United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R10-93/066
August 1993
&ER& Superfund
Record of Decision:
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons)
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION '1. REPORT NO. 2. 3. Reclplent'e Acc88elon No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R10-93/066
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Data
SUPERFUND RECORD OF .DECISION 08/10/93
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons) (Operable Unit 8), OR 6.
Fourth Remedial Action
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. Performing Organization Nama and Addr... 10 Project TaelclWork Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Nama and Add,..e 13. Type 0' Report & Period Covered
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S .W. 800/800
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. Supplementary Notee
PB94-964614
18. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
c.
The 8-acre Urnatilla Army Depot (Operable Unit 8) site is part of a 19,700-acre military
installation located approximately 10 miles west of Hermiston, in both Morrow and
Umatilla Counties, Oregon. This installation was established in 1941 as an Army
Ordnance Depot to store and handle munitions. Land use in the area is predominantly
agricultural, with approximately 1,000 residents in each of the bordering farm
communities of Urnatilla and Irrigon. Hermiston, with a population of approximately
10,000 residents, is the largest local population center. The local residents use the
estimated 1,470 wells, located within a 4-mile radius of the site, to obtain their
domestic and irrigation water supply, and three municipal water syste~s to obtain their
drinking water supply. Due to its large size, the number of sites, and the variety of
potential contaminants, the installation was divided into eight OUs. OU8 is comprised
of six former disposal areas and includes: the Northern Inactive Landfill (NIL), the
NIL Extension (NILE), the Southern Inactive Landfill (SIL), the SIL Extension (SILE),
the Western Inactive Drum Site (WIDS), and the Southeastern Inactive Landfill (SEIL).
The larger landfills, the SIL and the NIL, are former gravel pits. From the 1940s to
1980s, disposal activities occurred onsite at OU8i however, interviews with
installation personnel indicated that, with the opening of the Active Landfill (OU5),
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. D88crlptora
Record of Decision - Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons) (Operable Unit 8), OR
Fourth Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: None
Key Contaminants: None
b. IdentifieralOpen.Endad Tarms
c. COSA TI FleldlGroup
18. Availability Statement 19. Security Class (ThIs Report) 21. No.o'Pag88
None 60
20. Security Class (ThIs Page) 22. Price
None
(See ANSI.Z39.18)
SHlnstructlons on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4.77)
(Formerty NTI5-35)
-------
EPA/ROD/R10-93/066
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons)
Fourth Remedial Action
(Operable Unit 8), OR
/
Abstract (Continued)
much of the disposal activity ceased in the mid-1960s. Materials disposed of in the oua
areas were primarily non-hazardous and included garbage, demolition debris, asbestos from
brake linings, dried sludge from the sewage treatment plant, explosives sludge, and
possibly ash from the Deactivation Furnace. In addition, the WIDS was used for drum
disposal; however, based on information gathered during a site visit in 1992, most of the
drums on the ground surface are empty and are no longer presenting a threat to the
environment. ,Over the past 15 years, several investigations have been conducted at the
installation. Initial field investigations indicated ground water contamination in the
vicinity of the landfill with slightly elevated levels of inorganic nitrate/nitrite, and
no significant contamination of soil in the WIDS. Results of subsequent soil
investigations indicated elevated levels of several metals in most of the soil samples, as
well as trace levels pesticides and one PCB compound; however the concentrations of
metals, pesticides, and PCBs in soil are lower than the respective installation-wide
cleanup criteria. A 1992 ROD addressed the Explosive Washout Lagoons Soil, as OU2. Two
1993 RODs addressed the Deactivation Furnace and the Active Landfill, as OUs 1 and 5,
respectively. This ROD addresses the Inactive Landfills at the installation, as oua.
Further evaluations, including a risk assessment, indicated that the contamination
associated with the oua former disposal areas does not pose an unacceptable risk to human
health and the environment; therefore, there are no contaminants of concern affecting this
site.
The selected remedy for this site is no action. EPA determined that the contamination
associated with this site does not pose an unacceptable threat to human health or the
environment. There are no present worth or O&M costs associated with this no action
remedy.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
-------
, .
Defense Environmental
RestoratIon Program
Record 01 Decision
Final
Umatllla Depot Activity
Inactive landfills
Operable Unit
-,
..".T-
(
,r- ~
Revision 1
March 1993
In accordance with Anny Regulation 200-2, this document is intended by the Army to
-------
Table of Contents
. .
Acronyms and Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III
1.0 Declaration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Site Name and Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement of Basis and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Description of the Selected Remedy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Declaration Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
1
1
2
2.0 Decision Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
2.1 Site Name, Location and Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 7
2.2 Site HiStory and Enforcement Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
2.3 Highlights of Community Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
2.4 Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action. . . . . . . . . .. 16
2.5 Summary of Site Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
2.6 Summary of Site Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33
2.7 Description of the "No-Action" Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46
2.8 Documentation of Significant Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46
3.0 Responsiveness Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47
4.0 State of Oregon's Letter of Concurrence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48
-------
Table 01 Contents (continued)
Figures
. .
Figure 1: UMDA Facility Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 2: Overview of UMDA Layout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
Figure 3: Inactive Landfills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. II
Tables
Table I:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:
Table 10:
Table 11:
Table 12:
Summary of Historic Operations at the Inactive Landfill Sites. .. 13
Contaminants Detected in Subsurface Soil Samples Collected in
the Inactive Landfills Area Phase I Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
Contaminants Detected in Ground Water Samples Collected in the
Inactive Landfills Area Phase I Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
Ground Water Analytical Results Phase 2 Investigation Inactive
Landfills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21
Soil Analytical ResultS Phase 2 Investigation Inactive Landfllls .. 25
Occurrence and Disttibution of Compounds Evaluated in the
Inactive Landfills Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36
Summary of Toxicity Criteria for the Contaminants of Concern at
the Inactive Landfills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37
Multiple Pathway Potential Carcinogenic Risks and
Noncarcinogenic Hazards at the Inactive Landfills Future
Residential Land Use Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40
Potential Carcinogenic Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazards Due
to Ingestion of Ground Water from the Inactive Landfills Future
Residential Land Use Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41
Potential Carcinogenic Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazards Due
to Dermal Absorption of Ground Water Contaminants at Inactive
Landfills Future Residential Land Use Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . .. 42
Potential Carcinogenic Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazards Due
to the Consumption of Crops Grown at the Inactive Landfills
Future Residential Land Use Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43'
Comparison of 95% Upper Confidence Limit Concentrations and
Remedial Goals for the Soils of the Umatilla Depot Activity
Inactive Landfills Operable Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45
87'01281TEP.AOO.~~
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Amunition Demolition Activity
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementS
Base Realignment and Closure
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPF Cancer Potency Factor
DoD Department of Defense
2.4-DNT 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-DNT 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
EP A Environmental Protection Agency
FFA Federal Facilities Agreement
FS Feasibility Study
llA>U Inactive Landfill Operable Unit
MSL Mean Sea Level
NA Not Applicable
NCP National Contingency Plan
Nil.. Nonhern Inactive Landfill
Nil..E Nonhern Inactive Landfill Extension
NPL National Priorities List
ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
OU Operable Unit
PCBs Polychlorinated-biphenyls
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDX Hexahydro-l ,3,S-trinitro-l ,3,5-triazine (Royal Demolition Explosive)
RID Reference Dose
RI Remedial Investigation
ROD Record of Decision
SARA Superfund AmendmentS and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SEll.. Southeastern Inactive Landfill
Sn.. Southern Inactive Landfill
Sll..E Southern Inactive Landfill Extension
TAL Target Analyte List
TRC Technical Review Committee
UMDA U.S. Army Depot Activity at Umatilla
USAlHAMA U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
WIDS Western Inactive Drum Site
ADA
ARARs
BRAC
CERCLA
17082II1'!EP .ROO.NCTIVE.CXW2M13
-------
Section 1
Declaration
Site Name and Location
U.S Army Depot Activity, Umatilla
Inactive Landfills Operable Unit
Henniston, Oregon 97838-9544
Statement 01 Basis and Purpose
This Decision Document presentS the selected no-action remedial alternative for the
Inactive Landfills Operable Unit at the U.S. Army Depot Activity, Umatilla (UMDA)
in Hermiston. Oregon (Figure I). This alternative was chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation and Uability Act (CERG..A)
of 1980, as amended by the Superfund AmendmentS and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
of 1986. and to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP), (40 CFR
Pan 300 et~. 1992; 55 Federal Register 8666 March 1990), as amended. This decision
is based on infonnation contained in the administtative record file for this operable unit
The remedy was selected by the' U.S. Army (Army). and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) was given the opponunity to participate in the review and decision process and
concurs with the selection of a no-action remedy for this site.
Descrtptlon 01 the Selected Remedy
The Inactive Landfills Operable Unit (ll..OU) is one of eight operable unitS at UMDA.
The ILOU includes six discrete fonner disposal areas totalling an area of approximately
300,000 square feet. (approximately 8 acres) located west of the UMDA administration
area. The other operable unitS are: the Deactivation Furnace Soils; the Active Landfill;
the Explosives Washout Lagoons Soils; the Explosives Washout Lagoons Ground Water;
the Ammunition Demolition Activity (ADA) Area; the Miscellaneous UMDA Sites; and.
the Explosives Washout Plant (Building 484). Four of these operable unitS are at the
Record of Decision (ROD) stage, the rest are still in the Remedial Investigation!
Feasibility Study (RIIFS) process. The four operable unitS at the ROD stage are:
Explosives Washout Lagoons Soils, which has a signed final ROD; lead contaminated
soil around the Deactivation Furnace; the Active Landfill; and the Inactive Landfills. The
n..oU is addressed in this ROD.
The Army, EPA. and ODEQ have selected "No Action" as the remedy for the Inactive
Landfills Operable Unit at UMDA. in Hermis~ Oregon. This selection was made
based upon infonnation generated during the RI which indicates that the site does not
pose an unacceptable threat to human health and/or the environment
- -
-------
Declaration Statement
Data gathered during the RI of the ILOU. and the resultS of the evaluation of that data
in the human health risk assessment. indicate that the ILOU in itS current condition does
not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. The data also indicate
that any potential future land use at the site would not result in an unacceptable risk to
public health or the environment. A five-year review of the Inactive Landfill Operable
Unit is not required because the physical site conditions are not expected to be altered
and no site access restrictions. risk-based or otherwise. are needed.
870828'TEPJaI.~
-------
~ ..' ..-. ... """..,. ". " -'. _.- .,
Lead and Support Agency Acceptance
01 the Record 01 Decision,
U.S. Army Depot Activity Umatllla,
Inactive Landf1l1s Operable Unit
December 1992
Signature sheet for the foregoing Record of Decision for the Inactive Landftlls Operable
Unit final action at the U.S. Anny Depot Activity at Umatilla by the U.S. Anny and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with the concurrence of the State of Oregon
~p~ntofEnviron~nuUQu~ity.
Lewis D. Walker
~puty Assistant Secretary of the Anny
(Environment, Safety, and Occupation~ Health)
Date
.~
87082111 TEl' .ROO.INACTIVE.cn'2&'Q3
-------
,-, -', .-' .
Lead and Support Agency Acceptance
of the Record of Decision,
U.S. Army Depot Activity Umatilla,
Inactive landfills Operable Unit
December 1992
Signarure sheet for the foregoing Record of Decision for the Inactive Landftlls Operable
Unit final action at the U.S. Anny Depot Activity at Umatilla by the U.S. Anny and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with the concwrence of the State of Oregon
Depamnent of Environmental Quality.
Lieutenant Colonel William D. McCune
Commander, U.S. Anny Depot Activity, Umatilla
Date
a7'Oil2a 1 TEP .ROO.INIICT~.1XII2MI3
-------
. ~ . . ~'...- ""..
Lead and Support Agency Acceptance
of the Record of Decision,
U.S. Army Depot Activity Umatilla,
Inactive Landfills Operable Unit
December 1992
Signature sheet for the foregoing Record of Decision for the Inactive Landfills Operable
Unit final action at the U.S. Army Depot Activity Umatilla by the U.S. Army and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, with the concurrence of the State of Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality. "
/ "" "," "--
-// /;' (, " / " -----
/"" ~~ ~ ~,."~" "u>
Gerald A Erruson
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
8
Date
L{)
r3
-------
. Lead and Support Agency Acceptance
of the Record 01 Decision,
U.S. Army Depot Activity Umatllla,
Inactive landfills Operable UnIt
December 1992
Signamrc shw for the foregoing Record of Decision for the Inactivc Landfills Operable
Unit final action at the U.S. AIrrrj Depot Activity at Umarilla by the U.S. Army and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with conctmenCe of the State of OreiOn
Dc:pamnent of Environmental QualiIy.
