PB98-964506
EPA 541-R98-032
October 1998
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base
OUs 5 & 6
Barstow, CA
1/12/1998
-------
SFUND RECORDS CTR
3146-00128
OlJerable U"llits
-
5 alld 6
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA - CTO 0260
RECORD OF DECISION REPORT
FOR OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6
CLE-J02-G1 F26G-S7-G027
09 January 1998
. ~:".
. .~.. .~, ~. .
-------
CT026<71B70027\FlNAL
CLE-J02-o1 F2~-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACRONYMS ............ ..... ........... ............................ ............................................ xxv
1.0 DECLARATION .......................... ............ """""""" ............. .......... ............ ......... 1-1
1.1 Site Name and Location [[[ ..................... 1-1
1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose [[[ 1-1
1.3 Assessment of the CAOCs[[[ 1-2
1.4 Description of the Selected Remedy[[[ 1-2
1.4..1 Description of Selected Remedy for CAOC 7
Strata 1 and 2[[[ 1-3
1.4.2 Description of Selected Remedy for CAOC 7
Strata 3 and 4[[[ 1-3
1.4.3 Description of Selected Remedy for CAOC 16........................... 1-4
1.4.4 Description of Selected Remedy for CAOC 35 Zone 1............... 1-4
1.4.5 Description of Selected Remedy for CAOC 35 Strata 1
(eastern portion) and 2 [[[ 1-5
1.4.6 Description of Selected Remedy for CAOCs 1, 3, 4 (Strata 1 and 2),
6,8,12,13,14,15/17,19,21,22,24,26,27,28,29,30,31,
32, 36, and the Riparian Fringe Habitat...................................... 1-5
1.5 Statutory Determinations for CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2, CAOC 16, and
CAOC 35 Zone 1[[[ 1-5
1.6 Declaration Statement for CAOCs 1, 3,4 (Strata 1 and 2), 6,
7 (Strata 3 and 4),8, 12, 13, 14, 15/17, 19,21,22,24,26,27,28,
29, 30, 31, 32, 35 (Strata 1 [eastem portion] and 2), 36 and the
Riparian Fringe Habitat [[[ 1-6
-------
CTO~OO27\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
2.4
Page
Summary of Site Characteristics [[[ 2-5
c
2.4.1 General Site Conditions[[[ 2-5
2.4.2 Geology.......... ....... ............................ ..... """" ............................2-6
2.4.3 Hydrogeology................ [[[ 2-7
2.4.4 Groundwater Flow Directions and Gradients............................ 2-10
Risk CharacterizationlManagement ......................... ................. ...........2-10
2.5.1 Assessment of Human Health Risk .......................................... 2-11
2.5.2 Assessment of Environmental Risks ........................................ 2-14
2.5
2.6 Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater ................................................. 2-19
2.7 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
Statutory Balancing Criteria.............................. ................ .................... 2-20
2.8 Applicable and Relevant or Appropriate Requirements........................ 2-21
2.9 Highlights of Community Relations and Participation........................... 2-22
DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 35 - CLASS III LANDFILL ........................ 3-1
3.1 Name, Location, and Description [[[ 3-1
3.2 Operations and Investigative History[[[ 3-1
3.3 Summary of Site Characteristics [[[ 3-3
3.3.1 Stratum 1 ........................ ....... ......... ........... ...................... ~... ....... 3-4
3.3.2 Stratum 2........................................ "'" ..... ..................................3-5
3.4 Summary of Site Risks [[[ 3-6
3.4.1 Human Health Risk Characteristics ............................................3-6
3.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion .................................... 3-7
3.4.3 Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater ................... 3-7
-------
CT026O\B70027\FINAL
4.0
5.0
CLE..J02-o1 F260-87 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
3.6.3 The Selected Remedy[[[ 3-19
3.6.4 Statutory Determinations [[[ 3-23
DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 7 - DRUM STORAGE AND
LANDFILL AREAS [[[ ..... .............. 4-1
4.1 Name, Location, and Description[[[ 4-1
4.2 Operations and Investigative History [[[4-1
4.3 Summary of Site Characteristics [[[4-2
4.3.1 Stratum 1 ........ .............. .......... ....................... ......... ....................4-3
4.3.2 Stratum 2... ...... ..................... ........... ............... ............................4-4
4.3.3 Stratum 3 [[[ .....4-5
4.3.4 Stratum 4 [[[ .....4-6
4.4 Summary of Site Risks [[[ 4-6
4.4.1 Human Health Risk Characterization.......................................... 4-7
4.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion .................................... 4-8
4.4.3 Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater ................... 4-9
4.4.4 Uncertainties............ .............. .............. ......... ......... ................... 4-11
4.5 Basis for the No Action Altemative for Strata 3 and 4.......................... 4-11
4.6 Remedial Alternatives for Strata 1 and 2 - CAOC 7............................4-12
4.6.1 Description of Altematives [[[ 4-12
4.6.2 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ................... 4-20
4.6.3 The Selected Remedy[[[ 4-23
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Dale: 29 December. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
5.3.2 Quench Furnace Installation[[[ 5-6
5.3.3 Steam Rack Bay[[[ 5-7
5.3.4 UST Rernovallnvestigation Under the RFA ............................... 5-7
5.3.5 Monitoring Well Soil Borings[[[ 5-7
Summary of Site Risks [[[ ......... 5-8
5.4.1 Human Health Risks [[[ ....5-8
5.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion .................~.................. 5-8
5.4.3 Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater ................... 5-9
5.4.4 Uncertainties ........ ....... ....................... ..... .......... .......................... 5-9
Description of Remedial Action Alternatives......................................... 5-10
5.5.1 Alternative 1 - No Action [[[ 5-11
5.5.2 Alternative 2 -Institutional Controls, Master Plan
Amendment .... ....................... ................. ..... ............... '''''''''''''' 5-11
Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives............................... 5-12
5.6.1 Threshold Criteria [[[ 5-12
5.6.2 Primary Balancing Criteria [[[5-13
5.6.3 Modifying Criteria.... .......... ............... ....... '''' .............................. 5-14
The Selected Remedy[[[ "'0'''' 5-15
Statutory Determination. ............. ....... ........ ........ ..... ......................... ..... 5-17
5.8.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment ................... 5-17
5.8.2 Compliance with ARARs[[[ 5-17
-------
7.0
8.0
CT026C1lB70027\FINAL
CLE.J02001 F260-87 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
6.2 Operations and Investigative History[[[ 6-1
6.3 Summary of Site Characteristics [[[ 6-3
6.3.1 Stratum 1 ...... ................. """ ....................... ...... .......................... 6-4
6.3.2 Stratum 2[[[ .... ............ .....6-4
6.3.3 Stratum 3....... [[[ 6-5
6.3.4 Stratum 5[[[ .............. 6-5
6.3.5 Stratum 6 ................................. ....... ................................ ............ 6-6
6.4 Summary of Site Risks [[[ 6-7
6.4.1 Human Health Risk Characterization.......................................... 6-7
6.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion ....................................6-8
6.4.3 Summary of Evaluation of Groundwater Impacts ....................... 6-8
6.5 Description of the No Action Alternative ................................................. 6-9
DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 19 - FIRST HAZARDOUS AND
LOW-LEVEL RADIOLOGICAL AREA ....... ............................................. ............ 7-1
7.1 Name, Location, and Description [[[ 7-1
7.2 Operations and Investigative History[[[ 7-1
7.3 Summary of Site Characteristics [[[ 7-2
7.3.1 Stratum 1 ........... .............. [[[ ........ 7-3
7.3.2 Stratum 2 ........ .................. ..... ....... ....................... ....................... 7-4
7.4 Summary of Site Risk[[[ 7-4
7.4.1 Human Health Risk Characterization.......................................... 7-5
-------
CT0260\S70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-87-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
8.3.1 Stratum 1 ..... ..... .......... ................................ ....... ........ ............ ..:... 8-5
8.3.2 Stratum 1 a .................................................. ................................8-6
8.3.3 Stratum 1 b[[[ .........8-6
8.3.4 Stratum 1 c......... ...... ........... ........ ................. ............................... 8-7
8.3.5 Strata 2 and 2a [[[ 8-7
8.3.6 Strata 3 and 3a [[[ 8-7
8.3.7 Stratum 4 ....... [[[ 8-8
8.3.8 UST 530b ....................... ....... ............................... ........ .............. 8-8
9.0
8.4 Summary of Site Risks [[[ 8-9
8.4.1 Human Health Risk Characterization.......................................... 8-9
8.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion .................................. 8-10
8.4.3 Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater ................. 8-10
8.5 Description of the No Action Alternative ............................................... 8-11
DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 22 - DOMESTIC WASTEWATER
DISPOSAL AREA............... ................... .................... .................................... ..... 9-1
9.1 Name, Location, and Description [[[9-1
9.2 Operations and Investigative History [[[9-1
9.3 Summary of Site Characteristics [[[ 9-3
9.3.1 Stratum 1 '"'' ......... ........ "'"'''' ...... ....................... ........ ................ 9-4
9.3.2 Stratum 2 . .... .... ...... ....... ........ ............. ................. ........................ 9-4
9.4
10.0
Summary of Site Risks [[[ 9-5
-------
CT0260\870027\FINAL
11.0
12.0
CLE",-,02-Q1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
10.4 Summary of Site Risks [[[ 10-3
10.4.1 Human Health Risk Characterization........................................ 10-4
10.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion .................................. 10-4
10.4.3 Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater .................10-4
10.5 Description of the No Action Alternative ............................................... 10-5
DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 26 - BUILDING 533 WASTE DISPOSAL
AREA ................. ..... ............................ ..... ........... ""'''' ........................ 11-1
11.1 Name, Location, and Description [[[ 11-1
11.2 Operations and Investigative History [[[ 11-1
11.3 Summary of Site Characteristics [[[ 11-3
11.3.1 Stratum 1 [[[ 11-4
11.3.2 Stratum 2[[[ 11-5
11.3.3 Stratum 3[[[ 11-5
11.3.4 Stratum 4 .. ..... ........................... ............ ......................... ........... 11-6
11.3.5 Stratum 5 ................... ................ .................................. ............. 11-6
11.3.6 Stratum 6[[[ 11-7
11.4 Summary of Site Risks [[[ 11-8
11.4.1 Human Health Risk Characterization........................................ 11-8
11.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion .................................. 11-9
11.4.3 Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater ................. 11-9
11.5 Description of the No Action Alternative ............................................. 11-10
DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 27 - BUILDING 436
-------
CT0260070027\FINAL
CLE.J02-o1F2~B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
13.0
Page
12.3.4 Stratum 5 [[[ 12-4
12.4 Summary of Site Risks [[[ 12-5
12.4.1 Human Health Risk Characterization........................................ 12-5
12.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion ..................................12-6
12.4.3 Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater ................. 12-6
12.5 Description of the No Action Alternative ............................................... 12-7
DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 28 - WEST LOT, DUST
CONTROL AREA........... ............ ....... ....... ........................... ""'"'' ........ ............ 13-1
14.0
Name, Location, and Description [[[ 13-1
Operations and Investigative History[[[ 13-1
Summary of Site Characteristics [[[13-2
13.3.1 Stratum 1 ................... ................... ............................................ 13-3
13.3.2 Stratum 2....................................... ........................................... 13-4
13.3.3 Stratum 3......................... [[[ 13-4
13.4 Summary of Site Risks [[[ 13-4
13.4.1 Human Health Risk Characterization........................................ 13-5
13.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion .................................. 13-5
13.4.3 Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater .................13-5
13.5 Description of the No Action Altemative ............................................... 13-6
DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 29 - SLUDGE STORAGE AREA............ 14-1
14.1 Name, location, and Description [[[ 14-1
14.2 Operations and Investigative History[[[ 14-1
-------
16.0
17.0
CT026C71S70027\F1NAL
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
15.0
DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 30 - LOCOMOTIVE REPAIR
SHOP DISPOSAL AREA. ............................. ....................... ........ ............... ..... 15-1
15.1 Name, Location, and Description[[[ 15-1
15.2 Operations and Investigative History[[[ 15-1
15.3 Summary of Site Characteristics [[[ 15-2
15.3.1 Stratum 1 .......................... ............... ..................... .................... 15-3
15.3.2 Stratum 2................................... ............................................... 15-4
15.3.3 Stratum 3............................................. ......... ............................ 15-4
15.4 Summary of Site Risks ..................................... .................................... 15-4
15.4.1 Human Health Risk Characterization........................................ 15-5
15.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion .................................. 15-5
15.4.3 Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater ................. 15-6
15.5 Description 01 the No Action Alternative............................................... 15-6
DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 31 - NORTH VEHICLE TEST
TRACK ROAD... ............ ......... .............. [[[ ......... 19-1
16.1 Name, Location, and Description [[[ 16-1
16.2 Operations and Investigative History[[[ 16-1
16.3 Summary 01 Site Characteristics [[[ 16-1
16.4 Summary of Site Risks [[[ 16-2
16.4.1 Human Health Risk Characterization........................................ 16-3
16.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion .................................. 16-3
16.4.3 Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater .................16-3
16.5 Description of the No Action Alternative............................................... 16-4
DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 32 - PRESERVATION AND
-------
CT026O\B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
17.3.2 Stratum 2..................................... ............................................. 17-4
17.3.3 Stratum 3............................................ ........................... ........... 17-5
17.3.4 Stratum 4[[[ 17-5
17.4 Summary of Site Risks ............................... .......................................... 17-6
17.4.1 Human Health Risk Characterization........................................ 17-6
17.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion ..................................17-7
17.4.3 Summary of Evaluation of Groundwater Impacts ..................... 17-7
17.5 Description of the No Action Alternative............................................... 17-7
18.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 36 - PROPOSED PAINT COMBAT
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP.............................. ................................ ...... 18-1
18.1 Name, Location, and Description [[[ 18-1
18.2 Operations and Investigative History [[[ 18-1
18.3 Summary of Site Characteristics [[[ 18-2
18.4 Summary of Site Risks [[[ 18-3
18.4.1 Human Health Risk Characterization........................................ 18-3
18.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion .................................. 18-4
18.4.3 Summary of Evaluations of Impacts to Groundwater ............... 18-4
18.5 Description of the No Action Alternative ............................................... 18-4
19.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 1 - LANDFILL NORTH OF
THE GOLF COURSE [[[ 19-1
19.1 Name, Location, and Description [[[ 19-1
19.2 Operations and Investigative History [[[ 19-1
19.3 Summary of Site Characteristics [[[ 19-2
-------
20.0
21.0
22.0
CT026O\B70027\FINAL
ClE~02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
19.4.3 Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater .................19-6
19.5 Description of the No Action Alternative ............................................... 19-7
DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 3 - WASTEWATER DISPOSAL AREA.. 20-1
20.1 Name, Location, and Description [[[ 20-1
20.2 Operations and Investigative History [[[20-1
20.3 Summary of Site Characteristics [[[ 20-2
20.3.1 Stratum 1 [[[20-3
20.3.2 Stratum 2 ..... ........... ........ ............ ....... ............. .......... ................ 20-4
20.4 Summary of Site Risks [[[ 20-4
20.4.1 Human Health Risk Characterization........................................ 20-4
20.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion .................................. 20-5
20.4.3 Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater ................. 20-5
20.5 Description of the No Action Alternative ...............................................20-6
DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 4 - OLD TRAP AND SKEET
RANGE AREAS .................. ............................. ............. ........... ......... ............... 21-1
21.1 Name, Location, and Description [[[ 21-1
21.2 Operations and Investigative History[[[ 21-1
21.3 Summary of Site Characteristics [[[ 21-3
I
21.3.1 Stratum 1 [[[21-4
21.3.2 Stratum 2[[[21-4
-------
23.0
24.0
CT026C1.B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-87 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
22.3 Summary of Site Characteristics [[[22-1
22.3.1 Stratum 1 . ................ ........ [[[ 22-2
22.3.2 Stratum 2................................ ........... ......... .......... ............. .......22-3
22.3.3 Stratum 3[[[ ................... .......22-3
22.3.4 Vertical Profile Borings [[[ 22-4
22.4 Summary of Site Risks [[[ 22-5
22.4.1 Human Health Risk Characterization........................................ 22-5
22.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion .................................. 22-6
22.4.3 Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater ................. 22-6
22.5 Description of the No Action Altemative ...............................................22-7
DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 8 - BUILDING 197
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL AREA....... ............................ ..... .......................... 23-1
23.1 Name, Location, and Description [[[ 23-1
23.2 Operations and Investigative History[[[ 23-1
23.3 Summary of Site Characteristics [[[ 23-2
23.4 Summary of Site Risks [[[ 23-3
23.4.1 Human Health Risk Characterization........................................ 23-3
23.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion .................................. 23-4
23.4.3 Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater ................. 23-4
23.5 Description of the No Action Altemative ............................................... 23-4
DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 12 - RADIATOR CLEANING
CHEMICAL DISPOSAL AREA .............. ....... [[[ 24-1
-------
CT026G\B70027\F1NAL
25.0
26.0
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
24.5 Description of No Action Alternative [[[ 24-5
DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 13 - PRESERVATION AND
PACKAGING STORAGE AREA................... ..... ................. ....... .... ...... ..... ........25-1
25.1 Name, Location and Description [[[25-1
25.2 Operations and Investigative History[[[ 25-1
25.3 Summary of Site Characteristics [[[ 25-1
25.4 Summary of Site Risks [[[ 25-2
25.4.1 Human Health Risk Characterization........................................ 25-3
25.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion .................................. 25-3
25.4.3 Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater ................. 25-3
25.5 Basis for the No Action Alternative [[[25-4
DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 14 - DRAINAGE CHANNELS AND
MOJAVE RIVERBED OUTF ALLS..... '''''''' ............. ........ .............. .................... 26-1
26.1 Name, Location, and Description [[[ 26-1
26.2 Operation and Investigative History[[[ 26-1
26.3 Summary of Site Characteristics [[[ 26-2
26.3.1 Stratum 1 .. ................................................ ................. ............... 26-3
26.3.2 Stratum 2 ... ...... .......................... '''''' .........................................26-3
26.3.3 Stratum 3 ..... .... ..... ........................... ....... .............. .................... 26-4
26.3.4 Stratum 4 ....................... .............................................. ............. 26-4
26.3.5 Stratum 5.. ................... .............................. .................. ............. 26-5
26.3.6 Stratum 6 .... """"""'''''''.'''''''' ........ ...... ........ .......................:..... 26-5
-------
CT026CflB70027\FlNAL
27.0
28.0
29.0
Tables
Table 1-1
Table 2-1
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table 3-3
Table 3-4
Table 3-5
Table 3-6
Table 4-1
Table 4-2
Table 4-3
Table 4-4
Table 4-5
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
DECISION SUMMARY FOR NEBO MAIN BASE RIPARIAN
FRINGE HABITAT ............ ...................................... """"""'" .................... ......27-1
27.1 Name, Location, and Description [[[ 27-1
27.2 Operations and Investigative History [[[ 27-1
27.3 Summary of Site Characteristics [[[ 27-2
27.3.1 Sediment Samples[[[ 27-3
27.3.2 Surface Water Samples[[[ 27-3
27.4 Summary of Site Risks [[[ 27-4
27.4.1 Human Health Risk Characterization........................................ 27-4
27.4.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion .................................. 27-4
27.5 Description of the No Action Altemative ............................................... 27-4
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY... ................. ........ ......,.... ............ .................. 28-1
REFERENCES................. ........... .................... .............. ............... ........ ............ 28-1
Usting of CAOCs in Operable Units 5 and 6 Marine Corps Logistics Base,
Barstow
MCLB Barstow Chronology
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 35, Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 35, Stratum 1
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 35, Stratum 2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 35, Stratum 2
CAOC 35 - Class III Landfill Human Health Risk Results, Residential
Land-Use Scenario
-------
CT026a1B70027\FINAL
Table 4-6
Table 4-7
Table 4-8
Table 4-9
Table 4-10
Table 6-1
Table 6-2
Table 6-3
Table 6-4
Table 6-5
Table 6-6
Table 6-7
Table 6-8
Table 6-9
Table 6-10
Table 6-11
Table 6-12
Table 7-1
Table 7-2
Table 7-3
Table 7-4
Table 7-5
Table 7-6
Table 8-1
Table 8-2
Table 8-3
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 7, Stratum 3
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 7, Stratum 4
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 7, Stratum 4
CAOC 7 ~ Drum Storage and Landfill Areas Human Health Risk Results,
Residential Land-Use Scenario
CAOC 7 - Drum Storage and Landfill Areas Human Health Risk Results,
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil, CAOC 15/17, Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil, CAOC 15/17, Stratum 1
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil, CAOC 15/17, Stratum 2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil, CAOC 15/17, Stratum 2
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil, CAOC 15/17, Stratum 3
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil, CAOC 15/17, Stratum 3
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil, CAOC 15/17, Stratum 5
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil, CAOC 15/17, Stratum 5
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil, CAOC 15/17, Stratum 6
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil, CAOC 15/17, Stratum 6
CAOC 15/17 Oil Storage/Spillage and IWTP Areas, Human Health Risk
Results, Residential Land-Use Scenario
CAOC 15/17 Oil Storage/Spillage and IWTP Areas, Human Health Risk
Results, Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 19, Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 19, Stratum 1
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 19, Stratum 2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 19, Stratum 2
CAOC 19 - First Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area Human
Health Risk Results, Residential Land-Use Scenario
CAOC 19 - First Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area Human
Health Risk Results, Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 1
CAOC 21 - Industrial Waste Disposal Area Phase lIa Investigation PCB
Sampling Results
xv
-------
CT026O\B70027\FJNAL
Table 8-4
Table 8-5
Table 8-6
Table 8-7
Table 8-8
Table 8-9
Table 8-10
Table 8-11
Table 8-12
Table 8-13
Table 8-14
Table 8-15
Table 8-16
Table 8-17
Table 8-18
Table 8-19
Table 8-20
Table 8-21
Table 9-1
Table 9-2
Table 9-3
Table 9-4
Table 9-5
Table 9-6
Table 10-1
Table 10-2
Table 10-3
Table 11-1
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 1 A
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 1A
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 1 B
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 1 B
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 1 C
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 1 C
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 2
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 2A
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 2A
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 3
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 3
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 3A
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 3A
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 4
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 21, Stratum 4
CAOC 21 - Industrial Waste Disposal Area Human Health Risk Results,
Residential Land-Use Scenario
CAOC 21 - Industrial Waste Disposal Area Human Health Risk Results,
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 22, Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 22, Stratum 1
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: ~AOC 22, Stratum 2
Maximum 'norganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 22, Stratum 2
CAOC 22 - Domestic Wastewater Disposal Area Human Health Risk
Results, Residential Land-Use Scenario
CAOC 22 - Domestic Wastewater Disposal Area Human Health Risk
Results, Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 24, Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 24, Stratum 1
CAOC 24 -Tracked Vehicle Test Area Human Health Risk Results
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 26. Stratum 1
xvi
-------
CT026CNJ70027\FINAL
Table 11-2
Table 11-3
Table 11-4
Table 11-5
Table 11-6
Table 11-7
Table 11-8
Table 11-9
Table 11-10
Table 11-11
Table 11-12
Table 11-13
Table 11-14
Table 12-1
Table 12-2
Table 12-3
Table 12-4
Table 12-5
Table 12-6
Table 13-1
Table 13-2
Table 13-3
Table 13-4
Table 13-5
Table 13-6
Table 13-7
Table 13-8
CLE.J02-Q1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 26, Stratum 1
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 26, Stratum 2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 26, Stratum 2
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 26, Stratum 3
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 26, Stratum 3
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 26, Stratum 4
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 26, Stratum 4
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 26, Stratum 5
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 26, Stratum 5
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 26, Stratum 6
Vertical Profile Boring YS26-1 Sampling Results
CAOC 26 - Building 533 Waste Disposal Area Human Health Risk
Results, Residential land-Use Scenario
CAOC 26 - Building 533 Waste Disposal Area Human Health Risk
Results, Industrial land-Use Scenario
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 27, Stratum 4
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 27 Stratum 4
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 27,: Stratum 5
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil; CAOC 27, Stratum 5
CAOC 27 - Building 436 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks Human Health Risk
Results, Residential land-Use Scenario .
CAOC 27 - Building 436 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks Human Health Risk
Results, Industrial land-Use Scenario
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 28; Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 28; Stratum 1
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 28, Stratum 2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 28, Stratum 2:
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 28; Stratum 3
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 28; Stratum 3
CAOC 28 - West Lot Dust Control Area Human Health Risk Results,
Residential land-Use Scenario
CAOC 28 - West Lot Dust Control Area Human Health Risk Results,
Industrial land-Use Scenario
xvii
-------
CT026O\870027\FINAL
Table 14-1
Table 14-2
Table 14-3
Table 15-1
Table 15-2
Table 15-3
Table 15-4
Table 15-5
Table 15-6
Table 15-7
Table 15-8
Table 16-1
Table 16-2
Table 16-3
Table 17-1
Table 17-2
Table 17-3
Table 17-4
Table 17-5
Table 17-6
Table 17-7
Table 17-8
Table 17-9
Table 17-10
Table 18-1
Table 18-2
Table 18-3
Table 19-1
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 29, Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 29, Stratum 1
CAOC 29 - Sludge Storage Area Human Health Risk Results,
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 30, Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 30, Stratum 1
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 30, Stratum 2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 30, Stratum 2
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 30, Stratum 3
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 30. Stratum 3
CAOC 30 - Locomotive Repair Shop Disposal Area Human Health Risk
Results, Residential Land-Use Scenario
CAOC 30 - Locomotive Repair Shop Disposal Area Human Health Risk
Results. Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 31, Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soil: CAOC 31, Stratum 1
CAOC 31 - North Vehicte Test Track Road Human Health Risk Results
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 32. Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 32, Stratum 1
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 32, Stratum 2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 32, Stratum 2
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 32, Stratum 3
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 32. Stratum 3
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 32. Stratum 4
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 32, Stratum 4
CAOC 32 - Preservation and Packaging Storage Area, Human Health
Risk Results. Residential land-Use Scenario
CAOC 32 - Preservation and Packaging Storage Area, Human Health
Risk Results, Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 36. Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 36. Stratum 1
CAOC 36 - Proposed Paint Combat Vehicle Maintenance Shop Human
Health Risk Results .
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 1. Stratum 1
xviii
-------
CT026G\B70027\FINAL
Table 19-2
Table 19-3
Table 19-4
Table 19-5
Table 19-6
Table 19-7
Table 19-8
Table 20-1
Table 20-2
Table 20-3
Table 20-4
Table 20-5
Table 20-6
Table 21-1
Table 21-2
Table 21-3
Table 21-4
Table 21-5
Table 21-6
Table 21-7
Table 21-8
Table 22-1
Table 22-2
Table 22-3
Table 22-4
Table 22-5
Table 22-6
CLE.J02-o1 F26G-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 1, Stratum 1
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 1, Stratum 2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 1, Stratum 2
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 1, Stratum 3
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 1, Stratum 3
CAOC 1 - Landfill North of the Golf Course, Human Health Risk Results,
Residential Land-Use Scenario
CAOC 1 - Landfill North of the Golf Course, Human Health Risk Results,
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 3, Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 3, Stratum 1
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 3, Stratum 2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 3, Stratum 2
CAOC 3 - Wastewater Disposal Area Human Health Risk Results,
Residential Land-Use Scenario
CAOC 3 - Wastewater Disposal Area Human Health Risk Results,
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 4, Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 4, Stratum 1
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 4, Stratum 2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 4, Stratum 2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 4, Stratum 3
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 4, Stratum 3
CAOC 4 - Old Trap and Skeet Range Areas, Human Health Risk Results,
Residential Land-Use Scenario
CAOC 4 - Old Trap and Skeet Range Areas, Human Health Risk Results,
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 6, Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 6, Stratum 1
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 6, Stratum 2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 6, Stratum 2
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 6, Stratum 3
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 6. Stratum 3
xix
-------
CT02w.B70027\FINAL
Table 22-7
Table 22-8
Table 23-1
Table 23-2
Table 23-3
Table 24-1
Table 24-2
Table 24-3
Table 25-1
Table 25-2
Table 25-3
Table 26-1
Table 26-2
Table 26-3
Table 26-4
Table 26-5
Table 26-6
Table 26-7
Table 26-8
Table 26-9
Table 26-10
Table 26-11
Table 26-12
Table 26-13
Table 26-14
Table 26-15
Table 26-16
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
CAOC 6- Original Trash Landfill Human Health Risk Results, Residential
Land-Use Scenario
CAOC 6- Original Trash Landfill Human Health Risk Results, Industrial
Land-Use Scenario
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 8, Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 8, Stratum 1
CAOC 8 - Wastewater Disposal Areas Human Health Risk Results
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 12, Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 12, Stratum 1
CAOC 12 - Radiator Cleaning Chemical Disposal Area Human Health
Risk Results
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 13, Stratum 1
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 13, Stratum 1
CAOC 13 - Preservation and Packaging Storage Area Human Health
Risk Results
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 14, Stratum 1 .
