contaminated with PCBs and appear to be the source of contamination to slough
sediments via surface water runoff.
Actual or threatened releases and exposure of people to hazardous substances in Garrison Slough and
in adjacent soils, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record of
Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or
the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The sediments in Garrision Slough and a limited area of soil contamination in a trench adjacent to the
slough require remediation for protection of human health.
Five remedial alternatives were analyzed for contaminated soil and sediments, as follows:
DRAFT in September 1995
-------
Eielson AFB Sitewide Record of Decision
Alternative I—No Action with Monitoring
Alternative 2-Limited Action
Alternative 3>--In Situ Capping
Alternative 4~Dredging/Excavation and Disposal
Alternative 5-Dredging/Excavation and Treatment.
A combination of Alternatives 2 and 4 is the selected remedy. The selected remedy addresses the
threats posed to human health and the environment by reducing contaminant concentrations in soil and
the source of contaminants to fish. This remedy is intended to reduce exposure to contamination
through source removal, a physical fish control barrier, and institutional controls.
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
• Institutional controls: Fishing restrictions in Garrision Slough;
• Engineering controls: Fish control device near the downstream edge of Eielson AFB;
• Excavation of contaminated soils and sediments with concentrations greater than 10 mg/kg
PCBs;
• Onsite disposal of material with PCB concentrations less than 50 mg/kg;
Offsite disposal or treatment of materials with PCB concentrations greater than 50 mg/kg in
accordance with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 40 CFR part 761; and
• Environmental monitoring of soils, sediments, surface water, fish, and groundwater.
This combination entails the removal and disposal/treatment of the contaminated sediment and soils
posing an unacceptable risk, the use of an engineering control to prevent fish from coming into
contact with contaminated sediment during removal, and the use of institutional controls to prevent
fishing in Garrison Slough until it is confirmed that levels in fish tissue are protective. Soil and
sediments containing contaminant concentrations greater than 10 mg/kg will be removed and those
with a PCB concentration of less than 50 mg/kg will be disposed of in an on-base landfill. Soil and
sediment containing PCB concentrations greater that 50 mg/kg will be disposed or treated offsite in
accordance with substantive requirements of TSCA. In addition, a physical fish control device (e.g.,
fish screen, rock dam) will be constructed in Garrison Slough near the northern base boundary to
limit the movement of fish into and out of the slough.
Base fishing directives will restrict the consumption of fish from Garrison Slough until contaminant
concentrations in fish are confirmed to be at a level that does not pose an unacceptable risk to human
health. The Air Force will continue to monitor contaminant concentrations in fish tissue, surface
water and sediment to evaluate the effectiveness of the cleanup.
In conjuction with the CERCLA response action, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was
developed under Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act to address nonpoint source loading of
PCBs into Garrison Slough. The TMDL will be incorporated into the water quality management plan
September 1995 IV DRAFT
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision Eielson AFB
for the state of Alaska.
Statutory Determination
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment, complies with federal and state
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial actions, and is cost
effective. The remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. However, the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment
as a principal element will not be met. Removal and treatment of contaminated soils and sediments is
not considered a cost-effective means of reducing the risks to human health. The identifed risks will
be reduced to acceptable levels through onsite disposal and implementation of institutional controls.
Reviews will be conducted at a minimum of every 5 years after commencement of remedial action, in
accordance with Section 121(c) of CERCLA, to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment.
DRAFT V September 1995
-------
03/12/97 .14:53
440 0427
nu
for the foregoing Record of Decision for the final Sitewide
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
by the state of Alaska.
Q&
EU<
D. SANTARETU
General, U.S-A.R
Daze
l^lginpunin 'wiwiw**.**^ ^,.
Chainnaiu HQ P ACAF Environmental Ptotecaon Connninee
FINAl-
-------
f-tff inu iooo nucxTTtiiKDnimo rnA nu.
HftR-27-97 THU 10--49 DEC SPAR CHA rw.
Signature sheet for the foregoing Record of Decision for the final Sitewide
remedial action at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska between the United States Air
Force and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, with concurrence
by the state of Alaska.
l^EDRKSSON Date
Director of the Division of Spill Prevention and Response
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
FTMAL via September I
-------
Etelson AFB Sitewide Record of Decision
Signature sheet for the foregoing Record of Decision for the final Sitewide
remedial action at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska between the United States
Air Force and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, with
concurrence by the state of Alaska.
/ ^CHUCK CLARKE 1 Date/
/|Regional Administrator
Region 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
vm
-------
Eielson AFB Sitewide Record of Decision
CONTENTS
Declaration iii
1.0 Site Name, Location, and Description 1.1
2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities 2.1
3.0 Highlights of Community Participation 3.1
4.0 Scope and Role of Sitewide Investigation . 4.1
5.0 Site Characteristics 5.1
5.1 Groundwater 5.1
5.2 Soil .' . .' 5.2
5.3 Surface Water and Sediment 5.2
5.4 Biota ; 5.3
6.0 Summary of Site Risks , 6.1
6.1 Human Health Risks 6.1
6.1.1 Identification of Contaminants of Concern 6.2
6.1.2 Exposure Assessment 6.3
6.1.3 Toxicity Assessment 6.5
6.1.4 Risk Characterization 6.5
6.1.5 Uncertainty 6.7
6.2 Environmental Risks 6.9
6.2.1 Hazard Identification 6.9
6.2.2 Biological Characterization . . . 6.10
6.2.3 Source Area, Receptor, and Endpoint Identification 6.10
6.2.4 Risk Assessment Screen 6.11
6.2.5 Ecological Risk Assessment 6.12
6.2.6 Uncertainty 6.12
7.0 Description of Alternatives 7.1
7.1 Remedial Action Objectives 7.1
7.2 Remedial Alternatives 7.2
7.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action 7.2
7.2.2 Alternative 2: Limited Action 7.3
7.2.3 Alternative 3: In Situ Capping 7.3
7.2.4 Alternative 4: Dredge and Dispose 7.3
7.2.3 Alternative 5: Dredge and Treat 7.4
8.0 Summary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 8.1
8.1 Threshold Criteria . 8.2
8.1.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 8.2
8.1.2 Compliance with ARARs 8.2
September 1995 xDRAFT
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision Eiclson AFB
8.2 Modifying Criteria 8.2
8.3 Balancing Criteria 8.2
8.3.1 State Acceptance 8.2
8.3.2 Community Acceptance . 8.2
9.0 The Selected Remedy 9.1
10.0 Statutory Determinations 10.1
10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 10.1
10.2 Attainment of ARARs 10.1
10.2.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs 10.1
10.2.2 Location-Specific ARARs 10.2
10.2.3 Action-Specific ARARs 10.2
10.3 Cost Effectiveness 10.4
10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies . . . 10.4
10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element 10.4
11.0 Explanation of Significant Differences 11.1
11.1 Proposed Alternative . 11.1
11.2 Significant Changes 11.1
11.3 Reason for Change 11.1
12.0 References 12.1
APPENDIX: Analytical Data Summary A.I
DRAFT xi September 1995
-------
EielsonAFB Sitewide Record of Decision
FIGURES
1.1 Map of Eielson Air Force Base 1.3
1.2 Surface Drainage Map 1.4
2.1 Source Area Locations 2.3
5.1 Sitewide Monitoring Well Locations in the Lowland Area (North) 5.5
5.2 Sitewide Monitoring Well Locations in the Lowland Area (Middle) 5.6
5.3 Sitewide Monitoring Well Locations in the Lowland Area (South) 5.7
5.4 Sitewide Monitoring Well Locations in the Upland Area 5.8
5.5 Sitewide Sampling Locations 5.9
5.6 Sample Locations in Outlying Areas 5.11
5.7 PCB Concentrations in Sediment Samples from Garrison Slough , 5.12
5.8 PCB Contamination South of Arctic Avenue 5.13
5.9 Total DDT, PCBs, and PAHs in 1994 Aquatic Biota Samples 5.15
6.1 Garrison Slough Locales for Baseline Risk Assessment 6.15
6.2 Surface Water Locales for Baseline Risk Assessment (Excluding Garrison Slough) ... 6.16
7.1 Cumulative Percent of PCB Mass with Increasing Distance from Contamination
Source in Garrison Slough 7.5
7.2 Elements of Remedial Action for Garrison Slough 7.6
September 1995 xii DRAFT
-------
Sitewkie Record of Decision Eiclson AFB
TABLES
4.1 Summary of Source Area Decisions 4.3
5.1 Analytical Data, Sitewide Investigation 5.17
6.1 Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Upper Garrison Slough 6.17
6.2 Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Middle Garrison Slough 6.18
6.3 Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Lower Garrison Slough 6.19
6.4 . Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Garrison Slough, Transmitter Road 6.19
6.5 Identification of Chemicals of Concern at French Creek, Quarry Road 6.20
6.6 Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Middle French Creek (FC02) . . . . 6.21
6.7 Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Lower French Creek 6.22
6.8 Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Flightline Pond 6.23
6.9 Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Lily Lake 6.24
6.10 Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Upper Moose Creek 6.25
6.11 Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Moose Creek/
Garrison Slough Confluence 6.26
6.12 Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Upper French Creek (background) 6.26
6.13 Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Piledriver Slough (background) 6.27
6.14 Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Chtanika River (background) 6.28
6.15 Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Grayling Lake (background) 6.28
6.16 Identification of Chemicals of Concern at 28-Mile Pit (background) 6.28
6.17 Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Upper Garrison Slough 6,17
6.18 Toxicity Data for Contaminants of Concern in Sitewide BLRA . . . . 6.29
6.19 Summary of Cancer Risk and Hazard Index at Surface Water Bodies 6.30
6.20 Total Pathway Risks for Surface Water Locales 6.34
6.21 Summary of EHQs by Site 6.35
7.1 Remedial Action Objectives for Garrison Slough 7.7
8.1 Comparison of Alternatives for Garrison Slough . 8.3
DRAFT Xiii September 1995
-------
EielsonAFB
Sitewide Record of Decision
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
AFB Air Force Base
ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
BLRA Baseline Risk Assessment
BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
EHQ environmental hazard quotient
EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
FFA Federal Facility Agreement
FNSB Fairbanks North Star Borough
FS feasibility study
HI hazard index
HLA Harding Lawson Associates
HQ hazard quotient
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
IRP (U.S. Air Force) Installation Restoration Program
LOEC lowest observable effects concentration
LOED lowest observable effects dose
LOEL lowest observable effects level
MCL maximum contaminant level
NCP National Contingency Plan
NPL National Priorities List
OU operable unit
PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
POL petroleum, oil, and lubricant
ppm parts per million
RAO remedial action objective
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RfD reference dose
RI remedial investigation
RME reasonable maximum exposure
ROD Record of Decision
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SER Source Evaluation Report
SF slope factor
SQC sediment quality criteria
TBC to be considered
TEF toxic equivalency factor
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
WTP water treatment plant
September 1995
XIV
DRAFT
-------
-------
Sitewidc Record of Decision Eielson AFB
Eielson Air Force Base
Sitewide
Record of Decision
Decision Summary
1.0 Site Name, Location, and Description
Eielson Air Force Base (AFB) is located in the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) of central
Alaska, approximately 40 km (24 mi) southeast of Fairbanks and 16 km (10 mi) southeast of the city
of North Pole along the Richardson Highway (Figure 1.1). The base covers an area of
approximately 8000 hectares (19,700 acres). Approximately 1500 hectares (3650 acres) are fully or
partially developed, with the remaining land comprising forest, wetlands, lakes, and ponds. The base
is bounded on the east and south by Fort Wainwright, a U.S. Army installation, and on the west and
north by private and public land. Other base facilities that are not contiguous with the main part of
Eielson AFB are the Blair Lakes Target Facility, about 72 km (45 mi) southeast of Fairbanks, and the
Birch Lake Recreation Area, about 48 km (30 mi) south of the base. The base is isolated from major
urban areas, with the adjacent public and private land zoned for general use.
The FNSB, Fairbanks, and North Pole have populations of approximately 82,000, 32,000, and 1600,
respectively. Other communities near Eielson AFB include Moose Creek, near the northern boundary
of the base, and the Salcha area, near the southern boundary.
Eielson AFB is a major employer in the Fairbanks area. The base employs approximately 3400
military personnel and 500 civilians. The total residential population of Eielson AFB is 5132. The
total population (living and working on the base) is approximately 10,000. Residential and
occupational populations are concentrated in the developed portion of the base. The area is active
with ongoing base functions, work, school, and recreational activities. The base has three elementary
schools and one junior-senior high school. There is one child care center and one medical and dental
clinic.
The base is located in the Tanana River Valley. Most of the base has been constructed on sand and
gravel fill. The topography in the developed portion of the base is generally flat and featureless with
elevations averaging about 168 m (550 ft) above mean sea level. The undeveloped east and northeast
sides of the base are as high as 343 m (1125 ft) above mean sea level. Two-thirds of the base
(mostly the undeveloped areas) is underlain by soils containing discontinuous permafrost. Half of the
potential agricultural soil is currently being used for recreation facilities, ammunition storage areas,
Arctic Survival Training School, and other Air Force operations. Wildlife inhabits many areas of
Eielson AFB, and the base supports a variety of recreation and hunting opportunities. There are no
resident threatened or endangered species on the base.
DRAFT O September 1995
-------
Eielson AFB * Sitewide Record of Decision
Surface water bodies near Eielson AFB include rivers, creeks, sloughs, lakes, ponds, and wetlands.
Surface drainage at Eielson AFB is generally north-northwest, parallel to the Tanana River
(Figure 1.2). Several small sloughs and creeks pass through the base and discharge to the Tanana
River. Moose Creek is the main receiving stream for small local drainages around the base. Both
French Creek, along the eastern edge of the base, and Piledriver Slough, along the western edge,
discharge to Moose Creek just above its confluence with the Tanana River. Garrison Slough also
discharges to Moose Creek. Garrison Slough passes directly through the developed portion of the
base and is primarily an engineered drainage channel. Portions of Garrison Slough are enclosed in
culverts.
Eielson AFB contains 13 lakes totaling 1.3 sq km (0.5 sq mi), 54 ponds totaling 1 sq km (0.4 sq mi),
and 10 designated wetlands totaling about 1 sq km (0.4 sq mi). One lake and six ponds are natural;
the remaining are old borrow pits or gravel pits.
The developed portion of the base is underlain by a shallow, unconfined aquifer comprising up to
91m (300 ft) of alluvial sands and gravel with minor clay and silt overlying crystalline bedrock.
Groundwater is the only source of potable water at the base and in the communities near the base.
Potable water in the main base system is treated to remove iron and sulfate. Groundwater is the
principal source for various other industrial, domestic, agricultural, and fire-fighting purposes.
September 1995 1.2 DRAFT
-------
Fairbanks
'•Eielson AFB
Fairbanks
Fort Wainwright
Military Reservation
North Pole
Moose
Creek
Eiclson AFB
Boundary
Richardson
Highway
Harding
Lake
Scale in Miles
FIGURE 1.1. Map of Eielson AFB
1.3
-------
Direction of /_
stream flow
28 Mile Pit
--f r
o
FIGURE 1.2. Surface Drainage Map
1.4
-------
Sitcwide Record of Decision Eielson AFB
2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities
Eielson AFB was established in 1944, and military operations have continued to the present. The
mission of Eielson AFB is to train and equip personnel for close air support of ground troops in an
arctic environment. Eielson AFB operations include aircraft maintenance and operations, an active
runway and associated facilities, munitions storage, and administrative offices, as well as residential
and recreation facilities.
Contamination of soil, ground water, surface water, and sediment at the base has resulted from the
storage and handling of fuels and solvents and the operation of landfills. This contamination was
initially evaluated under the U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program (IRP). The four-phase
IRP was implemented in 1982 with a Phase 1 records search to identify past disposal sites containing
contaminants that may pose a hazard to human health or the environment (CH2M Hill 1982). Under
the IRP, the U.S. Air Force identified 64 potential areas of contamination at Eielson AFB. Potential
source areas include old landfills, storage and disposal areas, fueling system leaks, and spill areas.
Eielson AFB was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) (54 FR 48184) by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on November 21, 1989. This listing designated the facility
a federal Superfund site subject to the remedial response requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).
In May 1991, the U.S. Air Force, the state of Alaska, and EPA entered into a Federal Facility •
Agreement (FFA) (EPA et al. 1991) which established the procedural framework and schedule for
developing, implementing, and monitoring CERCLA response actions. Under the FFA, 60 of the 64
potential source areas identified in the IRP were placed in one of six operable units (OU) based on
similar contaminant source characteristics, or were included for evaluation in a source evaluation
report (SER) for investigation and possible cleanup. Source area locations are shown in Figure 2.1.
The FFA also required a final overall sitewide investigation to incorporate all contaminant sources on
the base.
An additional goal of the FFA was to integrate the U.S. Air Force's CERCLA response obligations
and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action obligations. Thus, any
remedial action implemented should be protective of human health and the environment such that
remediation of releases shall obviate the need for further corrective action under RCRA (i.e., no
further corrective action shall be required).
In conjunction with the CERCLA response action, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was
developed under Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act to address nonpoint source loading of
PCBs into Garrison Slough. The TMDL will be incorporated into the water quality management plan
for the state of Alaska under the Clean Water Act.
DRAFT 2.1 September 1995
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision Eielson AFB
DRAFT 2.2 September 1995
-------
o
FIGURE 2.1. Source Area Locations
-------
-------
Sitewide Proposed Plan Eielson AFB
3.0 Highlights of Community Participation
After signing the FFA with the state of Alaska and EPA, the U.S. Air Force began its Superfund
cleanup program. As part of this program, in accordance with CERCLA Sections 113(k)(2)(B)(i-v)
and 117, a community relations program was initiated to involve the community in the decision-
making process.
The community relations staff interviewed 40 local residents and community leaders to develop plans
to keep residents informed about the cleanup activity at Eielson AFB. The results of questionnaires
and interviews of more than 100 residents were used to revise the Community Relations Plan. An
environmental cleanup newsletter was created and mailed to anyone who wished to be on the mailing
list. Fact sheets were prepared on various topics related to the cleanup operations. Several times a
year, articles that describe significant cleanup events are released to the base newspaper Goldpanner,
as well as to the Fairbanks Daily News Miner. All of these efforts are designed to involve the
community in the cleanup process.
The sitewide remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) and sitewide Proposed Plan for Eielson
AFB were released to the public in August 1995. These documents were made available to the public
in both the administrative record and an information repository maintained at the Elmer E. Rasmusen
Library at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
The public comment period on the sitewide Proposed Plan was held from September 1, 1995, through
September 30, 1995. Comments received during that period are summarized in the Responsiveness
Summary of this ROD.
The sitewide Proposed Plan was advertised in three newspapers. The public comment period and
public meeting were advertised on August 31, 1995 in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner, and on
September 1, 1995, in the North Pole Independent. An advertisement also appeared on September 1,
1995 in the Goldpanner base paper. In addition, more than 3,500 copies of the sitewide Proposed
Plan were added as an insert in the base newspaper and delivered to every home in the Eielson AFB
housing area.
A public meeting held on September 21, 1995, was attended by approximately 21 people. At this
meeting, representatives from the U.S. Air Force, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC), and EPA answered questions about problems at the site and the remedial alternatives under
consideration.
No public comments were received in response to the Sitewide Proposed Plan. A summary of
community participation and the public meeting are included in the Responsiveness Summary in this
ROD.
DRAFT 3.1 September 1995
-------
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision Eielson AFB
4.0 Scope and Role of Sitewide Investigation
The FFA for Eielson AFB divided 29 source areas into 6 OUs based on common characteristics or
contaminants, and specified 31 additional sites for source evaluations. The site cleanup strategy was
to address contamination at each individual source area through the RI/FS or SER process, and to
evaluate cumulative environmental impacts through a sitewide investigation. The OUs are as follows:
OU 1 Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant (POL) Contamination, some with evidence of floating
petroleum product
OU 2 POL Contamination, no current evidence of floating petroleum product
OU 3 Solvent Contamination
OU 4 Land Disposal of Fuel Tank Sludge, Drums, and Asphalt
OUS Landfills
OU 6 Ski Lodge Well Contamination.
An interim action at OU 1 (called OU IB) was initiated in June 1992 to remove petroleum product
floating on top of the water table. The RODs for OUs 1 through 6 have been signed (U.S. Air Force
1994c, 1994d, 1994e, 1995b), and remedial actions for source areas that pose an unacceptable risk to
human health and the environment are in the design or implementation phase of the Superfund
response. Limited action is required at some source areas. No further action under CERCLA is
required at source areas that do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.
The SER sites were believed to have a low probability of posing a significant risk to human health
and the environment. These sites were divided into two groups for Phase 1 or Phase 2 source
evaluations. Phase 1 activities were limited to "desk-top" evaluations of historical data. Phase 2
activities required limited field investigations to collect additional data needed for evaluation. After
Phase 1 or Phase 2 evaluations, one of the following recommendations for each SER site was made:
no further action, referral to another state or federal program, or assignment to an OU for further
investigation. Table 4.1 summarizes the CERCLA decisions for the 60 source areas identified in the
FFA for Eielson AFB.
The purpose of the sitewide investigation was two-fold: to collect information about site
characteristics needed to support all environmental characterization and restoration efforts on the base,
and to identify and characterize cumulative environmental impacts not addressed in the OU or SER
investigations. The scope of the sitewide investigation was determined by identifying data gaps not
addressed by source area investigations. These data gaps included insufficient.information about site
hydrogeology, background soil and groundwater quality, and surface water and sediment quality. In
addition, sitewide groundwater monitoring was needed to ensure that contaminant plumes were not
spreading to previously uncontaminated areas and that releases were not occurring in areas designated
or recommended for no further action. A sitewide program was also needed to capture the
miscellaneous groundwater monitoring requirements across the base. The sitewide investigation also
included evaluations of cumulative risks to human health and the environment from contaminants
from multiple source areas through multiple pathways. Additional information about soil and air
quality was not needed on a sitewide basis because soil contamination was adequately characterized in
the OU RIs (U.S. Air Force 1993b, 1994f, 1994g, 1995c), and the OU baseline risk assessments
indicated that the risk from airborne contaminants is within acceptable levels (U.S. Air Force 1994c,
DRAFT 4.1 September 1995
-------
Eielson AFB Sitewide Record of Decision
1994d, 1994e, 19955). Based on the data needs identified above, the following objectives for the
sitewide investigation were formulated:
1. Provide information about site hydrogeology and background soil and groundwater
characteristics to support OU RI/FS efforts and the sitewide RI/FS.
2. Identify and characterize contamination that is not confined or attributable to specific source
areas through sitewide monitoring of groundwater and surface water.
3. Provide a mechanism for continued cohesive sitewide monitoring.
4. Evaluate cumulative risks to human health and the environment from contamination from
multiple source areas through multiple pathways.
These objectives were addressed in sitewide studies carried out from 1991 to 1994. These studies
were outlined in the Site Management Plan for Eielson Air Force Base (U.S. Air Force 1993c). The
results of the sitewide investigation are provided in the following reports:
• Sitewide RI/FS Volume 1: Remedial Investigation (U.S. Air Force 1995e)
• Sitewide RI/FS Volume 2: Feasibility Study (U.S. Air Force 1995f)
• Sitewide RI/FS Volume 3: Baseline Risk Assessment (U.S. Air Force 1995g)
• Sitewide RI/FS Volume 4: Biological Risk Assessment (U.S. Air Force 1995h).
The identification of PCB contamination in fish and sediments in lower Garrison Slough was
unexpected; no potential source of contamination had been identified in this area from previous phases
of the Air Force IRP program or under the RI/FS process. Additional soil sampling activities were
conducted concurrently with the preparation and finalization of the Sitewide RI/FS documents. This
additional information regarding the location and extent of soil contamination, along with the risk
evaluation, is included in the Administrative Record. The alternatives for addressing the soils were
analogous to those for addressing the contaminated sediments; therefore, the Feasibility Study was not
revised.
The purpose of this ROD is to summarize the selection of the final remedial action under CERCLA
for the Sitewide investigation of Eielson AFB and the information considered when selecting that
action.
