PB94-964509
EPA/ROD/R09-94/113
July 1994
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Norton Air Force Base,
San Bernardino, CA
-------
, .
NORTON AIR FORCE BASE
CENTRAL BASE AREA OPERABLE UNIT
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
RECORD OF DECISION
u.s. Air Force Headquarters
Air Force Base Conv,ersion
Agency
Norton Air Force Base
California 92409
24 NOVEMBER 1993
-------
, .
.."'...,',!.~-r::-:
--------. - .-- --"_..'~'. . -
-~ : ~ -.. .....:
. .
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
. 'I- ~.
-.._~. - ._..0_- .-.
. -"'''',T"''
. -' -;'"'" . :,~'.'" ~.: : ~.
. ..
- .. --- ----,
- -. - - .-----
'.
~..'
.-". .
- -. .-- -- - -.. . - -
. h .
. . -
.:.; ..,
. ..-:'
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTIO,N
DECLARATION
~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
'.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-'
1 . 1 LOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-'
1.2 POPULATION ............................................. ,-,
1.3 LAND USE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-'
, .4 CLI MATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ,-,
1.5 GEOLOGY """"""""""""""""""""""'" 1.'
1.6 SOIL.. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. 1-'
1.7 SURFACE WATER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " '-3
1.8 HYDROGEOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 1-3
1.9 PRODUCTION WELLS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.3
, .10 THREAT OF SITE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.3
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.'
3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3., .
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE OPERABLE UNIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-'
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 5-1
5.1 SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.1
5.2 CONTAMINATION AND AFFECTED MEDIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. 5-1
5.2.' GROUNDWATER....................................... 5.1
5.2.2 SOIL.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.5
6.0 SUMMARY OF RISK ASSESSMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 6.1
6.1 HEALTH RISKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 6-1
6.2 ECOLOGICAL RISKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6-4
6.3 CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6-4
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 7.1 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR GROUNDWATER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR SOILS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.1 DEEP SUBSURFACE SOILS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.2 SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOILS (TCE ONLY) .................
7.2.3 SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOILS (TCE AND CHROMIUM) . . . . . . .. .
7-1
7-'
7-10
7-10
7-19
7.23
8.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 8-1
8.1 GROUNDWATER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 8-1
8.2 SOIL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 8-3
8.2.1 DEEP SUBSURFACE SOIL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 8-3
8.2.2 SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOILS (TCE ONLY) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 8-5
8.2.3 SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOIL (TCE AND CHROMIUM) . . . . . . . . . " 8-7
CBAouROD.FM
ii
12/9/93
-------
SECTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
~
9.0 SELECTED REMEDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.1 GROUNDWATER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2 SOIL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.1 DEEP SUBSURFACE SOil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.2 SHAllOW SUBSURFACE SOilS (TCE ONLY) ..................
9.2.3 SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOIL (TCE AND CHROMIUM) . . . . . . . . . . .
9-1
9-2
9-4
9-4
9-5
9-8
10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 10-1
10.1 GROUNDWATER......................................... 10-1
10.2 SOilS................................................. 10-2
10.2.1 DEEP SUBSURFACE SOILS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10-2
10.2.2 SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOilS (TCE ONLY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10-3
10.2.3 SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOIL (TCE AND CHROMIUM) ......... 10-6
11.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES... .,. . ...... ..., ..........11-1
Section 1
1-1
1-2
1-3
Section 5
5-1
5-2
5-3
Section 7
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4.
FIGURES
PAGE
Regional Map Showing location of Nonon AFB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Hydrogeology of the Bunker Hill Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
Production Wells On and Near Norton AFB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
Approximate Extent of TCE in Groundwater, CBA Operable Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
CBA TCE Plume and Line of Section Along Plume Axis (July 1992 Data)
CBA Operable Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
Cross Section Along Axis of TCE Plume From MW90 Source Area to
Known Offbase Limit (July 1992) .................................. 5-4
Groundwater Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2
Deep Subsurface Soils Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11
Shallow Subsurface Soils (TCE Only) Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . 7-21
Shallow Subsurface Soils (TCE and Chromium) Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-24
,.
CBAouROD.FM
iii
11/17/93
--. - .. _. .-
-
-------
SECTION
~"
Section 6
6-1
6-2
Section 7
7-1
7-2
Section 9
9-1
9-2
9-3
9-4
9-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
fAGE
TABLES
Chemicals of Concern in Groundwater and Soils, Maximum Concentrations,
and Frequency of Detection Based on Data Used in the CBA au Baseline Risk
Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
Summary of Carcinogenic and Noncarcinogenic Risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3
Comparative Analysis of Compliance with ARARs, Groundwater Treatment
Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3
Comparative Analysis of Compliance with ARARs, Soil Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . 7-12
CSA OU Cleanup Standards. . . . . . . . ." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1
Cost Summary for Groundwater Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3
Cost Summary for Deep Subsurface Soil Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6
Cost Summary for Shallow Subsurface Soils (TCE Only) Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . 9-7
Cost Summary for Shallow Subsurface Soils (TCE and Chromium) Alternative. . . . 9-9
APPENDIX
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
CBAouROD.FM
iv
11/11/93
-------
AF
AFB ,.
ARARs
BACT
BOAT
bgs
CAL-EPA
CBA
CBA OU
CCR
CERCLA
CFR
cy
000
ENR CCI
FFA
FS
ft
GAC
gpm
hr
lAG
IRP
Ib
MCL
mg/kg
MW
NA
NCP
NPL
O&M
OSWER
OU
PP
ppb
ppm
ppmv
CBAouROD.FM
ACRONYMS
Air Force
Air Force Base
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Best Available Control Technology
Best Demonstrated Control Technology
below ground surface
State of California Environmental Protection Agency
Central Base. Area
Central Base Area Operable Unit
California Code of Regulations
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and liability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
cubic yards
Department of Defense
Engineering News Review Construction Cost Index
Federal Facility Agreement
Feasibility Study
feet
Granular Activated Carbon
gallons per minute
hour
Interagency Agreement
Installation Restoration Program
pound
Maximum Contaminant level
milligrams per kilogram
Monitoring Well
Not an ARAR
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
National Priority List
Operation and Maintenance
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Operable Unit
Proposed Plan
parts per billion
pans per million
parts per million by volume
v
, 11/16193" ...
-------
RA
, .
RCRA
RD
RI
RifFS
ROD
RWQCB
SARA
SCAQMD
SDWA
SWCB
SVE
TBC
TCE
TCLP
pglL
USEPA
VOC
CBAouROD.FM
..-.. .---..-.
ACRONYMS (Continued)
Remedial Action
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Design
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Safe Drinking Water Act
State Water Control Board
Soil Vapor Extraction
To Be Considered
Trichloroethylene
Toxicity Characteristic leaching Procedure
micrograms per liter
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Volatile Organic Compound
vi
11/16/93
-------
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND lOCATION
Nonon Air Force Base
San Be.rnardino, California
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial actions for the Nonon Air Force Base (AFB)
Central Base Area (CBA) Operable Unit IOU) in San Bernardino, California. The CBA OU is one of
several planned OUs to address overall site cleanup. The selected remedial actions for the CBA OU
were chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) of 1 986, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 Code of Federal Regulations, (CFR) Pan 300). This decision
is based on information contained in the administrative record for this site.
The State of California concurs with the selected remedies.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this OU, if not addressed by
implementing the response actions selected in this Record of Decision IROD), may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The response actions address the documented principal public health and environmental threats
from the CBA OU. This is the first of several OUs for overall site cleanup. The remaining aus will
address soil contamination and contaminated groundwater lexcluding the on- and off-base
trichloroethylene [TCE] contaminated groundwater plume of the CBA). Actions for the CBA au
have been selected to address the volatile organic compound (VOC)-impacted groundwater Iboth
on- and offbase), and the TCE soil sources in the CBA.
The major components of the selected groundwater remedy include:
.
.
.
.
.
.
Deed restrictions
Groundwater monitoring
Groundwater extraction
Wellhead treatment or provision of water supplies
Treatment by air stripping
Direct discharge of emissions to atmosphere, or treatment by vapor-phase carbon
adsorption if emissions are not in compliance with air Quality Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
Reinjection of treated water.
.
The major components of the selected deep subsurface soil remedy for the MW90 Area and
Building 763 include:
.
.
.
.
Deed restrictions
Groundwater monitoring
Treatment by in situ soil vapor extraction (SVE)
Treatment of ~missions by vapor-phase carbon adsorption, or no treatment if emissions are
in compliance with air Quality ARARs.
vii
CBAouROD.DEC
11/17/93
-------
The major components of the selected shallow subsurface soil nCE only) remedies include:
.
Buildina 658
Excavation of soil containing TCE above
the cleanup standard
Backfill of excavation with clean import
or borrow soil
Transportation onsite to treatment
location
Treatment by ex situ SVE
Vapor.phase carbon adsorption of
emissions, or no treatment if untreated
emissions are in compliance with air
Quality ARARs
Disposal onsite of treated soil.
.
.
.
.
Doed restrictions
Groundwater monitoring
Treatment by in situ SVE
Vapor-phase carbon adsorption of
emissions. or no treatment if
untreated emissions are in compliance
with air Quality ARARs. .
Buildina 763
, -.
.
.
.
.
The major components of the selected shallow subsurface soils (TCE and chromium) remedy
include;
.
.
.
Demolition and reconstruction of existing facilities
Excavation of soil containing TCE and chromium commingled above the cleanup standards
Backfill of excavation with clean import or borrow soil
Testing of excavated soil
Transportation of soil off site by licensed transporter
Disposal and treatment (if needed) offsite to a licensed disposal facility.
.
.
.
STATUTORY DETERMINA nONS
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 use permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. and satisfy the
statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume
as a principle element. The groundwater remedy involves treatment estimated t('l take at least 30
years to achieve cleanup standards; the combined soil remedies will achieve the cleanup standards
in approximately 2 years. Because the groundwater remedy will result in hazardous substance
remaining on site until the cleanup standards are met. the 5 year review will be conducted on an
ongoing basis to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health
and the environment. The 5 year review does not apply to any of the soil remedies because the
remedies w' ot result in hazard us subst ces remaining onsite above health-based levels.
Sig ture
puty Assistant Secretary of the
Air:JLI~~.:nSI
Signa
Regional Administrator, U.S. .PA Region IX
r-
or.~Y/?~
1/.2'1. q3
Date
1/- 2.v-- 93
Date
Signature (
DSMOA Technical Program Manager, State of California
Department of Toxic Substances Control
CBAouROO.DEC
viii
11/18/93
-------
, '
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
- - .-.
. : I' ~ -,
"
, ...' ,
. ..&. . .
~~... . ,!.
,-..t
'" - '.
','
- t -
, .
- !"::
.....
'!ri:'
,..,
-------
1.0 SITE NAME. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION
1.1
. .
LOCATION
Nonon Air Force Base (AFB) (referred to herein as the 8base8 or 8Site8) is located in the city of San
Bernardino. San Bernardino County. California. 55 miles east of los Angeles and 60 miles west of
Palm Springs (Fig. 1-1).
1.2
POPULATION
The population of San Bernardino County is 1,418.380 (U.S. Census. 1990). and consists of both
english- and spanish-speaking citizens. The 1990 U.S. Census for Nonon AFB indicated the
population to be 653 persons. 70% of which are male.
1.3
LAND USE
Current land Use. Current land use at Nonon AFB is classified as residential and light industrial.
Maintenance facilities. warehouses. and administrative centers suppon the mission.
land surrounding Nonon AFB includes areas of residences. light and heavy industry. and
agriculture. Residential areas are located to the nonh and west. light industrial areas are located
to the nonh and to the southwest.
Future land Use. Nonon AFB is scheduled for closure by the Department of Defense (000) in
1994. The propeny will be classified for some residential and mostly light industrial use after
disposal.
1.4
CLIMATE
The San Bernardino Valley is characterized by a semi-arid environment. The yearly average high is
78°F and the yearly low 49°F. The average annual rainfall at Norton AFB is 12.72 inches.
Prevailing winds at Norton AFB are from the nonhwest. Annual average wind speed from the west
is 3 knots; maximum wind speed is 69 knots.
1.5
GEOLOGY
Nonon AFB is located on a large apron of alluvium, characterized by great thickness. rapid facies
changes. and a wide range of fragment sizes. The stratigraphy consists of unconsolidated water-
bearing deposits underlain by consolidated. vinually non-water bearing rocks.
Sediments underlying Nonon AFB consist of unconsolidated. relatively undisturbed gravels. sands.
silts. and clays. The depositional sening varies across the base.
1.6
SOIL
Soils at Nonon AFB consist of loamy sands and sandy loams. The soils are generally Quite
permeable and exhibit limited run-off and water erosion potential.
CBAouROD.1
1-1
11/16193
-------
~
;
.....
.h.
........~
."'" '0.
--
w...
. <.:."!'
. I
.
. .
M-,,,
~ ....
.
,,::". . (IICMf"..."""
,1. <#.... \ r,.....u ~
;i , )
~.-.' t
? .£ .... 0." ..
'--"
-.
'~\.PI".-"~' '0
-... ~ : .,.:.. I,'.~~ ~ ..
"l"...
r
~'\
- ...
...
.
..
.... -
-.
.
s..-
~-
~
'tr", .
~
~..
. """"J:'
o
1
2
s
4
~
-\-
..-trt'it.l'.C:
,'.':: r; ~'..;'"
'. =-c'~"
~..
"'- '.
-.,,,.'t~
.,.~O t".,
.
approximate scal.
In mil..
-
Regional Map Showing Location of Norton AFB
CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORA 1l0N
. .
-------
1.7
SURFACE WATER
The main surface water features near Norton AFB are City Creek, Warm Creek, the Twin Creek
flood control channel, and the Santa Ana River. The Santa Ana River flows southwest along the
southern base boundary.
Natural surface run-off flows into underground storm drains and natural surface drainages at Nonon
AFB. There are eleven discharge points.
1.8
HYDROGEOLOGY
The groundwater aquifer system beneath Nonon AFB is part of the Bunker Hill hydrologic basin
that is defined by three water-bearing zones (the upper, middle, and lower) and three confining
members (the upper, middle, and lower) (Fig. 1-2). The upper confining member, which locally
supports perched water zones, covers all but the eastern half of the base. Regional groundwater
flows towards the southwest. Recharge is supplied by runoff from the San Bernardino Mountains.
1.9
PRODUCTION WELLS
The aquifer system provides drinking water in addition to water for agricultural and commercial
uses. The upper water-bearing zone has been affected by Norton AFB operations. Drinking water
is derived principally from the middle and lower water-bearing zones. The Gage Canal complex,
which consists of sixteen active wells located immediately south/southwest of the base (Fig. 1-31,
has occasionally reported TCE in groundwater samples.
1.10
THREAT OF SITE
TCE was a common degreasing solvent used in industrial operations at Norton AFB from the 1940s
through the early 1980s. Usage has affected localized soil which has affected local groundwater
quality in the upper water-bearing zone of a drinking water aquifer. Also being addressed is the soil
contaminated by chromium at site 9. The selected remedies address the principal threat from both
TCE, TCE byproducts and or degradation (i.e., vinyl chloride), and chromium.
CBAouROD.1
1-3
11/16/93
-------
NW
NAFB BOUNDARY
i
~
n.
w
>
ii:
<
z
<
<
~
z
<
\I)
~
w
w
a:
~
\I)
c
a:
X
~
~
-
If!.
.'. .".
,~: ~
" ..'
?;I l.Q!1'- -:.4;"7
:'L.-- -- ::: ~
,"
..
.~
~ I!
.~ ,~
...
,.
"
continin ?~ member
it (somewhat ','
~ discontinuous) 7::
.~
...
~
- ,
..:~ ~S .;
---':'-- -"'::.. .:..-'
-. ., ......_---~:.:
':~ Middle :~ water,bearlng i11.0f\e ./
.:.: ~ . ~~ ""
~'
~
-~-- ~ -- -----~
:~. -.j
.: :: -- --
- ;£- - - ..... - - - - r.\:)8ar\nO
'" Lower ,'f ".a\8
','
:..
.'
.',
..
SOurce: Dutcher and G8ITen, 1963.
NORTON AIR FORCE BASE
~:A
0--;.
A.: ..
",.
./
./
~ ~
4i: /
/
~
./ oc:'
../ '\)
Hydrogeology of the Bunker Hill Basin
SE
1600'
1500'
1400'
1300'
1200'
1100'
1000'
900'
800'
700'
600'
500'
400'
300'
200'
100'
SEA LEVEL
LEGEND
I2ill
Sand
~
~
Gfwel and boulder.
LiITJ
Sand and g,wel
~
~ J;i.i~..~ ~~, and
t:r~a~
~~~.:~.~
- . --
Clay and g,avlll, c:emen18d gravlll
IiiI
Rock. bod,odI, "hIr Iormalion
1S1.25A1 U.S. GeoIogic81 SuMl~
WI. Number
;::~
...
.,:
DIag,..,malic: willi log, 5howIng
pertaral8d k\18rval whet. known.
Riv. c:hannel depoalll, O,e:; dune land,
0dI; younger IlwIwm, ~..; older
illINium, 0081; Tar1Iaty and Oua18'nary
cond"..,... dapoalta, aTe; ~I
complex, be.
Approximate Scale
o
112
Miles
Note: Numbers ,eler 10 USGS WeIIldentlllcatJon ""mbarl,
Figure No, 1-2
-------
1 .1 .L
I" . . ' I. . . \
. -. . ,- ANTIL. COMPlEX -z...., 'Il .)
-- ~....
\~- - 4--
-"'
u,
.~... f~"
i0~
: ~v17 ~
, .'~tt1"!U~
..~~. . /:
: -...:.::~=:~ q ~.; .// /'
\' 11'.. \ r.. ~y /1 4 .. "f.:] i I . / ..:.; .~~1/~;/~.:~1
-------
...~;
..'
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
."
.-~ r...
.'-p." --. ".-------... - "'-""'-. -- -. ---...- - '-...
---....-- .~- ...
.- -"-.""'-"".. ..
" "
..,. - - -..---. -.-- -.
. -...'-.'" J-
-------
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
~ .
Norton AFB was activated in March 1942 as an engine repair center for Air Force (AF), U.S. Navy,
and private industry aircraft. The base became a Military Airlift Command base in 1966. In 1968,
the Aerospace Audiovisual Services established its headquarters at the base. Norton AFB currently
provides airlift and sustenance capabilities for air and combat units world-wide but has been
identified for base closure by 000. The base will officially close March 31, 1994.
Solvents, specifically TCE, were used in servicing aircraft from the 1940s to the early 1980s'.
Former waste disposal. handling, and discharge practices have resulted in soil and groundwater
contamination. A chronology of important site activities and investigations that support remedy
selection for the CBA OU follows:
June 1980
October 1982
July 1985
August 1 987
September 1987
September 1988
December 1988
June 1989
April 1990
November 1990
DOD issues the Defense Environmental Quality Program Policy Memorandum
80-6 requiring the identification of hazardous waste sites.
Norton AFB issues the Phase I Records Search. Twenty IRP sites of
potential contamination are identified.
Norton AFB issues the Phase II Problem Confirmation Study. Fifteen of the'
20 identified IRP sites are investigated. Data indicate contamination at
seven IRP sites. TCE is detected in groundwater.
Norton AFB is placed on the United States Environmental Protection
Agency's (USEPA) National Priorities List (NPlL
Norton AFB issues the Phase II Confirmation/Quantification, Stage 2 Final
Report. Eighteen of the 20 identified IRP sites are investigated. Two
additional IRP sites are identified.
Maximum TCE concentration detected (4,630 pglL) in groundwater from
monitoring well 90 (MW90). The area is identified as a suspected TCE
source.
Norton AFB issues the Stage 3 Final Report. Twenty-one of the 22 IRP sites
are investigated.
The AF signs the Norton AFB Federal Facility Agreement.
Norton AFB formally designates the contaminated groundwater in the CBA
and any contributing soil sources as the CBA OU.
Norton AFB begins the CBA Groundwater Investigation to define the extent
of the TCE groundwater plume.
The Air Force stopped purchesing end distributing TCE in the early 1980s. but it is possible thet existing supplies mey
heve been ul8d until they were exheusted.
CBAouROD.2
2-1
11/16/93
-------
March 1991
~ .
June 1991
July 1991
February 1992
March 1992
June 1992
August 1992
September 1992
January 1 993
February 1993
I.' .
CBAouROD.2
. .'
Norton AFB begins construction of a treatability test to evaluate
groundwater pump and treat. The system is located downgradient of
MW90.
Norton AFB begins the TCE Source Investigation to locate and characterize
soil sources that have contributed to the TCE in groundwater.
Lockheed completes a removal action in which approximately 4,200 cubic
yards (cy) of soil containing TCE is removed from Docks 3 and 4 in Building
763 during reconstruction of the dock floors. Building 763 is an identified
TCE source area. The soil is treated onsite.
Norton AFB issues the Draft Aemedial Investigation (AI) Report (CBA
Groundwater and TCE Source Investigation). The on-base plume is
characterized, and four TCE soil source areas are identified: MW90 Area,
Building 658, IRP site 9, and Building 763.
Norton AFB issues the Draft Feasibility Study (FS) and the Draft Proposed
Plan (PP).
Norton AFB begins treatability testing of the groundwater pump and treat
system, and characterizing the off-base portion of the plume.
The AF, USEPA, and the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-
EPA) enter into dispute resolution over the FS.
The AF announced its intent to install an extraction system at the base
boundary to impede further migration of the contaminated groundwater.
Upon finalizing the FS and the PP, the AF, USEPA, and Cal-EPA agree to
formally resolve the remaining dispute resolution items in the AOD.
Norton AFB issues the Final FS and PP.
.'
. ~. '"'
2-2
1 '''6193
-------
3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Norton AFB has conducted the following activities under the RifFS process:
April 1990
Release of Community Relations Plan. Establish and notify community of
the location of information repositories.
July 1990
Notification and request for participation in Community Relations
Workshop to discuss the Community Relations Plans and ensure
community involvement in the upcoming RifFS.
September 1990
Release of Fact Sheet discussing planned field activities for the CBA
Groundwater Investigation and TCE Source Investigation, the
groundwater treatability study, and information on obtaining Technical
Assistance Grants.
June 1991
Release of Fact Sheet discussing the RI, on-going investigations, the
groundwater treatability study, the TCE Source Investigation, and
information on how the public can become involved.
March 1992
Release of Fact Sheet informing visitors and base personnel of temporary
access restriction necessary to perform the field work. Precautionary
measures are recommended.
September 1 992
Notice of intent to install groundwater extraction system at base
boundary .
October 1992
Release of IRP update discussing the CBA Groundwater Investigation.
The community is notified that the information is available in spanish.
February 1993
Release of the FS and PP for public comment. Public notice is placed in
two local newspapers requesting public comments.
March 1993
Sponsored a formal public meeting in accordance with CERCLA Section
117(a)(2) on March 11, 1993 to discuss the FS and PP. The
Responsiveness Summary is provided in the attached Appendix.
CBAouROD.3
3-1
11/16/93
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
-:.. ..' ....;
-------
_6- 6- . .
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE OPERABLE UNIT
This R.OD addresses the first of several planned OUs for the Site.
.
The CBA OU addresses VOC-impacted groundwater (on- and offbase) and the TCE
soil sources in the CBA (including chromium commingled with TCE at IRP site 9).
The remaining OUs will address soil contamination and contamination in
groundwater. (Excluding the VOC- impacted groundwater of the CBA).
.
The CBA OU is defined as groundwater containing VOCs above maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs), and four TCE source areas: the MW90 Area, Building 658, IRP site 9, and Building 763.
Chromium is commingled with TCE at IRP site 9 so it will also be addressed as part of the CBA OU.
The principal human threat from VOCs in groundwater is through ingestion of extracted
groundwater and inhalation of airborne vapors while showering. The principal human threat from
chromium in soil is through ingestion and dermal contact. There is no current threat to human
health from TCE or its byproducts/degradation products as long as there are no activities (Le.,
excavation) which disturbs the soil. TCE in soils poses a potential future threat to public health and
a threat to the environment. There is a threat due to TCE in soil to the environment from further
contaminant migration and groundwater degradation. The purpose of this OU is to both address
soil sources that have or continue to impact groundwater and soil sources that pose a risk to public
health via direct contact (e.g., soils with elevated chromium). to prevent any further migration of
the contaminants in groundwater, to prevent any future exposure to the public of contaminated
groundwater, and to restore all on- and offbase groundwater impacted by the CBA to drinking
water quality.
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
Seven chemicals have been identified as contaminants of concern in groundwater'. The highest
concentrations of contaminants detected (December 1991/July 1992) are: benzene (12 pglL). 1,2-
dichloroethane (1.9 pglL), 1,2-dichloroethylene (120 pglL), tetrachloroethylene (2 pglL),
1,1,1-trichloroethane (0.9 pglL), TCE (550 pglL). and vinyl chloride (1 pglL).
A treatability study began in 1992 when Norton AFB installed a groundwater pump and treat
system in the most contaminated portion of the VOC groundwater plume. This treatability study is
being conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of this technology on specific site conditions. The
pump and treat system will continue to operate until the CBA OU groundwater remedy is
implemented.
SOIL CONTAMINATION
Two chemicals have been identified as primary contaminants of concern in soils. The highest
concentrations of contaminants detected are: TCE 169 mglkg) and chromium (7,570 mglkg).
Chromium is present at IRP site 9 only.
Refer to Section 1.2.2 of the Finel CBA OU FS for e discussion of dense non-aqueoul phale liquidl.
CBAouROD.4
4-1
11/17193
-------
: r
~.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
" .
....;..
~ -,'
. '.
".. I: (
. '.
-------
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
5. 1 ~. SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION
Phase VI/Investigation
Elevated levels of TCE were detected in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells
within the CBA. TCE was detected at 4,630 pgIL in MW90 in September 1988. TCE sources
were not identified.
CBA OU Remedial Investigation
The CBA Groundwater Investigation defined the VOC plume onbase and confirmed that the plume
was migrating offbase. The TCE Source Investigation identified four TCE source areas: the MW90
Area, Building 658, IRP site 9, and Building 763. The work to define downgradient extent is
ongoing but will not affect the selected remedy, as the CBA remedial action described in this ROD
will address the entire offbase contaminant plume.
5.2
CONTAMINATION AND AFFECTED MEDIA
5.2.1
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater containing VOCs was detected along 7th Street, extending beyond the southwestern
base boundary. TCE is the most widespread of the contaminants; all other chemicals of concern
are commingled within the TCE plume and can be addressed through a TCE remedy. Groundwater
samples upgradient of 7th Street do not contain detectable VOCs. The known extent of TCE in the
CBA OU, above its MCL, is shown on Figs. 5-1 through 5-3. Maximum concentrations are
provided in Sect. 4.0. TCE has been detected in production wells southwest of the base.
. Gaee Canal ComDlex. City of Riverside analytical data for 13 wells indicate that
concentrations of TCE near the detection limit have been sporadically detected in some
of the wells between 1988 and 1993.
. Warren-Raub ComDlexes. City of Riverside analytical data for 16 wells, sampled
Quarterly between 1989 and 1992, indicate consistent detections of TCE in the Norman
Road well, Raub No.5, and Warren No.2. The Norman Road well has since been
deactivated by the South San Bernardino County Water District because it is a low-
producing well. Raub No.2 and 3. located between the Norman Road well and Warren
No.2, have not contained detectable TCE. .'
The known volume of groundwater containing VOCs above the MCL (defined by the MCL for TCE
of 5 pgIL) is approximately 7 billion gallons. The volume will be adjusted after the offbase work
has been completed.
The routes of human exposure are ingestion and inhalation of airborne vapors due to extracted
groundwater. Only benzene and vinyl chloride are known human carcinogens.
CBAouROO.5
5-1
11/17/93
-------
U1
,
N
. .
SITE 9
TCE SDUIICE AND
CHIIOIot I UN AIlE A
-
---
--
--
--
--
--
--
---
Mill 5111[[T
J1'=
J~r~~'~
ij. In
---- JO
--- --------- JQ
~ i ------~:---------- 10
c-J --
.....'- ---
l!.I ...... .... --
...... ..... --
Ct ,,', ---
,,""-" ~----
(,. " g
, "
, ....
, ....
, "
BUILDING 713 "" ""'........ mn
TCE SOURCE " BUILDING n.
AIIEA ,TCE SDUIICE
, AIlE A
..,0 AIIEA
'ASSENGEII TEIIMINAL
TCE SOlItCE
AIIEA
8LDG7U
CEMTII
PRODUCT] ON WELL
EXTRACTION
..
NORTON
SAN IEIINAIIDINO AVENUE
.17-1
CBA OPERABLE UNIT STUDY AREA
N
I
G) ~l.'Ua.:cn:.
iKDI
- 5 - \'J!L I:' 1::1::~Mf"'~':I
fiiM S _I
...~m"I:~Mf"'~'=
TMM lGO_1
...., WATER
SUPPLY
011-1 WELLS
4~OO'
API'ROX I MATE
SCAlE
MIll 01 011&., 'nl IAn
.n-I
S......... COlI F""'-o 1 "rogr- Ccrpa-ot I on. "92.
AIR FORCE BASE
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF TCE IN GROUNDWATER
CBA OPERABLE UNIT
F IOU-8
5-1
-------
THIRD STREET
&AI
::)
Z
&AI
>
.c
z
~
a:
&AI
...
.c
.
NILL STREET
UI
t
(;of
CENTRA AVENUE
ScMc8: COM F8d8r8I Pr .... Corporal""'. 10112.
~ RAUB #S
NORTON AIR FORCE BASE
..---- ~~r:~~l._.-
. A'
) '> ~
. 8
I In
i PAX
. TERWINAL
r----------- C STREET 1
--- BLDO. '2
~v
----I
CBA TCE Plume and line of Section Along Plume Axis
for Use With Figure 5-3 (July 1992 Data)
CBA Operable Unit
Figure No. 5-2
-------
LOOKING NORTHWEST
'" .. SOOTHWEST
A
1100
Nor.....
Rood
Control
Avenuo
Bo...
Bound-II
T .pp..oanoo
Avo......
1'1.11 Stroot
C Stroot 7th PAX
I y"'& Tirm.n..!
7 ------- ---
6 crOJf\d------
~
NORTHEAST
A'
It
1050
I- Ap:;OM.
\.oJ
\.oJ I"'" ..
~ Duo
- 1000 South
..J \0
\.oJ Santa
>
\.oJ Ano
..J Ray.,.
~
\.oJ 950
\1'1 --
,-
lLI
>
0
UI CD .,.~
~
I 900 "''''
A e;
I-
~
>
W
..J
\.oJ
850
2-
5.
-- 3 ------- 4--------
ND
NO
NO
35
480
NO
1,3
. . . . . . . . . . .
. .. .....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . "..... ."....."
. . . . . . . . .0. ..
. . . . .
