PB94-964530
EPA/ROD/R09-94/117
September 1994
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Williams Air Force Base,
Operable Unit 1, AZ
5/2/1994
-------
u.s. AIR FORCE
REMEDIAL INVESTIGA TION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
WilLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE, ARIZONA
FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 1
-,
AIR FORCE BASE CONVERSION AGENCY
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE, ARIZONA 85206
APRIL 1994
(j)'l'1.
-------
rn INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION
June 3, 1994
Mr. Neil Giffen
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
HAZWRAP
Tri-County Mall
831 Tri-County Boulevard
Oliver Springs, Tennessee 37840
SUBJECT:
Final, Williams AFB, Operable Unit 1, ROD signature page
General Order 12B99886C, Task Order K-Q6
IT Project Number 409735
Dear Mr. Giffen:
At Dr. Harris's request I have enclosed copies of the fully executed signature page 1-6 for the
OU-l ROD. Please replace the unsigned page in each of your copies with this page. Copies
are also being distributed to all those who received the OU-l ROD so that they too may make
the page replacement.
enclosure
cc:
M. A. Sager, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. w/o enclosure
L0603A
Regional OUice
312 Directors Drive. Knoxville. Tennessee 37923.615-690-3211
IT Corporation Is a wholly owned subsidiary of lntematJonaJ Technology CorporatJon
-------
This Record of Decision for Operable Unit Number One at Williams Air Force Base, Arizona
may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each of which when executed
and delivered shall be deemed to be an original, but such counterparts shall together consti-
tute one and the same document
tGL
~t
Date
Alan K. Olsen, Director
U.S. Air Force, Base Conversion Agency
JcrLc. lAJ~
John C. Wise, Deputy Regional Administrator
EP A, Region IX
S :l~ er'l
Date
J. 13. ~'t
Edward Z F , .
Arizona Departmen of Environmental Quality
Date
-;Ie jJ~
~/;'/91
/ / Date
Rita Pearson, Director
Arizona Department of Water Resources
KNI13851WP1365.1.o+ 12-94108
1-6
@
-------
.-.
u.s. AIR FORCE
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONIFEASIBlllTY STUDY
WilliAMS AIR FORCE BASE, ARIZONA
FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 1
AIR FORCE BASE CONVERSION AGENCY
WilLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE, ARIZONA
APRIL 1994
KNI138S/WP138S.COV/04-12-94/D3
g)
-------
2.0
Table of Contents
Page
1.0
Declaration
1.1 Site Name and Location
1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose
1.3 Assessment of the Site
1.4 Description of the Selected Remedy
1.4.1 Landfill (LF-04)
1.4.2 Fue Protection Training Area No.1 (FT-03)
1.4.3 Nonhwest Drainage System (SD-I0)
1.4.4 Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Area (RW-ll)
1.45 Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
1.4.6 Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-01)
1.4.7 USTs at Building 789 (ST-05)
1.4.8 USTs at Building 725 (ST-06)
1.4.9 USTs at Building 1086 (ST -07)
1.4.10 USTs at Building 1085 (ST-08)
1.5 Statutory Detenninations - Landfill (LF-04)
1.6 Declaration Statement
1.6.1 Fire Protection Training Area No.1 (FT-03)
1.6.2 Nonhwest Drainage System (SD-I0)
1.6.3 Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Area (RW-l1)
1.6.4 Pesticide Burial Area
1.65 Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-oI)
1.6.6 USTs at Building 789 (ST-05)
1.6.7 USTs at Building 725 (ST-06)
1.6.8 USTs at Building 1086 (ST-07)
1.6.9 USTs at Building 1085 (ST-08)
Decision Summary
2.1 Site Name, Location, and Description
2.~ Site History and Enforcement Activities
2.2.1 Landfill (LF-04)
2.2.1.1 Site Description and History
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
2-1
2-1
2-4
2-7
2-7
KN/13&5JWPl3&5.COt004-13-941D9
i
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page'
2.2.1.2 Investigations
2.2.1.3 Other Actions
2.2.2 Fire Protection Training Area (Ff -03)
2.2.2.1 Site Description and History
2.2.2.2 Investigations
2.2.2.3 Other Actions
2.2.3 Northwest Drainage System (SD-I0)
2.2.3.1 Site Description and History
2.2.3.2 Investigations
2.2.3.3 Other Actions
2.2.4 Radioactive InstrUmentation Burial Area (RW -11)
2.2.4.1 Site Description and History
2.2.4.2 Investigations
2.2.4.3 Other Actions
2.2.5 Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
2.2.5.1 Site Description and History
2.2.5.2 Investigations
2.2.5.3 Other Actions
2.2.6 Hazardous Materials StOrage Area (SS-OI)
2.2.6.1 Site Description and History
2.2.6.2 Investigations
2.2.6.3 Other Actions
2.2.7 USTs at Building 789 (ST-05)
2.2.7.1 Site Description and History
2.2.7.2 Investigations
2.2.7.3 Other Actions
2.2.8 USTs at Building 725 (ST-06)
2.2.8.1 Site Description and History
2.2.8.2 Investigations
2.2.8.3 Other Actions
2.2.9 USTs at Building 1086 (ST-07)
2.2.9.1 Site Description and History
2-7
2-8
2-8
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-10
2-10
2-10
2-11
2-11
2-11
2-11
2-12
2-12
2-12
2-12
2-13
2-13
2-13
2-14
2-14
2-14
2-14
2-15
2-15
2-15
2-15
2-16
2-16
2-17
2-17
KNJ138SJWPJ38S.CON.&$-J3-94/1)9
ii
-------
3.0
4.0
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page"
2.2.9.2 Investigations
2.2.9.3 Other Actions
2.2.10 USTs at Building 1085 (ST-08)
2.2.10.1 Site Description and History
2.2.10.2 Investigations
2.2.10.3 Other Actions
2.3 Highlights of Community Participation
Scope and Role of Operable Unit
Summary of Site Characteristics
4.1 NatUre and Extent of Contamination
4.1.1 Landfill (LF-04)
4.1.2 FJre Protection Training Area (Ff-03)
4.1.3 Nonbwest Drainage System (SD-IO)
4.1.4 Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Area (RW-ll)
4.1.5 Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
4.1.6 Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-OI)
4.1.7 USTs at Building 789 (ST-05)
4.1.8 USTs at Building 725 (ST-06)
4.1.9 USTs at Building 1086 (ST-07)
4.1.10 USTs at Building 1085 (ST-08)
4.2 Contaminant Fate and Transpon
4.2.1 Contaminant Persistence in the Environment
4.2.2 Site-Specific Applicability
4.2.2.1 Landfill (LF-04)
4.2.2.2 Fire Protection Training Area (Ff -03)
4.2.2.3 Nonhwest Drainage System (SD-I0)
4.2.2.4 Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Area (RW-ll)
4.2.2.5 Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
4.2.2.6 Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-OI)
4.2.2.7 USTs at Building 789 (ST-05)
4.2.2.8 USTs at Building 725 (ST-06)
4.2.2.9 USTs at Building 1086 (ST-07)
2-17
2-17
2-18
2-18
2-18
2-19
2-19
3-1
4-1
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-3
4-3
4-4
4-4
4-4
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-6
4-6
4-8
4-8
4-8
4-9
4-9
4-9
4-9
4-9
4-9
4-9
KN/l38SJWP138S.CO~13-941D9
ill
-------
I~
5.0
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page"
4.2.2.10 USTs at Building 1085 (ST-08)
Summary of Potential Site Risks
5.1 Chemicals of Potential Concern
5.1.1 Chemical of Potential Concern for Soils
5.1.1.1 Landfill (LF-04)
5.1.1.2 Fire Proteetion Training Area (Fr-03)
5.1.1.3 Northwest Drainage System (So.I0)
5.1.1.4 Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Area (RW-ll)
5.1.1.5 Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
5.1.1.6 Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-OI)
5.1.1.7 USTs at Building 789 (ST-05)
5.1.1.8 USTs at Building 725 (ST-06)
5.1.1.9 USTs at Building 1086 (ST-07)
5.1.1.10 USTs at Building 1085 (ST-08)
5.1.2 Chemicals of Potential Concern for Groundwater
5.1.2.1 Landfill (LF-04)
5.1.2.2 Fire Proteetion Training Area (Fr-03)
5.1.2.3 Northwest Drainage System (So.I0)
5.1.2.4 Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Area (RW-ll)
5.1.2.5 Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
5.1.2.6 Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-OI)
5.1.2.7 USTs at Building 789 (ST-05)
5.1.2.8 USTs at Building 725 (ST-06)
5.1.2.9 USTs at Building 1086 (ST-07)
5.1.2.10 USTs at Building 1085 (ST-08)
5.1.3 Uncettainties "
5.2 Exposure Assessment
5.2.1 Potentially Exposed Populations
5.2.2 Potential Exposme Pathways
5.2.2.1 Landfill (LF-04)
5.2.2.2 Fire Proteetion Training Area (Fr -03)
5.2.2.3 Northwest Drainage System (So.I0)
4-10
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-2
5-2
5-2
5-2
5-3
5-3
5-3
5-3
5-3
5-4
5-4
5-4
5-4
5-4
5-5
5-5
5-5
5-5
5-5
5-6
5-6
5-6
5-6
5-7
5-7
5-8
5-8
KN/138SJWPI38S.CON.OJ-I3-94JD9
iv
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page.
5.2.2.4 Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Area (RW-ll)
5.2.2.5 Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
5.2.2.6 Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-OI)
5.2.2.7 USTs (ST-05. ST-06. ST-07. ST-08)
5.2.2.8 Ingestion of Homegrown Fruits and Vegetables
5.2.3 Estimation of Exposure
5.2.3.1 Exposure Models
5.2.3.2 Exposure ParameterS
5.2.3.3 Exposure Point Concentrations
5.2.3.4 Uncertainties
5.3 Toxicity Assessment
5.3.1 Contaminant Toxicity Information
5.3.2 Uncertainties
5.4 Risk ChaTacterization
5.4.1 Carcinogenic Effects
5.4.2 Noncarcinogenic Effects
5.4.3 Chemicals with no Published Toxicity Values
5.4.4 Results of Risk Characterization
5.4.4.1 Landfill (LF-04)
5.4.4.2 Northwest Drainage System (SD-10)
5.4.4.3 Radioactive instrUmentation Burial Area (RW-ll)
5.4.4.4 Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
5.4.4.5 Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-Ol)
5.4.4.6 USTs at Building 789 (ST-05)
5.4.4.7 USTs at Building 725 (ST-06)
5.4.4.8 USTs at Building 1086 (ST..()7)
5.4.4.9 USTs at Building 1085 (ST-08)
5.4.5 Uncertainties
5.4.5.1 Updated Risk Assessment
5.4.5.2 EPA Evaluation of Risk Assessment
5.5 Ecological Risk Assessment
5.5.1 Objectives
5-8
5-8
5-8
5-8
5-8
5-9
5-9
5-10
. 5-10
5-12
5-12
5-12
5-13
5-14
5-14
5-15
5-16
5-16
5-16
5-17
5-17
5-17
5-18
5-18
5-18
5-18
5-18
5-19
5-19
5-21
5-22
5-22
KNJ138S/WP138S.~13-941D9
v
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
page-
, -
5.5.2 <:oncl~ons
5.5.2.1 Pesticide Bmial Area (DP-13)
5.5.2.2 Landfill (LF-04)
5.5.2.3 <:Onclusion Summary
5.6 Selection of Chemicals Requiring Remedial Action
5.6.1 Landfill (LF-04)
5.6.1.1 C1.no~dvvater
5.6.1.2 Soils
5.6.2 Fire -Protection Training Area (FT -03)
5.6.2.1 C1.no~dwater
5.6.2.2 Soils
5.6.3 Northwest Drainage Ditch (SD-IO)
5.6.3.1 C1.no~dwan:r
5.6.3.2 Soils
5.6.4 Radioactive Instromentation Burial Area (RW-ll)
5.6.5 Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
5.6.5.1 C1.no~dwater
5.6.5.2 Soils
5.6.6 Hazardous Material Storage Area (SS-OI)
5.6.6.1 Gro~dwater
5.6.6.2 Soils
5.6.7 USTs at Building 789 (ST-OS)
5.6.7.1 C1.no~dwater
5.6.7.2 Soils
5.6.8 USTs at Building 725 (ST-06)
5.6.8.1 Gro~dwater
5.6.8.2 Soils
5.6.9 USTs at Building 1086 (ST-07
5.6.9.1 C1.no~dwater
5.6.9.2 Soils
5.6.10 USTs at Building 1085 (ST-08)
5.6.10.1 Gro~dwater
5-23
5-23
5-24
5-25
5-25
5-26
5-26
5-28
5-28
5-28
5-28
5-29
5-29
5-29
5-29
5-29
5-29
5-30
5-30
5-30
5-30
5-30
5-30
5-30
5-31
5-31
5-31
5-31
5-31
5-31
5-31
5-31
KN/l38SJWP138S.CON.01-13-94/D9
vi
-------
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page'
5.6.10.2 Soils
Description of Alternatives
6.1 Alternative A - No Action
6.1.1 Major Components of the Remedial Alternative
6.1.2 Source Treatment Component
6.1.3 Source Containment Component
6.1.4 Groundwater Component
6.1.5 General Components
6.1.6 Cost
6.2 Alternative B - Institutional Action and Capping
6.2.1 Major Components of the Remedial Alternative
6.2.2 Source Treatment Component
6.2.3 Source Containment Component
6.2.4 Groundwater Component
6.2.5 General Components
6.2.6 Cost
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
7.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
7.2 Compliance with Potential ARARs
7.3 Long-Tenn Effectiveness and Pennanence
7.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
7.5 Short-Tenn Effectiveness
7.6 Implementability
7.7 Cost
7.8 State Acceptance
7.9 Community Acceptance
Selected Remedy
8.1 Major Components of the Selected Remedy
8.2 Implementation Concerns
8.3 Cost
Statutory Detenninations
9.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
5-32
6-1
6-2
6-2
6-2
6-2
6-2
6-3
6-3
6-4
6-4
6-4
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-8
7-1
7-1
7-1
7-1
7-2
7-2
7-3
7-3
7-3
7-3
8-1
8-1
8-3
8-4
9-1
9-1
KN/13SS/WP13&S.CON.O$-l3-941D9
vii
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
9.2 Attainment of ARARs
9.3 Cost Effectiveness
9.4 Utilization of Pennanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies
or Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Possible
9.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
10.0 Documentation of Significant Changes
11.0 Responsiveness Summary
11.1 Overview
11.2 Background on Community Involvement
11.3 Summary of Comments Received During the Comment Period and
USAF Responses
11.4 Community Relations Activities at Williams AFB
11.5 Letters Recommending Methods and Products
12.0 Bibliography-
Appendix A - Risk Assessment Reevaluation
Appendix B - Detennination of Remediation Goals in Soil and Groundwater
Appendix C - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Appendix D - Cost Estimates
KN/138SJWP138S.CON.Ol-l3-MJD9
viii
Page.
9-2
9-2
9-2
9-2
10-1
11-1
11-1
11-1
11-2
11-7
11-8
12-1
-------
List of Tables
Table
Title
Follows Page
1-1
2-1
4-1
Site List, Operable Unit 1, Williams Air Force Base
Cities Surrounding Williams Air Force Base
Background Inorganic Species Concentrations in Soil and
Groundwater, Williams Air Force Base
Landfill (LF-04) Smface Soils, Organic and Inorganic
Constituents, Detected Constituents
Landfill (LF-04) Groundwater - Organic and Inorganic
Constituents, Detected Constituents
Fire Protection Training Area No.1 (FT-03) Soil- Organic
Constituents, Detected Constituents
Fire Protection Training Area No.1 (FT -03) Soil - Inorganic
Constituents, Detected Constiments
Fire Protection Training Area No.1 (FT-03) Smface Soil - 1993
Confirmatory Sampling Data
Northwest Drainage System (SD-I0) Soil- Inorganic and Organic
Constituents, Detected Constituents
Northwest Drainage System (SD-lO) Smface Soil - 1993
Confirmatory Sampling Data
Radioactive Instrument Bmia! Area (RW-ll) Soils - Organic
Constituents - Deteeted Constituents
Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13) Soil - Inorganic and Organic
Constituents, Detected Constiments
Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-OI) Soils - Inorganic and
Organic Constituents, Deteeted Constituents
Underground Storage Tanks (ST-OS) Soils - Organic Constituents
Detected Constituents
Underground Storage Tanks (ST -(6) Soils - Organic Constituents,
Detected Constituents
Underground Storage Tanks (ST-07) Soils - Organic Constituents,
Detected Constituents
Underground Storage Tanks (ST -08) Soils - Organic Compounds,
Detected Constituents
Underground Storage Tanks (ST-08) Soils - Inorganic Constituents,
Detected Constituents
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-16
KN/l38SJWPl38S.CO~ 13-941D9
ix
1-1
2-1
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-3
4-3
4-3
4-4
4-4
4-4
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-6
-------
List 0' Tables (Continued)
Table
TItle
Follows Page
4-17
Underground Storage Tanks (ST -08) Soils - TCLP Inorganic
Constituents, Detected Constituents 4-6
Chemical ParameterS Affecting Environmental Transpon and Persistence 4-7
Analytical Data Summary, Landfill (LF-Q4) Surface Soils, Williams
Air Force Base
Analytical Data Summary, Northwest Drainage System (SD-I0) Soils,
Williams Air Force Base
Analytical Data Summary, Radioactive Instrument Burial Area (RW-11)
Soils, WiUiams Air Force Base . 5-2
Analytical Data Summary, Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13) Soils,
Williams Air Force Base
Analytical Data Summary, Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-OI)
Soils. Wi11iam~ Air Force Base
Analytical Data Summary. Underground Storage Tank (ST -05) Soils.
Williams Air Force Base
Analytical Data Summary, Underground Storage Tank (ST-06) Soils.
Williams Air Force Base .
Analytical Data Summary. Underground Storage Tank (ST-07) Soils,
Williams Air Force Base
. Analytical Data Summary, Underground Storage Tank at Building 1085
(ST -08) Soils, Williams Air Force Base
Analytical Data Summary, Landfill (LF-04) Groundwater. Williams
Air Force Base
Summary of Potential Exposure Pathways, Landfill (LF-04), Wtlliams
Air Force Base
Summary of Potential Exposure Pathways, Fire Protection Training Area
No.1 (FT-03), Williams Air Force Base
Summary of Potential Exposure Pathways. Northwest Drainage System
(SD-lO), Williams Air Force Base
Summary of Potential Exposure Pathways, Radioactive Instrumentation
Burial Area (RW-11), Williams Air Force Base
Summary of Potential Exposure Pathways, Pesticide Burial Area
(DP-13), Williams Air Force Base
Summary of Potential Exposure Pathways, Hazardous Materials Storage
Area (SS-OI). Williams Air Force Base
4-18
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
5-10
5-11
5-12
5-13
5-14
5-15
5-16
KN/138SJWPl38S.CON.«l4-13-!I4JD9
x
5-1
5-2
5-2
5-3
5-3
5-3
5-3
5-3
5-4
5-7
5-8
5-8
5-8
5-8
5-8
-------
List of Tables (Continued)
Table Title Follows Page
5-17 Summary of Potential Exposure Pathways, Underground Storage Tanks
(ST-05, ST-06, ST-07, and ST-08), Williams Air Force Base 5-8
5-18 Parameters Used to Estimate Exposure, Williams Air Force Base 5-10
5-19 Estimated Exposure-Point Concentrations for the Landfill (LF-04),
Williams Air Force Base 5-10
5-20 Estimated Exposure-Point Concentrations for the Nonhwest Drainage
System (SD-IO), Williams Air Force Base 5-10
5-21 Estimated Exposure-Point Concentrations for the Pesticide Burial
Area (DP-13), Williams Air Force Base .5-10
5-22 Estimated Exposure-Point Concentrations for the Hazardous Materials
Storage Area (SS-Ol), Williams Air Force Base 5-10
5-23 Estimated Exposme-Point Concentrations for Building 789 USTs
(ST-OS), Williams Air Force Base 5-10
5-24 Estintated Exposure-Point Concentrations for Building 725 USTs
(ST-06), Williams Air Force Base 5-10
5-25 Estimated Exposme-Point Concentrations for Building 1086 USTs
(ST-07), Williams Air Force Base 5-10
5-26 Estimated Exposure-Point Concentrations for Building 1085 USTs
(ST-08), Williams Air Force Base 5-10
5-27 Summary of Reference Doses (RID), Williams Ajr Force Base 5-12
5-28 Summary of Slope Factors (CPF), Williams Air Force Base 5-12
5-29 Summary of Risk Characterization Results, Landfill (LF-04),
Williams Air Force Base 5-16
5-30 Summary of Risk Characterization Results, Northwest Drainage
System, (SD-I0), Williams Air Force Base 5-17
5-31 Summary of Risk Characterization Results, Pesticide Burial
Area (DP-13), Williams Air Force Base 5-17
5-32 Summary of Risk Characterization Results, Hazanious Materials
Storage Area (SS-Ol), Williams Air Force Base 5-18
5-33 Summary of Risk Characterization Results, Building 789 USTs
(ST-05), Williams Air Force Base 5-18
5-34 Summary of Risk Characterization Results, Building 725 USTs
(ST -06), Williams Air Force Base 5-18
5-35 Summary of Risk Characterization Results, Building 1086 USTs
(ST-07), Williams Air Force Base 5-18
KN/138SJWPI385.CON.Ol-I3-94/D9
xi
-------
List of Tables (Continued)
Table
Title
FDIIDWS Page
5-36
Summary of Risk Characterization Results, Building 1085 USTs
(ST -08), Williams Air Force Base
Summary of Problem Formulation Results for OU-l Sites
Determination of Remedial Action for Chemicals of Potential
Concern, LF-04 Groundwater, Williams Air Force Base
Determination of Remedial Action for Chemicals of Potential
Concern, LF-04 Smface Soils, Williams Air Force Base
Determination of Remedial Action for Chemicals of Potential
Concern, Fr-03 Groundwater, Williams Air Force Base
Determination of Remedial Action for Chemicals of Potential
Concern, Fr-03 Soils, Williams Air Force Base
DeteImination of Remedial Action for Chemicals of Potential
Concern, SD-IO Soils, Williams Air Force Base
Determination of Remedial Action for Chemicals of Potential
Concern, SS-OI Soils, Williams Air Force Base
Detennination of Remedial Action for Chemicals of Potential
Concern, ST -08 Soils, Williams Air Force Base
LF-04 Soil Alternatives for Inclusion in the Screening Process,
Williams Air Force Base
Comparison of Oeanup Alternatives, Williams Air Force Base
Summary of Remedial Alternative Cost Estimates, Williams
Air Force Base
5-37
5-38
5-39
5-40
5-41
5-42
5-43
5-44
6-1
7-1
7-2
KNI138SJWP138S.CO~13-941D9
xii
5-18
5-23
5-26
5-28
5-28
5-28
5-29
5-30
5-32
6-1
7-1
7-3
-------
List of Figures
Rgure
TlUe
Follows Page
Williams Air Force Base and Vicinity
Williams Air Force Base OU-l Site Location Map
Williams Air Force Base Landfill Area (LF-04)
Williams Air Force Base Landfill Area (LF-04) Concentration
in Surface Soil Samples
Williams Air Force Base Fire Protection Training Area No.1
(FT -03)
Williams Air Force Base Fire Protection Training Area No.1
(FT-03) Soil Boring Locations
Williams Air Force Base Northwest Drainage System (SD-lO)
Williams Air Force Base Northwest Drainage System (SD-I0) Soil
Boring Locations
Williams Air Force Base Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Area
(RW:.ll)
Williams Air Force Base Radioactive Insttumentation Burial Area
(RW-ll) Soil Boring Locations
Williams Air Force Base Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
Williams Air Force Base Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13) Soil Boring
Locations
Williams Air Force Base Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-OI)
Williams Air Force Base Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-OI)
Soil Boring Locations
Williams Air Force Base Underground Storage Tanks (ST-05) -
Location of Abandoned Tanks
Williams Air Force Base Former Motor Pool Building, Building 789
(ST -05), Soil Boring/Soil Sample Locations
Williams Air Force Base Underground Storage Tanks (ST-06)
Location of Abandoned Tanks
Williams Air Force Base Former Gas Station, Building 725 (ST-06)
Soil Boring/Soil Sample Locations
Williams Air Force Base Buildings 1086 and 1085 Tanks Systems
(ST-07 and ST-08) 2-17
Williams Air Force Base Soil Sample Locations for Tank 1086 (ST -07) 2-18
Williams Air Force Base Building 1086 (ST-07) and Building 1085
(ST-08) Soil Boring Locations
1-1
1-2
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
2-14
2-15
2-16
2-17
2-18
2-19
KNI138S/WP138S.CO~13-94JD9
xiii
1-1
1-1
2-7
2-8
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-12
2-13
2-13
2-14
2-14
2-15
2-16
2-16
2-18
-------
. -.-"
List 0' Figures (Continued)
Rgure
Title
Follows Page
Williams Air Force Base Soil Sample Locations for Tanks
1085-4 and 1085-5 (ST-08)
Williams Air Force Base Soil Sample Locations for Tank
1085-1 (ST -08)
Williams Air Force Base Landfill Area (LF-04) Concentration in
Surface Soil Samples
Williams Air Force Base Historical Groundwater Data at the
Landfill (LF-04)
Williams Air Force Base Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-OI)
Selected Constituent Concentration Map
Williams Air Force Base Fonner Gas Station Building 725 (ST-06)
Soil Boring/Soil Sample Locations
Williams Air Force Base Building 1086 (ST -07) and 1085 (ST -08)
Selected Constituent Concentration Map 4-5
Williams Air Force Base Soil Sample Locations for Tank 1085-1 (ST-08) 4-5
Williams Air Force Base Soil Sample Locations for Tanks 1085-4
and 1085-5 (ST -08)
Initial Screening of Technologies and Process Options for Soil
at LF-04
Secondary Screening of Technologies and Process Options for Soil
at LF-04
Remedial Alternative Evaluation Criteria
Williams Air Force Base Conceptual Diagram for Soil and Rubblized
Concrete Cap and Drainage Ditch
2-20
2-21
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
ENJ13asIWP138S.co~13-94/D9
XlV
2-19
2-19
4-2
4-2
4-4
4-5
4-5
6-1
6-1
6-1
6-5
-------
List of Acronyms
ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources
AFB Air Force Base
ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
A TC Air Training Command
A TSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
A V Aero Vironment, Inc.
bls below land surface
BHC beta-hexachlorobenzene
BTEX benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene
CAG Carcinogenic Assessment Group
CDI chronic daily intake
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CPR Co4e of Federal Regulations
CPF carcinogenic potency factor
DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDT dichlorodiphenyltricholoroethane
DEIS Disposal Environmental Impact Statement
DOD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
EFJCA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
Energy Systems Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ES Engineering-Science
FFA Federal Facilities Agreement
FS feasibility study
FSP Field Sampling Plan
GI gastrointestinal
HAZWRAP Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program
HBFH high boiling fuel hydrocarbons
HBGL health-based guidance level
HEAST Health EffectS Assessment Summary Tables
HI hazard index
XNJ138S/WP138S.CON~13-941D9
xv
-------
List of Acronyms (Continued)
HSP
HQ
ILCR
IRIS
IRP
IT
LOEL
J1g/L
mg/kg
msl
NCP
NPL
NOEL
O&M
OU-l
OU-2
OU-3
PAH
PCE
pCi/g
QAPP
RAB
RAO
RCRA
RDIRA
RID
RG
RI
RME
ROD
RWCD
SARA
SVOC
TBC
Health and Safety Plan
hazard quotient
incremental lifetime cancer risk
Integrated Risk Information System
Installation Restoration Program
IT Corporation
lowest observed effect level
micrograms per liter
milligrams per kilogram
mean sea level
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
no observed effect level
operation and maintenance
Operable Unit 1
Operable Unit 2
Operable Unit 3
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
tetraChloroethane
picoCuries per gram
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Restoration Advisory Board
remedial action objectives
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
remedial design/remedial action
reference dose
remediation goal
remedial investigation
reasonable maximum exposure
Record of Decision
Roosevelt Water Control District
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
semivolatile organic compound
to be considered
KN/138SJWP138S.C0N,Q4-1).941t)9
XVI
-------
List of Acronyms (Continued)
TCLP
TOe
TPH
TRC
1WG
UCL
USAF
USGS
UST
VOC
Thnci~~mcu~~g~
total organic carbon
total petroleum hydrocarbons
Technical Review Committee
Technical Working Group
upper confidence limit
United States Air Force
U.S. Geological Survey
underground storage tank
volatile organic compound
KN/l3SSJWP13SS.~13-941D9
xvii
-------
1.0 Declaration
1.1 Site Name and LocatIon
Williams Air Force Base (AFB) is located in Maricopa County, east of Chandler, Arizona
(Figure 1-1). Operable Unit 1 (OU-l) of the Williams AFB, National Priorities List (NFL)
site comprises the individual sites listed in Table 1-1.
1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial action for the sites that
compose OU-l at Williams AFB, which are listed in Table 1-1. The ROD was developed in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERaA), as amended by the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA),
and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based
on the Administrative Record for this operable unit
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of Arizona concur with the
selected remedy for QU-l.
1.3 Assessment of the Site
Dieldrin and beryllium are present in Landfill (LF-04) surface soils at concentrations above
remediation goals (RG). Existing conditions at the site have been determined to pose a total
incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) of 2.03 x 10-5 for future residential exposures and 1.3
x 10-5 for current occupational exposures to contaminated surface soils. The most significant
exposure pathways are dermal contact with soil, incidental ingestion of soil, and inhalation of
fugitive dust 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 immi-
nent and substantial endangerment to public health and the environment
1.4 Description of the Selected Remedy
OU-l currently includes the ten sites listed in Table 1-1 and presented in Figure 1-2.
Operable Unit 2 (OU-2) is defined as the groundwater contamination and the first 25 feet in
depth of soil at the Liquid Fuels Storage Area (ST-12). Operable Unit 3 (OU-3) has been
newly e~tablished to accomplish the following:
. Characterize environmental contaminant conditions and health risks associated
with the Southwest Drainage System (SD-09), which was expanded to include a
KNI138S'WP138S.1~ 12-94/D8
1-1
-------
.
.
I
C
I 11'1
~ ~
,.. III
g ~
~
~ cj ...
I- .;: '----
en III ,.,
~ i
~ C
C II:
o CI
Rittenhouse
. Auxiliary
Airfield
I') ~
~f!!
~ ffi
~!
.. II:
~ .
C 0
CI s:
'0 III
! i
II: C
;! II:
en CI
. "... ".
" e'< . ...
'~i/o ~~:;.;-
....\ ...-'
. ..,.,
.....AJ'
Coolidge 0
.
Coolidge- FI oren ce
Municipal Airport Annex
~
SCALE
I
o
I
10
I
20 MILES
F1GURE 1-1
WlWAMS AIR FORCE BASE
AND VICINITY
III JNTDHAflONAL
TECHNOU)GY
CORPOa.mDN
SOURCE:
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP
-------
Table 1-1
Site Ust
Operable Unit 1
Williams Air Force Base
::,:;":',;,:!:;"",:,i;!:,j:",,::'::':';'!~~":.:;:;':,!I:',,::!,:;::,,!!'::,1:::::,:':::i:::::'::::;:':!::;',il::,,;::,::,',::,:;':';':::,':::,:::;:,..:::::::;;;':,:!:::',!:':,:i":!:"::':;'i:i:'il~:::Pi'~Hptl6n':: ',:,',', ,::":;',':::,',:"
If-G4 Landfill
FT -03
SD-10
RW-11
Fire Protection Training Area No.1
Northwest Drainage System
Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Area
Pesticide Burial Area
DP-13
SS-01
Hazardous Materials Storage Area
Building 789, S USTs
Building 725, 2 USTs
Building 1086, 2 USTs
Building 1085, 3 USTs
ST-oS
ST -06
ST -07
ST -08
KM1138&WP138S.1-1104-12-941D2
:"':::,':,:
-------
Ie
I
~ ~
~ ~
'J d
o z
~ £
ft ~
~ 3
o .
" .
~ ~
i i
is
~ 9
Ii: >
o
. "
'"
$: ~
OJ OJ
g g
~ ~
~
~ t;
~ I
..
~
~ 9
~ ~
... 0
~ t
~ I
~ &
I
I
"_'_'--d_\ - - \
./ ~ I
"'\ .
:)
\
~
//..--- -.
- .- --"'-" .-- '''-.
\
'~J /
"
"
"'-.... q
- .. .. -.----- - ..
I
I
PERllAEl£R RO"O
~
A
#I
~
.
~
..
o
I.h... . .
, !2::.)".r~~~p-'J RW-fl
(~r:::'.::::-- LF-04 n
\:.~:.:::.::.-:::-:::..:;J..-.-.- ". .. .
. -~ -'-"- .. .
~
~
.,"W '.W'- . .
\,~
~\
LEGEND:
1:1
. BASE BOUNDARY
SITE UNDER INVESTIGATION
SCALE:
J'I
o
---.
1250
I
2500 fEET
FIGURE 1- 2
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
OU-1 SITE LOCA 110N MAP
m INn:IUlATIONAI.
n:CIINO!.C)(;Y
CORI'OI!ATIOII
-------
StOml drain line, five oiVwater separators northeast from the headworks to
Building 53, and a capped ponion of the drainage system just downstream of the
headworks. .
. Characterize environmental contaminant conditions and health risks associated
with deep soils below 2S feet in depth at ST -12.
. Present a comprehensive ecological risk assessment for the whole of Williams
AFB in the OU-3 remedial investigation (RI) report.
. Establish final remedial actions for Fire Protection Training Area No.2 (Ff-02)
in the OU-3 feasibility study (FS) and ROD.
Additional operable units may be identified in the future as a result of these and other
investigations. Also, because Williams AFB has been closed, additional operable unitS may
. be utilized to expedite remedial action activities in accordance with Base reuse goals.
The description of the selected remedy for each of the ten sites within OU-l is presented in
the following sections.
1.4.1 Lsndfill (LF-04)
The selected remedy for LF-04 involves the following major components:
. A permeable cap over the contaminated surface soils to limit exposure by
potential receptors and control natural erosion processes
. An interceptor trench around the perimeter of the capped area to aid in collecting
and proper routing of any stormwater runoff
. A fence around the perimeter of the interceptor trench and warning signs posted
to notify potential land users of the presence of the cap covering contaminated
surface soil
. Postclosure care for 30 years, including landfill cover maintenance, annual soil
monitoring, semiannual (every 6 months) groundwater monitoring, and mainte-
nance of all associated monitoring equipment to ensure the effectiveness of the
remedial action
. Land-use restrictions to protect the integrity of the landfill cover and the opera-
tion of the groundwater monitoring system.
KN/138!i1WP138S.1AM-12-941D8
1-2
-------
The remedy accomplishes the primary remediation goal of overall protection of human health
and the environment by providing a barrier betWeen the contaminated soil and any potential
human or environmental receptors.
1.4.2 Rre Protection Training Ares No.1 (FT-tJ3)
No action.
1.4.3 Northwest Drainage System (SD-10)
No action.
1.4.4 Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Ares (RW-11)
No further action.
1.4.5 Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
No further action.
1.4.6 Hszardous Materials Storage Area (SS-01)
No action.
1.4.7 Underground Storage Tanks (UST) at Building 789 (ST-05)
No further action.
1.4.8 USTs at Building 725 (ST-06)
No further action.
1.4.9 USTs at Building 1086 (ST-07)
No further action.
1.4.10 USTs Building 1085 (ST-08) .
No further action.
1.5 Statutory Determinations - Landfill (LF-D4)
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with
federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy uses permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this site. However, because
1CNf131151WP138S.1A)4.12-!WD8
1-3
-------
treatment of the principal threats of the site was not found to be practicable, this remedy does
not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy. The
size of the landfill, the fact that there are no on-site hot spots that represent the major sources
of contamination, and the fact that the contamin~ted surface soils cover buried landfill wastes
preclude a remedy in which contaminants could be excavated and treated effectively.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site above health-based
levels, a review will be conducted within 5 years after completion of the remedial action to
ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection for human health and the
environment
1.6 Declarat/on Statement
No unflC'.ceptable health risks are present at any of the following sires, as calculated under a
residential exposure scenario during the risk assessment Therefore, 5-year periodic reviews
are not required for these sites.
1.6.1 Rre Protect/on Training Area No.1 (FT-03)
No remedial action is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment
1.6.2 Northwest Drainage System (50-10)
No remedial action is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment
1.6.3 Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Area (RW-11)
No further remedial action is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the
environment A previous response action at the site removed the source of contamination and
eliminated the need to conduct additional remedial actions.
1.6.4 Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
No further remedial action is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the
environment A previous response action at the site removed the source of contanUnation and
eliminated the need to conduct additional remedial actions.
1.6.5 Hazardous Materials Storage Area (5$-01)
No remedial action is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment
KNrI385IWPI385.1.04-12-841D8
1-4
-------
1.6.6 USTs at Building 789 (ST-D5)
No funher remedial action is necessary to ensme protection of human health and the
environmenL A previous response action at the site removed the source of contamination and
eliminated the need to conduct additional remedial actions.
1.6.7 USTs at Building 725 (ST-D6)
No further remedial action is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the
environmenL A previous response action at the site removed the source of contamination and
eliIninated the need to conduct additional remedial actions.
1~6.8 USTs at Building 1086 (ST-D7)
No funher remedial action is necessary. to ensure protection of human health and the
environmenL A previous response action at the site removed the source of contamination and
eliminated the need to conduct additional remedial actions.
1.6.9 USTs at Building 1085 (ST-DB)
No funher remedial action is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the
environmenL A previous response action at the site removed the source of contamination and
eliminated the need to conduct additional remedial actions.
1CM'138&'WP1385.1.04-12-841D8
1-5
-------
11.R,(J ~~JI..L.. I
This Record of Decision for Operable Unit Number One at Williams Air Force Base, Arizona
may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each of which when executed
and delivered shall be deemed to be an original, but such counterparts shall together consti-
tute one and the same document
t~
~i
Date
Alan K. Olsen, Director
U.S. Air Force, Base Conversion Agency
. JuL C. IAJ lA.<-
John C. Wise, Deputy Regional Administrator
EP A, Region IX
.s .2. . '1'1/
Date
J. I!,. Cf'(
Edward Z. F , .
Arizona Depanmen of Environmental Quality
Date
~jJ~
£'/;//91
/ / Date
Rita Pearson, Director
Arizona Department of Water Resources
. KK'13851WP1385.1 004-12-94108
1-6
@
-------
2.0 Decision Summary
2.1 . Site Name, Location, and Description
Williams AFB was a flight training base located in Maricopa County, Arizona approximately
30 miles southeast of Phoenix and just east of CI1andler (Figure 1-1). The Base, commis-
sioned as a flight training school, was constructed on 4,127 acres of government land in 1941.
Runway and airfield operations, industrial areas, housing, and recreational facilities are
located on the Base. Training activities started after construction, with jet aircraft training
beginning in 1949. The Base was closed September 30, 1993.
This ROD addresses remedial actions for OU-l, which comprises the sites presented in Table
1-1 and Figure 1-2.
Williams AFB is relatively isolated from any large metrOpOlitan area. It is surrounded
primarily by agricultura11and in a valley that has had a long history of intensive agricultural
use, predominantly for crops of citrus, cotton, and a1fa1fa. Smaller mban areas such as Mesa,
. Chandler, Gilbert, and Apache Junction are located 5 to 15 miles northeast and northwest of
the Base. The Queen Creek and Chandler Heights areas are approximately 5 miles south and
west of the Base boundary, respectively. Table 2-1 lists these towns and others with distanee
and direction from Williams AFB, and the population of the towns are included. These areas
are separated from the Base by cultivated and uncultivated land.
During its active status, 3,029 military personnel and 869 civilian employees were stationed at
the Base. Many of the military personnel lived off Base in one of the surrounding areas.
The total population actually living on Base, including dependents, was appro$arely 2,700.
On an average workday, the population of the Base increased to more than 5,000 because of
the influx of both civilian employees and military personnel living off base (Cost Branch
Controller Division, 1987).
A development plan for the region (Sunregion Associates, 1987), if implemented, will
dramatically alter the region surrounding Williams AFB. The portions of the development
plan of most importance to the Base are the East Mesa Subarea Plan and the Queen Creek-
Chandler Heights Plan. The fonner proposes development for portions of the City of Mesa,
the Town of Gilbert, the City of Apache Junction, and the land area north of Williams AFB.
The proposed land area for the Queen Creek-Chandler Heights Plan is east of Chandler, just
KN/13&SJWPl3&S.2.OI-l2-94JDIO
2-1
-------
Table 2-1
Cities Surrounding Williams Air Force Base
Direction Relative to Distance from
City WiDiams AFB Williams AFB (miles) Population8
Apache Junction North-Northeast 10 18,100
Chandler West 5 90,533
Gilbert Northwest 5 29,188
Mesa North-Northwest 15 288,091
Queen Creek South 5 2,667
Tempe Northwest 20 141,865
Phoenix Northwest 25 893,983
8April1, 1990 Census, Public Law Tape 94-171.
KN/138S/WP138S.2-LQ4.12-94/D2
-------
south of the Base in the approximate location of the Town of Queen Creek. The plan is to
develop the proposed area residentially and commercially for a 2S-year period. H
implemented, this development will dramatically impact the demographics and population
around the Base. In addition, the closure of Williams AFB could also impact the region.
There are no major smface water bodies within a IO-mile radius of the Base. The Base lies
between the lOO-year and SOO-year flood level for streams in the Gila River Basin (U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1979). Storm drainage on the Base is
directed to a combination of open channels used to drain most of the Base and underground
drainage stnJCtUr'es. Stann drainage from the Base flows either to the Roosevelt Water
Control Disttict (RWCD) floodway that flows southward in the vicinity of the Base or
directly to the floodway west of the Base, or into the wastewater treatment plant.
There are at least 90 domestic permitted wells within a 3-mile radius of the Base. These
wells are not affected by the contamination at au-I. The Base currently performs periodic
monitoring and sampling of groundwater wells on the Base in the vicinity of LF-04 and
ST-12.
The climate of Williams AFB is similar to that of Phoenix and the rest of the Salt River
Valley. The temperature ranges from very hot in the summer to mild in winter. Rain comes
mostly in two seasons: from late November until early April, and in July and August
Average annual precipitation is approximately 7.1 inches. Humidity ranges from approxi-
mately 30 percent in winter to 10 percent in summer. Williams AFB is also characterized by
light winds. Evapotranspiration rates in the area exceed 6S inches per year.
Williams AFB lies in the eastern portion of the Basin and Range Physiographic Lowlands
Province of south-central Arizona, which is located in the Salt River Valley. The local
topography is controlled by large-scale nonnal faulting that has resulted in the fonnation of
broad, flat, alluvial-filled valleys separated by steep isolated hills and mountain ranges.
Arizona Department of Water Resource's hydrologic maps show the Base bounded to the
north by the Usery Mountains, to the east by the Superstition Mountains, to the south by the
Santan Mountains, and to the west by South Mountain.
The topography of the Base slopes gently to the west with a generally less than 1 percent
grade. Elevations range from 1,326 feet above mean sea level (msl) on the west side of the
Base to 1,390 feet above msl at the southeast comer of the Base.
EN/1385/WP13lS.2.Q4-12-94IDIO
2-2
-------
According to Laney and Hahn (1986). the area of the Base is underlain by six geologic units:
crystalline rocks, extrUSive rocks, red unit, lower unit, middle unit, and upper uniL The
crystalline and extrUSive rocks compose the surrounding mountains and the basement complex
underlying the consoJjc1~ted and unconsolidated sediments of the valley. The four units
overlying the basement complex are of sedimentary origin and have the surrounding moun-
tains and local drainage as their source areas.
The red unit immediately overlies the basement complex and is composed of well-cemented
breccia, conglomerate, sandstone, and siltstone of continental origin with interbedded
extrusive flow rocks.
The lower unit overlies the red unit and consists of playa, alluvial fan. and fluvial deposits
with evaporites and interbedded basaltic flows present in lower sections (Laney and Hahn,
1986).
The middle unit overlies the lower unit and is composed of playa, alluvial fan. and fluvial
deposits with no associated evaporites. The middle unit received its sediment primarily from
the Salt River. whereas the red and lower units had the local mountains as the principal
source.
The youngest unit in the stratigraphic sequence is referred to as the upper uniL This unit
consists of channel, floodplain. terrace, and alluvial fan deposits of largely unconsolidated
gravel, sand, silt, and clay.
Geological conditions beneath OU-l were characterized by using a combination of continuous
coring and geophysics. The deposits encountered during drilling at OU-l are correlative to
the upper unit of Laney and Hahn (1986) and possibly to the extreme upper section of their
middle uniL
There are two major soil associations found in the vicinity of Williams AFB. The Mohall-
Contine Association is found over much of the Base. and the Gillman-Estrel1a-Avondale
Association is found at the southern boundary of the Base. The Mohall-Contine and the
Gillman-Estrella-Avondale Associations have generally the same characteristics, being well
drained" and nearly level with slopes of less than 1 percenL
EN/138SIWPI38S.2J04-12-94IDIO
2-3
-------
Because of a decline in the water table produced by excessive irrigation withdrawals over the
past 50 years, an extensive vadose zone has been produced in the vicinity of Williams AFB.
The low rainfall and high evapotranspiration rate of the area also contribute to a very low
potential for recharge to occur through the soil comprising the vadose zone.
Groundwater beneath OU-l sites is encountered at depths IaIlging from 180 to 250 feet. IT
Corporation (IT) and previous contractors have placed monitoring wells at two of the aU-l
sites (LF-04 and FI' -03) to monitor two zones of the aquifer. At both sites, the aquifer zones
are considered to be pan of the same aquifer system and are referred to as the upper and
lower portions of the aquifer.
Groundwater elevation contOur maps indicate that groundwater flows to the north and east on
a Base-wide scale. This finding is consistent with other groundwater elevation contour maps
presented for the area (Laney and Hahn, 1986; AeroVironment, Inc. [A V), 1987).
Groundwater flows to east at LF-04 and to the north at FI' -03. Hydraulic gradients range
from 4.30 x 10-3 to 8.50 x 10-3. Using hydraulic conductivity data from ST-12 and assuming
a porosity of 0.30, groundwater flow velocity over the Base in the lower portions of the
aquifer is calculated to range from 1.4 x 10-3 to 2.9 x 10-1 feet/day.
2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities
Williams AFB was a flight training base that opened in 1942. It was immediately commis-
sioned as a flight training school, and training activities with jet aircraft began in 1949.
Throughout its history, pilot training was the primary activity at Williams AFB. At various
times, bombardier, bomber pilot, instrument bombing specialist, and fighter gunnery training
schools Were also housed on Base. Over the years, a wide variety and large number of
aircraft have been housed at Williams AFB.
The Installation Restoration Program (IRP) was implemented by the U.S. Department of
Defense (DOD) in 1980 to identify and control environmental contamination from. past
hazardous materials use and disposal activities at United States Air Force (USAF)
installations. The IRP is DOD's equivalent of the national Superfund program. SARA,
passed by Congress in 1986, required cleanup of federal facilities to meet Superfund
requirements.
IRP guidance was received at Williams AFB in July 1983 and the initial assessment study
(designated as Phase I) was completed by Engineering-Science (ES) in 1984. Based on a
KNI13&SJWPl3&S~12-94IDI0
2-4
-------
review of available records pertaining to chemical handling and disposal practices, interviews
with site personnel, and a site survey of activities at Williams AFB, the study identified the
following nine potential sites where hazardous materials have been handled or disposed:
.
Landfill
FIre Protection Training Area No.1
Fire Protection Training Area No.2
Northwest Drainage System
Southwest Drainage System
Radioactive InstrUmentation Burial Area
Pesticide Burial Area
Hazardous Materials Storage Area
Liquid Fuels Storage Area.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A second investigation (designated as Phase IT) was conducted by AV from September 1984
to December 1985. This investigation was initiated to confirm the information in the ES
report and to verify the presence and quantify the extent of contamination. In 1987, A V
completed an additional investigation (phase II, Stage 2) to define the most likely pathways
for contaminant migration from each site and to confirm the presence or absence of contam-
ination along those pathways. Some of the analytical data utilized in this ROD were collected
during this Phase II, Stage 2 investigation.
In 1987, as a result of A V investigations, IT, under a contract with Martin Marietta Energy
Systems, Inc. (Energy Systems) through the Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program
(HAZWRAP) (IT, 1987a), performed a simple remedial action. This activity involved
designing soil cementing and a concrete cap for approximately 350 feet of the uppennost
portion of the Southwest Drainage System. Plans and specifications were issued in September
1987 (IT, 1987b) and the work was completed that year.
In October 1988, the Air Training Command (A TC) contracted Energy Systems and its
subcontractor, IT, through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to complete the RIlFS,
Proposed Plan, and ROD at Williams AFB. As pan of these efforts, a Work Plan (IT,
1991a); a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (IT, 1991b), which includes a Health and
Safety Plan (lISP); and a Field Sampling Plan (FSP) (IT, 1991c) were issued. The
continuation of the RI was initiated in January 1989. The sites investigated include the nine
EN/138SJWPI38S.2.04-12-94JDIO
2-5
-------
original sites plus four underground storage tank (UST) sites. The complete list of all
Williams AFB sites then consisted of the following:
.
Landfill (LF-04)
Fire Protection Training Area No.1 (FT -03)
Fire Protection Training Area No.2 (FT -02)
Nonhwest Drainage System (SD-I0)
Southwest Drainage System (SD-09)
Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Area (RW -11)
Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-OI)
Liquid Fuels Storage Area (ST-12)
USTs at four areas (ST-05, ST-06, ST-07, ST-08).
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Williams AFB was added to the NFL on November 21, 1989. The NPL primarily serves as
an information tool for the EP A to identify sites that possibly warrant funher inveStigation
and remedial action.
As a consequence of inclusion on the NFL listing, negotiations were completed and a Federal
Facilities Agreemenf(FFA) was signed on September 21, 1990. The FFA establishes a
cooperative and participatory framework among the federal and state agency members, defines
their roles and responsibilities, and develops a process to resolve any disputes that may arise
during the study and execution phases of the IRP. In addition, the FF A prioritizes and
schedules the investigation and remedial actions at Williams AFB through the designation of
operable units that aid in managing these activities. Parties to the FFA include the USAF, the
EPA, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), and the Arizona
Department of Water Resources (ADWR).
A ROD for OU-2 was signed in December 1992. The selected remedy involves a
combination of soil vapor extraction with bioenhancement to remediate affected soils to a
depth of 25 feet, and groundwater extraction and treatment via air stripping with emission
abatement to address the contal11inated groundwater. The selected remedy will be
implemented until the chemicals of concern that present an unacceptable risk to human health
or the environment in soil (benzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene) and groundwater (benzene,
naphthalene, toluene) are reduced to concentrations below final remediation goals.
History of past waste practices, environmental investigations, enforcement activities, and
remedial actions is presented for each site within OU-l in the following sections.
KN/13&SJWP13&S.2.G4-12-94JDIO
2-6
-------
2.2.1 Landf/II (LF-D4)
2.2.1.1 Site Descrlpt/on and History
The Landfill (LF-04) is located in the southwest comer of the Base (Figure 1-1) and is
adjacent to the sewage treatment plant (Figure 2-1). During its operation from 1941 to 1976.
LF-04 received mainly domestic trash and garbage. LF-04 also received wood, metal. brush.
and construCtion debris. As with many sanitary landfills, solvents and chemicals may have
been disposed of along with the trash. Also, prior to 1973, dried sludge from the sewage
treatment plant was taken to LF-04 (ES, 1984). . Since closure of LF-04 in 1976, all newly
generated wastes have been transported off Base for disposal by a contractor (ES, 1984).
The Landfill was constructed by digging unlined trenches 15 to 20 feet deep and then filling
them with refuse to approximately 10 to 15 feet above the original ground level for a total fill
depth of 25 to 35 feeL Filling began in the southwest comer of the site and progressed to the
area east of the sewage treatment plant, followed by filling in the southeast comer of the site.
During the 19405 and 19505, material deposited at LF-04 was routinely burned (ES, 1984).
-
The top surface of LF-04 is irregular because of differential trench settlemenL There is also a
small amount of waste (brosh, metal, and wood) that is not buried.
2.2. 1.2 InvestIgations
ES, under contract to the USAF, completed Phase I of the IRP on Williams AFB in February
1984. Phase I used available written and oral information to identify and assess past disposal
and spill sites. The Phase I document identified LF..()4 as an area on Williams AFB where
past hazardous material handling and disposal facilities may have resulted in contamination
(ES, 1984). A records search evaluated infonnation such as Base maps, aeriall'hotographs,
disposal records, hazardous material inventories, spill records, and environmental documents
and permits. Also, former and present Base personnel were interViewed to detennine and
assess disposal and spill sites.
Phase I was followed by Phase II, Stage 1 field work, dming which A V installed seven
boreholes (three shallow, four deep) around the periphery of the landfill to a maximum depth
of 83.5 feet and collected and analyzed 52 soil samples. During the Phase n, Stage 2
investigation. A V installed and sampled six groundwater monitoring wells around the
periphery of the landfill. One of these wells (LA-06) was completed in the uppennost section
KN/138SIWP138S.2.04-12-94IDI0
2-7
-------
i
I
II 10M
I t:::::J
1070
c::::::J
I
I:
I
----------.4
,
I
I:
I
------------~---------
r - - -\ I
, I I
\ \ I
'8' I
\ '.4 \ :
, I
L_._._.J :
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
\
~---
."IJ
-------
of the aquifer while the remaining five were advanced to the lower section of the aquifer. No
soil samples were taken from LF-04 during the Phase n, Stage 2 investigation.
During the RI, IT installed an additional 6 wells around the periphery of the landfill. bringing
the total to 12. These wells were installed in the upper section of the aquifer to obtain
additional groundwater monitoring data hydraulically upgradient and downgradient of LF-04
and to determine groundwater characteristics. Also. ten smface soil samples were collected
from the landfill smace in December 1991 for analysis.
Monitoring well and soil boring locations are presented in Figure 2-2. This figure also details .
concentrations of smace soil samples.
2.2.1.3 Other Actions
No other action has been taken at this site.
2.2.2 Rre Protection Training Ares No.1 (FT-D3)
-
2.2.2.1 Site Description and History
There are two known areas where fire protection training activities have been conducted on
the Base (Ff-03 and Ff-02). The original fire proteCtion ttaining area (Fr-03) was believed
to be located on the northwest portion of the Base between the northwest-southeast runway
(12R). Taxiway No.5. and the northern part of the golf course (Figure 2-3). The precise
location of Ff -03 originally was uncenain because its last use was more than 30 years ago.
Its actua1location. also shown in Figure 2-3. was finally confirmed by interviews and
computer-enhanced aerial photographs (IT. 1990a).
Operations at Ff -03 are believed to have staned in the early 1940s and were concluded in
1958. The site was reportedly used for fire training in which fuel. waste oils. solvents. and
other flammable materials were burned during the training exercises (ES. 1984). Water was
applied to the ground smace before each bum to minimize the tOtal impact of the waste
application. Any residual (unburned) materials and fire extinguishing agents may have
voJati1i7ed or percolated into the ground
Although no information was available concerning the volume of wastes used and the
frequency of burns. it is believed that the number of training exercises conducted during the
ENI13&S/WPl3&S~12-94/1)10
2-8
-------
!'!
~
~ ~
i ~
., d
~ %
X ~ .
I !
. ..
~ ~
~ I
~
It
III Ii
~ ~
g g
~ !
~ ~
~
~ '
~ I
~ ~
~ ~
1!1
. III
o ,
X
~ !
ti &
~
~
j
011
B i
~ ~
~ -
, ~
..
m~~ 1\f.-5S-D.
DIELDRIN
Wl-!Utt1-1ltW
12/01 .. s ""1/1<0
12/01 t3 0/1<0
I
- - -, r - - - - -.J
I I
L -- - - - - ..- - J
t
,
':'
"
, '
/
"
'::'
"
......::/
#.~-..:/'"
. LA-OJ(D)
-=1
.----.-------
.LA-Dl(S)
LA-07(D) .
(BACKGROUND)
IIQ8IKC .LWS:II.1._. .oalt-llUtl_I!I~3
g:~&~:~ g~:: ='7;0/1<0
/
II!IWIII Lt:.S3:!II-_~_Q_rttl--lllll3 /
BERYLl h... 12/01 2. S ""1/1<0 /
DIElDIIIN 12/81.8 1'0/1<0 /
LEAD 1 U ""1/1<0 /
llNC . lDJ "'9/1<0 /
. vo,-t-" / 1IOII11IQ.U=33:!It_.OAIt_D.Ittl_-I.IILI3
(:" IIJ BERYlLIW 12/01 1.8 ""1/1<0
LA-OJ S-, I DlnDRIN 12/81 U I' /1<0
- --.:;I
LA-\;(S) -3- _.
lit - ...... M----N.
LA-
I -~.-
L-tJ----s. .----'
.LA-O'(D)
*--.. w---_.~-.__.._.- -"'--'-'-_0-
BalINO Lf-SS-Q1
B[RYLlIW
DIHDRIN
ft~~r~it£--S1..-iIS--.i~M .__.0 I~i _..=~~
DIHDRIN 12/01 4.5 1'0/1<0
0_. -..-. -.. --. -'.-. ".-. _. -_. _. -. -... -. - . -. --. _... _. -... -.. _. --'-
1IQ81/IG .U=S3:!II
BERYUI II<
DiElDRIN
n,n
12 01
12 01
D r~__- ~~:
" 1'0/1<0
BD81/fG .Ll7~3:11l_QAlt~.Itt1_UIIUS
BERYLLIW 12/01 2 ""1/1<0
DIELDRIN 12/01 18 I' /1<0
LEGEND:
. AY MONITORINO MU. lOCA T10N
AND NUIIBtR
IT MONITORINo WELL lOCA l10N
AND NUMMR
A Y SOIL BORINO LOCA T10N
(APPROXlIlA It) AND NUIIBER
IT SURr ACE SCIL SAIIPLE
LOCA T10N (APPROXlIlA It)
IIQ8JIIG.LE:-n.-JIt-..QAIt -D..WL_I!IU3
8UYLLlW 12/01 2.4 ""1/1<0
DIHDRIN 12 01 2SO ,. /I<
(S)
(b)
U
Ct
DENOltS SHALLOW BORING
DmOltS DEEP MU./IIDRINO
NONE DEltCltD
BASE BOUNDARY
lANDfILL
.tmIEi.
SAIIPLES LF-SS-08 THROUCH LF-SS-10
ARE COIIPOSIlt SAIIPLES
SCALE:
r
o
.
.
D
FIGURE 2-:-2
WILLIAMS AIR fORCE BASE
LANDFILL AREA (LF-04)
CONCENTRA TlON IN
SURF ACE SOIL SAMPLES
......
300
I
600 FEET
III INTERNATIONAl.
TF.CIINOI.OGY
CORPORATION
-------
- - - -~
I ----- ~
. ---.,----- //
H_- - - - - ,
- - I: (/
~I (/
: (/
I //
I -V'
I ~,
I //
: (/
I~
:~.
\\ - - ?r AREA INnAU.VSUSPECTED
n ' ,/: AS BEING FT-03
1'< : ----
H- 1--'- - ~ - f - - - - - - - - -
- - - i I "~
" : ".
;,1 : "'.
~.~' : ""
I I '. :
" , '. , .
I , /
" : ".,,:..
J OOLFCOURSE I ", I
. , " /,
" ',/ I
I , I
1 ----~----
1 ~------ I
......~-------~-- !
. BASE HOUSING
T~WAY NO. 8
. --~.....-..
.L--
-,...,
I , ,
II " ,/
al '... /
I '" .
I '. /
: '~<'
1 /' .
I /' '.
I . ,
I / "
I, .
I /
1/
I.
If
,/: /
/ I "
" I - - -
'... I - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - ""t,,-
- RUNWAV12R
t
LEGEND:
~FT-03
- - - BASE eouNDARV
FT -03
FIGURE 2.3
fORCE BASE
WILLIAMS1EAI~ON TRAINING
FIRE PRO
AREA NO. 1 (FToG3)
SCALE:
1
..,
I'~
--
m TlCltHOI.OCIY
CON'ORAnOll
-------
19408 were lower than in later years when training activities received more emphasis (ES,
1984).
2.2.2.2 Investigations
The Phase I document identified FI' -03 as an area at Williams AFB where previous activities
may have resulted in contamin~tion (ES, 1984). No field work was perfonned at FI'-03
dming the Phase II, Stage 1 work; however, dming the Stage 2 investigation, A V drilled 12
soil borings to a maximum depth of 40 feet and collected and analyzed 56 soil samples as .
shown in Figure 2-4. The area iniria11y investigated by A V is approximately 500 feet east of
the golf course and 1,500 feet north of Base housing. A V also installed three deep
groundwater monitoring wells (FI-01, FI-02, and FI-03) and collected nine groundwater
samples.
Because no evidence of soil or groundwater contamination was found during the Phase TI,
Stage 2 investigation of this area, historical photographs were examined and additional
inquiries were made of retired Base personnel familiar with the original use of this area.
These personnel indicated that FI'-03 was located between the northwest-southeast runway
(12R) and Taxiway No.5 (Figure 2-3). This location was confinned using computer-
enhanced aerial photographs taken during 1949, 1954, 1957, and 1979.
Analysis of aerial photographs taken in 1957 showed that Ff-03 was comprised of three bum
areas (IT, 199Oa). These areas are located north of Taxiway No.5 and west of Runway 12R.
