PB95-964505
EPA/ROD/R09-95/135
June 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Sacramento Army Depot
Sacramento, CA
1/17/1995
-------
Superfund
Record
of
Decision:
((Closing witb Dignity"
Sacramento Army Depot
Basewide
Sacramento, California
January 8, 1995
-------
-.".--..--
RECORD OF DECISION
SADA - BASEWIDE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
PAGE
I'.::<:':!":":.:>.:::::(.";}{.n . .n... .n .
... .
:/,j:::::;::'/::;M:::;:::It:;:::::::i::}::.:::::.; '.:::::.1
:'::::::::t::::::::::;::::r:::::::w::::::'\~t':'nEG~"r.QN...
I:'.::...::::;:::::::::::.::'::::::::::,:::::.:::;::'::::{:::::;'{:,:.:::}::i:'.:'}::::}m::::::::::::J:;::j::;~$1.()~::$~Y.:'::::::::::!:t':':::'.;;':'.:::'::::::iE:::::':::::,:':::'):::'::i'::t;::;::'I:.:::":;:t::.!:::::'::,::=:;;:::1
1
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION ..................................................II - 1
1.2 Site Description............................... "'''''''''' ................ ............. ..........................II - 1
1.3 Demography............................................. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ....II - 1
1.4 Land Use [[[ ...... ....;..........................II - 2
1.5 Climatology '''''''''''''''''' ...........,... '"'''' ..... .......... "'''''''''''' '" .............. ............. ....II - 2
1.6 Regional Topography.................................. ......... "" ........... ...............................11 - 2
1.7 Surface Water Hydrology [[[II - 2
1.8 Geology [[[ ........ .... ........, ........ .............................11 - 3
1.9 Hydrogeology """"'"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ....... ........................ ............II - 4
1.10 Natural Resources [[[II - 4
2
SITE mSTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTMTIES ....................................... n - 5
2.1 Areas Addressed by Operable Unit Records Of Decision .................................Il - 6
2.1.1 South Post Groundwater [[[11 - 6
2.1.2 Tank 2 [[[11 - 6
2.1.3 Oxidation .ILagoons[[[ I - 6
2.1.4 South Post Burn Pits [[[11 - 7
2.2 Additional Areas Addressed Under This Sitewide Record Of Decision ...........Il -7
3
4
mGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY P ARTICIP A TION ......................................... n - 8
SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE RESPONSE ACTION .......................................... n - 10
5
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERIZATION .................................................. n - 11
. 5.1 Areas Requiring Remediation[[[II-II
5.1.1 Parking Lot 3 Groundwater [[[Il - 11
5.1.1.1 VOCs[[[II - 11
5.1.1.2 Chromium .................... ................................................11 - 11
5.1.2 South Post Groundwater [[[Il - 12
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
CHAPTER
PAGE
5.3
5.4
5.2.7 Freon 113 Area [[[II - 17
5.2.8 Contractor's Spoils Area [[[II - 17
Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) Areas .................................................11 - 18
Summary ofRCRA Facility Permits and Closure Activities ..........................II - 18
6
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS [[[ n - 20
6.1 Human Health Risks [[[II - 20
6.1.1 Contaminants of Concern [[[II - 20
6.1.2 Exposure .IAssessment...~[[[~...............I - 23
6.1.3 Toxicity Assessment [[[n - 24
6.1.4 Risk Characterization[[[II - 25
6.2 Environmental Risks........ '"'''''' ......;. ..................,................. ................... ........11 - 26
6.2.1 Habitat Description [[[n - 26
6.2.2 Ecological Effects Assessment [[[II - 27
6.2.3 Exposure Assessment....... ...... [[[11 - 27
6.2.4 Risk Characterization........... ........ ...........,................. ...........................II - 28
7
DESCRIPTION OF AL TERNA TIVES[[[ n - 30
7.1 South Post Groundwater [[[11 - 30
7.1.1 Sub-Alternative 1 - No Further Action ................................................II - 30
7.1.2 Sub-Alternative 2 - Groundwater Extraction Using Existing
System/Increase Flowrate to 450 GPM (Maximum) ...........................II - 33
7.1.3 Sub-Alternative 3 - Increased System Flowrate/Off-Base
Extraction Wells.... ....... [[[ ...II - 34
7.1.4 Sub-Alternative 4 - Increased System Flowrate/Off-Base
Extraction Wells/Zone C Extraction[[[II - 35
7.1.5 Sub-Alternative 5 - Increased System Flowrate I Six Additional
Off-site Extraction Wells I Zone C Extraction I Air Sparging
and Soil Venting at Highest Contamination ........................................II - 36
7.2 Parking Lot 3 Groundwater [[[11. - 37
7.2.1 Sub-Alternative 1 - No Further Action ................................................II - 37
7.2.2 Sub-Alternative 2 - Extraction I Treat GW Using
Existing SPGWTP ................................... ........ ......... ...........................11 - 38.
7.2.3 Sub-Alternative 3 - Extraction I Discharge Groundwater Directly to
POTW ........,......... ............,.. [[[ .....11 - 39
-------
CHAPTER
8.2
8.3
9
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
PAGE
8.1.4 Criterion 4: Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume................ll - 48
8.1.5 Criterion 5: Short-term Effectiveness ....................~............................ll - 48
8.1.6 Criterion 6: Implementability [[[II - 49
8.1.7 Criterion 7: Cost[[[II - 49
8.1.8 Criterion 8: State Acceptance [[[II - 49
8.1.9 Criterion 9: Community Acceptance ..................................................ll - 49
Parking Lot 3 Groundwater [[[II - 49
8.2.1 Criterion 1: Overall Protection of Human Health and the .
Environment. ....... ....:... ............ ....... .............., .,.. ......... ..... ...... """" .... ...II - 49
8.2.2 Criterion 2: Compliance with ARARs................................................II- 50
8.2.3 Criterion 3: Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence ......................ll - 50
8.2.4 Criterion 4: Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume................II - 50
8.2.5 Criterion 5: Short-term Effectiveness ...............;.................................II - 50
8.2.6 Criterion 6: Implementability [[[ll - 50 .
8.2.7 Criterion 7: Cost[[[ ..........................11 - 50
8.2.8 . Criterion 8: State Acceptance [[[II - 50
8.2.9 Criterion 9: Community Acceptance ..................................................II - 51
Building 300 Burn Pit Soil[[[11 - 51
8.3.1 Criterion 1: Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment............ ..... ..................... ....... "'"'''''''''''''' .........................11 - 51
8.3.2 Criterion 2: Compliance with ARARs................................................II - 51
8.3.3 Criterion 3: Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence ......................11 - 51
8.3.4 Criterion 4: Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume................II - 52
8.3.5 Criterion 5: Short-term Effectiveness .................................................II - 52
8.3.6 Criterion 6: Implementability [[[ll - 52
8.3.7 Criterion 7: Cost............................................ ........ .......................... ....ll - 52
8.3.8 Criterion 8: State Acceptance [[[II - 52
8.3.9 Criterion 9: Community Acceptance ..................................................II - 53
Battery Disposal Well Investigation-Derived Waste (Soil).............................ll- 53
8.4.1 Criterion 1: Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment.. ...... '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' .......................11 - 5 3
8.4.2 Criterion 2: Compliance with ARARs................................................II - 53
8.4.3 Criterion 3: Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence ......................II - 53
8.4.4 Criterion 4: Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume................II - 53
8.4.5 Criterion 5: Short-term Effectiveness .................................................ll - 54
8.4.6 Criterion 6: Implementability [[[II - 54
8.4.7 Criterion 7: Cost[[[II - 54
8.4.8 Criterion 8: State Acceptance [[[II - 54
8.4.9 Criterion 9: Community Acceptance ..................................................II - 54
-------
CHAPTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
10
9.5
PAGE
9.4.1.5 Justification of Shutdown of SVE................................II - 59
9.4.1.6 Additional Verification Sampling................................II - 60
9.4.2 Solidification/Stabilization of Additional Soils...................................11 - 60
9.4.2.1 Substantiation of Factors Supporting a
CAMU Designation [[[11 - 60
9.4.2.2 Cleanup Levels[[[11 - 61
9.4.2.3 ARARs ......,................ ..................................................II - 64
Oxidation Lagoons ROD Amendment[[[11 - 64
9.5.1 Cleanup Levels..........................................~........ .................:................11 - 65
9.5.2 ARARs ... ....,.. .......... ...,.... ........................... ................. .................... .....11 - 65
Cost Infonnation ....., ...... .... ........... ............. ...... ...,... ...... ""'".''''' "."'"'''''''''' ....11 - 65
9.6
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS [[[ IT - 66
10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment..........................................II - 66
10.2 Compliance With ARARS [[[11 - 66
10.3 Cost Effectiveness.... .................... [[[ .....11 - 66
10.4 Utilization of Penn anent Solutions, and Alternative Treatment and Resource
Recovery Technologies........................ .... ......................................... ............ ...11 - 67
10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element.............................................II - 67
I
. .....
......
""Iri" "'RE' ,'.., ""S"nAN"""\Ortro'NE" 'S'S'''''8'' "y,riI;n6,'*"riY' ,',..
){~:~~rL..;..::.....:::..)~::~.:::.~~/:~:~..:"': ." ..: .?.-..:P:+Y~~~~;:' .::;:.::
'""""""""""""-""""',:::,-\
~~r::~r:~:~\~~?}{:::}!:
. "','.......
. -.-'n
1
2
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ......................................m - 1
OVERVIEW............................... .............,.. ..................., ............................................m - 2
3
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ARMY RESPONSES .................m - 3
PLATES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Site Vicinity Map
AIB-Zone TCE Isocontour Plot
Areas Addressed by Operable Unit RODs
Areas Requiring Remedial Action
No Action/No Further Action Areas
Monitoring Well Location Map
TCE Isoconcentration Contours - A Zone
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
PLATES (cont)
16
17
18
19
20
TABLES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 .
9
10
1,2-DCA Exceeding FRG in Zone B
Extraction Well Locations - Parking Lot 3 Groundwater
Process Flow Diagram - Southpost Area Groundwater Extraction and Treatment
Process Flow Diagram - Parking Lot 3 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment
Process Flow Diagram - Excavation, Stabilization and Onsite Disposal of Soil from the
Building 300 Bum Pit
Site Summaries
Definitions of Risk Terms
Summary of Volatile Organic Chemical (VOC) Concentrations in A-Zone Groundwater
Monitoring Wells
Summary of Chemical Concentrations .
Parameters Used for Chemical. Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) Equations
Toxicity Values for Chemicals ofConcem at the Sacramento Army Depot
Ecological Toxicity Values for Contaminants of Concern
Surviving Sub-Alternatives for Detailed Assessment
Summary Comparison of Remedial Sub-Alternatives
Groundwater Cleanup Levels
APPENDICES
A
B
ARARs
Administrative Record Documents
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
v
January 8, 1995
-------
PARTI-DECLARATION
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
January 8, 1995
-------
I. DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Basewide
Sacramento Army Depot (SADA)
8350 Fruitridge Road
Sacramento, California
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected basewide remedial action for the Sacramento Army
Depot facility in Sacramento, California, which was chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and, to the
extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP). This decision is documented in the administrative record for this site, which contains,
among other documents:
.
The Basewide Remedial Investigation Report (RI), which summarizes site investigation
data;
.
The Basewide Feasibility Study (FS), which contains an analysis of remedial alternatives;
.
The Basewide Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessment which contain an .
evaluation of impact on human health and the environment;
.
The Basewide Proposed Plan (PP), dated NovemberlDecember 1994, which summarizes
the preferred cleanup alternative, compares the preferred alternative with several other
alternatives, and invites public participation; and
.
Summaries of public comments on the RIfFS. and the PP, including the Army's response
to comments (as Part III of this ROD).
The purpose of this Basewide Record of Decision (ROD) is 1) to set forth the remedial action to
be conducted at SADA to remedy soil and groundwater contamination, 2) to amend two previous
RODs which addressed Operable Unit cleanups at SADA, and 3) to explain the areas where no
24-] 50029-A50/ER53-146
I - 1
January 8, 1995
-------
action/no further action will be taken. This is the final, comprehensive remedial action
addressing soil and groundwater contamination at SADA. It addresses potential threats posed by
conditions at SADA, both on and off site.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX (EPA) and the State of California
Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) concur with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
The Sacramento Army Depot site includes multiple areas with soil and groundwater
contamination. Past operations at SADA involved the use of hazardous substances, including
organic solvents, oils and grease, fuels, lubricants, caustic solutions and metal-plating baths.
Some of these wastes or by-products have been found in soil and groundwater at the site.
In order to accelerate the investigation and cleanup of the site, the Army prioritized areas of the
depot for investigation based on historical evidence indicating a potential for contamination.
Eight areas were initially given priority for investigation. Four of these areas, South Post
Groundwater, Tank 2, Oxidation Lagoons, and South Post Burn Pits, were investigated as .
. .
operable units and addressed by operable unit Records of Decision. Thirteen areas were
evaluated as Potential Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs), and an additional twenty nine
areas, which were not potential SWMUs, were also evaluated. Three additional areas of potential
concern, Parking Lot 3, Freon Spill Area, and Contractors Spoils Area, were also investigated.
The site investigations indicated that groundwater in the South Post area and at Parking Lot 3 is
contaminated with volatile organic compounds, inch,lding carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethene
(TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1,2-dichloroethane (DCA), and cis-l,2-dichloroethene (DCE).
VOCs exceed the cleanup standards (drinking water Maximum Contaminant Levels) in an
estimated 1,095 million gallons of water in the Southpost area and 82 million gallons of water in
the Parking Lot 3 area. The maximum concentrations currently measured anywhere on site are
TCE at 38 ugll, PCE at 37 ugll, DCA at 4.2 ugll, DCE at 14 ugll and carbon tetrachloride at 1.3
ugll. The plume of contaminated water extends off-base, to approximately 1900 feet south of the
depot's southern property boundary.
Metals contamination is present at the following areas: Oxidation Lagoons, South Post Bum Pits,
Battery Disposal Well investigation-derived waste, and Building 300 Bum Pit. Chemicals of
concern include arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead. The South Post Bum Pits are also
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
1-2
January 8, 1995
-------
contaminated with VOCs and are the source of the groundwater contamination in the South Post
area. The South Post Bum Pits are known to contain debris such as cans, scrap metal, concrete
and wood.
A basewide health risk assessment was conducted to evaluate the current and potential risks
posed by the chemicals at each area of concern. The maximum combined carcinogenic risk to an
"onsite worker" was found to be 6xlO-s. Non-carcinogenic risk for an "onsite worker" was found
to be low, as expressed by a health hazard index of 1.0. The maximum metals concentrations
detected in soils may result in exposure levels that exceed the no observed adverse effects levels
(NOAELs) and or the lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) for potential ecological
receptors.
Based on the site assessment and risk evaluations it has been determined that the contaminants
present at the site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD,
may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, welfare, or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The Army intends to clean up those areas that present a threat to human health and the
environment. The selected remedy for cleanup of groundwater and soil at SADA consists of:
Groundwater
.
In the South Post area, one vertical off-depot well and two horizontal Zone AIB off-depot
wells will be installed to capture the off-depot plume more quickly. A deeper C-Zone
well will be added to pump this zone more rapidly. The existing treatment facility will be
modified to accept increased flowrate of up to 450 gpm. Extracted water will be
discharged through the current treatment process and be available for onsite reuse.
Additional or fewer wells may be installed based on detailed design using field test
results.
.
At Parking Lot 3, vertical Zone AIB extraction wells, one or more based on detailed
design, will be installed to capture the groundwater. Extracted water will be treated at the
wellheads using activated carbon and then discharged to the sanitary sewer.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
1-3
January 8, 1995
-------
- -- ---- - - .---- -.---- --.
Soil
.
The soil venting system at the South Post Burn Pits will be shut down as explained in the
South Post Bum Pits ROD Amendment contained in Section 9.4.
.
A Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) will be formed at the South Post Bum
Pits area for stabilization of soil containing heavy metals and other contaminants and to
the extent feasible, the debris. Debris which cannot be stabilized will be properly
disposed of offsite. This amendment to the South Post Bum Pits ROD will allow soils
from other areas of SADA to be stabilized at the South Post Burn Pits.
.
At Building 300 Bum Pits, soil will be excavated and the soil and debris moved to the
South Post Area for management with the South Post Burn Pits material in the CAMU.
.
At the Battery Disposal Well, investigation-derived waste soil will be moved to the South
Post Bum Pits for management in the CAMU.
.
At the Oxidation Lagoons, the remedy will be changed from soil washing to soil
excavation and transport to the South Post Bum Pits for management at' the CAMU as
explained in the Oxidation Lagoons ROD Amendment contained in Section 9.5.
.
All other identified areas are No ActionINo Further Action (see Plate 5). These areas
have been assessed at the depot to provide data for a no action or no further action
decision. Two areas were cleaned up under an extensive pilot test that utilized air
sparging technology. These areas are Parking Lot 3 and the Freon 113 Area.
This selected remedy eliminates threats to human health and the environment at the site by
removing volatile contaminants from groundwater by pumping the groundwater from the ground
and destroying the VOCs in a treatment process. The selected remedy also provides for
excavation of soil containing heavy metals and elimination of future potential exposures by
stabilizing the soil with cement.
The estimated cost of the selected remedy is $6,344,000. The estimated cost of the next most
likely alternative would be $8,997,000.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
1-4
January 8, 1995
-------
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
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 utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practical and satisfies the statutory preference for remedies
that employ treatment that reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principle element.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
1-5
January 8, 1995
-------
-- --*. --.
-._- 0-- ._._.
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
BASEWIDE
RECORD OF DECISION
IT IS SO AGREED:
FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY:
/ //2/0/ 5
Date l
t?tt J;.."" 75
Date
CS:rR7'1 95
Date.
~ ~. tJ..;~
wis D. Walker
Deputy for Environmental, Safety,
and Occupational Health
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
~~~
Todd E. Blose
LTC,OD
Commander, Sacramento Army Depot
FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
1-/7-9s-
Date
(-l7..~S"
Date
~9.~
Anthony.!! Landis
Chief, Northern California Operations
Department of Toxic Substances Control
California Environmental Protection Agency
w~f5b. U
William H. Crooks
Executive Officer
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
FOR THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
I"'I/-~
Date
24-150029-A50IER53-146
e
epu Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
Part I, Page vii
January 3, 1995
-------
PART n
DECISION SUMMARY
24-] 50029-A50/ER53-146
January 8, 1995
-------
--------- .-.-
1 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
The Sacramento Army Depot Activity (SADA) is a military facility owned by the U.S. Army.
The SADA facility is located at 8350 Fruitridge Road, in the City and County of Sacramento, .
California. SADA lies approximately 7 miles southeast of downtown Sacramento (plate 1), and
is bound by Fruitridge Road on the north, Florin-Perkins Road on the east, Elder Creek Road on
the south, and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks on the west. The facility encompasses an area
of 485 acres. .
SADA is on the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) list. Activities at SADA have been
reassigned to other military installations and the base will be closed in 1995. The property will
be transferred for reuse.
1.2
SITE DESCRIPTION
Past activities conducted at SADA included electro-optics equipment repair, the emergency
manufacture of parts, shelter repair, metal plating and treatment, and painting. The metal plating
and painting operations were the primary on-site waste generating activities.
Past disposal and storage areas and structures at the site included several underground and above-
ground storage tanks, burn pits, unlined wastewater lagoons, a battery disposal area, and areas
where pesticides were mixed or pesticide rinse water may have been discharged to the ground
surface. Several of these areas have released contaminants into the soil and/or groundwater at
SADA, and have been investigated and cleaned up as separate Operable Units. Areas where
contaminants have been found at SADA are discussed in more detail in Section 2.
1.3
DEMOGRAPHY
Based on the 1990 census data, the total estimated population in the census tracts within a two
mile radius of SADA, including tracts that are partially within the radius, is 64,152. The closest
off-depot businesses to contaminated areas at. SADA are located across the railroad tracks
approximately 800 feet west of the Oxidation Lagoons and the South Post Burn Pits. The closest
off-depot resident to contaminated areas at SADA is a residence located on Elder Creek Road
approximately 1,800 feet Southwest of the South Post Burn Pits.
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 1
January 8, 1995
-------
--- - -- ..
- --..
Sacramento
Army Depot.
Road
..
c
~
i\
APPROXIMATE SCALE: '" .2 '1:2 Maes
- -
--
o
2 2'1:2
5
k.q KLEIN FELDER
Pus;rE
DATE PRODUCED: 11/16192 DATE REVISED:
PROJECT NO. 24-150029-A51
SITE VICINITY MAP
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
1
-------
----- ---
1.4
LAND USE
SADA is surrounded on all sides by land currently zoned as commerciaIllight industrial property.
Within 2 to 3 miles of SADA. the areas that are primarily low to medium density residential are
northwest, west, and southwest of the site. The areas south, east, and north of the SADA are
primarily industrial.
1.5
CLIMATOLOGY
Climate at SADA is classified as "Mediterranean", hot summer (Koppen system), with mean
temperatures of 30 to 40 degrees Fahrenheit in January, and 90 to 100 degrees in July. Average
relative humidity in January ranges from 80 to 90 percent, and from 50 to 70 percent in July
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1985). Generally, 85 to 95 percent of the
annual precipitation occurs in winter, and the majority of the evaporation occurs in the summer.
The estimated mean annual precipitation at the site is 17 inches, and the estimated mean
evaporation is 73 inches.
1.6
REGIONAL TOPOGRAPHY
SADA is located in the Central Valley of California, a broad, flat valley that lies between the
Sierra Nevada to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west. The youngest sediments (as old as 5
million years) underlying SADA were deposited by the American River as its course meandered
across the valley floor, and, to a lesser eXtent, by Morrison Creek. Consequently, the topography
at SADA is relatively flat. The slope of the land surface is approximately 0.13 percent to the
west, with ground surface elevations ranging from 36 to 42 feet above mean sea level.
1.7
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
SADA is situated within the Morrison Creek drainage basin. Morrison Creek originally flowed
from east to west through the land now occupied by the SADA facility. When SADA was
constructed, the Anny re-routed Morrison Creek so that it flowed along the facility boundary
around the south side of the facility, rather than through it. The floodplain for the re-routed
Morrison Creek extended approximately half a mile north of the creek, onto the SADA facility.
The creek ultimately discharges into the Sacramento River.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
B-2
January 8, 1995
-------
In 1958, 7,900 linear feet of flood-control dikes were constructed along the re-routed portion of
Monison Creek, and in 1986, the new channel was widened and deepened. The re-routed
portion of Monison Creek is currently capable of handling 100-year flood events, so the
contaminated areas are not considered to be on the Monison Creek floodplain at this time.
However, pOrtions of the depot lie within the American River floodplain. The old channel of
Monison Creek receives local runoff only and is dry during most of the year. This channel
bisects the facility nom east to west and is referred to as "Old Monison Creek".
Drainage of the SADA facility is mainly overland flow to Monison Creek and man-made
diversion structures. Morrison Creek also receives surface runoff nom other industrial and
agricultural sites which are located along its course, and permitted discharges from industries.
One wetland area at the facility is located within the Oxidation Lagoons Operable Unit, along
Old Monison Creek, approximately 800 feet north of the Bum Pits. This small area (0.52 acres)
has been evaluated by the Army Corps of Engineers, and they have determined that remedial
actions in the vicinity will result in minimal adverse impacts and are authorized under the
Section 404 Nationwide Permit Program (33CFR Part 330, Appendix A, Numbers 26 and 38).
1.8
GEOLOGY
SADA is located in the Great Valley ofCalifomia, a broad asymmetric trough filled with a thick
assemblage of flat-lying marine and non-marine sediments. The most recent fonnations
deposited in the Great Valley are non-marine sediments derived from the Sierra Nevada foothills
and mountains on the west side of the valley and from the Coast Ranges on the east side of the
valley. The sediments are carried out of the mountains and deposited by a series of large and
small rivers. Sediments under SADA have been largely derived from. the Sierra Nevada, and
have been deposited by the American River as it has meandered across the valley floor.
The upper 250 feet of sediments under SADA are comprised of interbedded sands, silts, and
clays, with some coarse gravels underlying the north side of the facility at an approximate depth
of 40 feet. The identification of horizontal and vertical boundaries of geologic formations is
extremely difficult in alluvial deposits, such as those underlying SADA. Older buried stream
channels exist at various locations and depths in the area. These streams have deposited
materials ranging in size from gravel to clay as they meandered across the area. Multiple.
discontinuous hardpans (cemented clays), representing ancient soil horizons, exist throughout the
site.
24-150029- A50/ERS 3 -146
11-3
January 8, 1995
-------
- -. -- --
1.9
HYDROGEOLOGY
SADA is underlain by a series of alluvial aquifers which provide water to residences, industries,
and agricultural properties in Sacramento County. The California Department of Water
Resources has divided the water-bearing sediments in the area into two hydraulically isolated
sections: the superadjacent (upper) series, at depths of about 80 to 250 feet beneath the site; and,
the subjacent (lower) series, at depths below about 250 feet. The primary water-producing
aquifers are in the lower series, although many wells in the area surrounding the site draw water
from the upper series.
Groundwater contamination extends off site to the southwest of the SADA facility. The lateral
extent of groundwater contamination has been investigated, and appears to extend approximately
1,000 feet southwest of SADA, as shown on Plate 2 for trichloroethene (TCE), the most
widespread volatile organic contaminant at SADA. Groundwater monitoring data indicate that
VOC contamination extends into the AIB and C aquifer zones. Industries and residences in this
area use Sacramento City water from municipal wells located at least three quarters of a mile
from SADA. However, there are some private wells in the area of contamination using
groundwater exclusively for fire suppression.
1.10
NATURAL RESOURCES
Except for groundwater, which is an extremely important resource throughout the Central Valley,
no other natural resources on the site are used.
24-150029-A501ER53-146
11-4
January 8, 1995
-------
.
IIW-li
W-4S.tIfI-46
c;]GJ~
I I
I I
I I
I I
-11
I
I
I
I 8-42
. 8-41
PARKING
LOT 3 PLUME
o
II
1IW-21
.
o
00
01
DO I
1IW-3 .
APPROXIMA TE LOCATION OF' CURRENT
SHALLOW GROUNDWATER PLUMES
(A/8 ZONE)
LEGEND
GRAPHIC SCALE
~
1IW-1 MONITORING WEll. lOCAOON
D 1IIDZIID CD
L.1o....d
( iii Pm )
1 inch = 800 ft.
III
1
~
If!
---- 5 IJgfl--- TCE ISOCONCENIRATiON CONTOURS
(CONTOUR INTERVAL = 5.0 )Jg/L)
III KLEIN FELDER
A/B-ZONE TCE ISOCONTOUR PLOT
PLA TE
DRAWN BY: 8. Welker
PROJECT No. 24-1S0029-AS1
2
DATE:
DWG No.
12-29-94
0100-002 .
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
-------
- ---- --_. . - --. --- -"
2 SITE mSTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The site investigations conducted at SADA are a part of the U.S Army Installation Restoration
Program (IRP). The Army owns the site and is the lead agency for implementing the
environmental response actions. In the late 1970's, the U.S. Army Depot Systems Command
recommended that SADA be included in the IRP. Consequently, in 1978 and 1979, the U.S.
Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USA THAMA), now known as the Anny
Environmental Center (AEC), conducted a review of historical data to assess areas of potential
contamination at SADA with regard to the use, storage, treatment, and disposal of toxic and
hazardous materials. USA THAMA identified several areas of concern where further
investigations were warranted.
In early 1981, the Army initiated an on-site investigation of soil and groundwater in the areas of
concern identified by the USA THAMA, including the South Post Bum Pits, Oxidation Lagoons,
Pesticide Mix Area, Morrison Creek, and Old Morrison Creek. Groundwater s~ples collected
during this investigation indicated that volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) were present in
groundwater under the southwest comer of SADA. Based on the location of the VOCs in
groundwater, the South Post Bum Pits were identified as the source of groundwater
contamination in this area.
In late 1981, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) sampled
off-site wells near the southwest comer of SADA. VOCs were reported in some of the wells
closest to SADA, and the Army began working with the CVRWQCB to assess the source and
extent of groundwater contamination. The EP A and the California Department of Health
Services (now known as the Department of Toxic Substances Control of the California
Environmental Protection Agency) subsequently became involved in the investigation of
contamination at SADA, and SADA was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL), effective
August 21, 1987 (52 Fed. Reg. 27620; July 22, 1987).
In December 1988, the Army, the EPA, and the State of California signed a Federal Facility
Agreement (FFA) under CERCLA Section 120, in which the Army agreed to address the entire
facility, including the contaminated groundwater and several areas of suspected soil
contamination. The Army assumed responsibility for implementing Interim Remedial Actions
and conducting a Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) at SADA. At total of
fifty-one sites were initially identified as areas of. potential contamination. Eight areas believed
24-150029- A50/ERS 3-146
11- 5
January 8, 1995
-------
. ----~-
to have the greatest potential for releases to the environment were given priority for
investigation: South Post Groundwater, Tank 2, Oxidation Lagoons, South Post Bum Pits,
Building 300 Bum Pits, Firefighter Training Area, Pesticide Mix Area, and Battery Disposal
Well. In order to expedite investigation and cleanup, four of those areas were addressed as
Operable Units: South Post Groundwater, Tank 2, Oxidation Lagoons, and South Post Bum Pits.
Site locations are shown on Plate 3. Records of Decision (ROD) were signed for each of these
Operable Units, as discussed below.
2.1
AREAS ADDRESSED BY OPERABLE UNIT RECORDS OF DECISION
2.1.1
South Post Groundwater
The South Post groundwater was the first area to begin cleanup under an interim ROD signed in
1989. The interim ROD addressed containment and cleanup of on-base groundwater
contamination in the southwest comer of the depot. The groundwater in this area is being
extracted, treated with UV light/chemical oxidation in a on-base treatment plant, and discharged
to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment System.
Subsequent investigation of the South Post groundwater plume revealed off-base contamination
of the aquifer. Consequently, the Army is expanding the remedy to include off-base
contamination. Section 5 discusses the expanded site investigation conducted in this area and
Sections 7 and 8 discuss additional remedial alternatives for off-base cleanup.
2.1.2 Tank 2
The ROD for cleanup of contaminated soil at the Tank 2 Operab~e Unit was signed in December
1991. This area was remediated using soil ventilation to clean the soil in place without
excavation. The remedy has been completed, cleanup goals have been met and approved by the
agencies, and this area requires no further action. .
2.1.3 Oxidation Lagoons
The ROD for the Oxidation Lagoons was signed in September 1992. The remedy selected to
clean up the soil was excavation of contaminated soil, followed by on-site. soil washing to
remove metals of concern, and placement of clean, washed soil back into the excavation. A large
scale pilot test for soil washing was conducted at the area in 1993. The pilot test indicated that
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
January 8, 1995
11-6
-- ---.--
-------
'---_____-4-""'_.-
I '
;.,
\ \ .\,.~.~;".=~,,:...":... r!:..:'~:~~~':~'_.:,,'~:-._,:~.:~J~-1.',J>L;~~ ;:,~. :.:,.: . .:',".: .::' ,:. '
, Ii I . I [ I
\ /~~.. ;:;.:~ ~:;~:~~~.:~.~=-~~~.; -~.~-'~~.~: ~~-:~-~~_.~~... ~.~ ~:~=:.
\ ,'~ '../' 0 L--".,- "--'-'" ,-_....J L_--..,....,. .."",,---..1
\, "' -:)st~ E~;;:~~:3E~~-~"~~~~
\ L un [] ,
Q 'WIt 2 ---_.
\ ,.,.. .""j [ J
\ ..- -'i.Jtj~n'.., n.:::::'" ,.-_h"'" -. ...' ---..-
\
\
\
\
\
.- -----..---' ---...---
SITE NAIlE . SITE CONTAMINANTS
NUMBER OF CONCERN
TANK 2 005 VOlA l1LE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
OXIDATION LAGOONS 001 METAlS
SOUTH POST BURN PITS 002 VOLA l1LE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS. METAlS
SOUTH POST CROUNDWA TER VOlA TILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS
o ['j
L1 . .
II . ..-
\':,':. ~\..::.~.,.-\
l :/' '1'\\ \\\ \..-.
\ ..'
,..J . ,
r 'I [.......,
I.. ....J --...,1
1'111
,1.1
'Y~1\-' ~] ~~:~::> r
\ ~\..~._t~:f. ~ "'~::-'>.'C ~,::.:~:_.,-,_....
'=:',Cll '
, -"--"-- "0- '0" -i,>=.:::'j"
'-"'j =r.. ~O-- O' !
: ---_u.' ", m("'''''''''''''' 'f! I
.~"k;;=2,",." "..-... .' /
LEGEND
~
APPROXIMATE AREA OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
.. . -._-- .-... "____0'.- . d"" -
.......-
( \
.j
APPROXIMATE AREA OF SOIL CONTAMINATION
C']
_101
NOTE:
This plate Is Intended to show the general area location
of each site and not the extent of contamination.
I
_a:.u
,.. .
.
III KLEINfELDER
AREAS ADDRESSED BY
OPERABLE UNITS RooS
3
'.-1
."".8-
OIIA" BY: L. DANG DAtE: 2-28-95
PROJECT No, 24-150035-H05 DWO No. SAJOI-3
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
-------
soil washing did not offer the most cost effective technology for protection of human health and
the environment. Consequently, the Army has re-evaluated the remedy for the Oxidation
Lagoons and is amending the OU ROD to change the remedy from soil washing to soil
stabilization. This amendment is discussed in detail in Section 9.5.
2.1.4 South Post Bum Pits
The ROD for cleanup of soil contamination at the South Post Bum Pits was signed in 1993. The
remedy selected was in situ soil ventilation to remove volatile organic contaminants, followed by
excavation of the pit area with stabilization of the excavated soil to treat non-volatile compounds,
and backfill of the pits with the stabilized soil.
In this basewide ROD, the Army is amending both phases of the previously selected remedy
specified in the South Post Bum Pits aU-ROD. This amendment is discussed in detail in
Section 9.4.
2.2
ADDITIONAL AREAS ADDRESSED UNDER TIllS SITEWIDE RECORD OF
DECISION
The FFA called for a RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) to identify other specific Solid Waste
Management Units (SWMUs) that need further characterization and cleanup. Thirteen additional
areas were evaluated under the RF A process, which included a historical records review, visual
site inspection, and sampling. In addition, the Army evaluated twenty nine areas not suspected
as SWMUs by conducting reviews of historical aerial photographs and records. Based on
investigation results, each area is addressed in the basewide RIfFS, and in this Record of
Decision, as either 1) requiring remedial action or 2) no action/no further action. Locations of
areas requiring remedial action are shown on Plate 4 (South Post groundwater is shown on Plate
3), and no action areas are shown on Plate 5. The identification and categorization of these areas
are discussed in more detail in Section 4.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
11-7
January 8, 1995
-------
-=~r==-=r~-~;-==-'
/----0- L-_=-~-] L_-___-=I
/.' ~_.- ] ---.-
~ . 0 L___- C_---_J
D [---'-----J L J
C=-J a:;'.a--,.;~---- - ~- --.----------
.:~~. ~~~TS ~~ C=---=::-~:=L
o
------
C-~-J [.I
-:--n-=~--' lJ rr-""'-- -----'---J-'
. . ~~!; 1("'- .....~) ..' .
~ '.,~:==:.=~~~~~~:'~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~-~~~~~~~~:=~.=:.~.~ ~.'
C1
u
.... IEIII
.-. .
..-1
1"-."
B
SITE NAME SITE CONTAMINANTS
NUMBER OF CONCERN
BUILDING 300 OLD 007 METALS
BURN PITS
PARKING LOT 3 VOLA TILE ORGANIC
GROUNDWATER COMPOUNDS
BA TTERY DISPOSAL 009 METALS
WELL
LEGEND
.(1
@
AREAS TO BE REMEDIA TED
AREAS TO BE REMEDIA TED
NOTE:'
This plate is intended to show the general area lacotlon
of each site and not the extent of contamination.
III KLEINfELDER
AREAS REQUIRING REMEDIAL
ACTION
DRAM! BY: l. DANG OA1E: 2-28
PRo.ECT No. 24-I500J5-H05 Dwe No. 5"'302-4
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
PlA
4
-------
'\:{ ~-;'-"-~~-"""":"-"~r' "~.'::::.:..~:.'.' '~'~___~i 1';'~=I: ;i~_..--' .,'.' -~ _..".'-~-_.~--. :~,'
,\'\ .028 ;.;.-::0 t~~~:;:;~:~:~~~;~;:~~J [.:::~...q. ":':''''-'-~:':-::'''~-'.'.]