September 1995 4.2 DRAFT
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision
Eielson AFB
TABLE 4.1. Summary of Source Area Decisions
Source Area
Number
LF01
LF02
LF03
LF04
LF05
LF06
LF07
FT08
FT09
ST10
ST11
SS12
ST13
SS14
ST15
ST16
ST17
ST18
ST19
ST20
SD21
SD22
SD23
SD24
DP25
DP26
ST27
DP28
DP29
SS30
SS31
WP32
WP33
WP34
SS35
Source Area Name
Original base landfill
Old base landfill
Current base landfill (inactive)
Old Army landfill and EOD area
Old Army landfill
Old landfill
Test landfill
Fire training area (past)
Fire training area (present)
E-2 POL storage
Fuel-saturated area
JP-4 spill, Building 2351
E-4 diesel fuel spill
E-2, RR JP-4 spill area
Multiproduct fuel line
MOGAS fuel line spill
Canol pipeline spill
Oil boiler fuel-saturated area
JP-4 fuel line spill area
Refueling loop fuel-saturated area
Road oiling, Quarry Road
Road oiling, Industrial Drive
Road oiling, Manchu Road
Road oiling, Gravel Haul Road
E-6 fuel tank sludge burial site
E-10 fuel tank sludge burial pit
E-l 1 fuel storage tank area
Fly ash disposal
Drum burial site
PCB storage area, Building 2339
PCB storage area, Building 3424
Sewage treatment plant spill
Treated effluent infiltration pond
Sewage sludge drying beds
Asphalt mixing area
FFA
Category
SER
SER
OU 5
OU 5
SER
SER
SER
SER
OU 5
OU 2
OU 2
SER
OU 2
OU 2
SER
SER
SER
OU 2
OU 2
OU 1
SER
SER
SER
SER
OU 4
OU 2
OU 4
SER
SER
SER
SER
SER
SER
not FFA
OU 4
Disposition
No further action
Assigned to OU-5, no further action
Remedial action required
No further action (deferred to RCRA)
No further action
Assigned to OU-5, no further action
No further action
No further action
Remedial action required
Remedial action required
No further action
No further action
Remedial action required
Remedial action required
No further action
No further action
No further action
No further action
No further action
Remedial action required
No further action
No further action
No further action
No further action
Limited action required
Remedial action required
No further action
No further action
No further action
No further action
No further action
No further action
Assigned to OU-4, no further action
NA
Remedial action required
DRAFT
4.3
September 1995
-------
Eielson AF6
Sitewide Record of Decision
TABLE 4.1. Summary of Source Area Decisions (cont.)
Source Area
Number
SS36
SS37
. WP38
SS39
DP40
SS41
SS42
LF43
DP44
WP45
SS46
SS47
•ST48
ST49
SS50
SS51
SS52
SS53
DP54
DP55
ST56
SS57
ST58
ST59
WP60
SS61
SS62
SS63
SS64
Source Area Name
Drum storage site
Drum storage, asphalt mixing area
Ski lodge well contamination
Asphalt lake
Powerplant sludge pit
Old auto hobby shop
Miscellaneous storage and disposal area
Asbestos landfill
Battery shop leach field, building
Photo lab, Building 1183
KC-135 crash site, Gate 2
Commissary parking lot fuel spill
Powerplant fuel spill
Building 1300 LUST spill site
Blair Lakes vehicle maintenance
Blair Lakes ditch
Blair Lakes diesel spill
Blair Lakes fuel spill
Blair Lakes drum disposal site
Birch Lakes burial site
Engineer Hill fuel spill
Fire station parking lot
Old QM service station
Dining hall
New auto hobby shop
Vehicle maintenance, Building 3213
Garrison Slough
Asphalt Lake spill site
Trans maintenance spill site
FFA
Category
OU4
OU 4
OU6
OU 4
SER
SER
SER
not FFA
OU 3
OU 3
not FFA
SER
OU 1
OU 1
OU 1
OU 1
OU 1
OU 1
OU 1
SER
SER
OU 3
SER
not FFA
SER
SER
SER
OU 4
SER
Disposition
No further action
No further action
Limited action required
No further action
No further action
No further action
No further action
NA
Remedial action required
Limited action required
NA
No further action
Remedial action required
No further action
Remedial action required
Remedial action required
Remedial action required
No further action
No further action
No further action
Assigned to OU-3, limited action
Limited action required
Assigned to OU-4, remedial action required
NA
No further action
Assigned to OU-4, limited action required
Assigned to sitewide, remedial action required
No further action
Assigned to OU-4, no further action
September 1995
4.4
DRAFT
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision Eielson AFB
5.0 Site Characteristics
Contamination at Eielson AFB has been investigated in detail since the early 1980s under the IRP and
CERCLA programs. The following sources of data were used in the sitewide investigation: surface
water and sediment data collected during the IRP program (HLA 1989, 1991), surface water and
sediment data collected in 1992 by Bioenvironmental Engineering Services at Eielson AFB, data
collected by Pacific Northwest Laboratory during the sitewide RI and biological risk assessment
(U.S. Air Force 1995e and 1995h), and sediment and soil data collected by the U.S. Air Force in
1995. Table 5.1 lists the analytes and media sampled in the sitewide investigation. These data are
summarized in Appendix A.
Brief descriptions of site characteristics, including hydrogeology and the nature and extent of
groundwater, soil, surface water, sediment, and biota contamination are provided in the following
sections.
The developed portion of Eielson AFB is underlain by a shallow, unconfmed aquifer comprising up to
91m (300 ft) of alluvial sands and gravel with minor clay and silt overlying crystalline bedrock. The
aquifer is characterized by high transmissivities and relatively flat (between 0.001 and 0.002)
horizontal gradients. Vertical head differences in the upper 30 m (98 ft) of the aquifer are very
small, ranging from less than measurable to 0.15 m (0.5 ft), generally in a downward direction.
Groundwater is generally found less than 3 m (10 ft) below the ground surface. The water table is
lowest during the winter months, and highest after the spring snowmelt, when it is 0.3. to 0.6 m (1 to
2 ft) higher. The infiltration of snowmelt and runoff during the spring is the major recharge event of
the year. The groundwater generally flows to the north-northwest with the direction of flow locally
influenced by surface water bodies (e.g., Garrison Slough and Spruce [formerly Hardfill] Lake) and
groundwater extraction from the base supply wells.
The water level in Garrison Slough is lower than the water table throughout the year over most of the
its length. The slough has no other natural source, and it acts as a drain to the shallow aquifer except
near the water treatment plant (WTP) pond and a short distance downstream (see Figure 2.1). The
level of the WTP pond is higher than the water table except during the spring recharge event.
5.1 Groundwater
Contamination of groundwater with fuel-related compounds, chlorinated solvents, or lead has been
identified at various source areas, and a layer of free petroleum product is present on the water table
at several locations. In three areas, plumes of contamination from different source areas have
coalesced (source areas ST10/ST14, ST13/DP26, and WP45/ST57). The nature and extent of these
groundwater plumes have been delineated in the OU RI reports (U.S. Air Force 1993b, 1994f,
1994g, 1995c). The plumes have either remained the same size or diminished.since IRP
investigations began in the late 1980s; the contaminants are apparently degrading and dispersing faster
than the plumes can expand. Consequently, no contamination is currently migrating off of the base in
groundwater, and none is projected to migrate off of the base in the future. Previous RODs for
Eielson AFB require the cleanup of groundwater contamination that poses a potential threat to human
health (U.S. Air Force 1994c, 1994d, 1994e, 1995b).
DRAFT 5.1 September 1995
-------
Eielson AFB Sitewide Record of Decision
Sitewide ground water monitoring from 1992 to 1994 focused on measuring background concentrations
of metals, monitoring shallow groundwater quality at the downgradient edge of the base, collecting
additional information for OU or SER investigations, and monitoring areas recommended for no
further action to confirm the absence of contamination. Mean background concentrations of iron and
manganese typically exceed the secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of 300 and
50 micrograms per liter G-tg/L), respectively, for drinking water. Background arsenic concentrations
exceed the primary MCL of 50 /*g/L in some areas. No previously unidentified groundwater
contamination was detected (U.S. Air Force 1995e). Sitewide groundwater monitoring well locations
are shown in Figures 5.1 through 5.5. Groundwater monitoring data are summarized in Appendix A.
5.2 Soil
Surface and subsurface soil contamination, which was caused primarily by ftiel and solvent spills or
leaks in fuel supply lines or tanks, has also been found at various source areas at Eielson AFB. Soil
contamination is typically found at or near the source of contamination. Much of the subsurface soil
contamination occurs in the smear zone just above the water table, which is inundated during seasonal
fluctuations of the water table. Contaminated soils in the smear zone and floating petroleum product
are believed to be continuing sources of contamination to groundwater. Although contaminated soils
generally do not directly pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, they are
being cleaned up in some areas to remove an ongoing source of contaminants to groundwater. Soil
cleanup action decisions at Eielson AFB are documented in the previous RODs. Background
concentrations of constituents in soil were characterized in the sitewide investigation. Background
soil sampling locations are shown in Figure 5.5, and analytical data are summarized in Appendix A.
Soils contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were sampled by the U.S. Air Force in.
1995 after PCB contamination was found in sediments from Garrison Slough (see Section 5.3). The
extent of PCB-contaminated soil is discussed in the following section because it is associated with
sediment contamination.
5.3 Surface Water and Sediment
Surface water bodies at Eielson AFB include Moose Creek, French Creek, Garrison Slough,
Piledriver Slough, and various lakes and ponds. Some of these surface water bodies cross OU
boundaries and can receive contaminants from multiple source areas. Harding Lawson Associates
(HLA) collected and analyzed surface water and sediment samples at various locations across the base
as part of the IRP in 1988 and 1990 (HLA 1989, 1991). In the sitewide RI, these data were used to
determine the probable condition of surface water bodies, and additional surface water and sediment
samples were collected in 1993 and 1994 to complete the characterization and provide information for
use in the sitewide human health and ecological risk assessments (U.S. Air Force 1995g and 1995h).
Sample locations are shown in Figures 5.5 and 5.6. Sampling results are summarized in Appendix A.
Surface water and sediment contamination appears to be largely confined to Garrison Slough; only
traces of contamination were found in other surface water bodies (French Creek, Moose Creek,
Piledriver Slough, Flightline Pond, and Lily Lake). Garrison Slough receives most of the surface
September 1995 52 DRAFT
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision Eielson AFB
runoff from the developed part of the base. Low levels of fuel-related chemicals (benzene and
ethylbenzene), solvents (trichloroethene and dichloroethene), and pesticides (DDT, DDD, and DDE)
were found along the entire length of the slough. Metals were detected at concentrations that did not
exceed background levels for groundwater and soil (background samples could not be collected from
Garrison Slough because it originates in the developed part of the base). The fuel-related chemicals
and solvents probably originate from contaminated groundwater discharging into the slough from
adjacent source areas. The pesticides were probably derived from the former widespread application
of pesticides across the base.
PCBs were detected in some of the 1994 sediment samples from Garrison Slough. PCBs (Aroclor
1260) were measured in samples from the area just upstream of Arctic Avenue to Transmitter Road
(the most downstream station sampled). The maximum concentration of Aroclor 1260 in sediment
was 55 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) dry weight at Station GS12. The PCB concentration
dropped by an order of magnitude approximately 200 m (656 ft) downstream (Station GS07), and by
another order of magnitude approximately 700 m (2300 ft) downstream (Station GS09) (Figure 5.7).
Additional sampling conducted by the U.S. Air Force in 1995 confirmed that the highest PCB
concentrations were found in sediment upstream of Arctic Avenue, with a maximum concentration of
66 mg/kg dry weight Aroclor 1260 found in a sample collected 15 m (50 ft) downstream of Station
GS12. The upstream extent of contamination was found in a sample collected 15 m (50 ft) upstream
of Station GS12, with an Aroclor 1260 concentration of 52 mg/kg dry weight. A sample collected
15 m (50 ft) upstream from this point had no detectable PCBs.
A shallow trench enters Garrison Slough from its west bank at the point of highest sediment PCB
concentrations (Figure 5.8). The PCBs could have been contained in a waste discharge or spill that
entered the slough from the trench. Elevated PCB concentrations in sediment downstream of this
point indicate that downstream migration of the PCBs has occurred, most likely by the erosion and
transport of contaminated sediments. The PCBs might have originated from transformers stored in an
area where a masonry shop was previously located adjacent to the slough.
The U.S. Air Force sampled surface soils in the trench and upland area adjacent to the slough. The
PCB contamination was largely limited to the trench with the highest concentration (620 mg/kg) found
at the far west end of the trench. Levels decreased significantly from the west end of the trench to
the slough, indicating a possible location of an historic release of PCBs. The location,
concentrations, and extent of PCB contamination is illustrated on Figures 5.8a and 5.8b.
This area was also sampled for DDT and its breakdown products. Low levels of DDT were also
found in this area with concentrations ranging from nondetect to 190 mg/kg. The concentrations and
extent of DDT found in this area is illustrated on Figure 5.8c.
5.4 Biota
Samples of tissue from terrestrial and aquatic organisms were collected in 1993 to provide data for the
sitewide ecological risk assessment (U.S. Air Force 1995h). These data are summarized in
Appendix A. Additional aquatic biota samples were collected in 1994 to characterize the sitewide
distribution of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides (DDT, DDD, and DDE), and
PCBs in fish tissue and to compare contaminant levels in fish on Eielson AFB with background and
DRAFT 53 September 1995
-------
Eielson AFB Sitewide Record of Decision
offsite samples. Aquatic invertebrate and macrophyte samples were also collected at on-base locations
to identify any correlation between ecosystem components. The 1994 sample locations are shown in
Figures 5.5 and 5.6. Sampling results are summarized in Appendix A and in Figure 5.9.
PAHs, pesticides, and PCBs were detected primarily in the 1994 aquatic biota samples collected from
Garrison Slough. PCBs were detected in fish caught in Garrison Slough, French Creek, Moose
Creek, and Piledriver Slough at concentrations ranging from an average of 7.23 micrograms per
kilogram G*g/kg) wet weight (French Creek at Quarry Road) to 1980 ng/kg wet weight (lower
Garrison Slough). PCBs were detected in aquatic invertebrates and vegetation at only one location
(lower Garrison Slough). A strong spatial relationship exists between PCB concentrations in sediment
and fish, that is, the highest concentrations in sediment were measured in Garrison Slough near Arctic
Avenue, and the highest concentrations in fish tissue were measured in fish caught in lower Garrison
Slough. Additionally, PCBs were only detected in other ecosystem components (invertebrates and
vegetation) in lower Garrison Slough. PCB concentrations .in fish tissue decreased at points
downstream of Arctic Avenue and were approaching background in tributary streams upstream of the
Garrison Slough-Moose Creek confluence. Concentrations in both sediment and tissue were orders of
magnitude lower at other sampling locations.
Based on these data, it appears that a complete exposure pathway exists from the sediment to fish in
lower Garrison Slough, and that the high concentrations in fish tissues are a direct result of exposure
to the contaminated sediment. The uptake of PCBs by fish may occur through incidental ingestion of
contaminated sediment while feeding, gill exchange with surface water, and ingestion of contaminated
water and prey. Although PCBs were not detected in surface water, they may be present at
concentrations below detection limits. PCBs are not readily .broken down or excreted by organisms,
and tend to concentrate in lipids (fat). Consequently, a fish that has bioaccumulated PCBs is expected
to remain contaminated throughout its life. Fish that remain in the area of lower Garrison Slough are
likely to continue to bioaccumulate PCBs.
September 1995 5.4 DRAFT
-------
o
Srtewidc Record of Decision
Eielson AFB
NORTH BOUNDARY WELLS
Sitcwide Monitoring Program Well
FIGURE 5.1. Sitewide Monitoring Wells in the Lowland Area (North)
DRAFT
5.5
September 1995
-------
EidsoR AFB
Sitewide Record of Decision
-£|J- Sitewide Monitoring Program Well
FIGURE 5.2. Sitewide Monitoring Wells in the Lx>wland Area (Middle)
September 1995
5.6
DRAFT
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision
Kelson AFB
600
UETERS
Sitewide Monitoring Well
FIGURE 5.3. Sitewide Monitoring Wells in the Lowland Area (South)
DRAFT
5.7
September 1995
-------
Eielson AFB
Sitewide Record of Decision
o
Sitewide Monitoring Well
FIGURE 5.4. Sitewide Monitoring Wells in the Upland Area
September 1995
5.8
DRAFT
-------
o
FIGURE 5.5. Sitewide Sampling Locations
BACKWOUHD IIOWTOWNO TOL
B VOX. WHH AUTOUAXIC TAIXR-LEVEL EQUIPMENT
O BACBQ«XM> 300. 8AUFUMG STB
msrux naxs/saaustn SAUFUHG SOB
AQOMSIC HOT*. SAkPUNO STTB
5.9
-------
OCR
Chatanika River
100 Km
Garrison Slough/
Moose Creek
Confluence i
Upper Moose
Creek
MC01
Surface Water/
Sediment Sampling
Location
Lower French
Creek
O Aquatic Biota
Sampling Location
0.8 L6
tm
Scale in Km
Preach Creek at
Quarry Road
FIGURE 5.6. Sample Locations in Outlying Areas
5.11
-------
Eielson AFB
Sitewide Record of Decision
c
100000
o
VO
-------
50 100
Feet
5.2 - 66 mg/kg PCB (1995 samples)
Garrison Slough
55 mg/kg
1994
Building
2350
CE Maintenance
/ '^X
/ H re
-n !!
1=3 --
trench
Approximate area of
soil contamination
FIGURE 5.8. PCB Contamination South of Arctic Avenue
-------
3100 1900
* *
cn
Garrison Slough
Water Flow
<34
<35 <35
• •
< 38 < 42
< 35 < 38
<37
<34
<35
<38
<35- <
<36 <
Asphalt
Aroclor 1260 concentrations
•Field Duplicate
^
130
•
130* Co
•
130 530
:35
:38
•
In pg/kg dry wt.
770
mcrete
Pad
180
7900
•
7000
— North
41
12
1500
•
DO
38,000
3100
i.OOO
Lx^Trenc/?
Asphalt
620,000
•
i
50 feet
I 1
Figure 2. PCB Concentrations In Soil
Risk-Based Concentrations
for soil ingeetion (in ^g/kg)
Industrial
Residential
10"6 risk
10"* risk
1,300
130,000
160
16,000
-------
1000 800
Garrison Slough
Water Flow
290 290 680
• • •
1300
2300 4300 2600 13,000 Concrete
• • • • Pad
2000 2000 1400 9100 22,000
• • • • •
9500 1400 15,000 19,000
• • • •
1100 1200 190,000
210
2900
•
19,000
•
7900
•
7000
Asphalt
4,4-DDT concentrations In pg/kg dry wt.
North
<410 <410
•
<410
' Trench
<410
I
Asphalt
50 feet
Figure 3. 4,4-DDT Concentrations in Soil
Risk-Based Concentrations
for soil ingestion (in
10"6 risk
10"A risk
Industrial
2,900
290,000
Residential
370
37,000
-------
o
FIGURE 5.9. Total DDT, PCBs, and PAHs in 1994 Aquatic Biota Samples
-------
TABLE 5.1. Analytical Data, Sitewide Investigation
Parameter
Metals
Metals
Metals
Arsenic
Lead
Lead
Mercury
TCLP Metals
Halogenated
Volatile Organics
Aromatic Volatile
Organics
1,2-Dibromoethane
Volatile Organics
Volatile Organics
Volatile Organics
Semivolatile
Organics
Semivolatile
Organics
Organochlorine
Pesttcides/PCBs
Organophosphorus
Pesticides
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Analytical
Method
CLP
6010
6020
7060
7421
200.8
7470
40CFR
268
8010
8020
504
8240
502.2
524.2
8270
625.0
8080
8140
418.1
Soil
1991
(a)
X
•
-
-
-
-
•
•
-
-
•
•
-
•
'
«
X
•
X
1995
(b)
•
••
-
-
-
•
-
•
-
•
•
-
-
-
•
-
x
•
•
Groundwater
1992
(a)
•
X
•
X
X
•
-
"
X
X
-
-
•
-
-
•
•
•
X
1993
(a)
•
X
-
X
X
•
-
• •
X
X
•
•
-
-
X
•
X
•
•
1994
(a)
-
'X
X
-
•
-
-
-
X
X
•
•
-
•
X
•
•
Surface Water
1988
(c)
-
X
•
X
X
•
X
-
X
X
X
-
-
-
X
•
•
•
X
1990
W
-
X
•
-
X
•
-
-
X
X
-
- .
-
•
X
-
X
•
X
1992
(e)
-
-
•
-
•
-
-
•
•
•
-
•
X
X
•
•
•
"
"
1993
(a)
-
X
-
X
X
-
-
-
X
X
•
-
-
-"
X
-
X
•
*
1994
(a)
-
-
-
•
-
•
-
-
X
X
-
-
-
-
•
-
X
•
•
Sediment
1988
(c)
-
X
-
X
-
X
-
-
• •
-
X
-
••
X
-
X
•
X
1990
(<«)
•
X
-
•
X
-
•
•
-
-
•
X
-
-
X
• •
X
•
X
1992
(e)
•
-
-
-
•
-
-
X
•
•
-
•
-
X
X
X
X
•
1993
W
-
X
»
X
X
-
-
•
•
•
-
•
-
•
X
•
X
-
" •
1994
(a)
•
-
-
-
-
-
•
•
-
•
•
•
-
-
-
•'
X
•
-
1995
(b)
-
-
•
•
-
-
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
-
-
-
X">
-
•
Biota
1993
(0
-
-
•
-
•
X
-
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
-
-
X
•
•
1994
(a)
•
-
-
•
•
-
-
•
•
•
-
-
•
•
-
•
X
•
•
-------
TABLE 5.1. Analytical Data, Sitewide Investigation (cont)
Parameter
Diesel Range
Organics
Gasoline Range
Organics
PAHs
Anions
Nitrate
Total Organic
Carbon
Alkalinity
Total Dissolved
Solids
Total Dissolved
Solids
Cyanide
Analytical
Method
AK102
AK101
8270
300.0
353.2
9060
ASTM
1067 A&B
209B
160.1
9010
Soil
1991
(a)
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
•
-
1995
(b)
•
•
•
-
•
-
-
-
•
-
Groundwater
1992
(a)
-
-
-
X
•
X
X
X
•
-
1993
(a)
X
-
-
-
•
-
•
-
•
•
1994
(a)
X
X
-
•
-
•
-
•
•
-
Surface Water
1988
(c)
-
•
•
X
X
-
•
•
X
X
1990
(«J)
-
-
-
X
X
"
•
•
-
•
1992
(e)
•
•
-
-
X
-
•
•
-
-
1993
(a)
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
1994
(a)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
Sediment
1988
(c)
-
- .
-
-
-
•
•
•
-
X
1990
(d)
-
-
-
-
-
-
. •
-
-
•
1992
(e)
•
•
-
•>
• '
-
•
-
. .»
-
1993
(")
X
•
-
-
•
•
-
-
-
•
1994
(a)
-
•
-
-
-
•
-
•
•
•
1995
(b)
•
-
•
-
-
'•
•
-
•
-
Biota
1993
(0
-
-
X
-
•
m
•
•
-
1994
(«)
•
•
X
•
-
-
•
•
•
•
X Analyzed.
- Not analyzed.
(a) U.S. Air Force 1995e.
(b) U.S. Air Force 1995 sampling.
(c) HLA1989.
(d) HLA 1991.
(e) Bioenvironmental Engineering Services, Eielson AFB.
(f) U.S. Air Force 1995h.
(g). PCBsonly.
o
-------
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision Eielson AFB
6.0 Summary of Site Risks
6.1 Human Health Risks
The objective of the sitewide baseline risk assessment (BLRA) was to evaluate risks to human health
from contamination on Eielson AFB as a whole (U.S. Air Force 1995g). The results of the BLRA
provide the basis for taking action and identify the exposure pathways that need to be addressed by
remedial action. This section of the ROD reports the results of the sitewide BLRA.
BLRAs were performed for the source areas within the six OUs as part of the RI/FS process (U.S.
Air Force 1993a, 1994a, 1994b, 1995a). The potential risks associated with contamination at SER
sites were analyzed by conservative screening risk assessments that compared the maximum
concentration of each contaminant detected at the site with a risk-based concentration calculated using
EPA default exposure factors assuming a residential scenario. The purpose of the sitewide BLRA
was to evaluate the cumulative risks to human health from exposure to contamination from multiple
source areas through multiple pathways, and to evaluate the human health risk presented by sources
that had not yet been evaluated (i.e., surface water contamination).
The nature and extent of groundwater contamination, including areas where plumes from different
source areas commingle, and potential for plume migration were evaluated in the individual OU
RI/FS documents (U.S. Air Force 1993b, 1994f, 1994g, 1995c). No additional areas of overlapping
groundwater contamination were identified in the Sitewide groundwater monitoring program;
therefore human health risks posed by contaminated groundwater at Eielson AFB were not further
addressed in the sitewide BLRA.
There is potential for cumulative exposures from multiple source areas through multiple pathways at
Eielson AFB. Because many source areas are close together, a receptor can be exposed directly
(e.g., by surface soil contact) to contaminants from one source area, and indirectly (e.g., by
inhalation of volatile organic compounds) to another source area. However, no significant risks were
calculated for the inhalation of resuspended particulates or inhalation of volatiles from soils in any of
the Eielson AFB source areas (definitions of significant risk are provided in Section 6.1.4).
Therefore, indirect exposures will not increase the potential risk at a given source area above levels of
concern.
