EPA/ROD/R10-94/075
                                July 1994
EPA Superfund
      Record of Decision:
       N.A.S. Whidbey Island (O.U. 1) Site

-------
, -'.' '.. .....
, .",.."", .',
..
-------..'-. '. ., -. ,
,.
..... - ,... .
,.
FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 1
NAVAL AIR STATION (NAS) WHIDBEY ISLA'\TD
OAK HARBOR, WASHINGTON
PREPARED BY
URS CONSULTANTS, INC.
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
PREPARED FOR
ENGINEERING FIELD ACfIVI1Y, NORTHWEST
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMA..'\fD
. SILVERDALE, WASHINGTON
DECEMBER 1993
.~~.- .' -- -- -.-.- ---... . - - ~ ,', . u,_. - .
. - . .-...., ._~, n ,,,- .-..,--. -,"- -,.-~+----_., ._.._.._m_...',+,.---._.~-- '..

-------
.'.'" ..
. ... ~..... ....' . " '''.'. .' . - - '.
" ... . - ...- ...."..
DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island., Awt Field
Operable Unit 1, Areas 5 and 6
Oak Harbor, Washington
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected final remedial action for Operable Unit (OU) 1, one of four
operable units, at the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island., Awt Field., Superfund site near Oak Harbor,
Washington. The remedies selected in this decision document were developed in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act, and. to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. This decision is based on the administrative record for OU 1.
The United ,States Navy (Navy) is the lead agency for this decision. The United States Enviroc.me:H:J
Protection Agency (EPA) approves of this decision and, along with the Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology), has participated in the scoping of the site investigations and in the evaluation of remedial
action alternatives. The State of Washington concurs with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE'SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from OU 1, if not addressed by implementing tbe
response action. select~ in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment. The selected final remedial action incorporates
the previously selected interim remedial action for Area 6.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
This remedial action addresses the risk to the public posed by volatile organic compounds in leachate and
groundwater. The purpose of this action is to reduce the risk associated with the continued spread of the
contaminated groundwater plume at Area 6 and' remediate the groundwater through two different categories
of actions. The first action category is source controls, which arc intended to minimi7e movement of
contaminants from the fill material in the landfill to the groundwater and to prevent direct exposure to
contaminated subsurface soil and debris. The second action category is gro,undwater controls, which are
intended to prevent further movement of contaminated groundwater across the site boundary and to prevent
consumption by area residents of groundwater exceeding maximum contaminant levels. The combination of
both source control and groundwater control actions is necessary to achieve the broader objective of
restoring contaminated groundwater in the upper aquifer to levels that are safe for drinking.
, 300S0\931:.O:6\TEXT
.-... ... N'_" -_._---._....~_.._- ---"._"._-"--~-_._'---"
.-.-----.-- '.- --..... -.-.------.--'-" ""---- .... .-.---..- -.. ..

-------
. "" '""",'M'"".",,,,,,"""'...
. ..' '..',.. .. ~
.~~", .'..'!" ,,~-'........ '".-..' . -.. '-.,..,.........~...,. ",... .. ',.,
..
-',
"
..
".
Major componenLs of the remedy include the following:
.
Capping the Area 6 landfill operations area
.
Extracting groundwater from the shallow aquifer beneath the western boundary of the
Area 6 laDdfill, treating it by air stripping (as selected in the interim action ROD dated
April 1992), aDd returning it to the shallow aquifer at aD on-site location
.
Monitoring groundwater in the shallow, intermediate, aDd deep aquifers at Area 6
.
Monitoring off-site water supply wells v.ithin one-balf mile of Area 6
.
Monitoring groundwater in the shallow aquifer at Area 5 for inorganics
.
Implementing institutional controls
Area 5 groundwater may bave concentrations of mangaDese exceeding background aDd health-based levels.
Groundwater in Area 5 will be monitored for metals using low~fIow sampling methods. If contamination is
conftrmed, the Navy, EPA, aDd Ecology will determine wbether additional action is necessary.
STATIITORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedies are protective of human health aDd the environment, in compliance with federal and
state requirements that are legally applicable or relevaDt aDd appropriate to the remedial action, aDd cost-
effective. This remedy uses permaDent solutions aDd alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable for OU 1, aDd satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.
Because these remedies will result in hazardous substances remaining at OU 1 above health-based levels, a
review will be conducted v.ithin 5 years after commencement of remedial action to ensure tbat the remedies
continue to provide adequate protection of humaD health aDd the environment.
aD-R

Captain R. R. Penfold
CommaDding Officer, Naval Air Station Whidbey IslaDd
United States Navy
2. 2 i:)6-c.. 9 "3
Date
30050\9312.016\TEXT
------'-...-... .n'-
"..,- ...h,..-~"_........,,.,-- ..,..~.' .--.-- -.-.-.-- '_U",----" -,. '..'.,
- -." .'. --, ..---.. .,. ,..--., - -.
u_-.. -- ~-_.. ..' ,

-------
. ". .'. ..' . 'e..' e ',e . e',' - " - .
." ""p '''0'''__.,'-,' .-. .... '.- .. # ..
" ..' ~..
-
. .
"
Signature sbeet for the foregoing Naval Air Station Wbidbey Island, Ault Field, Operable Unit 1, fmal
remedial action, Record of Decision, between the United States Navy and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, with concurrence by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
~1 J!J! tfl~K~

- ~
Gerald A Emison
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10
United States Environmental Protection Agency
/ L -"Go -- 9" :3>
Date
30050\9312.026\ TEXT
-""., ,...-..-----_.__.._n._-'_-
~p . ...-_.-_.-.- - -- ..---. -
.~._- -- _P"- __~h__"-' --.--' --.-----..-----..-.----- -- ...-....-.-.---.- ---'-'" ,- -.-. .._.-...
... -.....--.---"
.....- .--P .-
..........----...-.------ -

-------
.. ",., ¥ . ., .
. - .. ~ -.... ...'..-.
.,
SignaCW'e sheet for the foregoing Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Ault Field, Operable Unit 1, final
remedial action, Record of Decision, between the United States Navy and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, with concurrence by the Washington State Department of Ecology. .
~.£i-Jw-I<.'-, of. ,-1-,L:.du-J-

Carol Fleskes
Program Manager, Toxies Cleanup Program
Washington Slate Department of Ecology
])( /. -- ...}..
-------
.' .#. -... ..., .. '.-'...." . ." ,.., . . -' .. .-... ... '.,. .... .
. ' -""'." "'-' - '.,.. .
-
CONTENTS
Section
1.0 INTRODUCTION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
2.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
2.1 Area 5-Highway 20/Hoffman Road Landfill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
2.2 Area 6-Landfill Operations Area and Former Hazardous Waste

Storage Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
3.0 SITE HISTOR Y A..~D ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES. . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . .. 5
3.1 Site HistOry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
3.2 Previous Investigations at NAS Whidbey Island. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
4.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY..
6.0 SUMMAR Y OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1 ' Geology and Hydrogeology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .
6.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.1 Calculation of Background Metals Concentrations. . . . . . . . . .
6.2.2 Area 5 Shallow Aquifer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.3 Area 6 Shallow Aquifer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.4 Intermediate Aquifer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.5 Deep Aquifer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.6 Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.2.7 Sediments....................................'....

6.2.8 Soil.............................................
7.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1 Human Healtb Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.1 Screening Evaluation to Identify Chemicals and Media of
Potential Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.2 Exposure Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.3 Toxicity Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.4 Risk Characterization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.5 Uncertainty Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Ecological Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
300s0\9312.02b\TEXT
Page i
Page
1
7
9
9
9
12
12
12
16
20
20
21
21
25
25
31
31
35
38
39
42
46
-'-"'-.' ,. -..,..-.,....... ..--.--.-----______n...'..--.--.---.-.....------------.._- ......
-------
~ . ." ..." .,.. ._~.. .-..,,' -,'_."'-.--~,. ,... .
, .. ., ..,..~. .' .,... .'. , '. .. '._~ _. _.. - .
'''-. ...,..... ..... ... ...,. ...... . ...... .
..
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
8.0 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.1 Need for Remedial Action at Area 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8.2 Area 5 ...............................................
9.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.1 Alternatives for Area 6 ...................................
9.1.1 Alternative 1-N 0 Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.1.2 Alternative 2-lnstitutional Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.1.3 Alternative 3-Groundwater Extraction and Treatment by Air
Stripping and Capping Landfill Operations Area With MFS

Cap........................................... .

9.1.4 Alternative 4-Groundwater Extraction and Treatment by Air
Stripping and Capping Landfill Operations Area With RCRA

Cap........................................... .

9.2 Alternatives for Area 5 ...................................
10.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. . . . . . . .
10.2 Compliance With ARARs ......... . . . . . . . '.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment. . . .
10.5 Short-Term Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.6 Implementability........................................

10.7 Cost.................................................

10.8 State Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.9 Community Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.0 TIlE SELECTED REMEDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11.1 Area 6 Remedy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11.1.1 Area 6 Landfill Cap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.1.2 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment by Air Stripping. . . . .
11.1.3 Groundwater Monitoring-Monitoring Wells. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.1.4 Groundwater Monitoring-Private Drinking Water Wells. . . . .
11.1.5 Institutional Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11.2 Area 5 ...............................................
300SQ\9312.02t5\TEXT
.. ...... "....-- ~.__.._-,_..._-.-...._..,.
. .-.... ,... .'--'."-'" ---........ ...'" _..,....~,_._......- -..,.-- . -..-, --...--.-- .---e-"'"
'. __.'__4.._,._.,- ...... .. --, ..-
"
Page ii
Page
47
47
56
56
56
57
57
5~
59
60
60
61
61
62
62
62
63
63
63
63
64
64
66
66
66
67
67
67
-------
.. . .,. '. -. h~ .'"
'4
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
..
12.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.2 Compliance With ARARs .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.2.1 Action-Specific ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.22 Chemical-Specific ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.2.3 Location-Specific ARARs ............................
12.2.4 Other Criteria, Advisories, or Guidance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.3 Cost-Effectiveness.......................................
12.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment

Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12.5 Treatment as a Principal Element. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13.0 DOCUMENT AllaN OF SIGNIFICANT CHAi'\lGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX A
APPENDIx B
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
300S0\9312.026\TEXT
.. ~. -. ..- _.-..... .,_..
.- --........ "--' -.-.-..- .u_.---.
... .. ......-.---.- -...-.-----"-'-'''--'--'--'''-
. ......' u..- -_..u
..... ....... -,--........--
. -- ... -.-.--.-.-.--.....
. "'. ,"
Page iii
Page
68
68
68
68
70
71
71
71
71
71
71
-------
.. ... ','"'' '.,
. . ... ..'.. ."','
.. . '.' '. ..' ..' ...' '-'........ . '" ~... '-.~ "'.' "," ""..,
".
FIGURES
1
2
Operable Unit 1 Location, NAS Whidbey Island. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
Site Map, Areas 5 and 6 ........................................ 3
Geologic Cross Section A-A' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Area 5 Sampling Locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
Area 6 Sampling Locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils From Former
Hazardous Waste Storage Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2~
Conditional Points of Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55
..,
~
4
5
6
7
TABLES
1
2
3
4
5
Summary of Shallow Aquifer Groundwater Sampling Results for Area 5 . . . .
Summary of Area 6 Groundwater Sampling Results. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Surface Water Data for Areas 5 and 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sediment Data for Areas 5 and 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Soil Sampling Results From Former Hazardous Waste Storage

P.rea [[[

Summary of Soil Sampling Results in All Area 6 Locations Except Former
Hazardous Waste Storage Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chemicals of Concern for Area 6 Shallow Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Potential Exposure Pathways for 'Populations at Operable Unit 1 .........
Toxicity Values for Chemicals Responsible for the Majority of Risks in the
Shallow Aquifer at Areas 5 and 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Potential Human Health Risks Associated With Future Residential or
Occupational Use of Groundwater From the Shallow Aquifer at Area 5 . . . .
Well-by-Well Evaluation of the Potential Human Health Risks Associated
With Future Residential Use of Groundwater at Area 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chemicals Contributing to Potential Health Risks for the Future
Residential Users of Groundwater at Area 6 ........................
Potential Human Health Risks Associated With Future Resident Exposure

to Soil at Area 6 .............................................

Ecological Hazard Quotients Determined for Terrestrial Receptors. . . . . . .
Ecological Hazard Quotients for Chemicals in Sediment at Areas 5 and 6 ..
Ecological Hazard Quotients for Chemicals in Surface Water at Areas 5

and 6 . . . ... .. . . . .. . . . . . '" . . . . .. . .. ... . . . ..... . .... . . . . . .. .

Groundwater Cleanup Levels for Operable Unit 1, NAS Whidbey ........
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
300s0\9312.026\TEXT
'...'" .;. ..."". .-'"
Page iv
Page
Page
15
17
22
24
26
29
34
37
39
41
43
45
46
48
49
51
54
..-.- .- --..-,
-------
~ . .' . -"". . . ".,
..." .' ..' -,"- ... ..,.". ..'
.. "" . .-..~., -....' ..""
. . "" ................, - ~ .." .., - .
'.-' '" '.. .., .
..--------- ',"
.~
Page .1
DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with Executive Order 12580, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and, to the extent practicable,
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, the United
States Navy (Navy) is addressing contamination by undertaking remedial action. The
selected remedial action has the approval of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the concurrence of the Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology), and is responsive to the expressed concerns of the public. The selected
remedial action will comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) promulgated by Ecology, EPA, and other state and federal agencies.
2.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island, Ault Field, is located on Whidbey Island Ault
Field in Island County, Washington, at the north end of Puget Sound and the eastern
end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Figure 1). The island is 1 to 10 miles wide and
almost 40 miles long, oriented north-south. NAS Whidbey Island is located just north of
the city of Oak Harbor (population 14,000) and has two separate operations-Ault Field
and the Seaplane Base.
Ault Field is divided into four operable units (OUs)-OU 1, 2, 3, and 5. The Seaplane
Base is a separately listed Superfund site and constitutes au 4.
This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses au 1, which consists of Area 5 and Area 6 at
Awt Field. Properties adjacent to au 1 use groundwater for residential and agricultural
purposes. There are approximately 25 private wells within a half-mile radius of au l.
Areas 5 and 6 are described in the following sections.
2.1
Area S-Highway 20/Hoffman Road Landfill
. Area 5 is approximately 500 feet long by 500 feet wide and was used for gravel
excavation (Figure 2). It is located just north of Awt Field Road and west of State
Highway 20. Although there is no documentation that hazardous wastes were disposed
of at Area 5, it may have been used as a landfill for a year between 1958 and 1959.
Pesticides were routinely applied in Area 5 as well as throughout NAS Whidbey Island
property to control weeds and pests.
300S0\9312.026\TEXT
'- ......-.-.,......-- ...,...'-' ...-.
'------"--"-"
-------
-..... ','.' ..... ... '. '_..' ...... '"
'4.. .'. ,.....~,.......4.',.~... """",",,,,,,,,,,,,,_,~-~,.,,,,~"_.'~"'-'..' - ..~'"
. ~ .'. ..-,-........... -.. -. .. ,. ,
-,
NAS WHIDBEY
ISLAND
. Seattl e
WASHINGTON
.
.
.._..1
.
_._-_.J
CITY OF
OAK HARBOR
!~~i.
I t-'
I a::
I 01
. z:
o
Scale in Miles
CLEAN I
COMPREHENSIVE LONG- I
TERM ENVIRONMENTAL i
.~C~CN NA Vi ,
eTO 0005
OPERABLE UNIT I
NAS WHIDBEY. WA
ROD
Figure 1
Operable Unit 1 Location
NAS Whidbey Island
"
..
.",
.~
'''''-''-'''''''_-H'' .. . .--. ..._---~..__._-_...._----- .-
. . 'm'_.-_-.---.'-,,'-"'-. .-..-" .. . "'-.-.
...._- .-. ""n. --_.... ... ---.-.----........-
-------
.. ""
~... -. ~. '.
:r'..
r-.
II
Jt
[
,

I
LEGEND
~gq.ll Gtoundwa1er FIoir
---
----
-------.
-------.
.
Inlermitlenl Stream
Nea Boundary and Navy
~ LiIe
Road
Extrac1icn Wells tI
Intercept Volatile Organic
Compounds
0.
+1
500
SCH.E II FHT
'000
.
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE LONG.
TERM ENVIRONMENTAL
ACT JON NAVY
Figure 2
Site Map
Areas 5 and 6
CTa 0005
OPERABLE UNIT 1
NAS WHIDBEY. WA
ROD
-_...~ - .~~.-- .. .~.
..... ...- ~...u._,- -~ - .
.,....... -~------_. ~--
'.- -.-. .-----,--.~.-..- --------- ~
...-.._~ ... - ..~------ n'-.--__-.', - - ..
..-.. ~_.-...-- ....
-------
~ ~ " - . .....
"'--"" .....,
.'''', .. ...,'- .
.,
Page 4
Area 5 is currently a flat open area covered by a mixture of soil, gravel, and vegetation.
Surface water flows to the southwest and southe~t. Groundwater flows to the west and
north. Approximately 600 feet west of Area 5 is a small freshwater wetland that
historically received surface water runoff from the excavation area via a small gully
extending west from the northwest edge of the excavation area. Because of the runoff
from the excavation area to the western wetland, the area of investigation for Area 5 was
enlarged to include surface water and sediments in the vicinity of the wetland. This
. enabled the investigation to determine whether the suspected landfill within the
excavation area released contaminants to the wetlands.
2.2
Area 6-Landfill Operations Area and Former Hazardous Waste Storage Area
Area 6 is a 260-acre tract in the southeast comer of Ault Field. Within Area 6, there
are two areas where wastes are known to have been disposed of. Hazardous wastes were
disposed of at the former hazardous waste storage area (Figure 2) at a time when
regulatory requirements had not been established. These wastes reportedly consisted of
solvents, oily sludges, thinners, and other hazardous compounds. Hazardous waste
disposal began in 1969 and ended in the early 19805. The former hazardous waste
stOrage area is approximately 15 feet by 40 feet. During operation, it was a pit
approximately 10 feet deep. It has been filled and is now covered with natural
vegetation. .
A separate portion of Area 6 was used for Navy household municipal waste from 1969 to
1992, and is currently. accepting construction debris and yard waste. This landfill
operations area is approximately 40 acres and is now covered with soil and natural
vegetation.
Area 6 is bordered by Ault Field Road to the north, State Highway 20 to the east, and
the Oak Harbor Landfill on the south and southwest boundaries. Privately owned
forested or logged land is located immediately west of Area 6. The Auld Holland Inn
and a mobile home park are located off base at the southern boundary of the landfill
property. Private residences are located to the east, west, and south of the Area 6
landfill. . .
Groundwater at Area 6 flows generally south. Because there is a groundwater divide
approximately at Ault Field Road, the groundwater at Area 6 flows in a different
direction than groundwater at Area 5. Currently, Area 6 surface water drains under Ault
Field Road into the runway ditch drainage complex.
30050\9312.026\TE.XT
. .. -.' ... .
.-......... .-.
_'0 -.- .-. .....-.. _.. .
-------
'- . . ,-.' . ..."
... .. "" .-'
. ._.h'_.. -'.''''''''4'0\''- ~... ~'- "".' .
. ".. ......... ~ .... . .' .'. .
.~
'.
. Page 5
3.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACfMTIES
3.1
Site History
NAS Whidbey Island was commissioned September 21, 1942. The station was placed on
reduced operating status at the end of the war. In December 1949, a continuing
program to increase the capabilities of the air station was begun. The station's current
mission is to maintain and operate Navy aircraft and aviation facilities and to provide
associated support activities. Since the 1940s, operations at NAS Whidbey Island have
generated a variety of hazardous wastes. These wastes were disposed of prior to the
establishment of regulatory requirements, using disposal practices that were considered
acceptable at that time.
In response to the requirements of CERCLA, the United States Department of Defense
(DoD) established the Installation Restoration (IR) Program. The Navy, in turn,
established a Navy IR program to meet the requirements of CERCLA and the DoD IR
Program. From 1980 until early 1987, this program was called the Navy Assessment and
Control of Installation Pollutants (NACIP) program. A set of procedures and
terminologies were developed under this program to describe the NACIP activities,
which were different from those used by the EP A in the administration of CERCLA. As
a result of the implementation of SARA, the Navy has dropped NACIP and adopted the
EP A CERCLA/SARA procedures and terminology.
Responsibility for the implementation and administration of the IR program has bee n
assigned to the Navy Facilities Engineering Command (NA VF ACENGCOM). Tbe
Southwest Division of NA VF ACENGCOM has responsibility for the western states.
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest (EF A Northwest) has responsibility for
investigations of NAS Wbidbey Island and other naval installations in the Pacific
Northwest and Alaska.
In February 1990, NAS Wbidbey Island's Ault Field was listed as a Superfund site on the
EPA's National Priorities List (NPL). As a result of the listing, pursuant to a Federal
Facilities Agreement (FFA) signed by the Navy, EPA, and Ecology in September 1990,
the Navy conducted a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to determine the
nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination and to evaluate alternatives for
the cleanup of contaminated areas.
3.2
Previous Investigations at NAS Whidbey Island
The Navy conducted an Initial Assessment Study (IAS) at NAS Whidbey Island under
the NACIP program in 1984. A more focused follow-up investigation and report, NAS
Whidbey Island Current Situation Report (CSR), was completed in January 1988. After
the CSR was completed, further investigations were proposed for areas where
300S0\9312.026\TEXT
-. .. ....... .... -- -...-.-- -.-..----.....-- .-.-._.._~_.. ----. _-_-0' ._-~---_. .-----.----..-..--. -_.- -... --.. .-.-- - ..
-------
" . ,."".
.. .",.., . '.,' .
u, ".'. .. '~'., . .." --,'" , ..... -- '."
. ,-...' '.. _""-""'_"'-'.f"""".'''.''-'~''''-'''-'''.'.' """"" ~,., ..,..-- '..'," ...-.". ,"',
.... -.- .
,.
Page 6
contamination was verified and where unverified conditions indicated further
investigations were appropriate.
While the CSR was being prepared, EPA Region 10 performed preliminary assessments
at NAS Whidbey Island, Ault Field, to evaluate risks to public health and the
environment using the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
In late 1985, the EPA proposed that Ault Field be nominated for the NPL. In February
1990, the site was officially listed on the NPL. EPA's inclusion of Ault Field on the NPL
was based on the number of waste disposal and spill sites discovered, types and
quantities of hazardous constituentS (such as petroleum products, solvents, paints,
thinners, jet fuel, pesticides, and other wastes), and the potential for domestic wells and
local shellfish beds to be affected by wastes originating from the site.
In the summer of 1989, prior to beginning remedial investigation field efforts, an
accelerated Initial Investigation of Area 6 was performed. The investigation at Area 6
assessed whether groundwater contamination was present and if water supply wells in the
vicinity were or could be affected. Whereas groundwater contamination was confirmed,
the investigation determined that local water supply wells were unaffected. However, the
potential for future impactS on the water supply wells did exist. Based on the Initial
Investigation, an action plan for the RI/FS was developed in 1990.
In 1989, as part of a statewide program to monitor the quality of drinking water supplies,
the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) tested 13 public wells located within
a I-mile radius of Area 6 and the Oak Harbor Landfill. No organic compounds were
found. Results indicated that the drinking water supplies were unaffected.
In early 1991, during the RI/FS investigation, groundwater sampling results indicated
that vinyl chloride concentrations in on-site monitoring wells exceeded maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water and that contamination may be migrating
off site. As a result, in May 1991, the Navy called upon the DOH to sample one public
and six private wells in the vicinity of Area 6. The seven wells are located to the south,
east, and southwest of the current landfill boundary. No evidence of contamination from
Area 6 was detected in these wells. Nevertheless, as a precautionary measure, the Navy
began a program of voluntary water hookups to the public water supply system for
landowners who were potentially affected.
In response to continued concerns about the migration of volatile organic compounds in
groundwater, an interim action ROD was signed by the Navy, EPA, and Ecology in April
1992. This interim action committed the Navy to construct a groundwater extraction and
treatment system at Area 6 to halt the migration of volatile organic compounds from the
former hazardous waste storage area. This system is currently under construction and is
scheduled to begin operation in the spring of 1994.
30050\9312.026\TE.XT
.___m....- ,_. -,.. ,_n
" .-.. . ,-, ,~, ...
. ,-.--..-, -_.....,_..__..~-_...__.....,
-------
.'- . . "'..'
. '.,'''' ..."-'
'.
Page 7
Concerns about possible off-site groundwater contamination also resulted in resampling
of private wells in December 1992. Although no volatile organic compounds were
detected in private wells adjacent to the landfill, the Navy is continuing to provide
connections to an alternate water supply to owners of private wells in the vicinity of
Area 6.
4.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
The specific requirements for public participation pursuant to CERCLA Section l17(a),
as amended by SARA, include releasing the Proposed Plan to the public. For the
interim action, the Proposed Plan was issued on January 3, 1992, and the public meeting
was held on January 27, 1992. Landowners included in the water hookup program were
sent special mailings informing them of the interim action Proposed Plan. For the final
action, the Proposed Plan was issued on June 24, 1993. The public comment period on
the final proposed remedial action was extended from July 23, 1993, to August 25, 191)3,
A public meeting was held July 14, 1993. Approximately 30 comments were received on
the Proposed Plan for final remedial action. Responses to these comments are included
. in this ROD as Appendix A
In addition to the public meeting, EP A sponsored a public information session on
August 25, 1993, to provide more technical details about the remedial investigations ~t
OU 1 and to discuss the rationale for the Navy's proposed actions. As a result of these
public comments, some changes to the Proposed Plan have been made and are
incorporated into this ROD.
Documents pertaining to both the interim and final actions were placed in the follO\,- ing
information repositories:
Oak Harbor Library
7030 70th N.E.
Oak Harbor, Washington
Phone: (206) 675-5115
98277
NAS Whidbey Island Library (for individuals with base access)
1115 W. Lexington St.
Oak Harbor, Washington 98278-2700
Phone: (206) 257-2702
30050\9312.0'26\TEXT
.-. ,. .,-..-_.._._.___n_.__._~_._~ ._~..
_.- -.. -'--'-~'-'-"_._- - ,-". ._- --...- ----'-" - ---' ---.- -- ._."-'.._.."~.-..._._- --_.- .~._-~_._- ._,~u, -- n. -. - " .-..
-------
, ...., .. ',. . ~,',"'~ ..." "'....'-, ...'''''''' ,.
. , ,.'.'. .~.~ '. '
'., ... '.....", .. '
...'.'.. "'.'".. '''''.''.'''.' "
..
. .

;
.,
Page 8
Sno-Isle Regional Library System
Coupeville Library
788 N.W. Alexander
Coupeville, Washington 98239
Phone: (206) 678-4911
The Administrative Record (see Appendix B for an index) is on file at the following
location:
'J
;
,
Engineering Field Activity Northwest
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
1040 N.E. Hostmark Street
Olympic Place 2
Poulsbo, Washington 98370
Phone: (206) 396-5984
.;
1
.,
Community relations activities have established communication between the citizens
living near the site, the Navy, EP A, and Ecology. Two citizens are members of the
technical review committee and have received copies of all draft documents for review.
The actions taken to satisfy the statutory requirements also provided a forum for citizen
involvement and input to the Proposed Plan and ROD.
Community relations activities at the site include the following:
.
Creation of a community relations plan
.
Technical review committee meetings with representatives from the public
and other governmental agencies
.
Meetings with nearby property owners to discuss the water hookup
program
.
Issuance of tbe interim action and final action Proposed Plan in fact sheet
format to facilitate discussion
.
Newspaper advertisement for the Proposed Plan
.
Future public meetings to present information related to the remedial
activities at the site
30050\9312.026\TE.'
-------
. .,' '. ,,,''''.
."'.' ..-,.. ...'. ...., .,
.,
Page 9
5.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACflON WITHIN SITE STRATEGY
Potential source areas at NAS Whidbey Island, Ault Field, have been grouped into
separate OUs, for which different schedules have been established. OU 1 is the first OU
at NAS Whidbey Island, Awt Field, for which a final cleanup action has been selected.
Cleanup actions will be selected in late 1993 for OU 4 (Seaplane Base) and in 1994 for
OUs 2, 3, and 5 (Ault Field).
The cleanup actions for OU 1 described in this ROD address on-site groundwater
contamination and source areas associated with surlace disposal at the former hazardous
waste storage area and landfill operations area in Area 6. A groundwater extraction and
treatment action is being initiated at this site as a result of the interim action ROD. The
groundwater cleanup actions described in this ROD are consistent with and will expand
upon the previously selected groundwater treatment system. Actions for Area 5 are
limited to monitoring groundwater for metals using low-flow sampling methods. The
cleanup actions described in this ROD address all known current and potential risks to
human health and the environment associated with the OU 1 site.
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACfERISTICS
OU 1 borders the northeast boundary of the city of Oak Harbor. Oak Harbor is the:
regional center for north Whidbey Island. The current population of Oak Harbor is
approximately 14,000. Land use in the vicinity of OU 1 is primarily residential, small
commercial, and open forested or logged tracts. A mobile home park and Auld Holland
Inn are located at the southern boundary of Area 6. The Ault Field runways are'
approximately 11/2 miles northeast of Areas 5 and 6. No historical or archaeological
resources are located within the OU 1 boundaries. In addition, the site is not within a
100-year floodplain. Bald eagles have been sighted in the vicinity of OU 1.
6.1
Geology and Hydrogeology
NAS Whidbey Island, Ault Field, like most of Whidbey Island, is covered with a thick
sequence of Vashon glacial deposits laid down during the Vashon glaciation over 10,000
years ago. Groundwater generally occurs within a series of aquifers, composed of
permeable sand and gravel layers deposited by glacial meltwater, separated by finer-
grained glacial silt and clay deposits and interglacial fluvial deposits. The sequence of
glacial and interglacial strata beneath au 1 is shown on the geologic cross section of the
former hazardous waste storage area developed from samples taken during drilling and
well installation during the OU 1 investigation (Figure 3).
Three principal water-bearing units occur beneath OU 1. These are designated the
shallow, intermediate, and deep or sea level aquifers. Localized perched aquifers also
30050\9312.026, TEXT
. .... .-. . - .
- -....-..... ... ,.-.,..-." n~".
-------
.__._._~-
~-_.
A
North

250'-:
I
I
200-1
I
I
I
150-: 5.26

I
= I
E 100l
~ I
~ I
Q) 50J
g I
I
I
0-1
I
1;1;lii'f'b~';~;ii._l'ilg;J'St;~Z'At
I
-50-1
I
I
I
-100" I
c
o
fJ
>
Q)
w
INTERMEDIATE
AQUIFER
o
500
Scale in Feet
5X Vertical Exaggeration
...__._-~---_...~,----~. -.
()'5
()'4
0.1
(projecled)
AI
5-13 South
5.25
5.23 5-14
.... .. .. ....
.. . .. T'II ." ..... . .... .. .. ...."" ....... ""
.... I................... ...'.. ....
.... .. .... ...... ....
..
.. .
SHALLOW
AQUIFER
Gravelly Sand 10
Sand With Some
Gravel
:"."--""..'
Vashon Till
Vashon
Advance
Outwash
Unit 3 Whidbey
Formation
SEA LEVEL
AQUIFER
Sand to Sand
With Some Sill
.---_.. --... ---...
.-.-
UI1I14
,i
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE LONG.
rEAM ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
Figure 3
Geologic Cross Section A-A'
. --.. ..- ._._...._._-~-~..
n'___- ----. .__. ..,-.u,. ..~....
n.. .--..-
.....-----
.)
)
CTO 0005
OPERABLE UNIT 1
NAS WHIDBEY, WA
ROD
-------
. w'. , ,..."., .
~ .' , .' ~, - '"
. '. . ,'." .,.w' ..'
. .' '...... . ,.
-
Page 11
occur above the glacial till in portions of Area 6. Hydrogeologica1ly, the subsurface
materials have been locally characterized into six units. These units are Vashon Till,
Vashon Advance Outwash, and four subunits of the Whidbey Formation.
The shallow aquifer is contained primarily within the lower Advance Outwash sediments,
deposited by meltwater ahead of the advancing glacier. This is an unconfined aquifer
'W-ith water levels ranging from about 77 to 92 feet above sea level or 20 to 145 feet
. below the ground surface, depending on the relative elevations of the water table and
the land surface. This unit is separated from the underlying intermediate aquifer by the
fine sands, silts, and clays of the upper Whidbey (Unit 1) Formation.
Tbe groundwater flow direction within the shallow aquifer is generally north to south
across Area 6. Groundwater flow beneath Area 5 is generally to the west (Figure 2).
Tbe average groundwater gradient is approximately 0.0025 foot per foot; estimated
groundwater velocities, a function of both gradient and permeability, range from about
92 to 456 feet per year within the shallow aquifer beneath OU 1.
The intermediate aquifer occupies tbe sandier mi~dle portion (Unit 2) of the Whidbey
Formation. This water-bearing unit is moderately continuous and is generally confined
by overlying low-permeability sediments. The top of this unit occurs at about 20 feet
above sea level; water levels beneath Area 6 range from about 68 to 76 feet above sea
level. Groundwater within the intermediate aquifer generally flows in a southeasterly
direction at an estimated velocity of 8 to 27 feet per year. This unit is separated from
the underlying deep aquifer by the low-permeability silts and clays of the Whidbey
Unit 3 aquitard.
The deep aquifer, also known as the sea level aquifer, is a nearly continuous, confined
water-bearing unit within the bottom (Unit 4) of the Whidbey Formation. The top of
the unit occurs approximately 20 feet below sea level; potentiometric levels in this unit
beneath Area 6 are at about 15 feet above sea level or 160 to 200 feet below ground
surface, depending on the land surface elevation. The groundwater within this unit
appears to flow radially from an area north of Ault Field Road to the south and
southwest. Tbe gradient across the site is very slight, resulting in an estimated velocity of
0.04 to 5 feet per year.
The three aquifers are separated by relatively impermeable confining layers and are
hydrogeologically distinct. Pumping tests reveal no measurable effect on wells in the
shallow aquifer from pumping in adjacent deep aquifer wells. Progressively deepening
water levels in each aquifer, however, suggest minor downward leakage between aquifers.
30050\9312.026\TEXT
__"M'._'.'.- - ." ,..-- .,..--_.,~.._._. ...
-..-.-,..-...-- --._-_..- .~. ..-- .-.......-..-.-.-----.-.-. - -_.-..-_. ~.
n_" -. .... .... ..,......-. ....-.-. -...---.---.-- .-- .-. . ..~.__._.
-------
...,' .. ,.'. ..,. ~ '-.. . ~ a' ..... '.'.' ".
. '.' '''-'''. '.- 0 'a_. ..0 - .,
, . - . . 0 '..~. ~o '...,.. ,.4. ....
.. ~. ..0.. ..", '. ... ..-... ....' .
. .... . ...'.'
..
Page 12
6.2
Nature and Extent of Contamination
The former hazardous waste storage area was at one time a source of volatile organic
compounds within Area 6. Tbe landfill operations continue to be a source of volatile
organic compounds at the site. The source of elevated manganese in Area 5
groundwater is unknown; it may be attributable to background conditions. Sampling
locations are illustrated in Figures 4 and 5.
6.2.1 Calculation of Bac~around Metals Concentrations
Various wells were selected to measure background levels of metals concentrations. The
background wells selected were existing wells upgradient from the OU 1 sources (former
hazardous waste storage area and landfill operations area). Separate background
concentrations were calculated for each of the three aquifers. The aquifers are clearly
identifiable as separate. with different piezometric surfaces. gradients~ and water
chemistry.
Wells selected in the vicinity of OU 1 included drinking water wells and Area 6
monitoring wells. Results from Phase 3 sampling in December 1992 were used, because
this sampling was accomplished with a low-flow sampling technique that resulted in low
turbidity samples, which are more representative of groundwater quality. Background
calculations were based on Ecology's July 1992 guidance for calculation of background
values. Metals background values for each aquifer are included in tables in Sections
6.2.2 and 6.2.3.
6.2.2 Area 5 Shallow Aquifer
Six monitoring wells were installed in the shallow aquifer for the Area 5 investigation.
These wells were sampled three times:
.
.
Interim Action (June 1990)
Phase 1 (December 1990 to May 1991)
Phase 2 (July 1991 to October 1991)
.
Shallow groundwater in Area 5 had low concentrations of relatively few contaminants
(Table 1). V ohitile organic compounds (trichloroetbene, 1, I-dichloroethene) were
detected at low levels bordering on the detection limit and less than regulatory screening
criteria; no semivolatile organics or pesticides were detected. The compound
1,1-dichloroethene was detected in only one well (N5-16) in Area 5, at a concentration of
0.46 micrograms per liter (J.'gjL), which exceeds the State of Washington Model Toxies
Control Act (MTCA) risk-based values. The single detected value at that well was from
the Phase 2 sampling event. The compound 1,1-dichloroethene was not detected in the
30050\931:.026\TE.TI
..._-.. . .".-.. "-. -- ..,..
.. .--- .~- .--.-'.--.--."-' -
.- -' .-.--..--.--.--,.. -
.. .... ..-- . '- .. ....- ,
. .--..- - - -. .... ... -
-------
A
<
o
~
~
-
Q
~
o
CJ
i
! -
LEGEND
. t_.: .. . .
"'0
, /
. \..-

.. "-1.,.............
,..... ..
......,,-"
.,.+
"
"
"
'I
.:'
I,
.
II
.
'I
If
.
.
.
.
.
"
"
Ii
..
"
"
..
..
..
\II
..
..
..
II.
..
II.
..
..
...
...
...
...
....
~-
..
..
..
..
"
"C':\'-




\.

