PB94-964505
EPA/ROD/R09-94/109
July 1994
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Luke Air Force Base
(O.U. 2) Site, AZ
-------
FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 2
US. AIR FORCE
LUKE AFB, ARIZONA
Prepared By.
GERAGHTY & MILLER INC.
PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85044
Under Contract To The:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
OMAHA DISTRICT
OMAHA, NEBRASKA 68102
JANUARY 1994
GERAGHTY & MILLER PROJECT No. AZ0370.004
AIR FORCE PROJECT No. NUEX91-7003 CONTRACT No. DACW45-90-D-007
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
AGE Aerospace Ground Equipment
APC air pollution control
BNAs base/neutral and acid extractable compounds
CAA Clean Air Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
COCs constituents of concern
CSF cancer slop factor
ECAO Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office
ELCR Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
FFA Federal Facilities Agreement
ft bgs feet below ground surface
GAC granular activated carbon
HI • hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
kg kilograms
Luke AFB Luke Air Force Base
m' cubic meters
i
mg milligrams
mg/L milligrams per liter
msl mean sea level
NCP National Contingency Plan
NPL National Priorities List
OU Operable Unit
PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
POL petroleum, oil, and lubricant
PRGs health-based preliminary remediation goals
PSC Potential Sources of Contamination
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RfCs reference concentrations
RfD reference dose
RfDis reference doses for inhalation exposure
-------
RfDox reference doses
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RMEs reasonable maximum exposures
ROD Record of Decision
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthofization Act
SFTA South Fire Training Area
TCE trichloroethene
TEFs Toxicity Equivalence Factors
TRC Technical Review Committee
TRPHs total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
UCLs upper confidence limits
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USTs underground storage tanks
VES vapor extraction system
VOCs volatile organic compounds
WSRV West Salt River Valley
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 DECLARATION 1
1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION 1
1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE . . . 1
1-3 DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY 1
1.4 DECLARATION . . . . ...... 2
2.0 THE DECISION SUMMARY 7
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 8
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 9
2.2.1 OT-04. Perimeter Road POL Waste Site 10
2.2.2 DP-OS. POL Waste Disposal Trench 10
* i
2.2.3 FT-06. South Fire Training Area (SFTA1 11'
2.2.4 FT-07. North Fire Training Area (NFTA) 11
2.2.5 ST-18. Facility 993 11
2.2.6 DP-22. POL Trench Northeast Runway 12
2.2.7 DP-23. Old Surface Impoundment Area West of
Building 999 12
2.2.8 SP-40. Taxiwav Fuel Discharge 13
23 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 13
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE RESPONSE ACTION 16
2.5 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 16
2.6 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 19
2.6.1 Human Health Risks 19
2.6.1.1 Contaminant Identification 19
2.6.1.2 Exposure Assessment 20
2.6.1.3 Toxicity Assessment 21
2.6.1.4 Risk Characterization 23
2.6.1.5 Preliminary Remediation Goals 24
-------
2.6.2 Environmental Risks 25
2.7 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 26
2.7.1 Remedial Measure S-l; No Action 26
2.7.2 Remedial Measure S-3; Capping. Surface Controls.
and Monitoring . . > 27
2.7.3 Remedial Measure S-8: Excavation. Ex-Situ Biological
Treatment, and On-Site Disposal 30
2.7.4 Remedial Measure S-10; In-Situ Extraction and
Monitoring 31
2.7.S Remedial Measure S-12; In-Situ Biological Treatment
and Monitoring 32
2.8 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
ALTERNATIVES 34
2.8.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment 34
2.8.2 Compliance With ARARs 35
2.8.3 Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence 35
2.8.4 Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume Through
Treatment 35
2.8.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 36
2.8.6 Tmplementabilitv 36
2.8.7 Cost 36
2.8.8 Regulatory Agency Acceptance 37
2.8.9 Community Acceptance 37
2.9 SELECTED REMEDY 37
2.9.1 Remedial Measure Recommendation for PSCs OT-04.
DP-OS. FT-06. FT-07. DP-22. DP-23. and SD-40 37
2.9.2 Remedial Measure Recommendation for PSC ST-18 ... 38
2.9.3 Remedial Measure Recommendation for PSC DP-23 ... 39
2.10 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 40
2.10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment ... 41
-------
2.10.2 Compliance With Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements . 41
2.10.3 Cost Effectiveness . . . •.*.. 42
2.10.4 Preference for Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment Technologies 42
2.10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element .... 43
2.11 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 43
3.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 45
4.0 REFERENCES 46
-------
FIGURES
1. Location of Luke AFB, Arizona
2. Location of PSCs, Operable Unit No. 2, Luke AFB, Arizona
3. Lateral Extent of Soil Exceeding PRGs, PSC FT-06, Operable Unit No. 2,
Remedial Investigation, Luke AFB, Arizona
4. Lateral Extent of Soil Exceeding PRGs, PSC ST-18, Operable Unit No. 2,
Remedial Investigation, Luke AFB, Arizona
5. Lateral Extent of Soil Exceeding PRGs, PSC DP-23, Operable Unit No. 2,
Remedial Investigation, Luke AFB, Arizona
6. Selected Remedy, Canal Portion of PSC DP-23, Operable Unit No. 2, Luke
AFB, Arizona
-------
TABLES
1. Summary of OU-2 PSCs, OU-2 RI, Luke*Air Force Base, Arizona
2. PSC-Specific Concentration Ranges for COCs, OU-2 RI, Luke Air Force
Base, Arizona.
3. Soil Samples with Values Greater than PRGs, OU-2 RI, Luke Air Force Base,
Arizona.
4. Exposure Point Concentrations, Surficial Soils, Operable Unit No. 2, Luke
AFB, Arizona
5. Exposure Point Concentrations, Subsurface Soils, Operable Unit No. 2, Luke
AFB, Arizona
6. Exposure Assumptions for Average and Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Scenarios, Operable Unit 2 (OU-2), Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
7. . Toxicity Summaries for Constituents of Potential Concern, Operable Unit 2
(OU-2), Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
8. Current and Hypothetical Future Risk for Exposure to Soil at Operable Unit 2
(OU-2), Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
9. Predicted Blood Lead Levels for Exposure to Soils at PSCs, OU-2 RI, Luke
Air Force Base, Arizona
10. Summary of Transport Parameters and Results of the Vadose Zone Solute
Transport Simulations, OU-2 RI/FS, Luke AFB, Arizona
11. Chemical Parameters for COCs, OU-2 RI/FS, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
12. Environmental Degradation Rates for COCs, OU-2 RI/FS, Luke Air Force
Base, Arizona
13. Development of Remedial Measures for Soil, PSC DP-23, Operable Unit No.
2, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
14a. List of Constituents of Concern in Soil and Their PRGs, Operable Unit No. 2,
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
14b. Location-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements, OU-
2, Luke AFB, Arizona.
-------
14c. Action-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements, OU-2,
Luke AFB, Arizona.
15. Soil Samples with Values Greater than PRGs, PSC DP-23, OU-2, Luke AFB,
Arizona.
16. Summary of Implementation Costs for Detailed Analysis of Remedial
Measures for PSC DP-23, Operable Unit No. 2, Luke Air Force Base,
Arizona.
-------
2
Inspection and maintenance of a concrete cap at PSC ST-18; and
Excavation, ex-situ biological treatment, confirmation sampling, and on-
site disposal of impacted soils from the canal portion of PSC DP-23.
1.4 DECLARATION
The selected remedies are protective of human health and the environment,
comply with federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the remedial action, and are cost-effective. The remedies utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable for this site. The remedies satisfy the statutory preference for remedies that
employ treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.
. The fact that PSCs have calculated health-based risks which are within USEPA.
i
guidelines eliminates the need for a remedy in which contaminants would be treated or
disposed. Because the no action remedy will result in constituents of concern in soils
remaining on-site above health-based levels in limited areas, a review will be conducted
within five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
-------
1.0 DECLARATION
1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Operable Unit No. 2
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document, the Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected
remedial action for Operable Unit No. 2 (OU-2), Luke Air Force Base, Arizona (Luke
AFB), developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and to the extent practicable, the National Contingency
i
Plan (NCP). This decision document is based on the administrative record for this
operable unit.
The U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and
the State of Arizona concur on the selected remedy.
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
Luke AFB consists of two operable units. OU-2 contains eight separate potential
sources of contamination (PSCs), as follows: OT-04, DP-05, FT-06, ST-18, DP-22, DP-
23, SD-40, and the western portion of PSC FT-07. The function of this operable unit
is to address soil contamination only at these PSCs. The other operable unit (OU-1)
involves continued study and possible remediation of soils (at 24 other PSCs),
groundwater, and air.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
No action at PSCs OT-04, DP-05, FT-06, DP-22, SD-40, the western
portion of PSC FT-07, and the northern portion of PSC DP-23;
-------
This Rcconi of Decision (&0P) proems the Mtotod remedial action for Operable
2 (OU.2), Luke Air Forp.B^( A*WII (Luke AFB), developed in icoordanm
with the Comprehensive Bsvlromneatai Beapoaift, CompeniAUoh, and LUWlity Aci
(CHRCLA), M attended by to SupCtftttrf AffleBdnonU and Kontborlntioa Act
(SARA).
Hiii SOD may to ocooutod and delivered ID aay mmbw of oouaMrputa, tub
of which wiwo wcouwl and delivered duOl be detmod to t» «» original, but fucb
oouniwporta shall together oomthute OM iod the urn* dooument.
P. BABBITT
Deputy for Hazardous Materials and Waste
Deputy Auiitant Secretary of the Air Force
OBnviroranem, Safety and Occupational Health)
-------
02/01/94 09:06 ©415 744 1917 US EPA REG 9 ®002
4
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial action for Operable
Unit No. 2 (OU-2), Luke Air Force Base, Arizona (Luke AFB), developed in accordance
with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as amended by the Supexfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA).
This ROD may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each
of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original but such
counterparts shall together constitute one and the same document.
^
John Wis^Deputy Regional Administrator Date
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial action for Operable
Unit No. 2 (OU-2), Luke Air Force Base, Arizona (Luke AFB), developed in accordance
with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA).
This ROD may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each
of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original, but such
counterparts shall together constitute one and the same document.
/
Edward Z. Fox, Di
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Date
-------
JflN 31 '94 02 = 27PM WATER RESOURCES
6
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial action for Operable
Unit No. 2 (OU-2), Lake Air Force Base, Arizona (Luke AFB), developed'in accordance •
with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superrund Amendments and •Reauthorization Act
(SARA). ' -
This ROD may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each
of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original, but such
counterparts shall together constitute one and the same document.
Rita P. l?earson, Director Date '
Arizona Department of Water Resources
-------
2.0 TBHE DECISION SUMMARY
The U.S. Air Force has prepared this ROD to address OU-2 at Luke AFB. The
ROD is based on the results of the OU-2 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992, 1993).. The ROD is designed to be consistent
with the NCP, 40 CFR Part 300, CERCLA, SARA, and the Interim Final Guidance on
Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: the Proposed Plan, the Record of Decision,
Explanation of Significant Differences, the Record of Decision Amendment (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 1989a).
The ROD, which documents the remedial action plan for OU-2, has three main
purposes:
1) • The ROD serves a legal function in that it certifies that the remedy selection
process was carried out in accordance with the procedural and substantive
requirements of CERCLA and, to the extent practicable, the NCP;
2) The ROD is a technical document that outlines the engineering components and
remediation goals of the selected remedy; and
3) The ROD is informational, providing the public with a consolidated source of
information about the history, characteristics, and risks posed by the conditions
at the site, as well as a summary of the cleanup alternatives considered, their
evaluation, and the rationale behind the selected remedy.
The ROD is organized into three distinct sections:
o The Declaration functions as an abstract for the key information contained in the
ROD;
o The Decision Summary provides an overview of the site characteristics, the
alternatives evaluated, and the analysis of those options. The Decision Summary
also identifies the selected remedy and explains how the remedy fulfills statutory
requirements; and
-------
8
o The Responsiveness Summary addresses public comments received on the
Proposed Plan and throughout the remedy selection process.
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
Luke AFB is located on 4,198 acres of land in Maricopa County, Arizona,
approximately 20 miles west of downtown Phoenix (Figure 1). The function of Luke
AFB is to provide combat training to aircrews. The aircrews are trained to fly the
advanced tactical fighter F-15 Eagle and F-16 Falcon aircraft. Approximately 75 percent
of Luke AFB is dedicated to runways, taxiways, and aircraft storage tarmacs. The
remaining 25 percent is used for aircraft maintenance, administrative, and other special
services.
' Luke AFB is located within the Sonoran Desert section of the Basin and Range
physiographic province. The Basin and Range province consists of rough, rocky
mountains separated by broad alluvium-filled basins or valleys. The Base is located near
the center of the West Salt River Valley (WSRV). Elevations at Luke AFB range from
1,110 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the northwest corner to 1,075 feet above msl
at the southeast comer of the Base. The ground surface generally slopes uniformly from
northwest to southeast at 25 feet per mile. The White Tank Mountains lie approximately
8 miles west of Luke AFB, while the Sierra Estrella lie approximately 12 miles to the
south, and the Hieroglyphic Mountains lie approximately 15 miles to the north.
Water-bearing geologic formations in the WSRV include the upper, middle, and
lower alluvial units of the basin. The upper unit has been completely dewatered in the
area of the Base due to agricultural pumping. Groundwater at the Base is first
encountered in the upper part of the middle alluvial unit at a depth of approximately 350
feet below ground surface. Groundwater movement in the upper middle unit at Luke
AFB is generally directed toward the southwest. The Base's production wells are
screened in the lower middle unit and the lower unit at a depth of approximately 500 to
1,000 feet below ground surface.
-------
9
The main surface water body in the area is the Agua Fria River, which lies
approximately 2 miles east of the Base. The Agua Fria River is normally a dry river bed
that flows (to the south) only during and immediately following storms or as a result of
upstream discharge for flood control or other purposes. The canal that drains the north
end of Luke AFB (the Dysart Drain) discharges into the Agua Fria River. The Base's
Wastewater Treatment Plant, located approximately 2 miles east' of the Base, also
discharges its effluent into the Agua Fria River. A series of unlined canals, located to
the south of the Base, receive stormwater runoff from the Base and flow to the south
during and immediately following heavy rains.
Surrounding land use can be described as rural. Scattered residential housing is
in the vicinity of Luke AFB, and Litchfield Park, a residential development, is
approximately 2 miles to the southeast. The surrounding communities are experiencing
rapid growth and development; however, residential development around the perimeter
of Luke AFB is unlikely due to significant noise exposure that would occur as a result
of aircraft operations.
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Since 1941, the mission at Luke AFB has been to provide advanced training to
fighter pilots. At Luke AFB fighter crews were trained for World War n from 1941 to
1946. After World War n the Base was temporarily shut down. The Base was reopened
again in 1951 during the beginning of the Korean conflict and has been used ever since
to train fighter crews for the USAF.
Luke AFB was placed on the USEPA's National Priorities List (NPL) in August
1990. This placement identified Luke AFB as a priority site for investigation and
cleanup under CERCLA. Listing on the NPL means that investigations and remediations
are subject to the USEPA's oversight and approval.
A Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) was signed by the USEPA, the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the Arizona Department of Water
Resources (ADWR), and the USAF on September 27, 1990. The FFA established the
-------
10
responsibilities and authority of each agency, as well as the procedural framework for
investigation and remediation of PSCs at Luke AFB as necessary to protect public health,
welfare, and the environment. The tasks and decision-making process are described in
the Base-wide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan, Luke Air Force Base,
Arizona (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991).
PSCs investigated during the OU-2 RI/FS consist of PSCs OT-04, DP-05, FT-06,
FT-07, ST-18, DP-22, DP-23, and SD-40. The locations of these PSCs within Luke
AFB are shown on Figure 2. The potential wastes associated with each PSC are listed
in Table 1. A brief description and history of the eight OU-2 PSCs are discussed below.
2.2.1 OT-04. Perimeter Road POL Waste Site
. This PSC is located in the southwest portion of Luke AFB around the southern
i
end of the runways and occupies approximately 26.5 acres. The unpaved perimeter road
lies in the center of the PSC throughout the length of the PSC. This PSC was used from
1951 until approximately 1970 for the disposal of most of the petroleum, oil, and
lubricant (POL) wastes from the main part of Luke AFB. The POL wastes were sprayed
on the road to control excessive dust.
2.2.2 DP-OS. POL Waste Disposal Trench
This PSC is a triangular-shaped area located on the southeast side of Taxiway I;
it occupies approximately 18 acres. PSC DP-05 is bare ground covered with sparse
vegetation. Forty to fifty percent of this PSC is presently covered with inert construction
debris including asphalt and concrete with rebar from the demolition of an aircraft
taxiway in 1979. This PSC was used from approximately 1970 until 1972 for the
disposal of POL waste which was dumped in shallow (1.5 feet deep) trenches. The
waste was allowed to weather for 4 to 6 weeks and then covered with soil.
-------
11
This PSC was the original fire department training area and is located in the
southern portion of Luke AFB, east of the Facility 1009 power check pad. The PSC is
a rectangular area approximately 8 acres in size. Eighty percent of the PSC is paved;
this includes portions that are under building foundations, parking lot asphalt, and a
concrete lined storm drain canal. Twenty percent of the PSC is unpaved including
landscaped areas around buildings, parking lots that are covered with gravel, and a bare
area north of the perimeter road. This PSC was used from 1941 until deactivation of
Luke AFB in 1946, and again from the time of reactivation in 1951 until approximately
1963. POL waste was poured into circular unlined bermed areas and then set on fire for
fire fighting training. These fires were extinguished with water.