\ \ I.:. ",..,,,,, n L..-.--.----.--.-----..-' L..u............... .__J
\, \ \, I :.:;~:~! I~."''''':-~'''-'''~'';''.-I [~_::'~:'-'--.',-:-'-"~:-:.'."I
\. \ \ ;':"i:.i:ln -,,,,,...,,,,,,,,-.,,.--,""""'''\1'''''''',..,,
\ \\~ /~'u.ij' [::~"::':~,,~~.":'I r::.-'.---.~:~:"":'.~.:.'.."']
\ \ \ . 6(5 '~-;:'::~~":It~~~:""--J.""~: ''-'J' -- -' --~~ 'f~"-"~ri;:i
, 7.) , "-'~(..I ~:.~_.- 008 '
\ 1\ ~~ ~~~~ J.--'''''oj2 .-'- -.... -- .- ~ .~:~. ,-" .....,
1"111 \ ~ \ 017 -.. "-"-""---042----.[.~~I\~k~ .
(Ill \. \ oi~'.~1-~4-;"-'-' '-'t;:,~-' ~~J [~-'~1~'~~ f1
['I /" "-J"--'-'. 04J ~018
- ,<.'/.-:/ :.--\ 0 ---. -..' OIOru ~"O~2 /.- O~~
-.' .--,:/\. '\ \ \\\ " \hw-J...JIr. .-- - '. ._~~:. +.---......-_u_--..- '-'.;'-'
\ \ \ . \ 'I .-_:.a.."..,.. J OOJ Q.4 04
",.11 \J\\'~i ~~~~-1'1-='1\"C" [inn... .n f'
, I," ~"._'-'j '-1I.:r.i.....~ . --'2 ,"-- ..-.~- I
I..., I:. ':--:... n .., ~~., ~2J ::~!~ (..024:) -ow)
I' I I II \. '....., . . . "
.1'-"- ....... . ..~:Ji1:::~._::::::~:~"':::~'~~':'~' '.' '. . :. ,':-. ::_~::.--::.
[-~:~:.]
Sl1E NAUES
Small Shollow logoon (Nld 1960'. - eorly 1970's)
Sludge PI.., South 01 Oxidotion logoon.
Flreflghler Trolnlng ArlO
Pesticide Mhe Area
Possible Trenches
Two Trench..
Bu~ding J15 - Cyonklo Sump
Bulding J16 - Acid Sump
Possible Shollow logoon
Buldlng 382 (gasoline spill.)
Polnl, R.sldu. ond Wo.le 01 Dump
Outdoor Siorage 01 Woele.
Old Norrlson Creek (.0.1 porllon)
Fal ArIa with Numwoul V.nJcl8.
Trosh 01"'0'" Ar....
C)CII'id. leoch Field
RodloocU.. Wo.l. Olsposol Areo
Oi",ensory Woste ArlO
P.lroloum, Sludge Oloposol Areo
Prevtou. 01 Oump
former Secondary S..oQ. Treo'ment Plant
AAFES Droln WoIl
Ral Yord Engin. Shed
Bundlng 420 (chromic acid split)
1,000 - Colion Wasle SoI..nl Tank No. J
5,000, Gallon Wosi. SoI_t Tonk No.1
500 - Gallon Battory Acid Storage Tonk No.4
Se.ag. Oulloll Areo
Buldlng J20 (plating ",II)
Narrl.on Crook
Passlbl. Open Storage ArO
-------
- ._-~. - -
-_. - ~. ~.,-- - - .-.
3 IDGm..IGHTS OF COMMUNITY P ARTICIP ATION
The Army has encouraged public involvement throughout the RIlFS process. Public comment
periods and public meetings have been held in connection with each Operable Unit ROD and
with this Basewide ROD, and fact sheets have been mailed to the public at various times
throughout the investigation.
In June 1994, the Army established a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) to increase public
participation by involving the community in the decision-making process. The RAB consists of
members from the community and representatives from the Army, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and state regulatory agencies. The RAB functions as an advisory body to
provide input on activities that will assist in the cleanup and conversion of the base for reuse by
the community.
In June 1994, the Army mailed a fact sheet to the public which described alternatives for
basewide soil cleanup at SADA. A public comment period was held June 8 through July 7, 1994
and a public meeting was held on June 16, 1994. At the meeting, the Army discussed potential
alternatives for basewide soil cleanup. The Army explained the concept of establishing a
Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) at the South Post Bum Pits to increase the
reliability, protectiveness, and effectiveness of the cleanup remedy and reduce its cost.
The Basewide RI and FS reports and the Proposed Plan for the Sacramento Army Depot were
released to the public in November 1994. These documents were placed in the Administrative
Record and the information repositories maintained at the Sacramento State University Library
(third floor, in the Science and Technology Department), the Sacramento Army Depot Security
Center (8350 Fruitridge Road), and the George Sim Community Center (6207 Logan St.). Due
to limited space, the George Sim Community Center contains only current documents for review
and comment The RI, FS, and Proposed Plans are also available for review at the Regional
office of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and U.S. EP A Region IX in San
Francisco. The notice of availability of these documents and the announcement of the start of the
public comment period and the public meetings were published in the Sacramento Bee
Newspaper, Metro Section on-three oCcasions, November 23,27 and December 4, 1994.
A public comment period was held from November 22, 1994 through December 21, 1994. In
addition, a public meeting was held on December 7, 1994. Representatives from the depot, EP A
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 8
January 8, ] 995
-------
. - .. . -
and state agencies discussed conditions at the site and presented the basewide remedial
alternatives under consideration. Approximately 45 people, including community members and
representatives from the Army, U.S. EPA, and Cal-EPA (DTSC and RWQCB) were in .
attendance. The meeting was held at George Sim Community Center, which is centrally located
within the affected community. Oral comments received at the meeting are summarized in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is Part III of this Basewide ROD.
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Sacramento Army Depot in
. .
Sacramento, California, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and to the
extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan. The decision for this site is supported by
documentation in the Administrative Record.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
11-9
January 8, 1995
-------
4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE RESPONSE ACTION
This document is the final basewide Record of Decision for SADA. The scope encompasses the
entire site by reviewing those areas previously addressed as operable unit RODs (including ROD
amendments presented in this document), by identifying those areas where remedial action is
required, and by identifying those areas for which no remedial action is required either because
1) no contami.t1ation" was found, 2) previous actions have sufficiently mitigated the threat so that
there remains no significant threat to human health or the environment, or 3) CERCLA does not
provide legal authority to undertake a remedial action because releases involving petroleum only
are exempt under CERCLA Section 101.
For ease of discussion, all areas were classified in one of the following three categories:
1. Areas previously addressed as Operable Units
2. Areas requiring remedial action
3. Areas requiring no action or no further action
Addressed as Operable Requires Remedial Ac:tioD No Ac:tioDlFurtber Ac:tiOD
UDits
South Post Groundwater' Parking Lot 3 Groundwater Pesticide Mix Area
Tank 2 Battery Disposal WeIl Firefighter Training Area
Investigation-Derived Waste
2
South Post Bum Pits Soil Building 300 Bum Pits Soil SWMU and Non-SWMU Sites
Oxid~tion Lagoons3 South Post Groundwater Parking Lot 3 Soil
Freon 113 Area
Contractor's Spoils Area
This classification system will be referenced throughout the ROD. Additional details on these
areas are provided in Section 5 of this ROD. Table 1 in Section 5 provides a summary of site
characteristics and investigation activities for each area.
, The South Post Groundwater was originally addressed as an operable unit for cleanup of on-depot contamination.
However, as a result of additional investigation of the extent of contamination, the area has been recategorized as
"requiring remedial action" to address off-base contamination.
2 The South Post Burn Pits ROD is being amended.
3 The Oxidation Lagoons ROD is being amended.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
11-10
January 8, 1995
-------
l -~-.
5 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERIZATION
5.1
AREAS REQUIRING REMEDIATION
Extensive investigations conducted at SADA have revealed contamination in both the soil and
groundwater, particularly in the southwest comer. A summary of the areas investigated is
provided in Table 1. Areas where soil contamination was discovered are most likely the result of
waste disposal/treatment or chemical spills that occurred during past activities conducted at the
depot. Areas where contaminated groundwater was. encountered appear to be the direct result of
contaminant transport from the overlying contaminant-laden soil areas.
5.1.1 Parking Lot 3 Groundwater
Four volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been detected above the federal or more stringent
state drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in the Parking Lot 3 groundwater, and
are contaminants of concern. In addition, chromium has been detected at levels above the MCL
in one monitoring well, but is not currently listed as a contaminant of concern.
5.1.1.1
VOCs
(:arbon tetrachloride, trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and 1,2-dichloroethane
(DCA) have been consistently detected above the MCL in the groundwater at Parking Lot 3. The
most recent sampling indicates this is still the case in select wells. Carbon tetrachloride was
detected above the MCL in three monitoring wells (MW-50, 77, and 75) with the highest
detection occurring in MW-75 at 1.3 ug/l (MCL: 0.05 ug/l). TCE was detected above the MCL
in two wells (MW-50 and 75) with the highest concentration in MW-73 at 38 ug/l (MCL:
5 ug/l). PCE was detected in MW-75 at 37 ug/l (MCL: 5 ug/l). This was the only monitoring
well with PCE above the MCL. Similarly, DCA was detected above the MCL exclusively in
MW-75 at 4.2 ug/l (MCL: 0.05 ug/l). Monitoring well location at SADA are shown on Plate 6.
5.1.1.2
Chromium
Chromium has been detected in the Parking Lot 3 area over the past year at levels above the
MCL of 50 ugll in MW-74. Chromium also has been detected periodically above statistically
estimated background concentrations, but below the MCL, in other monitoring wells. Therefore,
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II-II
January 8, 1995
-------
TABLE I
~ITE SliMMARIES
Dole Summary of Conwnlnaots of
Site Name Site Characleristics of Operation Site Investliations Concern SlInu
"":::AM~~.'i\IUIRESSt;(): .. .U;;::::::::::::::::~:::::::::~::::::::::::::::~::~::::::~:::::::::::::::~:;::::::::::::~::::::::::~:::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;.:~:::::::::::::::~::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::~:::~~:::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::~:::~:::::::~::::::::::;:::::::~:::::~::::~::::::~~::::::::~~::~:::::::::::::~~~::5.:'~:::,~~:::~~::::~:~::::~::::::::::::::~::~~::.~::~~:~~::::::::::~m:::~~:~::~~:::::~:::::~~~~::~:~::~::::::::~::~::m~~:::~::~;:r
Groundwater On-base and off-base conlamination by N/A Monitorin. of AID, C and D aqulre.. Chlorororm, carbon Ealractlon O5In. 7 vemeal well. and IrCItment ",In.
volatile organic chemicals (VOC.) in .lnce 1989. On.base and off-base IClf1lchloride, tricblorocthcne, hydro.en pcrollidefullravlolet method b on.oing.
southwest area of SADA. wells ue sampled. Samples have been tttrachlorocthene, An Interim ROD ror on.base Iroundwaltr was
analyaed ror volatile or.anic cbcmicab 1,2-dichloroethcnc, sl.nod In 1989. Tbc Anny wll\ ..pond the remedy
(VOCs), mellis, minerals and pcsticldea. 1,2-dlchlorOClhanc. 10 add.... the entire plume.
Contamination b primarily in AID
aquifer.
O.ldallon lagoons Wasle holdin. ponds used for !be disposal 1950-1972 Soli lamples collected rrom Ancnic, cadntluro. lead Tbc ROD was .18Dcd In 1992. Contract was
(and weal portion or Old or platln. shop wastea conlllnin. bcavy each Ia.Don, drainage awanled and pliO! acaIe soU wasbln. ICSI was
Morrison Creek) mellis. ditches, and Old Monlsoo colllluCUd. The basewlde ROD Includes an
Crcek. Samples analYled amendment 10 !be Oddatlon lagoons ROD. whlcb
ror 1OCII1s. Contamination would aelCCla different remedy.
rtSIriCled 10 lop 2-3 feet 01
'011.
South Post Bum Pi... Two pi... used 10 bury and bum a variClY of 19'0's - 1966 Soli lamples collected rrom surface Anenic, eadmJum. cbromJum, The ROD was al8ncd In Mmb 1993. Remediation
mal.rial such u platlna sbop wasles. paint 10 ~ fect. Samples anaIYled ror lead. 1,2-dicb\oroelbcne. of volatll. or.anlea by .011 vedlna b In pro.reu.
slud.e, mercury baneries, consuuctlon VOC', sentl.VOCs, mCllls, IClf1lchlorocthcn.. Soli sllblliutlon will roll... The bucwkle ROD
debris. and wUle from Duildin. 300 Old polychlorinated biphenyls (PCDs). trichJoroethene Includes an ameodmcnIlO !be Dum Pits ROD, which
DumP!.... dioxins, rurans. VOC contaminalion would ..pand !be scope 01 the sllblllDtion 10 Include
..lends 10 .roundwaler. OIlIer soU fiom D.300, Dllkry Disposal Well, and O.ldatlon
conlamlnaots conlhlcd 10 !be pi... la.oons, and would aelect a differcnl cleanup standud.
(surface 10 20 ft. below surface).
Tank 2 Soli contaminated by waste solvents from Mid-Iale Soli samples eollected 10 '0 reet below 2-bullnonc, The ROD.... 118ncd 1111991. Site"" Ichleved
Tank 2. 1970's IUrhce. Samples analyzed ror VOCs. etI1ylbelllene, Iyl....., clcanup llIDduds O5llla soli vapor e'lractlon and
semi. VOCs, organochlorine pes.icidea ICII1chloroetllene b capped with cone....... "No fIIrther action. Is
"'PCBs. Contamination detected required.
1030 feet below surface.
:::::::~A$:~QumJNG:1l'EMl!.1)r.w:ACnnN;,::::::m,,::::;,:::,::::~::~m,::::~::::::::,:;:;:::::'::~::::::::::::~,::,::::::,%. ::::::::::::::::.:::~:::::::::::::::;::::::::::::: :::::::::;:::::~::m::~::~:::::::::;::::~:::::::::;:;::~::~::~:~:::::~:;:::m:::::::;::::::::::;::;;::;::~~~:::~::~:~:: :::::~::;::::::::::~::::::::~::::::::::::::~::::::::~~~~::~::::::~::::::::::::::;:::~:::: :::~:;:::~::~m::::~~~::::::::~~$:::;~;~::::~::::::~~~~~:~::~~~~~~~:::~;:::::;:~:~;:::~:::::;~~~~~'m~:~:~:~~m:~:::;~
'.'.',','.','.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.',"'.',',...,'.',','
Building 300 Old Dum Pi... Two pi... used for the disposal of plating 194'-19'O's Soil samples collected from surface 10 Polychlorinated biphenyls, Remedial alternatives an: discussed In this ROD.
shop was.ea, palnlalud.e. acids, radium 80 feet below surface. Samples analyzed arsenic, cadmium, lead
dial painl, and mercury batteries ror or.anochlorine/or.anoplIosphate
pesticides, PCBs. VOCs,
aeml.VOCs, metals, diodns, lllrans,
radiwn 226n28.
\
Dattery Disposal Well Area ",ed for lI1e disposal of dry cen 19'0's. 1%O'a Soli and debris ..cavaled 10 30 leCl CadmJum. copper, lead, Eaeavlled .011 (lnvcstl.atlon derived wute), stored
batteriea and OIbcr industrial debris. below surf Ice. Soil samples analyzed mercury. silver, zinc, In bins. Remedial alternatives for IDW soil ue
for VOCs, scmi.VOCs, rncrals. Debris dbcussed In 1111. ROD. Eaeavatlon bas been
and contaminated soil were exclvatcd backfilled with clean soil.
during slle investigation in April. 1993.
2'.150029-A'9~.I..h
In619S
-------
SileName
Parking Lot 3 Groundwater
""",N.~:A.
Firefighter Training Area
Pesticide Mix Area
Possible Trenches
Two Trenches
Building 315
(Cyanide Sump) .
Building 316 (Acid Sump)
24.150029.A491E1U4.14,1I
Sile ChanlClerisdcs
Zone AlB plume extending under and
south 01 Parking Lot 3.
:t11l!R?N :
[[[=:::::;.:.:.:.;.:.:.;.:.:.:.;
Area reponedly wed lor DtpoI
firefighter tnlning purposC$. Gasoline and
IP4 ignited and burned ina pit.
Area wed lor the rinsing 01 pesdcide
conlamcrs. Rinse watcr was allowed to now
onlo the open ground and seep into the soil.
Two panlllel uenches indicated from a 1937
aerial pholo. NO! visible ina 1961 aerial
pholO.
Slle consisLt 01 a nonblsoulb uench and an
east/west lfC1\Ch. ThIs slle is localed
adjacenllo die ContnClor's SpoilJ Area and
Old Morrison Creek.
Reponedlya 12,000 gallon sump wed
10 hold waste contaillillg cyanJde,
cadmium and zinc prior 10 uansfer 10
the purported cyanJde leach field.
Reponedlya 12,000 gallon sump wed
10 hold scid wasles and metals.
Dale
of ()penldon
N/A
,......................'"
..........."''''''''''''
',',',',',',',',',','.',',"'.',',',',',',',',',','
","""",,"".......'"
'''''''....'''''''.....''
19S8.1963
?1981
1937-1961
1966-1968
19S4-19S6
1983-1
.TABLE I
SITE SUMMARIES
Sununary 01
Sile Invesdgadons
Muldple monlloring wells installed and
sampled since early 1992. BAT Probe
invesd8adons. Two pilot wells and IWo
pump lesLt.
ContamlDams of
Coucem
TeE up 10 16 U811. PCE up
10 37 u,lI. Carbon
lelfachloride and 1,2.OCA
also exceed FRGs. Chromium
Is detecled and Is a poIemlal
contamJoant of concern.
SliM
Remedisdon required. Allematlves discussed In
this ROD.
::;:::::::::;:;:::;;:~::::;::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;=;:::::;:;::::::::::=;;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;:;;=[[[~[[[~:::::::~:::::::::::::mt[[[~::::::;::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::~::::::~
Nine soli borings drilled. Samples
collected from surface 10 21 feet below
surface and analyzed for VOCs, semi.
VOC., metals, organochlorine pesticides,
PCBs, 10181 peuolewn hydrocarbons
(TPH), dioxins, and fu",",.
Soli samples collecled 10 89 leet below
surfa... Samples analYled for PCBs,
VOC., TPH, organochlorine/organo.
phosphate pesticides. Contamination
mainly In lop 3.4 feet. Contaminaled
soil excavaleel during removal or drain
well In April 1993.
8 borings were drilled 10 21.S feet
below surface. Soli samples were
collected from I.S, 6, II, 16, and 21 feet
below surflce. Samples were analyzed
for VOCs, seml.VOCs, mellls.
8 borin,s drilled 10 21.S feet below .urface.
Samples collected al 1.',6, II, 16,
and 21 feet below surface. Samples
analyzed for VOCs, seml-VOCs, metals.
VOCs detected.
4 borings drilled 10 II.' feet below surflce.
Samples collecled al I, 6, II feet below
surlace. Samples analyzed lor VOCs,
seml- VOCs, metals, cyanide.
3 borinI' drilled 10 10 feet; I borin,
10 8 feet. Samples collected II I,
S.S, 9.' feet below surface. Samples
analyzed for VOCs, semi. VOCs, metals,
cyanJde. pH ranged from 1-8.4 except
one sample with pH 4.8. Elevaled
merals detected.
None
4,4'-DDT,4,4'.DDE,
4,4'-DDD, Promeron,
chlordane
None.
I,I,I-lrichloroetllane (2S uglkg)
letraChloloelhene (S.I uglk,)
Xylenes (10 uglk8)
None.
Zinc (148 m,Ik,)
Cadmium (21.7 mglkg)
Reponed site location was Investl,lled and no
contamination was found. "No aedon" proposed.
Invesdgltlon - derived wasle disposed In Class I
landfill. Excavation has been backfilled with
clean .oil. The area presenLt no threal'o human
health or the envlroomeD!. "No further aedon"
pmposed.
Merals are reponed II background levell. "No
sedon" proposed.
Merals are at backgrOUDd levels. Rbk assessmenl
for VOCs indicates no threallo human bealth or
the envlrooment. "No aedon" proposed.
Merals reponed at backBround levell. The sump was
covered by 8-12 inches .1 concrete. ,. has been
-------
TABLE I
SITE SUMMARIES
Dale SWJII112ry of Contaminants of
Sile Name Sire Characteristitt of Opel1ldon Sile IIIvestilations Concern SUIIU
Possible Shallow lagoon Inhlally indicaled from. 1953 aerial phOio 19'3.1951 A soli I" survey w.. conduCled 10 None. ThIs .ir.. Is localed In the same .rca as she 006.
as I shallow dry depression. Disposal of locale the she. Reported maaimum No contaminants were fouod In this area. "No
wl.!les II this she has nOi been documenled 10111 volatile hydrocarbom of 4 ugll IctiOO" proposed.
IUd no evidence exlslS as 10 the me. reported al del'lh of ()'3.' feet below
5Iol1ge or disposal of hazard,,", malerials. .surface. 5011 borings drilled II she 006
included this area. No conwninanLS
were detecled.
Building 3g2 (gl.!oline spills) Reported spills of gasoline IUd 011 Mid. I 960's 4 borinl' drilled 10 II.' feet below surface. None. No luoline or 011 fouod In the sampl.. analyzed.
near Bulldinl 382 IUd Warehouse ,. Samples collected II 2, 6, and II f..1 No risk 10 Inutw1 health aod Ibe envlronmenl. "No
below .urrace. Samples analyzed for IctiOO" proposed.
TPH. None detected.
Paint. Residue and She was reportedly med as a dump for 1946 A shallow soil lIS survey was conducted 4.4'.DDE (.085 mV!imum dieldrin (0.1 milks) conllrmed. RIsk assessment indlcal.. pesticide
indicaled based 00 interviews wllb depOl Iotal volatile hydrocarbons of 4 uill levels In the lrea present no threallo Inutw1 health
employe.. IUd nOi on physical evidence or fouod al depth of ()'3.5 feet below surrace. or the envlrorunenl. "No Iction" proposed.
sampling. Elsb! confirmation soli borinss were
drilled 10 16.' feet below surface.
Samples were collected al , fOOl
intervals, Samples were analyzed for
VOCs, .emi- VOCs, pesticides. TPII.
aod metals.
Ouldoor Slol1ge of Wl.!tes Site W15 used for the slol1lge of dnunmed 1950's.I970', 6 borings drilled 10 6.5 feet below surface. None. Mellis fouod II hackground level.. No VOC.
hazard... wasle comalnlns metals. Samples eollected al I. 3.5. aod 6 feet detected. "No action" proposed.
.below surface. Samples analyzed for
metal.. 5011 .ample from 83 feet below
surface analyzed for VOC..
Old Morrisoo Creek Portion of Old Morrison Cr..k which 1940's. 7 4 borings drilled 10 6.' feet below SUrflce None. Metals fouod al background levels. "No action"
(e151 portion) flowed through Ibe easlern portion of aod samples collected 112. 4. aod proposed.
the Depot based on pl.!l aerill phOios. 6 feet. Samples analyzed for TPH
POiential conumlnanlS which may have IUd metal.. No TPII detected.
leached inlO the cfeek are petroleum
wasles. oils IUd IubricanlS. aod by-products
of painl sludges.
III 1990,9 boring. drilled 10 4.',5.5 ft.
Cyanide teach Field Reported leach field from the cyanide 1963-1971 below surflce. Samples collected all.', Cyanide (0.18 mglkg) Mellis are fouod ., background level.. Cyanide level
(Building 320) sump localed easl of the site. The leach 4.' feet below surrlce. Samples analyzed fouod presenIS DO threat 10 Inutw1 health or the
field W15 reported 10 nOi work due 10 low for metal. aod cyanide. Cyanide detected CDvlronment. leach field pipinS has been exposed
permeabilily of the '011. al I., aod 4.' feet below surrace. In 1993, aod ,ampled for metals aod cyanide. Surrouodins
I boring drilled. Samples collected II soil has been sampled. Metals are II backgrouod
26.', 36.', 66.', 16.' f..1 below surflce. level.. No Ibrtber acdon proposed.
Samples analyzed for VOC.. None
detected.
24.150029-A491E1U4-14.1.
1126195
-------
"'ABLE I
SITE SUMMARIES
Date SlUIIIII3ry of Conlaminants of
Sire Name She Characterisdcs of Operadon Sire Invadgadons Coocem Swus
Fill Area wilh Numerous The site was reponedly used for open 1957-1968 I) 4 borin8s drilled 10 11.5 feel below Toll! petroleum hydrocarbons Unknown TPII was an Isolated event. Addldonal
Vehicles srorage of vehicles and equipmenl. and surface. Samples collecled al U, 6, and (TPH) (140 mglkg) Invesdgadon did nOl conlinn the presence ofTPII.
possibly is conlaminated with petroleum II feel. Samples analyzed for VOCs, VOCs 001 defected In conlinnadon borings.
hydrocarbons. semi- VOCs, TPII. TPII found in Padclde levels In the area presenl no threat 10
one sample at 6 feel. human bealth or Ibe envlronmenr. "No action'
proposed.
2) A shallow soil gas survey was Trichloroelhene,
conduCled 10 verify the exlent of letnchloroelhene
TPII. No TPII reponed. TCE
(0.03 ug/l) and PCE (2 ugll) were
found II depth of I fOOl.
3) 2 conlinnation borings drilled 10 16.5 4,4'.000 (0.041 mg/kg)
feel below surface. Samples were 4,4' .OOE (0.017 mglkg)
collected al 5 fOOl intervals. Samples 4,4'-00'1'(0.023 mg/kg)
analyzed for VOCs, pesticides, TPII. dieldrin (0.034 mglkg)
TCE. PCE. BTEX not defecled. chlordane (0.004 mg/kg)
Pesdcides defected. Freon 113 (0.015 mglkg)
5ooo.gallon Tank No. I was an underground slorage 1950's. 1970's Five borings drilled to 21.5 feel below None. "No Icdon" proposed.
IIaurdnus Wasle Tank lank used for the storage of haDery acid surrlce. Samples collected 114, 6, II, 16,
No.1 from the mJd 1950's 10 the late 1970's. and 21 feef below surrace. Samples
Tank was removed in 1986. Site Is analyzed for VOCs, seml.VOCs, organo-
covered with concrete. chlorine pesdcldes and PCBs. NODe
delecled.
Contractor's Storage Area Sile Is localed nonh of Building 348 and 1970's. 1980's 6 borings were drilled 10 11.5 feel below None. MellIs ccmcentndons f~ It background levels.
has been reponedly used for Ibe slorage surrace. Samples were collected It 2, "No acdon" proposed.
of consuuction materials and some waste 5.5. and II feel. Samples were
marerials by contraclon working at SAAO. analyzed for VOCs, semi. VOCs.
The she is covered wilb grassy vegelltion. metals. No VOCs, semJ-VOCs
were detected.
Small Shallow lagoon Topographic low located ...t of Oxidadon Mid 1960'''0 I soil borinB drilled In low area. Soil None Mellis at background levels. '1'10 a
-------
.TABLE 1
sri'E SUMMARIES
Dale S\ID1I1WY of CooumlnaDls of
Site Name Slle Challctemdes of Opelldon Site Invesda,dons Concern Status
Radloacdve Waste Disposal Reponed clump area for I1dloactlve material lale 1940's A surface survey (0 screen for None No visual evkleneelllal .he ulsted. Site does
Area in southwcSI comer of depoc. IIdloaedvity has been conducted in 001 .how el....ed ",dloaedvhy.
suspected .rea. None dettCted above "No aedon' proposed.
backaround leveb. Aerial photo
review shows no evldenee of Irench.
loa or pits. Groundwaler snalyred for
IIdium. None detecled. RAndom
borinas show no evidence of
I1dloaedvity.
Dispensary Waste Area Reponed dump area in southwest comer 1960's Visuallmpecdon of art, and aerial None No Indlcatlon .Ite ever ealsled.
0' depoc. photos show no evidence of the site. "No .edon" proposed.
Documented waste disposal pl1edces
show disposal in Bum Pits or off.hase.
IR survey conducted. No anomalies
found.
Petroleum Siudae Disposal Reponed dumplna of auoline I1I1k .ludse late 1950'. Two borings drilled. Samples collected None SampllD& found no evld....e 0' contamlnatlon.
Area south 0' the I1UUIinllr1ck. at 0, 5 feet below .urfa... Analyred for "No acdon. proposed.
TPI!, lcad. No TPI! found. lead a' back.
Iround levels.
Previous Oil Dump Area Reponed dumplnl of 011 In the southeast Mid 1960's Two near surr... soli samples None No 011 or Ir.... found hi .oil samples.
comer 0' depot. collected and snalyred for 011 and "No actlon" proposed.
Irease. None detected.
Former Secondary Sewase Sewase Ir"- plant well of BulldinS 1940'510 19'72 5 borinS' drilled 10 10 feet below surr.... None Meta" concentntlons It! .oIllyplcaJ of backlround.
Treatment Plant 320 received wutewater from plaws 18 wnplcs analyred for metab. 'No Ialon" proposed.
Dpe",dons.
AAFES Dl1in Well Surrlce drahl well.outheast of Buildlna 699, UoknOWD 10 GPR survey In 1994. DraIn well and None SoIl umptcs alve 110 evidence of conl1mlnadon.
II the AAFES auoline stadoo. Present pipe removed. Samples collected from DraIn well hu been rClllOved. "No ledon"
sides and bottom of ucavadon and proposed.
below drain pipe. Samples anaIyred
for TPH.
Rail Yard Enslne Shed Site consists of tWO bulldinls used for the 1940's. present IR survey reponed elev.led tempe"" Guollne An In..ltu bloremedlatJoo pilot tesl 15 belnS
(locomotive Repair Area) maintenance of the DepoI's locomotlve tures beneath concrete pad south of Diesel conducted II this UtI. The Rallyani Is not under
switch eOllne. B. 205. Soli samples Indicate auoline CERCLA jurbdledOD, per CERCLA Sectlon 101,
and diesel 10 10 feet below surfa... because only petrOleum hydrocarbons are present.
Area will be cleaned up prior 10 propeny lramfer.
Buildlna 420 Chromic Acid B. 420 spilled chromic Icld. 19'78 Based on Interviews, .pill occurred In None Chromium wu detected II 26 mIlk., a'evellyp!cal
Spill NE comer of bul!dinl and was of bactaround. No chromium In .roundwlter
conta!nod. Two borin., drilled DUlSkle dOWDlradlent of the ,i'e. "No acdoo" proposed.
build hilS 10 appro.. 7 feet below surfa...
Soli samples anaIyred for chromium,
DownaradlCIII wells sampled. No
evidence of t:OIIIanIinaIIon.
24.1500'29-A491E1U4.14...
II26m
-------
TABLE I
SIT!! SUMMARIES
Da'e Sununary of Conwn1nants of
Sile Name SUe Chal1lcterislics of Opel1llion Site Invostigalions Concern . SUIuJ
1,000 Gallon Solvenl Tank UST conUining solvents south Mid 19$0'510 Downglldienl wells sampled and None No evidence of an underground unt, or of
#3 of Building 348. lale 1970's analyzed for VOCs. Record scarch groundwller cootamlnadoo from unt. "No ledon"
shows no evidence this unt e.isled. proposed.
$00 Gallon Baltery Acid UST conulning baltery lcid sooth Mid 19$0's 10 Tank was localed In I below.gl1lde None No evidence of lealtage trom unt, or of ground.
Slol1lge Tlnk #4 of Building 348. Tank removed in 1986. l..eI970's cement-noored enclosure. No sulns on Wiler conumlnadon. "No ledon" proposed.
cement. Downgnldlenl wells sbow no
evidence of contamination from tank.
Sewage Outfall Ouifallil we5lem edge of depot, nonh of Lalt 19$0's 10 Oulflll removed when Morrislon None Slle no looger e.lsts, "No ledon" proposed.
OXidallon Lagoons. late 1960's Creek was widened and paved in '
1980',.
Building 320, Plaling Spill Spills from plaling operadons. conulning 19$0',10 1970', 2 boring' drilled 10 40 feet below surllce. None Contaminated ,oil removed II tIJIIe of ,pili,
metalo. 6 samples collected and analyzed for Metals II back,round levels. "No ICtion"
metals. Downgradient wells analyzed proposed.
for "-Is. Additional samples taken
durinB investigalion of site 021. and
analyzed for metals.
Morrison Creek Creek ruMlng around ptrimtler of dtpol 1940'010 Creek was widened and paved in None "No ,edon" proposed.
may have received wlSles from Induslrial ea,ly 1980's 1980',. Contaminated sol\ wlS
processes. removed. Depot had Induslrial
wasle disposal faclUlies in place prior
(0 contaminated soil removed.
Possible Open Storage Open 5I0rage I'" for construction 1947-19$0 Sile Sloted construeUon materials None "No leUon" proposed.
Area (Building 1$0) malerials. west of Building 1$0. only.
Possible Open Siorage Open storale Irea (or consuucdon materials 1947-19$0 Site stored consuuctJoo materials None "No leUOO" proposed,
Area (Buildings 246 &. 248) between Building 246 &. Buildin, 24B. only,
Possible Open Slollge Open 5IOl1lge a,ea fo, construeUon materials 19471019$0 A,.. was paved by 1946, prior 10 None "No leUOO" proposed,
Area (Building 426) sootheast of Building 426. 5Iol1lge. IR survey sbows no
anomalies.
Possible Open Siorage Open 5I0rage I... for construedon malerials 1947 10 early Site stored consuuction IDalcrials None "No leUon" proposed.
Area (Building $$$) south of Building $$$. 1960's only,
Possible Dump Site Open neld used for vehicular ledvilY. 1948-19$0 IR survey sbows no anomalies. None No groundwaltr conumlnalion found.
Groundwller sample colleCled WCSl "No leUon" proposed,
olsite, and analyzed for VOCs, None
dClected. Aerial phoros do Dol show
dlsposalleUvllies.
24-ISOO29.A49/E"'4.14.t.
112&'95
-------
TABL!!I
SITE SUMMARffiS
Oale Summary or Conwnlnants or
Site Name Site Chal1lcterl,uCJ or Opention Site InvestisaLions Concern StihIS
l..arge Disturbed Area Surface disturbance near eastern border. 1947 to e..ly Swamp vehicle testinS lrea only. None "No ICUOUo proposed.
reponedly the ,lte or ,wamp vehicle tesdnS. 1%0',
Pos,ible Trench Surrace depres,lon. Early 1950', Trench visible for less IIw1 3 years on None "No IctlOU" proposed.
lerial photos. Appears 10 be
tonstrucuon stonge.
Possibly Fill Activity Scarred surrace lrea nonll of Oddatlon Early 1950's Soil S35 Invesusation and ,oil ,amplins None No contamInaDts detected durinS umplinS,
LaSOOllS, in 1991192. Sample analyred for "No action" proposed.
VOC" SVOC" TP". Infl1lted survey
shows no anomalies.
Possible Dump Site Open stol1lse area for construction debri" Early 1950's ThI, area Is the surrace upres,ion of None 0Nolctlouo proposed,
nonllelSl of O.I4ouon Lasoons, near the activity al the BOW. Topsoil has
Bauery Oi'posal Well (BOW), been removed from the area. No
sroundwater contamination found in
this area.
Pos,ihle Fill Material Soil plies from construction, ,outh of Early 1950'". Area was investigated durina Bum Lead ContunInants are associated with rnnsfer of
Oli4ouon Laloons. late 1910', PilS RI. Samples anaIyred for metan. malerlal from B, 300 10 the South Post Bum Pits.
Elevated lead round at surface. Bum PilS lrea Is uncIer rem..nauou and will Include
the lrea around alte 049. "No fUnller IctlOO"
proposed,
EKeavadon Activity Soli pile, from coosuuctlon, between Early 1%0'1 Construction materials only stored Noue "No IctlOU" proposed.
DulldlnB 555 and the ...tem sile boundary, II site.
SlandinS liquid Area of slandinS Wlter near ..,Iem border, Mid 1%0', Slandlnl waler Is I common None "No IctlOU" proposed,
'een In aerial photo, OCCUlTmce due 10 hardpan layer.
ThIs was not I disposal area.