NO
61' ,
.11
24
6~ 4
2.8
1.1
10
1.2
NO
8'.1
NO
NO
800
. '
3.2
-
~TCE Contour
at 5 ppb
13
NO
LEGEND
Concentration of TCE 10 ppb
Not Detected
Screened Port i on of
Monitoring lell
750
1~
. '/
, ,.;
",.",,---
1""'" 5"'"
,,'
1""'"
13
I
--
.---- --- ---,
Horizontal Scale
; Scuc8: COM F"''' Programl CoIpo/.IDn, 1l1li2.
NORTON AIR FORCE BASE
CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORA 110N
. IWIIdIaIr of C8ft1I 0--, Mc:K- ft.
Cross Section Along Axis 01 TCE Plume
From MW90 Source Area 10 Known Oflbase limit (July 1992)
Figure No. 5-3
-------
5.2.2
SOIL
Four suspected TCE source areas were identified along 7th Street where the majority of current
and former industrial and aviation support facilities are located (Fig. 5-1). The water table is
located at about 90 to 100 ft below ground surface (bgs).
There is no excess carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic risk associated with TCE in soil. TCE in soil
does not pose an adverse health risk due to the low concentrations reported at the four source
areas. Chromium in soil at IRP site 9 poses a potential excess carcinogenic risk due to ingestion
and dermal contact. Based on the California Potency Factor of 510 (mglkg-day)"' for chromium, a
a 150 mg/kg concentration was determined to pose adverse risk. TCE and chromium are mobile in
soil. Maximum concentrations are provided in Sect. 4.0.
DEEP SUBSURFACE SOILS
Deep subsurface soil is defined as affected soil deeper than 20 ft bgs that cannot be readily
excavated using conventional construction/excavation equipment or methods. The total volume of
deep subsurface soil affected is 148.700 cy.
. MW90 Area. TCE has been detected at depths from 20 to 75 ft bgs. Approximately
125.000 cy of soil contain detectable levels of TCE. Soil containing TCE is not
continuous and distribution appears to be confined to finer-grained strata.
. Bui/dino 763. TCE has been detected at depths from 20 to 60 ft bgs. Approximately
23.700 cy of soil contain detectable levels of TCE. Deep subsurface soil containing TCE
is not continuous below the building and distribution appears to be confined to finer-
grained strata. Localized areas have probably affected groundwater Quality in the past.
SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOILS
Shallow subsurface soil is defined as affected soil less than 20 ft bgs that can be readily excavated
using conventional construction/excavation equipment or methods.
TCE Onlv. TCE has been detected at Building 658 and Building 763. The total volume of shallow
subsurface soil affected with TCE only is 5.650 cy.
. Buildina 658. TCE has been detected at depths from 2.5 to 10ft bgs. Approximately
490 cy of soil contain detectable levels of TCE.
. Buildina 763. TCE has been detected at depths from 5 to 15 ft bgs. Approximately
5.160 cy of soil contain detectable levels of TCE in five separate shop areas. These
areas may have affected or could affect groundwater quality.
The upper 3 ft of soil in Docks 3 and 4 of Building 763 was excavated in 1991 by
Lockheed as a structural engineering action to install a new floor capable of supporting
Boeing 747 aircraft. Excavated soil contained TCE. The maximum TCE concentration
was 1.1 mglkg; the average TCE concentration was less than 0.05 mg/kg. The
excavation was deemed a removal action and performed under an Air Force Action
Memorandum. Excavated soil was treated onsite using an active soil vapor extraction
system. Samples collected after treatment showed no detectable TCE using Toxicity
Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests.
CBAouROD.5
5-5
11/17193
-------
TCE and Chromium. TCE and chromium have been detected from 0 to 7 ft bgs at IRP site 9.
Approximately 415 cy of soil contain detectable levels of chromium commingled with TCE.
, .
'-f,
..
. ..
. .
-
- '.
-.
. ,". ~
.-..:. .
.' .
. .
~
....--. I
- .,
. \.. - ..
. . f.. ~ ~.
;.: ,
'.
. .
. '.
..
.j
. ..,
'. r:. ~. .
......
...:.
;,. ..
': - . .~.~ ~
, . :)1 .. .,
",",Ii,.'
;"'. ... '..:.- . ".\'::..;.,." ".;:;"',-::-
..'
~. CBAouROD.5
5-6 -
11/16193
-------
6.0 SUMMARY OF RISK ASSESSMENT
Using' data collected during the CBA OU RI', the baseline risk assessment was prepared to
evaluate the potential human health risks associated with the CBA OU in the absence of any
remedial (corrective) action. The no-action alternative is evaluated in accordance with
I 300.430(d) of the NCP.
6.1
HEALTH RISKS
Chemicals of concern were selected based on frequency of detection, toxicity, concentration in
media, and comparison. of levels found at the site to background concentrations. These
contaminants in groundwater andlor soils, their frequency of detection, and their maximum and
mean concentrations are listed in Table 6-1.
TABLE 6-1
CHEMICALS OF CONCERN" IN GROUNDWATERb AND SOILS, MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATIONS, AND FREQUENCY OF DETECTION BASED ON DATA USED IN THE CBA OU
BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
Frequency
of Maximum Mean .
Media Chemical Detection Concentration Concentration
Groundwater benzene 01164' ND 0.28
(pglL) 1,2-dichloroethane 10/164 3.2 0.27
1 ,2-dichloroethylene (total) 61/164 120 5.3
tetrachloroethylene 28/164 3.9 0.42
1 ,1 ,1-trichloroethane 12/164 3.5 0.36
TCE 95/164 550 29
vinyl chloride 0/164' ND 0.13
Soil TCE 160/390 69 9.2
(mg/kg) chromium 14/410 7,570 420
a - Chemicals of concern were evaluated in the risk assessment and determined to ose a risk.
.
p
Groundwater data is based on June and December 1991 sampling rounds only.
Benzene and vinyl chloride have been detected once in groundwater samples collected at
the site in sampling rounds subsequent to December 1991.
This mean concentration represents the mean concentration used in the risk assessment for
the most contaminated unit of the industrial grid. When a chemical of potential concern
was not detected in a sample, 1/2 the detection limit was used.
Not detected.
b -
c -
ND-
All RI dete heve been velideted end the quality is acceptable to support the recommendetion 0' this ROD.
..
CBAouROD.8
6-1
11/16/93
-------
Only two of the eight compounds listed in Table 6-1 (benzene and vinyl chloride) are known human
carcinogens. TCE, tetrachloroethylene, and 1,2-dichloroethane have been shown to be
carcinogenic in animals and have been classified by USEPA as possible or probable human
carcinogens. The noncarcinogenic contaminants have been observed to have toxic potential based
on laboratory studies and reported effects on humans under certain exposure situations.
The potential receptors include the following: residential child/adult, residential child, and light
industrial worker. The principal exposure pathways by which human receptors could potentially be
exposed to site contaminants are ingestion of contaminants in groundwater, inhalation of airborne
vapors while showering, ingestion of contaminants in soils, and dermal contact with contaminants
in soils. Standard assumptions for evaluating exposures occurring from domestic use of water (i.e.,
consumption of 2 liters per day, showering, washing, etc.) should be protective of all residents
including children. NOTE: U.S. EPA only considers children separately when their exposures are
considered to be significantly higher than those for adults (e.g. soil ingestion.)
As recommended in USEPA guidance, a reasonable maximum exposure was estimated for the three
receptor groups. In order to estimate the reasonable maximum exposure, the chronic daily intake
was estimated for each pathway based on conservative exposure assumptions. The exposure
point concentrations of contaminants in groundwater were estimated using sample data collected in
June and December 1991. To estimate exposure point concentrations in soils, it was assumed
that all asphalt and concrete were removed above the soil. Subsurface soils would be excavated to,
a 20-ft depth for a residential setting and a 5-ft depth for a light industrial setting.
The carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks based on no cleanup are presented in Table 6-2. The
calculated risk is an estimate of the increased likelihood of cancer resulting from exposure to
carcinogens. The carcinogenic risks for all receptor groups are in USEPA's acceptable range of 10.
to 10" when using USEPA slope factors. When using Cal-EPA slope factors, however, the
residential child/adult and residential child group exceed the acceptable range for soil ingestion and
dermal contact with soils. The difference between the estimated risk when using USEPA and Cal-
EPA slope factors is primarily due to chromium. Cal-EPA has derived an oral slope factor for
. chromium, while the USEPA has not derived an oral slope factor for chromium.
For noncarcinogens, a hazard index greater than 1 indicates that adverse health effects could
occur. Hazard index numbers are greater than 1 for the residential child and residential child/adult
receptor groups. The noncarcinogenic risk is primarily due to soil ingestion and dermal contact
with chromium. While the hazard index exceeds one for groundwater ingestion, the risk is primarily
due to background minerals concentrations; the risk from groundwater ingestion is primarily due to
the background risk.
- There are many sources of uncertainty associated with .this risk assessment including:
..
.
Drought conditions in California and population growth in the San Bernardino area
have resulted in a lowering of the groundwater table. Using the most recent data
collected only represents current conditions. Changing conditions may necessitate
re-evaluating the risk.
.
The toxicity values reported by USEPA are well publicized, documented and
supported. Uncertainty exists because Cal-EPA values reported occasionally differ
from USEPA values and they have less support nationwide than those reported by
USEPA.
CBAouROD.8
J;. ~ '.' ~:
6-2
11/17/93
-------
TABLE 6.2
, .
SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC AND NONCARCINOGENIC RISK
Cancer Risk
Using EPA
Slope Factors
Cancer Risk
Using Cal-EPA
Slope Factors
Hazard
Index
Risk
Acceptable2
Residential Child/Adult
Ingestion of Groundwater 8.6x10" 6.9 x 10. 2.8 No
Inhalation of Vapors 2.0 x 10" 1.5 x 10" 0.000013 Yes
Ingestion of Soils 7.0x10'7 3. 1 x 1 0.3 16.4 No
Dermal Contact with Soils 5.7 x 10" 6.4x10" ~ t:!2
Subtotal: 1.7 10" 3.8 x 1 0.3 22.1 No
Residential Child
Ingestion of Groundwater 3.2 x 10" 2.6 x 10-6 1.8 No
Ingestion of Soils 4.9 x 10.7 2.2 X 10.3 5.7 No
Dermal Contact with Soils 2. 9 x 1 0" 5.3 X 10" 1.J. t:!2
Subtotal: 6.6x10" 2.8 x 10.3 8.6 No
Uaht Industrial Worker
Ingestion of Groundwater 2.0 x 10" 1.6 x 10" 0.4 Yes
Ingestion of Soils 1.8 x 10" 3.2 x 10-6 0.06 Yes
Dermal Contact with Soils 1.2 x 1 0.7 5.2 x 10" Q..QQa Yn
Subtotal: 2.1 x 10-' 5.3 x 10-6 0.5 Yes
The risk wa, deemed acceptable if the cenc.r ri,k i, in the range of 1 x 10" to 1 x 10" and the Hazard Index i. Ie..
then 1.
CBAouROD.6
6.j
11/16193
-------
.
The risk may be overestimated due to conservative methods used to select potential
soil and groundwater exposure point concentrations; assumptions regarding intake.
frequency. and duration of exposure; and estimates of health effects criteria.
~.
6.2
ECOLOGICAL RISKS
There are no streams or ponds within the CBA OU. Controlled storm water drainage at Norton AFB
generally consists of surface flow to diversion structures and collection pipes discharging to local
surface streams. The Santa Ana River wash is immediately south of the base. There are two
jurisdictional wetlands on the western portion of Norton AFB. Neither the river wash nor the
wetlands are associated with the CBA OU because there is no groundwater to surface water
pathway and no surface water to wetlands pathway.
No threatened or endangered plant species are associated with the CBA OU. The burrowing owl.
listed as a State of California Species of Special Concern.1, occurs as a year round resident near
runways and buildings at Norton AFB; there are no ARARs for Species of Special Concern. The
burrowing owl is not present in any buildings associated with the remedy.
The surface areas of Norton AFB associated with the CBA OU are all paved or
urbanized/landscaped and there is no discharge of groundwater to the surface at the present time.
Therefore. there is no exposure pathway by which a contaminant could move from a surface
source to an ecological receptor in the environment. In addition, it is not likely that an exposure
point to ecological receptors from groundwater would exist in the future due to existing
groundwater levels and the current trend toward decreasing groundwater elevations.
6.3
CONCLUSIONS
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site. if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this ROD. may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health. welfare, or the environment. A summary of the risks is presented
in Table 6-2. Using the USEPA slope factors, the carcinogenic risk is 1.7 x 10.6 for the residential
child/adult. 6.6 x 10" for the residential child, and 2.1 x 10" for the light industrial worker. Using
Cal-EPA slope factors, the carcinogenic risk is 3.8 x , 0'.1 for the residential child/adult. 2.8 x , 0'.1
for the residential child. and 5.3 x '0.6 for the light industrial worker. The noncarcinogenic risk
exceeds unity for the residential child/adult and the child.
The risk to ecological receptors appears to be low. There is no available pathway from the CBA
OU contaminants to ecological receptors.
" a
Specin of Concern a,. not protected under the Endangered Species Act. .
CBAouROD.e
6-4
11/18/93
," -
.-- . -'-""'- - - ----..-
- . -- -..' --
-------
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The remedial alternatives for groundwater and soil that have been carried through a detailed
analvsis in the Final CBA OU FS are presented. Technical information supporting each alternative
and the future risk associated with implementation of a remedial action is presented in the FS.
7.1
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR GROUNDWATER
Approximately 7 billion gallons of groundwater in the Class I upper aQuifer located beneath and
extending beyond Norton AFB is estimated to contain VQCs above their MCLs. The cumulative
carcinogenic risk to human health from groundwater is 1.1 x 10" (EPA slope factor) and 7.1 x10.
(Cal-EPA slope factor) from ingestion, and inhalation of airborne VOCs while showering. There are
three groundwater alternatives (Fig. 7-1). The ARARs for each alternative are identified in Table
7-1. The text highlights the major ARARs.
Groundwater at Norton AFB contains TCE and other VQCs, including tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and
1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA). The situation at Norton AFB is sufficiently similar to other situations
for which the RCRA reQuirements for treatment, storage, and disposal were designed, and
therefore the RCRA reQuirements for treatment, storage, and disposal are applicable for the TCE-
containing material. Specifically, the RCRA .contained-in. policy would apply. Groundwater
containing TCE, PCE, and TCA must be handled as if it were a hazardous waste until the
groundwater no longer contains the listed waste. At Norton AFB, it has been determined that if
the groundwater is treated to the cleanup standards of 5 ppb, the groundwater will no longer be
considered to contain a listed waste and need not be handled as a hazardous waste.
ALTERNATIVE 7A - NO ACTION
This alternative, required for consideration by the NCP, involves no remedial actions to address
groundwater contamination. No action is implemented. This alternative will not comply with
relevant and appropriate federal and state MCLs established in the National Primary Drinking Water
Standards [40 CFR 1141.61(a)] and Drinking Water Primary Standards [Title 22 CCR Division 4
164444.51, respectively. This alternative will not reduce the risk to human health posed by the
VOCs in groundwater.
AL TERNA TIVE 78 - AIR STRIPPING
.
.
.
.
.
.
Deed restrictions
Groundwater monitoring
Groundwater extraction
Wellhead treatment or provision of water supplies
Treatment by air stripping
Direct discharge of emissions to atmosphere, or treatment by vapor-phase carbon
adsorption if emissions are not in compliance with air Quality ARARs
Reinjection of treated water
.
The volume of groundwater to be treated is based on current site knowledge of the plume extent.
Further characterization of the off-base portion of the TCE-contaminated plume which originates in
the CBA is being performed. The results of the characterization will affect design of this alternative
both on- and oHbase, but not selection of the remedy. Prior to sale or transfer of any Norton AFB
property overlying the contaminated groundwater plume, the AF will record a land use restriction in
accordance with California Health and Safety Code 125230 as an institutional control to prohibit
installation of additional wells until after the groundwater standards have been achieved, and the
CBAouROD.7
7-1
11124193
-------
ALTERNATIVE 1A
NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 1B
AIR SmlPPlNG
Total Cost $28.0M
(exduding emission
controls )
......
.
I\)
ALTERNATIVE 1C
CARBON
ADSORPTION
Total Cost $133M
2.4 . 10'6cardnogeniC
risk .mII remains.
-
..
Deed Groundwa..r Groundwa..r W.llh..d Tr...m.nll Air S.rlpplng Discharg. 0' Tr"led
R.atrlctlona Monitoring Extraction Providing Water Groundwa'.r
. Deed reslrtClions . Quarterty groundwaler .7 BUlion Gal. Groundwater . Wellhead lIealmenl wilh . Direcl disc:hatge al 1.6 . . Groundwaler lIealed
Imposed on Norton AFB monilorlng 10 monIlor Conlamlnaled WII" VOCs; mobile GAC Itealmenl 1 a 7 carcinogenic riSk 10 deanup slandards
properly unlll deanup plume and delermine 2.4. 10-6 carcinogenic unit or providing waler level
slandards are allalned. eflecllYeness 01 risk level supplies In acoordance . ReinjeCtion ollrealed
allemallve. wllh 011. base waler . Vapor.phase carbon waler
. Maximum Concenlration I contingency policy adsorplion buill in; use
TCE: 500 ugIl contingenl upon . Residual Risk no
1Ienz_: 12 ug/\. emissions l8Y8Is grealer 1I1an10-6
1,24ic11loroellwle: 1.11 ug/\.
1,24ic11Ior08lhy.....: 120 ugI\. . T reatmenllor 30 years 10
T8IrIlChIor08lhy""': 2 ug/\. meel deanup slandards
1.1.I.Trlc_h_: O.lIugI\.
Vinyl CNorId8: 1 ugI\.
..
Deed Groundwa.er Groundw,'er Wellhe.d Tre..menll Uquld-Pha.. Discharg. 0' Tr,,'ed
R.atrlctloni. Monitoring Ex'r.ctlon Providing Wa.er Carbon Adsorption Groundw.ler
. Deed reslrtCl/Ons . Quarterly groundwaler .7 BUIion Gal. Groundwaler . WeUhead lIearmenl wilh . Spenl carbon hatdled In . GrouncJwaler lIealed
Imposed on Norton AFB monitoring 10 manllor ConIa~led Wlih VOCs; mobile GAC lIeaunenl accordanal wilh RCM 10 deanup slandards
properly unlll deanup plume and delermine 2.4 . 10 carcinogenic unll or providing waler Subtide C AMAs il
standarcb .,. allalned. eflecllv_ss 01 risk level SUpplies In accordance lesled as hazardous . Reinjeclion olllealed
allernallve. wlih oII.base waler wasle wal"
. Maximum Concenllalion I contingency policy
TCE: 500 ugI\. . Regeneration al oII-lIle . Residual RISk no
1Ienz-: 12 ug/\. reo_radon IacIIIIy gr.aler II1an 1 0-6
1.24--...: 1.0 ugIl
1.24ic11loroelhy""': 120 ugIl . Trealmenllor 30 years
TelrachIor08lhy""': 2 ugI\. 10 meel cleanup
1.1.I.Trlcl1loroel"-: O.Dug/\.
Vinyl Chloride: 1 ugIl standards
M - mUlIon dollars
1 - Based on sampling conducted alter Deoember 1991
NORTON AIR FORCE BASE
Groundwater Alternatives
Figure No. 7-1
-------
. .
. .
TAIlE 7-1
COMPARATIVE ANAlY81S OF COMPliANCE WITH ARARS
OROUNDWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
ARAR
Altematlve 18'
Air Slrlpplng
Altematlw 1 C'
Ca.t»on Adaorptlon
Chemical.5Decltlc
"
W
Locatlon.sD8c1f1c
Mulmum Contaminant Lavel. IMCL.I
low-level Radioactive Wnte Policy Amendment Act
142 USC IU0211bl - 2021(j1l
National Emlnlon Standanl. lor Haunloue Air
Polut...t. - NESHAPe 140 CFR 181.83. 181.12,
181.102. end 18. .3481
R~A location Siandanl. ITitIe 22 C~ Chaptar 14
188264,181
Air .trlpplng can remove groundwater contamlnanll to meet
MCl.: TCE 15 Pall!; benz8ne II Pall!; '.2-DCA 10.5 Pa/U; Tol81
1.2-DCE 18 pg/Ll; PCE 15 pg/ll; 1.1.1,-TCA 1200 pg/ll; and vinyl
chlorida 10.5 pg/ll. MCla a.. re18,,8I\1 and appropriete lor
groundweter thet I. . pot.ntlal drinking w.ter 'ource.
II acllvated carbon I. required. It wID be te.ted lrequently lor
r.dioactivlty level to en.ure compll.nce with thl. relative and
appropriate Act. Thl. requfrement I. relevanl and .ppropriate; It
I. not .pplic.ble bec.u.e .pent c.rbon would not meet the
,"."n"'"n 01 . low.""" ,...108011... w..t.. The delln'tlon eppU..
to .ource materia'.. nol n.tureUy occurring r.dlatlon.
Air .trlpplng win comply with thl. relevant .nd .pproprl.te ARAR.
Due to low redlonuclida concentr.tlon. In groundwater.
,edlonucllcle .mI..lon. wII not ...utt In any membe, of the public
receiving .n eflectlve do.. 01 10 milli",m./y'" due to ,.poI""
to emlllion.. Due to low conc.ntr.tlon. of vinyl chloride In
groundwater. vinyl chlorida .mlnlon. win not excaed '0 ppm
13 hour a...r8Oel. Due to low concentration. 01 benzene. ai,
.trlpplng .mlllion. will not contain more then '0 meg8Oram.
b.nzane plr Y'''. NESHAP. a.. not .ppllcable beeau.e
groundwater la not "at 18..t 10"" wlatlle haunlou. ail' pollutant.
by walght.. Ho_ver, the .ub.tantlw requfrement. wID be
compiled with.
FacMlty will not be con.truetad within 200 It 01 an earthquake
lault and. II .lted within the I()().ye., lloodpl8ln. win be de.igned.
con.trueted. operated and maintained to prevent wa.hout 01
we.te. Thl. ARAR I. relev8l'lt and appropriate.
Activated carbon can remove groundwetar contaminant. to -t
MCl.: TeE 15 Pa/ll; beNa". 11 Pall); 1,2-t)CA 10.5 Pall); Total
1.2.DC£ 18 pg/ll; PC( 15 PO/lI; 1.1.1.- TCA 1200 pg/Ll; end vinyl
chlorida 10.5 pg/ll. MCl. ere re18vant end approprl.te lOf
groundwater that I. a potantlal drinking water lOurca.
Activated carbon wII be t..tad frequently fOf redloacUvlly level
to en.ure compllanc. with thi. ..levant end appropriate Act.
ThI. requirement II relatlw and apptOPri.18; It la nol applicable
bee.u.. .pent carbon woutd not _t the definition 01 a low.
18.... r...Io80II... w..t.. TM d.llnltlon .pplle. to .0....,.
m.t.rla',. not n.tur.by occurring ,edl.tlon.
NA; no .mlnlon..
Facility win not be con.trueted within 200 It 01 en ..rthquake
lault and. II alted within the 1 ()().ye8l' floodplain. will be de.lgned,
con.tructed. operated end malnteln8d to poewnt wa.hout 01
wa.te. Thl. ARAR I. relevant end epproprla'e.
Altemet"", 1 8 end 1 C Include -Aheed treetment by mobl18 OAC unit. for allected oil-b... _n.. a. outlined In the Norton AFB Waler Supply Conting.ncy Policy. TMrelore, ARAR. pertelnlng '0 certJon
adeorptlon 'Allam.tlw 1 C) .re 81.0 ARAA. lor mobile OAC unit. under Altemetlve 1 B.
NA - Not an ARAR
C8AouAOD.7-' p1015
111'8113
-------
"
~: ~I'. ~i" , t
.',:'
I'
TABlE 7.' Icontlnued)
COMPARA TlVE ANAL VSIS OF COMPlIANCE WITH ARARS
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
/v
; ',4'1 ~. ~ ": I,: _. ~~
f1 ''',U:' '/ I ~'.
_I.
': -.,,,,"',1 ...'
ARAR
Altlmltive 18'
Air Stripping
Altlmltive 1 C'
Celbon Ad.orptlon
Actlon-8_1f1c
"
'J.
Tenk Sy.tlm.1TIt1e 22 CCR U66264.190-
, 86264.188)
Mi.clilineou. Unit. ITItIe 22 CCR 1166264.60().
66264.803'
o....rltor Stendard. ITItIe 22 CCR 166282.34)
Stendlrel. for Protection Alllin.t RMiltlon 11 0 CFR
Pert 20' '
UndlrgroUndlnjection Control 140 CFR 11441
Trln.ponlble Tr..tment Unit !TItle 22 CCR 1874501
Relevent Ind approprlltl .ub.tlntive requirement. will be
Incorporlted into d8e1an end operltlon of the tw. u.ed to .tore
llroundwetlr.
The IIr .tripplng to_r wiG be Ioclted. dl.igned. con.tructed.
opetatld. m8lnt8inecl. and clo.ld In I mlnner thlt Inlure.
protlctlon of humin hellth and the Invlronment 11.0.. ~vontlon
of relel.e.) Ind wiG thereby comply with the relevlnt Ind
appropriatl .ub.tentlve requlr8ment. for mI.cIII_ou. tr..tment
unit..
WHI comply with 8PPllclble Olnerltor .tlndlrel. for eccumulltlon
end Itor801 of lpent corbon.
NA; no redloactJve Wlltl I. llinerited.
The llroundwltlr reinjoc:tlon _II. Ire rillulltid undlr the UIC
program. Reinjection of treeted wltlr UllnQ reinjection _II. will
comply with the Ippliclble .ub.tlntive requirement. of the UIC
permit prollr.m. including llinerl' prollr.m requirement.. 'or
CIII' V wen..
The lir .trlpping tower i. con.lelered I Ii.ed tr..tment unit,
Operation of the lir .tripplng tower win comply with Ippliclble
.ub.tlntlve roquiromenU for fi.ed treatment unlu. Includinll
di.chlrge 01 trelted effluent Ind tre.tment It .ite 01 wllte
oenerltion.
RoIevent Ind appropriltl lub.tentlve re..--nt. wll be
Incorporeted Into dl.ign 8ncI operltion of c8ltNln trel-- unit.
andll_leted tria u88d to .t-llroundwlltlr.
NA: corbon unit. end a._llted tonk. Ire rooullted uncI8r RCRA
t'" rooulatlon..
WI. comply with applicable lIanerltor .tand8rd. for ICcurnuiltlon
and .tor801 of apent c8ltNln.
Spent clrbon wiG not I.c..d perml..lble 1e...1. of rediltlon In
unro.tricted area. Idue to Ib80rptlon of netur8ly occurring
redlonuclldea). including: whole body dO'1 of 0.5 rem/.,.-.
0.002 remlhour. or O. 1 rem In 7 con.ocuti... dlY', Thil ARAft la
relevont Ind Ipproprlltl; It I. not Ippliclble bec:IU.. .pent
colbon I. not I Nue'..r Aeoulltory Commi..Ion.licln88d W..tl.
The Ilroundwlt8f relnj8c:tion we" - rooullted undar the UIC
progrlm. Reinjection of trelted weter u.1ng ..injection _Ie will
comply with the Ippllclble .ub.tantlve requirement. of the UIC
permit program. including general program ,.quiramenl.. tor
CI... V wall..
A clrbon trlatment .y.te", I. con.lellred a Ii.ed tr..tment unit;
the mobile calbon unit. for waHheed tre.tment - con.ld.rod
trln.port.ble treatment unit.. Operation of the carbon unit. will
comply with .ppliclble .ub.tantlve requirlment. for fi.ed 8ncI
tron.port.ble tr.atment unit,. Including diech8l'll8 of trellt"
e!fluent end tro.tment lit .ltl of wa.tl oeneratlon.
Altamatlve. 18 end 1C Include w8nheed treatment by mobile OAC unlta for allected oll-bl.e well.. a. outUnod In tho Norton AF8 Water Supply Contlnglncy Policy. Therefore. ARAR. pen lining to corbon
Idoorptlon 'Altemetlve 1 C) Ire 11.0 ARARe for mobile OAC unit. under Alternative 18.
NA . Not 8ft ARAft
CBAouROO.7.1 p20f6
, "t8l13
-------
\ ~ .
TABlE 7.' Icontlnuedl
, ,
, ,
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
ARAR
Altom8tive 18'
Air Stripping
Altom8tlve 1 C'
C8rbon Ad80'1Itlon
SCAOMD Rule.
. Rule 401 . VI.lble Emlnlon.
Air .tripplng wlU comply with oppllcoble Rute 401 bocOU88 It will
not produce vI.lble emlnlon. of .ny oir contomlnont for 0
periodl.1 8IIgregotina - thon three minute. In on hour which
I.: 101 o. d.rII or darll.r then the da.lgnoted No.1 on the
Rlngelm.nn o.art, or Ibl of .uch opacity a. to ob.cUN an
ob.e,...r'. view to 0 degree equal to or greater than d_. .moke
a. d..crlbed In 101 above.
. Rule 403 . Fugitive Du.t
Applicable to portlculote metter due to con.tructlonJexcovatlon.
In.t8llatlon of groundw8ter _Ie wID comply with fugitive du.t
reoulotlon.; pertlculote metter win not exceed 50 PO/m'.
...,
,
c.n
e Rule 404 . Partlculete Matter
Air .tripplng wiD comply with eppllc.ble Rule 404 due to low
partlcul.te matter emlnlon. expected It he concentretlon. of
contomlnant. that would be con.ldered partlcul8te matter. e.g.,
redlonucllde., ore Iowl. Air .tripplng wiD not diecherge
partlculoto m.tter In oxce.. of the dlecherve partlculote m.tter
.tondord that corro.pond. to the volume of emlnlon. dlecharved
Idetormined .. dry 00.1 or In e.ce.. of 450 milligram. per cubic
meter In eminlon. la. dry ge.l. The volume of emlnlon. win be
determined during de.lgn.
n ~ . \
NA; no eml..Ion..
Applicable to portlculate matter due to con.tructlonJexcev8tlon.
In.taaetlon 0' groundw.ter _n. will comply with fugitive duet
regulation.; portlculote motter wII not e.ceed 50 IIGlm'.
NA: no emlnlon..
Altemotlve. 18 end 1C Include wellh8ed treotment by mobile OAC unit. for affected off.ba.. wall., a. outUned In the , Norton AF8 Water Supply Contingency Policy. There'ore, ARAR. pertaining to carbon
ed8O'1ltion IAltamatlve 1C1 - ".0 ARAR. for mobile OAC unit. under Alternative 18.
NA . Not 8ft ARAR
CBAouROD.7.1 p3of6
!t11M3
-------
., .
, ,
,..,
;~. : .,.
.. .
. .
.: I"
," .'
: .: . ~. . I' .
,1,1 ',' -
,". '",or' ,
..'