*
f
2.2.4 FT-07. North Fire Training Area (NFTA)
This PSC occupies approximately 24 acres and is located in the northern portion
of the Base. It includes the Facility 1356 Fire Training Area. Approximately 90 percent
of this PSC is covered by grass and the remaining 10 percent asphalt and concrete pads.
The western portion of this PSC was used from approximately 1963 until 1973, when the
current fire training area was built. POL waste was poured into circular unlined bermed
areas and then set on fire for fire fighting training. These fires were extinguished with
water. An interim removal action was completed in the eastern portion of the fire
training area that was built in 1973. This portion of the North Fire Training Area
(approximately 10 acres in size) will be addressed during the OU-1 RI/FS.
2.2.5 ST-18. Facility 993
Facility 993 was constructed in 1968 for the storage of all POL waste produced
at Luke AFB. Other reported wastes stored at the facility included solvents, phenolic
paint strippers and thinner, paint residue, and sludge. In 1979, Facility 993 was granted
-------
12
interim status as a Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facility under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The PSC is a rectangular area which occupies
approximately 0.2 acres, now completely covered by concrete. The facility consisted of
one 5,000-gallon and two 10,000-gallon capacity underground storage tanks (USTs) used
for the storage of JP-4 fuel, oils, and solvents. Releases occurred in the form of UST
leaks. The estimated volume released consists of 5200 gallons, of which 325 gallons are
of trichJoroethylene, 100 gallons of other halogenated solvents, 1000 gallons of aromatic
hydrocarbons, and 3775 gallons of straight chain hydrocarbons. Closure of this facility
began in 1982. In 1983, soils were excavated from PSC ST-18 and stockpiled.
Contaminated soils were manifested to a hazardous waste landfill. Other soils were aired
for several weeks and returned to the excavation. The site was capped in 1987 in
accordance with RCRA post-closure requirements.
v
2.2.6 DP-22. POL Trench Northeast Runway
This PSC is an irregular-shaped area located at the north end of the east runway
and occupies approximately 4.6 acres. Approximately 30 percent of the PSC is covered
with the end of the inboard runway, 20 percent is covered with bituminous cover, and
50 percent of the site is covered by gravel with sparse vegetation.
This was a possible site used for disarmament and defueling of aircraft during the
1940s and 1950s. Reportedly, waste POL was dumped into shallow trenches at this
PSC.
2.2.7 DP-23. Old Surface Impoundment Area West of Building 999
The northern portion of the Old Surface Impoundment is a rectangular-shaped
area which occupies approximately 3.3 acres. It is located west of Building 999 and
adjacent to the SFTA. The impoundment was constructed along an old natural drainage
system or wash flowing south from Luke AFB. Eighty percent of the northern portion
is paved, 20 percent is covered with asphalt, 40 percent is under the tarmac hangar, and
-------
13
20 percent is under concrete, which includes the canal liner and the AGE equipment
yard. The surface impoundment wash was located to the south and it had an area of
approximately 19.4 acres. The surface impoundment may have been used as a disposal
site for POL waste in the 1940s until construction covered the PSC in 1969. The dam
used to create the surface impoundment was buried, but not removed, during the 1969
construction. The area of PSC DP-23, which is north of Super Sabre Street, collects
surface water runoff which drains into the surface impoundment wash.
2.2.8 SD-40. Taxiwav Fuel Discharge
This PSC unit consists of the areas located on both sides of the southeastern end
of Taxiway F (Foxtrot Extension) and on both sides of the south-central section of
Taxiway E (Echo); they were and are currently used for limited servicing of aircraft.
The southern area of the PSC (along Taxiway F) covers approximately 3 acres and the
northern area (along Taxiway E) covers approximately 7.6 acres. The areas adjacent to
the taxiways are covered with a bituminous dust cover of 2-inch thick asphalt. The
taxiways have been used to perform limited service and/or store aircraft since the present
runway layout was complete in the 1950s. Defueling of jet aircraft onto the bituminous
cover was for fuel tank maintenance. This defueling practice occurred on Taxiway F
from the early 1970s until 1990.
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, Sections 113(k)(2)(B)(i-v) and 117, requires
that federal and state regulatory agencies keep the community informed, and allow the
community to participate in the decision-making process. The legislation requires the
development of a community relations plan that at a minimum will provide: (1) notice
to potentially affected persons and the public of the availability of the proposed plan; (2)
reasonable opportunity to comment of not less than 30 days on the proposed plan and
supporting analysis and information, including the RI/FS; (3) an opportunity for public
-------
14
hearing on the proposed plan and supporting information; (4) written summary of and
response to each significant comment submitted on the proposed plan; and (5) statement
of the basis and purpose of the selected action.
The community relations plan describes the specific community participation
activities that occurred in the process of selecting a remedy for OU-2. These activities
indicate a commitment by the U.S. Air Force and Luke AFB to meet both the letter of
the law and the spirit of community participation at this site. It should be noted that all
community relations activities concerning the proposed plan were done with the support,
acceptance, and approval of state and federal regulatory agencies. This ROD contains
a response to each comment submitted by the pubb'c and provides a statement of the basis
and purpose of the remedy.
The community relations plan is Base-wide, and it was developed from interviews
with a cross-section of the community surrounding Luke AFB. A mailing list of persons*-
interested in the site was developed and is included in the community relations plan. A
media list is also included in the plan. This list includes Arizona elected officials, City
and County officials from the surrounding areas, community organizations, base housing
residents, area environmental groups, and other interested individuals. The list is
updated prior to each mailing A community relations plan was also prepared for a
removal action at the North Fire Training Area (the eastern portion of PSC FT-07) in
November 1991.
An administrative record was established in September 1990. A comprehensive
index of site documents available in the administrative record has been compiled and is
updated regularly. Information repositories were established in 1991 at two area public
libraries and the Luke AFB library. These locations were suggested during the
community relations plan interviews. Two other area libraries were later added for
public input. The RI/FS, proposed plan, and supporting information are therefore
available to the public at five local libraries. These include Glendale Public Library,
Litchfield Park Public Library, Luke AFB Library, Peoria Public Library, and Sun City
Public Library.
-------
15
Newsletters containing background information on the site, environmental
concerns, the CERCLA process, and the s'tatus and results of environmental
investigations and studies were distributed to persons on the mailing list in February
1992, May 1992, and June 1993. The June 1993 newsletter contained a description of
the proposed plan, an announcement for the public meeting and comment period, and
instructions on how to comment on the plan. All newsletters contain project contact
names, addresses, and phone numbers as well as information repository locations and
directions for media inquiries.
A technical review committee (TRC) was established for the site in 1992. The
committee consists of 10 community leaders from the surrounding community. Quarterly
meetings are held. The proposed plan was presented to the TRC at the May 1993
quarterly meeting. Suggestions on public input and participation on the proposed plan
were sought during this meeting in an effort to prepare an effective public meeting and
outreach program.
A 30-day public comment period on the proposed plan was held from June 8,
1993 to July 7, 1993. In addition to the announcement placed in the newsletter, the
comment period was announced on three separate occasions in five area newspapers.
These include the Arizona Republic/Phoenix Gazette, Daily News-Sun, Glendale Star,
Peoria Times, and Tally Ho. The Tally Ho is the Base paper. Where available, the
announcement appeared in the newspaper community sections covering the area
surrounding Luke AFfi. This announcement is one of many published by the Base to
ensure the opportunity for public comment on all CERCLA documents. A press release
about the proposed plan, the public comment period, and upcoming public meeting was
also issued during the first week of June.
A public meeting on the proposed plan was held on June IS, 1993 at the
Litchfield Park Elementary School. The purpose of the meeting was to give the
community an opportunity to gain more information on OU-2, the proposed plan, and
public participation activities. A presentation on OU-2 and the proposed plan was
provided to the public. An exhibit on OU-2 and the plan was also displayed at the
meeting location and copies of the proposed plan were available. A question and answer
-------
16
session ensured that the community could fully understand the plan and have the greatest
opportunity to comment. A formal comment period followed the question and answer
session. A transcript of the public meeting is available in the Administrative Record.
The meeting and proposed plan were also the subject of an article in the June 17, 1993
edition of the Glendale Star.
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE RESPONSE ACTION
The site has been broken into two parts, defined as "operable units." OU-2, as
mentioned earlier, addresses soil contamination only at eight PSCs. The only potential
threat posed is that from the canal portion of PSC DP-23 where there is a potential for
the migration of constituents in soils to groundwater. OU-1 addresses potential soil
contamination at 24 PSCs, and potential groundwater and air contamination Base-wide.
OU-1 also includes the ecological assessment for Luke AFB. A RI/FS is currently being
conducted for OU-1.
2.5 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
All soil samples collected from the eight OU-2 PSCs were analyzed for total
recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
base/neutral and acid extractable compounds (BNAs), and Priority Pollutant Metals plus
barium (metals). The 0 to 2 feet below ground surface (ft bgs) sample from each boring
was also analyzed for PCBs. Composite surficial soil samples from the fire training
areas were analyzed for dioxins and furans.
The most common constituents detected during the OU-2 RI were TRPHs. VOCs
and BNAs were detected; however, they were generally detected only when elevated
levels of TRPHs were also detected. PCBs were never detected in OU-2 samples. The
only dioxins or furans detected in soils were total HpCDD, OCDD, total HpCDF, and
OCDF, at extremely low levels. Dioxin/furan concentrations in nanograms per gram
-------
17
(ng/g) detected are as follows: 1) total HpCDD, 1.2, 2) OCDD, 4.6, 3) total HpCDF,
1.1, and 4) OCDF, 2.0.
Metals were detected in soils at concentrations within the same order of magnitude
as or similar to the background concentrations. The exception is lead, which was
elevated relative to background in two samples from depths of up to 4 ft bgs at PSC FT-
06.
The horizontal extent of TRPHs in soils is limited to several isolated areas within
each of the PSCs and appears to be limited to areas where reported historical releases or
disposal activities occurred. The depth of TRPHs in soils is assumed to be 2 to 10 ft bgs
at PSC OT-04, 4 to 22 ft bgs at PSC DP-05, 24 to 68 ft bgs at PSC FT-06, 14 ft bgs at
PSC FT-07, 36 to 60 ft bgs at PSC ST-18, 4 ft bgs at PSC DP-22, 16 to 24 ft bgs at
PSC DP-23, and 10 to 12 ft bgs at PSC SD-40. Depths were estimated by assuming that
the TRFH detects extended to the depths of samples with non-detects. In cases where
considerable distances existed between contract laboratory sampling intervals, mobile
laboratory and field screening (P3D readings) data were consulted to calculate realistic
depths.
Base-wide and PSC-specific concentration ranges for constituents of concern
(COCs) identified by the risk assessment for OU-2 are shown in Table 2. The health-
based preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) identified during the risk assessment are also
shown in Table 2. The identification of COCs and the calculation of PRGs are discussed
in detail in Section 2.6 of this ROD, Summary of Site Risks.
The PRGs identified during the risk assessment were used to evaluate areas and
volumes that may require additional attention. The intent of the PRGs is to establish
guidance (i.e., cleanup levels) in the event remediation activities are implemented. The
PRGs are not intended to dictate if remediation is necessary; the decision to remediate
is based on the results of the complete risk assessment and the potential for constituent
migration. It should be noted that the volume computations are based on conservative
assumptions regarding the extent of impacted soils; actual volumes of soil to be
remediated will be more precisely calculated when additional sampling is conducted
during remedial design.
-------
18
PSCs which had samples with concentrations of COCs above PRGs were
evaluated for more than just the No Action alternative during the detailed evaluation
portion of the FS; the remaining PSCs were evaluated only for the No Action alternative
based on the results of the risk assessment. It is important to note that the PRGs are not
site-specific in the sense that they are back-calculations which use default values rather
than site-specific exposure factors from the RI. The USEPA equation for
commercial/industrial land use was used to develop the soil PRGs. Worker exposure was
assumed to involve ingestion of soil and inhalation of particulates and vapors released
from the soil. The default assumptions provided in the USEPA industrial site worker
equation were used to develop the PRGs. The assumptions include: 1) an exposure
duration of 25 years (the 90th percentile value for time spent in one industry), 2) an
exposure frequency of 250 days per year "spent on the job," 3) a soil ingestion rate of
50 mg/day, 4) an inhalation rate of 20 nrVday, and 5) a body weight of 70 kg.
Three VOCs (benzene, 1,1-dichloroethene, and trichloroethene [TCE]), and six
BNAs (benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene,
indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, and dibenzo-anthracene) were detected at concentrations above
the PRGs at one or more sampling locations (Table 3). The BNAs detected above their
PRGs are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Locations with concentrations of
COCs above the PRGs are limited to three of the eight OU-2 PSCs (PSCs FT-06, ST-18,
and DP-23), as described below.
At PSC FT-06, COCs were detected above PRGs at depths of up to 2 to 10 ft
bgs. Only one VOC (TCE) was detected above the PRG and this occurred in only one
sample, from a depth of 2 to 4 ft bgs. The other COC detected above its PRG at PSC
FT-06 was benzo(a)pyrene. Figure 3 indicates the lateral extent of each of these areas.
At PSC ST-18, three VOCs (benzene, 1,1,2,2-trichloroethene, and 1,1-
dichloroethene) were detected at concentrations above PRGs at one location, at depths
of 12 to 22 ft bgs. Figure 4 identifies the lateral extent of this area.
At PSC DP-23, COCs were detected at concentrations above PRGs at two
locations. COCs were detected above PRGs at PSC DP-23 at depths of up to 4 ft bgs.
The COC detected above its PRG at PSC DP-23 was benzo(a)pyrene. Benzo(a)pyrene
-------
19
was not detected in any deeper samples from PSC DP-23. Figure 5 presents the lateral
extent of each area. Approximately 9,250 cubic yards of soil may exceed PRGs at PSC
DP-23.
In summary, five of the eight PSCs had extremely low levels of COCs in soil.
The remaining three PSCs had individual samples with concentrations of COCs slightly
above the PRGs. However, as explained in more detail in Section 2.6 of this ROD,
Summary of Site Risks, the overall site risks for soil at all eight of the OU-2 PSCs are
within USEPA guidelines.
2.6 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The risk assessment provides an evaluation of the potential threat to human health
at each PSC in the absence of any remedial actions. The risk assessment employed
conservative exposure assumptions to approximate the human health risks that could be
incurred by an individual under reasonable "worst case" exposure conditions.
2.6.1 Human Health Risks
2.6.1.1 Contaminant Identification
The medium of concern at OU-2 is soil. All detected constituents expected to be
related to past activities at the PSCs were included as COCs with the following
exceptions:
o Inorganic constituents detected at arithmetic average concentrations below
site-specific background average concentrations were eliminated as COCs
o Constituents that are common laboratory contaminants (e.g., acetone,
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, butylbenzylphthalate, etc.) and are not expected
to be related to past site activities were eliminated as COCs unless their
concentrations exceeded 10 times the maximum blank concentration
-------
20
COCs in soils at the OU-2 PSCs include TRPHs, 12 VOCs, 25 semivolatiJe
organic constituents (BNAs), and two inorganic constituents (copper and lead). Table
2 presents a summary of all COCs identified.
The concentrations of the COCs on which the risk assessment was based are as
follows: 1) the medium-specific arithmetic average concentrations for the COCs were
used as exposure point concentrations to estimate average exposure conditions and 2) the
95 percent upper confidence limits (UCLs) on the arithmetic average concentrations were
used as exposure point concentrations to estimate the reasonable maximum exposures
(RMEs).
2.6.1.2 Exposure Assessment
Civilian employees (base workers) are the most probable receptors for current,
exposure to surficial soils at PSCs OT-04, DP-05, FT-07, DP-22, and DP-23. Base
workers and military personnel are the most probable receptors for current exposure to
surficial soils at PSC FT-06. PSCs ST-18 and SD-40 are completely paved. Thus, there
is no current exposure to surficial soils at these two PSCs. Exposure pathways evaluated
for current base worker and military personnel exposure to surficial soils include
incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and dust or vapor inhalation.
Potential future risks posed by the OU-2 PSCs were evaluated based upon the
exposure scenarios described above and hypothetical future excavation worker exposure
to subsurface soils. The excavation worker scenario was only evaluated for depths of up
to 16 ft bgs. Hypothetical future exposure of a base worker to surficial soils at PSCs
ST-18 and SD-40 was evaluated, based on the possibility that the pavement at these PSCs
might be removed sometime in the future. Hypothetical future exposure of military
personnel servicing aircraft at PSC SD-40 was evaluated based on the possibility that the
pavement is removed from the PSC.
The medium-specific arithmetic average concentrations for the COCs were used
as exposure point concentrations to estimate average exposure conditions. The 95 UCLs
on the arithmetic average concentrations were used as exposure point concentrations to
-------
21
estimate the RMEs. The exposure point concentrations for the surficial soils (0 to 2 ft
bgs) are shown in Table 4. The exposure point "concentrations for the subsurface soils
(2 to 16 ft bgs) are shown in Table 5. Exposure to soils deeper than 16 ft bgs is not
expected to occur and was not evaluated.