"
IIII'~'
--
.-
---- Property Boundary
- - - Area Boundary
o PrevioLliIy Installed Weill
Interim Action
. SedimenllSurface Water Samples
Q Phase II Sutteee Waler
and SedimerC&
! i

i[+lo
'"

",
"



".0)

,;-
/'
J'
"
f
N5-16
6-8-2
500
1000 ~ol
o
. .'
~rl(o
i ..
. CLEAN
j;OMPREHENSIVE LONG-
i 1 EAM ENVIRONMENTAL
~ ACTION NAVY
Figure 4
Area 5 Sampling Locations
eTa 0005
OPERABLE UNIT 1
NAS WHIOBEY. WA
ROO
-------
.. -, ~ '.. :. '... '.
, . '. , ~ -. , . - . ~ - . ~ "
. -.' -.+ ..........,....,.....""....";_........._.'~,.~,.....,,.... ........' t-..............-...t' .....-~........ - ".. ...,.,
..
~~'n-R~~~


~ . .. 'l-W-I ~;"'-
o 6.P~r,:,r 6-"'-1 1'--...~~~4&-5-8

,jI /
J u... ...r~t> ~ ~"IJt"~t";~ti'. ~.
6-S-2O 6-8-1 ~ , "". 6-W-2 I
II .. ~ &-s-a
~ R-I-a ~ ~ (6-"'-2 ~ .
c ...~6-~~~'I-"~~ ~~~ .,.," ". , >-
( t::. t::.+-;I\~.. ~W';'3 :J '<
( oC' e 0 N6-~ "~~ ~ ...." 6-A-3 3 ~
~~f-H 6-8-2t::. t /A t";:~~, ~ s-zz . 8-1-8
~".; .'... 6-11'~ ~ U
6-8-1 t ." 6-A~ ". . I\"
, X6-, 6-D-S . \. &::
. .. ~" 6-W-S ~ .
. 6-5-I~ " ~ 6-~ D
l :' 6-1-2 I ~ 6-D-4;; s" s 6-A-$ "', , 6-5-$ ~'J
6-5-18 : Q!). ., ,.." s" G.\ ", ;J Cd
~~L.......!...."---~f::,,...,,-- ~r;:s-tS~~:...................~1I'~ "',---,. i ~
I. 6-1-7 I ".' 11"':-. "..... j '<
: " .r ..~.... Q H~-A :1 ~
. [ ~ 1:E-- 6-5-23 -... - - 1_"''''"... . CI)
6-5-8 ~ ,~ 6-5-14 ~ J
er= "V /Ij 1,' <.~1t""""'. ~ ~
&-1-3 ~r.r"'I~ .,....-.:~ f~
--. a 6-5-12 e': ~~~ ~~_.~.~-':':--.;".r-~--- - f+ 6-S-~"
-....- . Ii '~',. .. .
o .. II.. ........ ..
1-$-24 .. .. .... ..
c .. II ~~-r.........,.. e 6-5-18 e-o-z
< ~~. ,J
~ ~ l~. l

6-5-1:3 a 6-5-~6-f>-II" '6-5-4 e ..t
ta:I 6-1-4 e:; w,8 u.~ 6-5-17 H-l-'lrJ ~.;

C .0 .: H-I-2S.YA ~

c; \<= ..........., ~ .:l l\-
e (' t""-J l 6-5-3 / ~:~

= :o...~...~'!............."!"" ~
. 1lI'-6 'b . K1f~ 6-5-IJ ~
~ ...~..~-- ()
-'. ~-........' ....
. .......-----------------.-_.;~::... ~
,~' WY-Z ~ .l:...
,. o. ,."
n-1.~' . "
. .
q~~' ...-- 'tt
. -/) "'
/? ~ KW-ur e,

, 10~~
"0 ~ LEGEND
~ 0 Previously InstaIed WaGs
"
I


~l
.
Phase II Wels
1+1
o
I
5CO
SCA.U JWt
1000 rr.
I
Interin Adion
SedimenIISurfac Waler Samples

Q InitiaJ lnYesIigaIicn Wells

e Phase I wens
.
Phase II Borings

Phase I
Surface Water Sampjes
. Phase III Well
a
A
CLEAN Figure 5 eTO 0005
COMPREHENSIVE LONG- OPERABlE UNIT 1
TERM ENVIRONMENTAL Area 6 Sampling Locations NAS WHID6EY. WA
ACTJONNAW ROD
 !
-------
Page 15
Table 1
Summary of Shallow Aquifer Groundwater Sampling Results for Area 5
Aluminum 100 429 - 74,900 9/9 NA 
Arsenic 8.4 2.9 - 16.5 3/3 2 - 4.1U 
Barium 50 27.3 - 121 3/4 39UJ 
Cadmium 1 3.20 1/6 3U 
Calcium 32,724.6 18,100 - 42,200 9/9 NA 
Copper 100 10.8 - 37.2 2/6 15.2UJ 
Iron 1,009.8 534 - 143,000 8/8 NA 
Lead 4.1 8.9 - 29.9 3/5 3.6 - 14.9U 
Magnesium 28,786.3 22,100 - 67,500 8/8 NA 
Manganese 118.6 58 - 5,000 8/8 NA 
Nickel 24.4 40.70 1/5 17 - 36U "
Potassium 5,020 1,810 - 8,460 5/6 4,130U 
Sodium 28,414.9 10,500 - 18,900 8/8 NA 
Vanadium 10 11 - 246 4/7 6U 
Zinc 100 268 - 2,410 4/8 28 - 73U ,i
Noles:
!Ig/L - micrograms per liter .
V-CLP - volatiles analysis--Contract Laboratory Program
BIJL - below detection limit
U - 1101 detected
NA - not applicable
lJ.I - not detected ahovc thc reported sample quantitation limit
Melals results are from hailed samples (high turhidity).
-------
'. ........... .
, '.'""., ~ '...- .' " . . -" ... '
." , . .. ".~ -.. '.
. ... .... ..' . - .........'--',~, .
'... ."....,..,.. .'" "".""'" ""'.'.'... ....,. ''''.'' ..',
."""".",,,,,"''''''-',:-.'''''''' . .
. "'''-' . '. '
.~
Page 16
prior two sampling events at that well. Trichloroethene was detected at well N5-14 at a
concentration of 0.43 p.g/L.
Some metals were detected above background concentrations in Area 5 groundwater.
Sampling results from Area 6 using low-flow sampling techniques resulted in low or
nondetected concentrations of metals. Therefore, historical metals results at Area 6 are
likely attributable to suspended particulates. A similar reduction of metal concentrations
at Area 5 is expected. However, manganese concentrations at Area 5 appear to be
elevated relative to background concentrations. The source of elevated manganese is
unknown.
6.2.3 Area 6 Shallow Aquifer
For the Area 6 investigation, 28 monitoring wells were installed in the shallow aquifer.
In addition, three wells were sampled in the Oak Harbor Landfill, which is adjacent to
Area 6. Many of the Area 6 wells were sampled six times:
.
.
Initial Investigation (October 1989)
Interim Action (June 1990)
Phase 1 (December 1990 to May 1991) .
Rapid Response (July 1991 to August 1991)
Phase 2 (July 1991 to October 1991)
. Phase 3 (December 1992)
.
.
.
.
Table 2 summarizes groundwater sampling results for Area 6. In the Area 6 shallow
groundwater, volatile organic compounds were identified in two distinct plumes. In the
shallow aquifer underlying the northern part of the landfill and near the former
hazardous waste storage area, six volatile organic compounds (1,1, I-trichloroethane,
trichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethene, and carbon
tetrachloride) were detected at concentrations exceeding federal and state risk-based
screening levels. Maximum concentrations of these organic compounds occur in shallow
wells N6-38 and N6-37, 250 feet apart, in the northern part of the landfill and within the
fonner hazardous waste storage area. The second plume is vinyl chloride at the southern
part of the landfill. The vinyl chloride present may be a degradation product of
trichloroethene and 1,1, I-trichloroethane or it may be a result of landfill debris
composition. The presence of these chemicals at the southern border of Area 6 may
mark the lateral extent of this plume.
No direct evidence of dense nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) has been found in either
soil or groundwater in Area 6. However, levels of trichloroethane in N6-38 have been as
high as 32,000 p.g/L, approximately 1 percent of pure phase solubility. Levels of
trichloroethene have approached nearly 0.5 percent effective pure phase solubility in
N6-37 (1,800 /Lg/L). These levels suggest that nonaqueous phase liquids (NAPL) may be
300S0\9312.026\TEXT
.. .....-,. ........ -'..---.... -----'...-.....-'-'
..'. ,...-..-....,.-..,......
. .---...---------.-.--.-.-
-. '''n_..- ,-.,.'-.---...-'--'-"', -....
-------
. , . . . ..... . .... ~ .. .. .... .- . .. ,. ,.. .10. ....... ... "..,.
,.. .... ..,.. ..,.' .... ....- ..t.....'''. . '.. 'j.':..'. .'.
Page 17
Tuhle 2
Summary of Area 6 Groundwater Sampling Results
__itl~18a_~..
1,1,1-Trichloroethane Shallow BDL
I, I-Dichlorocthane Shallow BDL
1,1-Dichloroethene Shallow BDL
1,2-Dichloroethenc Shallow BDL
Tne 11oroet ene Shalow BDL
Vinyl chloride Shallow BDL
1V~~1ij'~=(PhM~:~nijti::Qmy::::m:}:r::::r=:::t:=:::}ft:::/::=@==::ij::ij::=::I::=::::::r:::::::=:::::r::::r:::::j=:::::::r:::::::::::I::r-::::r:d
Aluminum Shallow 100
Arsenic Shal ow 8.4
Barium Shallow 50
Calcium Shallow 32,724.6
Chromium Shallow 20
Copper Sha low 100
Iron Shallow 1,009.8
Lead Shal ow 4.1
Magnesium Shallow 28,786.3
Manganese Shal ow 118.6
Nickel Shallow 24.4
Potassium Shallow 5,020
Sodium Shalow 28,414.9
Vana JIlin Shalow 10
Zinc Shallow 100
3 - 32,000
0.79 - 26
0.43 - 1,900
11 - 630
0.51 - 1,800
1.98 - 53.50
10.00U - 13.00U
0.20 - 10.00U
0.20 - 10.OOU
0.20 - 10.00U
0.20 - 250U
0.20 - 250U
..., ......,........
. . . . ' , .. . ",.....,.... .. ".
....... ,....... ............. ,.
. .,......,......,-,""" .........'."
......................., ............
,.,..,...,.......".",.,,,,,.,,, .
'..,'.'.'.'.....'.'...'.'...'.'.'.._',".'.',.,'...',.','..'.".'.'.'
.......,..............,.,.......... ..,...
..:,:,:,:.:...:-:..:;:~:(:i\rr~f~~i~~~~rj~~~~~~~~t~~~~~\r~~~qq~~~~fj~~;~I~~r~t~I~i~JItttf~I~~~~~~~~ft~~l1;~t~j~r~~ft!~
,...............
40.1 - 412 14/18 34 - 59U 
2.1 - 13.5 11 18 2-3U 
8.3 - 84.6 17/18 9-9U 
12,300 - 127,000 18/18 NA 
7.6 - 188 10/18 4-6U 
2.1 - 9.7 7 18 2-5U 
23.1 - 12,100 18/18 NA 
1 - 1.6 6/18 1- 2U 
10,600 - 37,800 18/18 NA 
3.3 - 1,790 18 18 NA ,I
10.9 - 93.1 9/18 6 - 15U 
1,440 - 6,010 18 18 NA 
10,700 - 40,300 18/18 NA 
4.1 - 9.3 10/18 4-6U 
3.9 - 33.7 17/18 2 - 2U 
-------
Page 18
Table 2 (Continued)
Summary of Area 6 Groundwater Sampling Results
:'lil!.!I::II~~~~~~I~I::'~~q~.'::'. .::.::i!!:..,I.!.!..,!"i:i"!,..,,1,.1::::..':.0,..::::.::,1:..,.:.Q.:.:::::!..,Ri..:~::::.:.:::~:~~'~:~.':.::.~.::~.:..~.::.~.::J:~.:.:.:e::rL'.:.":':'~.:.:.:.:.:.:..:...,.f:..::.I...,.:,.~...:.....'.i:!',::,::::,:::.":,,:"':.:i....:i~i.;~I!~~~!r!~lj:)i!..::.:............:.:,:, ...,:,.!::.:.:,::.'::..:.':...::.:.'::.'.!:..'::::.:::I:.I::o::.:.:.:..::.:.~:;.;...r:r:.;::::"::~:'.;"::';".~:.::..~:.Ri,:::,:,;:,~:,:,:,.:(.:...:.;t:J.::ij.o.~.:g.~.q.::.;,.:;.~;~::.'.:.tJ.:::.'.:\.~.;.:.:...,::.;,::r.::~;:::...:::::.:':::,:'.'.::.::!:.':.:;:.;:.':::;;.':;s.!:::::::.::;:;:.:::::;::.~:::::.::r:::..:::...[::::!,.h.r...':J;,':.:i;;:
::):':::::::::;}:"?:(~ijl:~~";/:;::::;' . U$1:1<:::}: :':::::::::::'D,~f.~Hij~fl::::::::::::: ,;;. ~ltl.";I;. :
Aluminum IntermedIate 100 68.2 - 460 59U 
Arsenic Intermediate 36.8 7 - 61.2 NA. 
Barium Intermediate 83.6 15.6 - 68.7 NA 
Calcium Intermediate .50,613.2 24,800 - 53,700 NA 
Chromium Intermediate 5 4.1 - 4.1 4 - 6U 
Iron Intermediate 885.6 69 - 2,080 NA 
Lea Interme late 1 1 - 1.3 1 - 2U 
Magnesium Intermediate 25,645.7 10,400 - 22,100 NA 
Manganese Interme late 333.4 47 - 1,170 NA 
rOlassium Intermediate 6,725.4 4,230 - 6,610 NA 
SodIUm Intermediate 36,140.3 17,400 - 23,500 NA "
Zinc Intermediate 100 2.6 - 19.4 2U 
,;
-------
.- +......., .'" - '..'. .".' ....... .
'.' .-.,-.~.. I ~,"- .- .'''''' . ..
. ... '.~'"-'_. ....-' +""" ..... . .. . -'. .... . .'-
.,
Page 20
present in aquifer materials at or near the water table beneath the former hazardous
waste storage area. Levels in 6-$-10 to the north of the former hazardous waste storage
area increased dramatically from not detected to 1,100 /Lg/L over three sampling events
during the RI. Because 6-S-1O is screened at the bottom of the shallow aquifer and is
located upgradient from the former hazardous waste storage area, this may also indicate
DNAPL movement.
In a single sampling event, heptachlor, a chlorinated pesticide, was detected in
groundwater at well 6-$-19. However, because the detection was an isolated event and
because heptachlor was not detected in other wells, it is not considered a candidate for
remediation. An herbicide, 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MC? A), was reported
in tWo groundwater samples (6-S-4 and 6-S-9).
A volatile organic plume extends to the southwest corner of Area 6. Volatile
contaminants migrate in the direction of groundwater flow and also vertically in the
shallow aquifer. The fact that maximum concentrations of volatile compounds of
concern are found in the groundwater under the former hazardous waste storage area
implies that the sources of volatile organics were likely to be from disposal, spills, and
leaks of solvents previously stored in the former hazardous waste storage area. Solvents
have been neither disposed of nor stored at this location since the late 19705. Figure 2
illustrates both the plume of volatile organic compounds and vinyl chloride in the
shallow aquifer.
Four inorganic analytes (arsenjc, chromium, lead, and manganese) were detected above
background in the shallow groundwater.
6.2.4 Intermediate Aquifer
Eight wells were installed in the intermediate aquifer in Area 6. In addition, an
intermediate aquifer well in the Oak Harbor Landfill was sampled. The compounds
1, I, I-trichloroethane, toluene, and trichloroethene were detected on site along, the
western boundary at concentrations less than federal or state screening criteria.
Manganese concentrations exceeded background in half of the intermediate aquifer
wells. Vinyl chloride was detected in one off-site well located west of the western
boundary. Vinyl chloride was not detected in any of the on-site intermediate aquifer
wells; therefore, Area 6 does not appear to be the source. Arsenic concentrations
exceeded background in one well. No semivolatile organic compounds, pesticides, or
herbicides were detected in the intermediate aquifer.
6.2.5
Deep Aquifer
Five deeD aauifer wells in Area 6 were samDled. One is desi!:mated as a back~round
4 4 4 - -
well (6-D-3). The samples from these wells indicate that the deep aquifer has not been
30050\9312.026\ TEXT
. . ... .._.__..---_.__._----_._.._..~--_._--_.__._._..~.. -."---.-.---- '----'_."._---.,~-----_.._.~-_._-. - -..----.
-.---. .... ...
-------
Page 19
Table 2 (Continued)
Summary of Area 6 Groundwater Sampling Results
__~~I~_III_'-
:"':.\rf)jlfjfrf1l~t~~~~~Nffrr/:r~~:
;~~~~i:~~~;~~~~;}mrWMt{~~~~f.~~~}~~;~if%ff~:~j~~}j
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
PotassIUm
Sodium
VanadIUm
Zinc
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
66.9
109
83.1
52,700
770
22,100
494
9,970
21,400
10
100
35.3 - 183
22.1 - 89.1
30.8 - 112
19,100 - 52,700
67.2 - 1,180
5,250 . 22,100
86.9 - 499
4,220 - 9,970
16,600 - 26,600
6.5
4.7 - 8.]
4/5
5 5
5/5
5 5
5/5
5 5
5/5
5 5
5/5
1 5
2/5
59U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4 - 6U
1 - 2U
Notes:
J-tg/L - micrograms per liter
V.CLP - volatiles analysis-Contract Lahoratory Program
UOL - below detection limit
U - not detected
NA - not applicahle
,;
-------
-------.- .0_-
...n._n','-
-
Page 21
contaminated by au 1 site operations. During the sampling of well 6-D-4, some
contamination was identified in the well. A video survey of well 6-D-4 revealed that two
well-casing joints were leaking within the saturated zone of the shallow aquifer. Because
of this observation and because no contamination was found in this well in sampling
done in 1989 and in 1990, it is likely that volatile organic compounds found in this well
do not represent the deep aquifer and are a result of a leak in the well casing. Well
6-D-4 was pumped, properly abandoned, and replaced by well 6-D-5. No volatile organic
compounds were detected in well 6-D-5, located slightly upgradient from well 6-0-4.
Samples analyzed from well 6-D-4 after pumping and before well abandonment indicate
no detected concentrations of volatile organic compounds.
6.2.6 Surface Water
Surface water data are summarized in Table 3.
Area 5. Three surface water samples from the wetland areas in the Area 5 investigation
area were sampled and analyzed in March 1991. Three volatile organic compounds
(trichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, and 1,1-dichloroethene) and several inorganic
analytes were detected in Area 5 surface water samples. None of the volatile organics
exceeded levels specified by EP A's Ambient Water Quality Criteria (A WQC) to protect
aquatic organisms. Five inorganic analytes exceeded A WQC standards: zinc, lead,
copper, cadmium, and silver.
Area 6. In Area 6, six surface water samples were collected from the intermittent stream
in February 1991. Trichloroethene was detected at a concentration less than that
specified by EP A's A WQC to protect aquatic organisms. Four inorganic analytes
exceeded A WQC standards: arsenic, chromium, manganese, and zinc.
6.2.7 Sediments
Sediment data are summarized in Table 4.
Area 5. Three sediment samples were collected from the wetlands adjacent to Area 5 in
June 1990 and again from approximately the same locations in February 1991. Several
inorganic analytes and nine pesticides (heptachlor epoxide, dieldrin, 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyl.
dichloroethene [4,4' -DDE], 4,4' -dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane [4,4' -DDT], alpha-
chlordane, gamma-chlordane, endosulfan, endrin, and MCP A) were detected in the
wetland sediments. Pesticide results were inconsistent between the two sampling events.
Although pesticides were detected in both the 1990 and 1991 sampling events, no
individual pesticide compound was common to both events. State sediment quality
guidelines were exceeded for six metals and two pesticides in Area 5 (arsenic, chromium,
copper, iron, manganese, nickel, endrin, and 4-4'-DDT).
300S0\9312.026\TE.XT
--..' H"'_-'--.'-""'-' -,...
.-'...- 'P'
... ..-...'-'-'----.--'--"---
"---, --,- .u_.--.--. ----,,---
-------
.. .. .. ....
Page 22
Table 3
Surface Water Data for Areas 5 and 6
.... .:;::::::::::::::;:}.rmrrr:trJ\fM@tUttt:::
iii!i:i.:::::!~!:::liil:l.I.Iif.II:::"'JJ'.:'.:i:
: :J:!i:!~:I'li~lljt:;;;,;;;;;;':I:':::,'I.:
...':M&~!f:lp.&iJ.iWMW'Md:
Aluminum 155 - 1,365 3/3 NA 475 - 33,600 6/6 NA 
Antimony NA NA NA 38.6 - 39.2 2/6 35U 
Ar,,:nic NA 0/3 NA :I - 1~.2 4/(, 3U 
Barium 29.1 - 29.2 2/3 26U 50 - 61.11 2/6 NA 
Cadmium 2.15 - 2.2 2/3 2U 2.6 1/6 NA 
Calcium 6,058 - 18,600 3/3 NA 5,820 - 25,800 6/6 NA 
Chromium 8.2 1/3 NA 4 - 83.1 5/6 4U 
Cobal! NA 0/3 NA 30.1 1/6 17V 
Copper 14 1/3 NA 6.5 - 47 5/6 NA 
Iron 313 . 951 3/3 NA 6,830 - 9,520 2/6 NA 
Lead 1.5 - 2.5 2/3 IV 1.5 - 33.55 5/6 IV 
Magnesium 3,460 - 14,200 3/3 NA 6,342 - 32,600 6/6 NA 
Mdnganest 51.5 - 447.5 3/3 NA 57 - 1.320 6/6 NA 
Nit:kd 14.1 . 19.7 2/3 ')l! 11.6 - 223 5/6 9V 
Potassium 1,738 - 7,185 2/3 NA 1,8-10 - 6.810 '6/6 NA ,i
Silver 5.1 1/3 oil! NA 0/6 NA 
Sodium 7,775 - 27,589 3/3 NA 7,750 - 12,150 6/6 NA 
Vanadium NA 0/3 NA (,05 . 76 5/6 NA 
Zinc 13 . 48 2/3 33..~ . 11161' 19 - 119 5/6 14.25 . 17V 
-------
Table 3 (Continued)
Surface Water Data for Areas 5 and 6
I:ndrin
MCPA
NA
NA
NA
1.1
1.3
2,500 - 2,700
NOles:
,lg/L - micrograms per liler
NA - 001 applicable
U - nOI detected
MCP,\ - 2-l1Iclhyl-4-chloropheoO!(yacelic acid
J(J()}u\93I 2.026\TBL3
1/5
1/5
2/5
8.7. 12U
8.7.2SU
77U
Page 23
.>
-------
.... .
cori,k~q~~i*~~!!il~:.i:!::::i::':i:iii..'..I~If.@~I.~lli:i'.i:i:i.:.:::~:':.i::':i.:::::::1~11(1~~~:':i:i'::i:!.!:i

'., !n~fMb!~~Xfi1KtJ{gr: ,<:::::rrr:::::::::~r~t:r::::r{:rr:::rrr~:I::::::rt:r::::::::::::::rmrr:r:::::( ...".
Aluminum 14,500 - 19,233 3/3
Arscnic 11.3 1/3
Barium 128 1/3
IIcl)'llium 0.36 1/3
Calcium 1,730 - 9,640 3/3
Chromium 62 1/3
Cohall 26.4 1/3
Copper NA 0/3
Iron 4,470 - 28,633 3/3
Lcad NA 0/3
Magnesium 1,460 - 23,300 3/3
Mallganese 36.8 - 756 3/3
Nickcl 148 1/3
POlassium 191 - 1,897 3/3
Sodium 334 . 336 2/3
Vanadium 16.9 - 53.8 3/3
~M ltl-~ ~3
, 'r.eslitt~,-B#~/NX:\::::\:m::::r:\::\::?'r?'::m~:::::m::trr:t:::~?'m::r::::rr:t:::::r:?::::::::::::?'::::m:r:~/}::::::: ..'., '.
Dieldrin NA 0/3
Endrin NA 0/3
MCI'A NA 0/3
.. '
NOles:
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
NA - 1101 available
ltg/kg - micrograms per kilogram
U . liUI delecled
MCI'A . 2-melhyl-4-chlorophenoxyacelic acid
3OO50\9312.026\TIIIA
.nOW -.
Page 24
Table 4
Sedimcnt Data for Areas 5 and 6
........
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4,060 - 17,050 5/5 NA
3.7.9.3 5/5 NA
22.6 - 113.5 5/5 NA
NA 0/5 NA
2,270 - 3,985 5/5 NA
15.6 - 30.1 4/5 NA
4 - 9.1 4/5 NA
7.5 - 43.7 5/5 NA
7,970 - 19,)00 5/5 NA
8.3 - 19.6 2/5 NA
4,520 - 6.')10 5/5 NA
118 - 306 5/5 NA
31.4 - 49.4 5/5 NA
313 - 1.060 5/5 NA
150 - 383 5/5 NA
15.7 - 45.7 5/5 NA
NA 0/5 NA
t.7  
1.3  
-------
. .-.-.' ~. . '- ... - .'
. . ,...., ~-
. - .'.,.--.
'. .. -'.
..
Page 25
Area 6. Three sediment samples were collected in June 1990 and again from
approximately the same locations in February 1991. Several inorganic analytes and six
pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin, endosulfan, endrin, heptachlor epoxide, and MCPA) were
detected in the sediments. Pesticide results were inconsistent between the two sampling
results. State sediment quality guidelines were exceeded for four metals and two
pesticides in Area 6 (arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel, heptachlor epoxide, and aldrin).
No volatile or semivolatile organic compounds were detected.
6.2.8 Soil
Area 5. Soil samples were collected at the surface and at depths of 1 foot, 15 feet, and
at the shallow aquifer screen zone during construction of three of the monitoring wells.
Phenol was detected in the IS-foot sample at two of the locations. It was detected at the
shallow aquifer screen zone in one sample. The highest concentration of phenol
detected was 43 micrograms per kilogram (J.'g/kg). Barium, beryllium, and vanadium
exceeded background soils concentrations.
Area 6. Soil samples were collected at the surface and at depths of 1 foot, 5 feet, 15
feet, and increasing at 5-foot intervals to 80 feet deep at some of the 39 soil boring
locations at Area 6. Soils were sampled at the former hazardous waste storage area; at
areas to the north, south, and west of the fonner hazardous waste storage area; and at
the east side of the landfill operations area. Table 5 summarizes soils data for four
locations (6-B-1, 6-B-3, 6-S-22, 6-1-1) at the former hazardous waste storage area.
Relatively low concentrations of several volatile organic compounds were detected in the
subsurface soils underlying the fonner hazardous waste storage area (Figure 6). All
concentrations were below MTCA Method B values for groundwater protection (100 x
groundwater cleanup level). These chemicals have most likely been washed by rainwater
through the subsurface soils and into the shallow aquifer.
Table 6 summarizes soils data for all other Area 6 sampling locations. V olatile organic
compounds were detected throughout these sampling areas but at concentrations at or
near detection limits. No chlorinated pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, or
organophosphorus pesticides were detected.
7.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
CERCLA response actions at OU 1 are intended to protect human health and the
environment from risks related to possible current and future exposures to chemicals at
tbe site.
The baseline risk assessment provides the basis for taking action and indicates the
exposure pathways that need to be addressed by the remedial action. It serves as the
300S0\9312.026\TEXT
-... ._'-~."'------"-*'" ~ ._-- ._---_. ~_. .-. .-- .'----''''-'--' -~~ -------'---'--'--'---'---'-------'-----------' ------_..--~ - .._.
-------
Page 26
Table 5
Summary of Soil Sampling Results From Former Hazardous Waste Storage Area
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
NA 2 - 49 14/48
NA 5 - 32 1/48
NA 8 - 32 3/48
NA 2 - 40 16/48
NA 5-200 2/48
13,718 3,710 - 13,800 41/42
10.4 8.1 - 11.6 3/13
4 n.6 - 4.6 30/33
120 12.6 - 4,048 42/42
4,508 1,920 - 10,500 44/44
35 12.4 - 51.6 40/41
18 6.3 - 43.9 35/38
17,226 6,370 - 20,550 43/43
17.8 O.l
Aluminum

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Calcium

Chromium

Copper

Iron
-------
Page 27
Tobie 5 (Continued)
Summary of Soil Sampling Results From Former Hazardous Waste Storage Area
':r;t~Wt~~~~mtiWI1ij:::I!::I;'..i:.:li:I:!I::I:!I'I'!'Ii:

