United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R10-92/038
June 1992
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Mountain Home Air Force
-------
NOTICE.
The appendices listed in the index that are not found in this document have been removed at the request of
the issuing agency. They contain material which supplement. but adds no further applicable information to
the content of the document. All supplemental material is, however. contained in the administrative record
-------
50272-1 01
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPOATNO.
. PAGE EPA/ROD/R10-92/038
I ~
3. Recipient. Aao8s8Ion No.
t. TIde 8nd SubtItle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Mountain Horne Air Force Base, ID
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Aulhor(.)
5. Report DaI8
06/16/92
6.
8. Performing OrpnIDIIon Rapt. No.
II. Performing OrgeInlullon Name 8nd Addr-.
10. ProjectfT88IIIWortI UnIt No.
11. ConIr8ct(C) or Gr8nI(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. 8poneorIng OrpnlZllllon Name 8nd Addr88
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report . PerIod Covered
Agency
800/000
1..
15. Supplemenl8ry Note8
PB93-964605
16. Abatr8Ct(UmIt: 2OOw0rd8)
The 7-acre Mountain Horne Air Force Base (AFB) site is a fire department training area
located in Mountain Horne, Elmore County, Idaho. Land use in the area is predominantly
rural and agricultural. An estimated 6,990 people residing within 0.6 mile of the
site and several farmers in the vicinity use ground water to irrigate agricultural
lands. From 19&2 to 1975, the Mountain Horne Air Force Base used the site for fire
department training exercises. From 1962 to 1975, the fuel used in the fire training
~xercises was either clean fuel AVGAS or JP-4, or fuels from flight line defueling
operations. Since 1975, only clean JP-4 has been used in the exercises. Each
exercise began by saturating the bermed training area with water, followed directly by
applying 250 to 500 gallons of fuel. The flames were extinguished with Aqueous Film
Forming Foam (AFFF), or prior to 1972, with a water-based protein foam. The training
session was completed with a post-exercise ignition of the residual fuel in a bermed
area. The USAF investigations identified solvents and petroleum, oil, lubricant (POL)
wastes in the soil. Under the Installation Restoration Program (IRP), the USAF
conducted a record search, drilling, and sampling of soil borings to bedrock, the
installation of monitoring wells, and hand auger samples. Corrective measures that
(See Attached Page)
17. Document An8IyeI. L o.-tptore
Record of Decision - Mountain
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: None
Key Contaminants: None
Horne Air Force Base, ID
b. IdenIlfler8lOpen-£ndod T-.
c. COSA 11 FlelcWGroup
18. Av.I8Ift" St8I8ment
111. Sealrity CIaa (11118 Report)
None
20. SecurIty CIaa (ThI8 P8g8)
1\1n.,<>
21. No. of P81J88
74
I
22. PrIce
(See ANSIoZ3I.18)
S.1n8fnlctlon8 OIl ~
272 (4.77)
(Formerly NT1S-35)
-------
"
EPA/ROD/R10-92/038
Mountain Home Air Force Base, ID
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
were taken included placing warning signs, deactivating the burn pit in 1986, and
installing ground water monitoring wells. This ROD provides a final remedy for onsite
soil as OU4. Future RODs will address ground water contamination as a separate operable
unit. Because contaminants were found at such low concentrations, the soil was covered
by crushed asphalt and has little potential to impact ecological receptors. The soil
poses low risks for humans at the site and no remediation is necessary. Therefore, there
are no contaminants of concern at the site.
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action. Based on the results of
the human health risk assessment the USAF, EPA, and the state have determined that
chemicals remaining in the soil pose no unacceptable risks to human health or the
environment. There are no costs associated with this no action remedy.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
-------
"
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
MOUNTAIN HOME AIR FORCE BASE, SITE 8
FIRE TRAINING AREA 8, OPERABLE UNIT 4
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Paqe
I.
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
1
II.
SITE HISTORY, RESPONSE HISTORY, AND ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES
2
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
5
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT AND RESPONSE ACTION
6
V.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
7
VI.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
11
VII. THE SELECTED REMEDY
19
VIII.EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
19
:I
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FIGURES AND TABLES
-------
~
MOUNTAIN HOKE A:tR FORCE BASE, MOUNTA:tN HOKE, :tDAHO
DECLARAT:tON FOR THE RECORD OF DEC:tS:tON - S:tTE 8
F:tRE TRA:tN:tNG AREA 8, OPERABLE UN:tT .. '
S:tTE NAME AND LOCAT:tON
Mountain Home Air Force Base, site 8
Fire Training Area 8" Operable unit 4
Mountain Home, Elmore County, Idaho
STATEMENT OF BASIS'AND PURPOSE
31
This decision document presents the selected final remedial action
for Fire Training Area ,8 (Site 8) at Mountain Home Air Force Base
in Mountain Home, Idaho. 'rhe selected remedy was chosen in
accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and, to the extent
practicable, the National oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the
Administrative Record for this operable unit.
The lead. agency for. this decision is the U.S. Air Force. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) approves of this decision
and, along with the state of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
(IDHW) , has participated in the evaluation of .remedial
investigation data. The state of Idaho concurs with the selected
remedy.
DESCR:tPT:tON OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
No remedial action is the recommendation of the U.s. Air Force,
,USEPA, and IDHW. This decision is based on ,the results of the
human heal th risk assessment. The assessment determined that
chemicals remaining in the soil pose no unacceptable risks to human
health or the environment under current and future use scenarios.
DECLARAT:tON STATEMENT
The no action remedy is protective of human heal th and the
environment. Because this remedy will not result in hazardous
substances remaining on site above health-based levels that allow
for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory five-year
review will not apply to this action.
-------
signature sheet for the foregoing Fire Training Area'site 8 Record
of Decision between the u.s. Air Force and the u.s. Environmental
Protection Agency, with concurrence by the' Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare.
~~
b /1 /:;/crz
Date
Dana A. Rasmussen
Regional Administrator, Region 10
U.s. Environmental Protection Agency
:;
-------
signature sheet for the foregoing Fire Training Area site 8
Record of Decision between the u.s. Air Force and the u.s.
Environmental Protection Agency, with concurrence by the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare.
~~~
signature -
Col. william S. Hinton
Commander, 366th wing
united states Air Force
Mountain Home AFB, Idaho
J#
(M:\89114\Q\114QFTA8.ROD/jdg/cee)(RO~)
Mountain Home AFB - FTA8, OU-4 ~ v
8 &t-1~
Date
05-05-92
-------
/ signature sheet for the foregoing Fire Training Area site 8 Record
of Decision between the u.s. Air force and the u.s. Environmental
Prot on Agency, with concurrence by the Idaho Department of
He th d Welf
.:..J
~- 7-7-2-
Date
gnature
Richard A~ Donovan
Director
Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare
J#
-------
DECZSZON SUMMARY - SZTE 8
PZRB TRAZNZNG AREA 8, OPERABLE UNZT 4
MOUNTAZN HOME AZR FORCE BASE
MOUNTAZN HOME, ZDAHO
ZNTRODUCTZON
In accordance with Executive Order 12580 (Superfund Implementation)
and the National oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution contingency
Plan (NCP), the U. S. Air Force (USAF) performed a Remedial
Investigation (RI) for Fire Training Area 8 (Site 8). The RI
characterized the nature and extent of contamination in soils at
site 8 (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1991). A Baseline Risk
Assessment was conducted to evaluate potential effects of the
contaminants remaining in th~ soils on human health.
Z.
SZTE NAME, LOCATZON, AND DESCRZPTZON
"
Mountain Home AFB is located about 10 miles southwest of Mountain
Home in Elmore County, Idaho (Figure 1). The Base occupies an area
of 9 square miles. si te 8 is located on Mountain Home AFB
southeast of the power check pads on the southeast end of Taxiway
B in the Northeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 4 South, Range
5 East (Figure 2).
Mountain Home AFB is located in a rural agricultural area. Several
of the farmers in the vicinity of the Base use groundwater to
irrigate agricultural lands. The total resident population of
Mountain Home AFB is about 6,990 people living in about 1,500
housing units (United States Air Force, 1987). The nearest
residence to site 8 is located on the Base and is approximately 0.6
miles north-northeast.
The topography at site 8 is essentially flat. A gentle downward
slope toward the western site boundary directs surface water runoff
to a drainage ditch running parallel with the western site boundary
(see Figure 3). The drainage ditch flows to the southwest where it
enters a concrete culvert, and then continues through a buried 36-
inch storm drain line which runs due south. The storm drain
-------
finally empties into the drainage ditch which crosses the southern
Base boundary near the Prime Beef training area.
u .
The Fire Training Area 8 site is adjoined by the existing fire
training area to the northeast. Each fire training area occupies
an area of approximately 485 by 500 feet. The two areas are
completely surrounded by an 8-foot-high chain-link fence which is
topped with barbed wire and secured with three locked gates. The
on-site $tructures consist of one three-story building, one single-
story shed, and a burn area in which a steel skeleton mock airplane
is encircled by a 1-foot-high earthen berm 125 feet in diameter
(Figure 3). Additional site facilities include a fire hydrant, a
15,OOO-gallon underground fuel storage tank, fuel transfer lines,
an oil/water separator system, and two small pad areas at the
southern end of the site for car fires and lifesaving training.
The drainage system at site 8 was installed in 1986, but was never'
used because fire training activities were halted that year. A
trench drain is located on the north side of. the bermed area
(Figure 3).
:n:.
SITE HISTORY, RESPONSE HISTORY, AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A. site History
Site 8 was the Mountain Home AFB fire department
1962 to 1986. The active fire training area
north and adjacent to site 8.
training area .from
is located to the
Fire training exercises were conducted at site 8 tWLce per week
from 1962-1975 and three times per month during the summer and one
time per month during the. winter from 1975-1986. Each exercise was
initiated by saturating the bermed training area with water
fo.llowed directly with the application of 250 to 500 gallons of
fuel. Once ignited, the fuel burned for approximately 10 seconds
before the flames were extinguished with "Aqueous Film Forming
Foam" (AFFF). Prio~ to. 1972, a water-based protein foam
extinguisher was used. The training session was completed with a
post-exercise ignition of the residual fuel in the bermed area.
-------
.From 1962 to 1975, fuel used in the fire training exercises was
either clean fuel (AVGAS or JP-4) or. fuels from flight line
defueling operations that, once removed from the aircraft, are
considered contaminated. AVGAS was used from 1962 to 1968, by
which time the Base was entirely converted to F4s, which use JP-4.
Since 1975, only clean JP-4 has been used in the exercises.
contaminated fuel from the flight line was used in fewer than one
third of the training exercises. contaminants likely to be found
in fuel removed ~rom aircraft were water and trace amounts of
lubricants.
There may have been isolated occurrences of other fuels being mixed
with the AVGAS or JP-4 used in fire training exercises. For
example, on one occasion approximately 200 gallons of clean diesel
fuel from the U. S. Army was mixed with the standard fuels used in
the exercises.
~
Analysis of site 8 soils showed the. presence of compounds
associated with solvents and petroleum, oil, lubricant (POL)
wastes. Although it was not common practice to use these materials
during fire training exercises, it is possible that relatively
small quantities of these wastes were used on occasion.
Until approximately 1972, the fire extinguishing agent used at site
8 was a protein foam that was mixed with water and became aerated
upon dispersal. It did not contain halogenated methane compounds.
Since 1972, AFFF has been used in the exercises. AFFF, a 3M brand,
FC-203CE, is a water-based mixture made up of 60 percent water and
30 percent diethylene glycol monobutyl ether (CAS #112-34-5). The
remain~ng 10 percent of the AFFF is composed of surfactants and
stabilizers. It is a synthetic material that evaporates in air; it
does not contain halogenated methane compounds.
Chlorodibromomethane (CBM) was not used to extinguish fires at the
site because of the cost, weight, and difficulty of filling the
extinguishers and servicing the vehicles that transport CBM.
-------
-~
B. Response History
To assure compliance with CERCLA regulations, the Department of
Defense (DOD) developed the Installation Restoration Program (IRP).
The IRP is the basis for response actions on Air Force
installations under the provisions of CERCLA. The IRP "is a
multiphased, iterative process designed to identify. and
characterize hazardous and/or toxic waste sites and implement
remedial actions on the site in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Under the IRP the USAF has conducted several phases of
investigations at site 8 which included a record search, drilling
and sampling of soil borings to bedrock, the installation of
monitoring wells and hand auger samples.
J
Mountain Home AFB was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL)
in August 1990. The U.s. Air Force, (USAF), USEPA and IDHW have
identified sites to investigate and/or clean up under a tri-party
Federal Facility Agreement (FFA).
This agreement has been in place since January, 1991.
c. Enforcement Activities
In .November, 1987, EPA Region X issued a Notice of Noncompliance
(NON) under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) to
Mountain Home AFB, consistent with Executive Order 12088 (Federal
Compliance with Pollution Control Standards), for several
violations of hazardous waste storage, treatment, and disposal.
Fire Training Area 8 was included as one of the sites where
improper waste disposal practices occurred.
Corrective measures that were taken included: the placement of
warning signs, the deactivation of the burn pit in 1986 and .the
installation of qroundwater monitorinq wells. Since site 8 is .
being addressed under Superfund by incorporation into the FFA, no
further corrective measures need to be addressed under the NON.
-------
III.
HIGHLIGHTS OP COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Public participation requirements under CERCLA sections
113(k) (2) (B) (i-v) and 117 were satisfied during the RI/FS process.
The Mountain Home AFB Public Affairs Office has been primarily
responsible for conducting the community relations program. The
following community relations activities were conducted during this
RI/FS process.
.
Creation of a Community Relations Plan.
.