Exposure assumptions for average and RME exposure scenarios are shown in
Table 6. A conservative assumption underlying all the dosage calculations is that
constituent concentrations remain constant over the entire period of exposure. The
effects of attenuation processes in the soils were not considered. For cancer effects,
doses .were averaged over a lifetime; doses for non-cancer effects were averaged over the
exposure period.
2.6.13 Toxicity Assessment
The risks associated with exposure to constituents detected at OU-2 are a function
of the inherent toxicity (hazard) of the constituents and the exposure dose. A distinction
is made between carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects.
Identification of constituents as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens
is based on a USEPA weight-of-evidence classification scheme in which chemicals are
systematically evaluated for their ability to cause cancer in mammalian species and
conclusions are reached about the potential to cause cancer in humans. The USEPA
classification scheme (USEPA, 1989b) contains six classes based on the weight of
available evidence, as follows:
A known human carcinogen;
Bl probable human carcinogen - limited evidence in humans;
B2 probable human carcinogen — sufficient evidence in animals and
inadequate data in humans;
C possible human carcinogen — limited evidence in animals;
D inadequate evidence to classify; and
E evidence of non-carcinogenicity.
-------
22
Constituents in Classes A, Bl, B2, and C are included in this assessment as potential
human carcinogens.
Currently, the USEPA uses a linearized multistage model for extrapolating from
high to low doses. The model provides a 95 percent upperbound estimate of cancer
incidence at a given dose. The slope of the extrapolated curve, called the cancer slope
factor (CSF), is used to calculate the probability of cancer associated with the exposure
dose.
Recent research on the mechanisms of carcinogenesis suggests that use of this
model may overestimate the cancer risks associated with exposure to low doses of
chemicals. At high doses, many chemicals cause large-scale cell death which stimulates
replacement by division. Dividing cells are more subject to mutations than quiescent
(non-dividing) cells; thus, there is an increased potential for tumor formation. It is
possible that administration of these same chemicals at lower doses would not increase
cell division and thus would not increase mutations. This would suggest that the current
methodology may overestimate cancer risk.
For many non-carcinogenic effects, protective mechanisms must be overcome
before the effect is manifested. Therefore, a finite dose (threshold), below which adverse
effects will not occur, is believed to exist for non-carcinogens. Non-carcinogenic health
effects include birth defects, organ damage, behavioral effects, and many other health
impacts. A single compound might elicit several adverse effects depending on the dose,
the exposure route, and the duration of exposure. For a given chemical, as a matter of
scientific policy, the study on a sensitive test species (the species showing a toxic effect
at the lowest administered dose) is selected as the critical study for the basis of
establishing a toxicity value for non-carcinogenic effects. USEPA-verified toxicity values
for non-carcinogenic effects are called verified reference doses (RfDox) for oral exposure
or reference concentrations (RfCs) for inhalation exposure. In this risk assessment, RfCs
have been converted to reference doses for inhalation exposure (RfDis). A summary of
the potential health effects of the COCs for OU-2 is provided in Table 7.
-------
23
2.6.1.4 Risk Characterization
The Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR) is aii estimate of the increased risk of
cancer which results from exposure to constituents detected in the media at the site.
Current regulatory methodology assumes that ELCRs can be summed across routes of
exposure and constituents to derive a "Total Site Risk" (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency 1989b). The USEPA has indicated that, where cumulative carcinogenic site risk
to an individual based on RME is less than 1 in 10,000 (10"*), action is generally not
warranted. The USEPA uses the 104 to 1 in 1,000,000 (10*) ELCR range as a "target
range" within which the USEPA strives to manage risks as part of cleanups (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 1991b).
The hazard quotient (HQ) is the ratio of the estimated exposure dose to the
reference dose (RfD). This ratio is used to evaluate non-carcinogenic health effects.
associated with exposure to a constituent. An HQ of 1.0 or less indicates that the
estimated exposure dose is below acceptable levels for protection against non-
carcinogenic effects. The sum of the HQs is termed the hazard index (HI). Current
regulatory methodology assumes that HQs can be summed across exposure routes for all
media at the site to derive a Total Site Risk. The USEPA has indicated that, when the
HI calculated for a site based on RME is less than 1, action is generally not warranted
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1991b).
ELCRs and the His for current exposure to soils at the OU-2 PSCs were below
the USEPA's risk-based remediation benchmarks (ELCR less than 10"*, HI below 1.0).
Hypothetical future ELCRs and His for exposure to soils at the OU-2 PSCs were also
below the USEPA benchmarks. Table 8 presents current and hypothetical future risks.
Detailed calculations and assumptions are included in the risk assessment (Geraghty &
Miller, Inc. 1992).
Lead was identified as a COC in soils at PSCs DP-OS and FT-06. Because no
RfD or CSF is currently available for lead, it is not possible to evaluate the risks
associated with lead exposure using conventional risk assessment methods. The blood
lead levels of a current base worker at PSC DP-05, and a current base worker, current
-------
24
military employee, and a future excavation worker at PSC FT-06 were evaluated using
a model for adults that is similar to the USEPAT "Lead 5" model, which was designed
to evaluate blood lead levels in children. The calculated blood lead levels for the current
base worker at PSC DP-05 and all current and hypothetical future receptors at PSC FT-
06 were well below the level of concern (10 /*g/Dl). Table 9 summarizes the blood lead
levels calculated for both PSC DP-05 and FT-06.
In summary, based on the site specific ELCRs and His for OU-2", the OU-2 PSCs
do not pose significant present or future hazards to human health.
2.6.1.5 Preliminary Remediation Goals
USEPA guidance (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1991c) was used to
calculate PRGs for OU-2 soils. PRGs were calculated using the USEPA equation for
commercial/industrial land use. Exposure was assumed to involve ingestion of soil and
inhalation of particulates and vapors released from the soil. The default assumptions
provided in the USEPA industrial site worker equation were used to develop the PRGs.
The assumptions include: 1) an exposure duration of 25 years (the 90th percentile value:
for time spent in one industry); 2) an exposure frequency of 250 days per year "spent on
the job;" 3) a soil ingestion rate of 50 milligrams (ing) per day; 4) an inhalation rate of
20 cubic meters (m3) per day; and 5) a body weight of 70 kilograms (kg). Base workers,
military personnel, and excavation workers were the only receptor populations identified
for current or future exposure to soils at the OU-2 PSCs. The PRGs were calculated
using the exposure assumptions outlined above and the USEPA toxicity values (RfDs for
non-carcinogenic effects and CSFs carcinogenic effects). For non-carcinogenic effects,
the target HI was set at the default value of 1.0. For carcinogenic effects, the target
ELCR was set at the default value of 1 x 10"6. Use of these target levels ensures
exposure is below acceptable levels. The proposed PRG is the lesser of the PRG for
carcinogenic effects and the PRG for non-carcinogenic effects.
-------
25
2.6.2 Environmental Risks
The only environmental risk evaluated during OU-2 was the potential for COCs
to migrate and cause an impact to groundwater.
A vadose zone transport model was used to evaluate the current potential for
COCs in soils at OU-2 to leach from the soil and cause an impact to groundwater. The
model was not developed to be used to explain the presence of constituents in
groundwater which may. be the result of historical activities at the Base.
PSC-specific models were not constructed; rather, an extremely conservative, OU-
2-specific model was developed. The model evaluated leaching of several COCs detected
in soils from OU-2 PSCs using the actual concentrations detected and depths from which
soil samples were collected and analyzed during the OU-2 RI.
Six OU-2-specific COCs, listed in Table 10, were chosen from Tables 11 and 12 -
i(
to predict future concentrations at the bottom of the vadose zone (i.e., the water table).
The criteria for selecting these six compounds were: 1) observed soil concentrations
compared to PRGs and 2) the depth at which the constituents were found in the soil. The
maximum observed concentrations for these six COCs, the PSCs where they were
detected, and the depth at which these COCs were no longer detected (i.e., assumed
maximum depth of detection) at the PSC are listed in Table 10. Table 10 also presents
maximum computed soil water concentrations in the vadose zone and a summary of the
transport parameters needed to model each of the compounds.
The source concentration for each of the COCs was assumed to equal the
maximum possible concentration, regardless of the solubility of each compound in water.
In addition, the source was assumed to have a constant concentration over time (i.e., no
source decay). This, again, is a conservative assumption because the source is not
constant (i.e., source is decaying).
The predicted concentrations at the bottom of the vadose zone reported in Table
10 demonstrate that it is highly unlikely that groundwater impacts will ever occur as a
result of existing, unsaturated conditions at OU-2. Predicted concentrations for the six
COCs analyzed range from less than IxlO^to 1.269xlO'21 milligrams per liter (mg/L),
-------
26
as shown in the far right-hand column of Table 10. Climatic conditions (low recharge),
the thickness of the vadose zone unaffected by COCs (greater than 280 feet), low
observed soil concentrations, long advective travel time through the vadose zone (550
yrs), and relatively short half-lives for each compound all contribute to prevent
ground water impacts (Table 12).
This model is applicable to all OU-2 PSCs with the possible exception of the
surface impoundment wash (or canal portion) of PSC DP-23. The surface impoundment
wash, located south of Super Sabre Street, receives surface-water runoff from the Base
during and after storm events. Runoff has a tendency to collect and sit in this canal for
extended periods and may act as a potential driving force for the migration of
constituents in soil. Recharge rates have not been evaluated for this drainage canal;
however, the recharge rates may be higher than the remainder of OU-2. Because of the
potential for migration of constituents to groundwater, the Base is taking the initiative to
excavate and treat soils with concentrations above PRGs in the canal portion of PSC DP-
23. An ecological assessment for Luke AFB will be performed as part of the OU-1
RI/FS.
2.7 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
A total of 12 remedial alternatives were evaluated using the preliminary criteria
of effectiveness, implementability, and cost. These 12 alternatives are summarized in
Table 13. Five of these 12 alternatives were retained for a more detailed analysis.
These five alternatives are described in detail below.
2.7.1 Remedial Measure S-l; No Action
o No Action
Remedial Alternative S-l involves no remedial action. The no action alternative
can serve as a reference base for comparison of the other possible remedial alternatives.
-------
27
Effectiveness. This alternative is not effective in preventing occupational
exposure to impacted soils. However, based on the risk assessment, conditions
at all OU-2 PSCs do not represent a significant hazard to human health. ELCRs
and His for current and future exposure to soils at the OU-2 PSCs were below
the USEPA's risk-based remediation benchmarks (ELCR less than 104, HI below
1.0). Based on the vadose zone transport model, it was concluded that under the
typical, unsaturated conditions at the OU-2 PSCs, COCs will not migrate to
groundwater. The one exception to this conclusion may be PSC DP-23. The
southern portion of PSC DP-23 consists of a drainage canal (the surface
impoundment wash) where saturated conditions may exist during and fora limited
time following storm events.
' Implementability. The no action alternative is completely implementable at all •
PSCs.
Cost. No costs are associated with the no action alternative.
2.7.2 Remedial Measure S-3; Capping. Surface Controls, and Monitoring
o Construct a cap over the impacted sites to prevent human exposure and migration
of organic constituents in the soil.
o Grade areas surrounding the impacted areas to promote surface water runoff away
from the cap.
o Monitor soil and groundwater (groundwater monitoring will be addressed under
OU-1) to confirm effectiveness and potential migration of the COCs.
Remedial Measure S-3 provides for caps to be constructed over the impacted
PSCs. The caps will prevent physical contact with the impacted soil. Caps also prevent
surface-water infiltration into the unsaturated soil beneath them and thus prevent
migration of COCs. However, the vadose zone transport model demonstrates that COCs
-------
28
at any of the OU-2 PSCs will not migrate to groundwater under existing, unsaturated
conditions.
Large portions of many of the PSCs are currently covered by asphalt or concrete
comprising roads, sidewalks, buildings, storage areas, or tarmac dust cover. These
surface covers can provide sufficient caps to accomplish the remedial action objectives.
Additional coverage may be required at some PSCs to complete full caps of the impacted
areas. Luke AFB will maintain and repair the cap as needed in accordance with the Air
Force design guidance for airfield pavement maintenance. This guidance is contained
in the Air Force technical manual CEEDO-TR-77-44, Volume n, Section V, Guidelines
for Determining Maintenance and Repair Requirements. The cap will be inspected
weekly by the base Airfield Pavement Shop per APR 55-48 Part 7(i). Additionally, the
cap will be inspected annually by a civil engineer who will provide a written report to
the Environmental Programs Flight Chief of any observed distresses along with
recommendations for repair. When and if the Base is closed, more durable, multi-media
caps may be required. However, since a multi-media cap is not expected to be required
in the foreseeable future, the cost for this type of cap is not included in this analysis.
Surface controls such as grading will be employed to control runon and runoff at
capped areas. These controls will reduce required maintenance of the caps and enhance
the long-term effectiveness of the cap by limiting erosion.
Monitoring of soils and groundwater (groundwater monitoring will be addressed
under OU-1) around the PSCs will provide information about potential migration to other
environmental media not presently impacted. Natural attenuation of COCs present in the
soil could also be documented by a monitoring program.
Access controls are not required as long as the site is under the operation of the
\
U.S. Air Force. The Base is currently fenced and restricts access to the site by
unauthorized personnel. Site use following capping can be controlled without the use of
additional fencing. Deed restrictions are applicable and will be imposed at the time the
ROD is signed. The deed restrictions will prevent removal of the concrete cap and
excavation of the soil. These deed restrictions will prevent disturbance of the cap and
exposure to impacted soils.
-------
29
Effectiveness. This alternative is effective in both the short term and the long
term in protecting human health and the environment. The cap should be
effective in reducing surface-water infiltration through the soil and, therefore,
reduce potential migration of COCs. Constituent concentrations will not be
actively reduced and may require an -extended period of time to attenuate
naturally. Inspection and maintenance to ensure the cap remains effective will be
required. Luke AFB will maintain and repair the cap as needed in accordance
with the Air Force design guidance for airfield pavement maintenance. This
guidance is contained in the Air Force technical manual CEEDO-TR-77-44,
Volume n, Section V, Guidelines for Determining Maintenance and Repair
Requirements. The cap will be inspected weekly by the base Airfield Pavement
Shop per AFR 55-48 Part 7(i). Additionally, the cap will be inspected annually
by a civil engineer who will provide a written report to the Environmental
Programs Flight Chief of any observed distresses along with recommendations for
repair.
Implementability. This alternative is readily implementable at all PSCs. The
cap can be easily constructed and maintained indefinitely. Implementation at
PSCs near the runways will require at-grade caps. Construction may require
removal of surface soils to prevent the cap from interfering with air traffic.
Implementation will require coordination of construction activities so as not to
interfere with Base operations.
Cost. The unit cost of this alternative is approximately $3.02 per cubic foot.
Should surface soils require excavation and disposal, this unit cost increases by
$5.55 per cubic foot of material disposed.
-------
30
2.7.3 Remedial Measure S-8: Excavation. Ex-Situ Biological Treatment, and On-
Site Disposal
o Excavate soils with COCs in excess of PRGs.
o Biologically treat excavated soils to reduce COCs.
o Monitor the treated soils to confirm effectiveness.
o Return the effectively treated soils to the excavation for final disposal.
This alternative consists of excavating soils with COCs above their PRGs to a
depth of no greater than 16 ft bgs. Excavation to up to 16 ft bgs will prevent
occupational exposure to soil, even though the risk assessment demonstrated that the OU-
2 PSCs do not represent a significant hazard human health. The vadose zone transport
model demonstrates that COCs at the OU-2 PSCs will not migrate to groundwater under
existing, unsaturated conditions.
The excavated soils will then be subjected to an aerobic, biological treatment to
reduce the non-halogenated VOCs, TRPHs, and PAHs. Soils containing halogenated
VOCs may subsequently be subjected to an anaerobic, biological treatment. The method
of biological treatment may be composting. Independent of the method, favorable
conditions for biological degradation of the organic compounds will be developed by
providing for nutrient (i.e., phosphorus or nitrogen), oxygen, moisture, and/or cultured
bacterial strain additions. Air emissions, residues, or leachate from the treatment process
may require treatment. The treatment selected is dependent upon the quantity of
emissions, residue, and leachate generated by the process, which may be better estimated
by design investigation studies. Based upon the climate and nature of contamination, the
treatment of these byproducts will likely be recycling of the streams back into the
treatment unit. The treated soil will be sampled to confirm treatment effectiveness and
then returned to the excavation for final disposal.
Effectiveness. This alternative is proven for reducing the VOCs, TRPHs, and
PAHs found in the soils at the OU-2 PSCs. This remedial measure would be
-------
31
effective in both the short-term and the long-term in protecting human health at
OU-2 PSCs by reducing those COCs that are present in the surface soils above
PRGs.
Implementability. This alternative is technically and administratively
implementable at most PSCs. Excavation of soil from beneath and directly
adjacent to structures constructed at some of the PSCs is not possible without
demolition of the structures (PSCs FT-06 and ST-18). Implementation at PSCs
DP-22 and SD-40 would disrupt air traffic and thus interfere with the mission of
the Base. This system could be implemented at any of the remaining OU-2 PSCs
with appropriate scheduling of construction, excavation, and operation activities
so as not to interfere with Base operations.
Cost. The unit cost of this alternative is approximately $5.25 per cubic foot.
2.7.4 Remedial Measure S-10: In-Situ Extraction and Monitoring
o Install soil vapor extraction system (YES) to reduce VOCs, TRPHs, and
potentially PAHs if thermal extraction is used.
o Monitor soil and groundwater (groundwater monitoring will be addressed
under OU-1) to confirm effectiveness and potential migration of the
COCs.