Altem.tlw 1 C'
C.ltIon Ad 8O'1Itlon
. .:
ARAR
TABlE 7.1 lcontlnued'
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Of COMPlIANCE WITH ARARS
OROUNDWA TER TREATMENT Al TEANATIVES
AIt.m8t1w 1 B'
AII' Stripping
NA; no eml..lonl.
e Rule 408 . Cln:umwntlon
e Regul.tlon XUI . N.w Source RnMw, Rule 1303
~
. ,
en
e Ru" 1401 . N.w Source Review 01 Carclnog.nic
Air Cont.minentl
._.. ...."--
The .11' Itripplng .It.m.tlw will not Includ. equipment thlt
would, without. .-duetion In the tot81 ....... 01 81,
cont.mln.ntl to the ._lpN... .-due. 0' cone..1 .n eml..1on
th.t would otNrwl.. vIol.te SCAQMO rulel 0' Ch.pte, 3. Pert 4,
Divilion 26 01 tN He8lth end S,'ety Code; .... Itrlpping wHI
comply with thll .ppllc.b.. rule.
Ru" 1303 C.II. eppliceb" to net Inc...... In .mi..ion. 01 1,1.1
TCA C..gul.ted h.logen.ted hydroc.ltIonl end orone. Due to tN
low groundw.t., VOC coneent..tlonl. eml..lon. wlR be below
tN 1 Ib/dey UmIt .bow which Belt Ay.U.bIe Control Technology
(BACT) II ..qult8d to limit .mI..lon Inc...... (SCAQMD
conlld... en .mI..lonl Inc..... to be .n Inc..... 01 et ....t
1 Ib/d.y. CUff8nt expected eml..lon. - 0.078 Ib/d.yl.
Howewr. the .... Itrlpplng 10_r wll be equipped with I Ylpor.
ph..e carbon ed80rptlon unit for tNltment of ImI..lon. which
wlU be u..d II dltec:t dlech...... do.. not comply with .1, qu.lity
ARARI Cc.rban adlo'1ltlon II BACT lor elr .tripplng .mllllonll.
'The AF will con.uIt with the SCAQMO reglrdlng eml..lon.
oll..t. ..quired In Rule 1303 Cbl during de.lgn.
Applic.b" to .mi..lon. 01 Tee Ind vinyl chloride ("gul.ted
c.rcinog.nic 81, contemin.ntll lram new 10ure.. I.i, Itripperl.
Air .trlpping Imi..lon. 01 TCE Ind vinyl chloride will comply
beclule .mI..ion. wll be below the 1 II 104 ri.k "11'81 .t.ted In
tN Rule. Subltentlw requirement. pert.1n1nQ to permit. will be
met.
NA; no eml.8Ione.
NA; no emi..lon..
Altem.tlw. 1B end 1C Include wellNad tre.tment by mobile OAC unit. 10' .II.ct.d oll.b... weUl, .. outlined in the Norton AFB Wlter Supply Contingency Policy. 'Therelo,e, ARARI perteinlng to carbon
ad80'1Itlon CAltem.tlw 1 C, ere "'0 ARAR. 10' mobile GAC unit. undlr Altem.tive 1 B.
NA . Not an ARAR
C8AouROO.7.1 p4015
11/18/83
-------
TA8LE 7-' Icontlnued'
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
OROUNDWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
ARAR
Altomatiw , C'
C8rb0n Ad IOf1Ition
AltolMlNe 1B'
Air Stripping
W 8Ior QuoUty Objective. CW otor Quollty Control PI.n,
Sonte Ane River Be.ln PIon'
Steto Re.olutlon 68-16
.....
.
.....
Woter quelity object""'. ere opplicoble to dl.ch.rge. ellectlng
woter. of tho .toto. The Air Fo..:o I. rupon.lllie for woter
quolity objectl.... portolnlng to It. contomlnent..
Reinjection 01 aroundwoter treoted by Be.t Domon.tr.ted Control
Technology to concontrotion. no areeter thon MCL. wiD comply
with eppllcoblo Steto Ro.oMlon 68.16; treated aroundwoter will
be reinjected Into the p'ume whore concentrotlona ore areoter
thon thot 01 treotod wotor. If ground...ot.. 10 reinjected outolde
tho plume whore concontratlon. ore 10.. thon thet 01 treoted
woto" tho ground...oto, will not OIIcoocI 6 pall ot any time or
0.5 paIL o...raged over 0 3O-doy period lor each 01 tho
aroundwater contemlnonta lined In Table 9-1.
Woter quality objectlveo ore eppllcable to dlachorgoa affecting
woto.. 01 tho .toto. The Air F- Ie re.ponalllle lor wotor
quollty objective. pertolnlng to It. contominenta.
Reinjection 01 aroundwotor treoted by Be.t Dornon.troted Control
Technology to concontrotlona no areotor than MCLa wII comply
with applicable Stoto Roaolutlon 68-16; treated aroundw8l0, wII
be reinJected Into tho plume whore concent,ation. - areator
then thot 01 treoted ...oto,. II aroundwoto, I. rolnjocted out.lde
tho plume whore c_nt,otlon. ore Ie.. thon that 01 troated
water, tho aroundwat.r wi. not ..cNd 6 paIL at any time or
0.5 pall a...raged 0- 0 3O-doy period lor oach 01 tho
aroundwater contaminant. I8ted In Tobie g., .
"
Altomatlve. '8 and 1C Includo wollhead treatment by mob'le OAC unit. lor allectod oll-bo.e woll., a. outlined In tho Norton AFB Wote, Supply Contlngoncy Policy. Therolore, ARAR. pertolnlng to certlon
ad80rptlon IAltamatlve 1 CI - .180 ARARa lor mobile OAC unit. undor Altom.tl... 1 B.
NA . Not an ARAA
CRAouROD.7-' p5016
1112.,13
-------
AF will provide notice of this restriction in any purchase, lease, or other agreement relating to that
property. The AF will continue to perform quarterly monitoring of selected groundwater wells that
define the limits of the plume and provide information on the effectiveness of the extraction and
treatment. Groundwater extraction locations, flowrates, and tower specifications will be
determined in the Remedial Design (RD) phase through engineering design and analysis.
Groundwater wells will be installed in accordance with the To Be Considered (TBC) Water Well
Standards, Bulletin 74-90. The air stripping tower will be designed to remove vacs in
groundwater to levels no greater than the cleanup standards (USEPA and Cal-EPA MCls).
For off-base water supply wells where contaminant levels exceed MCls, the AF will provide
temporary water treatment facilities using mobile granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment units
or 'alternate water supplies. As appropriate the Air Force will also provide long-term treatment such
as permanent installation of an air stripping treatment system, replacement water well, or other
actions. These actions will be implemented in accordance with the decision matrix outlined in the
Water Supply Contingency Policy, dated August 25, 1993. ARARs identified for carbon adsorption
(Alternative 1 C) will be ARARs for this portion of Alternative 1 B, and will be complied with.
Emissions will be directly discharged. however vapor-phase carbon emission controls will be built
into the system; use will be contingent upon emission levels. Direct discharge of air stripping
tower emissions into the atmosphere will comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) regulations for risk due to emissions and chemical-specific air emissions, and the TBC
Statement of Policv on Control of Air StriDDer Emissions (OSWER Dir. 9355.028) which provides
hourly, daily, and yearly facility-wide emission levels. The cumulative carcinogenic risk to human
health predicted from inhalation of VOCs due to direct discharge of air stripper emissions is 1.6 x
10'7, which is below the 1 x 10.8 risk level in SCAQMD Rule 1401. During the design of the
remedy, the AF will coordinate with SCAQMD to ensure that any direct discharge is in compliance
with SCAQMD Rule 1303 (applicable to 1,1, 1-trichloroethane emissions and ozone produced by
VOC emissions) limit of 1 Ib/day cumulative emissions of all air strippers. The Air Force will
measure emission levels during the design phase to ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1303.
If at any point during the air stripping treatment emissions are not in compliance with SCAQMD
regulations, the built-in carbon adsorption emission treatment unit will be employed.
.
Carbon Adsorction. Specifications will be determined in the RD phase through
engineering design and analysis. The system will be designed to remove TCE in
vapor such that emissions meet air Quality ARARs. Spent GAC generated will be
transported offsite by the carbon vendor, who will decide whether carbon will be
regenerated or disposed.' Before being transported offsite. spent carbon will be
tested to determine whether it is a RCRA hazardous waste as defined in Title 22
CCR Division 4.5 166261. If spent carbon is determined to be a hazardous waste,
RCRA regulations for generators of hazardous waste (Title 22 CCR Division 4.5
t 66262.34) are applicable. Regulations for off-site transportation will be met. Any
risk to human health and the environment is reduced. The total cost for vapor-
phase carbon adsorption is $9,510,000 (based on 30 years of operation).
Treated water will be reinjected in compliance with State Resolution 68-16 and the Santa Ana
River Basin Water Quality Control Plan's Water Quality Objectives, or if the technical or economic
feasibility prohibits compliance, then the treated water will be reinjected into the same water
bearing zone from which water is extracted.
,
.
Due to the type of groundweter VOCs. it is expected that carbon will be regenerated.
. CBAouROD.7
7-8
11/24/93
..
, ,
, "
,
'.
-------
At the completion of the remedy. the cumulative carcinogenic risk to human health due to 9
ingestion of and inhalation of airborne VOCs in groundwater will be no greater than 10". The
estimated time to implement this remedy and to meet cleanup standards is 30 years. The total
cost'of treatment by air stripping for the 30-year period is $28.050.000 (excluding emission
controls) .
AL TERNA TIVE 1C - CARBON ADSORPTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
Deed restrictions
Groundwater monitoring
Groundwater extraction
Wellhead treatment or provision of water supplies
Treatment by liquid-phase GAC adsorption
Reinjection of treated water
The volume of groundwater to be treated is based on current site knowledge of plume extent.
Further plume characterization is being performed. The results of the characterization will affect
design of this alternative both on and offsite. but not selection of the remedy. Prior to sale or
transfer of any Norton AFB property overlying the contaminated groundwater plume. the AF will
record a land use restriction in accordance with California Health and Safety Code t 25230 as an
institutional control to prohibit installation of additional wells until after the groundwater standards,
have been achieved. and the AF will provide notice of this restriction in any purchase. lease. or
other agreement relating to that property. The AF will continue to perform Quarterly monitoring of
selected groundwater wells that define the limits of the plume and provide information on the
effectiveness of the extraction and treatment.
Groundwater extraction locations, flowrates, and GAC unit specifications will be determined in the
RD phase through engineering design and analysis. Groundwater wells will be installed in
accordance with the TBC Water Well Standards, Bulletin 74-90. The GAC units will be designed to
remove VOCs in groundwater to levels no greater than the cleanup standards. The spent carbon
will be transported offsite by the carbon vendor. The carbon vendor is responsible for determining
whether the carbon will be regenerated or disposed2. Spent carbon will be tested to determine
whether it is a RCRA hazardous waste as defined in Title 22 CCR Division 4.5 166261. If spent
carbon is determined a hazardous waste. RCRA regulations for generators of hazardous waste (Title
22 CCR Division 4.5 166262.34) are applicable. Spent GAC will be transported in compliance with
regulations pertaining to off-site transportation. Spent GAC will be monitored on a long-term basis
for radioactivity due to the adsorption of naturally occurring radon gas in groundwater to ensure
that carbon does not exceed permissible standards of radiation in the relevant and appropriate
Standards for Protection Against Radiation (10 CFR Part 20) and complies with the Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Policy Amendment Act of 1985.
For the off-base water supply wells where contaminant levels exceed MCLs. the AF will provide
temporary water treatment facilities at affected water supply wells using mobile GAC treatment
units or provide alternate water supplies. As appropriate. the AF will also provide long-term
treatment such as permanent installation of an air stripping treatment system. replacement water
well, or other action. These actions w.iII be implemented in accordance with the decision matrix
outlined in the Water Supply Contingency Policy. dated August 25. 1993. ARARs identified for
2 Due to the type of groundw8ter VOCI, it is expected thet C:8rbon will be generated.
CBAouROD.7
7-9
, 1/24/93
-------
carbon adsorption (Alternative 1 C) will be ARARs for this ponion of Alternative 1 B, and will be
complied with.
Treated water will be reinjected in compliance with State Resolution 68-16 and the Santa Ana
River Basin Water Quality Control Plan's Water Quality Objectives, or if the technical or economic
feasibility prohibits compliance, then the treated water will be reinjected into the same water
bearing zone from which water is extracted.
At the completion of the remedy, the cumulative carcinogenic risk to human health due to ingestion
of and inhalation of airborne VOCs in groundwater will be no greater than 10.'. The estimated time
to implement this remedy and to meet cleanup standards is 30 years. The total cost for the 30-
year period is $133,060,000.
7.2 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR SOILS
7.2.1 DEEP SUBSURFACE SOILS
Approximately 148,700 cy of deep subsurface soil contain TCE: 125,000 cv at the MW90 Area
and 23,700 cy at Building 763. The volume of deep subsurface soil affected was determined
through RI data. There is no current risk to human health due to direct contact with soil containing
TCE. TCE in soil poses a potential future threat to public health and a threat to the environment.
The environmental risk is to groundwater because TCE in deep subsurface soils may potentially
affect groundwater Quality. There are three deep subsurface soil alternatives (Fig. 7.2). The
ARARs for each alternative are identified in Table 7-2. The text highlights the major ARARs.
Soil at Nonon AFB contains TCE and other VOCs. The situation at Nonon AFB is sufficiently
similar to other situations for which the RCRA requirements for treatment, storage, and disposal
were designed, and therefore the RCRA requirements for treatment, storage. and disposal are
applicable for the TCE-containing material. Specifically, the RCRA "contained-in" policy would
apply. Soil containing TCE must be handled as if it were a hazardous waste until the soil no longer
contains the listed waste. At Nonon AFB, it has been determined that if the soil are treated to the
cleanup standards of 5 pgIL. (ppb) in leachate, the soil will no longer be considered to contain a
listed waste and need not be handled as a hazardous waste.
AL TERNA TIVE 2A - NO ACTION
This alternative, required for consideration by the NCP, involves no remedial actions to address
deep subsurface soil contamination. No action is implemented. This alternative will not comply
with the Water Quality Objective for toxicity stated in the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality
Control Plan due to the possible impacts to groundwater from TCE in soil. This alternative will not
reduce the risk to the environment posed by the TCE in deep subsurface soils.
AL TERNA TIVE 28 . GROUNDWA TER MONITORING/PERCHED ZONE DEWA TERING
.
.
.
.
Deed restrictions
Groundwater monitoring
Perched zone dewatering
Treatment by selected groundwater remedy
Prior to sale or transfer of any Norton AFB propeny overlying deep subsurface soil contamination,
the AF will record a land use restriction in accordance with California Health and Safety Code
t 25230 as an institutional control to prohibit excavation until after the deep subsurface so;1
CBAouROD.7
7-10
11/24/93
-------
ALTERNATIVE 2A
NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 28
GROUNDWATER
MONITORINGI
PERCHED ZONE
DEWATERING
Tola! Cost $1.74M
....
,
...
...
ALTERNATIVE 2C
IN SITU SVE
Total Cost $2.37M
(excluding emission
. control)
M . millon dollars
Cardnogenlc risk level
due 10 TCE Is less than
10 -41; gfOundwaler risk
remains
Deed
Re.trictlons
Groundw.ter
Monitoring
. Ouarlerly groundwater
monitoring 01 perched lone
and underlying aquifer 10
monilor wale, leyels. possjble
mlg'alion 01 TCE In soil
. Deed restrlcllons on Norlon
AF8 properly overlyIng deep
soli oonlamination unlM deanup
standards - al18lned
Perched Zone
Dewatering
Treatment
. Perched lone wells . Extracted perched lone _ter
dewatered when water reaches treated by selected
proset water levols groundwater remedy
. Troalmentlor 30 years 10 meel
cleanup standards
. 148.700 cy 01 Deep SoU
Conlamlnated With VOCs
at MW90 and Building 763
. Carc:lnoOBnlC rtsk Iovel due to
TCE Is less than 10-6
. Residual Risk less than 10 -6
Deed Groundwater In Situ SVE O".aa. Treatment
Re.trtctlon. Monitoring
. Deed rntrlcllons on NorIOn . Quarterly groundwater . T r.atmenllor 18 months 10 . SVE o"~as will comply with air
AFB pmpIIf1y overlying deep monitoring 01 perched rane meet deanup standarOs quailly ARARs through
I0Il oonl8r'lWlIon unlit deanup and underlying aquifer 10 treatment by yapor.phase
standards - aRl*1ed rnonilOf waler levels, possible . 148,700 cy 01 Deep Soil carbon adsorption. or no
migration 01 TCE In soil, and Contaminated IMth VOCs treatment II untreated
efleetlveness 01 treatment at MW90 and Building 763 emissions are In CIQI'I1p11anoe
. Carc:lnoOBnlc risk level due 10
T CE Is less than t 0-6
. Residual Risk less than 10-6
-
NORTON AIR FORCE BASE
Deep Subsurface Soils Alternative$
Figure No. 7.2
-------
~ 1: : '
- J
I" ..... .
..,
',~.; . i ~ !. 4
, r .
TABlE 7.2
COMPARATIVE AN ALYSia OF COMPLIANCE WITH ARARa
. lOllS AL TERN A TIVEI
"". ..",. '- .
..'
'-
Ah.l'N1Iw 21'
P.rched Zo...
Dew.t'''ng
Ah.lft8dvo 2C13D
In Situ IVE
Ah.lft8dvo 38148
be.v.Uon
O"-oh. Dtapo.oI
Ah.lft8dw 3C
bUV8donl£a Situ aYE
On""', Uoo
Ah.-dw 4C
bcovotlonl£a Situ aVE
Otf-oh. DIopoool
ARAR
, Cttomcol.S_lfIc Maximum Contomlnant
, lovel. (MClol
Actlon.I_lfIc
.....
.
...
"-I
. .
,;
.
w..t. PIle (Thle 22
CCR "68264.260-
68264.2581
Tank Sy.t.m. (Title 22
j, / :CCR "86264.180-
.. . 68264.1ttl
, .. .... .~..:...
.,
ii
.'
f
,I
1.1,..\", . ";:. "..
.'. I. "'~'
.: ~ '. . . : :. - ~~'.
Perched watlr Ixtractocl
undlr Altlmatlve 28 will be
trelted und., tho ..leetocl
groundwator l'lmody.
Through tho groundwlter
l'lmody. TCE will be ,.moved
to molt tho relevant Ind
Ipproprllte 6 IIOfL MCl lrefer
to T.ble 7.1).
NA
Perchod wltlr requiring
treltment will bo ocIdod to
oxtractod groundwater trlltod
under tho groundwltor
I'lmocIy; roter to Table 1.1 tor
tlnk compli8nC' undor
groundwlter Iltlmativol.
NA
NA
NA
NA
Will comply with Ippliclble
goneretor .tondordl lor
accumulation Ind .torag, of
Ipent cltbon It catbon Uled to
trolt SVE .mi..ion. i.
conlidored I RCRA
ch8foctoriltic Wllio.
NA
NA
NA
WiD comply with Ippliclble
g.nerotor Itondlrdl lor
ICcumulltlon end .torago of
IxcavII.d loi' it loi' il
dotonnined 0 RCRA
ch8focterillic Wllio.
NA
Relevlnt and approprlatl
.ub.tantlvo I'Iqulroment. lor
Wllto pllol wiD be mot.
Requiromont. wiD be applicable
II loll II con.ldlrod a RCRA
Wlltl duo to TCE
conc.ntrotion..
NA
Will comply wilh ,ppliclble
gonerotor Itlndlrdl lor
occUlnulation and .torago of
loi' Dr Iplnt cltbon (from
omillion. t..atmontl if loil or
clrbon il conlidored I RCRA
ch8fact,ri.lic Wlltl.
NA
Relevant and Ipproprilto
.ub.tontlvo req""""'1 lor
Wlltl pit.. wII be _to
Requlrementl wil be
conlldorod .pIIe..... " 00II Ie
dlt.nNnod to be I ReRA
h..lrdoul Wlltl duo to TCE
or chromium COnconuoUonl.
NA
WiD comply with opplicable
glnerotor It,ndord. lor
ICcumuiation and Itoraga of
loil tor off. lit. dilpol" or
.pent clition from ,mlllionl
treltment It ooiI or corbon i.
conlidlrod a RCRA h8lardoul
w..t..
Peroh8cl WIt... Ixtroctocl undlr A~.mltlve 28 wl/l be t..ltld Ind dilchlrgld under tho ..leetld ro~dy tor groundwlter. Relor to Tlble 1.1 lor ARARI pertoln/na to perched Wltor t"ltment end dlochorgl.
. 1 . '.' ' . Gonerotor St,ndlrdl
, . .: 11lt18 22 CCR Div. 4_6
166282.341
CBAouROD.7.2 p10te
NA . Not en ARAR
1 tit 8113
-------
TABlE 7-2 Icondlll88dl
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPliANCE WITH ARARS
SOilS Al TERNA TIVES
In SItu SVE
Altamed". 38/48
ElICa..atlon
Off ..Ita Dlepoa"
Altamed". 3C
ElICa...tIonlEa SItu aYE
On""a u..
Alta....d... 4C
EIIC....denlEa SIt.. IVE
Off..eta DIe"'"
AMR
AltamedWl 2.
'a",heeI Z-
Oa.atall..
AltamedWl 2C1JO
Tranaportable NA 'The SVE unit 'a conalder8d a NA 'The SVE unit 18 conaldar8d a 'The SVE unit la con.War8d a
T ..atment Unit ,TItle tranaport'" tl8atment unit. t,anaport.1e tl8atmenl unit. t,-port.1e tl881m8nt unit.
22 CCR '674501 The SVE unit will meat the The SVE unit wII ....t the The SVE unit wII .-et the
appllc8b18 eubatantlw appllceble aubetentMI applicable eubat_1w
,aqulrementa lor t,en.portable raquftmant. fOf tren.port.1e ..~t. for t,-port""
t'eetment unit.. ., operating t..atment unite, including the t..atment unite, including the
fo, mora "'en 1 y.." SCAQMO 1-ya.. atat"" 1mIt. 1.ye., atat..,. limit.
approval lOf en a..en.1on of
the . .ya. .tatlonlng limit wiI
be required.
SCAQMD Rulea NA fo, dawatarlng. "'",hed SVE will comply with applicable NA SVE wll comply with applicable SVE will comply with
wata, ....... t..atment wlq Rule 40. bacau.e It will not Rula 40. beeeu.a It will not applicable Rula 40. bee_a It
~ a Aula 40. . be tre atad unda, the .alectad produce vI.ible amlnlon. of produca vlalble arnlaalona of will not produca vlaib18
... V18.1e Emlnlona groundwata, ..mody; rafa, to any ai, contaminant fo, a any air cont~ant for a arnlulona of eny air
Co) Table 7.1 fo, groundwata, perlodl.' aggregating more than perlodl.1 aggregating - then contaminant for a perlodlal
altamatl...a. threa mlnutn In an hour which threa mlnuta. In en hour which aggregating - then "...a
I.: lal a. dart 0' darta, than la: lal aa dart or darta, than mlnutaa In 8ft hour which 'a:
the de.lgnatad No.1 on the the daalgnatad No.1 on the lal aa dart Of dorta, than the
Ringelmann Chart. 0' Ibl of Ringalma- Chart, or Ibl of de.lgnatad No. . on the
.uch opeclty aa to ob.cura en auch opacity aa to obacUr8 en Ringalm..., Chart, Of Ibl of
ob.erver'. vlaw to a degrea ob.e,...,' a vlaw to a dag... .uch opeclty aa to obacUfO en
equal to 0' greata, then doea aqua' to Of greata, then doea obaa,.,.r' a vlaw to a dog...
.moke e. dncribed In lei .moke a. daacribad In lei aqual to Of greata, then doe.
above. abo.... .moka aa daacribad In 101
abo....
a Rula 403 Applicable to partlculata Applicable to partlculata mana, Applicable to particulate mane, Applicable to partlculata man.. Applicable to partlculata
Fugltlw Duat mane, due to due to con.tructlonlexcevatlon. due to excavetlon. Excavetlon due to con.tructlonlaxcavatlon. mana, due to
con.tructlonlaxcavetlon. Inltanatlon of SVE .y.tem wHi and IOU handling wHI comply Excavation and IOU handling conatructloniallCavatlon.
Inltanatlon of groundwata, comply with fugitive du.t with fugitive duat ..gulationa: win comply with fugitive duat Excavation and aoII handing
wall. will comply with fugitive ,eguletlon.; partlculata mana, partlculata mane, will not ",gulatlon.; partlculata metta, wHI comply with lugltlw du.t
du.t regutatlon.; particulate will not axc..d 50 IIV/m'. axceed 50 IIV/m'. wHI not axc..d 50 IIV/m'. regulationa; partlculata mana,
mana, will not axcaad 50 will not axcHd 50 IIVI"".
IIV/m' .
~heeI wata, a..,acl8cl unda, Altamatl- 28 will be t..atad and dl8chargad unde, the .alected remedy fo, groundwata,. Refa, to Table 7-1 10' AMR. pertaining to parched wata, t..atment and dlacharga.
CBAouAOO.7-2 p20fS
NA - Not an AMR
. 111M3
-------
"., 'Ii. ) .",
TAIlE 7.2 Icontlnuedl
',': ;'1'
'.\" ,.'
.1
COMPARATIVE ANAL VSIS OF COMPliANCE WITH ARAftS
SOilS Al TERNA TIVES
Alto_tift 28 Alto_tift lCl3D Alto_11ft 38148 Alto_tift 3C AIt_tlft 4C
Pen:hed Zone buwodon buntlonlEalilu IVE Eauntl8n1ta III.. IV(
ARAR Dewotollng In IItu IVE Oft -eIte DIe""" On-"'" u.. Oft..o DIe"""
o Rule 404 NA to dowetoring; ..far to SYE will comply with applicable NA SYE will comply whh eppllceble aYE wil comply wIIh
Pertlculato Mattor T8b18 7.1 fOl' oroundwator Rule 404: partlculata ma".r Rule 404: partlculato metter oppllc8b18 Rule 404:
t..etm8nt ahomatlve.. will not be dlacharved In o.ca.. wil not be dlach88'IJed In a.ce.. pertlculet. matter wII not be
of the dlacharvo pertlcul.te of the diach8f1l8 pertlculeu dlacharved In o.ce.. of tho
matter .tendord that ma"", .tandord that diach88'lJo portlculoto mottor
corra.pond. to the volume of cone.pond. to the volume of .tandent th8t c......pond. to
oml..ion. dlac:h.rved oml..ion. dlach8f1led the volume of oml..ion.
Idotormlned .. dry ga.1 or in Idot.nnIned .. dry 0..1 01' In diach8f1led Idot.rmIned .a dry
o.ca.. of 450 milligr..... per o.co.. of 450 rnilJiar..... pe' II'" 01' In ..ce.. of 450
cubic metor In oml..lon. I.. cubic metor In .mI..ion. I.. milligram. per cubic met... In
dry ga'i. The volume of dry oa'i. The volume of aml..ion. la. dry ooal. The
omlniona will be datermlned omlnlona will be dotennlned vokMw 0' amI..1one will be
during do.lI)n. during de'ion. dotarmlned during .'ion.
-.,J
,
.... e Rule 408 NA to dowatoring: ..for to The SYE altemative will not NA The SYE altamat1v8 will not The SYE oItarnetlw wll not
~ Cln:urnventlon Table 7.1 fo, groundwate, Includ. equipment that would. Include .qulpment that would. Include .qulpnwnt that would.
t..atmont altomatlve.. without a ..duction in the total without a reduction In the tot" without a reduction In the
r.i.a.. of air contaminant. to ..lea.. of eI, contaminant. to total ..lea.. of air
the atmo.pho... ..due. or the atmo.pho,.. redue. Of' contaminant. to the
conca" an amlnlon that would conce" an .mlnlon that would atmoaphe... reduco 0' conee"
otherwl.e vIolat. SCAOMD otherwl.. vIolat. SCAOMD .n .mlaalon thet would
rulea or Chapt.r 3. Part 4. Nle. or Clapt.r 3, Part 4. otherwi.. viol.te SCAOMD
Divi.ion 26 of the H.alth and Dlvi.ion 26 of the Heahh .nd Nle. or CI.ptar 3. Pert 4.
Salety Code; SYE will comply Sa'ety Cod.; SYE wIA comply Divi.ion 26 0' the H.ellh end
with thia .pplic.ble Nle. with thi. applicable rule. S,'ety Coda; SYE wit comply
with thi. epplicable rule.
,t','
. .
I'8rched wator ..trocted und.r Altamative 28 will be t..ated .nd di.charved undar the ..lectad ..medy for groundw.tar. Rel.r to T.ble 7.1 lor ARAR. pertaining to perched watar t...tment end diach8f1l..
CBAouROO.7.2 p3016
NA . Not an ARAR
11118193
-------
TA8lE 7-2 Icontlnll8dl
COMPAAATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPliANCE WITH AAAAS
SOilS Al TEANA TIVES
AMR
AIt."",tJI08 28
Perched Zo.
o..a'a""11
Alt."",tJW8 2C130
'n SI'u aVE
AIt.....dw 38/48
Excavation
Off -811. Dlapo..'
Alla"",ttw 3C
baV8don/Ea SItu aVE
On""'. u..
Alla"",tlW8 4C
bC8wdon/Ea SItu lYE
Off -811. DIe""'"
. Aule 1186
VOC Emlnlona
from O8c:ontam-
Inatlon of Soil
NA
...,:
I
..
U1
.., "'.
~ . ,'OJ
Applic.ble to emlnlonl from
loll reoll'orl"O 50 ppm 0'
area'.r VOCa when ""'..~
with.., org anlc vapor enelyzar.
SVE eminlona of TCE will
comply through ,he uaa of SYE
aa the B.., Available Con'roI
Technology (BACT); the Aulo
will bo compiled with.
Applicable to emlllloni from
IOU reglltorlng 60 ppm or
area'.r VOCa when mealured
with an organic vapor analyr.r.
TeE amllliona due to
a.c.vation win be mltig.tod
with SCAQMO-approved aoll
control me.aurel; tho Rule win
be compiled with.
Applicable to .""..Iona from
.011 reolatartng 60 ppm or
areat., vOCe when ""'aa~
with .., organic vapor ..,8Iyra,.
SYE .minlon. of TCE will
comply through the U88 of SYE
a. the Belt Available Control
Technology IBACT); aminlonl
of TCE due to a.nvatlon wi.
be mitigated with SCAQMO.
approved loA control mo.I~I.
The Aule win be complied wllh.
Applicable to emlnlonl from
80A reglat.rtng 60 pprn or
are.ta, voc. when ""'a.~
with.., organic vapot'
..,alyra,. SYE aminlon. of
TCE will comply throuQh the
u.. of SYE a. the BACT;
aml..IoM of TCE due to
a.cavatlon wII be mitigated
with SCAQMO-lIppt'Dved .01
control "",.1,"1. Th8 A"
will be complied with.