Establishment of Administrative Record repositories at the
following locations:
1)
Mountain Home Public Library
790 North 10 East
Mountain Home, Idaho 83647
Phone: (208) 587-4716
1,1
2)
U.S. Environmental Protection
422 West Washington
Boise, Idaho 83702
Phone: (208) 334-9047
Agency
.
Creation and distribution of a Proposed Plan for the no
action alternative at the site.' The purpose of the
Proposed Plan was to provide the public and. any interested
parties with the information which was used to come to the
"no action" determination, and to announce the public
comment period and public meeting dates.
.
Periodic news releas~s and fact sheets announcing various
on-site activities, results of investigations, and
explanations of the investigative process. These included:
1)
A news release on January 7, 1992, to the list of
contacts and interested parties noted in the community
Relations Plan and to various local .newspapers, radio
stations, and television stations advertising the
-------
.
~
.
:J
.
.
.0
public meeting for Site 8 at Mountain Home High School
on January 22, 1992
2)
A paid advertisement in the Idaho Statesman and local
Mountain Home newspapers which was run from January
16, 1992, through January 22, 1992, announcing the
January 22, 1992, public meeting at Mountain Home High
School
Development of a mailing list composed of persons that are
interested in the project, as well as public officials
A public comment period on .the no action alternative from
January 7, 1992, to February 5, 1992
A public meeting to discuss the no action alternative and
to receive public comments on January 22, 1992, at the
Mountain Home High School, Mountain Home, Idaho
Oral and written comments were considered in selection of
the no action alternative. The comments and responses are
summarized in the Responsiveness Summary section of this
ROD.
A responsiveness summary addressing comments and questions
received during the public comment period on the RItFS and
proposed plan is included with this Record of Decision as
Appendix A.
. Public interest in site 8 has been low throughout
site investigative activities. No public concerns
been raised during this time period.
IV.
the history of
or issues have
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT AND RESPONSE ACTION
The sites that are being investigated at Mountain Home AFB have
been divided into 4 operable units (OUs) as described below.
.
ODerable unit; 1. Consists of 20 sites which are being
evaluated under a Limited Field Investigation (LFI). The
-------
LFI study' will ascertain whether potential source areas
with limited information on hazardous waste activity
warrant further remedial investigation, interim remedial
action, or no further action.
.
ODerable unit 2. Includes two former landfills currently
undergoing an RI and baseline risk assessment.
.
ODerable Unit 3. consists of a basewide groundwater RI
which will evaluate the actual and potential threat to the
groundwater from contaminants associated with source areas
at the base. In addition, a basewide ecological risk
assessment will be performed.
.
ODerable Unit 4.' A source control RI and baseline risk
assessment was conducted on the soils at site 8.
:I
Th~ Mountain Home Fire Training Area 8 Remedial Investigation
evaluated the nature and extent of contamination in the soils.
Based on the results of the RI and Baseline Risk Assessment no
remedial action under CERCLA is necessary to ensure protection of
human health or the environment. Groundwater contamination an~ a
basewide ecological assessment will be addressed in a sperate
operable unit.
since the no action decision does not result in hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above
health based levels that preclude unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure, a five year review is not necessary.
v."
SUMMARY OP SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
site Geology and Hydrogeology
Figure 6 shows a geologic map of the Mountain Home AFB area. The
Mountain Home Plateau is underlain by over 10,000 feet of volcanic'
and sedimentary rocks which were deposited on the Idaho Batholith~
The primary geologic groups of concern under site 8 are. the Idaho
Group and'the Snake River Group. The uppermost unit of the Idaho
Group is the Bruneau Formation which is made up of predominantly
-------
basalt flows. with laterally
sedimentary deposits. Overlying
flows of the Snake River Group.
discontinuous unconsolidated
the Idaho Group are the basalt
The basalt sequence of the Snake River Group consists of overlying
layers of individual basalt flows with interbed deposits. The
basalt flows are characterized by horizontal zones (flow tops),
. flow int~riors and vertical discontinuities (fractures). The
interbed deposits range from unconsolidated to semiconsolidated
silts and clays to gravel.
A diagrammatic cross-section of the .local geology is shown on
Figure 4. Soils within site 8 consist of a layer of unconsolidated
silt and sand, ranging in thickness from 12 to 21 feet, which
overlies a thick sequence of basalt and interbed sediments.
~
Groundwater in the vicinity of Mountain Home AFB is present in both
volcanic basalt and associated interflow zones. The regional
aquifer is developed within the deep Glenns Ferry Formation and the
Bruneau Formation of the Idaho Group.
Groundwater at Mountain Home AFB is obtained from nine production
wells completed in the Bruneau Formation (see. locations on Figure
5). These base production wells range in depth from 379 feet to
610 feet below ground surface (BGS). The water table at the Base
occurs at a depth of about 350 feet BGS.
Regional groundwater flow is from araas of recharge to areas of
discharge. In the vicinity of Mountain Home AFB, the regional
groundwater flow (1981) is in a southerly direction toward the
Snake River at a gradient of about 1 foot per 200 feet. Local
groundwater flow directions and gradients vary and are difficult to
determine. Additional data are required to determine the effects
of base production well, and off-site pumping on the local
groundwater flow direction and gradient.
No surface water bodies are present in the vicinity of site 8. Any
precipitation which accumulates on the si~e either ponds on the
surface pending evaporation or infiltration, or runs off the site
to the drainage ditch on the northwestern side of the site.
-------
Most surface water on the Base drains to Canyon Creek via a series
of ditches that collect and direct runoff to a stormwater lift
station on the western boundary of the Base. On rare occasions,
after heavy rainfall, stormwater can be transferred to the Base
sewage lagoons by lift pumps. Located about 4 miles west of the
Base, Canyon Creek is an intermittent stream which drains into the
Snake River. The Snake River is located about 2.5 miles south of
the Base and flows through a canyon 300 to 500 feet deep. Springs
along the north canyon wall of the Snake River are discharge points
for the regional aquifer.
Adjacent land use at Site 8 consists of industrial and service
oriented activities for Base personnel. These facilities include
,horse stables to the north and east, aircraft taxiways and runway
to the west, and other associated structures. The nearest resident
to site 8 is approximately 0.6 miles to the northeast in the Base
housing area.
181
B.
Nature and Extent of contamination
To identify the nature and extent of contamination, soil samples
were collected from a total of fourteen borings to bedrock and six
surface soil sampling locations. Surface and subsurface soils from
boring samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbon (TRPH), and lead. Surface
soil samples were analyzed for semi volatile compounds and m~tals.
site-related organic compounds that were identified in soil samples
are acetone, benzene, 2-butanone (methyl ethyl ketone) ,
ethylbenzene, 4-methyl-2-pentanone (methyl isobutyl ketone),
, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethylene, toluene,
trichloroethylene, and xylenes. Results show the highest
concentrations are generally within and below the bermed area;
concentrations decrease with depth (vertically) and horizontally
from the bermed area. Soils below the bermed area contain
-detectable concentrations of chemicals ~o bedrock (the top of the
basalt, approximately 10 to 13 feet below ground surface). TRPH
analyses also show that surface soils contain more than, 1,000 ppm
in an area extending about 150 feet north and northwest of the
bermed area (Figure 6). South and east of the bermed area, the
1,000 ppm TRPH surface soil isopleth coincides with the bermed area
-------
boundary. At depth, the extent of the 1,000 ppm TRPH zone is
mostly confined to the upper 8 feet, except a point directly below
the bermed area where the 1,000 ppm TRPH concentration is found at
depths up to 10 feet. Arsenic was detected in concentrations
ranging from 2.3 mg/kg to 3.2 mg/kg. Cadmium was not detected in
any of the six samples. Chromium was detected in all samples in
concentrations ranging from 8.7 mg/kg to 10.6 mg/kg. . Lead
concentrations ranged from 8.7 mg/kg to 41 mg/kg, with one sample
at 500 mg/kg. Analytical results are shown in Tables 1 to 8, and
11.
The background metals data set consists of a number of soil samples
collected during the OU1 investigations from sites that were
determined to be uncontaminated by organic analytes and/or metals
of concern. Background ranges based on this data are summarized in
Table 9. In addition, Table 10 .compares the Mountain Home AFB
background data with literature values for soils in southwest Idaho
and in the United states.
Ji
Metals concentrations detected in soils at site 8 were found not to
exceed background ranges.
In general, mobility of chemicals detected in site 8 soils ranges
from low to high. The compounds with the highest mobility are the
VOCs. VOCs are generally highly soluble in water, do not adsorb to
soil particles readily, and have high vapor pressures making
volatilization into the air a significant mechanism for contaminant
exposure. TRPH has a wide range of values for factors which affect
mobility due to the large number of constituents which make up
TRPH. These constituents have low to moderate mobility based on
solubility. The constituents in TRPH also have a high- adsorption
rate onto soil particles and are generally low to moderately
volatile. The metals are probably the least mobile of the site
contaminants due to their high adsorption to soil, low solubility
in water under normal pH conditions, and their lack of volatility.
All of the site contaminants have the potential to be transported
in fugitive dust emissions if the contaminants exist on or near the
surface.
-------
The carcinogenicity and toxicity of, site chemicals of concern vary
widely. In general, the contaminants with the highest carcinogenic
and toxic' effects are the VOCs. The only VOC which is classified
as a confirmed human carcinogen is benzene. compounds considered
probable carcinogens include methylene chloride, and possibly
tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene (TCE). compounds not
classified as human carcinogens due to lack of data include
,ethylbenzene, 2-butanone, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, toluene, and
xylenes. The higher molecular weight constituents which make up the
majority of TRPH exhibit low carcinogenicity. Acute toxic effects
are also not found for these compounds, and for practical purposes
may be considered nontoxic.
Among the chemicals with noncarcinogenic effects, xylenes and 4-
methyl-2-pentanone are the most toxic. All of these compounds are
volatile organics that may cause adverse health effects via
inhalation exposures if released to air. In addition, exposure
could result from ingestion and ~ermal absorption pathways.
II
VI.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The baseline risk assessment evaluated potential risks to human
health associated with site-specific chemicals, assuming that no
action is taken to remediate the site.
Health risks were evaluated quantitatively for chemicals of concern
in soils following USEPA risk assessment guidance for Superfund
sites (USEPA, ~989c, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.
I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. EPA/540/1-89/002). Exposure
pathways evaluated quantitatively include soil ingesti~~, dermal
contact with soil, and inhalation of vapor-phase and particulate-
bound chemicals released from soil. The groundwater exposure
pathway was evaluated by using a vadose zone fate and transport
model. Lead exposures were modeled using EPA's Integrated
uptake/Biokinet,ic (IUBK) model.
The results of the quantitative risk assessment provide an upper- ,
bound estimate of potential risk under reasonable maximum current
exposure conditions and under hypothetical future on-site
residentia~ exposure conditions. The results of the risk
-------
assessment show that reasonable maximum exposures to soils and
airborne contaminants are not expected to result in adverse
noncarcinogenic health effects (indicated by a hazard index less
than 1.0) or excess cancer risks that exceed cancer risk criteria
used in Superfund (10-4 to 10-6).
A basewide ecological assessment will be performed as part of the
final operable unit for the entire Base (OU3). Site 8 will be
consider~d along with the other sites on the Base as posing
potential risks for ecological receptors.
A.
Data Evaluation and Chemicals of Concern
:4
A total of 84 soil samples from 14 borings and 6 additional surface
soil samples were analyzed for the presence of potentially
hazardous compounds associated with fuels used at the site. .
Surface and subsurface boring samples were analyzed for VOCs, TRPH,
and lead. Surface soil samples were analyzed for semivolatile
compounds and metals. A summary of analytical results for
chemicals detected in the samples is shown in Tables 1 through 5
and 8.
Chemicals of concern are those compounds detected in soils that are
related to past activities at the site and that may pose a health
risk to exposed individuals. Volatile organic chemicals of concern
are acetone, benzene, 2-butanone (methyl e~hyl ketone) ,
ethylbenzene, 4-methyl-2~pentanone (methyl isobutyl. ketone),
tetrachloroethylene, toluene, trichloroethylene '(TCE) ,. and xylenes.
All but three volatile organic compounds that were detected in soil
samples were considered chemicals of concern. Concentrations of
chemicals of concern in s~te so~ls are summarized in Tables 11 and
12.
Hypothetical childhood exposures to lead were addressed via USEPA' s
Integrated Uptake/Biokinetic Model.
Exposures to TRPH were evaluated qualitatively because fuel
mixtures (such as JP-4) are not highly toxic compared to the pure
compounds addressed under CERCLA and there are no toxicity factors
by which to quantitatively evaluate health risks.
-------
No semi volatile compounds were detected in the soil samples
collected for semi volatile analysis. Concentrations of metals of
potential concern (arsenic, cadmium, and chromium) were not
elevated above ranges typically found in soil samples from
unaffected areas at Mountain Home AFB and relevant literature
values. Therefore, they are not considered to be chemicals of
concern.
B.
Exposure Assessment and Chemical Intakes
The exposure assessment included evaluation of tz-ansport mechanisms
for current and future land use scenarios, including wind erosion
and particulate transport, volatilization of soil contaminants to
the atmosphere, and vadose. zone infiltration to groundwater.
Surface water transport was not considered a complete exposure
pathway. A conceptual site model illustrating the various exposure
pathways is shown on Figure 7.
:I
Potentially exposed individuals included:
.
'Fire fighters
Hypothetical trespassers on site
Recreational users at horse stables
site
Base residential receptors
Base employees working near the site
Hypothetical future on-site residents
Future construction or remediation workers
at the site
.
.
adjacent to the
.
.
.
.
Residential, occupational, and recreational exposure points are
shown on Figure 8.
potentially complete exposure pathways for current and future land
use included:
.