This alternative consists of installing a network of extraction wells in the impacted
soils and applying a vacuum to the network. The applied subsurface vacuum induces a
negative pressure gradient that propagates laterally resulting in in-situ volatilization of
adsorbed organics. The gases migrate through the soil to the area of lowest pressure (the
extraction well), where they are extracted and pulled through separation tanks and an air
pollution control (APC) apparatus before being discharged to the atmosphere. A likely
APC system would be a granular activated carbon (GAC) for removing the volatilized
-------
32
organics from the extracted air. The GAC would require periodic reactivation. This
would probably occur off-site by the company the GAC was originally purchased from.
Effectiveness. This process has been applied to a range of volatile compounds
such as chlorinated organic solvents and aromatic hydrocarbons and is capable of
removing volatile compounds (such as benzene, TCE, PCE, toluene, and xylene)
from vadose zone soils. This remedial measure would be effective in the long-
term in protecting human health and the environment at OU-2 PSCs with VOCs
above their PRGs by removing those COCs. This measure may be capable of
remediating soils impacted by PAHs as well if enhanced biological activity occurs
during implementation of the measure or if the innovative technology of in-situ
thermal extraction can be feasibly used. This measure would not prevent contact
• with soils in the short-term if surface soils are exposed.
t,
Implementabilhy. This alternative is technically and administratively
implementable, pending approval of an air permit for the VES. This system
could be installed at any of the OU-2 PSCs without interfering with Base
operations, however, the shallow depth of COCs present at levels exceeding
PRGs limits the feasibility of this measure at PSC DP-23. For PSCs near the
runways, the well network could be installed below ground and the vacuum and
off-gas treatment system located remotely.
Cost. The unit cost of this alternative is approximately $5.93 per cubic foot.
2.7.5 Remedial Measure S-12: In-Situ Biological Treatment and Monitoring
o In-situ bioremediation to reduce organic COCs.
o Installation of access controls such as temporary fencing for those PSCs
which are in the vicinity of the flight-line or runways.
-------
33
o Monitoring of soil and groundwater (groundwater monitoring will be
addressed under OU-1) to confirm effectiveness and potential migration
of the COCs.
This alternative uses indigenous or introduced aerobic or anaerobic bacteria to
biodegrade organic compounds in soils. The natural biodegradation process may be
enhanced by injecting nutrients (e.g., phosphorous or nitrogen), oxygen, moisture, and/or
cultured bacterial strains directly into the impacted soils. Gaseous or vapor phase
injection of such compounds may be the preferred method of nutrient application at the
OU-2 PSCs due to the shallow nature (up to 16 ft bgs) of the soils identified for possible
remediation. Such injection would require a network of injection wells in the impacted
areas. Landfanning techniques rather that injection techniques may be the preferred
method of in-situ bioremediation at locations where impacted soil depths do not extend
beyond 2 ft bgs.
Effectiveness. In-situ bioremediation would likely be effective in treating non-
halogenated VOCs and TRPHs. PAHs and chlorinated VOCs typically have a
greater resistance to being biologically degraded; therefore, extended remediation
times may be required for sites with these types of compounds present. This
remedial measure would be effective in the long-term in protecting human health
and the environment at OU-2 PSCs by removing COCs. Temporary fencing at
those PSCs which are not in the vicinity of the flight-line or runways would
prevent contact with soils in the short-term if surface soils are exposed.
Implementabilfty. This alternative is technically and administratively
implementable. This system could be installed at any of the OU-2 PSCs without
interfering with Base operations. For PSCs near the runways, the well network
would be installed below ground and the injection system located remotely.
Cost. The unit cost of this alternative is approximately $5.20 per cubic foot.
-------
34
2.8 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 300.430(e)(9) of the NCP requires that the agencies evaluate the remedial
cleanup alternatives based on the nine criteria discussed below. Since remedial action
is proposed only at PSC DP-23, only alternatives considered for PSC DP-23 are
compared here. The alternatives considered for PSC DP-23 were S-l, S-3, S-8, and S-
12. The first two criteria, overall protection of human health and the environment and
compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, are threshold
criteria and must be met by the selected remedy. The next five criteria are considered
primary balancing criteria; the agencies must balance between these criteria in order to
select the best remedy. It is understood that the selected remedy may not rank highest
on every one of the balancing criteria. The remaining two, community acceptance and
regulatory agency acceptance, are to be used by the lead agency as modifying factors in
the decision-making process. The selected remedy must represent the best overall
balance of the selection criteria. A summary of the detailed analysis of alternatives for
PSC DP-23 is provided below and in Table 13.
2.8.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
All of the remedial measures identified for detailed analysis provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment at the OU-2 PSCs. Conditions at OU-2
do not represent a significant hazard to human health and the vadose zone transport
model (using conservative assumptions) demonstrates that COCs should not migrate to
groundwater. No remedial action is required at any of the PSCs except PSC DP-23 in
order to protect human health and the environment. The southern portion of PSC DP-23
consists of a drainage canal (the surface impoundment wash) where saturated conditions
may exist during and for a limited time following storm events.
-------
35
2.8.2 Compliance With ARARs
All four alternatives considered for PSC DP-23 would comply with action and
location specific ARARs. Although concentrations of COCs in OU-2 soils are, in some
cases, above PRGs, there are no promulgated state or federal chemical-specific ARARs
for soils that require remediation. Action-specific ARARs must be met by the S-8
alternative if the excavation of impacted soil includes RCRA disposal; however, the
impacted soil (both before and following treatment) is not expected to be a hazardous
waste. Air emission regulations apply when excavating/incinerating/treating in the S-8
alternatives. PSC DP-23 is located adjacent to an archaeological site. In the event
archaeological artifacts are encountered, remedial activities will cease and the State
Historic Preservation Office will be contacted for direction. PRGs and ARARs are
summarized in Tables 14a, 14b, and 14c.
2.8.3 Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Remedial measure S-8 provides a high degree of long term effectiveness by
excavating impacted soils and then subsequently treating those soils with ex-situ
biological treatment. Remedial measure S-12 uses in-situ biological treatment to remove
COCs from soil. This technology will be more difficult to control and monitor than an
ex-situ treatment process. Therefore, S-12 provides a lesser degree of long term
effectiveness and permanence than the above alternatives. Although alternative S-3
eliminates the risk of exposure at the site to the same degree as the above alternatives,
it relies solely upon a cap for controlling the impacted soil that will remain at the site.
2.8.4 Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Alternatives S-8 and S-12 use the treatment technologies of ex-situ biological
treatment, in-situ extraction, and in-situ biological treatment, respectively, to remove the
COCs and thus their toxicity, mobility, and volume from the site. Although no treatment
-------
36
technology is used by Alternative S-3, the mobility of COCs in soil is reduced by the use
of a cap to reduce infiltration of storm water.
2.8.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
All remedial measures considered for PSC DP-23 have a slightly lesser degree
of short-term effectiveness because each involves some worker exposure to impacted soils
during implementation of the remedial measure. However, based on the risk assessment
and the limited exposure that will occur, the concern may not be warranted. The
exposure of construction workers to COCs present in soil can be reduced through the use
of personal protective equipment and implementation of a site-specific health and safety
plan.
*
2.8.6 Implementabiiity
All of the remedial measures are technically implementable without interfering
with Base operations.
2.8.7 Cost
No costs are associated with the implementation of the no action alternative. The
alternatives involving biological treatment processes, S-8 and S-12, are usually the most
costly to implement. The excavation and ex-situ biological treatment alternative, S-8,
was second to no action in terms of cost of implementation. Capital, operation and
maintenance, and net present value costs for the PSC DP-23 alternatives are summarized
in Table 16.
-------
37
/
2.8.8 Regulatory Agency Acceptance
The USEPA, the ADEQ, and the ADWR have reviewed and commented on the
draft RI/FS documents and the draft Proposed Plan. Comments were incorporated into
the final documents. The regulatory agencies support the final Proposed Plan for OU-2
as it was presented to the public, as well as the remedy selection set forth in this ROD.
2.8.9 Community Acceptance
The community supports the Proposed Plan for OU-2. There were no comments
made during the public comment period. The only comments received on the Proposed
Plan were received during the Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting on May 20,
1993: These issues are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary.
2.9 SELECTED REMEDY
2.9.1 Remedial Measur* Rprnmnwndation for PSCs OT-04. DP-05. FT-06. FT-07.
DP-22. DP-23. and SD-40
The remedial action selected for implementation at PSCs OT-04, DP-05, FT-06,
FT-07, DP-22, SD-40, and the northern portion of PSC DP-23 is S-l (No Action).
Remedial measure S-l is recommended because the conclusions of the site-specific risk
assessment are that conditions at these PSCs do not represent a significant hazard to
human health. Both current and hypothetical future ELCRs and His for exposure to soils
at the OU-2 PSCs are below the USEPA's risk-based remediation benchmarks (ELCR
less than 10*4, HI below 1.0). Also, the vadose zone transport model demonstrates that
under typical, unsaturated conditions at the OU-2 PSCs, COCs will not migrate to and
impact groundwater. Therefore, this alternative is both technically and administratively
implementable at these PSC.
-------
38
2.9.2 Remedial Measure Recommendation for PSC ST-18
The remedial action selected for implementation at PSC ST-18 is S-3 (Capping,
Surface Controls, and Monitoring). Other alternatives considered in the detailed analysis
included remedial measure S-l (No Action), remedial measure S-10 (In-situ Extraction
and Monitoring), and remedial measure S-12 (In-situ Biological Treatment and
Monitoring).
Remedial measure S-3 is selected at PSC ST-18 because the first element of this
measure, capping, has already been implemented as a RCRA closure requirement.
Consistent with RCRA/CERCLA integration under the FFA it is both relevant and
appropriate to continue to maintain this cap in an effort to ensure the effectiveness of this
response action. This response action is consistent with the CERCLA requirement to be
protective of human health and the environment and satisfies the remedial action
objectives for OU-2. The second element of this measure, surface controls, is satisfied.
as long as the Base is present. Deed restrictions will be imposed as part of this remedial
measure to prevent removal of the cap and excavation of the soil in the future. There
is a lack of public exposure to all OU-2 PSCs because the Base perimeter is fenced and
monitored. The third element of this alternative, monitoring (with respect to
groundwater) will be conducted unless the site is remediated under OU-1.
Alternative S-12 provides treatment for removal of COCs; however, following
treatment, some COCs (at levels below PRGs) will remain in the soils. With no overall
site risk associated with the current COC levels at the PSC and no concern about COC
migration to groundwater demonstrated by the vadose zone transport model,
implementation of these treatment technologies is not warranted.
The remediation goal for PSC ST-18 is to ensure the effectiveness of the cap in
preventing the potential migration of constituents. PSC ST-18 was capped in 1987 as
part of the closure requirements for former Facility 993. The Base will continue to
inspect and maintain the cap to ensure integrity of the concrete and sealed joints. Luke
AFB will maintain and repair the cap as needed in accordance with the Air Force design
guidance for airfield pavement maintenance. This guidance is contained in the Air Force
technical manual CEEDO-TR-77-44, Volume n, Section V, Guidelines for Determining
-------
39
Maintenance and Repair Requirements. The cap will be inspected weekly by the base
Airfield Pavement Shop per APR 55-48 Part 7(i). Additionally, the cap will be inspected
annually by a civil engineer who will provide a written report to the Environmental
Programs Flight Chief of any observed distresses along with recommendations for repair.
The cap is also inspected on a routine basis by the ADEQ. Therefore, the only
additional requirement for implementation of this remedial measure is monitoring of
groundwater (groundwater monitoring will be addressed under OU-1) for potential
migration of COCs.
There are no capital costs associated with this alternative since PSC ST-18 is
already capped. Costs associated with maintenance of the cap will be incorporated into
the Base infrastructure maintenance program.
2.9.3 Remedial Measure Recommendation for PSC DP-23
• **•• ' ' - .. • . •^ .••••••i. -—•• .— - • f sr —— . i - • • •. 1(
The remedial action selected for implementation at the canal portion of PSC DP-
23 is S-8 (Excavation, Ex-situ Biological Treatment, On-site Disposal, and Monitoring).
Other alternatives considered in the detailed analysis included remedial measure S-3
(Capping, Surface Controls, and Monitoring) and remedial measure S-12 (In-situ
Biological Treatment and Monitoring).
Remedial measure S-8 is recommended for implementation at the surface
impoundment wash portion of PSC DP-23 (the area south of Super Sabre Street) to
ensure that migration of the COCs to groundwater does not occur. In this area of the
PSC, saturated conditions may exist during and for a limited time following storm
events. Therefore, remediation is recommended for areas where COCs in soils were
found to exist at levels exceeding the PRGs. Table 15 summarizes concentrations of
constituents exceeding PRGs at PSC DP-23, as well as the PRGs for these COCs.
Alternative S-8 provides immediate removal of COCs from the wash by removing
impacted soils, where alternative S-12 requires significant treatment time before a
reduction in COCs to levels below PRGs is achieved. Alternative S-3 allows the COCs
to remain in place. Both S-3 and S-12 will be more difficult to implement in the wash
-------
40
than will S-8. Remedial measure S-8 is also more cost effective to implement than S-3
or S-12.
In the area of Soil Boring SB-5 (in the northern portion of the drainage canal,
Figure 5) an estimated 3,472 cubic yards of soil must be remediated. This volume is
based on a site width of 125 ft, a length of impacted soil of 125 ft, and a depth of
impacted soil of 6 ft. The volume of soil will be more precisely calculated during
remedial design. The remedy is schematically shown on Figure 5.
The biological treatment system will be monitored by collecting soil samples and
analyzing the samples for the constituents that exceeded the PRGs. Excavated soils from
the area of Soil Boring SB-5 (in the northern portion of the drainage canal) will be
analyzed for benzo(a)pyrene since the benzo(a)pyrene concentration exceeded its PRG.
It is estimated that one to two composite samples from the excavated soil pile will be
collected approximately every 2 months to verify the effectiveness of the treatment
system.
The remediation goals for soils from PSC DP-23 are the PRGs. For the PAH
mentioned above, the PRG is 0.78 rag/kg. PRGs are discussed in Section 2.6.1.5 of this
ROD. The ELCR associated with this remedy is 10"*, while both the USEPA and the
State recognize a range of 10"* to 10"6.
It should be noted that some changes may be made to the remedy as a result of
the remedial design and construction processes. Such changes, in general, reflect
modifications resulting from the engineering design process.
Capital costs associated with this alternative are estimated to be $420,000. Costs
for operation, maintenance, and confirmatory sampling are estimated to be $16,000 per
year. The present value of these costs over 2 years is estimated to be $450,000.
2.10 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under CERCLA Section 121, the selected remedy must be protective of human
health and the environment, comply with ARARs (unless a statutory waiver is justified),
be cost-effective, and utili/e permanent solutions to the maximum extent practicable. In
-------
41
addition, CERCLA includes a preference for remedies that employ treatment that
permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous
wastes as their principle element. The following sections present how the selected
remedy meets these statutory requirements for PSCs ST-18 and the canal portion of PSC
DP-23. No action is the selected remedy for the remaining PSCs; the no action remedy
satisfies the statutory requirements at these PSCs.
2.10.1 Protection pf Human Health land the Environment
The remedy selected for the canal portion of PSC DP-23 is protective of human
health and the environment. The potential risk posed by impacted soils at the PSC (i.e.,
migration of contaminants to groundwater) will be eliminated. Impacted soils will be
treated biologically to PRG levels. Short-term risks and the potential for cross-media,
impacts will be controlled through use of good construction practices and institutional
controls.
The remedy selected for PSC ST-18 is protective of human health and the
environment. The potential risk posed by impacted soils at the site is not significant and
is below the USEPA's risk-based remediation benchmarks. However, consistent with
RCRA/CERCLA integration under the FFA it is both relevant and appropriate to
continue to maintain the concrete cap which was constructed over this PSC as part of a
RCRA closure requirement. The model used to predict potential impact to groundwater
indicates that underlying groundwater should not be impacted by contaminants remaining
in the soil.
2.10.2 Compliance With Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
The selected remedy will comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements. No waiver of ARARs is necessary.
-------
42
2.10.3 Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedies are cost-effective in mitigating the principal threats posed
by the site. Cost-effectiveness is determined by evaluating the following three balancing
criteria to determine overall effectiveness: long-term effectiveness and permanence;
reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment; and short-term
^
effectiveness. Overall effectiveness is then compared to cost to ensure that the remedy
is cost-effective.
The net present worth cost for the capping surface controls, and monitoring
alternative, S-3, is the most cost effective remedial measure for PSC ST-18 next to no
action. This is largely due to the fact that PSC ST-18 is already capped and the area
restricted, so only monitoring is required.
Alternative S-3 provides long-term effectiveness and permanence by minimizing.'
or eliminating the potential for constituents to leach into groundwater. S-3 also reduces
mobility. Short-term risks are not an issue because this PSC is already capped.
At PSC DP-23, the excavation, ex-situ biological treatment, and confirmatory
sampling alternative, S-8, is second only to no action in terms of cost of implementation.
This alternative provides long-term effectiveness and permanence and reduces toxiciry,
mobility, and volume because soils will be treated on-site to the PRG levels. Short-term
risks will be controlled through use of good construction practices and institutional
controls.
2.10.4 Preference for Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies
Where possible, the selected remedies satisfy the preference for utilization of
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies. This applies specifically to
PSC DP-23, where impacted soils will be excavated and biologically treated on-site, as
opposed to other alternatives such as off-site landfill disposal. The five primary
balancing criteria were equally decisive factors in the selection decision for PSC DP-23.
