EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
EPA/ROD/R10-94/076
July 1994
Naval Submarine Base
(O.U. 3), Bangor, WA
-------
DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Naval Submarine Base, Bangor
Operable Unit 3
Bangor, Washington
, STA.TEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected action for Operable Unit 3 (aU 3) at the Naval SUbmarine
Base (SUBASE), Bangor in SiJverdale, Washington, chosen in accOrdance with 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 ,eX1e~t practical, ,the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances poUution Contingency Plan (NCP). OU 3 consists of three sites: Sites 16 and 24,
which are contiguous, and Site 25. The no-action alternative was determined most appropriate because of
present site conditions and because associated site risks are within the EPA's acceptable risk range. This
decision is based on the administrative record for these sites.
The lead agency for this decision is the United States Navy (Navy). The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and tbe Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) have participated in
scoping the site investigations and in evaluating alternatives for remedial action. The EP A and Ecology
concur wi~h the selected remedy.
DESCRIPTION 'OF THE REMEDY
No action., with groundwater monitoring of tbe sballow aquifer at Site 25. Semiannual groundwater
monitoring of tbe shallow aquifer is necessary to determine whether conditions in the groundwater reflect
naturally occurring trends. A 5-year review is necessary to evaluate the need for continued groundwater
monitoring at Site 25 and residential construction restrictions at Site 16/24.
DECLARATION
The selected remedy is protective of human bealth and the environment and is cost effective. This remedy
uses groun,dwater monitoring to ensure that shallow aquifer conditions at Site 25 remain protective of buman
health and the eavironment. " ' ,
The Navy used EP A guidelines and the information developed during the site investigation to evaluate tbe
potential adverse effects on human health and the environment associated with exposure to site chemicals.
The potential exposure of workers and residents to chemicals detected at each site was estimated for current
and future scenarios. The evaluation, performed according to EPA's National Contingency Plan and policy
guidance, indicined that nO action is necessary to be protective to human health and the environment and
that risks arc within the EPA's acceptable risk range. This evaluation supports the no-action alternative.
JOJSO\CWGJ.DIU\ROD
-------
Signature sheet for the foregoing SUBASE, Bangor Operable Unit 3, 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.
jA~~
3/28/94
Date
Captain Ernest R. Lockwood
SUBASE, Bangor Commanding Officer
United States Navy
-------
Signature sheet for the foregoing SUBASE, Bangor Operable Unit 3, 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.
{X
"~J
Chuck Clarke
Regional Administrator, Region 10
United States Environmental Protection Agency
~
4(11"/~
Date
-------
Signature sheet for the foregoing SUBASE, Bangor Operable Unit 3, R~medial 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.
C.,
J
(~ '({C~
Carol Kraege, Acting Program Manager. .
Toxies Cleanup Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
j /::;1/0/1
-------
SUBASE, BAN(jOR OPERABLE LI7'-lT ~
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page i
CONTENTS
Page
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION.......... - . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . '. .. 1
2.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
3.0 SI1"E HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
3.1 SITE 16/24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
3.2 SITE 25 ............................................... 6
4.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION......... . ... ..;. .. 8
5.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNITS....'..... '."" ... '.""" '.'. 9
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACfERISTICS ..........................' 9
6.1 . SITE 16/24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . , . . . .. 10
6.1.1 Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .10
6.1.2 Sediment. . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
6.1.3 Surface Soils. . . . . . '.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
6.1.4 Subsurface Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
6.1.5 .Groundwater...................................... 16
6.2 SI'fE 25 .... '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . .. 21
6.~.1 Surface Wa~er . . . . '.' . . . . .. . . '. . . . . . . . . '.' . ".' . . .: .'. .'. .21
6.2.2 Sediment........................................ 22
6.2.3 Subsurface Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28
6.2.4 Groundwater...................................... 28
7.0 SUMMARY OF SI'fE RISKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 31
7.1 HUMAN HEAl:rn RISK ASSESSMENT AND
CHARACfERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
7.1.1 Site 16/24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 32
7.1.2 Si te 25 """"""'."""" .' . ... . . ; . . . ~ . . . . . . '. . . .. 32
7.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35
73 UNCERTAINfY ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . " 39
7.3.1 Data Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39
7.3.2 Toxicity Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41
-------
SUBASE, BAN(,OR OPERABLE CNIT :;
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page ii
CONTENTS (Continued
7.3.3 Exposure Assessment
7.3.4 Risk Characterization
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
, 8.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNA 11VE . " . . . . . . . . . .,' . ,
1
, Z'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
'11
12
13
14
15
9.0 EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.... .. -" .... ... ..... .
10.0 REFERENCES.......... .... ... . ... -..... -.. .... .... ,... .. .. .
A IT ACHMENT 1: RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
AITACHMENT 2: RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION RESTRICllON
FIGURES,
1
2
3
Site Locations and Geographic Setting. . . . - . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . ., 2
Site 16/24 ........ - . . . . . . - . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " '. . .' .. 4
, Site 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '- . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . ,. 7
TABLES
Site 16/24-Chemicals Detect~d,in Sediments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'Site 16/24-Chemica1s Detected in Surface Soils ~'...... '. ; . . . . . . . . .. . .
Site 16/24-Chemicals Detected in Subsurface Soils - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
Site 16/24-Chemicals Detected in Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Site 2S-Chemicals Detected in Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
Clear Creek-Chemicals Detected in Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
Site 25-Chemica1s Detected in Sediments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clear Creek-Chemicals Detected in Sediments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Site 25-Chemicals Detected in Subsurface Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Site 25-Chemicals Detected in Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chemicals of Potential Concern at Site 16/24 . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .
Site 16/24 Total Hazard Index and Cancer Risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Background Total Hazard Index and Cancer Risk ...................-
Site 16/24 Hazard Index and Excess Cancer Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chemicals of Potential Concem at Site 25 ..........................
30350\...03.o&Z\ROD
Page
43 '
44
45
46
48
11
14
17
19
22
23
24
26
29
30
33 ,
34
35
35
-------
20
21
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
<""'0 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page iii
CONTENTS (Continued
16
17
18
19
Site 25 Hazard Index and Excess Cancer Risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Site 25 Total Hazard Index and Cancer Risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Uncertainties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Noncancer Risks for Otto Fuel at Sites 16/24 and 25-Futllre Residential
Scenario. ; . . . : . . '. ~ . '. . . . " . . , . . . . '. '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . ~ . . . . . .
Metals Exceedances' in Surface Soils 'at Site 16/24 ....................
Metals Exceedances in Groundwater at Site 25 ......................
JCXJ5O\~.G82\ROD
Page
37
38
40
45
45
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U .5. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0035
ARARs
AWQC
CERCLA
COPC
cPAH
Ecology
EPA
FFA.
HI
HQ
lAS
.. MCL
mg/kg
msl
MTCA
NACIP
NAD
Navy
NCP
..NPL .
NTS .
au
PAH
PCB
ppb
ppm
ppt
RBse
. RCRA
RDX
RID
RI/FS
303SOIOOO3.082\ROD
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page iv
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
. Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements'
Ambi~nt Water Quality Criteria
, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
LiabilitY Act of 1980 .' .
chemicals of potential concern
carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
Washington State Department of Ecology
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Facilities Agreement
hazard index
hazard quotient
. . initial assessment study
Maximum Contaminant Level
milligrams per kilogram
mean sea level
Model Toxies Control Act (Washington State) .
Navy Assessment and Control of Installation Pollutants
Naval Ammunition Depot .
United States Navy
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
Naval Torpedo Station
Operable Unit
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
polychlorinated biphenyl
parts per billion
parts per million
parts per trillion
risk-based screening concentration
Resource Conservation and ~ecovery Act
Royal Demolition Explosive (cydonite or
hexahydro-l,3,5-trinitro-l,3,5-triazine)
reference dose
-------
SUBASE, BANnOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Nonhwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0035
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
RME
SARA
SQG
SQL
SUBASE
TAL
TCL
TEF
1NT
p.g/L
Record ,)f Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page v
reasonable maximum exposure
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
sediment quality guidelines
sample quantitation ~imit
submarine base
target analyte list
target compound list.
toxicity equivalency factor
2,4,6..trinitrotoluene
micrograms per liter
-------
SlJBASE. BANCiOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D.9295
ero 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 1
DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 I NTRO DUCf ION
It is the policy of the United States Navy (Navy) to address contamination at its.
installations, under the Defense .Environmental Restoration Program, in a manner
consistent with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, .
Compensation, and Uability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). In the case of Operable Unit 3
(OU 3) at the Naval Submarine Base (SUBASE), Bangor the Navy's evaluation of
potential adverse effects on human health and the environment indicated that risks at
the sites are within EPA's acceptable risk. range for current or future uses.
2.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION.
. .
. .
SUBASE, Bangor is situated on Hood Canal, located in Kitsap County, Washington,
approximat~ly 10 miles nonh of Bremerton (Figure 1). Land surrounding SUBASE,
Bangor is generally undeveloped or supports limited residential uses. .Naval activities.
began at Bangor 'on June 4, 1944, when the U.S. Naval Magazine, Bangor was officially
established as a Pacific shipment point for ammunition and explosives. When World
War II ended, the Bangor Naval Complex became available for the storage of ordnance.
In 1950, the Naval Maga:pne facility was consolidated with the Nav3.I Torpedo, Station
(NTS), Keyport. to form the Naval Ordnance Depot, Keyport. . In 1952. .the facility. .
returned to independent status and became the U.S. Naval Ammunition Depot (NAD),
Bangor. In 1963, the Polaris Missile Facility, Pacific became an active tenant of NAD,
Bangor. During the late 19605, conventional weapons used in the Vietnam conflict were
loaded on ships from tbe Bangor Marginal Wharf. NAD, Bangor was responsible for
about one-third of all weapons sent to Vietnam between 1965 and 1970. In October
1970, NAD,'Bangor w~ disestablished and became NTS, Keyport. No munitions were
shipped from NTS, Keypon between 1970 and early 1972. When bombing runs were
stepped up in Vietnam, NAD, Bangor returned to active status. , The. last shipment to
Vietnam was loaded hi January 197.3. . . . . ' .'
On November 29, 1973, the Secretary of the Navy announced that the Bangor Naval
Complex was selected as the West Coast home pon for the Trident Submarine Launched
-------
-, KINGSTON
--"0_'...- r
" '""
; '!...... - '-
I .. ,~'
I': ' : POULSBO -- ~
. (:J It\~d,~",.
~ ,.t -( , ',,-/ "b - '-,"'.' ""
, ,.......j. ,., \ \ /~"F">"
// SIL~£RDALE i,L \
-,' /\ '~AINBA
If ,,) ,-.'
" i.' ',' ~1 ISlA't4D
O i._.-' " , ,
'Y8$!1IJIfR'..... i".j
/. ; ". "'\
/[) (~-2----)
MAP B AREA.---.-_._m___.._.-
7'
,-
/
(EDMONDS
\
'"
\
\
\
1,
.' I
MAPA
..'a nlS":::<"
~r;)~.. :::.:.~>;>
;;:~"l
.;/!~ ""'1'
'J' ", I'
",..:..': ,t '" :
".Ltf I!. ,-- J
...';::~!!f!--;:. " -.. .:-.. !
: ,.j.' , SUBASE, , !.
'''';A " BANGOR '!
: "1 r ",', I" i: ' , Ii
L'{ ~;., : Site 16/24
..:."""'.".,...,,},'~,, \\ . .....;0" ',.......f. ~..m~
,.~'"w'~ \ , ~._.._... . "'1
'<.~ ' . \\7~.it: I
: .J -..-i
\./1...._"
,~
SUBASE,
BANGOR
WASHINGTON
.
NORTH
o
3CXX) 6000
Sc*1II Feel
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
LONG -TERM ENVIRONMENTAL
ACT100NAVY
Figure 1
Site Locations and Geographic Setting
CTO 00'35
SUBASE. Bangar, WA
RECORD OF DECISION
-------
SUBASE. BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 3
Ballistic Missile System. SUBASE, Bangor was commissioned in February 1977, and the
first submarine arrived in August 1982.
On July 22, 1987, Site A was listed on the United States Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) National Priorities List (NPL) of hazardous waste sites. On August 30,
1990, the remainder of the SUBASE, Bangor facility was listed on the NPL.
. . .
On January 29, 1990, a cooperative thre.e-party Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) was
signed by the Navy, EPA, and the Washington State Depanment of Ecology (Ecology)
for study and cleanup of possible contamination on the SUBASE, Bangor property.
OU 3 comprises three of the 22 sites potentially contaminated as a result of past waste
disposal practices at SUBASE, Bangor. The sites were formed into seven operable units
based on geographic location, suspected contamination, or other factors. A separate
study is being conducted for each operable unit to determine appropriate cleanup
actions.
OU 3. located iri the southeastern portion of the base: consists of three sites; Sites 16,
24; and 25. Sites 16 and 24 (hereinafter referred to as Site 16/24) are the former'
locations of solid- and liquid-waste incineratOrs and a drum storage area. Site 25,
located downgradient of Site 16/24, was included in Operable Unit 3 because of its
proximity to Site 16/24 and because of the potential for contaminant migration from Site
16/24 to Site 25 either by surface water or groundwater.