Dermal contact with soils at the site
Incidental ingestion of soils at the site
Inhalation of particulate-bound and
contaminants released to air from soils
. volatile
.
.
-------
.
Exposure to groundwater if impacted by chemicals of
concern released from the soil
Transport of chemicals of concern to groundwater by infiltration of
precipitation and irrigation water was addressed using a fate and
transport model.
Mean and reasonable maximum soil concentrations of chemicals of
concern were used to estimate exposures via direct contact and soil
ingestion pathways. Estimates of exposure point concentrations in
air were calculated using air dispersion modeling, based on
estimated emission rates from the soil surface and site-specific
meteorological conditions. The exposure point concentrations were
estimated to support a conservative assessment of potential risks
to the human populations.
»
Chronic daily intakes for each chemical were calculated based on
the exposure point concentrations and pathway-specific intake
assumptions such as inhalation rates, soil ingestion rates, dermal
absorption rates, body weights, exposure frequencies and durations.
The intake assumptions used to estimate chronic daily intakes were
obtained from the Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual (SEAM), the
Exposure Factors Handbook, and USEP~ Region X Supplemental Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Conservative estimates of
specific site-related activities such as exposure frequency were
made after discussion with Base personnel.
Pathway-specific intake assumptions for the three highest exposed
receptors (occupational receptor, remediation worker, and
hypothetical on-site resident) are included in Table~ 13 through
19. Intake factors for these receptors are. summarized in Table 20.
These intakes factors were combined wi th the exposure point
concentrations and documented toxicity values for carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic effects to derive the numerical. calculation of
risks.
c.
Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity assessment addressed the potential for a chemical of
concern to cause adverse effects in potentially exposed receptors
-------
and estimated the relationship between extent of exposure and
extent of toxic injury (i.e. dose-response relationship).
Qualitative and quantitative toxicity information for the chemicals
of concern was acquired through evaluation of relevant scientific
literature. The most directly relevant data come from studies in
humans. Most of the useable information on the toxic effects of
chemicals comes from controlled experiments in animals. Tables 21
and 22 have been provided to show cancer slope factors and
reference doses used to calculate risk.
TRPB
J
It is difficult to quantitatively address health risks of petroleum
hydrocarbons (TRPH) in soils when the majority of specific
chemicals in the mixtures cannot be quantified or identified.
Depending on the product (crude oil, jet fuel, diesel fuel, etc.),.
any number of branched or straight chain, cyclic, and aromatic
carbon compounds may be present. Many toxicological and
epidemiological studies have been performed on common petroleum
hydrocarbon mixtures to predict general toxic properties. Many of
the chemicals measured as "total petroleum hydrocarbons" are common
to low-toxicity chemical mixtures such as mineral oil, paraffins,
lubricating oils, and petroleum-derived chemicals that are also
used as food additives.
Available evidence suggests that typical TRPH mixtures are not
particularly toxic. certain constituents of TRPH that are known to
be toxic (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX» have
been analyzed in soil samples at the site and are included in the
quantitative health risk assessment. It ,is concluded that other
components of TRPH would not add significantly to the resulting
estimates of potential health risks.
D.
Risk Characterization
The potential for adverse noncarcinogenic effects is evaluated by
comparing projected daily intakes of the chemicals with reference
doses considered safe for daily exposures for .a lifetime. The
resulting ratio is called a hazard index. Hazard indexes are
summed for all chemicals and exposure pathways to obtain a total
-------
hazard index for the exposed individual. If the hazard index
exceeds 1, there may be concern for potential noncarcinogenic
effects, and a more detailed and critical evaluation of the
exposure assumptions and risks, including consideration of specific
target organs affected, is required to ascertain if the cumulative
exposure would, in fact, be likely to harm exposed individuals.
Carcinogenic risks are estimated as the incremental probability of
an individual developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of
exposure to a potential carcinogen. The numerical estimate of
excess lifetime cancer risk is calculated by multiplying the
estimated daily intake by the cancer slope factor (SF). In order
~o evaluate cancer risk from simultaneous exposure to several
carcinogens, incremental cancer risks are additive.
:i
For known or suspected carcinogens; acceptable exposure levels are
generally concentration levels that represent an excess upper-bound
lifetime cancer risk to an individual of between 10-4 and 10-6. The
10-6 risk level is used as a point of departure for establishing
remediation goals for the risks from constituents at specific
sites.
A summary of the potential health risks associated with the various
receptor populations at Mountain Home AFB is given in Table 23.
The cumulative carcinogenic risks for all exposure pathways
estimated for each of these identified receptor populations ranged
from 4. 6E-09 to 4. 9E-06 for the average exposure scenarios and
1.2E-08 to 3. 9E-OS for the reasonable maximum' exposure (RME)
scenarios. The maximum estimated carcinogenic risk (hypothetical
'on-site residential) was..3.9E-OS (4 in 100,000). This" risk level
may be overstated by an order of magnitude or more because of the
highly conservative assumptions used to estimate air concentrations
of VOCs.
The ~stimates of noncarcinogenic effects', represented as the hazard
index, ranged from 2. 7E-04 to 8. 4E-02 for the average exposure
scenarios and from 7.10E-04 to 3.2E-01 for the. reasonable maximum
exposure {RME) scenarios. The estimates of noncarcinogenic
effects" represented as the hazard index, are below 1. 0 for all
-------
receptors. Hazard indexes below 1.0 indicate that no adverse
health effects are expected from the exposures.
Inhalation of VOCs was the greatest contributor to both
carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indexes by four orders
of magnitude compared to the other pathways or intake routes. It
is concluded that the other pathways do not significantly
contribute to risk.
The maximum excess cancer risk level of 4E-05 is within USEPA's
target range of 10~ to 10~ (1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000).
E.
Health Effects of Lead Exposures
1#
The IUBK model was used to estimate blood levels in children age
o - 7, who are. assumed to be exposed to site soils. Results of the
IUBK model runs are summarized in Table 24. Mean blood lead levels
resulting from 7 years of childhood exposure to average or maximum
soil lead concentrations at site 8 are 1.5 and 3.7 ~g/dl,
respectively, well below the level of concern of 10 to 15 ~g/dl.
In the maximum exposure scenario (100 mg/day, 500 ppm lead), mean
blood lead level is estimated to be 3. 7 ~g/dl. The modeling
results show that given conservative exposure assumptions and
maximum soil lead concentrations, exposure to soil lead at site 8
is not likely to result in blood lead levels that exceed the level
of. concern of 10 to 15 ~g/dl.
F.
TRPB Exposures
Risks due to exposures to TRPH were addressed qualitatively because
of the lack of toxicity values for fuels. The qualitative
assessment of TRPH is not likely to result in a~ underestimation of
risk because risks due to exposures to specific organic chemical
constituents of TRPH (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes)
were evaluated quantitatively. TRPH at site 8 are not impacting
human health under the conservative exposure scenarios evaluated in .
the baseline human health risk assessment.
-------
G.
Impacts on Groundwater
The potential for chemicals of concern to migrate through the
unsaturated (vadose) zone and enter groundwater at a depth of 370
feet was evaluated by a fate and transport model (Multimed). The
model used infiltration of precipitation under the current use
scenario. Because of the low concentrations of chemicals of
concern observed in soils, a non-aqueous phase was not considered.
Mean concentrations of selected chemicals of concern (BTEX and
trichl~roethene) in soil were used to calculate dissolved-phase
concentrations in leachate.
Results of the vadose zone modeling showed that none of the
chemicals modeled reached groundwater at 370 feet. The modeling
~esults suggest that transport of chemicals of concern in soils at
site 8 to groundwater does not occur.
~
H.
Human Health Risk Summary
The results of the risk "assessment show that reasonable maximum
exposures to soils and airborne contaminants are not expected to
result in adverse noncarcinogenic health effects (indicated by a
hazard index less than 1. 0) or excess cancer risks that exceed
cancer risk criteria used in Superfund (10-4 to 10-6). The maximum
excess cancer risk for hypothetical on-site residents of 4 x 10-5
is within USEPA' s target range of 10-4' to 10-6 (1 in 10,000 to 1 in
1,000,000). The results of the exposure/toxicity assessment for
TRPH and lead showed that no toxic effects were likely from these
constituents. The soils are covered by crushed asphalt and have
little potential to impact ecological receptors, and computer
modeling indicates that existing concentrations of dissolved phase
chemicals in soils could not reach regional groundwater.
I.
Ecoloqical Risk Characterization
" The ecological risk assessment evaluates the potential impacts to
biota that may result from exposures to hazardous compounds.
In the vicinity of Mountain Home AFB the natural vegetation is
composed of sagebrush, winterfat, shadscale, grasses and forbs.
-------
,
wildlife species include small and large mammals including but not
limit~d to coyote, black-tailed jackrabbit, cottontail and several
varieties of small rodents. Many varieties of birds and waterfowl
are found in the area. Endangered species in the area are the
peregrine falcon and bald eagle.
An ecological risk assessment was not performed at site 8 for the
following reasons: The site and the surrounding area contains very
little biota habitat; the site is covered with crushed asphalt; the
site is fenced limiting access to mammals and the site is
relatively small with respect to the entire base.
A basewide ecological risk assessment will be addressed in the
,final ROD for OU 3. A basewide ecological risk assessment will be
performed because minimal ecological impact is expected from any
one waste source in an area as industrialized as Mountain Home AFB.
The basewide approach will evaluate the additive ecological risks
at habitats.
1#
J.
uncertainties in the Risk Assessment
At all stages of this risk assessment, conservative estimates and
assumptions were made so as not to underestimate potential risk and
to increase confidence in the results of the risk assessment. The
chief uncertainties pertinent to this risk assessment lie in the
estimation of exposure point concentrations, the assumptions
regarding human exposure condi tions, and the methods used to
calculate subchronic hazard indexes. ' The assumptions used most
likely overestimate actual risk by two or more orders of magnitude.
specific factors that tend to overestimate or underestimate actual
risk are discussed in detail in the RI.
V:I:I
THE SELECTED REMEDY
The U.S. Air Force, with approval ,of the US EPA'has determined that
,no remedial action is necessary at site 8 to ensure protection of
human health and the environment. The State of Idaho concurs on
the decision to take no action at site 8. This decision is based on
the results of the human health risk, assessment, which determined
, '
-------
that the contaminants remaining in the soils at site 8 pose no
unacceptable risks to human health and the. environment.
VIII.
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for Fire Training Area 8, Operable unit 4 at
Mountain Home AFB was released for public comment on January 7,
1992. The Proposed Plan identified no action as the selected
remedy for the site. Public comments on the Proposed Plan were
evaluated at the "end of the 30-day comment period, and it was
determined that no significant changes to the Proposed Plan were
necessary.
'J
-------
APPENDIX A
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
~
-------
RESPONSZVENESS SUMMARY FOR THE" RECORD OF DECZSZON
MOUNTAZN HOME AZR FORCE BASE, SZTE 8
FZRE TRAZNZNG AREA 8, OPERABLE UNZT 4
A.
OVERVZEW
To comply with section 117 of CERCLA, the united states
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the United states Air
Force (USAF) held a public comment period and a.public meeting for
interested parties to comment on the No-Action Proposed Plan for
site 8. The public comment period was held from January 7, 1992,
to February 1~, 1992, and the public meeting was held on January
22, 1992, at the Mountain Home High School in Mountain Home, Idaho.
~
The purpose of this responsi veness summary is to document the.
USEPA's.and USAF's ~esponses to comments received during the public
comment period and the public meeting. These comments were
considered prior to selection of the final remedy for Site 8 at
Mountain Home Air Force Base (AFB) which is detailed in the Record
of Decision (ROD).
B.
BACKGROUND ON COMKUNITY INVOLVEMENT
The USAF, in conjunction with the USEPA, is responsible for
conducting the community relations program for this site. A
community Relations Plan (CRP) was established for Mountain Home
AFB in April 1991. Community Relations activities included the
establishment of an administrative record, periodic news releases,
publication of fact sheets, development of a mailing list of
interested parties, a public comment period, a public meeting, and
the publication of the Proposed Plan.
community relations activities are discussed in more detail in
Section III of the Record of Decision .(ROD).
C.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES
Comments and questions raised during the public comment period on
-------
Many of the questions raised at the public meeting conce~ned the
characterization data, groundwater monitoring, and geologic and
hydrogeologic information used to evaluate the soil contamination.
Unless specifically addressed below, the information is available
in the Remedial Investigation Report available at the
administrative record location.
1. One commentor had several questions related to groundwater
contamination at the Base. The concern was whether contaminants
detected in the soil have also been detected in the groundwater.
..
ResDonse: This investigation was focused on the risk to human
health and the environment due to existing soil contamination.
This was evaluated through the potential for ingestion and
inhalation, as well as the potential for migration of these
contaminants to the groundwater. A. thorough groundwater assessment
was not with~n the scope of this investigation. Groundwater
contamination at the Base is being investigated under Operable unit
3. The groundwater is used for drinking water at the Base and is
monitored on a quarterly basis. Trichloroethylene (TCE) has been
detected in soils at the Fire Training Area as we.ll as the
groundwater at levels ranging from 1.0 to 1.8 ppb; this is .below
the MAL of 5 ppb. Groundwater contamination will be evaluated in
Operable unit 3.
2. One commentor was interested in the parameters used to assess
the fate and transport of contaminants in the soil to groundwater.
ResDonse: The purpose of the groundwater model was to estimate the
potential for soil contaminants to migrate to the aquifer through
the vadose zone as a result of natural infiltration. Basalt
cores have been obtained from various location on the Base and the
fractures have been evaluated. The model does account for some
degree of fracturing in the basalt. The fate and .transport model
used conservative parameter estimates; the uncertainty of using the.
selected parameters is discussed in the RI. report. Geologic
confining units were not accounted for in the model. Soil
infiltration rates have been measured in the field and conservative
-------
APPENDIX B
.
