Un»d Sates
Environm«fiBI Proteenon
Offksof
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROOP06-90061
August ^990
V,
t
V
v
N
Superfund
of Decision:
U.l»?4i?- *
tea •'«4
4»*£,H
Tinker AFB (Soldier CreeK/Bldg
3001), OK
-------
-------
50277-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
.
EPA/ROD/RO6-90/061_
i. fee****! AcoMion No.
4. TIM and SuMN*
3UPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Tinker AFB (Soldier Creek/Bldg 3001), OK
First Remedial Action
S. PipertOMt
08/16/90
7. Au«ior<»)
a. Performing Oroantorton R*pt No.
9. Performing OrgaMaHon Nun* «nd AddiM*
10. ProlKVTMk/Work UnH No.
11. Contnc«C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Num and AddnM*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Typ* o( (Upon & Period Covered
800/000
14.
1S. Supplementary Noli*
18. Abelnct (Umit: ZOO word*)
The 220-acre Tinker AFB (Soldier Creek/Building 3001) site, which includes an active
military facility and the adjacent Soldier Creek is in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Surrounding land use is urban residential. Underlying the site is a surficial perched
aquifer and a sole-source aquifer for the region. The Building 3001 (B3001) facility
is used as an aircraft overhaul and modification complex for jet engine service,
repair, and upgrades. From the 1940s to the 1970s, organic solvents were used to
degrease metal parts in subsurface pits. Ground water contamination has occurred
onsite as a result of seepage from these pits, direct discharge of solvents to storm
drains, spills, and faulty drainage system connections. A North Tank Area contains
several active and abandoned underground waste oil and fuel tanks. Contamination in
this area has resulted from leaking tanks and fuel spills directly onto the ground. In
addition, there is onsite VOC contamination, which may be the result of leaking utility
lines in the area. Investigations by the Air Force from 1982 to 1989, documented
ground water contamination under the B3001 complex; the potential threat of further
contamination from Pit Q-51, one of the former degreasing pits; and that underground
(See Attached Page)
17. Document ArMfyii* a. Descriptor*
Record of Decision - Tinker AFB (Soldier Creek/Bldg 3001), OK
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, gw, debris
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes), organics
metals (chromium, lead)
b. Wenttflere/Open-Ended Term*
(phenols),
18. Avaltbilty Statement
11. Security CUM flhto Ihport)
None
ax Security CUM (TO* PK«)
None
21. Mo.o(P«OM
144
22. Prie*
Soo ANSt.Z39.18)
Set InflrueHant an Htvtnt
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (»-77)
(Formtrty NDS-3S>
Otpmwnt o< Comnwe*
-------
SPA/ROD/RGS-90/061
Tinker AFB (Soldier Creek/Bldg 3001), OK
First Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
storage tanks in the North Tank Area were leaking. In 1985 in response to the detection
of onsite contamination, the Air Force removed an abandoned 13,000 gallon gasoline tank
from the North Tank Area, closed three contaminated production wells, and cleaned all of
the onsite degreasing pits with the exception of Pit Q-51, which contains approximately
45 gallons of contaminated liquid waste. This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses
remediation of onsite ground water, along with remedial actions relating to Pit Q-51 and
the North Tank Area. A subsequent ROD will address contamination associated with
Soldier Creek. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil, debris and
ground water are VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics
including phenols; and metals including chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes ground water pumping and cnsite
treatment using air stripping to remove VOCs, precipitation to remove metals, and fine
filtration to remove any remaining organics and metals; using the treated water in
onsite industrial processes; disposing of any residuals from the treatment processes
offsite; recovering 6,000 to 12,000 gallons of hydrocarbons floating above the ground
water table by using a dual fluid production system, followed by offsite disposal of the
hydrocarbons; removing approximately 45 gallons of liquid waste from Pit Q-51, and
placing the liquid waste into 55-gallon drums; steam cleaning, backfilling and covering
the pit with a concrete slab; storing the drums temporarily onsite; disposing of waste
and washwater from the steam cleaning process offsite; removing and disposing of a
750-gallon waste tank, and properly abandoning, demolishing and backfilling the onsite
235,000 gallon fuel oil tank at the North Tank Area; treating the contaminated soil from
the North Tank Area using vapor extraction, with destruction of vapors in a thermal
combustor; and ground water monitoring. The estimated present worth cost for this
remedial action is $13,198,308. O&M costs were not provided.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The selected ground water remedy will achieve a 99.9%
removal of organic contaminants. Chemical-specifc ground water cleanup levels include
chromium 20-50 ug/1. Soil remediation goals include a 99% removal of organic
contaminants at the North Tank Area. Chemical-specific soil cleanup goals include
benzene 5 ug/1 (MCL), PCE 5 ug/1 (MCL), TCE 5 ug/1 (MCL), chromium 50 ug/1 (MCL), and
lead 50 ug/1 (MCL).
-------
BUILDING 3001
RECORD OF DECISION
TINKER AIR FORCE BASE
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM
PROJECT NO. WWYK86-311
SITE NO. 'TINKER 01
PREPARED FOR:
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS OKLAHOMA CITY AIR LOGISTICS CENTER
PREPARED BY:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
TULSA DISTRICT
FINAL
AUGUST 1990
-------
prroPD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION'
Soldier Creek/Building 3001
Tinker Air Torce Base (TAFB)
Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial actions
for the Building 3001 Operable Unit of the Tinker Air Force
Base(Soldier Creek/ Building 3001), in Oklahoma County,
Oklahoma, which was chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and, to the extent
practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP). This
decision is based on the Administrative Record for this site.
The State of Oklahoma concurs on the selected remedy. A
letter of concurrence from the State of Oklahoma is included
in Appendix C.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
this site, 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 SELECTED REMEDY
This ROD addresses the sources of the contamination and
any threat posed by migration of contamination to
groundwater beneath the building, the principle threats
at the site. A subsequent ROD will address the remainder of
the site, potential contamination associated with Soldier
Creek.
The proposed remedies address groundwater beneath Building
3001, the Pit Q-51 Operable Unit, and the North Tank Area
Operable Unit. The functions of these remedial actions are
to remove, treat, and dispose of the contaminated groundwater
from beneath Building 3001; remove and dispose of the
contaminated pit contents from Pit Q-51; and remove and
dispose of the fuel products in the subsurface soils at the
North Tank Area.
-------
The remedial actions implemented at the Pit Q-51 and NTA,
should eliminate the sources of contar-nation.
The remedial actions selected in this Record of Decision
incorporate the following components:
guildina 3001 Groundwater
- Addit.on'of monitoring wells in order to monitor the
groundwater contaminant plume.
- Extraction of contaminated groundwater from the perched
water zone, top of regional water zone, and regional water
zone by exterior and interior extraction wells.
- Treatment of the contaminated groundwater in a treatment
facility constructed specifically for the Building 3001
remedial action. The treated water will be reused in
TAFB's industrial operations.
- The sludge will be disposed of at an offsite RCRA permitted
facility approved to re.sive CERCLA waste.
i Pit O-51 Operable Unit
- Removal of approximately 45 gallons of liquid, steam
j cleaning of the pit, analysis of the liquid and washwater,
and disposal in a facility that is approved to receive
CERCLA waste. The pit will be backfilled with sand and
, covered with an 8-inch concrete cap to prevent future use.
1
North Tank Area Operable Unit
- Installation of a floating fuel product removal system
to recover fuel product floating above the
groundwater table. The recovered fuel will be disposed of
at a RCRA approved facility. The groundwater will be
treated at the new Building 3001 treatment plant.
- Installation of a vapor extraction system to remove fuel
vapors from the subsurface soils which will be destroyed in
a thermal combustor.
- Thermal combustion of fuel vapors recovered by the removal
systems.
- Removal and disposal of a 750 gallon waste tank and proper
closure of a 235,000 gallon fuel oil tank.
STATUTORY DECLARATION
The selected remedies are protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements
that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to this
-------
remedial action and are cost effective. These remedies
utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technology to the maximum extent practicable, and satifies
the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment
that reduces toxicity, mobility or volume as a principal
Due to the length of the final remedial action, a review wil1
be conducted within five years after commencement of remedial
action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment.
-------
Spiers, Bejor General, USAF
jirunander, Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center
''Department of the Air Force
Date
-------
\ fc-\
—tr
Robert E. Layton Jr., P.E,
.'(Regional Administrator
Date
-------
BUILDING 30:
RECORD OF DECIJJON
DECISION SUMK-'-RY
TABLE OF CONT-.-'TS
page
1.0 Site Location and Description 1
1.1 Location 1
1.2 Site Descript-on 1
a. Building 3001 Complex 1
b. North Tank Area , i
C. Pit Q-51 5
1. 3 Demography 5
1. 4 Land Use 5
1.5 Climatology 5
j 1.6 General Geohydrology 7
• a. Garber Wellington Formation 7
1.) Geology 7
. 2.) Groundwater 7
j b. Hennessey Formation 12
c. Quaternary Alluvium 12
j 1.7 Natural Resources 14
2.0 S ite I istory 14
2.1 Previous IRP Investigations 14
2.2 Investigations within Fire-Damaged Area 14
2.3 Underground Storage Tank (UST) Investigations 15
2.4 Plugging of Wells 18 and 19 15
2. 5 Summary of COE Remedial Investigations 16
2.6 Enforcement 16
3 . 0 Community Relaticr-.s 16
4 . 0 Scope of Response Action 17
5.0 Site Contamination IS
5.1 Contamination Sources 18
5.1.1 Building 3001 18
-------
5.1.2 Pit Q-51 19
5.1.3 North Tank Area ' 19
5.2 Evaluation of Primary Contaminants 20
5.2.1 Identification of Exposed Population 20
5.2.2 Contaminant Characteristics 20
5.2.3 Potential Pathways of Migration 20
5.3 Soil Contamination 20
5. 4 Perched Aquifer 21
5.5 Top of Regional Zone 22
5.6 Regional Zone 28
5.7 Producing Zone 29
6.0 Summary of Site Risk 29
6.1 Contaminant Characteristics 31
6.2 Environmental Impact 31
6.3 Identification of Exposed Population 31
7.o Description of the Alternatives for the Contaminated
Groundwater 32
7. l Groundwater Pumping Collection 32
7.1.1 Alternative 1-1: No Action 32
7.1.2 Alternative 1-2: Groundwater Removal from Exterior
Wells 33
7.1.3 Alternative 1-3: Exterior and Interior Well
Groundwater Removal 33
7.2 Groundwater Treatment and Disposal 33
7.2.1 Alternative 2-1: Modified IWTP/Industrial
Reuse , 33
7.2.2 Alternative 2-2: Modified IWTP/Surface Water
Discharge 34
7.2.3 Alternative 2-3: Treatment/Industrial
Reuse 34
-------
7.2.4 Alternative 2-4: Treatment/Surface Water
Discharge 34
8.0 Description of Alternatives fsr Pit Q-51 35
8 .1 Alternative 1: No Action 35
8.2 Alternative 2: Removal of Pit Contents/Onbase
Treatment 35
8.3 Alternative 3: Removal of Pit Contents/Offbase
Treatment 35
9.0 Description of Alternatives for the North Tank
Area 35
9.1 Alternative 1: Free Floating Fuel Removal 36
' 9.2 Alternative 2: Fuel Vapor Removal 36
* 9.3 Alternative 3: Capping of North Tank Area 36
9.4 Alternative 4: Removal of Fuel Contaminated
Soil 36
f
9.5 Alternative 5: Collecting and treating of
Groundwater 36
' 9.6 Alternative 6: Tank Closure 36
10.0 Summary of the Comparative Analysis of
Alternatives 37
10.1 Overall Protection of Hunan Health and
Environment 37
a. Building 3001 Groundwater 37
b. Pit Q-51 37
c. North Tank Area 38
10.2 Compliance with ARAR's 38
a. Building 3001 Groundwater 38
b. Pit Q-51 39
c. North Tank Area 39
10.3 Long term Effectiveness and Permanence 39
a. Building 3001 Groundwater 39
b. Pit Q-51 40
c. North Tank Area 40
10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume 40
a. Building 3001 Groundwater 40
b. Pit Q-51 41
-------
c. North Tank Area 41
10. 5 Short Term Effectiveness 41
a. Building 3001 Groundwater 41
to. Pit Q-51 42
c. North Tank Area 42
10. 6 Implementability 42
a. Building 3001 Groundwater 42
b. Pit Q-51 42
c. North Tank Area 43
10.7 Costs 43
a. Building 3001 Groundwater 43
b. Pit Q-51 43
c. North Tank Area 43
10.8 State Acceptance 43
10.9 Community Acceptance 43
11.0 Selected Remedies 44
11.1 Building 3001 Groundwater 44
11.2 Pit Q-51 45
11.3 North Tank Area 45
12.0 Statutory Determinations 45
12.1 Protection of Human Health and the
Environment 46
12.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements 46
12 . 3 Cost Effectiveness 47
12.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment Technologies 47
12.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal
Element 48
13.0 Documentation of Significant Changes 48
References
-------
APPENDICES
A Responsiveness Summary
B Federal and State Applicable or Releva .t and Appropriate
Retirements
C State of Oklahoma Letter of Concurrence
D Administrative Record index
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Name pace
5.1 Contaminants Detected in Pit Q-51 19
5.2 Volatile Organics Detected in Soil Sample from NTA 19
5.3 Contaminants Detected in Perched Zone 21
5.4 Contaminants Detected in Top of Regional Zone 28
5.5 Contaminants Detected in the Regional Zone 29
6.1 Indicator Chemicals and Longterm Exposure Concentrations.30
10.1 Maximum Contaminant Levels for Indicator Chemicals 39
10.2 Air standards 39
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure pace
1-1 Location of Tinker Air Force Base within Oklahoma 2
1-2 Tinker AFB with Project Location 3
l-2a Extent of Contamination on Base 4
1-3 North Tank Area Operable Unit 6
1-4 Geologic Map of Garber Wellington and Hennessey
Formations 8
1-5 General Geologic Section 9
1-6 Surface Geology at Tinker AFB 10
1-7 North-South Geologic Section through Eastern Portion
of Tinker AFB 11
1-8 Water Supply Wells at Tinker AFB 13
5-la Generalized Site Geology 23
5-1 Trichloroethylene Plume in Perched Aquifer 24
5-2 Chromium Plume in Perched Aquifer 25
5-3 Trichloroethylene Plume in the Top of Regional Zone 26
5-4 Chromium Plume in the Top of Regional Zone 27
-------
|.Q SITE LOCATION AND
] ] ^cation. Tinker AFB (TAFB) is locate: in central Oklahoma,
in the southeast portion of the Oklahoma c. / metropolitan area,
in Oklahoma County. The Base is bounded by Sooner Road to the
west, Douglas Boulevard to the east, Interstate 40 to the north,
and Southeast 74th Street to the south. Building 3001 (B3001) is
located in the northeast portion of the Base, east of the north-
south runway. Figure 1-1 shows the location of the Base and
Building 3001.
1.2 Site Description. The B3001 site includes the building
complex (covering 50 acres) , the North Tank Area (NTA) , Pit Q-
51, and the surrounding areas encompassed by the lateral extent
of the groundwater contaminant plume. The site is located near
the northeast boundary of the Base and covers an area of
approximately 220 acres. A site map is shown in Figure 1-2. The
NTA is located immediately north of the building and Pit Q-51 is
located inside of the building (see Figure 1-2) . The extent of
the groundwater contamination is shown in Figure l-2a. The
operable units of B3001 do not lie within the flood plain and are
not considered to be a wetland.
a. Building 3001 Complex. The building complex houses an
aircraft overhaul and modification complex to support the mission
of the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center. The primary
industrial activities conducted in the building (since operations
began in the early to mid-1940 's) are aircraft and jet engine
service, repair, and/or upgrading. Some industrial processes use
or generate solutions containing solvents and metals similar to
contaminants found in the underlying groundwater. Organic
solvents were used for cleaning and degreasing metal engine
parts. Trichloroethylene was the predominant solvent used from
the 1940 's until the 1970 's. The degreasing operations were
conducted in concrete pits located set below the floor level . In
the early 1970 's, tetrachloroethylene began to replace
trichloroethylene as the predominant degreasing solvent and the
pits were replaced with above ground degreasing systems (pit,
piping, pumps, etc.). The subsurface pits were emptied and
abandoned, typically by backfilling with sand and capping with
concrete. The wastewater from the plating shop and paint
stripping operations contained high concentrations of solvents
and heavy metals, particularly chromium . Waste materials
generated from plating, painting, and heat treating activities
contain both solvents and metals. Subsurface contamination
occurred primarily by leakage from the subsurface pits and
trenches, erroneous discharging of solvents or wastewaters into
storm drains, accidental spills, and/or improper connections
between wastewater and storm drains.
b. North Tank Area. The NTA contains an inactive 235,000
gallon underground fuel oil tank (tank number 3404), an inactive
-------
UJ
UJ
01
I
1-1
UJ
fig
o
-------
UJ
(T
n
o
090« U3NOOS
-------
I
1
s
I
a
-------
750 gallon underground waste oil tank, and an active 20,000
gallon diesel tank (tank number 3401). An abandoned 13,000
gallon gasoline tank (tank number 3405) was removed from the site
in 1985. The site, as shown in Figure 1-3, is a small grassed
area covering approximately 16,400 square feet. The soil and
groundwater have become contaminated with fuel product, benzene,
toluene, and xylene, due to leaking tanks and/or possible fuel
spills. Also, some metals and organic solvents are present in
the groundwater, which may be a result of leaking utility lines
in the area.
c. Pit O-51. During remedial investigations to determine
the contents of the remaining abandoned pits, conducted in 1986,
Pit Q-51 was identified to contain hazardous contaminants (see
Appendix D in the Building 3001 Remedial Investigations (Rl)
Report). The pit is concrete-lined and appears to have not
leaked any of its contents into the subsurface. Pit Q-51 is
located inside B3001 at column-line Q-51 as shown in Figure 1-2.
The pit is 20 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 10 feet in depth. The
pit contains a sump area that is 3 feet wide, 3 feet long, and 2
feet in depth. The sump contains approximately 45 gallons of
liquid contaminated with trichloroethylene, cadmium, chromium,
and lead.
1.3 Demography. B3001 is a large industrial complex which
operates 24 hours a day. Approximately 8,000 people are employed
at the complex. Approximately 20,000 people work on TAFB. The
Base accommodates 530 family housing units and 7 dormitories.
Oklahoma County has a population of 628,600, in which the highest
population is in the community of Oklahoma City. TAFB is located
in the Oklahoma City limits and adjacent to Midwest City and Del
City which have populations of 406,800, 58,000 and 33,400,
respectively.
1.4 Land Use. B3001 is primarily an industrial site with a
mission to support the Air Logistics Center. The Base is
bordered on the north and northeast by urban communities. The
south boundary area is adjacent to the General Motors Plant, an
industrial complex. Lake Stanley Draper is located southeast of
the Base. The remaining areas to the south and east are
primarily agricultural.
1.5 ciimatolocrv. The climate at TAFB is characterized by long
hot summers (sometimes droughts of varying duration occur). The
average annual temperature is approximately 60-62 degrees F. The
maximum precipitation generally occurs in May. Precipitation
then decreases in June, setting the stage for hot and dry
summers. Fall is the second wettest season but again tapers off
with January being a dry month. Average annual precipitation for
the area is 32 inches and the average evaporation rate is
approximately 50 inches.
-------
_NORTH TANK AREA OPERABLE UNIT
Monitor wells
Soil boring
SCALE
25' 50'
frtstfna building 3OOI
Waste tank
-27
Removed
Mogas
tank
Existing
3001
/-32
FIGURE 1-3
-------
1T$ general Geohydroloav. TAFB is located in the Interior
Lowlands physiographic province on gently westward dipping
Permian redbeds. The geology, which is shown on Figure 1-4, is
discussed below. Figure 1-5 is a geologic section along the east
perimeter through B3001. Bedrock units encountered at TAFB
include the Garber-Wellington Formation and the overlying
Hennessey Formation. These units are discussed below.
a. Garber-Wellinaton Formation.
1.) Geology. The Garber-Wellington Formation outcrops in
Central Oklahoma, as shown on Figures 1-4 and 1-5, and supplies
much of the drinking water for residents of Oklahoma and
Cleveland counties. The recharge area covers the eastern half of
Oklahoma County including TAFB, and the formation dips to the
west about 15 feet per mile. The Garber Sandstone and Wellington
Formations are hydrologically interconnected formations which are
not easily distinguished from each other based on rock type, key
beds, fossils, or hydrologic properties. The Garber-Wellington
is about 900 feet thick in the TAFB area, and consists of
lenticular and interbedded sandstone, shale, and siltstone.
Sandstone is orange-red to reddish-brown, fine-grained, and
poorly cemented. The grains are sub-angular to sub-rounded and
composed of guartz. Shale is reddish-brown and silty. Although
present beneath all of TAFB, the Garber-Wellington is overlain by
the Hennessey Formation over the southern half of the Base, as
shown on the geologic map of the TAFB area on Figure 1-6.
Sediments of the Garber-Wellington are overlain by the Hennessey
Formation over the southern half of the Base, as shown on Figure
1-6. Sediments of the Garber-Wellington are deltaic in origin.
Stream-deposited sands interfinger with marine shales, and
individual beds vary from a few feet to about 40 feet in
thickness. Sandstone averages about 65% of the formation, as
determined from borings drilled at the Base. Because of shifting
channels and changing currents during deposition, detailed
correlation of lithologic units is only possible over short
distances. A north-south geologic section through the eastern
portion of TAFB is comprised of borings from B3001, water supply
wells, and IRP borings, as shown in Figure 1-7. It shows that
the Hennessey does not extend as far north as B3001. It also
shows that the major sandstone and shale beds can be correlated
over this distance.
The subsurface shale layers have prevented contaminants from
migrating into the drinking water zone. The contaminants which
have migrated into the upper zones of the Garber-Wellington
traveled through possible cracks or discontinuities in the shale
layers. Overall, the shale layers are effective in slowing the
migration of contaminants into the producing zone.
2.) Groundwater. Groundwater exists in the Garber-
Wellington under both water table and confining conditions,
-------
REGIONAL GEOLOGY OF THE GASBE1-WELLINGTON AQUIFER
GARBER-WELUNGTON »
AOWFER,.:::.
OKLAHOMA CO, X
: CLEVLANO
mm m^^^>^^
wmwW+VtttX-s
m&M$8&&
Garber-Wellington
Formations
GARBER-WELLIN&TON
FIGURE 1-4. Generalized geologic map showing the outcrop area of the
Garber-Wellington and Hennessey formations. The area inside the dashed
line is the area where the Garber-Wellington is a major groundwater resource.
-------
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
SANDSTONE BEOS
HENNESSEY G«OUP
[ 1 CA*BE« •
fORMATONS
FIGURE 1-5 Generalized geologic section across portions of Canadian,
Oklahoma, and Lincoln Counties showing the Garber-Wellington formation.
-------
kU!
CD
jj
<
K
jj
t
FIGURE 1-6 Surface geology at Tinker Air Force Base.
Location of North-South geologic section, figure 1-7, is
shown.
-------
LUI
IS
UJ!
fi 8
(•*••)
IIII il >
•!
FIGURE 1-7 North-South gwlogic »«ction through «ojt«rn portion of TAP!
-------
depending on the presence of overlying shale beds, and it flows
to the southwest. The Garber-Wellington Aquifer is a Class I
Aquifer which produces water used for public water supply and
cannot be replaced. There are 25 water supply wells located on
TAFB. These wells, which were drilled in the 1940's and are
shown on Figure 1-8, provide 4 to 6 million gallons per day for
use by the Base, making TAFB the greatest user of groundwater in
the area. These wells average 217 gallons per minute and consist
of multiple screens from a depth of 250 feet to 700 feet. This
zone, where most of the water for industrial and commercial use
is pumped, is relatively permeable, and pump tests from wells in
the towns of Norman and Edmond yield permeabilities about 10'3
cm/sec. The average depth to water in the producing zone is
about 250 feet, which is about 200 feet lower than the regional
water table. Thus, a vertical component of groundwater flow also
exists. The water becomes salty near the base of the formation,
and wells drilled through the fresh water zone have to be
partially backfilled to be usable. Background water quality at
TAFB is best in the deeper strata. In general, heavy metals such
as barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, and silver are at or below
detection limits. Arsenic is about 0.002 ppm, lead about 0.04
ppm, and selenium 0.002 ppm. Overpumpage tends to increase the
concentration of some of these metals, especially arsenic,
selenium, and chromium. There is no known reason at this time
for the increase of metals due to overpumpage, however, this has
been researched for the past six years in the Oklahoma City area.