SCJrred Stressed Area Surrace scarrinS nonhwl of O.idauon Mid 1%0', ArealnvesuSlted durlnSlnvesuBauon NODe MCIIis II bactBround levels, Soli umples
LaIOOllS. ohile 010. & borinI' drilled 10 11.5 indicate no contamination. "No action" proposed,
feet below surface. Samples collected from
I.Sto 11 feet below surrlce. AnalYled for
VOCs, SVOCs, mellis,
Contl1lctor', Spoils Area Site consislS of a number of soil piles with 1966-1980', Soli umplinB of surrace and near- Benro(l)pyrene (0.49 B(a)P was detected In one sample II I fOOl below
various amounts o( coostJUction debris ,urf'llce ,oils and debri' plies. mlllm
-------
TABLE I
SITE SUMMARIES
Date Sununary of Conlarninanu of
Sire Name Site Characteristlc:s of Operatlon Site Investlgatlons Concern SII1US
Freon \13 Area Site consists of a square.shaped area I 950's.I 970's Soil and .ollg.. .amples collecled Freon \13 (max. 2750 An air .parglng piiotleS' w.. conducted "' thl.
approximately 10 acres in size located in from 16 borings. Groundwaler ppmv) in .oilg.. lite. Residual coutaminants in .011 present no risk 10
the vicinity of Building. 300, 32 I, 325. 330, samples collecled from 5 borings. Chloroform (max. Ig8 human health or the CDvlrOlllllClll. Sbon.lerm
420 and 423. Freon 113 and other VOC. Samples eollected from ...rface 10 ppmv) in .oilg.. monitoring 10 confirm cleanup of .011 will be
In localized .011 and groundwater. 130 feet below .urface. SUSpecled conducted 15 needed. Groundwlter concenllltlons
.ources are drains in B. 320 .ew.. line., are below the maxiJtnun conwnInanlleveb (MCls)
cleaning operatlons In B. 420 and 423. for drinking waler. "No funher Icdon" proposed.
Parkinglol 3 Soli Site consi.ts of a parking lot Ipproximately 1946 -1951 48 soil vapor samples collecled from Trichloroethene (max. base- An air .parglng/.oll ventlng pilot.... and additlonal
210 ft. x 360 ft. located in weslem.central 0-80 feet below surface. Soil samples line 4S0 uJlkg in .0ilgl5). ventlng were completed. Confirmatlon .ampllng
pornon of the Depot. collecled from II borinS' 10 10 ft. below tetrachloroethene, .how. TCI! removal 10 lesslhan one pound residual.
surface. Samples analyzed for VOCs. 1,2.dichloroethene. Residual ConCCDllltlons In .011 present no rbk 10
Re..nl.amplins from permanenl .01lgl5 1,2-dlchloroelhane, carbon human health or the CDvlronment. Shon'lerm
monitoring stations. ICII'Ichloride. chloroform monitoring to confirm soil cleanup will be conducted
15 needed.
24.ISOO29.A491E1U4.14.t.
11261'n
-------
. . .
0""-17 1IW-18 111-19
I JJ1017
1IW-I018,-1]
1IW-1019 1IW-1020
~
] W-100;.1
1IW-1012 1IW-1011
o
1oIW-1025
1oIW-1026 ,
1IW-1027 1oIW-1028
II1II KLEIN FELDER
DRA~ BY: B. Walker
PROJECT No. 24-150029-A51
DATE:
DWG No.
12-29-94
0100-006
._-~--- ....---.-- -
1IW-4S W-46
W'fi-44 .
~G=J~
I I
\ I
I I
I I
..,1-15 -11
I 9 -14
I
I
I 1IW-42
. 1IW-41
111-40
o 111-39
"'-21
.
I'
o
00
1IW-3
?
LEGEND
GRAPIIlC SCAlE
050'AIO 2110 310
J>{.J L....I
(IHFnT)
liDch=1OOft.
1110
I
-0- 1IW-1 UOHITOR!NG WEll. lOCA'OON
MONITORING WELL LOCATION MAP
PLATE
6
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
-------
-- - .-- .
chromium is a potential contaminant of concern at Parking Lot 3. The Army will continue to
monitor the aquifer in the Parking Lot 3 area, evaluate potential sources of chromium, and assess
whether chromium is a contaminant of concern. The chromium in the aquifer in this area will be
addressed with the cleanup ofVOCs in the Parking Lot 3 area. MW-74 is within the radius of
influence of the preferred remedy (pump and treat) for VOCs in the aquifer at the Parking Lot 3
area and can be expected to be sufficiently treated if treatment is necessary.
5.1.2 South Post Groundwater
The on-depot South Post groundwater contamination was originally addressed. as an Operable
Unit. However, subsequent investigations have revealed contaminants of concern above
corresponding MCLs outside the depot boundaries. As a result, the off-depot groundwater
contamination will be included as an area requiring remedial assessment and the interim South
Post ROD will be expanded to include the entire plume. The groundwater remedy is discussed
further in Section 9.
5.1.3 Battery Disposal Well (Investigation-Derived Waste)
Approximately 400 tons of soil and debris (containing heavy metals) were excavated from the
Battery Disposal Well Area during investigation activities. This waste is currently stored in 16
bins located along the north side of Building 555. The waste has been sampled and the results
show high levels of some heavy metals. The waste will be remediated and the remedial
alternative assessment is summarized in Sections 7 through 9 of this ROD.
5.1.4 Building 300 Burn Pits Soil
The remedial assessment for soil contamination at Building 300 was assessed by comparing
maximum concentrations to background levels and human health risk criteria, and by
evaluating the mobility of the contaminants. A risk assessment was prepared by Kleinfelder for
the Building 300 Bum Pits (Kleinfelder Report RI -9). The estimated cancer risk for the worst-
case future on-site resident was 4xlO-s, while the estimated non-cancer risk was 1.0. The
estimated cancer and non-cancer risks for the future on-site worker were approximately 2xlO-s
and less than 1.0, respectively. Based on the risk assessment, health-based risk criteria were
developed.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
January 8, 1995
II - 12
-- ----
-------
---. - --
By comparing the maximum contaminant concentrations in the Building 300 Burn Pits to the
health-based concentrations, those contaminants in the soil which may require remediation
were identified. The Army found that Arocblors 1254 and 1260, arsenic, cadmium, and lead
exceeded the specified health-based concentrations and will require remedial action.
5.2
NO ACTIONMOflmTIffiRACTIONMrnAS
The areas discussed below require no action under CERCLA because the area is already
protective of human health and the enviroriment or because CERCLA does not provide the legal
authority to undertake a remedial action.
5.2.1
Battery Disposal Well In-Situ Soil
The Battery Disposal Well was a disposal site for spent batteries and other debris. During the
site investigation, an excavator was used to assess the extent of contamination. The excavated
soil (investigation-derived waste, or IDW) was placed in hazardous waste storage bins.
Alternatives for treatment/disposal of the IDW are addressed in this basewide ROD.
Following excavation, in-situ soil in the Battery Disposal Well was evaluated for
contamination. Area background metals concentrations at the Battery Disposal Well (average
concentrations plus two standard deviations) were compared to the maximum residual soil
concentrations. Metals, with the exception of arsenic and lead, were present in concentrations
indicative of background levels. It is not required to remediate soil to concentrations below
naturally occurring background levels. Arsenic and lead exceeded background levels and were
further evaluated.
Two sample results for arsenic exceed the background range. Since there was no known specific
source for arsenic ~t the Battery Disposal Well, the Army judged that the two results for arsenic,
7.6 mglkg and 7.5 mg/kg, are comparable to the upper end of the background range, 7.3 mglkg.
The background concentrations of arsenic in the geological formation being sampled may be
slightly higher than the area background.
One lead sample from the bottom of the Battery Disposal Well casing was 5200 mg/kg at a depth
of 49.5 feet below ground surface. However, just outside the Battery Disposal Well casing, at a
depth of 55 feet below ground surface, the lead level was 3.4 mglkg. The Army concluded that
the lead accumulated at the bottom of the Battery Disposal Well casing is at the interface of the
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 13
January 8, 1995
-------
.. - - ----
well with native soil. Migration past this point appears to be minimal. Although the maximum
concentration of lead is a potential health risk, due to the depth of the sample in which 5200
mg/kg lead was detected, it is unlikely that human or ecological exposures would occur.
Therefore, the maximum concentration of lead at the Battery Disposal Well.is not considered a
threat to human health or the environment (due to the limited extent of contamination).
In addition, soil collected from the Battery Disposal Well area was tested for leachability of
metals using a modified Waste Extraction Test substituting deionized water for citrate buffer to
simulate rainwater. The leachability data indicates that the danger of metals migration to
groundwater is negligible, and groundwater samples downgradient of the BDW show
background levels of metals. In-situ soil is not being considered for remediation.
5.2.2 Pesticide Mix Area
The Pesticide Mix Area consisted of an outdoor utility sink on the exterior wall of Building 356
from which a drain pipe ran along the building and emptied onto the ground. The site location is
shown on Plate 5. Pesticides were mixed in this area and containers were rinsed in the sink.
Contaminants of concern included 4,4' -DDT, 4,4' -DDE, 4,4' -DDD, prometon and chlordane. A
drain well, sump, and contaminated soil were excavated and removed from this area to facilitate
the site investigation. The investigation-derived waste material was disposed of in a Class I
landfill. The excavation was backfilled with clean soil. Residual pesticides remaining in soil
following the excavation present no threat to human health or the environment, as discussed in
Section 2.2.3 of the FS.
5.2.3 Firefighter Training Area
The Firefighter Training Area reportedly consisted of a pit into which gasoline, oil, or JP4 fuel
were poured and ignited. Purported site location is shown on Plate 5. Sampling was conducted
in 1990 in the area where the pit was purportedly located. Nine soil borings were drilled in the
area and samples were collected at the surface down to 21 feet. Samples were analyzed for
volatile organic compounds, metals, and petroleum hydrocarbons. None were detected. There
was no physical evidence that the site ever existed. Details of the investigation are discussed in
Kleinfelder Report RI-4. No action is proposed for this site because no contamination has been
found.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 14
January 8, 1995
-------
5.2.4 Solid Waste Management Units (SWMU) Areas
Thirteen areas were identified by AEHA in their evaluation of SWMUs (AEHA, 1989). Plate 5
shows the locations of these areas. A three-stage RCRA Facility Assessment (RF A) consisting
of 1) a preliminary review, 2) a visual site inspection, and 3) a sampling visit, was conducted at
each area. The preliminary review and visual site inspection were done by AEHA and the
sampling visit was conducted by Kleinfelder in 1990. Background information on the RF A
investigation ~d details on the sampling and analysis results may be found in the following
Kleinfelder reports: SW-14, SW-15, SW-18, SW-21, SW-23, 'SW-25, and SW-32. .
Based on the data obtained during the field investigations, no contamination was found at the
following eight areas: .
. Site 010
. Site 012
. Site 014
. Site 015
. Site 017
. Site 018
. Site 031
. Site 054
Possible Trenches
CyanideSwnp
Possible Shallow Lagoon
Building 382 Gasoline Spill
Outdoor Storage of Wastes
Old Morrison Creek
5,000 Gallon Waste Tank
Contractor's Storage Area
Results nom the field investigations of these areas are summarized in Appendix E of the
Basewide RI Report (Kleinfelder Report SW-27). "No action" is proposed for these areas.
Contaminants were detected at five areas, as listed below. ''No action" is also proposed for these
areas because they present no threat to hwnan health or the environment, based on the health risk
assessment presented in Appendix B of the Basewide Health Risk Assessment (Kleinfelder
Report SW-29).
. Site 011
.' Site 013
. Site 016
. Site019
. Site 021
Two Trenches
Building 316 Acid Swnp
Paint, Residue and Waste Oil Dwnp
Fill Area With Nwnerous Vehicles
Cyanide Leach Field
24-150029-A501ER53-146
11- 15
January 8, 1995
-------
5.2.5 Non-SWMU Sites
Twenty nine areas were identified as non-SWMUs by AEHA (AEHA, 1989). Area locations are
shown on Plate 5. Based on I) historical record information, 2) employee interviews, 3)
evaluation of data collected at or near each area, 4) downgradient groundwater monitoring, and
5) limited area sampling, no action is planned for these areas. A summary of the data evaluated
for each area is provided in Appendix F of the Basewide Rl Report (Kleinfelder Report SW-27).
None of these areas poses a threat to human health or the environment, with the exception of Site
028, the Railyard Engine Shed. This area is contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons only,
and therefore is exempt from remedial action under CERCLA Section 101. However, a
bioremediation pilot test is underway at the Railyard Engine Shed and this area will be
remediated pursuant to state requirements.
5.2.6 Parking Lot 3 Soil
The Parking Lot 3 area (See Plate 5) was discussed in the FS and it was concluded that further
remedial action is necessary for groundwater at this area. The soil contamination at the area,
however, was significantly reduced by the air sparging pilot test initiated in August of 1993 and
ending March of 1994. Mass analyses estimated that approximately 460 pounds. of TCE the
primary contaminant, was extracted from the area. Borings were advanced and a residual area of
TCE located. This additional TCE was vented from the soil starting in September of 1994 and
ending in December of 1994. An additional 8 pounds of TCE were removed. Current data
analysis indicates that 1-2 pounds remains in the soil above the groundwater. Other
contaminants experienced similar reductions and are no longer detected. Residual soil
contamination at the site poses no threat to human health or the environment and no further
action is proposed for the soil. In addition, current data indicate that residual contaminants in
soil gas in this area will not adversely impact cleanup of the aquifer. The Army will monitor
residual soil gas concentrations in the soil and will then assess to what extent, if any, residual soil
levels may lengthen the groundwater restoration period. The Army will present this assessment
and the results of the air sparging pilot test in an updated Pilot Test Summary Report. Ifresidual
soil levels will prevent the pump and treat action from achieving cleanup levels in the estimated
groundwater restoration period of nine years, additional soil remedial action will be considered.
In addition, the Army will continue to collect groundwater samples in this area as part of the
ongoing groundwater monitoring program for the installation.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 16
January 8, 1995
-------
---- - ---
5.2.7 Freon 113 Area
The Freon 113 area is located in the central portion of the depot and initially had an extent of
contamination of approximately ten acres (~ee Plate 5). An extensive subsurface field
investigation was conducted in September through November 1993 to assess the extent of
contamination in the underlying soil, soil gas, and groundwater. The results of this investigation
are included in Kleinfelder Report FR-3. The .highest soil gas concentration of Freon reported.
was 2750 ppm-v. The greatest concentration detected in groundwater was 1000 ugll, which is
below the MCL of 1200 Ilg/L.
An air sparging pilot test was initiated in May of 1994 to assess to what degree Freon 113 would
respond to this remedial technology. The pilot test significantly reduced the contamination in the
soii and groundwater throughout the site. Mass analyses estimate that approximately 500 pounds
of Freon 113, the primary contaminant found, has been extracted from the area and that less than
8 pounds may remain. Other contaminants which were present only at low concentrations at the
site, have also been significantly reduced. Current residual soil contamination does not pose a
threat to human health or the environment, and does not appear to presep,t -a threat to
groundwater. Current groundwater contaminant levels at the site are below all established FRGs
for each of the detected contaminants. The air sparging pilot test was shut down in November,
1994. No action is selected for both the soil and groundwater at the Freon 113 Site.
The Army is currently collecting samples to monitor residual concentrations in the soil gas and
will then assess to what extent, if any, residual soil levels will impact the aquifer in the future.
The Army will present this assessment and field results to evaluate the feasibility of
implementing additional source control measures in the Pilot Test Summary Report. In addition,
the Army will continue to collect groundwater samples in this area as part of the ongoing
groundwater monitoring program.
5.2.8 Contractor's Spoils Area
The Contractor's Spoils Area was evaluated as a potential site for contaminant releases based on
elevated surface temperatures observed in an infrared survey conducted in November 1990. This
site is located east of Building 555 and is shown in Plate 5. It was used as a location to place
construction debris such as concrete, asphalt, and scrap metal.
24-] 50029-A50/ER53-] 46
11-]7
January 8, ] 995
-------
--- - --- - . ---
Surface samples were collected at the site in 1992. SVOCs, TPH and metals characteristic of the
debris present (i.e., asphalt) were found in some samples (Kleinfelder Report SW-25). Four
PAHs were detected in this area: benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, chrysene, and
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. As discussed in Section 2.2.14 of the FS, contaminants found in the
area pose no threat to human health or the environment. However, because .of the base closure
and planned property transfer, exploration trenching was conducted at this site in 1993 to
evaluate the extent of construction debris in the area. The Army intends to remove all
construction spoils from the site and dispose off-base, in accordance with all appropriate laws
and regulations. .
5.3
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE SURVEY (EBS) AREAS
The Department of Defense has established policy guidelines for an environmental review
process to transfer, lease, or dispose of property at closing military bases such as SADA. Prior to
property transfer, the Army will prepare a Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOS]), or a Finding
of Suitability to Lease (FOSL), which is supported by an Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS)
for each lease or deed transfer.
The EBS investigation process includes a detailed examination of federal government documents
and studies, searches of records and permits from regulatory agencies, interviews of current and
fonner employees, and visual inspections to identify signs. of possible contamination of all
buildings and grounds. For the EBS investigation, the depot was divided into 100 study areas,
which overlap the areas addressed by this Basewide ROD. A comprehensive EBS report is being
prepared for each study area. The basewide FS includes a summary of the findings of the
investigation in the EBS reports for each study area.
5.4
SUMMARY OF.RCRA FACILITY PERMITS AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES
SADA currently holds a RCRA permit issued in August 1992 for a hazardous waste storage
facility, described as Building 412. As part of closure of the Depot, the Army has submitted a
Closure Plan for the facility. The Closure Plan was submitted in November 1994 and the State
anticipates approval of the Plan by April 1995. Upon approval, the Army will verify the area is
not contaminated by conducting confIrmation sampling. The Army plans to complete these
activities by July 1995 with State approval for final closure by September 1995.
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 18
January 8, 1995
-------
- ----- ---
SADA is also under an Enforcement Order to close Building 411. the former Battery Acid
Dumping Facility. Closure for Building 411 has been implemented and the State is reviewing
the closure certification. State acceptance of the closure certification is planned for February
1995.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 19
January 8, 1995
-------
6 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
6.1
HUMAN HEAL TIf RISKS
As part of the basewide RIfFS, the Army prepared a basewide health risk assessment report. The
purpose of the health risk assessment was to estimate health risks in humans following exposures
to contaminants at the depot. Risks were'estimated for the following conditions:
.
Baseline ("No Action") conditions,
Current (partially remediated) conditions, and
Cleanup (fully remediated) conditions
.
.
The reason for evaluating each of these conditions was to show how much the human health risks
have been, or will be, reduced by remedial activities conducted at the depot.
Table 2 presents definitions of the key terms from the human health risk assessment that are used
in this ROD. A summary of the basewide human health risk assessment is presented in this
section.
6.1.1
Contaminants of Concern
Groundwater and soil at SADA are known to be contaminated. Therefore, contaminants of
concern were identified for both of these environmental media. Eight chemicals of potential
concern were identified in groundwater at the depot. These chemicals include the following
volatile organic chemicals (VOCs): carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, cis-l,2-
dichloroethylene, trans-l,2-dichloroethylene, 1,1 ,2-trichloro-l ,2,2-trifluoroethane (Freon 113),
tetrachloroethene (PCE), and trichloroethene (TCE). Baseline, current, and cleanup
concentrations of the groundwater contaminants are shown in Table 3.
A total of 32 chemicals were identified as chemicals of potential concern in soil at the depot.
These chemicals include eleven metals, seven organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), six polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PARs), and seven volatile or semi-
volatile organic chemicals. Baseline, current, and cleanup concentrations of the soil
contaminants are shown in Table 4.
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 20
January 8, 1995
-------
TABLE 2
DEFINITIONS OF RISK TERMS
Carcinogen: A substance that, with long term exposure, may increase the incidence of
cancer in humans.
Chronic Daily Intake
(CDI): The average amount of chemical absorbed by an individual on a daily basis
over a substantial portion of hislher lifetime.
Exposure: The opportunity to receive a dose through direct contact with a chemical or
medium containing a chemical.
Exposure Assessment: The process of evaluating, for a population at risk, the amounts of chemicals
to which individuals are exposed, or the distribution of exposures within a
population, or the average exposure of an entire population.
Hazard Index (HI): An EP A method used to assess the potential noncarcinogenic risk. The ratio
of the CDI to the chronic RID (or other suitable toxicity value for
noncarcinog~s) is calculated. If it is less than one, then the exposure
represented by the CDI is judged unlikely to produce an adverse
noncarcinogenic effect. A cumulative, endpoint-specific In can also be
calculated to evaluate the risks posed by exposure to more than one chemical
by summing the CDIIRfD ratios for all the chemicals of interest that exert a
similar effect on a particular organ. This approach assumes that multiple
subthreshold exposures could result in an adverse effect on a particular organ
and that the magnitude of the adverse effect wil1 be proportional to the sum of
the ratios of the subthreshold exposures. If the cumulative In is greater than
one, then there may be concern for public health risk.
Reference Dose (RID): An estimate, with uncertainty which may span more than an order of
magnitude, of a daily exposure level for human population that is likely to be
without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects. .
Risk: The nature and probability of occurrence of an unwanted, adverse effect on
human life, health, or on the environment.
Risk Assessment
or Health Evaluation: The characterization of the potential adverse effect on human life, health, or
on the environment. According to the National Research Council's
Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Health Risk, human
health risk assessment includes: (I) description on the potential adverse
health effects based on an evaluation of results of epidemiologic, clinical,
toxicologic, and environmental research; (2) extrapolation from those results
to predict the types and estimate the extent of health effect in humans under
given conditions of exposure; (3) judgments as to the number of
characteristics of persons exposed at various intensities and durations; (4)
summary judgments on the existence and overall magnitude of the public-
health program; and (5) characterization of the uncertainties inherent in the
process of inferring risk.
Slope Factor: A plausible upper-bound estimate (set at 95%) of the probability of a
response (i.e. cancer) per unit intake of a chemical over a lifetime.
24-150029-A501ER53-146
11-21
January 8, 1995
-------
TABLE 3
Summary of Volatile Organic ChemicallVOC) Concentrations in A-Zone Groundwater Monitoring Wells.
Sacramento Army Depot
95% UCL Concentration (ug/l) + +
Well Site Chloroform TCE PCE IC-1,2-DCE t-1,2-DCE 1,2-DCA Carbon Tet. Freon 1 13
::ttt"jQ,~,-I!mt:p'qij~ij!Mim:rr:j:r:rrr::rm:~:m:rr:::r::::::mr:~{m:r{:::r::::r:::rrr::t:j:':::::rrr::r':rr:::':j:~:rr:j:r::::'m@':j:'jjrrmr:rr,rr::::r:),r},'}f:mrmr:::::::rrr::rr::::::::::rmrr::r:r::::j:fr::::ffH:::;J:tmnffff:r::::r::lmrt::::::::N:::::~n:r:::r:::t:i:jnnrr{rrr:::}]:::rn::rt:tmm
MW0003 South Post/Run Track 2.30 2.40 2.30 NC 2.35 2.33 2.46 NC
MW0004 Navy/Marine Rsrv Ctr 0.32 6.02 0.10 NC 0.51 0.26 0.20 NC
MW0005 SW Corner/Burn Pits 13.1 3 90.48 30.62 NC 4.21 1.46 1 .02 NC
MW0006 Western Boundary 1 .52 2.54 1 .51 NC 1 .60 1.57 1 .73 NC
MW001 3 Laser Range 3.00 + 3.00 + 3.00 + NC 3.00 + 3.00 + 3.00 + NC
MW0016 SW Corner/Burn Pits 1 .80 54.42 0.58 NC 7.88 0.66 0.20 NC
MW0020 N of Oxidation Lags 3.37 5.50 3.37 NC 5.75 3.32 3.36 NC
MW0024 SW Corner/Burn Pits 3.54 71 .06 6.97 NC 9.93 1.37' 1.89 NC
MW0025 Tank 2 1 2.02 12.82 1 1 .91 13.57 12.62 12.14 12.14 768.60
MW0030 West Burn Pits 2.83 25.28 2.81 NC 3.64 2.79 2.79 NC
MW0050 North Airstrip 2.29 13.23 2.19 NC 2.21 2.21 2.38 NC
MW0053 Tank 2 5.67 0.81 0.78 0.84 0.78 0.87 0.78 43.59
MW0069 West Laser Range NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
MW0073 Parking Lot 3 18.93 61 .86 2.33 0.30 2.25 2.32 2.25 2.35
MW0074 Parking Lot 3 44.00 8.40 18.00 7.60 7.60 3.00 1 .60 2.60
MW0077 Parking Lot D 62.00 7.60 22.00 14.00 14.00 6.90 1 .60 2.50
MW0079 Building 420 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
MW1005 SP RR 1.81 19.73 1.67 NC 4.22 1 .71 1 .71 NC
MW1006 81 52 Elder Creek Rd 1.67 1 .91 1 .67 NC 1.76 1.72 1 .72 NC
MW1010 Signal Court .2.01 2.14 2.01 NC 2.1 1 2.03 2.03 NC
MW1016 SP RR SPUR #2 1.31 5.58 1.28 NC 1.49 1.35 1 .33 NC
MW1020 Black Magic 1 .59 27.57 1 .50 NC 3.96 1 .56 1 .54 NC
MW1024 SP RR #3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
MW1028 Roadway Cluster NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
24-150029-A50/EIt'S3-147xls
1126/95
-------
Concentration (ug/l)'
Well Site Chloroform I TCE I PCE C-1.2-DCE It-1.2-DCE 1.2-DCA Carbon Tet. Freon 1 13
::::'gjj::
-------
Concentration (uglll'
Well Site Chloroform TCE PCE C-1,2-DCE t-1,2-DCE 1,2-DCA Carbon Tet. Freon 1 1 3
MW0003 South Post/Run Track 0.48 0.40 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
MW0004 NavylMarine Rsrv Ctr 0.25 1.96 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
MW0005 SW CornerlBurn Pits 0.79 5.00 .. 0.72 1 .38 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
MW0006 Western Boundary 0.67 5.00 .. 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.41 0.25
MW0013 Laser Range 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26
MW0016 SW CornerlBurn Pits 1 .49 5.00 .. 3.26 3.29 0.66 0.25 0.25 0.78
MW0020 N of Oxidation Lags 0.25 2.73 1 .80 1 .83 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26
MW0024 SW CornerlBurn Pits 2.1 1 5.00 .. 3.33 2.88 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.25
MW0025 Tank 2 10.16 6.00 . . 5.00 .. 6.00 .. 10.00 .. 0.50 .. 0.50 . 693.44
MW0030 West Burn Pits 0.25 5.00 .. 0.26 0.91 0.42 0.26 0.27 0.34
MW0050 North Airstrip 2.08 5.00 .. 0.62 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.50 . 0.26
MW0053 Tank 2 8.08 0.89 0.69 0.74 0.69 0.60 .. 0.50 . 42.13
MW0069 West Laser Range 0.26 1.51 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.26
MW0073 Parking Lot 3 19.35 5.00 .. 1 .83 0.25 1 .70 0.60 .. 0.50 . 1 .66
MW0074 Parking Lot 3 23 2.9 5.00 .. 5.6 0.25 0.50 .. 0.25 0.26
MW0077 Parking Lot D 27.36 1 .55 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 . 0.25
MW0079 Building 420 2.7 1 .6 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.50 . 0.25
MW1005 SP RR 0.25 5.00 .. 0.25 3.06 .0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
MW1006 81 52 Elder Creek Rd 1.07 1 .1 1 1.07 0.25 1 .07 0.50 . . 0.60 . 0.25
MW1 01 0 Signal Court 0.97 1 .02 0.97 0.25 0.97 0.50 .. 0.50 . 0.25
MW1016 SP RR SPUR #2 0.50 5.00 .. 0.26 6.00 .. 3.26 0.33 0.27 0.33
MW1020 Black Magic 0.25 2.67 0.25 0.37 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.25
MW1024 SP RR #3 0.26 5.00 .. 0.25 1.14 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.25
MW1028 Roadway Cluster 0.25 5.00 .. 0.25 2.7 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.25
TABLE 3
Summary of Volatile Organic Chemical (VaCI Concentrations In A-Zone Groundwater Monitoring Wells.
Sacramento Army Depot
NA: Not Available (well not installed at this timel.
NC: Not Calculated due to lack of analytical data.
. Only A-Zone wells in which VOCs detected more than two times included in summary. For well location map. see Plate 6.
.. California primary Maximum Contaminant LevellMCLI
+ Maximum concentration of two results. .
+ + 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCLI derived using equation In Section 3.3.1; used as baseline groundwater chemical concentrations in risk assessment.
, Most recent groundwater monitoring; one-half times the reporting limit used for results reported as ND (Not Detectedl.
I Baseline Conditions assumed to be represented by groundwater monitoring data collected from January 1980 through October of 1989
for all wells except Freon 113/Parking Lot 3 wells (where baseline data = data collected from January 1992 through July 19931.
2 Current Conditions assumed to be represented by groundwater monitoring data collected from April 1994 through September 1993.
J Cleanup Conditions assumed to be the same as current conditions except California primary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLsl used for
chemicals detected at concentrations greater than their MCLs.
24-1 S0029-ASO/ERS3-147xls
3
1/26/95
-------
-----
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS
IN SOIL AT THE SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
- - @timM#i@!MmmSOiw.oo~l~iti~JiWJ.QM~J.tmHmimilMMMjji
1IIIr'IIIIIII.~'!II~;!IIIiI: flljlllitijrjl.!.llillllil,il~!lil: 1:!!l111:11111jI8fut!;j!lI'Jjllll.
Tank 2 Benzo(aJanthracene 4.44 4.44 (Baseline) 4.44 (Baseline)
Benzo(g,h,i,Jperylene 4.45 4.45 (Baseline) 4.45 (Baseline)
2.Butanone 38.1 1.2 (RAO) 1 .2 (RAO)
Chrysene 4.51 4.51 (Baseline) 4.51 {Baseline}
Dieldrin 0.204 0.204 (Baseline) 0.204 (Baseline)
2,4-Dimethylphenol 4.524 4.52 (Baseline) 4.52 (Baseline)
Ethylbenzene 200.1 51 6 (RAO) 6 (RAO)
Heptachlor epoxide 0.1 14 0.1 14 (Baseline) 0.1 14 (Baseline)
Indeno(1,2,3-c,dJpyrene 4.45 4.45 (Baseline) 4.45 (Baseline)
Naphthalene 2.583 2.58 (Baseline) 2.58 (Baseline)
Perchlorothylene (PCE) 18.7 0.2 (RAO) 0.2 (RAO)
Xylenes 1 173.76 23 (RAO) 23 (RAO)
Oxidation Lagoons Antimony 28.2 28.2 (Baseline) 3 (Background)
Arsenic 10, 10 (Baseline) 7.3 (95% UCL,BG)
Cadmium 335.4 335.4 (Baseline) 40 (RAO)
Chromium (total) 351 .7 351 .7 (Baseline) 33 (Background)
Copper 251 .6 251 .6 (Baseline) 29 (Background)
Mercury 0.5 0.5 (Baseline) 0.05 (Background)
Nickel 167.6 167.6 (Baseline) 28 (Background)
Silver 1 3.8 1 3.8 (Baseline) 0.29 (Background)
Zinc 1054.9 1054.9 (Baseline) 48.5 (Background)
Burn Pits Antimony 96.5 96.5 (Baseline) 3 (Background)
(South Post) Arsenic 39.1 39.1 (Baseline) 7.3 (95% UCL, BG)
Cadmium 351 .7 351 .7 (Baseline) 88 (RAO)
Chromium VI 47.8 47.8 (Baseline) 16 (RAO)
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.1 1 0.1 1 (Baseline) 0.005 (RAO)
Lead 2094.7 2094.7 (Baseline) 174 (RAO)
PCBs 0.43 0.43 (Baseline) 0.43 (Baseline)
PCE 0.278 0.005 (Baseline) 0.005 (RAO)
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 0.236 0.005 (Baseline) 0.005 (RAO)
Pesticide Mix Area 4,4',-DDT 4.333 '1 .2 (Max. Resid.) 1.2 (Max. Resid.)
4,4'-DDD 0.345 0.1 1 (Max. Resid.) 0.1 1 (Max. Resid.)
4,4'-DDE 0.66 0.24 (Max. Resid.) 0.24 (Max. Resid.)
Chlordane 0.41 ND (0.05) (Max. Resid.) D (0.05) (Max. Resid.)
gamma-BHC 0.043 ND (0.05) (Max. Resid.) D (0.05) (Max. Resid.)
Battery Disposal Well Cadmium 1 .22 1 .22 (Max. Resid.) 1 .22 (Max. Resid.)
Lead 243.63 398 (Max. Resid. -) 398 (Max. Resid.-)
Benzo(aJpyrene 0.256 (Removed) 0.266 (Baseline)
24-150029- ASOIERS3-147x1s
1126/95
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS
IN SOIL AT THE SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
- - IImm@n:lEIIKn:IKs.Qjit'~1iON$:ti5ii'",:UPM--6'iI:::1I:tt:II:t::::::nt:::::r;:
11.1!I.i.IIi:li:I~!.rlllll.i!!..:::I:Iif::: :::II:lllii..II!.!~III:II.llill.)II:i::!:1111!1111!111IiIii :11:111:.::III!I!I~..~;illlil.I!I..::II.ill!i:il:::i::1.iIl
Building 300 Arsenic 1 1 .52 1 1 .52 (Baseline) 7.3 (Baseline)
Cadmium 304.87 304.87 (Baseline) 9 (RAO)
Lead 471 4.23 471 4.23 (Baseline) 500 (RAO)
PCBs (Arochlor 1 260) 0.266 0.266 (Baseline) 0.266 (Baseline)
Freon 1 1 3 Area@ Carbon Tetrachloride ND ND ND
Chloroform ND ND ND
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene ND ND ND
Freon 1 1 3 ND ND ND
PCE ND ND ND
TCE ND ND ND
Parking Lot 3@ Carbon Tetrachloride 0.003 0.003 (Baseline) 0.003 (Baseline)
Chloroform 0.008 0.008 (Baseline) 0.008 (Baseline)
1 ,2-Dichloroethane 0.003 0.003 (Baseline) 0.003 (Baseline)
TCE 0.076 0.076 (Baseline) 0.076 (Baseline)
RAO = Remedial Action Objective. .
95% UCL = 95% Upper Confidence Umit
BG = Background
ND = Not Detected
@ = Groundwater is primary contaminated medium at this site.
Max. Resid = Maximum residual concentration remaining in soil.
1 = Based on chemical analytical data collected during remedial investigations, prior to treatability studies or remediation (cleanup)
:2 = Based on chemical analytical data that are representative of site conditions as of December, 1993.
3 = Based on RAOs (Remedial Action Objectives) for site.
24-1S0029-ASOIER53-147xJs
2
1/26195
-------
-- . -.-'-..-.
The risks posed by each of the chemicals of concern were estimated in the human health risk
assessment Based on their detection frequencies, their concentrations, and their estimated health
risks under baseline conditions, the following chemicals of concern were identified as targets for
remedial action:.
Groundwater Contaminants
. carbon tetrachloride
. chloroform
. 1,2-dichloroethane
. PCE
. TCE.
These chemicals were detected most frequently and at the greatest concentrations in the shallow
aquifer, referred to as the AIB zone, located approximately 80 to 148 feet below ground surface.
There are three main areas of groundwater contamination at SADA: the Southpo~t area, Parking
Lot 3, and the Freon 113 area.
Soil Contaminants
Metals:
. antimony (Bum Pits, Building 300)
. arsenic (Oxidation Lagoons, Burn Pits, Building 300)
. cadmium (Oxidation Lagoons, Burn Pits, Building 300)
. chromium VI (Burn Pits)
. lead (Burn Pits, Battery Disposal Well, Building 300)
Organic Chemicals:
. benzo[a]pyrene (Battery Disposal Well)
. chlordane (pesticide Mix Area)
. chrysene (Tank 2)
. 4,4'-DDT (pesticide Mix Area)
. dieldrin (Tank 2)
24-150029-A501ER53-146
11 - 22
January 8, 1995
-------
-_. -- - - u ---
- --. -----
. PCBs (Bum Pits, Building 300)
The estimated risks from exposure to these chemicals are discussed in Section 6.1.4. The risks
from the VOCs in groundwater are mainly due to the potential ingestion of groundwater
contaminants and/or inhalation of chemical vapors from groundwater (assuming that future on-
site workers or residents would use groundwater for drinking and/or showering, etc.). With the
exception of chromium VI, the risks from soil contaminants are mainly due to potential
incidental ingestion and/or dermal absorption. Risks from chromium VI in soil at the Bum Pits
are due to potential inhalation of chromium VI in fugitive dust.