FIGURES AND TABLES
-------
i
..",
....
,
)
--
,
J
-------J
t..
/
.
.
IDf(r lie I1f1MrT
::':, '"1MIIMaIS
e.
HUMBOLDT
NAnONAL
FOREST
.
,,!I"IaD.
01141
""~
SOURCE
,FROM RAND
McNALLY ROAD
ATLAS t 1990.
THE STATE OF
IDAHO.
. Woodward-Clyde Consultants
EHQ8IEEAS. G£~0GIrS AND EfM"ONUENT AL $CENT15TS
.0
.
20
VICINITY
MAP - SITE
8
011 ...
10
30
-.8'l
...-cT -
89MCI14Q
SCALE
.
-------
MOUNTAIN HOME, ~DAHO
LOCATED APPROX. 10 MILE
N.E. FROM BASE
."-'~~::-._.iJ
R 5 E
--
8M JOn
-
,/
.... "']t$ .
;;:=~. r: ~ . .
I"',.,.._.,.~
. '''..
..
\ ~~
):) 'V-<
.
..
., . -.
I
,~-
I S
S
o
. ..
~...
,
LKtUO
'0 IAS! WATU SUPPU' W!LL
tNOn'
;:
BASE NAP FROM U.S.G.S. 7.S MINUTE
SER IES TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS OF CRATER
RINGS SW. IO. (I9S6) AND CRATER RINGS
SE,%O. (19M).
I!IDII&. Woodward-Clyde Consultants
.., ENGINEERS. GEQ.OGISTS. AND EJMAONUENTAL SClENTI$T$
...... ---- _U.. '-" CICCI, ".,. ,..c.u.u.. _C_CI.. "--
- IY-A, I_et lice'" ".. ... C888IMUI' --', lit.', -....
- All, ........ ~ far u... ",., c.rpa .. ..........., 08lIl8, ..
.......", ,....
BASE LOCATION MAP. SITE 8
-. .,. ..8A:A
C8"D .,. $&...
P80DCI -
89MC1I4Q. .
FIll. -
-------
5"~ .---.
\ \
\~ I
\, \
I
, .
.
\ \
... ,\I n
. ~18'P
8UI~INOI .
~
.n. .. OC IC
IU'TURBINE
~ ~
NEW me TRAININUI
BURN PIT (OJ:' MAP).
SUPP~Y ~INI
1f'R '101 ;D "'1"""
;r """.... .RA'.'.' ''''.[j
\ ..... ~.-=- ""0 .
'S~4r
.....0...
. ....~..
~. ""''.!.~''
. FENCl .....
OR,vn
SOURCE' R CC , FEB. 1989 .
SCALE, FEET
-~ \ 6J. Woodward-Clyde Consultants
. W' INuINUns,t1EUlCXJISII,ANlUNYIIIl»tU1NIAl St:ItNII5IS
BERM ED
AREA
libAO.....
"""Y
1
\
\
\
I
\
\
I
\
\
OATE
. . ../
,.
FENCl
o
EXISTING
BURN PIT
r- ---- ,.
, r
, .I
, 0 ~THIS AREA
, ,IRI TRAINING I ENLARGED
'lITE' BURN I 41, SEE
PIT DRAWING
, OATE I AT LEFT
,
L_-----J
PREY 10US AND EXISTI NG
FIRE TRAINING AREA
SCALE I In. 400'
.~.
o
w;::
60
100
200
1
FACILITIES LOCATION PLAN - SITE 8
,aollCt 110
89MCII4Q
no !l0
3
-------
3.100
3.000
~2.DOO
~
D
~ 2.000
i1j
(IJ 2,700
~
:t
-
Z 2,600
o
~
~ 2,500
2.300
. Halls F8ny
Sprlngs
\\
.
o
8c8I8 .. MIll
0.5
.~ Unconsoftdaled S8dJments
Basalt o' Snake River Group' . . 0Sr
. Osb
---------..---------------..- -----------.----
-----
5
3
1
4
2 8
Bruneau Formallon
Ob
Extrapolated Water Table
n -
-~
-,;;>< ~ ~
--
, ---
-11-- - .
-- .
. ---_:, .
. ---. .
. , --
--
-- .
In.erred Geologic - ---
Unit Boundary - ---
. ---
--
--
---
--
--
--
---
Glanns FerJy Formallon
Olg
"
Sourc8: Idaho D8pt. or........... WID No. ..:
Note: w.na t to 8..
Mcud8fn Home AF8"'"
1.0
. Woodward-CI,de Con.ultant.
ENGINEERS. GEOlOGIST" AND ENVIIONUEHTAL. SCIENTISTS
Source: CH2M Hill. 1983. Instelletlon Restoration Progrea Records Search for Mountain.
HOII8 Aft, Idlho. Contract 10. f08631-SO-GOOI0-0017. Gel"..", He, florida. (July, 1983).
DM.n
CIW1I n
PIIOIII:I ..
'.- .'4Q
... .
-------
i
. -..
-- ----- ""
. "" -. ..",-,;:-.,,-
~ -7. "",1';:\ ~c;o"l.~r -:- -;,.-
',--u..~ I / \ ".~ i' .,'
_I ".." z::: ''''~:'' ~ ~:','" ; A' (,\ ." ..i, : / ., - l~
. ,.X....:.I!;, / ,-
,11f '\ ' " :"".... / -i' ,
./ , ,--"""', ..... ; .
"0. ,---' ~: I
-J '- ' .~. ( ""
~. ..-... ;'- ---
'- /... ~ I ", '
..,.... ~~~,' Well '1 ! / i \:'" - '
I' .,..tY' - 'X' , No, 2' '~"~: J.:ll:~~U~~ 22 Well It
1: ....-.; ,\-_J, No 6
/ ,'- . ,.-- ., ... ~', ~;1"" f.~' . t-"'''. 7! ~ 't ~.t2Z;!.,!-"':' ._'-.
, _f".' , , - 'Ar~ /~..", ," " , C.,.. .:;:;.r.- --.:;.~,
II, ':i'-' . '~P:, .'..". 'J' ..:,. ," i' ..;.,-,.... : C. Well7 .:"ii-~~.
I.. .- '- ,,<,-/,,: ,/,:~~",' "#"'.,?,~ _.,~...~ ~"';;':~:.:":-=~'::-:L';':;;;': ~
I - ~ " "-. .~ 'Oi!l'~/~ . ..". :;.7~~.:"'''',,1.'-......::'!~ ;::Hr~i
, I .. - 'c:: .'.' .~ ,."'~~' d-':~' .;.~~......::-~";:~.,
, ~ I ='! .' -) , '. Well .. ...'\.";; ~-~........ :.: _.-:=;'": wen'" ::: ~--":;7J-! r;;
" ;>'ii#.,;. :i i."" "" ." '.. . :;',,/ .: ;,. IJ ,-':;NO.3"-::'''"~~' .
... 'J: .~i H"-,,' ""'-~~~. A~ d~!:j::;;~;: JZO'"
: I~ .' ,;-. .; ~ j ~ ", %,.~~ 7",~' ~~.i Well No, 1 .:;-w-:..
J, '!!I''''' 'J ; -Ii::: " ',- " c. ,,.,, -.. 'I:~' .N".'-':~~;-;:~ (Out of Servicej7 ':.
. ~. . . '," - - -' ; "'-,' - ~,:..' f!fYI ".O;:e e': ~ ,..r::o.;o~ .
, '-7":::'~;' , l' . " y '-~ . Well No 1 '.'.,~. .. ~ GOLr (""''Ist~, I
., j ~.: i; C . '-/"/ "\ .'.. " '''.' ..:0.. ~
~j~ 0--:' ~ ;i ~'1 ~ ",.' <", . ,~,' /'~..-1'~a~II'8' ~~
~; " :z: .;, II! ,,,,' "" ~". ,iM~~.':~ i/.; ~I- \ :::r ~:: r .
; ;;;.' Lz'" '- . '. :: '~, "... -' j
.; :; ii 1'.. -'. . " ",.c. . ..- - ". \ ' ;;;
.....,\ '::i Ii
-------
r
,
,
.
I
,
,
.
10
I;
'Ji
I i I
\ I
! I
II
UND(R~:z'l
PIPELINE
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
-~\
.~
GRAVEL
~
ROAD \ NEW FIRE TRAINING
BURN PIT (OFF MAP)
1
I
I
~2I7P .
.u,~
lit. NOCI(
IV'TURBINE
.S-8
ND
BERMED
AREA
,..,
i
L.J
UNDIAGROUND
fun STORAGE
TANK
I
~
GRAVEL
ROAD
SOURCE I R CC . FEB. 1989
LEGEND
S-8...-BORING DESIGNATION
'-BORING LOCATION
40.958"""MAXIMUM TOTAL SOLVENT:f'
" CONCENTRATION IN BORING
" IN pg /kg
\I!
00
'c-LINE OF EQUAL TOTAL SOLVENT:t'
\ CONCENTRATION IN 1-10/ kg
\
\
:t ACETONE. M B K , MEK, M I BK . METHYLENE
CHLORIDE.l TCE.I.IJ-TRICHlOROETHANE,
. TETRACHlOROETHYLENE,DCE
ND: NOT DETECTED
~
o
.
50
100
200
.
SCALE. FEET
IJJ. Woodward-Clyde Consultants
~ lIltiIIlHIt:i. ..ltJtI""~I:>. AtllIlIIYlIlIlNMlIIlAI S&;llNII~IS
HORIZONTAL DISTRIBUTION OF ORGANIC
SOLVENTS IN SOIL - SITE 8
,.Olln 110.
no 110
6
-------
PRIMARY RElEASE SECONDARY RELEASE TERTIARY EXPOSURE POTENTIAL
SOURCE MECHANISM-1 SOURCE MECHANISM-2 SOURCE ROUTE RECEPTOR
HUMAN I BIOTA.
STORM WATER ~ IN;~~N I 0 ,. 0
RUNOFF 0
"
"
,
FUTURE DIRECT .
EXCAVA11DN/ CONTACT .
REMEDlf.110N BY INTRUSION
OU4 WIND VM'OR/ . 0
SOILS DUST
DIRECT . 0
(SU,wawOILS) .
,.
INGES110N .
lNf1l1RA110N~ GROUND INHAlATION . 0
PERCOLA110 WATER DERMAl .
/r'G .
08 STOR'" WATER SURFACE -------------~--~------..-t IN;~~N , 0 , ,
WATER. 0
22:;0 RUNOFF SEDIMENT 0
QO
~~ VDLA11UZA11ON/ VAPO{% INHALA110N . 0
r-~ WIND PARTICU
=l EROSION
...
...
o
-c
-------- 0 INCOMPLETE PATHWAY
.. POTENTIALLY COMPLETE PATHWAY
_e. ~c,.,. ceNod''''. CUCC). '"" 'N,....tt.. .",ore"" ~CIIf"-.
.- .. .. -....- ........- .... ......lNIftt ,...,..t. Un't a. -.....t"
. SITE 8 HAS LITTlE POTENTW. 10
IMPACT BIOTA
FIGURE 7
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
~
-------
R 5 E
MOUNTAIN HOME. ~DAHO
LOCATED APPROX. 10 MIL
H.E. FROM BAS E
-7~~-'-'-'
8M Jon! . - - r
. .
-
." / l
.~~~- ~
-~.~~ ---". l
)... .. I- .-;~
to'.'. -. ..~. .. '''.0 :
~.
"
~
"
f
"
t
~
r"
r
I
I
,
~
.
.."J
..
..~ "
. ......
:. I ~
............. .. ~.~~~:..:..~.,............_..
..
,I
(. "
"b :
\. III"D
10 BAst WATO" SUPPLY WILL
NOTE .
(; W~=~c::=:u==
0Ff..srrE ExPOSUEE POINTS - SITE 8
SOURCE z RCC. FE8. 1989
I'8OI8CT IIIL
89MCII4Q
~1111
-------
;:J
TABLE 1
DAMES & MOORE INVES11GATION (1985)
ANALYSIS RESULTS
Boring No. DM-4 DM-S DM~
Sample No. 1 4 2 6 3 7
Sample Depth (ft) 0-1.5 4~ 1.5-3 7.5-9 3-4.5 9-10.5
Moisture Content (%) 8.4 "10.0 8.4 6.9 12.0 3.0
TaX' (pg/L)1 670 790 890 2SO 4,700 490
TOC (mg/g)1 11.0 2.4 9.9 OIl 3.9 0.12
Oil &. Grease (mg/g)1 29.0 8.0 67.0 0.48 0.09 ND
~ Phenol {p.g/g)1 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Lead (p.g/g)Z 33 23 39 24 27 13
Source: Dames &. Moore, 1986, lastallation Restoration Program Phase n - Confirmation!
Quantification - Stage 1, Fmal Report USAF Contract No. F3361S-83-4002.