Based on aerial photographs, in May 1989, IT installed two boreholes at FI' -03 to a
maximum depth of 150 feet and collected and analyzed 12 soil samples from the boreholes.
In addition, IT collected one water sample from each monitoring well in February 1989.
After collecting groundwater elevation data for more than 12 months, and conducting several
rounds of groundwater sampling and analysis which detected limited contamination, Wells
FI-02 and FI-03 were abandoned during 1991, and FI-Ol was converted to a piezometer for
continued groundwater level measurements. This was agreed to by all parties to the FF A.
In September 1993, three surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOC) and metals to confinn the presence or absence of contaminants
in surface soil.
KN/13&S/WP13&S.2,Q4-12-94/DIO
2-9
-------
N_' I
- - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - -.~:' ~-,----_.
I: ~=~' I: -'- /
, ~.~ "/'
, .7' '-"
,~, ,. /
,~.? "'<'
I -?- I:
'I' ,,/ "
, ~: '/ .
Y: .? :,/ ",
, , / -
, , /'
~ f-.~. , 8 ,)(
, / FI.oz(DI
n i / : FI:DI IAlWlDONEDI // : ,
I,' , , (ABANDONED) - , /
, , , I "
N~--~--~~-f------------------_:~~------------_.
I,' '_I PHABEI~8TAGE2 ...
~ FI.oI THROUGH. A .
,,' ", FI-12
, ...
!Ii : ". . . 6. FTOI.B.02101
~"Ii 'I ",
FTOI.II-OI(OI
'i : "-, TAXIWAY NO. II
, : , ,
" I " '
II' OOU'COIRE, ',' /'
1 : -,;'
, - /"
, '- ' I
I ' ,,/ I
I 8'
~-------~Ii~~now~~~~-~---- ----
l!A.- /r:- ~ JUNE 18811 II! ,
BASI! HOUSING
t
LEGEND:
IjI IT SOIL BORING LOCATION
CAPPAOXIMATE) N«) MJMBER
6. AV STAGE2 SOIL BOFING LOCAl1ON
CAPPROXIMATE)
8 AV MOIIITORING WEU. LOCATION
(APPROXIMATE) N«) NUMBER
(01 DENOTES DEEP SOIL BORING OR
MONTORING WELL
~ FTo03
SCALE:
1
,
'"
FIGURE 2-4
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
FIRE PR01ECTION TRAINING
AREA NO.1 (F1-o3)
SOIL BORINO LOCATIONS
m IHTINIA~
ft~
ccwOllAnOll
-------
2.2.2.3 Other Actions
No other actions have been performed at this site.
2.2.3 Northwest DraInage System (SO-10)
2.2.3.1 Site Description and History
The Northwest Drainage System (SD-I0) includes both the old and existing northwest
drainage ditches. The old section of SD-I0 ran southwest across what is now Base housing.
This old section of SD-I0, which was used until approximately 1954 (Figure 2-5), is now
filled.
Aerial photographs show that between February 1949 and January 1954, the existing
nonhwest drainage ditch was constructed. This existing portion of SD-IO runs parallel to K
Street and Base housing (IT, 1990b) and is located on the northwest comer of the Base. It
traverses the northernmost section of the Base within 100 feet of Base housing. It then
extends west to the golf C01D'Se. Its channel is approximately 2.100 feet long, 20 feet wide,
and 5 feet below grade.
SD-I0 receives drainage from a portion of the flight line and has been in place since 1950.
This site was investigated because spills of aircraft washing solution and shop wastes may
have washed into SD-I0 (ES. 1984).
2.2.3.2 Investigations
During the Phase I investigation, ES detennined that SD-I0 may have been contaminated by
past hazardous material handling and disposal practices (ES. 1984). During Phase II, Stage 1
(conducted in 1984). A V drilled four borings (NW-01 through -04) to a maximum depth of 2
feet using a hand auger. During the Stage 2 activities (conducted in 1986). A V drilled an
additional nine soil borings (NW-05 through -13) to a maximum depth of 40 feet and
collected and analyzed 40 soil samples. As shown in Figure 2-6. these samples were
collected in the vicinity of the existing drainage ditch.
As pan of the RI. IT installed four shallow boreholes in 1989 (OT-02-55-01 through -04) to a
depth of 31 feet and collected and analyzed 12 soil samples. These samples were located at
the inlet and outlet of both the existing and the old drainage ditch. IT also collected and
analyzed two surface soil samples from the old section of the ditch in February 1989.
XN/138S/WP13&S.2.Q4-12-94/DIO
2-10
-------
i
I
: "I
I II/
: II EXISTING NORTHWEST
- - ~ ~- - - - - - - - - _L - - - J!R!I~ £fTjlll -
I III
I
I II/
: /III
: ~"fll
: ~II
: 1/
: III
: II/
: 1/1
I ''I
I
I I
~
LEGEND:
- - - IIMEBOUNDAAY
GOLF COURSE
p
I
I
rrf
I;
FIOURE 2-5
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
NORTHWEST DRAINAOE SYSTEM
(90-10)
--~
SCALE:
1
1
-r
m--
,,-
CCWOllAftOll
t
-------
I
OOLF COU'lSE
LEGEND:
II ~~~~ LOCATION (APPROXIMATE)
. AVSTAGE 1 SOIl.IIOANB
LOCAl1ON IN'f'ROXlMATQ AND NUMBER
. AVSTAGEnOll.lIOANB
LOCAl1ON (APPROXIMATEJ AND NUMBER
- - . BASE BOt.tIDARV
~
IT AND AV SOIL BORINGS ARE 8HA1.1.OW
FIOURE 2-6
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
NORTHWEST DRAINAOE SYSTEM
(SD-10) SOIL BORINO
LOCA110NS
NW.IO
I
I
I NW-oe
SCALE:
1
1
lOG,.,
I
ID IHfUINA-
TtCtflOl.OQv
_OAAnDH
-------
In September 1993. five smface soil samples were collected and analyzed for metals to
confinn the presence or absence of contaminants at the surface soil level.
2.2.3.3 Other Actions
No additional action has been taken at this site.
2.2.4 Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Ares (RW-11)
2.2.4.1 Site Description and History
The Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Area (RW-11) covers approximately 100 square feet
and is located near the southern edge of the Base just east of LF-04 (Figure 2-7). RW-ll is
located approximately 2,000 feet south and 1,800 feet east of the Base housing. The area was
fenced with warning signs attached to the fence identifying the area as a radioactive materials
burial area (IT, 1991d) until the removal action in December 1992. After clean closure, the
fence and signs were removed.
It had been common practice until approximately 1958 for the USAF to bury dials painted
with radium-luminous paint, electron tubes containing radium-bearing pans, and possibly
other contaminated instruments or equipment. These instnrinents, which have low-level
radioactive content, are believed to have been buried in this area before 1960 (ES, 1984).
Radioactive instruments were reportedly placed in a drilled hole and then the holes were filled
with cement. There were five areas at RW-ll with buried concrete cylinders approximately 1
foot in diameter where items are suspected of being buried. No information was available in
the flIes or through interviews to confirm waste type and quantity, years wastes were buried,
or burial procedures or configurations (ES, 1984).
2.2.4.2 Investigations
During the Phase I investigation, ES identified R W -11 at Williams AFB as an area where past
disposal practices may have resulted in contamination. The radioactivity count at the surface
was reported as normal in 1984 (ES. 1984). Nine soil samples from 3D-foot borings next to
three of the five cylindrical buried concrete footings were collected and analyzed by A V in
1986 (phase n, Stage 2). These soil samples did not show levels of radioactivity significantly
above site-specific background levels.
KN/138S1WP138S~12-94JD10
2-11
-------
I
I
1
. , !
_...J II 'I I
1_. :~ :9 --'
1.- ' r-----------11..::':~~~-----_J
. 1 m-Nlv
L . 1
_,1 I I
.1 I
IJ . 1
-, I---..J
1 . ~
: '-----. \J
t
fI!I4!!!!O- -1- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - ~- r- '-
Q : I :
I :. ~ ooHAII( 1 1 1
1 a.8a . DpuT1CIDlllUULNIfA 1 1 :
IiiI p.I. 1 APPROXlIIA1I! LOCATION
10-- 1 OfIAW.1t 7 1
I ~TMeNT 1 1 I 1
1 I 1 :
I 1 1
1 :=ILLI 1 II
1 1 1
1 : : I I
L .L -- I 1
------- 1 ----------;---------- r.
....
LEGEND:
SCALE:
,
lOt
I
1000 PUT
I
FIGURE 2.7
WILJ.IAMS AIR FORCE BASE
RADIOAC11VE INSTRUMENTA110N
BURIAL AREA (RW-11)
~ RW.1t
m --
fe_V
__nON
-------
In 1989, as pan of the RI, IT installed two shallow boreholes beside the two remaining bwied
concrete footings. Six soil samples were collected &om the boreholes and a radiological
analysis was performed. A third boring was also installed 200 feet north of RW-ll and 700
feet south of Perimeter Road to collect site-specific background data.
In December 1992, subsequent to the removal of five bwied concrete footings, IT obtained
samples from the sidewalls of each of the pits associated with the footings. The samples
were taken at 3, 6, and 9 feet in depth for a total of 15 samples. In addition, a site-specific
background sample was collected approximately 200 feet south of RW -11 at a depth of 1
foot. Sample locations are shown in Figure 2-8.
2.2.4.3 Other Actions
An Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EElCA) was completed for this site in 1991 (IT,
1991d). In accordance with that EFJCA and under the authority of the USAF Radioisotope
Committee, a removal action at this site was completed in December 1992. A draft Removal
Report was issued in June 1993 (IT, 1993a).
-
2.2.5 Pesticide Bur/al Area (OP-13)
2.2.5.1 Site Descr/ptlon and History
The Pesticide Bwial Area (DP-13) is located immediately northeast of LF-04 in the southwest
corner of the Base (Figure 2-9). The site is less than 0.4 acre and is located approximately
1,500 feet south of Base housing.
Between 1968 and 1972, drums containing unused or outdated pesticides were bwied at this
site on four or five occasions and signs were erected marking the general location. The types
and quantities of pesticides bwied at DP-13 were not documented (ES, 1984).
2.2.5.2 Investigations
The Phase I document identified DP-13 as a site at Williams AFB where past disposal
practices may have resulted in contamination. A magnetometer survey was conducted by A V
in 1984 and 1985 (phase n, Stage 1) to locate the bmied drums. This survey identified ten
potential burial locations, all at depths of approximately 5 feet. . No sampling or drilling
activities were conducted at this time.
KN/13&SIWPI3&S.2.OI-12-94IDIO
2-12
-------
i
fA
i
PERIMETER ROAD
AA-02
AA-01
I
I
I
~ 20013 1
(BACKGROUND) I
I
1
:!I
RW.SS-02
BASE
BOUNDARY
r------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
1
I
LEGEND:
[jjI IT SOIL BORING LOCATION
(APPROXIMATE) AND NUMBER
& AV STAGE 2 SOIL BORING
LOCATION (APPROXIMATE) AND
NUMBER
o CONCRETE FOOTING
NOTES:
1. DISTANCES TO LANDMARKS NOT
TO SCALE
2. IT AND AV SOIL BORINGS ARE
SHALLOW
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 2-8
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
RADIOACTIVE INSTRUMENTATION
BURIAL AREA (RW-11)
SOIL BORING LOCATIONS
m INTE~l1ONAL
TECHNOLOGV
CORPORATION
-------
i
JI8ffIlD-
f!8!IO!! -
FIGURE 2-1
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
PESl1CIDE BURIAL AREA
(OP-13)
,
, , ,
L~- ----~ ~..: -_u_u_--~---_:.--=~~-----_t_-------
I lOll 1010 :rO-':":'-1 [J r------, :
1 -- a =-- ;B 0 i I 10!:
~- - nc I' " ,p.. I 'I
1 a a~ 'O.O~ ' ,
a IIIIa I IV : L_____.J'
I I!a 01017 : I' I PE811CIOIBUIUA1. AAY :
1 lOll 0 , IDP"3I I
:--.~NM ii-_i i i
I' I I
I" I
1--------_..1..1 : :
I lANDFILL I I
1 I I I
I I I
-t- -------'---------------------T---------------------r---
I I I
1
I
~----~----------'----------~-----
, . I
LEGEND:
SCALE:
i
-
,
,-
- - - BASEBOUNDARV
61_-
nCtlNOl.\)QV
CXWOMnDN
t
-------
During the 1987 (phase n. Stage 2) investigation by A V. eight shallow soil borings were
drilled near the magnetic anomalies that were identified by the magnetometer survey. One of .
these boreholes was drilled to a depth of 50 feet while the remaining seven were drilled to a
maximum depth of 20 feeL Two soil borings were also drilled outside DP-13 to establish
site-specific background and geotechnical conditions. A V collected and analyzed 36 soil
samples during the Phase n. Stage 2 investigation.
IT completed a second magnetometer sUrvey in November 1988 as pan of the RI. This
survey confirmed all of the previous magnetic anomalies found within the fenced boundaries
of DP-13. except one located at the eastern edge of the area that did not appear to be caused
by buried drums. Three additional anomalies were discovered outside the fence during the
1988 survey (IT. 199Oc). Locations and discussion of the anomalies are provided in Section
2.6 of the OU-l RI.
During the RI by IT in 1989. two soil borings (WP-B-Ol and WP-B-02) were drilled and
seven soil samples were collected and analyzed. IT also collected and analyzed 6 and 12
surface soil samples in 1989 and 1991. respectively. Additional confirmatory soil samples
were collected during the removal of the buried drums.
Locations of soil samples are presented in Figure 2-10.
2.2.5.3 Other Actions
An EFJCA was completed for this site in 1990. recommending removal of the buried drums.
In May 1991. the buried drums were excavated and removed from DP-13 and properly
disposed of by a USAF subcontractor. Following completion of the removal action. the fence
was dismantled and the signs removed.
2.2.6 Hazardous Materials Storage Are, (SS-01)
2.2.6.1 Site Description and History
The Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-Ol) is located just south of Taxiway No.6. near
Building 1090 (Figure 2-11) and is an unmarked area approximately 30 feet by 40 feet.
Paint, solvents. caustics. and other materials used for maintenance operations were stored in
this area from 1959 until it was abandoned in 1983. As a result. this area was a suspected
location for minor spillage or leakage of hazardous wastes (ES. 1984).
KN/1385/WP1385.2.Q4.12-94JDIO
2-13
-------
'"
.
,
~
.. ...
.. ...
~ s
o .
z
I ~
. 0
3 f
~
'"
, 5
d ..
~ ~
i i
8
~ i
.. d
u
. ..
m ~
CD
g g
~ Pi
3 !
~
.
.... .
: i
r .
~ ~
': CD
.. I
'" .
a &
~ ~
~ i
~ ~;
~ ~
~ !
In &
"
---------------------l /
" . PE-12
I '@:: P- I (B.tKGROUNOI
I .
. 20024 II( COON,e
NW COAN[A
r
A
e
S.. CORN(R
~
~
~
i
i
P-2~"
-~
I
~,. ..,
P-10
... .
,~, I
. COUPOSITE
20018
- +- P-13
.rJ;;;:~"'UII .
P-4
LIMITS Of GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
P-9
@-P-11
L.....J
P-12 I ~
. i
~~ ~
:I:
~
..
j
P-7
~ COAltfll'
SCALE:
~
o
---...
20
1
40 fEET
LEGEND:
ACTUAL NORH! 111.1115 or r.IOPIIYSICAI
SURlI[y AR[A
D[ SIGNA I[D U\.IIIS 01 C[OPIlYSICAl
SURII[Y AR[A
(!) CDRN[R 01 D[SICNA I[D C[OPIlYSICAl
SW CORN[R SURII[ Y AR[ A
(E]
r----,
I I
L____-,
o
.
IIA
m
A
ID
20021
NOTES:
-
P-ID -
1'-2 -
1'-1 -
\.lARKED lOCA HON 01 I'll, POSSIBl Y
CDNIAININC \.I[IAILIC DEBRIS
UNIAARK[D I'll lOCA liON
EXCAVA110N BOUNOARY (A"PRO~IIAAln
l[tiC[ UN[
CORN[R IAARK[R 01 I'll; SIAKro,
n ACCEO AND l AUII.r.O AS SHOWN
II BOR[HOl[ S'IAi'1f lOCA HON
PRE VlOUS A V ROREI 101 [5
(APPRO~IIAA I[ WCA liONS)
[XCAVAIIDN SOIL SAIAPlrS IAK[N
IAAY 7, 8, AND 9. Iq91
D
I[NC[ POS'
NO IAAGN[ IIC ANUIAAI Y Rill lit! RI IS
S IAININC.
sur.." MACN[ IIC ANfllAAl Y WI III [VlD[NC[
or OURIAl.
MACU[ IIC ANOMAI Y OU ISlor SURv[ y
OOUUDRI[S, I'll MAliK EO
AR[A SHOW!. MAr.N[IIC ANOMAllrs O[l[CI£O
IN 19B8 II SURvn
RGURE 2-10
WlLUAMS AIR FORCE BASE
PESTICIDE BURIAL AREA (DP-13)
SOIL BORING lOCATIONS
[D INn;IINA'flONAI.
n:CIINOLOGY
COUPIIIIATION
-------
I
:1
.: &l
,
I
,
I
I
,
,
I
- ---,------
I
I
-------------1
N838000 I
,
I
,
,
I
I
,
,
,
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
,
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
I
88-01
A
11
,
,
I
,
,
I
I
,
N
LEGEND:
1080 FACILITY NUMBER
SCALE:
o
I
8110 FEET
I
3211
!
FIGURE 2-11
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
STORAGE AREA (SS-01)
m INTER""TlONAl
TECtNJt.OOY
CORPORATION
-------
2.2.6.2 Invest/gatlons
The Phase I document identified SS-OI as a site at Williams AFB where past handling and
disposal practices may have resulted in contamination. No field work was performed at
SS-OI dming the Phase n. Stage 1 activity. During the Stage 2 activity, A V drilled 12 soil
borings and collected and analyzed 42 soil samples (A V. 1987). In 1991, during the RI
performed by IT, fom deep boreholes were drilled, from which 16 soil samples were collected
and analyzed.
Locations of borings am presented in Figme 2-12.
2.2.6.3 Other Actions
No other actions have been performed at this site.
2.2.7 USTs at Building 789 (ST-DS)
2.2. 7.1 Site Description and History
Dming the history of the Base, USTs have been used to store diesel, gasoline, waste oil, and
other materials. Five of these tanks were located at the former Base Motor Pool. The former
Motor Pool was located at the current cable television area approximately 1,000 feet west of
5th Street and just south of A Street. The tanks at Building 789 were assigned a current site
designation of ST-05.
ST -05 included fom 12,OOO-gallon and one 1,OOO-gallon USTs. The fom 12,OOO-gallon tanks
were used to store gasoline and diesel for the motor pool. The tanks were installed side-by-
side in an east-west line approximately 90 feet south of A Street between Building 789 in the
television satellite dish area and the Base impound yard (Facility 782). The tanks are
numbered LU-Ol-1, LU-Ol-2, LU-Ol-3. and LU-Ol-4 from west to east. The 1.000-gallon
tank, designated LU-OI-05 and located just north of LU-OI-4, was a waste oil tank that was
connected to a sump in the concrete slab at the motor pool. The locations of these abandoned
tanks are shown in Figure 2-13.
These USTs were installed in 1941 and abandoned in the early 1950s. All of these tanks
were constructed of carbon steel and their exteriors were tar-coated.
KN/13&5JWP13lS.2.Q4.12-94IDIO
2-14
-------
Ii
ii ii
l i
co! Ii
t t
g g
i .
~ ~
~ of
~
~ t
~ I
~OOH[O RUllWAY
LEGEND:
iii IT SOIL BORING LOCATION
(APPROXIMATE) AND NUMBER
AV SOIL BORING LOCATION
(APPROXIMA TE) AND NUMBER
DENOTES OEEP BORING
.
(0)
1088
FACILITY NUMBER
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
STORAGE AREA
iii HM-B-'''(D)
r-,
L-J
~HM-B-'J(D)
(BACKGROUND)
. HM-O'
(BACKGROUND)
SCALE:
r
o
......
60
I
120 FEET
fiGURE 2-12
WIlliAMS AIR fORCE BASE
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE
AREA (55-01)
SOIL BORING .LOCA TlONS
II) INTEnINATIONAI.
TFoCI NOI.OGY
CORPORATION
-------
~
'j
~ E
~ ~
d
~ i
I i
I I
~ Ii
B ~
i l
I I
IS f
t;
g ;
~ I
~ I
~ 'j
~
~ t;
~ I
~!
.. oj
I!!
.
~ t;
~ i
~ g
OItA'rloN
-------
2.2.7.2 Investigations
These tanks were not identified in 1984 during the Phase I investigation as being an area
where past handling and disposal practices may have resulted in contamination, nor were they
included in the scope of A V's investigations. As a result, no work was done at ST -05 dming
Phase I or Phase n investigations. Their possible locations were detennined from Base maps.
As pan of the RI, IT conducted a magnetometer survey of the area in 1988 to verify the
existence and locations of these tanks.
2.2.7.3 Other Actions
In 1990, during the RI, a USAF contractor, Exceltech, completed removal of these tanks. IT
perfonned oversight of the removal, collected duplicates of selected soil samples, and
analyzed the results for independent verification.
Exceltech first sampled the tank contents during November 1990. Analytical results were
used to detennine the appropriate disposal technique for those contents and to identify
constituents to analyze for in the soil samples underneath the tanks. Next, the tanks were
emptied of all liquids and tank sludge. The tanks were then excavated and inspected for
staining, cracks, or holes to determine if leakage had occurred.
'Soil sampling at the UST excavations was conducted during the removal in December 1990.
Samples were collected from the bottom and sides of the excavations. A sample was also
collected from the stockpiled soil from the excavation, and a site-specific background sample
was collected from the east side of Building 789. Sample locations are shown in Figure 2-14.
The tanks were removed and disposed of and the excavations were backfilled with uncontami-
nated soil. The excavated contaminated soil was disposed of at the Butterfield -Station
Landfill in Mobile, Arizona. In September 1991, IT installed three boreholes from which 12
additional samples were taken and analyzed to verify if constituents were still present.
2.2.8 USTs st Building 725 (ST -06)
2.2.8.1 Site Description and History
The USTs at Building 725 (ST -06) were located at the old Higley gas station, just west of
Building 725. The old Higley gas station was located on the southwest comer of B and 11 th
streets. There were two abandoned USTs at this location.
KN/138S/WPI3IS~I2-94IDI0
2-15
-------
!!!
~ -
i i
d d
z z
~ i
I !
; i
i i
~ I
01 Ii
I' S'
i i
~ I
~ !
- ..
~ \
~ t
..d
a a
~ i
I!! ..
.. ..
Q t
I I
~
~ 788
~ I I-X
, ~ *
a ~
I !
8 10041-LU-01-789-8-1
-~---)(- )(
)(
NOTES:
--- fENCE LINE
69 I -10041-LU-01-789-1-4
I -LU01-789-1-1
~STOS-OJ(O)
I 10041-LU-01-789-2-J
BOUNDARY
Of SATELLlTE\-1 h [;i~!OE!02(O)
DISH AREA -- I r:ll
I ,. -..- n- -- -- _J ~ r T-5 (LU-OI-05)
10041_LU-:"01-:"189~1118~_* ~N* LU~OI-~7;9-i-'
SroS-01(O) [.;I' ! ! - - I
I ~ ~ ~ y
LU01-789-1-2 * a a a a I
I - N ~ 1
10041-LU-01-789-1-J8,! ,! ,! to I.
,
L~\- ~J
t004t-LU-Ot-789-t-2 -~ t0041-LU-Ot-789-4-t
10041-LU-01-789-2- I
(ARCHIVED)
10041-LU-01-789-2-2 -
W01-789-S-1
182
- - - LIMITS OF TANKHOlD EXCAVATION
10041-LU-01-789-J-1
1004t-LU-01-789-D-t
BACKfilL
STOCKPILE
IJ
IT SOIL BORING LOCATION
(APPROXIMA TE) AND NUMBER
DENOTES DEEP BORING
(D)
STRUCTURE/fACILITY NUMBER
APPROXIMA TE LOCATION Of
I ABANDONED TANKS BEFORE REMOVAL
SCALE:
t"
o
---,
.20
..
IT SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (APPROXIMATE)
EXCEL~CH SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (APPROXIMATE)
I
40 FEET
fiGURE 2-14
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
fORMER MOTOR POOL BUILDING
BUILDING 789 (ST-05)
SOIL BORING/SOIL SAMPLE
~OCA TlONS
III INTERNATIONAl.
TECliNOl.oGY
COHrORA'TION
-------
A 12,OOO-gallon tank designated LU-02-716 was used to store gasoline and a I,OOO-gallon
tank, W-02-730, was believed to have contained waste oil Both were installed before 1938
and were abandoned around 1954. Tank No. LU-02-716 was located west of Building 716
and Tank No. LU-02-73O was located southwest of Building 730. These structures have
either been demolished or removed. The tanks were constrUCted of carbon steel and the
exteriors were coated with tar. The locations of these abandoned tanks are shown in Figure
2-15.
2.2.8.2 Investigations
These tanks were not identified in 1984 during the Phase I investigation as being an area
where past handJil1g and disposal practices may have resulted in contamination. Fwthennore,
they were not included in the scope of A V's investigations; therefore, no work was performed
at ST -06 during Phase I or Phase n investigations. IT conducted a magnometer survey of the
area in 1988 to verify the existence and locations of these tanks.
2.2.8.3 Other Actions
During the RI, Exceltech completed a removal action of these tanks. IT perfonned oversight
activities, collected duplicates of selected soil samples, and analyzed the results for indepen-
dent verification.
During November 1990, Exceltech sampled the tanks in which residual liquids were present
and emptied the tanks of all liquids and tank sludge. The tanks were then excavated and
inspected for staining, cracks, or holes to detennine if leakage had occurred.
Soil sampling at the UST excavations was conducted in December 1990. Samples were
collected from the bottom and sides of the excavation. The tanks were removed and disposed
of and the excavations were bacldilled with clean material. In 1990, the excavated
contaminated soil was disposed of at the Butterfield Station Landfill, Mobile, Arizona. In
. September 1991, IT installed three boreholes from which 12 samples were collected and
analyzed. The locations of the borings are also shown in Figure 2-16. Samples were
collected at locations near the tankhold which is not immediately adjacent to Building 725.
Borings were not installed at the fanner Building 725 site because there was no suspected
contamination at this site.
EN/13&S1WP13&5.2.01-12-94JD10
2-16
-------
...
I i
~ ~
I i
i !
J i
i i
! I
g ;
i I
;~
- -I
,
~ &;
I!! !
a Ii
(LU-02-716)
~ I
D oj
~
a &i
X !
~ !
~
~
a
e
, ~
a ~
I !
18' TO {"B" STREET
T-2
-
..
~,0@)~W
EDGE OF ASPHALT
(LU-02-730)
G
III
iii
'W~A
LEGEND:
- - LIMITS or GEO~HYSICAI.
SURVEY
[Z2J BUILDING
~ APPROXIMATE LOCATION
~ or rORMER SlRUCTURES
726 STRUCTURE NUMBER,(DES)
REFERS TO STRUCTURE
THA T HAS BEEN
DESTROYED /REMOVEO
i
~ APPROXIMATE LOCATION
~ or ABANDONED TANK
:fi
...
...
SCALE:
to- ~ ,....... ---... I
is ~ 0 20 40 rEET
~ m
0:
0. a
FIGURE 2-15
WIlliAMS AIR FORCE BASE
UNDERGROUND STORAGE
TANKS (51-06)
LOCATION Of ABANDONED TANKS
Il1INTEKNATIOtJA'
TECIINOl.or
CORPORAT
-------
! ~
~ ~
d d
~ i
I !
~ ~
i i
~
r;a: ,0 crNTE. -f-- - -- -- - '~~4I- T;~-'.. - ---- - - -,
: OF "B" STREET - LU02- T730-112690- 2t :
I 10041-T2~2 . ~30 I
LU02-T716-112690-2~ 10041-T2-3. (DES.):
I 10041-TI-I.. (LU-02-730)r I
10041-TI-2.' (T-I) ._--,
LU02-T716-112690-1. ~-IU '- HU02-7JO-112690-1,
L ~Sl116r2(O) ,
10----- .. --
, 716
S1V6-0J(0)~i ---------J (DES) 1(~l~)I!
I (LU-02-716)~ STaB-aI/a' I
(T-2) I' 'J
10041- 1/-J . . :
L - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - _.-J
oi .
&i t
~ ~
~ I
~ ~
~ ...
~
~ &i
I!! i
~ A
! I
ot
a &i
X i
!I 4
Ii; !1
..
LEGEND:
~
..
~
A
I!;
~
~ !
, j
STRUCTURE!F ACILITY NUMBER
(DESTROYED)
IT SOIL BORING LOCATION
(APPROXIMATIE) AND NUMBER
-- - - - LIMITS Of GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
OE!IJ APPROXIMA TIE LOCATION Of T ANKHOLD
BEFORE REMOVAL
--------- APPROXIMATIE LOCATION Of TANKHOLD
EXCA VA TlON
7r.3
(liS.)
~
.
IT SOIL SAMPLE LOCA TlON
(APPROXIMA TE)
EXCELTECH SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
(APPROXIMA TE)
,-
SCALE:
r-"
D
FIGURE 2-18
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
FORMER GAS STATION
BUILDING 725 (S1-06)
SOIL BORING/SOIL SAMPLE
LOCATIONS
---..
40
I
80 FEET
m INTEfttNATJONAI.
TEC' NOI.oGY
CORPORATION
-------
2.2.9 USTs at Building 1086 (ST-t17)
2.2.9.1 Site Description and History
USTs located at the southeast comer of Building 1086 at the intersection of Taxiway B and
Taxiway No.6 were designated ST-07. Their past locations are shown in Figure 2-17.
ST -07 consisted of two tanks, one of which had an interior wall dividing it into two
compartments. Chambers 1 and 2 compose one tank and Chamber 3 composes the other.
Both tanks were constructed of precast concrete halves joined at the centerline and sealed
with a rubber (or similar material) gasket Each tank had a volume of approximately 5,000
gallons. These tanks received wastes from the paint stripping shop (IT, 1992a).
The two sides of the double tank were connected by a pipe located near the top of the
dividing wall. The second tank was connected to the double tank by a pipe located near the
top of the tanks. There were no outlets from these tanks.
2.2.9.2 Investigations
These tanks were not identified by ES as being an area where past handling and disposal
practices may have resulted in contamination. Furthermore, ST -07 was not included in the
scope of A V' s investigations; therefore, no work was performed at ST -07 during the Phase I
or Phase n investigations.
In 1987, Tracer Research Corporation conducted an investigation that indicated the tanks at
ST -07 were leaking. As a result, Williams AFB immediately removed the tanks from service
and initiated a contract to remove all hazardous material from the tanks and to cap the line
entering the tanks.
2.2.9.3 Other Actions
Because these tanks were governed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
a RCRA Partial Closure Report (IT, 1992a) was written and approved for removal of these
tanks. Exceltech conducted the field activities for removal of these tanks. Oversight of these
activities was performed by IT. Exceltech sampled the tanks for characterization of constitu-
ents. Analytical results were used to decide the appropriate disposal technique for the
materials and to identify constituents for analysis in additional soil samples. Next, the tanks
were emptied, excavated, and inspected for potential leakage. Soil samples were collected
KNI13&S1WP13&S.2,04-1M4/DI0
2-17
-------
~
-,
~ A
n
B I
01 Ii
! i
i I NISUOO
,;
r
~ ..
: Ii
~ I
i.
~I
fiGURE 2-17
Wll.UAMS AIR FORCE BASE
BUILDINGS 1086 . 1085 ST 08)
TANK SYSTEMS (ST -07 & -
I'1:':IIINTV,NMjONAL
UJI ~i\lMaATfo~
/
100 0
P""'\....- -
100
]1
.
100
.
SCAlE.
:~
-------
from the excavation by both Exceltech and IT to identify any tank leakage and to characterize
the constituents of any contamination present
In 1987, these tanks were removed and the excavated contaminated soil was sent to a
permitted landfill for disposal. This action was documented in a RCRA Partial Cosme
Report (IT, 1992a). During December 1990, three soil samples were collected from the
ST-07 tank excavation at the center, west, and east sides at a depth of 13 feet The samples
were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), volatile organic compounds (VOC),
SVOC, cyanide, anion, and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) metals. The
excavated contaminated soil was shipped to the Butterfield Station Landfill for disposal. In
September 1991, IT installed a 4O-foot borehole northeast and adjacent to the former tank.
Soil samples were analyzed for VOCs, TPH, and TCLP metals. Because there were
detectable levels of possible contaminants, this area was moved to the OU-l for final action.
Soil sample and boring locations are shown in Figures 2-18 and 2-19, respectively.
2.2.10 USTs at Building 1085 (ST-08)
2.2. 10.1 Site Description and History
Three USTs (1085-1, 1085-4, and 1085-5) were also located at Building 1085 (ST-08). As
shown in Figure 2-17, Tank No. 1085-1 was located on the northeast side of the building;
Tanks No. 1085-4 and 1085-5 were located at the northwest comer of the building.
Tank No. 1085-1 consisted of a 280-gallon carbon steel tank mounted on a concrete saddle.
This tank received wastes consisting of used cutting oil and solvents from an accessory repair
shop (IT, 1992a).
Tanks No. 1085-4 and 1085-5 were 600-gallon precast concrete tanks that received wastes
from a metal plating shop. The tanks were connected by a pipe located near the top of the
vessels. An outlet from the tanks, located near the top of the nonhwest comer of Tank No.
1085-5, drained to the west
2.2.10.2 Investigations
These tanks were not identified by ES as being an area where past handling and disposal
practices may have resulted in contamination. Funhermore, they were not included in the
ENI138S1WP138S~1z.94/DI0
2-18
-------
40\0 ,UI-ROD STARTING DATE: 8/31/93
97350120 12/09/93 9:40am JAT &. DRAWN BY: J. TABLER
DATE LAST REV.:
DRAWN BY:
.2/9/93 DRAFT. CHCI<. BY: R. PITTS. INI11ATOR: W. ANDERSON
J. TABLER ENGR. CHCI< BY: W. ANDERSON PROJ. MGR.: W. CARTER
DWO. NO.: .~d735-A-120
PROJ. NO.: 409735
['004'-T4-e
BLDG. 1086
10041-T4-7
LEGEND:
.
*
EXCELTECH SOIL SAMPLE
IT CORPORAl'lON SOIL SAMPLE
[!]
IT CORPORAl'lON ARCHIVE
SOIL SAMPLE
EXCELTECH CONCRETE SAMPLE
A
SCALE:
- - -
------
o
30
60 FEET
FIGURE 2-18
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
SOIL SAMPLE LOCA 1l0NS FOR
TANK 1086 (ST-07)
ID INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION
-------
!;
j;
~ ~
i ~
~ ~
! ,
i
~ !
II! ..
~ U N8J8OOO
~ I .----.
f !
II! II!
&i ~
g i
i I
~ ~
~ ..
~
~ &i
i
~ 3 .
U(--
//
LEGEND:
~ IT SOIL BORING LOCATION
(APPROXIMATE) ANO NUMBER
(0)
OENOTES OEEP BORING
fACILITY NUMBER
1083
ITf] BUILOING
~$
~
SCALE:
..--
o
---..
125
I
250 FEET
~
~
,
oil
, ~
~ !!
I I
/
/
/
/
FIGURE 2-19
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
BUILDING 1086 (ST-07) AND
BUILDING 1085 (ST-08)
SOIL BORING LOCA 110NS
In INTERNATIONAl.
TECIlNOl.ocy
CORrORATION
-------
scope of A V's investigations. As a result, no characterization was performed at ST -08 dming
the Phase I or Phase n investigations.
2.2.10.3 Other Actions
Tracer Research Corporation investigated the tanks at ST-08 in 1987. Although the tests on
the tanks were inconclusive, the tanks were later removed from service.
Surface soil samples were collected from the vicinity of the tanks at Building 1085 during
March and May 1989. These samples were analyzed for TPH, benzene, toluene, ethyl
benzene, and xylene (BTEX), and selected SVOCs. The surface soil sample locations are
shown in Figures 2-20 and 2-21.
Soil samples were collected from the excavation in November and December of 1990 to
identify tank leakage and characterize constituents of any contamination presenL The tanks
were removed and disposed of and the excavations were backfilled with uncontaminated soil.
The excavated contaminated soil was shipped to the Butterfield Station Landfill for disposal.
In September 1991, IT installed one shallow and three deep soil borings and collected soil
samples for analyses. Locations of the borings are shown in Figure 2-19. Because there
, were detectable levels of contaminants below the bottom of the excavation for Tank No.
1085-1, this area was moved to OU-l for final action. There were no detectable levels of
contaminants below the bottoms of the Tank No. 1085-4 or 1085-5 excavations; therefore,
these areas have been certified for clean closure in a RCRA Partial Qosure Report (IT,
I 992a).
2.3 Highlights 0' Community Participation
A community relations plan for the Base was finalized in February 1991 (IT, 1991e). This
plan lists contacts and interested parties throughout the USAF, government, and local .
community. It 'also established communication pathways to ensure timely dissemination of
pertinent information though mailings, public announcements in the local newspaper, and
local information repositories.
The removal actions at sites RW-ll and DP-13 were described in two EFJCAs released to the
public in June 1991. These documents were made available to the public in the
Administrative Record. The notice of the availability of these documents was published in
the Arizona Republic/Phoenix Gazette on June 17, 1991, which began the 3o-day public
comment period.
XNI138SJ'\VP13&S~12-941D10
2-19
-------
409735 OUI-ROD /\ STARTING DAlI: 8/31/93
97350122 12/09/93 9:44am JAT ~ DRAWN BY: J. TABLER
DAlI LAST REV.:
DRAWN BY:
12/9/93 DRAFT. CHCK. BY: R. PITTS INITIATOR: W. ANDERSON
J. TABLER ENGR. CHCK. BY: W. ANDERSON PROJ. MGR.: W. CARlIR
DWG. NO.: 409735-A-122
PROJ. NO.: 409735
A
/ ,
/ ,
/ ,
10041-T5-7~ / >
// /
/ CACTUS /
10041-T5-8~ / GARDE~//
<8 //
, /
, /
, /
V
1085-5-3
10041-T5-3
10041-T5-5
1085-4-3
10041-T5-1
BLDG. 1085
108 -5-1
10041-T5-2
I I
1085-4-1
100'41-T5-b
TAN~ 108514 & 5
I (ST -08)
1085-1-2 I
1 041- T5-4--i
I I
1085-5-2
N
LEGEND:
8
*
EXCELTECH SOIL SAMPLE
IT CORPORATION SOIL SAMPLE
[!)
IT CORPORATION ARCHIVE
SOIL SAMPLE
EXCELTECH CONCRETE SAMPLE
6-
o
IT CORPORATION SLUDGE SAMPLE
SCALE:
- - -
---~
o
30
60 FEET
FIGURE 2- 20
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS FOR TANKS
1085-4 AND 1085-5 (5T-08)
III Dm:RNATIONAL
TECHNOLO
CORPORA!WO't
-------
40!> lIl-ROD STARTING DATE: 8/31/93
9735~123 12/09/93 9:47am JAT &. DRAWN BY: J. TABLER
DATE LAST REV.. _.2/9/93 DRAFT. CHCK. BY: R. PITTS INITIATOR: W. ANDERSON
DRAWN BY: J. TABLER ENGR. CHCK BY: W. ANDERSON PROJ. MGR.: W. CARTER
PROJ. NO.: 409735
A
/ "
/ "
/
/
/
/ / CACTUS /
/ GARDEN /
/ /
/ /
< //
" /
" /
" /
V
1085-1-280-112890-18
10041-T3-4 .
1085-1-280-112890-05 *
I!J
10041-T3-1
BLDG 1085
1085-1-280-112890-03
SOIL STOCKPILE
DWG. NO.~
J135-A-123
LEGEND:
EXCELTECH SOIL SAMPLE
IT CORPORATION SOIL SAMPLE
IT CORPORATION ARCHIVE
SOIL SAMPLE
SCALE:
r'--"""'"""""--"""
o 30
I
60 FEET
FIGURE 2- 21
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS FOR
TANK 1085-1 (ST-08)
II) INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION
-------
The OU-l RIlFS was released for public review in October 1993. This release was followed
by an announcement in the Arizona Republic/Phoenix Gazette of the issuance of an OU-l
Proposed Plan for public comment and a public meeting. The 30-day public comment period
on the Proposed Plan began November 24, 1993, and a public meeting was held December 7,
1993 in the City of Mesa, Arizona, to discuss the proposed remedial alternatives. A
resolution on groundwater at LF-04 prompted a revision of the FS and Proposed Plan, which
was finalized in January 1994. An additional 30-day public comment period on the Proposed
Plan began on January 28. 1994, and a second public meeting was held February 10, 1994 in
the city of Mesa, Arizona, to discuss the proposed remedial alternatives. All comments
received during both of the public comment periods are included in the Responsiveness
Summary (Chapter 11.0), which also includes a response prepared by the USAF.
Technical Review Committee (TRC) meetings are held every 3 months with representatives of
the USAF, regulatory agencies, and the community. The meetings provide a forum for
members of the community that serve on this committee and give them the opponunity to be
involved in decisions regarding investigation and Base cleanup activities.
-
An Administtarlve Record that contains the documents relating to investigation and cleanup
activities proposed for the Base has been established and is available for public inspection at
the Chandler Public Library, Chandler, Arizona and the Base Conversion Agency, Mesa,
Arizona. Addition infonnation is available through Williams AFB.
KN/I3&S1WP13&S.1.Q4-12-94JD10
2-20
-------
3.0 Scope and Role of Operable Unit
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at Williams AFB are complex. As a result, the
USAF has organized the work into three operable units. These are:
. OU-l: Soil and groundwater contamination at the ten sites listed in Table 1-1.
. OU-2: Groundwater and soil to a depth of 25 feet at ST-12.
. OU-3: Soil and groundwater at SD-09 and FI'-02, plus the deep soils below 25
feet at ST-12.
The principal risks to human health and the environment at OU-2 result primarily from
contamination of soil and groundwater by jet propulsion fuel grade 4 (JP-4) and its constitu-
ents (e.g., benzene, toluene), although other organic compounds have also been detected at the
sile. The ROD for OU-2 was signed in December 1992. The selected remedy involves a
combination of soil vapor extraction with bioenhancement to remediate affected soils to a
depth of 25 feet, and groundwater extraction and treatment via air stripping with emission
abatement to address the contaminated groundwater. The remedial design/remedial action
phase for OU-2 is currendy in" progress with a pilot study/demonstration study on the
treatment of contaminated groundwater. A pilot stUdy on the treatment of contaminated soils
is scheduled to begin by March 1994.
OU-I, addressed by this ROD, includes the contaminated soils and groundwater at ten sites.
Of the ten sites within OU-I, only the Landfill (LF-04) presents "an unacceptable risk to
human health and the environment. Surface soils at LF-04 are contaminated with beryllium
and the pesticide dieldrin at concentrations above remediation goals. The principal risks at
this site are dennal contact with soil, incidental ingestion of soils, and inhalation of fugitive
dust. The purpose of the remedial action selected in this ROD" is to prevent current or futUre
exposure to the contaminated surface soils at LF-04.
In addition to characterizing environmental contaminant conditions at SD-09 and ST-12, OU-3
was established to develop a comprehensive human health and ecological risk assessment for
the entire base, an" FS and ROD that will establish final remedial actions for FI' -02, and a
ROD that establishes final remedial actions for the whole of Williams AFB.
KW138&WP1385~12-&41D6
3-1
-------
Additional operable units may be identified in the future as a result of these and other
investigations. Also, because Williams AFB is closed, additional operable units may be
utilized to expedite remedial action activities in accordance with Base reuse goals.
KNI138&WP13115~1M41D6
3-2
-------
4.0 Summary 0' Site Characteristics
Chapter 4.0 provides an overview of the assessments conducted during the RI to characterize
each site within OU-l. The summary of site characteristics presents the following informa-
tion:
. Suspected sources of contamination
. Quantity, types, and concentration of hazardous substances
. Mobility, carcinogenicity, and volume of contaminalJts
. Lateral and vertical extent of contamination
. Potential smface and subsurface pathways of contaminant migration
. Current risks and potential routes of human and environmental exposure.
The suspected source of contamination at each site is identified in Sections 2.2.1.1 through
2.2.10.1 of the Decision Summary. Summary tables presented in this chapter are used to
identify contaminants and their concentrations. A general discussion of the factors that
detennine contaminant mobility is presented in Section 4.2.1, and the chemical parameters
that affect environmental transpon and persistence are listed for each contaminant in Table
4-18 of this section. -'The carcinogenicity of site contaminants is characterized in Table 5-29.
The volume of contamination is presented in this chapter for only the Landfill because it is
the only site that requires remedial action. The lateral extent of contamination is depicted on
site maps in this section and the vertical extent of contamination is described in the text by
noting the maximum depth at which contamination was detected. Potential surface and
subsurface pathways of contaminant migration for each site are discussed in Section 4.2.2.
The contaminant data presented in this section were collected over more than 9 years by two
contractors. Williams AFB was added to the NPL in November 1989, and an EFA was
signed on September 21, 1990. After July 1990, all analytical data collected were subject to
EP A validation protocol. Before August 1990, analytical data were not validated. The
signatories to the FF A agreed that both validated and nonvalidated data would be utilized in
the baseline risk assessment and considered in the decision-making process where there was
no evidence that the data were unacceptable for its intended purpose. This agreement is con-
sistent with the management principles under the NCP regarding collection of additional data
needed to develop and evaluate alternatives and to support design. Additional information on
the use .of validated and nonvalidated data in decision making can be found in the OU-l RI
(IT, 1992b) and FS reportS (IT, 1994a).
1OUI385IWPI385.4004-12-941D6
4-1
-------
4.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination
This section presents data that characterize the natore and extent of contamination for soil and
groundwater for each of the ten sites at OU-l. For all ten sites, additional infOImation on
specific samples (sample dates, detection limits, etc.) are provided in Appendix A of the FS
report. Regional background data for soil and groundwater are presented in Table ~ 1 as a
basis for comparison with the analytical results for site contaminants.
4.1.1 Landfill (LF-04) .
Analytical results for both organic and inorganic constituents in LF-04 surface soils are
presented in Table ~2. All samples were collected at a depth of 0.5 foot below land surface
(hIs). Organic compounds detected included pesticides and SVOCs. Inorganic species
detected above background concentrations are beryllium, lead, and zinc. The lateral extent of
surface soil contamination at LF-04 is shown in Figure ~ 1 by plotting the concentration data
for dieldrin, beryllium, lead, and zinc. The volume of contaminated smface soil at LF-04 is
estimated to be 59,000 cubic yanls. The volume of buried landfill wastes is undetermined.
Groundwater sampling at monitoring wells crossgradient or down gradient of the landfill
detected organic compounds such as B1EX, halogenated VOCS, and SVOCs. Ten inorganic
constituents were detected above background concentrations. The analytical results for LF-04
groundwater monitoring are presented in Table ~3.
Figure 4-2 maps the concentration data for organic and inorganic constituents detected in
groundwater at LF-04.
4.1.2 Rre Protection Training Area (FT-D3)
Results of the soil and groundwater investigation at the verified location of FI' -03 during
1986 to 1989 indicated that soil and groundwater have not been impacted above acceptable
health levels by site activities. This site therefore was not included in the risk assessment and
is considered to be a no further investigation site. Low levels of VOCs and SVOCs were
detected in soil samples. The results of the organic analyses are presented in Table 4-4. Two
metals (antimony and silver) were detected above background concentrations (Table 4-5).
Contaminants were detected to a depth of 150 feet bls.
The results of confinnatory surface soil sampling conducted in September 1993 are presented
in Table ~6. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in one sample at 0.79 milligrams per
KW138&WP13115.4.1)4.12-t41D6
4-2
-------
Table 4-1
Background Inorganic Species Concentrations
In Soil and Groundwater
Williams Air Force Base
Soil b
Base-Specific ~pecific Regional
Groundwater a Average Range Range .
Constituent (J19A.) (mgJkg) (mglkg) (mgIkg)
Antimony NAg NOc ND «12) < 1
Arsenic 1 to 44 3.3 2.3 - 4.3 2- 97
Barium 7 to 150 NA NA NA
Beryllium <0.5 to 0.7 1.2 1.0 - 1.6 1.0 - 1.5
Cadmium <1.0 ND «1) ND «1) 0.01 - 2.0 f
Chromium 17.2 - 181 h 20.3 16.9 - 24.8 15 - 100
Cobalt <3 to 3 NA NA NA
Copper <10 to 30 NO «5) d NO «5) 15 - 200
Lead <10 to 14 15.8 10.4 - 19.4 10 - 100
Mercury NA NO «0.2) NO (<0.2) 0.01 - 0.5 f
Nickel 60.8 - 914 h 20.7 15.6 - 24.7 7 - 50
Nitrate (as N) 6,000 to 26,000 i NA NA NA
Selenium 1 to 3 0.22 0.21 - 0.24 0.1 - 5
Silver NA NO (<2) NO (<2) 0.01 - 8 f
Thallium NA NO (<2) ND (<2) 0.1 - 0.8 f
Zinc <3 to 38 NO «4) d ND «4) 25 - 150
a
-
Data obtained from U.S. Geological Survey WATSTORE Data Base using wells located within 10 miles of
Williams AFB.
The average soil concentration represents the mean of 10 surface soil samples ooOec:ted at Wil6ams AFB in
September 1993. The range presents the low and high values for the 10 samples.
ND .. not detected.
The analytical results for these constituents are quafJfied as not detected because of contamination in the
method blanks.
Data obtained from surficial soils in Gila, Maricopa, Pima. Pinal, and Yuma counties.
Data obtained from Heavy Metals in Salls. B. J. Alloway, Editor; Appendix 2
NA .. not available or not used for comparison
Data from September 1993 groundwater sampling round from wells LF01-W-12. SS01-W-10, SS01-W-17.
SS01-W-26. and SS01-W-27.
.Data from Appendix E. 0U-1 FS Report
b
c
d
e
f
9
h
KN/138511385.4-1104-13-941D1
-------
Compound (mg/Kg)
Peatlclde.
4,4'-000
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
alpha-CHLORDANE
beta - BHC
Dieldrin
aamma-CHLORDANE
Semlvolatlle Oraanlc.
1,2,4 -hlchlorobenzene
1,4 - dichlorobenzene
AceneDhthene
Benzo(Alpyrene
BI8 (2 - ethylhexvl) phth alate
ChrY8ene
DJethvlphthalate
DJ-n-8utylphthalete
Pentachlorophenol
Pvrene
Metal.
Areenlc
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Sliver
Thallium
Zinc
IF-SS-01
8 8/90
.021 J
.037 J
.028J
8.2J
2.3
20.5
35.5
15.3
18.3
1.18
80.4
Table 4-2
Landfill(LF -04) Surface Solis, Organic And Inorganic Constltutents
Detected Constituents
8orhia-Locatlon
LF-SS-02 LF"'SS~03. LF,+SS+04 LF.8SSP05 IF+SS+':08':LF:+'SS:*07: LFSS8+.08/ .LF+8S+.09: LF;;:;:SS4Ur
8/90-.8/90-" ...:...8/90;;;;;..::. .8/90"':: '(8/908:::,,. ,.,\;::8/90;;;;'::;::./':"",?8/90+:::):;; ?\':.:8/90+/::::) "..'::.8/90:';;:/:::::
.014
.070
.0037
.012
.011
.0017 JP
.0021 J
I
.037 J
.035J
.038J
.039J
44J
1.88
1.8
17.1
20.7
12.8
11.7
1.78
49.1
.023
.006
.016 JP
.0045
.023J
3.4
2.8
27.8
40.4
27.2
28.9
0.218
1.58
0.298
98.2
Notes:
88/90 to present - All data collected aCter 7190 have been validated, and all the qualiflen are validation qualiflen.
J - Estlm8ted value (less than the 88m pie quantitation limit)
B - Analyte concentration Is between the Instrument Detection Limit and the Contract Detection Limit
P - Indicates 25% dlrrerence ror detected concentrations between the two 0 C columns.
.013 J
.0097
.0016 JP
.080J
.023J
.021 J
2.9J
2.5
2.9
2
21.6
37.2
17.6
19.2
17.7
28.8
17
18.8
1.48
0.238
71.4
1.78
51.1
.0044 JP
.091
.081
.008P
.041
4.2
3.8
19.4
66.9
47.4
23.3
1.88
91.2
.021
,017
.018
.031J
2.2
2
18.2
23.8
16
17.1
1.88
0.238
61.2
.013P
.083
.065
.0025 JP
.048
.034J
.200J
.022J
6.2
2.8
1.7
22.1
38
117
18.5
2.4
0.248
203
.0044 JP
.100
.052
.0019 JP
.110
.080J
.033J
6.4
2
18
23.6
20.4
16
1.78
0.358
64.5
.016
.098
.250
.097J
2.8
2.4
23.8
40.3
25
21.1
2B
0.388
79.8
WAFB\T ABI.J!\ROD'04- Z. WKJ\IjlIO-I-4J
-------
~
i i
a a
~ i
5 !
i :
~ !
III III
&; j:
~ i
j !
~ ~
~
..
"
~ -i
~ &;
I!! I
~ I!i
~
~
D
~ ~
a &;
! I
~
I
II
i
t
/
/
/
1I!IIIllI1I.Lf::JS::IIL._...Ih\lL-..IL£UI_. JllllU /
BERnll1ll 12/01 2.3 "'9/1<0 /
DlnDRIN 12/0' 0.048 m9/1<9/
VOt-w-" I
. .. J IIQBUIII.LL~IiIi::U.-.,IIAIt._.D.fUI ,...IIIIUS
LA ....,..1 ... B£RYLLIW 12/01 1,8 m9/1<9
-"...,~" / DIUORIN 12 " U
."....
:rn~~~iUf~s..-oz .h. im~.--u.DfN-' ~~:
DI£lDRIN 12/" 0.013 "'9/1<
. I
/f .,.." ("..--____..1
I' :,," I I
,of:: L -- ... .-- -. u.. -- - .J
"':'"
~/:;'"
~~
.... ,
,.......:.../
I
I
I
I
I
I !
I i
I
I
vor-~w-r3(S) !
-
I
ILA- -
LA-03(D"/f'- .
II~._._._.
~~:.;-
1111 11110
CJOIIIJ
1111
.LA-OI(S)
....:::I
. -- . -U~S) -3- -.
~.-.-tt
1IIIIUIIII.1L::JS::I!'----,IIAU.._II.fUl._. UIILU
B£RYlLIIAA -- .2/11 2 ..,/K,
DlnDRIN 12 01 0."
/ --
~---'-:9-"---
. LA-or(D)
-"--It. t.
-w
'-'--.-.- .-...-
. - . -. . - . - . - . - . - . -. - . - . - . -. . - . - . - . ... . .- . --
IDBUIII.lL::SS--'l1
BERYlll1il
DIUDAIN
D",
12 01
12/"
BDftING..LL"Jis..-oL_..llAtt....-.D. rUL_. \lIIUS
B£RYLlILU 12/0' 2.8 "'9/K9
DIUDR", 12/0' 0.0045 "'9/1<9
BORItID .Lf"S5.-.oZ..... .D~lt'_h.JI,UtL.. Jlll.l.15
BlRYL\ILtoI 12/0' 2 "'9/1<9
OlrlUAIN 12,-0' 0.0'8 m9/1<
JllllUllII,lF-Ss-
-------
. ..." ...
... ... .
. .. .... ..' .. .
." .n .. ..... .
c~~~~rid ,JaIL' ....
Semlvofatlle.
Benzoic Acid
Bls(2-ethylheKyl)phthalalll
DlethY"hthalate
DI-n-butvIDhtalate
NaDhthalene
Volallle.
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodlchloromethane
Bromoform
Carbon disulfide
Chlorofonn
Dlbromochloromethane
Ethvl Benzene
Methvlene Chloride
PCE
TCE
Toluene
Xylene (Total)
Other
TPH
Metate
Antimony
Ansenlo
Bervlllum
Bromide
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
lead
Maaanase
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Uranium
Zinc
Table 4-3
Landfill (LF -04) Groundwater - Organlo And Inorganlo Con8tltuent8
Detected Con8tltuents"
Page 1 01 2
.. LA,...01
1/8110 1190 H' 8/90 .
3J
2J
3J
t.4-8
2
3&.&J
17 000-84 00(
1.4 J
3.4 J
0.003
1100-1 900
2J-15
0.7
1.4
3.5
4
19.2 B
1.1 B
4 8-1I.8J
8.18-10B
1.38-2.88
9.88
21.500
1.68
78-7,300
1.28
21.6-158
. .:.:..:..::..;.....LA.".OZ.:. .............. ....
1/87 101190 : 8190 ...;. .
0.8
1.8-3.2
2000
900-1,000
9
11
0.24-0.27
0.3
11.000-84.000
14
0.003
20-1800
1J
0.8-1.4
0.&
1.2
22.2 J
28
12.5 8
1.1 8-5.7
0.24
21,300
1.28-28
8.4-8.48
1.18
13.18-&8.2
wen NumDer
.. .. ::<::,:::='.: LA;;;';.03::::;:::::.:.:.:.... ............ .. :...;...:.:.::::::.::LA+'04::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::;:::. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::tA",Ofl::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::;:::::
1/87.107190. .:"::::81110.:"'::.:: 1/8710 :7/90.: .::}::::,,=:8190:;;;;';:::::.:. :1/87:10.7190 :.:. .::::::::::81110)4}::::=:
3J
3J
2J
1.9-7.8
000-4000
4,000-15,000
7.98
0.003
250-1.200
2J-10
28J
1
4
8
10
18
11.78
108-11.18
18-1.2 8
5,000
28-3.8 8
5.7B-8.8 B
18.28-45&
7J
12
5J
1.4-8
1000
1.200
13
9
90
0.3
9000-84000
18
0.003
430-1&00
4J-150
380
0.5-1.4
21.3J
18
18.2
10.7 J
1.38-10.1
15.3-18J
24 400
1.5J
4.58-7.78
8.38-280
2J
1.7-2.9
1.300-1.700
8-13
80
50
20.000-91.000
1.1J
13
0.005
200-1800
2J-8J
0.8-0.9
0.5
0.8
37.78
1.48
4.3 8-8.2 J
8.88-9.1 8
1J-2.98
12.1 J
28,400
1.7J-2.88
38-5.58
1 J
WAF8lTAllJlMOI1ll-J.Yo1tJV/lO-I-tJ
1.8-423
-------
Table 4-3
landfill (IF - 04) Groundwater - Organic And Inorganic Constituents
Detected Constituents.
Paga 2 of 2
well "Umber I
. LA-OB LF-01-W"-01 LF.~01 ""W ,",08 ';';'., '.". .. ;:;,:;:'.':);: LF.;;;oO t "" 111.;;;;;08 'A:;:,:;;:;';",,;:,:.: ',LF.'-i.01';;;..W...10:::: LF,...01:,.W+.U LF-;;;O01;;;;;W.,..121
ComDound luo/U 1"1/81 '0 1/90 . 8/90 -. ~/81 '0 1/90 8/90 - 1/81 '0 1190' ""'''8190.:'"'..,, 1/81'01190",,;: :::;.:}:.8190 ':~<:::::., .:.: ':::..:.> .8190 H::":":'::'::;,.: ::::::>';::::8190.''''':::::::::':' ":::::::::' 8/80 ."'~:t:.:::::
Sem 1Y0iali1e8
Benzoic Acid
Bls(2 ethyl hexyl)phthalate 2J 3J-8J 2J-3J 7J 3J
Dlelhvbhthalate 3J 3J
DI-n-butvlphtalate 0.9J 3BJ
Naphthalene 2J
Volatiles
Acetone
Benzene 0.5 0.9-6.1 2.7 0.9
Bromodlchloromethane 0.6 0.5 0.6-1.1
Bromoform 0.6
Carbon disulfide
Chloroform 0.9 0.6 0.6-1.2
Dlbromochloromethane 0.5-0.8 0.9-1.2
Ethyl Benzene 0.7 1.2 1.6-5.8 4
Methylane chloride 1.8
PCE 1-1.2 1.2-2.5 t.7-1.9 1.5-3.3 1-t.4 2.2-4.3
TCE 0.7-0.8 0.5-0.7 1.2-1.4 1.2-2.4 0.9
Toluene 1.2 1 1.5 0.5 4.4-18 0.6-10 0.9-3.9
Xylene ITotali 2 4 1 4-18 4
Other
TPH 2000 2
Me.a"
Antimony 29.5 J 23.28 54.9 B 106
Arsenio 1.1 B 1.6B-1.9 B 2.48 1.88-17.7 1.6 B 11.3
Bervlllum IJ-1.5B 1.1 J 1 J-1,9 8 1.18-U J 1.3J
Bromide 900
Cactnlum 14 4B 2.58
Chromium 4.3J-9.2 J 10.6-1,200 60.9-6,020 48-1,100 8.1J-1.830 3.88-822 3.88-11 000
Copper 59.2 19.88-45.9 68-202 12.68-248 30 18.8-28.3 88.8
lead 4.8-12.3 5 1.68-2.18 1.18-2.48 18-UJ 1 J
Maaanese 0.1 0.09 80
Mercurv 0.22
Nickel 30 10.68-13.8 J 120-15000 121-222 230 59-244 237 158-1 098 3.23J-202 51.5-270 84.5-1080
Nitrate 17.000-81,000 8000 3.000-17.100 21 700 13.200 9.800
Selenium 1.28 1 8-2.4 8 2.78 18-2.48 IJ
Silvar 13 3.28-9.5 8 58-11.6 4.48-11.1 8.1J-13.9 1I.6J 5J-7.98 8.98
Thallium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Urenlum .002 18.78-47.5 8.88-125
Zinc UOO-2700 374-522 70 23.8-34,4 80 13.58-98.4 20.5 32.7-50 71.9
WAFBlTA8JIS1IlODII- ..MJIIjI-Z4-9I
Notes:
. - the data presented h divided Intocolleatlon tmes from 1187 to 7190 and 8(90 on to facilitate analysis of data that was not
validated (collected from 1/87 to 7/80) and data that has been valldaled (collected from 8(90 on)
. 1/87 to 7190 - All data collected In thh tme period are nonyalldated data, and all the qualifiers are laboratory qualifiers.
