United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R10-93/068
July 1993
SEPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Fairchild Air Force Base 4
-------
80272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTA11ON 1" REPORT NO. 2 3. Recipient'. Ace_Ion No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R10-93/068
4. TIII8 and Subtitle 5. Report Date
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 07/14/93
Fairchild Air Force Base 4 Areas (Operable Unit 2), WA &
Second Remedial Action
7. A~hor(e) 8. Performing Orpnlzatlon Repl. No.
8. Performing Orpnlutlon Name and Add- 10 Project TuklWork Unit No.
11. CanII'8Cl(C) or Gr8n1(0) No.
(C)
(0)
12. ~ng Orpnlzallon Name and Add.... 13. Type of Report . PerIod eov..
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. 800/800
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. Suppl8rn8nlary Not.
PB94-964621
18. Ab8II'8Ct (Umlt: 200 worda)
The Fairchild Air Force Base 4 Areas (Operable Unit 2) site is part of the 4,300-acre
Fairchild Air Force Base (AFB) located approximately 12 miles west of Spokane,
Washington. Land use in the area is predominantly agricultural. In addition, a
portion of the site may be within a floodplain, since it could be flooded during
intense precipitation. Initially, in 1942, the Base was established as a U.S. Army
repair depot. -In 1947, it was transferred to the Strategic Air Command and renamed
Fairchild AFB, in 1950. Since 1942, varying quantities of hazardous wastes from fuel
management, industrial and aircraft operations, and fire training activities have been
generated and disposed of onsite. The site consists of five separate Priority 1 (P1)
OUs: SW-1 (Old Base Landfill northeast of Taxiway No. 7); IS-1 (Building 1034 French
Drain System); QU1 (Flightline Sites PS-2, PS-6, PS-8); FT-1 (Fire Training Area); and
WW-1 (Wastewater Lagoons). From about 1949 to 1958, the SW-1 landfill was the main
disposal area for the base and received industrial wastes including plating sludge,
solvents, and lubricating oils. The Building 1034 French drain system was constructed
to dispose of wastewater from an inside sink and the roof runoff at Building 1034;
however, it is believed that hazardous materials, including waste solvents, mineral
(See Attached Page)
17. Document AnaIya18 a. D88crlplora
Record of Decision - Fairchild Air Force Base 4 Areas (Operable Unit 2), WA
Second Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics (PAH:~), metals
(chromium, lead)
b. Id8nIlftersf()pen
-------
EPA/ROD/R10-93/068
Fairchild Air Force Base 4 Areas (Operable Unit 2), WA
Second Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
spirits (PD-680), cleaning compounds, and acid solutions were washed into the drain
system. In 1992, the Air Combat Command division of the Air Force assumed command of
Fairchild AFB. Also, in 1992, the Air Force completed a non-time-critical removal a9tion
to remove and treat offsite the contaminated sediment and water from the manholes of the
French drain system, in addition to, rerouting drainage from the sink and roof and sealing
the manholes with water-tight gaskets. The flightline OU is comprised of three sites:
PS-2, where approximately 5,120 gallons of JP-4 fuel leaked/spilled between 1984 and 1985;
PS-6, where approximately 3,550 gallons of JP-4 fuel leaked in 1986; and PS-8, where
petroleum vapors were attributed to leaks in the underground fuel lines. Until 1991, fire
training exercises, which included burning approximately 300 gallons of JP-4 fuel and
extinguishing the blaze with approximately 125 gallons of aqueous film-forming foam, were
held two or three times a month at the Fire Training Area. The Wastewater Lagoons
currently are used for disposal of industrial wastewater and storm water, but wastes such
as JP-4 fuel, oil, industrial solvents, acids,' and cleaning compounds are known to have
been discharged previously into the lagoons. Until 1989, the lagoons periodically were
dredged, and approximately 18 inches of the dredged material was spread over the lagoon
banks. As part of the Department of Defense's Installation Restoration Program (IRP),
onsite environmental investigations of past disposal practices were initiated that
revealed onsite soil and ground water contamination. A 1993 ROD addressed the source
contamination at the Craig Road Landfill and onsite and offsite ground water, as OU1.
This ROD addresses soil and ground water contamination at the five P1 areas, as OU2. A
future ROD will address the P2 OUs. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and ground water are VOCs, including benzene, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other
organics, including PAHs; and metals, including chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes combining onsite in-situ bioventing of
the contaminated soil in the FT-1 area with an in-situ ground water air sparging treatment
system to prevent continued movement of contaminated. water fTom the FT-1 area; treating
contaminated air vapors from both systems to comply with State air standards; collecting
and treating floating product at the PS-2 area by either a passive or active removal
system; transporting the collected product offsite to a recycling facility for reuse as a
fuel source; extracting and treating contaminated ground water at the WW-1 area using an
air stripping unit and/or a carbon adsorption unit; reinjecting the treated water into the
aquifer or discharging it onsite either directly or indirectly to No Name Ditch; recycling
spent carbon offsite; allowing contaminated ground water to naturally attenuate at SW-1,
PS-2, and PS-8; conducting onsite ground water monitoring at SW-1, PS-2, PS-8, and FT-1
sites, and offsite ground water monitoring at SW-1, FT-1 and WW-1 areas; and implementing
institutional controls, including deed restrictions, and site access restrictions at the
SW-1 and the WW-1 areas, and ground water use restrictions at the SW-1, PS-2, PS-8, FT-1,
and WW-1 areas. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $5,816,000,
which includes an estimated annual O&M cost of $340,000 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Chemical-specific soil cleanup goals are based on the State Model Toxics Control Act
(MTCA), which establishes maximum acceptable overall site risk for carcinogens of 1x10-S,
and for non-carcinogens as levels which the human population may be exposed during a
30-year period without adverse health effects, and include benzene 0.5 mg/kg and cadmium 2
mg/kg. Chemical-specific ground water cleanup goals are based on SDWA MCLs and the State
-------
United States Air Force
-
Environmental Restoration Program
Final
. , Record of Decision
On-Base Priority One Operable Units
Fairchild Air Force Base (o. (A..:L)
June 1993
7 Iff /9;
-------
DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAMES AND LOCATIONS
On-Base Priority 1 Operable Units: Old Base Landfill LF-01 (SW-1); Building 1034 French Drain System SD-
05 (IS-1); Aightline Operable Unit Site (OU-1) PS-2; Flightline Operable Unit Site (OU-1) SS-18 (PS-6);
Flightline Operable Unit Site (OU-1) SS-27 (PS-8); Wastewater Lagoons WP-03 (WW-1); Fire Training Area
FT -04 (FT-1)
Fairchild Air Force Base
Spokane County, Washington
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial actions for the Priority 1 (P1) Operable Units,
Fairchild Air Force Base (AFB), Spokane County, Washington, which were chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. This decision is based on the Administrative Record
for this site.
The lead agency for this decision is the U.S. Air Force. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
approves of this decision and, along with the State of Washington, Department of Ecology (Ecology), has
participated in the scoping of the site investigations and in the evaluation of the remedial investigation data
and the development of remedial altematives. The State of Washington concurs with the selected remedies.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITES
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the on-Base P1 sites, if not addressed by
implementing the response actions selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDIES
This ROD addresses soil and groundwater contamination at five P1 operable units. This is the second of
three RODs planned for Fairchild Air Force Base. The first ROD, signed in February 1993, addressed
contamination at the Craig Road Landfill operable unit. The third ROD will address the Priority Two (P2)
operable units. .
The major components of the selected remedies for the five P1 operable units are highlighted be~ow.
Further explanations regarding the remedial alternatives-and selectedaltematives are located in sections VIII
-------
Old Base Landfill (SW-1)
The goals of the remedial action at SW-1 are to restore the groundwater to drinking water quality within a
reasonable timeframe. and to prevent exposure to landfill materials. The selected remedy combines the soil
alternative of Institutional controls (Alternative 2) with the groundwater alternative of Institutional controls and
Point-of-Use Treatment/Alternate water supply (Alternative 2). This remedy consists of the following
elements: .
Maintaining institutional controls restricting access to the site.
Maintaining institutional controls. in the form of restrictions against on-base usage of TCE-
contaminated groundwater associated with the site, until cleanup levels are ,achieved.
Monitoring groundwater at the site to identify a trend in contaminant concentrations, estimating a
timeframe for restoration by natural dispersion. dilution, and degradation, evaluating the acceptability
of the estimated timeframe. and implementing a compliance monitoring program to estimate
attainment of cleanup levels.
Monitoring off-site water supply wells in the vicinity of the site and providing point-of-use treatment
and/or alternate water supply, if necessary.
The estimated costs associated with this remedy are:
Capital Cost:
O&M Costs:
Present Net Worth:
$0
$40,000
. $615,000
Building 1034 French Drain System (IS-1)
The USAF has determined that no further remedial action is necessary at the IS-1 site to ensure protection
of human health and the environment. This decision is based on the results of the human health risk
assessment, which determined that conditions at the site pose no unacceptable risks to human health or
the environment. With the completion of the removal action at IS-1 in December 1992, all conduits, including
surface water drainage into the manholes. and potential sources of groundwater contamination have been
eliminated at the IS-1 site. The TCE groundwater contamination detectect upgradient of this site is believed
to be associated with site PS-10, a P2 operable unit, and will be addressed under the RI/FS for the P2 sites.
Flightline Site (OU-1) PS-2
The goal of the remedial action at PS-2 is to restore the groundwater to drinking water quality within a
reasonable timeframe. The selected remedy combines the soil alternative of No Action (Alternative 1) with
the groundwater alternative of Free Product Removal with Institutional Controls (Alternative 5). This remedy
consists of the following elements: '
Remediation of the floating product through passive collection and treatment, and recycling of
recovered product at an offsite facility. .
-------
Maintaining institutional controls, in the form of restrictions against on-base usage of benzene- and
TPf:I.-contaminated groundwater associated with the site, until cleanup levels are achieved.
Monitoring groundwater at the site to identify a trend in contaminant concentrations, estimate a
timeframe for restoration by natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation, evaluating the acceptability
of the estimated timeframe, and implementing a compliance' monitoring program to estimate
attainment of cleanup levels.
The estimated costs associated with this remedy are:
Capital Cost:
O&M Costs:
Present Net Worth:
$195,000
$85,000
$447,000
Fliqhtline site (OU-1) PS-6
The USAF has determined that no further remedial action is necessary at the PS-6 site to ensure protection
of human health and the environment. This decision is based on the results of the human health risk
assessment, which determined that conditions at the site pose no unacceptable risks to human health or
the environment. The TCE groundwater contamination detected upgradient of this site is not believed to
be associated with this site and will be addressed under the RifFS for the P2 sites.
FIiQhtiine site (OU-1) PS-8
The goal of the remedial action at PS-8 is to restore the groundwater to drinking water quality within a
reasonable timeframe. The selected remedy combines the soil alternative of No Action (Alternative 1) with
the groundwater alternative of Institutional Controls (Alternative 2). This remedy consists of the following
elements:
Maintaining institutional controls, in the form of restrictions against on-base usage of benzene-
contaminated groundwater associated with the site, until cleanup levels are achieved.
Monitoring groundwater at the site to identify a trend in contaminant concentrations, estimating a
timeframe for restoration by natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation, evaluating the acceptability
of the estimated timeframe, and implementing a compliance monitoring program to estimate
attainment of cleanup levels. . .
The estimated costs associated with this remedy are:
Capital Cost:
O&M Costs:
Present Net Worth:
$0
$31,000
$477,000
-------
Fire Trainina Area (FT-1)
The goals-of the remedial action at FT -1 are to remediate soils to levels that are protective of groundwater.
and to restore groundwater to drinking water quality. The seleaed remedy combines the soil alternative of
In-situ Bioventing (Alternative 4) with the groundwater alternative of In-situ Air Sparging with Institutional
Controls (Alternative 4). This remE!dY consists of the following elements:
Maintaining institutional comrcts. in the form of restrictions against on-base usage of benzene-
contaminated groundwater associated with the site. until deanup levels are achieved.
Implementing an in-situ bioventing treatment system for benzene.contaminated soil.
Implementing a piiot-scaJe in-situ air sparging system to evaiuate the effectiveness of this technology
for remediating benzene-contaminated groundwater. to be followed by implementation of a full-scale
system if the pilot scale system is successful.
Monitoring off-site'water supply wefJs In the vicinity of the site and providing poim-ot-use treatmem
and/or alternate water supply. If necessary. .
The estimated costs associated with this remedy are:
Capital Costs:
O&M Costs:
. Present Net Wonh:
$542.000
$49.000
$785.000
Wastewater Lagoons tWW-1)
The goals of this remedial action are to restrict the site from future residential or agricultural uses. and to
restore groundwater to drinking water quality. The selected remedy combines the soil alternative of
Institutional Controls (Alternative 2) with the groundwater .altemative of Groundwater Extraction and
Treatmem with Institutional Contrats and Point-ot-Use Treatment! Alternate water supply (Alternative 3). This
remedy consiStS of the following etements:
Implementing additional source investigation activities to identify the source of groundwater TCE
contamination. If a source of TCE contamination is detected In sols. soil remedial alternatives will
be evaluated at that time.
Maintaining institutional contrDlsrestricting access to the site.
. .
Maintaining institUtional centrals. in the form of restriction against on-base usage of TCE-
contaminated groundwater associated with the site. until deanup levels are achieved.
Implementing a groundwater extraction and treatment system. using air stripping and/or carbon
adsorption.
Monitoring off-site water supply wells in the vicinity of the site and providing poim-ot-use treatmem
and/or alternate water supply, if necessary.
-------
The estimated costs associated with this remedy are:
Capital Cost:
O&M Costs:
Present Net Worth:
$1.442.000
$135.000
$3.522,000
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The seleCted remedies are proteCtive of human health and the environment. comply with Federal and State
requirements that are legally applicable. or relevant and appropriate to the remedial aCtion. and are cost
effeCtive. Where praCticable, the remedies utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
to the maximum extent praCticable and satisfy the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment
which reduce contaminant toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.
Because the remedial aCtions at sites SW-1, PS-2, PS-a. FT -1, and W\N-1 may require fIVe or more years to
attain cleanup levels. a review of the seleCted remedies will be conduCted for each of these sites within fIVe
years. The purpose of the five year review is to assure that the remedies remain proteetive of human health
and the environment. A fIVe year review is required at W\N-1 because the seleCted remedy does not allow
for unlimited use. .
-------
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM (IRP)
RECORD OF DECISION
ON-BASE PRIORITY ONE OPERABLE UNITS
(SITES SW-1, IS-1, OU-1 (PS-2, PS-6, AND PS-8), FT-1, AND WW-1)
FINAL
FOR
FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE
WASHINGTON
JUNE 1993
PREPARED BY
HALLIBURTON NUS ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
FOSTER PLAZA 7
661 ANDERSEN DRIVE
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15220
USAF CONTRACT NO. F33615-90-D-4011
DELIVERY ORDER NO. 0006
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION DIVISION
. CAPTAIN RICHARD J. MESTAN
TECHNICAL PROJECT MANAGER
AIR FORCE CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EXCELLENCE
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION DIVISION (AFCEE/ESR)
-------
Signature ferthe foregoing On-Base Priority 1 Operable Units Record.of Decision between the U.S. Air Force
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with concurrence by the Washington State Department of
Ecology.
u// ~
/c&dtl ~
Gerald A. Emison
Acting Regional Administrator, Region X
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
7-/t/- -7'3
-------
Signature for the foregoing On-Base Priority 1 Operable Units Record of Decision between the U. S. Air Force
and the U.~. Environmental Protection Agency, with concurrence by the Washington State Department of
Ecology. .
(~~ Ilk/~~
Nan P. Babbitt
Deputy for Hazardous Materials and Waste
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Environment, Safety and Occupational Health)
Zh $/iS
-------
Signature for the foregoing On-Base Priority 1 Operable Units Record of Decision between the U.S. Air Force
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with concurrence by the Washington State Department of
Ecology. . .
(ir 1. -1" ,
a. LL---t -. . J -L.:...,j..j.:. L""y
Carol L. Fleskes, Program Manager
Toxics Cleanup Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
~t~'- ~'/
/::J . . / qC; '3
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
I.
SITE NAMES AND LOCATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II.
SITE HISTORIES AND ENFORCEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; 1
A. Installation Restoration Program Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Site Histories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
III.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNITS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
V.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A. Geology, Hydrogeology, and Land Classifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' 8
B. Nature and Extent of Contamination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
VI.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A. Human Health Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A. 1 Major Contaminants of Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.2 Toxicity Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.3 Exposure Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.4 Risk Characterization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
B. Uncertainty Analysis in Human Health Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
C. Ecological Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
D. Uncertainty in Ecological Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
VII.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
- A. Need for Feasibility Study Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
B. Development of Cleanup Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
VIII.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES. ............. .......... ....... . "'" . . 39
A. Soil Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
B. Groundwater Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
IX.
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
A. Soil Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
B. Groundwater Altematives ....................................... 54
X.
SELECTED REMEDIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55
XI.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. ... ... . . . .. ..... . ....... . .... . . . . .... . . . 65
A. Protection of Human Health and the Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
B. Compliance with ARARs ........................................ 67
C. Cost Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
D. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Altemative ..................... 70
Treatment Technologies to the Maximum Extent Possible
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
E.
-------
SECTION
XII.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
APPENDICES
A.1
A.2
8.1
8.2
RI Analytical Summary Tables
RI Analytical Summary Figures
Responsiveness Summary
Written Public Comments
-------
. ,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TABLES
NUMBER
PAGE
,
2
3
Site-By-Site Summary of RI Field Investigation Activities. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Summary Risk Table for Soil/Sediment Exposure Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Summary Risk Table - Groundwater Future Residential Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Use Scenario
Summary Risk Table for Combines Groundwater and Soil Exposure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Pathways .
Summary of Soil Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Soil Alternative Cost Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4'
Summary of Groundwater Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Groundwater Alternative Cost Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Glossary of Evaluation Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5'
4
5
6
7
8
9
FIGURES
NUMBER
PAGE
'0
On-Base Priority One Operable Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Schematic Basewide Potentiometric Surface Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Estimated levels of TCE in Groundwater at SW-, Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
Estimated Levels of Benzene in Groundwater at PS-2 Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '5
Estimated Levels of TPH in Groundwater at PS-a Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '8
Estimated Levels of Benzene in Soil at FT -1 Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 9
Estimated Levels of Benzene in Groundwater at FT-1 Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Estimated Levels of TCE jn Groundwater at WW-1 Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Insitu Bioventing/Air Sparging Treatment System for Soils/ ........................ 43
Groundwater
Air Stripping/Carbon Adsorption Groundwater Treatment System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
In March 1989, Fairchild Air Force Base (AFB) was listed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) National Priorities List (NPL) 'of hazardous waste sites to be addressed under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). In March 1990, the U.S. Air Force (USAF), EPA, and
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) signed a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) establishing
a cleanup schedule for the Base.
In accordance with Executive Order 12580 (Superfund Implementation) and the National Contingency Plan
(NCP), the USAF recently completed a Remedial I nvestigationf Feasibility Study (RifFS) for the five on-Base
Priority 1 (P1) Operable Units at Fairchild AFB. The purpose of the RifFS was to determine the nature and
extent of contamination associated with these sites, to evaluate the current and potential risks to human
health and the environment posed by the sites, and to evaluate various cleanup alternatives for sites posing
unacceptable potential risks to human health or the environment. The RifFS addressed contamination
associated with surface water, groundwater, soil, and sediment.
.h
SITE NAMES AND LOCATIONS
Fairchild AFB is located approximately 12 miles west of Spokane, Washington and occupies approximately
4,300 acres. The Base was established in 1942 as a U.S. Army repair depot. It was transferred to the
Strategic Air Command in 1947 and renamed Fairchild AFB in 1950. On June 1, 1992, the Air Combat
Command division of the USAF was established which assumed command of Fairchild AFB. Since 1942,
varying quantities of hazardous wastes have been generated and disposed at Fairchild AFB. The sources
of wastes include fuel management; industrial and aircraft operations, and fire training activities.
The on-Base P1 Operable Units at Fairchild AFB consist of the following five sites:
SW-1 (Old Base Landfill northeast of Taxiway No.7)
IS-1 (Building 1034 French Drain System)
OU-1 (Flightline Sites PS-2, PS~, and PS-8)
FT-1 (Fire Training Area)
WW-1 (Wastewater Lagoons)
The locations of the five P1 sites are shown in Figure 1.
J1
A.
SITE HISTORIES AND ENFORCEMENT
Installation Restoration Program Activities
Environmental problems associated with the P1 operable Units were discovered under the USAF Installation
Restoration Program (IRP). The program was initiated through the 1981 Executive Order 12316 that directed
the military branches to design their own program of compliance with the NCP established by CERCLA.
In order to respond to the changes in the NCP brought about by SARA, the IRP was modified in November
1986 to provide for a Rlf FS Program to improve continuity in the site investigation and remedial planning
-------
WW - InCiustrial Waste Lagoon Site
SW - Solid Waste Sites
FT - Fire TRaining Site
au - Operatlle Unit
.-'
r ..
. -
I ;:..
.. ...
. z. . ; ..
I..,:! ~ a.
..- i- 4
'w~ .
/ .
. 8
"-
"
I
IS-1 .
9
- 0 -
---
I
!
\ ,..
. \ i
" -,.",
" ..".-'
" .,,' -'
" ...".
FIGURE 1
ON-BASE PRIORIiY ONE OPERABLE UNITS
-------
Environmental investigations of past hazardous waste disposal practices and sites were initiated at Fairchild
AFB in 1984 as part of the USAF IRP. In 1985, the first report summarizing IRP investigations at Fairchild
AFB was published. Preliminary findings in this report identified the P1 Sites for additional investigations,
which will continue through the remediation of the site.
In 1987, EPA scored the Fairchild AFB (based on four sites) using the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). As
a result of the HRS scoring, Fairchild AFB, including the P1 Sites, was added to the NPL in March 1989.
In response to the NPL designation, the USAF, EPA, and Ecology entered into a FFA in March 1990. The
FFA established a procedural framework and schedule for developing, implementing, and monitoring
appropriate response actions conducted at Fairchild AFB. Under the terms of the FFA, EPA and Ecology
provided oversight of subsequent RI activities and agreement on the final remedies selected in this Record
of Decision (ROD).
In order to facilitate the CERCLA process, potential source areas at the Base have been grouped into
operable units. The remedial investigation for each operable unit has a separate schedule. The ROD for
the Craig Road Landfill P1 operable unit was signed in February 1993. This ROD addresses the remaining
five P1 operable units.
The USAF recently completed the RI for the on-Base P1 Operable Units. A large part of the investigation
consisted of a field data collection effort conducted between February 1991 and January 1992. In addition,
several other IRP investigations have been conducted at the P1 sites since 1984 as follows:
IRP Phase I Record Search: 1984-1985
IRP Phase II Confirmation/Quantification, Stage 1: 1986-1988
IRP Phase II Confirmation/Quantification, Stage 2: 1988-1990
Since 1986, environmental samples (i.e., soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater samples) have been
collected at the P1 sites during 11 separate sampling events, or rounds. Sampling rounds 1 through 7 were
conducted from 1986 to 1990. The results from these sampling rounds are referred to in the RI Report and
in this ROD as historical data. Sampling rounds 8 through 11 were performed from February 1991 to
January 1992. The results from these sampling rounds are referred to in the RI Report and in this ROD as
current data. A summary of the field investigation activities for the on-Base P1 Operable Units is presented
in Table 1.
B.
Site Histories
SW-1. Old Base Landfill Northeast of Taxiwav NO.7
The SW-1 landfill is located northeast of Taxiway No. 7, ~djacent to the west end of Taxiway No.1, and
occupies approximately 16 acres. Mounded fill material extends to an estimated depth of ten to 20 feet.
This site was the main disposal area for the Base from about 1949 to 1957 or 1958. The landfill was used
for disposal of all Base wastes, which may have included industrial wastes, plating sludges, solvents,
lubricating oils. cutting oils and shavings, dry-cleaning filters and spent filtrates, paint wastes, coal fly ash,
and miscellaneous sanitary wastes.
-------
TABLE 1
SITE-BYoSITE SUMMARY OF RI FIELD INVESTlGAT10N ACT1VITIES
SEPTEMBER 1986 TO JANUARY 1992
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
SW-1
. 1I18I811ed 24 monilDring ...
. CoIl8ct8d 37 grounclw8W -""'...
. PertDrmed QU8n1i18tM1 80iI g.. 8UNey
. Exc:8W118d 8 tint ,Ia and coI8c8IcI 18 8Ub8urf8ce eoiI
urnptH
. eollc:t8d 13 IUl'face 80iI -1IIP8
. PerfDrmed 1 ,umping 888t
. Performed 2 geoptty8Ca1 inY8tIIigatiD..
. AdWlM8CI 3 8U118urt8ce 80iI tIoIinp and coII8c8IcI
" 8Ub8UI'f8ce 80iI .......
IS-1
. In..II8O" IMfIIIDmII weill
. CoIled8d 11 ground"., U/IIP'"
. Colled8d 13 Mdment um,'"
. Coll8d8d 2 sur1ace wa.' um,...
. Advanced 4 1011 boringS and coll8ct8d 4 eoiI ulllP8
OUo' (PS.2)
. In..1Ied 11 monIDling""
. Col8d8cl15 eoiI_"... from I of" 11lIIOI"'"
-- bonngs
. .Colled8d 25 grounclwa'" umpan
. I;rtDrmed Qua"'" eoiI gas auNey
. Colld8d 2 IUl'face 80iI -mptn
. AdWinced 22 &Ulnlul'l8ce tIoIinp end COIIc88cI
37 sutlsurface MIl........
. PertDrmecl 1 ~ 888t
OU., (PS~)
. .I18I811ed 6 mon_ring ....
. Colld8d 4 gr0unctW8.., ........
. CoIItc:t8cI 8 aurface 10. ..mpIn
. Pertormecl Qua.'" 80iI p. 8U"'8Y
. Adv.nced 8 &U8l8Urface MIl 8Ionng8 andcoll8cl8cl
, 2 ."tlsur1ace MIl UIftlH88
OUe1 ~)
. InIt8I18ct 18 monllDling well
. Co"." 21 IlU8l8urface 80iI _mp'" from 8 of" .
18 monlDling ... borinp
. Collct8d e gl'DUndW8t8,
. PertDnMcl ...n11dw8 IOiI ga. 8UIV8y
. C~I.." 7...... 801.."...
. AdvaM8CI 12 8U118urface 80iI boftng8 end coll8ct8d
,.. 8UII8urtIc8 801 ..m.-.
. PeI8Dnn8d 1 pumping 888t
WW-1
. ---- 23 monlDltlll well
. Co"."" sub8urt8C8 8OiI_mp'" from
2 I'ftOIIIIDI1ng ... boring8
. Co...., 87 gl'ClUndw8l8r ..mpln
. Pet1DnMd.U88dw8 and qU8111111d1w8 80iI ...
8UIW8y8
. PerlDnMd geophy8ic8l survey
. Co"." 18 surfIIc8 8OiI88mpIM
. ExC8V8tICI 2" 888t"" and col.." 21 8OII88mpIM
. Ad¥8II08d 23 8ub8urtIc8 8011 boftng8 and coin."
. 38 .ub8l1ff8C8 1OiI........
. Ca"&:8111 24""""'" 88"'"
. Co"." 3!5 88Cl8n8n1 ..mp188
. P8rtDnn8d 2 pumping .....
FT-'
. N88I8cI 31 monIIDling well
. Col... 12 8UII8urf8c8 80iI ..mp188 from
5 I'ftOIIiIDItng ... boIinga
. Col.., 7" graund....,........
. AdvaIlCld 28 8Ub8urfIc8 801 8IoIinp Ind coli_II
.. .ub8u"'" IOiI "mp188
. CD".' 5 aurfIIC8 1OiI........
. PertDrme, 3 pumping .....
. P8rtonn8d 2 qU8Jil8tive IOiI ga. 8UfV8Y8
MISCELLANEOUS
. Co"d8, 1 1 r\)Uftft of grounllwa'" ....1
IM88Ur'8menea
. CoI8cI8cI 22 groundW8t8, ..m,... from rnidenti81
-------
IS-1. Buildina 1034 French Drain System
The Building 1034 french drain system is located adjacent to the flightline. north of Taxiway No.6. The site
consists of five underground dry wells or french drains. The drains are constructed of perforated concrete
manholes, each four feet in diameter and approximately ten feet deep. The drain system was constructed
in 1978 to dispose of wastewater from an inside sink and the roof runoff at Building 1034. Wastewater from
Building 1034 first flows into Manhole 3, which is closest to the building. Effluent from Manhole 3 flows into
two parallel systems. each consisting of two manholes piped in series.
Building 1034 houses a portion of the Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadron of the Washington Air
National Guard (WANG). Several WANG maintenance shops are located within this building including: the
Electrical/Banery, Environmental. Pneudralics. Wheel and Tire. Machine. Metal Processing, Welding. and
Avionics Maintenance shops. Hazardous materials, induding waste solvents, PD~ (mineral spirits).
cleaning compounds. and acid solutions are believed to have been washed into the french drain system.
An Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) for a non-time-critical removal action was performed in
1992 to develop and evaluate removal action alternatives for removal and disposal of the contaminated
sediment in the five manholes. The selected altemative included the following actions:
Removal and offsite treatment of the sedimem and water from the manholes.
Rerouting of the drainage from the sink in Building 1034 to the sanitary sewer system.
Rerouting of the drainage from the roof of Building 1034 to the storm water sewer system.
Sealing the manholes with solid lids and water-tight gaskets.
Rerouting of the sink and storm water drainage was completed in August 1992, and removal and disposal
of the sediment and sealing of the manholes was completed in December 1992. With the completion of
these actions, all conduits. including surface water drainage into the manholes, and potential sources of
groundwater contamination have been eliminated at the IS-1 site.
DU-1. Fliahtline Dcerable Unit - PS-2. PS-6. and PS-a
The flightline operable unit (DU-1) is comprised of three separate sites referred to as PS-2, PS-8. and PS-6.
Each of these sites are described in further detail in the following paragraphs.
Site PS-2 includes the tank at refueling/ defueling Pit 18. which is known to have leaked up to 120 gallons
of JP-4 fuel in the spring of 1984. A large surface fuel spill occurred during the summer of 1985 in which
some 5.000 gallons of JP-4 spilled when a fuel-Une flange cracked near refueling/ defueling Pit 21 located
in front of Hangar 1037. It is believed some 4,000 gallons were recovered during a four~ay effort.
Approximately 1.000 gallons were. believed to have entered the storm sewer and soil. Evidence of a
petroleum product in the groundwater was detected during flightline foundation drilling at PS-2 and later
confirmed in the IRP Phase II. Confirmation/ Quantification, Stage 1 study in 1989. and during the RI field
activities.
Site PS-6 is located adjacent to the north side of Buildings 1011 and 1013, and west of Taxiway No.3. A
JP-4 fuel spill of approximately 3.550 gallons occurred in February, 1986 as the result of a shut-off valve
malfunction in an underground defueling tank. Most of the fuel is reported to have been recovered and used
in fire training exercises.
Site PS-a is located along Taxiway Nos. 1 and 4, adjacent to Building 1019. Petroleum odors were noted
near Building 1019 during runway soil compaction testing in July 1982. The petroleum vapors were
anributed to leaks in the underground fuel lines underlying the area.
-------
FT -1. Fire Trainina Area
This operable unit is located south of the main runway and 'NW-1, between Taxiway No. 10 and the
perimeter road. A raised gravel pad. approximately two feet thick and 300 feet in diameter has been
constructed around a concrete block building used in fire training exercises. A lined, circular bum pit
containing a mock aircraft has been constructed out of bermed gravel. An unlined bum pit was in use on
the current site until a more recent pit was built in 1970. During fire training exercises, the bum pit was filled
with two to three inches of water. Fuel was pumped to the bum pit through underground fuel lines from
an underground storage tank located approximately 200 feet west of the training area. Approximately 300
gallons of JP-4 was then sprayed onto the water and ignited. Approximately 125 gallons of aqueous film-
forming foam (AFFF) was then used to extinguish the fire. Fire training exercises were conducted two to
three times a month until July 1991.
An oil/water separator was used to separate the waste fuel and AFFF mix from the water following each
training exercise. Water from the separator was discharged into a small ditch that flows eastward and
disperses onto a low-lying area. The oil/water separator is believed to have malfunctioned and prematurely
. discharged an oil/water mix at some point in the past. Fuel stains and dead vegetation have been observed
within the drainage area adjacent to the discharge port. Only dean JP-4 or fuel contaminated with water
were used during the most recent fire training exercises. However, other types of wastes are reported to
have been burned in the past during fire training exercises induding JP-4 fuel, waste oil. and solvents.
'NW-'. Wastewater Laaoons
Operable unit 'NW-' is located south of the eastern end of the runway, between the perimeter road and the
north-south portion of Taxiway No. 10. The site consists of two interconnected unlined lagoons with a
combined capacity of approximately five million gallons. The large. upper skimming lagoon is approximately
900 feet long. and ranges from 30 to 200 feet wide, and is between three and five feet deep. Water from
the skimming lagoon can be directed via a concrete sluice to the smaller, lower holding lagoon which is
approximately 450 feet long, 150 feet wide, and four feet deep.
Industrial wastewater and storm water are currently discharged into the large skimming lagoon. Wastewater
discharged from the holding lagoon has been permitted under the National PoIJ~nt Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) since May 1979. Typical dry weather flow from the holding lagoon ranges from 360,000
to 580,000 gallons per day. The lagoons drain into No Name Ditch. No Name Ditch flows perennially to
the southeast. Within one.mile of crossing Craig Road. flow from No Name Ditch spreads over a large flat
area and the surface water percolates into the ground. The RI report conduded that No Name Ditch
conveys an average flow of 0.75 cubic feet per second.
Waste types known to have been discharged into the lagoons in the past are JP-4 fuel, oil, industrial
solvents. acids, and cleaning compounds. Approximately 50 oU/water separators and grit chambers located
throughout the base. which until recently had not been property serviced. were believed to be the primary
source of contamination to the lagoons. Servicing of all of the separators and grit chambers was completed
in May 1992. Since this time. a significant reduction in the input of petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) into the
lagoons has been observed. TPH which enter the large skimming lagoon are removed by a skimming boom
located at the lagoon discharge point.
Until 1989. the lagoons were periodically dredged. The dredged material was spread over the lagoon banks.
At least 18 inches of sludge are known to have been spread on the lagoon banks.
-------
.!.!1
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The USAF developed a Community Relations Plan (CRP) in March 1990 as part of the overall management
plan for environmental restoration activities at the Base. The CRP was designed to promote public
awareness of the investigations and public involvement in the decision-making process. The CRP
summarizes concerns that Fairchild AFB, in coordination with EPA and Ecology, are aware of based on
community interviews and comments obtained at a public workshop. Since this initial workshop, Fairchild
AFB has sent out numerous fact sheets and has held annual workshops in an effort to keep the public
informed and to hear concerns on the Craig Road Landfill (CRL) issues. The CRP was updated in
September 1992.
On February 9, 1992, Fairchild AFB made available for public review and comment the draft EEfCA that
recommended a removal action for contaminated sediment at the Building 1034 french drain. system (IS-1).
The public was notified of this document's availability through a fact sheet mailed to local, interested persons
and in a public announcement published in The Spokesman-Review. The public comment period began
on February 9, 1993, ended March 9, 1993.
The RI Report for the on-Base P1 Operable Units was released to the public on February 9, 1993; the FS
and Proposed Plan were released on March 1, 1993. The Proposed Plan was mailed to each address
contained on the mailing list. These documents, as well as previous reports from the RifFS investigation,
were made available to the public in both the Administrative Record and the Information Repository
maintained at the locations listed below:
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD (contains all project deliverables):
Fairchild AFB Ubrary
Building 716
Fairchild AFB, WA 99011
Spokane Falls Community College Ubrary
W. 3410 Fort George Wright Drive
Spokane, WA 99204
INFORMATION REPOSITORY (contains limited documentation):
Airways Heights City Hall
S. 1208 Lundstrom
Airway Heights. WA 99101
The notice of the availability of these documents was published in The Spokesman-Review on February 28,
1993. The public comment period was held from March 1, 1993, through March 31, 1993. In addition, a
public meeting was held on March 15, 1993. Prior to this meeting, copies of the Proposed Plan were sent
to over 200 local residents and other interested parties. At this meeting, representatives from the USAF,
EPA, and Ecology answered questions about problems at the P1 sites and the remedial alternatives under
consideration. A response to the comments received during the public comment period is included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this ROD (Appendix B).
-------
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNITS
Potential source. areas at Fairchild AFB have been grouped into separate operable units. A different
schedule has been established for each of the operable units. The CRL site comprises the first P1 Operable
Unit at Fairchild AFB for which a final. cleanup action has been selected. A ROD was signed in February
of 1993 for the CRL Site. Selection' of cleanup actions for the remaining five P1 Operable Units is being
made in this ROD. The remaining Priority 2 (P2) Operable Units are scheduled for remedy selection during
the spring of 1995.
The cleanup actions for the on-Base P1 Operable Units described in this ROD address both onsite and
offsite groundwater contamination, and source areas associated with subsurface contamination at the sites.
The cleanup actions described in this ROD address all known currem and potential risks to human health
and the environment associated with the on-Base P1 Sites.
V.
A.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Geology, Hydrogeology, and Land Classifications
The geology at Fairchild AFB is comprised of two basalt bedrock formations overtain by alluvial soil. The
two basalt layers, referred to as Basalt A flow and Basalt B flow, are separated by a layer of low-permeability
clay about eight feet to ten feet in thickness. The clay layer separating Basalt A and Basalt B acts as a
confining layer and restricts groundwater flow between these two formations.
The thickness of the alluvial soil overtying the basalt ranges from one foot to 46 feet. The soil is comprised
of clays and silts interfingered with sandy silts, sandy clays, and sandy gravels. Basalt A varies across the
Base from approximately 166 feet thick in the west near SW-1 to approximately 193 feet thick in the east
near FT -1. The top of the basalt is fractured and highly weathered in pfaces, whereas the center ponion of
Basalt A is a zone of massive, fine grained basalt with infrequent fractures and low permeability. Bedrock
investigations during the RI have generally been limited to the upper portions of the basalt flows.
Groundwater in the alluvial and Basalt A aquifers generally flows from west to east across the Base as
shown by the potentiometric surface map in Figure 2. Groundwater is typically encountered eight to 20 feet
below the ground surface. There is a high degree of hydraulic connection betWeen the alluvial and shallow
bedrock aquifers, except near the WW-1 site. where the alluvium and shallow bedrock are separated by a
low-permeability clay layer. Groundwater flow within Basalt A is predominantly within the upper and lower
ponions of the formation where the degree of interconnected fractures is highest. These upper and lower
regions of Basalt A are referred to in the RI repon as the shallow and deep bedrock flow systems,
respectively. Venical groundwater movemem through Basalt A is typically slow due to the tightness of
fractures within the center of the basalt formation.
Sites SW-1, 15-1. PS-2. PS-6. PS~, and FT -1 are not located within floodplains or wetlands. WW-1 may be
located within a floodpfain since it could be flooded during imense precipitation. Also, none of the P-1 sites
are believed to contain anifaCts of substamial archeological significance.
B.
. Nature and Extent o' Contamination
Contaminam occurrence and distribution tables summarizing the sampling results for soil, sediment. surface
water, and groundwater at the on-Base P1 Operable Units during. sampling round 11 are included in
Appendix A. 1. Contaminant occurrence and distribution figures depicting the sampfing results for soil.
sediment. surface water~ and groundwater at the on-Base P1 Operable Units are included in Appendix A.2.
-------
j' ) t:
'~='11
,
,
...
F/
Co.
. .1.,j}'
...
..
.,
Ii'
I!
-.
:~4
'I
I
"11: :
r- \.
'. I
1:-;.... '~I
......,
"J.
~ I
II
. ... ..
" ...
! r,
. w.
I' ~
" ~
~~:", =). ":. ,
,0.11$10"" . .-~~f '
_.- ._.~,.. '",D
ClO, ,~_.. .. .~. ~).. . - " I j" 0/-
,:. " ~ -../" '\..) e,' . < . ..-., .). I ')01 /
to - ~ ;1'" \ ' .' '~.;.. .. 14J8'. ' /~ ( , 1 I f
~. ~ ~. BOS:~~~ ,,~.t.. "":"'/~'~""","-'~ .J~/ '.' ~, I~. . !
" ~ .-:=.. '\"(" ',.....,-: - , '. I I
r..... ~ ~dl:I"'~~:-~":~g-' ." ' : \~~o.."" . ,," I ~<,.'8-'.J>~tC I. Q.
i' " ' "(;\...:. \. I , ,,,.D1b " ~ I (8 . .
t" 0 . I -I ,~' - \ ., . 1 I :'~,~ ."..~", lb..
...f. . ..... .... ""~ -, , 1 1~,,,, / ' ~ .
IN~ ,r:;'~ ..... . -'. ,....." \ '. . 'fr., . , i I"
~ ,;~~I~:. ~". . I I" , 1 ___l_- --r- - ,. '---1--' " .
I"S-,'fk--4 1P ,. '...- " , . ,',. - .
.. ~ ',)U', .. -. I , :'-'--'--'-:...-.:=J '--~:1:A~I"'
-------
SW-1. Old Base Landfill Northeast of Taxiwav NO.7
Soils
Two soil borings were collected during 1989. Trichloroethene (TCE), the primary contaminant of concern
at SW-1, was not detected in either sample.
Based on the results of test pit excavations conducted during 1991, the SW-1 landfill is a sanitary-type landfill
which also contains conStruction debris. Minimal contamination was detected in the surface and subsurface
soil samples collected from the landfill. Although the soil gas results suggeSted the presence of elevated
areas of TCE and perchloroethylene, these compounds were not detected in the surface or subsurface soil
samples analyzed by a fIXed base laboratory. Low concentrations of other organic chemicals (e.g., di-n-
butyl phthalate) were detected in soil samples submitted to the laboratory. Metals were generally found in
the soils at concentrations similar to reported background concentrations.
Groundwater
TCE was determined in the RI to be the primary organic contaminant detected in the groundwater at SW-1.
Groundwater at SW-1 was sampled during sampling rounds 1 (1986), 3 (1989), 7 (1990), 8 (1991), 9 (1991),
10 (1991), and 11 (1991). TCE was not detected during sampling rounds 1 and 3.
TCE was detected in shallow bedrock monitoring well MW-90 (north of SW-1) during sampling rounds 7,8,
and 9 at 10 P3/L, 4 P3/L, and 11 P3/L During sampling round 10, TCE was detected in shallow bedrock
monitoring wells MW-131 (north of SW-1), and MW-132 (southeaSt of SW-1) at 18 P.;J/L, and -5 P.;J/L and
6 P3/L (duplicate samples), respectively. During sampling round 11, TCE was detected in shallow bedrock
monitoring wells MW-9Q (north of SW-1), MW-128 (north of SW-1), MW-131 (within the eaStern portion of
SW-1), MW-132 (north of SW-1), MW-133 (northeast of SW-1), MW-164 (northeaSt of SW-1), and MW-165
(east of SW-1) at concentrations of 8 P3/L, 0.5 P3/L, 11 P3/L and 9 P3/L (duplicate sample), 12 P.;J/L, 89
P3/L, 7 P3/L. 9 P3/L, respectively. The 89 P3/L TCE detection was believed to have been associated with
a nearby P2 site. TCE was not detected in any of the monitoring wells located weSt. southweSt. and south
of the landfill. The eStimated levels of TCE in the shallow bedrock aquifer are shown in Figure 3. The
vertical migration of the TCE appears to be limited to the upper portion of the Basalt A since TCE was not
detected in any of the deep bedrock or alluvial monitoring wells. Groundwater appears to be migrating
generally to the eaSt. through FairchUd AFB. . .
Concentrations of most metals in groundwater were simUar to natural background levels. In contrast to the
TCE contamination. no pattern of elevated metals concentrations was observed in the groundwater at the
site. Metals with elevated concentrations in some of the wells are believed to be the result of high turbidity
in the wells and are not believed to be site-related since they were not detected at elevated levels in the soils
at the site.
15-1. BuildinQ 1034 French Drain SYStem
Soils
The soil surrounding the french drain system tias not been shown to be contaminated. based on the results
of soil samples collected from four soil borings during sampling round 1 in 1986.
-------
LEGEND
. , S.. MONITORING WELLS
I II Q'
I' ..
, 0
I :
...
I ~
. ~
I
I
'3
- -
-- ....
- ....
'" ......
./ ......
'" ......
", '\.-11. ......
", "
/ "
FAIROfILD-.l '''-1.34''
AIR . FORCE BASE / . \
BOUNDARY \
I IIW-114 '\ ""-liS \
".-121! I '- - :.I~ W \
I ' -~"~ . - " - -=~111 -. "-III Q., -==:,/'...-172 ~
I, "'-18'11-132 ~" ""'173 "
, \ 11-.
I - - - - - - - - "--171 I
101"-89 " - - - - \ - ...... \"-17'
,.... 1 -
.../1 ,,- - "\ I
I I "1Iw,.13!"" .., '"" ~ /
I " ...... L~ I ) I
!!I I "~I" I ~ ",/
I' I ""5 - J- ...., ~ "',/
, , \ SW-l:"" - - - ,.j - - - - - - /",/
I ." , / \ ~/
;~-12!J\ o....-APPROXIWA'T[ ,/,/ \\ ,//.-/' .-
I: \ 0 lANDF'lLl,/ \.- . ~
--1 -/ BOUNDARY ,/ .-/' /
, , , - - - - - - - - ~" .. ' \(-~..
~ ' ~...~...."(
"-1~ ~ ~\.
~.,sa. \
~
--- .
-- -.
""-"11
~
e 2ee 488
h"'" ,
, SCALE IN F'EET
FIGURE 3
ESTIMATED LEVELS OF TCE IN GROUNDWATER AT SW-1 SITE (JlgIL)
-------
Sediments
Sediments were sampled during sampling rounds 6 (1990). 10 (1991), and 11 (1991). Analytical results
collected during sampling rounds 6, 10. and 11 indicated that the sediment in Manhole 3. which is closest
to Building 1034 and received the bulk of the wastewater flow, was the most contaminated. Manhole 3
contained TCE at maximum concentration of 280 mg/ kg during sampling round 6. and 120 mg/ kg during
sampling round 11 as well as lead and cadmium at levels significantly above background concentrations.
TCE was not detected in the other four drains (Manholes 1. 2. 4. and 5). Elevated levels of lead and
cadmium were also detected in these manholes, however. their concentrations were only slightly above
background values. Elevated concentrations of TPH were detected in four of the drains. which may have
been associated with asphalt materials washed into the manholes. As previously mentioned, the USAF
completed a removal action for the 15-1 site in 1992 in which all sediment was removed from the manholes
and transported off-Base for treatment and/ or disposal.
Surface Water
During sampling round 11 (1991). surface water samples were collected in Manhole No.3. TPH was
detected at 1.5 mg/L and 4.6 mg/L Cadmium. chromium, and nickel were detected at 23 mg/L and 19
mg/L. 80 mg/L and 72 mg/L. and 138 mg/L and 30 mg/L, respectively.
Groundwater
Groundwater samples were collected from the shallow Basalt A (mid-top) aquifer at 15-1 during sampling
rounds 7 (1990), 8 (1991), 9 (1991).10 (1991). and 11 (1991).
The RI investigation did not identify a groundwater TCE plume associated with the french drain system since
TCE was not detected in monitoring wells located downgradient of the site. TCE was detected in monitoring
well MW-93, located upgradient of the site. at concentrations ranging from 2 pg/L to 7 pg/L This
contamination is not believed to be associated with site 15-1. but could be associated with site PS-10. a P2
operable unit. The TCE groundwater contamination at this site wUl be addressed under the RI/FS for the
P2 sites.
QU-1. Fliahtline Site PS-2
Soils
Soils were sampled at PS-2 during sampling rounds 1 (1986),3 (1988), 7 (1990), and 11 (1991).
During sampling rounds 1 and 3. TPH was detected in 20 of 47 soil samples at concentrations ranging from
13 mg/kg to 1278 mg/kg. Benzene was detected in 1 of 21 samples at a concentration of 2.4 mg/kg.
Ethylbenzene was detected in nine of 36 soil samples at concentrations from 1.0 mg/kg to 10.6 mg/kg.
Toluene was detected in five of 21 soil samples at concentrations from 1.8 mg/kg to 9.4 mg/kg. Xylenes
(m-xylene. o-xylene. and p-xyleoe) were detected in 12 of 37 soil samples at concentrations ranging from
2.0 mg/ kg to 92.1 mg/ kg.
During sampling round 7 (taken 1990). TPH was detected in one of 11 soil samples (taken during the
construction of monitoring wells) at a concentration of 34 mg/ kg.
During sampling round 11, TPH contamination was detected in two out of ten soil borings at a maximum
concentration of 1.200 mg/kg. These two borings were located in the vicinity of refueling/defueling Pits 18
and 19. respectively. and near historical soil borings containing TPH.
-------
Benzene. toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) are the major volatile organic contaminants typically
associated with fuel contamination. Results of previous sampling rounds indicate that TPH and BTEX were
detected in soil to 10.5 feet deep. Of these BTEX contaminants, xylenes and ethyl benzene were the only
compounds that were detected in the subsurface soil samples collected during sampling round 11. These
contaminants were detected in two out of ten soil borings at low concentrations (maximum concentrations
of 4.7 mg/ kg and 1.7 mg/ kg, respectively). In general, the data collected during previous sampling events
contained higher concentrations of BTEX compounds. Of the TPH contamination that was detected in the
soil, the presence of few BTEX compounds indicates that the volatile. and more soluble, fraction of the fuel
contamination has disappeared from the soil, and only the semi-volatile (less soluble/less mobile) fraction
of the TPH remains.
Metals concentrations detected in the soils at PS-2 were generally similar to those reported for the
background soil samples.
Groundwater
Downgradient alluvial monitoring wells and upgradient monitoring well MW-56 were sampled at PS-2 for TPH
and BTEX during sampling rounds 3 (1989). 4 (1989), 6 (1990), 7 (1990), 8 (1991), and 9 (1991).
Downgradient alluvial and Basalt A monitoring wells. and upgradiem well MW-56 were also sampled during
sampling round 11 (1991).
TPH, benzene. ethyl benzene, and xylenes were detected in monitoring well MW-55 during sampling round
3 at concentrations of 6.6 mg/L, 15 I'.;I/L, 21 ~/L, and 72 ~/L, respectively. TPH, benzene. ethylbenzene,
and xylenes were detected in monitoring well MW-55 during sampling round 4 at concemrations of 0.6 119/ L,
29 IIJ/ L, 35 IIJ/ L, and 150 ~/ L, respectively. During sampling round 6, TPH, benzene. and ethyl benzene
were detected in monitoring well MW-55 at 2.0 #J9/L, 12 #J9/L, and 12 ~/L, respectively. Benzene,
ethylbenzene, and xylenes were detected in monitoring well MW-55 during sampling round 7 at
concentrations of 53 ~/L. 180 ~/L., and 270 ~/L, respectively. During sampling round 8, TPH, benzene.
ethyl benzene , and xylenes were detected in monitoring well MW-109 at concemrations of 16 mg/L. 150
~/ L. 530 #J9/ L, and 1.200 #J9/ L, respectively. TPH, benzene. and xylenes were detected in monitoring well
MW-109 during sampling round 9 at concentrations of 6.8 mg/L, 34 ~/L, and 290 ~/L, respectively.