Because the previous BLRAs adequately characterized potential cumulative human health risks
associated with groundwater, soil, and air contamination at other OUs at Eielson AFB, the sitewide
BLRA evaluated the risks presented by surface water and sediment and soils adjacent to Garrison
Slough, which are the media that had not yet been evaluated for cumulative risk. Onsite water bodies
evaluated in the sitewide assessment include the following:
• Garrison Slough (upper Garrison Slough, middle Garrison Slough, lower Garrison Slough,
and Transmitter Road);
• Moose Creek/Garrison Slough confluence;
DRAFT 6.1 September 1995
-------
Eielson Air Force Base Sitewide Record of Decision
• French Creek (upper French Creek [background], Quarry Road, middle French Creek
[FC02], and lower French Creek);
• Flightline Pond;
• Lily Lake; and
• Moose Creek (at Transmitter Road).
The following water bodies were also evaluated to determine background risks: Chatanika River,
Piledriver Slough, Grayling Lake, Hidden Lake, and 28-Mile Pit. The locations of the surface water
locales and associated sample locations evaluated in the risk assessment are shown in Figures 6.1 and
6.2 (except the Chatanika River location, which is along the Steese Highway northeast of Fairbanks).
6.1.1 Identification of Contaminants of Concern
Data collected during the sitewide RI were used to identify contaminants of concern (U.S. Air Force
1995g). The contaminants of concern were identified based on the screening method suggested in the
supplemental guidance for Superfund risk assessments in EPA Region 10 (EPA 1991). This method,
called the "risk-based screening approach," is conducted as follows:
(1) List maximum concentration of each chemical detected in each medium for each site.
(2) Compare to risk-based screening concentrations.
(3) Eliminate chemicals that meet the following criteria:
• maximum concentration detected in water is < 10~6 excess cancer risk and 0.1 Hazard
Quotient (HQ) screening values, or
• maximum concentration detected in sediment is < 10"7 excess cancer risk and 0.1 HQ
screening values.
(4) Carry the remaining chemicals through the BLRA calculations.
The screening concentrations were calculated using a future residential exposure scenario for the
ingestion of soils and sediments, and the ingestion of water and inhalation of its vapors during
showering. Although these land-use scenarios and exposure pathways were not appropriate for
exposure to surface water and sediment contamination, they yielded more conservative screening
values (i.e., the ingestion rates and exposure duration were greater than those associated with
exposure to surface water and sediment contamination).
There is no EPA guidance for risk-based screening of fish tissue contaminant data; therefore, all
chemical concentrations detected in fish tissue samples passed the screen and were used as input in the
risk calculations. No background data for metals in surface water and sediment in Garrison Slough
exist because the head of the stream is in a developed (and potentially contaminated) part of the base.
Consequently, metals were screened in the same manner as the organic compounds, and those with
September 1995 6.2 DRAFT
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision Eielson AFB
maximum concentrations exceeding the screening values were input into the risk calculations.
However, concentrations of these metals (arsenic, beryllium, and manganese) are believed to occur at
site background levels (U.S. Air Force 1995g). Some areas near Fairbanks are noted for elevated
concentrations of metals; particularly iron, manganese, and arsenic in the groundwater (U.S. Air
Force 1995e). Concentrations of arsenic and manganese correlated well with iron, suggesting that
elevated concentrations of these metals reflected natural variations in iron concentration. Beryllium
did not correlate well with iron; however, there were only two detections of this metal at
concentrations just above the detection limit. Because there are no known sources of beryllium
contamination at Eielson AFB, it was not considered a contaminant of concern.
No EPA toxicity data are available for lead, which is a contaminant of concern at several of the
source areas at Eielson AFB (e.g., U.S. Air Force 1993b). Lead was analyzed in surface water and
sediment samples as part of the sitewide investigation. Screening concentrations for lead at Eielson
AFB were calculated using the Uptake Biokinetic model for lead (EPA 1994b). Concentrations of
lead in surface water and sediment did not exceed the screening values calculated from the model;
therefore, lead was not included in the quantitative risk calculations.
Essential human nutrients that were detected in water and sediment samples (aluminum, calcium, iron,
magnesium, potassium, and sodium) were not included in the screening process or in the risk
assessment because they are not associated with toxicity under normal circumstances (EPA 1989).
The analytical data used for all locales were collected during the 1993 and 1994 field seasons. These
data are listed in Appendixes H and I of the RI (U.S. Air Force 1995e) and summarized in
Appendix A of this ROD. The results of the screening process for analytes detected in sediment,.
water and fish tissue are listed in Tables 6.1 through 6.17. Chemicals of concern input into the risk
calculations are those that were not removed in the screening process. The concentrations listed for
each contaminant of concern are either the maximum value or the 95-percent upper confidence level
on the mean concentration, whichever is smaller. The reasons for screening out chemicals detected in
surface water or sediment samples are provided in the tables. No chemicals were screened out for the.
soils adjacent to the slough; all contaminants detected were evaluated for risk.
6.1.2 Exposure Assessment
The residential area at Eielson AFB currently houses 2730 military personnel and 4230 dependents.
In addition, 690 civilians and Air National Guard personnel are employed on the base. Because of
the changing nature of military activities, military personnel and dependents typically reside at Eielson
AFB for less time than do civilian workers.
Specific base populations were selected to evaluate potential risk from exposure to soil, surface water
and sediment contamination in a manner consistent with EPA guidance. Children exposed to soil and
playing and fishing in surface water bodies, particularly in and near Garrison Slough, is a primary
concern. This scenario requires the evaluation of exposures to soil, surface water, sediments, and
fish.
Table 6.18a lists both EPA default and Eielson AFB site-specific exposure factors used in the
assessment.
DRAFT 63 September 1995
-------
Etelson Air Force Base Sitewide Record of Decision
Surface Water and Sediment
Surface water bodies at Eielson AFB are currently used for recreation, and future land use is
anticipated to be the same. Children at play are the most likely population to be exposed to surface
water and sediment contaminants, both currently and in the future. A site-specific recreational
exposure scenario was developed to evaluate exposure of a child playing in surface water, and
catching and eating fish. These exposures are expected to occur over shorter periods than would be
expected for workers or residents. Under the current recreational land use scenario, the child lives on
the base for 3 years, which is consistent with the movement of dependents at a military facility.
Under the future recreational land use scenario, the child will play in the stream for 12 years (from
age 3 to age 15).
The recreational land use scenario excluded three inhalation exposure pathways: (1) inhalation of
volatiles from water, (2) inhalation of volatiles from soil, arid (3) inhalation of resuspended sediments.
The first pathway was excluded because no volatiles were detected in sediments at sitewide surface
water locations. The second pathway was excluded because only one data point for a volatile
compound in water exceeded the risk based screening level, and the excess cancer risk calculated
from this concentration (1.08 /ig/L benzene in upper Garrison Slough) using the recreational land use
scenario was less than 1 X 10~6. Inhalation of resuspended sediments was not included because the
riparian habitat prevents the generation of dust.
For each surface water locale and each exposure scenario, the following exposure pathways were
considered:
dermal contact with sediments
dermal contact with surface water
ingestion of fish
incidental ingestion of sediments
incidental ingestion of surface water.
All of these exposure pathways were considered complete at each locale and for the current and future
land use scenarios.
Site-specific exposure factors were developed to reflect the recreational land use scenario and the
subarctic climate at the base. Detailed descriptions of the exposure factors are provided in
Appendix B of the sitewide BLRA (U.S. Air Force 1995g).
The exposure frequency of 60 days or events per year comprises 30 days of fishing and 30 days of
playing in the sediments at a given water body. The adherence factor of 1.5 mg/cm2 for dermal
contact with sediments is at the conservative end of the recommended EPA range (EPA 1991). The
exposed skin areas for contact with surface water and sediments by children at play were obtained
from EPA's human health risk assessment guidance (EPA 1989). It is assumed that children will be
exposed to surface water and sediments on their hands, arms, feet, and lower legs, comprising surface
areas averaging 2756 cm2 for a 6-year-old child, and 4800 cm2 for a 12-year-old child. The current
and future exposure scenarios assume that while at the surface water body, the child ingests 0.5 L of
surface water and 200 mg of sediment per day.
September 1995 6.4 DRAFT
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision Eielson AFB
There is no known subsistence fishing at Eielson AFB, and none is anticipated in the future because
of the limited size and depth of the surface water bodies, and, because of the subarctic climate. The
exposure scenario for fishing assumes that fish are caught, taken home, and eaten by a child at a rate
of 300 g/day (skin and fillet). The consumption rate 300 g/day for 30 days corresponds to an average
of 25 g/day annually, which is about half of the 54 g/day (90th percentile) reported for seafood
consumption in Puget Sound (Pierce et al. 1981).
Soil
The exposure cases or scenarios evaluated for a given source area depend on the populations
potentially exposed and on the current and potential land use at Eielson. A residential scenario is
evaluated to consider potentially exposed future users who could spend 30 years on site. This
scenario, which include children who may be the most sensitive subpopulation, is generally
considered to be the most conservative* The residential exposure is evaluated to determine the
potential risks in the unexpected event of base closure. The current land use as a military base is not
expected to change in the foreseeable future.
The potential current- and future-use exposures assume above-average intake of contaminants that are
used to calculate chemical (contaminant) intake by humans. The upper 95th confidence limit on mean
RME concentrations represents conservative exposures expected for a site under current or future
conditions. Non-detect values were assigned a concentration of one-half the detection limit.
6.1.3 Toxicity Assessment
The values and references for all toxicity data used in the risk assessment are listed in Table 6.18b.
Toxicity data are divided into carcinogenic (slope factor [SF]) and noncarcinogenic (reference dose
[RfD]) categories.
SFs have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime
cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic contaminants of concern. SFs,
which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)"1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential
carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk
associated with exposure at that intake level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative
estimate of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this approach makes underestimation of the
actual cancer risk highly unlikely. SFs are derived from the results of human epidemiological studies
or chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been
applied (e.g., to account for the use of animal data to predict effects on humans).
RfDs have been developed by EPA to indicate the potential for adverse health effects from exposure
to contaminants of concern exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of
mg/kg-day, are estimates of lifetime daily exposure levels for humans, including sensitive individuals.
Estimated intakes of contaminants of concern from environmental media (e.g., the amount of a
contaminant of concern ingested from contaminated surface water) can be compared with the RfD.
RfDs are derived from human epidemiological studies or animal studies to which uncertainty factors
have been applied (e.g., to account for the use of animal data to predict effects on humans).
DRAFT 6.5 September 1995
-------
Eielson Air Force Base Sitewide Record of Decision
No EPA toxicity data exist for the following sitewide contaminants that were not screened out: the
PAHs, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, and benzo(b)fluoranthene; and the pesticides, 2,4'-DDD
and 2,4'-DDT. Benzo(a)pyrene is the only carcinogenic PAH that has a toxicity value in Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS) (EPA 1992b, 1992c). EPA guidance adopts a toxic equivalency
factor (TEF) method for carcinogenic PAHs based on the relative potency of each PAH compound
relative to benzo(a)pyrene. The toxicity values for the carcinogenic PAHs in Table 6.18 are the
products of these TEFs and the toxicity of benzo(a)pyrene. There are no toxicity values in IRIS for
2,4'-DDT and 2,4'-DDD. The toxicity values for 4,4'-DDT and its metabolites were used for the
2,4'-DDT family.
6.1.4 Risk Characterization
The exposure point concentrations listed in Tables 6.1 through 6.17 were used with the toxicity data
in Table 6.18 to calculate the risks for carcinogens and noncarcinogens.
For carcinogens, risks were estimated as the incremental probability of an individual developing
cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the carcinogen. Excess lifetime cancer risk was
calculated from the following equation:
Risk = GDI x SF
where:
Risk = a unitless probability (e.g., 2 x 10~5) of an individual developing cancer
GDI = chronic daily intake average over 70 years (mg/kg-day)
SF = slope factor (mg/kg-day)"1.
These risks are probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific notation (e.g., 1 x 10^ or
1E-06). An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10"6 indicates that as a reasonable maximum estimate,
an individual has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to
a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the specific exposure conditions at a site.
For noncarcinogens, the potential effects were evaluated by comparing an exposure level over a
specified time period with a reference dose derived for a similar exposure period. The ratio of
exposure to toxicity is called a hazard quotient (HQ). By adding the HQs for all contaminants of
concern within a medium or across all media to which a given population may reasonably be exposed,
the Hazard Index (HI) is generated.
The HQ is calculated as follows:
Noncancer HQ = CDI/RfD
where:
GDI = chronic daily intake
RfD = reference dose
September 1995 '. 66 DRAFT
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision Eielson AFB
GDI and RfD are expressed in the same units and represent the same exposure period (i.e., chronic,
subchronic, or short term).
Generally, hazard indices greater than 1 indicate that the potential exists for noncarcinogenic effects to
be seen in exposed individuals. Although the incidence or severity of those effects is likely to
increase as the HQ increases, the dose-response rates can differ among contaminants and health
effects. Thus, an HQ value of 1.0 does not define a sharp distinction between no effects and adverse
effects, but rather a transition to the potential for adverse effects.
Risk calculations were performed for the current and future land-use scenarios and all associated
exposure pathways. Table 6.19 summarizes by surface water locale the cancer risk and the HI for
each exposure pathway individually, the sum of the risks for all exposure pathways, and the sum
minus the risk attributable to the background metals. As discussed in Section 6.1.1, metals -in
sitewide surface water and sediment samples were found at background levels and are not the result of
base activities.
Because risk assessments were performed on 17 sitewide surface water locales, this ROD does not
present quantified carcinogenic risks and HQs for each contaminant of concern in each exposure
medium for each exposure pathway. These data are provided in Appendix I of the sitewide BLRA
(U.S. Air Force 1995g).
Table 6.20a summarizes the total pathway cancer risk and HI for each locale using the future
recreational land-use scenario. The contributions from the site background metals are subtracted from
these totals. Surface water locales can be divided into two groups based on potential risk: 1) those
within the developed part of the base with carcinogenic risks greater than Ifr5 and His greater than 1,
and 2) offsite locales with lower risks and His, typically less than 10"6 and 0.1, respectively. At all
locales, almost all of the risk is contributed by the fish ingestion pathway. At the lower risk sites, the
potential risk is attributable to pesticides in fish tissue (however, this risk is within acceptable levels).
At the higher risk sites, almost all of the potential risk is attributable to PCBs in fish tissue.
Table 6.20b summarizes the cancer risk and His for the soils adjacent to Garrison Slough based on
the 1995 soil data.
Based on these estimates, the primary exposure pathway of concern is exposure to soils in the trench
adjacent to the slough and the ingestion of fish. The primary contaminants of concern are PCBs for
both the current and future land-use scenarios.
6.1.5 Uncertainty
Health risk assessment methods have inherent uncertainty associated with how accurately the
calculated risk estimates represent the actual risk. The effects of the assumptions and the uncertainty
factors is not known. Usually, the effect is difficult to quantify numerically (i.e., in terms of an error
bar). As a result, the effects are discussed qualitatively. Some of the assumptions and uncertainty
factors associated with the sitewide BLRA include the following:
Exposure Point Concentrations
DRAFT 6J September 1995
-------
Eielson Air Force Base Sitcwide Record of Decision
• The risks quantified (based on EPA cancer potency factors) are statistically at the 95 percent
upperbound estimate of the risk using a linear, low-dose extrapolation (may overestimate
risk).
• Existing concentrations are assumed to be the concentrations or exposure source terms in the
future. No reduction from natural degradation and attenuation over time is taken into
account. No increase from additional contamination is assumed, and potential degradation
products of existing organic contaminants are not taken into account (may overestimate or
underestimate risk).
• Fish tissue data were not available for several of the surface water bodies (may underestimate
risk).
• Bioconcentration factors for estimating fish ingestion risk were not used at the sites lacking
fish tissue data (may underestimate risk).
• Different species of fish, with potentially different contaminant uptake rates, were used for
tissue samples (may overestimate or underestimate risk).
• No modeling was performed to predict VOC concentrations in fish tissue (may underestimate
risk).
• Only used skin and fillet for fish tissue analyses. Some subpopulations may ingest other
tissues (may underestimate risk).
• The surface water detection limits for some organic and inorganic contaminants (e.g., PCBs,
PAHs, and dieldrin) are greater than risk-based screening concentrations (may underestimate
• risk).
• The default dermal adherence factor was used. Actual adherence may be higher or lower
because of soil moisture content and other characteristics of soil (may overestimate or
underestimate risk).
Exposure Factors
• Use of 300 g/day fish ingestion rate for a child. The Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA
1988) projects a reasonable maximum exposure (RME) consumption rate of 140 g/day (90th
percentile). The 300 g/day value, which was calculated for the Puget Sound area of the state
of Washington, was used to provide a conservative estimate for this rate of contact (may
overestimate risk).
• Surface water bodies (e.g., Garrison Slough) may not support a large enough fish population
to provide 30 meals per year (may overestimate risk).
• A site-specific recreational land-use scenario was developed (may overestimate or
underestimate risk).
September 1995 6.8 DRAFT
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision Eielson AFB
• The exposure calculations performed did not include relative bioavailability factors, so did not
account for differences among substance matrices (may overestimate risk).
• The factor of 1.5 mg/cm2 used for contact with sediments in the recreational land-use scenario
is at the conservative end of the range (0.5 to 1.5) recommended in Region 10 supplemental
guidance (EPA 1991) (may overestimate risk).
Toxicity Parameters
• The toxicities of 2,4'-DDT and its metabolites are not known. The toxicities of 4,4'-DDT
and its metabolites were used as surrogates (may overestimate risk).
• Unknown congener profile of PCBs detected (may underestimate or overestimate risk).
6.2 Environmental Risks
As part of the sitewide RI/FS, a biological risk assessment was performed to evaluate the hazards
posed to plants and wildlife from environmental contamination at Eielson AFB (U.S. Air Force
1995h). The biological risk assessment evaluated cumulative risks to ecological receptors posed by all
sources of contamination at the site. The risk assessment process approximately followed the
modification to the National Academy of Sciences risk assessment paradigm proposed by Lipton et al.
(1993). This process includes the following stages:
• Hazard identification - identification of the sources and types of environmental contamination
at Eielson AFB.
• Biological characterization - identification of habitats and biological resources that could be
affected by contaminants of concern.
• Receptor and source area identification - screen of source areas on the basis of completed
biota exposure pathways and identification of receptors to be evaluated in the risk assessment.
• Risk assessment screen - screen of source areas and contaminants based on toxicological
benchmarks. Sites and contaminants passing the screen were fully evaluated in the ecological
risk assessment.
• Ecological risk assessment - quantitative estimate of exposure hazards to receptors based on
toxicological benchmarks.
• Uncertainty analysis - analysis of uncertainties and their effects on the risks identified in the
risk assessments.
The first three bulleted elements correspond to the "Problem Formulation" phase identified in EPA's
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (EPA 1992a). The risk assessment screen comprises a
screening-level Analysis Phase as defined by the EPA framework. The ecological risk assessment
includes elements of the Analysis Phase and Risk Characterization Phases of the framework, and the
DRAFT 6.9 September 1995
-------
Eielson Air Force Base Sitewide Record of Decision
uncertainty analysis is the final portion of the Risk Characterization Phase.
6*2.1 Hazard Identification
Potential ecological hazards at Eielson AFB were identified by reviewing base operations that resulted
in releases of hazardous materials, summarizing abiotic transport information pertaining to the
movement of contaminants to areas potentially accessible by biological receptors (i.e., surface water
and groundwater hydrology), and identifying contaminants of concern and contaminated media at each
source area by reviewing RI/FS and SER reports (U.S. Air Force 1993b, 1993d, 1994f, 1994g,
1994h, 1995c, 1995e).
Contaminants of concern identified through this process were primarily fuels (diesel/kerosene), fuel
constituents (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, toluene [BTEX1 and lead), PAHs, chlorinated solvents
and solvent breakdown products, pesticides (DDT and its breakdown products), and PCBs. All
metals except lead were determined to be attributable to site background conditions rather than base
activities, and were not included in the list of contaminants of concern. Contaminant concentrations,
the media in which they were detected, and the estimated affected area for each OU source area are
listed in Appendix B of the biological risk assessment (U.S. Air Force 1995h). Surface water and
sediment contaminant concentrations were obtained from sampling conducted in 1993 (U.S. Air Force
1995e). These data were used to evaluate risk to aquatic organisms.
6.2.2 Biological Characterization
In the biological characterization, biological systems and species present at Eielson AFB were
identified and analyzed. For key species, information on diets (food webs), residence times, and site
usage was reviewed. A complete list of fish and wildlife species known to occur on Eielson AFB is
provided in Appendix A of the biological risk assessment (U.S. Air Force 1995h).
Land cover at the base was subdivided for the purpose of the biological risk assessment into areas
suitable for foraging by wildlife (i.e., mown vegetation, forests, water and wetlands) and those
unsuitable for wildlife foraging (i.e., small lawns, pavement, buildings). The terrestrial biota on
Eielson AFB are typical of the boreal forests and extensive wetlands in the central Alaska basin. The
primary migratory terrestrial species include numerous waterfowl and a few large raptors. Great
horned owls are year-round residents. A few year-round resident mammals are present. Seventeen
species offish are found on Eielson AFB, including resident species such as northern pike and
grayling. Anadromous species entering a few streams include chum salmon and king salmon. Many
of the water bodies on the base have few or no fish due to winter kill and lack of a connection to
areas containing fish, or to unsuitable habitat. Aquatic invertebrates, principally insect larvae and
snails, are present in most streams and lakes on the base. These organisms are a primary food source
for fish, when they are present.
No endangered or threatened species are resident to Eielson AFB. The American peregrine falcon
(federal endangered) breeds within 50 miles of the base. Bald and golden eagles (federally protected)
are occasionally sighted on Eielson AFB.
6.2.3 Source Area, Receptor, and Endpoint Identification
September 1995 ' 6.10 DRAFT
-------
Site wide Record of Decision Eielson AFB
In this stage of the biological risk assessment, contaminants and source areas were screened to
identify those where pathways to biota were complete. Receptors that were evaluated in the full risk
assessment were selected by identifying those likely to be most heavily exposed to contaminants.
Bioaccumulating and nonbioaccumulating exposures are addressed separately. Additional
consideration was given to species protected by the state of Alaska and/or federal laws and
regulations, and on species or components that provide key functions within the Eielson ecosystems.
Contaminants of concern were subdivided into volatiles (BTEX, fuels, solvents), semivolatiles
(PAHs), and those compounds that are environmentally persistent and bioaccumulate (PCBs, DDTs,
and lead). Volatiles will not partition strongly to biota and will evaporate from soil and surface
water. Compounds with a high octanol-water partition coefficient (K^) (PCBs and DDTs) will
partition to soils and sediments, and have a high potential to bioaccumulate. Lead and PAHs may
also bioaccumulate in some cases. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were not specifically
evaluated because of the lack of toxicity data; however, the most toxic components (BTEX) were
quantified and included in the risk assessment.
Source areas were screened to eliminate from consideration those where contamination is presently
limited to areas unused by wildlife for food. Source areas where contaminants have not been found
above background levels were eliminated prior to the screen. For non-bioaccumulating contaminants,
the contaminated area was estimated from data in the RI reports. For bioaccumulating contaminants,
the contaminated area was assumed to be twice the known area for the purposes of the screen. These
contaminated areas were compared to land cover classes using field and aerial photographic data.
Source areas where the contaminated area did not extend into foraging habitat where the contaminants
could be taken up by vegetation were eliminated from further evaluation. Because of its importance
as the primary receiving water body from both groundwater and surface water drainage from Eielson
AFB, Garrison Slough was included as warranting further examination of ecological risk from
sitewide contaminants. Flightline Pond was also included as a potential pond also potentially
receiving persistent and bioaccumulating contaminants.
Receptors were screened to select those most likely to receive the greatest exposure and those most
sensitive to contaminant exposure. Aquatic receptors likely to receive the highest exposures were
carnivores: grayling and northern pike. Terrestrial receptors were selected on the basis of maximum
inhalation exposure (animals living within or within a few centimeters of the ground) and maximum
ingestion exposure (herbivores for volatile contaminants; carnivores for the remaining contaminants).
Animals with smaller home ranges were selected over those with larger home ranges because a
greater portion of their diet could come from any single contaminated area. Animals were combined
into feeding guilds with weighting factors given according to bioaccumulation potential.
The measurement endpoints used were the lowest adverse effects levels for screening purposes. For
ingestion, this corresponds to the lowest observable effects dose (LOED); for inhalation exposures or
aquatic species, this corresponds to the lowest observable effects concentration (LOEC). These are
referred to interchangeably as lowest observable effects levels (LOELs). Higher-order effects were
evaluated at the lowest lethal dose concentration or the median lethal dose, as appropriate to the
exposure level.
6.2.4 Risk Assessment Screen
DRAFT 6.11 September 1995
-------
Eielson Air Force Base Sitewide Record of Decision
In this stage of the biological risk assessment, a screening process was used to screen source areas
based on potential risk to aquatic organisms from chemical contaminants in surface waters, and to
screen source areas and contaminants based on inhalation by terrestrial organisms. The objectives of
the screen were to evaluate exposure for aquatic receptors based on the latest surface water
concentration data, compare exposure to risk-based toxicological benchmarks, and eliminate from
further consideration those aquatic sites and chemicals below hazard levels. For terrestrial receptors,
screening was performed against LOELs.