'8/90 to present - All data collected after 7190 have been validated. and all the qualifiers are vaRdatlon qualifiers.
J - Eltmated value (1888 than the lample quantltatlon Imlt)
B - Analyte concentretlon 18 bet_en the Instrument Detection Umlt and the Contrst Detection Umlt
P - Indicates 25'1(, difference for detected concentrations between the two 00 columns.
-------
Table 4-4
Fire Protection Training Area No.1 (FT -03) Soli - Organic Constltutents
Detected Constituents
Compound fma/ka)
Semlvolatllee
1,2- Dichlorobenzene
1,3- Dichlorobenzene
1,4- Dichlorobenzene
Bls(2- ethylhexyl) phthalate
Phenol
Volatile.
Acetone
Methvlene Chloride
Other
TPH
Borlna Number
.FT01;;;;'B+Ot FT01.;;,B,,;>02 ...... flh04<.. .. < F1 ';;;'OS{....),FtFOS\,:{r::t2JO,:;::'??fl+12(,:;:. ,),?:F.1+0ft??:,???ftfOl??'?: :::)\F1+11)}::;:
81/8710 7/90 81/87107/901/8710..7/90 81/87107/90 '1/87Io7/90.1J87Io7/9( ~1J8710.7/90 ..81187,lo7/90.~1/87 10' 7/90: .tl87.lo..7/90.
4
4
5
3
3
.120J-.370
.040J
.042J-750 J
.002BJ-.008J .008J-.009 J
.002BJ-.024B .005BJ-.026B
3
3
3-4
6
3-8
3
3
8
3-6
3-5
WAFB\TMllLBN.OD\4-4.WIOVj\ 10-1-9)
Notes:
. 1/87 to 7/90 - All data collected In thll time period are nonvalldated data, and all the qualifiers are laboratory qualifiers.
J - Estimated value (le88 than the sample quantltatlon limit)
B - Analyte concentration Is between the Instrument Detection limit and the Contract Detection LImit
P - Indloatel 25% difference for detected oonoentratlons between the two GC oolumns.
-------
Table 4-6
Fire Prolectlon Training Area No.1 (FT-03) Soli - Inorganic ConsUtuenfs
Detected ConsUtuenls
E orin a Number
:....~T~~ri:.:i.ij:!\ :.:..!;~.~~:~::.!il... ,",",.",',-.".'-,"...:.'.".".-.".".".-,"..",:.'.". :::::::.::;;:.:~-;:.:::;:::.: . .:::::->::;::.;:;:::;:.:. .n..--..',," ..' .:I:!;::::.:~li':I:fi!!;;':;. ::;::;I'J.~:I~ii;:.:.;:'.~;:
'".''''.'.".'''.''."..','.',",'',"..,".".,','.'. .;:~.:::::::~i:.I.II'!!j':.:::.:I:
':':::::::;::':::':::::;:::>::;":;:;:;:;:;:::::::" .:.:.:,:.:,:.:..:.:.:.;.:.::-:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.',:."
p' ,,,."""......."... :..::::':,i:¥.:ijij.::.:,::j.
.. r F1Woir::t
Metals (maika' ~1I81 t(f7/90' 11/87.tO>7/90) 1/8710:7/90' 11/87:to'7/90~ 11/87::10::7/90::: :1/8'7.:10".7/90 11/87:10:.:7/90:
I AnUmony 16- 61 29-46
Cadmllm 2 2
Chromium 4-23 9- 1 5
CoDDer 1 2-61 10-38
lead 6- 1 2 7- 1 4 1 1 21 1 1 1 0-20 1 0-20
Nickel 8- 1 6 1 1 -1 8
Silver 4- 1 2 3
Zinc 30-80 40-83
I! orlna Number
. u.. ..... ......... ....... ..... .... .... . . . .. '"., , , .. , " ... -. ;.~.:...::~!Ii::lil:!;::;:~.: ,',',""'.',',.'.','.'.'.','.'",',',,,,,,".',',','.',', .-,','.-,'.',','.'.".".',',','.',',',',"',',',',',','.-. :!:!j!.;::I~~.I!i::I.::::.!!:!:;:
'. . . ".....,.."",,,,, '..""" """,.',."'''''' ',',',',',','''.'''.'.'.'.',','.'....,','..','.'..,'''"
, .. ,.., ,..... ,....... ',"',',','"','.','.'. ,'.",','.',", ,..;.,','..','.. ""."....,..,....,.",.." .:::;;;;:.~i:gi:ij.:\::::\;;.: {tt:f~~!t{~~:i){::::;
,.. .. ,""" ...' ..,.....
""",...,"""'.., ,..,.,... "'.... .""""" ..'..,.
,...... ......."., ."""'" .~:~:::::j::.~j::4Nji)::::.::\:~;
".......""',,,-, ,...,.,.,.... :::;;:::::i:j:*:6t::::.:::~:::.
,.,,-- """".""- ."""".,
".,....,' '-'''''-.''''''''
i/j:j::::ftfHoe:tt" .~:~:f~:~:~;: ..~, ~~it ;,: ~;;:~:i:i:~::
Metals (mnJka) .1/87/to:::7/90}: 1/87:.10..:7/90): i.l8'Mo:,7/90/ Het:IO/7/90\ l'e7Jlo.'.7/90} ~lIe'Uo:,:7/". 1I87:,:to:7/90~
Antlmonv
Cadmium
Chromium
CODDer
Lead 1 0- 20 1 0- 1 7 1 0- 30 1 0- 22 1 0 1 2- 20 1 4 - 20
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
WAAIIT--_-'.MteIJ-J4-.
Noles:
'1/87 to 7/90 - All data collected In this Ume pertod are nonva/ldaled data, and all the qua/mers are laboratory qua/lRers.
-------
TABLE 4-6
Fir. Protection Training Area No.1 (FT -03) Surface Soil
1993 Confirmatory Sampling Data
WDDams Air Force Base
Page 1 of2
~
SiBn1* # (:) w..w.. (:) QJAL (~
amiDDUtd 11
M18rD U~ 0.38 u 0.38 0.38 U
8Is EIIhEr D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
2 D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
1.3-did du ..t-lall.. D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
1.4-dId duo ..t-1Z8l1e D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
1 .2-dIChIu ..t-1lBI1e D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
2- D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
2~ D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
4- D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
N-ntraso-dl-n-£rDtJVIBmlne D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
1"Ie~ uodI...... D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
,..., ..t-12koI.. D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
~ D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 u
2.4- ~ D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 u
O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
1.2,4-11chlaObenzene D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
lane D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
4 -chIca .....nIUI18 D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
I iaII:achIu ..t..J1Bdien8 D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
4-ch1ac-3-m D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
2- ens D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
nIadIene D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
2.4.6-11ch O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
2.4.s-I1chIaD~enaI 0.8 0.88 U 0.83 U 0.87 U
2 lane O~ 0.38 U 0.38. U 0.38 U
2 nI1rDanDlne 0.8 0.88 U 0.83 U 0.87 U
DI O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
Acera O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
2.6-dlnl1rD1Dluene O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
3 .nnraanUII18 0.8 0.88 U 0.83 U 0.87 U
aeen 0.3:1 0.38 U 0.38 u 0.38 U
2,4 din 0.8 0.88 U 0.83 U 0.87 U
4-l'1III'mhencl 0.8 0.88 U 0.83 U 0.87 U
DitIenZCfuran D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
4.5-dlnl1rD1Dluene D~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
D~ 0.018 J 0.035 J 0.022 J
4 O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
FIUaen8 O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
4-nI1rOanDII18 0.8 0.88 U 0.83 U 0.87 U
4.6-dlnhrD 2-me1h 0.8 0.88 U 0.83 U 0.87 U
N-ntn::lscd m1ne(1) O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
4 I O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U .D.38 U
H8IIaChIa'menZBn O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
Pen1aCh 0.8 0.88 U 0.83 U 0.22 BJ
Phel1lnlhrene O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
Ar'IItneene O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
Ca'bamle O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
Dj. n- O~ 0.054 ~ 0.08 BJ 0.15 BJ
ens a~ 0.38 u 0.38 U 0.026 J
Pvrene O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.042 J
O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
3-3' dichIaci:Ienzjdina O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
Benzo(a)an1lncene O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.023 J
Bis 1B18 O~ 0.052 J 0.78 0.18 BJ
O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
DI n- O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
Benzo ))nLD"8l11hene O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.038 J
Benzo C)fIuaanIhene O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
Benzo O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.02 J
Indenc 1,2,3-c.dkMene O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
DlbenzcCa.hJanttrarcene O~ 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
Benzc([]h 0.3:1 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U
WAflm'A8LI!MODlrA84-f.'fII04I1Z-'.
-------
TABLE 4-6
Fire Protection Training Area No.1 (FT -03) Surface Soil
1993 Confirmatory Sampling Data
Williams Air Force Base
Page 2 of 2
090193-01 090193-02
Sample # CONC QUAL. CONC QUAL.
ComDOund DL (maiko) (maiko)
12 11.4 W 10.9 W
Arsenic 2 0.84 J 4.3 U
Bervtlium 1 1.2 1.7
Cadmium 1 0.92 U 0.87 U
cnromium 2 16 20.3
r 5 49.7 U 24.7 U
Lead 0.6 22.6 19.4
Mercury 0.2 0.018 U 0.17 U
Nickel 8 16.8 21.1
Selenium 1 0.23 W 0.26 J
Silver 2 1.1 U 1.1 U
'Thallium 2 0.68 U 0.65 U
Zinc 4 95.1 U 72.2 U
WAPB\TABL.ESIROD'.TAB4-6.WJa1jI12-8-93
Notes:
U - IDdicates the parameter was not deleded.
J - &limated wlue (1ess than the aample quantitation limit)
B - Ana1yte coac:entration is betWeen the Instrument Deteclion Limitand the Contract Deteclion Limit
-------
kilogram (mg/kg), which is below acceptable health levels. Other organic compounds
detected were at estimated concentrations below the contract required detection limit
Beryllium was the only inorganic constituent detected above background concentrations. The
recent sampling results confirm that the isolated deteetions of antimony in early 1989 were
analytical anomalies.
The results of groundwater monitoring at FT-03 show that four organics (acetone, carbon
disulfide, methylene chloride, and toluene) and three inorganics (cadmium, lead and zinc)
were detected at levels either equal to or below acceptable health levels. No other specific
compounds were detected. Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and TPH were detected just at their .
respective detection limits in two samples.
4.1.3 Northwest Drainage System (50-10)
Analytical results for both organic and inorganic compounds in SD-I0 soils are presented in
Table 4-7. VOCS and SVOCs were detected in samples collected from soil borings during
the period 1984 to 1989. Four inorganic constituents were detected above background
concentrations. Contaminants were detected to a depth of 40 feet bls.
The results of confirmatory surface soil sampling conducted in September 1993 are presented
in Table 4-8. Beryllium, cadmium, and zinc were detected above background concentrations.
Groundwater was not monitored at SD-IO because there was no indication or evidence of a
pathway to groundwater from suspect soils.
4.1.4 Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Area (RW-11)
Analytical results of all constituents detected-in RW-ll soils during 1986 through 1989 are
summarized in Table 4-9. No organic compounds were detected at RW-l1. Three samples
slightly exceed the background activity for radium-226 at depths of 19.5 and 29.5 feet All
soils fell within the background range for uranium and radium-228. Some of the analyses for
gross alpha and gross beta activities also slightly exceeded site-specific background concen-
trations.
Confirmatory samples collected in December 1992 indicate_that the radionuclide activity level
in soil immediately adjacent to the concrete footings is consistent with the levels of the
background sample collected approximately 200 feet south of RW -11. Radium activities are
consiStent with background activities in U.S. soils. Uranium values for the removal samples
KN/1311fwWP1385.4AI4-1UW6
4-3
-------
Compound fma/ka'
l5emivol8t 88
1.3 Dlc orobenzene
Benzolb Fluorene
Benzo(1 anthracene
8Is(2-e flVlhe
ButvlbenZVIDha/8te
Chrvsene
DI-n-octvbhthalate
Fluorenthene
Phenol
Phenols (totall
PVrene
Volatiles
1 12.2- Tetrachlorethane
Acetone
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
C ,Iorotoluene
EK
ethvlene Chloride
;1;;
~E
Toluene
I Other
Oil/Grease
TOX
TPH
Metals
Anl/monv
ArsenIC
Bervlllum
Cedmlum
Chromium Totlll
Copper
Leed
MercuN
Nickel
Silver
Zino
Table 4-7
Northwest Drainage System (SD-10) Soll- Inorganic And Organic ConsUtutents
Detected Constituents
Page 1 of 2
ejilna Wumtier
I Surtace Soli SamDI. SO-to. ..:. : NW-ot ::...NW~J!Ji :.NW~03:r':' ::.:,NW+04'.:':I::.:{:NW+'~):{::: :}::::;:.NW+08:::{{: :':::}:'::NWi"'U7.::/:.:::':.::
. t/87 to 7/90 . tl87 to 7/90 1/87 to 7/90 t/87t02L!!2. fI8710 7/90 Itl87..to 7190:::::1/87 10.7190:: ::::1/87 Ic)":7190::::: :;:::::1/87.107190:.::
ate
.320
.110
I
.00018
.160
.7 1.6
.170
.025-.053
2
.016
.018-.027 .003-.006 3-4 4
2 2
.
.320 110 60 180
.001 1 1
2-5 200
26
3
0.55-1.3 0.42-1.1 0.52-1.2
1
11 13-28 11-32 17-23
12-17 18-40 18-510 21-95
11-17 67 10-410 t9-29 21-38 9-22 8-33 t 1-18
14-15 11-24 8-'8 9-18
1.2-1.9 1.4-4.1 1.3
44-53 38-11) 43-440 42-84
WAP8\TAIILBSIROD\4-e.WX,,,IIO-I-tJ
-------
Table 4-7
Northwest Drainage System (80-10) Soll- Inorganic And Organic Constltutents
Detected Constituents
Page 20f 2
Bortna umbe,
Compound (ma/ka) .::.>.NW~.OB.::::: .,NW"'09..< ,:.. NW~.10:,:.. ::.. NW""U):,:mv.+t2',\ ~1i;.~i~~~Hi8':t:_~~;7 ~~: .~,~f8~-
'1/87107190 1187 107190 1187107190 11187107190 11187 10.7190
Semivolailles
1 3 Dichlorobenzene .024
Benzo(e] anthracene
Benzolbl Fluorene
81s12-e ate 2.8 2.6-3.6 5-9.5 2.9-4.9 .530-12
Butvlben ZVlPhalate I .063J
Chrvaene
[J -n-ocMmthalate .13QJ
F uoranthene
p I1enol .37W-.82O .33(U-.82O .092J-.63QJ
Phenols (Total)
pyrene
VolaUles
1 1.2.2- TellllChlorethane .001
Acetone .004J:".00IU .oo.u-.OOSJ .003.1-.006 .004J-.OO6J
Cnlorooenzene 8
Chloroform 2 2 .001 1-2
Chlorotoluene 24
MEK
MethYlene Chloride 2 3 3 .020-.035 .020-.024 .0ISh022 .016-.017
PCE 1
TeE .001
Toluene .00IJ-.cmJ .001J
[)the,
OIIIOre888
TOX
TPH 3
Me' 118
ntlmonv 28-34 14-18
raenlo 2-3 5 4
Elervlllum 0.62-1.8 0.37-1.1 0.25-1.3 0.5-1.3 0.48-1.2
Cadmium 1.3 1.5
:.tIromlum. Totel 17-42 9-21 6.3-34 9.9-28 9,3-31 12-14 10-13 9-12 5-18
~per 19-71 20-8) 28-94 14-47 26-81 10-12 9-14 8-14 8-16
alld 12-39 12-20 8-18 8-18 8-54 3-10 2-11 6-9 8-15
'JIelCulV 0.2
Nickel 13-34 7-24 5-24 10-22 6-24 12 "-14 11 10-20
Sillier 1-1.1 1-2.1 I 1.6 1.3-1.8 0.9-1.1
Zinc 47-170 35-95 31-75 38-70 58-100 39-42 45-82 27-45 27-69
WAlBITAlUlSlRODII-"WIO\IIIO-I-.J
Notes:
. 1/87 to 7/90 - All data collected In this time period 81e norrvllidatad data, MelIII the qualifiers are leboratory qualifierS.
J - Estimated value (less than the semple quantltatlon limit)
B - Anelyte concentration Is between the Inatrument Detection Umlt end the Contract Detection Umlt
P - Indicates 25% difference for detected concentrations between the two OC columns.
1PH - Total Petroleum Hydroc8lbons
MEK - Methylethy! ketone. (2-butanone)
-------
TABLE 4-8
Northwest Drainage System. (SD -1 0) Surface Soil
1993 Confirmatory Sampling Data
Williams Air Force Base
Sample # 090293- 01 090293- 02 090293-03 090293-04 090903-05
CONC PUAL CONC QUAL CONC QUAL CONC QUAL CONC QUAL
Comcound DL (mo/ko\ (m. (. (molko\ (mo/ko\
AntlmonV 12 n.5 U 12 U. 3.8 U 11.9 U 1f U
Arsenic 2 3.1 4.5 4.1 4.1 3.6
Bervlllum 1 0.96 B 1.8 1.9 U 1.8 0.88 U
Cadmium 1 2.2 0.96 U 1.1 0.95 U 0.88 U
Chromium 2 21.9 28.6 31.4 28.2 22.5
Copper 5 44.6 33.1 38.9 30.4 28.6
Lead 0.6 70.8 30.1 34 32.3 23.8
Mercurv 0.2 0.17 U 0.21 0.27 0.19 U 0.17
Nickel 8 24.4 35 29.1 32.5 24.2
Selenium 1 0.23 U 0.24 U 0.39 B 0.25 U 0.44 U
Silver 2 1.1 U 1.2 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 1.1 U
Thallium 2 0.68 U 0.73 U 0.83 U 0.74 U 0.44 U
Zinc 4 218 129 134 114 171
WAf'B\ROD\TABLB~T AB4-8.W~.vIZ-8-93
Notes:
U - Indi:ated the parameter was not detected.
J - Estimated value (less than the sample quantltatlon limit)
B - Analyte concentration Is between the Instrwnent Detection Limit and the Concract Detection Unit.
-------
Table 4-9
Radioactive Instrumental Burial Area (RW-11) Soils - Organic Constituents
Detected Constituents
0.4- .09
0.6-1.3
0.9-1.4
WAFB\TABLES\ROD\4-7.WKJIJj\Z-24-94
Notes:
. 1/87 b 7/90 - All data collected In this time period are ronvalidated data, and all the qualifiers a-e labora1ory qualifiers.
J - Estimated value (less than the sample quantitatlon limit)
B - Analyte concentration Is betvYeen the Instrument Detection Umlt and the Contract Detection Umlt
P - Indicates 25% difference for detected concen1ratlons betvYeen the t\\O GC columns.
-------
are somewhat elevated relative to previous RIlFS samples; however, they are intemally
consistent and agree within the uncertainty of the measurements. The uranium activities in
the removal samples are within the possible ranges of background activities in U.S. soils,
particularly where manium minerals are presenL
Groundwater was not monitOred at RW -11 because there was no indication or evidence of a
pathway to groundwater from suspect soils.
4.1.5 Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
Analytical results of all organic and inorganic compounds detected in DP-13 soils are
summarized in Table 4-10. Acetone, methylene chloride, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were
detected in samples from soil borings at the site. Pesticides were detected in surface soil
samples but not in the deeper soils. Antimony was the only inorganic constituent detected
above background concentrations. Contaminants were detected to a depth of 30 feet bIs.
Groundwater was not sampled at this site because there is no indication or evidence that the
suspected contaminants could migrate to groundwater.
4.1.6 Hazardous Materials Storage Area (S$-01)
Analytical results of all organic and inorganic compounds detected in SS-01 soils are
summarized in Table 4-11. Various VOCS and SVOCs were detected in soils. Beryllium and
copper were the only metals detected above background concentrations. The areal extent of
beryllium detected at SS-Ol is shown in Figure 4-3. Contaminants were detected to a depth
of 80 feet bls.
No groundwater samples were collected from this site because there is no indication or
evidence that the suspected contaminants could be transported to groundwater.
4.1.7 USTs at Building 789 (ST-05)
Analytical results of all organic compounds detected in ST -05 soils are summarized in Table
4-12. Toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes were detected in the three samples collected from
the tankhold excavation in December 1990. Results from subsequent September 1991 borings
indicate that ethyl benzene and xylenes were detected to 31 feet bls. Soil samples were
analyzed for TCLP lead, but lead was not detected.
KN1'1385IWPI385.~12-841D6
4-4
-------
Table 4-10
Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13) Soll- Organic And Inorganic Constltutents
Detected Constltutentsa
Page 1 of 2
Borlna Number/Saml ,. Looatlon
. < 20000,::;"".. . OfH . ):::'20002(\/:: ,'\I2000a;:{/' . H'H4H .H. :::/i200t.2//) , ?\\WPH8.+':01\?
, }\'..200":},.,,.. :'::'::2000. .(:t,} /Y\WP::4.B+.02'/)),j" :\=:::?,Pi;;Ot::/:?r
Compound Ima/ka' tl/87 to 7/90 1/87 tef7/90: 1187. to 7/90 1187 to 7/90 1/87 to 7/90 1/8710:7/90' ;::::'1/81.. to:'1190: :;:;:{}1/87: 10"'7/90(:):: ::::.1/8710:7/90:":::
Pe.tlclde.
4,4'-DDE .014J .017J .018
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin 019J .016J
Oamma- BHCIUndanel
Semlvolatll..
BenzolbHluoranthene .079J
BI.,2 - ethylheJCYI) phth alate .038J .760 14-38 .980-65
Chrv.ene .039J
DI-n - butylphthalate .140J
Fluoranthene .043J
Phenol .610 .590
Pvrene .045J
Volatll..
Acetone .018 .017 013 .027 .003J .004J .003J-.007J .002J-.012
Bromodlohloromethane
MEK .002J
Methylene Chloride .022 .026 015 .021 .016 .006 .020-.027 .007-.008
Toluene .002J-.003J
Xvlene. (Total)
Other
TOX 11B
Metal.
Antimony 22-52 20
Ar.enlo 2-3 4
Beryllium 1
Chromium 14-18 5-16
Copper 26-34 19-83
lead 9-22 8-11
Nickel 11-16 8-21
Zinc 61-72 42-83
WAPB\T ABLl!SlROD\4-" WKJ19- 28-9)
-------
, . ,
. '
Table 4-10
Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13) Soil - Organic Constltutents
Detected Constitutentsa
Page 2 of 2
. 'f.
Borlna Number/Sarril IleLocatlon
20015 .: 20016.. . 20020..." '~:03~.::":i:O~~;:::::.:.;~:~~i:Oo,:~::..;:;.:
:., ".'.:. -. l{.:(:}
Comoound (ma/ka} c 8/90 - 8/90 -..< 8/90 -. .,.:.,/;.,.,:..
Pesticides
4,4'-DOE
4,4'-ODT .024
Dieldrin .520 I
Gamma-BHCCLlndane1 .019
Semlvolatlles
BenzoCb)fluoranthene
Blsl2- ethvlhexvlrDhthalate
Chrvsene
DI-n-butvlphthalate
Fluoranthene
Phenol .082J
Pvrene
Volatiles
Acetone .180 .006J .006J .006J .009J .007J
Bromodlchloromethane .039
MEK
Methylene Chloride
Toluene .006
Xvlenes O'otal\ .002J
Other
TOX
Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Bervlllum
Chromium
CODDer
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
WAFBlTAllLBMODl4-8.WK3I9-Zl-'3
Notes:
. - the data presented Is divided Into collection times from 1/87 to 7/90 and 8190 on to facilitate analysis of data that was not
validated (collected from 1/87 to 7/90) and data that has been validated (collected from 8190 on)
b 1/87 to 7/90 - All data collected In this time period are nonvalldated data, and all the qualmers are laboratory qualifiers.
"8/90 to present - All data collected after 7190 have been validated, and 811 the qualmers are validation qualifiers.
J - Estimated value (less than the sample quantllatlon lImIt)
B - Analyte concentration Is between the Instrument Detection Limit and the Contract Detection Limit
P - Indicates 25% difference for detected concentrations between the twO GC colunns.
TPH - Totsl Petroleum Hydrocarbons
MEK - Methyl ethyl ketone, (2-butanone)
. I
-------
ComDOund (mo/ko)
Semlvolatlles
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene
1,3 - Dichlorobenzene
1.4-Dlchlorobenzene
Dlethvlphthalate
DI-n-Butvlphthalate
Volatiles
Acetone
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzen8
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
XYlenes
Other
TPH
Metals
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercurv
Nickel
Sliver
Zinc
\ . .
Table 4-11
Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-01) Soils - Inorganic And Organic Constltutents
Detected Constituents.
Page 1 of 2
7
6
5
Borlno Number/samPle LDcation
. '..:.HMfi03.i.:,HM¥04?\. ??HM:7-.05..'.). HM. .:06l\??tHM,#-07::'k...;:..:?H. M~_~.:O
1/87.10'7/90 1/8740.7/90::11/87:to::1l90: 1/81:to}.:,. 1/87,:(0;:7/90::: 1/87:tO~ ~
10 10
HM' 01"':.".".HM '''02
.". . ". . .~. :~:;:}:.(:{:;::.- .,~ . ..; ."
D1/87.t0719C11/81to7/90.,
2
2-8
3
2 2 2 2-4
4
3-5 3 3 12
0.35-1.1 0.68-0.96 0.63-1.4 0.74-1.1 0.73-1.1 0.74-1.4 0.97-1.6 1.74-0.74 0.62-0.84
0.6 0.7 0.9
7.4-11 12-22 11-23 15-40 11-23 15-24 20-88 12-24 12-15
12-49 12-43 13-85 19-34 21-47 21-51 17-380 14-39 22-42
7-24 11-20 11-23 12-24 10-21 11-22 16-26 12-23 10-17
7-25 15-22 13-30 15-27 14-21 16-27 18-29 15-28 15-20
1.9 1.4 0.9-1.8 1.1-2.6 0.99-1.8 0.9-2 1.1-2.4 1.1-2.6 1.1-1.9
31-1(JO 42-7.2 47-88 46-84 44-100 53-110 54-150 36-85 45-62
WAPB\TABLBMOD\4- to.wxnt.tO- t-.
. ..
. j
. .
-------
, . ,
~'
Table 4-11
Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-01) Solis - Inorganic And Organic Constltutents
Detected Constltuentsl .
Page 2 of 2
Boring Number/SamPle, Gcatlon
HM;.;.10.; : HM~11 HM~..12,:::::,:,) ',HMFB+13/. HM"" .".. HM~B;i.:1$" HMi+B¥1.6.
: +B+:14::'
Comoound (ma/ka) 1/87: to ,7/90 1/8],'to'7/90, 1/8l:to::7/90~>} ):.8/90;;::F.;:'{\:;};;{ 8/90 ;.+.::)):.": BI90ii,;i;i;\:;::O:::::::::::{ 1I/90';~;:(\':;)r:
Semlwlatlles
1 2-Dlchbrobenzene 4
1,3-Dlchbrobenzene 3
1 4-Dlchbrobenzene 3
DlethylphthaJate .025J-.049J .036J-.049J
DI- n -Butylphthalate .0023J .02OJ .02OJ-.023J
Volatiles
Acek)ne .002J-.009J .006J- .009J
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform 4 3
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride 3 3 14-21
Toluene 2
Xylenes 3
Other
TPH 400 260
Metals
Arsenic 2.2-6 2.8-3.9 3.1-4.7 2.7-3.4
Beryllium 0.84-1.3 0.7-1.4 0.54-2.1 0.86J-1.5 0.81J-1.5 1.1J-1.6 1.4-1.9
Cadlum 0.6-0.7 0.7 0.6-0.8 0.63J
Chromium 16-20 14-21 13-26 12.7-24.5 16.5-27.8 22-25.1 23.1-32.7
Copper 16-64 16-38 12-38 21.1-25.5
Lead 16-19 13-24 11 -32 21-22.3 15.3-28.6
Mercury 0.17 0.17
Nickel 19-24 15-26 13-36 11.8-22.1 12.5-19 10.9-17.7 11.9-17.5
Sliver 1.2-2.2 1.3 1-1.8 1.6J
Zinc 46-91 40-77 38-110 72.4J 45.5J 60.1-67.1
WAJIB\TABLES\R0D\4-IO.WKJU~IO-I-9)
Notes:
I - tbe dltl pranled II divided 11110 colieciio. lima from '/87107/90 ud 8190 011 10 flCllitlte nllysll of dill 11111 Wlillol
Yilldiled (collecled from 1/87107190) nd dill 11111 1111 lien Yilldiled (collecled from 8/90 011)
.. 1/87107/90 - All dl" collecled I. Ibll lime period Ire lIollYllldlled dlll,nd 1IIIIIe qullflen 8fe liborilory qUillflen.
"8/90 10 prelelll - All dill collecled dler 7190 hive lien valldlled,nd IlIlhe qullfien 8fe VllldllloD qulillen.
J - Eilimiled nlue (Ial Ibllille IImple qUDtlllllo.llml!)
B - ADIlyee .0DceatfitloD II belwen lbe lalr.lleIIl Deleelloll Llmll Illd lbe COlllrl.1 Dele.1101I Limit
P - Ildiellea 25-. dlaereaee for deleeled eODCel1r11101l1 belweell Ibe IWO OC columlli.
TPH - Tolll Pelrolnm Hydroclrbolll
MEK - Melhyl ethyl telolle, (2-hlnolle)
.f.
. I
-------
\(j
"j
~ ~
~ ~
~ i
~ ~
. ~L-..DAJL-..2J.[[1
B[RYLlIl.'I '0/88 I.,
8 r[(r---2LU(L-..iL!W-JUlUS
0.84 0.7J 0.87 rno/kO
Df~
1001
'0 rni-;o-m,
1.4 I. 3
aHU--.IU[[~
I . , I. rno kO
. IBOII[RUtOLYLL 1!iJU:OL--.DAlL-Z.8 .££tL-e..tUL_iD..£tU --WUS
- 0/8 1.4 0.7J 0.8J rno/kO
(/ ~. =fII~LLII.'I 2____-1~0 81{8-2_HU8 -1_tUI._u.2I..UtI_-.1IIIUS
. ~ -- 0/ 0.0 0.80 0.88 ""I/kO
<~. BfIIHrifu'N=OL--.o H ~1~I-~i~-...2I¥.H-JlIIY.:
~i
~ of
~ &;
I!! I
a g
~ ~
~ !
c oj
o &;
X I
~ i
~
. .
1/
1..--4.£UL..U_UtL-lJLlill_.JUtU-.....IIIIUS
'0 01 0.88 0.8'-- j;J 1.2 ""I/k8
Bmrn~13
BEAY LI
tWo L-1U.£,tL.-.,2 4D..lill___U.J:[(L._U..rur --UIlUS
0/8' . 1., 0.88 I., rno/kO
II ~~~l
78 r[n
0.82
II rUL_.UIUlS
0.87 "'O/kO
LEGEND:
iii IT SOIL BORING LOCATION
(APPROXIMA TE)
AV SOIL BORING LOCATION
(APPROXIMA TE)
SCALE:
r
o
........
60
I
120 FEET
BBOIWtW.[RYLL I~l_-.-~o 8r81.._LlUr_J..ruL__IL[tU... -..JlUtI -.-.UIIUS
- 0/ I., 0.48 o.J' 0.8 rno/kO
10M
FACILITY NUMBER
NONE DETECTED
FIGURE 4-3
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE
AREA (SS-01)
SELECTED CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATION MAP
¥ :
ii ~
I I
u
r-l
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
STORAGE AREA
m INTP.RNATJONAI.
n:CIINOI.oGY
CORPOIIA'rJON
-------
Table 4-12
Underground Storage Tanks (ST -05) Soils - Organic Constitutents
Detected Constituents
ComDound (maIko)
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes
HBFH
... '" .. -'''''' ... .
.', . ',",",..'"' .
. . ,",", ,',,' ....."', ',",',' ,','
ri~!i~g\'!f.g';'
>:::::.~ 8/90:;+'::;::::/(::::
4.890-10.100
1.950-4.830
63.300-73.700
510-530
Borlna Number SamDle Location
~1~:~1~' rill fli1i Iii m\1,j
H 8/90. H.: ,::, "'.:::\:'::'8/90::;+':::;:.::)..:::::::8/90:;+.(:t);;:\8/90\4\?f: .t:\8/90:'f4:;:;i:=:.:
.005 .008 12.1 49.2
.027
.021
35
.025
16
43.4
1.660
299
980
W AFB\TAILES\ROD\4-10.WK3\1j\10- '-93
Notel:
'8190 to prelent - All data collected aher 7190 ha~ been wlidaled, and all the qualinen are wlidation qualificn.
J - Eltimated value (Ien than the ,ample quantitallon limit)
B - Analrte concentration II between the Inltruftnt Detection Limit and the Contract Delcction Limit
P - Indicatel 2S'JI. dlrrerena: lor deteclcd concentration, between the IWO OC columnl.
HSFH - High Boiling Fuel Hydroc:arbonl
-------
Groundwater at this site was not monitored because there was no indication or evidence of a
pathway to groundwater from the suspect soils.
4.1.8 USTs at Building 725 (ST -06)
Analytical results of all organic compounds deteeted in ST -()6 soils are summarized in Table
4-13. Ethyl benzene and xylene were detected in one sample at 11 feet bls. Soil samples
collected in November 1990 and September 1991 were analyzed for TCLP lead Lead was
not detected in any analysis. Figure 4-4 shows the locations of soil borings and soil sample
locations at the old Higley gas station.
GroUndwater at this site was not monitared because there was no indication or evidence of a
pathway to groundwater from the suspect soils.
4.1.9 USTs at Building 1086 (ST-D7)
Analytical results of all organic compounds detected during the 1990 and 1991 sampling
events are summarized in Table 4-14. Results of the 1990 sampling efforts indicate that
methylene chloride and TPH were detected in the samples. Methylene chloride was also
detected in the associated method blank. The areal extent of methylene cbloride and TPH
contamination is presented in Figure 4-5. Soil samples collected during 1990 and 1991 were
analyzed for TCLP metals. No contaminants were detected in TCLP extracts above RCRA
regulatory limits. Contaminants were detected to a depth of 41 feet bIs.
Groundwater at this site was not monitored because there was no indication or evidence of a
pathway to groundwater from the suspect soils.
4.1.10 USTs at Building 1085 (8r-08)
Analytical results of all organic compounds detected during the 1989, 1990, and 1991 .
sampling events are summarized in Table 4-15. Soil sampling locations are shown in Figures
4-6 and 4-7.
The results of 1989 soil sampling detected TPH, xylenes, benzoic acid, and benzyl alcohol in
one sample.
The results of the soil samples collected in 1990 detected TPH, xylenes and 4-methylphenol
at the Tank No. 1085-1 excavation. A sample collected from beneath the center of the
concrete pad at Tank No. 1085-1, within 1 foot bls near the sump, contained various
1CM385IWPI385.4.04-1M41D6
4-5
-------
Table 4-13
Underground Storage Tanks (ST -06) Soils - Organic Constitutents
Detected Constituents
Notes:
88/90 to present - All data collected after 7190 have been validated, and all the qualifiers are validation qualifiers.
J - Estimated value (less than the sample quantitation limit)
B - Analyte ooncentration is between the Instrument Detection Limit and the Contract Detection Limit
P - Indicates 25% difference for detected concentrations between the two GC oolumns.
HBFH - High Boiling Fuel Hydrocarbons
WAFB\TABlES\ROD\4-11.WK3/1V10-1-93
-------
.
I
~ ~
~ ~
d g
i i
S ~
"- "
~ I
i i
~ ~
"- "-
&; t
~ g
i I
~
~ ~
>-
~ of
~ t
'" !
C1 D
~ i
~ ~
~ '"
D $'
~ i
~ i
~
~
J
,II
~
t:
IJ
;
[I;. T~ -i£"'.-' B - -- -- '~~;;~;2~ ,-.. - m-I
: OF "a" S1REET. LU02 - T7 30-112690- 2 //' - :
I 10041-12-2.' '/ "130
I 10041-TI-18 (LU-02-730),. I
10041-TI-28 (T-I) '___,,
LU02- T716-112690-It. ,. HU02-730-112690-1,
rJ5T06-02(0) I
~r n___- . '-'" I
I 716
5T06-0J(0) : ',(DES.) . ~ '
II l (lU-':02:716):1jI 5T06-01/0' (DES.) 'I
(T-2) \' "
10041-11-3 n I
L__- - ._-.. - ---- - - .--- n n n -- ~.. --- - n ""-" _..~- n n ..:. J
LEGEND:'
--'--"'-' "'-', r
____un_un -----~----~ ,_J
" / '- / <.. />.. " ,/ , , >< 1
,~v'. .y. . ')0. 726, .~< /,.J< .
X I ,< .>( :< ',"
STRUCTURE/F ACllI1Y NUMaER
(DESTROYED)
IT SOIL aORING LOCATION
(APPROXIMATE) AND NUMaER
--. - .. -- LIMITS OF GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
08IJ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TANK HOLD
BEfORE REMOVAL
--------- APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TANKHOLD
EXCAVATION
7r.3
(IIU)
IjI
.
IT SOIL SAMPLE LOCA liON
(APPROXIMA TE)
EXCEL TECH SOIL SAMPLE lOCATION
(APPROXIMA 1E)
SCALE:
r"
o
--..
40
I
80 FEET
FIGURE 4- 4
WILLIAMS AIR fORCE BASE
fORMER GAS STATION
BUILDING 725 (ST-06)
SOIL BORING/SOIL SAMPLE
LOCATIONS
ID INTJO:nNATIONAI.
TECI HOI.oCY
coRPORATION
-------
Table 4-14
Underground Storage Tanks (ST -07) Soils - Organic Constitutents
Detected Constituents
Boring Number/Sample Location
.":j~t~~~'~~~:t7:t\...'.. .:...:1'~~fW~r'1~:~'I!!i:!~:!!I ::.:::::/. ::.' Eaf tofT ,,:". 1('::::::::::::.:,=:;::.. i::~::!llreW~~5i~I~:i::':
::':'::::'.1:666.~E~6'if.itia.~!'(j'!i:i:!::"
Compound (maIko) :::~: 8/90:£,:=:;:/::::: ... ....." /.......... ..." ':':::::"""':::':::":::8/90:"":'::'::::':::"':-::.::::.::,:,::':'::::::,. ':"::::':":::::':'::':"'8/90::'::':':::':'::"':::::,.::,:,:,:.':-.
.' ::or:,:::.:;:::::: 8 90:9::~::;:::~:tr:~{::)} :::.::::~:::.:~:::::::::::::{::.::::. ~:::~:::::::::;:;::.{::~::::~:::::;:;::::. :::t~:::::::;::::::::::::. :~:~:::::::::':~~::.::;~:::::::.
Methylene Chloride .01 2B .01 3B ,01 B .007J - .037
TPH 30- 1.1 30
W APB\TABLES\ROD\4 -12.WK3\1J\IO-3-93
Notes:
'8/90 to presenl - All da.. collec:ted aCler 7/90 have been validated, and all the qualifiers are valldaUon qualifiers.
J - Estimated value (le88 Chan the sample q uanlilation limit)
B - Analyte concntratlon is between the Instrument Detection limit and the Contract Detecllon Limit
P - Indicates 2S% difference for detected concentrations between the two OC columns.
TPII - Tolal Petroleum Hydrocarbons
MEK - Metbyl ethyl btoDe, (2-butanone)
-------
~
F.i
t ~
~ ~
iJ iJ
~ ,
~ ! ;:w SAU~r 10 -
i: ~
f ~
II! II!
~ &i
~ ~ ~O 1085-B-
i I ~085-B-02 Ot~':
{ 1$11" !W.I~[ 1085-03 WnT WAll IIle3J[
~ I
~ ..
~ &i
~ I
~ if
: !
c 01
o &i
II _110 1085-B-0' ~J[
ti A ::THYWf[ QilQRl)[ o. ..
-------
Table 4-15
Underground Storage Tanks (ST -08) Solis - Organic Compounds
Detected Constituents
ComDound mall...
SemlYolatlle Omanlca
4"":MiIth\IDhenol
Benzo c Acid
Benzo 18 anthracene
Benm [8 DYrene
Benm b fluoranthene
Benzo k fluoranthene
Benzv' Alcohol
Bls'2-ethvlhe
Chrveene
DlethvlDhtheiate
DI-n-6UiViDhtheiate
uorenthene
'henenthrene
'\Irene
\Cetone
Vo .ilTe OralUllCB
MethYlene Chloride
PCE
XYlene.
Other
'!'PH
~~, !~~~';;~~*~f
"8/90 -., .. 8190':';;;;;:.:': '... ". 8/90:..
'~~'ffj~}I~..'~~PA~'~!~~~!~
15
U.I
ate
.680
.370
.430
.570
.530
.700
.650
.31~
3.8
.052.1
.035.1
.082.1
.065.1
.047.1
1.3
t.3
1.2
.OHB-.a:
1.3.1
.ooSJ-.018
.008- .018
.140
.0178- .35CRI
.003J-1.2J
2.2
.01:11-.0178
.1348
.006J
.003J- .01:11
.005.1
.058
.013
.011
2
70
25
35-848
34-40
38-41
9-23
2_400
~900
5800
"Af I\TABWlIloD\4 - U.WXI1lj\IO-I-tI
Notes:
"8/fJJ to prosent - All data collected after 7/90 hlMl been velldated, end all the qualifiers are validation qualifiers.
.I - Estimated value (less then the sM1ple quentltatlon limit)
B - An~te conc::entratlon Is betMen the Inatrument Detection Um" end the Contract Detection Um"
P - Indicates 25% difference for detected concentrations betMen the two GC columns.
-------
409735 OU1 ROD
97350128 08/31/93 9:54am STC
STARliNG DATE: 8/31/93
ORAWN BY: S. CARDWELL
DATE LAST REV.:
ORAWN BY:
DRAfT. CHCI<. BY: R. PITTS INITIATOR: W. ANDERSON
ENGR. CHCK BY: W. ANDERSON PROJ. MOR.: W. CARTER
DWO. NO.: 409735-A-128
PROJ. NO.: 409735.30.22.001
A
/ ,
/ ;t;:-1085-1-280-112890-1B
/ .
:/ > .
/ .. 10041-T3-8
// CACTUS / '"
/ GARDEN /.
/ / "
/ / "'"
< // "-
, /
, /
, /
V
N
LEGEND:
10041-T3-3
10041-13-4 .
1085-1-280-112890-05 *
(!I
EXCELTECH SOIL SAMPLE
IT CORPORATION SOIL SAMPLE
/
IT CORPORATION ARCHIVE
SOIL SAMPLE
10041-13-1
SLDG 1085
SCALE:
- - -
------
o
30
60 FEET
SOIL STOCKPILE
FIGURE 4-6
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS FOR
TANK 1085-1 (ST-08)
[[J ¥miIWo'ffi8VAL
CORPORATION
-------
40!l.
STARTING OAT£: 8/31/93
DRAWN BY: S. CARDWELL
JUI ROO
97350129 08/31/93 9: 460m STC
DA TE LAST REV.:
DRAWN BY:
A
/ "
/ "
/ "
10041-T5-7~ / >,
/ /
/ .
/ CACTUS /
10041-T5-8 ~ '/ GARDEN //
"Y. . /
<. //
" /
" /
" /
V
DRAFT. CHCK. BY: R. PITTS INITIATOR: W. ANDERSON
ENGR. CHCK BY: W. ANDERSON PROJ. MGR.: W. CARTER
10041- T5-5
1085-4-3
10041- T5-1
108 -5-1
10641- T5-2
, ,
1085-4-1
I I
10041-T5-6
I I
TANK 1085"74 & 5
1 (ST -08)
108S- -2 I
10041-TS!..4--!
, I
108S-S-2
BLDG. 1085
DWG. NO.: ""tt735-"-\29'
PROJ. NO.: 409735.30.22.00\
LEGEND:
.
*
EXCELTECH SOIL SAMPLE
IT CORPORATION SOIL SAMPLE
I!I
IT CORPORATION ARCHIVE
SOIL SAMPLE
EXCELTECH CONCRETE SAMPLE
fj.
o
IT CORPORATION SLUDGE SAMPLE
SCALE:
- - -
-------
o
30
60 FEET
FIGURE 4- 7
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS FOR TANKS
1085-4 AND 1085-5 (5T-08)
iii INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION
-------
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). These constituents were not detected in any other
sample and indicate an area of very loc~li7ed contamination. Samples taken under the south,
north, and west ends of the pad at Tank No. 1085-1 contained bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and
benzyl alcohoL Methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene (PeE), bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and
TPH were detected in the vicinity of the Tank No. 1085-5 excavation.
The analytical results of the samples taken in 1991 reveal the following. Samples taken from
borings at Tank No. 1085-01 detected four VOCS and one SVOC. Contaminants were
detected at a maximum depth of 81 feet bls. Samples taken from the boring at Tank No.
1085-04 had detected levels of two VOCS and three SVOCs. Contaminants were detected
down to 41 feet bls. The lateral extent of contamination is shown in Figure 4-5.
Detected inorganic constituents are presented in Table 4-16. Antimony was the only metal in
surface soil samples collected during 1989 that was detected above regional background
levels.
Soil samples were also collected and analyzed for TCLP parameters from the tankhold during
1990 and the later 1991 boring investigation. These data are presented in Table 4-17. No
sample exceeded RCRA regulatory levels.
Groundwater at this site was not monitored because there was no indication or evidence of a
pathway to groundwater from the suspect soils.
4.2 Contaminant Fate and Transport
Contaminant fate and transport was addressed in the OU-l RI report, Chapter 5.0.
synopsis is presented in the following sections.
A brief
4.2.1 Contaminant Persistence in the Environment
Chemical persistence in environmental media is determined by the chemical's ability to move
through a medium, to transfer from one medium to another, and to transfonn or degrade.
These detenninants are in turn controlled by the characteristics of the chemicals (i.e.,
solubility, Henry's law constant, and affinity for organic and inorganic surfaces) and of the
environmental medium (i.e., mineralogy, organic carbon content and porosity of the soil, and
temperature and salinity of groundwater). The migration and decay potential for various
compounds found in the soil/groundwater system is discussed in the following paragraphs.
1CW138&WP1385~I2-841D6
4-6
-------
Table 4-16
Underground Storage Tanks (ST -08) Soils - Inorganic Constitutents
Detected Constituents 8
ComDound (mo/ko\
Antlmonv
Cadmium
Chromium
CODDer
Cvanlde
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Sample Location/Borlno Number
.::.:;::.i;l!i1!.::.!::f~:~.~,:.iipA~{:.:!:::'.:::':6:~~~~'~i:~i.;it::~~:~iliV!i:~!I!!:I~~I:~r::.:!ij!..illlj::.il;~~a11:1::11::::!:j:!:!::'::
)::.f::,~1I81.' to?7/S0j;.;:.: ,':"'..""':<::::';,:f:',:::,';':::;::!(O/sO\4.::r::,:\:.U::)}':',:}rttt:\:::(::::{::i@:::9JSo:')4.%{?)}/::~
15-31
2
18-41
13-21
2.6
0.82-1.1
10-30
10-30
32-85
WAFB\TABLES\ROD\4-14.WK3\1j\IO-I-93
Notes:
. - the data presented Is divided Into collection times from 1/87 to 7/90 and 8/90 on to facilitate analysis of data that was not
validated (collected 'rom 1/87 to 7/90) and data that has been validated (collected from 8/90 on)
b 1/87 to 7/90 - All data collected In this time period are nonvalldated data, and all the qualifiers are laboratory qualifiers.
'8/90 to present - All data collected after 7/90 have been validated, and all the qualifiers are validation qualifiers.
J - Estimated value (less than the sample quantltatlon limit)
B - Analyte concentration Is between the Instrument Detection limit and the Contract Detection Limit
P - Indicates 2.5% difference for detected concentrations between the two GC columns.
TPH - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
MEK - Methyl ethyl ketone, (2-butanone)
-------
Table 4-17
Underground Storage Tanks (ST -08) Soils - TCLP Inorganic Constituents
Detected Constituents
ComDound (ma/U
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
lead
Bottom 0' Ta.nk',
1085 EXcavation,
'8/90-' ,<, '
1
SamDle locationlBorino Number
",',~b~~~~l:J~r;~:i:ii:: :li~ij\ii~T~~ll~M~I!,:::.:r.1~~~~~ii'~n~~,ii
8/90",- ',', ' '.'.," " ""'.:...:;;)., 8/S0:¥.{.:.:'::::::'()ttft\:tnr' B/90::g:\:\.:::'t':':)):::t.';),){:(::,
1.2 I 0.6 0.8
0.13
0.18
0.03
Samole location/8 oring Number
-....... ......'''' iii;!.::::i:61~:~'~I!II:'!lilii!ii..:I.il!!ii\:l i;.i';:li:!'\il:I:~::I.II;I!I!I.6~:;[:::::\'ii:il\;: :!;!:\.li';I~!I[~~~:Aa\.::ii\i!l;\:!
'.'.'.'.",","...' ',.',',". ,"',' ",
... ..."'.,',',,",",",',".,",','.",",',','.',...",'.,, "
" ,"' '...,",", .. ..... .... n.. ............ .
. .........' ...... ".... ..... -,-...
. . . .. ..... .. ......... . "",,,,,, .
. .... .tti~5':''''''d'''''''':'04'''''':': .
.' ... '"
"'1 OSS' B' 01 ' .. .,.. .-..-. ..u....
.::./:.. .' . )+. :.*=.,. .', ~:,,:, ...... ..... .."'"
,,:.::;.' .','. . "."~-")~:"'.'."";:::\:::{:::
Co mDound (ma/U Bl90" " " ' " " 8/90::,4:/::::::':::::::'//}:'/::::::'/)/. R/90:;;:,.::::::::::.:::::::::)/:t:r?)::::::))t:=:. !!L90:::g:,'J:t::::::t::t:::::::::r::::,(t:::t::rr 8/9b:;:;:;:::.::r:::::::::}'..:,',::;:,:::::::::
~: .. , .. " .. , .. ....... ' ...
Barium 0.325 - 1 . 1 7 0.339 - 0.506 O. 1 84 - 0.91 8 0.49-1.12 0.4 - 0.8
Cadmium 0.0056 0.0036B 0.28 - 0.89
Chromium 0.0054B 0.01 1 - 0.0671 0.22 - 1 .3
lead 0.1 038 .
W APB\TABLES\ROD\4-IS,WK3'llJ\lO-I-93
Notes:
'8{90 to present - All data collected after 7fX) have been validated, and all the qualifiers are validation qualifiers.
J - &timated value (less than the sample quantitation limit)
B - Analyle concenlration is between the Instrument Detection Limit and the Contract Detection Umit
P - Indicates 25% difference for detected concentrations between the tWO OCcolumns.
TPH - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons'
MEK - Methyl ethyl ketone, (2- but anon e)
-------
Chemicals in soil may migrate to groundwater via water infiltration, dispersion, and diffusion.
Migration of chemicals from soil to groundwater is generally reduced by high organic content
in the soil, lower temperatures, and lower organic content and higher salinity in the soil-water
compartmenL The fraction of a chemical present in the soil-groundwater and soil-air
compartments is generally more mobile than the fraction adsorbed to soil. Many chemicals,
both organic and inorganic, tend to adsorb more readily in top soil than at depth because the
organic carbon content is generally lower in deep soils.
Volatile organic chemicals in the soil, especially in the soil-air compartment or in the soil
near the smface, can migrate via diffusion through soil-air pore spaces to the ground surface,
where they are ttansported by wind. Migration of chemicals from soil to air is controlled by
the volatility and mobility of the chemical. Chemicals with high volatility but low mobility,
because of high soil adsmption, will not migrate significantly to air. Similarly, chemicals
with high mobility but low volatility will not partition significantly to air. The volatility of a
compound may be inferred from its Henry's law constant (H). As H increases, the volatility
of a compound increases. The capacity for an organic chemical to adsorb in soils may be
inferred from its organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc). A high ~ indicates a high
adsmption potential. The H, ~, ~w (a measure of the chemicals affinity for organic
solvents versus water), and water solubility for chemicals found in the soil and groundwater
at aU-l are listed in Table 4-18.
Chemicals in the environment may decay through chemically or biologically mediated
processes. The primary chemical decay processes in the. soil-groundwater system are
hydrolysis and oxidation/reduction. Vapor-phase chemicals may degrade by photolysis and
photochemical oxidation. Organic chemicals in soil and groundwater may also be degraded
by aerobic and/or anaerobic bacteria. This degradation is affected by nutrient levels,
temperature, chemical concentration, and the density of degrading organisms. The following
discussion attempts to describe the persistence and behavior of target classes of compounds
via these processes. A detailed discussion of contaminant fate and transport at aU-l is
provided in the aU-l RIlFS reports.
KW138&WP\385.4004-1M41D6
4-7
-------
Table 4-18
Chemical Parameters Affecting Environmental Transport and Persistence
Williams Air Force Base
Log KOW8 K 8 H8 Water Solublllty8
Compound (unltless) (unld8SS) (atm-m3/mol) (mg/L)
Acetone -0.24 0.28 397 x 10.5 Infinitely Soluble
Benzene 2.13 65 5.43 x 10.3 1,780
Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 3.98 62,000 2.50 x 10.7 0.4
Bromodlchloromethane 1.44 120 1.22 x 10.3 9,000
Chloroform 1.97 44 3.75 x 10.3 8,220
Dieldrin 3.50 1700 4.58 x 10.7 0.195
4,4'-DDT 6.19 243,000 5.1)(10'" 5 )( 10.3
DI-n-butylphthalate 4.9b 160; 6,400b 5.3 x 10.11b 13b
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene 3.38 1,160 1.88 x 10.3 156
1,3-Dlchlorobenzene 3.60 1,920 3.55 x 10.3 123
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene 3.39 1,180 1.58 x 10.3 87
Ethyl benzene 3.15 682 7.90 x 10.3 152
Methylene chloride 1.25 8.8 2.57 x 10.3 13,200
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 0.29 0.94 4.35 x 10.5 353,000
Phenol 1.46 14,135 7.00 x 10-7 84,000
Pyrene 4.88 38,000 5.04 x 10.8 0.13
T etrachlorethene 3.14c 665c 2.27 x 10.2C 1500
I
Toluene 2.73 2.59 6.61 x 10.3 515
Xylenes 3.16b 58b 2.90 X 10.1b Nearly Insoluble
sUnless otherwise noted, all data are from ORNL, 1989.
bFrom NLM, 1991,
cFrom Arthur D. Little, 1985.
2851WPI285.418112.03.931D1
-------
I -
4.2.2 Site-Specific Applicability
4.2.2.1 Landfill (LF-D4)
A simplistic transpOtt model was construCted to provide an estimate of contamination
infilttation to the groundwater at LF-04. This model was developed initially for ST-12 at
which benzene is a primary contamin~ Although benzene is not a contaminant at LF-04,
the model provides indications of length of time for a contammal)t to migrate to the aquifer
and levels of contaminattt once it reaches groundwater. Details of the calculations are found
in Appendix F of the OU-l FS repone
Contaminant transpOrt was first modeled by calculating the time period required for water to
migrate from the ground surface to the water table, assuming saturated flow. Groundwater
contaminant concentrations due to transpon from soils were then ca1cu1ated using the
Summers et al. model (1980).
Based on a venical flow to the water table at 200 feet below grade and a hydraulic gradient
of 1 vertical foot per horizontal foot, the time required for water to complete the flow path is
66.5 years. Based on modeling usmg benzene as previously noted, it was determined that the
concentration of this chemical in groundwater would be three to four orders of magnitude less
than the concentration in surface soil. The ratio of ~ for dieldrin and benzene (1700/65)
shows that dieldrin partitions more strongly toward the soil and its rate of migration to
groundwater would be much slower than benzene. Also, the solubility of dieldrin in water is
approximately 4 orders of magnitude less than benzene. Therefore, the migration of dieldrin
from surface soils to groundwater is not a practical concern.
Beryllium concentrations in site groundwater were also modeled using the Summers et al.
equations. Assuming a beryllium concentration in soil of 2.8 mglkg, the model prediCts
levels of beryllium in the groundwater from 0.3 to 3.46 micrograms per liter (JJ.g/L).
4.2.2.2 Fire Protect/on Training Area 1 (FT -03)
FT -03 does not require fate and transpott analysis due to the absence of chemicals of
potential concern that pose risk to human health and the environment and/or that are present
above risk-based levels requiring remedial action. The contaminants detected at this site are
also generally immobile in soils.
K/'t'138!WWP1385..~I~
4-8
-------
. ----
4.2.2.3 Northwest Drainage System (SD-10)
SD-I0 does not require fare and transport analysis due to the absence of chemicals of
potential concern that pose risk to human health and the environment and/or that are present
above risk-based levels requiring remedial action. The contaminants detected at this site are
also generally immobile in soils.
4.2.2.4 Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Area (RW-11)
Fate and transport analysis is not required for RW-ll due to the lack of radiological constitu-
ents present above background levels or that pose risk to human health or the environmenL
Potential contaminants have also been removed.
4.2.2.5 Pesticide Burial Area (OP-13)
Fate and transport analysis is not required for DP-13 because the contaminants that pose risk
to human health and the environment at this site have been removed.
4.2.2.6 Hazardous Materials Storage Area (ss-tJ1)
SS-OI does not wammt fate and transport analysis due to the absence of chemicals of
potential concern that pose risk to human health and the environment and/or that are present
above risk-based levels requiring remediation. The contaminants deteCted at this site are also
generally immobile in soils.
4.2.2.7 USTs at Building 789 (ST-05)
Fate and transport analysis are not required for ST -05 dQe to the absence of chemicals of
potential concern that pose risk to human health and the environment and/or that are present
above risk-based levels requiring remediation.
4.2.2.8 USTs at Building 725 (ST -06)
Fate and transport analysis are not required for ST -06 due to the absence of chemicals of
potential concern that pose risk to human health and the environment and/or that are present
above risk-based levels requiring remediation.
4.2.2.9 USTs at Building 1086 (ST-07)
Fate and transport analysis is not required for ST -07 due to the lack of driving force to
ttanspon the chemicals of potential concern to groundwater. There was a removal action at
this site. The concenttation levels of contaminants not removed are too low to migrate to
groundwater and too deep for the completion of a pathway to receptors.
KNf138&WP138U04.1M41D6
4-9
-------
.4.2.2.10 USTs at Building 1085 (ST-08)
Fare and transpOrt analysis is not required for ST -08 due to the lack of driving force to
transport the chemicals of potential concern to groundwater. There was a removal action at
this site. The concentration levels of contaminants not removed are too low to migrate to
groundwater and too deep for the completion of a pathway to receptors.
1CNI138fw'WP1385.4.()4.12-941D6
4-10
-------
5.0 Summary of Potential Site Risks
5.1 Chemicals of Potential Concern
The risk assessment identified the chemicals of potential concern at aU-I. This identification
process included summarizing the analytical data for aU-l and evaluating the data according
to EPA guidelines for CERCLA risk assessments (EPA, 1989a). Chemicals of potential
concern were selected from the list of all detected constituents based on the following criteria:
. Frequency of detection - if chemicals were detected at greater than 5 percent
frequency
. Comparison to method blanks - if sample concentrations exceeded laboratory
blank concentrations by 10 times for common laboratory contaminants and 5
times for all other analytes
.
Comparison to background - if the range of concentrations from aU-l samples
exceeded background values.
This evaluation. and ~lection process is discussed in greater detail in the aU-l RI report,
Section 6.2. All organic chemicals and metals selected as chemicals of potential concern
were carried forward through the risk assessment calculations.
The following sections present chemicals of potential concern by site for soils and groundwa-
ter.
5.1.1 Chemicals of Potential Concern for Soils
5.1.1.1 Landfill (LF-D4)
Chemicals detected in soil samples from LF-04 are listed in Table 5-1. The following
chemicals were not selected as chemicals of potential concern for the reasons indicated:
. Acenaphthene was detected in less than 5 percent of the surface soil samples.
. Arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene, chromium, chrysene, copper, lead, nickel, pyrene, and
selenium were each detected at concentrations within the range of background
for the area.
The remaining 17 chemicals listed in Table 5-1 are the chemicals of potential concern for
surface soil in LF-04.