Floating fuel product was detected in monitoring wells MW-176 and MW-177 at PS-2 during sampling round
11. The thickness of the product in MW-176, which was black in color. was approximately seven inches,
whereas the thickness of the fuel in MW-177, which was amber in color, was approximately two inches. The
product in MW-177 is believed to be JP-4 and may have originated from the fuel spill which occurred in
1985. The source of the product in MW-176 is currently unknown. Additional field investigation activities
are planned for 1993 to determine the extents of these product areas, which are currently not-well defined.
Benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and TPH were the predominam organic contaminants detected in the
groundwater at site PS-2. The contamination generally appears to be limited to the upper alluvial aquifer.
TPH was detected in three alluvial monitoring wells at concentrations ranging from 4.4 mg/L to 110 mg/L.
Benzene was detected in four alluvial monitoring wells at concentration ranging from 1 0 ~/ L to 2.600 ~/ L.
Benzene was detected in one Basalt A monitoring well at 7.0 ~/L Ethylbenzene was detected in five
monitoring wells at concentrations ranging from 5.0 I¥J/ L to 1,200 ~/L Ethylbenzene was detected in one
Basalt A monitoring well at 11 ~/L Xylenes were detected in five monitoring wells at concentrdtions
ranging from 12 ~/L to 5.000 ~/L Xylenes were detected in one Basalt A monitoring well 40 ~/L.
-------
The estimated levels of' benzene in the alluvial aquifer are shown in Figure 4. The estimated extent of
benzene contamination also encompasses the extent of the other contaminants. The highest concentrations
of the contaminants were associated with the floating fuel product detected in MW-176 and MW~177. It is
believed that the benzene detected in the groundwater is a constituent of the floating product.
Concentrations of most metals in groundwater were similar to natural background levels. Metals with
elevated concentrations in some of the wells are believed to be the result of high turbidity in the wells and
are not believed to be site-related since they are not componems of fuel and were not detected at high
levels in the soils at the site. .
Groundwater at PS-2 appears to be flowing to the northeast, on-Base, beneath Taxiway No.1.
OU-1. FliQhtline Site PS.{)
Soils
The surface samples collected from site PS.{) contained minimal organic chemical contamination. Di-n-butyl
phthalate. naphthalene, fluorene, phenanthrene, fluoranthrene, pyrene. chrysene. benzo(b)fluoranthene.
benzo(k)fluoranthene. benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(1,2.3-cd)pyrene, benzo(g.h.i)perylene, and
benzo(a)anthracene were detected infrequently and at concemrations similar to those reported for typical
urban soils (i.e., 95% upper confidence limits of detections were 0.23 mg/kg. 0.43 mg/kg, 3.2 mg/kg. 0.28
mg/kg, 4.7 mg/kg, 2.5 mg/kg, 2.0 mg/kg, 1.7 mg/kg. 1.1 mg/kg, 1.4 mg/kg, 0.87 mg/kg, 0.93 mg/kg, and
1.7 mg/kg, respectively). These compounds are believed to be associated with asphalt material since
asphalt fragments were observed throughout the surface soils at PS-6. .
TPH were detected in seven soil samples at concemrations ranging from 48 mg/kg to 4,400 mg/kg The
TPH may be associated with asphalt material since no fuel stains were apparent in the soils during the
sampling round 11 field investigation.
Subsurface soil samples were also relatively free of contamination. The only BTEX chemical detected in the
subsurface soil was xylenes. which was found in a single sample at a concentration of 0.048 mg/kg. TPH
was detected in tWo out of eight soil borings at a maximum concemration of 130 mg/ kg. The infrequent
and sporadic detections of TPH and BTEX compounds in the surface and subsurface soils at PS~
demonstrated no evidence of the JP-4 fuel spill that occurred at the site in 1986. .
Metals were generally found at concentrations similar to background concentrations in both surface and
subsurface soil samples.
Groundwater
No fuel-related contaminants were observed in the PS.{) groundwater samples, indicating that the reported
fuel spill has not adversely affected the groundwater in this area. TCE was the only organic chemical found
in the groundwater near the PS~ area. The TCE was detected in one upgradient shallow bedrock well at
a concentration of 1 0 ~/ L The source of this contamination is currently unknown but is not believed to
be site-related since TCE is not a fuel-related contaminant and was not detected in the soils at the site. TCE
groundwater contamination at this site will be addressed under the RI/FS for the P2 sites.
Concentrations of most metals detected in the groundwater were similar to natural background
concentrations. Metals with elevated concentrations in some of the wells are believed to be the result of
high turbidity in the wells and are not believed to be site-related since they are not components of fuel and
were not detected at elevated levels in the soils.
-------
8
cf-"sS
PS-2
e
~
~e 3"
SCALf IN FEET
~
S.. MONITORING WEU.S
FIGURE 4
ESTIMATED LEVELS OF BENZENE IN GROUNDWATER AT PS-2 SITE (~gJL)
-------
OU-1. Aiahtli!:'e Site PS-a
Soils
Soil sampling results indicate that the surface soil at Site PS-a is relatively free of contamination. Surface
soil samples contained relatively low levels of TPH. TPH was detected in four surface soil samples at
concentrations from 24 mg/kg to 330 mg/kg (95% upper confidence limit for detections was 205 mg/kg).
TPH were measured in four out of ten soil borings at the site located close to the suspected fuel line break
in concentrations ranging from 38 mgl kg to 22.000 mgl kg.
Xylene, a fuel-related contaminant. was detected in one soil boring sample at a concentration of
0.039 mg/kg. As with site PS-2, the presence of few BTEX compounds in the subsurface soil indicates that
the volatile fraction of the fuel contamination has disappeared from the soil. and only the residual semi-
volatile fraction of the TPH, which is less soluble, remains.
Groundwater
The fuel-line rupture at site PS-a appears to have affected groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the
release. Benzene, ethyl benzene, xylenes. and TPH were the predominant organic contaminants detected
in monitoring wells located immediately downgradient of the source area. The contamination generally
appears to be limited to the upper alluVial aquifer. Similar to PS-2. groundwater near PS-a appears to be
. flowing to the nonheast, on-Base, beneath Taxiway No.1.
Groundwater near PS-a was sampled during sampling rounds 1 (1986), 2 (1987), 3 (1989). 4 (1989), 7
(1990),8 (1991). 9 (1991), and 11 (1991). Source area and downgradient alluvial monitoring wells were
sampled during sampling rounds 1. 2. 3. 4. 7. 8. and 9. Source area and downgradient alluvial monitoring
wells. and Basalt A monitoring wells were sampled during sampling round 11.
During sampling round 1, TPH. benzene. toluene, ethyl benzene. and xylene were detected in monitoring
wells MW-30 and MW-31 at concentrations of 2.7 mg/L and 5.9 mg/L, 4.8 PJ/Land 198 PJ/L. 1.5 PJ/L and
46.1 P:J/L. 28.7 P:J/L and 348 P:J/L. and 165 PJ/L and 4,330 PJ/L
During sampling round 2, benzene and xylenes were detected in monitoring wells MW-30 and MW-31 at 8.5
P:J/L and 65 PJ/L. and 260 PJ/L and 2,300 PJ/L. Toluene was detected in MW-30 at 1.6 P:J/L during
sampling round 2.
Benzene was detected in MW-30 during sampling round 3 at 41 P:J/L TPH was detected in monitoring
wells MW-67 and MW-68 at 0.5 mg/L and 6.3 mg/L, respectively. Ethylbenzene and xylenes were detected
in monitoring wells MW-30. MW-31, MW-67. and MW-68 at concentrations ranging from 320 PJ/L to 1.300
P:J/L. and 960 P:J/L and 4,400 PJ/L, respectively.
During sampling round 4, TPH was detected in monitoring wells MW-31 , MW-67. and MW-68 at 5.4 mg/L
3.7 mgl Land 1.8 mgl L Benzene was detected in MW-30 at 26 I'll L Toluene was detected at 820 I'll L.
Ethylbenzene was detected in monitoring wells MW-30, MW-31. MW-67, and MW-68 at 300 PJ/L, 590 P:J/L,
410 PJ/L. and 150 PJ/L. Xylenesweredetected in MW-31. MW-67. and MW-68at3.400 PJ/L. 1.600 PJ/L.
and 470 P:J/L.
TPH, ethyl benzene, and xylenes were detected in monitoring wells MW-67 and MW-68 during sampling
round 6. at 4.0 mg/Land 4.0 mg/L, 410 P.;J/Land 150 PJ/L. and 1,600 P.;J/Land 470 PJ/L, respectively.
-------
TPH, ethyl benzene, and xylenes were detected in monit.oring wells MW~7 and MW~ during sampling
round 7, al2.0 mg/L and 2.0 mg/L, 380 PJ/L and 160 PJ/L, and 1,100 PJ/L and 430 PJ/L, respectively.
TPH, ethyl benzene, and xylenes were detected in monitoring well MW-112 during sampling round 8 at 1.7
mg/ L, 55 #13/ L, and 110 PJ/ L, respectively.
During sampling round 9, TPH was detected in five monitoring wells at concentrations ranging from 0.2
mg/ L to 4 mg/ L. Ethylbenzene was detected in monitoring wells MW-31 and MW-107 at 590 PJ/ Land 130
PJ/L, respectively. Xylenes were detected in monitoring wells MW-31 , MW-107. and MW-112 at 3,100 PJ/L,
160 PJ/ L, 380 PJ/ L, respectively.
The estimated levels of TPH detected in the alluvial aquifer in sampling round 11 are shown in Figure 5. The
estimated extent of TPH contamination encompasses the extent of the other BTEX contaminants.
Concentrations of these fuel-related contaminants appear to be on a decreasing trend. The maximum
concentrations of benzene and TPH detected during historical sampling rounds were 198 PJ/L and 6.3
mg/ L, respectively, whereas maximum values found during sampling round 11 were 5 PJ/ Land 1.9 mg/ L,
respectively. .
TCE was also detected during the sampling round 11 in the three shallow bedrock wells at concentrations
ranging from 10 PJ/ L to 26 PJ/ L The source of this contamination is currently unknown but is not believed
to be site-related since TCE is not a fuel-related contaminant and was not detected in the soils at the site.
TCE groundwater contamination at this site will be addressed under the RI/FS for the P2 sites.
Concentrations of most metals in groundwater were similar to natural background levels. Metals with
elevated concentrations in some of the wells are believed to be the result of high turbidity in the wells and
are not believed to be site-related since they are not components of fuel and were not detected at high
levels in the soils.
FT -1. Fire TraininQ Area
Soils
Soils at FT-1 were sampled for TPH and BTEX during !ijlmpling rounds 1 (1986),3 (1988), and 11 (1991).
TPH was detected during sampling rounds 1 and 3, in eight of 25 samples at concentrations from 21 mg/kg
to 8,350 mg/kg. Benzene was detected in two of 25 soil samples at 1 mg/kg and 35.7 mg/kg. Toluene
was detected in three of 25 soil samples at a range from 2.8 mg/kg to 109.7 mg/kg. Ethylbenzene was
detected in three of 25 at a range from 3.2 mg/kg to 52.3 mg/kg. Xylenes were detected in one sample
at 90 mg/kg.
TPH and BTEX compounds were the primary contaminants detected in subsurface soil samples collected
during sampling round 11. Metals are not considered to be a problem in the soil since concentrations were
. similar to background values. The soil samples collected from areas closest to the fire training pit contained
the highest concentrations of TPH and BTEX. Maximum concentrations detected were 14 mg/ kg, 170
mg/kg, 61 mg/kg, and 140 mg/kg for benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene, respectively. The
estimated levels of benzene in the soil are shown in Figure 6.
TPH were detected over a larger area than that covered by the BTEX compounds with a maximum.
concentration of 7,500 mg/kg. Although TPH was more prevalent in the soil than the BTEX compounds at
FT -1, TPH does not appear to be causing groundwater contamination since there have been no positive
detections of TPH in the groundwater at FT -1 since sampling round 3 in 1989.
-------
s
~
e .
~
~ ...
SCAI.£ IN FEET
LEGEND
.. Q MONITORING WELLS
FIGURE 5
ESTIMATED lEVELS OF TPH IN GROUNDWATER AT PS-8 SITE (mgJl)
-------
8
(S)
....
o
z
>-
~
-
x
<
....
BURN Pfr
APPROXIMA TE ---- ,
EDGE or: ~
GRAVEL PAD \
. -
FT-l
PERIMETER ROAD
I
o 3aa 608
~ 1
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 6
ESTIMATED LEVELS OF BENZENE IN SOil AT FT-1 SITE (mglkg)
-------
Groundwater
Groundwater at FT-1 was sampled for TPH, BTEX, and TCE during sampling rounds 1 (1986), 2 (1987), 3
(1989),4 (1989), 6 (1990), 7 (1990), 8 (1991), 9 (1991), and 11 (1991). Sampling rounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and
7 were used to sample source area and downgradient (on-Base) alluvial monitoring wells. Sampling round
8 sampled source area and downgradient (on-Base) alluvial monitoring wells, off-Base alluvial monitoring
wells, on-Base Basalt A (top-mid) monitoring wells, and on-Base Basalt A (deep) monitoring wells.
During sampling round 1, benzene, toluene, and ethyl benzene were detected in monitoring well MW-3 at
1.5 ~/L, 0.4 ~/L, and 1.4 ~/L. respectively. Xylenes were detected in monitoring wells MW-1 and MW-3
at 0.6 ~/ Land 8.1 ~/ L, respectively. TCE was detected in monitoring well MW-4 at 0.54 ~/ L.
Toluene and xylenes were detected in monitoring well MW-3, during sampling round 2 at 3.0 ~/L and 27
~/L, respectively. TCE was detected in monitoring wells MW-1 and MW-2 at 2.3 ~/L and 16 ~/L,
respectively.
TPH was detected during sampling round 3 in monitoring well MW-1 at 0.3 mg/ L Benzene, ethyl benzene,
and xylenes were detected in monitoring wells MW-1 and MW-3 at concentrations of 43 ~/L and 79 ~/L.
75 ~/L and 68 ~/L. and 87 ~/L and 180 ~/L. respectively. TCE was detected in four monitoring wells
at concentrations ranging from 2.1 ~/ L to 29 ~I L
Benzene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes were detected in monitoring well MW-3, during sampling round 4, at
concentrations of 170 ~/L. 100 ~/L, and 250 ~/L. respectively. TCE was detected in four monitoring
wells at concentrations ranging from 1.0 ~/L to 12 ~/L
TPH, TCE. ad BTEX were not detected in groundwater during sampling round 6.
TCE was detected in monitoring wells MW-50 and MW-51, during sampling round 7 at concentrations of 2.0
~/L and 5.0 ,.g/L, respectively.
TCE was detected in monitoring well MW-100 (on-Base Basalt A (top-mid) monitoring well) at 2.0 ~/L
during sampling round 8.
TPH, TCE, and BTEX were not detected in groundwater during sampling round 9.
BTEX and TCE were the primary organic contaminants detected in the groundwater at FT -1. BTEX
compounds are most prevalent in the immediate vicinity of the fire training pit. Analytical results indicate
that the BTEX contamination is only present in the alluvial aquifer. Of the BTEX contaminants benzene was
detected with a maximum sampling round 11 concentration of 320 I'JI L The estimated levels of benzene
detected in the alluvial aquifer in sampling round 11 are shown in Figure 7. It is currently believed that the
benzene-
-------
8
MW-S~
S
MW-S3
MW-IJ
S
MW-S
(5)
-
o
z
>-
""
~
x
""
~
MW-S2 S WW-l48S S MW-149
W-2 '-"'W-15e SG4
S OIL/WA'T£R
B;o~ :.5~r~~RA TOR
. BURN PIT (-L\ 1t-~~~DI7"'"
'-./ MW-151 ...-....,
APPROXIMATE ~ MW-l~B'1D
EDGE. OF \.- ~15 S ..... ,
GRAVEL PAD ~~4 ~~~ - J
\ 5 ~S3--.WW-5
UW-l5S S. MW-154
FT -1 MW-ue
p
~WW-159 WW-l58
MW-15 WW-161
WW-16 MW-163
~W-162
.-
MW-51 s. MW-98
o
""
o
Q:
o
CD
~
""
Q:
II
LEGEND
.,5.- MONITORING WELLS
~ A 688
SCALE IN FEET --"']
FIGURE 7
ESTIMATED LEVELS OF BENZENE IN GROUNDWATER AT FT-1 SITE (JlgIL)
-------
Groundwater near FT-1 appears to migrating toward the east. It is currently believed that the benzene-
contaminated groundwater may migrate off-Base in the near future.
1NW-1. Wastewater Laaoons
Surface Water
TPH was detected in the 1NW-1 skimming basin at 2.0 mg/L during sampling round 3 (1989). TCE was
detected in the skimming basin, outlet to No Name Ditch, and No Name Ditch off-Base, at concentrations
of 1.9 p;:J/L, 0.5 p;:J/L, and 1.9 p;:J/L, respectively.
TPH was detected in the skimming basin and No Name Ditch at 2.0 mg/L and 22 mg/L, respectively, during
sampling round 7 (1990). TCE was detected in the skimming basin at approximately 4.0 p;:J/L
TPH was the primary contaminant of concern detected in surface waters in No Name Ditch. TPH was
detected in the surface water in the on-Base ponion of No Name Ditch at levels slightly exceeding 1.0 mgl L
during sampling round 11 (1991), but was not detected above this concentration in surface water samples
collected from off-Base ponions of No Name Ditch. The concentrations observed in 1991 were generally
lower than those found in eariier sampling rounds.
Sediments
TPH was detected in skimming basin, skimmed waste pond, No Name Ditch (on-Base) and No Name Ditch
(off-Base) sediments during sampling rounds 1 (1986) and 3 (1989), at concentrations ranging from 2,914
mg/kg to 33,089 mg/kg, from 1,976 mg/kg to 6,115 mg/kg, from 1,210 mg/kg to 5,000 mg/kg, and 119
mg/kg; respectively.
TPH was detected in the skimming basin, skimmed waste pond, outlet to No Name Ditch, and No Name
Ditch (off-Base), during sampling round 7 (1990), at concentrations of from 2,800 mg/kg to 3,500 mg/kg,
110 mg/kg, 81 mg/kg, and from 38 mg/kg to 86 mg/kg.
TPH was the most significant contaminant detected in the sediment samples from the lagoons and No Name
Ditch. TPH detected in the lagoons during sampling round 11 ranged from150 mg/kg to 8,300 mg/kg,
whereas TPH levels detected at off-Base No Name Ditch locations ranged from less than 20 mgl kg to 120
mg/ kg. The TPH concentrations observed in No Name Ditch in 1991 were significantly lower than those
found in eariier sampling rounds.
The concentrations of lead. chromium, and cadmium detected in No Name Ditch sediments were slightly
/ elevated above background soil concentrations.
Soils
TPH was detected during sampling rounds 1 (1986) and 2 (1987) at a range of concentrations from 480
mg/kg to 518 mg/kg.
TPH was not detected during sampling round 7 (1990).
TPH was the most significant contaminant detected in the surface and subsurface soil samples collected
from soil borings and test pits installed in the immediate vicinity of the lagoons with sampling round 11
concentrations ranging from less than 20 mgl kg to 4,500 mgl kg.
-------
Polyarornatic hydrocarbon, (PAHs) were detected in the subsurface soil. The semi-volatile organic
compounds detected in the wastewater lagoon dikes during the round 11 (1991) were di-n-butyJ phthalate
(0:27 mg/kg to 0.66 mg/kg in surface soil samples, and a maximum concentration of 0.98 mg/kg in
subsurface soils), a,a~imethylphenytamine (0.04 mg/kg), benzo(b)fluoranthene (0.36 mg/kg),
benzo(a)pyrene (0.25 mg/kg), and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (0.24 mg/kg). Test pits were also excavated
around the lagoons. The semi-volatile organic compounds detected in the soil samples were di-n-butyJ
phthalate (0.22 mg/kg to 0.45 mg/kg), benzoic acid (1.4 mg/kg), chrysene (0.51 mg/kg), fluoranthene (0.71
mg/kg), and pyrene (0.7 mg/kg). .
TCE, the groundwater contaminant of concern at WW-1, was detected in only a few of the soil samples
(three out of 52 samples) and at relatively low concentrations (maximum concentration of 0.035 mg/kg).
Elevated levels of lead, cadmium, and chromium were detected in a few of the soil samples collected in the
vicinity of the wastewater lagoons. Overall, the concentrations of lead, chromium, and cadmium detected
in the soils were only slightly greater than background soil cqncentrations. Cadmium was detected in the
lagoon dike soil samples during round 11 at 6.4 mg/kg (95% upper confidence limit) in surface soils, 27.4
mg/kg (95% upper confidence limit) from 0 feet to four feet deep, and at 1.8 mg/kg from four feet to eight
feet deep. Cadmium was also detected during the test pit activities at 22.1 mg/kg, 95% upper confidence
limit.
Groundwater
Groundwater samples were collected during sampling rounds 1 (1986),2 (1987),3 (1989),4 (1989), 6 (1990),
7 (1990), 8 (1991),9 (1991), and 11 (1992). TCE was not detected during sampling round 1. [)uring
sampling rounds 2,3, and 4, TCE was detected in monitoring well MW-12 (downgradient of lagoons in an
on-Base alluvial monitoring well) at 20 ~/L, 33 pg/L, and 180 pg/L, respectively. TCE was not detected
during sampling round 6.
TCE was detected during sampling round 8 in monitoring well MW-102 (downgradient of lagoons in an on-
Base alluvial monitoring well) at 280 pg/L TCE was detected in monitoring wells MW-12 (downgradient of
lagoons in an on-Base alluvial monitoring well), MW-102 (downgradient of lagoons in an on-Base alluvial
monitoring well), and MW-120 (off-Base alluvial monitoring well) at concentrations of 7211;j/L, 190 1I;j/L, and
18 II;j/L, respectively. TCE was detected in monitoring wells MW-12 (downgradient of lagoons in an on-
Base alluvial monitoring well), MW-102 (downgradient of lagoons in an on-Base alluvial monitoring well), MW-
120 (off-Base alluvial monitoring well), MW-147 (off-Base alluvial monitoring well), and MW-122 (off-Base
Basalt A (mid-top) monitoring well) at concentrations of 14 1I;j/L, 57 II;j/L. 38 1I;j/L, and 0.4 pg/L,
respectively.
TCE is the primary groundwater contaminant at this site. Groundwater sampling results. shown in Figure
8 for sampling round 11, indicate that a narrow plume of TCE contamination has migrated off-Base from the
area near monitoring wells MW-12 and MW-102 to wells MW-147 and MW-120. The WW-1 area is underlaid
by a silty clay layer restricting vertical migration of contaminants into the bedrock. The source of the TCE
. contamination at Site WW-1 is unknown. The TCE may have originated from one or more small source
areas in the WW-1 area created from past disposal of solvent-containing wastes or potentially from (a)
localized spill(s) in the WW-1 area. Since.TCE was infrequently detected in the surface or subsurface soil
samples, the source of the TCE has either disappeared through volatilization and leaching or is very small
in size and was not detected by the test pit sampling. Additional soil investigation activities are planned for
1993 to identify potential TCE source areas in the vicinity of the wastewater lagoons.
-------
8
" ,
i ,
\oIW-"
,,'
--
/'"
I
/':. 'CULVERT
,..;--'S
. ~'/. S
'J-e
WW-l
""-9S
"
)
! I
I
I
I
"-13
'! I
L ~ ~
SCAlE IN FEET
l£Gnm
S WOHITORINC WELL. IN 1)4£ OVERBURDEN (0aI)
~ WONITOAINC WEU. IN THE SHALlOW BEOROO< (BASALT 4)
. STAn' CAUGE LOCAnOH
SCI IN F'EET A8O\'E SEA L£VEL ("51.)
FIGURE 8
ESTIMATED LEVELS OF TCE IN GROUNDWATER AT WW-1 SITE (~gJL)
-------
Concent~tions of most metals in groundwater were similar to natural background levels. In contrast to the
TCE contamination, no distinct pattern of elevated metals concentrations was observed in the groundwater
at the site. Metals with elevated concentrations in some of the wells are believed to be the result of high
turbidity in the wells and are not believed to be site-related since they were not detected at high levels in
the soils and sediments. .
The TCE-contaminated groundwater plume is currently migrating off-Base to the east.
Residential Well Monitorino Results
Several residential wells are located in the vicinity of sites SW-1, FT-1, and WW-1. These wells have been
periodically sampled for volatile organic contamination since 1986. TCE and chlorobenzene were the only
contaminants detected in samples collected during sampling rounds 8, 9, 10, and 11. The maximum
concentrations detected for both contaminants did not exceed 1 J.I;J/ L
VI.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
CERCLA response actions at the P1 Operable Units as described in the ROD are intended to protect human
health and the environment from risks related to current and potential exposures to hazardous substances
at the sites.
To assess the risk posed by site contamination, a Baseline Risk Assessment was completed as part of the
RI. The human health risk assessment for the on-Base P1 Sites considered potential effects of the site-
related contaminants on human health, and the ecological risk assessment evaluated potential risks to the
environment. The risk assessments were conducted in accordance with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (RAG HHEM) and Volume II: Environmental
Assessment Manual. other EPA national guidance. and EPA Region 10 Supplemental Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund. This section of the ROD summarizes the results of the Baseline Risk Assessment
for the on-Base P1 Sites.
A.
Human Health Risks
The human health risk assessment considered potential risks associated with exposure to site contaminants.
The assessment involved a four-step process that included the identification of contaminants of concem,
an assessment of contaminant toxicity, an exposure assessment of the population at risk, and a
characterization of the magnitude of risk. The risk assessment uses reasonably conservative assumptions
to determine risk, such as daily exposure to contamination for 30 years. The risk assessment also considers
changes in uses of land or groundwater that may occur in the future.
A.1
Major Contaminants of Concern
Chemicals of concem were selected for each Fairchild AFB P1 site evaluated based on contaminant
occurrence and distribution in. the environmental media (summarized in Section V) and a risk-based
screening approach suggested in the EPA Region X Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
(EPA. August 1991). The following list presents the major contaminants of concem for each site:
SW-1 - Trichloroethene
PS-2 - Total petroleum hydrocarbons. benzene. ethyl benzene, and xyJenes
-------
PS~ - Trichloroethene
PS-8 - Total petroleum hydrocarbons, trichloroethene, benzene, ethytbenzene, and xylenes
FT -1 - Benzene, toluene, ethytbenzene, xylene, and trichloroethene
WW-1 - Trichloroethene, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, cadmium, lead, and chromium
IS-1 - Trichloroethene
In overview, the major contaminants of concern for the Fairchild AFB P1 sites were fuel related contaminants
and! or the chlorinated hydrocarbons. . Metals (cadmium, lead, chromium) and the polyaromatic
hydrocarbons are also considered major contaminants of concern for site WW-1. .
A.2
Toxicity Assessment
A toxicity assessment was performed for all chemicals selected as indicator chemicals for public health risk
assessment. A toxicity profile developed for each chemical provides a qualitative weight-of-evidence that
site contaminants pose actual or potential hazards to human health. Toxicity criteria (cancer slope factors,
reference doses) and regulatory standard or guidelines were summarized for each contaminant of concern.
A.3
Exposure Assessment
The exposure assessment conducted for the Fairchild AFB P1 sites identified the potentially exposed
populations given the current and expected future land use scenarios, characterized the exposure based
on the most relevant exposure pathways, and developed exposure doses which were evaluated during the
risk characterization.
Current and Future Land!Groundwater Use at Fairchild Air Force Base
Fairchild AFB is currently an active air force base and will remain an active base for the foreseeable future.
Land use classifications and access restrictions at Fairchild AFB prohibit Base residents and off-Base
residents from coming into direct contact with contaminated environmental media at any of the operable
units under investigation. The current and expected future land use for areas adjoining the base is
residential, light commercial! industrial, or agricultural. It should be noted that site SW-1, FT -1, and WW-1
are located at the Base boundary. If land use near Fairchild AFB significantly changes, or if Fairchild AFB
ceases operations. the remedies presented in this decision document will be reevaluated.
Groundwater (on-Base) in the immediate vicinity and downgradient of the Priority 1 sites is not currently
used as a domestic water supply source. There are no plans to develop this groundwater as a resource
in the future. However, more than 20 residential water supply wells are located downgradient of sites FT-1
and WW-1 (off-Base). At least two residential wells are located in the vicinity of site SW-1. Residents in
these areas do not currently have the option of tapping into a public water supply system. .
Recectors of Concern! Excosure Assessment MethodoloQV
Based on the contamination summary presented in Section V and the current! future land use scenarios.
described in the preceding paragraphs. the following primary receptors of concern are identified:
Base personnel who come into contact with potentially contaminated surface soils during the
performance of assigned duties (relevant for all P1 sites)
-------
Off-Base residents who use domestic water supply wells downgradient of the Priority 1 operable
unfis, this is particularly relevant for FT-1 and WW-1).
Base personnel/residents who contact (aGcidental ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of dusts)
No-Name ditch sediments (relevant for site WW-1).
Exposures incurred by the aforementioned receptors under the current land use scenarios were evaluated
quantitatively in the baseline public health risk assessment. Additionally, the baseline risk assessment also
evaluated. quantitatively, exposures incurred by a theoretical receptor assuming residences are built on Base
property in the vicinity of the P1 sites at some time in the future (Le., A future residential land use scenario
assumed that a resident would use the groundwater as a domestic water supply and be exposed to surface
soil contaminants. As stated previously, a future residential land use scenario is very unlikely for Fairchild
.AFB.
The exposure assessment of contaminant concentrations detected at the P1 sites used standard exposure
factors (Federal EPA or Region X) to develop exposure doses for relevant exposure routes. Assuming the
domestic use of groundwater resource, the ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of volatile compounds.
exposure routes were evaluated. Assuming contact with contaminated surface soils, the accidental
ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation of airborne soil particulates exposure routes were evaluated.
Average and the upper 95% confidence limit on the average define the exposure point concentrations
evaluated. Contaminant concentrations detected in overburden and basalt monitoring wells were evaluated
separately. On-Base contaminant concentrations were evaluated separately from off-Base contaminant
concentrations.
A.4
Risk Characterization
The Risk Characterization integrates the information deve10ped in the toxicity assessment and exposure
assessment to characterize the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks associated with contaminant
concentrations detected at the five P-1 sites. The acceptable risk range for carcinogens is one additional
chance in)en thousand (1 x 10-4) to one chance in one million (1 x 10.') according to CERCLA. Under the
Washington State Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) , the maximum acceptable overall site risk from
carcinogens is one chance in one hundred thousand (1 x 10-5).
For non-carcinogens, acceptable levels are generally those to which the human population may be exposed
during a 30 year period without adverse health effects. Non-carcinogenic risks are estimated by calculating
a Hazard Index (HI). According to both federal and state hazardous waste laws, an acceptable risk level
for non-carcinogens is a HI value less than one.
The results of the human health risk assessment are shown in Tables 2 and 3 for the sOils/sediments and
groundwater, respectively. As shown in Table 2, for exposures to soil or sediment, risk estimates were
calculated for both residential and industrial land use scenarios. The combined soil/sediment and
groundwater risk-results, assuming that a receptor was exposed to site-related contaminants via both
groundwater and soil/sediment pathways, are shown in Table 4.
-------
Risk Resuns ~
Site Cancer Risk Resuns Hazard Indices
Residential Industrial Residential Industrial
RMEI11 I AVGI7I RMEII, T AVGI2) RMEII, I AVGrtI RMlClI I AVG(1)
TABLE 2-
SUMMARY RISK TABLE FOR SOIUSEDIMENT EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
SW-1
Surface Salls 3 x 10. 3 X 10.7 .. X 10.7 3 X 1()-7 - 4 x 10" 1 x 10" 5 X 10-5 5 X 10-5
Test PU Soli SamPles (0- to 4-foot deDth) 3 x 10. 2 X 10.7 3 x 10.7 2 X 10-1 4 x 10.4 8 X 10.' 5 X 10.5 .. X 10.5
PS-2
Surface Salls
Subsurface Sofls
PS"
Surface Salls
Subsurface Salls
PS"
Surface Salls I - - - I - 2 x 10.z 2 X 10-1 4 x 10.3 1 x 10.3 J
Subsurface Salls I - - - I - .. X 10.1 .. X 10.z 8 x 10.z 3 x 10.z I
FT-1
Salls
WW-1
Surface Salls 3 x 10.5 1 x 10" 5 x 10. 3 x 10". 7 x 10.z 1 x 10.z 1 x 10.z 7 X 10.3
Test PUs East 1 x 10.' 4 X 10.7 2 X 10. 8 X 10.7 3 X 10.1 3 X 10.2 8 X 10.2 2 x 10.2
Test PUs North - - - - 8 x 10.' 8 x 10" 1 X 10-3 5 x 10.4
Dike Surface Soils 3 x 10.1 3 x 10. 2 X 10.7 8 x 10. 2 X 10.1 2 X 10.2 3 X 10-2 1 X 10-2
Dike Borings 1 x 10. 1 X 10.7 8 X 10.7 3 X 10.7 3 X 10.1 3.0 X 10.2 4 x 10.z 2 X 102
No Name Ditch 4 x 10.7 3 x 10. 2 X 10.7 8 x 10. 4 X 10.1 4 X 10.2 5 x 10-2 2 x 10.2
(I)
(2J
RME - Reasonable Maximum ExpOsure case
-------
SII
TAaE 3
SUMMARY RISK TAaE . GROUNDWATEftC1)
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE SCENARIO
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
I -=---f .~6J_I-1
.. RME I Ava .. DE I AVG
SW.1
B8S81t A - SW of 18nd111 - - 2.0 x 1cra 1.0 x 1cra
B8S81t A . HE of 18ndft11 ..0 x 1~ 5.0 x 1et7 8.0 x 1et3 2.0 x 1et3
Basalt A . B- - - - -
18-1
Bad A Top Mid 2.0 x 1~ 2.0 x 1et7 - -"
B888It A (8818) 5.0 x 1~ ..0 x 1et7 ..0 x 1cra 1.0 x 1cra
PS-Z
AJlwial 1.0 r1~ 8.0x.1~' 1.0 x 10' 3.0 x 10"
Basalt A 1.0 x 1~ 2.0 x 1~ 7.0 x 1cra 3.0 x 1et2
PS-6
,-
8asaitA
P8-8
_I 4.0. 10" I 3.01111"' I
I ==:J
Alluvial 8.0 x 1~ 2.0 x 1~ 2.0 x 10" 8.0 x 10"
Basalt A 1.0 x 1~ 2.0 x 1Q4 - -
WW.1
AJlwial Weill - Upgr8di8nt ..0 x 1~ 3.0 x 1et7 2.0 1 1~ ..0 x 1cr
AJluvi8I Well - 00Wngr8Ci6nt 3.0 x 1~ 3.0 11~ - -
Alluvial Well - Off e.. 2.0 x 1~ 2.0 1 1~ - -
Basalt A (Top Mid) On Base - - - -
Basalt A (Top Mid) Off B.. 2.0 x 1et7 3.0 x 1~ - -
FT-1
on-ease AIuvi8I 1.0 r1cr 1.0 x 1~ 3.0110" 8.0 x 1cra
Off-Basa Alluvial 2.01 10'7 5.0 1 1~ - -
Basalt A Top.M~n B888 1.0 x 1cr 9.0 x 1~ 3.0 x 1et3 2.0 x 1~
Bnalt A TopoMid-Otf Bae - - - -
Basalt A (Base) On Base - - 9.0 x 1cra 1.0 x 1o-a
Basalt A (8...) Off 8... - - - -
111
The nsks pr88nted are the sum of the risk contributions by the ingestion. inhalation
and dermal conbId exposure pathways in groundwater for the RME and AVG
-------
TA8LE.4
SUMMARY RISK TABLE FOR COMBINED GROUNDWATER AND SOIL EXPOSURE
PATHWAYS"I
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE SCENARIO
. . FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
Rille RUllI
S" Residential CallC8r Rille Residential Hazard Indices
RME AVG RME AVG
SW.1 (3) 141 PI (41
Basalt A - SW of ..ndftB 3.0 x 1~ 3.0 X 10-7 2.0 x 1 ~ 2.0 x 1~
Basal A - NE of IIIndftU 7.0 x 1~ 7.0 X 10-7 1.0 x 1~ 2.0 x 1et3
Basalt A-Base 3.0 x 1 ~ 3.0 x 1et1 4.0 x 1cr 1.0 x 1cr
IS.1 Q) Q) Q) Q)
. .
Basalt A Top Mid 2.0 x 1~ 2.0 x 1et1 - -
Basalt A (Base) 5.0 x 1cr 4.0 X 10-7 4.0 x 1~ 1.0 x 1~
PS-2 121 CIJ CI) 181
Alluvial 1.0 x 1et3 8.0 x 1~ 1.0 X 10' 3.0 x 100
Basalt A 1.0 x 10-' 2.0 x 1et' 1.0 x 10-' 3.0 x 1~
PS4 121 C2I (7) C7I
Alluvial 4.0 x 1et' 3.0 x 10-7 2.0 X 10-' 2.0 x 10-2
Basalt A - - 2.0 X 10-' 2.0 x 1~
ps-a 121 12) (8) 411
Alluvial 8.0 x 10. 2.0 x 1et' 3.0 x 100 8.0 x 10-'
Basalt A 1.0 x 10-' 2.0 x 1et' 4.0 x 10-' 4.0 x 1~
WW-1 tit II) ('I) (U)
Alluvial Wells - Upgradient 4.0 x 10-' 2.0 x 1et' 3.0 x 10" 3.0 x 10'~
Alluvial Wells - Downgradient 6.0 x 10-5 4.0 x 1et' 3.0 x 10" 3.0 x 1cr~
Alluvial Wells - Off Base 5.0 x 10-5 3.0 x 1et' 3.0 x 10" 3.0 x 1 ~
Basalt A (Top Mid) 0" S.. 3.0 X 10-5 1.0x 1et' 3.0 x 10"' 3.0 x 10-2
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMARY RISK TABLE FOR COMBINED GROUNDWATER AND SOIL EXPOSURE
PATHWAYS."
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE SCENARIO
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO
Risk Result
S8 Residential Cancar Risk Residential Hazard tndas
RME AVG RME AVG
FT-1 (5) (5). (5) (5)
On-Base Alluvia. 1.0 x 1~ 1.0x 1Q4 7.0 x 100 1.0 x 10.'
Off-Base AUuvial 4.0 x 10"7 6.0 x 1~ 4.0 x 10"' 4.0 x 1~
Basalt A Top.Mid-On Base 1.0 x 1cr 9.0 x 1~ 4.0 x 10"' 5.0 x 1~
Basalt A T op..Mid-Qff Base 2.0 x 10"7 7.0 x 10-- .. 4.0 x 10"' 4.0 x 1~
Basalt A (Base) On Base 2.0 x 10"7 7.0 x 10-- 5.0 x 10"' 6.0 x 10-2
Basalt A (Base) Off Base 2.0 x 10.7 7.0 x 10-- 4.0 x 10" 4.0 X 10-2
II}
The risks presented are the sum of the contributions by both soil and groundwater
exposure pathways to determine the rist for the RME and A VG receptors. The risIcs
presented above are the sum of the individual site risks due contaminant!~ in
groundwater (Table 3) and the site sQiI subset which would produce the most
conservative risk vatue (Table 2). Site soil subsets containing hex8Valent chromium
were not considered in the evaluation of the soit contribution to risk ul1der this
scenario. .
Risk due to groundwater only; no soil contribution.
SW-1 subsurface soil (4-8 feet).
SW-1 surface soil.
FT -1 subsurface soil (0-4 feet).
PS-2 subsurface soil.
PS-6 surface soil.
PS-8 subsurface soil.
WW-1 surface soil.
WW-1 test pits east of lagoon.
WW-1 subsurface soil (Cike).
(2)
(JI
('1
(5)
(8)
(7)
181
(I)
1'0)
-------
Cancer risk values were riot calculated for the soils at IS-1, PS-2, PS~. and PS-8 because no site-related
carcinogeni~. contaminants were detected at these sites. Risk estimates were also not calculated for the
sediment contained in the french drain manholes at IS-1 because there is no direct exposure pathway to
these sediments. These sediments were removed during the IS-1 removal action. The risk estimates shown
. in Table 2 indicate that there would be no unacceptable risks to human health posed by exposure to the
soils or sediments at any of the P1 Operable Units under an industrial use scenario. With respect to a
residential land use scenario. no unacceptable risks would be posed by exposure to the soils or sediments
at the P1 sites with the exception of the soil at site WW-1. The cancer risk of 3 x 10.5 for the soil at WW-1
is within the acceptable 1 x 1 0 ~ to 1 x 10.6 range established under federal law but slightly exceeds the 1
x 10.5 level established by the Washington State MTCA regulation. The principal indicator chemicals
contributing to the risk are the carcinogenic PAHs and cadmium. However, it should be noted that the
carcinogenic PAHs were detected infrequently in WW-1 soil samples (i.e., PAHs were detected in one of 11
soil samples only). Cadmium was detected in several surface and shallow subsurface soil (04 feet)
collected (paniculariy from lagoon dikes and test pits to the east of the lagoons). However. few detections
exceed the MTCA Method B action level of 40 mg/ kg.
The groundwater risk assessment results shown in Table 3 indicate that cancer risks for all of the P1 sites
are within the acceptable 1 x 1 0 ~ to 1 x 10.6 range established under federal law, except for site PS-2, which
significantly exceeds the 1 x 1 0 ~ upper risk level. Cancer risks for sites PS-2. WW-1, and FT -1 (for benzene)
exceed the 1 x 10-5 level established by the Washington State .MTCA regulation. With respect to non-
carcinogens, hazard indices calculated for sites PS-2 and PS-a exceed one, indicating that potential adverse
health effects could result from consumption of contaminated groundwater at these sites.
B.
Uncertainty Analysis in Human Health Risk Assessment
Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risks were estimated in the baseline public health risk assessment
for the P1 sites using various assumptions; therefore, the risk assessment results presented in Tables 2, 3,
and 4 contain an inherent amount of uncenainty. The extent to which health risks can be characterized is
primarily dependent upon the accuracy with which a chemical's toxicity can be estimated and the accuracy
of the exposure estimates.
Examples of uncenainty in the exposure and risk assessment methodology used in this risk assessment are
as follows:
The exposure scenarios assume chronic exposure to contaminant levels that do not change with
time. In reality, contaminant levels often change with time in response to source loading or
depletion and physical/ chemical/ biological forces such as chemical or biochemical degradation.
The baseline public health risk assessment evaluated a hypothetical future residemial land use
scenario. Given that Fairchild AFB is currently an active USAF base and will remain an active base
for the foreseeable future, this scenario is very conservative. It should be noted that cancer risk
results for soils exceed 1 x 10.5 only when the residential scenario is evaluated for the WW-1 site.
The baseline risk assessment evaluated the potential future use of the. groundwater as a domestic
water supply resource. However, groundwater is not used as a domestic water supply resource.
Although the cancer risk estimates for contaminant concentrations detected in onsite monitoring
wells for PS-2, FT -1, and WW-1 exceed 1 x 10 '5, with the exception of the off-Base WW-1 alluvial
monitoring wells, risk estimates for the off-Base monitoring wells and residential wells do not exceed
1 x 10.5.
-------
Although lead. a chemical of concem, has been classified as a B2 carcinogen, a Carcinogenic Slope
Factor has not been published by EPA. This presents a data gap in the risk assessment.
Additionally. the Reference Dose previously published for lead has been withdrawn. Because lead
is a predominant contaminant at the Base. toxicity criteria for lead would allow for a more complete
quantitative risk assessment.
The toxicity criteria for and/ or carcinogenic classifications of several of the chemicals of concern
(e.g., carcinogenic PAHs other than benzo(a)pyrene) are currently under review by the EPA. Risk
estimates based on current toxicity for those compounds should be viewed with less cenainty than
risks estimated for chemicals based on toxicity criteria completely reviewed and approved by EP A.
The sampling locations selected for the Fairchild AFB RI were biased such that potential areas of
elevated concentrations would not be overlooked. Thus, risk estimates are conservative.
The EPA is currently reviewing draft guidance for assessment of the dermal route of exposure. As
stated previously. dermal absorption of volatile organic compounds is predicted by some
researchers to be significant.
The Reference Dose used for TPH should be viewed as a tentative/ interim value. It is not currently
listed in IRIS. No Cancer Slope Factor is currently avaUabie for TPH.
In addition to these sources of uncertainty. the chemical analytical data base has limitations in such areas
as sample locations and sample representiveness. These uncenainties are present in every baseline risk
assessment.
Some of the uncertainties listed in the proceeding discussion potentially affect the results presented in the
pUblic health risk assessment. Because lead and TPH are predominant site contaminants, the lack of
toxicity criteria for lead and the interim nature of the Reference Dose for TPH (and lack of a Cancer Slope
Factor for TPH). in particular, may result in an underestimation of the risks presented in the quantitative risk
assessment. Fortunately. public health benchmarks (MTCA goals and/ or EPA Action Levels) exist for lead
and TPH. Thus. although lead and TPH may not be evaluated to the fullest extent quantitatively. site
contaminant levels are compared to the available benchmarks and public health/remediation conclusions
can be drawn in the RI/FS prepared for the P1 sites. Thus. it is unlikely that these uncenainties would alter
the overall condusions of the risk assessment. .
c.
Ecological Risks
An ecological risk assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential adverse impacts to plants and
animals resulting from exposure to contamination associated with the on-Base P1 sites. The assessment
investigated potential impacts to burrowing and ground~ling animals exposed to surface and subsurface
soil contamination at the sites as well as impacts to wildlife exposed to contaminated surface water and
sediment present at the WW-1 site.
The results of the ecological assessment indicate that no adverse impacts to plants or animals are expected
from their exposure to contaminated soil associated with the on-Base P1 sites. No federal or state
threatened or endangered species or critical habitats are known to be associated with Fairchild AFB.
-------
Much of the ecological assessment was focused on the wastewater lagoons and No Name Ditch at the
WIN-1 site. 1n addition to calculated risk estimates, a qualitative risk assessment was performed for the TPH
detected in the lagoons based on a review of the available literature on the impact of TPH in aquatic
ecosystems. The results of the revised ecological risk assessment show that current ecological impacts
associated with the lagoons are minimal, and that conditions within the lagoons are expected to improve
with time. Specific findings of the ecological assessment for WIN-1 include:
The primary threat to ducks and other waterfowl using the lagoons is the possibility of becoming
fouled with oil. Servicing of the oil/water separators and grit chambers has significantly reduced
the presence of floating product and oil sheens on the lagoons and the potential for ducks and
other waterfowl using the lagoons to become fouled with oil.
The toxicity associated with TPH is related to the concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons. These
compounds were infrequently detected in the surface water and sediments at WIN-1, suggesting that
there is minimal toxicity associated with the residual TPH present in the sediments.
Biodegradation of TPH occurs naturally in the environment, and aerobic conditions serve to enhance
the rate of biodegradation. The continuous supply of water, along with the stirring effects of wind
action, are expected to enhance biodegradation of the TPH to some degree by promoting aerobic
conditions in the lagoons. Thus, TPH levels in the existing lagoons are expected to gradually
decline through biodegradation as well as through other weathering processes (e.g., photo- and
chemical oxidation).
The wastewater lagoons are a man-made structure in which an aquatic community, tolerant to the
continuous input of TPH, has developed. With the decrease in TPH inputs and the continued
degradation of the existing TPH in the sediments, it is anticipated that the aquatic community
inhabiting the WIN-1 lagoons will increase in diversity. Sensitive benthic species that may have
previously been exduded from the lagoons due to the presence of TPH may colonize the lagoons
as TPH levels gradually dedine.
Observations of the emergent vegetation growing in the WIN-1 lagoons indicate that the current
impacts of TPH, if any, are minimal. With the decrease in TPH inputs into the lagoons and the
gradual degradation of resident TPH, the diversity of the lagoons' already abundant emergent
vegetation is expected to improve.
D.
Uncertainty in Ecological Risk Assessment
Because risk characterization is essentially the integration of the exposure assessment and hazard
assessment, sources of uncenaimy associated with either of these efements also contribute to uncertainty
in risk characterization. In addition, the risk characterization procedure itseff should contribute to overall
uncertainty. Except for the food chain evaluation, the quotient method was selected as the risk
characterization method of choice for this assessment. The advantages of this method, and one of the
primary limitations associated with this method, were previously addressed.
Additional limitations of the quotient method, according to EPA's Risk Assessment Methods: A Review and
Evaluation of Past Practices in the SUDerfund and RCM Proarams (EPA-230~3-89{)44), include the
following:
1.
EPA-reviewed toxicity data are available for only a limited number of chemicals.
2.
Chronic toxicity endpoint data can be inconsistent.
-------
3.
Toxicant interactions are not addressed.
4.
Toxicity data are sparse for media other than surface waters.
5.
Analytical detection limits commonly exceed toxicity benchmark values (Le, criteria).
6.
There is no means. for estimating severity of impacts if benchmark toxicity values are
exceeded.
Decreasing the level of uncertainty associated with each of the limitations described above was
accomplished using a variety of processes. A brief response to each of these limitations follows:
1.
The use of acceptable chemical quantitative structure activity relationships should provide
reasonable estimates of toxicity data for untested chemicals.
2.
Selecting chronic toxicity tests results based only on appropriate endpoints (e.g., effects
on mortality, growth, and reproduction), test design, and test durations should decrease the
uncertainty associated with chronic test results.
3.
The method of Barthouse et al. (1986), which simply sums quotients and addresses
cumulative toxicity, addresses toxicant interactions in a reasonable and consistent manner,
based on the generally accepted principle of chemical additivity.
4.
Sufficient toxicity data for media other than surface waters generally exist; when combined
with extrapolations based on chemical structure activity relations or interspecies
correlations, reasonable estimates of required data are possible.
5.
A reasonable, conservative, and protective approach for dealing with relatively high
detection limits and low "safe" chemical concentrations includes setting the environmental
concentration of the chemical to one half the detection limit. This procedure probably
results in overestimation of actual environmental concentrations of chemicals of concern,
but is reasonable in view of analytical limitations.
6.
The severity of ecological impacts expected from exceedences of toxicity benchmai1< values
(e.g., chronic ambient water quality criteria) can be estimated using the cumulative method
of assessing toxicant additivity. .
Every effort was taken to ensure that risk characterization was performed in the most appropriate manner
for this risk assessment. All of the .above-mentioned items probably contribute to tOtal uncertainty to some
extent.
Data collection components that can be useful for some Ecological Risk Assessments, but were not
performed for this assessment, include (1) detailed macroscopic and microscopic tissue analysis of aquatic
and terrestrial biota, and (2) toxicity testing using study area surface waters, sediments, and surface soils.
However, based on the extensive environmental sampling incorporated into this assessment, and on the
limited exposure potential for most sites in the study area, it was determined that such additional procedures
were unnecessary at this time.
-------
In summary, several sources of uncertainty might contribute to overall uncertainty in the final risk estimates,
including those sources discussed in the exposure and hazard sections of this assessment. Throughout this
assessment, if levels of uncenainty were unknown, or if impacts associated with uncenainty could not be
estimated accurately, a conservative approach was taken. The consistent use of conservative assumptions
probably overestimated actual risk to biota in nearly all cases, but no appropriate or reasonable alternative
to conservatism has been identified.