6.1.2 Exposure Assessment
In the exposure assessment, two receptors were identified as being representative of maximally
exposed individuals at SADA. These receptors are a potential future on-site worker and a worst-
case future on-site resident. Although the depot will not be developed for residential use, the
residential scenario was presented for the purpose of making decisions regarding future land use
and so that potential worst-case conditions are evaluated.
The following exposure pathways were considered in the human health risk assessment:
. incidental ingestion of chemicals in soil
. dermal absorption of chemicals in soil
. inhalation ofVOC vapors from soil
. inhalation of non- VOCs in fugitive dust
. ingestion ofVOCs in groundwater (worst-case)
. inhalation ofVOC vapors in groundwater (worst-case)
It is unlikely that future workers and/or residents on the depot will be exposed to groundwater.
The groundwater exposure pathways were included only for the purpose of evaluating worst-case
conditions.
Exposure point concentrations are the chemical concentrations in the air, soil, or water to which
the receptors are exposed. For both baseline and current conditions, groundwater monitoring
data were used to estimate the exposure point concentrations for VOCs in groundwater. For
cleanup conditions, it was assumed that groundwater contaminants would be remediated to their
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 23
January 8, 1995
-------
. .. .---- ..-
.----- .. --
Analytical data collected during the remedial investigations were used to estimate the baseline
exposure point concentrations for soil contaminants. For current conditions, residual chemical
concentrations were used for sites that have already been remediated. Furthermore, Remedial
Action Objectives (RAOs) from the Feasibility Study were used as the exposure point
concentrations for soil contaminants at sites yet to be remediated (cleanup conditions).
The U.S. EPA~s computer model, Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST, version 2),
was used to estimate the emission of chemicals from soil to air and the subsequent air
concentrations of chemicals.
Chronic daily intake (CDI) levels were then estimated for each receptor for each pathway using
equations and exposure factors recommended by the U.S. EPA andlor the California DTSC. The
exposure factors for each receptor are summarized in Table 5. The chronic daily intake levels
were expressed in milligrams chemical per kilogram body weight per day (mglkg-day). The
chronic daily intake levels were combined with chemical toxicity values (described in the
following section) to estimate the health risks for each receptor.
6.1.3 Toxicity Assessment
Two types of toxicologic effects were considered in this assessment: carcinogenic (cancer-
causing) effects and non-carcinogenic effects. Toxicity values are chemical-specific and are
derived by the U.S. EPA andlor the California EPA for each type of effect. For non-carcinogenic
effects, U.S. EPA reference doses (RIDs) or reference concentrations (RfCs) were used as
toxicity values for ingestion or inhalation of contaminants, respectively. These RfD/RfCs
represent exposure levels that are unlikely to result in adverse health effects during lifetime
exposures. The RfDs/RfCs were obtained from the U.s. EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS, a computer database) or the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (BEAST,
U.S. EPA, March 1993).
For carcinogenic effects, California EPA cancer slope (potency) factors were used as the toxicity
values. If California slope factors (SFs) were not available, U.S. EPA SFs were used. Of the 38
different chemicals of concern in groundwater or soil at the Depot, 21 chemicals are classified as
carcinogens by the California EP A or the U.S. EP A. Three of the carcinogens, arsenic,
chromium VI (by inhalation only), and nickel (by inhalation only) are classified as known human
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 24
January 8, 1995
-------
TABLE 6
PARAMETERS USED FOR CHEMICAL CHRONIC DAILY INTAKE ICDII EQUATIONS
SITEWIDE HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
::!:::!:,I:,\::,!:,\,::!,'j!:I!:::::,!:[';,::,:j:!::::!i:,:~!::;'j::!:!,i'!:::::':il~~ji'::IIIII;\:':III:,':I:::~I:::I::111:il~:llli::I:illtlll!I~I'~:j:ili:!i!::j:::!\::::':III::[I:::j:!:j:i!I!:!::!:l;!!iij:l:li:i:::~i:I::
Receptor Pathways EF ED BW AT Iyears)
C IR CF Idayslyr) Iyears) Ikg) NonCanc. Cancer
Soli Exposures:
Soil ingestion 95% UCL. Imglkg) 120 mglday 10.6 kglmg 350 30 69 30 70
Dermal abs. of soil 95% UCL. Imglkg} -. 10'6 kg/mg 360 30 70 30 70
Future On-Site Resident Air Exposures:
Fug. Dust Inhalation 96% UCL. Img/kgl 20 m3/day -- 350 30 70 30 70
Vapor Inhalation 96% UCL. Img/kg) 20 m3'day -- 350 30 70 30 70
Groundwater Exposures:
Groundwater Ingestion 95% UCL. Img/L) 2 L/day -- 350 30 70 30 70
Vapor Inhalation !lndoorl 95% UCL. 1m gILl 15 m3/day -- 350 30 70 30 70
Soil Exposures:
Soil ingestion 95% UCL. Img/kg} 100 mg/day 10.6 kg/mg 250 25 70 26 70
Dermal abs. of soil 95% UCl. Img/kgl -- 10.6 kg/mg 260 26 70 25 70
Future On-Site Worker Air Exposures:
Fug. Dust Inhalation 95% UCl. Imglkgl 20 m3/day -- 250 26 70 26 70
Vapor Inhalation 95% UCl. Img/kgl 20 m3/day -- 260 26 70 26 70
Groundwater Exposures:
Groundwater Ingestion 96% UCl. Img/ll 1 .4 l/day -- 260 26 70 26 70
Vapor Inhalation (indoor) 96% UCl. (mglll 15 m3(day n 260 26 70 26 70
. 95% UCl = 95% Upper Confidence limit (UCl) of baseline or current analytical data used as chemical concentrations for baseline or current conditions,
respectively; maximum residual concentrations or remedial action goals IRAOs) used as chemical concentrations for sites or chemicals which
have been remediated.
CDI = Chronic Daily Intake
C = Chemical Concentration
IR = Intake Rate
CF = Conversion Factor
EF = Exposure Frequency
ED = Exposure Duration
BW = Body Weight
AT = Averaging Time
24.\sOO29.A50IER53.'47x1s
1/26195
-------
carcinogens (Group A), while the remaining 18 carcinogens are classified as probable human
carcinogens (Group B).
Table 6 presents a summary of the toxicity values used in this assessment.
6.1.4 Risk Characterization
In the risk characterization, noncarcinogenic risks and carcinogenic risks were estimated for each
. . .
receptor (i.e., the future on-site worker and the future on-site resident) under three different site
conditions: baseline, current, and cleanup (remediated). Noncarcinogenic risks were estimated
using the Hazard Index (HI) approach. In this approach, a hazard quotient (HQ) is derived for
each chemical by dividing the CD! by the RID; then the HQs for all of the chemicals are added
together and expressed as the HI. An HQ or HI greater than unity (1.0) indicates concern for
potential health effects.
Carcinogenic risks were estimated by multiplying the chronic daily intakes by chemical-specific
cancer potency (slope) factors. The cancer risks were expressed as the upper-bound probability
(chance) of an individual developing cancer as a result of exposure to chemicals at the site. One
of the remediation objectives of the Superfund program is to reduce ambient chemical
concentrations to levels associated with excess lifetime cancer risks in the range of 10-7 (1 in
10,000,000) to 10-4 (1 in 10,000).
Under baseline conditions, the greatest total carcinogenic risk for the potential on-site worker
was approximately 2xl0-4, due mainly to groundwater and soil exposures in the South Post (Burn
Pits) area. Under current conditions the greatest total carcinogenic risk for the potential on-site
worker was reduced to approximately 6xl0.s, mainly as a result of contaminant removal by the
groundwater treatment system in the South Post Area. Under cleanup conditions, the greatest
total carcinogenic risk for the potential on-site worker was reduced to approximately 3x 1 0-5 .
This represents a total risk reduction for a potential on-site resident of approximately one order
of magnitude after cleanup. Furthermore, the total estimated cancer risks under cleanup
conditions are due mainly to exposures to chemicals in groundwater (e.g. TCE and chloroform)
at their Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)" for drinking water and to exposures to
background concentrations of arsenic in soil. Cancer risks for a potential on-site resident are
approximately two times the risks estimated for workers under each condition.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 25
January 8, 1995
-------
TABLE 6
TOXICITY VALUES FOR CHEMICALS OF CONCERN AT tHE SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
.:~j::~j;i:::;.:i~:~:::;::::.::j~;:::.:::.::::.::ji::;:,':':::::!::I:j:'::I~~~::i8~~:~~llf:':::;~:::::;:I::::::::::::;!::~il!:::I::::::I::II::::i:li:I~liii:::!:i~::;i:i:!i::iil::li:il~I_::111.~8~~~II~;i:i:;il:i:~:::li;~;::::i~i::~li~i:i!i:
SITE CHEMICAL Oral Inhalation Oral Inhalation
Unit Risk Dose Unit Risk Dose RID RIC RID
(ug/Lr' (mg/kg.dayr' (ug/m3r' (mg/kg.dayr' (mg/kg.dayl Img/m31 (mg/kg.dayl
Tank 2 Benzo(a\anthracene' 3.43E.04 " 12 141 3.43E.03 " 12 141 NA NA NA
Benzo(g,h,IJperylene -. n n n NA NA NA
2-Butanone n .. n -- 0.6 111 1 111 0.29 ..
Chrysene' 3.43E-04 " 12 (41 3.43E.03 " 12 141 NA NA NA
Dieldrin 4.60E-04 C1I 16 (tl 4.60E-03 (1 I 16.1 " 0.00006 111 NA 0.00005 13rl
2,4.Dimethylphenol n n n .. 0.02 111 0.07 ++ 0.02 13r)
Ethylbenzene .. n .. n 0.1 111 1 (11 0.29 ..
Heptachlor epoKlde 3.71E-04 .. 13 141 3.71E-03 " 13 141 1.3E.06 (11 NA 0.000013 13r)
Indeno( 1,2,3,c,dlpyrene' 3.43E-04 " 12 141 3.43E-03 " 12 (41 NA NA NA
Naphthalene .. n .. n 0.004 111 0.014 ++ 0.004 13rl
Perchloroethylene (PCEI 1.46E-06 " 0.05 (41 1.46E-05 " 0.06 141 0.01 111 NA 0.01 (3rl
Xvlenes n n .. .. 2 (11 0.7 ++ 0.2 13rl
OKldation Antimony n n n n 0.0004 (11 NA NA
Lagoons Arsenic 5.00E-05 111 1.75 " 4.30E.03 111 16 (lal 0.0003 (11 NA NA
Cadmium n n 4.29E-03 " 16 141 0.001 Ilfl NA NA
Chromium (totall n n n n 1 111 NA NA
Copper .. n n .. 0.037 12\ NA NA
Mercury n n .. n NA 0.0003 121 0.000088 "
Nickel n .. 2.60E-04 " 0.9 141 0.02 111 NA NA
Silver n .. n .. 0.005 111 0.0176 ++ 0.006 161
Zinc n n .. .. 0.3 111 NA NA
Burn Pits Antimony -- n .. n 0.0004 111 NA NA
Arsenic 6.00E.OS (11 1.76 " 4.30E-03 111 15 (18) 0.0003 11) NA NA
Cadmium n .. 4.29E-03 " 16 (41 0.001 (If I NA NA
Chromium VI 1.20E.05 " 0.42 14) 1.46E-01 " 610 141 0.005 11) NA NA
cis-I.2.Dichloroethylene " .. .. .. 0.01 111 0.036 ++ 0.01 13rl
Lead NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
PCBs 2.20E-04 111 7.7 (11 2.20E-03 " 7.7 (3rl NA NA NA
PCE 1.46E-06 " 0.06 141 1.46E.05 " 0.05 (41 0.01 (11 0.035 ++ 0.01 (3rl
Trichloroethylene (TCEI 1 .46E-06 " 0.016 (41 2.86E.08 " 0.01 (4) 0.008 (3e) 0.021 ++ 0.008 13rl
Pesticide MiK 4,4'.DDT 9.70E.06 (11 0.34 111 9.71E-05 " 0.34 (3rl 0.0005 111 0.00176 ++ 0.0006 (3rl
Area 4,4'-ODD 6.90E.06 111 0.24 111 6.B6E.05 " 0.24 13rl 0.0005 15) 0.00175 ++ 0.0005 151
4.4'-DDE 9.70E.06 (11 0.34 (11 9.71 E-OS " 0.34 (3rl 0.0006 151 0.00176 ++ 0.0005 (51
Chlordane 3.70E.05 (11 1.3 111 3.71E.04 " 1.3 (21 0.00006 111 0.00021 ++ 0.00006 13rl
gemme.SHC 1.14E-04 .. 4 141 1.14E-03 .. 4 141 0.0003 111 0.00105 ++ 0.0003 13rl
24.150029-ASO/ER53-147x1,
1/26/95
-------
TABLE 6
TOXICITY VALUES FOR CHEMICALS OF CONCERN AT THE SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
'..,:::::::.1::::::::::;1::j:j:::::::;::;:::;:;j',:1::;:::::i:::::;::!:-lt\;J-~i\III~.:!;I:::j:jl:jl,jl:j'jl:j:j;:.:j:::!:!:!:jl:1:j1j::1!tl!j::;',j::!!j:ji!:!:I~\1:!:::~:jl~.!llliIIIIW~j~l!]1~~i!i!i]~:ilj!
SITE CHEMICAL Oral Inhalation Oral Inhalation
Unit Risk Dose Unit Risk Dose RID RIC RID
lug/Lr' (mg/kg-dayr' lug/mJr' (mglkg-dayr' (mg/kg-dayl . (mg/mJI Img/kg.dayl
Battery Cadmium n .. 4.29E-03 " 16 (41 0.001 (HI NA NA
Dlsp. Well Lead NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Benzolalpvrene 3.43E-04 " 12 141 3.43E-03 " 12 (4) NA NA NA
Building 300 Arsenic 6.00E-06 111 1.76 " 4.30E-03 111 16 11al 0.0003 (11 NA NA
Cadmium -- -- 4.29E-03 " 16 141 0.001 '11) NA NA
Lead NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
.PCBs 2.20E-04 (11 7.7 III 2.20E.03 " 7.7 13rl NA NA NA
Fraon 113 Carbon Tetrachloride 4.29E-06 " 0.16 (41 4.29E-05 " 0.15 (41 0.0007 (11 0.002 ++ 0.00067 13el
Area" Chloroform 8.67E-07 " 0.03 141 2.30E-05 111 0.08 " 0.01 111 0.036 ++ 0.01 (3rl
Freon 113 n .. n n 30 (11 30 121 8.67 ..
PCE 1.46E-06 " 0.06 (41 1.46E-05 " 0.05 141 0.01 111 0.035 " 0.01 13rl
TCE 1.46E-06 " 0.06 141 2.86E-06 " 0.01 141 0.006 13el 0.021 " 0.006 13rl
Perking Lot 3" Carbon Tetrachloride 4.29E-06 " 0.16 141 4.29E-05 " 0.16 141 0.0007 0.002 " 0.00057 13el
Chlorolorm 8.67E-07 '. 0.03 '41 2.30E-OS "1 0.08 " 0.01 "1 0.036 " 0.01 13r)
1,2-0ichloroethane IEDC) 2.60E-06 "1 0.09 (1) 2.60E-OS (1) 0.09 (21 NA NA NA
TCE 1.46E-06 .. 0.016 141 2.86E-06 " 0.01 '41 0.006 '3el 0.021 " 0.006 (3r)
Footnotes:
, U.S. EPA, November 1993, Integrated Risk Information System UAISI.
2 U.S. EPA, March 1993, Health Effacts Assessment Summary Tables (HEASTI.
3 U.S. EPA Region IX, November 1993, Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs), Fourth Quarter 1993.
r: derived by route-to-route extrapolation
a: derived by U.S. EPA Envlronmentel Criteria and Assessment Office 'ECAOI
a: adjusted for absorption: arsenic Inhalation = 30%.
f: toxicity value for consumption of cadmium In food.
. California EPA, Office of Environmanta' Health Hazard Assessment, June 18, 1992, Memorandum on Calilornia Cancer Potency Factors.
& Derived by extrepolatlon.
. For the purpose of this assessment, these PAHs were 89sumed to have the same toxicities as benzolalpyrene.
. For the purpose of this assessment, California Cancer Potency Factors were given precedence over U.S. EPA Cancer Potency Factors If the Calilornia values
were higher than the U.S. EPA values.
.. Calculated using the following equations:
risk per ug/m3 lairl = {risk per mg/kg-dayl x 1170 kg x 20 m3/day x 10.3 mg/ug
risk per uglL Iwater' = (risk par mg/kg-davl " 1/70 kg " 2 L/dav x 10.3 mg/ug
.. Calculated using the following equation:
reference concentration (mg/m3) = RfD {mg/kg-dayl x 70 kg 120 m3/day
" Chemicals In these areas ara chemicals of potetlal concern In groundwater (I.e., soli exposures ara not e concernl.
24-ISOO29-ASOIER.5J-147K1,
I nlUlK
-------
Under baseline conditions, the maximum HI value for noncarcinogenic risks in future on-site
workers was 2.0 (from groundwater exposures in the Freon 113 Area). Under current conditions,
the maximum HI value was reduced to 1.0 (from soil exposures at the Bum Pits). After cleanup
occurs, the HI values for noncarcinogenic risks will be reduced to less than unity in all areas,
indicating that noncarcinogenic effects are not likely to occur in workers or residents.
6.2
ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
As part of the basewide RIfFS, the Army prepared an ecological risk assessment report. The
main objective of the ecological assessment was to qualitatively evaluate the potential adverse
effects of hazardous waste on the habitat at the Depot, including representative plant and animal
species (receptors) observed in the habitat. Groundwater contam;nants were not considered in
the ecological assessment, since the most shallow groundwater aquifer is located approximately
80 feet below ground surface and does not recharge surface water bodies in the area. Ecological
risks were evaluated for both baseline (no action) conditions and cleanup (remediated)
conditions.
6.2.1
Habitat Description
The predominant habitat at SADA is disturbed annual grassland, which covers approximately
170 of the 485 acres at the site. The grassland at the Depot has been significantly degraded as a
result of past agricultural practices, urban intrusion, and activities conducted at the Depot.
Approximately 0.52 acres at the Depot have been identified as jurisdictional wetlands according
to the criteria in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
determined that the proposed activities to fill the 0.52 acres of jurisdictional wetlands would
result in minimal adverse impacts and is activity of a nature specifically authorized under both
Nationwide Permits 26 and 38, as set forth in 33 CCR Part 330.
Two invertebrate species th~t are associated with vernal pools have been identified on the depot.
These species are the vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) and California linderiella
(Linderiella occidentalis). One of these species, the vernal pool fairy shrimp, was listed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species
Act on September 15, 1994. One Califomia black walnut tree (Juglans hindsqi), which is listed
by the California Native Plant Society as a rare, threatened, or endangered plant species, was also
observed on the depot. In addition, the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), which is considered
24-1S0029-ASOIER53-146
II - 26
January 8, 1995
-- - ------
-------
-..._- -...
a special animal species by the California Department of Fish and Game. No other State or
Federal endangered and threatened species have been observed on the depot.
6.2.2 Ecological Effects Assessment
For the purpose of the ecological assessment, No Observed Adverse Effect Levels NOAELs)
andlor Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels (LOAELs) were used as the criteria for assessing
potential ecological effects from exposures to contaminants at the depot. The NOAELs are
concentrations or doses of a chemical that 'produce no observable adverse effects in individuals
of a species under a specific set of conditions, whereas the LOAELs are the. lowest
concentrations at which effects are observed. These toxicity values were selected as the toxicity
criteria for this assessment because they are conservative and were therefore assumed to be
protective of ecological health. If NOAELs or LOAELs were not available for specific
chemicals or receptors, other toxicity data were used as indicators of potential ecological
effects. A comparison of the NOAELs or LOAELs and the soil contaminant concentrations
before and after cleanup is shown on Table 7. '
6.2.3 Exposure Assessment
A total of eleven species observed at the Depot were selected as receptors for this assessment.
The species were selected based on their occurrence, likelihood of contact with contaminants
(considering home ranges and other factors), trophic level, and habitat suitability. The
receptors include four avian (bird) speCies, three mammalian species, one amphibian, insects
(Arthropods), earthworms (Annelids), and grassland vegetation.
Exposures to the vegetation (plants) growing in contaminated areas were assumed to occur
through potential uptake of soil contaminants by the plant roots and translocation to other plant
parts, or through ,potential uptake. of contaminants in fugitive dust deposited on the plant
foliage (e.g. leaves). Exposures to earthworms or insects residing in contaminated soil were
assumed to occur by inges~ion or direct absorption of contaminants in the soil. Exposures to
the mammalian and avian receptors were assumed to occur mainly by ingestion of
contaminated food sources or by dermal absorption (e.g. by burrowing animals).
Chemical uptakes/intakes were estimated for contaminants whose surface soil concentrations
exceeded the toxicity values presented in Ecological Effects Assessment or for contaminants
that are bioaccumulated by terrestrial organisms.
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 27
January 8, 1995
-------
TAILE 1
ICOLOGICAL to"ICITY VALOU .0. CONTAMINANTS 0' CONCERN
AT no: SACaAMlH1'O AUtY DEroT
__001 In 001 , .,. II..." OJ.,... .iIII"
-- (npv.'-) (1qIfO.......)
--- 0.24,..' 10 .,/ta: Ia ...11 (rqn.dIIII:a) J".......D.
~....,-,.-., IMOAEL b.... (HOA~ s-a...18CU1 '02"......
'" 'IN'" --
_Owl ... 001 S"......." 0.5.......
-- -- <......_)
,.".,
"...... .,... SOO 8II1tc..' 10.... did. _............... 10.....""- 109."..,11 4000"""""
......~ tU>.> (--III 0.'..."""" (npv. -) tU>.> (LOA~
----, JJ ..,., IUd f1I
-- 500-ICXXII8II\8 dill" o.s......,." or U8llllta1till"
-..- (LOAEI.,QuD) -(- (NOAI!L. J-
-~) -) QuD)
MAMMALIAN uanou,
eo,.o. - 0.'.".,...,. 6".0--.18*'8 ...,.,.,1' O.loQ.U...,-qIW ..".,... "-~ ,...,.,...u
/CMb-1 (IIO.W. -.. ..... (HOA£Lt (LOAEI.,""'''''.) (-, .8rIc:ia8Iu'.... (NOAI!L. Iha) (0.01' -...,
.... --
....1\1
IIact.TIII 'd; Iabt* ....... -.".,' - l)SOppIII"" lo".~a. 0.11_...'" ,_...,.
-- (--or JOD,..' 11"'- (NDAEL) ...........- (LOAiL, _J (IdW.. -..,.J
-- ...-- -.J
to"'" k
"""'1 c,nfcnb Orawd $qI&Im1 "-'" '-"'" 2000 .141.," 1.9.1)0 81141-41." 0.. ,."..,..,. 0.1188'k14q" 10""'~ 0.01_- 0.001 8&ItI...,. "-
... .- (NOAEL for"'" (NOA.EL lot' &II (NOAEL rup" (NOAEL, .... .,..) (LOAS1.. ....) CNOAEL. npo.) (JrIOSAL18na. (NOABL" nil. .Id'
VtDey ~ Oopkr ..-ra) eIIIIc:ta"c.) -, _-I u.......CI8DCr) (c...-. ....)
.- ""--
CIII/anloVoIt J9.4..,...1 -......., O.OII_"'~'
"" ...
....--- 100_- n.9.,
""JOG..", -- (NOAEL ",,0. .. 600 ."q tlibrJu
_b... ...... ... ....
AMPIU8L\N IIICIPIOU: '"-
............ F..... 40 q/L' ...,.,- 0.061111iL- 0.'""," 1...1IL8 1C).)O..,n.. 0.5 ..,..11 (HOAEL b aU- ,..,..,~
~,."w.J ...........- CLC.). NamM' (HOAEL. -.,.) -nf." (DlUfO.) (tC", (.....,. -, ..., SurmaI, 1'" -..-
-.... ..
"'"""'" ICJO.IOOOIlflltl' UO..,1k& Z4,OOOIllltaIClll" ...."...
_I .k:I(8r:IW.,""); (""",...) -
JJ.JIIlfl/iaBWI U.1OO8I&ItI"8W
(1cWI..IiI8a) 1-""">
...mwo.... 1SO,.,. 18 10111 110"...,01" 6J.J ppm ill .0111 60 rqA.I I.' .111'011" 10...,.. 61111841" 100_"
............ LOAEL nf.. nf.
GBASSLAM> YlGITAnON V-loa crqII, 2S-IJ.,Jq 1OU1 '0.10.,....... 100- 69..-181'OC1811 10"..1OiI JZ6"..a.a1l
cans...."""""") pwa."". (rcd.uop,ldd) (nf.aqoJldd> Ind.""."'" ....."'- (dI'a.tt.- (nf. rOW. p"")
LD. - DoIIII-Ak.1ukallI7 b dr8rtved Ia SOlo oIlhe 1Nd, f'ClSl'lllal..
LC. - ~ 1I-'kII kcWiIy b ~ II SOl. 01* s&udJ ..bike.
IW . IkdJ W",.
16.\........",.).\(t...
-------
, U.S. Fis/und Wildlire Service, Depanmc.. orlhc 1_10', 1IIIIIII)I1988. Ancnic Hazanb 10 Fish, Wildlire, and InveRcbrot..: A Synoptic Review. BloloCIuJ RtpoR U(1.I2).
. ,.......y lOt TOllc 5111»...... and Dbca>e Rtabuy (ATSDR), U.S.l'ublit Health Strvice, Novembe, 1981. TOlicolOJitaI Profile rOt ARenlt. Dran.
. BIucsw, S.. 1982. arred orbcavy mdII. 011 mitrooflinisllll in 1011. near I....nduy lcad ....lIe,. Wau:" AI" and Soil Pollution 11: JOS.308.
. Kltln, H., 1981. Upper crlrk:a1levdlOr cadmium In crop pl_. ANOSW BOT 5'(3-4): 295-308.
. U.S. Fish and Wlldlire Service, 0q>anmcI0 or Ihc InICrior, luly 1985. OIdmlum Hazanb 10 Fish, Wlldlire. and Invend>rot.. : A Synoptic Review. BloioCIuJ Repon 84 (1.2).
. ATSDR, U.S. Public Health Service. Hovtmbcs 1981. TOlicolOJieal Profile ror OIdmlum. Draft.
I Swe.r New leracy, Upland WUdllre aad 1lab1lal10vCStip&loaJ PJojea, _n dale. A lile_no novlew .r Ihc .rr.... 01 bcavy mdII. 00 Iind Iwclliaa _. - Covcrod: lure 1', 1916 - lu,..'. 1m. ObIalred from IIIe Fi>
Rd....... Scrvlce (IIabcada, MO)
. Dicrw...., P.. do Woct, D., Boraiuicr, H., 1\osscI, B., and Tamdellu, I.. 19U. Earthwonn ConwDlnallou by PCB. and Hcavy MdaIJ. OIemosphcro 14(5) : 511-522.
. U.S. Fish and WlidlUeServlco, 0q>anmcI0 .rlhc IlUCrior, 1IIIIIII)I1986. Ouomlum Hazanb.. Fish. Wlldllre, and Invend>rot..: A Synoptic Review. BloIocIcalI\cpol1U(I.6).
" ATSDR, U.S. Public HeallbService, 0cadIct 1981. TOllcelOJitaI PJome rOt Ouomium. Draft.
" Klein, II., le_, U.8., aad I...." H.!.. 1919. Hcavy mdII upui:. or com plana rrom 8 1011 COIUminalCd wllb zinc, cadmium. and - o.ddc. ANOBW BOT '3(1-2) . 19-30.
" ATSDR, U.S. Publle Heallb Service. Pcbruery 1990. T.dtoloCIuJ PJofile ror Copper. Draft.
" U.S. Fish and Wlldllre Service, 0q>anmcI0 or Ihc I...ri.r. luly 1990. Chlordane Hazanb 10 Fish, Wlldllre. aad Iovend>rotes: A Synoptic Review. BIolOJIcal Repon U(I.21).
" Wrilht, M.A. aad Striaaer, A.. 1910. Lead, zinc, and cadmium....... 01 canhWOlml lrom puUIR: In Ibo vlcinlly or an InduJuiaI.mclllna <.ompItI. BoviroDmcrul PoIIuIloo (Series 1.). 23 : 313-321.
" U.S. Fish and Wlldllre Service, 0q>anmcI0 orlbo l...rlOt, April 1988. Lead _.. Fish, Wlldllre. and In_rot..: A Synoptic Review. BloioJital Repon 85(1.14).
II ATSDR. Fcbruery 1988. ToIicoIOCIcal PJofile ror Lced. Draft.
" S,riclcler-shew, S., 1991. Li:ed IoIUbltucqubldonaad .......ion lcamlaa 10 BullrfOll8dpol... Hcuroloey and TelllOloey. 13 , 161-113.
" ATSDR. April 1989. TodcolOJlcaI PJome ror Mcroury. Draft.
" Mcode!lhe1l. V.M., Kleu, 8.8., aad McLane, M.A.R.. 1983. Brocdlaa IUCCCU or Bern OWl. (1)10.) red low levell or 008 and dlcJdrin. Archiv.. or Buvllo- Coownlnalion and ToJlcoloey 11: U'-1AO.
.. Hca1h, R.O., Spano, I.W., aad Krd_.I.F., 1969. Muted 008 impolnnc.. or MoilanI rcproclualon 10 comoIlcd audl... HlIU,e 224 : 4'-46.
" Wiemeyer, S.. and Poner. R.D.. 1910. DDB rbIos culbclll or Clj>tlve American K.....I.. NI"rc 221 : 131-738.
II ATSDR, April 1989. TO>k:oIo&IcaI Profile lOt p, p'.DDT. p,p'-DDB, and p.p'.DDD. Dran.
II BibeR. R.I... MlY 21, 1993. Mcroury b.awds.. binlJ. l'tesaUlion. HorCeI SBTAC 3,d"""'01 Medina. .
IA Wlemtyer. S.H., Po_. R.D., HcosIe" O.L.. and Macsutlli,I.R., 1986. DDB, DOT + Dieldrin: Resldu..1n American KCIIlOI. and 1\tIeJ1obI.. Reproducllon. U.S. Fish and Wlldllre Service, Dcpanme.. oflbo loIrotCS: A SY""l'lic Review. 8iolOJIcaJ Repon 8S(1.11).
II U.S. Fisb and Wlldllre Service, Dcpenme.. or1he I...rior, April, 1981. Mcrou!}' Hazanb 10 Fish, Wlldllre, and Invencbrotes: A Synoptic Review. BiolOJIcal RtpoR U (1.10).
II ZilllouI. 11./., Postelll, 0.8.. and Be...II, I.M., 1993. Mcrou!}' cytllaa and err.... In rresh-er weiland ecosyotemJ. EnvironmcnW TOIicolOlY and Cbcmlsby 12:224'-2264.
JO Fret\8, J., 1991. The efTetU of l1umlnum and other meWs on amphibians. BnviroM1crul PoUulion 'I :305.328.
JI SchcuhJmmcr, A.M., 1991. Brrcc," or acidincalion on1he 8voliabililY or "lie mcul. and calcium '0 wild binIJ and mammal.. BnvironmelOel Pollullon 11:329-315.
II Beyer, W.N., Police, O.H., Sileo, L.. Horrman, 0.1.. and Mulllem, 8.M., 19U. Meul conwninallon 10 wUdllrelivina near lWO II.... lmellen. BovIronmcuW PoIlulioo (Series A) 38:63-86.
II U.S. Fish and WUdllre Service, 0""";"" orlbel..erlo" OATS. DloIln Hazanb 10 Fish, Wlldure, and Inve_, A Synoptic Review.
J..IIICI03A»UJ"lt'1II
.-
-------
6.2.4 Risk Characterization
The risk characterization was conducted in two phases. The fIrst phase was a screening
evaluation in which the relative risk of each chemical was estimated by calculating the ratio of
the surface soil concentration of the chemical to the NOAEL or LOAEL for the most sensitive
receptor. .For the screening evaluation, it was assumed that if the soil concentration of a
contaminant exceeded the toxicity value for the most sensitive receptor, then there may be a
. . .
concern for adverse effects in the receptor(s). This approach does not account for exposure
. factors such as the frequency of chemical intake, or the uptake (absorption) and/or
bioaccumulation of chemicals by the receptors. These factors were considered in the second
(refined) phase of the risk characterization for specifIc chemicals whose relative risk exceeded
unity (1.0) or for chemicals that are likely to bioaccumulate in terrestrial organisms.
Results of the screening evaluation indicated that maximum baseline concentrations of
chromium, copper, lead, and zinc at the depot may result in exposure levels which are greater
than the NOAELs or LOAELs for plants and/or earthworms. However, soil contaminated by
these metals will be removed (excavated) from contaminated areas at the depot and remediated
by soil solidifIcation, which will prevent exposures to ecological receptors such as the plants
and earthworms.
The second (refmed) phase of the risk characterization was performed for cadmium and the
organochlorine chemicals (DDT, dieldrin, and dioxins) because these chemicals bioaccumulate
in terrestrial organisms, which increases the potential for exposures to receptors in the higher
trophic levels. In the second phase of the risk characterization, the potential biomagnification
of cadmium and the organochlorine pesticides was estima~ for secondary and tertiary
consumers (receptors), respectively.
Using biomagnification factors of 2.5 and 20 for cadmium and DDT, respectively, it was
concluded that maximum ~dmium concentrations at the depot are unlikely to result in liver
concentrations associated with toxicity in secondary or tertiary consumers, whereas maximum
DDT concentrations at the depot may result in residual concentrations in the eggs of American
Kestrels that are associated with eggshell thinning. However, exposures to American Ke~trels
may be over-estimated in this assessment because organisms in the lower trophic levels (e.g.,
plants) 'Yere assumed to take up 100% of the DDT in soil (a conservative assumption).
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 28
January 8, 1995
-------
--
--------~~-------
Furthermore, soil contaminated by DDT at the depot will be excavated and remediated, which
will prevent exposures to ecological receptors.
The resultS of the ecological assessment also indicated that the cleanup (remediation) goals for
soil at the depot are protective of the health of ecological receptors.
~.
24-] 50029-A501ER53-146
II - 29
January 8, 1995
-------
'- -, _._-
..-- ----
7 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
A basewide feasibility study was conducted to develop remediation alternatives for the
identified areas of contamination (AOCs) at the depot. These areas include:
.
South Post Groundwater
Parking Lot 3 Groundwater
Building 300 Bum Pit Soil
Battery Disposal Well Investigation-Derived Waste (Soil)
.
.
.
Sub-alternatives were assembled for each AOC from applicable remediation technologies and
process options. The sub-alternatives were initially evaluated for effectiveness, institutional
implementability, and cost. Sub-alternatives surviving the initial screening process are presented.
in Table 8. These sub-alternatives were then evaluated by comparing them to the nine criteria
required by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The
remediation sub-alternatives emphasize the use of technologies which reduce toxicity, mobility,
or volume (TMV) of contaminants, and which provide a permanent solution. In addition to the
remediation sub-alternatives, the NCP and CERCLA require that a no-action sub-alternative be
considered for every AOe. The no-action sub-alternative serves primarily as a point-of-
comparison for other sub-alternatives. The sub-alternatives evaluated for each AOC are
described in more detail below.
7.1
SOUTH POST GROUNDWATER
Each sub-alternative would be applied to remediate approximately 1,106 million gallons of water
in the A/B Zone aquifer and approximately 110 million gallons in the C Zone aquifer.
Groundwater in this area is impacted by trichloroethene (TCE), cis-l,2-dichloroethene and 1,2-
dichloroethane. The mass of contaminants in the groundwater is estimated to be 23.6 pounds or
approximately 4 gallons.