3.0 SITE HISTORY
3.1
SITE 16/24
Site 16/24 is roughly rectangular in shape, covering an area of approximately. 1.5 acres
. (Figure 2). This area was formerly the site of an incinerator and drum storage facility.
The single structure on the site is a concrete foundation that previously supponed two
incinerators: The area around this foundation is secured by a chain link fence, while the
remainder of the site is covered with gravel, brush, or trees. The site is approximately
200 feet south of Trident Boulevard (the main road into SUBASE, Bangor) and is
. ~ounded by Seadevil Road to the east and Sculpin Circle to the southwest. A number of
buildings and parking lots lie to the south. A small drainage swale extends along the
western side of the site. The site elevation is approximately 325 feet above mean sea
level (msl), with the surface sloping gently to the nonh. South of the site, the ground
-------
""'''',. if"'::>
. T IiIM Blvd.
\
...
..nI
" "
" '.
~~~
..........
,."
/'
"
/
~
,
{""
/'
~. ' ", ,.""
.' . ,
......''-....... ......-... - ...-...--.-........--.--.,.....
Sa4:IIn C*de " ,
'"
.t:a
-
,
\
-...
CLEAN
COUPRE~NSM
LONG .lERM ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTIONNAVV
Figure 2
Site 16124
eTa 0035
SlIIASE. Bqor. WA
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field AClivity, Northwest
Contract No, N62474-89-D-9295
era 0035
Record of Decision
Dale: 03/25/94
Page 5
surface slopes steeply away to the south. The shaUow aquifer beneath Site 16/24
generaIJy flows south, toward Site 25.
In addition to the drum storage area and incinerators, Site 16/24 also contains a stack
emission area where most of the fallout from the incinerator stack emissions was
predicted to settle. The stack emissions area was identified by use of an air dispersion
. mode] known as.EPA SCREEN. The area was identified as immediately north of
Site 24 and measuring 270 feet by 60 feet. . '.
Site 16/24 was used as a drum storage area and incinerator site from 1970 to 1983,
although actual incineration was not begun, until 1973. Drums of wastewater containing
1,2-propanediol dinitrate (Otto fuel); 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (1NT); hexahydro-1,3,5-
trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (also referred to as Royal Demolition Explosive [RDX]); and waste
$olvents were reportedly stored on Site 16 until their contents could be incinerated at
Site 24. Small spills (less than 10 gallons) reportedly occurred at the site, and open
drums' o~ionally Qverflowed onto the ground during heavy rain. .. .
Site 16/24 contained both a liquid- and a solid-waste incinerator. The liquid-waste
incinerator was a Prenco Pyro-Decomposition-Unit. The incinerator was fired with No.2
fuel oil and reportedly burned RDX and 1NT wastewaters ("Pink water"), Otto fuel
wastewater mixed with solvents, and waste solvents (Hart Crowser 1989). Operational
records on actual mixtures and quantities of waste burned, length of bums, operating
temperatures, or stack emissions are not available. However, a report published in 1973
stated that the liquid-waste incinerator provided for a maximum bum of 960 gallons of
wastewater per 8-hour shift. The incinerator burned at approximately 1,0Q0°C. . .
,Additionally, ,betWeen Februaxy and July 1982, approximately 38,600 gallons of Otto fuel
wastewater were reported to have been burned in the facility (Hart CrO\vser 1989). .
. The solid-waste incinerator was an MK- VI Radicator with Torpedo option. fired by
gaseous butane. The unit was used to burn contaminated solid waste, including rags,
sawdust, and protective clothing contaminated with Otto fuel. Beginning in 1977, carbon
filters contaminated with Otto fuel were also destroyed in the solid-waste incinerator.
Records are not available on the total quantity of solid waste incinerated using the unit.
. .
. . . . .
Both the solid-waste and liqUid-waste incinerators were deactivated in 1983 and removed
from the site in 1987 because of the projected inability of the incinerators to meet future
air emission and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements.
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0035 .
Rccord of Dccision
Date: 03/25/94
Page ()
Information regarding the final disposition of the incinerators and any residual wastes is
not available.
3.2
SITE 25
Site 25 was formerly the location of a sewage treatment plant outfall from the industrial
area of NAD, Bangor and presently consists mainly of two earthen stormwater
detention/retention ponds, which cover an area of approximately 1.2 acres (Figure 3)~
These stormwater detention/retention ponds were constructed in 1983, at which time the
entire area was regraded. The site is bounded by Sculpin Circle to the north and west
and the Southern Boundary Road to the east. A wooded area lies directly to the south.
There is a residential area outside the base boundary to the southeast. A solid-waste
transfer station is located just beyond the southwestern comer of the site, and there are
an office building and a gravel parking area north of Sculpin Circle. The site ~levation is
approximately 275 above msl. Groundwater flow is generally to the south.
,Site 25 includes' an oil/water separatOr that provides initial treatment of stOrniflow prior
to its discharge into the central branch of Clear Creek, an ephemeral stream outside the
base boundary and adjacent to the site. Surface water and sediments in Clear Creek
were included in the investigation of Site 25. '
As stated, Site 25 was the location of the outfall from the former sewage' treatment plant
for NAD, Bangor. The sewage treatment plant, Building 427, co~tructed in 1942 to
serve the industrial and barracks area, was formerly located west of Site 25. The facility
consisted of a two-stagebiofiltration system andrep~)ftedly had a design capacity of
.. .52,000 gallons per day (Hart .Crowser 1989). The treated outfall from the plant was '
discharged directly into the central branch of Clear Creek, which ultimately discharges
into Dyes Inlet of Puget Sound. Wastewater was diverted to the Kitsap County
treatment system (Brownsville District) in 1977 during the construction of SUBASE,
, Bangor and the sewage treatment plant was removed. A parking lot now occupies the
area of the former sewage treatment plant.
In a pilot study to determine the concentration of RDX and 1NT in wastewater prior to
,its discharge into Clear Creek, approximately 1,500 gallons of wastewater known to .
contain 200 parts per million (ppm) each of RDX and TNT was processed through the
sewage treatment system and discharged. The pilot study was considered a success, as
no RDX or TNT were detected in the effluent. In 19~, the area in and around the
sewage treatment plant outfall was reconstructed as two stOrmwater detention/retention
-------
r\
.'... :'::~ ...,
..
, ,
r----.
~
#
#
.
::.--<,'
"
c_-----.----------------.-.------ .
".... ..--........ .'....,
o
CLEAN
COMPREHENSIVE
lONG .lERM EHVRONUEHTAl
ACTION NAVY
Figure 3
Site 25
.
.
I(
. ----
=..j.--
: .,. '~'"
: ~--
:. ~~
i j
11.
i :.- 50
: .1, .
: . &80,,"-
! i
1 i
11
-,.-
CTOOO35
SUBASE. BIngor, WA
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U .5. Navy CLEAN Contract
Enginecring Field Activity, Nonhwest
Contract No. N62474-~<)-D-9295
CTO 00)5
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 8
ponds, equipped with an oil and water separator treatment unit. These ponds and the
oil and water separator provide initial stormflow treatment for surface water prior to its
discharge into the central branch of Clear Creek.
4.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
<;:ommuni'ty relations activities have established communication among citizens living
near the site', the Navy, EPA, and Ecology. The actions taken to satisfy the requirements
of the federal law (cited below) have also provided a forum for citizen involvement and
input to the remedial action decision. No fact sheet was issued specifically for this site,
however, a fact sheet was issued in May 1992 which discussed the OU 3 remedial
investigation activities. .
The specific requirements for public participation pursuant to CERClA ~~ 113 (k) (2)
(b) and 117(a) as in 42 use ~9617 (2), as amended by SARA, include releasing .the
proposed plan for remedial action .to the public. The proposed plan. for remedial action
was placed in. the administrative record and infomiatiOIf repQsitories.' . .
The administrative record is on file at:
Engineering Field Activity, Nonhwest
Naval Facility Command
1040 N.E. Hostmark Street
Olympic Place IT
Poulsbo,Washington
(206) 3~6-5984
The information repositories are located at:
Central Kitsap Regional Library
1301 Sylvan Way
Bremerton, Washington
(206) 377-7601
SOBASE, Bangor Branch Library
Naval Submarine Base, Bangor
Bangor, Washington
(Base access is required)
(206) 779-9274
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 9
The proposed plan for remedial action was mailed to all known interested parties in May
1993. Notice of the availability of the proposed plan, plus notice of a public meeting on
the proposed plan and public comment period was published in The Sun (Bremerton) on
May 10, 1993. A public comment period was held from May 10, 1993, to June 9, 1993.
A public meeting was held on May 19, 1993, at the Clear Creek Elementary School
gymnasium in Silverdale, Washington. A total of 31 people attended.
One public comment was received by the Navy concerning the proposed plan for
remedial action at Operable Unit 3. It was submitted at the public meeting. The public
comment is summarized in the Responsiveness Summary (Attachment 1).
5.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNITS
Operable Unit 3 consists of 3 sites: Sites 16 and 24, which are contiguous and addressed
together, and Site 25. Risks associated with all three sites are within the EP A's
acceptable risk range and do not warrant remedial action. Ecology's concerns about.
exPosure to surface soils have been addressed by residential use restrictions, which have
been put in place by the Navy at Site 16/24 (Attachment 2). The monitoring of
groundwater at Site 25 will ensure that conditions remain protective of h.uman health
and the environment.
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
., The renj.edial. .investigation of Sit~ 16/24 included. sampling .~f ~he site's surface and
subsurface soils, groundwater, a:iJ.d sediments. The remedial investigation of Site 25
included sampling of the site's subsurface soils, groundwater, and sediments, as well as
surface water and sediments in Clear Creek. No surface soil sampling occurred at Site
25, because when the site was regraded in 1983, surface soil was disturbed and/or
removed. Analytical results from background sampling were used to establish naturally
occurring levels of inorganic chemicals to distinguish them from increased levels resulting
from activities on site. The analyses included all compounds from the EP A target
compound list (TCL) (semivolatile and volatile organics and pesticides/polychlorinated
. biphenyls [PCBs]), all analytes from the EPA target analyte list (TAL) (metals and
cyanide), ordnance compounds, chlorinated herbicides, polychlorinated dibenzofuransj
dibenzodioxins, and water quality parameters.
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 10
6.1
SITE 16/24
6.1.1
Surface Water
Surface water on this site exists only in stormwaterdrainage ditches, during periods of
intense rain. Surface water samples were not collected during the field investigation
because there was insufficient runoff. . . ..
6.1.2
Sediment
There were two sediment sampling events. Four locations in the small drainage swale
located to the west of the site, or in roadside runoff collection ditches adjacent to the
site, were sampled during each event. Samples were analyzed for TCL and TAL
compounds, herbicides, dioxins, furans, and ordnance compounds.
Findings: Table'llists maximuqI, minimum, and mean concentratioI1£ of all chemicals,.
,d'etected in sediments at Site 16/24, along with detection' frequency. All values for
organic compounds were below potential applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). '
6;1.3 Surface Soils
Nine surface soil samples from Site 16/24 and 16 surface soil samples from the stack
emissions area were collected and submitted to a laboratory for analysis of TCL and
TAL compounds, herbicides, and ordnance compounds. The 16 initial samples and two
additional samples from the' stack emissions' area were also analyzed for aioxins and
furans. In addition, 21 samples were field-screened for RDX and TNT in a mobile
laboratory. ,
Findings: Table 2 lists maximum, minimum, and mean concentrations of all chemicals
detected in ~urface soils at Site 16/24, along with detection frequency. Beryllium was
detected in all surface soil samples at concentrations two to six times higher than .
background levels, and arsenic and antimony were detected above background levels and
potential ARARs. '
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-0-9295
<....0 0035 .
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 11
Table 1
Site 16/24-Chemicals Detected in Sediments
!!.}@H
.;->
:*:
~~j;~::~t~\~f~~i~~f:t:~i~W
..~~ ,.~~.::.;
...............
.....".,'"
....
'....
..u..
".",..