Chlorides, sulfates, and conductivities seem to be the lowest in
the deeper strata, and highest in groundwater under water table
conditions.
b. Hennessey Formation. The Hennessey Formation outcrops
over the southern half of TAFB as shown in Figures 1-6 and 1-7.
The Hennessey thins to the north and pinches out just south of
B3001. It consists of reddish-brown shale with beds of siltstone
and silty sandstone. Where present, the Hennessey separates the
regional water table in the Garber-wellington from overlying
perched water. There are several wells in the area producing
minor amounts of water from the Hennessey which are developed
from one of the thin sandstone beds or from joints and fractures
in the shale.
c. Quaternary Alluvium. Most of the streams at TAFB have
some alluvial deposits unless their channels have been modified,
such as East Soldier Creek. These deposits consist of
unconsolidated sediments of sand, silt, and clay. The thickness
of these deposits have not been determined at TAFB. The alluvial
deposits are water-bearing and are hydrologically connected to a
perched water table which is found over most of the Base.
12
-------
-------
1.7 Natural Resources. The primary natural resource at the site
is groundwater. The underlying Garber-Wellington ag;uifer is the
single most important source of potable groundwater in the
Oklahoma City area. Five TAFB water supply wells (well numbers
13 through 17) are located in the vicinity of the site (see
Figure 1-8). These wells draw water from the producing zone at
depths of approximately 250 to 700 feet.
2.0 SITE HISTORY. The remedial investigations conducted at
Tinker Air Force Base are a part of the U.S. Air Force
Installation Restoration Program (IRP). The Air Force is the
owner of the site and the lead agency for implementing the
environmental response actions.
2.1 Previous,IRP Investications. The previous IRP work conducted
at the site consisted of a records search, field evaluation, and
confirmation/quantification investigations. The Records Search,
conducted by Engineering Science in 1982 (ref.5), reviewed
current and past waste management practices in an effort to
identify areas with a potential for contaminant migration. The
Field Evaluation, conducted by Radian Corporation in 1984
(ref.10), investigated the site to determine if contamination had
resulted from past waste disposal practices. The Field
Evaluation included pumping water supply well 18 (for 16 hours)
where volatile organics including trichloroethylene and
tetrachloroethylene had previously been found, and periodically
collecting samples for volatile organic testing.
trichloroethylene concentrations ranged from 1800 to 4600 ppb
during the pumping period and tetrachloroethylene remained below
detection limits. The Quantification/Confirmation report,
prepared by Radian Corporation in 1984 (ref.ll), determined that
contamination existed at the site and recommended that additional
investigations be performed to define the site conditions.
Monitoring wells were installed at seven locations around the
building during these investigations. Trichloroethylene
concentrations of 642 and 102 ppb were found in 19A and 20A,
respectively. Other substances were detected in relatively high
concentrations at some locations such as chlorobenzene and trans-
1,2-dichloroethylene with concentrations of 34.5 ug/1 and 33.2
ug/1, respectively. The conclusions drawn from the previous IRP
reports were that any abandoned pits and tanks beneath B3001
should be sampled and analyzed for the presence of chlorinated
solvents, the area of contamination should be defined, and a
remedial action plan should be initiated for the contaminated
groundwater.
2.2 Investigations Within Fire-Damaaed Area. In November of
1984, the roof of the north portion of B3001, north of column-
line 81, was extensively damaged by fire. During May through
August 1985, the Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers (COE)
conducted IRP investigations within this fire-damaged area during
reconstruction. The work consisted of investigating abandoned
14
-------
pits, conducting groundwater investigations, and installing
monitoring wells. Sixty-four pits were located and investigated.
One pit (located near column-row E105) cent?~ned high
concentrations cf trichloroethylene (120 perj was detected in
soil adjacent to the pit). Two other pits (near column-rows V85
an LM107) contained high concentrations of metals. The pit near
V85 contained 25,600 ppm of lead and the pit near LM107 contained
106 ppm of lead. The contents of the three pits were removed and
disposed of in a hazardous waste.landfill. The pits were
backfilled and capped with concrete. The groundwater
investigations revealed an upper perched aquifer overlying the
regional Garber-Wellington aquifer. Trichloroethylene
contamination was present in both the percned and top of regional
zones. Groundwater monitoring well clusters were installed at
four locations within the fire damaged area so that quality
monitoring could be continued. Each well cluster consisted of
three wells, one located in the perched aquifer, one in the top
of regional aquifer, and one approximately 75 feet into the
regional aquifer. Appendix B of the B3001 RI Report (COE, 1988)
discusses the investigations within the fire damaged area.
2.2 Underground Storage Tank (U5T) Investigations. An
investigation of abandoned and active underground storage tanks
at TAFB was conducted by A.L. Burke Engineers, Inc., in 1985
(r-f.l). The investigations included locating underground
st -age tanks and collecting and analyzing samples of the soil
anc. groundwater from areas adjacent ro tanks to determine if
subsurface contamination existed from leaking tanks. Two
contaminated storage tank areas (NTA and Southwest Tank Area)
were identified during the investigations. Three monitoring
wells (KM-1, MM-2, and MM-3), were installed adjacent to tanks in
the NTA, as shown in Figure 1-3. Free fuel product was observed
in two of the wells (MM-1 and MM-3). The Southwest Tank Area
contains both fuel tanks and abandoned solvent tanks. The ta :s
will be investigated as part of TAFB's Underground Storage Ta <
Program and the contaminated groundwater will be treated with the
B3001 contaminated groundwater at the Building 3001 treatment
facility.
2.4 Plugging of Wells 18 and 19. In late 1983 routine Air Force
testing indicated the presence of both trichloroethylene and
tetrachloroethylene in samples taken at the well head from water
supply (WS) wells 18 and 19. The wells were taken out of
service, and a contract was awarded to Engineering Enterprises
(ref.6) in 1984 to conduct a study of the wells. They conducted
pump tests, took water samples at the well head, and performed a
television log. In 1986, Dansby and Associates (ref.3) cleaned
the wells, conducted geophysical logging and televising
operations, set packers and took stratified water samples, and
conducted an environmental assessment on possible interim
actions. The results of these investigations showed that the
casings in both wells were highly corroded and that the cement
15
-------
bond was not very good in ws 18. Channeling and downward
movement of water was indicated by noise and spinner logs.
Trichloroethylene in ws 18 was as high as 2400 ppb, and in ws 19,
it"was as high as 9 ppb. These studies concluded that
contaminants were entering both wells through corrosive holes in
the upper zones, travelling downward through the casing as well
as through annular space between casing and the formation. They
recommended that,the wells be plugged as soon as possible. Both
of the wells were plugged in September 1986. A report1 on the
well plugging procedures is given in Appendix C of the B3001 Rl
Report (COE, 1988). WS 17 was also plugged in 1988.
2.5 Summary of COE Remedial Investigations. The remedial
investigations were conducted in order to properly assess the
subsurface conditions and implement a remedial action plan. The
field and laboratory work required to accomplish this objective
included investigating abandoned solvent pits within B3001 (see
Appendix D of the B3001 RI Report), investigating the geological
site conditions, installing groundwater monitoring wells,
sampling water supply wells and monitoring wells, and conducting
aquifer tests. All of the field and laboratory work was
conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance/Quality
Control Plan (Appendix H in the B3001 RI report). The collected
data was analyzed in order to define the contamination problem at
the site. A groundwater and contaminant transport model was
developed (Appendix K of the B3001 RI report) to simulate the
contaminant movements within the aquifer systems.
2.6 Enforcement. B3001 was placed on the National Priorities
List (NPL) in July 1987. Since Tinker AFB installation owned by
the Air Force, the Air Force is the only Potentially Responsible
Party (PRP). The primary contaminants of concern are
trichloroethylene and chromium. Between 1986 and 1989, TAFB as
the lead agency conducted a Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) under the guidance of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Oklahoma State Health Department
(OSDH)-. The RI/FS was conducted to define and characterize the
extent and magnitude of contamination and to provide a detailed
description and evaluation of remediation alternatives for
remediating the site. The EPA, OSDH, and the U.S. Air Force
signed a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) in
December 1988. The FFA addresses investigation, remediation, and
documentation procedures for the remediation of hazardous waste
at B3001. It also specifies procedures for the separate operable
units that have been identified at the B3001 site. Pit Q-51 and
the NTA have been designated as operable units in the FFA.
3.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS. In May 1989, the RI report was made
available to the public and placed in the Administrative Record
at the Midwest City, Oklahoma Public Library. The FS report and
the Proposed Plan were placed in the Administrative Record in
16
-------
December 1989 and March 1990, respectively. TAFB solicited input
from the community on the clean up methods proposed for this
site. TAFB held a public comment period from March 19, 1990 to
April 30, 1990 to encourage public participation in the remedial
action process. A public meeting consisting of approximately 100
attendees was held in Midwest City on April 5, 1990. During the
comment period and public meeting , TAFB presented the RI/FS
reports, Proposed Plans, and the NTA Design Summary Report;
answered questions; and received both oral and written comments.
TAFB provided notice of the public comment period and public
meeting through announcements in the newspaper on March 19, 1990
and April 2, 1990. The comments received during the public
comment period, including the 28 written comments and those
received at the public meeting, are addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary in Appendix A.
4.0 SCOPE OF RESPONSE ACTION. The Building 3001 site is divided
into operable units. The operable units include the Building
, 3001 groundwater, Pits Q-51, U-51, MN-36, E-105, V-85, LM-107 and
i P-75, NTA, and water supply wells 17, 18 and 19. All of the pits
with the exception of Pit Q-51 have been remediated. The
contents of the pits was removed and the pits were backfilled
j with sand and capped with concrete. Water supply wells 17, is
and 19 have been put out of operation and permanently plugged.
The Record of Decision will include the Building 3001
; groundwater, Pit Q-51 and the NTA.
The response actions at the Building 3001 site, covered in this
ROD, will consist of interim and final remedial actions. The
interim remedial actions will include the removal of fuels and
fuel vapors from the NTA and the cleanup of Pit Q-51 inside of
B3001 followed by backfilling with sand and capping the pit with
[ concrete to eliminate any future use of the pit. The final
remedial action will be comprised of two stages:
1.) Groundvater Pumping/Collection
2.) Groundwater Treatment/Industrial Reuse
These actions will eliminate the sources of contamination and
eliminate the primary pathway for exposure to the public thereby
eliminating the principal threat of contaminated drinking water
posed by conditions at the site.
The proposed remedy for the contaminated groundwater at B3001
would pump and collect the contaminated groundwater, then treat
and dispose of it. The groundwater would be pumped and collected
by a network of exterior and interior wells. The groundwater
would be treated in a treatment facility specifically constructed
for removing contaminants from the groundwater at B3001 and
reused in TAFB's industrial operations.
17
-------
The volatile organic contaminants would be removed by air and/or
steam stripping. A metals precipitation process would extract
heavy metals and an optional fine filtration process would be
used to remove non-volatile organics and the remaining metal
concentrations.
The interim remedial actions implemented at the NTA and Pit Q-51
will eliminate the sources of contamination and eliminate the
primary pathway "for exposure to the public which is groundwater
contamination.
The proposed remedy for the floating fuel and fuel vapors at the
NTA Operable Unit (OU) would involve collecting the free floating
fuel, extracting fuel vapors from the subsurface soils, and tank
abandonment. The free floating fuel will be recovered with three
recovery wells which will contain a pump that will recover only
the floating fuel. A water table depression pump will be
installed at such a time when free floating fuel cannot be
collected easily. The pump will depress the water table in order
to allow fuel product to be collected at the well and extracted
from the subsurface. The vapor extraction system will consist of
horizontal borings extending radially out of Tank 3404 and
connected to a blower to extract the vapors. The vapors will be
destroyed by a thermal combustor that will completely burn off
the vapors. A small waste oil tank will be removed and disposed
of and Tank 3404 will be properly abandoned.
The proposed remedy for the Pit Q-51 OU would consist of removing
the pit contents, steam cleaning the pit, sampling the pit
contents and washwater, backfilling and capping the pit, and
disposing the pit contents and washwater at an offbase facility
approved to receive CERCLA waste.
The Pit Q-51 and NTA remedies will remove potential sources of
contamination to the groundwater. The B3001 groundwater remedy
would stop the spread of contamination in the Garber-Wellington
Formation associated with the movement of contaminated
groundwater.
5.0 SITE CONTAMINATION.
5.1 Contamination Sources.
5.1.1 Building 3001. During the period from the 1940's to
1970's, industrial solvents and wastewaters inside B3001 were
contained in subsurface pits and trenches (some steel-lined and
some concrete-lined). Over a period of time the pits and trenches
leaked and allowed percolation and downward subsurface migration.
Also, some of the solvents and wastewaters from TAFB's industrial
operations were drained into the storm drain system beneath the
building. Leakage from storm drain pipes probably occurred,
allowing downward migration into the perched aquifer. Some of
18
-------
the discharge to storm drains occurred from improper tie-in >
connections between industrial waste lines and storm drains. The •
ctorm drains discharged to the east and west sides of the ™
Building into tributaries of Soldier Creek, commonly referred to
as East and West Soldier Creek. ,
s.1.2 Pit 0-51. In the early 1970's, solvent pits begar to
be replaced with above-ground degreasing systems. Most of -he
subsurface pits'were backfilled with sand and covered with a
concrete cap. Based on investigations within the building for
abandoned pits still containing contamination only seven were
found to contain significant contamination. All of these pits
have been cleaned up and the waste disposed of with the exception
of Pit Q-51.
In June 1986, a sample was taken from the contents in Pit Q-51.
Table 5.1 lists the contaminants detected in the sample.
Table 5.1
Contaminants Detected in Pit 0-51 Liquids
Contaminant Concentration (PPITT*)
Trichloroethylene 42.0
Cadmium 3.0
Chromium 0.4
Lead 22.0
*ppm - parts per million
5.1.3 North Tank Area. Underground tanks within the NTA
allowed leakage into the soils and groundwater. The OU contains
one active diesel tank and two inactive tanks. Fuel product
sampled in the soil and groundwater was identified as fuel oil
which was contained in Tank 3404. The volatile organics detected
in the samples of the drill cuttings from monitoring well 1-20 at
the NTA are listed in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2
Volatile Oraanics Detected in Soil Sample
North Tank Area Well 1-30
Contaminant Maximum Concentration(pom*)
Methylene Chloride 0.330
Acetone 9.96
Chlorobenzene 0.015
Ethylbenzene 10.13
Toluene 7.73
Xylene 31.00
Styrene 27.00
*parts per million
19
-------
g_, 2 Evaluation of Primary Contaminants. 32 chemical constituents
were identified in the groundwater during the remedial
investigations. Trichloroethylene and chromium are the primary
contaminants of concern at the Building 3001 site because they
pose the greatest risk to the public and they had the highest
concentrations and frequency in the contaminant plume.
5.2.1 Identification of Exposed Population. The Building
3001 site, located on Tinker AFB has a workforce pop-
ulation of approximately 20,000 and a resident population of
2500.
5.2.2 Contaminant characteristics. Trichlorethylene is a
probable human carcinogen. It is the most significant
contaminant identified in the remedial investigation sampling
with a high frequency of occurrence in 'all aquifer layers and the
highest concentrations reported in the study. Trichloroethylene
is highly mobile in the environment. Chromium exhibits several
oxidation states. The most common oxidation states are the
trivalent chromium and the hexavalent chromium states.
Hexavalent chromium is the greatest health threat. Chromium was
selected based on its high frequency of occurrence and
concentrations. It had the highest concentration of the
inorganic constituents. Chromium is a human carcinogen, highly
toxic and extremely mobile.
5.2.3 Potential Pathways of Migration. Based upon a risk
assessment conducted at the Building 3001 site, the potential
pathways of migration are the perched and top of regional
aquifers, the surface water of Soldier Creek and the air.
Complete pathways were identified for only the groundwater
pathway as drinking water on the Base. Surface water and air
pathways are not presently complete and pose no immediate threat
to populations along Soldier Creek.
5.3 Soil Contamination. The soil is contaminated in localized
areas beneath B3001 and in the NTA. The soils and bedrock (above
the perched water table) became contaminated in localized areas
beneath B3001 as contaminant migration occurred. Concentrations
of trichloroethylene, 1,2-dichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene,
methylene chloride, benzene, ethyl ketone were all detected in
these areas beneath the building. Concentration levels are low
except in two locations, where high concentrations of
trichloroethylene (120 and 11 ppm) are present. Chromium' lead,
barium, and cadmium are also present in these areas. Although
most of the contamination sources have been eliminated, the soils
beneath the building will continue to flush contaminants into the
perched aquifer where they will be captured by the groundwater
collection system for several years. The upper soils at the NTA
are contaminated with fuel products, primarily fuel oil, that
have leaked from the underground tanks.
20
-------
5,4. Perched Aquifer. Perched groundwater exists beneath the
site, overlying the regional aquifer. Figure 5-la shows a cross I
section of the generalized site geology with the three i
groundwater zones. The depth from the surface of the perched
aquifer is approximately 15 feet. The thickness of the perched
aquifer is approximately 23 feet. The highest concentrations of
contaminants are contained in this zone. Contamination occurred
from the downward movement of liquids contaminated with solvents,
metals, and fuel products. Trichloroethylene has spread beneath
the site with concentrations ranging from 330,000 ppb beneath the
building to less than 5 ppb at the limits of the plume. The
trichloroethylene plume, which covers approximately 140 acres, is
shown in Figure 5-1. 1,2-dichloroethylene is present with a
similar shaped plume and the highest concentrations of 4600 ppb
located west of the building. Tetrachloroethylene exists
primarily beneath the building with the highest concentration of
260 ppb located beneath the building. Plumes of 1,2-
dichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene cover approximately 78
and 17 acres, respectively. Chromium, lead, and barium, at
levels above drinking water standards, are present in the perched
zone also. Chromium is present beneath the site with
concentrations ranging from 80,OOC ppb beneath the building to
less the 10 ppb at the edge of the plume. The chromium plume,
which covers approximately 220 acres, is shown in Figure 5-2.
Lead and barium have similar shaped plumes with the highest
concentrations detected as 570 and 28,000 ppb for lead and barium
respectively. Toluene, benzene, and xylene are found at the NTA
and fuel product (6000-12,000 gallons is estimated) is found
floating above the perched groundwater. The maximum
concentrations for toluene, benzene, and xylene were 47,000,
1535, and 780 ppb, respectively. Table 5.3 lists the compounds
and metals detected in the perched zone at the NTA.
Table 5.3
Contaminants Detected in Perched Zone
Organic Times Found/ Concentration
Compounds Total No. Samples Range /ppb*)
Trichloroethylene 19/33 <5 - 330,000
Toluene 10/39 <5 - 47,000
1,2-Dichloroethylene 10/33 <5 - 4,600
Acetone 11/33 <5 - 1,600
Benzene 10/39 <5 - 1,535
Xylene 6/39 * <5 - 780
Tetrachloroethylene 6/33 <5 - 260
21
-------
T?ble 5-3 'cent.!
Total Times Found/ Concentration
Metals T?fral No. Sair.ples Rang? fppm*)
Chromium 27/33 <0.01- 80
Zinc 33/33 <0.01 - 1.30
Barium 29/33 <0.05 - 28
Nickel 33/33 .013 - 1.10
Lead - 33/33 <0.01 - .57
Cadmium 9/33 <.005 - .020
*ppb - parts per billion
*ppm - parts per million
5.5 TOP of Regional Groundwater Zone. The depth from the surface
to the top of regional aquifer is approximately 50 feet. The
thickness is approximately 30 feet. Trichloroethylene, 1,2-
dichloroethylene, chromium, lead, and barium are all present in
the aquifer in concentrations generally lower than in the perched
zone. Concentrations of tetrachloroethylene are slightly higher
in this zone. Trichloroethylene and chromium, the primary
contaminants, were detected in maximum concentrations beneath the
building with maximum concentrations of 30,000 ppb for
trichloroethylene and 1700 ppb for chromium. The contaminant
plumes of trichloroethylene and chromium cover approximately 181
and 153 acres respectively and are shown in Figures 5-3 and 5-4.
The highest concentration of 1,2-dichloroethylene was 1400 ppb in
an area northeas't of the building. The plume shape is similar to
the trichloroethylene plume. Tetrachloroethylene is present
primarily beneath the building with the highest concentration
detected at 1200 ppb. Barium and lead exist in plumes with
similar shapes as chromium* The maximum concentrations of barium
was 24,000 ppb and of lead was 410 ppb. One area northeast of
the building contains higher concentrations of trichloroethylene,
1,2-dichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and chromium and also
contains high concentrations of chlorobenzene and vinyl chloride,
which were not detected in significant concentrations throughout
the rest of the site. This area is upgradient from the site and
the contaminants have evidently migrated from a different source.
Table 5.4 lists the compounds and metals detected in the top of
regional zone.
22
-------
a
o
o
z
Q
CD uj
O QD
QD
LJ
> c
LJ U
Q
LJ
M
LJ
Z
LJ
»'
in
i
t t
o 8
t
S
8
2
K
i
g
fe
w
i
£
g
t t
2 S
V)
u
LJ
O
-------
WS - Water supply Ml
• 100— TCE contour (ppb )
rcti
TRICHLQRQETHYLENE PLUME IN PERCHED AQUIFER
FIGURE 5-1
-------
• WS-Wot«r supply Mil
— 100— Cr contour ( ppb)
CHROMIUM PLUME IN PERCHED AQUIFER
FIGURE 5-2
-------
• WS-Wottr supply Mil
— 100— TCE contour (ppb)
FEET
TRICHLQRQETHYLENE PLUME IN TOP OF REGIONAL ZONE
FIGURE 5-3
-------
wsie/
(Plugged)
WS-Woter supply Mil
100—* Cr contour
CHROMIUM PLUME IN TOP OF PFGIQNAL ZONE
FIGURE 5-4
-------
Table 5.4
Contaminants Detected in the TOD of -Regional Zone
Organic Times Found/
Concentration
Compound Total No. Samples Ranae (ppb*)
Trichloroethylene
1 , 2-dichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Phenol
Bis ( 2-Ethylhexyl ) phthalate
1,1 -dichloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Vinyl Chloride
Acetone
17/25
14/25
5/25
5/25
5/25
3/10
5/10
5/10
4/25
3/25
2/25
13/25
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<1C
<1C
<1C
<5
<5
<1C
<5
- 30,000
- 1,400
- 1,200
84
300
) - 300
) - 86
) - 42
12
940
) - 530
1400
*ppb - parts per billion
Total Times Found/ Concentration
Metals Total No. Samples Range fppm**)
Chromium 27/33 <.01 - 1.7
Barium 18/23 <.50 - 24
Lead 21/23 <.01 - .41
Nickel 23/23 .03 - .53
**ppm - parts per million
5.6 Regional Groundwater Zone. The depth from the surface to the
regional zone is approximately 110 feet. The approximate
thickness is 65 feet. The significant organic compounds found in
this zone are trichloroethylene and 1,2-dichloroethylene, with
concentrations much lower than in the top of regional zone. The
maximum concentrations of trichloroethylene and 1,2-
dichloroethylene were 1000 and 46 ppb, respectively. The extent
to which contaminants have migrated in the regional zone is
significantly less than in the top of regional zone.
Contaminants are concentrated primarily beneath the building.
The trichloroethylene plume covers approximately 78 acres.
Chromium is also present with a maximum concentration of 1200 ppb
beneath the building. The chromium plume covers approximately
145 acres. The regional zone is not used as a water supply
source on Base. The producing zone begins at approximately 100
feet below the bottom of this layer. Table 5.5 list the
contaminants detected in the regional zone.
28
-------
Table 5.5
Contaminants Detected in the Regional Zone
Organic Times Found/ Concentration
Compounds Total No. $^mples Range (ppb*)
Trichlorcethylene 7/11 <5 - looo
1,2-dichloroethylene 4/11 <5 - 46
Tetrachloroethylene 2/11 <5 - 28
Methylene Chloride 2/11 <5 - is
Benzene 1/11 <5 - 430
1,2-dichloroethane 1/11 <5 - 7
Toluene 3/11 <5 -13,000
Xylene 2/11 <5 - 7
Acetone 3/11 <10 - 100
*ppb - parts per billion
Total Times Found/ Concentration
Metals Total No. Samples Range (ppm*)
Chromium 8/11 1.2
Barium 8/11 27
Lead 11/11 .40
Cadmium 8/11 .013
Nickel 11/11 1.9
*ppm - parts per million
5.7 Producing Groundvater Zone. The producing zone is below the
regional zone at a depth of 250 feet to 700 feet below the
surface. There are 25 existing water supply wells on-Base which
pump groundwater from this zone. Seven water supply wells were
located in the vicinity of B3001 (WS 13-19). Wells 18 and 19
were sampled at the well head and found to contain
trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene. The two wells were
taken out of operation in 1984. WS 15 and 16 contain trace
levels of trichloroethylene and WS 16 contains trace levels of
1,2-dichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene. Both wells were
sampled at the well head. WS 17, which is near the southwest
corner of the building, has been permanently plugged due to its
proximity to the contaminant plume. The well was sampled before
plugging and was not contaminated.