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 14, Stratum 1
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 14, Stratum 2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 14, Stratum 2
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 14, Stratum 3
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 14, Stratum 3
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 14, Stratum 4
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 14, Stratum 4
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 14, Stratum 5
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 14, Stratum 5
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 14, Stratum 6
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 14, Stratum 6
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 14, Stratum 7
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil: CAOC 14, Stratum 7
CAOC 14 - Drainage Channels and Outfalls to Mojave River Human
Health Risk Results, Residential Land-Use Scenario
CAOC 14 - Drainage Channels and Outfalls to Mojave River Human
Health Risk Results, Industrial Land-Use Scenario
xx
-------
CT0260'1870027\FINAL
Table 27-1
Table 27-2
Table 27-3
Table 27-4
Figures
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
Figure 1-3
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-4
Figure 3-5
Figure 3-6
Figure 3-7
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-2
Figure 4-3
Figure 5-1
Figure 5-2
Figure 5-3
Figure 6-1
Figure 6-2
Figure 7-1
Figure 7-2
CLE-J02001 F260-87 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Sediment: Nebo Main Base Riparian
Fringe Habitat
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Sediment: Nebo Main Base
Riparian Fringe Habitat
Organic Concentrations in Surface Water: Nebo Main Base Riparian
Fringe Habitat
Inorganic Concentrations in Surface Water: Nebo Main Base Riparian
Fringe Habitat
Nebo and Vermo Vicinity Map
Operable Unit 5 CAOC Locations Vermo Annex
Operable Unit 6 CAOC Locations Nebo Main Base
CAOC 35 Key Plan Class III Landfill Vermo Annex
CAOC 35 Class III Landfill Soil Boring locations
CAOC 35 landfill Area Cap Plan for Alternatives 3 and 4
Landfill Cap Area Detail Altemative 3
landfill Cap Area Detail Altemative 4, Option 1
Landfill Cap Area Detail Altemative 4, Option 2
Landfill Cap Area Detail Alternative 4, Option 3
CAOC 7 Key Plan Drum Storage Area and landfill Nebo Main Base
CAOC 7 Drum Storage and landfill Areas and Soil Boring locations
CAOC 7 landfill Area Cap Plan for Altematives 3 and 4
CAOC 16 Building 573 and Vicinity Location Vermo Annex
CAOC 16 Phase I Investigation
CAOC 16 Building 573 and Perimeter Area Showing Steam Rack,
Quench Fumace, and Dynamometer Test Areas
CAOC 15/17 Key Plan Oil Storage/Spillage and IWTP Areas Vermo
Annex
CAOC 15/17 Oil Storage/Spillage and IWTP Areas Soil Boring locations
CAOC 19 Key Plan First Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area
Vermo Annex
CAOC 19 First Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area Soil Boring
locations
xxi
-------
CT026C1'B70027\FINAL
Figure 8-1
Figure 8-2
Figure 9-1
Figure 9-2
Figure 10-1
Figure 10-2
Figure 11-1
Figure 11-2
Figure 12-1
Figure 12-2
Figure 12-3
Figure 12-4
Figure 12-5
Figure 13-1
Figure 13-2
Figure 14-1
Figure 14-2
Figure 15-1
Figure 15-2
Figure 16-1
Figure 16-2
Figure 17-1
Figure 17-2
Figure 17-3
CLE~02~1F2~~7
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
CAOC 21 Key Plan Industrial Waste Disposal Area
CAOC 21 Industrial Waste Disposal Area Site Plan and Soil Boring
Locations
CAOC 22 Key Plan Domestic Wastewater Disposal Area Vermo Annex
CAOC 22 Domestic Wastewater Disposal Area Soil Boring Locations
CAOC 24 Key Plan Tracked Vehicle Test Area Vermo Annex
CAOC 24 Tracked Vehicle Test Area Soil Boring Locations
CAOC 26 Key Plan Building 533 Waste Disposal Area Vermo Annex
CAOC 26 Building 533 Waste Disposal Area Soil Boring Locations
CAOC 27 Key Plan, Vermo Annex
CAOC 27 (Stratum 1) Building 436 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks Soil Boring
Locations
CAOC 27 (Stratum 2) Building 436 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks Soil Boring
Locations
CAOC 27 (Stratum 3) Building 436 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks Soil Boring
Locations
CAOC 27 (Strata 4 & 5) Building 436 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks Soil Boring
Locations
CAOC 28 Key Plan West Lot, Dust Control Area Vermo Annex
CAOC 28 West Lot, Dust Control Area Soil Boring Locations
CAOC 29 Key Plan Sludge Storage Area Vermo Annex
CAOC 29 Sludge Storage Area Soil Boring Locations
CAOC 30 Key Plan Locomotive Repair Shop Disposal Area Venno
Annex
CAOC 30 Locomotive Repair Shop Soil Boring Locations
CAOC 31 Key Plan North Vehicle Test Track Road Vermo Annex
CAOC 31 North Vehicle Test Track Road Soil Boring Locations
CAOC 32 Key Plan Preservation and Packaging Storage Area Vermo
Annex
CAOC 32 Preservation and Packaging Storage Area Soil Boring
Locations
CAOC 32 Preservation and Packaging Storage Area Phase II Soil Boring
Locations
xxii
-------
CT0260'870027\FlNAl
Figure 18-1
Figure 18-2
Figure 19-1
Figure 19-2
Figure 20-1
Figure 20-2
Figure 20-3
Figure 21-1
Figure 21-2
Figure 22-1
Figure 22-2
Figure 23-1
Figure 23-2
Figure 24-1
Figure 24-2
Figure 25-1
Figure 25-2
Figure 26-1
Figure 26-2
Figure 27-1
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
, Appendix C
Appendix D
ClE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
CAOC 36 Key Plan Proposed Paint Combat Vehicle Maintenance Shop
Yermo Annex
CAOC 36 Proposed Paint Combat Vehicle Maintenance Shop Soil Boring
Locations
CAOC 1 Key Plan landfill North of the Golf Course Nebo Main Base
CAOC 1 Landfill North of the Golf Course Strata and Soil Boring
Locations
CAOC 3 Key Plan Wastewater Disposal Area Nebo Main Base
CAOC West (Stratum 1) Wastewater Disposal Area Soil Boring Locations
CAOC East (Stratum 2) Wastewater Disposal Area Soil Boring Locations
CAOC 4 Key Plan Old Trap and Skeet Range Area Nebo Main Base
CAOC 4 Old Trap and Skeet Range Area Soil Boring Locations
CAOC 6 Key Plan Original Trash landfill Nebo Main Base
CAOC 6 Original Trash landfill Soil Boring Locations
CAOC 8 Key Plan Building 197 Waste Disposal Area Nebo Main Base
CAOC 8 Building 197 Waste Disposal Area Soil Boring Locations
CAOC 12 Key Plan Radiator Cleaning Chemical Disposal Area Nebo
Main Base
CAOC 12 Radiator Cleaning Chemical Disposal Area Soil Boring
Locations
CAOC 13 Key Plan Preservation and Packaging Storage Area Nebo Main
Base
CAOC 13 Preservation and Packaging Storage Area Soil Boring
Locations
CAOC 14 Key Plan Drainage Channels and Outfalls to Mojave River
Nebo Main Base .
CAOC 14 Drainage Channels and Outfalls to Mojave River Bed Soil
Boring Locations
Nebo Main Base Riparian Fringe Habitat
Administrative Record Index
Chemicals of Concem
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Transcript for Public Meeting
xxiii
-------
CT026a1B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F2~-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
(intentionally blank)
xxiv
-------
CT026a\B70027\FlNAL
AITS
AOC
ARARs
ASISVE
bgs
BHC
BRA
BTEX
C
CAA
CallEP A
CAO
CAOC
CAS
CCR
CEQA
CERCLA
CFC
CFR
ela-1,2-DCE
CLEAN
CLP
em/a
COC
COD
COPC
CRDL
CRWQCB
CS
CTO
DCE
DHS
DLM
DLR
DOD
DOE
DOT
DRMO
DTSC
DURA
DWTP
EEICA
EPA
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7 '()()27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
aerial infrared thermographic survey
area of concem .
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
air sparginglsoil vapor extraction
below ground surface
benzene hexachloride
baseline risk assessment
benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and total xylenes
Celsius (degrees)
Clean Air Act (1970,1977,1990)
Califomia Environmental Protection Agency
cleanup and abatement order
CERCLA area of concem
Chemical Abstract Service
Califomia Code of Regulations
Califomia Environmental Quality Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Uability
Act
chlorofluorocarbon
Code of Federal Regulations
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
Comprehensive Long-term Environmental Action Navy
Contract Laboratory Program
centimeters per second
chemicals of concem
chemical oxygen demand
chemical of potential concern
contract-required detection limit
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
confirmation study
contract task order
dichloroethene
California Department of Health Services
designated level methodology
designated level for reporting
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Transportation
Defense Reutilization Marketing Organization
Department of Toxic Substances Control
data usable for risk assessment
domestic wastewater treatment plant
engineering evaluation/cost analysis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
xxv
-------
CT026<7IB10027\F1NAL
ERA
ESD
F
FFA
FID
FS
ftIft
FWS
GCIMS
HDPE
HEAST
HpCDD
HpCDF
HRS
HxCDF
IAS
ILCR
IRIS
ISS
IWTP
Jacobs
LCRS
LUFT
MBAS
MCL
MCLB
MCLG
MDAQMD
mglkg
mglkg-day
mgIL
mph
NACIP
Navy
NCP
NEESA
NPL
OCDD
OCDF
OCPs
OHM
OPPs
OU
CLE.J02-o1F26~-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
ecological risk assessment
explanation of significant differences
Fahrenheit
Federal Facility Agreement
flame ionization detector
feasibility study
foot per foot
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy
high-density polyethylene
health effects assessment summary table
heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
heptachlorodibenzofuran
hazard ranking system
hexachlorodibenzofuran
initial assessment study
incremental lifetime cancer risk
Integrated Risk Information System
infrared surface scan
industrial wastewater treatment plant
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
leachate collection and removal system
leaking underground fuel tank
methylene blue active substances (detergent)
maximum contaminant level
Marine Corps Logistics Base
maximum contaminant level goal
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
milligrams per kilogram
milligrams per kilogram per day
milligrams per liter
miles per hour
Navy Assessment and Control of Installation Pollutants
U.S. Department of the Navy
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity (now NFESC)
National Priorities List
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
octachlorodibenzofuran
organochlorine pesticides
OHM Remediation Services Corporation
organophosphorus pesticides
operable unit
xxvi
-------
CT026a\B70021\FINAL
OWS
O&M
PAHs
PCBs
PCE
pCilg
pCIIL
PeCDF
pg/g
pg/L
ppb
ppbv
ppm
PANSI
RAGS
RBCs
RCRA
RFA
RfD
RIIFS
RME
ROD
SAP
SARA
SOY
SOW
SVOC
SWAT
SWDIV
SWMU
SWRCB
TAL
TBC
TCA
TCDF
TCE
TCLP
TDS
TIC
TKN
Toe
TPH
TPH-D
TPH-G
TRPH
TTLC
CLE.J02~1 F2~-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
oiVwater separator
operations and maintenance
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
polychlorinated biphenyls
tetrachloroethene
picocuries per gram
picocuries per liter
pentachlorodibenzofuran
picograms per gram
picograms per liter
parts per billion
volumetric parts per billion
parts per million
preliminary reviewMsual site inspection
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
risk-based criteria
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA facility assessment
reference dose
remedial investigationlfeasibility study
reasonable maximum exposure
Record of Decision
sampling and analysis plan
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (1986)
soil organic vapor
scope of work
semivolatile organic compound
solid wastewater quality assessment test
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command
solid waste management unit
State Water Resources Control Board (Califomia)
target analyte list
to be considered
trichloroethane
tetrachlorodi benzofu ran
trichloroethene
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
total dissolved solids
tentatively identified compound
total Kjeldahl nitrogen .
total organic carbon
total petroleum hydrocarbons
total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel
total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline
total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
total threshold limit concentration
xxvii
-------
CT028C1lB70027\FJNAL
USC
USGS
USMC
UST
VLEACH
vac
VPB
VSI
WDP
WESTDIV
WQCP
I'glkg
I'gII..
1,1-DCA
1,1-TCA
1,1,1-TCA
1,1,2-TCA
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
CLE~'()1 F260-B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
United States Code
United States Geological Survey
U.S. Marine Corps
underground storage tank
vadose zone leaching model
volatile organic compound
vertical profile boring
visual site inspection
waste discharge permit
Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
water quality control plan
micrograms per kilogram
micrograms per liter
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis( 4-chlorophenyl)ethane
1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(4-chlorophenyl)ethene
1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(4-chlorophenyl)ethane
xxviii
-------
CT026<7B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
1.0 DECLARATION
1.1
Site Name and Location
The Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB) Barstow is in San Bernardino County,
California, in the central Mojave Desert approximately 135 miles northeast of Los
Angeles (Figure 1-1). Twenty-four Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Uability Act (CERCLA) Areas of Concern (CAOCs) at
MCLB Barstow are addressed by this Record of Decision (ROD). These are listed in
Table 1-1. The OU 5 CAOCs are within the Vermo Annex (Figure 1-2) and the OU 6
CAOCs are within the Nebo Main Base (Figure 1-3). The 4,OO6-acre Nebo Main Base is
1 mile east of Barstow and intersected by Interstate 40. The 1,680-acre Vermo Annex is
7 miles east of Barstow, between Interstates 15 and 40, and is 6 miles east of the Nebo
Main Base.
1.2
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial actions for CAOC 7 (Strata 1
and 2), which is located at the Nebo Main Base and CAOC 16s and 35 Zone 1, which
are located at the Vermo Annex. Zone 1 of CAOC 35 refers to the western and central
portions of Stratum 1 where landfilling activities actually occurred. In addition, the
document sets forth the basis for the no remedial action decisions for the remaining
CAOCs. At the Vermo Annex (OU 5), these include CAOCs 15/17, 19,21,22, 24, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35 (Stratum 2 and the eastem portion of Stratum 1), and 36. At
the Nebo Main Base (OU 6), these include CAOCs 1, 3, 4,6,7 (Strata 3 and 4),8, 12,
13, 14, and the Riparian Fringe Habitat.
The actions selected for each of these CAOCs were chosen in accordance with
CERCLA 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
The decisions for these CAOCs are based on the information contained in the
Administrative Record file for MCLB Barstow (see Appendix A). The two primary
1-1
-------
CT0260\87OO27\F1NAL
CLE-J02-o1 F2~-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
documents used for the basis of the decisions are the Remedial Investigation Report for
Operable Units 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a) and the Feasibility Study Report for CERCLA
Areas of Concern 7,16, and 35, Operable Units 5 and 6 (FS) (Jacobs 1996b).
The U.S. Marine Corps, the U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Environmental Protection
Agency's (CaVEPA's) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region (CRWQCB) concur
with the selected remedies for each CAOC.
1.3
Assessment of the CAOCs
Of the twenty-four CAOCs addressed by this ROD, if. CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2,
CAOC 16, and CAOC 35 Zone 1 are not addressed by implementing the response
actions selected in this ROD, actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances
from these CAOCs may present current or potential future threat to public health,
welfare, or the environment. Per the EPA's Interim Final Guidance on Preparing
Superfund Decision Documents (EPA 1989a), this assessment section does not apply to
the remaining CAOCs requiring no further action.
1.4
Description of the Selected Remedy
The potentially contaminated areas at MCLB Barstow are grouped into seven operable
units (OUs) as follows.
.
.
.
.
OUs 1 and 2 address groundwater contamination at the Yermo Annex and the
Nebo Main Base, respectively.
OUs 3 and 4 address soil contamination at the Yermo Annex and the Nebo Main
Base for which analytical data existed prior to the start of the remedial
investigation (RI).
OUs 5 and 6 address soil contamination at the Yermo Annex and the Nebo Main
Base for which no analytical data existed prior to the RI.
OU 7 will eventually include any additional CAOC that may have released
hazardous materials to the soils. The preliminary identification of these sites is
continuing as part of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Facility Assessment (RFA).
1-2
-------
CT026C1B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-o1 F2~B7-OO27
Print Oats: 29 December. 1997
This ROD for OUs 5 and 6 is the third scheduled to be completed. The ROD for OUs 3
and 4 was completed in June 1997. The ROD for OUs 1 and 2 is scheduled for
completion in August 1997. This scheduled completion date for the OU 7 ROD has not
been determined.
The selected remedies for each of the CAOCs within OUs 5 and 6 are described in this
section.
1.4.1
Description of Selected Remedy for CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2
The major components of the selected remedy for CAOC 7 include the following.
.
.
.
.
Installation of a native soil cap over an approximate 9-acre area.
Restriction on activities at CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2 that could compromise
the integrity of the soil cap, boundary signs indicating that activities in the
area are restricted and modification of the Base Master Plan to
incorporate such restrictions. Details of the restriction are specified in
Section 4.6.3 of this ROD.
Groundwater monitoring that includes sampling one upgradient and two
downgradient wells once a year for 5 years. Sample analytes include
volatile organic compounds and metals. An evaluation will be performed
during the fifth year to determine if any further action is required.
Precipitation infiltration monitoring.
This remedy minimizes water infiltration
groundwater and limits potential human
containment.
1.4.2
and potential future impact to
exposure to buried wastes via
Description of Selected Remedy for CAOC 7 Strata 3 and 4
The no action remedy was selected for CAOC 7 Strata 3 and 4. No remedial
action is planned for these strata.
1-3
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
.
.
CLE~02~1F2~~
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
1.4.3
Description of Selected Remedy for CAOC 16
The major components of the selected remedy for CAOC 16 include the
following.
.
Restriction on activities at CAOC 16 that could compromise the structural
integrity of the existing concrete cover, boundary signs indicating that
activities in the area are restricted and modification of the Base Master
Plan to incorporate such restrictions.
This remedy minimizes the potential for human exposure to contaminated soils
via containment. It allows for future remedial action if land use changes.
Associated groundwater impacts from CAOC 16 are addressed under OU 1 and
are not included here.
1.4.4
Description of Selected Remedy for CAOC 35 Zone 1
The major components of the selected remedy for CAOC 35 Zone 1 include the
following.
.
Installation of a native soil cap over an approximate 15-acre area
(Zone 1).
.
Precipitation infiltration monitoring.
Groundwater monitoring for landfill closure will be performed at CAOC 35
Zone 1. The groundwater monitoring requirements will be documented in
the OU 1 (Yermo groundwater) documentation.
Restriction on activities at CAOC 35 Zone 1 that could compromise the
integrity of the soil cap, boundary signs indicating that activities in the
area are restricted and modification of the Base Master Plan to
incorporate such restrictions. Details of the restrictions are specified in
Section 3.6.3 of this ROD.
This remedy minimizes water infiltration and potential future impact to
groundwater and limits potential human exposure to buried wastes via
containment. Monitoring requirements included as part of the landfill closure will
be addressed within the monitoring plan for OU 1 and are not included here.
1-4
-------
CT026O\B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print D8t8: 29 December, 1997
1.4.5
Description of Selected Remedy for CAOC 35 Strata 1 (eastern
portion) and 2
The no action remedy was selected for CAOC 35, Strata 1 (eastern portion)
and 2. No remedial actions are planned for these strata.
1.4.6
Description of Selected Remedy for CAOCs 1, 3, 4 (Strata 1 and
2),6,8, 12, 13, 14, 15117, 19, 21,22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,
36, and the Riparian Fringe Habitat
The no action remedy was selected for CAOCs 1, 3, 4 (Strata 1 and 2), 6, 8, 12,
13, 14, 15/17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29. 30, 31, 32, 36, and the Riparian
Fringe Habitat. No remedial actions are planned for these CAOCs.
1.5
Statutory Determinations for CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2, CAOC 16, and
CAOC 35 Zone 1
The selected remedies for CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2, CAOC 16, and CAOC 35 Zone 1 use
permanent solutions and alternative remediation technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. However, because treatment was found not to be feasible for the principal
threats presented by these CAOCs, the statutory preference for treatment (versus
containment) as a principal element is not met.
Because hazardous substances remain in place at CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2, CAOC 16,
and CAOC 35 Zone 1, reviews will be conducted within 5 years of the start of the
remedial actions at these CAOCs to ensure that the remedy continues to adequately
protect human health and the environment. These selected remedies are protective of
human health and the environment, comply with federal and state requirements that are
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial actions, and are cost-
effective.
1-5
-------
CT026G\S1OO27\F1NAL
CLE..J02.o1F2~-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
1.&
Declaration Statement for CAOCa 1, 3, 4 (Strata 1 and 2), &, 7 (Strata 3 and
4), 8, 12, 13, 14, 15117, 19,21, 22, 24, 2&, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,32,35 (Strata 1
[eastern portion] and 2), 36 and the Riparian Fringe Habitat
No unacceptable health risks from contaminants present in the soils were found for
either an industrial or residential expDsure scenarios, at CAOCs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 (Strata 3
and 4), 8, 12, 13, 14, 15/17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29,30, 31, 32, 35 (Strata 1
[eastern portion] and 2), 36, and the Riparian Fringe Habitat Area. Additionally, these
CAOCs were not found to have adverse impacts on ecological receptors. Consequently,
5-year reviews are not required for these CAOCs and related strata.
1-6
-------
CT026O\B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02.Q1 F260-B7 '()()27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
FOR THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE,
BARSTOW: - f"o... ou ~ ,Que;. RoD
£5/18.
Dae
FOR THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
LUtf~£.
Chief, Federal Facilities Cleanup Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
1/12/' J'
Date /
LlFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
Il'5/7f
Date
Ha~~L
Executive Officer
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region
.Je.n '2.\ I \ Q.~ ~
Date
1-7
-------
CT026C\B70027\FINAL
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
2.0 SITE BACKGROUND
General information regarding MCLB Barstow, or information common to each of the
CAOCs, is presented first in this section, including site history and enforcement
activities, the scope and role of OUs 5 and 6, human and ecological risk assessment
methodologies, and the history of community participation. This chapter is followed by
chapters containing information specific to each CAOC.
2.1
Name, Location, and Description
MCLB Barstow (also referred to as the Base) is in the central Mojave Desert in San
Bemardino County, Califomia. The Base consists of two areas: the Nebo Main Base
(including the Rifle Range) and the Vermo Annex. The Vermo Annex (1,680 acres) is
located 7 miles northeast of Barstow, adjacent to Interstate 15. The Nebo Main Base
(1,568 acres, excluding the Rifle Range) is located 3.5 miles east of Barstow and is
intersected by Interstate 40. The Rifle Range (2,438 acres) is iocated south of and
adjacent to the Nebo Main Base. The Mojave River passes between the Nebo Main
Base and the Vermo Annex from the west to the east. Other surrounding communities
include Vermo to the northeast and Daggett to the east.
2.2
Site History and Enforcement Activities
MCLB Barstow was established in 1942 at the Nebo Main Base as the Marine Corps
Depot of Supplies. MCLB Barstow started as a staging area for supplies and equipment
for Marine Corps forces deployed in the Pacific during World War II. By 1943, the
Marine Corps Depot of Supplies began providing logistical support to Marine Corps
commands throughout the westem United States and the Pacific Theater.
The Rifle Range was acquired in the mid-1950s and was used for small arms practice. It
serves the same function today with minimal changes.
Until the early 1960s, MCLB Barstow's major industrial operations were conducted at the
Nebo Main Base. In the early 1960s, the major industrial operations were relocated to
the Vermo Annex as Main Base operations outgrew escalating mission requirements. In
1961, a 10-acre central repair shop, the Marine Corps Multi-commodity Maintenance
2-1
-------
CT026G\B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
Center, or (MC)3, was built to provide additional vehicle repair and rebuilding
capabilities. This area is now referred to as Maintenance Center Barstow (MCB). The
hazardous waste generation and disposal operations associated with these industrial
activities began at Vermo Annex at this time.
Operations at MCLB Barstow have included maintaining, issuing, and shipping materials
held in the Marine Corps Stores Distribution System. During its
50 years of operation, MCLB Barstow has generated quantities of industrial wastes such
as waste oils, fuels, solvents, paint residues, grease, hydraulic fluid, battery acids,
various gases, and other components, including some that are sources of low-level
radiation. Additional wastes generated included pesticides, herbicides, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In the earty years some of these wastes were
disposed of in landfills, bum trenches, and other areas located throughout the Nebo
Main Base, the Vermo Annex, and the Rifle Range. Other releases of contaminants are
documented in the RFA Preliminary ReviewNisual Site Inspection (PANSI) Report
(Jacobs 1991a) and the draft RFA Report (Jacobs 1996c).
2.2.1
MCLB Barstow Overview
Numerous environmental investigations have been conducted at the Base over
the past 12 years. Table 2-1 presents a chronological listing of these
investigations and the associatect reference documents. Key regulatory events,
such as the inclusion of the Base on the National Priorities Ust (NPL), are also
listed in this table. The investigations fall into two categories: investigations
conducted prior to the signing of the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) (i.e.,
previous investigations), and investigations conducted after the signing of the
FFA (i.e., FFA-driven investigations).
2.2.2
Previous Investigations
The Navy conducted a series of studies as part of the Navy Assessment and
Control of Installation Pollutants (NACIP) program to determine the presence of
contamination in soil and groundwater at the Base. Under the NACIP program,
an initial assessment study (IAS) was conducted (Brown and Caldwell 1983) to
evaluate past practices of hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal and
2-2
-------
CT0260\B70027\FJNAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
to identify areas that might present a threat to the environment or human health.
The IAS identified 33 potential sites of contamination through record searches,
employee interviews, and site surveys. Other sources of information and further
review of historical documents led to the identification of three additional sites
(CAOCs 34, 35, and 36).
Of the 33 sites identified by the lAS, CAOCs 2, 5, 18, and 19 were determined to
pose a possible threat to the environment and were recommended for further
evaluation through a confirmation study (Brown and Caldwell 1983).
In addition, CAOCs 9,11, 17,21,23, and 34 were included in the confirmation
study based on additional evidence of potential contamination.
Confirmation studies (Burke 1985 and 1986) were completed for CAOCs 2, 5, 9,
and 11 at the Nebo Main Base and 18, 19, 21, 23, and 34 at the Vermo Annex
(studies were not conducted for CAOCs 3 and 17). The studies detected
chlorinated hydrocarbons, PCBs, pesticides, and metals in soils. Chlorinated
hydrocarbons were also detected in groundwater.
The EPA prepared a hazard ranking system (HRS) document (EPA 1986) for
MCLB Barstow that included results from the confirmation studies, U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) water sampling (USGS 1969 and 1975), and reports
from the Southem Califomia Water Company.
In October and November 1988, during sampling and analysis of groundwater at
the Base, trichloroethene (TCE) was detected in one drinking water well
(YDW-3) at the Venne Annex (IT 1988). The TCE concentration exceeded
Califomia Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 drinking water standards for public
water systems. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were also detected in
groundwater from several monitoring wells at the Vermo Annex.
Based on the EPA HRS score and the fact that the aquifers beneath the Nebo
Main Base and the Vermo Annex are sole-source aquifers for MCLB Barstow
and the surrounding areas, the EPA placed MCLB Barstow on the NPL on
15 November 1989.
2-3
-------
CT026CN370027\FINAL
CLE.J02-Q1 F2~B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
2.2.3
Federal Facilities Agreement-Driven Investigations
The U.S. Marine Corps and the Navy entered into the FFA on 24 October 1990
with the EPA, eaVEPA (formerty DTSC, and California Regional. Water Quality
Control Board (CRWQCB), Lahontan Region (EPA 1990a). After the FFA was
signed for MCLB Barstow, additional studies, investigations, and removal actions
were conducted, including a PANS I, an aerial infrared thermographic survey
(AITS), an assessment of historical aerial photographs, and scoping and
reconnaissance surveys for Phase I RI activities, Phase II RI activities, and
several removal actions. These are discussed in the following sections.