KNl13851WP1385.5104-12-941D5
5-1
-------
Table 5.1
Analytical Data Summary
landfill (LF-04) Surface Solis
WIlliams Air Force Base
(Page 1 of 2)
Value or Range of Value or Range of Range of Upper 95%
Analyte Frequency of Detection Limits Detected Concentrations Backgroundb ConoentratlonC
Detectlon8 . (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg)
Organlce
01.2.4-Trlchlorobenzene 1/10 0.33-3.5 0.037 NA 0.679
°1,4-Dlchlorobenzene 2/10 0.33-3.5 0.035-0.08 NA 0.673
°4,4'-DDD 4/10 0.0035-0.014 0.0037-0.013 NA 0.0072
°4,4'-DDE 9/10 0.0035-0.014 0.0021-0.1 NA 0.064
°4,4'-DDT 8/10 0.0035-0.014 0.008-0.098 NA 0.087
Acenaphthene 1/20 0.33-3.5 0.038 NA 0.554
. Alpha-chlordane 1/10 0.0018-0.0072 0.0017 NA 0.0025
Benzo(B)pyrene 1/10 0.35-3.5 0.034 0.0048-0.9 0.68
'Beta-BHC 4/10 0.0018-0.0072 0.0016-0.008 NA 0.0041
°Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 9/10 0.35-3.5 0.021-0.2 NA 0.813
Chrysene 1/10 0.35-3.5 0.022 0.078-0.64 0.68
°DI-n-butyl phthalate 2/10 0.35-3.5 0.026..0.033 NA 0.67
'Dieldrln 8/10 0.0035-0.014 0.0045-0.25 NA 0.105
'Dlethyl phthalate 1/10 0.35-3.5 0.037 NA 0.88
'Gamma-chlordane 1/10 0.0018-0.0072 0.0016 NA 0.0025
. 3851WP1385.5-1\04-13-94ID2
-------
Table 5.1
(Page 2 of 2)
Value or Range 01 Value or Range of Range 01 Upper 95%
Analyte Frequency of Detection Limits Detected Concentrations Backgroundb ConcentratlonO
Detectlon8 (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg)
Organics (Continued) I
.Pentachlorophenol 1/10 0.85-8.5 0.31 NA 1.666
pyrene 1/10 0.35-3.5 0.044 0.099.147 0.681
Inorganlcs
Arsenic 10/10 2.0 1.8-6.4 2-97 5.2
.Beryllium 10/10 1.0 1.8-3.8 1.0.1.5 2.8
.Cadmlum 1/10 0.83-1.0 1.7 NA 0.84
Chromium 10/10 2.0 17-28 15-100 23
Copper 10/10 5.0 21-57 15-200 42
Lead 10/10 0.6 13.117 10-100 54
Nickel 10/10 8.0 12-29 7-50 22
Selenium 1/10 0.2-1.0 0.21 <0.1-0.8 0.14
.Thall/um 6/10 0.2-2.0 0.23-0.36 NA 0.285
.Zlnc 10/10 4.0 49.203 25.150 116
.Chemlcal 01 potential concern.
NA-not available or not used for comparison.
8xly where x - number 01 times detected ~nd y - number of samples analyzed.
bpAH background In agricultural and urban surface solis In the U.S. and other countries, ATSDR. 1989. Metals background from Boerngen and Shacklette,
1981.
°IT, 1992b . calculations Include nondetects at half the contract-required detection limit.
KNl13S5IWP1385.5.1\04.13-941D2
-------
5.1.1.2 Rre Protection Training Area (FT-03)
Soil samples taken at verified site locations associated with Ff -03 disclosed no potentially
hazardous contaminants at concentrations that would cause concern. Therefore, this site was
not addressed in the risk assessmenL
5.1.1.3 Northwest Drainage System (50.10)
Chemicals detected in soil samples from SD-IO are listed in Table 5-2. The following
chemicals were not selected as chemicals of potential concern for the reasons indicated:
. 1.1.1,2-Tetrachloroetbane, 1.3-dichlombenzene. benzo(a)anthracene. and
trichloroethene were each detected in 5 percent or less of the soil samples.
. Arsenic, chromium. copper. lead, mercury, nickel. and zinc were each detected
within the range of background for the area.
The remaining 10 chemicals listed in Table 5-2 are the chemicals of potential concern for soil
in SD-I0.
5.1.1.4 Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Area (RW-11)
Radioactive chemicals detected at RW-Il were not considered chemicals of potential concern
because their concentrations were within background concentrations for Arizona surface soils
(Myrick, et al.. 1983). As listed in Table 5-3. radium-226. radium-228. and total manium
were each detected within background levels for the area. Neither gross alpha nor gross beta
were considered as chemicals of potential concern because these. analyses are not specific to
any particular radionuclide.
5.1.1.5 Pestlcide Burial Area (DP-13)
Chemicals detected in soil samples from DP-13 are listed in Table 5-4. The following
chemicals were not selected as chemicals of potential concern for the reasons indicated:
. 4.4' -dichlorodiphenyldichlomethylene (DDE), 4.4' -dichlomdiphenyltrichlom-
ethane (DDT), 2-butanone, bromodichlommethane. benzo(b )fluoranthene.
chrysene, di-n-butyl phthalate, dieldrin, gamma-beta-hexachlombenzene (BHC),
pyrene. and xylenes were each detected in 5 percent or less of the soil samples.
. Arsenic. beryllium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were each detected
at concentrations within the range of background for the area.
KNl138!NiP1385.5104-13-841D5
5-2
-------
a 5-2
Analytical Data Summary
Northwest Drainage System (SD-10) Solis
WIlliams Air Force Base
(Page 1 of 2)
Value or Range of Value or Range of Range of Upper 95%
Frequency of Detection lImhs Detected Concentrations Backgroundb ConcentratlonC
Analyte Detectlon8 (mgJkg) I (mgJkg) (mgJkg) (mgJkg)
Organics
1,1,1,2- Tetrachloroethane 1/50 0.005-1.0 1.0 NA 0.44
1,3-Dlchlorobenzene 1/122 0.001-1.0 24.0 NA 0.906
* Acetone 14/14 0.01 0.003-0.053 NA 0.018
Benzo(a)anthracene 1n3 0.001-0.73 0.11 NA 0.071
*Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 12/14 0.34-0.73 0.53-12.0 NA 5.69
DI-n-octylphthalate 1/50 0.02-0.73 0.13 NA 0.11
Butylbenzyl phthalate 1/50 0.003-0.73 0.063 NA 0.13
Chlorobenzene 1/86 0.005-1.0 6.0 NA 0.62
*Chloroform 10/50 0.005-1.0 0.001-2.0 NA 0.74
Chlorotoluene 1/36 2.0 24.0 NA 2.9
Chrysene 1/50 0.001-0.73 0.18 0.078-0.64 0.1
*Methylene chloride 25/50 0.005-1.0 .003-4.0 NA 1.36
Fluoranthene 1/49 0.003-0.73 0.16 NA 0.13
*Phenol 9/50 0.001-0.73 0.092-0.62 NA 0.171
Tetrachloroethane 1/50 0.005-1.0 1.0 NA 0.44
*Toluene 4/50 0.005-2.0 0.001-0.002 NA 0.85
KNl13851WP 1385.5.2I04-13-941D2
-------
Table 5..2
(Page 2 of 2)
Value or Range of Value or Range of Range of Upper 95%
Frequency of Detection Limits Detected Concentrations Backgroundb ConcentratlonC
Analyte Detection8 (rngl1
-------
The remaining five chemicals listed in Table 5-4 are the chemicals of potential concern for
soil at DP-13.
5.1.1.6 Hazardous Materials Storage Area (ss-D1)
Chemicals detected in soil samples from SS-Ol are listed in Table 5-5. Some chemicals were
not selected as chemicals of potential concern for the following reasons:
. 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, chlorobenzene,
chlorofonn, and toluene were detected in 5 percent or less of the soil samples.
. Arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc were each detected at
concentrations within the range of background for the area.
The remaining ten chemicals listed in Table 5-5 are the chemicals of potential concern for
soil at SS-Ol.
5.1.1.7 USTs at BuIlding 789 (ST-05)
Chemicals detected in soil samples from ST-05 are listed in Table 5-6. Each chemical
detected within ST -05 is considered a chemical of potential concern.
5.1.1.8 USTs at Building 725 (ST-06)
Chemicals detected in- soil samples from ST-06 are listed in Table 5-7. Each chemical
detected within ST-06 is considered a chemical of potential concern.
5.1.1.9 USTs at BuildIng 1086 (ST-07)
As listed in Table 5-8, methylene chloride was the only chemical detected and is the only
chemical of potential concern at ST -07.
5.1.1.10 USTs at Building 1085 (ST-D8)
Chemicals detected in soil samples from ST-08 are listed in Table 5-9. The following
chemicals were not selected as chemicals of potential concern for the reasons indicated:
. Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
fluoranthene. and pyrene were detected at concentrations within the range of
background for the area.
. Chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were each detected at concentrations
within the nonna! background for the area.
The remaining 15 chemicals listed in Table 5-9 are the chemicals of potential concern for soil
in ST -08.
KNl138!i1WP1385.5.'04-12-94JD5
5-3
-------
Table 5-3
Analytical Oata Summary
Radioactive Instrument Burial Area (RW-11) Solis
WIlliams Air Force Base
Range of I
Frequency of Detection Range of Detected Background Average Upper 95%
Detection Llmhs. Concentrations. Range8,b Cone.. ' Concentration.
Analyte
Radlum-226 15/15 0.05 0.77-2.3 0.23-2.0 1.51 1.84
Radlum-228 6/6 .- c 1.03-1.3 0.20-1.3 1.18 1.28
Total Uranium 15/15 0.1 0.4-1.45 0.54-3.6 0.97 1.14
Gross Alpha 15/15 0.3 2.8-27 NA 11.26 16.25
Gross Beta 15/15 0.1 4.3-27 NA 12.83 17.91
NA . Not available or not used for comparison
8AII concentrations In pCVg
bFrom Myrick et a!.. 1981; background concentrations for Arizona surface 80118
CDetectlon IImhs not reported
... "1385/WP1385.5-3104.09-94IDO
-------
Table 5-4
Analytical Data Summary
Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13) Solis
Williams Air Force Base
(Page 1 0' 2)
Value or Range 0' Value or Range of De\8C1Ied Range of Backgroundb Upper 05%
Frequency of Detection Umlts Concentrations Concentratlono
Analyte Detection. (mgi1lg) (mgi1lg) (mglkg) (mglkg)
VolatIle Orglnlcs
2-Butanone 1/25 0.01-0.012 0.002 NA 0.0055
. Acetone 6/25 0.01-0.12 0.006-0.18 NA 0.027
Bromodichloromelhane 1/25 0.005-0.006 0.039 NA 0.007
.Toluene 3/25 0.005-0.006 . 0.002-0.006 NA 0.003
Xylenes 1/25 0.005-0.006 0.002 NA 0.0026
Semlvolatll. OrganIcs
Benzo(b)fluoranlhene 1/25d 0.33-5.6 0.079d 0.05H2.0 0.664
.BIs(2-ethylhexyl)phlhalate 9/25 0.33-5.6 . 0.03U5.0 NA 14.17
Ch'Ysene 1/2Sd 0.33-5.6 0.039d 0.078-0.64 0.663
DI-n-butyl phthalate 1/25 0.33-5.6 0.14 NA 0.665
. Phenol 3/25 0.33-5.6 0.082-0.61 NA 0.676
Pyrene 1/2sd 0.33-5.6 O.04Sd 0.099-147.0 0.663
P.,"ckl... PCB, I
4,4'-DDE 3/60 0.001-0.02 0.014-0.018 NA 0.0057
4,4'-DDT 1i60 0.001-0.02 0.024 NA 0.0056
Dieldrin 3/60 0.001-0.02 0.018-0.62 NA 0.03
Gamma-BHC (Undane) 1/60 0.001-0.00175 0.019 NA 0.0033
KW138MYP1385.5-4104.13-94ID2
-------
Table 5-4
(Page 2 of 2)
Value or Range o' Value or Range o' DeI8cI8d Range of Backgroundb Upper 96%
Frequency o' Detection Umils Concentrations Conoentrationo
Analyl8 Detection- (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg)
lnorganlca
I
.Antlmony 5/7 12-20 20-52 <1 41
Arsenic 4/8 0.01-3.0 2.0-4.0 2.97 39
Beryllium 1/7 1.0-2.0 1.0 1.0-1.6 1.0
Chromium 7/8 2.0-5.0 5.0-18 15-100 20
Copper 7/7 5.0 19-63 15-200 48
Lead 7/8 1.0-200 8.0-22 10-100 49
Nickel 6/7 8.0-21 8.0-21 7-50 18
Zinc 7/7 4.0 42-72 25-160 68
.Chemlcal of potential concern.
NA..not available or not used for comparison.
-Wy where )( .. number o' times del8cted and y .. number o' samples analyzed.
bpAH background In agricultural and urban surface solis In the U.S. and other counbies. ATSDR. 1989.
ciT. 1992b - calculations Include nondetects.at hal' the contract-required detection limit.
dDetected In a surface soil sample
Metals background from Boemgen and Shacklette. 1981.
. 3851WPI385.5~04.13-94/D2
-------
Table 5-5
Analytical Data Summary
Hazardous Materials Storage Area (S&01) Solis
Williams Air Force Base
(Page 1 of 2)
Value or Range of Value or Range of Background
Frequency of Detection limits Detected Concentrations Concentratlonsb Upper 95% Concentratlonc
Analyte Detectlona (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg)
Organics
* Acetone 4/17 0.01-0.012 0.002-0.009 NA 0.0065
Chlorobenzene 1/101 0.01-1.0 3.0 NA 0.504
Chloroform 2/59 0.01-1.0 3.0-4.0 NA 0.622
*Ethyl benzene 5/59 0.01-1.0 2.0-4.0 NA 0.691
*Methylene chloride 8/59 0.01-1.0 3.0-21.0 NA 2.819
Toluene 1/59 0.01-2.0 2.0 NA 0.856
*Xylenes 6/59 0.01-2.0 3.0-12.0 NA 1.548
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene 4/101 0.002-2.738 4.0-10.0 NA 0.864
1,3-Dlchlorobenzene 2/143 0.001-1.369 3.0-6.0 NA 0.475
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene 5/101 0.001-1.369 2.0-8.0 NA 0.621
*DI-n-butyl phthalate 5/59 I 0.002-2.738 0.02-0.023 NA 0.134
*Dlethyl phthalate 6/59 0.001-1.369 0.025-0.049 NA 0.089
KNl13851WP1385.5.5\04.13-941D3
-------
Table 5-5
(Page 2 of 2)
Value or Range of Value or Range of Background
Frequency of Detection limits Detected Concentrations Concentratlonsb Upper 95% ConcentratlonC
Analyte Detectlon8 (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg)
I
Inorganlcs
Arsenic 16/58 2.0 2.2-6.0 2-97 2.0
.Beryllium 58/58 0.01-1.0 0.35-2.1 1.0-1.5 1.1
.Cadmlum 9/58 0.40-67 0.60-0.90 NA 2.1
Chromium 58/58 0.70-2.0 7.4-88 15-200 23
.Copper 44/58 0.60-5.0 12-380 15-100 42
Lead 46/58 0.6-4.0 7.0-32 10-100 16
Mercury 2/54 0.1-0.2 0.17 0.01-0.48 0.076
Nickel 57/58 2.0-8.0 7.0-36 7-50 20
.Sllver 31/58 0.70-2.0 0.90-2.8 NA 1.3
Zinc 46/58 0.20-4.0 31-150 25-150 61
.Chemlcal of potential concern.
NA CI not available or not used for comparison.
ND CI not detected.
8x1y where x ... number 01 times detected and y ... ,number 01 samples analyzed.
bBoerngen and Shaklette, 1981.
cIT, 1992b - calculations Include nondetects at half the contract-required detection limit.
K~1385/WP1385.5.5\04'13-94\D3
-------
Table 5-6
Analytical Data Summary
Underground Storage Tank (ST -05) Solis
WIlliams Air Force Base
Value or
Frequency of Range of DetectIOn Limits Value or Range of Detected Upper 95%
Analyte Detectlon8 mglkg Concentrations rngIkg Concentration mg/kgb
Organics
.Ethyl benzene 6/16 5-25,000 .0.005-49.2 11.41
.Toluene 2116 0.005-25.0 1.95-4.83 3.017
.Xylenes 6116 0.005-50.0 0.021-299.0 70.4
.Chemlcal 0' potential concern.
8x1y where x .. number of times detected and y '" number 0' samples analyzed
biT, 1992b - calculations Include nondetects at ha" the contract-required detection limit.
KNl1385/WP1385.5-6\04-13-94\D3
-------
Table 5-7
Analytical Data Summary
Underground Storage Tank (ST -06) Solis
Williams Air Force Base
Value or I Value or Range of Upper 95%
Frequency 01 Range 01 Detection Limits Detected Concentrations Concentratlonb
Analyte Detectlona (mgJ1
-------
Table 5-8
Analytical Data Summary
Underground Storage Tank (ST -07) Solis
Williams Air Force Base
Value or
Range 01 Detection Value or Range 01 Upper 950/0
Frequency 01 limits Detected Concentrations Concentratlonb
Analyte Detectlon8 (rngn
-------
Table 5-9
Analytical Data Summary
Underground Storage Tank at Building 1085 (ST - 08) Solis
Williams Air Force Base
(Page 1 0' 2)
Value or Value or
Range 0' Range 0' Detected Range 0' Upper 95%
Frequency of Detection limits Concentrations Backgroundb ConcentratlonC
Analyte Detectlon8 (mglkg) (mgl1
-------
e 5-9
(Page 2 01 2)
Value or Value or
Range 01 Range 01 Detected Range 01 Upper 95%
Frequency 01 Detection Limits Concentrations Backgroundb ConcentratlonC
Analyte Detectlon8 (mgl1
-------
5.1.2 ChemIcals of Potential Concern for Groundwater
5.1.2.1 Landfill (LF-D4)
Chemicals detected in groundwater samples from LF-04 are listed in Table 5-10. The
following chemicals were not selected as chemicals of potential concern for the reasons
indicated:
. Benzoic acid, bromofmm, chlorofmm, dibromochloromethane, diethyl phthalate,
di-n-butyl phth~late, ethyl benzene, mercury, naphthalene, thallium. and xylenes
were each detected in less than 5 percent of the groundwater samples and were
not detected in any soil samples
. Arsenic, calcium. fluoride. iron. magnesium. and sodium were detected within
the range of background for groundwater in the area
. Gross alpha and gross beta are analytical results that are not specific for a
particular compound; therefore. neither were selected as chemicals of potential
concern.
The remaining 23 chemicals listed in Table 5-10 are the chemicals of potential concern for
groundwater in LF-04.
5.1.2.2 Rre ProtectIon TrainIng Area (FT -03)
Groundwater samples taken at the verified location of Ff-03 indicated that groundwater has
not been impacted above acceptable health levels by site activities; therefore. this site was not
addressed in the risk assessment.
5.1.2.3 Northwest Drainage System (SD-10)
No groundwater sampling was perfonned within SD-IO because soils data collected during
previous investigations indicated that there were no contaminants present in the deep soils
and, consequently, it is unlikely that groundwater is affected. In addition, the net
precipitation for the area is negative. indicating that infiltration is an unlikely transpott
mechanism to groundwater.
5.1.2.4 Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Area (RW-11)
No groundwater sampling was perfonned at RW -11 because soils data collected during
previous investigations indicated that there were no contaminants present in the deep soils
and, consequently. it is unlikely that groundwater is affected. In addition. the net
KW13851WP1385.5104-12-94JD5
5-4
-------
Table 5-10
Analytical Data Summary
landfill (LF-04) Groundwater
Williams Air Force Base
(Page 1 of 3)
Range of Range of Detected Range of Average Upper 95%
Frequency of Detection limits Concentration Backgroundb Concentration ConcentratlonsC
Analyte Detectlon8 (J1gll) (J1gll) (J1gll) (J1gll) (J1gll)
Organics
-Acetone 3/3 10 2-5 NA 3.0 7.3
-Benzene 7n1 0.5 - 50 0.6 - 380 NA 6.0 17
Benzoic acid 1/31 10 - 50 3 NA 20 23
-Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthaiate 24n2 4.30 1.0-150 NA 6.0 10
-Bromodichloromethane 6/93 0.5 - 5.0 0.5 - 1.1 NA 0.35 0.44
Bromoform 1/93 0.5 - 5.0 0.8 NA 0.33 0.41
-Carbon disulfide 1/3 5 3 NA 2.7 3.4
Chloroform 4/93 0.5 - 5 0.6 - 1.2 NA 0.35 0.44
Dibromochloromethane 4/90 0.5 0.5.1.2 NA 0.28 0.305
Dlethyl phthalate 3n2 2.30 2.3 NA 4.0 4.5
DI-n-butyl phthalate 2n 4 - 30 0.9 - 12 NA 4.3 4.8
1
Ethyl benzene 2/71 0.5 . 25 0.6 - 1.8 NA 0.55 0.90
-Methylene chloride 16/93 0.5 - 26.0 1.4 - 7.6 NA 5.0 5.6
Naphthalene 1n2 2 - 30 2 NA 4.0 4.5
-r etrachloroethene 21/93 0.5 . 5.0 1.0.4.3 NA 0.68 0.85
KNl1385\WP1385.51CW4.13.9411)1
-------
Table 5.10
(Page 2 o. 3)
Range o' Range o' Detected Range o' Average Upper 95%
Frequency o' Detection limits Concentration Backgroundb Concentration ConcentratlonsC
Analyte Detectlona (tl91l) (tlg/l) (tl91l) (tl91l) (tlgll)
Organics (Continued)
*Toluene 9n1 0.5 - 25 0.5 . 4.4 NA 0.71 1.1
*Trichloroethane 11/93 0.5 - 5 0.5 - 2.4 NA 0.43 0.54
Xylenes 1/68 0.5 - 25 4.0 NA 0.84 1.2
Inorganlcs
* Antimony 9/93 18 - 60 19.2 - 106 NA 21 23
Arsenic 9/93 1 - 10 1.1 .17.7 1 .44 2.4 2.9
*Beryilium 16/93 0.3.5 1.0 . 1.9 <0.5 . 0.7 1.1 1.3
*Bromlde 8/15 900 900 - 1,700 NA 817 1,041
*Cadmlum 7/93 2-5 2.5 - 14 <1.0 2.6 3.0
Calcium 5/5 5 . 5,000 160 . 190,000 3,500 - 280,000 38,200 143,600
*Chromlum 39/93 3.10 3.8.11,000 17.2 . 181 294 568
*Copper 25/93 2 - 30 6-202 <10 . 30 13 18
Fluoride 8/15 200 1,200 - 2,300 200 . 2,400 927 1,400
Iron 3/5 0.1 .100 0.1 .0.2 5 . 160 10 38
*lead 36/93 1 .40 1.0 - 90 <10 - 14 6.7 9.6
Magnesium 5/5 5 . 5,000 32 - 40,000 2,600.57,000 8,037 30,220
*Manganese 5/5 0.02 - 20 0.09 - 80 <1 . 20 16 60
Mercury 4/92 0.2 0.22 - 0.3 NA 0.11 0.11
KN/1"""'WP1 385.51(W4. 13.94101
-------
Table 5-10
(Page 3 of 3)
Range of Range of Detected Range of Average Upper 95%
Frequency of Detection Limits Concentration Backgroundb Concentration Concentratlonsc
Analyte Detectlon8 (~gll) (~gll) (~gll) (~91L) (~91l)
*Nlckel 37/93 7 - 40 9.~ - 15,000 60.8°- 914 235 556
*Nitrate 40/55 50 - 600 4,000 - 91,000 6,000 - 26,000 23,790 31,460
*Selenlum 17/93 1 - 20 1.0.3.8 1 - 3 1.6 1.9
*SlIver 36/93 3 - 70 3.0 - 18 NA 5.8 6.6
Sodium 5/5 5 - 5,000 54 - 61,000 52,000 - 260,000 12,250 46,088
Thallium 3/95 1 - 40 1.0 - 1.2 NA 4.96 6.35
*Zlnc 71/93 2 - 20 6.8 - 2,700 <3 - 38 348 465
Gross alpha 5/15 2 9 - 13 NA 3.6 6.27
Gross beta 12/15 3 4 - 23 NA 8.17 11.90
*Uranlumd 6/15 0.0015 0.003 - 0.0075 NA 0.0024 0.0036
*Chemlcal of potential concern
NA- Not available or not used for comparison
8xJy where x '" number of times detected and y ... number of samples analyzed.
bUSGS, 1992 and project specific Information for nitrate, nickel, and chromium (see Table 4-1).
clT, 1992b . Calculations include nondetects at half the contract-required detection limit.
dConverted from pCVl by the ratio 1.5 ~glpCI for naturally-occurring uranium (NCRP, 1984)
KNlI385\WPI385.61 0104-13.94101
-------
precipitation for the area is negative, indicating that infiltration is an unlikely transport
mechanism to groundwater.
5.1.2.5 Pesticide Burial Ares (DP-13)
No groundwater sampling was performed at DP-13 because soils data collected during
previous investigations indicated that there were no contaminants present in the deep soils
and, consequently, it is unlikely that groundwater is affected. In addition, the net
precipitation for the area is negative, indicating that infiltration is an unlikely transport
mechanism to groundwater. Also, the source of conuunination has been removed.
5.1.2.6 Hazardous Materials Storage Area (ss-tJ1)
No groundwater sampling was performed at SS-OI because soils data collected during
previous investigations indicated that there were no contaminants present in the deep soils
and, consequently, it is unlikely that groundwater is affected In addition, the net
precipitation for the area is negative, indicating that infiltration is an unlikely transport
mechanism to groundwater.
-
5.1.2.7 USTs at Building 789 (ST.o5)
No groundwater sampling was performed at ST -05 because soils data collected dming
previous investigations indicated that there were no contaminants present in the deep soils
and, consequently, it is unlikely that groundwater is affected In addition, the net
precipitation for the area is negative, indicating that infiltration is an unlikely transport
mechanism to groundwater. Also, the source of contamination has been removed.
5.1.2.8 USTs at Building 725 (ST .06)
No groundwater sampling was performed at ST -06 because soils data collected uming
previous investigations indicated that there were no contaminants present in the deep soils
and, consequently, it is unlikely that groundwater is affected In addition, the net
precipitation for the area is negative, indicating that infiltration is an unlikely tranSport
mechanism to groundwater. Also, the source of contamination has. been removed.
5.1.2.9 USTs at Building 1086 (ST-D7)
No groundwater sampling was performed at ST-07 because soils data coUected during
previous investigations indicated that there were no contaminants present in the deep soils
and, consequently, it is unlikely that groundwater is affected. In addition, the net
KNI138MVP138S-S'04-12-941D5
5-5
-------
precipitation for the area is negative, indicating that infiltration is an unlikely transport
mechanimt to groundwater. Also, the source of contamination has been removed.
5.1.2.10 USTs at Building 1085 (ST-DB)
No groundwater sampling was performed at ST -08 because soils data collected during
previous investigations indicated that there was no significant contamination present in the
soils below 26 feet and, consequently, it is unlikely that groundwater is affected based on
contaminant fate and transport considerations discussed in Chapter 5.0 of the RI repon. In
addition, it is unlikely that groundwater is affected. In addition, the net precipitation for the
area is negative, indicating that infiltration is an unlikely transport mechanism to groundwater. .
Also, the source of contamination has been removed.
5.1.3 Uncertainties
The following uncertainties are associated with the sample collection and analysis process.
. Potential contamination of samples during collection, preparation or analysis, and
normal error in analytical techniques. These uncertainties are minimi7.ed by the
laboratory validation process.
. Use of unvalidated data from the A V investigations.
. Use of regional background data rather than base-specific background data in the
data evaluation process. This uncertainty will be addressed in Section 5.4.5.
5.2 Exposure Assessment .
The exposure assessment involves the estimation of potential exposures of human or environ- .
mental receptors to chemicals found at the site. Exposure is defined as the contaCt of a
receptor with a chemical. Exposure assessment is. the estimation of the magnitude, frequency,
and duration for each identified route of exposure. The magnitude of an exposure is deter-
mined by estimating the amount of chemical available at the receptor exchange boundaries
(Le., lungs or gastrointestinal [G!] tract) during a specified time period.
5.2.1 Potentially Exposed Populations
The objective of the receptor assessment is to identify potential human and environmental
populations that may be exposed to site-related chemicals at Williams AFB under current and
future land-use conditions. The assessment considers both on- and off-Base populations and
their relationship to the potential migration pathways for site-related chemicals.
KNl1~1385.5104-12-941D5
5-6
-------
On-Base Land Use. When the risk assessment was conducted, the primary residential
population at Williams AFB lived in the housing areas located on the northern. western. and ,
southem portions of the Base. Now that the Base is closed. land use at the site could become
residential. commercial, and/or agricultaral.
On the basis of the land-use data from the Base during its active status. it was assumed that
the CUITent population on Base included sensitive subpopulations such as infants. children.
elderly persons. and pregnant and Dlusing women. The Base is fenced, with security guards
at the entrance. and is inaccessible to off-Base populations.
Future exposures to residential receptors will also be considered under the assumption that the
Base propeny will be developed for residential pmposes now that the Base has closed. It is
assumed that future residential populations will also include sensitive subpopulations such as
infants. children. elderly persons, and pregnant and Dlusing women.
Off-Base Land Use. Williams AFB is relatively isolated from any large metropolitan area.
Located in Maricopa County. it is sUIIOunded mostly by agricultural land.
The plan for the region is to develop the proposed area residentially and commercially during
a 25-year period. If implemented, this development will dramatically impact the
demographics and population around the Base.
5.2.2 Potent/al Exposure Pathways
For exposures to occur. complete exposure pathways must exist
way requires (EPA, 1989b):
A complete exposure path-
. A source and mechanism for release of the chemical
. A point of potential human or environmental contact
. An exposure route at the exposure point
If anyone of these components is missing. the pathway is not complete. The following
sections describe each of the exposure pathways at the individual sites evaluated at Williams
AFB.
5.2.2.1' Landf/II (LF-D4)
All potential exposure pathways for contaminants included in the risk assessment for current
and future land-use scenarios at LF-04 are summarized in Table 5-11.
1OU138S1WP138S~12-941D5
5-7
-------
Table 5-11
Summary of Potential Exposure Pathways
Landfill (LF-04)
Williams Air Force Base
Land Use Environmental Potentially Exposed
Scenario Media Populations Exposure Pathway
Current Soil Base ResidentS Incidental ingestion of soil
(Children)
Dermal contact with soil
Inhalation of chemicals
volatilized from the soil
Inhalation of fugitive dusts
Base Workers Incidental ingestion of soil
Dermal contact with soil
Inhalation of chemicals
volatilized from the soil
- Inhalation of fugitive dust
Future Groundwater ResidentS Ingestion of groundwater
from downgradient wells
Inhalation of chemicals
volatilized from water during
home use
Dermal contact with
chemicals in water during
home use
Ingestion of vegetables
contaminated by irrigation
Future Soil ResidentS Incidental ingestion of soil
Dermal contact with soil
Inhalation of chemicals
volatilized from the soil
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Ingestion of homegrown
vegetables
KN/138S/138S.511104-09-94101
-------
5.2.2.2 Rre Protection Training Area (FT -03)
All potential exposure pathways for contaminants included in the risk assessment for current
and future land-use scenarios at FT-03 are summarized in Table 5-12. h should be noted that
although Ff-03 was not origjnaIly included in the risk assessment, Section 5.4.5 addresses a
reevaluation of the OU-l risk assessment that subsequently did include Ff-03.
5.2.2.3 Northwest Drainage System (SD-10)
All potential exposure pathways for COJ'Itaminants included in the risk assessment for current
and future land-use scenarios at SD-I0 are summarized in Table 5-13.
5.2.2.4 Radioactlve Instru'!'entation Burial Area (RW-11)
All potential exposure pathways for contaminants included in the risk assessment for cmrent
and future land-use scenarios at RW-ll are summarized in Table 5-14.
5.2.2.5 Pesticide Burial Area (OP-t3)
All potential exposure pathways for contaminants included in the risk assessment for cmrent
and future land-use scenarios at DP-13 are summarized in Table 5-15.
5.2.2.6 Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-D1)
All potential exposure pathways for contaminants included in the risk assessment for C1lIreIlt
and future land-use scenarios at SS-OI are summarized in Table 5-16.
5.2.2.7 USTs (ST-05, ST-D6, ST-07, ST-OB)
All potential exposure pathways for contaminants included in the risk assessment for current
and future land-use scenarios at UST sites are summarized in Table 5-17. Because
contaminants remain in place at ST-05, ST -07, and ST -08. the residential scenario (the most
conservative) was also evaluated to determine if the 5-year review process required by
CERCLA is necessary for these sites. Section 5.6 verified that risks are within acceptable
limits and that the 5-year review process is unwarranted.
5.2.2.B Ingestion of Homegrown FruitS and Vegetables
The potential risk associated with the ingestion of homegrown fruits or vegetables irrigated
with groundwater and grown in site soil was considered qualitatively. Developmental plans
for the area indicate that commercial or residential expansion of the Base property are
reasonable future scenarios. The water supply for such expansion. however. would come
from currently functioning base wells or from the municipal water supply. It is extremely
unlikely that contaminated groundwater under the site would be developed for commercial or
KN/13851WP138S.5I04-13-94JD5
5-8
-------
Table 5-12
Summary of Potential Exposure Pathways
Fire Protection Area No.1 (FT -03)
Williams Air Force Base
Land Use Environmental Potentially Exposed
Scenario Media Populations Exposure Pathway
Current Soil Base Residents Incidental ingestions of soil
(Childrenl
Dermal contact with soil
Inhalation of chemicals volatilized
from the soil
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Base Workers Incidental ingestion of soil
Dermal contact with soil
Inhalation of chemicals volatilized
- from the soil
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Future Groundwater Residents Ingestion of groundwater from
downgradient wells
Inhalation of chemicals volatilized
from water during home use
Dermal contact with chemicals in
water during home use
Ingestion of vegetables contami-
nated by irrigation
Future Soil Residents Incidental ingestion of ~oil
Dermal contact with soil
Inhalation of chemicals volatilized
from the soil
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Ingestion of homegrown vegetables
KNI138S1WP138S.512104-09-94/D1
-------
Table 5-13
Summary 01 Potential Exposure Pathways
Northwest Drainage System (SD-10)
. Williams Air Force Base
Land Use Environmental Potentially Exposed
Scenario Media Populations Exposure Pathway
Current Soil Base Residents Incidental ingestion of soil
(Children)
Dermal contact with soil
Inhalation of chemicals
volatilized from the soil
Inhalation of fugitive dusts
Base Workers Incidental ingestion of soil
Dermal contact with soil
Inhalation of chemicals
volatilized from the soil
- Inhalation of fugitive dUSt
Future Soil Residents Incidental ingestion of soil
Dermal contact with soil
Inhalation of chemicals
volatilized from the soil
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Ingestion of homegrown
vegetables
KNf138S/WP138S.513104-09-941D1
-------
Table 5-14
Summary of Potennal Exposure Pathways
Radioactive Instrumentanon Burial Area (RW-1 1 )
Williams Air Force Base
Land Use Environmental Potentially Exposed
Scenario Media Populations Exposure Pathway
Current Soil Base Workers Incidental ingestion of soil
Dermal contaCt with soil
.
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Future Soil Residents Incidental ingestion of.soil
Dermal contaCt with soil
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Ingestion of homegrown vegeta-
bles
KN/1385/WP1385.514J04.09-94101
-------
Table 5-15
Summary of Potential Exposure Pathways
Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
Williams Air Force Base
Land Use Environmental Potentiallv Exposed
Scenario Media Populations Exposure Pathway
Current Soil Base Residents Incidental ingestion of soil
(Children)
Dermal contact with soil
Inhalation of chemicals volatilized from
the soil
Inhalation of fugitive duSts
Base Workers Incidental ingestion of soil
Dermal contact with soil
Inhalation of chemicals volatilized frOIn
the soil
- Inhalation of fugitive dust
Future Soil Residents Incidental ingestion of soil
Dermal contact with soil
Inhalation of chemicals volatilized from
the soil
Inhalation of fugitive dusts
Ingestion of homegrown vegetables
KN/138S/WP138S.515/04-09-941D1
-------
Table 5-16
Summary 01 Potential Exposure Pathways
Hazardous Materials Storage Area (S5-o1)
Williams Air Force Base
land Use Environmental Potentially Exposed
Scenario Media Populations Exposure Pathway
Current Soil Base ResidentS Incidental ingestion of soil
(Children)
Dermal contaCt with soil
Inhalation of chemicals volatilized
from the soil
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Base Workers Incidental ingestion of soil
Dermal contaCt with soil
Inhalation of chemicals volatilized
from the soil
- Inhalation of fugitive dust
Future Soil ResidentS Incidental ingestion of soil
Dermal contaCt with soil
Inhalation of chemicals volatilized
from the soil
Inhalation of fugitive dust
Ingestion of homegrown vegeta-
bles
KN/1385/WP1385.516104-09-94101
-------
Table 5-17
Summary of Potential Exposure .Pathways
Underground Storage Tanks CST-OS. ST -06. ST-07 and ST-08)
Williams Air Force Base
Land Use
Scenario
Environmental
Media
Potentially Exposed
Populations
Exposure Pathway
Current
Soil
Base Workers
Incidental ingestion of soil
Dermal contaCt with soil
Inhalation of chemicals volatilized
from the soil
Inhalation 01 fugitive dust
Future
Soil
Residents
Incidental ingestion of soil
Dermal contaCt with chemicals
volatilized from the soil
Inhalation of chemicals volatilized
from the soil
Inhalation 01 fugitive duSt
Ingestion of homegrown vegetables
KN/I385NVPt385.517/~94not
-------
residential use. It is reasonable to assume that residential orchards and gardens may be
maintained; however, they would not be watered with contaminated groundwater from the
site. Therefore, risk associated with ingestion of homegrown fruits and vegetables is not
quantified.
5.2.3 Estimation 0' Exposure
This section describes the estimation of intakes of individual site-related chemicals of concern
that may reach human receptors. The process involves:
. Identifying applicable human exposure models and input parameters
. Determining the concentration of each chemical in the identified environmental
medium at the point of human exposure
. Estimating human. intakes.
The methodologies and parameter values that will be used to quantitatively estimate chemical
intakes for the risk assessment are presented in the RI repon. In general, the magnitude of
chemical intake depends on the exposure pathway and the variables that impact the transmittal
of chemicals via that pathway. These intake estimates will be used in conjunction with
chemical toxicity data to quantify the risks associated with each pathway.
For each identified pathway, a reasonable maximum exposure (RME) scenario was developed.
This scenario gives a reasonable upper-bound estimate of the potential magnitude of an
individual exposure to chemicals from the site. The intent of the RME as defined by the EP A
(1989a) is to estimate a conservative exposure case (i.e., well above the average case) that is
still within the range of possible exposures. The RME is estimated from a C01Dbination of
average and upper-bound exposure assumptions to result in a reasonable maximum.
5.2.3.1 Exposure Models
The primary source for the exposure models used for this risk assessment is the Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund Human Health Evaluation Manual (EPA, 1991a). The
magnitude of chemical intake via the following exposure pathways is estimated by exposure
models presented in detail in the RI repon:
. Ingestion of drinking water
. Inhalation of fugitive dust and chemicals volati1i7ed from soil
. Incidental ingestion of soil
KK'13851WP1385.5104-12-94IDS
5-9
-------
. Dermal contact with soil
. Dermal contact with water
. InhSllSirion of VOCs during home water use.
5.2.3.2 Exposure Parameters
A combination of upper-bound and average exposure parameters have been used in each sce-
nario to result in a combined RME. The exposure parameters used and the justifications for
their selection are summarized in Table 5-IS and are explained more detail in the RI report.
Upper-bound values are generally 90th or 95th percentile values, depending on availability for
that parameter.
5.2.3.3 Exposure Point Concentrations
The concentration term in the intake equations is the arithmetic average of the concentration
that is contacted by a receptor over the exposure period. Although this concentration does not
reflect the maximum concentration that could be contacted at anyone time, it is regarded as a
reasonable estimate of the concentration likely to be contacted over time. Because of the
uncertainty associated with any estimate of exposure concentration, the 95 percent upper
confidence limit on the arithmetic average will be used for. this variable.
The estimated exposure point concentrations for chemicals of potential concern at the sites
within OU-I are presented in Tables 5-19 through 5-26. (These tables are also in Chapter 6
of the RI report.) Generally, Tables 5-19 through 5-26 reflect the data in Tables 5-1 through
5-10. For DP-13 (Table 5-21) and ST-OS (Table 5-26), however, the exposure point
concentrations reflect data for smface soil only (0-1 foot deep), and therefore, present only a
subset of the data compiled in Table 5-4 and 5-9, respectively. A description of the approach
used to estimate exposure concentrations is given in the following paragraphs. -
Groundwater. To estimate the potential risks associated with completing a production well
on the Base property, the upper 95th percent confidence limit of the arithmetic mean of the
monitoring data for each chemical of potential concern was used as the value to represent the
RME concenttation. For samples with no detectable concentration of a chemical, a value of
one-half the detection limit was incorporated into this computation as recommended by EPA
guidance (EPA, 19S9a).
For those sites with no groundwater sample data (SD-IO, RW-ll, DP-13, SS-oI, ST-05,
ST -06, ST..()7, and ST -OS), groundwater transport models were considered as a means for
KNf13851WP1385.5104-12-841D5
5-10
-------
Table 5-18
Parameters Used to estimate Exposure
Williams AIr Force Base
(Page 1 of 5)
PaI8III8I8r
Rqe
Value Used
RaIicnaIe
Ir.f.df~__~d.;i
. l[lfMlfjit[!rff~11t....
AdiAt Waw Ir1ge&tian RaI8 (lJday)
1.4 Av8IaQe
2.0 ~ Peralnile
350 ReasanabIe
365 WCIIIk:a&e
2.0
StandanI expa&uI8 fadDr (U.s. EPA. 11191c)
Exposure FnIqum:y (~
350
PiuameIer acc:ourd& tar lime spent iIU/ fnIm hams (U.S.
EPA. 1991c)
UAJ8r ~ pIIIC8I1ie lor ime spent in one I8Iidenc8 (U.s.
EPA. 1991c)
Standanl8XpC1&U18 fadDr (U.s. EPA. 1991c)
3) years x 365 ~8a15 .. 10.950 days (U.S. EPA.
1989a)
Expa&In DwaIian (years)
9 AWIIiIIIII
3) ~ fI8rc8niIe
3)
Body Weight (1;)
Averaging Tme lor .......~1OQ881ic
EfIec8; (days)
70
10,950
~ Tme lor Can:inogri:
EfIec8; (days)
25,550
Adult H1aIatian RaIe (m3h1r)
Expgs&n Tme (1IOInIday)
0.12 so!l PeramtiIe
- 0.20 so!l Peramlile
0.20
~ light activity (U.s. EPA. 1991c)
ReasanabIe maximum value (U.s. EPA. 191111a)
0.6
Exposn Frequency (~ear)
350 ReasanabIe
365 WCIIIk:a&e
350
Body Weight (kg)
70
Parameter acaIunIs for lime spent iIU/ frDm hame (U.S.
EPA. 1991c)
Upper so!l Peramlile fDr time spent in one I8SicIenc8
(U.S. EPA. 1991c)
Standard exposurelactr:lr (U.s. EPA. 1991c)
Exposure DuraIion (y8al5)
9 AWJ!i11J8
3) so!l Peralrmle
3)
Averaging Tme far ta......c;.lOQ8nic
Effects (days)
10,950
3) yean; x 365 dafs/yetaJ.. 10,950 days (U.S. EPA.
1989a)
70 y&aIS x 365 ~ear..
25,550 days (U.S. EPA. 1989a)
Averaging time far CaIcinogenic
EffecIs (days)
25,550
KW\38!iIWP1315S1~1~
-------
--- - ---- --.
Table 5-18
(Page 2 of 5)
Pararnew
Rqe
Value Used
AaIianaIe
flE.~~I_I!ill.l.:~:~". .... .~~I.i~IR:f~t.lbz
Ski! SIrface AnII AIIaIabIe far
rAInIact (cJ)
DImaI Permeabity Con&IanI
(anAv)
Expaue Tille (haur&Iday)
Expaue Frequency (~
Expoue Duralion (years)
Adull Body Weight (kG)
~ Tille far tblClli:iuagenic
Eff8CI5 (days)
A-- Tme far CaIcinogenic
Eff8CI5 (days)
,:.:.:.~;'j~tf,lfli11~iiil~;~1ffI11111i:i~t;
.:.:.".JI:i1~fil~t[::i.:
111'- - rd! PeIaIniIe
(~ 1IaIe6)
16,900 - so!! PeramiIe
(~ Females)
The rd! peIC8tIIiIe values Dr IDIaI sian uface .. In
c:i18d. cIefauII facIDrs far aduIIs (U.s. EPA. 111119a).
IIaIe and fIrnaIe values were awnged.
18,150
Chemic:akpecifi values
PenneaIIiIiIy values WIIf8 obtained or derived as de-
scribed bf Schaum (1991)
VakB 1D 8IcI1866 ~ Reasonable maximum
value ased (U.s. EPA. 111119a)
0.12 rd! Percenlile
o.2D II()!l Percentile
350 Reasonable
365 WarsKase
o.2D
350
Parameter accaunts lor lime FIIRIf Inxn home (U.S.
EPA. 1991c)
Upper ~ peICIIII1ie ilr time spent in InII'IISidence
(U.S. EPA. 1991c)
SIandard expa&III8 facIDr (U.s. EPA. 1991c)
3) yeaJS x 365 dayslyear = 10.950 days (U.s. EPA. 1~
89a)
70 yeaJS x 365 dayslyear = 25,550 days (U.s. EPA. 1~
ilia)
IIA~
3) II()!l Pen:eniIe
30
70
10.950
25,550
Juvenile SailInges1ian Rate (IIaIday) -
FIaCIion Inge&8Bd tam ConminalBd
Source (uniIIe&&)
EIioavaiIaIiIit Faclor (unid8S6)
Exposure Frequency (daysIyear)
Exposure Duralion (y1lalS)
Juvenile Body Weight (kG)
~ Tme far tblCalQ,¥~
EffecIs (days)
A~ Tmefar Carcinogenic
EIfIa (days)
.0002
SIandard 8ICpCISUI8 facIDr far c:hidr8n 1 tuaugh 6 yeaJS
old (U.s. EPA. 1991c)
~ Ihe fractian of Ihe ingesion r.IIe !hat is
attributable to Ihe SCUR:8. Sinc8 Ihe I8Sidence is Ihe
SOUIC8, it is assumed that 100% 01 Ihe IiIIiI&Idun; In
flam that area. (U.s. EPA. 11189a)
1.0
1.00 Metals
Worsk:a&8 estimate due to lack 01 daIa on
lioavailatility of inorganic& in soil
Based on work wiIb soiI-bauncI dioxins
(Paus8lll'lbaCh et 81.. 1986)
.3) Organics
350 Reasonable
365 Worsk:as8
350
PaIameter accounts lor lime spent FIIRIf flam home
(U.s. EPA. 1991c)
AgHpdc facIors thnIughout Ihe caJalialion (U.s.
EPA. 1991c)
AgHpdc dwaIion
6
15
Average body weight lor juveniles 1 Ihraugh 6 ,.,. old
(U.s. EPA. 1991c)
6 years x 365 dayslyear = 2,190 days far juvries (U.S.
EPA. 11189a)
AgHpIICiIic averaging times
2,190 (juvenile)
25,550
70 yeaJS x 365 daysIy- =
25,550 days (U.S. EPA. 1989a)
KNI138!i1WP138551&'04-1 MW2
-------
Table 5-18
(Page 3 of 5)
Parametsr
B!e
~;::::~:::~~.:'~::'~~_~f.ll..8If.f_I%~:. ..
ExpIII8d Surface MIa (em2lday~
Juwnle
Soi III Skin AdhenrIce FacIDr&
(mwcmi
AbfiotpIion Fac=r (uniIIes& facIDr)
Expasure Frequency (~ear)
Expasure Dulatian (y8illS)
Juvenile Body Weigh! (kg)
Averaging T ane far NoncaIcinogenic -
EfIecIs (days)
Averaging Tillie far CarcinDgeni:
EfIecIs (days)
Adult WIaIaIian Rate (m3h1aur)
Exposure T me (haurslday)
Exposure Frequency (~ear)
Exposure Duration (y8illS)
Body Weight (kg)
Averaging Tillie for Noncatcinagenic
EfIa; (days)
Averaging T ane tar Carcinogenic
Effec15 (days)
350 Reasonable
365 WcnH:a18
AgHjXlCilic duraIiDn
20 ~1d1It (1DtaI)
15 m31d:i1t (mdDor)
350 Reasonable
365 Warsk:a&e
9 A¥8!898
3) w/J.~
3,928
1.45
.05 . vaIaIie
arganic&
0.10 - semivda1iIe
arganic&
Pesticide&oPCBs
0.01 - me1aIs
350
6
15
2,190 - juv8niIe
25.sso
24
350
3)
70
10,950
25.sso
Arisum8 I8C8pICIIS expa&8 dIeir hands, ImIS, feet and
. ID sail. Average fiUriace ar&a IDr dliIdnII ages 31D
II yeBIS. (U.s. EPA.
1989b)
SIandanf default Iaca:Ir based upon adIIer8nce of
COIIUII8CiaI potting soil (U.s. EPA. 19B9a)
U.5. EPA Region IX guidance
ParameI8r acc:oun!S for time &pII1t a'IIa'/ flam hams
CU.5. EPA. 1991cj
Standard expII6UI8 factDr to be used in con1unctian willi
agKp8Ci6c facIDn; 1hnIughaut the c:aJcu1alion (U.s.
EPA. 1991a)
Average body weight for juveniles 1 lllraugh 6 years old.
Standard exposure fadDr (U.s. EPA. 1991c)
6 yean; x 365 dat&Jyesr = 2,190 days for jMries (U.S.
EPA. 1989a)
R8pr&senlS reasa.~ maximum expD6UI8 that
irIduds dine ouUIe and difIer8nt types of 8:Iivities..
Standard 8XpII6III8 fadDr (U.s. EPA. 1991c).
Worst<:ase exposure &CBnario
Standard 8XpII6III8 fadDr (U.s. EPA. 1991c)
Upper so!l pen:IIIItiIe IDr time spent in one nsidenc8
(U.S. EPA. 1991 c)
Standard expasure fadDr (U.s. EPA. 1991c)
3) years x 365 days/'fear = 10,950 days for juveniles
(U.S. EPA. 1989a)
70 yeaIS x 365 days/'fear =
25,550 days (U.S. EPA, 1989a)
100138&WP138/i5'~'~
-------
Table 5-18
(Page 4 of 5)
AdUI Sail q.1ian RIle (IVAy) o.axxI5 SIiniaId exparan IiIcIar (U.s. EPA. 11181«:)
~ F..(uniIs) 1.00 UsIaIs WarsH:8se estimaIe due ID lack of cIaIa on ~
ilyGfinDrgani::sinsoil.
.3) Orgri:s Based on work will saiI-baInI cIiaxins
(PaLtAInIB:h 81 81., 1986)
Expaua Freq\sIc:y (~ 100 RBD,1iIbIe 250 Assumes WOItIBIs aJe 8XpD68d 5 day&/w8ek. 50
250 Worsk:ase ....,., (U.s. EPA. 11181c)
Exposure Duralion (years) 25 SIandard expasuI8li1c1ar (U.s. EPA. 1991c)
Body We9d (11;) 70 Standard expasuI8li1c1ar(U.s. EPA. 11181c)
AVIr.IQing Trne tar tb_..;..,z 9,125 25 years x 365 dar&IY-= 9,125 clays (U.s. EPA.
Effec8s (clays) 1989a)
~ Trne tar C8n:inogenic 25,550 70 ,... x 365 dar&IY- .
EIfecIs (clays) 25,550 clays (Us. EPA. 1989a)
Adult ~ Rate (m3111u) 2.5 S1andan18Xp11&U181i1c1ar of 2D m31wofk day gi¥8I in
houIIy rate (U.s. EPA. 1991c)
Exposure Trme (hoursIday)
8 SIandanIexpo&Ul8li1c1ar (U.S. EPA. 1 1181 c)
Exposure Frequency (~ 100 Reasonable 250 Assumes IIDrkeIs aJe expased 5 ~ 50
250 WarsJ.case ....,., (Us. EPA. 1991c)
Exposure DunItion (years) 25 S1andan18Xp116U191i1c1ar (U.s. EPA. 1991c)
Body Weight (11;) 70 SIandanI 8Xp111U191i1c1ar (U.s. EPA. 11181 c)
Averaging Tme tar No.c;a.....ogenic; 9,125 25 years x 365 daysIye = 9,125 clays (U.s. EPA.
EffecIs (clays) 1989a)
A~ Tme far Carc:incIgII1ic 25,550 70 years x 365 daysIye = 25,550 clays (Us. EPA.
EffecIs (clays) 1989a)
KNf1385/WP138551MM-1H4C2
-------
Table 5-18
(Page 5 of 5)
11.IPill,11
&paled ~ Area (cJldar)
1,933
Asswnes IIOIIr.ers expose alms and hands to sciI (U.s.
EPA. 1989b)
StIndard cI8fauII factDr based upon adhet8nce of
QI/hlMlt'ial polling sciI (U.s. EPA. 191198)
SoD to Skin AdhenInce Faca
(~
AbIiarpIian Faca (uniIIe&&)
1.45
Q.05. VaIaIiI8
CIfpIicI
o.1~
crganics,
PesIicideI;.9C8
G.01 - III81aI&
U.s. EPA RsgiIn IX guidance
ExpasunI Fr8cpn:y (days/feaI)
100 Reasonable
250 War&k:aW
250
Assumes workers ani expa&ed 5 dayWeek. 50
weeks.year (U.S. EPA. 1991c)
Standard erpa&uI8 facIDr (U.s. EPA. 1991c)
Expsn Dundian (years)
Body Weight (leg)
25
70
Standard erpa&uI8 facIDr (U.s. EPA. 1991c)
25 years x 365 dJI(&/y8a1 = 9,125 days (U.s. EPA.
1989a)
Averaging Tme far Nor....al";'....,..~
E/f8CII5 (clays)
Awngi1g time far Can:inagenC
EIfed& (clays)
9,125
25.550
70 years x 365 d;qsJyear =
25.550 days (U.S. EPA. 1118Qa)
KNf13851WP1311551M)4.1 M4I02
-------
Table 5-19
EstImated exposure-Point Concentrations for the landfill (LF-04)
Williams Air Force Base
(Page 1 of 3)
Exposure-Point
Concentration
Constituent Used Rationale for Value Used
:j~I::~:iii:iiiii;:i!I::::!:it1i!::!:::lil!!il!ill~!:~1j:!j!il~!!liii:ii:I:::I!iiii1:1:1_~IIIIII:::_!!i::I:1_:::::::::,:::!::illiil::!::li!i,I:::::i:::::::::::::::::'::::::::::i::I::":::;::::::i:::::::I::::::::,:::1::1::::;:,
Orcanics (ua/U
Acetone
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon disulfide
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Trichloroethane
7.3
17
10
0.44
3.4
5.6
0.85
1.1
0.54
Upper 95% confidence interval from
groundwater data. A value of one-
halt the detection limit was used in
the statistical calculations for
undetected data.
lnoraanics (ua/U
Antimony
Beryllium
Bromide
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Nitrate
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Uraniunfl
-
23
1.3
1041
3.0
566
18
9.6
60
556
31460
1.9
6.6
465
0.0036
-
KKt1385/WP138S.51W04-13-94ID1
-------
Table 5-19
(Page 2 of 3)
Constituent
Exposure-Point
Concentration
Used
:~lli:rfi:I.I.:!ti~1f~1:ri!I~!l.rt:'il]~I;;!::r~I'111:lifl~jl[II_::11.~4_[i_;_~:1;i::i:f!:!!:!lli.!I."I~:!~f:!:::i!~:::!::!ir~:'!:!:::~:!I.:::!:!::::::1.11.1.::i:!:::~:!::i!!i!!!
Rationale for Value Used
Volatile Qraanics (malm~
Acetone 5.18 x 10~
Benzene 2.86 x 10-2
Bromodichloromethane 1.31 x 10-5
Carbon disulfide 6.54 x 10-3
Methylene chloride 7.61 x 10-3
Tetrachloroethene 1.60 x 10-3
Toluene 1.90 x 10-3
Trichloroethane 9.78 x 10'"
::!il.!I.I.:I!:I:!~i:;~~!f~;~!!:~i1:1:r~:;~!li!::1.!1!1.:::::!;11:11:!~i::::r~l.!rl.~flll!!_:!II!:i._:l.i~_II:I.::\~:!:::~!:::i::~::::f~:I.I.::::~!:!::~!!:!r!!!:!::!:!:!~!:1!~:!!:!::::::::r;::!:1i:!:!I.!!;;::!:!!::::::!;:
Oraanics (rncv1
-------
Table 5-19
(Page 3 of 3)
Exposure-Point
Concentration
Constituent Used Rationale for Value Used
~:::~:liilii~jlll:!j;:~!!~:~::~:i::II!i~lllit~r!:i!ij~::jl:!~jl:!!~I::i:~:i;:lii!:::li:::::i!::iij::::::i:i:!::::i:!::llli:_:li::i_I:II:i!!~!:::::~:~:::;:!::j:~:;~~1::::!.!:i:::::::j:::~:::::j::::::j::::~::;~~::~:!:~::::~!~::!j~~::~:::;~j::::i::::.::~I:j:::I::i!!::j:::::::~::i:i~:::I:.:::::::'
Oraanics (~ Calculated from the upper 95%
1 ,2,4- Trichlorobenzene 6.79 x 1 O~ confidence interval for soil data,
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene 6.73 x 1 O~ using a dust loading model
4,4'-DDD 7.20 x 1 0-10
4,4'-DDE 6.40 x 1 0-9
4,4'-DDT 6.70 x 1 0-9
AIpha-chlordane 2.50 x 1 0.1 0
Beta-BHC 4. 1 0 x 1 0-10
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 6.1 3 x 1 o~
Di-n-butylphthalate 6.70 x 1 o~
Dieldrin 1 .05 x 1 O~
Diethylphthalate 6.80 x 1 O~
Gamma-chlordane 2.50 x 1 0.10
Pentachlorophenol 1 .67 x 1 0-7
lnoraanics (malm~ -
BerylUum 2.80 x 1 0-7
Cadmium 8.40 x 1 O~
Thallium 1 .70 x 1 O~
Zinc 1 1 6 x 1 0-5
::I:i:::::i::::::.:~:::::::::i::::::::.;::j:::j::ii:l:::i:::::::::~:::.I:.:::::::ill:::::::::!lii;:!i!I:::ill:i:ii:i:I:::1:::::i:i:i!::~ii1:il.~::;::::::ii:~_'::~!'::1_:i:_I::11,:~ii::.~::::j:~::;'::::;:~j:j;:::i::::::!::.:~::i::::::::::'::::::!::i:::::::~:il:::::!:::::i::i~::~:.:i:':::!::1:~:i:::::~::::::I:!:iiill:i:i:!1:::::::::::i:
No volatile organics were detected in landfill soils
&converted from 0.0024 pCiIL by the ratio 1.5 J1QIpCi for naturally-ocaJrring uranium (NCRP, 1984)
KW138S1WP138551W04-13-94I1>1
-------
Table 5-20
Estimated exposure-Point Concentrations for the
Northwest Drainage System (80-10)
Williams Air Force Base
Oraanics (maiko)
Acetone
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chiorofonn
Methylene chloride
Phenol
Toluene
0.018
5.89
0.740
1.38
0.171
0.850
Upper 95% confidence
interval for soil data. A
value of one-half the
detection limit was used
in the statistical
cala,lIations for
undetected data.
lnoraanics (maiko)
Antimony
Beryllium
Cadmium
Silver
6.1
0.95
0.61
1.3
Oraanics (malm3)
Acetone
Bis(2-ethylhexyQphthaiate
Chlorofonn
Methylene chloride
Phenol
Toluene
1.80 X 10-9
5.89 X 10-7
7.40 X 10-6
1.38 X 10.7
1.71 X 10-6
8.50 x 10-6
Calculated from the
upper 95% confidence
interval for soil data.
using a dust loading
model.
lnoraanics (malm~
Antimony
Beryllium
Cadmium
Silver
6.10 X 10.7
9.50 x 10-6
6.10 X 10-6
1.30 X 10-7
11ir~I:JflIJ~lrfftj1Ifllll"li!ll.ij8f1/lf~.II!liBIJ.ll(f8ml'lI_Iii
Volatile Oraanics (malm3)
Acetone
Chlorofonn
Methylene chloride
Toluene
8.7 x 10-0
3.54 x 10-4
1.30 X 10-3
5.15 X 10-5
Calculated from upper
95% confidence interval
for soil data using a
subsurface soil
volatilization model.
KN/13851WP1385.52Q104-13-94ID1
-------
L_~- --_.- -
Table 5-21
Estimated Exposure-Polnt Concentrations for the
Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
Williams Air Force Base
Constituent
Exposure-Point Concentration
Used
Rationale for Value Used
:~ti_t)ftlll~
Oraanics (maiko)
Acetone
Toluene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Phenol
0.036
0.0032
0.276
0.189
Upper 95% confidence interval
for surface son data (samples
from 0-1 foot). A value of
one-half the detection limit
was used in the statistical
calculations for undetected
data.
lnorcanics (maiko)
Antimony
41
Upper 95% confidence interval
for soil data (too few surface
soil sarJ1)les for meaningful
statistics).