2,4,5-T (silvcx)
I
10
2
0.0041
0.0056
0.0049
N/A
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 5 5 0.000023 0.013 0.0042 N/A
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 5 3 0.000023 0.0013 0.00072 N/A
l,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 5 1 0.000016 0.000016 0.000016 N/A
1.2,3,4,7,8-HxCDO 5 5 0.00000059 0.00015 0.000049 N/A
l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 5 2 0.000041 0.000057 0.000049 N/A
l.2.3,6,7,8-HxCDD 5 4 0.0000021 0.00076 0.0003 N/A
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 5 2 0.()()(J022 0.()()()()36 0.000029 N/A
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 5 3 O.OOOOOS 0.00043 0.00024 N/A
l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 5 2 0.000031 0.000048 0.00004 N/A
-l,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 5 2 .0.00005 0.000083 0.000066 N/A
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 5 2 0.000009 0.000012 0.000011 N/A
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 5 2 0.000012 0.000016 0.000014 N/A
2,3,7,8-TCDD 5 2 O.OOOOO~ 0.0000029 0.0000026 N/A
2,3,7,8- TCDF 5 4 O.OOOOOtJ-46 0.000005 0.000002 N/A
OCDO .5 5 .O.~ 0.073 0.023 N/A
OCDF 5 3 0.00003S 0.00092 0.0Q049 N/A
~r~&~j~~t~~~~lli~l!~~~[f:f~*~f:~~~~~j~~~~@l&fm~~fj~j~~~~~~~~t~r&'~~;~~~~~1j;i~(. ;~j~~~~iI~~j~~~~]*~~~tli~:~' .'~
~1j!~:;I~~t~tl!IJ!t~jf~@11r.„j.f.tl~l&lWt1
Aluminum 10 10 7.51i, 18,900 11,700 N/A
Arseoic 10 10 1.4 8 2.93 3
Barium 10 10 18.1 583 36.8 20
Beryllium 10 4 0.23 0.63 0.44 N/A
CadmiUm 10 5 3_7 8.7 5.1 1
-
Calcium 10 10 2,3(,; 6,730 4,610 N/A
Chromium 10 10 11_~ 72.9 31.6 25
Cobalt .-
10 10 4.'; 12.0 8.9 N/A
Copper 10 10 65 40.7 22.8 25
-
Iron 10 10 9,G".. 19,400 13,700 1.7
-------
SUBASE, BAN(jOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.~. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N(j2474-~9-D-9295
CTO 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 12
Table 1 (Continued)
Site 16/24-Chemicals Detected in Sediments
:--.-
~d 10 10 4.8, 120 33.2' 40
Magnesium 10 10 1,410 5,930 3,890 N/A
Manganese 10 10 179 742 301 300
Nickel 10 10 18.6 50.2 31.8 20
Potassium 10 5 397 623 521 N/A
Silver 10 2 2.6 2.7 2.65 N/A
Sodium 10 5 190 276 228 N/A
Vanadium 10 10 19 56.5 35.1 N/A
Zinc 10 10 27.1 318 123 9Q
.:.::~~##'~i:fjijm:i:ifI:::r:.':':fiiiijt}:Jii:;:~Mmt1mii:Mi:i.I@m:iHii.:::-:::.i:'..":' :)[i~!;!Wf~!j~j!i!1!i!f!~1!~~!~~~~~~~!~!~i~m~!i~~~~~!~it~lf!~f:~~!!~{~~!!it!i):>/[{f!ti@!!!!~tiW!!i!!j~i~!!!~~!~i!!iIti::ifi~(r1!~ii~~~!~~!1!~W~~~1~~~~~~*=fili~r~i~~I1i~i~!!~
Nitrobenzene 12 4 0.31 0.39 035 N/A
Otto fuel 1 1 2 03 0.4 0.35 N/A
RDX 10 1 0.31 0.31 0.31 N/A
Picric .acid 9 3 0.031 0.045 0.039 N/A
:,j~~~9~il:g~::@:Iii(MI:mWi.i;w~@[fi:;\~@Wl~HI::;:: ..~:;~{!t~i;ii~~~~i~!~j~ii;i!I~~1~t~~i!~~i1~~~~[Wf:i~~~~ii~jmi[~!~i~!iir~!!ii\i!i~!j~!i~~~;j~~!~~!ii~~~~;~~~i1ijiji~~~~~tt~i~i!~!r!:i;ti~!i~~1~I~jji~~~i1~~~~1~jf~'~~ffim~1ili~~~~!~~~~
4,4'-DDT 10 2 I 0.00085 0.0012 I 0.001 0.01
,::$,B!!mliii~!s;:::~!1~i;@1ililliii:~]iiiili~)$ltii::}!g, "":i1t);!~!~~i!~!~i!ii!~%*jii~il~~~m~[~!~~m~~~i~~~~~~~!~!I!i~!!~i;i::;, ,": ~:)~iIi!!i!~~~~~~~~~r@j!~i~~i~@j~j~t~!r~;:~if;;!!j[!!j!~j~~~j~j~~~~j~~~!jtili~~lJl~\~m~m~1
2-Methymaphthalen.e 10 1 0.016 0.016 0.016 N/A
Bci1zO( a)a.othraccnc 10 1 , 0.i4 0.14 0.14 1,317
Bcnzo(b )fIuoranthene 10 2 0.038 0.12 0.079 N/A
Benzo(k)Ouoranthene 10 1 0.072 0.072 0.072 N/A
Butylbeozylphthalate 10 1 0.11 0.11 0.1 1 ~/A
Chrysene 10 3 0.Ql8 0.12 0.061 N/A
Di-n-octyIphthaJate 10 1 0.024 0.024 0.024 N/A
Diethylphthalate 10 1 0.025 0.025 0.025 N/A
Auoraoth.ene 10 ~ 0.028 0.27 0.15 N/A
Auorcne 10 1 0.015 0.015 0.015 N/A
Naphthalene 10 1 0.018 0.018 O.oIS N/A
Pentachlorophenol 10 ~ 0.22 0.98 0049 N/A
Phenanthrene 10 ... 0.017 0.21 0.1 1 139
-
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activiry, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 13
Table 1 (Continued)
Site 16/24-Chemicals Detected in Sediments
Pyrene .
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
pbthalate
0.21'
0.35
1.311
N/A
-r-
Acetone
Metbylene chloride
Toluene
14
11
13
N / A . Dot available
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0035 .
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 14
Table 2
Site 16j24-Chemicals Detected in Surface Soils
!!!!L'-
1.2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 18 13 0.0000083 0.00015 0.000038 N/A N/A
1.2.3.4.6.7,8-HpCDF 18 4 0.0000016 0.0000027 0.0000023 N/A N/A
1.2.3.4.7.8,9-HpCDF 18 9 0.00000015 0.0000017 0.00000076 N/A N/A
1.2.3.4.7.8-HxCDD 18 10 0.00000026 0.0000011 O.OOOOOOSI N/A N/A
1.2.3.4,7.8-HxCDF 18 11 0.00000011 0.0000018 0.00000067 N/A N/A
1.2,3.6.7.8-HxCDD 18 9 0.00000076 0.000008S 0.000002S N/A N/A
1.2.3.6.7,8-HxCDF 18 6 0.00000013 0.0000015 0.0000006 N/A N/A
1.2,3,7,s,9-HxCDD 18 11 0.00000037 0.0000024 0.00000096 N/A N/A
1.2.3.7,s,9-HxCDF 18 12 0.0000003 0.0000017 0.00000066 N/A N/A
1.2.3.7.8-PeCDD 18 1 0.OOOOOOS2 0.00000052 0.OOOOOOS2 N/A N/A
1.2.3.7.8-PeCDF 18 8 O.OOOOOOOBI 0.()()(J()()()94 0.00000041 N/A N/A
2.3.4.6.7.8-HxCDF 18 1 0.00000086 0.00000086. 0.00000086 N/A N/A
2.3.4.7.8-PeCDF 18 11 0.0000000B6 0.0000013 0.000000S8 N/A N/A
2.3.7.8-TCDD 18 I 0.00000044 0.00000044 0.00000044 N/A N/A
2,3.7.8-TCDF 18 5 0.00000082 0.0000011 0.00000098 N/A N/A
OCDD 17 12 0.000043 0.0006 0.00018 N/A N/A
OCDF 17 11 0.000002 0.000016 0.0000081 N/A N/A
~ -
Aluminum 25 25 3,340 21,500 15,500 N/ A 14,874
Antimony 25 I 35.8 35.8 35.8 32 1.49
Arsenic , 25 25 1.1 82.7 8.51 1.43 2.78
Barium 25 25 25.6 375 73 5,600 114
Beryllium 25 12 0.41 1.0 0.74 0.23 0.21
Cadmium 25 2 15 2.2 1.85 40 0.42
Calcium ZS 2S 1,s60 10,700 4,260 N/A 2.912
Chromium 25 25 9.9 38.5 225 N/A 21.7
Cobalt 25 25 4.5 30.9 9.93 N/A 6.8
Copper ZS 2S 5.8 114 21.5 2,960 13.7
Iron 25 25 5.160 34,900 14,900 N/A 13,775
Lead 25 2S 15 188 ZS ZSO 17.5
Magnesium 25 25 l,tSO 10,400 3,840 N/A 3.159
Mangancsc 25 25 131 2,410 459 2,640 760
Mercury 2S I 0.3 0.3 Q.3 24 0.07
Nickel 25 25 15.5 83.3 31.7 1.600 35.4
Potassium 25 20 122 1,180 279 N/A 327
Sodium 25 25 65.4 882 202 N/A 432
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 15
Table 2 (Continued)
Site 16/24-Chemicals Detected in Surface Soils
_....83l1li81..111
"~JQ..r:::.:~t):{Ji#tji@t~:i:::i{A{:ti(fti:ii'=f:tt:@f:M{tWi\Wlti:t::ji::W::ttt,=tt:):iH:::=::"ifftt:ttwt:;:t:tN;@:/\tmrtt'\:it',::\tfiiWr:i:it:n');j
Vanadium 2S 2S I 23 I 95.1 42.2 S60 I 32.6
Zinc ~ 25 ~ f 18.1 757 74.1 16.~ 28".2
2.4.6-Trinitrotolue~ 13 ~ 0.03 0.033 0.032 33~ N/A
RDX 13 2 0.038 0.041 0.04 9.1 N/A
Picramic acid 5 1 0.0089 0.0089 0.0089 N/A N/A
.p~~:.". ":::..:":';':'.:.,.. .....
4.4'-DDT 2S 1 0.027 0.027 0.027 2.9 N/A
Aroclor l2S4 2S 1 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.13 N/A
~~1~~{{ti::t/::i:};::}i;ii(!i:i\t/,:tt/:::i/:f)6;;i:t:}f::'f@:'if't{::::'f}f:::::::::::t#=@i;':::i:t:,:{f::::i\@i:i:::g::::'f:::::::::i:)::::ji)@Jt::tt:m;":j:'titt\::';::':j':t::"/:':/,,:::!i
4-OIloro-3-mcthylphcDol 2S 1 0.11 0.11 0.11 N/A N/A
4-Methylphenol 2S 1 0.34 0.34 0.34 N/A N/A
Benzoic acid 2S 7 0.093 0.61 0.26 ~20.000 N/A,
bis(2-cthylhcxyt) 2S 3 0.092 0.1 0.097 714 N/A
phthalate
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Toluene
29
29
29
9
8
7
£ill
0.003
0.001
0.0006
0.16
0.008
0.066
0.032
0.0036
0.013
8.000
133
16.000
':"/A
N/A
N/A
N/A - not available
-------
SUBASE, BAN(.OR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Nonhwest
CODtract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 16
6.1.4 Subsurface Soils
Seven monitoring wells were installed in three well clusters at Site 16/24, surmounting
all gradient areas. The well installation generated 75 subsurface soil samples collected at
5-foot intervals to a depth of 60 feet and then at 10-foot intervals to termination depth in
the Kitsap Formation. Samples were analyzed for TCL.,TAL, and ordnance compounds.
Ten shallow soil borings' were completed, generating 45 soil samples. The samples were
collected every 2.5 feet continuously from the ground surface to a depth of 10 feet.
Samples were analyzed for TCL and TAL compounds, herbicides, dioxins, furans, and
ordnance compounds.
Findings: Table 3 lists maximum, minimum, and mean concentrations of all chemicals
detected in subsurface soils at Site 16/24, along with detection frequency. The results of
the soil analysis indicate that metals concentrations decrease dramatically with depth and
that surface metals do not migrate or leach downward through the soil in th~area.
, Volatile and semivolatile compounds detected were deemed laboratory artifactS.
Pesticides and PCBs were not detecied. Three ordnance compounds were detected,
showing a sporadic distribution. '
6.1.5 Groundwater
Two rounds of groundwater sampling of the shallow aquifer occurred, during September
1991 and January 1992. . Fourteen samples were analyzed for,water quality parameters,
TCL, , TAL, and ordnance, compounds during the first round~ Chlorinated herbicides
were added in the second round. ' In addition; the groundwater level elevation was taken,
seven times to determine potentiometric surface across the site. The shallow aquifer
under the site flows generally south.
Findings: Table 4 lists maXimum, minimum, and mean concentrations of all chemicals
detected in groundwater at Site 16/24, along with detection frequency. Volatile and
semivolatile 'compounds detected in groundwater were deemed laboratory artifacts and
false positives, because of sporadic distribution. With the exception of acetone,
2-butanone, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (which are common, laboratory artifacts), the
majority of detected organic compounds were found at concentrations near their
detection limits, were not present in the same well during both rounds of sampling, and
were not present in more than one well per sampling event. No PCBs were detected.
The one pesticide compound detected was considered anomalous. Four ordnance
-------
SUBASE. BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activiry, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 17
Table 3
Site 16/24-Chemicals Detected in Subsurface Soils
-'1
1.2.3.4.6.7,8-HpCDD 46 17 0.00000031 0.0000039 0.0000013 N/A N/A
1.2.3.4,6.7.8-HpCDF 46 10 0.00000011 0.0000029 0.00000061 N/A N/A
1.2.3,7 ,s,9-HxCD F 46 2 0.00000015 0.00000042 0.00000029 N/A N/A
2.3.7,8- TCDF 46 8 0.00000014 0.00000037 0.00000024 N/A N/A
OCDD 45 2 0.00002A 0.000026 0.00002S N/A N/A
OCDF 45 10 0.00000032 0.0000028 0.00000099 N/A N/A
Met81s' ...... ..