2.3
Scope of Role of Operable Units 5 and 6
The FF A divided the Base into groundwater and soil OUs to guide site investigations,
which will ultimately lead to a Record of Decision (ROD) and site closure as follows.
.
OU 1 and OU 2 address groundwater contamination at the Vermo Annex and the
Nebo Main Base, respectively.
OU 3 (five sites) and OU 4 (four sites) address soil contamination at the Vermo
Annex and the Nebo Main Base sites for which pre-RI analytical data were
available.
.
.
OU 5 (sixteen sites) and OU 6 (eleven sites) address soil contamination at the
Vermo Annex and the Nebo Main Base sites for which no pre-RI analytical data
were available.
.
OU 7 will include any additional sites identified as a result of the RFA. The RFA
is being conducted to identify solid waste management units (SWMUs) and areas
of concern (AOCs) that have released hazardous materials to the soil and pose a
threat to human health and environment.
The CAOCs were grouped into OUs on the basis of similar characteristics and available
information to facilitate response actions. The detailed remedial investigations
conducted at the CAOCs in OUs 5 and 6 have identified the CAOCs requiring further
remedial action. The three primary documents are the Remedial Investigation report for
OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a), the Feasibility Study report for OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs
1996b) and the Proposed Plan for OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1997a). These reports are part
of the MCLB Barstow Administrative Record.
2-4
-------
CT026O\B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o 1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
The ROD provides information about the alternatives considered for CAOCs requiring
remedial actions at OUs 5 and 6 and identifies the selected alternative and rationale for
its selection.
2.4
Summary 01 Site Characteristics
2.4.1
General Site Conditions
The Nebo Main Base, the Vermo Annex, and areas in the vicinity of potentially
contaminated groundwater are near the Mojave River where topography is
relatively flat. The topographic surface at the Nebo Main Base and the Rifle
Range slopes north towards the river. The ground surface at the Vermo Annex
gently slopes south-southeast towards the river.
The Mojave River is the dominant surface water feature in the Mojave Desert.
The Mojave River originates as a series of complementary drainages along the
northeast front of the San Bernardino Mountains, extends east-northeast from
the mountain front, passes through the Base, and terminates at Soda Lake about
70 miles east of the Base. Because the river is primarily fed by mountain front
drainages, the river bed is generally dry; flows in the Barstow area are limited to
periods of heavy rainfall. Surficial flow is also evident near areas of bedrock
highs and intermittently at the Harper Lake-Camp Rock fault near the Nebo Main
Base.
On average, about 90 percent of the flow of the Mojave River is retained within
the Mojave River area to recharge the groundwater basins (DWR 1967). MCLB
Barstow is within the drainage basin itself; the 100-year floodplain boundary of
the Mojave River passes through the northern portion of Nebo Main Base and
the southern portion of the Vermo Annex. On-site flooding at the Nebo Main
Base is rare and even less frequent at the Vermo Annex.
The drainage systems at both the Vermo Annex and the Nebo Main Base have
been designed to intercept surface runoff and convey water to the Mojave River.
2-5
-------
CT026C7IB70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-Q1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
The Barstow area is characterized by intense summer heat, minimal rainfall and
low humidity, strong winds, periodic thunderstorms, and flash floods. Factors
that tend to moderate the weather in other areas of California are absent in the
Mojave Desert, resulting in an extreme climate. Temperature ranges from 120
Fahrenheit (F) to 1140 F annually. Winds near Barstow are primarily from the
west at an average annual speed of about 11 miles per hour (mph). Wind gusts
of up to 65 mph have been recorded.
Annual average precipitation in the Barstow area is about 4 inches per year;
however, considerable yearly variability results in the variable discharge
conditions of the Mojave River. Precipitation in the MOjave Desert occurs
primarily with the passing of weakened winter fronts from the north and the
periodic development of brief, localized summer thunderstorms. These episodes
of intense rainfall can create flash flood conditions (referred to as floodflows) in
the Mojave and in the intermittent washes near the Base and Barstow.
2.4.2
Geology
MCLB Barstow lies within the MOjave Desert Geomorphic Province (Jacobs
1994a). This province is a wedge-shaped unit bounded by the Garfock Fault on
the north and the San Andreas Fault on the southwest. The approximate eastem
boundary is the Bristol-Granite Mountains fault zone in the eastem Mojave
Desert. At this diffuse boundary, the Mojave Desert merges with the Basin and
.
Range Geomorphic Province.
The Mojave Desert GeomorphiC Province is characterized by a series of low-
lying, northwest-trending, fault-block mountain ranges with intermontane basins
and local playas (dry lakes). The ranges are composed primarily of Precambrian
granitic and metamorphic rocks, Paleozoic sedimentary rocks, Mesozoic granitic
and volcanic rocks. and late Tertiary sedimentary and volcanic rocks. The
intermontane basins are largely filled with late Tertiary and Quaternary alluvium.
The tectonic grain is essentially defined by a series of closely spaced northwest-
trending faults. East-trending faults are more common near the Garfock fault.
2-6
-------
CT026a\B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
MCLB Barstow lies along the west-northwest-trending Barstow Basin, roughly
bounded by the Blackwater/Calico faults to the northeast and the Lenwood fault
to the southwest. The Barstow Basin slopes sharply to the southeast. Bedrock
beneath the Base reaches depths of 3,500 feet below ground surface (bgs).
Exposed local bedrock consists primarily of Tertiary sedimentary and volcanic
rocks. The basin is filled by a sequence of late Tertiary to early Quaternary
alluvial deposits. The surface is mantled by windblown sand deposits and young
alluvial deposits derived from either the Mojave River or shed from adjacent
highlands. The southern portion of the facility is underlain by coarse, alluvial fan
debris containing abundant gravel and cobbles.
2.4.3
Hydrogeology
MCLB Barstow is within the Mojave River Drainage Basin, which covers about
3,700 square miles within the south-central Mojave Desert (Jacobs 1995a). The
Mojave River Drainage Basin consists of a series of subbasins separated by
largely impermeable bedrock. MCLB Barstow is within the Lower Mojave
subunit; which is further divided into several subbasins. The Nebo Main Base
and the Venno Annex are within the Barstow and Vermo subbasins, respectively.
Water-bearing sediments within these subbasins are composed primarily of late
Pleistocene to Holocene alluvial deposits shed from adjacent highlands. These
deposits are unconsolidated to partially consolidated and consist primarily of
sand, silt, and gravel with lenses of clay.
The Barstow subbasin extends over approximately 20 square miles and is
delineated by various hydraulic boundaries. The projection of the Harper Lake-
Camp Rock Fault to the east, consolidated rocks to the west, and the terminus of
unconsolidated sediments to the north and south delineate the Barstow subbasin
(Miller 1969). The large Vermo subbasin, similarly bounded by groundwater
barriers, extends over 65 square miles. The Vermo subbasin shares a common
boundary with the Barstow subbasin at the Harper Lake-Camp Rock Fault, but its
northwest boundary is not well defined (USGS 1969).
2-7
-------
CT026C71870027\FtNAL
CLE.J02..Q1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
2.4.3.1
Surface Water Hydrology
The dry bed of the Mojave River is the dominant surface water feature in the
Mojave Desert. The Mojave River originates along the northern front of the San
Bernardino Mountains and flows, primarily as groundwater, about 100 miles east-
northeast and terminates at the dry playas of Cronese lake and Soda lake
about 70 miles east of the Base. Surface water flow in the riverbed, typically
absent, generally occurs only after significant rainstorms. Surficial flow is also
evident near areas of bedrock highs and intermittently at the Harper lake-Camp
Rock Fault near the Nebo Main Base. Almost all of the water in the Mojave basin
originates in the San Bernardino Mountains (Hardt 1971). The Mojave river
recharges the regional aquifers. On average, about 90 percent of the flow of the
Mojave River is retained within the Mojave River area to recharge the
groundwater basins (DWR 1967).
The Mojave River Drainage Basin extends over about 3,700 square mil~s of the
Mojave Desert and over about 1,300 square miles near Barstow (Hya~ 1934).
MCLB Barstow was constructed within the drainage basin itself; the 1OQ-year
floodplain boundary of the Mojave River passes through the northern portion of
the Nebo Main Base and the southern portion of the Vermo Annex.
On-site flooding at the Nebo Main Base is rare. Short-term precipitation events
can cause flash flooding associated with sheet wash and subsequent flood runoff
from the Newberry Mountains (south of the Nebo Main Base) where precipitation
is considerably higher than at nearby lower elevations. Heavy surface water
runoff during flooding generates soil erosion problems for the Base. Due partially
to the proximity of the Mojave River, erosion problems at the Nebo Main Base
are much more significant than at the Vermo Annex (USACE 1968).
A surface water drainage control system was built for the Nebo Main Base soon
after the Base was established. An assembly of storm drains, culverts, and
paved areas distributes runoff to a main drainage channel at the Nebo Main
Base. The channel directs the water generally south to west and northeast
across the Nebo Main Base to the Mojave River. Two additional intermittent
drainage ditches that are typically flooded during periods of high rainfall traverse
2-8
-------
~T0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F26G-B7-0027
Prtnt Date: 29 December. 1997
north across the Rifle Range to the Nebo Main Base. Dikes at the southeast
comer of the Nebo Main Base alleviate the periodic flooding (Brown and Caldwell
1983; Jacobs 1993a). Surface water discharge is less controlled and typically
less of a problem at the Vermo Annex; however, in April 1993 the Mojave River
flooded over its banks, deluging the southern portion of the Vermo Annex and
destroying two monitoring wells. Six wells at the Nebo Main Base were
damaged.
2.4.3.2
Groundwater Hydrology
Groundwater conditions at MClB Barstow are monitored by an extensive
network of shallow, intermediate, and deep monitoring wells installed prior to and
during the current CERCLA study. Additional information on the MCLB Barstow
groundwater monitoring network is provided in the remedial investigation report
for OUs 1 and 2 (Jacobs 1995b).
The Mojave River recharges regional groundwater. Hc:>wever, groundwater
conditions at the Vermo Annex are significantly different from conditions at the
Nebo Main Base. Monitoring well gauging results indicate that groundwater is
encountered from between 133 and 147 feet bgs at the Vermo Annex. At the
Nebo Main Base, groundwater is encountered between approximately 10 and 75
feet bgs in the central area of the Base and up to 175 feet bgs on the alluvial fan
south of Interstate 40. In the bed of the Mojave River, groundwater has been
encountered at only 4 to 5 feet bgs (Jacobs 1993b).
The depth to the groundwater table has remained relatively stable at the Nebo
Main Base but has been lowered about 70 feet at the Vermo Annex since the
1930s (Miller 1969). The lowering of the water table can be attributed to regional
groundwater withdrawal due primarily to agricultural irrigation wells, with minor
influences coming from private and public production wells. There are three
production wells at the Vermo Annex; they have been in use since 1960.
Production wells at Nebo Main Base have been inactive since 1975 (Jacobs
1993b).
2-9
-------
CT026t1S70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
2.4.4
Groundwater Flow Directions and Gradients
The groundwater table surface beneath the Vermo Annex slopes gently toward
the east-southeast, with hydraulic gradients ranging typically from 0.0006 to
0.001 foot per foot (ftIft).
Aquifer recharge from a 100-year flood from the Mojave River in April 1993
redirected groundwater flow at the Vermo Annex to the north-northeast and
increased the hydraulic gradients to approximately 0.005 ftIft. However, the
regional flow direction and gradients retumed to pre-flood flow conditions within 4
months after the flood.
At the Nebo Main Base, the groundwater gradient at the southwestem comer,
which is the topographically high area, is directed radically towards the north,
northeast, and east at a slope of approximately 0.01 to 0.03 Mt. The
groundwater flow gradient decreases to approximately 0.002 Mt near the central
part of the Main Base, and the flow changes to predominantly northeast. The
flow then changes to predominantly eastward underlying the Base golf 'course at
the northem Main Base immediately south of the Mojave River channel. The
change in groundwater flow direction along eastem Nebo Main Base is attributed
to the presence of the Harper Lake-Camp Rock fault and shallow bedrock to the
north.
2.5
Risk CharacterlzatlonlManagement
CERCLA directs the Marine Corps, as the lead agency for MCLB Barstow, to conduct a
baseline risk assessment to determine whether the Base poses a current or potential
threat to human health and the environment in the absence of any remedial action. The
baseline risk assessment provides the basis for determining whether or not remedial
action is necessary and the justification for performing remedial action.
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for OUs 5 and 6 using
data collected during the RI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the Draft Final RI report for OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a).
CAOC-specific assessments are provided in the RI report. The ecological risk
2-10
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE~2-01 F26
-------
CT026O'IB70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
.
Chemicals that were the result of laboratory or field contamination are
excluded as COPCS.
.
Inorganics and metals that are present above the naturally occurring
range but are either essential human nutrients or are toxic only at very
high dose (i.e., much higher than would be associated with contact at the
site) are not considered COPCs. These metals are calcium, iron,
magnesium, potassium, and sodium.
Only those tentatively identified compounds (TICs) that have been
specifically identified (Le., with a Chemical Abstracts Service [CAS]
number) are included as COPCs.
.
A discussion of COPCs is included in Appendix B.
2.5.1.2
Exposure Assessment
The exposure assessment characterizes the scenario through which people
come into contact with the COPC and estimates how much of the COPC would
be received (i.e., the intake or the dose) by assessing a reasonable maximum
exposure (AME) scenario and possible exposure pathways.
The RME, defined as the highest exposure that is reasonably expected to occur
at a site (EPA 1989a), is intended to estimate a conservative exposure case that
is within the range of possible exposures. Currently, the CAOCs of OUs 5 and 6
have an industrial land use or are vacant property. However, because the long-
term land use is unknown, it is conceivable that MCLB Barstow could be
converted to residential land use,which is the most conservative exposure
scenario. Therefore, to characterize the range of potential impacts, separate
evaluations were performed for industrial and residential land-use scenarios that
assume that no mitigation or control action has been taken (Le., a baseline
evaluation).
Pathways of exposure are the means through which an individual may come in
contact with a contaminant. Soil exposure pathways that were deemed to be
complete and relevant for OUs 5 and 6 are soil ingestion, dermal absorption of
contaminants from soi', inhalation of particulate-bound substances, and
inhalation of vapors from soil. For most strata, the highest detected
concentration is conservatively used as the soil exposure point concentration.
2-12
-------
CT026C'S7OO27\F1NAL
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7-Q027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
2.5.1.3
Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity assessment characterizes the relationship between exposure to a
chemical and the incidence of adverse health effects in exposed populations. In
a quantitative risk assessment, the risk of developing cancer from exposure to
carcinogens is defined in terms of probabilities. These probabilities are related to
the cancer slope factor and exposure scenario. This estimate of carcinogenic
response is the slope of the 95 percent upper confidence limit dose-response
curve, making the estimate conservative. Therefore, the actual risk posed by a
chemical may be much lower and may even be zero (EPA 1989a). Cancer slope
factors, as published by the EPA in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
database (EPA 1996b) and in the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
(HEAST) (EPA 1994a), have been used in this human health evaluation.
For noncarcinogenic effects, toxicity data from animal or human studies are used
to develop noncancer acceptable dose levels. A chronic reference dose (RfD) is
defined as an estimate of daily exposure for the human population, induding
sensitive subpopulations, that does not pose an appreciable risk of deleterious
effects during a lifetime. RfDs are expressed in milligrams per kilograms per day
(mg/kg-day). Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the
amount of 8 chemical ingested from contaminated soil) can be compared to the
RfD. Animal-ta-human extrapolation uncertainty factors have been applied to the
RfDs to help ensure that the RIDs will not underestimate the potential for adverse
noncarcinogenic effects to occur. The chronic oral and inhalation reference
concentrations as published in the IRIS database and HEAST are used in this
evaluation.
2.5.1.4
Development of Risk-Based Criteria
Risk-based criteria (RBCs) were developed for use in the human health
evaluation. RBCs are specific to a chemical for a given set of exposure
assumptions for a particular medium (e.g., soil). The RBCs are calculated by
inserting the target risk or hazard index, the defined exposure parameters, and
the toxicity value into the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk equations and
solving for the soil concentration term. Chemicals with both carcinogenic and
2-13
-------
CT026CNPOO27\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
noncarcinogenic health effects have two RBCs. For carcinogens, RBCs are
calculated by setting the target cancer risk at 1 x 10-6. For noncarcinogens,
RBCs are calculated by setting the hazard index at 1.0. In addition, separate
RBCs are calculated for each exposure scenario (Le., residential and industrial).
Chemical-specific risk quotients and hazard quotients are calculated by dividing
the soil exposure point concentration of each detected CO PC by the applicable
RBC (i.e., carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic)". The carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic quotients are then summed separately to provide stratum-
specific carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic cumulative indices. The carcinogenic
risk and noncarcinogenic hazard are calculated based on the total (background
plus any site-related) concentration. In addition, that portion of the total that is
attributable to background is presented. For carcinogens, the incremental (the
total minus the background) risk is also presented.
Cancer risk is expressed in terms of the chance of contracting cancer over a
human's lifetime due to exposure to site chemicals, and is called the incremental
lifetime cancer risk (ILCR). A risk of 10" (one out of one million) means that one
additional person out of a group of one million may develop cancer as a result of
exposure to a chemical. EPA considers a risk of less than 10" to be protective of
human health, and uses this value as the point of departure. EPA also has
developed a risk management range represented as 10" (1 in a million) to 10-4 (1
in 10,000), as the target for managing cancer risks.
Non-cancer health effects are evaluated in terms of a hazard index (the ratio of
the actual or potential level of exposure to an acceptable level of exposure).
EPA uses a hazard index level of less than 1 to be acceptable for non-cancer
health effects. Non-cancer hazards significantly above 1 indicate a potential for
adverse effects.
2.5.2
Assessment 01 Environmental Risks
At the request of the U.S. Department of Defense, an ecological risk assessment
(ERA) for MCLB Barstow was performed by the EP A Region IX staff in support of
the RI. The purpose of the ERA was to assess what threats, if any, past
2-14
-------
CT026C1S70027\FlNAL
CLE.J02-O 1 F261:H37 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
operations at MCLB Barstow pose to the environment, with specific attention
given to any sensitive or critical habitats of species protected under the Federal
Endangered Species Act. A summary of the methodology and conclusions is
discussed. Details are provided in the draft final ERA
(EPA 1996a).
The ERA consisted of two elements: a habitat assessment to determine the
nature and quality of habitats and identify environmental receptors within the
boundary of MCLB Barstow; and a qualitative assessment using historical
records and available published wildlife toxicity data to assess the potential
impact of hazardous waste, on a site-specific basis, upon the identified habitat(s)
and receptors present at each site.
To complete the ERA, four components were identified to establish a conceptual
site model for the ERA: habitat assessment, chemicals of concern (COCs),
potentially impacted receptors, and exposure assessment. The methodologies
for these components are discussed in the following sections.
2.5.2.1
Habitats
The purpose of the habitat assessment was to determine the dominant floral and
faunal communities and receptors within a given area that may have been
adversely impacted by the Base disposal practices. A screening site surVey
included re~iew of historical documents and site visits. The documents reviewed
included historical site maps, aerial photographs, and activity-related records.
Site visits involved completion of three seasonal transect surveys to assess both
abiotic stress (e.g., effects of flood, fire, drought, soil contamination, or soil
disturbance) and biotic stress (e.g., plant succession or species extinctions
resulting from human activities). Each transect survey was performed as a bias
linear transect survey and included the following.
.
Three transect lines at each study area, with five transect lines at
CAOC 7 and the Rifle Range
.
A predetermined distance along a transect was walked or driven to
observe the habitat types, physical structures, and faunal types along the
transect
2-15
-------
CT026(N170027\FINAL
CLE.J02-o1F2~-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
.
Each transect line was observed at least twice a day (once at dawn and
once in the evening)
Transect lines that were driven were on established perimeter roads at
speeds of less than 10 miles per hour, with frequent stops to allow
sufficient time for observations
.
.
Transect lines that were walked were traversed in a zigzag pattern to
cover as much of each area as possible.
Observations made to assess the site habitat quality include the following:
.
Identification of dominant habitat types
Determination of plant diversity
.
.
Frequency of observed animal species
Identification of endangered species
.
.
Identification of exotic species
Qualitative assessment of natural food resources.
.
Information was gathered during the transect surveys through the following
observational methods:
.
Identification of species by sight, sound, or track
Identification of dominant vegetation (patch size or structure)
.
.
Determination of canopy
.
Identification of slope
Determination of soil type
.
.
Identification of range qualified by tracks.
2.5.2.2
Chemicals of Concern
COCs for the ERA were determined by focusing on those chemical analytes
representing the dominant or potentially highest risk for adversely impacting
identified environmental receptors on a site-specific basis. Guidance for
determining COCs for the ERA was obtained through guidelines provided in EPA
2.16
-------
CTQ260UJ70027\FINAL
CLE~2'()1 F260-B7 '()()27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
literature, Biological Technical Advisory Group guidelines, and CallEPA DTSC
guidelines. Criteria for establishing cacs for the ERA are presented as follows.
.
Naturally occurring chemicals were deleted from the cac list if they were
not related to site activities and/or did not represent a risk other than
natural spatial variability. Salts, nutrients, and minerals often found in
high concentrations in a desert environment and regulated on a cellular
level by flora and fauna were deleted from the cac list. Chemicals such
as iron and aluminum were deleted from the cac list because they are
often found in high concentrations in the soil. Background concentrations
for MCLB Barstow, developed for naturally occurring chemicals during the
AI, were used in this process.
Chemicals at less than 1 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) concentration
that are not highly toxic and pose no significant threat to environmental
receptors were deleted from the cac list.
.
.
Infrequent chemical occurrences tha~ appeared to represent no significant
risk to the environmental receptors were deleted from the cac list.
Summarizing the results of the cae screening as presented in the ecological risk
assessment, the following chemicals were retained for the ERA:
. Arsenic
. Cadmium
. Chromium
. Copper
. Lead
. Zinc
.
.
.
2.5.2.3
1.1.1-trichloro-2,2-bis(4-chlrophenyl)ethane (4,4'-DDT)
Dieldrin
PCBs.
Receptors
Selection of the potential environmental receptors for the ERA was based on
several factors:
.
.
Diversity of the desert community
Sensitivity of the receptors to contaminants. not only in terms of toxic
reaction to a contaminant. but also the potential for the receptor to come
into contact with the contaminant
2-17
-------
CT026C71B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-Q1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
.
Establishment of the receptors' home range
Identification of sentinel species, which could be used to represent a
number of species residing within a site
.
.
Selection of a variety of species from different trophic levels of the food
chain, from the primary to tertiary level or higher. .
On the basis of these factors, vertebrates, invertebrates, and flora selected as
potential receptors for the ERA are as follows:
. American kestrel
. Antelope ground squirrel
. Desert cottontail
. Desert kangaroo rat
. Gambel's quail
. Great horned owl
. Deer mDuse
. Mallard duck
. Desert tortoise
. Arachnoid species
. Grasshoppers
. Termites
. Salt cedar
. Rabbitbrush
. Creosote bush.
2.5.2.4 Exposure
The exposure assessment, designed to quantify the means of receptor exposure
to contaminants, included an assessment of exposure pathways, intake
parameters, and a risk assessment quantifying endpoints.
Exposure pathways were determined by identifying the links between the
contaminant source(s) and the receptor(s). Each exposure pathway is defined
by several components or occurrences that lead from release of the contaminant
into the environmental media to contact with one or more environmental
receptors. For the MCLB Barstow ERA, the dominant exposure pathway was
2-18
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE~02-o1F260-B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
contaminated soil, which, through soil erosion and runoff during storm events,
releases contaminants to surface water and groundwater via leaching. The
dominant means of contact exposure was through incidental ingestion of soil
during grooming, foraging, and contaminant transfer to the food chain. Inhalation
as a dominant exposure pathway was not considered because the COCs are
primarily nonvolatile metals.
After potential exposure pathways were identified, a risk characterization further
refined the exposure assessment to focus on site-specific concems. The risk
characterization included assessment of toxicity of the COCs based upon
available toxicity data; analysis of the pathways; estimate of the frequency and
duration of exposure; assessment of the intake of COCs; and an uncertainty
analysis.
2.6
Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater
Each CAOC was evaluated by using a leaching potential analysis to assess the
probability that contaminants in soil would leach and result in unacceptable
concentrations in the groundwater. The Marine Corps used two mathematical models to
predict contaminant migration in soils: the designated level methodology (DLM) model
(also referred to as the Marshack model), and the VLEACH model. Additional details on
this modeling can be found in the draft final OU 1 and 2 AI report (Jacobs 1995b). Both
models assume deep percolation of precipitation, even though it is unlikely to occur at
the site.
The Marshack model is a conservative, simplified fate and transport calculation that is
employed to estimate a maximum acceptable level for a constituent in the soil based on
groundwater quality goal concentration. In the Marshack model, contaminant
degradation, volatilization, and time of travel for contaminants to reach the groundwater
are ignored. If the maximum detected soil concentration at the CAOC is less than the
designated level, the leachate derived from the soil should not exceed the groundwater
quality goal upon reaching the groundwater.
If the groundwater quality goal is exceeded by any contaminant, leaching is further
assessed by a more refined vadose zone leaching model (VLEACH) (Turin 1990).
2-19
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7-Q027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
VLEACH'is a one-dimensional finite difference model designed to simulate contaminant
leaching through the vadose zone. In VLEACH, all contaminants are assumed to
migrate to groundwater. It is used to simulate the transport of any nonreactive chemical
that displays linear partitioning behavior. In particular, VLEACH is used to simulate
downward liquid-phase advection, solid-phase adsorption, gas diffusion in the vapor
phase, and three-phase equilibrium.
2.7
National 011 and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
Statutory Balancing Criteria
Section 121 of CERCLA and Section 300.430 of the NCP requires that remedial
alternatives be evaluated to determine which alternative provides the best balance with
respect to balancing criteria in Section 121 of CERCLA and Section 300.430 of the NCP.
The NCP categorized the nine evaluation criteria, discussed in detail in the Draft Final
FS for OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996b), into three groups:
1.
2.
3.
Threshold Criteria address overall protection of human health and the
environment, compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) (or invoking a waiver).
Primary Balancing Criteria address long-term effectiveness and performance;
reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume; short-term effectiveness;
implementability, and cost. These primary balancing factors are used to weigh
major trade-offs among alternative remediation strategies.
Modifying Criteria address state and community acceptance that are formally
taken into account after public comment is received on the Proposed Plan and
incorporated in the ROD.
The selected alternative must meet the threshold criteria including compliance with all
ARARs or be granted a waiver for compliance with ARARs. Any alternative that does
not satisfy both of these requirements is not eligible for selection. The primary balancing
criteria are the technical criteria upon which the detailed analysis is primarily based. The
final two criteria, known as modifying criteria, assess the public's and the state agency's
acceptance of the criteria. The EPA may modify aspects of a specific alternative based
upon these two criteria.
2-20
-------
CT0260'B7OO27\F1NAL
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
2.8
Applicable and Relevant or Appropriate Requirements
The NCP states, .Overall protection of human health and the environment and
compliance with ARARs (unless a specific ARAR is waived) are threshold requirements
that each alternative must meet in order to be eligible for selection. (EPA 1990b).
ARARs are identified on a site-specific basis. It involves determining whether a given
requirement is applicable and if it is not applicable, then whether it is relevant and
appropriate.
A requirement is deemed applicable if the specific terms of the law or regulation directly
address the chemical of concern, the remedial action, or the location involved (e.g.,
cultural or environmental resources). If the jurisdictional prerequisites of the law or
regulation are not met, a legal requirement may nonetheless be relevant and appropriate
if the site's circumstances are sufficiently similar to circumstances in which the law
otherwise applies, and it is well suited to the conditions of the site.
Where ARARs do not exist, the NCP also provides agency advisories, criteria, or
guidance to be considered (TBC) useful in helping to determine what is protective at the
site or how to carry out certain actions or requirements (EPA 1990b) (55 Federal
Register 8745). The NCP preamble states, however, that provisions in the TBC
category .should not be required as cleanup standards because they are, by definition,
generally neither promulgated nor enforceable, so they do not have the same status
under CERCLA as do ARARs..
As the lead federal agency, the Marine Corps has primary responsibility for identifying
federal ARARs at MCLB Barstow. As the lead state agency, the CaIIEPA, DTSC is
primarily responsible for identifying state ARARs. MCLB Barstow initiated this process
and DTSC forwarded this request to several state agencies. Responses were received
from the California Department of Health Services (DHS), the California Department of
Fish and Game, and the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The ARARs
identified in this response have been reviewed and included in the ARARs evaluation
conducted in the FS report for CAOCs 7, 16, and 35 (Jacobs 1996b).