!; /./'
-f"'1-~d..c-<-.L- ~- ,/. c::::=.-<- &--. ):-,
r ~ /' .... I'
Fredcnc J. Hansen /
Director
Oregon Department of EnvironmClw Quality
/-Lj-13
Date
Note: The Swc of Oregon's Letter of Concurrence is appen&.d to this Record of
Decision. .
-------
Section 2
Decision Summary
. .
This Decision Summary provides an overview of the characteristics of the Inactive
Landfills Operable Unit (!LOU) at the U.S. Anny Depot ACtivity Umatilla (UMDA), and
the environmental assessment activities that have been perfonned. It then discusses the
rationale used to choose the selected remedy.
2.1 Site Name, Location and Description
UMDA is located in Morrow and Umatilla Counties in rural, nonheastern Oregon.
UMDA is approximately 10 miles west of HermistOn; one to two miles west of the
Umatilla River, 175 miles east of Ponland; and two miles south of the Columbia River.
The town of Hermiston with approximately 10,000 resi
-------
". I I
"', i JL I
. . -,I'-' l Franklin CoUnry,.i,.# ' !
\...~ .SUnn~sld. ('. .~ ~;- ''''''J.".t!'.. L.~ .
{~_! ~~s~J ~~. Pasco ~ '# .'- -, y'
-~!. ~JP Rlchlana~~\..~",~IJ' / . "1
Yakima County ~1'" '-'l
I"~ Wall~ Walla County i
i Benton CounlyL........ ( . Walla Walla i
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-t , 'L-L-"'-"" WASHINGTON
'I'~~); "-"-"-"_..~:~._..-~REGON"-
. Umatilla "'~~~~~' !
: ,...J;) . I
. '.Hermlston .
1 . .. \, Urnatilla County I r.J
i/ "'~,
L ".---.-._..."-p~~diei~;
Morrow County .. . -.,
'\..- . .. -+.. ., ~
L_~ ~...
."':.~ ~
.1 \~~
i l
i \,
i )
i ,-,'
Klic:kJllt County
, Gilliam County
i
~
I
-----..-----.-
------_n_.__...------.-...
-'----.----_o_---_u. ..--".-
~
Q
r',
, 1
I \
. \
I ,
I' '.-.."\
. ~,
. "~~
f "..~.~
I '...""
j ..\
:
"
UMDA SIte
A
N
0 10 20
Scale In Mile.
Figure _1 Facility Location Map
1OUJtC(:
UaplueivCl W.'''''''I 1...,,,,,,,, SuiJ, Oponblo Unil,
UmalilJ.a Depot Activily, RC(X)fd 01 Decitioo, Scp!. 1992
.....
FACILITY LOCATION MAP
UMATILLA DEPOT ACTIVITY
-------
The land use surrounding UMDA is primarily agricultural. Regional crops include
potatoes. alfalfa. com. wheat. onions. asparagus. apples, grapes. and watennelons. 1)1ere
are also some cattle and hog farms. The influence of the agricultural activities is most
prevalent in the southern pOrtions of UMDA where ground water flow direction is
observed to vary 180 degrees from itS natural nonhero direction when the irrigation
wells arc pumping. This effect is observed at the ILOU.
Approximately 1,470 wells have been identified within a four-mile radius of UMDA. the
majority of which are used for domestic and irrigation water. Three municipal water
systems (Henniston. Umatilla and Irrigon) draw ground water from within a four-mile
radius of UMDA. The Columbia River is a major source of potable and irrigation water
and is also used for recreation, fishing and the generation of hydroelectric power. The
principal use of the Umatilla River is irrigation.
The n..oU is situated in the south-central portion of UMDA just east of Antelope Road
and approximately 2.000 feet west of the Administration Area (Figure 2 and Figure 3).
The six former disposal areas cover an area totaling approximately 300,000 square feet.
lLOU is bounded to the east by Rim Road South. to the south by railroad tracks and
Yam Office Road, to the west by Antelope Road and to the nonh by South Magazine
Road. The operable unit is also bisected by a set of railroad tracks (Figure 3).
The n..oU is made up of six former disposal areas. The six inactive landfills include:
the Northern Inactive Landfill (Nll..), Nonhero Inactive Landfill Extension (ND...E).
Southern Inactive Landfill (SIL), Southern Inactive Landfill Extension (Sll..E), Western
Inactive Drum Site (WIDS), and the Southeastern Inactive LandfIll (SElL). Materials
disposed of in these areas were primarily non-hazardous and included demolition debris.
garbage, asbestos from brake linings, and possibly ash from the Deactivation Furnace
and explosives sludges. The WIDS was known to have received drums. Information
gathered during a site visit on June 2-3, 1992 suggest that most of the drums accessible
at the ground surface ~ empty and arc no longer presenting a threat to the
environment; however. one drum was observed to contain liquid material and appeared
to be approximately one third full. The resultS of the RI field investigation suggest that
materials disposed in the WIDS have not had an observable negative affect on the
environment. Additional field work is presently being performed to verify that the drums
are not causing environmental degradation. Any drums that arc determined to be having
a negative affect will be removed.
A more complete description of this operable unit can be found in the RI repon which
is part of the Administrative Record for this operable unit. The Administrative Record
is available to the public through the information repositories which arc located at the
Umatilla Depot Activity Public Affairs Office, the Hermiston Public Library, and at U.S.
EPA Oregon Operations Office in Ponland, Oregon.
87t11281 TEP .AOO.IlUCTIYE.ID2MD
-------
I
I
/
/
./ I
I
- I
I I' L -
L .,
I 3
J /
2 1/ '\. AL
. ~ ..
" I .-
"'\ /.
I
I
I
I A
-
... -
.
~
m J~ -. 1,? J-4"
I I
I I 'J
5 ..)
~ ~.
EGEND "---.. . '\ / ..
Inactive LandfiUs
Espl.s'... wash..''''' ~ ;---'4. .
ADA area ~---=- Ad'!IIII.
Active Landftll Area '--
1....1.. "'odnl~. . B ""==--
Deactivation furnace N ~ -
---
Sewage Ireatmcnt plant Approximate sc
. .. ." .
=
L
I
2
3
4
.\
6
A J ConvenuonaJ mUnluons storage Igloo blocks
K Chemical munitions storage igloo blocks
ale. I
4000
-
o
Figure 2: Overview of UMDA Layuut
-------
... - -. '- .
'j
:1
,!
:~!:
{ (
i \
: \ :%ijj
\\ MJI
, \
\: \
II
\ '
\ \ &0
Ii.
il
,
:i
;1
i
"
E
!
:j
:j
ii
:1
:'
:
i Figure 3: Inactive landfills
I PREPARED F'OR:
I UMATILLA
i ).."~, I SCALE: owe. NO.:
i SEPT, i 992 I AS SHOWN 67062-002
WOdlf""II8d from:
TITLE:
FmaI RaDCCial m-a,8IiaI Rcpor\
fOl' die UIIWiIla DqxIC Aaiviry,
Hc:zmisu:n, OR. AupI, 1992
INACTIVE
LANDFIU...S
t:lOGI1TEPJQ).~
-------
2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities
2.2.1 Site History
Disposal activities at the Inactive Landfills occurred from the early 1940's into the mid-
1980's. According to UMDA personnel interviewed. much of the disposal activity ceased
in the mid-1960's when the Active Landf1l1 opened. There are no disposal records for
these sites, and disposal was uncontrolled. Information on historic activities was derived
from review of aerial photographs and interviews with UMDA employees. HistOric
operations of the six fonner disposal areas are described in Table 1. This table was
based on the historic aerial photographs review summary presented in the RI repon
completed in 1992. This summary shows that each of the six sites became operational
during the 1940's and early 1950's. Estimates of initiation and cessation of disposal
activates at the various landf1l1 sites are approximate and are limited by the fact that the
phOtographs were taken on an infrequent schedule.
According to the review swmnary. the SIL. SIT£. Nll..E. and SElL appear to have been
the ftrst sites to be used. The aerial photOgraph review suggestS that the six sites were
used at random during their period of operation. Although interviews of site workers
indicated that the majority of disposal activity ceased in the mid-196O's when the Active
Landfill became operational. the aerial phOtograph review shows that several of the
smaller sites continued to receive small amountS of waste into the mid-1980's (Table 1).
The tWo larger landfills, the SIT.. and NIL, are former gravel pitS. When gravel
operations ceased. the sites were reponedly used for the disposal of garbage and building
materials. Materials reportedly disposed at these sites includes: garbage, building
materials, and grass clippings. and possibly explosives sludges and ash from the
Deactivation Furnace. .
UMDA was included in the Army's Installation Restoration Program in October 1978.
An Initial Installation Assessment was performed in December 1978, to evaluate the
potential for past and present base operations to affect general environmental quality at
and around the base. This investigation mentioned the IT..OU, but did not recormnend any
further action.
In 1985. the Army. submitted an application to the EPA for approval of plans to
construct and operate an incinerator for chemical munitions desauction. To receive
authorization, EPA required that corrective actions be taken for all previous releases of
hazardous materials that had occurred at UMDA. EPA conducted a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Assessment to identify the areas that
would require corrective action. EPA released a fmal repon in July 1987, summarizing
their results. This report listed the inactive landfills as one of the areas that should be .
addressed. In response. the Army and Argonne National Laboratory jointly developed
a work plan to address the EPA's concerns.
Based primarily on contamination discovered at the Explosives Washout Lagoon (a site
being addressed in another operable unit at the base). UMDA was placed on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in July of 1987.10 1989. a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) was
signed formally identifying the Army as the lead organization responsible for taking
environmental response actions at UMDA. The FFA provided the framework fQr the
8708281 TEl' .ACO.INACTIVE.CX1/2M13
-------
. .".. ..
. --" ._,.. - .
Table 1: Summary of Historic Operations at the Inactive landfill Sites
SIL 1949 Gravel pit with small pile of debris observed
1951 Disposal activities observed
a
1975 Debris no longer visible. some landfilling has occurred since
1972; disposal area appears wetter than itS sunoundings
1980 Site appears inactive
1988 Two oblong objectS. possibly tanks or trailers are observed in
pit; ground scarring is visible
SILE 1949 Objects observed to be stored south of the road., dark tOned
pit with several objects in it betWeen the road and rail spur
1951 No change
1956 Pit has been landfilled to grade; site appears to be used for
staging prior to disposal at other areas; no disposal activities
observed
a
1970 Abundant materials stored at site
1972 Less materials stored at site
1975 No materials observed at sire
1977 Some materials observed at site
1980 Site appears to be revegetating
1988 Site appears to be revegetating
NIL 1949 Gravel pit appears to be clean. trenches are empty
1951 Possible evidence of disposal activity observed
1956 Disposal activities observed
1958 No additional waste since 1956
a
1965 No additional waste since 1956
1970 Northern portion of site is at grade
1972 No change observed
a
1977 Evidence of disposal activity observed
1980 Site recently graded, portions revegetating
1988 Site revegetating
Notes:
AJrows indicate summary based on infonruuion conlained in the Final Remedial Invesaigaboo Report..
August. 1992.
SIL - Southern Inactive Landfdl.
SILE - Southern Inactive Landfill Extension.
Nil. . Northern Inactive Landfdl .
87082e1m>.AOO.IfW:TNE.~
-------
Table 1: Summary of Historic Operations at the Inactive landfill Sites (continued)
i SElL 1949 E vidence of disposal activities observed
U
1958 Area graded. shallow pit visible to the southwest
1964 Site revegetated, though pit discemable
1965 Materials stored adjacent to shallow pit
1970 Evidence of activity (ground scarring)
1975 Shallow pit is newly graded
U
1988 Evidence of limited disposal activity since 1980
I
NILE 1949 Disposal area operational
U
1964 Disposal activities slowed/closed
1970 Evidence of disposal activities observed
I 1972 Disposal area almost filled to grade
1975 Disposal activities observed in the south portion of the site
I 1977 Area graded. no disposal activities observed
1980 Evidence more fill materials added. site appears scarred
I 1988 Little change
WIDS 1949 An open pit is visible with no evidence of disposal activity
I U
I 1956 Little change. a couple small dark objectS observed on floor
I of pit
I U
i 1964 Evidence of disposal activity observed
!
1965 Nonh end of pit bas been filled
1970 Disposal activities observed; sewage pipeline installed
through the pit
U
1975 No changes since 1972
U
1988 Evidence of disposal activity since 1980 observed
Notes:
Arrows indicarc summary based on infonnation conrained in the Fmal Remedial Investigation Report.