... .. "....},:,;::,:::,::::,:,..:,:.,": '.". .'.."',,:',,:':
Aluminum 115 115 6,210 26.900 10,500 N/A 11.424
Antimony 115 3 7 15.8 10.3 32 4.23
AJscnic 115 115 0.34 4.4 1.19 1.43 1.65 ,
Barium 115 115 17.5 972 38.S 2.0 45
8efytlium 115 61 0.25 0.97 0.48 0.23 0.5
Calcium 115 115 367 9.720 3,750 N/A 3.672
Chromium 115 115 8.7 147 23.5 N/A 23.3
.Cobalt 115 105 4.6 17:7 7.54 N/A 8.9
Copper 115 99 6.3 30.3 11.8 2.960 15.6
Iron 115 115 4.440 28.400 13,~ N/A 13.842
Lead 115 115 0.77 13.9 1.76 250 3.05
Magnesium 115 115 877 14.600 5.010 N/A 55.38
Mangal)ese 115 115 87.3 2,700 251 2.640 367
~ercury 115 3 0.19 2,3 0.9 0.15 0.06.
Nickel 115 115 14.6 141 37.6 1.600 57.8
Potassium 115 73 97.3 1,850 426 N/A 371
Silver 109 9 0.45 2.2 1 240 1.06
Sodium 115 90 77.3 718 278 N/A 313
Thallium 115 1 0.45 0.45 0.45 5.6 0.21
Vanadium 115 115 12.9 fA7 33.8 560 32.6
Zinc 115 114 12.6 56.7 24.1 16,000 28.7
RDX 109 1 0.046 0.046 0.046 9.1 N/A
Picramic acid 15 7 0.0038 0.015 0.0073 N/A N/A
Picric acid 29 10 0.0048 0.0068 0.0057 N/A N/A
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
erG 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 18
Table 3 (Continued)
Site 16/24-Chemicals Detected in Subsurface Soils
-----..-
~:~:Ft::::}:}\::'i'i::::i\)J:::i:::);:}m;:i;i'WM;N::':?/}::t:;::W\\))'/{iff'W::{'@i}{i{%mr:i);::i:1ihf@:mt:))iii)@tm;m;::tfllii!m//ii;mttmm:rtlfrfm):r
Benzoic acid 115 7 0.082 .039 0.14 320.000 N/A
Di-n-butylphthalate 115 1 . 0.12 ' 0.12 0.12 N/A . N/A
Di-n-oc:tylphthalate U5 1 0.14 0.14 0.14 N/A N/A
bis(2-ethythcxyl) U5 11 0.79 0.33 0.2 714 N/A
phthalate
Acetone 126 16 0.002 0.091 0.013 8.000 N/A
Methylene chloride 126 19 0.001 0.15 0.035 133 N/A
Toluene 107 2 0.0002 0.001 0.0006 16.000 N/A
~/A - not available
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U .5. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 19
Table 4
Site 16/24-Chemicals Detected in Groundwater
~
Aluminum . 16 13 . 269 . 72,300' '16,000 SO 13,170..
Arsenic 16 9 2.2 59.9 11.7 0.05 2
Barium 16 15 17.7 3,070 468 1,120 78.5
Beryllium 16 1 9.3 93 9.3 0.02 1.2
Calcium 16 16 10.800 1,550.000 188,000 N/A 2O,3S0
Chromium 16 8 1 1 141 51.6 100 28
Cobalt 16 3 32.1 93.8 54.2 N/A 12.1
Copper 16 8 5.4 483 124 592 23.2
Iron 16 16 32.9 150,000 20.800 300 16,449
Lead 16 8 4.7 99.4 31.6 5 7.3
Magnesium 16 16 1.020 51.600 12.400 N/A 14.255
Manganese 16 15 5.1 4.690 605 50 414
Nickel 16 6 23.9 509 153 100 39.3
PoulSsium 16 12 1.130 212.000 30,000. N/A 5.048
Silver 16 4 23.8 64. 1 43.4 48 N/A
Sodium 16 16 5.840 336.000 40.900 N/A 12.4 12
Vanadium 16 5 15.5 186 90.7 112 37
Zinc 16 11 10 2,480 317 3.200 47.5
.'::"".....':::':,,':::.:':
1,3,5- T rinitrobenzene : 15 1 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.8 N/A
2,4,6- TrinitrOtolucne 14 2 0.03 0.03 0.03 2.9 N/A
ORO fuel 15 2 1.14 1.2 1.17 N/A N/A
RDX 15 6 0.22 0.71 039 N/A N/A
:@~Wlf9.IK!??i:{:!:(:!::::::{:/:::t{t/:/H}:::::{:::::(:'I::W .'.
gamma-SHC (Unclane) I 16 I 1 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.067 N/A
~~~'~(~~J??:iW:{'::tt:}t\/W:!::?WI:!::\::i)t:::{f
4-ChIoro-J.metbylphcnol 17 1 2 2 2 N/A N/A
Phenol .17 1 330 330 330 9,600 N/A
bis(2
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 20
Table 4 (Continued)
Site 16/24-Chemicals Detected in Groundwater
.. .
Y~:~~~p'wt;f:tf::'::tttt:::::rItmt::JmIt:mnr:Wft#:m:::'fi,jt::iJt::::@::'m:l:Wtwlwt:n:;:Wt:',w:m;mWWmmmnIm:mtr:l:t::t::nn:WW:MWW1W:rii;tI!!
2.Butanone ' 16 1 . '12, 12 12 400 N/A
Acetone ,16 4 13 86, 34 800 N/A
Benzene 16 1 4 4 4 151 N/A
Carbon disulfide 16 1 2 2 2 N/A N/A
Toluene 16 2 1 2 15 1.000 N/A
Trichloroethene 16 1 1, I 3.98 N/A
"/A - not a\l3i1able
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT :\
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contracl No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 21
compounds were detected at concentrations below potential ARARs. The higher-than-
background metals concentrations in the deep-screened well are attributed to high pH
resulting from improper well construction, poor well development, and the natural
enrichment of metals in the Kitsap Formation.
6.2
SITE 25
6.2.1
Surface Water
Two rounds of surface water samples were collected at four locations at Site 25 from the
effluent culverts that discharge into the detention/retention ponds and Clear Creek. The
samples were analyzed for water quality parameters, herbicides, TCl.., TAL, and
ordI1:ance compounds.
Two rounds of surface water samples were collected from five locations on Clear Creek.
The first sample round was collected during low-flow conditions and the second during
higb-flow conditioIlS. First-round samples were analyzed for water quality parameters,
herbicides, TCL, T AI., and ordnance compounds; the second round of samples was
analyzed only for ordnance compounds.
Findings: Tables 5 and 6 list minimum, maximum, and mean concentrations of all
chemicals detected in surface water at Site 25 and Clear Creek, along witb detection
frequency.
. At Sit~ ~, no volatiles, semivol~ti1es. pesticides, or PCBs were detect~d in any surface
. water sample. Two .ordnance compound's were detected in the .effiuent culverts: 1,3,5-
trinitrobenzene and picramic acid. Total beryllium, copper, iron, lead,. and zinc were
detected above the most restrictive potential ARARs.
At Clear Creek, total arsenic, lead~ cyanide, iron, and vanadium were detected above tbe
most restrictive potential ARARs. Only one organic compound, bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phtbalate, was detected at Clear Creek.
. Runoff for Site 25 and Clear Creek does not o~ginate from a discrete source, 50
. elevated metals concentrations cannot be correlated to a source. .
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 22
Table 5
Site 25-Chemicals Detected in Surface Water
_IF.I
_11..1
Aluminum 5 5 348 2,070 1,280 N/A
Beryllium 5 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.08
Calcium 5 5 2,030 3,540 2,680 N/A
Copper 5 5 10.4 25.4 16.5 11.88
Iron 5 5 362 2,430 1,530 1,000
Lead 5 4 3 46.6 18.4' 3.18
Magnesium 5 5 . 815 1,420 1,110 N/A
Manganese 5 5 15.2 62.1 37 N/A
Nickel 5' 1 25 25 25 157.6
Sodium .5 5 783 . 1,630 1,080 . N/A
Zinc 5 5 29.9 164 104 105.9
1,3,5- Trinitro- 5 4 0.04 0.09 0.063 N/A
beuzeoe
Picramic acid 5 2 8.6 14.9 11.8 N/A
N/A - not available
6.2.2 Sediment
There were two sediment sampling events at Site 25. Samples were collected at the
same locations as were surface water samples. Sediment samples were analyzed for TCL
and TAL compounds, herbicides, and ordnance compounds.
Two rounds of sediment samples were collected from the five surface water sample
locations on Clear Creek. The first sample round was collected during low-flow
. conditions and the second during high-flow conditions. First-round samples were
analyzed for TCL, T AI.., and ordnance compounds; the second round of samples was
analyzed only for ordnance compounds.
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
(..0 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 23
Table 6
Clear Creek-Chemicals Detected in Surface Water
Aluminum 5' 1 2,600 2,600 2,600 N/A
Arsenic 5 1 4.6 4.6 4.6 0.084
Barium 5 2 27.3 38.9 33.1 N/A
Calcium 5 5 12,600 17,400 14,900 N/A
Copper 5 5 7.2 11.1 85 11.9
Cyanide 5 1 64.9 64.9 64.9 N/A
IroD 5 5163 3,140 872 1,000
Lead 5 1 3.8 3.~ 3.8 3.18
Magnesium ' 5 5 7,850 11,()OO 9,370' 'NfA
Manganese 5 5 14.6 279 89.9 N/A
Sodium 5 5 4,670 9,600 6,010 N/A
Vanadium 5 1 12.1 12.1 12.1 N/A
Zinc 5 3 10.4 64.8 31.1 105.9
~~#.'~i'o,~$';:;i;i;,}ii'::::';"::"'i':ti}?;'tm'/m,}m:::;;:;:::;:;::::;:;i;;';:::::i':;:;:"':i?}n;?::t:;'tf:;r:t:;):::,,:',!,':)';::';i:";:;;:,r;':;,;:i,::)/:::C:::;;,;:;;;;:;;,::;:
bis(2-ethylh!=X)'l) 5 4 3 4 3.25 3
phthalate
N/A - Dot available
Findings: Table 7 lists maximum, minimum, and mean concentrations of all chemicals
detected in sediments at Site 25, along with detection frequency. At Site 25, analysis of
samples from the first sampling event detected few organic compounds. Analysis of
samples from the second event detected more organic compounds, but with DO pattern of
distribution.' The concentrations of analytes in sediment samples from the swale do not
indicate surface water runoff as a contaminant source.
,Table 8 lists maximu~ minimum, .and average concentrations for all chemicals detected
in'sediments at Clear Creek, along with detection frequency. At Clear Creek, analytical
results from the fIrst sampling event showed organic compounds (several polycyclic
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 24
Table 7
Site 25-Chemicals Detected in Sediments
--
Alummum 9 9 5,040 15,300 12, 100 NfA
Arsenic 9 9 1 .4 22 4.99 3
Barium 9 9 8.5 79.2 45.6 20
Beryllium 9 5 03 0.44 0.36 N/A
Cadmium 9 6 1 .5 14.9 4.98 1
Calcium 9 9 1,960 9,490 5,660 N/A
Chromium 7 7 243 95.4 48. 1 25
Cobalt 9 9 4.7 18.1 10.9 N/A
CopPC?r 9 ,9 14.1 286 65.6 25
Iron 9 9 9,710 28,700 17,700 1 .7
Lead 9 9 23.6 310 93 40
Magnesium 9 9 2,690 7,ZlIJ 4,880 NjA
Manganese 9 9 140 534 266 300
Mercury 9 2 0.12 0.13 0.13 1
Nickel 9 9 20.1 53.8 38.9 20
Potassium 9 5 412 1,160 681 NJA
Silver 6 3 2. 1 2.9 2.43 NJA
Sodium 9 8 273 893' 452 NJA
Vanadium 9 9 14.4 66.2 42.6 NJA
Zinc 9 9 86.1 1,020 356 90
2,4-Dinitrotolucne 9 1 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 NJA
Picramic acid 10 2 0.033 0.72 0.38 NJA
Aldriil 9 1 0.0062 0.0062 0.0062 0.Q1
Aroclor 1254 9 2 0.0038 0.0058 0.0048 NJA
J_ig,m:Ii:::,::m:::::':::l:::::m:::W:::::':::::i:::::,::J::::::::':t:':::;:i::i::;r1:t:::,:':::::::::rm:::;:@'M@Wtr:m,}:l::::::::lJmm::;:::tIii%I:m::::::mm::;:':;WMU)::::r:,::ImtI1:tt:;::;:;::::;::iJ
4-MethylpheDol 8 1 1.1 L1 1.1 NJA
Anthracene 8 3 0.008 1.4 0.48 NJA
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 25
Table 7 (Continued)
Site 25-Chemicals Detected in Sediments
N,",',,',',,',"',',',',',',....,',..,',,',',',',', ",',',',.,',,',,',,", .... ...... . . ..... . ......... ............. . ....... ....... ........... .. .. ~ .......... ..." .. .:ifp~.~ii,,::m
..... ..... '"'''''' .." ......".......... ......". '''''''''''''' .. ''''''''. """"""",',',,',',',',','.',',',','''.',',''
......... "..........., ..........................