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISK.
A Risk Assessment of the B3001 site was performed in August 1988.
The primary contaminants are trichloroethylene and chromium based
on their high frequency of occurrence and concentrations in each
aquifer zone. Tables 5.3 thru 5.5 lists the concentration of
trichlorethylene and chromium in each aquifer zone. From the :2
chemicals identified in the remedial investigation (24 organic
and 8 inorganic), seven indicator chemicals were selected based
29
-------
on toxicity, mobility, frequency of occurrence, and
concentrations. The indicator chemical selection process is
described in the B3001 Risk Assessment (COE 1988). The
assessment was conducted under the assumption that the site would
not be remediated. Table 6.1 lists the indicator chemicals and
the accompanying longterm exposure concentrations. The longterm
exposure concentration is the estimated concentration of the
contaminant at the exposure points due to movement of the
contaminant along potential contaminant flow pathways.
Table 6.1
Indicator Chemicals and Lonoterm Exposure Concentrations
Chemical
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Nickel
Hexavalent Chromium
Lead
Barium
MCL
5.0
5.0
**
**
50.0
50.0
1000.0
Concentration (ppb*)
0.8
16.7
3.5
47.0
16.0
2.7
700.0
*ppb - parts per billion
** MCL has not been established by the EPA
The three primary pathways in which humans can be exposed to the
contamination at the B3001 site are through the groundwater
beneath the site, surface water in Soldier Creek and the air.
The only complete pathway identified was the groundwater pathway
used as drinking water supply on the Base. Surface water and air
pathways are not presently complete and pose no immediate threat
to populations along Soldier Creek. The surface waters of
Soldier Creek are not used as a drinking water source. Therefore
consumption of the surface water is not considered a significant
route of exposure. The chaotic movement of the creek's surface
water will sufficiently volatilize (evaporate) the organics that
may flow into the creek from the perched aquifer. The subsurface
soils beneath the B3001 site were identified in the B3001 RI
Report as the source of contamination. Since the contaminated
soils are beneath B3001, the soils are separated from the surface
and direct human contact.
Unless remedial action is taken, the contamination in the perched
zone and upper zone of the regional aquifer would eventually
migrate into the lower zones and contaminate the Base's water
supply. Routes of exposure from contaminated drinking water in
the producing zone could be ingestion (drinking or cooking with
contaminated groundwater), dermal contact (skin contact with
contaminated water), and inhalation (breathing of contaminated
vapors) from showers and industrial processes.
30
-------
Without remedial action, the perched aquifer directly below the
contaminated subsurface soils would continue to receive
contaminants from the soils and transport them to the surface
waters of Soldier Creek through seepage up through the stream.
The risk characterization of the site indicates a potential for
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects as a result of
no remedial action at the site. The carcinogenic risk is
calculated based on the intake of 2 liters of contaminated water
per day by a 70-kg adult over a 70-year exposure period.
Acceptable risk are 10"4 to 10"6 or one additional incidence of
cancer per 10,000 people to one additional incidence of cancer
per 1,000,000 people. The potential for carcinogenic effects
from long-term consumption of drinking water at TAFB was
characterized by the upperbound risk of 1.2xlo"5 or one
additional case of cancer per 83,000 people which is in the
cceptable risk' range. The potential for carcinogenic effects
from long-term consumption of fish from Soldier Creek was
indicated by the upper bound risk of 6.9xlO"6 or one additional
case of cancer per 145,000 people. Based upon the conservative
risk assessment, the carcinogenic risk is considered low.
6.1 Contaminant Characteristics. Trichlorethylene is a
probable human carcinogen. It is the most significant
contaminant identified in the remedial investigation sampling
with a high frequency of occurrence in all aquifer layers and the
highest concentrations reported in the study. Trichloroethylene
is highly mobile in the environment. Chromium exhibits several
oxidation states. The most common oxidation states are the
trivalent chromium and the hexavalent chromium states.
Hexavalent chromium is the greatest health threat. Chromium was
selected based on its high frequency of occurrence and
concentrations. It had the highest concentration of the
inorganic constituents. Chromium is a human carcinogen, highly
toxic and extremely mobile.
6.2 Environmental Impact. The remediation of the
contaminated groundvater will reduce the potential for adverse
environmental impacts. Organic contaminants released to the
atmosphere will be below the existing air quality standards.
Construction activities associated with the treatment facility
will impose short-term impacts on low quality habitat at the
site. Wildlife in this area will experience no longterm impacts
as a result of the response actions. The proposed remedial
action will minimize the release of contaminants to East Soldier
Creek and will reduce the extent of groundwater contamination.
The OU's do not contain endangered species or any critical
habitats.
6.3 Identification of Exposed Population, Tinker AFB has a
workforce population of approximately 20,000 and a resident
population of 2500. The workforce and resident population
31
-------
represent the potentially exposed population. The potentially
exposed population increases if the surface water of Soldier
Creek becomes contaminated. The population would then expand to
include the residential and business communities along Soldier
Creek. The Building 3001 site is bordered to the north by
Midwest City and to the northwest by Del City, with populations
of 58,000 and 33,400 (1980 census), respectively. Although these
cities border the contamination site and use the regional aquifer
for water supply, the potentially exposed population is assumed
to be that portion of Midwest City adjacent to Soldier Creek.
This assumption is based on the fact that only the surface water
and air pathways potentially affect that population. Since the
contaminated groundwater plume is contained within the base
boundary and the horizontal migration is to the southwest away
from the water supply wells of these communities, a groundwater
pathway to these communities does not exist at this time.
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES FOR CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER.
Several alternatives were considered for the remediation of the
contaminated groundwater at the site during the Feasibility
Study.
Table 10.1 in Section 10 lists the maximum contaminant levels
that the remedial actions must achieve. The response action was
divided into two stages. They were:
1) Groundwater Pumping/Collection, and
2) Groundwater Treatment and Disposal.
The alternatives considered for the first stage consisted of
1) Alternative 1-1: No Action
2) Alternative 1-2: Groundwater Removal by Exterior Wells
3) Alternative 1-3: Groundwater Removal by Exterior and
Interior Wells.
The alternatives evaluated for Groundwater Removal and Disposal
were:
1) Alternative 2-1: Modified Industrial Waste Treatment Plant
(IWTP)/Industrial Reuse
2) Alternative 2-2: Modified IWTP/Surface water Discharge
3) Alternative 2-3: Treatment/Industrial Reuse
4) Alternative 2-4: Treatment/Surface Water Discharge
7.1 Groundwater Pumping/Collection.
7.1.1 Alternative 1-1; No Action. This alternative,
required by CERCLA and the NCP, was used to compare the
effectiveness of the other alternatives. The no action
alternative does not involve any pumping from the contaminated
32
-------
aquifers but does include monitoring of the groundwater
contaminant plume and surface water monitoring at East Soldier
Creek. This alternative would not achieve maximum contaminant.
levels.
7__. 1.2 Alternative 1-2; Groundwater Removal from Exterior
Wells.. This alternative includes pumping groundwater from
approximately 111 exterior wells located around the exterior of
B3001 at a combined rate of 71,820 gallons per day. Pumping at
this rate will prevent further migration of the contaminants. An
estimated 786,000,000 gallons of contaminated groundwater will be
collected and treated. Alternative 1-2 is expected to reduce
contaminant concentration below maximum concentration levels by
75 percent at the regional aquifer and 97 percent in the
overlying aquifers within the first 30 years of operation. A
groundwater monitoring network would be installed to monitor the
groundwater. The areas of highest contaminant concentrations,
directly under B3001, would not be directly pumped by this
alternative.
7.1.3 Alternative 1-3: Exterior and Interior Groundwater
Removal. Alternative 1-3 is similar to Alternative 1-2 with the
addition of approximately 18 interior wells. The well network
would pump at a rate of approximately 88,180 gallons per day.
Pumping at this rate will prevent further migration of the
contaminants. An estimated 964,000,000 gallons of contaminated
groundwater will be collected and treated. This alternative is
expected to reduce contaminant concentrations below maximum
concentration levels by 93 percent at the regional aquifer and 97
percent in the overlying aquifers within the first 30 years of
operation. Since all the groundwater contamination will be below
Maximum Contaminant Levels, no area of attainment will be
established. The groundwater monitoring would be identical to
Alternative 1-2 monitoring. Although this alternative would be
more disruptive to the operations in the building during the
installation of recovery wells within B3001, it would include
groundwater collection from areas of the plume with the highest
contaminant concentrations.
7.2 Groundwater Treatment and Disposal.
7.2.1 Alternative 2-1; Modified IWTP/Industrial Reuse.
Alternative 2-1 consists of routing contaminated groundwater
recovered from three aquifer zones to an air stripper, using the
air stripper to remove volatile organic compounds, pumping the
air stripper effluent to a storage tank, treating for ."organics
and nonvolatile organics at the existing Industrial Waste
Treatment Plant (IWTP), and reusing the treated groundwater in
TAFB's industrial operations. Existing treatment processes at
the IWTP include oil/water separation, flow equalization, metals
reduction/precipitation by sulfide precipitation, biological
treatment by activated sludge, oxidation/disinfection by
33
-------
The interim remedial action will consist of Alternatives 1, 2,
and 6.
10.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES.
The remedial alternatives have been assessed using the Nine Point
criteria developed to address CERCLA requirements. The Nine
criteria are:
- Overall protection of human health and the environment,
- Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARAR's),
- Long term effectiveness and permanence,
- Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume,
- Short term effectiveness,
- Implementability,
- Cost,
- State Acceptance, and
- Community Acceptance.
10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment.
This criteria addresses whether or not the alternative provides
adequate protection to human health and the environment.
a.Building 3001 Groundwater. Alternative l-l would not
provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
It would allow the contaminant plume to migrate further down into
the lower aquifer zones. Alternative 1-2 would be protective of
human health and the environment by removing approximately 75% of
the contamination in the regional aquifer and 97% in the
overlying aquifers within 30 years. Alternative 1-3 would be
more protective of human health and the environment by extracting
more of the contaminated groundwater at a more rapid rate. The
extraction rate of the contaminated groundwater would be
increased by the addition of recovery wells in the highly
contaminated area under B3001. Alternative 1-2 would only
extract contaminanted groundwater from the below the exterior of
B3001.Alternative 1-3 would remove 93% of the contaminants in the
regional aquifer and 97% in the overlying aquifers within 30
years. All of the alternatives (2-1 thru 2-4) for treatment and
disposal will protect human health and the environment. However,
Alternative 2-3 would reuse the treated groundwater in TAFB's
industrial operations instead of discharging it into Soldier
Creek.
b.Pit Q-?l. Alternative 1 would not remediate the site and
therefore, would not be protective of human health and the
environment. Alternatives 2 and 3 would adequately protect human
health and the environment by removing all the contents of the
pit, steam cleaning the pit, removing the washwater, backfilling
the pit with sand, and capping the pit with an 8-inch concrete
cap.
37
-------
Area Design Summary Report (ref. 17) and the Groundwater
Technology reports (ref. 6,7,8). The remedy selection was well
advanced at the time of the FFA approval for which this document
was developed. The selected interim actions are consistent with
the final remedial action for B3001 as described below.
9.1 Alternative 1: Free Floating ..Fuel Removal. Alternative 1
consists of the removal of floating phase separated hydrocarbons
from the perched groundwater. This would be accomplished with
three hydrocarbon-only pumps in conjunction with groundwater
table depression pumps when necessary. This alternative would
remove an estimated 10,000 gallons of fuel product from the
perched aquifer. The fuel would be disposed of at a RCRA
approved disposal facility.
9.2 Alternative 2; Fuel Vapor Removal. Alternative 2 consists of
extracting fuel vapors from the subsurface soils above the
perched groundwater surface using horizontal extraction wells
which will be destroyed in a thermal combustor. The goal of the
final remedial action will be to obtain a 99 % reduction of the
original concentration. Realizing that the goal may not be
technically feasible, the situation may occur where no
significant progress in contaminant reduction occurs so
remediation will be ended.
9.3 Alternative 3; Capping of North Tank Area. Alternative 3
would consist of capping the site. The action would reduce the
amount of rainwater that could percolate into the site. However,
since the near surface soil currently has a 2 to 3 feet layer of
relatively low permeable clay, it would not be cost effective to
place another low permeable barrier over the site. The
alternative would not be permanent since it would not remove the
fuel product therefore, allowing the contamination to spread.
9.4 Alternative 4; Removal of Fuel Contaminated Soil.
Alternative 4 would consist of excavating approximately 58,800
cubic yards of contaminated soil and disposing of it in an
approved facility. This alternative could pose a short term risk
to the workers and would not be cost effective since disposal of
the material would have to meet Land Disposal Requirements.
9.5 Alternative 5; Collecting and Treating of the
Contaminated Groundwater. Alternative 5 would remove and treat
the contaminated groundwater. This action will be conducted as
part of the B3001 final remedial action, therefore, a separate
action is not necessary.
9»6 Alternative 6; Tank Closure. Alternative 6 would consist of
cleaning, demolishing and backfilling Tank 3404; and removinc and
properly disposing of the small waste oil tank.
36
-------
sludge will be produced when removing organic compounds. The
spent carbon absorption units will be regenerated.
8.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR PIT 0-51.
The alternatives considered for Pit Q-51 remediation are:
1) Alternative- 1: No action
2) Alternative 2: Removal of Pit Contents/Onbase Treatment
3) Alternative 3: Removal of Pit Contents/Offbase Treatment.
8.1 Alternative 1; No Action. This alternative is required by
the CERCLA and the NCP to compare the effectiveness of the other
alternatives. The No action alternative would require no action
to be taken at the site.
8.2 Alternative 2t Removal of Pit Contents/Onbase Treatment.
Alternative 2 consists of removing approximately 45 gallons of
liquid from the pit. The pit would be steam-cleaned and the
washwater placed in 55 gallon drums. One sample each would be
taken from the hazardous material from the pit and the washwater
from the final rinse. If the results from the wash water are not
below acceptable levels, the pit will be rinsed again and the
washwater will be resampled. The drums would be transported to
an approved temporary storage area for no more than 90 days.
After the sample is analyzed and acceptable levels are obtained,
the hazardous material would be transported to the IWTP for
treatment with other TAFB industrial waste. The used drums would
be disposed of at a facility approved to receive CERCLA waste.
The pit would be backfilled with sand and covered with concrete
cap.
8.3 Alternative 3; Removal of Pit Contents/Offbase Treatment.
Alternative 3 is identical to Alternative 2 with the exception of
the method of disposal. This alternative requires that the
hazardous material, washwater, and drums be transported offsite
to a facility that is approved to receive CERCLA waste.
9.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR THE NTA OU.
Several alternatives for remediation at the NTA OU have been
considered. These alternatives are:
1) Alternative 1: Free Floating Fuel Removal
2) Alternative 2: Fuel Vapor Removal
3) Alternative 3: Capping of the Area
4) Alternative 4: Removing the Fuel Contaminated Soil
5) Alternative 5: Collecting and Treating the Contaminated
Water
6) Alternative 6: Tank Abandonment
These alternatives are described in more detail in the North Tank
35
-------
chlorination, and pressure filtration. The sludge is thickened
and dewatered onsite and disposed of at an offsite RCRA permitted
facility.
7.2.2 Alternative 2-2;Modified IWTP/Surface Water Discharge.
Alternative 2-2 differs from Alternative 2-1 only by the effluent
discharge destination. Instead of industrial reuse of the
Modified IWTP effluent, the effluent will be discharged to East
Soldier Creek.
7.2.3 Alternative 2-3: Treatment/Industrial Reuse. A new
treatment facility would -e constructed specifically for the
Building 3001 site. The primary features of this alternative
consist of air stripping for organic removal, a precipitation
process for metals removal, and a fine filtration process for
removing the remaining organics and metals. The air emissions
from the air stripper would be below the Maximum Acceptance
Ambient Concentration. Air emissions would not affect the health
of Tinker personnel or the surrounding population. The effluent
from the treatment process will be reused in TAFB industrial
operations. Sludge will be produced in the treatment process in
the removal of inorganic contaminants. The sludge will be
disposed of at an offsite RCRA permitted facility approved to
receive CERCLA waste.
7.2.4 Alternative 2-4;Treatment/Industrial Reuse.
Alternative 2-4 differs from 2-3 only by the effluent discharge
destination. The effluent will be discharged into East Soldier
Creek.
Section 10.1 discusses the anticipated percentage of reduction of
contaminants by treatment. Table 10.1 lists the maximum
contaminant levels to be achieved by treating the contaminated
groundwater.
A Treatability Study will be conducted to determine the best
technology to clean up the contaminated groundwater. A
treatability study consists of two phases. The first study
involves a bench scale test. If the desired results are not
obtained during this phase then the study will be scaled up to a
pilot study. The treatability study will test the metals
precipitation and water polishing processes.
The primary Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs) that the listed treatment alternatives would have to
comply with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Safe Drinking Water
Act, Clean Air Act, Oklahoma Controlled Industrial Waste Disposal
Act and the Oklahoma Water Quality Standards for Discharge to a
Surface Stream. RCRA Land Ban will not apply to the onsite
remedial activities. Materials sent offsite will be transported
to an offsite RCRA permitted facility approved to receive CERCLA
waste that will comply with the Land Disposal Requirements. A
34
-------
e.North Tanfr ftrea- Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 would be
protective of human health and the environment by removing the
fuel and fuel vapors from the site.
10.2 Compliance with ARAR's. Section 121 of CERCLA provides
that, except under certain narrow exemptions, remedial actions
shall comply with Federal and State laws that are applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the contaminants and circumstances of
the site. The process by which potential ARAR's are identified,
screened, and analyzed to determine if they actually are ARAR's
is described in "CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual" (EPA
1988a).
ARAR's may be identified in three general classes:
1. chemical specific - for example, a drinking water "MCL"
defines a maximum acceptable
concentration for drinking water;
2. action specific - for example, a landfill built to accept
hazardous waste would have to meet RCRA
264, Subpart N regulations and associated
requirements on design of the landfill;
3. location specific - for example, a hazardous waste landfill
could not be built on a flood plain.
The key ARAR's are the chemical specific drinking water
requirements or Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established
under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the requirements under
the Clean Air Act which relate to the emission standards for
ambient air quality and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board Rules,
Regulatory and Modes of Procedure 1985. Table 10.1 gives the
chemical specific MCLs that apply to the seven indicator
chemicals that have already migrated into the Garber-Wellington
Formation.
a.Building 3001 Groundwater. Alternative 1-1 does not meet
all of the ARAR's. It would not prevent the contaminants from
further migration and would not protect human health and the
environment. Alternative 1-3 will remediate the perched aquifer
faster and remove a greater amount of contamination from the
regional zone than Alternative 1-2. Alternative 1-3 would
restore contaminated groundwater to drinking water standards
faster than Alternative 1-2. Alternative 1-3 would reduce the
likelihood of present or future threat of human exposure through
the water supply or Soldier Creek by extracting the groundwater
from the upper aquifer zones of the Garber-Wellington Formation,
treating it and reusing it in TAFB's industrial operations.
Alternatives 2-1 thru 2-4 would be in compliance with the ARAR's
38
-------
for treatment and disposal of contaminated groundwater. These
alternatives would treat the contaminated groundvater to levels
below discharge effluent levels.
Table 10.1
MCLs for Indicator Chemicals
Chemical MCL fppb*)
Benzene - 5
Trichloroethene 5
Tetrachloroethene 5
Barium 1000
Chromium 50
Lead 50
Nickel
Table 10.2
Air Standards
Contaminant Air Standard fppra*)
Trichloroethylene 0.5
1,2-dichloroethylene 1.0
Tetrachloroethylene 0.5
* Toluene 10.0
Benzene 0.1
Xylene 10.0
t Acetone 1.0
*ppb - parts per billion
*ppm - parts per million
b.Pit Q-51. Alternative 3 is the only alternative that
would meet all of the ARAR's of Federal and State laws.
Alternative 2 would introduce CERCLA waste into a facility that
is permitted to receive RCRA waste, thus creating commingling of
waste. Commingling of waste would not be in compliance with
environmental regulations.
c.North Tank Area. The alternatives selected will meet the
ARAR's by removing the contamination and treating the
contaminated groundwater to meet MCL's. Tank abandonment will be
completed in compliance with the appropriate state and federal
Underground Storage Tank (UST) requirements.
10.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence. This criteria
addresses the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection
of human health and the environment over time once cleanup goals
have been met.
a.Building 3001 Groundwater. Long-term effectiveness is
dependent upon the performance of the alternatives over time.
Alternatives 1-3 and 2-3 would effectively remove and treat more
39
-------
of the contaminated groundwater than the other alternatives. In
the first 5 years, approximately 72% and 77% of the
trichloroethylene and chromium, respectively would be removed.
The remedies would permanently remove approximately 85% of the
contaminants in all three zones within 20 years. Within 30
years, approximately 93% and 94% of the trichloroethylene and
chromium, respectively, would be recovered. The residual
contaminants in the groundwater will be below the maximum
contaminant levels. By allowing the contaminants to remain for a
longer period, the other alternatives are less effective. If the
magnitude of the migrating contaminants is reduced, the risk of
exposure to the lower aquifer zones is reduced.
b.Pit O-51. Alternative 1 would not meet the criteria for
long-term effectiveness because it will allow migration of the
contaminants into the soil and groundwater below B3C01.
Alternative 2 and 3 would permanently remove the contents of Pit
Q-51 and prevent any migration of the contaminants. Alternative
3 would be more effective over a longer period of time since the
waste material would be permanently disposed of offsite.
Alternative 2 could create more waste that would eventually have
to be disposed of offsite.
c.North Tank Area,, The selected alternatives would meet the
longterm effectiveness criteria. The interim remedial action
will be permanent once the floating fuel is recovered and reused
and/or disposed and fuel vapors are removed and destroyed; and
the tanks are properly removed and disposed of or abandoned.
10.4 Reduction of Toxicitpy. Mobility, and Volume. This criteria
anticipates the performance of the treatment technologies.
CERCLA states, in Section 121 (a)(l), a clear preference for
remedies which reduce the volume, toxicity, and mobility of the
waste.
a.Building 3001 Groundwater. The no action alternative
would not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
contaminants in the groundwater. Alternative 1-3 would reduce
the mobility and volume of the contaminated groundwater in the
perched aquifer more rapidly than Alternative 1-2, therefore
reducing the migration of the contaminants into the lower portion
of the regional aquifer and eliminating the risk of exposure to
the producing zone. Based upon the Feasibility Study it was
determined that the preferred alternative, Alternative 2-3, would
vastly reduce the volume of contaminated material by removing
approximately 93% and 94% of trichloroethylene and chromium from
the groundwater respectively over an estimated 30 year time
period. The treatment process will vastly reduce the volume of
groundwater contaminated above the maximum contaminant levels.
All the alternatives for treatment and disposal (2-1 thru 2-4)
would treat the contaminants in the groundwater. All of the
40
-------
alternatives would remove volatile organics, heavy metals, and
nonvolatile organics. Alternative 2-3 would reduce the
contaminant concentration levels below the regulated
concentration levels and treated water would be reused instead of
being immediately discharged into Soldier Creek.
»
b.Pit 0-51. The no action alternative would not reduce the
toxicity or volume of the contaminants in the pit material or
reduce the threat of migration into the groundwater.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the mobility, toxicity, and
volume of the hazardous material by removing all of the hazardous
material from the site thus eliminating any risk to the public or
Tinker AFB personnel. Proper abandonment of the pit would
prevent any migration of contaminants into the groundwater.
c.North Tank Area. The selected alternatives will reduce
the mobility and volume of the hazardous material by free
floating fuel removal and fuel vapor removal. Alternatives 4 and
5 would aid in meeting this criteria but are not necessary if
alternatives 1, 2 and 6 are implemented. The destruction of fuel
vapors from the soil vapor extraction system will result in
permanent mobility, toxicity and volume reduction.
10.5 Short-term Effectiveness. This criteria involves the period
of time needed to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on
human health and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation period until cleanup goals are
achieved.
a.Building 3001 Groundwater. The short-term effectiveness
for Alternative 1-1 would be higher than Alternatives 1-2 and 1-
3 since this alternative would not remediate the site. However,
a small short term risk exists for Alternatives 1-2 and 1-3.