Anthraccne

Benzo( a )anthracene
Bcnzo(b )Ouoranthenc
Bcnzo(k)Ouoranthene

Bcnzo(g,h,i)pcrylene
Chryscnc
fluoranlhcne
i;:i;l.iiliil.~~»~i~I~~i'~:i:;i:!lii:iiii.l;i!~~:;iii:!lili:i;:.:;:.II!.:ii~~~'llillli.i~'II:I:i!~ili:iil:::i:i;
Nolcs:
V-CLP - volatiles analysis--Conlracl Laboratory Program
ltg/kg - micrograms per kilogram
NA - not applicable
U - not detected
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
.'
-------
~o
4~
40
3~
;: JO
t:
~ 1~
~
~ 10
I~
10
18
14
II
I 10
: .
; 8
o
.-..-.----------.
Boring 6-B-1
I,U, IrIlHoo...,,-
IIICAllllhod8. 18'1.\I~1
-.(1
I,J.DI""'...,,-
IIICA ""ho.u. 4I11.\I~1
.---
. .... Iu.r--
MICA III""" 8: 111,000""
-. V'-- .,_..-
MICA III"" B: :JII"~I
a
II.
.. ,
I \
, .
/.' ~
.. " /0'-",
o d . O' . .-
,. I' '0 I" ".
. .~ . w . .~ w W . K
D"III (b.low IflM" .........
,.. ,.. ..
Boring 6-B-3
.
1,I,I.IIOI1lo<..lh-
MICA "'111018: 11,000 I.\I~'
.
I .1 I
, , t
0." l' 6' 10' \6' 20' 26' 30' 36' 40' 46' 60' 15' 80' n' )0' )6' 80'
.------.. .
D.plh (b.low .,oun' IU""')
CLEAN
,IAPREHENSIVE lONG-
11'-1 ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NAVY
..0______--
Former
Hazardous Wasto
Storage Area
Boring
6.B-3
II
Well
6-1.1
.
.
80 fI
120 n
..
. ..~~.,p.-j"
......>.~...-'
I
I I
I I
. 1
Figure 6
Concentrations of Volatile OrganIc Compounds In Salls
From Former Hazardous Waste Storage Area
-----.--.-.- -
Well 6-5-22
.
""hy! C""'!do
MICA 110.11048: 3J) 1.\1/1.1
.. 4
t

I :
. . . .
. . . . . . ". . .
. .".
~
NORTH
o 20
'---'-
Scaln in Feet
NOTE: MTCA Method B values aro for soils based on groundwater protection,
o. r I' &' 10' 1&' 20' 25' 30' 36' 40' 45' &0' 15' 10' n' )O'~' 10'
0,,111 1'.18W "..n. .Ufb..1
----.-
--.
Well 6-1-1
II
, .
. . ,1cNor..-
MICA lIo.hod B: 3981.\1/1.0
B'nllt'II
MICA lIo'hod 8: 1511.\1/10
18
18
14
.. u
t

r
.;
o
II
u' -. 'I). IJ.(I U fJ .tJ
0.1' I' &' 10' 15' 20' 25' 30' 35' .0' 45' &0' &5' 80' n' )O'~' 80'
; I
o.,d8 ,..low If..n' ,."HI)
CTO 0005
OPERABLE UNIT 1
NAS WHIDBEY, WA
ROD
-------
j'
I
i
i
!
I
I
I
Page 29
Table 6
Summary of Soil Sampling Results in All Area 6 Locations Except Former Hazardous Waste Storage Area
v.q~~g::~~~:::,~~n::::{'f::::::'{:::-'::::':'n;:::ttj::::::t):::::':::::;:'i:::;t:::':ti:;;::g:::::::t,?:':::::m:t:::::::::):::::::::::::::}::::::t:::):::::':i\,.:::::\),:'}::::::Pif&ffii:i.w.N:im;@i:]@%DW
l,l,l-Trichloroethane NA 13/189 6. 15U
l,l-0ichloroethane NA 3/183 6 - 12U
l,l-Dichloroethene NA 2/187 5 - llU
l,2-0ichloroethane NA 8/182 5. 52U
1,2..0ichloroethene NA 10/182 5 - llU
Methyl rhloridc NA 15/Hi4 5 - 23U
Aluminum 13,718 2,500 - 13,800 176/177 17.00U 
Antimony 10.4 7.7 - 18.9 12/142 6.4 . 16.8U 
Arsenic 4 0.48 - 11.0 148/155 0.4 - 3.8U 
Barium 120 n - 564 196/197 NA 
Calcium 4,508 I,SOO - 8,620 200/209 NA 
Chromium 35 10.4 - 80.2 161/178 12.6 - 21.2U 
Copper 18 3.4 - 170.5 184/188 7.8 . 13.0U 
Iron 17,226 17 - 21,900 202/202 NA 
Lead 17.8 1.2 - 86.3 114/]22 7.2 - 8.1U 
Magnesium 8,492 7JO - 13,500 202/202 NA ,;
Manganese 847 90 - 2,940 200/201 l,970U 
Nickel 62.3 15 - 134 178/178 NA 
Potassium 745 210 - 1,060 167/200 304. l,318U 
Sodium 242 67.5 - 464 ]42/142 15 . 689U 
-------
Table 6 (Continued)
Summary of Soil Sampling Rcsults in All Area 6 Locations Except Former Hazardous Wastc Storage Area
37.7 6.7 - 206 200/200
49 17.5 - 220.5 153/159
Noles:
V-CLP - volatiles analysis-Contract Laboratory Program
ltg/kg - micrograms per kilogram
NA - not applicable
U - not detected
mgJkg - milligrams per kilogram
jOO.~0\9j 12.026\TDL6
Page 30
. .:..:.~~::::r::::~::"iff.i~~::9N:~::::~:@rrl!;::!~!!~:~
....:..n~!£m.!g.fi::t.i.'=ffin;t~::::.m::~::::i'
NA
19.5 - 23.4U
".".".,.".. "
. .~. '. , ,.
,i
,
; ,
-------
..:... . "."
.' ..' ".. '-~ - -.'. -'
'..' ~.""'." . ,,"'.. '" ~ . . '.' . ...". "" "."
-.
Page 31
baseline indicating what risks could exist if no action were taken at the site. This section
of the ROD reports the results of the baseline risk assessment conducted for au 1.
7.1
Human Health Risk Assessment
A baseline risk assessment was developed to evaluate potemial human health risks
associated with exposure to chemicals at Areas 5 and 6 of au 1. This risk assessment
followed four basic steps to accomplish this goal:
.
Identification of chemicals and media of potential concern for the site
.
Assessment of possible human exposures to site chemicals under both
current and future land use scenarios
.
Evaluation of the toxicity of site chemicals
.
Evaluation of the characterization of potential health risks for populations
Tbe approaches used and assumptions made in accomplishing these objectives are
presented in detail in the final RIfFS and are summarized in the following sections.
7.1.1
Screening Evaluation to Identify Chemicals and Media of Potential Concern
A screening assessment for each medium (e.g., soil, surface water) at au 1 was
performed to determine if chemicals were present at concentrations above health-
protective levels. The preliminary results of this screening assessment were compared
with conservative risk levels designated as acceptable by EPA (For groundwater, the
risks designated acceptable by EPA are 10-6 risk for carcinogenic effects and a hazard
index [ill] of 1.0 or less for noncarcinogenic effects. For soils, the risk levels designated
as acceptable by EP A are 10-7 risk for carcinogenic effects and an HI of 0.1 or less for
noncarcinogenic effects.) If the medium being evaluated was at or below an acceptable
risk-based level, that medium was screened, or eliminated, from a more rigorous and
site-specific quantitative evaluation. There were also additional considerations that
influenced the decision to screen media from the risk assessment, such as the frequency
of detection and the natural background concentration of inorganic chemicals.
A screening-level risk evaluation was conducted for each of the different media present
at Areas 5 and 6, including surface water, soil, sediments, groundwater, and air. A
chemical-specific risk-based screening was not performed.
Surface Water. A screening-level risk evaluation was performed for a hypothetical
resident at Areas 5 and 6. Both the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks associated
with potential ingestion of surface water were below EP A's acceptable risk range. The
300S0\9312.026\TE.XT
.-'-'" _. ..,.~ --. . -,. . ..- ..-~- ..- ....--- -~. . '" . -.. -.. .-. -...-- ".-- .-. -~._._~----- ..._..._-_..-~.~_.._. ..-.. - .-.
.. ..--..,--- "'
...--..". . .... -......----.-, - --.".--.... -...---.. .
-------
. ....,.~.~._......"~"'~ ... ".
. . ',-~' -",,""'--.' ~ ...,"'~-"" '''~. "".,."'''",'''''''.''''''.-.....-' . ,."'. '"'' ~.' "........- '.""
..
Page 32
HIs for both areas were less than 1. The screening-level cancer risks for a resident child
were 7 x 10-8 and 6 x 10-7 for Areas 5 and 6, respectively. The screening-level risks for
surface water at Area 6 were entirely attributable to arsenic (greater than 99 percent).
Although it is likely that much of the arsenic risk is a result of naturally occurring levels,
no background surface water samples were taken because a representative background
station for surface water was not found. Therefore, a comparison of site and background
concentrations cannot be made. Because this screening-level analysis indicated that
exposure to the maximum detected concentrations of cbemicals in surface water,
including arsenic, would not exceed acceptable risk levels, this medium was determined
not to pose a risk to human health and was eliminated from funher evaluation.
Soil. Screening-level risks associated with exposure to soil by a resident were evaluated
by the ingestion pathway. In evaluating this pathway it was assumed that a resident will
ingest soil from the site on a daily basis for 30 years. At Area 5, both cancer and
noncancer risks were below EPA's acceptable risk levels. The screening-level cancer risk
for an Area 5 resident ingesting soil was 3 x 10-9 and the noncancer HI was 0.05.
Screening-level risks for Area 6 soils exceeded EP A's acceptable levels. The screening-
level cancer risk for carcinogenic effects was 3 x 10-3 and the noncancer HI was 1.3.
Evaluation of the analytical data for soils in Area 6 indicated that a limited number of
chemicals posed most of the potential risk. The screening-level soil risks at Area 6 were
heavily influenced by the following:
.
Single high detections of certain compounds that were often substamially
greater than tbe rest of tbe sample population (e.g., beryllium and silver,
which could not be duplicated with confirmatory sampling)
.
High concentrations that are largely attributable to natural background
levels (e.g., antimony and arsenic)
.
Chemicals that were detected very infrequently (e.g., polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons )
Because the screening risk estimates for Area 6 soils exceeded EP A's acceptable risk
range, this medium was included in the baseline risk assessment for further evaluation.
Sediments. Screening-level risks for sediments were calculated using the same exposure
assumptions as for soil. This overestimates probable sediment risks; actual exposures to
sediments would occur less frequently than for soils, because the streams are
intermittent.
Screening-level risks for sediments in both Areas 5 and 6 were initially found to exceed
EP A's acceptable risk levels. The preliminary ~cer and noncancer risk for sediments
30050\9312.026\TE.XT
~.. ..--... _... . - '.....
. , .""".--.'---"" -..--.--.-'_....n_._.'-'-
-------
, .. ... ..",_.,., -.
'.."""'.,' ","......._.........,"".,.,-"",,"-"-'~' ~.,...."...J'",.,.,. ,-,.." .' -...'--...' .,..,-.. ,.' .,_.,,-~.- -
..
Page 33
at Area 5 were 3 x 10-4 and 1, respectively. Greater than 99 percent of the cancer risk
and 50 percent of the noncancer risk for Area 5 were due to arsenic. Although the
maximum detected concentration of arsenic in one of the three Area 5 sediment samples
(11 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]) exceeded the calculated background level for
arsenic in soil (6.0 mg/kg; background sediment samples were not taken), sediments at
Area 5 were screened from further evaluation in the quantitative risk assessment for the
following reasons:
.
Arsenic was detected in only one out of three sediment samples.
.
There is no on-site source of arsenic at Areas 5 and 6 (suggesting that the
11 mg/kg detection may be attributable, at least in part, to other sources).
.
The single detection of arsenic is generally consistent with soil background
levels of arsenic.
.
The exposure assumptions used in the screening-level risk evaluation
overestimate the probable exposure to sediments.
Screening-level cancer and noncancer risks from sediments at Area 6 were 3 x 10-4 and
1.3, respectively. Approximately 75 percent of the cancer risk from Area 6 sediments
was due to arsenic. The maximum concentration of two pesticides, aldrin and heptachlor
epoxide, also posed screening-level cancer risks greater than 10-
-------
. ....." ..... --"'-'''''4 ..,..... ",""""""."-~""'-" ..
'.' . .. .. ~ '" . ..... '" - ".. ", -. '~"'''' ... -.
~-~.. """"",,,,_,,,'-'h.....-. "... '..~.",,--'
...- ."-"1" '.. - ",'" -' "..",.. ,.-. ....- -
," '~. ,... ' . ...
..
Page 34
it was assumed that a resident will ingest groundwater from the site on a daily basis for
30 years and that the same individual will be exposed to site chemicals from daily
inhalation of volatile chemicals released from groundwater during bathing or cooking.
Screening-level risk for both carcinogens and noncarcinogens in groundwater at Areas 5
and 6 substantially exceeded EP A's acceptable risk levels. Chemicals of concern
identified for the Area 6 shallow groundwater are summarized in Table 7. The screening
risk estimates for the shallow aquifer at Area 6 were due primarily to volatile organic
compounds, whereas the risks for the intermediate and deep aquifers were dominated by
background levels of arsenic. Arsenic and manganese are the primary risk drivers in the
shallow groundwater at Area 5, although volatile organic compounds also contributed to
risk.
Table 7
Chemicals of Concern for Area 6 Shallow Groundwater
1,1- D icbloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2- Dichloroethene
1, 1, I-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
-_ri!?


ND 800 26
7 0.07 1,900
70 80 630
~ ~ 3~~
5 4 1,800
2 0.02 53.5
Notes:
MCL - maximum contaminant level
p.g/L - micrograms per liter
ND - not determined at this time
Because the screening-level risk estimates exceeded EP A's acceptable risk level,
groundwater was not screened from the risk assessment. A quantitative evaluation of
potential groundwater risks was performed in the baseline risk assessment, and is
summarized at the end of this section.
Air. A screening risk evaluation that considered the potential for exposure to airborne
contaminants at Area 6 was also performed. The on-site resident scenario was evaluated
30050\931 ::.C':~..TE.,(T
-".. . -, ..._._--- .-----".- .- ~_.. "'-"------"-"-'~-' ,_....
-._n -- -....- -....-..--.-.-.. -- .......-...._-~. . ,-- -. .--'''-'
-------
.
Page 35
using measured concentrations of particulates and vapors at the site. Actual concentra-
tions of chemicals in air were obtained from ambient air monitoring conducted at
Area 6, as well as from emission flux measurements for chemicals volatilizing from the
soil. The exposure of the nearest current off-site resident was evaluated using computer
modeling techniques to estimate emission and dispersion of volatile chemicals.
Maximum values of both measured and modeled chemical concentrations were used in
the screening risk evaluation.
The initial risk screen for carcinogenic effects for the hypothetical on-site resident based
on measured data is within EP A's acceptable risk range, with a maximum calculated risk
of 2 x 10.5, This risk is attributable primarily to assumptions made regarding the toxicity
of chromium and nickel. The default assumption made in the screening risk assessment
was that the chromium and nickel detected in the ambient air were the most toxic and
carcinogenic forms of both metals. The carcinogenic forms of chromium and nickel are
typically associated with industrial activities, such as plating and smelting operations, and
would not make up a significant percentage of the total chromium and nickel present in
the sailor air at nonindustrial sites such as OU 1. If it were assumed that the chromium
and nickel detected in the ambient air were the noncarcinogenic forms, the resulting
screening risk estimates would not exceed EP A's acceptable level. Consideration of the
risks contributed by natural background levels of chromium and nickel would reduce the
apparent site-related risks. Levels of volatile chemicals at Area 6 did not pose an
unacceptable risk.
Screening air modeling was also done to evaluate the potential risks to the nearest
current off-site resident. Both cancer and noncancer risk estimates were below EPA's
acceptable risk level. Because the screening risks to on- and off-site residents from
measured and modeled volatile organic compounds were not significant, and because
particulate risks were acceptable after adjusting the toxicity assumptions for chromium
and nickel, the ambient air exposure pathway did not appear to pose a significant health
risk and was not included in the quantitative baseline risk assessment.
Summary of Media and Chemicals of Potential Concern. Groundwater and soil were
selected for more detailed evaluation in the quantitative risk assessment. Surface water,
sediments, and air were eliminated from the risk assessment based on a screening-level
risk analysis. Volatile organic compounds and inorganics in groundwater were identified
as the primary chemicals of concern at Areas 5 and 6. However, all chemicals that were
detected in soil and groundwater were evaluated in the quantitative risk assessment.
7.1.2
Exposure Assessment
The exposure assessment is a critical part of a baseline risk assessment, because it
defines the populations and potential exposure pathways that will be evaluated. The
exposure assessment has four principal objectives:
-------
.
Page 36
.
Identification of populations that may be exposed to chemicals at the site
.
Identification of potential exposure pathways
.
Estimation of the represent~tive concentrations of chemicals in each
medium (the exposure point concentration)
.
Selection of exposure assumptions and calculation of chronic daily intake
of site chemicals
Selection of Potentially Exposed Populations. Three potentially exposed populations
were selected for evaluation at Areas 5 and 6. The exposure scenarios evaluated in this
baseline risk assessment include a future on-site residential scenario, a future on-site
occupational scenario, and a current/future on-site trespasser scenario (future trespasser
exposures were considered to be equivalent to current). Off-site resident risks have also
been evaluated.
For the screening analysis, the future residential scenario evaluated potential exposures
and risks from soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, and air. The future
occupational scenario evaluated exposures to both soil and groundwater. (Exposures of
workers to other media were assumed to be insignificant, because the screening-level
evaluation for the more conservative residential scenario did not result in unaccept~bie
risks.) Risks (screening level only) for the trespasser scenario were evaluated for soil.
sediment, and surface water, and were found to be insignificant.
Selection of Possible Exposure Pathways. Possible exposure pathways have been
identified for each potentially exposed population at au 1. The potential exposure
pathways considered at au 1 are presented in Table 8.
Calculation of Exposure Point Concentrations. An exposure point concentration (EPC)
represents the medium-specific concentration of a chemical with which an exposed
human may come into contact. For CERCLA risk assessments the EPC is intended to
be an upper-bound representation of the average site concentration, such as the 95
percent upper confidence limit (UCL) on the mean (95 percent VCL). If, however, the
95 percent UCL exceeds the maximum detected concentration (on account of, for
example, extreme variability in analytical results), then the maximum concentration is
used instead. .
As noted earlier, the maximum detected concentration of chemicals in all media was
used in the screening-level risk evaluation. For soils, the maximum single sample
concentration at any depth between the surface and 15 feet was used as an EPC. A
quantitative evaluation of potential groundwater risks was performed for each monitOring
well in Areas 5 and 6. For each of these wells, the data from as many as six rounds of
-------
, '..' . ....
. .~.... "" . .-...' ..-.. .......,... .
. . .. -~....... ..
. ..., .........., ... '-".- -,..... -,,,,,--,."- .. -.'. . .'.. -"
.-----.....---...---..-'. ... .-.
.~
Page 37
Table 8
Potential Exposure Pathways for Populations at Operable Unit 1
r;~giI!IWi{:~.~::\g_ltt ~~W{ltftM~ij#!Af::~g~::jtm*@i::~ };:@~;:::\:;\~.~fi~~;mi;;i:j
Future on-site resident Groundwater    Ingestion
   Groundwater    Inhalation
   Soil      Ingestion
   Sediment     Ingestion.
   Surface water    Ingestion'
   Particulates in au-   Inhalation"
   Volatile chemicals in air Inhalation"
CWTent off-site resident Volatile chemicals in 3.lr Inhalation"
Future on-site worker Groundwater    Ingestion
   Groundwater    Inhalation
   Soil      Ingestion"
On-site trespasser Soil      Ingestion'
   Sediment     Ingestion"
   Surface water    Ingestion'
>These pathways were evaluated only in the screening-levei risk assessment. The screening-level
assessment provided preliminary risk estimates based on the maximum detected concentration of ail
chemicals in each respective medium.
sampling were evaluated. The 95 percent UCL was calculated for each chemical in each
well from all available data (beginning with the Initial Investigation in 1989). Because
the quantitative risk assessment did not evaluate risks from chemicals in soils, sediments,
surface water, and air beyond a screening level. a 95 percent UCL was not calculated for
chemicals in these media.
Selection of Exposure Assumptions and Calculation of Chronic Daily Intake of Site
Chemicals. Estimates of potential human intake (called chronic daily intake, or CD I) of
site chemicals must be calculated for each exposure pathway. Calculation of the CDI
requires development of pathway-specific exposure assumptions for each medium of
concern. Exposure estimates for chemicals at au 1 were calculated using a combination
of federal and EP A Region 10 default and site-specific exposure assumptions. In several
cases (e.g., exposure frequency of a trespasser or intake rate of surface water), the
default exposure parameter was not considered appropriate for this site. In these cases,
exposure parameters were developed that are more site-specific. For the groundwater
pathway, default exposure parameters were used.
30050\9312.026"'TEXT
..,.. ......-. ..
. "'-- .. . ..- .n. _.....--~_. .- . ...---_.
. '.---'."-- - -. .. "'- ,."-....
--. . n._.."....-..--.,... -- .
-------
. ~.. .' ... . .
. .'. ..... .. ....- .. ,.',"...-- .-.." '. ~
.'" " "" -,' ',t'h''''.... ..,~,........ ....... '..." ." .,.. ...., -. .' ''''''''''''-'''''''''' .. - . - . ""'..
..
Page 38
7.1.3 Toxicity Assessment
The purpose of the toxicity assessment is to identify chemical- and route-specific toxicity
criteria values for each chemical of potential concern. These toxicity values are used in
conjunction with the exposure estimates to calculate the potential human health risks.
To evaluate the potential health risks associated with exposure to a chemical, both
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health effects must be considered. The toxicity factOrs
used in this risk assessment have been developed by the EP A and are current through
June 1992 with one exception. The primary source for toxicity values is EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and the secondary source is the Health
Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). The reference dose (RID) for
manganese in water was updated in IRIS in May 1993, after the risk assessment was
completed in April 1993. The RID for manganese in Area 6 groundwater was updated
in the final RIfFS (June 1993) to reflect the latest EPA recommendations. Toxicity
values for the chemicals that are responsible for the majority of risks in the shallow
aquifer at Areas 5 and 6 are presented in Table 9.
RIDs were developed by EP A to represent daily intakes of chemicals to which an
individual, including sensitive subpopulations, can be exposed without any expectation of
noncarcinogenic adverse health effects (e.g., organ damage, biochemical alterations, birth
defects). . RIDs are expressed as milligrams chemical/kilogram body weight per day of
exposure (mg/kg-day). Noncarcinogenic chemicals are thought to exhibit a "threshold,"
wherein exposures less than a specific threshold dose will not result in adverse health
effects. RIDs have not been developed for all noncarcinogens, primarily because of a
lack of toxicity data. Noncancer risks were not calculated for chemicals lacking RIDs.
Cancer slope factors (CSFs) are used to evaluate the carcinogenicity of chemicals. A
CSF is a numerical estimate of the potency of a chemical, which, when multiplied by the
average lifetime dose, gives the probability of an individual developing cancer over his or
her lifetime. The CSFs are expressed as the inverse of milligrams of contaminant per
kilogram. of body weight per day (mgfkg-day)-l. It is assumed by EPA in developing
CSFs that the risk of cancer is linearly related to dose. Carcinogens are assumed to be
without a toxicity threshold, because theoretically there is no level of exposure for these
chemicals that does not pose a small, but finite, probability of generating a carcinogenic
response. CSFs correspond to the upper-bound limit of cancer potency of a chemical,
and, as a result, the calculated carcinogenic risk is likely to represent an upper limit to
the risk. The actual risk is unknown but is likely to be lower than the predicted risk, and
may be as low as zero.
30050\9312.026,TE.XT
.... ..-.. . - -... P'.'-
.'. -. - ....' '.. -.. . ,'.-.. .--.-
.-_..-- n - -- -
--- . - ,,,,-,,.,,-,---,,-----,.- ....- .
-------
"'" ,.-..' #0 "'.
. - .......,
. -' ',' - --.'.. - ,,-
.,
Page 39
Table 9
Toxicity Values for Chemicals Responsible for the Majority of Risks in
the Shallow Aquifer at Areas 5 and 6
.!~:;i!il!!~;II:!i:i.i:..::._lr~~1I1::il~:...I:III:!~.:..::I!i:l:i.!H::::~'I;i!!~~::II~~i!ri:::;rll~~:!!:!:.:!:::~~:!i!ii:!::~.::.:::..:..:M:\!~

}@:::~::::::!me~~~::::::::::::):::::::!~ie.S~on::::::::~::::(:?:::f~#I't'.!!M@.g:t:::::::/:::::i::~~::.
Carbon tetrachloride NA 7 x 104 53 X 10.2 13 X 10-1
1,1- D ichloroethene NA . 9 x 1003 1.8 X 10-1 601 X 1001 <
1,2- Dichloroethene NA 1 x 10-2 NA NA
1,1,1- Trichloroethane NA 9 x 10-2 NA NA
TrichJoroethene NA 1 x 1002 1.1 X 1002 5.95 X 1003 <
Vinyl chloride NA 13 x 1003 3 X 10.1 1.9
"The noncancer risk for arsenic was not found to exceed a hazard quotient of 1 at Area 5.
'7he reference dose for manganese in water was updated to reflect the 1993 revision in IRIS. Only
groundwater risks at Area 6 were updated.
'Toxiciry values for both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects are generally calculated from critical
effect levels based on an administered, rather than absorbed, dose. These administered inhalation
reference doses were adjusted by percent absorption values to yield an absorbed reference dose.
Notes:
mg/kg-day - milligrams per kilogram per day
NA - nO toxicity value available
7.1.4
Risk Characterization
For carcinogens, risks are estimated as the incremental probability of an individual
developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of the exposure to the carcinogen. Excess
lifetime cancer risk is calculated from the following equation:
Risk = CDI x SF
Where:
Risk = A unitless probability (e.g., 2 x 10-5) of an individual developing cancer
CDI = Chronic daily intake averaged over 70 years, expressed as mg/kg-day
30050\9312.026\TEXT
. --.-- '-----'.--.-._-- -----"'-..--- ..-----_. _.-.-- . ___Uh______--'------- - ---.---..--...--
....-..-.-. '''--' .. .---..-- --- '.-- .--.- ------.. .....
-------
. ... .. "
. ..,","..'" ..~ ... '.
" ~ .'." .~,- ., ". '
"'"'' "".."
", "'"."'~''' .
.,
Page 40
SF = Slope-factor, expressed as (mg/kg-day)-!
Tbese risks are probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific notation (e.g.,
1 x 10-6). An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10-6 indicates that, as a reasonable
maximum estimate, an individual has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of developing cancer as a
result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the specific
e\.?osure conditions at a site. The acceptable risk range identified by EP A for
carcinogens is 10-4 to 10-6 (risks from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000).
."
Tbe potential for noncarcinogenic effects is evaluated by comparing an exposure level
over a specified time period (e.g., lifetime) with an RID derived for a similar exposure
period. The ratio of exposure to toxicity is called a hazard quotient (HQ). By adding
the HQs for all contaminants of concern that affect the same target organ (e.g., liver)
\\ithin a medium or across all media to which a given population may reasonably be
e.\.-posed, the HI can be generated.
Tbe HQ is calculated as follows:
Noncancer HQ = CDI/RfD
\Vhere:
CDI = Chronic daily intake (mg/kg-day)
RID = Reference dose (mg/kg-day)
CDI and RID are expressed in the same units and represent the same exposure
period (i.e., chronic, subcbronic, or short-term).
If the HI is less than 1.0, it indicates that noncarcinogenic health effects are unlikely. If
the total HI is greater than 1.0, it indicates that adverse health effects are possible and
suggests that additional eyaluation may be necessary.
Potential human health risks associated with exposure to groundwater at OU 1 were
evaluated on a well-by-well, rather than a site-wide, basis. That is, the 95 percent VCL
for each chemical detected in each well was used to calculate risk. The risk estimates
assume that both residents and workers will ingest site groundwater and inhale volatile
chemicals released from the water during cooking or bathing.
Area 5. Risks for potential residential and occupational use of groundwater in the
shallow aquifer were evaluated in the quantitative risk assessment. The risks from future
occupational use of Area 5 groundwater were approximately one-third of those
calculated for th~ future residential scenario. A summary of the carcinogenic and
300S0\9312.026\TEXT
._~..,. ---'~.--.-.--.-~."--'-"- ..
-~. - -"-'.. '--~--------'-'-- -.--------.- . ..,
. .. -_..,_._,-----,--,,-_._~---" -_."..,..,..
-------
. "'. .," . .
. ". - . .,
. ,'cp'. .",' .. ." -. "..'.' ". ~ ~...-. . '-. "
.,
Page 41
noncarcinogenic risks resulting from potential future groundwater exposure is shown in
Table 10.
Table 10
Potential Human Health Risks Associated With Future Residential or
Occupational Use of Groundwater From the Shallow Aquifer at Area 5
i__I1'~_,ir-

5-$-01 0.8 1 x 1O~ 2.1 3 x 10"'
N5-14 03 2 x 10-5 1.0 6 x 10"5
N5-15 0.9 5 x 10"5 2.4 2 x 1
-------
. ".'. . '." .., .,~.,.. . "" '" ., '.' .
" ''', . ~~ '.
-." ',.'-'
- - "".,.' ..--..'''''.' ...."
.'~. - '''''','', ',' ..' ,. ,.. ..
..
Page 42
aquifers. Arsenic (primarily present at background levels) was the main risk driver for
the intermediate and deep aquifers. In general, volatile organic compounds, including
carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and vinyl chloride, were responsible for the majority of the risks in the
shallow aquifer. A summary of the cancer and noncancer risks for future residential use
of the groundwater from each monitoring well in Area 6 is shown in Table 11.
Because this risk assessment evaluated risks on a well-by-well basis, a sitewide
groundwater risk was not calculated. Therefore, although the assessment determined the
chemicals that present the highest risk at each well, it does not identify the chemicals
that pose the highest risk when combining data from all the wells. Evaluation of the
risks for each well in the different aquifers indicated that a limited list of chemicals
comprised most of the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks. These chemicals are
presented in Table 12.
Potential human health risks resulting from exposure to other media at Area 6 were also
evaluated. Conservative screening-level risks for future residents and trespassers at the
site were calculated for soil, sediments, surface water, and ambient air. Screening risks
for workers exposed to soil were also evaluated. Although several of these media had
screening risk levels that exceeded EP A's acceptable risk levels, site-specific
considerations of the chemicals and media indicated that significant risks from these
media would not occur.
Potential risks from exposure to soil were also evaluated. The results of the screening
risk assessment, when combined with site-specific considerations, indicated that exposure
to soils at Area 6 would not pose an unacceptable risk. The site-specific factors
influencing the soil risk at Area 6 included single high detects of certain compounds
(e.g., beryllium and silver; subsequent resampling could not confirm these high levels).
contributions to risk from naturally occurring background levels of inorganics (e.g.,
antimony and arsenic), or a low frequency of detection (e.g., polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons). Volatile organic compounds that are chemicals of concern in the
groundwater do not pose an unacceptable risk in soils, as shown in Table 13.
7.1.5 Uncertainty Analysis
The accuracy of a risk assessment depends to a large extent on the quality and
representativeness of the data and assumptions that are used. Particularly critical are
assumptions about the distribution of chemicals in different media, the types and ranges
of possible exposures, the toxicity of the chemicals found at the site, and the approaches
used to characterize risk. In a baseline risk assessment, much of the data and many of
the assumptions are conservative, so that tbe resulting risk estimates are intended to
overestimate, rather than underestimate, the most likely risks.
30050\'13 !2.026\TE'
-------
.,. ... "... "" r"" ....... ~.' -
'" --" ,...'. .
..- . . .'" . '"
, '
..
Page 43
Table 11
Well-by-Well Evaluation of the Potential Human Health Risks Associated With
Future Residential Use of Groundwater at Area 6
Shallow
N6-37
N6-38
6-$-2
6-$-3
6-$-4
6-$-6
6-$-7
6-$-9
6-$-10
6-5- U
6-$-13
6-$-14
6-$-15
6-$-16
6-$-17
6-$-19
6-$-21
6-$-23
6-$-24
6-S-25
}':\~:*:~ij~'",
..:txl0~.'
6 x 10.7
NA
lIr::!!@m1~:!Mt\¥iitM~:~~!t@i~:rl=:::!:~!.1~:!:!!.:!::!'!tM!.1=::::~tt:@r:~::.:tt::~f11!11::!1:::::tl:~i!.1~!!~tft:~~~:::!;:~:~}f':::.1::::i~::~,
0.8
1.0
0.003
0.2
0.1
0.98
::'::::::::::::::;:::{}::::::;:::::~::#:::::!~::/'::;:;:;)::):;;:::::..::;:::::):::::::::
" :::::::",:'i'iJz'.:*::j)P:',:::},/:,:" . . ....
'~':{:~'::x:::X9i:: .
9 x 10""
P.~:~1.Q~::'::. :.
...:::.~:~::~9t:\. '.
,~::/:::::'::m:4:g:~~t:.::::w(::):....:?:\
NA
NA
Intermediate
6-1-1
6-1-2
6-1-3
6-1-4
6-1-6
6-1-8
0.87
2b
:::::::.1:::r::@::::~:~~:li:::!9Jt:\:::::::::1,.1,(:1::~:::;::~{
. :.:\:/.::;::.:!~~~:::!~tt~:~;\:.:I~:H::::::':~';'::':.
.:t:'#~:~':Mr:::~:':~:::~61{:~}:t::::.#::::~::::~::::::::.::)
(/@::1:i1::~:::'~:~::~::::@:~:i.::tP,~t~::::f:::~::::::~;:.:::::::::;'::::~::::
300;SO' 93 12.0'26\TBLI I
--"---'-'-'.'-'--.--..---.-". - ..u."--'-- --_.---~_._--_._._.._._._-_.
..-.-------.- "..
-------
. ", .. .'
.'."...,. ..... '0"'" "'" .........'.
............' -'-." "..'
." . . ...' ....' .,.
.,
Page 44
Table 11 (Continued)
Well-by-Well Evaluation of the Potential Human Health Risks Associated With
Future Residential Use of Groundwater at Area 6
il~..~:!.i:l!i'ii~iJ.'JIIII:I~'i~;!:~~~iiiil.I.11Iil:1il.~!lliJi.:..'Jlilj!J'!"ii!i~f;~i~.I~ ~1.~~I.i ',',.:"",,',.. 1 x 10-11>
6-0-2 ::::i:::::ItiiI:@Wttli:!:::IIIila!:i%::!i:::f::::f:::@::':,ii.: :  :!:::i':i:':;:;:;::;:,;: j..:::: {:m::1..%.!WM?tkt:Utfk:/i f.::::'
  .. ...'O..
6-0-5 :::t;lmifit:::T:m:;;i::::;i::;?!~t:t::!:::::::tf:=i\i;:':'::::r:::r: :::::::i::::::..:(::::;.:::::::::::::::::::::~'¥/t~:Mt~t:r:::::::::::~:::Y'li::
'These risks are associated primarily with carbon tetrachloride. Although carbon tetrachloride was detected
i.o the i.oterim sampling, it was not detected i.o the RI Phase 2 or Phase 3 sampli.og. As a result of this
sporadic detection, the risks associated with exposure to carbon tetrachloride in groundwater are highly
uncertain.
I>"[hese risks are attributable to background concentrations of arsenic.
Notes:
NA - not applicable
~~#.g:.:y#':!¥¥: - cancer risk greater than 1 x 10~ or noncancer hazard i.odex greater than 1.0
30050\9312,026\TBLll
~P"'- ---..,----.,.-.- ..
.-...- -. .-- ..
. .---- ---.-.-.--------' - -. .
. -."'-"'-"--"-""
. ._,---- .. ..,-~.. -----'- '-.-'--.'
-------
--. ..,. .
.,
Page 45
Table 12
Chemicals Contributing to Potential Health Risks for the
Future Residential Users of Groundwater at Area 6
Deep Antimony Arsenic.
Arsenic.