1 Concentration in water extract.
2 As reported by Dames &. Moore (1986).
ND .. Not detected
[M:\89114\Q\1140FrA8.IlODrJdg/ccc](ROD)
MouataiD Home APB - FrAB, OtJ-4
Sbcct 1 of 1
~92
-------
TABLB 2
TRPH, LEAD, AND PCB ANALYSES RESULTS (September, 1986)
BORINGS 8-11HROUGH S-8
5ite Sample Depth Moisture TRPH Lead PCB
Dc:sigDatiOD (ft) (%) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (p.g/kg)
5-1-1 0 - 1.5 11.0 3,385.0 34.0 <1,000
5-1-S 3 - 4.5 15.0 115.0 37.0 NA
5-1-6 (FD) 3 - 4.5 ~6.o 155.0 36.0 NA
5-1-7 6 - 7.5 6.7 16.0 16.0 NA
5-1-10 9 - 10.5 4.7 13.0 NA . NA
5-1-11 U - 13.5 14.0 23.0 15.0 NA
5-2-1 0-1.5 10.0 1,367.0 28.0 <1,000
5-2-2 (FD) 0 - 1.5 10.0 3,367.0 33.0 < 1,000
5-2-3 (FB) 0 - 1.5 NA . .30 <0.05 <10
JI. 5-2-4 3 - 4.5 12.0 417.0 30.0 NA
5-2-S 6 - 7.5 10.0 637.0 20.0 NA
5-2-8 9 - 10.5 6.8
-------
-,
TABLE 2 (Continued)
1RPH, LEAD, AND PCB ANALYSES RESULTS (September, 1986)
. BORINGS S-11HROUGH 8-8
Site Sample Depth Moisture TRPH Lead PCB
DesigJIAtion (ft) (%) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (pg/kg)
S~1 0 - 1.5 4.3 14,000.0 500.0 NA
S~2 3 - 4.5 7.5 219.0 41.0 NA
S~5 6 - 7.5 7.3 <5.0 120 NA
S-6-6 9 - 10.5 5.9 6.0 NA NA
S~7 12 - 13.5 120 44.0 16.0 NA
5-7-1 0 - 1.5 16.0 .<5.0 24.0 NA
5-7-2 3 - 4.5 13.0 21.0 28.0 NA
5-7-5 6 -7.6 6.6 7.0 10.0 NA
~ 5-7-8 9 - 10.5 5.8 6.0 NA NA
S-7-9 12 - 13.5 20.0 19.0 24.0 NA
S-8-1 0 - 1.5 5.9 2;J.79Jj 5.3 NA
5-8-2 3 - 4.5 13.0 785.0 22.0 NA
S-8.3 (FD) 3 - 4.5 14.0 495.0 220 NA
S-8-4 (FB) 3 - 4.5 NA . 1.50 <0.05 NA
S-8.5 6 - 7.5 15.0 58.0 26.0 NA
S-8.6 9.- 10.5 72 25.0 NA NA
S-8.7 12 - 13.5 6.4 39.0 7.fJ NA
8-9-1 (FB) 0.0 10.0 ' 24.0 . 33.0 <1.000
Source: Resources Conservation Company (RCC), 1989b,lDsta1lation Restoration Program Phase IV-A,
Remedial Action Plan and Conceptual Documents, Site 8, Mountain Home AFB, Idaho. Prepared
for u.s. Army Corps of Engineers. Omaha, NE. February, 1989.
. Values are in mg/L
FD . FiCici duplicate
FB - Field blank
NA . Not aDalyzed
(N:\89114\Q\114QPTA8.RODfjdg/cee)(ROD)
MOUDtaiJa Home AFB - PTA8, OU-4
Sheet 1 of 1
~92
-------
TABLE 3
VOI.AmB ORGANICS ANALYSIS RESULTS (l1g/kg)
BORINGS S-11HROUGH 8-8 (September, 1986)
TCB MI8K M8K 1,1,1-
Site Sample Depth (Tricbloroe Methylene BdIyI (4-Methyl MEK (z. Triehloro
Deslpatlon (ft) Al:ctofte thylene) OtIoride Benzene benzene Xylenes Toluene z.Pentanone) (Z.8utanone) Hexanone) ethane
5-1-1 0-1.S 18,000 7,400 5,500U 6,000 51.000 350,000 93,000 49,000 7,900U 220,000 2,OOOU
5-1.2 (PO) 0-1.S 6,300 3,400 I,600U 2,100 17,000 . 110,000 39,000 28,000 3,100U 150,000 790U
5-1-5 3-4.5 35.000 4U 9U 5U 6U 6U 4U 210 450 13 4U
5-1-7 6 - 7.5 2,100 3U 6U 3U 4U . 4U 3U 9 la 4U 3U
5-1-8 (PO) 6 - 7.5 3,000 15U 36U 19U 23U 26U 17U 39U 69U 21U 17U
5-1.11 U - 13.5 1,000 13U 57 16U 19U 22U 14U 53 S7U 17U 1SU
5-Z.1 0-1.S 5,300 2,400 1,100U 5,000 33,000 280,000 69,000 48,000 2,2O(IU 220,000 S60U
5-z..c 3-4.5 ~ l,oooU 2,MIO 1,200 2,600 22,000 1,800 2,600U 4,600U I,400U I,200U
5-Z.S 6 - 7.5 10,000 5U l1U 6U 7U au SU 100 21U 6U 5U
5-U (FD) 6 - 7.5 6,3OOK 19U 110 231.1 28U 32U 21U 51 asu 26U ~U
5-Z.7 6 - 7.5 13" ur 3tf 2tf 2tf 2tf 2lf 4lf 6lf 2tf 2lf
5-3-1 0-1.S - 4U IOU su 6U 16 SU l1U 19U 6U 5U
S-3-4 3-4.5 S80 7U 17U 9U l1U 24 au 19U 33U IOU au
S-3-5 6-7.5 880 7U 17U 9U 140 1,400 au 31 32U 8J au
5-3-8 U-13.5 39,000 8 1SU au IOU l1U 7U 1,200 750 9U 10
5-4-1 0-1.5 19U 2U su 3U 3U 4U 3U 6U IOU 3U 3U
5+2 3-4,5 16 lU 3U 2U 2U 2U 2U 4U 6U 2U 2U
5+3 6-7.5 2S tU 3U 2U 2U 2U 2U 4U 6U 2U 2U
5+7 12-13.5 8 tU 3U 2U 2U 2U 1U 3U 6U 2U lU
S+8 (PO) 12-13.5 U 2U 4U 2U 3U 3U 2U SU au 3U 2U
5-4-9 (FB) u-w utf tV utf 2lf 2lf 2~ 2lf 4lf 6lf 2lf 2lf
5+11 18,- 19.5 14 2U 6 2U 3U 3U 2U SU 9U 3U 2U
5-S-1 0-1.5 14 2U 248 2U 2U 3U 2U 4U 7U 2U 2U
5-S-2 3 - 4.5 14 2U 238 2U 2U 3U 2U 4U 7U 2U 2U
5-S-5 6 - 7.5 24 lU 2SB 2U 2U 2U 2U 4U 6U 2U 2U
(M:\r . ~II4QFI'A8JIODIJdI/-I(ItOD)
MOt - An. FrAt, (IU.4
.012
~
-------
. --
TABlE 3 (Continued)
VOIA'IUB ORGANICS ANALYSIS RESULTS (l1g/kg)
BORINGS 5--1111ROUGH s-s (September, 1986)
TCB MIBK MBK 1,1,1-
Site Sample Depth (I'ricbtoroe Methylene Ethyl (4-Methyl MEK (2- TrichlolO
Daipatioft (ft) Acetone thytene) Clloride Benzene benzefte Xylenes Toluene 2-pentanone) (2-Butanone) . Heunone) cthane
5+t O-LS 300 27 1248 9J 880 11,000 900 47U 27 2SU 21U
S+2 .3 - 4.5 14U 2U 128 2U 3U 3U 2U 4U 8U 2U 2U
S6-3 (PO) 3-4.5 14U 2U 138 2U 3U 3U 2U 4U 8U 2U 2U
s+4 3-4.5 utr ltr 138- 2tr 2tf 2tf 2tr 4tr 6tr 2tr 2tr
s.6-5 6 - 7.5 13U 2U 288 2U 2U 3U 2U 4U 7U 2U 2U
5+7 U-13.5 19 2U 368 2U 3U 3U 2U 4U 8U 2U 2U
5-7-1 O-LS ?OO 2U 32B 2U 3U 3U 2 5U 8U 2U 2U
5-7-2 3-4.5 . 14U 2U 288 2U 3U 3U 2U 4U 8U 2U 2U
5-7-5. 6 - 7.5 17 tU t78 2U 2U 2U 2U 4U 6U 2U 2U
5-7-6 (PO) 6 - 7.5 11U lU 88 2U 2U 2U 2U 4U 6U 2U 2U
5-7-7 (PB) 6 - 7.5 t2tr ttr 6S- 2tr 2tf 2tr 2tr 4tr 6tr 2tr 2tf
5-7-9 12-13.5 t5U 2U 218 2U 3U 3U 2U 5U 8U 2U 2U
5-8-1 O-LS 13U 2U 248 2U 2U 3U 2U 4U 7U 2U 2U
5-8-2 3-4.5 13U 2U 88 2U 2U 3U 2U 4U 7U 2U 2U
s.a.s 6 - 7.5 15U 2U 108 2U 3U 3U 2U 5U 8U 3U 2U
5-8-'1 U-13.5 UU lU 248 2U 2U 2U 2U 4U 6U 2U aU
5-9-4 (PB) 0.0 laU 2U 15 3U 3U 4U 2U 6U IOU 3U 3U
Source: ttaoun:es CoaIeMdoft Company (Ilce), 1989b, Installation Ratoratioll Prop'am Phase IV-A, Remedial ActIon Plan and Conceptual Documents, Site 8, Mountain Home
APB. I~ PrepuecI for U.s. Army CarpI of Enpnecrs, Omaha, NE. Pebnaary, 1989.
Quatifien listed are quatifien ISIiped by the laboratory.
. VatllCl are In I'IfL
FD Field dupUcato I
PB Field blank
K 1bis flails used wbcn quantitated value faits above the limit of the calibration curve and ditutlon should be run.
J indicateS an estimated value den result Is less than specified detection limit.
8 This flails used wben the anatyto Is found In the blank as weD as the sample. Indicates possible/probable blank contamination.
[M:\89tt~\Q\tt.tQFrA&ROD/Jd8/-t(IlOD) DS44-92
-------
TABLE 4
TRPH ANALYSIS RESULTS (March, 1988)
BORINGS S-10, S-11, AND S-12
Site Sample Designation Depth (ft) Moisture (%) TRPH (mg/kg)
S-lo-l(O)S 0-1.5 9.3 4,600
S-lo-2(O)S 2-3.5 14.9 100 .
S-lo-3(0)S 2 - 3.5 15.3 81
S-lo-4(O)S 4 - 5.5 10.8 34
S-lo-7(0)S 8 - 9.5 6.1 33
S-IO-S(O)L 8 - 9.5 NA <5.
S-lo-9(0)S 10 - 11.5 5.1 29
S-lo-10(0)S 12 - 13.5 3.5 .16
S-lo-11(O)S 14-,15.5 18.2 44
S-lo-12(O)S 16 - 17.5 18.3 40
5-1o-13(0)S 18 - 19.5 19.0 46
S-lo-l4(O)S 20 - 21.5 15.7 SO
S-lo-15(O)B DO 6.7 49
S-lo-I6(0)B B6.5- 2.5 36
S-IO-I8(O)B B13 1.3 47
S-lo-19(0)B B20 1.7 24
'4
S-11-1(0)S 0-1.5 6.6 . 2,600
S-l1-2(O)S 2 - 3.5 13.4 1,900
S-11-4(O)S . 4 - 5.5 12.6 90
S-11-6(O)S 6 - 7.5 11.0 890
5-11-8(O)S 10 - 11.5 5.1 630
S-11-10(0)S 12 - 13.5 7.7 780
S-11-14(0)B DO 8.1 40
S-11-15(O)L BO NA <5.
S-11-17(0)B B6.5 2.6 31
S-l1-18(O)B B13 2.4 31
S-11-19(0)B B20 5.1 26
S-12-1(0)S 0-1.5 6.2 4,800
S-12-2(O)L 0 - 1.5 NA <5.
S-12-4(0)S 4 - 5.5 9.3 220
S-12-5(0)S 4 - 5.5 8.8 200
S-12-6(O)S 6 - 7.5 17.4 5,400
8-12-7(0)8 8 . 9.5 17.4 7,soo
5-12-9(0)S 10 - 11.5 5.6 410
5-12-10(O)S 12 - 13.5 53' 91
S-12-11(0)S 14 - 15.5 17.6 400
S-12-14(0)B DO 3.5 2S
S-12-15(O)B DO 2.9 72
S-12-16(0)B B6.5 0.9 55
5-12-17(0)B B13 L4 55
S-12-18(O)B B20 1.4 42
NA - Not aoalyzcdL- Uquid sample (field blank)
S ... Soil sampleD-Basalt sample .Valucs are in mg/L
Source:' Resources <;:ooscrwtion Company (RCC), 1989b, lDstaJl3tion Restoration Program Phase IV-A, Ramii
Action Plan and Conceptual Documents, Site 8, MouoWo Home AFB, Idaho. Prepared for
U.s. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, NE. February, 1989.
(M:\89114\Q\II4QFTA8.RODfjdgfc:cc)(ROD)
Mouataia Home AFB - FTA8, OU-4
S-laU
QS..04-92
-------
. to;.
.' .