Both alternatives would require the use of personal protective
equipment while installing the extraction wells. Air monitoring
would be required to monitor any vapors which may escape from the
subsurface. The remedy will comply with State and local air
emission standards.
The risks associated with the treatment alternatives have been
evaluated. The alternatives would not expose workers , Tinker
personnel, or the surrounding community to hazardous materials
during construction or modification of the treatment facilities.
Air emission from the air stripping tower would have low
contaminant concentrations, therefore neither TAFB personnel or
the surrounding community would be adversely affected. The
treated groundwater would be below water quality standards, thus
posing no risk to TAFB personnel that may contact the reused
water in TAFB industrial operations.
41
-------
Exposure of site workers to hazardous materials and situations
during implementation of Alternatives 1-3 and 2-3 would be
minimized or prevented with well planned and implemented personal
training programs, the supply and utilization of appropriate
safety and personal protective equipment and the development and
use of an effective safety plan.
b.Pit 0-51. Alternative 1 could pose a risk to the public
and Tinker AFB personnel through dermal contact or inhalation.
Remediation of the site by Alternative 2 or 3 would pose no
short-term effect to TAFB personnel or the environment. Direct
contact would be prevented through the use of personal protective
equipment.
c.North Tank Area. The selected alternatives would not pose
longterm risks to human health or the environment. However, a
short-term risk from volatilization of contaminants exists during
the installation of the fuel vapor extraction system. Air
monitoring equipment will used to monitor the releases of vapors
from the subsurface soils. Direct contact would be prevented
through the use of personal protective equipment.
10.6 Implementabilitv. Implementability is the technical and
administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed to implement the
chosen solution.
a.Building 3001 Groundwater. Alternative 1-1 presents the
fewest obstacles to fast and complete implementation.
Alternative 1-3 would be difficult to construct due to site
restrictions. Removal of contaminated groundwater through
pumping is a common technology and has been proven successful at
other NPL sites. Operation and Maintenance will be required to
keep the collection wells operating efficiently. The interior
collection wells would be located in either high bay areas or
near aisleways to facilitate construction and minimize
disturbance of normal operations. Administrative activities
could also delay implementation. There would be no adverse site
conditions to affect the construction of any of the groundwater
treatment and disposal alternatives. Alternative 2-3 would
require the greatest amount of time needed to be implemented.
All of the alternatives would require about the same amount of
time to achieve the expected results.
Alternative 2-3 is a proven and reliable technology in removing
organics and metals from the groundwater. The technologies are
currently being demonstrated and are included in the EPA
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation program. They are
effective for the types of contaminants in the groundwater.
b.Pit 0-51. The no action alternative requires no
implementation. Alternative 2 and 3 would not present adverse
42
-------
site conditions to affect the removal of the pit material or
construction of the concrete cap. There are no site restrictions
that would hinder equipment from reaching the site. This
technology is used frequently and is readily available.
c.North Tank Area. There would be no site restrictions to
hinder the construction of the NTA remedial action. Soil vapor
extraction has been approved by the EPA and is a common
technology used-in Underground storage Tank cleanups. While
horizontal drilling is has never been implemented at an EPA
Superfund site, it is commonly used in construction practices and
is a developed technology.
10.7 Costs, This criteria includes capital, operation and
maintenance, and present worth costs.
a.Building 3001 Groundwater. Alternative 1-3 is the most
expensive of the pumping/collection alternatives, however it
removes the greatest amount of contaminated groundwater from the
site. Among the treatment alternatives, Alternatives 2-1 and 2-
2 are less expensive. However, Alternative 2-3 utilizes the best
technologies for obtaining the desired results. The cost for
each alternative includes capital cost, operation and maintenance
and present worth. The estimated cost for each alternative is:
Alternative 1-1
Alternative 1-2
Alternative 1-3
Alternative 2-1
Alternative 2-2
Alternative 2-3
Alternative 2-4
$ 679,800
$6,871,079
$8,437,008
$1,930,500
$1,930,500
$4,286,100
$4,286,100.
b.Pit Q-51. The estimated cost for each alternative is:
Alternative 1: $ 0
Alternative 2: $ 3662
Alternative 3: $ 5200.
c.North Tank Area. The cost for Alternatives 1, 2, and 6 is
approximately $ 470,000.
10.8 State Acceptance. This criteria indicates whether, based on
its review of the RI/FS and Proposed Plan, the State concurs
with, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative.
The State of Oklahoma has concurred on the selected alternatives
for remediation of the groundwater at the B3001 site, Pit Q-51,
and the NT*.
10.9 Community Acceptance. This criteria indicates whether the
public concurs with/ opposes or has no comment on the preferred
alternative. During the public meeting and comment period, the
43
-------
main concerns of the public were the existence of offbase
contamination from TAFB and inadequate sampling in the areas of
contamination near the Base boundaries. The public expressed
concerns on the treatment of the contaminants in the preferred
alternatives but were not opposed to the preferred alternatives.
Appendix A contains the Responsiveness Summary from the public
comment period and public meeting. Base perimeter wells,
monitoring wells located at Soldier Creek and the Industrial
Waste Treatment -Plant and other wells of interest are sampled bi-
annually in order to monitor the groundwater at the Base
boundary.
11.0 SELECTED REMEDIES.
ll.l Building 3001 Groundvater. Alternatives 1-3 and 2-3 are the
selected remedies for the contaminated groundwater at Building
3001. The groundwater would be collected by a network of
interior and exterior wells and-treated in a treatment facility
specifically constructed for treatment of the B3001 contaminated
groundwater.
The collection system could consist of approximately 111
collection wells surrounding B3001, and approximately 18
collection wells in the interior of the building. The collection
wells include approximately 50 wells in the perched aquifer and
approximately 79 in the upper portions of the Garber Wellington
Aquifer. The final number of wells to be installed will be
established during the remedial design. These wells will have a
flow rate of approximately 88,180 gallons per day. It is
estimated that the collection system will remove 45% of the
trichloroethylene and 49% of the chromium in the perched aquifer
within 2 years. It will also remove 93% of the trichloroethylene
and 94% of the chromium in the regional zone within 30 years.
Eighteen monitoring wells would also be installed. Nine 3-well
clusters would be installed to monitor the three groundwater
zones. The wells would be dedicated stainless steel with teflon
purge and sample pumps.
The goal of the remediation will be to reduce contamination to
maximum contaminant levels in the groundwater beneath the
Building 3001 site. Therefore, no point of compliance will be
specified. Table 10.1 lists the maximum contaminant levels.
The treatment and disposal alternative would consist of the
construction of a new treatment plant and industrial reuse of the
treated water. The treatment would consist of air stripping for
organics removal, a precipitation process for metals removal, and
a fine filtration process for the remaining organics and metals.
The treatment would provide 99.9% removal of organic compounds
and reduce the chromium concentration to 20-50 ppb. The
carcinogenic risk level is 1.2x10 , this final remedial action
will prevent any increase in the risk due to further migration to
Soldier Creek and the producing zone in the groundwater.
44
-------
I -I Pit 0-51. Alternative 3 is the selec ;d remedy for Pit Q-
51. The contents of the pit would be remo<. _d and disposed of
offbase. The remedy would consist of removing the pit contents
and placing it in a 55-gallon drum. The pit would be steam-
cleaned until the washwater contamination is below detection
limits and the washwater placed in 55-gallon drums and
temporarily stored for no longer than 90-days. One sample would
be taken from both the pit contents and the washwater. The
samples would be analyzed and the drums would be transported
offsite to a facility approved to receive CERCLA waste.
11.3 North Tank Area. The goal of the free floating fuel
recovery system is to remove free floating fuel from the
groundwater surface. The remedy would include free floating fuel
recovery, vapor extraction, and tank abandonment. The
groundwater at the site will be remediated as a part of the
Building 3001 cleanup.
Tank abandonment would consist of removal and proper disposal of
a small waste tank, and proper abandonment, demolition, and
backfilling of Tank 3404. Before abandoning Tank 3404, it would
be utilized in the vapor extraction system.
A dual fluid production system will be used to remove the 6000-
12,000 gallons of floating fuel product. A hydrocarbon-only pump
will be used to recover the floating fuel product. A water table
depression pump would be installed at such a time when static
recovery of the phase separated hydrocarbons no longer creates a
sufficient cone of depression to drive hydrocarbons to the
recovery wells. The fuel would be pumped to a holding tank and
disposed of properly. The groundwater produced would be treated
in the Building 3001 treatment plant.
The vapor extraction system would consist of a horizontal well
network connected to a blower to extract the vapors from the
subsurface soils with a goal of 99 % removal of the contaminants.
The vapors would be destroyed by passing through a thermal
combustor.
12.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS.
Under its legal authorities, TAFB's primary responsibility at
this NPL site is to undertake remedial actions that achieve
adequate protection of human health and the environment. In
addition, Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other
statutory requirements and preferences. These specify that when
complete, the selected remedial action must comply with ARAR's
unless a statutory waiver is justified. The selected remedies
must also be cost effective and utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, the
45
-------
statute expresses a preference for remedies which significantly
reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous waste. The
following sections discuss how the selected remedies meet these
statutory requirements. The selected alternatives will satisfy
all the statutory requirements without the need to compromise any
criteria.
12.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment. The
remedial actions, would remove contaminated groundwater from the
upper regions of the Garber-Wellington aquifer and treat it to
acceptable levels for reuse in TAFB's industrial operations. By
removing and treating the contaminated groundwater, destruction
of the mobile contaminants including most of the known and
suspected carcinogens will be achieved.
The EPA reported acceptable carcinogenic risks fall within the
range of l.OxlO"4 to l.OxlO'6. The carcinogenic risk for the site
if no action were taken is 1.2x10-5. This number will be further
reduced when the proposed remedial action is implemented.
Therefore, no unacceptable short-term risks would result from
implementation of the remedial alternative.
The final remedial action would prevent the contaminants from
migrating further horizontally and vertically within the aquifer
thus reducing the risk of exposure to the drinking water zone in
the lower aquifer. Unacceptable short-term risk or cross media
impacts wil not be caused by implementation of the selected
remedial alternatives. The remedial action will be permanent and
will adequately protect human health and the environment.
12.2 Compliance with ARAR's. The elements of the selected
remedies would all comply with the ARAR's established for this
site. The list of ARAR's is contained in Appendix B. Key among
these ARAR's are the Safe Drinking Water Act chemical specific
MCLs and the requirements under the Clean Air Act which relate to
the emission standards for ambient air quality. The ARAR's
include:
1. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), 40
CFR Parts 122 and 125.
2. National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards,
40 CFR Part 50.
3. RCRA requirements for the management of hazardous waste for
owners and operators of facilities which treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous waste, 40 CFR Part 264.
4. Oklahoma Controlled Industrial Waste Disposal Act, 63 OS
1981.
46
-------
5. Oklahoma Water Quality Standards for discharge to a surface
stream.
6. The Oklahoma clean Air Act
The selected remedial actions will restore the groundwater within
the site to the MCLs based on engineering estimates of recovery
rates and desorption of contaminants from the aquifer soils. The
system will be evaluated during its use and changes may be made
in the pump and treat system to optimize its effectiveness. The
selected remedies would treat more of the contamination more
rapidly than the other alternatives.
12.3 Cost Effectiveness. The selected remedy for B3001 is cost
effective and would cost an estimated $12.3 million. The cost
includes Alternative 1-3, pumping and collecting the contaminated
groundwater by interior and exterior wells, and Alternative 2-3,
construction of a new treatment facility to specifically treat
the B3001 contaminated groundwater. Alternatives 2-1 and 2-2
would not be cost effective. These alternatives would introduce
a CERCLA waste into a facility that is permitted to receive RCRA
waste, thus creating commingling of the wastes. Over the
longterm, all of the waste at the facility would have to be
disposed of in a facility approved to receive RCRA waste. This
would drastically increase the cost of disposal. Even though the
initial costs for the selected alternatives is more expensive
than the other alternatives, the cost is reasonable considering
the long-term protection of human health and the environment and
the rapid reduction of the contaminant plume.
12.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies. The selected remedies represent the maximum extent
to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be
utilized in a cost effective manner. The emphasis in the
selected remedies is on the recovery and permanent destruction of
the contaminants in the groundwater and disposal of hazardous
materials and fuel products at Pit Q-51 and NTA. The remedy also
includes soil vapor extraction at the NTA.
Another aspect of permanence is the reduction of the mobility,
toxicity, or volume of the wastes. The selected alternative will
achieve these goals. The contents of Pit Q-51 and the fuel
product at the NTA will be permanently removed from the B3001
site by disposing of the material at a facility approved to
receive the waste material. The remedial action for the B3001
site will permanently collect and treat the contaminated
groundwater. The groundwater collection system would drastically
reduce the mobility of the contaminants and prevent further
migration of the contaminants.
47
-------
12.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal riement. Treatment
of the contaminated groundwater is the key to remediating the
site. It will remediate the principle threat which is exposure
through the use of contaminated groundwater. Contaminated
sludges will be disposed of at an approved facility to receive
CERCLA waste. The goal of the remedial action is to pump and
treat 85% of the contaminant plume in the first 5 years of
operation. The remaining 15% will be removed during the next 25
years. The site' will be considered remediated upon approval from
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Oklahoma State Health
Department.
13.0 Documentation of Significant Changes. There were no
significant changes from the proposed plan.
48
-------
REFERENCES
1. Burke Engineers, inc., A.L., "Investigation of Underground
Storage Tanks", Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, (Report prepared
for Department of the Air Force, Air Logistics Center, Tinker
AFB, Contract No. F34650-85-C-0238), July 1986.
2. Dansby and Associates, Inc., "Report of Plugging Procedures
for Water Wells-18 and 19", report prepared for Department of the
Air Force Directorate of Contracting and Manufacturing, Oklahoma
Air Logistics Center/PM, Tinker AFB, OK, Contract No. F34650-85-
C-0404.
3. Dansby and Associates, Inc.. "Investigation and Modification
of Water Wells 18 and 19", report prepared for Department of the
Air Force Directorate of Contracting and Manufacturing, Oklahoma
Air Logistics Center/PM, Tinker AFB, OK, Contract No. F34650-85-
C-0404.
4. Engineering Science, "Installation Restoration Program, Phase
I; Records Search, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma", report
prepared for United Air Force, AFESC/DEV, Tyndall AFB, FL.,
Contract No. F08637-80-G-0009, April 1982.
5. Engineering Enterprises, Inc., "Investigation of Water Wells
18 and 19", report prepared for Tinker AFB, OK, Project No. SC-
84-308, August 1984.
6. Groundwater Technology, Inc., "Hydrocarbon Abatement
Proposal, North Fuel Ar^a", Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma,
(Report prepared for Department of Army, Corps of Engineers,
Tulsa District), June 1988.
7. Groundwater Technology, Inc., "Soil Vent Test, North Tank
Area"1 Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, (Report prepared for
Triax, Inc.), August 1989.
8. Groundwater Technology, Inc., "Absorbed Phase, Remedial
Design, North Tank Farm", Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma,
(Report prepared for Triax, Inc., submitted to Department of the
Army, Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District), September 1989.
9. Radian Corporation, "Installation Rectoration Program, Phase
II, Stage 1, Field Evaluation", Tinker AFB, OK, prepared for U.S.
Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory (OE)
Brooks AFB, Texas, Draft Final Report, November 1984.
10. Radian Corporation, "Installation Restoration Program, Phase
II, Stage 2, Confirmation/Quantification", report prepared for
U.S. Air Force OEHL, Brooks AFB, Texas, Contract No. F33615-83-
D-4001, Draft Report, Dec. 1984.
49
-------
11. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, "Building 3001
Remedial Investigations", Tinker AFB, OK, January 1988.
12. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, "Building 3001
Risk Assessment", Tinker AFB, OK, August 1988.
13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, "Building 3001
Feasibility Study", Tinker AFB, OK, August 1989.
14. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, "Pit Q-51
Focused Feasibility Study", Tinker AFB, OK, March 1990.
15. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, "Building 3001
Proposed Plan", Tinker AFB, OK, March 1990.
16. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, "Pit Q-51
Proposed Plan", Tinker AFB, OK, March 1990.
17. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, "North Tank
Area Design Summary Report", Tinker AFB, OK, March 1990.
50
-------
APPENDIX A
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
JOMMENT
RESPONSE:
:OMMENT 2:
RESPONSE:
:OMMENT 3:
A citizen asked if there were more than two
(Chromium VI, Trichlcroethyiene} toxins of
concern. One of the moderators answered that
the only others were the fuel oils located at
the Pit Q-51 site. In fact, in the Health
Assessment document, 32 chemical constituents
were identified in the groundwater below
Building 3001. Please explain this
discrepancy.
It should be noted that the fuel oils are
located at the North Tank Area Operaole Unit.
Although 32 organic and inorganic
contaminants were identified in the
groundwater during the remedial investigation
(USAGE, 1987), the primary contaminants,
based on concentration and magnitude, were
identified as trichloroethylene and chromium.
As stated in the Building 3001 Feasibility
Study report, the proposed remedial action
will adequately treat all of the chemicals.
The hydrocarbons at the North Tank Area will
be remediated by pumping the free floating
fuel product and disposing of it and
remediating the fuel vapors through a soil
vapor recovery system. The Building 3001
Feasibility Study, Proposed Plan and North
Tank Area Design Summary Report describe this
in more detail.
Please describe how each of these 32
chemicals will be treated under the proposed
plan.
All of the 32 chemicals will be treated and
removed by the air or steam stripping process
and the metals precipitation process. Only
the remaining trace level metals will be
removed by a fine filtration process.
The handout provided at the meeting proposes
that the remaining pollutants would be treated
"by a final filtration step." Please
describe how this procedure will be conducted,
particularly how volatile hydrocarbons will be
filtered. There several methods that could be
utilized in the fine filtration process.
They include:
Reverse Osmosis
Ion Exchange
Ultrafiltration
-------
Micellar Enhanced Ultrafiltration (MEUF)
Resinous Absorption System
Polymer Enhanced Cross Flow Sand Filtration
REVERSE OSMOSIS: Reverse osmosis involves passing a pressured
feed stream across a semipermeable membrane.
Water passes through the membrane, and metal
salts and organic brighteners remain in the
feed, becoming concentrated. The purified
water, called the permeate, can be returned
to the rinse tank. The concentrate,
containing plating bath chemicals, can be
returned to the plating process. A reverse
osmosis system is capable of recovering 90-95
percent of the rinse water, the remainder /
forming the concentrate solution.
ION EXCHANGE: Process water is passed through a filter bed
of exchange material. Ions in the insoluble
exchange material are displaced by ions in
i the water. When the exchange material is
spent, it is regenerated with acid or ether
salt solutions.
ULTRAFILTRATION: Ultrafiltrat ion is a membrane filtration
process which separates particles of about 10
' to 100 A (Angstrom) from their surrounding
' medium [Orr, 1980]. In this size range,
particles can be solutes in liquid solution.
j MICELLAR ENHANCED ULTRAFILTRATION (MEUF);
MEUF is used to remove dissolved multivalent
1 ions from water. Surfactant of opposite
change to that of the pollutant ions is added
to the aqueous streams. The micellar have a
high electric potential, causing the
multivalent ions to bind or absorb on the
micellar due to electrostatic attraction.
The stream can be treated by ultrafiltration
and the micellar rejected by large-pore
membranes.
RESINOUS ADSORPTION SYSTEM;
Resinous adsorbents are similar in structure
and appearance to ion exchange resins. They
are hard, insoluble copolymer beads with high
porosity and surface area. Unlike ion
exchange resins, the polymeric adsorbents
have no functional exchange sites. Instead,
the adsorption occurs via forces such as
dipole - dipcle interactions, hydrophobic or
hydrophilic bonds or Van Der Waals
-------
attractions. The binding energies of these
forces are low, therefore, adscrbates can be
easily recovered during regeneration.
POLYMER ENHANCED CROSS FLOW SAND FILTRATION:
COMMENT 4:
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 5
RESPONSE:
This process consists of a continuous,
backwash, upflow, deep and granular media
filter. The filter media is continuously
cleaned by recycling the sand internally
through an airlift pipe and sandwasher. The
regenerated sand is redistributed on top of
the sand bed allowing for a continuous,
uninterrupted flow of filtrate and reject:
water.
A more detailed description cf this process
can be found in Reference 4 of the Record cf
Decision/Responsiveness Summary.
One cf the last citizens to speak staced that
his well had been sampled and found to oe
polluted. Thus, evidence cf off-base
pollution does exist. Tinker AFB has
acknowledged the pollution and has run a
water line to the property. Please present a
plan for determining the source of this
contamination. It cannot be assumed to be
from another source.
The well of consideration is located directly
north of Landfill 6. Landfill 6 is a
separate site which is currently being
investigated under the Air Force Installation
Restoration Program. This well is
approximately one mile southeast of Building
3001. The Building 3001 RI Report defines
the extent of the contaminant plume. Based
upon extensive investigations the plume from
Building 3001 has not migrated off-base.
Since evidence of off-base pollution has been
presented and acknowledged, please present a
plan for sampling all existing off-base water
source wells and a sufficient number of
monitoring wells to ensure that contaminants,
irrespective of source, have not left the EPA
site. If an off-site monitoring plan is not
developed, please explain this difference
between that decision and the promised action
to monitor if any evidence of off-site
pollution were to be known.
No evidence cf offbase pollution from
Building 3001 exists. Eight off-base wells
-------
COMMENT 6
j RESPONSE;
will be sampled during the Remedial
Investigations of Soldier Creek. Monitoring
wells have been installed around the
perimeter of Tinker AFB in order to insure
that no contamination has migrated off-base.
These wells are sampled bi-annually. None of
these wells have identified any contamination
migrating off-base. The contaminant plume
from the EPA site (Building 3001) has been
defined in the Building 3001 Ri Report.
The handout provided at the meeting contains
a diagram of the Garber-Wellington formation.
The aquifer is indicated to be continuous
beds. The geological history of the
formation would indicate the beds to be not
continuous but rather an interfingering of
sands and shales reflecting the deltaic
origin of deposition. Also the noncontinuous
character of the formation under Building'
3001 is described in the Ginia Wickersham
study (Hydrologic Investigations Publication
86, 1979, Oklahoma Water Resources Board of
the Garber- Wellington Groundwater Basin) .
The assumption of continuity may have been
made to facilitate modeling of groundwater
movement. Please explain the difference
between expectations based on geological
history, other studies, and your assumption.
The diagram in the handout was used only to
aid in differentiating between the
groundwater zones. The geology in the area
is not continuous but is characterized by the
interfingering of sand and shales. Several
simplifying assumptions were made to allow
the use of a computer model. The subsurface
was simulated by dividing it into four zones,
the perched aquifer, the top of regional
aquifer, the regional zone, and the producing
zone. The objective of the model was to
estimate the trends of the contamination
movement and the rate of movement. The model
was calibrated with actual data obtained
during investigations of the site and met the
objectives for its use. This method of
modeling is an acceptable practice. A more
detailed description of the groundwater model
is contained in Appendix K of the Building
3001 RI Report. The documents are contained
in the Midwest City Library in Midwest City,
Oklahoma.
COMMENT 7
Release the modelling study so that
-------
RESPONSE:
rCMMENT 8
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 9
interested parties may examine the
assumptions used and results.
The modeling study is contained in Appendix K
of the Building 3001 RI Report (COE 1988).
The appendix describes the model, and the
parameters used. The RI report contains the
modeling results. These documents are
contained in the Administrative Record.
Provide the following detailed information to
enable evaluation of the ultimate
disposition:
1. Current amount of water being used at
Tinker AFB.
2. Current amount of water being pumped by
Tinker AFB.
3. Current volume being treated at the
existing waste treatment plant.
4. Maximum continuous capacity of the
existing waste treatment plant.
5. Proposed maximum volume to be pumped from
all wells once the treatment plant is in full
operation.
All data should be segregated by month (12
months) and use, i.e., industrial, public
etc.
1. 80-120 million gallons of water is used
at Tinker AFB each month. Its primary
function is for industrial use.
2. The 25 water supply wells average 217
gallons per minute. The Base pumps
approximately 120 million gallons of water
each month.
3. The waste treatment plant of concern is
the Industrial Waste Treatment Plant. This
plant treats only industrial waste associated
with Tinker AFB. The volume treated is near
36 million gallons each month.
4. The plant could treat approximately 50
million gallons each month if operated
continuously.
5. Once the groundwater removal wells and
the new treatment plant are in operation, the
volume of groundwater pumped will increase
approximately 2 million gallons each month.