OrcanicS (malnft
Acetone
Toluene
Bis(2-ethylhexyQphthaiate
Phenol
3.6 X 10-9
3.19x 10.10
2.76 x 10-8
1.89 X 10-8
Calculated from the upper
95% confOlClence interval for
surface soil data (samples
from 0-1 foot) using a dust
loading model.
lnorcanics (malm~
Antimony
4.1 X 10-6
Calculated from the upper
95% confidence interval for
soil data.
........................_......:::.:'lll.i_III~::.
Volatile Oraanics (malnft
Acetone
Toluene
2.99 X 10.1
4.0 X 10-4
Calculated from the upper
95% confidence interval for
surface soil data (samples
from 0-1 foot) using a surface
soil volatilization model.
KNI138!WWP138S.621104-13-94ID1
-------
Table 5-22
Estimated exposure-Point Concentrat1ons for the
Hazardous Materials Storage Area (8&41)
WDDams AIr Force Base
Exposure-Point
Concentration Used
Constituent
Rationale for Value Used
Qraanics (mIka)
Acetone
Ethyl benzene
Methylene chloride
Xy\enes
Di-Mutylphlhalate
Diethylphthalate
0.0065
0.691
2.82
1.55
0.134
0.089
Inoraanics (mCll1«J)
Beryllium
Cadmium
Copper
Silver
1.1
2.1
42
1.3
Calclllated from the upper 95% confidence interval for
soil data. A value of one-haIf !he detection limit was
used in the statistical caJcuIations for unde1eCted data.
Oraanics (m~)
Acetone
Ethyl benzene
Methylene chloride
Xylenes
Di-rHxrtylphthala
Diethylph1hala1e
lnoraanics (matm~
Beryllium
Cadmium
Copper
Silver
6.50 X 10-10
6.91 X 10-6
2.82 X 10.7
1.55 X 10.7
1.34 x 10-6
8.90 x 10""
1.1 X 10.7
2.1 X 10-7
4.2 x 10~
1.3 X 10-7
Calculated from the upper 95% confidence interval for
so~ data, using a dust loading model.
II'll!;r~IIIlI'llr..:. .....
Volatile Oraanics (malm~
Acetone
Ethyl benzene
Methylene chloride
Xylenes
5.31 X 10-7
1.88 x 10~
4.48 X 10-4
5.95 x 10~
KN/1385/WP1 385.522104-1H4.01
Calculated from upper 95% confidence interval for soD
data using a subsurface soil volatilization model.
-------
Table 5-23
Estimated Exposure-Point Concentrations for
Building 789 USTs (ST-05)
Williams Air Force Base
Constituent
Exposure-Point
Concentration
Used
Rationale for Value Used
Oraanics (malm~
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
.~:;::~~~.....:... "'.~~
. .. .,.....,,,:..........:.......:..:..:. ....w,JiL. . ..... ... .. . ..
Calculated from the upper 95% confidence
interval for soil data. using a dust loading
model.
1.14 X 10-6
3.02 x 10-7
7.04 X 10-6
............... "":!11_1:IIIIf.lI~~"""'''''' ""'...
Volatile Oraanics (malm3)
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
4.05 X 10-5
4.02 X 10-5
3.52 X 10-4
Calculated from upper 95% confidence interval
for soil data using a subsurface soil
volatilization model.
KNf138!WWP1385.523104-1~94ID1
-------
Table 5-24
Estimated exposure-Point Concentrations for
Building 725 USTs (ST -(6)
Williams Air Force Base
Constituent
Exposure-Point
Concentration
Used
Rationale for Value Used
Volatile Oroanics tmatm3)
Ethyl benzene
Xylenes
2.75 X 10-7
6.52 X 10-7
CaJaliaied from upper 95% confidence interval
for soil data using subsurface soil volatilization
model.
. KNf138!w'WP1385.524104- 13-941D1
-------
1---
Table >25
Estimated Exposure-Point Concentrations for
Building 1086 USTs (8T-07)
Williams Air Force Base
Constituent
Exposure-Point
Concentration
Used
Rationale for Value Used
I -.
Volatile Oroanics Cmalm3)
Methylene chloride
2.39 X 10-6
Calculated from upper 95% confidence intelVai
for soil data using a subsurface soil
volatilization model.
KNI138S'WP138S.52S'04-13-94JD1
-------
Table 5-26
Estimated exposure-Point Concentrations for
Building 1085 USTs (ST-08)
Williams Air Force Base
(Page 1 of 2)
Constituent
Exposure-Point
Concentration
Used
Rationale for Value Used
Orcana (r11Q/1(O)
Acetone
Methylene chloride
T etrachJoroethene
Xylenes
4-Methyl phenol
Benzoic acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Bis(2-ethylheXYQphthalate
Chrysene
Oi-rH>utylphthaiate -
Oiethyl phthalate
Phenanthrene
0.021
NO
NO
NO
NO
1.22
0.370
0.434
0.409
NO
NO
0.729
lnoraanics (maiko)
Antimony
Cadmium
Cyanide
43
3.2
1.2
..," ."..... . ".,.:!18111IJIII?' n.
Upper 95% confidence interval for surface
soil data (saf11)les from 0-1 foot). A value
of one-half the detection limit was used in
the statistical calculations for undetected
data.
~ili:I::I[:III~i:~lrlli[!lliri,rjJ:li:l.iill[I[:i!:II:!Illifll:[II_... . ..~';:llfltfll_il_ljJ8rl'llff'IYI'i"4tllflllllt~,,:......:.......":i!.::~:
Oraanics (malm3)
Acetone
Methylene chloride
T etrachloroethene
Xylenes
4-Methyl phenol
Benzoic acid
Benzyl alchohol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Oi-n-butylphthalate
Oiethyl phthalate
Phenanthrene
2.1 X 10-9
NO
NO
ND
NO
1.22 x 10-7
3.70 x 10-a
4.34 x 10-a
4.09 x 10-a
NO
NO
7.29 x 10-a
lnoraanics (malm~
Antimony
Cadmium
Cyanide
4.3 x 10-0
3.2 X 10-7
1.2 X 10-7
KNf13851WP138S.526I04-13-94ID1
Calculated from the upper 95% confidence
interval for surface soil data (samples from
0-1 foot) using a dust loading-model.
-------
Table 5-26
(Page 2 of 2)
Constituent
Exposure-Point
Concentration
Used
Rationale for Value Used
Volatile Oraanics (maJm3)
Acetone
Methylene chloride
T etrachloroethene
XylemtS - .
2.47 x 1 cr3
ND
ND
ND
Calculated from the upper 95% confidence
interval for surface soil data (samples from 0-1
foot) using a surface soil volatilization model.
ND - not detected in surface soils.
KNf13851WP1385.52&'04-1~1
-------
obtaining exposme point concentrations for future land-use conditions. It was concluded that
it would not be appropriate to use such models for the following reasons. FJISt, in cases
where sources of contamination had been present at the site, the sources were removed.
Second, chemicals of potential concern were not detected in soil boring samples collected at
deep locations. Third, due to ari~ conditions in Arizona, it is assumed that the primary means
of groundwater transport is evapotranspiration. Similarly, irrigation is not likely to result in
saturation to the depths at which groundwater is located.
For sites with groundwater sample data (LF-04), the upper 95th percent confidence limit of
the arithmetic mean of the cmrent monitoring data was used as a futme RME concentration.
It was expected that future concentrations in groundwater would be less than those represent-
ed by the current exposme point concentrations due to degradation and/or dilution during
transport. In the near futUre, however, it is not known whether groundwater concentrations
directly beneath LF-04 would be higher than concentrations observed in wells on the
periphery. Subsurface samples were not collected directly in the landfill. The use of current
data for the RME excludes both the potential for increased concentrations in the near futme
and decreased concentrations in the more distant futUre. This assumption of steady-state
conditions should result in a health-protective estimate becauSe exposme is not anticipated in
the near futUre. If it does 9(:Cur, the exposme assumptions used will provide health-protective
cleanup standards.
Indoor Alr. The RME concentration for the inhalation of volatiles from groundwater was
calculated from the upper 95th percent confidence limit of the arithmetic mean of the ground-
water monitoring data using a home water use volatilization model. The models used to
estimate the concentration of volatiles in household air from general household water use are
based on a combination of volari1i7ation from general household water use and "Volari1i7~tion
while showering.
Soil. Soil samples were analyzed from depths less than I foot to 210 feet bls. For purposes
of exposme modeling, for sites with more than three surface soil samples, surface soils were
summarized separately (DP-13, Fr -08, and LF-04). An RME concentration was estimated as
the upper 95th percent confidence limit of the arithmetic mean of the sampling data for each
chemical of potential concern in each group. (For samples with no detectable concentration
of a chemical, a value of one-half the detection limit was incorporated in this computation.)
RME will tend to overestimate exposure to surface soils, especially in the futUre, because
concentrations are expected to decrease with time through weathering and voJari1i7J1tion.
KNl13851WP138S.5I04-12-94iD5
5-11 .
-------
Volatlllzstion from Soils. ReceptorS in the site areas could potentially be exposed to
vapor-phase chemicals due to voJ8ri1i7~t10n of organic compounds present in the surface or
subsurface soils. Volatilization and dispersion models were used to estimate air concentra-
tions of VOCS based on their concentrations in soil. A VOC flux from soil was calculated,
then air dispersion was modeled for on-site receptors. Model assumptions and parameters are
presented in the RI report. The upper 95th percent confidence limit of the arithmetic mean of
the soil data was used to estimate the potential concentration of chemicals in the air due to
vol~ri1i 7jlt1on.
Fugitive Dust. Estimating aD'borne concentrations of contaminants in the particulate phase
involves modeling resuspension and dispersion. Resuspension of hazardous chemical and
radionuclide contaminants may be estimated using a simple dust loading equation. These
methods are useful for estimating exposure concentrations of contaminants in air for workers
involved in remediation activities at the contaminant release point. The dust loading equation
used to estimate contaminant concentrations in resuspended dust is based on the contaminant
concentration in surface soil and a dust loading factor.
-
5.2.3.4 Uncertainties
Several sources of uncenainty in the exposure assessment process may ultimately impact the
risk assessment. These sources can be generally categorized as: current and future land-use
assumptions, environmental sampling and analysis, evaluation of exposure pathways, and
exposure parameter values.
5.3 Toxicity Assessment
5.3.1 Contaminant Toxicity Information
This section provides infannation regarding the type and severity of adverse health effects
associated with exposure to the chemicals of potential concern in groundwater and soil and a
measure of the doselresponse relationship for each. These doselresponse relationships are
provided in the fann of EPA-approved reference doses (RID) and cancer potency factors
(CPF). This infannation is summarized in Tables 5-27 and 5-28. CPFs have been developed
by EPA's Carcinogenic Assessment Group (CAG) for estimating excess cancer risks
associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in
units of risk per mglkg-day, ate multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen,
in mg/kg-day, to provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk
associated with exposme at that intake level. The tenn "upper bound" reflects the
KW13851WP1385.&04.12.94/D5
5-12
-------
Table 5.27
Summary of Reference Doses (RfD)
Williams Air Force Base
(Page 1 of 6)
I Inhalation
Oral Reference Reference Dose
Dose (RfD) (RfD)
Constituent (mgl1r
Acetone 1.00x 10.1 Increased liver and 1000 NL NL NL
kidney weight;
nephrotoxicity
Antimony 4.00 x 10-4 Longevity, blood 1000 NL NL NL
glucose, cholesterol
Benzene NL NL NL NL NL NL
Benzoic acid 4.00 No adverse effects; 1 NL NL NL
human dally per
capita Intake
Benzyl alcohol 3.00 x 10.1 a Hyperplasia of the 1000 NL NL NL
epithelium of the
forestomach
Beryllium 5.00 x 10.3 b No adverse effects 100 NL NL NL
Beta-BHC NL NL NL NL NL NL
Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2.00 x 10.2 Increased relative 1000 NL NL NL
liver weight
Bromide NL NL NL NL Nl NL
Bromodlchloromethane 2.00 x 10.2 Renal cytomegaly 1000 Nl NL NL
Cadmium 5.00 x 10-4 Significant 10 NL NL NL
(water) proteinuria .
KN113851WP1385.527104.13.94101
"
-------
Table 5-27
(Page 2 of 6)
Inhalation
Oral Reference Reference Dose
Dose (RfD) (RfD)
Constituent (mg.1
-------
Table 5..27
(Page 3 of 6)
Inhalation
Oral Reference Reference Dose
Dose (RfD) (RID)
Constituent (mglkg-day) Critical Effect UncertaInty Factor (mglkg-day) Critical Effect Uncertainty Factor
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene 9.00 x 10.2 No adverse effects 1000 4.00 x 10.28 Decreased 1000
observed body weight
gain
1 ,4-Dlchlorobenzene NL NL NL 2.00 x 10.1 8,g Liver and 100
kidney effects
Dieldrin 5.00 x 10.5 Hepatic lesions 100 NL NL NL
Dlethylphthalate 8.00 x 10.1 Decreased growth 1000 NL NL NL
rate, food
consumption and
ahered organ
weights
Dlmethylphthalate 1.00 Minor effect on 100 NL Nl Nl
growth; nephritic
Involvement
DI-n-butylphthalate 1.00 x 10.1 Increased mortality 1000 Nl Nl Nl
DI-n-octylphthalate 2.00 x 10.28 Elevated kidney and 1000 NL Nl NL
liver weights;
Increased SGOT and
SGPT
Ethyl alcohol Nl NL NL NL NL NL
Ethyl benzene 1.00 x 10.1 liver and kidney 1000 2.86 x 10.1 9 Developmental 300
toxicity toxicity
Lead 7.00 x 10-41 6.00 X 10-41
KNl13851WP1385.527104.13.941D1
-------
Table 5-27
(Page 4 of 6)
Inhalation
Oral Reference Reference Dose
Dose (RID) (RfD)
Constituent (mglkg-day) Critical Effect UncertaInty Factor (mglkg-day) Critical Effect Uncertainty Factor
Manganese 1.00 x 10.1 Central nervous 1 1.10 x 10'" 8,0 Respiratory 1
system effects symptoms,
psychomotor
disturbances
Mercury 3.00 x 10-48 Kidney effects 1000 8.6 x 10-5 8,9 Neurotoxicity 30
Methyl ethyl ketone 5.00 x 10.28 Fetotoxlclty 1000 9.00 x 10.28 Central nervous 1000
system
Methylene chloride 6.00 x 10.2 Liver toxicity 100 8.60 x 10.1 8,9 NL 100
4-Methylphenol NL NL NL NL NL NL
Nickel 2.00 x 10.2 Decreased body and UF . 100 NL NL NL
organ weight MF at 3
Nitrate 1.60 Early clinical signs of 1 NL NL NL
methemoglobinemia
Pentachlorophenol 3.00 x 10.2 Liver and kidney 100 NL NL NL
pathology
Phenanthrene NL NL NL NL NL NL
Phenol 6.00 x 10.1 Reduced fetal body 100 NL NL NL
weight In rals
Pyrene 3.00 x 10.2 Kidney effects 3000 NL '. NL NL
Selenium 5.00 x 10.3 Clinical selenosis 3 NL NL NL
Sliver 3.00 x 10-38 Argyria 2 NL NL NL
KNl138S1"'" . <\85.527/04-13.94JI)1
-------
Table 5-27
(Page 5 of 6)
Inhalation
Oral Reference Reference Dose
Dose (RfD) (RID)
Constituent (mglkg-day) Critical Effect Uncertainty Factor (mglkg-day) Critical Effect Uncertainty Factor
Tetrachloroethene 1.00 x 10-2 Hepatotoxicity In 1000 NL NL NL
mice; weight gain In
rats
Thallium 7 x 10-58 Increase In liver 3000 NL NL NL
enzymes, alopecia
Toluene 2.00 x 10-1 Changes In liver and 1000 6.00 x 10-18,9 Central nervous 100
kidney weights system effects;
eyes and nose
Irritation
. 1,2,4- Trlchlorobenzene 1.31 x 10-3 a Porphyria 1000 3.00 x 10-38 Increased 1000
uroporphyrin
Trlchloroethene NL NL NL NL NL NL
Uranium 3.00 x 10-3 f Nephrotoxicity 1000 NL NL NL
Xylenes 2.00 Hyperactivity I 100 9.00 X 10.28,9 Central nervous 100
decreased body system effects;
weight, and nose and throat
Increased mortality In Irritation
males
Zinc 2.00 x 10.18 Anemia 10 NL NL NL
NA - not applicable
NL - not listed
UF - uncertainty factor
MF - modifying factor.
KNl1385/WP1385.527104-13.94101
-------
Table 5.27
(Page 6 of 6)
The source of the toxicity values Is the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS; U.S. EPA, 1991b) unless otherwise Indicated In the footnotes.
aValue obtained from the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response; OERR 9200.6-303(91-1); January 1991.
bValue based upon soluble salts of beryllium.
cValue for gamma-chlordane was used.
dValue for potassium chromate used as most conservative estimate.
8Value was converted from the drinking water standard for copper (1.3 mgll), which was identified In HEAST. The standard default factors for Intake were
applied.
'Value based on effects of toxicity rather than effects associated with Ionizing radiation
gValue converted from Reference Concentration (RfC) to RfD according to method In HEAST;
hValue based upon Chromium VI.
iValues for lead are based on Marcus, 1986.
KN/1385/V
'1).527104-13.94101
-------
Table 5-28
Summary 01 Slope Factors (CPF)
Williams Air Force Base
(Page 1 of 4)
Oral Slope Factor Inhalation Slope
(CPFt Weight of Factor (CPFt Weight of
Constituent (mg/kg-dayt., Evidence Type of Cancer (mg/kg-day)" Evidence Type of Cancer.
Acetone NA D NA NA D NA
Antimony NE NE NE NE NE NE
Benzene 2.90 x 10.2 A Leukemia 2.90 x 10'2. A Leukemia
Benzoic acid NA D NA NA D NA
Benzyl alcohol NL NL NL NL NL NL
Beryllium 4.30 82 Total tumors 8.40. 82 Lung
Beta-8HC 1.80. 'C Liver 1.80. C NL
81s12- 1.40 x 10.2 82 Liver Nl 82 NL
8thylhexyl)phthalate
8romlde Nl Nl Nl Nl NL NL
8romodichloromethane 1.30 x 10.1 B2 Kidney, large NL 82 NL
Intestine, liver
Cadmium Nl I B1 NL 6.10 81 Respiratory tract
Carbon disulfide NE NE NE NE NE NE
Chlordane (alpha) 1.30b 82 Liver 1.30b 82 Liver
Chlordane (gamma) 1.30 82 Liver 1.30. 82 liver
Chloroform 6.10 x 10.3 82 Kidney 8.10 x 10.28 82 Liver
KN/1385/WPI385.528/04.11.94/01
-------
Table 5-28
(Page 2 of 4t
Oral Slope Factor Inhalation Slope
(CPFt Weight of Factor (CPFt Weight of .
Constituent (mglleg-day)" Evidence Type of Cancer (mglleg-day)" Evidence Type of Cancer
Chromium NL NL . NL 4.10 x 1011 A Lung
Chrysene NL 82 Lymphoma, skin NL 82 NL
Copper NA D NA NA D NA
Cyanide NA D NA NA D NA
4,4-0DO 2.40 x 10'\. 82 Liver NL 82 NL
4,4-0DE 3.40 x 10'\. 82 Liver NL 82 NL
4,4-0D1 3.40 x 10". 82 Liver 3.40 x 10". 82 Liver
1 ,2-0ichlorobenzene NA D NA NA 0 NA
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene 2.40 x 10.28 C Liver Nl C Nl
Dieldrin 1.60 x 10' 82 liver 1.60 x 1010 82 liver,
Olethylphthalate NA 0 NA NA 0 NA
Dimethylphthalate NA 0 NA NA 0 NA
Di-n-butylphthalate NA 0 NA NA 0 NA
DI-n-octylphthalate NL Nl NL NL NL Nl
I
Ethyl alcohol NL NL Nl NL NL NL
Ethyl benzene NA 0 NA NA D NA
Lead NL 82 NL NL 82 NL
Manganese NA D NA NA D NA
Mercury NA D NA NA D NA
KN/138'
85.628/04.11.94/01
-------
Table 5-28
(Page 3 of 41
Oral Slope Factor Inhalation Slope
(CPFI Weight of Factor (CPFt Weight of
Constituent (mg/kg-dayr' Evidence Type of Cancer (mg/kg-dayr' Evidence Type of Cancer
Methyl ethyl ketone NA D NA NA D NA
Methylene chloride 7.50 x 10.3 82 Liver 1.65 x 10.3d 82 Lung, liver
4-Methylphenol NL C Skin papilloma NL NL NL
Nickel NE NE NE 1.70. A Respiratory tract
Nitrate NL NL NL NL NL NL
Pentachlorophenol 1.20 x 10". 82 Liver, adrenal, NL 82 NL
circulatory
system
Phenanthrene NA D NA NA D NA
Phenol NA D NA NA D NA
Pyrene NA D NA NA D NA
Selenium NA D NA NA D NA
Selenium sulfide NL 82 NL NL 82 NL
Silver NA D NA NA D NA
T etrachloroethene 5.10 x 10.28 82 Liver 1. 80 x 1 02..d 82 Leukemia, liver
Thallium NL NL NL NL NL NL
Toluene NA D NA NA D NA
1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene NA D NA NA D NA
T richloroethene 1.10 x 10.2. 82 Liver 1 .70 X 10'2. 82 Lung
KN/I 385/WPI 385.528104.'1 .941DI
-------
Table 5-28
(Page 4 of 4)
Oral Slope Factor Inhalation Slope
eCPF) Weight of Factor (CPF) Weight of
Constituent (mg/kg-day)"' Evidence Type of Cancer emg/kg-day)"' Evidence Type of Cancer
Uranium NL NL NL NL NL NL
Xylenes NA D NA NA D NA
Zinc NA D NA NA D NA
NA - Not applicable
NE - Chemical has not been evaluated for carcinogenicity.
NL - Not listed
The source of the toxicity values Is the Integrated Risk Information System URIS; U.S. EPA, 1991b) unless otherwise indicated In the footnotes.
.Values obtained from the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
"Value for gamma-chlordane was used In absence of value for alpha-chlordane.
cBased on oral data
dValue converted from unit risk estimate to CPF using conversion method In HEAST.
U",IJtI!>
If> &2t1/04.11.94/DI
-------
conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the CPF. Use of this approach makes
. .
underestimation of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely. CPFs are derived from the results
of human epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-human
extrapolation was applied.
RIDs have been developed by EP A for indicating the potential for adverse health effects from
exposure to chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RIDs, which are expressed in units
of mg/kg-day, are estimates of chronic daily exposure levels for humans, including sensitive
individuals. Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount of
chemical ingested from contaJTlinate
-------
5.4 Risk Characterization
This section addresses the potential for adverse health effects (both cancer and other toxic
effects) based on a quantitative characterization of risk. The risk characterization takes into
account the magnitude of exposure to a chemical of potential concern (dose), as discussed in
Section 5.2, and the chemical's toxicity (Section 5.3). Risks are characterized for carcinogen-
ic chemicals in tenns of n.cR, and for noncarcinogenic chemicals with other toxic effects in
tenns of a hazard index (HI). Both of these are discussed in the following sections.
5.4.1 Carcinogenic Effects
ll..CRs were estimated for each potentially carcinogenic chemical. ILCR is expressed in tenns
of additional cancers that might be anticipated as a result of specific exposme to an external
influence. Thus, a 1 x 10-6 ILCR indicates that one additional person in one million is likely
to develop some form of cancer or that an exposed individual has an additional one-in-one
million chance of developing cancer. Estimation of ILCR is given by:
D£R = (CPF)(CDI)
where:
ILCR = Incremental lifetime cancer risk (unitless)
CPF = Can:inogenic slope factor [(mg/kg/dayr1]
CDI = Chronic daily intake (mg/kg/day),equivalent to average daily intake.
The CPFs used are the most recent values developed by the CAG of EP A as cited in the
Integrated Risk Infonnation System (IRIS) database (EPA, 1991b) and Health Effects
Assessment Summary Tables (BEAST) (EPA, 1991c).
In weighing acceptable residential exposmes to potentially carcinogenic compounds, EP A
recommends the use of an acceptable risk range of 10-4 to 10-6 for CERCLA sites (EPA,
1990). EP A also uses an incremental lifetime risk level of one in one million as a point of
departure for developing drinking water standards (EPA, 1987). The maximum acceptable
ILCR recommended by the EP A for drinking water is 10-4 (EP A, 1987).
EP A recommends that site-specific factorS, such as the likelihood that the exposme
assump~ons used will be fulfilled, be considered when deciding where in the risk range of
10-4 to 10-6 a specific site should fail to be acceptable (EP A, 1990).
KNI138S'WP138S.5I04-12-941D5
5-14
-------
5.4.2 Noncarcinogenic Effects
Chemicals that produce health effects other than cancer were evaluated in tenns of their
relative hazard when compared to acceptable exposme levels. The hazard quotient (HQ) for
exposme to noncarcinogens based on the ratio of the estimated daily intake to an acceptable
daily exposure is as follows:
HQ. = D. IRm.
lop 1.11--1
where:
HQi,p = Individual hazard quotient for exposme to constituent i through exposme path-
wayp
Di,; = Daily intake via a specific pathway for constituent i (mg/kg-day)
~ = Reference dose for exposure by the specific pathway for constituent i (mg/kg-
day)
The HQ does not define intake response relationships and its numerical value should not be
construed to be a probabilistic estimate of risk. It is a numerical proximity to acceptable
limits of exposme or the degree to which acceptable exposure levels are exceeded. As this
index approaches unity, concern for the potential hazard of the constituent increases.
Exceeding unity does not in itself imply a potential hazard; however, it does suggest that a
given situation should be more closely scrutinized.
The sum of all HQs for a given pathway or medium is the HI. The EP A advocates the use of
total HI for a mixture of components based on the assumption of response additivity.
Summation of the individual HQs could result in an HI that exceeds 1, even if no single
chemical exceeds its acceptable level Mechanistically, it is not appropriate to sum HQs
unless the constituents that make up the mixture have similar modes of action on the identical
organ. Consequently, the summing of HQs for a mixture of compounds that are not expected
to induce the same type of effects could overestimate the potential risk. The EP A
recommends that if the total HI is greater than unity, the components of the mixture should
be grouped by critical effect and separate HIs derived for each effect. Critical effects are
described in the HEAST documents and in IRIS (EPA, 1991a,b), and are summarized in
Table 5-27.
KN/138&WP138S.!i/04-12-941D5
5-15
-------
5.4.3 ChemlcsJs with No Published Toxicity Values
4-Methylphenol. In the absence of toxicity values for 4-methylphenol. the potential risks
were evaluated qualitatively. 4-Methylphenol was detected in one of 18 soil samples from
ST.{)8; however. 4-methylphenol was not detected in the surface soils. The upper 95 percent
concentration calculated for this compound is 3.37 mg/kg. The exposure pathways that were
investigated for ST -08 include: incidental ingestion of soils. dennal contact with soil.
inh;dation of volatiles from soils. and inhalation of fugitive dusts. Given that 4-methylphenol
was detected only once in the subsurface soils. it was concluded that significant exposure to
this chemical is unlikely.
Phenanthrene. In the absence of toxicity values. the potential toxicity of phenanthrene was
evaluated qualitatively. Phenanthrene was detected in one of seven surface soil samples from
ST -08. The upper 95 percent concentration was 0.729 mg/kg. The exposure pathways that
were investigated for ST -08 include: incidental ingestion of soils. dennal contact with soil.
inhalation of volatiles from soils. and inhalation of fugitive dusts. Due to the low frequency
at which this compound was detected, the presence of phenanthrene in the surface soils is not
expected to conttibute significantly to the III for ST -08. Because this chemical has a Group
D designation for carcinogenicity. there are no cancer risks associated with phenanthrene.
5.4.4 Results 01 Risk Characterization
5.4.4.1 Landfill (LF-D4)
Risk characterization results for LF-04 are presented in Appendix F.3 of the RI repon and
summarized in Table 5-29.
Under the current and future residential scenarios. the ILCRs for the incidental ingestion of
soil and ingestion of groundwater were within the target risk range of 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-4.
Major contributors to risk were beryllium in groundwater and soils. benzene in groundwater.
and dieldrin in soils. Ingestion of groundwater also led to an III greater than unity. due
primarily to antimony and chromium.
Under the occupational scenario. the ll.CR for incidental ingestion of soil was within the
target risk range. primarily due to beryllium and dieldrin. No Ills were greater than unity for
this scenario.
KNl1385/WP1385.5104-12-94IDS
5-16
-------
.6 5-29
Summary 01 Risk Characterization Results
landfill (LF-04)
Williams Air Force Base
Exposure Pathway Total Hazard Index Primary Contrlbutor(s) Total ILCR Primary Contributor(s)
Ingestion of GroundwaterB 6.71 Antimony, chromium 7.48 x 10.5 Beryllium, benzene
Inhalation of Volatiles from 1 .1 6 x 10-4 Carbon disulfide 1 .76 x 10~ Benzene
GroundwaterB
Dermal Contact with GroundwaterB 1 .61 x 10-4 Chromium 1 .20 x 10.7 Beryllium
Total Groundwater ILCR: 7.49 x 10.5
Dermal Contact with Soli 1 .07 x 10.1 Dieldrin, 1 ,2,4-trlchloro- 6.13 x 10-e Dieldrin
benzene
Incidental Ingestion of 5011 6.76 x 10-2 Cadmium, thallium 1 .38 x 10-5 Beryllium
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 2.1 6 x 10-4 Thallium, dieldrin 3.59 x 10.7 Beryllium
Inhalation of Volatiles from 5011 Not quantlfledb Not quantlfledb
Total Soli ILCR: 2.03 x 10-5
Dermal Contact with Soli 8.04 x 10-3 Dieldrin, 1 ,2,4-trlchloro- 1 .92 x 10-e Dieldrin
benzene
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 2.59 x 10.3 Thallium 2.21 x 10-e Beryllium
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 1 .54 x 10-4 Thallium, Dieldrin 2.14 x 10.7 Beryllium
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli Not quantlfledb Not quantlfledb
Total Soli ILCR: 4.34 x 10-e
8Applles only to future scenario. .
bNot quantified because no volatile organic compounds were detected In landfill solis.
KNlI385/WPI385.529104.13.941D1
-------
5.4.4.2 Northwest Drainage System (S0-10)
Risk characterization results for SD-IO are presented in Appendix F.3 of the RI report and
summarized in Table 5-30.
For the cmrent and future residential scenarios, all pathways resulted in D.£Rs less than the
target risk range of 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-4 except for incidental ingestion of soil and inh~1anon
of volatiles from soil, which resulted in ILCRs within this range. Primary contributors were
beryllium and chloroform. No pathways resulted in Ins greater than 1.
Under the occupational scenario, inhalation of volatiles from soil resulted in ILCRs within the
target risk range, primarily due to chloroform. No pathways resulted in ll..CRs greater than
that range or IDs greater than 1.
5.4.4.3 Radioactive Instrumentation BurlsJ Ares (RW-11)
The analytical results from RW -11 indicated that radium and uranium concentrations in soil
near the two remaining footings ranged from 0.7 to 1.0 picoCuries per gram (pCiIg) of soil,
which is consistent with the concentrations of radionuclide.s found naturally in Arizona
smface soils (Myrick, et al. 1983).
In the event that an individual trespasses in RW-ll, exposures may include incidental
ingestion, dennal contact or inhalation of soil or dust from the area. Because significant
disturbance of the soils would not be expected under a current land-use scenario, the primary
exposure would involve surface soils rather than the subsurface soils near the buried concrete
footings. The potential for exposures associated with future land-use conditions, however,
cannot be excluded. The condition of the concrete footing and the actual contents of the
footings have not been investigated. In the absence of these data, it was assumed that the
footings would eventUally deteriorate and release radionuclides into the soil. These conclu-
sions are supported by a series of calculations that provide the basis for the estimated quantity
of radium associated with RW-ll (IT, 1991c).
5.4.4.4 Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
Risk characterization results for DP-13 are presented in Appendix F.3 of the RI report and
summarized in Table 5-31.
K~385IWP138S.5I04.'2-94IDS
5-17
-------
Table 5-30
Summary 01 Risk Characterization Results
Northwest Drainage System (SO-10)
WIlliams Air Force Base
Exposure Pathway Total Hazard Index Primary Contrlbutor(s) Total IlCR Primary Contrlbutor(s)
Dermal Contact with Soli 1 .26 x 10.2 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2.80 x 10.7 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 2.12 x 10.1 Antimony 4.51 x 10-6 Beryllium
Inhalation ot Fugitive Dust 4.62 x 10-4 Antimony 1 .39 x 10-7 Beryllium, cadmium
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli 1 .02 x 10.2 Chloroform 3.62 x 10-6 Chloroform
Total Soli ILCR: 8.55 x 10-6
Dermal Contact with Soil 1 .01 x 10-3 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 1 .02 x 10-7 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
chloroform chlarofonn
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 8.12 x 10-3 Antimony 7.19 x 10.7 Beryllium
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 3.30 x 10-4 Antimony 8.28 x 10-6 Beryllium, cadmium
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli 7.26 x 10-3 Chloroform 2.15 x 10-6 Chloroform
Total Soli ILCR: 3.05 x 10-6
KNl138S'WP1385.53OI04.13.94101
-------
- -. --.- --~ - - .-- ~ -. .- - -.---.- --. -- ----~-- - ---- .
Table 5-31
Summary of Risk Characterization Results
Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
Williams Air Force Base
Exposure Pathway Total Hazam Index Primary Contrlbutor(s) Total ILCR Primary Contrlbutor(s)
Dermal Contact with Soli 5.21 x 1 0'" Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1 .21 x 1 0-8 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
'ncldental Ingestion of Soli 3.93 x 1 0-1 Antimony 1 .27 x 1 0.9 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
'nhalatlon of Fugitive Dust 2.81 x 1 0-3 Antimony 4.54 x 1 0.1 1 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
'nhalatlon of Volatiles from Soli 8.21 x 1 0-2 Acetone NAa NA
Total Soli ILCR: 1 .34 x 1 0-8
Dermal Contact with Soli 3.92 x 1 0.5 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 3.78 x 1 0-9 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 5.03 x 1 0.2 Antimony 2.03 x 1 0-10 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 2.01 x 1 0-3 Antimony 2.70 x 1 0.1 1 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli 5.86 x 1 0-2 Acetone NA NA
Total Soli ILCR: 4.01 x 1 0.9
aNA - Not applicable; no volatile organic carcinogens were detected at this site.
. 385/WP1385.531104-13.9W1
-------
For the C\JITent and future residential scenarios, and for the current occupational scenario, no
pathways resulted in ILCRs greater than or within the target risk range of 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 104 .
or in HIs greater than 1.
5.4.4.5 Hszsrdous Materials Storage Area (SS-D1)
Risk characterization results for SS-OI are presented in Appendix F.3 of the RI report and
summarized in Table 5-32.
Under the current and future residential scenarios, incidental ingestion of soil and inhalation
of fugitive dust resulted in ILCRs within the target risk range of 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 104. Major
contributorS to risk were beryllium and cadmium. No pathways resulted in ll..CRs greater
than the target risk range or HIs greater than 1.
Under the occupational scenario, no pathways resulted in ll..CRs greater than or within the
target risk range or HIs greater than 1.
5.4.4.6 USTs at Building 789 (ST -05)
Risk cb.ara.cterization -results for ST -05 are presented in Appendix F.3 of the RI report and
summarized in Table 5-33. There were no carcinogens detected in ST-05, and for residential
and occupational scenarios, no pathway resulted in an :m greater than 1.
5.4.4.7 USTs at Building 725 (ST-06)
Risk characterization results for ST-06 are presented in Appendix F.3 of the RI report and
summarized in Table 5-34. There were no carcinogens detected in ST -06, and for residential
and occupational scenarios, no pathway resulted in an :m greater than 1.
5.4.4.8 USTs at Building 1086 (ST -(7)
Risk characterization results for ST -07 are presented in Appendix F.3 of the RI report and
summarized in Table 5-35. For residential and occupational scenarios, no pathway resulted in
an ll£R greater than or within the target risk range of 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-4 or a:m greater
than 1. Methylene chloride (a possible laboratory contaminant) was the only chemical of
potential concern in ST -07.
5.4.4.9. USTs at Building 1085 (ST -(8)
Risk characterization results for ST -08 are presented in Appendix F.3 of the RI report and
summarized in Table 5-36.
KW138MW1385.!W04-12-941D5
5-18
-------
Table 5-32
Summary of Risk Characterization Results
Hazardous Materials Storage Area (88-01)
Williams Air Force Base
Exposure Pathway Total Hazard Index Primary Contrlbutor(s) Total IlCR Primary Contrlbutor( s)
Dermal Contact with Soli 1 .07 x 1 0-3 Methylene chloride 3.30 x 1 0-8 Methylene chloride
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 2.97 x 1 0-2 Copper 5.19 x 1 0-8 Beryllium
Inhalation o' Fugitive Dust 1 .07 x 1 0-4 Cadmium 1 .61 x 1 0-8 Cadmium
Inhalation o' Volatiles from Soli 1 .65 x 1 0-4 Methylene chloride 8.68 x 1 0-8 Methylene chloride
Total Soli ILCR: 6.92 x 10-8
Dermal Contact with Soli 8.08 x 1 0.5 Methylene chloride. ethyl 1 .04 x 1 0-8 Methylene chloride
benzene
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 1 .1 4 x 1 0-3 Copper 8.28 x 1 0.7 Beryllium
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 1 .1 4 x 1 0-4 Cadmium 9.6 x 1 0.7 Cadmium
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli 1 1 8 x 1 0-4 Methylene chloride 5. 1 7 x 1 0-8 Methylene chloride
Total Soli ILCR: 1 .85 x 1 0-6
." 385/WPI3aS.532104.13.94101
-------
Table 5-33
Summary of Risk Characterization Results
Building 789 USTs (ST -05)
Williams Air Force Base
Exposure Pathway Total Hazard Index Prtmary Contrlbutor(s) Total ILCR Prtmary Contrtbutor(s)
Dermal Contact with Soli 3.23 x 1 0-3 Ethyl benzene NA8 NA
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 6.30 x 1 0-4 Ethyl benzene NA NA
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 2.27 x 1 0-5 Xylenes NA NA
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli 1 .1 8 x 1 0-3 Xylenes NA NA
Dermal Contact with Soli 2.43 x 1 0-4 Ethyl benzene NA NA
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 2.41 x 1 0-5 Ethyl benzene NA NA
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 1 .62 x 1 0-5 Xylenes NA NA
Inhalation 01 Volatiles from Soli 8.46 x 1 0-4 Xylenes NA NA
aNA - Not applicable; no carcinogenic chemicals 01 potential concern were found at this site.
KN/I385/WPI385.533104-13-941D1
-------
Table 5-34
Summary o' Risk Characterization Results
Building 725 USTs (ST -(6)
Williams Air Force Base
I
Exposure Pathway Total Hazard Index Primary Contrlbutor(s) Total ILCR Primary Contrlbutor(s)
Dermal Contact with Soli 3.79 x 1 0-5 Ethyl benzene NAB NA
Incidental Ingestion 0' Soli 7.24 x 1 0-6 Ethyl benzene NA NA
Inhalation 0' Fugitive Dust 1 .24 x 1 0-6 Xylenes NA NA
Inhalation 0' Volatiles 'rom Soli 2.34 x 1 0-6 Xylenes NA NA
Dermal Contact with Soli 2.85 x 1 0-6 Ethyl benzene NA NA
Incidental Ingestion 0' Soli 2.77 x 1 0-7 Ethyl benzene NA NA
Inhalation 0' Fugitive Dust 5.28 x 1 0-9 Xylenes NA NA
Inhalation 0' Volatiles 'rom Soli 1 .68 x 1 0-6 Xylenes NA NA
aNA. Not applicable; no carcinogenic chemicals 0' potential concern were 'ound at this site.
'1385/WP1385.534104.13.941D1
-------
Table 5-35
Summary of Risk Characterization Results
Building 1086 USTs (ST-07).
WIlliams Air Force Base
Exposure Pathway Total Hazard Index Prtmary Contrlbutor(s) Total ILCR Prtmary Contrtbutor(s)
Dermal Contact with Soli 5.63 x 10~ Methylene chloride 2.17 x 10.10 Methylene chloride
Incidental Ingestion 0' Soli 1 .66 x 10~ Methylene chloride 8.41 x 10.11 Methylene chloride
Inhalation 0' Fugitive Dust 8.28 x 10.10 Methylene chloride 5.04 x 10.13 Methylene chloride
Inhalation 0' Volatiles 'rom Soli 7.64 x 10.7 Methylene chloride 4.83 x 10.10 Methylene chloride
Total Soli ILCR: 7.45 x 10.10
Dermal Contact with Soli 5.94 x 10.7 Methylene chloride 9.55 x 10.11 Methylene chloride
Incidental Ingestion 0' Soli 6.36 x 10-8 Methylene chloride 1 .02 x 10.1 1 Methylene chloride
Inhalation 0' Fugitive Dust 5.92 x 10.10 Methylene chloride 3.00 x 10.13 Methylene chloride
Inhalation 0' Volatiles 'rom Soli 5.46 x 10.7 Methylene chloride 2.76 x 10.10 Methylene chloride
Total Soli ILCR: 3.82 x 10.10
KNlI385/WPI385.53SI04-13.941D1
-------
Table 5-36
Summary 01 Risk Characterization Results
Building 1085 USTs (8T -D8)
Williams Air Force Base
Exposure Pathway Total Hazard Index Primary Contributor(s) Total ILCR Primary Contributor(s)
Dermal Contact with Soli 8.5 x 10-4 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1 .90 x 10-8 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 1 .42 Antimony 2.00 x 10.9 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 3.03 x 10-3 Antimony 2.29 x 10.7 Cadmium
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli 8.77 x 10-3 Acetone NAB NA
Total Soil ILCR: 2.50 x 10-7
Dermal Contact with Soli 6.40 x 10.5 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 5.95 x 10.9 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 1 .63 x 10-2 Antimony 3.18 x 10-10 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Inhalation 01 Fugitive Dust 2.23 x 10-3 Antimony 1 .36 x 10-7 Cadmium
Inhalation 01 Volatiles Irom Soil 4.83 x 10-3 Acetone NA NA
Total Soli ILCR: 1 .42 x 10-7
aNA - Not applicable; no volatile organic carcinogens were detected at this site.
"1385/WP1385.538I04.13.941D1
-------
For the future residential scenario, no pathway resulted in an ILCR greater than or within the
target risk range of 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-4. Incidental ingestion of soil resulted in an III greater
than I, primarily due to antimony.
Under the occupational scenario, no pathways resulted in ILCRs within or greater than the
target risk range or IDs greater than 1.
5.4.5 Uncertalntles
A risk assessment of a site is ultimately an integrated evaluation of historical, chemical,
analytical, environmental, demographic, and toxicological data that are as site-specific as
possible. In order to present a conservative evaluation, each step is biased toward health
protective estimations. In addition, these calculations do not represent currently existing or
expected future exposure or health risks. They are estimates of potential risk only if all of
the conservative assumptions are realized. As discussed in the exposure assessment, this risk
assessment does not represent a worst-case scenario; therefore, the potential for under-
estimating some risks to some receptorS does exist
The reported levels of antimony are expected to be one to two orders of magnitude higher
than actual concentrations. as a result of inaccurate laboratory calculations; therefore, the risk
characterization results with respect to antimony should be considered preliminary and may
change significantly as the data are updated.
5.4.5.1 Updated Risk Assessment
Based on the recommendations of the OU-l RI report, additional surface soil samples were
collected in September 1993 to establish Base-specific background inorganic levels. Nine
samples and one duplicate were collected in accordance with an approved OU--l Field
Sampling Plan Addendum (IT, 1993b) and the analytical results were used to determine a
Base-specific background range in surface soils for each metal. These ranges are presented in
Table 4-1. As shown in this table, the Base-specific background ranges are within the
regional ranges and are comparable; therefore, use of the regional ranges for background
values for inorganics to perform the risk assessment was appropriate.
During preparation of an Addendum to the OU-l RI report, the risk assessments for OU-!
sites were rerun to determine any potential impact of the use of Base-specific background
values on the final outcome of the risk assessment It was determined at the time to keep all
other criteria constant; that is, the guidance and toxicity values that were in place at the time
KN/13851WP1385.5104-12-941D5
5-19
-------
of the initial risk assessment were utilized rather than updating the entire risk assessment to
reflect current guidance. practices. and toxicity values. The reevaluation of the risk
assessment on that basis resulted in selecting several additional inorganics as chemicals of
potential concern that were initially not selected and risks being evaluated for those additional
inorganics. Results of those risk assessment evaluations are presented, for each OU-l site that
required modification in the addendum to the OU-l RI repon (IT, 1994b) and results for all
OU-l sites are summarized in Appendix A.l of this ROD. The following are the major
differences betWeen the initial and reevaluation of the risk assessment:
. Fire Protection Training Area No.1, which had previously not been addressed in
the risk assessment process, has risks quantified for it.
. Lead required evaluation for risk due to its inclusion as a chemical of potential
concern. Lead was excluded from the initial risk assessment based on regional
background values. When the risk assessment was initially run, there was guidance
in place that allowed for the quantification of risks due to lead. This is no longer
true by cmrent (1994) guidance practices, i.e., there are no EPA-approved toxicity
values for lead. However, in an attempt to keep the basis of the risk assessments
consistent, risks due to lead at the appropriate sites were quantified.
. A construction worker scenario was added for the UST sites (ST-05, ST-06, ST-07,
and ST -08) to evaluate a shaner exposure duration occupational worker. This is in
response to some comments raised by the reuse group concerning potential reuse
scenarios that were initially not considered. Evaluations did not show any
unacceptable risks to human health under this scenario.
Although the quantified risk values for HIs and ll..CRs had minor changes for the various
sites, the overall results of the risk assessment resulted in no additional chemicals of potential
concern with risk estimates above acceptable health levels for any OU-l site.
Below is a summary of all human health risks from the reevaluation for each site. All HIs
above one or ll..CRs greater than the target risk range of 1 x 10-6 to I x 10-4 are noted:
. Landfill (LF-04)
- ID::::6.71, Ingestion of Groundwater, Future Resident, Primary Contributors -
antimony and chromium
- ID=1.21, Incidental Ingestion of Soil, Cwrent and Future Resident, Primary
Contributor - lead
- No ll..CRs above 1 x 10-4
KNf13851WP1385~12-941D5
5-20
-------
. Fue Protection Training Area No.1 (FT-03)
- ID=1.37, Incidental Ingestion of Soil, Current and FutUre Resident, Primary
Contributor - antimony
No ILCRs above 1 x 10-4
. Nonhwest Drainage System (SD-IO)
- No IDs above 1
- No ILCRs above 1 x 10-4
. Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
- No IDs above 1
- No ll..CRs above 1 x 10-4
. Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-Ol)
- No IDs above 1
- No ll..CRs above 1 x 10-4
. USTs (ST -05)
- No IDs above 1
. USTs (ST -06)
- No IDs above 1
. USTs (ST -07)
No IDs above 1
- No ILCRs above 1 x 10-4
. USTs (ST -08)
- No IDs above 1
- No ILCRs above 1 x 10-4.
5.4.5.2 EPA Evaluation of Risk Assessment
On February 7, 1994, EPA Region IX issued a memorandum concerning an independent
evaluation of the risks associated with the OU-l sites at Williams AFB, which is included in
this document for reference purposes as Appendix A2. In that memorandum, EP A compared
the concentrations of metals that were not initially considered in the risk assessment to EPA
Region IX PRGs, and calculated a cancer and noncancer risk from each metal. In addition,
risks were calculated for metals whose concentrations exceeded EP A's PRGs even if the
values were within regional background levels. Those risk values were then added to the
risks calculated during the risk assessment presented in the OU-l Rl Repon to yield an
estimated cumulative risk. As part of the EP A's conservative approach, a residential scenario
was utilized. Funhermore, the highest detected concentrations were used in the risk
KN/13851WP1385.5104-12-94IDS
5-21
-------
calculations, regardless of the depth at which they were detected and whether or not those
soils had been removed during removal or response action.
The conclusion of EP A's evaluation was that, based on all available data, the remedies
proposed for OU-1 sites are valid. This independent evaluation not only confirmed that the
risks calculated in both the RI Report and the RI Report Addendum are valid, but that the
risks from OU-l site contaminants are acceptable when compared against current EP A
guidance and practices.
5.5 Ecological Risk Assessment
An ecological risk assessment of the Base was performed by IT in 1993. The following text
is summarized from the Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment: Operable Unit-3 - Basewide
repon (IT, 1993c).
5.5.1 ObjectIves
The main objective of this Ecological Risk Assessment was to assess the potential risk of
particular contaminants upon the ecosystems present at 13 study sites located primarily in the
western half of Williams AFB: Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13), FIre Protection Training Area
No.2 (FI'-02), Fire Protection Training Area No.1 (FI'-03), Landfill (LF-04), Radioactive
Instrumentation Burial Area (RW-11), Southwest Drainage System (SD-09), Northwest
Drainage System (SD-I0), Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-OI), Building 789 USTs
(ST-05), Building 725 USTs (ST-06), Building 1086 USTs (ST-07), Building 1085 USTs (ST-
08), and Liquid Fuels Storage Area (ST -12). This ecological assessment evaluated potential
adverse impacts associated with estimated exposure concentrations relative to maximum
acceptable exposure concentrations for selected ecological receptors at these sites. A weight-
of -evidence approach, including site-specific observations of vegetative cover, live-trapping to
characterize small mammal populations, extensive evaluation of the ecological and toxico-
logical literature, food web modeling of exposure point concentrations, and chemical analysis
of chemicals of concern levels in animal and plant tissues, was used to estimate risks posed
by site-related contaminants to selected ecological receptorS. This assessment was designed
to be conservative and is likely to overestimate actual receptor exposure levels. Therefore,
risk characterization may indicate that an ecological receptor is at risk from exposure to a
contaminant, when in fact no actual impact has occurred or is occuning. The conclusions
that follow address only the affected OU-1 sites and exclude FT-02, SD-09, and ST-12.
KW13851WP13B5.5104-13-94JD5
5-22
-------
5.5.2 Conclusions
A summary of problem formulation results for all OU-I sites appears in Table 5-37.
Conceptual modeling segregated study sites into two groups: those requiring further risk
characterization and those Jacking one or more of the components required for exposure to
occur.
Study site RW-ll was excluded from further consideration due to a lack of identified
chemicals of concern and complete exposure pathways. Study site SS-OI was excluded due
to a lack of potential receptors. Study sites ST -OS, ST -06. ST -07. and ST -08 were excluded
due to a lack of complete exposure pathways and ecological receptors. Although study sites
FI' -03 and SD-IO have chemicals of concern, receptors. and complete pathways. on-going
maintenance mowing has a greater adverse impact on ecological receptors than the limited
number of chemicals of concern present at these sites. These sites were excluded from
further consideration for this reason.
It was determined that invertebrate and vertebrate receptors extant in. near or transiting study
sites DP-13 and LF-04 could be experiencing acute or chronic toxic effects due to
contaminants in soils or surface water. These sites were carried forward for risk character-
ization.
5.5.2.1 Pestlclde Burial Area (DP-13)
At DP-13. sources of all chemicals of concern have been removed. The pesticides detected
have a potential to bioaccumulate from abiotic media and food items to levels harmful to
higher trophic level receptors. However. the frequency of detection was only 5 percent for
both DDE and dieldrin. suggesting that the extent of contamination. and thus opportunities for
exposure. is low.
Information obtained from the weight-of-evidence approach suggests that bioaccumulation or
biomagnification has not been occmring to the extent that harmful chemicals of concern
levels were reached in indicator species. No estimated dietary concentrations of chemicals of
concern exceeded acceptable levels for any indicator species. Chemical analyses did not
identify significant differences in cotton rat. woodrat, or plant tissue levels of antimony,
dieldrin. or 4.4'-DDE between samples collected near DP-13 and at a reference area. No
adverse. effects were observed directly during the site surveys.
KNf138S'WP1385.5104-13-94JDS
5-23
-------
Table 5-37
Summary of Problem Formulation Results for OU-1 Sites
COMPLETE COMMENTSI
f?TUDY COCs RECEPTORS EXPOSURE RECOMENDATIONS
SITE PRESENT? AVAILABLE? PATHWAYS?
I numerous potential receptors present; COCs Include
OP-13 yes yes yes
pesticides; further risk characterization required
FT -03 few yes yes limited number of COCs; on-going mechanical stress
(mowing); exclude from further consideration
IF-04 yes yes yes numerous potential receptors present; COCs Include
pesticides; further risk characterization required
RW-11 no yes no removal and closure actions complete; no COCs present;
exclude from further consideration
50-10 few yes yes limited number of COCs; on-golng mechanical stress
(mowing); exclude from further consideration
55-01 yes no yes source removal complete; lacks habitat for receptors; exclude
from further consideration
ST-05 few no no removal and closure actions complete; no COCs present at
ST-06 surface; lacks habitat for receptors; exclude from further
ST -07 consideration
ST-08
. '138111WP138U37104-1S-MlD1
-------
Based on the data presented, and taking into consideration the uncenainties inherent in this
assessment, the probability for adverse ecological effects occurring at DP-13 was judged to be
not significant It can be concluded that alteration of habitat by direct mechanical stresses has
had a more profound effect on this site than the chemicals of concern. This area has been
remediated. and no fmther action is recommended.
5.5.2.2 Landfill (LF-D4)
LF-04 is utilized by bwrowing animals (primarily ground squmels, rabbits, and rodents)
living in intimate contact with contaminated soils. This type of contact facilitates the
potential for bioaccumulation and subsequent biomagnification is of particular concern with
regards to rodent predators such as raptors and coyotes. Information obtained from weight-
of -evidence methods suggests that actual intake is not occmring to the extent that hannful
chemicals of concern levels were being reached in the indicator species.
Chemical analyses did not identify significant differences in tissue levels of any metal or
pesticide betWeen cotton rat, woodrat, or plant tissue samples collected at LF-04 and at a
reference area. Detectable levels of 4,4'-DDE were found in plant tissues collected at LF-04
but not at levels statistically different from a reference area. It is not possible to completely
exclude the possibility that small, isolated pesticide "hot spots" exist within or near LF-04.
Whether any such hot spots might be due to site-related activities or from off-site agricultural
operations would be difficult to determine. No adverse effects were observed directly during
the site surveys.
When evaluating whether pentachlorophenol concentrations pose an unacceptable risk to the
coyote and desen cottontail, ecological, as well as tOxicological, factors should be taken intO
consideration. For example, actual intake is strongly influenced by an animal's-mobility (the
cottontail feeds in a foraging range of approximately 14.4 acres; the coyote's foraging range
is approximately 1,162 acres, which takes in areas other than the landfill). As a result, these
species may spend only a small proportion of their time actually foraging on the landfill.
Based on the data presented, and taking into consideration the uncenainties inherent in this
assessment, the probability for adverse ecological effects occurring at LF-04 are judged to be
not significant. However, because of uncertainty regarding pesticide levels, it is suggested
that some measures be taken to limit bwrowing animal access to landfill materials. It can be
concluded that alteration of habitat by direct mechanical stresses has had a more profound
effect on this site than the chemicals of concern.
KNl1~1385.5104-13-94IDS
5-24
-------
5.5.2.3 Conclusion Summary
Based on all available information at this time and taking into account the uncertainties
addressed in the Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment and summarized in this section, all of
the OU-I sites do not pose significant ecological risk.
5.6 Selection of ChemlCBls Requiring Remedial Action
To determine which chemicals of potential concern found in OU-I groundwater and soils
required the evaluation and application of remedial technologies, media-specific criteria were
developed. This determination identified which chemicals or metals would require remedia-
tion to meet remediation goals. In performing this determination, the concenuations of
chemicals/metals used were the 95 percent UCL concentrations defined during the risk
assessmenL A sample UCL concentration calculation is presented in Appendix H to the
OU-I FS repon. .
The groundwater criteria for determining chemicals/metals requiring remedial action to meet
remediation goals are as follows:
. Each chemica.Vmetal with a upper confidence limit (UCL) concentration that did
not exceed the remediation goal based on the applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARAR), criteria to be considered (TBC) such as risk-based criteria,
and maximum background values, was determined to not require remedial action.
. Each chemica.Vmetal resulting from well construction material as explained in
Appendix D of the FS report was eliminated because the associated data points do
not represent the concentrations of these chemicals/metals (i.e., nickel, chromium,
and zinc) in the aquifer.
. Each chemica.Vmetal with a UCL concentration and remediation goal below the
detection limit was eliminated when there were no detections of the chemi-
ca1/metal.
. Each chemica.Vmetal with a UCL concentration above the respective limit but
whose presence was due to activities external to OU-I was detennined to not
require remedial action. This criterion relates directly to nitrate levels as explained
in Appendix E of the FS report.
The soil criteria for determining chemicals/metals requiring remedial action to meet measur-
able remediation goals are as follows:
KNI13851WP1385.!W04-13-941D5
5-25
-------
. Each chemica1lmetal with an UCL concentration that did not exceed the
remediation goal based on risk-based TBCs was determined not to require remedial
action.
. Each chemicaJ/metal with a UCL concentration equivalent to or below background
was detenIrined not to require remedial action.
. Each chemica1lmetal with a UCL concentration and remediation goal below the
detection limit was eliminated when there were no detections of the chemi-
caJJmetal.
-.
. Each chemicaJ/metal with a UCL concentration above the respective remediation
goal but whose presence was determined to not be contamination in soil was deter-
mined not to require remedial action. This criterion relates direcdy to the presence
of several chemicals/metals that were determined to be laboratory or sample
collection related as explained in Section 1.3 of the OU-I FS repon.
Additional sampling was conducted in September 1993. to determine site-specific background
concentrations for inorganic constituents in soils. These values, presented in Table 4-1,
,confirm and supplement the previously used U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) regional soils
data.
Sections 5.6.1 through 5.6.10 summarize the site-specific selection process for chemicals
requiring treatment and present a rationale for excluding some chemicals from consideration
~ the remedial response process. This analysis provides the basis for conclusions about the
need to implement remedial actions at each site.
5.6.1 Landfill (LF-D4)
5.6.1.1 Groundwater
The summary of this determination is presented in Table 5-38. The UCL concentration of six
chemicals/metals in the LF-04 groundwater samples were above the known maximum
background values and remediation goals selected in Appendix B: benzene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, antimony, chromium, nickel, and nitrate. The chromium and nickel detected is
attributed to well construction materials and sampling methodology. The October 1993 24-
hour purge test confirmed that the elevated levels of nickel and chromium previously detected
are not representative of the quality of the aquifer at LF-04, and therefore, remedial action is
not presendy required for groundwater. A detailed discussion of the chromium and nickel
issue is presented in Appendix D of the OU-I FS report
K/lU13851WP138S.s'04-13-941D5
5-26
-------
Table 5-38
Determination of Remedial Action for Chemicals of Potential Concern
LF.04 Groundwater
Williams Air Force Base
(Page 1 of 2)
Range or Value of Background I UCla
Chemicals of Detection limits Range or Value RG Concentration
Potential Concem (~gIl) (Jlg1l) (~gIl) (~gIl) Basis for No Further Action
Acetone 10 NAb 700 7.3 UCl concentration Is below RG
Bef1lene 0.5-50 NA 5.0 17 UCl concentration and RG within detection limit
range; only one value above detection limit at
Well LA-04; remaining LA-04 benzene values
were nondetects
Bls(2-Ethylhexyl) 4.0-30 NA 6.0 10 UCl concentration and RG are within detection
phthalate limit range. The three values above detection
limit originate from eaFfy non-validated
analyses. Recent sampling has not confirmed
the higher values.
Bromide 900 NA NA 1041 No toxicity Information available for developing
an RG for this compound
Brornodlchloromethane 0.5-5.0 NA 100 0.44 UCL concentration Is below RG
Carbon disulfide 5.0 NA 700 3.4 UCl concentration Is below RG
Methylene chloride 0.5-26 NA 5.0 5.6 All concentrations above RG originate from
early non-validated analyses. UCl
concentration Is equal to RG; common
laboratory contaminant. Recent sampling has
I not confirmed the higher values.
Tetrachloroethene 0.5-5.0 NA 5.0 0.85 UCl concentration Is below RG
Toluene 0.5-25 NA 1000 1.1 UCl concentration Is below RG
Trlchloroethene 0.5-5.0 NA 3.2 0.54 UCl concentration Is below RG
Antimony 18-60 NA 6.0 23 RG below detection limit; onl~ one value above
detection limit range at Well -12; remaining
W-12 valueS'were nondetects
-
KNI.
IPI385.538104.13.941D5
-------
Tt.. .J 5.38
(Page 2 of 2)
Range or Value of Background UCLa
Chemicals of Detection LImits Range or Value RG Concentration
Potential Concem (Jig/L) (Jig/L) (JigIL) (JigIL) Basis for No Further Action
Beryllium 0.3-5.0 <1.0-7.0 <1.0-7.0 1.3 UCL concentration Is within RG range
Cadmium 2.0-5.0 <1.0 5.0 3.0 UCL concentration Is below RG
Chromium (Total) 3.0-10 <1.0-12 100 568 Concentrations aUributed to well construction
materials and sampling methodology. Highest
concentrations detected upgradlent of landfill.