TABLB 5
VOlA1U.B ORGANICS ANALYSIS RESULTS (pg/kg)
BORINGS S-1O, S-11, AND S-12 (March, 1988)
TCE MEK Trans-l,2.-
Site Depth Methylene (I'richlofo- (2-- Tetrach1oro Dich1oro-
Sample (It) Chloride Acetone Chloroform Ethylbenzene Toluene ethylene) Xylenes Benzene Butanone) ethylene ethylene
Designation
S-lO-l(O)S 0 3.7UJ 10.7U 2.3U 1.9U 1.4U 13U 2.2U 1.6U' R l.lU 2.SU
S-10-1(O)L 1'8 2.1tf SA. 0.51" l.5tf 1.2U. l.ltf 13U. O.8U. R 1.0u" 1.4u"
. S-lO-2(O)S 2 2.6UJ 10.4U 2.2U 1.9U 13U 13U 2.1U l.5U R l.lU 2.4U
S-l0-3(O)S 2 19UJ 10.1U 2.2U 1.8U 13U 1.2U 0.6 l.5U R 1.0U 2.3U
S-l0-4(O)S 4 nUJ WU 2.7U 2.2U 1.6U l.5U 1.6U 1.8U R 13U 2.9U
S-10-7(0)S 8 SUJ 10.6U 2.3U 0.4 1.4U 13U 2.2U' l.5U R l.lU 2.SU
S-l0-8(O)L 8 1.2ut 3.su" 1.2tf 1.5u" 1.2tf 1.1 u' 13U' O.Su" R 1.0u" 1.4u"
S-10-9(0)S 10 1.8UJ 11.1U 2.4U 1.0U 1.4U 13U 13U 1.6U R l.lU 1.6U
S-10-10(0)S 11 1.8UJ 9.0U 1.9U 1.6U 1.2U 1.tU t.9U , 13U R O.9U 2.1U
S-tO-ll(O)S 14 2.4UJ 12.9U 1.8U 13U 1.7U t.6U 2.7U 1.9U R 13U 3.0U
S-tO-12(O)S 16 2.SUJ 11.4U 1.4U 1.1U l.5U 1.4U' 13U t.7U R 1.2U' 1.6U
S-lO-13(O)S 18 12U 10 2.0U 1.7U 1.2U l.lU 1.0U 1.4U R l.OU 2.2U
S-lO-l4(O)L 1'8 7.2Ut 6A. 1.2U' 1.su. 0.6.1° l.lU' 13U' O.8U' R 1.0u" 1.4u"
S-10-14(0)S 20 12U 8.41 2.4U 1.0U 1.4U 13U '13U 1.6U R l.lU 1.6U
S-11-1(O)S 0 740U 140U 110U 26,000 88,000 5,700 330,000 6,800 R 140U 260U
S-l1-S(O)S 2 280U 6,100U 200U 13,000 22,000 1,800 150,000 1,300 7100 140U 150U
S-11-4(0)S 4 460U l,600U 260U 4,600 5,300 150 50,000 130 R 120U 190U
S-11-6(0)S 6 l,l00U 6,300U 200U 1,500 880 180U 11,000 91U 470J 140U 150U
S-11-8(0)S 10 390U l1,OOOJ 130U 6,800 6,900 280 65,000 110U R l00U 170U
S-l1-12(O)L 1'8 'IOu" 9.7u" 0.9tf 1.0U. O.6tf O.8U' 1.su' 0.4u" R 0.6U' l.lu"
IM:\1n14\Q\II40FTA&ROD/Jd8l-KROD)
MOUIIhIa HoID8 AFB . "AI. ~
QS.04.92
~.I
S\IId I oU
-------
TABlB S (Continued)
VOlA1U.B ORGANICS ANALYSIS RESULTS (I&g/kg)
BORINGS 8-10, 8-11, AND 8-12 (~arcb, 1988)
TeB MBK Tra~l~
Site Depth Methyleno (Trich1oro- (1,. Tetrach1oro Dich1oro-
Sample (ft) Chloride Acetone Chloroform Bthylbenzene Toluene ethylene) Xylenes Benzene Butanone) ethylene ethylene'
Designation
8-12-i(o)S 0 2,700 I,500U 2,3OOU 29,000 84,000 13,000. 330,000 5,600 R 8,400 2,8OOU
8-11,.2(0)L 0 1Stf 1Stf 1.1' 1.0u' 0.6u' O.su' 1'su' 0.4u' R 0.6u' uu'
8-12-4(0)S 4 310U 39,000 200U 18,000 22,000 4,000 200,000 730 2,000 2S0U
8-11,.5(0)S 4 430U 29,000 1901 11,000 13,000 1,900 150,000 . 360 R 1,400 2SOU
8-11,.6(0)S 6 680U t:I,ooo. 4SOU 37,000 55,000 13,000 370,000 2,700 R 5,800 550U
8-11,.7(0)S 8 800U t:I,ooo 450U 18,000 22,000 6,400 220,000 1,600 R 3,600 330J
8-12-9(0)S 10 SOOU 17,000 200U 1,800 1,200 2SO 23,000 t:IU R 410 240U
8-12-10(0)S '12 890U 25,000 410U 10500 1,400. ~ 16,000 390 R 590 SOOU
8-11,.11(0)S 14 360U 22,000 110U 340 350 120 4,100 49U R 73U 130U
8-11,.12(0)L 1'8 13u' I 8.8' 0.9U' 1.0u' O.6U' O.su' I.5U' 0.4U' R 0.6U'. l.lu'
Source: Resources ConservatIon Company (RCC). 1989b, InstaUation Restoration Program Phase IV-A, Remedial Action Plan
and Conceptual Doaamenb, Site 8, Mountain Home AFB, Idaho. Prepared for u.s. Army Corps of Bngineers, Omaha, NE.
Febnwy. 1989.
Qualifiers listed are qualifiers assfped during data validation.
J Indicates an estimated value when resuh Is less than specified detection Umit.
. U Indicates that anaJyte was below detection Omit.
S. Indicates. IOD ample.
L Indicates. Uquld ample.
TB Trip blank
R Indicates data rejected.
.. Values are In ps/L
(M:\1II114\O\II40F1'A8.ROD/JdaI-)(ItOD)
Mo1IIII8II> Ifo.- AF1I- FTA8. 0U-4
SIIftI 2013
Q$.44-92
-------
-:
TABLE 6
CONCENTRATION OF TRIanDROETHYLENB (TCB)
IN GROUNDWATBR
MWlo.o2
MWll.Ql
TCE (p.gfL)
44-89 4-5-90
1.0 18
Trace 1.8
Trace 1.3
NS 1.2
1.5 1.3
NS L4
Sample
Df'!!:;8J'ltiOD
MW09-01
~
MWlO.Ql
. MW11.Q2
NS so Not sampled
Source: U.s. Army Corps of Engineers fiIcs.
:.I
(M:\B9114\O\WQPrA8.RODJjdg/c:ceJ(ROD)
MauaI8Ia HallIe AfB - PI'AI, ou-.
. .... laU
QS.04.91
-------
TABLB 7
SUMMARY OF CONCBNTRAll0NS OF VOIA11LB ORGANICS DETBCmD IN
MOUNl'AIN HOMB AFB PRODUcnON WEU.S
Dalc Slmplcd
Coaceatntbt 10/21~ 10PS/ff1 Up:lJ8I 2/1B/89 5/YJ/89 8/D/8' 10/17/89 11/6/89 12/18/89 1/14f'J 2/14/90 4/2/90 10/13/90 l1/Uf'JO 11'/91 2/13/91 3fJIJ/91
(pUI)
m:»:1
TC8 0.00 NS O.so 1.70 1.10 1.20 1.50 1.30 0.70 1.10 NS UO 1.20 NS 2.GO NS NS
Bromoform 0.00 NS 0.00 1.30 0.70 0.00 2.50 3.80 2.83 12.70 NS 170 1.10 NS 0.00 NS NS
OromoclJdaloromethaao 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 NS NS
0I0r0dJb1'OlDOlllCthane 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.60 0.60 1.70 NS 1.10 0.00 NS 0.00 fIlS NS
CIIoroIorm 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.20 0.00 NS 0.00 NS NS
Total TribalomctMnCl 0.00 NS 0.00 1.30 0.70 0.00 3.70 5.40 3.43 14.40 NS 5.00 1.10 NS 0.00 fIlS NS
BPW-2
TC8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 NS NS
BlOSIIOCorm 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 6.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 NS NS
BromodlcbloJOmCthanc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 NS NS
C1Iorodlbramometb8lle 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 NS NS
C1IoroCorm 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 NS NS
Total TriIIalomctbaac8 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 7.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 NS NS
.
~
TC8 0.00 1.00 0.90 o.so 0.00 1.00 1.20 1.30 1.60 NS 0.66 1.10 NS NS NS 0.00 NS
BlOIIIOrorm 15.00 12.00 0.00 6.40 8.70 3.%7 0.00 0.00 1.83 NS 7.70 0.40 NS NS NS 0.00 NS
Oromodic:blorometbane 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 NS 0.00 0.00 NS NS NS 0.00 NS
CIIorodlbromomethaae 3.10 3.GO 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.65 NS 1.20 0.00 NS NS NS 0.00 NS
Qlorofonll 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 NS NS NS . 0.00 NS
Total TrihalomethaaCi '8.10 15.00 0.00 6.40 10.90 3.27 0.00 0.00 3.91' NS 8.90 0.40 NS NS NS 0.00 NS
IW
TC8 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.20 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 NS
BlOIIIOfoma 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 .NS
BJOJDOdIchIoromethaae 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 ,0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 NS
CIIoioda'blOlftOlDClhaao 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 fIlS 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 NS
OJJorororm 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 NS
Total TribalomethanCi 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 NS
(~114\Q\II4QFrA8JlODrJdrlClCC)(Jt.OD)
M,..."tafa Home AFB. Fl'AI, 0U-4
SIIen 1012
os.o4-92
-------
TABLE 7 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF OONCBNTRAnONS OF VOLATILE ORGANICS DBTBcrBD IN
MOUNfAIN HOMB AFB PRODUcnON WBU.S
Date Sampled
CooccDtratloG 10!21/ft7 10fJ.9fn 11m,. 2/D/89 5/30/89 8f1B/89 10/17/89 11/6/89 11/18/89 1/14/90 2/14/90 4/2/90 10/13/90 11/13/90 1/9/91 2/13/91 3/20/91
CHJI)
~
TCB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 NS NS 0.00 0.00 NS
Bromoform 0.00 0.00 ~oo 1.70 4.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 6.30 0.00 NS NS 0.00 0.00 N5
BlOmodichloromctbanc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.44 0.00 NS NS 0.00 0.00 NS
OIlolOdlbromomethane 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 2.60 0.00 NS NS 0.00 0.00 NS
OIloroConn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 NS NS 0.00 0.00 NS
Total Trihalomelbanes 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 5.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 9.34 0.00 NS NS 0.00 0.00 NS
BPW-7
TCB 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS NS NS
BromoI'orm 4.00 NS 10.40 1.40 7.80 0.00 8.20 2.40 0.93 NS 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 NS NS NS
BlOmodJcbJoromelhanc 0.00 NS 1.20 ' 0.00 0.80 0.00,. 0,(10 0.70 0.00 NS 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 NS NS NS
QloIOdlbromomed\lDC 0.00 NS 1.90 0.00 '2.10 0.00 2.10 2.00 0.00 NS 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 NS NS NS
OIIoroComa 0.00 NS 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~.OO : 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS NS NS
Total TribaIomcIhaDes 4.00 NS 11.30 lAG 11.30 0.00 11.50 OS.10 0.93 NS 0.00 10.80 0.00 0.00 NS NS NS
1m!:!
TCB 0.00 NS N5 0.70 NS 0.00 1.20 1.40 1.40 N5 0.00 1.40 Loo NS 1.50 1.CIO 1.80
Brocaoroma 0.00 NS NS 0.00 N5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 53.80 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00
Broatodktalorumethane 0.00 NS NS 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 .0.00 0.00
CbtorodlbromomethaDo 0.00 NS N5 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 2.90 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00
CbIorofoma 0.00 NS NS 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total TdbaIomctba0e8 0.00 NS NS 0.00 NS' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NS 56.70 0.00 0.00 NS 0.00 0.00 0.00
.NS. Not SampJc4 Soui= Mountain Homo AFB rdes.
.,
(M:89114\Q\1140FrA8.1l0D/jdllc:ccl(ROD)
MoUDtaiD Home APB - FrAIl. Ou-4
SIIcd hU
os.ot-91
Rev. 1
-------
(' ",-
TABLE 8
wee SOIL DATA ANALYSIS
srm 8 NOVEMBBR 1991
TRACB METALS (ARSENIC, CADMIUM, CHROMIUM, lEAD) (mg/kg)
Ancnic Cadmium Chromium Lead
Site Sample Result Reporting Result Reporting Result Reporting Result Reporting
Designation Limit Limit Limit Limit
FT -8-001 2.5 1.0 ND1 0.50 16.1 1.0 10.6 1.5
FT -8-001 2.8 2.0 ND 0.50 12.7 1.0 9.2 1.0
FT -8-003 2.3 1.0 ND 0.50 13.8 1.0 10.4 1.0
FT.8-004 2.6 1.0 ND 0.50 15.0 1.0. 8.7 1.0
FT -8-OOS 2.9 1.0 ND 0.50 12.5 1.0 8.7 1.0
FT -8-006 3.2 2.0 ND 0.50 13.5 1.0 9.7 1.0
Source: Laboratory anaIytic:al results arc shown in Appendix B.
I ND - Non Detect
Source: Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC), 1991, Installation Restoration Program, Remediallovestigation/Baseline
Risk Assessment, Operable Unit 4, Mountain Home AFB, Idaho. Prepared for U.s. Army Corps of Engineers,
Omaha District, Omaha, NE. December 1991.
[M:\89114\Q\II4QFI'AI.RODljdalcee)(IlOD)
Mountain Home AFB - FI' AI, OU-4
S!IftII of I
05-04-92
-------
--.