This will increase the overall Base volume to
approximately 82 - 122 million gallons each
month.
Provide the "after treatment" maximum
concentration proposed for each chemical
-------
RESPONSE;
constituent identified in the Health
Assessment document (32 chemicals).
The 32 chemical constituents identified in
the Risk Assessment are organic compounds and
heavy metals. Using the treatment process
described in the B3001 Proposed Plan (COE
1990), the organic compound concentrations
will be reduced to approximately 1 ppb and
the heavy metals to approximately 20 ppb
which is below the maximum contaminant
levels, and Oklahoma Water Resources Board
Rules, Regulatory and Modes of Procedure
1985.
COMMENT 10
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 11
RESPONSE:
If drinking water standards are not achieved
through treatment please provide information
concerning plans for protecting the workers
exposed to the effluent.
The effluent water will meet the standards
for industrial reuse and the standards set by
Oklahoma Water Resources Board for all the
contaminants. A sampling port will be
provided at the industrial reuse tie-in point
for easy sampling and testing of the water
quality. Exposure of site workers to
hazardous materials would be minimized or
prevented with well planned and implemented
personal training programs, the supply and
utilization of appropriate safety and
personal protective equipment and the
development and use of an effective safety
plan.
Provide information about how the presenters
of future meetings will be trained and
sensitized to the need for openness and
complete disclosures.
The public meeting regarding the Building
3001 site, North Tank Fuel Area, and Pit Q-51
within Building 3001, held on April 5, 1990,
was site specific. It was repeated many
times during the public meeting that the
subject of the public meeting was Building
3001.
In regard to training prese
meetings, Tinker's personne
for
ers for future
spent hours
tne public comment
training and preparing toe cue puu^iv, uuuuue
in order to anticipate all possible
meeting
concerns
was held
citizens might have. The meeting
with the intent of openness and
-------
complete disclosure
future meetings.
.n mind, as will all
COMMENT 12
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 13
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 14
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 15
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 16
RESPONSE:
The current response period of less than
thirty days does not allow adequate time to
review the presentations in depth. Thus it
is requested that all response periods be at
least 45 days in extent.
The National Contingency Plan as mandated by
the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act requires that
the public comment period be held no less
than 30 days.
The original public comment period was from
March 19, 1990 to April 18, 1990. In order
to insure that the public had opportunity to
review the documents, it was extended an
additional 12 days. The ending date was on
April 30, 1990. The RI report was placed in
the administrative record in May 1989 and the
FS report was placed in December 1989.
At which level have Building 3001 workers
been drinking for the past 25 years? 100,
200 or deeper?
The water supply wells on Base produce from
zones of approximately 250 feet to 700 feet.
Were any of these drinking wells
contaminated, and if so, by what
chemicals?
Yes. The contaminants consisted of
trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene ,
heavy metals, and total organic carbon. The
Building 3001 RI gives mere details of the
wells.
Were some drinking wells (past few years)
sealed off because of contamination?
Yes, water supply wells 17, 18 and 19.
Appendix C of the Building 3001 RI described
the plugging procedures.
Are Building 3001 workers still drinking from
Tinker AFB wells? If so, which wells are
these?
Yes, water supply wells 13, 14, and 15
supplies drinking water to Building 3001.
This water is collected and sent through a
-------
distribution system before use
COMMENT 17
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 18
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 19
Are Building 3001 workers new drinking city
supplied water? If so, when did the
conversion take place? What is the source of
the city water?
Yes, Building 3001 receives approximately 20
million gallons of drinking water per month
from Oklahoma City. The primary source of
the city water is Stanley Draper Lake, Lake
Overhclser and some groundwater wells. A tie
into the city distribution system was
constructed in 1968 at Gate 34. In 1988,
another tie in was constructed on the east
side of the Base en Douglas Boulevard.
The Tinker Take Off article ("Tinker Experts
Say Come On In, The Water's Fine"), appears
to conflict with the Risk Assessment (COE,
1988) which says "The RI indicates that
health and safety effects may result from
long-term ingestion of Tinker AFB drinking
water," and the RI report (COE, 1988) which
says "Wells 15 and 16 contain low levels of
trichloroethylene and well 16 also contains
low levels of dichloroethylene and PCT."
Several wells have been plugged (#18 and #19)
and wells 15 and 16 have trace levels of
organic compounds. Please explain which is
correct.
None of the statements are incorrect. The
Risk Assessment was performed under the
assumption that no action would be taken.
Since the remedial action will extract the
contaminated groundwater from the upper
regions of the Garber-Wellington, this will
prevent the contamination from moving
downward. The water supply wells on Base are
monitored bi-annually in order to insure that
the water is safe for human consumption.
Trace levels of dichloroethylene and
tetrachloroethylene were detected in samples
taken from the well head. The groundwater
from the water supply wells is passed through
a distribution system. The water is sampled
periodically. No contamination has been
detected. The water is safe for human
consumption. A future risk will exist if the
site is not remediated.
Are other wells in the area of the Building
3001 plume in a planning closure stage such
-------
as the well just east of Building 3001.
.ESPONSE:
:OMMENT 20
RESPONSE:
rOMMENT 21
RESPONSE:
Water supply well 17 was put out of operation
and plugged in 1988. Water supply well 16
was put of operation in 1990. The Base
water supply wells are sampled bi-annualiy.
If contamination is detected, immediate
action will be taken.
Although the April 5, 1990 Puolic Meeting
addressed the pollution under Building 3001,
it appears that the long-term pollution over
the past 40 years may have seriously damaged
East and West Solider Creeks and possibly the
Garber-Wellington aquifer. I would propose
that the government sample private wells
within a two mile radius of the Building 3001
site. All wells would not have to be tested.
A sampling of one will in a general area
would reveal the state of most wells in that
area. At the public meeting several well
owners made this same request but to no
avail.
Remedial investigations are ongoing at the
Soldier Creek site. The investigations will
be conducted in two phases. Phase I will
include sampling of eight off-base ground
water wells within the vicinity of Soldier
Creek near the Base. The Final Remedial
Investigations Report will be available in
mid-1991. If sampling results identify any
contamination off-base as a result of Soldier
Creek the appropriate actions will be taken
and/ additional off-base wells will be
sampled during the Phase II investigations.
A public comment period and public meeting
will held in order to allow the public to
participate in the remedial selection
process.
The Risk Assessment also indicates that fish
taken from Soldier Creek were a health risk.
Since I see children playing and sometimes
fishing in Soldier Creek, I request that the
general public be warned about this danger
through signs and public notices.
The risk assessment conducted at the site
indicated that a risk exists if contaminated
groundwater and fish were consumed over a
long period of time. Presently, Soldier
Creek is undergoing remedial investigations.
If the investigations indicate any off-base
-------
COMMENT 22
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 23
j RESPONSE:
COMMENT 24
contamination that would pose a health risk,
the appropriate actions will be taken and
public signs will be posted. At this point,
there is no known contamination offbase.
Explain statement "Pollution exists
immediately beneath the building" (3001);
noting outline of NPL sites is far beyond
Building 3001.
In the public meeting handout the statement
goes on to say "...and all the chemicals are
contained within Air Force property." The
outline of the plume is within this area.
Why were groundwater tests not made in the
north corner of TAFB. Why were groundwater
tests not made in the civilian housing area N
and W of the shown Tinker NPL site. Without
tests above no basis for indicating "all
chemicals are contained within Air Force
property."
The northeast (N.E.) corner of the base is
being investigated as a part of the
Industrial Waste Treatment Plant (IWTP) site.
The monitoring wells in the N.E. corner of
the base have been sampled and they are
sampled bi-annually. The results will be
available in the Final Groundwater Assessment
Report in November 1991. If investigations
determine that additional offbase sampling is
necessary, the appropriate actions will be
taken. In addition, Base perimeter wells are
sampled bi-annually to monitor possible
movement of offbase contamination. All of
the chemicals associated with the Building
3001 site are contained within Base
boundaries.
Pollution has been determined to extend to
the 200 foot level that is contained in the
entire "Regional Producing Zone." This alone
means the plume extent is clearly past
groundwater, perched, regional top levels and
is accessible to the production zone levels
deeper than 700 feet.
-------
'RESPONSE:
The groundwater zones and depth should
be noted as shown below:
COMMENT 25
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 26
RESPONSE:
Zone
Perched water table
Top of regional
Regional
Producing zone
Depth ft.
15-30
50-80
110-175
250-700
At 225 feet the concentration is present but
in very low concentrations.
Tricholorethylene was detected at 7 ppb and
chromium was detected at 1.7 ppb. If the
proposed remedial action is not implemented,
the contamination could eventually reach the
producing zone. The remedial action would
prevent any contamination from migrating
further.
Stated projection due to rainfall beneath
Building 3001 and also moving the
contaminants 20 feet per year to the west are
totally false - diagram indicates a 1500 foot
movement from the building to the west on a
75 year i2G' to 1500' = 75) occurrence, and
ignores the simple fact that rain water does
not occur beneath Building 3001.
Rainwater can reach the perched aquifer
through the storm drainage system. The
mounded groundwater beneath Building 3001
appears to be affected by leaking storm
drains. The building does not cover the
entire area of the plume. Therefore, it must
be taken into consideration how rain might
impact the contaminant plume beyond the
building. Even though the rates of migration
vary due to the difference in hydraulic
gradient, the rate seems to be approximately
20 feet per year.
Recovery of an oil slick from underground
water strata is beyond current technology.
Removal of all water in the perched strata
would be required.
This technology is frequently used to recover
floating fuels. There is a layer of fuel
floating on top of the groundwater at the
North Tank Area (NTA) site. The proposed
remedial action for the NTA will pump the
floating fuel without pumping groundwater.
When the fuel reaches a level where it can't
-------
COMMENT 27
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 28
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 29:
RESPONSE:
be pumped, a depression pump will be used to
depress the water table thus causing the fuel
to accumulate so that it can be pumped. Any
contaminated groundwater that is removed
along with the fuel will be treated at the
Building 3001 treatment facility. The NTA
Design Summary Report (COE, 1990) explains
the remedial action in more detail.
Can this ( the groundwater collection system)
mean 111 additional exterior wells and 18
inside 3001. At present over 175 wells exist
in this area including 2 in the Building 3001
that were sealed off (H63 and B-lll). No
depth is indicated for theses extraction
wells - do they match the 200 ft. depth
pollution is stated to occupy?
The groundwater pumping collection network
will consist of approximately 111 additional
exterior and 18 interior wells. The exact
number of wells will be determined during the
design of the remedial action. These wells
will be installed in three aquifer zones as
described in Response 23 and will be screened
across the water bearing layer. Appendix A
of the Building 3001 FS Report describes the
proposed locations and screen depths of the
wells.
If the water is treated (fixed) why can it
not be discharged into E. Soldier Creek.
Also, if no piping to return water its cost
could be gained.
The water would be treated to levels below
EPA and Site permitted levels for discharging
treated water to Soldier Creek; however, it
would be more advantageous for Tinker to
reuse this water in industrial operations.
Paying (over $1500) to dispose of polluted
material does not resolve the pollution -
only moves it - aiso alternative 3-2
indicates the Tinker AFB IWTP has capability
to treat this material - clearly a preferred
choice.
The polluted material in Pit Q-51 will be
disposed of in a facility that is approved to
receive CERCLA waste. Treatment at the IWTP
was considered as an option in the Pit Q-51
FS. However, introducing this waste into a
treatment plant that has been permitted for
-------
COMMENT 30
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 31
RESPONSE:
:OMMENT 32
:ESPONSE:
OMMENT 33
ESPONSE:
another type of waste would violate Federal
regulations. This issue is discussed in the
Pit Q-51 FS report located a the Midwest City
Library.
Test samples are not of an area nor quantity
for this study.
The contaminated plume for this site has been
adequately defined to the extent that remedial
actions can be initiated. The progress of the
remedial action will be continually monitored.
Contamination at other sites is presently in
investigations under the Air Force Installation
Restoration Program.
Are the cost in excess of $7,000,000 for five years?
The cost breakdown can be found in the
Building 3001 FS (COE, 1989) and the Pit Q-51
FS (COE, 1990).
The costs for each site are:
B3001 Construction costs: (includes
groundwater collection and treatment)
$4,939,700
B3001 O&M costs $ 246,500
NTA Construction costs
NTA O&M costs
$
$
Pit Q-51 construction costs $
Pit Q-51 O&M costs: $
397,568
25,000
5,200
0
Pumping night and day for 5 years still only
accommodates 85% of the shown problem.
Remaining 15% would extend this function to
approximately 25 years.
This statement is correct. The Building 3001
FS (COE, 1989) describes the alternatives in
detail. The remedial action will not be
terminated until the EPA and OSDH has
determined that the site would not present
any long term risk to human health and the
environment.
No consideration for
being considered.
use of existing wells is
The existing wells are utilized to monitor
the quality of the groundwater. A separate
network of wells will be installed to
-------
COMMENT 34
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 35
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 36
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 37
RESPONSE:
specifically remediate the Building 3001
site.
What was it (groundwater flow direction) 20
years ago or 30 years ago when this occurred?
You don't know. We've had a- higher water
table and it could have been flowing the
other way. You could have been recharging
the area locally. Who knows?
Extensive groundwater investigations have
been performed showing the regional flow
direction to be to the southwest.The
conclusions that are made are based upon the
available data.
What do you analyze the water supply wells
for?
The water supply wells are analyzed for
volatile organics (which includes
trichloroethylene), semi-volatile organics,
total metals (which includes chromium),
chloride, sulfate, total organic carbon, and
total dissolved solids.
What kind of hydraulic conductivity are you
using for that soil where you only have
10,000 gallons product and yet you've got a
column that's 15 feet thick?
The hydraulic conductivity in the area is
approximately 10 centimeters per second. The
wells in this area (North Tank Area) have
been sampled several times. The depth of
floating fuel product in the wells is known.
One well was found to have 15 feet of
floating fuel. An estimation is based on
thickening of fuel in the well. Past
experience has shown that fuel in the aquifer
is 4 times less than the thickness measured
in the well. The approximation of product
floating above the groundwater is based upon
this assumption. The floating fuel plume and
further details can be found in the North
Tank Area Design Summary Report (COE 1990).
You think that you can fit 10,000 gallons to
give you that kind of a problem over that
area, the area you've shown on the map.
Yes, this is the apparent thickness, the
actual thickness could be less.
-------
COMMENT 38
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 39
RESPONSE:
rOMMENT 40
RESPONSE:
:OMMENT 41
ESPONSE:
OMMENT 42
ESPONSE:
What happens to the fumes from the Treatment
Plant for people that have illnesses tnat
live in that area when you process the
chemicals?
The treatment facility will be designed to
meet the standards for Air emission.
There will be no emissions?
The air emissions will meet the State and
Federal Air Quality Standards. The maximum
yearly production of trichloroethylene is
approximately 855 Ibs. per year which is
below the regulated emissions standard of
1200 Ibs.
What kind of overflow protection are we going
to get from Soldier Creek from your plant -
which has overflow problems now -- the old
plant.
A 300,000 gallon effluent tank will be
included in the design that could hold
approximately two days effluent. A line will
also be incorporated which will allow
discharge into Soldier Creek if necessary.
An inlet system will include an equalization
tank to provide constant flow throughout the
treatment process. The design will also
include a secondary containment system in
case of spillage or overflow. Curbs will be
placed around the tanks to contain any
spills.
There is one tributary of Soldier Creek that
goes straight north just east of Gate 7?
Tinker AFB is aware of this tributary.
will be included in the remedial
investigations of Soldier Creek.
It
Now, if you remove the dirt from the creek
the Base, how about cleaning mine out?
in
Soldier Creek is being investigated
separately from the Building 3001 site. If
the remedial investigation detects offbase
contamination, the appropriate actions will
be taken. A public comment period and public
meeting will be held in order to allow the
public the opportunity to participate in the
remedial selection process.
-------
COMMENT 43
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 44
I have a question regarding the removal of
the contents from Pit Q-51. Does the cost
include the removal of the contaminants and
the disposal of them?
Yes.
The other question that I had was the length
of time that it would take to accomplish the
pumping operation to accommodate the standard
level for the contaminants that are
now in place — how many years it would take
to complete this?
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 45
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 46
85 % of the contamination will be removed in
5 years. The remaining 15 % will take 20 or
more years to" remove. Tinker AFB will
continue to search for new technologies that
will remediate the site in a more timely
manner. Once the migration of contaminants
is controlled, the risk of exposure will
decrease.
We know that that can be accomplished in five
years and if we have a standard that 100 is
what we're at now and 0 is what we desire and
we know we can do 85 % in five years - this
other 15 % that may take 20 years that we've
indicated, what is the real danger - how much
of that have we eliminated.
Once the migration of the contaminants is
controlled through the groundwater collection
system there will be minimal risk to public
health and the environment.The risks at the
site are long term risks associated with
drinking groundwater that will become
contaminated. Once, contaminated groundwater
removal has begun the risk will drop
excessively. Pumping the contaminated
groundwater from the aquifer will prevent
further migration.
I was interested first in what the deepest
aquifer that's been affected from the
Building 3001?
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 47
It reaches the upper portion of the regional
aquifer, approximately 200 - 225 feet.
My question is in regard to the pumping of
the wells to lower the groundwater level in
-------
RESPONSE:
ZOMMENT 43
RESPONSE:
:OMMENT 49
RESPONSE:
the vicinity of the extraction wells. Will
this result in some area residential wells
running low on water?
We do not believe it will. There is net a
large amount of influence that will occur
because of the slow withdrawal. it will be
mainly localized under the Building itself.
We do not think it is going to have effect on
the water supply.
Will the shallower wells be more affected
than the deeper wells?
Yes, the ones in the vicinity of Building
3001. However, it will not impact any water
supply wells.
I understand there were two wells that were
shut down and capped - drinking wells, in
1983. Is there any health risks to people
that had drank the water in 1983 and before?
No. The drinking water is passed through a
distribution system that is sampled
periodically. During a sampling round, a
trace of contamination was discovered. The
source of the contamination was traced back
to water supply wells 18 and 19, The wells
were shutdown and permanently put out of
operation. The health risk is based upon
human consumption over a seventy year period.
Since action was taken immediately after the
contamination was discovered, there was no
health risk to those who drank the water in
1983 and prior.
-------
APPENDIX B
FEDERAL AND STATE ARAR'S
-------
C tl
I -
*• X
C -Q
O 3
U 4*
M
U
c £
§ *
— -o
C
« c
a ti
O J!
I
tl
2
9
tl
U
C.
o
t»
4;
>
_
a
t.
ti
•o
tl
"4-
o
c
tl
k
•
«
_J
u
x
in
ti
£
+4
^
o
VI
ti
c
tl
•o
3
Ol
(I)
a
•o
ti
•3
c
ti
w
C
** •
O W
C tl
tl C
k 4*
e M
wi
c
ti
ti
k
'3
^
ti
t.
ti
«*
.0
a
ti
u
u
O
*•»
C
tl
c
o
tl
^
«
(0
o
^
u
X
V
•o
3
•o
t>
tl
u.
a
E ti
ti <-
k —
'3 a
er ti
ti k
u u
tl U>
SL
I
u
a a
a.
ti
•o
tl
01
c
tl
tl
u
v>
(M
•r
^.
lit
II
>•
4*
c
k a
« c
T3 k. —
2 a E
« 9 e
C w
J3 O C
i — e
•e — u
4* .fl
^ i §
tl E
£ k •—
O t «•»
M <•» • M
«• j
• «J
£ W w X
• -O v
— k HI
s 1 s ±
• C w tl
• 4- X tl
IU « • —
^v
-»
at
u.
u
o
-*
tl
M
X
in
ti
**
m
u
3
•
u
^
V.
O
X
II
£
4*
b.
O
M
•o
k
\
**
l»
m
u
.£
M
2
«
UJ
m
•»
•c
14.
U
e
<«
a)
s
•1
X
in
tl
*rf
•
u
1
u
t~
^
0
tfl
tl
4rf
C
3
V
U
4rf
«
£
II
•
«
*J
U
X
X
1.
a
1
o
u
ti
M
M
E
tl
ll) •
X *>
» «s
«
k _l
tl U
9 -^
O
X
^
o
X
4*
c
c
'i
•
c
o
u
I
K
s
«1
df
£
•
3
«
UJ
9
•
_J
U
^
i
a
s
41
X
in
ti
4^
•
3
U
i
o
c
«4B
o
**
HI
u
«d
u
X
w
«
"•
e
•
ti
^
t>
—
»
m
K>
0-
0
e
x
ti
w
k
tl
>
•o
•
•o
II
V
a
u
4*
C
g|
U
0
o
M
rg
••^
X)
41
f,
**
41
ti
£
^
s
»
**
^
•
II
^
•o
•
ii
k
o
4*
in
II
k
o
4*
II
k
•
tfl
II
>
4*
U
tl
JO
0
•o
».
Kl
^
in
(M
u
in
3
K>
»»»
•o
II
4rf
"c
3
tl
£
4*
<••
e
•
k
«
4*
«
"•
U
ID
X
4
„
'a
u
ti
£
U
tl
£
**
e
•
4*
c
•
C
ti
£
<«-
O
X
4*
^
k
Ol
tl
4*
C
a
u
Ol
o
3
3
^
c
•
4^
to
K
14*
U
o
^
HI
k
tl
4^
a
9
M
C
o
•irf
•
c
a
ti
k "O
£ C
— a
4*
E vi
O
k tl
•4. ID
tl
" £
C -
•*• e
ti
< I
«
tl
^
V.
o
•o ->
•e a a
C TJ tl
C C —
•B *• ti c k
c — f — v
a — -o ~
*« e u a M
« 3 — — a
a — u E
4» 4*
~ — O — k
w £ k ti a
LU E a 3 a
o
e >r
u. W) 1M
U 3 •»
•O
O IM N.
*• C
O U •»
e —
e ^
£ ? •
*> u —
C tl •
O »- tl
U *• £
a
o
a
a
•o
ti
ti
ti
.o
k
tl
4rf
c
Ol
e
.K
•^
k
o ~
<
tl X
•» a
•1 tf)
in ^
X
k
k
o.
a
c
o
4*
«
X
tl
4*
•
Ol
•0
J(
k
O
M
•o
k
•
•o
9
«rf
in
k
m
|
u
ti
in
"•
M
•
x
k
ti
4*
0
9
C
M
C
k
0
tfl
•o
•
•o
0
M
in
c
e
1
§ i
i:
U k
— u
k a
« 3
*- a
5 t
c <-
« «
« 3
a-
C
tl
o
•
a. 6 -
< wi
"•XX
§ i r
- I ^
C O 3
x u a
-------
u
tl
a
ppl (cable/Relevan
and Appropriate
k tl
tl 44
- M —
U *P «•
E *• i
44 k
COO
tl 44
... . U
O O •
C O 44
3 44 k
O M 0
O . U
co —
— Ol
tl k O
k O —
• 44 O
tl tl U
4= k k
i- a •
tl
a
k
o
c
ti .4t
k ti
ti ti
o
X
**.
o
— u
"3 'e
ti
tl U
44 O
£ §
44 O
« II
•o »
ti a
§ „
• 0
a i
I «
44 44 •
U U k
a ti ti
k >
551
•o
tl
o
k
a.
M
TJ
tl
(/)
O
a
0
c e
c 8
• o
44
in
— <•
M
a ti
ti u
k U
X 44
•O u
3 ti
44 k
Jl
O
JX
x»
O
tl
Ol
•a
v
k •
•o ti
44
c —
O
o>
•O
tl
k •
•o ti
+4
o ui
44 tl
U f.
O 44
Z C
O
z
o
z
k
tl
•o
C
tl
o
a.
ai
ti
ti
«»
criptioi
«A
tl
O
e
•••
44
•
*4
k>
•9
tl
4*
•^
•
O
•1
tl
^
a.
o
action i
ti
4*
•
44
44
•
3
U
I/I
3
•o
1*0
c
»M
9
i.
U
«
•w
^
O
§
**
^
c
^
ti
44
«
tl
>
^
•
•
II
a
•5
c
•
$
o
u
tl
k
*N
>
•o
•*
§
1^
44
U
tl
«/i
0
4*
•
k
^g
44
4rf
•
4S
•
0
44
U
0
•4*
44
k
0
lf\
•O
ac
14.
u
•e
KI
U
*•
clentif
•
«4
•
U
<•»
"c
•
» k
— e
•
u »
"k 'S
e u
• T
••» o
f. 44
tl •
a. '2
m
44
•3
•
u
o
Q
tl
4=
U
k
•
to protec
o
44
O
•
tl
Jt
•
44
44
0
3
3
•O
u
Ul
3
•C
%^
|
•
u
o
•
tl
>
a
ti
*^
15
,4^
3
O
jC
M
<4B
4*
•
O"
tl
0
44
«
44
•
f.