August. 1992.
SEll. - SoudJeasr.em Inactive Landfill.
Nll.E. Northern Inactive Landfill Extension.
WIDS . Wesrem Inactive Drum Site.
Source: Final Remedial Investigation Repon. August. 1992.
870112111TEP.ROO.~
-------
response actions and specified 33 sites. identified by EPA during their RCRA Facility
Assessment, that required action. Since that time. the Army has been working with
various environmental engineering and consulting firms to ensure that all identified sites
are characterized and appropriate corrective actions are taken.
. .
2.2.2 Enforcement Activities
There have been no enforcement actions taken regarding this site.
2.3 Highlights of Community Participation
A Public Involvement and Response Plan for UMDA was prepared in May of 1990 to
meet the public participation requirements of CERCLA. This plan includes a general
discussion of UMDA and community background. and outlines the goals and objectives
of the public involvement plan. Activities designed to ensure that the public is
adequately infonned of UMDA environmental conditions include, for example:
Public meetings to discuss issues of concern and project activities. Thus far, tWo
public meetings have been held to discuss the progress of the environmental
investigation at UMDA.
.
Technical Review Committee ORC) meetings have been held. one every quarter,
since February of 1989 to keep local officials and interested parties informed.
There have been 15 such meetings to date. The TRC is made up of local officials
and interested citizens.
Wrinen communication, fact sheets and press releases to inform the public of
milestones achieved in the environmental investigation of UMDA, request their
participation in TRC meetings or community interviews or inform them of
remedial activities, public meetings or any other items of note.
.
Interviews of local citizens to detennine their level of awareness of site activities.
.
Public comment periods of not less than 30 days on proposed remedial actions.
.
A local information repository available for the public to review.
A summary of the n..OU Proposed Plan was presented to the TRC on August 12, 1992.
The Proposed Plan was released for a 30 day public comment period extending from
August 31, 1992 until September 30, 1992. A public meeting was held at the Armand
Larive Junior High School in Hermiston on September 15, 1992 to solicit input on the '
n~action alternative proposed for the site. At the meeting, a summary of the results of
the RI was presented and representatives from the Army, EPA, ODEQ. 'and Anhur D.
Little, Inc. (an environmental engineering consulting firm) gave the public an
opponunity to ask questions about the site. and the proposed remedial alternative. A
responsiveness summary which should include comments received and the Army's
response(s) is attached at the end of this document However, no commentS or questions
were received during the comment period. The remedy documented in this ROD has not
been modified from the proposed alterna~ve presente4 in the Proposed Plan.
8708281 'IEP .ROO.I'W:TNE.CX)'2MD
-------
2.4 Scope and Role 01 Operable Unit or Response Action
, Due to the large size of UMDA. and the variety of potential conWninants and discrete
sires. it has been divided intO the following eight Operable Units (OUs).
.
Inactive Landfills OU;
Active Landfill OU;
Explosives Washout Lagoons Ground Water OU;
Ammunition Demolition Activity (ADA) Area Sites OU;
Miscellaneous UMDA Sites OU;
Explosives Washout Plant (Building 489) OU;
Explosives Washout Lagoons Soils OU; and
Deactivation Furnace Soils OU.
. ,
.
.
.
.
.
.
This ROD addresses the Inactive Landfills OU. A preferred remedy has also been
proposed or selected for three of the Other OUs. The soils at the Deactivation Furnace
Soils OU are contaminated with metals, primarily lead. The proposed remedy will
require that soils containing 500 mg/kg or more of lead be excavated and treated by
solidification/stabilization. The option currently proposed for the treated soil is disposal
in the Active Landfill.
A no-action remedy has been proposed for the Active Landfill OU. Data gathered during
the RI indicates that the Active Landfill does not pose a significant threat and therefore
actions to protect human health and the environment are not necessary. Although no
funher action will be taken under CERCLA, the site is scheduled to be closed and
capped in accordance with ODEQ requirementS over the next two years. In addition, as
part of the closure requirements, ground water quality around the site will be monitored
for a minimum of five years to ensure that it is not being negatively affected by the
landfill.
The Explosives Washout Lagoons Soils OU was the subject of a final ROD in
September 1992 which documented the process involved in selecting composting as the
preferred remedy for the explosives contaminated soils. The rest of the OUs at UMDA
are currently at the remedial alternative evaluation and feasibility StUdy phase of activity.
This ROD addresses the Inactive Landfills at UMDA. Based on the resultS of the RI.
which includes the results of the risk assessment, the Army, EPA and ODEQ determined
that the n.OU did not pose a significant threat to human health or to "the environment,
and that no further action was necessary; consequently, a FS of possible remedial
alternatives was not performed. It was decided that sufficient information had been
collected during the RI to justify proceeding directly to the Proposed Plan. .
Because the n.OU was determined not to pose a significant threat or to be a significant
source of contaminantS, the Army, EPA. and ODEQ have selected no-action as the final
remedy for this OU.
870II2II119' .ROO.INACTIVE.~
-------
-.' - -... --',"
"".. " "-'.'"''
2.5 Summary of Site Characteristics
. .
Over the last 15 years, several environmental investigations have been performed at
UMDA. There have been tWo significant effons directed specifically at the Inactive
Landfills. These investigations consisted of both record and field investigations. The first
investigation was performed in 1988, and the second was in 1991-92.
The records investigation of both effons included review of existing files and disposal
records and interviews with former UMDA employees to gather infonnation on general.
site activities. The second investigation also included review of aerial photographs of the
ILOU dating from 1949 through 1988 to gain additional insight on historic operations.
The initial field investigation was perfonned in 1988. At that time, only ~. of the
landfill sites had been identified. Field activities. including the installation and sampling
of five ground water monitoring wells, and the excavation of tWO test pits, addressed
only the NIL. SIL and WIDS (Figure 3). All of the ground water monitoring wells were
installed into the alluvial aquifer. The tWo test pits were excavated in the WIDS and four
soil samples were collected from each test pit at four depths. The ground water samples
were analyzed for the presence of explosives, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile
organic compounds, pesticides, priority pollutant metals, cyanide, and total organic
carbon. Soil samples were analyzed for the same list of analytes with the exception of
total organic carbon.
Ground water was measured at depths ranging from 87 to 105 feet below the ground
surface, at elevations of 494 to 499 feet above MSL. Local agricultural irrigation
systems were found to have a strong affect on the direction of ground water flow at the
Inactive Landfills. Ground water was observed to flow to the southeast under the
influence of the irrigation system. When the pumping ceases, the natural gradient causes
ground water to flow to the northwesL Analytical results of the soil and ground water
sampling conducted during the first investigation are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
respectively. The repon conclusions are summarized as follows:
.
Soillnvestigalion ResultS. Analysis of the eight soil samples detected only the
following six of 13 priority pollutant metals: beryllium. chromium, copper,lead.,
nickel, and zinc. None of the Other analytes were detected. Concentrations of the
six metals were generally within the background concentrations at UMDA
determined during the investigation. The only metal that slightly exceeded its
background concentration was copper. at 85 uglg, in a sample collected from a
depth of five feet below grade. Background concentrations of copper were found
to range from 20 to 60 uglg.
The subsurface soil samples collected from. the WIDS did not contain any
significant contamination. Based upon results of this sampling event, the WIDS
is not believed to be a source of conwnination.
87OII2II1TEPJIOO.~NE.~
-------
Ground Water Investigation Results. The ground water gradient in the vicinity
of the Inactive Landfills was observed to be relatively flat. with a slight gradient
toward the southeast from July to October. and again in February and March.
The flow direction changed to east and northeast from November to January and
to the nonh and northeast from April to June. The greatest change in ground
water flow direction was observed between the months of June and July, when
flow went from nonh to south-southeast. The local ground water flow is nearly
the reverse of regional flow because of heavy pumpage for irrigation, but is
expected to revert back to regional flow panerns when the irrigation wells are not
in use.
. .
The only compound detected at elevated concentrations was nitrate/nitrite, which
exceeded drinking water standards in four wells. Low concentrations of metals
were detected in the ground water but were below drinking water standards. One
sample contained traee concentrations of teayl. an explosive, but is not
considered significanL
To confmn the presence of nitrate/nitrite at concentrations above the drinking
water standards and define up gradient ground water quality. supplemental ground
water investigation activities were recommended.
The second phase of investigation included the installation of six ground water
monitoring wells, all completed in the alluvial aquifer. These wells were placed to:
further define ground water flow directions and background ground water quality; assist
in detennining if the elevated concentrations of nitrate/nitrite were due to the Inactive
Landfills or to regional background conditions; and evaluate the three additional Inactive
Landfill sites (Figure 3). These sites were identified upon review of the historic aerial
photographs. and the original scope was amended to ensure that all six former disposal
areas 'were characterized. Eight test pits were excavated to complete soil sampling at
each of the six former disposal areas.
Two rounds of ground water samples were collected from the five existing and six new
ground water monitoring wens installed at ILOU. Analyses performed on the ground
water samples inclUtkd; Target AnaJytc List (TAL) inorganics (which includes metals.
nonmetallic elements and cyanide). volatile organic compounds. semi-volatile organic
compounds. pesticides. polychlorinated-biphenyls (PCBs). explosives and nitrate/nitrite.
Analytical resultS of the second and third ground water sampling eventS are presented
in Table 4. Depths to ground water ranged from 140 to 152 feet. and elevations ranged
from 491 to 520 feet MSL
A total of 24 soil samples were collected from the eight test pitS excavated in the five '
former disposal areas not sampled during the first investigation. Samples were coUected
at three depths in each pit. 2.5, 5 and 10 feeL The soil sampling and analysis program
was performed to detennine if landfilling activities had any affect on local soils.
Materials encountered during the test pit activities included metal scrap material. orange
and yellow discolored soil. slag-like material, wood. charred wood. a drum and
misceUaneous ttash~ Results of the laboratory analysis on the soil samples can be found
in Table 5. Repon summaries of the soil and ground water investigations are presented
in the Jollowing sections.
1708281 TEP .AOO.INACTNE.or.!MI3
-------
TABLE 2
Contaminants Detected in Subsurface Soil Samples
Collected in the Inactive Landfills Area
Phase I Investigation
Concentration at Given Sample Depths (ug/g)
IL-1 IL-2
Contaminant 2.5' 5.0' 7.5' 10.0' 2.5' 5.0' 7.5' 10.0'
Explosives None None None None None None None None
Nitrate/Nitrite <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500
VOAs None None None None None None None None
BNAs None None None None None None None None
Cyanide <0.64 <0.64 <0.64 <0.64 <0.64 <0.64 <0.64 <0.64
Metals
Ag <0.65 <0.65 <0.65 <0.65 <0.65 <0.65 <0.65 <0.65
As <5.70 <5.70 <5.70 <5.70 <5.70 <5.70 <5.70 <5.70
Be <0.33 2.70 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
Cd <0.70 <0.70 <0.70 <0.70 <0.70 <0.70 <0.70 <0.70
Cr 7.72 10.2 <2.50 <2.50 <2.50 <2.50 <2.50 <2.50
Cu 26.7 85.0 29.8 41.8 24.9 26.3 27.3 20.8
Hg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10
Ni 7.27 7.86 7.60 6.24 5.30 7.89 10.8 8.48
Pb <4.78 7.28 <4.78 <4.78 <4.78 <4.78 <4.78 <4.78
Sb <25.3. <25.3 <25.3. <25.3 <25.3 <25.3 <25.3 <25.3
Se <2.10 <2.10 <2.10 <2.10 <2.10 <2.10 <2.10 <2.10
11 <7.93 <7.93 <7.93 <7.93 <7.93 <7.93 <7.93 <7.93
Zn 62.4 56.9 <52.0 <52.0 <52.0 <52.0 63.9 <52.0
Note:
None = Group of analytes not detected above detection Umits
Source: Final Remedial Investigation Report, August, 1992
67062. TEP/lP1S.1V32
17OII2II1'19'.AOO.~
-------
TABLE 3
Contaminants Detected In Ground Water Samples
Collected In the Inactive landfills Area
Phase I Investigation
Ground Water
MW-37 MW-38 MW-39 MW-40 MW-41 TP-ILa FB-ILb
Contaminant (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ugll) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l)
Explosives None None None 124 None N/A None
Tetry!