1
,
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF
BACKGROUND METALS CONCENTRATIONS
BASED ON LFI srrn DATA (mgJkg)
Metal Range Mean
Arsenic 0.8 - 19 4
Barium 17 - 2TI 105
Beryllium 0.1 - 12 0.5
Cadmium . 0.3 - 1.8 0.5
Chromium 2 - 17 8
Lead 2 - 17 6.5
Mercury . <0.1 - 0.41. 0.07
Zinc 13-69 32
~
Source: Woodward-C1yde CoasultaDts (wcc). 1992, lastaUation Restoration
Program, Remediallnvcstigation/BaseliDe Risk Assessment, Operable
Unit 2, LF-02, Mountain Home AFB, Idaho. Draft Report. Prepared for
U.s. Army Corps of Engineers. Omaha, NE. April, 1992.
[M:\89114\O\1140FrA8.RODfJd&lccc)(ROD) .
MOUDU Home AfB - PI'AB, OU-4
~IClf1
QS.{)4-C)2
-------
TABLE 10
COMPARISON OF LFI BACKGROUND
RANGES TO Ul'.aRATURB VALUES
Background Background
Metal Raagc MeaD
Arseaic
Site .Data 0.8 - 19 4
ATSDRU) 0.1 - 80 6
USGS~ 6.5
Barium
Site Data 17-m 105
ATSDR
USGS 70 - 5,000 700
Beryllium
Site Data 0.1 - 1.2 0.5
ATSDR 0.6 - 6.0 3-5
USGS <1
Cadmium
Site Data 03 - 1.8 0.5
'J ATSDR 0.3
Chromium
Site Data 2-24 8
ATSDR 2-71' 43
USGS 30
Lead
Site Data 2- 24 6.5
A TSDR 10 - 30
USGS 30 - 700
Mercwy
QUI Site <0.1 - 0.41 om
USGS 0.05
Zinc
Site Data 13-69 32
USGS 28
(I)
AgeDCJ for Toxic Substances aDd Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Pro6les. U.s. Dept. of
Health and Human Services.
USGS 1984.
(2)
Source: Woodward-Oyde CoasultaDts (WCC),1992, IDst,I1AtiOl1 RestoratioD
Program. Rcmedia1l1m:stigatioa/BaseIiDc Risk Asscssmcat. Operable
Unit 2. LF-02, MOUDtaia Home APB, Idaho. Draft Report. Prepared for
u.s. Army Corps of Easinecn. Omaha, NE. April, 1992.
(M:\89114\Q\114QfTA8.ROD/jd&Ic:cc](IWD)
Mountaia HOIK AFB - fTA8, Ou..6
Sbod 1 aU
~
-------
...
TABLE' ,
CONCENTRATIONS OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN:
SURFACE SOilS, mg/kg
4-Methyl
Depth Trlchloro 2-pentanone Ethyl- 2-Butanone Methylene Tetrachloro
Sample (It). Acetone ethytene Benzene (MIBt<) Toluene benzene Xylenes (MEK) chloride ethylene
=-----== : =
8-,-, o~u . t.8E." 4.0E.oO UEtOO 7.5E-o'
8-2-' 0-1.1 UEtOO ,. 'E.OO UE-o, 4.2E-o'
8-3-1 0-1.1 :8.8E-01 UE-03 I.OE-03 2.OE-03
8-4-1 0-1.1 '.5E-03 I.OE-03 2.5E-03 '.OE-03
8-5-, 0-1.1 '.4E-02 3.5E-03 8 I.OE-04
8-8-, 0-1.1 UE-GI 2.7E-02 I 8 8.0E-03
8-7-' 0-'.' 7.0E-o' 4.0e-03 8 '.OE-03
8-8-' 0- '.1 UE-03 3.5E-03 8 I.OE-04
8-10-' 0 L4E-03 R I.IE-03 UE-04
8-, 1-' C 7.OE-03 R '-1E-01 7.0E-02
8-'2-' 0 7.IE-O' R '.4E.oO I 8.4E.oo I
Mtan 1.3Z 1.11 1.11 '.05 :10.45 '1.72 "8.27 0.84 0.72 0.88
N " " " " " " " 8 7 "
SInd Dew Lt7 4.13 1.84 tI.It 40.47 '7.88 '5S.20 1.30 0.84 1.38
8lnd errOl t.l8 1.21 0.88 L81 '1.20 1.32 48.78 0.48 0.38 o.n
T(n-'). 0.01 IL22I 1.228 1.228 1.228 1.228 1.228 1.228 1.385 1.447 2.228
",.. UCL L7t 1.37 4.04 21.51 17.83 24.58 222.53 1.73 1.58 1.48
Source: Tables 3 and 5
R: Rejected data. 8: Method blank contaminant.
Values In boxes were detected above the sample reporting Umlt.
AU other values are one-half the sample reporting limit.
-------
TABLE 12
CONCENTRATIONS OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN: SOilS, mg/kg
Depth
~
8-10-'
8-10-10
8-IO-U
8-10-12
8-10-1:a
8.10-14
8-11-1
8-11-2
8-11-4
8-11-8
8-11-8
8-12-1
8-12-4
8-12-1
8-12-8
8-12-7
8-12-'
8-12-10
8-12-11
"'ean
N
81nd Dew
81nd Error
T(n-I). 0.01
8S~ UCl
10
12
14
II
t8
20
o
2
4
8
"
°
4
4
8
8
10
12
14
Acetone
I.SE-03
4.1E-Oa
I.IE-03
1.71-03
I ,.OE--I
'.4"
7.OE-03
a. 1 E.oo
'.OE-o'
:a.2E.oo
I t.1E.o, 1
7.1&-0'
I.tE.o,
1.1&.01
'.7E.o,
'.7E.o,
'.7E.o,
1.1&.0,
1.2E.o,
....
16
11.44
1.4.
2.02'
,'-.,
Trlchloro
ethylene. Benzene
:
4-Methyl
2-pentanone
~ Toluene
'.IE-414
I.IE-414
'.OE-414
7.0E-414
I.IE-414
I.IE-414
1.7E.oo
UEtOO
2.IE-o'
'.OE-02
2.8E-o'
'.3E.01
4.0E.00
,..E.oo
'.3E.o,
'.4E.00
2.IE-o'
4.8£-0'
'.21-0'
t.Ol
16
1.81
0.-
1.02'
1.1,
8.0E-414 '.7E-03
8.IE-414 t.4E-03
UE-414 2.OE-03
UE-414 t.8E-03
7.OE-414 t.lE-o:a
8.OE-414 1.7E-o:a
8.IE.00 I.2E-o'
"'E.oo I.'E-Ol
I.3E-o' 4.21-01
UE-02 2. 'E-O'
"'E-o, :a.7E-o'
LeEtOO 2.3E.oo
7.3E-ol I.IE-o'
:"'£-01 1.1E-01
2.7E.00 4.IIE-o'
1.2EtOO 4.IIE-o'
4.4E-02 2.0E-o'
I :I.IE-o' I 4.2E-o'
I.IIE-02 t.1E-oi
0.117
III
'.16
0.11
1.021
0."
1.82
16
'.08
1.22
2.02'
4.38
7.oE-414
1.0E-414
UE-414
7.1&-414
'.OE-414
7.Oe-414
8.8E.o ,
I.2E.oI
I5.3E.oo
'.IE-ol
8.8EtOO
8.4£.0'
2.21.01
'.31.01
UE.o,
2.2E.01
'.21.00
MEtOO
UE-o,
1.11
15
22.12
:toOl
1.02'
'1.07
Ethyl-
benzene
1.oE-03
1.0E-414
1.2E-U
,. 'E-03
1.8E-414
t.OE-03
UE.o,
"'E.o,
4.8EtOO
t.lE+OO
UE.oo
2.8E.o,
UE.o,
I.1E.oI
3.7E.oI
UE.oI
UE.oo
UE+OO
3.4E-o'
4.88
II
10.78
t.41
1.02'
7.80
Xylenes
:
1.21-03
'.1&-414
ME-o:a
1.2E-o:a
t.OE-03
I.2E-o:a
:UE.o2
UE.o2
I.OE.o ,
2. 1 E.o ,
8.IIE.o,
3.3E.o2
2.0E.o2
1.IIE.02
3.7E.02
I.2E+02
I.3E.o,
'.SE.o,
4. 'E+OO
47.11
16
'02.27
'3.78
2.02'
71.0:8
2-Butanone Methylene Tetrachloro
(MEK) chloride ethylene
R ,..E-o:a
R '.OE-414
R '.2E-03
R 1.2&-03
R '.01-03
R I.OE-o:a
R 1.71-01
7.IE-ol I 1.4E-O'
R ue-Ol
4.7E-01 I I.IE-oI
R 2.OE-o'
R 1.4E+OO
R 1.8E-01
R 2.21-01
R 3o4E-oI
R 4.0E-01
R I.IIE-O'
R 4.se-o,.
R t.8E-01
0.30 0.2'
33 40
0.78 UI
0.'4 0.01
2.042 1.042
0.11 0.38
I.IE-414
4.I5E-414
8.l5E-414
S.OE-414
LOE-414
UE-414
7.0E-02
7.0E-02
'.oE-02
7.0E-02
l.oe-02
8.4EtOO
2.OEtOO
'.4E+OO
UE+OO
3.8EtOO
4.IE-o'
UE-o, .
:t.7E-02
0,44
16
1.44
G...
2.02'
o.n
Soulce: Tabl.. . 8IHI .
R: nel.Cled dilL 8: Method blank conlamlnanL
Valu.. In box.. wer. 4.I",ed aboIrtlht 'IIIIP" ..porting DmIL
-------
-~
!
TABLE 13
INTAKE ASSUMPl10NS -INHAlATION VOCS AND PARTICULATES
OCCUPA110NAL RBCBPTQRS
I Carc:inogcaic I Noncarcinogeoic
Parameter ,
AVE RME AVE RME
~
InhAl&tion Ratc (M' fhz) (IR)I 1.50 2.SO 1.50 2.SO
Exposurc Tamc (hrs/day) (ET) 8 8 8 8
Exposurc Frequcncy (days/yr) (EF) , 2SO 2SO 2SO 2SO
Exposure Duration (years) (ED)l 9 2S 9 '2S
Body Wcight (kg) (BW) 70 70 70 70
A~raging Tamc (days)' (ATt 2S,sSO 2S,sSO 3,285 9,125
.
~
Particulate
laha1ation Ratc (M' /br) (IR)I 1.50 2.SO 1.50 2.50
Exposure Tamc ('on/day) (ET) '8 8 8 8
Exposure Frequcncy (days/yr) (EF) 2SO 2SO 2SO 2SO
Exposurc Duration (years) (ED)l 9 2S 9 2S
Deposition Factor (Df)3 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Body Weight (kg) (BW) 70 70 70 70
A~ Tame (days) (A1)4 2S,sSO 2S,5S0 3,285 9,125
. AdMty Ievd equivalcnt to simple construction or stacking firewood (EPA 1989b).
J Medial and 90th percentile duration in one residence (EPA 19898). '
J 1'weDty-fi\'e pen:cat of inhaled particles are deposited in the lUDgi it is assumed that aU of the VOCS in that
fractioD are absorbed (Midwest Research IDstitute 1985).
4 ~ns: 70 years x 36S days/year. Noncarcinogcns: 9 or,3O years x 36S days/year.
Source: Woodward-Oyde Consultants (WCC), 1991, Instal1l1tion Restoration Program, Remedial
IDYcstigation/BaseUnc Risk Assessmeat, Operable Unit 4, MOUDtain Home AFB. Id8ho. Prepared
for the u.s. Army Corps of Eagincers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE. December, 1991.
[M:\89114\O\1140PI'ALRODfJdg/ccc)(ROD) .
MouG&aiD Home AFB - PI'AII, Ou.4
~92
Rev. 1
-------
TABLE 14
INTAKE ASSUMPI10NS -1NHAIA110N VOCS AND PAR11CULATBS
CONS'lRUcnONfREMEDIA110N WORKERS
I Carc:inogeaic I Noncarc:iaogeDic
Parameter I I
AVE ~ AVE RMB
~
Tn1'l,IAtion Ratc (M' for) (IR)l 2.S 2.S 2.S 2.S
Exposure Tunc (bn/day) (ET) 8 8 8 8
Exposure Frequcncy (days/yr) (EF)2 20 40 20 40
Exposure Duration (years) (ED) 1 1 1 1
Body Wcight (leg) (BW)" 70 70 70 70
Averagiag Tunc (days) (ATt. 2S,sSO 2S,sSO 20 40
Particulatc
lahaJation Ratc (M' /hr) (IR)l 2.S 2.S 2.S 2.S
Exposure Tunc (bn/day) (ET) .8 8 8 8
Exposure Frequency (days/yr) (EF) 20 40 20 40
Exposure Duration (years) (ED) 1 1 1 1
Dcposition Factor (DF)' 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Body Weight (leg) (BW)
Averagiag ramc (days) (ATt
70
70
70
70
25,sSO
25,sSO
20
40
1 ActMty bd equiYaleat to bityding or digging trenches (EP A 1989b).
2 Estimued duration of earth moviag activities.
J MidMSt Research lastitutc 1985.
.. c8rdaogeas: 70 years x 36S days/year. NoncarcinogcD$: 1)'Car x 20 or 40 days/year.
Source: woodw8rd-aycle Consubnts (WCC), 1991, bst,IIAdoa Restontioa Program, Remedial
. lnYestigatioa/BaseIinc Risk AsscssmCDt, Operablc UDit 4, Mountain Homc AFB, Idaho.
Prepared for thc u.s. Army Corps of Eoginccrs, Omaha District, Omaha, NE. December, 1991.
[M:\89114\O\114QPfA8.RODfJds!cec)eROD)
Mouacaia Hoate AFB - Fl'AB, ou-.