:}::rr~){/r:r~~~~r}~~:t~:~:~i~}jtjt?t~fr?:~tt:~:~(:~}~ ...... ..........',.."..... ::'::::::::::;::::::;':::'::;:::;:::::;:;:;';::'::::;:;:;::: ............................ ''''''''''''.....,'''''""
',',',',"'.',',','.',',',',','.'.',',',',',',",',', ,....,,-........,.......,.. ",....".....".,.,... '"
..,.,..".."...............
. , , , , , , . , , , , , , , - , , , , , , , " ... "',"'"'''''''''''''' ,,' ....................... :,:,:,:.:,:,:.:,:,~",:,:,:.:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:.~.:,:,:.'.
........ ............. ... ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',','.",','.','.'.'
........................, I!'~I.'JI: :~I'I.~IIIII
il'll~iiiiif.l;i~IIII"liililli~iiilllll!l:iil~li '"'''''''''''''''',''''''''' ilil.tt
.!Ii!illilltii:il !I....~I.~'ll'
i~;;~fi.i~~j~_~'!!iiM:::!:m:::::~:Fti]~:::!!i{{':IE!I{ji!j:::!;ttHl!I;mMg@j\tmjlrfm@mB}W!:Iti!t~I!:::!:m!:::t!:tlfift:jj!!!ifir~H'f::
Bcnzo( a)anthracene 8 2 0.074 0..54 0.31 1317
Benzo( a)pyrene 8 2 0.042 0.096 0.069 89
Benzo(b )fluoranthene 8 2 0.088 0.94 0.51 N/A
ButylbenzylpbthaJate 8 5 0.12 2.5 0.7 N/A
Carbazole 4 1 0.037 0.037 0.037 NjA
Cbrysene 8 2 0.09 1.2 0.65 N/A
Di-n-octyIphthaJate 8 1 0.023 0.023 0.023 N/A
Auoranthcne 8 3 0.008 1.6 0.6 N/A
Naphthalene 8 1 0.003 0.003 0.003 N/A
Phenanthrene 8 2 0.23 1.2 0.72 139
Pyrene 8 4 0.023 1.7 0.49 131 1
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthaJate 8 6 033 29.0 53~ NjA
~ I 12): ....,.,.'..:21..". ..,,'... . ".,' :..
Acetone 6 2 0.028 0.11 0.069 NjA
Methylene chloride 7 3 0.01 0.048 0.027 l~
Toluene 6 1 0.067 0.067 0.067 5250
NjA.= Not a.vailable,
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 26
Table 8
Clear Creek-Chemicals. Detected in Sediments
_:~ ~==-
Aluminum '5 5 6,480 12,000 9,010 N/A
Arsenic 5 5 1.2 5.8 2.66 3
Barium 5 5 24.1 66 38 20
Beryllium 5 5 021 0.53 0.38 N/A
Calcium 5 5 2,310 5,290 3,860 N/A
Chromium 5 5 17.9 39.4 23.4 25
Cobalt 5 5 52 9.7 7.52 N/A
Copper 5 5 4 46.5 15.4 25
Iron 5 5 8,090 14,800 1 1,900 1.7
Lead 5 5 1.8 113 24.9 40
Magnesium 5 5 3,080 4,800 4,020 N/A
Manganese 5 5 166 480 '1fJ7 300
Nickel 5 5 21 413 27$ 20
Potassi~ 5 4 162 333 222 N/A
Sodium 5 5 993 474 224 N/A
Vanadium 5 5 22.9 40.6 30$ N/A
Zinc 5 5 Tl.9 308 92.6 90
~
::~_~:~:~I:::i:~:::::::::~:::::t::i::,~:::~::i~:~I::::~:::::::::::::::::::::'i:,:::::::~:::::::~:i:::::::~:::::i::il::::~I:!:j::::::::i:ii:::::i:::::iilf:::::::!::::::::::i~::!!:::::::::::::!!~::ii:::~I:t::::M::t:::::!:::.::::!::i::fI:,!:::r::::g::::::H:::i!:::::::!:::::::::::::~:::::!:::::::::;::::~::::::::::i::
2-Methymapbthalene 5 1 0.17 0.17 0.17 N/A
Benzo( a )anthracene 5 1 0.16 0.16 0.16 1317
Benzo(a)pyrene 5 1 0.14 0.14 0.14 89
Benzo(b )Ouoranthcne 5 1 0.26 0.26 0.26 N/A
Benzo(k)OuorantheDe 5 1 0.11 0.11 0.11 N/A
Benzoic acid 5 1 0.22 0.22 0.22 N/A
Butylbenzylpbthalate 5 1 0.47 0.47 0.47 N/A
Chrysene 5 1 0.26 0.26 0.26 N/A
f1uorantheoe 5 1 0.4 0.4 0.4 N/A
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U .$. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activiry, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 27
Table 8 (Continued)
Clear Creek-Chemicals Detected in Sediments
Lr;,.....
Naphthalene 5 1 0.13 0.13 0.13 N/A
Phenanthrene 5 1 . 0.29 0.29 0.29 139
Pyrene 5 1 0.49 0.49 0.49 1311
Xylenes
5
N/A = Not Available
-------
SUBASE, BANr.OR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 28
aromatic hydrocarbons [PARs] and one ordnance compound) at the detention pond
outfall to the central branch of Clear Creek. Samples from the second event were
analyzed only for ordnance compounds; none were detected.
6.2.3 Subsurface Soils
Five monitoring wells were installed in three well clusters at this site, surmounting all .
gradient areas. The weiI installations generated 55 subsurface soil samples collected at
5-foot intervals to a depth of 60 feet and then at 10-foot intervals to termination depth in
the Kitsap Formation. Samples from the three deepest wells were analyzed for TCL,
TAL, and ordnance compounds.
Findings: Table 9 lists maximum, minimum, and mean concentrations of all chemicals
detected in subsurface soils at Site 25, along with detection frequency. The results of the
analysis of the soil samples indicate that organic and ordnance compounds had a low
. frequency of detection. Metals concentrations were representative of background.
. concentrations~.. . .
6.2.4 Groundwater
Two groundwater sampling rounds occurred, one in September 1991 and one in January
1992. Samples were analyzed for TCL, TAL, and ordnance compounds, chlorinated
. herbicides, and general water quality parameters. A third round of sampling for only
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene was conducted at one well. .
. ..
Findings: . Table 10 lists maximum, minimuIIl; and mean concentrations of all chemitals
detected in groundwater at Site 25, along with detection frequency. Organic and
ordnance compound detections in tbe groundwater samples were considered questionable
because the compounds encountered were sporadically distributed. Metals ..
concentrations were generally below background concentrations and potential MARs.
The exceptions were manganese and cadmium. Manganese was detected in several wells
at concentrations above background and potential ARARs. Cadmium was detected in
one well at levels above background and potential ARARs in botb sampling rounds.
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Nortbwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 29
Table 9
Site 25-Chemicals Detected in Subsurface Soil
-
AJuminum so 50 6,100 . 22.900 9,860' N/A .11,424
Arsenic 50 50 0.71 4.4 1.42 1.43 1.65
Barium SO 50 25.1 141 39.4 20 45
Beryllium 50 45 0.25 1.3 0.52 0.23 0.5
Calcium SO 50 2.,S50 9,930 4,690 N/A 3.672
Chromium SO 50 14:9 55 24.3 N/A 23.3
Cobalt 50 50 5.9 21.8 8.41 N/A 8.9
Copper SO SO 8.1 48.3 14.4 2,960 15.6
Iron 50 SO 9,900 37,800 14,400 N/A 13,842
. Lead SO SO 0.71 7 1.77 2SO 3.05
Magnesium 50 SO 3,740. 15,300 6,070 N/A 55.38
Manganese SO 50 174 689 244 2640 367
Nickel 50 SO 28.9 76.3 40.8 1,600 57.8
Potassium SO 12 359 2.300 854, N/A 371
SiMr SO 9 1.9 3.3 237 240 1.06
Sodium SO 50 135 531 264 N/A 313
Vanadium SO SO 2A 75 37.1 S60 326
Zinc SO 52 18.7 86.8 27.6 16.000 28.7
.N/A
~~~~Jlr~'t'I:::f:t:@~#::t:::"{i'm'~:#:I%!fl:/t\:'::::l:m)!:r::n)::;t!)W't:!:ltr:I,/:,:m):IW'j:::})I:{:j'{I!!:!i~}~~):)'JW:!':@:fr:)fMF~j):!(H(:::::::
4-OIIoro-3- 49 1 0.089 0.089 0.089 N/A N/A
methylpbeool
Beazoic 8cid 49 2 0.076 0.11 0.093 320,000 N/A
bis(2~tbylbexyl) 49 9 0.055 0.16 0.093 714 N/A
phthalate
II Acetone ~ 9 ~A II
II Methylene chloride 51 13 0.001 I 0.19 I 0.031 133 N/A II
N/A - oot available
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U .5. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Nortbwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 30
Table 10
Site 2S-Chemicals Detected in Groundwater
-
Aluminum 14. 9. . 772.. 1~,000 18,000 50 13'.170
Arsenic 14 4 2.1 9.4 4.15 0.05 301
Barium 14 14 20 692 107 1,120 78.5
Beryllium 14 3 1 4.6 2.4 0.02 12
Cadmium 14 2 17.9 24.4 212 5 N/A
Calcium 14 14 9.390 56,100 35,100 N/A 20.350
Chromium 14 4 11.9 180 732 100 28
Cobalt 14 2 19.3 69.3 44.3 N/A 12.1
Copper 14 6 7.7 156 512 592 23.2
Iron 14 14 105 99,100 9,900 300 16.449
liad . 14 2 13.6 15.4 14.5 5 7.3
Magnesium 14 14 3.980 35,900 22,400 N/A 14.255
Manganese 14 14 146 3,310 1,440 SO 414
Nickel 14 14 20.6 338 57.1 100 39.3
Potassium 14 11 2,900 6.420 4,090 N/A 5.048
Silver 14 2 10.1 13.7 11.9 48 N/A
Sodium 14 14 7,210 14.000 11.soo N/A 12,4U
Vanadium 14 4 10.4 245 80.5 1 12 37
Zinc 14 10 8.1 475 101 3.200 47.5
2,4,6- Trinitrotoluene 13 1 0.03 0.03 0.03 2.9 N/A
2.6-Dini~rotoluene 14 1 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.129 N/A
Otto fuel 14 2 0.24 0.89 0.57 N/A N/A
RDX 14 1 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.8 N/A
}:~~~~~\j::m::ttt:Ir::::m}t::f'ljflI:@'::::::::::mfm:t:tfNH:::}:mmr:::ltmm;\fF:lIf:::::I\\tttt::t=:t/\:ttf:,i;::(/,:.:):ttlJtrt:t't:::'
Phenol 14 1 11 11 11 9,600 N/A
bis(2-ethylbexyl) 14 3 4 34 17.3 6 N/A'
phthalate ~
)Y~~9ijPi~:?))?:@ntt'Htt):::t:",t,;rtm\::tfr:nr:?;lt}t};i?il@it'mtitmn:;:m:n:t:;':;;:;t:::f::ttl+ ..":\'
Acetone 15 8 30 120 20.9 800
!kazene 15 1 83 83 83 1.51 N/A
Methylene chloride 15 1 5 5 5 5.83 N/A
Toluene 15 3 1 1 1 1,000 N/A
I.2-Dichloroethene 13 1 6 6 6 N/A N/A
N/A = not available
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
<...0 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 31
7.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
7.1
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND CHARAcrERlZATION
The baseline risk assessment in Section 6.0 of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RIfFS) (URS 1992) estimated the probabilities of adverse health effects from
current and future hypothetical exposures to chemicals of concern in the absence of
remediation. The risk assessment is a multistep process. consisting of data evaluation,
chemical toxicity assessments, and exposure assessments. By combining the information
gathered from each of these three tasks, noncancer and cancer risks can be quantified in
a final step termed risk characterization.
All chemicals detected at Sites 16/24 and 25 and in background samples were initially
screened according to EPA guidelines to select chemicals of potential concern (COPC).
. A detailed exposure assessment followed, which consisted of evaluating the specific
exposure setting and exposure p.athways. Default exposure assumptions were defmed in
curr.ent EP A.. risk aSsessment guidance. (Site.specific' exposure. aSSumptions are explained.
in Section 6.0 of the RIfFS.) Toxicity information obtained from EPA's IRIS database'
was then applied to each COPC.
Noncancer risks were quantified by comparing the estimated intake dose resulting from
site exposure to a reference dose (RID), an EPA estimate of acceptable intake of a
chemical per day. Hazard indexes (HIs) greater than 1 were consid~red a concern.
Noncarcinogenic hazard .quotients (HQs) for .adults were calculated using chemical .
.intake~ combined- with chronic reference doses, b~cause exposures were aSsumed to las.t
. more than 7 years. For two exposure pathways (i.e~, soil ingestion and dermal contact), .
reasonable maximum exposure (RME) assumptions were specified for both children and
. adults. For these exposure pathways, subchronic risks were calculated separately for the
childhood exposure. Because childhood exposure lasts for 6 years, subchronic RIDs were
used to calculate HQs.