Sites where potential surface water contamination existed were screened for hazard to aquatic
organisms. Screening compared water concentration data obtained in 1993 against risk-based water
quality LOELs from EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria (EPA 1986a), which were set to protect
95 percent of aquatic organisms for acute or chronic exposure. The maximum detected concentration
for each contaminant at each site or source area was divided by the relevant acute and chronic LOEL
to obtain an Environmental Hazard Quotient (EHQ). The contaminants with an EHQ> 1 were total
DDTs and dieldrin. All surface water sampling sites on Garrison Slough had water concentrations of
total DDTs that were above levels posing a risk to aquatic organisms. The surface water sampling
location on French Creek near source area LF02 also had concentrations of total DDTs and dieldrin
that were above minimum risk levels.
Sites were also screened on the basis of inhalation of contaminated soils by terrestrial receptors.
Source terms used were RME levels from soil sampling at any depth conducted in 1992 and 1993,
which were used to estimate air concentrations of vapors and particulates at a height of 1 cm above
ground level. LOECs for inhalation were obtained either from the toxicological literature or were
estimated from ingestion LOELs on a per-weight basis. EHQs were totaled across contaminants to
give a composite risk quotient. Sites where inhalation EHQs were less than 0.1 were dropped from
consideration of inhalation exposure. Inhalation was added to ingestion exposure for the one site
(source area WP38) with a summary EHQ above 0.1.
6.2.5 Ecological Risk Assessment
A quantitative risk assessment was performed for the sites, source areas, contaminant groups, and
receptors identified in the previous stages. Exposures of aquatic and terrestrial organisms were
estimated for sites where exposure pathways were complete. Exposures of fish to DDTs were
evaluated for both gill uptake and ingestion of contaminated prey using the Food and Gill Exchange
of Toxic Substances model (Ambrose and Barnwell 1989).
Exposures of terrestrial organisms were evaluated on the basis of the ingestion pathway; the inhalation
pathway was evaluated in risk assessment screen and found to be potentially significant only for
BTEX at WP38. Ingestion exposures were estimated using two methods:
(1) Exposures of herbivores to volatiles were estimated using plant stem concentration factors and
daily vegetation intake rates for herbivores obtained from the literature.
(2) Exposures of maximally-exposed receptors to PAHs, DDTs, PCBs, and lead were estimated
using prey composition and intake rates obtained from the literature, and prey tissue
concentration data for these contaminants that were measured in prey organisms at each site
September 1995 6.12 DRAFT
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision Etelson AFB
(tissue data are summarized in Appendix A). Where tissue data were not available, they were
estimated from Biological. Transfer Factors derived from Eielson tissue samples or biological
accumulation factors obtained from the literature.
Exposures were compared with toxic concentrations for ingestion using data from published
laboratory studies. LOELs were obtained from the literature or were estimated as fractions of the
median lethal dose following EPA-suggested methods. The median LOEL was used as the reference
value for volatiles and semivolatiles; the lowest LOEL was used for the remaining contaminants, the
potential reproductive effects of which can be severe at low exposures in some species. The ratio of
exposure to LOEL (the EHQ) was used to indicate hazard. EHQs for receptors were summed across
contaminants and pathways to develop a composite risk quotient (Table 6.21).
The EHQ exceeded a .value of 1 in only one case: for a shrike at lower Garrison Slough (EHQ —
1.6). PCBs were the primary contaminants contributing to risk at this site.
6.2.6 Uncertainty
This section identifies some of the major sources of uncertainty in the screening-level and quantitative
biological risk assessments. A full discussion of the uncertainties, their possible range of influence on
the risk assessments, and an analysis of significant unresolved issues are provided in Section 7.0 of
the biological risk assessment report (U.S. Air Force 1995h).
The primary uncertainty in the screen and the full risk assessment concerns the temporal and spatial
scales of variability in the contaminant concentrations in abiotic and biological media. No
information on the extent of spatial variability of surface water concentrations is available on a scale
appropriate to aquatic invertebrates. Also, no information on temporal variability is available for an
annual scale. Because of uncertainties in temporal and spatial variation in the occurrence and
transport of contaminants with the potential to bioaccumulate, actual concentrations were obtained
from biological samples collected at the source areas rather than using concentrations estimated from
transport models. These concentrations were obtained for composited material from samples of
plants, voles, macrophytes, and invertebrates. Compositing produces a reasonable estimate of mean
concentration within the composited area; however, all information on local variability is lost. As a
result, the ingestion estimates based on these values are averages rather than maximal exposures.
Tissue samples for fish and squirrels reflect concentrations in samples of one or two animals. Again,
because these values are the best estimate of the mean concentration, there is no information about
variability within these groups at any site. Furthermore, the estimates of mean concentrations are
uncertain because they were based on few individuals. Consequently, there is at least a moderate
uncertainty associated with estimated ingestion dose for organisms feeding heavily on fish and
squirrels (e.g., bald eagles, kingfisher, grebes, and owls).
Uncertainty associated with PCB exposure to terrestrial receptors that consume fish is probably
underestimated for some species, because the data were based on measured concentrations in skinless
fillets and liver. Bufflehead consume prey whole; osprey and eagles may not consume much skin.
PCB concentrations in skin-on fillets have been found to be 3.5 to 4 times that in skinless fillets.
Similarly, concentrations in the high-lipid eggs will be much higher than in muscle.
DRAFT 6.13 ~ September 1995
-------
Eielson Air Force Base Silewide Record of Decision
There is a moderate amount of uncertainty associated with the ingestion exposure estimations because
of use of average diet fractions for receptors of interest. Daily intake rates were estimated from body
weight/intake regression data, which does not take into consideration the metabolic demands of the
cool Eielson environment. Maintenance of thermal equilibrium will require mammals and birds to
increase their food intake rates, and will also require more consumption of water. Direct water
consumption was ignored in these analyses. Consequently, ingestion exposures are potentially
underestimates. Because mass scales to ingestion at a rate less than 1 (Calder 1984), the uncertainty
associated with dietary exposure 0*g/kg body weight) will be less for large animals than for small
animals.
Uncertainties associated with toxicological benchmarks (LOELs) and their relevance to field exposures
produce a moderate to high degree of uncertainty in the risk assessment. Potential considerations
include the following: • . '.- .
• extrapolations from one taxonomic group to another, especially from mammals to birds;
• relevance of response of laboratory animals to wildlife;
• relevance of laboratory presentation of the chemical to wildlife dietary exposures;
• relationship between chronic wildlife exposures and 96-hour laboratory animal exposures;
• toxic responses at different life stages;
• extrapolation of toxic effects between, exposure modes (i.e, ingestion to inhalation LOEL);
• effects of environmental conditions; and
• effects of animals' nourishment status.
EPA has recommended an uncertainty factor of 10 be applied to taxonomic extrapolations for aquatic
receptors where data are available for fish and microcrustacea (OWRS 1985). No such factors have
been defined for terrestrial species; however, all sites with an EHQ < 1 and > 0.1 would be
elevated into the significant risk category (EHQ> 1) by application of a 10X LOEL.
Finally, there is a large amount of uncertainty associated with estimation of ingestion exposure for
volatile organics. The uncertainty arises from using RME groundwater data, using maximal root
exposures, and using bioaccumulation estimates derived for barley but applied to trees and shrubs.
Because there has been no work published on tree and shrub uptake of BTEX, it is not possible to
determine whether the use of this estimate is conservative or not. The other sources of uncertainty
produced a conservative estimate of exposure (i.e., actual exposures are likely to be less than those
estimated).
September 1995 6.14 DRAFT
-------
o\
, •••x' "\
^ . •' \ ' /foipr
AftX , ^ /Garrlkon
Middle
Garrison
Slough
Upper
Garrison
Slough
/
>y
. j orrrrrrrrrrrr]
• Surface Water/Sediment Sample Location
O Aquatic Biota Sample Location
FIGURE 6.1. Garrison Slough Locales for Risk Assessment
-------
Chatanika River
100 Km \
Garrison Slough/
Moose Creek
Confluence
Upper Moose
Creek
Surface Water/
Sediment Sampling
Location
Lower French
Creek
O Aquatic Biota
Sampling Location
0.8 1.6
Scale in Km
Grayling
Lake
Middle French
Creek (FC02)
French Creek at
Quarry Road
Upper
French
Creek
FIGURE 6.2. Surface Water Locales for Risk Assessment (Excluding Garrison Slough)
6.16
-------
TABLE 6,1, Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Upper Garrison Slough
Analyte Detected
Diesel range organics
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
Beta-BHC
Delta-BHC
Endosulfan sulfate
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
r r^
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
Benzene
cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
Delta-BHC
Barium
Lead
Manganese
Hexachlorobenzene
Aroclor-1260
2,4-DDD
4,4-DDD
4^4-DDE
4,4-DDT
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endrin
Methoxyclor
CAS
Number
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
319-85-7
319-86-8
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
18540-29-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7440-02-0
7440-72-4
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
71-43-2
159-59-2
79-01-6
72-54-8
72-55-9
319-86-8
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
11096-82-5
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
309-00-2
60-57-1
72-20-8
72-43-5
Matrix
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment .
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish 'Tissue
Fish Tissue
Units
ug/kg dw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
ug/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
ug/kgdw
jig/kg dw
H3/kg dw
Ug/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
jig/kg dw
Hg/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Hg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L '
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Maximum
38,000
11,000
270
4,200
4.10
5.60
47.0
8,700
33,000
400,000
210
8,000
2,800
11,000
9,100
2,800,000
7,600
510
18,000
45000
1.8
1.4
0.61
0.0520
0.0035
0.0057
17
210
0.91
1,900
0.65
104.00
118.00
345.00
82.20
26.80
0.46
1.83
0.58
4.73
Average
19,000
4,950
113 .
1,963
1.47
1.28
10.1
4,474
20,280
148,400
127
5,800
1,560
6,600
5,260
736,200
3,934
381
12,540
27200
0.94
0.76
0,26
0.0325
. 0.0017
0.0031
13.06
180
0.58
1,422
0.21
48.85
76.83
239
67.2
22.18
0.23
1.2
0.31
1.25
95% UCL
33,600
11,639
266
4,610
3.18
3.58
29.8
7,040
30,780
284,736
200
7,307
2,517
9,573
7,896
1,841,312
6,418
506
16,603
37,433
1.78
1.41
0.55
0,0522
0,0033
0,0063
16
214
0.84
1,951
0.56
103.91
115.58
328.70
84.82
27.27
0.47
1,74
0.62
3.98
Risk Evaluation Status
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below "screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: no screening value
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: no screening value
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
-------
TABLE 6.2, Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Middle Garrison Slough
Analyte Detected
4f4-Bt>t>
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
r r
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
cis- 1,2-Dichloroethy lene
Ethylbenzene
Trichloroethylene
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
Arsenic
Barium
Manganese
Zinc
Acenaphthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrcne
Aroclor-1260
2,4-DDD
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
Aldrin
Dieldrin
CAS
Number
W-34-4
72-55-9
50-29-3
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
18540-29-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7440-02-0
7440-72-4
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
159-59-2
100-41-4
79-01-6
72-54-8
72-55-9
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7439-96-5
7440-66-6
83-32-9
50-32-8
86-73-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
11096-82-5
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
309-00-2
60-57-1
Matrix
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Units
jig/kg dw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
jig/kgdw
jig/kg dw
jig/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kg dw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
yg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/kgww
jig/kg ww.
Hg/kg ww
jig/kg ww
Jig/kg ww
fig/kg ww
jig/kgww
^ig/kgww
Hg/kgww
Mg/kgww
fig/kg ww
^xg/kgww
Maximum
120
14.0
26.0
9,300
9,800
1,500,000
730
41,000
10,000
30,000
64,000
440,000
29,000
420
54,000
17,000
0.2
0.086
0.75
0.0071
0.00098
14
120
11,000
8.7
8,52
2.23
5.09
6.69
5.08
32.80
361.00
1450.00
179.00
52.60
1.49
1.65
Average
59
8.5
18,4
6.96
1.12
1.74
2.37
2.23
23.7
224.5
1015,25
139.1
39.3
0.93
1,13
95%UCL
149
17.5
33.9
8.58
1.99
4.37
. 5,76
4.47
35.78
334.37
1387.62
190.33
56.12
1.40
1.87
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:.
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Risk Evaluation Status
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
no screening value
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
no screening value
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
-------
TABLE 6,3, Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Lower Garrison Slough
Analyte Detected
Aroclor-1260
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Phenanthrene
Aroclor-1260
2,4-DDD
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
Aldrin
CAS
Number
11096-8i-i
83-32-9
86-73-7
85-01-8
11096-82-5
72-54-8
72-55-9
309-00-2
Matrix
Sediment
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Units
Hg/kg dw
jig/kgww
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
jig/kgww
Hg/kg ww
jig/kgww
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
Maximum
55,000
11,10
5.46
2.87
4.73
3000.00
174.00
989.00
234.00
1.80
Average
12,786
9.55
4.02
1.93
3.74
1980
136.75
786
141.1
1.36
95% UCL • Risk Evaluation Status
J5.319
10.84
6.72
2.80
5.71
2935.50
169.34
993.21
220.24
1.71
TABLE 6.4. Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Garrison Slough, Transmitter Road
Analyte Detected
Aroclor-1260
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDT
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
Ethylbenzene
Trichloroethylene
4,4'-DDD
Arsenic
Barium
Manganese
Zinc
CAS
Number
1 1096-8i-5
72-54-8
50-29-3
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
18540-29-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7440-02-0
7440-72-4
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
100-41-4
79-01-6
72-54-8
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7439-96-5
7440-66-6
Matrix
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Wafer
Water
Units
|ig/kg dw
jig/kg dw
jig/kg dw
jig/kg dw
jig/kgdw
jig/kg dw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
jig/kg dw
Hg/L
|ig/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
H8/L
Maximum
230
22
8.2
70,000
180,000
5,100
1,500
4,600
4,700
990,000
2,500
450
9,700
24,000
0.063
0.075
0.0075
5.4
100
220
7
Average 95% UCL ' Risk Evaluation Status
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: no screening value
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: no screening value
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
-------
TABLE 6.5. Identification of Chemicals of Concern at French Creek, Quarry Road
ON
Analyte Detected
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Jr »
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
Delta-BHC
Arsenic
Barium
Manganese
Aroclor-1260
2,4-DDD
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
Endosulfan suifate
CAS
Number
tt-44-4
72-55-9
50-29-3
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
18540-29-9
7440-48*4
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7440-02-0
7440-72-4
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
319-86-8
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7439-96-5
11096-82-5
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
Matrix
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Water
Water
Water
Water
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Units
^g/kg dw
^g/kgdw
^g/kgdw
tig/kg dw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
^ig/kgdw
lig/kgdw
lig/kg dw •
Hg/kgdw
^g/kgdw
|ig/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
Hg/L
^ig/kg ww
Hg/kgww *
Hg/kgww
fig/kg ww
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
Maximum
19
7.2
3,6
7,900
62,000
130
10,000
3,000
10,000
3,200
190,000
8,800
. 460
20,000
25,000
0.0027
4.7
47
220
28.90
15.60
32.50
17.90
6.26
0.24
Average 95% UCL Risk Evaluation Status
kemoved: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below scrtening level
Removed:' no screening value
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed; maximum value below screening level
Removed: no screening value
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
14.73 25.84
5.73 13.81
19.68 30.87
15.53 18.13
3.28 6.35
0.13 0.22
-------
TABLE 6,6, Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Middle French Creek (FC02)
k)
Analyte Detected
4,4-DliD
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
IT r
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Methylenc chloride
4,4f-DDD
Delta-BHC
Dieldrin
Arsenic
Barium
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
CAS
Number
W-W-4
72-55-9
50-29-3
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
18540-29-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7440-02-0
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
75-09-2
72-54-8
319-86-8
60-57-1
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7440-66-6
Matrix
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Unit
Hg/kg dw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
jig/kg dw'
tig/kg dw
jig/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
jig/kg dw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
lig/kgdw
jig/L •
jjg/L
[ig/L
jig/L
Hg/L
[ig/L
|ig/L
}ig/L
Hg/L
Maximum
32
7
58
7,400
29,000
120,000
13,000
4,200
9,700
3,000
350,000
9,700
24,000
30,000
0.94
0.0013
0.0020
0.026
4.9
37
0.69
180
8.1
Average 95% UCL Risk Evaluation Status
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: no screening value
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Retnoved: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed; no screening value
Removed: maximum value below screening level
.
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
-------
TABLE 6.7, Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Lower French Creek
to
to
Analyte Detected
Diesel range organics
4,4-DDD
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
nn
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
4,4'-DDD
Delta-BHC
Arsenic
Barium
Lead
Manganese
Silver
Aroclor-1260
2,4-DDD
2,4-DDT
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
Methoxyclor
CAS
Number
72-54-8
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
18540-29-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7440-02-0
7440-72-4
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
72-54-8
319-86-8
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7440-72-4
11096-82-5
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
72-43-5
Matrix
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Units
Hg/kg dw
jig/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
^ig/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
jig/kg dw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
fig/kg dw
Hg/I-
H8/L
Hg/L
jig/L
H8/L
- HS/L
Hg/L
Hg/kgww
jig/kgww
Hg/kgww
fig/kg ww
jig/kg ww
^tg/kgww
^g/kgww
Maximum
11,000
7.7
6,900
18,000
110,000
280
13,000
4,000
12,000
4,300
280,000
10,000
610
27,000
30,000
0.00085
0.0028
5.9
44
1
160
3
24.60
13.30
37.00
68.40
50.60
78.60
0.57
Average 95% UCL . . Risk Evaluation Status
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: ho screening value
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: no screening value
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
.
Removed: maximum value below screening level
15.85 24.27
8.11 14.52
11.85 32.01
33.25 66.37
22.97 45.40
25.46 67.58
0.21 0.49
-------
TABLE 6.8, Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Flightline Pond
ON
fe
Analytc Detected
Anthracene
Benzo[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Chrysenc
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Diesel range organics
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
. Delta-BHC
Arsenic
Barium
Manganese
CAS
Number
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
18540-29-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7440-02-0
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
319-86-8
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7439-96-5
Matrix
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Water
Water
Water
Water
Units
Hg/kg dw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
jig/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
jig/kgdw
tig/kg dw •
Hg/kgdw
jig/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
jig/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
|ig/L
Hg/L
|Ag/L
UgA, .
Maximum Average
370
650
670
680
400
730
960
2300
1300
2600
41,000
18,000
20,000
2,500
2,200
4,400
3,100
500,000
3,500
4,400
8,700
0.0051
6.2
76
160
95%UCL : Risk Evaluation Status
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: no screening value
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: no screening value
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
-------
TABLE 6.9. Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Lily Lake
Analyte Detected
Anthracene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
4,4-DDD
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Cooper
>xwrr
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Manganese
Zinc
CAS
Number
72-54-8
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
18540-29-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7440-02-0
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
7439-96-5
7440-66-6
Matrix
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Water
Water
Units Maximum Average
Hg/kg dw
Ug/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
jig/kgdw
jig/kgdw
ug/kg dw
jig/kgdw
ug/kg dw
Ug/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Ug/kgdw
Ug/kg dw • •
tig/kg dw
Hg/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
)ig/L
|ig/L
210
240
1300
980
1400
16
3,700
76,000
13,000
3,200
14,000
4,600
84,000
12,000
21,000
33,000
33
7
95% UCL . Risk Evaluation Status
Removed: -maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: .maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: 'maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: no screening value
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: no screening value
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Os
-------
TABLE 6.10. Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Upper Moose Creek
Anaiytc Detected
Diethylphthalate
Diesel range organics
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Manganese
Vanadium
~ Zinc
io 2,4-DDD
^ 2,4-DDT
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
Methoxyclor
CAS
Number
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
18540-29-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7440-02-0
7440-62-2
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7439-96-5
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
72-43-5
Matrix
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Units Maximum Average
Hg/kg dw
Hg/kgdw
fig/kg dw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
jig/kg dw , %
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kg dw
jig/kgdw
Hg/L
Hg/L
|ig/L
Hg/L •
ug/L
|ig/L
Hg/kgww
jig/kgww
jig/kgww
jig/kg ww
jig/kgww
Hg/kgww
460
12,000
7,400
23,000
84,000
210
13,000
3,700
8,900
3,600
270,000
10,000
21,000
5.8
42
1,4
260
7.5
7.4
13,30 3.87
2.37 0.79
73.50 24.97
33.80 14.36
34.20 17,72
0.76 0.28
95% UCL • Risk Evaluation Status
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: no screening value
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: no screening value
, • .
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: no screening value
Removed: maximum value below screening level
11.29
2.06
63.94
30.66
39.30
0.66
-------
TABLE 6.11. Identification of Chemicals of Concern at the Moose Creek/Garrison Slough-Confluence
Analyte Detected
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Aroclor-1260
2,4-DDD
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
Dieldrin
Methoxyclor
CAS
Number
83-32-9
86-73-7
11096-82-5
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
60-57-1
72-43-5
Matrix
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Units
Hg/kgww
jig/kgww
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
jig/kg ww
Hg/kgww
fig/kg ww
Maximum
4,12
3.63
0,59
216.00
20.00
196.00
71.00
28,30
0,71
0.24
Average
1.51
1.36
0.29
64.15
9.87
71.65
34,68
7.96
0.43
0.13
95%UCL Risk Evaluation Status
3.56
3.14
0.55
183.41
19.33
169.48
66.52
23.96
0.69
0.22 .
TABLE 6.12, Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Upper French Creek (Background)
Analyte Detected
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Arsenic
Barium
Cobalt
Copper
^ JrJr
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
Zinc
Hexachlorobenzene
2,4-DDD
2,4-DDT
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
CAS
Number
W40-3W
7440-39-3
18540-29-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7440-02-0
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
118-74-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
Matrix
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue1
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Units
fig/kg dw
Hg/kgdw
jig/kg dw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
jig/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
jig/kgdw
jig/kg dw
fig/kg dw
Hg/L
HS/l-
Hg^
HS/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L .
Hg/L
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
^g/kgww
Maximum
3,400
94,000
17,000
6,100
13,000
4,700
140,000
14,000
2&000
35,000
2.1
30
6.1
3.8
0.75
110
7.8
3.6
0.20
9.91
0.51
46.10
12.70
'6.65
Average
o.r
2.61
0,2
14.21
8.97
3.3
95% UCL
0.18
8.34
0.44
39.32
12.12
6.16
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:.
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Removed:
Risk Evaluation Status
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
no screening value
maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
no screening value
•maximum value below screening level
maximum value below screening level
no screening value
maximum value below screening level
o
-------
TABLE 6.13. Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Piledriver Slough. (Background)
Analytc Detected
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Tetrachloroethylene
Barium
Beryllium
Manganese
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hexachlorobenzene
Aroclor-1260
2,4-DDD
2,4-DDT
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
Methoxyclor
CAS
Number
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
18540-29-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7440-02-0
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
127-18-4
7440-39-3
. 7440-41-7
7439-96-5
50-32-8
118-74-1
11096-82-5
72-54-8
72-55r9
50-29-3
72-43-5
Matrix
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Water
Water
Water
Water
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Units
jig/kg dw
^g/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
^ig/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
fig/kg dw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
Hg/kgdw
^ig/L
fig/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
^ig/kgww
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
Hg/kgww
Maximum
5,600
3,900
61,000
120
14,000
5,400
17,000
4,700
180,000
14,000
24,000
36,000
0.071
46
1.2
21
2.33
0.49
17.60
0.30
0.70
5.72
11.00
1.98
0.20
Average
1.14
0.17
11.9
0.17
0.29
3.34
7.84
1.4
0.12
95% UCL
2.07
0.42
16.37
0.27
0.63
5.25
10.92
2.00
0.18
Risk Evaluation Status
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: no screening value
Removed: maximum value below Screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: no screening value
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
Removed: maximum value below screening level
-------
Analytc Detected
•4,4-CDb
4,4-DDE
TABLE 6.14. Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Chatanika River (Background)
CAS
Number
Matrix
Fish tissue
Units
fig/kg ww
Maximum
Average
0.18
0.54
95% UCL
O.W
Risk Evaluation Status
72-55-9 Fish tissue ug/kg ww
0.60
0.59
o\
k>
00
TABLE 6.15. Identificatipn of Chemicals of Concern at Grayling Lake (Background)
Analyte Detected
Fluorene
2,4-DDE
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
Endosulfan sulfate
CAS
Number
86-73-7
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
Matrix
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Units
Hg/kg ww
Hg/kgww
u,g/kg ww
Hg/kgww
fig/kg ww
[ig/kgww1
Maximum
4.0&
0.70
1.95
6.24
0.36
0.21
Average
2.35
0.65
1.63
6.01
0.18
0.15
95% UCL
li.27
0.97
3.65
7.49
1.12
0,53
Risk Evaluation Status
TABLE 6.16. Identification of Chemicals of Concern at Hidden Lake (Background)
Analyte Detected .