PSC ST-18 does not pose a significant threat to human health and constituents will not
-------
43
migrate to and impact groundwater based on the vadose zone leaching model. Since PSC
ST-18 is already capped, the S-3 alternative is Implementable and cost-effective and
short-term effectiveness is not an issue.
2.10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The statutory preference for treatment as a principal element is satisfied for the
canal portion of PSC DP-23. At PSC DP-23, soils will be biologically treated to PRO
levels. Treatment is not necessary at PSC ST-18 because the soils do not pose a
significant threat to human health or the environment. Previous action at PSC ST-18
(UST removal and removal and treatment of contaminated soils) already addressed threats
posed by that PSC.
i
2.11 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for OU-2 was released for public comment in May 1993. The
Proposed Plan identified Remedial Measure S-3 (Capping, Surface Controls, and
Monitoring) for PSC ST-18, Remedial Measure S-8 (Excavation, Ex-situ Biological
Treatment, On-site Disposal, and Monitoring) for the canal portion of PSC DP-23, and
Remedial Measure S-l (No Action) for the remainder of OU-2 as the preferred
alternatives. No written or verbal comments were submitted during the public comment
period. Verbal comments from the TRC were received during the May 1993 TRC
meeting. Upon review of comments from the TRC, it was determined that no significant
changes to the remedy, as it was originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were
necessary.
Currently, the USEPA does not have a national standard for assigning cancer
slope factors (CSFs) to different PAHs. In the past the policy has been to assume the
cancer potency of all of the carcinogenic PAHs is equivalent to that of benzo(a)pyrene.
This approach was taken in the risk assessment that was completed for OU-2. Since the
OU-2 risk assessment was published, USEPA Region DC set an interim regional policy
-------
44
for evaluating the carcinogenicity of the PAHs based on a recommendation from the
USEPA's Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (ECAO) (U.S.Environmental
Protection Agency, 1993). ECAO conducted a scientific review of PAH cancer potency
issues and concluded that a set of toxicity equivalence factors (TEFs) based on a report
from Clement International is the most scientifically appropriate approach to PAH cancer
risk assessment. Region IX USEPA has adopted these TEFs under an interim policy
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993).
The use of the TEFs results in the increase of the PRGs for the PAHs
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, and
indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene and eliminates the need to remediate near sediment sampling
location SD-5 at PSC DP-23. This results in a reduction of the remediation volume from
approximately 4,600 cubic yards (as was stated in the Proposed Plan) to approximately
3,500 cubic yards.
-------
45
3-0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
No verbal or written questions or comments on the OU-2 Proposed Plan were
received during the public comment period which lasted from June 8 through July 7,
1993. However, questions on the OU-2 Proposed Plan were received from the TRC
during the May 20, 1993 TRC Meeting. The questions and answers are summarized
below.
The TRC asked what types of POL waste were disposed at OU-2. The majority
of POL was contaminated fuel. Since aircraft have high quality fuel requirements, waste
fuel is common.
The TRC asked if there was an oil/water separator associated with the canal at
PSC DP-23. There is no oil/water separator directly associated with PSC DP-23. There
is ariother canal to the east of PSC DP-23 which is associated with an oil/water separator.
That canal is an OU-1 PSC, PSC SD-20, the Oil/Water Separator Canal.
The TRC asked what reference numbers were used in the risk calculations. To
determine total site risk, an HI of 1.0 and an ELCR within the 10~* to 10* range were
used as references. To determine PRGs, an ELCR of 10-6 was used as a reference.
The TRC asked if there was a shallow, secondary aquifer at Luke AFB. There
is no shallow aquifer. Groundwater at the main Base is first encountered at
approximately 350 feet below ground surface. Approximately 2 miles to the east of the
main Base, near the Agua Fria River, groundwater is first encountered at approximately
125 feet below ground surface.
The TRC asked specific questions regarding the design of the biological treatment
system remedy for PSC DP-23. The details of the biological treatment system will be
determined during the remedial design phase of the project.
The TRC asked about the time frame of the remedial action at PSC DP-23. The
remediation is estimated to take 12 months. The ROD is scheduled to be finalized on
December 29, 1993. CERCLA requires that remedial action begin within 15 months of
the Final ROD.
PJCn370Q5\F3ROD4
-------
46
(
4.0 REFERENCES
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1991. Final Base-wide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study Work Plan, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, August 1991.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992. Final Remedial Investigation Report, Operable
Unit No. 2, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, October 20, 1992.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1993. Final Feasibility Study Report, Operable Unit 2,
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, May 12, 1993.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1993. Final Proposed Plan, Operable Unit 2, Luke Air
Force Base, Arizona, May 12, 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989a. Interim Final Guidance on
Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: the Proposed Plan, the Record of
Decision, Explanation of Significant Differences, die Record of Decision
Amendment, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, OSWER directive
9355.3-02
\
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989b. Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund, Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 199la. Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental
f?nidanceT "Standard Default Exposure Factors," Interim Final. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive
9285.6-03.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1991b. OSWER Directive 9355.0-
30, Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection
Decisions. April 22.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1991c. Human Health Evaluation
Manual Part B: Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1993. Letter from USEPA Region
DC to Richard A. Becker, Ph.D., Chief, Human & Ecological Risk, California
Environmental Protection Agency, May 25, 1993.
-------
SCALE IN MILES
LOCATION OF LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, ARIZONA
FIGURE
1
-------
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION (PSCs)
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 2
OT-O4 PERIMETER ROAD POL WASTE SITE
DP-05 POL WASTE DISPOSAL TRENCH
FT-08 SOUTH FIRE TRAINING AREA
FT-07 WESTERN NORTH FIRE TRAININQ AREA
8T-I8 FACILITY NO. 933
DP-22 POL TRENCH NORTHEAST RUNWAY
DP-23 OLD SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT AREA WEST OF 909
8D-40 TAXIWAY FUEL DISCHAROE
OT-04
OT-04
TINHW
1200 2400
APPROXIMATE 6CAIE M FEET
PREPARED FROM U8AF LUKE AF»
BASE MAP (AUTOCAD Ra. MM)
LOCATION OF PSCs
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 2
LUKE AFB, ARIZONA
FIGURE
-------
SB-13
-iCOtNP
_ APFKOIIIHATC Silt
•IMMH
A tt-l in. MWG lOMfKM
• NV-IU CXISIINB NONIItPING Wf.U
MFIICAIC
O
MTMIIIIIMIC tacArnw or
IRMHIO PITS
IAUPM. C«ltHI OC MCAS
tXCCC-BINTi DtGl
SB-16.
HUG MC 1J-F5 C
1 « a I KC JW
f
[ink
numc *> «iNin-M
nw/am
LATERAL EXTENT OF AREAS
EXCEEDING PRGs
PSC FT-06, OPCRABIC UNIT NO J
REMEDIAL INVf 5TIGAIION
luke AfB, Aritono
-------
APPROXIMATE SITE
BOUNDARY
A 350-Ft DEEP SOIL BORING LQCATIDN
A SHALLOW SOIL BORING LOCATION
• MU-1 EXISTING HONITDRING VEIL
fflflfa LATERAL EXTENT OT AREA
m%2 EXCEEDING PROs
SB-3'
i mo ten «•«• t
I »a at i KC is
T
"*-
100
100
^^^ SCALE IN FtET
OWWWO Hft AZ36IOVA? ~ ..
•"•"•ft tAM/om
OWMV •*'
****** tr,
SEP. ma
•C
LATERAL EXTENT OF AREA
EXCEEDING PRGs
PSC ST-IB, OPERABLE UNIT NO. 2
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
Luke AFB, Arizona
ncURC
4
-------
LEGEND
.._ APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY
A SB-1 SOIL BORING LOCATION
40-FDOT DEEP
A SB-2 SOIL BORING LOCATION
" 150-FOOT DEE?
SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION
LATERAL EXTENT QF AREAS
EXCEEDING PRGs
SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT
WASH
1000
OIL/WATER
SEPARATOR CANAL
SO-9
MUMNC NO:
AZ316.0S-A3
JAM
SEP 199Z
out spy 2. 1993
^eatr
LATERAL EXTENT OF SOIL
EXCEEDING PRGs
PSC DP-23. OPERABLE UNIT N0.2
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
FB. Artrono
FIGURE
-------
3472 CUBIC YARDS
OF IMPACTED SOIL*
NORTHERN PORTION
OF P8C DP-23 CANAL
BZP 14 mo/kg
EXCAVATION
OF 3472
CUBIC
YARDS OF
IMPACTED
SOIL"
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
TO PRO*
SOIL
MONITORING
TO CONFIRM
TREATMENT
RETURN TREATED
SOIL TO AREA OF
EXCAVATION AFTER
TREATMENT"'
EMISSIONS,
RESIDUE,
A LEACHATE
WILL BE
RECYCLED
NOTES:
• TIM PRO lor BZP to 078 MQ/KOL
~ Th« •mount wU b* mor* pradMly <
when iimpOng to conducted dwbig rwiMdial dMlgn
~ Clean ctoiur*; 6-yev monltortno nol rwcMMiy.
SELECTED REMEDY, CANAL PORTION OF PSC-DP-23
OPERABLE UNIT No.2, LUKE AFB, ARIZONA
FIGURE
-------
Table 1. Summary of OU-2 PSCs, OU-2 HI. Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
Page 1 of 2
PSC
Brief Description
Potential Wastes
OT-04- The Old Perimeter Road was an unpaved dirt
road that extended south along the southern
end of the runways and then north along the
northern edge of the runways. The road
surface consisted of weathered asphalt, soil,
and packed gravel and occupies approximately
26.5 acres.
petroleum, oil,
and lubricant
DP -05 The Waste Disposal Trench PSC was a landfill
used to dispose of liquid POL wastes. The area
consists of sparsely vegetated soil with piles
of construction debris and occupies approx-
imately 18 acres of land south of the Hush
Houses.
petroleum, oil,
lubricant, and
solvents
FT—06 The South Fire Training Area is located around
Building 988 and covers approximately eight
acres. Most of the area is covered by roads,
buildings, and parking lots.
FT-07 The North Fire Training Area is located east
of the abandoned Firing—In-Butt and includes
Building 1356. Most of the PSC is covered with
grasses and desert vegetation. Concrete, as-
phalt, and building 1356 are located in the
OU-1 (eastern) portion. The OU-2 (western)
portion covers approximately 14 acres.
ST-18 The Facility 993 PSC is an area west of the
existing Building 993 and north of Building
999. Two 10,000 gallon and one 5,000 gallon
storage tanks were excavated from this PSC
when the former Facility 993 was demolished.
The PSC covers approximately 0.2 acres and is
completely covered by concrete.
DP-22 The POL Trench Northeast Runway is located at
the northeastern end of the Base's northeast
runway and occupies approximately 4.6 acres.
Approximately 50 percent of the PSC is covered
by the inboard runway extension and a bitumi-
nous cover material and 50 percent is gravel
and soil with sparse vegetation.
petroleum, oil,
and lubricant
petroleum, oil,
and lubricant
petroleum, oil,
lubricant, and
solvents
petroleum, oil,
and lubricant
-------
Page 2 of 2
{ J»le 1. Summary of OU-2 PSCs, OU-2RI, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
PSC Brief Description Potential Wastes
DP-23 The Old Surface Impoundment PSC occupies ap- petroleum, oil,
proximately 3.3 acres west of Building 999. and lubricant
Approximately 20 percent of this PSC is covered
by concrete and asphalt with approximately
80 percent consisting of a drainage canal
covered with sparsely vegetated soil.
SD -40 The Taxiway Fuel Discharge PSC consists of the petroleum, oil,
areas on both sides of the southeastern end of and lubricant
Taxiway F (approximately 2.75 acres) and on
both sides of the southcentral section of
Taxiway E (approximately 7.58 acres). The areas
are overlain with a cover of 2-inch thick asphalt. .
.Taxiway's E and F are covered with concrete
and are currently used for the limited
servicing and maintenance aircraft
RODTAB1
6/26/93
-------
Page 1 of 2
Constituents of Concern
VOCs
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone (MEK)
1,1-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
2-Hexanone (MBK)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
1,1,2,2-Tetrachlorethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Xylenes
BNAs
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluotanthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g.h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)pnthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Iliuauuii nai iyw* •**• •— •— • — — »
OT-04 DP-OS
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
12 borings 28 borings
NP
NP '
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
<0.17-0.22
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
<0.05-0.9
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
<0.05-86
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
<0.17-3.7
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
FT-06 FT-07
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
18 borings 20 borings
NP
NP
0.7-0.9
NP
<0.05-6.0
0.8-0.8
NP
<0.05-0.4
<0.05-Tr
<0.05-3.0
<0.05-9.0
-------
Table 2. PSC-Specific Concentration Ranges for COCs, OU-2 Rl, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
Page 2 of 2
Constituents of Concern
Fluorene
lndeno(1,2t3-c,d)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
OCDD
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
TRPH
Metals
Copper
Lead
, Total -
No. of Boring Locations
with values greater than
the PRGs
CT-04
(mg/kg)
12 borings
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
<10-250
7.3-30.5
<5.0-21
DP-05 .
(mg/kg)
28 borings
NP
NP
<0.17-4.7
NP
<0.17-4.6
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
< 10-8300
6.1-37.8
<5.0-115
FT-06
(mg/kg)
18 borings
<0.17-0.83
<0.17-8.1
<0.17-3.0
<0.17-9.1
<0.17-9.7
NP
<0.17-3.1
<0.17-,13
<0.17-3.1
<0.17-36
<10-18000
4.5-40.3
<5.0-101
FT-07
(mg/kg)
20 borings
NP
NP
<0.17-0.91
NP
<0.17-0.26
NP
NP
NP
NP
<0.17-0.28
<10-3800
5.8-37.3
<5.0-172
ST-18
(mg/kg)
8 borings
NP
<0.17-0.34
<0.17-20
NP
<0.17-13
NP
NP
<0.17-0.18
NP
<0.17-0.56
<10-17000
5.5-34.7
5-32
DP-22
(mg/kg)
5 borings
*
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
<10-970
5.0-25.8
<5-30
DP-23
(mg/kg)
6 borings
10 sediment
locations
NP
<0.17-1.7
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
<0.17-6.2
NP
<0.17-13
<10-2000
9.7-39.9
<5-34.1
SD-40
(mg/kg)
11 borings
NP
NP
<0.17-2.0
NP
<0.17-0.98
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
<10-1200
8.8-42.8
<5-20
Basewlde
Concentration
Ranges
(mg/kg)
<0.17-0.83
<0.17-8.1
<0.17-30
<0.17-9.1
<0.17-9.7
NP
<0.17-3.1
<0.17-13
<0.17-3.1
<0.17-36
<10-18000
4.5-42.8
<5.0-172
PRG
(mg/kg)
82,000
0.78
61.000
100,000
82,000
0.038
48
61,000
NR
61,000
120,000
76,000
NA
No. of Boring
Locations with
values greater
than the PRG
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
NP
0
0
0
NP
11
16
NP
Tr Trace amount detected.
NA Not available; reference dose and cancer slope factor not available for lead.
NP ' Not applicable.
NR Not reported; calculated value was greater than one million parts per million.
PRG Preliminary remediation goal; lesser concentration of non-carcinogenic effects and carcinogenic effects.
TRPH Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons.
FRDTB2.WK3
11/11/93
16
-------
Table 3. Soil Samples with Values Greater than PRGs, OU-2 Rl, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
PSCFT-06 TCE BZ 1.1DCE BZA BZB
SB-2 0-2 0-2
SB-3 0-2/8-10
SB-5 2-4
SB-6
SB-7 0-2
SB-8 .... 0-2 0-2
SB-9 6-8
PSCST-18
SB-2 12-14/20-22 12-14
SB-3
PSC DP-23
SB-4 0-2
SB-5
0-2/8-10 Refers to depth of samples in feet below ground surface.
Blanks indicate PRGs not exceeded.
SB Soil boring.
SO Sediment sampling location.
TCE Trichloroethene.
BZ Benzene.
BZK Benzo(k)fluoranthene.
BZK BZP IND
0-2 0-2
0-2/8-10
2-4
4-6
0-2
0-2 0-2/4-6
0-2/6-8
-
0-2/2-4
0-2
BZP Benzo(a)pyrene.
CRY Chrysene.
IND lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.
DBA Dibenzo -anthracene.
BZA Benzo(a)anthracene.
BZB Benzo(b)fluoranthene.
1.1DCE 1,1-Dichloroethene.
DBA
0-2
0-2/8-10
2-4
0-2
0-2
TAB77.WK1
11/11/93
-------
Page 1 of 2
Table 4. Exposure Point Concentrations, Surficial Soils, Operable Unit No. 2, Luke AFB, Arizona
FT-07
ST-18
DP-22
Constituent
BEP
Butylbenzylphthalate
TRPHs
TRPHs
Lead
Copper
BZA
BAB
BAK
BZP
BZG
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a4i)anthracene
Indeno(L23—c,d)pyrene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
2- Methylnaphtbalene
Naphthalene
OCDD
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
TRPHs
Lead
2-Butanone
EB
Tol
Xyl
BZB
BZG
Chrysene
OCDD
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
TRPHs
BZA
BAB
BAP
Chrysene.