44
X
44
>
W
s
k
V
o
k
o
lf\
0 — k
i k o
k
o
1
Jt
m
44
•fl
"o
>
0
44
tl
3
i
u
4>
44
U
tl
«4»
•
•
jS
44
M
tl
—
4^
44
U
44
•
f
44
44
U
0
c
a
44
0
0
0
•
t
V
tl
0
44
•
<4>
O
|
44
U
tl
t^
«••
0
X
•
e
idverse
44
U
tl
k
•5
«
0
4E
^
"5
**
**
0
*4
^
O
44
U
tl
I/I
•e
o
tl
a
0
0
k
ti
—
t»
ti
4S
44
k
II
>
*
scenic i
c
44
U
II
14-
<4»
0
0
W
pg
e
»o
44
U
«
44
tl
44
0
1
U
k
tl
i
•
c
*+
lf>
•*
%
44
U
tl
I/I
_
includi
|
M
0
+4
0
0
O
U
tl
0
44
M
•o
II
>
o
1
X
*rf
*5
**.
Z
0
44
tl
4*
k
tl
•«
e
«
«
i
0
«
as
progran
44
•geiaen
e
elands.
k
e
4C
0
44
C
tl
U
0
•^
•o
*4-
0
tl
i
M
^
O
44
O
44
U
<
•c
14.
U
a
^
«^
o
•
k
ti
44
0
X
1
0
c
0
II
U
O
0
44
C
^ VI
0 —
k ui
II k
44 |l
«!
ti
S S
£ Z
u u
^ o
^
**
u
c
1
M
M
tl
44
0
«*
I/I
•o
ti
44
'e
3
l>
.e
44
•
ui thoul
^
ii
44
£ **
f B
0 k
a &
•4- O
O 44
« £
e
O — Bl _
a a — 44
I/I •- ._
— k Ul X
•a ti k
44 II ^
O • 44 tl
«• E • »
X —
C tl J3 44
O 01 C — —
.- -o a j= E
44 II II O k
u k u k ti
< "a o a. a
l/t u.
M u
U
I/I
K. O
« III
k tl
tl 44
44 0
S ^
1 *
M C
C 3
tl tl
u £
O 44
U
I
"5
< k
«w 44
s .2
CO
• <
ti
«•• 44
— u
1 1
•5
« k
• o
— e
u. U
k
tl
(I
U
Ul
O
O ••
o
u
u
u
ti
II U
— tl
U I/I
44
U
tl
0
k
a.
«
e
k
0
X
I
0
«
ti
u
k
i
ti
ti
at
•
44
U
•X
X
k
0
3
44
U
c
0
VI
9^
o
44
u
tl
I/I
-------
O a
c £
41
w JC M
O — 41
— .Ok
0 — O
OE
<
U
u
€
a
V)
II
£.
U
tl
•o
41
Appl icable/Relevan
and DOropate
M k
tl tl O
— -o -
«- 4>
k •» C
S. x.S
O J3 -
k u
o a -o «
«- t>
c ^ = e
— o
2 a
U •> C «•
c -~ o in
£ u 3
41 Z
J( 41 k
2 2 ° X
ti "D O
*» 0 41 C
01 41 C tl
3 k a 01
x a o •
ndma
0
§ T.
§• c
tl
• «
w 41
M- k
J JC
a M
k
_> o
U M
••» U
••- U
i S.
»
•o
w 41 •
O k -O
C tl C
01 tl
0 c a
•_ • ti
•o -o
41 C
u 41 0
— 41
0 £ —
U U
41—41
f. e. a
>- a 0
0
z
o
z
41
0
O
0 &
o
M 0 0
41 41
e — —
o u u
— 41 tl
*- a a
U 0 0
•a "e
41 41 41
.M k C
• 41 41
:r-
0 -e k
3 C £
•0
tl
C
tl
T C
o
M >•
a w
T, 2
C M
» O
ti »
Z O>
O 41
C T>
0 O
41
« 3
U
41 41
•o
41
3 «
O 41
— 0
• «
L. tl
ti C
•o i-
i «
o «
0
•o
i 2
41 0
£. t>
<- -Q
a x
« 41
* S
a 41
ti —
•o -o
g f
w c
• I
tl tl
1 k
1 e. fl
C 0 C
0 •
00'
c • a
o c
.- o *•
w — O
u *•
• s §
«l fc. —
^tf *W **
2 2 -S
•o •
0 4i a
3 £ 41
o
z
•O > •
41 k k
k — 41 41
ti — M in w
«• — • 41 o
0 a k «
•oak
C w 4i a
— • k o £
••• fc* U
ness
O
Z
o1
z
•o
41
O <«
tl
41 •"
:i
41 4> —
•a c c
M « 0 41
0 • *• 41 V
41 41 a
41 U « — 0
i 2 • a .r
O X f 3
J 0 i - -
a c «•
o ~ « c
w — u 41 O
• a) w k •«•
i ._ -o « w
- > -o a •
o C z E
0 k C — tl
c a o 41 ^
O — C £ in
~ 41 « 41 •• X
** £ o n I/I
u w 41 a »-
• "O k •»•
e c
c
41
41
k
u
VI
?0
0 e
03
U •
vi v ac
3 41 u.
u
-o e
«- N. <«
k
e
•D k
tl t> 41 •
•O £ *• 0
3 w • 41
— — O
u k a •
c o 4i —
— -^ ac a.
x « -> u
ti — o o
o — * 0
a. 41 z x
41 «-
C
Z 41
41 TJ
O
S « K
•O — C
i S 5
_ u *-
M 41 U
41 X 41
3 ku v>
•o
tl
X -O
41
•O 41 41
£ a
41
41
41
.O
O
0
o
c
u
L.
O
•
z
1
*rf
a
z
*
u
«
0
«rf
•
>
k
41
41
k
e.
• *«
•• u
3 41
U M
41 e
X k
UJ 0.
41
L.
u
<
0
41
•o
•o •
— 41
•• *^
3 0
— l/t
41
**
O
-------
c c «
ti •••
ti E k
~ ii a
— u. o
ARAR
able/Relevan
Appopate
Z = 1
Spec
II
•o
II
tl
o
a.
App
a
ti o
o- -o «
C — k
II > U
X O O.
O k 3
z a vi
?!
•4- tl C
O 91 fl
ti
II f C
*- o >
k *. tl
II —
a .c ti
o a k
a e e
c ti
U tl f
— • k
U — II
II — •«
• I I
II
x « e
| *
s I
O 4*
II —
Ol
k tl
If
U X
— II
•O t>
5 ti •
m -Q is
u ti
O Ii ul
» C 3
c -o
• tl
— k
tl
II C
4* «|
• Ol
k tl
a. k
o «
k 4*
a. IA c
a. ti ti
Ml
C U) tl
C II k
k 4*
C tl -4-
« 4- O
> III
ti e 4-
— x —
II 3
k 'D IA
— ti
II — k
k O
« (A C
01
II
3
•c
a. —
o
a. o
a
« -c
•D —
C 0
C V!
*• If:
C 3
a o
> -0
± b
tl H
k a
0
k
II
^
k
u
10
tl
id
^
.O
•
Ul
1
c
K
ti
4tf
II
•o
e
M
3
O
disposal
ii
a
X
•o
"5
l£
y
^
X
ctices
0
fe.
1
(11
4i
*•>
,r^
H^
U
«4-
II
3
I
M
0
ii
0
4*
M
e
a
ti
>
•o
*
o
X
4*
_^
la
«
^
o
k
a
ti
JS
4*
k
O
£
"
•
II
c
o
M
u
J;
t>
hereby.
4^
•o"
c
c
4rf
c
i
o
k
i
II
tl
a
o
•o
ii
,w
A
'f
O
k
a.
u
4*
3
4*
4^
«
§
U
ishes minimum national
•»
«
•*
M
IU
.C
II
C
VI
3
•8
«
I
Q
4rf
<•
able Management of
ous waste for owner's
** TJ
a k
U M
U •
• JK
erators of facilities which
store, or dispose of
ous waste.
a. • -o
O w k
• •
•O II K
C k •
• ** £
O
•o
tl
tl
1
II
u
o
a.
M
II
JS
M
w
-O
4^
M
Ul
ia for modification or
k
ti
4*
.M
k
U
tion of any provision
•9
U
O
II
k
•o
a
-0
in
O
(M
e
•0
at
(j
o
(A
'~
C
o
4*
«
u
«4-
1
M
£
•
O
INI
O
o
Kl
O
U
tl
Ul
at
u
at
o
M
I
41
C
5
O*
41
U
IA O
tl —
IA
tl -J
4^ ro
Ul f
a
x -o
IA
rg
•O
(M
(A w Ul
« O 3
X tl O
•O ^ k
"3
U II
k
II •
s - - = ..
£ « C k) r»
M .« O
IA x ^ "D
ii IA e c
c ti — k c
•4- U! O> TT O
II B II C N.
a x k 3 IM
o
•4- Ul
3
ul O
TJ -O
U) <4-
O
IA
tl Ul
£ L.
Ul O
— C
J3 i.
4. C
IA tl
Ul Ol
•O
o
• e
u u
k ti
i -
11
I I
4*
• W
U O
•^ at
C Z 4-
Ii « «
— It 3
o
•o
k
a
II M
U <4> '
— o
a
a
« k
k «l
•• O
V) w
-------
o|
01
o
4*
tl
2
U
I
a
at
^
at
<
u
t4»
U
tl
a.
i/i
^
•
u
i
ii
j:
o
•
b
ti
•D
II
laV
"a
M
c
ti
o
0.
<*•
o
a
c
c
II
II
u
v>
~a
^
c
*rf
c
m Ii
> «-
tl C
tl b
si §
- 0
A C
« <
u
3 •?
a •
a
<
o
4^
a
b
u
*)
tl
o
c
o
*rf
«
4*
u
B
tl
**
•>
3
0
ti
b
«
b
a.
<
,
i
ti
>•
^
•
c
O II
•— £
f **
a
C tl
e
1 -
c «
., ,
>^ 4rf
• •
«l w
tl
JC •>
M -O
— b
i I
w •
• M
UI •
>r
^o
N
at
*^
O
•*
tl
4*
tB
•
X
•
O
•e
b
•
M
£
<
at
u
at
ti
3 b tl b
a) 0 • b •
** W & ** M
a. b o •
ti aj «- £
U N 'W •
0 « C £ •«-
• £ • *» e
0
«*-
41
•w
0
L.
a.
o
|
•o
c
c
4*
a
>
ti
u
b
ti
b
<
X
4*
,w
u
a
'•-
4*
C
,w
(0
C
o
a properly
n
•o
II
tl
c
X
—
u
•
"4-
4-t
c
II
c
4*
c
II
b
»-
u
o
<•»
c
•
'5.
•O
II
C
1
II
1
•o
•
•o
II
a.
o
ti
>
ti
•o
X
4*
tl
<4B
•
•
b
tl
J4
b
•o
c
•
(ft
c
a
"5.
X
4*
tl
•4.
•
II)
•
b
o
c
a
u
.c
•
.a
•
**
•
ui
91
II
b
3
T>
ti
U
O
b
a
•
•o
"o
u
C
tl
•
II
b
4rf
§
*4>
(A
tl
•o
M
II
b
^
—
3
o-
•^
-*
tl
4*
U
«••
<4»
O
•o
tl
4*
b
O
a
VI
c
a
b
4*
ti
.a
«ri
M
IB SUOISIAa
^
Q.
Ot
C
u
o
•^
c
o
i.
4>
4^
Q
3
T3
c
3
o
^
U
t
4>
ag
a
o
1
•
T3
C
0
aw
C
0
>
41
4>
i_
3 —
-. a
X «
L. >
a -
a -
JD u
3 a
tl
••• t-
O 3
(/)
M
b b C
t- O f.
§a « M
tl O «
b a x
c 2
* - £
~ • 3
• IA
tl O
b at _
e u M — •
b M at • b •Q a
o • • e e
••-X b "D
c . e e o b
- c - i 1 -
b O. 3 b CL 3
w«0 w IA O
** II •
• • «
J4. tT
• a
S -° .
b N
CO*
e £
b 4- O
« • a • « b <
e « « M c o at
« b — a) u +• u
o *• -o ^ o • at
• n at «•
b a o —
ti b at w
c o .
ti M «- C
(9 • O O
C O
O
«- II < tl
• a at w
i- a u —
ti b at M
C o
ti *• ••• c
u • e o
_
&tl • O
a •
< o 3 ts
« S 5 g 5
b tl O t) *-
J C -O 01 —
•e x
1 °
«- o
a u
u. « «
^ -O
^ b b
C • C
II *rf 4*
(9 Wl V)
t! e
e e
tl w
b C
« II
a >
ti «
b b
a. a.
a. x
X g
^ .
tl b
II
§
o
tl
u
e
b
a.
M tl C
M J< ~
tl V «*
•»• b b
— o o
e u a
m c
ti
i S
c ti
tl 4*
-------
e for any containerized waste
as a result of remedial
— "O
J2 II
'u 0
"3. c
& v
^ a
o
*«
O
3
b
O
U
*rf
k
i
VI
•>
0
|
VI
M
*«
tl
U
0
*»
k
CO
o
*rf
tl
.a
u
•»
I
<
tl
M
(A
0
•
i
k
•
N
0
£
•o
"o
£
o
*ri
•o
tl
w
3
k
**
91
O
u
Ul
Jc
f
*^
0
•o
tl
3
a
**
o
c
ti
k
a
M
II
'a.
v
n
0
3
*
«
if
•o
41
ID
a
a
c
t>
J3
«^
M
«rf
|
0
V
U
*rf
I
~J
I/I
ID
•
tl
III
3
k
O
i^
f landfill
o
ti
5
o
u
tl
(A
II
««
o
k
a
o
a
U
u
II
a
01
£
tl
ID
O
a
o
c
tl
k
a
'E
in
D
^
a
e
c
a
ti
k
E
«l
u
u
O
c
e
^
. *•
|
k
ti
a
k
a
o
a
a.
a
•o
0
ti
M
a
•a
ti
c
•o
tl
a
t>
c
0
z
0
> V
II •
s §
0 <
u
o
z
»x
o
U
tl
a.
v>
L.
V
•o
tl
c
tl
o
a.
u ul C
O — tl
••- — e
•- t>
tn •- L.
? "i 3
• * »
** ** QH
M M a
0 U
M 3
tl O)
J= l» C
i S 5
3 ^ ^
• • o
*rf N C
(A 0 —
O
z
X.
o
Ol
c
tl
tl
u
VI
Z -*
•o
1 s I
c "o o
b b
I 1
I
V)
* *
— • M
S £
(9 •
0 5
M C
• s
f U
c • —
4)3v V34I 4j3
2^5 8^5 8 %
01 b
0 0 *•
CMC
0 0 O
X X u
V 4>
u v
C M
e
V
M
0
X
M
3
O
•o
0
N
f.
,
41
.^
«
e
e
M
v
•0*
(MV
&
W
*«
X
1
VI
<
QC
u
•E
•^
O
c
J
a
ti
^
1
«J
8
M
i
c
0
ii
M
X
M
3
O
•o
N
£
1
-------
O
u
c
o
>.
o> j«
w V
o i-
c a
• O
— U
£. tl
s. .
• -o
' S
•o a.
c e
- a
II Ol
«•• c
n •_
C tl
3 a
I
§ i-
3 O
€ C
X —
C 'u
U C
II O
•— o
c
" o
•o c
3 VI
O —
L.
o <«
i. ii
u «•
•O «i
c a
3 3
<
C
a
u
a
a
§1
ti
u
"•
O
a.
I
r
'i
•
3
"
UJ
C
^
•o
"^
«
— •
o
_
c
tl
.O
U
u
f
*
_
•o
VI
3
O
Tl
k
•
»4
^
O
c
II
Ol
c
•o
o
^
II
a
•*
r
3
tl
«
X
^
3
III
O
VI
O
II
^
3
«to
k.
a
M
C
E
•-
a
U
01 II
** «»
C J3
U •
tl U
u X
— u
L. 0
f. —
M &
2 •
LU M
eel aimed
k
ii
tm
*
•J
^
•
X
•
U
§
o
u
II
tl
u
li
e
\
§
c
c
u
»
o>
M
„
C
0
II
a
nat ional
1
c
'i
ii
£
*
2
Ul
tl
c
II
5
•£
M
•o
•D
a
M
o
£
tl
c
•
II
-O
a
u
•
3
ti
r
u
o
ti
VI
a
X
M
f
I.
M
V)
tf
.^
u
_.
01
m
•o
C
_
ndards
•
«
ti
'^
•
••
ii
o
M
<
ct ion
ii
?
•5
§
o
o>
u
1
i.
«.
,
i
2
X
x w e
u • u
M
1
< • X
at —• *•
o —
ac ti —
— Ill
• a
HI X II
O. in —
K 3 01
•5 -o •«!•
L.
•o « o
C N
• a i.
-I £ O
O
II II tl
I
II
o
tl
o
•» *• *• _
•o • « • ~
I i5 2 r
C o « o u
s 1! i -
• • g «
— in IN C «
L. k C X O
« v * • a
M C II IB
e x «• b —
— o o •- o
u ? S
5 S. - -S «
«• tfl tl tl
— • «-
•- *• •> tl 0
e o • a a
- 3X3
+• to M
M C • • II
•O tl 3 u 3 ~
u K O — O *•
a H -O »- -O —
•O a u — w —
C c c o c —
• C M « N u
tf) Z X VI X K.
HI
II
II —
U *rf *<
a « in —
•^ L. « —
03-
01 w u
•O e « c
C O
a en
a
~ -o * o
v> c «
. « - S
— •30
k k tl
tl tl » 'O
w C C
C 3 •- «
— o o -i
M C
i.2
-------
tl
44
•
C
O
k
0
•*•
•o
k
"2.
er
«
k
44
o
c
tl
k
•
•
44
~m
k
«
0.
ot
41
*••
•
!
*••
U
1
tl
44
T
44
U
•
•1
£
44
44
•
M
C
C
44
tl
Ol
•
k
o
44
M
•H
§
O
k
Ol
k
tl
1
o
X
fc»
TJ
tl
(ft
9)
tl
k
^
•o
a
ti
A
"x
4{
*
4rf
U
•o
o
a
•
«
4*
e
c
Q.
4^
c
tl
4«
•
t|
k
4rf
•
^
tl
(A
(0
tl
>
k
O
4rf
•
I
S
(J
u
•
•o
•
"a
n
o ti
u a
«l
"
> o
g o- c 44 ^
E ti o M
« * " £ *
* «• — x a
<- « « k £ «
" c o o -
_ 44 o — .-
V m •— 4* o •
ti .c 44 ,_ £ >
« - c o f. a
« ti at t>
-O •> > C
» J U 01 II B
O E o — o
— ti 44 — o —
o k M o a E
c — ti c — o
•c 3 .a .c — c
u 7 u e o
ti u
Specific ARAR's
1
c
u
1
u
•
k
II
•o
II
14.
•
44
C
tl
o
a.
<4-
O
a
c
•^
c
ti
ti
k
u
VI
—
a
44
C
*••
Appl icable/Relevant
and Appropriate
cription
10
tl
a
0
*
^
o
z
«
o
es proviii
Establish
p
e
o
•ov
•M
C
^
..^
U
i»
(M
ac
«k
u
e
•*
41
**
•ft
•U
4V
•
f
«
k
o.
•
•
a
|
•
N
•
JS
<
ac
u
•c
«
a.
UJ
u
•
.O
covering
•
a
•
k
e
44
•
w
2
4*
«
k
4*
«
44
«
ig requirem
permit tin
ti
44
!«•
•
e
o
7
•
|
•5
|
>.
«l
tl
>•
«
1 1
w O
• k
3 ?
Ol tl
tl -D
" § £
: o §
£ W 4<
- -0 tl
— ti a
.Ova
• • k
** — O
• tl 4»
UJ k •
e
«
M
ac
^
u
e
•*
ti
a
•
k
e
4^
w
o
k
9
k
II M
•5 c
a »•
i
>.
a
ti
x
•o
O
standard w
Proposed
to
•*
N.
K»
at
hk
N
lf\
•
U
|
k
o
tl
4rf
•
O
M
C
•••Ok
0—0
ID «
§ .r •
-Si
u 3
3 U U
•O — U
£ S «
M ? 2
!C ° 2
o> ^
• ± £ .
k — a. —
— M ii
§i i S
Z 5 i J
a
o
e
•o
u
VI
3
f\j
^
^^
O
at
>«.
o
c
o
4*
U
tl
44
O
k
a
k
o
<•»
Provides
N.
-*
>r
^
ac
14.
u
e
4
|
4*
U
tl
c"
•o
e
k
a
Under'
o
O
>^
vt
tl
^
4)
£
4rf
k
0
«4»
W
44
'I
S.
w
tl
k
1
II
ac
•0
IO t/1
«- (M
*• «
\f\ (V
r>j nj
u ac
VI Ik
3 U
*1 O
M •»
M
44
C
44
3
^^
a
Q.
<4-
O
tl
a
k
0
JS
u
«
a
E M
O k
k ti
'4- 4rf
£
W X
44
C 0
1 -
— II
a S
•4- O
O u
discharge
any point
ti
u
k
3 tl
O
e o
I ::
x s
• X
80
44
k e
<4» ••
ermi ts
^
m
ti
44
c
44
VI
•o
ti
44
'c
tl
£
44
«4»
O
91
II
44
•
44
v>
^
Unite
c
o
«
f%
u
u
41 X
M A
ambient wa
riteria.
etermined 1
O X tl
T, -r -
V — —
i/i e —
03 —
A V X
g)
M
^5
U
<4-
u
tl
a
U)
II
M
fl
I
1:
k U
• «
£
k
o
44
M
1
O
a
k
4%
*»
u>
3
w
•
M
•
^
gulation
ii
•o
•
1
a.
••»
o
7>
44
§
u
k
*4*
«
•
1
•to
e
•
j
•
•
8
•
u
organ
44
U
<
k
44
•
a
.M
k
a
ii
<•»
•
VI
**
a
w
Injection
|
k
a
Under
I at ions
a
ii
ac
^ »»
k U
4» ^
§ 2
u
^
«
(J
>«>
4rf
U
<
k
tl
•
3
e
«
^•t
u
llutant
o
a.
•
4tf
•
*
1 iaiinat ion
Ul
ii
a
k
•
£
u
M
a
44
M
X
v>
-------
II
•I JC
a -
•
a *•
ii e
w>
•o
U II
il
a. a
o
«•• c
v —
a a.
u
•5
• t>
tl v
o
o •'
•a v
u
ID e
*«
C >•
C 3
E v)
a
** ii
c .c
o <-
0 c
V —
01 .e
ii ~
£ '5
k. «
a n
a >
o «
c c
a it
c «-
u k
o a
M CD
— U
•O a.
v c
.O —
2 I
o
— » u
I. O
ti c
o
T9
a
c
ii ~
— e
a.
o
•* o. ~
O Q.
•o ii
3 w
k w
O C
a a
o ii
1/1 k
V)
o
'— U!
i/> E
U! tl
E •
«
at
<
u
u
^
vt
"•
u
°E
Ii
u
•
k
II
•o
tl
Ife
^^
•
«rf
c
II
o
a.
Appl icable/Relevan'
and Appropriate
e
ac
**.
0
X
"o
+4
c
o
M
Q
k.
U
•n
Ii
a
§
u
e
0
•o
•
3
•
*/
n
^
t«
V
in
a
3
o
^
«i
a
^
c
f.
*
c
•
^
3
««
O
a
tment
a
ii
f.
•*
.•
s
u
•
k.
II
C
kl
0
c
•
o
o
a.
c
„
ti
M
Q)
il
U
0
u
a
ii
a
•D
3
III
II
a
•
ti
«
Ii
c
£
•
c
o
u
^
e
z
4rf
C
II
3
«^
<^
tl
0
II
«
>••
^
^
0
*^
0
Ul
w
o
ohibit
^
a
e
0
•o
u
0
•o
C
^
•
o
X
o
*rf
e
• w
«- c
k. •
II M
U 3
k, —
e e
*• a
e
z
a
c
!
c
«
II
o
e
ti
*rf
c
^
a
ti
at
i
e
z
^.
o
u
v
**.
o
O
II O
a V o
C u
2 f "X
o a. ^
*^
0
c
ii
ii
u
u
VI
U
Wl
M k
Ul 'O ^
e
•o
u ~ ot
v) O> tk
3 (M u
u in
w E « C •
O O ••- O ~
k. k. k, — C
a «• 3 w ii
O w k X
»• C o- ii ii
ii o a
"9 E Ok.