VII.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
The results of the RI and Risk Assessment were used to determine the need for cleanup action at these
sites. The objectives of the cleanup actions for each site are summarized in the following sections. The
following remedial action objectives have been established for the P1 sites:
Prevent residential exposure to potential contaminants within the subsurface soil and debris (for Old
Base Landfill and Wastewater Lagoons).
Prevent exposure to pOtential contaminants in the subsurface soils and sediments at VVW-1.
. Minimize movement of contaminants from soill debris to groundwater.
Prevent consumption of groundwater exceeding federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs).
Restore contaminated groundwater to its beneficial uses, which at these sites is drinking water.
Prevent funher migration of contaminated groundwater.
A. .
Need For Feasibility Study Evaluation
Specific. details concerning the need for soil or groundwater cleanup at each site are discussed in the
fol/owing sections.
SW-1. Old Base Landfill Nonheast of Taxiwav NO.7
The results of the risk assessment indicate that there would be no unacceptable risks to human health posed
by exposure to the soils at SW-1 under bOth residential and industrial use scenarios. However, since the
site was a former sanitary lanclfUl. there is a potential for buried contamination nOt identified during the RI
to be present within the landfill. Therefore. exposure to pOtential contaminants within the landfill is still a
human health concern.
The primary groundwater contaminant of concern at the SW-1 site is TCE. Although no sources of TCE
were identified within the SW-1 landfill, buried waste nOt identified in the RI could serve as a source of
groundwater contamination. Therefore. source control alternatives for the landfill were evaluated in the FS.
With respect to the TCE detected in the groundwater at SW-1, the estimated cancer risk is within the
acceptable range established under federal law and is below the state level of 1 x 1 O'~ However, TCE
concentrations detected in several monitoring wells currently exceed the federal MCL standard of 5 ~I L.
Therefore, groundwater cleanup alternatives were evaluated in the FS.
-------
15-1. BuildinQ 1034 French Drain 5vstem
The results of the risk assessment indicate that there would be no unacceptable risks to human health posed
by exposure to the soils at 15-1 under both residential and industrial use scenarios. With the completion
of the removal action at 15-1 in December 1992, contaminated sediment was removed, and all conduits,
including surface water drainage into the manholes, and potential sources of groundwater contam(nation,
have been eliminated at the 15-1 site. Thus, no further remedial actions are necessary for the soils or
sediments at 15-1, and no remedial action objectives have been established.
The RI investigation did not identify a groundwater contaminant plume associated with the 15-1 site. Thus,
no remedial action objectives have been established for the groundwater at 15-1.
OU-1. P5-2. FliQhtline Ocerable Unit
The results of the risk assessment indicate that there would be no unacceptable risks to human health posed
by exposure to the soils at PS-2 under both residential and industrial use scenarios. Since soil contaminated
with TPH could potentially serve as a source of groundwater contamination, source control alternatives for
PS-2 were evaluated in the FS.
The floating fuel products detected in two of the monitoring wells at PS-2 serve as a source of groundwater
contamination. It is believed that the floating product is the principal threat at PS-2. Therefore cleanup of
floating product was evaluated.
With respect to groundwater, the estimated cancer risk currently exceeds acceptable levels established
under both state and federal law. Furthermore. benzene concentrations detected in several monitoring wells
currently exceed the federal MCL standard of 5 ~/ L For these reasons. groundwater deanup alternatives
were evaluated in the FS.
OU-1. P5-6. FliQhtline Ocerable Unit
The results of the risk assessment indicate that there would be no unacceptable risks to human health posed
by exposure to the soils at PS-6 under both residential and industrial use scenarios. Also, results of the RI
indicate that the soils are not a source of groundwater contamination. Thus. no remedial actions are
necessary for the soils at P5-6, and no remedial action objectives have been established.
The RI investigation did not identify a groundwater contaminant plume associated with the PS-6 site. Thus,
no remedial action objectives have been established for the groundwater at P5~).
OU-1. PS-8. AiQhtline Ocerable Unit
The results of the risk assessment indicate that there would be no unacceptable risks to human health posed
by exposure to the soils at PS-8 under both residential and industrial use scenarios. Since soil contaminated
with TPH could potentially serve as a source of groundwater contamination, source control alternatives for
PS-8 were evaluated in the F5. .
With respect to the fuel-related contamination detected in the groundwater at PS-8, the estimated cancer
risk is within the acceptable range established under federal law and does not exceed the state level of
1 x 10 .5. The maximum groundwater benzene concentration detected during sampling round 11 was equal
to the federal MCL of 5 ~I L. However, benzene concentrations did exceed the MCL in eariier sampling
rounds. In addition, TPH concentrations in several wells currently exceed the state MTCA groundwater
cleanup level of 1.0 mgl L. For these reasons, groundwater cleanup alternatives were evaluated in the FS.
-------
FT-1. Fire Trainina Area
The results of the risk assessment indicate that there would be no unacceptable risks to human health posed
by exposure to the soils at FT -1 under both residential and industrial use scenarios. Results of the RI
. indicate that the soil contaminated with TPH are not a source of groundwater contamination, but that soil
contaminated with benzene are a potential source of groundwater contamination. It is also believed that
the benzene-contaminated soils are the principal threat at FT -1. Therefore, source control alternatives for
the benzene-contaminated soil at FT -1 were evaluated in the FS.
With respect to the fuel-related contamination detected in the groundwater at FT -1, the estimated cancer
risk is within the acceptable risk range established under federal law but exceeds the state level of 1 x 10'~
The maximum groundwater benzene concentration significantly exceeds the federal MCL of 5 1IiJ/ L For
these reasons, groundwater cleanup alternatives were evaluated in the FS.
WW-1. Wastewater Laaoons
The results of the risk assessment indicate that there would be no unacceptabfe risks to human health posed
by exposure to the sediments in No Name Ditch under both residemial and industrial use scenarios. With
respect to the soils, the industrial and residential use cancer risk estimates are within the acceptable range
based on federal law, and the residential use cancer risk estimate is only slightly above the Washington State
standard. Land use .at this site is expected to remain industrial. Therefore. actions to dean up the soil for
residential purposes were not considered in the FS. Institutional controls to limit the site to industrial usage
were evaluated.
Results of the ecological risk assessment indicate that there are minimal risks to plants and animals
associated with the wastewater lagoons. and that ecological conditions in the lagoons should continue to
improve naturally. Therefore, cleanup actions for the purpose of ecological protection were not considered
in the FS.
Results of the RI indicate that the soils and sediments at WW-1 are not a source of groundwater
. contamination. Therefore. source control alternatives were not evaluated in the FS at this time. However,
additional field investigation activities are planned to determine if a TCE source is present at the site. If a
TCE source is identified, deanup alternatives will be evaluated at that time.
With respect to the TCE contamination detected in the groundwater at WW-1, the maximum TCE
concentration significantly exceeds the federal MCL of 5 1IiJ/ L, the estimated cancer risk is within the
acceptable range established under federal law but exceeds the state level of 1 x 10-5. For these reasons,
groundwater cleanup alternatives were evaluated in the FS.
B.
Development 01 Cleanup Levels
Cleanup levels for the on-Base Priority One Sites have been developed with the intent to comply with
applicable. or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) of both federal and state laws, as required by
CERCLA. In establishing the cleanup levels, MTCA Cleanup Regulation is a key law.
Soil CleanuD Levels
Results of the Risk Assessment for the P1 sites indicate that soils do not pose an unacceptable risk to
human health through direct contact. Site specific cleanup levels for the soil were developed for several
sites based on protection of groundwater.
-------
Site-SDecific Remedial Goals for Soils
In summary, site-specific remedial goals are presented below:
SW-1 - the source of TCE groundwater contamination was not detected during the RI and therefore
soil cleanup standards were not developed for this site.
IS-1 - the french drain soils and sediments were remediated during the removal action. No further
consideration of soil/sediment remedial goals is warranted.
PS-2 - floating product is believed to be the source of groundwater contamination at this site. TPH
contaminated soil is not believed to be a continuous source to groundwater at this site. If a.fter the
removal of floating product, groundwater contamination remains above 5 1191 L for benzene and 1
mg/L for TPH, soil cleanup standards may be developed under MTCA.
PS.{) - the RI concluded that PS.{) soils were not a source of groundwater contamination. No
remedial goals are required for PS.{) soils.
PS-8 - based on the results of the RI, TPH-contaminated soil does not appear to be a continuous
. source of groundwater contamination, therefore TPH cleanup levels have not been developed for
this site.
FT -1 - results of the RI indicate that TPH-contaminated soil is not a continuous source of
groundwater contamination. However, benzene-contaminated soils were identified as a source of
groundwater contamination. A MTCA Method 8 soil cleanup level of 0.5 mg/kg was developed for
benzene based on site-specific fate and transport modeling. This level, which is the same as the
MTCA Method A level, is considered a preliminary cleanup level because groundwater protection
must actually be demonstrated at the site through long-term monitoring. A higher soil deanup level
could be used if it can be demonstrated that it is protective of groundwater. A lower benzene level
could be required if the 0.5 mg/kg level proves not to be protective of groundwater based on long-
.term monitoring.
WIV-1 - cadmium levels in soils at WIV-1 exceed the MTCA Method A level of 2 mg/kg which is
based on protection of certain agricultural plants.
Groundwater CleanUD Levels
MTCA establishes cleanup levels for groundwater which is a current or potential future source of drinking
water. MTCA groundwater cleanup levels are set at levels which do not pose a~ unacceptable risk to human
health and the environment. An acceptable risk is defined as a risk posed by all carcinogenic site
contaminants that does not exceed one excess cancer in 100,000 chances, and a risk posed by individual
carcinogenic site contaminants that does not exceed one excess cancer one in 1,000,000 chances. . For
non-carcinogenic contaminants, an acceptable risk is defined as a concentration of site contaminants that
does not cause adverse health effects in humans. The MTCA Method B cleanup levels will establish
groundwater cleanup levels for SW-1, QU-1 (PS-2 and PS-8), FT-1, and WH-1. These standards are at least
as stringent as federal drinking water standards (MCLs).
For TCE arid benzene, the MTCA Method B groundwater cleanup levels are 5 1191 L, which is equivalent to
the federal MCL. A federal MCL and MTCA Method B groundwater cleanup level have not been established
for TPH. A groundwater cleanup level of 1 mg/L has b~en established under MTCA Method A, which will
be used for sites PS-2 and PS-8. .
-------
Site-SDecific Remedial Goals for Groundwater
In summary, the following site-specific groundwater remedial goals have been established:
SW-1 - the remedial goal for TCE-contaminated groundwater is 5 JS;j/L in accordance with MTCA
Method 8 and the federal SDWA MCL
PS-2 - the remedial goal for benzene-contaminated groundwater is 5 JS;j/ L in accordance with MTCA
Method 8 and the federal SDWA MCL. The remedial goal for TPH-contaminated groundwater is 1
mg/ L in accordance with MTCA Method A.
PS-6 - groundwater contamination associated with PS-6 was not detected during the RI.
PS.,g - the remedial goal for benzene-contaminated groundwater is 5 JS;j/ L in accordance with MTCA
Method 8 and the federal SDWA MCL
FT -1 - the remedial goal for benzene-contaminated groundwater is 5 JS;j/L in accordance with MTCA
Method 8 and the federal SDWA MCL
WW-1 - the remedial goal for TCE-contaminated groundwater is 5 JS;j/L In accordance with MTCA
Method 8 and the federal SDWA MCL
VIII.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
A full range of cleanup altematives was initially identified in the FS. These initial alternatives were evaluated
in the FS based on effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Based on the alternative screening, the most
promising alternatives were developed into site-specific alternatives that were then subjected to a detailed
analysis in the FS. Alternatives evaluated in the detailed analysis are discussed below.
A.
Soil Alternatives
The soil alternatives carried through the detailed analysis are described in the following sections and are
shown in Table 5. For sites PS-2 and PS.,g, soil treatment alternatives requiring excavation of contaminated
soil were eliminated from the detailed analysis in the FS because of cost and implementability
considerations. The estimated cost of each alternative is presented in Table 6.
ALTERNATIVE 1
No Action Alternatives: Sites SW-1, PS-2, PS-S, PS-8, FT-1, and WW-1
The no action alternatives are presented as a baseline comparison for the other alternatives. Under these
alternatives, no action would be taken to control migration of potential contaminants from the source areas
to groundwater. No institutional controls would be established to limit land development or prevent
exposure to potential contaminants within the soils.
-------
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Site Institutional Thermal
No Action Controls Containment Bi~Venting Treatment
SW-1 . . .
P5-2 . . .
PS-8 . . .
FT-1 . . . .
WW-1 . .
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF SOIL ALTERNATIVES
-------
TABLE 6
SOIL AL TERNA T1VE COST EST1MA TES
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
AIt8m8tiw
Co8t
..,.,
1: No Action C8I*8I: .0
0.,,: .0
I"NW: to
2: In8bMiDnaI c-... ~ .0
OAM: .0
I"NW: .0
3: ~ C8IIit8I: '3.083.000
130 Ve. ° ..., 0...: t6.ooo
I"NW: '3.110.000
ou., 11'5-21
1: No Action c:.it8I: .0
0.,,: to
I"NW: to
3: ~ ~: to
130 V..r 0 ."1 O.M: ., .600"
PNW: U3.OOO
4: In1itu IioVl8nting CepIt8: .61..000
130 V... 0 . MI o.M: '30.000
PNW: '848.000
QU-1 '1'&-81
1: No ActIOn ~: ". to
o.M: .0
I"NW: to
3: Cont.."......t Capit8I: .0
130 V..r 0 . MI 0.,,: ".600
PNW: '23.000
.: ....." 100--. c.ct8t M15.1oo
130 Va. 0 . M' oaM: '23.000
PNW: 8673.000
AII8m8tiw
Co8t
".,
1: No AcIion c.II8I .0
I30Y_O. MI o.M: MO.ooo
I"NW: '816.000
3: c:o.wa,~-. ~: .0
(3OY_O. MI 0.,,: MO.ooo
"NW: '816.000
4: IIHIIu l1li--. ~: '1.348.000
C&Y_O.MI OAM: '128.000
I"NW: .3.313.000
6: ,....... T- C88*81: M74.ooo
1& Y- ° . MI OAM: Me.ooo
I"NW: "06.000
ww.,
1: No Aoti8n ~: .0
0.,,: .0
PNW: .0
2: In8IIIuIIDn8I CantnIIe C8pit8: .0
CUI: .0
PNW: .0
CUI: ~... ......-
PNW: ,.... N8t WorIh IANIueI Diecount "- - 6,.,
-------
ALTERNATIVE 2
Institutional Control Alternatives: Sites SW-1 and WW-1
Institutional controls would include controls on access and use of the site, such as fencing and warning
signs, to prevent exposure to potential contaminants within the soils. If the Base should close in the future,
a restriction would be attached to the deed for the property to prevent the site from being used in the future
for residential purposes.
For 1/'NV-1, an additional investigation would be conducted to attempt to locate the source of TCE
groundwater contamination. This effort would involve excavating test pits, and collecting and analyzing soil
samples.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Containment Alternatives: Sites SW-1, PS-2, PS-8, FT-1, and WW-1
For site SW-1, a cover or cap would be placed over the landfill to minimize the movement of potential
contaminants to groundwater by reducing the amount of precipitation passing through the landfill. A passive
gas collection system would be installed to prevent the buildup of landfill gases under the cap. The landfill
cover and gas collection system would be constructed and maintained to meet the requirements of the
Washington State's Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling. Institutional controls would
be implemented as described in Alternative 2.
For sites PS-2 and PS-8 located on the flightline, the existing asphalt and concrete taxiways would serve
as a cap for these sites. The contaminated areas at PS-2 and PS-8 are currently covered by either asphalt
or concrete. The asphalt covers would be maintained to minimize the movement of potential contaminants
to groundwater by reducing the amount of precipitation passing through the soil. The covers would be
maintained to meet the requirements of the Washington State's Minimum Functional Standards for Solid
Waste Handling.
For sites FT -1 and 1/'NV-1, a cover or cap would be placed over the sites to minimize the movement of
potential contaminants to groundwater by reducing the amount of precipitation percolating through the sites.
The cover would be' construCted and maintained to meet the requirements of the Washington State's
Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling. Institutional controls would be implemented as
described in Alternative 2.
For 1/'NV-1, an additional investigation would be conducted to attempt to locate the source of TCE
groundwater contamination. This effort would involve excavating test pits, and collecting and analyzing soil
samples.
ALTERNATIVE 4
In-situ Bioventing Alternatives: Sites PS-2, PS-8, and FT-1
Under these alternatives, an in-situ bioventing system would be installed in the contaminated soil areas at
each site. The system is called bioventing because it treats the soil through a combination of venting, or
volatilization, and biological degradation using natural microorganisms in the soil. The system would consist
of a network of vapor extraction wells and a vacuum pump to extract air containing volatile organic
compounds such as benzene and to increase oxygen concentrations in the soil to enhance biodegradation
of petroleum contamination. A system similar to the one shown in Figure 9 would be implemented (note:
Figure 9 shows a combination bioventing/air sparging system). Contaminated vapors would be treated to
-------
a.EAN AIR
OUT
~l tN-EC1ED
AIR
CCNTAMlNA1ID
'-: Y GRCUNDWA1ER
~ Y
AIR..
SPARGING ~
/.
. .
FIGURE 9
INSITU BIOVENTING/AIR SPARGING TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR SOILS/GROUNDWATER
-------
comply with Washington State and Spokane County air standards. The system would be operated until soil
cleanup levels are achieved. therefore protecting groundwater from further contamination. Soil cleanup
levels are 'estimated to be achieved within a five-year timeframe. This time period was used for cost
estimating purposes. .
ALTERNATIVE 5
Thermal Treatment Alternative: Site FT-1
Under this alternative. the areas contaminated with benzene above the 0.5 mg/ kg cleanup level at FT-1
would be excavated and treated in a low temperature thermal treatment unit, This technology consists of
heating contaminated soil in a closed chamber to a temperature of about 400 <>F to 800 <>F to volatilize
organic contaminants. An afterburner is typically used to destroy the volatilized contaminants at a
temperature of about 1 ,400 <>F. The soil would be treated onsite. off-Base. or using a combination of on- and
off-Base treatment units. depending on the available capacity of off-Base treatment facilities.
Thermally treated soils would then be subject to Toxic Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) testing and
analysis. The TCLP analysis would be used to determine if the treated soil is a characteristic waste under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. as amended (RCRA). If the treated soil is determined to be
a characteristic waste. then it must be interned in a .'andfill regulated under RCRA Subtitle C. If the treated
soil is determined not to be a characteristic waste. then it may be disposed under the provisions of RCRA
Subtitle D. .
The excavated area would be backfilled with clean soil. For onsite treatment. air emissions would be treated
to comply with Washington State and Spokane County air standards, Off-Base treatment facilities would
be permitted to accept petroleum-contaminated soil and would be in compliance with Washington State's
Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling and applicable state and county air standards.
B.
Groundwater Alternatives
The groundwater alternatives carried through the detailed analysis are described in the following sections
and are shown in Table 7. In-situ air sparging, which incorporates biological treatment, was only considered
for the sites containing fuel-related contamination. such as benzene and TPH. This technology was not
considered for the TCE contamination since TCE is not readily biodegradable. The estimated cost of each
groundwater alternative is presented in Table 8.
ALTERNATIVE 1
No Action Alternatives: Sites SW-1, PS-2, PS-6, PS-S, FT-1, and WW-1
These alternatives are presented as a baseline comparison for other altematives. Under these alternatives,
no action would be taken to treat or contain contaminated groundwater. and no institutional controls would
be imposed to prevent use of contaminated groundwater. Contaminants would continue to migrate.
however. contaminant concentrations are expected to gradually decrease due to natural dispersion. dilution,
and degradation. A groundwater monitoring program would be implemented to evaluate migration of
contaminants. The specific sampling events should be implemented initially on a quarterly (seasonal) basis.
This monitoring frequency should be used to establish seasonal groundwater and contaminant variations.
After the seasonal variations are determined. the sampling frequency should n.ot exceed the initial quarterty
sampling events. .
-------
TABLE 7
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Site Instib IIionIJ Exrraction & In-Situ Air Free Product
No Action Contras Treab....'It Sparging Removal/
Recycling
SW-1 . . .
PS-2 . . . . .
PS-8 . . . .
FT-1 . . . .
¥NI-1 . . .
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ALTERNAT1VES
-------
TABLE 8
GROUNDWA TER AL TERNA TlVE COST ESTIMATES
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
AIt8m8Iiw
Co8t
8W.1
1 : No Action wiIn MoI.iIo. ~... C8pit8: eo
130 V... 0 . MI O6M: MO.OOO
PNW: '816.000
2: IrI8IiIuIiDn8I Cana'III willi Ce8MtaI: .0
MoniIaring end ","-0f.U88 06M: MO.OOO
T...-tIA/t8m818 W8I8r fINW: '816.000
&UIIIIIY 130 V.. 0 . MI
3: 0n8it8 GraInIw- btr8c:tian c--= '''.000
end T...-. willi .......... CIUII: 8108.000
ComnII8 end ","4f-U8 IINW: 82.828.000
T..--,~ W_......,
130 V.. 0 . MI
ou., IPS-ZI
1: No Action wiIn Mor.rtoo;'10 CeIMt8I: .0
130 V... 0 . MI 06M: 831.000
PNW: 8477.000
2: In8tJtubonal Comra18 with C8pita/: eo
Monrtonng OUl: '31.000
130 V... 0 . MI PNW: 8477.000
3: Oneib Gtoundw- ExInIetiDn C8p1t8: ".812.000
and T..~ wiIn In8IitutioneI 06M: '127.000
ContraIl IINW: '3.671.000
130 v... 0 . MI
4: lrHftu Air ....... wIItI C8pUt: 81.084.000
In8tftIllioNl ControI8 06M: 8..000
(tOV-O. MI "M': 81 .".000
6: FIo8ting l'tocIuct "--wi end CepIteI: ., 86.000
Recvcbna with Monitoring end O6M; '16.000
In8UrutioneI Corma8 ",W: '447.000
130 v... 06M'
ou., ......
1: No ActIOfI wItto Mouito.;'... C8pIt8: eo
130 V.., 0 . M' O6M: 831.000
IINW: 8477.000
2: In8IlIUIJOneI ConIroI wiIn CepitaI: .0
Monftonng 06..: 831.000
130 V.at 0 . MI fINW; 8477.000
3: o..te GraInI_- ExInIetiDn C8IJit8I: ., .628. , 00
and T..~ wItto In8tItuIioneI O6M: ., 30.000
Contro18 130 V.. 0 . MI PNW: 83.632.000
4: lrHftu Air 5,.... wIItI ~: 8"".000
1rwtinIbo.... ComnII8 06111: '60.000
110 V... 0 . MI PNW: 8788.000
AIt8rn8tM
Co8t
FT.1
1: No Action wIItI Mc4,,'toIw;'... C8IIit8I: .0
130V_0. MI O6M: '40.000
",W: 8816.000
2: .. 1- WMI CanInIIIt willi Cesait8: .0
............. 06M: MO.OOO
I30V_O. MI IINW: '816.000
3: 0n8II8~.. ExD8c1ian C8pCK 81 .348.000
end T......... willi In8IituIiaMI 06M: 8128.000
CanaeI8 f30 V.. 0 . MI IINW: $3.313.000
4: .... Nt --.... willi ~ 8474.000
"~".~f181 CanInIIIt 06M: 848.000
110 V.. 0 . MI IINW: 8706.000
WW.1
1: No ActiDn ..... ....~ ~ .0
I30V..o. MI 06M: MO.OOO
PNW: 8816.000
2: In8IIIuIiDn8I CanInII8 wilt! Cepit8; .0
Mol.....:.... end ~ 06M: MO.ooo
T"-'A1181N18 W- IINW: 8816.000
....
130 V.. 0 . M)
3: 0n8II8 GftIundw.. ExInIetiDn C8piteI: ".442.000
end T......... willi ..~......... O6M: 81 36.000
c:ona... end Pailil of U. IINW: '3.622.000
T.......,~ W-
.....
130 V.. 0 . MI
O.M: 0IIer8tiDn end ........~-
IINW: "-It N8t WCIftt\ IAnnueI Di8couM Rae - 6"1
-------
The time it will take to achieve the groundwater cleanup levels at each site is very difficult to predict without
a large amount of historical contaminant data with which to calibrate a groundwater model. A groundwater
modeling study was conducted in the FS to estimate cleanup times. However. there is currently a high
degree of uncertainty associated with the modeling results due to a lack of historical' contaminant data to
verify modeling results. Therefore. the results of the modeling effort are not presented here. After several
years of actual site data. more accurate cleanup time estimates could be developed based on contaminant
trends observed from groundwater monitoring results.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Institutional Control Alternatives: Sites SW-1, PS-2, PS-S, FT-1, and WW-1
Under these alternatives, no action would be taken to treat or contain contaminated groundwater. Existing
institutional controls would be maintained to prevent use of contaminated groundwater on-Base.
Contaminants would continue to migrate. however. contaminant concentrations would gradually decrease
below cleanup levels due to natural dispersion. dilution, and degradation. A groundwater monitoring
program and five-year review would be implemented to evaluate migration of contaminants. to verify that
cleanup levels are attained within a reasonable time. satisfy CERCLA requirements for contaminants
remaining onsite. and to determine if the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.
As discussed in Alternative 1. above, the time required to remediate the groundwater is difficult to predict.
However. a five-year review and evaluation of the data produced during the monitoring program would be
required. The specific sampling events should be implemented initially on a quarterly (seasonal) basis. This
monitoring frequency should be used to establish seasonal groundwater and contaminant variations. After
. the seasonal variations are determined. the sampling frequency should not exceed the initial quarterly
sampling events.
At sites SW-1, FT -1. and WW-1. point-of-use treatment or an alternate water supply would be provided if site-
related contaminants are observed above the MCLs in any of the nearby off-8ase residential wells. If
necessary, the need for active groundwater cleanup would be evaluated as part of the five-year review:
ALTERNATIVE 3
Groundwater Extraction and Treatment Alternatives: Sites SW-1, PS-2, PS-S, FT-1, and WW-1
Under these alternatives. a groundwater extraction and treatment system would be installed to prevent
continued movement of contaminated water from the site. Extraction wells would be placed near the edge
of the groundwater plume defined by the groundwater cleanup levels. Groundwater would be pumped and
treated using either an air stripper unit. carbon adsorption unit, or combination of these units similar to those
shown in Figure 10. The optimum system configuration would be determined during a remedial design
phase following evaluation of additional field data and treatability study results.
As water is pumped through the air stripper, volatile organic contaminants are transferred to the injected
air stream, which is blown. or bubbled. upward through the water. The treated water would then be either
re-infiltrated into the aquifer, discharged directly into No Name Ditch. or discharged indirectly to No Name
Ditch through the storm water sewer system. Water re-intUtrated into the aquifer would be treated to meet
the groundwater cleanup levels established in this ROD and water discharged to No Name Ditch would be
treated to effluent standards established by EPA Region 10 under the Clean Water Act (CWA) NPDES
program.
-------
a.EAH AIR
OUT
CDNTAMJNA1m
AIR
I.DW 1'IItJFIlE
AIIt $1RJ1I1IE1t
(0~
a.EAN WATER
OUT
aDflE1t
AC7TVA'TED
CAIIBDN
.. TER
F1LTER .
-
AC'77VA'TED
t:AIIf1ON
AIR F1L 'fER
.
CONTAMINA 1m
GROUNDWA1ER
-
...
CClNTAMJNA1m
WA1ER IN
FIGURE 10
AIR STRIPPING/CARBON ADSORPTION GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
-------
The contaminated air emissions from the stripper would be treated using activated carbon. The carbon
selectively adsorbs organic contaminants such as TCE. Used carbon would be recycled offsite in
accordance with EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9834.11. Air
emissions would be treated to comply with Washington State and Spokane County air quality standards.
Under this alternative, a groundwater monitoring program would be implemented to evaluate the
effectiveness of the extraction and treatment systems. Institutional controls described in Alternative 2 would
also be maintained until groundwater cleanup levels are achieved. Also, the monitoring program described
in Alternative 2 should be used to determine if the remedial alternative is affecting contaminant
concentrations (i.e., decreasing contaminant concentration or having no affect).
The groundwater extraction and treatment system would be operated at a site until the groundwater cleanup
levels are achieved for that site. Cleanup times could range from less than five years to as many as
30 years. After several years of operation. more accurate time estimates would be developed based on
contaminant trends observed from groundwater monitoring results.
With respect to the floating product detected at site PS-2, the product would .either be removed as a
separate action, as described under Alternative 5 or would be removed from the extracted groundwater
using an oil/water separator prior to pumping the groundwater through the air stripping/ carbon adsorption
treatment system. The separated product would then be recycled off-Base as described under Alternative 5.
ALTERNATIVE 4
In-situ Air Sparging Ground~ter Treatment Alternatives: Sites PS-2, PS-8, and FT-'
Under these alternatives, an in-situ groundwater air sparging treatment system would be installed to prevent
continued movement of contaminated water from the site. The air sparging system is an innovative
technology which is similar to bioventing because it treats organic contamination through a combination of
volatilization and biological degradation using natural microorganisms in the groundwater. For the PS-2,
PS~, and FT -1 sites, air sparging would be used in combination with bioventing to simultaneously treat both
soils and groundwater. The system would consist of a network of vapor extraCtion/ injection well pairs
arranged to inject air into the aquifer and extract air from the overtying soil. A compressor is used to inject
clean air into the aquifer and a vacuum pump is used to extract air from the soils as shown in Figure 9. The
well pairs would be placed within the interior of the groundwater plume defined by the groundwater cleanup
levels. The well spacings and configuration would be determined during a remedial design phase.
Contaminated vapors would be treated to comply with Washington State and Spokane County air standards.
The system would be operated until groundwater cleanup levels are achieved. Groundwater cleanup levels
are estimated to be achieved within a five-year timeframe. This time period was used for cost estimating
purposes.
Before full-scale implementation, the effectiveness of the air sparging technology would be tested using a
smaller pilot-scale system. If the pilot- scale testing is not effective, then an air stripping/ carbon adsorption
groundwater extraction and treatment system would be installed at FT -1 as described in Alternative 3.
Under these alternatives, a groundwater monitoring program would be implemented to evaluate the
effectiveness of the in-situ treatment system at each site. Institutional controls would also be maintained,
as described in Alternative 2, until groundwater cleanup levels are achieved.
-------
ALTERNATIVE 5
Floating Product Removal and Recycling Alternative: Site PS-2
Under this alternative. floating product at Site PS-2 would be removed using either a passive or active
removal system. A passive system is designed to minimize the amount of groundwater collected by
skimming the product layer off of the water table using special skimming pumps. An active system involves
aggressively pumping groundwater and fuel together to induce a migration of the free product towards the
collection well. Passive collection systems are typically more cost-effective than active systems and would
most likely be implemented for the PS-2 site. Active pumping would only be used if a passive system proves
ineffective. The number of coliection wells and types of pumps would be selected during the remedial
design phase. Most of the product is expected to be removed within a one-year period:
The collected product would be transported off-Base to a recycling facility. The product would be recycled
as a fuel source for industrial purposes such as use in a cement kiln.
Under this alternative. a groundwater monitoring program would be implemented to evaluate the
effectiveness of the product removal in reducing groundwater contaminant concentrations. Long-term
groundwater monitoring would be performed to assure that groundwater deanup levels can be achieved
through natural dispersion. dilution, and degradation in a reasonable time period. If necessary, the need
for active groundwater treatment would be reevaluated at the five-year review. Institutional controls would
also be maintained. as previously described. until groundwater cleanup levels are achieved. The monitoring
program and institutional controls described in this altemative are presented in Alternative 2.
IX.
SUMMARY OF TH'E COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In this section. each soil and groundwater alternative is compared against each other using the evaluation
criteria presented in Table 9. This process allows for a full comparative analysis of each alternative. The
nine criteria are categorized into three groups.
Threshold Criteria
1.
2.
Overall protection of human health and the environment
Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
Primary Balancing Criteria
3.
4,
5.
6,
7.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence
Reduction of toxicity, mobility. or volume through treatment
Short-term effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Modifying Criteria
8,
9.
State/ support agency acceptance
Community acceptance
-------
Criteria Definition
Overall Protection of Human Health Whether adequate protection of human health and the
and the Environment environment is provided during and after construction.
Comptiance with ARARs Whether aO appicable or releV8nt and appropriate (ARARs) ,
state and F8derllllllws and regulldions are met
Long-Term Effectiveness The abilty to protect human health and the environment after
completion of the 18m8di1ltion.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobilty and How well the "emative effectively treats contanination to
Volume Through Treatment significantly reduce toxicity, mobilty and volume of the
hazardous aub8t8nc8.
How fat prutec:tian is achieved, and the potential to
Short-Term Effectiveness adversefy 8ff8c:t human hedh and the environment during
construction and imptem..ab.Iiun. '
I mp/ementability The technical and edrriNA.Ii.e feaibilty of the altemative.
Cost Estimated capital, oP8f8tion, and maintenance C08t8, and net
present worth C08I8.
State Acceptance Whether the 8tate agreea with, opposes, or has not comment
on the prefemld dernativ8.
What are the community'a cornn..ms or concerns about the
Community Acceptance alternative? Does the puDic generlltty support or opPose the
preferred altem8tive?
T~9
GLOSSARY OF EVAWATlON' CRITERIA
-------
A.
Soil Alternatives
Threshold Criteria
The remedial alternativeswere first evaluated in relation to the threshold criteria. The threshoid criteria must
be met by each alternative in order to be selected.
1.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 would provide no additional future protection from potential contaminants at SW-1 and WW-1.
Alternative 2 would provide protection at these sites through institutional controls. Alternative 3 would
provide a higher level of protection from direct contact with site contaminants at WW-1 through installation
of a cap over contaminated areas. The source of contamination at SW-1 was not encountered during the
RI.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not prevent contaminant migration to groundwater. Alternative 3. capping, would
reduce contaminant migration by preventing infiltration of precipitation through contaminated soil.
Alternatives 4 and 5 would provide the maximum protection of groundwater by removing contaminants from
the soil through treatment.
2.
Compliance with Applicable or' Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Since contaminant concentrations in groundwater are at low levels and a continuing source of contamination
was not identified during the RI at sites SW-1 and PS-a, Alternatives 1 and 2 may attain state and federal
groundwater cleanup levels through natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation. Continued groundwater
monitoring would be needed to determine if those standards can be achieved naturally within a reasonable
timeframe.
Alternatives 1 and 2 are not expected to achieve groundwater cleanup levels for site PS-2 because floating
product acts as a continuous source of groundwater contamination. Alternatives 1 and 2 are also not
expected to achieve groundwater cleanup levels within a reasonable timeframe for sites FT-1 and WW-1.
The leading edge of groundwater contamination at FT-1 is close to the base boundary and is expected to
migrate off-Base in the vicinity of residential wells if remedial action is not taken. The groundwater
contamination plume associated with WW-1 has already migrated off-Base and has been detected at low
levels in nearby residential wells.
Primary Balancina Criteria
Once an alternative satisfies the threshold criteria. it is evaluated against five primary balancing criteria.
3.
Long-term Effectiveness
Alternative 1 would provide no additional long-term protection to human health and the environment than
that offered by existing site conditions. Alternative 2 would rely on enforcement of existing Base controls
or enforcement of deed restrictions if the Base were to close in the future. Alternative 3 would require
routine inspection and maintenance of the caps in order to be effective in the long-term. Alternatives 4 and
5 would provide the highest degree of long-term effectiveness by permanently removing contaminants from
the. sites through treatment and/or disposal.
-------
4.
Reduction 01 Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment
Only Altematives 4 and 5 would permanently reduce the toxicity of contaminated soil through treatment.
5.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternatives 1 and 2 do not contain provisions for aggressive remedial measures or construction activities.
Therefore, Altematives 1 and 2 should provide short-term effectiveness. Alternatives 3 and 5 would provide
protection in a short period of time (several months). Alternative 4 may require several years to achieve
cleanup levels. AItemative 5 would require engineering controls to protect workers and the environment
from dust generated during excavation. Alternatives 4 and 5 would require air pollution controls to protect
workers, nearby residents, and the environment from off-gas emissions during treatment.
6.
Implementability
All alternatives could be implemented using existing technologies. Alternative 4 would require a pilot-scale
treatability test to determine treatment effectiveness at each site.
7.
Cost
Alternative 1 would involve no initial costs. Alternative 2 would require a minimal amount of legal and
administrative expenses, which have not been estimated at this time. Of the treatment/disposal alternatives,
Alternative 5 would be most expensive, whereas Alternative 4 would be the least expensive. The costs for
Alternative 3 would be relatively low for the PS-2 and PS-8 sites (asphalt caps) and significantly higher for
SW-1 and FT-1 (geosynthetic caps).
Modifying Criteria
Modifying criteria are used in the final evaluation of the remedial alternatives.
8.
State Acceptance
The State concurred with the preferred alternatives described in the Proposed Plan.
9.
Community Acceptance
This criterion refers to the public's support for the preferred soil (including sediment) remedial alternatives.
On March 15, 1993, Fairchild AFB held a public meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan for the on-Base P1
Operable Units. Prior to this meeting, copies of the Proposed Plan were sent to over 200 local residents
and other interested parties. The results of the public meeting indicate that the residents of the surrounding
communities accept the preferred soil remedial alternatives. Community response to the remedial
alternatives is presented in the responsiveness summary, which addresses questions and comments
received during the pUblic comment period.
-------
B.
Groundwater Alternatives
Threshold Criteria
1.
Overall Protection and Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 would provide no additional protection against consumption of contaminated groundwater.
However, with respect to off-Base residential wells, groundwater monitoring, included with this alternative,
would serve as a warning mechanism by identifying migration of contaminants towards existing wells.
Alternative 2 would provide protection against consumption of contaminated groundwater through
monitoring, maintenance of existing Base institutional controls, and provision of point-of-use
treatment/ alternate water supply, if necessary. Alternative~ 3. and 4. would prevent consumption of
contaminated groundwater through treatment to groundwater cleanup levels as well as through groundwater
monitoring, institutional controls, and provision of point-of-use treatm~nt/ alternate water supply, if necessary.
-.. --'...' -.. -_"0 .. .
Alternative 5 is unique to PS-2. It was specifically developed for the removal and treatment of floating
product. The floating product was determined to be the principal threat to groundwater associated with PS-
2. .
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not actively restore contaminated groundwater to groundwater cleanup levels
nor would they prevent fun her migration of contaminants. However, if the source of contamination is no
longer present at the site, contaminant levels may decrease gradually through natural dispersion, dilution,
and degradation. ~ernatives 3 aod.4would.activeJy.restore.con~minated groundwater to groundwater
cleanu~ levels a~~'.~_pr.ev.ent furt.tt~r_migrClJi9n of contal1JinCln~!?J~!.ou9.h i~~.itu treatment_or .extraction
and treatment.
2.
Compliance with ARARs
At sites SW-1 and PS~, AlternativesJ and 2 may attain state and federal groundwater cleanup levels
through natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation if contamination is no longer migrating from the soils
to groundwater at these sites. Continued groundwater monitoring would be needed to determine if those
standards can be achieved naturally within a reasonable period of time.
Alternatives 1 and 2 are not expected to achieve groundwater cleanup levels for sites PS-2, FT-1, and VWI-1
within a reasonable period of time. Alternatives 3 and 4 would achieve these standards and required air
quality standards for all sites. Alternative 5 for site PS-2 is expected to achieve groundwater cleanup levels
following removal of the floating product. Following product removal, continued groundwater monitoring
would be needed to determine if cleanup levels can be achieved naturally within a reasonable period of time
at this site. .
Primary BalancinQ Criteria
3.
Long-term Effectiveness
Alternatives 3 :mrl 4 w.Q!!Ld-.Q!.C?vid~.the highest degree of long-term effectiveness and protection through
treatment of contaminated groundwater. Alternative 5 would remove the primary source Of groundwater
contamination at site PS-2, but would be less effective in restoring contaminated groundwater than
Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternative 2 would rely on institutional controls and point-of-use treatment/alternate
water supply and therefore is also less effective than Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternative 1 would provide the
least degree of long-term effectiveness.
-------
4.
Reduction 01 Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not actively reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of groundwater contamination
at the sites. Alternatives 3 and 4 would reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of contamination through
in-situ treatment or extraction and treatment. Alternative 5 would not treat the full extenTOrCc5iitaiiiiiiated
groundwater at site PS-2, but would reduce the toxicity and volume of floating product, which is the primary
source of groundwater contamination at PS-2.
5.
Short-term Effectiveness
Alternatives 3 and 4 would meet cleanup levels in a shorter timeframe than would Alternatives 1 and 2. At
sites PS-2, PS-a. and FT-1. ~!ernativ~" 4 could potentially achieve groundwater deanupJeYe\s within a
~.peri~ of time than could Alternative~. At site PS-2. Alternative 5 would achieve groundwater
cleanup levels in less time than would Alternatives 1 and 2 but in a longer timeframe than would
Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternatives 3 and 4 would require air pollution controls to protect workers, nearby
residents, and the environment from off-gas emissions during treatment.
6.
Implementability
All alternatives could be implemented using existing technologies. Alternative 4 would require a pilot-scale
treatability test to determine treatment effectiveness at each site.
7.
Cost
Alternatives 1 and 2 would involve only operation and maintenance costs for performing groundwater
monitoring. Altemative 2 would include the cost for providing point-of-use treatment/ alternate water supply,
if necessary, which has not been estimated at this time. At sites PS-2. PS-a. and FT -1, ~c.9.uld
be imp'lemented fora.lower cost than. Alternative 3. For site PS-2, the cost for Alternative 5 is substantially
jess"than those for Alternatives 3 and 4.
MOdifying Criteria
8.
State Acceptance
The State concurred with the preferred alternatives described in the Proposed Plan.
9.
Community Acceptance
This criterion refers to the public's support for the preferred groundwater remedial alternatives.
x.
SELECTED REMEDIES
The cleanup alternatives selected by the USAF combine the soil alternatives and the groundwater alternatives
developed in the FS. The rationale for the selection of these remedies considers several factors. including
the concentrations of contaminants in relation to risk-based or regulatory levels, the location of the sites
with respect to the base boundaries. the presence or absence of potential receptors. and the presence or
absence of identifiable source areas.
-------
At sites S",!-1 and PS-8. concentrations of contaminants are relatively low in comparison to risk-based levels
and MCLs~.no sources of groundwater contamination were identified, and contaminant plumes are largely
confined within the base boundaries. Consequently, remedies that emphasize ongoing monitoring and
evaluation of the groundwater, and the use of on-Base institutional controls are appropriate for these sites.
At SW-1, a portion of the plume is believed to be outside of the base boundaries. Although the only water
supply wells in the vicinity of the site are located upgradient of the site and the plume. an element has been
added to the selected remedy for this site to, in the future. provide point-of-use treatment and/or an alternate
water supply to users of nearby wells if their water supplies should become contaminated above MCLs by
site-related contaminants.
Concentrations of contaminants at site PS-2 are high in relation to risk-based and regulatory levels, a source
of contamination has been identified in the form of a floating product layer in two monitoring wells. and the
plume is located well within the base boundaries. Accordingly. a remedy consisting of removing the floating
product, establishing on-Base institutional controls on groundwater use, and conducting confirmational
monitoring of the groundwater is appropriate for this site. .
Sites FT-1 and WW-1 both exhibit high concentrations of contaminants relative to risk-based and regulatory
levels, and are adjacent to the down-gradient base boundary. A groundwater contaminant plume from WW-
1 currently extends beyond the base boundary and has impacted nearby water supply wells at levels below
MCLs. No source for this plume has been identified, although the plume is believed to originate in a fairty
small area of the site. The edge of a contaminant plume associated with FT-1 is close to the base boundary,
and there is an identified source of contaminants in the soils at FT -1. These factors support the se~ection
of remedies that actively clean up the groundwater plumes at these sites, that will provide point-of-use
treatment and/or alternate water supplies as necessary to protect users of nearby wells that may become
contaminated, that remediate the soil source at FT -1, and that attempt to identify the suspected source area
at WW-1. Soils at WW-1 also contain cadmium at concentrations that are harmful to agricultural plants, and
PAHs at concentrations that exceed MTCA risk-based levels for residential exposures. Consequently,
institutional controls restricting the site from future residential or agricultural uses are included in the selected
remedy for WW-1.
The specific selected remedies for each site are described in detail below:
Old Base Landfill (SW-1)
The goals of the remedial action at SW-1 are to restore the groundwater to drinking water quality within a
reasonable timeframe, and to prevent exposure to landfill materials. The selected remedy combines the soil
alternative of Institutional controls (Alternative 2) with the groundwater alternative of Institutional controls and
Point-of-Use Treatment/Alternate water supply (Alternative 2). This remedy consists of the following
elements:
Maintaining institutional controls restricting access to the site.
Maintaining institutional controls, in the form of restrictions against on-base usage of TCE-
contaminated groundwater associated with the site, until cleanup levels are achieved.
Monitoring groundwater at the site to identify a trend in contaminant concentrations, estimating a
timeframe for restoration by natural dispersion, dilution. and degradation, evaluating the acceptability
of the estimated timeframe, and implementing a compliance monitoring program to estimate
attainment of cleanup levels.
-------
MO!"!itoring off-site water supply wells in the vicinity of the site and providing point-of-use treatment
andl-or alternate water supply, if necessary. .
The estimated costs associated with this remedy are:
Capital Cost:
O&M Costs:
Present Net Worth:
$0
$40,000
$615,000
A.
Maintaining institutional controls restricting access to the site.
I nstitutional controls establ ished under the authority of the base commander currently restrict access to the
landfill site. Restricted access to the site will be maintained under that authority as part of the selected
remedy. If the Base should be closed in the future, a deed restriction precluding the site from residential
or agricultural uses will be implemented prior to transfer of the site property to any other entities.
B.
Maintaining institutional controls, in the form of restrictions against on-base usage of TCE-
contaminated groundwater associated with the site, until cleanup levels are achieved.
Institutional controls established under the authority of the base commander currently restrict access to and
use of groundwater throughout the Base. Such restrictions will be maintained under that authority as part
of the selected remedy. If the Base should be closed in the future, the need for additional remedial actions
. to address site-related groundwater contamination will be reevaluated by the USAF, EPA and Ecology.
C.
Monitoring groundwater at the site to identify a trend in contaminant concentrations,
estimating a timeframe for restoration by natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation,
evaluating the acceptability of the estimated timeframe, and implementing a compliance
monitoring program to estimate attainment of the cleanup levels.
An analysis to identify a trend in contaminant concentrations will be based on groundwater sampling data
collected from a maximum of fIVe years of periodic monitoring. During the first year of monitoring, samples
will be collected quarterly. An iterative approach will be used to establish the subsequent sampling
frequency. Factors to be considered in this approach include the variability observed in water levels and
contaminant concentrations during the first year. If at any time prior to five years, either the USAF, EPA,
or Ecology believe that the data collected identifies a reliable trend in contaminant concentrations, then the
parties will jointly evaluate the data. If the USAF, EPA, and Ecology agree that a reliable trend in
contaminant concentrations has been identified. then the data collection period may be concluded. If
agreement is not reached. then the dispute resolution provisions of the Fairchild AFB FFA may be invoked.
At the end of the data collection period, a definition of a reasonable timeframe for restoration by natural
dispersion, dilution, and degradation will be developed by the USAF, EPA, and Ecology. Factors that should
be considered in developing this definition include any changes in the use of land or groundwater on private
property adjoining the site, any changes in the operation or mission of the Base that may affect the
implementability of on-base institutional controls. and the site-specific fate and transport characteristics of
the contaminants. In no case will the reasonable timeframe for restoration by natural dispersion, dilution,
and degradation exceed thirty years.
-------
The groul'!dwater cleanup level for SW-1 is 5 pg/L for TCE, in accordance with the SDWA MCL and MTCA
Method B... This cleanup level will be achieved throughout the plume. If the trend analysis indicates that
contaminant concentrations are decreasing such that natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation will
achieve the cleanup level within the reasonable timeframe, a compliance monitoring program will be
implemented and remain in operation until the cteanup levels are achieved. The specific details of the
compliance monitoring program will be developed by the USAF, EPA, and Ecology. If the trend analysis
indicates that cleanup levels would not be attained by natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation within
the reasonable timeframe, the need for remedial action will then be reevaluated by the USAF, EPA, and
Ecology.
If the Base should be closed in the future, the need for additional remedial actions to address site-related
groundwater contamination will be reevaluated by the USAF, EPA, and Ecology. In the event that the need
for remedial action is reevaluated, remedial actions that will be considered include additional investigation
to characterize contaminant sources and the extent of plume migration, and the implementation of
groundwater extraction and treatment and/or capping, consistent with all regulatory requirements.
D.
Monitoring off-site water supply wells in the vicinity of the site and providing point-af-use
treatment and/or alternate water supply, if necessary.
Off-site water supply wells will be monitored for the presence of site-related contaminants. To prevent
consumption by area residents of groundwater exceeding MCLs, point-ot-use treatment and/or an alternate
water supply will be provided as necessary by the Air Force to users of wells which are constructed in
compliance with state and local regulations. In the event that site-related contaminants are detected in
nearby residential wells, the need tor remedial action will then be reevaluated by the USAF, EPA, and
Ecology. Point-of-use treatment systems typically consist of a filtration system installed at the well head for
wells serving multiple users, or near the point where piping from an individual user's well enters the user's
building. Routine maintenance and periodic replacement of system components will be necessary.
Provision ot an alternate water supply will be considered based on factors such as the distance to an
existing water system or the amount of water delivered. Based on recent groundwater sampling, no
residential wells exhibit contaminants above MCLs and therefore no provision of point-of-use
treatment/alternate water supply is required at this time. .
BuildinQ 1034 French Drain System (IS-1)
The USAF has determined that no further remedial action is necessary at the 15-1 site to ensure protection
of human health and the environment. This decision is based on the results ot the human health risk
assessment, which determined that conditions at the site pose no unacceptable risks to human health or
the environment. With the completion of the removal action at IS-1 in December 1992, all conduits, including
surface water drainage into the manholes, and potential sources of groundwater contamination have been
eliminated at the 15-1 site. The TCE groundwater contamination detected upgradient of this site is believed
to be associated with site PS-10, a P2 operable unit, and will be addressed under the RI/FS for the P2 sites.
-------
FliQhtline Site (OU-1) PS-2
The goal ot1he remedial action at PS-2 is to restore the groundwater to drinking water quality within a
reasonable timeframe. The selected remedy combines the soil alternative of No Action (Alternative 1) with
the groundwater alternative of Free Product Removal with Institutional Controls (Alternative 5). This remedy
consists of the following elements: .
Remediation of the floating product through passive collection and treatment, and recycling of
recovered product at an oftsite facility.
Maintaining institutional controls, in the form of restrictions against on-base usage of benzene- and
TPH-contaminated groundwater associated with the site, until cleanup levels are achieved.
Monitoring groundwater at the site to identify a trend in contaminant concentrations, estimating a
timeframe for restoration by natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation, evaluating the acceptability
of the estimated timeframe, and implementing a compliance monitoring program to estimate
attainment of cleanup levels.
The estimated costs associated with this remedy are:
Capital Cost:
O&M Costs:
Present Net Worth:
$195,000
$85,000
$447,000
A.
Remediation of the floating product through passive collection and treatment, and recycling
of recovered product at an offsite facility.