Copper 2.0-30 10-30 1300 18 UCL concentration Is below the RG and Is
within background range
Lead 1.0-40 10-14 15 9.6 UCL concentration 18 below the RG and Is
within background range
Manganese 1.0-20 <1.0-20 700 60 UCL concentration Is below the RG
Nickel 7.0-40 NA 100 556 Concentrations aUrlbuted to well construction
materials and sampling methodology. Highest
concentrations detected upgradlent 01 landfill.
Nitrate (as N) 50-600 1,470-33,800 10,000 31,460 UCL concentration within background range;
elevated levels not due to landfill activities,
extensive agricultural activities surround Base
Selenium. 1.0-200 ND-3.0 50 1.9 UCL concentration Is below RG and Is within
background range
Sliver 3.0-70 NA 50 6.6 UCL concentration Is below RG
Zinc 2.0-20 <3.0-38 1400 465 UCL concentration Is below RG
Uranium 0.0015 NA 20 0.0036 UCL concentration Is well below RG
aUCL - Arithmetic mean of concentrations detected plus two standard deviations (95% confidence level)
bNA - Not available or not used lor cofl1)arlson
/
KNl138S1WP138S.538I04-13'941D5
-------
All except one value reported for benzene was below the remediation goal. This value of 380
JJ.g/L was detected at Well LA-04 in December 1990. Subsequent analyses from other
samples from this well in later sampling rounds did not detect benzene. This one data point,
therefore, does not represent the water quality in the aquifer at LA-04 and benzene was
determined to not require remedial action to meet remediation goals.
One bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate value of 10 J.1.g/L was reported from Well LA-03 in May 1991.
All other values reported for this well were below the remediation goal. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate concentrations of 15 J.1.g/L and 16 J.1.g/L were reported at Well LA-Ol in May 1991
and January .1992, respectively. All other values reported for this well were below the
remediation goal. One value of 150 J.1.g/L was reported at Well LA-04 in July 1989. All
other values reported for this well were below the detection limit These three values
detected at these three wells, thus, do not characterize the aquifer near those wells. Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate was, therefore, determined to not require remedial action to meet remed-
iation goals.
'-
. All values except one for antimony were below the detection limit This value of 106 J.1.g/L
was detected in the shallow aquifer at upgradient Well LFOI-W-12 in October 1991. All of
the remaining analyses on samples from this well both before and after October 1991 sample
did not detect antimony. This one sample, therefore, does not characterize the aquifer near
the well. Antimony, therefore, was determined to not require remedial action to meet
remediation goals.
As stated in Appendix E of the OU-l FS report, the nitrate detected in groundwater was
determined not to be related to landfill activities. Levels detected are within background
range established in Appendix E of the OU-I FS repon. Therefore, nitrate was-determined
not to require remediation to meet remediation goals.
Consequently, based on this evaluation of data related to all chemicals of potential.concem
found in the LF-04 groundwater and summarized in Table 5-38. the groundwater within the
vicinity of LF-04 does not require remediation to meet remediation goals and no further
action is required. Quanerly sampling rounds will continue to monitor for the chemicals of
potential concern until the selected remedy is implemented. Upon completion of the remedial
action, long-term groundwater monitoring will be conducted on a semiannual basis (every 6
months).
KNt138S'WP1385.5.'04-13-941D5
5-27
-------
5.6.1.2 SoDs
The summary of this detennination is presented in Table 5-39. The UCL concentrations of
two constituents (beryllium and dieldrin) in the LF-04 soil samples were above the remedia-
tion goals. Beryllium was deteCted in all ten samples collected and the UCL concentration is
above the remediation goal of 1.5 mg/kg presented in Appendix B. Dieldrin was detected in
eight of ten samples taken of swface soil samples at LF-04. The resulting UCL concentration
is 0.105 mg/kg, which is above the remediation goal of 0.02 mg/kg as presented in Appendix
B. Therefore, remedial action is required at LF-04 to address the health risks associated with
beryllium and dieldrin contamination in surface soil.
~.
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 endangennent to public health, welfare, or the environment
5.6.2 Rre Protect/on Training Area 1 (FT -03)
This section is based on infonnation discussed in Section 5.4.5 and Appendix A.1.
5.6.2.1 Groundwater
The summary of this determination is presented in Table 5-40. The UCL concentrations of
all chemicals/metals, expect zinc, in the Fr-03 groundwater samples were below the remedia-
tion goals in Appendix B.
Zinc was detected in three samples analyzed for this metal at concentrations from 780 to
1,600 J.l.g/L with a UCL concentration of 1,655 J.l.g/L, which is not significantly above the
groundwater remediation goals for zinc. The elevated levels of zinc are attributed to well
construction materials and are not representative of groundwater quality at FI' -63 and no
unacceptable risks are present under any scenario for this metal. This issue was discussed in
the FS report
5.6.2.2 Soils
The summary of this determination is presented in Table 5-41. The UCL concentration of all
chemicals/metals in the Fr -03 soil samples were below the remediation goals in Appendix B,
except for antimony.
Three swface soil samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and primary
pollutant metals dming confirmatory sampling conducted in September 1993. The analytical
KNf1385fNP1385.5104-13-941D5
5-28
-------
Table 5-39
Determination of Remedial Action for Chemicals of Potential Concern
. LF.Q4 Surface Solis
WIlliams Air Force Base
Range or Value 01 Background UCla
Chemical of Potential Detection limits Range or Value RG Concentration
Concern (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) Basis lor No Further Action
Alpha-ch/ordane 0.0018-0.0072 NA 0.25 0.0025 UCl concentration Is below RG
Beta-BHC 0.0018-0.0072 NA 0.18 I 0.0041 UCl concentration Is below RG
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.35-3.5 NA 22.9 0.613 UCl concentration Is below RG
4,4'-000 0.0035-0.014 NA 1.34 0.0072 UCl concentration Is below RG
4,4'-ODE 0.0035-0.014 NA 0.94 0.064 UCl concentration Is below RG
4,4'-ODT 0.0035-0.014 NA 0.94 0.067 UCl concentration Is below RG
1,4-0lchlorobenzene 0.33-3.5 NA 13.4 0.873 UCl concentration Is below RG
Dieldrin 0.0035-0.014 NA 0.02 0.105 Requires remedial action to meet RG
Ol-n-butylphthalate 0.35-3.5 NA 2.330 0.67 UCl concentration Is below RG
Dlethyl phthalate 0.35-3.5 NA 22,000 0.68 UCl concentration Is below RG
Gamma-chlordane 0.0018-0.0072 NA 0.25 0.0025 UCl concentration Is below RG
Pentachlorophenol 0.85-8.5 NA 2.67 1.666 UCl concentration Is below RG
1,2,4- Trlchlorobenzene 0.33-3.5 NA 35.7 0.679 UCl concentration Is below RG
Arsenic 2.0 2.3-4.3 78 5.2 UCl concentration Is below RG
Beryllium . 1.0 1.0-1.6 1.0-1.6 2.8 Requires remedial action to meet RG
Cadmium 0.83-1.0 NO «1) 14 0.64 UCl concentration Is below RG
Chromium 2.0 16.9-24.8 390 23 UCl concentration Is below RG
lead 0.6 I 10.4-19.4 55 54 UCl concentration Is below RG
Nickel 8.0 15.6-24.7 1,600 22 UCl concentration Is below RG
Thallium 0.2-2.0 NO (<2) 5.48 0.17 UCl concentration Is below RG
Zinc 4.0 NO «4) 15,600 116 UCl Concentration Is below RG
NA.not available or not used for comparison.
.UCl . arithmetic mean of concentrations plus two standard deviations (95% confidence level).
I
KN\I~
,11385.539\04.13.94104
-------
T
5-40
Determination of Remedial Action for Chemicals of Potential Concern
FT -03 Groundwater
Williams Air Force Base
Range or Value
of Detection Background UCLa
Chemicals of Potential Limits Range or Value RG Concentration
Concern (JigJl) (JigJl) (JigIL) (JigIL) Basis for No Further Action
Acetone 10.0 NA 700 5.60 UCL concentration Is below RG
Carbon disulfide 5.0 NA 700 2.80 UCL concentration Is below RG
Methylene chloride 0.5-5.0 NA 5 2.71 UCL concentration 18 below RG
Toluene 1.0-5.0 NA 1,000 1.57 UCL concentration 18 below RG
Cadmium 5.0 <1.0 5.0 4.67 UCL concentration Is below RG
Lead 1.0-5.0 <10.0-14.0 15 6.78 UCL concentration Is below RG
Zinc 20.0 <3.0-38 1,400 1,655 Concentration Is aUributable to well construction
materials, and not representative of aquifer. No
unacceptable risks present for this COfT1)Ound
under any scenario.
NA=not available or not used for comparison.
8UCL=arlthmetic mean of concentrations plus two standard deviations (95% confidence level).
KN\138S\WP1385.540\04-13-94103
,
,
-------
.,
Table 5-41
Determination of Remedial Action for Chemicals of Potential Concern
FT-03 Solis
WIlliams Air Force Base
Range or Value of Background UCLa
Chemical of Potential Detection Limits Range or Value RG I Concentration
Concern (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) Basis for No Further Action
Acetone 0.01 NA 5,490 0.007 UCL concentration Is below RG
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.33 NA 22.9 0.324 UCL concentration Is below RG
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene 0.33-1.0 NA 2,470 0.603 UCL concentration Is below RG
1.3-0Ichlorobenzene 0.33-1.0 10.000 10,000 0.663 UCL concentration Is below RG
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene 0.33-1.0 NA 13.4 0.703 UCL concentration Is below RG
Methylene chloride 0.005-2.0 NA 1.86 1.88 UCL concentration Is equivalent to RG
Methyl ethyl ketone 0.010-10 NA 742 4.87 UCL concentration Is below RG
Phenol 0.33 NA 16,500 0.176 UCL concentration 18 below RG
Antimony 0.06 NO «12) 31.3 34.11 Septermer 1993 soli safl1)llng confirms that
antimony Is not present In surface soli. See Section
1.3.3.1
Cadmium 0.005 NO «1) 14 1.82 UCL concentration Is below RG
Lead 0.003-10 10.4-19.4 55 12.3 UCL concentration 18 below RG
Sliver 0.01 NO «2) 235 3.84 UCL concentration Is below RG
Zinc 0.02 NO «4) 15,600 58.16 UCL concentration Is below RG
NA=not available or not used for comparison
aUCL=arithmetlc mean of concentrations plus two standard deviations (95% confidence level).
KM1385\WP1385,541\04-13.94\1)3
J
,
-------
results confirm that the isolated detections of antimony in early 1989 were analytical
anomalies. and therefore antimony is not a concern at this site.
5.6.3 Northwest Drainage Ditch (SD-10)
5.6.3.1 Groundwater
Groundwater at this site was not monitored because there was no indication or evidence of a
pathway to groundwater from suspect soils. Therefore. chemicals of potential concern for
SD-IO groundwater do not require identification.
~.
5.6.3.2 Soils
The summary of this determination is presented in Table 5-42. The UCL concentrations of
all chemicals/metals. except chloroform. in the SD-I0 soil samples were below the remedia-
tion goals presented in Appendix B. Chloroform was detected only in the 1986 A V Stage 2
boring samples. These 1986 data were not validated. Chloroform was not detected during
the 1989 confinnatory sampling that was initiated due to a wide range of organic contami-
, nants detected during the A V sampling activities. Based on the new data. the unvalidated
1986 data do not appear to represent any chloroform contamination in the SD-I0 soils. and
remediation of SD-IO soils to meet remediation goals for chloroform is unwammted.
5.6.4 Radioactive Instrumentation Burial Area (RW-11)
No further action is required at this site because a removal action completed in December
1992 eliminated the source of potential contamination. Confirmatory soil sampling and
analysis has verified that levels of radioactivity are within background ranges. Groundwater
~ this site was not monitored because there was no indication or evidence of a pathway to
groundwater from suspect soils. Therefore. chemicals of potential concern for RW-ll
groundwater do not require identification.
5.6.5 Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
5.6.5.1 Groundwater
Groundwater at this site was not monitored because there was no indication or evidence of a
paLiway to groundwater from suspect soils. Therefore. chemicals of potential concern for
DP-13 groundwater do not require identification.
KN/13851WP1385.5104-13-941D5
5-29
-------
Table 5-42
Determination of Remedial Action for Chemicals of Potential Concern
SD-10 Solis
WIlliams Air Force Base
Range or Value of Background UCLa
Chemicals of Potential Detection limits Range or Value RG Concentration
Concern (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) Basis for No Further Action
Acetone 0.01 NA 5,4901 0.018 UCL concentration Is below RG
Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.34-0.73 NA 22.9 5.89 UCL concentration Is below RG
Chloroform 0.005-1.0 NA 0.22 0.74 Data not representative: only detected In non~
validated 1986 sampling round and not In
subsequent confirmatory sampling round In 1989
Methylene chloride 0.005-1.0 NA 5.5 1.38 UCL concentration Is below RG
Phenol 0.001-0.73 NA 16,500 0.171 UCL concentration Is below RG
Toluene 0.005-2.0 NA 11,000 0.85 UCL concentration Is below RG
Antimony 1.0-1.5 NO «12) 31.3 8.1 UCL concentration Is below RG
Arsenic 2.0-3.0 2.3-4.3 78 1.7 UCl concentration Is below RG
Beryllium 0.01-2.0 1.0-1.6 1.0-1.6 0.95 UCl concentration Is below RG
Cadmium 0.4-2.0 ND «1) 14.0 0.61 UCl concentration Is below RG
Chromium 0.7-2.0 16.9-24.8 390 19 UCl concentration Is below RG
Copper 0.6-5.0 ND (<5) 2,900 1 UCL concentration Is below RG
Lead 1.0-4.0 10.4-19.4 55 19 UCL concentration Is below RG
Mercury 0.1-0.2 NO «0.2) 23.5 0.08 UCL concentration Is below RG
Nickel 2.0-11 15.6-24.7 1,600 16 UCL concentration Is below RG
Silver 0.7-3.0 NO (<2) 235 1.3 UCL concentration Is below RG
Zinc 0.2-4.0 NO «4) 15,600 85.21 UCL concentration Is below RG
NA-not available or not used for comparison .
.UCL-arlthmetlc mean of concentrations plus two standard deviations (950/0 confidence level).
,
,
9S\WP1385.541D4-13.94\D3
-------
5.6.5.2 Soils
No funher action is required at this site because a removal action completed in May 1991 eli- .
minated the source of contamination. Potential health risks remaining at the site, quantified
during the risk assessment and presented in Table 5-31, are all within acceptable limits.
5.6.6 Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-01)
5.6.6.1 Groundwater
Groundwater at this site was not monitored because there was no indication or evidence of a
pathway to groundwater from suspect soils. Therefore, chemicals of potential concern for
SS-Ol groundwater do not require identification.
~.
5.6.6.2 Soils
The detennination of chemicals requiring remedial action to meet remediation goals for this
site is presented in Table 5-43. The UCL concentrations of all chemicals/metals in the SS-Ol
soil samples were below the remediation goals as presented in Appendix B. Therefore,
. remedial action is not required at SS-OI to meet remediation goals, and no funher action is
required at this site.
5.6.7 USTs at Bul/ding 789 (ST-05)
5.6.7.1 Groundwater
Groundwater at this site was not monitored because there was no indication or evidence of a
pathway to groundwater from suspect soils. Therefore, chemicals of potential concern for
ST -05 groundwater do not require identification.
5.6.7.2 Sol/s
No further action is required at this site because a removal action was conducted in December
1990 and confinnatory soil sampling and analysis performed in September 1991 verified that
all residual health risks associated with this site are wi~ acceptable limits. The residual
health risks were quantified during the risk assessment and are presented in Table 5-33.
KNf1385!WP1385.s,,)4-13-941D5
5-30
-------
Table 5-43
Determination of Remedial Action for Chemicals of Potential Concern
SS-01 80lls
WIlliams Air Force Base
Range or Value of Background UCla
Ghemlcal of Potential Detection Limits Range or Value RG Concentration
Concern (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) Basis for No Further Action
Acetone 0.01-0.012 NA 5,490 0.0065 UCL concentration Is below RG
Ol-n.butylphlhalate 0.002-2.738 NA 2,330 0.134 UCL concentration Is below RG
Olethyl phthalate 0.001-1.369 NA 22,000 0.089 UCL concentration Is below RG
Ethyl benzene 0.01-1.0 NA 4,940 0.691 UCL concentration Is below RG
Methylene chloride 0.01-1.0 NA 32.4 2.819 UCL concentration Is below RG
Xylenes 0.01-2.0 NA 85,600 1.548 UCL concentration Is below RG
Ars.nlc 2.0 2.3-4.3 78 2.0 UCL concentration Is below RG
Beryllium 0.01-1.0 1.0-1.6 1.0-1.6 1.1 UCL concentration Is within RG and background ranges
Cadmium 0.40-67 ND «1) 14.0 2.1 UCL concentration Is below RG
Chromium 0.7-2.0 16.9-24.8 390 23 UCL concentration Is below RG
Copper 0.60-5.0 ND «5) 2,900 42 UCL concentration Is below RG
Lead 0.6-4.0 10.4-19.4 55 16 UCL concentration Is below RG
Nickel 2.0-8.0 15.6-24.7 1,600 20 UCL concentration Is below RG
Sliver 0.70-2.0 ND (<2) 235 1.3 UCL concentration Is below RG
Zinc 0.2-4.0 NO «4) 15,600 61.0 UCL concentration Is below RG
NA.no1 available or not used for comparison
8UCL-arlthmetlc mean of concentrations plus two standard deviations (95% confidence level).
/
KN\ l' . OYP1385.543\04.13.94\D3
-------
5.6.8 USTs at Building 725 (ST -06)
5.6.8.1 Groundwater
Groundwater at this site was not monitored because there was no indication or evidence of a
pathway to groundwater from suspect soils. Therefore, chemicals of potential concern for
ST -06 groundwater do not require identification.
5.6.8.2 Soils
No further action is required at this site because a removal action was conducted in December
1990 and confinnatory soil sampling and analysis performed in September 1991 verified that
all residual health risks associated with this site are within acceptable limits. The residual
health risks were quantified during the risk assessment and are presented in Table 5-34.
'.
5.6.9 USTs at Building 1086 (ST -07)
5.6.9.1 Groundwater
. Groundwater at this site was not monitored because there was no indication or evidence of a
pathway to groundwater from suspect soils. Therefore, chemicals of potential concern for
ST -07 groundwater do not require identification.
5.6.9.2 Soils
No further action is required at this site because a RCRA partial closure action was performed
in 1987 and confirmatory soil sampling and analysis performed in September 1991 verified
that all residual health risks associated with the site are within acceptable limits. The residual
health risks were quantified during the risk assessment and are presented in Table 5-35.
5.6.10 USTs afBulldlng 1085 (ST -08)
A RCRA partial closure action was performed at this site resulting in recommendations that it
be considered as part of the OU-l FS report. .
5.6.10.1 Groundwater
Groundwater at this site was not monitored because there was no indication or evidence of a
pathway to groundwater from suspect soils. Therefore, chemicals of potential concern for
ST -08 groundwater do not require identification.
KNf13851WP1385.5104-13-941D5
5-31
-------
5.6.10.2 Soils
The determination of chemicals requiring remedial action to meet remediation goals for this
site is presented in Table 5-44. The VCL concentrations of all chemicals/metals in the ST.{)8
soil samples were below the remediation goals presented in Appendix B except antimony.
The removal action performed in 1990 eliminated the only significant exposure pathWay
identified during the risk assessment (incidental ingestion of soil) to potential receptors.
Therefore. remedial action is not required at ST.{)8 to meet remediation goals. and no funher
action is required.
~-
KNI138!W1P138S.5I04-13-941D5
5-32
-------
1
5-44
Determination of Remedial Action for Chemicals of Potential Concern
ST -08 Solis
Williams Air Force Base
(Page 1 of 2)
Range or Value of Background UCla
Chemical of Potential Detection limits Range or Value RG Concentration
Concern (mgl1
-------
Table 5-44
(Page 2 of 2)
Range or Value of Background UCla
Chemical of Potential Detection Limits Range or Value RG Concentration
Concern (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) (mglkg) Basis for No Further Action
lead 1.0-2.0 10.4-19.4 55 45 UCl concentration Is below RG
Nickel 8.0-10 15.6-24.7 1,600 42 UCl concentration Is below RG
Zinc 4.0-5.0 ND «4) 15,600 124 UCl concentration 18 below RG
Cyanide 0.47 - 1.0 NA 1,560 1.2 UCl concentration Is below RG
NA...not available or not used for comparison
aUCl..arlthmetlc mean of concentrations plus two standard deviations (95% confidence level).
/
I
-------
6.0 Description of Alternatives
Under CERCLA, a process has been established to develop, screen, and evaluate appropriate
remedial alternatives. A wide range of cleanup options were considered for remedial action
at LF-04. Remedial alternatives were not developed for sites other than LF-04 because the
Landfill is the only site requiring remedial action.
The initial process options considered during the preliminary screening process are presented
in Figure 6-1. The process options were evaluated, and retained or e1iminated from further
consideration on the basis of technical feasibility. Figure 6-1 presents the rationale for
eliminating process options.
~.
A second screening step was then performed to evaluate the remaining process options on the
basis of implementability, effectiveness, and cost. The result of the screening process was
intended to select one representative process option for each technology type for detailed
analysis. The secondaIy screening was a two-step process. First, the process options retained
from preliminary scr~ were ranked according to the previously mentioned three criteria
to eliminate those options that were obviously inappropriate. The results of this step are
presented in Figure 6-2. The process options that remained after step one, shown in Table 6-
1, were then subjected to a more detailed evaluation based on the three criteria. After this
evaluation was completed, the following two alternatives for LF-04 surface soils were retained
for detailed analysis:
. Alternative A - No action
. Alternative B - Institutional action and capping.
These alternatives were developed based on site-specific needs and evaluated using the nine
criteria developed by EP A to address CERCLA requirements. The evaluation criteria
presented in Figure 6-3 are used to determine the most appropriate alternative. The following
sections present detailed descriptions of the two remedial alternatives for surface soils at
LF-04.
KN/138S'WP1385£04-a1.941D8
6-1
-------
General
Response
Action
H
No Action
Institutionsl Action
Containment
Containment/Treatment
Technology Type
N/A
H
Acceaa Reatrlctlons
Process Optl~n
A8se8s~ent -
Technical
Implement ability
N/A
Deed Restrlctlona
Fencin SI na
Ca In
Comments
Not an effective treatment for dieldrin. No practical receptor
for flushing agent. .
Not applicable for lurface loll application or for contaminants
with low vapor pressures.
Not applicable for lurface loll appllcltlon or for contaminants
with low vapor preuurel.
Not an effactlve treatment for dieldrin or beryllium.
Not applicable for organic contamlnantl.
Not applicable for orglnlc contlmlnlntl.
Not an effective treltment for beryllium.
Beryllium la not biodegradable.
No such f.cllity el(llts.
KNIFI'
~lSJ2.2!1.841F
Figure 6-1. Initial Screening of Technf'lt)gies and Process Options for Soh at LF-04
Ca In
In Situ Tre.tm.nt
..."" .
..
excavation
Off-Site Dls olal
. . . . . . . . . .
,::{{,:,:Bloriii1'iildllitllJi'i,(\,'{,,,,:}:;::)::,:{,:
....
Convention.1 excavation
Non-RCRA Landfill
RCRA F.cilit
Hon,.RCRAt::8i'1dfill . .
-------
General
Response
Action
Technology Type
Excavetlon
.,. ,".: .: . : Chemlcil, t'8~tmenL
;::.::::::::::;:.:.::.
, ,
..,;'Steblllzetion ";,' ;,,;,;;;);.;,;.:::.;:;;:,:}::.::,
-- "rocess Option
Assessment.
Technical
Implement ability
-.... .
Thermal Treatment
.. ..
;. BIotriiitment:,,;. ;':':',
.:::::.'.:.,,":::;:':..;.':;.
',',",',',' ,".',",',',.'..,.
',"'."",',"."'"
Conventional Exoavatlon
Soil Washl
....
",;"".Oxldlitloif::;(:: ,...
-, "
Off-Site DIs 0881
On-Site Dis 0881
.. ...
.....
..,,,... .
;:;:(: ?';':':;':: .,', PhotO! ill '::;;.:(;:;::}::,):;,;;,;::;,:,:}::;::,::::,,;
';;.';.:\;;":,::,;::{::<:/..'.inM'!iilli!;BiiiilKi:::::i\:);//i\?::::';;:;:
. ...,. ;." ",.;.'. .;..:::::/:';:,,;::Viti'iflcltlan:};:;{';(')::'::::'::,:(}
,-;,;-,,:,::,;,:,",;,',:,,;.:'
::::::;::::':."::'.;'::::;::":"
RCRA Floill
:,:},({{{:,;:?\\;. NO~R(:AA:;Lilndflll';rr{f::::'Yi'i
'n PlICI Re 'Icement
;,:,::'::':::::;/:::::};:;::;'I- Technology or process option that has bean soreaned out.
\:::::"';:'.::<;':''''::':':.'''''';';' ",,';';'.:.;"";'"''
Comments
Not en effeotlve treetment for dieldrin or beryllium.
Not en effeotlve treetment for dieldrin or beryllium.
Not eppllceble for orgenlo contemlnlnte.
Not eppllcable for organlo contemlnante.
Beryllium Is not bI~egredebie.
Beryllium II not blodegredeble.
No IUch flclllty exlet..
KNIFIOII-I.XLS/2.25.841F
}
Figure 6-' (Cant). Initial Screening of Technologies and Process Options for' son at LF-04
-------
General
Response Institutional Effectiveness
Action Technology Type Process Option Implementabillty In MeetlngRAOs Cost
No Action H N/A H ~/A Easily Implementable Not Effective Low
Deed Restrictions Easily Implementable Somewhat Effective Low
Institutional Action Access Restrictions
Easily Implementable Somewhat Effective Low
Easily Implementable Not Effective Low to
Containment Moderate
Implementable Effective Moderate
Implementable with Difficulty Very Effective Low
Implementable with Difficulty Somewhat Effective Low
Implementable but Soil Is Not a Somewhat Effective Moderate
RCRA Waste
Excavation Implementable with DIfficulty Very Effective High
Implementable with Difficulty Effective High
Implementable with Difficulty Somewhat Effective High
Thermal Treatment
Implementable with Difficulty Somewhat Effective High
Implementable Somewhat Effective Low
Implementable Somewhat Effective Moderate
Implementable with Moderate Somewhat Effective Low
Difficulty
t. Process Option Retained
ICN/fI
-15.1."
,
Figure 6-2. Secondary Screening of Tec" - ",Iogles and Process Options for Soli at LF-04
-------
Table 6-1
LF~ Soli Alternatives for Inclusion In the Screening Process
Williams Air Force Base
I Alternative I Description I
5-1 No action
5-2 Institutional action
5-3 Excavation and off-site disposal
5-4 Capping
5-5 On-site incineration
5-6 Soil washing
~.
KW13851WP1385~1104-13-941D1
-------
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Requires the assessment of alternatives to determine how they will
provide human health and environmental protection from the risks
present at a site by eliminating, reducing or controlling the
hazardous material detected during the Remedial Investigation.
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs
Requires the assessment of alternatives to
determine how they meet the requirements
under federal environmental laws and state
environmental or facility siting laws.
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
lONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
This criterion requires the evaluation of residual
risks remaining at a site after completion of the
remedial action.
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY. MOBILITY. AND VOLUME
This criterion addresses the statutory preference for selecting
remedial actions that permanently and significantly reduce the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances at a site by
evaluating the extent to which this Is achieved by each alternative.
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
This criterion evaluates a remedial
alternative's impact on human health and
the environment during implementation.
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
This criterion evaluates both the
technical and administrative feasibility
of implementing an alternative Including
the availability of key services and
material required during Its Implementation.
~
Under this criterion, capital costs,
annual operation and maintenance
costs and the net present value of
capital O&M costs are assessed for
each alternative.
MODIFYING CRITERIA
STATE ACCEPTANCE
This criterion addresses the statutory requirement for
substantial and meaningful state Involvement.
Evaluation of this criterion Is conducted by U.S. EPA and
addressed during development of the Record of Decision.
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
This criterion assesses the community's apparent
preference for, or concerns about, the remedial
alternatives. This process Is conducted by U.S. EPA and
addressed during development of the Record of Decision.
KN
.XLS/2-26.941F
Figure 6-3. Remedial" "qrnatlve Evaluation Criteria
/
-------
6.1 Alternative A - No Action
6.1.1 Major Components of the Remedial Alternative
The no-action alternative is included in accordance with the NCP to serve as a baseline for
comparison with the other alternatives. This. alternative would leave approximately 59,000
cubic yards of contaminMM surface soils and an undetennined volume of buried landfill
wastes in place with no additional means to prevent accidental exposure or erosion. Surface
soils are contaminated with dieldrin at concentrations of 0.0045 to 0.25 mg/kg and beryllium
at concentrations of 1.8 to 3.8 mg/kg. The alternative does include annual soil monitoring
and semiannual (eveI)' 6 months) groundwater monitoring for specified chemicals of potential
concem, and maintenance of all associated monitoring eqWpment.
~.
6.1.2 Source Treatment Component
The alternative incorporates no treatment component that would result in a permanent
reduction of the toxicity or volume of CODt~minant~ in the smface soils.
. 6.1.3 Source Containment Component
This alternative inCOIpOrates no containment component that would restrict the migration of
contaminants from the surface soils.
6.1.4 Groundwater Component
The remedial alternative does not incorporate a groundwater extraction and treatment
component.
The remedial alternative does provide for institution of a 30-year groundwater monitoring
program with data collected and analyzed semiannually to ensure the protection-of public
health and the environment by confirming that groundwater quality is not being adversely
affected by potentia11eachate migration from the IaJJrlfilJ A detection monitOring program
will be eStablished in accordance with the requirements of 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 264.98 to analyze for waste constituents and indicator parameters to permit detection
and measurement of hazardous constituents in the uppermost aquifer at the point of compli-
ance. The chemicals of potential concern at LF-04 will comprise the baseline list of
hazardous constituents to be monitored. Constituents may be added to or removed from this
list in the remedial design/remedia1 action (RDIRA) phase.
1OO138&WP13B5~
6-2
-------
The groundwater monitoring program will utilize sampling and analytical methods that are
appropriate for groundwater sampling and that accurately measure the hazardous constituents
in groundwater samples. Bec::.nse certain well construction materials (i.e., chromium and
nickel) have been determined to produce analytical results not indicative of the contamination
at the site. the sampling methodology will be assessed and modified to ensure representative
results.
The groundwater detection monitoring program will comply with the requirements of 40 CFR
264.91-100, Subpart F. Semiannual groundwater monitoring data and analyses will be
provided to the regulatory agencies. The details of the groundwater monitoring program. such
as the point of compliance and the location of compliance and background monitOring wells
will be determined during the RDIRA phase.
~-
6.1.5 General Components
No institutional controls will be utilized in the implementation of this alternative. Surface
soils at the landfill will be sampled amually and analyzed for chemicals of potential concern.
There are no implementation requirements of concern for this alternative.
The initial risk in implementing the remedial alternative is very low because no remedial
action will be taken at the site that could create potential exposures.
The residual risk for this alternative is higher than for any other alternative because no action
will be taken to reduce or e1imjn~te potential cmrent or future exposures to surface and
subsurface soil contamination by containment or treatment. The lack of any erosion control
measures could potentially result in migration of contaminants by windblown fugitive dust or
storm water runoff. and future exposures to buried landfill wastes. Long-term groundwater
monitoring is required to ensure that the buried landfill wastes left in place do not impact
groundwater. .
6.1.6 Cost
The eStimated present worth cost for semiannual monitoring and maintenance for 30 years
and 5-year reassessments is $505.000. Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
primarily for monitoring and maintenance, are $54.000. There are no initial capital costs.
1
-------
6.2 Alternative B - Institutional Action and Capping
6.2.1 Major Components ot the Remedial Alternative
The major features of this altemative include: constructing a permeable cap over the
COl1t~mmated swface soils; installing an interceptor trench around the perimeter of the capped
area; erecting a fence around the perimeter of the interceptor trench; implementing land-use
restrictions; and perfonning 30-year postclosure care, including landfill cover maintenance,
annual soil monitoring and semiannual groundwater monitoring for specified chemicals of
potential conce~ and maintenance of all necessary monitoring equipment. The installation of ~-
a cap will leave approximately 59,000 cubic yards of contaminated surface soils and an
undetennined volume of buried landffil wastes in place and, therefore, involves no excavation
of contaminated surface soils. Surface soils are contamin~ted with dieldrin at concentrations
of 0.0045 to 0.25 mglkg and beryllium at concentrations of 1.8 to 3.8 mglkg.
6.2.2 Source Treatment Component
The alternative incoxporates no treatment component that would result in the permanent
, reduction of the toxicity or volume of contaminants in surface soils.
6.2.3 Source Containment. Component .
The containment component of the remedial alternative consists of the landfill cap. The
pwpose of the cap is to provide protection against human health risks associated with the site.
. The chemicals of potential concern present in surface soils at concentrations above final
remediation goals are dieldrin and beryllium. The cap addresses this health risk by
eliminating the exposure pathways to potential receptors identified during the baseline risk
assessment dermal contact with soil, incidental ingestion of soil, and inhalation of fugitive
dust.
The remedial alternative will comply with ARARs concerning cap design and construction as
Stated in the following requirements presented in 40 CFR 264.310:
. Provide long-term nrinimi7ation of migration of liquids through the' capped area.
. Function with minimum maintenance.
. Promote surface drainage and minimize erosion or abrasion of the cover.
. Accommodate settling and subsidence so that the cover's integrity is maintained.
KWl38WiP1385.61D4-C&941D8
6-4
-------
I
. Restrict postclosure use of propeny as necessary to prevent damage to the cover.
. Prevent run-on and runoff from damaging cover.
. Provide postclosure care for 30 years, including landfill cover maintenance,
annual soil monitoring, Sf'!miannual groundwater monitoring, and maintenance of
associated monitoring equipment.
A preliminaIy cap design proposed during the FS is presented in Figure 6-4. The cap design
consists of a layer of leveling fill, an additional 24-inch soil cover and finally a 12-inch
rubb1ized concrete layer. The initial application of fill would be installed to level the surface
of the landfill area, which is uneven due to subsidence of the buried wastes. The 24 inches
of soil placed after the leveling fill would be graded to prevent erosion from stOIDlwater run-
on and promote drainage of incident stODllwater. The placement of the mbblized concrete
would discourage human intmsion and provide 10ng-teDI1 protection of the soil cover by
minimizing erosion or abrasion of the soil cover, accommodating settling and subsidence
without compromising the protective nature of the cap, and preventing stormwater runoff
, from damaging the soil cover. The proposed cap design would require minimum mainte-
nance. Although the-proposed design will not minimi7.e the migration of liquids through the
capped area due to its permeable nature, this requirement is not a significant consideration for
this site because the climate of the area is such that effective precipitation (precip~tation that
can reach the water table) is negligible.
An interceptor trench would be constructed around the perimeter of the landfill cap to aid in
the collection and proper routing of any stormwater runoff from the capped area.
The landfill cap would be maintained for 30 years as required in 40 CPR 264.3_10.
The preliminaIy cap design may be modified during the remedial design process, but any
changes must result in a design that complies with the intent of the ARARs previously
discussed.
6.2.4 Groundwater Component
The remedial alternative does not incorporate a groundwater extraCtion and treattnent
compo~enL The RIlFS process determined that there were c:urrent1y no chemicals of potential
concern in groundwater with concentrations in excess of final remediation goals. Cmrent
~385.&04-QII.94I
6-5
~.
-------
o
I')
I
<
I It)
It) I")
I') !"-
,.,. (II
(II 0
o ....
....
.: ci
~ :z
. -;
~ ~
o Q..
z ~
~ ~
~ ~
w <
o ()
z
< 3i
3i .:
~
~ ~
....
< -;
1= 0
~ g:
z
o
III III
t:: f5
- 0
Q.. :z
. <
II:: .
> ~
ID >
. ID
:0.:: :0.::
() ()
:J: :J:
() ()
~ .
~ 13
II:: :z
o 10.1
I') II::
~ ~
CII ID
"- <
N I-
::;
10.1
~
:n ~
< ID
~ ~.
< ~
o 0
~ ::j
~ ~
I') 0
"- ~
CD <
.. U
~ .
< II)
o ~
" CD
~ j
~ <
~ ~
II) 0
<8
E
o
o
It)
~
I')
CII
o "-
o (II
II: ~
- N
::> -
.., 0
I')
, 0
- It)
(II I')
o ,.,.
..... (II
I
-4"
j
-;
.....
<
"")
r---v---J-----.. [\ r-\) r--"'\ r--:--12. RU88UZED
~ ~ - J I \ I I J ~ 1 CONCRETE
(.. -.- "- "T ,1't- - - -\) '---1- ' }-\ T 1- -'\/- ~ -~-\
I I \ I I )/ , , I I I
I, I I I
24. COVER MAlERJAL
~.
EXlSl1NG LANDF1LL
SOil & RUBBllZED CONCRETE CAP
NOT TO SCALE
888(4'-0.)
~ "A"C2'-O") "' "I
~C6")~"~
DRAINAGE DITCH
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 6-4
WlWAMS AIR FORCE BASE
CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM FOR.
SOIL AND RUBBUZED CONCRETE
CAP AND DRAINAGE DITCH
IIi INTERNATrONAL
TECHNOIDGY
CORPORATION
-------
potential health risks associated with all exposure pathways were found to be within accept-
able levels (ll..CR less than 1 x 10-6 and III less than I).
The remedial alternative does provide for institution of a 30-year groundwater monitoring
program, with data collected and analyzed semiannually, to ensure the protection of public
health and the enviromnent by confiIming that groundwater quality is not being adversely
affected by potential leachate migration from. the landfill. A detection monitoring program
will be established in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 264.98 to analyze for
waste constituents and indicator parameters to pennit detection and measurement of hazardous
constituents in the uppermost aquifer at the point of compliance. The chemicals of potential
concern at LF-04 will comprise the baseline list of hazardous constituents to be monitored.
Constituents may be added to or removed from this list in the RDIRA phase.
~,
The groundwater monitoring program will utilize sampling and analytical methods that are
appropriate for groundwater sampling and that accurately measure the hazardous constituents
in groundwater samples. Because cenain well construction materials (ie., chromium and
, nickel) have been determined to produce analytical results not indicative of the contamination
at the site, the sampling methodology will be assessed and modified to ensure representative
results.
The groundwater detection monitoring program will comply with the requirements of 40 CPR
'264.91-100, Subpart F. Semiannual groundwater monitoring data and analyses will be
provided to the regulatory agencies. The details of the groundwater monitoring program, such
as the point of compliance and the location of compliance and background monitoring wells,
will be determined during the RDJRA phase.
6.2.5 General Components
The following institutional controls will be utilized as a part of the remedial alternative:
. A fence will be erected around the perimeter of the landfill interceptor trench
and signs posted to notify potential land users of the presence of the cap cover-
ing the contaminated surface soils and buried landfill waste.
. Land-use restrictions will be implemented to protect the integrity of the landfill
cover and the operation of the groundwater monitoring system.
The major implementation concern for this alternative is the ability of the landfill area to
withstand the traffic from the heavy equipment used during cap construction. The landfill
. KNf138&WP1385~
6-6
-------
soils have settled unevenly due to variable nature of the buried waste, and potential settling
should be monitored closely during remediation. Relocation of existing groundwater
monitoring wells should not be required, but they may need to be protected during backfill
placement and cap construction.
The initial risk in implementing the remedial alternative is low because soil or waste materials
will not be excavated, and no treatment is involved to generate air emissions or other
treatment residuals. The grading work will disturb surface soils with the potential to entrain
and disperse contaminated soil particles into the air where workers could be exposed via
inhalation. This risk can be reduced by:
~.
. Implementing appropriate dust control measures to minimize dust emissions
. Training remediation workers
. Using personal protection equipment for workers.
Although the alternative does not result in permanent reductions in the volume or toxicity of
contamination, the cap would eliminatp. the exposure pathways of concern and therefore all
, current and future risks associated with the contaminated surface soils. The cap will reduce
the mobility of contaminants in surface soils and some natural attenuation of the concentration
of organic contaminants could occur over time.
The implementation of the cap would result in 59.000 cubic yards of contaminated surface
'soil and an undetermined volume of buried landfill wastes remaining in place. The fate and
transpon analysis presented in Section 4.2.2.1 concludes that given the depth to groundwater,
the climate in the area, and the concentration and immobile nature of the contaminants. it
would be vinually impossible for the contamination in the surface soils to affect groundwater
quality. Groundwater quality could be affected by potential leachate from the buried landfill
wastes, which is the principal residual risk associated with Alternative B. This residual risk
would be addressed by the institution of a long-term groundwater monitoring program. The
groundwater monitoring program would provide the necessary protection for human health
and the environment by detecting contamination and permitting remedial action before
potential receptors would be exposed.
The alternative and all its components will be reviewed every 5 years as required under
CERCLA to ensure protection of public health and the environment.
KNI138&WP1385.~
6-7
-------
6.2.6 Cost
The estimated present net worth cost of this alternative is $3.25 million. The initial construc-
tion cost represents $2.77 million of this total, with the remaining cost conttibuted by 5-year
reviews of contaminant levels and periodic cap maintenance. The alternative includes -
semiannual groundwater monitoring and maintenance of all associated equipment. The annual
O&M costs are estimated to be approximately $50,000. The cap construction is estimated to
require 6 months to complete.
-,
1C1\V13BSWPt385£044941D8
6-8
-------
7.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
The final phase in the evaluation of remedial alternatives involves a comparison of the
various alternatives. The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative are reviewed
relative to each of the nine EPA evaluation criteria presented in Figure 6-3. The following
sections present the eval~on process for the t .andfill (LF-04). None of the remaining nine
sites in OU-l require remedial action, and therefore, are not discussed in this section. For
each evaluation criterion discussed, the apparent best alternative is identified first. Table 7-1
summarizes the results of the remedial alternative ev~uation process for LF-04.
~.
7.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative B will be protective of human health and the environment. The alternative will
provide a barrier against exposure to contamm~ted SUIface soils and would limit the potential
for excavation or other soil disturbance activities that could result in receptors contaeting
SUIface soils and buried landfill wastes. In addition, the mbblized concrete layer would be
, difficult for humans to navigate and would also discourage intrusion.
Alternative A will not control exposure to the contaminated SUIface soil or reduce the
potential human health risk associated with exposure. In fact, the potential for exposure to
the buried landfill wastes or fugitive dust could increase due to natural erosion processes.
. Migration of the contaminants from surface soil to surface water via infiltration could
adversely affect swrounding surface soils or water quality.
7.2 Compliance with Potential ARARs
Alternative B will meet all location- and action-specific ARARs listed in A.we!tdix C.
EPA does not consider Altemative A to be a "remedial action" because no action is being
taken. Therefore, the requirements of CERCLA Section 121 concerning ARARs do not
apply, and ARARs are not identified. This alternative will only be evaluated to deteunine if
it is protective of human health and the environment.
7.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Altemarive B will provide long-tenn protection if the cap is maintained periodically and if
means are taken to avoid damage or removal of the cap. This alternative would restrict future
propeny use and development, but even if the contaminated surface soils were removed, this
EN/138S/WPJ38S.7~J2.941D5
7-1
-------
Table 7-1
Comparison 01 Cleanup Alternatives
Williams Air Force Base
I I I B. Institutional Actions and I
Alternative A. No Action Capping
Overall Protection of Human Not protective Protective -
Health and the Environment provides barrier
Compliance with ARARs Not apprlCable Complies
Long- Tenn Effectiveness and Not a pennanent solution Achieves a permanent and
Pennanence effective solution
Reduces Toxicity, Mobility, or No reduction Reduces mobility - Toxicity
Volume and volume are not affeded
Short-Term Effectiveness Not effective Effective
Implementability Most implementable Easily Implementable
Cost (Present Worth) $051 M $3.32 M
State Acceptance Acceptable Acceptable
-
Community Acceptance Acceptable Acceptable
Estimated Remedial Duration > 100 >30
(Years)
-.
'M - Million.
KN/138S'WP1385.7-1104-12-&UDS
-------
area would remain restricted due to buried landfill wastes. Because the contamination would
not be removed or treated, there would be continuing potential liability because swface soil
exposure could occur.
Alternative A does not provide controls for reducing potential exposure to contaminants or
long-term management measures. Remedial action objectives (RAQ) may eventually be met
for dieldrin due to natural contaminant attenuation processes; however, no such natmal
attenuation would occur for beryllium. The potential for exposure to contamIDation could
increase over time because swface contaminants could be transported by the wind as fugitive
dust, and soil erosion could result in exposing buried landfill wastes.
~.
7.4 Reduction 0' Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
Alternative B will not reduce toxicity or volume of the chemicals of potential concern
because treatment is not accomplished. However, the cap would retard the mobility of the
contamination in the surface soils. Minor reductions in the mass of some organic surface
contamination may occur over time through natural attenuation processes.
Alternative A will not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminated swface soil.
Minor reductions in the mass of some organic surface contmTIination may occur over time
through natural attenuation processes.
.7.5 Short- Term Effectiveness
There will be no additional short-term risk: posed to the general public, wOIkers, or the
environment as a result of puISlring Alternative A.
Alternative B could be designed and installed within 6 months of initiating construction.
Risks to workers would be comparable to those normally encountered during construction
activities; however, there could be additional increased risk: to workers from iJ'lna1arion of
fugitive dust, incidental ingestion, or dermal contact with the contaminated soils. Dust
control should be employed to further reduce worker exposure to fugitive dusts. Implementa-
tion risks to the general public or the environment during constIUction would be negligIcle
because excavation of contaminated surface soil would not be required. Traffic activity on
top of LF-04 should be controlled to prevent the equipment required for backfill and cap
construction activities from exposing buried landfill wastes due to further differential settling.
ENI138SJWP138S.7,04-12-94/DS
7-2
-------
.
~_.__.~~ --
7.6 Implementabi[ity
There will be no implementability concerns for Alternative A.
No special teclmiques, materials, or services would be required to implement Alternative B.
The cap could be extended in the future if it were detemlined that contaminant concentrations
exceeded remedial goals beyond the initial area of the cap. Provisions for the addition of fill
soil are necessmy due to the variable terrain at LF-04 to bring the landfill up to grade for
proper runoff prior to installation of the cap. The rubblized concrete would be furnished from
the Hardfill Area on the Base, an area used for storage of dismantled runway building
materials. A portion of this material would be used on top of the soil cover to provide
erosion control and to prevent intrusion.
~.
7.7 Cost
The cost of the Alternative A consists of semiannual monitoring of SUIface soil and ground-
water contaminant levels, plus a reassessment of conditions eveI)' 5 years. The estimated
present worth cost is $505,000. There are no initial capital costs, but the annual O&M costs
'are approximately $54,000.
The projected present worth" cost of Alternative B is $3.25 million. The initial construction
cost represents approximately $2.77 million of this total, with the remaining cost contributed
by 5-year reviews of contaminant levels and periodic cap maintenance. This alternative also
includes semiannual groundwater monitoring. The annual O&M costs are $50,600.
A cost estimate summmy is presented in Table 7-2. Detailed estimates are presented in
Appenclix D of this document.
7.8 State Acceptance
Upon signing of this OU-l ROD, the State of Arizona concurs with the selected remedies for
OU-l sites.
7.9 Community Acceptance
Based on the level and type of comments received from the public concerning the preferred
remedy for OU-I. sites, the public concurs with the selected remedies for OU-l sites. Chapter
11.0 contains further information concerning comments received from the community.
XNI138SJWPl38S.7~12'941D5
7-3
-------
Table 7-2
Summary of Remedial Alternative Cost Estimates
Williams Air Force Base
I I A I B I
Cost Component No Action Capping
Soli Action
1. Capital costs $0 $2,839,400
2. Annual operating and maintenance $53,600 $50,600
costs (O&M)
3. Present worth of O&M $505,300 $477,000
Total Present Worth $505,300 $3,316,400
'.
Note: A 10% discount rate and 30 years was used to calculate all O&M present worth values.
KN/13851WP1385.7 -2J04..12-94102
-------
8.0 Selected Remedy
The selected remedy for LF-04 is Alternative B - Instimtional Actions and Capping. The
specific components of this alternative are presented in Section 6.2 and are funher described
in this section.
Alternative B satisfies the two threshold criteria, overall protection of human health and the
environment and compliance with ARARs. and provides the best balance of the nine
evaluation criteria presented in Figure 6-3. The selected remedy will provide the greatest
level of effectiveness that is technically and economically feasible. The criterion of protec-
tion of human health and the environment is appropriately balanced with both effectiveness.
and technical/economic feasibility.
~.
Residual risk: from this selected alternative, although qualitatively addressed in this ROD in
Sections 6.0 and 7.0, will be addressed quantitatively in the comprehensive baseline risk:
assessment for the entire Base.
8.1 Major Components of the Selected Remedy
The major components of the selected remedy to be implemented at LF-04 include the
following:
.
Installing a permeable cap over the COJ1taminatM suIface soils
. Installing an interceptor trench around the perimeter of the capped area
. Erecting a fence around the perimeter of the interceptor trench
. Imposing land-use restrictions to protect the integrity of the landfill cover and
the operation of the groundwater monitoring system
. Performing postclosure care for 30 years, including landfill cover maintenance,
annual soil monitoring, semiannual (eveI)' 6 months) groundwater monitoring,
and periodic maintenance of monitoring equipment.
Additional details about the selected remedy are presented in Sections 6.2 to 6.2.6.
Remedial action is required at the site due to the presence of dieldrin and beryllium in LF-04
surface soils at concentrations in excess of remediation goals. The cap will be CODStlUcted
1CNI1385IWP138S.&oI-12-9W7
8-1
-------
over the contaminated surface soils at LF-04 to eliminate the potential pathways for exposure
to contaminants and thereby reduce the health risks associated with the site to acceptable
levels {HI less than 1 and ILCR less than 10~. Existing conditions at the site have been
detemrined to pose an excess lifetime cancer risk of 2.03 x 10-s from cwrent and future
exposures to COJ1taminmP.rl surface soils. The tWo significant exposure pathways are dennal
contact with contaminmed soil and mcidental mgestion of contamIDated soil. Although the
remedy does not permanently reduce the volume or toxicity of the contamination, it ac-
complishes the primary remediation goal of overall protection of human health and the
environment by providing a baIrier between the contaminated media and any potential human
or environmental receptors. The remedy also limits the potential for migration of the
contamination through soil erosion. Although the remedy does not mitigate the potential
migration of dieldrin from. surface soils to groundwater, contaminant fate and uanspon
calculations mdicate that the surface contamination will not result m contamin~ concentra-
tions m groundwater that would raise the health risks to nnacceptable levels.
~.
A preliminary cap design has been proposed and is presented in Figure 64. The cap design
"mvolves the following features:
. A bottom layer of fill to level the )andfi11 surface
. A 24-mch layer of soil graded to control stonnwater runoff
. A layer of rubblized concrete to discourage human innusion and provide long-
tenn protection for the soil cover.
An mterceptor trench will be constructed around the perimeter of the cap to aid in the
collection and proper routing of Stonnwater runoff.
The institutional controls utilized by the remedy mvolve erecting a fence around the perimeter
of the landfill and interceptor trench, and posting signs to notify potentia1land users of the
presence of the cap covering the contaminated surface soils. In addition, land-use resttictions
will be implemented to protect the integrity of the landfi11 cover and the operation of the
groundwater monitoring system.
1nsta1lat!-0n of the cap over the landfill with the contaminated surface soils m place requires
that the remedy provide for long-tenn postclosure care, mcluding cap mamtenance and
groundwater monitoring. All poStclosure activities will be conducted for a period of 30 years
after the implementation of the remedy.
1
-------
The remedy provides for instimtion of a 3D-year groundwater monitoring program, with data
collected and analyzed semiannually, to ensure protection of public health and the environ-
ment by confirming that groundwater quality is not being adversely affected by potential
migration of landfill leachate. A detection monitOring program will be eStablished in accor-
dance with the requirements of 40 CPR 264.98 to analyze for waste constituents and indicator
parameters to permit detection and measurement of hazardous constiments in the uppennost
aquifer at the point of compliance. The specified chemicals of potential concern at LF-04
will comprise the baseline list of constiments to be monitored.
~.
The groundwater monitoring program will utilize sampling and analytical methods that are
appropriate for groundwater sampling and that accurately measure the hazardous constituents
in groundwater samples. Because certain well consttuction materials (i.e., chromium and
nickel) have been determined to produce analytical results not indicative of the contamination
at the site, the sampling methodology will be assessed and modified to ensure representative
results.
. The groundwater detection monitoring program will comply with the requirements of 40 CFR
264.91-100 Subpart F. Groundwater monitoring data and analyses will be provided to the
regulatory agencies on a semiannual basis. The details of the groundwater monitoring
program, such as the point of compliance and the location of compliance and background
monitoring wells, will be detennined during the RDIRA phase.
Postclosure care would also include annual sampling and analysis of stonnwater runoff for
pesticides and priority pollutant metals, and routine maintenance of the landfill cap to ensure
its integrity.
The landfill remedy will be subject to review every 5 years as required under CERCLA to
ensure protection of public health and the environment.
8.2 Implementation Concerns
Prior to implementation of the remedy, consideration should be given to dust control
measures that would minimize the potential entrainment and dispersion of contaminated soil
particles into the air. This procedure is imponant to reduce the potential for exposure to
contaminated soils for remediation wolkers. Dust control measures described in EP A
guidance document "Dust Control at Hazardous Waste Sites" (EPA/54012-85/OO3, 1985)
should be reviewed and used where appropriate.
KNI1385M'Pt385.&oC-12-94iD7
8-3
-------
Due to uneven settling of waste fill areas, another consideration is the capacity of these areas
to withstand traffic from the heavy equipment used during the construction of the cap. The
potential settling of these fill areas should be carefully considered when designing the cap and .
also should be monitored closely during site work.
8.3 Cost
Preliminary coSt estimates for the selected remedy are presented in Appendix D. Capital
costs for capping are broken into direct and indirect costs. Direct COStS include allowances
for site preparation, cap construction, drainage ditch construction and fencing. Direct capital
costs are estimated to be $2.15 million. Indirect capital costs such as engineering, permits,
startup, and contingency are estimated to total $0.69 million. The total installed coSt for the
remedy is approximately $2.84 million.
-,
Annual O&M expenses for the remedy are estimated to be approximately $51,000. This
includes allowances for items such as semiannual groundwater sampling, cap maintenance,
5-year periodic site review, and a contingency factor.
The total net present worth coSt for the selected remedy is approximately $3.32 million based
on an interest rate of 10 percent and 30 ye8IS of operation, maintenance, and monitoring.
Some changes may be made to the selected remedy during the remedial design and construc-
tion process. Such changes, in general, reflect modifications from the engineering design
process.
m'138&WP1385.&04-12-941D7
8-4
-------
9.0 Statutory Determinations
Under Section 121 of CERCLA. the selected remedy mUSt be protective of human health and
the environment and must comply with all ARARs.
The selected remedy also must be cost-effective and utilize permanent solutions and alterna-
tive treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Remedies that employ
treatment that pennanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of
hazardous wastes as a major part of the remedy are preferable. How the selected remedy
meets these requirements is discussed in this chapter.
~.
The State of Arizona and the commupiries SUIIOunding Williams AFB were involved in the
detelIIlination of the selected remedy. The state was represented in the process by ADEQ and
ADWR, both of whom are parties to the FFA. They have been intrinsically involved in the
review and approval of all documents and decisions concerning the various stages of the
.. remedial process, including all wolk plans, RIlFS reports, proposed plans, and RODs.
The communities surrounding WiHiams AFB have been involved in the decision-making
process through the TRC, the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB), and through public
meetings and comment periods on proposed remedies and removal actions. Chapter 11.0 of
. this document addresses the communities' involvement in more depth.
The selected remedy represents the best balance among alternatives with respect to pertinent
criteria, given the scope of this action.
9.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment by providing a barrier
against exposure to surface soils and by 1imiring the potential for excavation, erosion, or other
soil d.isturbance activities that could result in receptors contacting surface soils and buried
landfill wastes. In addition, the rubb1ized concrete layer will discourage intruSion, yet provide
habitats for animal life in the area. No adverse effects as a result of potential cross-media
transfers are expected. Control of fugitive dust emissions during construction of the cap will
adequately control any potential exposure risk from that activity.
JCN/138SfWPl38S.9.Q4-12-94/D4
9-1
-------
A cap will not directly reduce concentrations of contaminants in surface soils, but natural
attenuation is a possibility. The selected remedy will prevent exposure by eliminating the
exposure pathway to surface soils. Because the remediation goals are intended to be
protective of human health and the environment, the magnitude of residual risk from exposure
to surface soils will be reduced from those levels presented in the baseline risk assessment for
present and future land use (Table 5-32) to acceptable levels.
9.2 Attainment of ARARs
The selected remedy will achieve all ARARs for the groundwater, soils, and air emissions.
These ARARs are presented in detail in Appendix C.
-,
9.3 Cost Effectiveness
The selected ~edy (Alternative B) was evaluated for cost effectiveness against Altemative
A. Although the selected remedy (capping) is more expensive than the no-action alternative,
the no-action alternative is not protective of human health and the environment because of
unacceptable risk. The remedy will provide effectiveness proportional to the cost of the
. remedy given the O&M and present worth cost for the protection of human health and the
environment.
9.4 Utilization of Pennanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies
or Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum &tent Possible
The selected remedy is the design concept that best represents the balance among alternatives
with respect to the pertinent criteria, especially the balancing criteria of implementability,
short-term effectiveness, and cost. Contaminants will be permanently removed from an
exposure pathway by capping the landfill. The selected remedy did not utilize treatment
because treatment of surface soils at the landfill is not practical due to potential. exposure of
buried landfill wastes. Excavation in relation to a remedy was e1imjn~te(l from consideration
during the evaluation of alternatives.
Resources will be conserved to the maximum extent posSlole using the selected remedy.
9.5 Preference for Treatment as a Prine/pal Element
The requirement that treatment be a principal element of the remedy is not satisfied because
the size of the landfill, the fact that there are no on-site hotspots that represent the major
sources of contamination, and the fact that the contalt\inated surface soils cover buried landfill
wastes preclude a remedy in which contaminants could be excavated and treated effectively.
However, the selected remedy does utilize a teclmology that isolates the community and the
KN/138SJWP138S.9~ 12.94/1)4
9-2
-------
environment from exposure to contaminants. This operable w1it action is consistent with
planned future Basewide actions and development to the extent possible.
~.
KN/1385/WP138S!1/04-12-94/D4
9-3
-------
10.0 Documentation of Significant Changes
The Proposed Plan for OU-l was released for public comment on January 28, 1994. The
OU-1 Proposed Plan identified the capping alternative for the Landfill; the no-action alterna-
tive for sites Ff-03, SD-10, S5-01; and the no funher action alternative for sites RW-ll,
DP-13, ST-05, ST-06, ST-07, and ST-08. The Air Force, EPA, and the State reviewed all
written and verbal comments submitted during the public comment period. Upon review of
these comments, the Air Force, EP A, and the State determined that no significant changes to
the remedy, as it was originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
-,
~3115.1CW4-13-9W1
10-1
-------
11.0 Responsiveness Summary
11.1 Overview.
The USAF published the Final Proposed Plan for cleanup of the aU-! sites at Williams AFB
in January 1994. There were two public comment periods on the Proposed Plan, one
beginning October 6, 1993 and extending through November 5, 1993, and one beginning
January 28, 1994 and extending through February 28, 1994. Two public meetings were held
at the Mesa Rendezvous Center to present the plan to the public, one on October 14, 1993
and one on February 10, 1994. The reason for the second public meeting and comment
period was that, at the time of the flI'St meeting, additional investigations of the groundwater
at the Landfill (LF-04) were still required for the Air Force to verify that the recommendation
for no further action for groundwater remediation at LF-Q4 was appropriate. Those
investigations confinned that no further action for the groundwater at LF-04 is wammted.
Groundwater monitoring will continue to be performed in conjunction with any remedial
action to ensure that the groundwater beneath LF-04 is not impacted. The preferred remedial
alternative specified herein involves capping the soils of LF-04. No other aU-l site requires
further action.
~.
Both meetings with the public were sparsely attended, with fewer than 20 members of the
community present. The panel was able to satisfy the members of the community with the
responses given to questions asked at the meetings. The general tone of both meetings
seemed to indicate that the members of the community attending the meeting were in favor of
the proposed remedy.
These sections follow:
. Background on community involvement
. Summary of comments received during the public comment period and USAF
responses
. Community relations activities at Williams AFB.
11.2 Background on Community Involvement
To date, the level of community interest and concern can be characterized as low regarding
aU-! in particular, and environmental cleanup in general, at Williams AFB. In contrast, the
September 1993 closure of the Base generated great interest and sparked debate in the
KN/13&SJWPl38S.11104-13-941D2
11-1
-------
smrounding communities regarding Base reuse. This debate created an indirect interest on
what eff~ if any. the environmental contamination at the Base will have on future use or
transfer of Base property. The local press has intennittently published articles regarding Base
environmental activities and their potential impact on the area without arousing any
significant conttoversy. Wings. the Base newspaper. has given coverage to the Base cleanup.
Especially noteworthy were the articles in the 1992 Eanh Day edition.