Indeno(l,23-c,d)pyrene
BZG
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
TRPHs
TRPHs
Average
Exposure
0.096
57
24
22
27
2.9
4.7
4.1
3.1
U
5.4
13
1.0
025
033
0.12
42
0.13
0.099
0.13
0.00015
1.4
3.6
46
31
028
0.046
0.029
0.13
0.098
0.0%
0.10
0.00046
0.096
0.099
18
0.17
027
0.16
033
0.14
0.19
021
0.12
022
49
240
Reasonable
Maximum Exposure
039
0.12
100
41
30
28
5.6
9.4
11
6.0
23
10
25
1.8
0.45
0.59
0.17
83
020
0.12
021
0.00015
2.7
7.1
67
41
032
0.082
0.036
027
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.00064
0.11
0.12
32
028
0.49
027
0.61
023
034
034
0.15
037
99
630
-------
Page 2 of2
Table 4. Exposure Point Concentrations, Surficial Soils, Operable Unit No. 2, Luke AFB, Arizona
Constituent
DP-23 BZA
BZB
BZK
BZP
BZG
BEP
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Indeno(123-c,d)pyrene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
TRPHs
EB
Tol
Xyl
SD-40 EB
Tol
Xyl
2- Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
TRPHs
Average
Exposure
039
0.77
030
028
026
020
0.47
0.097
0.18
0.54
034
0.65
120
0.025
0.025
0.036
0.11
0.041
024
026
0.17
130
Reasonable
Maximum Exposure
0.81
1.6
0.66
050
051
034
0.95
0.11
028
12
0.72
15
210
0.025
0.025
0.054
027
0.070
0.63
057
031
330
Concentrations in milligrams per kilogram.
BZA - Benzo(a)anthracene PCE - Tetrachloroethene
BZB - Benzo(b)fluoranthene TCE - Trichloroethene
BZK - Benzo(k)fluoranthene DCE - 1,1-Dichloroethene
BZG - Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Tol - Toluene
BZP - Benzo(a)pyrene Xyl - Xylenes
BEP - Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phtralate EB - Ethyl benzene
TCA - 1,122-Tetrachloroethane
TRPHs - Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
RODTAB4.WK1
-------
Page 1 of2
Table 5. Exposure Point Concentrations, Subsurface Soils, Operable Unit No. 2, Luke AFB, Arizona
Average Reasonable
Constituent Exposure Maximum Exposure
OT-04 BEP 0.12 0.17
Butylbenzylphthalate 0.085 0.085
TRPHs 53 5.9
DP-05 BEP 0.60 0.88
2-Methylnaphthalene 033 0.58
Naphthalene 025 0.46
TRPHs 340 720
EB 0.071 0.12
XYL 25 6.4
FT-06 BZA , 052 0.83
BZB 0.96 1.7
BZK 0.12 0.17
BZP 0.62 1.0
BEP 0.29 055
Buthlbenzylphthalate 0.14 ' 020
Chrysene 0.86 1.4
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.41 0.71
Indeno(123-c,d)pyrene 057 ' 0.%
4-Methylphenol 055 12
Pentachlorophenol 0.66 0.93
Acenaphthene 0.13 0.18
Anthracene 0.12 0.15
BZG 0.72 12
Di-n-butylphthalate 0.12 0.16
Fluoranthene 0.66 1.0
2-Methylnaphthalene 1.6 3.8
Naphthalene 0.43 0.95
Phenanthrene 034 052
Phenol 029 054
Pyrene 0.62 0.97
TRPHs 1,400 3,000
Lead 21 30
TCA 0.041 0.069
PCE 0.025 0.025
TCE 0.42 1.1
2-Butanone 028 033
EB 038 0.84
2-Hexanone 027 031
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 025 025
Tol 023 0.47
Xyl * 25 5.8
FT-07 BEP 0.094 0.11
2-Methylnaphthalene 0.12 0.18
Naphthalene 0.093 0.11
TRPHs 170 450
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 5. Exposure Point Concentrations, Subsurface Soils, Operable Unit.No. 2, Luke AFB, Arizona
ST-18
•
DP-22
DP-23
SD-40
Constituent
BZA
BZB
BEP
Chrysene
Benzyl alcohol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
TRPHs
Benzene
DCE
EB
TCA
PCE
Tol
TCE
Xyl
Acetone
TRPHs
BZB
BZP
Chrysene
Pyrene
TRPHs
TRPHs
Average
Exposure
0.11
0.12
020
0.14
0.15
32
LS
0.11
2200
031
0.16
8.5
0.45
0.45
16
0.16
40
0.41
5.6
0.74
0.50
0.40
0.82
310
16
Reasonable
Maximum Exposure
0.15
0.15
0.40
022
024
8.1
3.8
0.15
5,000
0.86
0.43
25
13
13
47
0.43
120
058
6.8
2.0
13
1.0
22
860
22
Concentrations in milligrams per kilogram.
BZA - Benzo(a)anthracene
BZB - Benzo(b)fluoranthene
BZK - Benzo(k)fluoranthene
BZG - Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
BZP - Benzo(a)pyrene
BEP - Bis(2-ethyihexyl)phtalate
TCA - 1,122-Tetrachloroethane
TRPHs — Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
PCE - Tetrachloroethene
TCE - Trichloroethene
DCE - 1,1-Dichloroethene
Tol - Toluene
Xyl - Xylenes
EB - Ethyl benzene
RODTABS.WKl
-------
TABLE 6
EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR AVERAGE AND REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU-2)
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
Future
Base Worker
AP (carcinogensHdays/lifetime)
AP (non-carcinogens)(days/1ifetime)
BR (m'/hr)
BW (kg)
Cs (mg/kg)
ED (years)
EF (days/year)
ET (hours/day!
IR (mg/day)
SAR (mg/cm2-day)
SSA (cm2)
a USEPA(1991a).
b Average concentration in surficial
c Lesser of maximum concentration
Average
25,550
2,190
2.5*
70'
b
6'
12"
2"
50'
0.2"
3.160"
soils.
RME
25,550
9,125
2.5'
70'
c
25'
24"
4"
50'
1"
3,160"
or 95 percent UCL on the arithmetic
d Average concentration in subsurface soils.
e Lesser of maximum concentration
or 95 percent UCL
on the arithmetic
f Information from Luke AFB (Geraghty & Miller, 1992).
g Professional judgment based on available information.
h USEPA (1992).
i USEPA (1989b).
AP Averaging period.
BR Breathing rate.
BW Body weight.
cm2 Square centimeters.
Cs Soil concentration.
.-
Military Personnel Excavation Worker
Average
25,550
1,095
2.6'
70'
b
3'
250*
8*
50*
0.2h
990*
ED
EF
average. ET
IR
average, kg
mj/hr
mg
mg/day
mg/cm2
SAR
SSA
UCL
RME Average
25,550 25,550
1,825 42
2.5* 2.5*
70* 70*
c d
5' 1«
250' 30"
8* 8'
50' 100"
1' 0.2'
990' 3,160'
Exppsure duration.
Exposure frequency.
Exposure time.
Soil ingestion rate.
Kilograms.
Cubic meters per hour.
Milligrams
Milligrams per day.
RME
25,550
64
2.5'
70'
e
1«
72«
8'
480'
1'
3,160'
-day Milligram per square centimeter-day.
Skin adherence rate.
Skin surface area.
Upper confidence limit.
-------
TABLE?
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU-1)
Luke Air Force Base. Arizona
Page 1 u, 20
Constituent
Acute Toxlctty Summary
Chronic ToxfcHy
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
VOC8
Acetone
Critical Effect*: Skin and
eye irritation, nausea,
vomiting, headache.
Ethylbenzene
Critical Effects: Throat
irritation, chest
constriction, eye
irritation, dizziness,
vertigo.
Critical Effects: EEC
changes, kidney damage,
metabolic changes.
Data Summary: The oral
RfD was based on a rat
study in which a LOAEL
of 500 mg/kg/day was
reported.
Critical Effects: Increases
in kidney to body weight
ratios were seen in rats.
Data Summary: The oral
RfD is based on a NOEL
of 97 mg/kg/day in rats.
The inhalation RfD is
based on a NOEL of 100
ppm in rats.
Class D; inadequate evi-
dence of carcinogenicity.
Class D; inadequate
evidence of
carcinogenicity.
Developmental: No data
available.
Reproductive: No data
available.
Mutagenicity: No data
available.
Developmental:
Increases in the
incidence of fetal
anomalies were seen in
rats, mice, and rabbits.
Reproductive:
available.
No data
Mutagenicity: Negative
results were seen in
various S. typhlrium
assays.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
A21I60)/10t6/2*Junt»
-------
Page 2 u. ,40
TABLE 7
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 tOU-1)
Luke Air Force Base. Arizona
Constituent Acute Toxicity Summary Chronic Toxicity Cancer Potential Other
Summary
Tetrachloroethene Critical Effects: Eye Critical Effects: Class 62; probable Developmental:
irritation, headache, Cirrhosis, hepatitis, fatty human carcinogen. Increases in fetal
dizziness, hypertension. degeneration of the liver. resorptions were seen in
renal dysfunction. rats.
Data Summary: The RfD Reproductive: No effects
is based on a NOAEL of reported.
14 mg/kg/day in mice.
Mutagenicity: Negative
results reported for
human chromosome
aberrations.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
A237B03/101S/2IJun*3
-------
TABLE 7
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU-1)
Luke Air Force Base. Arizona
Page 3 o. *
Constituent
Acute Toxlchy Summary
Chronic Toxlclty
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
Toluene
Critical Effects:
Narcosis. CMS
dysfunction, eye and
skin irritation.
Comments: Toluene is
abused for its narcotic
effects. This usually
occurs with sniffing
toluene-based glue.
Critical Effects:
Decreased blood
leukocytes, renal tubular
acidosis, ataxia, tremors,
impaired speech, hearing,
and vision.
Data Summary: The oral
RID was derived from a
13-week rat gavage
study. ANOAELof223
mg/kg/day was
developed. Changes in
liver and kidney weights
were seen at a LOAEL of
446 mg/kg/day.
The inhalation RfD is
based on human data in
which a LOAEL of 88
ppm caused CNS
toxicity.
Class D; no evidence of
carcinogenicity.
Developmental: CNS
anomalies, growth
retardation.
Reproductive:
evidence.
No
Mutagenicfty: Results
were negative or
inconclusive for various
tests.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
AM7603/IOt«/ltJunM
-------
TABLE 7
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU-11
Luke Air Force Base. Arliona
Page 4 o.
Constituent
Acute Toxteity Summary
Chronic Toxlclty
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
Xylenes
Critical Effects:
Dyspnea, nose, skin, and
throat irritation, nausea,
vomiting, CNS
depression, moderately
toxic.
Critical Effects:
Increased hepatic
weights in rats, renal
toxicity. tremors, labored
breathing.
Data Summary: The oral
RfD was based on a
chronic rat gavage study
in which a NOAEL of
250 mg/kg/day was
reported. At higher
doses, hyperactivity
occurred.
Class D; inadequate
evidence of carcino-
genicity.
Developmental: Fetal
hemorrhages and
decreased fetal weights
in rats.
Reproductive:
evidence exists.
No
Mutagenlcity: Negative
results were seen in
various tests.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
AZJT603/1016/2UuiM
-------
TABLE 7
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU-1)
Luke Air Force Base. Arizona
Page 5 \.. 20
Constituent
Acute Toxkhy Summary
Chronic ToxfcHy
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
BNAs
Anthracene
Critical Effects: No data
available.
Bentolalpyrene
Critical Effects: No data
available.
Comments: Used as a
surrogate for carcino-
genic PAHs.
Critical Effects: Humans
consuming anthracene-
containing laxatives
developed melanosis of
the colon and rectum.
Data Summary: The oral
RfD is based on a
subchronic study in mice
in which a NOEL of
1.000 mg/kg/day was
established.
Critical Effects: Aplastic
anemia.
Data Summary:
available.
No data
Class D; inadequate
evidence of carcino-
genicity.
Class B2; probable
human carcinogen. The
oral cancer slope is
based on mice
developing stomach
tumors. Respiratory
tract tumors resulted in
hamsters upon
inhalation.
Developmental: No data
available.
Reproductive: No data
available.
Mutagenicity: Negative
results were seen in
various prokaryote
assays.
Developmental: No data
available.
Reproductive: Decreased
fertility in both male and
female mice.
Mutagenicity: Tested
positive in both animal
and bacterial assays.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
A2 J76O3/101 !/2tJmM
-------
TABLE 7
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU-1)
Luke Air Force Bate. Arixona
Page 6 ^. 20
Constituent
Acute Toxicity Summary
Chronic Toxicity
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate
Crhfcal Effects: Eye and
skin irritant, poly-
neuropathies.
Critical Effects:
Hepatotoxicity, hepatitis.
Data Summary: The RfD
is based on a LOAEL of
19 mg/kg/day in which
the liver weight of guinea
pigs increased.
Class B2; probable
human carcinogen. In a
103 week study in mice,
liver tumors developed.
Developmental: In mice,
bis|2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate caused a
decrease in fetal body
weight.
Reproductive: It causes
testicular effects in both
rats and mice.
Mutatagenlcity:
Chromosomalaberrations
and sister chromatld
exchange were found in
hamster cells exposed to
bis!2-ethyihexyl)-
phthalate.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
A237603/1016/»Jun«)
-------
TABLE 7
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU-1)
Luke Air Force Base. Ariiona
Page 7 o,
Constituent
Acute Toxicity Summary
Chronic Toxicity
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
Butylbeniylphthalate
Critical Effects: No data
available.
Di-n-butylphthalate
Critical Effects:
available.
No data
Critical Effects:
available.
No data
Data Summary: The oral
RfD is based on a rat
study in which a NOAEL
of 159 mg/kg/day was
determined.
Critical Effects: Increase
in liver enzymes.
Data Summary: The oral
RfD is based on a rat
study in which a NOAEL
of 125 mg/kg/day was
determined.
Class C; probable human
carcinogen.
Class D; Inadequate
evidence of carcino-
genicity.
Developmental: No data
available.
Reproductive:
available.
Mutagenicity:
available.
No data
No data
Developmental:
Increases in the number
of fetal resorptions were
seen in mice.
Reproductive:
Decreases in testicular
weight and sperm
activity have been
reported in mice.
Mutagenicity: Weakly
mutagenic in in vitro
studies.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
-------
TABLE 7
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 IOU-1)
Luke Air Force Bate, Arizona
Page 8 01 20
Constituent
Acute ToxteHy Summary
Chronic Toxlcrty
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
Fluoranthena
Critical Effects: No data
available; mildly toxic.
Critical Effects: No data
available.
Data Summary: The oral
RfD is based on a study
in mice in which a
NOAEL of 125 mg/kg/
day was determined.
Kidney and liver toxicity
resulted in a LOAEL of
250 mg/kg/day.
Comments: There is
limited bioaccumutation
due to rapid metabolism
and excretion.
Class D; inadequate
evidence of carcinogeni-
city.
Developmental: No data
available.
Reproductive: No data
available.
Mutagenlclty: Negative
results were detected in
bacteria tests.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
A23>6Ol/l016/2tJunM
-------
TABLE 7
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU-1)
Luke Air Force Bete. Arizona
Page 9 01 20
Constituent
Acute Toxfctty Summary
Chronic Toxtetty
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
n-Hexane (TRPH)
Phenanthrene
Critical Effects:
Hallucinations after
inhalation, parasthesia,
muscle weakness.
Comments: Used as a
surrogate for total
recoverable petroleum
hydrocarbons (TRPHs).
Critical Effects:
Increased liver enzyme
activity; slightly toxic.
Critical Effects: Motor
neuropathies, anorexia.
Data Summary: The oral
RfD is derived from a rat
study in which NOAEL of
570 mg/kg/day was
reported. A NOAEL of
58 ppm from human
epidemiological studies
was used to derive an
inhalation RfD.
Cancer Effects: Class D;
inadequate evidence of
carcinogenicity.
Critical Effects:
available.
No data
Class D; inadequate
evidence of carcino-
genicity.
Developmental No data
available.
Reproductive: Reproduc-
tive dysfunction in men.
Mutagenicity: No data
available.
Developmental: No data
available.
Reproductive: No data
available.
Mutagenicity: Positive
results in bacteria tests.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
AZ»60J/10l6/2»Ju*l
-------
TABLE?
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU 11
Luke Air Force Base. Arizona
Page 10 01
Constituent
Acute Toxtetty Summary
Chronic Toxlcltv
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
Pyrene
Critical Effects: No data
available; slightly toxic.
Comments: Pyrene is
used as the surrogate for
non-carcinogenic PAHs
without toxicity values.
PCBs
PCBs
Critical Effects:
Chloracne, eye and skin
irritation.
Critical Effects: Fatty
and enlarged liver.
Data Summary:The RfD
is based on a mouse
study in which a NOAEL
of 75 mg/kg/day was
developed.
Critical Effects: Increase
in serum liver-related
enzymes. Increases in
urinary porphyrin.
Data Summary: No data
available.
Class D; inadequate
evidence of carcino-
genicity.
Class B2, probable
human carcinogen. This
is based on dietary
studies in rats with
aroclor 1260.
Developmental: No data
available.
Reproductive: No data
available.
Mutagenlchy: Negative
results were seen in
bacteria tests.
Developmental: Lower
mean birth weights,
lengths and gestational
ages in children born to
women chronically
exposed to PCBs.
Reproductive: Decreases
in liver sizes were seen in
various animal species.