II C 0 tl •
c o *• a « a
a k u c M c
•; •; i c ± c
ti C »• — —
•D ti ti E a E
X
l_
3
- c
4- a a
a in C a
•O 3 — L.
C O -D O
e -D 3 C
*rf U ^ —
Hi a u
w C •«
c a — c
o f. e
M Ii w E
— - C 3 •
E • • — U
tl C *- — —
a 3 — c
if — — x «l
** M — u M
II II O il l.
i/i -o a. .0 «
r
•o
IM
O *1
u
o
I
u
o
a
o
a
c
"e
3 C
o e
•o ~
I. 3
O
a
•o
M
— •o
• b.
Ji
S
X
-------
o
**
*D
Of
01
«r
*~
0
C
V
•rf
— *
•g
«
o
e
i.
a
—
«
w
tl
.K
o
X
^
o
tl
^
i>
o
**
g-
«
•o
0
„
^
>
o
a.
c
o
*»
a
•o
i
«
••
•o
c
o
**
u -
t^
o
a
u
3
0
X
tl
C
o
a>
VI
_«
u
c
a
w
u
m
-
c
Jl
4rf
tl
i.
O
M
U
a
a
•
13
tl
M
i
o •
L. w
a c
— "a
•o
c
.£
^^
c
•^
^
tl
u
O
X
O
tl
•g
u x
~* ti
Q. •»•
« 2
•o
tl
(
•J
^
Ol
c
'c
i
^
^
o
c
«l
^
Ct
L.
^
3
w>
tl C
>- o
> e —
— - a
*• u —
• o i.
c a ti
C w) *rf
• '
X ti O
S r ^
« a
U
l/>
•
U
tl
tl
T3
tl
C
ti
O
ti
ti
I t
tl «
=1
a
o ~ —
»- c «
C tl
t ff o
e c —
? S 3
r s a
b *
§ •: f .
— 41
• -O *• b
• tl U •
i s i r
tl C O tl
M "P
4> o e
« «•
c o
e ti
u
• b
O M
t b- c
« o
c c —
1^3
• S I
e
M
41
3
41
•9
S.
•O
U
in
« 3 •
C W b
O * 41
— • M.
** b
— O O
!;:
?«5
e 3
X O
• v x
3 3 tl
tl C ^
rg
-o
M «
15
M U
C tl
M VI
tl 3
«• O
« "D
«• u
3 •
0 N
tl •
U
u
o
a
a
c
•
>
.Q
O
«tf
u
tl
u
e
o
•
«
tl
o
!
O
a
41
!
M »
b C
e —
§i
w
e o
a -o
« b
s :
u «
U
I
C -^
tl h.
15
« u
u
• X
§ r
u
b
o
tl
u
I i
X •
41 •«
S (A
X
**
*
e u
I
X
2 §
3 b
e o
•o a
c •>
c e
Is
5 S S
« *• o
JO w
a •
L. M —>
• C 3
M • 9
• k tl
-------
•le
E
e
8
1
S
••iis'!1
*t!,2
*| y n rfftli*
it
•H • O
£ I 8 9 S a\'p *
n «H »H < 0 H 9
•H R 9>H * -H 5 fl
1
fl
S"9? • SsSsilsSS^friS
ll!l JiJl4!jr1l!|h
"!l
flllr
T-^
8
Ift
§
81
8 8
S
11
•i
si
S
?
8
s
3
1
ii
-------
K
i
il i
lit
^•^
5
8
8
S
e
2
8
^~»
§
8
-------
1
Jsi
Lri
o +J
IT *
M
W
1 S
J,
N
S
i
I I
I I
i
" OR
•H L «•• 5
1'lJh
»*elai
IsiSv
1- -§
liSti!
nil
^ T3 *•
fl|^4
Hga*!.
HI
201
Mil S^
o582S«tT
ir
5
1
«4
0
,2
-------
I
i
•le
i
i
o
> «
(S
i
fi
*
e
§
1
I
i
i
Hi
I
i!
-------
•IB
I
-------
APPENDIX C
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
Joan JC Lecvitt, M.D.
Commissioner
Board o( H*aJJti
Prescent
Err.es? 0. McrKn.
V/c:icce 2yr-. W
OKLAHOMA STATE
DEPARTMENT OF HEAUH
: -TV-
'*•,-• •
Jorn 3. Ccmiaise^. D.C.S.
joaei- fcgs. M.O.
Dc.-i h. r«)ce.'. C.C.
P.O. BOX 53551 = ?^»^/.
1000NETENTH * '^ ••
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73152
L;r«es M. ,'orrscn. \
July 1S; 19SC.
Rcben E. Laytcn Jr. (5A)
Regional Administrator
EPA Recion VI
1445 RdssAve.
Dallas, Texas 752C2
Dear Mr. Laytcn:
The Okianoma State Department cf Heam (OSDH) concurs v/iih ihe fleccrc cf
Decision (ROD) for the Tinker Air Force Base Building 3001 and the ,Vcrt/7
Tank Area and Pit Q-51 Operable Units. Tinker Air Force Base, working In cones:
with OSDH and EPA through tine vehide cf t~e Technical Review Ccmmttiee. has formu-
lated a plan to soive the problems of the ground v/aier contamination ihat is envircnmen-
tally sound, technically appropriate, and frscsiiy responsible. This ROD is a major
milestone in the efforts to clean up one cf Oklahoma's mcst important environmental
concerns and reflects favorably on the cooperative spirit and effort of all those invcivsc.
If ycu have any questions or comments reca-a'ina :his maner ciease call me a:
271-S056.
Sincerely yours
Mark S. Ccieman, Deputy Commissicner
for Environmental Health*Services
-------
APPENDIX D
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
FILE STRUCTURE
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
TINKER AFB
FILE STRUCTURE
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
1.1 Notification/Site Inspection Report
1.2 Federal Register (22 Jul 87)
1.3 __ Preliminary Assessment (PA) Report
1.4 "site Investigation (SI) Report
2.0 INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT (IAG)
2.1 IAG
2.2 Admendments to the IAG
2.3 Public Comments
2.4 Regulatory "Correspondence
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (RI)
3.1 Sampling & Analysis Flans
3.2 Sampling & Analysis Data/Chain of Custcch
Forms
3.3 Work Plan
3.4 Action Memorandum
3.5 Amendments to Action Memorandum
3.6 RI Reports
4.0 HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
4.1 ATSDR Health Assessments
4.2 Toxicological Profiles
4.3 Risk Assessments
5.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS)
5.1 ARAR Determinations
5.2 FS Reports
5.3 Proposed Plans
6.0 RECORD OF DECISION (ROD)
6.1 ROD
6.2 Public Comments
7.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
7.1 Public Notices
7.2 Public Comments & Responses
7.3 Public Correspondence (General)
7.4 Public Meeting Transcriptions
7.5 Fact Sheets and Press Releases
7.6 Responsiveness Summary
7.7 Tinker AFB Technical Review Committee
8.0 TECHNICAL SOURCES & GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
8.1 EPA HQ Guidance
8.2 EPA Regional Guidance
8.3 State Guidance (Oklahoma State Dept. of
Health OSDH)
8.4 Technical Sources (General)
-------
ADMINISTHA7IVZ RECCHI
BUILDINu 3001
INDEX Si
Document Number: 083082002 Date: Auc £2
Title: VOC Contamination in well 16 & 7
Type: Correspondence
Category:* 2 .4
Author: Mr. Edgar Jeffrey (EPA)
Recipient: Capt. Escoriaza (TAFB)
Document Number: 093082002 Date: See £2
Title: Tinker Halogenated compound Contamination
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Maj. David McElway (TAFB)
Recipient: Mr. Edgar Jeffrey (EPA)
Document Number: 092484001 Date: Sep £4
Title: State Inspection Report
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Ron Jarman (OWRB)
Recipient: Mr. Edgar Jeffrey (EPA)
Document Number: 110684431 Date: Nov £4
Title: Bldg 3001 & Soldier Creek Drainage Area, Tinker
Air Force Base...NPL scoring package.
Type: Final EPA NPL Scoring
Category: 1.1
Author: EPA
Recipient: EPA/Tinker AFB
Document Number: 121284001 Date: Dec 34
Title: Proposed establishment of the Technical Review
Committee (TRC)
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Col. Danny Rivera (TAFB)
Recipient: MR. William Hathaway (EPA)
-------
Document Number: 011585004 Date: Jan 85
Title: Minutes of Preliminary Technical Review
Committee (TRC) Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 012385001 Date: Jan 85
Title: Jenkins Dunbar appointed OSDH rep. to TRC
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Mr. Don Hensch (OSDH)
Recipient: Mr. Helmberger (TAFB)
Document Number: 020185001 Date: Feb 85
Title: Tinker nominated as NPL candidate
Type: Memo
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Dick Whittington (EPA)
Recipient: Mr. Jack McGray (EPA)
Document Number: 020685002 Date: Feb 35
Title: Establishment of the TRC
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Maj. Gen. Burpee (TAFB)
Recipient: Mr. Dick Whittington (EPA)
Document Number: 031285001 Date: Mar 85
Title: Publication of Tinker ARB on the NPL
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Sam Nott (EPA)
Resicpient: H.A. Caves
-------
Document Numbei: 032285001 Date: Mar S5
Title: Appointment of Drew Puffer as TRC rep. for EFA
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Mr. Dick Whittington (EPA)
Recipient: Maj. Gen. Burpee (TAFB)
Document Number: 042285002 Date: Apr S5
Title: Minutes of TRC meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 043085002 Date: Apr B5
Title: Appointment of Mark Coleman as OSDH rep To TP.C
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Gov. George Nigh (OK)
Recipient: Maj. Gen. Burpee (TAFB)
Document Number: 080285001 Date: Aug 85
Title: Additional Monitoring within Bldg 3001
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Col. Gerald Blackburn (TAFB)
Recipient: Mr. Sam Nott (EPA)
Document Number: 082085005 Date: Aug 85
Title: Minutes of TRC meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Auothor: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
-------
Document Number: 101585275 Date: Oct 85
Title: Phase II - Conf irmation/Quantif icai.cn Stage 2,
Vol 1
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 1.4
Author: Radian Corporation
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 101585619M Date: Oct S5
Title: Phase II - Confirmation/Quantification Stage 2,
Vol 2 (Appendices)
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 1.4
Author: Radian Corporation
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 111985003 Date: Ncv 85
Title: Minutes of TRC meeitng, Tinker AFB
- Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
I Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 021886003 Date: Feb 86
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 052086004 Date: May 86
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
-------
Document Number: 081886003 Date: Aug 86
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC mergers
Document Number: 012687004 Date: Jan 87
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 041637001 Date: Apr S~
(Received;
Title: Implemeting SARA with TAFB's IRP work
Type: EPA Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Robert Hannessclager (EPA Region VI)
Recipient: Col. Ray Reaves (TAFB)
Document Number: 300987178 ' Date: Sep £'
Title: Tinker AFB Groundwater Assessment
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 8.4
Author: COE (Tulsa)
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 032787003 Date: Mar 8'
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
-------
Document Number: 051987003 Date: May 87
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient; TRC members
Document Number: 08258700 Date: Aug 87
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 111887003 Date: Nov 37
j Title: Invitation Ltr for EPA visit for Health
* Assessment Team
Type: TAFB correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Maj. J. Jorgensen (TAFB)
Recipient: 1 Ltr to ea. EPA, OSDH, COE
t '• • ""• " — '•• !!• • I • | II • - — - -
Document Number: 111987004 Date: Nov 8~
I
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 011588151 Date: Jan S3
Title: Building 3001 Remedial Investigation Vol 1
Report
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 3.7
Author: COE
Recipient: TAFB
-------
Document Number: 011588693Q Date: Jan 88
Title: Building 3001 Remedial Investigation Vcl 2
Appendices
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 3.7
Author: C.OE
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 021683004 Date: Feb S3
Title: Minutes of TRC Meetings, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 031588119 Date: Mar 83
Title: Sampling and Analysis Plan Revision l
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 3.2
Author: COE
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 05138865 Date: May 83
Title: Selection of Remedial Control Measures &
Technology IRP Building 3001
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 3.9
Author: PELA
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 051788004 Date: May 88
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
-------
Document Number: 051988002 Date: May £3
Title: Comments on Tinker AFB Health Assessment
Type: Memo
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Sven Rodenbeck
Recipient:. Carl Hickharn (ATSDR)
Document Number: 052088019 Date: May S3
Title: Health Assessment for Tinker AFB NPL Site
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 4.1
Author: Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registrv
U.S. Public Health Service (ATSDR)
Recipient: Tinker AFB / EPA
* Document Number: 062488001 Date: Jun Be
t
Title: Schedule for FFA (IAG) Negotiations
Type: Table memo
Category: 2.4
Author: Ms. S. Turner (EPA)
Recipient: File (EPA)
Document Number: 071588161 Date: Aug 83
Title: Risk Assessment of the Building 3001 Site, TAF5
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 4.3
Author: COE
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 102488005 Date: Aug 83
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
-------
Document Number: 092388004 Date: Sep SB
Title: Disposal of pit P-75 and MN-36 contents w/anal.
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Maj. William Fodor (TAFB)
Recipient^ Ms. Marsha Myers (CSDH)
Document Number: 100388001 Date: Oct 88
Title: Delegation of CERCLA authority on Tinker AFB to
EPA Region VI
Type: Memo
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Winston Porter (EPA)
Recipient: Mr. Robert Layton (EPA Region 6)
Document Number: 102588004 Date: Oct. 88
Title: Ltr requesting discussion of the TRC Charter ir.
the next TRC meeting
Type : Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 111588006 Date: Nov 88
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Rcipient: TRC memebers
Document Number: 120988064 - Date: Dec 88
Title: Federal Facility Agreement Under CERCLA Section
120 (Admin. Docket ? NPL-U3-2-27)
Type: Final - Tinker FFA
Category: 2.2
Author: DOD/EPA
Recipient: EPA/OSDH/Tinker AFB / Public
-------
Document Number: 121688001 Date: Dec £3
Title: FFA is signed by Tinker AFB, EPA & OSDH
Type: Newspaper Clipping
Category: 7.5
Author: Tinker Take Off
Recipient* Public
Document Number: 122288002 Date: Dec 8S
Title: Pit U-51 closure
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Col. Eusebio Paguyo (TAFB)
Recipient: Mr. Mark Coleman (OSDK)
Document Number: 121588154 Date: Dec 63
Title: Safety and Occupational Health Plan for CCE
Personnel Revision 1
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 4.1
Author: COE
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 122288001 Date: Dec 8S
Title: Ltr requesting Mr. Peter G. Prince III to join
The TRC as a public member.
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Col. Ray Reaves (TAFB)
Recipient: Mr. Peter G. Prince III
Document Number: 010589001 Date: Jan 69
Title: Mr. Prince III accepts the invitation to join
the TRC.
Type: Coreespondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Mr. Peter G. Prince III
Recipient: Col. Ray Reaves (TAFB)
-------
Document Number: 011889001 Date: Jan 89
Title: OSDH Identifies Project Coordinator and
Alternate
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. M. Coleman (OSDH)
Recipient: Col. Ray Reaves (TAFB)
Document Number: 012089001 Dare: Jar. 89
Title: FFA public comment period notice
Type: Newspaper Clipping
Category: 7.1
Author: Tinker AFB
Recipient: Public
Document Number: 020689001 Date: Fee S9
Title: Ltr Thanking Mr. Prince III in agreeing to jcir.
Tinker's TRC.
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Maj . d. Cornell (TAFB)
Recipient: Mr. Peter G. Prince III
Document Number: 020689002 Date: Feb £9
Title: Pit U-51 unauthorized cleanup
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Mark Coleman (OSDH)
Recipient: Col. Ray Reaves (TAFB)
Document Number: 022189005 Date: Feb 89
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
-------
Document Number: 022389003 Date: Feb 89
Title: Signed TRC Charter
Type: Charter document
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 022889005 Date: Feb 39
Title: Corps of Engineers (Tulsa) comments on FFA
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.3
Author: Mr. F. Parker (COE)
Recipient: Mr. T. Underwood (EPA)
Document Number: 043089009 Date: Apr SS
Title: Response to Public Comments Tinker AFB Federal
Facility Agreement Under CERCLA Section 120
Administrative Docket Number NPL-U3-2-27
Type: Comment Response (Final)
Category: 7.2
Author: COE/TAFB
Recipient: EPA / Public
Document Number: 052289006 Date: May 89
Title: EPA FFA (IAG) effective date
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. S. Becker (EPA Region VI)
Recipient: Mr. A. Lawrence (TAFB)
Document Number: 052389003 Date: May 39
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
-------
Document Number: 052489001 Date: May S9
Title: EPA exercises option for additional time to
review draft 3001 FS
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Sam Becker (EPA)
Recipient: Mr. A. Lawrence (TAFB)
Document Number: 060289001 Date: Jun S9
Title: EPA Public Notice on availability to the TAG
Type: Newspaper Clipping
Category: 7.1
Author: EPA
Recipient: Public
Document Number: 062689001 Date: Jun 85
Title: TAFB announces new EM Director, Proj Coordinator
and Project alternate
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Maj. D. Cornell (TAFB)
Recipient: EPA (OSDH)
Document Number: 071789001 Date: Jul S9
Title: Tinker request to delay submittal of Bldg 3CC1
Final FS report
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. A. Lawrence (TAFB)
Recipient: Mr. H. Frey (EPA)
Document Number: 082289004 Date: Aug 85
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
-------
Document Number: 082589248 Date: Aug 89
Title: Building 3001 Feasibility Study Volume 1-Repcrt
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 3.9
Author: COE
Recipient:- TAFB
Document Number: 082589044 Date: Aug S9
Title: Building 3001 Feasibility Study Volune 2 -
Environmental Assessment
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 39
Author: COE
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 092189001 Date: Sep 85
Title: EPA Announces new Superfund Enforcement Branch
Chief
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.3
Author: Mr. S. Becker (EPA Region VI)
Recipient: Mr. A. Lawrence (TAFB)
Document Number: 300989479 Date: Sep 89
Title: Tinker AFB Groundwater Assessment Update
Type: Final (IRP) Update Report
Category: 8.4
Author: COE (Tulsa)
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 10028902 Date: Oct 89
Title: EPA Approves Deadline Schedule
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. S. Becker (EPA Region VI)
Recipient: Mr. A. Lawrence (TAFB)
-------
Document Number: 112889004 Date: Ncv 89
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 021390003 Date: Fee SO
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 022890020 Date: Feb 92
Title: AquaDetox information
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Ms. C. Taylor (TAFB)
Recipient: Mr. T. Underwoord (EPA)
Document Number: 030790028 Date: Kar 93
Title: Building 3001 (NPL Site) Proposed Plan-
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 3.10
Author: COE
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 031590019 Date: Mar 90
Title: Tinker AFB AquaDetox Description / AquaDetox
Stripping Sys for Groundwater Remediation /
Chromium Removal Process Description
Type: Information Package
Category: 8.4
Author: TAFB/Dow Chemical Company
Recipient: TAFB
-------
Document Number: 031990001
Title: TAFB Public Notice for &3001 Proposed Plan
(Public Comment Period / Public Meeting Notice,
Type: Newspaper Clipping
Category: 7.1
Author: Tinker AFB Public Affairs Office
Recipient: The Daily Oklahoman (Public)
Document Number: 040590042 Date: Apr SO
Title: Building 3001 (NPL Site) Cleanup Plans April
1990, Tinker Air Force Base
Type: Public Meeting Handout
Category: 7.5
Author: Tinker AFB Environmental Management Directorate
Recipient: Public
Note: Handout is located at end of Public Meeting
Transcript (see Below).
Document Number: 040590042 Date: Apr 3C
Title: Transcript...Public Meeting...Building 30C1 r:?L
Proposed Plan
Type: Final Transcript
Category: 7.4
Author: Tinker AFB Judge Advocate Office
Recipient: Public
Document Number: 043090006 Date: Undated
Title: Public Comment on Proposed Plan.-.Bldg 3001
(Letter from Mr. J.R. Reid)
Type: Public Correspondence
Category: 6.2 •
Author: Mr J.R. Reid
Recipient: TAFB via EPA
Document Number: 041890010 Date: Apr 9C
Title: Public Comment on Proposed Plan.-.Bldg 3001
Type: Public Correspondence (via EPA)
Category: 6.2
Author: Fred Jones
Recipient: TAFB via EPA
-------
Document Number: 042790004 Date: Apr 9:
Title: Public Comment on Proposed Plan...Bldg 30CI
Type: Public Correspondence
Category: 6.2
Author: Kent Engineering (Kent Myers)
Recipient: TAFB via EPA
Document Number: 051590003 Date: May 9C
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 053190001 Date: Kay 90
Title: Ltr. From Environmental Pullution Health
Concerns Coalition requesting to join Tinker's
TRC & TWG.
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Mr. John Bowman (Chairman)
Recipient: TAFB (Environmental office - Maj Cornell)
Document Number: 062590001 Date: Jun 90
Title: Response Ltr. to Mr Bowman's request to join
Tinker's TRC & TWG.
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: Mr. John Bowman, Chairman
Environmental Pollution Health
Concerns Coalition
Document Number: 071990001 Date: Jul 90
Title: OSDH (the state) concurs with B3001, N. Tank
Area, Pit Q-51 Record of Decision (ROD)
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Mark Coleman (OSDH)
Recipient: Mr. Robert Layton (EPA Region VI)
-------
Document Number: 07319046 Date: Jul 93
Title: Tinker AFB Installation Restoration Prograr,
Community Relation Plan, Jul 90 version
Type: ComRel Plan
Category: 7.0
Author: TAFB
Recipient: Public
Document Number: 800001004 Date: Undate
Title: EPA Region 6 Index of various EPA technical
& guidence documents
Type: References Index
Category: 8.2
Author: EPA Staff Consultants
Recipient: U.S. EPA Region 6 Site Files
Document Number: 080190094 Date: Aug 9:
Title: Building 3001 (NPL Site) Record of Decision
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Type: ROD for B3001, N. Tank Area, Pit Q51
Category: 6.1
Author: COE Tulsa
Recipient: TAFB, EPA, OSDH, Public
Document Number: 080190094 Date: Aug 9
Title: ROD B3001, Appendix A. . .Responsiveness Summary
Type: Final response to public period comments
Category: 7.6
Author: COE Tulsa/TAFB
Recipient: Public, TAFB, EPA, OSDH
-------
APPENDIX F
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
INDEX #2
PIT Q-51
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
PIT Q-51 OPERABLE UNIT
(Inside Building 3001)
INDEX 42
Document Number: 092484001 Date: Ssp 34
Title: State Inspection Report
Type: Correspondence
Category:.2.4
Author: Mr. Ron Jarraan (OWRB)
Recipient: Mr. Edgar Jeffrey (EPA)
Document Number: 110684431 Date: Ncv 84
Title: Bldg 3001 & Soldier Creek Drainage Area, Tinker
Air Force Base...NPL scoring package.