11.3 Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period
and USAF Responses .
The first public comment period on the proposed plan for cleanup of OU-l was held from
October 6 to November 5. 1993. Comments received dming this comment period are
summarized below.
-.
Ouestions received at the First Public Meetin2
Question 1: Was the cost of the future use of the land that encompasses the landfill
used in your estimate of the proposed remedial action?
No. That was not factored into the cost estimate.
." Answer:
Question 2:
Answer:
Question 3:
Answer:
Will the land be pennanently unavailable for future use?
It will be unavailable for use and will be kept in the Air Force inventory
probably for the next 50 years.
How does the proposed cap affect the. reuse of the area?
It will not affect the reuse of the area at all. The landfiU will not be
designated for reuse and it will be fenced off with a permeable cap placed
on top of it and an interceptor ditch placed around it.
Comments received bv letter
The following comments were received in a letter from the Williams Redevelopment
Partnership on October 26. 1993.
Comment 1:
KN/138S/WP13&S.11J04-13-941D2
The Proposed Plan indicates the Air Force has selected the no action
alternative for nine of the ten sites within OU-l. The Proposed Plan
eliminates these sites from funher consideration due to the completion of
past removal actions and the determination that these sites do not pose
11-2
-------
unacceptable risks to human health or the environmenL However. some of
the sites contain subsurface soil con~mination at various levels.
For instance. sites ST -OS, ST -07, and ST -OS (UST sites) contain levels of
petroleum constitUents at levels exceeding soil cleanup guidance levels
recommended by the ADEQ UST program. Under the UST program,
ADEQ would nonnally require that the site be cleaned up to suggested
levels before they would close the site. Under CERCLA, the Air Force
has looked at expos~ to the surface soils for purposes of risk assessment
and determined no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment
exists. However, the risk assessment does not take into account the reuse
actions that may include exposure to workers during excavation of these
areas for construction of new facilities. The risk assessment also does not
consider the analytical results for TPH or HBFH because they are not
particular constitUents like benzene or toluene.
~.
The IGA Group has several questions regarding these situations. Has the
Air Force considered the effects on workers due to exposure to the
subsmface soils during construction that may occur as part of reuse? Will
the Air Force clean up the contamination if the reuse groups determine the
affected areas are needed for construction of new facilities? Finally, why
is the Air Force allowed to leave contamination at UST sites in the
subsurface soils at levels that exceed recommended UST cleanup levels?
IT the Air Force does not remediate the contamination, the propeny cannot
be considered clean under CERF A for transfer by deed. The IGA Group
requests the Air Force and the regulatory agencies consider implementing a
cleanup action for the UST sites in accordance with the ADEQ guidelines.
Other UST sites on Williams AFB and at other private and public facilities
are required to meet those levels since they are being closed under the
ADEQ UST compliance program. The UST cleanup guidelines. while not
considered ARARS under the National Contingency Plan (NCP), are
designated as "To Be Considered" criteria. Under OU-2, the Air Force
accepted Arizona Health Based Guidance Levels (HBGL) as cleanup
standards even though they only meet the "To Be Considered" criteria.
The IGA Group believes the UST cleanup guidelines should be treated the
same as the HBGLs in OU-2 were to be consistenL
1CN/131S/WP131S.11104-13-941D2
11-3
-------
Response:
Based on this comment, the Air Force considered the effect 0/ subsurface
conlllminants on a constrUCtion worker, in addition to the original
occupational and residential scenarios presented in the OU-l RI, for the
UST sites. The results for the constrUCtion worker are presented in the
Final Feasibility StUdy for OU-l and Final Remedial Investigation Repon
Addendumfor OU-i. The risk assessment tktermined that there were no
unacceptable risks for any scenario from contaminants at these sites.
Based on that evaluation, no additional action is required at the UST sites
(ST -05, ST -06, ST -07, and ST -08) for reuse to proceed. After the OU-l
ROD is finalized, all OU-l sites, except for the landfill, will be categorized
as areas where all remedial actions have been completed to protect public
health and the environment (Category 4). Untkr Section 120(h)(3) of
CERCLA, Category 4 areas can be trans/en-ed.
~.
A risk assessment conducted according to EP A guidelines does not provide
for quantitative evaluation of risks from TPH and HBFH, or other
analytical test methods that measure a group of compounds. The risk
assessment process, however, does allow for quantification of risks due to
individual constituents of those analyses, such as benzene and toluene.
Risks were therefore calculated for OU-l sites for the individual
constituents where these were analyzed. The risk assessment performed for
OU-l did not find unacceptable risks to human health and the environment
from these compounds.
The ADEQ UST cleanup guidance levels refe"ed to by the IGA Group
were addressed during the establishment of the remedial goals for OU-l
through the evaluation of applicable or relevant and appropriale (ARAR)
criteria or other criteria to be considered (TBC). It was agreed by the
parties to the FFA that the ADEQ UST criteria are not applicable as
ARARs or TBCs because they are only applicable to the Arizona UST
program which is outSide the jurisdiction of CERCLA. The levels selected
during the remedial goal process are protective of human health and the
environment. Only criteria listed as ARARs or TBCs have been evaluated
in the remedial goal selection process. Both federal and state regulatory
agencies have approved the remedial goal levels selected by the Air Force
for OU-l sites.
1CNIl38S/WP13&S_11~13-941D2
11-4
-------
Comment 2:
Response:
Comment 3:
KN/13asJWPI3as.l1~13-941D2
The Proposed Plan selects a no further action alternative for the Pesticide
Burial Area (DP-13) based upon the removal action taken by the Air Force
in 1991. In the Remedial Investigation Repon for Operable Unit I, the
description of the investigation methods indicates three buried drums were
detected west of the perimeter of the designated burial area and were
removed. However, it does not indicate whether the Air Force continued
investigation to detennine if any additional drums were buried west of the
designated area even though the magnetometer survey indicated the
original boundary was incorrect. H this additional survey work was
completed, it needs to be documented. H not, can the Air Force guarantee
that all the buried drums have been identified and removed from this area?
H the Air Force cannot guarantee all bmied drums have been removed, the
lOA Group requests the Air Force continue investigation of the site until
such a guarantee can be made.
As the investigation 01 DP-13 was being completed in accordtuice with the
approved Implementation Plan, drums were detected north and west 01 DP-
13. A revised Figure 2-10 has been included in the final OU-l ROD to
accurately depict the extent 01 the magnetometer survey, which did extend
beyond all magnetic anomalies detected. No further survey is therefore
required or anticipated. An EEICA was also written, coordinated, and
approved by all PaTties. It specified the actions to remove all drums from
this site. There was also a public notification placed in the local
newspaper regarding that EEICA and. intended removal action. No
comments were made or concerns raised regarding an extension 01 the
investigation or the extent 01 the removal action. The removal action was
taken in accordance with the EEICA and all drums were removed. Since
the Air Force has complied with all plans and removed all buried drums,
this action is considered complete. The purpose 01 the IRP is to identify
and investigate all possible contDminated areas which the Air Force has
done in accordance with approved plans. Funher actions are therefore
judged unnecessUJY.
~.
The selected action for the Landfill (LF-04) is described as a rubb1ized
concrete and soil cover to protect LF-04 from erosion. This type of cover
11-5
-------
Response:
will not allow for reuse of the land for any purpose. However, other
landfills in the United States have received vegetative covers that allow for
the reuse of the land for recreational pmposes, such as parks or baseball
diamonds. In addition, the proposed cover will not be aesthetically
pleasing. Therefore, the community reuse groups may have trouble
developing the land around the site for commercial use. The Air Force
should consider the long term effects if this action on the reuse of the
Base. The lOA Group requests the Air Force and regulatory agencies
consider the use of a cap that would allow for reu~ of the land in some
fashion such as a park or a parking lot but is still protective of human
health and the environment.
Due to the unknown n/llUTe of the buried waste at the Landfill and the
unknown stability of the trenches used to create the Landfill, reuse of this
land in the manner suggested would not be the most protective remedy for
human health and the environment. The cover chosen for the Landfill was
reviewed and accepted by all Technical Working Group (TWG) and TRC
members. It was designed to discourage intrusion and not be aesthetically
- .
pleasing. These factors in conjunction with the fence which will surround
the Landfill will be further protective of human health and the environment
by discouraging entry onto the site by juveniles and adultS. A modification
to the proposed fiNll remedy for the Landfill does not appear to be prudent
at this time.
The second public comment period on the proposed plan for cleanup of OU-1 was held from
January 28, 1993 to February 28, 1994. Comments received during this comment period are
summarized below.
Ouestions received at the Second~
Question 1: What is the direction and speed of flow of the groundwater at the landfill?
Answer: The direction, as indicated on the slide, is generally west to east and the
speed is 10 -4 centimeters per second..
Question 2:
Answer:
Is there a chance of groundwater at the Landfill being contaminated by
contaminants from off Base?
To this date, a well installed upgradient 01 the Landfill has only had
samples taken in which no contamination was detected.
ENI13&SJWP138S.11~13-941D2
11-6
-,
-------
Question 3:
Answer:
Can groundwater from aU-1 contaminate other areas?
The DU-l groundwaler will not conlilmi1l/Jte other areas. The Air Force's
semiannual monitoring program will continue lor 30 years under the DU-l
Record 01 Decision and part 01 that monitoring program involves analysis
01 those results to determine what is happening on a continuing basis.
11.4 Community Relations Activities at Williams AFB
Community relations activities at Williams AFB have been guided by a written Community
Relations Plan. Design of the site-specific community relations plan was driven by the level
and types of concern expressed by local community members in one-on-one interviews
conducted in November 1989.
~.
An infonnation repository containing correspondence, fact sheets, and other pertinent
documents, such as the Community Relations Plan, has been established and maintained at the
Chandler Public Library, 75 East Commonwealth, Chandler, Arizona 85225, Reference Desk:
(602) 786-2310, and the Air Force Base Conversion Agency, 6001 S. Powers Road, Building
, 1, Mesa, Arizona 85206, Dr. William Harris: (602) 988-6486.
A Technical Review Committee has provided review and comment on actions and proposed
actions with respect to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances at Wi11iams
AFB until it was replaced by the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB), established on February
'10, 1994. Additionally, the Technical Review Committee served as an advisory committee to
the USAF on the IRP at Williams AFB. The Committee, whose membership includes
representatives of the USAF, state and federal regulatory agencies, and the community, meets
quarterly to discuss the results of the field investigations and studies and to discuss proposals
for interim or fmal cleanup actions. The RAB will cover not only IRP topics but Base reuse
topics as well. Membership for this Board is currently being solicited.
Eight fact sheets have been written and distributed to describe ongoing, completed, and
planned activities under the IRP at Williams AFB. Six of these were infonnation updates on
progress of environmental investigation. Two others described Proposed Plans for cleanup of
aU-l and aU-2.
A 35-mm slide presentation describing the IRP was developed for Base official use with
community and civic groups. Before the training wing was de-activated, the Commander or
his designee had briefed numerous groups about environmental activities at Williams AFB.
KN/13&S/WPI 315.1 1104-1 3-94ID2
11-7
-------
News releases and public notices have been submitted to the local papers announcing
milestones in the IRP. Topics include:
. Signing of the FFA
. Availability for comment on EEICA for the Radioactive Instrumentation Bmial
Area, the FlI'e Protection Training Area 1, and the Pesticide Burial Area
. Availability of OU-2 RI Repon for review
. Availability of the Proposed Plan for OU-2 for public comment
-,
. Public meeting to present the Proposed Plan for OU-2
. Schedule for cleanup of groundwater and deep soils at OU-2 and investigation of
stmmwater line and soils at OU-3
. Public meetings to present Proposed Plan for OU-I.
Fact sheets describing the Proposed Plans to clean up OU-l and OU-2 were mailed to the
mailing list contained in the Community Relations Plan, along with the announcement of the
public comment period and the public meeting. Broadcast media also received a public
service announcement giving the time and location of the public meeting. Notices in the
Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette announced the public comment periods for each
Proposed Plan and invited the public to the meetings.
Three public meetings have been held at the Mesa Rendezvous Center as part of the
Community Relations Program at Williarils AFB. Fifty to 75 citizens attended the first
meeting held on June 16, 1992 to present the Proposed Plan for cleanup of OU-2, and less
than 20 citizens attended the second and thiId public meetings held' October 14, 1993, and
February 10, 1994, to present the Proposed Plan for cleanup of OU-I. At each public
meeting, attendees were given an agenda, a fact sheet, and graphic representations of cleanup
alternatives as handouts. Copies of the Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan were available
for review. Press packets, including the handouts,'hard copies of slides, and the news
releases, were available for media representatives who attended the meeting.
11.5 Letters Recommending Methods and Products
No letters have been received to date requesting consideration of specific methods and
products in the remediation of contaminants at OU-I. Any received prior to final publication
of this document will be enclosed in this section or an appendix and replies will be sent
EN/13&SJWPl3&S.11J04-13-941D2
11-8
-------
stating that the method or product can only be considered in the remedial design or remedial
action (i.e.. cleanup) phase.
-,
KN/I3&S/WPl3&S.11J04-13-941D2
11-9
-------
12.0. Bibliography
Aero Vironment, Inc. (A V), 1987, "Installation Restoration Program, Phase IT
Confinnation/Quantification, Stage 2 Repon," Williams AFB, AeroVironment Repon A V-FR-
87/536.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), U.S. Public Health Service,
1989, ''Draft Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons."
Alloway, B. I., 1990, Heavy Meltlls in Soils, Iohn W1ley & Sons, New Iersey, 339 pp.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1992, "Human Health-Based Guidance Levels
for the Ingestion of Contaminants in Drinking Water and Soil."
~.
Boemgen, I. G. and H. T. Shacklette, 1981, Chemical Analyses of Soils and Other Surficial
Materials for the Contenninous United States, U.S. Geological Survey Open F1le Repon 81-
197.
Cost Branch Controller Division, 1987, Community Economk ImJIIICI SlIItement, 82nd
Flying Training Wing.
'Engineering-Science (ES), 1984, "Installation Restoration Program, Phase 1 - Records Search,
Williams AFB, Arizona," February 1984.
IT Corporation, 1994a, Willituns Air Force Base FilUll Feasibility Study, Operoble Unit 1,
prepared for the USAF Base Conversion Agency by IT Corporation, February 1994. .
IT Corporation, 1994b, Wil1iIIms Air Force Base FilUll Remedillllnvestigation Report
Addendum, Operoble Unit 1, prepared by IT Corporation, Ianuary 1994.
IT Corporation, 1993a, Draft RflIliooctive Instrumentation BurUzl Area Removtd Report,
RW-ll Wil1iIIms Air Force Base, prepared for the USAF Training Command, Randolph
AFB, by IT Corporation, Iune 1993.
IT Corporation, 1993b, Wil1iIIms Air Force Base Field Sampling Pllln, OU-1 Soil
Bockgrourul, SD-10, FT-03, prepared by IT Corporation, August 1993.
IT Corporation, 1993c, Wil1iIIms Air Force Base FilUll Baseline Ecologictd Risk Assessment,
Operoble Unit 1 - Basewide, prepared by IT Corporation, December 1993.
IT Corporation, 1992a, FilUll RCRA PIII1ial Closure Report for Building 1085 and Building
1086 Tank Systems, Wil1iIIms Air Force Base, prepared for the USAF Air Training
Comm~d, Randolph AFB, Texas, by IT Corporation, April 1992.
XN/138S/WP13&S.17J04.-13-941D3
12-1
-------
IT Corporation, 1992b, WillUuns Air Force Base FinIll Remedillllnvestigation, Operable
Unit I, prepared for the USAF Air Training Command, Randolph AFB, Texas, by IT
Corporation, October, 1992.
IT Corporation, 1991a, Williams Air Force Base FinIll Work Plan, prepared for the USAF
Air Training Command, Randolph, AFB, Texas, by IT Corporation, February 1991.
IT Cmporation, 1991b, Wil1ituns Air Force Base FinIll Qruzlity AssUTtlnee Project Plan,
prepared for the USAF Air Training Command, Randolph AFB, Texas, by IT Corporation,
February 1991.
~-
IT Corporation, 1991c, Williams Air Force Base FinIll Field Sampling Plan, prepared for
the USAF Air Training Command, Randolph AFB, Texas, by IT Corporation, April 1991.
IT Cmporation, 1991d, Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Aruzlysis RadiollCtive
Instrumentation Burial Area (WP-Ol), Williams Air Force Base, prepared for the USAF Air
Training Command, Randolph AFB, Texas, by IT Corporation, June 1991.
IT Corporation, 1991e, Williams Air Force Base FinIll Community Relations Plan, prepared
for the USAF Air Training Command, Randolph AFB, Texas, by IT Corporation.
. IT Corporation, 199Qa. Fitud Decision Document, Fire Protection Training Area No.1 (FT-
03), Willillms Air Force Base, prepared for the USAF Air Training Command, Randolph
AFB, Texas, by IT Corporation, July 1990.
IT Corporation, 1990b, Final Decision Document, Northwest Drainage System (OT-2),
Williams Air Force Base, prepared for the USAF Air Training Command, Randolph AFB,
-Texas, by IT Corporation, September 1990.
IT Corporation, 199Oc, Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Pesticide Burial Area
(WP-OI), WilliIl1ns Air Force Base, prepared for the USAF Air Training Command,
Randolph AFB, Texas, by IT Corporation, December 1990.
-
IT Corporation, 1987a, Task Report No.4, Remedial Action Report/or the Southwest
Drainage System, Willillms AFB, Arizo1Ul, prepared for the USAF Air Training Command,
Randolph AFB, Texas, by IT Corporation, Knoxville, Tennessee, June 10, 1987.
IT Corporation, 1987b, Plans and Specifications/or Remediation o/the Southwest Drai1Ulge
System Ditch, WillUuns AFB, Arizona, prepared for the USAF Air Training Command,
Randolph AFB, Texas, by IT Corporation, Knoxville, Tennessee, September 18, 1987.
Laney, R. L. and M. E. Hahn, 1986, Hydrogeology of the Eastern Part of the Salt River
Valley Area, Maricopa and Pinard Counties, Arizona, U.s. Geological Survey, Water-
ResourCes Investigations Report, pp. 86-4147.
KN/13SS/WP13SS.17J04..13-941D3
12-2
-------
Marcus, W. L., 1986, "Lead Health Effects in Drinking Warer," Toxicology and Industritll
HeIllJh, Vol 4, pp. 363-407.
Myrick, T. E., B. A. Berven, and F. F. Haywood, 1983, "Detennination of Concentrations of
Selected Radionuclides in Surface Soil in the U.S.," Health Physics, Vol. 45, pp. 631-642.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), 1984, "Exposure from
the Uranium Series with Emphasis on Radon and its Daughters," NCRP Repon No. 77.
Summers, K. S., Gherbi. and C. Chen, Tetra Tech, Inc., 1980, Methodology to Evaluate the
Pounlial/or GrowulwaUr Co1llllmi1uUion from Geothemud Fluid RelellSe, EPA-600n-8o-
117, as modified by EPA Region IV.
~.
Sunregion Associates, 1987, Maricoptl Land Use Plan, Ocean Creek and EllSt Mesa,
Subarea Al.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1979, Firm Flood Insurtlnce RaU
Map, Maricopa County, Arizona, UnincorporaUd ArellS: Community, Panel No. 040037
1600A.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991a, "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund,
. Volume I: Human ~alth Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default
Exposure Factors, Interim Fmal," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, D.C.
u.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991b, "Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS),"
Computer Data Base, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991c, "Health Effects Assessment Summary Table,
FY-I991," OERR 9200.6-303(91-1), U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
u.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990, National Oil and HllZIUdous Subslilnces
PoUution Contingency PlIJn," Final Rule, FR Vol. 55, No. 46, March 8, 1990,_available from
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
u.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989a, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Hu"",n HeaUh Evaluation Manual, Part A, Interim FinIll, EPA/54011-89/002. U.S. EPA,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989b, Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/«XJI8-
89/043, U.S. EPA, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987, "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations,
Synthetic Organic Chemicals; Monitoring for Unregulated Contaminants," Federal Register
52:25690-25734.
KN/138SIWPl38S.12J04-13-941D3
12-3
-------
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985, Dust Control at Hazardous Waste Sites,
EP A/54012-851OO3.
-,
XN/l3SS/WP138S.12J04-1~3
12-4
-------
KNI138SWP138S.APA/04-12-941D1
~.
APPENDIX A
RISK ASSESSMENT REEVALUATION
-------
~.
APPENDIX A.1
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY TABLES FROM OU-1 RI ADDENDUM
.KNI1~385.APA/04-12-94101
-------
Table A.1.1
Summary of Risk Characterization Results
landfill (LF.04)
Williams Air Force Base
(Page 1 of 2)
Ingestion of Groundwater' 6.71 x 10° Antimony, chromium 7.48 x 10.5 Beryllium, benzene
Inhalallon of Volatiles from 1.16x 10-4 Carbon dlsulflde 1.76 x 10" Benzene
Groundwater'
Dermal Contact with Groundwater' 1.61 x 10-4 Chromium 1.20 x 10.7 Beryllium
TolIl Groundwater HI and ILCR: 6.70 x 10° 7.49x 10"
Dermal Contact wlih Soli 1.07 x 10.1 Dleld~n, 1,2,4.t~chloro-benzene 6.13 x 10" Dleldrln
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 1.21 x 10° Lead 1.38 x 10" Beryllium
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 2.90 x 10-3 Lead 3.59 x 10.7 Beryllium
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli Not quantlfled" Not quantified"
TolIl Soli HI and IlCR: 1.32 x 100 2.03 X 10"
)
(
-------
Table A.1.1
(Page 2 of 2)
Total Hazard Index
Dennal Contact with Soli 8.04 x 10-3 Dleldrln 1.92 x 10" Dleldr1n
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 4.63 x 10.2 lead 2.21 x 10" Be'Ylllum
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 2.07 x 10-3 Lead 8.88 x 10" Arsenic, chromium
Inhalation of VolaUles from Soli Not quantified" Not quantified"
Total Soli HI and ILCR: 5.64 x 10.2 1.30 x 10.5
'Applies only to future scenar1o.
bNot quanUfled because no volatne organic compounds were detected In landfill soils.
.
.
-------
Table A.1.2
Summary of Risk Characterization Resuhs
Fire Protection Training Area No.1 (FT -03)
Williams Air Force Base
(Page 1 0' 2)
Exposure Pathway Total Hazard Index Primary Contributor(s) Total IlCR Primary Contrlbutor(s)
Ingestion 0' Groundwater' 7.52 x 10.1 Cadmium, lead, zinc 2.39 x 10.7 Methylene chloride
Inhalation 0' Volatiles 'rom 8.90 x 10-5 Carbon disulfide 1.24 x 10.10 Methylene chloride
Groundwater"
Dermal Contact wilh Groundwater" 1.42 x 10-3 Cadmium, lead, zinc 1.95 x 10.9 Methylene chloride
Total Groundwater HI and ILCR: 7.54 x 10.1 2.41 X 10.7
Dermal Contact with Soli 3.19 x 10-3 Methyl ethyl ketone 8.88 x 10" 1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
Incidental Ingestion 01 Soli 1.37 x 10° Antimony 1.17 x 10" 1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
Inhalation 01 Fugitive Dust 3.02 x 10-3 Antimony 8.94 x 10.11 BIs(2~thylhexyl)phthalate
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli 6.45 x 10-3 Methyl elhyl ketone 7.43 x 10.7 Methylene chloride
Total SoIl HI and ILCR: I 1.38 10° 8.45 10.7
x x
KN/I38!5tNP13'
'.13-14.03
-------
Table A.1-2
(Page 2 of 2)
Exposure Pathway Total Hazard Index Primary Contrlbutor(s) Total IlCR PrImary Contrlbutor(s)
Dermal Contact with Son 2.40 x 10'" Methyl ethyl ketone 2.79 x 10-8 Methytene chloride
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 5.24 x 10.2 Antimony 1.86 x 10.9 '14.Dlchlorobenzene
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 2.16 x 10-3 Antimony 5.34 x 10.11 BIs(2-ethylhexyt)phlhalate
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli 4.62 x 10-3 Methyl ethyl ketone 4.44 x 10.7 Methytene chloride
Total Soli HI and ILCR: 5.94 x 10.2 4.72 X 10.7
BAppllss only to Mure scenario.
~
,
KNiI 3851WP1385.AI:lJ04.1 3-9W3
-------
Table A.1-3
Summary of Risk Characterization Results
Northwest Drainage System (SD-10)
Williams Air Force 8ase
Exposure Pathway Total Hazard Primary Cqntrlbutor(s) Total ILCR Primary Contrlbutor(s)
Index
Dermal Contact with Soli 1 .26 x 1 0.2 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2.80 x 1 0.7 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 6.55 x 1 0.1 Lead, Antimony 4.51 x 1 0" Beryllium
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 1 .44 x 1 0.3 Lead 1 .05 x 1 0.5 ChromIum
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli 1 .02 x 1 0.2 Chloroform 3.62 x 1 0" Chloroform
Total Soli HI and ILCR: 6.79 x 1 0.1 1 .86 x 1 0.5
Dermal Contact with Soli 1 .01 x 10.3 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthaiate. 1 .02 x 1 0.7 Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
chloroform tetrachloroethene
Incidental Inge8\1on of Soli 2.51 x 1 0.2 Lead 7.91 x 10.7 Beryllium
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 1 .03 x 1 0.3 Lead. antimony 6.31 x 1 0" Chromium
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli 7.26 x 1 0.3 Chloroform 2. 1 5 x 1 0" Chloroform
Totel Soli HI end ILCR: I 3.44 x 1 0.2 9.35 x 1 0.6
/
.'WPt 385.At 3104.12-84102
-------
Table A.1-4
Summary of Risk Characterization Results
Pesticide Burial Area (DP-13)
Williams Air Force. Base
Exposure Pathway
Total Hazard Index
Primary ,Contrbuto~s)
Total ILCR
Primary Contrbutor(s)
,
:':r.:::'H:b~1~ht'~~~fl:~~tll~!~~~!.::~~~~:~~':;.::.'::'\l:'::\\;:;;!\:::\::~\'\"\,:~:,\:\,,\:,:;:::~:::::,~;\;:\ii::::!.\\\\.\j.\\~:::':"\!:::::\':\\:~\\"'.:\\i\,:.!:::\\::::::\\\\::).:.i\:.::1:\::\\:.\::;\,;:\:t::.:.\I:':::::;:"':
Dermal Contact with Soli 5.21 x 10" Bls(2'ethylhexyQphthaiate 1.21 x 10" Bls(2-ethylhexyQphthalate
Incldentallngestton 0' Soli 8.16 x 10.1 Lead, antimony 1.27 x 10.9 Bls(2-ethylhexyQphthalate
Inhalation 0' FugJUve Dust 3.85 x 10-3 Lead, antimony 4.54 x 10'" Bls(2.ethylhexyQphthalate
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli 8.21 x 10.2 Acetone NA1 NA
Total Soli HI and ILCR: 9.03 x 10.1 1.34 x 10"
Dermal Contact with Soli 3.92 x 10.5 Bls{2-ethylhexyQphthalate 3.78 x 10.9 Bls(2-ethylhexyQphthalate
Incldenlal Ingesllon of Soli 6.55 x 10-2 lead, anllmony 2.03 x 10.10 Bls(2-elhylhexYQphlhalale
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 3.76 x 10.3 Antimony 2.70 x 10'" Bls(2-ethylhexyQphthalate
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli 5.86 x 10-2 Acetone NA NA
I
Total Soli HI and ILCR: 1.28x 10.1 4.01 x 10.9
aNA. Not applicable; no volatile organic carcinogens were delected allh!s she.
/
-------
Table A.1-5
Summary of Risk Characterization Results
Hazardous Materials Storage Area (SS-01)
Williams Air Force Base
Exposure Pathway
Total Hazard
Index
..:.::':..i.1;;..:;.J':9.y~!~t~~:':~lliMt~.::!i~!i~ijjm:'.1~:~M9~"'::::'::::::;:':::,:'::.::;:::':'..:"'::'::,"'::';::::..::..;'::.:::;.:::';:\f:i':!:J:'.':;::,J:J::'::':1:::::.'::':::':':j!'J1:::::1:::1;:;::::.:\::,':':':!.::::.;::.:,:::,:..::';:::..:/j:':::',.:::i:j::j.;:..::'
1.07 X 10.3 Methylene chloride 3.30 x 10" Methylene chloride
Prfm1ary Contrfbutor(s)
TotallLCR
Prfmary 'Contrfbutor(s)
..::::.~::tr:jt:::~~~~:U;\:);~:{:::~:~::~:~::~\\~~(t~)tf.::::;;:~:<:~()i;:~:\:j:':~\:)}j~jf)\:r:;~~~i:;;::1:::::;:;;;:1"::;\::::
.:::.''':': ',';. :..::.;;:;;;~.:;::' :" :~;~~r~;tri/~t:i\f~f:i;~~;):i;?~f:;::r::~rr~.:;{r~irrf}~~:lt~t?rt;~:: t~~:::~::;i;
Dermal Contact with Soli
Lead
5.19 x 10"
1.42 X 10.5
Beryllium
Chromium
Incidental Ingestion 0' Soli
Inhalation 0' Fugitive Dust
4.24 X 10.1
9.39 x 10'"
Lead
Inhalation 0' Volatiles 'rom Soli
1.65 x 10'"
Methylene chloride
8.68 x 10"
Methylene chlortde
Total Soli HI end ILCR: 4.26 x 10.1 1.94 X 10.5
Dermal Contact with Soli 8.08 x 10.5 Methylene chloride, ethyl 1.04 x 10" Methylene chlortde
benzene
Incidental Ingestion 0' Soli 1.61 x 10.2 Lead 8.28 x 10.7 Beryllium
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 7.09 x 10'" Lead 8.49 x 10" Chromium
Inhalation 0' Volatiles from Soli 1.18 x 10'" Methylene chlortde 5.17 x 10" Methylene chloride
I 1.70 x 10.2 9.32 x 10-6
Total Soil HI end ILCR:
11UWP1385.A 115104.12-94102
-------
Table A.1-6
Summary o' Risk Characterization .Results
Building 789 USTs (ST-OS)
Williams Air Force Base
(Page 1 01 2)
Primary ContrlJulor(s) TolalilCR Primary ContrlJulor(s)
f.tii~r!:.~~~id,~~~i.($,~ij~:;:':i::::('~'::j,:;i::,:;::...\:!.:.:;::i:::.:::::;::.:.';.::;:;':.{":::':'.::::::'::.::;.:!::::j:,:.:.j'.:::::;;::::,,!,,]:::,.:.::::::::...(::.;::.!.j:;::::::i!':::::':::::;i:::,'::::,i:::i:'::::.:::::,',:
Dermal Contact with Soli 3.23 x 10.(1 Ethyl benzene NA' NA
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 6.30 x 10-4 Ethyl benzene NA NA
Inhalation 01 Fugitive Dust 2.27 x 10.5 Xylenes NA NA
Inhalation 01 Volallles from 5011 1.18 x 10-3 Xylenes NA NA
Total Soli HI and ILCR: 5.06 x 10.3
Dermal Contact with Soli 2.01 x 10.5 Xylene9 NA NA
Incldenlallngestlon of Soli 2.06 x 10.5 Xylenes NA NA
Inhalation of FuglUve Dust 3.57 x 10.7 Xylenes NA NA
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli 1.74 x 10.5 Xylenes NA NA
TolIl Soli HI and ILCR: 5.85 x 10.5
/
-------
Exposure Pathway
Table A.1-6
(Page 2 of 2)
Total Hazard Index . Prfmary Contrbutor(s)
2.43 x 10" I
Ethyl benzene NA NA
2.41 x 10.5 Ethyl benzene NA NA
1.62 x 10.5 Xylenes NA NA
8.46 x 10" Xylenes NA NA
1.13x10-3
Dermal Contact with Soli
Incidental Ingestion of Soli
Inhalation 0' Fugitive Dust
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli
Total Soli HI and ILCR:
INA . Not applicable; no carcinogenic chemicals 0' potential concern were 'ound at this atta.
-------
Table A.1-7
Summary of Risk Characterization Results
Building 725 USTs (ST -06)
Williams Air Force Base
(Page 1 of 2)
Exposure Pathway Total Hazard Index Primary Contrlbutor(s) Total ILCR Primary Contrlbutor(s)
..
Dermal Contact with Soli 3.79 x 1 0.5 Ethyl benzene NAB NA
Incidental Ingestion of 8011 7.24 x 1 0.8 Ethyl benzene NA NA
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 1 .24 x 1 0-8 Xylenes NA NA
Inhalation ot Volatiles trom Soli 2.34 x 1 0-8 Xylenes NA NA
Total Soli HI and ILCR: 4.75 x 1 0.5
Dermal Contact with 8011 1 .62 x 1 0'7 Ethyl benzene NA NA
Incidental Ingestion ot 8011 1 .66 x 1 0'7 Ethyl benzene NA NA
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust 2.90 x 1 0.9 Ethyl benzene NA NA
Inhalation ot Volatiles from Soli 5. 1 3 x 1 0" Ethyl benzene NA NA
Total Soli HI and ILCR: I 3.82 x 1 0.7
/
KN/I385tWPI385.A 17104.12.941D3
-------
Table A.1.7
(Page 2 of 2)
'.
Exposure Pathway Total Hazard Index Primary Contrlbutor(s) Total ILCR Primary Contrlbutor(s)
,..::.:/:..
Dermal Contact with Soli 2.85 x 1 0" Ethyl benzene NA NA
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 2.77 x 1 0.7 Ethyl benzene NA NA
Inhalation of FuglUve Dust 5.28 x 1 0.9 Xylenes NA NA
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli 1 .68 x 1 0" Xylenes NA NA
Total Soli HI and ILCR: 4.81 x 1 0"
aNA. Not applicable; no carcinogenic chemicals of potential concern were found at this site.
/
'''1IIWP1S8S.A17104.12.941D3
-------
Dennal Contact with Soli
Incidental In estlon of Soli
Inhalation of Fu ItIve Dust
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli
Dennal Contact with Soli
Incidental In estlon 0' Soli
Inhalation 0' Fu IIlve Dust
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli
Total Soli HI and ILCR:
-------
Table A.1-8.
(Page 2 01 2)
Inhalation 0' Fu INYe Dust
Inhalation 0' Volatiles from Soli
5.94 X 10.7
6.36x 10"
5.92 X 10.10
5.46 X 10.7
1.20 x 10"
Primary ContriJutor(s) Total IlCR Primary ContriJuto~s) .
..Hutriritd~.t~d~'$diiWid:.::::::.r:::::,}:':);:i:,::::.:j.".:::.:..:;:::i:.:,:;.::.,::;:::'::~::::::.:.':.::::::J:::::::':i\,:::::.'.i:..:::::.::::1:::.:::::::::'::,::.:.:::!:::::::::.:::::J.\::;:.[?}:.:,:::t:::::::.
Meth lene chloride 9.55 x 10.11 Meth ene chloride
Meth lene chloride 1.02 x 10.11 Meth lene chloride
Meth lene chloride 3.00 x 10.1S Meth lene chloride
Meth lene chloride 2.76 x 10.10 Meth lene chloride
3.82 x 10.10
Dennal Contact wtth Soli
Incldentat In estlon of Soli
TOIII Soli HI and ILCR:
/
-------
Table A.1.9
Summary 01 Risk Characterization Results
Building 1085 USTs (ST.08)
Williams Air Force Base
Exposure Palhway
Tolal Hazard Index
Primary Conlrlbutor(s)
TotallLCR
Primary ContrlJutor(s)
Dennal Contact with Soli 8.50 x 10'" Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1.90 x 10-8 Bls(2-ethylhexyqphthalate
Incidental Ingestion 0' Soli 2.44 x 10° Antimony 2.00 x 10.9 Bls(2-ethylhexyqphthalate
Inhalallon 0' FuglUve Dust 5.21 x 10-3 Antimony 2.90 x 10.5 Cadmium
Inhalation 0' Volatiles from Soli 6.77 x 10-3 Acetone NA I NA
Total Soli HI and ILCR: 2.45 x 10° 2.90 X 10.11
Dennal Contact with Soli 2.83 x 10.5 Bls(2-ethylhexyqphthalate 2.86 x 10.11 Bls(2-ethylheXYQphthalate
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 2.57 x 10'" Antimony 2.94 x 10.11 Bls(2-ethylhexYQphthaiate
Inhalallon 0' Fugitive Dust 1.52 x 10'8 Antimony 5.10 x 10.13 Bls(2-ethylheXYQphthalate
Inhalation of Volatiles from Soli 2.89 x 10'" Acetone NA NA
Total Soli HI and ILCR:
5.76x 10'"
5.85 x 10.11
Dennal Contact with Soli 6.40 x 10.5 Bls(2-ethylhexyQphthaiate 5.95 x 10-9 Bls(2-elhylhexyQphthaiate
Incidental Ingestion of Soli 1.63 x 10.2 Antimony 3.18 x 10.10 Bls(2-ethylhexyQphthalate
I
2.23 x 10-3 Antimony 1.36 x 10.7
4.83 X 10-3 Acetone NA
2.34 x 10.2 1.42 X 10.1
Inhalation 0' Fugitive Dust
Inhalation 0' Volatiles 'rom Soli
Totat SoIlILCR:
Cadmium
NA
INA - Not applicable; no volatile organic carcinogens were detected at this site.
I
-------
~-
APPENDIX A.2
EPA REGION IX OU.1 RISK ASSESSMENT CONFIRMATION MEMO
KN/138S'WP1385.APAI04-12-94JD1
-------
~8f4~.,
;' A \
\~5
+4(
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, Ca. 84105-3901
2/7/94
'KEKORAImUX .
From:
Ramon C. Mendoza, Remedial Project Manager, unit~tes
Environmental Protection Aqency. (USEPA) Reqion c;;;r\
Dr. William L. Harris, Environmental Coordinator,
Williams Air Force Base (NAFB)
Reassessment of Operable Unit (OU)- 1 Risk Assessment
(RI Report, 10/92) regarding metals
~,
To:
SUbject:
The Air Force reevaluated the risk assessment eRA) for OU-1 based
on the base-specific surface backgrouncl data rather than the
regional background data (draft final RIR Addendum, 1/94). Because
of the limited amount of base-specific data available, we believe
this .approach may not be sufficient to ensure protection..
We reassessed the OU-1 risk assessment (RI Report,10/92) and found
that some metals were not factored into the RA model because they
were wi thin the regional background levels. Because of the
uncertainties with the data that is being used for background
(site/region), EPA compared the metals that were not factored into
the OU-1 RA with EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals
(Enclosure II) and determined the cancer and noncancer risks.
These risks were then added to the risk from the OU-1 RA so that an
estimated cumulative risk could be calculated.
As part of our conservative approach in determining risk, we used
a residential scenario. In addition: Risks were calculated for
metals that exceeded EPA PRGs even if they were within regional
background levels i Highest concentrations were used in calculating
the cancer risk and hazard quotient regardless of the depth in soil
and whether these soils had been removed during previous response
actions.
The following OU-1 sites were not considered in our reassessment:
a) RW-11: contaminant of concern was racUonuclides. "
b) Landfill: cover addresses additional potential surface soil
risks.
c) USTs ST-05 and ST-06: These USTs contained diesel, gasoline, and
waste oil. The USTs were sampled for TCLP lead and the results
were non-detect. In addition, soils were excavated and disposed
during the removal actions.
PritlIN 011 R«,clltl """"
-------
The objective of the exercise was to determine if the proposed
. remedies for 00-1 are still valid. Based on our analysis and with
the available data, we conclude that the remedies proposed for OU-l
are still valid.
our assessment for 00-1 sites DP-13, FT-03, SD-10, SS-Ol, ST-OB,
and ST-07 are enclosed (Enclosure I). If you have any questions,
please call me at (415) 744-2407.
cc:
Fant, ADEQ
Annis, ADWR
Barris Phd.,
Stralka Phd.
file
~,
AFBCA WAFS
(Toxicologist), EPA Region 9
-------
ENCLOSURE I
In the EPA PRG table, cancer (c) and noncancer (nc) risk-based
concentrations were calculated based on a lifetime cancer risk of
10-6 risk and a non cancer hazard quotient (HQ) of 1. For example,
the beryllium (Be) residential cancer PRG of .4mg/kg is based on a
10-6 risk. Therefore, a concentration of Be at lmg/kg would have
a cancer risk of 2.5 x 10-6. The Be residential noncancer PRG of
39Omg/kg is based on a SQ of 1. 1 mg/kg of Be would have an SO of
1/390.
EPA Region 9 Residential PRGs:
------
Noncancer (SQ-1)
39Omg/k9
23mg/kg
31mg/kg
~.
Beryllium (Be) -
Arsenic (As)-
Antimony (Sb)-
cancer (10-6)
.4mg/kg .
. 97mg/kg
Federal KCL
Barium (Ba) - 200OUg/l
Chromium (er) - lOOug/l(Cr total)
Antimony (Sb) - 5/1OUg/l (proposed)
EPA Region .9
(tap water)
260OUg/l (nc)
1S0ug/l(nc,Crrv
15ug/l (nc)
& compounds)
1. Si~. DP-13 - Beryllium (Be), Antimony (Sb), and Arsenic (As)
exceeded EPA residential PRGs. Sb was factored into the 00-1 RA,
Be and As were not. The highest concentrations were: 5mg/kg of Be
at five feet and 4mg/kg of As at 10 feet.
Cancer risk due to Be (1mCJ/kg) -
cancer risk due to As (4mg/kg)
Total cancer risk from RI
Revised total cancer risk
2.5 x 10-6
4.12 x 10-6
1.34 x 10-8+
6.63 X 10-6
HQ due to Be (lmg/kg)
HQ due to As (4mg/kg)
Total KQ from RI
Revised total HQ
-.
.00256
.174
.478+
.654
Conclusion: The revised total cancer and noncancer risks are
acceptable. In addition, the soil where the data was taken appears
to have been excavated during the removal action. Proposed remedy
is still valid.
2.
Sit. 1'1'-03, ItA .... Dot COD4uct;.4 .~ t;hi. .it;..
only. Be and Sb exceeded EPA residential PRGs. Be concentrations at
the surface are above the EPA residential PRG. The highest
concentration of Be detected was 1.7mg/kg (RIR Addendum) which
poses a cancer risk of 4.25 x 10-6.
-------
Concentrations of Sb exceeded the EPA residential PRG only at depth
(40 to 80 feet). The highest concentration found was 61ppm at 40
feet. No surface samples have exceeded the EPA residential PRG~
. Any potential groundwater (GW) thre.at has not been substantiated.
Sb has not been detected in GW. .
The most recent samples did not detect any Sb. This seems to
confirm the Air Force's position that the Sb detects were due to
instrument systematic problems in 1989.
Conclusion:
still valid.
The risk for Be is acceptable.
Proposed remedy is
~-
3. 81)-10 - Sb, Be, and As exceeded EPA residential PRGs.
Be had been factored into the 00-1 RA, As was not.
concentration of As detected was 5mq/kg.
Sb and
Highest
Cancer risk due to As (5mg/kg) -
Total cancer risk 00-1 RI
5.15 x 10-6
8.55 x 10-6 +
1.35 x 10-5
HQ due to As (5mq/kq)
Total HQ from 0'0-1 RI
.217
.235 +
.452
Conclusion: Additional potential risk due to As is acceptable.
Proposed remedy is still valid.
4. 88-01 Be and As exceeded EPA residential PRGs. Be was
factored into the RA, As was not. Highest concentration of As
detected was 4.7mg/kg.
Cancer risk due to As (4.7mq/kq)
Total cancer risk 0'0-1 RI
4.845 x 10-6
6.92 x 10-6 +
1.177 x 10-5
HQ due to As (5mq/kg)
Total HQ from 0'0-1 RI
.204
.031 +
.235
Conclusion: Additional potential risk due to As is acceptable.
Proposed remedy is still valid.
.
.
5. 8T-O. - Only Sb(31mg/kq at surface - HQ of 1) exceeded EPA
residential PRGs. The area where the soil sample was taken was
excavated durinq the 'OST removal, addressinq the potential risk.
Conclusion: Proposed remedy is still valid.
-------
6.
ST-07 -
The Air Force sampled at depth for TCLP metals.
Detected Results were:
Federal MCL
EPA Region 9 PRG
(tap water)
2600 ug/l (nc)
180 ug/l(nc, CrIV)
Barium
Chromium -
957 ug/l
15 ug/l
2000 ug/l
100 ug/l(Cr total)
These concentrations are below the EPA PRGs and Federal Maximum
contaminant Levels.
~.
Conclusion: Data does not indicated a threat to GW.
remedy is still valid.
Proposed
RD'ZRDtCZS
Smucker Ph~D., Stanford J. 1993. Region IX Preliminary Remediation
Goals (PRGS) Fourth Quarter 1993. November.
Williams Air Force Base. 1992. Final Remedial Investigation Report
Operable eni t 1 Volume 1 Text. october
Williams Air Force Base. 1992. Final Remedial Investigation Report
Operable enit 1 Volume 2 Appendices A through G. october
1992. Region 9 Environmental Protection Agency Drinking Water
Standards and Health Advisory Table. February.
-------
DCLOStJJtB XX
~.
.
.
-------
~n.,,#
;' A Tt
{~i
\-.,., ~';!
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, Ca. 841D5-3901
February 1, 1994
Subject:
Reaion rx Preliminarv
First Hal~ 1994
Remediation
Goals
tPRGs)
From:
Stanford J. Smucker, Ph. D.
Regional Toxicologist (B-9-3)
PRG Table Hailing List
~.
To:
Please find the update to the Region IX PRG tables. The tables
have been revised to reflect the. most current EPA information.
Updates to toxicity values were obtained from IRIS through January
1994 and HEAS'1' through July 1993. Exposure factors have not
changed from previous issues and reflect assumptions in RAGS
SUpplemental Guidance (OSNER Directive 9285.6-03, EPA 1991).
The tables provide useful risk-based information for Region IX risk
assessors and managers. However, the tables have no official
status and BY be in conflict with local state requirements. They
should be used only as a. predictor of single-contaminant risk
estimates for a specific environmental media (soil, air, and tap
water) .
A contaminant concentration that exceeds a PRG level does not, in
itself, mean that there is an unacceptable health threat. However ,
axceedances should be evaluated further. It is recommended that
the reader verify the numbers with a toxicologist because the
toxicity/exposure information in the table may contain errors or
need to be retined based on further evaluation. If you find an
error please send me a note via fax at (415) 744-1916.
To get on the PRG Table Mailing List, please make the request
through EPA'a project manager working on your site. Another
option, to obtain the most recent version of the table, is to
download the PRG Reference Tables (including text: and physico-
chemical information) directly fr01l california Regional Water
Board's Bulletin Board System at (510) 286-0404. I have tried it
out and found it to be very user friendly.
..
Prill"" 011 R«JC1ftI Ptq1n
-------
RBaDDlG 1'D PRG RD'BRDCZ ~
GeD8J:a1 cauideraUou:
The PRG Table can be used for general risk screening purposes for
residents and workers. Generally, the maximum concentration (or 95
UeL of the aritbmetic meaD) should be compared against the PRG
concentrations. Thi. comparison should only be perrormed after an
extensive records search and compilation of existing c!ata. A8
noted, before applying the PRG concentrations to a site, it is
important to make sure that the exposure pathways and assumptions
contained in the PRGs match tho- at the 8ite. Region IX PRGs are
based on standard EPA assumptions ror dir.ct exposures (i. e.~'
ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact) pr..ented in BAG.i
SUDDlemental Guidance; OSWER Directive 9285.6-03). Additional
pathways not covered by the PRGs require further evaluation.
If more than a handful of chemicals are present at a si1:e, it is
recOJlllRende4 that multiple chemical ad4itivity be considered for
screening risk8 at a site. This can be done fairly s1Jllply by
sn_:Sng the ratio. of measured concentrations to PRG concentrations
(e.g. maximum value/PRG value). cancer and noncancer basad PRGs
should be _gregatad When sU1llllltng ratio.. Por carcinOC)en8 that
also have noncancar endpoints, noncancer PRG. (which, in most cases
are not pr~ented in the tables) must also be calculated in
addition to the cancer PRGs presented in th. tables. For more
information on screening site risks, the reader should contact EPA
Region IX'. Technical SUpport SectioD~ .
In the PRG Table, separate cancer and noncancer concentrations were
calculated based on a lifetime cancer risk of 10" risk. anc! a
noncancer hazard quotient of 1. '!'he PRG Tabl. presents the. lower
of the two values. Generally, PRG concentrations for carcinogens
are based on cancer effects anc! for. noncarcinogeDS are based on
noncancer effects. However, additional considerations were
necessary for soils. For sOllIe noncarcinogens, risk-based PRG
concentrations were very high, higher than what is physically
possible. In these cases a reasonable "ceiling lPiit" for the
amount of chemical that may be in the soil matrix was estimated.
For volatiles, the "ceiling limit" is ba.e4 on the 80il saturation.
limit ("sat") de.cribed below. For nonvolatile., the "ceiling
limit" is s.t at a Jll8XDum value ("max") of roughly 10 percent in
soils (i.e. 100,000 mg/kg).
~ozici~y Va1ue.a
.
.
EPA toxicity values, known as "safe" reference dos.. (RfD) and
carcinogenic sloPe factors (SF) were obtained from IRIS through
January 1994, BEAS'1' through July 1993, and Ec:AO-CinciDnati. The
priority among sources of toxicological constants used are aa
follows: (1) IRIS (indicated by "i"), (2) BEAST ("h"), (3) ECAO-
2
-------
contaminant concentration is at or" below soil saturation. If the
PRG calculated using VF was greater than the calculated 50il
saturation ("sat-), the PRG was set equal to "sat" in accordance
with Risk Assessment Guidance for superfund - Part B (!PA, 1991).
Der.aal ~.Orp~iOD of CoDt.-ift.ft~. iD 80il:
Much uncertainty surrounds the determination of hazards associated
with dermal con~ct vith soils. Acute irritation, sensitization
reactions, and/ or cancer concerns associated vi th dermal exposures
may need to be considered. However, in most: cases there are
scientific 11mi~tions with evaluating these direct contact
exposures quantitatively.
Region IX PRGs do consider dermal absorption of contaminants in ~.
80il. For volatiles and inorqanica, dermal absorption is.
considered negligible relative to ingestion and/or inhalation
exposures. For semivolatiles, a default of 10' dermal absorption
is assumed. At this' absorption, the dermal dose is estimated to
equal the ingestion dose, using the best estimate default values in
Dermal ExDosure Assessment: Princi"les and ADDlications (EPA
1992). 'l'herefore, to take into account dermal exposures to
semi volatiles in soil, the PRG based on ingestion is simply divided
by a factor of 2 (that is, the ingestion dose is doubled to account
for dermal exposure).
Chuical. Ad.orbed ~ Airl:»orD. Partial..:
Inhalation of chemicals adsorbed to respirable particles (PM,o) were
assessed using a default particulate emission factor (PU) equal to
4.63 x 10' J1iJ /kg that relates the contaminant concentration in soil
wi th the concentration of respirable particles in the air due to
" fugitive dust emissions from contaJDinated soils. The relationship
is derived by Cowherd (1985) for a rapid assessment" procedure
applicable to a typical hazardous vaste si te where the surface
contamination provides a relatively continuous and constant
potential for emission over an extended period of time (e.9.
years). ~i. 8&7 Dot be aD appropriate ...umptioD for all .it...
Wi th the possible exception of cadmium, chromium, - and nickel,
inhalation of airborne particles does not significantly affect the
PRG for 80i18 and therefore is not considered further" in ~is
memorandum. As written, the Soil PRG equations do not incorporate
a PEF value. To incorporate the PEP in the PRG equation (either
the default value or a site-specific value), the user simply
substitutes the PEF value for the VF" value (see below). For more
details regarding specific parameters used in the PEF ~odel, the
reader is referred to RAGS Pa~ B (EPA, 1991).
4
-------
EXPOSURE A8StJHPTIOHS
Parameter
Definition (units)
Cancer slope factor oral (Dlg/kg-d)-'
CSFo
CSF,
Cancer slope factor inhaled (mg/kg-d)-'
Reference close oral (1DCJ/kg-d)
RfDo
UD,
'1'R
Reference dose inhaled (Dig/kg-d)
'1'&rget cancer risk
'1'HQ
T&rget hazard quotient
Body weight, adult (kg)
Body weight, child (kg)
BW.
BWe
AT
Averaging time (years of life)
Air breathed CfIiJ /day)
Drinking water ingestion (L/day)
n.
II\,
IRS.
IRSc
Soil ingestion' - lifetime resid~t (mg/day)
50il ingestion - child resident (age 1-6),
(JIg/day)
. IRSo
EFr
50il ingestion - occupational (Dig/day)
Exposure frequency - residential (d/y)
EFo
EDr
Exposure frequency - occupational (d/y)
Exposure duration - residential (years)
ED .
o
Exposure duration - occupational (years)
Volatilization factor for water (unitless)
(Andelman 1990)
It
~,~
10-6 -.
1
70
15
70.
. 20, 1!1'
2
100
2 0 0
50
350
250
30, 6c
25
0 . 5
FoaaIaIa:
as.-., ,... ..... _...~ ... - - ~A...- Far
LAT - D».
15 .}'-, iI tile daily"'" ... - ~ 8ir. nil - , L illII8d ill tile .., --....... -.... I.
c~ cIunIiaD - Iif8Iiaa ........ ........ 10 be 30,.,. ud far cIIiId ...-... ia...... 80 be 6 ,... <.,. I dIIu 6).
~ .... ........ a. . - ..... 80 .. ...... danIiaD
6
-------
3.
4.
Drinking "ater
a.
carcinoqens
c TRxBW.xATx365d/yXJ.03uglmg
. (ug/L) c EFzXEDrX[ (IR.,xCSFo) + (KxIR.xCSF.1)]
b.
Non-carcinogens
C(ugIL). THOXBW.xEDrK365d/yXlOJug/mg
EF zXEDzX[ ( IR,,) + ( JOcIR.) ]
MDo UDJ.
Air
a.
carcinogens
C(u I 3). TRxBW.xATX365d/~OJug/1I1g
9 111 EF zXEDrXIR.xC5Fj
b.
Non-carcinogens
C(u 1m3) c THOXRfDjxBW.xEDrK365d/yXJ.03uglmg
9 EFzXEDzXIR.
8
-.
. .
-------
Parameter
C..t
Kcr
Koe
OC
CM
5
&
P.,
H'
p.
e
Pt
Ps
SO XL SA'l'URATXON COHCDTRATXOH (C..t)
(Kct"cA> + (C.;cP..) + (C.,xIf'xP.>
C..c. p
Definition (units)
50il saturation concentration
(mg/kg)
Soil-water partition ~ricient
(L/kg)
organic carbon partition
organic carbon content or soil
(fraction)
~per limit of rree moisture in
soil (Dig/I.-water)
Solubility in water
(lag/I.-water)
Soil bulk density (kg/I.)
Water filled soil p~rosity
Henry's Law constant
(unitless)
Air-filled soil porosity
Soil moisture content
(kg-water/kg-soil)
Total soil porosity (unitless)
True soil density or particle
density (k9/L)
1.0
Default
~,
Koe x OC
O1emical-sp;K"ific
2' or 0.02
5 x e
~-;~l~ific
1..5
Pt - p.
H x 41., where 41.
is a conversion
factor
P - 88
t -
1.0' or 0.1.
1. - (8/p.) ..
2.65.
.
-------
Region IX
.mlnary Remedl.tlon Goal. 101/01/94)
5
I CONTAMINANT
I
I
I
I Coke Oven Eml.slons
I Copper Ind compounds
I Crotonaldehyde
I ClJIIene
I Cyan.,lne
I Cyanides
I Barium cyanide
I Copper cyanide
I Calcium cy.nlde
I Cyanogen
I Cyanogen bro.lde
I Cyanogen chloride
I Free cyanide
I Hydrogen cyanide
I Potlsslum cYlnlde
I Potassium silver cyanide
I Silver cYlnide
I Sodium cYlnlde
I Zinc cyanide
I Cyclohexanone
I Cyclohexlamlne
! ~~~::;~~!...t..\ f :.:.'. ~:(h
I Oalapon \L. !j: .
I Oanltol ::~
I ODD.
I DOE
I DOt
I Decabromodlphenyl ether
~ I Oemeton
~ I Dl,lIate
I TOXICITY VALUES I V I PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS IPRGS)
I oSF oRIO ISF IRID 1 0 I Resldentl.1 Industrl81 '!P~;{:'AlmIent Air
11/(nIg/kg-d) (",,/kg-d) 1/(nIg/kg-d) IIIIII/kg-d): ~J Sail (1liii/kg) San (~~~~1~~~:::':;l:1Ug/lII3)
I 2.2E+00 I I 0 I 4 ~:;:;:::'~:,'~~4~i ,.. 3.9E-03 c.
I 3.7(-02 h I 0 I 2.9E+03 !!O ..i:~;:,t,;~+it.nc
I 1.9£+00 h I.DE-02 . 1.9E+00. 1.0£-02 rill 2.2.£-:0.2\:'.8 'I t:~Jf-02 c. . 4.5£-03 ca
! ..4(-.' h :::::: ~ ..4(-.; r ::::: :L~.;;111 ~\. ~'~:. , ::::~ ::' ::::::: ::
I I.DE-OI h ,.', I ~'t.." ::tir 'Jj~8E+03 no I.OE+05...
1 5.0[-03 I . . ~:~:i~'~tl . ~i:lJ '{\: 3.9E+02 no 1.0£+04 nc
I 4.0£-02 I .. ':'#1., "It;O:::1 3.1£+03 no 8.2£+04 nc
I 4.0£-02 I .-f+::;~' :, I 0 I 3.IE+03 nc 8.2.£+04 nc
1 9.0E-02 I l'~ t:: :;;: " I 0' 7.0E+03 nc 1.0£+05 N.
I 5.0£,-~&'=1I~f{\."t\\:::, ;::: I 0 I 3.9£+03 nc 1.0£+05 nc
I 2,~ OClol;1~?)iU~ . ',. 1 0 I I. 6£ +03 nc 4 . 1£+04 nc
I .' . f~..:'~tt~ "':~~. 1 0 1 I. 6E +03 nc 4.1£ +04 nc
I:;t\, ,~. ~.~~, I 0 I 3.9E+03 no 1.0£+05 nc
I :t": . lit .:t»l I 1 0 I 1.6E+04 no I.DE+05 N.
I::{~. ';AA1 ';i#~t; . :'.0£-01 I I 0 I 7.8E+03 no 1.0£+05...
'~"""'" ~'1., . -';".'0
if:;~:~ ,'{, '4.0£-02' I 0 1 3.1£+03 nc '8.2[+04 nc
',;\;. IT:"":~: 50£-021 101 39E+03no I.N+05nc
'.,',:-. ,'," . ""
\:}::f/\k, '~:~\ ."J. y: 5.0£+00 , 5.0£+00 rl 0 I 1.0£+05 N. 1.0£+05 III.
'<:ik;:f:~!:r ~W:~:':'I 2.0E-01 I 1.0£-01 rl 0 I 7.8£+03 no 1.0£+05 l1li.
1ft, 1 5.0[-03 , 5.0(-03 rl 0 I 2.0E+OI no 5.1£+03 nc
..
. 1 I.OE-02 , 1.0(-01 'I 0 I 3.9E+OI no 1.0(+04 nc
1 7.5£-03 I 7.5£-03 rl 0 1 I.9£+0! nc 7.7£+03 nc
1 5.0£-01 , 5.0£-01 rl 0 1 2.0£+04 no 1.0£+05 N.
I 3.0£-02 , 3.0£-02 rl 0 1 1.!£+03 nc 3.1£+04 no
1 5.0£-04 . 5.0(-04" 0 I 1.0£+01 no 5.'£+02 no
'I 2.4£-01 I 2.4E-01 r 1 0 1 3.5£+00 c. 1.2E+01 C8
I 3.4£-01 , 3.4E-01 r I 0 I 2.5£+00 C8 8.4£+00 c.
1 3.4£-01 I 5.0E-04 I 3.4E-01' 5.0[-04 rl 0 I 2.5£+00 c... 8.4£+00 CI.
I I.OE-02 1 1.0£-02 rl 0 I 3.9£+02 no 1.0£+04 nc
I 4.0E-05 I 4.0£-05 riO' 1.6[+00 nc 4.1£+01 no
I 6.1£-02 h 6.1£-02 r I 0 I 1.4£+01 c. 4.7£+01 c.
!
1.8£+04 nc
7.3E+02 nc
1.8£+01 nc
3.1£+01 nc
2.7£+01 nc
1.8£+03 nc
1.1[+02 nC
1.8£+00 nc
3.5E-02 CI
2.5f-02 ca
2.5£-02 ca.
3.7£+01 IIC
1.5£-01 nc
1.4£-01 CI '
Key: I-IRIS h-HEASt .-£CAO .-WITHDRAWN ,-ROUTE EXtRAP. t-toX. £QUIV. c.-CANCER PRG nc-NONCAHC£R PRG lit-SOil SAT. ~.-MAX. ll"IT .-nc ( 100X c.
Tap Vater
( ug/l)
1.4£+03 nc
9.4£-03 C8
2.5£+01 lie
I. O£ -01 C8
3.7£+03 lie
1.8E+02 ne
I. Sf +03 ne
I .5£+03 ne
3.3£+03 ne
1.8[.03 ft(
7 .][t02 or.