SIIed 1 oU
QS.04-9Z
-------
TABlE 15
INTAKE ASSUMPl10NS - SOIL INGES110N
REMEDIA110N/CONS1RUcnON WORKERS
I Carc:inogeaic I Nonc:an:inogcDic
Parameter I I
AVE RME AVE RME
Remediation Workers
lDgesbon R8tc (mg/day) (IR)I 100. 100 100 100
Exposure Frequency (days/yr) (EF)1 20 40 20 40
Exposure Duration (years) (ED) 1 1 1 1
Conversion Factor (mg/kg) (CF) 1~' 1~ 1~ 1~
Body Weight (kg) (BW) 70 70 70 70
Averaging T"ame (days) (AT)J 2S,5SO 2S,5SO 20 40
I Upper bound estimate of adult soil mgesboo rate (10 times higher than estimated oormal soil Uagestioo
bebmor) (E.PA 1989b).
1 EstiV'atccJ duration of earth-moving actmties.
s Carcinogeas: 70 years x 36S days/year. Noocarc:inogeos: 1 year x 20 or 40 days/year.
Source: woodward-CIydc Consultants (WCC), 1991, Iostallatioo Restoration Program, RemedW
IDvesUgatioofBaseIiDe Risk Assessment, Operable Unit 4, Mountain Home AFB, Idaho.
Prepared for the U.s. Army Corps of EogiDeers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE. December, 199L
(M:\89114\Q\114QFrA8.RODfJdg/ccc](ROD)
MouotaiD Home AfB - FrAB, OU-4
~
Rev. 1
-------
TABLE 16
INTAKE ASSUMPTIONS - DERMAL CONTAcr
RBMBI)IA'nON WORKERS .
Catcinogcuic I Noncan:iDogeaic
Popaladon/Parametef' I I
AVE RME AVE RME
Remediation Workers
Body Surface Area &posed (em~l 970 J.94O 970 1,940
Dermal AbsorptiouZ 13% 33% 13% 33%
AdhereDce Factor (ms/em" 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5
Exposure Frequem:y (days/yr) (EFt 20 40 20 40
Exposure Duration (years) (ED) 1 1 1 1
CoImtsioD Pactor (kg/mg) (CF) lcr' lcr' lcr lcr'
Body Weight (kg) (BW) 70 70 70 70
~ Averagiaa TUDe (days) (AT)' 2S,sso 2S,ss0 36S 36S
1 Awrap. S% of total adult body surface of 19.400 cm2 (EPA 1989&); RME - 10% of 19.400 ~2.
2 ~"',t~ fracdoa of wIaIiIe oriuic compounds adhered to soil particles that is absorbed through skiD;
based OIL Mc:Itoae 1989 (see text). .
II Soil adhc:reDce fadon based OIL Drkw et aI. 1989.
. J:~"'.ted duratioa of carda-moviDg activities.
I Careht...~ 70 years ~ 36S days/year. Nol1C8J'dao&eas: 1 year ~ 36S days/year.
Source: Woodward-O)'de Coft$Jl!t."tI (WCC). 1991, IDstIJlttioa Restoration Program, Rcmedial
IJn-tIF';~aseIiDc Risk A~eat. Operable Uait 4. MoUDtaiD Home APB, Idaho.
-------
..:.
TABLE 17
INTAKE ASSUMPl10NS.- INHALATION PAR'l1CUIATES AND VOcs
HYP01HB11CAL ON-SITB RESIDENTS
I Carcinogenic I Noncarcinogenic
Parameter I I
AVE RME AVE RME
~
lolulllAtion Rate (M3 for) (IR)' 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Exposure rUDe Qus/day) (ET) 24 24 24 24
Exposurc Frequcncy (days/yr) (EF) 270 36S 270 36S
Exposure Duration (years) (ED)Z 9 30 9 30
Body Weight (kg) (BW) . 70 70 70 70
AVeraging rUDe «(lays) (ATt 2S,5SO 2S,5SO 3,285 10,950
. .
Partieulate
Inhalation Rate (Ms /Iir) (IR)' 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Exposure TUDe Con/day) (ET) 24 24 24 24
Exposure Frequcncy (days/yr) (EF) 270 36S 270 36S
Exposure Duration (years) (ED) 9 30 9 30
Deposition Factor (Df)3 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Body Weight (kg) (BW) 70 70 70 70
Averaging TUDe (days) (ATt 2S,55O 2S,55O 3,285 10,950
. , Activity 1cveI equivalent to 1cveI walking at 2 mph (EPA 1989b).
a MediaD and 90th percentile duration in ODC residence (EP A 1989a).
3. Midwest Research Institute 1985. .
4 Carcinogens: 70 years x 36S days/year. NOD carcinogens: 9 or 30 years x 36S days/year..
Source: woodward.Qyde Coasu1taDts (WCC), 1991. 1ost,1IAtiOD Restoration Program, Remedial
Iawstiption/Basclinc tUsk AssessmCDt, Operable UDit 4, Mountain Home AF'B, Idaho.
Prepared for the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE. December, 199L
(M:\89114\O\II40PTA8.RODrJdllccc](ROD)
Mouataia Home AfB . PTAS, OtJ.4
05-04-91
Rev. 1
-------
TABLE 18
INTAKE ASSUMP110NS - DERMAL CONfAcr
HYPOTHETICAL ON-SlTB RESIDENTS
I Carcinogenic I NODc:arcinogcaic
. POpulatiOD / Parameter I I
AVE RME AVE RME
Body Surface Area Exposed (an~l 2,910 6,400 2,910 6,400
Dermal AbsorptiOD2 13% 33% 13% 33%
Adherence Factor (mg/an~J 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5
Exposure FrcqueDCY (days/yr)(1) (EFt 52 78 52 78
Exposure DuratioD (years) (ED)' 9 30 9 30
CoDversioD Factor (mg/1cg) (CF) 1«r 1«r 1«r 1«r
Body Weight (kg) (BW) 70 70 70 70
Averaging Tame (days) (AT)' 2S,sSO 2S,sSO 3,285 10,950
I Average" 15% of total adult body surface of 19,400 em2 (EPA 1989a); RME .. 33% of 19,400 an2.
2 Estimated &actiOD of volatile organic compoUDds adhered to soil particles that is absorbed through skiD; based
OD McKone 1989 (see text).
J Soil adherence factors based OD Driver et al1989.
. EquivaJeot to 2 days/week for 6 mODths (average) and 3 days/week for 6 mODths (RNE).
S Median and 90th perceDti1c duratioD in ODe resideDce (EPA 1989a).
, Carcinogens: 70 years x 36S days/year. NODc:arciDogens: 9 or 30 years x 36S days/year (RME).
Source: Woodward-CIyde Consultants (WCC), 1991, IDstaI1atiOD RestoratioD Program, Remedial
IDvestigatioD/Basclioc Risk Assessment, Operable Unit 4, MOUDtain Home AFB, Idaho.
Prepared for the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE. December, 1991.
(M:\89114\Q\1140FrA8.RODfjdC/cccKROD)
MOUDtaiD Home AFB - FrAB, O~
SIIeIIUU
~91
-------
TABLE 19
. .
INTAKE ASSUMFfIONS - SOIL INGES110N
HYP01HB11CAL ON-SITB RESIDENTS
Con\'erSion Factor (kg/mg) (CF)
Exposure Duration (years) (ED)2
Body Weight (kg) (BW)
Averaging rune (days) (AT)J
I Carcinogenic I Noncarcinogenic
AVE 1 JUdE AVE .1 JUdE
10 100 10 100
270 36S 270 36S
0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5
1
-------
TABLE 20
INTAKE FACI'OR SUMMARY
Carcinogenic Noncarcinogenic
Receptor Pathway Average RME Average RME
Occupational Inhalation - VOCs 1.51E-02 6.99E-02 Ll7E-Ol l.96E-Ol
Inhalation - Particulates 3.77E-03 1.76E-02 2.94E-02 4.89E-02
Remediation Worker Inhalation - VOCS 2.24E-04 4.47E-04 1.S7E-02 3.13E-02
Inhalation - Particulates S.59E-OS 1.12E-04 3.91&03 7.83E-03
Dermal - Soil 7.0SE-l0 2.1SE-08 4.94E-08 1.50E-06
Ingestion - Soil 1.12E-09 2.24E-09 7.83E-08 1.57E-07
Hypothetical On-Site Inhalation. VOCS 2.71E-02 1.22E-Ol 2.11E-Ol 2.8SE-Ol
Resident Inhalation. Particulates 6.77E-03 3.0~ S.26E-02 7.11E-02
Dermal- Soil 4.9SE-08 4.1SE-06 3.8SE-07 9.63E-06
Ing~tion - Soil 3.40E-09 2.4SE-07 2.64E-08 7.14E-07
(M:\89114\Q\114QFrA8.ROD/Jdrlccc)(ROD)
Mountal" ""'tIIC AfB . FrAB. OU-4
Sheet 1 or 1
QS.Gt-92
-------
TABLE 21
SLOPE FACfORS: CARCINOGENS
Slope Factor (SF) Weigbt-of-Evidencc
Chemical (mg/'q,/day)" Classification Type of Cancer
Inhalation Route
Benzene 2.9E-02 A Nonlymphocytic leukemia
Trichloroethylene 6.0E-03 . B2 Lung
Methylene Chloride 1.6E-03 B2 Lung. liver
Tetrachloroethylene l.8E-03 B2 Leukemia, liver
OrallDermal Route
Benzene 2.9E-02 A Nonlymphocytic leukemia
Trichloroethylene 1.lE-02 B2 Liver
Methylene Chloride 7.5E-03 B2 Liver
~
Tetrachloroethylene 5.1£-02 B2 liver
Source: EPA IRIS database or EPA, 1991a. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST).
[M:\89114\O\1140FrA8.IlODfjdgfccel(IlOD)
MouataiD Home AFB - FrAB, OU'"
~92
Ilev. 1
-------
TABLE 22
REFERENCE noSES: NONCARCINOGENS
Subcbronic Chronic Uncertainty Factor
RfD RID
Chcmical (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) Critical Effect RID Basis Subcbronic Chronic
Inhalation Routc
Acetonc NA NA
2-ButaDonc (MEK) 9.00E-Ol 9.ooE-02 CNS effects InhSlIAtion lOO 1,000
Ethylbcnzenc 2.90E-Ol 2.90E-Ol Developmcnt Inhalation 300 300
altoxicity
4-Mcthyl-2-pcntaDonc 2.00E-Ol 2.00E-02 Uverand lOO 1,000
(MIBK) kidncy cffects
Methylcnc chloridc 8.60E-Ol 8.60E-Ol N/A Inhalation lOO lOO
Tetrachloroethylcnc NA NA
~ Toluenc 6.00E-Ol 6.00E-Ol CNS cffects lnha1ation lOO - lOO
Xylcncs 8.60E-02 8.60E-02 CNS cffects Inhalation lOO lOO
OrallDcnnai Routc
Acetonc l.OOE+OO l.OOE-Ol Kidney Gavage lOO 1,000
toxicity
2-Butanonc (MEK) S.OOE-Ol S.ooE-02 Fctotoxicity Inhalation lOO 1,000
Ethylbcnzenc l.OOE+OO l.OOE-Ol Uver & Gavage lOO 1,000
kidney
toxicity .
4-Mcthyl-2-pcntanonc S.OOE-Ol S.OOE-02 Uver 8r. Gavage lOO 1,000
(MIBK) kidncy cffects
Methylene cbIoridc 6.00E-02 6.00E-02 Uver toxicity DriDkiag 100 100
watcr
Tetrachloroethylene l.ooE-Ol l.ooE-02 Uver toxicity Gavage lOO 1,000
Toluene 2.OOE + 00 2.00E-Ol Uver & Gavage lOO 1,000
kidney cffects
Xylcaes 4.00E+OO 2.OOE+OO Hyperactivity Gavage lOO lOO
NA- Not awilablc.
Source: EPA, 1991L Health Effects Assessment SUIIlIIWY Tables (HEAST).
(M:\89114\Q\114QFTA8.R.ODrJdslcce](ROD)
NoataiD Home AfB - FTA8, OU"
SIIect t oU
~92
-------
1"'--"
. TABLE 23
SUMMARy OF HBAL1H.RISKS
Average Exposure R~,-,htc Maximum Exposvrc
Sccaario I Receptor CaDccr subcbroDic' OirOaic subcbroaic Ououic
Risk Hazard Hazard Cancer Hazard Hazard Index
Index Index Risk Index
Off-site .Resident 4.5'7&09 2.71E-04 L21E-08 7.03E..()4
Occupational 3.22E-m 7.00&03 2.91.E-06 3.43E-02
Fare Faghtcr 3.7SPA11 ~ 1.08&06 6.1~
Trespasser 1.76E.08 1.04E-03 1.8SE-07 l.OlE-02
Recreational 6.11&09 3.62£.04 4.77E.08 2.78E-03
Remediation I -. 4.33&99 7.73E-04 1.69E.08 3.19&03
Resident
RemediatioD Worker 4.70&07 8.39E.02 1.84&06 3.22E-Ol
Hypothetical Oo-site
Resident
Adult 4.94E-06 I.64E-Ol 3.90E-OS 4.00&01
OWd ~ (Soiling.) S.51&09 S.10E..QS S.3SE-08 4.76E-04
Source: Woodward.aydc CoosultaDtS (WCC), 1991, IDStiB'l1Ation Restoration Program, Remcdia1lJM:stigation/BascUoc
Risk Assessment, Operable Unit 4, MouotaiD Home AFB, ldah~ Prepared for the U.s. Army Corps or
Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE. December, 1991.
...:
(N:\89114\Q\1140PrA8.RODfjdg/CCC)(ROD)
~taia Home AFB - PrAB. OU4
QS-04-92
Rev. 1
------- |