Hexachlorobenzene
4,4-DDD
•4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
CAS
Number
iiS-W-i
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
Matrix
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Units
ug/kg ww
ug/kg ww
ug/kg ww
ug/kg ww
Maximum.
0.17
1.56
12.10
1.05
Average
0.16
1.48
10.6
0.75
95% UCL
0.22
2.01
19.99
2.64 :
Risk Evaluation Status
Analyte Detected
* t"\t K. ly""
TABLE 6.17. Identification of Chemicals of Concern at 28-Mile Pit (Background)
Matrix' Units Maximum Average 95% UCL . Risk Evaluation Status
CAS
Number
72-54-8 Fish Tissue ng'kgww
c
-------
TABLE 6.18, Toxicity Data for Contaminants of Concern in Sitewide BLRA
Cancer Potency Factor
Annlyto
Volatilcs
Benzene
Methylene chloride
Semlvolatiles
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
PCB
Aroclor-1260
Pesticides
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Delta-BHC
Dieldrin
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Methoxychlor
Metals
Arsenic
Beryllium
Manganese
CAS
71-43-2
75-09-2
83-32-9
120-12-7
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
86-73-7
118-74-1
91-20-3
85-01-8
11096-82-5
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
309-00-2
319-86-8
60-57-1
115-29-7
72-20-8
72-43-5
7440-38-2
7440-41-7
7439-96-5
(mg/kg»dH
Oral Reference*
2.90E-02
7.50E-03
[4]
[2]
7.30E-01 [6]
7.30E+00 [5]
7.30E-01 [6]
P]
1.60E+00
[2]
7.70E+00 [10]
2.40E-01
3.40E-01
3.40E-01
1.70E+01 -
PI
1.60E+01
[4]
[3]
PI
4.30E+00
[21
(mg/kg«dH
Inhalation Reference
2.90E-02 [1]
1.60E-03 [1]
P] -
PI
[3] •
1.60E+00
7.70E+00 [10]
PI
P]
3.40E-01
1.70E+01 .
P]
1.60E+01
1.50E+01
8.40E+00
12]
RfD
(mg/kg*d)
Oral Reference
[4]
6.00E-02
6.00E-02
3.00E-01
P]
P]
PI
4.00E-02
(2)
4.00E-02 [7]
4.00E-02 [8]
2.00E-05
PI
PI
5.00E-04
3.00E-05
2.00E-03 [9]
5.00E-05 •
6.00E-03
3.00E-04
5.00E-03
3.00E-04
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
RfC
img/kg*d)
Inhalation Reference
(4]
[4]
Pl
[4]
P]
PI
PI
[2]
4.00E-03 [7]
[4]
PI
[3]
PI
PI
PI
PI
PI
PI
PI
(2]
PI
PI
5.00E-05
Unless referenced otherwise, the toxicity factors are IRIS2 (EPA 1995).
[l]EPA1994a.
[2] "Inadequate" - database is not adequate to assess risk.
[3] "Empty" - an IRIS term that suggests that scientific data are lacking for determination of animal or human risk,
[4] Under review or to be reviewed.
[5] EPA 1992c.
[6] "Risk Assessment for PAH Mixtures." Letter from Carol Sweertey to Salty Thomas, EPA Health and Environmental Assessment Section, November 16,1993.
[7] EPA 1992.
[8] RfD set equal to value for fluoranthene.
[9] EPA 1986b.
[10] Cancer Potency Factors set equal to values for PCBs, general.
-------
TABLE 6.19. Summary of Cancer Risk and Hazard Index at Surface Water Bodies
Surface Water Body
Chatanika River
V,
Upper French Creek
(background)
Piledriver Slough
Grayling Lake
lidden Lake
Exposure Pathway
Ingcstion of fish
Ingcstion of surface water
Dermal contact with surface water
Ingcstion of sediments
Dermal contact with sediments
Summation for all pathways
Sum minus background metals
Ingestion of fish
Ingcstion of surface water
Dermal contact with surface water
[ngcstion of sediments
Dermal contact with sediments
Summation for all pathways
Sum minus background metals
Ingestion of fish
Ingestion of surface water
Dermal contact with surface water
ngestion of sediments
Dermal contact with sediments
Summation for all pathways
Sum minus background metals
ngestion of fish
Ingestion of surface water
Dermal contact with surface water
ngestion of sediments
Dermal contact with sediments
Summation for all pathways
Sum minus background metals
ngestion of fish
ngestion of surface water
Dermal contact with surface water
ngcstion of sediments
Dermal contact with sediments
Summation for all pathways
Sum minus background metals
Current
Cancer
Risk
<
NS
NS
NS
NS
<
<
1E-06
• < -.
<
<
<
1E-06
1E-06
9E-06
1E-06
<
<
<
IE-OS
9E-06
2E-07
NS
NS
NS
NS
2E-07
2E-07
3E-07
NS
NS
NS
NS
3E-07
3E-07
Hazard
Index
<
NS
NS
NS
NS
<
<
2E-02
1E-01
<
3E-02
<
2E-01
2E-02
IE-KX)
2E-02
<
3E-02
<
1E-KX)
1E-HX)
<
NS
NS
NS
NS
<
<
<
NS
NS
NS
NS
<
<
Future
Cancer
Risk
<
NS
NS
NS
-NS
<
. <
3E-06
. ".-.<
<
<
<
3E-06
3E-06
3E-05
3E-06
<
<
<
3E-05
3E-05
6E-07
NS
NS
NS
NS
6E-07
6E-07
1E-06
NS
NS
NS
NS
1E-06
1E-06
Hazard
Index
<
NS
NS
NS
NS
<
<
IE-02
IE-pi. .
<
2E-02
<
IE-OI
IE-02
9E-01
2E-02
<
3E-02
<
9&OI
9E-01
<
NS
NS
NS
NS
<
<
<
NS
NS
NS
NS
<
<
o
6.30
-------
TABLE 6.19. Summary of Cancer Risk and Hazard Index at Surface Water Bodies (cont)
Surface Water Body
23-Mile Pit
"«.
Upper Garrison Slough
Middle Garrison Slough
.XDWCT Garrison Slough
Garrison Slough at
Transmitter Road
Exposure Pathway
Ingestionof fish
Ingestion of surface water
Dermal contact with surface water
Ingestion of sediments
Dermal contact with sediments
Summation of all exposure pathways
Sum minus background metals
Ingestionof fish
Ingestion of surface water
Dermal contact with surface water
Ingestion of sediments
Dermal contact with sediments
Summation of all exposure pathways
Sum minus background metals
Ingestion of fish
Ingestion of surface water
Dermal contact with surface water
Ingestion of sediments
Dermal contact with sediments
Summation of all exposure pathways
Sum minus background metals
Ingestionof fish
Ingestion of surface water
Dermal contact with surface water
ingestion of sediments
Dermal contact with sediments
Summation for all exposure pathways
Sum minus background metals
ngestion of fish
Ingestion of surface water
Dermal contact with surface water
Ingestion of sediments
Dermal contact with sediments
Summation for all exposure pathways
Sum minus background metals
Current
Cancer
Risk
<
NS
NS
NS
NS
< "
<
6E-OS
<
< .
2E-07
<
6E-03
6E-05
3E-05
<
<
1E-07
<
5E-05
5E-05
1E-03
<
<
IE-OS
4E-06
IE-OS
IE-03
NS
<
<
<
<
<
<
Hazard
Index
<
NS
NS
NS
NS
<
<
7E+00
2E+00
<
4E-01
2E-02
1E+01
7E+00
3E400
8E-01
<
1E-01
<
3E+00
3E-KK)
2E+02
<
<
2E-KK)
6E-01
2E+02
2E+02
NS
3E-01
<
4E-01
2E-02
7E-01
1E-02
Future
Cancer
Risk
2E-07
NS
NS
NS
NS
2E-07
2E-07
2E-04
< . .
<
6E-07
2E-07
2E-04
2E-04
2E-04
<
<
4E-07
<
2E-04
2E-04
4E-03
<
<
3E-05
IE-OS
4E-03
4E-03
NS
<
<
2E-07
<
3E-07
3E-07
Hazard
Index
<
NS
NS
NS
NS
<
<
6E400
2E-KX)
<
3E-01
1E-02
8E-HX)
6E-KK)
2E-KK)
6E-01
<
9E-02
<
3E+00
2E-KX)
2E402
<
<
1E-KK)
5E-01
2E-02
2E-02
NS
2E-01
<
3E^)1
1E-02
6E-01
IE-02
6.31
-------
TABLE 6.19. Summary of Cancer Risk and Hazard Index at Surface Water Bodies (cont)
Surface Water Body
Moose Creek/Garrison
Slough Confluence *
French Creek at Quarry
Road ,
Middle French Creek
(FCQ2)
Lower French Creek
Flightlinc Pond
Exposure Pathway
Ingestion of fish
Ingestion of surface water
Dermal contact with surface water
Ingestion of sediments
Dermal contact with sediments
Summation for all exposure pathways
Sum minus background metals
Ingestion of fish
Ingestion of. surface water
Dermal contact with surface water
Ingestion of sediments
Dermal contact with sediments
Summation for all exposure pathways
Sum minus background metals
Ingestion of fish
ingestion of surface water
Dermal contact with surface water
ingestion of sediments
dermal contact with sediments
Summation for all exposure pathways
Sum minus background metals
Ingestion of fish
ngestion of surface water
Dermal contact with surface water
Ingestion of sediments
Dermal contact with sediments
Summation for all exposure pathways
Sum minus background metals
ngestion of fish
ngestion of surface water
Dermal contact with surface water
ngestion of sediments
Dermal contact with sediments
Summation for all exposure pathways
Sum minus background metals
Current
Cancer
Risk
9E-05
NS
NS
NS
NS
9E-05 -
9E-05
IE-OS
"< • '
<
<
<
IE-OS
IE-05
NS
<
<
<
<
2E-07
2E-07
2E-05
<
<
<
<
2E-05
2E-05
NS
<
<
2E-07
<
3E-07
3E-07
Hazard
Index
IE+01
NS
NS
NS
NS
IE+01
1E+01
2E+00
3E-OI
<
4E-02
<
2E-KX)
2E+00
NS
2E-01
<
2E-01
<
4E-01
<
2E400
2E-01
<
2E-01
<
2E+00
2E-HX)
NS
2E-01
<
IE-01
<
4E-01
<
Future
Cancer
Risk
3E-04
NS
NS
NS
NS
3E-04
3E-04
4E-05
<
< .
<
4E-05
4E-05
NS
3E-07
2ErQl
<
<
5E-07
5E-07
5E-05
<
<
<
<
5E-05
5E-05
NS
<
<
.7E-07
3E-07
1E-06
IE-06
Hazard
Index
1E-KM
NS
NS
NS
NS
IE*01
1E+01
lE+OO .
2E-OI
<
3E-02
<
2E-K)0
1E+00
NS
2E-01
<
IE-01
<
3E-01
<
2E-KX)
2E-01
<
IE-01
<
2E+00
2E-KX)
NS
2E-01
<
IE-01
<
3E-OI
<
o
6.32
-------
TABLE 6.19. Summary of Cancer Risk and Hazard Index at Surface Water Bodies (cont)
Surface Water Body
Lily Lake
4k
Upper Moose Creek
Exposure Pathway
Ingestion of fish
Ingestion of surface water
Dermal contact with surface water
Ingestion of sediments
Dermal contact with sediments
Summation for all exposure pathways
Sum minus background metals
Ingestion of fish
Ingestion of surface water
Dermal contact with surface water
Ingestion of sediments
Dermal contact with sediments
Summation of all exposure pathways
Sum minus background metals
Current
Cancer
Risk
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
2E-06
1E-06
<
<
<
4E-06
2E-06
Hazard
Index
<
3E-02
<
<
<
3E-02
<
1E-01
.3E-01
<
IE-01
<
6&41
IE-01
Future
Cancer
Risk
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
. 8E-06
4E-06 .
<:
IE-07
<
1E-05
8E-06
Hazard
Index
<
2E-02
<
<
<
2E-02
<
8E-02
3E-Q1.
<
IE-01
<
4E-OI
8E-02
NS Chemical data for this medium were not available.
< Excess cancer risk < IE-06 or Hazard Index < IE-02
6.33
-------
Table 2. Risk Estimates for Exposure to Soil Collected Near Garrison Slough
Exposure Carcinogenic Hazard
% of Carcinogenic
1.
2.
3.
Case Scenario Concentrations Risk ..Index
All samples Current Industrial RME 2.1E-04 3.8
Future Residential . RME 1.1E-03 16
Future Residential Mean 3.7E-04 .5.6
Excluding three Future Residential RME 1.0E-04 1.5
trench samples Future Residential Mean 4.3E-05 0.6
Excluding three Future Residential RME 3.4E-05 0,5
trench samples
and GSTR-3
Risk Due to PCBs
' >99%
99%
98%
87%
84%
59%
-------
TABLE 6-20, Total Pathway Risks for Surface Water Locales
Site
. Future Recreational
Total
Cancer
Risk
Total
Hazard
Index
Samples Collected
Fish
Sediment/
Water
PCB Contribution
Cancer
Risk
Hazard
Index
Background *
Chatanika River
Upper French Creek
<
3E-06
<
1E-02
X
X
X
0%
0%
0%
0%
Oftsfte Monitoring
Piledrivcr Slough
Grayling Lake
Hidden Lake
28-Mile Pit . .
3E-05
6E-07
IE-06
2E-07
9E-01
<
<
; <
X
X
X
. X '
X
85%
0%
0%
0%
99%
0%
0%
0%
Garrison Slough
Upper
Middle
Lower
Transmitter Rd.
Moose Creek Confluence
French Creek
Quarry Rd.
Middle (FC02)
Lower
Other onsite
Flightlinc Pond
Lily Lake
Upper Moose Creek
2E-04
2E-04
4E-03
3E-07
3E-04
4E-05
5E-07
5E-05
1E-06
<
8E-06
6E-KX)
2E+00
2E-K)2
1E-02
IBfOl
1E-HX)
<
2E-KX)
<
<
8E-02
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
81%
31%
98%
0%
94%
91%
0%
73%
0%
0%
0%
98%
90%
100%
0%
99%
99%
0%
86%
0%
0%
0%
< Excess cancer risk < IE-07 or Hazard Index < 1E-02.
6.34
-------
TABLE 6.21. Summary EHQs for Key Receptors by Site
Receptor
Shrew
Grouse
•
Shrike
Site
WP38
LF02
LF03
ST20
SS35
SS56
ST19
G-Iower •
G-middlc
STIC
WP38
LF02
LF03
ST20
SS35
SS56
ST19
G-lower
G-middlc
ST10
WP38
LF02
LF03
ST20
SS35
SS56
ST19
G-lowcr
G-middlc
ST10
Inhalation
0.24
0.02
0.07
0.0001
0.08
0.0001
0.04
0
0
0
0.02
Ingestioa
Volatile
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.034
2E-05
5E-05
6E-04
0.04
0.021
Semi-volatile
0.001
0.003
0.0006
0.02
0.02
0.003
0.002
.
Pesticide/
PCB
0.002
0.02
0.00001
0.0003
0.004
0.0002
O.OOOQI
0.7
0.005
0.004
0.001
0.01
0.00003
0.0001
0.002
0.0001
0.00004
1.5
0.003
0.002
Lead
0.004
0.01
0.004
0.01
5E-04
0.06
0.1
0.01
0.008
0.04
0.007
0.04
0.003
0.1
0.4
0.01
Summary
EHQ
0.246
0.051
0.077
0.001
0.114
0.0008
0.040
0.78
0.108
01016
0.054
0.00002
0.00005
0.0006 •
0
0
0.04
0
0
0.021
0.009
0.05
0.00703
0.0001
- 0.042
0.0031
0.00004
1.6
0.403
0.012
6.35
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision Eielson AFB
7.0 Description of Alternatives
An FS was performed as part of the sitewide RI/FS process. This section of the ROD describes the
remedial alternatives proposed and evaluated in the FS. For more details, see the FS (U.S. Air Force
1995f).
7.1 Remedial Action Objectives
Remedial action objectives (RAOs) are developed to specify actions and contaminant levels necessary
to provide protection of human health and the environment. RAOs define the contaminants of
concern, exposure routes and receptors, and remediation goals, which are acceptable contaminant
levels for each exposure route. The results of the sitewide BLRA (U.S. Air Force 1995g) were used
to identify the contaminants and pathways that pose an unacceptable risk, and to determine acceptable.
contaminant levels for each exposure pathway. The BLRA indicated that unacceptable potential risks
(i.e., excess cancer risk > 10* and/or HI > 1) exist in or adjacent to Garrison Slough and French
Creek. Exposure to PCBs through soil and fish ingestion accounts for almost all of the potential risk.
Soil
There are two RAOs associated for the soils located adjacent to Garrison Slough. The first RAO is to
prevent ingestion of soils in excess of the acceptable carcinogenic risk range as defined by CERCLA.
The second RAO is to prevent additional loading to the slough via surface water runoff.
The concentration of concern for PCBs depends primarily on the type of exposure that will occur
based on projected land use. Land use in this area is currently industrial and is projected to remain
industrial for the foreseeable future. EPA guidance suggests action levels for PCBs within the range
of 10 to 25 mg/kg for industrial areas. Using Eielson site-specific exposure factors, an action level of
10 mg/kg is also within the acceptable risk range assuming a future residential scenario. An action
level of 10 mg/kg is also consistent with the RAO to reduce contaminant loading to Garrison Slough
and is consistent with the action level for slough sediments.
Surface Water and Sediments
As discussed in Section 5.4, the PCBs found in fish are believed to be the direct result of their
exposure to PCB-contaminated sediment. The uptake of PCBs by fish may occur through incidental
ingestion of contaminated sediment while feeding, gill exchange with surface waters, and ingestion of
contaminated water and prey. Although PCBs were not detected in surface water samples, they may
be present at concentrations below the detection limit and contribute to their bioaccumulation in fish.
PCB-contaminated sediment was found in lower Garrison Slough, with the highest concentrations
found immediately upstream of Arctic Avenue. Because fish inhabiting Garrison Slough will
presumably continue to accumulate PCBs from sediment either directly or indirectly, RAOs were
developed for both fish and sediments.
State of Alaska or federal freshwater sediment cleanup criteria for PCBs do not currently exist. In its
guidance for PCB-contaminated sites, EPA uses the equilibrium partitioning approach to derive
DRAFT 771 September 1995
-------
EielsonAFB Sitcwide Record of Decision
sediment quality criteria (SQQ that will achieve the chronic ambient water quality criteria of
0.014 /*g/L in interstitial water (EPA 1990). EPA recommends that if the sediment concentration at a
site exceeds the SQC value, water column species should be monitored to determine whether prey
contain unacceptable contaminant levels. The Air Force sampled water column species in lower
Garrison Slough, and it appears that the PCB levels in fish tissue pose an unacceptable potential risk
to human health. EPA* guidance, however, does not suggest a method for determining a cleanup
criterion if unacceptable contaminant levels in water column species are found. In addition, EPA
points out that an established cleanup concentration, based on total PCB, may show little relationship
to biological phenomena because not all PCB congeners have the same toxicological effects.
Consequently, a mass-removal approach is the basis for the sediment remediation goal. This
approach assumes that removing or isolating the sediment with the highest PCB concentrations and
reducing the mass available for uptake by water column organisms will, over time, lead to a reduction
in the average PCB concentration in the fish population. Because of the long half-life of PCBs in
aquatic organisms (approximately 8 years [DeBoer et al. 1994]), a reduction in average fish tissue
concentrations for the general population may not be evident until fish with high body burdens either
die or migrate out of the system.
The primary remediation goal for slough sediment is to reduce the potential risk to human health from
the consumption of PCB-contaminated fish. This goal can be achieved through the following
measures:
• Preventing ingestion of contaminated fish from lower Garrison Slough, and
• Reducing the mass of PCBs available for uptake by water column organisms, including fish,
so that concentrations of PCBs in fish tissue will eventually achieve acceptable levels.
To achieve the remediation goal and meet the general goals of the CERCLA program, RAOs were
developed to define media-specific contaminant concentrations or mass reduction goals. Table 7.1
presents these RAOs.
The remediation goal for fish is based on a back calculation for the fish tissue PCB concentration that
would produce a total excess cancer risk of less than 10"6. This calculation assumed a recreational
exposure scenario (exposure parameters are specified in Section 6.1.2).
A plot of the cumulative PCB mass vs. downstream distance from the point where contamination
starts indicates that approximately 80 percent of the PCB mass lies in a 300-m (984-ft) stretch
upstream from Arctic Avenue (Figure 7.1). Downstream of Arctic Avenue, the cumulative mass
curve flattens out, indicating that the remainder of the PCBs are disseminated throughout a much
larger volume of sediment. Remediation in this area would be less cost-effective because of the large
volume of sediment containing relatively low (maximum concentration < 5 milligrams per kilogram
[mg/kg] PCBs).
It is believed that the RAO will be achieved by remediating the 300-m (984-ft) stretch of Garrison
Slough just upstream of Arctic Avenue (Figure 7.2). Assuming a stream channel 3.3 m (10 ft) wide
and filled with 0.6 m (2 ft) of contaminated sediment,, the volume of sediment requiring remediation
September 1995 - 7.2 DRAFT
-------
Sitcwidc Record of Decision Eiclson AFB
is approximately 600 m3 (730 cy). The effectiveness of remediating the target area upstream of
Arctic Avenue in reducing PCB concentrations in fish to acceptable levels will require verification,
and further remediation may be necessary. Residual PCBs in sediment downstream of Arctic Avenue
will eventually degrade and disperse through natural processes.
7.2 Remedial Alternatives
Five remedial alternatives for lower Garrison Slough were developed and analyzed in detail in the
sitewide FS (U.S. Air Force 1995f). The alternatives evaluated under the FS are also applicable to
contaminated soils adjacent to Garrison Slough. These alternatives are listed below.
7.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action with Monitoring
The No Action alternative requires that no action be taken to reduce contaminant concentrations in
either soil, fish or sediment. This alternative relies on natural degradation and dispersion to reduce
contaminant concentrations. Ongoing environmental monitoring of soil, fish, sediment, and surface
water would be performed.
Based this alternative would result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health based
levels, a review would be required no less often than each 5 years in accordance with Section 121(c)
ofCERCLA.
7.2.2 Alternative 2: Limited Action
The Limited Action alternative uses institutional controls to restrict use of areas with unacceptable soil
contamination and to restrict fishing, along with engineering controls to restrict the migration of fish
into the contaminated portion of Garrison Slough. It would result in an almost immediate reduction
in human exposure to PCBs by interrupting the fish ingestion pathway. These controls are described
below.
Fishing Advisory/Restrictions. Air Force restrictions at Eielson AFB are currently in place to
prevent fishing in Garrison Slough. The restrictions stste that the ingestion of fish from Garrison
Slough may pose a health risk and should be avoided. Fishing permits are required to fish at Eielson
AFB. The briefing that is required to obtain a permit identifies areas where fishing is prohibited and
explains the potential risks associated with ingestion of fish from lower Garrison Slough. This area
would also be designated as a restricted use area in the base Management Action Plan. The Air
Force would be responsible for posting any signs necessary to advise the public of the fishing
restrictions. In addition, the Alaska State Department of Fish and Game has designate Garrison
Slough a catch-and-release-only area. This classification would further reduce the potential for
ingestion of contaminated fish.
Physical Fish Control. A physical barrier (e.g., a rock dam, a fish screen) would be installed in
Garrison Slough near the northern base boundary to prevent the migration of fish into and out of the
contaminated reach of the slough. This control would also prevent farther bioaccumulation of PCBs
by fish that have migrated out of the slough. The FS assumed construction of a rock dam that would
be approximately 1 m (0.3 ft) high, and would be constructed with a vertical to very steep
DRAFT 73 September 1995
-------
Kelson AFB Sitcwidc Record of Decision
downstream face to prevent the upstream migration of fish (Figure 7.2).
Ongoing environmental monitoring of fish, sediment, and surface water would also be performed as
part of this alternative.
Based this alternative would result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health based
levels, a review would be required no less often than each 5 years in accordance with Section 121(c)
ofCERCLA.
7.23 Alternatives: In Situ Capping
Under the In Situ Capping alternative, PCB-contammated soils adjacent to the slough would be
. capped in place using native soils. Sediment in the 300-m (984-ft) stretch upstream of Arctic Avenue
would be left.in place but covered with a multilayer cap to isolate it from the ecosystem. Isolating
the contaminated sediment would, over time, lead to a reduction in PCB concentrations in the fish
population. After temporary diversion of the slough and preparation of the stream bed (devegetation
and contouring), a permeable geotextile liner would be installed, and covered by successive 10-15 cm
(4-6 in.) thick layers of pea gravel, coarse pebble, and cobble. The permeable liner would permit
any gases formed during decomposition of organic mater to escape without lifting the liner. The.
complete liner is estimated to raise the bed of the slough approximately 30 to 45 cm (12 to 18 in.).