Requirements of ARARs and TBCs are generally divided into three categories.
2-21
-------
CT026CNJ7OO27\F1NAL
CLE.J02..o1 F2~-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
.
Chemical-specific ARARs are health- or risk-based numerical values for various
environmental media, specified in state or federal statutes or regulations. These
numerical values establish the acceptable amount or concentration of a chemical
that may be present in a specific medium at a site, or that may be discharged to
the site or the ambient environment during removal actions.
Location-specific ARARs address the areas in which the removal action takes
place. Identified regulations that are potential ARARs may require actions to
preserve or protect aspects of environmental or cultural resources that may be
threatened by the removal actions to be undertaken at the site.
.
.
Action-specific ARARs are regulations that apply to specific activities Dr
technologies used to remediate a site. They can include design criteria and
performance standards.
Chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific ARARs affecting the
development of remedial objedives for soils at MCLB Barstow are summarized in
Appendix C. A detailed discussion of all the ARARs considered for OUs 5 and 6 soils
remedy are included in the FS report for OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996b).
2.9
Highlights of Community Relations and Participation
The community of Barstow is kept well informed about the MCLB Barstow remedial
adions for soils and groundwater under the CERCLA program. The remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RVFS) and the Proposed Plan for MCLB Barstow OUs 5
and 6 were released to the public in September 23, 1997. The documents were made
available to the public in the information repositories at the County of San Bemardino
Public Library, Barstow Branch, and at MCLB Barstow Facilities and Services Division,
Environmental Department, Warehouse 3. The notice of availability for the Proposed
Plan the supporting documents were published in the Barstow Desert Dispatch, the Sun
(San Bernardino), and the Daily Press (Vidorville), on September 23, 1997. Also, the
Proposed Plan was mailed to approximately 1,500 local and interested parties per the
site mailing list. A public comment period was held from September 23 through October
22, 1997. A public meeting was held at the Barstow Holiday Inn on October 15, 1997.
No significant comments were received from the public during the public comment
period. Transcripts from the meeting are contained in Appendix D.
2-22
-------
CT026aB70027\FINAL
CLE~2'{)1 F260-B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
This decision document presents the selected remedial actions for OUs 5 and 6, MCLB
Barstow, California, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and, to
the extent practicable, the NCP. The decisions for the CAOCs in OUs 5 and 6 are
based on information contained in the administrative record (see Appendix A).
2-23
-------
CT026O\B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
(intentionally blank)
2-24
-------
CT~OO27\FINAL
CLE..J02.o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
3.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 35 - CLASS III LANDALL
3.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 35, the Class III Landfill, is an inactive 17.4-acre landfill in the northeastern
portion of the Vermo Annex (Figure 3-1). The landfill was designated as Class III and
was permitted by the CRWQCB,. Lahontan Region, to accept nonhazardous waste
(CRWQCB Order No. 6-85-119). The wastes deposited at the site consisted primarily of
household refuse from the Vermo Annex and Nebo Main Base, with commercial and
industrial waste consisting of wood, paper, and plastic packing materials (Jacobs
1990a). The DHS permit number, dated May 1990, is 8510250052.
The landfill was operated as a cut-and-fill operation with refuse being dumped in
trenches (cells) that were approximately 40 by 400 by 10 feet deep. These trenches are
depicted on Figures 57 to 62 of the Draft Report Geophysical Investigation
(Jacobs 1993b). After each trench had been excavated, waste material was deposited,
compacted, and covered with the excavated soil. Bottom liners were not used at the
landfill and there is no leachate collection and removal system (Jacobs 19908).
3.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC 35 history is assembled from the Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT) Proposal
(Jacobs 1990a), PANS I (Jacobs 1991a), records search, and historical aerial
photographic review. The area now known as CAOC 35 was referred to in the PANSI
as SWMU 9.103. It has also been referred to as Site 35. Based on observations from
aerial photographs, the first notable landfill operations occurred in 1965 and continued
until January 1989 when the landfill ceased operations permanently.
Several regulatory orders have been issued by the CRWQCB, Lahontan Region, for
monitoring groundwater conditions near the landfill and cleaning up and abating
groundwater contamination, once detected. Order No. 6-85-119, issued on 21 October
J 985, specified general requirements for the types of wastes that could be disposed of at
the site. As part of this order, Monitoring and Recording Program 85-119 was issued,
3-1
-------
CT026a1B70021\FlNAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
requiring the facility to submit reports on the quantities of wastes disposed of at the site.
This order also required the construction of groundwater monitoring wells and the
submittal of quarterty monitoring reports.
Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) 6-89-178 was issued on 27 July 1989 in response
to the detection of contaminants exceeding Califomia state drinking water standards in
two monitoring wells (YE-11 and YE-14). YE-11 is downgradient of the landfill and the
industrial wastewater treatment plant (IWTP) area (CAOC 15/17); VE-14 is at the IWTP
. .
area. This order directed MCLB Barstow to clean up and abate the effects of waste
discharges and threatened waste discharges to the groundwater of the Mojave
Hydrologic Unit. The Vermo Annex Sanitary (Class III) Landfill was named in the CAO
as one of the sites that may have leaked and contributed to the contamination.
CAO 6-89-208 was issued on 19 December 1989 in response to lead and cadmium
concentrations exceeding the total threshold limit concentration (TILC) in soil samples
of sandblast waste collected at both the Yermo Annex Sanitary Landfill (i.e., CAOC 35)
and the San Bernardino County landfill. This CAO directed MCLB Barstow to refrain
immediately from discharging hazardous and designated waste to the Vermo Annex
Sanitary Landfill, and to submit a SWAT work plan for investigating the landfill site and
surrounding property.
. A SWAT proposal and site investigation plan were submitted to the CRWaCB in June
1990. In their letter dated 22 December 1993, the CRWaCB, Lahontan Region,
informed MCLB Barstow that the information in the SWAT proposal and the Site
Investigation Work Plan indicates compliance with the applicable portions of the
Calderon Act. The letter also stated that Chapter 15 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR) Title 23 is being addressed under the FFA. On this basis, no
separate SWAT investigation was conducted at CAOC 35.
CAOC 35 has not been in use since its closure on 01 January 1989. The site is enclosed
by a chainlink fence with a gate at the southwest side. Several small topographic
depressions appear to overlie the former trenches and are probably the result of minor
3-2
-------
CT026O\B70027\FlNAL
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
settlement of the fill inside the trenches. Miscellaneous debris, such as cables and other
objects, are exposed on the surface.
3.3
Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the soil investigations conducted at CAOC 35,
soil sampling analytical results, and a general summary of water quality risks and
uncertainties related to water quality protection.
CAOC 35 has been divided into two strata consisting of documented and suspected
contamination sources. Each stratum has been defined based on a separate
environmental release mechanism.
.
Stratum 1, Landfill Area: The original area of the CAOC 35 landfill. An AITS
anomaly (T A 35-1) is included in Stratum 1.
Stratum 2, Cleared Area: The northwestern one-fifth of the CAOC. There are no
known records of landfill operations having been conducted at this stratum.
However, the site has been graded and is directly adjacent to the main landfill
area. Reportedly the area has been used for scrap lumber storage. An
AITS/infrared surface scan (155) anomaly (T A-5) is included in Stratum 2.
.
j
Figure 3-2 shows the approximate CAOC and strata boundaries at CAOC 35. The
groundwater flow direction at CAOC 35 is easter1y at a gradient of 0.0008 ftIft. The
depth to groundwater is approximately 140 ft.
During Phase I of the RI, five borings were advanced at each of the two strata at
CAOC 35 (Figure 3-2). All fIVe soil borings at Stratum 2 were advanced to 2 feet bgs by
using hand augers. The five soil borings at Stratum 1 were advanced by a hollow-stem
auger drilling rig to a maximum of 31 feet bgs between the landfill trenches (Figure 3-2).
The bottom depth of these borings correspond to approximately 15 to
20 feet below the landfill trenches.
All soil borings within Stratum 2 were located by the systematic randDm sampling
methodology outlined in the Draft Final Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) (Jacobs
1991b). Boring locations at Stratum 1 were determined judgmentally and targeted the
landfill trenches. Borings were placed between the trenches to avoid drilling through
3-3
-------
CT026a\B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1F2~-Q027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
buried debris. Samples were collected in the surface soils of Stratum 1 to characterize
potential human health effects through direct soil contact. Samples were also collected
at approximately 31 feet bgs to characterize any potential contaminant migration.
The analytical results collected during the soil investigation are presented in this section
along with a discussion of contaminant nature and extent. Maximum concentrations of
all detected analytes are presented in data summary tables (Tables 3-1 to 3-4). To help
identify potentially significant contaminants, residential soil ABCs are also shown on the
tables. RBCs represent soil concentrations that correspond to a 1 x 10-6 cancer risk or a
1.0 noncancer hazard index for a residential soil exposure scenario. For inorganics, the
95th percentile background concentrations for shallow soils (0 to 3 f~et bgs) are also
shown for comparison.
3.3.1
Stratum 1
The collected soil samples were tested for VOCs, semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), PCBs, metals, cyanide,
and total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH-D). The maximum
concentrations of organic and inorganic compounds detected at Stratum 1 are
presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, respectively, and are summarized as follows.
.
In the surface samples, VOCs were not detected except for a single
detection of methylene chloride in sample YB35-oe at 10 micrograms per
kilogram (J,Jglkg). This detection is believed to be an artifact because
methylene chloride is a very commonly used solvent in the laboratory,
and low-level detections are common due to contamination of the
laboratory atmosphere.
No SVOCs were detected except for a single detection of diethyl
phthalate at 1,200 J,Jg/kg in sample YB35-oS, which may be due to
contamination of laboratory glassware or the use of plastic equipment
during the sampling.
.
.
Two of the five surface samples showed the presence of low-level
pesticides at concentrations significantly lower than their corresponding
quantitation limits and residential soil ABC values.
.
The single sample collected at approximately 10 feet bgs contained
various VOCs and SVOCs. In the volatile organic fraction, the sample
contained the ketones acetone and 2-hexanone; the aromatic compounds
3-4
-------
CT026a\B7OO27\F1NAl
ClE-J02-
-------
CT026C71B70027\FlNAL
CLE.J02.Q1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
.
No SVOCs or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in any
of the samples of Stratum 2.
Low-level pesticides were found in two of the samples. They consisted of
4,4'-DDT and Dieldrin. All pesticide detections were at concentrations
significantly lower than the quantitation limits and residential soil RBC
values for these compounds.
.
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
3.4
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 35 using data
collected during the RI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final RI report for OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a).
Results of the assessment for CAOe 35 are provided in Section 19.0 of the RI report.
The ecological assessment is provided in the draft final Phase I ERA (EPA 1996a). Both
of these assessments have been summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related
to CAoe 35 are presented here in support of the decision to take action.
3.4.1
Human Health Risk Characteristics
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 35 are presented in Table 3-5
for the residential land-use scenario and Table 3-6 for the industrial land-use
scenario.
3.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCR for Stratum 1 is approximately 3 x 10" and results primarily from low-
level (Le., below quantitation limits) detections of various PAHs at approximately
10 feet bgs. Under existing and likely future land use, soils at this depth are not
readily available for contact. If only surface (0 to 0.5 feet bgs) detections are
considered, the ILCR is approximately 8 x 10".
The ILCR for Stratum 2 is below the point of departure of 1 x 10" and is
considered to be insignificant from a human health perspective.
3-6
-------
CT026
-------
CT026aI870027\FINAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
landfilled wastes. Future on-site receptors could disturb the wastes because the
thickness of the existing soil cover is not known. This creates uncertainty in the
risk results. Because the wastes themselves were not sampled, some
uncertainty also exists regarding the potential for future releases to the
groundwater. Although TCE and PCE have been detected at levels above
regulatory limits in downgradient welfs, these contaminants are more likely to
have originated from industrial operations on adjacent land (Le., CAOCs 16 and
15/17).
3.5
Basis for the No Action Alternative for Stratum 2 and the Eastern Portion of
Stratum 1
Except for the westem and central area of Stratum 1 (noted as Zone 1), the remaining
areas of CAOC 35 do not require action. The remainder of Stratum 1 and all of Stratum
2 are considered protective of human health and the environment for the following
reasons.
.
Aisk levels are below the target human health risk range.
Contaminants remaining in the soils do not threaten to impact the quality of
groundwater or surface water.
.
.
The ERA found that no sensitive species or sensitive habitats would be affected
by the contamination at these areas.
3.6
Remedial Alternatives for Stratum 1 (Zone 1) - CAOC 35
3.6.1
Description of Alternatives
Alternatives have been developed to address the uncertainties discussed for
CAOC 35 Stratum 1 (Zone 1). The regulatory requirements for closing landfills
dictated the development of altematives for CAOC 35. CAOC 35 Stratum 1 has
been identified as a Class III landfill. Regulations exist for proper closure and
management of landfills. Monitoring requirements included as part of the landfill
closure will be addressed with the monitoring plan for OU 1 and are not included
as part of OU 5. A related ARAR issue is the possible impact of waste migration
to groundwater. The evaluation of AI groundwater fate and transport data shows
3-8
-------
CT026<71B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o, F26o-B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. '997
that none of the contaminants detected in site soils would result in unacceptable
levels in the groundwater. Although TCE and tetrachloroethene (PCE) have
been detected in downgradient wells above regulatory limits, these contaminants
are believed to have originated from industrial operations on adjacent land (i.e.,
CAOCs 16 and 15/17). CAOC 35 is not believed to currently be a significant
. source to the groundwater.
The presumptive remedy approach was used in developing alternatives for
CAOC 35. Presumptive remedies are preferred technologies for common
categories of sites based on historical patterns of remedy selection and EP A's
scientific and engineering evaluation of performance data on technology
implementation. Municipal landfills have been identified as a category of sites
applicable for the presumptive remedy approach. The EPA directive entitled
.Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites. (EPA 1993a) defines
municipal landfills as those containing principally municipal wastes and, to a
lesser extent, hazardous wastes. As indicated by the historical records for
CAOC 35, the landfill trenches received largely refuse and nonhazardous
materials. Based on the consistency between the EPA definition and the
presumed waste inventory of CAOC 35, the presumptive remedy was used at
CAOC 35.
Containment has been established as the presumptive remedy for CERCLA
municipal landfills. The components of the presumptive remedy address the
potential contaminant exposure pathways. The components are as follows.
.
. Source area groundwater control to contain the plume
.
leachate collection and treatment
.
landfill gas collection and treatment
Engineering controls
.
.
Institutional controls to supplement engineering controls.
Two of these components were used to address the site-specific conditions at
CAOC 35: engineering controls (i.e., cap) and institutional controls.
3-9
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02.Q1 F2~-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
Based on the reported historical information, aerial photographs, results of
geophysical surveys, and results from soil sampling activities, the western and
central portion of Stratum 1 is the only area of CAOC 35 where landfilling
occurred. This area is referred to as Zone 1. The location of this area and the
boundaries of the response actions addressed for CAOC 35 are shown in Figure
3-3. The geophysical survey conducted during the RI identified the landfill trench
areas. The aerial extent of the landfill area at Stratum 1 (i.e., Zone 1) is
approximately 15 acres. Only that portion of Stratum 1 where the actual
landfilling took place (Le., Zone 1) is included for the evaluation.
The following remedial action objectives were developed for Zone 1:
.
Minimize potential for disturbance for wastes
Minimize the possibility of future releases to groundwater
.
.
Attain landfill closure ARARs (exclusive of ground\yater monitoring, which
will be addressed as part of OU 1).
An additional objective is to provide a final remedy that would be consistent with
any future MCLB Barstow plans to reclaim portions of CAOC 35 for vehicle or
equipment storage.
To address the CAOC contaminants and objectives, the following five
alternatives were developed and evaluated.
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: Institutional Control - Master Plan Amendment
Alternative 3: Single-Layer Native Soil Cap
Alternative 4: Multilayer Cap
Option 1:
Option 2:
Title 27 Prescriptive Cap
Modified Title 27 Prescriptive Cap with Geomembrane
Liner
Option 3:
Modified Title 27 Prescriptive Cap with Geosynthetic Clay
Liner (GCl)
3-10
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Prtnt Date: 29 December. 1997
Subsequent to the release of the draft final Feasibility Study (FS) for OUs 5
and 6, the FFA signatories decided to include any monitoring required for the
closure of CAOC 35 Zone 1 under OU 1 (Vermo groundwater). On this basis,
the groundwater monitoring component is not included under the description of
alternatives in this ROD. Additionally, the cost of the alternatives in this section
does not include these monitoring costs.
3.6.1.1
Alternative 1: No Action
The NCP (40 CFR 3OO.430[e)[6]) requires that a no action alternative be
evaluated in the FS to provide a baseline for evaluating other alternatives. Under
the no action alternative, no institutional control, containment, removal, disposal,
in situ treatment, or ex situ treatment of the contaminated soil is provided to
reduce potential risks to human health or the environment.
3.6.1.2 .
Alternative 2: Institutional Control - Master Plan Amendment
and Groundwater Monitoring
Institutional control refers to remedial technologies other than engineering
controls and treatment technologies. Institutional controls generally reduce
potential risk to human health and the environment by controlling and monitoring
exposure pathways rather than removing or controlling the risk source.
The institutional controls in Alternative 2 consist of a Base Master Plan
amendment to restrict future land use at CAOC 35 Zone 1. The Master Plan
amendment would limit future land use at Zone 1 to ensure that human health is
protected in the future. The soil at CAOC 35 Zone 1 shall not be breached by
trenching, excavation, or any other similar activities unless prior approval of the
FF A signatories is obtained.
Precipitation infiltration would be monitored via a neutron access probe.
Considering the relatively uniform geology at the site, one monitoring location is
considered adequate to represent the quantity of subsurface percolation. The
neutron access hole is proposed to be approximately 10 feet deep. Semi-annual
3-11
-------
CT026G\B70027\FlNAL
CLE..J02-Q1 F2~-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
monitoring for the first 2 years and annual monitoring for 28 years is proposed at
the neutron access hole.
The estimated present worth for this alternative is $8,500.
3.6.1.3
Alternative 3: Single-layer Cap
Alternative 3 provides a combination of engineering and institutional controls.
The main component of this alternative is a single-layer cap that serves the
functions and objectives that a Title 27 prescriptive landfill cap is intended to
serve: minimizing water infiltration and leachate migration. The general
remediation site plan is shown in Figure 3-3. One single-layer cap option, a
native soil cover, was evaluated.
This option includes collection and analyses of groundwater samples as
discussed for Alternative 2. Institutional controls would be implemented under
this alternative to restrict future land use for residential purposes and would be
documented in the Base Master Plan.
The precipitation infiltration monitoring for this alternative is identical to that of
Alternative 2 and would be implemented after the cover is installed.
Groundwater monitoring will be performed at CAOC 35 as part of the landfill
closure requirements.
One issue that may be important in evaluating the implementability,
effectiveness, and cost of cap installation is surface settlement. In general,
waste in landfills or trenches consolidates over time and increases in density as
the weight of the waste and overlying soil presses the mass into a smaller
volume. This consolidation process usually shows on the surface as subsidence
or differential settlement. Typical surface indicators are fissures, cracks,
foundation movement, or utility and road failures; the amount of settlement
usually depends on the type of waste, climate, density, depth of waste, and the
initial compaction effort used to place the waste. The additional weight of the
landfill closure cap could increase the surface settlement. The potential impact
3-12
-------
CT026O\810027\F1NAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
of surface settlement on the cap installation would be addressed in the remedial
design phase,although surface soil compaction was included in the cost
estimate for cap installation at CAOC 35 Zone 1.
The single-layer cap includes installing a 3-foot soil cover over the estimated 15-
acre area (Figure 3-3). This would be clean soil imported to CAOC 35 Zone 1
from other parts of the Base, which would be excavated by a front-end loader or
similar equipment and loaded onto trucks for transport to CAOC 35 Zone 1. The
volume of imported soil, estimated to be 71,000 cubic yards, would be placed
over CAOC 35 Zone 1 and graded to a slope of 0.5 to 1 percent. The existing
surface would be graded and filled prior to placement of the soil cover. A cross
section of the cap is shown in Figure 3-4.
The estimated total present worth cost of this option is $1.3 million.
This soil cover would minimize infiltration into the vadose zone by providing a
clean soil layer that will be adequate for absorbing a rainfall event. The results of
the hydrologic evaluation of landfill performance (HELP) model suggest that this
soil cover can absorb up to 99 percent of the rainfall. Details of this modeling are
presented in Appendix D of the FS (Jacobs 1996b). The absorbed moisture in
this soil cover would readily evaporate because of the dry climate of the Barstow
area, minimizing generation of landfill leachate and direct contact with the
impacted soil of the landfill area. Modeling, laboratory, and field data indicate that
the performance of this type of engineered altemative system in arid
environments is superior to the prescriptive standard of clay (CRWaCB 1996).
The appropriate engineering properties, as well as design and construction
specifications, would be determined during the remedial design phase. If
necessary, clean soil would be imported to meet landfill closure performance
goals of minimizing infiltration from a worst~se storm event.
3-13
-------
CT026O\B70027\FINAL
CLE-m-Q1 F260-B7-0D27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
3.6.1.4
Alternative 4: Multilayer Cap
Similar to Altemative 3, this altemative provides a combination of engineering
and institutional controls to control exposure pathways assOciated with CAOC 35
Zone 1. The institutional controls consist of future land use restrictions as
discussed for Alternative 2. Groundwater monitoring is not included as a
component of this OU, but is included under the groundwater OU (OU 1). The
engineering controls for Altemative 4 consist of installing" a multilayer cap to
minimize infiltration and direct contact. Surface settlement issues are also
pertinent to the construction of a multilayer cap for Alternative 4, and would be
addressed during the remedial design phase. Three separate multilayer cap
options were considered:
.
Title 27 Prescriptive Cap
Modified Title 27 Prescriptive Cap with Geomembrane Uner
.
.
Modified Prescriptive Cap with GCL
Option 1: Title 27 Prescriptive Cap
The prescriptive landfill cap for Zone I would consist of the following layers:
.
Foundation - 2 feet of appropriate material (from on Base or off Base).
Barrier - 1 foot of compacted clay with permeability of no greater than
1 x 1Q-6 centimeters per second (cmls). (Alternatively, a manufactured
soillbentonite mixture may be used for the barrier layer.)
.
.
Top - 2 feet of etean soil on top of the clay layer.
The appropriate engineering properties and construction specifications for the
foundation layer would be determined during the remedial design phase and
would be based on commonly practiced standards of the industry. The
foundation layer requires about 47,600 cubic yards of soil and would take about 2
weeks to construct.
The material for the clay layer would be obtained from clay deposits around the
Barstow area. The clay would be excavated, transported to CAOC 35 Zone 1,
3-14
-------
CT0260\B70027\FlNAL
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
and graded and compacted to achieve a permeability of 1 x 1 ()-6 cm/s Dr less.
The design specification and properties of the clay layer would be determined
during the remedial design phase. The estimated volume of clay material is
23,800 cubic yards, and the estimated time for constructing this layer is about
2 weeks. If clay material is not available, a manufactured soiVbentonite mixture
would be used.
Clean soil for the top layer would be imported from on or oft Base and, because
of the arid climate of Barstow, no vegetation is expected. The top layer would
protect the clay layer from burrowing animals and traffic. Although the
regulations only require 1 foot of cover, the top layer would be 2 feet thick. This
layer would have a 3- to 5-percent slope to maximize runoff (with minimal surface
erosion) and the characteristics of the soil would be determined during the
remedial design phase; the estimated soil volume is 47,600 cubic yards. The
side slopes of the cap would be covered by a gravel armor layer to reduce
erosion. The cap cross section is shown in Figure 3-5.
The total present-worth cost of this option is approximately $2.3 million.
Option 2: Modified Title 27 Prescriptive Cap with Geomembrane Uner
Because of the arid climate at MCLB Barstow, gradual desiccation of the low-
permeability clay layer used in Option 1 is a strong possibility and would
compromise the effectiveness of the Title 27 prescriptive cap in minimizing
infiltration. Option 2 addresses this issue by replacing the clay layer with a
40-mil (or thicker) geomembrane liner. All other components of this option are
the same as those for Option 1. The cap cross section is shown in Figure 3-6.
The geomembrane liner would be designed and constructed according to
commonly practiced standards of the industry. Examples of geomembrane liners
include high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or linear low-density polyethylene
(LLDPE). The specific membrane material would be selected during remedial
design. After compaction and grading of the foundation layer, sheets of
geomembrane would be placed and extrusion-welded together, followed by weld
3-15
-------
CT026O\S10027\FJNAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-Q027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
testing (vacuum box) to ensure the integrity of welded seams. The
geomembrane would be anchored around the boundary of the cap to provide
slope stability. The side slopes of the cap would be covered by a gravel armor
layer to minimize erosion.
The total present-worth cost of this altemative is approximately $2.5 million.
Option 3: Modified Title 27 Prescriptive Cap with Geosynthetic Clay Uner
Option 3 is a variation of Option 2, but uses a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) in
lieu of the geomembrane liner as an infiltration barrier. The GCL provides a
permeability of less than 1o-e anls, and is simpler to construct than a
geomembrane liner. A cross section of this cap is shown in Figure 3-7. Other
components of this alternative are the same as the corresponding components of
Option 2.
The total present-worth cost of this option is estimated at $2.6 million.
3.6.2
Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
The relative advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives are discussed in
this section.
3.6.2.1
Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Each of the alternatives leaves waste in place. Altemative 1 is not considered
protective of human health and the environment because of the uncertainties
associated with the risk analysis and leaching potential analysis, both of which
used soil data from outside the waste disposal cells to prevent waste
disturbance. The waste could be disturbed and could affect the groundwater if
no action is taken. Altemative 2 provides overall protection of human health and
the environment as long as the land use restrictions are enforced. Alternatives 3
3-16
-------
CT026<71S70027\FINAL
CLE.J02..() 1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
and 4 (all options) provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment through the installation of a cap. Each of the various caps
minimizes the potential for disturbance of the buried wastes and the potential for
future impacts to the groundwater.
Compliance with ARARs
Altematives 1 and 2 do not meet landfill closure requirements. Alternatives 3 and
4 meet all ARARs. The requirement to eliminate all infiltration (CCR Title 22
Section 66264.310[a][1]) is considered to be met by Altematives 3 and 4 (all
options) because modeling of these caps showed an insignificant amount of
water (less than 1 percent) is expected to infiltrate through the caps and the
wastes.
3.6.2.2
Primary Balancing Criteria
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 (all options) provide the highest degree of long-
term effectiveness if adequately maintained because they provide the greatest
assurance that any future activities would not disturb the buried wastes. Long-
term effectiveness of Altemative 2 is dependent on the continued enforcement of
access/use limitations. Alternative 1 does not provide long-term effectiveness
and permanence.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment
None of the alternatives involves treatment due to the presumptive nature of the
remedy; therefore, this criterion is not met.
3-17
-------
CT026
-------
CT0260\B7OO27\F1NAl
CLE-J02.() 1 F260-B1-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
3.6.2.3
Modifying Criteria
State Acceptance
The State of California has reviewed and approved the OUs 5 and 6 FS and
Proposed Plan, and concurs with the selected alternative, Alternative 3, for
CAOC 35 Zone 1.
Community Acceptance
No written or verbal comments were received from the public. Based on the lack
of comments, it is assumed that the public accepts the selected alternative.
3.6.3
The Selected Remedy for CAOC 35 (Zone 1)
The selected remedy for CAOC 35 Zone 1 is Alternative 3, Single-Layer Native
Soil Cap. This alternative includes the installation of a 3-foot native soil cover
over the area of CAOC 35 Zone 1. Uncontaminated fill will be imported to CAOC
35 from other parts of the Base or off site. The fill will be placed over a 15-acre
area and graded to a slope of 0.5 to 1 percent. The existing surface will be
graded prior to placement 'of the soil cover.
The soil cover will minimize infiltration into the vadose zone by providing a soil
layer that will be adequate for absorbing a worst-case rainfall event. The results
of the HELP model indicate that this soil cover can absorb up to 99 percent of the
rainfall and the resulting infiltration and percolation would be negligible.