7.1.1
Sub-Alternative 1 - No Further Action
This sub-alternative consists of continued extraction of groundwater in the South Post area using
the existing groundwater extraction and treatment system, as set forth previously in the Interim
OU ROD. The system was designed in 1988 and has been operating since November of 1989.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 30
January 8, 1995
-------
TABLE 8
SURVIVING SUB-ALTERNATIVES FOR DETAILED ASSESSMENT
-- .. .. - - -
South Post Groundwator No Further Action (Continue Extraction at an Increased Extraction Using Existing Extraction Using Existing Extraction Using I:xlstlng
pumping at current flowrate Flowrate Using Existing Extraction System; Add one Extraction System; Add one Extraction System; Add
using existing GW extraction Extraction System; vertical and two horizontal vertical and two horizontal perimeter Off-site Extraction
systeml (Increase Flow Rate to a Extrectlon Wells. Extraction Wells; Zone C Walls; Air Sparge & Soil Vent;
Maximum of 450 GPM) extraction Well. Zone C Extraction Well.
Parking lot 3 Groundwater No Further Action Pump from two "vertical Pump from two vertical .-...-- ........
Extraction Wells / Treat Extraction Wells / Discharge
Groundweter in the South Post through cerbon filter to sewer.
Groundwater Treatment Plant.
Building 300 Burn Pit Soil No Action Capping Excavate / Stabilize / On-site Excavate / Stabilize / On-site .......-
Disposal (in-pllice) Disposal ICAMU)
Battery Disposal Well Off-site Disposal Consolidate / Stabilize / Onslte ----.-- --.......- ---......
Investigation Derived Disposel (CAMUI
Waste (Soil)
All Other Sites ' No Action or No Further Action ""..__a- --..._..- ..........
NOTE:
. All other sites include areas addressed as Operable Unit RODs and no action/no further ectlon sites listed in Table 1.
24- t SOO29-ASOIERS3-141xls
1126/95
-------
-~ .--- --
The existing extraction system for the South Post area consists of one extraction well located at
the source area, and six extraction wells located along the southwestern boundary of SADA in a
"fence" arrangement to act as a hydraulic barrier. The wells extract water from both the A and B
Zone aquifers. The total maximum flow rate from the extraction system is 360 gallons per
minute (GPM) and the system currently runs at an average flow rate of 312 GPM. The
concentrations of VOCs in the South Post area groundwater have steadily decreased over time.
Currently, two constituents, TCE and cis-l,2-DCE still exceed the FRGs. The extent of these
contaminal1ts above the FRG is shown on Plates 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Groundwater is pumped from each extraction well through a double-contained PVC carrier pipe
into the influent surge tank of the South Post Groundwater Treatment Plant (SPGWTP). The
groundwater is pumped through an ultraviolet radiation (UV)/chemical oxidation treatment unit.
Hydrogen peroxide (H202) is the chemical oxidant. The treated water is pumped through a 6-
inch PVC force main to a sanitary sewer manhole off-site. The sanitary sewer authority is the
Sacramento Regional Sanitation District.
A water reuse study (Kleinfelder, October 1990) was prepared to evaluate in detail the possible
reinjection or alternative uses of the water. The study found that off-depot uses and reinjection.
of the water were not feasible. On-depot uses were recommended, including irrigation and
industrial use. Accordingly, a water reuse station was built to facilitate on-depot reuse. Water
not reused, which is the majority of the water, continues to be discharged to the sanitary sewer.
The UVIH202 treatment unit can provide 360 KW of UV energy from 24 15-KW medium
pressure mercury lamps. Lamps are operated in pairs from 2 to 12 lamps for each of the two
chambers depending on the treatment levels needed for the influent flowrate. Hydrogen peroxide
is injected immediately upstream of the treatment unit from a 300-gallon tank of 50 percent
H202. The H202 injection rate is adjusted manually over a wide range of flowrates. At this
time the water is pretreated to at least MCLs prior to discharge.
Under this sub-alternative, operation of the existing extraction system would be maintained at its
current average flowrate (312 GPM). No further remedial actions would be implemented.
The greatest potential risks to human health or the environment from exposure to 'groundwater at
the South Post Area are the possible ingestion and/or inhalation of vapors from the contaminated
groundwater by humans, should a new drinking water well be installed into contaminated water.
Currently, the contaminated groundwater is not being used for domestic (household) or industrial
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
11-31
January 8, 1995
I .
-------
.
W-19
...-46
.
r;]W~
I I
I I
I
I I
. -II
I
I
I
I .11'1142
o
II
o
01
00 I
IIW-61
o r::J
...~ ~W-~ C
00
) "'-3
LEGEND
cwmc SCALE
01111/% C)
.-"
( IN FEET I
I bel: = 800 Il
a
o
IIYH IIONrroRL>;:; WELL W'J.TION
....-- S IJr.!L- 1tE ISOCON:OOR4JI)N COIITOURS A - ZONE
(CONroUR IN1tR'iN.. - 5.1) ug/L)
IH KLEINFELDER
TCE ISOCONCENTRA TION CONTOURS
A - ZONE
(4/94 THROUGH 8/94)
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
PLA lE
DRAWN BY: LD.jB.W. DAlE: 12-29-.94
PROJECT No. 24-150035-H05 DWG No. 35H05-01
7
-------
1IW-45
.
c;JGJ~
I I
I I
I
"I I
I
I
I
I . ...-41
o
II
o
DO
01
DO I
/"
" /
"-..:--......... . ./
-- --- .
-?--
o
1oIW-IOIZ.
LEGEND
Gwmc SCALE
DUlDZZ CD
I.....J---"' "
(!Ii FEET)
1i!lc1:.=8001L
a:
o
ftIW-1 IIONfTORING roU. l.OCA"OO~
---- 5 ..;lL - 1tE 1SCCON:DIJRA1Dj!XJNTOURS B - ZONE
(CONTDUR MEIW.L. . 5.0 ug/l)
-=I KLEIN FELDER
TCE ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOURS
B - ZONE
(4/94 THROUGH 8/94)
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
PLATE
DRAVtN BY: LD./B.W. DAlE: 12-29-94
PROJECT No. 24-1500.35-H05 DWG No. 35H05-02
8
-------
.
1111-18
YW~.c=J ~
I I
I I
I
I I
""-1~.
I
I
I
I
. YW-40
.0
o
II
1oIW-35
o
I n
!IW-101S. U
~
o 0
~1IW-63. (
00
)
01
DO I
1IW-1005
.
I
o
.j-1DI1
o
1111-1025 .
LEGEND
CWBlC StAIL
01111= GI
Lt......i
(INFm)
Jillcb=800ft.
III:
I
o
1IW-1 1I00000RN:; rill. lDCATKJN
---- 5 ur;/l- 1a: ~ CXIN1CURS C - ZONE
(CONIDUR IlIEIWL . 5.0 ~
IH KLEINFELDER
TRICHLOROETHENE (TCE) EXCEEDING
FRG IN ZONE - C
(4/94 THROUGH 8/94)
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
PLA 1'E
9
DRAWN BY: LD./B.W. DATE: 12-29-94
PROJECT No. 24-150035-H05 DWG No. 35H05-03
-------
1IW-45.
0 c:8c:J~
I I I
I I I
I I
I I I . 111-41
o
. 111-49
II
o
1IW-60
DO
01
DO I
IIW-IOOS
.
I
I n
1IW-1019. U
o r=J
~
o MIHOI2. I
SOUTH POST PLUME
o
LEGEND
o
101"-1 UONITORINC lEU. LOCAl1ON
111-1027 .
--- S IIIJ/L-- CIS- 1,2 -DICHlORCrn£NE ISCCONCENTRATDN aMOUR
(CONTOUR MERVAI. . 1 ug/l)
CIAl'H!C SCALE
01llOm: l1li
:...-
KJ)
I
(IN rm)
I !:Ich = aoo 'Il
DRAWN BY: LD./B.W.
PROJECT No. 24-1S0035-HOS
DATE:
DWe No.
12-29-94
3SHOS-09
CIS -1, 2 - DICHLOROETHENE
EXCEEDING FRG IN ZONE B
(4/94 THROUGH 8/94)
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
PLATE
III KLEIN FELDER
10
-------
.,- --- -_.- ,..
-- --.-
purposes. If the groundwater was used for these purposes, however, this sub-alternative would
be protective of human health by reducing groundwater contaminant concentrations to below the
final remediation goals (FR0s). Reducing groundwater contaminaJJt concentrations to FRGs
results in maximum cancer and non-cancer risk levels for potential future residents of
approximately 2 x 10.5 and 0.3, respectively. Furthermore, maximum cancer and non-cancer risk
levels for potential future workers exposed to groundwater at the site would be approximately 1 x
10-5 and 0.15, respectively. These risk levels are within the risk level ranges that are generally
acceptable to the U.S. EPA for Superfund sites.
Groundwater flow and chemical transport have been modeled for the remediation studies under
current conditions and under several possible future pumping scenarios (Kleinfelder, 1994). The
conclusions reached for each sub-alternative are based, in part, on these studies. This sub-
alternative will remediate groundwater contaminants by gradually drawing about 90% of the
plume area back on-base. The remaining plume will be so close to the FRGs that FRGs will be
easily achieved by degradation of the contaminants.
This sub-alternative will reduce the concentrations of chlorinated volatile organic contaminants
in groundwater and control the mobility of the plume in the following ways:
.
VOCs at the South Post Bum Pits have been remediated under an Operable Unit Record
of Decision. This remediation has removed the source of VOCs for groundwater in the
South Post area.
.
Groundwater will be niaintained under a hydraulic gradient in Zones A and B, stalling
additional migration of contaminants further off-base. Contaminants will gradually
migrate back toward the base, or degrade.
.
Pumping of the contaminated water removes constituents from the subsurface, thereby
reducing the mass of constituents remaining in the groundwater.
This sub-alternative will not pump groundwater directly from Zone C. However, the extraction
of groundwater from Zone C will occur due to the gradient created by pumping from overlying
Zones AIB. Zone C will be cleaned up through extraction from Zones AIB.
For the extracted groundwater, the South Post Groundwater Treatment System oxidizes the
organic compounds by direct photolysis and by catalyzing the chemical oxidation from H202 and
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 32
January 8, 1995
-------
hydroxyl radicals, which form as a result of the interaction of UV radiation and H202. The
products of the oxidation are carbon dioxide, water, and mineral salts, such as chloride. The
system produces no residuals and has functioned well for five years.
In snmmary, the groundwater component of this sub-alternative is protective of human health
and the environment. The groundwater plume is controlled and contaminant concentrations will
slowly be reduced to below FROs (MCLs). Based on the groundwater modeling, the estimate of
time to achieve complete remediation for the groundwater component is 21 years. .
This subalternative may not comply with state ARARs because it has not been demonstrated that
all contaminated groundwater will be remediated to the groundwater cleanup standard.
7.1.2 Sub-Alternative 2 - Groundwater Extraction Using Existing System / Increase Flowrate to
450 GPM (Maximum) .
This sub-alternative is the same as sub-alternative 1 above, except groundwater is extracted and
treated at a higher flowrate and pumping is disproportionately increased in the southernmost
wells. The existing groundwater treatment system will be modified to accept up to a 450 GPM
flowrate. Modeling studies indicate that this alternative will capture the entire contaminant
plume.
The modified UV/H202 groundwater treatment unit will have the capacity to accept a total of
450 gpm. The additional treated water Will be added to the effluent of the existing South Post
Groundwater Treatment System.
The performance of the SPGWTP was evaluated in detail after two ye,ars of operation. The
efficiency and operating costs were evaluated for a range of operating parameters. Due to a
significant decrease in the influent concentrations of TCE and other constituents, the destruction
capacity of the existing SPGWTP will remain very high at the higher 450 gpm influent flowrate
to the treatment plant. Curr~nt recommended operating settings are two lamps per chamber for a
power dosage of 0.17 KW/gpm. At 450 gpm, dosage will increase to four lamps per chamber or
0.27 KW/gpm.
The current flowrate capability of the SPGWTP was reviewed last year. A finding was made that
the system could be upgraded to 450 gpm at low cost by including new pump impellers and a
new three-way valve with a higher flow coefficient. This is an efficient and cost effective
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 33
January 8, 1995
-------
- - -- - - - u- -- -
upgrade to increase the pace of remediation through a higher pumping rate. The existing
discharge line capacity was reviewed and found to be adequate for 450 gpm with a flow velocity
of 5 feet per second.
This sub-alternative is protective of human health and the environment for the same "reasons as
those of sub-alternative 1 above. Furthermore, protection will be achieved more quickly using
this sub-alternative because contaminants will be removed at a faster rate. It is estimated, based
on GW modeling data, that remediation will be achieved in 12 years in Zones A and B. Zone C
will then degrade over the next 15 years.
The Army believes that this sub-alternative complies with ARARs because it has been
demonstrated that all contaminated groundwater would be remediated to the cleanup standard as
listed in Table 10 (See Section 9). However, the state RWQCB disagrees.
7.1.3 Sub-Alternative 3 - Increased System Flowrate/Off-Base Extraction Wells
This sub-alternative adds to the previous sub-alternative by pumping from additional off-base
extraction wells. Pumping from the existing groundwater extraction system will be maintained
and extraction from additional wells will be implemented to more rapidly capture the entire
contaminant plume. The existing treatment plant will be modified to accept up to a 450 gpm
flowrate (total). Pumping from each well will be adjusted for optimum contaminant recovery
with the total pumping rate not exceediDg 450 gpm. Contamination in the Zone C aquifer may
be captured by the upward gradient induced by the pumping from Zones AIB.
A new off site extraction well, EW-I0, was recently installed as a pilot well for design purposes,
but has not been activated. EW-I0 is located southwest of the South Post Bum Pits, across from
existing extraction well EW -7, near the property boundary. This sub-alternative will incorporate
EW -10 into the current extraction system to recover contaminated groundwater from aquifer
Zones A and B. Detailed design will be completed at a later date for the off-base wells.
Currently, the Army plans t9 install two horizontal extraction wells (EW -12 and EW -13) south of
the South Post Bum Pits and west of the U.S. Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Training Center.
These wells will extend west to more rapidly capture contaminated groundwater which has
migrated off-base. EW-12 and EW-13 will have screen lengths of approximately 750 to 800 feet
and will have horizontal screen depths of 100 and 125 feet below ground surface, respectively.
Conceptual locations of existing wells and proposed wells are shown on Plate 11.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 34
January 8, 1995
-------
TO DISPOSAL TO SACRAKENTO
REGIONAL POTW
.'
.. .
. .
rSPGlfTP
JJ{-'::. ..
!l ~-'-
- ..
-
.~-
rN~~;2jj ~~~
.. .""'EW-1
".::. .\. ~EW~:4
.£W-11 ......'
.. tW-5.'..
"-;"'.-.
tf:'.'
. .
~.. ..J:~... :~~
"
.._"-' ." '.
. .
:<-~
..-...
g~~
.... ;
E;~:
EW-10 ~.
.~~_.-_.- .
. ~ "~':" }...~ ~- "._:;; .
.',',...
'r~.~~:s~~:~ .
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ::: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : > : : :: : ,.; :: : ::.:.:.:: .:~- ~Wc.1j:-
. -.. ..' -
.' ."
. . .. ..._n.'.- '-
-.. - - --
LEGEND
EW-IA
EW-13~
EXISTING GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION WEU. LOCATION
PROPOSED EXTRACTION WELL LOCATION
EXISTING EFFLUENT UNE
EXISTING INFlUENT UNE
PROPOSED INFlUENT UNE
HORIZONTAl WELL SCREENS
--
. I ..1. III'"
GRAPHIC SCm:
o 50 100 200 400
1.....""'" I
( 1M n:rr )
1 incb = -400 fl
I
DRAVN BY. LD
PROJECT No. 24-150029-A51
2-21-95
OlOOBOll
ADDITIONAL EXTRACTION
WELL LOCATIONS
SOUTH POST GROUNDWATER
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
PLATE
RI KLEIN FELDER
DATE:
DVG No.
11
-------
Groundwater extracted from the three new wells will be pumped to the SPGWfP for treatment.
The modified UVIH202 groundwater treatment unit will have the capacity to accept a total of 450
gpm. The additional treated water will be added to the effiuent of the South Post Groundwater
Treatment System.
This sub-alternative will protect human health and the environment in the same ways as sub-
alternative 1. However, the extraction of groundwater from off-base wells, in addition to the
seven existing wells, will reduce the time necessary to reach FRGs. It is estimated from
modeling of the groundwater aquifer that remediation will be achieved under this sub-alternative
in 8 years.
The Anny believes that this sub-alternative complies with ARARs because. it has been
demonstrated that all contaminated groundwater would be remediated to the cleanup standards,
as listed in Table 10 (See Section 9). However, ~e state RWQCB disagrees.
7.1.4 Sub-Alternative 4 - Increased System Flowrate/Off-Base Extraction Wells/Zone C
Extraction
This sub-alternative is the same as sub-alternative 3, except groundwater is extracted from the
Zone C aquifer. Pumping from Zone C will more rapidly and more positively capture the
contamination detected in this deeper aquifer. Zone C extraction will be accomplished by
pumping from existing well EW -11, which was installed as a pilot test well for design purposes.
EW-ll has not been activated. It is located just north of existing extraction well EW-4.
Groundwater extraction from the seven existing wells, the off-base wells (EW-I0, EW-12 and
EW-13) and the Zone C well (EW-ll) will be optimized for maximum recovery with the total
pumping rate not exceeding 450 GPM.
This sub-alternative will protect human health and the environment in the same ways as sub-
alternative 1 above. However, the extraction of groundwater from three additional Zone AIB
wells added to the seven existing wells, and the extraction from Zone C will further reduce the
time necessary to reach FRGs. It is estimated from modeling of the groundwater aquifer that
remediation of the South Post groundwater plume will be achieved in 9 years. Zone C will be
pumped slowly over four years to achieve FRGs within the same time frame: The Zone C
pumping rate must be controlled to avoid disruption of the NB Zone pumping.
This sub-alternative will comply with ARARs.
24-150029-A50nER53-146
II - 35
January 8, 1995
-------
" --"- ------
------- ..
7.1.5 Sub-Alternative 5 - Increased System Flowrate / Six Additional Off-site Extraction Wells
/ Zone C Extraction / Air Sparging and Soil Venting at Highest Contamination
In addition to the continued operation of the existing groundwater extraction and treatment
system and the extraction of groundwater from Zone C, this sub-alternative includes the
installation of six off-site extraction wells and the implementation of air sparging/soil venting at
the South Post Area. Air sparging, and associated soil venting, would be conducted in the region
of higher VOC concentrations in aquifer Zones A and B. This will reduce the time needed to
reach remediation objectives in the higher concentration zone. The six off-site extraction wells
will be optimally placed for rapid and efficient recovery of the remaining lower VOC
contaminated plume. Vertical wells are needed to place around the air sparging system.
The selected area for sparging is based on the concept of reducing the higher concentrations
quickly to further facilitate protectiveness of the remediation sub-alternative. Evaluation of the
contaminant plume indicates that sparging of areas of the AIB aquifer zone with TCE above 30
ugll will provide the best combination of removal through sparging and pumping. - .
A total of 8 horizontal remediation wells will be placed on-site and off-site in the South Post
area. The remediation wells will be dual completion air sparging, soil venting wells. The wells
will be connected to a bl
-------
--- _._--
This sub-alternative is protective of human health and the environment. Protection is achieved in
the same ways as sub-alternative 1. The implementation of air sparging at the South Post area
will accelerate volatile contaminant removal from the groundwater in the region of higher VOC
concentrations. Additionally, the rapid removal of contaminants above Zone C will remove the
source of this contamination, allowing pumping from Zone C to proceed more rapidly.
Protection of human health and the environment will be achieved more quickly than with sub-
alternatives 1 through 4. It is estimated that this alternative will achieve remediation in 9 years.
Implementation of this sub-alternative at the South Post Area will require a substantial amount of
off-site construction. Permission for off-site access will need to be acquired from surrounding
landowners. The installation of off-site remediation wells (sparge and vent wells) and
groundwater extraction wells could be potentially disruptive and may be challenged by off-site
owners. The spacing of sparge wells is critical to project success. This will make it difficult to
relocate wells to reduce impacts. There is no assurance that access permission can be achieved
for the large number of wells which would be installed under this sub-alternative. Additionally,
substantial safety measures will be required during implementation. Large volumes of cuttings
and development water will need to be .covered, treated, and properly disposed.
This sub-alternative will comply with ARARs.
7.2
PARKING LOT 3 GROUNDWATER
Each sub-alternative would be applied to remediate approximately 117 million gallons of water
in the AIB Zone aquifer at Parking Lot 3. Groundwater in this area is impacted by carbon
tetrachloride, trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE) and 1,2-dichloroethane. The mass
of contaminants in the groundwater is estimated to be 0.54 pounds. The extent of these
contaminants exceeding FRGs is shown on Plates 7-10 and Plates 12-16.
7.2.1
Sub-Alternative 1 - No Further Action
Under this sub-alternative, groundwater at Parking Lot 3 would remain at its current condition.
Contaminant concentrations remaining in the groundwater after the air sparging pilot test would
be allowed to degrade and naturally attenuate until FRGs (MCLs) are met.. Contours of
groundwater contaminants exceeding the FRGs are shown on Plates 12 through 16. In addition,
chromium in MW-74 currently exceeds the MCL for chromium. Chromium has been detected at
up to 70 ugfL. The MCL is 50 ug/L.
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 37
January 8, 1995
-------
.
"'-19
...-46
.
C;]W~
I I
I I
I
I I
. -11
I
I
I
I . ...-42
o
II
o
01
DO I
1IW-61
o t::J
"_-4 ~W-~ (
DO
)W-3
o W-I006.1
o
.
1IW-1D28
LEGEND
~
~
o
MW-1 IIONITORIN~ WEU. lOCATION
CIAPHIC sew:
1II1II= ~
L........
r:II
!
---- 5 ug/L- PCE ISOCONC£NiRA'IlON COICTOURS A - lDIiE
(CONTOUR INTERVAL - 1.0 ug/L)
( IN FEET )
I inch = 800 It.
3 KLEIN FELDER
PCE ISOCONCENTRA TION CONTOURS
A - ZONE
(4/94 THROUGH 8/94)
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT.
PLATE
12
DRAWN BY: L.C./B.W. DATE: 12-29-94
PROJECT No. 24-1SDD3S.-HD5 DWG No. 35HOS-D4
-------
...45
.
c;]GJ~
I I
I I
I
II
I
I
I
I . "'4'
o
II
o
IIW-&Q DO
1/W-100g
D . D 0
I I
~
DO I I"~ ~
...-1019.
0 1IW-1012- I 0
I1IH027.
1/W-1 M()'7TD!!iNC WEL!. lOCATION
GIW'IIIC SCALE
~ '11>0 2:1) 0tI)
I:.....
~~
LEGEND
o
a
I
---- 5 ug/l-- PCE 1SOCOI«:OO'RA11ON CONItXI!S - B ZDr£
(CX>IIIOUR II1"£JWL . 5.D IIIII~
( L'i FEEi' )
I me!: : 8DO"1L
IH KLEINFELDER
PCE ISOCONCENTRA TION CONTOURS
B - ZONE
(4/94 THROUGH 8/94)
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
PLATE
DRAWN BY: LD./B.W. DATE: 12-29-94
PROJECT No. 24-150035-H05 DWG No. 35H05-05
13
-------
111-46
.
C;]W~
I I
I I
I
I I
. " -11
.
1IW-19
I
I
I
I . 1IW~2
o
II
o
I. ~
1IW-1C20
IIW-S1
o !::J
.IIW~ ~IIW-~ C
00
) MW-3
01
DO I
o 1IW-1OOS.1
o
.
1IW-1D28
LEGEND
GIW'IIIC SCALE
DIDDZIIC G)
b....."'--' '
( IN FEET )
1 inch "' 800" tt.
a
I
o
IIW- I IIONITORING WELl. LCP.OOII
--- 5 ,,9IL-- CARBON TETRA.."Hl.ORIDE ISOCONCENTRA"OON CONTOURS A - ZONE
(CO~'TOUR 1~1'ERVA!. "' 0.5 u;/L)
IH KLEIN FELDER
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
"ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOURS
A - ZONE (4/94 THROUGH 8/94)
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
PLATE
DRAWN BY: LD.jB.W. DATE: 12-29-94
PROJECT No. 24-150035-H05 DWG No. 35H05-06
14
-------
111-45.
c;]GJ~
I I
I r
I
I I
I
I
I
I . ...-41
. 0
1IW-52
II
o
111-60
DO
1IW-ICO;
.
I
01
DO I
I n
1IW-101g. U
~
D I::J
~
o IIW-IOI2- I
o
MIH027.
LEGEND
~
o
IIW- 1 MONITORING WEll. LOCATION
CIW'HIC SCALE
D IDD;am 011)
L"-" .
( III FEE'1' )
1 Inch = 800 It.
III'
I
---- 5 lJ9/l~ CARBON iETRACHlORiOE ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOURS B - ZONE
(CONTOUR 1~-rnNA:. . 1.D uS/l)
In KLEIN FELDER
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOURS
B - ZONE (4/94 THROUGH 8/94)
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
PLATE
15
DRAWN BY: LD.jB.W. DATE: 12-29-94
PROJECT No. 24-150035-H05 DWG No. 35H05-07
-------
1IW-6D
01
00 '
1IW-1009
.
I
o t::I
~
I n
1IW-1019 e U
~
o 1IW-1012. I
o
"'-1027 .
--- . -..-. ---.
...-45
.
c;]GJ~
I I
I I
I
I I
I
I
I
I . ...-41
o
II
o
DO
LEGEND
o
1/W-1 MONITORING WEU. lOCA11ON
"-- 5 IJg/L- 1.2-DICHlOROffiWlE ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR
(CONTOUR INTERVAL . .5 ~L)
~ KLEINFELDER
GIIA."!IIC SCALE
o 1IIIIZCQ C
L,.L......d .
( IN FEET )
I iJlCh " 800 11.
co
I
PLA iE
1, 2 - DICHLOROETHANE
EXCEEDING FRG IN ZONE 8
(4/94 THROUGH 8/94)
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
DRAWN BY: LD./B.W. DATE: 12-29-94
PROJECT No. 24-150035-H05 DWG No. 35H05-11
16
-------
~ - . - . --
---- .-
The greatest risks to human health and the environment from exposure to groundwater
contaminants at Parking Lot 3 are the possible ingestion or inhalation of vapors from
groundwater by humans, if a new drinking water well was installed into the Zone AIB aquifer at
Parking Lot 3. Human exposure to the current maximum concentrations of detected
contaminants in the AIB groundwater zone from this hypothetical well at Parking Lot 3 (i.e.,
trichloroethene, carbon tetrachloride, tetrachloroethene, and 1 ,2-dichloroethane) would result in a
maximum cancer risk of 5xlO-s and a maximum non-cancer risk of 0.4 for potential future
residents. Potential future industrial workers exposed to the maximum current concentrations of
groundwater contaminants would have maximum cancer and non-cancer risks of approximately
3xl0.s and 0.2, respectively. These risk levels are within the risk level ranges acceptable to the
U.S. EPA for Superfund sites.
It should be noted that contaminated groundwater is not currently being used for domestic
(household) or industrial purposes at the depot. Natural attenuation and degradation will
gradually decrease the current low residual concentrations. In addition, based on gradient data
the Parking Lot 3 plume will eventually be captured by the South Post groundwater 'extraction
syste~.
In summary, the air sparging pilot test removed most of the mass of constituents from
groundwater at Parking Lot 3. The remaining dilute concentrations do not represent a threat to
human health or the environment.
Under this sub-alternative, aquifer restoration would be accomplished through natural attenuation
and degradation of contaminants in the groundwater. However, the contaminants in this area
could eventually be captured by the extraction system at the South Post Area. The Army will
continue to monitor chromium. The state RWQCB believes that this sub-alternative would not
comply with state ARARs because it has not been demonstrated that the groundwater would be
remediated to the groundwater cleanup standards.
7.2.2 Sub-Alternative 2 - Extraction / Treat OW Using Existing SPGWTP
This sub-alternative consists of groundwater pumping from extraction wells at and south of
Parking Lot 3. Detailed design will be completed to optimize the extraction system. Currently,
the Army plans to use EW-8 and EW-9, which were installed as pilot wells for design purposes.
EW -8 is located at the approximate center of Parking Lot 3 and EW -9 is located south of Parking
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 38
January 8, 1995
-------
Lot 3 and west of Building 412, as shown on Plate 17. Both wells were installed in 1993 but
have not been activated. Limited pumping from EW -8 and EW -9 will accelerate contaminant
concentration reduction at Parking Lot 3. The extracted groundwater nom the two wells would
be pumped to the existing SPGWfP for treatment and then discharged to the sewer. The
maximum total pumping rate (including extracted water nom EW -8 and EW -9) from the
treatment system to the sewer will not exceed 450 GPM.
This sub-alternative is protective of human health and the environment in the same ways as sub-
alternative 1 above. Furthennore, cont8mmant concentrations would be reduced to their FRG
levels (primary MCLs) more quickly than by sub-alternative 1. It is estimated that this sub-
alternative will achieve remediation of the Parking Lot 3 groundwater in 6 years. However,
implementation of this alternative will take away a small portion of available flow capacity
which may slightly slow the remediation progress in the South Post Area.
This sub-alternative will comply with ARARs. Compliance is achieved by extracting
groundwater to at least FRGs (in accordance with state and national primary drinking water
standards), treating the groundwater to meet pretreatment standards of the Sacramento Regional
Sanitation District, and designing and operating tanks to RCRA standards.
7.2.3
Sub-Alternative 3 - Extraction / Discharge Groundwater Directly to POTW
This sub-alternative is the same as sub-alternative 2 described above, with the exception that the
extracted groundwater nom EW -8 and EW -9 will be treated at the wellheads using activated
carbon and the treated water will then be directly discharged to the Sacramento Regional
Sanitation District Sewer Treatment Plant. The maximum contaminant concentrations in the
groundwater, in the area of Parking Lot 3, meet the pretreatment requirements of the Sacramento
Regional Sanitation District. Therefore, no additional treatment prior to discharge will be
required. Discharge requirements are described in SADA's operating pennit issued by the
Sanitation District. However, the activated carbon will be used to ensure permit compliance.
Additionally, the treated water at Parking Lot 3 could be reused.
This sub-alternative will meet the criterium of overall protection of human health and the
environment in the same ways as sub-alternative 2.
This sub-alternative will comply with ARARs. Compliance is achieved by extracting
groundwater to at least MCLs (in accordance with state and national primary drinking water
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 39
January 8, 1995
-------
.,
, ,
," ..
~. r. .
',1
:'..~
.~
. ... ...
, ,
':c:.'> ~,",~
'..~
..~
-,',
: , .; ;~:':''::.:. ..~~ ,": .
,"
'..
"
'. ,
~
~~
,-
: ,MH S300F
.." '
EW-
, .
.. ... .' . ..
----
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER
EXTRACTlON WElL lOCATION
EXISTING SEWER UNE
PROPOSED SEWER DISCHARGE
MH S300A
'~
, ",
, . ..""
"""
'\ . ,,',',
;:"','\ ";
.,' ",
',l':::
;\",
\"."
; -,~: \
, ,
" l-
" \~
. '-. ,-
"\ "-:,,
"
,
...:.. ...;...........-..~ -.
.' ," .-
.""-' -
;:
..
.. ~'
;1" .>t. ~ ' ..
: '~~3: ..0, 0,' ..- 0..., '; ~
, ;; . ' - ..-. "..- -.-- n. . . ..~ . .
£W"..,g .::':..'. . ':;, 0"", ,.... ,... ..o~ 0 0
oJ ""n. , , .' ..- ..-. .'..' .
"
. . - .". . ~
.. - -' -.
, ,
... - -."-....." - .
. ".."
.:.:-.. .
. -.-. . ..-
LEGEND
EW-8 ..
GRAPIDC SCAlE '
o 50 100 150 300
I . .. I
( nUDT )
1 inch = 300 fl
I
III KLEINFELDER
EXTRACTION WELL LOCATIONS
PARKING LOT 3 GROUNDWATER
PlATE
DRAWN BY: L DANG DAlE: 2-28-95
PRO.£CT No. 24-150029~A51 DWG No. SA305-17
17
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
-------
standards) and by meeting the pretreatment standards of the Sacramento Regional Sanitation
District.
Implementability of this sub-alternative is dependent on the continued acceptance of current
pennit conditions by the Regional District.
7.3
BUILDING 300 BURN PIT SOIL
Each of the sub-alternatives presented below would be applied to remediate approximately 2100
cubic yards of soil located within the western bum pit area. Contaminants of concern are arsenic,
cadmium and lead.
7.3.1
Sub-Alternative 1 - No Action
Under this sub-alternative, no remedial action would be taken at the Building 300 Bum Pit. The
soil would be left in-place at its current condition.
Implementation of the ''No Action" sub-alternative would not provide protection of human health
or the environment. Public exposure to contaminant concentrations exceeding the FRGs would
be possible through dermal contact, inhalation, andlor ingestion of metals from the soil at the
Building 300 Bum Pit. Potential risk to the future on-site worker via the above exposure
pathways is estimated to be 2xl0-5 for cancer risks and 0.6 for non-cancer risks. Although these
risk levels are within the ranges that are generally acceptable to the U.S. EP A for Superfund
sites, some of the contaminants at Building 300 are persistent in the environment and therefore,
the "No Action" sub-alternative would not be protective of the environment. Additionally, the
bum pit may potentially contain unknown risks such as hazardous debris.
Since the "No Action" sub-alternative is not protective of human health and the environment, no .
action is not a valid remedial option and will be used for comparative purposes only.
7.3.2 Sub-Alternative 2 - Capping
This sub-alternative consists of the placement of a cap over the Building 300 Burn Pit. At the
Building 300 Bum Pit, waste has been found in the borings to a depth of 16.5 feet below the
ground surface with a footprint of approximately 5,200 sq. ft. Cap design must consider possible
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 40
January 8, 1995
-------
.--..-- -.-- - - ---------
soil settlement, maintenance requirements over the long term, and compliance with cap design
regulations.
In general, all loose soils experience some degree of settlement and this settlement is an
important factor to consider in cap design. The degree of settlement is dependent upon how well
the fill was compacted, its depth, when it was placed and the composition. This burn pit has
been filled for many years, is relatively shallow, and settlement has, therefore, already occurred
to a significant degree. Except for wood, the fill in the burn pit does not appear to be putresible.
Therefore, it is estimated that gas formation, differential settlement or excessive settlement will
not occur.
Clay has been selected for this cap design. Compacted clay offers low permeability which
decreases rainwater infiltration and leachate production. It is a commonly used material and has
self-sealing properties. Clay will be imported. Placement of the clay cap will be done by an
experienced contractor with the proper equipment and following strict QAlQC procedures.
For the purpose of this design, the cap will be extended a perpendicular distance of ten feet
beyond the footprint. This adds an additional 4,400 square feet of area, bringing the total area to
be capped to 10, 200 square feet. After capping, the burn pit surface will be returned. to its
current use, either a grassy area or asphalt driveway.
For most landfills in California, a cap consists of three layers-foundation, barrier, and
vegetative. The foundation layer is made up of soil (although waste can be used in some
instances) and provides a stable base for placement of the remainder of the cap. In the case of the
Building 300 Burn Pit, the existing soil will be used as the. foundation layer. Overlying the
foundation layer is the barrier layer, one foot of Ix10-6 em/see permeability or less of compacted
clay. Overlying the barrier layer is the I-foot minimum thick vegetative layer. The purpose of
this layer is to protect the barrier layer. A two foot thick vegetative layer (double the minimum
requirement of one foot for extra protection from surface activities such as reconstruction of the
asphalt driveway) would be ,placed on top to protect the barrier layer.
Once the cap is constructed, maintenance will involve periodic monitoring of the cap for erosion
damage, subsidence, or unwanted vegetation. Problems would be noted and corrected as
necessary. If damaged or subsided areas are noted, additional clay would be brought in for the
repair .
24-150029-A501ER53-146
11-41
January 8, 1995
-------
- ---
The human health risk for soil at the Building 300 Bum Pit is due to contact with surface soil
(e.g., by ingestion, dermal absorption, or inhalation of vapors or dust from surface soil). This
alternative will protect human health by capping the soil at the bum pit to eliminate the potential
surface exposures. The contaminants at the Building 300 Bum Pit have not been found to
threaten groundwater. However, the cap will provide an added measure of protection for the
environment by further reducing any limited potential for downward migration.
This sub-alternative will comply with ARARs. Regulations and compliance issues applicable to
capping of the Building 300 Bum Pit include SWRCB waste discharge to land requirements and
SMAQMD air emissions requirements. Compliance is achieved by maintaining the current
basewide groundwater monitoring program during cap installation, by designing the cap in
accordance with SWRCB regulations, and by controlling atmospheric discharges and fugitive
dust during construction of the cap.