Cancer risks were expressed as an excess probability that an individual will develop
cancer if exposed to a chemical over a lifetime. The NCP states that acceptable risks lie
between 10-4 arid 10-6. For example, a risk expressed as 1 x 10-' means that one person'
in 1,000,000 individuals exposed may develop cancer over a lifetime of exposure to the
specified chemicals at the site.
-------
SUBASE. BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0035 .
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 32
Four scenarios were evaluated: the current worker, future worker, future resident, and
Clear Creek recreational visitor (for only Site 25) scenarios. These scenarios were
evaluated on the basis of cancer and noncancer risks for all significant pathways of
exposure.
7.1.1
Site 16/24
The CO PC for Site 16/24 are presented in Table 11. The primary. chemicals of concern
contributing to the total risk at Site 16/24 are arsenic, barium, and beryllium in
groundwater.
The total hazard index and cancer risk for all pathways in each scenario are shown in
Table 12. The hazard index and cancer risk associated with naturally occurring
background conditions are shown in Table 13. .
The excess noncancer hazard index (summed across all chemical and exposure pathways)
and excess cancer risk for current and futUre projections for Site 16/~4 are shown in
. Table 14. These excess risks do not include risks from inorganics, which were attributed
to naturally occurring conditions and are not related to previous activities at the site.
. .
Excess noncancer risk at Site 16/24 for all exposure scenarios is negligible. Excess
cancer risk for the future residential scenario (the most conservative) is 1 in 50,000
(2 x 10-5). All excess risks associated with Site 16/24 are within the EPA's acceptable
risk range. The chemicals that most contribute to this risk are beryllium and ArocIor
1245 in soils, and benzene and. lindane in groundwater.
7.1.2 Site 25
The' COPC at Site 25 are presented in Table 15. The primary chemicals of concern
.contributing to tbe total risk at Site 25 are arsenic and manganese in groundwater and
cadmium in groundwater and soils.
The total excess noncancer hazard index (summed across all chemical and exposure
pathways) and excess cancer risk for current and future projections for Site 25 are shown
in Table 16. Tbese excess cancer risks do not include risks from inorganics, which were.
attributed to naturally occurring conditions and are not related to previous activities at
the site.
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
Cia 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 33
Table 11
Chemicals of Potential Concern at Site 16/24
~
Antimony 7.77 mg/kg
Arsenic 14. 1 mg/kg
Beryllium 0.712 mg/kg
Lead 38.8 mg/kg
Arodor 1254 O. 197 mg/kg
T ota! dioxin/furan equivalents 0.0000019 mg/kg
;fM:~~l~ii;~~l~:i~:;JR)~t;f:;::::;:;;:\:~\\;~::~::@:i\:::};;;~:;::::t::,;m;:;;j;:;:::;~::;:~:m;;t~]~;:;t:,;~{~:::;::\:;;:;i);{~??~t\..::.:..:: ""'"
.' .... "'::':::-"'::':;:;';:::::::;,;::";'::..;.:::::::..;..;:;:;:;
.:..':':;'.':':::':::::;;;:'[[[
".,",.,",',',',',','.',"',',",",'..',',',",",,",',',',',"',",',
.. .. . .. ... . . .... ......
Gbromium 24.4 mg/kg
Lead 15.6 mg/kg
Total dioxin/furan. eqUivalents 0.0000016 mg/kg
::~';!tl~i':~~~f#t;'~~;:i?r}::~:;~n::;:i'::;;!':;;';;f:;:~':;:::::::;':m:~!'~::;;!~:J:iJ;:J;!:;~;:;;i;I~:::!:;":/;:'::';:'m:~;:;'mf;':;; :~!/:::::::::~~i:!:~~(:::?~!!ft:!rr~;:~E~it~f}!t~~;::~;~::~r/:~:~!~~~j:
Arsenic 13.9 p.g/L
Barium 847 p.g/L
Benzene 2.62 p.g/L
Beryllium 2.19 p.g/L
bis(2-ch1oroethyl)ether 5.54 p.g/L
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 12.4 p.g/L
Chromium 48.1 p.g/L
Cobalt 24.8 p.g/L
Copper 132 p.g/L
Lead 31.4 p.g/L
Lindane 0.038 p.g/L
Manganese 1.120 p.g/L
Nickel 123 p.g/L
Otto fuel 032 p.g/L
Silver 23.1 p.g/L
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT ~
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
P.age 34
Table 12
Site 16/24 Total Hazard Index and Cancer Risk
,:..:::::.i:::'::I::,::::i!'~!iiJg..::::;::;:::::::::;::,:,:::;,:::::::::;::;;;:::::':';:;:;i;;[11;"III::III:::i@:~if.f.H!:::::;:;;H:ii;:I::::i:iti:i::::m;:i:;i\l=::.::i;;::,;;::;,;::::(::;::::::::::I::'::I::
:\~gf.~~:'~~.~~e~~~:\!:!::::'::::';i::::nr::::::f::::::};:I:f:P:;::J!'!:!::::ii:::::::;,;::tW;:::::::iii;:::::{::;::i::::;i:::::::g:::::@M%WHmiii.:::N:j:;:::::::::;{:::,::::::::t;::!:::::::::::::::;:;;:::i:
Soil ingestion 0.013 1 in 480,000 (2.1 x 1~)
Soil dermal contact N/A 1 in 840,000 (1.2 x 10"0)
Dust inhalation N / A 1 in 36,000,000 (2.8 x 10-8)
Total pathways 0.013 1 in 330,000 (3.0 x 10"0)
..:f)I~:P~'~':~D8~::':':;::::::):;):'::;;/":;;;':;::::;i;::::::::';!=:,:,,:.H'j,,::H::,:::;:':/:,::::%,i;:{fi?;::}@:':::::i:::i:};:;:i,:;:::::/\i!:::;,j::::;:;:,::}::::::,'j:::'::;:::::j;):':':}:;:\!i:
Groundwater ingestion 1.04 1 in 7,100 (1.4 x 1O~)
Dust inhalation N/A 1 in 340,000 (29 x 1~)
Soil ingestion 0.02 1 in 430,000 (2.3 x 10")
Soil dermal contact N/A 1 in 420,000 (2.4 x 10~)
Total pathways 1.06 1 in 5,000 (2.~ x 10-')
:':f.Ut~';I~~~~~:'~..::::':::n:':::::':::\f:::';,,:/;:;:"::1.:;n:::::::::::'::':!:!,:::::I::::':rw!:::;:::'::';':;':'F:}'~:::";:'::;l:,::::::m:;:t::i:!i:i::i:::i:::i::@it:::::;';;:'::::::'::,::i::::?';,::::)!
Groundwater ingestion 2.91 1 in 2,100 (4.7 x 10~)
Groundwater dermal contacl 0.04 1 in 140,000 (7.0 x 1O~)
Groundwater vapor. inhalation N / A 1 in 3,700 (2.7 x 1004)
Soil ingestion 0.25 1 in 50,000 (2.0 x 1
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 35
Table 13
Background Total Hazard Index and Cancer Risk
.{:@i:]:::;:~:::~.~im:~=;:;::i::=';~;:::t:'::~ :~:'i;@~::':;:::~:;:::;;:;::~:;:~:;::n!!!m!~t::::i::::=:i::::::i:::::::m: i:i::@:~;:':::;t::;:ii::i:::::~;':~is:::.::::::::::I:::;:::::::'!:::::j::::=l
d!;.~:ig@~fi~~::~il::::t:=:::~~::~::;::::?t@@f:::'::@{F:lN1Mt::1:;:=:,Hl'ft:m::::::;=:nJt::i=::@!!=:im?:HWil::::::::::J!!:::::tm;m:mm:=m::?n:::;;:r:=m;;:::;::~f;:f
Groundwater ingestion 1.82 1 in 3,6Oq (2.8 X 10-4)
Soil ingestion < 0.01 1 in 770,000 ( 1 .3 x 10"')
Dust inhalation N/A 1 10 14,000,000 (7.0 x 10-8)
T alaI pathways 1.82 1 in 3,300 (3.0 X 10-4)
N/A - not applicable
Table 14 .
Site 16/24 Hazard Index and Excess Canc~r Risk
I""'"''''''''''''':''' .....'" ",.,..'...'.'."'." ....,.".'.,.......
::;rii:m:r;:=;\{::::);::::"=:::~t.~~\,:::,:::. ,
Current Worker
Future Worker
Future Resident
::;::')::/::I'H.::::m~"~~;:~!!::::::::;::=::.:::,::;:I\;::::::::;::'~i:q~~:::~~::::::/::/J
N/A 1 in 1,000,000 (1.0 x 10"')
< 0.01 1 an 50,000 (2.0 x lO"s)
0.06 1 in 50,000 (20 x 1O.S)
N / A . Dot applicable
The total' hazard index. and cancer risk for all pathways in each s~enario are shown in .'
Table 17. The hazard index and cancer' risk associated with' naturally occurring
background conditions are the same as presented for Site 16/24 (Table 13).
Excess non cancer risk at Site 25 for all exposure scenarios is negligible. Excess cancer
risk for the future residential scenario is 1 in 12,500 (8 x 10-5). All excess risks' associated
with Site 25' are within the EP A's acceptable risk range.
7.2
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
The ecological risk assessment for OU 3 was presented qualitatively in the RI/FS (URS
1992), rather than quantitatively, because of the disparities in the quality of habitats at
the sites and adjacent areas.
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S" Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 36
Table IS
Chemicals of Potential Concern at Site 2S
i:!iiii::il:II~!:I!!I~"!~i:i:li"i"i::i::":11!1_lji'ljj!jl/il!"tl.:"!i::I':III!::ii!I:'::::r::::::{{::::::i:i~::\1:illli!~~II~}II~\~i't't~::lj:::::::!:?:
/::~~~~::!?j::~~:I!~t::::m::::::::!:{{~:f::::ji:::f::::::::::::i:::m:i:::::f;!:tI::::::::;;:::l:;:;:::g::;;:;r;:tt::j::;;:::::i!I:::!:;::;:I:::ii;::::m;!:j:i:iti;:iii:::I;;i:!:::;:::::ti:i::!!:::::i!i:;::tMiW):::mW:::mltM::::i:;;::i'!:!;}:{
Lead . 3.8p.g/kg .
715 p.g/kg
Aldrin 0.0062 mg/kg
Benzo(a)anthraceoe 054 mg/kg
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.29 mg/kg
Benzo(b)f1uorantbeoe 0.94 mg/kg
Benzo(k)f1uorantbeoe 0.65 mg/kg
bis(2-ethylbexyl)pbthaJate 44 mg/kg
Beryllium 053 mg/kg
Cadmium 15 mg/kg
Cbryseoe 1.2 mg/kg
Lead 113 i1\g/kg
Aroclor 1242 0.017 mg/kg
:::Sit~j~:i:~~:::::(:H:J::::::f~::::::::::::\::::::f:::;:::::::::i:M::,j:fi:\:::'i;jf:::::t:tN;miit:;::::W:::?;tt:::?::::::::::::::M:j::fmlm;:?::?:::::::W!tm::~;:':,:w:t;r!w:::N}::::j:::':::::::):::::
Arsenic 2.06 p.g/L
Barium 122 p.g/L
Benzene 22.3 p.g/L
Beryllium . . 1.02 p.g/L
bis(Z-ethylbexyl)phthaJate 125 p.gjL
Cadmium 6.42 p.g/L
Chromium 30.1 p.g/L
Cobalt 127 p.g/L
Copper 28.6 p.g/L
Lead 431 p.gjL
Manganese 1,470 p.g/L
Nickel 6Z p.g/L
Otto fuel 0.32 p.g/L
Vanadium 35.2 p.g/L
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activi[}', Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 37
Table 16
Site 25 Hazard Index and Excess Cancer Risk
Site 25 Hazard Index and Excess Cancer Risk
::f:::::::'::::::I~~!Sf::~~:::::::t:::::;:.::;::.:::.::;'~~~,::dg;':~:::::::::.::::
<0.01 " 1 in 250,000 (4.0 x 10"') ,
0.002 1 in 50,000 (2.0 x 10'S)
0.20 I in 12,500 (8.0 x IUS)
N/A 1 in 1,250,000 (8.0 x lO"~)
Current Worker
Future Worker
Future Resident
Clear Creek Recreational Visitor
N / A - not applicable
Sites 16/24 and 25 are industrialized sites that provide relatively low-quality habitat for
populations or communities of local flora and fauna. Site 16/24 is covered in pan by an
enclosed concrete pad; and much of the remainder of the. site is covered with 'Sand and,
gravel. These substrates do not suppon vegetation or browsing for wildlife. Site 25 is
covered with mostly wetland species. The bermed areas around Site 25's pc;>nds 'are
regularly mowed. Under these conditions, this site is not likely to be colonized by more
desirable vegetation.
Areas that are adjacent to Sites 16/24 and 25, or that potentially receive runoff froni
these sites, contain shrub, deciduous, coniferous, and aquatic habitats. Data on chemical
, conc~ntrations in ~oils, sediments, ,and surface water are availabJe for Sites 16/24 and 25,
, but not for the adjacent areas. ' , " '
The overall emphasis of the environmental evaluation was on the potential chemical
exposure to adjacent habitats that may result from off-site transpon of chemical .
contaminants and on the potential exposure of organisms that may be sporadic and
transitory visitors to the sites. The qualitative nature of this ecological evaluation was
further dictated by the high degree of uncenainty in the frequency and duration of
exposure to biota whose presence at these sites is probably sporadic and transitory.