Absorbed moisture in the soil cover will readily evaporate due to the dry climate
of the Barstow area, which will minimize the potential for generation of landfill
leachate. The soil cover will minimize direct contact with the impacted soil of the
landfill area.
Title 27 CCA, Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 3 prescribes standards for liner
systems and leachate collection and removal systems (LCAS) for active landfills.
The CAOC 35 landfill area is an unlined landfill that has been inactive since 1989
3-19
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-Q1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
and is classified a Class III waste management unit under Title 27 CCR Section
2oo80(g). Based on evaluation of RI data, the landfill has been designated as
not being a significant current or future source of leakage. Retrofitting the landfill
with the liner system and LCRS prescribed in Subdivision I is not required to
control waste migration because evaluation of RI and FS data indicate that
retrofitting is unnecessary and infeasible (Title 27 CCR Section 2oo80[b] and [c)).
Therefore, the liner and LCRS requirements are not relevant and appropriate for
CAOC 35.
Based on evaluations in the FS, the Navy contends that the selected remedy for
CAOC 35 Zone 1 is equivalent to an engineered alternative under Title 27 CCR
Sections 20080(b) and (c). The final remedy is therefore consistent with the
performance standards for the final cover prescribed in Subdivision 1 because
the final cover will prevent precipitation from reaching buried wastes. Based on
the evaluation presented in the FS, the Navy also contends that the final cover
prescribed in Subdivision 1 would not perform as well as the selected cover for
this site. Therefore, the prescriptive cover requirements are not relevant and
appropriate.
If the selected remedy cannot be shown to meet the landfill closure performance
criteria to the satisfaction of the FFA signatories, then the Navy will propose an
alternative landfill cap design that will meet the performance criteria.
Because of the presumptive nature of this alternative, remediation goals for soil
focused on preventing exposure to contaminants in excess of an ILCR of
10""6, and a hazard index of 1.0. The calculated human health risk for the area to
be capped is 3 x 10". based on a hypothetical on-site resident. Although this is
at the lower end of the risk management range of 10" to 10-6, uncertainties exist
due to the lack of analysis of the wastes themselves and the potential for
disturbance of the buried wastes. The cap will meet the objective of minimizing
the potential for disturbing the wastes in the future and the potential for direct
exposure. The cap will also minimize the potential future migration of
contaminants to groundwater.
3-20
-------
CT026<7S70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-G1 F260-87 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
The other components of the selected alternative include precipitation infiltration
monitoring and restrictions on land use activities in the area. Groundwater
monitoring for landfill closure will be performed at CAOC 35. The discussion of
the groundwater monitoring requirements will be documented in a groundwater
monitoring plan to be prepared as part of the remedial action work plan.
Precipitation infiltration will be monitored via a neutron access probe.
Considering the relatively uniform geology at the site, one monitoring location is
considered adequate representation for the quantity of subsurface percolation.
The neutron access hole is proposed to be approximately 10 feet deep. Annual
monitoring for the first four years is proposed as part of this alternative.
The boundaries of CAOC 35 Zone 1 will .be surveyed during remedial design, at
which time the information will be added to the Base Master Plan. As part of the
Preliminary Remedial Design specified in Section 8.2 of the FFA, the Navy will
provide the FFA signatories with the results of appropriate field verification work
designed to define the boundary of the waste management unit.
To ensure that human health and the environment are protected in the future,
land use at CAOC 35 Zone 1 is restricted to activities that cannot disrupt the
physical or structural integrity of the soil cap. Restricted activities include
trenching, excavation or any other activity that could breach the cap. This
restriction does not apply to maintenance activities conducted, within the top
twelve inches of the soil cap, to preserve or restore the physical or structural
integrity of the cap. The Navy shall place warning notices around the periphery
of CAOC 35 Zone 1 stating that activities in the area are restricted.
The written concurrence of the FFA signatories is required before.the Navy takes
any action at CAOC 35 Zone 1 that could disrupt the physical or structural
integrity of the soil cap. If any such action is proposed, the Navy must provide
the FFA signatories with written notification of such proposed action. The notice
shall include (i) an evaluation of the risk to human health and the environment,
(ii) an evaluation of the need for any additional remedial action as a result of the
3-21
-------
CT026<71B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
proposed action and (iii) a description of the changes necessary to the selected
remedy for CAOC 35 Zone 1 in the ROD for OUs 5 and 6.
The written notice of proposed action shall be submitted to the FFA signatories at
least 45 days prior to the commencement date for the proposed action. The EPA
will advise whether a ROD amendment or an explanation of significant
differences (ESD) document is required. The FFA signatories must provide
written concurrence with the Navy's evaluation of risk and proposal regarding any
necessary changes in the remedial action, if required, before the Navy can
commence any action.
The Navy shall notify the FFA signatories of any plan to lease or transfer
CAOC 35 Zone 1 real property to a non-federal or federal entity, notify the
transferee or leasee of the restrictions on activities at CAOC 35 Zone 1 and
include the restriction in the transfer or lease. Such notification shall be provided
at least 45 days in advance of the lease or transfer conveyance. The Navy shall
comply with Section 120(h)(3) of CERCLA in any such transfers.
The MCLB Barstow Base Master Plan will be amended to incorporate the above-
mentioned restrictions on activities at CAOC 35 Zone 1. The Master Plan
amendments will also include language that describes the risk to human health
and the environment that exists at CAOC 35 Zone 1; will reference the MCLB
Barstow OUs 5 and 6 Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study, and ROD; and
will provide a legal description (metes and bounds) of the boundaries of CAOC
35 Zone 1. The language in the Master Plan amendments will also include the
title and dates of the above-listed documents and their storage location. These
amendments to the Master Plan will be completed by the Navy within 1 year of
signing .the MCLB Barstow OUs 5 and 6 ROD. The Navy will provide the FFA
signatories with a copy of the amendments to the Master Plan reflecting the
restrictions on activities at CAOC 35 Zone 1. The Navy will also provide the FF A
signatories with 30 days advance notice of any amendment to the Master Plan
that could affect either the substance or the language of the CAOC 35 Zone 1
Master Plan use restriction amendment.
3-22
-------
CT026O\B10027\FINAL
CLE~02'()1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
The cost for this alternative includes capital and operations and maintenance
(O&M) costs. The capital cost is estimate to be $1.3 million for general
engineering requirements, earthwork, drainage channel, and contingency. The
estimated costs for each Df these listed components are $0.3 million,
$0.7 million, $0.05 million, and $0.3 million, respectively.
3.6.4
Statutory Determinations
This section discusses how the selected remedy for CAOC 35 Zone 1 meets the
statutory requirements of CERCLA Section 121. Under CERCLA Section 121,
the selected remedy at a Superfund site must entail remedial actions that
achieve adequate protection of human health and the environment. In addition,
CERCLA Section 121 establishes several other statutory requirements and
preferences specifying that, when complete, the selected remedial action must
comply with ARARs established under federal and state environmental laws
unless a statutory waiver is justified. The selected alternative must also be cost-
effective and must entail permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. Finally, the statute includes a preference for remedies that employ,
as their principal element, treatment technologies that permanently and
significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes.
3.6.4.1
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment by capping
buried wastes to minimize potential direct contact, inhalation, or ingestion, and to
limit infiltration of rainfall though the wastes. The area will be capped in
compliance with CCR Titles 14, 22, and 27 landfill closure requirements. The
human health risk for this area before capping is calculated to be 3 x 10-0 to a
hypothetical on-site resident. As mentioned previously, although the results
show that the site is currently within the risk management range, data for the
assessment were limited to surface soil samples and outside landfill area
samples only; no samples were taken of the landfilled wastes. Future on-site
receptors could disturb the wastes because the thickness of the existing soil
3-23
-------
CT026a\B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F2~B7-(1027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
cover throughout the entire area is not known. which creates uncertainty in the
risk results. The lack of analysis of the wastes also adds uncertainty regarding
the potential for future releases to the groundwater. The cap and land use
restrictions address these uncertainties.
An ERA was also conducted to evaluate potential effects on plants and animals.
CAOC 35 was found not to have an adverse impact on ecological receptors.
3.6.4.2
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will comply with all federal and state ARARs. No waivers
are required. The ARARs for CAOC 35 are listed and discussed in Appendix C.
3.6.4.3
Cost Effectiveness
The selected alternative was evaluated for cost effectiveness relative to the other
three alternatives evaluated for CAOC 35 Zone 1 and their associated options.
Several other capping options were evaluated that are more costly than the
selected alternative and would be just as effective as the selected alternative.
Therefore. of the four cap options evaluated, the selected alternative is the least
expensive and provides the same level of long-term effectiveness.
3.6.4.4
Use 01 Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected rernedy meets the statutory requirement to use permanent
solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Because of the nature and volume of the landfilled wastes. treatment was found
not to be a practical solution.
In comparing the selected alternative to the other alternatives considered. the
selected alternative provides the best balance of effectiveness and cost with
respect to the five EPA balancing criteria; i.e., long-term effectiveness; reduction
3-24
-------
CT026O'lB70027\F1NAL
CLE.J02..()1F260-B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness;
implementability; and cost.
All of the capping alternatives reduce contaminant mobility through containment.
For this CAOC, a presumptive remedy approach for landfilled wastes was
pursued. The approach assumes that treatment is neither cost-effective nor
practical. Therefore, the remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for
treatment as a principal element.
Short-term effectiveness is not rated for Alternative 1 because no actions are
taken. None of the alternatives presents a significant potential human health risk
during implementation.
No problems are expected during the implementation of the selected alternative
or the other alternatives.
Alternative 3 is estimated to cost approximately $1.3 million.
The DTSC and the CRWaCB agree with the selected altemative. The State has
been active in reviewing and providing input on the data collected and evaluated
for determining the appropriate cleanup action at CAOC 35.
3.6.4.5
Preference for Treatment a8 a Principal Element
The selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element of the cleanup. Section 300.430(a)(iii)(B) of the NCP contains
the expectation that engineering controls (e.g., containment) will be used for
waste that poses a relatively low long-term threat or where treatment is
impracticable. Because the wastes are a heterogeneous mixture of municipal
waste and some industrial and/or hazardous waste at CAOC 35 Zone 1,
treatment is neither cost-effective nor practicable. In addition, the landfill is not
expected to pose a continuing long-term threat to groundwater because of the
inert nature of most of the wastes and the arid climate.
3-25
-------
1
CT026CP1B70027\FINAl
CLE-J02-Q1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
3.6.4.6
Documentation 01 Significant Change
The selected remedy was modified after the submittal of the draft final FS report
for OUs 5 and 6. The signatories to the FFA agreed to include any required
groundwater monitoring associated with the closure of CAOC 35 Zone 1 as part
of OU 1 (Verma Annex groundwater). This modification has significantly
changed the cost estimates included in the FS, including the estimate for the.
selected remedy. The groundwater monitoring program was estimated to cost
$1.9 million. Although the deduction of these costs from each of the alternatives
significantly changes the individual altemative costs, the relative comparisons
remain unchanged because the corresponding cost reduction is the same for
each alternative. Ultimately the comparative cost analyses for the cost criterion
and remedy selection are unaffected by these modifications.
3-26
-------
CT026O'IB70027\FlNAL
CLE.J02-o1 F2fiG.87 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
4.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR
CAOC 7 - DRUM STORAGE AND LANDFILL AREAS
4.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 7, the Drum Storage and Landfill Areas, is in the southwest comer of the Nebo
Main Base. The site consists of two separate landfill areas (western and eastern) with a
former drum storage area located adjacent to the eastern landfill area. In addition to
storing drums and other equipment, landfill operations consisted of the combustion of
flammable liquids in trenches, followed by covering the resulting ash with soil. According
to the IAS (Brown and Caldwell 1983) the estimated waste volume disposed of at the
landfill is approximately 40,000 cubic yards. The approximate boundary of CAOC 7 is
shown in Figure 4-1. COPCs at this CAOC include solvents, waste oils, metals, PAHs,
PCBs, and dioxinslfurans.
4.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC 7 history was assembled from the lAS, PANSI, records search, and historical
aerial photographic review. CAOC 7 was also referred to as Site 7 in the IAS and as
SWMU 10.91 in the PANSI. According to the lAS, CAOC 7 was operated as the
principal solid waste landfill for MCLB Barstow from the early 19505 to 1964. The landfill
operation included filling one end of the trench with waste, pouring flammable liquids
(waste solvents, gasoline and oil) on the waste and burning the solid wastes for volume
reduction and scrap metal recovery. The site was also used as a drum storage area for
chemicals in the early 19505. Various chemicals from World War II and the Korean
conflict were stored, and when possible, were reportedly burned and disposed of as part
of the landfill operation. Any drums with unknown contents or believed to contain
extremely hazardous materials were stored in a bermed area. These materials included
caustic soda and various pesticides. No information was available on the condition of
the drummed materials; however, some leakage was known to have taken place (Brown
and Caldwell 1983). Around 1958 a major fire reportedly occurred in the drum storage
area, leading to a relatively large spill. The site was covered with approximately 2 feet of
soil in 1964 (Jacobs 1991a).
4-1
-------
CT026aIS70027\FINAL
CLE..J02-Q1 F260-B7-Q027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
4.3
Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the soil investigations conducted at CAOC 7
and soil sampling analytical results.
CAOC 7 has been divided into four strata consisting of documented and suspected
contamination sources. Each stratum has been defined based on a separate
environmental release mechanism.
.
Stratum 1: The eastern L-shaped landfill disposal area. Each leg measures
approximately 50 by 750 feet. Stratum 1 also encompasses geophysical
anomaly A-2, where disposal activities may also have occurred.
Stratum 2: The western landfill disposal area, consisting of two separate trench
areas. Each trench area consists of two parallel trenches approximately 15 feet
wide and ranging in length from 300 to 800 feet.
.
.
Stratum 3: A drum storage and spillage area identified during the aerial
photograph review measuring approximately 900 by 900 feet.
Stratum 4: The former playground area next to the amphibious vehicle test pond
also.known as the "fish pond."
.
The playground next to the fish pond was identified as a sampling stratum because of
the potential impact to the area from landfill activities. However, the recreation
equipment has since been removed, thus minimizing the exposure potential in this area.
Figure 4-2 shows the approximate locations and strata boundaries. The hydraulic
gradient at Stratum 2 is 0.022 foot per foot (ftIft) east. The gradient is 0.003 Mt
southeast in Stratum 1. The depth to groundwater ranged from 160 to 210 feet bgs.
During Phase I of the RI, 54 borings were advanced within the four strata in CAOC 7 as
shown in Figure 4-2:
.
Stratum 1 (Eastem Landfill): 5 angle borings and 5 hand auger borings
Stratum 2 (Western Landfill): 5 borings
.
.
Stratum 3 (Drum Storage and Spillage): 25 vertical auger borings and 9 hand
auger borings
Stratum 4 (Playground): 5 hand auger borings.
.
4-2
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-01 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
The analytical results collected during the soil investigation are presented in this section
along with a discussion of contaminant nature and extent. Maximum concentrations of
all detected analytes are presented in data summary tables (Tables 4-1 through 4-8). To
help identify potentially significant contaminants. residential soil RBCs are also shown on
the tables. RBCs represent soil concentrations that correspond to a 1 x 10.e cancer risk
or a 1.0 noncancer hazard index for a residential soil exposure scenario. For inorganics,
the 95th percentile background concentrations for shallow soils (0 to 3 feet bgs) are also
shown for comparison.
4.3.1
Stratum 1
Surficial soil (0 to 0.5 feet bgs) samples were collected to characterize the
potential threat from direct soil contact and deep (greater than 30 feet bgs)
samples were collected to determine if any contaminants were migrating from the
waste disposal trenches. The collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs,
OCPs, PCBs, metals, cyanide, and TPH-D. The maximum concentrations of
organic and inorganic compounds found at Stratum 1 are presented in Tables 4-
1 and 4-2, respectively.
.
VOCs detected in the surface samples consisted of TCE, PCE, acetone,
1 ,2-dichloropropane, and 1,2,3-trichloropropane. If any VOCs are found
in surface samples, it implies that they are of very recent origin. Of the
VOCs detected, acetone is a common laboratory contaminant. Because
it was only detected in one sample from that particular analytical batch, it
is not believed to be site related.
.
1,2,3-trichloropropane was not a target compound and was therefore
quantitated as a tentatively identified compound (TIC), assuming an equal
response to that of the nearest internal standard. The compound was the
most abundant of the VOCs, with an estimated concentration of 400
~g/kg.
.
In the samples .collected at about 30 feet bgs, VOCs were detected in
only one sample, NB07 -()4. The detected compounds consisted
of 1.2-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, 2-butanone, and
1,2,3-trichloropropane. The last compound was detected at 250 ~glkg,
the highest of all the VOCs. As discussed before, the compound is not a
target compound and its concentration is estimated.
Only three compounds were found in the SVOC group in the surface
samples: 1,2-dichlorobenzene at 97 JJg/kg; bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate at
510 ~g/kg; and bis(4-chlorophenyl)methanone (a TIC) at an estimated
.
4-3
-------
CT026O\B70027\FINAL
4.3.2
CLE~2~1F26~~7
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
.
concentration of 360 J.I9Ikg. Each of these compounds was detected
once. The phthalate may be a laboratory or field contaminant extraneous
to the sample.
The sample containing the 1,2-dichlorobenzene and bis(4-chloro-
phenyl)methanone was also found to contain several pesticides and a
PCB. The two SVOCs may be associated with the presence of the PCB
and its possible degradation modes.
.
Various pesticides were detected in the surface samples. Except for
Dieldrin, all were at concentrations below residential soil RBC values.
The pesticides included the DDT group, chlordane, Endrin, Dieldrin, and
gamma-benzene hexachloride (BHC).
Aroclor-1254 was detected in two of the samples, most notably in
NB07 -10 at 2,700 ~g/kg.
.
.
In the deep samples, only one detection of a pesticide, 4,4'-DDE, was
made at a concentration comparable to the quantitation limit.
Extractable hydrocarbons calculated as diesel were detected in all the
surface samples, with concentrations ranging from 11 to 120 mglkg. Only
one deep sample, NB07 -04, showed the presence of extractable
hydrocarbons at a concentration of 8.3 mglkg.
.
.
Various metals in the surficial soils of this stratum were detected at
concentrations statistically elevated relative to background and are
believed to be site related. The highest concentrations were generally
found in samples NB07-Q7 and NB-7-10. These metals included
antimony (stratum-maximum concentration of 45 mglkg), cadmium
(230 mglkg), total chromium (85 mglkg), copper (2,800 mglkg), lead (839
mglkg) and zinc (2,700 mglkg). Although hexavalent chromium was not
sampled for in this stratum, it could be present given the site history and
the occurrence of other paint-related metals.
.
Concentrations of metals in the deep samples were generally consistent
with backQround.
Stratum 2
Only the deep soils (greater than 30 feet bgs) were sampled at Stratum 2. The
collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals, cyanide,
and TPH-D. The maximum concentrations of organic and inorganic compounds
found at Stratum 2 are presented in Tables 4-3 and 4-4, respectively.
.
VOCs detected in the samples from this stratum consisted of acetone and
2-butanone, each detected in only one location. Both may be analytical
artifacts.
4-4
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
.
.
CLE-J02.Q1 F26
-------
CT02eaIB70027\FINAL
.
.
4.4
CLE.J02.Q1 F26G-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
.
Grid sampling was performed in this stratum with PCB test kits. Only one
sample (NB07-31) had a positive detection. Fixed-lab confirmatory
analyses did not indicate any PCBs in the sample, indicating that the test
kit result is a false positive, which is not uncommon with this type of field-
screening technique.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concern from a human health perspective.
.
4.3.4
Stratum 4
The collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals,
cyanide, and TPH-D. Samples from this stratum were collected from the surface
soil (0 to 1 foot bgs) to characterize any contamination that could have been
transported via deposition from the other strata of this CAOC. There was no
evidence to suggest that a direct release occurred at this stratum. The maximum
concentrations of organic and inorganic compounds found at
Stratum 4 are presented in Tables 4-7 and 4-8, respectively.
.
The only VOC detected in the samples from this site was acetone; it was
detected in two samples. It is a very common laboratory contaminant,
used in many extractions in the laboratory, and consequently found in the
laboratory atmosphere. It was detected at a concentration of minor
concem from a human health perspective.
Pesticides were detected in all of the samples. The detected pesticides
consist of the DDT group in concentrations up to 11 JJg/kg, the
Chlordanes up to 86 J,Jg/kg, and single measurements of Endosulfan
sulfate (1.1 JJg/kg), Endrin (5 J,Jg/kg), Endrin ketone (3.8 JJglkg), Dieldrin (4
J,Jg!kg), and heptachlor epoxide (8.6 J,Jg!kg).
.
.
Aroclor-1254 was found in three of the samples, ranging from 43 to
120 J,Jg!kg.
Extractable hydrocarbons were not found in any of the samples.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 7 using data
collected during the AI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final RI report for OUs 5 and 6. Results of the
4-6
-------
CT026U\B70027\FJNAL
CLE.J02-o1 F2~B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
assessment for CAOC 7 are provided in Section 25.0 of the RI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 7 are presented here in
support of the decision to take action. Also presented in this section is a general
summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection.
4.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 7 are presented in Table 4-9 for
the residential land-use scenario and Table 4-10 for the industrial land-use
scenario.
4.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCR for Stratum 1 is approximately 9 x 10-5 and results primarily from
Aroclor-1242 and cadmium detections.
As discussed previously, surficial soil samples were not collected in Stratum 2,
which precludes an accurate determination of site risks. However, given the
similarity in disposal practices, it is likely that the risk and hazard estimates from
Stratum 1 surficial soils are also representative of Stratum 2 surface soils.
The ILCR for Stratum 3 is 3 X 10.7, which is below the point of departure of
1 x 1 o~ and is considered to be insignificant from a human health perspective.
The ILCR for Stratum 4 is approximately 4 x 10. and results from a low-level
Aroclor-1254 detection.
The noncancer hazard index for Stratum 1 is approximately 14.0, most of which
is attributable to site-related metals, including antimony (hazard quotient of 1.6),
cadmium (hazard quotient of 5.9), and copper (hazard quotient of 1.1). The
organic compounds contributed a hazard of less than 0.2.
4-7
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02~1F~-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
As discussed previously, the hazard for Stratum 1 is likely to be representative of
Stratum 2.
The noncancer hazard indices for Strata 3 and 4 exceed 1.0, but as shown in
Table 4-9, this results almost entirely from background metal concentrations and
is therefore considered insignificant.
The maximum detection of lead (839 mg/kg) exceeds the EPA Region IX
residential soil preliminary remediation goal (PRG) value of 400 mg/kg. A more
detailed analysis of lead was conducted using the State of California
lEADSPREAD model, which indicated that impacts would be unacceptable for a
residential land use scenario.
4.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, the ILCRs for Strata 1 and 2 would be
3 x 10-6 and for Strata 3 and 4 would be less than 1 x 10". The total non~ncer
hazard indices are less than 1.0 at Strata 3 and 4, and 1.0 for Strata 1
and 2.
4.4.2
Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion
The ERA identified CAOC 7 as being adjacent to a robust creosote community
(located on the Rifle Range) that is home to a significant population of desert
tortoise. It also stated that the remnants of a sparse creosote community at
CAOC 7 provide a habitat for a small community of desert tortoise and a diverse
population of herpetiles. Because the desert tortoise is a federally listed
threatened species, any contamination or remedial actions that are potentially
harmful to the tortoise or its habitat must be reviewed for compliance with the
Endangered Species Act.
MCLB Barstow initiated a request to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
dated 25 May 1993 for a formal consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). At issue were potential impacts
4-8
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE..J02-o1 F26
-------
CT026aIB7OO27\F1NAL
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7..()()27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
soils; therefore, lead is not considered to degrade groundwater quality. VLEACH
modeling indicated that it would take over 6,000 years for the Dieldrin
groundwater concentration to exceed the RBC. Dieldrin is an extremely
immobile contaminant detected in soils at very low concentrations. Because the
RBC for Dieldrin is a very conservative value, future impacts to groundwater from
.
Dieldrin are considered negligible. This is confirmed by the lack of Dieldrin
detections in the deep soil sampling at Stra~um 1.
The lack of contaminant migration is also supported by the sampling data. Only
sporadic low-level VOCs were detected in the five deep (30 to 35 feet bgs) soil
samples. Similarly, the results of the near-surface soil organic vapor (SOV)
survey indicated relatively low levels of VOCs. No evidence was identified to
suggest that a large, residual source of vadose zone contamination was present.
Under the groundwater operable units (OUs 1 and 2), monitoring wells were
installed in the vicinity of CAOC 7. Samples from these wells indicated that VOCs
are present at concentrations generally below maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs). No consistent upward trend in contaminant levels have been observed
in the downgradient wells.
Given the 3O-plus years that have elapsed since waste disposal activities were
terminated at CAOC 7, there has been ample time for any VOC contaminant to
have migrated to groundwater. The lack of any upward trend in downgradient
contaminant levels strongly suggest that significant residual VOCs are unlikely to
be present in the vadose zone at concentrations that could degrade groundwater.
Surface waters are not present at CAOC 7 with the possible exception of when
there is heavy precipitation. In the absence of appropriate landfill closure
measures, the contaminants located at Strata 1 and 2 of CAOC 7 could
conceivably threaten to impact surface waters during high-precipitation events.
4-10
-------
CT026a\B7OO27'\F1NAL
CLE..J02.Q1 F2~ -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
4.4.4
Uncertainties
FDr the landfill trench areas of Strata 1 and 2, data were limited to surface soil
samples and samples collected outside the trench areas. No samples were
taken of the landfilled wastes. Because the thickness of the existing soil cover is
nDt known, future on-site receptors could disturb the wastes. This creates
uncertainty in the risk results. The lack of analysis of the wastes also adds
uncertainty regarding the potential for future releases to the groundwater.
Although not detected in the soils, TCE and PCE have been detected in wells
downgradient of the landfill at concentrations generally lower than the regulatory
limits. The data indicate that the landfill might have been a source for these
contaminants in the past but are somewhat uncertain regarding a possible
continuing release.
4.5
Basis for the No Action Alternative for Strata 3 and 4
The no action alternative was selected for Strata 3 and 4 under OUs 5 and 6. The
selected no action altemative does not involve institutional or engineering contrDls. It
does not include containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC 7 Strata 3
and 4 soils are considered to be protective of human health and the environment for the
following reasons.
.
The detections of Aroclor-1254 are below the EPA guidance level of 1 mglkg for
a residential land-use scenario.
.
Contaminants remaining in the soils do not threaten to impact the quality of
groundwater or surface water.
Contaminants detected would not adversely impact ecological receptors.
.
However, because the carcinogenic risk at Stratum 4 falls within the risk range and given
the geographic relationship of Stratum 3 (where surface samples were not collected),
there is a potential for minor surficial soil contamination (i.e., within the risk management
range) to also be present at Stratum 3. Therefore, for planning purposes, a brief
description of the history of CAOC 7 Strata 3 and 4 will be provided in the Base Master
Plan. The low levels of PCBs will be documented. Language provided in the Master
4-11
-------
CT026<7IB7OO27\F1NAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
Plan will indicate that any actions planned in this area or changes in site use should be
coordinated and reviewed by the MCLB Barstow Environmental Department.
4.6
Remedial Alternatives for Strata 1 and 2 - CAOC 7
4.6.1
Description of Alternatives
Alternatives have been developed to address the uncertainties discussed for
CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2. The regulatory requirements for closing landfills dictated
the development of alternatives for CAOC 7. Strata 1 and 2 have been identified
as unclassified landfills as a result of the ARARs evaluation. Regulations exist
. for proper closure and management of landfills. Response actions were
evaluated to comply with these requirements. A related ARAR issue is the
potential impact of waste migration to groundwater. The evaluation of AI
groundwater fate and transport data shows that none of the contaminants
detected in site soils would result in unacceptable levels in the groundwater.
However, as shown by the groundwater analytical results, TCE and PCE were
detected in downgradient wells at levels generally lower than the MCLs. TCE
and PCE were not, however, detected in the soil samples. These data indicate
that the source for the TCE and PCE may have originated at the landfill from past
operations, but that the landfill is not believed to currently be a significant source
of contamination to the groundwater.