7.3Et02 nr
1.8E+03 nr
. 7.U+03 IIr
3.7£ +03 nr
I. 5£+03 nl
1 .8£+03 "'
1.8Et05 "'
7.3£+03 "'
1.8£+02 nl
3 . 7£ +02 n.
2.7£t02 n.
I. 8E t04 n'
I. 1£ +03 n'
\.8[tO\ "
3. Sf ;01 r
2.5E-01 r
2.5[-01 I
3.7Et02"
1 . 5[ f 00 "
1.4[fOO I
"one ( 101( CI
-------
Region IX Pre'lmlnary Remediation Goa's (01/01/94)
7
, COHfAHIHAHf
I
I
I
I Olethy' phtha,.te
I Olethy1stllbestr01
I Olf.nroquat (Avenge)
I Off1ubenruron
I Oillopropy1 ..thy1pholphon.te
, Ol..thlpln
I Dlmethoate
I 3.3'-Dlmetho.ybenrldlne
I Dlmethyl.mlne
I "-"-Dlmethy1.nl1Ine
I 2.4-0lwethy1Inlllne
I 2.4-Dlmethy1.nl'Ine hydroch10rlde
I J.J"Dlmethy1benlldlne
I l.l-Dlwethy1hydrallne
I 1.2-0Imethylhydrlrlne
I ".N-Dlmethy1fonna.lde
I 2.4-Dlmethylphen01
I 2.6-Dlmethylphenol
I 3.4-0Imethy1phen01
I Ol..thyl phthallte
I 0lmethy1 terephthalate
I 4 .6-0ln\\ro-o-cyc1ohe.yl phe~~;I.i:{l:
I I 3-0Inltrobenrene"'t~:}r
. '.:. ::::,:..".
, 1.2-0Inltrobenzene .: ::: k ...::::..
.' '~"""
I ,,4-0Inltrobenz~~.;'): {!jj:':
I 2.4-0Inltropheno1 .::, . :~!.' ::"
, Olnltrotoluene ~i.~~re
. ...~.
I 2,4-0lnltrotoluene'
~ I 2.&-Dlnltrotoluene
~ I Olnollb
~ 'dl-n-act,1 phthal.te
. I 1,4-010..ne
I Olphen'lIld
I TOXICI" VALUES 1 V I .
I oSF oRfD ISF IRfD' 0' RelldenU.1
I I/(mg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d) 1/(Mg/kg-d) (Mg/kg-d)' C' $011 (Mg/kg)
, 1 ---,
, 8.0£-01 I. 8.0£-01 rl 0 I 3.1[+04 nc
J 4.7£+03 h 4.7£+03 r J 0 J 1.8£-04,~a;
I 8.0£-02 I 8.0(-02 r' 0 1 3.1£+0,h,c"
1 2.0£-02 I '2.0£-02'1 0 I . :~iJ :'.. .~pflnc
1 8.0£-02 I 8.0(-02'1 O"Jffh .:, :'lpo3nc
I 2.0£-02 I 2.0£-02'l tit if:t t +02 nc
1 2.0£-04 I 2.0£-9,4 "'11. i11iJJ:\~.' '+00 nc
, 1.4£-02 h 1.4£-02 r.(;:~[~~,~tilih. I"~~if~, 8.IE+01 ca
J 5.7(-0& , .' (,..7. ~,+,,:{)J: 1 2.4£-01 nc
I 2.0£-03 I '. ::,::,~ ,~tf-03' 0 I 7.8£+01 nc
I 7.5£-01 h .;ts£~~~ r~) I 0 I 1.1£.00 c:8
I 5.8[-01 h ,,((~j~ :ill8£!Of:r , 0 I 1.5£+00 CI
I 9.2[+00 h .' ~~~:tl~~IOO r , 0 1 9.3[-02 CI
1 2.&[.0~ W~'~ '~~~'.S[+OO h 1 0 J 3.3[-01 CI
1 3.7l+'~~, " 3.7£+01 . 1 0 1 2.3[-02 CI
1 :'t1: ,:\\ ':~>..Ol h 8.&£-03 II 0 I 3.9£+03 nc
-t.j::::::"': ::*;:t):\\. ':le . O£ -02 I 2.0( -02 r I 0 I 7.8£+02 nc
, :":\:; "'. ' 6.0£-04 I 8.0£-04'1 0' 2.3£+01 nc
:".': ': ,. :;, ¥ 8.0£-03 I 1.0£-03 rl 0 1 3.9£+01 nc
.', :,~.,:W:'*" \\~::,j):):' 1.0£+01 h 1.0£+01 rl 0 J 1.0£+05 ...
::;::(:..:::¥ 1l i:~':, 1.0[-01 I 1.0£-01 riO' 3.1£+03 nc
':{it' '. I 2.0£-03 I 2.0£-03 rl 0 I 7.8£+01 nc
.~ J 1.0£-04 I 1.0£-04 rJ 0 I 3.9£+00 nc
J 4.0[-04 h 4.0£-04 rl 0 I 1.6£+01 nc
1 4.0£-04 h 4.0£-04 rl 0 1 ..6£+01 nc
I 2.0£-03 I 1.0£-03 rl 0 I 7.8£+01 nc
J &.8E-01 I 6.8£-01 r I 0 I 8.U+oo CI
I' 2.0£-03 I 2.0£-03 rl 0 I 7.8[+01 nc
I &.8E-Ol I I.OE-03 h 6.8£-01 r 1.0£-03 rJ 0 J 1.3£+00 c..'
I 1.0£-03 I 1.0(-03 rl 0 J 3.9£+01 nc
I 2.0(-02 h 1.0(-02 rl 0 I 7.8£+02 nc
J 1.1£-02 I 1.1£-02. r I 1 I 3.2£+01 ca
J 3.0£-02 I 3.0£-02 rl 0 I 1.1(+03 nc
PR£lIMINARY REMEDIA'ION GOALS (PRGS)
Industrl.1 ...:Wk:,. Ambient Air
~:......,.,....:..,
Soli (lIglltll)V,,: :,'::: (ug/lII3)
: ::~~:~:~:;"" ,": ~;:W~:~.:.. .. ).(:
".. ~., '.' 4,.;..
~" :":":.1. ~. ;a.,,,,,.,,, 2.9£+03 nc
J},'. . ,.",,~.v
~',:':!::' e;,& ~'::CI 1.8E-06 CI
) ";~:'::f~:::: . ~:~~::~ ~:
,: 8.2£+04 nc 2.1£+02 nc
2.0£+04 nc 7.n+01 nc
1.0£+02 nc 7.3[-01 nc
2.0£+02 ca 6.1£-01 CI
3.4£-01 nc 2.1£-02 nc
2.0£+03 nc 7.3£+00 nc
3.8£+00 CI 1.1[-02 ca
4.9£+00 CI 1.5£-02 CI
3.1£-01 c. 9.3£-04 ca
1.1(+00 CI 2.4E-03 CI
7.7E-02 CI 2.3E-04 ca
1.0£+05nc 3.1£+0Inc'
2.0E+04 nc 7.3£+01 ne
6.1£+02 nc 2'2£tOO nc
I.OE+03 nc 3.6£+00 nc
I. O£ +05 ... 3, 7£+04 nc
1.0£+05 nc 3,7£+02 nc
2.0E+03 nc 7.3E+00 nc
1.0£+02 nc 3.&£-01 nc
4.1£+02 nc I. 5£+00 nc
4.1E+02 nc I. 5£+00 nc
2.0£+03 nc 7.3£+00 nc
4.2[+00 ca 1.3£-02 CI
2.0[.03 nc 7.3E+00 nc
4.2£+00 CI 1.3£-02 ca
1.0£+03 nc 3.6£+00 nc
2.0[+04 nc 7.3[+01 ne
'.0£.01 c. 7.7£-01 ca
3.1£.04 nc 1.1£+02 nc
Key: I... .
-HUS' ,-(tAO .-WITHDRAW ,-ROUT[ £UMP. t-10X. (QUIV, C5
'RG nc-NONtANtER PRG ..t-SOll SAT. ...-MAl. LIMIT ..nc ( lOG
/
fap Vater
lug/H
2 .9£+04 nr
1.8E-05 el
2.9£+03 n,
7 . 3£+02 ".
2.9£+03 n.
7.3£+02 "
7.3[+00 n
6.1£+00 e
4.4(-02 "
7.3[tOI n
I .1[ -01 ,
I. SE -01 ,
9.3[-03 ,
3.3[-02 (
2.3[-03 ,
3.7£+03 I
7.3[+02 I
2.ZhOI ,
3.7£+01 ,
3. 7[ tO~ ,
3 ,7h03 I
7.3[tOI '
3.7£+00
I. 5[ +01
I. S[ +01
7.3[tOI
1.3[-01
7.3[tOI
1.3[-01
3.7[tOI
7.3[.02
1.6[tOO
...[ .03
one ( lOX CI
-------
Region IX
.mlnary Remediation Goals (01/01/94)
t
I CONTAMINANT
I
I
I
I Ethylphthalyl ethyl glycolate
I hpress
I Fenamlphos
I Fluometuron
I fluoride
I Fluorldone
I Flurprlmldol
I Flutolanl1
I Fluvaltnate
I folpet
I fomesafen
I fonofos
I F orena I dehyde
I Formic Acid
I Fosetyl-al
I Furan
I furnolldone
I Furfural
I Furlum
I Furmecyclox
I Glufoslnate-ammonlum
I Glycldaldehyde
I' Glyphosate
I Haloxwfop-methyl .: :;: .~
I Harmony .<.
I Heptach10r .:\ .~..?
I lfept achl or epox I dI( ~
I Hex.bromobenlene
I Hexach10robenlene
I Hexachlorobutldlene
I HeH (alpha)
I HeH (beta)
I HCH (gamma) lindane
I TOXICity YALUES I Y I PR£LIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS (PRGS)
I oSf oRfD ISf IRfD 1 0 I Resldentlll Industrlll ",'!I'i'fs.AmbIent AIr
I llenlg/kg-d) (nlg/kg-d) I/(nlg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d) I ~I 5011 (mg/kg) son (,~~:~b:r:::::.:~/ug/mJ)
I 3.0£+00 t 3.0£+00 rl 0 1 1.0£+05 ".~f;:::::I.CI(~~::,t.:::;::' 1.I[+~4 nc
I 8.0£-03 I 8.0[-03 rl 0 1 3.1£+02.~c:: '{:...4,::..~hp!'.nc 2.9£+01 nc
I 2.5[-04 t 2.5[-04 rl 0 I 9.8£~.ORihc':':\ +'][+02 nc ,9.1£-01 nc
1 1.3£-02 t 1.3£-02 rl 0 I ..J.lt"dnc,. 1.3£+04 nc 4.7[+01 nc
I 6.0£-02 I 6.0[-02 rl 0 b.:::~:...t~~¥j03~ftc:..:. 6.1£+04 nc 2.2£+02 nc
I 8.0£-02 I 8.0£-02 rl.\. ~il'..::;.;i!::LJ;'!:{+O.1 nc 8.2£+04 nc 2.9£+02 nc
I 2.0£-02 I 2.0£-9~ rk~':X :\).ft+02 nc 2.0£+04 nc 7.3[+01 nc
1 8.0£-02 I .,H~it:~rl ':":IW. 2.3£+0.1 nc 6.1£+04 nc 2.2£+02 nc
I 1.0£-02 I ~i::'o~~i\\,):irl 3.9£+02 nc 1.0£+04 nc 3.7£+01 nc'
I 3.5£-03 I 1.0£-01 13,fM:i03 r 1;~~-01 r 0 1 2.4£+02 CI- 8.2£+02 CI 2.4£+00 ca
I 1.9£-01 I if9E,f.~tr to. I 0 I 4.5hOO CI 1.5£+01 CI 4.5£-02 CI
I 2.0£-23 1\. ~k :? 2.0£-03 rl 0 I 7.8£+01 nc 2.0£+03 nc 7.3£+00 nc
I 4.5£-02 r«l.~~~t~t~~~{!!t~02 I 2.0£-01 rl 0 I 1.9£+01 CI 6.3[+01 CI 1.9[-01 ca
I . . ::~:i:6i!q.jj1~,> ,J 2.0£+00 rl 0 I 7.8[+04 nc 1.0[+05 N. 7.3£+03 nc
'::t. ;~;'" ...,~ . 3.0£+00 rl 0 I 1.0£+05 III~ 1.0£+05... 1.1£+04 nc
If::
-------
Region IX Preliminary Remedl.tlon Go.I. (01/01/94)
It
I CONTAMINANT I
I I oSF
I I I/(mg/kg-d)
I I
I Mephosfol.n I 9.0E-05 h
I Meplquat I 3.0£-02 I
I Mercury .nd c~und. (Nthy}) I 3.0£-04 I
I Mercury Ind CCIqIOundl (Inorg.nlc) I 3.0£-04 h
I Merphos I 3.0£-05 I
I Herphol oxide I 3.0£-05 I
I Met.laxy1 I 6.0£-02 I
I Methacrylonltrl1l I &.OE-04 I
I Methlmldophol I 5.0£-05 I
I Methanol I 5.0£-01 I
f Methldlthlon I 1.0£-03 I
I Methomyl I 2.5E-~..1 :.
f Methoxychlor I !to .~ ..
I 2-Methoxyethanol I. . "'. . . .
I 2-MethoxYlthanol ICltltl I..' .' -,
I 2-Methoxy-5-nltro.nl1lne I ::t>~.;~1ti
I Methyl ICltetl .'~h.. 't.j.:~".O£+oo h
I Methyl Icrylltl . i'~j. :: H ::: 3.0£-02 h
I 2-MethyllnlHnl (o-toluldlnl) ..'H :{:\::. f::/::' :~.4E-0I h
I 2-Methyl.n"'ne hydrochloride ;~:J::>:::::i:j '::~);.. ;::id4 &.8£-01 h
I Methyl chlorocarbonltl..:::: ":,\j"!;': ~:~:::.::.. I &. OhOO x
I 2-Methyl-4-c.htorophenoxYlcett"i'tt.! ':1:) I 5.0£-04 I
I 4-(2-MethYI-4-ChI0rophe~~::"~"'o.,:~Cld (MePB) I 1.0£-02 I
I 2-(2-Methyl-4-chlor~o.Y):;:p'rOflonlc .cld I 1.0£-03 I
I 2-(2-Methyl-1,47~hlJro~no~ij propionic .cld (MePP)1 1.0£-03 I
I Methylcyc1ohexln~:-):f.! ":::U': :;t>' I 8.6(-01 r
I 4,4'-Methy1enedlpt;ll!11 hoeYlnltl I 5.7£-06 r
I 4,4'-Kethyllnebllbenrene..lnl I I 2.5£-01 h
I 4,4'-Methylenl bll(2-chloro.nlllne) I 1.3£-01 h 7.0£-04 h
I 4,4'-Methylenl bl.(N,N'-dl..thyl)lnlllne I 4.6£-02 ,
I Methylene brOMide I 1.0£-02 h
I Methylene chloride I 7.5£-03 I 8.0£-02 I
I Methyl ethyl ketone f 8.0£-01 I
I Y I PREllMIIARY R£MEDIATION GOALS (PRGS)
IRfD I 0 I Rllidentl.1 Indu.trl.l ~~%~'~Anillent Air
(l11/ltg-d) I C I 5011 (",,/ltg) 5011 ('I')~W(!:?~(ug/lII3)
I I . :~:. ,:: L.W
- ". . .::W:;:.
9.0£-05 r I 0 I 3. 5E +00 no _i. /:::;::;: .'. ..,. ;...., :.: .
3.0£ -02 r I 0 I 1.2£+03 no. :. . :.$:;J;::\. f.i:~'
oQ.: '. ~:'" . ::.:.." '::~ ...
8.6E-05 hI : I .~;;:~;t~., ) ::ti:;i:~:;~+02 nc .
3.0£-05 rl.. O"'I~Nb :'. UI~O no;. 3.1£+01 no
. 3.0£-05 rt~:O~: :~:A\a;~...~oo no 3.1£+01 no
..0£-" 'f~tO . t,;. ::'~3 +03 no 1.1E+04 no
2.,.,"0':~~1 'f}:!''W 5.6E+00 no 7.8E+00 no
~;~:~5:'''b::O~1 2.0£+00 no 5.IE+01 nc
.!t$t. 'l~of-ol rl 0 I 2.0£+04 no 1.0£+05 ...
f{ i;. 1.1-03 rl 0 I 3.9(+01 no 1.0£+03 nc
p 2.5(-02'1 0 I 9.8£+01 no 1..+04 no
5.0£-03 rl 0 I 2.0£+02 no 5.1£+03 no
5.7E-03 II 0 I 3.9E+Ol nc 1.0£+03 no
2.0(-03 rl 0 I 7.8hOI no 2.0£+03 no
4.6(-02 , I 0 I 1.9hOI CI '.1£+01 CI
1.0£+00 rl I I 9.4£+04 no 1.3[+0$ no
3.0£-02 rl I I I.U:+02 lit 1.II+021.t
2:4£-01 r I 0 I 3.5(+00 CI 1.11+01 c.
1.8£-01 r I 0 I 4.n+00 CI I.H+Ol c.
1.0£+00'1 0 I 3.9£+04 no 1.0£+05..x
5.0(-04 rl 0 I 2.0£+01 nc 5.11+02 no
1.0£-02'1 0 1 3.9E+02 no 1.0£+04 nc
1.0£-03 rl 0 1 3.9E+01 no 1.0£+03 nc
1.0(-03 'I 0 I 3.1£.01 nc I.OE+03 nc
8.IE-01 hi 0 I 3.4E+04 nc 1.0£.05 ...
5.7E-OI hi 0 I 2.2£-01 nc 5.8£+00 no
2.5[-01 r I 0 I 3.4£+00 c. 1.1hOI c.
1.3£-01 h 7.0£-04 rl 0 I 6.6£+00 c.-- 2.2£.01 c.-
4.6£-02 r I 0 I 1.9£+01 c. 8.2[.01 c.
1.0£-02 rl 0 I 3.9E+02 nc 1.0[.04 nc
1.6£-03 I 8.6£-01 hi I I 2.2£+01 c. 3.'£+01 c.
1.1£-01 II I I 5.2£+03..t 5.1£+03 ..t
TOXICny YAlU£S
oRfD ISF
(mg/kg-d) I'(III/kg-d)
Key: I
"[AST ,-[CAO x-WITHDRAWN r-ROUT£ [XtRAP. t-TOX. £QUIV. CI
I
"G nc-HONCANC£R PRG ..t-SOll SAY. ..x-MAX. liMIT --nc ( 100.
3.1£-01 nc
1.1£ -01 nc
1.1£ -01 nc
2.2£+02 nc .
7.3[-01 nc
1.8E-Ol nc
1.1£+03 nc:
3.6£+00 nc
'.1£+01 nc
1.8£+01 nc
2.1hOI nc
7.3hoo nc
1.9E-Ol c.
3.n+" nc
1.1£ +02 nc
3.5£-02 c.
4.n-02 CI
3.7£+03 nc
1.8£+00 nc
3.7E+Ol nc
3.6£+00 no
3.6£+00 nc
3.lh03 nc
2.1£-02 nc
3.4(-02 CI
6.6[-02 C.
1.9[-01 c:.
3.7EtOI nc
5.U+00 e.
1.0£+03 ne
tep Wlter
(ug/l)
1.1£+01 nr
.. 1£ .00 nr
I .I£+OD nr
2.2£+03 "'
1.3[.00 nl
1.8£+00 nl
I .8£+04 "I
3.7£+01 n.
9.1£+02 n
1.8[.02 n
3.7£+01 n
7.1£.01 n
. I .9£+OD c
'.1£+03 "
2.3[+02 "
3.5[-01 (
4.n-" t
3. 7[ +04 ,
I. 8£+01 ,
3. 7E .02 I
3.7E.01 ,
. 3.7[+01 I
3.1£.04 ,
Z. 1[ -01 1
3.4£-01 I
6.6(-01 I
I. 9[ .00 I
3.1[.02 I
&.2(+00
2.5(.03
. ".ne ( lOX el
-------
~e9lon I..
~I'm'nary RemedIation Goa1s (01/01/94)
u
I CON'AMINAN' 1 'OXICI" VAlUES 1 V 1 PRELIMINARY REMEDIA'ION GOALS (PRGS)
I 1 oSF oRfD ISf IRfD 1 0 1 Resldentlll Industrll' ,(~~h Ambient Air
I : I ICing/kg-d) (lng/kg-d) I/(IIII/kg-d) (III/kg-d) I ~I 5011 (1liii/kg) 5011 :~~~d~;f':'i~1:ii (ug/m3)
I Nltroguanldlne 1 1.0£-01 I 1.0£-01 rl 0 1 3.9£+03 nc k::'~t'I." JU5.p,f"" 3.7£.02 ne
I 4-Nltrophen01 1 1 0 1 ':.':, 'f:,:~t::;:\~:t \)'j~P'
,<'.. .-. ,*.. ,,:~
1 2-Hltropropane 1 9.4£.00 r 5.7£-03 r 9.4£+00 h 5.7£-03 II I 1 /l.:' ',\nf'?
1 H-Hltrosodl-n-butyllmlne 1 5.4£+00 I 5.6£+00 I 1 0 1<1;~'Pit~'" " '. '5.3£-01 CI
1 H-Hltrosodldhano'UlIne 1 2.8£.00 I 2.8£+00 r 1 0'I:j1:'~::., ~"r,~OI ti'" 1.0£.00 CI
1 H-Hltrosodlethyhllline 1 1.5£+02 I 1.5£+02 I . ::1:, t~,~~:~~;,~\ ;:: J-03 CI 1.9£-02 CI
I H-Nltrosodlll8thy'allllne 1 5.1£+01 I 4.9£+01 I ~k ~"'O~:lg 'J. £-02 CI 5.6£-02 CI
1 N-Hitrosodlphenyhllllne 1 4.9E-03 I 4.9£-03 ~'~. i~.,tti,,'<'0\~ r1- % 1.7£+02 CI 5.8£.02 CI
I N-Nltroso dl-n-propy'amlne 1 7.0£.00 I 7.0.[. .00 t.:('i~ ~~L::I'I 1.2£-01 CI 4.1£-01 CI
1 N-Hltroso-H-methylethY'lIIIlne 1 2.2£+01 I ,~.:~MOI r =:;',' 1 0 1 3.9[-02 CI 1.3£-01 CI
1 H-Hltrosopyrrolldlne 1 2.1£+00 I . ,,~,.j';I~~.:.~: I ',' 1 01 4.1£-01 CI 1.4£+00 CI
1 m-Nltroto'uene 1 1.0£~'!i" ~~!\ .~~, !~: 1.0£-02 rl 0 1 3.9£.02 nc 1.0£.04 nc
I P-Hltroto1uene 1 .a.'~~' ::~,,:5:m,t t,t:,,:?,: 1.0£-02 rl 0 1 3.9£.02 nc 1.0£.04 nc
r .. ">.... ,,':>" *~::;»:-t.l- .
I Norfturuon I" ,,'f~:' ::oll ~'~" 4.0£-02, rl 0 1
I HuStar 1 A,"~~!:t: 'f) 7.0£-04 rl 0 1 2.7£+01 nc 7.2£.02 nc
1 Oetabromodlpheny1 ether 1 :b:, '~:l't. .-03 I 3.0£-03 rl 0 1 1.2£+02 nc . 3.1£+03 nc
1 Octlhydro-1357-tetrlnltro-1357- tetruOCIn. .e (.tI4X. ) fl:t" "~i,:¥l~~:. +:5.0£-02 I 5.0£-02 rl 0 1 2.0£+03 nc 5.1£+04 nc
1 Oetamethylpyrophosphorlllide . ~ 'J :~, ' 2.0£-03 h 2.0£-03 rl 0 1 7.8£+01 nc 2.0£+03 nc
1 Oryrllln '.. ::iii, ': ,"" ~ 5.0£-02 I 5.0£-02 'I 0 1 2.0£+03 nc 5.1£+04 nc
1 Oxadluon :/[¥i:1fu '~\i:..::::,# ,; 5.0£-03 I 5.0£-03 rl 0 1 2.0£+02 nc 5.1£.03 nc
I Oxalllyl ,w, "'l6'Y 'f:,::." 1 2.5£-02 I 2.St-02 rl 0 1 9.8£+02 nc 2.6£+04 nc
1 Oxyftuorfen ,::;::t~:::~\~i '\1::, 1 3.0£-03 I 3.0£-03 rl 0 1 1.1£+02 nc 3.1£+03 ne
1 Pac'obutrllo' '~1, :%.:":::'''\,::, 1 1.3£-02 , 1.3£-02 rl 0 1 5.1£+02 nc 1.1£+" nc
1 Paraquat .. \L ~ ';':::: : 1 4.5£-03 I 4.St-03 rl 0 1 1.8£+02 nc 4.6£+03 nc
I Parathion :': ::: J}" 1 6.0£-03 h '.0£-03 rl 0 1 2.1£+02 nc 6.1[+03 ne
I Pebulate . g 4'~ 1 5.0£-02 h 5.0£-02 rl 0 1 2.0[+03 nc 5.1[+04 nc
1 Pendlmethalln 1 4.0£-02 I 4.0£-02 rl 0 1 1.6£+03 nc 4.1(+04 ne
1 Pehtabromo-6-eh'oro cyelohe.lne 1 2.3£-02 h 2.3£-02 r 1 0 1 3.7£+01 CI 1.2£+02 CI
1 Penhbromodlphenyl ether 1 2.0£-03 I 2.0(-03 rl 0 1 7.8£+01 nc 2.0£+03 ne
1 Pentaehlorobenrene 1 8.0£-04 I 8.0£-04 rl 0 1 3.1£.01 nc 8.2£+02 nc
1 Pentach1oronltrobenrene 1 2.6(-01 h 3.0(-03 I 2.6£-01 r 1.0£-03 rl 0 1 3.3£+00 CI- 1.1£+01 CI
I Pentach'orophenol 1 1.2£-01 I 3.0£-02 I 1.2(-01 ,3.0£-02 'I 0 1 7.1£+00 CI 2.4£+01 CI
I Pennethrln 1 5.0£-02 I &.0£-02 rl 0 1 2.0E+03 no 5.1£+04 nc
I
,
Key: I-IRIS h-H[AST I-£CAO .-WITHDRAWN r-ROU'£ (XTRAP. t-TOX. £QUIV. ci-CANCER PRG nc-NONCANC£R PRG 'It-SOlL SAT. ...-MAX. liMIT
9.1£-04 CII
1. 5£ -03 CI
3.0£-03 ca
5.7£-05 ca
1. 7[ -04 CII
1. 7£+00 ea
I.U-03 ea
3.9£-04 CII
4.0£-03 ea '
3.7£+01 ne
3.7[tOl ne
2.6£+00 ne
1.1£+01 ne .
1. 8£ +02 nc
7.3£+00 ne
1.8£+02 ne
1.8£+01 nc
9.1£+01 ne
1.1£.01 ne
4.7[+01 nc
1.6£+01 ne
2.2£+01 ne
1. 8£+02 ne
1.0(+09 ne
3.7£-01 ea
7.3[+00 ne
2.9£+00 ne .
3.3[-02 ca
1.1£-02 e.
1.8E.02 ne
hp Vater
( ugJ1)
3.7£+03 n
4.UtOl c
1.6£-02 (
3.0£-02 (
5.7(-04 (
1.7£-03 (
l.7ttOI (
1.2£-02 (
3.9£-03 (
4.1£-02 (
3.7Et02 I
3.7[102 I
2.6[tOI I
1. IEt02 I
1.8£t03 I
7.3£tOI I
I. 8£+03 '
1.8£102
9.IEt02
I. U 102
4.7(+02
I. 6EtOZ
2.2£102
I. B£ 103
I. S£ 103
3.7[100
7.3[101
2.9['01
3.3[-01
7.1[-01
I. B[ .03
--ne < 100X ca ..one ( 10. c.
-------
Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goall (01/01/94)
15
, CON'AHINAN'
,
I
I
, Prochlorar
I Profluralln
I Prometon
I Prometryn
I Pronltlll de
I Propachlor
I Propanll
I Propargtte
I Propargyl alcohol
, Propartne
, Propham
I Proplconarole
I Propylene glycol
I Propylene glycol, MOnoethyl .ther
I Propylene glycol, 8OnOIethyi ether
I Propylene oxide
I Pursul t
I Pydrln
1 Pyridine
I Qulnelphol
I Quinoline
I RDX (Cyclonlte)
1 Res.thrtn
I Ronnel
, :'~
I Rotenone ....".
I SlYey \~\L::~
I Selenioul AcId .~~
I Selenlllll
1 Selenoure.
I Sethoxydlll
1 Silver end compounds
1 Simaline'
I Sodium nlde
I TOXICIT' VALUES I V I PR£LIMINAR' R£MEOIATION GOALS (PRGS)
I oSF oRfO ISF IRfO I 0 I Relldentlal Industrial 6~~~~.Amblent Air
I IlCmg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d) IlCmg/kg-d) (III/kg-d) I C I 5011 (III/kg) 5011 (:1~I)~:Wf:t.~ (ug/IIJ)
I I _I .{., '.' .,,~
1 1.5£-01 I 9.0£-03 I 1.5£-01 r 9.0£-03 rl 0 I 3.5£+01 C"a A; ;.i:\:I...'.:,' .~:: . '. ;::;:::' 5.rE-02 ca
I ..0£-03 h ..0£-03 rl 0 I 1 .3£+01 ~ro:: .~::w~,'~I.[~>' I.U+OI nc
I 1.5£-01 I 1.5(-01 'I 0 I 5.9E+0~:,i'Ic) ti::.,~k+04 nc . 5.5[+01 nc
I 4.0£-03 I I 4..-03 'I 0 1 .fl~.~~:, 4.1£+03 nc 1.5£+01 nc
1 7.5(-02 I 7.5(-01 rl o. in, '!::~liJbJ'no:..' 7.7£+04 nc 1.7£+01 nc
I 1.3£-01 I 1.3£-0,' ':1,.. .j!.'~'.~)JL~. Yo' ,+01 nc 1.3£+04 nc 4.7£+01 nc
I 5.0£-03 I 5..-~ ' .tr: ,. .::.. +01 nc 5.1£+03 nc 1.8£+01 nc
I 1.0£-01 I ..;: J.I;"~" ,::~~ .~;: 7.8£+01 nc 1.0£+04 nc 7.3£+01 nc
I 2. DE -03 I ,,: : ..Ot~3!!"I:WJ I 7.8[+01 nc 2.0[ +03 nc 7 .3£+00 nc
I 2.0£-01 I :~~,:~., ;~-Ol' 0 I 7.8£+01 nc 1.0£+04 nc 7.3£+01 nc
I 1.0£-02 1.:\ .f .:::' 2.\-01'1 0 I 7.8[+02 nc 2.0£+04 nc 7.3£+01 nc
I 1.3£7.2~ 1\, / 1.3£-01 rl 0 I 5.1£+01 nc 1.3£+04 nc 4.7£+01 nc .
I}-'I~~t,i~~;;:~ ..A1 1.0£+01 rl 0 I I.O£.OS... 1.0£.05..x 7.3[t04 nc
1 " :'. lItt.oi:~ll .: 7.0£ -01 r ,. 0 I 2.7[+04 nc I. Oh05 .... 2.6£+03 nc
I .:",'~i! '~, 'If 5.7£-01 II 0 I 2.7£+04 nc 1.0£+05 .... 1.1£.03 nc
I j~J:~~t!ltl%~' '-0], 1.3£-02 I 1.6£-03 II I I 6.6£-01 c.
it:I' ':i=:.::.", ~, :,,~W~~ "2.5£-01 I 1.5(-01 rl 0 1 9.8£+03 nc 1.0£+05.... 9.1£+02 nc
l: 'j. . , 1.5£-01 I 1..-01 'I 0 I 9.8[+01 nc 1..+04 nc 9.1£+01 nc
.. :(j;:=: .: :.,::.," . 1.0£-03 I 1.0£-03 'I 0 I 3.9£+01 nc 1.0£+03 nc 3.6£+00 nc
::ff%~' ~~~~: ,"i~V 5.0[-04 I 5..-04'1 0 I 1.0£+01 nc 5.1£+01 nc 1.8£+00 nc
. ~'i:~.:/f} (~::,:::i'-:' I I.ZE+OI h 1.1£+01 , I 0 I 7.1£-01 CI 2.4£-01 ce 7.1£-04 c.
:.:::it':;::~~::! ''''i~\ I 1.1£-01 I 3.0£-03 I 1.1£-01 , 3..-03 'I 0 I 7.7£+00 CI 2.8£+01 CI 7.7£-01 ca
W:' ~k:..l<::\:..' 1 3.0£-01 I 3..-01 'I 0 1 1.1£+03 nc 3.1(+04 nc 1.1(+01 nc
:'~:,:' "..' >]>~~;L, ":.;::' 1 5.0£-01 h 5..-01 " 0 I 1.0£+03 nc 5.1£+04 nc 1.8£+01 nc
~, " """
~: ). I 4.0£-03 I 4..-03 'I 0 I 1.8£+01 nc 4.1£+03 nc 1.5£+01 nc
:!t.: :,..' I 2..-02 I 2.R-02 'I 0 I . '.1£+01 nc , 2.8£+04 nc ..1[+01 nc
1 5.0£-03 I 1 0 I 3.9£+02 nc 1.0£+04 nc
. I 5.0£-03 I 1 0 1 3.9£+01 nc 1.0£+04 nc
1 5.0£-03 h 1 0 1 3.9£+01 nc 1.0£+04 nc
I 9.0£-02 I '..-02 'I 0 1 3.5(+03 nc ..2£+04 nc
I 5.0£-03 I . I 0 1 3.9£+01 nc 1.0£+04 nc
I 1.2£-01 h 5.0£-03 I 1.2£-01 ".0£-03 rl 0 1 7.1£.00 CI. 2.4[+01 el.
I 4.0£-03 I 4..-03 rl 0 1 1.6£+01 no 4.1£+03 nc
3.3£.02 nc
7.1£-02 CI
I. S£+OI nc
/
Key: I
H£AST ..£CAG ..VITHORAWN' ,.ROUTE EKTRAP. t-'OK. £QUI'. ce-
'~~G ncalONCAlCER PRG let-SOIL SAT. ....MAX. LIMIT ..nc c 100X
lip Vater
(ug/1)
3.3£+02 CI
I.U.02 nc
5.5£+01 nc
I. 5( +02 nc
2.7£.03 nr
4.7£+01 nl
1.8£+01 nl
7.3£+02 nl
7.3[+01 nr
7.3£+02 n.
7.3£.02 n.
1.0£-09 n
7.3(t05 II
2 . 6£+04 n
2.8£+04 n
o 2.9£-01 c
9.1£.03 "
9.1£.02 I'
3.7£+01 I
1.8£+01 1
7.1£ -03 1
7.7£-01 I
I. 1£.03 I
1.8£+03 ,
I. 5£+02 I
9.1£+02 I
1.8£.02 I
1.8£t02
1.8£+02 0
3.](t03 .
I. 8£ t02
7.1(-01
I. 5£ t02
t.nc ( lOX CI
-------
Region 1
.Imlnary Remediation Goals (01/01/94)
17
I CONTAMINANT I TOXltlTY VALUES I V I PRELIMINARY R£M£DIATION GOALS (PRGS)
I 1 oSf oRrD ISF IRtD I 0 1 Resldentll' Indu.trllT ~~~fi;' Ambient Air
I 1 I/Cmg/kg-d) (mg/kg-d) 1/(IIIg/kg-d) (1liii/kg-d) 1 C 1 5011 (1liii/kg) 5011 (,l~gf~WK.:::':~;:: (ug/lII3)
I 1 1 _I .:~\ .d, ~' /:",.
1 Thl ram 1 5.0£-03 I 5.0£-03 rl 0 1 2.0£+02 nc Aj},<:i:::'5.itt03 ~,~ "'::','
I"n and cOft1lOunds I 6.0£-01 h I 0 I 4.n+04}tC,,: ,,~t,:~:3:~:\;!~""-
I Toluene 1 2.0£-01 I 1.1£-01 hi 1 1 ,.8£+1~'/.It:h :,:::::,,:,;6£+02 .at .
I Toluene-Z,4-dllmlne 1 3.ZEtOO h 3.1£+00 r 1 0 1 1~J~;pi\ca :,W ""8.9£-01 ca
1 Toluene-Z,5-dl,"lne I 8.0E-DI h 8.0£-01 rl 0l:,t:k ~";* nc' ' 1.0£+05...
1 Toluene-Z,6-dllllllne 1 2.0E-01 h 2.0£-01 ~I\t~: '.~:~t~}., t,. +03 nc 1.0E+05...
1 Toxaphene I 1.1£ +00 I 1.1£ +00 I d ~;~,,( 1t. £ -01 CI 2.6£ +00 ca
1 Tralomethrln 1 7.5£-03 I ~\,K:dtgl ':fa 'W' 2.9£+02 nc 7.7£+03 nc
1 Trllllite 1 1.3£-02 1!~3~~Boi~tldll 5.1£+02 nc 1.3£+04 nc
I TrtlSuHuron I 1.0£-02 I ,~:Wl{I-02 rl 0 I 3.9£+02 nc 1.0£+04 nc
I 1,2,4-Irlbromobenlene 1 5.0£-03 I:,~, tf':: :f.; i' 5;\:-03 rl 0 I 1.0£+02 nc 5.1£+03 nc
I Irlbutyltln ollide (1810) I 3.0£~,o.,5 (!&,1~, /i' 3.0£-05 rl 0 1 1.1£+00 nc 3.1£+01 nc
I Z,4,6-Irtchloroanl1lne 1 3.4[-02 ~,,:," ~~"~~~~~kj::'iti02 r 1 0 1 2.5EtOI ca '.U+Ol ca
I 2,4,6-Irlchloro.nlllne hydrochloride 1 2.9E~,q ""h'{.:~, \.:~\ : .,*t9£-02 r 1 0 1 2.9EtOI ca , 9.9£+01 CI
I 1,2,4- Irlchlorobenlene 1 ¥,' ,'>."::t~, :"'It 2 .8£-03 hi 1 I 5.5£+02 .at 5.5£+02 .It
I I.I.I-Jrlchloroethane I )~:'~ '~*, ' 9.: -02 h 2.9£-01.1 I 1 3.0£+02.at 3.0£+02 .at
1 1,1.2-Trlchloroethane '<'Il' i.7h!8,"4.0£-03 I 5.8£-02 I 4.0£-03 rill 2.9£+00 ca 5.1£+00 ca
I Trichloroethylene (TCE) . . . '.::: . , ':;;j :J .1£-02 . '.0£-03 e 6.0£-03 . '.0£-03 rl I I I.U+01 ca. 1.5t+01 ca.
1 Trlchlorofluorometh.ne.,."" :Y', : ,:.:' ~, 3.0£-01 I 2.0£-01 hi 1 I 4.1£+02 lit 4.1£+02 lit
1 2,4,5-Trlch'oropheno' '::tf~::::~)~;ill'~k",;::fi .. I.OE-OI I 1.0£-01 'I 0 1 9.3£-01 aat 9.3£-01 alt
I 2,4,6-Trlchlorophenol ,.,,:;~:
-------
~.
APPENDIX B
DETERMINATION OF REMEDIATION GOALS IN
SOIL AND GROUNDWATER
KNI13851WP138S.APBi04-12-94
-------
Table B-1
Ust of Chemicals of Potential Concem In
Solis and Potential Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) and Other Potential Criteria 10 be Considered
Williams Air Force Base
(Page 1 of 4)
Arizona Health- Risk-Based
Based Soil Calculated Allowable Background
Chemical of Potential Guidance Levers Concentration in Soil Levels in Sout»
Concern (mglkg) (mgJkg) (mglkg) Location(s)
Acetone 12,000 5,490 - FT -Q2
SD-10
ST -08
DP-13
SS-01
Alpha-Chlordane 1.0«: 0.246 - LF-04
Benzene 47 0.512 - FT-02
Benzoic Acid NAd 110,000 - ST-08
Benzyl Alcohol - 35,000 8,240 - ST-08
Beta-BHC 0.76 0.178 - LF-04
bis(2- 97 22.9 - LF-04
ethylhexyl) phthalate FT-02
SD-10
SD-09
ST -08
DP-13
Chloroform 220 0.074 - FT-Q2
220 0.219 - SD-10
Chrysene 0.11 NAd 0.078 - 0.64- ST-08
4,4'-DDD 5.7 1.34 - LF-04
4,4'-DDE 4.0 0.942 - LF-04
. 4,4'-DDT 4.0 0.942 - LF-04
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 10,000 2,470 - FT -Q2
1,4-DichJorobenzene '1,200 13.4 - LF-04
FT -02
Dieldrin 0.09 0.02 - LF-04
Diethylphthalate 94,000 22,000 - LF-04
ST -08
SS-01
SD-09
KN/13851WP138S.APBI04-12-94
~.
-------
Table B-1
(Page 2 01 4)
/
Arizona Health- Risk-Based
Based Soil Calculated Allowable Background
Chemical 01 Potential Guidance Levej8 Concentration in Soil Levels in Soob
Concem (mglkg) (mgIkg) (mglkg) Location(s)
Dimethylphthalate NA8 Z1,5OO - SD-09
Di-n-butylphthaJate 12,000 2,330 - LF-04
- ST-oS
SS-01
SD-09
Di-n-octylphthalate NA8 549 - SD-09
Ethyl alcohol NA8 NA8 - SD-09
Ethyl benzene 12,000 4,940 - FT-02
SS-01
ST-05
ST-06
Gamma-chlordane 1.(f 0.246 - LF-04
-
Methyl ethyl ketone 5,SOO 742 - FT-02
Methylene chloride 1S0 1.86 - FT-02
5.49 - So.10
32.4 - SS-01
56.2 - ST-07
75.S - ST-oS
4-Methylphenol NAd NAd - ST-oS
Pentachlorophenol 11 2.67 - LF-04
Phenanthrene NAd NAd - ST-oS
Phenol 70,000 16,500 - SD-09
-
So.10
DP-13
Pyrene 3,500 824 - SD-09
T etrachloroethene Z1 12.6 ST-oS
Toluene 23,000 11,000 - FT-02
23,000 11,000 - So.10
23,000 S.85 SD-09
23,000 17.4 DP-13
23,000 11,000 ST-05
1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene 150 35.7 - LF-04
KN/13851WP138S.AP8I04-12-94
J
~.
-------
Table B-1
(Page 3 of 4)
.. Arizona Health- Risk-Based
Based Soil Calculated Allowable Background
Chemical of Potential Guidance Lever Concentration in Soil Levels in Soat'
Concern (mgIkg) (mgJkg) (mglkg) Location(s)
XyJenes 230,000 4,870 - Ft-02
85,600 - 58-01
65,700 - ST-05
110,000 ST-06
110,000 ST-08
Antimony 47 31.3 <1 SD-09
SD-10
DP-13
ST -08
Beryl6um 0.32 0.212 1.0 - 1.5 LF-04
SD-09
SD-10
S5-01
Cadmium - 58 14.0 - LF-04
FT -Q2
SD-09
SD-10
58-01
ST -OS
Chromium (Total) 1,700 2.0S 15 - 100 SD-09
Copper 22,000 2.900 15 - 200 SS-01
Cyanide 2,600 1,560 - ST-oS
Lead 84 54.S 10 - 100 SD-09
Mercury 35 23.5 0.01 - 0.48 - FT-()2
Silver 840 235 - SD-09
SD-10
58-01
Thallium S.2 5.48 - LF-04
Zinc 23,000 15,600 25 - 150 LF-04
SD-09
KNI138S'WP1385.APB104.12-94
~.
-------
Table B-1
(Page 4 of 4)
. From: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Guidance Levels for Contaminants in Drinkina
Water and Soil, June 19~
b Background concentrations of, metals for 1he Phoenix area taken from -Element Concentrations in
Solid and Other Surficial Materials of 1he Conterminous United States, - USGS Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1270, 1984. PAH background in surface soils from ATSDR, 1989.
C Value based on Chlordane.
d No EPA approved toxicity infonnation is aV811able for developing an action level for this compound.
. USGS, 1991.
-,
LF-04 = Landfill
FT -()3 = Fire Protection Training Area No.1
SD-10 = Northwest Drainage Area
DP-13 = Pesticide Burial Area
SS-01 = Hazardous Materials Storage Area
ST -05 = Underground Storage Tanks at Building 789
ST -Q6 = Underground Storage Tanks at Building 725
ST-07 = Underground Storage TankS at Building 1086
ST -08 = Underground Storage Tanks at Building 1085
KN/138S'WP1385.APBf04-12-94
-------
Table B-2
Chemicals of PotenU81 Concern In Soils and
Remediation Goals (RGs)
Williams Air Force Base
(Page 1 of 3)
RGsa
Criteria To Be
Chemical of Potential Considered
Concern (mglkg) Citation Location(s)
Acetone 5,490 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration So.10
5,490 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration DP-13
5,490 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration S8-01
5,490 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration ST-oS
Alpha-chlordane 0.246 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration Lf-04
Benzoic Acid 110,000 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration ST-OS
Benzyl Alcohol S,24O USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration ST-oS
Beta-BHC 0.178 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration Lf-04
-
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 22.9 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration Lf-04
22.9 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration So.10
22.9 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration DP-13
22.9 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration ST-oS
Chloroform 0.219 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration So.10
Chrysene 43 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration FT-03
ST-oS
4,4'-DDD 1.34 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration Lf-04
4,4'-DDE 0.942 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration Lf-04
4,4'-DDT 0.942 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration LF-04
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 13.4 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration LF-04
Dieldrin 0.02 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration LF-04
Diethylphthalate 22,000 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration LF-04
22,000 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration SS-01
22,000 USAF risk-based allowable concentration ST-08
Di-n-butylphthaJate 2,330 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration LF-04
2,330 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration SS-01
2.330 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration ST-OS
Ethyl benzene 4,940 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration SS-01
4,940 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration ST-05
4,940 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration ST -()6
KN/13851WP138S.APBl04-12-94
~.
-------
Table B-2
(Page 2 of 3)
RGs-
Criteria To Be
Chemical of Potential Considered
Concern (mgIkg) Ci1ation Location(s)
Gamma-chlordane 0.246 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration LF-04
Methylene chloride 5.49 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration So.10
32.4 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration 55-01
56.2 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration ST-Q7
75.S USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration ST-QS
4-Methylphenol 'NAb ST-QS
Pentachlorophenol 2.67 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration LF-04
Phenanthrene NAb ST-QS
Phenol 16,500 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration So.10
16,500 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration DP-13
Tetrachloroethene 12.6 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration ST-QS
Toluene 11,000 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration So.10
17.4 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration DP-13
11,000 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration ST-Q5
1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene 35.7 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration LF-04
Xylenes 85.600 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration S5-01
65,700 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration ST-Q5
110,000 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration ST-Q6
110,000 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration ST-QS
Antimony 31.3 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration So.10
31.3 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentrati~ DP-13
31.3 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration ST-QS
Beryllium 1.2 Background Concentration . LF-04
1.2 Background Concentration So.10
/ 1.2 Background Concentration 55-01
Cadmium 14.0 USAF Risk-Based Allowable CoOO&lIbation LF-04
14.0 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration So.10
14.0 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration S5-01
14.0 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration ST-QS
Copper 2.900 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration 55-01
Cyanide 1,560 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration ST-QS
Silver 235 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration So.10
235 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration 55-01
KN/13851WP138S.APBI04-12-94
~.
-------
Table B-2
(Page 3 of 3)
RGs.
Criteria To Be
Chemical of Potential Considered
Concem (mglkg) Citation Location(s)
ThaDium 5.48 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration LF-04
Zinc 15,600 USAF Risk-Based Allowable Concentration LF-04
~-
a These RGs apply to both soil treatment standards and final in situ standards
b No EPA approved toxicity infonnation is available for developing an RG for this compound.
LF-04 = Landfill
FT -Q3 = Rre Protection Training Area No.1
SD-10 = Northwest Drainage Area
DP-13 = Pesticide Burial Area
S5-01 = Hazardous Materials Storage Area
ST -05 = Underground Storage Tanks at Building 789
ST -06 = Underground Storage Tanks at Building 725
, ST-07 = Underground Storage Tanks at Builamg 1086
ST-08 = UndergrouncfStorage Tanks at Building 1085
KNI138!WiP1385.AP8I04-12-94
-------
Table B-3
LIst of COntaminants of Potential Concern In Groundwater and
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
and Other Crtterla to be COnsidered (all values are JiglL)
WDUams Air Force Base
(page 1 of 2)
ARARs Other Crieria To Be CoIIS~ (TBC)
RiIk~
ArizDna C8cU8I8d
"."., Fed8r8I Fed8nI ...... 8888d AI-uIe ~~-
- Fed8r8I Fed8r8/ Arizana WaI8r CMIiIy PrapaMd I'rapaMd GuicI8Me Ca_
-------
Table B-3
(Page 2 of 2)
. u.s. EPA. 40 CFR Parts 141,142, 143, 1991.
b Arizona Aquifer Water Oua/ity Standards, May 1992-
C ADEO, Aquifer Water Quality Standards, to be enactad in early 1993.
d Arizona Human Health-Based Guidance Levels for Ingestion of Contaminants in DririUng Wat« and Soil, June 1992.
. USGS,1992.
f New final drinking water standards effective January 1994, FR, July 17, 1992-
II No U.S. EPA-approved toxicity irlormation is available for developing an RG for this compound.
" Monitor in accon:lance with R18-4-223.F and R18-4-223B.5, Plblic and Sem..Public Water Supp/v Systems Rules, ADEO, August 11, 1989.
I T alaI Chromium
J Not a source MCL - MCL is in distribution system.
II Federal treatment requirements effective December 7, 1992-
I Background nitrate data from Salt River project Wells (See Appendix E of 00-1 Final FS Report)
ADEQ - Arizona Depar1ment of Environmental Quality
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG - Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
~.
KNI1385/WP, 385.AP8I04.' 2-94
-------
Table B-4
Chemlcal-SpecIflc AHARs
USt of Chemicals of Potential Concern In Groundwater and
Remediation Goals (RGs)
WUUams AIr Force Base
RGs8
Chemical of Potential Relevant and Criteria To Be Citation
Concem Applicable Appropriate Considered
(f1gIL) (pgIL) (pgIL)
Acetone 700 AZ HBGL
Benzene 5.0 Federal MCL
bis(2-e1hyfhexyl)phthalate 6.0 Federal MCL. effective January 1994
Bromide NAb
BromocfJChloromethane 100 Federal MCL
Carbon disulfide 700 AZ HBGL
Methylene chloride 5.0 Federal MCL. effective January 1994
T e1rachIoroethene 5.0 Federal MCL
-
Toluene 1000 Federal MCL
Trichloroethene 3.2 Federal MeL
Antimony 6.0 Federal MCL. effective January 1994
Beryllium <1.0-7.0 Background concentrations
Cadmium 5.0 Federal MCL
Chromium (total) 100 Federal MCL
Copper 1.300 EPA OSWER June 24. 1990 (values
effective December 1992)
Lead 15 EPA OSWER June 24,1990 (values
effective December 1992)
Manganese 700 AZ HBGL
Nickel 100 Federal MeL. effective January 1994
Nitrate 1.470-33.800 Background conc&.dlAtions
Selenium 50 Federal MCL
Silver 50 Federal MeL
Zinc 1,400 AZ HBGL
Uranium 20 Federal MCL
8 These RGs apply to both effluent treatment standards and final in situ standards.
b No EPA approved toxicity information is available for developing an RG for this compound.
KNf13851WP1385.APBI04-12-94
~.
-------
~~
APPENDIX C
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
KNI13851WP138S.APCJ04-12-94/D4
-------
Table C-1
Location-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Williams Air Force Base
Location Requlrement(s) Prerequlslte(l) Citation Comments AI RARb
Hazardous waste site Actions to limit worker exposure Construction, operations and 29 CFR 1910.120 B
to hazardous wastes or maintenance, or other activities
hazardous substances, Including with potential worker exposure.
training and monitoring.
Historic project owned Action to preserve historic Property Included In or eligible National Historic B
or controlled by property: planning of action to for the National Register of Preservation Act.
Federal Agency minimize harm to National Historic Places Section 106 (16 USC
Historic landmarks 470 et seQ.); 38 CFR
Part 800
-'-
Within area where Action to recover and preserve Alteration of terrain that National B
action may cause artifacts threatens significant scientific, Archaeological and
Irreparable harm, loss. prehistoric. historic. or Historical
or destruction of archaeological data Preservation Act (16
significant artifacts use Section 469);
36 CFR Part 65
-
'Criteria Is applicable for Alternatives A or B.
bCrlterla Is relevant and appropriate for Alternatives A or B.
)
,
KN/13SSWPI385.APC/04.12.941D4
-------
Table C-2,
Action-Specific Applicable or Relevant and, Appropriate Requirements
WIlliams Air Force Base
(Page 1 of 3)
Action Requlrement(l) Prerequlllte(l) Citation Commenta A8 RARb
,
Air Emissions Control of air emissions of volatile organics, particulates, and Emission of VOCs, Maricopa County Air B
Control During gaseous contaminants. particulates, and gaseous air Quality Standards
Remediation contaminants (Rules 200,210,220,
320) as dictated by
the Clean Air Act
Groundwater Any nonwaste material (e.g., groundwater or soli) that Nonwaste material containing RCM .contalned In. B
Wen contains a listed hazardous waste must be managed as If It listed hazardous waste principle
Installation, were a hazardous waste.
Development,
Testlng,and
Sampling
Groundwater Groundwater monitoring at new or existing RCRA disposal Creation of a new disposal 40 eFR 264 . Subpart B
Monitoring units. unit, remedial actions at an F
existing RCM unit or disposal
of RCRA hazardous waste.
Surface Water Prevent run.on and control and collect run-off from a 24.hour RCM hazardous waste 40 CFR 264.301 (f)(g) B
Control 2S.year storm (land treatment facility). treated, stored, or disposed
after the effective date of the
requirements.
I
. .'WP1S85.APCI04.12.941D4
-------
Table C-2.
(Page 2 of 3)
Action Requlrement(s) Prerequlslte(s) CItation Comments A8 RARb
Closure with All contaminated equipment, structures and solis must be Applicable to land disposal of 40 CFR 264.114 B
Waste In properly dIsposed of or decontaminated. hazardous waste. Applicable
Plaoe to RCRA hazardous waste
File a survey plat with local zoning authority Indicating the (listed or clilaracterlstlc) placed 40 CFA 264.116
looatlon and dimension of the landfill cell. at site after the effective date
of the requirements, or plaoed
File a post-closure notice with the Marloopa County Into another unit. Not 40 CFR 264.119
Recorder's office that notifies potential buyers In perpetuity of applicable to material treated,
the location of the landfill and restricted uses under 40 CFR stored, or disposed only
Subpart G before the effectll,e date of the
requirements, or If treated In-
Installation of final oover (sae Capping). situ or consolidated within 40 CFA 264.310
area of contamination.
30-year post-closure care and groundwater monitoring. 40 CFA 264.310
Capping (See Placement of a cap over waste requires a cover designed RCAA hazardous waste 40 CFA 310(8) B
also Closure and constructed to: placed at site after the
with Waste In effective date of the
Place for . Funotlon with minimum maintenance; requirements, or placement of
additional hazardous waste Into another
associated . Promote drainage and minimize erosion or abrasion of the unit will make requirements
requirements) cover; applloable when the waste Is
being covered with a cap for
. Accommodate settling and subsIdence so that the cover's the purpose of leaving It
Integrity Is maintained. behind after the remedy Is
completed. Capping without
Restrict post-olosure use of property as necessary to prevent such placement will not make 40 CFR 264.117 (c)
damage to the cover. requIrements applicable.
MaIntain the Integrity and effectiveness of the final cover, 40 CFR 264.310
Including making repairs to the cap as necessary to correct (b)(1)
the effects of 88""ng, subsidence, erosion, or other events.
Prevent run-on and run-off from damagIng cover.
40 CFR 264.310 (b)
Protect and maintain surveyed benchmarks used to locate 40 CFR 264.310 (b)
landfill.
!
KN/I38!IIWPI385.APCI04-12.941D4
-------
Table C.2.
(Page 3 of 3)
Action Requlrement(l) Prerequlslte(s) Citation Comments A8 RAR"
Container Containers of hazardous waste musl be: RCRA hazardous waste (listed or These requirements B
Siorage characteristic) held for a are applicable 'or any
(On-Site) . Maintained to good condition temporary period before 40 CFR 264.171 contaminated soli or
Ireatmenl, disposal, or 8torage groundwater or
. Compatible with hazardous waste to be stored elsewhere. \40 CFR 264.10) In a 40 CFR 264.172 treatment system
container (I.e., any portable device waste Ihal mlghl be
. Closed during storage (excepllo edd or remove waste) In which a material Is stored, 40 CFR 264.179 containerized and
Iransported, disposed of, or stored on site prior to
Inspect conlalner storage areas weekly for deterioration. handled). 40 CFR 264.174 Ireatment or flnal
disposal. Groundwater
Place conlalners on sloped, crack.free base, and protect from 40 CFR 264.175 or soli containing a
contact with accumulated liquid. Provide containment system wllh a listed waste must be
capacity of 10 percent of the volume 0' containers of 'ree liquids. managed as If It were
a Mlardoul walle 80
Remove spilled or leaked wasle In a timely manner to prevent long as II contaln8 lhe
ovelflow of the contalnmenl system. listed waste.
Keep containers of ignitable or reactive waste alleasl 50 feel from
lhe facility's property line. 40 CFR 264.178
Keep Incompatible materials separate. Separate Incompatible
materials stored near each other by a dike or other barrier. 40 CFR 264.171
AI closure, remove all hazardous waste and residues from the
contalnmenl system, and decontamlnale or remove all containers, 40 CFR 284.178
liners.
Storage 0' banned wastes must be In accordance with 40 CFR 288.
When such storage occurs beyond one year, Ihe owner/operalor 40 CFR 268.50
bears lhe burden of proving thai such slorage Is solely 'or the
purpose of accumulating sufficient quanlltles to allow for proper
recovery, treatment, and disposal.
8 Criteria Is applicable for Alternatives A or B.
II Criteria Is relevanl and appropriate 'or Alternatives A or B.
/
'CiWP1 S8S.APCI04-12-941D4
-------
~.
APPENDIX D
COST ESTIMATES
KN/13851WP1385.APB/04-12-94JD1
-------
Table D-1. Alternative A
NO ACTION COST ESTIMATE
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs
Williams AFB
Project-409735.30.25.oo 1
CS- TabD-1.xls - 08/30/93
UNIT COST UNITS/ COST
COST COMPONENT ($) UNIT QUANTITY PERIOD ($/year)
1. Operating labor (a) 50 hour (hr) 136 hr/year 6,800
2. Maintenance NA ~-
3. Materials NA
4. Utilities NA
5. Disposal NA
6. Purchased services
Monitoring Soil Samples 10,200 sampling 1 sampJing/year 10,200
(20 samples) event event
, Monitoring Groundwater 4404 sampling 2 sampling/year 8,800
Samples (6 samplesj event events
. Administration
Data evaluation 70 hr 24 hr/ 6 months 3,400
SUBTOT AL OPERATING COSTS 29,200
8. Insurance, permits, taxes NA
9. Rehabilitation costs NA
10. Contingency 15 % operating costs 4,400
11. Periodic site review (b) 20,000
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST (+50%, -30%) 53,600
a. Including 1 soil sampling event and 2 groundwater sampling events.
b. Every 5 years, cost shown is allocation for 1 year.
NA - not applicable
-------
Table D-2. Alternative B
CAPPING COST ESTIMATE AT LF-04
Capital Costs
Williams AFB
Project-409735.30.23.002
CS-WOU1 S4-03/22/93
COST
COST COMPONENT DESCRIPTION ($)
DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
1. Site Preparation Clearing and Grubbing 36.6 Acres 147,200
2. Capping Soil Cover and Rubblized Concrete 1,914,200
3. Drainage Ditch Interceptor Trench around perimeter 1,500
4. Fence 6751 Linear feet 88,100
TOTAL DIRECT COST (TOC) 2,151,000
INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
1, Engineering and Design 15% TDC 322,700
2. License, permit, legal fees 2% TDC 43,000
3. Start-up 5% TDC NA
4. Contingency 15% TDC 322,700
TOTAL INSTALLED COST 1+50%, -30%) 2,839,400
NA - not applicable
J
-------
Table D-3. Alternative B
CAPPING COST ESTIMATE AT LF-04
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs
Williams AFB
Project-409735.30.23.00 1
CS-WOU1S4 - 03/22/93
UNIT COST UNITS 1 COST
COST COMPONENT ($) UNIT QUANTITY PERIOD ($/vear)
1. Operating labor (al 50 hour (hrl 72 hr/year 3,600
2. Maintenance (2% TDC) 0 ~.
3. Materials NA
4. Utilities NA
5. Disposal NA
6. Purchased services
Monitoring Groundwater 4404 sampling 2 sampling/year 8,800
Samples ( 6 samples) event events
7. - Administration
Data evaluation - 70 hr 24 hr 1 6 months 3,400
SUBTOT AL OPERATING COSTS 15,800
Insurance, permits, taxes NA
oJ. Rehabilitation costs NA
10. Contingency 15 % operating costs 2,400
11. Periodic site review (bl 20,000
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST (+50%, -30%) 38,200
el;.S. GO\"tit.,~, PRt!<"TtSC OFFICE: 1994-386-541/03067
------- |