Institutional controls (described in Alternative 2) would also be implemented with this alternative to
provide a near-immediate reduction in the amount of fish ingested from Garrison Slough. Ongoing
environmental monitoring of fish, sediment, and surface water would also be performed.
7*2.4 Alternative 4: Dredge/Excavate and On-site Disposal
This alternative requires removal of PCB-contaminated soil and sediment with with concentrations
greater than 10 mg/kg followed by onsite disposal of the material with concentrations less than 50
mg/kg. Mechanical dredging of sediment would produce an estimated 600 m3 (730 cy) of
contaminated sediment. Onsite disposal would require hauling the dredged material directly to the
inactive base landfill at source area LF03 (Figure 7.2). The soil and sediments would be placed in an
unlined trench above the water table, covered with clean soil, and revegetated. Under the CERCLA
OU 5 ROD, LF03 was closed in accordance with relevant and appropriate requirements of RCRA
Subtitle C (40 CFR 264). Actions included capping and implementation of institutional controls of
the landfill. Therefore, disposal of the PCB-contaminated material less than 50 mg/kg would be
protective of human health and the environment.
Soil and sediments with >50 mg/kg PCBs would be handled and shipped offsite in accordance with
TSCA 40 CCFR 761. Under the existing rule, PCBs of 50 mg/kg or greater are typically incinerated
or TSCA landfilled.
Institutional controls (described in Alternative 2) would also be implemented with this alternative to
provide a nearly immediate reduction in the amount of fish ingested from Garrison Slough. Ongoing
environmental monitoring of fish, sediment, and surface water would also be performed.
September 1995 7.4 DRAFT
-------
Sitcwidc Record of Decision EielsonAFB
7.2.5 Alternatives: Dredge/Excavate and Treat
The Dredge/Excavate and Treat alternative is similar to the Dredge/Excavate and Dispose Alternative,
except that the dredged material would be treated to permanently destroy the PCBs. Land farming
would degrade the PCBs over several months to years. A biological agent, such as white rot fungus
(Phanerocheate chrysosporium), can be used with a cellulose/lignin base food source and nutrients to
degrade PCBs. Sawdust is the most likely food source, although straw could also be used. The
degradation might normally be completed in a season; however, due to the short growing season in
the Fairbanks area, it is expected that up to three seasons would be required, with new inoculations
and aeration performed at the beginning of each growing season.
Institutional controls (described in Alternative 2) would also be implemented with this alternative to
provide a nearly immediate reduction in the amount of fish ingested from Garrison Slough. Ongoing
environmental monitoring of fish, sediment, and surface water would also be performed.
DRAFT 7.5 September 1995
-------
GS09
97%
Stream Flow
LEGEND
1994 Data
1995 Data
4-
GS13
88%
4-
[ Arctic Aventi(T)
•-i i
GS08
84%
<*>.
V
GS07
78%
-b :• —
>
V>
GS25
81%
GS12
18%
4-
4-
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
I
g
3
4400 4300 4200
4100 4000 3900 3800
Distance from QSOO (m)
3700 3600 3500
FIGURE 7.1. Cumulative Percent of PCB Mass with Increasing Distance from Contamination Source in Garrison Slough
-------
ON
'' X
'""'Target Remediation Area
Disposal Area
for Dredged Sediment
FIGURE 7.2. Elements of Remedial Action for Garrison Slough
o
o
-------
EielsonAFB
Sitewide Record of Decision
TABLE 7.1. Remedial Action Objectives for Garrison Slough
Medium
Fish
Sediment
Soils
Contaminant of
Concern
< PCBs
(Aroclor 1260>
PCBs
(Aroclor 1260)
PCBs
(Aroclor 1260)
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Receptor
Human
Human (through
fish ingestion)
Human
Remediation Goal
0.69 fig/ kg
(wet weight)
Remove PCBs
> lOmg/kg
Remove PCBs
> lOmg/kg
September 1995
7.8
DRAFT
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision EielsonAFB
8.0 Summary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
In accordance with federal regulations, the five cleanup alternatives were evaluated based on the nine
criteria presented in the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The nine criteria are divided into three
groups as follows:
Threshold Criteria - Must be met by all alternatives.
(1) Overall protection of human health and the environment. How well does the alternative
protect human health and the environment, both during and after construction?
(2) Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), Does the
alternative meet all applicable or relevant and appropriate state and federal laws?
Balancing Criteria - Used to compare the alternatives.
(3) Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. How well does the alternative protect human
health and the environment after cleanup? What, if any, risks will remain at the area?
(4) Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment. Does the alternative
effectively treat the contamination to significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of
the hazardous substance?
(5) Short-Term Effectiveness. Are there potential adverse effects to either human health or the
environment during construction or implementation of the alternative? How fast does the
alternative reach the cleanup goals?
(6) Implementabilitv. Is the alternative both technically and administratively feasible? Has the
technology been used successfully at similar areas?
(7) Cost. What are the relative costs of the alternatives?
Modifying Criteria - Evaluated as a result of public comments.
(8) State Acceptance. What are the state's comments or concerns about the alternatives
considered and about the preferred alternative? Does the state support or oppose the preferred
alternative?
(9) Community Acceptance. What are the community's comments or concerns about the
alternatives considered and about the preferred alternative? Does the community generally
support or oppose the preferred alternative?
This section contains the results of the comparative analyses of remedial alternatives for Garrison
Slough.
DRAFT 8.1 September 1995
-------
Eidson AFB Record of Decision
8.1 Threshold Criteria
S.I.I Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
All of the alternatives,-.except No Action, would implement institutional controls to reduce the short-
term risk to human health by preventing or limiting the ingestion of PCB-contaminated soils or fish.
The Limited Action alternative would reduce the long-terms risks by preventing the migration of fish
into the most highly-contaminated reach of Garrison Slough by. using a fish migration control device.
The In-Situ Capping alternative would achieve protection by isolating the soils and sediment, thereby
reducing the degree of PCB bioaccumulation in fish.
The Dredge/Excavate and Dispose and Dredge/Excavate and Treat alternatives would achieve long-
term protection by permanently removing soils and sediments that are the source, of PCBs to fish.
The residual PCBs in sediment downstream of Arctic Avenue would naturally degrade and disperse
with time. Institutional controls would be maintained under these alternatives to restrict fishing until
concentrations were below acceptable levels.
8.1.2 Compliance with ARARs
All of the alternatives, except No Action, would meet all applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements as outlined in Section 10.2.
8.2. Modifying Criteria
A comparative analysis of the five alternatives using the modifying criteria is provided in Table 8.1.
8.3. Balancing Criteria
8.3.1 State Acceptance
The State of Alaska concurs with the selected remedy for Garrison Slough. Interested Natural
Resource Trustees, specifically Alaska State Department of Fish and Game, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, and State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, have also been involved in
determining the selected remedy.
8.3.2 Community Acceptance
There were no public comments received during the public comment period. The Eielson AFB
Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) was briefed on the proposed remedy and expressed support of the
proposed remedy. One of the co-chairs of the RAB was specifically interested in continued
monitoring of fish, surface water, and sediments off-base in Moose Creek.
A summary of community participation activities is included in Section 3 and in the Responsiveness
Summary.
September 1995 8.2 DRAFT
-------
TABLE 8.1. Comparison of Alternatives for Garrison Slough
Cleanup Alternatives
1
W
W
W
2
W
W
P
3
P
W
G
4
G
\
W
B
5
B
G
B
Balancing Criteria
Long-term effectiveness and permanence
The no action, limited action, and capping alternatives leave all of the
contamination in place. However, the capping alternative isolates almost all
(about 80 percent of the PCBs by weight) of the contamination from contact with
fish. Both removal alternatives (dredging and disposal or treatment) leave a
small amount (about 20 percent by weight) of the PCB contamination in place.
The residual contamination should eventually degrade through natural processes.
The no action alternative does not prevent people from eating contaminated fish.
All of the other alternatives provide controls for preventing or limiting the
ingestion of potentially-contaminated fish .through fishing restrictions.
The no action alternative does not prevent exposure to contaminated soils or fish.
The limited action alternative will prevent fish from migrating upstream into die
contaminated reach of the slough; however, it will not protect fish and other
aquatic life that are already upstream of the dam. The capping alternative isolates
most of the PCBs, although long-term reliability will require monitoring and
maintenance to preserve the integrity of die liner. The two dredging alternatives
will reliably remove soil and sediment contamination that are the source of
contamination to the fish in the slough.
Reduction of toxicitv. mobility, or volume through treatment
Only the dredge/excavate and treat alternative uses a treatment process.
Treatment would be accomplished through land farming. An estimate 870 cubic
yards of dredged material, containing about 80 percent of the PCBs by weight,
would be treated. Depending on the effectiveness of this technology in an arctic
environment, PCBs might be broken down into nonhazardous materials (carbon
dioxide) during this process.
None of the other alternatives use treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of the PCB contamination.
Short-term effectiveness
The capping and dredging alternatives present the potential for some movement of
the contaminated sediment, which could be controlled by isolating the area and
diverting the surface water. The dredging alternatives present some potential for
direct contact exposure during excavation and land farming or landfilling,
although the risks from this pathway are very low. Engineering and institutional
controls would reduce this potential.
It is estimated that under the no action and limited action alternatives, PCB
contamination in fish would be reduced to acceptable levels in tens of years.
Under the capping and dredging alternatives, the majority of the sediment
contamination would be isolated via capping or removed within a few weeks.
Contamination levels in fish would decrease to acceptable levels after all of the
currently contaminated fish die.
8.3
-------
TABLE 8.1. Comparison of Alternatives for Garrison Slough
Cleanup Alternatives
1
NA
98
2
B
140
3
P
290
4
~t>
B
191
5
G
217
Balancing Criteria
Short-term effectiveness (cont.)
The no action and limited action alternatives would not prevent environmental
impacts from PCB contamination. The limited action alternative would raise the
base level of the slough behind the rock dam, and prevent fish from migrating to
areas above the dam. The remaining alternatives will completely change about
900 feet of the existing channel and temporarily affect the ecology of this part of
the slough. Capping will also rase the stream bed by 1 to 2 feet, and
maintenance of the liner may also adversely affect the slough. The dredging
alternatives will lower the bed of the slough 1 to 2 feet, and some short-term
degradation of the surface water (turbidity) may occur. However, impacts to the
slough from all of the alternatives are expected to be only temporary.
Imolementabilitv
Implementation of fishing restrictions and installation of a fish control device can
be easily implemented. Temporary damming and rerouting of the surface water
during remediation is relatively straightforward. Capping might be problematic if
the cap must be installed through standing water and/or over soft sediment.
Dredging and disposal is easy to implement. Dredging and treatment is also
easily implemented, although land farming of PCB-contaminated material has not
been successfully demonstrated at Eielson AFB. The reliability of land fanning
to treat PCBs, particularly in an arctic environment, is not well established.
Base fishing restrictions are reliable for preventing the ingestion of fish. The
reliability of the capping alternative is high as long as the integrity of the liner is
not disrupted through bioturbation or changing stream flow conditions. Dredging
and disposal of PCB contaminated sediment is easy to implement, and is a proven
technology.
Cost ($K)
The estimated total present worth costs (assuming 30 years at a 5% interest rate)
for each of the cleanup alternatives are presented in thousands of dollars.
Cleanup Alternatives
1 No Action.
2 Limited Action.
3 Capping.
4 Dredge and Dispose.
5 Dredge and Treat.
Key
B Best.
G Good.
P Poor.
W Worst.
NA Not applicable.
8.4
-------
Sitewidc Record of Decision Eicison AFB
9.0 The Selected Remedy
This section describes the selected remedy for Garrison Slough. Based upon consideration of the
requirements of CERCLA, the detailed analysis of the remedial alternatives using the nine criteria,
and public comments, the U.S. Air Force, ADEC, and EPA have determined that a combination of
Alternatives 2 (Limited Action) and 4 (Dredge/Excavate and Dispose) is the most appropriate remedy
for Garrison Slough and adjacent soils. Major components of the selected remedy include:
• Institutional controls: Fishing restrictions in Garrison Slough
• Engineering controls: Fish control device near the downstream edge of Eielson AFB
• Excavation of contaminated soils and'sediments with concentrations greater than 10 mg/kg
•' . PCBs :". -_; ' ••• • ' •-.'''•• ••••••• .''•'••
• Onsite disposal of material with PCB concentrations less than 50 mg/kg
Offsite disposal or treatment of materials with PCB concentrations greater than 50 mg/kg in
accordance with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 40 CFR 761.
• Environmental monitoring of soils, sediments, surface water, fish, and groundwater.
This combination entails the active removal and disposal of PCB-contaminated soils and sediment with
concentrations greater than 10 mg/kg, and the use of an engineering control to prevent fish from
migrating during the remediation. These soils and sediments will be disposed of in an on-site landfill
designated LF03. Under the CERCLA OU 5 ROD, LF03 was closed in accordance with relevant and
appropriate requirements of RCRA Subtitle C (40 CFR 264). Actions included capping and
implementation of institutional controls of the landfill. Therefore, disposal of the PCB-contaminated
material less than 50 mg/kg would be protective of human health and the environment.
Excavated soil or sediments containing greater than 50 ppm PCBs would be disposed of or treated in
a manner that complies with TSCA (40 CFR 761).
Institutional controls will restrict fishing and the consumption of fish from Garrison Slough until PCB
concentrations in fish have been reduced to a level, that does not pose an unacceptable risk to human
health. This alternative will permanently remove approximately 80 percent of the PCB-contaminated
sediment from Garrison Slough to prevent exposure and ingestion by fish. Air Force restrictions at
Eielson AFB are currently in place to prevent fishing in Garrison Slough. The restrictions state that
the ingestion of fish from Garrison Slough may pose a health risk and should be avoided. Fishing
permits are required to fish at Eielson AFB. The briefing that is required to obtain a permit identifies
areas where fishing is prohibited and explains the potential risks associated with ingestion of fish from
lower Garrison Slough. This area would also be designated as a restricted use area in the base
Management Action Plan. The Air Force would be responsible for posting any signs necessary to
advise the public of the fishing restrictions. In addition, the Alaska State Department of Fish and
Game has designate Garrison Slough a catch-and-release-only area. This classification would further
DRAFT 9.1 September 1995
-------
EidsonAFB Sitcwide Record of Decision
reduce the potential for ingestion of contaminated fish.
The Ak Force will continue to monitor PCB concentrations in fish tissue and sediment to evaluate the
effectiveness of the cleanup. The estimated cost of $233,000 for the combined preferred alternative
includes 8 years of fish tissue monitoring (the estimated lifespan of a grayling) and 3 years of
sediment monitoring. Additional monitoring may be required if concentrations have not decreased
below acceptable levels in these timeframes.
The selected remedy of fishing restrictions and excavation of soils and sediments with concentrations
greater that 10 mg/kg with on-site disposal will reduce the carcinogenic risks to an acceptable level as
defined by CERCLA for both industrial and residential scenarios. The HD for noncarcinogenic
effects will be reduced to less than 1 by the remedial action.
After nil of the currently-contaminated fish have died, PCB levels in fish are expected to be low
enough that they no longer pose an unacceptable risk to human health. This alternative is easy to
implement and has the greatest likelihood of success.
In the event that it becomes apparent during or after implementation of the selected remedy that the
remediation goals will not be met, additional measures could be required to protect human health and
the environment (i.e., removal or isolation of PCB-contaminated sediment downstream of Arctic
Avenue or ongoing institutional controls).
September 1995 9.2 DRAFT
-------
Sitcwidc Record of Decision Eielson AFB
10.0 Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy meets statutory requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA, as amended by
SARA, and to the extent practicable, the NCP. The evaluation criteria are discussed below.
"*
10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedies protect human health and the environment through the removal and on-site
disposal of PCB-contaminated soils and sediments that are the source of contamination to humans and
fish. Soils and sediments with PCB concentrations greater than 50 mg/kg will be disposed or treated
in accordance with TSCA. Most of the PCB-contaminated sediments, which are believed to be the
source of PCBs to fish, will be removed by mechanical dredging and disposed in an on-base landfill.
This action will remove approximately 80 percent of the PCBs by weight, and will interrupt the
exposure pathway from sediments to fish. Implementation of institutional control to restrict fishing hi
Garrison Slough will be designed to eliminate the risk from humans ingesting fish until levels
decrease to below acceptable levels.
The selected remedy is designed will reduce the excess cancer risk to within the 10"* to 10"* range,
and the HI to less than 1. No unacceptable short-term risks or cross-media impacts resulting from
implementation of the remedy are anticipated that cannot be readily controlled.
10.2 Attainment of ARARs
CERCLA specifies that remedial actions must attain standards that are defined by EPA and ADEC as
applicable or relevant and appropriate for Eieison AFB, unless a waiver is obtained. The selection
process for remedial actions may also take into account the to be considered (TBC) criteria. These
criteria may include nonenforceable criteria, advisories, or guidance issued by federal or state
agencies that are not legally binding but are considered, if appropriate, in developing remedial action
objectives and goals. The selected remedies will comply with ARARs of federal and Alaska State
environmental and public health laws.
The remedy chosen for Garrison Slough will comply with all action- and location-specific ARARs, as
described in the following sections. Potential ARARs for surface water and sediment were identified
in the sitewide FS (U.S. Air Force 1995e).
10.2.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs
The State of Alaska has promulgated water quality criteria for specific classes of protected water use
and has adopted a nondegradation policy for waters of higher quality than the criteria (18 AAC 70).
Surface waters at Eielson AFB are protected for Classes (1)(A) Water Supply, (1)(B) Water
Recreation, and (1)(C) Growth and Propagation of Fish, Shellfish, Other Aquatic Life, and Wildlife.
No chemical-specific ARARs for PCBs in freshwater sediment or fish tissue currently exist. The
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established a temporary tolerance level for PCB residues in
food for human consumption until these contaminants are eliminated from the environment
DRAFT 10.1 September 1995
-------
Eiclson AFB Shewide Record of Decision
(21 CFR 109.30). The tolerance level of 2 mg/kg PCBs in the edible portion of fish and shellfish is a
TBC criterion for Eielson AFB.
EPA Guidance of Remedial Actions for Superfiind Sites with PCB Contamination, August 1990,
EPA/540/G-90/007 is a TBC for this action and provides a general framework for determining
cleanup levels, identifying treatment options, and assessing necessary management controls for
residuals. This guidance recommends preliminary remediation goals for PCBs in soil as follows: 1) 1
mg/kg for residential areas, and 2) 10 to 25 mg/kg for industrial areas. Principal threats are
identified as: 1) soils with concentrations greater than 100 mg/kg for residential areas, and 2) soils
with concentrations greater than 500 mg/kg for industrial areas.
TSCA's PCB Spill Cleanup Policy is also a TBC criterion for Superfiind response actions. The spill
policy provides cleanup targets as follows: 1) for non-restricted areas, cleanup levels of 1 mg/kg (or
10 mg/kg if covered'with 10 inches of clean soil), and 2) for restricted areas, 25. ppm (50 ppm if the
area is secured by a fence and a warning sign posted.
10.2.2 Location-Specific ARARs
The location-specific ARARs identified for the remediation of contaminated sediments and fish are the
following:
• Floodplain restrictions. For activities on a floodplain, action must be taken to avoid adverse
effects, minimize potential harm, and restore and preserve natural and beneficial values (40
CFR 6, Appendix A). Eielson AFB is located on the floodplain of the Tanana River.
• Stream restrictions. Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, if any activity requires
diversion, channeling, or other modification of a stream or river and affects fish or wildlife,
action must be taken to protect the fish or wildlife (40 CFR 6.302).
• Wetlands. Designated wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act. Any remedial
activities conducted in wetland areas must be implemented in a manner that avoids adverse
effects, minimizes potential harm, and preserves and enhances the wetlands to extent possible.
Although permit requirements are waived under CERCLA, excavation or fill would require
special planning and could require wetland replacement if a significant area was affected. The
part of Garrison Slough where remedial actions will be taken is not in a designated wetland
protected under the Clean Water Act.
10.23 Action-Specific ARARs
Action-specific requirements for the treatment, storage and disposal of PCB-contaminated material are
derived from two sets of regulations: TSCA PCB regulations (40 CFR 761), and RCRA land
disposal restrictions (40 CFR 268).
TSCA requirements do not apply to PCBs at concentrations less than 50 ppm; however, PCBs cannot
be diluted to escape TSCA requirements. Response actions must evaluate the form and concentration
of PCB contamination "as found" at the site (EPA 1990). Soils and sediments with concentrations
September 1995 10.2 DRAFT
-------
Sitewide Record of Decision Eiclson AFB
greater than 50 mg/kg are subject to the substantive requirements of 40 CFR 761.
Disposal of Non-Liquid PCS Waste With Concentrations Greater Than or Equal to 50 ppm. Non-
liquid PCB waste in the form of soil, rags, or other debris, with concentrations of 50 ppm or greater
are to be disposed of in one of the following manners:
*«.
• in an incinerator (40 CFR 761.70)
• treated by an equivalent method (40 CFR 761.60(e))
• in a chemical waste landfill (40 CFR 761.75).
Land Disposal Restriction Consideration
PCB- contaminated RCRA hazardous waste (as defined by 40 CFR 261) may be subject to land
disposal restrictions if:
• the concentration of PCBs in liquid hazardous waste is greater than or equal to 50 ppm; or
• the total concentration of Halogenated Organic Compounds (HOCs) in non-liquid hazardous
waste exceeds 1000 ppm.
The total concentration of HOCs in sediment from Garrison Slough do not exceed 1000 ppm;
therefore, land disposal restriction will not apply.
10.3 Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost effective for the remediation of the contaminated sediments because it has
been determined to provide overall effectiveness proportionate to its costs and duration.
10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies
The selected remedy does not employ alternative treatment or resource recovery technologies. The
use of alternative treatment technologies was determined to be impracticable due to the large volume
of low concentration of PCBs, the remoteness of the site, the unavailability of technologies, and the
availability of a protective landfill.
The remedy selected for Garrison Slough is a permanent solution because contaminated soil and
sediment will be removed from the Garrison Slough, thereby interrupting the exposure pathway from
sediment to fish. The remedy provides protection of human health and the environment, complies
with ARARs, is cost-effective and utilizes permanent solutions to the extent practicable. The selected
remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs among the alternatives with respect to the evaluation
criteria, specifically long-term permanence, implementability, and cost-effectiveness.
10,5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal element will not be met.
DRAFT 10.3 September 1995
-------
EieisonAFB . Sitcwide Record of Decision
Treatment of contaminated soils and sediments is not considered to be a cost-effective means of
reducing risks to human health. The identified risks will be reduced to acceptable levels by
implementing institutional controls and removal with on-site disposal of contaminated soils and
sediments.
The selected remedy satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a
principal element. The selected remedy reduces the principal threat by reducing the total mass of
PCBs that are available to biological receptors, and reduces contaminant mobility through isolation of
the PCB-contaminated sediment in a landfill.
September 1995 10.4 DRAFT
-------
^ Srtcwidc Record of Decision Eielson AFB
12.0 References
21 CFR 109.30. 1994. Food and Drug Administration. Tolerances for polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). U.S. Code of Federal Regulations.
40 CFR 6. 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Procedures for Implementing the
Requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality on the National Environmental Policy Act.
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations.
40 CFR 761. 1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibition. U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations.
54 FR 48184. 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Priorities List for
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. Federal Register.
Ambrose, R.B., and T.E. Bamwell, 1989. Environmental Software at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling. Environ. Software 4:76-93.
Calder, W.A. 1984. Size, Function, and Life History. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
CH2M Hill. 1982. Installation Restoration Program Records Search, Eielson Air Force Base,
* Alaska. CH2M Hill, Gainesville, Florida.
DeBoer, J., F.V. Falk, M.A.F. Kerkhof£ P. Hage, U.A.T. Brinkman. 1994. .Eight-Year Study of the
Elimination of PCBs and Other Organochlorine Compounds from Eel (Anxuilla anzuilla) Under
Natural Conditions. Environ. Sci. and Tech., 28(13):2242-2248.
EPA - see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Handing Lawson Associates (HLA). 1989. Installation Restoration Program Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, Stage 3. Draft Report for Eielson Air Force Base, Fairbanks, Alaska,
Volume n, Draft Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (July 1988 to April 1989), Chapter IV.
Prepared by HLA for the Alaska Air Command, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska.
Harding Lawson Associates (HLA), 1991. Installation Restoration Program Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, Stage 4. Draft Report for Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, Volume IV.
Prepared by HLA for the Alaska Air Command, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska.
HLA - see Harding Lawson Associates.
Lipton, J., H. Galbraith, J. Burger, and D. Wartenburg. 1993. A Paradigm for Ecological Risk
Assessment. Environ. Manag. 17:1-5.
DRAFT 12.1 September 1995
-------
BdsonAFB Srtcwidc Record of Decision
Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS). 1985. Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-Based Toxics Control. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
OWRS - see Office qf Water Regulations and Standards
Pierce, R.S., D.T. Noviello, and S.H. Rogers. 1981. Commencement Bay Seafood Consumption
Report. Preliminary Report, Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, Tacoma, Washington.