NitratelNitrite <5.000 10.900 12,600 10,900 9240 N/A <5.000
Cyanide <16.0 <16.0 <16.0 <16.0 <16.0 N/A <16.0
VOk:. None None None None None
Benzene 0.64 N/D
Chloroform NID 17.0
T etrachloro-
ethyiene 0.82
BNk:. None None None N/A
UNK598 NIO NtD 12.0
UNK592 Nit) 7.00 N/A
TOC 2,600 2,900 3.800 2.000 2.700 . N/A 1.500
~tals N/A
Ag «>.19 «>.19 «>.19 «>.19 «>.19 «>.19
k:. <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 5.18 <5.00 <5.00
Be «>.103 «>.103 «>.103 «>.103 «>.103 «>.103
Cd <5.10 <5.10 <5.10 <5.10 <5.10 <5.10
Cr <37.5 <37.5 <37.5 <37.5 <37.5 <37.5
Cu 4.72 5.47 6.75 3.75 3.54 4.61
Hg «>.17 «>.17 «>.17 «>.17 «>.17 <0.17
Pb 6.37 <2.50 4.55 4.65 3.34 5.86
Ni 18.4 <9.60 10.60 67.6 33.1 46.6
Sb <3.00 <3.00 <3.00 <3.00 <3.00 <3.00
Se <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00
11 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00
Zn 1,400 1,100 1,400 1,100 910 1,000
Notes:
,None = Group of anaJytes not detected above detection limits a = Trip blank
N/A = AnaJyte or group of anaIytes not analyzed b = Field (rinse) blank
N/D = AnaJyte not detected above detection limit
Source: Final Remedial 1nvest9afun Report, August 1992
-------
TABLE 4
Ground Water Analytical Results
Phase 2 Investigation
Inactive Landfllla Page 1 01 4
D&M GW Data -1on191
. MAPID 12-1 12-1 12.2 12-2 12-3 12.3 12-4
SITE ID G12AOO1 G12BOO1 G12AOO2 G12BOO2 G 12AOO3 G12BOO3 G12AOO4
FIELD ID MWK7"122 MWK7"123 MWK7"124 UMWK7888 UMWKr69 UMWK7"90 UMWK7"94
S. DATE 17-Oct.90 17.Jan-91 18-Oct.90 Hh'an-91 17.Oct.90 17.Jan.91 18-Oct.90
DEPTH 105.0 105.0 101.0 101.0 103.0 103.0 98.0
MATRIX CGW CGW CGW CGW CGW CGW CGW COUPARJSON
UNITS CRt.. UGL UGL UGl UGL UGl UGL UGL CRITERIA
TAL /norganlea
ANTI~NY (GFM) 3.03 [10.4) 5 L T 3.03 L T 3.03 L T 3.03 L T 3.03 L T 3.03 5
ARSENIC 0.25 6.72 7.36 5.65 6.18 6.61 6.5 4.37 50
BARIUM 5 18.1 28.3 33.3 28.5 33.9 30.6 42.3 1000
BERYLliUM 5 LT5 lT5 LT5 LT5 LT5 LT5 LT5 NSA
CALCIUM 500 49000 53000 59000 55000 59000 54000 59000 NSA
CHROMIUM 6 L T 6.02 l T 6.02 L T 6.02 L T 6.02 L T 6.02 L T 6.02 L T 6.02 100
COPPER 8.1 19.2 l T 8.09 L T 8.09 L T 8.09 L T 8.09 L T 8.09 L T 8.09 1300
IRON 42.7 . L T 38.8 L T 38.8 L T 38.8 L T 38.8 L T 38.8 L T 38.8 L T 38.8 300
lEAD (GFM) 1.26 L T 1.26 l T 1.26 LT 1.26 LT 1.26 1.41 L T 1.26 2.39 15
MAGNESIUM 500 14000 15200 16000 16100 17200 15800 16900 NSA
MANGANESE 2.75 L T 2.75 6.42 L T 2.75 L T 2.75 L T 2.75 6.99 L T 2.75 50
NICKEL 34.3 L T 34.3 l T 34.3 L T 34.3 l T 34.3 L T 34.3 L T 34.3 l T 34.3 100
POTASSIUM 375 6540 5310 4670 5370 5300 5660 4810 NSA
SILVER 0.189 l T 0.25 l T 0.25 l T 0.25 l T 0.25 L T 0.25 L T 0.25 L T 0.25 NSA
SOOliM 500 23600 21600 24300 22600 26800 22400 28600 100000
VANADIUM (GFM) 3.82 [33.6) [35.8) [31.9) [33.1) [28.6) [33.7) [27.2) 20
ZINC 21.1 LT21.1 LT21.1 L T 21.1 LT21.1 LT21.1 L T 21.1 l T 21.1 5000
Explosives
RDX 2.11 4.03C lT2.11 3.58U 4.37U LT2.11 3.49U LT2.11 10
TCL VOAs
NlA ND ND NO NO NO NO NO NSA
TCL BNAa
NlA NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NSA
BNA 11Cs
OI-N-BUTYl PHTHALATE NlA LT3.7 LT3.7 LT3.7 L T 3.7 LT 3.7 LT3.7 L T 3.7 NSA
TOTAL UNKNOWN TICs N/A NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NSA
Other Inorganlea
NITRA TEMlTRrTE 10 4900 6000 8000 7500 9500 7000 9000 10000
-------
TABLE 4 (oonl)
Ground Waler Analytical Results
Phsse 2 Investlgstlon
Insctlve l.8ndfllls Page 2 01 4
D&M GW Data - 1017/91
MAPID 12-4 12-5 12.5 12-6 12-6 12-6 MW-37
SITE ID 0128004 G12AOO51 0120005 012AOO6 0128006 0128006 G12A037
FIELD ID MWK7"122 MWK7"123 MWK7.124 UMWK7.68 UMWK7.89 UMWK1"9O UMWK7"94
S. DATE 18-Jan-91 18-Oct-90 17-Jan.91 17.Oct.90 17-Jan.91 12.Feb-91 19-Oct.90
DEPTH 88.0 92.0 92,0 90,0 90.0 90.0 87.0
MATRIX CGW CGW CGW CGW COW CGW caw COMPARISON
UNITS all.. UGL UOL UGL UGl UOl UGl UOl CRITERIA
T Allnorganlcs
ANTIWNY (GFM) 3,03 L T 3,00 (5,18) L T 3.03 (5.62) L T 3.03 NT L T 3.03 5
ARSENIC 0.25 4,69 4,26 4.6 4.37 5.44 NT 4.26 50
BARIUM 5 35.1 40.4 36.6 31.7 41 NT 48.5 1000
BERYU.IUM 5 LT5 U5 LT5 LT5 LT5 NT LT5 NSA
CALCIUM 500 57000 66000 64000 70000 62000 NT 70000 NSA
CHROMIUM 6 L T 6.02 L T 6,02 L T 6.02 L T 6.02 L T 6.02 NT LT 6.02 100
COPPER 8.1 L T 8,09 L T 8.09 L T 8.09 L T 6.09 L T 6.09 NT L T 8.09 1300
IRON 42.7 L T 38,8 LT 38,8 L T 38.6 L T 38.8 L T 38.8 NT L T 38.8 300
LEAD (GFM) 1.26 LT 1.26 3.25 L T 1.26 LT 1.26 LT 1.26 NT LT 1.26 15
MAGNESIUM 500 16800 18700 18200 19800 18100 NT 22000 NSA
MANGANESE 2.75 L T 2.75 LT2.75 LT 2.75 LT 2.75 L T 2.75 NT L T 2.75 50
NICKEL 34,3 L T 34,3 LT 34.3 L T 34.3 L T 34.3 L T 34.3 NT L T 34.3 100
POTASSIUM 375 5280 4800 5640 6170 5390 NT 4970 NSA
SILVER 0,189 L T 0.25 LT 0.25 L T 0.25 L T 0.25 L T 0.25 NT L T 0.25 NSA
SOOUM 500 25200 29400 24700 34500 27400 NT 36000 100000
VANADIUM (GFM) 3.82 (30.6) (24) (27.9) (26.3) (29.3) NT (23.1) 20
ZINC 2", LT21.1 LT21.1 Lr21.1 30.8 LT 21.1 NT LT21.1 5000
Exploaive.
ROX 2.11 3.34U 5.83U L T 2.11 16.9 U L T 2.11 NT 7.64U 10
TCl VOAs
NlA NO NO NO NO NO NT NO NSA
TCl BNAa
NlA NO NO NO NO NO NT NO NSA
BNA 11Cs
OI.N-BUTYL PHTHALATE N/A LT3.7 LT3.7 LT3.7 L T 3.7 L T 3.7 NT LT3.7 NSA
TOTAL UNKNOWN TICs N/A NO NO NO NO NO NT NO NSA
v
Other Inoraanlcs
N/TRA TEtNITRITE 10 9400 10000 (11000) (11000) 10000 NT 10000 10000
-------
TABLE 4 (conl)
Ground Waler Analytical Results
Phase 2 Investigation
Inactive landfills Page 3 01 4
D&M GW Data. 1onJ91
MAPID MW-37 MW-38 MW-38 MW-39 MW-39 MW-40 MW-40
SITE ID G128037 G12A038 G128038 G12A039 G128039 G12A04O G128040
FIELD ID MWK7"122 MWK7"123 MWK78124 UMWK7888 UMWK7"89 UMWK7"90 UMWKr94
S. DATE ~an-91 18-Oct-90 18-Jan-91 19-Oct-90 ~an.91 18-Oct-90 18-Jan-91
DEPTH 87.0 101.0 101.0 97.0 97.0 102.0 102.0
MATRIX CGW caw CGW CGW CGW caw caw COM'ARlSON
UNITS CRLs UGL UGL UGL UGL UGL UOL UOL CRfTERIA
TAL Iooraanlcs
ANTIMONY (GFAA) 3.03 L T 3.00 l T 3.03 L T 3.03 3.3 l T 3.03 L T 3.03 l T 3.03 5
ARSENIC 0.25 5.12 4.48 5.12 4.16 4.8 5.44 5.76 50
BARIUM 5 44.5 31.1 30.6 33.4 33.1 31.6 27.5 1000
BERYlliUM 5 lT5 LT5 LT5 LT5 LT5 LT5 lT5 NSA
CAlCIUM 500 71000 59000 64000 62000 70000 59000 53000 NSA
CHROMIUM 6 L T 6.02 LT 6.02 L T 6.02 L T 6.02 L T 6.02 l T 6.02 l T 6.02 100
COPPER 8.1 l T 8.09 l T 8.09 l T 8.09 L T 8.09 LT 8.09 l T 8.09 l T 8.09 1300
IRON 42.7 LT 38.8 lT38.8 49.6 l T 38.8 L T 38.8 L T 38.8 l T 38.8 300
lEAD (GFAA) 1.26 l T 1.26 l T 1.26 LT 1.26 1.41 LT1.26 1.63 l T 1.26 15
MAGNESIUM 500 22000 17000 17400 17400 17200 17000 15500 NSA
MANGANESE 2.75 LT 2.75 lT2.75 L T 2.75 L T 2.75 L T 2.75 LT 2.75 L T 2.75 50
NICKEL 34.3 LT 34.3 l T 34.3 L T 34.3 LT34.3 L T 34.3 L T 34.3 l T 34.3 100
POTASSIUM 375 5690 4740 5680 4870 5650 5160 5280 NSA
SilVER 0.189 L T 0.25 l T 0.25 L T 0.25 L T 0.25 l T 0.25 L T 0.25 L T 0.25 NSA
SOOIUM 500 28400 27000 23200 26900 23200 26600 22100 100000
VANADIUM (GFAA) 3.82 (28.4) (26) (28.8) (24.2) (30.4) (26.3) (32.1) 20
ZINC 21.1 LT21.1 lT21.1 L T 21.1 L T 21.1 LT21.1 LT21.1 L T 21.1 5000
Explosives
ROX 2." LT2.11 12.5U LT2.11 LT2.11 L T2.11 3.61 U 3.9U 10
TCL VOA.