Arsenicd
Shallow
Arsenic.
Carbon tetrachloride!
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1, I-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Arsenicd
Vinyl chloride

Arsenic.
Carbon tetracl1loride!
1,1-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
lntermecliate
aA significant noncancer risk corresponds to a l1azard quotient of 1.0 or greater for each chemical
listed. Tbe concentrations of antimony and arsenic were similar to background levels. Risks were
evaluated assuming exposure by both ingestion of groundwater and inhalation of volatile chemicals
released from the water during cooking or bathing.
bA significant cancer risk was assumed to be 10"', the upper end of EPA's acceptable risk range. The
concentrations of arsenic in the differenl aquifers were similar to background levels. Risks were
evaluated assuming exposure by both ingestion of groundwater and inhalation of volatile chemicals
released from the water during cooking or bathing.
"Between 75 and 100 percent of the risk is attributable to background.
dAll risks (except for well 6-1-6) are attributable to background concentrations of arsenic.
.Background concentrations of arsenic contribute or large percentage of the risk.
(These risks are bighly suspect due to the low frequency of detection.
30050\9312.0'26\TEXT
. . .. _u_'~--+-"-' .-..
.. --~-'-+'-' .'--+ -----~_._...._n_'.-"-------'-"._-----'-+'" -..-
. -.-..---..-....- "- ._-.
-....--.--------...--.---." --"..-.---. -
-------
.. .' '.'., - .~..' '. '.' . - " -.. "... -' " .
..
Page 46
Table 13
Potential Human Health Risks Associated With
Future Resident Exposure to Soil at Area 6
-- - - 11 ' I
:::;:::::::::;;:::;::;:;:;::;;;:;:;tl!;'~:::::::i;::::::::::i':::i::::i::iW;Ji:t~::lf)l'Ji~~~:t!i!fitjJm!!::::::I:::::::::j::;:M::::;;::i::::::::j:::tMf!9,f~!W~i~;M::f~1;';:":;:':;t::'I::i::
1,1- D ichloroethane  NA  NA
1, l-Dichloroethene  NA  NA
1,2- Dichloroethene 2 x 10-<'  NA
l,l,l-Trichloroethane 8 x 10-7  NA
Trichloroethene 1 x 10-5 5 x 10.:0
Vinyl chloride  NA  NA
Notes:
Risks are presented only for chemicals found to be of concern in the shallow aquifer at Area 6.
NA - chemical not detected in soil or no toxicity data available
In addition to tbe uncertainties due to the risk assessment methodology, tbere are several
site-specific uncertainties that affect risk calculations. The limited detection frequency
for certain chemicals (e.g., carbon tetrachloride in groundwater), the contribution from
natural background chemicals (e.g.. arsenic, manganese), the cancer slope factor for
arsenic (which EPA notes is somewhat conservative and likely to overestimate arsenic
risks), and tbe representativeness of the exposure scenarios (e.g., the likelihood that
someone will build a house on a landfill) all affect the results and interpretations of the
risk calculations. Because of tbe assumptions made in this risk assessment, the estimates
of risk are conservative and health-protective.
7.2
Ecological Risk Assessment
To assess the environmental effects of the contaminants present at the site, an evaluation
of potentially affected terrestrial species was conducted. A site-specific wildlife survey
was not conducted as part of the remedial investigation. However, it is known that the
Townsend's vole, coyotes and northern harriers inhabit the site. The bald eagle, a
federally threatened species in tbe state of Wasbington, bas also been observed in the
vicinity of the site.
Area 5 and Area 6 were evaluated separately. Area 6 is made up of two distinct habitat
types (meadow/grassland and forest transition zone) that were evaluated separately by
ecological modeling. .
The primary concern for this site is terrestrial wildlife exposure to metals through
ingestion of soil and food. However, inhalation of volatile vapors by small burrowing
30050\9312.026\ TEXT
.-- -..-.--..-.. ..-...---
. -"--.-r~- ..-. ..---..... -.. -. ..-"--..'. - .---. -.----.---
....,-. ".-.. _.--
-------
. ~ . ......, .
.-. - .-... .' .e..
~'. - e .. . .. .. .' . .-
.' .e'" "., .. .
..- ..., ..,
..
Page 47
rodents was also evaluated. These exposure routes were modeled to estimate reasonable
maximum exposures to three receptors with three different foraging patterns: herbivorous
small mammal (Townsend's vole), carnivorous mammal (coyote), and carnivorous bird
(northern harrier). Exposure modeling indicated potential risks to small herbivorous
mammals from chromium, nickel, and vanadium at Area 5, and chromium, nicke~
vanadium, and lead at Area 6 (Table 14). No risks were estimated for either of the
carnivorous receptors in Area 5; however, there is a potential risk to mammalian
carnivores from mercury and lead at Area 6.
At Area 5, a 19-acre freshwater wetland is located approximately 600 feet west of the
excavation area. At Area 6, a small intermittent stream flows northwest discharging into
an off-site 18-acre wetland. The stream is classified as a jurisdictional wetland under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The ecological risk for the wetlands was evaluated
using two methods:
.
Comparison of reasonable maximum chemical concentrations in the
sediments to Ecology sediment quality guidelines that were developed
based on long-term effects to benthic organisms
.
Comparison of maximum likely surface water chemical concentrations to
EPA's AWQC
Sediment quality guidelines are exceeded for six metals and two pesticides in Area 5
(arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, manganese, nickel, endrin, and 4,4'-DDT), and four
metals and two pesticides in Area 6 (arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel, heptachlor
epoxide, and aldrin). These exceedances are identified as HQs greater tban 1.0 in
Table 15. AWQC were exceeded for five metals in Area 5 (cadmium, copper, lead,
silver, and zinc) and four metals in Area 6 (arsenic, chromium, copper, and nickel)
(Table 16). These comparisons indicate organisms inhabiting the aquatic syst~ms on this
site could potentially be affected by metals in both tbe sediments and the water and
pesticides in the sediment.
8.0 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
8.1
Need for Remedial Action at Area 6
Ecological risk was identified for Area 6 soils and for sediments and surface water from
the intermittent stream at Area 6. However, no source area was located and remedial
action could cause more environmental harm than the low levels of existing chemicals
are likely to cause.
300SQ\9312.026\TEXT
.. . .. -..' - ~......~._. -~-- ._-~. .
-. _._~-_.._----..-- ~-_..._.- -------_._-_._-~-_..~-....---_..-- -------._u- ..
-------
- - .".'
Page 48
Table 14
Ecological Hazard Quotients Detennined for Terrestrial Receptors
Area 5
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium
Nickel.
Vanadium
HeptacbJor epoxide
Area 6A (Grassland/Meadow)
Antimony
Arsenic
3.1 X 10'2
3.4 X 10-1
3.0 X 10.2
Beryllium
Chromium
Nickel
AJdrin
HeptacbJor epoxide
Area 68 (Forest Transition Zone)
Antimony
Chromium
Inorganic Mercury
Lead
Nickel
Vanadium
Ethylbenzene
1,1,1- Trichloroethane
4.8 x 10'"
7.1 x 10,3
2.5 X 10.1
5.1 X 10,3
7.1 X 10'3
1.1 x 10,5
33 X 10'1
1.4 X 10'2
4.7 X 10-1
6.9 X 10.3
2.3 X 10'1
4.1 X 10.2
2.5 x Hr'
1.6 x 10,3
3.0 X 10'1
i:ii~:i:~ii::::~~:i:i!@iH:i,':t::i:i:t
5.6 x 10.1
:ii::::':::;::7.~Vii~i:t.9Vi:li::d;::I:::::{:;::::mt.::i::.!~.;:~'::~9t".:::::::'::'~':::::1::::~::;::::.
:i::::::,:::i:~i:~::!lit:i: 5.0 X 10'2
::,:;t::~::II;!;~f:::::::'f:'::m 6.8 x lO'3
4.6 x 1
-------
, ":::::?":::\::::::::'::::,::,', :
. ,"'.. ..".'.....".','.".",', ,".".",
. . .. ... . . .. . ...... . . . .
.... ",.... ..................
(:!~e~llc~l:'N~#!:~::'::::::::: .., :
Alununum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cohalt
Copper
Iron
Lcad

Manganese

Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Aldrin
alpha-Chlordane
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Enclrm
gamma-Chlordane
30050\9312,026\TBLU
Page 49
Table 15
Ecological Hazard Quotients for Chemicals in Sediment at Areas 5 and 6
'~;::I=~;;i'~i=~"'r.',.....,,~ijif:~
XliS"M-
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
)::):,:::::::::l~~I:::::I:::::::::::::: 0.32 0.65"::':':::':.. ,I ~?~:':I::::': 0.92
NC NC NC -- --
::::::::::::::::::J,~I:::::::r:ti:} o. 75 ::f:::::t::::::::I~~~:t::::i:m:::::::":':"::':"", t'p.~::'::::/ 0.92
NC NC NC (U8 0.08
,:::~;~),~::r1:::::::::{ 0.4',1 ,:,::" ,''''',,','.' 1..1J ': ,.. ,:",J~9?
::::,,::::1;4#:::::::::::::::::::(: 0.22 0.39 1.0 0.54
0.15 0.15 0.27 0.63 0.27
::':::::::::~~~:::::::r:::::::,::: 0.08 0.33 0.58 0.55
~ ~ ~ -- --
;:::::':::::::::::::::~4a;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::':::::!~l!:::::::r:::::::::U::::::::::::::::::::~n!:::::::::::::::::r,~::::::::::t::::::~?W
:::::::::::::f::::::'JJn::r:::::I::::;::::
0.67
0.62
--
--
--
~:::::::I::::::::,:::::::121:::::::::::::If:::::':I::::::::l:::r:::~B;t::t~\:::::::::

\ ,):~4: . ~~;::::::::::::ili:~T';"::::::::ij::'1~i~~:E6::,
0.4 0.8 0.71
0.17 0.25 0.21
0.26 0.67 0.38
-- 0.54 --
:::::::;;::::::::::::~;~1,:::::::::,:::::::::::::r::::':::::::::::::::::~';~~::::::::ii::i:::::::::
..::1:,
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
0.6
NC
0.21
NC
0.53
0.25
0.23
0.34
0.22
))::{):;3St5}
. . . . . .. .. .. . .
NC
NC
NC
0.85
NC
0.95
0.63
NC
0.41
NC
0.02
,..
--
--
--
--
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
--
--
0.12
0.07
0.38
--
--
-
:(!:fi:::]:lfM::::::j::::::::
0.18
;
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
0.11
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
::::::::::::':::'::::'::J.:~1:1::i:::::::::'::::
0.06
NC
0.4
0.06
--
NC
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
NC
NC
-------
.,' '.
Page 50
Table 15 (Continued)
Ecological Hazard Quotients for Chemicals in Sediment at Areas 5 and 6
::.~i~~I~~~~Jillll~!I!il!lllli ::!!!!!J!!:!:!:!::!ijl!;;;,:!!i'i;~~!!:!!!!::::ii!il!:!:!!:'i:!:!!!::I:i!!~:!!i:::!!!~!::~!:J!I!I!:::::!i=!!:~:J!I!:!i!!!J:::!!:! :::....

Heptachlor epoxide 0.6
MCPA
0.95
Notes:
-- means no toxicity reference value available.
~M4.~4.:y~m~ means hazard quotient exceeds 1.0.
NC nlcans"not a chemical of concern for this area.
DDE - dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethene
DDT - dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
MCPA - 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid
,;
-------
Table 16
Ecological Hazard Quotients for Chemkals in Surface Water at Areas 5 and 6
Page 51
A lu m in urn :::r:::::::r:~~I::t'&E::i:::r::::'::\li::r::r:,::\:@::r::t::::t~2:::(/:::::':::: ..
Antimony NC NC NC
Arsenic NC NC NC
~:~~jJ~~~t~jt~1~\t\rj~\l~~~~~[~\~j?i\~~~~\\~~j~1~~jtt\?t1~;~\j~\~t~fI)j~[~~\~rffjf\~~iJ~r~;tj~\rl~j~~fItf~\iii)f~~fIr~jH~f~~~Ii~~*J~~ttr~r\~~f~f:jt1~tt:
:::Im't:::;:I!:: ::::::::::::::':IY~I,::.;;:.;::: ::;::::::::mr.~::::':I': ::;::::;:::::::~1::;::::..:.::::::::::::::ID¥.f:::::m:i:;;;:::::::::IY~':::::;'::;::
:::r:$~~;::j::I;;: {;m::;::~~~4.J:,:::i, ::::::::::;;.~$.m~:::t:::::: :::::'j:::;::~I;J$.:'m( :::':::::1.$,n~tmm :::::;:':\lg1.~~:::::;r::
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.02 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.02
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead

Manganese
Nickel

Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
1,1- Dichloroet hane
1 t 1- Dichloroethene
Trichlorocthene
Water hardness (mg/L CaCOJ)
--
--
--
::::::::rU;I:::I:;:::'
0.02
NC
0.54
0.31
0.28
:::::f~f.I;":i: ::;::;::::I::;:~4;::'::i?
0.07 0.07
NC NC
::;:::::::::::::::~~~::::':::::::;:::n::::::f:::I~h1~::::;::::::,:::::)
0.96 0.4
........................-
::::r:f::;::::!~1:::::m::::;
--
--
--
0.05 0.2 0.3
::::@::,::m;::~I::::;;mIC:::;;':::j::;,:~m;::::;:;:::::;::::::r::::;:::::::~~:::;}::;:::j::::.
NC NC NC
:::::::::::::::;::;';I~~::::!:@:::::t ::;:::::::::;:;:;:::1'4::\:;:: --
-- -- --
0.004 0.001 0.003
-- -- --
III 38 3.5
Notes;
-- means no toxicity reference value available.
$h.adcdH~lue means hazard quotient exceeds 1.0.
JOOSO\9312.026\TBLl6
--
--
ti~~$.>:?%~ :;}:}:>hQ~:.
0.361~$$'::'d"
........
--
--
.m!;'!~:::::jI:;:I::::"~;~.::::)
0.00 0.00
t::;::'~~1:~:::{I;: :;':::';::::::~~~.... ...
u
--
--
--
}?lg~ .. ... . ::':~w:~:::m:::;:r::t~J.~::::::::WW f~::t:;:~;.$,7::::::\
::::::::::!~11.:J::::;::: 0.84 <::::;::::;'~i!.~;t@:@ 0.36
--
--
0.78
:'::(;:;ti~~:::::;:m::;:r
:;;::::tt@tr.;::::;::;;:;::
0.57
0.00
0.4
--
-- -- .-
0.16 0.79 0.33
NC NC NC
-- -- --
'::;,':~~Wi::::.:::Id:::::::',:::1;8~):'::m;
NC NC
NC NC
0.00 0.00
NC NC
0.2
NC
--
i::':::::::::~;'~~:.::::::l::;::::::::t:!~~:l'::
NC NC
NC NC
0.00 0.00
NC NC
.-
--
:::::,':tM~::::;:;:::::::::: 0.81
O.OO;:;@~Ii.!J1tI:/t
..::I:::::~:::!ill:::::;:;~::;::::: .M;Mjj~I::::::::t:.
-- --
0.44 0.11
NC NC
-- --
. .:::::~;:::::::!;f.~::;@::::; .::i;;:t::!~1:~:t::::::::::
NC NC
NC NC
0.00 0.00
NC NC
,s
. .
NC means not a chemical of concern for this area.
-------
- ~ _.. -. . .
..
Page 52

Tbe future movement of organic cbemicals in the groundwater at AIea 6 currently poses
the most significant human health risk at the site, because it could potentially affect
nearby drinking and agricultural water supplies. Future chemical infiltration, known as
leachate, from the landfill operations area into groundwater in Area 6 is possible. The
production of leachate poses a potential health risk to future hypothetical groundwater
users.
Remedial action for the groundwater is appropriate for the following reasons:
.
Water is infiltrating through the landfill operations area causing migration
of leachate to the shallow groundwater.
.
Data indicate that groundwater containing elevated concentrations of
volatile organic compounds is migrating toward the south.
.
Continued spread of this contaminated groundwater may affect drinking
water.
.
Tbe excess cancer risk associated with the reasonable maximum
groundwater exposure from the AIea 6 shallow aquifer is estimated to be 3
in 100. This risk exceeds the EP A acceptable risk range of 1 in 10,000 to 1
in 1,000,000.
Contaminated groundwater below the former hazardous waste storage area will be
remediated. Tbe former hazardous waste storage area will not be capped, because
volatile organic compounds have already leached through the soils into the groundwater.
Therefore, the soils at the former hazardous waste storage area do not pose a risk to
human health.
The goals of the final remedial action are the following:
30050\9312.026\TEXT
.
Reduce concentrations of contaminants that have already migrated into the
shallow aquifer with tbe ultimate goal of meeting state and federal drinking
water standards at point of compliance locations
.
Prevent the further spread of volatile organic compounds in the shallow
aquifer and treat extracted water to meet state and federal standards prior
to discharge
.
Reduce the potential risk to existing and future groundwater users located
downgradient of the site
..-,-.. .--.. .. --_...-.-. ---'.
-------
..
Page 53
.
Minimize infiltration of rainwater in the Area 6 landfill operations area to
prevent leachate generation and migration into the groundwater
.
Prevent potential impacts to downgradient surface water bodies and
aquatic organisms as a result of stormwater erosion of the surface soils at
the Area 6 landfill operations area
.
Prevent further migration of contaminated groundwater across the site
boundary and into the lower aquifers
.
Prevent exposure to contaminants within subsurface soil and debris in the
landfill operations area
Groundwater cleanup standards have been established to meet state and federal
requirements. These standards are based on MTCA Method B and are summarized in
Table 17.
The "cleanup levels" in Table 17 are based on the protection of human health, assuming
Area 6 groundwater is ingested as drinking water. The "compliance levels" take into
account analytical considerations and will be re-evaluated during the 5-year reviews. As
a result of these reviews, the use of improved analytical techniques with lower practical
quantitation limits may be required. In addition, the cumulative excess cancer risk
associated with the site will be reduced to, at most, 1 x 10-5, consistent with MTCA.
MTCA establishes "points of compliance" where groundwater compliance levels must be
attained. Compliance levels for the shallow aquifer are shown in Table 17. Usually the
groundwater compliance levels must be attained throughout the plume. However, where
hazardous substances remain on site as part of the cleanup action, a "conditional point of
compliance" can be established that must be as close as practicable to the source of the
contamination. The compliance levels must be attained from the conditional point of
compliance to the outer boundary of the plume.
Conditional points of compliance must be established for the former hazardous waste
storage area. Levels of trichloroethane and trichloroethene in wells N6-37 and N6-38
suggest that NAPL residuals may be present in the aquifer at or near the water table in
the former hazardous waste storage area. It may not be practicable to clean up the
groundwater directly beneath the former hazardous waste storage area, because there is
no way to remove NAPL residual oils if they are indeed there. In addition, the boundary
of the former hazardous waste storage area is not clearly defined. Therefore, for the
shallow aquifer groundwater, the conditional points of compliance for trichloroethene,
trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, and 1,2-dichloroethene will be no
greater than the circumference of a circle centered on a point halfway betWeen wells N6-
37 and N6-38 and not to exceed the western property boundary (see Figure 7). Wells
30050\9312.026\TEXT
-' - ...~.... .
.... - _._.~,-.- .-.
. ,,--,---.'.""---,--,".-".'-- ",-'---'----'----'- .-..-----.-.--.".. -. ------ --'--'-- ,,--. -'. -,-_..,._._...._._---_._-~.__._--_. ~-.'--. ---.
-------
Page 54
Table 17
Groundwater Cleanup Levels for Operable Unit I, NAS Whidbey
...:........ ..:..'.......II!~~~~I~~~~III;I.llijll::!III:lil!I..ill... :!ii'.III:,f.IIIII~~,~~~,!'!'i!!i:ii:.:1 ........-....-....--...-........,......" :.:~f:iji.:':::...n,l~k:.~.~.::r'.'.~..j.::f..... .m..t.}ro#c~ttf~4t$::: :.~I~~~[ll!~~~~i:.iil .:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
!...I:..:i!!'..ii'It.~~I~i~iJ!.!.1:1:1.11:'; ........-...... ......................... '1IIJi\!~!.~:.:"illtll!.[!.I.~.:.I':~..
I.:.~~:.p.l~~#.ij[f.~v~':..:... !t.:!t:pf~9HP;::BY~Jt
T.. ichloroct hene  5 MCL  1 .1 x  1 0.6  ..   5 O. 1
1 , I , I -Trich loroeth ane 200 M CL    --   O.28~  200 0.Q3
1 , 1 - Oichloroethane 800 MTCA B   --   0.006c  800 0.03
1 , I - Oichloroet hene 0.07 MTCA B  1 x 1 0.6 0.00 Ib  0.07 0.03
1  2- Oichloroethened 70 MCL    -'   0.875"  70 0.02
,          
Vi nyl chloride  0.02 MTCA B  1 x 1 0.6  --   O. 1 O. 1
Tot al risk/effects       3 x 1 0.6 1 162 8 x 10'6  
.PQL - practical quantitation limit (EPA Method 502.1)
"Hcpatotoxicity; total hazard quotient = 0.33
COthcr toxicity; total hazard quotient = 0.006
"Cis isomer

-------
~ ". -.. ~ -. .
'f'--
c
<:
o
a:
w
c
....J
o
C)
AUL T FIELD ROAD
N6-38
'f'
[~D
~
:J:
C)
:z:
~
~
en
~...-:.~



\"1= ~~
~
"
"
"
"
" I
II ,
\, ....~....-
\, ......~....
..\::::::::::.. -- -.- --:: -, ,- ::.,--:.-:'''''
'------
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"