CBAouROD.7-2 p40fe
Perched wat., .xtrac'ed uncI.r AIt.ma,l- 28 will be t..a'ed and dlacharged uncIor tho a.lectod remady for aroundwata,. Ref., to Table 7.1 fo, ARARI pertaining to perched wato, treatment end dlacheraa.
11/18113
NA - Not an AAIIR
-------
, , ": ' : ~ I
, "'If.:
~ ,III . J"."
... 1 ~ .J. '""..' ~:' OJ' . J
.', J " .:
TAIlE 7-21c1Nltln.-d1
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPliANCE WITH ARARS
IOlll Al TERNA TIVEa
ARAR
Aho....".. 2.
POfelled Zo.
o..oto"",
Alto...."" 2t/3D
In Situ aVE
AltornotJ.. 38/48
EacovotJon
Oft "'to Dl8po."
Aho-1Iw 3C
E_vetlon/b SItu aVE
On"'" u..
Aho_1Iw 4C
EacowtlonlEa SIt. aY!
Oft..... 018"""
o Regulotlon XIII
Rule '303 - No.
Soun:o Review
Nil.
....,
,
-.
0)
",',
Rule' 303 1.11. .ppllc.ble to
not Inc....o. In .mI..ion. 01
VOC. th.t c.n ...ult in OIOno.
Due to tho low voc .0M
concentrotion.. emi..lon. win
be below tho , Ib/d.y Nmit
requiring u.o 01 Be.t AvoMoble
Control Technology IBACn to
limit eml..1on !ner. ..e.
ISCAOMD con.ldo,. on
eml..lon. Inc....e to be .n
Incr.... 01 .t 1e..1 1 Ib/d.yl.
However. the SVE unil will be
equipped with 0 v.por-ph...
c.rbon od.orplion unit lor
treotment 01 .ml..ion. which
will be u..d If direct dl8Ch.rge
doe. not comply with .ir
qu.llty ARAR. (cerbon
od.Mptlon I. BACT lor SYE
eml..Ion.I. The AF wlU con.ult
with tho SCAOMD ..gOlding
emi..lon. off..t. requirod In
Rule 1303 Ibl during d.'lan.
Nil.
Rule' 303 loll. .ppllc.ble to
not !nereo... In oml..lon. 01
vOCe thot con ...uIt In OIOno.
Due to the low VOC 80M
concontrotione. oml..lon. win
be below tho , Ib/d.y limit
requiring u.. 01 Be.t Av.iIoble
Control Technology IBACn to
AmI( .mI..1on lnueo.o.
ISCAOMO con.Id.,. .n
.ml..lon. !nero... to be .n
Incr...o 01 ot Ie..t , Ib/doyl.
However. tho SVE unit wMI be
oquipped with 0 vepo,-pho..
corbon odeo
-------
TABlE 7-2 Icondnuedl
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPliANCE WITH ARARS
SOILS AL TERNA TIVES
ARAR
Ahamedw 28
'arched Zone
De.ataltng
Aharned.. 2e/3D
In Shu aYE
Aharned... 3B/48
Eacavatlon
0" -efta OIapoa"
Altarned... 3C
bcaV8t1oftlEa SItu aYE
On""'a U.a
Ahamed... 4C
bC8V8t1oft1Ealitu aYE
Off 4Ita Ole"""
a Rule 1401 - Na.
Sourca Rn.w of
CarclnoGanlc Air
Contamlnanta
~
.
-
~
Wa'ar Quality
Objectlwa ewatar
Quelity Control "'an.
Senti Ana River Baaln
"'anI
NA
Th8 preaanea 01 TCE In ao.
could affect a-.nclwatar.
Although It 'a not a dlecharga
to wata,. 01 the atata. water
quality objective a are relevant
and eppropria'e. The removal
of TCE from 801 will comply
whh the watar quality
objective lor to.lclty that
requlrea wata,. to be kept
frea of contemlnanta In
coneantrationa toalc to or that
produca detrimental
phyalologlcal r..pon.e. In
human..
Appliceble to amlllion. of TCE.
a regulated carcinogenic air
contaminant. from new .ourcea
ISVE unitl. Compliance wHI be
achieved becauaa TeE
eml.alon. will be below the
, . 10. ri.k Ie..., Iby vapor-
phaaa carbon treatment If
nec:e...ryl. Sub.tantl...
requINment. pertaining to
permlta win be met.
Th8 pre.anea of Tee In .0U
could affect groundwater.
Although It I. not a dl.cherga
to wete,. of the .tate, weter
quality objectl.... are rele"ant
and appropriate. Romoval 01
TCE from .011 will comply with
the watar quality objective for
to.lclty that requlrea wa'a,. to
be kept free of contamlnanto In
concantratlona toalc to or that
produce detrimental
phy.ioloalcal re.pon.e. In
human..
NA
The preaanea 01 TCE or
TCE end chromium In ooH could
affect aroundwater. Ahhough
It I. not a diacharga to wata,.
of the .tato. water quality
objective a are relevant and
appropriata. Removal of
contamlnanta from the .ita will
comply with the watar quality
objective for to.lclty that
require. wate,. to be kopt freo
of cont.minan.. in
concentration. to.1e to or that
produce detriment a'
phy.lologlcal re.pon... in
human..
Applicable to amllliona of TCE.
a regulated cerclnogenlc air
contamlrlant. from new _a
ISVE unltl. Compl_a wII be
achieved bec- TCE
amllliona wll be below the
, a 10" rIok Ie"" Iby vapor-
phaaa carbon treatment If
nec:ollaryl. Subatantlve
requlretnanta few permlta wII be
met.
The PRa_a 01 TCE In eoI
could affect around water.
Although It I. not a dlacharga
to wate,. 01 the atata. watar
quality obJectivea - relevant
and approprlata. Removal of
TCE from 80. will ccwnply whh
the watar quality objective few
toalclty that re",a wata,. to
be kapt f,.o of contaminant a In
concantratlon. to.1c to ew that
produca detrimental
phy.lologlea' re.ponaea In
human..
Applicable to """alona of
TCE. a regulated cerclnoganlc
air contamlrlont, from new
ooureaa ISVE unIt).
Compl- wII be achieved
bec8U88 TCE emI.alone wII be
below the 1 a 10" riak lewl
(by vapor-pho.. carbon
treatment If _allaryl.
Sub.tantlw requIre_. few
permit. wII be met.
The pre..nea 01 TCE end
chromium In eoH could affect
g-.nclwater. Although It la
not a dlacharga to weta,. 01
the atata. water quality
objectlwa - relevant end
appropriata. Removal 01 TCE
and chromium from the .ita
wll comply whh the watar
quality obJective for to.lclty
that re"" wata,. to be kapt
Irea 01 contemlrlant. In
concentratlona toaic to or that
produca datrlnwnta'
phy.lologlcel re.pon.a. in
human..
CBAouROO.7-2 pGofO
PIIrched watar axtracted undar Altamat"" 2B wll be treated end dlocharged undar the aelectad remedy lor groundwater. ReIer to Table 7.' for ARAR. pertaining to perched weter treatment end dlecharga.
1111 lilt 3
NA - Not an ARAR
-------
cleanup standard is achieved, and the AF will provide notice of this restriction in any purchase,
lease, or other agreement relating to that property. The AF will continue to perform Quarterly
monitoring of selected groundwater wells in the perched zone and underlying upper aquifer to
detect possible migration of TCE from the perched zone into the underlying groundwater (water
table and/or perched zonel and to monitor water levels.
Perched zone dewatering locations, flowrates, and specifications will be determined in the RD
phase through engineering and design. Changes in water level or resaturation of the perched zone
will be accounted for in the design. Because the perched zone is currently unsaturated and
infiltration is limited, dewatering is expected to occur infrequently. Dewatering will be activated
when water levels reach a preset point. The remedy will comply with the Water Quality Objective
in the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan and, under the selected groundwater
remedy, RCRA regulations regarding tank systems established in Title 22 CCR 1166364.190-
66264.199. Groundwater wells will be installed in accordance with the TBC Water Well
Standards, Bulletin 74-90.
Any extracted perched zone water containing TCE above the groundwater cleanup standard will be
treated by the selected groundwater remedy to levels no greater than the cleanup standard.
Extracted perched zone water containing TCE at or below the cleanup standard will be disposed
with treated groundwater.
This remedy protects groundwater resources by monitoring for and removing a potential driving
force of TCE migration into groundwater. The estimated time to implement this remedy and to
meet the cleanup standard is 30 years. The total cost for the 30-year period is $1,740,000.
ALTERNATIVE 2C -IN SITU SVE
.
.
.
.
Deed restrictions
Groundwater monitoring
Treatment by in situ SVE
Treatment of emissions by vapor-phase carbon adsorption, or no treatment if
emissions are in compliance with air Quality ARARs
Prior to sale or transfer of any Norton AFB property overlying deep subsurface soil contamination,
the AF will record a land use restriction in accordance with California Health and Safety Code
125230 as an institutional control to prohibit excavation until after the deep subsurface soil
cleanup standards have been achieved, and the AF will provide notice of this restriction in any
purchase, lease, or other agreement relating to that property. The AF will continue to perform
Quarterly monitoring of selected groundwater wells to detect possible migration of TCE from the
deep subsurface soils into the underlying groundwater (water table and/or perched zonel and to
monitor water levels.'
SVE locations, flowrates, and other specifications will be determined in the RD phase through
engineering design and analvsis of treatability study data, and compliance with Rule 1303, New
Source Review. A treatability study will be performed to determine the ability of SVE to remove
TCE from deep soil and to provide criteria necessary for system design. The extraction system will
be designed to remove TCE in deep subsurface soils to the cleanup standard. The remedy will
comply with transportable treatment unit standards established in Title 22 CCR Division 4.5
Chapter 45 167450 that are applicable to a transportable SVE unit. By removing TCE from soil,
this remedy will comply with the Water Quality Objective in the Santa Ana River Basin Water
Quality Control Plan.
"
CBAouROD.7
7.18
11/24193
-------
During the remedy design. the AF will consult with SCAOMD to ensure compliance with air Quality
ARARs including SCAOMD Rule 1166 which is applicable to TCE emissions from the soil and
SCAOMD Rule 1401 which is applicable to risk levels posed by SVE emissions. The remedy will
also comply with the non-legally binding policy in the Statement of Policv on Control of Air StriDDer
Emissions (OSWER Dir. 9355.028) that provides hourly. daily. and yearly facility-wide emission
levels that apply to SVE units. The SVE system will include built-in vapor-phase carbon units as
emission controls. If untreated emissions are in compliance with air Quality ARARs, emissions
treatment will not be necessary. The Air Force will measure emission levels during the test runs in
the design phase to ensure compliance with SCAOMD Rule 1303. Extracted soil vapor containing
TCE will meet air Quality ARARs by one of the following options:
.
No Treatment. No soil vapor treatment will be used if levels of TCE in extracted soil
vapor meet air Quality ARARs.
.
Carbon AdsorDtion. 50il vapor will be treated by vapor-phase carbon adsorption jf
SVE treatability data indicate that the levels of TCE in extracted soil vapor do not
meet air Quality ARARs. Specifications will be determined in the RD phase through
engineering design and analysis of emissions data collected during the 5VE
treatability study. The system will be designed to remove TCE in vapor such that
emissions meet air quality ARARs. Spent GAC will be transported offsite by the
carbon vendor. The carbon vendor is responsible for determining whether the
carbon is regenerated or disposed. Before being transported offsite, spent carbon
will be tested to determine whether it is a RCRA hazardous waste as defined in Title
22 CCR Division 4.5 166261. If spent carbon is determined a hazardous waste,
RCRA regulations for generators of hazardous waste (Title 22 CCR Division 4.5
166262.34) are applicable. Spent GAC will be transported in compliance with
regulations pertaining to off-site transportation. Any risk to human health and the
environment is reduced. The estimated capital cost for a representative vapor-
phase carbon system is $80,000, and $59,000 per year for operations and
maintenance (O&M).
During 5VE treatment, soil vapor will be monitored for vinyl chloride that may be present due to its
presence in groundwater. If detected above the 0.2 parts per million by volume (ppmv) indoor air
cleanup standard, buildings in the vicinity will be monitored. Buildings with indoor concentrations
above the cleanup standard will be fined with ventilation systems.
Following SVE treatment, continued Quarterly groundwater monitoring will be necessary to
demonstrate effectiveness of the remedial action by monitoring for migration into groundwater of
any residual TCE remaining after SVE treatment.
This remedy protects groundwater resources by removing a potential driving force of TCE migration
into groundwater. The estimated time to implement this remedy and to meet the cleanup standard
is 18 months. The total cost for a treatability study and 18 months of in situ SVE treatment is
$2,370,000 (excluding emission controls).
7.2.2 SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOILS (TCE ONLY)
. . Approximately 5,650 cy of shallow subsurface soil contain only TCE: 490 cy at Building 658 and
5,160 cy at Building 763 (estimated total from five separate shop areas). The volume 01 shallow
subsurface soil affected with TCE only was determined through RI data. There is no current risk to
human health due to direct contact with soil containing TCE. TCE in soil poses a potential future
threat to human health and a threat to the environment. The environmental risk is to groundwater
. . I ~ ~.
CBAouROD.7
7-19
11/24/93
-------
because TCE in shallow subsurface soils may potentially affect the groundwater. There are four
TCE-only shallow subsurface soil alternatives (Fig. 7-31. The ARARs for each alternative are
identified in Table 7-2. The text highlights major ARARs only.
... .
Soil at Norton AFB contains TCE and other VQCs. The situation at Norton AFB is sufficiently
similar to other situations for which the RCRA requirements for treatment. storage, and disposal
were designed, and therefore the RCRA requirements for treatment, storage, and disposal are
applicable for the TCE-containing material. Specifically, the RCRA "contained-in" policy would
apply. Soil containing TCE must be handled as if it were a hazardous waste until the soil no longer
contains the listed waste. At Norton AFB, it has been determined that jf the soil are treated to the
cleanup standards of 5 pglL (ppb) in leachate, the soil will no longer be considered to contain a
listed waste and need not be handled as a hazardous waste.
At TERNA TIVE 3A - NO ACTION
This alternative, required for consideration by the NCP, involves no remedial actions to address
shallow subsurface soil contaminated with TCE only. No action is implemented. This alternative
will not comply with the Water Quality Objective stated in the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality
Control Plan due to possible impacts to groundwater from TCE in soil. This alternative will not
reduce the risk to the environment posed by the TCE in shallow subsurface soils.
At TERNA TIVE 38 - EXCA VA TION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
.
.
.
.
.
.
Demolition and reconstruction of existing facilities
Excavation of soil containing TCE only above the cleanup standard
Backfill of excavation with clean import or borrow soil
Testing of excavated soil
Transportation of soil offsite by licensed transporter
Disposal offsite to a licensed Subtitle C disposal facility
Shallow subsurface soil containing TCE only above the cleanup standard is excavated. Excavation
will require demolition and reconstruction of sections of the Electroplating, Paint. Maintenance, and
Tire Shops in Building 763 to access the affected soil. During excavation, dust suppression
measures will be taken to control dust emissions. Following excavation, the areas will be backfilled
with clean import or borrow soil, compacted, and restored to its previous condition.
The excavated soil is immediately loaded onto trucks licensed for the transport of contaminated
soils, and transferred to a licensed Subtitle C disposal facility. The soil will be treated at the
disposal facility if the soil does not meet the disposal standards. The disposal facility will be
identified during the RD phase. Soil will be transported in compliance with regulations pertaining to
off-site transportation. Selection of a disposal facility may affect transportation and disposal costs
but will not affect selection of this remedy.
Residual TCE below cleanup standards may remain at the site. These levels will not pose a risk to
human health or the environment, therefore long-term management or controls for any residual TCE
are not necessary.
This remedy protects groundwater resources by removing a potential driving force of TCE migration
. into groundwater. The estimated time to implement this remedy and to meet the cleanup standard
is 6 months. The total cost for the 6-month period is $4.480.000.
. J" " ~:.
.' :.}. .
~,. .-
CBAouROD.7
7-20
11/24/93
. .".
-------
AL TERNA TlVE 3A
NO ACTION
..
Risk 10 groundwaler remains
Demolillon and Excavallon and Backfill Tesllng and 01l-511e Disposal
ALTERNATIVE 38 - Reconslructlon
EXCAVATION AND .. . DemoHIIon and 19(X)1\slrvCllon 01 . Excavale 490 cy 01 soil al Building 658 . Tesl soil 10 delermlne II Is a RCRA
OFF-5ITE exlsUng ladllU8s al Building 763 and 5. I 60 cy al BuIlding 763 containing hazardous waSle
DISPOSAL required TCE above cleanup slandards
. Transport soil o"slle by licensed
. No demolillon neceSSS'Y 81 Building . Groundwal8r risk reduced transporler
Tola! CoSI $4.48M 658
. Backfill excavation with dean Impof1 . Disposal o«-sile 10 a licensed Subdlle C
or borrow soil disposal facility
. Remedy acmmpllshed In 6 months
"
.
~
...
Demollllon and Excavation and Backlill Ex Situ SVE On-base Use
ALTERNATIVE 3C Reconstruction
EXCAVATlONI -
-.. . Oemo/Ilion and I'8ODnSllUCllon of . E xcavale 490 cy of sol 81 Dundlng 858 . On-slle Irealmenl 01 commingled TCE . TeS! 101110 10 ensure cleanup standard
EX SITU SVE I existing ladlllles al Building 763 and 5,160 cy al BuIlding 763 containing 10 reduced levels 10 deanup standard Is ac:hieYed
ON-BASE USE OF requll9d TCE above Cleanup standards
TREATED SOIL . Residual rISk less CI1an 10.6 lor TCE . Use onbase lor landscaping or
. No demollllon necess8'Y al Building . Groundwaler risk reduced conslrucllon purposes
658 . SVE oil-gas will comply wilh air quaury
Tola! Cosl S2.68M . BacJdili excavation with dean Impof1 ARARs Ihrough nalmenl by . Remedy accomplished in 6 months
or borrow Soil vapor-phase carbon adsorplion, or no
(excluding emission lTealmenl II unlrealed emissions 81e In
control) compliance
Deed Restrictions Groundwaler Monllorlng In Situ SVE Emission Trealment
ALTERNATIVE 3D -
IN SITU SVE .. . Deed mlrlc:lion. on Norton AFB . Quarlerly groundwaler monIloIlng 01 . Trealmenl lor I year 10 meel deanup . SVE oIl~s will comply wiltt air qua~1y
prop8f1y overtytng deep sol perched zone and underlying oqul'" standards ARARs Ihrough Iroatmenl by
contamination undl Cleanup standards 10 monllor waler levels, possible vapor-phase carbon adsorpllon, or no
are analned migration 01 TCE In soil, and . Residual Risk less lhan 10-& treatment il untrealed emissions are In
Tola! CoSI S1.06M ellecUven8ss 01 treatment compliance
(excluding emission
control)
M - millon dollars
NORTON AIR FORCE BASE
Shallow Subsurface Soil (TCE only) AI~ernatives
Figure No. 7.3
-------
AL TERNA TIVE 3C - EXCA VA TlON/EX SITU SVE/ON-BASE USE OF TREA TED SOIL
.
~. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
Demolition and reconstruction of existing facilities
Excavation of soil containing TCE only above the cleanup standard
Test soil for levels of TCE
Backfill of excavation with clean import or borrow soil
Transportation onsite to treatment location
Treatment by ex situ SVE
Treatment of emissions by vapor-phase carbon adsorption, or no treatment if
emissions are in compliance with air Quality ARARs
On-base use of treated soil
Refer to Alternative 3B for a description of demolition, reconstruction, excavation, and backfill
elements of this alternative.
The excavated soil is immediately loaded onto trucks and transported to a pre-determined location
on site for treatment by ex situ SVE. A soil pile will be constructed with pre-packed and
constructed extraction pipes placed horizontally through the pile, and covered and underlain by an
impermeable liner to prevent uncontrolled volatilization of TCE. Specifications for the ex situ SVE
system will be determined in the RD phase and will be in compliance with Rule 1303, New Source
Review. During the remedy design, the AF will consult with SCAOMD to ensure compliance with
all Quality ARARs including SCAOMD Rule 1166 which is applicable to TCE emissions from soil and'
SCAQMD Rule 1401 which is applicable to risk levels posed by SVE emissions. The extraction
system will be designed to remove TCE in excavated shallow subsurface soils to the cleanup
standard. Treated soil will be tested to ensure treatment is complete.
Vapor-phase carbon will be part of the SVE system as air emission controls. Extracted soil vapor
containing TCE will meet air Quality ARARs by use of vapor-phase carbon or direct discharge as
described under Alternative 2C, Sect. 7.2.1.
Treated soil is reused onbase for landscaping or construction purposes.
. This remedy protects groundwater resources by removing a potential driving force of TCE migration
into groundwater. By removing TCE from soil, this remedy will comply with the Water Quality
Objective stated in the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan. Residual TCE below the
cleanup standard may remain in the unexcavated soil and may be present in the treated soil, but
these levels will not pose a risk to human health or the environment. Long-term management or
control of the soil containing any residual TCE is not necessary. The estimated time to implement
this remedy and to meet the cleanup standard is 6 months. The total cost for the 6-month period
is $2,6BO.000 (excluding emission controls).
AL TERNA TIVE 3D - IN SITU SVE
,
.
.
.
.
Deed restrictions
Groundwater monitoring
Treatment by in situ SVE
Treatment of emissions by vapor.phase carbon adsorption, or no treatment if
emissions are in compliance with air Quality ARARs
1 ,,""
. ..
Refer to Sect. 7.2.1. Alternative 2C, for a description of each element of this alternative.
.
CBAouROD.7
I.'.'"
. --
. .../
''''1.-
I -"
-- .. -- ..
7-22
11/24/93
.- ,
-------
This remedy protects groundwater resources by removing a potential driving force of TCE migration
into groundwater. The estimated time to implement this remedy and to meet the cleanup standard
is 1 year. The total cost for a treatability study and in situ SVE treatment for the 1-year period is
$1,055,000 (excluding emission controls).
7.2.3 SHAllOW SUBSURFACE SOilS (TCE AND CHROMIUM)
Approximately 415 cv of shallow subsurface soil contain chromium commingled with TCE. The
volume of shallow subsurface soil affected with chromium commingled with TCE was determined
through RI data. The concentration of chromium in soil presents a carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic risk to human health due to ingestion and dermal contact; however there is no
current risk to human health due to TeE. TCE in soil poses a potential future threat to human
health and a threat to the environment. The environmental risk is to groundwater because TCE in
shallow subsurface soils may potentially affect the groundwater. There are three TCE and
chromium shallow subsurface soil alternatives (Fig. 7-4). The ARARs for each alternative are
identified in Table 7-2. The text highlights the major ARARs only.
The contaminated soil is a listed RCRA waste (-contained-in- policy) due to TCE and may be a
RCRA characteristic waste based on toxicity due to chromium because the maximum detection of
chromium exceeds the total concentration toxicity criteria of 5.000 mg/kg. The soil will be tested
for both TCE and chromium to determine whether it is a RCRA hazardous waste, as described in
Title 22 eCR Division 4.5 Chapter 11 166261. The toxicity criteria for the soluble concentration of
chromium is 5 mglL. .
AL TERNA TIVE 4A - NO ACTION
This alternative, required for consideration by the Nep, involves no remedial actions to address
shallow subsurface soil contaminated with TCE and chromium commingled. No action is
implemented. This alternative will not comply with the Water Quality Objective stated in the
Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan due to possible impacts to groundwater from
TCE in soil. This alternative will not reduce the risk to human health posed by the chromium in
shallow subsurface soil, or to the environment posed by the TeE in shallow subsurface soils.
AL TERNA TIVE 48 - EXCA VA TION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
.
.
Demolition and reconstruction of existing facilities
Excavation of soil containing chromium commingled with TCE above the cleanup
standards
Test soil to determine levels of TeE and chromium
Backfill of excavation with clean import or borrow soil
Testing of excavated soil
Transportation of soil offsite by licensed transporter
Disposal offsite to a licensed Subtitle e disposal facility.
.
.
.
.
.
Refer to Sect. 7.2.2, Alternative 38, for a description of each element of this alternative.
Excavation will require demolition and reconstruction of the Electroplating Shop and adjacent office.
The soil will be tested to determine whether it is a RCRA hazardous waste based on TeE
concentrations and chromium toxicity. If the soil is considered a hazardous waste, ReRA generator
standards (Title 22 eCR Division 4.5 166262) are applicable to the excavated soil.
CBAouROD.7
7-23
, , /24/93
'.
-------
AL TERNA 11VE 4A
NO ACTION
ALTERNA11VE 4S
EXCAVATION AND
OFF-5ITE
DISPOSAL
Total Cost $1.22M
"
,
~
~
ALTERNATIVE 4C
EXCAVATION.'
EX SITU SVE
FOR TCEI
OFF-5ITE
DISPOSAL FOR
CHROMIUM
Total Cost $1.53M
(excluding emission
control)
M - million dollars
-
carCInogenic and non-cardnogenlc
r1lk Ie¥8Ilrom Ingeldon and dermlll
COI1I11C1 due 10 chromium remalna;
groundwater rllk remains
Demolition end excavation and T.ltlng, Transport,
Reconltructlon Sacklill and Disposal
. DemoIIlion and reconslNCllon . Excavate 41 S cy 01 soli allAP . TeSI soil 10 determine II is a
oIeJdsting lacllillel al Building sile 9 containing TCE and RCRA hazardous wasle
763 requited dvomlum oommlngled above
cleanup slandards . Transpon soil ollslle by
licensed Itanaport8l'
. Residual carcinogenic and
non-carcinogenic risk due 10 . Disposal oll-sile 10 a licensed
Chromium reduald 10 lesslhan SubtiUe C disposallac:l~ly
10.e, and a hazard Index
less than one, respectively; . Remedy accomplished in 6
grounclwolOf rlak roclucocl monlh,
. BacklWI excavallon willi Clean
Import or borrow SOlI
.
-
Demolition and Excevatlon and Ex Situ SVE T.ltlng, Transport,
Reconstruction Sacklill and Dispoul
. DemoIIIIon and remn.lNCUon . Excavate 415 cy 01.011 allRP . On-sUe lTealment 01 . T esl soil 10 delermine II I. .
01 eJdsting Iacillties al BuDding slle 9 containing TCE and commingled TCE 10 reduced RCRA hazardous wasle
763 required Chromium commingled aboVe levets 10 deanup standard
dean up standards . Transport soil ollsile by
. Residual risk less than 10-6 licensed transporler (chromium
. Residual carcinogenic and lor TCE only)
non-cardnogenlc risk due 10
c"!errnum reduced 10 lesslhan . SVE ollilas will comply wllh . Disposal oil sile 10 a licensed
10 ,and a haz81d Index aJr quaDIy ARAR, Ihrough SubDUe C dlsposal/8dUry
less than one, respectIVe\)'; Ireatmenl by vapor-phase (chromium only)
ground_ler risk reduced carbon adsorplion. or no
Iteatmenlll unltealed . Remedy acoompllshed In 9
. BacklWI excavation willi Clean emlssionl are In compliance months
Imporl or borrow SOlI
NORTON AIR FORCE BASE
Shallow Subsurface Soil (TCE and Chromjum) Alternatives
Figure No. 7-4
-------
Soil will be transported to an off-site Subtitle C disposal facility. If the concentrations of chromium
exceed land disposal restriction standards for chromium as a 8D8 level waste (500 pglL in waste
extract), treatment at the disposal facility will be performed.
~.
This remedy reduces the risk to human health by removing the chromium in shallow subsurface
soil, and to the environment by removing the TCE in shallow subsurface soils. The estimated time
to implement this remedy and to meet cleanup standards is 6 months. The total cost for the
6-month period is $1,220,000.
AL TERNA TIVE 4C - EXCA VA TION/EX SITU SVE FOR SOIL CONTAINING TCE/OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
OF SOIL CONTAINING CHROMIUM
.
.
Demolition and reconstruction of existing facilities
Excavation of soil containing chromium commingled with TCE above the cleanup
standards
Test soil to determine levels of TCE and chromium
Backfill of excavation with clean import or borrow soil
Transportation onsite to treatment location
Treatment of TCE only by ex situ SVE
Treatment of emissions by vapor-phase carbon adsorption, or no treatment if
emissions are in compliance with air Quality ARARs
Testing of treated soil containing chromium
Transportation of treated soil containing chromium offsite by licensed transporter
Disposal of treated soil containing chromium offsite to a licensed Subtitle C disposal
facility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Refer to Sect. 7.2.2, Alternative 3B for a description of demolition, reconstruction, excavation,
backfill, testing, off-site transportation, and off-site disposal elements of this alternative. Refer to
Sect. 7.2.2, Alternative 3C for a description of on-site transportation and ex situ treatment
elements of this alternative.
Soil will be transported to an off-site Subtitle C disposal facility. If the concentrations of chromium
exceed land disposal restriction standards for chromium as a 8D- (D007) level waste (lDR is
5 mgIL in waste extract), treatment at the disposal facility will be performed.
This remedy reduces the risk to human health by removing the chromium in shallow subsurface
soil, and to the environment by removing and treating the TCE in shallow subsurface soils. The
estimated time to implement this remedy and to meet cleanup standards is 9 months. The total
cost for the 9-month period is $1,529,000 (excluding emission controls).
During design of the remedy, the Air Force will coordinate with SCAQMD to ensure that any direct
discharge is in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1303 (applicable to 1,1,1 -trichloroethane emissions
and ozone produced by VOC emissions) limit of 1 Ib/day based on cumulative emissions of all air
strippers. The Air Force will measure emission levels during the test runs in the design phase to
ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1303.
CBAouROO.7
7-25
11/24/93
-------
.. .
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
. .
-_..~-_.__.,-',_. -- -'
. -
~ . J
. .
...,. -
. 0..
-------
8.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Media-specific alternatives are evaluated to determine which alternative provides the -best
balan'ce- of tradeoffs with respect to the nine evaluation criteria reQuired by the NCP and CERCLA
Section 1 21 :
(1 )
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Short-term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance.
8.1
GROUNDWATER
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives 1 Band 1 C would be protective of human health and the environment through
reduction of VOC concentration to below MCLs. The risk to human health from ingestion of
groundwater and inhalation of airborne vapors from groundwater is reduced from 7.1 x 10-6 to 1 x
10" (Cal-EPA slope factors). The risk to the environment from groundwater degradation is also
reduced. Alternative 1 A is not protective of human health and the environment because it does
not reduce risks to acceptable levels.
Compliance with ARARS
Alternatives 1 Band 1 C would comply with chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific
ARARs. Alternative-specific ARAR compliance is discussed in Sect. 7.0 and presented in
Table 7-1.