Under this alternative, floating product at Site PS-2 would be removed using either a passive or active
removal system. Most of the product is expected to be removed within a 1-year period. The collected
product would be transported oft-Base to a recycling facility. The product would be recycled as a fuel
source for industrial purposes such as use in cement kiln.
B.
Maintaining institutional controls. in the form of restrictions against on-base usage of
benzene- and TPH-contaminated groundwater associated with the site, until cleanup levels are
achieved.
Institutional controls established under the authority of the base commander currently restrict access to and
use of groundwater throughout the Base. Such restrictions will be maintained under that authority as part
of the selected remedy. If the Base should be closed in the future, the need for additional remedial actions
to address site-related groundwater contamination will be reevaluated by the USAF, EPA, and Ecology.
c.
Monitoring groundwater at the site to identify a trend in contaminant concentrations and
estimate a timeframe for restoration by natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation,
evaluating the acceptability of the estimated timeframe, and implementing a compliance
monitoring program to estimate attainment of cleanup levels.
An analysis to identify a trend in contaminant concentrations will be based on groundwater sampling data
collected from a maximum of five years of periodic monitoring. During the first year of monitoring, samples
will be collected quarterty. An iterative approach will be used to establish the subsequent sampling
frequency. Factors to be considered in this approach include the variability observed in water levels and
-------
contaminant concentrations during the first year. If at any time prior to five years, either the USAF, EPA,
or Ecology believe that the data collected identifies a reliable trend in contaminant concentrations, then the
parties will jointly evaluate the data. If the USAF, EPA, and Ecology agree that a reliable trend in
contaminant concentrations has been identified, then the data collection period may be concluded. If
agreement is not reached, then the dispute resolution provisions of the Fairchild AFB FFA may be invoked.
At the end of the data collection period, a definition of a reasonable timeframe for restoration by natural
dispersion, dilution, and degradation will be developed by the USAF, EPA, and Ecology. Factors that should
be considered in developing this definition include any changes in the use of land or groundwater on-Base
near the site, any changes in the operation or mission of the Base that may affect the implementability of
on-Base institutional controls, and the site-specific fate and transport characteristics of the contaminants.
In no case will the reasonable timeframe for restoration by natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation
exceed thirty years.
The groundwater cleanup levels for PS-2 are 5 pg/L for benzene in accordance with the SDWA MCL and
MTCA Method B, and 1 mg/L for TPH in accordance with the MTCA Method A. These cleanup levels will
be achieved throughout the plume. If the trend analysis indicates that contaminant concentrations are
decreasing such that natural dispersion. dilution, and degradation will achieve the cleanup level within a
reasonable timeframe, a compliance monitoring program will be implemented and remain in operation until
the cleanup levels are achieved. The specific details of the compliance monitoring program will be
developed by the USAF, EPA, and Ecology. If the trend analysis indicates that cleanup levels would not be
attained by natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation within the reasonable timeframe. the need for
,remedial action will then be reevaluated by the USAF, EPA, and Ecology.
If the Base should be closed in the future. the need for additional remedial actions to address site-related
groundwater contamination will be reevaluated by the USAF, EPA, and Ecology. In the event that the need
for remedial action is reevaluated. remedial actions that will be considered include additional investigation
to characterize contaminant sources and the extent of plume migration, and the implementation of
groundwater extraction and treatment and/or bioventing, consistent with all regulatory requirements..
FIiQhtline site (OU-1) PS-6
The USAF has determined that no further remedial action is necessary at the PS-6 site to ensure protection
of human health and the environment. This decision is based on the results of the human health risk
assessment, which determined that conditions at the site pose no unacceptable risks to human health or
the environment. The TCE groundwater contamination detected ,upgradient of this site is not believed to
be associated with this site and will be addressed under the RI/FS for the P2 sites.
FIiQhtline site (OU-1) PS-8
The goal of the remedial action at PS-a is to restore the groundwater to drinking water quality within a
reasonable timeframe. The selected remedy combines the soil alternative of No Action (Alternative 1) with
the groundwater alternative of Institutional Controls (Alternative 2). This remedy consists of the following
elements:
Maintaining institutional controls, in the form of restrictions against on-base usage of benzene-
contaminated groundwater associated with the site. until cleanup levels are achieved.
-------
. Monitoring groundwater at the site to identify a trend in contaminant concentrations, estimating a
timeframefor restoration by natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation, evaluating the acceptability
of the estimated timeframe, and implementing a compliance monitoring program to estimate
attainment of cleanup levels.
The estimated costs associated with this remedy are:
Capital Cost:
O&M Costs:
Present Net Worth:
$0
$31,000
$477,000
A.
Maintaining institutional controls, in the form 01 restrictions against on-base usage of
benzene-contaminated groundwater associated with the site, until cleanup levels are achieved.
Institutional controls established under the authority of the base commander currently restrict access to and
use of groundwater throughout the Base. Such restrictions will be maintained under that authority as part
of the selected remedy. If the Base should be closed in the future, the need for additional remedial actions
to address site-related groundwater contamination will be reevaluated by the USAF, EPA, and Ecology.
B.
Monitoring groundwater at the site to identify a trend in contaminant concentrations,
estimating a timeframe for restoration by natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation,
evaluating the acceptability of the estimated timeframe, and implementing a compliance
monitoring program to estimate attainment of cleanup levels.
An analysis to identify a trend in contaminant concentrations will be based on groundwater sampling data
collected from a maximum of fIVe years of periodic monitoring. During the first year of monitoring, samples
will be collected quarterly. An iterative approach will be used to establish the subsequent sampling
frequency. Factors to be considered in this approach include the variability observed in water levels and
contaminant concentrations during the first year. If at any time prior to five years, either the USAF, EPA,
or Ecology believe that the data collected identifies a reliable trend in contaminant concentrations, then the
parties will jointly evaluate the data. If the USAF, EPA, and Ecology agree that a reliable trend in
contaminant concentrations has been identified, then the data collection period may be concluded. If
agreement is not reached, then the dispute resolution provisions o( the Fairchild AFB FFA may be invoked.
At the end of the data collection period, a definition of a reasonable timeframe for restoration by natural
dispersion, dilution, and degradation will be developed by the USAF, EPA, and Ecology. Factors that should
be considered in developing this definition include any changes in the use of land or groundwater on-Base
near the site, any chanol!?s in the operation or mission of the Base that may affect the implementability of
on-base institutional r ':";IS, and the site-specific fate and transport characteristics of the contaminants.
In no case will tt"", . -,nable timeframe for restoration by natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation
exceed thirty yearn
The groundwater cleanup level for PS-a is 5 119/L for benzene in accordance with the SDWA MCL and
MTCA Method B. This cleanup level will be achieved throughout the plume. If the trend analysis indicates
that contaminant concentrations are decreasing such that natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation will
achieve. the cleanup level within a reasonable timeframe, a compliance monitoring program will be
implemented and remain in operation until the cleanup levels are achieved. The specific details of the
compliance monitoring program will be developed i;>y the USAF, EPA, and Ecology. If the trend analysis
indicates that cleanup levels would not be attained by natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation within
the reasonable timeframe, the need for remedial action will then be reevaluated by the USAF, EPA, and
Ecology.
-------
If the Base should be closed in the future, the need for additional remedial actions to address site-related
groundwater contamination will be reevaluated by the USAF, EPA, and Ecology. In the event that the need
for remedial action is reevaluated, remedial actions that will be considered include additional investigation
to characterize contaminant sources and the extent of plume migration, and the implementation of
groundwater extraction and treatrytent and/ or bioventing, consistent with all regulatory requirements.
Fire Training Area (FT-1)
The goals of the remedial action at FT -1 are to remediate soils to levels that are protective of groundwater,
and to restore groundwater to drinking water quality. The selected remedy combines the soil alternative of .
In-situ BioVenting (Alternative 4) with the groundwater alternative of In-situ Air Sparging with Institutional
Controls (Alternative 4). This remedy consists of the following elements:
Maintaining institutional controls, in the form of restrictions against on-base usage of benzene-
contaminated groundwater associated with the site, until cleanup levels are achieved.
Implementing an in-situ bioventing treatment system for benzene-contaminated soil.
Implementing a piiot-scaJe in-situ air sparging system to evaluate the effectiveness of this technology
for remediating benzene-contaminated groundwater, to be followed by implementation of a full-scale
system if the pilot scale system is successful.
Monitoring off-site water supply wells in the vicinity of the site and providing point-ot-use treatment
and/ or alternate water supply, if necessary.
The estimated costs associated with this remedy are:
Capital Costs:
O&M Costs:
Present Net Worth:
$542,000
$49,000
$785,000
A.
Maintaining institutional controls, in the form of resbictions against on-base usage of
benzene-contaminated groundwater associated with the site, until cleanup levels are achieved.
Institutional controls established under the authority of the base commander currently restrict access to and
use of groundwater throughout the Base. Such restrictions will be maintained under that authority as part
of the selected remedy. If the Base should be closed in the future, the need for additional remedial actions
to address site-related groundwater contamination will be reevaluated by the USAF, EPA, and Ecology.
B.
Implementing an in-situ bioventing treatment system for benzene-contaminated soil.
An in-situ bioventing system will be installed in the contaminated soil area at the site. The system will
consist of a network of vapor extraction wells and a vacuum pump to extract air containing volatile organic
compounds such as benzene and to increase oxygen concentrations in the soil to enhance biodegradation
of petroleum contamination. Contaminated vapors will be treated to. comply with Washington State and
Spokane County air standards. The system will be operated until the soil cleanup level of 0.5 mg/ kg for
benzene is achieved, thereby protecting groundwater from further contamination. It is estimated that soil
cleanup levels can be achieved within a 5-year timeframe. The estimated volume of soil requiring treatment
is 9,500 cubic yards.
-------
c.
Implementing a pilot-scale in-situ air sparging system to evaluate the effectiveness of this
tecl1oology for remediating benzene-contaminated groundwater, to be followed by
implementation of a full-scale system if the pilot-scale system is successful.
'~.~-,'
Air sparging will be used in combination with bioventing to simultaneously treat both soils and groundwater.
The system will consist of a network of vapor extraction/ injection well pairs arranged to inject air into the
aquifer and extract air from the overtying soil. The well pairs will be placed within the interior of the
groundwater plume defined by the groundwater cleanup level. The groundwater cleanup level for FT-1 is
5 P.;I/L for benzene in accordance with the SDWA MCL and MTCA Method B. The point of compliance will
be throughout the plume. The well spadngs and configuration will be determined during the remedial
design phase. Contaminated vapors Will be treated to comply with Washington State and Spokane County
air standards. The system will be operated until groundwater cleanup levels are achieved. Groundwater
cteanup levels are estimated to be achieved within a 5-year timeframe.
Groundwater monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the deanup levels will be continued following the
implementation of the groundwpter treatment system. The specific details of the compliance monitoring
program will be developed byihe USAF, EPA, and Ecology during the remedial design phase.
D.
Monitoring off-site water supply wells In the vicinity of the site and providing point-of-use
treatment and/or alternate water supply, If necessary. .
Off-site water supply wells will be monitored for the presence of site-related contaminants. To prevent
consumption by area residents of groundwater exceeding MCLs, point-of-use treatment and/ or an alternate
water supply will be provided as necessary by the Air Force to users of wells which are constructed in
compliance with state and local regulations. Point-d-use treatment systems typically consist of a filtration
system installed at the well head for wells serving multiple users, or near the point where piping from an
individual user's well enters the user's buDding. Routine maintenance and periodic replacement of system
components will be necessary. Provision of an alternate water supply will be considered based on factors
such as the distance to an existing water system or the amount of water delivered.
Wastewater LaQoons (WW-1)
The goals of this remedial action are to restrict the site from future residential or agricultural uses, and to
restore groundwater to drinking water quality. The selected remedy combines the soD alternative of
Institutional Controls (Alternative 2) with ~e groundwateraltemative of Groundwater Extraction and
Treatment with Institutional Contrc;Jls and Point-d-Use Treatment! Alternate water supply (Alternative 3). This
remedy consists of the following elements: "
Implementing additional source investigation activities to identify the source of"groundwater TCE
contamination. If a source of TCE contamination is detected in soDs, SOIl remedial alternatives will
be evaluated at that time.
Maintaining institutional controls restricting access to the site.
Maintaining institutional controls. in the form of restriction against on-base usage of TCE-
contaminated groundwater associated with the site, until cteanup levels are achieved.
Implementing a groundwater extraction and treatment system, using air stripping and/or carbon
adsorption. "
-------
c. "
Implementing"a pilot-scale in-situ air sparging system to evaluate the effectiveness of this
.technology for remediating benzene-contaminated groundwater, to be followed by
implementation of a fulB-scale system if the pilot-scale system is successful.
Air sparging will be used in combination with bioventing to simultaneously treat both soils and groundwater.
The system will consist of a network of vapor extraction/injection well pairs arranged to inject air into the
aquifer and extraCt air from the overlying soil. The well pairs will be placed within the interior of the
groundwater plume defined by the groundwater cleanup level. The groundwater deanuplevel for FT-1 is
5 ~/L for benzene in accordance with the SDWA MCL and MTCA Method B. The poim of compliance will
be throughout the plume. The well spacings and configuration will be determined during the remedial
design phase. Contaminated vapors will be treated to comply with Washington State and Spokane County
air standards. The system will be operated until groundwater cleanup levels are achieved. Groundwater
cleanup levels are estimated to be achieved within as-year timeframe.
Before fully implementing this technology, its effectiveness will be determined in a controlled treatability
study consisting of a pilot-scale installation. Effectiveness wUl be measured by using fixed field sampling
locations to evaluate the trend in contaminam concemrations over a two year period. If the trend does not
show remediation of groundwater to concentrations below the cleanup level, an air stripping/ carbon
adsorption groundwater extraction and treatment system will be installed at FT -1.
Groundwater monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the cleanup levels will be cominued following the
implementation of the groundwater treatmem system. The specific details of the compliance monitoring
program will be developed by the USAF, EPA, and Ecology during the remedial design phase.
Note - this Section C (July 2, 1993) supercedes the Section C presented on page 63 in the Final Record
of Decision for the On-Base Priority One Operable Units for Fairchild Air Force Base (issued June 29, 1993).
-------
Monitoring off-site water supply wells in the vicinity of the site and providing point~-use treatment
a~~/ or alternate water supply, if necessary.
The estimated costs associated with this remedy are:
Capital Cost:
O&M Costs:
Present Net Worth:
$1,442,000
$135,000
$3,522,000
A.
Implementing additional source investigation activities to identify the source 01 groundwater
TCE contamination. 11 a source 01 TCE contamination is detected in soils, soil remedial
alternatives will be evaluated at that time.
USAF is currently developing field activities which are believed to be capable of determining the source of
TCE groundwater contamination. These activities include excavation of test pits and soil sampling within
the presumed site source area (i.e., east of the WN-1 lagoons). .
B.
Monitoring institutional controls restricting access to the site.
Institutional controls established under the authority of the base commander currently restrict access to the
site. Restricted access to the site will be maintained under that authority as part of the selected remedy.
If the Base should be closed in the future, a deed restriction preduding the site from residential or
agricultural uses would be implemented prior to transfer of the site property to any other entities.
c.
Maintaining institutional controls, in the form of restrictions against on-base usage of TCE-
contaminated groundwater associated with the site, until cleanup levels are achieved.
Institutional controls established under the authority of the base commander currently restrict access to and
use of groundwater throughout the Base. Such restrictions will be maintained under that authority as part
of the selected remedy. If the Base should be closed in the future, the need for additional remedial actions
to address site-relateq groundwater contamination will be reevaluated by the USAF, EPA, and Ecology.
D.
Implementing a groundwater extraction and treatment system, using air stripping and/or
carbon adsorption.
A groundwater eXtraction and treatment system will be installed to remove contaminants from the
groundwater plume associated with the site. EXtraction wells will be placed within the on-site and off-site
portions of the plume. EXtracted groundwater will be treated using either an air stripper unit, a carbon
adsorption unit, or a combination ~ these units. The specific system configuration will be determined during
the remedial design phase.
The treated water will be either reintroduced into the aquifer or discharged directly into No Name Ditch. The
. acceptable effluent concentrations from the treatment plant will be determined based on the method of
disposal. If the method of disposal is to surface water, the treated water must be discharged in accordance
with the NPDES program. If the method of disposal is reintroduction to the aquifer, the treated water must
meet the requirements of the Washington State Waste Discharge Permit Program. The specific standards
will be developed during the remedial design.
The contaminated air emissions from the stripper will be treated using activated carbon to comply with
Washington State and Spokane County air quality standards. Used carbon will be recycled off-site in
accordance with OSWER Directive 9834.11.
-------
The groundwater extraction and treatment system will be operated until the groundwater cleanup levels are
achieved. ~he groundwater cleanup level for WN-1 is 5 ~/L for TCE in accordance with the SDWA MCL
and MTCA Method B. This cleanup level will be achieved throughout the plume. The cleanup times could
range from less than five years to as many as 30 years.
Groundwater monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the cleanup levels will be continued following the
implementation of the groundwater treatment system. The specific details of the compliance monitoring
program will be developed by the USAF, EPA, and Ecology during the remedial design phase.
E.
Monitoring off-site water supply wells in the vicinity of the site and providing point-of-use
treatment and/or alternate water supply, if necessary.
Off-site water supply wells will be monitored for the presence of site-related contaminants. To prevent
consumption by area residents of groundwater exceeding MCLs. point-of-use treatment and/ or an alternate
water supply will be provided as necessary by the Air Force to users of wells which are constructed in
compliance with state and local regulations. Point-of-use treatment and/or an alternate water supply will
be provided as necessary by the Air Force to users of wells which are constructed in compliance with state
and local regulations. Point-of-use treatment systems typically consist of a filtration system installed at eh
well head for wells serving multiple users, or near the point where piping from an individual user's well enters
the user's building. Routine maintenance and periodic replacement of system components will be
considered based on factors such as the distance to an existing water system or the amount of water
delivered. Based on recent groundwater sampling, no residential wells exhibit contaminants above MCLs
and therefore no provision of point-of-use treatment/ alternate water supply is required at this time.
XI.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under CERCLA Section 121, selected remedies must be protective of human health and the environment,
comply with ARARs. be cost effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practical. In addition. CERCLA includes a
preference for remedies that employ treatment that significantly and permanently reduces the volume.
toxicity or mobility of hazardous wastes as their principal element. The following sections discuss how the
selected remedy meets these statutory requirements.
A.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
There are no unacceptable risks to human health posed by exposure to the soils at the SW-1 site under
either residential or industrial use scenarios. However, institutional controls would reduce the threat of
direct contact with any potential contaminants within the subsurface soD that were not identified during the
investigation. Currently, SW-1 is an inactive landfill. Devefopment of the landfill for residential use is unlikely.
Development of SW-1 for industrial use is, to a lesser degree, also unlikely.
TCE groundwater concentrations currently exceed the MCL The TCE-contaminated plume is currently
migrating through Fairchild AFB. Maintaining groundwater institutional controls will prevent on-base
consumption of contaminated water at SW-1 until groundwater cleanup levels are achieved. Continued
monitoring will allow establishment of a trend in contaminant levels to evaluate whether they are decreasing
and whether the cleanup levels can be achieved through natural dispersion. dilution. and degradation within
a reasonable period of time. Monitoring of nearby residential wells and providing additional remedial action,
such as point-of-use treatment/alternate water supply, if necessary, will prevent consumption by area
-------
residents of groundwater exceeding federal MCLs. The remedy for SW-1 groundwater will be reevaluated
within five .years to determine its effectiveness as a remedy. Furthermore, a groundwater monitoring
program and five-year review would be implemented to evaluate migration of contaminants, to verify that
cleanup levels are attained within a reasonable time. satisfy CERCLA requirements for contaminants
remaining onsite, and to determine if the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.
There are no unacceptable risks to human health posed by exposure to the soils at the PS-2 site under
either residential or industrial use scenarios. Soils at PS-2 are located beneath Taxiway No.1. The taxiway
is believed to act as a cover, which prevents precipitation from percolating through the TPH-contaminated
dL '
The estimated cancer' risk for consumption of contaminated groundwater at site PS-2 exceeds the
acceptable federal level of 1 x 10-4. With respect to non-carcinogens, the hazard index calculated for site
PS-2 exceeds one. The groundwater at PS-2 is currently migrating beneath Taxiway No.1, and through
Fairchild AFB. Removal of the floating product will eliminate the primary source of groundwater
contamination at the site. Following removal of the product, residual levels of fuel contamination in the soils
and groundwater are expected to decrease through natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation. Continued
monitoring will allow establishment of a trend in contaminant levels to evaluate whether they are decreasing
and whether the cleanup levels can be achieved through natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation within
a reasonable period of time. Maintaining groundwater institutional controls will prevent consumption of
contaminated on-base water at PS-2 until groundwater cleanup levels are achieved and risks to human
. health decrease to acceptable levels. This remedy will be reevaluated within five years to determine its
effectiveness. Furthermore, a groundwater monitoring program and five-year review would be implemented
to evaluate migration of contaminants, to verify that cleanup levels are attained within a reasonable time,
satisfy CERCLA requirements for contaminants remaining onsite, and to determine if the remedy remains
protective of human health and the environment.
The results of the risk assessment indicate that there would be no unacceptable risks to human health posed
by exposure to the soils at PS-6 under both residential and industrial use scenarios. Also, results of the RI
indicate that the soils are not a source of groundwater contamination. Thus, the no action alternative is
appropriate for PS-6 soils.
The RI investigation did not identify a groundwater contaminant plume associated with the PS-6 site. Thus,
the no action alternative is appropriate for PS-6. .
There are no unacceptable risks to ,",uman health posed by exposure to the soils at the PS-8 site under
either residential or industrial use scenarios.
There are no unacceptable risks to human health posed by consumption of contaminated groundwater at
the PS-8 site, however, current benzene concentrations in the groundwater slightly exceed the SDWA MCL
and TPH concentrations in three wells currently exceed the MTCA cleanup level of 1 mg/L The
groundwater at PS-8 is currently migrating beneath Taxiway No.1, and through Fairchild AFB. Maintaining
groundwater institutional controls will prevent consumption of contaminated water at PS-8 until this
groundwater cleanup level is achieved. Continued monitoring will allow establishment of a trend in
contaminant levels to evaluate whether TPH levels are decreasing and whether the cleanup levels can be
achieved through natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation within a reasonable period of time. This
remedy will be reevaluated within five years to determine its effectiveness. Furthermore, a groundwater
monitoring program and five-year review would be implemented to evaluate migration of contaminan:ts, to
verify that cleanup levels are attained within a reasonable time, satisfy CERCLA requirements for
contaminants remaining onsite, and to determine if the remedy remains protective of human health and the
environment.
-------
There are no. unacceptable risks to human health posed by exposure to the soils at the FT-1 site under
either residential or industrial use scenarios. However, benzene-contaminated soils may act as a source of
groundwater contamination. The in-situ bioventing system will remediate the soils to a level that is protective
of groundwater. Implementing an in-situ bioventing soil treatment system poses minimal risk to human
health and the environment because excavation of the soil is not required.
The estimated cancer risk for consumption of contaminated groundwater at site FT -1 exceeds the 1 x 10.5
level established by the Washington State MTCA regulation and the SDWA MCL of 5 pg/L for benzene. With
respect to non-carcinogens, the hazard index calculated for site FT -1 groundwater and soils exceed one.
If proven effective through pilot-scale testing, implementing an in-situ air sparging treatment system for
benzene-contaminated groundwater at FT-1 will reduce the spread of contaminants and will restore the
groundwater to groundwater cleanup levels. If air sparging is proven ineffective, a groundwater extraction
and treatment system will be implemented to achieve these objectives. Maintaining groundwater institutional
controls will prevent consumption of contaminated water at FT -1 until groundwater cleanup levels are
achieved and risks to human health decrease to acceptable levels. Monitoring of nearby residential wells
and providing additional remedial action, such as point-of-use treatment/alternate water supply, if necessary,
will prevent consumption by area residents of groundwater exceeding federal MCLs.
The cancer risk of 3 x 10.5 for exposure to the soil at WW-1 under a residential use scenario is within the
acceptable 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10.6 range established under federal law but slightly exceeds the 1 x 10.5 level
established by the Washington State MTCA regulation. Institutional controls will reduce the threat of direct
contact with potential contaminants within the subsurface soil by restricting the site to industrial uses only.
TCE concentrations currently exceeds the SDWA MCL The estimated cancer risk for consumption of
contaminated groundwater at site WW-1 exceeds the acceptable 1 x 1 0-6 level established by the Washington
State MTCA regulation. IrTiplementing an air stripping/carbon adsorption treatment system for TCE-
contaminated groundwater will reduce the spread of contaminants and will restore the groundwater to
groundwater cleanup levels. Maintaining groundwater institutional controls will prevent consumption of
contaminated water at WW-1 until groundwater cleanup levels are achieved and risks to human health
decrease to an acceptable level. Monitoring of nearby residential wells and providing additional remedial
action. such as point-of-use treatment/alternate water supply, if necessary, will prevent consumption by area
residents of groundwater exceeding federal MCLs.
B.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedies will comply with the following federal and state ARARs that have been identified. No
waiver of any ARAR is being sought or invoked for any component of the selected remedies. The ARARs
identified for the on-Base P1 sites include the following:
Chemical-Specific ARARs
SDWA, 40 United States Code (USC) Section 300, and 40 CFR Part 141, MCLs for public
drinking water supplies established for the SDWA are relevant and appropriate for setting
groundwater cleanup levels and in establishing effluent standards if treated groundwater is
recharged to the aquifer.
-------
Title V of Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Section 112(b) of the Act lists sources
covered by the New Source Performance Standards and requires major emission sources
to obtain permits from federally approved state permitting agencies. This section defines
major sources as those with the potential to emit ten tons per year of a hazardous air
pollutant. This Act would be applicable in determining bioventingjair sparging system as
non major sources under Section 502(a) of the Act.
RCRA, Subtitle C (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 261), Applicable in identifying
if the spent activated carbon filters from the air stripping system and bioventingjair sparging
system are considered a hazardous waste for purposes of transporting them offsite for
treatment.
Emission Standards and Controls for Emitting Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) ,
(Chapter 173-400 Washington Administrative Code (WAC)). Establishes standards in the
state of Washington for specific VOC source emissions; applicable in establishing emission
standards for the active bioventingjair sparging system at FT-1 and from the activated
carbon unit at WW-1.
Pursuant to CERCLA, all air emissions associated with the remedial actions will comply with
the substantive requirements of Chapter 173-460 WAC as implemented by the Spokane
County Air Pollution Control Authority. Controls for New Sources of Toxic Air Pollutants
(Chapter 173-460 WAC) requires the use of Best Available Control Technology for new
sources of toxic air pollutants. This regulation lists benzene and TCE as Class A toxic air
pOllutants with Acceptable Source Impact Levels (ASILs) of 0.12 p9jm3 and 0.8 p9jm3,
respectively. The ambient impact of emissions of toxic air contaminants from the air
stripping unit at WW-1 and the air sparging/bioventing system at FT-1 will be evaluated
against ASILs. .
MTCA, (Chapter 173-340 WAC), Method B risk-based cleanup levels are applicable for
establishing soil and groundwater cleanup levels. As well as relevant and appropriate
requirements for effluent standards for discharge to groundwater.
Soil contamination was not detected at SW-1 and PS-6. At sites PS-2 and PS-a, TPH will remain in the soils
above the MTCA cleanup level, which is based on groundwater protection. Continued groundwater
monitoring is needed to determine if the TPH levels in the soils at these sites are protective of groundwater.
It is currently believed that the TPH-contaminated soil is not contributing to the groundwater contamination.
PS-2 and PS-a soils are beneath Taxiway No.1. The taxiway apparently acts as a cover which prevents
precipitation percolation into the groundwater. The selected remedy for site FT -1 will comply with the MTCA
Method B cleanup level for benzene. Soils at WW-1 do not pose unacceptable human health risks under
the industrial land use scenario.
At sites SW-1, PS-6. and PS-a, no action may attain state and federal groundwater cleanup levels through
.natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation if contamination is no longer migrating from the soils to
groundwater at these sites. Continued groundwater monitoring is needed at sites SW-1 and PS-8 to
determine if those standards can be achieved naturally within a reasonable period of time. At PS-2,
groundwater cleanup levels are expected to be achieved following removal of the floating product.
Continued groundwater monitoring is needed at this site to determine if cleanup levels can be achieved
naturally within a reasonable period of time at this site following product removal. The groundwater at sites
SW-1, PS-2, PS-6, and PS-a is currently flowing through Fairchild AFB. The selected remedies for sites FT-1
and WW-1 will achieve the groundwater cleanup levels through treatment.
-------
Action-Specific ARARs
RCRA Subtitle C (40 CFR 262), Establishes standards for generators of hazardous wastes
for the treating, storage, and shipping of wastes. Applicable to the storage, packaging,
labeling, and manifesting of the spent granulated activated carbon filters offsite for
treatment. .
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 USC 1801-1813 and 49 CFR Parts 171 and
172), Applicable for transportation of potentially hazardous materials, including samples and
. .::1stes.
l'Joise Control Act (42 USC 4910 and 40 CFR Part 209), Applicable for the design of
bioventing/air sparging and air stripper systems.
Dangerous Waste Regulations (Chapter 173-303 WAC), Applicable for onsite treatment,
storage, or disposal of dangerous waste of hazardous wastes generated during the remedial
actions.
Minimum Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Wells (Chapter 173-160 WAC),
Applicable regulations for the location, design, construction, and abandonment of water
supply and resource protection wells.
State Waste Discharge Permit Program (Chapter 173-216 WAC), Applicable for establishing
effluent quality standards for discharges to groundwater. Pursuant to CERCLA, only the
substantive requirements of this regulation will be completed for onsite discharges.
CWA, NPDES Section 402 (33 USC 1342 and 40 CFR Parts 122-125), applicable for
establishing effluent quality standards for surface water discharge from groundwater
extraction and treatment units.
Location-Speciffc ARARs
No location-specific ARARs.
Other Criteria, Advisories, or Guidance to be Considered for this Remedial Action
EPA OSWER Directive 9834.11, Revised Procedures for Plannina and Implementina Offsite
Response Actions, November 13, 1987. This directive provides procedures for offsite
disposal of CERCLA wastes.
C.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedies provide overall effectiveness proportionate to their costs.
For sites SW-1 and WW-1, institutional controls provide the most cost-effective means of preventing
exposure to potential subsurface soil contaminants by restricting these sites from residential use.
For site SW-1, contaminant concentrations in groundwater are at low levels, and are expected to decrease
since a continuing source of contamination was not identified during the RI. Therefore, institutional controls
combined with natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation is the most cost effective remedy for this site.
-------
For site PS-2, removal and recycling of the floating product eliminates the primary source of groundwater
contamin~tion at the site at a cost that is substantially less than implementation of a full-scale groundwater
extraction and treatment system. .
For site PS-8, results of the RI indicate that concentrations of fuel-related groundwater contaminants are
below or near their cleanup levels, arid that contaminant levels are on a decreasing trend. Therefore, no
action is the most cost-effective remedy for this site since contaminant levels are decreasing through natural
dispersion, dilution, and degradation processes.
For site FT -1, in-situ bioventing is significantly more cost~ffective than the other soil treatment/ disposal
alternatives. Similarly, in-situ air sparging is significantly more cost-effective than the groundwater extraction
and treatment alternative.
For site WIN-1, the present worth cost of groundwater extraction and treatment is the highest among the
groundwater alternatives. However, this alternative provides the highest degree of long-term effectiveness
by preventing the spread of contamination and restoring the groundwater to drinking water quality.
D.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies t9 the Maximum
Extent Possible
The selected remedies provide the best balance of long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in
toxicity, mobility, and volume achieved through treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementability; and
cost.
The source of groundwater TCE contamination may no longer be present within the SW-1 landfill since the
RI did not identify any source areas and the landfill has been closed for 35 years. Groundwater TCE levels
may be declining naturally since a source has. not been identified within the landfill. Therefore, source
control actions and groundwater extraction and treatment at the landfill are nOt warranted at this time but
could be reevaluated within a five-year review pericx1.
The results of the RI indicate that the groundwater contamination at site PS-2 may be local to the floating
product areas, and that contamination has not migrated beyond the site. Removal of the floating prcx1uct
will eliminate the primary source of groundwater contamination at the site. Following removal of the prcx1uct,
residual levels of fuel contamination in the soils and groundwater are expected to decrease through natural
dispersion, dilution, and degradation. . Therefore, further source control measures and/ or groundwater
extraction and treatment are not warranted at this time but could be reevaluated within a five-year review
period.
At site PS-8, the results of the RI indicate that: concentrations of fuel-related groundwater contaminants are
below or near their deanup levels; contaminant levels are on a decreasing trend; residual fuel contamination
detected in the soils is not contributing to groundwater contamination; and contamination has not migrated
beyond the PS-8 site. Current levels of fuel contamination in the soils and groundwater are expected to
decrease through natural dispersion, dilution, and degradation. Therefore, source control measures and/ or
groundwater extraction and treatment are not warranted at this time but could be reevaluated within a five-
year review period.
-------
The selected remedy for site FT -1 utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum- extent possible. The remedy uses treatment of the contaminant source and of the affected
groundwaier. In-situ bioventing/air sparging provides a permanent solution by removing contaminants from
the soil and groundwater through biodegradation and volatilization. Volatilized contaminants are collected
and treated through biodegradation or activated carbon. In-situ bioventing/air sparging are considered
altemative treatment technologies.
At WIN-1, the source of groundwater TCE contamination may no longer be present within the soil since the
AI did not identify any source areas. Therefore, source control actions are not warranted at this time but
would be evaluated if additional investigation activities identify a TCE source. The selected remedy for
groundwater at site WIN-1 utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent possible. The remedy uses extraction and treatment of the contaminated groundwater.
Air stripping and/ or activated carbon provides a permanent solution by removing contaminants from the
groundwater through volatilization. Volatilized contaminants are collected and treated using an activated
carbon filter.
E.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy for site PS-2 satisfies the statutory preference for treatment by utilizing offSite recyding
of the floating product to permanently reduce the toxicity, mobUity,and volume of the primary source of
groundwater contamination at the site.
The selected remedy for site FT -1 satisfies the statutory preference for treatment by utilizing in-situ treatment
as a primary method to permanently reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of soil and groundwater
contaminants. In addition, the selected remedy indudes treatment at individual user well locations in the
event of offsite contamination of drinking water above MCLs.
The selected remedy for site WIN-1 satisfies the statutory preference for treatment by using treatment to
permanently reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of groundwater contaminants. In addition, the
selected remedy includes treatment at individual user well locations in the event of offSite contamination of
drinking water above MCLs.
XII.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the on-Base Priority 1 Operable Units was released for public comment on
March 1. 1993. 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.
-------
TABLE A-1
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - SUBSURFACE SOILS (1989)(1)
SITE SW-1
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
BW1-BH5 BW1-BH6 Background
Parameter(') (3.0-3.5 feet) (3.5-4.0 feet) ConcentrationW
(mglkg) (mglkg) (mg/kg)
Aluminum 8,500 5,800 0.5->10%*
Arsenic 14 9U < 30-39
Barium 80 120 66- 1 60
Beryllium 0.44 0.3 < 0.02-0.57
Calcium 3,000 6,900 0.06-32% *
Cadmium 1.7 2 < 0.3-1.3
Cobalt 8 10 <3-50*
Chromium 10 2 6-54
Copper 20 27 2-300*
Iron 22,000 30,000 O. 1 - > 10% *
Potassi u m 1,300 600 0.19-6.3% *
Magnesium 5,200 3,100 0.03-> 10% *
Manganese 410 450 56-670*
Molybdenum 17 7 <3-7*
Sodium 90 210 0.05- 1 0% *
Nickel 10 8 5-30
Thallium 6U 9 2.5
Vanadium 31 30 1 3-62
Zinc 53 62 24-82
J
U
(1)
(2)
Estimated value.
Parameter is not detected above detection limits. Value presented is the detection limit.
Selenium, mercury, lead. and antimony were not detected above detection limits.
If site-specific data were available, the background value is the range of metals
concentrations for background sample locations (data provided by SAIC). If site-specific
data were not available (*), background metals concentrations reported in Shacklette
and Boerngen (1984) are presented. .
D..oS-93.3
-------
D-oS.93.3
TABLE A-2
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTtON - SURFACE SOIL
SAMPLES
ROUND 11
SITE SW-1
FAIRCHILD AFB. WASHINGTON
Range of
Positive Geometric 95% Frequency of
Parameter Detecti ons
(Arithmetic Mean UCL(1) Detection
Mean)
VOLA TtLE ORGANICS (mg/kg)
Xylenes 0.014 (0.003) 0.002 0.006 1/11
Methylene 0.003 (0.001) 0.001 0.0011 1/11
chloride
SEMIVOLA T1LE ORGANICS (mg/kg)
Di-n-butyl 0.19-0.49 0.25 0.38 8/11
phthalate (0.28)
METALS (mg/kg)
Aluminum 6,880-15,300 10,630 12,300 11/11
(10,809)
Barium 56-135 (113) 110 131 11/11
Beryllium 0.2-0.63 (0.42) 0.41 0.50 11/11
Cadmium 0.62J-0.81 0.42 0.63 4/11
(0.47)
Calcium 3,900-12,000 5,650. 7.500 11/11
(5,950)
Chromium 6.4-10.8 (8.8) '8.8 9.7 11/11
Cobalt 8.5-16.6 (12.1) 11.9 13.9 11/11
Copper 12.1-16.9 15.4 16.5 11/11
(15.5)
Iron 21,500-35,700 23,900 27,900 11/11
(24,300)
Lead 10.11 (5.2) 5.0 6.4 1/11
-------
D-OS-93-3
TABLE A-2
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. SURFACE SOIL
SAMPLES
ROUND 11
SITE SW-1
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO
Range of
Positive Geometric 95% Frequency of
Parameter Detections
(Arithmetic Mean UCL(1) Detecti on
Mean)
METALS (mg/kg)
Magnesium 3,720-6,840 4,830 5,580 11/11
(4,910)
Manganese 319-650 (426) 417 498 11/11
Nickel 7~7-13.1 (10.2) 10.1 11.4 11/11
Potassium 906-2,020 1,610 1,860 11/11
(1,635)
Vanadium 27.3-68.7 44.4 57.4 11/11
(46.6)
Zinc 37.7-57.2 46.4 50.9 11/11
(46.7)
(1)
Upper 95% confidence limit on arithmetic mean.
-------
D'()5-93-3
TABLE A-3
--
. CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. TEST PIT SOIL SAMPLES
ROUND 11
SITE SW-1
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
Range of
Positive Geometric 95% Frequency
Parameter Detections Mean UCL<') of
(Arithmetic Detection
Mean)
METALS (mg/kg)
Aluminum .8,190-11,600 10,343 11,414 9/9
(10.409)
Barium 81.5-471 (137) 126 196 9/9
Beryllium 0.34-0.52 (0.32) 0.26 0.44 419
Cadmium 0.52-1.6 (0.74) 0.62 1.1 419
Calcium 2,920-6,200 4,881 5,854 919
(4,991)
Chromium 5.8-20.6 (8.8) 8.4 11.5 9/9
Cobalt 10.1-15.8(12.6) 12.4 14.1 9/9
Copper 13.7-37.2 (17.1) 16.5 21.9 9/9
Iron 19,600-32,600 24,562 28,268 9/9
(24,850)
Lead 13.2-18.0 (7.7) 6.5 12.1 . 319
Magnesium 4,340-5.820 4,855 5,281 919
(4,875)
Manganese 360-519(414) 410 46S 9/9
Nickel '8.3-12.7 (10.0) 10.0 11.2 9/9
Potassium 1,200-2,050 1.742 2,043 9/9
( , .771 )
Silver 7.3 (2.2) 1.1 5 1/9
Sodium 124-317(213) 202 273 9/9
Vanadium 27.4-64.0 (41.9) 40.7 51.3 9/9
Zinc 42-92.3 (54.0) 52.8 64.5 9/9
-------
D-oS-93-3
TABLE A-3
-. CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - TEST PIT SOIL SAMPLES
ROUND 11 .
SITE SW-1
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO
Range of
Positive Geometric 95% Frequency
Parameter Detections Mean UCL'1) of
(Arithmetic Detection
Mean)
o TILE 0 GANIC CHEM CALS (
k )
V LA R I mgl cgJ
2-Butanone 0.05 (0.0071) 0.0024 0.02 119
Xylenes 0.006-0.018 0.0025 0.009 219
(0.0042)
Chlorobenzene 0.004 (0.0014) 0.0013 0.0023 119
METALS (mg/kg)
Aluminum 6,490-15,000 9,714 12,871 919
(10.154)
Arsenic 7 (3.8) 3.6 4.9 119
Barium 90.2-174 (125) 121 153 819
Beryllium 0.31-0.59 (0.35) 0.27 0.52 6/9
Cadmium 0.52-1.5 (0.59) 0.48 0.96 5/9
Calcium 3,060-6,370 4,201 5,513 919
(4,393)
Chromium 6.0-46.5 (1 1.7) 7.8 23.7 7/9
Cobalt 10.9-1 5.7 (12.4) 12.3 13.7 9/9
Copl)er 11.8-40.4 (18.5) 17.1 26.3 9/9
Iron 20,300-31,400 25,052 28,519 9/9
(25,306)
Lead 40.3-101 (21.4) 9.3 50.2 2/9
-------
D'()5-93-3
TABLEA-3
- CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - TEST PIT SOIL SAMPLES
ROUND 11
SITE SW-1
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
PAGE THREE
Range of
Positive Geometric 95% Frequency
Parameter Detecti ons Mean UCL(l} of
(Arithmetic Detection
Mean)
METALS (mg/kg) (CONTINUED)
Magnesium 3,670-5,310 4,425 4,896 9/9
(4,454)
Manganese 336-719 (446) 435 544 9/9
Nickel 7.7-12.3 (9.8) 9.7 11.3 9/9
Potassium 804-2,430 1,617 2,121 9/9
(1,696)
Silver 12.6 (3.8) 1.7. 12.6 1/9
Sodium 117-420 (236) 211 332 9/9
Vanadium 30-68.5 (40.8) 39.7 50.6 9/9
Zinc 40.3-135 (62.5) 57.4 89.3 9/9
(1)
Upper 95% confidence Iiglit on arithmetic mean (the maximum
concentration detected is presented when the UCL exceeds the maximum
detected concentration.)
-------
IAIIUA.4
lop Mid 8.)\01'1 A Mon.lollng W.", (SW, Top.Mid 8a,all A Moniloring W.", (NE' Oowngradi.nl O..p Ba,alt A Moniloring Well
(111, I JO. 88, 119.89' (1]1. 16B. 86. 90,118,131,1]4.167. 16S' 11101
P.II am(,ll" No 01 RoIInge 01 PO"love No 01 Range 01 Posilive No 01 Range 01 Posilive
I POI'IoH' Oel.(loon, Geom.III( 95% Posilove O("('(loons Geomelll( 950~ PosItive Oele< loons
I O('ll'("OII\l (Alllhm('l0( Mun UClCl' Oel.
-------
.AIIUA..
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRI.UHON. GROUNDWAtER
ROUNDS' THROUGH 11
SIT( SW.1
FAIRCHilD AF', WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO
'opM,d8.nal' A Mon"orongWell'ISWI Top.M.d 80'1'0'1" A Monito,ing Well,(NE, Downg,.dien, Deep B.s." A Monitoring Well
187. tJO,88, 119,891 (1)1.168,86.90,118, In. 1)4, 167. 165' (170'
Parameler No 0' R.nge 0' POllhve No 0' Range 0' Po,itivi No. of Range 0' Positive
Positive Det.("ons Geomet,i( 95% Positivi Dete",ons Geometric 95~ Positivi Detections
Dele
-------
fABLE A-4
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND OIHRIIunON - GROUNDWATER
ROUNDS.THROUGH"
SIIE SW.'
FAIRCHilD Afl, WASHINGTON
PAGE THREE
rop.Mld 8a\all A Monlto"ng W,II, IS...." Top-Mid Ba\alt A Moniloll"g Well\ (NE) Downo,.dienl Dffp 8a\all A Monilo'ing Well
18', I JO. 811, 129,89' 11)1,168.86,90,118. In, 1)4. '67, '65, 1170'
Pa'.lmt'It" No 01 Rangf 01 Po"llve No 0' Range 01 PosItive No 0' Rangt' 01 PosillVt'
PO\lt.Vt' Dt"t'ellon\ Gt'om.II;( 95% PO\IIIVf Dflfe lions Gt'omt'lm 95% Posiliv. Dt'It'ctions
Ot"t'cllon\l IAllthmell( Mean UCIII' Ot!tfet.on" IA,"hmfliC Mt'an un III Delection" IArilhmflic
No 0' No 01 No 01
Samplt's Mfan' 5olmplt', Mean' Samples Mt'an'
ME T AlS ("Q/L) (CONTINUED)
Nuke' (Tolal, 4/10 . 10.71 (16 4, '8' 411 611) 40.881]5 J' 2)9 SJ6 01. ""
IDiuolvt'd, OllJ .... .'0' .... 2/8 . 6).71(18, 2.8 482 01. "'.
PotassIum ITolal' 10110 1,000.9,900 4,J80 7,J90 13/1) 9].' ';00014.990, ),)00 6,960 " 4,070
15,'90'
ID,uolvt'd, 1/1 1,460.5.890 3.800 NC 818 '.940.7,150 J,I40 4,9'0 TI. 4,600
(4.180, (J.440,
Selenium (Tolal' 0/1 .... .-.. .... )113 '0-11(17, 083 J5 01. __A'
SodIum ITotal, '0/10 . 7,0008).000 30.)00 52,900 .)11) ",000.8).000 25,300 5),800 II' 8,4'0
115.900' I] UOO,
Sodium (Oinolvt'd' 212 '4,800- 70, 700 32,)00 NC 818 ",400-)), '00 32,'00 '4,600 TI. 8.860
142,800) 165,700)
Ihalhum (lolal, 1110 0 7 10 "ChI NC NC 011) .... "" '0.. 01' ....
Vdnadlum (Total, 8110 12-590 (11 5' 3' 7 252 611) 4.115(295) 1)0 5'.0 01. ....
lone II olal, 7/10 13.260180 I' 518 1)8 11113 16-199159)) 405 946 III 324
(Diuolv.d) 0/2 -.. 0... .... 2/8 607.0CJ4' )0 50 0/1 ....
'I
Uppt'r 95% (onl,dence limit on arilhmetic mun
Ave.agt' 01 posItive dflt'clion\ only Idu. 10 use 01 dille'enl olnol'yliColl mt'lhods'
NC - Not calculalt'd .
-------
D-05-93.3
TABLE A.5
SURFACE WATER QUALITY. . FRENCH DRAIN SYSTEM, MANHOLE NO.3
SITE IS-1
FAIRCHilD AFB, WASHINGTON
Parameter Duplicate Sample Results Concentration
(mgll)
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 4.6 / 1.5
Volatile organics NPD(1) / NPD
Semivolatile organics NPD / NPD
Aluminum 413 U(2) / 407U
Anti.mony 70U / 70U
Arsenic 2.0U / 2.0 U
Bari um 43 / 43
Beryllium 1.0 U / 1.0 u
Cadmium 23 / 19
Calcium 12,200 / 12,300
Chromium 80 / 72
Cobalt 20 U / 20 u
Copper 32 / 32
Iron 368 / 346
Lead 2.7 J(3) / 3.5 J
Magnesium 7,260 / 7,350
Manganese 29 / 30.0
Mercury 0.1 U / 0.1 U
Nickel 138 J / 30 UJ
Potassium 145,000 / 147,000
Selenium 0.9U / 1.2 u
Silver 3.0 u / 3.0
Sodium 8,160 / 8,280
Thallium 40.0 U / 40.0 u
Vanadium 5.0 u / 5.0 u
Zinc 63.0 / 65.0
Molybdenum 20.0 U / 2.0 u
Cyanide 10 u / 10 u
(1) NPD. No positives detected .
(2) U. Chemical quantitation limit; nondetected value.
(3) J - Estimated value.
-------
TABLE A-6
r
Top-Mid Basalt A Monitoring Wells (91,93) Base Basalt A Monitoring Well (92) Upgradient Monitoring Well (133) ~
No. of No. of No. of
Parameter Positive Range of Positive Detections Geometric Positive Range of Positive Detections Positive Range of Positive
Detections! (Arithmetic Mean) Mean Detections! (Arithmetic Mean) Detections! Detections
No. of No. of No. of
Samples Samples Samples
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - GROUNDWATER
SITE IS-1
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
VOLATILE ORGANICS II~ /L
1.6
Trichloroethene 2/4 2.0-5.0 (2.1) (Un 95% 0/2 --- 2/2 89 - 130
5.2)(1)
T etrachloroethene 0/4 n- --- --- 0/2 u- 2/2 5.0 - 8.0
SEMI VOLA TILE ORGANICS (lig/L)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) 0/3 -.. --- --- 1/2 30 (16.3) 0/1 ---
phthalate
METALS IIg/L
Aluminum (Total) 3/3 37-3,760 (1,850) 1,290 2/2 120-8,700 (4,410) 2/2 3,000 - 10,800
Arsenic (Total) 0/3 --- --- u- 2/2 1.0-4.0 (2.5) 0/1 ---
Barium (Total) 3/3 69-79 (71) 70 2/2 28-96 (62) 2/2 85 - 201
(Dissolved) 1/1 48 (48) NC(3) NA(4) ........ ---.. 1/1 56
Cadmium (Total) 0/3 ' 1/2 6.0 (4.3) 0/2
--- --- n- ---
Calcium (Total) 3/3 31,700-42,000 (38,400) 3B, 100 2/2 10,000-17,000 (13,500) 2/2 29,000-33,800
(Dissolved) III 30,600 (30,600) NC NA --- --..- III 27,000
Chromium (Total) 0/3 _n -n u- 2/2 6.0-17 (11. 5) 1/2 26
Copper (Toial) 0/3 n- n- --- 1/2 10 (7.3) 0/2 n-
Iron (Total) 3/3 500-9,250 (3,990) 2,170 2/2 220-12,000 (6,110) 2/2 5,300-17,800
-------
TABLE A-6
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. GROUNDWATER
SITE IS-'
FAIRCHILD AFB. WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO
Top-Mid Basalt A Monitoring Wells (9 1,93) Base Basalt A Monitoring Well (92) Upgradient Monitoring Well (133)
No. of No. of No. of
Parameter Positive Range of Positive Detections Geometric Positive Range of Positive Detections Positive Range of Positive
Detectionsl (Arithmetic Mean) Mean Detectionsl (Arithmetic Mean) Detectionsl Detections
No. of No. of No. of
Samples Samples Samples
METALS (Continued)
lead (Total) 1/3 1-4 (1. 7) 1.0 2/2 1.0-15 (8.0) 0/2 ---
Magnesium (Total) 3/3 9,250-12,000 10,800 10,700 2/2 5,600-7,800 (6,700) 2/2 6,800 - 7,820
(Dissolved) 1/1 8,310 (8,310) NC NA --- h. 1/1 5,940
Manganese (Total) 3/3 10-218 (88) 42 2/2 9.0-180 (95) 2/2 170 - 382
Potassium (Total) 2/3 1,000-2,840 (1,450) 1,120 2/2 49,000-54,000 (51.500) 2/2 1,700 - 2.460
(Dissolved) 1/1 2260 (2,260) NC NA u- n- 111 1,150
Sodium (Total) 3/3 11,700-24.000 (19,700) 18.800 2/2 28,000-33,000 (30,500) 2/2 11,000 - 11.800
(Diuolved) 111 11,000 (11,000) NC NA --- -u 1/1 11,600
Vanadium (Total) 2/3 11-16 (11) 9.3 1/2 15 (825) 0/1 ----
Zinc (Total) 1/3 42 (24) 21 1/2 240 (127) 2/2 23 - 42
Molybdenum (Total) 0/3 u- --- 0.. 2/2 7.0-9.0 (8.0) 011 ---
(1)
. (2)
(3)
(4)
Upper 95% confidence limit on arithmetic mean for TCE.