Some COPC in surface water and sedunents at the point of the discharge from Site 25 to
the headwaters of the central branch of Clear Creek (an ephemeral stream) exceeded
respective ambient water quality criteria (A WQC) or sediment quality guideline (SQG)
values. However, the concentrations of these COPC in sediments or surface water seem
-------
SUBASE. BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S, Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 38
Table 17
Site 25 Total Hazard Index and Cancer Risk
!,..',::Cl,r::,','ea,',",.',.,',",',t,',',:,:,.',':'~,.'".,'.,~,',',.',',.,.,:,.,'.:,$II,.,..,',..,.,:,~,.',',',ft,',.,.,.,.,',',',,'.,,'.',':,~,,',",.,.,:'.',..,.,.,.",,',.,,:,.,'.,.',...,.',',.,.,,:,..',.,.,',:,:scemum,.,:.,",;,.',.",.',.,..,",',..,.,.:',:,:,.""".',I",.,~,i',.,..,:,.,.:,'.,.",..,',:,.,..,;,',,:,..,.,i,:,.',:,'.,::".','.,',,:,.,,!:,',.,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,.,."H,.,:,:"""':'~'."":'.':'~::"";,',,:,:.,:,::,::,~,:,..,:,,,:",:"":,,.,,:,;,',:,.,:,,.,':,:,.,:,.,:,'.,:,::.",:,.,:,:,.,',:,:,':,.,':",:,.,:.,:,.,':,'~,:,',:;,:,':,',!,'.,:,','.,',.,;,':,>,.,:,:,:,.,i:,."..., .:::.::!,,!:,.,:,:,..!!!:;!,:!:::!:,.;'!,~::!;::::.:!:::,::.:...::.,"
.. ... . . . . :::::.:.:::;::::;::::::::::::::::::::;:~:;;::::::::;~[[[i::;::::::::,::::;:.::;.;.::::;.:.:.:::":
Sediment ingestion <0.01 1 in 910,000 (1.1 x 1006)
Surface water <0.01 I, in 4,000,000 (2.5 x 10.7)
Total across pathways <0.01 1 in 1,000,000 (1.0 x 10~
"~aiij~..jV,~:~~~.":'.:""::::":::::::"":::::':}i"IHW.::::;:!'::::;'::':i,:::",.'.':}f " """, """:':'.......'.:::.::..::'.":"'!'..::",...'::;::::}}):H'..,.':i:(
Sediment ingestion < 0.01
Sediment dermal contact <0.01
Total across pathways <0.01
:~~~':pcm, .,'~tiOD,.'",,:, 81' :,', )W,."""~,,,"',", )$CeD".,:.',.,:,",',,"'~,:',"",'.'iV, ':'{:::,,::'::'??f:'}:::::::ii::
.. .. '.:.'. .'".'. .'.'. ."~'~"."":".y..,'"," ',', .'.','.',',
Groundwater ingestion 0.51
Sediment ingestion N/A
Sediment dermal contact 0.02
Vapor inhalation N/A
Groundwater dermal contact <0.01
Total across pathways 0.53
:f'1#UI„.~i~;tiitI.~~ti~'.::;,',~t::::....::.:.::::::.....:..""::;:~:::::::::::::::::::(':'?":"
1 in 500,000 (2.0 x 1006)
1 in 710,000 (1.4 x 1006)
1 in 250,000 (4.0 x 1006)
,..
...,. ,'.. :'::!;{}mi!J:rt;\i~\t~;~i~~!;!;i!!;U:!(;iF~!~:i:!;;~!)'t;:;:);:;i:;;,;r::i;~~
" """" .
....,
1 in 320,000 (3,1 x 10..5)
1 in 250,000 (4.0 x 1006)
1 1D 290,000 (3.5 x 1006)
1 in 91,000 (1.1 x 10'5)
1 in 170,000,000 (6.0 x 1009)
1 in 20,000 (5.0 x 10'5)
..,
,'.. " ...", ,......' "",.'" . . .,... ,.,..,
:::::'::;::;:::::;i::::;:;:::~:::~::~::::::.::::::;:>:;::::::::~;::;:::::::::::':,:}:;:::;::::;:::::::::;:::::::
. , : : .', : : ; : " , ..' ': :,' ", ';'.-:, .' "':' ' , . .. :;.: ,;. : ~ "',.
..'" , . .
.....
.. ,
Groundwater ingestion
Groundwater dermal contact
Groundwater vapor inhalation
Soil Digestion
Sediment dermal contact
I Total across pathways
N/A - not applicable
1.43
<0.01
N/A
0.41
0.15
1.99
1 in 10,000 (1.0 x 1004)
1 in 36,000,000 (28 x 10-&)
1 in 36,000 (2.8 x 10..5)
-------
SUBASE. BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 39
to be confined to the headwaters of Clear Creek's central branch. With the exception of
beryllium and vanadium, CO PC concentrations in sediments and surface water in the
lower reaches of the central branch C?f Clear Creek were below A WQC and SQC values,
or were comparable with reference area concentrations. There were no SQGs available
to assess the toxicity of beryllium and vanadium. Where the central branch of Clear
Creek meets the west fork of Clear Creek, water quality and sediment quality guidelines
were attained. .Although the central fork of Clear Creek is a low-gradient system, severe
stormwater runoff provides adequate flushing. Compliance with water quality and
sediment quality guidelines was attained in the lower reaches of the stream.
With the exception of aquatic habitats at Site 25, this analysis indicated that potential
ecological risks to biota in the vicinity of these sites are negligible.
7.3
UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
Sources of uncertainty identified in this risk assessment are summarized in Table 18.
For each ~ource of uncenainty, the 'possible effect on the risk estimate (Le., under- . .
. estimation or overestimation), tbe degree of such effect, and the steps taken to mitigate
the uncertainty are noted.
7.3.1
Data Evaluation
Uncenainties associated with the data evaluation include unavailable toxicity data,
missing data for the detention/retention ponds, poor quality for ordnance data, and the
detection of chemici1s at low frequencies and at low concentrations~ .
. .. .
Toxicity data were not available' for the following detected analytes: lead, phcmanthrene,
and 4-chloro-3-methylphenol. Lead was evaluated separately from the other COPC by
comparing concentrations in soil and water with acceptable concentrations recommended
by EP A This approach does not allow for summation of risks associated with lead and
other COPC and, therefore, results in underestimation of the total risks associated with
both sites. .
For the purposes of calculating risk-based screening concentrations (RBSCs), the RIDs
for .fluoranthene and 3;4-dimethylphenol were used as surrogates for phenanthrene and
4-chloro-3-methylphenol, respectively. Phenanthrene and 4-chloro-3-methylphenol were
screened out of the risk assessment on the basis of these surrogate screening
concentrations. This process is not expected to be a large source of uncertainty.
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
(.10 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 40
Table 18
Summary of Uncertainties
I'."., ....,~':~:.:~:.!':rii!ii:i::ii'::.'i:~i..'.:::...:...:::i::'..}:.':;i;'..i?{.".:'i::_i!:.~.-
'Pab,t'~IUati~*:..j:"':iU::{....:..t:i::'::::"f.':'(:':)):i::?iif:::Jmi'\.if..::::i.i}'n{'i:::::f';fW'::iH.:','ii:::':::..':ff:t::::m:::Jm;:::.:V:..i'ijt';'fi.:\:f?::}i::.:H:
Failure to include all chemicals
2
Included all chemicals for
which toxicity data available
Assumed that culvert scdiment and
surface water at oil and water
separator were represcntative of
retention/detention ponds
J'oiiei.6",~sesSmmt .
Extrapolations
Evaluation of complex mixtures
(PAHs. dioxins, and furans)
Oral and dermaI absorption rates
Use of chronic RID in place of
subchronic RID
Quality of analytical data
3 Performed conservatively
2 Used rccommended approach
2 Used best available data.
2 Used best available data
1 Uscd quality-assured data
2 Used recommended
assumptions
2 Uscd rccommcnded
assumptions
1 Used recomm~nded approach
1 Used conscrvative assumption
+
+/-
+/- .
+
Exposure assumptions
+ /-
+/-
Estimation of concenuations of
volatiles
Estimation of concentrations of
suspcnded particulates .
Assumption of constant
concentrations
+/-
+
+
jM~;~~.;m.:::;.::.::.:.:::::::;.::::::;i;:"':;.i:::.:;.m:::;."'.;I:!:::.:..::::.:;::!r;::~J.:..::r::.::.:t:::;::tfi:..r:;::;::i::::;::::i:%::::C:::;::'::::..;::::::Cc;tm:m::::::::::::!:::::::m:::::::;::",...'::::j:::::;:m..r:'@E:i::t:.m:i
Assumption of additive interactions + /- 2 Used rccommcnded approach
a+ Potential overestimation of risk.
- Potential underestimation of risk.
bMagnitude of effect is presented semiquantitatively.
. 1 SmaIJ effect on risk estimate: .
2 Medium effect on risk estimate.
3 Large effect on risk estimate.
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 41
Surface water and sediment samples were not directly obtained from the retention ponds
at Site 25. However, it was assumed that the culvert sediment and surface water samples
at the oil and water separator were representative of the contaminants in the ponds.
The ordnance data were qualified with the flag UJ because holding times were exceeded.
(UJ jndicates an undetected value. with an estimated detection limit.) . Upon re- .
. evaluation of the ordnance data, a small portion of the values were re-qualified as .
detected. Comparisons of these values with RBSCs eliminated all but Otto fuel from the
risk assessment. Elimination of analytes from the risk assessment on the basis of
estimated detection limits could cause underestimation of risks, but this is not expected
to be a large source of uncertainty.
. Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether was detected only once at Site 16/24: in groundwater at
the sample quantitation limit of 10 p.g/L, which means that the concentrations are
uncenain. The compound was npt detected in soil, which suggests that there is no
source for this chemical on Site 16/24. Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether could not be excluded
from the risk assessment because the detected value (at the sample quantitation limit)
exceeds the RBSe of 0.29 p.g/L. Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether dominates risks for groundwater
through both the ingestion and the inhalation pathways. However, there is a great deal
of uncertainty associated with the risk results for this chemical.
Otto fuel was detected twice at Site 25: in groundwater at concentrations below the
sample quaniitation limit of 0.2 p.g/L. which means that the concentrations are uncertain.
Otto fuel was not detected in soil. It could not be excluded from the risk assessment.
because the maximum. detected value of 0.09 p.g/L exceeds ~e RBSC of 0.0063 p.g/L.
Because. of large uncertainties about the toxidty data for Otto fuel, risks for. this.
chemical are explored further (Section 7.3.4) in this uncertainty analysis.
7.3.2 Toxicity Assessment
Four of the 'carcinogens evaluated in the risk assessment (arsenic, benzene, chromium
VI, and nickel) are classified by the EPA as Group A (known human carcinogens). For
these chemicals, there is little uncertainty regarding their carcinogenicity in humans.
. .' .'.
. .
Most of the remainder of the carcinogens are classified by the EP A as Group B2
(probable human carcinogens) based on no evidence in humans but sufficient evidence in
animals. There are a number of uncertainties regarding evidence of carcinogenicity
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 42
based on animal tests. One uncertainty is the use of maximum tolerated doses that
cause cellular damage, which increases the rate of cell growth during repair processes.
High rates of cell growth predispose an animal to developing cancer. Another source of
uncertainty is the assumption that all chemicals that are carcinogenic in aniI11als are also
carcinogenic in humans. Therefore, for chemicals classified as Group B2, lack of
evidence of carcino$enicity. if! humans produces considerable uncertainty in the
carcinogenic risk estimates. . .
Uncertainty factors for the majority of the RID values were in the range of a hundred or
a thousand. This indicates considerable uncertainty regarding the actual values of the
RIDs for these chemicals. On the other hand, the uncertainty faCtors for the oral RIDs
for arsenic, barium, and manganese were less than 10. This indicates very little
uncertainty about the actual values for these RIDs.
Currently, EPA does not provide an RID for Otto fuel. Risks associated with Otto fuel
were evaluated using an RID based on the limited toxicological database for 1,2-
. propanediol dinitrate, Otto fuel's major" component. The RID is highly uncertain. .
because it is based on an inadequate toxicological database and because it has not been
subjected to peer review. For this reason, risks for Otto fuel were evaluated in the
uncertainty analysis of the RI/FS instead of in the risk characterization.. .
. Concentrations of cP AHs (carcinogenic P AHs) were summed to allow the evaluation of
compounds that do not have toxicity values. Slope faCtors for benzo(a)pyrene were used
as a surrogate for all carcinogenic PAH compounds. Since benzo(a)pyrene may be the
. most potent ~PAH, aggregating cPAHs in this fashion may serve to overestimate risks.
However, until more toxicity data are available on. these compounds, it is not possible to
conduct more chemical-specific evaluations. .
Toxicity equivalency factors (1EFs) were used to combine concentrations of dioxins and
furans in a toxicity-weighted fashion. The toxicity equivalency faCtor method is based on
structure-activity relationships. However, EPA (1989c) and its Science Advisory Board
note that the TEF method may lack scientific validity. Use of the TEF method may
cause underestimation or overestimation of risk.
. .