The cap at the Building 300 Bum Pit will be effective in reducing health risks to the public and
the environment by restricting surface exposure; however, the heavy metals and other
contaminants will be left in the ground. The cap will require routine maintenance to ensure its
integrity. With proper maintenance the remediation will be essentially permanent. Future land
use restrictions will need to be placed on the area capped so that the cap is not disturbed.
7.3.3 Sub-Alternative 3 - Excavate / Stabilize (in-place)
This sub-alternative consists of the excavation and stabilization of approximately 2,100 cubic
yards (3,360 tons) of in-situ soils from the Building 300 Bum Pit. The excavated soils will be
stabilized at the Building 300 site by mixing the soils with cement. Stabilization criteria will be
based on best achievable results measured by the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) test and the Waste Extraction Test with deionized water (DI-WET)
Following stabilization of the Building 300 Bum Pit soil, the stabilized material will be placed
back in the excavation. A cJean soil cover or cap will then be placed over the stabilized material
and the site restored to original conditions.
Debris removed from the burn pit excavation will be washed and properly disposed of off-site or
crushed and used as aggregate in the stabilization process.
24-150029-A501ER53- ]46
II - 42
January 8, ] 995
-------
. -. ----~ -.
Stabilizing soil ftom the Building 300 Bum Pit will be protective of both human health and the
environment. The stabilization process will bind the detected heavy metals in the soil with
cement, forming a concrete mixture and thereby eliminating human exposure through dermal
adsorption, ingestion, or the inhalation of fugitive dust. The stabilization produces a waste with
non-detectable leachate concentrations for the heavy metals. Since migration of the metals
cannot occur, the environment (e.g., groundwater) is protected.
This sub-alternative will comply with ARARs. Regulations and compliance issues applicable or
relevant and appropriate to excavation, stabilization and on-site disposal of the Building 300
Bum Pit soil include: RCRA tank requirements, waste treatment standards, and SMAQrvID air
emissions requirements. Compliance is achieved by designing and operating tanks used during
the stabilization process to meet RCRA standards; by adhering to land disposal requirements for
replacement of the stabilized soil into the original excavation; by washing any hazardous debris
encountered in the burn pit; and by controlling atmospheric discharges and fugitive dust during
construction activities.
This sub-alternative is effective and permanent for stabilization of soil ftom the Building 300
Burn Pit. The cement/soil mass can be expected to last indefinitely. The stabilized soil mass
will be "rock" hard and nearly impossible to disturb. Degradation of the soil concrete is not
expected to occur since organics are generally not present. A clean soil cover will be constructed
over the stabilized material to allow for future construction activity.
Short-term risks exist for the stabilization of soil ftom the Building 300 Burn Pit. During
excavation and soil stabilization, workers could come in contact with the contaminated soil.
There is a chance of contact with unknown materials in the Building 300 Burn Pit, although there
has been no evidence of contaminated debris in the remedial investigation. Workers will follow
all safety guidelines for work on a hazardous waste site, wearing personal protective equipment
as required, and co.ntinuously monitoring ambient air quality. . Equipment will be maintained on-
site during excavation of the burn pit which could be used, if needed, to isolate any unknown
debris, should this be encou,ntered. The surrounding community of SADA will not be exposed to
hazardous materials during remedial activities associated with soil stabilization, with the possible
exception of a slight, temporary increase of dust during excavation and soil treatment which will
be controlled through the use of dust control technologies and covering of excavated materials.
Air monitoring will document the success of dust control technologies.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 43
January 8, 1995
-------
- -----,..
7.3.4 Sub-Alternative 4 - Excavate / Consolidate / Stabilize (CAMU)
This sub-alternative is the same as sub-alternative 3 above, except the soil and debris removed
from the Building 300 Bum Pit will be consolidated with material from the South Post Bum Pits
for treatment and disposal.
After excavation of the Building 300 Burn Pit, the contaminated soil will be transported to the
South Post area for treatment in accordance with the South Post Burn Pits ROD amendment.
The South Post area will be the location of Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU). The
Building 300 Burn Pit soil will be included in the stabilization process' of the South Post Bum
Pits soil since the same constituents of concern are involved.
Stabilizing soil from the Building 300 Bum Pit will be protective of both human health and the
environment. The stabilization process will bind the detected heavy metals in the soil with
cement, forming a concrete mixture and thereby eliminating human exposure through dermal
adsorption, ingestion, or the inhalation of fugitive dust. The stabilization produces a waste with
non-detectable leachate concentrations for the heavy metals. Since migration of the metals
cannot occur, the environment (e.g., groundwater) is protected.
This sub-alternative will comply with ARARs.
The long-term effectiveness and permanence of sub-alternative 4 is the same as sub-alternative 3,
discussed above. Additionally, the creation of a Corrective Action Management Unit results in a
centralized location for all stabilized soil. This is more protective than having several smaller
areas of stabilized soil at various locations. The CAMU will facilitate the use of deed restrictions
for future land use in order to further protect against disturbance .of the stabilized material.
7.4
BATTERY DISPOSAL WELL INVESTIGATION DERIVED WASTE (SOIL)
Each sub-alternative consid~red below would be applied to remediate approximately 400 tons of
inviestigation-derived waste (IDW) soil and debris contaminated with heavy metals. This waste
is currently stored in 16 bins located along the north side of building 555.
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II-44
January 8, 1995
-------
- - - - .
----. ... - .
7.4.1
Sub-Alternative 1 - Off-site Disposal
This sub-alternative consists of the off-site disposal of the Battery Disposal Well investigation-
. derived waste (soil) to a permitted disposal facility. The soil is currently stored in 16 bins
located north of Building 555.
This sub-alternative is protective of human health and the environment because soil contaminants
(heavy metals) would be removed, eliminating potential exposures at the depot. Furthermore,
. . .
potential risks to receptors at or near the landfill in which the metal-contaminated soil would be
deposited would also be minimal, due to the construction of and practices conducted at Class I
landfills.
This sub-alternative will comply with ARARs. Off-site disposal of soil from the Battery
Disposal Well Area will comply with all appropriate laws and regulations.
7.4.2 Sub-Alternative 2 - Consolidate I Stabilize (CAMU)
Under this sub-alternative the IDW soil will transported to the South Post Bum Pits area which is
within the Corrective Action Management UIiit (CAMU).
Stabilizing the IDW soil will be protective of both human health and the environment. The
stabilization process will bind the detected heavy metals in the soil with cement, forming a
concrete mixture and thereby eliminating human exposure through dermal adsorption, ingestion,
or the inhalation of fugitive dust. The stabilization process produces a waste with non-detectable
leachate concentrations for the heavy metals. Since migration of the metals is not expected to
occur, the environment will also be protected~ Residual concentrations of metals remaining in
soil (0-20 feet bgs) at the Battery Disposal Well are not a risk to human health or the
environment.
This sub-alternative will co~ply with ARARs.
This sub-alternative is effective and permanent for stabilization of soil from the Battery Disposal
Well bins. The cement/soil mass can be expected to last indefinitely. The stabilized soil mass
will be "rock" hard and nearly impossible to disturb. Degradation of the soil concrete is not
expected to occur since organics are generally not present. A clean soil cover will be constructed
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 45
January 8, 1995
-------
over the stabilized material to allow for future construction activity. The CAMU will facilitate
the use of deed restrictions to further protect against disturbance of the stabilized material.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 46
January 8, 1995 .
-------
-- -- --- - -----------
8 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The sub-alternatives for each area of concern (AOC) were assessed using the nine evaluation
criteria developed to address CERCLA requirements. The nine criteria are:
Threshold Criteria
1)
2)
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Primary Balancing Criteria.
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through treatment
Short -term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Modifying Criteria
8)
9)
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance
The fOllowing sections compare the sub-alternatives for each of the four AOCs in terms of the
nine criteria. The comparisons are summarized in Table 9.
8.1
SOUTH POST GROUNDWATER
8.1.1 Criterion 1: Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The protection of human health and the environment for each sub-alternative .is obtained by .
extracting the contaminants using various pumping schemes or, for sub-alternative 5, by using
a combination of air sparging and pumping. The comparison of sub-alternatives for protection
of human health and the environment is made on the basis of the time required to reduce
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 47
January 8, 1995
-------
..... ........p.,.....
. ..:.:.:.:.>;.>:.' .':':':':':':':'~':-:':':'>:'>:'>
t~)it~~~f:~rrri~~f~mff{
.,:.~[[[
11~~ri~II~IIII:
'.'.':':':':':':':',',':';':'":."",,.,,':':',',',',',
,',','.','.',',',',',',',',',','.',',','.'.'''''.',',',',
~~rmffWtrfmrmfmmmr
::::::::':':':-:':-:.:':::::;:::::.:':':':':':':.:.:'::::::
South Posl
Groundwater
Plume
TABLE 9
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF REMEDIAL SUB-ALTERATIVES
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
I
No Fu~he' AClion
(continue pumping
8t current OOWfale
using existing OW
extraction system)
2
Groundwater
Exraction Using
Existing System;
Increase Flowrate
10450 aPM
Overall Protection of Human
Heallh and the Environment
Protective of human health and
.he environment.
May achieve goals in 21 years,
Protective of human health and
the environment.
May achieves g0811 in 18 years,
Compliance
with ARARs
Moy comply
with
ARARs.
May comply
with
ARARs.
Long-tenn Effectiveness
and Pennanence
Effective and permanent. Contaminants
are gradually ,emoved f,om subsurface.
Residual contaminants in groundwater
will be below MCLs.
Effective and pennanent. Conlaminants
are removed (rom the subsurfau at a
rascer rate than sub-alternative I.
Residual contaminants in groundwater
will be below MCLt, Monitoring will
continue for 8 period roltowing completion
of remediation.
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, and Volume
Toxicity is reduced by mineralizing VOCt.
Mobility i, ,educed by establishing 8
hydraulic banier to further migration,
Volume is reduced by removing the
contaminant! nom the subsurface
through pumping. Capture estimated
at 90'10.
Toxicity is ,educed by mineralizing VOCs.
Mobility i. ,educed by eslablishing a
hydraulic banier to further migration,
Volume is reduced by removing the
contaminants from the subsurface through
pumping, Reductions Otcur at .
faster rate due 10 the increased
pumping rate, Capture is 100-.4.
Sho~.term
Effectiveness
Implemenlability
Estim.,ed
Cost
11,000
14,]00
14,200
3 Protective of human heallh and May comply Effective and pennanent. Contaminants Toxicity is reduced by mineralizing VOCf. ElTective. Construction woci.ted Implemenlable. however, horizontal 14,100
the environment. with are removed from the subsurface al 8 Mobility is ,educed by establishing a with addilion.l_ion wens wen technology i. new and innovative,
ExiJting Sysrem; May achievel g08'I in 8 year., ARARs. faster rate than lub-allernatives I and 2, hydraulic banier to further migration, may result in brief exposures to Limited number of contractors are
Increased Residual contaminants in groundwater Volume is reduced by removinglhe conltruction worken; however, available fo, horiwnlal wen drilling.
Flowrale; Add will be below MClI. c:cntaminants from Ihe subsurface through potential exposures are easily Real estato teases are necessary for
OIT.Base pumping. Reductions ()Ccur al a controned with engineered olT-base drilling. although olT.base
Ext,action wens faster ,ate due 10 the incleased controls and worker 'afety disruption i. minimized with use of
pumping rate and .tralegic well training. Modifications'o the horiwnlal wells.
placement. rreatment plant to increase the Capacity righ.. 10 discharga
capacity 10 450 aPM Ife easily additional /low is ochie.ed by
made without risk of addlional decreasing other flows 10 the
exposure., POlW.
4 Protective of human health and Complies wilh Effective and pennanent. Contaminants Toxicity is reduced by mineralizing VOC., Effective. Construction associated Implemenl8b1e. however, horizontal 14,600
the environment. ARARs. are removed from the Zone C aquifer at . Mobility is ,educed by establishing. with additional eJdr8dion wells well technology is new and innovative,
Existing System; Achieves 80als in 8 years, fasler ,ate Ihan sub-aUernativ.. 1,2 & 3. hydraulic banier to rurther migration, may ,e,uU in brief exposures to Limited number of contrldor. Ire
Increased Residual contaminants in groundwater Volume is reduced by removing the construction worken; however, avail.ble ro, horiwnlal wen drilling.
FJoWfate; win be below MClI. contaminants from the .ubsurfece through potential exposures 8fe easily Real est.t. I....s ara nocessary for
Add OIT.Base pumping. The toxicity, mobility, and controlled with engineered olT.base drilling. allhough olT-base
Extraction Wells; volume of contaminMts in the Zone C controls and worker safety disruption is minimiled with use of
Add Zone C aquirer are reduced at a faster rate training, Modification. to the horizontal wells,
Ed,aclion Well than sub-allemative 1. treatment plant to increase the Capacity righ" to discharge
capacity \0 450 GPM are easily additional now is ochieved by
made without risk of addtional decreasing other flow. to the
exposures, POlW.
24.150029-A50/ER53-147x!s
Effective, No new construction
is required,
Easily implementabl.. The ground-
water extraction and trealment
system is already inpl- and
operating.
ElTective. Modifications to tha
treatment plant to increase clpICity
are euily made without risk of
additional exposu~. No emissions
or residuals result (rof" the
t'ealment process.
Easily implemenlable.Otoundwatet
extJadion and treatment syltem ;1
already inplace and op...ting.
Upgrade of trOilment plant 10
450 aPM i. routine construction,
Capacity figh.. to discharge
-------
:;:;:::;:::;:,:;:::::;:::;,::;:,;:-;:::;:;.::;-;:::;::;:::.
...................".......
'!:~:~:?!:~:!:~:~:~:~r:t~:~:::::~:r~:~~:t!:
.
5
Groundwater
Extraerion Using
Existing System;
Add 6 OrT.,it.
Extraerion Wells;
Air Sparge'" Soil
Vent; Add Zone C
Extraction
TABLE 9
SUMMARV COMPARISON OF REMEDIAL SUB-ALTERATIVES
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
Overall Prottetion of Human
Health and the Environment
Prolective o(humllll health IIIId
the environment.
Achieves gOBls in 9 years.
Parking 1.01 3
Groundwater
Plume
Protective o(human heallh and
the environment,
No Further Action Meets80als in 9 year..
2
Extraction;
Treat OW Using
SPOWTP
3
Extl8clion;
Treat using
activated carbon;
Discharge to
POTW
24-1 SOO29-ASO/ERS3-147xls
Protective o( humllll hulth IIIId
the ~nvironment.
Meets goals in 6 yean,
Prottclive of human health and
the environment.
Meets goals in 6 yea....
Compliance
wi,h ARAR.
Complies with
ARAR..
Long.tmn Effectiveness
and Permanence
Effective and permanent. Contaminants
are removed from the subsurface
through pumping and volatilization
or OfgMics. Residual contaminants
in groundwater will be below MCL..
Air sparging, and associated vapor
extraction, will reduce the time required
for groundwater to reach FROs.
May not comply Effective in the long-term provided
with ARARs. exposure 10 groundwater does not
occur. Chromium will be monitored.
Complies with
ARAR..
Complies with
ARAR..
Effective and permanent. Contaminants
are gradually removed from subsurface.
Residual contaminants in groundwater
will be below MCLs.
Effective and pennanent. Contaminanls
are gradually removed flOm .ub.urface.
Residual contaminants in sroundwater
will be below MCLs.
Reduction or Toxicity,
Mobility, IIIId Volume
Air .parging IIIId associated soil venting
wHi reduce the mobility and volume of
conlaminants in the groundwater by
strippinglhe volatile organics. Toxicity
i. reduced through the use of l1li air
pollution conlrol device.
Toxicity will be reduced through
dilution and biodegradation or orsanic
constiruents. The volume of impBCtcd
lIJoundwater and Ihe mobility of
contaminants in the groundwater will
not be reduced. Chromium will be
evaluated.
Toxicity is reduced by mineralizing VOCs.
Mobility i. redu«d by establi.hing.
hydraulic bonier 10 (unher migralion.
Volume is reduced by remo'ling the
contaminants from the subsurface through
pumping. Does nol destroy chromium.
Mobility i. reduced by establi.hing a
hydraulic banier 10 further migration.
Volume is reduced by removina the
contaminants from the lubsurface through
pumping. Toxicity will be reduced
through .treatment with activaled carbon.
2
Shon.term
Effectiveness
The air .parging system require.
a substantia! 8m1)un\ of off~'1te
construction. Due to' the large
number o( wells, .ubst."ti.1 ufety
measure. will be required. Large
volumes or cuUings and dovel~
opmen\ wlte, win nt'td \0 be
covered, treated IIIId properly
di.posed. Safety procedure.
will need 10 be implemented
durin8 carbon vessel rechargina,
Effective, No new conllruction
;s required, A potential exposure
exists if new wells Ire installed
;nlo the affected aquifer before
natural attenuation is complete.
However, installation of I new
well does not resuh in unec:cept.ble
ri.k level..
Effective. Brief exposures 10
workers could occur. but ere
easily controlled using construction
safety proeed",u. Madifi..,ion.
to the existing treatment plant for
the additional now are usily made
without risk of additional exposure..
Effective. Only limited construclion
risk will be created. EJllracted
groundwater is pretreated prior
10 discbarge.
Implemenlability
Implementalion ml)' be dimcul!.
Off.site BCCtSS for numeroul
well. will be required. OrT..ite
remediation and OW extraction
wells are potentially disruptive
and ml)' be challenged by orT.
lite landownetl.
l!esily implement.ble. No new
construction or remedial actions
are required.
Implemenlable. Construction
required 10 incorporate well. with the
Cltistin! extraction ty.tcm i. routine.
Implementable.
Estimated
Co.t
51,000
S1,OOO
S990
51,300
SI,200
1/26195
-------
.
Building 300
Bum Pit
Soil
TABLE 9
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF REMEDIAL SUB-ALTERATIVES
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
No Action
2
Capping
3
Excavate'
Stabilize (in-place) I
On-sile Disposal
4
Excavate I
Consolidate I
Slabilize/On-sil'
Disposal (CAMU)
Overall Protection or Human
H..llh Md the Enyironmenl
Nol protective ofhumM h.allh
and the environment. This sub.-
ahemalive fails the detailed assess.
ment Md will not be evaluated
rurth.r.
Protective or humM h.allh Md
the environment.
Prolecliy. ofhumM hellth Md
the environment.
Protective of humM h..llh Md
the environment.
24-150029-A50/ER53-147xls
Compliance
with ARARs
Compli.s with
ARARs.
Compli.. with
ARARs.
Complies wilh
ARARs.
Long-term Effectiveness
and Permanence
Effecliye in reducing h.allh risks by
restricting surface exposure. Heavy
metals and other contaminants wilt be
left in the ground. The cap will require
routine maintenance. Fulure land use
reslriclions will need to be placed on the
ar.. capped so thallhe csp i. 001
dislurbed.
Effecliy. Md pennMent. The cement!
soil mass can be expected 10 last
indefinitely. A cl.M soil coyer will be
constructed over the stabilized material
10 allow for future construction Ktivity.
EfffCIiye Md pennMenl. The cement!
soil mass CM ~ expected 10 last
indefinitely. A clean soil cover will be
constructed over the stabilized materia'
to allow for future construclion activily.
The creation of 8 corrective ection
management unit (CAMU) results in
a unlralized location for all slabilized
soil and will facilil.tethe use of deed
restrictions ror future land use in order
to further protfCI against disturbance
of the stabilized msterial.
Reduction ofTo"icily,
Mobility, Md Volume
Capping will nol reduce the loxieity or
volume of the contaminants in the soil.
Mobility of the contaminants may be
reduced.
Soil "abitizetion will reduce toxieity
and mobility or Ihe conlaminMI. by
locking the constituents in a cement
matrix and preventing interection of
the conStituent with the environment.
The volume of contaminants in the soil
will remain the same.
Soil stabiliietion will reduce loxicity
Md mobility or Ihe contaminants by
locking the constituents in 8 cement
matrix and prevtnting interaction or
lite constituent with the environment
The volume of contaminants in the soil
will remain the same.
3
Short-tenn
EfffCIiyene..
Exposures durina construction
of the cop are yety low, since
only ctean. soil is eKcavated.
Howeyer, worlce" will follow 011
hazardous weste safety Buideline.
and ambient air will be monitored.
Short-Ienn risks exist. During
excavation ..d soil stabilimtion.
workers could come in contact
with th. contaminaled soil. There
is also I chance of contact with
unknowns, which may be en-
countered in the bum pil.
Dust control technologies and
air monitoring will be implemenled
10 reduce exposu",slo dust.
Short-Ierm rislc. exist. DurinB
.xcoyation, soil SIIbiliution, and
the transportation of material.
10 Ihe CAMU, work..s could
come in contect with the con.
laminlted soil. Ther. i. also I
chance of contact with unknowns,
which may be encounlered in
the bum pil. Dusl conkol
technologies and air monitoring
will be implemented 10 reduce
exposures to dust.
Implementability
Easily implemented. Capping will
be eceomplished usinB stMdard
construction techniques.
Excavation and ltIbiliution or soils
will be implemented by I tonkaetor
specializinB in th. proc:e.. of soil
excoYalion, stebilization, Md backfill
placement. The ...biliration conueclor
will design the cemenl:soilratios
u.ing ""lability lest. IS I guide.
Excoyation II1d stebilizetion of soils
will be implemented by a tonk..tor
specializins in the procell of soil
excavalian, alabilizetion, and backfill
placement. The sllbiliation conlrac.lor
will design th. cement soil relio!
using treatability tests as a 8uide.
SlIbiliulion of Building 300 Bum
pit soils will be easier to eccomplish
as an addilion 10 the st.biliZ.llion
alreedy plMned for Ihe South
Post Bum Pita.
ESlimaled
Cosl
SI,OOO
so
1496
5617
S491.
Inti/9~
-------
.
:Iil~~~ii':~~r-j:~~~
Oanery Disposal
Derived Waste
Soil
TABLE 9
SUMMARV COMPARISON OF REMEDIAL SUB-ALTERATIVES
SACRAMENTO ARMV DEPOT
OfT..ile Di.posal
2
Consolidale'
Stabilize I On.site
Dispo.al (CAMU)
NOTES:
Overall Protection o( Human
Health and the Environment
Proleclive of human heallh and
the environment
Protective of humin heahh and
the environment.
Complianee
with ARARs
ComplieJ with
ARARs.
Complies with
ARARs.
Lons.term Effectiveness
and Pennanence
Effective and permanent. Contaminated
soil is physically removed from the site.
The conlaminaled soil will no longer be
under the direct control of the Sacramento
Army Depot
Effective and permanent. The cement!
soil mass can be expected 10 last
indefinilely. A dean soil cover will be
construeted OVer the stabilized materill
(0 allow for future construction 8Clivity.
The creation or. conec1ive ection
management unil (CAMU) re.uhs in
a centralized local ion for all stabilized
lOil and will facilitale the use of deed
restrictions for future land use in order
10 further protect against disturbance
of the stabilized material.
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, and Volume
Toxicity, mobility and volume will no
longer be relevant 81 the Depot since
"0 contaminants will be present At
the ofT..ile disposal facility, mobility
will be controlled usinS standard
landfill construction and operatin,
procedures. Toxicity and volume
may or may nol be reduced depending
on whether or not the contaminated
soil underSDes treatment prior to
disposal.
Soil stabilization will reduce toxicity
and mobility orrhe contaminants by
locking the constituents in II cement
matrix IU1d preventing interaction of
the constituent with the environment.
The volume of eontaminants in the soil
win remain the same.
I) Siale acceplance to be evaluated aner Ihe agency comment period fOf the Basewide Feasibility Study and Ihe Proposed Plan.
2) Community acceplanceto be evalualed after the public comment period for the Proposed Plan.
J
24-IS0029-ASO/ERS3-147x1s
4
Short.term
EfTecliveneu
Short.term risks e.ist for the ofT.
,ite disposal of lOil. During 10adinS
and transportetion operation I
workers could come in cont8ct with
the contaminated lOiI. Work...
will be required to follow III
hazardous waste safely suide-
lines.
Shon.term risks exist. DurinS
suilstabilization and the trln~
ponation of the bins.o the
CAMU, worker. could come in
conlact with Ihe contaminated .
soil. Dud control technologies
and air monitoring will be
implemented 10 reduce exposures
lodult.
Implernentability
Easily implementable. The bins
of metal contaminated soil can
readily be ""'sponed and
disposed ofat 8 C'... I landfill.
Stabilization of BOW soils will
be implemenled by . conlJOCtor
specillizing in the p.....s of lOil
stabiliu!ion and backfill pi.....
ment. The Jt8biliulion contractor
will design Ihe cement..i' ratios
using _ability lests OJ a guide.
Stabiliution of the BOW lOils
con be easily accomplished as
IU1 eddtion 10 the l18bilization
llready planned for the South
Post Bum Pib.
Estimated
Cost
SI,OOO
580
S53
1126/9~
-------
residual concentrations in the shallow groundwater to FRGs. All times are estimates based on
the basewide groundwater modeling.
Sub-alternative 1 requires 21 years. Sub-alternative 2 requires 18 years. Sub-alternative 3
requires 8 years. Sub-alternative 4 requires 8 years. Sub-alternative 5 requires 9 years for
remediation of this area of contamination. Therefore sub-alternatives 3 and 4 rank highest for
this criterion, and sub-alternative 1 ranks lowest.
8.1.2 Criterion 2: Compliance with ARARs
These sub-alternatives may comply with ARARs with proper design of tanks and treatment
devices and. by gradually reducing the groundwater concentrations to at least MCLs. The
primary difference is with the time required to achieve reductions as discussed above. These
sub-alternatives are judged equal for compliance with ARARs.
8.1.3 Criterion 3: Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
These sub-alternatives achieve long-term effectiveness and permanence by removing the
contaminants from the subsurface. This removal is achieved at varying rates as noted above.
These sub-alternatives are judged equal against this criterion.
8.1.4 Criterion 4: Reduction ofToxiciiy, Mobility, and Volume
These sub-alternatives achieve reductions in contaminant volume by removing the
contaminants from the ground. Subalternative 1 captures. about 90% of the plume, and
therefore, is judged slightly lower for this criterion. Installing a pump in Zone C is judged to
be slightly more positive for remediation of this zone, and therefore, Sub-alternatives 4 and 5
have an edge for this criterion.
8.1.5 Criterion 5: Short-t~rm Effectiveness
The short-term effectiveness is good for all sub-alternatives, but slightly lower for sub-
alternative 5. The drilling of six off wells will create potential short-term exposures to the
offsite public that must be carefully controlled with barriers and other safety measures.
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 48
January 8, 1995
..---- ----
-------
-- - - . - .. ---. -..- ---.
8.1.6 Criterion 6: Implementability
The most implementable sub-alternative is 1. This involves operating the existing system as
is. Sub-alternative 2 is only slightly less implementable, requiring some construction activity
at the SPGWTP and adjustments to the existing wells. Sub-alternative 5 is the least
implementable, requiring offsite access for six extraction wells and numerous horizontal wells.
Sub-alternatives 3 and 4 are equally implementable. Launch areas for the tWo horizontal wells
will be on-base and create little off-base disturbance. Leases should be easily obtained.
8.1.7 Criterion 7: Cost
Sub-alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 are close in cost.
expensive at $7,000,000.
Sub-alternative 5 is considerably more
8.1.8 Criterion 8: State Acceptance
The state has accepted the selected alternative.
8.1.9 Criterion 9: Community Acceptance
A public comment period was held November 22 - December 21, 1994. A public meeting was
held on December 7, 1994. The community expressed no objections to the Army's preferred
remedy.
8.2
PARKING LOT 3 GROUNDWATER
8.2.1 Criterion 1: Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Sub-alternatives 2 and 3 are equally protective of human health and the environment. Each
will pump groundwater UJltil the concentration of all constituents reaches FRGs. This is
estimated to require six years. Sub-alternative 1 is estimate to reach FRGs using natural
attenuation and biodegradation in nine years.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 49
January 8, 1995
-------
8.2.2 Criterion 2: Compliance with ARARs
Sub-alternative 1 and sub-alternatives 2 and 3 comply with ARARs. The difference is in the
time they require to reach FRGs, as discussed in Section 8.1.1.
8.2.3 Criterion 3: Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
These sub-alternatives are judged to comply equally with this criterion.
. .
8.2.4 Criterion 4: Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
Sub-alternatives 2 and 3 reduces the volume of contamination in the subsurface by removing
the contaminant. Sub-alternative 1 relies on natural degradation to achieve volume reduction.
This sub-alternative is rated somewhat lower than sub-alternatives 2 and 3 for this criterion.
8.2.5 Criterion 5: Short-term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness for sub-alternative 1 is slightly lower due to the longer period of time
needed to reach FRGs. Sub-alternative 2 requires construction, which carries some risk of
exposure or spreading of contaminants. Sub-alternative 3 is judged slightly higher for this
criterion.
8.2.6 Criterion 6: Implementability
Sub-alternative 1 is readily implementable. Sub-alternative 3 is easily implementable,
requiring a pump and piping installation. Sub-alternative 2 requires .somewhat longer pipe
runs.
8.2.7 Criterion 7: Cost
Sub-alternative 1 has the lowest cost at $990,000 for the long term monitoring program. Sub-
alternative 3 is the next lowest cost at $1,200,000. Sub-alternative 2 costs $1,300,000.
8.2.8 Criterion 8: State Acceptance
The state has accepted the selected alternative.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 50
January 8, 1995
-------
8.2.9 Criterion 9: Community Acceptance
A public comment period was held November 22 through December 21, 1994. A public
meeting was held on December 7, 1994. The community expressed no objections to the
Army's preferred remedy.
8.3
BUll..DING 300 BURN PIT SOIL
8.3.1 Criterion 1: Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
No action does not protect human health due to possible dermal conttact with and inhalation of
dust. Accordingly. no action was not evaluated further. The other sub-alternatives are
capping, excavation with stabilization in place, and excavation with ttansport to the Corrective
Action Management Unit in the South Post area for stabilization. Capping is protective of
human health by isolating the contamination from the surface by an impermeable and
maintained cap. Stabilization is equally protective since both procedures will successfully
prevent future exposures to dust or direct dermal contact.
8.3.2 Criterion 2: Compliance with ARARs
The three sub-alternatives are judged equal for compliance with ARARs. The cap can be
constructed to comply with ARARs. The capping project will likely require the installation of
monitoring devices to ensure the capping is successful. Stabilization in place can be
performed to comply with ARARs. Monitoring and capping of the stabilized mass is not
anticipated since the stabilization produces an inert solid. Transportation of the soil to the
CAMU requires regulatory approval of the CAMU. If the CAMU is not approved, sub-
alternative 3 cannot be selected.
8.3.3 Criterion 3: Long-t~rm Effectiveness and Permanence
Capping is effective and permanent but does require maintenance and restrictions on certain
activity in the area such as drilling or excavating. Stabilization is designed for permanence
and to be "rock hard" against any type of disturbance. The two stabilization sub-alternatives
are therefore judged to be more permanent than capping, and are equal to each other.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
11-51
January 8, 1995
-------
8.3.4 Criterion 4: Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
Capping does not provide for reduced toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants.
Stabilization does reduce the mobility and toxicity of contaminantS. Consolidation of the soil
with other soils in the CAMU will reduce the total area of contamination at the depot by
placing all stabilized soil in one location.
8.3.5 Criterion 5: Short-term Effectiveness
Capping (sub-alternative 2) has a higher short-term effectiveness than the other two sub-
alternatives since the contaminants are never handled. The other sub-alternatives require
excavation, resulting in short-term exposures from dust. Dusting will beminimi7.ed by
engineering controls and monitoring. Sub-alternative 4 has a higher short -term effectiveness
compared to sub-alternative 3 since only one stabilization work station is needed under the
CAMU. Sub-alternative 3 requires a separate stabilization and debris washing system setup at
the Building 300 Burn Pit area.
8.3.6 Criterion 6: lmplementability
Implementability of sub-alternatives 2 and 4 are judged to be equally implementable. Each
requires mobilization of excavation and earth hauling equipment. Sub-alternative 3 is not as
easily implemented since a new stabilization and debris washing work station must be
purchased and constructed for the area. This is specialized equipment and mobilization times
can be high.
8.3.7 Criterion 7: Cost
The cost for sub-alternative 2, capping, is estimated to be $496,200.
alternative 3 is $617,100 and for sub-alternative 4 is $491,800.
The cost for sub-.
8.3.8 Criterion 8: State Acceptance
The state has accepted the selected alternative.
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 52
January 8, 1995
-------
- ._- -- ---- - --. .--- .---
8.3.9 Criterion 9: Community Acceptance
A public comment period was held November 22 - December 21, 1994. A public meeting was
held on December 7, 1994. The community expressed no objections to the Army's preferred
remedy.
8.4
BAITERY DISPOSAL WELL INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE (SOIL)
8.4.1 Criterion I: Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The tWo sub-alternatives are equally protective of human health and the environment. Sub-
alternative 1, offsite disposal, is protective by moving the soil to a landf1l1 designed for
management of soil containing heavy metals. Sub-alternative 2, onsite disposal using
stabilization, produces a waste incapable of harm to humans or the environment. Therefore
sub-alternatives 1 and 2 are equally protective.
8.4.2 Criterion 2: Compliance with ARARs
The sub-alternatives comply with ARARs equally. On-site disposal requires regulatory
approval of the Corrective Action Management Unit. The soil stabilization system must
comply with RCRA regulations for tank design and operating safety. Offsite disposal must
comply with transportation regulations.
8.4.3 Criterion 3: Long-tenn Effectiveness and Pennanence
The sub-alternatives are judged equally effective and permanent in tJ:1e long term. Offsite
disposal is dependent on the quality of design of the landf1l1 for pennanence. Long-tenn
effectiveness for the site is absolute since the soil is no longer onsite. Permanence for onsite
disposal is dependent on adequate stabilization of the soil and maintaining the stabilized soil to
be free from future excavation. The stabilization produces an inert solid with no tendency to
leach.
8.4.4 Criterion 4: Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volwne
Offsite disposal reduces the toxicity, mobility and volwne of contaminantS onsite by removing
them to an offsite location, but otherwise does not reduce toxicity and volume. Mobility is
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 53
January 8, 1995
-------
-- - ~ - ~- . -- --~
--- - .- -- . - - -
reduced by placement into a controlled landfIll environment. Onsite disposal with stabilization
reduces the toxicity and mobility of the CODt~min~ntc; by permanently locking them into a
cement matrix. Sub-alternative 2 is, therefore, judged slightly higher against this criterion.
8.4.5 Criterion 5: Short-term Effectiveness
Offsite disposal is more effective in the short term since there is less contact with the soil and
contact is over a shorter period of time. Stabilization will ~e dust control and other safety
measures. Sub-alternative 1 is, therefore, judged slightly better at short-term effectiveness.
8.4.6 Criterion 6: Implementability
Both sub-alternatives are equally implementable unless the CAMU is not approved. In that
case, offsite disposal would have to be selected over onsite disposal.
8.4.7 Criterion 7: Cost
Off site disposal is estimated to cost $80;400 and incorporation of the soils into the CAMU is
estimated to cost $53,600.
8.4.8 Criterion 8: State A.cceptance
The state has accepted the selected alternative.
8.4.9 Criterion 9: Community Acceptance
A public comment period was held November 22 - December 21, 1994. A public meeting was
held on December 7, 1994. The community expressed no objections to the Army's preferred
remedy.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 54
January 8, 1995
-------
. - 4_.- ---
----_.. - - ..-- -- -....
9 SELECTED REMEDY
The selected basewide remedy consists of groundwater cleanup, soil cleanup, and a no action
decision. In addition, two previous RODs which addressed Operable Units area being
amended.
9.1
GROUNDWATER CLEANUP
The groundwater remedy consists of the following:
.
In the South Post area, sub-alternative 4 is selected. Subject to detailed design, one
vertical off-depot well and two horizontal off-depot wells will be insta1led to capture the
plume more quickly.. A deeper "C" zone well will be installed to pump this zone more
rapidly. Pumps and piping changes will increase the treatment facility throughput to a
maximum of 450 gallons per minute. Discharge.oftreated water will be to the sanitary
sewer. However, SADA will continue to attempt to secure an on-site or off-site industrial
or other reuse of treated groundwater as. part of the remedy, as long as reuse costs are
economically feasible within the existing allocated discharge costs of the South Post
Groundwater Treatment Plant. The process flow diagram is illustrated on Plate 18.
.