The presumptive remedy approach was used in developing alternatives for
CAOC 7. Presumptive remedies are preferred technologies for common
categories of sites based on historical patterns of remedy selection and EP A's
scientific and engineering evaluation of performance data on technology
implementation. Municipal landfills have been identified as a category of sites to
which the presumptive remedy approach could be applied. The EPA directive
entitled Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites (EPA 1993a)
defines municipal landfills as those containing principally municipal wastes and,
to a lesser extent, hazardous wastes. As indicated by the historical records for
CAOC 7, the landfill trenches received mostly refuse and nonhazardous
materials, and flammable hazardous liquids were used to combust the wastes.
4-12
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE~~1F2~~27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
Based Dn the consistency between the EPA definition and the presumed waste
inventory of CAOC 7, the presumptive remedy was used at CAOC 7.
The components of the presumptive remedy address the potential contaminant
exposure pathways. The components are as follows.
.
Source area groundwater control tD contain the plume
.
Leachate collection and treatment
.
Landfill gas cDllection and treatment
Engineering cDntrols
.
.
Institutional controls to supplement engineering controls.
Two of these components were used to address the site-specific conditions at
CAGC 7: engineering controls (i.e., cap) and institutiDnal controls.
Based on the reported historical information, aerial photographs, results of
geophysical surveys, and results from soil sampling activities, Strata 1 and 2 are
the only areas of CAGC 7 where landfilling activities took place. The locations of
these areas and the boundaries of the response actions addressed for
CAOC 7 are shown in Figure 4-3.
The geophysical survey conducted during the RI exactly identified the landfill
trench areas. The areal extent of the landfill areas at Strata 1 and 2 are
approximately 4 and 5 acres, respectively.
The following remedial action objectives were developed for CAGC 7:
.
Minimize potential for disturbance for wastes
Minimize potential future releases to groundwater
.
.
Attain landfill closure ARARs.
Four alternatives were developed for evaluation to meet these objectives:
Altemative 1: No Action
4-13
-------
CT0260\870027\FlNAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
Alternative 2: Institutional Control- Master Plan Amendment
Alternative 3:
Alternative 4:
Single-Layer Native Soil Cap
Multilayer Cap
Option 1: Trtle 27 Prescriptive Cap
Option 2: Modified Title 27 Prescriptive Cap with
Geomembrane Uner
Option 3:
Modified Title 27 Prescriptive Cap with
Geosynthetic Clay Uner
4.6.1.1
Alternative 1: No Action
The NCP (40 CFR 3OO.430[e][6]) requires that a no action alternative be
evaluated in the FS to provide a baseline for evaluating other alternatives. Under
the no action alternative, no institutional control, containment, removal, disposal,
in situ treatment, or ex situ treatment of the contaminated soil is provided to
reduce risks to human health or the environment.
4.6.1.2
Alternative 2: Institutional Control- Master Plan Amendment
Institutional control refers to remedial technologies other than engineering
controls and treatment technologies. Institutional controls generally reduce risk
to human health and the environment by controlling and monitoring exposure
pathways rather than removing or controlling the risk source.
The institutional controls in Alternative 2 consist of a Base Master Plan
amendment to restrict future land use at CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2. This alternative
also includes groundwater monitoring and vadose zone precipitation infiltration
monitoring.
4-14
-------
CT0260\B70027\FlNAL
CLE-J02-o1 F26<>-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
The Master Plan amendment would limit future land use at CAOC 7 Strata 1 and
2 to ensure that human health is protected in the future. The surface shall not be
breached through trenching, excavation, or any other similar activities unless
prior approval of FF A signatories is obtained.
The groundwater monitoring entails collection and analysis of groundwater
samples. Annual groundwater sampling is proposed for the first 5 years. . The
groundwater samples would be analyzed for VOCs, pesticides, and metals. The
results would be evaluated at the end of the fourth year. If the monitoring
indicates that all detections are below MCLs, then after concurrence from all the
FFA signatories, sampling would be conducted every 5 years (prior to each
subsequent 5-year review) until all FFA signatories agree to change the sampling
frequency. If any detection(s) in the first 5 years is above an MCL, then annual
monitoring will be continued. After a detection above an MCL, if the next three
consecutive annual monitoring events indicate that contaminant concentrations
are above an MCL, then the remedy for the site will be reevaluated for
compliance with the threshold criteria, and if necessary, the selected remedy will
be revised or enhanced with the concurrence of the FFA signatories. After a
detection above an MCL, if the next four consecutive annual monitoring events
indicate that contaminant concentrations are below MCLs, then, after'
concurrence of all the FFA signatories, the sampling will be conducted every 5
years (prior to each subsequent 5-year review) until all FFA signatories agree to
change the sampling frequency. Any change in the groundwater sampling will be
in consultation with and must receive the concurrence of the FFA signatories.
This reduced level of monitoring is based on the fact that the landfill has been
closed for 33 years and the groundwater has been sampled eight times in the
past 5 years and only low levels of contaminants have been detected adjacent to
the landfill. The extremely slow groundwater movement in this area, combined
with a lack of receptors, does not warrant more frequent sampling.
Precipitation infiltration would be monitored via a neutron access probe.
Considering the relatively uniform geology at the site, one monitoring location is
considered adequate representation for the quantity of subsurface percolation.
4-15
-------
CT026O\B7OO27\F1NAL
CLE~'()1F2~-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
The neutron access hole is proposed to be approximately 10 feet d~ep. Annual
monitoring for the first 4 years is proposed as part of this alternative.
In addition, monitoring would be conducted as specified by the FWS pursuant to
an Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation (FWS 1993). Because this
monitoring is required independent of any remedial action at CAOC 7, it is not
included in the cost estimates.
The total present-worth cost of this alternative is approximately $350,000.
4.6.1.3
Alternative 3: Single-layer Cap
Alternative 3 provides a combination of engineering and institutional controls.
The main component of this alternative is a single layer cap that serves the
functions and objectives that a Title 27 prescriptive landfill cap is intended to
serve: minimizing water infiltration and leachate migration. The general
remediation site plan is shown in Figure 4-3. A single-layer native soil cover was
evaluated.
Institutional controls restricting future land use would be implemented under this
alternative and documented in the Base Master Plan. Groundwater monitoring
and precipitation infiltration monitoring for this alternative are identical to that of
Alternative 2 and would be implemented following the installation of the cover.
"
One potentially important issue in evaluating the implementability, effectiveness,
and cost of cap installation is surface settlement. In general, waste in landfills or
trenches consolidates over time and increases density as the weight of the waste
and overlying soil presses the mass into a smaller volume. This consolidation
process usually shows on the surface as subsidence or differential settlement.
Typical surface indicators are fissures, cracks, foundation movement, or utility
and road failures, and the amount of settlement usually depends on the type of
waste, climate, density, depth of waste, and the initial compaction effort used to
place the waste. The additional weight of the landfill closure cap could increase
the surface settlement. The potential impact of surface settlement on the cap
4-16
-------
CT026<71B70027\F1NAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-87-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
installation will be addressed in the remedial design phase, although surface soil
compaction was included in the cost estimate for cap installation at CAOC 7
Strata 1 and 2.
This alternative includes the installation of a 3-foot soil cover over the estimated
9-acre area (Figure 4-3). This would be clean soil imported to CAOC 7
from other parts of the Base and would be excavated by a front-end loader or
similar equipment and loaded onto trucks for transport to CAOC 7 Strata 1
and 2. The volume of imported soil, estimated to be 24,300 cubic yards for
Stratum 1 and 18,100 cubic yards for Stratum 2, would be placed over CAOC 7
Strata 1 and 2 and graded to a slope of 0.5 to 1 percent. The existing surface
would be graded and filled prior to placement of the soil cover. A 6-inch armor
layer (i.e., layer of rock or gravel) would deter any burrowing animals from
penetrating the cap and coming into contact with contaminated soils. The
protection provided for burrowing animals by the cap would add to that provided
by the tortoise fence. The cap would also provide erosion protection from wind
and periodic rain storm events. A cross section of the cap is shown in
Figure 3--4.
The estimated total present worth cost of this option is $1.5 million; capital costs
are $1.1 million, and estim"ated O&M costs are $350,000.
This soil cover would minimize infiltration into the vadose zone by providing a
clean soil layer that will be adequate for absorbing a rainfall event. The results of
the HELP model suggest that this soil cover can absorb up to 99 percent of the
rainfall. Details of this modeling are presented in Appendix D of the FS (Jacobs
1996b). The absorbed moisture in this soil cover would readily evaporate
because of the dry climate of the Barstow area, which would minimize generation
of landfill leachate and direct contact with the impacted soil of the landfill areas.
The appropriate engineering properties, as well as design and construction
specifications, would be determined during the remedial design phase. If
necessary, clean soil would be imported to meet landfill closure performance
goals of minimizing infiltration from a worst-case storm.
4-17
-------
CT026O'l870027\FINAL
CLE..J02.Q1 F260-B7-()027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
4.6.1.4
Alternative 4: Multilayer Cap
Similar to Alternative 3, this alternative provides a combination of engineering
and institutional controls to control exposure pathways associated with CAOC 7
Strata 1 and 2. The institutional controls consist of future land use restrictions
. and groundwater and precipitation infiltration monitoring. The engineering
controls for Alternative 4 include installing a multilayer cap to minimize infiltration
and direct contact. Surface settlement issues are also pertinent to the
construction of a multilayer cap for Altemative 4, and would be addressed during
the remedial design phase. Three separate multilayer cap options were
considered:
.
Trtle 27 Prescriptive Cap
Modified Title 27 Prescriptive Cap with Geomembrane Uner
.
.
Modified Prescriptive Cap with GCL.
Option 1: Title 27 Prescriptive Cap
The prescriptive landfill cap would consist of the following layers:
.
Foundation - 2 feet of appropriate material (from on Base or off Base).
Barrier - 1 foot of compacted clay with permeability of no greater than
1 x 10-6 cm/s. (Alternatively, a manufactured soillbentonite mixture may
be used for the barrier layer.)
.
.
Top - 2 feet of clean soil on top of the clay layer.
The appropriate engineering properties and construction specifications for the
foundation layer would be determined during the remedial design phase and
would be based on commonly practiced standards of the industry. The
foundation layer requires about 16,200 cubic yards of soil for Stratum 1 and
12,100 cubic yards for Stratum 2, and will take about 3 weeks to construct.
The material for the clay layer would be obtained from clay deposits around the
Barstow area. The clay would be excavated, transported to CAOC 7 Strata 1
and 2, and graded and compacted to achieve a permeability of 1 x 1 ()-6 cm/s or
4.18
-------
CT0260\S70027\FINAL
CLE-J02~1F260-B1-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
less. The design specification and properties of the day layer would be
determined during the remedial design phase. The estimated volume of clay
material is 8,100 cubic yards for Stratum 1 and 6,000 cubic yards for Stratum 2,
and the estimated time to construct this layer is about 2 weeks. If clay material is
not available, a manufactured soillbentonite mixture would be used.
Clean soil for the top layer would be imported from on or off Base and. because
of the arid climate of Barstow. no vegetation would be expected. The top layer
would protect the clay layer from burrowing animals and traffic. Although the
regulations only require 1 foot of cover, the top layer would be 2 feet thick. This
layer would have a 3- to 5-percent slope to maximize runoff (with minimal surface
erosion) and the characteristics of the soil will be determined during the remedial
design phase. The estimated soil volume is approximately 28.000 cubic yards.
The side slopes of the cap would be covered by a gravel armor layer to reduce
erosion and prevent animals from burrowing. The cap and cross section is
shown in Figure 3-5.
The total present-worth cost of this option is approximately $2.1 million. which
includes capital costs of $1.7 million and O&M of $350.000.
Option 2: Modified Title 27 Prescriptive Cap with Geomembrane Uner
Because of the arid dimate at MCLB Barstow. gradual desiccation of the low-
permeability clay layer used in Option 1 is a strong possibility; this would
compromise the effectiveness of the Title 27 prescriptive cap for minimizing
infiltration. Option 2 addresses this issue by replacing the clay layer with a
4o-mil (or thicker) geomembrane liner. All other components of this option are
the same as those for Option 1. The cap cross section is shown in Figure 3-6.
The geomembrane liner would be designed and constructed according to
commonly practiced standards of the industry. Examples of geomembrane liners
indude HDPE or LLDPE; the specific membrane material would be selected
during remedial design. After compaction and grading of the foundation layer,
sheets of geomembrane would be placed and extrusion-welded together,
4-19
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-Q1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
followed by weld testing (vacuum box) to ensure the integrity of welded seams.
The geomembrane would be anchored around the boundary of the cap to
provide slope stability. The side slopes of the cap would be covered by a gravel
armor layer to minimize erosion.
The total present-worth cost of this altemative is approximately $2.2 million,
which includes capital costs of $1.0 million and O&M costs of $350,000.
Option 3: Modified Title 27 Prescriptive Cap with GCl
Option 3 is a variation of Option 2, but uses a GCl in lieu of the geomembrane
liner as an infiltration barrier. The GCl provides a permeability of less than
1 Q-6 cmls, and is simpler to construct than a geomembrane liner. A cross section
of this cap is shown in Figure 3-7. Other components of this alternative are the
same as the corresponding components of Option 2.
The total present-worth cost of this option is estimated at $2.3 million, which
includes approximately $1.9 million in capital costs and $350,000 in O&M costs.
4~6.2
Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
The relative advantages and disadvantages of the altematives are discussed in
this section.
4.6.2.1
Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Each of the alternatives leaves waste in place. Alternative 1 is not considered
protective of human health and the environment because of the uncertainties
associated with the risk analysis and leaching potential analysis, both of which
used soil data only from outside the waste disposal cells in order to prevent
waste disturbance. The waste may be disturbed and future impact to the
groundwater may result if no action is taken. Alternative 2 provides overall
4-20
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE..J02-o 1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
protection of human health and the environment, as long as the land use
restrictions are enforced. Altematives 3 and 4 (all options) provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment through the installation of a cap.
Each of the various caps minimizes the potential for disturbance of the buried
wastes and the potential for future impacts to the groundwater. Alternatives 3
and 4 (all options) would be protective from an ecological perspective because
the armor layer (i.e., 6-inch thick layer of rock or gravel) would essentially prevent
any burrowing animals from penetrating the cap and coming into contact with
contaminated soils.
Compliance with ARARs
Alternatives 1 and 2 do not meet landfill closure requirements. Altematives 3 and
4 meet all ARARs including landfill dosure requirements. The requirement to
eliminate all infiltration (Title 22 CCR Section 66264.31 0[a][1]) is considered to
be met because modeling of these caps showed an insignificant amount of water
(less than 1 percent) is expected to infiltrate through the caps and the wastes.
Alternatives 3 and 4 (all options) would comply with location-specific
requirements of the Endangered Species Act to protect the desert tortoise.
4.6.2.2
Primary Balancing Criteria
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 (all options) provide the highest degree of long-
term effectiveness if they are adequately maintained because they provide the
greatest assurance that future activities would not disturb the buried wastes.
Long-term effectiveness of Altemative 2 depends on the continued enforcement
of access and use limitations. Alternative 1 does not provide long-term
effectiveness and permanence.
4-21
-------
CT026
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-Q1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
.
$2.2 million for Alternative 4 (Option 2) - Modified Title 27 Prescriptive
Cap with Geomembrane Uner.
4.6.2.3
Modifying Criteria
State Acceptance
The State of California has reviewed and approved the OUs 5 and 6 FS and
Proposed Plan, and concurs with the selected alternative, Alternative 3, for
cAoC 7 Strata 1 and 2.
Community Acceptance
No written or verbal comments were received from the public. Based on the lack
of comments, it is assumed that the public accepts the selected altemative.
4.6.3
The Selected Remedy 10r CAOC 7
The selected remedy for CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2 is Alternative 3 - Single-Layer
Native Soil Cap. This alternative includes installing a 3-foot native soil cover Dver
the estimated area of CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2; conducting groundwater
monitoring and vadose zone precipitation monitoring; and restricting land use
activities in the area of CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2. Signs will be posted along the
periphery of CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2 indicating that activity in the area is
restricted and the restrictions will be reflected in the MCLB Barstow Base Master
Plan.
The 3-foot native soil cap will be constructed from uncontaminated fill imported to
CAOC 7 from off-site or from other parts of the Base. The soil cover will
minimize infiltration into the vadose zone by providing a soil layer that will be
adequate to absorb a rainfall event. The results of the HELP model indicate that
this soil cover can absorb up to 99 percent of the rainfall and that the resulting
infiltration and percolation would be negligible. Absorbed moisture in the soil
cover will readily evaporate due to the dry climate of the Barstow area, which will
minimize the potential for generation of landfill leachate. The soil cover, in
4-23
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE~-o1F2~~27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
conjunction with the land use restrictions, will minimize direct contact with the
impacted soil of the landfill area.
Regarding ARARs, Title 27 CCR Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 3 prescribes
standards for liner systems and leachate collection and removal systems (LCRS)
for active landfills. The CAOC 7 landfill area is an unlined landfill that has been
inactive since 1960 and is classified as an abandoned or inactive waste
management unit under Title 27 CCR Section 2oo80(g). Therefore, the liner and
LCAS are not applicable to CAOC 7. Based on evaluation of RI data, the landfill
has been designated as not being a significant current or future source of
leakage. Retrofitting of the landfill with the liner system and LCAS prescribed in
Subdivision 1 is not required to control waste migration because evaluation of AI
and FS data indicates that retrofitting is unnecessary and infeasible (Title 27
CCR Section 20080[b] and [c)). Therefore, the liner and LCAS requirements are
not relevant and appropriate for CAOC 7.
Based on evaluations in the FS. the Navy contends that the selected remedy for
CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2 is equivalent to an engineered. altemative under Title 27
CCA, Sections 20080(b) and (c). Therefore, the Navy contends that the final
remedy is consistent with the performance standards for the final cover
prescribed in Subdivision 1 because the final cover will prevent precipitation from
reaching buried wastes. Based on the evaluation presented in the FS, the Navy
also contends that the final cover prescribed in Subdivision 1, would not perform
as well as the selected cover for the site. Therefore, the Navy contends that the
prescriptive cover requirements are not relevant and appropriate.
If the selected remedy cannot be shown to meet the landfill dosure performance
criteria to the satisfaction of the FFA signatories, then the Navy will propose an
alternative landfill cap design that will meet the performance criteria.
Because of the presumptive nature of this alternative, remediation goals for soil
focused on preventing exposure to contaminants in excess of an ILCR of
1 x 10-6 and a hazard index of 1.0. The calculated cancer risk for the area to be
capped is 9 x 10.5 and the noncancer index is 14 based on a hypothetical on-site
4-24
-------
CT026O\B7OO27\F1NAL
CLE..J02-o 1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
resident. Although the risk estimate is at the upper end of the acceptable risk
range of 1 ()-6 to 10-4, uncertainties exist in these estimates due to the lack of
analysis of the wastes themselves and the potential for disturbance of the buried
wastes. The cap will meet the objective of minimizing the potential for disturbing
the wastes and the potential for direct exposure. The cap will also minimize the
potential for future migration of contaminants to groundwater.
The other components of the selected alternative include groundwater
monitoring, precipitation infiltration monitoring, and restrictions on land use
activities in the area.
The boundaries of CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2 will be surveyed during remedial
design, at which time the information will be added to the Base Master Plan. As
part of the Preliminary Remedial Design specified in Section 8.2 of the FF A, the
Navy will provide the FFA signatories with the results of appropriate field
verification work designed to define the boundary of the waste management unit.
To ensure that human health and the environment are protected in the future,
land use at CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2 is restricted to activities that cannot disrupt
the physical or structural integrity of the soil cap. Restricted activities include
trenching, excavation or any other activity that could breach the cap. This
restriction does not apply to maintenance activities conducted, within the top 12
inches of the soil cap, to preserve or restore the physical or structural integrity of
the cap. The Navy shall place warning notices around the periphery of CAOC 7
Strata 1 and 2 stating that activities in the area are restricted.
The written concurrence of the FFA signatories is required before the Navy takes
any action at CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2 that could disrupt the physical or structural
integrity of the soil cap. If any such action is proposed, the NaVy must provide
the FFA signatories with written notification of such proposed action. The notice
shall include (i) an evaluation of the risk to human health and the environment,
(ii) an evaluation of the need for any additional remedial action as a result of the
proposed action and (iii) a description of the changes necessary to the selected
remedy for CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2 in the ROD for OUs 5 and 6.
4-25
-------
CT026O\B70027\FlNAL
CLE.J02-o1F2~-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
The written notice of proposed action shall be submitted to the FFA signatories at
least 45 days prior to the commencement date for the proposed action. The EPA
will advise whether a ROD amendment or an ESD document is required. The
FFA signatories must provide written concurrence with the Navy's evaluation of
risk and proposal regarding any necessary changes in the remedial action, if
required, before the Navy can commence any action.
The Navy shall notify the FFA signatories of any plan to lease or transfer
CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2 real property to a non-federal or federal entity, notify the
transferee or leasee of the restrictions on activities at CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2,
and include the restriction in the transfer or lease. Such notification shall be
provided at least 45 days in advance of the lease or transfer conveyance. The
Navy shall comply with Section 120(h)(3) of CERCLA in any such transfers.
The MCLB Barstow Base Master Plan will be amended to incorporate the above-
mentioned restriction on activities at CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2. The Master Plan
amendments will also include language that describes the risk to human health
and the environment that exists at CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2; will reference the
MCLB Barstow OUs 5 and 6 Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study, and ROD;
and will provide a legal description (metes and bounds) of the boundaries of
CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2. The language in the Master Plan amendments will also
include the title and dates of the above-listed documents and their storage
location. These amendments to the Master Plan will be completed by the Navy
within 1 year of signing the MCLB Barstow OUs 5 and 6 ROD. The Navy will
provide the FFA signatories with a copy of the amendments to the Master Plan
reflecting the restrictions on activities at CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2. The Navy will
also provide the FF A signatories with 30 days advance notice of any amendment
to the Master Plan that could affect either the substance or the language of the
CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2 Master Plan use restriction amendment.
The remedy includes groundwater monitoring and vadose zone precipitation
infiltration monitoring.
4-26
-------
CT026<1'B70027\FlNAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7.0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
Precipitation infiltration will be monitored via a neutron access probe.
Considering the relatively uniform geology at the site, one mDnitoring location is
considered adequate representation for the quantity of subsurface percolation.
The neutron access hole is proposed to be approximately 10 feet deep. Annual
monitoring for the first 4 years is proposed as part of this altemative.
The proposed locations of the groundwater monitoring wells, one upgradient and
two downgradientlcrossgradient, along with the procedures for sampling,
analysis, and reporting of the results to the agencies will be specified in a
groundwater monitoring plan to be prepared as part of the remedial action work
plan. Annual groundwater sampling is proposed for the first 5 years. The
groundwater samples will be analyzed for VOCs, pesticides, and metals. The
results will be evaluated at the end of the fourth year. If the monitoring indicates
that all detections are below MCls, then, after concurrence from all the FFA
signatories, sampling would be conducted every 5 years (prior to each
subsequent 5-year review) until all FFA signatories agree to change the sampling
frequency. If any detection(s) in the first 5 years is above an MCl, then annual
monitoring will be continued. After a detection above an MCl, if the next three
consecutive annual monitoring events indicate that contaminant concentrations
are above an MCl, then the remedy for the site will be reevaluated for
compliance with the threshold criteria, and if necessary, the selected remedy will
be revised or enhanced with the concurrence of the FFA signatories. After a
detection above an MCl, if the next four consecutive annual monitoring events
indicate that contaminant concentrations are below MCLs, then, after
concurrence of all the FFA signatories, the sampling will be conducted every 5
years (prior to each subsequent 5-year review) until all FFA signatories agree to
change the sampling frequency. Any change in the groundwater sampling will be
in consultation with and must receive the concurrence of the FFA signatories.
The costs for this alternative include capital and O&M costs. The capital cost is
estimated at $1.1 million for general engineering requirements, earthwork,
drainage channel, and contingency. The estimated costs for each of these listed
components are $0.4 million, $0.5 million, $0.1 million, and $0.2 million (Note that
4-27
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7..Q027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
the total is greater than $1.1 million due to rounding). The O&M costs include
groundwater monitoring for 5 years.
4.6.4
Statutory Determinations
This section discusses how the selected remedy for CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2
meets the statutory requirements of CERCLA Section 121. Under CERCLA
Section 121, the selected remedy at a Superfund site must entail remedial
actions that achieve adequate protection of human health and the environment.
In addition, CERCLA Section 121 establishes several other statutory
requirements and preferences specifying that, when complete, the selected
remedial action must comply with ARARs established under federal and state
environmental laws unless a statutory waiver is justified.. The selected alternative
must also be cost-effective and must entail permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. Finally, the statute includes a preference for remedies that employ,
as their principal element, treatment technologies that permanently and
significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes.
4.6.4.1
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment by capping
buried wastes to minimize potential direct contact, inhalation, or ingestion, and to
limit infiltration of rainfall though the wastes. The human health risks for this area
before capping is 9 x 10-5 to a hypothetical on-site resident Although this risk is
at the upper end of the EPA risk management range of 10" to 10~, the noncancer
index of 14.0 and the elevated lead are of concern to any future receptor at the
site. Given the uncertainties associated with not sampling the actual wastes,
CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2 clearly represent a human health threat in the absence of
an appropriate cap. Additionally, the lack of analysis of the soil beneath the
waste adds uncertainty regarding the possibility of future releases to the
groundwater. TCE and PCE were detected in groundwater downgradient of the
landfill, but not in soil samples. This indicates that the landfill was a source for
. these contaminants in the past based on the disposal of solvents, but the data do
4-28
-------
CT026U\B70027\FINAL
CLE..J02-o1 F2~B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
not address continuing releases. However, the results of soil sampling beneath
the wastes and fate and transport modeling suggests that groundwater quality is
unlikely to be further threatened. The cap and land use restrictions address
these uncertainties.
An ERA was also conducted to evaluate potential effects on plants and animals.
The results showed potentially significant impacts to burrowing animals including
the desert tortoise, a federally listed threatened species. Consistent with the
FWS opinion (FWS 1993), the Base installed a desert tortoise-proof fence at the
Base of the existing Nebo Main Base perimeter fence. In addition, all tortoises
on CAOC 7 (and other parts of the Base) were identified, removed, and relocated
to a suitable off-site habitat. The Base monitors the area to ensure that tortoise
are restricted to areas outside of the tortoise-proof fence. Given the armor layer
associated with the remedy for CAOC 7, burrowing animals at CAOC 7 will be
prevented from coming into contact with any contaminated soils. Design
specifics will be provided to the FWS for review of compliance with the
Endangered Species Act.
4.6.4.2
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
The selected remedy will comply with all federal and state ARARs. No waivers
are required. The ARARs for CAOC 7 are listed and discussed in Appendix C.
4.6.4.3
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected alternative was evaluated for cost-effectiveness relative to the other
four alternatives evaluated for CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2 and their associated
options. Several other capping options were evaluated that are just as effective
as the selected alternative, but would be more costly. The selected alternative is
the least expensive option protective of hurnan health and the environment.
4-29
-------
CT026O\B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-87-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
4.6.4.4
Use 01 Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy meets the statutory requirement to use permanent
solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Because of the nature and volume of the landfilled wastes, treatment was found
to be impractical.
In comparing the selected altemative to the other alternatives considered, the
selected alternative provides the best balance of effectiveness and cost with
.
respect to the five EPA balancing criteria; i.e., long-term effectiveness, reduction
of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment, short-term effectiveness,
implementability, and cost.
All of the capping alternatives reduce contaminant mobility through containment.
For this CAOC, a presumptive remedy approach for landfilled wastes was
pursued. The approach assumes that treatment is neither cost-effective nor
practical. Therefore, the remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for
treatment as a principal element.
Short-term effectiveness is not rated for Alternative 1 because no actions are
taken. None of the altematives presents a significant potential human health
threat during implementation.
No problems are expected during the implementation of the preferred altemative
or the other alternatives.
The selected alternative is one of the less costly options.
Altemative 3 is estimated to cost approximately $1.5 million.
The selected
The DTSC and the CRWaCB agree with the selected altemative. The State has
been active in reviewing and providing input on the data collected and evaluated
for determining the appropriate cleanup at CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2.
4-30
-------
CT026aIB70027\FINAl
CLE-J02-D1 F260-B7-Q027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
4.6.4.5
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element of the cleanup. Section 300.430(a)(iii)(B) of the NCP contains
the expectation that engineering controls (e.g., containment) will be used for
waste that poses a relatively low long-term threat or where treatment is
impracticable. At CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2, because the wastes are a
heterogeneous mixture of municipal waste and industrial and/or hazardous
waste, treatment is neither cost-effective nor practicable.