Mutagenicity: Negative
results in S.typhfmurium
and in vivo studies.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
AZ37S03/1016/2IJunM
-------
TABLE 7
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU-1)
Luke Air Fore* Base. Arizona
Page 1 1 o.
Constituent
Acute Toxfctty Summary
Chronic Toxlchy
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
Metals
Antimony
Critical Effects: Lung
inflammation, eye and
skin irritation, vomiting.
Critical Effects: Rhinitis,
bronchitis, emphysema.
Data Summary: The
oral RfO is based on a rat
study in which a NOAEL
of 0.35 mg/kg/day was
developed.
Class D; inadequate evi-
dence of carcinogenicity.
Developmental:
Increases in spontaneous
abortions.
Reproductive: Disturban-
ces in the menstrual
cycle of women
occupationally exposed.
Mutagenlchy:
available.
No data
Footnotes appear on page 20.
-------
TABLE 7
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU 11
Luke Air Force Base. Arliona
Page 12 ot
Constituent
Acute Toxicity Summary
Chronic Toxlcity
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
Arsenic
Critical Effects: Gastro-
intestinal disturbances
(nausea, diarrhea,
abdominal pain), cardiac
arrhythmias, vomitihg,
and vertigo; moderately
toxic.
Comments: When
arsenic is heated or
comes in contact with
acids, it emits highly
toxic fumes. Toxicity
varies depending on the
form.
Critical Effects:
Potyneuro-pathies (both
motor and sensory in the
extremities), anorexia,
hyperpigmenta-tion,
hepatitis, anemia.
Data Summary: The oral
RfO is based on a human
epidemiologies! study in
which a NOAEL of 9
//0/kg/day was
determined.
Comments: Arsenic
accumulates in hair and
nails. This can be a
useful indicator of
chronic toxicity.
Class A; human
carcinogen via inhalation.
This is based on human
epidemiological data
from smelter workers. It
is also a known
carcinogen by the oral
route.
Developmental:
Increases in spontaneous
abortions were seen in
women living near
smelter plants.
Reproductive: No
evidence suggesting
toxicity.
Mutagenlchy: Chromoso-
mal aberrations in
humans and laboratory
animals.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
AZ3760 J/»016/**JunM
-------
TABLE 7
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 IOU-1)
Luke Air Force Base, Ariiona
Page 13 i/. 20
Constituent
Acute Toxlcity Summary
Chronic ToxicHy
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
Beryllium
Critical Effecte:
Chemical pneumonitls,
contact dermatitis.
Critical Effects: Granu-
lomatous lesions in the
lung.
Data Summary: The oral
RfD is based on a rat
study in which a NOAEL
of 0.54 mg/kg/day was
determined.
Class B2; probable
human carcinogen. Oral
studies indicate that
beryllium produces all
types of tumors, but
exposure via inhalation
results in tumors in the
respiratory tract.
Developmental:
Increases in fetal
mortality were reported
in rats.
Reproductive:
evidence.
No
Mutagenlcity: Beryllium
sulfate can induce sister
chromatid exchange and
chromosomal
aberrations.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
A2J7603/l016/29Jun*3
-------
TABLE 7
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 IOU-1)
Luke Air Force Base. Arizona
Page 14 o.
Constituent
Acute Toxlclty Summary
Chronic Toxlclty
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
Cadmium
Critical Effects:
Gastrointestinal distress,
lung irritation;
moderately toxic.
Comments: Toxicity
depends on the chemical
and physical form.
Soluble forms (cadmium
chloride, cadmium oxide)
tend to be more toxic
than insoluble forms
(cadmium sulfide).
Critical Effects: Lung,
kidney, liver, bone.
testes, immune system,
cardiovascular system.
Data Summary:
Cadmium has two oral
RfDs. Studies involving
humans resulted in
proteinuria. The water
RfO is a result of a
NOAEL of 0.005
mg/kg/day. The food
NOAEL of 0.01
me/kg/day is a result of
toxicokinetic modelling
using 2.5 percent
absorption from food.
Comments: The lung
and kidney are most
likely affected from
inhalation exposure.
Long-term exposure to
concentrations below
0.02 mg/m1 is not likely
to affect the lung or
kidney.
Class B1; probable
carcinogen, inhalation
exposure only. Limited
evidence of lung cancer
observed in smelter
workers. Lung tumors
and mammary tumors
have been reported .in
laboratory studies.
Developmental: Not
shown to cause
developmental effects in
humans. Some evidence
from animal studies but
most oral and inhalation
studies have not shown
developmental or
fetotoxic effects.
Reproductive: None
reported in humans.
Some decreased
reproductive success
reported in a few animal
studies. :
Mutatagenlcity:
Conflicting results from
human data. Studies in
bacteria and yeast are
inconclusive. Positive
responses in mutation
assays with hamster
cells and mouse
lymphoma cells.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
AZ37M3/IOie/ZMunt*
-------
TABLE 7
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 fOU-1)
Luke Air Force Bate, Aritona
Page 15 01 /O
Constituent
Acute ToxfcHy Summary
Chronic Toxicity
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
Chromium
Copper
Critical Effects:
Dermatitis, respiratory
irritation, renal tubular
necrosis.
Comments: Toxicity
depends on valence
form, with Chromium VI
exerting more toxicity.
Critical Effects: Metal
fume fever, gastritis,
discoloration of skin and
hair.
Critical Effects:
Ulceration of the nasal
cavity, eczema.
Data Summary: The RfD
was based on a 1-year
study in rats. This was
based on a NOAEL of
2.4 mg/kg/day.
Critical Effects: Anemia.
Data Summary: There is
no RfD available.
Class A; human
carcinogen for inhalation
exposure. The cancer
slope factor is a result of
human epidemic-logical
data showing an increase
in lung cancer.
Class D; inadequate
evidence of carcino-
genicfty.
Developmental: None
observed.
Reproductive: None
observed.
Mutagenlclty: Positive
results in human red
blood cells, Chinese
hamster cells, and
bacteria tests for
Chromium VI.
Developmental:
Increases in fetal
mortality were seen In
both mice and minks.
Reproductive: In a rat
study, increases in rat
weights were seen.
Sexual impotence was
seen in factory workers.
Mutagenlclty: No
evidence was found in
humans or animals.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
AM7B03/l016/2tJun*3
-------
TABLE 7
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU-11
Luke Air Force Base. Arizona
Page 16
Constituent
Acute Toxictty Summary
Chronic Toxtctty
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
Cyanide
Critical Effects:
Parasthesis. abdominal
pain, tachycardia,
cyanosis; highly toxic.
Comments: Toxicity
depends on the form of
cyanide, whether it be
with hydrogen.
potassium, or sodium.
Critical Effects: Optic
atrophy, pernicious
anemia.
Data Summary: The RfO
was based on a NOAEL
of 10.8 mg/kg/day in
rats.
Class D; inadequate
evidence of
carcinogenicity.
Developmental:
Decreases in fetal
growth and body weight
were detected in rats.
Reproductive:
available.
No data
Mutagenichy: Negative
results were seen in
vitro.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
-------
TABLE 7
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU-11
Luke Air Force Base. Arizona
Page 17 <>• /O
Constituent
Acute Toxicity Summary
Chronic Toxicity
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
Lead
Critical Effects:
Reversible kidney
damage.
Comments: Toxicity is
dependent on its accu-
mulation in the blood.
Critical Effects: Brain
encephalopathy,
peripheral neuropathies,
kidney damage, learning
disabilities, anemia.
Data Summary: There is
no RfD for lead. A blood
lead model is used to
determine toxicity.
Comments: Children
have a greater risk of
toxicity due to greater
absorption and less
developed blood brain
barrier.
Class 82; probable
carcinogen. No slope
factor exists.
Developmental: A
relationship in the
decreased gestation
period and fetal weights
to maternal blood lead
levels was seen.
Reproductive: increases
in spontaneous abortions
were detected in women
living near smeltering
plants. In men,
decreases in sperm count
were detected.
MutagenicHy: Positive
results In sister
chromatid exchange and
chromosomal aberra-
tions.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
-------
TABLE 7
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU-11
Luke Air Force Base. Arliona
Page 18o. 20
Constituent
Acute Toxlchy Summary
Chronic ToxteKy
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
Nickel
Critical Effects: Nausea,
vomiting, diarrhea.
allergic contact
dermatitis, asthma,
conjunctivitis.
Critical
Dermatitis.
Effects:
Data Summary: The oral
RfD is based on a
chronic rat feeding study
in which a NOAEL of 5
mg/kg/day was
determined.
Class A; human
carcinogen by inhalation.
It results in respiratory
tract carcinomas.
Developmental: Mice
exposed to nickel in their
drinking water had an
increase in spontaneous
abortions.
Reproductive: Testicular
degeneration was noted
in mice upon inhalation
of nickel.
Mutagenlcity: Positive
results were seen in
human lymphocytes for
chromosomal aberrations
and sister chromatid
exchange.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
AM>60J/101t/2IJl(lta
-------
TABLE?
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 tOU-11
Luke Air Fore* Bate. Arizona
Page 19 o. .10
Constituent
Acute Toxictty Summary
Chronic Toxlchy
Summary
Cancer Potential
Other
Silver
Critical Effects:
Respiratory irritation,
abdominal pain.
Critical Effects:
Hypertension, argyria.
Data Summary: TheRfD
is based on an
epidemiologies! study in
humans. In a 1 to 3-year
therapeutic study, a
LOAEL of 0.0052
mg/kg/day was
established.
Class D;
evidence
oenicity.
inadequate
of carcino-
Developmental: No data
available.
Reproductive: No data
available.
Mutagenlcity :Chromoso
mal aberrations were
seen in plants.
Zinc
Critical
Dyspnea,
vomiting.
Effects: Critical Effects: Copper
cough, deficiency in blood.
Data Summary:The RfD
was based on human
epidemiological data
involving therapeutic
doses causing anemia.
Comments: Zinc is an
essential element in our
daily diet.
Class D; inadequate
evidence of carcino-
genicity.
Developmental: Reduced
fetal weights and copper
deficiency in rats.
Reproductive: Decreased
level of maternal copper
and iron.
Mutagenichy: Chromo-
somal aberrations in rats
exposed to 650 mg/kg/
day in their diet.
Footnotes appear on page 20.
A2*?M}/101B/2*JunM
-------
TABLE E-1
TOXICITY SUMMARIES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU-1)
Luke Air Force Bate. Arliona
Page 20 o. .0
References: ATSOR documents; GAP, 1991; IRIS, 1993; NTP, 1989; Sax and Lewis, 1989; USEPA, 1993.
Limited information was available on the PAHs. Benzo(a)pyrene and pyrene were used as surrogates for PAHs lacking individual toxicity
information. This includes benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chrysene, dibenzo(a.h)
anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-c,d|pyrene.
CNS Central nervous system.
EEC Electroencephalogram.
LOAEL Lowest observed adverse effect level.
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram.
mg/kg/day Milligrams per kilogram per day.
NOAEL No observed adverse effect level.
NOEL No observed effect level.
PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
ppm Parts per million
RfD Reference dose.
-------
TABLE 8.
CURRENT AND HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE RISK FOR EXPOSURE TO SOIL AT
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU-2)
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
Paye 1 of 2
Base Worker
ELCR
ESC
OT-04
Current
Future
DP-05
Current
Future
FT-06
Current
Future
FT-07
Current
Future
ST-18 (a]
Current
Future
DP-22
Current
Future
DP-23
Current
Future
SD-40 (a)
Current
Future
Average
1E-11
*
NA
*
3E-07
*
3E-09
*
NAP
2E-08
NC
*
4E-08
•
NAP
NC
RME
7E-10
•
NA
*
6E-06
*
4E-08
*
NAP
2E-07
NC
*
6E-07
*
NAP
NC
HI
Average
0.00005
•
0.00004
*
0.0001
*
0.00002
*
NAP
0.00005
0.0002
*
0.0001
*
NAP
0.0001
RME
0.0006
*
0.0003
*
0.001
*
0.0002
II
NAP
0.0006
0.004
*
0.001
*
NAP
0.002
Military Personnel
ELCR
Average
NAP
*
NAP
»
3E-06
*
NAP
*
NAP
*
NAP
•
NAP
•
NAP
NC
RME
NAP
*
NAP
•
IE-OS
*
NAP
*
NAP
*
NAP
*
NAP
ft
NAP
NC
HI
Average
NAP
*
NAP
ft
0.002
*
NAP
*
NAP
*
NAP
*
NAP
•
.NAP
0.002
RME
NAP
*
NAP
*
0.006
*
NAP
*
NAP
*
NAP
*
NAP
*
NAP
0.008
Excavation Worker
ELCR
Average
NAP
5E-12
NAP
2E-11
NAP
5E-08
NAP
4E-12
NAP
4E-07
NAP
NC .
NAP
2E-08
NAP
NC
RME
NAP
8E-11
NAP
4E-10
NAP
1E-06
NAP
5E-11
NAP
3E-06
NAP
NC
NAP
6E-07
NAP
NC
HI
Average
NAP
0.00002
NAP
0.001
NAP
0.005
NAP
0.0005
NAP
0.02
NAP
0.00002
NAP
0.0009
NAP
0.00004
RME
NAP
0.0002
NAP
0.01
NAP
0.05
NAP
0.007
NAP
0.1
NAP
0.0001
NAP
0.01
NAP
0.0004
Footnotes appear on page 2.
Doc. 1015VT15-1.XLS Rev. 04-Sepl -92 HC
-------
TABLES.
CURRENT AND HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE RISK FOR EXPOSURE TO SOIL AT
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU-2)
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
v - of 2
(a] Soils at this PSC are paved.
COC Constituent of concern.
ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk.
HI Hazard index.
NA Toxicily value not available.
NAP Not an applicable receptor.
NC No carcinogenic COCs were identified.
PSC Potential Source of Contamination.
RME Reasonable maximum exposure.
* Future risk the same as current risk.
Doc. 1015VT15-1 XLS Rev. 04-Sept -92 HC
-------
Table 9. Predicted Blood Lead Levels for Exposure to Soils at PSCs, OU-2 RI,
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
PSC
DP-05
Current Base Worker
FT-06
Current Base Worker
Military Personnel
Hypothetical Future Worker
Predicted Blood Levels
Average Exposure RME
(ug/dD (ug/dL)
0.028
0.039
0.039
0.16
0.075
0.10
0.10
0.98
ug/dL — Micrograms per deciliter.
PSC - Potential source of contamination.
RME - Reasonable maximum exposure.
PREBLOOD.WKl
-------
Table 10.
Sununaiy of Transport Parameters and Results of Vadose Zone Solute Transport Simulations, OU-2 RI/FS, Luke AFB, Arizona
Compound
Benzene
Elhylbenzene
Toluene
Xytene
I.l-Dichtoro-
elhene
Benzo(k)fluor-
tnthene
Maximum
Depth of
Contamination
(feel)
60
60
60
60
20
4
Compound
Half-Life
-------
Table 11.
Chemical Parameters for COCs, OU-2 RI, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
Compound
CAS
Registry
Number
logK..
logK.
Retardation
Factor1
Retardation
Factor
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOQ
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
1 , 1-Dichloroetbene
Ethyl-Benzene
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Tff4*k1**wiAtlMMA
i ncuioroemene
Xylenes
67-64-1
71-43-2
78-93-3
75-35-4
100-41-4
591-78-6
108-10-1
79-34-5
108-88-3
79-01-6
1330-20-7
-0.24
1.95-2.15
0.26 - 0.29
1.48-2.13
3.05-3.15
1.38
1.09
2.39 - 2.56
2.11-2.80
2.29 - 3.30
2.77 - 3.20
-0.43
1.69 - 2.00
0.09
1.81
1.98 - 2.41
2.13
0.79
1.66 - 2.07
2.06-2.18
1.81-2.10
2.11-3.20
1.002
1.20 - 1.42
1.005
1.27
1.40 - 2.07
1.56
1.03
1.19 - 1.49
1.48 - 1.63
1.27 - 1.53
1.53 - 7.62
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluorantbene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-«thylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzoftiran
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
83-32-9
120-12-7
56-55-3
205-99-2
207-08-9
191-24-2
50-32-8
100-51-6
117-81-7
85-68-7
218-01-9
53-70-3
132-64-9
84-74-2
206-44-0
3.92 - 4.33
4.34 - 4.54
5.9
6.57
6.85
NA
5.81 - 6.50
1.10
4.20-5.11
4.05 - 4.92
5.60 - 5.91
5.97 - 6.50
4.12-4.31
4.31 -4.79
5.22
1.25
4.21 - 4.41
6.14
5.74
6.64
NA
5.60 - 6.29
1.98
5.0
1.83 - 2.54
5.39
6.22
3.91-4.10
3.14
4.62
1.07
68.7 - 108.4
5,766
2,296
18,233
NA
1,664-
8,145
1.40
419
1.28 - 2.45
1,026
6,932
34.9 - 53.6
6.77
175
1.0002
1.02 - 1.042
1.0005
1.027
1.040- 1.11
1.056
1.003
1.019 - 1.049
1.048 - 1.063
1.027 - 1.05?
1.053 - 1.662
1.007
7.77 - 11.74
578
231
1,824
NA
167 - 815
1.04
42.8
1.028 - 1.15
103
694
4.39 - 6.26
1.58
18.4
-------
Table 11. Chemical Parameters for COCs, OU-2 RI, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona (con't).
Compound
Fluorene
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d) pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
CAS
Registry
Number
86-73-7
193-39-5
91-57-6
106-44-5
91-20-3
87-86-5
85-01-8
108-95-2
129-00-0
logK..