NlA NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NSA
TCL BNAs
NlA NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NSA
BNA TICs
OI.N.BlJ1'(l. PHTHALATE NlA lT3.7 lT3.7 LT3.7 lT3.7 L T 3.7 lT3.7 lT3.7 NSA
TOTAl.. UNKNOWN TICs NlA NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NSA
01h8r InorGsnlcs
NITRATEMITRITE 10 10000 7000 9300 9000 9900 9000 6500 10000
-------
TABLE 4 (conl)
Ground Water Analytical Results
Phase 2 Investigation
Inactive landfills Page 4 of 4
DIM GW Data . 10nJ91
MAPID MW-41 MW-41
SITE ID G12A041 G12B041
FIELD ID MWK7"122 MWK7"123
S. DATE 18-Oc1-90 2O-.Ian-91
DEPTH 102.0 102.0
MATRIX row CGW COAFAR/SON
UNITS CRL8 UGl UGl CRITERIA
TAL Inoroanlca
ANTIWNY (GEM) 3.03 LT 3.00 l T 3.03 5
ARSENIC 0.25 4.9 5.76 50
BARIUM 5 27.2 25.2 1000
BERYU.IUM 5 lT5 lT5 NSA
CAlCIUM 500 59000 52000 NSA
CHROMIUM 6 l T 6.02 l T 6.02 100
COPPER 8.1 l T 8.09 l T 8.09 1300
IRON 42.7 l T 38.8 l T 38.8 300
lEAD (GFAA) 1.26 LT 1.26 l T 1.26 15
MAGNESIUM 500 16700 14700 NSA
MANGANESE 2.75 l T 2.75 l T 2.75 50
NICKEL 34.3 L T 34.3 l T 34.3 100
POTASSIUM 375 4870 5020 NSA
SILVER 0.189 L T 0.25 L T 0.25 NSA
SOOUM 500 25800 21100 100000
VANADIUM (GEM) 3.82 [26.4) [34.4) 20 NOTES:
ZINC 21.1 L T 21.1 l T 21.1 5000
GT - Greater Than
EXDlo8tv.. LT - less Than
ROX 2.11 10.8U l T 2.11 10 NA . Not Availablo
NO - Na Detected
TCL YOAs NSA - No Standard Available
N/A NO NO NSA NT . Not Tested
TCL BNAs S . Resuhs Based on Internal Standards
N/A NO NO NSA TICs. Compounds lor Which No Standard for ldent~ication
BNA 11Cs U . Unconfirmed
Ol-N-Bum PHTHAlATE N/A LT3.7 lT3.7 . NSA [) . Detected concentration excaeds
TOTAl UNKNOWN TICs N/A NO NO NSA comparison criterion
Source: Final Remediallnv9Sligation
Other Inorganlea Report. August. 1992
NrTRA'TWrTRfTE 10 8500 7800 10000
-------
TABLE 5
Soli Analytical Results
Phase 2 Investigation
Inactive Landlllls Page 1 01 8
Soli Data. 10m91
MAPID 512-1 512-1 512-1 512-2 512-2 512.2 512-3
SITE ID S12AOO1 S12AOO1 S12AOO1 512AOO2 S12AOO2 S 12AOO2 512AOO3
FIELD ID MWKr122 MWKr123 MWKr124 UMWKr88 uMwKres UMWKr90 UMWK7"94
S. DATE 24-Sep-90 24-SeP-90 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90
DEPTH 2.5 6.5 10.0 2.5 6.0 10.0 2.5
MATRIX CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO COMPARISON
UNIT5 CRLs UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG CRfTERIA
TAL Inorganlcs
ALUMINUM 14.1 5100 4240 660 7500 6400 7600 6800 8604
ARSENIC 0.25 1.55 1.86 1.47 1.89 1.61 1.69 2.54 5.24
BARIUM 29.6 88.2 81.2 111 134 124 121 150 233
BERYlliUM 1.86 l T 1.86 LT 1.86 l T 1.86 l T 1 .86 l T 1.86 l T 1.86 l T 1.86 ,18/;
CALCIUM 59 9600 14000 13000 6730 11000 14000 13000 29006
CHROMIUM 12.7 l T 12.7 l T 12.7 IT 12.7 (39.5) l T 12.7 l T 12.7 IT 12.7 32.7
COPPER 58.6 IT 58.6 l T 58.6 l T 58.6 l T 58.6 l T 58.6 l T 58.6 (247) 58.6
IRON 50 23000 21000 21000 (28000) 24000 (27000) (30000) 26233
LEAD (GFM) 0.177 5.75 7.2 3.63 NT NT 4.34 tIT 8.37
LEAD (ICP). .' - 6.62 NT NT NT [16.8) . (11)
NT (52.4) 8.31
. MAGNESIUM 50 6290 6120 4690 5130 6210 7060 6170 8585
MANGANESE 0.275 453 403 556 539 472 493 543 874
MERCURY 0.05 L T 0.05 L T 0.05 l T 0.05 L T 0.05 L T 0.05 L T 0.05 [0.346). 0.056
NICKEL 12.6 LT 12.6 L T 12.6 L T 12.6 LT 12.6 L T 12.6 L T 12.6 LT12.6 12.6
POTASSIUM 37.5 1020 858 611 1780 1250 1400 1470 2179
SILVER 0.025 0.035 (0.043) L T 0.025 (0.041) (0.04] (0.076] 12.4) 0.038
SODIUM 150 547 592 690 636 628 759 927 978
VANADIUM (ICP) 13 112 97.7 103 114 92.1 (133) (137) 131
ZINC 30.2 76.3 71.2 69.9 (364) [97.7) 87.6 (447) 94
EXDloslves N/A NIO NlD NlD NlD NlD NIO NlD NSA
TCl VOAs
CHLOROFORM 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.002 L T 0.001 0.003 L T 0.001 LT 0.001 NSA
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 0.006 0.008 0.008 0.005 L T 0.006 0.007 L T 0.006 l T 0.006 NSA
TCl DNAs
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYl) PHTHALATE 0.62 l T 0.62 l T 0.62 l T 0.62 l T 0.62 l T 0.62 L T 0.62 L T 0.62 NSA
-------
TABLE 5 (cont.)
Soli Analytical Resuhs
Phase 2 Investigation
Inactive landfills Page 2 of 8
Soli Data - 10(7/91
MAPID S 12-1 S12-1 S12-1 S12-2 S12-2 S12-2 S 12.3
SITE ID S 12AOO1 S12AOO1 S12AOO1 S12AOO2 S 12AOO2 S 12AOO2 S12AOO3
FIELD ID MWKr122 MWK7"123 MWKr124 UMWKr88 UMWKr89 UMWKr90 UMWKr94
S.DATE 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90
DEPTH 2.5 6.5 10.0 2.5 6.0 10.0 2.5
MATRIX CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO COMPARISON
UNITS CRLs UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG CRfTERIA
BNA TICS
2,6.10, 14-TETAAMETHYLPENT AD NlA NJD NJD NJD NJD NJD NJD NJD NSA
. 2-CYCLOHEXEN.1.()L NlA NJD NJD NlD NlD NlD NJD NJD NSA
2-CYCLOHEXEN-oNE NlA NJD NJD NlD NJD NJD NJD NJD NSA
CYCLOHEXENE OXIDE NlA NJD NJD NJD 0.2155 NlD NlD NJD NSA
HEXADECANOIC ACID NlA N/D NJD NiD 0.2155 NlD NJD NJD NSA
TOlUENE NlA NiD NJD NJD NiD NlD NlD NJD NSA
TOTAl.. UNKNOVVN TICs NlA NJD NJD NJD (4) 1.4 (1)0.211 NlD NJD NSA
TCL PestlcldesIPCBs
DDD 0.008 LTO.OO8 L T 0.008 LTO.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 0.057 NSA
DDE 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 0.014 NSA
DDT 0.007 L T 0.007 L T 0.007 L T 0.007 L T 0.007 L T 0.007 L T 0.007 L T 0.071 NSA
PCB-1260 1.08 L T 0.08 l T 0.08 L T 0.08 0.174 L T 0.08 l T 0.08 l T 0.08 NSA
Other Inorganlcs
NITRATElNlmlTE 0.6 (13) (20) (12) 0.938 3.29 2.81 0.876 9.9
-------
TABLE 5 (conI.)
'\ Soli Analytical Resuhs
Phase 2 Investigation
Inactive landfills Page 3 01 8
Soli Data - 1017/91
MAPID S12.3 S12.3 S12-4 S12-4 S12-4 S 12-5 S12-5
SITE ID S 12AOO3 S12AOO3 S12AOO4 S12AOO4 S12AOO4 S12A005 S12AOOS
AELD ID MWK1"120 MWK1"121 . UMWK7.91 UMWK1"92 UMWK1"93 MWK1"134 MWK1"135
S. DATE 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90 25-Sep-90 25-Sep-90
DEPTH 6.5 10.0 2.5 6.5 10.0 2.5 6.5
MATRIX CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO COIIPARISON
UNITS CRLs UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG CRfTERIA
TAL Inoraanlcs
ALUMINUM 14.1 3840 4700 7300 5600 5200 5439 3595 8604
ARSENIC 0.25 1.71 1.24 2.28 1.25 1.85 1.66 1.77 5.24
BARIUM 29.6 94.3 152 128 103 118 132 88.8 233
BERYLLIUM 1.86 l T 1.86 l T 1.86 l T 1.86 l T 1.86 13.92) l T 1.86 l T 1.86 7.86
CALCIUM 59 7700 9100 8000 5650 11000 11056 15510 29006
CHROMIUM 12.7 IT 12.7 l T 12.7 l T 12.7 l T 12.7 lT12.7 l T 12.7 l T 12.7 32.7
COPPER 58.6 l T 58.6 l T 58.6 lT58.6 l T 58.6 1192) L T 58.6 l T 58.6 58.6
IRON ---. 50 18000 21000 26000 23000 195000J 22127 15119 26233
LEAD (GFM) 0.177 NT NT 5.9 (9.65) NT 7.35 3.79 8.37
LEAD (ICP) _.- 6.62 (19.6) (10.7) NT NT (26.1) NT NT 8.37
MAGNESIUM 50 4800 5280 6800 5130 4740 6324 4574 8585
MANGANESE 0.275 361 448 577 481 670 500 305 874
MERCURY 0.05 L T 0.05 L T 0.05 L T 0.05 l T 0.05 l T 0.05 LT 0.05 l T 0.05 0.056
NICKEL 12.6 LT 12.6 L T 12.6 IT 12.6 l T 12.6 171) . l T 12.6 l T 12.0 '2.6
POTASSIUM 37.5 874 923 1570 1440 1200 1712 791 2779
SILVER 0.025 (0.474) (0.065) 10.08J 0.031 10.047] 0.034 0.033 0.038
SODIUM 150 534 653 675 499 569 592 576 978
VANADIUM (ICP) 13 71.8 100 127 116 105 77.1 43.2 131
ZINC 30.2 (161) (100) 87.3 81.4 90.5 80 l T 30.2 94
Explosives N/A NID NlD NlD NlD N/D NID NlD NSA
TCLVOAs
CHLOROFORM 0.001 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.005 l T 0.001 l T 0.001 NSA
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.008 l T 0.006 l T 0.006 NSA
TCL BNAs NSA
BIS(2.ETHYLHEXYl) PHTHALATE 0.62 l T 0.62 l T 0.62 1.37 L T 0.62 L T 0.02 LT 0.62 L T 0.62
-------
TABLE 5 (cont.)
Soli Analytical Resuhs
Phase 2 Investigation
Inactive landfills Page 4 of 8
Soli Data - 10f7/91
MAPID 512-3 512-3 512-4 512-4 512-4 S 12-5 512-5
SITE 10 512AOO3 S12AOO3 512AOO4 512A004 S12AOO4 512A005 512A005
FIELD ID MWKr120 MWKr121 UMWKr91 UMWKr92 UMWKr93 MWK7'"134 MWKr135
S. DATE 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90 24-Sep-90 25-Sep-90 25-Sep-90
DEPTH 6.5 10.0 2.5 6.5 10.0 2.5 6.5
MATRIX CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO COAFARISON
UNITS CRLs UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG CRITERIA
BNA TiCs
2.6,10.14-TETAAMETHYLPENT AD NlA N/D N/D N/D 0.204 S t-VD N/D NlD NSA
2-CYCLOHEXEN-1-QL NlA N/D N/D NlD NlD I'VD NlD NlD NSA
2-CYCLOHEXEN-oNE NlA NIO N/D NlO NlD I'VD N/O NlO NSA
CYCLOHEXENE OXIDE NlA N/D N/D I'VD t-VD I'VO NlO NlD NSA
HEXADECANOIC ACID NIA N/D N/D N!D N!D N!D N/D N!D NSA
TOlUENE NIA N/D N/D N!D N/D N/D 1.058 1.055 NSA
TOTAL UNKNOWN TICs NlA N/D N/D NlD (4) 0.816 NlD N/O (1)0.105 NSA
TCL PestlcldesIPCBs
ODD 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 LTO.OO6 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 NSA
DDE 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.006 L T 0.008 0.014 L T 0.008 NSA
DDT 0.007 0.009 0.009 L T 0.007 0.009 L T 0.007 L T 0.007 L T 0.007 NSA
PC8-1260 1.08 L T 0.08 L T 0.08 L T 0.08 L T 0.08 L T 0.08 L T 0.08 L T 0.08 NSA
Other Inoraanlcs
NITRA TEINITRITE 0.6 0.655 LTO.6 LTO.6 LTO.6 LTO.6 4.7 7.00 9.9
-------
TABLE 5 (cont.)