4.6.5
Documentation of Significant Change
Alternative 3, the final remedy for CAOC 7 Strata 1 and 2, has not been changed
or refined from the Proposed Plan.
4-31
-------
CT026
-------
CT026aI870027\FlNAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7..()()27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
5.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 16 - BUILDING 573 AND PERIMETER AREA
5.1
Name, location, and Description
CAOC 16, Building 573 and Perimeter Area, located in the northeast quadrant of the
Vermo Annex (Figure 5-1), consists of the Maintenance Center Barstow (MCB) and its
perimeter area (approximately 60 acres). Building 573 is the main facility of the MCLB
Barstow Aepair Division. The floor of Building 573 (approximately 10 acres) and the
perimeter area are covered by a concrete slab (hardstand) at least 10 inches thick.
Numerous equipment repair operations are performed using various chemicals in and
around Building 573. Typical activities include disassembly, cleaning, repair, and
reassembly of various military vehicles and hardware. Consequently, large amounts of
waste. mainly industrial wastewater, are generated at this site.
In the past, most liquid waste generated during repair operations were transported from
Building 573 to the former IWTP (CAOC 15/17) via an underground industrial drainage
system (Figure 5-2). This drainage system has been exposed to many of the chemicals
used at the Base. A video investigation of the system showed that pipe sections under
Building 573, constructed of cast iron, are in good condition. However, sections of the
pipeline leading to the former IWTP, made of terra-cotta clay, were found to have been
breached, thereby releasing liquids into the subsurface. The broken pipeline sections
are considered to be the main source of vadose zone and groundwater contamination at
CAOC 16. Five former underground storage tanks (USTs) around Building 573 were
also found to have contributed to the site contamination. The PANSI (Jacobs 1991 a)
conducted at MCLB Barstow in 1991 as part of the AFA program identified 16 SWMUs
and AOCs at CAOC 16. These are discussed in detail in the Draft Final AI report for
OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a).
5.2
Operations and Investigative History
Building 573 has been in operation since 1961. Several scoping studies have been
conducted at CAOC 16 to evaluate the historical nature of chemical usage and waste
generation at the MCB (Jacobs 1991 a, 1991 c).
5-1
-------
CT026OlB70027\FINAL
CLE..J02-Q 1 F26
-------
CT0260\B7OO27\F1NAL
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
tank. The chromates were discharged into the industrial sewer through overflow or
emptying of rinse tanks. The alodining line was closed in 1990.
Waste sulfuric acid from old lead-acid batteries was regularly discharged into the
industrial sewer at the Battery Shop. The acid corroded the metal drain pipe. This
condition was discovered in 1980, and promptly corrected by installing plastic pipe and
replacing Sump 12F.
Up to 1990, diluted and undiluted waste streams from the above operations were
transported to the former IWTP (CAOC 15/17) via the underground piping system,
discharged into a dissolved air flotation system, and subsequently disposed of at surface
impoundments located inside the IWTP area. Paint sludges that accumulated in shop
areas were also discharged along with the wastewater into the industrial sewer. Most of
this sludge was transferred into the now closed oxidation/evaporation ponds at the
former IWTP. The sludge in these ponds was removed in August 1993 as documented
in the OUs 5 and 6 RI report (Jacobs 1996a).
In March 1990, the underground terra-cotta piping that connects Building 573 to the
former IWTP was found to have ruptured, and the IWTP was removed from service. The
CRWaCB classified this IWTP as a toxic pit and ordered the MCLB Barstow to close it
under the Toxic Pit Cleanup Act (TPCA) because it was close to a drinking water source.
Since then, the IWTP has been closed, and until recently all industrial liquid wastes were
collected in Baker tanks for off-site disposal. The industrial wastes are now connected
to the newly constructed industrial wastewater treatment and recycling plant east of
Building 573. Domestic .liquid wastes are transported from the building via the
underground sanitary sewer lines to the domestic wastewater treatment plant (DWTP)
northeast of CAOC 21.
Significant steps have been taken to reduce the quantities of hazardous chemicals used
at the MCB and replace the highly toxic halogenated organic solvents (e.g., PCE, TCE,
etc.) with more environmentally acceptable substitutes such as aqueous or semi-
aqueous cleaners. Since 1986, use of TCE and PCE has been reduced to negligible
quantities.
5-3
-------
CT026CM70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-Q1 F260-87-Q027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
In 1986 under the waste minimization program, MCLB Barstow began using Safety-
Kleen 105 parts washing solvent, a product of the Safety-Kleen Company. Sixty-eight
Safety-Kleen parts cleaning units ranging from 20 to 40 gallons in capacity were installed
at Building 573. These units are leased from the Safety-Kleen Company, which also
installs, services, and repairs the units and collects waste Safety-Kleen solvent for off-
site recycling. About 760 gallons of waste Safety-Kleen solvent are generated each
month in the MCB.
More recently, Jacobs evaluated and documented waste reduction options in the
Hazardous Waste Minimization Plan (Jacobs 1992a). Recommendations adopted under
this plan include the following.
.
Replacing solvent-based paints and cleaners with non-solvent solutions, shutting
down the aluminum cleaning process, eliminating use of aerosol cans, recycling
antifreeze, etc.
.
Implementing an .'nspect and Repair Only as Needed. plan, which substantially
reduces unnecessary routine stripping down, treating, or repainting parts, and by
using newer and longer-lasting chemical agent-resistant coatings.
Using Department of Transportation (DOT) approved drums for storing
hazardous/solvent waste and sending those drums to an off-Base waste facility
for either storage or recycling.
.
A video pipeline investigation was conducted to assess the condition and potential for
releases of waste to the industrial and sanitary sewer lines underneath Building 573
(Kennedy & Jenks 1993; Jacobs 1996a). The results of the investigation indicated that
the industrial waste pipeline sections under Building 573 are in good condition. These
pipelines are constructed of cast iron. In contrast, the investigation clearly showed that
the underground lines outside the building, which connect Building 573 to the IWTP and
the Steam Rack Bay, were ruptured (Figure 5-2). These lines are made of terra-cotta
clay. The industrial wastewater has probably leaked from the ruptured sections of these
pipelines. Information necessary to estimate leakage volume, such as the date that
leakage started or flow rate, is not available.
The video pipeline investigation was not a mandated requirement of the FFA, but was
accomplished under a MCLB Barstow initiative to proactively locate the potential sources
of contamination underneath Building 573.
5-4
-------
CT026aB70027\FlNAL
CLE.J02-Q1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
5.3
Summary of Site Characteristics
Physical conditions at Building 573 precluded a full subsurface characterization of CAOC
16. Due to the potential for inhomogeneities in contaminant distribution, an extensive
sampling approach would be required to fully characterize the subsurface. Most areas
inside the buildings either lack the required vertical clearance or are not accessible at all
to accommodate the large drilling equipment that would be required. In addition,
numerous subsurface utilities (electrical, communication, sewer, water, gas) are present
in this area, making drilling extremely difficult and posing an unacceptable health and
safety risk.
Alternative soil investigation approaches, such as drilling angledlhorizontal borings from
the perimeter of the concrete hardstand, were also considered impractical because the
large number of samples required for full characterization would be cost prohibitive.
Because of these limitations, direct soil sampling to fully characterize the vadose zone
was not conducted at CAOC 16. This is consistent with the remediation-based approach
that was employed at CAOC 16.
Several soil sampling activities were conducted during construction inside and in the
perimeter area outside of Building 573. In late 1991 and early 1992, limited soil sampling
was conducted at three separate .'ocations at CAOC 16: the dynamometer test area, the
quench furnace installation, and the steam rack bay. These areas were sampled to
assist MCLB Barstow in evaluating subsurface conditions to address worker safety
issues prior to construction activities. Also in 1992 under the AF A, soil was sampled
within the excavation areas of five steel USTs near Building 573. Four soil borings were
advanced and converted to monitoring wells around the perimeter of
Building 573 in July 1992 as part of the Phase I AI. UST locations are shown on
Figure 5-2. The dynamometer test area, quench furnace area, and steam rack area are
shown on Figure 5-3.
Although these sampling events contribute valuable data to the characterization of
CAOC 16, MCLB Barstow recognizes that these data are only relevant to a few specific
locations and do not represent the nature and extent of contamination that may exist
directly under Building 573. Thus, the absence of contamination in the borings would not
5-5
-------
CT0260S7OO27\F1NAL
CLE..J02-Q1 F260-B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
be sufficient evidence to conclude that contamination is absent beneath
Building 573.
Details of the soil sampling activities and results for these areas are included in Section
7.0 and Appendix L of the AI report for OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a).
5.3.1
Dynamometer Test Area
The dynamometer test area is east of Building 573 (Figure 5-3). This site
included an area of about 280 by 210 feet. In December 1991, nine soil borings
were drilled to about 25 feet bgs. Thirty-eight soil samples and seven concrete
samples were collected at various locations and depths. The samples were
tested for VQCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, and metals. PCE was detected at a
maximum of 59 parts per billion (ppb) at 15 feet bgs in one soil sample. No other
samples showed any significant levels of contaminants.
Soil gas samples were also collected at 5 feet bgs from 21 locations at this site.
The maximum concentrations of the chlorinated hydrocarbons detected are
2,269 lJg/kg of 1,1, 1-trichloroethane (1,1,1- TCA), 767 JJg/kg of 1, 1-dichloroethene
(1,1,1-DCE), 62 lJg/kg of TCE, and 2151Jg/kg of PCE.
5.3.2
Quench Furnace Installation
The quench furnace area is inside Building 573, approximately 200 feet west of
the northeast comer (Figure 5-3). In November 1992, soil samples were
collected from the exposed area at this construction site. Two soil samples were
collected for chemical analysis.
TCE was detected in only one of the soil samples at 6 ppb. No other chlorinated
VOCs were detected, but some fuel aromatics (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene,
and xylenes [BTEXJ) were detected in the 1 to 6 ppb range. Soil sample results
summary tables are presented in Appendix L3.0 of the AI (Jacobs 1996a).
5-6
-------
CT026<1B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-Q1 F260-B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
5.3.3
Steam Rack Bay
In November 1992, modifications to the steam rack bay, approximately
. 400 feet north of Building 573 (Figure 5-3), allowed collection of shallow soil
samples. This facility was used for steam-cleaning military. vehictes and
contained shallow sumps and piping related to the cleaning operation. Three soil
samples were collected from the surface soils below the concrete. Samples
were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals, and cyanide.
One sample, collected near concrete sump, had levels of fuel VOCs (BTEX) up
to 120,000 ppb and SVOCs up to 16,000 ppb. In addition, pentachlorophenol
was deteded at 5,600 ppb. Construction at this location was subsequently
postponed and precautions taken to prevent exposure. The VOCs detected near
the sump were not detected in other samples nor in groundwater at nearby wells.
Pentachlorophenol is not highly mobile and is not expected to threaten
groundwater.
5.3.4
UST Remavallnvestigatlon Under the RFA
Five USTs (573a, 573b, 573c, 573d, and 5738 near Building 573) (Figure 5-2)
were removed in 1992 under the RFA program at MCLB Barstow.
Soil samples were collected from the bottom of the excavated pits during removal
of the tanks, and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals, and total
recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH). The results indicated the presence
of VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, metals, and TRPH.
5.3.5
Monitoring Well Soli Borings
Four soil borings were advanced and converted to monitoring wells around the
perimeter of Building 573 (Figure 5-2). Three soil samples were colleded from
each boring for laboratory analysis. No major contamination was detected in the
soil samples. However, the absence of contamination in the borings would not
be sufficient evidence to conclude that contamination is absent beneath Building
573.
5-7
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE..J02.()1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
5.4
Summary 01 Site Risks
5.4.1
Human Health Risks
As discussed in the previous sections, VOC contamination is believed to be
present in the vadose zone beneath CAOC 16. In addition, there may be
localized areas of non-VOC contamination (Le., metals, PCBs, and SVOCs) that
were not specifically characterized as part of the remedial investigation.
From a human health evaluation perspective, the 10-inch-thick (minimum)
concrete hardstand over the entire CAOC provides an effective cap that
eliminates any exposure that could result from direct soil contact. Although it is
possible that VOCs could migrate through or around the concrete and impact
receptors in Building 573 (Le., workers), this is relatively unlikely given the
thickness of the concrete floor, the large building volume, and the well-ventilated
nature of the building (i.e., large side openings).
Because of the existence of the concrete hardstand, a complete soil exposure
pathway does not exist at the site and a quantitative human health evaluation
was not performed. Any exposure under the existing land use would likely be
minor. However, any future construction projects that require concrete removal
must consider the possibility of encountering contamination. Appropriate health
and safety issues associated with these projects must be considered on a case-
by-case basis.
5.4.2
Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion
The EPA conducted an ERA at MCLB Barstow (EPA 1996a). The results
indicate that there are no sensitive species or habitats present at the Vermo
Annex. Furthermore, the concrete hardstand precludes any direct contact with
contaminated soils (Le., a complete exposure pathway does not exist).
5-8
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
5.4.3
Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater
Groundwater contamination beneath CAOC 16 consists primarily of chlorinated
VQCs. These contaminants are believed to have leaked from the broken terra-
cotta clay underground pipelines and former USTs, which have been mitigated.
Continuing sources of contaminants to the vadose zone are therefore not
believed to exist at CAOC 16.
As previously discussed, representative soil samples could not be obtained
beneath Building 573 due to safety and operational concerns. Although localized
areas have been sampled (e.g., the soil beneath the removed USTs) , these
essentially represent small areas that are not representative of CAOC-wide
conditions. Vadose zone transport modeling (e.g., Marshack model) requires
representative soil contaminant data along with estimates of the amount of
infiltration that is occurring through precipitation and surface runoff. The
presence of the 10-inch-thick concrete hardstand serves as an effective barrier to
minimize infiltration from precipitation and surface runoff. Therefore, the leaching
potential at CAOC 16 is minimal, although other types of contaminant transport
(e.g., gas diffusion) could occur. Because of these considerations, Marshack
modeling was not performed on the previously discussed soil data because the
results would not be representative of true site conditions.
VLEACH modeling was performed on the soil gas data collected from vertical
profile borings drilled outside of the hardstand area. The results of the VLEACH
analysis are presented in the OUs 1 and 2 Draft Final RI Report (Jacobs 1995b).
The VLEACH model results confirmed that residual VOCs in soil pose an
ongoing threat to groundwater; impacts from residual soil contamination on
groundwater are part of the OU 1 program.
5.4.4
Uncertainties
There is considerable uncertainty in the nature and extent of soil contamination
beneath Building 573. As previously discussed, physical conditions precluded a
full subsurface characterization. Therefore, the health risk posed by contact with
5-9
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
ClE-J02-Q1 F260-B7-Q027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
these soils is based on site seoping information rather than on soil investigative
data.
Some uncertainties also exist regarding the potential for subsurface
contaminants to impact groundwater. The transport modeling used a number of
simplifying assumptions, such as quantifying the degree of water infiltration
through the concrete. Therefore, the degree to which residual contaminants at
CAOC 16 may pose an ongoing threat to groundwater quality is somewhat
uncertain given the presence of the concrete, which would tend to minimize
precipitation, infiltration and leaching. However, other types of contaminant
transport (e.g., gas diffusion) could occur.
5.5
Description 01 Remedial Action Alternatives
The human health risk evaluation indicated a potential for adverse effects resulting from
direct soil exposure. Although the concrete in place at CAOC 16 prevents direct soil
contact under existing land use conditions, there is concern over future uses of the land,
particularly if the concrete were permanently removed and contaminated soils were
available for contact.
As stated previously, the ongoing operations at CAOC 16 preclude actions that would be
effective in removing soil contamination beneath the hardstand. This includes traditional
soil cleanup approaches (e.g., soil vapor extraction and direct soil removal) as well as
more innovative approaches (e.g., horizontal extraction wells). The impracticality of
cleaning up the soil under existing land use was documented in the OUs 1 and 2 Draft
Final FS (Jacobs 1996b) and summarized in Section 5.3.
To address potential human health concems at CAOC 16, two altematives have been
developed and evaluated.
.
Altemative 1 - No Action
.
Altemative 2 - Institutional Control, Master Plan Amendment
These altematives are described as follows.
5-10
-------
CT026a\B70027\FlNAL
CLE-J02"()1 F2~B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
5.5.1
Alternative 1 - No Action
The NCP requires that a no action alternative be evaluated to provide a baseline
for comparison with other alternatives. Under this alternative, MCLB Barstow
would implement no action and the existing site conditions would not be
changed. No costs are associated with this alternative.
5.5.2
Alternative 2 - Institutional Controls, Master Plan Amendment
Institutional controls refer to remedial technologies other than engineering
controls and treatment technologies.
Institutional control refers to actions that reduce risk by controlling exposure
pathways and monitoring access to the contaminants rather than removing or
containing the wastes. If land use changes in the future or if any action is
proposed that would compromise the long-term effectiveness of the concrete
hardstand, the Navy would evaluate measures to the degree necessary to
protect human health and the environment. Any action taken to address future
changes in the land use or actions that could compromise the long-term
effectiveness of the concrete hardstand at CAOC 16 will require the prior
concurrence of the FFA signatories. Additionally, the commitment to maintain
the concrete hardstand and to evaluate measures to the degree necessary to
protect human health and the environment will be documented in the MCLB
Barstow Master Plan, a document that MCLB Barstow uses to coordinate and
plan future activities (e.g., new construction).
Groundwater would also be monitored at CAOC 16, but it will be done under OU
1 as part of the groundwater remedial action.
Costs associated with the Institutional Controls alternative would be
administrative and fairly minor (i.e., less than $10,000).
5-11
-------
CT026O'lB70027\FINAL
CLE-J02.()1 F2~'()o27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
5.6
Summary 01 Comparative Analysis 01 Alternatives
As described in Section 2.8, the EPA has developed nine statutory balancing criteria to
evaluate alternatives. A comparison of the two alternatives to seven of the nine criteria
is presented in the remainder of this section. Two of the criteria, state and community
acceptance, will be considered following receipt of public comment on the Proposed
Plan.
The selected alternative for addressing the human health concerns at CAOC 16 is
Alternative 2 - Institutional Controls. Institutional controls will provide the better balance
of trade-offs between the two alternatives considered. The following analysis
summarizes the evaluation of the remedial alternatives under the three criteria groups:
threshold criteria, primary balancing criteria, and modifying criteria.
5.6.1
Threshold Criteria
5.6.1.1
Overall Protection 01 Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 (no action) would not be protective of public health if the concrete
hardstand at CAOC 16 is permanently removed and soils are available for
contact. Localized areas of soil contamination likely to be present in near-
surface soils (0 to 13 feet bgs) could result in adverse impacts to future on-site
receptors. Scoping information and limited soil sampling in potential source
areas at CAOC 16 suggests that various chemicals are present at concentrations
of potential concern. As long as the concrete remains in place, there is
essentially no potential for receptors (Le., workers at Building 573) to come into
contact with contaminated soils.
Construction projects occasionally occur in this area and typically involve minor
trenching or excavation (e.g., utility line repair). These projects are required to
comply with Base health and safety requirements to ensure that workers are not
adversely affected. However, if land use changes significantly (e.g., Building 573
and the concrete hardstand are demolished), then future site occupants could be
exposed to contaminated soils. Because the soils beneath the concrete have
only been sampled in a few areas, it is difficult to accurately characterize
5-12
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-87 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
potential impacts to human health if the land use were to change. Therefore,
given the potential for future exposure to soil contaminants, the no action
altemative would not be protective of human health and the environment.
Altemative 2 (Institutional Controls) would provide a mechanism requiring
additional evaluation if areas of the concrete were removed that compromised its
long-term effectiveness. The additional evaluation would consider the need for
further soil sampling and the need for any additional measures to protect public
health, including cleanup of contaminated soils. Minor. construction projects
involving the temporary removal of the concrete hardstand would continue to
comply with all existing health and safety requirements to ensure worker
protection. Therefore, because Altemative 2 would protect both current and
future land users, it is considered protective of human health.
5.6.1.2
Compliance with ARARs
No ARARs affect CAOC 16 from a direct soil contact perspective. Although Title
27 is not an ARAR, the concrete hardstand is consistent with its requirements,
and, in fact, exceeds the minimum requirements.
5.6.2
Primary Balancing Criteria
5.6.2.1
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Altemative 1 provides no long-term effectiveness or permanence while
Altemative 2 provides a reasonable degree of protection given the close
monitoring of land use at MCLB Barstow.
5.6.2.2
Reduction 01 Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
This criterion was not met by either alternative because treatment was
considered not feasible given current land use at CAOC 16. The concrete
hardstand does minimize contaminant mobility in that it would prevent fugitive
dust emissions, would lessen contaminant volatilization, and inhibit leaching of
5-13
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-<1027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
contaminants to groundwater. However, other types of contaminant transport,
including soil gas migration to groundwater, could occur.
5.6.2.3
Short- Tenn Effectiveness
No short-term health and safety impacts would be associated with either
alternative. It is assumed that current health and safety requirements would be
followed on any construction project under both alternatives.
5.6.2.4
Implementability
No problems are expected during implementation of either alternative. Specific
language will be added to the Base Master Plan to ensure that any land use
change at CAOC 16 will be evaluated. MCLB Barstow has procedures in place
that require land use changes to be coordinated with the environmental staff at
the Base. .
5.6.2.5
Cost Effectiveness
The cost of the preferred alternative would be relatively minor (less than $10,000)
and would be primarily administrative. . This does not address any costs that
would be incurred if land use changes and additional measures are taken to
protect public health.
5.6.3
Modifying Criteria
5.6.3.1
State Acceptance
The California DTSC and CRWQCB agree with the selected Altemative 2 to
address the human health concerns. The vadose zone and groundwater
concerns at CAOC 16 have been addressed in the OUs 1 and 2 ROD.
5-14
-------
CT026a\B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
5.6.3.2
Community Acceptance
No written or verbal comments were received from the public. Based on the lack
of comments, it is assumed that the public accepts the selected alternative.
5.7
The Selected Remedy for CAOC 16
The selected remedy for CAOC 16 is Altemative 2, Institutional Controls. The remedy
involves maintaining the existing concrete hardstand, monitoring the physical and
structural integrity of the concrete hardstand, and controlling and monitoring exposure
pathways at CAOC 16. A regular maintenance program will be implemented to maintain
a stable surface environment, which will prevent organic vapors from escaping to the
atmosphere and will prevent direct contact with any soil contamination. It will also
minimize infiltration of water to the subsurface.
No temporary excavation or removal of any portion of the concrete hardstand will be
allowed without the prior approval of the appropriate MCLB Barstow Environmental
Department. If any action is proposed that could compromise the long-term
effectiveness of the concrete hardstand, the FFA signatories must be provided with
written notification of such a proposed action. The Navy shall prepare and include an
evaluation of the risk to human health and the environment and an evaluation of any
need for additional remedial action resulting from the proposed action and shall propose
any necessary changes to the remedial action selected in the OUs 5 and 6 ROD in the
written notification of the proposed change. The EPA will advise whether a ROD
amendment or an ESD document is required. The FFA signatories must provide written
concurrence with the Navy's evaluation of risk and proposal regarding any necessary
changes in the remedial action, if required, before such an action is implemented by the
Navy.
The Navy will notify the FFA signatories within 10 days of any action that compromises
the long-term effectiveness of the concrete hardstand, and present the FFA signatories
with an evaluation of what measures are necessary to protect human health and the
environment.
5-15
-------
CT026aIB70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F2600B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
The Navy shall notify the FFA signatories of any plan to lease or transfer CAOC 16 as
real property to a non-federal or federal entity, notify the transferee or lesser of any
restrictions on activities at CAOC 16 and inctude the restriction in the transfer or lease.
Such notification shall be provided at least 45 days in advance of the lease or transfer
conveyance. The Navy shall comply with Section 120(h)(3) of CERCLA in any such
transfers.
The MCLB Barstow Master Plan will be amended to reflect that the physical and
structural integrity of the concrete hardstand shall be maintained, that any excavation,
damage or removal of the concrete hardstand will be reported to the MCLB Barstow
Environmental Department and that any actions taken that could compromise the long-
term effectiveness of the concrete hardstand will be reported to the FFA signatories
along with an evaluation of what measures are necessary to protect human health and
the environment. The Master Plan amendments will also include language that
describes the risk to human health and the environment that exists at CAOC 16;
references to the MCLB Barstow OU 5 RI. FS. and ROD; and will provide a legal
description (metes and bounds) of the boundaries of CAOC 16. The language in the
Master Plan amendment will also include the title and dates of the above-listed
documents and their storage location.
These Amendments to the Master Plan will be completed by the Navy within 1 year of
signing the MCLB Barstow OUs 5 and 6 ROD. The Navy will provide the FFA
signatories with a copy of the amendments to the Master Plan reflecting the above
commitments regarding CAOC 16. The Navy will also provide the FF A signatories with
30 days advance notice of any amendment to the Master Plan that could affect either the
substance or the language of the CAOC 16 Master Plan amendment.
If a change in land use is proposed that is inconsistent with the selected remedy for
CAOC 16 or the land use recorded in the Base Master Plan for CAOC 16, the DTSC, the
CRWQCB, and the EPA will be notified of such a change and concurrence obtained
before such a change is made.
5-16
-------
CT026O\B70027\F1NAL
CLE-J02.Q 1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
5.8
Statutory Determination
As a lead federal agency, the Marine Corps' primary responsibility at its CERCLA sites is
to undertake remedial actions that achieve adequate protection of human health and the
environment. In addition, Section 121 of CERCLA established several other statutory
requirements and preferences. These specify that, when complete, the selected
remedial action for this CAOC must comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate
environmental standards as established under federal and state environmental laws
unless a statutory waiver is justified. The selected remedy also must be cost effective
and use permanent solutions and altemative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute includes a
preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduce
the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as their principal element. The
following sections discuss how the selected remedy meets these statutory requirements.
5.8.1
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment through the
use of the existing concrete hardstand and the proposed institutional controls.
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment by eliminating,
reducing, and controlling risk through institutional controls. The proposed
maintenance program will prevent organic vapors from escaping to the
atmosphere and will also prevent infiltration of water to the subsurface.
5.8.2
Compliance with ARARs
No ARARs affect CAOC 16 from a direct soil contact perspective. Although Title
27 is not an ARAR, the concrete hardstand is consistent with its requirements,
and, in fact, exceeds the minimum requirements.
5.8.3
Cost Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness is determined by comparing the cost of all alternatives being
considered with their overall effectiveness to determine whether the costs are
proportional to the effectiveness achieved. The Marine Corps evaluates the
5-17
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
incremental cost of each alternative as compared to the increased effectiveness
of the remedy. The selected remedy for soils below the concrete hardstand is
institutional controls.
Based on the information obtained, this selected remedy will provide the best
balance of trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to the nine criteria
provided by EPA to evaluate the alternatives. This remedy is more costly than
the no action alternative considered, but the no action alternative will not protect
the human health and the environment. Therefore, the higher cost is justified
and the alternative is cost effective.
5.8.4
Use of Permanent Solutions to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy for CAOC 16 soils, Alternative 2 - Institutional Controls,
meets the statutory requirements to use permanent solutions and treat,ment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Because of the depth and
nature of the contaminated soils and the unique conditions at Building 573
explained in Section 5.3, other treatment options are not feasible at CAOC 16.
In comparing the selected alternative to the other alternatives considered, the
selected altemative provides the best balance of effectiveness and cost with
respect to the five EPA balancing criteria; i.e., long-term effectiveness; reduction
of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness,
implementability, and cost. .
The selected alternative provides adequate long-term effectiveness and
permanence and protects human health and the environment. The actions for
Alternative 2 address risk uncertainties by limiting land use.
The reduction of mobility, toxicity, or volume is not met by either of the
alternatives because treatment was found to be infeasible.
No problems are expected during implementation of the preferred alternative.
5-18
-------
CT026
-------
CT0260\S70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
(intentionally blank)
5-20
-------
CT0260\870027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1F26~B7-Q027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
6.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR
CAOC 15117 - OIL STORAGE/SPILLAGE AND IWTP AREAS
6.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 15, the Oil Storage/Spillage and Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP)
Areas, is in the northern part of the Yermo Annex, north of Building 573 (Figure 6-1).
This CAOC was originally described in the IAS as an area that extended north and east
of the temporary evaporation basin at CAOC 17. Defueling operations took place in this
area, where an estimated 4,000 drums of waste oil from recommissioned vehicles and
new lubricating oil were stored.