Type: Final EPA NPL Scoring
Category: 1.1
Author: EPA
Recipient: EPA/Tinker AFB
Document Number: 121284001 Date: Dec S4
, Title: Proposed establishment of the Technical Review
' Committee (TRC)
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Col. Danny Rivera (TAFB)
Recipient: MR. William Hathaway (EPA)
Document Number: 011585004 Dare: Jan S5
Title: Minutes of Preliminary Technical Review
Committee (TRC) Meeting, Tinker A7B
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 012385001 Date: Jan 85
Title: Jenkins Dunbar appointed OSDH rep. to TRC
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Mr. Don Hensch (OSDH)
Recipient: Mr. Helmberger (TAFB)
-------
Document Number: 020185001 Date: Feb So
Title: Tinker nominated as NPL candidate
Type: Memo
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Dick Whittington (EPA)
Recipient:,Mr. Jack McGray (EPA)
Document Number: 020685002 Date: Feb 85
Title: Establishment of the TRC
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Maj. Gen. Burpee (TAFB)
Recipient: Mr. Dick Whittington (EPA)
Document Number: 031285001 Date: Mar 85
Title: Publication of Tinker ARE on the NPL
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Sam Nott (EPA)
Resicpient: H.A. Caves
Document Number: 032285001 Date: Mar 85
Title: Appointment of Drew Puffer as TRC rep. for EPA
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Mr. Dick Whittington (EPA)
Recipient: Maj. Gen. Burpee (TAFB)
Document Number: 042285002 Date: Apr 85
Title: Minutes of TRC meeting, Tinker AF3
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
-------
Document Number: 043085002 Date: Apr 85
Title: Appointment of Mark Coleman as OSDH rep To TRC
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Gov. George Nigh (OK)
Recipient: Maj. Gen. Burpee (TAFB)
Document Number: 082085005 Date: Aug 35
Title: Minutes of TRC meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Auothor: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 101585275 Date: Get 35
Title: Phase II - Confirmation/Quantification Stage 2,
Vol 1
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 1.4
Author: Radian Corporation
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 101585619M Date: Oct 85
Title: Phase II - Confirmation/Quantification Stage 2,
Vol 2 (Appendices)
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 1.4
Author: Radian Corporation
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 111985003 Date: Kov 85
Title: Minutes of TRC meeitng, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
-------
Document Number: 021886003 Date: Feb 85
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient:^ TRC members
Document Number: 052086004 Date: May 86
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 081886003 Date: Aug 35
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 012687004 Date: Jan 87
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 041687001 Date: Apr 87
(Received)
Title: Implemeting SARA with TAFB's IRP work
Type: EPA Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Robert Hannessclager (EPA Region VI)
Recipient: Col. Ray Reaves (TAFB)
-------
Document Number: 032787003 Date: Mar S~
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 051987003 Date: May 87
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 072287015 • Date: Jul 67
Title: Federal Register, Part III, EPA (40CFR Part 300)
Type: EPA Document
Category: 1.2
Author: EPA
Recipient: Public
Document Number: 08258700 Date: Aug S~
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 111887003 Date: Nov S7
Title: Invitation Ltr for EPA visit for Health
Assessment Team
Type: TAFB correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Maj. J. Jorgensen (TAFB)
Recipient: 1 Ltr to ea. EPA, OSDH, COE
-------
Document Number: 111987004 Date: Nov 87
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 011588151 Date: Jan S3
Title: Building 3001 Remedial Investigation Vol 1
Report
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 3.7
Author: COE
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 011588693Q Date: Jan S3
Title: Building 3001 Remedial Investigation Vol 2
Appendices
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 3.7
Author: COE
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 021688004 Date: Feb S3
Title: Minutes of TRC Meetings, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 031588119 Date: Mar S3
Title: Sampling and Analysis Plan Revision 1
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 3.2
Author: COE
Recipient: TAFB
-------
Document Number: 05138865 Date: May SS
Title: Selection of Remedial Control Measures &
Technology IRP Building 3001
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 3.9
Author: PELA
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 051788004 Date: May 83
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 051988002 Date: May S3
Title: Comments on Tinker AFB Health Assessment
Type: Memo
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Sven Rodenbeck
Recipient: Carl Hickham (ATSDR)
Document Number: 052088019 Date: Kay S3
Title: Health Assessment for Tinker AFB NPL Site
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 4.1
Author: Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry
U.S. Public Health Service (ATSDR)
Recipient: Tinker AFB / EPA
Document Number: 062488001 Date: Jun SB
Title: Schedule for FFA (IAG) Negotiations
Type: Table memc
Category: 2.4
Author: Ms. S. Turner (EPA)
Recipient: File (EPA)
-------
Document Number: 071588161 Date: Aug 38
Title: Risk Assessment of the Building 3001 Site, TAFB
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 4.3
Author: COE
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 102488005 Date: Aug SB
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AF3
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 100388001 Date: Oct 88
Title: Delegation of CERCLA authority on Tinker AFB to
EPA Region VI
Type: Memo
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Winston Porter (EPA)
Recipient: Mr. Robert Layton (EPA Region 6)
Document Number: 102588004 Date: Oct 8=
Title: Ltr requesting discussion of the T?.C Charter in
the next TRC meeting
Type : Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 111588006 Date: Nov S3
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Rcipient: TRC memebers
-------
Document Number: 120988064 Date: Dec 83
Title: Federal Facility Agreement Under CERCLA Section
120 (Admin. Docket # NPL-U3-2-27)
Type: Final - Tinker FFA
Category: 2.2
Author: DOD/EPA
Recipient! EPA/OSDH/Tinker AFB / Public
Document Number: 121688001 Date: Dec 88
Title: FFA is signed by Tinker AFB, EPA & OSDH
Type: Newspaper Clipping
Category: 7.5
Author: Tinker Take Off
Recipient: Public
Document Number: 121588154 Date: Dec 88
Title: Safety and Occupational Health Plan for COE
Personnel Revision 1
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 4.1
Author: COE
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 122288001 Date: Dec 88
Title: Ltr requesting Mr. Peter G. Prince III to join
The TRC as a public member.
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Col. Ray Reaves (TAFB)
Recipient: Mr. Peter G. Prince III
Document Number: 010589001 Date: Jan 89
Title: Mr. Prince III accepts the invitation to join
the TRC.
Type: Coreespondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Mr. Peter G. Prince III
Recipient: Col. Ray Reaves (TAFB)
-------
Document Number: 011889001 Date: Jan 69
Title: OSDH Identifies Project Coordinator and
Alternate
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. M. Coleman (OSDH)
Recipient:' Col. Ray Reaves (TAFB)
Document Number: 012089001 Date: Jar. 89
Title: FFA public comment period notice
Type: Newspaper Clipping
Category: 7.1
Author: Tinker AFB
Recipient: Public
Document Number: 020689001 Date: Feb 89
Title: Ltr Thanking Mr. Prince III in agreeing to join
Tinker's TRC.
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Maj. d. Cornell (TAFB)
Recipient: Mr. Peter G. Prince III
Document Number: 020689002 Date: Feb 89
Title: Pit U-51 unauthorized cleanup/Future Pit cleanup
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr, Mark Coleman (OSDH)
Recipient: Col. Ray Reaves (TAFB)
Document Number: 022189005 Date: Feb 89
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
-------
Document Number: 022389003 Date: Feb 89
Title: Signed TRC Charter
Type: Charter document
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 022889005 Date: Feb 89
Title: Corps of Engineers (Tulsa) comments on FFA
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.3
Author: Mr. F. Parker (COE)
Recipient: Mr. T. Underwood (EPA)
Document Number: 043089009 Date: Apr 89
Title: Response to Public Comments Tinker AFB Federal
Facility Agreement Under CERCLA Section 120
Administrative Docket Number NPL-U3-2-27
Type: Comment Response (Final)
Category: 7.2
Author: COE/TAFB
Recipient: EPA / Public
Document Number: 052289006 Date: May 89
Title: EPA FFA (IAG) effective date
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. S. Becker (EPA Region VI)
Recipient: Mr. A. Lawrence (TAFB)
Document Number: 052389003 Date: May 89
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
-------
Document Number: 060289001 Date: Jun 39
Title: EPA Public Notice on availability to the TAG
Type: Newspaper Clipping
Category: 7.1
Author: EPA
Recipient: ^Public
Document Number: 062689001 Date: Jun 89
Title: TAFB announces new EM Director, Proj Coordinator
and Project alternate
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Maj. D. Cornell (TAFB)
Recipient: EPA (OSDH)
Document Number: 082289004 Date: Aug £9
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 092189001 Date: Sep 89
Title: EPA Announces new Superfund Enforcement Branch
Chief
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.3
Author: Mr. S. Becker (EPA Region VI)
Recipient: Mr. A. Lawrence (TAFB)
Document Number: 10028902 Date: Oct SS
Title: EPA Approves Deadline Schedule
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. S. Becker (EPA Region VI)
Recipient: Mr. A. Lawrence (TAFB)
-------
Document Number: 112889004 Date: Nov es
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AF3
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 021390003 Date: Feb 90
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 0213900030 Date: Mar SO
Title: Pit Q-51 (NPL Site) Operable Unit to B3001
Focused Feasibility Study
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 3.9
Author: COE (Tulsa)
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 030790022 Date: Mar SO
Title: Pit Q-51 (NPL Site) Operable Unit Bldg 3001
Proposed Plan
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 3.10
Author: COE
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 031990001 Date: Mar 90
Title: TAFB Public Notice for Pit Q-51 Proposed Plan
(Public Comment Period / Public Meeting Notice)
Type: Newspaper Clipping
Category: 7.1
Author: Tinker AFB Public Affairs Office
Recipient: The Daily Oklahoman (Public)
-------
Document Number: 040590042 Date: Apr 90
Title: Building 3001 (NPL Site) Cleanup Plans April
1990, Tinker Air Force Base [incl. Pit Q-5i;
Type: Public Meeting Handout
Category: 7.5
Author: Tinker AFB Environmental Management Directorate
Recipient: Public
Note: Handout is located at end of Public Meeting
Transcript (see Below).
Document Number: 040590042 Date: Apr 90
Title: Transcript... Public Meeting...Building 3001 NPL
Proposed Plan [incl. Pit Q-51 Proposed Plan'
Type: Final Transcript
Category: 7.4
Author: Tinker AFB Judge Advocate Office
Recipient: Public
Document Number: 043090006 Date: Undated
(Apr 90)
Title: Public Comment on Proposed Plan...Pit Q-51
Type: Public Correspondence
Category: 6.2
Author: Mr J.R. Reid
Recipient: TAFB via EPA
Document Number: 041890010 Date: Apr 90
Title: Public Comment on Proposed Plan...Pit Q-51
Type: Public Correspondence (via EPA)
Category: 6.2
Author: Fred Jones
Recipient: TAFB via EPA
Document Number: 042790004 Date: Apr 90
Title: Public Comment on Proposed Plan...Pit Q-51
Type: Public Correspondence
Category: 6.2
Author: Kent Engineering (Kent Myers)
Recipient: TAFB via EPA
-------
Document Number: 051590003 Date: May 90
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 053190001 Date:'May 90
Title: Ltr. From Environmental Pullution Health
Concerns Coalition requesting to join Tinker's
TRC & TWG.
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Mr. John Bowman (Chairman)
Recipient: TAFB (Environmental office - Maj Cornell)
Document Number: 062590001 Date: Jun 90
Title: Response Ltr. to Mr Bowman's request to join
Tinker's TRC & TWG.
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: Mr. John Bowman, Chairman
Environmental Pollution Health
Concerns Coalition
Document Number: 071990001 Date: Jul 90
Title: OSDH (the state) concurs with B3001, N. Tank
Area, Pit Q-51 Record of Decision (ROD)
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Mark Coleman (OSDH)
Recipient: Mr. Robert Layton (EPA Region VI)
Document Number: 07319046 Date: Jul 90
Title: Tinker AFB Installation Restoration Program
Community Relation Plan, Jul 90 version
Type: ComRel Plan
Category: 7.0
Author: TAFB
Recipient: Public
-------
Document Number: 800001004 Date: Undated
Title: EPA Region 6 Index of various EPA technical
& guidence documents
Type: References Index
Category: 8.2
Author: EPA Staff Consultants
Recipient:'U.S. EPA Region 6 Site Files
Document Number: 081590094 Date: Aug SO
Title: Building 3001 (NPL Site) Record of Decision
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Type: ROD for B3001, N. Tank Area, Pit Q51
Category: 6.1
Author: COE Tulsa
Recipient: TAFB, EPA, OSDH, Public
Document Number: 081590094 Date: Aug 90
Title: ROD B3001, Appendix A...Responsiveness Summary
Type: Final response to public period comments
Category: 7.6
Author: COE Tulsa/TAFB
Recipient: Public, TAFB, EPA, OSDH
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
NORTH TANK AREA OPERABLE UNIT
(Building 3001)
INDEX #3
Document Number: 092484001 Date: Sep 84
Title: State Inspection Report
Type: Correspondence
Category: ,2.4
Author: Mr. Ron Jarman (OWRB)
Recipient: Mr. Edgar Jeffrey (EPA)
Document Number: 110684431 Date: Nov 84
Title: Bldg 3001 & Soldier Creek Drainage Area, Tinker
Air Force Base...NPL scoring package.
Type: Final EPA NPL Scoring
Category: 1.1
Author: EPA
Recipient: EPA/Tinker AFB
Document Number: 121284001 Date: Dec S4
Title: Proposed establishment of the Technical Review-
Committee (TRC)
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Col. Danny Rivera (TAFB)
Recipient: MR. William Hathaway (EPA)
Document Number: 011585004 Date: Jan 85
Title: Minutes of Preliminary Technical Review
Committee (TRC) Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 012385001 Date: Jan 85
Title: Jenkins Dunbar appointed OSDH rep. to TRC
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Mr. Don Hensch (OSDH)
Recipient: Mr. Helmberger (TAFB)
-------
Document Number: 020185001 Date: Feb 85
Title: Tinker nominated as NPL candidate
Type: Memo
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Dick Whittington (EPA)
Recipient:. Mr. Jack McGray (EPA)
Document Number: 020685002 Date: Feb 85
Title: Establishment of the TRC
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Maj. Gen. Burpee (TAFB)
Recipient: Mr. Dick Whittington (EPA)
t
Document Number: 031285001 Date: Mar 85
j Title: Publication of Tinker ARB on the NPL
Type: Correspondence
* Category: 2.4
1 Author: Mr. Sam Nott (EPA)
Resicpient: H.A. Caves
4
Document Number: 032285001 Date: Mar 85
j Title: Appointment of Drew Puffer as TRC rep. for EPA
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Mr. Dick Whittington (EPA)
Recipient: Ma j . Gen. Burpee (TAFB)
Document Number: 042285002 Date: Apr 85
Title: Minutes of TRC meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Authcr: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
-------
Document Number: 043085002 Date: Apr 85
Title: Appointment of Mark Coleman as OSDH rep To TRC
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Gov. George Nigh (OK)
Recipient:.Maj. Gen. Burpee (TAFB)
Document Number: 082085005 Date: Aug 85
Title: Minutes of TRC meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Auothor: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 101585275 Date: Get: 85
Title: Phase II - Confirmation/Quantification Stage 2,
Vol 1
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 1.4
Author: Radian Corporation
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 101585619M Date: Oct 85
Title: Phase II - Confirmation/Quantification Stage 2,
Vol 2 (Appendices)
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 1.4
Author: Radian Corporation
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 111985003 Date: Nov 85
Title: Minutes of TRC meeitng, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
-------
Document Number: 011889001 Date: Jan 89
'-tie: OSDH Identifies Project Coordinator and
Alternate
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. M. Coleman (OSDH)
Recipient: Col. Ray Reaves (TAFB)
Document Number: 012089001 Date: Jar. £9
Title: FFA public comment period notice
Type: Newspaper Clipping
Category: 7.1
Author: Tinker AFB
Recipient: Public
Document Number: 020689001 Date: Feb 89
Title: Ltr Thanking Mr. Prince III in agreeing to join
Tinker's TRC.
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Maj. d. Cornell (TAFB)
Recipient: Mr. Peter G. Prince III
Document Number: 022189005 Date: Feb S9
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 0223£9003 Date: Feb 89
Title: Signed TRC Charter
Type: Charter document
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
-------
Document Number: 022889005 Date: Feb 69
Title: Corps of Engineers (Tulsa) comments on FFA
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.3
Author: Mr. F. Parker (COE)
Recipient; Mr. T. Underwood (EPA)
Document Number: 043089009 Date: Apr 89
Title: Response to Public Comments Tinker AFB Federal
Facility Agreement Under CERCLA Section 120
Administrative Docket Number NPL-U3-2-27
Type: Comment Response (Final)
Category: 7.2
Author: COE/TAFB
Recipient: EPA / Public
Document Number: 052289006 Date: May 89
Title: EPA FFA (IAG) effective date
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. S. Becker (EPA Region VI)
Recipient: Mr. A. Lawrence (TAFB)
Document Number: 052389003 Date: May 89
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 060289001 Date: Jun £9
Title: EPA Public Notice on availability to the TAG
Type: Newspaper Clipping
Category: 7.1
Author: EPA
Recipient: Public
-------
I
Document Number: 051788004 Date: May SS
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient-: TRC members
Document Number: 051988002 Date: May 88
Title: Comments on Tinker AFB Health Assessment
Type: Memo
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Sven Rodenbeck
Recipient: Carl Hickham (ATSDR)
Document Number: 052088019 Date: Mav S3
| Title: Health Assessment for Tinker AFB NPL Site
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
j Type: Final (IRP) Report
' Category: 4.1
Author: Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry
U.S. Public Health Service (ATSDR)
I Recipient: Tinker AFB / EPA
Document Number: 062488001 Date: Jun 88
Title: Schedule for FFA (IAG) Negotiations
Type: Table memo
Category: 2.4
Author: Ms. S. Turner (EPA)
Recipient: File (EPA)
Document Number: 063088036 Date: Jun 88
Title: Hydrocarbon Abatement Proposal, North Fuel Tank
Area, Tinker AFB (Bldg 3001)
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 5.2
Author: Groundwater Technology, Inc
Recipient: TAFB via COE (Tulsa)
-------
Document Number: 032787003 Date: Mar 87
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient:. TRC members
Document Number: 051987003 • Date: May 87
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 072287015 Date: Jul 87
Title: Federal Register, Part III, EPA (40CFR Part 300)
Type: EPA Document
Category: 1.2
Author: EPA
Recipient: Public
Document Number: 08258700 Date: Aug 87
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 111887003 Date: Nov S7
Title: Invitation Ltr for EPA visit for Health
Assessment Team
Type: TAFB correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Maj. J. Jorgensen (TAFB)
Recipient: 1 Ltr to ea. EPA, OSDH, COE
-------
Document Number: 111987004 Date: Nov 87
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient; TRC members
Document Number: 011588151 Date: Jan 88
Title: Building 3001 Remedial Investigation Vol 1
Report
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 3.7
Author: COE
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 011588693Q Date: Jan 88
Title: Building 3001 Remedial Investigation Vol 2
Appendices
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 3.7
Author: COE
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 021688004 Date: Feb 88
Title: Minutes of TRC Meetings, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 031588119 Date: Mar 88
Title: Sampling and Analysis Plan Revision 1
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 3.2
Author: COE
Recipient: TAFB
-------
Document Number: 021886003 Date: Fefc 86
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient; TRC members
Document Number: 052086004 Date: May 86
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 081886003 Date: Aug 86
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 012687004 Date: Jan 87
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 041687001 Date: Apr 87
(Received)
Title: Implemeting SARA with TAFB's IRP work
Type: EPA Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Robert Hannessclager (EPA Region VI)
Recipient: Col. Ray Reaves (TAFB)
-------
Document Number: 062689001 Date: Jun 89
Title: TAFB announces new EM Director, Proj Coordinator
and Project alternate
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Ma-j. D. Cornell (TAFB)
Recipient: EPA (OSDH)
Document Number: 082289004 Date: Aug 89
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 092189001 Date: Sep 89
Title: EPA Announces new Superfund Enforcement Branch
Chief
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.3
Author: Mr. S. Becker (EPA Region VI)
Recipient: Mr. A. Lawrence (TAFB)
Document Number: 10028902 Date: Oct 89
Title: EPA Approves Deadline Schedule
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. S. Becker (EPA Region VI)
Recipient: Mr. A. Lawrence (TAFB)
Document Number: 112889004 Date: Nov 89
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
-------
Document Number: 021390003 Date: Feb SC
Title: Minutes of TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient; TRC members
Document Number: 0312900024 Date: Mar 90
Title: North Tank Area (NPL Site) Operable Unit to
B3001 Design summary Report
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 3.9
Author: COE (Tulsa)
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 031990001 Date: Mar 90
Title: TAFB Public Notice for North Tank Area Design
Summary Report (Public Comment Period / Public
Meeting Notice)
Type: Newspaper Clipping
Category: 7.1
Author: Tinker AFB Public Affairs Office
Recipient: The Daily Oklahoman (Public)
Document Number: 040590042 Date: Apr 90
Title: Building 3001 (NPL Site) Cleanup Plans April
1990, Tinker AFB [incl. N. Tank Area;
Type: Public Meeting Handout
Category: 7.5
Author: Tinker AFB Environmental Management Directorate
Recipient: Public
Note: Handout is located at end of Public Meeting
Transcript (see next listing).
-------
Document Number: 040590042 Date: Apr 90
Title: Transcript. . .Public Meeting. . .Building 3001 N'PL
Proposed Plan [incl. N. Tank Area Report]
Type: Final Transcript
Category: 7.4
Author: tinker AFB Judge Advocate Office
Recipient: Public
Document Number: 043090006 Date: Undated
(Apr 90)
Title: Public Comment on N. Tank Area Design Sun. Rep.
Type: Public Correspondence
Category: 6.2
| Author: Mr J.R. Reid
' Recipient: TAFB via EPA
{ Document Number: 041890010 Date: Apr 90
Title: Public Comment on N. Tank Area Design Sur.. Rep.
Type: Public Correspondence (via EPA)
Category: 6.2
Author: Fred Jones
• Recipient: TAFB via EPA
I Document Number: 042790004 Date: Apr 90
Title: Public Comment on N. Tank Area Design Sum. Rep.
Type: Public Correspondence
Category: 6.2
Author: Kent Engineering (Kent Myers)
Recipient: TAFB via EPA
Document Number: 051590003 Date: May 90
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
-------
Document Number: 053190001 Date: May 90
Title: Ltr. From Environmental Pullution Health
Concerns Coalition requesting to join Tinker's
TRC & TWG.
Type: Correspondence
Category: J7.7
Author: Mr. John Bowman (Chairman)
Recipient: TAFB (Environmental office - Maj Cornell)
Document Number: 062590001 Date: Jun 90
Title: Response Ltr. to Mr Bowman's request to join
Tinker's TRC & TWG.
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: Mr. John Bowman, Chairman
Environmental Pollution Health
Concerns Coalition
Document Number: 071990001 Date: Jul 90
Title: OSDH (the state) concurs with B3001, N. Tank
Area, Pit Q-51 Record of Decision (ROD)
Type: Correspondence
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Mark Coleman (OSDH)
Recipient: Mr. Robert Layton (EPA Region VI)
Document Number: 07319046 Date: Jul 90
Title: Tinker AFB Installation Restoration Program
Community Relation Plan, Jul 90 version
Type: ComRel Plan
Category: 7.0
Author: TAFB
Recipient: Public
-------
Document Number: 071588161 Date: Aug 88
Title: Risk Assessment of the Building 3001 Site, TAF3
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 4.3
Author: COE
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 102488005 Date: Aug 88
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 100388001 Date: oct 85
Title: Delegation of CERCLA authority on Tinker AFB to
EPA Region VI
Type: Memo
Category: 2.4
Author: Mr. Winston Porter (EPA)
Recipient: Mr. Robert Layton (EPA Region 6)
Document Number: 102588004 Date: Oct S3
Title: Ltr requesting discussion of the TRC Charter in
the next TRC meeting
Type : Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Recipient: TRC members
Document Number: 111588006 . Date: Nov 83
Title: Minutes of the TRC Meeting, Tinker AFB
Type: TRC Minutes
Category: 7.7
Author: TAFB
Rcipient: TRC memebers
-------
Document Number: 120988064 Date: Dec 83
Title: Federal Facility Agreement Under CERCLA Secticr.
120 (Admin. Docket # NPL-U3-2-27)
Type: Final - Tinker FFA
Category: 2.2
Author: DOD/EPA
Recipient:' EPA/OSDH/Tinker AFB / Public
Document Number: 121688001 Date: Dec S3
Title: FFA is signed by Tinker AFB, EPA & OSDH
Type: Newspaper Clipping
Category: 7.5
Author: Tinker Take Off
Recipient: Public
Document Number: 121588154 Date: Dec S3
Title: Safety and Occupational Health Plan for CCE
Personnel Revision 1
Type: Final (IRP) Report
Category: 4.1
Author: COE
Recipient: TAFB
Document Number: 122288001 Date: Dec 83
Title: Ltr requesting Mr. Peter G. Prince III to join
The TRC as a public member.
Type: Correspondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Col. Ray Reaves (TAFB)
Recipient: Mr. Peter G. Prince III
Document Number: 010589001 Date: Jan 89
Title: Mr. Prince III accepts the invitation to join
the TRC.
Type: Coreespondence
Category: 7.7
Author: Mr. Peter G. Prince III
Recipient: Col. Ray Reaves (TAFB)
-------
Document Number: 800001004 Date: Undated
Title: EPA Region 6 Index of various EPA technical
& guidence documents
Type: References Index
Category: 8.2
Author: EPA Staff Consultants
Recipient": U.S. EPA Region 6 Site Files
Document Number: 081590094 Date: Aug 9(
Title: Building 3001 (NPL Site) Record of Decision
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Type: ROD for B3001, N. Tank Area, Pit Q51
Category: 6.1
Author: COE Tulsa
Recipient: TAFB, EPA, OSDH, Public
Document Number: 081590094 Date: Aug 90
Title: ROD B3001, Appendix A...Responsiveness Summary
Type: Final response to public period comments
Category: 7.6
Author: COE Tulsa/TAFB
Recipient: Public, TAFB, EPA, OSDH
------- |