Soli Analytical Results
Phase 2 Investigation
Inactive landfills Page 5 0. 8
Soli Data. 10n/91
MAPID S12.5 S12~ S12~ S12~ S 12.7 S12.7 S12.7
SITE ID S12AOO5 S12AOO6 S12A006 S12AOO6 S12AOO7 S12AOO7 S12A007
FIELD ID MWK7"136 UMWKStS UMWKSt9 UMWKSt10 UMWK8t5 UMWK8"6 UMWK8"7
S. DATE 25-Sep-90 01.Oct.90 01.Oct.90 01.Qct.90 01-Qct.90 01-Oct-90 01-Oct-90
DEPTH 10.0 2.5 6.5 10.0 2.5 6.5 10.0
MATRIX CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO COMPARISON
UNITS CRLs UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG CRfTERIA
TAL Inoraanlcs
ALUMINUM 14. I 4816 195 4115 916 235 764 287 8604
ARSENIC 0.25 1.69 1.89 2.15 1.75 1.65 2.12 1.94 5.24
BARIUM 29.6 109 116 134 98.1 107 132 94.2 233
BERYlliUM 1.86 L T 1.86 L T 1.86 LT 1.86 L T 1.86 L T 1.86 L T 1.86 L T 1.86 1.86
CALCIUM 59 11480 8356 9201 7545 9809 11926 10017 29006
CHROMIUM 12.7 LT 12.7 L T 12.7 LT 12.7 L T 12.7 L T 12.7 L T 12.7 L T 12.7 32.7
COPPER 58.6 L T 58.6 L T 58.6 (166) L T 58.6 L T 58.6 L T 58.6 L T 58.6 58.6
IRON 50 19251 16800 18796 16817 21630 16687 1mO 26233
LEAD (GFM) 0.177 4.32 (9.25) (8.66) 6.83 3.95 6.27 (9.01) 8.37
LEAD (ICP) 6.62 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT 8.37
MAGNESIUM 50 5476 5201 4801 4598 5484 4758 4558 8585
MANGANESE 0.275 396 424 417 377 411 447 363 874
MERCURY 0.05 l T 0.05 l T 0.05 l T 0.05 L T 0.05 L T 0.05 L T 0.05 L T 0.05 0.056
NICKEL 12.6 LT 12.6 L T 12.6 L T 12.6 L T 12.6 L T 12.6 LT 12.6 L T 12.6 12.6
POTASSIUM 37.5 1153 1206 876 1001 741 860 675 2179
SILVER 0.025 0.034 L T 0.025 (0.047) l T 0.025 LTO.025 0.035 0.035 0.038
SODIUM 150 561 478 448 499 535 557 556 978
VANADIUM (ICP) 13 64.7 59.3 53.5 57.3 77.6 56.1 53.7 131
ZINC 30.2 58.7 64.2 L T 30.2 55.7 64.8 L T 30.2 L T 30.2 94
EXDloslves NlA NIt) NlD NlD NlD NlD NIt) NlD NSA
TCL VOAs
CHLOROFORM 0.001 L T 0.001 L T 0.001 L T 0.001 L T 0.001 L T 0.001 L T 0.001 l T 0.001 NSA
TRICHtOROFLUOROMETHANE 0.006 L T 0.006 L T 0.006 l T 0.006 L T 0.006 L T 0.006 L T 0.006 l T 0.006 NSA
TCL BNAs
BIS(2-ETHYUiEXYL) PHTHALATE 0.62 L T 0.62 l T 0.62 I.T 0.62 L T 0.62 L T 0.62 I.T 0.62 l r 0.62 NSA
-------
TABLE 5 (cant.)
Soli Analytical Results
Phase 2 Investigation
Inactive landfills Page 6 of 8
Soli Data .10m91
MAP 10 512.5 812-6 512-6 512-6 512.7 512.7 812.7
SITE 10 512AOOS 512AOO6 512AOO6 512AOO6 512AOO7 512A007 512A007
FIELD ID MWKr136 UMWK888 UMWK889 UMWK8"10 UMWK88S UMWK8"6 UMWK887
S. DATE 25-Sep-90 01.Oct.90 01.Oct.90 01..()ct.90 01..()ct.90 01.Oct.90 01.Oct.90
DEPTH 10.0 2.5 6.5 10.0 2.5 6.5 10.0
MATRIX CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO CSO COMPARISON
UNrrS CRLs UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG UGG CRfTERIA
BNA TiCs
2,6,10,14- TETRAMETHYLPENT AD NlA NlD NID /ILID /ILID /ILID NlD NlD NSA
2-CVCLOHEXEN-1.QL NlA NlD 0.1035 0.309 8 0.309 8 /ILID NlD 0.2058 NSA
2-CVCLOHEXEN-oNE NlA NlD NID 0.2068 0.206 8 /ILIO NlO 0.205 8 NSA
CVCLOHEXENE OXIDE NlA NlO NID 1.038 1.035 /ILIO NlD 1.035 NSA
HEXADECANOIC ACID N/A NlD NIt) NlD NlO NlO NlD NlD NSA
TOlUENE NlA NlO NID NlO NlO /ILID NlO NlD NSA
TOTAL UNKNOWN TICs NlA NlO NID /ILIO /ILIO /ILIO NlO NlD NSA
TCL PestlcldesIPCBs
ODD 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 NSA
DDE 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.000 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 NSA
DOT 0.007 L T 0.007 L T 0.007 L T 0.007 L T 0.007 L T 0.007 L T 0.007 L T 0.007 NSA
PCB-1260 1.08 L T 0.08 L T 0.08 L T 0.08 L T 0.08 L T 0.08 L T 0.08 L T 0.08 NSA
Other lnoraanlcs
NrrRATElNlmlTE 0.6 6.84 1.73 0.802 1.02 LTO.6 LTO.6 LTO.6 9.9
-------
TABLE 5 (cont.)
Soli Analytical Results
Phase 2 Investigation
Inactive landfills Page 7 of 8
SoIl Data. 10n/91
MAPID S12-8 512-8 S12-8 512-8
SfTE ID S12AOO8 S12AOO8 S12AOO8 S12A008D
AELD ID UMWKS81 UMWKS82 UMWK883 UMWKS"4
S.DATE 01-Oct-90 01.Oct.90 01.Oct-90 01-Oct.90
DEPTH 2.5 6.5 10.0 10.0
MATRIX CSO CSO CSO CSO COMPARISON
UNITS CRLs UGG UGG UGG UGG aifTERlA
TAL Inorganlcs
AlUMINUM 14.1 4821 4004 4043 1021 8604
ARSENIC 0.25 (6.15) 2.68 2.2 1.62 5.24
BARIUM 29.6 (248) 144 114 116 233
BERYlliUM 1.86 L T 1.66 L T 1.66 L T 1.66 L T 1.66 1.86
CAlCIUM 59 15009 11576 9921 11902 29006
CHROMIUM 12.7 L T 12.7 L T 12.7 L T 12.7 L T 12.7 32.7
COPPER 58.6 (339) L T 56.6 L T 58.6 L T 56.6 58.6
IRON 50 23669 20838 19667 21606 26233
LEAD (GFAA) 0.177 NT NT 6.59 5.07 8.37
LEAD (ICP) 6.62 (133) (21.3) NT NT 8.37
MAGNESIUM 50 6123 5207 5092 5733 8585
MANGANESE 0.275 594 457 401 421 874
MERCURY 0.05 L T 0.05 L T 0.05 LTO.05 L T 0.05 0.056
NICKEL 12.6 (22) L T 12.6 LT12.6 L T 12.6 12.6
POTASSIUM 37.5 1094 662 7'J8 771 2179
Sit VER' 0.025 (0.616] (0.129) 0.035 L T 0.025 0.038
SODIUM 150 597 581 512 546 978
VANADIUM (ICP) 13 66.7 70.3 60.3 93.6 131
ZINC 30.2 (1065) 196) 73.3 61.3 94
Explosives NlA NIt) NlD NlD N/O NSA
TCL VOAs
CHLOROFORM 0.001 L T 0.001 LT 0.001 L T 0.001 L T 0.001 NSA
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 0.006 L T 0.006 L T 0.006 L T 0.006 L T 0.006 NSA
TCL BNAs
BIS(2.ETHYLHEXYL) PHlHALA TE 0.62 L T 0.62 L T 0.62 L T 0.62 L T 0.62 NSA
-------
TABLE 5 (cont.)
Soli Analytical Results
Phase 2 Investigation
Inactive landfills Page 6 of 6
Soli Data - 1017/91
MAPID S12-8 S12-8 S12-8 S12-8
SITE ID S12AOO8 S12AOO8 S12A008 S12AOO8D
FIELD ID UMWKS81 UMWK8*2 UMWKS"3 UMWKS"4
S. DATE 01-Oct-90 01-Oct-90 01-Oct-90 01-Oct-90
DEPTH 2.5 6.5 10.0 10.0
MATRIX CSO CSO CSO CSO COMPARISON
UNITS CRLs UGG UGG UGG UGG CRITERIA
BNA TiCs
2.6,10,14. TETRAMETHYLPENT AD N/A NlD NID NlD NlD NSA
2-CYCLOHEXEN-1-QL N/A 0.205 S 0.206 S NlD NlD NSA
2-CYCLOHEXEN-oNE N/A NlD NID NlD NlD NSA
CYCLOHEXENE OXIDE N/A NlD NID NlD NlD NSA
HEXADECANOIC ACID N/A NlD NID NlD NlD NSA
TOLUENE N/A NlD NID NlD NlD NSA
TOTAL UNKNOWN TICs N/A NlD NID NlD NlD NSA
TCL PestlcldeslPCBs
ODD 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.006 L T 0.008 L T 0.008 NSA
DDE 0.008 L T 0.008 L T 0.006 L T 0.006 L T 0.006 NSA
DDT 0.007 LTO.D07 L T 0.007 L T 0.007 L T 0.007 NSA
PCB-1260 1.08 L T 0.08 L T 0.08 L T 0.08 L T 0.08 NSA
Other Inorganlcs
NITAA TEINITRITE 0.6 0.653 LTO.6 LTO.6 LTO.6 9.9
GT co Greater Than
L T co Less Than
NA .. Not Available
ND .. Not Detected
NSA .. No Standard Available
NT .. Not Tested
S .. Resuhs Based on Internal Standards
TICs.. CofT1)OUnds For Which No StaOdard is Available lor Identification
U - Unoor11nned
I ) .. Detected ooncentration exceeds oon~arison criterion
Source: Final Remedial Investigation Report. August, 199:
-------
Soillnvesrigation Resulrs. Analysis of the soil samples detected slightly elevated
concentrations of several metals in most of the samples. The elevated
concentrations are likely to be associated with the metal scrap found in the
inactive disposal areas. Trace concentrations of pesticides were found in several
soil samples. One PCB compound was detected at trace concentrations in one
soil sample. The presence of these two compound classes are thought to be due
to site-wide pesticide use or residual from empty pesticide containers. The
detected concentrations of the metals, PCBs, and pesticides are below their
respective cleanup criteria established for UMDA.
The potential for migration of these compounds from the soil to the ground water
is low due to the limited precipitation the area receives. This conclusion is
funher supported by the fact that these compounds were not detected in the
ground water samples collected at the ILOU.
.
Ground Water Investigation Results. Several metals were detected in the ground
water at levels below the comparison criteria and are not considered to be of
concern. Vanadium was at slightly elevated concentrations apparently due to
naturally occurring conditions. Nitrate/nitrite and antimony were slightly elevated
during initial sampling events but were not elevated consistently and are not
considered to be of concern. Arsenic was detected at concentrations slightly
above "background." but well below the comparison criteria. Upon funher review
and evaluation of the ground water data, it was determined that the arsenic
background concentrations were actually slightly higher than previously thought;
and that the arsenic concentrations detected in the ground water at the inactive
landfIlls were representative of naturally occuning conditions. RDX was detected
in one sample below drinking water standards at trace concentrations and is not
considered to.be of concern.
The ground water results confIrmed the results of the first phase ground water
investigation and suggest that the ground water has nOt been affected by
landfIlling activities.