.~
~
LEGEND
~
Area Boundary and Navy
Property Une
Monitoring Well
----..
NORTH

.
o
500
SCALE IN FEET
1000
I.
"
CLEAN Agure 7 eTO 0005
OPERABl£ UNIT 1
COMPREHENSIVE LONG- Conditional Points 01 Compliance NAS WHIOBEY, WA
TERM ENVIRONMENTAL ROD
ACTION NAVY  
-- - .-~-.. ~-- ..- -
0__" ---.. -- --.- _0_-
---------.-------'.---.--. -~~o--_.-..
. ----.--.-_... .~ ___-..0._.
--.- -- --.- .----.-.--
-----_...._- -'_-_'.0__-
.. - "-...-------.
-------
._. . .' .
- . "~.' "
.... - ."" .
Page 56
N6-37 and N6-38 were selected, because they are located at the suspected source area
and have the highest concentr~tions of trichloroethene and trichloroethane, respectively.
If trichloroethene or trichloroethane levels in additional wells installed outside this area
during the remedial action indicate the presence of NAPL residuals, these points of
compliance will be adjusted at the 5-year review.
Conditional points of compliance for vinyl chloride will be the perimeter of the landfill
operations area, because it corresponds to the edge of the source area.
8.2
Area 5
The Navy will conduct additional sampling and monitoring to determine whether metals
levels are consistent with ba~kground or elevated above levels of concern for human
health. If levels exceed background, EP A, Ecology, and the Navy will evaluate the
results and jointly determine what additional actions may be necessary.
Ecological risk was identified for the sediments and surface water in the wetlands
adjacent to Area 5. However, no source area was located and remedial action could
cause more environmental harm than the low levels of existing chemicals are likely to
cause.
9.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
9.1
Alternatives for Area 6
The feasibility study assessed the alternatives for remediation of Area 6. A total of four
alternatives were evaluated for possible implementation at Area 6:
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative 2 -
Institutional Controls
Alternative 3
Groundwater Extraction and Treatment by Air Stripping and
Capping Landfill Operations Area With Minimum Functional
Standards (MFS) Cap
Alternative 4 -
Groundwater Extraction and Treatment by Air Stripping and
Capping Landfill Operations Area With Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Cap
Alternatives 3 and 4 incorporate the interim action extraction and treatment system
currently under construction, which is expected to be operational and pumping by the
300s0\9312.026\TE.XT
.~ .. -. _._- . --.. _'n . _. ..._.~.- .
. ~ . .-...--... -..- ..
...-..--.... '.-.. -~_.__..__.
-------
..' ..." - ,.
. ""'. ..
. - . -.. .' .. "..~ .
-
Page 57
spring of 1994. The interim action involves the extraction, treatment, and discharge of
the treated Area 6 groundwater into the shallow aquifer. The extraction system consists
of seven wells that will pump groundwater at a combined rate of approximately 170
gallons per minute.
The treatment system consists of an air stripper to remove volatile organic compounds
from the groundwater. The remedial design for the air stripper will determine whether
the water, before entering the air stripper, must pass through a fIlter system to remove
iron and manganese, which would otherwise hinder the performance of the air stripper.
The air stripper causes volatile organic compounds to vaporize into the air. These
compounds will be released to the atmosphere only if air emission standards are
achieved. If the emission standards are not achieved, additional air pollution control
devices \J.-111 be installed.
The treated groundwater, which will meet federal and state cleanup standards, will be
returned to an infiltration/recharge system on the eastern boundary of Area 6. This
treated water will infiltrate through the soils into the shallow aquifer.
9.1.1 AJternative I-No Action
Alternative 1 is included for comparison purposes. This alternative would nOt require
any action at Area 6. It also assumes that the interim action will not be implemented.
The feasibility study report concluded that this alternative would not sufficiently protect
human health and the environment because of the potential for continued migration of
volatile organic compounds in shallow groundwater.
Capital cost
Present worth of operations and maintenance costs
Total
$0
$0
$0
9.1.2 Alternative 2-Institutional Controls
Alternative 2, institutional controls, could prevent or reduce exposure to chemicals of
concern on the site. Alternative 2 actions include a groundwater monitoring program,
fencing, posting of signs, and permanent restrictive covenants on future property deeds to
prevent development of the municipal landfill site or use of the groundwater below the
site. The Navy is continuing to provide connections to an alternate water supply to
private well owners in the vicinity of Area 6. Alternative 2 also includes providing an
alternate water supply. Other institutional controls that will be implemented include
restrictions preventing future well installation within or near the groundwater
contaminant plume. Alternative 2 assumes that the interim action will not be
implemented.
300S0\9312.026iTEXT
-......---..-.------ ~.~-~-~.__._._..._-_._. -- -.-----..-----.-..-.-...--------..------.. -.. .
-------
..
Page 58
Access to Area 6 is currently restricted; it is enclosed by a fence that is periodically
patrolled. The landfill operations area and former hazardous waste storage area within
Area 6 currently are not fenced. Alternative 2 actions would involve the construction of
a fence around the landfill operations area and the former hazardous waste storage area
to secure and restrict access. Signs posted at regular intervals and at the gates would
warn people of potential health threats. These restrictions could be maintained as long
as the federal government owns the property.
Because the federal government owns the Area 6 property, deed restrictions would be
implemented only if the station were closed. Deeds would then include restrictive
covenants written into the landfill property deed notifying potential purchasers that the
land was used for waste disposal and that land use and water rights are restricted.
The feasibility study report concludes that institutional controls alone would not
sufficiently protect human health and the environment at Area 6, because volatile
organic compounds in the groundwater may continue to migrate towards the site
boundary.
Capital cost (institutional controls)
Present worth of operations and maintenance costs
(based on $131,000 per year for 10 years discounted at 5 percent per year)
$131,000
$1,016,000
Total
$1,147,000
9.1.3 Alternative 3-Groundwater Extraction and Treatment by Air Stripping and
Capping Landfill Operations Area With MFS Cap
Alternative 3 includes (1) the interim action, which consists of extracting, treating, and
returning treated Area 6 groundwater to the shallow aquifer; (2) capping the Area 6
landfill operations area with an MFS (or equivalent) cap in accordance with Washington
State MFS regulations; (3) monitoring the groundwater in the shallow, intennediate, and
deep aquifers; (4) providing institutional controls; and (5) monitoring private wells.
An MFS cap is the cap design typical1y used when closing municipal landfills in the state
of Washington. The entire landfill operatioru; area (approximately 40 acres) would be
capped. It is not known how much waste was disposed of in the landfill.
The cap minimizes production of leachate by preventing rainwater from coming in
contact with the wastes. Layers of the cap typically include coarse sand with gas vents
over the fil1, an impermeable flexible membrane layer, a drainage layer of high-
permeability sand/gravel materials, and topsoil to provide a groWth medium for
vegetative cover. The gas venting system will allow gases generated by the
30050\9312.0:6ITEXT
. '.~..,. -- .-.. -- ~_._.-
. -.-.-'--"'--.".-..-'-'--' -_.
_.n' .-..-..-. n.. -.----....-.......-
.----- .--.--.._..~,..._,,_. -.
. .-- -- '"»-'.-'- n_.... .... _.nO . ". --.-.
.. ------...-
-------
. . .. .. -.
"
..
Page 59
decomposition of landfill wastes to be released to the air, preventing potential explosion
hazards. All vented gases will meet air emission standards.
Institutional controls associated with this alternative include fencing and signs to restrict
access to Area 6. In addition, restrictions will prevent future installation of water supply
wells within or near the groundwater contaminant plume. Should Area 6 become private
property, deed restrictions would also be required in order to prevent future intrusive
excavations within the capped area. It is not known how long the extraction and
treatment system will have to operate before remediation goals are met because of the
uncertainties associated with the site at this time.
Capital cost
(cost of MFS cap, extraction and treatment system, monitoring program)
Present worth of operations and maintenance costs
(based on $799,000 per year for 10 years discounted at 5 percent per year)
$12,064,000
S6,170,000
Total
$18,234,000
9.1.4 Alternative 4-Groundwater Extraction and Treatment by Air Stripping and
Capping Landfill Operations Area \Vith RCRA Cap
Alternative 4 includes the same groundwater and private well monitoring, institUt!r):1:ll
controls, and groundwater extraction, treatment, and return components described for
. Alternative 3. The only difference betWeen Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 is that
Alternative 4 includes capping the municipal landfill with a cover that satisfies the
RCRA program's regulatory requirements and design guidance for closure of hazardous
waste land disposal facilities. A RCRA cap is typically used to cap areas that contain
hazardous wastes regulated under the RCRA program, which is not the case for the
Navy landfill operations area in Area 6. Typically the RCRA cap consists of a sand layer
over the fill, at least 24 inches of compacted clay soil, an impermeable flexible
geomembrane liner, a drainage layer composed of sand and gravel, and a soil layer to
provide a growth medium for vegetative cover. The difference between the RCRA cap
and the MFS cap described in Alternative 3 is a 2-foot layer of clay under the
impermeable flexible membrane liner. Tbe duplicate low-permeability layers provide
added protection in case one layer develops a leak. Tbe gas venting system will allow
gases generated by the decomposition of landfill wastes to be released to the air,
preventing potential explosion hazards. All vented gases will meet air emission
standards.
300S0\9312.026\TE.'
-------
. . ~ .' . .. .' ..
.' .. " '" .
..
Page 60
Capital cost
(cost of RCRA cap, extraction and treatment system, monitoring program)
Present worth of operations and maintenance costs
(based on $899,000 per year for 10 years discounted at 5 percent per year)
Total
9.2
$15,960,000
$6,942,000
$22,902,000
Alternati\'es for Area 5
Remedial alternatives for Area 5 were not evaluated in the feasibility study despite the
fact that some exceedances of the EP A's A WQC had been detected in surface water
during the remedial investigation. No action at Area 5 was deemed appropriate, because
intrusive remedial action would likely cause more environmental harm than would the
low concentrations of chemicals actually present.
Since the completion of the feasibility study, some human health risk, primarily
associated with manganese, has been identified in the shallow groundwater in Area 5.
However, because there are uncertainties associated with the data and the remedial
investigation results are inconclusive, the Navy will conduct additional monitoring to
further characterize the metals concentrations. The additional monitoring wi11 use a low-
flow sampling method to reduce turbidity at a cost of approximately $8,500 to $20,000
for one to five rounds of sampling for six wells.
10.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Nine criteria established by EPA were used to evaluate the four remedial alternatives
and identify a preferred alternative.
.
.
.
.
Overall.protection of human health and the environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-term effectiveness and permanence
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment
Short-term effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State acceptance
Community acceptance
.
.
.
.
.
The following analysis for Area 6 briefly reviews and compares each of the alternatives
with the evaluation criteria.
3005019312.026ITEXT
.. -- . ..'W"" .'.. -...-.... '... ....' ,..' "
..' ...- '-. -...,. -.._._._-~~,"-_...~.._-- -..'"
--_._.._-.-.~._~ '.._--
-------
" .' ."
.' -. '.. ..,. . " ..,. . '''. ~
.,
Page 61
10.1
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Area 6 poses two risks. The first and primary risk is the potential for chemicals from the
fonner hazardous waste storage area that are already present in the shallow aquifer to
migrate farther away from this area. Future potential ingestion of affected groundwater
is the primary exposure pathway associated with the site. Alternatives 1 and 2 would not
adequately address this threat, because the potential for exposure via this pathway would
continue to exist. Implementation of these alternatives would not adequately protect
human health or the environment and would preclude the already selected interim
action.
By contrast, Alternatives 3 and 4 are considered protective of human health and the
environment. They incorporate the interim action and treat the extracted groundwater
to meet state and federal standards.
The second risk associated with Area 6 is the potential for leachate to be generated from
rainwater infiltrating the landfill operations area. The leachate may then migrate to
groundwater. Alternatives 3 and 4 provide capping as part of the remedial alternative to
minimize this risk. .
Although the cap specified in Alternative 3 is protective of human health and the
environment, the cap specified in Alternative 4 is somewhat more protective, because it
has an additional low-permeability layer.
10.2
Compliance With ARARs
Neither Alternative 1 nor Alternative 2 addresses remediation of the affected
groundwater. Accordingly, these alternatives would not comply with chemical-specific
ARARs that are used in addition to the risk assessment results to gauge protectiveness
(e.g., drinking water and groundwater criteria specified in the Safe Drinking Water Act
and MTCA). These ARARs are applicable to aquifer restoration and reintroduction of
treated groundwater to the shallow aquifer. Because these alternatives do not meet the
threshold criteria of protectiveness, they are eliminated from further evaluation.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would be required to meet state and federal standards for extracted
groundwater, as well as air and water discharge requirements. They would also be
required to meet landfill closure requirements. Alternatives 3 and 4 are considered
equivalent in terms of the threshold criteria (i.e., each alternative protects human health
and the environment and complies with ARARs).
300S0\9312.026\TEXT
.- . - ~.. .-- ....'
,.. .''"'-~'-''-~ --.-.
-------
'.. -.. ....
.... - .". .
Page 62
10.3
Long- Tenn Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 exhibit a high degree of long-term effectiveness and
permanence; air strippers typically have removal efficiencies of 95 to 99 percent. Both
alternatives include reliable, commonly used groundwater extraction equipment that
should operate effectively until aquifer remediation is complete. Both alternatives would
be effective in the long term in mitigating risks associated with groundwater.
The RCRA cap specified in Alternative 4 may be considered somewhat more effective in
reducing infiltration than the MFS cap specified in Alternative 3 because of its slightly
lower permeability. However, the difference in permeability would not significantly
affect the effectiveness or duration of the groundwater treatment component of these
alternatives.
Both caps effectively reduce infiltration of rainwater into the landfill contents, thereby
minimizing production of leachate and contamination of the aquifer. Both caps
effectively eliminate concerns associated with contact/ingestion of landfill contents and
associated soils. Proper maintenance would be required to ensure the effectiveness of
either cap in the long term.
Alternatives 3 and 4 are considered equivalent in terms of this criterion.
10.4
Reduction of Toxicity, :\1obility, and Volume Through Treatment
The groundwater treatment system that is being constructed under the interim action and
is incorporated into the final remedial action as part of Alternatives 3 and 4, will remove
volatile organics from the groundwater. Groundwater will be treated by air stripping
with a removal efficiency of 95 to 99 percent. Although air stripping results in a transfer
of contaminants from one medium to another (groundwater to air), it is considered
treatment.
It is considered too costly and technically infeasible to excavate the landfill and treat the
associated soils or dispose of them off site. Therefore, Alternative 3 and Alternative 4
rely on containment of landfill contents and soils as a principal component. Alternatives
3 and 4 are equivalent in terms of this criterion.
10.5
Short-Term Effectiveness
In terms of short-term effectiveness, Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 are similar. Some
particulate emissions are expected to occur during the installation of the cap under
either alternative. However, dust control methods would reduce this risk. Other
potential exposures may result from contact with groundwater during extraction well
installation and treatment plant shakedown activities. Additional risks would include
30050\9312.026\TE.XT
. '.. ..OM 0.... _.M______---'.'. ..... -. ..----.,-..-'------...-
- ... ....-. '....0 _.--"".
-------
.~. ~'. '"
'.
Page 63
physical hazards associated with construction. Careful implementation of site-specific
safety protocols would effectively minimize these risks.
Although the estimated times required to construct the cap for Alternative 3 and
Alternative 4 are comparable (approximately 8 months), the estimated construction time
for the RCRA-type cap is approximately 2 months longer than for the MFS cap.
The extraction and treatment system will contain the plume immediately upon
commencement of the pumping system. Aquifer restoration will require many years of
pumpmg.
10.6
Implementability
Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 incorporate demonstrated technologies (e.g., capping and
air stripping) that are commonly applied to landfills and groundwater. Both alternatives
are considered readily implementable; no unusual construction difficulties are
anticipated. Although permits are not required under CERC~ the substantive
requirements of permits must be met. There are no significant administrative
impediments for identification of these substantive requirements. These alternatives
consist of technologies that have proved reliable in similar previous applications. All
necessary equipment and specialists are readily available.
10.7
Cost
The estimated cost of Alternative 3 is $18 million. The estimated cost of Alternative 4 is
$23 million, which, in today's dollars, over 10 years exceeds the estimated cost of
Alternative 3 by approximately 28 percent.
10.8
State Acceptance
Ecology concurs with the selection of the final remedial alternative for both Areas 5 and
6. Ecology has been involved with the development and review of the Remedial
Investigation, Feasibility Study, Proposed Plan, and Record of Decision. Ecology
comments have resulted in substantive changes to these documents.
10.9
Community Acceptance
On July 14, 1993, the Navy held a public meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan for final
remedial action at au 1. The results of the public meeting indicated that community
members had major concerns about the effect of the Area 6 extraction and treatment
system on regional groundwater supplies, protection of groundwater resources, and the
proposal to not cap the former hazardous waste storage area. On August 25, 1993, EP A
held a public information meeting to further discuss the technical details of the proposed
3OO50\9312.026\TEXT
-...". ~---_._.__...-.- .-u.. ..._._..__.~.n.___.----"U_-'- .-._-_.-.._..
-------
. ." 0 .~, ... ""',..... ..... ~
'.' '''.'' " I '.'" .
. ~...", -.... ...'
.~
Page 64
remedies. There is still some community skepticism about the selected remedy.
Community response to the remedial alternatives is presented in the responsiveness
summary, which addresses questions and comments received during the public comment
period (Appendix A).
11.0 THE SELECTED REMEDY
11.1
Area 6 Remedy
A combination of landfill capping and groundwater control actions is the best way to
achieve the broader goal of restoring groundwater in the shallow aquifer to levels that
are protective of human health and the environment. The Navy's selected remedy for
Area 6 to meet this goal at au 1 incorporates the interim action remedy (groundwater
extraction and treatment by air stripping) and capping the landfill operations area with
an MFS cap (Alternative 3). An MFS cap meets regulatory requirements and is
protective of human health and the envirorunent. A RCRA cap (Alternative 4) is not
necessary, because no RCRA wastes were known to have been disposed of in the landfill
operations area. .
The major components of the selected remedial action include the following:
.
Capping the landfill operations area trenches with an MFS cap
.
Assessing the interim action extraction system to ensure that it achieves
aquifer cleanup levels and specifically to determine the need for additional
source area extraction wells
.
Extracting groundwater from the shallow aquifer at the western boundary
of the landfill, treating it by air stripping, and returning the treated
groundwater to the shallow aquifer at an on-site location
.
Monitoring groundwater in the shallow, intermediate, and deep aquifers to
assess the effectiveness of the groundwater treatment system
.
Monitoring private drinking water wells in the vicinity of the landfill
.
Implementing institutional controls
The former hazardous waste storage area will not be capped. Rainwater will continue to
infiltrate through the contaminated subsurface soils. Concentrations of volatile organic
compounds present in the soils are not sufficient to constitute an unacceptable CERCLA
risk. The concentrations are below levels that are considered to be protective of
30050\9312.026\TEXT
--,..,.,-,-,.,.",-,."" -." ...., ...-._,_.
.. ... ,,"'~-"'-.~----'- .---..---..-....
"-"--"---""'-"--'
-..--..., _.-------
.-..--.....-- .-.-. """'--.--'-".-"--'-'--. -....
-------
. .., - ,. .. ~
'.."', ... .' ,'..
. '''.,'' .'
. .. . ~..' """",,,,, '. " -. .' . .
-.
Page 65
groundwater (100 x groundwater cleanup levels). The highest concentrations of
trichloroethene, 17 parts per billion (ppb), are found at 40 feet below ground surface.
Volatile organic compounds have most likely been washed by rainwater into the
subsurface soils and into the shallow aquifer. If the former hazardous waste storage area
were capped, these chemicals would be trapped in the subsurface soil. Leaving the area
uncapped allows the chemicals to continue to be flushed out of the soil by rainwater.
washing through the soil into the groundwater, where they will be captured by the
groundwater extraction and treatment system. An extraction well will be placed at or
near the former hazardcrus waste storage area to treat the groundwater in this area,
which had the highest detected concentrations of volatile organic compounds. The
groundwater will be treated to remove volatile organic compounds.
The goal of the Area 6 remedial action is to restore groundwater to its beneficial use,
which is, at this site, drinking water. Based on information obtained during the
Remedial Investigation and on a careful analysis of all remedial alternatives, EPA,
Ecology, and the Navy believe that the selected remedy should be able to achieve this
goal. The effectiveness of this remedy and the compliance levels (as established in
Table 17) will be re-evaluated at least every 5 years. It may become apparent, during
implementation or operation of the groundwater extraction system and its modifications,
that contaminant levels have ceased to decline and are remaining constant at levels
higher than the remediation goal throughout a portion of the contaminated plume. In
such a case, the system performance standards and/or the remedy may be re-evaluated.
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction. The system's performance will
be carefully monitored on a regular basis and adjusted as warranted by the performance
data collected during operation. Pumping may be discontinued if there is an impact on
nearby private drinking water wells or if it is shown that pumping has resulted in salt
water intrusion. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the groundwater extraction system will
be ongoing. If progress toward achievement of remedial action goals is not apparent,
modifications to the extraction system will be evaluated by the Navy, EPA, and Ecology.
Modifications may include any or all of the following:
.
Pumping may be discontinued at individual wells where remediation goals
have been attained.
.
Pumping rates may be varied to eliminate stagnation points.
.
Pulse pumping may be incorporated to allow the aquifer to equilibrate and
adsorbed contaminants to partition into groundwater.
.
Additional extraction wells may be installed to facilitate or accelerate
cleanup of the contaminant plume.
30050\9312.026\TEXT
~ ,...-.. -,_..- -...-..- ...-.-...
...--.-- '... P""'-- .
., _.~.'-- -,''''-'-'-'-''- ---_. .. .
. .- "--" .... .
. -- .-'-. '..-..--.-....' _... --
. -..-.-'-.. -.."" .....- - --- .' -. -.. .... ..,
-------
. " '.,.
..
Page 66
.
New technologies may be implemented that have been proven to be more
effective.
.
Additional source control measures may be implemented for the former
hazardous waste storage area.
11.1.1 Area 6 Landfill Cap
A low-permeability cap will be placed over the landfill operations trenches. The purpose
of the cap is to minimize the migration of contaminants to groundwater by reducing the
infiltration of precipitation through the fill areas. The cap will be designed, constructed,
and maintained to meet the closure requirements of the State of Washington Minimum
Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling.
Soils and sediments 1hat are not designated as hazardous or dangerous wastes but have
been removed as part of remedial actions at other operable units at NAS Whidbey
Island may be placed in the Area 6 landfill operations area prior to capping. The
placement of the soils and sediments will meet state and federal regulatory requirements
and will be subject to public comment as part of the Proposed Plans for the other
operable units.
11.1.2 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment by Air Stripping
The goal of the groundwater extraction system is to prevent further migration of
contaminated groundwater from the source areas and remediate contaminated
groundwater. To accomplish this goal, at least seven extraction wells screened across the
entire shallow aquifer will be installed along the western boundary and the western
portion of tbe soutbern boundary of Area 6. The radial capture zone for each extraction
well is projected to be approximately 800 feet. Preliminary calculations indicate that an
extraction rate of 24 gallons per minute per well will be necessary to fully contain and
remediate the plume. .
A metals pretreatment system may be required to ensure that the air stripper operates
effectively. After pretreatment, water will pass through the air stripper where volatile
organic compounds will be removed from the water and released to the atmosphere.
Emissions from the air stripping unit will meet the substantive requirements of state air
quality regulations. If necessary, pollution control equipment will be added to the air
stripper system.
11.1.3 Groundwater Monitoring-Monitoring Wells
Shallow groundwater in Area 6 will be monitored to assess the effectiveness of the
groundwater treatment system. Monitoring will continue throughout operation of the
30050\9312.0'26,TE.,\(T
. ..... ...
... -.. ..' --",. _._....... ._w~.
.. .-..'--.,.---..
-------
-.... - .~. .
Page 67

treatment system. Area 6 monitoring wells in the intermediate and deep aquifers will be
monitored to track volatile organic compounds and metals previously detected and to
assess the possibility of vertical migration of contaminants. Wells will be monitOred for
volatile organic compounds, metals, and for salinity. Monitoring parameters and
frequency for all aquifers will be determined in the remedial action work plan.
11.1.4 Groundwater Monitoring-Private Drinking Water Wells
Six private drinking water wells close to OU 1 will be monitored every 18 months for
volatile organic compounds and salinity. Results will be evaluated after 4.5 years (three
sampling events). If no volatile organic compounds are detected and the plume has been
contained, monitOring will be discontinued. If volatile organic compounds are detected,
potential sources and additional monitoring will be evaluated.
11.1.5 Institutional Controls
The selected remedy for Area 6 will include institutional controls such as restricting
access, preventing installation of on-site drinking water wells, and attaching restrictions
to any future property deed. These controls will minimize human exposure to the
contaminants that will remain on site. Periodic public meetings and press releases will
be prepared to inform the public about any issues or concerns regarding au 1.
11.2
Area 5
The Navy will monitor groundwater in the shallow aquifer for metals no later than 6
months after the ROD is signed. No further action is required for soils, sediments, or
surface water at Area 5.
Area 5 monitoring wells will be selected based on proximity to the excavation area.
Area 5 monitoring wells will be monitored for metals using low-flow sampling techniques
to determine whether on-site metals concentrations are at or below natural background
concentrations. Results will be evaluated after the first sampling event. If metals
concentrations are at or below background levels, monitoring will be discontinued. If
metals concentrations are above background and levels established for the protection of
human health, EP A, Ecology, and the Navy will evaluate the data and determine
necessary further actions. These may include, but are not limited to, institutional
controls, such as restrictions preventing the use of the shallow groundwater, or further
monitOring to assess trends in metals concentrations.
300S0IQ312.026\TE.,,(T
- ..--..-------..- ..- ---. . . ..
,,-,--,-,.'."'--' .
. ..----.... .--.-----.- ...----.____.n. - .'
-------
. '...~' .,
.... -.~.'
Page 68
u.o STATUTORY DETER..\1INATIONS
Under CERCLA Section 121, selected remedies must be protective of human health and
the environment, comply with ARARs, be cost-effective, and use permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practical. In addition, CERCLA includes a preference for remedies
that use 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 for Area 6 meets these statutory requirements.
12.1
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected final remedial action for Area 6 protects human health and the
environment through source and groundwater controls. Implementation of this remedial
action will not pose unacceptable short-term risks for site workers or nearby residents.
Installation of the landfill cap will prevent direct exposure to contaminants within the
landfill and will minimize the migration of contaminants to the groundwater. The cap
will provide long-term effectiveness through operation and maintenance activities.
The groundwater extraction and treatment system will prevent migration of the
contaminant plume and permanently remove contaminants from the groundwater.
Contaminants will be transferred from groundv,!ater to the air stripper.
12.2
Compliance With ARARs
The selected remedy for Area 6 will comply with federal and state ARARs that have
been identified. No waiver of any ARAR is being sought or invoked for any component
of the selected remedy. The ARARs identified for the au 1 site include, but are not
limited to, those discussed in the following sections.
12.2.1 Action-Specific ARARs
.
Requirements of the State of Washington for water well construction as set forth
in Chapter 18.104 RCW (Water Well Construction) and codified in WAC 173-160
(Minimum Standards for the Construction and Maintenance of Wells) and WAC
173-162 (Regulation and Licensing of Well Contractors and Operators) are
applicable, because they establish criteria for the construction and maintenance of
extraction wells.
.
Requirements of the State Underground Injection Control Program (WAC 173-
218) as approved under the Safe Drinking Water Act are applicable, because they
set forth the procedures and practices for the injection of fluids through wells into
the waters of the state and specify that all known available and reasonable
300.s0\9312.026\TEXT
'. ~. ._~_._-~~..... -.. -~- "'"
. .""--' ...-.- ----..---- ,--,--..,---",- '''-.--'.--''
..- .-.------- ..- - _..~ --'.-'" . .-......,.... ....
-------
'."'" . -..-.--.- ",.--"'.'.' '.. .. ,- .
'. ... .' ~., .
..
Page 69
methods of prevention, control, and treatment be used to preserve and protect
underground sources of drinking water.
.
State of Washington requirements for hazardous waste operations conqueted at
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, as set forth in WAC 296-62 (Part P), are
applicable because they establish occupational health standards and safe operating
procedures.
.
Federal Clean Water Act requirements for design standards for wastewater
treatment plants (40 C.F.R. part 133) are applicable to the construction of the
wastewater treatment plant.
.
The Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW) and the Water Resources
Act of 1971 (Chapter 90.54 RCW) are applicable, because they require the use of
all known and reasonable methods for controlling discharges to surface water and
groundwater.
.
State of Washington requirements for fugitive emissions (WAC 173-400-075) are
applicable, because they establish emissions standards for sources emitting
hazardous air pollutants and apply in this instance to the handling of material
during construction and operation.
.
State of WashingtOn Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303) are
applicable, because they establish standards for the handling, storage, and disposal
of investigation-derived waste.
.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D (40 C.F.R.
part 258, subpart F) establishes applicable federal standards for the closure and
post-closure care of nonhazardous solid waste landfills.
.
WAC 173-351, a revised version of WAC 173-304, reflects recent federal Subtitle
D requirements and specifies relevant and appropriate requirements for Minimum
Functional Standards for cap designs.
.
The State of Washington Hazardous Waste Cleanup-Model Toxies Control Act
(MTCA; Chapter 70.150D RCW) is applicable, because it establishes cleanup
standards for facilities where hazardous substances have corne to be located as
codified in Chapter 173-340 WAC, and for determining compliance monitOring
requirements.
.
The Noise Control Act (42 U.S.c. 4910; 70.107 RCW) is applicable for the design
of the air stripper system.
30050\9311.026\TE.XT
,...., ,_., .-----'.'. ..- ~,., -... ,
---~_.__.,-_._..__.,_.. --. -.'-, .
-------
. .. ~. '... . . .
", . ." . . .' " .
..
Page 70
.
The State Waste Discharge Permit Program (WAC 173-216), which governs
nonpermitted discharges or injection to groundwater, is applicable, because
groundwater will be reintroduced to the shallow aquifer via vertical drains.
12.2.2 Chemical-Specific ARARs
.
General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources (WAC 173-400-075) are applicable.
because they establish emission standards for vinyl chloride and other hazardous
air pollutants.
.
The State of Washington Hazardous \Vaste Cleanup-Model Toxics Control Act
(MTCA; Chapter 70.150 RCW) is applicable for determining cleanup standards.
.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (40 C.F.R. parts 141, 142, 143) is applicable for
determining cleanup levels.
.
Controls for New Sources of Toxic Air Pollutants (WAC 173-460) are applicable
to the design of the air stripper system. WAC 173-460-150 lists trichloroethene
and vinyl chloride as Class A toxic air pollutants with acceptable source impact
levels of 0.8 micrograms per cubic meter (J.Lg/m3) and 0.023 J.Lg/m3, respectively.
To qualify as a small quantity exemption in accordance with WAC 173-460-080.
the ma.ximum emission rate would be 50 pounds per year for trichloroethene and
10 pounds per year for vinyl chloride or the acceptable source impact level for the
compound. The acceptable source impact level for Class B toxic air pollutants is
2,6973 p.g for 1,I-dichloroethane; 2,630.7 J.Lg for 1,2-:dichloroethene; and 6,327.0
J.Lg for 1,1, I-trichloroethane. For these Class B toxic air pollutants to classify as a
small quantity emission, the maximum emission rate would be 43,748 pounds per
year for each Class B toxic air pollutant or the acceptable source impact level for
each compound. WAC 173-460 sections 040 and 050 provide procedures for new
sources to demonstrate to permitting authorities that the emissions meet small
quantity exemption status. This regulation would be applicable in determining
whether the emissions from the groundwater extraction and air stripper treatment
action qualify for the small quantity exemption. If the levels of toxic air pollutants
exceed the levels that would qualify the source under the small quantity
exemption, a notice of construction is required in accordance with WAC 173-400
and WAC 173-460. Although the administrative requirements associated with
obtaining a permit are not applicable, the substantive requirements are applicable.
The owner of the new source would be required to notify the Northwest Air
Pollution Control Agency and install best available control technology for toxics
(T-BACf) on the emissions.
30050\9312.026iTEXT
. ... --.---., -M -_....._m,'"''
. --._-------- ----,_. --
.-.. -.- --_...- -..-..---..--
-------
..
Page 71
12.2.3 Location-Specific ARARs
.
Tbe Wetland Protection Act (Executive Order 11990, 40 C.F.R. part 6,
Appendix A) is applicable to protect on-site wetlands.
.
The Rare and Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.c. ~ 1531, et seq.; 50 C.F.R.
parts 200 and 402) is applicable because a bald eagle has been sighted i~ the
area.
12.2.4 Other Criteria, Advisories, or Guidance
There are no other criteria, advisories. or guidance to be considered for the remedial
action.
12.3
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy provides overall effectiveness proportionate to its cost. The
groundwater extraction system and MFS cap over the laridfill operations area provides
reasonable value for the associated cost.
12.4
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies
The selected remedy for Area 6 uses permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies practicable for this site. The remedy treatS contaminated groundwater.
The risk from groundwater contamination is permanently reduced through treatment
without transferring risk to other media. The selected remedy provides the best balance
of long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume
achieved through treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementability; and cost.
12.5
Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy for Area 6 satisfies the statutOry preference for treatment by using
treatment as a primary method to permanently reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume
of groundwater contaminants.
13.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan was released for public comment in June 1993. The Proposed Plan
identified Groundwater Extraction and Treatment by Air Stripping and Capping with an
MFS Cap as the preferred alternative (Alternative 3). The Navy reviewed all written
and verbal comments submitted during the public comment period. Upon review of
30050\931 :.D:6\TE.XT
n .. .,- --. -... _.- '----'---'--'-'--'--~"- -.-. _0'_---'-----'.'-' .-. --...------------' -.-..
-..-.----_..-
-------
. ~, "'" ~. .
.,
Page 72