NAP - Not applicable.
NC - Not calculated
-------
TABLE A.7
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
ROUND 11
SITE P5-2
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON'
Sample Number
Parameter I Arithmetic Mean
PS2-Sl-001 PS2-Sl-Q02
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (mg/kg)
I~H I" I
24
34
SEMIVOLA TILE ORGANICS (mg/kg)
I Di-n-butyl phthalate r
0.41'
0.460
0.360
METALS (mg/kg)
Aluminum 10,900 10,600 10,750
Barium 195.1 367J 281
Cadmium 1.0.1 0.82J O.9~
Calcium 5,89OJ 5,71 OJ 5,800
Chromium 29.3J 39.7J 34.5
Cobalt 11.6 9.9 10.8
Copper 18.5 20.0 19.3
Iron 23,000 19,400 21 ,200
Lead 1141 167J 141
Magnesium 4,710.1 4,550.1 . 4,630
Manganese 397 338 368
CoOS-93-3
-------
TABLE A.7
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
ROUND 11
SITE PS.2
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO .
Sample Number
Parameter I Arithmetic Mean
PS2-SL-00 1 PS2-SL-002
METALS (mg/kg) (CONTINUED)
Nickel 9.7 B.4 9.1
Potassium 2,06OJ 1 ,92OJ 1,990
Sodium 205 183 194
Vanadium 41.7 34.0 37.9
Zinc 60,OJ 65.81 62.9
J - signifies an estimated positive result.
D-oS.93.3
-------
TABLE A-B
I parame...1
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - SOIL BORING SAMPLES
TPH AND 8TEX RESUL TS (mgJlcg)
ROUND 11
sITe PS-2 .
FAIRCHILD AFB. WASHINGTON
,.
I
Soil Boring
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
O. TO 2.FOOT INTERVAL
Benzene 0.003u(1)(J) 0.003u 0.003u 0.003u
Toluene 0.003U . 0.003U O.003u . 0.003u
Xylene 0.003u O.OO3u 0.003u 0.003u
Ethylbenzene 0.003u O.003u 0.003U 0.003u
TPH <20(2) <20 <20
2- TO 6-FOOT INTERVAL
Benzene 0.003u 0.004u/0.004U 0.004U 0.006 0.004u 0.004u 0.003u
Toluene 0.003u 0.004u/0.004u 0.004u 0.004u 0.004U 0.004u 0.003u
Xylene 0.007 0.004u/0.004U 0.004U 0.004U 0.004u 0.004u 0.003U
. .
Ethylbenzene 0.003u 0.004u/0.004U. 0.004U 0.005 0.004U 0.004U 0.003U
TPH <20 <20/<20 1BO <20 <20 <20 <20
6- TO 10-FOOT INTERVAL
Benzene O.OOSu 0.460u
Toluene 0005U 0.460u
Xylene 0.014 4.7
Ethylbenzene 0005u 1.7
-------
TABLE A-a
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - SOil BORING SAMPLES
TPH AND BTEX RESUl TS (mg/kg)
ROUND 11
SITE P5-2
FAIRCHilD AFB, WASHINGTON
PA6ETWO
I Parame.., I
COMPOSITE
Soil Boring
I
I
3
, .
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10
4
5
6
7
8
9
Benzene 0.OO4U 0.420U
Toluene O.004u 0.420U
Xylene O.004U 0.420U
Ethylbenzene ' 0.004u 0.420U
TPH <20 1,200
(I)
(2)
()
U signifies a nondetected result or a detection limit result.
< signi fies a nondetected result.
. 2-Hexanone was also detected in soil sample PS2-SS-00 1-00 I at 0.007 mglkg.
. Methylene chloride was detected in several subsurface soil samples (PS2-SS-002-002, PS2-SS-003-00I,PSl-5S-003-001, PS1SS008-001, PS2SS009-001,
and PS2SS009-002) at a concentration range of 0.011 to 0.110 mglkg.
. Acetone was detected in PSl-SS-006-001 at 1.7 J mglkg.
-------
TABLE 4-9
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE.AND DISTRIBUTION. COMPOSITE SOIL SAMPLES
ROUND 11
SITE P5-2
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
Sample Number
Parameter I Arithmetic 1\
PS2-SS-004-001 PS2-SS-007-001
:J
METALS (mg/kg)
Aluminum 9,920 11,500 10,710
Barium 137 110 124
Calcium 24,00OJ . 4,140 14,070
Chromium 7.1J 9.4.1 8.3
Cobalt 12.0 14.2 13.1
Copper 28.9 26.0 27.5
Iron 20,600 25,900 23,300
Magnesium 7,49OJ 5,13OJ 6,310
Manganese 359 505 432
Mercury O.1U 0.1J 0.07S
Nickel 7.5 8.2 7.9
Potassium 1,710 1.840 1,775
Sodium 299 210 255
Vanadium 37.0 50.7 43.9
Zinc 53.2J 52.SJ 52.9
SEMIVOLA TILE ORGANICS (mg/kg)
Naphthalene 0.120u 0.570 0.32
2-Methylnaphthalene 0.120u 1.300 0.68
D-QS.93.3
-------
TABLE A.9
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. COMPOSITE SOil SAMPLES
ROUND 11
SITE P5.2
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO
Sample Number
Parameter I Arithmetic Mean
PS2-SS-004-00 1 PS2-SS-007-001
TClP METALS (mg/l)
Arsenic <0.06 0.18 -
Barium 1.8 1.6 -
Lead 0.05. 2.4J -
Cobalt 0.08 0.03 --
Copper 0.075 0.054 -
Iron 13 10 --
Manganese 5.9 6.3 -
Potassium 8.5 8.6 -
Zinc 0.38 0.45u ---
Antimony 0.14 <0.07 --
Vanadium 0.16 <0.005 -
Magnesium 34 11 -
Calcium 700 60 -
Aluminum 2.5 0.2. -
MISCELLANEOUS PARAMETERS (mg/kg UNLESS NOTED)
TOC 3,000 2,600 --
Kjeldahl Nitrogen 490 300J -
Ammoni Nitrogen 45 13 -
Total Phosphorus 370J 460 ---
Bulk Density (gm/cc) 1.1 1.2 ---
D-05.93.3
-------
TABLEA.9
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUT10N - COMPOSITE SOIL SAMPLES
ROUND11 .
SITE PS-2
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
PAGE THREE
Sample Number
Parameter I Arithmetic Mean
PS2-SS-004-001 PS2-SS-007-001
GRAIN SIZE (% PASSED)
1.a-lnch 100 100 -
3/4-lnch 97.7 95.9 -
1/2-lnch 92.4 93.6 -
3/8-lnch 90.9 91.4 -
Sieve. No. 4 87.5 87.2 -
Sieve NO.1 0 80.3 79.7 -
Sieve No. 20 67.5 64.1 -
Sieve No. 40 57.0 53.2 -
Sieve No. 60 49.0 45.7 -
Sieve No. 140 39.7 33.8 -
Sieve No. 200 36.6 30.4 -
Particle Size 0.023 mm 23.5 16.9 -
Particle Size 0.007 mm 15.4 10.4 -
Particle Size 0.001 mm 10.5 5.7 -
J . signifies an estimated positive result.
U - signifies a nondetected result or a detection limit result.
The following fuel-related chemicals were detected in the TCLP extract of PS2-SS-007-001:
ethyl benzene (210 uglL); xylene (1,400 uglL); 2-methytnaphthalene (32 \lglL); naphthalene
(26 ugll); lead (2,400 \lglL).
D-05-93-3
-------
TABLE A-10
Upgradient Alluvial Monitoring Alluvial Monitoring Well Basalt A Top-Mid Monitoring Wells
Well (56) (177,109,110,55,176,105,106) (178,180)
Parameter No. o' Positive Range o' Positive No. o' Positive Range o' Positive No. o' Positive Range o' Positive
Geometric 95%(1)
Detections! Detections Detections! Detections Mean Ucl Detections! Detections
No. o' Samples (Arithmetic Mean) No. o' Samples (Arithmetic Mean) No. o' Samples (Arithmetic Mean)
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - GROUNDWATER
ROUND 11
SITE PS.2
FAIRCHilD AFB, WASHINGTON
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
TPH (mg/L) 0/1
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (..g/L)
6114
4.0-110(12.5)
0.67
0/2
Benzene 0/1 6/14 10-2,600 9.2 618 1/2 7.0(2) (4.3)
..--- (220)
Ethylbenzene 0/1 ---- 6/14 5.0-1,200 (178) 12.6 380 1/2 10.0-11.0(2) (6.0)
Xylene 0/1 ---- 7/14 12-5,000 (648) 22.1 1,460 1/2 38-40(2) (20)
Chlorobenzene 0/1 ...-- 3/14 2.0-18(5.3) 2.7 8.9 0/2 ----
SEMI VOLA TILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS.. It
Naphthalene NA --'"'. 2/11 8.5-32 (4.9) 2.3 11.1 0/1 ---..
2-Methylnaphthalene NA -..-. 3/11 9.0-67 (9.3) 3.1 22 0/1 .....-..
1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene NA ---- 1/11 3.0 (1.6) 1.6 1.7 0/1 ......--
Chrysene NA ---- '" 1 6.0 (3.3) 3.2 3.9 0/1 ----
)
METALS ( IL)
..gl
Aluminum (Total) NA ---- 3/3 6,230-38,200 20,000 NC 1/1 299-323(2) (311)
. (26,000)
Arsenic (Total) NA ...--... 2/3 13.3-100(39.7) 19.4 NC 111 6.4(2) (6.4)
(Dissolved) NA ---- 3/3 1.2-73.7(26.3) 8.9 NC 1/1 2.0-2.2 (2.1)
Barium (Total) NA ---- 3/3 431-847 (609) 586 NC 1/1 202-203(2) (203)
-------
TABLE A-10
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUnON. GROUNDWA TER
ROUND 11 .
SITE PS-2
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO
Upgradient Alluvial Monitoring Alluvial Monitoring Well Basalt A Top-Mid Monitoring Wells
Well (56) (177, 109,110,55,176,105,106) (178, 180)
Parameter No. of Positive Range of Positive No. of Positive Range of Positive No. of Positive Range of Positive
Geometric 95%(1)
Detections! Detections Detections! Detections Mean UCL Detections! Detections
No. of Samples (Arithmetic Mean) No. of Samples (Arithmetic Mean) No. of Samples (Arithmetic Mean)
METALS
Calcium (Total) NA -..-.. 3/3 114,000-125,000 113,000 NC 1/1 55,000-55,200(2)
(114,000) (55,100)
(Dissolved) NA 3/3 82,300-109,000 95,300 NC 1/1 55,800-56,100(2)
......... (95,900) (56,000)
Chromium (Total) NA ---- 2/3 16-32 (19.8)(3) NC NC 0/1 -..--
Cobalt (Total) NA ---- 2/3 42-51 (47)(3) NC NC 0/1 -.._-
Copper (Total) NA -...... 2/3 52-69(51) 49 NC 0/1 ....--
Iron (Total) NA ..-..- 3/3 24,600-119,000 624,000 NC 1/1 7,220-7,390(2)
(75,200) (7,300)
(Dissolved) NA -...... 3/3 41-12,400 (8,710) 1,910 NC 111 1,750-1,830(2)
(1,790)
Lead (Total) NA ---.. 10/1.1 8.0-130 (45.9) 30.6 76.3 0/1 ----
Magnesium (Total) NA ......- 3/3 37,800-56,700 44,500 NC 1/1 38,000-38,400(2)
(45,200) (38,200)
(Dissolved) NA -..-- 3/3 29,600-47,400 38,200 NC 111 39,900(2) (39,900)
(39,000)
Manganese (Total) NA ---- 3/3 2,340-13,400 4,830 NC 1/1 2,140-2,150(2)
(6,420) (2,150)
(Dissolved) NA ---.. 3/3 2,170-10,700 3,730 NC 1/1 2,190-2,210(2)
(5,020) (2,200)
Nickel (Total) NA ---- 2/3 72-103 (88)(11) NC NC 1/1 45(2) (45)
-------
TABLE A.10
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. GROUNDWA TER
ROUND 11
SITE PS-2
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
PAGE THREE
Upgradient Alluvial Monitoring AliuvialMonitoring Well Basalt A Top-Mid Monitoring Wells
Well (56) (177,109,110,55,176,105,106) (178, 180~
Parameter No. of Positive Range of Positive No. 0' Positive Range of Positive No. of Positive Range of Positive
Geometric 95%(1)
Detections! . Detections Detections! Detections Mean UCl Detections! Detections
No. of Samples (Arithmetic Mean) No. of Samples (Arithmetic Mean) No. of Samples (Arithmetic Mean)
METALS (CONTINUED)
Potassium (Total) NA 3/3 7,930-9,750 9,130 NC 1/1 4,700-4,740(2)
....... (9,150) (4,720)
(Dissolved) NA 3/3 5,010-8,250 6,310 NC 1/1 5,140-5,270(2)
---- (6,470) (5,210)
Sodium (Total) NA ---- 3/3 14,800-84,000 29,400 NC 1/1 14,000-14,400(2)
(39,800) (14,200)
(Dissolved) NA ---- 3/3 10,800-79,300 25,400 NC 1/1 15,000-15,200 (2)
(36,400) (15,100)
Selenium (Total) NA ......... 0/3 -...-.. ---- NC 1/1 0.7(2) (0.7)
Vanadium (Total) NA ---.. 2/3 145-178(113) 84.8 NC 1/1 7.0(2)(1.0)
Zinc (Total) NA ---- 3/3 121-160 (140) 139 NC 1/1 9.0(2) (9.0)
(Dissolved) NA --..... 3/3 4.0-7.0 (5.2) 5.1 . NC 1/1 6.0(2) (6.0)
(1) Upper 95% confidence level on arithmetic mean.
(2) Range shown is from a 'ield duplicate pair.
(3) Arithmetic mean of Positive Detections only, due to analyses by different methods with different detection limits.
NA - Not Analyzed. .
-------
D.
-------
D-QS.93.3
TABLEA-11 .
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
ROUND 11
SITE PS-6
FAIRCHILD AFB. WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO .
Range of Frequency
Positive Geometric 95%
Parameter Detections Mean UCL
-------
TABLE A.12
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
TPH AND BTEX RESULTS (mg/kg)
ROUND11
SITE PS-6
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
I I Soil Boring I
Parameter I I , I I I ~
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0- TO 2-FOOT SAMPLES
I Xylene, I 0.003U(I) I I 0.003U I I I I I I
<20(2) <20
TPH
2.10 4.FOOT SAMPLES
Xylenes 0.003u 0.003u 0.004U/(3)
0.003u
TPH <20 <20 <20/<20
4- 1'0 6.FOOT SAMPLES
I Xylene, I I I I I I I 0.003U I
<20
TPH 6. TO 8.FOOT SAMPLES
I
Xylenes 0.048 0.003U 0.003u
TPH <20 <20 <20
COMPOSITE SAMPLES
I ;::ne, I
I
I
I
I
I
0.003U
130
I
I
0.003U
25
I
(1) U signifies a nondelecled result or a detection limit result.
(2) < signi lies a nondelected result.
-------
TABLE A.13
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. COMPOSITE SOIL BORING SAMPLE RESULTS
ROUND 11
SITE PS-6
FAIRCHILD AFB. WASHINGTON
Soil Boring Sample Identifier
Parameter I Arithmetic Mean
PS6-SS-008-00 1 PS6-SS-006-00 1
METALS (mg/kg)
Aluminum 7,680 8,700 B,190
Barium 71 79.8 75.4
Calci um 4,840.1(5) 4.34C)J 4,590
Chromium 7.6J 11.SJ 9.7
Cobalt 8.3 10.0 9.2
Copper 26.9 21.9 24.4
Iron 19,200 20,500 19,900
lead 9.5UJ 11.gJ 8.3
MagnesIum 4,540.1 5,47OJ 5,000
Manganese 335 348 342
Nickel 6.1 8.6 7.4
Potassium 1,410 1,650 1,530
Vanadium 25.5 30.5 28.0
Zinc 38.2J 65.4J 51.8
SEMIVOLA TILE ORGANICS (mg/kg)
O'ethyl phthalate 0.26U(6) 2.00 1.1
Di-n-butyl phthalate 0.19 0.23 0.21
D-oS-93-3
-------
TABLE A-13
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. COMPOSITE SOIL BORING SAMPLE RESULTS
ROU-ND 11
SITE PS-6
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO
Soil Boring Sample Identifier
Parameter I Arithmetic Mean
PS6-SS-008-00 1 PS6-SS-006-00 1
TCLP METALS (mgIL)
Aluminum 0.12 0.15 --
Arsenic 0.14 0.18 --
Barium 0.77 1.0 -
Calcium 91 93 -
Copper 0.046 0.11 -
Lead <0.02 0.04 --
Mangesium 8.4 11 -
Manganese 2.1 2.6 ...
Iron 0.21 0.048 -
Potassium 8.4 8.9 -
Vanadium 0.006 < 0.005 -
-
MISCELLANEOUS PARAMETERS (mg/kg UNLESS NOTED)
TOC 1,000 650 -
Kjeldahl Nitrogen 920 160 -.-
Ammonia Nitrogen <9.9 4.1 ---
Total Phosphorus 310 380 -
Bulk Density (gmtcc) 1.2 1.4 ---
D-05-93-3
-------
TABLE A-13
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. COMPOSITE SOIL BORING SAMPLE RESULTS
ROUND 11
SITE PS-6
FAIRCHILD AFBr WASHINGTON
PAGE THREE
Soil Boring Sample Identifier
Parameter I Arithmetic Mean
PS6-SS-008-00 1 PS6-SS-006-00 1
GRAIN SIZE (PERCENT PASSED)
3/4-lnch 100 -
1/2-lnch 98.1 100 -
3/8-lnch 95.3 97.7 -
Sieve NO.4 89.4 92.2 -
Sieve NO.1 0 78.3 77.6 --
Sieve No. 20 54.8 42.4 ---
Sieve No. 40 36.3 19.2 --
Sieve No. 60 28.3 14.6 -
Sieve No. 140 18.0 10.7 --
Sieve No. 200 15.3 9.8 --
Particle Size 0.023 mm 8.6 6.9 --
Particle Size 0.007 mm 5.5 5.4 -
Particle Size 0.001 mm 3.9 2.3 --
D.05-93-3
-------
TABlEA.14
Alluvial Monitoring Wells (188, 189,34) Basalt A Monitoring Well (190)
Parameter No. of Positive Range of Positive No. of Positive Range of Positive
Detections! Arithmetic Mean Geometric Mean Detections!
No. of Samples Detections No. of Samples Detections
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - GROUNDWATER
ROUND11
SITE PS-6
FAIRCHilD AFB, WASHINGTON
VOLA TILE ORGANICS (lig/L)
I Trichloroethene I
METALS (lig/l)
1/3
I
10
4.0
2.2
I
0/1
I
I
Aluminum (Total) 1/1 71,800-114,000(1) 92,900 NC(6) 1/1 1,330
Arsenic (Total) 111 49-64.6(1) 56.8 NC 1/1 1.7
(Dissolved) 1/1 9.0-9.4( I) 9.2 NC 1/1 1.3
Barium (Total) 1/1 743-1,020(1) 882 NC 1/1 27.0
(Dissolved) 1/1 189-193(1) 191 NC 1/1 16.0
Calcium (Total) 1/1 104,000-115,000(1) 110,000 NC 1/1 24,100
(Dissolved) 1/1 80,800-80,900(1) 80,900 NC 1/1 24,400
Chromium (Total) 1/1 74.0-91.0(1) 83.0 NC 0/1 -..._-
Cobalt (Total) 1/1 58.0-95.0(1) 77.0 NC 0/1 ----
Copper (Total) 1/1 113-165(1) 139 NC 011 --..-
Iron (Total) 1/1 115,000-169,000(1) 142,000 NC 1/1 2,030
(Dissolved) 1/1 171-187(1) 179 NC 0/1 --..-
lead (Total) 1/1 47.8-78.0(1) 63.0 NC on ----
Magnesium (Total) 1/1 41,000-52,400(1) 46,700 NC 1/1 6,350
-------
TABLE A-14
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - GROUNDWATER
ROUND 11
SITE PS-6
FAIRCHILD AFB. WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO
Alluvial Monitoring Wells (188, 189, 34) Basalt A Monitoring Well (190)
Parameter No. of Positive Range of Positive No. of Positive Range of Positive
Detections! Arithmetic Mean Geometric Mean Detections!
No. of Samples Detections No. of Samples Detections
METALS (Continued)
Manganese (Total) 1/1 7,910-9,750(1) 8,830 NC 1/1 59
(Dissolved) 1/1 3,270-3,360(1) 3,320 NC 0/1 ...-.....
~ickel (Total) 1/1 129.166(1) 148 NC 0/1 ---..
(Dissolved) 1/1 30.0 30.0 NC 0/1 ----
Potassium (Total) 1/1 11,800-16,800(1) 14,300 NC 1/1 770
(Dissolved) 1/1" 4,01 0-4,240( 1) 4,130 NC 1/1 732
Sodium (Total) 1/1 11,300-12,200(1) 11 ,800 NC 1/1 6,160
(Dissolved) 1/1 9,610-9,990(1) 9,800 NC 1/1 6,540
Vanadium (Total) 1/1 169-255(1) 212 NC 0/1 ......--
Zinc (Total) 1/1 267-387(1) 327 NC 1/1 16.0
(Dissolved) 1/1 7.0 7.0 NC 1/1 4.0
(1) Range of field duplicate pair results.
-------
TABLEA.15
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
ROUND 11
SITE PS-S
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
Range of Positive Geometric Frequency
Parameter Detections Mean 95%(1) UCL of
(Arithmetic Mean) Detections
I TPH (mglkg) r- 24-330 (72.7) 30.0 205 4/7
SEMIVOLA TILE ORGANICS (m /k )
Di-n-butyl phthalate 0.37-0.68 (0.47) 0.461 0.554 7n
METALS (mg/kg)
Aluminum 8,940-12,200 (10,900) 10,900 12,100 7n
Antimony 7.8-19.8(5.3) 4.5 9.7 217
Arsenic 12.2 (4.8) 4.1 8.7 1n
Barium 121-826 (269) 203 559 7n
Cadmium 0.51-1.0 (0.43) 0.37 0.75 3n
Calcium 3,210-4,870 (3,700) 3,670 4,220 7n
Chromium 11.1-24.2 (17.6) 17.2 22.2 7n
Cobalt. 9.8-12.7 (10.9) 10.8 12.3 7n
Copper 15.2-18.0 (16.5) 16.5 17.5 7n
Iron 17,000-22,200 19,000 21,300 7n
(19,100)
Lead 24.4-84.1 (56.9) 53.2 78.0 7n
Magnesium 4,200-4,940 (4,560) 4,550 4,860 7n
Manganese 36.1-487 (399) 397 451 7n
Nickel 8.5-13.1 (10.7) 10.7 12.2 7n
Potassium 1,610-2,390 (2,150) 2,140 2,380 7n
Sodium 156-244 (199) 197 232 7n
Vanadium 22.9-38.5 (29.8) 29.3 36.2 7/7
Zinc 55.3-84.8 (63.9) 63.2 75.4 7n
(1)
Upper 95% confidence level on arithmetic mean.
D-05-93-3
-------
TABLE A.16 .
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. SOil BORING SAMPLES
TPH AND VOC RESUl TS (mg/kgt
ROUND 11
SITE PS.8
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
Parameter
Soil Boring
12
Ra'nge of Positive
Detections
O. TO 2.FOOT SAMPLES
HNu Readings 1.6 30 ---- 15 1.25 25 --...... ---- 3.5 1.5 -.-. --.... 1.25-30
VOC Results NPD(1) NPD NS(2) NS NPD NPD NS NS NS NS NS NS NPD
TPH . <20 <20 NS NS <20 <20 NS NS NS NS NS NS NPD
2. TO 4.FOOT SAMPLES
HNu Readings 10 20 ........ . 1.5 10 10 15 0.5 5.0 5.0 6.5 1.0 0.5-20
VOC Results NS NS NS NPD NS NS NS NPD/NPD()) NS . NPD NPD NS NPD
TPH NS NS NS (41<20 NS NS NS <20/<20 NS <20 3.200 NS 3,200
4. TO 6.FOOT SAMPLES
HNu Readings ---- 22 2.0 1.0 0.5 12 15 1.5 1.5 1.0 22 2 0.5-22
Xylene NS 0.039 NS NS NS 0.003U(5) 0.003U NS NS NS 0.003u NS 0.039
TPH NS <20 NS NS NS <20 <20 NS NS NS 22,000 NS 22,000
6. TO B.FOOT SAMPLES
HNu Readings 0.2 40 1.0 1.0 0.5 6 22 15 0.5 1.0 4.0 0.5 0.2-22
VOC Results NS NS NS NS NS NS ---... NPD NS NS NS NS NPD
TPH NS NS NS NS NS NS NS <20 NS NS NS NS NPD
8. TO 10-FOOT SAMPLES
HNu Readings 2.0 24 1.0 1.0 NS 80 150 7.0 4.5 10 6.5 10 1-150
VOC Results NS NS NPD NS NS NS NPD NS NS NPD NS NS NPD
TPH NS NS <20 NS NS NS 3B NS NS 53 NS NS 38-53
COMPOSITE SAMPLES
HNu Readings NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS -...-... NS NS ---- NPD
VOC Results NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NPD NS NS NPD 58-3,200
TPH NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 3,200 NS NS 58/63 58-3,200
(11
(ll
. No positive detections
.\101 sampled
(41
(51
<
u
Represents a nondete(ted result
-------
IAIIU A.II
Alluv.,,1 MOn"O''"9 Well, T op.Mid Basall A Monilorong We",
(181, 101. 108, 111.66, )0, )1, 6B, 61,184,111, 11).18)) (185,186,181)
No 01 No 01
Pa'am.,., POSIIo ve Pos,'ive
O.I.
-------
IAlIl~.A.1I
CON'AMINAN' OCCURRENCE AND DIS'RIIUJlON. GROUNDWA fER
ROUNDS 8. 9, AND 11
SIJE PS.8
fAIRCHllD Afl. WASHING 'ON
PAGE fWO
AlluVI.1 MOOllollng W~IIs Basall A 'op.Mid Moniloring W~IIs
(181,107,108,111,66, )0, H,68,67,I84, 112,11),18)1 (185, 186, 187)
No 01 No 01
P.r.m~l~r Posill.~ Posili.~
Cel~c"onsl R.ng~ 01 Potili.~ DfI~c lions G~omflric 95%111 D~leclionsi Range 0' Posiliv~ D~I~clions Geom~tri(
No 01 (Arithm~lic M~.n) Me.n Ucl No 01 (Arilhm~lic Meanl Mean
Sample, 5ampl~\
MEJALS (CONJINUED)
(opper ffolal, 416 38.47 UO 4' 197 519 011 ... ...
(DIS,olved) 1/6 40 (191 I 1 JO 0/1 h. '"
Iron "01.11 616 16,000-69,500 141.800) 40.800 58,800 111 686 NC
(Dlnolv~d) 5/6 65-11. '00 IIJ,lool 2,OJO 15.BOO OII 'h ...
lead 1T0lal, 14/15 602JO (408) 152 77.1 011 ... ...
M.gn~\lum ('01.1) 616 15,900- 59,800 U8, Jool J6,7oo 51,500 III 5.410 NC
IDlnolv~dl 616 18,000.55,700 UJ,9OO) 3'.200 49,400 1/1 5,480 ...
M.ngan~\~ ffol.11 616 9)).9,800 (4,9JO) ),690 8,480 01' ... ...
(Dinol.~dl 4/6 3.950.9,420 (4,390) 468 8.400 011 ... ...
Nlc.el "01.1' 616 )1.7) (561) 540 7) 011 ... ...
(Dinol.edl 3/6 )1-6) (JU) 262 524 011 ... ...
POlanlum ('01.1' 616 6,100.1 J,2oo 19,180) 9,OJO 11,800 1/1 1,600 N(
(Dinol.edl 616 3.610'11.800 17.350) 6.510 11.300 1/1 1,810 N(
Sodium ('01.1) 616 '0.800.17,000 117,0001 16,100 1),)00 III 8,430 NC
(Dinol.~dl 616 10,300.18,090 117,300) 16,400 24,000 III 8,790 NC
Vanadium ('01.1' 416 50.56 I)) J) 111 56 1/1 '7 NC
llnc ('01.,) 616 11.111 (748) 560 III 1/1 17 NC
IDi"ol.~d' 116 6 0.7 0 136' 3 I . 60 III
4 N(
(II Upper 95°" (onl,den(e li01,1 on Ihe alllhmehc mean
N( . "'ot cdhul.tled
-------
TABLE A-18
Ambient Water
Sample Numbers Quality Criteria
Background Federal SWDA
Parameters Concentration Maximum Aquatic life
(1) Contaminant
WWI- WWI- WWI- WWI- level
SWND5-009 SWND5-0 1 0 SWND5-011 SWND5-012 Chronic
Esposure
CHEMICAL OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - SURFACE WA TER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLES
ROUND 9
SITE WW-1
FAIRCHILD AFR, WASHINGTON
SURFACE WA TER
Arsenic NA(2) 3 3 3 4 50 190
Cadmium NA 5U(3) SU SU SU 5 1.1
lead NA 2u lu 2u lu 15 3.2
(Action level)
( tlg/L)
( tlg/L)
( tlg/L)
( tlg/L)
( tlg/L)
( tlg/L)
( pg/L)
SEDIMENT
Arsenic 8.)J(4) 6.9J 8.41 7J 5.6J NA 33(5)
Cadmium 2.7' 12.90J 17.3J 10.8J 2.6J NA 31(5)
lead 23.9u 89.60 75.8 58.7 35.0u NA 132(5)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Background data collected by SAIC during R9 sampling event.
NA - Not applicable.
U - Signifies a nondetected result or a detection limit result.
J - Signi fies an estimated positive result.
-------
TABLEA-19
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. LAGOON SURFACE WA TER SAMPLES(1)
ROUND 11
SITE WW-1
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
Range of Positive Geometric. Frequency
Parameter Detections 95% UCL(2) of
(Arithmetic Mean) Mean Detections
VOLA TILE ORGANICS (mg/L)
Methylene chloride 0.007 (0.002) 0.005 0.001 1n
Acetone 0.006 (0.006) 2n
MISCELLANEOUS PARAMETERS
TPH (mgll) 0.4-3.0 (0.76) 1.9 0.32 417
TDS (mglL) 290-350 (325) 346 324 7n
Alkalinity (mglL) 180-200 (191) 202 191 7n
Chloride (mglL) 31-49 (39.5) 47.8 38.8 7n
Fluoride (mglL) 0.59-1.4 (0.84) 1.1 0.80 7n
Sulfate (mglL) 8.0-17 (13.9) 18.5 13.2 7n
METALS (TOTAL AND (DISSOLVED» (pglL)
Aluminum 96-186 (94.3) 138 85.4 5n
94 (49.1) 59.6 48.4 1n
Arsenic 2.4-10.8 (4.5) 8.2 3.6 617
2.1-4.6 (2.6) 3.9 2.4 617
Barium 84-109 (93.4) 103 93.1 7n
73-95 (81.8) 90.4 81.4 7n
Calcium 50,400-55,300 (52,500) 54,700 52,500 7n
51,000-56,000 (52,400) 54,400 52,400 7n
Iron 290-1,330 (560) 979 476 7n
51-141 (65.3) 95.4 55.0 7n
Magnesium 13,300-15,800 (14,400) 15,500 14,400 7n
13,100-15,900 (14,300) 15,600 14,300 7n
Manganese 138-444 (262) 368 247 7n
1 16-517 (244) ' 390 219 7n
Potassium 3,500-4,680 (4,040) 4,600 4,010 7n
3,500-4,930 (4,120) 4,700 4,090 7n
Sodium 29,000-37,500 (34,100) 37,000 34,000 7n
32,400-36,300 (34,600) 35,800 34,500 7/7
(1)
(2)
Units are J,lgll unless otherwise indicated.
Upper 95% confidence limit on the arithmetic mean.
. D-oS.93.3
-------
TABLE A.20
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. NO NAME DITCH SURFACE WA TERS(1)
NOVEMBER 1991
. SITE WW.1 .
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
Range of Positive Geometric Frequency
Parameter Detections Mean 95% UCL(2) of
(Arithmetic Mean) Detection
PESTlODESlPCBs hJg/L)
Endosulfan 0.054-0.14 (0.035) 0.019 0.090 217
Sulfate
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (mglL)
I TPH I 0.4-1.5 (0.43)
0.25
1.0
3n
MISCELLANEOUS PARAMETERS (mg/L)
TDS(10) 310-340 (326) 326 340 7n
TSS(11) 12 (6.2) 5.8 9.2 1n
Alkalinity 170-220 (193) 193 213 7n
METALS (pg/L)
Aluminum 156-297 (118.6) 91.6 212 417
NC -
Barium 70.91 (83.6) 83.2 92.6 7n
70-85 (77. 1) 76.7 . 85.0 7n
Cadmium 5-6 (3.5) 3.2 5.2 217
5-6 (3.5) 3.2 5.2 217
Calcium 52,300-53,800 (53,050) 53,000 53,600 7n
51,600-52.700 (52,200) 52,200 52,600 7n
Chromium 10-14 (7.33) 6.7 11.4 2n
10(5.83) 5.6 8.0 1n
Iron 186-658 (357) 323 539 7n
46-163 (97.4) 87.8 148 7n
Lead 1.1-2.1 (1.7) 1.6 2.0 7n
1-2.7 (1.2) 0.97 2.0 5n
Magnesium 15,500-16.300 (15,900) 15,900 16.200 7n
15,300-16.100 (15,600) 15,600 15,900 7n
D'()S-93.3
-------
TABLE A-20
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. NO NAME DITCH SURFACE WATERS(1)
NOVEMBER 1991
SITE WW-1
FAIRCHILD AFB. WASHINGTON
PAGE 1WO
Range of Positive Geometric Frequency
Parameter Detections Mean 95% UCL<2} of
(Arithmetic Mean) Detection
METALS (lIg/L)
Manganese 106-166 (124) 123 148 7n
36-S7 (61.5) 57.9 84.6 7n
Potassium 4,180-12,600 (S,170) 7,470 11,900 7n
4,OS0-12,500 (S,1 00) 7,410 11 ,700 7n
Sodium 32,400-35,200 (34,300) 34,252 35,396 7n
31,900-35,100 (34,000) 34,000 35,100 7n
(I) Units are ~gIL unless otherwise indicated.
(2) Upper 95% confidence level on arithmetic mean.
TDS - Total Dissolved Solids.
TSS . Total Suspended Solids.
NC - Not Calculated
0.05.93.3
-------
TABLE A-21
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - NO NAME DITCH SEDIMENTS
ROUND 11
SITE WW-1
FAIRC"ILD AFB, WASHINGTON
Range of Positive Geometric 95% UCL Frequency
Parameter DeteCtions Mean (1) of
(Arithmetic Mean) DeteCtions
VOLATILE ORGANICS (mg/kg)
Chi oromethane 0.003 (0.003) 0.003. 0.003 1/7
Acetone 0.25 (0.049) 0.014 0.152 1/7
Toluene 0.28 (0.049) 0.005 0.168 1/7
SEMIVOLA TILE ORGANICS (mg/kg)
4-Methyl phenol 1.5(0.31) 0.12 0.92 1/7
Di-n-butyl 1.1 (0.29) 0.19 0.7 1/7
phthalate
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDORCARBONS
I TPH(mglkg) I 72-310(107)
METALS (mg/kg)
4f~
53.3
228
Aluminum 5,240-9,480 (7,370) 7,200 9,170 7/7
Antimony 47.4(12.3) 7.5 30.4 1n
Barium 50.7-626 (168) 105 404 7/7
Cadmium 11.2(2.9) 1.4 7.2 1/7
Calcium 1,970-264,000 (48,400) 8.550 159,000 7n
Chromium 9.9-60.3 (21.6) 17.5 41.7 7/7
Cobalt 5.7-9.1 (6.8) 6.6 8.7 6/7
Copper 7.3-30.8 (16.7) 15.3 25.2 7/7
Iron 15.000-23,300 (19.000) 18,800 22,200 7/7
Lead 12.7-35.5 (23.9) 16.6 47.4 4/7
Magnesium 3,750-9,090 (5,770) 5,530 7,800 7/7
Manganese 193-852 (419) 359 696 7/7
D-OS.93.3
-------
TABLE A.21
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. NO NAME DITCH SEDIMENTS
ROUND 11
SITE WW.1
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
PAGE1WO
Range of Positive 95% UCL Frequency
Parameter Detections Geometric Mean (1) of
(Arithmetic Mean) Detection
METALS (mg/kg) (Continued)
Nickel 4.5-7.1 (6.0) 5.9 6.9 6n
Potas.sium 880-1,460 (1,200) 1,190 1,440 7n
Vanadium 18.1-37.1 (26.0) 25.3 32.8 7n
Zi.nc 41.3-97.9 (62.5) 60.0 84.2 7n
(1)
Upper 95% confidence limit on the arithmetic mean.
D-05-93.3
-------
D-QS.93.3
TABLE A-22
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - LAGOON
.SEDIMENT SAMPLES
ROUND 11
SITE WW-1
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
Range of Positive 95%(1) Frequency
Parameter Detections UCL of
(Arithmetic Mean) Detections
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
I TPH (mglkg) I 150-8.300 (2,400) I
VOLATILE ORGANICS (mg/kg)
4.800
8/9
f
Toluene 0.008-0.032 0.019 3/9
(0.010)
Xylene 0.032-0.0058 0.03 3/9
(0.013)
SEMIVOLA TILE ORGANICS (mg/kg)
2-Methylnapthalene 0.22-0.51 (0.154) 0.28 219
Diethyl phthalate 0.35 (0.22) 0.29 1/9
Phenanthrene 0.11-0.91 (0.18) 0.34 3/9
Fluoranthene 0.33-1.1 - (0.15) 0.77 2/9
Pyrene 0.40-0.88 (0. 19) 0.34 219
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.42 (0.15) 0.22 119
Chrysene 0.68 (0.19) 0.29 1/9
B i s( 2 -ethyl hexyl) 0.32-4.0 (1.2) 2.3 7/9
phthalate
Di-n-butyl pt'!thalate 0.51-0.78 (0.52) 0.68 719
-------
D-oS.93.3
TABLE A.22
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. LAGOON
SEDIMENT SAMPLES
ROUND 11
SITEWW.1
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO
Range of Positive 95%(1) Frequency
Parameter Detections UCL of .
(Arithmetic Mean) Detection
METALS (mg/kg)
Aluminum 6,550-19,800 15,000 9/9
(11,500)
Antimony 13.1 (6.6) 9.3 1/9
Arsenic 16.1 1/9
Barium 56.9-607 (235) 366 9/9
Beryllium 0.74-0.89 (0.298) 0.57 2/9
Cadmium 3.6-11.1 (4.2) 8.0 5/9
Calcium 3.810-72,200 42,300 9/9
(24,796)
Chromium 9.1-93.4 (38.6) 60.6 9/9
Cobalt 7.3-38.1 (15.4) 24.0 9/9
Copper 13.7-107.0 (47.8) 75.2 9/9
Iron 13,700-37,300 27,600 9/9
(19,369)
Lead 15.3-451 (156) 283 819
Magnesium 3,390-8,040 7,060 9/9
(5,900)
Manganese 290-4,440 (1,099) 2,300 9/9
Mercury 0.6-0.9 (0~38) 0.68 5/9
Nickel 8.1-46.8 (17.6) 27.4 9/9
Potassium 996-2,150 (1,619) 1,980 9/9
Sodium 156-611 (299) 458 7/9
Vanadium 17.2-61.5 (36.9) 49.9 9/9
Zinc 32.5-439 (152) 270 9/9
(1) Upper 95% confidence level on arithmetic mean.
TPH - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
-------
TABLE A.23
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. DIKE SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES (mg/kg)(1)
ROUND 11
SITE WW.1
FAIRCHILD AFB. WASHINGTON
Range of Positive Geometric Frequency
Parameter Detections Mean 95% UCL(2) of
(Arithmetic Mean) Detections
TPH 34-1.800 75.7 1.110 5/7
(364)
Aluminum 9,050 - 12.800 11.500 12.800 7/7
(11,500)
Barium 75.5 -168 109 144 7f7
( 112)
Cadmium 3.5 - 7.9 2.1 6.4 4f7
(3.3)
Calcium 3,780-11,600 6,112 9.810 7/7
(6.650)
Chromium 11.7 - 38.6 19.5 31.5 70
(21.2)
Cobalt 8.3 - 10.3 9.1 10.0 7rl
(9.2)
Copper 15.2 - 43.2 20.5 33.2 7/7
(22.1)
Iron 17.500 - 22.400 20.400 22,200 7/7
(20,400)
Lead 13.5-139 26.9 94.3 6/7
(43.5)
Magnesi um 4,920 - 6.320 5,530 6,060 7/7
(5.550)
Manganese 228 - 532 354 453 7/7
(363)
Mercury 0.1 - 0.4 0.13 0.28 7/7
(0.15)
Sodium 221 - 247 129 247 3/7
( 154)
Nickel 10.8-12.8 11.7 12.4 7/7
(11.7)
D-05.93.3
-------
TABLE A-23
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. DIKE SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES (MG/KG)(1)
ROUND 11.
SITE WW-1
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO
Range of Positive Geometric Frequency
Parameter Detections Mean 95% UCLC2} of
(Arithmetic Mean) Detections
Potassi u m 1,660-2,400 2,020 2,335 7n
(2,037)
Vanadium 17.6-33.5 29.5 33.0 7n
(29.6)
Zinc 45 . 127 61.2 98.0 7n
(65.6)
(1) Di-n-butyl phthalate was detected in all 7 surface soil samples at concentrations ranging of
0.27 to 0.66 mglkg.
. Diethylphthalate was detected in sample WW1DSl-002 (skimmed waste pond) at
0.450 mglkg.
(2) Upper 95% confidence level on arithmetic mean.
TPH - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
D-05.93.3
-------
TABLE A.24
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. DIKE SOIL BORING SAMPLES
ROUND 11
SITE WW.1
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
Range of Positive Frequency
Detections Geometric
Parameter (Arithmetic Mean 95% UCL(1) of
Mean) Detections
0- TO 4-FOOT DEPTH (mgikg)
TPH 27 - 180 29.1 74.3 8112
(44.85)
Aluminum 8,970 - 14,200 10,951 12,130 12/12
(11,043)
Antimony 9.4 4.0 4.7 1/12
(4.1)
Arsenic 6.8 3.7 4.6 1/12
(3.8)
c:admium 0.88 - 132 3.3 27.4 11/12
( 12.0)
Chromium 6.7 - 116 17.3 35.1 12/12
(22.1)
Copper 21.6-108 21.6 50.4 5/12
(29.9)
Iron 17,600 - 39,200 21,369 24,859 12/12
(21,715)
Mercury 0.1-1.4 .09 .51 3/12
(.21)
Silver 3.1 .25 .71 1/12
(.37)
Vanadium 25 - 80.1 31.9 39.6 12/12
(32.8)
D-QS-93-3
-------
TABLE A-24
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - WW-1 DIKE SOIL BORING SAMPLES(1)
ENViRONMENTAL SAMPUNG ROUND 11
SITE WW-1
FAIRCHILD AFB. WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO
Range of Positive Frequency
Detections Geometric
Parameter (Arithmetic Mean 95% UCL(1) of
Mean) Detections
4- TO 8-FOOT DEPTH
Aluminum 8,910-10,200 9,750 NC 3/3
(9,770)
Cadmium 0.8 - 1.8 1.1 . NC .3/3
(1.2)
Chromium 10-10.9 10.4 NC 3/3
(10.4)
Copper 32.6 13.3 NC 1/3
(16.6)
Iron 17,800-19,500 18,587 NC 3/3
( 18,600)
Vanadium 19.9 - 28.2 23.1 NC 3/3
(23.3)
COMPOSITE SAMPLES (mg/kg)
TPH 120 NC NC 1/3
(37.5)
Aluminum 13,300-18,000 NC NC 3/3
(14,375)
Cadmium 1.7- 2.0 NC NC 3/3
(1.8)
Chromium 11.9- 20.6 NC NC 3/3
(16.6)
Copper 41.6 NC NC 1/3
(20.8)
Iron 21,800 - 25,200 NC NC 3/3
(24,100) .
Vanadium 32.9 - 39.9 NC NC 3/3
(36.9)
D-05-93-3
-------
TABLE A-24
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. WW.1 DIKE SOIL BORING SAMPLES(1)
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING ROUND 11
SITE WW-1
FAIRCHILD AFB. WASHINGTON
PAGE THREE
Range of Positive Frequency
Detections Geometric
Parameter (Arithmetic Mean 95% UCL(1) of
Mean) Detections
COMPOSITE SAMPLES (mg/kg) (Continued)
TOC NC NC NC 3/3
Ammonia NC NC NC 3/3
Nitrogen
Total NC NC NC 3/3
. Phosphorus
Kjeldahl NC NC NC 3/3
Nitrogen
Bulk Density NC NC NC 3/3
(1) Upper 95% confidence limit on arithmetic mean.
NC - Not Calculated.
D.()S.93.3
-------
TABLE A-25
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES(11)
ROUND 11
SITE WW-1
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
Range Geometric Frequency
Parameter 95% UCL(1) of
(Arithmetic Mean) Mean Detections
TPH AND METALS (mg/kg)
TPH 6-600 (148) 36.0 308 5/11
Aluminum 9,560- 1 4,600 (1 1,432) 1 1 ,327 12,612 11/11
Barium 90.8-169 (123) 121 139 1 1/1 1
Cadmium 3. 1~6. 1 (3.0) 1.8 4.6 6/11
Calcium 4,070- 11,500 (7,087) 6,667 8,919 11/11
Chromium 8.7-38(23.1) 21.0 30.0 1 1/1 1
Cobalt 9-12.6 (10.0) 9.9 10.6 11/1 1
Copper 14.9-41.3 (28.6) 26.3 37.3 11/11
Iron 18,400-24,800 (21,095) 21,008 22.563 11/11
lead 12.3-131 (58.5) 35.7 90.5 8111
Magnesium 4.480-6,000 (5,107) 5,088 . 5,437 11/11
Manganese 272-44 1 (360) 356 402 11/11
Mercury 0.1 -1.0 (0.39) 0.27 0.62 11/1 1
Nickel 8.4-13.6(10.9) 10.8 12.0 11/11
Potassium 1,540-2,240 (1,868) 1,858 2,011 11111
Sodium 179-286 (1-40) 119 197 6/11
Vanadium 27.8-44.4 (34.6) 34.2 28.2 1 "'1
Zinc 44.1-119 (74.9) 70.8 . 93.6 11 " 1
(1) Upper 95% confidence limit on arithmetic mean.
D-OS-93-3
-------
TABLE A.26
-CONTAMI NANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. EAST TEST PIT SAMPLES (0 . 4 FEET)
ROUND 11
SITEWW-1
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
Range Frequency
Parameter Geometric Mean 95% UCL(1) of
(Arithmetic Mean) Detection
VOLATILE ORGANICS (mg/kg)
Trichloroethene 0.005 (0.002) 0.0014 0.003 1/6
Toluene 0.007 (0.003) 0.002 0.005 1/6
Xylene 0.011-0.026 (0.009) 0.005 0.020 3/6
SEMIVOLA TI LE ORGANICS (mglkg)
Di-n-butyl phthalate 0.22-0.45 (0.283) 0.261 -- 2/3
Benzoic Acid 1.4 (0.818) - - 1/3
Chrysene 0.51 (0.2$2) 0.196 .-- 1/3
Fluoranthene 0.71 (0.319) 0.219 - 1/3
Pyrene 0.700 (0.303) 0.196 NC 1/3
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
J TPH (mglkg) ~ 62-2.400 (543)
217
1,506
C~
METALS (mg/kg)
Aluminum 5,990-12,700 (9,372) 9,138 11,713 5/5
Arsenic 9 (4.1) 3.8 6.6 1/5
Barium 62.8-318(128) 108 228 5/5
Beryllium 0.56 (0.23) 0.20 0.40 1/5
Cadmium 0.53-35.8 (7.2) 1.1 22.1 3/5
Calcium 5,000-17,600 (8,285) 7,534 13,165 5/5
Chromium 7.3-138 (35.1) 17.9 89.2 5/5
Cobalt 9.3-12.5 (10,6) 5/5
Copper 14.3-67.1 (25.1) 21.0 46.8 5/5
D.oS.93-3
-------
TABLE A.26
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. EAST TEST PIT SAMPLES (0 . 4 FEET)
ROUND 11
SITEWW.1
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO
Range Frequency
Parameter Geometric Mean 95% UCL(1) of
(Arithmetic Mean) Detections
METALS (mg/kg) (Continued)
Iron 16,700-26,000 21,709 25,607 5/5
(21,950)
Lead 9.6-313 (64.2) 17.4 193 3/5
Magnesium 4,540-6,080 (5,370) 5,332 6,080 5/5
Manganese 208-486 (367) 356 462 5/5
Nickel 9.3-22.2 (13.0) 12.5 17.9 5/5
Potassium 873-1,890 (1,561) 1,512 1,890 5/5
Sodium 123-449 (209) 189 336 5/5
Vanadium 25.4-43.4 (36.2) 35.7 42.7 5/5
Zinc 44.8- 1 68 (71 .3) 62.9 121 5/5
MISCELLANEOUS PARAMETERS
TOC (mglkg) 2.400.3,200 (2,933) 2,907 NC 3/3
Kjeldahl Nitrogen 410.1,000 (610) 556 NC 3/3
Ammonia Nitrogen 48 (19.3) 10.5 NC 1/3
Total Phosphorous 300-660 (473) 450 NC 3/3
(1) Upper 95% confidence limit on arithmetic mean.
NC - Not calculated.
D'()5-93-3
-------
TABLE A-27
. CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - EAST TEST PIT SAMPLES (4 - 8 FEET)
ROUND 11
SITEWW-1
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
Range of Positive Geometric Frequency
Parameter Detections Mean 95% UCL(1) of
(Arithmetic Mean) Detections
VOLATILE ORGANICS (mg/kg)
Trichloroethene 0.018-0.035 (0.01) 0.003 0.025 217
Chloroform 0.003-0.006 (0.003) 0.002 0.004 3n
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (mg/kg)
J TPH I 150-4,500 (827)1
METALS (mg/kg)
75.8
2,719
3n
Aluminum 6,530-15,800 (9,410) 9,020 12,705 7n
Barium 68.9-175 (95.6) 90.4 135 7n
Berylli um 0.26 (0. 18) 0.17 0.25 1n
Cadmium 0.75-6.2 (1.5) 0.72 3.9 3n
Calcium 1,660~7,230 (5,250) 4,760 7,230 7n
Chromium 8.2-21.5 (15.2) 14.3 20.9 7n
Cobalt 8.3-25.7 (12.4) 11.7 17.1 7n
Copper 12.8-23.1 (17.2) 16.8 21.3 7n
Iron 17,100..35,300 23,3.00 31,900 7n
(24, 150)
Lead 15.5-23.5 (9.9) 8.0 18.2 2J7
Magnesium 4,070-6,100 (4,913) 4,870 5,710 7n
Manganese 285-740 (390) 377 513 7n
Nickel 7.6-15.1 (10.7) 10.5 13.2 7/7
Potassium 928-2,220 (1,418) 1,350 1,950 7n
Sodium 71.8-282 (174) 154 265 7n
Vanadium 22.7-57 (38.5) 35.7 55.3 7n
Zinc 38.5-70.8 (48.0) 47.0 60.5 7n
<1> Upper 95% confidence level on arithmetic mean.