At Parking Lot 3, sub-alternative.3 is selected. Vertical extraction wells will be installed,
one within the parking lot and one south of Parking Lot 3, to accelerate groundwater
capture in this area. Treatment will be at the wellheads using carbon adsorption.
Discharge of treated water will be to the sanitary sewer. The process flow diagram is
illustrated on Plate 19.
Groundwater cleanup standards are set at the federal or more stringent state Maximum
Contaminant Levels, which are listed in Table 10 for constituents of concern at SADA. These
cleanup standards comply with the groundwater ARARs listed in Tables A-I and A-2.
The goal of this remedial action is to restore groundwater to its beneficial use; which at this
site, according to EPA's National Groundwater Policy, is a potential drinking water source.
Based on information obtained during the remedial investigation and on a careful analysis of
all remedial alternatives, the Army, EPA, and the State of California believe that the selected
24-] 50029-A50/ER53-] 46
January 8, 1995
11 - 55
-------
P-1
P-3A
Hand Hand
Valve Valve
Hand Hand
1/4" 55 Valve
Tubing Valve
P-3B
UV/H, 0,
Chamber
(V-1 )
Activated
C.1 Carbon
Canister
(20 Lb.) Electrical Energy
HydroQen
Peroxide
Tank
(T-2)
300 Gal.
Instrument Air
Compressor
:-(
AC-1
)
4" 5S
Piping
4" 5S PI In
Effluent Tank
(T-3)
1436 Gal.
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 3-Way
I Control
I Valve
L_~
Water Outlet
For Reuse
Influent Tank
(T-1 )
1436 Gal.
4"
55
Piping
6"
SCH
40
PVC
450 gpm
Discharge
to POTW
6" SS
Piping
System Bypass
(4"SS Piping)
Effluent
Pump
-
Zone C
Well
J
Horizontal Wells
Extending Dffba59
~
1989 GW Extraction Wells
(EW-1Ihrough EW-7)
III KLEIN FELDER
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
SOUTH POST AREA
GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
PLATE
DATE PRODUCED: 2/25/94 DATE REVISED: 12/29/94
PROJECT NO. 24-150029-A51
18
-------
High Pressure Switch
Motor..operated
Ball Valve ---.
Ground Surface
High Pressure Switch
Motor..operated
Ball Valve---'
Ground Surface
2"
Galv.
Steel
Piping
Activated
Carbon
Unit
Groundwater
Extraction
Well
2"
Galv.
Steel
Piping
Activated
Carbon
Unit
Groundwater
Extraction
Well .
It..~ K LEI N F E L D E R
Drawn By: Dash Antel
Project No. 24-150029-A51
Date: 10/14194
Revised: 12/29/94
Underground
Force Main
3" Sch 80
PVC
2" Galv.
Steel Piping
Underground
Force Main
2" Sch 80
PVC
2" Galv.
Steel Piping
.--". -- ~ - ---.-.-.-
Existing Sewer
Manhole
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
PARKING LOT 3 GROUNDWATER
EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
70 to
90 gpm
Discharge
to POTW
PLATE
19
-------
..-- _H-
TABLE 10
GROUNDWATER CLEANUP LEVELS
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
1111111111111'1111111111/1/11'111'111_'1111111111'1111111111'1111111 /111111I'II"J.II'.'1 l!i/I!!lli_.I~;!!~IIIIIIIII:'
Trichloroethene 5 Federal Law
Tetrachloroethene 5 Federal Law
cis- 1 ,2-dichloroethene 6 Federal Law
1 ,2- Dichloroethane O. 5 State Law
trans- 1 ,2-dichloroethene 10 State Law
Carbon Tetrachloride* 0 5 State Law
* Carbon tetrachloride is a contaminant of concern at Parking Lot 3 only.
24-150029- ASOIER53-147xls
1/26/95
-------
- -- ---. --. -
--- .-.. ...-
remedy will achieve this goal. It may become apparent, during implementation or operation of
the groundwater extraction system and its modifications, that contaminant levels have ceased
to decline and are remaining constant at levels higher than the remediation goal over some
portion of the contamin~ted plume. In such a case, the system performance standards and/or
the remedy may be reevaluated.
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction for an estimated period of 9 years,
during which the system's performance will be carefully monitOred on a regular basis and
adjusted as warranted by the performance data collected during operation. Modifications may
. include any or all of the following:
a)
at individual wells where cleanup goals have been attained, pumpmg may be
discontinued;
b)
alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation points;
c)
pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and to allow adsorbed contaminants to
partition into groundwater; and
d)
installation of additioDal extraction wells to facilitate or accelerate cleanup of the
contaminant plume.
To ensure that cleanup goals continue to be maintained, the aquifer will be monitored in
compliance with the base-wide groundwater monitoring plan and five-year review.
9.2
SOIL CLEANUP
The selected remedies for the soil areas are:
.
Sub-alternative 4 for the Building 300 Burn Pit. The burn pit will be excavated and the
soil and debris transferred and solidified in a CAMU designated at the South Post Burn
Pits Area. In accordance with the amendment to the South Post Burn Pits ROD. The
process flow diagram is shown on Plate 20.
Residual soil contamination in the Building 300 Burn Pit following the excavation will be
protective of human health and the environment. Soil will be excavated at Building 300
Burn Pit until the following residual concentrations are not statistically exceeded:
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 56
January 8, 1995
-------
'f1IT~
:~.:~::I".,',./'''' > .'" ,""
.... o;~i.;'~\
.-~ ~ '"'
Backfill Building
300 Bum Pit
Excavation with
Class" AS
.
Coarse
Compact
Class" AS
Compact
Stabilized
Soil
-:Go''''''~~~'..~~-.. "':.~ ~..~ ~r..-... \'\"~'~"'Q():" ..~~..,~
1:!-<7:c.,:?,c..(Ja" ,:,., D.c'D' .q:c,(Je..(J1:!
O'Q "':C\ "'~, 0. ~r:;r.~f;:;tl:.{)~?-IX'iJ. , oil, o,Q 1::>. .~. 0 ~:o
;~, :?-C".:I?C".\:'(j!!' .~.Q..~.Q..(::, 0 0""'" -0 ':'0<> (}.Q"7'Ct(--; .
'. ~, .-::' <:? -? ,P'D.~vD,p t,~; D,,: ::J.f\ C\ :-0 ~ :':
x'
, .
x .
x
x x
. x x
x x x
c x x )
x x x
( x :Ie :Ie
:Ie X JC ,
C X X X
X X X J\,
C X x x )0. .~(. .. .. .. u
(XX.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.XXX.X "'~.;w~ x x x xXx. xXx..
x Ie x X :Ie X X :Ie X X :Ie X X X X "..' X:le X X :Ie X X :Ie :Ie :Ie :Ie
X X X X X X X X X X X X X :Ie :Ie X :Ie X :Ie X X X X X X X :Ie
X X X X X :Ie X :Ie X X x X x :Ie X x X :Ie :Ie X :Ie :Ie X X X :Ie X X X :Ie X
X X X :Ie X X X X x x :Ie X X X X :Ie X :Ie x :Ie X X X X :Ie X X :Ie X
X
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
EXCAVATION, STABILIZATION AND
ONSITE DISPOSAL OF SOIL
FROM THE BUILDING 300 BURN PIT
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
PLATE
20
-------
.- .. .+--_.-
- - -
Arsenic 7. 3 mglkg Background
Cadmium 97 mglkg Risk-based
Lead 500 mglkg Risk-based
Soil transferred to the South Post Bum Pits CAMU will meet the treatment standards
. . .
specified in the South Post Bum Pits ROD amendment.
.
Sub-alternative 2 for Battery Disposal Well Investigation Derived Waste Soil. The soil
will be transferred and solidified in a CAMU designated for the South Post Bum Pits area
in accordance with the amendment to the South Post Bum Pits ROD. Soil transferred to
the South Post Bum Pits CAMU will meet the treatment standards specified in.the ROD
amendment (see Section 9.4.2.1).
9.3
NO ACTION AREAS
Detailed disCussion of the No Action Areas is included in Section 5. No action is selected at
the Battery Disposal Well (in. situ soil), Pesticide Mix Area, Firefighter Training Area,
SWMU and non-SWMU sites because they pose no threat to human health or the environment.
9.4
SOUTH POST BURN PITS ROD AMENDMENT
The South Post Bum Pits Operable Unit ROD, signed in 1993, selected SVE to remediate soils
contaminated with VOCs and selected stabilization (solidification) for soils contaminated with
metals. Both phases of the previously selected remedy are hereby being amended as discussed
below;
9.4.1 Shutdown ofSVE System at Bum Pits
With respect to the SVE system, which has an aggressive design, the system ~as currently
reached full effectiveness and is no longer removing significant amounts of VOCs from the soil.
Moreover, the technical determination has recently been made that the selected cleanup level of 5
ppbv in soil gas, as originally set forth in the 1993 ROD, cannot be attained by continued
operation of the current system. This is because the 5 ppbv level, which is near the detection
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 57
January 8, 1995
-------
limit in air for TCE, is not technically feasible to attain. The technical decision has been made to
shutdown the system.
9.4.1.1
Background ofVOCs at Burn Pits
The Burn Pits Operable Unit consists of two pits containing soils and debris to a depth of21 feet
overlying and surrounded by natural, undisturbed soil to a depth of 86 feet where the soil
becomes saturated (i.e., groundwater is encountered). Groundwater is addressed separately in
this basewide ROD.
Volatile organic compounds were detected in the soil beneath the Burn Pits. Three contaminants
were detected at concentrations in the soil which indicate there is a mass of contaminant in the
soil which could continue to migrate downward and degrade the quality of groundwater. These
contaminants were TCE, PCE, and 1,2-DCE. Goals were established in the ROD to remove 98%
of the mass of TCE, 92% of the mass of PCE and 96% of the mass of 1,2-DCE. Soil gas
measurement was selected as the best method to monitor the progress of the contaminant
removal. However, the corresponding soil gas levels which would meet the mass removal goals
stated above were not known precisely. Therefore, the soil gas level was set temporarily at the .
detection level for TCE until additional data became available.
9.4.1.2
Operating Results for the SVE
The Burn Pits SVE contractor, OHM, installed 12 multi-completion vent wells and 2,000 ACFM
of venting capacity. Startup was completed by May 24, 1994. By mid-October, OHM estimated
that all goals had been exceeded. Their system had removed 69 pounds. of TCE, 25 pounds. of
PCE and 29 pounds. of 1,2-DCE. OHM further indicated that vapor concentrations at the
blowers had decreased by 98% or better and that wellhead concentrations had reached non-
detectable levels. Despite these data, the system was operated for an additional two months after
mid-October.
9.4.1.3
Monitoring Data
An independent system monitoring the soil venting progress was installed by Kleinfelder at the
Bum Pits site. The system consists of 6 permanent soil gas monitoring stations. Soil gas is
monitored at 10 vertical depths at each of the six stations starting at roughly 10 feet below
ground surface and extending to just above the groundwater. Soil gas samples collect from each
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 58
January 8, 1995
-------
_. .- - - *-
port are analyzed for TCE, PCE and 1,2-DCE. Sampling has occurred since before the OHM
system started and is ongoing at the time of this ROD.
Before startup, the highest TCE concentration in any port was 199 ug/l at 73 feet below ground
surface at station No.3 (SM-3). Using this as an example, TCE decreased steadily during the
remediation operation and was reduced to 7.6 ugll by mid-November. This remains the port with
the highest concentration of TCE. All of the monitoring data are presented in regular oversite
reports for remediation at the Bum Pits.
9.4.1.4
Detailed Assessment
Soil gas data can be used to estimate the .subsurface mass of the contaminants. This estimate can
be completed using data collected before and after the remediation effort. The analysis indicates
that the initial mass ofTCE below the Burn Pits was about 23 pounds. Now, after soil venting,
the estimated total mass of TCE is well below one pound.
The soil gas data from the six permanent soil gas monitoring stations was averaged across the
site by calculating an arithmetic average for ports at a similar depth. These averages were input
into a predictive model which uses mass transfer equations to predict the contaminant
concentration which will exist in soil moisture as it reaches groundwater and the time in years in
the future when this will occur. Using this modeling effort it has been determined that all soil
moisture entering groundwater will be below the groundwater FRG within four years. Therefore,
the groundwater remediation effort at the South Post Burn' Pits will not be impacted by. the
leaching ofVOCs from the Burn Pits into groundwater.
9.4.1.5
Justification of Shutdown of SVE
Shutdown of the SVE at the Bum Pits will be protective of human health and the environment
and complies with ARARs. The shutdown leaves the residual concentrations in soil well below
levels which would represent a human health risk since unacceptable human health risks for the
soil were not present prior to the remediation. Based on groundwater modeling, all detectable
leaching is predicted to stop before the completion of the groundwater remediation program.
The remaining contamination at the Burn Pits is either near the groundwater surface or already in
the groundwater and is, therefore, best treated using groundwater treatment technology.
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 59
January 8, 1995
-------
A notice of this amendment for the Bum Pits ROD was included in the Basewide Proposed Plan
and all public comments have been addressed in the Responsiveness Summary (part III of this
Basewide ROD). The public did not express concerns over the change in soil gas cleanup level
for soils at the Bum Pits.
9.4.1.6
Additional Verification Sampling
Additional verification sampling is planned at the Bum Pits to evaluate if soil gas concentrations
. .
change over time when the subsurface is not under vacuum. Prior to initiation of the Bum Pits
stabilization, the SVE system will be temporarily shut down for a period of up to 45 days to
allow soil gas levels to equilibrate. During that time period, samples will be collected to monitor
residual concentrations in the soil gas and evaluate if the concentrations increase upon shutdown.
If concentrations do not increase significantly, the system has met the remediation goals. If
significant increases are observed, the soil gas data will be input into an acceptable model which
will be used to evaluate the impact of residual concentrations in the aquifer. The Army will then
assess to what extent, if any, residual soil levels will impact the planned aquifer remediation. If
necessary, post-operation monitoring will be done after the stabilization is completed.
If residual soil levels will prevent the pump and treat action from achieving aquifer cleanup
levels in the estimated groundwater restoration period of 9 years, additional soil remedial action
will be considered.
9.4.2 Solidification/Stabilization of Additional Soils
With respect to the solidification process, the OU ROD is hereby being amended to expand the
scope beyond that which was originally agreed to. The solidification process, which is scheduled
to occur after the SVE is shutdown, will be expanded to include similarly contaminated soils
from other areas at the depot. These areas are the Oxidation Lagoons, the Building 300 Old Burn
Pit, and Investigation Derived Waste from the Battery Disposal Well. This will be facilitated by
designating the South Post Bum Pits Area as a Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU).
9.4.2.1 Substantiation of Factors Supporting a CAMU Designation
The following criteria are considered determinative for the Burn Pits Area CAMU designation:
(1)
. The CAMU will facilitate the implementation of a reliable, effective, protective, and cost-
effective remedial action by facilitating the combination of similarly contaminated soil
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 60
January 8, 1995
--. ------
-------
(5)
. - ._+-_. --
- _.- - - --
from the Building 300 Bum Pit, Oxidation Lagoons Operable Unit, Battery Disposal
Well investigation-derived waste, and the South Post Bum Pits Operable Unit into one
remediation area which can be more effectively managed and monitored, and for which
there will be increased control of future land use restrictions.
(2)
Waste management activities associated with the CAMU will not create unacceptable
risks to humans or the environment resulting from exposure to hazardous wastes or
hazardous constituents. Exposures from windblown particulates, air emissions during
excavation and transportation, or other short-term risks due to the implementation of the
CAMU will be carefully controlled during remedy implementation to protect the workers
and the local commUnity.
(3)
The CAMU will include uncontaminated areas of the facility because including such
areas for the purpose of managing remediation waste is more protective than management
of such wastes at contaminated areas of the facility. The CAMU will use these
uncontaminated staging areas or accumulation points for soils that will be transported in
from other areas on base in order to prepare them for treatment.
(4)
Areas within the CAMU where wastes remain in place after closure of the CAMU will be
managed and contained so as to minimize future releases, to the extent practicable. The
wastes which will remain in place after the closure of the CAMU will. be completely
solidified through chemical fixation, making the possibility of any future release
completely unlikely.
The CAMU will minimize the land area of SADA upon which remediation wastes will
remain in place after closure of the CAMU by facilitating the consolidation and
solidification of soils transported from Building 300, the Oxidation Lagoons, the Battery
Disposal Well, and South Post Bum Pits into one location.
The implementation of the CAMU will be in compliance with the requirements set forth in the
South Post Burn Pits ROD amendment, Table A-5, regarding areal configuration of the CAMU,
remediation waste management, groundwater monitoring, and closure and post-closure
requirements.
Any waste that cannot be stabilized will be disposed of off-site in accordance with all appropriate
laws and regulations.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 61
January 8, 1995
-------
9.4.2.2
Cleanup Levels
Soil will be excavated at the South Post Burn Pits, at the time of the stabilization. Residual
soil concentrations after excavation will be protective of human health and the environment.
Soil will be excavated at the South Post Burn Pits until the following residual concentrations
are not exceeded:
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 62
January 8, 1995
-------
-~. .
!lj}::i£![lli!!\I!~!!~iliJ!i_!~i1~!!i]i;\:~~t!ltflf~ .ft.~_~I)II_~tj~ :fiiri~!!_I!(IIIt'ri.«:i:ilrtl
Cadmium 88 mglkg Risk-based
Total Chromium 1 12 mglkg Risk-based
Chromium (VI) 1 6 mglkg Risk based
Arsenic 7 3 mglkg Background
Lead 500 mglkg Risk-based
The Arsenic clean-up level is to local background. Local background for the depot has been
found to range up to 7.3 mglkg. Individual results may exceed this value and still be
background. Compliance will be based on a statistically significant number of samples.
Background may be re-evaluated in light of additional data.
Soil treated at the CAMU will be solidified so that the waste extract measured according to 40
CFR 261.24 (TCLP) meets the treatment standards specified in EP A Superfund Publication
9347.3-06FS, Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for Remedial Actions
(Superfund LDR Guide #6A). Hazardous debris will be treated to standards specified in 22 CCR
66268.45 (see below).
.::::,:!:!::I:::!!:I!::,:::!::::::I:I::!::\::::!!:::!!::I:!!::\!:::::::::::::':\!::,::!\:\:!:I:::!:I!,:::::::!::::::.:'::;I:::!!::::.!:::i~I_!IIIII.:;!!::!::::::i::::::::!i:!:!I:::::i1:1~::::::'I:i:::II,I:,:::::I:::::I'I::,:.::I::.::::I:::I::::::;:::!::!!:::::I::::::::::::1::::11::,111:
Technology
that achieves
recommended
effluent
concentration
. dance
immobilization
immobilization
immobilization
immobilization
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Threshold
Concentration
m
10
40
120
300
Percent
Reduction
Ran e
.90-99.9
95-99.9
95-99.9
99-99.9
.
Above ppm concentrations refer to milligrams of constituent per liter of waste extract (mgll). If
the waste concentration is lessjhan the threshold concentration, then the specified concentration
range is the appropriOte treatment standard If the waste concentration is above the threshold
concentration, then the specified percent reduction range is the appropriate treatment standard
The Army has agreed to perform the DI WET analysis as suggested by the state. - Only if the
analytical results exceed MCLs, do the parties agree to evaluate options for disposition of the
treated soil.
24-150029-A501ER53-146
II - 63
January 8, 1995
-------
9.4.2.3
ARARs
The amendment to the South Post Bum Pits ROD complies with ARARs as listed in Table A-5
in Appendix A. The ARARs set forth in the South Post Bum Pits ROD in connection with the
SVE system are no longer applicable.
9.5
OXIDATION LAGOONS ROD AMENDMENT
The Oxidation Lagoons ROD was signed in September 1993. The selected remedy in the ROD
was the excavation of contaminated soil and replacement of the soil back into the lagoons after
treatment. The selected treatment process was washing of the soil to remove metals. The ROD
is hereby being amended as discussed below.
After the ROD was signed, a large-scale pilot test of the soil washing treatment process was
undertaken. The effectiveness of soil washing during the pilot test was monitored and the data
were evaluated relative to remediation action objectives in the ROD. The pilot test indicated that
soil washing was unreasonably costly and not reliable. Reliability is crucial because an
overriding goal is to return the Oxidation Lagoons area to productive, unrestricted future uses as
a clean parcel. If the soil washing process was not entirely effective, some contamination would
remain. Additionally, when upsets to the process occurred, the process generated unexpectedly
high volumes of wastes.
Another factor influencing the Army's decision to amend the ROD was changing regulations.
The State of California passed regulations allowing the formation of Corrective Action
Management Units (CAMUs). The creation of CAMUs allows the flexibility to select an
appropriate site-specific, protective, reliable, and cost-effective remedy. Finally, the South Post
Burn Pits ROD was signed. It had been determined that stabilization of soils at the South Post
Bum Pits was the best remedial alternative. Once this was decided, the alternative of
consolidating soils at the CAMU for collective management by stabilization was considerably
more attractive than in previous analyses.
In summary, this amendment to the Oxidation Lagoons ROD calls for excavation of the
Oxidation Lagoons soil and transport of the soil to the CAMU where it will be stabilized.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
1I-64
January 8, 1995
-------
.. . -.--..
--.-.. ----_.- --
9.5.1 Cleanup Levels
Residual soil contamination in the Oxidation Lagoons following the excavation will be
protective of human health and the environment. Soil will be excavated at Oxidation Lagoons
until the following residual concentrations are not statistically exceeded:
- - -
Arsenic 5 mglkg Background
Cadmium 40 mglkg Risk-based
Lead 500 mglkg Risk-based
Soil transferred to the South Post Bum Pits CAMU will meet the treatment standards specified in
the South Post Bum Pits ROD amendment.
9.5.2 ~
The amendment to the Oxidation Lagoons ROD complies with ~ as listed in Table A-6.
The ~ set forth in the Oxidation Lagoons ROD in connection with soil washing are no
longer applicable.
9.6
COST INFORMA nON
Summaries of cost information for groundwater cleanup and soil cleanup are presented in
Section 7 and Table 9 and are summarized below. The cost of the selected remedy is
estimated as $6,344,000. The next most likely alternative would cost $8,997,000.
:~I:~\;\\;~\,\;\\\\l:!\[,ll~.~:\:!;!l\:I':::.;I~\\I,I:11;~I\\~~:~I:~II},li!i:~\[II'l~[l;i\~~~:I\~'::::!:1 .ll::'~~~~I\:~~I[\~~:~\llilil:'~i.llll:!~:~\:~:\::~~~I\j: :i'I:~I~\I\\:lt.t~.I.II:\lilg::illl!!:\\l~l:j\~
South Post Groundwater $ 4,600,000 $ 7 ,000,000
Parking Lot 3 Groundwater $ 1 ,200,000 $1 ,3000,000
Building 300 Bum Pits Soil $ 49 1 ,000 $ 617 ,000
Battery Disposal Well IDW $ 53 ,000 $ 80,000
Total $ 6,344,000 $ 8 ,997 ,000
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 65
January 8, 1995
-------
--
-- h_.- -- .
lOSTATUTORYDETERNUNATIONS
The Army I S primary responsibility at this . NPL site is to undertake remedial actions that
achieve adequate protection of human health and the environment. Section 121 of CERCLA
establishes several statutory requirements and preferences. These specify that, when complete,
the selected remedy must comply with ARARs unless a statutory waiver is justified. The
selected remedy must also be cost effective, and utilize perinanent solutions and alternative.
treatment or resource recovery tecbnologies to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, the
statute expresses a preference for treattnent as a principal element that reduces TMV of the
hazardous waste.
10.1
PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEAL lli AND mE ENVIRONMENT
The selected remedy would protect human health by removing VOCs from the groundwater,
and by stabilizing heavy metals in soils. Risks posed by inhalation, ingestion, or absorption of
volatile organics, and by absorption or ingestion of soil or inhalation of dust containing non-
volatile contaminants would be eliminated. Heavy metals would be bound into a concrete mix
that would eliminate the potential for exposure.
10.2
COMPLIANCE WIlli ARARS
Section 121 of CERCLA provides that, unless waived, remedial actions shall comply with
Federal and State laws that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the contaminants and
circumstances of the site. The selected remedies would meet all ARARs. The list of ARARs
for the selected alternative is presented on Tables A-I through A-6. The list of ARARs does
not include several state requirements that the state (RWQCB) believes are ARARs. These
requirements are portions of Title 23, CCR Division 3, Chapter 15, and State Water Resources
Control Board Resolution No. 68-16 and No. 92-49, Section ill.F. The state will not dispute
this ROD, however, because it believes that the selected remedies will comply with substantive
provisions of these requirements.
10.3
COST EFFECTIVENESS
The selected remedies are cost-effective. Sub-alternative 4 for the South Post groundwater
costs about the same as sub-alternatives 1, 2 and 3 and much less than sub-alternative 5.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 66
January 8, 1995
-- .---
-------
. -- ---- ._--
-_.- . - ---. . - -.
Similarly, sub-alternative 3 at Parking Lot 3 costs about the same as the other two sub-
alternatives. For the Building 300 Bum Pit, the selected sub-alternative is lower in cost than
the other two sub-alternatives. Also, for the Battery Disposal Well IDW, the selected sub-
. alternative is less expensive. In combination, the selected remedy overall is either the lower
cost sub-alternative or substantially the same cost, to within the accuracy of the estimate, to
other sub-alternatives.
10.4
UTILIZA nON OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS, AND ALTERNATIVE
TREATMENT AND RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES
The selected remedies represent the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and
technologies can be used in a cost-effective manner. Of those alternatives that meet the
threshold criteria of overall protection of human health and the environment and compliance
with ARARs, the selected remedies provide the best balance of tradeoffs in terms of:
. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence;
. Reduction of TMV;
. Short-term Effectiveness;
. Implementability; and
. Cost
10.5
PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
The selected remedy satisfies the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element.
The principal threats to human health and the environment are volatile organic chemicals in
groundwater, and metals in soil. The selected remedy would address these threats through
treattnent by removing VOCs from the groundwater and destroying them using ultraviolet
light, or in the case of Parking Lot 3, thermal destruction offsite after capture on activated
carbon. Metals in soil would be immobilized by adding stabilizers to the excavated soil.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
II - 67
January 8, 1995
-------
24-150029-A501ER53-146
-- - - .
.-- - -.-
ill RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARV
January 8, 1995
-------
- -- ---- -- - -
----- - -.-.
1 BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
At various times since 1979, fonnal news releases have been issued by the SADA Public Affairs
Office concerning contamination issues at SADA. The releases have provided the local media
and general public with information on the status of investigative and remedial efforts and
continuing actions to protect public health and safety.
To date, public concerns about the contamination at SADA have mainly focused on (I) the
potential for exposure to contaminated groundwater that currently exists under the southwest
comer of SADA and off site to the south and west of SADA, and (2) the effects that
contamination and remedial actions have on public health and the environment
Contamination at SADA is not expected to affect businesses in the vicinity of the site, residential
property values, or traffic patterns during site cleanup since the selected remedy will operate
within the SADA facility boundary and will not significantly change the number of vehicles
going to or from the Depot each day. The public has expressed no concerns with these issues. If
not remediated, contaminants at SADA could pose a long-term health risk to future on-site and
off-site workers. No short-term or long-term human health or environmental risks should occur
during or after remediation of soil or groundwater, providing that on-site workers follow stan.dard
OSHA guidelines for working with hazardous waste during remediation and dust control
measures are implement during construction. The public has expressed no concerns with short-
or long-term health risks during remediation, but has expressed concern about contamination of
drinking water wells.
24-150029-J\50fJER53-146
Ill-I
January 8, 1995
-------
------
2 OVERVIEW
Notice was placed in the local community daily newspaper announcing the availability of the
Basewide Feasibility Study (OUFS) and Proposed Plan (PP) in the local information repositories
at the California State University Library, the SADA Security Office, Cal-EPA, Department of
Toxic Substances Control, and the George Sim Community Center. Public review and comment
was invited for a period of 30 days, from November 22 to December 21, 1994. No written
comments were received.
A public information and comment meeting on the PP was held on December 7, 1994 at the
George Sim Community Center. The meeting was attended by 45 people, representing the
public, the Army, EPA, DISC and RWQCB. During the public comment period and the public
meeting, the public had 23 questions and 4 comments.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
III-2
January 8, 1995
-------
. -- - - .. - - -
3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ARMY RESPONSES
The following questions were asked at the public meeting on December 7, 1994.
Question 1:
How far had the groundwater plume traveled prior to beginning cleanup efforts?
Re~nse:
We estimate that when we first began, the groundwater plume was about a quarter of a mile off
the base.
Question 2:
How many gallons per month are being pumped out of the ground?
Re~onse: .
The treatment plant usually pumps anywhere between 12 and 13 million gallons a month. Once
the new wells have been installed, the treatment plant will be pumping anywhere between 17 and
18 million gallons a month.
Question 3:
.Is it possible to dump the treated water back into the well again instead of into the sewer system?
Response:
Yes, the Anny has conducted a reuse study that considered putting treated groundwater back
down the wells. This option was too expensive and we couldn't control the plume.
Question 4:
How do you determine what actually caused the contamination and over what period of time?
Response:
The groundwater contamination was caused by downward movement of contaminants from the
South Post Burn Pits which operated from the 1950's to 1966. Rainwater washed contaminants
through the soil and into the groundwater.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
1II-3
January 8, 1995
-------
Question 5:
Could the groundwater flow direction change at the southwest depot?
Response:
No, the flow direction could not change in this case. Groundwater flow moves due to gravity
and the gravitational direction, which, in this case, is south, southwest. The groundwater
elevation is higher on the north side of the depot and is lower on the south side. Therefore,
gravity will pull the water towards the south, since it has a lower elevation. Futhermore, there is
not groundwater pumping anywhere else on-depot that would change the direction of flow.
Question 6:
When you are testing for different contaminants, don't you have to know specifically what you
are looking for first, so that you can choose the correct test? Otherwise, you may not find it.
Response:
We knew what kinds of chemicals were used in the past. Also, when the samples are analyzed in
the laboratory, certain classes of chemicals are tested for, so you don't have to know the specific
chemical, only the general class you are looking for. In general, we did full scans for the various
classes of chemicals before we analyzed specific chemicals.
Question 7: .
How long has the depot's groundwater monitoring program been in effect?
Response:
The depot began their monitoring program over 10 years ago.
Question 8:
How many years in the future are you going to monitor the wells?
Response:
The wells will be monitored until the agencies are satisfied that the cleanup levels have been met.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
III-4
January 8, 1995
-------
--- --"-- --
- ------ ----. - --.
Question 9:
What if new contamination begins to show up?
Re$pOnse:
If new contamination is found, and it can be shown that it's a result of depot activities, the
government is obligated to clean it up. If a new industry on the depot contaminates the soil and
we pick it up in the groundwater, we will track it down and find the source and then the State
regulators will get involved with the company that's producing that contamination.
Question 10:
Specifically, what kind of contaminants are located in the groundwater?
Re&ponse:
Solvents (e.g. Trichloroethylene)
Question 11:
What efftct does Trichloroethylene have on humans?
Res.ponse:
Trichloroethylene may cause cancer.
Question 12:
Does the depot's groundwater contamination effect the drinking water?
Response: .
There are no drinking wells in the area of the groundwater plume.
depot area receive their drinking water from the city.
Residents surrounding the
Question 13:
What is air sparging?
Response:
Air sparging is a way of cleaning up groundwater. During air sparging, air bubbles are injected
into the soil below the groundwater table. The VOCs that are dissolved in the groundwater, or
absorbed onto soil particles in the groundwater, become volatilized and forced upward with the
24-150029-A501ER53-146
1II-5
January 8, 1995
-------
--- -- -----
air bubbles out of the groundwater and into the soil. Then the vapors are extracted out of the
soil, brought to the surface and treated.
Question 14:
Am I correct in saying that part of the decision making process leading to a particular decision,
as you call it, requires analysis of cost effectiveness and estimates of the total cost 01 the
remediation process?
Re~nse:
. Yes.
Question 15:
It's my personal opinion that it's beneficial for the general public and taxpayer to recognize the
level of resources and funding that had been allocated to the clean-up of the Sacramento Army
Depot. And particular, the local residents should know how much of the national tax dollars and
state tax dollars have been allocated to making sure that you and your family are safe for
generations. How much has been spent to date?
Re~onse:
Through our records, which would include money spent prior to the development of the
Superfund, we have spent $63,000,000.
Question 16:
Would that include the budgets for the persons who are on payroll of the Cal-EP A, Federal EP A,
and any other agencies? How much is being expended within their departments or agencies? .
Would you say it is important or that the public has a right to kn~w?
Res.,ponse:
No, Cal-EPA, federal EPA and other agencies are not included in the $63,000,000.
paid for out of different budgets/accounts.
They are
Yes, the public has a right to know.
24-150029-A501ER53-146
III-6
January 8, 1995
-------
. -. -_._- ---
-~ -- . _._"
Question 17:
Would it be a reasonable statement to say that a considerable amount of resources and tax
dollars have been allocated to addressing the concerns of the local community and ensuring
their ongoing health?
Re~nse:
Yes.
Question 18:
Can you tell me how much Kleinftlder has been paid to date and how much Foster Wheeler has
been paid to date?
Re~onse:
To date, Kleinfelder has been paid $23,000,000 and Foster Wheeler has received approximately
$2,000,000. OfKleinfelder's $23,000,000 various subcontractors to the finn have received about
2/3 of the total dollar amount.
Question 19:
Would it be correct in saying then that Kleinfelder and their subcontractors are basically located
in the greater Sacramento area, certainly within the Northern California area and that those tax
dollars have in some way come back to our community?
ReSJ>onse:
Yes, almost all of the consultants are located in the Sacramento area.
Question 20:
Are all the contracts in hand to carry the depot through closure? If so, is the funding for those
contracts secured and if not, what can we as members of the general public do to assist and
ensure that you get the funding required to finish the project?
Response:
Yes, the contracts are in hand. The community's support, and the team approach from the State,
federal agencies, Corps of Engineers and the depot have been key to successful funding of this
program.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
III-7
January 8, 1995
-------
- - - --
.---_.
Question 21:
In some documentation it was stated that this area is a seasonal wetland and that there are
various forms of wildlife on the depot. What is going to happen to the rabbits, foxes and
burrowing owls?
Response:
In the northwest comer of the depot there are fairy shrimp, bUITOwing owls, a coyote family, and
rabbits.
The north-west comer of the depot has been zoned by the city as an open space habitat preserve,
which will not be developed. When the property is transferred to the city they will not be able to
build on this area. The Final Reuse and Disposal EIS for Sacramento Army Depot will discuss
endangered species issues and possible mitigation measures. .
Question 22:
Are there trees out there?
Response:
Yes, there are a few trees on the depot property.
Question 23:
I think that putting some good plant life and seeds to make plants is the natural way to clean it up
and make it look good.
RESPONSE:
The property is being transferred to the city for reuse.
Development Department to make this suggestion.
Contact the city's Planning and
24-150029-A501ER53-146
III-8
January 8, 1995
-------
The following comments were made at the public meeting on December 7, 1994.
COMMENT 1:
The RAB Community Co-chair expressed his satisfaction with the Army's approach to cleaning
up the Sacramento Army Depot. At first, the member was concerned that the Army was not
forthcoming, but since becoming involved with the program, the member is happy and satisfied
with the Army's remediation program.
COMMENT 2:
One community member expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to question and comment
on this program. He credits the depot with an excellent job in articulating and presenting
infonnation to the community.
The member commented that. any place you have a military installation, there
foreseeable environmental problems and that it is going to cost money to clean it up.
have to spend - how much is a child's life worth: $60,000,000? $100,000,000?
are some
So if you
COMMENT 3:
A community RAB member explained their continued concern and thanked the depot for trying
to answer their questions. The member appreciates the depot's community efforts and feels they
go out of their way to try and get the answers when a question has been asked the can't otherwise
be quickly answered.
COMMENT 4:
The president of a local Neighborhood Association thanked the Army for their efforts.
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
III-9
January 8, 1995
-------
4 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The Community Relations activities relating to the Basewide Record of Decision for SADA to
date have included the following:
.
The ArMy held a public meeting on June 16, 1994 at the George Sim Commwiity Center,
6207 Logan Street in Sacramento, California. The meeting was held to update the
community on the depot's remediation status and to solicit interest in forming a
Restoration Advisory Board (RAB). Minutes from the. meeting are available in the
Administrative Record.
.
The Anny developed a fact sheet to solicit community interest in forming a Restoration
Advisory Board (RAB). The fact sheet was mailed out to over 8,000 residents
surrounding the depot. A notice was placed in the local daily newspaper anno:uncing the
formation of the depot's RAB. Approximately 20 applications were received. RAB
members were selected from the applications received.