these comments, it was determined that no significant changes to the selected remedy, as
originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
Soils and sediments that are not designated as hazardous or dangerous wastes but have
been removed as part of remedial actions at other operable units at NAS Whidbey
Island may be placed in the Area 6 landfill operations area prior to capping.
:>-:x1S0\9312.026\TEXT
-"-""..-,,-,
-..,-......-.- __'4
""-,_. .-----.--------.-..--.- --'---'"
-------
.' ... ~
. ... .' ..
APPENDIX A
RESPONSIVENESS SUMlV1ARY
... - ."- -
~. -- _.--~"---_.--- ...n.- _. - .-... ......-----. ..- ---..... -_.- -.- ...----.---. ..__.~~..
"'--'. ._~._.- ... . ..-...-----.--.-.------ .'.--'--' """.- .n. ... .- ._.
-------
.. . '. "'. '.
. , ".' ' '.. "
.' - .' ,. .. "- ..
..
Page A-I
RESPONSNENESSSUMMARY
The public comment period on tbe Proposed Plan for NAS Whidbey Island, Operable
Unit 1 (OU 1), was held from June 24, 1993, to August 25, 1993. A public meeting was
held on July 14, 1993, to explain the Proposed Plan and solicit public comments.
Members of the public and local newspaper media attended the meeting and
participated in a discussion following the presentation. The transcript of the formal
commentS stated at the public meeting is available in the Administrative Record. This
appendix is a summary of the responses by the United States Navy (Navy) to items
raised in the written comments and to those issues discussed during the public meeting.
The specific requirements for public participation pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Section Il7(a),
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), include
releasing the Proposed Plan to the public. For the interim action, the Proposed Plan was
issued on January 3, 1992, and the public meeting was held on January 27, 1992.
Landowners included in the water hookup program were sent special mailings informing
them of tbe interim action Proposed Plan. For the final action, the Proposed Plan was
issued on June 24, 1993. The public comment period on the final proposed remedial
action waS extended from July 23, 1993, to August 25, 1993. A public meeting was held
July 14, 1993.
In addition to the public meeting, tbe United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EP A) sponsored a public information session on August 25, 1993, to provide more
technical details about the remedial investigations at OU 1 and to discuss the rationale
for the Navy's proposed actions. As a result of these public commentS, some cbanges to
the Proposed Plan have been made and are incorporated into this Record of Decision
(ROD).
Documents pertaining to both the interim and final actions were placed in the following
information repositories:
Oak Harbor Library
7030 70th N.E.
Oak Harbor, Washington
Phone: (206) 675-5115
98277
NAS Whidbey Island Library (for individuals with base access)
1115 W. Lexington St.
Oak Harbor, Washington 98278-2700
Phone: (206) 257-2702
J0050\9JI2.D:6IAppcodix.A
..... '-" .--.-'.....---- --~_._- ~..~....
. ... -. ,--- ..-,.'-'--"'---. - ~,
-------
.~
Page A-2
Sno-Isle Regional Library System
Coupeville Library
788 N. W. Alexander
Coupeville, Washington 98239
Phone: (206) 678-4911
The Administrative Record (see Appendix B for an index) is on file at the following
location:
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
1040 N.E. Hostmark Street
Olympic Place 2
Poulsbo, Washington 98370
Phone: (206) 396-5984
Community relations activities have established communication between the citizens
living near the site, the Navy, EP A, and the Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology). Two citizens are members of the technical review committee and have
received copies of all draft documents for review. Discussion has been open among the
different groups to exchange information and suggestions on the project. The actions
taken to satisfy the statutory requiremems also provided a forum for citizen involvemem
and input to the Proposed Plan and ROD.
Approximately 30 comments were received on the Proposed Plan for final remedial
action. A summary of the comments, as well as the Navy's responses, follows.
Expansion of Technical Revi~w Committee
Will the Navy expand the technical review committee (TRC) to include representatives
from concerned citizen groups? Tbe TRC needs to be phased out and an
Implementation Committee fonned to serve in an advisory capacity to document that
projects are executed. per the design agreement. Will the Navy fund the efforts of these
review committees?
Two local citizens have served on the TRC throughout the Remedial Investigation and .
Feasibility Study process for OU 1. These two citizens are volunteers and are not
funded by the Navy. Whereas the Navy is unable to fund community review groups,
EP A and Ecology grant funds are available. .
The Department of Defense (000) has adopted recommendations outlined in the
Interim Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialog Committee,
February 1993, for increased public participation at federal facility Superfund sites.
300S0\9312.026\AppcndiJr..A
. -..------
.--- - _.. ...---...-". -"..-.. -.--'"'-- .-.
-------
... - .-.'
Page A-3
NAS Whidbey Island has been selected as one of five naval installations to serve as a
"pilot" for expanding the existing TRC. These expanded TRCs will be renamed
RestOration Advisory Boards or RABs. RAB members will be nominated by the current.
TRC membership. This new concept will be developed to improve the process of
information exchange and to work with the agencies to ensure that the projects are
executed per the agreements. The RAE for NAS Whidbey Island will be set up starting
in ~ovember 1993, and the first RAE meeting is scheduled for early 1994.
Ca{>Dine the Fonner Hazardous Waste Storage Area
Why is the Navy proposing to not cap the former hazardous waste storage area?
During the public comment period the Navy received numerous comments on the issue
of capping the former hazardous waste storage area. All commentors felt that this area
should be capped. As a result of public concerns, the Navy, EPA, and Ecology
thoroughly reevaluated the data to determine the best course of action.
Landfills or land disposal areas are capped to prevent the generation of leachate and to
prevent direct contact with contamination. In the Proposed Plan and subsequent public
meetings, it may not have been made clear to the public that the contaminant
concentrations in the soils in the former hazardous waste storage area do not constitute a
dangerous hot spot. The concentrations of volatile organic compounds in the soils are
below the established levels for the protection of human health. In this case, the soil
data show that volatile organic compounds that may have been present in the former
hazardous waste storage area have already leached through the soil. Thus, future
generation of leachate and continued contamination of groundwater are not a concern in
this area, as opposed to the landfill operations area. Most of the chemicals that were
stored or disposed of at the former hazardous waste storage area have been washed by
rainwater into the subsurface soils and into the shallow aquifer. Therefore, capping the
area would not accomplish the objective of preventing the generation of leachate.
Volatile organic compounds are found at varying concentrations in the soils beneath the
hazardous waste storage area. The highest concentrations of trichloroethene, 17 parts
per billion (ppb) and 40 ppb, are found at 40 feet below the ground surface. Therefore,
direct contact with or ingestion of contaminated soil is not a concern in this area. All
concentrations in soil in the vicinity of the former hazardous storage area are less than
the Washington State Model Toxics Control Act Method B values established for
protection of groundwater. If an additional cover were installed over the former
hazardous waste stOrage area, the low concentrations of chemicals would remain in the
subsurface soil and would never be remediated. Leaving the area uncapped allows the
chemicals to continue to be flushed out of the soil by rainwater washing through the soil
column into the groundwater, which is being treated to remove the volatile organic
compounds.
300S0\9312.026\Appendix.A
.-. .-.-..- «--...-'.---.-. -... ---_._-_... -----.._- .-... -- -.----.-..-.--------'-" .-., ..... .
. . -. ..-.. --.. "...--..,",....,-..,-......-.--------.-..-.
-------
- '..' '... -..
. . .. , ~ .,. - , . . ,.. .. , .' ~" .".
.,
Page A-4
One extraction well has been installed in the fonner hazardous waste storage area to
treat the groundwater with the highest concentrations of volatile organic compounds.
Additional wells may be installed in the future, if needed. The Navy, EPA, and Ecology
agree that, based on the data and all available information, this is the best course of
action to take at this time. This decision also provides the Navy with maximum
flexibility. If this remedial action is not sufficient, does not work as anticipated, or if
viable new technologies become available in the future, the Navy can easily make
adjustments that could not be made if a cap were in place. Because the installation of a
cap at this time would not provide additional protection to human health or the
environment, it represents an unnecessary expenditure of public funds.
Effects of Pumping
There are regional problems with saltwater intrusion irito drinking water aquifers.
Won't the pumping by the Navy make this problem worse? Won't the pumping cause
the aquifer to go dry? Will the pumping draw contamination from the Oak Harbor
Landfill or the Melco site?
Site records (drilling logs and cross sections) report that the shallow aquifer, which is the
only aquifer that will be pumped, is hydraulically isolated from the sea level aquifer by
two confining layers of low-permeability soil and an intervening aquifer. Because the
treatment system is designed so that the rate of recharge v.r:ill equal the rate of p:.lmping,
the aquifer will not go dry. Thus, no regional impacts on the aquifers are anticipated
from the groundwater extraction system.
It is very difficult to pull water upgradient and, according to groundwater modeling that
has been completed for Area 6, the impacts of pumping are not expected to extend
significantly in a downgradient direction. Therefore, the pumping should not draw any
groundwater from beneath the Oak Harbor Landfill or Meleo. Groundwater levels will
be monitored during groundwater extraction to ensure that water is not pulled
upgradient from these sites. If necessary, pumping rates will be modified. In addition,
only low levels of contamination (below health-based criteria) have been found in the
shallow aquifer beneath these sites.
Localized pumping and recharge in the shallow aquifer should have no impact on
regional groundwater quality. There will be no impact on the direction of groundwater
flow within the sea level aquifer, and this action should not create saltwater intrusion
problems on northern Whidbey Island. However, because of this public concern. the
Na...y will monitor for salinity on a regular basis after pumping begins. Area wells will
also be monitored for volatile organic compounds and water levels to confirm that the
extraction system is not affecting the aquifer beyond the plume area. The extraction
system will be monitored closely and if there is any indication of a problem, the system
will be shut down until the problems are identified and all options are evaluated.
30050\9312.0261Appc:ndiJl.A
.."'-".'----.-".-. ..-. ,.-.... -. ----..-..-.
. .------ _. -,..--..-.------- ""'0.--".'-' u.
. -------.-..-..--.
-------
., .~ . , .'
, ...' .' ~, .. . . - . . .
- _0, - . ...' -. -. -. .... .
..
Page A-5
Location of Rechaq~e Area for Treated Groundwater
The location of the recharge area for treated groundwater is very important. The
recharge area should be down gradient at an off-site location to provide a hydraulic
barrier.
There are legal and administrative problems associated with placing the recharge area in
1
a downgradient off-site location to help contain the plume. "lmplementability" is one of
the nine criteria used to evaluate remedial alternatives. Although there might be strong
technical arguments to support an off-site location, the Navy has determined that
because of the legal difficulties of obtaining access to off-site private property, it would
simply not be practical to implement such a course of action.
The location of the recharge area for return of treated water to the shallow aquifer was
based on a computer simulation of the groundwater flow regime beneath the landfill and
will result in the formation of a groundwater mound that will push landfill contaminants
westerly toward the groundwater extraction system. This process is intended to speed
the removal of these contaminants from the subsurface soils. The extraction system has
been designed to provide for the capture of these contaminants and the plume should
not be pushed westward. Monitoring of groundwater levels will be conducted throughout
the operation of the extraction system to ensure that this is the case.
Local Seismic Fault
Have you considered the effect of the fault zone along Goldie Road and the high arsenic
concentrations that are associated with that fault?
The Navy is familiar with the fault zone mapped by the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) that is perpendicular to Goldie Road. Elevated levels of arsenic have been.
found in the intermediate and deep aquifers, but no water will be extracted from these
aquifers. In the shallow aquifer, there is no indication of high arsenic concentrations
associated with the fault. However, if arsenic concentrations were elevated as a result of
the fault or other geological conditions, the concentrations would be considered natural
background conditions and the Navy cannot be held responsible for remediation. Based
on sampling conducted in December 1992, the groundwater in the shallow aquifer at
Area 6 does not have concentrations of arsenic high enough to require treatment.
Exoansion of Area of Investieation
The Melco facility and Oak Harbor Landfill should be included in the investigation of
OU 1. A three-dimensional model should be developed of the region and the boundaries
of the investigation should be dictated by the topographic features defining the drainage
basin within which the Area 6 landfill site is located.
30050\93 i 2.026IAppcadu.A
~"~'---.'O_O'-'-'- '-"-'-" - ,. .-... . -..- -...-.-.
.._-_.........~--
.. .--._--_. ~-_...-. .-- . .
.......--.--.--...... ... .
-------
... - .-. .
Page A-6
Potential Superfund sites go through an extensive investigation and scoring process prior
to being listed on EP A's National Priorities List (NPL). In the case of NAS Whidbey
Island, the designated Superfund site is Ault Field. The property boundary defines the
actUal site unless there is evidence that contamination from the Superfund site has
moved beyond the property boundary. Nonetheless, the Navy sampled four wells in the
Oak Harbor Landfill, which is outside the property boundary. Low concentrations of
vinyl chloride were detected in one of these wells. However, it is not clear what the
source of that contamination is. This well will be monitored periodically by the Navy
during the groundwater cleanup. Both Meleo and the Oak Harbor Landfill were
investigated by EPA for possible inclusion on the NPL. Neither site was considered a
significant source of contamination based on the EPA site investigations (no significant
groundwater contamination was found at either site), and neither could be scored as
Superfund sites.
Available geologic and hydrogeologic data obtained from the USGS, county agencies,
and previous consultant studies were compiled and reviewed to provide a regional view
of the environmental setting of the Area 6 landfill. These data were used to extend the
investigation beyond the boundaries of the immediate stUdy area. However, the majority
of the available data is incomplete or of inconsistent quality to provide an island-wide
assessment of groundwater.
The Area 6 landfill site actually straddles a divide between two separate surface water
drainage basins. Delineating surface water drainage basins is not necessarily a useful
approach in evaluating the regional groundwater system, because the surface water and
groundwater divides do not coincide in this area.
Information about the Oak Harbor Landfill and Meleo was used in the site evaluation.
Geologic logs and groundwater elevations measured in the Oak Harbor wells were used
to assess the regional setting of the Area 6 landfill site. Oak Harbor Landfill wells were
also sampled during the remedial investigation.
Replacement Source of Potable Water
All wells located within the drainage basin should be replaced with alternative potable
water.
Neither the Navy, EP A, nor Ecology has the authority to shut down off-site private wells.
When the Navy first identified the possibility that off-site wells may be affected by a
contaminated plume, as a preventive measure, the Navy offered well owners hookups to
City water at the Navy's expense. This was a voluntary rather than mandatory program,
because no private wells were actUally contaminated. If a public health threat exists, the
state Department of Health may close wells; however, this is not the case at this site.
30050\9312.026\Appcndix.A
.-.. ~,- - - --. -'..
- ~_. -.... .... -._- - ~..~_..._._.-----_..
-------
... -.~.'
Page A-7
Out of 15 property owners who were offered free hookups by the Navy, only 6 have
accepted the offer. .
Area 5 Remedial Action
Area 5 should be explored to include a broader watershed cap. Area 5 needs to be
monitored and the Navy should promise to install a cap if the quality of water changes.
A cap is effective only if it is placed over a source of chemical hazards. No source of
potential contamination was identified at Area 5 and, therefore, no useful purpose would
be served if a cap were installed. Except for manganese in the groundwater, the only
chemicals detected that appear to be greater than federal or state standards were in
streams in the vicinity of Area 5. Although Area 5 does not pose a health risk, the Navy
. has proposed to continue to monitor groundwater at Area 5 to further evaluate the
concentration of metals. After evaluating the results of the groundwater samples, the
agencies will jointly decide whether additional action is necessary.
Cap Desi~
A Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) cap would be more protective than
the proposed Washington State Minimum Functional Standards (MFS) cap. Why
wasn't a RCRA cap proposed? "'hen will the design of the cap begin?
The landfill operations area operated as a solid waste landfill. There is no conclusive
evidence that hazardous wastes were disposed of in this landfill. If there are no wastes
tbat would be subject to RCRA closure requirements, a RCRA cap is not a regulatory
requirement for this landfill. However, the Area 6 landfill is required to meet the
closure requirements for municipal solid waste landfills, wbich include an MFS cap. The
MFS cap is considered protective for municipal solid waste landfills. Cap design will
begin immediately after ROD finalization.
Metals in Groundwater
What criteria will be used to decide whether or not the high metals concentrations are
due to background conditions? Why is the Navy going to monitor groundwater?
The criteria for comparison of on-site metals concentrations in groundwater to
background is Ecology's Statistical Guidance for Ecology Site Managers, which was
published in August 1992. This guidance describes statistical methods required for
calculating background concentrations. The Navy, Ecology, and EPA agree on the
background locations to be sampled.
30050\9312.026IAppcndiJt.A
--_.,._._.__.........._..__._._----~_.._.. .....-. ...
...-..,-.....--.--. .
-------
, '-'. -. .-..'
'.,... ".,".'. .
-' '."" '... -""" .
..
Page A-8
Historical groundwater sampling was conducted after bailing the wells. Bailing the wells
caused high turbidity in the samples that were collected from the wells. Turbidity is a
naturally occurring phenomenon, not a result of site operations. The turbid samples were
then analyzed by the laboratory for metals. The laboratory analyzes metals in both the
water and the suspended particulates. Sampling conducted during December 1992 was
accomplished using a different method. Instead of bailing wells, a low-flow pump was
used to sample the wells. This sampling method resulted in low-turbidity samples.
Chemical analyses of these samples indicated much lower concentrations of metals.
Therefore, historical metals results from bailed wells are attributable to suspended
particulates and are not indicative of the groundwater quality. For future monitoring,
both on-site wells and background wells y,rill be sampled using the low-flow sampling
method.
The monitoring that the Navy is proposing is for volatile organic compounds and metals
at Area 6 and metals at Area 5. Metals will be monitored at Area 5 with low-tlow
sampling techniques designed to minimize sample turbidity and to determine whether
concentrations of metals are below background levels. Area 6 monitoring will be .
conducted to determine the effectiveness of the extraction system and to ensure data
accuracy .
Groundwater Risk
Why does the Na"'Y state that water from the Area 6 aquifers does not represent an
unacceptable human health risk when vinyl chloride exceeds risk levels and maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs)?
The Navy has always contended that the groundwater in the shallow aquifer in Area 6
represents a health risk; therefore, the groundwater in the shallow aquifer is going to be
remediated. This comment may refer to the intermediate aquifer. Vinyl chloride was
detected in one off-site intermediate aquifer well, but in none of the on-site intermediate
aquifer wells. The one off-site detection of vinyl chloride in the' intermediate aquifer
may be an anomaly. The results of the remedial investigation did not provide an
explanation for the presence of vinyl chloride in this well. The Navy will continue
monitoring that well and conduct a further investigation if the vinyl chloride persists.
Feasibility of Air Strippin2
The proposed air stripping technology poses a serious potential of introducing
increasing concentrations of at least arsenic back into the groundwater.
High levels of arsenic have not been found in the Area 6 shallow aquifer. If the Navy
were to find that there were high concentrations of metals in the extracted groundwater,
30050\9312.026IAppcndix.A
. .. -,.--,. __n__-_n_..._.-.---.,.--.--- ..'-______n'_'"
.. . .- --- ---.----..-...
. -.....---------. .
-------
" .".. .,...... .
.... - ... -
Page A-9
metals pretreatment would have to be implemented before air stripping; otherwise, the
treatment system would not function properly.
Tbe treated water will have to meet all federal and state standards prior to
reintroduction into the groundwater. These standards are protective of human health
and the environment. Therefore, the reintroduction of treated water will not pose a
threat.
Effectiveness of Air Strippine
What kind of effectiveness of removal can be expected from air stripping? Can you cite
comparative studies? How much water will be pumped and how much of the volatile
organic compounds will be removed? How much water will be evaporated in the
process? How much toxic substance will be released into the atmosphere?
Air stripping is a proven technology that has been successfully applied at several
Superfund sites in Washington State and across the country. Current estimates are that
an approximate tota1 of 170 gallons per minute will need to be pumped from the well
field to provide effective capture and remediation of the contaminant plume. Based on
the estimated pumping rate and contaminant concentration in the extraction wells,
approximately 5.5 pounds of volatile organic compounds will be removed from the water
daily. Using an assumed average temperature and humidity, approximately 3 gar~ons per
hour would evaporate and not be returned to the aquifer. All of the volatile organic
compounds removed from the water (approximately 5.5 pounds per day) would be
released to the atmosphere. These emissions are significantly less than the emission
limits established by the Northwest Air Pollution Control Agency for total hydrocarbons.
Calculations of toxic emissions have not been completed; however, all state and federal
emission limits will be met.
Consideration of Bioremediation
Was bioremediation considered as an alternative to pumping and treating groundwater?
Bioremediation otTers a number of advantages and should be evaluated in comparison to
the proposed pump and treat system.
Bioremediation was considered during the initial screening of alternatives process as part
of the feasibility study for au 1. While it is true that in situ bioremediation offers a
number of advantages, there are also numerous limitations associated with this
technology for cleaning up groundwater.
The main reason that bioremediation was not selected for funher detailed analysis is
that chlorinated solvents (the main contaminants of concern in groundwater at Area 6)
are not highly biodegradable and this technology has not shown that it can achieve the
300S0\9312.026\Appcndix.A
-----......- ...-...-...- .~-- .~ -'---'.- .....-.........~.- - ..
. -.. ..-.-,',' _--~'h."'-.'. ...-..-.-. - ....._,'
........-- ',_.,'_n.._.- ..
-------
..
Page A-lO
cleanup goals established for groundwater at this site. There are too many uncertainties
associated with bioremediation of groundwater and these uncertainties led the Navy to
the conclusion that this technology would not be effective in meeting the groundwater
cleanup goals.
Request for an Environmental ImDact Statement
The Navy should prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for actions it plans
at OU 1.
The DoD has determined that the CERCLA Superfund process is the functional
equivalent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and, therefore,
EISs are not required at DoD Superfund sites for proposed cleanup actions. The
Department of Justice and EP A agree with DoD's position.
Cost Information
How much money has been spent to date for investigations at OU I? How much of the
money spent to date has been paid to URS Consultants, Inc.? How much money \\111 be
spent in Island County?
Approximately $6,015,000 has been spent to date for investigations at OU 1. URS
Consultants, Inc., (URS) and its contractors have received approximately $4,815,500 for
investigations at OU 1. The amount of money spent in Island County cannot be
accurately detennined without evaluating the expenditures of several contractors over a
period of 10 years. However, the amount is relatively small and would likely be less than
10 percent of the total cost of the project. -
Contractor Selection Information
How and when did the Navy choose URS as its consultant? What criteria were used?
What other consulting firms were considered? Did EPA or Ecology have any input into
the contractor selection process?
URS was awarded the Comprehensive Long-Tenn Environmental Action Navy
(CLEAN) contract for the Navy's northwest region in June 1989. The award was the
result of a technical competition for engineering services conducted in accordance with
the requirem~nts of the Brooks Bill.
ContractOrs responding to the contract announcement were evaluated by a board based
on an "Evaluation Criteria Outline." The outline consisted of three categories: technical
evaluation criteria, management evaluation criteria, and geographical considerations.
Criteria that were evaluated for the first two categories are as follows.
3OCSO\Q3 I :!.cr.6\Appcndix.A
- ..- .--.. ... .-. - -
.......,.__._-~. - .'-'
.. --,"..- .... - ..... .
~ ..- ... . --..
-------
. . ~ ..".
..
Page A-ll
Technical Evaluation Criteria:
.
Environmental engineering experience
Key technical personnel
Staff in appropriate disciplines
.
.
Management Evaluation Criteria:
.
.
Corporate management
Management plan
Ability to surge
Construction management approach
Management and control systems and reports
Training
Health and safety program
Equipment
Community relations
Approved contractor's purchasing system
Volume of previous 000 awards
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The contract announcement covered three regions for the Navy and one contract for
each of the regions was awarded. A tOtal of 26 firms responded to the announcement
for all three regions. Eleven of the firms were eliminated based 0:: a !~ck of experience.
From the remaining 15 firms, 6 were evaluated for the Northwest region contract:
.
URS Consultants, Inc.
Seattle, Washington
.
Weston Inc.
Westchester, Pennsylvania
.
Riedel Environmental Services
Portland, Oregon
.
ICF Kaiser
San Francisco, California
.
ENSR Corp.
Houston, Texas
.
Ebasco Services, Inc.
New York, New York.
Neither EPA nor Ecology had any input into the contractOr selection decision.
300501 9312. C26\A ppcndix.A
.. ... -..' "... .... .-----...-.----"- ...---,...-..,.. -...-.-'-"--
.-.. ----"'---'--'- .. "-"- ----- ...
-------
.....--.--.. ~.
..
APPENDIX B
ADMINISTR.\TIVE RECORD I~DEX
-. . -...
.. ..... -.-------" ..- .---.-.-- -.---.....- --.. .'- ... -'--,.--.-- '. -.
-------
- ,'"
'.VC
12/10/93
ENGINEERING FIELD A~TiVIT~;-~W
NAS WHID8EY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD rNO~X
Page
. .
ID #:
243
SUB-HEAD: 01.2 BACKGROUND
TITLE: NAVY ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL OF INSTALLATION POLLUTANTS
CONFIRMATION STUDY - VERIFICATION PHASE QA/QC PLAN
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR I S ORG:
9/86
1.2-0U1-1
SCS ENGINEERS
SCS ENGINEERS
# OF PAGES: 36
TYPE: REPORT
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: PACNORWESTBRO
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: NAVFACENGCOM. SILVERDALE. WASHINGTON
****_._.*****-******-****--****--**---***-*********-*-****-****************-***
" \
, <
ID #:
244
SUB-HEAD: 01.2 BACKGROUND
TITLE: HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN CONFIRMATION STUDY VERIFICATION PHASE
DATE: 1/15/86
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 1.2-0U1-2
AUTHOR: SCS ENGINEERS
AUTHOR'S ORG: SCS ENGINEERS
# OF PAGES: 56
TYPE: REPORT
'OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
******************************************************-------------*--_._------
10 #:
246
SUB-HEAD: 01.2 BACKGROUND
TITLE: CONFIRMATION STUDY VERIFICATION PHASE PLAN OF ACTION FOR
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
9/86
1.2-0U1-3
SCS ENGINEERS
SCS ENGINEERS
# OF PAGES: 100
TYPE: REPORT
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: PACNORWESTBRO
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: NAVFACENGCOM. SILVERDALE. WASHINGTON
************-******************************************-***-****-*-****--*._.**
10 #:
247
SUB-HEAD: 01.3 NOTIFICATION/SI/CERClA
TITLE: NAVAL SHORE ACTIVITY DISPOSAL SITE FACT FORM
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
4/20/83 # OF PAGES: 42
1.3-0U1-1 TYPE: REPORT
COMMANDING OFFICER. NAS WHIDBEY
NAS WHIDBEY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: NEE SA (112N) PORT HUENEME. CA
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: NEESA (112N) PORT HUENEME. CA
93043
93043
**-_._._.--*--*---***--*---*****--*-**--*-*--**----**-*********************-***
._-~-'-'Wo~ -.. ..... ---~~-
_..0- 0-00___4___-_-'0_"-""-- p'"
.~...- ---'---'----'-- 4"-'
-------
.
"12i1iJi93
ENGINEERING fIELD ACTIVITY. Nw.. -- .
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
2
"
10 #:
248
. ~
SUB-HEAD: 01.4 PA REPORT
TITLE: INITIAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Of NAS WHIDBEY
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
9/84
1.4-0U1-1
SCS ENGINEERS
SCS ENGINEERS
# OF PAGES: 270
TYPE: REPORT
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: NAVY ASSESS & CONTROL OF INSTALLATION OF POLLUTANT
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: NAVAL ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY
******---**._-****-**-*.*******-*****************************************w~.~***
10 #:
: 226
SUB-HEAD: 01.5 SI REPORT
TITLE: ANALYSIS REPORT
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
3/18/87 # OF PAGES: 49
1.5-0U1-1 TYPE: REPORT
AT AM TEST INC
OPERABLE UN IT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: SCS ENGINEERS
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
._-*-_._......--*--*-._--**--********-*******-*****--*~********W***********..*.
10 #:
106
SUB-HEAD: 01.5 SI REPORT
TITLE: CURRENT SITUATION REPORT
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
1/88
1. 5-0Ul-2
SCS ENGINEERS
# OF PAGES: 310
TYPE: REPORT
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: ENGINEERING fIELD ACTIVITY
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
*.*.***********************************************~***************************
10 #:
251
SUB-HEAD: 01.5 SI REPORT
TITLE: COMMENTS ON SITE 6 INITIAL INVESTIGATION DRAfT TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
1/8/90
1.5-0U1-3
BOB GOODMAN
DEPARTMENT OF
# Of PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ECOLOGY
ADDRESSEE: LEO VASAITIS
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
**~*~*************************.****-.***********************************MMW--~~
'---....., .-.-. ..., ..-. ..._. ..--.'. .--,.
..~... .,-- .-. ~- ...- ... ..-
. .--.-..-- -_._--_....
...--.---.-- .
. .--,.- '-'-~"--"-.' ~-.-..._~. '."-' - ,- -
-------
.
i2/10/93
. .
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. NW~--'
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIV£ R£CORD INDEX
Page
..
10 #:
249
SUB-HEAD: 01.5 SI.REPORT
TITLE: COMMENTS ON DRAFT FOR SITE 6 INITIAL LANDFiLL INVESTIGATION
TECHNICAL MEMO
DATE:.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
1/23/90
1. 5-0U1-4
KATHY SOUDERS
NAS WHIDBEY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 3
TYPE: LETTER
ADDRESSEE: COMMANDING OFFICER
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
*********************************~******************.***********.**********~****.
10 #:
2-50
SUB-HEAD: 01.5 SI REPORT
TITLE: COMME"TS ON SITE 6 INITIAL INVESTIGATION DRAFT TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
1/26/90
1.5-0U1-5
SUB LOISELLE
ENVIRONMENTAL
# OF PAGES: 22
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
***.******.*************.***.********~********************.********~*********~.*~
10 #:
252
SUB-HEAD: 01.6 PREVIOUS O.U. INFORMATION
TITLE: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM SITE 6 LANDFILL INITIAL INVESTIGATION
AT NAS WHIDBEY ISLAND. WASHINGTON
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
9/28/89 # OF PAGES: 358
1.6-0U1-1 TYPE: REPORT
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
CORPORATION
CORPORATION
ADDRESSEE: OFFICER-IN-CHARGE. NORTHWEST
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
********************************************************-**-**_._*******..**--**
10 I:
255
SUB-HEAD: 01.7 ACTION PLAN
TITLE: COMMENTS ON DRAFT ACTION PLAN
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
3/20/90
1. 7-0U1-1
BOB POSS .
DEPARTMENT OF
1 OF PAGES: 2
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ECOLOGY
ADDRESSEE: PAT VASICEK
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
******************~***************************************.*********~***********
-------
.27C
12/16/93
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY - .~_.
NAS WHIOSEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
 P.2/3 
 Page 4
10 #: Z56 
OCC .16 ''33 03: 14PM ErA I'lol El'N I'G1T
SUB-HEAD: 01.7 ACTION PLAN
TITLE: COMMENTS ON DRAFT ACTION PLAN
DATE;
DOCUI'tENT NUl'tBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
4/5/90
1.7-OUl-2
8JB LOISELLE
ENIRONMENTAL
# OF PAGES; 4
TYPE; LETTER

PROTECTION AGENCY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE; BRVAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA- NW
.........................*....................-...................................
SU~-HEAD: 01.7 ACT~O~.~t~N
TITLE: ACTION PLAN NAVAL AIR STATION WHIDBEY ISLAND OAK HARBOR. WA
ID #:
254
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
10/19/90 # OF PAGES: 74
1.7-OU1-~ TVPE: REPORT
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
CORPORATION
CORPORATION
ADDRESSEE: ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. NORTHWEST
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
._**.....*..........*...w......~_.....*..~~........_*........-.-..................
10 #;
3424
SUB-HEAD: 10.1 COMMENTS AND REPSONSES
TITLE: PRESENTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE INTERIM PROPOSAL
DATE;
DOCUMENT NUt1BER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
5/17/93 . OF PAGES: 6
10.1-OU1-l TYPE: LETTER
MICHAEL L. ABBOTT
WI LeEt RESEARCH
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: KATHY SOUDERS/NANCY HARNEY
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: MAS WHIDBEY ISLAND/EPA
.....--......._........**....*.*.*.*.......-.t.....*.~...-.-...-.........-........
10 .:
3314
SUB-HEAD: 10.1 COMMENTS AND REPSONS(S
TITLE: C~ENTS ON PROPOSED PLAN
DATE;
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
7/2/93 . OF PAGES: 1
10.1-OU1~Z TYPE: LETTER
CRAIG E. THOMPSON
CITIZEN
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: ~OWARD THOMAS
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: HAS WHIDBEY
........*.....~....**.*....*..................*.*.....*---..****-.-.-.-...........
. .. ..".,..,~ ..
. -"---- _h'.
-------
1~/10ig3
ENG I NEERI NG fI E LD ACTI V!TY. NW.'o -- .
NAS WH!DBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
pase
5
I D #:
3315
SUB-HEAD: 10.1 COMMENTS AND RE?SONSES
TITLE: COMMENTS ON PROPOSED PLAN FINAL REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
7/9/93 # OF PAGES: 2 OPERABLE UNIT: 1
10.1-0Ul-3 TYPE: COMMENTS T.O. ACTION:
WISE (WHIDBEY ISLAND FOR A SOUND ENVIRONMENT
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
. . ***-***.~***~*********************~****'************~.***********.********r...**~

-; ,-" - ID #: 34'o6!
SUB-HEAD: 10.10 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: NOTIC~ OF A INFORMAL MEETING WITH WISE ORGANIZATION.
WHIDBEY ISLANDERS ON AUG 25. 1993
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
8/11/93
10.10-0U1-1
NANCY HARNEY
EPA
# OF PAGES: 2
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: MR. BILL SKUBI
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: WISE
*********************************************************-******************w.**~
ID #:
3317
SUB-HEAD: 10.11 NEWSPAPER/JOURNAL ARTICLE
TITLE: .SOME QUESTIONS LEFT UNANSWERED AT NAVY CLEANUP PLAN HEARING
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
7/17/93 # OF PAGES: 1
10.11-0U1-1 TYPE: NEWSPAPER
DYLAN MC DANNIEL
WHIDBEY NEWS-TIMES
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
ARTICLE T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
*.******************************************************************************,
ID #:
311
SUB-HEAD: 10.4 PUB NOTE OF AVAIL OF INFO
TITLE: TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
. AUTHOR I S ORG:
11/16/90
10.3-0U1-1
K.A. SOL'DERS
NAS WHIDBEY
# OF PAGES: 8
TYPE: TRANSMITTAL
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: COMMANDING OFFICER
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
*******-*******************************-************..*********************.~*-
."--- ._--------.-. --~----~".~ -------------'
-- ---~-_..__...-.-_.. ._~-. . .--.-..
-------
12/10/93
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. NW.--'
NAS WHID6EY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
6
10 #:
3638
SUB-HEAD: 10.3 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITT
TITLE: SENDING THE MINUTES OF THE TRC MEETING. OF JUNE 15. 1992
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR I S ORG:
7/9/92
10.3-0UI-I0
K. A. SOUDERS
NAS WHIDBEY
# OF PAGES: 6
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: PAUL MARCHANT
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY
. '
****************************-******************-********************.********R_~
10 #:
3643
, ,
SUB-HEAD: 10.3 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITT
. TITLE: NOTICE OF TRC MEETING ON 12/10/92
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
11/25/92
10.3-0Ul-ll
K. A. SOUDERS
NAS WHIDBEY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
ADDRESSEE: SERGEANT WAYNE LEWIS
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: DEPT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES ISLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE
*********.*.**********************************-*********************-*****.***_.
ID #:
3648
SUB-HEAD: 10.3 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITT
TITLE: NOTICE OF TRC MEETING FOR 2/5/93
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
1/7/93
lO.3-0Ul-12
K. A. SOUDERS
NAS WHIDBEY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: lETTER
ADDRESSEE: SERGEANT WAYNE LEWSl
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: DEPT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES ISLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE
********************************************************************.**********~
10 #:
3653
SUB-HEAD: 10.3 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITT
TITLE: NOTICE OF TRC MEETiNG ON JUNE 30. 1993
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
6/4/93
10.3-0Ul-13
K. A. SKINNER
NAS WHIDBEY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
ADDRESSEE: ALl RAAD
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF ECOLCGY
*******~~*.****.***.**************************-*********************.****..~.**~
- _.,_.-.-.~--'-"~-"._._---' .-- -.
...... .-. --..-.
. -- - --..-.-..-..-.-
.' .-. - -- ...---.-.. .-.
-------
.'
,12/10/93
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. N~__.
NAS WHID8EY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INOEX
?age
7
ID #:
365:::
SUB-HEAD: 10.3 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITT
TITLE: SENDING THE FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR OU 1 AND RINAL RI
ON OU 1. 2. AND 4
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
6/29/93
10.3-0U1-14
K. A. SOUDERS
NAS WHIDBEY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
** OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
ADDRESSEE: SERGEANT WAYNE LEWIS
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: DEPT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES ISLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE
-**-***-_._--_.****-****--***-**--*--*************-***-*--********._.****_..._*
10 #:
3661
SUB-HEAD: 10.3 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITT
TITLE: NOTICE OF TRC MEETING ON 11/4/93
.'
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
10/18/93
10.3-0U1-15
K. J. SKINNER
NAS WHIDBEY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
ADDRESSEE: ALl RAAD
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY
*******._.*--**-********--*-*-**--******-**-***-*********--****************..**
10 #:
3612
SUB-HEAD: 10.3 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITT
TITLE: SENDING THE REVISION PACKAGE FOR THE PHASE II FIELDWORK OF
OU 1
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
9/4/91
10.3-0U1-2
K. A. SOUDERS
NAS WHIDBEY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
** OF PAGES: 2
TYPE: LETTER
ADDRESSEE: ED BOONSTRA
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: CITY OF OAK HARBOR
*******.***********************************************************************
ID #:
3617
SUB-HEAD: 10.3 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITT
TITLE: SENDING MINUTES OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
OF SEPT 25. 91
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
10/2/91
10.3-0Ul-3
K. A. SOUDERS
NAS WHIDBEY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 5
TYPE: LETTER
ADDRESSEE: RICHARD BROOKS
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: SUQUAMISH TRIBAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT
********.***~**.*****.*************************************************w*_w....
. .-.'---' ..---...---- ...-.-- .--_.
n--__u__-- -._--_.~_.
. -.-----.-.-. ...- --'. -"'- . -
'.--.--....----
-------
12/10/93
ENGINEERING fIELD ACTIVITY. NW- -.,.
NAS wHIDBEY
ADMINIS7RATIVE ~ECORD INDEX
Page
8
ID #:
849
S~8-HEAD: 10.3 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITT
TITLE: TECHNICAL REVIEW MEETING MINUTES
..
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
10/2/91 # Of PAGES: 8
10.3-0U1-4 TYPE: REPORT
COMMANDING OffICER
NAVAL AIR STATION. WHIDBEY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ISLAND
ADDRESSEE: COMMANDING OffICER.
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EfA. NW
*********************************-*************************************~********
ID #:
.3u2.
SUB-HEAD: 10..3 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITT
TITLE: INVITTNG TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 1991 TOXICOLOGY
DEMONSTRATION TECHNICAL WORKSHOP ON NOV 8. 1991
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
10/24/91
10.3-0U1-5
K. A. SOUDERS
NAS WHIDBEY
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: lETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: DAVID fYfE
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: NORTHWEST INDIAN fISHERIES COMMISSION
.**********************-********-****.******************--*-**-*-*---**-**...._-
ID #:
3626
SUB-HEAD: 10.3 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITT
TITLE: NOTICE OF TRC MEETING ON 12/18/91
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
12/6/91
10.3-0U1-6
K. A. SOUDERS
NAS WHIDBEY
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: STAN EELKEMA .
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: DEPT Of EMERGENCY SERVICES ISLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE
*******...**********************************************************************
ID #:
3631
SUB-HEAD: 10.3 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITT
TITLE: SENDING DRAfT HAZARDOUS WASTE EVAL STUDY AND RI
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
3/6/92
10.3-0U1-7
K. A. SOUDERS
NAS WHIDBEY
# Of PAGES: 1
TYPE: lETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: RICHARD BROOKS
ADDRESSEE'S OR3: SUQUAMISH TRIBAL FISHERIES DEPT
*******._.**-._.*-**--****-***-*****-****-*******-**-************.*********~.*;~.
--------.... .
. ..- .. ..... ......~...
-.-......--.... .---..
. .-- ------..----. .
-------
12/10/93
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. NW ~-.-.
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
9
. .
ID #:
3632
SUB-HEAD: 10.3 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITT
TITLE: NOTICE OF THE FINAL PRESENTATION OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
4/10/92
10.3-0U1-S
K. A. SOUDERS
NAS WHIDBEY
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: RICHARD BROOKS
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: SUQUAMISH TRIBAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT
r .
.**~***~********************~*~*********~***************************************"..
. ",' .;.;..
I D #:
3637
SUB-HEAD: 10.3 TECII~ICAL REVIEW COMMITT.
TITLE: SENDING THE DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR OU~
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
7/9/92
10.3-0Ul-9
K. A. SOUDERS
NAS WHIDBEY
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: RICHARD BROOKS
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: SUQUAMISH TRIBAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT
*****.*.*..**_.*.*.****~***********************.***********************~***~..*~.
10 #:
3316
SUB-HEAD: 10.5 PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT
TITLE: PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED PLAN FINAL REMEDIAL ACTION
FOR OU 1
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
7/14/93 # OF PAGES: 7
10.5-0U1-2 TYPE: COMMENTS
PUBLIC MEETING
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
.. .
-**********-*****************._*****************w***********.******************.-
ID #:
1169
SUB-HEAD: 10.7 FACT SHEETS AND PRESS REL
TITLE: RESULTS OF SURVEYS AND SAMPLING ADJACENT TO NAVY LAND FILL
KNOWN
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR' S ORG:
5/28/91 # OF PAGES: 3
10.7-0U1-1 TYPE: NEWS RELEASE
PL~LIC AFFAIRS OFFICE
NAVAL AIR STATION WHIDSEY ISLAND
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
ADORESSEE'S ORG:
*.***~**************.*******************.*-*****************************w*******A
--.-- ----_.- --. .-- .- --.. -.-. .
.--. .----,-------.,-------.....-------__.___n"".'
._-.-----.- -.
-------
.. . . _.
,OCC .16'93 03: 14F'M ErA tt.I E3'N I'G1T
P.3/3
12/10/93
ENGINEERING fIELD ACTIVITY. NW
HAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
"
Page
10
10'.:
3038
SUB-HEAD: 11.4 TECHNICAL SOURCES "
TITLE: REPORT ADDRESSING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE WATER'QuALITYOF"
DRINKING WATER WELLS IN THE VICINITY OF THE WHIDBEY'..NAVAL'..:"'. '
AIR STATION LANDFILL "':~:'''',.':.;:" 'C~:! ',',.. '
DATE: 3/24/93 # Of' PAGES: 422 , OPERABLE UNIT:,:{1~:~l{'(~':~,1-/'::,,:"
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 1L~-OU1-1 TYPE: REPORT T .0. ACTIQf;C:. ,...' ;~,,:~~~:,~,;~;;:,,;'-f,
AUTHOR: STEVE HULSMAN . ,:- "''':,!,':'~; c:... ~'J.;':-< -;,:,..
AUTHOR'S ORG: WASHINGTON STATE DEPT Of' HEALTH ::-:".:'::::~;-k:J:~~~~!~':

, ,ADDRESSEE: .INTER~STED PARTIES ,,:::~,(:<{;:~~~~~ ':J'\':;.<
~,D,~~~~~:~E' S' O~~,,~, ,',:,'" ',' '..;, ", ,,' ,':""::,:,;~1:~~~~~('

..*...._...-.-.*~.*..*.........*....**.....*.*..........*...**.***...**.*~.

t? " " ',>, ::'::'.';:,", "':::,;:',' ':',::, ' . .::'" i~:~~~<~~'iI'2,
, 'SUB-HEAD::~02'~:1:~>'..\ CORRESPONDENCE :: ;', ", ',' , ," :' , , ", ':~ -'-::~;~'~,'<';='~-i!!L '
'.;::h:~'<;::l.;.jrr'LtIE:r::Si:J8MITTAt;c'OF~RAfT':,iNTERIM ACTioN ,PROPOSED PLAN "FoR'~,oul;:L~~~~
tN:~~1i~~)!{~i::;f;~~;f~:P;~;{~O~~A~~S' ';~ ".', ,i:OPE~BLE c ~~:;;i~1:J;:~;~f;~~

, ,
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 2.1-0Ul-l TYPE: LETTER & ENCLOSUR T.O.ACTION: ,,',,'. :,':
, ',AUTHOR: ',KEVIN STIGILE.. " " , "-:,,' ,
: 'AUTHOR' S ORG: 'EFA. NW
, ,
"
, , 'ADDRESSEE:~.NAN~ HARNEY /PA\JL MARCHANT
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EPA/WASHINGTON STATE DEPT Of' ECOLOGY
'. t.
.~*...~....*..~~.~*...*~**...*~*._..*.*.*..*.~*.*.**~*.****.***~*.**-*.~**~*.~~w~~~
10 # :"'3012 ,,:'
SUB-HEAD: 02.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: CLOSURE REPORT f'OR WELL 6-0-4
,&. ':"",'
"
.'~' . .,
..' ;~.; :". ..'.'.;.:"~.: /:'. ~.~~:~.'