TPH - Total petroleum hydrocarbons.
D.OS.93.3 .
-------
TABLE A-28
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. NORTH TEST PIT SAMPLES(1)
ROUND 11
SITE WW-1
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHINGTON
Range Geometric Frequency
Parameter 95% UCL(1) of
(Arithmetic Mean) Mean Detections
TPH (mg/kg)
I TPH
METALS (mg/kg)
25-57 (25.5)
19.4
57
3/4
Aluminum 8,370-14,800 (11,868) 11,628 14,800 414
Barium 60.7-132 (106) 102 132 414
Calcium 2,450-5,460 (4,003) 3,758 5,460 414
Chromium 8.5-12.9 (10.8) 10.7 12.9 414
Cobalt 7.6-15.3 (11.6) 11.2 15.3 414
Copper 12.8-44.1 (21.7) 18.8 44.1 414
Iron 19,800-23,500 21,172 23,500 4/4
(21,225)
Lead 17.5 (3.2) 2.1 6.7 1/4 .
Magnesium 4.860-5,960 (5,438) 5,423 5,960 4/4
Manganese 336-459 (397) 394 459 4/4
Nickel 8-11.6 (10.3) 10.2 11.6 4/4
PotassIum 1,610-2,380 (1,978) 1,959 2,380 4/4
Sodium 91.5-219 (175) 166 219 4/4
Vanadium 26.6-42.9 (34.0) 33.5 42.9 4/4
Zinc 42.52.7 (47. 1) 46.9 52.7 414
(1) Upper 95% confidence limit on arithmetic mean.
D'()5-93-3
-------
TABLE A.29
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. NORTH TEST PIT SAMPLES (4 TO 8 FEET)
ROUND 11
SITE WW.1
FAIRCHilD AFB, WASHINGTON
Geometric . Frequency
Parameter Range (Arithmetic Mean) Mean 95% UCL(1) of
Detecti ons
TPH (mg/kg)
'TPH
METALS (mg/kg)
40-55 (28.8)
21.7 I
2/4~
55
Aluminum 7,750-14,200 (9,883) 9,601 14,200 4/4
Arsenic 9.3-10.3 (6.6) 5.7 10.3 2/4
Barium 56.9-144 (94.3) 89.3 144 4/4
Cadmium 0.56 (0.35) 0.33 0.56 1/4
Calcium 2,000-6,320 (4,428) 4,052 6,320 4/4
Chromium 5-8.7(6.9) 6.7 8.7 4/4
Cobalt 7.'1-12.1 (8.8) 8.6 12.1 4/4
Copper 9.7-16.0 (13.2) 13.0 16 4/4
Iron 13,100-24,300 (19,075) 18,617 24,300 4/4
Magnesium 3.400-5,230 (4,598) 4,534 5,230 4/4
Manganese 239-350 (298) 295 350 4/4
Nickel 6.1-9.0 (8.1) 8.0 9 4/4
Potassium 1,360-1,950 (1,613) 1,599 1,950 4/4
Sodium 93.8-243 (172) 163 243 4/4
Vanadium 19.1-46.1 (29.3) 27.6 46.1 4/4
Zmc 28.5-48.7(39.5) 38.7 48.7 4/4
<1> Upper 95% confidence limit on arithmetic r:nean.
D-OS-93-3
-------
'ABU A.30
Alluv,a' Mon'loflng W.II, On Ba,. IUpg'ad,.nll AlluvIal Monilollng W.II, On Ba,. 100wngradienl) Alluvial Monilo,ing W.lh
1')4, " B. 10, 141, 14)1 19, '),6, II. 12. 101, 10), 4B, 1),49, 144, 1451 Oil ea,. 1146,110,1411
Pa'am.I., No 01 No 01 No 0'
Po" IIv. Rang. 01 Po"tiv. G.om.IIlC 9')% PO"I,ve Rang. 0' Po,ilive Geom.lflc 9')0'" Po,.tive R,mg. 01 Po,j !Iv.
O.I.cloon" O.I.cloon, Mun UCLI'I Oel.c loon" Oelection, Mean Ucl Oelection" Oel.ction,
No 01 IAr"hm."c Munl No 01 (Afllhmelic M.anl No 01 (Alllhmehc M.anl
Sample, Sdmple' Samp'.'
CONJAMINANJ OCCURRfNCE AND DISTRIBUnON . AllUVIAL MONITORING WflLS
ROUNOS"HROUGH11
SITE WW.1
FAIRCHilD AFt, WASHINGTON
VOLA TIlE ORGANICS h'~ IL
Acelon. 016 ...- .... -... 1110 9 o. 15 (48) ]8 14 011
'"ch'o,oelh.ne 0/6 ..., .... 0-" ')119 14.180 (]l8) I 7 692 J/4 18')8(11 )1
1,1.0,ch'OIo..h.n. 0/6 -... '0,- .... )119 . 6 O. Jl (l 91 8J 64 0/4 ".-.
')'y,.n(' "6 801111 I. ') 1 0112 .eo. .... -..- 011 ....
IIIChlo,o"uolo, 016 1114 10.40(1 S) 1 I 20 014
.... -..- __A'
m..han.
)1'1
MEtALS IIQ/L
Alumlnu." 1'01.:111 ')/S 2.560.19,900 11,190 19,900 16117 2,280. J40,ooo JO,01S 1 JB,852 011 ],400
(1J,591) (82,0921
Anllrnony (101.111 0/'.; .... "'0 .... JII7 S 0.200 (701 287 111 Oil ..--
ID",olved) 0/') "... -.... .... 5110 5 O. II I. (l I 7) 172 III NAP) ----
Anen,c 1'01.:11) 4/5 1 6 1) 518 1) 49 19 J 17117 48JOO(I02) 58] . 156 Oil ..
ID,,,olved) 1/5 1 0.4)(19) 15 J6 8110 2 1.]0 4 ( IJ 01 7) 110 NA -...
8d'IIU'" (10",11 ')/5 110.8691)))) 1')8 111 11111 190.1,900 (7')51 509 1,166 III 46
(D."olved) S/5 107.15)(116) 115 149 10110 . 15.10011)6) 119 167 NA
Bl"yll,um 1101.,,) 0/') .0.. 0'" .-.. 10117 1.75 (20 6) 41 ))6 011 ""
C..d"',urn (101"') 1/5 5 0 () 9) J5 ') 9/11 60120(1671 74 ]1-] 011
Clllorn,um (101"" )/') 1 I. I 10UO 1) 14 J 86 14111 16.550(I4JI 519 IS6 111 40
C"'ou'" (101.,1, ')/S 47,400.10),000 69,55) 99,101 '1117 I 1,000. J50.000 86.148 1]4,6')9 III 4 ).000
(71,160) 198,J88)
ID",o'ved) ')1') 46. ')00.16.800 41.1]6 76,800 10110 41.100.78,400 64.411 11.')11 NA
-------
TABLE A.)O
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - AllUVIAL MONITORING WEllS
ROUNDS' THROUGH 11
SUE WW.1
FAIRCHllDAFl, WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO
Alluv.al Mono'o"ng Well, On 8a'e (Upgrad,entl Alluyial Monitoring Well, On 8ale (Downgradientl Alluyial Monitoring Well,
(54,7,8, 10, 141, 101 (9,5,6, ", 11, '01, to), 48, '),49, '44, '45) Oll8ale(.46, '20,147)
Parameter No 01 No 01 No 01
Po',Iove Range 01 Po,itive Geome'lIC 950/0 Po,"ive Range 01 POlitive Geometric 95% Po,itiYe Range 01 POlitive
Dete< Ioonll Deteetion, Mean UClI'I Oele<'ion" Detection, Mean Ucl Delechoml Delectioru
No 01 (A"thmetrc Meanl No 01 (Arllhmeti< Meanl No 01 (Arithmetic Mean)
Sample, Sample, Sample,
METALS (CONTINUED)
Cobalt (To'..11 115 114 UO 8) 16) 885 11/17 200-2)1 (6871 )4 ) 115 Oil --..
Copper (Tol,III 'iIS 60 U'i (41 21 2)6 107 '4/17 11- 796 (t62) 49) 191 0/1 -...
(O,nolvedl )15 ) O. 1)(4)) 18 104 )110 ) 0.7 0(2 6) 20 40 NA .""
Iron (TO'dll 415 t 5,900: 174,000 8,192 05,126 '7/17 . ,'i70.590,ooO 59,554 228,261 '/1 740
(54, J081 (06,2811
IO'Holvedl ]15 40.4, J60 (8961 765 3.300 6/'0 ]45-5,410 (1,60) 27. ],15] NA 0..-
le..d (To'all 415 48526(169) 82 428 1511 7 47",JOO(l6') 44. )1) 0/1 ....
(Oinolvedl 015 .... (0 561 041 I J 1/10 II 6(15) 051 40 NA .-..
Magnelium ITo.all 5/5 11,'00.5),000 24 )45 46,902 17117 13,600-140,000 ]'i,]97 66,742 III 8,700
127,5601 (46,0791
IO'l\olvedl 5/5 1'.800.12,'i00 17,922 n,500 10110 11,800.2],JOO 17.621 20,14J NA
118,)40) (11,875) _...
Mangane'e 110'.111 SI'i 268.). J60 542 1,615 11111 676.1'i.200 J,198 6,458 0/1
19'i11 14.4051 ....
.
IO'\lo'vedl 'i/5 ) 0 864 (195) )84 660 9/10 60.4,190(2,014) 511 ),457 NA --..
Mer< ur V ITo.,,11 0/5 -0.. .... .... 4/11 01.10(018) 010 0 ]1 0/1
Molvbdenurn. "0,,,11 0/5 .... "" ... ]117 20.80(9 JI 'i4 80 Oil
(O'l\olvedl Ol'i -... -.-. .... NPO NA ....
N.c.e' 1'01..11 215 17.113(5) 2] 89 10/11 38.380 (99 4) 564 '56 Oil ""
-------
IAlllt A.JO
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. AllUVIAL MONITOR'NG Will
ROUNDS B THROUGtt I I
SITE.WW.1
FAIRCHilD AFB. WASHINGTON
PAGE THREE
AlluvIa' MO",IOI"'9 W,lh On 801" IUpgloldl'nl' Alluvial Monilollng Wells On 8aSt (Downgladient, Alluvial Monitoring Wells
154, 1.8, 10, 141, (4)' 19,5,6, II, 11, 102, 10),48. 13,49, 144, 145' 011 BaSt (146, 120, 147'
Poll a"'4"'el No 01 No 01 No 01
Pos,love Rang, 0' Pos"ive Geomflflc 95"10 Pos,lIve Range 01 Positive Geometric 95% Posilive Range 01 Positive
Del 'c 10 on" DetectIons Mean UClIII Delec tlon" Detections Mean un Delection" Detections
No 01 (AflthmetlC Mean' No 01 (Arilhmetic Mean' No 01 (Arithmeli( Mean'
Samples 5dmples Samples
METAl5 (CONTINUED,
POlan,um 1101.", 5/5 4,))0- 15.)00 7,14) 1),197 17117 1,450.45,000 9,107 20,576 III ),000
17.900' 113,596'
(DI\\olved' ~/') ),6106,130 4,50) 5,788 10/10 1.740.6.150 ),467 4,50 NA
(4, 5BO) U,657) -...
SelenIum (101011' 0/5 0_-. .... ..., 1117 2 1(049' 042 071 Oil ....
Sllvt'I "or.}" 0/') -... .... 1110 ) 0(4 9' )4T ) Oil ....
10,\\o'ved' 0/5 -.-. .... (10' I 7 , .,-.
SodIum 1101;)1' 5/5 11,100-)5,600 16,546 )),561 17117 18,000-40,400 16, )50 29.621 111 19,000
116.940' (26,847'
(DIssolved) 5/5 18,800. ]4,800 15,788 )),504 10110 2J.600.)2.700 29, )09 n,866 NA -...
116,]00) (29.595'
V..nold'um (Total' 4/5 2089 (15)' 276' 124 ) 14117 16-8]0 (175) 655 298 III 70
1ll1c (TOloll' 4/5 41,409 (I )0' 554 ))4 12117 3].I,700(HS, 119 587 011 -".
(D.ssolvt'd' 0/5 "" ---. .... 1/10 7013 9' 35 55 NA .-..
III Uppel 95% (onhdence lim't on alltlunel.( avt'rage
111 l-Naphlhalenamine (8.NaphlhV) was delec ted In MW.11 (WW I ,GWMW 11.001) .II 5 ~g/l
-------
TABLE A-31
Top-Mid Basalt A On-Base Moni\oring Well . Top-Mid Basalt A Off-Base
(99, 59,60) Monitoring Well (122)
Parameter No of Positive Range of Positive No. of Positive Range of Positive
Detections! Detections Geometric Mean Detections! Detections
No. of Samples (Arithmetic Mean) No. of Samples (Arithmetic Mean)
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION . BASALT MONITORING WELLS (pg/L)
ROUNDS 8 THROUGH 11
SITE WW-1
FAIRCHilD AFB, WASHINGTON
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs)
Trichloroethene 0/5 ---.. ....... 1/2 0.4
1,2-Dichloroethane 1/5 0.5 ..--- 0/2 -.......
SEMI. VOLA TILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SEMI.VOCs)
I Phenol . I 0/2 I
METALS
1/1
8.0-9.0(1)
Aluminum (Total) 0/3 ..-..- ---.. 1/1 510(1)
Barium (Total) 3/3 4.0-22 (11) 8.51 1/1 68-69( 1 )
(Dissolved) 1/1 22 NA(7)
Cadmium (Dissolved) 1/1 5.0 0/1 ----
Calcium (Total) 313 20,000-37,600 (26,200) 25,088 1/1 19,000-20,000(1)
(Dissolved) 1/1 38,500 NA
Chromium (Total) 1/3 4.0 (3.7) 3.42 0/1 -
Iron (Total) 1/3 150 (62) 34 1/1 390-470(1)
Magnesium (Total) 3/3 6,200-11,600 (8, 100) 7,761 1/1 2,000-3,000(1)
Manganese. (Total) 1/3 7.0 (3.0) 1.9 1/1 5.0-7.0(1)
Molybdenum (Total) 0/3 ---.. -....... 1/1 5.0(1)
Potassium (Total) 3/3 1,000-1,400 (1,133) 1,120 1/1 42,000(1)
(Dissolved) 1/1 1,600 NA
Sodium (Total) 3/3 8,100-14,100(10,100) 9,700 1/1 49,000-50,000(1)
(Dissolved) 1/1 15,000 NA
Vanadium (Tota!) 2/3 10-11 (9.2) 8.9 il1 11-13(1)
Zinc (Total) 2/3 4.0-9.0 (6.5)(2) 6.0 1/1 9.0(1)
(Dissolved) 1/1 6.0 NA
(1) Range or value shown is from a field duplicate pair.
(2) Arithmetic mean of positive detections only, due to di fferent method analyses detection limits.
-------
TABLE A-32
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUT10N . SOIL
BORING SAMPLES(1)
FUEL-RELATED CONTAMINA T10N
ROUND 11
SITE FT-1
FAIRCHILD AFB. WASHINGTON
Range OT Arithmetic Geometric 95% Frequency
Parameter Positive Mean UCL(I) oT
Detections Mean Detections
0- TO 2-FOOT SAMPLES ma/ka)
TPH 890-2.900 953 127 2.900 215
Toluene 0.008(2) 0.008(2) 0.008(2) 0.008(2) 115
Xylene 1.2-14.0 4.1 0.102. 14.0 315
Ethylbenzene 23.0 5.8 0.063 23 115
2- TO 4-FOOT SAMPLES malkq)
TPH 25-7.500 2.073 192 3.900 8112
Benzene 14 1.6 0.018 4.2 1/14
Toluene 20-1 70 14.6 0.022 45.7 2/14
Xylene 0.18-130 25.4 0.077 55.1 5/14
Ethylbenzene 0.027-61 7.4 0.039 18.6 5/14
4- TO 6-FOOT SAMPlES malka}
TPH 37-5.500 1.285 106 3.318 418
Toluene 45 6.5 0.018 22.2 118
Xy"ne 69-140 29.9 0.041 80.7 218
Ethytbenztnt 11.18 4.1 0.024 10.9 218
6- TO 8-FOOT SAMPLES (mg/kg)
I Xylene. I 2.8 , 0.935
0.020
1/3
D-05-93-3
-------
TABLE A-32
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. SOIL
BORING SAMPLES(1) . .
FUEL-RELATED CONTAMINATION
ROUND "
SITE FT-'
FAIRCHILD AFB. WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO
Range 01 Arithmetic Geometric 95% Frequency
Parameter Positive 01
Detections Mean Mean UCL
Detections
COMPOSITE SAMPLES (mg/kg)
TPH 48-3.500 892 64.0 3.500 2/4
Toluene 48.0 12.0 0.021 48 1/4
Xylene 200 50.0 30.8 200 1/4
Ethylbenzene 29 7.3 0.019 30.3 114
(1) Upper 95% confidence limit on arithmetic mean.
(2) Average 01 positive detections presented because one or more sample
Quantrtation limits exceed maximum positive detection.
D-Q5.93-3
-------
TABLE A.))
Up9rad,.n, Alluv..1 Mom,oring Alluvial Moni'oring W.lh On Bas. Alluvial Moniloring Wells Oil Base
W.lIs (51,5)1 1148, '49, 1,4,104,),152,155,15),51,2,501 (US)
Parameter No 01 Positiv. Range 01 Positiv. No 01 POS,lIv. Range 0' Posi,iv. No 01 Positive Range 01 Positive
Geome,ri( 95%
Oete(llon" O.'.(IIOns Oe'.(lIon" Oe'e(lions Mun UClCl) O.t.(tionsl Oe,e(tions
No olSampl.s (Arilhm.,,( Mun) No 01 Sampl.s (Ari'hm.,,( Mun) No 015amples (Arithme,i( Munl
CON' AMI NAN , OCCURRENCE ANO DIS'RIIUnON . AllUVIAL MONI TORING WElLS
ROUNDS.THROUGH"
SITE n.,
FAIRCHilD Af', WASHINGTON
VOLA TIlE ORGANICS (lIglLI
1 rodlloroelhene 0/2 .... 5118 20.I2(HI)' 1596 )68 1/2 06
',l.D,chloroelhene 011 .... 2118 90.97 (6991 '0 182 012 -...
1Il''''e''. 0/1 .... 4118 80.)10(1) 7) 251 569 012 ..-.
toluene 0/1 0... '"8 lOll 81 I] 29 012 ......
f Ihylbl'nlene 011 .... J/18 45110111 II 12 409 012 .....
lCylenes 011 ...- )118 1I0.1BO 151 4) 17 1)4 012 ....
',1,1 Tr,chloroethane 011 .... "'8 10110) 10 '0 012 ....
',I.D,chloroe,hene 011 ...- II'B ) 01165) 144 ] 0) 0/2 ....
" I . D,chloroelhane 0/2 .... 1118 20(109) 098 I)) 012 .....
O,lo,olorm 011 .... 1118 601111) 090 15) 1/2 0)
~dplhale"e
J,4. Dlmel hylphenol
1/15
70.16(289)
86.110
Oil
METALS ("gill
I\'umlllum (Tolal) NA 15115 )41.]10,000 1),500 80,860 1/1 ),400
... (0,900)
ID,ssolvedl NA "'- 0/9 .... NA .....
A,,""'o"y (Dlssolvedl NA '.a. 4/9 61.119(8 I) 128 119 NA ....
ArsenIC (101.111 ~A -.-. UII5 5 0 190 (44 11 104 1)6 III 1
-------
TABLE A.J)
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION. AllUVIAL MONITORING WEllS
ROUNOSBTHROUGHII
SlTEn.1
f A'RCHllO AlB, WA SHING TON
PAGE TWO
Upgradlenl AlluvIal Monlloring Alluvia' Monitoring Wells On Bel" Alluvial Moniloring Wells Oil 8ase
Wells IR 5)1 (t48, t49, t.4, 104,). 152, 155, 15),51.2,501 11251
Parameter No 01 PosItive Range 01 PositIve No 01 PosItive Range 01 Posillve No 01 Positive Range 01 Positive
Geometric 95%
O..e(loon" Delecllons D"ection" Detections Mean UCUII Delection" O"ections
No 015amp'fS (ArithmehC Meanl No olSamp'fS (Arithmetic Mean) No 01 Samples IArithmetic Mean)
MET AL S ("g/LI (Continued)
8allum 1 T olal) NA .... 15115 64'),100 16691 )80 1,140 III 100
(Dlssolvedl NA .... 9/9 61.258(10)) 88) 155 NA "'.
lIerylhum 1T0I,)') NA .... 7115 t 0-200(27) )11 605 III 6
IDis\olved) NA .... 0/9 ..... NA .....
Cadmium (Totlll' NA "" 5/15 5 0.4)(7)7) 4)1 1)4 011 ....
IDissolved) NA .'" 1/9 5 (118) 2 7 142 011 -...
Call1um (rOlal) NA .... 15/15 51,000 180.000 72,000 98,500 1/1 6,400
178,000)
IDonolved) NA .... 9/9 46,000-62.100 5),700 57,600 NA ....
(5),900)
Chromium' ITol,)l) NA .... 12/15 4 0-18015) 5) 214 992 011 ....
Cobalt ITOIIII) NA .... 7/15 20.140(11 I) 21 I 92 I 011 ....
Copper ITol
-------
fABLE A.)j
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTAI8UflON . ALLUVIAL MONIfORING WELLS
ROUNDS8fHROUGHII
SlfE fT.,
fAIRCHILD AfB, WASHING TON
PAGE THREE
Upg'.1d"nl Alluv.al MOnllorlng Alluvial Monilollng Well, On Bale AlluvIal Moniloring Well, Oil Bale
Well, (51, 5) (148,149, 1,4,104, J, 151, 155, 15),51,2.50) (125)
Pd'dmeler No 0' PO,.I,v, Rang, 0' PO\llove No 0' PO,.lov. Range 0' PO""v, No 01 Po,itive Range 01 Po,ilov.
G.om.lri( 95%
D.le(IIOn" 0...( lion' Oel.( lIon" O...(loon, M.an UClIII Oel.uion" Oet.(tion,
No 01 5ampl" (Alllhmelo( Mean) No 0' 5ample, (Arilhmeli( M.an) No olSamplfl (Arilhm'li( Mean)
MET AU (lig/U (Conlinu.d)
Magne,ium (Tolal) NA .... 15115 12,200.140.000 31,500 62,600 III 22,000
(41,900)
(D'I\olvedl NA ."- 9/9 13,400.25,700 16,800 19,700 NA
(17,180) ....
Manganfle (101.111 NA '" , 14115 50).'9,000 (6,1701 2,580 9,530 1/1 180
(Di"olv.dl NA .... 7/9 40'7,440(1780) 813 3,960 NA ....
M'I(II,Y (101..11 NA .... )115 0 1.0 5 (0 1171 00867 0185 011 ---.
(D'I\olvedl NA '-0. 119 0101(00811 00712 0119 NA ....
Molyhdenum (101,.'1 NA .... 1IIS J 04 0(41 40 40 011 -...
N.(.el (TOldll NA "" 7/15 41-))4(67 71 )4 ) 118 011 ....
POlan,um (101.111 NA ..., 1')11 5 7,4)0,4J.600 8,590 19,100 1/1 4,000
(11,100)
(D.I\olvedl NA .... 919 I, 9BO. 5,990 (J, 7001 1.250 4,610 NA ....
SodIum (101.111 NA .... 15115 11,500 )6,500 15,100 )0,100 III )1,000
(16,100)
p, Upper 95% (on',den(e 100111 on arl.hmell( m,an
-------
MEtALS "g/L IContlnued)
(Dinolv.d) NA ~.... 9/9 11,500-)).100 21,)00 28,500 NA
. (22,600) "".e
Thallium (Tolal) NA ..... 1115 H(J JI) U )) 011 ......
Vanadium ITol.l) NA ..... 12115 80-820 (I J5) 45.5 251 111 1)
ZIO( 1'01.1) NA ..... 12115 JI-I,200C224) 802 41) 011 ."".
(" Upper 95% (onl,den(e lim'l on aflthmeli( mean
-------
TABLE A-34
Basalt Top-Mid A Monitoring Well On Base Basalt Top-Mid A Monitoring Well Off Base Basalt Top-Mid A Monitoring ,
(ISO, 151, 154, 156,157,158,100) (121,123, WWI-124) Well Upgradient (61)
No. of No. of No. of
Parameter Positive Range of Positive Posi ti ve Range of Positive Positive Range of Positive
Geometric 95% Geometric 95%
Detections! Detections Mean UCL(1) Detections! Detections Mean UCl(1) Detections! Detections
No. of (Arithmetic Mean) No. of (Arithmetic Mean) No. of (Arithmetic Mean)
Samples Samples Samples
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - BASALT A (TOP-MID) MONITORING WellS
ROUNDS 8 THROUGH 11
SITE FT-1
FAIRCHilD AFB, WASHINGTON
VOLATILE ORGANICS (~g/l)
Trichloroethene 3/9 0.7-3 (1.3) 1.2 1.9 0/6 *-_.. ....-- ..--- 0/1 ----
1,2-Dichloroethene 0/9 -...... .....-- ---.. 0/6 ....-.. ---- ---- 0/1 ......--
1,l-Dichloroethene 1/9 1.0 (1.0)(1) 1.0 1.0 0/6 ---- --.... .....-.. 0/1 -.......
1,1-Dichloroethane 1/9 1.0 (1.0) 1.0 1.0 1/6 0.3 (0.3)(2) 0.3 0.3 0/1 ----
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1/9 0.5 (0.5)(2) 0.5 0.5 0/6 ..--.. ---.. -..-... 0/1 --...-
Vinyl Chloride 1/9 9.0(2.2) 1.5 4.3 0/6 -.._- ---- ...--... 0/1 ----
Dichlorodifluoro- 1/9 76 (11. 2) 3.6 31.0 0/6 0/1
methane ......- -...-- ---- ----
METALS ( Il)
~gl
Aluminum (Total) 4/6 218-6,170 (1,473) 342 4,023 4/5 7,100-14,600 4,390 14,600 NA(l)
(8,300) ----
Arsenic (Total) 0/6 .......... ---- -..-.. 2/5 4.0 (2.8) 2.3 4.0 NA ........
(Dissolved) 0/4 ---- ...-.... -..._- 1/2 2.2 NC NC NA ----
Barium (Total) 6/6 22-69 (48) 45 66 5/5 28-175(109) 93 175 NA ----
-------
TABLE A-34
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - BASALT A (TOP-MID) MONITORING WELLS
ROUNDSBTHROUGH11 . .
SITE FT-1
FAIRCHilD AFB, WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO
Basalt Top-Mid A Monitoring Well On Base Basalt Top-Mid A Monitoring Well Off Base Basalt Top-Mid A Monitoring
(150,151,154,156,157,158,100) (121,123, WWI-124) Well Upgradient (61)
No. of No. of No. of
Parameter Positive Range of Positive Positive Range of Positive Positive Range of Positive
Geometric 95% Geometric 95%
Detections! Detections Mean UCL(1I Detections! Detections Mean UCl(I) Detections! Detections
No. of (Arithmetic Mean) No. of (Arithmetic Mean) No. of (Arithmetic Mean)
Samples Samples Samples
METALS (pg/l) (Continued)
Cadmium 0/6 .....-- ---- ---- 1/5 5 (3) 2.9 4.4 NA I
Calcium (Total) 5/6 16,600-62,000 33,066 58,800 5/5 33,000-60,100 41,640 60,100 NA I
(37,900) (43,640) ----
14,300-53,300
(Dissolved) 4/4 (35,440) 30,268 53,000 2/2 33,700-55,000 NC NC NA ---- I
Chromium (Total) 2/6 7.0-13(6.3) 5.4 10.1 3/5 4.0-11 (5.6) 4.8 10 NA ---"
cobalt (Total) 0/6 -..-- ---.. .....-- 2/5 20-24(17.8) 10.4 24 NA --......
Copper (Total) 0/6 ---- -..-.. ---- 3/5 11-26 (13.4) 10.4 26 NA """-
Iron (Total) 5/6 30-7,930 (2,145) 344 5,536 5/5 580-26,600 9;700 26,600 NA
(16,400) "---
lead (Total) 3/6 1.0-11.3 (3.1) 1.2 7.7 3/5 2.0-4.0 (3.1) 3.0 4.0 NA --..-
(Dissolved) 1/4 3.6(1.1) 0.56 2.9 0/2 -.....- ---- ---- NA ----
Magnesium (Total) 6/6 7,810-22,400 14,700 22,200 5/5 11,000-20,700 17,300 20,700 NA
(15,780) (17,700)
(Dissolved) 4/4 7,060-22,600 13,820 22,600 2/2 16,200-16,300 NC N(: NA I
( 15,404)
Manganese (Total) 6/6 64-380 (177) 132 331 5/5 39-609 (369) 267 609 NA
-------
TABLE A-34
CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION - BASALT A (TOP-MID) MONITORING WELLS
ROUNDS 8 THROUGH 11
SITE FT-1 .
FAIRCHILD AFR, WASHINGTON
PAGE THREE
Basalt Top-Mid A Monitoring Well On Base Basalt Top-Mid A Monitoring Well Off Base Basalt Top-Mid A Monitoring
(150,151,154, 156, 157, 158, 100) (121,123, WW1-124) Well Upg'radient (61)
No. 01 No. of No. of
Parameter Positive Range of Positive Positive Range of Positive Positive Range of Positive
Detections! Detections Geometric 95% Detections! Detections Geometric 95% Detections! Detections
No. of (Arithmetic Mean) Mean UCL(I) No. of (Arithmetic Mean) Mean UCL(1) No. of (Arithmetic Mean)
Samples Samples Samples
METALS (pg/L) (Continued)
Molybdenum (Total) 1/6 2.0 (2)(2) 2 2 2/5 3.0 (3) 3 3 NA
Nickel (Total) 1/6 11 (11 )(2) 11 11 2/5 17-45 (15.8) 10.8 36.7 NA
Potassium (Total) 6/6 1,000-7,530 2,400 5,400 5/5 2,000-6,270 4,200 6,270 NA
(2,900) (4,500)
(Dissolved) 4/4 1,810-8,370 2,731 6,876 2/2 2,660-4,420 NC NC NA
( 13,356)
Sodium (Total) 6/6 21,000-28,000 23,400 26,800 5/5 11,000-47,000 30,630 47,000 NA
(23,600) (34,340)
(Dissolved) 4/4 21,400-24,200 22,817 24,200 2/2 28,000-46,000 NC NC NA
(22,840)
Vanadium (Total) 0/4 -........ ---... -......... 4/5 22-71 (36.1) 20.8 71 NA
Zinc (Total) 2/6 10-14 (11.4) 10.3 14 4/5 54-69 (48.3) 33.6 69 NA
(1) Upper 95% confidence limit on arithmetic average.
(2) Average of positive detections only.
NA - Not analyzed.
-------
TABLE A-35
GROUNDWA TER CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION . BASALT A (DEEP) MONITORING WEllS
,ROUNDS8THROUGH11 .
SITE FT-1
FAIRCHilD AFB, WASHINGTON
Basalt A (Base) On-Base Monitoring Wells Basalt A (Base) Off-Base Monitoring
(98, 159) Well (WWI-119)
Parameter No. of Positive Range of Positive No. of Positive Range of Positive
Detections! Detections Geometric Mean Detections! Detections
No. of Samples (Arithmetic Mean) No. of Samples (Arithmetic Mean)
VOLA TILE ORGANICS (aag/l)
12-Butanone I
1/4
I
160(41.1)
I
4.8
I
0/1
I
I
ME A IIg/l
Aluminum (Total) 213 100-20,300 (6838) 616 0/1 ---...
(Dissolved) 111 303 NA(6). ----
Arsenic (Total) 113 10.9 (4.0) 1.4 0/1 .........
(Dissolved) 111 6.3 NA ----
Barium (Total) 1/3 20-155 (60.7) 279 111 28
Calcium (Total) 313 9,600-21,700 (14,567) 13,758 111 19,000-20,000(1)
(Dissolved) 111 2,570 NA ......--
Chromium (Total) 2/3 6.0-46 (18) 8.2 0/1 --.....
(Dissolved) 111 20 NA ----
Cobalt (Total) 113 22(10.7) 8.2 0/1 ........
Copper (Total) 1/3 36 (15) 9 0/1 -....-
Iron (Total) 3/3 110-34,300 (11,523) 845 111 160-180
(Dissolved) 111 200 NA --....
lead (Total) 1/3 13.1 (5) 2.4 111 i
-------
TABLE A.35
GROUNDWA TER CONTAMINANT OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUnON . BASALT A (DEEP) MONITORING WEllS
ROUNDS 8 THROUGH 11 .
SITE FT-1
FAIRCHilD AFB. WASHINGTON
PAGE TWO
8asalt A (Base) On-Base Monitoring Wells Basalt A (Base) Off-Base Monitoring
(98, 159) Well (WWI-119)
Parameter No. of Positive Range of Positive No. of Positive Range of Positive
Detections! Detections Geometric Mean Detections! Detections
No. of Samples (Arithmetic Mean) No. of Samples (Arithmetic Mean)
METALS pg/l ContInue
Magnesium (Total) 3/3 8,100-11,000 (9,513) 9.457 1/1 12.000
Manganese (Total) 3/3 17-470 (169) 55.3 1/1 35-37
Molybdenum (Total) 3/3 3.0-44(18) 10 0/1 .....-
(Dissolved) 1/1 36 NA .......
Potassium (Total) 3/3 31,000-216,000 (93,700) 61,061 1/1 3,000
(Dissolved) 1/1 232,000 NA e.....-
Sodium (Total) 3/3 30,000-110.000 (60.333) 51,751 1/1 19.000
(Dissolved) 1/1 111,000 NA .......
Vanadium (Total) 1/3 77 (27) 5.6 0/1 .....--
(Dissolved) 1/1 6.0 NA .......
Zinc (Total) 1/3 100 (40.8) 18.8 0/1 ---..
)(
d)
(1) Range of field duplicate pair results.
-------
IAHU A.jb
Sampling Round
Well
Numher 1(1) 9(hl
11-' llh' )10' 4(01) 5M 6(1, . 8(9) 101') 1111)
RWI2 ... .... 08128189151 10105/89111 .... 05/]0/90 09/1 0/90 .... 04/91 0119210 71
09/1 0190
i RW.I) .... .... 08l18/89/)1 10/05/89121 .... 05/]0190 (09'/211 ..u 04/91 ..-- -.-.
IMC: 12081
! 08/28189111 05/) 1190 09/1 0/90 04/91
RWI4 ..'. '... .-.. .... IMC : 20081 -. -... ""
08/18/89(1 I 05/] 1190 09/10190 04/91 0 119210 21
RW.I5 -... .... .... .... IMC: 1 ]081 .... 0..-
RW.16 .... -... 08/28189 I 1 I .... .... 05/]0/90 09/1 0/90 -.-. 04/91 .... 0119210 ]1
RW-11 08/28/89 05/]0/90 09/10/90 04/91 01/92
---- .... .... .... (MC =]JJ IMC= ]11 oa_. -...
RW.18 08/28/89 051] 1190 09/10/90 04/91 01192
.... .... ".- .... IMC : 20001 .... ....
RW.19 08128189 051 ]0/90 09/1 0190 01192
.... .... -... .0.. (MC=411 a_.. ..-. ....
RW.20 08128/89 'II 0513 1190 09/1 0/90 04/91 01/921051
.,.. -... .u. .... (MC: 18111 .-.. ....
RW.21 08/28/89 05130/90 09/1 0/90 011921041
.... '-h .... .... .... "... ....
IMC = 110111 (C8 = 0 21
RW.22 .... -... 08/28/89 .... .... 05130/90 09/1 0/90 .... .... .... 01192
OW I 1/90
RW.2J .... .... 08/28/89/)1 .... .... 0513 1190 IMC = 1 '0111 .... 04/91 n.. 01191 (II
10 "I
RW.24 011/18/89111 05/ j 1/90 09/10/90 04/91
.... "" "" ... (MC = 2581 -... 01/'.1111'
GAOUNDWA TEA SAMPLING DA TE5 AND RE5Ul T5 fOA RE51DENTlAl WEll5(1) (llg/Ll
-------
.Alllt A.JfI
GROUNDWA TER SAMPLING DA TES AND RESUL tS FOR RESIDENTIAL WELLSIIJ (llg/Ll
FAIRCHILD AFB, WASHING TON
PAGE TWO
Sampling Round
Well
Number
11., 21b) )(1' 4(d) 5«') 611. 711) 8(9) 9(h' 10(') lilt)
RW.)) .0.. 07/21/89 -... -... "" .... -... _0" .... --.. 01/92
RW.)4 .... 0712 1/89 ..... .... .... "_0 .... .... --.. _0'- .0.-
RW.)5 .... 07121/89 .... .... .... 05/) 1/90 09/11/90 .... 04/91 0... 01192
RW.)6 .... 07121/89 .... .... --. 051)1/90 09/11/90 .... 04/91 -... 00_-
RW.J7 .... 0712 1/89 .... .... .... 051) 1/90 09/10/90 '.0- -... ..h 01/92
RW-)8 07/21/89 09/10/90
.0.. .... .... .... .... (MC=51 -... .... --.- -...
RW.)9 .... 07/21/89 ---- .-.. .... "" 09/11/90 -... .... -... 01/92
RW-40 07/21/89 09/10/90 04/91 01/92
--.. .... -'0- .... .... (MC=2'1 -eo. ....
RW.41 0 m 1/89 '0". 09/1 0/90
.... ..-. ..... .0.. (MC = 1 )081 -0.. .0_- _0'. ---.
AW-42 ..eo 01/21/89 .... ..... .... ...... 09/1 0/90 .0_- 04/91 .... 01/92
RW.4J 07/21/89 .... .... ---- 09/10190 04/91 01/92
..... 0..- IMC = 19081 ...... .0_-
AW.44 07/21/89 09/1 0190 04/91
-... .... ..... .... .... IMC= 5'1 --_0 -... "..
RW-45 .... 07/21/89 .... ...... ..... --.. 09/1 0/90 ""'0 04/91 ..-. 01/92(0 )1
RW-46 -.-. _0_' .... -... .... .-.. .... __A. .... .... 01/92
CD
PCE
MC
Carbon disulfide
Telrdchloroethene
Methvlene chloride
Unless ot/lerwlse nOled, results on brackets are TCE concentrations (..g/LI
T = Toluene
C8 = Chlorobenzene
J = Estimated value
8 = Parameter also detected on blank samples
-------
TAIU A.)6
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING OATES AND RESUl IS FOR RESIDENTIAL WEllS1'1(I'g/l)
FAIRCHilD MI. WASHING TON
PAGE THAU
Sample (olle
-------
WIEtiD 8 ..W-88
S 1A0011I0RINC IO{ll IN 1111 0'0 o.
OVt HBuROIN (001) .. .-.....
.. ... ....011 .
~ IADI" IORIIIC WU l IN nil SltAIt ow BrOROCK (BASAl I A) " ./ODD " I)Q. It
to '-0 ..
. .. .... Qo ..
1A0t" IORIIIC "" tl IN nIl 0111' BIOROC. (BAsA, I A) .. ... '" .. J
o RI Stow"., Qo .... ",
IO{U 'OCAIION '. Jet.. 00.. ... IU, 'It
... u.. " "
... _OO " n. .1
o. -OO ..
II 0000 -. ..
. 11000. ...
.. 100 '" JO'""", IOO-.J\
... .-...
'" 1100
'" noo
~j ~ lAW IH I:. "'L.IIU
UW. IJ4 15 10CA/lU ,'I2M'II 89"5"JI' [
J4" 5 89"5~'" [ \ IROt.I IAW..B6
IROU UW. 86 ~ UW gJ 15 III!:.IUJ
, -' 1600' II JY.J'~9' [
.C' ~~,:,' . ,~;: $ ,,~ ..~
,.,,,,, 8
. '.I
. 0
. .
"0
t
"0
J
['--'=
~<-'
uw tI~ >~28
- 1/' --' "
/
I
...- .
..
ou
..
U~:~Q
to)
to ...J\
...
""132-002
""
la I...
AI llooClO.l
.. 100
.. 11000
e. 11000 01
.. .ua
.. .. 00
c.. 1100
r. 111100001
... -..
tift 'IDO 00
.. 00"
. UOIOO
.. 100
H. JOOOOOOJ
~ 1100
I.. "GO
..w- 32-
w-
.. ..
IS ""I"
0.), -11\
In """
u ..."
.........
...
181 110
181
181
" \ APPHOXIM.'
\. .. - lANDfill
W-129 '" BOONDARY
'"
MW 81
........
-
-..
......
= IDS
...
_.
-.
.......
__.__0
---...
--::... -'
RW-J
'.10
'co '.00
AI ""000.0
.. 100
.. JOO"
I Co nOOD 01
Cr ...
c.. ...
,. 1.00.
... J_OO
... 1100.
II 0001
. . JOG 00
.. '00
... JIOGOOOJ
... .00
r.. 1100
/ /
-3
I..
.. . U I; , .t< "'"
.. J.UO -,200 710. 110 AI 4100 OOJ
.. II to 40,)) t 100
.. " .. It, .. ..000
Co II SO ~.. Co "000 00
c:.. '" It 51 Cr 1100
... 81 W n. U c:.. 1100
... . 01' 0)0 h ~oooaJ
.. 1,)80 ... '.000 DO
II U. "
... IOJ ... uo, 280 '" .11 00
'" JOt .IG II. . JIOO 00
m ... 180 "'1,1\ .. II.
N. JSOOO 00 I
"" ...o20..,A I. "00
/"
/'
../
IIW-21
S
'OO I J "' ..
11000'" .. . 11: . .
I. .. '" ..,81 118 ..W-80
"00. .. .. . ,. ..0
100 I.
.-. Cr OJ . 0- IC( II 1 II
..00 c:.. II .. .-- .. .. .. II
JlOO ... 11 lot... . 1000 "" IJ J
JlOI .. no . .-. III '" II
-- :: .... au OJi II. ", 0...
'1000.. 11 .00 " 11
'" .11 .t II .
_00 II '_00.0 I. JI II
.. II II 10$ 28. mill
tOOl Co _00 1'0 Mt/l 210 .../\
HOD 00 " 11000 .......,.. .. 181
IJOOO 00 " . ... ... 110 .. .1110 ..A
"00 ~ lilt II''''''' '''""", 110""" J40""" _01 (4
-... 181 .
8100 ,_... CO 1
"" .. 181 '" IO..A 1100 ..
tam:io. /
ftnl4. un::: =::.a.~ Q&.'f. PCiliiifiO iN ikli nCUllli.. 'It"" _a..m.UU lAWfUl.. NO' ca.uCIID -- "'-.10.
_"'" n:t 1l1li MUID -, - ."CIIDIJ/ AI ....... 1M _A"'....... CIIIWt:1D - .. -- 8U.
@
FIGURE A:1
SW=l
ANAlmCAl RESULTS fOR GROUNDWAlER - R1-R10
-------
U1DD.
S WONITORING WEU. IS TIo4E OVERIIURDEN (001)
.. WONITORING WEU. IN TIoF. g;AU.DW BEDROCK (BASALT A)
. WONITORING WEU. :N TIo4E DEEP BEDROCK (BASAlT A)
NPO NO POStnVE DrnCtlON.
--~
-~';'AI. WETALS RESUlTS ARE ""ESENTE!) IS DATA TAGS WHERE AN 'A'
-AS BE£!; A""£NDEI) TO ~E SA""U: IDENTlF'JCATlOS NUWBER. ;;l~
'JETAi.S RESUlTS ARE WETA!..S "RES£NT[D OTlo4ERW/S£.
---I II "'-1"
IN. SWIGI88'.....,
.. :!Z.O ""'"
CA I"" I.GII..
... _I ~ I
IC xaa ~
1M : ,... u;.n.
IN .~CGI\.!
1ZU8. II -'-'68
SIll. ~I--"I
..
""
...
.
..
:>0
T1IS
c-
....
-
TD
TIll:
-
-
ClIO
-
..... TIll'
J2 . 0 ""'I.
:".. &£1'1..
n81 I"G,tL .
m. UGA !
~ .,.. UGIf. I
-.' I.GIL
::0 ICIL
1.1 ICA
') . oM tCI\.
U oGA.
.. IGIL
Z oGA.
~.I teA.
'.1 8CI1..
.LI IGIL
I oGA.
~u IGA
~~ 'Ei>T" A"PEND£/) TO TIo4E SAwPI.£ :OENTtF'JCA nON NUYBER DESIGN'" TES
~ SAWPU: co;.u:CT[D ... T ~E 'END Of' ~E PUW" TEST".
@ INDICATES Ta: (OR II£I.AT[D COWPOuND) WAS DETECT[D
IN TIo4E CROUNOW...1UI SAMPl£ C:DU.£c:1tII DURING
TIo4E ROUHD " ~NG EVENT.
--I II ...... --I II """"'7
DJ. :V1;wRf9~... SM. ""1("."17-11.
Ta; '.00 uGII.
AS ,., uGII.
.. .... ~
co -II uGII.
---II -.. IG ::"" uGII.
.... SWlrow...... .. ,ft '""'"
. -- uGII.
.en. CK. :.11:1 IoGi\. .. IZ.,ft uGII.
Ta; '.20 IoGII. 'lIS lOLl IGII.
. . o-IICI 1. aD uGII. ": 20'" IGII.
f"'L.,...am D." IoGII.
n ... ~ _. II -
.. '47 !Oil\, .... SIif ....,.......
"" l:MI. uGII.
rt "' IoGII. "lIS lID IGII.
... 7ZHO 1£11. TD "" ICI\.
.. ... 1£11.
o. '1. 0 1£11. _..~ -
. 713' 1£11. .... sv.-
.. ,..... 1£11.
nrs ta.. IGA. ...
'ft ,.. ICI\. AS
..
....... II ."Ift ""
"". SWI~I""''''' ca
Qj
... _I 1£11. I"C
AS ,. uGII. .1
.. ... """. ...
"" ,,,... ....... ...
CII ,.. ....... 0'
'" "., ....... .
I"( : 7"700 IoGII. ..
... ~III ....... .
... .... uGII. Do
0' ,... .......
( ""'" IoGII.
.. 114", loG/\.
'" ... uGII.
...
n
AS
..
""
..
...
...
.,
.
..
..._""'"
I."''''''''
... ""'"
73080 ""'"
'II loCI\.
-"'"'"
n.. ""'"
U.I ""'"
J'" ~
-- 1£11.
.... IGA.
.. ~ oGA.
I \W_'2I
'&1 ~I.
.. hi""",,,,,,
..
no
." ....,."
., IGA.
...
:I
..
..
co
I"C
.1
...
..
«
..
,
:JI
..
""
...
..
«
..
ZJo
-
:L
....
-
=
"II:
-
-
==
..
..... "'"
:11 . D uGA..
t"" UGA.
II" ""'"
158 UIW\.
... ""'"
~6'" II8;'L
6. D LIin.
170 ~
I.' JI&t\.
CI.d ....
.1 .,..
.... ""'-
, ""'-
( '.1 ""'-
:1.1 ..,.
(S ""'-
I ""'-
t'O 8IGI\.
--I II --'.7
SII. hIGlll8r'.7-M'6
.- UIW\.
III I.Gi1,.
to.' I.GI\.
... 1£11.
"'10 ""'"
IS..I 1£11.
2S. ~ UIW\.
:.... ""'-
,., ~
"'1 ur;...".
I'." UW'\.
.'.1 IA8IL
1".1 ~
'"
~/
'"
- - - - W....7
'"
...
..-.
w.--..+- . '"I
W-130
S WW-21
...
..
CO
...,.. ~ I --.ft C8
... '" lQ1111r,...... CU
It
..
...
..
01
.
..
TI.
,
Do
"'11 ""'"
077 .......
._""'"
la.1 """"'
2:1.1 loG/\.
-loG/\.
11.' ~
-""'"
-"""'-
11.1 t.GoI\.
9.ft ",."".
"" '-IiI\.
D." YIiJ\.
.. ""'"
tOl UI8I\,.
..
CO
It
...
...
«
..
fIlS
Tn
ws .......
II'''' ...........
IUI loG/\.
-""",-
.- .......
-"""'-
10'7''' \G,;'\.
- IGA.
~ 1 .1 CI'L
_. II --Iat
SII. SVI""",a~t..
...
..
""
It
...
..
.
..
Do
'.78 UI:ioI\.
.'.1 """"-
,.... ~
11'41 Y8I\,.
-""'"
- ""'"
18" .......
1'.1 ~
D.I ~
--I I' --ata
81. IV'-.~I.
...
..
""
I"C
...
..
.
..
2M
-.-
- -
11:1:
D
..
CA
..
c
..
..
Q.
I\.
-
TIS
..... II ---11&
... h'_'I'''.
~'IJ ""'-1»-
111. SW'GII88r'--.e.
1'lIS ;u 8GJ't..
Ta ... IGII.
..... II ""1:14
S1iI'S'V'''''''''I~
..
CO
rt
...
..
.
..
=
":
...
AS
..
CO
CII
CD
CU
It
..
IG
...
o.
.
..
v
ZII
.-
I.'
."
2'918 ......".
".1
V.I
M.I
11700
:M..
.-
11'1
".1
nte
.-
liS
'"
8
l1li8. II ~"Jr'
.. ...-........
~ ...... \Go<'\.
.. V.I IoGI\,
... -""'"
ow: - loG/\.
,. .., IoGI'L
IC - loG/\.
- I'. ~
& 101 IIioI'I.
.. -""'"
Dr ".. &.GIL
_. Ii ""113
...~~
-~
. .,..
--I II --In
SII. SV11iM8ll7...,.
.. a.1 """'- ..
co .nn ""'" co
~ In IoGA ..
IG 18ft YiJ\. I:
... M.I U8I1. ...
I: 11M IAiI\. TII
... ..1 ~ n:s
ns ( I' ......
TU ( I' IC.I\. :-iwUa.-t,.=::'
_. II ....."
SII. hU"'.",""",.
rac:
-
-
..
..
..... ""
. IGA.
( 0.' ...""
I. S ICI\.
" ""'-
. IGA.
.... IGA.
811,M. II ""III
D. SVIGWlfnl-l.
...
..
""
CII
I"C
...
..
.
..
v
Do
..... II --1)1
SII. SVlca..lll-ea
Ta;
, II ~
ROUND" - GROUNDWA'TER MONITORING RESULTS
S::l
FAIRCHILJ:) AIR FORCE BASE.. WASHING'1'CN
. W-I7%
Q,.< --173
'"
,W-,70 --171
..