Risks associated with dermal contact with soils were evaluated only for nonvolatile
organic chemicals; it was assumed that volatile chemicals would evaporate prior to
absorption. Because most metals are not absorbed easily through the skin, the dermal
route is not expected to contribute substantially to total risks for metals. EPA (1991b) is
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activiry, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D~9295
CTO 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 44
7.3.4 Risk Characterization
When risks are summed across chemicals, it is assumed that the chemical-specific risks
are independent and additive. In actuality, these risks may interact to produce an effect
that is less than additive (antagonism) or an effect that is more than additive
(synergism). Unfortunately, data on chemical interactions are lacking for most chemical
mixture's. In the absence of mixture-specific toxicity data, the assumption of additivity is
a standard approach. This may result in overestimation or underestimation of risk.
.
Risk Characterization for Otto Fuel
As previously mentioned ,in Section 7.3.1, tbe RID that was calculated for Otto fuel is
highly uncenain and not verified by the EPA. In addition, Otto fuel was detected only
,once in 13 samples at Site 16/24, at a concentration of 1.2 /J.g/L, and only tWice in 11
samples at Site 25, at a maximum concentration of 0.89 p.g/L Thus, average and RME
concentrations for Otto fuel were calculated to be less than 1 p.g/L, a concentration
significantly below the sample quantitation limit '(SQL) of 4 /J.g/L," and' were found to,'
constitute significant noncancer risks. As a result, the decision was made to evaluate the'
noncancer risks associated with Otto fuel in the uncenaimy analysis.
Table 19 shows the results for groundwater ingestion and dermal contact with
groundwater for the future residential scenario at both sites. For both sites, the RME
HQs' associated with the ingestion of groundwater exceed unity, the I~vel of concern.
The total RME HIs across both pathways for Sites 16/24 and 25 were estimated to be as
high as 3.6 and 2.7, respectively. In both cas~s, the ingestion of groundwater contribuJes
approximate.ly 80 percent of the total noncancer effects. "
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
ero 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 43
in the process of revising its approach to evaluating exposure via dermal contact. There
is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the absorption rates used for both the dermal
and the oral routes of exposure.
Dermal contact with ~ater was eval'uated only for nonvolatile organic chemical'S. It was
assumed that volatile chemicals would tend to evaporate too quickly to be absorbed
through the skin. It was also assumed that metals would not be abs.orbed well through
the skin. EPA (1991b) is in the process of developing guidance for evaluating the'
dermal exposure route. There is substantial uncertainty regarding the permeability
constants used for dermal contact with water.
Carcinogenic P AHs were not included in the .evaluation of dermal exposure pathways
because they cause cancer at the site of contact (skin). Evaluation of absorption through
the skin and systemic distribution and health effects is inappropriate for a health effect
that occurs at the site of contact. There are no dermal toxicity data for cP AHs and,
therefore, this route of exposure could not be evaluated. This causes underestimation of
. risks for the Sit~25 o~cupational exposure scenarios and the Clear. Creek recreational
scenario.
7.3.3 Exposure Assessment
Most of the assumptions in the exposure assessment used default values .recommended
by EPA (1991a) to standardize risk assessments. Uncenainties regarding exposure
. assumptions stem from the natural variabilities of parameters, such as body weight or
soil ingestion rate, as well as. from i~uffi~ient data on the distribution of these
.par~eters. '. . . . .
The exposure point concentrations for groundwater are based on total, not dissolved,
metals concentrations.' This conservative approach may overestimate risk.'
Contaminant concentrations in soil and groundwater were assumed to remain constant
throughout the duration of exposure. This assumption is reasonable for the inorganic
contamin~ts in soil. However, for organic contaminants with significant removal
processes (e.g., volatilization, microbial degradation), this assumption may result in
'Overestimation of risk. Assumption of constant concentrations in groundwater over a 30-
year period is not entirely realistic. It is not possible to know whether this assumption
over- or underestimates risk.
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No, N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 45
Table 19
Noncancer Risks for Otto Fuel at Sites 16/24 and 25-
Future Residential Scenario
:!iIJii:::i:,i!llilr-r-I'j!i"i:l!lllillr-i/i,ii!iij,/i/f:~i!::I!II'~': .~i:::~ljD.i:I_!.~;:i: im~:#.$tfi.~;~J.~E~J.:':':;'::
::::::~~rftg:::'; jt~:j'@!Mfrft(f:~@\t:: ':::il":j(ll:i!': t:::~,j:::_:.m::l
Groundwater ingestion 0.88 2.9 0.71 2.2
DermaJ contact with groundwater 0.22 0.7 0.18 0.54
T otaJ across pathways 1.0 3.6 0.89 2.7
8.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The baseline risk asses~ment showed that excess noncancer and. cancer risks for the
. hypothetical future' resident (the most conservative scenario) were 0.06 and 2 x 10.5 (i.in.
50,000) for Site 16/24 and 0.20 and 8 x 10,5 (1 in 12.500) for Site 25. All of these risks
are within the EPA's acceptable risk range and no remedial action is. necessary.
However, there are exceedances of Washington State's Model Toxies Control Act
(MTCA) in surface soils at Site 16/24 and in groundwater at Site 25. Tbese exceedances
are summarized in Tables 20 and 21.
Table 20
Metals Exceedances in Surface Soils at Site 16/24
.. - - -
Antimony 35.8 32 1.49
Arsenic 82.7 20 2.78
Beryllium 1.0 0.23 0.21
The concerns of Ecology have been addressed at Site 16/24 by residential use
restrictions and controls established under the authority of the SUBASE, Bangor
Commanding Officer (see Attachment 2). Property transfers for Site 16/24 will require
-------
SUBASE, BANnOR OPERABLE UNIT ~
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Actj\~ty, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 40
Table 21
Metals Exceedances in Groundwater at Site 25
Cadmium
Manganese
-_t-
24.4 . 8 . N/A
3,310 50 414
N / A - not available
deed restriction to be attached and will have to meet the requirements of CERCLA
Section 120(h) and WAC ~173-340-440.
At Site 25. a semiannual groundwater monitoring program of the shallow aquifer will be
. developed jointly by the Navy, EPA, and Ecology and implem~nted by the Navy to verify
. that the levels of chemjcals obserVed are consistent with naturally occurring background. ,
levels. The Navy, EPA, and Ecology will compare data from the monitoring program
with federal maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), MTCA Method B levels, and
representative background concentrations to determine if additional monitoring or other
actions are necessary: If agreement is 11;0t reached on the design and implementation of
the monitoring program, or as to whether furth.er action is necessary as a result of the
. monit9ring program data., the dispute resolution provisions of the Federal Facilities
Agreement for SUBASE, Bangor may be invoked.
. . , .
At th'e required 5-year review, the Navy, EPA, and Ecology will re-eva1uat~ the need for
continued monitoring at Site 25 and residential use restrictions at Site 16/24. .' .
9.0 EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no substantive cbanges from the proposed plan for remedial action at
Operable Unit 3. Minor changes are administrative, owing to residential use restrictions
. tbat. have been initiated since the proposed plan was released for public comment on
May 10,' 1993. That proposed plan identified limited action as the preferred alternative.
The proposed limited action consisted of future residential restrictions at Site 16/24 and
a 5-year groundwater monitoring program at Site 25. Another alternative was a
no-action alternative. The original preference for the limited-action alternative was
-------
SUBASE. BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U .5. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 47
based on the need to restrict future residential use at the sites and to implement as-year
groundwater monitoring program.
Subsequent to the public review period, the Navy imposed the residential restrictions
referenced above and included these restrictions in its master plan. If the base should
close, notification of the history of the site will be attached to any property transfer.
That decision was based. on several factors, including the concentrations of contaminants
in .relation to risk-based. or regulatory levels, tbe location of the sites with respect to the
base boundaries, the presence or absence of potential receptors, and the presence or
absence of identifiable source areas. The concentrations of contaminants at Sites 16/24
and 25 are relatively low in comparison with risk-based levels and primary maximum
contaminant levels. No sources of groundwater contamination were identified, and
contaminants are confined within the base boundaries. Consequently, ongoing
monitoring and evaluation of the groundwater (which is not considered a remedial
action), in addition to the residential restrictions already imposed. are appropriate for
these sites.
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Nary CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
CTO 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 48
10.0 REFERENCES
Hart Crowser. 1989. Current Situation Report, Sites C, D, E, F, 5, 6, 11, 12, 24, arui 25.
SUBASE, Bangor, Washington.
Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity (NEESA). 1983. Initial Assessment.
Study of Naval Submarine Base, Bangor. Bremerton, Washington.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1992. Risk assessment
issue paper for: oral' reference dose for cobalt (South Tacoma Field/Tacoma,
Washington). Memo from K.A. Poirier, Director, Superfund Health Risk
Technical Support Center Chemical Mixtures Assessment Branch, to C. Sweeney,
Region X. FeJ>ruary 21, 1991. .
-. 1991a. Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund.. Region 10.
. . Seattle,Washir..gion. August 16, 1991. . . .'
--. 1991b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I-Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation
Goals). Interim draft. 9285.7-01B. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. Washington, D.C.
-. 1989a. Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: The Proposed
Plan, . the Record of Decision, Explanation of Significant Differences, the . Record of
DeCision Amendment. . Interim' Final. . EP A/540/G-89/007.. Office' of Emergency
and Remedial Response, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
-. 1989b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume /. Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part A), Interim FinaL EPA/540/1-89/002. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
-. 1989c. Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposure to
Mixtures of Chlorinated [Jibenzo-p-dioxins and -dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs)
and 1989 Update. EPA/625/3-89j016. U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Forum,
Washington, D.C.
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity. Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
eTO 0035
Record of Decision
Date: 03/25/94
Page 4<)
United States Navy. 1983. Initial Assessment Study of Naval Submarine Base Bangor,
Bremerton, Washington, NEESA 13~004. June 1983.
URS Consultants, Inc. 1992. Final Remedial Investigation Report, Operable Unit 3. Sites
16/24 and 25, Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, Washington. ero 0035. Seattle,
Washington.. .
-------
Attachment I
-------
SUBASE, BANGOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
U.S. Navy CLEAN Contract
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Contract No. N62474-89-D-9295
era 0035
Responsiveness Summary
Date: 03/25/94
Page 1
Attachment 1
RESPONS~NESSSUMMARY
One. comment was receJved during the public comment period held May 10, 1993,
. through June 9, 1993. It was. received at a .public "meeting held at the Clear Creek.
Elementary School in Silverdale, Washington. The responsiveness summary addresses
the public comment received on the proposed plan for remedial action at Sites 16, 24,
and 25.
1.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT
One comment was received by the Navy concerning the proposed plan. This was an oral
comment raised at and responded to during the public meeting. The public meeting was
. "recorded on a transcript, ~hich is available at the. information repositories;. .
Summary of Comment: A member of a community organization stated that the
organization had reviewed technical documents regarding the proposed plan. The
organization agreed with the proposed plan and felt the Navy had done a good job
during the investigations. The speaker thanked the Navy for the opportunity to
participate in the process and expressed interest in remaining involved in the
development of the monitoring program and its results.
. . "
2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENT
Response: The Navy appreciates the comment regarding the quality of the documents
and investigations. The Navy encourages and values public participation in this process.
The Navy will issue periodic fact sheets which, when appropriate, will include.
information . regarding the sampling activities at Site 25.
-------
Attachment 2
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE. BANGOR
SILVERDALE, WA 98315-1199
7045
Ser N8513/0031S6
09 DEC 1993 .
From:
Commanding Officer, Naval Submarine Base, Bangor
Subj:
Ref:
OPERABLE UNIT 3
(a) Naval Submarine Base, Bangor Master Plan
Encl: (1) Figure 1 of the Installation Restoration Program
1. Per reference (a), no residential construction will occur in
the restricted.construciion area outlined in enclosure (1) while
under Navy cognizance.
q:~
-------
LEGEND:
INST ALlA TION RESTORATION PROGRAM
,
--".'.",,, .-
...-........-..---.-
-'~ .
~~~.~~:,~.
--
",
'\
j
I
, I
: i
/ I
, I
I
I
I
I
,
.
" ....'..
----
TR IDE NT BL va.
..------
~.#.
r
i
,
i
I
/:
."
'"
- -"",,'.'...-'''',- ""
i
:
I
I
;
SITE 16/24
I:
~ ;
LOCATION, or I !.--
F"ORHER INCINERATOR '0,
... , . )
/ . .
,./ . /"
./ ;
, ,.1
/ to
. ..," ....".- .," ..-....- ..-..~.. ",
",-
,,,,,
,-
..."
:.,:;: . -"-""-..
.
(
I
I
~\
i.
..' ...... ....,.
-
. ,
!; :/
. .~
._---
,:
CD
N
o
.
,
1201
PARKINC LOT
~:::.=-:- -...-.'
.-
.'
.
.~:--''':'-'''.::'"'7-':-':::''.''-'''' .
o
"'A~1t -'0.
'\ , "
'.f
" '
..
" .....
r
) ,
CHAIN LINK FENCE
TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR
ElEV A TION IN FEET ABOVE MSL
RESTRICTED CONSRUCTION AREA
o 100' 200'
~
1"=200'
..; ..
',. . '.. '~...'~
r;~
NORTH
FIGURE 1
------- |