According to the decision of the EPA Administrator in the Mather and George AFB disputes,
Resolution 68-16, the water anti-degradation policy, is an ARAR for reinjection of treated
groundwater into clean areas (i.e., high quality waters) of the aquifer (Le., outside of the
contaminated plume). The numerical limit established on a monthly median and daily maximum
basis to meet the reQuirements of Resolution 68-16 are 0.5 and 5.0 microgramsniter, respectively,
for each of the groundwater contaminants listed on Table 9-1. With respect to the reinjection of
treated groundwater within the contaminated plume, treatment shall be at least to the
concentration level of the contaminants of concern in the groundwater at the point of reinjection
measured on a monthly median basis, but not greater. than the groundwater cleanup standards set
forth in Table 9-1. To meet the requirement that the selected remedy be protective of human
health and the environment, the Air Force shall maintain hydraulic control to the extent possible of
the plume while extracting contaminated groundwater, and reinjecting treated groundwater into the
contaminant plume or the clean portion of the aQuifer.
The State has asserted that the Water Quality Objectives for the Santa Ana River Basin Water
'Quality Control Plan and State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 68-16 are ARARs for
CBAouROD.8
8-1
11/24193
-------
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
.. .
Alternatives 1 Band 1 C would mitigate any potential future risks by preventing the migration of
VOCs in groundwater, and by restoring the groundwater Quality of the upper water-bearing zone.
Long-term monitoring, operation, and maintenance would be required. Long-term effectiveness and
permanence is anticipated to be achieved most effectively by implementing Alternative 1 B.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Alternatives 1 Band 1 C would reduce contaminants at the site through extraction and treatment of
contaminated groundwater. Alternative 1 B would not result in permanent reduction of the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of VOCs because VOCs are released into the atmosphere. Although the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of VOCs discharged to the air would not be reduced unless the carbon
adsorption emission controls are used. any discharge of VOCs to the atmosphere will be in
compliance with air emission ARARs and at levels that do not present ci risk to public health and
the environment. The risk would be 10.7 for a maximum predicted VOC emission of 0,078 Ibs/day
(equivalent to 3.25 x 10.3 Ib/hr or 0.014 ton/yr). Alternative 1 C would result in a permanent
reduction of the toxicity, mobility, and volume of VOCs if the spent carbon is regenerated.'
Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternatives 1 Band 1 C both provide short-term effectiveness. Risk associated with groundwater
monitoring, extraction, treatment, and discharge are mitigated by the health and safety plan for the
site. Alternative 1 C would provide a lesser degree of short-term effectiveness because it requires
additional handling and transportation of VOCs in the form of spent carbon.
The exact length of time required to achieve response action objectives cannot be predicted, but it
is assumed to be at least 30 years for either alternative.
Implementability
Alternative 1 B would utilize, in part, the existing groundwater extraction and treatment system
which is being used as a treatability study in the area of highest VOC concentration. Additional
extraction wells would be installed and a larger system would be built to treat the remaining
groundwater plume. Alternative 1 C would also utilize the existing extraction wells, but would
require installing additional extraction wells and building a new treatment system to treat the VOC
groundwater plume with liquid-phase carbon adsorption.
Cost
Under similar extraction scenarios (pumping rate, concentration, etc,) the present worth cost would
be $28,050,000 for Alternative 1 Band $133.060,000 for Alternative 1 C. Alternative 1 C would
have a higher present worth cost due to the cost of replenishing, handling, and replacing carbon
during the lifetime of the remedy. If emission controls become necessary for Alternative 1 B to
"complv with ARARs, the present worth cost would increase to $37,560,000 with vapor-phase
activated carbon adsorption treatment.
'. t
The cerbon vendor supplies cerbon .. .lIrvic:e. The decision whether carbon is regenerated or disposed is made by
the vendor.
. ",
CBAouROD.8
8-2
11/18193
-------
MODIFYING CRITERIA
Community Acceptance
, .
The PP was presented to the community (in English and Spanish) and discussed at a public
meeting. The San Bernardino International Airport Authority agreed that the cleanup standard for
TCE is protective of human health but that reinjection of the treated water outside of the plume
should be treated to the lowest practical level that can be achieved with air stripping. The City of
Riverside agreed with the proposed cleanup technologies and stated its interest in purchasing
treated water (conditional). One concerned citizen requested placement of the extraction wells to
impede migration. In general, the community stated no objection to the AF's preferred remedy
(Alternative 1 B) for groundwater.
State Acceptance
The State of California has reviewed the CBA au FS and the PP. The State stated no objection to
the AF's preferred remedy (Alternative 1 B) for groundwater except that treated water reinjected
outside of the plume should be treated to the lowest practical level that can be achieved with air
stripping (State Resolution 68-16).
8.2 SOIL
8.2.1 DEEP SUBSURFACE SOIL
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives 28 and 2C would be protective of the environment through the reduction of the
potential for further groundwater degradation. Alternative 2A is not protective of the groundwater
resource. There is no direct contact risk to human health due to TCE in deep soil.
Compliance with ARARS
Alternatives 2B and 2C would comply with chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific
ARARs. Alternative-specific ARAR compliance is discussed in Sect. 7.0 and presented in
Table 7-2.
See also discussion of Chapter 15 under Section 8.2.2.
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 28 and 2C would mitigate any potential future risk by preventing the migration of TCE
in deep subsurface soils to the groundwater. Alternative 2C would provide a higher degree of long-
term effectiveness and permanence by permanently removing TCE from the soil. Some residual
TCE would remain in the deep subsurface soil, but the levels would be below the cleanup standard
and would not require long-term monitoring (treatability data will help determine the level of TeE
removal, refer to Sect. 7.2.1). Alternative 28 would provide less long-term effectiveness and
controls. Dewatering would not greatly reduce the volume of TCE in soil because very liule TeE
CBAouROD.8
8-3
11/18/93
-------
would be removed. Therefore, long-term monitoring, maintenance, and operation would be
required.
Reduction of Toxicitv, Mobility or Volume Through Treatment
Alternatives 2B and 2C would reduce contaminants at the site. Alternative 2C would reduce the
toxicity, mobility, and volume of TCE in deep soils by removing the TCE vapor. Although the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of VOCs discharged to the air would not be reduced unless carbon
emissions controls are used, any discharge of VOCs to the atmosphere will be in compliance with
air emission ARARs and at levels that do not present a risk to public health and the environment.
Alternative 2C would result in permanent reduction of the toxicity, mobility, and volume of TCE
only if soil vapor is treated to comply with air Quality ARARs.
Alternative 2B would reduce the mobility of TCE in soil by removing the driving force (perched
water). Perched water may wash some TCE from soil, thereby reducing the volume and toxicity of
TCE in deep soils. Permanent reduction of the TCE would depend on the selected remedy.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternatives 2B and 2C both provide short-term effectiveness. Risk associated with groundwater
monitoring, perched water extraction, SVE, treatment, and discharge are mitigated by the health
and safety plan for the site. Alternative 2B would provide a lesser degree of short-term
effectiveness because the perched zone would only be dewatered when perched water is present.
Site data indicate that this would occur infrequently.
Alternative 2C would require 18 months to achieve the cleanup standard to the maximum
practicable extent. Alternative 2B would require 30 years to achieve the cleanup standard (or the
time required to achieve groundwater cleanup standards).
Implementability
Alternative 2B would utilize existing monitoring wells and equipment at the site. The selected
groundwater remedy would be utilized to treat extracted perched zone water above the cleanup
standard. Groundwater monitoring and dewatering actions would continue after base closure and
would require agreements between the new owner(s) and the AF to continue operation after base
closure. Alternative 2C would require installing SVE wells and a treatment system to treat
extracted soil vapor. Operational requirements for a SVE system would be more complex than
those for dewatering.
Cost
The total present worth cost would be $1,740,000 for Alternative 2B and $2,370,000 for
Alternative 2C. The cost of Alternative 2B would be less than Alternative 2C because dewatering
would occur infrequently and treatment would be accommodated under the selected groundwater
remedy. The cost of Alternative 2C would be higher due to cost associated with building an
extraction system and analytical costs for monitoring the progress of cleanup.
- -.
CBAouROD.8
8-4
11/18/93
-------
MODIFYING CRITERIA
Community Acceptance
~ .
The PP was presented to the community (in English and Spanish) and discussed at a public
meeting. The community stated no objection to the AF's preferred remedy (Alternative 2C) for
deep subsurface soils.
State Acceptance
The State of California has reviewed the CBA OU FS and the PP. The State stated no objection to
the AF's preferred remedy (Alternative 2C) for deep subsurface soils.
8.2.2 SHAllOW SUBSURFACE SOilS (TCE ONl V)
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives 3B, 3C, and 3D would be protective of the environment through reduction of the
potential for further groundwater degradation. Alternative 3A is not protective of the environment.
because it allows the potential for further groundwater degradation. There is a potential future risk
to human health due to TCE in shallow soil.
Compliance with ARARS
Alternatives 3B, 3C, and 3D would comply with chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-
specific ARARs. Alternative-specific ARAR compliance is discussed in Sect. 7.0 and presented in
Table 7-2.
The State has asserted that Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 15,
Section 2524 is an ARAR for the soil alternatives for Alternatives 2C/3D and 3C. USEPA does not
agree, and therefore it is not listed as an ARAR for this ROD. The State, however, will not invoke
dispute resolution, because all parties have agreed on the soil cleanup standard for TCE of
5 micrograms/liter leachate concentration based on protection of groundwater Quality.
Section 2524 defines -inert waste- as not containing hazardous waste or soluble pollutants at
concentrations in excess of applicable water Quality objectives. The State agrees that soil which
when tested is at or below the soil cleanup standard for TCE will be an -inert waste- at this site.
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 38, 3C, and 3D would mitigate any potential future risk by preventing the migration of
TCE in shallow subsurface soils to the groundwater. Alternative 3C would provide a high degree of
long-term protectiveness and permanence by permanently removing TCE above the cleanup
standard from the site through excavation. No risk to groundwater would remain from any residual
TCE; management and controls would not be required. Excavated soil would be treated to achieve
the cleanup standard and would be demonstrated to be a non-hazardous and non-designated waste
before disposal ons~te; no long-term monitoring or controls would be required.
CBAouROD.8
8-5
11/18/93
-------
Alternative 38 would also provide a high degree of long-term protectiveness and permanence by
permanently removing TCE above the cleanup standard from the site through excavation. long-
term effectiveness and permanence would be achieved if soil is treated at the Subtitle C disposal
facility. However, off-site disposal of untreated waste would not address the NCP preference for
on-site treatment.
Alternative 3D would provide a lesser degree of long-term effectiveness and permanence by
permanently removing TCE from the soil. Some residual TCE below the cleanup standard would
remain in the shallow subsurface soil, but the levels that would remain would not require long-term
monitoring.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Alternatives 3B, 3C, and 3D would reduce contaminants at the site. Alternatives 3C and 3D would
reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of TCE in shallow subsurface soils by removing the TCE
vapor. Although the toxicity, mobility or volume of VQCs discharged to the air would not be
reduced unless the carbon adsorption emissions controls are used, any discharge to the atmosphere
will be in compliance with air emissions ARARs and at levels that do not present a risk to public
health and the environment. Both alternatives would result in permanent reduction of the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of TCE only if soil vapor is treated to comply with air quality ARARs.
Alternative 3B would reduce the toxicity. mobility, and volume of shallow soils containing TCE at
the site, but would only result in permanent reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume of the TCE .
if treatment is performed at the receiving Subtitle C facility.
Short.Term Effectiveness
Alternatives 3B, 3C, and 3D provide short-term effectiveness. Risk associated with groundwater
monitoring, excavation, SVE, treatment, discharge, and disposal are mitigated by the health and
safety plan for the site. Alternatives 3B and 3C would provide greater short-term effectiveness
because excavation immediately removes the contaminated material from the site. Alternative 3C
would provide a lesser degree of short-term effectiveness of the two because the excavated soil
must also be treated onsite. Alternative 3D provides the least short-term effectiveness because
treatment in situ would require the longest time period to achieve the cleanup standard.
Alternatives 3B and 3C would require 6 months to achieve the cleanup standard, primarily due to
demolition and reconstruction activities. Alternative 3D would require 1 year to achieve the
cleanup standard.
Implementability
Alternatives 3B and 3C would be the most practical to implement at Building 658, but the least
practical to implement at Building 763. At Building 658, affected soil is located outside the
building, allowing for easy use of conventional excavation equipment. At Building 763, however,
affected soil is located beneath the building; existing structures would require demolition and
reconstruction to access the affected soil. For Alternative 3B, off-site disposal would complete the
action. Alternative 3C would require construction of a soil pile with SVE pipes, and a treatment
system to treat the extracted vapor. A portion of existing property would be required for the soil
. pile.
..' CBAouROD.8
8-6
11/18/93
- - -- .._...~ -
-------
Alternative 3D would require installation of SVE wells and a treatment system to treat extracted
soil vapor. Existing structures would not affect installation or operation of the system. Operational
requirements and length of time to achieve the cleanup standard would be greater for
Alternative 3D than for Alternatives 3B or 3C.
Cost
The total costs for Alternatives 3B, 3C, and 3D are as follows:
Location Alternative 3B Alternative 3C Alternative 3D
Building 658 $260,000 $460,000 $435,000
Building 763 $4,220,000 $2.220.000 $620,000
For Building 658, the cost of Alternative 3B would primarily result from transportation and disposal
of untreated soil. For Alternatives 3C and 3D, the cost would primarily be due to construction and
operation of the SVE treatment systems. For small volumes of unobstructed soil, excavation and
off-site disposal would cost the least to implement (Alternative 3BI.
Alternative 3D is the least costly of the three alternatives for Building 763 because implementability
of in situ treatment would not require demolition and reconstruction of existing structures (a major
cost factor). For large volumes of obstructed soil, in situ treatment would cost the least to
implement (Alternative 3D).
MODIFYING CRITERIA
Community Acceptance
The PP was presented to the community (in English and Spanish) and discussed at a public
meeting. The community stated no objection to the AF's preferred remedy for shallow subsurface
soils with TCE only: Alternative 3C at Building 658 and Alternative 3D at Building 763.
State Acceptance
The State of California has reviewed the CBA au FS and the PP. The State stated no objection to
the AF's preferred remedy for shallow subsurface soils with TCE only: Alternative 3C at Building
658 and Alternative 3D at Building 763.
8.2.3 SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOIL (TCE AND CHROMIUM)
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives 4B and 4C would be protective of human health and the environment. The risk to
human health from exposure (dermal contact and ingestion) to soil containing chromium is reduced
to less than unity. The risk to the environment from groundwater degradation by TCE in soil is
reduced. Alternative 4A is not protective of the environment because it does not reduce the risk to
below unity. There is a potential future risk to human health from TCE in soil.
CBAouROD.8
8-7
11/18/93
-------
Compliance with ARARS
Alternatives 48 and 4C would comply with chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific
ARARs. Alternative-specific ARAR compliance is discussed in Sect. 7.0 and presented in
Table 7-2.
See also discussion of Chapter 15 under Section 8.2.2.
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 48 and 4C would mitigate any potential future risk by preventing dermal contact and
ingestion of soil containing chromium, and migration of TCE in shallow subsurface soils to the
groundwater. No risk to human health or groundwater would remain from the residual chromium or
TCE, respectively, remaining at the site; management and controls would not be required.
Alternatives 48 and 4C would both provide a high degree of long-term effectiveness and
permanence by permanently removing TeE and chromium above cleanup standards from the site
through excavation. Alternative 48 would provide effectiveness and permanence for TCE and
chromium if soil is treated at the Subtitle C disposal facility. Alternative 4C would provide
effectiveness and permanence for TCE by using SVE to remove TCE above the cleanup standard
from excavated soil; effectiveness and permanence for chromium would be provided if soil is
treated at the Subtitle C disposal facility, similar to Alternative 48. Off-site disposal of untreated
waste is not a preferred option if other treatment options can feasibly be implemented onsite. On-
site treatment, however, is not practical to implement due to the small volume of soil containing
chromium and TCe.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume Through Treatment
Alternatives 48 and 4C would reduce contaminants at the site. Alternative 4C would reduce the
toxicity, mobility, and volume of TCE in shallow soil by removing the TCE vapor. Soil vapor treated
to comply with air Quality ARARs will result in permanent reduction of the toxicity, mobility, and
volume of TCE. Permanent reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume of the chromium in soil
would only result if treatment is performed at the Subtitle C disposal facility. Alternative 48 would
reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of shallow soils containing TCE and chromium at the site,
but would only result in permanent reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume of the TCE and
chromium if treatment is performed at the Subtitle C disposal facility.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternatives 48 and 4C both provide short-term effectiveness. Risk associated with excavation,
SVE, treatment, discharge, and disposal are mitigated by the health and safety plan for the site.
Alternative 48 would provide greater short-term effectiveness because excavation and off-site
disposal immediately removes the contaminated material from the site. Alternative 4C would
provide a lesser degree of short-term effectiveness of the two because the excavated soil must be
handled and treated onsite.
. Alternative 48 would require 6 months to achieve cleanup standards. Alternative 4C would require
9 months to achieve cleanup standards.
CBAouROD.8
8-8
11/18193
i.': .'
- .. --. -
-------
Implementability
Alternative 4B would be the most practical to implement. Existing structures would require
demo'lftion and reconstruction to access the affected soil, but off-site disposal would complete the
action. Alternative 4C would require the demolition and reconstruction under Alternative 4B, as
well as construction of a soil pile with SVE pipes and a treatment system to treat the extracted
vapor. A portion of existing property would be required for the soil pile.
Cost
The total cost would be $1,220,000 for Alternative 4B and $1,529,000 for Alternative 4C.
Construction and operation of the on-site ex situ SVE system to treat the TCE in soil accounts for
the increased cost of Alternative 4C.
MODIFYING CRITERIA
Community Acceptance
The PP was presented to the community (in English and Spanish) and discussed at a public
meeting. The San Bernardino International Airport Authority agreed that the cleanup standard for
chromium is protective of human health based upon ingestion, and concurred with the AF's choice.
of a composite cleanup method for TCE- and chromium-contaminated soil. In general. the
community stated no objection to the AF's preferred remedy (Alternative 4B) for shallow
subsurface soil with TCE and chromium.
State Acceptance
The State of California has reviewed the CBA OU FS and the PP. The State stated no objection to
the AF's preferred remedy (Alternative 48) for shallow subsurface soil with TCE and chromium.
CBAouROD.8
8-9
11118/93
-------
.. .
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
. .
~.:' )
. I . .." ... ~ . .:
~ -. .-.- "- .-- _. - . .
-------
9.0 SELECTED REMEDY
Modification to the selected remedy as a result of RD and construction processes will be necessary.
Detailed design specifications, and performance evaluations and schedule will be determined during
the RD.
The selected groundwater and soil remedies will meet the cleanup standards presented below in
Table 9-1. After the selected soil remedies have been completed. soil samples will be taken and
analyzed to ensure that the cleanup standards have been achieved. For chromium, remaining soil
must not exceed 150 ppm. For TCE, remaining soil must not exceed 5 ppb (pglLlleachate
concentration determined by TCLP.
Table 9.,
CBA au CLEANUP STANDARDS
I I CLEANUP CLEANUP
MEDIA COMPOUND STANDARD ST ANOARO SOURCE
Groundwster Benzene , pglL State of California
Maximum Contaminant level
1,2-0ichloroethane 0.5 POll 5tata of California
Maximum Contaminant level
1,2-0ichloroethylene (total) 6 pglL State of California
Maximum Contaminant level
Tetrachloroethylene 5 pglL U5EPA
Maximum Contaminant level
1,1, 1 -Trichloroethane 200 pglL USEPA
Maximum Contaminant level
TCE 5 pglL U5EPA
Maximum Contaminant level
Vinyl Chloride 0.5 pglL State of California
Maximum Contaminant level
Soil TCE 5 pglL leachate Derivad by Toxicity
concentration Characteristics
Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
Chromium 1 50 mg/kg Stata of Celifornia Potency
Factor
Indoor Air Vinyl Chloride 0.2 ppmv USEPAISCAOMD Action
Level
The groundwater cleanup standards are based on the USEPA or State of California MCLs for
drinking water, whichever is more stringent. There are no ARARs that establish cleanup levels for
contaminated soil. For TCE in soil, the primary concern is protection of groundwater Quality; a
5 pgIL leachate concentration has been assigned as the cleanup standard for TCE. For chromium in
soil, the primary concern is exposure due to ingestion or dermal contact; a cleanup standard of 150
CBAouROD.9
9-1
11/18/93
-------
mg/kg has been assigned to chromium based on the State of California Potency Factor.' The
chromium cleanup standard is within the USEPA acceptable risk range of 10.4 to 10". An indoor air
cleanup standard for vinyl chloride, a risk-based USEPA action level, has been developed in the
event that vinyl chloride is detected in soil vapor. due to its presence in groundwater. during SVE
activities.
9.1
GROUNDWATER
The selected remedy is Alternative 1 B:' .
.
.
.
.
.
.
Deed restrictions
Groundwater monitoring
Groundwater extraction
Wellhead treatment or provision of water supplies
Treatment by air stripping
Direct discharge of emissions to atmosphere, or treatment by vapor-phase carbon
adsorption if emissions are not in compliance with air quality ARARs
Reinjection of treated water.
.
Deed restrictions will be placed on any Norton AFB property that overlies the VOC plume prior to
sale or transfer to prohibit the installation of water wells in areas that still contain VOCs above
cleanup standards.
Selected monitoring wells will be sampled on a Quarterly basis for vacs only to monitor the
groundwater conditions occurring beneath and beyond the base boundary. Existing sampling
equipment will be utilized and replaced as needed.
Extraction well placement and design will be determined during the RD phase following plume
characterization. Specific design parameters to implement the remedy will also be determined
during the RD phase.
For off-base water supply wells where contaminant levels exceed the MCls, the AF will provide
water treatment facilities using mobile GAC treatment units or alternate water supplies. As
appropriate, the AF will also provide long-term treatment such as permanent installation of an air
stripping system, replacement wells or other actions. These actions will be implemented in
accordance with the decision matrix outlined in the Norton AFB Off-Base Water Supply
Contingency Policy. dated August 25, 1993. ARARs identified for carbon adsorption (Alternative
1 C) will be ARARs for this portion of Alternative 1 B. and will be complied with.
The selected end-use option for treated groundwater is ,reinjection. Injection well placement and
design will be determined during the RD phase.
The selected remedy would have an estimated cost of $28,050.000 based on the period of
performance of 30 years. Table 9-2 presents the estimated total cost, including cost of capital,
O&M, and present worth.
,.
Refer to Sect. 2.3.3 of the Final CSA OU FS for a discussion of the development of the chromium cleanup standard.
CSAouROD.9
9-2
11/18/93
-------
TABLE 8-2
COST SUIoIMARY FOR
GROUNDWATER Al TERNATIVE
-------------------------_._-------_._---------~---------.--------------------------------.------------
DIRECT/INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
ExtractiolllAir Stripping
------------------------------------.----------.----------.--------------------------------.------------
CONSTRUCTIO'N COSTS
Extraction SYltem
Air Stripping Peckage SYlteml
EQUIPMENT COSTS
LAND AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
BUilDING AND SERVICES
RELOCATION COSTS
DISPOSAL COSTS
Ig38.oo0
1803.588
1860,860
1355,837
580,000
10
5455,850
(Capital COltl Subtotal, Rounded)
CONTRACTOR'S COSTS
25,. oIlubtotal
$3,714,000
5929,000
-----------
> TOTAl DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
14,543,000
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
CONTINGENCY AllOWANCE
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
15,. 01 direct capital
25,. 01 direct capital
15,. 01 direct capital
5686,000
51,151.000
5696,000
-----------
> TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
12,553.000
cc...-...--
> > TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS (Direct + Indirect, Rounded)
17,200,000
------------------------------------.----------.----------.--------------------------------.------------
ANNUAl/PERIODIC COSTS - liIe of 30 yea,.
ANNUAL COSTS
PRESEf#T WORTH
7,. Dilcount Rate
------------------------------------.--------------------.--------------------------------.------------
LABOR (Bued 0" 24 hr/day, 360 day/yr operation)
MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
AUXILIARY MATERIALS & LABOR/POWER
PURCHASED SERVICES
$815.100
1274.600
1285,eoo
5105,100
11,183,000
$3,408,000
13.547,000
$1.313,000
-----------
------------
> TOTAL DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS (Rounded):
1762,000
19,451,000
OTHER COSTS (PERIODIC COSTS)
Contractor'l Overhead & Profit
25,. 01 other COltl
51.861,000
5480,000
11,261,330
$480,000
-----------
------------
> TOTAL DIRECT PERIODIC COSTS (Rounded):
52,451,000
11,751,000
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
INDIRECT PERIODIC COSTS
45,. 01 annual
4~ 01 periodic
5343,000
S1,128,OOO
54,256,000
11.129.000
=_0:1:1:......
..-.c.......
> > TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS (Direct + Indirect)
:. > TOTAl ANNUAl/PERIODIC PRESENT WORTH COSTS
S1,105,ooo
116,600,000
..=ac....==..c...===ac........................-[[[
COST SUMMARY FOR THIS REMEDY
> > TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS (Direc1 + Indirect)
> > TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COSTS (Ditec1 + Indi,ec1)
REINJECTION COSTS
S7,200,ooo
518,500,000
54,250,000
------------
(without .minion controll)
128,050,000
18,510,000
EIoIISSION CONTROLS
------------
> > > GRAND TOTAL (CAPITAl + PRESENT WORTH OF THE ANNUAl/PERIODIC COSTS):
(with emillion controll)
137.5150,000
.c._._.a=.=..-.-.=_.__...........-..I..........~.........:.._...._..-.............-...._..~........c..
-------
If emission levels from the air stripper are in compliance with air Quality ARARs. emissions will be
directly discharged. Direct discharge of emission levels would be protective of human health and
the environment in an ozone non-attainment area (estimated carcinogenic risk is 1.6 x 10"). If
emission levels are no longer protective of human health and the environment. or do not comply
with ARARs. vapor-phase carbon adsorption. which will be built into the air stripping system. will
be used to ensure protectiveness and meet air Quality ARARs. The treatment costs for use of
vapor-phase carbon over the 30-year treatment period would increase the selected remedy cost to
an estimated $37.560.000.
The off-base groundwater remedy will be consistent with this ROD.
9.2
SOIL
Should it be determined that SVE will not meet treatment standards. perched zone dewatering or
another action will be considered as a contingency remedy. Implementation of the contingency
remedy will be documented in an amendment to this ROD.
9.2.1
DEEP SUBSURFACE SOIL
The selected remedy is Alternative 2C for the MW90 area and Building 763 deep subsurface soils:
.
.
.
.
Deed restrictions
Groundwater monitoring
Treatment by in situ SVE
Treatment of emissions by vapor-phase carbon adsorption. or no treatment if
emissions are in compliance with air quality ARARs.
Deed restrictions will be placed on any Norton AFB property that overlies deep subsurface soil
contamination prior to sale or transfer to prohibit excavation in these areas until the cleanup
standard is attained.
Existing monitoring wells at and downgradient from the affected soil will be utilized to monitor the
upper aquifer and perched zone groundwater Quarterly for TCE.
SVE design and operational parameters will be determined during the RD phase following
treatability testing. SVE wells will be installed to the depth of soil contamination above the cleanup
standard. Soil vapor containing TCE will be removed using a blower or vacuum pump. Any
separated water will be transported to the selected groundwater remedy for treatment. If SVE is
proven to be not capable of achieving the cleanup level. then the Air Force will consider a
contingency remedy. such as perched zone dewatering. in order to achieve the cleanup standard.
The SVE system will include vapor-phase carbon that will be employed if recovered soil vapor
contains TCE at levels that are not protective of human health and the environment or do not
. comply with ARARs. The estimated capital cost for a representative vapor-phase carbon system is
$80,000, and O&M for continual maintenance in the form of carbon changeout service provided by
the vendor is $59,000 per year.
During SVE treatment, soil vapor will be monitored for vinyl chloride that may be present due to its
presence in groundwater. If detected above the indoor air cleanup standard, buildings in the
CBAouROD.9
9-4
11/24193
..
.. "- -. ". -.
-------
vicinity will be monitored for vinyl chloride. Buildings with indoor concentrations above the cleanup
standard will be fined with ventilation systems.
It is estimated that it will take 18 months to achieve the deep subsurface soil cleanup standard at
the MW90 Area and 8uilding 763 at a total cost of $2,708.000. Table 9-3 presents the estimated
total cost for SVE, including cost of capital, O&M, and present worth for each deep subsurface
source area, and treatability study costs. Vapor treatment costs are included based on carbon
system costs outlined above.
9.2.2 SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOILS (TCE ONLY)
BUILDING 658
The selected remedy is Alternative 3C:
.
Excavation of soil containing TCE
above the cleanup standard
Backfill of excavation with clean
import or borrow soil
Transportation on site to treatment
location
Treatment by ex situ SVE
Treatment of emissions by vapor-
phase carbon adsorption, or no
treatment if emissions are in
compliance with air quality ARARs
On-base use of treated soil.
.
.
.
.
.
An estimated 490 cy of soil containing TCE
above the cleanup standard will be
excavated. SVE design and operational
parameters will be determined during the RD
phase. Excavated soil will be transported to a
pre-determined location onsite. A soil pile
will be constructed with prepacked and
constructed extraction pipes. The pile will be
covered and underlain by an impermeable
liner to prevent uncontrolled volatilization of
TCE during and when treatment is not in
process.
Soil vapor containing TCE will be removed
using a blower or vacuum pump. Any
separated water will be transported to the
selected groundwater remedy for treatment.
The SVE system will include vapor-phase
carbon that will be employed if soil vapor
contains TCE at levels that are not protective
of human health and the environment or do
not comply with ARARs. Treated soil will be
CBAouROO.9
used onbase (e.g., for construction or
landscaping purposes).
It is estimated that it will take 6 months to
achieve the shallow subsurface soil cleanup
standard for TCE only at a cost of $570.000.
Table 9-4 presents the estimated total cost,
including capital and O&M. Vapor treatment
costs are included based on costs for a
representative emission treatment system;
refer to Sect. 9.2.1.
BUILDING 763
The selected remedy is Alternative 3D:
.
.
.
.
Deed restrictions
Groundwater monitoring
Treatment by in situ SVE
Treatment of emissions by vapor-
phase carbon adsorption, or no
treatment if emissions are in
compliance with air quality ARARs.
The remedy is the same as that selected for
deep subsurface soil at this location.
It is estimated that it will take 1 year to
achieve the shallow subsurface soil cleanup
standard for TCE at a cost of $759,000.
Table 9-4 presents the estimated total cost,
including cost of capital and O&M. Vapor
treatment costs are included based on costs
for a representative emission treatment
system; refer to Sect. 9.2.1.
9-5
11/23/93
-------
TABLE 9-3
COST SUMMARY FOR
DEEP SUBSURFICE SOIL AlTERNATlYES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------
I
I
---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ----.---.-.