""
I't
00;
..
.
..
,.,., ~
1"" """-
... uGII.
1&78 U8fL
M.. &oGI\.
-1oGI\,
"II """
o
-
200
-
SCAU: IH F£ET
\
\
1'1.1 loG/\.
I"" 1£11.
"" ""'"
"II loG/\.
.. ""'"
,.. """
(11 IIGI\.
...
AS
..
""
..
IC
..
.
..
III
ID loG/\.
1.1 loG/\.
D.I c.GIt.
'-1oG/\.
.,. UIiI\.
-""'"
D.t uGA.
_I ""'"
.... UCi.f\.
- 1£11.
400
-------
WDD
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o U U
o 0
MW-9J
A 7 . R II II 0
ICE 7 ~
IDS lJ' m,1l
80 68 60/111 72
Pb 2
len 73 10
"0 227
VII 20 II
In 18 JJ/42
~
..........IQt1 ....0
=-
y PS-3
.p
.-, ~ I~'
8
9
o
t.tW-91
R 7
.
1611
J
17
28
10
223
13
III
:;1 mg/L
, vOC'.
15-1
\\a
~I-I
~I-J
1-'
'-1
(jj)
....»
S IIONIIORING II(Il III IHE OVl:RBUROEN (0aI)
(jj) MOI/IlORING II(ll IN THE SltAllOW BEDROCK (BASAl T A)
. IIONIIORING II(ll 'N IHE OHP BEDROCK (BASALT A)
. BOREHOlE lOCA nON
mms
All VALUES IN ",It £KCEPT AS NOTED
AU WELLS SAMPLED rOR SEIiIIIOlATIlE ORGANICS IN AU. 5
SITE SWI IS lOCATED 11180 rHT TO nlE SOUTHII(ST
TOTAL II£lAlS A[SUL TS, 0111 Y. PR£S!:NItD IN nlls r:CURE, flLTtRED
GllDUIIDWA TER SAIIPl£S oU[ NOT C
-------
[~~-~,,~\-
. '.
WDQ
. IIOtIlIORIIiC Will IN 1111 O-.1HHIIRUf.N (001)
8 IIOtIlIOHlt.C Will IN 1111 St.OIlOW 8WROCt< (80501 I A)
. IIONItORINC WIll IN 1111 DHP 8WROCt< (81050" A)
. rR£NCH ORA'N IOCAltON AND NUII8£R
:'>
.'
/
UNDlRCllOUNO CONOUII CONN[CnNC rR£NCtt DRAINS
-...--
WUI&.
IOIAI IIUAIS R£SUlIS AR[ PR£S(NffD IN DA" lACS _R[ AN 'A'
"AS 8[(H APP[HO[D 10 IHl SA\If'U ID£HnnCAIION -8£11. rllnRED
UEfAlS PtlUUUS AR[ UEfAlS Plt(s[NT£D 01H£RWlS[.
\/OA.-HPD - llilS A88REVIAnON ON 1"[ DAIA ..CS IHOleAItS I"AI III[
CllOUHO.AIIR SAUPI.[ rROU It![ UONIIORING III[Ll .AS MAl. YlED rOR
lIounu ORGANICS (IIOA.). ONlY. AND lliAr NO POSITIVI: ()(T£enONS
(IIPO.) M:II( R[POItItD.
---..-- .-
U.
_. II .-1"
-... III. 1111-1»--
ler n." ~
OCt I." ..'"
.. .... l1li\
CA '''" l1li\
.. ,... ..,..
. II" ~
.. ..... ..'"
r-- tli It. ..'"
a. t.. """
n. ..U "'"
so. '.f """
tU I.. """-
lilt II II1II.
-'M C '.1 """
... IID.- t.. "'"
all .t .'"
-133 .. t "'"
"'..1111 ..u.'"
IIUII. II "-III
IMI"\ r ..' IVI_....
AI. I... UGiI.
.. tll UIII.
'--- U ,... II1II.
fI 1..11 UIII.
. ,It. UIII.
.. .. UIII.
. tM' UIII.
.. ..... UIII.
'M ft.' II1II.
~_. ''''1
UW-U
ROUND 11 - GROUNDWAtER MONITORING RF'SI'lTS
1S=J.
F AIRaflLD AIR fORCE BASE. WASHINGTOt-{
,,/
.-/
/'
IS-1
~ ~ IIW VI
. j.. ~ . MW 92
45 \
\ ' IIW-2:>
o
~-.-
SCALf IN r[n
llUfD. II
1NrI( "".
..
...
f[
.'"
.
-
tI,
III
JtIIJND. '1
SNft( l1li.
AI.
..
co
n
..
IIG
..
.
..
,
.' .\
~ \
\o~;~
\ .
\///\\
80
110
.
MV'"
nUillMnl-I"
41.0 U[j/l
JOUt Ul;/'
U.t Uli/l
11.1 00/"
"" UG/l
II II' tlj/l
"t .../.
IltJ NG/I
"".,.
ISICoWHllltI-Oil1t
J". .'6/'1
7t.' UG/.
..UII UG/.
tU' UG/I
to I' UG/l
tiS' UG/I
II' OO/L
"411 UG/L
117" UI;/l
16.' dill
\
\
\
8
,
.<
\
I
\
\
\
.\
\
.
MW-:>6
"
\
-------
I'
".Ii
GEORGIA
~Il
'I !v/
il ,8-1 \
;"-" fi
~~:<2 -'. : YW-.,
. . I.1W-4Q
) ~~~/
'"
.,
.,
'~ ~" . //
'AW-6:~~"/
//J ~~ Q
p "'~~ ""
.' /
/;:/"" Cf~~ ~> /
. /........" "' / /
,~/"'~ ,//
'I
I
I
;!
!\
~OUISANA
"
/'/
\l
~
NEBRASKA
II
I
, I
! I
, I
I
~
::
~
'"
B-5
SAW-44
~W-.3
~MW-45
+8-1 PS9-8H1
~ -
~~
!5 ~-:- -
..0' -IS
...
,-
I"""
CJ
B-4
-
-
-....-
--....-
......
1S--.t:/ U"-1QS
- '28
I..
'...
18
-
,-.-
B-2
u....o U._~1r ..........
... '2'71 sa lICIt
c-.. I.' 1.1
-............ .u
0-""'" I., U
.......,... 1.8 LI
......
B-3
Z!ttt..-:.'ft
~W1-eH5
u-...cr s.cr-~s.
- .,
u
..,
,..
-
c.... ~.
~ t.'
-- U
o-I'I\DC S. t
...- U
-,-,-
_.1...'-
HO~ UNIT'S All( IN ""/119 UNI.DS SPECIfU O~5E
o
000
SCAI.£ IN FEET
IlOO
1.UiE!m
S IIONrTORINC WEI.I. IN THE OVEllBURO£H COal)
.. WONITOItINC IIE1.I. IN TH£ SMAu.Ow 8OIItOCK (8ASALT A)
. I8OItTOltINC IIE1.I. IN TH£ ~ 8EDROOC (BASALT A)
o IttSIDENTlAL IIE1.I. I.OCA TlON
$ BOII!HQ.£ Loc.. TlON
VOU\11LE
00-1 (PS-2)
ANAL mCAL RE:StJL TS FOR SOILS - R1 R3
ORCANIC ~EMICALS AND TOTAL PEmOl...£U" HmROCARBONS
F' AlR~IL.D AIR F'OR~ BASF' WASHINGTON
-------
.
8-.
~
/s \ '
"" UW-J4 ~
/ ,
// \
/ ' ..~~" Q \!"" ,\
.y" ~/'\ \ )
~') s~-'a
-' U.. 1"J {) / ') \ " , ::;~".>O. O~a:
/ a"- ,/ ,/ -' ,..Ct,,",:
UW 111 ..../" \
/
/UW' 112
IAW-61 ,.......-/\ \ ,...-/
'''~-,~'.) "
lAW, ' IIW-68
NW-I1J
""10 1D~'-"O'
,... 00C8 JICI)
...... 1 0"
... IU' U.
Co II "
eo. u. .u
.. so. 130
, .. '01 .11
.. Ie, It.
I. '51 IU
ItOUHO , . t ttO /
IOS'rfl O'
HCD
,..
..'"
.
It-I
.
.....
~C)
~ p8/~
'/\.....- /
,J //
'\\- ,J ~/.. //
\V ,/- ,/
,,-,--,...-' /" / ~QIES
/' All UNITS ARr mg/kg UNI£SS SP£CIt II () onl! HWlsr
OIll Y SOIL SAUI'I [S COLI [Cfro OURItIG TIt[ IJIIIIUIIG
Ot tAW..IIJ W£R[ """LYno 1041 tAli AI S
_/
/
.
It-J
c;:J
,/
LEGEND
~ IIONIIOR/lIG WUl IN Ittl OVtRUIJRD£N (001)
-$- 800£1101 C LOC" nOt.
00-1 (~TE PS-8)
ANAlYTICAl RESULTS FOR SOILS - RJ. R7
VOL.AlILE ORGANICS. TOTAL PETROL£UM HYDROCARBONS. S£LEClED METALS
FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE. WASHINGTON
~-,--
SCAlC .. n:n
FIGURE.8:ti
600
-------
-
1,
. ,
\:1
11\
'1\
0'1
\:
I'
L,
-
~
~r"
, c.
:' I'
:'j ;\
II.
III
-:: I
I ~ I I I .
, 1
-
-
( -....
""-
-
-
~
'II.
'\1
:1 I
JU\
.. IoIw-86
/!
//
"~
'.~W-6s:J "" '. ','
>"-'/ 8
""'j
./ ~ N
~'\.
.'
"('
"
'/
-.
j'
//
,/
~OUISAH..
/
./
,~<,~~~
.~." .:.
,i :'~ " /',~'~ ,,' /
:~ ", ')1""-'>" ,/ W-44 ,,~
II ~,,,,,,/ ~ . MW-4:J
~\ ,,/' ' ss.:.MW-~5
il\. ) .. \) :::::
, eQS10l ..\IE ": ~~ .: 5'
j ~,~ ~
c::>
::EORGIA
'I
~' ,
" N-", J '9.J. i
:.:w-46 , s... ,'MW-4'2
. I
, '''''MW-40
.'~
,
~jESR..SK"
;=
, :
:\
"
i
:-..11!\ ~
~I.~
'~
I: 5
=
--'"' ,.
'''''IN''''IGHT eLVO,
--
. . ,
.....
,.
"~55 ,/
" II 17 \
.... 2 -
21 '2 ..
JS II '.
,. '"'"
11 q
oQI
~034 :=;
-MW-25
...g" M W-91 \.
~MW-92
g
MW-IJJ
..W-toe
-
~
--.
. I
'. -.'"
.'"
....
'2ID
>2
"
..
. I
"8) ..A
)<
-
WW-1tO
-
--
...
- --.A
. .
.. III
~
~
\
..OItS. Au. VALUES IN "'A UNL£$S NOtED O'lW£JtWlSE.
Au. WEI.LS SAIoIPI..£D I'OA SOoII\IQ.A TILt ORGAHICS
OURING ROUNDS 6. 7. 8. ANO 9,
o
WEI.LS ~ ANO 56 WEIU: s.wPL£D
rOR TOTAL/nL tPQ) L£AI) IN
ItOUNOS J ANO 4,
@ INDICA TtS no.. AHO/OR ITtx WAS Ot:1!:CTtD IN AT I..EAST
ONE GltOUNOw,oTtR SAMPLt COULCTCI FWOw n.E WONITQltING ~
~ IlOO
~
S "ONITQltINC ~ IN TIotE O~ (0aI)
~ WONITtIItING ~ IN TIotE SH.ou.Ow IIE/IIIOO( (BASALT A)
SCAL£ 1" F'EET
OU-1 (SITE PS-2)
ANAL Y'TTCAL Re:suL TS FOR
GROUNDWA'TER VOLA TIL£ ORGANICS L.£AD AND
TOTAL PnROLnJM HYDROCARBONS - R3-Rg
FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASF WASHIN~
-------
." ..,-,,, 'L'"
I.. 'ur.V..,,".I.. IN.
..., 141 II ..." ....
UN"'''' SlI" "'"
In.fD' ,.,. II .." /
.. ... ..."
.. NI "" . ---
u ,,,... .."
fI ..... ..." l- 1I"-2~
... INII ..."
.. ,.., ..."
N' III "'"
. nil "1\
... I"" "1\
,. ... .."
.... " IC"
'U .U ICI\
.n II "1\
.11 "'-In
..,. 'UQJI8f,n.It.*
... 1111 uG" ~
.. u. uG" 11"'-1)
CA II'''' \51\
,( II... uG"
iii ..... .."
.. .... uGl\
. till 1.151\
... UII. "'"
'N "1.8 "'"
." ..-u.
IN. 'Il1O-,11-...
IrNl , ... UIiI\ Ir.. , . .. IIGJ\
11M KNI 11." "1\ UN 8(NI II." uaI\
""'.'D' ".11 UIiI\ "I.. lilt ..... UIiI\
II. It' "'" II. ,,, UIiI\
II ... UII\ .. ... I.8J\
.. '81 WI\. " ,.... WI\.
CA ..... 1.151\. U n... IGJl
n nU "1\ ,e "" IGJl
... ..... UII\ IC ..... 151\
.. ,It. 151\. .. .... WI\.
. "., 151\ "' .S.. 151\.
... ..... I.8J\ . .,.. "I\.
.N ... 151\ '" "'" WI\.
.... . .., ICA IN ... UIiI\
I. n. IIGA 'PIC c.., IIGA
IU It IGJ\. I. .st IIGA
101: , IGJ\. II' II "A
_'N '.1 IIGA IDC . IIGA
II1II''''' ... IGJ\. _'N c.., IIGA
CIII .IJ IIGA 0«11- .., ICA
.. ' ICA - I U fCiIl
.....1It III IIGA IDI , ICA
"'1.10' I" IGJl
.. ....
... ,_""'" I
IN.
.. '.' ''1\ .. t.' UIiI\
.. I. "A
U "... ..Il " '" I.8J\
rr .nl "ll u .M.. UIiI\
... nUl "'" '( "11 UIiI\
.. n.. ..Il " In.. UIiI\
"' 15.' UIiI\ .. .." ""'-
. .... IGJl . "" ""'-
Nt ItUI UIiI\ ... ,"'' ""'-
IN .., UIiI\ IN ... ""'-
....10
'1f(,W*~-'.
... ...'"
."
...
"'.11 8" "'-IS ." ""-." ...
"~$-("'. IN. ,.,,"""'..... IN. Pltt-v..wIM'ln ...
H' '''1l oeo, ..U "',' u" IIHI .11 ..." AI.
.. .." e'M "II' "" 151l In.lal .... "''' <,
..It I .." In.'0'1 nil "'A " .. "',' ..
"" .." .... ( 1.1 """ .. ... "''' u
n... .." CI .,tI. "''' C.
tu. .." ... III-IS fI " I ..." CD
n.. .." ... """*'H" '" nu. "''' CU
"" .." oN IUI "',' I(
"4118 .." '1.11 "'" I -. ..." ..
'.' ''Il .... .." Nt "110 tJi/t NG
II'. .. UIiI\ ,. . I ...', ...
II.' ''A '''' c,., .." NI
M.' UIiI\ III "" .." .
"'" ,,1\. III "11 ..." Nt
1.11 "A v
nu. "I\. ,.
tII. ..',
In. "I\.
.".. UIiI\
... llil\.
"' ''A
... ICI\
II
..
u
._--- It
IC
..
.,
", ".-1.:"
---.Q ..
aIW...-u
IIW-110
PS'-2
""
....
"'."1
~~'I...a
II." UGIl
c.., IlIA
01.-
""
PS-2 - ROUND 11 - ~TER MONITORING RESULTS
f AIRCHILD AIR fORCE BASE. WASHINGTON
""1
'1"""",.. ilIA
\ I
IN.
""-'80
I.. ""-,It
III' '11'''''''1".01)
/
KN,
nN KNI
11l.1D'
-..
-
II
..
U
rr
...
..
"'
.
..
'"
,,..
'U
Cl
"
ID'
'II
'DC
_..
NOJ.-
ml
80'
...'01
".'U UGIl
III.IU UG/I
'".'U UG'l
.... UGA
fl. II llilL
11.1 UGA
'" "I\. /~
""" UGA
..... 1II'l I..
,.". UDI\. IN.
.11.. 181\.
II.' 181\. AI
,,,. llil\. II
""'1111\. ..
,.. 1111\. CA
... "'A (CI
fo, llil\. ca
t.J llil\. QJ
'.M iii" n
'.n iii', ..
.... .." IC
. NOA III
... "'A "'
( ... "/l .
II "/l lit
'J IIG/l v
..41 111/1 IN
/
~
Wi£HIl
'1
'I"""". ".,..
8"
IN.
. "W 105
/,'
S ,,0111 IOHIlIG WELL IN 1111 OV£IHlllkO£tl (001)
~ "OtIllORING Mil. IN IHE 5I'AII.OW B£lJROCK (IIASAI' A)
. "OtIIIORING MLl IH nJE D£EP' BlOROCK (BASAl I A)
A TilE 'A' ATTACHED TO THE END a A SA..PLE NUuBER
INDICA TES TIfA I 10"'l IotLTAlS R[Sl/I TS RE I'R[S(Hn.O
tll<:>. IIIOICA TES TPH/BT£X WAS O[JECTlO IN
~ THE 1111 IIOHUOtIIHC III(U SAIU'l[
o ,~
,P""L..:- -
SCAlI IN nu
JOO
-,
\
,
\
\
,\
.j'
"'.u.
"2CiVHWIOt-IOM
»111 uG/1 At
'" iii" I.
II. 1Ii'l ..
1~'" uGl1 C.
II.' UG" CI
II.' UG" CD
II.' UG" CU
1111~' UG'l rr
".J UG" ,.
UI., t.e" tIG
1"" 1Ii'l Nt
". WI. 81'
nil UG" .
"'" iii" ..
ISI ""1 v
'21 UtI' 1M
8
teN'
If" IlHI
.'t.IO'
_H
roft
<.
..
CI
rr
lOG
...
II
.
It
'PH
II.
III
All. 101
:~:'
",,-lot
'U'L'mWIIO'-'..
..t> II ""I\.
I ". .. IliA
'''.11 IliA
I.. LIII\.
"." LIIIl
b.' LIII\.
"' IliA
..... LIlA
..... LIII\.
It". LIlA
"'II LIlA
" LIlA
.,sa 18/1.
,",. IIIiI1
... iliA
. II HIlA
"" "A
II. IGA
M.',"
PUc,,,"VI It.,...
III.. "I\.
'"., "IJ.
.., "IJ.
II"" "Il
"., iii"
II.' "A
It.. 1Ii'l
""~. "'A
".J "IJ.
JI... "Il
..... .."
II.' "A
.". 181\.
"'" 18/l
"' .."
... LIIIJ.
-------
It(
/ II.
A'
..
..
n
lOG
.
lOA
-
,.
....
IN
'11
'DC
_.
-,.,.
ca.
...
aU.la.
""
...
CA
""
.
...
I.
III
'0.
1N.183 I"
PIIto""",.,..... III-
....., "1
"I"~'.''''' '11'
......
........,.,....,
8"
'0.
--I" I
PlW'.W8tW.... lI.a I...
..,-,
PII4I1N11I..It.
.t.IU WaI\
'N LC;1l
I.' UiJ\
'6.' 151\
.,... llill.
'M IIGI\
'8" "'J\
UII ..."
'U. dilL
II.. ..."
II.. ..."
c 1-' ""1\
,., iii/\.
C '1 tGl\
C I tGl\
fl' IGIi
.. lOG"
I' .."
. ICI"
.. .."
--I"
rsl(;""".8I. ...
I"" ....~
5411 t.GIl
III. YVl
.... ..,.
t.' UlI\.
cn. ...,
It\. lOt
t......
.-
....
II.
A'
..
U
CD
N
rr
'1
iii
...
..
.
..
,
1M
....
'11
III
IDC
_..
---
CI8
...
......0.
8"
...
H'1t ""
"... UG
. ", uG,
II IU'ii'
, .11 LGt
iUO' uG."
II.. &Ii"
u/ l1li\
'41"" &aIL
N.I IaJ\
8/.1 15,.
.n.. "1\
".IJ &8"
'18" "'"
MI' WI\
n.' "1\
INIt lliJ\
.,... ..'"
n.. 15"
"I ..,.
II ."
", .."
"I .."
I "'"
c t., IIGI1
I.' "'"
.IJ .."
,. "'"
. , "'"
...-
'11Ci"".ln
UM ...,
In.IOI
-
-
..
..
..
ICI
...
.,
8
..
..
I.
,...
III
'11
"".'01
""
....
..
..
u
rr
..
..
.,
.
..
'"
."
A'
..
U
,r
lOG
...
.,
.
..
..
I...
III
'11
...tIU uL.I\
... UCiI\
''''J U&iA.
111111 I.GI\
fI.1 .c,.
n.1 "'"
.". ...."
"""J ..."
II.IJ "',.
Sf'" "'"
".. "'"
'61' UG~
,,,.. .."
."., ISI\.
m, "'"
.,.~
'1. II laill. Ia:
.0' Wil\ &I
ItlJ &lil\ ...
1.It UGI\ ca
......." rr
"... "'" ""
u.. .." ...
n......,. .
'''1 ..." ..
.... 15" ,.
'."''''It '''"
I I.t 01" III
tli 01" III
'"J''''' .It
....
..
/r.
CO
rr
00;
...
.,
.
..
'"
"" _...
III. "_'.'1.
,... I I.t IGIi .'N 8IIQ
11\..'0'
I.. ..,-tl. ...--
... ""INII'I."IA -
-
II. "," "I\. ...
.. It.. "'I\. AI
.. JlI.1 "'1\. II. ....,. ..
CI ""I 1111\. "" 1M. '18:i48WJ 1- I" CO
CO fI.I "1\. 1M. rc
cu U.I ..." AI ..1 UIiII. ..
n 311"1 "'" ~ .. .. ""'- ..
.. 11.1 "'" C4I '''''I III/l ::
.. f..11 IIIIl r. 11..1 ::~ .
.. "" IIIIl .. ""I
., U.I "I\. - .... 18/l .
. JlI... 181\. .. 11.1 IaJ\ r...
.. I"" 1111\. . 111"1 I8Il 'It
t: 51.1 III/l ... '.11 ::::. ,It
'" U;J\. ~ II.'
ROUND 11 - GROUNDWA tEA MONITORING RESULTS
ps-e AND PS-I
fAIROUU) AIR fORCE BASI: WASHINGTON
8"
...
.."..M
P11o(."""1"'I"
1t.1I ur."
.-. LII',
'11' ....'.
10'" ""I
lIu "'II.
. '... UGII
J,', ""I
e... "".
.... "'"
) II I.CiI\
c .. ..."
1.. 11(;/1
1"" Mill
..v..11
rl6GWlfIlIM-.8I"
}IIOU LILli
4',' Utt'l
U1, ~It
10411' Uil\
".1 ~
,., I I
1:" IG
IIUO" UG,
".'J UG'I
4110. di'l
nit ~"
.It.'J UIi.,
'11" UIi/1
1.111 UIi'1
"'.IJ l6'l
"'.U "'I\.
"". II IIGI\
U.I. .. 1Ii/l
II.IIJ &all
II.'U ~
... IIJ ISIl
I.. . "'"
II.' "II.
88' llill.
U.... tIi~.
"t.. "/l
II.'J 1Ii"-
""' UG"-
".. iii"
H.I "II.
lie It LGI\.
'Jill 1111\.
11.1 "/l
'.1 "I\.
... ..aI\
I tI ..aI\
.1:\
/~-
I
MI-Ill
'I"""', "-,"
I..
III'
II.
AI
..
C4I
18
CII
/\./ ~
..
...
..
.,
.
..
,
1M
I.. ..,...
... 'I"""""
UN .., nl." I£Jl
. In .10' "I." llill
-. ,... iii"
- ..... iii"
AI II.' llil\.
IA I'IJ Ulil\
CA II SII. ISIl
rr .'IJ 00"
fIG mi' "'/1
- tII. iii"
. M.. iii"
M INII llill.
'PM I.' 18011
III "1 IIG"
'" '" MDI\
o 200
~-
SCAl[ IN nn
/
/
"..
so.
ItV-J4
PI",,")rJ.-'"
c '.1 1Ci/1
IN' ,
PI",,"\I'3e-'84
\
'.
)
-,..-"
~'
...-..
PI_-I.,..
n'"J lGn..
II, / "'"
IJIJ iSl\.
1111.. III/l
It . I "'"
M.I 1811.
..IJ IS/l
....U ISII. .'
II.IJ IS/l ,/
""1 IS,. -
U,. III"
U.IJ llill
'tli "A
'''" "'A
M.IJ 18/l
IIIJ iliA
..
..
IIG
- .
.' ...
,,,'
'1$
III
II.
1M.
"'-
AS
..
Co
n
cu
Ie
tiQJU;. ::
1H( 'A' A I1AC/I£O '0 .TIIC 1/10 01 A SAM..I £ ...
NUMB[R INOICAlts '"AI lOlAL MLIAIS :.
R£SULTS ARE PREseN'ED ..
. ,
1M
$ !jONItORlfC!; 10(11. '" 1lfl O\l£ROUHOlN (001)
Q IIOHIJORING M:Ll IN 1H[ SIIAllOW 8(OROCK (BASAl! AI
400
.
IU .
....
( I.' IIGII.
,...
( Do.1 '-;1'1
8"
I..
JtV-'"
,~""""",t-o..
'.1 UGII
'1." tGlt
..uo. "II.
".. UI"
ut III"
'Ie, till"
e.t' "1'\
. 1.1 ..."
.., ".It
., Mill
IN.",
'UCiVKu.,..It.AI
01
..
U
lOG
.
..
1M
'"'
II.
III
0"
SO..
"'-11)
'I8GWtWI.."'"
'" II1II.
7"" .n..
.tli. ISA
.... ."
181.1 "A
I '.1 ..,.
UI .."
I,. "A
NIl-II'
"""",,IQ.IIII
11710 LGJl
11.1 &':;/1.
'" "'It.
'''1. iliA
!J.I ..,.
II.' UlII.
'1101 11111.
"./ "'1\.
"". l.Ci'l
"' 0011.
n.' Will
.n. 1.G4
'M.' UG~t
SI.I iliA
.M.' UIi'l
-------
....
I -me
"" ......
.-
...
..
.. ("
..W-87
IJ .. I' .,
..~ u.,~ .~ I~
,. .. II. 1100
18
n
PS-8
(
U--'lI
....
--.
..
II
~
\,
NW-"2
.. .
r"1Ut108 U ...~ 'IO"'IJ\
Jot 8C1UM 11'
.- .
... II
.. ..
~/~
~
--',-
- -'
.
....
. .
...
UW-JI
" ....
u...11 .. ..,ft. u"'lJ\ ."'IJ\
.
....
.
.-.
...
1.1DC8
1.1DC8
1.-
-
.-
-
lOT II'IUJC
..
...
IW'H
. I
U"'fI\
..
..
rGI
...
MIl
..,
tUO
.10. 410
... ,.
'100,1-
1)00
....
I)
000. .....
'100, JDDO
'.. I
.....
1100
.; \
.. \
_1''''''/'
~ tlQl[S
All UNITS IN,. 9/1 UNf! 55 sprClIllII OIIl[HI\1:;t.
)
. I
U"1t.
"'
u
.,
II
'01
'1
II
-
u. 4.
. ...
.... II.
II
"
r:u.IlllfU~
10' 11\08 -
-
..
"(f)
AI l MUS SAMPI ED FOR SrMIVOI A III [ ORGANICS
DURING ROUNDS 8, '. 8. AND 9.
ROUNDS 3/' MILS wrRL SAMPlfD lOR IOIAI/llIlfHLD lEAP
IIElALS ANAl VSIS 1101 COIIiHICILD IIURIIIG HOurlUS '/2.
LEGEND
S 1.10111 IOHIIIG Will III 1111 "VI HUUNUI II (!J.d)
~ 8OREllOI E I.OCA liON
..
. I
.,~
..
II
II
.-
MQIE
@ IUDICAIIS IPH/81I1 WAS Df IICIID IN AT
LEAST ONE GllIIlIIIDWATtR SAIoIf'l( COUfCTtD
rROW !tiE MONITORING Wnl
00-1 (PS-a)
ANAlmCAL RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER - R1-R8
VOlA nl£ ORCANICS. l£AD AND TOTAL PETROL£Ut,t H'iDROCAABQNS
F AIROiILD AIR FORCE BAS[ WASHINGTON
h::..--'~'
SCAlf: IN rEEl
FIGURE &10'
800
-------
GS-88-00Je GS-88-00Je
... ",4 DiM JJ.C88
WC". .. 'IQC'", IG
~ "1If.A../" lIu.A
/ .. .1.8..,." /'.. uJO ...A
C4 "081\ ~ ~~
-- , .. , ...... , - ,..
INU:' '0 LAc;o()NS
C5-8I-0037
"" ".as
""'. ...
.. 1 -.,\
.. ~-ooei\
C4 U 081\
""'-1
too ,.
...'
SO-ND&-OO8
"" uco
""'. ...
:"" 1 1.- "f."
.. 11M
.. U
Of II)
~ ".
Co ...,
0. ...
.. JJ'
... OU
MIl '"
M ,..
... ...
fa -
- -I~
SO-NO&-OO5
.... .
""'. ..
:w III '1:1
.. all
C4 ON
CIO at
Co ..
0. II
.. U
... 1&1
. I.'
... ...
ra ".1
-'-I
NltZOIIA Alii:
./
"
....
-.
..
..
C4
WWI-SD-001
.... ....
-- ..
.... DO U
.. au
.. 0"
C4 .
110 ..
0. "
.. .
... ..
.. UI
.. II
- -I.
, - ,
IIHITS - mg/log UMUSS Nono Ont(AIIIS(
All 5AIIPl£5 CDlUCT£O AlOllG Df[ OnOt
A(SUI. '5 ARE REPtI[ Sl:H lID
011 A DAY III(IGHT 8ASIS
V S(OIW[HJ SAIIPl£ lOCAnOll
II
, !
I
II
10; I
"'"-oon
05-88-0032
-
""'.
..
..
C4
05-88-0031
"'" 18"
""'. ..
.. , .."
.. 1.- ../\
CI no .."
I - 1
SD-ND5-OO7
... 110
-...- ""
.. .....
.. Oil
C. 1.1
co. '.1
Co IJ<
0. ..
... )41
.. 10
.. I),
.. nJ
'-1-
0"
o
SD-NOIHMM
... ..
"".-..- II...,.
:w J._~
.. ...
c. to
o .&1
C. 18..
Qo IU
.... .n.
::: ~':
.. .at
"" ...
r.. au
- I
BWI-50-OO1
....
_.
-..
-QI.
ClI-a. "'l'II8IO
::
..
C4
Co
110
0.
..
..
..
..
...
1)IDAf'[ AOAD
WW-1 - ANALYllCAL RESULTS FOR SEDIMENTS - R1 RJ AND ~l
roYAL METALS ORGANICS. roYAL PE1ROLmM HYDROCARBONS
FAIRCHILD AIR fORCE BASE. WASHINGTON
o
P"""I
iOD
-
SCAU: .. fin
IlOO
. .
SD-ND5-008
!PH ~
101 .....~.. 1.100 ",,,-
AarCH( IUD ..,,;
-If.. II ..".
,...... 1.200 ""'.
I_zr,.. 100""'.
:.. 11.0110 ootr"
.. I.'
C4 .,
e. d.'
Co at
CII t1t
.. n.
::: o.t
.. 1.14
;: .~.~
* 31.'
r. ...
ItCUttO J - \ tIO
8
SD-NO&-OO1
IN -
-I''''''' -
. IU
.. ...
.. I.'
C4 ,8.1
110 .n
Co "I
0. ".1
.. .;q
... 0.11
... .U
.. ....
WI JJ.'
.. UI
MUla 1 - lItO
SD-NO&-OO2
:: "0 ..'=
:'" 1.10.0 ..r.;
.. ...
C4 tJ.t
Cr ...
Co J.11
0. II'
... ,..
... 1.1'
... ...
II 1.1
... 111
'" 10'
} - lItO
'- _.--~
v
WlinwSO-HOS-OOI
I:".:".:r -
... -1D-1GI-00t
V r::.,:",-
-------
...
_.
..
SW-ND~OOI
IIQ)
..
.
II
..
..
"
/'
./
tOO
100
tlO
.
./
SW-ND~0D8
"" I ..1\
WOC.. 88CD
.. II
... J
.. .,
I" II
."-oo.Jl
" --$11---001
GS""-ODJI
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I 1
I II:
I
I
I
I
I
WI..Sb~NO~-0B4
~O N"II(
OIrQf
WWI-5W-OOt- T
... ""'
1,1-0<8 ..
.. J
.. II
- J - .111
WWI-SW-OOt-f
--"--'00'
- till
5W-HO~OO5
....
_.
"-
..
...
.... , - 1180
AAlIOtlA A~
1ttORf'(ROAO
UtlTS . ",/I. UNlESS HOlED OIliER.$(
THE 'r APPEH()(O TO IH( SAUPLE _8(R
INDICAIES TOTAl (UNfUEREO) METAlS _$LA TS.
nlE 'f' APPENDED TO THE SAUPI( NUII.II INDICATE
DlSSOL\'(D (UNfL1ER(D) IIUALS RESUlTS
WiUIA
il
, !
ii
to. I AU. SAMPU:S COUECTED AlONG 1H( OITO!
o SURf ACE WA TER SAUPU lOCA TIOII
V $(OIIl(NT SAIiPlE LOCA nON
SITE WW-1 - ANALYTICAl R£SUlTS FOR SURFAC£ WATERS - R1. R3. AND R7
SElECtED roTAl FllTERm .,£TALS. ORGANICS. roTAl PE1ROLnI., H'tOROCARiii:.iHs
f AlRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE WASHINGTON
o
P""'Io....
8
0..
SW-HD5-004
"" II ..1\
VOC". MCD
.. J
.. ..
Co II
... II
... Ita
.. U
la Jr
1tOI.~ 1 . lno
o a
D
D
SW-ND~OOJ
-
-
II
..t
II
II
II
Nf.
.
..
,
It
II
, ... 1110 WI-h-MIS-OOI
..-- -,., ..
v
-I ".0 UII) 1101
......... 18'
... Ii"
IIWI W). HU) on.
..... -,.,
FIGURE 8:12
tOO
......-
5CAl( II mT
8DO
-------
UW-M
8
UW-48
IS' '0' 110' us'
..
..
b.J1
'J
.
.
II
,
oJ
"
UW-1OJ
'."-'0' 10S'-IIQ'
-. 00
.. .
n.
su
...
I
HCD
IIW-88
.8-8
100'-11..' 0""1"
!PH - -
'fOC, NCO I«X)
:: I";~ J~
~OUHD I - ....-
r1
0..
RW-I\,
,",W-122
....
o
.8-7
O. -I." 100'-11."
IPtt Hm. MCD Ma)
we. HtD. HCIJ tQI
.. I ..Il J ...Il
.. 100..11 II. uiIl
..Ot.IHO 1 - ....
rJ n
0(1
HW-n
"
.8-6
'.0'-1." '1.0'-'1 s'
"'" *" -
VOC. IICD MCD
.. ......A to utA
ItOUNO , - ....
IIW-~2 S
IIW-58
IIW-~
----~ II~..£
Dira;-----
jj/- ~.'\
~
,!!~
---,..J. \
-c- \F,GURE ~
s
.8-'
.. -1.1' ''''''-'1.1'
"" - "'"
we. - "'"
:: I':~ I':~
-.-,.
BlOC 1~70
.
rTl-1IH5
n!8H1 ~ !
rTl-8H2~ III
11.-51) ~
"'.~'~-j .
~I
$
"W-I
B-2#
I-I
s
IIW-3
r ,,"tit 4
(~
I-J
IIW-124
i
"W-125
IIW-4$
WiD&
$ 1I000IIORING WUl IN IH( OVERBURD[N (001)
~ 1I000liORING Mll IN !H[ SHAllOW B£DIIOCK (BASAL 1
. 1oI000liORING Wl:ll IN !HE O£[P BEDROCK (BASAl! A)
o R[SID£NIIAl Wl:ll lOCAnOtl
$ BOR£HOl[ lOCA nOtl
A)
. !H£ 1IUAI.1-~ PR[S(NIW fOR
81 IHllDOOIt 810 All( teIIIJI R[SlJl IS
UNiTS - m,l\., UHl£SS NOItO OTH[R"'S( 1-_-
ARIZONA AvE
WW-51" IIW-88
o JOO
~~.......,..,
SITE WW-t - ANAlYnCAL RESULTS FOR SOILS - Rt AND RJ
SElECTED METALS EP TOX METALS. ORGANICS. TOTAL PE1ROI.£UU HYDROC
FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE. WASHINGTON - ARBONS
-------
..Sot., I.
--.
-
-
-.
lOCO
_.
lOCO
8
....
c. ,..
-0.
_.
""
I'
lOCO
-
-
PII'H4"&.
'''"
..
..010 m,."'. .010 ""A
II
_OIl
011
-.
....
0"
0"
0..
s
0.'
-10
.
Hl:U ftCO
JJ 110
... II
- 0)1
"
II
,0 10 ",,1\
I
UW-2
(:.
B-3
$
UW-I
B-2"*
B-1
S
UW-3
.
rTl-1H5
IIW-51
~
SCALf: IN mT
WW-1 - VOlATILE ORGANIC AND TOTAL PETROI..£U.. HmROCARBON
RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER - RI-RD
F AIRDiILD AIR FORCE BASE. WASHINGTON
n!IItII if\
rTl-8H2~
".-5(1
rlt-Blu.
UW-{ I
I
I
I
~
o
cr:
o
m
~
cr:
M..-tCA
_.
...
...,
WiDm
UW-4S
FT -.ln~."
HCO NCD
"'" lOCO
$ ..OHIIORING MIL IN THE OVER_D£N (001) IJIIIIS ARE IN" 1/1 [xc(PT WHERE
~ ..OHIIORING WEll IN TH£ SHAllOW 8EOROCK (8ASAlT A) OTHERWI$[ NOTQI
. UOHIIORINC \ll[U IN TH£ D£EP BEDROCK (BASAlT A) ARIZONA AVE
o RESIDENTIAl \ll[U IOCATlOH
. BOREHOlE IOCA 11011
A INDICAI£S TlIAI Ta rAilILY a- COMPOUNDS WAS
V DUECna IN AT lEAST OH£ GROUNDWATER SAMPlE
@ INDICATES TlfAT TPH/BTEX WAS DUECTED IN AT
l£AST ON( GROUNDWATm SAllPI£
1HQRP[ ROAD UW-12 - Ta WAS AlSO D£TECTEO - -
..... 011
_.
....
HCO
Hal
~ : ~ )) ""-"
RW~~~
--~) \\ fiGURE MA
\
\
-------
..
.. .
Co
..
.. ,.
- .. J
..
..
..
COo
..
ro. ..
.
..
.
..
'.. .
,.
.. 1.&11
... ...
II .
..
./
.. 10 .. ..
.. . .. .
.. .. .. .
.. " .. . .. II
.. JI .. II II .
.. .. ' " ...
.. "" M . .. ..
.. .. ... COo . ..
.. .. ... .. .. ..
.. .. ..
.. ...
.--
/'
./-
/
..
..
..
a IU
..
..
.
'"
..
..
... ..
. ..
.
.. .
. . ' " .. .
.. . " It . Co
.. . II ... II . . . .
.. ".1 " " .. . " . .
. . .. ... '1 .... '" '.
... I. .. . . " .
.. 1.100 JJ - ... III " -
.. .. " " " '. I. . U
.'.. ': "' . '. w ... . ..
.. - - .. . . .. " .
.. ", " ,. II
uam.
UHIIS AII£ IN "0/\ UNLESS N01(O On'ERW1S£
Wi£HQ
S MOtlilORING \ll(U IN !II£ OV{RBURD£N (Oat)
~ MONIIORING \ll(U IN !II£ SHAllOW B£OROCK (BASAl.' A)
. MONIIORING OofU ,.. !HE DEEP 9ED!!OO! (BASAl T AI
o R£SID£NIIAI \11(11 lOCAnON
-$ BOR£HOl£ lOCA nON
UW.)4
, I
to
...
- I II
... 1.1.
UW- 48 JIQ, It. ...
10
.
. . .. . . ... ..
. 1M .. . ,
" "'" .. ...
... .. ., .. , . ". ..
.. . ).. SI .. II
.. -.. II .. 50 ..
.. .. II .. II ..
COo 10 . ,.
.. II .. to
... , .... .
.. II
.... '10 ... ...
.. , . II II
.. .. II'
8
...
.
.. ". .. 1M ...
Co It .." ..
.. It'
.. "-J . ...
.. 10 .1; 11
.. 11 ...
. ... .It '"
. ..
.. .
.. 14
... '" II
'" ..
.. II
WI. 180 "'"A
.. ..
.. .
.. I
.. IJO....A
.. .....
lit It.
.. ., It
.. "'
WI. 150 ...,11; '0", \
..
I
.. ,. .. II II .. 110 .
.. ... .. II II U
.. .. ". .. .. .. .. II
. III
.. II " ... '10 . .. - ,. RW-12 "
eo II 10 Co UI ..
.. ,.. '. " II II .1 .. '.'" .
.. Of .. . It ... ... "' :: . ...
.. .. .. . . 11 ... .11
... .. ., .. .. .. .. '"
.. ... .. II .' -""" .. ..- -
. . .- .. . II
.. Of " .. .. . .
.. .. .. '.'" III
- no """ ... '10~
...
,
II
S
IIW-2
.
fYl-IH:I
--~
S
IIW-I
B-2-$$
I-I
s
IIW-,)
, lit",
.. -
= (~
.- '-v
.. 8-,)
.
-
-$ ~
fJ1-BH.
fJ1-8H2
&lW-1IO
,n-BH,) -$
'10
IIW-'S
,.
....
I
......
....
.,
10
.
.
... '"
...~ .~; ~:~ J IIW-46
It -. II
.'1 11
RW.I 0
----H1:lr~~~
.. "
..
..
..
.. ..
..
It '"
.. .
.. .
...
..
-.. II .
..
.. ..
..
If
...
IIW-:l1
o .)00
~.....,..,
SCAI.( IN n(J
THORPE ROAD
WWI- 1 S£I FCTED TOTAl UETALS RESULTS FOR GROUNDWAtER - RI-Ri
-------
----- '
"
- / ......
/'
.. , ..
.- .. "" "00 ..
.. '"
..-/ /' .. ,.. .oo .. '0
C. 10 ..
.. .'"
c. .
Co " ,.
..
,, " ,
.. ,.. ........
c. u.
,. ...
1M
....80 WW- ....1 t.lW- 2
" . . ,
. I.OOQ. . lOCI to ..
.. lOG,'" " .. >0 140:." 8
... ...
.. OCt '00 .. "0 ". .. .. IS
.. , C. II '" 1.100 .. 110 "0
.. ll. " It C. .. )Q
" oo .. II so '.000 ,. 100
.. ,
.. 110; '10 ''''
W
w.~o . ,
.. II "
..-1) so """
q.. ... .0
.. J
"1III~Ul .. 21
.
" to
U ..
..
""-II C.
JOO
...
..
..
..
........'
,.
'10
to
,
-
,.
n.
$0..,
SLOG IS/O
- S
" w..... ~
~ .~.t...
S n,--
..~ "8.J -"'.10
'~IH.
/--"'----
, \
...
.
,..--
'''- ~ "~&tc
O,,;~-
I
_/
..
""'48
o .
C. 10
... M
.. ,
.. 110 110
C. 10
r. 00
.-' ..
U
Co
CO
... -
.. .oo 100
.. II
C. ..
'"
to
to
...
..
..
..
Jo8
\
AAIZOHA A~
--- -- "--,"
-.-..-...-
--.---..
..----- ...
. .0\
~ \
Un _.:l=. \
~ w!,,'
..-" ~
O.
c.;.;:;::;-"'
k.IIO
WOi'
".-11)
THORPE IIO~O
\
o
LIIIMI
$ _TCIIING ICU 1M .. - (0011
Q _110011" ICU .. .. ........ -.0 C""" "
. -. 'OO'NG .... IN .. .... tIIIIIODI ClAW' "
o .""n~ 801 lOCAnClf
. ......... 'DCA nON
...
All UNITS ~RE IN"./I. exa:'T Mi[1I[
NOIEO
~
5'
;1
9'
-I
~,
: I
--'Ill
....
(8)
".-IU
R9
o 400
~-
SCALE IN ft[J
FIGURE &1ti
WW-1
SELECTED DISSOlVED UETAlS RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER
FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE. WASHINGTO~
R1
800
-------
I.. ' "" Lon- III
..,. .(P' ..,~... .,.....
.. U. IA" " ,,, ...,,, '''lft« ... .....,. .. 'I' ""',
CA n," "'" CO h"' ''''' " .... "''' CA 161'8 ..."
... ..... .....,. '" .. "'" AI ... "'" II U.. ...',
. "" "", " ,,,.. ""' " ," "''' .. t.... ..."
.. ... ..." CA .".. "", .. It.' ..."
.. HU. ISI\ . .N. ..." cu II.' UGIL ' .,.. ..."
... n. ..,. .. "I" IS" ,( un "", .. ...., ..."
'II . .. ..,. ,... . ... Ie" .. II'" "'" ,... C I.' ..',
, ,.. ... ..." .. It. "',' III to. ...',
-... .n ... -" ".. "''' '" .... ..',
.. ..... "'''
"' ,. .." ' "., "'"
.. '" IS" .... f'.' -,
c.o 1)U, IS" III '" ...',
cu ... IS" III " ..."
... 1M" ..."
.. ". .."
. II" IS"
.. '''" ..."
,,.. c.., oc"
,.. ... OC"
III ... OC"
. ,
"'111.("
./'
ICS r. II "",' .-
'n lal I' ''''' ...-/
,., ,O(( .... ..."
II ..., ..."
.. II.' IS"
CO '1.11 IS"
II .... "'"
.. "... IS"
.. II' IS"
. UII 05" 11""
.. ,,,.. 05"
n, '" ..." fI.'oJ'"
'II ... .."
I..
.,,'Il.IU
'n St.'" 1£'1 ./ """-
Ie". t. II 05" / -
'''' ('.1 """
III "' OC"
" II .."
.. ,., """
ID. ... OC"
III 1'.8 11M"
Ice . .,.
IIIQ...., '.1 """
CUI II .,.
"" (I Ie"
1"'.'0' II. Ie"
"
"II-.n
It( '41." "'"
",. "" "'"
.. '.'J~
II JI.. 05"
.. 1St ..,.
CO W'" 05"
,( ,... IS"
III It... 05"
.. nil 05"
I UII ..."
.. .11.. IS"
,,.. ( .., .."
"I ... """
" .. .."
.. '.&8 Ie"
(D. ... .,. /'"
111 ". ..."
'IX . """
IIIQ. - '.1 ""
CDI " "'"
IDI I Ie"
...lar u. Ie"
IIW-IO of\CU' ~H
/~// .
/
t.lW 146
lAW 48
g
t
..
o
"W-I
...
, .. --..
I.. ....-... --'IIS ...
....-... oa ".IU LG/1 _....
" t.1 t£J\ on It.'''' ""' .. ... IS"
"' ,., "'" '. to.t "''' AI ... "'" Ct ... "'" au t.'''' ..,.
.. ... ""' '' ". "'''' .. II.' "'" U 61." ""' .. n.' ,.,.
CA 'UII "'" CI .".. "'''' CA "... ..'" tV ... "'" U "... .."
cu ,.. UGIL ,( ..tI "''' tV ... ,.,. .. 1711. ..,. cv I.' ,.,.
iii ,,,.. ..'" "" ,n" "'" "" "... ,.,. .. ". .." IIG ..,.. ..,.
.. ... ""' '' "' ..,. .. .&:1 "'" Uti ""' .. IS' "'"
. Mil """ . .41. .." . ,.,. .. JII" ""' . ,,,. ,.,.
.. HU' ""' .. "'" .." .. ..." ,.,. , I.' ""' .. -" "'"
". t I.' ''' ,... '.' IC'1. '''' . '.' !IM '''' ( e.. !OIl" "" c =.. "'0:.
III ." "'" 'N . II ..'" ,.. a. 18"- '. ... IIIIl ,.. ft. 18"-
III IU, IG'I. In '" """ In M' """ .a 411 lIIIl .n .n 18"-
.--"'''IIC ~
8-'011100 IIU "!HI ...u... (IASN.", ROUND 11 - GROUNDWATER MONITORING RESUl~
'::.. (ORGANICS AND DISSOL\f:D U£TAlS RESUL~
o .. tIC ~.:u.:::..~~crm WW::1
... - " '-<"" ~,. f AIRCHILD AIR fORCE BASE. WASHINGTON
o 200
~--
SCAu: IN n:n
tAw. 60
0"
""'''-COI
A' '.J lJIi/L
1M UI iii/I
tA ).U, 1Ii/"
n ", lli/'
ICi I"" Wi/'
... I'U U;'.
I( 411' UG/I.
NA :to"., ..."
,PH (... tli/l
US II' ""1
CL " NG/L
U t." MG/,
IDf II Mil',
UI I'" Nil.
'DC . MCi/t
fiG! HOI '.1 Mr;/t
CD' "...,l
101 . flitl
... ta. '" IIi'L
--
r AIRClfll 0
AIR rORC( BAS(
BOUNDARY
I..
... J-I"
...
""13-1"
II II . IJ LCi/I
AI 't.' Lei/I SI
IA ... tlill I'
U -/JUI UGrt ..
rE .1' "", CA
... III.. t.lill n
.. flit "'11 IiG
81' .... .,, ..
. 1M' Wit I
,.c; 8.' ura,,, a:
... "'f' 0011 ...
'PH ( ... IG'I. ,'"
III .. te-t 101
I" 4" IG'I. III
400
,
0"
IIv.'.on
II
01
..
ca
lOG
.
..
''''
I"
"'
I.' 1.J(f...
I.' UCi/'
I" 1£,.
1 J5 D' UGI"
11101 lIG/l.
.." 1Ii/'
,,.1. UG/I-
(... ""I.
nt flit'
I,n ""I.
5.'J tJr;/L
II.' lli/l.
It. "".
11.11 ur;/l
Uti UG/I
,n.. Ulil"
Uti UGIl
1111 ""I.
'.1') Uli/L
11'" LtG/!
( ,., "'''L
,r, ./1
IU "'"
I..
""'f'-,,,
IS
..
ca
,.
..
...
"'
.
..
""
...
"..
lis
et
..
IU.
Us
lac:
fIfJ! ~Ul
COt
..,.
AI..IOI
,
""14'-10.
I'"
IDI
II.
( '.1 ""'.
J10 1«'0/'
1111 ",/1
..
""1"-0&11
JC(
IU..
,...
II.
'IS
".00 ''''I
1.11 1.1./1.
( 0.1 MGI\.
III iii"
,,,. .."
.11
hili-I"
'ce
'PM
H.II Lltt/l
c.., ""1
0"
""Ill- on
It.
.... Ul,/l
It.. UII/l
,.. UCi/l
~.... .',
.... UG/l
IS'" Lei/l
U.. ~'..
J... UG"
,.,. "'"
....' UG'l
J.' IJG/1
"IU' UG'I
( .., ...,
II' ",II
" ",I.