U.S. Air Force. 1993a. Operable Unit 2 Baseline Risk Assessment, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska,
Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
U.S. Air Force. 1993b. Operable Unit 2 Remedial Investigation Report, Eielson Air Force Base,
Alaska. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
U.S. Air Force. 1993c. Site Management Plan, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska (Revised Draft).
Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Environmental Management Operations, Richland,
Washington.
U.S. Air Force. 1993d. Source Evaluation Report, Phase I, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska,
Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
U.S. Air Force. 1994a. Operable Unit 1 Baseline Risk Assessment, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.
Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
U.S. Air Force. 1994b. Operable Unit 6 Baseline Risk Assessment, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.
Prepared by Engineering Science, Richland, Washington.
U.S. Air Force. 1994c. Operable Unit 1 Record of Decision, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.
Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
U.S. Air Force. 1994d. Operable Unit 2 Record of Decision, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.
Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
U.S. Air Force. 1994e. Operable Unit 6 Record of Decision, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.
Prepared by Armstrong Laboratory, Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas.
U.S. Air Force. 1994f. Operable Unit 1 Remedial Investigation Report, Eielson Air Force Base,
Alaska. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
U.S. Air Force. 1994g. Operable Unit 6 Remedial Investigation Report, Eielson Air Force Base,
Alaska. Prepared by Engineering Science, Richland, Washington.
U.S. Air Force. 1994h. Source Evaluation Report, Phase 2 Investigation, Limited Field Investigation,
Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
September 1995 12.2 DRAFT
0
-------
Sitewidc Record of Decision ^ Eielson AFB
U.S. Air Force, 1995a. Operable Units 3, 4, and 5 Baseline Risk Assessment, Eielson Air Force
Base, Alaska. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
U.S. Air Force. 1995b. Operable Units 3, 4, and 5 Record of Decision, Eielson Air Force Base,
Alaska. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
U.S. Air Force. 1995c. Operable Units 3, 4, and 5 Remedial Investigation Report, Eielson Air Force
Base, Alaska. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
U.S. Air Force. 1995d. Site-wide Proposed Plan, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Prepared by
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. •
U.S. Air Force. 1995e. Site-wide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studyt Eielson Air Force Base,
Alaska. Volume 1: Remedial Investigation. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,
Washington.
U.S. Air Force. 1995f. Sitewide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Eielson Air Force Base,
Alaska. Volume 2: Feasibility Study. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,
Washington.
U.S. Air Force. 1995g. Sitewide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Eielson Air Force Baset
Alaska. Volume 3: Baseline Risk Assessment. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,
Washington.
U.S. Air Force. 1995h. Sitewide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Eielson Air Force Base,
Alaska. Volume 4: Biological Risk Assessment. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,
Washington.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . 1986. National Ambient Water Quality Criteria.
EPA 440/5-86-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988. Superfuna'Exposure AssessmentManual.
EPA/540/1-88/001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A, Interim Final EPA/540/1-89/002, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . 1990. Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund
Sites with PCB Contamination. PB91-921206. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Supplemental Guidance for Superfimd Risk
Assessments in Region X. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, Washington.
DRAFT 12.3 September 1995
-------
EtdsonAFB Sitewide Record of Decision
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . 1992a. Frameworkfor Ecological Risk Assessment.
EPA 630/R-92/001, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . 1992b. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
(HEAST). Annual Update. NTIG/PB92-921199, Office of Research and Development, Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . 1992c. New Interim Region IV Guidance. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . 1994a. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
(HEAST). EPA 540/R/93/058, Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . 1994b. Uptake/Biokinetic Model for Lead
(CD-ROM). Available from Micromedex, Inc., Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . 1995. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS2,
Version LO). Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Alaska Department of Envitonmental Conservation, and the
United States Air Force. 199 L Eielson Air Force Base Federal Facility Agreement under CERCLA
Section 120. EPA Docket Number 1089-07-14-120. Seattle, Washington.
o
September 1995 12.4 DRAFT
-------
^ Sjtewkfc Record of Decision . Kelson AFB
APPENDIX
Sitewide Investigation Sampling Results
-------
o
-------
TABLE A. 1. Background Sod Study
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead .
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
TPH
4.4'-DDD
4.4'-ODE
4.4'-ODT
AJdrin
Alpha-8HC
Alpha-Chlordane
Beta-BHC
Delta-BHC
Oieldrin
Endosutfan I
Endosutfan II
Endosulfan Sutfate
Endrin
Endrin Ketone
Gamma-BHC
Gamma-Chtordane
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Arodor1016
Arodor 1221
Arodor1232
Arodor 1242
Arodor 1248
ArodOf1254
Arodor 1260
Year
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
199t .
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
-1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
Highest
Detection No. of
. Limit Units Samples
4.5
3.8
2.4
-
0.1
0.3
9.1
. -
-
-
1.6
• '• -
3.0
-'
0.2
-
-
0.1
0.6
-
0.2
-
-
2.6
12.0
4.5
14.0
4.5
3.3
5.5
6.7
6.7
2.2
6.7
4.5
13.0
6.7
13.0
4.5
5.5
3.3
6.7
27.0
110.0
53.0
130.0
130.0
53.0
53.0
27.0
27.0
mg/kgdw
mg/kgdw
mg/kgdw
mg/kgdw
mg/kgdw
mg/kgdw
mg/kgdw
mg/kgdw
mg/kgdw
mg/kgdw
mg/kgdw
-mg/kgdw
mg/kg dw
mg/kg dw
mg/kgdw
mg/kgdw
mg/kg dw
mg/kgdw
mg/kgdw
mg/kgdw
mg/kgdw
mg/kgdw
mg/kgdw
mg/kgdw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
ug/kgdw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
~pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
ug/kgdw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91 -
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
No. of
Detects
90
53
85
91
64
87
90
91 .
91
91
90
91
90
91
41
91
91
75
37
91
33
91
91
19
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minimum Maximum
Detect Detect
2950
2.5
2.1
39.2
0.048
0.32
1360
6.3
2.5
8.3
5660
2.3
1880
89.3
0.03
8.4
307
0.08
0.44
153
0.1
11.1
14.5
2.7
4.7
1.5
5.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30400
1400
2310
44400
40.2
162
14100
7360
2900
9010
54100
23.3
16100
69800
0.24
7000
13400
0.86
89
63000
0.65
12400
13400
39,2
9.3
1.9
14.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Maximum
Location
GVE11
LS07
LS07
LS07
LS07
LS07
GVE13
LS07
LS07
LS07
GVE11
GVE11 .
GVE11
LS07
GVE30
LS07
LS07
GVE04
LS07
LS07
GVE06
LS07
LS07
GVE09
TL01
TL01
TL01
"
.-
. -
I -
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A.1
-------
TABLE A.2. Background Groundwater Study
Anatyte
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrate
Suffate
Phosphate
Afoafirwty
TOC
TDS
TPH
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Berylfium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobatt
Copper
iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
p-Otchkxobenzene
1 , 1 -Oichloroethane
1 ,2-Otchloroethane
cts-1 .2-Qichtoroethytene
trans-1 ,2-Oichloroethylene
Ethytoenzene
Methytene Chloride
Tetrachtofoethytene
Year
1992
,1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992.
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
Detection
Limit
200
5
-
3
10
-
20
20
20
20
5
• -
10
30
-
20
-
30
10
200
100
200
500
400
50
9000
-
0.5
32.5
69.4
1.0
-
0.814
4.70
-
5.42
6.9
2.65
-
1
-
-
17.9
-
2.87
-
7.8
8.1
0.105
0.121
0.043
0.107
0.337
0.139
0.127
0.149
0.046
0.44
0.049
Units
pgA-
Pgl-
pg/L
pg/L
Pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pgfl-
pg/L
pgA-
pg/L
pg/L
pgfl-
pgfl-
pgfl-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
ug/L
pg/L
pg/t-
pg/i-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pgi-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/t
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pgfl-
pgfl-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pgA.
pg/L
pg/t
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
No. of
Samples
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
No. of
Detects
0
5
17
0
0
17
0
0
0
. 16
2
17
16
0
17
0
17
0
2
16
16
8
16
0
16
0
17
0
26
0
24
32
3
0
32
8
6
7
32
6
32
32
0
32
3
32
11
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minimum Maximum
Detect Detect
—
8.1
35
-
-
8000
-
-
. -
100
5.2
1500
32
•r • .
2200
-
1200
••
14
500
100
200
1900
-
70
-
20
-
37
-
2.0
46
0.85
-
2000
5.6
4.2
2.9
150
0.71
3600
20
-
1200
3.00
1500
64
4.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
56
200
-
-
71000
-
-
-
15000
8.3
16000
3300
-
4600
-
9700
-
18
3700
500
11000
45000
-
5230
-
250
-
680
-
22
180
1.5
-
75000
9.7
5.8
6.1
14000
48
15000
3400
-
5100
3.00
5400
6.9
25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Maximum
Location
—
54MO5
20M17
-
'
53M02
-
-
-
20M17
05M03
05M03
46M01
' .- ' •
20-1 B
20M18
-
53M02
46M01/46M03
05M03
38M03
38M03
-
53M02
-
05M03/46M01/53M02
-
01M01
-
20M17
20M17
27-1
-
53M02
01M01
54M08
54M02
20M17
20-1 B
53M02
54M02
-
53M02
20M17/54M05/54M02
54M05
20M17
20-1 B
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A.2
-------
TABLE A3. Background Groundwater Study
Anatyte
Year
Toluene 1993
1,1.1-Trichtoroethane 1993
1,1.2-Trichforoethane 4 1993
Trichloroethytene 1993
Vinyl Chloride 1993
Xytene
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium •
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
Detection
Limit Units
0.056 ug/L
0.072 ug/L
0.043 ug/L
0.065 ug/L
0.266 ug/L
0.202 ug/L
ug/L
1.0 ug/L
ug/L
pgt-
1.0 ug/L
1.0 ug/L
- pg/L.
pg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
pg/L
pg/L
ug/L
ug/L
pgi-
1.0 ug/L
pg/i-
pg/L
ug/L
No. of
Samples
16
16
16
16
16
16
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
No. of Minimum Maximum
Detects Detect Detect
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
3
8
8
0
3
8 .
8
8
8
8
8
0
8
8
8
0
8
8
8
-
-
1600
1
8
160
-
1
38000
3
2
18
7600
4
10000
1400
5
4400
-
6000
8
20
-
-
18000
2
63
420
-
3
66000
46
31
140
33000
48
26000
6500
77
7900
-
9700
52
120
Maximum
Location
-
.
01M02
01M01/01M02
54M08
01M01
01M01
05M03
Q1M02
01M02
01M01
01M01/01M02
01M02
01M02
O1M01
01M01
01M02
-
01M01
01M02
01M01/01M02
A.3
-------
TABLE A.3. Sitewide Monitoring Program
Anaryte
Antimony
Arsenic -4
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobaft
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium .
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
p-Oichlorobenzene
1,1-Oichtoroethane
1,2-OfChkxoethane
cts-1 ,2-Oichloroethyiene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Ethytbenzene
Methytene Chloride
Tetrachtoroethyfene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1.2-TrichlcTOethane
Trichloroethytene
Vinyl Chloride
Xytene
p-ChlorofUjorobenzene
m-Chlorofiuorobenzene
TPH
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobaft
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Year
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
. . 1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
Detection
Limit
200
5.0
-
3.0
10
-
20
20
20
30
5.0
- '.:
"- ' .
30
-
20
-
100
30
43
2.0
1.0
0.5
2.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
2,0
5.0
0.5
- -2.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
500
32.5
69.4
-
-
0.814
6.6
-
5.42
4.05
2.65
-
1.4
-
-
17.9
-
2.87
-
51.1
Units
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L.
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
No. of
Samples
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
' - . 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
• 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
No. Of
Detects
0
4
5
0
0
5
1
0
o.
4
1
5
5
1
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
14
14
7
0
14
3
1
3
14
5
14
14
2
14
1
14
0
Minimum Maximum
Detect Detect
„
11
60
-
-
46000
31
-
-
1100
7.6
9500
1100
32
- 3700
-
5100
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- •
58
3.0
5.8
0.83
-
43000
8
4.4
4.0
84
2.0
8800
870
18
2300
4.3
3800
-
„
31
290
-
-
55000
31
-
-
15000
7.6
13000
11000
32
5900
-
26000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
5800
37
1200
1.91
-
12000
9.2
4.4
9.7
46000
690
75000
12000
20
18000
4.3
68000
-
Maximum
Location
_
51MB4
08M01
-
-
68M01
51MB4
-
-
51MB4
51MB4
08M01/51MB4
51MB5-.
'' 51MB4
51 MBS
•
51 MBS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
03M01
03M01
03M01
05M01
-
03M01
03M01
06M05
03M01
03M01
03M01
03M01
51 MBS
03M01
03M01
03M01
03M01
A.4
-------
TABLE A.3. Sitewkte Monitoring Program
Analyte
Vanadium
Zinc
Benzene *
Cartx>n Tetrachloride
Chloroform
p-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Oichtoroethane
1£-Oichiofoethane
cts-1 ,2-Otchkxoethytene
trans-1 ,2-Oichloroethytene
Ethytbenzene
Methytene Chloride
Tetrachloroethytene .
Toluene
1.1,1-Trichk>roetnane
1,1>Tnchtoroethane
Trichtoroethytene
Vinyl Chloride
Xytene
Diesel Range Organics
o-Cresol
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
Kerosene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Trftxityiphosphate
Tri-2~chk>roethytphosphate
Benzothiazote
Bts(2-ethyihexyOphthalate
2,4-Oichkxpphenoi
2-Nttropheno!
p-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methylpyridine
Aoenaphthene
Acenaphthyfene
Acetophenone
2-Acetyiaminofluorene
4-Aminobiphenyt
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramite
Benzo[a]anthracene
Benzc{b]fluoranthene
Benzofkjfluoranthene
benzo{gth,i]perytene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzyl alcohol
Bts(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-chloroethyt)ether
Bis(2-chloro-1 -methytethyl)ether
4-Bromophenylphenytether
Butytbenzylphthalate
p-Chkxoanitine
Chtorobenzilate
p-Chtoro-m-cresol
2-Chk>ronaphthatene
2-Chtorophenoi
Year
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
Detection
Limit
3.84
3.44
0.105
0.121
0.043
0.107
0.337
0.139
0.127
0.149
0.046
0.056
.. 0.049
0.13
0.072
0.043
0.065
0.266
0.202
0.1
1.80
1.44
3.54
4.03
6.50
8.07
0.833
4.42
2.88
2.55
4.07
2.8D
3.96
4.64
5.83
2.88
3.96
Z38
2.83
3.83
3.53
2.95
8.60
2.34
4.41
2.21
3.65
1.70
5.16
7.13
2.90
3.35
2.34
5.94
13.2
8.69
7.41
3.02
1.91
Units
M9/L
pgfl-
pgfl-
pg/L
pg/L
ug/L
MQrt-
M9/1-
M9/L
ug/L
pgA-
ug/L
pg/L
pgA-
pg/i-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg^-
pg^.
pg^-
pgi-
pgA..
pg/L
pgA.
ug/L
pgfl-
pg^-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg^-
pg/J-
pg^-
pg/L
pg/L
pg^-
pg/L
pg^-
pg/L
ug/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/J-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/t
pg^-
pgA.
pg/i-
pg/L
MO^L
pg/L
pgA.
pg/L
pg/L
No. of
Samples
14
14
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
No. of Minimum Maximum
Detects Detect Detect
7 3.9 14
8 3.6 . 170
4 0.17 2700
0
1 0.96 0.96
1 0.12 0.12
0
0
1 1.1 1.1
1 1.9 1.9
5 0.14 1200
1 1.3 1.3
1 . Q.076 0.076
4 0.26 . 8500
0 -
0
2 0.089 0.9
0
5 0.56 9800
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 -
0 -
0
o:-
0 - -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 -
o ...
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Maximum
Location
03M01
03M01
26-8
-
18-3
18-3
-
-
18-3
47M05
26-1
18-3
18-3
26-8
. - '
-
18-3
-
26-1
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
. -
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A.5
-------
TABLE A.3. Sitewide Monitoring Program
Anatyte
4-Chk>rophenylphenytethef
Chiysene
Diallate
Dibenz(a.h]anthfacene
Dtbenzofuran
Dt-n-butylphthalate
o-Dtchkxobenzene
nvOtchlorobenzene
3,34-Oichforoben2kJine
2,6-Dichkxophenol
Oiethyiphthalate
Thfonazin . .
Dimethoate
p-(Dimethyiamino)azobenzen€
7,12-DtmethytbenzIa]anthracene
Pyridine
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
afa-Oimethyiphenethylamine
2.4-Oimethylphenol
Dimethyiphthalate
M-Oinitrobenzene
4,6-Oinitfo-o-cresol
2,4-DinitrophenoI
2,4-Otn'rtrotoluene
2,6-Dtnftrotoluene
Di-fvoctyiphthalate
Dtphenyiamine
Ethytmethanesutfonate
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluonene
Hexachiorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachkxocydopentadiene
Hexachtoroethane
Hexachiorophene
Hexachkxopropene
lndeno{1 ,2t3-cd]pyrene
Isodrin
Isophofone
Isosafrote
Kepone
Methapyrilene
3-MethtehoIanthrene
Methyfmethanesulfonate
2-Methyinaphthalene
1 ,4-Naphtnoquinone
1-Naphthyiamtne
2-Naphthylamine
o-Nitroaniline
nvN'itroaniiine
p-Nitroaniiine
Nitrobenzene
p-Nitrophenol
4-Nttroquinoline-1 -oxide
N-nitrosodi-n-butylamine •
N-n'rtrosodiethylamine
N-nitrosodimethyiamine
N-nrtrosodiphenylamine
Year
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
Detection
Limit
3.04
1.70
3.15
1.92
2.54
4.34
3.77
7.85
3.88
3.47
8.94
3.04
10.0
.3.36
1.82
4.57
10.4
37.8
5.88
5.55
9.35
5.55
4.46
2.59
2.85
2.98
2.86
2.07
12.8
4.62
2.56
2.38
4.29
2.62
4.73
19.6
3.68
3.21
1.44
3.29
2.25
9.59
8.45
2.63
1.61
2.76
10.0
25.3
15.6
7.82
9.52
21.4
3.16
1.52
6.00
3.22
2.90
3.81
2.11
Units
M9/L
ugt
ug/L
w/L
M9/L
fjg/L
yg/L
M9l-
pg/L
pg/L
pgA.
pg/i-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/i-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/t
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg^-
pg/L
pgfl-
pg/L
pg^-
pg/L
pg^-
pg/i-
pg^-
pg/L
pg^.
pg^-
pg/t
pg/t
pg/L
pg/L
|jg/L
pg/J-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg^-
pg/L
pg/J-
pgA.
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/t
pg^-
pg/i-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/t
No. of
Samples
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
. , 4 •
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
No. of Minimum Maximum
Detects Detect Detect
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0 .
0 - -
0 -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0 - - .
0
0
o - - .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o -
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Maximum
Location
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
" • • - '
-
-
• -
-
-
-
.
•
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A.6
-------
TABLE A.3. Sftewkte Monitoring Program
Anafyte
N-nctrosodipropylamine
til nil •tn_»jx«M_iiJti.i.>f-i4.4t«.ijl-n..pu*.r«.-i
N-nofosocnetnyietnyiafnine
N-nitrosomorpholtne * *<
N-nftrosopiperidene
N-nitrosopyfiofidine
5-N'rtroxHolutdine
Parathion
Pentachkxben^ene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Phenacetin
Phenartthrene
p-Phenytenediamine
Pronamide " ...
Pyiene
Safrote
1t2,4,S-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Tetraethykiithiopyrophosphate
o-TolukJine
1 «2,4-Trichk>robenzene
2,4,5-Trichtorophenol
2A6-Trichtorphenol
o.o.o-Triethylphosphorothioate
sym-Trinitrobenzene
AWrin
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Detta-BHC
Undane
Chkxdane
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-ODE
4,4'-DDf
DieWrin
EndosuKanI
Endosutfan I!
Endosutfan Sutfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxkte
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Arodor 1016
Arock>r1221
Arodor 1232
Arock>r1242
Arodor 1246
Arodor 1254
Arodor 1260
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Year
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
. 1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
Detection
Limit
3.67
2.83
3.27
4.35
2.78
5.25
3.90
3.99
2.49
4.78
5.27
3.09
3.42
. 3.69
3.22
4.39
4.77
2.81
2.27
4.14
4.01
2.54
5.19
3.74
0.05
0.012
0.0026
0.0014
0.0012
0.0057
0.0005
0.0009
0.011
0.019
0.0029
0.004
0.0072
0.008
0.011
0.0019
0.0008
.0.1
0.89
0.19
0.14
0.11
0.11
0.04
0.1
0.11
57
1.0
3.0
-
2.0
1.0
-
1.0
1.0
Units
pg/L
Pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
Pg/L
pg/L
Pg/L
M9/L
pgA.
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pgi-
pgi-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/t
pg/L
pgfl-
pg/L
pgt-
pg/L
pgi-
Mg/L
pg/L
pg^-
pg/L
pgA.
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/i-
pg^-
pg/L
pg/L
pg^-
pgt
pg^-
pg/L
pg^-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg^-
pg/L
pg/L
pgA.
pg/L
pg^-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg^-
pg/L
No. of
Samples
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
"4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3 .
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
No. of
Detects
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
4
27
33
2
6
33
32
28
Minimum Maximum Maximum
Detect Detect Location
- -
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.-
-
. - .
"• ' - ' - \ •
-• -
.
-
.
.
.
.
-
.
-
.
0.0032 0.0032 06M04
0.0048 0.0048 06M04
.
.
0.00075 0.00075 05M01
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
-
-
-
_
-
-
27 130000 38M06
1.3 11 38M06
4.5 200 04M03
9.6 2400 38M06
2.0 4.8 38M06
1.3 2.8 B-8
2800 350000 38M02
1.2 670 38M06
1.1 220 38M06
A.7
-------
TABLE A.3. Sitewide Monitoring Program
Analyte
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Dfchtoodffluoromethane
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chtonde
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
1.1-Ofchloroethene
Methytene chloride
Trans-1 , 1 -Dichloroether
1,1-OichIoroethane
Chloroform
1«1.1-Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,243cttoroethane
Trichkxoethene
1 ,2-Oichloropropane
Bromodichloromethane
2-Chkxoethyfviny!ether
cis-1 . 3-Oichloropropene
Trans-1 ,3-Oichtoropropene
1.1,2-Trichloroethane '.
Tetrachtoroethene
Dibromochloromethane
Chkxooenzene
Bromoform
1 ,1 ^2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,3-Oichlorobenzene
1 t4-Oichk>robenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethytbenzene
m,p-Xytene
o-Xytene
GasoGne Range Organics
Diesel Range Organics
Phenol
2-Chkxophenol
2-Methytphenol
3/4-Methylphenol (total)
2-Nitrophenol
2,4-Oimethylphenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
4-Chk>ro-3-methylphenol
2,4.6-Trichlorphenol
2.4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Oinitrophenol
Year
1994.
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
Detection
Limit
1.0
1.0
-
-
-
4050
1.0
-
1.0
14
100
1.0
50
200
100
100
50
100
100
100
100
100
. 50
50
50
50
100
200
50
50
50
50
100
50
100
100
100
100
100
1.0
100
100
100
100
100
0.25
0.25
10
10
10
-
10
10
10
20
10
10
50
Units
Pg/L
pgfl-
pgi-
pg/L
pg/L
Pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
.pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/t
pg/i-
pgi-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/t-
pg/L
pg/t
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pgfl-
pgfl-
pg/L
pg/L
pgi-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg^-
pg/L
pg^-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pgA.
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
pg^L
pg/L
pg/L
pg^-
pg/L
pg/L
pg^-
pg/i-
pg/L
pg/L
No.of
Samples
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
35
35
35.
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35 -
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
12
17
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
No. of
Detects
32
33
26
33
33
33
32
3
33
25
31
0
2
0 ,
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
5
0
2
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minimum Maximum
Detect Detect
1.5
58
1.4
7800
6.3
1.1
2100
1.2
5600
1.4
9.3
-
1.0
-
: - •
-
-
-
-
1.4
-
17
2.3
-
0.65
0.65
-
5.8
-
-
.-
-
0.7
1.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.8
1.1
-
-
-
-
1.9
0.3
-
-
10
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
650
330000
210
130000
9600
970
13000
2.9
63000
400
980
-
1.2
'-
' -
-
-
-
-
1.8
-
17
3.1
-
1.2
5.8
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
0.84
1.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
400
290
-
-
-
-
1.9
1.3
-
-
10
42
-
-
-
-
-
-
Maximum
Location
38M06
38M06
38M06
38M02
B-8
38M06
38M02
38M06
04M02
38M06
38M06
.
36M03
.
-
-
-
-
-
47M01
-
Birch Lake
36-1
-
45MW07
49M05
-
Birch Lake
-
-
•
- -
45MW07
Birch Lake
-
-
-
.