4.12-4.38
5.97 - 7.70
3.86-4.11
1.93- 1.99
3.01 - 4.70
3.69 - 5.86
4.16-4.57
1.46- 1.48
4.88 - 5.32
logK.
3.70
7.49
3.87 - 3.93
1.34
2.74 - 3.50
2.95 - 2.96
3.72-4.59 .
1.24-1.43
4.66-5.13
Retardation
Factor1
21.9
129,071
32.0 - 36.5
1.09
3.30 - 14.2
4.72 - 4.81
22.9 - 163.5
1.07 - 1.11
192-564
Retardation
Factor
3.09
12,908
4.10-4.55
1.009
1.23 - 2.32
1.37 - 1.38
3.19- 17.25
1.007- 1.011
20.1-57.3
1 Fraction .Organic Carbon (foe) = 0.1%
1 Fraction Organic Carbon (foe) = 0.01%
NA - Data are Not Available
TABLEH.LUK
-------
Table 12. Enviromental Degradation Rates for COCs, OU-2 RI, Luke Air Force Base,
Arizona.
Compound
CAS
Registry
Number
Aerobic Half-Life in
Soil
(days)
Low
High
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
1 , 1 -Dichloroetbene
Ethyl-Benzene
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
1 , 1 ,2,2-TetrachloToethane
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Xylenes
67-64-1
71-43-2
78-93-3
75-35-4
100-41-4
591-78-6
108-10-1
79-34-5
108-88-3
79-01-6
1330-20-
7
1
5
1
28
3
1
NA
0.45
4
180
7
7
16
7
180
10
7 .
NA
45
22
365
28
Half-Life in Ground
Water (days)
Aerobic
Anaerobic
2.
10
2
56
7
2
NA
10.7
7
326
14
14
730
14
132
28
14
NA
45 „"
28
1643
365
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Bcnzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
83-32-9
120-12-7
56-55-3
205-99-2
207-08-9
191-24-2
50-32-8
100-51-6
117-81-7
85-68-7
218-01-9
53-70-3
132-64-9
12.3
50
102
360
909
590
57
NA
5
1
372
361
7
102
460
679
610
2139
650
1.45
NA
23
7
993
942
28
24.6
100
204
719
1821
1168
114
NA
10
2
745
723
8.5
204
920
1361
1219
4271
1314
1059
NA
389
180
2000
1880
35
-------
Table 12. Enviromental Degradation Rates for COCs, OU-2 RI, Luke Air Force Base,
Arizona (con't).
Compound
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d) pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene :
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
CAS
Registry
Number
84-74-2
206-44-0
86-73-7
193-39-5
91-57-6
106-44-5
91-20-3
87-86-5
85-01-8
108-95-2
129-00-0
Aerobic Half-Life in
Soil
(days)
Low
2
140
32
599
NA
NA
16.6
23
16
1
210
High
23
440
60
730
NA
NA
48
178
200
10
1898
Half-Life in Ground
Water (days)
Aerobic
2
280
64
1201
NA
NA
1
46
32
0.5
420
Anaerobic
23
880
120
1460
NA
NA
258
1533
402 •
7
3796
NA - Data are Not Available
-------
Table 13. Development of Remedial Measures for Soil, Operable Unit No.2, Luke Air
Force Base, Arizona.
Remedial Measure1
Screened Technology Si
None X
Access Restrictions
Monitoring •
Capping
Surface Controls
Excavation
On-site Disposal
Off-site Disposal
Stabilization
Biological Treatment
Thermal Treatment
In-situ Stabilization
In-situ Extraction
In-situ Biological Treatment
S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 Sll S12
.
X - - - -
XX XXX XXX X X X
XX
XX
X X X X X - X
X - X X - - -
X - X X
XX
X
X
x v
X X
X
1. X = Technology used as part of remedial measure.
- = Technology not used as put of remedial measure.
KODI3.TBL
-------
Table 14A.
List of Constituents of Concern in Soil and Their PRGs.
Constituents of Concern s
Acetone
Acenaphtbene
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benzo(a)anthiacene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyiene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzyl Alcohol
Beryllium
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Chrysene
Copper
Dibenzo(a,h)anthiacene
Dibenzofuran
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Di-N-Butylphthalate
ERGs
(ing/kg)
200,000
120,000
610,000
NA
NA
NA
7.8
1.2
0.78
7.8
7.8
61,000
610,000
NA
410
410,000
NA
NA
780
76,000
0.78*
61,000
0.02
200,000
(AZ03 70.004)
(11-8-93)
-------
Table 14A.
List of Constituents of Concern in Soil and Their FRGs.
Constituents of Concern
Dioxins (OCDD)
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranethene
Fluorene
Furans
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Lead
4-Methylphenol
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Mercury
Methyl Butyl Ketone (2-Hexanone)
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone)
Methyl Isobutyl ketone
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Nickel
Pentachloiophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Selenium
Sflver
1 , 1 ,2 ,2-Tetrachloroetharie
Tetiachloroethene (PCE)
••.•'•"•/: /-:?RGs-.:- ''"'•'•
(mg/kg)
0.038
4,800
82,000
82,000
NA
7.8
NA
NA
1900
NA
NA
1900
NA
NA
82,000
61,000 ,
NA
48
61,000
NA
61,000
NA
NA
0.69
39
(AZQ370.004)
(11-8-93)
-------
Table 14A.
List of Constituents of Concern in Soil and Their PRGs.
• • ' ' ; :' • '• ' • . • '•'•'. . -,-•:. ' • '• "•'•.:.'.•.,'•..''
.,'..•' • • " ' • •' ' :• •• ' .:...•
Constituents of Concern
Thallium
Toluene
TRPH
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Xylene (total)
Zinc
• ERGs '•••':.
(rag/kg)
NA
2,200
120,000
5.5
MR
NA
NA = Not applicable.
NR = Not reported.
PRGs = Preliminary remediation goals identified by the risk assessment.
COCs = Constituents of concern identified by the risk assessment.
TRPH =. Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons.
(AZ0370.004)
(11-8-93)
-------
Table 14b. Location-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
and Other Criteria to be Considered, OU-2
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
Location
Within area where action
may cause irreparable harm,
loss, or destruction of
significant artifacts
Hazardous waste site
Critical habitat upon which
endangered species or
threatened species depend
RequnemenUs)
Action to recover and
preserve artifacts.
Actions to limit worker
exposure to hazardous wastes
or hazardous substances,
including training and
monitoring.
Action to conserve
endangeredspecies or
threatened species, including
consultation with the
Department of the Interior
: Prerequisite^) :
Alteration of terrain that
threatens significant
scientific, prehistoric,
historic, or archaelogical
data.
Construction, operations
and maintenance, or other
activities with potential
worker exposure.
Determination of
endangered species or
threatened species.
••'•;.: S::Cftatidn '•-:':•:
National Archaelogical
and Historial
Preservation Act (16
USC Section 469); 36
CFR Part 65
29 CFR 1910.120
Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 USC 1531
et seq.); SO CFR Part
200. SO CFR Part 402
(Federal)
:.'. Comments;. : : .: :;
Artifacts have been
found in areas near
PSC-DP-23 but not in
PSC-DP-23
-
No endangered species
are known to exist on
the site. However, two
candidate species that
may be considered for
future listings as
endangered species, the
Yavapai Pocket Mouse
and Mexican Garter
Snake, may exist in the
vicinity of the Base.
:-;:A--;'
S-3, S-8,
S-12
S-3, S-8,
S-12
S-3, S-8,
S-12
RAR"
TBC°
Applicable Requirements for Alternatives S-3, S-8, or S-12 as noted.
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements for Alternatives S-3, S-8, or S-12 as noted.
Criteria To Be Considered for Alternatives S-3, S-8, or S-12.
(AZ01700M)
(II-8-9J)
-------
Table 14C. Action-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
and Other Criteria to be Considered, OU-2
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
Page 1 of 7
Lotitfon
Soil Venting and
Aeration
RequlmoentM
Hydrogen Sulfide
Discharge Standards
Odor Regulations
Leading to Nuisance
Air Pollution Emission
Standards
Air Pollution Emission
for Paniculate Matter
Air Pollution Emission
Standards
Air Pollution Emission
Standards for Volatile
Organic* and Gaseous '
Contaminants; air permit
if hydrocarbon emissions
exceed 3 IbsAlay;
aeration of soil if less
than 100 cubic yards
Registration of
Temporary Treatment
Facility
Prtr«qubttt(»)
Point Source Discharge
None
Point Source Discharge
Point Source Discharge
Nonpoint Source
Point Source
Temporary Soil Treatment
Facility
-.;'•;' Cltitton :
40 CFR Part 61
(Federal)
CAA Section 101
(Federal)
CAA Section 109
(Federal)
40 CFR Part 50.6
(Federal) .
A.A.C. Rl 8-2-401
(State)
Maricopa County Air
Pollution Control Reg.
ill, Rules: 200, 210,
220, 300, 310, 320,
and 330
Arizona Department
of Environmental
Quality of Waste
Management
Guidelines (1990)
Comments
- :,',: A* .:. .":•"'
S-8, S-12
S-8, S-12
S-8, S-12
S-8, S-12
S-8, S-12
S-8, S-12
RAR»
TCB'
S-8, S-
12
(AZ0370.004)
-------
Table 14C. Action-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
and Other Criteria to be Considered, OU-2
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
Page 2 of 7
Location
Container Storage
(On-Sitt)
.-•^ll^Bteaiwtw-; :-J
Containen of hazardous
waste must be:
• Maintained to good
condition
• Compatible wish
hazardous waste to be
stored
• Closed during storage
(except to add or
remove waste)
Inspect container storage
areas weekly for
deterioration.
. Prertqahltt(i)
RCRA hazardous waste (listed
or characteristic) held Tor a
temporary period before
treatment, disposal, or storage
elsewhere (40 CFR 264.10) in a
container (i.e., any portable
device in which a material is
stored, transported, disposed of,
or handled).
ClMlton
40 CFR 264.171
40 CFR 264.172
40 CFR 264.173
40 CFR 264. 174
Comments •:
These requirements
are applicable or
relevant and
appropriate for any
contaminated soil
or treatment system
waste that might be
containerized and
stored on site prior
to treatment or final
disposal. Soil
containing a listed
waste must be
managed as if it
were a hazardous
waste so long as it
contains the listed
waste.
•". , A' - '•
RAR,
S-8
S-8
TCB-
(Mono OOM
(II •*•»))
-------
Table 14C. Action-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
and Other Criteria to be Considered, OU-2
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
Page 3 of 7
Location ;•'
:--\v^''R«JBir«iM«l(»):::!|;.
Place contalncis on
sloped, cntck-fitc base,
and protect from contact
with accumulated liquid.
Provide containment
system with a capacity
of 20 percent of the
volume of containers of
free liquids.
Remove spilled or
leaked waste in a timely
manner to prevent
overflow of the
containment system.
Keep containers of
ignitable or reactive
waste at least SO feet
from the facility's
property line.
Keep incompatible
materials separate.
Separate incompatible
materials stored near
each other by a dike or
other barrier.
At closure, remove all
hazardous waste and
residues from the
containment system, and
decontainment system,
and decontaminate or
remove all containers,
liners.
PrtrtqulslttO)
Citation
40 CFR 264.175
40 CFR 264.176
40 CFR 264. 177
40 CFR 268.50
.
: Comments
- ;' .A' ;.;;•
t
RAR»
S-8
S-8
S-8
S-8
TCBV
(AZD310.004)
(II-I-9J)
-------
Table 14C. Action-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
and Other Criteria to be Considered, OU-2
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
Page 4 of 7
Location
Surface Water •
Control
Storm Water
Permitting
On-Slte Construction
and Remediation
Requlremcntd)
Storage of banned
wastes must be in
accordance with 40 CFR
268. When such storage
occurs beyond one year,
the owner/operator bears
the burden of proving
that such storage is
solely for the purpose of
accumulating sufficient
quantities to allow for
proper recovery,
treatment, and disposal.
Prevent run-on and
control and collect run-
off from a 24-hour 25-
year storm (and
treatment facility).
Operations as defined in
the regulations that
discharge storm water
from its facility must
perform sampling,
submit a permit
application, and comply
with all permit
requirements, water
quality standards, and
effluent limitations set
by Best Achievable
Technology (DAT).
Controlling emissions
from nonpoint sources
Prerequisite^)
RCRA hazardous waste treated,
stored, or disposed after the
effective date of the
requirements.
Discharge of storm water from
industrial facilities and large
construction sites (greater than
five acres in area).
Emissions from nonpoint
sources
Citation
40 CFR 264.273 (c)
(d)
40 CFR 122
AAC RI8-2-40I, 402,
404, 405, 406, 407,
and 410
Comments
-A" ;.:
.
S-3, S-8,
S-12
RARk
S-8
S-8
S-8
TCB-
(AZ0170004)
(I I -8-93)
-------
Table 14C. Action-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
and Other Criteria to be Considered, OU-2
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
Page 5 of 7
Location
Closure with Wulc
in Place
Cipplng
ReqalrtMe»r(s)
Controlling emissions
from mobile sources
30-year post-closure cue
and groundwater
monitoring
Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage and
Disposal Requirements
Prertquljitt(s) :
Emissions from mobile sources
Applicable to land disposal of
hazardous waste. Applicable
RCRA hazardous waste (listed
or characteristic) place at site
after the effective date of the
requirements, or placed into
another unit. Not applicable to
material treated, stored, or
disposed only before the
effective date of the
requirements, or if treated in-
situ or consolidated within area
of contamination.
Hazardous Waste
C«fitton
AAC Rl 8-2-501
through 605
40 CFR 264.310
40 CFR 26 1-268
Comments:
PSC ST-18 is
subject to post-
closure monitoring
:. • A",.
S-3, S-8,
S-12
S-3
S-3
RARt
TCB-
(AZO)TO(XM)
(ll-i-9))
-------
Table 14C. Action-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
and Other Criteria to be Considered, OU-2
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
Page 6 of 7
Location
Treatment
RtqnlmntRtfi)
Design and operating
standards for alt
hazardous waste
treatment units including
miscellaneous units
(long term retrievable
storage, thermal
treatment other than
incineration, open
burning, open
detonation, chemical.
physical and biological
treatment units using
other than tanks, surface
impoundments or land
treatment units) require
new miscellaneous units
to satisfy environmental
performance standards
by protection of
groundwatcr, surface
water, and air quality,
and by limiting surface
and subsurface
migration.
PrtreqnbMtW
Treatment of hazardous wastes
in units and regulated elsewhere
under RCRA (e.g., air
strippers).
Clttflort
40 CFR 264 (Subpart.
X), 40 CFR 264.273,
40 CFR 264.343-345,
40 CFR 265 (Subpart.
P)
*
Comments
The substantive
portions of these
requirements will
be relevant and
appropriate to the
construction,
operation,
maintenance, and
closure of any
miscellaneous
treatment unit (a
treatment unit that
is not elsewhere
regulated)
constructed on the
OU-2 site for
treatment for/or
disposal of
hazardous site
wastes.
• : '.A.:-'' *>:'•:."•
RAR,,
S-8, S-12
TCBV
(AZ0170004)
(11-8.91)
-------
Table 14C. Action-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
and Other Criteria to be Considered, OU-2
Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
Page 7 of 7
Location
Requirement!*)
Regulations for land-
based corrective actions
of RCRA facilities.
•••
Treatment of wastes
subject to ban on land
disposal must attain
levels achievable by best
demonstrated available
treatment technologies
(BOAT) for each
hazardous constituent in
each listed waste.
Prerequisite^)
Land-based remedial action.
Treatment of LOR waste
Citation
40 CFR Subpait S
(Revised)
40 CFR 263 (Subpait.
D), 40 CFR 266.10,
263.11,268.12
Comments
The substantive
portions of these
requirements are
relevant and
appropriate to the
treatment prior to
disposal of any
OU-2 site wastes in
concentrations that
make the site
wastes sufficiently
similar to the
regulated wastes.
The requirement
specify levels of
treatment that must
be attained prior to
land disposal.
The substantive
portions of these
requirements are to
be considered in the
disposal of any
OU-2 site wastes
that can be desired
as restricted
hazardous wastes.
.'• .'**•' :
RAR,
S-8. S-12
S-8, S-12
TCB'
a Applicable Requirements for Alternatives S-3, S-8, or S-12 as noted.
b Relevant and Appropriate Requirements for Alternatives S-3, S-8, or S-12 as noted.
c Criteria To Be Considered for Alternatives S-3, S-8, S-12.
(AZOJ70004)
(11-1-93)
-------
Table 15. Soil Samples with Values Greater than PRGs, PSC DP-23, OU-2
Luke AFB, Arizona
BZP Concentration
(mg/kg)
SB-4
0-2'
0-2'
(duplicate)
2-4'
2.8
3.3
3.0
SB-5
0-2'
1.4
PRO* Preliminuy JUmtdUnon Ootli
BZP Bcnzo
-------
Table 16. Summary of Implementation Costs for Detailed Analysis of Remedial Measures
for PSC DP-23, Operable Unit No. 2, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
Remedial Measure
S-l
S-3
S-8
S-12
Capital Costs
$0
$87,000
$420,000
$77,000
Yearly Operations
and Maintenance
Cost
$0
$7,300
$16,000
$74,000
Net Present Cost
$0
$200,000
$450,000
$460,000
TBI6ROD.WK1
------- |