Although it is not possible to completely determine the contents of a site as
diverse as the inactive landfills, the sampling plan was developed based on the
site's size and reponed contents, and was biased to include the areas most likely
to show contamination. The number of samples collected was considered to be
sufficient to adequately characterize the site.
2.6 Summary of Site Risks
This section summarizes the human health risks and environmental effectS associated
with exposure to site contaminantS and provides potential remedial action criteria.
2.6.1 Human Health Risks
A baseline risk assessment was conducted as part of the 1992 RI to determine the likely
potential risk the site would pose to public health if no clean-up activities were
performed. A risk assessment consists of sev.eral steps. The first step is an exposure
8708:!e1TEP .AOO.IfW:TNE.CX112M13
-------
analysis where potential pathways by which someone might be exposed to a compound
are identified. If there are no exposure pathways. there is no risk. Second, a list of
compounds, ("contaminants of concern"), is de"'eloped. These are the compounds that
will be considered in the risk calculations. They are chosen based on their concenuation
and potential toxicity. For this risk assessment. the contaminants were selected to be
"contaminants of concern" if they were found to be above background or present at
elevated concenuations. Compounds found to be elevated due to narurally occurring
conditions, with the exception of niuatc:/niui~ were also included to produce a more
conservative risk estimate.
Once the contaminants of concern are identified. a toxicity assessment is performed.
Assumptions and data from tOxicological studies on humans and animals are used to
quantify the potential tOxicity or potency of a particular compound. In.. addition, the
calculations are performed to protect the most sensitive population and contain
conservative assUmptions on, for example, duration and magnitude of exposure. As such,
there is uncenainty associated with risk assessments and they should be used as only an
instrUment for determining relative priorities for clean-up of contaminated sites, not a
predictive tool.
All of this infonnation is combined to perform the human health risk evaluation, where
the potential risk to human health posed by the site is quantified. A hazard index is
generated for potential noncarcinogenic effects. and a cancer risk level is generated for
potential carcinogenic contaminants. In general. a hazard index of less than one indicalCs
that even the most sensitive population is not likely to experience adverse health effects.
The cancer risk level is expressed as a probability and indicates the additional chance
that an individual will develop cancer over a lifetime of exposure. EPA's acceptable risk
range for cancer is 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10,6; or one additional chance in ten thousand to one
additional chance in one million that a person will conuact cancer if they are exposed
to a site for 30 years.
2.6.1.1 Exposure Anslysls. The populations at risk of exposure to this site were
identified by considering both current and future use scenarios. A detailed risk analysis
of the current lan~t use scenario was not evaluated for several reasons:
.
Access to the n..oU is limited to UMDA personnel;
The n..oU is not active so there is no population currently exposed to the sites;
and
Water supply wells do not presently exist at the ~OU, therefore there is no
potential for exposure to ground water from the site.
In summary. risks associated with current land use were not evaluated because the
potential for, and duration of exposure was expected to be small. In addition, an
evaluation of risk associated with residential land use of this site will generate the most
conservative risk estimate. !f the risk assessment showed residential use of the site to be
~ceptable. it would indicate that all other potential scenarios. includin2 the current land
~. are also acceptable. Therefore. the population hypothetically exposed to the
contaminants was site residen~. .
8708211''TB'.ROO.JW::~
-------
The potential risks associated with a future residenrialland use were analyzed in derail.
The exposure routes that were evaluated include:
! .-
Drinking ground water from beneath the ILOU;
Showering with ground water from beneath the ILOU; and
Eating crops grown at the site and irrigated with ground water from beneath the
ILOU.
2.6: 1.2 Contaminant ldentfflcatlon. The compounds evaluated in the risk assessment.
and the concentrations of those chemicals are listed in Table 6. Although the remedial
investigation determined that these compounds are not associated with the ILOU, and
not of concern, they were carried through the risk assessment to generate a most
conservative risk estimate.
Health effects criteria for the compounds of concern, including the Cancer Potency
Factor and Reference Dose for those compounds, are listed in Table 7. Cancer Potency
Factors are derived from the results of human epidemiological studies or chronic animal
bioassays to which animal-to-human extrapolation and uncenainty factors have been
applied. Cancer Potency Factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic
Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure
to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)
are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to provide
an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at
that intake level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks
calculated from the CPF. Use of this approach makes underestimation of the actual
cancer risk highly unlikely.
Reference Doses (RIDs) have been deYeloped by EPA for indicating the potential for
adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects.
RIDs, which are expressed in units of mglkg-day, are estimates of lifetime daily
exposure levels for humans. including sensitive individuals. Estimated intakes of
chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from
contaminated drinking water) can be compared to the RID. RIDs are derived from
human epidemiological studies or animal studies to which uncenainty factOrS have been
applied (e.g.. to account for the use of animal data to predict effects on humans). These
uncenainty factOrS help ensure that the RIDs will not underestimate the potential for
adverse noncarcinogenic effects to occur.
As indicared above. there is a significant level of uncenainty associated with risk
assessments. However. the information that is used. in a risk assessment is generally
biased to ensure that a conservative. overestimation of risk will be generated. rather than
an underestimation.
2.6.1.3 Risk Evaluation. Table 8 presents the risk factor and hazard index values
associated with each exposure pathway. Tables 9 through 11 present the risIc factors and
hazard indices eStimates broken down by compound for each exposure pathway. Results
of the risIc evaluation show thai ground water ingestion poses the largest potential risk
87'D12111 TEP .AOO.INACTNE.a:Y.21W3
-------
TABLE 6
Occurrence Ind Dlltrlbullon of Compoundl EVllulted In the lnecdve Landflill Rllk A...lment
Frequency Pwcent Rllflgeol Upper 115 Percent
o' Polldw RInge o' Semple Detecced Confidence location 01 Complrllon Crlteril Number 01
COMPOUND Jlli!!.S Detection Delectlonl Detection Umltl Concentrlllloni Llmlt!l) Mex. Cone. Cone. -Im- ExC»edlnC81
TAL Inora-nlce
ANTIMONY UGl 5/30 17 3.3.00 3.3.10.4 2.88 12.\ Bkgd 5
ARSENIC UGl 25/30 83 5-5 4.16.7.36 5.23 12.1 Bkgd 25
COPPER UGI.. 8/30 27 8.09 - 8.09 3.54 - 19.2 582 12.1 Bkgd 8
CYANIDE UGl 1/30 3 2.5-16 18.5.18.5 4.16 010 NSA NA
LEAD UGl 10/30 33 1.26- 2.5 1.41.6.37 2.06 ~-37 5 Bkgd 1
NICKEL UGl 6/30 20 96 - 34.3 10.6 - 67.6 25.7 ~40 NSA NA
VANADIUM UGl 24/24 100 OlNA 23.1 . 35.8 30.3 12.1 NSA NA
ZINC UGl 8/30 27 21.1 - 21.1 30.8 - 1400 379 ~-37 40 Bkgd 7
EIIDlollv..
RDX UGI.. 1/30 3 0.63-2.11 4.03 - 4.03 1.21 12.1 NSA NA
TETRYL UGI.. 1/30 3 0.556 - 0.66 1.24 - 1.24 0.373 ~40 NSA NA
(8) .. Upper 95 peroent oonfidBnoe linlt on the arithmetie mean. CalculaIBd 866Uming ona.hall !he dalBC1ion level
as the ooncentration lor f\088 1i8ITIp!e& In whidl 8 given anaIyte was not detucIed
BiIgd .. The maxmum dBlIICtIId conoentralion in bacl<.ground ground water
DLNA .. Detsction Level Not Available. The d88ection levels ~ not be II&08I1ained becau68 oonstituents were dalllclad in allrelevanl samples
NA .. Not Applicable
NSA .. No Standard Available lor Compound
TAL .. TargetAnalyte U6t
TCl .. Target Compound Ust
TIC.. TentitiV&tf Identified Compound
UGl .. ~
Sou-oe: Final Human Health Baseline Risk Asse6smen~ Augus~ 1992
-------
Table 7
Summary of Toxicity Criteria for the
Contaminants of Concern at the Inactive landfills Page 1 of 3
RtDo RlDI
~ ~rI !!! ~ C,I'ul EJlect ImglllQlcM,Haol Uf ConlkMnce C,llul EJlect
TAL lnorllana
AnUInIIn\' 4.0E~ 1000 Low lorv-vlr. bIoud gluooo. ......; NO
__I"'"
Ar-Io 3.0E~ Wedium Hrl*Piamonwion, ""'''088 UR
vuaAIr """,,,ic&lioo.
~ 3.1E-02 lAM LlCl 1.0E-02 low
Lead IUBI< WodoIl- I81tl Neuroloaicily in
-------
Table 7 (cont.)
Summary 01 Toxicity Criteria for the
Contaminants of Concern 8t the Inactive landfills Page 2 01 3
IFo IFI ~Ighl"'"
~ ii(mg/IIQ~8Y1 Ty- 01 c.nce. 1~mg/1Ig"'.YI Ty- ot c.nce. .lden"" CI... ~
TAt """Donica
Anl~ He NO 1,1,1.1
AI_Ie 1.75£.00 Ski> -. 1.4E.01 L"ng -. A 1,1,1,1
~ NO NO 0 3.3,1.\
L'" 10 RenII'~ 10 Oig...iv. 1,1Id; r88pirolol'( B2 ~,~,I,1
Nd181 NO 8.4E-oI(gl L"ng II>d 1\&,,' ~'""" A 1,1,1,1
Von8dh.m NO NO 2,1,1,1
Zinc> NO NO 0 2.1,1.1
Cy8nicIo(l_) NO NO 0 1,1,1,1
E.pIooiv..
ROX I.IE-ol HepoIoceI"1oI NO C 1,1,1,1
-...--I86onomoo
Tolly' NO NO 8,'.','
Source: Dames & Moore Final Human Health Baseline Risk Assessmenl, August 1992
-------
Table 7 (cont.)
.
Summary of Toxicity Criteria for the
Contaminants 01 Concern at the Inactive landfills
Page 3 01 3
(i) .
(j) -
Ip) .
F oocnotes:
(aa). Inhalation ref~=ce doses w~n: calcuJa~d fran refen:nce air conceluntions (RFCs) usuming !hal a standard 70kg humm inhales 20
cubic me~rs of air/day (1.JSEPA. 1989b). Limiwions of these assumptions an: discussed in rhe uncertainly section of the lexL
(a) . Soura: cedes are lis~d below. The 4 values shown in this column Ire !he soura:s for the oral Rid. rhe inhalation RID. !he oral slope
flClOr. and the inhalarion slope faCIOI'. respectively.
(I) lSEPA.I991d.
(2) CSEPA. 1991e.
'.3) L'SEPA. 1991g.
(4) lSEPA. 1991k.
(5) Brower. 1992-
(6) USEPA. 1990.
(I) Ris. 1992.
(8) Ris. 1991.
(9) Poirier. 1992.
(c) - Values for hexavalenl chromium are used in this risk assessmenL
(f) - Listed value is for !he soluble salts of nickel
(g) - Listed values are for nick~1 refinery dusl and nickel subsulfide. respecrively. ~oSl conservarive value (e.g.. nickel subsulfide) used in
!his Baseline RA.
L'nder RfDIRIC Work Group review.
A modifying faclor of 5 was used 10 reflecl lolennce ID cyanide when administered in food.
The UF amfidence level. and basis for the RfDo for alwninum are unknown. However. exposure 10 aluminum has been associa&cd
wi!h neurological effects.
h . :"01 applicable.
Acronyms:
RfDo Oral refe=ce dose
L'F UncertainI)' {aaor
RfDi Inhalarion ref~=ce dose
SFo Oral slope factor .
SFi Inhalation slope faaor
:'-0"'0 :"0 dau
ID Insufficienl data available
L"R L' nder rev1ew
:"OEL No observable ~ffeCl level
:"OAEL ~o observable adverse effect level (see Appendix 8)
~CL MaJlimum eonuminanl level
o;S Cerural Dervous sysleIII
RiC Reference concenrnbon (see Appendix '8)
CRA VE Can:inogen Risk Assessmenl Verification Endeavor (see Appendix B)
Source: Final Humm Heallb Baseline Risk Assessment, August 1992.
-------
TABLE 8
Multiple Pathway Potential Carcinogenic Risks
and Noncarcinogenic Hazards at the Inactive landfills
Future ResIdential Land use Scenario
Pathway Pathway Hazard
Number Descrtptlon Risk Index
5 Ingestion of Ground Water 1 E.{)4 9E~1
7 Dermal Abso~ion of Ground Water 9E-10 7E-OO
Contaminants During Showering
12 Consulll'tion of Crops 2E~7 2E-OO
Total 1 E.04 9E~1
Source: Final Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment. AuguSt. 1992
.'":112_'-
.