, ,,'DATE: 3/1"93 . . Of' PAGES: 1 OPERABLE UNIT: ,1 ,:,>~~}~:'iJ/:~~:::'::: ,,'
DOCUMENT, NUMBER: ,2.1-0Ul-2 TYPE: LETTER T .0. ACTION:' ":,:::;~,-:-7/:',<.fi,,;:: ,
, AUTHOR: BELA 3. VARGA ' ,;.,..;d.:';,':~,' ,:,'
AUTHOR'S ORG: EFA. NW ' , ""~':',;~\:1:~'~";."~'
,':>, :":;:;~:,:, ',; ,::/ ' ' '< ,,' ",,' ", ,"" '" ' :_"";,'~",,,,~(;',;~:~\~~:if.~;:~~::j
:',::,.,~..":'; ~I?PR~,~,S,f;~:.i:.N.\t-!~'f.~,,~~E;Y/P~\)l MARCHANT.",,' :'-.,' ,'-;, - "::';:::::'\"~'7~~?t.~~~~l.:~.ft:;
~D,D~~~~~li:f,:~~~~:~ \~,P'~/,~A.~,~-~,~~O~".~!~ ~E ,~,EP!:'.. ~,t::: ~COL~~: : " ~;t~'~:t ;:~:~¥,1~~~~~;
".~:"~- '~'...':.'~:.""':';:.~.:;",.;.~,"~''':;'...''''''..'.... .::'''.~. '.'. '. . .,.'.. .' ',' ..:.!.,:~'~.,::.1':,~~~~,,;..;~
[[[**.**.*.......~~...~~~~~.r
.,?~.!.:~'.. . .:I:~~:~
-. ~.'
~ ,
~
-------
.
1~/10/93
'. .
Page
11
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. Nw
NAS WHIDSEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
SUB-HEAD: 02.5 EEICA
TITLE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR INTERIM ACTION AT NAS WHIDSEY ISLAND
I D #:
1152
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
12/27/91
2.5-0U1-1
ROBERT YUST
SAIC
# OF PAGES: 8 OPERABLE UNIT: 1
TYPE: LETTER & ATTACHME T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
***.***.**~****.*****.***********;**************~*~***********-*********~*~******
10 #:
1153
SUB-HEAD: 02.6 ACTION MEMORANDUM
TITLE: PROPOSED PLAN SUPERFUND INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTION AT AULT
FIELD AREA 6 LANDFILL
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
1/3/92
2.6-0U1-1
# OF PAGES: 8 OPERABLE UNIT: 1
TYPE: NOTICE & INFORMAT T.O. ACTION:
----**--**--**--_._._----*-----*----------.-----------**********************---**
10 #:
1481
, '
SUB-HEAD: 04.2 ROO
TITLE: DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION. DECISION SUMMARY.
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY. AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
4/92
2.6-0Ul-2
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 52
TYPE: REPORT
"'.".
._.****--**.-.*_.-*--*-----*-**--------_._.---------*-********.*************..***~
10 #:
3014
SUB-HEAD: 02.8 REMEDIATION STUDIES
TITLE: FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ABANDONMENT OF WELL 6-D-4
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR' S ORG:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
2/93
2.8-0U1-1
URS
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 66
TYPE: REPORT
*********.**********************~**~**********~************~***********A*~*~.~-*..
-. ~. ,.,-. ..- .-- ..
. -- -. --... --
-.... ..." ....._-.. --- .-----.-------..
. -. .-,...,..-...
-------
L2/10/93
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. NW
NAS wHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
12
10 #:
289
;U6-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: AREAS 5 & 6 INTERIM ACTION DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
COMMENTS
DATE:
)OCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
# Of PAGES: 2
TYPE: MEMO
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
3.1-0Ul-1
MATT KLOPE
NAS WHIDBEY ISLAND. WASHINGTON
.***.*****************-**************~***********-***********-***************-****
SUB-HEAD: 03.1
TITLE:
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR I S ORG:
CORRESPONDENCE
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION THE 30 DAY
WHIDBEY ISLAND NAVAL AIR STATION
UNIT A fOR AN ADDITIONAL 20 DAYS
8/22/90 # Of PAGES: 1
3.1-0UI-IO TYPE: LETTER
BUB LOISELLE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
10 #:
286
COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE
MANAGEMENT PLAN. OPERABLE
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EfA. NW
~*-*--****.**************~************************************.**********.**.9.**~
ID #:
287
SUB-HEAD: Q3.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: SUSPENSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE GROUP OF SCIENCE
APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (SAIC)
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
9/26/90 # OF PAGES: 2
3.1-0Ul-l1 TYPE: LETTER
CHARLES E. FINDLEY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. HAZARDOUS WASTE DIVISION
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: CAPT. DAVID WAGGONER
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: NAS WHIDBEY
*********....*****************************************.***************************
10 #:
291
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: COMMENTS ON OPERABLE UNIT #1 DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLANS
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR 'S ORG:
10/1/90
3.1-0Ul-12
BUB LOISELLE
ENVIRONMENTAL
# OF PAGES: 35
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EfA. NW
**.******.***********************~**********************-***-*-*-***********...._*
-.. .--." - ...' ..---._____n'______'_n-.._'-
-,- --'~-'- -----.-..- .-.--.-------.-- -
_Hu_.._',---,,,,
- -' - -.-..-..
-------
.'
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. NW
NAS WHIDSEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
13
2/10/93
10 #:
292
US-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: ADDITONAL COMMENTS ON OPERABLE UNIT #1 DRAFT MANAGEMENT
PLANS
DATE:
OCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
10/2/90
3.1-0U1-13
BUB LOISELLE
ENVIRONMENTAL
# OF PAGES: 4
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
DDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
***************...****************************************************w****-~'.**-~
10 #:
293
UB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: NAS WHIDBEY ISLAND IR PROGRAM COMMENT REGARDING ~:~FT RI/FS
STUDY OF OPERABLE UNIT A
DATE:
OCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
10/3/90 # OF PAGES: 4
3.1-0U1-14 TYPE: LETTER
JOYE 8ONVOULOIR
ISLAND COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: KATHY SOUDERS
DDRESSEE'S ORG: NAS WHIDBEY ISLAND. WASHINGTON
*-***************-****-***-***********************************************.*~~~*~
10 #:
294
UB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT COMMENT OPERABLE UNIT #1
DATE:
OCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
10/4/90 # OF PAGES: 3
3.1-0U1-15 TYPE: LETTER
BARRY ROGOWSKI
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
DDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
*********************************************************************************7
10 #:
223
UB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: COMMENTS OF AREAS 5 & 6 DRAFT FIELD SAMPLING PLAN
DATE:
OCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR I S ORG:
10/5/90 # OF PAGES: 4
3.1-0U1-16 TYPE: REPORT
MR. PETER VOGLE
GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
ODRESSEE'S ORG:
******************************************************...************************-
. ..' .'. - _.~. .._-
...._-- "-..." - '".-...
.--..- _.. ...-.-.-.-...--... .. ..--,..- --~ on
-------
.,
.Z7C
12/10/9::
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. NW
NAS WHIOBEY
ADMINISTrtATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
1
10 ~:
267
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: TRANSMITTAL OF THE SEISMIC SURVEY EVALUATION
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
10/19/90 # OF PAGES: 5
3.1-0U1-17 TYPE: LETTER
DAVID E. MOHR. P.E. PROJECT
URS
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
COORDINATOR
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
-****....*****.**.*********~*~***.*********************************************
ID #:
228
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: RESPONSE TO REGULATORY AGENCY REVIEW COMMENTS (RE: NOV 1990
AIR PATHWAY ANALYSIS WORK PLAN)
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
3.1-0U1-18
#OF PAGES: 8
TYPE: COMMENTS
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
****************************************************************************w~*
ID #:
268
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: CONFIRMATION OF PHONE CONVERSATION 11/16/90 RE: AN
ADDITIONAL HYDROGEOLOGICAL ISSUE
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
11/16/90
3.1-0U1-19
NANCY HARNEY
ENVIRONMENTAL
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
*******************************************************************************
10 #:
288
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: AREAS 5 & 6 DRAFT RIfFS PROJECT PLAN COMMENTS
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
::.1-OU1-2
MATT KLOPE
NAS WHIDBEY ISLAND. WASHINGTON
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: MEMO
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
*.*-*****.*..*~*-**R*_*********.**************.******~-.*--~**"~~~-*~*********ft
..-.. ..._.- .~'" ",_.. ~. ..
..-. ----...-. -- .-.. . .. "
-------
~12/'l0/93
... -.~ .
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. NW
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECO~D INDEX
Page
15
I D ~:
269
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: REVIEW OF REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT
FINAL MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR O.U. A
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
11/16/90 # OF PAGES: 3
3.1-0U1-20 TYPE: LETTER
BARRY ROGOWSKI
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
f - "1. . '>:.
***.*..*.************_..~~.~*.*~*~*********************.*******************.~*~.
ID #:
271
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRE~PONDENCE
TITLE: DISCUSSION CONFIRMATION
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
12/5/90
3.1-0U1-21
NANCY HARNEY
ENVI RONMENT AL
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
******-**************-*********-********.*************-*-***************-*--*.-
ID #:
270
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: COMMENTS ON DRAFT FINAL MANAGEMENT PLANS
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
# OF PAGES: 34
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
12/14/90
3.1-0U1-22
NANCY HARNEY
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
._*-*****--***---*-------****--****---*----*-**-**--*-************************~
ID #:
264
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: COMMENTS ON AIR PATHWAYS ANALYSIS WORK PLAN
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
1/3/91 # OF PAGES: 3
3.1-0U1-23 TYPE: LETTER
BARRY ROGOWSKI
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
**-******-*~*************.****.***************~-*****************~***********~.
..-..--. ..-...~_...------- .... .-.-...--..-.- '''.'.-.-
.-_. .- _..__.~_u__.__._-. -~-. .... ..,-~...'-'. ._~
.._...~---_._----- .
-. '. ---.. ..----..-- _..-'.._-------~. ,.'"
-------
,110/93
",
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. NW
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
16
..
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONQENCE
TITLE: TO CONfIRM PHONE CON ABOUT CHANGES IN REVIEW SCHEDULES
10 #:
263
DATE: 1/3/91
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 3.1-0U1-24
AUTHOR: NANCY HARNEY
AUTHOR'S ORG: ENVIRONMENTAL
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAElSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
****.*******.**********************************.******--*********************-**"
, ,
SUB-HEAD: 03~1 CORRESPONDENC~
TITLE: COMMENTS ON AIR PATHWAYS ANALYSIS WORK PLAN
10 #:
. 265
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
1/9/91
3.1-0U1-25
NANCY HARNEY
ENVIRONMENTAL
# OF PAGES: 8
TYPE: LETTER

PROTECTION AGENCY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
._-**-*******-*-************--*********-***-*****-**-************~********.***
10 #:
2:9
SUB-HEA~: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: BACKGROUND SURFACE WATER SAMPLING (WETLAND) SAMPLING FOR
AREA 5. NAS WHIDBEY ISLAND. WASHINGTON
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
1/15/91 # OF PAGES:
3.1-0U1-26 TYPE: LETTER
BARRY ROGOWSKI
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
**************-********-**********---****-**--********************-****-******:
IC #:
260
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: BRUCE WOOODS COMMENTS PERTAINING TO QA REVIEW OF SAIC'S
STANDARD OPER PROC
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
1/18/91
3.1-0U1-27
NANCY HARNEY
ENV:RONMENTAL
# Of PAGES: 2
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
*****************************************************************~********.__.
"'-"--'-'--.' -..
-.---- '.-u.--.-..--.'.'
'.-. -.'.-..-.-. ---..
- -.,. ..-.-...., . .'.----- _._---~.__..- ~...'_..
-------
12/10/93
ENGINEERING fIELD ACTIVITY. NW
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
pac;;e
17
ID ~:
272
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: COMMENTS ON INTERIM ACTION DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMO, OPERABLE
UNIT 1
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
2/12/91
3.1-0U1-28
KATHY SOUDERS
NAVAL AIR STATION WHIDBEY
# Of PAGES: 1 OPERABLE UNIT: 1
TYPE: LETTER & ENCLOSUR T.O. ACTION:
ISLAND, WASHINGTON
ADDRESSEE: COMMANDING OfFICER
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
.****~*-*******************~*******.*************************************-.***
. r . . .
10 #:
1Q7
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: COMMENTS ON REVISED DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR AREAS 5
& 6 INTERIM ACTION AT NAS WHIDBEY
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR I S ORG:
2/13/91
3.1-0U1-29
NANCY HARNEY
ENVIRONMENTAL
# OF PAGES: 9 OPERABLE UNIT: 1
TYPE: LETTER & ENCLOSUR T.O. ACTION:
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
**~****************************-****************************************...**~
10 #:
,79
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: COMMENTS ON AREAS 5 & 6 INTERIM ACTION WHIDBEY ISLAND AS Of
MARCH 02. 1990
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
4/5/90 # OF PAGES: 2
3.1-0U1-3 TYPE: LETTER
ROBERT A. POSS
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
-ADDRESSEE: PATRICK R. VASICEK
ADDRESSEE'S ORGi .EfA. NW
******************************************************************************
10 #:
273
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: COMMENTS ON NAS WHIOBEY ISLAND. FINAL RI/FS WORKPLAN
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
2/26/91
3.1-0U1-30
NANCY HARNEY
ENVIRONMENTAL
# Of PAGES: 8
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
***********************************************************.*************..**~
.. '. .-'-P'- - .--.,. --. - _. -,.-. . --
~ ,._--".. . . -'.-'--'.---'. .
-------
. 12/10/93
. .
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. N~_-.
NAS ~.JHI OBEY
ADMINISTKATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: GRANTING OF WELL CQNSTRUCTION VARIANCE
10 #:
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
3/8/91 # OF PAGES: 2
3.1-0UI-31 TYPE: LETTER
HERMAN H. HUGGINS
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
ADDRESSEE: KEVIN STIGILE
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
18
278
*********.***********************~*********************************-*****~*.**.
10 #:
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: COMMENTS ON DRAFT FINAL AIR PATHWAYS WORKPLA~' - OPERABLE
UNIT I
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
3/18/91 # OF PAGES: 3
3.1-0Ul-32 TYPE: LETTER
BARRY ROGOWSKY
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
277
----------*----_._--*-----*-*----*._*----*-*----*--**---**--*---_._-**--_.----
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: NOTIFICATION OF LABORATORY APPROVAL
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
3/18/91
3.1-0Ul-53
THOMAS FLOR
NEESA
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
ADDRESSEE: COMMANDING OFFICER (CODE 09ER)
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
10 #:
OPERABLE UNIT: I
T.O. ACTION:
275
*._.*********************************************************.****************,
10 #:
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: DISCUSSION OF NAVY'S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT AIR
PATHWAYS ANALYSIS WORKPLAN
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
5/20/91
3.1-0UI-34
NANCY HARNEY
ENVIRONMENTAL
# OF PAGES: 2
TYPE: LETTER
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
276
*****.****.....********************~****~**~**********._._--*-----*-*---------
..' ....-,..-..,.-. ...------... -..-.-.--..--. ... .-.--.
-------
12/10/95
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. ~w-.
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD I~O~X
Page
19
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: NOTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL LABORATORY SITE APPROVAL
10 #:
241
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR' S ORG:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
5/6/91 # OF PAGES: 1
3.1-0U1-35 TYPE: LETTER
THOMAS H. nOR
DEPT OF THE NAVY NAVY ENERGY AND
CA
COMMANDING OFFICER. EfA NW (09ER)
EFA. NW
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL PT HUENEME.
************-*****-**********-******************************.**********~*****:
10 #:
823
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: FI:AL REVISION OF THE AIR PATHWAY ANALYSIS PLANS
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR I S ORG:
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
9/9/91
3.1-0U1-36
PAUL MARCHANT
WASHINGTON DEPT
OF ECOLOGY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
*****.~.***************************************-~***********.*****.*******~**~
10 #:
824
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO FEDERAL FACILITIES AGREEMENT
DELIVERABLE SCHEDULE
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR I S ORG:
11/6/91
3.1-0U1-37
PAUL MARCHANT
WASHINGTON STATE
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
DEPT OF ECOLOGY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
"**--_._._------*-------*-------**------------------*-************************~
ID #:
825
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: COMMENTS LETTER DATED OCT 24. 91 CONCERNING INTERIM ACTION
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR I S ORG:
11/6/91
3.1-0U1-38
NANCY HARNEY
ENVIRONMENTAL
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 2
TYPE: LETTER

PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: KEVIN STIGILE
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
*.*********************************.***********~************_.***************-
.. ..,-..____n.'"
.. "n" ~-- -'-"'~. .-..._--- -'-'--------- -,-
---.---.--.--
.'.-..-.. '-------'------"-'
-------
,
12/10/93
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY, ~W-.
NAS WHIDSEY .
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: EXTENSION OF 30 DAY COMMENT PERIOD
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
3/31/92
3.1-0Ul-39
PAUL MARCHANT
STATE OF WASHINGTON
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
Page
I D #:
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
DEPARTMENT Of ECOLOGY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
20
1510
*~*******~**.*******.**~************************~.*****.*******************~*.
" . ~
ID #:
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: RESPC.JSE TO EPA COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF WORK FOR RI/fS AT
LANDFILL SITES 5 & 6 NAS WHIDBEY
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
5/01/90
3.1-0Ul-4
SUB LOISELLE
ENVIRONMENTAL
# Of PAGES: 5
TYPE: LETTER
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: PATRICK R. VASICEK
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
280
****************..****************************~*~******.***..*.*.******~*-*.~ .
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: RESULTS OF CONFIRMATORY SAMPLING
DATE: 7/30/92
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 3.1-0Ul-40
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG: URS
# OF PAGES: 3
TYPE: LETTER
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: .EFA. NW
ID #:
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
1660
********.*********************************************...*.****.****..*******-
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: COMMENTS ON DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
10 #:
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
8/3/92
3.1-0Ul-41
PAUL MARCHANT
WASHINGTON STATE
# OF PAGES: 2
TYPE: LETTER
DEPT Of E:OLOGY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
1661
*******-************************************~~****~~*******.****~~*********w*~
..- ...- - .......-.' _h..__._----."---' ...- -.,..--.,.--- - - --- - -- ----- .-- ._,-_...
"-"'-------- ....,.
-------
12/10/93
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. ~_.
NAS wHIOBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
21
1D #:
2946
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: SUBMITTAL OF DRAFT FIELD SAMPLING AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
PROJECT PLAN ADDENDA FOR ADDITIONAL SAMPLING AT OU1
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
11/17/92 # OF PAGES: 1
3.1-0Ul-42 TYPE: LETTER
KEVIN W. STIGILE
EFA. NW
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: NANCY HARNEY/PAUL MARCHANT
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EPA/WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
# . .**-*.*****..***.***************~*****************.******.~***w*************..-