0" flG/.
I" 1Ci/'
I 'U' ""t
. "','
1.1 fC,;
" ",I'
. "".
nl ""1.
-------
""".1116
AI.
.,
..
CI
CO
CI
CU
,.
"
...
...
".
.
...
.
..
AI
..
CO
./ ,.
iii
..
.
..
IJI" -...',
1M &A.',
'" ""I.
II.' loG"
'41" 1.5',
II. loG 'I
II. loG 'I
".., ~/L
It, loG"
",.. ..."
N.. 1,&.-1.
)t.. loG"
It" 1.51'
""" 1Ii'l.
II.' loG"
II. loG"
..
1hI'".(P'A
".' IA'\
.., IA'\
..." IA'\
"" IA'\
"... IA'\
II' ug"
JIlt loG"
."" IA'\
I..
lflii'.'''''
... ,.".. WI\.
AI "., IS"
.. ." ISIS.
CI ... ISIS.
Co '"'" loG"
G ,I~: ::~
CU It, IoGI\
n "".. IoGI\
PI III IoGI\
: o;m ~
II ,.... IS"
. I"" IoGI\
... '"'' 1.5',
, '7'.' "1\
." I.... IoGI\
I.. '"
.., U."'A --."'"
II. "111 IA'\ '" ... 11111 ISIS.
"' n.' I.GI\ --- "' 11.1 ISIS.
.. ... I.GI\ "1\ II "' ISIS.
CO 'MIt IA'\ II. '"' ISIS. ... 7'7' CI ... ISIS.
CI " IA'\ II ,.. I.GI\ II '.' ''1\ CI ,... I.GI\
CO .. IA'\ II '"~ ISIS. II ''' ''1\ CI II. . ISIS.
II. III. IoGI\ Cu "' 151\ CI ..... I.GI\ C
-------
"W-IIS
.$
\ I-e
\\
".-13
rn-BH5
....
....
...
-.
L .NIUC
'.......
8-nuJC
~IIW"
10. 0C8
.-..
II
II
It'
'"
UI
......\S)
IIUIbI
~~ '\t0~ ~57e
( \
us,
8-J
.. -8.
.... ...
.. ..
IIIHUIC .,
t -- "'
- ,.,
It-I1\DC 'M.
~'1UNI " 1
'-nUlC .,
-.-,.
rn -IIH.
..
"" ....
-. ....
.. .
_1-'-
tli
~I
!jl
!I
~I
~I
~I
~
I&.
....
-.
..
U88
$ -- IQJ. III .. - CCIof)
~ -'ca.. IQJ. III ... ~ - (aAUl' 0'
. _rea.. IQJ. III .. DaP - C""U 0'
o "-nO!. IQJ. LGCAfICIOI
.-.LGCAfICIOI
SIT[ "-1 - ANALmCAL RESULTS FOR SOILS - RL R3
SF1 FCTm Y£TALS.. ORGANIcs.. AND roTAL PETRDLmW HmAOCARBONS
F AIROULD AIR FORCE BASE.. WASHINGTON
.....
-
.
IoIW-48
. t.l.
'''' ...
...,. ...
... ...
. In
.. 18
U ..
C. II
.. If
r.. U8
II If
-1-'.
"W-I2. ~
..w-12sS
rn -11HZ
u
.... ....
vOC. ....
.. .
-.-1..
i II
0.,
RW-12
.j
. -- - THORPE ROAD
((
RW-leO
I)
..::
~
......123
N01£S: THE SAUPLE SPtClflC OEJECtlON UU" AI
LOCATION B-3 WAS AS HIGH AS 21.11 mg/l
-------
o 150
~-~
. SCALf IN FEET
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1000 mg/K
-z.
o
-z.
~
("
o
~
q
APPROXIMA TE
EDGE OF
GRAVEL PAD
::v
.
6
o
. BURN PIT
\
"
~ I
FT-1
LEGENQ
300
I
. SUBSURFACE SOIL BORING
.. AND NUMBER
450 TPH CONCENTRA TJON IN SOIL (mg/Kg)
-- 2000 TPH CONCENTRA HON CONTOUR (mg/Kg)
. DATA POINT NOT USED -
SUSPECTED ANOMALOUS RESULT
8
;u
J>
~
m
o
;u
o
»
o
-------
o 150
r--\...- ----
SCALE IN fEET
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1000 mg/Kg
APPROXIMA TE
EDGE OF
GRAVEL PAD
......
48
20
.
\
BURN PI T
FT-1
300
.
. SUBSURFACE SOIL BORING
4 AND NUMBER
450 TPH CONCENTRA HON IN SOIL (mg/I
~
m
o
;0
o
~
~ '
-------
uw..e'~
$
uw ~3
. .
. I
J u
°
----.-
"""011
. I
OUI
»1
II
II
LtW-3
. J . . J
'"
RW-Il
II
8
II
IS'
II
II
"0
'00
II
..
- -~~~2! u:.;~- J-- u~ 148$ $::~~:~ /UW'48 ~.
-.. "-'-'.' iT -. r.- --..
i.iDe.-in.-"'" '" -- - - ~101I/.A1[R 1 --""-"
,ca ,.. I" I' ~OG. _rdi.70_- St:P.""_,AIOR I 110;' /
,,.. '.1 DC( ,",.t ., II - '1'
-..... q n 4i1l D"C,,' i
I -,... II \..)b...." ~A!;{ - O"CI, 1 ..W-5Q
,...- .. .... \ .-,:\, "- .,]-11:.
.-.,.... 0.. IIW-':18 ~~ ~ 1 1[( "'. 10' .
....- ... ~ "&~.2W-'-BURN'PIT I """"'0(" .~ It' DO
.!'!!- . --!!!;! .!!!!. ~ .-- ~ -- -- - - I :. OCO IICO
APPROXINAJ[ ..-4 -- ~ ,..
[DC( or ------ IIW-'53 IoIW-:IO-.. IoIW-124~ _. RWO-46""
CRA\,{l ~ ----- IoIW-':\5$ ~IIW-'5. IoIW'125$
-~/'~--- F T - 1 101.-158' UW.::'OO I ~ \
--yw.;.t 1oIW-1;;~ IIW-181 1 .
I IoIW-I~ _1I.-I8J
=- ~:.: - .. - -.. - ...,,,'" = ..:;"=''' ~ .. . .. ... ~~" . .
-.. ---.- ---- -. . -- --_.---.-- . --" -"-.
_.~ - - - '._, -- -- . IHORP[ ROA
'.'.... ._- - -- I' I "W-I" ~
I --.. ...
L-.. -.- .... "-,,. / I . ," ~ -
1;'~1::~ ~~ -\fl~r~rd I~ ~~~E1 1;1 ~ .::J 1;~:5J s-"::::?...~."(".)'w,,,, ~ ,,,,.~
!!!!.... -~. - ;j - ~,a Q' / ~ IoIONI1ORING WUl III IIt[ SHAllOW B£OROCK (IIASA. I A) ,M~1~1 I
. 61 IoIW-I21. IIONITORING Wnl 11/ 111[ DHP BllJl!OCK (IIASA'I A) . . .
. ~. ~
~I 0 R£SIO£NtlAL I\{ll LOCAtlOII !!!! '.'0.'111
I IIW-121 L
1 lOCAtED 405 f[£1 JIUI:a. UNIISA,. 0/1 IIN. [S5 OIIf[RWIS£ IIOIEO.
I TO 1H( SOUtH 0 IHOICAI[S fa {OR RElAJ[O COIIl'ooNO) WAS OEJ(LIW
IN JH[ QlOUHO*"T£R SAIlPlE COtUCtro DUlliNG
1 tHE IIOUNO '-8 SAIIPLING [\lUff
IPHl8tEX IllERE AlSO D£1[CtED IN "'W-I'-,\ -~O ~ .
II
...
..
"
'10
''''
"0
",
HCO
ttCU
NCO
"CO <'0 lO "'1/\
..,,1
/~
. .'
. .
. "
"
t'
'".11
Nco
~~
fT-1 - \U..ADLE ORO~ mTAl PE1Rmnty HWROCAAAnN RJ:'~. 15
FOR QROUNDWA1ER - R1-RI
F AIRCHILJ) AIR FORCE BASI: WASHINOTDN
D Joo
~.__..--.
- SCAlE IN flU
600
-,
-------
UW-~2 5
t:-IJ-:MW-: :
eo '"
-- CW t
Y .
10 ..
BURN PII
.
.
...
I'
n
"
..
101.-3
...
..
..
..
0-
ClIo
v
10
II
WW-8'Q
5
u..-~]
~
PrRIIKIIR ROAD
..
UW-104 ::
0-
..
.
...
110
..
Co
Qo
10
u
It
.
,
.,
II
U
1111
II 1110 ,~
..
II
"
..
I.IW- ~9 -~ ----- -UW".:.-g-- 0
~T -- i it --'r .T 0 11
I - 'I '" '. :, I .. .<> . Rw--12
.. "I II :»; I.
... C4 t.t 1 .
Co '. ... 11, "
.. '.100 ~ to I II
!!-..!! ! '.1 SOO
;--_..~: .: L- '~IM
WW-~8 u. I!.
. I
I !
lAW-OS
Ii t 0-
00 . ..
..., I .
... -~ ~ ~I =
8' :
il~
;.1
il
:i
WW- 48
~/
/
/
,/
-~--. -
Ii -- -. ---
o N~AI! 0.,-:.>--'-
....~ IU1 ---.--.
/-/
~
--f-~
a. ".-14 5 5 11.-148
2 liUW-ISO
.-
'-- -..... OIl/WAnR.
IkDGd!> 70 \~ SfPAR..IDR
"W-I
\ ~ .DIIAIH_A.~o/r,..-
I \ --"'-':11 --,,,.,
APPROXIWAtE ---~ . WW-':wI I e
EDc( at ~ Ii "W-'D25 I
CIIA\.t:l PAD rU iiif-)
~ "W-I:I] ...-
".-':1:15 ~UW-I!l4
T - 1 UW-loo"'-
~UW--I:.a
...-, !I IIW-I8I
.....,. 11.-11]
'-;'.-18
U.-1241i
uW-I2~5
.--. .....----
"W-I 00
- ---- ..-.-- --.--.
1I4DIIP[ ROAD
.
,
II
II
U
..
.
I'
IU
"------..
~ " :~r:--
: I~ U I It
...
-
..
Co
Coo
10
II>
- I
. ,
I.'
".
II
.
".
U'I
Inl
)s11
JIIO ";~I
IJJ
"'1
18'
,
'.
,
\
'-
o
- R1/I- 46
_1.
.
UW-119
RW--18 0._,
~ WiWIl
S UONIJORIIIC Mll III !H[ OI<1:HBURDf II (QQI)
~ UONIJOR/HC IIfll '" Itll SIf..llOW BIOROCM (UASAI 1 ..)
. UONIJOR/IIC WEll '" ItIE OUP 8lUROCM (8"'5""1 ..)
o R[510£HII..l \loHl lOC..IION
11.-121 Q
LOCI. 110 405 f[ET ~ HO~ UIIIIS-,. 9/1 UNLESS OltlERWlSI: NOIlO-
TO 'JH[ SOU!H - ~
fT-1 - SElECTED TOTAl U£TAIS RfSUlTS FOR GROUNDWATER - R1-R9
FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE. WASHINGTON
UW-'2J
o ]00 600
~-~_.~._- -,
SCAlE IN fE[J
8
\
\
\ ._.
. J. ""-- !'!~::.!!!! -no'
I. 28; 2'
t01 110 ml/l; lID MIA
... ,
- -- -- - .---l
.l.iw- 12J -
--- "-If
.. .
.. '00
0- .
Co "
CIo II
... .
... I
\I II
,. ..
IDS J'~ meA
,/
.I.4W- 12i
... ';..
.
'00
.
.
I
,.
..
~~ ~!~
..
..
0-
...
...
.
10
IDS
-------
o
~
;
M
.
...
,
, "
I.IW-~2 ~,.",
$ . "
- _._-~ "
$
1.1"-6
$ 1.1"-149
W-2 ~I.IW-I~O
III DC I~/O"'- Oll/WAlrll
---.---- ..-....-- _._~ SlPAIIAIOII
BURN PH .L\ I.IW.I
" --U OIIAINACl
APPROXII.IAIt \ ---u.~r51- p.!!C,.
fOC( or ~ IIW-I~ ~
CIIA\II:l PAD ~ IIW-'.2$
'& n=i -8--11.,-3
I.IW-14 $
FT-
P£RIN£.lUI...8Q.eIl-
----.-- --
------ .
._- .~------------------
$ I.IW-104
"W-I~~ SI.lW-I~3 I.IW- !IO._-
1 "I.IW-154
I.IW.loo/
"W-I:W-I~9 .--I.IW. I!III
_-I~- I.IW-III
._I.IW-I83
- --. 'I.IW-I62
. UWO'SI S."W~8~=:"-'
'--~--.-
"0 ""&I[
. (JIIC"
I.IW 124~
I.IW'12~S
I I
I I
I
----~I
I
!!
Iii
iil
~\
.._- ---' -." -- .
~
I.IW-I23
IIW-121 W
lOCA 1t0 40~ rUT
TO Tit[ SOUTH
FT-1
SELECTED D
ISSOlVED METALS
f AIR CHIlD . AIR fORC~E:~~~S fOR CROUNDWA TER
. WASHINGTON
- R1 R9
. .
o
RW-Il
/
J
I
,0
/.R""'11
H~46 \
\
\.
moo" .... ~
IIWI90 .)
---_/
~ II --- - L£IiDm
~ ONIIOHINC I\I:ll IN n
C't. If OYrHIlURUIIi (0 I
.. 1A00UlOIIIIIC V'ofll III 1111 51' 0)
. tAllOW ItIIlHOr.
I.IOIIIIOHINC 1\1: .K (IIA5AI' A)
O Ll III rllr 0[[1' III
RESIOENIIAl ~ lJH(K.K lUA~AI r A}
~I.l lOCA 1101'
Ham. .
UNitS ARt I" "9..~
ulnlSS "0110 ()IIIIRWI~.l
.
lAY/-I 19
o
M - .J!JO
_.-
scAli IN rUT
eoo
"
, '
8
\
\
\
-------
I" ..J
'a. '1.1...'.'''.
AI. "4IJ \£1\
AI .". uc.,.
8A In uc.,.
CA )'''1 """
II ,..11 I \If"
ICf '''" U:;/I
.. ru. a&1t
"I .... 1&/'
" nit.. 1.6/'
- ..... ~
IIW-~1 5
'11 .."
III. III''''''''''
AI.
"
..
CO
CI
cv
II
'"
,.;
..
I
..
'"
/II
''''11 'A,',
II 1J 1511-
'" 1&>\
Sl4 II 1&11
It 15>1
I JJ tSIt
'"'IJ ..,.
It. IJ IAtI
III" tAil
,.. ..It
..n .."
I'''' ~"
. "'I
n I£J\
III "". J
,.. 'JlLwMIIIJ-II'A
8' JI IJ uc."
.. It) ur./'
U )UII t.lill.
II nu.....",
.. 'II It lItJ\
'" ".. &£1'
. U.. 1£1\
... .".. Lei1\.
"
III filii' 1M
1=. "1""""-'0.. -.
AI.
..
CA
CI
fI
.1
IC
...
I
...
.n. ..'"
It.. "'I.
lUll Ulil\
II.' ..."
'''' is''
'.1 is''
"" 1&"
III 1.1511
"" \&/'
,.... "'11.
""
0 MWIJ.006" 8
'" .. . " ..
1)110 H'."
,.., onlo HW-l1 "' as 16.' ",.,
"' '" ...'.
.. 13100 .... co 1110' ...',
., ... ...', U 16.1 ...'.
.. ", ...', lU 11.1 ...'.
co "' ...., fI 14701 ...'.
U '0101 u,,,, ." ....). IC 1"" 11(;/1
/IIW-~i CI II I ...', lit. 111I.wenl-Oll "' :u" ...'. -'
CU U. ..... AI. UUJ Lei'L ... '.IU 11&" "" "'" I:'J
Ie Itu. ..." .. '1.1 U(i!1 'N. I' II,""'UJ-OOI-
'" "' ...'. .. ,.. IJCi/L . 41" ""1
,tAW .9 lOG "101 UCO'. co )4t.. ...'. .. ",,.I ...tO .... 1"001 "'-'.
NO .... ...., "" "'-1)' fI lUlU Uli/l AS "" IIG'I
. "" ..... 1ft. f I 1(..'-"1..'1- '" II.'J ur;/L I" .. Iti. ..,,"
I.. n-111 .. lUll ..." lOG 1t"1 ...'. ""II 00'''' . '.1 ...',
DI. "'(MIfI'I-MIA . .. . UL.' .. UU. ..." NO "I ...'. CD II.' ...',
,. OS. ...'. A' H.I ...'. . nil ...', .. Inoo 'II,', CA 1 JIG'" ...'.
AI. 'I. I£Il .. ,91. Wi'1. NO l'SII ...'. AS ,... 1""1 CI 1016 ~.'I
.. 11.1 "''' No II' . IOU "". IN JJ...t£/L .. In ...', '0 105 ...'.
ca ~I" "". CI '.1 Iii" co 18101 "'. (U U, ICt."
re Sit ""1 ~"'£ Ollc,; 'A tit.. dill. III t1\1-1f co H.t ..... n: ...,. .... "".
'" aI.J "'to '0 ..., 'JIi" .",. t 1''''''''''-0018 CU 11.1 ...., .1 In ""..
lOG .".. I£Il CO II.' ",.. AI .nOJ UC;/L f( 1110. UG/l IICi 1111.. 'IGI
NO n.1 "''' 'u us. ...'. .. 2U" ...., NO IUot "'"
I ,n, Uli/t Ie 'UL' IIG/' .. It. "". NO ~... UCOII ... 1.11 IIG'I
NO "." "". '" U.. LIt.'L ,. ~u.. ...'. .. n.' 111(;/1 HI 191 ""'1
.. n... ,JCi/I rc ."... UC;'L . un 1""1 . ,'JU' ...,.
NO Uti ...'. .1 I1.SJ UG'I NO f'l"l ...'. .A J>I" ...'.
.. 1.1 J &.Ii', IC I'U' ...', II 1.1 """
., n.1 "". .. Oil ...'. . 1>7 UG/I
I 11'01 "''' . "" IJG'I IN .., ...'.
1101 ~. "'W 12'~ NO 11'01 ...'. .. ,,,.. IJG" 0
. 111.1 ...'. IN )S.', 1JCi:1 I.. ""-I))
IIW'12~5 ,. 1".1 ...'. U'If'- .Ib IN.IIU,""'I1$1-00ZA
..... 6'~
5
...w ~J
I" _.tt
""" ..sa
~
..
CA
...
I
...
/.
". ~,..
""I .--'..
..... &&01\
I." ~I\
14 .18 161\
.. \£1'
I
t-
oO
.
Ie
oO
..
1101-1'85
5 ",...149
~"''''I~O
"
- - .....
BlDCd~/O ,
\
o
I.. "'-151 I.. tN.'"
SM. , "'WNW."-.'''' INI "ICoIltNI"-tl.a
AI. .U.. ..." AI "'01 UCO"
as It.. I£A A' II.' "'''
.. "' '''" .. I" ...'.
co 'tlU ...1I co "'01 "'"
C8 It.' ''''' CI n.' ...,.
CU '''' '''11. CO .,. ..."
rc ""' '''Il 'U 51.' '''''
'1 .1.1 ...11 f( "U' I£A
.. 'UII "'" '" II.' ''''''
.. ''' '''Il. IC I" II ...Il.
., ".1 ..." .. ,.It ..."
. III' "'11. O. ".1 "'11.
.. "'" "'11. . '''1 'IG"
. III ...'. .. 1"" "'''
,. 11.1 "''' . '..1 "'''
,. ," ..."
I" ""..14
III. ftl''''''''''-'''''
AI.. Inll ~IL
AI ... ~IL
.. UI "'Il
CA S"" ...It
1:1 II.' lAIL
CU "., L51L
rr PI,., 1.C/L
PI 11.1 ""1
.. '''II ..."
118 HI "'''
. ."1 L51L
"" ,,,.. UGI\
. 'I.''''''
IN Jr.' 1.C1I.
'--
..
CO
rc
lOG
..
I
...
i I
.
_.: =-~~,
I.
!!i
~,I
I.. Q."J
8. ftIQ8ll,n--ltl8
.. ....... LI"oIL
.. "5"'''
co '.IJ"'1l
CA .,111 Uli/L
C8 II. I ..."
to It.' ..."
CU II.' ..."
n "..u UGI.
... IIJ II LGlL
118 In..."
.1 .,., WilL
. "....."
* Jest. 'IGII
, '10' UIi',
'N It.'J Ulil'
IIW-12'
'OCArED 40~ rEn
TO ht[ 50UTH
ROUND II
- GROUNDWATER UONITORING RESULTS (TOTAL ..HAtS RESULTS)
EI=.1
f AlRCHILD AIR fORCE BASE. WASHINGTON
\ At 111001 '''''l
AS '91.1 ...'.
IA II)' 1"',
K II.' "'"
CD I.' W/I
CA ,.18&1' Uli/l
CI 'II W/I.
CO IU UG/I
(U 19' ""I.
I[ II.'" UC;'.
'I nil UG/I.
... IlUII LJG/t
... '1111 UG/I
HG '.1' UG/I.
... U. ltG/l
I( .""1 tGII
.... Ji'" UG/I
n '.1 UCi/I.
" to'.' UC;/I
'PI ,,,. UG/'
- -.---. ---.- _..-
-..-. -..-..'-.
- THORPE ROAO
t
J
.
..tVl-IIY
fl.' ~"
U&I' ""/1.
"I ..."
U"I ...Il
M.' fAi'l
"" 1£11.
,UI. ..."
.. n'lu ""'-
AI It. JJ Lei''-
.. '"~ &1;"
n ,. II IIiI\
CA 11111' Ulill
CI n....."
to ft., UGI1
(u ,... toGll
fI: ""'J """
" ".U "1.
'" "... &1;"
.. flU III"
.. II.' &l;1l
. 1..1 UIiII.
lOA >6... "'"
. ,.."'"
'M I "J llilt
AI. flUI UGil
as 1t.1 "'''
.. '51 1&"
CA , ".. "'''
CI "., I£Il.
CD I'.'"",
CV M.'''''''
n )u.. "'''-
'" 11.1 tSI\
,.; "" 1&"
.. .,. \iiI\.
III .. . . l1li\
I '''''' Uifl
.. I"'" tSI\
, ".. I&Il.
,. ""., l1li\
III ..,-."
.,.. , II'''.'''""
8" MI.'"
"'. ".L"'I"."..
AI
..
CA
rc
'"
..
I
lOA
,.
,.. iIM'\.
11.1 ..."
.1611 I£A
.... UGI\.
.... tGIl
".. III"
In' l1li\
II. to l1li\
.. . , l1li\
AI.
..
CO
rc
...
118
.
...
'II ur..t\
II.' ..."
.1101 LIi"
.... II """
'1411 LI6I1
1t.1 "'''
nJ' Will
"". 1.Iill.
.11 ""."1
1111 ........,,-...
.. ...IJ iii1\.
M '41 IIVI.
CA "..I IIiI\
(U ,... III"
n ,.... J &GI\
IC 118'" 181l
III 1M 18"
. "ft I£A
.. ..ft. IIIJl
'I ".. IGI\
'" St.1l llill
ROI 19 0
- ./
<.:~ ::;:::'-'Wiwu. /1
S ...UtIiTOHII4G WlU IN TltE OllI
-------
8" '*.1
...' 'IICO...,,-,.
IU 1.11 t.Ci1\
1-1.'-'(( t H LltA
.. J.uuGJ\
8. II.'J &lil\
CI .".. tIiI\
.. '''''J &Ii"'"
.. n.. UGI\
. U,. Ulil\
.. '''''''1\.
I'" . ..t "'"
I.. ... "'"
II. 1M IG"
\lW-!i2 S
~
'U ""-III
III, """"'''-''1
10.
. "'"
... ..,-.13
III. 'IICiWlfIU-H.
.. II.' II1II.
U M'.. III....
iii ..... """
1ft Itt LGIL
. Nil II1II\
... ,a... II1II.
,... . '.1 IIGI\
III ... IIGI\
II. .,...."
I.. ""111
",. ",,"".11-...
II '.a LIllI.
a. ... LIllI.
.. .... l1li1\
U ..... l1li1\
CV t.' l1li1\
iii Iltll """
.. ... """
.. .... UGI\
. Nil II1II.
... ,,,........
'''' . ... ......
- III .11 IIGI\
III ".. IGI\
'11 .."-.,,
IN, "Hi.....56-".
.... ,.. \C.I\
C" .tJo, t.G'"
'. ., t.G"
fIG JI" t.G.....
... It.. l1li1\
. II., IItII.
.... '14""1\
1... f ,., "'1\
Its II' fGJ\
n t.. llil\
'l '.4'",1\
10. '.1.1\
"' n. llil\
IDC t.t..."
""'-M t ... ..."
-.1IIt '.1 IIGI\
CDI c, I8GI\
"I. 'D~ III M&I'l
I.. ""-'$5
..' ".....,."-(,,,
..
CA
loG
!Of
.
...
III
II.
II.' l1li1\
SIll. l1li1\
I".' l1li1\
.... UIiII.
.... """
II'" ""'-
I" IIGI\
. II IIGI\
'11 "'-IS)
... ".G""I''''.
AI ..1 UIiII.
.. ,...."
c. 61101"1\
cu , . , IAII.
.. .SI" t5J\
fII t.' 1Ii"-
IC '.11""
. "II""
1M "III UG~
. . ... ""'-
I'" . '.1 .."
"' .""'1\
III ."" ..."
I.. "'-1"
&II, "1'''''''-8
,U
..
U
III
1M
.
...
I'"
III
'II
I.. 181''''
... '11-11)-111
.. 14.' l1li1\
CA ..... UGI\
'" ..... UlI\
OIl sr.. II1II.
. ..,. II1II.
... U... II1II.
"' ItIJ "'"
I.. 181-11)
... '''-II)'UI
.. n.1 II1II.
U nil. 151\
II II.' l1li1\
"' lUll II1II.
.. n.. II1II.
:. .1::: ~
II. '" ""'-
II. . II "'1\
... ",~,-..
Cot ..... "'"
.. "'" 1&1\
.. ""~ "'"
. I"' ~
. It'""'"
'N Ct.' I8Jt
'N '" I8Jt
.a "' I8Jt
IIC .-
..... "., ...
-- t.1 -
at II"'"
- II'"
... ,
I..
"-tU
.....
I.. . ~'1
lit. , hCtwtvJ-'.
CM 01 . .. ur,'1
1("' 11' II U:;/,
11M If' HI "' II 1Ii:1
n,- 101 'It.. iii"
f.. ... I II "J iii"
......... "'1 t.G/l
11 . IIJ iii'.
A' JI.'"UG',
IA .It,..'.
U ))"1 15"
tI II.' ..:.
rr '''I'lIi.'
fG 'tI... "'"
Nt II.. Wi/'
If SUI 1Ii/
.... ..... IJG"
'''II ( .., ""I
ItS "01 "-;1'
CL t.1 "'.1
1\ O. l' ""~I
10' I I ItG/I
III IU ttG'l
lOC " .""1
AMI... I.' "','
tGJ Nnl 1.1 "'"
tOl " "'''1
101 " tCi/l
All. 101 zl. lei/l
t.lt.J 1161.
1S.' t.G"
'''11 ""'I
J.' UGIt
.".. Will
IS' Will
Uti UGI!.
,.... Ulil\
C ',1 "Ii"
ft. "'1\
." IIIiIt
I.I.ItA'.M ur.Il
'U .... "'It
I'" . '.' ..".
I" -,"
III. 111_'_'"
'-M lit... IIIIJ\
II. .11 IIIIJ\
AI ... IIIIJ\
Cot "'. IIIIJ\
C8 II.' IIIIJ\
~ .:~: =
. ,.'" IIIIJ\
... 1111.. IIIIJ\
. ... UIIII.
II. '" OIIJ\
"' ... ~
8" "-111
III. IIIG-II..1
1,"IC'U~ ~.
.. ".IJ III"
U .IlII ""'-
.. ....IJ II1II.
III ", ""'-
. ,... l1li11.
... ",.. ""'-
"" c... 11111.
III 181.1.
... 111_'''''''
U I"" \rill.
iii "It l1li1\
I I'" 15"
... .nll 1811.
hi ... II1II.
III "''''11.
III It IGI\
'.I-ta ..........
I.'-ICA t... ......
'.I.I-I(A '.It 881\
It I t........
.. ...........
U ""1 ""'-
.. III.IJ ""'-
. IN' ""'-
... "'"''''''
"" c.., ""'-
III IS' I0Il\
I" ,... I0Il\
NW-121
LOCAT(O .es rUT
TO IHE SOUtH
II II. fJ UIII.
.. It... 11111.
U "... II1II.
.. lUlU llil\
I HI'''''''
... ...........
I'" . ... IIiJ\
ROOND 11 - GROUNDWAtER MONITORING RESULTS (ORGANICS ,. QISSOLVED M£TALS RESULTS)
fI:1 .
FAIRCHILD AIR fORCE BASE. WASHINGTdN
'11 ...,.)
1ft' "1(,,,,,,,,.,,,
''''Q ,..... &.loll
erN ...,... II \lVl
.'l.laI ,.... 151\
'.1.'" Ii "f Llilt
..... '6. "I I.Ii/a
AI. ... IJ ~/l
AI tI.'J""l
III nlJ l8i1\
C" )U,. UG/l
Ie IlIIU 1Ii"-
... .n.u "'1\
.. ,U, UG/I.
I ".. llil!.
,.,. ,,,.. "'''
I'" . ..t "'I!.
III ... iii"
CL .., "'1\
''- ~. I. "'/1
'0' I' ICJ'I..
IS' 11' tCi/l
IIX II fli/l
Net .. 1.1 ""
.en "12' ,. I ",/l
CO. ., "'I!.
... " IG"-
IL.. 101 H. "';/1
0"
_u-,.
II II IJ Il.t/l
A' 't.' lIi/\
.. It' UGII
CA '"'' UGI\
n JUt IIGIl.
,.. lnll III"
Nt 'U' lli/l.
NI fl.' "!ill
. nil UG"
Mi J.' UCiJ'l.
... ".... Ll.1\
'PH . '.1 ""1
'" ''''''I!.
II. ... tell
-''-''
'11 I"~II
IN' nl'\IIN"~ID6
'[(
I.)' ~/l
."
""U.IOJ
II , OJ ..,...
AI 7" I"/IJ
.. I'll ~/r
U 1110' lCi/l
't Uti UCi/L
"' 11'" UCiJ'l
~ Uti 11JJ'8
Ie nil ..,,.,
II: '.1" IJGJ't
M ,'lID' Lei/l
'''" , I.' "-"1
It. ". ItG/I
III 'It ftG,a
o
RW- 46
/:
/1'0
I!RW-I~
u - uu ~ ..... .J"J-
.w;;: ~-l
$ MUNIIOIIING IIotLL IN THE OVlRIJURUltI (001)
~ IIOIIIIOIIIIIG WHL IN III( SHAUOW.BIUROCI( (IIA$AII A)
.
.----.- ---
@
@
.
IIVI-119
IE:3
INDICA 1£S IliA 1 1C£ (011 RUAILU cn.., 'OW III)
WAS ()(T(CI(O '" TH( RI\ MOIIITOII'NG "HI SA"I'I [
INOICAI[S TIIAT IPH/UT(K WAS OElfCn:o
1/1 THE RI\ \lOll/TOIliNG IIlIl SAMPlE
II 300
~--
SCAlE IN rrn
600
-. .
8
If.. ..w 1:111
.", . 111..,...)1.....
K"l n." tliJ'L
IlI.u ..... llil\.
nit ..lei tS ~'''/I
an..101 ,It II llill
a. 6i.' 1M11L
... ". 111111.
CI S.. UG"
C.. ','hl llill
CU I.' 1II.'l
n .-"0' 00/'
... IU" 11i.'l
.. It,. llil\.
"' ...1 Ui/'
Ie 84" llill
IL\ lUll UG/L
I'" c... IIGtI.
181 '" ""l
tiS .". 11M
I.. ""-~D
IH. '1I1.v..'t"N
tel ,. II UliJ't.
18 U.II'IGI\.
... ".11 \rill
C.. ~'''OI LGII
IIG '''''1 tII/l
I( IJ.. LGI\
M "tI. Ul/l
'~I ('.1 IG/l
1 II ... lli/l
III III "'"
I" tal s.
SM. t IIGIiMr)8-'"
!.
ICt ,.,. WI&.
II 11.'.1 iii II
.. ".11 llil!.
CA :,IU' UCiIl
IIG 'IS.. f IG/t
IC Ull bi/'
ItA ",.. Will
,,.. (1.1 Mill
I" H. ""1
III In ./t
-------
IIW- 14'
1111- 14e6) ~
fIQ 11'111-150
1I~2
SIIIH
IIII-J~ IIII.I~t
IIW-I~1h. ~
f. ..1iIl-I~2
..""-IW
II t .... t}
1111-1" 1I~~t
IIII-I~'_-~IIW-I$8
IIW-I57 .1"
"W-'80 -
1111-'''''- !!!=II-
,---
I
I
I
\
d
RII-JJ
WiUW. .
1111-120
~
IIW-122
Q ~"-U
S UON110RIUG WElL I.. IIll UVIHUllkl,tll (IJul)'
~ "OIIIIORIN.G WEll IN II'E SHAll OW IfllJHOC~ (IfA~"l i
. IIONIIORING WELL IN TIiE OHP BEDROCK (BASAL I AJ
o RESIDENTIAL WEll lOCATION
.,8
~
o
.
"
'4
rs
~W-50
1111-'00
IIWQ24
.,W-US
RII-.'
o
-\.I
. - -.. . ~ - - . -
..-----------.-------. -
W-In
""-182
R22
rer
I.. "'.t'
IN. "IGIIIV.,.....
fer '.31 UIiJ'''
I.. ".U
... nIGWVl.....
fel . . II I.GI\
I" ...n
lit- "I~'IJ
-----
rer
.... UGlL
RII-tO
o
- --- ---- ----- --- .-- --1
I
i
I
i
I
i
I
i
"-\
""-
\
ROUND t t - GROUNDWA lER UONITORING RESULTS
m
FAIRCHILD AIR fORCE BASE. WASHINGTON
FIGURE &2.5
~----- !~OO
-------
'~
88:27
&;."
t!24'12878
F AFB !Hal NE£RI He
Iil ee2
ARE TECH.
W Remediation Technologies" ' --.. ..-...,
-- '...--........-.
lIaRD U. utJ
hb1J.c ""au.
92 -,.,.
"a1n:b11d An. .. 99011
Attn. ... Gela1-
at
--.... "I~ .. .......--- ~
r~ PIM ...,C '~'n
Thank )'08 fo&' ~be en cut.un1t:y ~o cn..at: on the ", rv. nl.E'8fteecl prop .1
for 8ice c. l'Ua~ a=.LY.Lt.1... at. nuCb11d Air FOC"Cl8"". A8 J'08 ..,. tuIaw.
"~-b, lao. ba8 08III8d and operaC8d . C'8f~1 8O~1 ~... .... ~r_~
faoUUy 18 .po~."" ...bi.ngCan for t:- put: ~~. ---- Iaa8 N9'I1arl~
pnwld8d oU-.a.w ~ u..~ 88rlJl- W ".k'cIbU. .iIaoe .U of 1"2.
Du~1... t:b. pabUc 888t:iftIJ held ..da... t:IIi. _&b Oft ~8 P&-Cl,u.l. ..
ao~ JaI99~ o~ 1Ia1~ 1108 (1IV8) -~ t:bat:. due to !~. .~F b£.9b
C08t:. e-..al t.n~ .... ....1.~ a po88~. .1~TIl .. a1~1.. - aely -
' of eM f1.. a1t.88 -I -. II ita t:bJ.. a4-4iC.a1,. III "bia GD8 C"', .. ..C.-'-M
~h8 C08t. fo~ tII8z881 tnat88llt at appnlld8awly $I aLU1on. acccmu.av to Ne.
lt1a;gabu. th... C08t8 wen obt:aift8d froll a local tbeZ881 ~ 1 "dIiaUoa CC8II8DF.
Aa I'.._oh i8 "be GD1y t:b81:18Ll ~""1at:1Oft cO.8f1Ut)' wi.~UI JOO 111.188. % 8Uft
a..- he.... nf.rr1D9 to "'8Ch. -11. it. 18 tr88 ~t 1 ..... W1~ ~ *.
RIa~~ &ftd &DOt"" IID8 8IIp1QyW8, a.ndy .1"'~, ~ 1a1.-..c1Dca r p~id8cI ~
Utcl. 11 uy n88lliDl11DC'8 1:.0 that u88d br ....8 18 daM. 'At.. t."""'1 tlrerL .
o~..
t .U'OftQly Ob'8Ot to *. 1t1I998ber.. ~.t-.c .~Lbut£", 1108'8 .udy
Ov8...t..~ 8t.a~8d C08I&. ~o.. t.benlai- t.C'88C88nC to ~hi. C08p8Ay. 11 IRIS h8d U88d
tn. Lfttoftl81:1an t"'1: ..aa Pl'"lC18d to it by a-tRb, t:M eaet .KUlat. for otf-
81t:e t.....l ~n.~ abou1d he.. b88n l888 Cban 'IOG,OOO. -........,....
d1.M1:'V1ee to w.1zoeJa.U,. aDd 4:b8 8I1mOUad1a9 C" -..7 ~ a1.8~""J.D9 t:b8
con. 1ft90198d ".l.U t:b18 Oleanup .1~."1... &ad b~ dolftIJ 80. Cl8prLYiDIJ ~ of
-~h8 u"1...- opport881'"f W \;.- act.....".,. 0' eb8 ..111~. E'8---E88 ~b'.
faoLl1t.~ ~~"'Dt...
AUhoa.,1a I ..... DOt. Iaad .ufflc"'" U.. t.o raY!... t.b8 811Cu. PRif08a1 .LA
cl81*b, "t. 18 nlat.i..JLr -8y to poLft out: ~al -jor cl8f1aJ.eac1e8 .i.A "'8
c08t. analya18 fo~ off-ait.. 4:~1 d...pU,CIft. ~. coat: .pcoe""~ few 0If_1-
~h8~1 t.".~at: CS"'lDp8d b7 IIU8 con".1n8cI May 9~arinv 8Z'1MC'.. In pan.1OU8&',
a1~ ...~ .881l1li*1- ..... foe the 1'11:8 "~.I.a18t k88 ia ,h'.9GU&'.t..
P~8C't ti88~. na _t.1aI84:8cI excra..t.Uift and baekU1UII9 of U. 000 CIdt.La
yard8 and otf-..l.C. ~8D8,.c.t1Oft of '.100 081811: yacu of c:oac881118w.a 80U would
take .ix _t.he to OCI8Ip1et.e, A'4:.,. I'8Y1ewb9 t:he p1- cia ~ nt.'" ~
wit.. "l.e"'l. "1,.1.~""""iU of tbe ..a.. z ...II828Caad that. t:b8 an& to be
..a..at8d 18 .two..y 01881:1y .f1n8d fe.. P&'8Y1.ou8 8118in8eciq 8t..'I1.., ....L88
depth of 81108Y8Cioa 18 '7 1/3 teee, ..., cl....p .ot:1"~188 .t t.bi.8 aLce .oul. -*
CU.8~ any aa- ~.t1_. Pa. ..pe~1ano8 frea 81811ar pro,ec\;8 ae "a1&"Cfb.L14
l.ncU.c:aY ,"bat tiU.8 PE'O'8CI't 8bOu1d be CG8pleceo LA tVD to ~ ...... ratJIC c.baft
t.he 8.La --~ ~ a.r _..
Labor . 8caU~. .. did !lot claarly .hoW bow labor aad .q.,iJD8ftC COIIt. ,=-
e.ca..t1on. Daokfl.l11n1J and CGIIp8ct.1on ...nt ~.c.ed. A OOft88rY.~L". ..e188ce
or ~he t.L88 .....1.... ~o 0CI8p18t8 ~"1. projeec 18 one 8I08It:1a. 8q8iJl88ftt. and l.abar
coat. for t.hi. t188 pe~lod are 91"81\ below. aant.l 008t8 "8&'e obtaiDacl fro. a
10081 C88e "'le~. ~ ea~.8 a._- op8~at.ora ha... .0 boar .aUlae ,"ea1nUIIJ and
-------
041'91 "gs
~
tt24?2S'18
....IAFB ENGINEERINC
08:28
.P. . S '.a
.8:53 AM
II... .0"- I nc:.
:t.. ca4 ..,.:.
p...
Public ~ff.lr.. ~
H8&"oJ. 31, 1ft!
..,. 2
C'808i". fC'8'i'af' i-. ...,..
'.. , J
Xi..cDft
12.. C::C8W1w "oa.a~~
821 P~~ 8Dd ~#ad&~
'6.000
.6 100
1102 881r-
11... ItoU..
13..800
1.0"''''11'
".ISO
".10
at
. -w.-y - . '1 .h-
'17.22 .
S17. U +
'17.&2 +
.80
"".a~or
aou-- 0pwU0c
~88\118J."9 all ~b8 ",,1....~ and opera~0&'8 ~ Z8QUUed f- ODe 8IDftt:h. equll8811C
e08~. woa1d be $11.900 and 1aboc C08~ ~ be 110.". - a ~~a1 of S2..~".
':t\J.o C08Ip8C'- ~. ...,... en18aa of 8181.,.. ...... ..,---.co 82'8 .... foe
t...., adaJ.DL.tr.~l". c:oft8, p:ofl~. heal~b and ~ _U:or.i..., c:oacl-... .o~
and "'91...r1"9. '1:118 f19QC'e8 U'8 "1.5'" ... '37~.~01 C'8..ao'-L..l7'.
Duut-t-"'~ia8 ~.. ~ ~ ~1""', 1.8 a11 «*Mr a.... "'-8:'8
~C'Ol.ua con~881ftac8CI 801.18 W&'8 "C&.a~ and "8ftl..._Cted dU~lr of~--...
Faircbild hae AIlE ~&.nd ~ ~. ot ~Ioa faeUl~iII8.
8801IU.ll I ._~.... &1".)"8 pcav1c18d ..1~a.. ~U1 ~Lal ~o FaU'ahl1d
frwe of chacye .. p8n of ofr...I.~. ~1 ~C'ea~ 88Z'9iCl88. 2'bi.8 ~c1al 1.
108d8d OftCO ~~cluJ d81.1..rJ..D, ~8aiIud:ed ..U. g 888t8ob'. fao1.11~7.
"clrftauUa. ~h1. ~~1a1 &180 .1&a1ft&~a a4cU~J.anaJ. ~C1Ioki.. 008U. ftaio_.
made yery clear cIurl.8g ., pnYiowt dJ.a01l..iDn8 "L~b I8a8MIy 8lda' aacI flndAa
RU99abe~ of RV8.
~~ 80U ~I ~ ~~....... ~ _.".~ ~ba~","*
rowMI cr1p ~i888 froll hlcchild ~o M"801t .1:'" fft18 H ~o .. .......~.. !'tie
W..ft1~Oft S~.~. De..., LAt ot Tz'....pon.~i.on C'8qQi2'88 8ft ~17 ~1 c:oet: foe
a 'l:nao. a... c.nU8r ot '72.10 ... bov. .. 888C1 . I~ ~ ~108 Cb8C iD
~"k o..~ .....a.pia. .
DanaI n.--SI "''''. 8RiM- - IIU8 rW ~unaU7 Of''''.1~ ~1
t~tMat for no,eot8 1:b18 81&8 .... $31 Q) '40 per~. ....... ~1AI tba~ '40
per ~aft 8bcNld be 'I"" .. . ""~..... pLo..
% be.... ..01.... . l ---.- u."J..... C08~ ... ".heat for UI8 'P1C'e ~8U.D1ag AI:'8e
l'eneo\.£.89 ..... ...... ~--ciea. AlCbouvIa I D81r had 0_'''''' g 1'..1... and
abt.a1" COIIf1%'88~1aft Of ~... dUf8a'8IK C08~8. .,. ..~ 18 _111 "'1' 70. ~
~ .b." 91¥'8D bf RV8 tor c.. ~"'E881 ~ .1una~L.. LII cae ~.",.--.8d
plan. 8i.noe I elaaa.- OD1r ~ 1t- J could ~..dU, COftfina, I be". no ~
tbat. ~h8 .~u.l coat for ~b1a a1tansct1". vo.ld be -.eft 1... Cbaft UL8 ..~.i881:8.
In acN1~1... ~o C08~ con.1"1'.~J.ona. ~"'I'e .C'. I88J8y o~ ad¥8A~
a.8001.~ wL~ o~f--b. eher8a1 erea...,.. tba~ &C'8 d1ff10111.t: 1:0 aaoucaHl)'
value. ."'a C; . UM to ebe PE'8f8Z'C'8CI ale8J:D81:198 gl.¥8ft for eM P1r. Tr8i.n1119
Aa-wa '.in-..i~u ...io_acLn9). .... ..alv..iGn ~1.~"" o~88I:1J' f..--. c~1.
~C'--=-nt 1t aD .oouraee 008t ..e18a~. 1.8 U884. 'the fOU,awiag 18 a 11ft of the
IaI 083
2
-------
04~11'9S
88:29
. L.
tt24?'2878
F M'8 ENCI NEERI He
il864
AI'It ., 'S3
":'5 _II
a..taO'h Jn~.
:Sl' Ie.. 8783
~...
"
~11c AU.&.C'., on
IIa'Ob U, 1ft)
P... ,
cd.~ia .nd ..~_t 88CIe~ fnlll ~... ~J
1) o....u. ,.~ tn'''' f!d -- "'l~""j,z .". -A1~J.,;- 4 .... I
(~~1 t~~~t '-IIlci FO'Pi.d8 t:b8 ...~ r-_tI8C:C1Oft of 9fth1D11W8~.
a. 008f81i.aa8e ..a.u. ..,.1.~. -T~..~~ of co.. -'-n~8 ~ ~t::~I..... .
4 and 5 ~1. C'G8Ipl)' "'£.~ a11 z-.w!~ '''''''1, at.aw, ... co.acy ~t::.1oaa..
3. . 111 be. af~....... .A1~~i_. 4 and I ~14 ~,\- eM h.1g~
~ 01 lOftI u.. aff~1....... .
.. ~ 01 ~J.~J", IIDItUieJ", .... _1- ...... ft'88taaat:. '"OftlJ'
U~-~i..... 4 &lid S ~ ,,--~lr ~. - .. t:lI8 t:oJrl.o1~y ~ oon~ 80£.1
~b e288~..
S) -"'~m 8Ifeou....-.a.
. 8hOft pezo1otl of U-.
6) ~_..~.111", . -A1~~he 4 waald ~i.n . pi.18 8081e ~U.lty
t88t to ct.ee~ e~~ .'feeeiV88888 at 88cb .Lee.-
-A1temau... ~ 8IMS , ...1. .....a.cta ~ I.Ia
') 0...
I. haM AG~t.._. R08 faLled CO ~1OD ~~ CJI8 ft8~ ~ Of ISCIOlalJ
~C'OII91J ...,.... 1;118 U88 of r.,10D&1 ~~ ~Ee8~ f.eUl~188. 21118
8nc1ol'lnat. 1. due iD 1.. put to u... facUiti..' cIe8oa8uat8d effec:U"'"
1n c,.au1D9 "'1:01- ~ft8C8d 8OU.. WlaUe ~ C8D8J.a9 8 thr8~ co --
b881t:b ~ ~... 8IW1.c.... L &..
') -
J&t -, A.n II ~ -. II
A. .".ted br ..., ~ .U8Ct;h.... of in-alcu b1o.eal.ftg 18 81J8p8CC, 8Dd
can only'" cl8eeaaUtM .ft.eC' oon81d8c'8b18 ~i88 .nd .....-. 1a 8~ l...c ~b8 C888
of ~b8 ,.1.ra ~.1111D9 Ana, off-.1ta ~"'nI&l u.aa.8ft~ 18 elaa211' -..color 1ft
8"'r)" r..~t, lncludLnv co.~, vbaft .CCU'.~. lnto~t.!,cm i. caa.1da,.acI.
0ftc8 ...,.., UIaak ,.. fOl:' a11ow1.1I9 - tbla ~~,. CO 0
,.. . .. II cl..... p1en. 'It)lOU"''' 8111' qu.~1DDa 8IIOat e..... c
do nac b881uee W 0811 - .c (109) 524-0210.
81~lr,
at OD t.ha
Aca, pi....
.1I~..... DIC.
k.,4. C~r--
K81Ch G. Cupem8l'
PC'_~
.nolD8UZ88 - .. aC8t8d
oel
'Zaa ..U~, rua
K1cbe18 l'Ou£,- ""'111, ua..~
-------
I .
..
t9 .
.
UI8CHIU III fOlCl WI ~
Off.lt. n..., ''''''-11 - .Ir. f,....,.. Atw (n-,) .
!Rlt (D8t fOUl ..
,I..n --
I.. " .it.... lilt. "*" ,-,. ... "t. U8IOr _It. COft eo..ta
.
...LJUTUIJtfR8J1JUTI. .
..
t) Off'. Tren.. , .. '10.(11) 'SO 8150 l1li1 II
I) ....... t.cI8ItiClltt.. ""18IM , SITS m.1D ",18 "'I 'Lee. .
J) :t'18Ml _nt.....-......... U ".CD .. .. cae. .
a) . .e tt.tltt.. . . ".CD 1CIIIO "&:: z r,
U "cuM tJ t .. "'.CD tSO lecwtt)' fone. & .
Q ..........1.. T..".. . t .. '..ID ". n,.
tOaL I8IML
t) flAV8tlon CU.-.,) , . ,.,... 1HIII.1D tCIISM ,,. ",454 .
.
.'11" M8W. 1IMT8f .
i U ...l::r Cant....... ..41 "' .. lI.". JaI18 ..,... ... illite ...
.
It.... 'N8t8Mt 1t,.. ,. ... .- 14M,. .
--TIGII .
.
It IIctfIU n.. ~~"I ,.. CY . .
a) IIIC8. ........ ~ J,. CY " ...
:t
I) ".'111 ". CY . . '''' froe lo8tech .
e) ....., .,.,. r.-ct t,. CY " .
J) Iwept8t taft " - 16.80 '.40 '.M UGI 4l'f .. 8I,M2
usr 1811WM.
.... . Ii.,... ~ lilt... f" U ".CD .. 12,-
--
.,. 'eal ,,. .., IS., '"
kdIn . - of ...... Ce8t MOl a,.
....... . ,. ., .... r.t ,m 81,.
""el . II fIIf ...f., Coa. .. ..
----Net . ,. .. .... felt .,. IS,.
- -- - lot
'-tal .I'let Colt ..., mD ttaI ... ".,m .
.
IIIdfrecu . 151 of Total ",ecl ...... foe. tUt. '.,,.,' .
""'1 . - .. ~ II,,", -. ew. .,....) ... III
~
...s. .
-"" . lIfety "'1_" . . (1f/8 ..... . traIt.J ...
.,4D .
u
'*1 .t«IGII' "',",
GaM~. - .. ..... ft.~ CIIIet (tli. 'N8I.) 111,..
.......... . MIl .. ..... ,..~ C8II (v/. .......) 110.'"
1DTAi.., ISII.m
..
.
.
.
------- |