I
I
I -----------
I
I
I
I
I
I -----------
I
I ......-----
I
I
DlRECTIINDRECT CAPITAl COSTS
CONSTRUC1tON COSTS
EQUIPMENT COSTS
lAND AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
BUILDNO AND SERVICES
RELOCAl1ON COSTS
DISPOSAl COSTS
[Capital Co8I8 SublOlll~ Rounded)
CONTRACTOR'S COSTS
25% 01 8UbtoIaI
> TOTAl DIRECT CAPITAl COSTS
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
CON11NOEHCY AllOWANCE
OTHER INIJRECT COSTS
15% of cIrect capital
25% of cIrect capllal
15% of cIrect capital
> TOTAl INDIRECT CAPITAl COSTS
»TOTAlCAPfTAlCOSTS (DIIwct + Inchct. Round8cQ
MW90 Area
In SIIu SVE
$11,800
194.839
$51,729
$15.400
SO
$1.200
-"'--""""'''''''''-''''
$181.000
548.000
-----------
$233,000
$35,000
$58.000
$34,000
-----------
$127.000
----.-.......
$360,000
Bulldi1g 763
In SIIu SVE
$39.163
$50.039
$51.729
$15,400
SO
$400
$1113,000
$40,000
$203,000
$30,000
$51.000
$30,000
$111,000
------------------------- --------- --------- -------------------- -------------------------- -- ---------- --------- ------- - -- ---------
$310,000
PRESENT WORTH I PRESENT WORTH
cP ANNUAUPERIODIC COSTS - 1If. of 1.5 ye8II ANNUAl COSTS 1% DIecourC Rate I ANNUAl COSTS 1% o-n AllIe
CD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. lABOR (1Iu8cI on 24 ttr/day. 360 day/yr operation) $26,000 $38,000 I 126.000 $38.000
MAINTENANCE MATERIAlS $1,000 59.000 I $1.000 59,000
. AUXlUARYMATERlALSUABOR/POWER $49.300 $67.700 I 549.300 $47.700
PURCHASED SERVICES' $317.000 5428.000 I $311,000 5428.000
----------- ---------- I ----------- -----------
$399.000 $540,000' $39a.000 $540,000
I
I
I
I -----------
I
I
I
,
I ....._..81.-
I
I
I
..............-...---....-.................--......---...-..----...............-...--.......-.-.................-.....................
COST SUMMARY FOR 'tHIS REMEDY I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
> TOTAlDlRECTANNUAlCOSTS(~:
OTHER COSTS (pERIODIC COSTS)
ConncIor'. o-tI8d. Profit
25% of oCher---
> TOTAl DIRECT PEIIODIC COSTS (RaundecQ:
INDIRECT ANNUAl COSTS
INDIRECT PERIODIC COSTS
45%0I8MU8I
48% of periodic
» TOTAl ANNUAl COSTS (DIrect + Inclred)
» TOTAlANNUAlIPEilODIC PRESENT WORTH COSTS
»TOTALCAPITAlCOSTS (DInId + l!dld)
»TOTAl PRESENT WORTH COSTS (Onc:t + Inclr8C1)
> > > TOTAL (CAPITAL + PRESENT WORTH OF THE ANNUAIJPEIIODIC COSTS):
»> TflEATABlUTY sYUm COST: 0.4% of ToCaI
BCISSION CONTROlS
»» ORAND TOTAt.;
$37,000
$8,000
$38,600
59,000
$37,000
$8.000
548.000
$38.600
59.000
-----------
548.000
-----------
----------
$18Q,000
$21,000
$221.000
$21,000
$46.000
$46.000
$2411,000
$21,000
...........
$519.000
$830,000
$310,000
$830,000
-----------
$1.140,000
$5,000
-----------
$1.145,000
$169,000
-----------
..... ......----------.... ----..... ----.-... --.....-....--.----. --..-..-.. -.....--___...81. -- - ......... -.-- -...-.- ..-..... -.-.- ....
$1.314.000
- All ~ BeNd on Jamary 1992. Ullng an ENR CCI 014885
$18Q,000
$21,000
...-.-.....
-....-....
$519,000
S86Q,000
$360.000
S86Q,000
----------
$1,220,000
$5.000
----------
(wt1hoU emI88Ion controls)
$1.225.000
$169,000
----------
(with emilllon controIa)
$1.394.000
-------
TABLE 9-4
COST SUMMARY FOR
SHAllOW SUBSURFACE SOilS (TCE ONLY) ALTERNATIVES
DIRECT"NDlRECT CAPITAl COSTS
BuIlding 658
e.:avatlon/Ex Situ SVE
------------------------------------..----------.--------------------~-------------------_..._------------------------------
BuIlding 1&3
In Situ SVE
------------------------------------.----------.-----------------------------------------------------------------------.
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I ----------_.
I
I
I
I
I
, -----------.
I
I ..........81
I
I
------------------------------------.----------.--------------------.----------------------------------------------------
" ANNUAL COSTS I ANNUAl COSTS
OPERATION" MAINTENANCE COSTS 8 month life I 1 par"
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
EQUIPMENT COSTS
lAND AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
BUilDING AND SERVICES
RELOCATION COSTS
DISPOSAl COSTS
529.213
524,519
$34.829
513,150
50
50
(Capilli Caa18 Subtotal. Rounded]
CONTRACTOR'S COSTS
25% 01 .ubtotll
5102.400
525,000
----------.
> TOTAL DIRECT CAPITAl COSTS
5121,400
ENOINEEIING AND DESIGN
CONTINGENCY AlLOWANCE
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
15% 0' direct capital
25% 0' direct capital
15% 0' direct capita'
519,000
$32.000
519.000
-----------
> TOTAl INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
510.000
...........
> > TOTAL CAPITAL C08T8 (Dlreot + Indklot. Roundld)
11111,000
CD
I
"
512,121
518.060
511,800
512.000
SO
$240
553,000
514.000
$81.000
510.000
511,000
511,000
$38.000
1110.000
------------------------------------.----------.-------------------------------------- --- -------------------------------.
LABOR (Rued on 24 hr/day, 380 day/yr oparatlon) ". 51.600 513,100
MAINTENANCE MATeIlAlS 53.100 55.500
AUXIUARY MATeIlAlS Ia LABOR/POWER 510.400 54.000
PURCHASED SERVICES 5184,500 5295.300
OTHER COSTS (PEIIODIC COSTS) 51.000 524,000
Contraclor'e OwrhIad Ia Profit 25% 0' other cosl. 52,000 $6.000
----------. -----------.
> TOTAl DIRECT PEIIODIC COSTS (RoundId): 1'95,000 $348.000
INDIRECT OlaM COSTS 45% 0' periodic 588.000 5151.000
.-......--- ...........:
> > TOTAL OlaM COSTS (Olnet + Indirect) 5263.000 5505,000
COST SUMMARY FOR THIS REMEDY
[[[_..._.....I.........-.~........'...........S........1.........'
> > TOTAl CAPITAl COSTS (Direct + Indnc:t)
> > TOTAL OlaM COSTS (DIract + Indirect)
5191,000
$263,000
-----------.
(Mthout eml8alon contro~)
5480,000
$110.000
SO
EMISSION CONTROLS
TREATABlLfTY STUDY COST
-----------.
»> GRAND TOTAl (CAPITAL + O'M COSTS):
(with eml8.1on control8)
$510.000
.-.-................-...........-.-.............-..-.-..........--................-:..... ..........-_...:8.................. 8
5158,000
- AI C0818 s.ed on January 1882, I8lng an ENR CCI 014885
5110,000
-------
9.2.3 SHAllOW SUBSURFACE SOlllTCE AND CHROMIUM)
The selected remedy is Alternative 4B:
~ .
.
.
Demolition and reconstruction of existing facilities
Excavation of soil containing TCE and chromium commingled above the cleanup
standards
Backfill of excavation with clean import or borrow soil
Testing 01 excavated soil
Transportation of soil offsite by licensed transporter
Disposal offsite to a licensed Subtitle C disposal facility.
.
.
.
.
Demolition and reconstruction of the electroplating shop and adjacent office will be necessary to
excavate an estimated 415 cy of soil containing TCE and chromium above cleanup standards. Soil
will be tested to determine levels of TCE and chromium. The remedy will occur concurrent with
the selected remedy for shallow subsurface soil with TCE only. The excavation will be backfilled
immediately with clean import or borrow soil. Reconstruction will occur as soon as possible.
Excavated soil containing TCE and chromium above cleanup standards will be immediately loaded
onto trucks licensed for the transport of contaminated soils. Soil will be tested to determine
whether it is a RCRA hazardous waste. Soil will be transported to a licensed Subtitle C disposal
facility that will treat the soil if concentrations exceed disposal standards. The AF has identified
various options for disposal of contaminated soil; these Subtitle C disposal facilities will be
presented during the RD phase.
It is estimated that it will take 6 months to achieve the cleanup standards for shallow subsurface
soil with TCE and chromium commingled at a cost of $1,220,000. Table 9-5 presents the
estimated total cost.
.;
17 .~
t ::-
;' ::
..
-
.'
;.. CBAouROD.9
, ,
. 9-8
11/18/93
.. .
-
-------
TABLE 8-5
COST SUMMARY FOR
SHAlLOW SUBSURFACE SOILS (TCE AND CHROMIUM) AlTERNATIVE
------------------------------------.----------.---------_._---------~---------------------------------
DIRECT/lNDJRECT CAPITAL COSTS
IRP Site 8
EJecavationlOtf - Site Dilpoaal
-----------------------------------------------.------____0______----'----------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION COSTS 188.200
EOUIPMENT COSTS If,U8
LAND AND SITE DEVELOPMENT 1358,850
BUILDING AND SERVICES If,75O
RELOCATION COSTS 10
DISPOSAL COSTS 11118,880
(Capital COltl Subtotal, Rounded)
CONTRACTOR'S COSTS
25~ 01 aubtotal
1828,000
If58,ooo
----------.
> TOTAL DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
1785,000
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
CONTINGENCY ALLOWANCE
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
f 5~ 01 direct capital
25~ 01 direc:f capital
15~ 01 direct capital
1118,000
1188,000
$118,000
----------.
> TOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
$432,000
........-.:
» TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS (DireC1 + Indirect, Rounded)
11,220,000
-_..._._....ac..-_.c.c=.a.c_.c_c-..~r=_c==_--~~;------___.:.DC.__..__:..__..__..-_..-_._-_.~.-..ca.c_....
COST SUMMARY FOR THIS REMEDY
> > TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS (Direct + Indiract)
> > TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COSTS
$1.220.000
10
----------.
> > > GRAN 0 TOTAL (CAPITAl + PRESENT WORTH):
11,220,000
..---C=....=C.DC~C.C...c-...-~..a.._I._==.=.=.D:_.....-.--:..._.m....:.-.....-...---.......:c--..........
- All COltl Baaed on January 1992, using an ENR CCI 01 4885
9-9
-------
~ .
.. .
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
f:...'
-------
1 0.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
This" ~ection discusses how the selected remedies meet the following statutory requirements:
.
Protect human health and the environment and meet several other statutory
requirements of CERCLA Seenon 121, and when completed, comply with ARARs
unless a statutory waiver is justified.
.
Are cost-effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
.
Involve treatment to permanently and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of hazardous wastes as their principal element.
10.1
GROUNDWATER
Section 8.1 provides a comparative analysis of groundwater treatment alternatives based on
Section 121 CERCLA evaluation criteria.
Protection 0' Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment by extracting the contaminated
groundwater and treating it through air stripping. Air stripping will remove VOCs from groundwater
and reduce the current potential risks to human health from ingestion and inhalation of airborne
vapors from 7.1 x 10.6 to a level no greater than 10" (within the acceptable exposure range of 1 o~
to 10.e), The selected remedy will also reduce the risk to the environment from groundwater
degradation, There are no short-term threats associated with this remedy that cannot be readily
controlled. No adverse cross-media impacts are expected from this remedy. Risk from direct
discharge of air stripping tower emissions will be no greater than 10.e (estimated to be 1.6 x 10'7),
and will be treated with vapor-phase activated carbon if direct discharge exceeds air Quality
ARARs; adsorbed TCE would be destroyed through carbon regeneration.'
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will comply with all chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs; no ARAR
waivers are required (refer to Table 7-1).
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost-effective because it has been determined to provide overall
effectiveness proportional to its cost. The total estimated net present worth cost for air stripping
(direct discharge) over a 30-year period is $28,050,000, which is 78% less than the net present
worth cost of the Carbon Adsorption alternanve. If vapor-phase activated carbon adsorption
treatment is employed to comply with air Quality ARARs, the present worth cost would increase to
$37,560,000, which is 72% less than the Carbon Adsorption alternative.
The c.rbon i. supplied .1 . eervice from. e.erbon vendor. The vendor determine. whether the carbon will be
regener.ted.
CBAouROD. '0
10-1
, ", 6/93
-------
UtJ7iz6tion of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies (or Resource Recovery
Technologies) to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy represents the maximum extent practicable to which permanent solutions and
treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner for the CBA au. Air stripping
provides the best balance of tradeoffs in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence.
reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment, shon-term effectiveness.
implementability, and cost.
The two alternatives are reasonably comparable with respect to shon-term effectiveness, but differ
in reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment. Air stripping will meet the cleanup
standards, but will not permanently reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of vacs released into
the atmosphere unless they are treated. The Carbon Adsorption alternative will permanently
reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of vacs if the spent carbon is regenerated. The major
tradeoffs that provide the basis for this selection decision. however, are long-term effectiveness.
implementability, and cost. The selected remedy provides 1) greater long-term effectiveness and
permanence because there is no residual risk, 2) has greater implementability because it can utilize
the existing groundwater treatment system, and 3) achieves this at significantly lower present
wonh costs.
The selected remedy has been accepted by USEPA and the State; no objection has been made by
the community.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a
principal element. By treating the VaC-contaminated groundwater through an air stripping tower,
the selected remedy addresses the principal threat posed by the CBA au through the use of a
proven treatment technology.
10.2
SOILS
Section 8.2 provides a comparative analysis of soil alternatives based on Section 121 CERCLA
evaluation criteria.
10.2.1 DEEP SUBSURFACE SOILS
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment through the removal of
TCE from soils by in situ SVE. The current levels of TCE in soil are present at acceptable levels to
human health (risk is less than 10-'), but pose a threat to groundwater resources. In situ SVE
eliminates the threat to groundwater by removing the TCE in soil. There are no shon-term threats
associated with construction or implementation of this remedy that cannot be readily controlled.
The only cross-media impacts from this remedy would be spent carbon used to treat SVE emissions
. to meet air Quality ARARs. However, adsorbed TCE would be destroyed if carbon is regenerated.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will comply with all chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs; no ARAR
waivers are required (refer to Table 7-2).
CBAouROD.10
10-2
11/16193
-------
Cost Effectiveneu
Although the selected remedy costs more than the dewatering alternative, it is considered cost-
effective because it provides more overall effectiveness proportional to its cost. The total
estimated net present worth cost is $2,708,000, which is approximately 56% more than the
Groundwater Monitoring/Perched Zone Dewatering alternative, but should remove more TCE
directly from the source and in significantly less time.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions IInd Alternative Treatment Technologies (0' Resource Recovery
Technologies) to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy represents the maximum extent practicable to which permanent solutions and
treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner for deep subsurface source
removal. In situ SVE provides the best balance of tradeoffs in terms of long-term effectiveness and
permanence, reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment, short-term
effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
The two alternatives are reasonably comparable with respect to implementability, but differ in cost
($2,708,000 for the selected alternative and $1,740,000 for the Groundwater Monitoring/Perched
Zone Dewatering alternative). The major tradeoffs that provide the basis for this selection decision,
however, are long-term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume, and short-term
effectiveness. The selected remedy provides a greater degree of long-term effectiveness and
permanence because 1) it should remove more TCE from the soil than the dewatering alternative,
resulting in a greater reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume of TCE in soil (permanent reduction
is achieved if spent carbon, used to treat emissions to comply with air Quality ARARs, is
regenerated); and 2) provides a higher degree of short-term effectiveness by accomplishing cleanup
in 18 months rather than 30 years. The treatment advantages support the additional cost
requirements.
The selected remedy has been accepted by USEPA and the State; no objection has been made by
the community.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a
principal element. By removing TCE in deep subsurface soils and treating the extracted vapor to
meet air Quality ARARs, the selected remedy addresses one of the principal threats posed by the
CBA OU source areas through the use of treatment technologies.
10.2.2 SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOilS (TCE ONLY)
Two different remedies have been selected for shallow subsurface soil containing TCE only. At
Building 658, excavation and ex situ SVE with on-base use of treated soil (e.g., for landscaping or
construction purposes) is the selected remedy. At Building 763, in situ SVE is the selected
remedy.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedies are protective of human health and the environment through removal of
TCE. The current levels of TCE in soil do not pose a risk to human health (risk is less than 10" for
ingestion and dermal contact), but do pose a threat to groundwater resources. There are no short-
term threats associated with construction or implementation of these remedies that cannot be
CBAouROO.10
10-3
11/16193
-------
readily controlled. The only cross-media impacts from the remedies would be spent carbon used to
treat SVE emissions if they exceed air Quality ARARs. However, adsorbed TCE would be destroyed
if carbon is regenerated. .
, .
Building 658
TCE is removed from soil by excavation, and
treated by ex situ SVE. Excavation eliminates the
threat to groundwater by removing the soil
containing TCE. The acceptable risk to human
health is even further reduced by SVE treatment.
Compliance with ARARs
Building 763
TCE is removed from soil by in situ SVE,
eliminating the threat to groundwater and
further reducing the acceptable risk to
human health.
The selected remedies will comply with all chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs; no -
ARAR waivers are required (refer to Table 7-2).
Cost Eff8Ctiveness
The selected remedies are cost-effective because each has been determined to provide overall
effectiveness proportional to its cost.
Building 658
The total estimated net present worth cost is
$570,000, which is less than the In Situ SVE
alternative but more than the Excavation and Off-
site Disposal alternative; In Situ SVE is 1 % more
than the selected remedy while Excavation and
Off-site Disposal is 45% of the selected remedy.
The selected remedy costs more than the
Excavation and Off-site Disposal alternative, but
it employs treatment as a principal element and
no residuals would remain due to complete
source removal. Compared to the In Situ SVE
alternative, the selected remedy can be
accomplished in less time and at a lower cost.
Building 763
The total estimated net present worth cost
is $759,000, which is 67% less than the
ExcavationlEx Situ SVE/On-base Use
alternative and 82 % less than the
Excavation and Off-site Disposal alternative.
UtJ7ization 0' Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment T8Chnologies (or Resource R8Covery
Technologies) to the Maximum Extent PractiCllble
The selected remedies represent the maximum extent practicable to which permanent solutions and
treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner for source removal of shallow
subsurface soils containing TCE only. The selected remedies provide the best balance of tradeoffs
in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume
through treatment, short-term effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
- !'..- .
CBAouROO.10
10-4
. - .
11/16/93
-------
Building 658
The three alternatives are reasonably comparable
with respect to long-term effectiveness and
reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume; the
selected remedy has a greater cost than
Excavation and Off-site Disposal and a lower cost
than In Situ SVE (see costs above). The major
tradeoffs that provide the basis for this selection
decision are short-term effectiveness and
implementability. The selected remedy provides
less short-term effectiveness than the Excavation
and Off-site Disposal alternative because soil is
treated onsite, but greater short-term
effectiveness than the In Situ SVE alternative
because contaminated soil is immediately
removed from the site. The selected remedy can
be implemented in 6 months. equivalent to off-
site disposal and less than that required for in situ
SVE. For the small volume of affected soil. the
selected remedy provides the most short-term
effectiveness and is the most implementable for
the cost.
Building 763
The three alternatives are reasonably
comparable with respect to long.term
effectiveness, reduction in toxicity,
mobility, and volume, and short-term
effectiveness. The major tradeoffs that
provide the basis for this selection decision
are implementability and cost. The selected
remedy is the easiest to implement of the
three alternatives. The Excavation/Ex Situ
SVE/On-base Use and Excavation and Off-
site Disposal alternatives require demolition
and reconstruction of active facilities inside
Building 763. which is currently used for
maintenance operations by both Norton
AFB and Lockheed. to access contaminated
soil. After base closure. Lockheed will
continue its operations in the facility.
Excavation would disrupt shop activities;
shop work would have to be relocated or
suspended. The cost of the selected
alternative is three times less than the other
alternatives due to the added costs for
demolition and reconstruction. The
selected remedy can be Quickly
implemented, does not require shop
demolition or suspension of shop activities.
and costs less.
The selected remedies have been accepted by USEPA and the State; no objection has been made
by the community.
Preference for Treatment a8 a Pdncipal Element
The selected remedies satisfy the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a
principal element.
Building 658
By excavating shallow subsurface soil containing
TCE, and removing and treating the extracted
vapor to meet air quality ARARs, the selected
remedy addresses one of the principal threats
posed by the CBA OU source areas through the
use of treatment technologies.
CBAouROO.10
10-5
Buildina 763
By removing TCE in shallow subsurface soil
and treating the extracted vapor to meet air
Quality ARARs, the selected remedy
addresses one of the principal threats posed
by the CBA OU source areas through the
use of treatment technologies.
11/16/93
-------
10.2.3 SHAllOW SUBSURFACE SOil (TCE AND CHROMIUMI
P,ottJCtion 0' Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment through excavation and off-site
disposal at a licensed facility. The source of chromium, a threat to human health, commingled with
TCE, a threat to groundwater, is removed from the site. Source removal eliminates possible human
ingestion and dermal contact, and possible impacts to groundwater. The current carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic risk to human health from ingestion and dermal contact of soil containing
: chromium (carcinogenic risk of 3.7 x 10.3 [Cal.EPA slope factor] and Hazard Index of 19.3,
respectively) is reduced to the USEPA acceptable 1 O~ to 10" range and a Hazard Index of less than
1, respectively. The current levels of TCE in soil are present at acceptable risk from direct contact
exposure levels (less than 10"), but the selected remedy will eliminate the threat to groundwater
resources. There are no short.term threats associated with construction or implementation of this
remedy that cannot be readily controlled. No adverse cross.media impacts are expected at the site
from this remedy.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will comply with all chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs and TBCs;
no ARAR waivers are required (refer to Table 7-2).
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost-effective because it has been determined to provide overall
effectiveness proportional to its cost. The total estimated net present worth cost is $1,220,000,
26% less than the Excavation/Ex Situ SVE/Off-site Disposal alternative.
UtJ7ization 0' Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies (0' Resource Recovery
TtlChnologiesJ to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy represents the maximum extent practicable to which permanent solutions and
treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner for source removal of shallow
subsurface soil contaminated with chromium commingled with TCE. The selected remedy provides
the best balance of tradeoffs in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction in
toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment, short-term effectiveness, implementability, and
cost.
The two alternatives are reasonably comparable with respect to long-term effectiveness, and
reducing toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants. Both the selected remedy and the Ex Situ
alternative remove TCE from the site and protect groundwater, but chromium remains a concern
due to its risk to human health and must be addressed (the Ex Situ alternative removes TCE from
soil but chromium is still present). The selected remedy and the Ex Situ alternative dispose of the
soil at an off-site Subtitle C disposal facility; a reduction in the toxicity, mobility, and volume of
chromium in soil would depend on the treatment performed at the receiving facility. Therefore, the
major tradeoffs that provide the basis for this selection decision are short-term effectiveness,
implementability, and cost. The selected remedy provides a higher degree of short.term
effectiveness and implementability because the excavated soil is immediately disposed offsite
without on-site treatment. There is no additional handling of chromium soil which results in less
exposure to the community and environment. Additionally, the remedy can be completed in three
months less time than the Ex Situ alternative and at a lower cost.
CBAouROD.10
10-6
11/16/93
-------
The selected remedy has been accepted by USEPA and the State; no objection has been made by
the community.
Prefertince for Treatment 8S 8 Principal Element
The selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment
as a principal element. Whether or not the TCE is treated off-site disposal is required for the
chromium due to the threat to human health posed by the levels (treatment will be accomplished at
the disposal facility if necessary to meet land ban disposal standards). The selected remedy
requires less hazardous materials handling, exposes the community and environment to less
volatiles, generates less residual waste, and does not impact clean areas where treatment would
occur. The increased hazards 01 on-site treatment for TCE outweigh the benefits to satisfy the
statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal element.
CBAouROD.10
10-7
11/16/93
-------
~ .
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
- -.
, "-
-------
11.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The PP was released for public comment in March 1993. The PP identified Alternative 1 B,
extraction and treatment by air stripping, as the preferred alternative for groundwater. Since the
issuance of the PP, the AF has developed, with close support and input from the local water
agencies, an AF off-base water supply contingency policy. The pOlicy documents the strategy to
mitigate adverse effects on off-base municipal water production in the event that migration of
contaminants from Norton AFB impacts production wells above the cleanup standards. The AF
mitigation activities will include providing water treatment facilities at the affected water supply
wells or providing alternate water supplies as appropriate, and reimbursement of affected water
supply agencies for the cost of additional sampling, water quality tests, operation and maintenance,
engineering, and related work. The specifics are discussed in the Norton AFB Off-Base Water
Supply Contingency Policy; the mitigation activities will be implemented as outlined in the decision
matrix presented in the policy. The wellhead water treatment facilities will consist of mobile GAC
treatment units, which differs from the preferred alternative of air stripping as the only treatment
method employed. To accommodate this change, wellhead treatment or provision of water
supplies is included as part of the selected remedy.
The PP identified four options for releasing treated groundwater: release to water purveyors,
reinjection, on-base industrial use, and discharge to the Santa Ana River. Since the issuance of the,
PP, the AF has selected reinjection as a beneficial and implementable enduse option and has
included it in the groundwater remedy. The reinjection standard issue between the State of
California and the AF has been resolved through acceptance of Resolution 68-16 as an ARAR. For
reinjection inside the plume, reinjection concentrations will not exceed the MCL cleanup standards;
outside of the plume, reinjection concentrations will not exceed 0.5 pglL. This reinjection standard
will comply with State Resolution 68-16. Release to water purveyors was not selected due to the
difficulties in identifying purveyors able to take all treated groundwater year-round. Similarly, on.
base uses could not utilize the volume of treated groundwater year-round. Discharge to the Santa
Ana River wash, the AF's least preferred oPtion, was not selected because it could be detrimental
to the Santa Ana woolly star, an endangered species that lives within and around the wash. With
the rejection of surface water discharge, the Endangered Species Act is no longer triggered and
therefore not an ARAR; the habitat of the Santa Ana woolly star is at least one mile from the CBA
and any areas impacted by selected remedies. A biological assessment was conducted by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service in 1990 and the California Department of Fish and Game in 1991 to
determine the sensitive habitat areas at Norton AFB.
The PP identified the following as the preferred alternatives for soil:
. Deep Subsurface Soil. Alternative 2C, treatment bV in situ SVE.
. Shallow Subsurface Soil (TCE Only) - Alternative 3C, excavation, ex situ SVE, and on-
base use of treated soil for Building 658; Alternative 3D, treatment by in situ SVE at
Building 763.
. Shallow Subsurface Soil (TCE and Chromium) - Alternative 4B, excavation and disposal
offsite.
The AF reviewed all written and verbal comments submitted during the public comment period.
Upon review of these comments, it was determined that no significant changes to the soil
remedies, as they were originally identified in the PP, was necessary.
CBAouROD.11
11-1
11/16/93
-------
~ .
~ ~
.
.: r
.. .
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
. "',.
'. .
.-.1'...-:-
. - ,I:: ~,f
. {. ..'~C':; :' ";"", -: ~:
.'.
". . 4
. -;..-
:.:j":::.~
""
..
: .:~ :;:!.
"..
. .'
,.
..
'"
. ,
..
"';;"...;.
. ;.'; I': ~~-
"'.., _f',,".."
". _.
, ..,,;..
. :'.~ r .~.
. "
~'1
-------
~I
7,
"".\
""\
;.;.J
q
:..J
'"1
: !
~
"~C)
:" j
o..i
J
J
J
"""
, .
APPENDIX A
-.."
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
..,
,
.j
-
" ;
. !
-------
~.
- ~-......... --------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
",". ..u..,~..",,.~ :",i:"'\ -..~~'~",P'~-.-
. --- .-. ___A ----- --- '-----'-- -- .-------..-.---..------.
.'-.
-:'."AJ~ ;,::. """""""-:.f_':'":'t..~-y::;.. '~''l.:;'!)i'-';~;'~';~-''~'Ts:r:.~;r.- .\...=,......2t"';-~'4( "",",""'2'."i"'0. ~""';-"'~.......:.:.;..,,-- ..' -.c,;.-.,..
. ~
. ,
-------
NORTON AIR FORCE BASE, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE CENTRAL BASE AREA OPERABLE UNIT PROPOSED PLAN
~ .
A.
OVERVIEW
At the time of the public comment period, the Air Force (AF) identified its preferred alternatives in
the Proposed Plan (PP) for the Norton Air Force Base (AFB) Central Base Area ICBA) Operable Unit
(CBA OU) in San Bernardino, California. The Air Force's recommended alternatives address the
groundwater and soil contamination within the CBA OU only. The preferred alternatives specified
in the PP would involve the following:
.
Groundwater. Treatment would involve air stripping. The treated groundwater
would be supplied to local water purveyors.
.
DeeD Subsurface Soil. Treatment would involve in situ soil vapor extraction (SVE).
Extracted vapor is treated with activated carbon.
.
Shallow Subsurface Soil CTCE Onlvl. Treatment would involve both in situ SVE and
excavation with ex situ SVE. Extracted vapor is treated with activated carbon.
.
Shallow Subsurface SoillTCE and Chromiuml. Treatment would involve excavation
and off-site disposal.
Judging from the comments received during the public comment period, the residents, City of
Riverside, and San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA) generally accept the AF's
preferred remedial alternatives for addressing the groundwater and soil contamination. The primary
concern expressed was the time frame 10r implementing the action and whether the actions would
impede the base closure process.
These sections follow:
.
Background on Community Involvement.
.
Summary 01 Comments Received During the Public Comment Period.
.
Remaining Concerns.
B.
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
The AF disseminated periodic Fact Sheets to the community on the progress of the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RIIFS). The Fact Sheets are geared to inform the community and
solicit any comments and concerns.
The concerns 01 the community have been the occasional and historical detections of
trichloroethylene (TCE) and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) above the maximum
contaminant level (MCL) in downgradient municipal supply wells (Warren #2, Norman Road). The
City of Riverside. who owns many 01 the production wells. has requested some type of
compensation from the AF for lost production due to impacts from plume migration or extraction.
The AF developed a water supply contingency policy to address this issue. As part of the preferred
RSUMMARY.CBA
A-'
11/16/93
-------
groundwater treatment remedy, treated water would be provided to the City of Riverside to
supplement their current supply should the production wells become affected.
C.
~ . SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Comments raised during the Norton AFB public comment period on the Final CBA OU FS and PP are
summarized below. The comment period was held from February 16 to March 18, 1993. All
comments received during the comment period are contained in the Administrative Record. The
comments are categorized by the order in which they were received.
PUBLIC MEETING
1.
A citizen Questioned the AF's use of the 5 ppb MCL as a cleanup standard and asked if
there was a possible Supreme Court ruling stating if a contaminant concentration of zero is
technologically attainable. it should be attained.
Air Force ResDonse: The AF has selected the MCL as the cleanup standard for
groundwater. MCLs are promulgated drinking water standards established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act for the protection of human health and the environment. These levels
are both legally enforceable and obtainable. The AF notes that the 5 ppb limit is the
maximum concentration that would be allowed and it expects that water provided to the
water purveyors will contain less than 5 ppb of TCE. The AF is not aware of any recent or
upcoming Supreme Court ruling requiring attainment of zero concentrations for soils or
groundwater.
2.
A citizen would like to know if (a) the low level radioactive waste the AF is concerned
about includes the nuclear warheads that are currently being dismantled at the base, and
Ib) whether the air stripping tower will meet air emission regulations.
Air Force ResDonse:
la) The AF would like to stress there are no nuclear warheads being dismantled at Norton
AFB. The low level radioactive waste mentioned during the Community Meeting represents
a concrete bunker used in the 1950s and 1960s for storage of paint and paint waste
containing radium. The AF is continuing efforts to locate the site. This work. however, is
not part of the CBA OU but will be handled under proposed radiological studies.
(b) Air stripping tower emissions of VOCs. including naturally occurring radon gas, will be
below the limits regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
3.
. Senior aide to Congressman George Brown stated that the Congressman and many local
. citizens would like to see negotiations between the AF and the USEPA and the State of
California on remedy selection and implementation move at a faster pace than it has to
date.
Air Force ResDonse: The AF shares the concerns of Congressman Brown and the local
c. :citizens. Given the constraints of the Superfund process and Federal Facility Agreement
. IFFA) that the AF has signed in good faith with the USEPA and the State of California, who
. are overseeing the clean-up process, the AF has been progressing as fast as it can to
"- - .. < .
. . '. implement a clean-up action.
.~~~.~ '.~ ~;';
RSUMMARY.CBA
A-2
1 1'111193
- .. :-, ..-;--- -- .:-:".
... .. -
-------
4.
An unidentified citizen would like to know the cost and growing cost of clean-up.
Air Force ResDonse: For groundwater, the present worth value cost for cleanup for a 30
,. year period of performance is estimated to be $28,050,000. The clean-up cost will
increase to $37,560.000 if air emission standards become more stringent in the future and
emission controls are needed on the air stripping towers. For the soil, the present worth
value cost for cleanup is estimated to be $5,257,000.
5.
A citizen requested an explanation of the soil clean-up method, the time frame for
completion, and whether any health threat to the public during implementation will exist.
Air Force ResDonse: The AF proposes to use SVE to remove the TCE in soil to the lowest
practicable level that can be achieved with the technology based on site conditions. The
technology can be constructed and implemented in such a way as not to interfere or
impede with base closure. Emissions from the extraction system will be treated to ensure
that local air emission standards are not exceeded. The public will not come in contact
with affected soil or vapors during treatment.
6.
A citizen would like to know when the remedial actions will be implemented and whether
they will be implemented by base closure.
Air Force ResDonse: It is the AF's intent to implement the remedial actions as soon as
possible. The AF, however, must comply with the requirements of the FFA.
Notwithstanding unforeseen circumstances. remedial action construction should occur
before or during base closure. However, it is unlikely that the cleanup, particularly for the
groundwater, will be completed at base closure.
WRITTEN COMMENTS
Concerned Citizen
7.
A citizen recommended that extraction wells be placed at the leading edge of the plume to
impede the migration.
Air Force ResDonse: As stated in the PP, the AF evaluated four different extraction
scenarios, including extraction at the leading edge of the plume. The AF prefers extraction
at the base boundary and central portion of the plume because this will be the most
effective means to control plume movement and remove the most contaminated portion of
the plume before it migrates offbase. Leading edge extraction may not be the most
effective way to control the plume off-base. The AF has established a Water Supply
. Contingency Policy to be implemented should production wells become contaminated.
San S8rnardino International Airport Authority fSSIAAJ
8. .
The SBIAA requested that the AF substantiate that all other VOCs present that exceed
. MCLs will also be reduced to concentrations below their MCLs as part of the projected
effort to remove TCE from groundwater.
Air Force ResDonse: The principle of air stripping is based on the difference in volatility of
various vecs to that of water. The Henry's Law constant of a vec describes its volatility
and ease of stripping. In general, the larger the Henry's Law constant. the easier the
RSUMMARY.CBA
A-3
11/16/93
-------
compound is to strip. At 25°C (standard temperature), the Henry's Law constant for TCE
is 9.10E-3 atm-m3/gmol. The other VOCs detected above the MCL in the TCE plume (cis-
~. 1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,2-dichloroethane, vinyl chloride, and benzene) have Henry's Law
constants similar to that of TCE, and therefore will exhibit a similar rate of stripping. If, for
example, the rate of TCE removal is predicted as 95%, the removal rate for other VOCs
with similar Henry's Law constants will also be around 95%. In summary, all VOCs
commingled with TCE that exceed MCls will be treated to below MCls. It should be noted
that TCE has been identified as the primary contaminant of concern in groundwater
because it is the most widespread and it occurs at the highest concentrations. All other
VOCs that exceed MCLs occur within the TCE plume and have been detected at
concentrations significantly lower than that of TCE.
9.
The SBIAA agreed that the clean-up standard of 5 parts per billion (ppb) for TCE in
groundwater is protective of human health in accordance with current federal and state
guidance. The" SB/AA also agreed that the clean-up standard of 150 parts per million (ppm)
of chromium is soil is protective of human health based upon ingestion.
Air Force ResDonse: The AF acknowledges SB/AA's agreement.
10.
The SB/AA recommends evaluating the potential for present or residual levels of TCE to
volatilize, particularly inside buildings, because it may pose a potential health risk.
Air Force ResDonse: As part of the proposed SVE treatability study, the AF will evaluate
" the potential for TCE emissions at the surface. It is important to note that enclosed spaces,
such as a basement, do not exist in any of the buildings on the base. Buildup of volatilized
TCE, if any, inside a building is unlikely.
11.
The SBIAA recommends that an evaluation of the health risk from chromium in air-borne
dust be included as part of the human-health protectiveness evaluation.
Air Force ResDonse: The baseline risk assessment evaluated the potential risk to human
and environmental receptors if no action occurs. In the risk assessment, there is no
inhalation exposure pathway for chromium in soil because the area of soil contamination is
covered with approximately 1 ft of concrete and is located inside a building. The AF,
however, will remediate soil containing chromium and TCE because no action is not
acceptable.
12.
The SBIAA recommended monitoring for other VOCs that currently exceed the MCl until
; they fall below the MCL thresholds.
Air Force ResDonse: The AF has been and will continue to monitor for all VOCs that are
present in groundwater during the course of the remedial action.
13.
In reference to the various enduse options for treated groundwater, the SBIAA concurred
". : wiih the State of California that any reinjection of treated effluent outside of the plume
. should be treated to the lowest practical level that can be achieved with air stripping.
Although the clean-up standard for TCE is the MCL, the SB/AA believes it would be
" inappropriate to transfer water containing TCE below the MCl to the regional aquifer
'J:" oftsite.
. "
;." L
". -
RSUMMARY.CBA
A-4
""6193
., . ., ", .
-------
-." -. .
Air Force ResDonse: The AF's preference for the treated water would be to provide it to
the local water purveyors should they choose to receive it. The AF has selected reinjection
because issues surrounding year around acceptance of the water could not be resolved at
" the time of issuance of the ROD. Any water reinjected would meet state and federal
regulations for reinjection.
14.
The SBIAA concurred with the AF's choice of a composite preferred clean-up method for
the TCE- and chromium-contaminated soil.
Air Force ReSDonse: The AF acknowledges SBIAA's concurrence.
15.
The SBIAA requested clarification on the soil clean-up time frames.
Air Force ResDonse: The clean-up time frames presented are an estimate on the minimum
time that would be required to accomplish the action under ideal conditions. The accuracy
is + 50% to -30%.
16.
The SBIAA requested that the AF substantiate the claim that TCE in soil at 1 to 69 ppm
does not constitute a hazard, particularly in future circumstances when construction may
expose TCE contaminated soil is this range.
Air Force ResDonse: TCE in soil has been detected between 1 and 69 ppm. The baseline
risk assessment evaluated the potential risk from ingestion and direct contact from this soil
to future residents and workers. To be protective of human health, the cancer risk of a
compound should be at least within 1 in 10 thousand to 1 in 1 million. For an industrial
worker, or someone who would be involved with future construction at the site, the cancer
risk from ingestion of and direct contact with soil were determined to be 1.8 in 100 million
and 1.2 in 10 million, respectively. If, under future circumstances, a worker was exposed
to TCE under the same conditions evaluated in the baseline risk assessment, the exposure
would not pose a risk to human health, as shown above.
17.
The SBIAA would like to know why the potential residual concentration of TCE remaining in
soil after SVE is completed was not estimated.
Air Force ResDonse: To estimate the residual TCE concentration that will remain after SVE
is implemented, it is necessary to first perform a test of the technology, or a treatability
study, on site-specific soil to determine how much can actually be removed. The AF is
currently planning the treatability study for the site. Under the study, estimates on the
mass of TCE that can be removed (or that will remain) will be determined.
18.
The SBIAA would like to know how the AF will address TCE-contaminated soil beneath
. structures if SVE is unable to reduce the TCE concentrations to acceptable levels, or if
vapor recovery cannot be completed before an area is scheduled for construction.
. Air Force ResDonse: If SVE is unable to reduce the TCE concentrations to acceptable
. levels, the other remedial alternative technologies identified in the CBA OU FS (i.e.,
excavation and ex situ treatment) will be reevaluated for application. Future construction
should not be impeded by the operation of the soil gas extraction system as long as the AF
is given sufficient lead time to complete the remediation.
--Ii
RSUMMARY.CBA
A-5
11116/93
-------
19.
The SBIAA would like to know what obligations the AF would have if additional
contaminated sites are encountered (such as below another structure or paved area) after
.. . the cleanup in the CBA au PP is completed.
Air Force ResDonse: The CBA OU addresses only TCE.contaminated groundwater and the
sources of TCE that have contributed to it. The cleanup presented in the CBA OU PP only
addresses these concerns. Other known or recently identified potential source areas have
been or will be characterized and mitigated under a separate clean-up program currentlv in
progress and presented in a separate PP.
20.
The SBIAA would like to know whether the soil excavation sites will be filled with clean
soil, and the time frame for completing this task.
Air Force ResDonse: All excavations will be immediately backfilled with clean soil following
excavation of contaminated material to minimize disruptions to base activities.
City of RivtHside
21.
The City of Riverside acknowledged that the off-base portion of the TCE plume has not
been completely defined and supported the AF's issuance of additional fact sheets on
ongoing activities to further define the plume boundaries.
Air Force ResDonse: The AF appreciates Riverside's interest and concern and will continue
to issue fact sheets to inform the surrounding community of actions at Norton AFB.
22.
The City of Riverside expressed an interest in assisting the AF in finalizing the decision on a
clean-up method, as they own several wells that are within the migration path of the TCE
plume.
Air Force ResDonse: The AF acknowledges Riverside's concern regarding cleanup and
appreciates their support and input on the final decision regarding clean-up methods.
23.
The City of Riverside agreed with the proposed clean-up technologies. However, for
reinjection of treated water outside the plume, Riverside agreed with the State of
California's position that treatment and discharge limits be based on the best practical
treatment methods (State Resolution 68-16).
. . Air Force ResDonse: The AF acknowledges Riverside's acceptance of the proposed clean-
up technologies. The AF has proposed to treat water by air stripping, which is considered
the best demonstrated control technology, to groundwater treatment standards set to state
and federal MCls, and to use MCls as the standard for reinjection. The USEPA requires
that the AF identify a treated water standard. Thus the AF has identified MCls as the
reinjection standard inside the plume because they are protective of human health. This
represents the maximum concentration released. Because the AF is using best
.:. demonstrated control technology, it believes that it can achieve a lower level and comply
with Resolution 68-16; the reinjection standard outside of the plume will be 0.5 ppb.
. .
- ;. The AF would prefer to transfer treated water to water purveyors over reinjection should
the water purveyors be able to accept treated water from the air stripping tower. In the PP
the AF considered four treated water enduse options in the following order of preference:
transfer to water purveyors, on-base use, reinjection, and surface water discharge.
" RSUMMARY.CBA
A-6
11/16/93
-------
- -.. . --
However, because the water purveyors have expressed concerns about receiving the water,
the AF has selected reinjection as the preferred discharge option.
24. ~. The City of Riverside suggested that the AF substitute - MCl- for the 5 ppb TCE
groundwater clean-up standard because MCls may change in the future before remediation
is completed.
Air Force Resoonse: As part of the Superfund process, the selected remedy is subjected to
a review every five years. As part of this review, the clean-up standards (MCLs, which are
promulgated drinking water standards) are reviewed. If, however, the current MCls are
identified as no longer protective, the groundwater clean-up standards will be reviewed and
changed to reflect any promulgated changes in MCLs; this may occur at any time during
implementation of the treatment remedy.
25.
The City of Riverside requested that the AF redefine the area of groundwater contamination
based on the proposed State of California Recommended Public Health Level (RPHL) for
TCE (2.5 ppb).
Air Force Resoonse: The AF defined groundwater contamination based on the TCE clean-
up standard for groundwater (5 ppb). RPHLs were not used because, unlike MCLs, these
levels are proposed and not promulgated standards. As part of the FS, a risk analysis was.
performed to determine whether cleanup to MCLs would pose an adverse risk to human
health. The analysis showed that removal of TCE and other vecs to their MCLs resulted in
a cumulative risk level that was protective of human health.
26.
The City of Riverside expressed concern that the AF did not consider the synergistic effects
resulting from exposure to two or more contaminants in estimating health risks presented in
the Proposed Plan.
Air Force Resoonse: The health risks presented in Table 2 of the PP represent the risk to
human health from all compounds evaluated in the baseline risk assessment. The baseline
risk assessment, which evaluated the risk to human health assuf!:ling no remedial action is
taken at the site, did not evaluate synergistic effects of two or more contaminants; there
are no data to support synergism at low concentrations. The results of the risk
assessment, however, indicated an adverse risk to human health; in response, the AF has
proposed remedial actions to reduce the risk to acceptable levels. Therefore, a study of
synergistic effects in relation to health affects is not necessary.
27.
Based on the presence of vinyl chloride detected in groundwater and the proposed soil gas
vinyl chloride sampling, the City of Riverside requested that the AF sample for vinyl chloride
in soil gas during the duration of the clean-up effort and consider sampling for vinyl chloride
in groundwater if water levels rise.
Air Force Resoonse: Proposed soil gas sampling will provide the AF with initial information
on soil gas concentrations. This information will be used during design and implementation
of the SVE clean-up remedy. As part of the SVE remedy, soil gas will be continually
monitored for vecs, including TCE and vinyl chloride. Soil gas treatment will be performed
as necessary to meet air quality regulations. The need for long-term soil gas monitoring will
be determined after completion of the soil gas studies. Groundwater will be monitored
.' quarterly as part of the groundwater remedv. regardless of water levels. The ongoing
: .: groundwater monitoring will involve analysis for vecs, including TCE and vinvl chloride.
RSUMMARY.CBA
A-7
11/16/93
-------
28.
The off-base plume is affected by the pumping of off-base production wells, some of which
are owned by the City of Riverside. The City of Riverside stated they should be held
.harmless. for any effects because some wells have been operating prior to the inception
.' of Norton AFB. Riverside has requested that the AF identify which wells may be causing
the plume to deepen. If these wells must be shut down to prevent additional plume
migration, Riverside requested the AF provide replacement potable water.
Air Force ResDonse: The large number of production wells operating downgradient of
Norton AFB is believed to have some effect on the migration of the off-base plume. These
wells, owned by Riverside and others, operate at different pumping rates throughout the
year. It is very difficult for the AF to identify which wells are causing the plume to deepen
and migrate and at what pumping rate. The AF will be performing additional field work,
which should provide information on pumping influences. After this information has been
evaluated, the AF and the City of Riverside can negotiate any actions that may be required.
29.
The City of Riverside agreed that the plume would be harder to control off-base than at the
base boundary and therefore supports a base boundary system. Although exact well
placement is not yet known, Riverside requested that proposed extraction and reinjection
wells be placed to efficiently capture the plume and limit or stop off-base migration.
Specifically, Riverside requested the AF consider placing extraction wells between the
proposed base boundary system and existing production wells.
Air Force ResDonse: As Riverside has acknowledged, the plume would be difficult to
control off-base. The AF did consider extraction wells at the leading edge of the plume, but
has chosen the following approach as the optimum extraction scenario: extraction at the
base boundary to control and capture the most contaminated portion of the plume before it
migrates offbase and contaminates a larger volume of groundwater, completion of off-base
plume characterization, and extraction and treatment at affected production wells. As part
of the off-base characterization, the AF will determine the necessity for an extraction
system at the leading edge of the plume. The exact number and placement of extraction
wells at the base boundary will be determined during the remedial design phase. It is the
intent of the AF to strategically place extraction wells to capture the plume as effectively as
is feasible.
30.
The City of Riverside expressed concern that extraction wells could impact off-base
production wells and requested that the AF compensate local water purveyors if extraction
wells cause excessive interference with production, or costs of production, from existing
municipal wells.
Air Force ResDonse: The base boundary extraction wells will be screened in the shallow
, portion of the aquifer, therefore it is unlikely that they will impact deeper off-base
production wells. In addition, it is the AF's preference to reinject extracted water, an
action which would not reduce the total volume of water available for use by the water
- purveyors. The AF will work with the San Bernardino Watermaster and local water
, purveyors to establish an acceptable extraction plan.
.', .
, 31. ' .' The City of Riverside requested that the AF notify its neighbors of the outcome of
discussions with the SCAQMD regarding air stripping emissions.
Air Force ResDonse: As stated in the PP, the off-gas emissions from the air stripping tower
'~ , . ".-: are estimated to be below regulatory limits. The AF will continue to evaluate the estimated
. C' RSUMMARY.CBA
A-a
11/16/93
-"-'
-------
"l
i
-.i
"1
. ~
.J
j
1
..J
J
1
J
J
j
J
,
emission rates through remedial design and action period. During this time the AF will work
with the SCAOMD to ensure compliance and protection of public health. The results of
discussions with the SCAQMD regarding air stripping emissions will be presented in
," community fact sheets describing startup of the remedial action.
32.
The City of Riverside has stated its interest in purchasing treated water but requested the
AF treat the water to all applicable drinking water requirements and to discharge standards
applicable to the Riverside Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, including those for total
dissolved solids and nitrates; provide the water at the required pressure at specified
locations; and sell the water at a cost not to exceed the avoided costs of local production.
Air Force ResDonse:
The AF considers transferring treated groundwater to local water purveyors a beneficial
treated water enduse option and acknowledges Riverside's interest in purchasing treated
water. However, since the issuance of the PP the AF has resolved the reinjection standard
issue over State Resolution 68-16 and has selected reinjection as the treated groundwater
enduse option. The AF will treat groundwater to the clean-up standards, which have been
established at MCLs (drinking water standards), for those constituents for which the AF is
responsible before reinjection. The AF does not propose to release water to a publicly-
owned treatment works (POTW) and therefore treatment to POTW standards is not relevant-
under state and federal law. The AF wiff only be required to treat water to remove AF
contamination.
33.
The AF has proposed to treat groundwater at a production well when TCE is detected in
the well above the MCL for an extended period of time. Riverside requested the AF begin
wellhead treatment when the concentration of tetrachloroethylene, vinyl chloride, or any
other TCE degradation by-product exceeds its respective MCL. Riverside suggested the AF
provide interim replacement potable water during installation of the wellhead treatment
facilities. In addition, Riverside requested that the AF expedite the approval process of the
Water Supply Contingency Policy for replacing lost production due to contamination from
Norton AFB.
Air Force ResDonse: The groundwater plume contains mainly TCE, with 1,2-
dichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, vinyl chloride, and other VOCs at lower
concentrations. It is on this basis that the AF had proposed wellhead treatment based on
TeE concentrations. However, recent off-base groundwater data show some areas with
. 1,2-dichloroethylene concentrations. The AF recognizes this concern and proposes to
implement the Water Supply Contingency Policy when TCE or any of its degradation
products are present above their MCLs. as outlined in the Policy.
34.
The City of Riverside expressed concern over the issue of deed restrictions to prohibit
." drilling of domestic wells on off-base property where the plume has migrated. Riverside
acquired off-base property for siting new municipal wells to replace older wells or install
deeper wells screened below the level of contamination. Riverside requested that the AF
allow the deed restrictions to .(a) permit drilling of replacement wells and new wells
provided the groundwater will be treated or blended, or the wells are screened below and/or
isolated from contaminated groundwater, and Ib) propose how owners of affected
propenies will be compensated.
RSUMMARY.CBA
A-9
11/16193
-------
Air Force ResDonse: The AF does not plan to establish deed restrictions on property it does
not currently own. Deed restriction will be placed on Norton AFB property that overlies the
~. contaminated groundwater or soil source area until the cleanup standard has been
achieved. The AF suggests that the City of Riverside contact state or local authorities if it
has further concerns on this matter.
35.
D.
The City of Riverside requested that the AF establish a set of performance indicators to
assess progress of the clean-up process, and periodically review and update the selected
remedy as technologies continue to evolve.
Air Force ResDonse: During the remedial design phase, performance standards for the
selected remedy will be set. During the 5-year review of the remedial action, the remedy
will be evaluated based on the performance standards to assess the progress and success
of cleanup. The review includes an examination of new and evolved technologies to
determine whether the current remedy should be replaced or updated with a more effective
technology.
REMAINING CONCERNS
Issues and concerns that the AF was unable to address during remedial planning activities include
the following:
.. .
'. .
'..
.:. ~ "..; ~
RSUMMARY.CBA
.
How much residual TCE will remain after SVE. and what health risks are associated
with volatilization of the residual TCE? The AF is unable to address this issue since
the SVE treatability study has yet to be performed. It should be noted, however,
that the present levels of TCE in soil are at acceptable human health risk levels (less
than 10-'). The risk is within the acceptable range of 10" to 10". The risk that
drives implementation of an action is protection of groundwater. After any action is
complete, the risk from any residual TCE should be even less.
.
How will the Air Force comeensate water ourvevors if the orooosed extraction wells
cause excessive interference with oroduction or oroduction costs? The AF does not
anticipate this to be a problem. Should it occur, the AF will reevaluate the
extraction scheme.
.
The Air Force should exoedite the aooroval orocess of the Water Suoelv
Contingency Policv for reelacing lost Droduction due to contamination from Norton
MIL The AF appreciates the City's concern. The Water Supply Contingency Policy
is currently being reviewed by AF legal staff prior to signature by the Secretary of
the AF.'
-
The CitY of Riverside should be held harmless in any sDreading of the olume which
may have occurred due to ooeration of the oroduction wells. Comment noted.
.::
Where will off-base extraction wells be olaced? Whv are there no Dlans to olace
wells at the leadine edae of the olume? Field work to define the leading edge of the
plume and study the effects of production wells on the plume is presently ongoing.
Placement of off-base wells, if necessary, and effectiveness will be determined
during remedial design.
A-10
11/16/93
-------
. '.. 6.
~ .
APPENDIX B
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
, .
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
~...;..;Jft- .x:.. ",:...;... '...~':,. ,.~:a r~!tCj~-:.:.~. '-.~=-
.....--------------... -.----.. _.- ..,--.-.- -- - _..~.
'.~:~ .:> ;~~. ..:-."'::JI-:---''';'--'-...:;~s.;::o.;:'.
"-'-."'.---- _....-~ -_.
:.'e:.;1~.~';""- :,,:."",;,..'" .~~"
";';'~""- ~'.;~"'.~" .~~r....-.j :'.'~ :~,;;..':'''::'..:. -- ::::,::,v;....
..... _. .-_h"
. .~~ .."."
~ .
.
! .
! "f
- -
-------
.. .
NORTON AIR FORCE BASE CNAFBI
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FilE
INDEX
FOR
OPERABLE UNIT #1
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM
November 1993
OL-E. AFBDA/SPEV - Building S-2
Norton Air Force Base. California 92409-5000
8-1
-------
.
INDEX MODEl
Category Number
Indicates the Administrative Record file structure. Name Category
here.
Document Number
Comprised of a 3 lener/digit site code (OU1) and the number of
pages in a document. If documents are eventually placed on a
microfiche system, the document number consists of. the site
code followed by the microfilm reel and frame number.
Example: OU1C1.1I 11 104
Site Code (Catea.#) Entrv #
OU1 (1.1) #1
# Paces
104
Long Title
The long title and brief description of document.
Author
Indicates author or primary originator of document. If a contractor
prepared the document, indicate company and origin.
Recipient
Indicates primary recipient and other addressees.
Date
Indicates document date by month/day/year.
Type
Indicates document type (final plan, graphic, correspondence, draft,
manual).
Government regulations and internal 000 comments
Public Comments
Second Reference
Categories which may also include document.
Location
Exact location(s) of document.
. ...
..
8-2
-'-
-------
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE STRUCTURE
~ .
1.0
SITE IDENTIFICATION
1 .1 Background - RCAA and other Information
1.2 Notification/Site Inspection Reports
1.3 Preliminary Assessment (PAl Report
1 .4 Site Investigation (SI) Report
1.5 Previous Operable Unit Information
1.6 Correspondence
REMOVAL RESPONSES
2.1 Sampling and Analysis Plans
2.2 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody
2.3 EE/CA Approval Memorandum (non-time-critical removalsl
2.4 EE/CA (Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysisl
2.5 Action Memorandum
2.6 Amendments to Action Memorandum
2.7 Sampling Results
2.8 Correspondence
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (RII
3.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAPI
3.2 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
3.3 Work Plan
3.4 Remedial Investigation (RII Reports
3.5 Health & Safety Plans
3.6 Correspondence
FEASIBILITY STUDY (FSJ
4.1 ARAR Determinations
4.2 Feasibility Reports
4.3 Proposed Plan
4.4 Supplements and Revisions to the Proposed Plan
4.5 Correspondence
RECORD OF DECISION (ROD)
5.1 ROD
5.2 Amendments to ROD
5.3 Explanations of Significant Differences
5.4 Correspondence
STATE AND FEDERAL COORDINATION
6.1 Cooperative Agreements/SMOAs
6.2 Federal Facility Agreement (FFA)
6.3 State Certification of ARARs
6.4 General Correspondence
7.0 . - Et-.!FORCEMENT
. 7.1 Enforcement History
B.3
-------
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
7.2
7.3
7.4
~. 7.5
7.6
7.7
Endangerment Assessments
Administrative Orders
Consent Decrees
Affidavits
Documentation of Technical Discussions/Response Actions
Notice leners and Responses
HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
8.1 A TSDR Health Assessments
8.2 Toxicological Profiles
8.3 General Correspondence
NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES
9.1 Notices Issued
9.2 Findings of Fact
9.3 Reports
9.4 General Correspondence
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.1 Comments and Responses
10.2 Community Relations Plan
10.3 Public Notice(s) (Availability of the Admin. Record File, Availability of the Proposed'
Plan, Public Meetings)
Public Meeting Transcripts
Documentation of other Public Meetings
Fact Sheets, Press Advisories and News Releases
Responsiveness Summary
late Comments
Technical Review Committee Charter
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
TECHNICAL SOURCES AND GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
11.1 EPA Headquarters Guidance
11.2 EPA Regional Guidance
11.3 State Guidance
11 .4 Air Force Guidance
11.5 MAC Guidance
11.6 Technical Sources
11 .7 Design Documents
CONFIDENTIAL FilE
12.1 Privileged Documents (Extractions)
-This Administrative Record Index contains documents directly considered or relied on to
select the remedial action for the Central Base Area Operable Unit. For this reason, many sections
contain no document references and primary document references are not seq-uentially numbered.-
\ '.:. .
B-4
-------
~ .
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCA TION:
, . -... .---
1.3 Preliminarv Assessment (PA) ReDort
OU1 (1.3) " 240
.'nstallation Restoration Program, Phase I:
AFB, CA.
Engineering-Science, Inc., Atlanta, GA
AFESCIDEV, Tyndall AFB, Fl
HO MAC/DEEV, Scott AFB. Il
10/82
Final report
IRP, Phase 1
ARF
Records Search, Norton
OU1 (1.3) #2 70
.. Final TCE Records Investigation Report, Near the Central Base Area,
Norton AFB, CA, Volume ,.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, San Francisco, CA
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., HAZWRAP and HO MAC
08/90
Report
CBA, TCE Investigation
ARF
OU1 (1.3) #3 120
.Final TCE Records Investigation Report, Near the Central Base Area,
Norton AFB, CA, Volume 2"
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, San Francisco, CA
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., HAZWRAP and HO MAC
OB/90
Report
CBA, TCE Investigation
ARF
8-5
-------
~ .
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCA TION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCA TION:
1.4 Site Investiaation ISI) ReDort
OU1 (1.4) #1 300
.Installation Restoration Program, Final Report, Phase II, Stage 1 -
Problem Confirmation Study, Norton Air Force Base, S.B. California,
Volume I .. Technical Report.
Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory. Brooks
AF8, TX
07/16/85
Report
IRP, Phase 2, Stage 1
ARF
OU1 (1.4) #2 500
-Installation Restoration Program. Final Report. Phase II. Stage 1 -
Problem Confirmation Study. Norton Air Force Base. S.B. California.
Volume II.. Appendices.
Roy F. Weston. Inc.. West Chester. Pennsylvania
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory. Brooks
AFB,TX
07/16/85
Report
IRP, Phase 2, Stage 1
ARF
..;
.,-
-
8-6
. I
..:..J
. . ~
".1
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
1.5 Previous ODerabie Unit Information
OU1 (1.5) 12 80
Well Monitoring Data Repon
Ecology and Environment, Inc., lancaster, NY
USAF, HQ MAC, Scon AFB, Il
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health laboratory, Brooks
AFB, TX
07/88
Repon
IRP, Stage 1 and 2, Groundwater
ARF
. .
. .
. .
B-7
-------
~ .
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
3.1 SamDlina and Analvsis Plan (SAP)
OU1 (3.1) #1 95
-Installation Restoration Program, Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP), Norton AFB, CA-
Ecology and Environment, Inc., Buffalo, NY
Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory, Technical
Services Division, Brooks AFB, TX
05/87
Project Plan
Lockheed, CBA
ARF
OU1 (3.1) #2 156
-Ouality Assurance Project Plan (OAPP), Installation Restoration
Program, Stage 3 for Norton AFB, CA-
Ecology and Environment, Inc., Buffalo, NY
HO MAC/DEEV, Scott AFB IL Occupational and Environmental Health.