. .' . I D #: ~ 3~~ 0
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: SE~JING THE WELL 6-D-4 CLOSURE PLAN
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
11/20/92
3.1-0Ul-43
KEVIN STIGI LE
EFA. NW
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: NANCY HARNEY/PAUL MARCHANT
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EPA/WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY
******.**.***********************~*********~*************-*-----**-***-**--*.-
ID #:
2947
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: ANNOUNCING THAT KARL POHLMANN WILL BE ON-SITE 12/30 TO 1/7
TO SAMPLE 6 GROUN~ WATER MONITORING WELLS
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR I S ORG:
12/9/92 # OF PAGES: 2
3.1-0Ul-44 TYPE: LETTER
NADINE L. ROMERO
WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
*---**-*********-*********-***********-********.********-******--*-*---******"
ID #:
3341
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: SENDING THE MINUTES FOR NOV. 25. '92 MEETING
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
12/14/92
3.1-0Ul-45
KEVIN STIGILE
EFA. NW
# OF PAGES: 5
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: NANCY HARNEY/PAUL MARCHANT
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EPA/WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY
****-*****-**-******-****-*-**-----*--*-----*-**---*--*******************.«*~
..--- --_._..-...-. .._-....
-. - .-.- _.. _._..---_.~_.-._---_.-
. --..--.-.- . .
-------
12/10/93
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. ~_.
NAS WHID8EY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
22
10 #:
2948
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: MEETING MINUTES Of NOV 25. 92 CONfERENCE CALL
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
# Of PAGES: 7
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
12/16/92
3.1-0Ul-45
KEVIN STIGILE
EFA. NW
ADDRESSEE: NANCY HARNEY/PAUL MARCHANT
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EPA/WASHINGTON STATE DEPT Of ECOLOGY
***.~*,*.******************.*~***********.******************************.*******-
( . . .
ID #:
2949
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: ABANDONMENT Of WELL 6-0-4
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
'. .
12/15/92
3.1-0U1-47
PAUL MARCHANT
WASHINGTON STATE
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
DEPARTMENT Of ECOLOGY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EfA. NW
..**************,**********************-***************************..**********
ID #:
2950
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: FOLLOW-UP LETTER OF ECOLOGIES REGARDING AGREEMENTS REACHED
ON THE ABANDONMENT Of WELL 6-0-4
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
12/23/92
3.1-0U1-48
NANCY HARNEY
EPA
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
# Of PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEF'S ORG: EfA. NW
******************************************..**********************************
10 #:
2951
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: SUBMITTAL OF fINAL FIELD SAMPLING AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
PROJECT PLAN ADDENDA FOR ADDITIONAL SAMPLING AT OU 1
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
1/20/93 # OF PAGES: 1
3.1-0Ul-49 TYPE: LETTER
KEVIN W. STIGILE
EFA. NW
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: COMMANDING OFFICER
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: NAVAL AIR STATION WHIDBEY ISLAND
*************************************************************************-**~~
------- -. ..-.. . -. --'~..'
~.-.. -,....~.._._,,,~_...'
..-- -----__.___n-
. .._n ...-.--.-....- -. -.
-------
. 12/10/93
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. N~--.
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
23
ID #:
281
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: FOLLOW-UP TO THE RI/FS MID-COURSE CORRECTION MEETING HELD
5/11/90
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
# OF PAGES: 2
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
5/17/90
3.1-0U1-5
BUB LOISELLE
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EfA. NW
**._.**-****_.*-*-****************-*-****-****-**-****************************~
ID #:
2952
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: SUBMITTAL OF FINAL FIELD SAMPLING AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
PROJECT PLAN ADDENDA fOR ADDITIONAL SAMPLING AT OU 1
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
1/20/93
3.1-0U1-50
KEVIN STIGILE
EfA. NW
# Of PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: NANCY HARNEY/PAUL MARCHANT
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EPA/WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY
*-********-***-****.*-***-**.***-******************-**********.**************.~
ID ~:
2953
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: CLOSURE REPORT fOR WELL 6-0 AT NAVAL AIR STATION WHIDBEY
ISLAND
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR I S ORG:
# Of PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
3/1/93
3.1-0U1-51
BELA J. VARGA
EFA. NW
ADDRESSEE: COMMANDING OFFICER
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: NAVAL AIR STATION WHIDBEY ISLAND
.*._*-*-*****************._.****-*****************._.*************************7
ID #:
2955
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: SELECTION OF BACKGROUND LOCATIONS FOR GROUNDWATER AND SOILS
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
3/23/93
3.1-0U1-S2
VIVIANNE C.
URS
# OF PAGES: 4
TYPE: LETTER
LARKIN
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EfA. NW
**-**-*----**----***_._--**--********-*-----*****-*****************.**********~
. - . u." -...---- .~----_......._.' -"--"--"'..--.."---'------"
---- -..-...-.,..------ .
..- ""-------------
-------
.,'
12/10/93
SUB- HEAD: 0.3. 1
TITLE:
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
ENGINEERING fIELD ACTIVITY. NW
NAS WHIDSEY -
ADMiNISTRATIVE R£CORD INDEX
Page
10 it:
24
2956
CORRESPQNDENCE
SENDING REPORT ADDRESSING THE SAMPLING ACTIVITIES. SUMMARY
Of THE ANALYTICAL RESULTS fOR EACH SAMPLE. ANALYTICAL DATA.
CHAIN Of CUSTODY
3/24/93 # Of PAGES: 1
3.1-0U1-53 TYPE: .LETTER
STEVE HULSMAN
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT Of ECOLOGY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EfA. NW
********.********.-.****************************.**********.*..*.**********--_?
ID #:
.3~42
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: SENDING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAfT FEASIBILITY STUDY
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
4/2/93
3.1-0U1-55
BELA VARGA
EfA. NW
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
ADDRESSEE: NANCY HARNEY/PAUL MARCHANT
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EPA/WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY
****_w***.***.*.*********************.**.***********.********.************..**-
ID #:
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: LETTER OF SUBMITTAL Of REVISED DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
4/22/93
3.1-0Ul-56
BELA VARGA
EFA. NW
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: NANCY HARNEY/PAUL MARCHANT
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EPA/WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY
"
3343
*********.******.*************-**************.*-******************************~
10 it:
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: SENDING SUBMITTAL Of REVISED DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR' S ORG:
4/22/93
3.1-0Ul-57
BELA VARGA
EFA. NW
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: COMMANDING OFFICER
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: NAS WHIDBEY
5344
-***-*-*--*----**-*-*.-._----*-------**---***----*._-***************-*****.***~
-~..- --"---- ..
... ...--_.. .- _.
-------
"
"12/10/93
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. NW- -- .
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
25
ID 3:
3346
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: SENDING SUBMITTAL Of DRAFT FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY AND
DRAFT PROPOSED PLAN
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
5/6/93
3.1-0Ul-59
BELA VARGA
EFA. NW
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: COMMANDING OFFICER
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: NAS WHIDBEY
~.._*~.***..********************************.*************w_*-*._c-***-**._*.-,-
. .' ~ .
ID #:
30J
SUB- HEAD: 03.1 COP RES PONDENCE -
TITLE: COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF WORK FOR RI/FS LANDFILL SITE~ 5 & 6
NAS WHIDBEY
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
5/02/90 # OF PAGES: 1
3.1-0Ul-6 TYPE: LETTER
ROBERT A. POSS
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: BUB LOISELLE
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
**-****._.-*****-*******-*******-**********---**-*-***********************~***~
10 #:
33~ 7
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: SUBMITTAL OF fINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND FEASIBILITY
STUDIES
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
6/17/93
3.1-0U1-60
BELA VARGA
EFA. NW
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: NANCY HARNEY/PAUL MARCHANT
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EPA/WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY
*-*****-****--*****--**--************************._._--****....****-***********
10 #:
3348
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: SUBMITTAL OF FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND FEASIBILITY
STUDIES
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR I S ORG:
6/17/93
3.1-0U1'-61
':'ELA VARSA
EFA. NW
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: COMMANDING OFfICER
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: NAS WHIDBEY
************..******************************~*.*******-**-***-.-.***-*--_.-**.-
.-. ...~ .., .,~.. ~ ._.- ..- ._.__._--.-~....
.. ._-~ ----..--..-.---
. .. .--. "--_U'.. - -..-
.- _...._~---_.~---- --' - .-----.. .
-------
, ,
.,2-7 C
12/10/93
... - ,- .
ENGINEERING fIELD ACTIVITY. NW
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
2~
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: LIST OF ACTION ITEMS
10 #:
282
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
5/30/90
3.1-0U1-7
BUB LOISELLE
ENVIRONMENTAL
# Of PAGES: 12
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
.~*...*.*~*********.*********.*******~~***********.*********************.***~.r**.
10 #:
283
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORR~SPONDENCE
TITLE: REVIEW COMMENTS ON DRAFT FINAL INTERIM ACTION PROJECT PLANS
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
6/05/90 # OF PAGES: 16
3.1-0U1-8 TYPE: lETTER
KATHRYN A. SOUDERS
NAS WHIDBEY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: COMMANDING OFFICER
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
********--**-********.***********************.****.***********************_.~*.~
10 #:
28<:
SUB-HEAD: 03.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: ECOLOGY'S COMMENTS ON DRAFT FINAL INTERIM ACTION PROJECT
PLANS FOR OU A (AREAS 5 & 6)
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
6/05/90 # OF PAGES: 3
3.1-0U1-9 TYPE: LETTER
ROBERT A. POSS
DEPARTMENT Of ECOLOGY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: PATRICK R. VASICEK
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EfA. NW
*****************..********************..************-.*.*******...*...****....P
10 #:
840
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: SCOPE OF WORK FOR RI/fS LANDFIll
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
5/2/90 # OF PAGES: 1
3.10-0Ul-1 TYPE: LETTER
ROBERT A. POSS
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
ADDRESSEE: BUB LOISELLE
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_.--...*.******-*.~***.*.***********.****~-********.~*********************..~_.
--.----.- -..------.-.- .-
..-- --'-"'-...."-
..--".------- '---'----- .
- .- --.--.-.---- .
-------
, .12/10/93
.... -." .
ENGrNE~RING FIELD ACTIViTY. NW
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
27
10 #:
1665
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: COMMENTS ON DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
7/21/92
3.10-0U1-10
KATHY SOUDERS
ROICC WHIDBEY
# OF PAGES: 5
TYPE: lETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
********._************.********~*~*************.****.******************~*~*.**.*
10 #:
1666
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: COMMENTS ON DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR OUI
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
7/24/92 # OF PAGES: 13
3.10-0Ul-ll ,TYPE: lETTER
PAUL MARCHANT
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
*******..********************************************.****~************.**p..~~,
10 #:
1667
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: COMMENTS ON DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FOR OU 1
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR' S ORG:
7/28/92
3.10-0U1-12
NANCY HARNEY
ENVIRONMENTAL
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 15
TYPE: LETTER
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
" '
*******************************************************************************
ID #:
1668
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: REMAINING COMMENTS OF EPA'S COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT FINAL RI
REPORT
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
8/4/92
3.10-0Ul-13
NANCY HARNEY
ENVIRONMENTAL
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 13
TYPE: LETTER
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
**.*************.****************~*****~*********.****-------*--------**-_.-._-
...."... .--
'-'---'-.- - ...----- --~..
-------
,12/10/93
ENGrN~E:RING fIELD ACTIVITY. NW'- --"
NAS WHIDSEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
28
ID #:
1966
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: COMMENTS ON DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
# OF PAGES: 27
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
8/18/92
3.10-0U1-14
PAUL MARCHANT
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
**~*******.*'*****************************************************************.~~
10 #:
2979
SUB-HEAD:" 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: ECOLOGY COMMENTS IF THE WELL CLOSURE PLAN FOR WEll 6-0-4
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
12/9/92
3.10-0U1-15
PAUL MARCHANT
WASHINGTON STATE
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAElSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
*******-*******-*******-********************************************-*******.~*.
ID #:
3286
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: COMMENTS OF THE DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR' S ORG:
5/27/93
3.10-0U1-16
NANCY HARNEY
EPA
OPERABLE UN IT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 24
TYPE: LETTER
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
..******************************.***********************************************,
10 #:
3287
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
6/1/93
3.10-0U1-17
K. J. SKINNER
NAS WHIDBEY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
# OF PAGES: 2
TYPE: lETTER
ADDRESSEE: COMMANDING OFFICER
ADDRESSEE'S GRG: EFA. NW
*-*-**--***--*.-._*--*-*-------**-****---***----*-************-~~*****._'*****-~'
--.... .--,--.-----..-...
.-_... ----..,--.. -.-,-_.'
-------
'.12/10/93
..
.... -.~ .
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. NW
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
29
ID #:
3288
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: COMMENTS ON THE REVISED DRAFT FINAL fEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
# Of PAGES: 14
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
6/1/93
3.10-0U1-18
PAUL MARCHANT
WASHINGTON STATE
DEPT Of ECOLOGY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
************************************************************************~******-
10 #:
3289
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: COMMENTS ON REVISED DRAfT fINAL REMEDIAL INVESXflGATION
REPORT
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
# OF PAGES: 6
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
6/1/93
3.10-0Ul-19
PAUL MARCHANT
WASHINGTON STATE
DEPT Of ECOLOGY
ADDRESSEE: 6RYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
*******************************************************-*********-*-*-**-**---*'
10 #:
564
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: COMMENTS ON DRAfT MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR OPERABLE UNIT 1
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
10/2/90 # Of PAGES: 2
3.10-0U1-2 TYPE: LETTER
BARRY ROGOWSKI
DEPARTMENT Of ECOLOGY STATE
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
Of WASHINGTON
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EfA.NW
*******************************************************************************
10 #:
3291
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: COMMENTS ON THE DRAfT FINAL fEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
6/10/93
3.10-0Ul-20
NANCY HARNEY
EPA
# Of PAGES: 13
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EfA. NW
-*~.***************.*********************~************************-***-*****-**
-. --~~--'~"-- ~~------,..... .
--~--_w_-------_.-. _.-
----- - --..-------.-..------..
-------
,'-2/10/93
..... - ,'" .
ENGINEERING fIELD ACTIVITY. NW~
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
30
ID #:
3290
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: COMMENTS Of THE REVISED DRAfT FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
REPOKT
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
6/2/93
3.10-0U1-20
K.J. SKINNER
NAS WHIDBEY
# OF PAGES: 2
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: COMMANDING OFfICER (09ER)
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EfA. NW
*~.*.*.*.**~-*************_._~***.*********************************************~
10 #:
1158
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: RESPONSES TO REGULATORY AGENCY REVIEW COMMENTS Of NOVEMBER'
1990 AIR PATHWAY ANALYSIS WORK PLAN
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
1/91
3.10-0U1-3
URS
# Of PAGES: 8
TYPE: RESPONSES
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
***************************-**********~***-******~*.~***.~~********************.
10 #:
1159
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: RE~PONSES TO REGULATORY AGENCY REVIEW COMMENTS RE: JUNE
1991 AIR PATHWAY ANALYSIS WORK PLAN APPENENDICES
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
6/91
3.10-0U1-4
URS
# Of PAGES: 9
. TYPE: RESPONSES
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
****.***..*************...********************************.********************,
ID #:
1160
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: COMMENTS ON SITE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY REPORT. OPERABLE
UNIT 1 NAS WHIDBEY
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
2/20/92
~.10-0U1-5
PAUL MARCHANT
DEPARTMENT Of
# OF PAGES: 3 OPERABLE UNIT: 1
TYPE: LETTER & COMM~NTS T.O. ACTION:
ECOLOGY STATE Of WASHINGTON
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HEALSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EfA. NW
***.****~************.**.****************~*~*************.******************.*~,
--.. -..-------..
,. -----...- -~- .-.-.- -- -_.
'-'" -.... .-...--. .., -..
. -- --- ~.--....~.... ._-,.
. ..- ..- ..--.,-... --.'-' "'.-- -_...-.-----,.. . ,. - . .
-------
.12/10/93
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. NW
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
31
I D #:
1512
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: COMMENTS ON DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OU 1
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
4/9/92
3.10-0U1-6
NANCY HARNEY
ENVIRONMENTAL
# OF PAGES: 52
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
f - '- ;" ' . ..
*********************~~.~~r~r*-**~***********.*****~*************************~*~.
10 #:
1513
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: COMMENTS ON DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OU 1
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
# OF PAGES: 16 OPERABLE UNIT: 1
TYPE: LETTER & ENCLOSUR T.O. ACTION:
4/15/92
3.10-0U1-7
PAUL MARCHANT
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPT OF ECOLOGY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
"
****-****.*-**-*-**-***-**********-*-******--**-******************************~~
1 D #:
1663
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF WORK FOR SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF OF
SAMPLES FROM WELL 6-D-4 AND ABANDONMENT OF WELL 6-D-4
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
# OF PAGES: 13
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
6/1/92
3.10-0U1-8
NANCY HARNEY
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
********************************************************************************
ID #:
1664
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR OU1
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR 'S ORG:
# OF PAGES: 19
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
7/21/92
3.10-0U1-9
NANCY HARNEY
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
**********************~********************************************************-
. _____d ---. ..
n ..-. .._.~_..-
-------
J..2/10/93
ENGINEERING fIELD ACTIVITY. NW~
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
32
ID #:
2980
SUB-HEAD: 03.10 COMMENTS
TITLE: COMMENTS Of DRAfT fINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
3/30/93
3.10-0U2-21
PATTY MCGRATH
EPA
# Of PAGES: 24
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EfA. NW
**.**~*.*~***~*.***************~***************.*..**.*****************~*~******~
ID #:
301
SUB-HEAD: 03.2 . SCOPES Of WORK.
TITLE: COMMENTS ON INTERIM ACTION SAMPLING PLAN fOR AREAS 5 & 6
:.'
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
4/19/90
3.2-0U1-1
BUB LOISELLE
ENVIRONMENTAL
# Of PAGES: 15
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
PROTECTION AGENCY
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EfA. NW
*.~.**************~******************-*****************.*****-***.***-**.**~***~
10 #:
2974
SUB-HEAD: 03.2 SCOPES Of WORK
TITLE: fAX'D COpy Of PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE AND WORK PLAN
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
12/7/92
3.2-0Ul-2
STEVE HULSMAN
WASHINGTON STATE
# OF PAGES: 11
TYPE: REPORT
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
DEPT OF HEALTH
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
. ADDRESSEE'SORG: EFA. NW
************************************************.******************.*.*.*-******
ID #:
303
SUB-HEAD: 03.3 RI/FS PROJECT PLANS
TITLE: HEALTH AND SAfETY PLAN OPERABLE UNIT 1
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
2/1/91 # OF PAGES: 240
3.3-0U1-1 TYPE: REPORT
SCIENCE APPLICA~IONS INTEkNATIONAL
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
CORPORATION
CORPORATION
ADDRESSEE: URS CONSULTANTS. INC.
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: URS CONSULTANTS. INC.
**-***********************************-****************..*****-****.************~
-.." ...__.~_.--_..-._._......._.,_._.... ......
.m ,-.- -.. -. ....-.._-~-_. '.u. ...---- .. .
-. -.. '...u_m',,_-' ...- - .-
'--"'--"'-'.
-------
..
7C
12/10/93
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. NW
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
33
ID #:
2976
SUB-HEAD: 03.3 RI/FS PROJECT PLANS
TITLE: ADDENDUM TO QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
1/8/93
3.3-0U1-10
URS
# OF PAGES: 22
TYPE: REPORT
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
. \' .
***~*******~**.**.***********.~...********-~*****.***************.************.**~
ID #:
2977
SUB-HEAD:' 03.3 RI/FS PROJECT PLANS
TITLE: ADDENDUM TO FIELD SAMPLING PLAN
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
1/8/93
3.3-0U1-ll
URS
# OF PAGES: 17
TYPE: REPORT
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
.....**--**-*-**-*---*-**-*******-******.***---***-***-****--_.-.*-*-----*-*._.__.
10 #:
304
SUB-HEAD: 03.3 RI/FS PROJECT PLANS
TITLE: QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN OPERABLE UNIT 1
DA T E :
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
2/1/91 # OF PAGES: 88
3.3-0Ul-2 . TYPE: REPORT
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
CORPORATION
CORPORATION
ADDRESSEE: URS CONSULTANTS. INC.
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: URS CONSULTANTS. INC.
*********************************************************************************,
ID #:
839
SUB-HEAD: 03.3 RI/FS PROJECT PLANS
TITLE: COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR' S ORG:
2/1/91
3.3-0Ul-3
URS
# OF PAGES: 74
TYPE: REPORT
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: EFA. NW
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
********************.*-***********w******-~****~*****************************-***
. . .- -. ..-. -,. -.
. --..-- .. .
.- -.' .~..' .------ --- ---._-.
-------
:
12:/10/93
ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY. NW
Nt\S WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
:.
SUB-HEAD: 03.3 RIfFS PROJECT PLANS
TITLE: FIELD SAMPLING PLAN OPERABLE UNIT 1
10 #:
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
2/1/91 # OF PAGES: 148
3.3-0U1-4 TYPE: REPORT
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
ADDRESSEE: URS CONSULTANTS. INC.
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: URS CONSULTANTS. INC.
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
CORPORATION
CORPORATION
34
302
.*-***-*-_.-.***--***-*******-******-'-********************************-**«**-****.
SUB-HEAD: 03.3 RI/FS PROJECT PLANS
TITLE: WORK PLAN OPERABLE UNIT 1
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR I S ORG:
2/1f91 # OF PAGES: 118
3.3-0U1-5 TYPE: REPORT
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
ADDRESSEE: URS CONSULTANTS. INC.
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: URS CONSULTANTS. INC.
10 #:
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
CORPORATION
CORPORATION
305
*****--*************--*****-*********--***********-*.-*****************-******_..w
SUB-HEAD: 03.3 RIfFS PROJECT PLANS
TITLE: MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
11/5/91 # OF PAGES: 1
3.3-0UI-6 TYPE: lETTER
DAVID B. SHEHEE
MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEM INC.
10 #:
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: MR. SCHEIBLE
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EAGLE PICHER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
838
*********************************************************************************
SUB-HEAD: 03.3 RIfFS PROJECT PLANS
TITLE: CHANGES FOR THE COMMNUNITY RELATIONS PLAN (CRP)
10 #:
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
6/28/91
3.3-0Ul-7
URS
# OF PAGES: 15
TYPE: CHANGES
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
1155
******-***~~...*~**-*****-*********-**-*******.**************-***-***-.***-**.~.~
.. -.---.----.--.- ~---- ...
--'---"'--" ..- -
-------
..
l' 2 /1 0 /9 3
ENGINEERING fIELD ACTIVITY. NW
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
35
10 #:
1156
SUB-HEAD: 03.3 RIfFS PROJECT PLANS
TITLE: CHANGES TO BE MADE TO THE RI/FS MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR NAS
WHIDBEY ISLAND OPERABLE UNIT 1
DATE: 5/6/91
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 3.3-0Ul-8
AUTHOR: SAIC
AUTHOR'S ORG:
# OF PAGES: 117
TYPE: CORRECTIONS
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE' 5 ORG:
*********************************"************.**.****~************i5*i7-*~~~,g'**-

SUB-HEAD: 03.3 RI/FS PROJECT PLANS
TITLE: WELL:LOSURE PLAN FOR ABANDONMENT OF WELL 6-0-4
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
11/19/92
3.3-0Ul-9
URS
# OF PAGES: 20
TYPE: REPORT
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
**.**.~.*********~******.************.**-*~*****************~*******--******~~*~
ID #:
837
SUB-HEAD: 03.4 ATA/CHAIN OF CUSTODY
TITLE: DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL - VALIDATED DATA
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
10/7/91
3.4-0U1-1
DAVID E. MOHR
URS CONSLUlTANTS
# Of PAGES: 5 OPERABLE UNIT: 1
TYPE: LETTER & ENCLOSUR T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAElSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
******************************************************************************-*
ID I:
3690
SUB-HEAD: 03.4 ATA/CHAIN OF CUSTODY
TITLE: NOTICE OF lOCATION OF ARCHIVED LABORATORY DATA FOR OU1
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR' S ORG:
12/7/93
3.4-0Ul-2
BRYAN HAELSIG
EFA. NW
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
.****-************************************************-*_w*****---*-*.----_...**
- ..- -. - ----
. -... ..n ......-.- '~'_._'q'."~-'-'-~+.'-'-'_._.'.' .
.. _. ...----_..
-------
.12/10/93
ENGINEERING fIELD ACTIVITY. NW
NAS WHIDBEY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Page
36
SUB-HEAD: 03.6 RI/FS REPORTS
TITLE: FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR OU1
ID #:
3040
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
6/93
3.6-0Ul-1
URS
# OF PAGES: 235
TYPE: REPORT
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
, ~
.- * *..* * ** ** fit..... .*... -*** fIt.'JIIr * * 'ftt~ -f***-** 1It **..... -.-.** * *** ** ** ....... ******** -*. -* * **..fIt **... ".."-.,.
ID #:
3039
SUB-HEAD: 03.6 RI/FS P~PORTS
TITLE: FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION VOL 3 OF 3 APPENDIX 1-0
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
6/93
3.6-0U1-2
URS
# OF PAGES:
TYPE: REPORT
OPERABLE UN IT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
********-**-**_w._****..******-**-*-**-*********************.************.**..~~.
SUB-HEAD: 03.6 RIfFS REPORTS
TITLE: FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FOR OU1 VOL 1 Of 3
10 #:
3041
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
6/93
3.6-0U1-3
URS
# OF PAGES: 688
TYPE: REPORT
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
...***...***********************************************************************a
SUB-HEAD: 03.6 RI/FS REPORTS
TITLE: FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OUI VOL 2 OF 3
ID #:
3042
APPENDIXES A-H
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
6/93
3.6-0U1-4
URS
# OF PAGES: 1118
TYPE: REPORT
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
**********....w***************************_._***..****-*-----*-_._.*-*-*....-*-*.
-. ..--.-.---.-. ....".--. .-.
.--------'.-'-- -
- .'-'__,...'n_...
-------
- - .-.-
T.C
.
12/10/93
ENGINEERING F:E~D AC7iVITY.~N~
HAS WH!DSEY
ADMINrSTRA~iVE ~ECOR0 INDEX
ID ;t:
5US-HEAO: Q3.7 PROPOSED PLAN
TITLE: PROPOSE~ ?LANS
DATE:
)OCUMENT NUM8ER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
7/93 # Of PAGES: 12
3.7-0Ul-l TYPE: 6COKLE~
NAVAL Ai~ STATiON. WHID8EY
OP~RA6~E ~NrT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE:
4.DDRESSEE'S ORG:
;1
Page. 37
2Si'o
,.
ID #:
- '*~*****.****~*.******'****.~..**'***~~*.******.**.*-*.*._****..***.._.*__~w*l~~.*_-
3292
5U6-HEAD: 04.1 CORRE~~ONDENCE
TITLE: COMMENTS ON NAS WHIDSEY ISLAND OU:
PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION PLAN
MONITORING PLA~. R£VISEQ
~j
,
DATE: 7/20/93
COCUMENT NUMSER: 4.1-0Ul-l
AUTHOR: PAUL MARCHANT
AUTHOR'S ORG: WASHINGTON STATE
DEPT Of ECOLOGY
~ OF PAGES: 3
TYPE: LETTER
OPERA6L~ ~N17:
T.O. ACTION:
; ~
A.OOR::SSE:'::: ~o;:..'(;'.N
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA.
}if-.as IG
N:..i
Ia #:
.~~~*N~**..**..~.*.~.****.*~**~.~~*******_.*.~**...****~..~.~*..~.._**~****~~~~A.
3389
.,
'J
SUB-HEAD: 04.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: SUBMITTAL Of DRAfT RECORD Of DECISION rO~ cu:
"
7/30/93
4.1-0Ul-2
BELA VARGA
EfA. NW
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
# OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
.'
..
ADDRESSEE: NANCY HARNEY/PAUL MARCHANT
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EPA/WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY
:.,;
1D #:
*******************************************************-***********************.-
3390
SUB-HEAD: 04.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: SUBMITTAL Of DRAfT R~CORD OF D~crSION CN au 1
DATE: 7/30/93
DOCUMEN~ NUM8ER: 4.1-0Ul-3
AUTHOR: BELA VARGA
AUTHCR'S ORG: EfA.NW
G?ERAS~E ~N~7: l
7.0. AC-;-IGN:
# G7 ?AG.::S: :
7'(:=-;:::
~C:1T~~
AGCRESSE~: COMMANDING OFFIC£~
ACC~~SS~['S ORG: NA5 hHIC5[Y rS~A~~
A~~~~*.W_..*~*.***.A***.*~W~*~*kW.k~~~~'.~~~~~ -~.~A~~ .~.~*~-~~_w._-~.~~~~~-~~~'...~'
--..-.. ." .,.---- -.---------.......---.-....,
-------
..." - ,...-
~21;';)/93
Z~~i~E~RI~G fiELD ACT~V::Y.
NAS ~.JHI D8EY
ADM:~:5:~TrV~ RECORD iNDEX
Moi -
Page
38-
~D ;;:
~07
St.a- i-1'::A:) :
J5.i
T!'I...E:
Cvi~~F..~ S ?Ci"J'::,\C ~
f~~E~AL FACILiTY AGREEMENT FOR NAS WH!wS£Y
DATE:
3/30
5.1-QUJ..-l
;:. CF PAGES: 2
TYPE: LETTER
OPERA5..E: UN IT: 1
T .0. AC7ION:
DOCl,;MENT NUM8ER:
AUTr.OR:
$~!;~
AUT~O~'S O~G: NAS ~HIJ8EY
ADDR£SS£~: COMMA~DER-l~-CnIEF. U.S. PACIFIC fLEET (COCE 001E)
ADDRESSEE'S ORG:
:!.
2
-:
-~
~' . \' .
ft.*._~*~..~-***-~~_._.k.*.**_~~*-*******~*~***'***~***-****.__._*****_._*_..._._p.
I D #:
3Jc
SUB-HEAD: ~5.1 CORRESPONDENCE
TITLE: FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT FOR NAS WHI)8EY
DA7E: 3/l0/g0 # OF PAGES: 1
DCCWME~T NUM8E~: 5.1-CUl-2 TYPE: LETTER
AUTHOR: R.r. HEr~E. ;~-
AUTHOR'S ORG: ENGINEERING FIE..D ACTIVITY
O?ERAoLE l,;NIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
i\iC~7iiwe:ST
ADDRESSEE:: COMMANJ~R. NAVFACE~GCOM (CODE G9C34)
ADDRESSEE'S CRG:
**.~.K**.4~.WW***.**..****~****..******.*****~A..*W.A.~****~***..***~~***.k~..~~a
10 #:
843
SUe-hEAD: 05.1 CORR~5?O~DENCS
TITLE: CHANGE IN ECOLOGY PROJECT ~ANAGER
DATE: 8/1/91 # OF PAGES: 1
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 5.1-0Ul-3 TYPE: LETTER
AUTHOR: DUANE R. GOODMAN
AUTHOR'S ORG: STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPT OF ECOLOGY
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: PAT VASICEK
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EfA. NW
******************************..*******-*********-***.*******************.**.~~*
10 #:
1959
SUB-HEAD: 05.1
T!";LE:
CORRESPONDENCE
EXTENDING THe: 30 DAY COMMENT PERIOD FOR REVI~~ OF THE GRAfT
rEASI8ILITY STl,;JY FOR au 1 BY ~O MOR~ THAN ONE wEE~
DA T E :
DCC;,JMENT NUMSER:
AUTHOR:
AiJTHC~ 'S ORG:
7/Zl.IS2
5.1-0Ul-4
PAUL MARCHANT
STA7E OF wASHrNGTC~
~ Of"
;:)AG~S: :.
TYPE:
LETT~R
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
1.0. ACTIC!\!:
DEPARTMENT OF E~OLO~Y
?-. .:.: :=::: 5 5 ~.:: ;
ADC~ZSS~~'5 ORG:
.3.:" Y:"'N
;-:AC:LS!G
;:: Fr'. 9 N~
#If ... ", . . *' .. . .. .. ... '" .. ... . .. ." \or .,.""" .. iii. ... '" 'IIIr .., .. ... ,.. ~ - . :'If ,. ... .... I/{ .. * * .. . ... .... ,. ,. ... -- ." 4t "'oIIr Ie .. .. ,. ... " ~ ,., ,.. 1111: 1Iir N .. /lit AI lit .. '" I/( "Ill' ~ .. .. - .. .. ~ "!"
- .....-. --..-.---....--'------------.
".'.--".'--.'
" - -.-. ----- .---
----.. -~-
-------
";!
,1
'.~
':1
'1
.,
"
,
-
"
..
:7C
12/10/9.3
SUc-;..~Aj) :
05.1
"T!TLE:
DATE:
DOC~M~N7 NUMBER:
A.UTHOR,:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
- - ,_."
£NGIN£~RING fI~LD ACTIVITY. ~W
;';1\-> wiil01:3£Y
ADMINISTRATIVE RECCRD iNDEX
1D #:
CORRESPOND£NC;::
QUAK7E~~Y ?~CGRESS
~S?ORT FO~ TSI~Q Q~AK;~R OF 1~92
10/23iS2
5.1-0U1-5
K EV ! N S TI G r :.. £
EF A.. NW
~ Of PAGES: 3
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T .C. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: NANCY HARNEY/PAUL MARCHANT
ADDRESSEE'S DRG: EPA/WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT Of ECOLOGY
Page
39
~018
...*.***..*..***..***..*..w********_...~..*..w***-*******.******.******...**.~..~
SUB-HEAD: 05.1
TITLE:
DATE:
COC~:":E:...-:- Nl;MEER:
AUT:iCR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
10 '*:
CORRESPONDENCE
EXTENSION Of 50-DAY COMMENT PERIOD
7/21/92
5.1-0U1-S
PAUL MARCHANT
DEPARTMENT Of
~ Of PAGES: 1
TYPE: ~E7TER
O?£RA8LS UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ECOLOGY
ADDRESSEE: cRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. Nw
1657
*..~*.-~*.***...***.*~.*****~.~****.**~****..**..*..**.**~****~w***...**.***_.~**
SUS-HEAD: 05.1
TIT~E:
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
ID #:
CORRESPONDENCE
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO FEDERAL fACILITIES AGREEMEN7
D£LIVERA8~E SCHEDULE FOR OUl
10/30/92 # OF PAGES: 6
5.1-0Ul-6 TYPE: LETTER
V. L. VASAITIS
EfA. NW
OPERA8LE UNIT: 1
T .0. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: NANCY HARNEY/PAUL MARCHANT
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EPA/WASHINGTON STA7E DEPT Of ECOLOGY
3295
****.**..**.*..**.****.******.~*********.**.***.**********_.*-**-********.w......
SUB-HEAD: 05.1
T!TLE:
DA7:::
DCCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTi-i()R:
A'-iTHOR'S ORG:
ID ~:
1971
CORRESPONDENCE
COMMEN7S ON THE SCHEDULE FOR 7ARG~T CAT~S AN~ DEADLI~ES FOR
THE INTERIM ACTION AT OUl
# OF ?AGC:S: .1.
TYPE: LETTER
C.=::.;;.8:":: vNIT: .i
, T .0. ACT lOr.:
9/14/92
5.1-0U1-6
?AUL MARCHANT
STATE Of WA5~INGTC~
;)EPT Of ECCL0GY
AOO~~SSSE: 6RYA~ ~A~~S:G
ADDFESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
,. .. ... .iII' ... ,. . ., ... .. -- ... .... .. ~ ." .. .. . . '" .. lit' iii M * .. ". .. .. .. ... ,. of, ... ~ . It ,.. .ft.. .. ... .. .... ;III, ~: I't .. ... ... ..... " ,., .. ~ ": ,. .. fit, ... ... .... "': Ii. "' ,It " .. .. ." " '. .. ,. ~ ... . . . ;. .
-------
:":
....!
.::
.":
.!
.'1
j
,.!
ll./lO/93
;:j
.'-;
i
.,'i
]
SUS-,-iEAO:
::'5.':'
T:TLE:
DATi:::
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AvTnOR:
AUTtiOR' S ORG:
.1
.~
.~i
:j
-.
ENG~NEERING fIELD ACTIVITY. NW
NAS WHiDaEY
AOMrNIS!~7rVE RECORD INDEX
Page
I D #:
CORRES?ONL>ENCE
A??RCVIOIiG 7;-':::: NAVY' SREQUEST FOR MOO~f!C.o\T!CN OF' FFA
SCii::DULi::
~1/9/92
5.1-0Ul-7
NANCY HARNEY
EPA
# Of PAGES: <;
TYPE: LETTER
CPERA8L£ UNIT: 1
T .C. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EFA. NW
j
,I
'j
:i

~~J
'j
40
3297
_..***~*_._*.**.*.*****.****..*****************_._****.~..*--.***..*w.*.~.:.w.._*~
:;;
SUB-HEAD: 05.1 CORR~~PONDENCE
TITLE: ADDING DANIEL E. HAYES AS PROJECT MANAGER
ID ti:
..i
"I
, ~.
i
DA. T E :
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
A.uT HOR:
AUTHOR'S ORG:
:1
AJC,,[SSC:E:
ADDR~SSE~'S ORG:
~
8/9/93
5.1-CUl-8
BELA VARGA
EFA. NW
;; OF PAGES: 1
TYPE: LETTER
OPERA5LE ~N!T: 1
T . O. r. ~: 7 : r:';\; :
3298
*...******.***-*~.***.******~.********w***********.***.**.**.*.*****.~*..*.~~~..~
5C25
'.
SUB-HEAD: 05.1
TITLE:
~~
DA,E:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
AUTHOR:
AUTHOR'S CRG:
R. MATTH£~ wILKENING/A~I RAAD
E?A/WASHINGrON STATE DE?T Of ~CC~CGv
1,:) ;;:
CORRESPONOENCE
A??~OV!NG ,HE EXTENSION OF THE FFA SCnEDUl€ FOR CUi
11/9/92
5.1-0Ul-9
NANCY HARNEY
EPA
# OF PAGES: 4
TYPE: LETTER
OPERABLE UNIT: 1
T.O. ACTION:
ADDRESSEE: BRYAN HAELSIG
ADDRESSEE'S ORG: EfA. NW
**-***************************-********************_..************************..*~
SUB-HEAD: 05.1
;1i"LE:
DATE:
DOCUMENT NUMSER:
AU7i-:OR:
AiJTi-iCR'S ORG:
ADDRE:SSE~:
ADDRESSEE'S O~G:
.<
oj"
10 #:
CORRESPONDENC::
S7ATING MS. ~ARIAN AS80TT WILL 8£ AC7~NG ~C0LCGY
MANAGER FROM AUG 18. 1993 THROUGH SE?7 6. 1~93
.::~o: :::7
3/18/93
5.1-0Ul-9
?~UL MARCHANT
wAS~rNGTON STA7~
::; o;=- PAG~S: 1
OPERABLE UN!T= ]
T .0. ACTION:
TYPE: LETTER
DE?T OF ECOLOGY
oR-VAN :.,AEi..S:G
EfA.. N~
.. .. ,. .. ". . "" .. .. .. - .. .. .. . "'" .' .. .. ..." .. . ,. . . .. "'t .'
. ~ .. .., " ~ ... . ... ... .. . '" .. "t' .... ., :"" ." - . "'" ... ..... " .. " .. ... . ... ... .. ... .,- ..... ... 
-------
.'
,
,<-"j..j03
-, - ... . '"
'."= -.- ~."'.J:
1
',.
,~
:..:..: '- iJ! t:."i I'
:5.2
'" . ---
~;-. 7' ~ ;
r,:..;;' ;-:';'~;
.~...:: :~c.:~' z . -."
.'f:....["l~i::~.:
'.fjCR::SS~:: I S
A-...--..---
..J1wI"~:;~t:.~:
~- -
V:",\\"j:
~~Gr~~2~r.\~ ~~Z_J A~7:V17Y.
IIoIA:. ...,;-.l C;c;~Y
~J~~~~57~A:~Y~ ~~C0~~ ~~~~A
J:t ....:
. -~'-
:'.a."
- -
.. .
~f'.~-Z,': :;\~~
-----.
a.. . - - .. .
. ---....-
- . ... '. . -.. -,..
," _I I . . ....
..,----.---
.\ S .:.~ ::~":,~ \ -
..0/25;;:.
. .. -.-.. - -
'J .- ~ .-..""':. .= :- .:.
'- .~- . :
ir.\J~:; :
. -
..
- ... """"
:;.. '::'-'-'U_-.l.
.....
.'..'.
,l:':7iGN:
T'!' .:".=::
;.!=:?C;<.~
z'?A
,.
.
.? 1-
... .. 4Ir tIIt.,/IIt ."'/11 :
-------
.- .)." ."
.':0:
..
~ ...~
'5"...:=, - ;-; ~.~.:: :
,"",f'" ....~ :., =- :"'I~
V\JI....,.... '°_1" I
. "'-'.." '. '.. ,...."-
- r.. ;' .. .. I .. ..
:' 7 . :.
I - . --..
0A7~:
Ai..,. ;-;-;u.~;
A~';THOR IS CRG:
NU~:3C:R :
AGOR.E5SC:E:'S CRG:
A,:C.:;ESS~E::
~.~G.:..\:~~::._.\1:"; i'-l::~) ..~C': ~../.: 7Y.
;\A:3 ~ l-. ~ :' ~~ "','
i'.~;Y':~\~: ;I~'~ ~ ~V~ ;;£CO~G :;~~~:.,:
.::,:, .:':.:".=- :. ?(;:~ C. ~r.C =.
':O:~~:''1E>J7 S
.~.I";:.':':'I'
;:'.'i ": H::
. -'''.. "" '0' .- ... '"'''.'
.::0.' .
~': .,1
,;,\",'
.. .
~;~(;~ ':T~Y
R.:~:'" ~A"; ~
CO'JE~ )
:; '-' =..J . .-.. ,. "- ~ .::J
::'--=~:;:
AND ::;~S:::.A:5~
~EALTH
. "'0
. -'.'\ - '-
::\:7:A~
( ~.£:)
..\S ~ .::S ~.;"':: .,'.
J / 11 / 'J 3 if C ;." ;;., \ 'J::~:' :
7.1-0U:-~ 7Y?~: ~E7~~~
- ~. KE~~~:i ~~
JON NAVY ~~V~RC~M~NTAL HEALTH
CE:.\i7 :::R.
ca~MANO:NG ~:~~:C:;
~....~.~*W~~.~~~-~~~.~.~~~~~-~*~~~*~~*-.~~~~*~~~~~~~_.
:.':'.5 !,oii-iI J6EY
~"~-'~-~.~~~~M*.~~*~~~WW~-~ \
3329
5:":6- H::AD:
.: ,;.: 'J '-- E:. >. 7
07.1
TIT!..::: :
:'/'. 7" ~:
NL;M8i::,; :
,,~:""7:~C~:
A'...~7:-;C,::.! S C::'C:
.~ C; : .:. ~ ~ 2. ~ :: :
ACC~.::SS£E' S O;~G:
.. ,.,. 7" .. .. .. !If JIll' ,... '" .. .~ .fIt" ... " "'"'
S :_"= - ,-: ~.~.:) :
:C:~J:vji~>~T
COR~ESPON:)ENCE
RECC~~i~DI~G T~A:
S:NGLE
COORDINATED
.:';: .:: .,.-~ ,3 '- ~
:...;:...;::- :
...
i".
- ~
: . lJ.
ACTION:
A7SC.R ~;:::
- - - =:I '" .-.--.
,- .,..:.. r\j,c...~
IN OR:)E~
7 0 ;~~ c: ~ 7 :
ID it:
I .-.':"
;;:~S?()NS::: TO
C:C A:JG 'S3
THE
DEAOL.I ~E:
;_.::':.:.:....\3:_:: ~;;\J I '7":
.~ '::-::0"..::
-
~/;:"7i;S
~ cr
-;""'.:J:":> ;
-
.. ... .. . '."< "'" ~ "'" " ~ :"r .... ~ fir .- Ir r~ ""'" ... Ale "'! rot '"1':)11 ... !If .. " :'It: !'" :"I: " .... .. . , , .. .. ":" . .. . , .. ~ . ~ . .,
.. .
. .. .. .;\;
'; .:,~v 2 c~s
8?YAN ,-'\'::~SIG
EF"A,
-------