.
A RAB was established in July 1994. Members meet monthly to discuss the depot's
remediation efforts.
.
The Anny placed notices in a local daily newspaper announcing the cleanup plan, the
availability of documents in the Administrative Record and other information
repositories, and an upcoming public meeting December 7, 1994. The notices invited
public participation in the selection of a cleanup alternative.
.
The Anny issued a Proposed Plan (PP) describing the preferred basewide alternative for
groundwater and soil cleanup at SADA and soliciting public involvement on November
18, 1994. The PP was mailed to contiguous property owners and numerous newspapers,
radio, and television stations. In addition to the Administrative Record, the PP is
available at the offices of Region IX EP A, the California EP A DTSC in Sacramento,
California, and the George Sim Community Center.
.
The Anny held a public meeting on December 7, 1994 at the George Sim Community
Center, 6207 Logan Street in Sacramento, California. The meeting was recorded by a
court reporter and a written text of the meeting is available in the Administrative Record.
24-150029-A50fER53-146
III - 10
January 8, 1995
-------
- - .. .-.. . --- ---- --
.
The Army opened a public comment period from November 22 to December 21, 1994.
No written or oral comments were received during that time, except at the public meeting
on December 7, 1994 (see preceding item).
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
III-II
January 8, 1995
-------
- - - . --.. - ------ ---
APPENDIX A
ANALYSIS OF ARARs
Table A-I = South Post Groundwater, Selected Remedy
Table A-2 = Parking Lot 3 Groundwater, Selected Remedy
Table A-3 = Building 300 Bum Pits Soil, Selected Remedy
Table A-4 = Battery Disposal Well IDW Waste
Table A-5 = South Post Bum Pits ROD Amendment
Table A-6 = Oxidations Lagoons ROD Amendment
24-150029-A501ER53-146
January 8, 1995
-------
40 CFR 403
fAppllc.blel
RCRA TANKS
22 CCR 66264.195
,Applicable)
22 CCR 66264.196
'Applicable)
22 CCR 68264.197
IAppllclble'
T 'A-1
SOUTH PO~ AOUNDWATER
SELECTa:D REMEDY
LISTING OF APPLICABLE OR RELEV.ANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
Generll Pretrellment Regulatlonl 10' exlsllng .nd
new lource. 0' wlte, poDulion.
Groundwater plaUlllmen. It the South Po.. GtOundW"" Treatment Plant wtl be continued In comt'lianci
wllh this chemlnl -specific r'gulI11on. For II long .. the cPsc:hlrD8 continue. 10 the 5Ic,'mtnIO R.glon.1
51"1'1.lon District. the requirement. ,f, described '" SADA', Opef.tJng penNtl..uod by thl Senft.non
District. The high., Wlt8f dlsch.ree rile at 450 ;pm win hive 10 be Iccomod.ttd by allocating. or..lef
ponlon of Ihe aDowabie dlsch.rge cepldly 10 the Secr.menta Regional S.nltltlon Dlslflct 10 the groundwater
discharge.
18nk Inspection schedule Ind procedures are
GuUln.d.
The ..Istlng grOundwater tr..tment pI.nt u... hydroGen peroxtde. . hUlrdoul materlll line. It III
.trong oxld.nt. The ope1I.lon o. the hydrogen ptlroxide tank h.. been end will be In complanc. with thl.
regutation. The .enk Is Inspected end there II In Imergency response pl.n 10 ImpIIm.nt In the Iv.nt 0' .
r,llIn Of acddent.
Emergency Relponse.
This flgutalton Is applicable to thl H202 tlnk It thl South Polt GrOundWlt1f Tr..tment Alnl. An Ipptov.d
'mergency response ptan would be ImptlflMlnted In response 10 . Ipil.
This IIcUon describel ciosUfI Ind polI.clolur. clfe
requlrementl for tlnk..
Thli regulation. I, IppUclbl8 10 thl H202 tlnk It the South Polt Grol.l1dwlter Tratment Planl. An lppt'oVid
CJosurl pl.n wil be Imp'emenled when Ihl I.nb Ire removed 'rom IIrvke.
NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
40 CFR PI" 141.61
!Re'evanl A Appropriate)
EII.bIlIMI I mlklmum contemlnant level 0' 0.005 mgn
for TCE Ind PCE In wltlr IIrved to people.
The Maximum Contlmlnant level. CMCl.) fOf con.thuentl In drtnklng wit... Ire fI'lvant and 8PPfoJMIltl 'or
IVlfuaUng IInal rlmedlltlon goll, 'or remediation of groundwlter. TNI lub.alternallv, wi. comply wllh thl.
ARAR by restormg the aquUer over time 10 the FIn8I Remldlllkm 0011 wtdch Ire .It not to I.cnd the MClt.
TN, reslorliion " achieved through pumping and groundwater containing conllmlnlntl. Fldlfl'MClIlr.
rellvlnt Ind epPfopri'IO for 11.,.chlorOI1hl"1 (PCE) Ind trlchlaroathane nce..
STATE PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
22 CCR 0.4".5
(Relevant & Appropriate)
24.1 SOO29.ASOIERS3.141xls
Setl m.Kimum rlvels 'or constiluanliin drinking wiler
luppUed to the pubflc.
The Maximum Contamlnlnt lovel (MCls) 'at consthuent. In drtnltlng wit" .,. ,.Ilvant Ind IpptOprt11l '0'
evaluallng flnll remediltlon gOI" for remediation of groundwllaf. ThIs lub..herMIIvI will compty with thl.
ARAR by re,torlng Ihl aquifer over time to the Final Remecft8110n Galli which are lit not 10 ..end the MClt.
TN. r.ltorltlon Is .chlaved bv pumpfng 0' the lqul'er In lona. 0' ma.lmum uceedanee 0' the FRO,. StilI
MClII,. 'elevant and appropriate 'or 1.2.dk:hloroethene. cl,.I,2.dJchlorolthene. and Clrban talflchtaride.
In6/95
-------
T ":A-1
SOUTH PO. ROUNDWATER
SElEC'1 t:O REMEDY
LISTING OF APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
22 CCR 66264,97 Ibl end reI
GROUNDWATER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
RCRA Groundw.te, Monitoring Requirements
Water Qu.lity Control Ptan
(Basin PI,n) tor the RWOCS.
CVR, IAppliceblel, Chapter 2
88n,ficlal Uses: Municipal
and Oomett'c, AgtiCU"Uf-' .
8nd Industrl" Suppty;
Chapler 3 Waler Cu.lilY
ObJectives: Chemle.1
Constituents
St.tl W,'.r Resources
Conlrol Board R"oluUan No.
88.63 (.Sources or Drinking
W.ler Policy.. ell con"lned
In the RWaCO', Wile, Qualily
Control PI'nl fAppHubf,'
Slate Wale, Resoufci.
Conlrol Board Resolut5on No.
92.49 Section IIIG (A,
emended April 21, 199.'
tAppilcabte)
TlI'e 23. CCR Section 2550.4
(Applicable.
24.150029.A501E1U3.147ds
Speclnc appflclbte portkJn. 01 the Basm Plan mctude benetiel.1
uses o' .n,tled wile, bodl,. .nd wlte' quality obiecI'
Ive. to potect those us.,. Any Ictlviry. Including. 'or
example. I new discharg. o' contaminated 80lls or In.811u
O..,men, Of con,alnmne' at con,amml'fid SGUs. ,ha' may
.ffect wlter quality must not resuft In wlter quality
.lIceedlng water quaUty objectives.
Determine. beneficial us... 'or waters that mly be
,lfected by discharges o' WlSle.
Applies to 111 cleanups of discharges th.t may .11.cl
wlter quaU,y. (Specllk:ally SecUon III G) Establishe,
r,qulram,n" 'or Invlalig'16on end c'eanup Ind
abatement o' dlschargel. Among other 'equlremen,.,
dlKto.II08' must cl,ln up and ebate ,he enee', ot
dlschargll In I mlnner thlt promotel the 1...lnment
o' ellhet blckground wlter quality. or the belt wlter
qula,y thili. r'lIonable I' blckground wlter quafity
Clnnot be rlltored.
CJeanup 'evel. must b, .et It background concentration lovels.or. If blckg,ound levell
Ir. not technoloOic.rty Ind .cononUclny 'easlb'e. then .t the 'owelt levels thlt .r,
.conomk:.Ity.nd technologlcalty Ictdevable. Speci'lc t.cto,. must be conlktentd In SlItting
cle.nup layels .bove background level..
:.,\,::,1:1,1':::.::.1:'1'::11:1\:::::1:'\':1:::::\:.:::::'\':1:1.\.\\':':\:::':,\:\.\1::\1':::\,1:\,\.1.1.:\::\:I!\,:,I:I:\:IIII;IIIII':I:'III:.:I:I:':'IIII\I\:\:\,\:I')'\,'::I:!:I::'i'\:\:.:j:!:\:.::'::j:::::!i!:li1:::::\'li::,:\I,':::','I:,
The Army win in'teillufficient monllorlng point. to lutJy evalull. the effectlvenes. of the remedial letlon and
win comply with the general monitoring requlrementl In thl. lectlon.
The ground water cfeanup Illnd.rdl". I8t " ..., moSlltrmgent w.ter qu.lity obfectlv... whtch protect the
ground wiler for beneficial UII 01 drinking wlter.
Specifies lhat. with certain ellceptlons. .n ground .nd lurflC' wlt.r, have the benel'cl.1 use 0' munk:lpal or
domestic water suppty.
the Army demonltllted In me f5 Repon thlt h would be KOnom\cdy int,..tie to Ichteve blckground level,
(I.,.. "on-detect to, VOCal In ground water. It appelll thet the Ground wlter cleanup stand.rd. Oll,d tn T.ble 10
.re the lowest level. th.t .r, technoloolclrry .nd economlcany .ehlevlblt. Thll. .t.ndlldllfe let It the
lederel or more '1Ilnoen, 1111' Maximum Contamln.nt llvel.. Ind wi. protlct the ground wlter 'or III
beneUctal ute 0' drtnktng w.'er.
The Army demon,1f.ted In the FS Aeport thlt It woufd be economlc.By Inf.llible to Ichl,VI beckground leve'.
(I.... non.delect 'or VOCal In the ground WIll'. It IPpllr. thlt the Ground wlter cle,nup .tandard. lilted In T,bta
10 are the Iowe.. levels thet .r. technologfc:.rty ,nd economlc,rty Ichlavabte. Theil st,ndardl If' lit It the
tedera' or morl stringent "Itl Maldmurn CDntlmmant levets. ,nd wMI protect thl ground wlte, for Ita beneficia' u..
of drinking Willt.
1/26/95
-------
24.1 ~0029."~OfF.R.~~.147".
TABLE A.2
PARKING lOT 3 GROUNDWATER
SElECTED REMEDY.
LISTING OF APPliCABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS
"0 eFR 403
IAppeic,bll)
G,nelll Pr,',,"me'" Regul8lions 'Of ,.i,Ung end
,..- lOOfC" 01 wiler ~ion.
Thil chemical sptCllic If9U18Uon II tppOc'bI. to lhe dlscNrge at crroundwatlf 10 IhI S8et'rnenlo fttglonet
S.nitltlon Of.1del. Conetmln8nl Conetnlflllons In IhI Groundwltlf II the Pelting 10I 3 A'.. '" 1....,111 wNc:h
mnllhe prelreltment requW.menu 01 lhe S.nitttion District. h1f.cted grouncfwlr. wII ~ dilChe.oed In
comolilnce with the requirement. described In SAOA", Nfftn!: opt,8Iing permillJlued by IhI S.nlll'ion Dtllrlc:l.
NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
COCFAP,n '''1.81
IAet,,,,", 6 AP9fopl18111
ht8b8lshl!l. . meJdmum ConilanUnant "vel 01 0.005 me"
for TCE end PeE In Wit" Itrved 10 peOllle.
The MIICimum Contlmlnl", lev,l. (MClIl 'Of conltltu'nt. In drinttng wlter "I """ant end 8ClPfopMt. lor
.".lulling linII"mediltion lOll. tor ftmedl8tion 01 V'ounctw"., m. .utult.,....ltv, will ~ wllh IN,
ARAR by 'eUDt" the IQ\fIr" over time 10 Ihi Final "~tlon 0081 which III .11 not 10 ..eNd IhI! MClI.
TN. "IIOf.tlon II achieved Itvough IIM.-nolnv 01 a'ound....,,, cont.WnQ contemlnlnl.. F.d.,.. MClI .,.
ref...", .nd 'ppI'oprl.!. for 1'''ICNo,oethtne CPC£I .nd IrkNorOllh8n8 fTCfl.
STATE PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
22 ceA 8"".6
CReteVlnt . Appropri'lll
W.ltr (hI.DIV ConItoI "'en
181SIn PI,R) lor thl RWQC8
tVA.
IApp8lubll)
Ch8PI.r 2 Blnelicl8l U...:
Murklp., .nd Oomllilc.
Agricullur". .nd htusl,ul
Supply: ChlPI" 3 W.I"
Qu,lity OWecUve.: Chemic.1
Constltu,nt.
Sel' medmum It.fI. 'or consUluen1. tn'drinking ....Ier
suppWd 10 the public.
Thl Mulmurn Cont.mIn8", LeVlI (MClIl'or conslituenu In drinking ....ltr "I re"vant enet .pawoorI8t1lor
1.,.Iu.tlng linII r.m.dI,"on goal. '01' rerneditUon 01 ground""I". TN. lRJb..tterne,I.1 wi. cOtflClfY ,"11'1 IhI,
ARAA by r,"oring the .quUer over time 10 Ihe FInII R.mediallon Goal. wHch... "' not 10.xcetd the MClI.
Thi. re8lor8l1on I' achl,.ed by pumping 011h1 .quI'It In 10"" 01 m.1dmurn IXc..dtnel 01 the ,..0.. 5181'
MCl. "' 'elew,nt.nd eppropril'l IOf 1.2.dk:h8oroethene. cI..1,2,dIcNoroelhene, and cerbon le'rK"'~.
S~ilic eppNtab4, portk»ns ollhe Bllin PI.n inc\tdl bene.
Uci" ustJ 0' ,flected ......, bodie.. and "'81,r qu.UIV
objeCli.,.. 10 protltl tho.. u.... Any activity, Inc~dina.
'or exempli, . new dbcherge 0' cant.minlted soli... or
ar..ltu Ire.11Mftt or conteWnent 01 contemin8ted .oil..
thel m., .lItet ....ter ~IiIV musl nol re","1n ...ller
qu,lity ..cecd4ng "'81" CIU.litv CJt)itltUvel.
The around ....Ier c1l1rqt .tlnd.rdl .r. ..t .llhe mosl .trlnge", "'1111 quelily obfectl.,... wNc:h pIOttelthe
around w.ler 'or bthlilciel UII 01 drtMlng W'Itf'.
tn619S
-------
24.150029."'O/ER.53.147.1s
TABlE ..2
PARKING lOT 3 GROUNDWATER
SELECTED REMEDY
LISTING OF APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REOUIREMENTS
.i:liii:.:iijj!'!I:!j:!::;j~.:.!I!'::.:~ji!i':::::~ji:i!: :::::.!::j:::j:iil::::::j:iij:~:.:;i:~:'!~.:.j::i:::I:::~:'j::.I~~~_!I:i.~i:::;::~:::::.:::::;;~!::~:::.!.ji:i.~::.:'i:::::::!:::!i :j:::::::j:::::!:::I:lil:~':::~.~::::~::::::.:::ill::jii,,:::!~':::i::i::I:i::~:!:::~:~~:!:::::j:i::::i::i~1III:i:::i:j!i:I!:!!~~~:!:!!:i~!~:!!::~:;::il::i!:::~::1:1:I:i.i::il:i!i:!ij:ij~~~il~~:I:I;:jl!.jl:::':::'
6111t Wiler Resource. Otllln,"ne. be",lIcltl use. 'or wlte', that ml., be .fleeted by Specilies thet. wilh eef,.1n ..ceplfonl, .1 ground .net IUfI.ce "'1'111 "'.. the benefic'" USI 01 mJnIc:/cIl' 0'
ConttOi 80.'6 Resolution No. diseNrUII of wlsII- domestic w'let supply.
88.63 ISources of o.""1ng
Will' Pollcy.)C.. contained
in the RWaCS', Wit" au,tit.,
ConiroJPt,nl
tAppUclb&t)
Sl8leW,'ernesourc.. ApplIn 10 In cSelf'lUPJ 01 diSCharge. Ihil m8Y ,Ueel wI,erQU,lity. The Army demonSlflled In the FS Report thll II woutd be economlc.1„' 1n,...ibIt 10 ecNt". bedll'ound ...,1,
ConCrol 80,rd Resolution No. (Specific.", Slctlon IIIG' E'llblishel requirements tOt' 1n..,stig8lion CI.I., non,delect 10f' voe.,In the IIfound W'lft. It 8PP"" Ihlt lhe O'ound wlt.r cI"rup l'I"""d. lI.t" In r,bl,
92.49 Seelton IIIG '" Ind c:ll'8t'IUP Ind .b.lem.nt 01 dlSChirOel. Among Olhef fequiremenU. 10 Ifl thetawe.1 fey,l.lhlt Ife tec::hnoIoglc.1ty Ind tconomlcllty fCh!eYlbl.. The.. 'Iandard. If I III It the
Imlnded Apfll 2' I, 1994) disthlr~. mu'l de.n up .ndi Ib.la Iht effectl 01 dilthlrO" in a I.de,., or mora 8Iftngent II.t. M,lIimum Cont.rnIn8nt ll."'. end wi. protCCIIh1ftound Wit., for III beneUcll1
IAppUc.bI., rnanr'ler thlt promot" tht .uli"""nI 01 lithe, bldO'ound w.ter ute 01 drin'ing w.ler,
qullity. or lhe bell wIler QU.IIty Ihlt I. ,eIJonIb'I It b.c'oround
w.llf qullily clmol be ".tored.
,Title 23. ceft Slctlon 2&50.4 The Army demonstrated In lhe '9 "Iport thltlt woutd be economl(:llty in'ea.1bI1 10 acNl.I hdg'ound ...".
IAppliclbiel C8e.rvp Inell must be III II b.dO,ound eonctntratlon te.ell. or. II (I",. non-deleCI 10' vae" In the oround WII". "'ppeI".that the orouncl Wlltf cll.nup .t.ndlfd. 1111d In flbt,
b.dground le.eI, 'fll! not tICMotoQlc::.1Iy .nd Iconomle.1Iy 'ealibl.. then It to .11 the towest II~. that .r, lectwdoglc.1ty and economlellly Khlly.bIt. ThI.. 111IId1fd. arl III lllhe
the IOWIII it..,. lhal .... economlc.1Iy .nd leChnologlcllfy .eNey.bl.. fedelll or rnofl 11I1noent .I,te Mtllmum Cont.mlntnt Llvll.. Ind wi' protlct the 9round wiler tor II. bef'llfltl.1
SpecUIc '1(Iori mult be consldefed In IIUIng c:l1!8f1UP II.el. lbove us. 01 drln'ing wit.,.
blc'.ound II.el..
22 ttR 8UZ8".91Ibl.nd fel ReRA Groundw.'" Monitoring Rlquitlmlnll. The Army wi. Ins"" .ufllelent fnC)I1iloring point. 10 fully 1.1"'" lhe '''actln",'' 0' Ihi remecUII IClkwI 8nd
will compfy wllh the Glne,,' monjutling fequirp,entt 10 this tteUon.
In6l'l'l
-------
TABLE A.3
BUILDING 300 BURN PIT SOIL
SELECTED REMEDY
LISTING OF APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
Rulo 402
(Applicablo)
Oonoral guldollno, If Ihe operollon causes release 01 conlamlnanls
10 Ihe almosphere, Ihon a caso.by.case delermlnollon 01 public
nuisance potenUal should bo perfo.med 10 ve.ily compllonce. This
.ule slatos Ihot discharge. 10 elr ceusing Inju.y, delrlmenl, nuisance,
annoyance; or endangering comlort. repose, health, safetv. or
causing damage 10 b~slnes. o. property Is prohibited.
Rule 403
CApplicoblel
Fugltlvo dust
Rulo 405
(Applicable)
Dust and Condonsod lumes .equl.ements
24-1 ~OO29-A50/ER53-147"ls
During excovatlon allho Building 300 Burn Pil, Iho cont.aclor ahall mlnlml.e Iho pOlentlallo.
amlsslons using BACT. A haaith .Isk assassmonl has beon conducled 10 eveluale Iho ellecl ollugltlva
emissIons on Ihe .ecoplo.a In lhe vlclnily ollhe alabm.otlon unll. Wo.ke" could como In conlacl with the
conlamlnaled soli during axcevoUon ond soli aloblll.atlon. Wo.kers wliliollow 811 aolety guldellno. lor
work on a harardous wasle site, wooring pesona' prolectlve equlpmenl os .equlrod and continuously
monitoring amblonl aI. qualily. Tho sUfJounding community 01 SAOA will nol be oxposod 10 harardoua
molorlals during .amedlel activities essoclated with soli slablll.ollon, wllh Iho posslblo oxceptlon 01 a
sllghl, lempo.ary Increesa 01 dust during excavetln and soli Iraalmanl which will be conl.olled Ihrough the
usa 01 dust conlrollechnologlas and covarlng 01 excaveled malerlals. The conlreelO. shell use perimoler
aI. monllorlng 10 ve.ilv Ihe succo.s 01 dusl eonlrol measures. II 'he lollowlng values ere exceeded. Ihe
conlractor shall stop dusl.generating work and undertake all action. necessary 10 ellmlnele dustlrom
traveling ofl.site:
Melal ug/m'
ArsenIc 0.042
Cadmium 0.034
Copper 35
Nickel 0.08
Zinc 35
leed 1.5
During excavation al the Building 300 Burn Pil, every reesonable ellort will be lahn 10 prevenl
lugilive dUSI I.om exlending beyond lhe property line. Dust conlrol meesur.s wlllinciud. welorlng wllh addition
01 dusl conlrol chamlcals or loams avellobl. II noeded.
No dlschorgos Inlo Iho elmosphere shall be made Irom any aOurce whalsoovor 01 dust or eondansed lumos In lotal
quantltlas oxceadlng Ihe allowabla.
In6/95
-------
TABLE A-4
BATTERY DISPOSAL WELL
SELECTED REMEDY
LISTING OF APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
SMAQMD AIR EMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS
Rute 402
(Appllceble)
Rule 403
(Appllceble'
Rule 405
!Appllcable'
24-1 SOO29-ASO/ERS3-147xls
Generelguldeline, If the operetlon causes releese of contemlnants
to the etmosphere, then e cese.by-cese determlnetlon 01 public
nuisance potentlel should be performed to verily compliance. This
rule states that dlscherges to ai, causing Inju,y, detriment, nuisance,
ennoy~nce; 0' endengerlng comlort, ,epose, health, selety, or
causing demage to business or property is prohibited.
During t,ansport 01 the Battery Disposal Welllnvastigation Derived Weste, the contractor shall mlnlmlle the potentlel
lor emissions using BACT. A health risk esse05ment has been conducled to evaluela Iha ellecl 01 fugitive
emissions on the ,eceptors In the vicinity 01 the sleblilletion unll. Workers could come In conlecl with the
contemlnated soli during excevetlon end soli stebilizelion. Workers will follow ell sefely guidelines lor
work on e helardous weste slle, weerlng pesonel prolecllva equlpmenl as required end contlnuouslV
monitoring emblent elr quellty. The surrounding community of SADA will nol be uposed to hezerdous
melerlels during remediel ectivitles essocleted with soli stablllzetlon, with the possible exception 01 a
slight, temporery Inc,eesa 01 dusl durIng axcavetln end soli t,eell1lent which will be cont.olled through lha
use of dusl conlrol technologies end covering 01 exceveled melerlels. The conl,aclor shall usa perlmele,
elr monitoring 10 verily the success of dusl conllol meesures. IIlhe lollowlng velues era exceeded, the
contractor shall stop dust-generating work and under18ke all actions necessary to eliminate dust trom
I,evellng oll-sl.e:
Fugllive dust
During lIensport 01 the BOW lOW, every reesonable effort will be teken to p.event fugItive dust from
f,om exlendlng beyond Ihe property line. Dusl control measures will Include welerlng wllh eddltlon
01 dusl conlrol chemicals or foams available II needed.
Dusl end Condensed lumes .equlrements
No dlscherges Into Ihe elmosphare shell be made lrom eny source whelsoever of dust O' condensed fumes In lotel
quentilles,exceeding Ihe ellowable.
1/26/95
-------
TABLE A-5
SOUTH POST BURN PITS ROD AMENDMENT
ARARs
}::H:}@tt$Mij:t}tHt:::t::~ :@mrtH::::::::HHitHt}~~R~!ft!~~.m}:t:}}:::::}mtl:i:r}:::~l}:::t::::::::::::r}i:r:}:n}}:nm:::trr:::t}m:trIrniti:t:rm~9MI!~ffljj}@ntMm}Hnnr@ltHijrw@:;rMnmir
RCRA CLOSURE
22 CCR 66264.97 Idj RCRA unsaturated lone monitoring The Army will Install sullicient monitoring points to lully evaluate tha affactlvenass 01 the
and (el remedial action and will comply wllh the general monitoring requlraments In this aection.
22 CCR 66264.111 Closura parformsnca standards The Army will develop a remedlel design which complies with the substance 01 the
requirements set lorth In this section.
22 CCR 66264.112 Closure plan The Army will develop a remedial design which complies with the substance 01 the
requirements set lorth In this section.
CORRECTIVE ACTION MANAGEMENT UNITS
22 CCR 66264.552
lei III (4) CAMU requirements The remedial design shall address the lollowlng requirements lor the South Post Burn Pits CAMU:
1. The areal configuration 01 the CAMU.
2. Requirements lor remediation wosta monagamant lor those 8rees 01 the CAMU that ore to be
used lor treatment or storage 01 remadlation waates.
3. Monitoring requlremento.
4. Closure and post.closure requirements.
22 CCR 66264.250 253 Waste pile requirements The remedial designs shall oddress the following requirements for South Post Burn Pits CAMU:
1. Waste pile design and operating requirements.
2. 'Action leekege rete.
3. Response actions.
4. Monitoring and Inspection.
24-150029-A50/ER53-147x1s
1/26/95
-------
TABLE A-S
SOUTH POST BURN PITS ROD AMENDMENT
ARARs
:t:~:?::~::tt::::t::f.iM#.t??:tmt::::::::::t~~?i?t:tt::}ltn::til:M~iffimi:I~Kin:::::llm?}tt}t}}td:}im}it:l::m}:~j?:~??}:}??::~::mrrilll::::lm:l:ttjmrj~sM@i~~Wrir:tm:l{!r:tmri:t::l:::;:::lmrfimW:::n::;::rtn:;l:l::t
SMAQMD AIR EMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS
Rule 402
( Applicable'-
Rule 403
(Appllceble)
Rule 405
(Applicable)
24-1S0029-ASO/ERS3-147xls
General guideline. If the operation ceuses
release of contaminants to the atmosphere.
then e case.by-case determination of public
nuisance potential shoul~ be performed to
verily compliance. This rule stetes that
discharges to air causing InJury. detriment.
nuisance. ennoyance; or endangering comfort,
repose, health. safety. or causing damage to
business or property Is prohibited.
Fugitive Dust
Dust and Condensed fumes requirements
For the stabilization at the CAMU the Army shall minimize the potential for emlulons
using BACT. A health risk essessment has been 'conducted to evaluate the
the ellect of fugitive emissions on the receptors In the vicinity of the CAMU.
The Army shall use perimeter monitoring to verily the successful
dust control measures. II the following values are exceeded. the contractor shall
stop dust-generated work and undertake all actions necessary to eliminate dust
from traveling oil-site:
':f::~':::::':{!!1!~!!'i,,:f~'j:::::~:::f: :f':t:i'~:j':::~ ,I!tf~:::~:i'~::{:'
Arsenic 0.042
Cadmium 0.034
Copper 36
Nickel 0.6
Zinc 35
Lead 1.6
At the CAMU. every reasonable precaution shall be taken not to cause or allow the emlulons
of fugitive dust from being elrborne beyond the property line from which the
emissions originate. Reasonable precautions shall Include. but are not limited
to applying asphalt, 011, water, or suitable chemicals for the control of dust on
surfaces which can give rise to airborne matter. Other measures may be taken
as approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer. The Army will be required
to comply with this rute.
No discharges Into the atmosphere shall be made from any aource whatsoever of dust or condensed
fumes in total quantities exceeding the allowable.
2
1126/95
-------
TABLE A-8
OXIDATION LAGOONS ROD AMENDMENT
SELECTED REMEDY
LISTING OF APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
Rule 402
IApplicable}
Rule 403
tApplicable)
Rule 405
IApplicabla)
24-1 S0029-ASO/ERn-147
General guideline. If the operation causes release 0' contamlnents
10 the atmosphere. then 8 cese.bY.C8se determination 0' public
nul.ence polentlal .hould be perlormed 10 verily compllence. Thl.
rule 8Iale. .hll dischlrglilo air cau.lng Injury. detrlmenl. nul.ence.
annoyance: or endangering comfort. repose, health, safety. 0'
causing demege 10 business or property Is prohibited.
Fuglll.e du"
Dust end Condensed fumes requirements
During exclvallon 01 Oxidation Llgoon. loll.. Ihl Army Ihall mlnlmlzl Ihe pOllnlll' lor
eml'llon. u.lng BACT. A hellth rllk ellOssmenl he. be In conduc'ed '0 eVllUlle 'h, elllci 01 lugltlve
emission. on Ih, receplorl In Ihe vlclnlly 01 Ihe "ebUlution unit. Worke" could coml In conllci wllh Ihl
conlemlnlled loll during excevallon end 101l1lebUlzltlon. Worke" will lollow III nlely guldelln81 lor
work on I ha18rdous waste a1t8. wearing pesonalprolectlve equipment 88 required and continuously
monllorlng ambllnl air quailly. The lurroundlng communlly 01 SAOA wUl nol b, ,xpond 10 hozardou.
malerlal. during ,amedlol oc'lvIlla. assoclalad wll" 0011 olabUlzation. wllh Iha posslbla axcaption 01 I
sllghl. temporary Increolo 01 du.' during excovotln ond soli ,reolmonl which will bl conlrolled .hrough .h,
use 0' dust control technologies end covering 0' excavated material.. The contractor shan use perimeter
81r monitoring to verity the success 01 dust control mellures. If the followtng v.lues 8r. 8xclDded. the
contractor shan atop dust.generaUng work and underteke el1 8ctlons' necesslry to .1Imln8t. dust Irom
Ire.ollng oil-III.:
Melal ug/mS
ArsenIc 0.042
Codmtum 0.034
Coppa, 35
Nickel 0.08
Zinc 35
Leod 1.5
During oxcavetlon 01 Iho Oxldlllon Logoons 50111. e.ory ,oosonobll ellort will be ,oken '0 prevlnl
lugllivI dus' "am exlandlng boyond Iho proporty line. OUII con.rol moo.url. wlllincludl welerlng wllh Iddltlon
01 dust conlrol chemlcoll or loom. ovall.blo II neodod.
No dlschorgo. InlO Ihe olmo.ph.re Iholl bo mlde Irom Iny 10urCI whetsolver 01 duSI or condonsed lumo. In 10101
quontillel Ixcoodlng Ihe allowobre.
t 126/9S
-------
APPENDIX B
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD DOCUMENTS
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
January 8, 1995
-------
-.- .---.- ---
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Administrative Record Documents Submittal I.D.
1. Sacramento Army Depot Federal Facility Dec. 1988 SW-35
Agreement (FF A)
2. Proposed Plan for On-site Ground Water June 16, 1989 GW-ll
Remediation
3. Proposed Plan for On-site Ground Water May 19, 1989 GW-I0
Operable Unit Feasibility Study (OUFS)
4. Public Health Evaluation Phase II OUFS April 1989 GW-8
Ground Water Treatment System
5. Record of Decision Ground Water . Sept. 28, 1989 GW-13
Treatment System
6. Listing of CERCLA Response Selection AR-l
Guidance Documents Consulted for Proposed
7. Notice of Availability of Proposed Plan; July 31, 1989 AR-2
and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative
Declaration
8. Meeting Minutes from Remedial Project AR-ll
Managers (RPMs) Meetings and Restoration
Advisory Board (RAB) Meetings
9. RCRA Part B Permit Renewal Application April 2, 1990 AR-3
10. Tank 2 Proposed Action Plan August 1991 T2-5
11. Tank 2 & Oxidation Lagoons Public August 20, 1991 AR-12
Hearing Transcript
12. Tank 2 Operable Unit Feasibility Oct. I, 1991 T2-4A
Study (OUFS)
13. Tank 2 OUFS Public Health Evaluation Oct. 1,1991 T2-4B
14. Tank 2 OUFS Treatability Studies Oct. 1,1991 T2-4C
15. Tank 2 Record of Decision Oct. 2, 1991 T2-6
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
January 8, 1995
-------
I-
I
~-_.- - _._-
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Administrative Record Documents Submittal I.D.
16. Tank 2 Operable Unit Technical Memorandum Oct. 25, 1991 T2-7
Field Activities, Appendix A-I of Sitewide
RI Report
17. Pesticide Mix Area, Fire Fight. TrainIDg Area, Oct. 28, 1991 RI-4AID
Building 300 Bum Pits, Battery Disposal Well,
Technical Memorandum ofField Activities,
Appendix A-4 of Sitewide Remedial Investigation
18. Oxidation Lagoons Operable Unit Feasibility Mar 13, 1992 OL-4A
Study (OUFS)
19. Oxidation Lagoons Public Health Evaluation Mar 13, 1992 OL-4B
20. Oxidation Lagoons Treatability Studies Mar 13, 1992 OL-4C
21. Tank 2 Record of Decision Fact Sheet April 5, 1992
22. Oxidation Lagoons Proposed Action Plan May 1992 OL-5
23. Oxidation Lagoons Public Hearing May 27, 1992 AR-13
Transcript
24. Bum Pits Public Health Evaluation June 12, 1992 BP-3B
(Appendix C of OUFS)
25. Bum Pits Treatability Study (Appendix G June 12, 1992 BP-3C
of OUFS)
26. Oxidation Lagoons Operable Unit Technical June 30, 1992 OL-6
Memorandum ofField Activities, Appendix A-2
of Sitewide Remedial Investigation
27. Bum Pits Proposed Action Plan July 1992 BP-4
28. Bum Pits Operable Unit Technical July 1992 BP-2
Memorandum ofField Activities, Appendix A-3
of the Remedial Investigation
29. Addendum Report to Technical Memorandum July 17, 1992 BP-5
ofField Activities Bum Pits Operable Unit
30. Cotnmunity Relations Plan August 1992 SW-24
Sacramento Army Depot
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
January 8, 1995
-------
. ---._-- --
- .--- - - ----
. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Administrative Record Documents Submittal I.D.
31. Bum Pits Public Hearing Transcript August 13, 1992 AR-14
32. Oxidation Lagoons Record of Decision Sept. 15,1992 OL-7
33. Oxidation Lagoons Record of Decision January 1993 AR-15
Fact Sheet
34. Bum Pits Record of Decision Feb. 23, 1993 BP-7
35. Burn Pits Operable Unit Feasibility Mar 30, 1993 BP-3A
Study (OUFS)
36. Basewide Health Risk Assessment May 4, 1994 SW-29
37. Burn Pits Record of Decision Fact Sheet June 1993 AR-16
38. Base Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC) March 1, 1994 AR-17
Clean Up Plan
39. Sacramento Army Depot Reuse Plan June 20, 1994 AR-21
40. Tank 2 Remedial Action Plan June 21, 1994 T2-9
41. Basewide Feasibility Study July 13, 1994 SW-28
42. Ecological Risk Assessment August 5, 1994 SW-36
43. Sacramento Army Depot Reuse Plan Sept. 1994 AR-22
Final EnviromnentaI Impact Report
44. EnviromnentaI Assessment for Additional Sept. 1994 AR-23
Ground Water Extraction Well
45. Basewide Remedial Investigation Sept. 21, 1994 SW -27
46. Final EnviromnentaI Impact October 1994 AR-24
47. Basewide Proposed Action Plan November 1994 AR-19
48. Statement Disposal and Reuse AR-20
24-150029-A50/ER53-146
January 8, 1995
------- |