Laboratory, Technical Services Division, Brooks AFB, TX
12/87
Project Plan
Lockheed, CBA
ARF
OU1 (3.1) #4 130
-Final Ouality Assurance Project Plan, Central Base Area Site
Characterization for Norton AFB, CA-
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 301 Howard St., San Francisco,
CA 94105
Martin Mariena Energy Systems, Inc.,
HAZWRAP, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
63 Air Base Group, Norton AFB, CA
08/90
Manual
IRP, CBA
ARF
OU1 (3.1) #5 100
-Final Field Sampling Plan, Site Characterization Groundwater
Investigation for the Central Base Area of Norton AFB, CA,
Volume I-
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 301 Howard St., San Francisco,
CA 94105
Martin Mariena Energy Systems, Inc.,
HAZWRAP, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
63 Air Base Group, Norton AFB, CA
B.8
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SEC9ND REFERENCE:
locA TlON:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCA TION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
08/90
Manual (Revision 2)
IRP, CBA, Groundwater Investigation
ARF
OU1(3.11 #6100
-Final Field Sampling Plan, Site Characterization Groundwater
Investigation for the Central Base Area of Norton AFB, CA,
Volume U-
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 301 Howard St., San Francisco,
CA 94105
Martin Mariena Energy Systems, Inc.,
HAZWRAP, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
63 Air Base Group, Norton AFB, CA
08/90
Manual (Revision 21
IRP, CBA, Groundwater Investigation
ARF
OU1 (3.11 #7 50 See (3.11 #14
- Draft Final Addendum to TCE Source Investigation Field Sampling
Plan-
CDM FPC, San Francisco, CA
Martin Marietta, HAZWRAP, HO MAC
09/90
Sampling Plan
IRP, TCE Source Investigation
ARF
OU1 (3.11 #10 110
-Final Field Sampling Plan, Site Characterization TCE Source
Investigation for the Central Base Area of Norton AFB, San.
Bernardino, CA, Volume I- '
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 301 Howard St., San Francisco,
CA 94105
Martin Mariena Energy Systems, Inc.,
HAZWRAP, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
63 Air Base Group, Norton AFB, CA
04/91
Manual
IRP, CBA, TCE Source Investigation
ARF
., '.
"
:: i-: ;'-
OU1 (3.1) 111 100 , ,
-Final Field Sampling Plan, Site Characterization TCE Source
Investigation for the Central Base Area of Norton AFB, San' -,
Bernardino, CA, Volume U-
8-9
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
, .
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 301 Howard St., San Francisco,
CA 94105
Manin Marietta Energy Systems. Inc..
HAZWRAP. Oak Ridge. TN 37831
63 Air Base Group. Norton AFB. CA
04/91
Manual
IRP, CBA. TCE Source Investigation
ARF
OU1 (3.1) #12 50
-Field Sampling Plan for the Expedited Field Program. AF Building
763. Nonon AFB, San Bernardino. CA-
CDM Federal Programs Corporation. 301 Howard St.. San Francisco.
CA 94105
Manin Mariena Energy Systems. Inc..
HAZWRAP. Oak Ridge, TN 37831
63 Air Base Group. Norton AFB. CA
05/91
Manual
IRP, CBA. Building 763
ARF
OU1 (3.1) #14 9
Final Addendum to TCE Source Investigation Field Sampling Plan
CDM FPC. San Francisco. CA
Manin Mariena. HAZWRAP, HO MAC
1 2/91
Sampling Plan
IRP, TCE Source Investigation
ARF
OU1 (3.1) #16 100
-Final Draft Treatability Test Plan Central Base Area Pump and
Treat System, Nonon AFB. San Bernardino. CA 92409-
Eanh Technology Corporation. Alexandria. VA
AFBDA,NAFB
11/16/92
Plan
ARF
OU1 (3.11 #19 400
-Draft Groundwater Monitoring Plan-
CDM Federal Programs Corporation. San Francisco, CA
" Manin Mariena Energy Systems. Inc.,
.' . HAZWRAP and HO AFBDA
B-10
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATioN:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCA TION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCA TION:
10/21/92
Plan
ARF
OU1 (3.1) #20 150
-Draft Groundwater Monitoring Plan, Appendix A-
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, San Francisco, CA
Martin Mariena Energy Systems, Inc.,
HAZWRAP and HO AFBDA
10/21/92
Plan
ARF
OU1 (3.11 #22 110
Final Second Addendum to the Field Sampling Plan Site
Characterization TCE Source Investigation Norton AFB, CA
CDM Federal Programs Corp
Martin Mariena, HAZWRAP Division and AFBDA, Norton AFB, CA
4/5/93
Sampling Plan
TCE Source Investigation (FSP)
ARF
B.11
-------
~.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
3.3 Work Plan
OU1 (3.3) #6 60
Draft Final Conceptual Design for Remedial Activities at Norton AFB,
CA
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 301 Howard St., Suite 910,
San Francisco, CA 94105
Martin Mariena Energy Systems, Inc.,
HAZWRAP, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
63 Air Base Group, Norton AFB, CA
02/90
Manual
OU1 (11.7)
ARF
OU1 (3.3) #8 60
Final Site Characterization Plan for the Central Base Area of Norton,
AFB, CA
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 301 Howard St., Suite 910,
San Francisco, CA 94105
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.,
HAZWRAP, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
63 Air Base Group, Norton AFB, CA
08/90
Manual
IRP, CBA
ARF
OU1 (3.3) #11 50
Draft Final Monitoring Well Replacement Plan
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 301 Howard St., Suite 910,
San Francisco, CA 94105
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.,
HAZWRAP, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
63 Air Base Group, Norton AFB, CA
08/91
Monitoring Plan
None
ARF
OU1 (3.3) 112 30
Final Monitoring Well Replacement Plan
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 301 Howard St., Suite 910,
San Francisco, CA 94105 .
Martin Marie~a Energy Systems, Inc.,
B-12
-------
DATE;:.
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
. .. _. .- . - '-- ..
HAZWRAP, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
63 Air Base Group, Norton AFB, CA
12/91
Work Plan
None
ARF
OU1 (3.31 114 150
Technical Memorandum, Rationale for Groundwater Sample
Analytes, Comprehensive Groundwater Sampling, June 1992
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 301 Howard St., Suite 910,
San Francisco, CA 94105
Martin Mariena Energy Systems, Inc.,
HAZWRAP, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
AFBDA, Norton AFB, CA
04/29/92
Work Plan
None
ARF
OU1 (3.31 #15 C52
Final Operational and Maintenance Plan, NAFB, CBA - Volume I
Earth Technology Corporation, Alexandria, V A
AFBDA,NAFB
06/92
Plan
ARF
OU1 (3.31 #16 Loop 1400, 1500-5
Final Operational and Maintenance Plan, NAFB Central Base Area
Earth Technology Corporation, Alexandria, VA
AFBDA,NAFB
06/92
Plan
ARF
OU1 (3.31 #17 500
Final Operational and Main~enance Plan, NAFB, CBA
- Earth Technology Corporation, Alexandria, VA
AFBDA,NAFB
06/92
Plan
ARF
B-13
-------
1
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
~ .
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCA TION:
.~ ._-. -. -.-- --.-
OU1 (3.31 '19 12
-Responses to Regulatory Agencies' Comments on the Draft Work
Plan Aquifer Testing Southwestern Base Boundary, Norton AFB,
CA-
Earth Technology Corporation
AFBDA/SPEV, AFCEE
11/16/92
ARF
OU1 (3.31 '20 200
-Draft Final Work Plan Aquifer Testing Southwestern Base Boundary,
Norton AFB, CA-
Earth Technology Corporation, Alexandria, V A
AFBDA/SPEV, AFCEE
11/17/92
Work Plan
ARF
OU1 (3.31 '21 223
Final Phase II Work Plan Addendum Off Base TCE Plume
Investigation at Norton AFB, CA
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE/ESRI, Brooks
AFB, TX and AFBDA, Norton AFB, CA
5/10/93
Work Plan
CBA OU RifFS
ARF
. " ~.
B~14
-------
, .
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCA nON:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
3.4 Remedial Investiaation IRII ReDorts
OU1 (3.4) #1 350
Installation Restoration Program, Phase II --
Confirmation/Ouantification, Stage 2, Norton AFB, CA, Final Report,
May 1986-September 1987, Volume I . Technical Report .
Ecology and Environment, Inc. 195 Holtz Dr., Buffalo, NY 14225
USAF. HO MAC/SGPB, Scon AFB, IL
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory, Brooks
AFB, TX AFBDA, Norton AFB, CA
09/87
Report
IRP, Phase II, Stage 2
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #2 400
-'nstallation Restoration Program, Phase
II--Confirmation/Ouantification, Stage 2. Norton AFB, CA, Final
Report, May 1986-September 1987. Volume 2, Appendices
A-G-
Ecology and Environment, Inc., 195 Holtz Dr., Buffalo. NY 14225
USAF, HO MAC/SGPB, Scon AFB, IL
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory, Brooks
AFB, TX
09/87
Report
IRP, Phase II, Stage 2
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #3 400
-'nstallation Restoration Program. Phase
II--Confirmation/Ouantification, Stage 2, Norton AFB, CA, Final
Report, May 1986-September 1987. Volume 3, Appendix H,
Soils Data"
Ecology and Environment, Inc., 195 Holtz Dr., Buffalo, NY 14225
USAF, HO MAC/SGPB, Scon AFB, IL
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory, Brooks
AFB, TX
09/87
Report
IRP, Phase II, Stage 2
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #4 300
-'nstallation Restoration Program, Phase. .
II--Confirmation/Ouantification, Stage 2, Norton AFB, CA, Final
B-15
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
Report, May 1986-September 1987, Volume 4A, Appendix H,
Water Data8
Ecology and Environment, Inc., 195 Holtz Dr., Buffalo, NY 14225
USAF, HO MAC/SGPB, Scott AFB, IL
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory, Brooks
AFB, TX
09/87
Report
IRP, Phase II, Stage 2
ARF
aU1 (3.4) #5 400
81nstallation Restoration Program, Phase
II--Confirmation/Quantification, Stage 2, Norton AFB, CA, Final
Report, May 1986-September 1987, Volume 4B, Appendix H,
Water Data8
Ecology and Environment, Inc., 195 Holtz Dr., Buffalo, NY 14225
USAF, HQ MAC/SGPB, Scott AFB, IL
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory, Brooks
AFB, TX
09/87
Report
IRP, Phase II,Stage 2
ARF
aU1 (3.4) #6 400
81nstallation Restoration Program, Phase
II--Confirmation/Quantification, Stage 2, Norton AFB, CA, Final
Report, May 1986-September 1987, Volume 5, Appendices I-M8
Ecology and Environment, Inc., 195 Holtz Dr., Buffalo, NY 14225
USAF, HQ MAC/SGPB, Scott AFB, IL
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory, Brooks
AFB, TX
09/87
Report
IRP, Phase II, Stage 2
ARF
aU1 (3.4) #7 250
81nstallation Restoration Program, Stage 3; Norton AFB..Stage 3
Report--Vol. 1; Final Report, Sept 1987 n Dee 19888
Ecology and Environment, Inc., Lancaster, NY
USAF HQ MAC/SGPB, Scott AFB IL
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health
Laboratory, Brooks AFB, TX
1 2/88
Manual
IRP, Stage 3
. liS '. ~
8-16
-------
lOCA TION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCA TION:
-
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
-'
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
-
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
.....
~
--- ~ - .' .
ARF
OU1 13.4) #8 300
81nstallation Restoration Program, Stage 3: Nonon AFB--Stage 3,
Final Report, Sept t 987 .- Dec 1988, Norton AFB--Appendices D-F8
Ecology and Environment, Inc., Lancaster, NY
USAF HQ MAC/SGPB, Scott AFB, Il
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health
laboratory, Brooks AFB, TX
12/88
Manual (Draft)
IRP, Stage 3
ARF
OU1 13.4) #9 200
81nstallation Restoration Program, Stage 3; Final Report, Sept 1987--
December t 988; Nonon AFB--Appendices H-l-
Ecology and Environment, Inc., lancaster, NY
USAF HQ MAC/SGPB, Scott AFB IL
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health
laboratory, Brooks AFB, TX
12/88
Report
IRP, Stage 3
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #10 500
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3, Final Report:
1987-December 1988
Ecology and Environment, Inc., lancaster, NY
HQ MAC/SGPB, Scott AFB, Il
12/88
Report
September
ARF
OU1 13.4) #11 70
81nstallation Restoration Program, Stage 3; Groundwater Monitoring
Plan: March 19898
Ecology and Environment, Inc., lancaster, NY
USAF HQ MAC/SGPB, Scott AFB, IL
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health
laboratory, Brooks AFB, TX
03/89
Report
IRP Stage 3
ARF
B-17
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCA TION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCA TION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
OU1 13.4) '12 50
Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Norton AFB. CA - Volume I
Ecology and Environment. Inc.. Lancaster. NY
HQ MAC/DE. Scott AFB IL
09/89
Report
None
ARF
OU1 13.4) #13 250
Installation Restoration Program. Groundwater Monitoring Plan.
Volume II
Ecology and Environment. Inc.. Lancaster. NY
HQ MAC/DE. Scott AFB. IL
04/89
Report
ARF
OU1 13.4) #14 120
-Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3, Volume I, Final Draft
Report, September 1987--December 1988-
Ecology and Environment, Inc., Buffalo Corporate Center, 368
Pleasantview Drive, Lancaster, NY 14086
USAF HQ MAC/DE, Scott AFB, IL
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory
IAFOEHL-AFSC), Technical Services Division (TS), Brooks AFB, TX
11/89
Report
IRP Stage 3
ARF
OU1 13.4) #15 400
-Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3. Volume II, Final Draft
Report, September 1987--December 1988- --
Ecology and Environment, Inc., Buffalo Corporate Center, 368
Pleasantview Drive, Lancaster, NY 14086
USAF HQ MAC/DE, Scott AFB, IL
- USAF Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory -
IAFOEHL-AFSC), Technical Services Division ITS), Brooks AFB, TX
11/89
- Report
- IRP, Stage 3
ARF
- -
OU1 13.4) #16 80 - - -
.- .
-Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3, Volume III, Final Draft
B-18
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
-.
~
'1
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
. i
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCA TION:
.."'
~d!
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
. 1
~
'. .j
. ,
O:.J
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
q
,;.j
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
J
'1
J
J
.0 . ........"- .-.___._0 _.. ~ ..-
Repon. September 1987--December 1988-
Ecology and Environment. Inc.. Buffalo Corporate Center. 368
Pleasantview Drive. Lancaster. NY 14086
USAF HQ MAC/DE, Scott AFB, Il
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health laboratory
(AFOEHL-AFSC), Technical Services Division ITS), Brooks AFB, TX
11/89 .
Manual (Final Draft Repon)
IRP, Stage 3
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #17 400
-Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3, Appendices A-F, Final
Draft Repon, September 1987--December 1988-
Ecology and Environment, Inc., Buffalo Corporate Center, 368
Pleasantview Drive. lancaster, NY 14086
USAF HQ MAC/DE, Scott AFB, Il
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health laboratory
(AFOEHl-AFSC), Technical Services Division ITS), Brooks AFB, TX
11/89
Repon
IRP. Stage 3
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #18 400
81nstallation Restoration Program, Stage 3, Appendix G, Final Draft
Repon, September 1987--December 1988-
Ecology and Environment, Inc., Buffalo Corporate Center, 368
Pleasantview Drive. lancaster, NY 14086
USAF HQ MAC/DE, Scott AFB. Il
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory
(AFOEHl-AFSCI, Technical Services Division ITS), Brooks AFB, TX
11/89
Repon
IRP, Stage 3
ARF
aU1 (3.4) 119 500
.'nstallation Restoration Program, Stage 3, Appendix G (Continued),
Final Draft Repon, September 1987.-December 1988-
Ecology and Environment, Inc., Buffalo Corporate Center, 368
Pleasantview Drive. lancaster, NY 14086
USAF HQ MAC/DE, Scott AFB, Il
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory
(AFOEHl-AFSC), Technical Services Division ITS), Brooks AFB, TX
11/89
Repon
IRP, Stage 3
8-19
-------
1-
lOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
ARF
OU1 13.4) '20 120
81nstallation Restoration Program, Stage 3, Appendices H-K, Final
Draft Report, SePtember 1987--December 19888
Ecology and Environment, Inc., Buffalo Corporate Center, 368
Pleasantview Drive, lancaster, NY 14086
USAF HQ MAC/DE, Scott AFB, IL
USAF Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory
IAFOEHl-AFSC), Technical Services Division ITS), Brooks AFB, TX
11/89
Report
IRP, Stage 3
ARF
OU1 13.4) #29 100
Draft Report for Building 763, Volume I
CDM Federal Program Corp.
Martin Mariena, HAZWRAP, and HQ MAC
09/91
Report
lockheed, Building 763
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #30 300
Draft Report for Building 763, Volume II
CDM Federal Program Corp.
Martin Mariena, HAZWRAP, and HQ MAC
09/91
Report
Lockheed, Building 763
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #32 9
Technical Memorandum for Water levels and Trichloroethylene
Concentrations Near MW-90 at Norton AFB
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN
. AFBDA, NAFB
10/15/91
Report
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #33 37
Technical Memorandum: Rationale for Groundwater Sample
Analytes, Norton AFB Comprehensive Groundwater Sampling
B-20
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:.
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCA TION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
-TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
CDM, San Francisco, CA
AFBDA, NAFB
1 1/1 1/91
Report
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #34 14
Update on the TCE Source Investigation
Unknown
AFBDA, NAFB
1 1/12/91
Report
ARF
OUt (3.4) #35 400
Final Remedial Investigation Report, Central Base Area, Operable
Unit, Volume I, Text
CDM Federal Programs Corp.
Martin Marietta, HAZWRAP, and HO AFBDA, Norton AFB, CA
1 , /92
Report
ARF
OUt (3.4) #36 400
Final Remedial Investigation Report, Central Base Area, Operable
Unit, Volume II, Baseline Risk Assessment
CDM Federal Programs Corp.
Martin Marietta, HAZWRAP, and HO AFBDA, Norton AFB, CA
, , /92
Report
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #37 400
Final Remedial Investigation Report, Central Base Area, Operable
Unit, Volume III - Appendices A-I
CDM Federal Programs Corp. -
Martin Marietta, HAZWRAP, and HO AFBDA, Norton AFB, CA
, 1/92 .
Report
ARF
B-21
-------
1-
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
.. *.. ... .-. .
OU1 13.4) 138 400
Final Remedial Investigation Repon, Central Base Area, Operable
Unit, Volume IV - Appendices J-M
CDM Federal Programs Corp.
Manin Mariena, HAZWRAP, and HQ AFBDA, Nonon AFB, CA
11/92
Repon
ARF
OU1 13.4) #39 400
Final Remedial Investigation Repon, Central Base Area, Operable
Unit, Volume V - Appendices N-P
CDM Federal Programs Corp.
Manin Mariena, HAZWRAP. and HQ AFBDA, Nonon AFB, CA
11/92
Repon
ARF
OU1 13.4) #41 81
Central Base Area Pump and Treat System Treatability Study Health
and Safety Plan, Nonon AFB, San Bernardino, CA
Eanh Technology Corporation, Alexandria, V A
AFBDA/BDV, NAFB, CA AFCEE/ESR, Brooks AFB, TX
04/03/92
Health and Safety Plan
OU1 13.51
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #42 123
Treatability Test Plan Central Base Area Pump and Treat System,
Nonon AFB, San Bernardino, CA
Eanh Technology Corporation, Alexandria, VA
AFBDA/BDV, NAFB
04/17/92
Treatability Test Plan.
OU1 (3.51 .
ARF
. - OU1 13.41 #55 Anach 4-69 .
Nonon AFB, Central Base Area Operable Unit Remedial Investigation
Repon Supplement Groundwater Characterization Preliminary Data
Repon . .
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, San Francisco, CA
AFBDA,NAFB
08/21/92
B-22
-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
, .
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCA TION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Report
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #56 17
Technical Memorandum. Phase II Off-Base Trichloroethylene Plume
Investigation at Norton AFB, CA
AFCEE/ESR, Brooks AFB, TX
AFBDA,NAFB
09/11/92
Report
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #57 Atch 5-53
Norton AFB. Central Base Area Operable Unit Remedial Investigation
Report Supplement, Groundwater Characterization Off-Base
Trichloroethylene Plume Investigation Draft Report
Earth Technology Corporation. Alexandria, VA
AFBDA/BDV, NAFB
AFCEE/ESR, Brooks AFB
09/24/92
Report
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #59 200
8Final Remedial Investigation Report Addendum, Central Base Area
Operable Unit8 .
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, San Francisco, CA
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.,
HAZWRAP and HQ AFBDA
02/05/93
Report
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #60 150
8Final Technical Report, Treatability Test Evaluation, CBA Pump
and Treat System - Volume '8
Earth Technology Corporation, Long Beach, CA
AFBDA/SPEV, AFCEE
4/26/93
ARF
B-23
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
, .
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCA TrON:
DOCUMENT:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCA TION:
DOCUMENT:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
OU1 (3.4) #61 600
.Final Technical Report, Treatability Test Evaluation, CBA Pump and
Treat System. Volume II, Appendices.
Earth Technology Corporation, Long Beach, CA
AFBDA/SPEV, AFCEE
4/26/93
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #62 600
Rnal Technical Report, Treatability Test Evaluation, CBA Pump and
Treat System - Volume III, Appendices
The Earth Technology Corporation
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE/ESR), Brooks
AFB, TX and AFBDA, Norton AFB, CA
4/26/93
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #63
Norton AFB, Jan 93 Ground Water Monitoring Data Validation Final
Report, Vol I
HAZWRAP
FFA Members
10/1/93
RI
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #64
Norton AFB, Jan 93 Ground Water Monitoring Data Validation Final
Report, Vol II
HAZWRAP
FFA Members
10/1/93
RI
ARF
OU1 (3.4) 165
Norton AFB, Jan 93 Ground Water Monitoring Data Validation Final
Report, Vol II!
HAZWRAP
FFA Members
B-24
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCA TION:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCA TION:
10/1/93
RI
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #66 M28
Final NAFB CBA OU AQuifer Testing South-western Base Boundary
Report
TETC
FFA Members
7/29/93
RI
ARF
10/1/93
RI
ARF
OU1 (3.4) #67 J-44
NAFB CBA OU RI Report Supplement Off-Base TCE Plume
Investigation, Phase II Report
TETC
FFA Members
1 0/93
RI
ARF
B-25
-------
.. .
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
3.5 Health and Safety Plans
OU1 (3.5) #1 53
QA/QC Procedures for Pilot Air Stripping Program at Norton AFB
Jaykim Engineers, Inc., Los Alamitos, CA
NAFB
Undated.
Procedures
ARF
OU1 (3.5) #3 44
Field Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan for Central
Base Area Site Characterization, Norton AFB, CA
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Oakland, CA
HAZWRAP
1 2/90
Plan
ARF
-. 8-26
. - -.
-------
- - -.. - -- - - -.-
, .
DOCUMENT:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
. . '--'--'---"...-. --_.#..'~. --. -
3.6 CorreSDondence
OU1 (3.6) '1 3
Data Validation Report for CBA OU and IRP Sites
CAL-EPA/DTSC
FFA Members
4/14/93
Correspondence
OU1 (3.41 #63-65
ARF
OU1 (3.61 #2 10
Data Validation Report for CBA OU and IRP Sites
US EPA, James Ricks
FFA Members
7/8/93
Correspondence
OU1 (3.41 #63-65
ARF
OU1 (3.61 #3 29
Data Validation Report for CBA OU and IRP Sites
AFBDA
FFA Members
10/25/93
Correspondence
OU1 13.61 #1 and #2
ARF
B-27
-------
.. .
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
4.2 Feasibilitv ReDorts
OU1 (4.21 '17 9
Technical Memorandum Describing the Approach and Rationale for
Reaching a Cleanup Level for TCE in Soils at Norton AFB
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN
AFBDA,NAFB
07/27/92
Report
ARF
OU1 (4.21 '19 600
Final Norton AFB Feasibility Study, Central Base Area Operable Unit
CDM Federal Programs Corp
Martin Marietta, HAZWRAP Division and AFBDA Norton AFB, CA
2/93
Feasibility Study
OU1 (4.21 #18
ARF
8-28
r;- '.
\.' ".
-------
, .
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCA TION:
. ~ -.. --
4,3 PrODosed Plan
OU' 14.3) " 20
Nonon AFB Central Base Area Operable Unit Proposed Plan
USAF
See Mailing List
02/93
OU, 11 0.6)
ARF
~,; B-29
-------
1-
, .
DOCUMENT:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
4.4 SUDDlements and Revisions to the Pro Dosed Plan
OU1 (4.4) #1 21
Off Base Water Supply Contingency Policy
USAF
AFBDA, Nonon AFB and Local Water Purveyors
8/93
Policy (signed)
OU1 (5.11 #1
OU1 (10.1) #13 1
ARF
;': .~.30
-------
~ .
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCA TION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCA TION:
4.5 CorresDondences
OU1 (4.5) #1 F
Final Report of Pilot Air Stripping Program at Norton AFB.
Jaykim Engineers, Inc., Los Alamitos, CA
NAFB
10/13/89
Report
ARF
OUt (4.5) #2 39
Environmental Assessment for Air Stripper Treatment Facilities at
Norton,AFB
Jaykim Engineers. Inc., Los Alamitos, CA
NAFB
10/13/89
Report
ARF
OU1 (4.5) #3 85
Specifications Index, Norton AFB, Groundwater Pump-and-Treat
System
Earth Technology Corporation, Alexandria. VA
NAFB
Undated
Index
ARF
B-31
-------
, .
DOCUMENT:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCA TION:
5.1 Record of Decision
OU1 (5.11 #1 A10
Final Record of Decision CBA OU
USAF
FFA Members
11/93
ROD
ARF
. . 8-32
.',..-
-------
10.1 Comments end ResDonses
DOCUMENT NUMBER: OU1 (10.1) 113 1
LONG"TITLE: Nonon AFB Water Supply Contingency Policy
AUTHOR: City of Riverside, Bill Carnahan
RECIPIENT: HQ AFBDA/SP
DATE: 9/1/93
TYPE Correspondence
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER: OU1 (10.1) #142
LONG TITLE: Written Comment Sheet
AUTHOR: Ken Vernon
RECIPIENT: AFBDA/SPEV
DATE: 3/1 5/93
TYPE Comments
SECOND REFERENCE: OU1 (10.7) #1 11
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER: OU1 (10.1) #15 5
LONG TITLE: Nonon AFB Proposed Plan for CBA OU
AUTHOR: City of Riverside, David Garcia
RECIPIENT: CAl EPA/DTSC, Manny Alonzo, see list
DATE: 3/18/93
TYPE Comments
SECOND REFERENCE: OU1 (10.7) #1 11
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER: OU1 (10.1) #16 3
LONG TITLE: Submittal of comments on the Nonon AFB CBA OU Proposed Plan
AUTHOR: SBIAA, William Bopf
RECIPIENT: AFBDA/SPEV
DATE: 3/18/93
TYPE Comments
SECOND REFERENCE: OU1 (10.7) #1 11
lOCATION: ARF
B-33
-------
, 0.2 Installation Restoration Proaram Community Relations Plan
, .
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
. -' -- .....
OU1(10.2)#1225
-Installation Restoration Program Community Relations Plan-
63 CES/DEVI, Norton AFB, CA
1000 copies have been printed
04/90
ARF
- .- B.-34
f.. . ~.:
-------
~ .
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCA TION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCA TION:
DOCUMENT:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
10.3 Public Notice
OU1 (10.3) #4 1
Public Notice
The Sun
NAFB
02/2B/91
Notice
ARF
OU1 (10.3) #5 1
Public Notice: The United States Air Force Announces the
Availability for Public Review of the Proposed Plan for Remedial
Action for the Central Base Area Operable Unit at Norton AFB
USAF
The Sun
2/13/92
Notice
OU1 (10.6) #13 and OU1 (4.3) #1
ARF
OU1 (10.3) #6 22
NAFB Public Meeting, 11 March 1993
Certified Shorthand Reporters
AFBDA, Norton AFB
3/11/93
Minutes
ARF
. -
B-35
-------
, .
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TiTlE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCA TION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TiTlE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCA TION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
lOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
'. -. .'
10.6 Fact Sheets. Press Advisories and News Releases
OU1 (10.61 11 4
Fact Sheet - Administrative Record in local Repositories
USAF
See mailing list
08/90
Fact Sheet
OU1 (10.31
ARF
OU1 (10.61 #2 1
Press Release: Community Relations Workshop Postponed
USAF
Media
08/10/90
Press Release
ARF
OU1 (10.61 #3 4
Fact sheet. Installation Restoration Program, Norton AFB, CA
USAF
See mailing list
9/90
Fact Sheet
ARF
OU1 (10.61 #5 8
Fact Sheet. Installation Restoration Program, Norton AFB, CA
USAF
See mailing list
06/91
Fact Sheet
ARF
OU1 (10.61 #6 4
Fact Sheet - IRP, Norton AFB, CA
USAF
See mailing list
01/92
Fact Sheet
B.36
-------
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCA TION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
ARF
OU 1 11 0.61 #7
News Release:
USAF
Media
01131/92
Press Release
7
Contaminated Groundwater Investigation Continues
ARF
OU1 (10.61 #8 4
Fact Sheet - Installation Restoration Program, Norton AFB, CA
USAF
See mailing list
03/92
Fact Sheet
ARF
OU1 11 0.6) #9 5
Fact Sheet - IRP Update, Norton AFB TCE Plume Investigation
USAF
See mailing list
04/92
Fact Sheet
ARF
OU1 110.6) ,,0 3
News Release - Groundwater Contamination Area Larger than
Expected
USAF
Media
09/21/92
Press Release
ARF
OU1 (10.61 #11 5
Fact Sheet - IRP Update, Norton AFB CBA TCE Groundwater
Investigation
USAF
See mailing list
1 0/92
Fact Sheet
B-37
-------
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
~ .
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
-.-
. .--". -... . .
ARF
OU1 110.6) 113 1
News Release: Air Force Holds Public Meeting to Discuss
Environmental Cleanup Efforts at Nonon
USAF
Media
02/08/93
Press Release
OU1 (10.31 #5 and OU1 (4.3) #1
ARF
.'
-. -
-. .
.'.' ,...: .'.
- ~
" .
"" c. . --.,' -
\1" .
B-38
- .
-------
, .
DOCUMENT:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
, 0.7 ResDonsiveness Summery
OU1 (10.71 #1 11
Responsiveness Summary for CBA OU Proposed Plan
AFBDA, Norton AFB
FFA Members
7/1/93
Summary
OU1 (5.11 #1 A10
ARF
B-39
-------
1_..
... .
.. - ~ ,'..
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
..... ,.
'"... :1
.
------- |