117'aC1111m>.AOO~
-------
TABLE 9
Potential Carcinogenic Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazards
Due to Ingestion of Ground Water from the Inactive Landfills
. Future Residential Land Use Scenario
.
Carcinogenic
Intake Slope Factor
Analvte (maika/day) 1/(malka/day) Risk
Antimony
Arsenic 6.14E-QS 1.7SE+OO 1 E-Q4
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
RDX 1.42E-QS 1.1 E-Q1 2E-Q6
T etryf
Total 1E~
Noncarcinogenic
Intake Reference Dose Hazard
Analvte (mQ/kalday) (maika/day) Quotient
Antimony . 7.89E-QS 4.0E-Q4 2E-Q1
Arsenic 1.43E-Q4 3.0E-Q4 5E-Q1
Copper 1 .59E-Q4 3.7E-Q2 4E-03
Lead S.64E-QS .. ..
Nickel 7.04E-04 2.0E-02 4E-02
Vanadium 8.30E-04 7.0E-Q3 1 E-Q1
Zinc 1.04E-Q2 2.0E-Q1 5E-02
Cyanide 1.14E-04 2.0E-Q2 6E-03
RDX 3.32E-05 3.0E-03 1 E-02
T etryl 1.02E-QS 1.0E-Q2 1 E-03
Total 9E-Q1
~- . Not calculated because contaminant is not considered a carcinogen or potency fador is not available
-.. Reference dose not available
Source: Final Human Health Base6ne Risk Assessment. August. 1992
87I82I'TEP.AOO.~
-------
TABLE 10
Potential Carcinogenic Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazards
Due to Dermal Absorption of Ground Water Contaminants at Inactive landfills
Future Residential Land Use Scenario
.
Carcinogenic
Intake Slope Factor
Analvte (maika/day) 1/(maJkaldav) Risk
RDX 8.45E-OO 1.1E.Q1 9E-10
Tetryt
Total 9E.10
Noncarcinogenic
Intake Reference Dose Hazard
Analyte (mg/1(g/day) (mg/kg/day) Quotient
RDX 1.97E.Q8 3.0E-03 7E-Q6
Tetryl 8.69E-09 1 .OE.Q2 9E-Q6
Total 7E-Q6
. -' Not calculated because contaminant is not considered a carcirogen or potency fader is not available
Source: Final Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment, August, 1992
f'1112111TEP .ROO.JCotICTNE.0:nMi3
-------
.... . -.--.. ... ...... .'."--,.. ..
TABLE 11
Potential Carcinogenic Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazards
. Due to the Consumption 01 Crops Grown at the Inactive Landfills
Future Residential Land Use Scenario
.
.
Carcinogenic
Intake Slope Factor
Analvte (mQ/kwdav) 1/(rnalka/dav) Risk
Antimony
Arsenic 9.83E-Q9 1.75E+OO 2E.{)8
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
RDX 2.05E-06 1.1 E-Q1 2E-Q7
T etryl
Total 2E.Q7
Noncarcinogenic
Intake Reference Dose Hazard
Analyte (mQ/kWday) (I11Q/kWday) Quotient
Antimony xx 4~OE-04 xx
Arsenic 2.29E-oB 3.0E-04 8E-05
Copper xx 3.7E-Q2 xx
Lead 1.13E-oB .. ..
Nickel 1.41 E-06 2.0E-Q2 7E-05
Vanadium xx 7.0E-03 xx
Zinc xx 2.0E-Q1 xx
Cyanide xx 2.0E-G2 xx
ROX 4.77E-<>6 3.0E-03 2E-03
T etryl 1.35E-06 1.0E-Q2 1 E-04
Total 2E-03
"-" Not calculated because contaminant is not considered a caJcirlOgef1 or potency factor is rot available
""xX' Quantitative information on uptake factors not available
-.. Reference dose rot available
Source: Final Human Health Baseine Risk Assessment, August. 1992
87082II1TEP .ACO.tUICT1\/E.C13/21a'113
-------
at this site. Arsenic. a naturally occurring element. is primarily responsible for the risk.
However. even with the inclusion of arsenic in the evaluation. the cancer risk is within
the acceptable risk range (lO'~ to lO'~ established by the NCP. The non-carcinogenic
risk is also below the acceptable risk: threshold of 1. Removing arsenic from the
calculation reduces the hazard index funher, bringing it to well below a level of concern.
2.6.1.4 Human Health Risk Characterization Summary. Compounds determined to
be present at background concentrations as well as compounds attributed to the landfills
were included in the risk assessment. Future residential land use was the scenario
evaluated. This evaluation esrim!lt~ the potential risk associated with: drinking and
showering with water from a well installed beneath the landfills; and eating crops grown
at the site over a long period of time, for persons residing on-site. These assumptions
were made to generate a very conservative, worst case, risk estimate. The risk
assessment detennined that the landfills do not pose an unacceptable risk to human
health. Although the noncarcinogenic risk estimate for the n..OU was slightly above one,
the elevation in risk was due primarily to the presence of arsenic. This compound is not
associated with the landfills; itS concentration is consistent with background ground
water quality. When arsenic is removed from the risk calculation. the hazard index falls
to a value below a level of concern.
.
.
An uncertainty associated with the risk assessment is whether the worst contaminated
areas were actually located by the sampling performed. Though a representative number
of samples were collected, with the worst sites being targeted during the sampling, some
portions of the inactive landfills were not sampled. However, the 1i1celihood that higher
concentrations were missed is not considered significant and is also mitigated by the use
of the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) concentration in the risk calculations.
Though the inactive landfill areas are not expected to change in usage, predicting future
use also has some uncertainty associated with it. The risk assessment assumptions of
limited or no exposure to contaminated subsurface soils could be incorrect at some time
in the future, though this. is not expected to have a significant effect. Even with
residential use the estimated remediation goals for soil were not exceeded by the RME
concentrations at an excess cancer risk level of I times 10-5 and hazard index of I (see
Table 12). Therefore. the uncertainty of future land use does not affect the remediation
decision at this site.
2.6.2 environmental Risks
An ecological risk assessment was performed for UMDA to detennine the potential for
the site to negatively affect site animal or vegetative populations. This assessment did
not spccifically address the ILOU, but focused on the potential effectS associated with
the most seriously contaminated sites at UMDA. It was assumed that this would provide .
a most conservative estimate of potential negative ecological effectS.
Preliminary resultS of the assessment indicate that the most contaminated sites at UMDA
are causing only limited negative impact on the local ecological environment. The
potential for negative ecological impact associated with the ILOU is considered minor.
The most significant potential risk to local wildlife associated with the site resultS from
ground water ingestion, and there is no potential ecological exposure route to ground
water.
87082eITEP .AOO.JUCTNE.o:w2MD
-------
Table 12: Comparison of 95% Upper Confidence Limit Concentrations and
Remedial Goals for the Solis of the Umatilla Depot Activity
Inactive landfills Operable Unit
..
,~
" .!;;..:~::.:)';;:
.. . ~..'.'.' ...
:':~~:=;~';('
2.49
133
1.12
8.45
78.1
29,863
20
0.058
12.5
0.344
95.9
175
0.01
0.006
0.008
0.055
20
. .
'J
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
DDD
DOE
DOT
PCB 1260
NitratelNitrite
.Relevant health effectS information not available.
uBased on lead uptake biokinetic model.
:RCHn8d..~~ (ppm):::
(ReaJdentiafland U8e)':,:i
3.63
13,700
1.48
190
10,100
.
200..
81.9
4,700
1,370
1.920
54,800
26.6
18.8
18.8
0.830
43,800
Note: Values above obtained from: Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment, Umarilla
Depot Activity, Hermiston, Oregon, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Agency (now Army Environmental Center), Aberdeen Proving Ground,
Maryland, August 1992.
8708281TEJ' .ACO.IUCTM.CX112M13
-------
2.7 Description of the "No-Action" Alternative
The Anny. EPA and ODEQ have agreed that results of the environment.a.l investigations
and the human health risk assessment perfonned at ILOU demonstrate that the site does
not pose a significant risk to human health and the environment; and that no funher
action is required. In choosing the no funher action alternative. EPA reserves its
authority to perform additional response actions should new infonnanon necessitate such
a decision.
~-~
, ,
.c
2.8 Documentation of Significant Changes
The preferred alternative presented in the Proposed Plan for the Inactive Landfills
Operable Unit was the fInal remedy selected; no significant changes have been made.
11III2I11EP.ROO.~
-------
Section 3
Responsiveness Summary
.
The final component of the ROD is the Responsiveness Summary, which serves tWo
purposes. First, it provides the agency decision makers with infonnation about
community preferences regarding the remedial alternatives and general concerns about
the site. Second. it demonstrates to members of the public how their comments were
taken into account as a pan of the decision-making process.
.'.
. ~
Historically, community interest in the UMDA installation has centered on the impacts
of installation operations on the local economy. Interest in the environmental impacts of
UMDA activities has typically been low. Only the proposed chemical demilitarization
program, which is separate from CERCLA remediation programs, has drawn substantial
comment and concern. '
As part of the installation's community relations program, the Ul\.IDA command
assembled in 1988 a TRC composed of elected and appointed officials and other
interested citizens from the surrounding communities. Quanerly meetings provide an
opponunity for UMDA to brief the TRC on installation environmental restoration
projects and to solicit input from the TRC. The TRC was briefed. on August 12, 1992,
on the scope and results of the supplemental investigation of and the preferred
alternative for, the Inactive Landfills Operable Unit as presented in the proposed plan.
The response received from the TRC was positive.
Notice of the public comment period. public meeting, and availability of the Proposed
Plan was published in the Hermiston Herald, the Tri-Ciry Herald. and the East
Oregonian in September 1992.
The Proposed Plan for the Inactive Landfills Operable Unit was released to the public
on August 31, 1992. 'The public comment period started on that date and ended on
September 30, 1992. The documents constituting the administrative record were made
available to the public at the following locations: UMDA Building I, Henniston,
Oregon; the Hermiston Public Library, Hermis ton , Oregon; and the EPA Office in
Ponland, Oregon.
A public meeting was held at Annand Larive Junior High School, Hermiston, Oregon,
on September 15, 1992, to inform the public of the preferred alternative and to seek
public comments. At this meeting, representatives from UMDA, USATIlAMA, EPA,'
ODEQ, and Arthur D. Linle, Inc. presented the proposed remedy. Approximately ten
persons from the public and media attended the meeting.
.
No comments or questions regarding the proposed alternative, either verbal or written,
were received by UMDA, EPA, or ODEQ during the public meeting or during the
comment period. '
87'082111 'IEP .ROO.NCT1\IE.IXII2&'a3
-------
Appendix 1
State 01 Oregon's Letter 01 Concurrence
81OI2II1'TB' .AOO.1W:T1\/E.ID2MI3
..
"
. "
i
,.
-------
Oregc
It
OCTOBER 20, 1992
..'J
DEPART~!E\:T
ENVIRO~~IE:\l
QUALITY
Ms. Dana Rassmussen
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seanle, WA 98101
Re:
Umatilla Depot Activity
Inactive landfills Operable Unit
Record of Decision
Dear Ms. Rassmussen:
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has reviewed the draft Record
of Decision, for the Inactive landfills Operable Unit at the U.S. Army's Umatilla Depot
Activity. I am pleased to advise you that DEO concurs with the no-action remedy
recommended by EPA and the Army. I find that this alternative is protective, and to
the maximum extent practicable is cost effective, uses permanent solutions and
alternative technologies, is effective and implementable. Accordingly, it satisfies the
requirements of ORS 465.315, and OAR 340-122-040 and 090.
Notwithstanding this no-action remedy, it is understood that the Army has agreed to.
resample the Western Inactive Drum Site and that any drums found to contain
hazardous substances will be removed and properly disposed.
If you have any Questions concerning this maner, please contact Mr. William Dana of
the Department's Environmental Cleanup Division, at (503) 229-6530.
Sincerely,
~~~
Fred Hansen
Director
.
WD:m
SITE\SM35\SM4709
cc: Lewis D. Walker, DOD
LTC. William McCune, UMDA
Harry Craig, EPA-OOO
Bill Dana, SRS, DEO
(8
811 SW Sixth AvenI.:
Portland. OR 9720.1-
(503) :!19-5696
------- |