-
38M01
04M07
-
-
-
-
04M07
04M04
-
-
04M07
04M07
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A.8
-------
TABLE A.3. Sftewkfe Monitoring Program
Analyte
4-Nitrophenol
4,6-D
-------
TABLE A.4. Surface Water and Sediment Investigation (Water)
Anatyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
.Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachlorio'e
Chloroform
p-Oichkxobenzene
1,1-Dfchtoroethane
1,2-Oichtoroethane
cis-1 ,2-Dfchlonoethylene
trans-1 ,2-Dichforoethylene
EthyJbenzene
Methytene Chloride
Tetrachloroethytene
Toluene
1.1.1-Trichloroethane
1.1^-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethytene
Vinyl Chloride
Xytene
Gasoline Range Organics
Diesel Range Organics
AWrin
Alpha-8HC
Beta-BHC
Detta-BHC
Undane
Chtondane
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-OOE
4,4'-ODT
OieWrin
Endosutfanl
Endosutfanll
Endosulfan Sutfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Metnoxychlor
Toxaphene
Year
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
.1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
Detection
Limit
120
69.4
2.0
13
0.814
7.8
-
5.42
4.05
2.65
-
1.2
. -
-
17.9
-
2.87 .
-
51.1
3.84
14
0.105
0.121
0.043
0.107
0.337
0.139
0.127
0.149
0.046
0.94
0.049
0.1
0.072
0.043
0.065
0.266
0.202
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.012
0.0026
0.0014
0.0021
0.0057
0.0005
0.0009
0.011
0.019
0.0029
0,004
0.0072
0.008
0.011
0.0019
0.0008
0.1000
0.89
Units
Pg/L
Pg/L
Pg/L
Pg/L
Pg/L
pg/L
Pg/L
Pg/L
pg/L
Pg/L
pg/L
jjg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
. pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pgi-
pg^-
pg/L
pg/J-
pg/L
pgA-
pg^-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/t
pg/L
No. of
Samples
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
No. of Minimum Maximum
Detects Detect Detect
7
0
13
14
2
0
15
1
0,
1
15
6
15
15
0
15
1
15
0
2
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
9
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
-
2.1
30
1.2
-
2800
6.1
-
3.8
67
0.62
1500
21
-
860
2.9
440
-
7.5
3.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.20
-
0.063
-
0.071
-
-.-
-
0.075
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0020
-
-
0.00085
0.00098
-
0.026
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1000
-
17
210
1.4
-
55000
6.1
-
3.8
8200
0.91
13000
1900
-
3700
2.9
5700
-
7.8
8.7
-
-
-
-'
-
-
1-4
-
0T086
-
0.071
-
-
-
0.38
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0057
-
-
0.052
0.0035
-
0.026
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Maximum
Location
MC01
-
GS02
GSOO
MC01
-
GS01/GS03
FC8G
-
FCBG
GS02
GSOO
.GSOO
GSOO
-
GSOO/GS02
FC03
GS01
-
FCBG
GS05
-
-
-
-
-
. -
GS01
-
GS05
-
PS01
-
-
-
GS01
-
-
-
- .
-
-
-
GS01
-
-
GS01
GS03
-
FC02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A.10
-------
TABLE A.4. Suffice Water and Sediment Investigation (Water)
Anatyte
Arodor1016
Arodor1221
Arodor 1232
Arodor 1242
Arockx-1248
Aiodor1254
Arodor 1260
o-Cresol
m-Ccesol
p-Cresol
Kerosene
Naphthalene
Pentachtorophenol
Phenol
Tributyiphosphate
Tri-2-chloroethylphosphate
Benzothiazole
Bts(2-ethylhexyt)phthaiate
2,4-Otchtorophenol
2-Nftrophenoi
p-OichJorobenzene
2-Methytpyndine
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthytene
Aoetophenone
2-Acetyiaminofiuorene
4-Aminobiphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Aramite
Benzo{a]anthracene
Benzofbjfluoranthene
Benzofkjfiuoranthene
benzofe,htijperytene
Benzo{a]pyrene
Benzy) alcohol
Bcs(2-chk>roethoxy)methane
6is(2-chk)roethyOether
Bis(2ropheno!
4-Chk>rophenylphenytether
Chrysene
Ocaflate
Dibeozlafh]anthracene
Ofoenzofuran
Oi-o-butytphthalate
o-Oichkxobenzene
m-Dtchkxobenzene
3f3*-Oichlorobenzidine
2,6-O»ch(orophenol
Diethylphthatate
Thionazin
Dimethoate
Year
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
Detection
Unut
0.19
0.14
0.11
0.11
0.04
0.10
0,11
1.80
1.44
3.54
4.03
6.50
8.07
0.833
4.42
2.88
2.55
4.07
2.80
3.96
4.64
5.83
2.88
3.96
2.38
2.83
3.83
3.53
2.95
8.60
2.34
4.41
2.21
3.65
1.70
5.16
7.t3
2.90
3.35 .
2.34
5.94
13.2
8.69
7.41
3.02
1.91
3.04
1.70
3.15
1.92
2.54
4.34
3.77
7.85
3.88
3.47
8.94
3.04
10.0
No. of No. of Minimum Maximum Maximum
Units Samples Detects Detect Detect Location
pg/L
pg/L
M9>L
pg/L
pg/J-
pg/L
pg/L
Mg/L
pg/L
pg/i-
pgi-
pg/L
pgi- .
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg^-
pg^- .
pg^-
pgfl-
pg/L
pg^-
pg/L
pg/L
pgi-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L •
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/i-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/t
pg/L
pg^-
pg^-
pg^-
pg^-
pgi-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pgA.
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 .
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
o - - -
o
0
o
o - - -
o
o
o - -
o
o • ' - - -
0 . - - -
Q - - -
o - - •' - '••
0
o
o
o - -
o - -
o
o
o
o
o -
o - -
o -
o - . -
o
o
0 - - • .
. o - - :-
o
o
o
o -
o
o
0 - - -
o -
o . -
o
o -
o
o
o
o
0
0
o - -
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
A.11
-------
TABLE A.4. Surface Water and Sediment Investigation (Water)
Anatyte
p-enzene
Pentachkxonrtrobenzene
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
p-Phenytenediamine
PronamiJe
Year
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
.1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
Detection
Limit
3.36
1.82
4.57
10.4
37.8
5.88
5.55
9.35
5.55
4.46
2.59
2.85
2.98
2.86
2.07
12.8
4.62
2.56
2.38
4.29
2.62
4.73
19.6
3.68
3.21
1.44
3.29
2.25
9.59
8.45
2.63
1.61
2.76
10.0
25.3
15.6
7.82
9.52
21.4
3.16
1,52
6.00
3.22
2.90
3.81
2.11
3.67
2.83
3.27
4.35
2.78
5.25
3.90
3.99
2.49
4.78
5.27
3.09
3.42
Units
M9/L
pgfl-
pgA-
pg/L
M9/L
pg/L
M9/L
jjg/L
pg/L
pg/L
M9/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/i-
pgi-
pgi-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg'L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg^-
pgA.
pg/L
pg/L
pgfl-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/t
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg^-
pgA.
pg/L
pg/L
pgA.
pg/t
pg/L
pg/L
pg/t
pg^-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
No. of
Samples
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
. 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
No. of Minimum Maximum
Detects Detect Detect
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 -
o
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 - -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Maximum
Location
.
-
_
_
_
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
•- •
•
•
-
-
-
. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- '
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A.12
-------
1
Anatyte
Pyrene
Safrote
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachiorobenzene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachtorophenol
Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate
o-Toluidine
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichtorophenol
2,4.6-Trichtorphenol
o,o,o-Triethytphosphorothioate
sym-Trinctrobenzene
Dichtorodrfluoromethane
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Trichtorofluoromethane
1,1-Oichloroethene
Methytene chloride
Trans-1 ,1 4Dichk>roether
1,1-Oichloroethane
Chloroform
1f1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 ,2-Oichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1 (2-Oichk>ropropane
Bromodichloromethane
2-Chk>roethylvinytetner
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Trans-1 ,3-Dichtoropropene
1 ,1 ,2-Trichtoroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Oibromochloromethane
Chlorobenzene
Bromoform
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Oichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Oichlorobenzene
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xytene
o-Xytene
AIpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Gamma-8HC
Defta-BHC
Heptachtor
AWrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
Gamma-Chlordane
Endosulfan I
Alpha-Chlordane
4,4'-ODE
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
Year
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994 .
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
, ounacewa
Detection
Limit
3.69
3.22
4.39
4.77
2.81
2.27
4.14
4.01
2.54
5.19
3.74
1.0
.ilo
0.50
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.0
2.0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.1
iterana^
Units
pg/L
pgt
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
ug/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
eatmemHivt
No. of
Samples
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
9
9 .
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
ssogaoon ivvauaj
No. of Minimum Maximum
Detects Detect Detect
0 -
0 -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 2.5 2.5
0 - . -
0 - - -
0 -
0 -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 0.61 0.75
0
0 - .
0
0
0
•0
"o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 -
0
0
0
0
0
0 -
0
0
0
0
0
Maximum
Location
„
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
. -
GSOO
_ - .
' •
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
- •
-
-
GS05
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A.13
-------
TABLE A.4. Surface Water and Sediment Investigation (Water)
Anaryte
Endrin
Endosutfan II
4,4'-ODO
Endrin Aldehyde
Endosutfan Sulfate
Methoxychtor
Toxaphene
Arodor 1016 •
Arodor 1221
Arodor 1232
Arodor 1242
Arodor 1248
Arodor1254
Arodor 1260
Year
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
Detection
Limit
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
5
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Units
pg/L
Pg/L
Pg/L
Pg/L
pg/L
pgi-
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/i-
pgA.
pg/L
pg/L
No.of
Samples
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11 '
11
No. of Minimum Maximum
Detects Detect Detect
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0 -
0
0 -
0 - -
0
Maximum
Location
..
-
-
-
-
-
- •
-
-
-
-
-
. . - - . .
'
A14
-------
TABLEAU. Surface Water and Sediment Investigation (Secfimcnt)
Anafyte
Aluminum
Antimony v
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobaft
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese -
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Diesel Range Organics
AMrin
Alpha-BHC
Beta-8HC
Oelta-BHC
Lindane
Chtordane
4,4'-DDD
4.4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
OieWrin
Endosuffan 1
Endosuffan II
Endosutfan Sutfate
End rin
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Arodor 1016
Arodor1221
Arodor 1232
Arodor 1242
Arodor 1248
Arodor 1254
Arodor 1260
o-Cresol
m-Creso!
p-Cresol
Kerosene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Tributylphosphate
Tri-2-chloroethylphosphate
Benzothiazole
Year
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1893
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
Maximum
Detection
Limit Units
.
4270
-
96.7
330
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2340
-
326
98000
5120
-
-
7.4
0.63
0.26
0.44
0.39
0.41
7.40
0,65
6.70
1.20
5.10
4.30
0.28
1.70
0.51
2.50
0.40
5.70
13.0
26.0
3.50
7.30
3.00
1.60
2.40
2.40
3.00
94.8
92.1
188
46.8
168
254
127
223
94.7
144
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kg dw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kg dw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
mg/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
|jg/ko.dw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
pg/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
ug/kgdw
No. of
Samples
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
No. of
Detects
15
8
15
15
9
0
15
.15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
8
12
0
15
is
8
0
0
2
1
0
0
6
1
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minimum
Detect
1100000
4500
3400
20000
120
-
1700000
2500
750
2900
4700000
2200
560000
81000
2500
120000
370
100000
-
4400
8700
11
- -
1 -
2.6
5.6
- -
-
9.8
13
3.4
-
-
-
47
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
Maximum Maximum
Detect Location
18000000
9300
70000
1500000
730
-
39000000
41000
10000
30000
31000000
64000
5500000
2800000
29000
1100000
610
690000
-
54000
45000
38
-
-
4.1
5.6
-
-
170
13
170
-
-
-
47
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GS05
GS05
GS06
GS05
GS05
-
GS05
GS05
GS05
GS05
FC02
GS05
GS05
GS04
GS05
GS05
FC03
GS05
-'
GS05
GS01
GS02
-
-
GS03
GS03
-
-
GS03
GS03
GSOO
-
-
- .
GS02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A.15
-------
TABLE A.5. Surtax Water and Sediment Investigation (Sediment)
Anatyte
Bis(2-ethythexyt)phthaiate
2,4-Oichlorophenol
2-Nctrophenof
p-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methytpyridine
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthyfene
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminofluorene
4-Aminobiphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene .
Aramite .
Benzo(a]anthracene
Benzofbjfluoranthene
Benzo[k}fluoranthene
benzo[g,h.i]perylene
Benzo(a]pyrene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2^hlOfoethy«)ether
Bis(2-ch«oro-1-methytethy!)ether
4-Bfomophenylphenylether
Butytbenzylphthalate -
p-CWoroaniline
Chtorobenzilate
p-Chlofo-m-cresol
2-Chkxonaphthalene
2-Chtorophenol
4-Chtorophenytphenyiether
Chrysene
Oiallate
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Dhn-butyiphthalate
o-Ofcnlorobenzene
m-Oichlorobenzene
3,3*-Otchk>robenzid(ne
2,6-DtchIofophenol
Diethyiphthalate
Thionazin
Dimethoate
p-{Dttnethytamino)azobenzene
7.1 2-Oimethy1benz(a]anthracen€
Pyridine
a.a-Oimethytphenethylamine
2,4-Dimethytphenol
Dtmethylphthalate
M-Otnitrobenzene
4,6-Oinitro-o-cresoJ
2,4-Dtnitrophenot
2,4-Otnftrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-fi-octytphthatete
Diphenyiamtne
Ethytmethanesulfonate
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Year
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
Maximum
Detection No. of
Limit Units Samples
68.9
160
195
161
339
168
157
169
203
430
202
177
267
170
176
248
216
164
226
36.2
134
83.5
45.4
107
112
244
159
170
144
32.2
184
143
190
39.5
97.8
140
156
45.4
145
133
180
184
66.0
227
205
358
357
57.0
74.5
201
157
169
168
225
497
118
317
212
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
Mg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kg dw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw"
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
tig/kg dw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
No. of
Detects
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Minimum Maximum Maximum
Detect Detect Location
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
210 370 FP01
- ' - - -
650 650 FP0.1
680 680 FP01
730 730 FP01
400 400 FP01
670 670 FP01
- •
1
-
-
"
-
- .
-
.
.
-
-
240 . 960 FP01
' -
.
.
-
...
-
-
. .
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
- • -
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
1300 2300 FP01
A.16
-------
TABLE A.5. Surface Water and Sediment investigation (Sediment)
Anatyte
Ffaofene
Hexachiorobenzene ^
Hexachkxobutadiene
Hexachlorocydopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
HexachJorophene
Hexachioropropeoe
lndeno{1 , 2,3-cd]pyrene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrote
Kepone
Methapyritene
3-Methteholanthrene
Methyimethanesutfonate
2-Methylnaphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoqui none
1-Naphthylamine
2-Naphthylarnine
o-Nitroaniline
m-Nitroanttine
p-Nitroantfine
Nitrobenzene
p-Nrtrophenol
4-Nttfoquinoline-1 -oxide
N-nitrosodwvbatyiamine
N-nftrosodiethytamine
N-nttrosodtniethylamine
N-nrtrosodiphenylamine
N-nftrosodipropylamine
N^itrosocnethyiethyiamine
N^ftrosombrpholine
N-nrtrosoptperidene
N-nrtrosopyrrolidine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Parathion
Pentachkxbenzene
Pentachtofonftrobenzene
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
p-Phenylenediamine
Pronamkte
Pyrene
Safrote
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachtorobenzene
2,3,4.6-Tetrachtorophenol
Tetraethyldrthiopyrophosphate
o-Toiuidine
1 ,2,4-Trichtorobenzene
2,4t5-Trichk>rophenol
2,4.6-Trichlocphenol
oto.o-Triethyiphosphorothtoate
sym-TrinJtrobenzene
Alpha-BHC
8eta-8HC
Gamma-BHC
Defta-BHC
Heptachlor
Year
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993 '
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993 '
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
Maximum
Detection No. of
Limit Units Samples
166
241
182
16S
146
1190
135
152
94
163
155
1404 .
120
170
132
30.6
263
119
720
121
253
1119
161
195
362
82.0
134
178
143
164
124
135
27.9
171
186
257
186
211
200
185
311
209
177
165
190
173
149
169
179
176
138
156
152
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kg dw
pg/kgdw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kg dw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kg dw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kg dw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kg dw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kg dw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kg dw
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 •
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
15
15
15
15
15
No. of
Detects
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
- o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minimum Maximum Maximum
Detect Detect .Location
-
-
.
-
...
"
-
•
*
-
-
. . . •
. .
...
-
.
.
• .
_
-
-
-
-
.
-
.
.
...
_
. -
.
_
_
.
-
.
-
-
980 1300 FP01
- .
-
1400 2600 FP01
_
.
.
.
_
-
-
.
-
.
.
-
.
-
-
A.17
-------
TABLEAU. Surface Water and Sediment Investigation (Sediment)
Anatyte
Year
Maximum
Detection No. of No. of Minimum Maximum Maximum
Umft Units Samples Detects Detect Detect Location
Aldrin
Heptachior Epoxide
Gamma-Chlordane
Endosutfan I
Alpha-Ghtocdane
4.4MDDE
4.4'-ODT
Oieldrin
Endrin
Endosutfan (1
4,4'-ODD
Endrin Aldehyde
Endosuffan Sutfate
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Arodor 1016
Arodor1221
Arodor 1232
Arodor 1242
Arodor 1248
Arodor 1254
Arodor 1260
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
T5.0
15.0
76
760
58
58
58
58
58
58 '
29
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
pg/kgdw
pg/kg dw
pg/kg dw
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
1.5
15 -
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
0
0
0
0
0
7
9
0
0
0
9
b
0
. b
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
• . .
...
.
...
.
7.2 540 GS03
3.6 4200 GS03
.
• .
.
19 11000 GS01
. - ' '
"-..""•
. -
- .
.
.
-
-
.
.
130 55000 GS12
A.18
-------
TABLEA.6. 1993 Biota Samples (Biological Risk Assessment)
Analyte
Lead
Naphthalene
Acenapthylene
Acenaphthene ~*
Fluorene
Pheneanthrene
Anthracene
Fluonanthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
6enzo(b)f)uoranthene
6enzo(k)fhioranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(1 , 2.3-cd)pyrene
Dfbenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)pefyJene
AIpha-BHC
Gamma-BHC
Heptachlor
AWrin
Beta-BHC .
Oelta-BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosutfan (
g-Chk>ndane
a-Chkxdane
Trans Nonachlor
4.4'-ODE
OJeWrin
Endrin
4.4'-DDD
Endosutfan II
4,4'-ODT
Arodor 1242
Arodor 1248
Arodor 1254
Arodor 1260
Year
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993-
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
Detection
Limit
0.081
-
1.64
1.56
2.75
1.30
4.46
3.29
2.36
1.11
1.31
0.56
1.65
1.58
5.43
5.85
4.84
0.50
0.24
0.15
0.18
0.50
0.50
0.49
0.50
0.50
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.32
0.50
0.47
0.50
0.36
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Units
ug/gdw
pg/gww
pg/gww
pg/gww
pg/gww
pg/gww
pg/gww
pg/gww
pg/gww
pg/gww
pg/gww
pg/gww
pg/gww
pg/g ww
pg/gww
pg/gww
pg/gww
pg/kgww
pg/kg ww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
No. of
Samples
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70-
70
70
70
70 -
. 70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
No. of
Detects
59
70
1
11
17
53
2
39
26
48
19
38
10
7
1
1
1
3
5
2
1
2
4
15
2
10
12
11
53
28
7
45
0
38
0
0
0-
9
Minimum
Detect
0.83
1.14
2.36
1.48
2.54
1.44
8.05
2.88
2.39
1.63
1.31
0.96
2.06
1.59'.
33.6
8.80
29.5
0.58
0.75
0.35
1.00
0.26
0.62
0.51
0.30
0.25
0.23
0.14
0.72
0.60
0.30
0.71
-
1.02
-
-
-
9.58
Maximum
Detect
20.2
28.4
2.36
42.1
37.8
83.8
12.8
372
311
119
136
117
40.2
64.9
. 33.6
8.80
29.5
4.25
6.57
2.15
1.00
0.88
0.77
1.46
0.36
6.40
3.33
3.89
547
1.51
4.45
671
102
-
-
-
995
Maximum
Location
MGS
LF03
LGS
DP44
DP44
LGS
LGS
LGS
LGS
LGS
LGS
LGS
LGS
LGS
LGS
LGS
LGS
LF02
LF02
LF02
LGS
LF02
LGS
LF02
ST10
UGS
UGS
UGS
UGS
LF02
UGS
UGS
UGS
-
-
-
LGS
A.19
-------
TABLE A.7. 1994 Aquatic Biota Samples
Anafyte
Naphthalene
Acenapthytene \
Acenaphthene
Ruocene
'Pheneanthrene
Anthracene
Ruoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzp(k)fUioranthene
8enzo(ajpyrene
lndeno(1 f2,3-cd)pyrene
Dftenzo(ath)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,0perytene
Hexachlorobenzene
AIpha-BHC
Gamma-BHC
Heptachior
Aldrin
Beta-BHC
Detta-BHC
Heptachior Epoxide
2,4«-DDE
Endosuffan I
4.4'-DDE
Oieldrin
2,4*4)00
Endrin
2,4'-ODT
4.4'-ODD
Endosuffan U
4,4'-ODT
Mirex
Endosutfan Sulfate
Methoxychlor
Endrin Ketone
Technical Chlordane
Toxaphene
Arodor 1242
Arodor 1248
Arodor 1254
Arodor1260
Year
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
. 1994
' 1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
Highest
Detection
Limit
24.6
9.57
17.2
16.3
33.8
29.5
70.1
60.3
14.4
29.9
21.7
22.1
19.7
23.3
16.6
18.5
1.76
2.37
1.65
2.43
1.67
2.37
2.37
1.75
3.43
2.37
0.26
6.78
3.34
Z37
2.36
0.26
2.37
1.99
3.33
2.37
Z37
2.37
30.0
30.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Units
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
ug/kg ww
ug/kg ww
ug/kg ww
ug/kg ww
ug/kg ww
ug/kg ww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
Mg/kgww
ug/kg ww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
ug/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
ug/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
Mg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
pg/kgww
jig/kg ww
pg/kgww
ug/kgww
pg/kgww
No. of
Samples
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63.
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63 '
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
No. of
Detects
2
1
15
14
13
1
7
5 .
4
5
4
3
5 -
5
3
4
13
0
1
0
12
0
1
0
2
1
59
9
37
3
10
55
0
42
0
3
9
0
0
0
0
0
1
17
Minimum
Detect
6.69
9.77
1.28
3.20
3.90
132
727
6.58
5.39
4.20
6.10
- 8.21
3.22
3.88
3.21
3.70
0.20
-
0.85
-
0.22
-
0.69
-
0.60
0.32
0.31
0.51
0.28
0.33
0.27
0.33
-
0.36
-
0.21
0.19
-
-
-
-
-
926
17.6
Maximum
Detect
34.5
9.77
63.7
111
1050
132
742
540
247
296
345 .
141
241
187
39.0
150
2.87
-
0.85
-
1.8
-
0.69
-
0.70
0.32
234
1.83
361
0.58
37.0
1450
-
78.6
-
2.58
9.25
-
-
-
-
-
926
3000
. Maximum
Location
MGS
MGS
MGS
MGS
MGS
MGS
MGS
MGS
MGS
MGS
MGS
MGS
MGS
MGS
MGS
MGS
MGS
-
UMC
-
LGS
-
UGS
-
GL
FC/LF02
LGS
UGS
MGS
UGS
FC/LF02
MGS
-
FC/LF02
-
LGS
MGS
_-
-
-
-
-
LGS
LGS
A.20
-------
TABLE A.8. 1995 Sediment Samples (U.S. Air Force)
Anafyte
Arodor1016
Arodor1221
Arodor1232
Arodor1242
Arodor124d
Arodor1254
Arodor 1260
Year
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
i Urifrinr 1
riiQnest
Detection No. of
Unit Units Samples
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
pg/kgdw
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
No. of
Detects
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
Minimum Maximum Maximum
Detect Detect Location
- ' - -
.
-
-
.
-
658 65600 GS41
A.21
-------
-------
Reproduced by NTIS
So "00
•OfcS>
0) 0) •- +*
»- :. o> o
0 00)
0 0) 0
J~ I. +* +rf
'" '"
£ « 5 C
ilSc
fflO 0:5
Iff 8
hi
Zo.<2.^
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
77r/5 r£r/?ort was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 487-4660.
About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information — then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; audiovisual products; computer software and electronic
databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and technical
reports prepared by research organizations worldwide. Approximately
100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS collection
annually.
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at (703) 487-4650 and request the free NTIS Catalog of Products
and Services, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http://www.ntis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
information U.S. and worldwide
-------
-------
-------
------- |