CAOC 17 is directly south of CAOC 35, the Vermo Class III landfill, and partially
overlaps CAOC 15, the Oil Storage/Spillage Area. As identified in the lAS, it included
only the Industrial Wastewater Overflow area; however, after closure of the IWTP, the
site was expanded to include all the surface impoundments of the Vermo IWTP.
CAOC 17 encompasses 14 evaporation basins, four sludge drying beds, a temporary
pond, three oxidation ponds, and the overflow area around the ponds. CAOCs 15 and 17
were investigated as one site under the AI because they are adjacent to each other and
represent common source release mechanisms. The combined size of CAOCs 15 and
17 is 13 acres.
6.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC 15/17 history was assembled from the lAS, PANSI, records search, and
historical aerial photographic review. Primary waste operations at CAOC 15 involved
defueling military vehicles, emptying bilge waters contaminated with gasoline and oil,
and storing waste oil. The IAS reported two waste practices that resulted in the release
of potential contaminants to the surface at CAOC 15. According to the lAS,
approximately 140,000 gallons of bilge water (from amphibious vehicles) contaminated
with oil and gasoline were discharged to the ground between 1961 to the earty 1970s.
Between 1961 and the early 1970s, waste oil was spilled in the process of draining and
transferring from vehicles to drums and later to tank trucks for recycling. Leakage from
damaged drums that contained waste oil from defueling operations and new oil for
recommissioned vehicles were reported during use of the area. The IAS estimated that
6-1
-------
CT026G'S70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
3,000 gallons of waste oil may have spilled both during transfer of waste oil and from
leaking drums.
CAOC 17 began operation as early as 1965 as evidenced by the presence of fourteen
evaporative basins in historical aerial photographs from that year. In 1970, the
wastewater treatment plant reportedly manunctioned due to plugging and overtoading of
a pump (Brown and Caldwell 1970). This resulted in flooding of the concrete area
between the evaporative basins and the outside vehicle wash area with industrial
"-
wastes. This area also accumulated drainage from vehicle cleaning operations and
bilge tank draining. The IAS reported that waste quantities discharged to the site were
not obtained during their interviews and archival search. However, that statement
conflicted with two different reported quantities mentioned elsewhere in the IAS: 20,000
and 100,000 gallons.
In February 1977, the CRWaCB, Lahontan Region, observed an overflow from the
oxidation ponds (Brown and Caldwell 1983). The CRWOCe inspectors noted that the
wastewater and ponded wastewater north; of the oxidation ponds had a phenolic odor.
The Vermo IWTP was closed by the CRWaCB, Lahontan Region, in March 1990 under
the TPCA. The oxidation ponds, evaporation basins, and sludge drying beds are now
dry and empty. The concrete liners are still present and intact.
Brown and Caldwell, under contract to the Naval Energy and Environmental Support
Activity (NEESA), conducted an IAS at CAOCs 15 and 17 in 1983. The IAS concluded
that both CAOCs 15 and 17 posed little threat due to human health or to the
environment. The depth to groundwater at the Venno Annex (greater than 100 feet bgs)
was also cited as the reason for minimal threat to human health.
CAOCs 15 and 17 have also been referred to in the IAS as Sites 15 and 17. At the time
of the lAS, Sites 15 and 17 were identified as two separate sites requiring environmental
investigation. They were relatively small and included the spill area at Site 15 and the
overflow area at Site 17, both located within the IWTP boundary. In 1991, during the
RFA process, which is a requirement of the FFA, a PANSI was conducted (Jacobs
1991 a). The PANSI included an extensive records search (including historical aerial
photographic review) and a site visit by the regulatory agencies, the Navy, and MCLB
Barstow personnel. The recommendation was that the entire IWTP be included in the
6-2
-------
CT0260\870027\FJNAL
CLE.J02-()1 F26O-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
remedial investigation. Because CAOC 15 (Site 15) and CAOC 17 (Site 17) both lie
within the boundary of the IWTP, they were combined for the remedial investigation and
the area was renamed CAOC 15/17.
6.3
Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides an overview of the soil investigations conducted at CAOC 15/17
and analytical results from soil sampling.
CAOC 15/17 has been divided into six strata consisting of documented or suspected
contamination sources. Each stratum has been defined based on a separate
environmental release mechanism.
.
Stratum 1, Oxidation Ponds: Three large concrete oxidation ponds and
intervening surface areas are reported to have processed wastewater. They
have also been flooded by wastewater during operation of the IWTP and have
received runoff from outside vehicle cleaning operations.
.
Stratum 2, Sludge Drying Beds: Four sludge drying beds and intervening surface
areas are reported to have stored both sludge from the evaporation basins for
drying and contaminated soil from fuel spills mixed with sludge.
Stratum 3, Evaporation Ponds: Fourteen small and one large concrete
evaporation ponds and the intervening surface areas are reported to have
processed or been flooded by wastewater during operation of the IWTP and to
have received runoff from vehide cleaning operations.
.
.
Stratum 4, Residual Sludge: Residual sludge present in the drying beds and
evaporation basins is reported to contain elevated concentrations of metals
(Brown and Caldwell 1983). The sludge was removed from the evaporation
basins and drying beds prior to the RI. Therefore, Stratum 4 was eliminated from
further study.
Stratum 5, Unpaved Area: The unpaved area within CAOC 15 partially overtaps
the evaporation ponds and is reported to have been previously used for defueling
operations, bilge water disposal, and for storing as many as 4,000 drums of
waste and new oil. It has been impacted by numerous leaks and spills, including
a reported 3,000 gallons of fuel.
.
.
Stratum 6, Containment Pond: An apparently unlined containment pond
originally located west of the large evaporation pond in Stratum 3. This pond
was identified in the PANSI historical aerial photograph review (Jacobs 1991 a).
The site is currently flat, and the pond was backfilled sometime prior to 1991. No
further information is available.
6-3
-------
CT026<7B70027\FINAL
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
During Phase I of the RI, 25 soil borings were advanced within CAOC 15/17 to
characterize the nature of contamination in the soils. Additional sampling was
conducted at Stratum 2 and 3 during Phase II to characterize hexavalent chromium.
Boring locations are shown in Figure 6-2. All soil borings were advanced to 11.5 feet
bgs. Potential sources of contamination at this CAOC include the reported discharge of
industrial wastes to unlined and lined ponds, and storage of sludge in the drying beds.
Results of laboratory analytical testing for organic and inorganic compounds for Strata 1,
2,3,5, and 6 are summarized in Tables 6-1 through 6-10. Maximum concentrations are
presented by depth. To help identify potentially significant contaminants, residential soil
RBC values are also shown on these tables. For inorganic compounds, the 95th
percentile background concentrations for shallow soils (0 to 3 feet) are shown for
comparison.
6.3.1
Stratum 1
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected in Stratum 1 soils are
presented in Tables 6-1 and 6-2, respectively, and are summarized as follows.
.
.
6.3.2
TPH was detected at a maximum of 13 mglkg. No other VOCs, SVOCs,
pesticides, or PCBs were detected.
Metals concentrations were consistent with naturally occurring
background levels except for sodium and selenium, neither of which are
believed to be site related. None of the stratum-maximum concentrations
exceeded residential soil RBC values.
Stratum 2
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected in Stratum 2 soils are
presented in Tables 6-3 and 6-4, respectively, and are summarized as follows.
.
.
Maximum concentrations of TCE at 83 IJglkg and PCE at 410 1J9lkg were
detected in Stratum 2. The highest concentration occurred in soil boring
VB 15-08 at 11.5 feet bgs.
One pesticide, 4,4-DDEat 11 IJglkg was detected along with Aroclor-
1260, a PCB, at 52 J,.Iglkg. . A collocated soil sample collected just below
the original sample did not contain either 4,4'-DDE or Aroclor-1260.
6-4
-------
CT026
-------
CT026<7\B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
gamma-chlordane (0.2 ~gIkg), heptachlor epoxide (0.4 1J91kg), and
methoxychlor (25 ~gIkg). None were detected at. cDncentrations that
exceeded residential soil RBC values.
.
Low levels of phthalates and PAHs were detected. The phthalates
detected included butyl benzyl phthalate (160 ~gIkg), di-n-butyl phthalate
(100 ~glkg), and di-n-octyl phthalate (86 ~gIkg). None of these
phthalates was present at concentrations exceeding the residential soil
ABC values.
.
Lead was detected at concentrations statistically above the naturally
occurring background range and is believed to be site related.
6.3.5
Stratum 6
.
PAHs were detected at concentrations lower than their respective
quantitation limits and lower than the residential soil ABC values:
benzo(a)pyrene (78 ~gIkg), benzo(b)fluoranthane (56 ~gIkg),
benzo(g,h,i)perylene (48 ~g/kg) chrysene (210 ~g/kg), phenanthrene (120
lJg/kg), and pyrene (190 ~g/kg).
.
Boron, cyanide, and vanadium were detected at concentrations
statistically above background but below their residential soil ABC values.
A near-surface soil gas survey was conducted at CAOC 15/17 as part of the AI.
The results of the survey indicated elevated levels of TCE and PCE. The results
indicated that the concentrations of TCE and PCE decreased from south to north.
These results suggest that the major source may be south of CAOC 15/17 where
CAOC 16 is located. CAOC 16 is therefore believed to be the more likely source.
As part of OUs 1 and 2 investigation a vertical profile boring (VPB) was drilled to
292 feet bgs at the northeast comer of CAOC 15/17. Soil samples were
collected at 10, 60, 100, and 138 feet bgs. None of the samples showed
chlorinated VOCs above the contract-required detection limit (CRDL). In the
same VPB, soil gas samples were collected at 12, 22, 42, 62, 82, 102, and 122
feet bgs. Most of the SOVs detected were in the samples taken down to 62 feet
bgs; at 82 feet bgs, the concentrations of TCE and PCE dropped below detection
limits (0.95 and 4.1 micrograms per liter [~gIL], respectively). It is also interesting
to note that the maximum concentration of TCE (56 ~gIL) was found at 122 feet
bgs, which suggests that the VOCs may be migrating from the groundwater.
6-6
-------
CT026O\B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-()()27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
6.4
Summary 01 Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOCs 15/17 using
data collected during the RI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final AI report for DUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a).
Results of the assessment for CAOCs 15/17 are provided in Section 6.0 of the AI report.
The ecological assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA (EPA 1996a). Both of these
assessments have been summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conctusions related to CAOCs
15/17 are presented here in support of the decision to take no action. Also presented in
this section is a general summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to
water quality protection.
6.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CADC 15/17 are presented in
Table 6-11 for the residential land-use scenario and in Table 6-12 for the
industrial land-use scenario.
6.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCR for Stratum 1 is essentially zero because no site-related carcinogens
were detected.
At Stratum 2, the ILCR is 2 x 10". As discussed in Section 6.3, there is
uncertainty in the reported detections of hexavalent chromium due to the
potential for false positives from the laboratory. Furthermore, the hexavalent
chromium detection .was at 11 feet bgs, a depth at which the soils are not
available for contact under typical land use conditions.
At Stratum 3, the ILCA is 1 x 10".
Stratum 4 (the removed sludge) was not subject to a human health evaluation
because it was hauled off site for disposal and is therefore no longer available for
contact. The ILCA for Stratum 5 was 2 x 10.7; the ILCA for Stratum 6 was
2 x 10". The potential risk at Stratum 6 is due to low-level (i.e., below CRDL)
6-7
-------
CT026O\810027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
PAHs. Given their depth (11 feet bgs), they would not be readily available for
contact under most land use scenarios.
The noncancer hazard indices for all strata exceeded the acceptable level of 1.0.
As shown in Table 6-11, this is due almost entirely to naturally occurring metals,
and therefore the site-related impact is considered insignificant.
6.4.1.2.
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, the ILCRs for all strata are less than
1 x 1 O~. The noncancer hazard indices at all strata are less than 1.0.
6.4.2
Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion
The ecological risk assessment shows that no sensitive species or sensitive
habitats would be affected by the residual contamination at CAOC 21. The
detailed assessment can be found in the Phase I ERA (EPA 1996a).
6.4.3
Summary of Evaluation 01 Groundwater Impacts
The mathematical modeling performed at CAOC 15/17 indicated that the
contaminants remaining in the soils would not migrate to the groundwater at
concentrations that would contaminate or degrade the aquifer. However,
because samples were not collected below 12 feet bgs, there exists some
uncertainty regarding possible future groundwater degradation. To address this.
uncertainty, CAOC 15/17 has been included in the OUs 1 and 2 analysis to
evaluate the need for further action regarding vadose zone contamination.
Because of the intertwined nature of CAOCs 15/17 and 16, these two CAOCs
are approached together for vadose zone evaluation under OUs 1 and 2.
Surface waters are not present at CAOC 15/17, except for during times of heavy
precipitation. The contamination would not be a threat to surface waters
because contamination in the surface soils is minor and the existing concrete
basins would inhibit any migration.
6-8
-------
CT0260\870027\FINAL
CLE..J02~1 F260-B7-0D27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
6.5
Description of the No Action Alternative for CAOC 15117
The no action alternative selected for CAOC 15/17 does not involve institutional or
engineering control, and does not include containment, excavation, or treatment
technologies.
CAOC 15/17 is considered to be protective of human health and the environment for the
following reasons.
.
CAOC 15/17 is currently unoccupied property with no existing structures or
facilities, which greatly reduces any potential on-site human exposure to the low-
level contaminants detected. Also, most of the CAOC is covered with concrete.
Soil contaminants at this CAOC pose a minor threat to human health. The
incremental lifetime cancer risk for a hypothetical resident is less than
1 x 10~, except at Strata 2 and 6. Most of the incremental risk at Stratum 2 was
due to a hexavalent chromium detection at 11 feet bgs. Given this uncertainty,
the depth of the detection, and the likely future land use, this stratum is believed
to represent an acceptable level of risk. The low-level residual risk at Stratum 6
(2 x 10.), which results from a single PAH detection at 11 feet bgs at a
concentration below the CRDL, is also considered acceptable. Contaminants at
this depth would not be readily available for contact under most land use
scenarios. Such low-level detections are likely associated with residual
petroleum contamination and do not warrant further action.
.
.
The ERA shows that no sensitive species or sensitive habitats would be affected
by the residual contamination at CAOC 15/17.
Detections of PCBs are below the EPA guidance level.
.
.
No groundwater impacts are predicted to result from contaminant detections.
Data collected under OUs 1 and 2, however, indicate that groundwater is
contaminated in the vicinity of CAOC 15/17. Soil gas data from the VPB near the
northeast comer of CAOC 15/17 and the near-surface SOV data collected at
CAOC 15/17 also suggest that VOC contamination may be present in the vadose
zone although it may have originated from CAOC 16. This is supported by site
scoping information that suggests that CAOC 16 had a much higher potential for
releases than CAOC 15/17. However, because of vadose zone contamination
detected in the VPB and near-surface SOV samples, there is still uncertainty
regarding the subsurface distribution of VOCs beneath CAOC 15/17 and CAOC
16. Therefore, all strata of CAOC 15/17 have been included in the OUs 1 and 2
analysis to evaluate the need for further action regarding vadose zone
contamination. Because of the intertwined nature of CAOCs 15/17 and 16, these
two CAOCs are approached together for vadose zone evaluation under OUs 1
and 2.
6-9
-------
CT026O'lB70027\FINAL
CLE..J02-Q1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
Because the incremental carcinogenic human health risks at this CAOC exceeded
1 x 10., for information and future planning purposes, a description of the history of this
CAOC will be provided in the MCLB Barstow Master Plan. The low levels of PCBs.
hexavalent chromium, and PAHs will also be documented in the Master Plan. Language
in the Master Plan will indicate that any actions planned in these areas or changes in site
use should be coordinated and reviewed by the MCLB Barstow Environmental
Department.
6-10
-------
CT0260\B70027\FlNAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
7.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR
CAOC 19 - FIRST HAZARDOUS AND lOW-lEVEL RADIOLOGICAL AREA
7.1
Name, location, and Description
CAOC 19, the First Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area, is located near the
center of the Vermo Annex southeast of Building 598 (Figure 7-1). The CAOC consists
of approximately 10,000 square feet on which low-level radiation equipment (e.g.,
luminous dials containing radium and tritium isotopes) and hazardous materials were
previously stored (Brown and Caldwell 1983). The IAS speculated that hazardous
materials and low-level radiation equipment may have been buried here as well;
however, no documentation was discovered during the scoping to verify any burial of
wastes. The IAS states that the site was not intended for permanent disposal of
hazardous materials; rather, materials were stored at the surface temporarily and
removed during rollback operations after both World War II and the Korean conflict.
Documentation was not available regarding the types or amounts of wastes and
equipment that may have affected this CAOC.
7.2
Operations and Investigative History
The area was used from the early 1950s to the 1960s for temporary storage of known
and suspected hazardous materials and low-level radiation equipment. The PANSI
reported that these materials were removed in the 1960s.
One 150-gallon concrete UST (designated T-598) was located east of a concrete pad.
The tank was reportedly associated with activities conducted in the Calibration Branch,
Building 598, located northwest of the site; it was abandoned prior to 1984. The use of
radiological compounds was not documented at Building 598, and is considered unlikely
given the types of activities that occurred there. Additionally, activities at Building 598 do
not appear to be related to the hazardous and radiological materials storage activities
that reportedly occurred at CAOC 19. Soils associated with the UST removal have been
independently investigated under the RFA program as SWMU 9.73.
7-1
-------
CT026O\B70027\FlNAL
CLE-J02-o1 F26D-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
The site surface was observed to be clear of any stored materials during the PANSI site
visit. Aerial photographs taken in 1973 revealed that significant storage of undetermined
materials was present from east to south of the concrete pad just beyond the perimeter
of the present site boundaries.
Brown and Caldwell, under contract to NEESA, conducted an IAS at CAOC 19 in 1983.
The IAS was conducted to identify and assess sites posing potential threats to human
health or to the environment due to contamination from past hazardous materials. The
IAS recommended CAOC 19 for a confinnation study due to speculation regarding the
possible burial of low-level radiation equipment and hazardous materials.
The confirmation study at CAOC 19 was conducted in 1985 by Burke Engineering
(Burke 1985). Their study included scanning the surface with a scintillation counter.
The entire site was surveyed with readings taken at the soil surface and within
12 inches of the surface. The results of the radiological survey indicated that there was
no surficial contamination from the low-level radiation equipment and hazardous
materials. Based on the radiological survey, Burke recommended no further
characterization for CAOC 19. In 1989, CAOC 19 was included as part of OUs 5 and 6
in the FFA.
7.3
Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the assessments conducted at CAOC 19
analytical results from chemical and radiological sampling. Only a Phase I soil sampling
effort was conducted at this CAOC. Based on the results of that sampling, it was
determined that further sampling (i.e., Phase II) was unnecessary. Ten vertical soil
borings were completed. Sample locations are shown on Figure 7-2.
On the basis of the lAS, Confirmation Study, PANSI, and SAP seoping, CAOC 19 has
been divided into two strata. Each stratum has been defined based on a separate
environmental release mechanism.
7-2
-------
CT0260\B70027\FlNAL
.
.
CLE~2~1F2~B7~7
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
Stratum 1, Low-Level Radiological and Hazardous Materials Storage Area: the
area originally described in the lAS, with expanded boundaries based on the
PANS I report and aerial photographic review. The geophysical survey
subsequently delineated several anomalies that were targeted specifically for
further investigation with. soil borings. Thus, the Stratum 1 boundary was
reconfigured with respect to the geophysical anomalies.
Stratum 2, Area of UST T -598: the soil below the 150-gallon concrete
UST (T-598) and any piping near the intersection of .C. and 12th Streets,
adjacent to the concrete pad. The stratum includes soils around the perimeter of
the tank and along the abandoned piping; the soils may have been impacted by
leaks. The UST was removed and the area beneath the UST was investigated
independently under the Base UST removal program in 1992 (SWMU 9.73). .
The maximum concentrations of all detected analytes are presented in data summary
tables. To help identify potentially significant contaminants, residential. soil RBCs are
also shown on the tables. RBCs represent soil concentrations that correspond to
1 x 100e cancer risk or a 1.0 noncancer hazard index for a residential soil exposure
scenario. For inorganics, the 95th percentile background concentrations for shallow soil
(0 to 3 feet bgs) are also shown for reference.
7.3.1
Stratum 1
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected in Stratum 1 are
presented in Tables 7-1 and 7-2, respectively, and are summarized as follows.
.
VOCs were not detected.
Only low levels of phthalates were detected in the SVOC group.
.
.
Low levels of three pesticides were detected: alpha-BHC (0.2 ~g/kg),
alpha chlordane (0.28 ~gIkg), and heptachlor epoxide (0.39 ~gIkg).
Although arsenic, beryllium, manganese, molybdenum, thallium, and
vanadium were statistically elevated with respect to background, these
are believed to be naturally occurring because their presence is not
consistent with the site scoping information as discussed in detail in the
RI for OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a).
.
.
Radiological survey results indicated that the radiometric gamma-ray
survey found no significant difference between soil radionuclide
concentrations at CAOC 19 and those of the background areas. The
results of the radium-226 survey found that it was not present in the near
surface. Soil sampling results also found that tritium concentrations were
consistent with background except in three samples (BA-A22091 at 1.8
7-3
-------
CT026U1B70027\FlNAL
7.4
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
picocuries per gram (pCi/g), BAA-A220301 at 0.7 pCi/g and
BA-A220202 at 2.6 pCi/g).
.
Radon-222 results indicated that the concentrations detected at
CAOC 19 (0.3 to 1.1 picocuries per liter [pCi/L)) are the same as the
background readings (0.8 to 1.1 pCiIL).
7.3.2
Stratum 2
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected in Stratum 2 are
presented in Tables 7-3 and 7-4, respectively, and summarized as follows.
.
. VOCs and SVOCs were not detected in the samples.
.
Low levels of pesticides were detected in one sample: 4,4-DDE
(8.6 ~g/kg), Endosulfan I (16 ~g/kg), Endrin aldehyde (24 ~g/kg). Endrin
ketone (16 ~g/kg), gamma-Chlordane (16 ~g/kg), and methoxychlor
(140 ~g/kg). However, all detections were at concentrations below the
RBC values.
.
Diesel (TPH-D) was detected at 2,100 mg/kg.
Metals were found at concentrations below the 95th percentile
background values except cadmium, which was detected at 4.8 mg/kg. J
However, there was uncertainty in the analytical 'results because the
reported levels were below the CRDL.
.
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 19 using data
collected during the RI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final RI report for OUs 5 and 6. Results of the
assessment for CAOC 19 are provided in Section 8.0 of the RI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 19 are presented here in
support of the decision to take no action. Also presented in this section is a general
summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection.
7-4
-------
CT026
-------
CT0260\870027\FINAL
CLE.J02-ot F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
criteria are based on appropriate laboratory detection limits, soil concentrations
that affect groundwater at concentrations below the DLR criteria would not be
detectable. That is, although the Marshack model predicts that tap water RBCs
for arsenic and beryllium would be exceeded, they would still be less than the
DLR criteria for these metals. Because the DLR criteria are "proposed
background" concentrations for cleanup (CRWaCB 1996), soil concentrations
that affect groundwater at concentrations less than the DLR criteria are also
considered to be within background. Furthermore, the two metals in question
(i.e., arsenic and beryllium), although present in soil at concentrations statistically
above background, are believed to be naturally occurring. Therefore, for Stratum
1 of CAOC 19 elevated concentrations of metals in soil are not considered to
adversely affect groundwater resources.
Various pesticides and phthalates were detected at relatively low levels at
Stratum 2. Pesticides are very persistent in soils and are generally immobile. In
addition, various low-level VOCs were also detected. Several metals were
present at concentrations statistically elevated relative to background. The
Marshack model indicated that leachate derived from these contaminants would
not affect groundwater.
7.5
Description of the No Action Alternative for CAOC 19
The no action alternative was selected for CAOC 19. The selected no action alternative
does not involve institutional controls or engineering controls. It does not include
containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC 19 is considered to be
protective of human health and the environment for the following reasons.
.
Risk levels are below the target human health risk range.
No groundwater impacts result from residual soil contamination.
Overall, there is little evidence of radioactive contamination at this CAOC. The
speculation in the IAS that hazardous or radioactive contaminants may have
been buried at this stratum was not substantiated. The areas most likely to have
been associated with any burial (i.e., certain geophysical anomalies) showed no
evidence of contamination.
The ERA shows that no sensitive species or sensitive habitats would be affected
by the contamination at CAOC 19 (EPA 1996a).
.
.
.
7-6
-------
CT02WB70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-o1 F26(}.B7.()()27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
8.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 21 - INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
8.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 21, the Industrial Waste Disposal Area, is located on a flat, open unpaved area
near Gate 5 at the eastern perimeter of the Vermo Annex. The site is approximately
.1,200 by 400 feet and contains a number of concrete pads from previously existing
barracks and an electrical substation (S-530) located in the eastern portion of the site
(Figure 8-1). CAOC 21 is not an active site.
An unlined drainage channel borders the southern portion of CAOC 21 (Figure 8-1). The
channel is approximately 50 to 75 feet wide, 3 to 5 feet deep, and extends
1,200 feet along the southern boundary of CAOC 21. The channel floor sediments
consist of fine to coarse sand with silt derived in part from the unpaved surface of CAOC
21.
The unlined channel joins a concrete-lined surface water control culvert at the
southwestern boundary of CAOC 21 at a railroad overpass. The lined portion of the
channel extends away from CAOC 21 west-northwest across C Street and along the
eastern side of 13th Street to a storm drain near Building 401. At the southeastern
boundary of CAOC 21, the unlined channel shallows and broadens to meet an unpaved
access road. The channel continues southeast under a chain-link fence and off-site into
an adjacent unpaved, eroded wash area.
Four circular pits, each about 30 feet in diameter, are evident in aerial photographs of
the Vermo Annex dated 1964 and 1974. The conical pits narrow uniformly with depth,
and the pit floors are about 10 feet across and 10 feet bgs. In the 1964 aerial
photographs a dark elongated area of stained soil is present at the eastern side of three
of the pits. Because the prevailing wind direction at the Vermo Annex is from the west
(RADIAN 1988), the location of the stained soil coincides with the downwind sides of the
pits.
A UST (T -530b, Figure 8-1) in the western portion of CAOC 21 was removed in June
1992 under the Base RFA program (Jacobs 1993c). This tank was referred to in the
8-1
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-Q1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
PANSI and RFA as SWMU 9.60. The PANSI identified two USTs (T-530a and
T-530b) at CAOC 21. These two USTs are identified in the PANS I and RFA as
SWMU 9.60.
Prior to the removal of the USTs under the RFA, a geophysical survey was conducted to
delineate the locations of the USTs. UST T-530a was reportedly just south of the
transformer substation in Stratum 1 and was used to store waste oils. Based on the
results of the geophysical survey, UST T-530a could not be located and has been
recommend for closure under the Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) program.
UST T-530b was located by the geophysical survey in the eastem side of Stratum 3
(Figure 8-1). It was a 40,ooo-galion steel tank and was reportedly used by the Defense
Reutilization Marketing Office (DRMO) as a waste oil storage tank from about 1942 until
1960 (Jacobs 1996b).
A former transformer maintenance and decommissioning area was on one of the
concrete pads in the northern portion of the site (Figure 8-1). A detailed history (Le., the
years of operation and the number of transformers handled) of the decommissioning
operation is not available. The limited information available for the transformer
maintenance area (presented above) was obtained in 1995 from MCLB Barstow
personnel during the reporting stage of the RI for OUs 3 and 4 (Jacobs 1995b). All
above-mentioned locations are shown in Figure 8-2.
8.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC 21 history is assembled from the lAS, PANSI, records search, and historical
aerial photograph review.
The Industrial Waste Disposal Area was reportedly used for a variety of waste
operations between 1946 and 1980. The operations conducted in the area east and
south of the electric substation 5-530 included storage of hazardous wastes, disposal of
waste petroleum products, and fire training using flammable liquids. The western portion
of the IAS study area was used as a drum storage area wherein waste oil, ethylene
glycol, fuels, and 4,4'-DDT from decommissioned tanks were stored in
55-gallon drums left in place; these drums leaked occasionally.
8-2
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE..J02-G1 F2~.()027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
Info'rmation gathered from personnel interviews conducted during the IAS indicated that
between 1953 and 1955 gasoline, diesel fuel, and lubrication oil were disposed of in an
arroyo along the east fence of the Vermo Annex, near where spur tracks from the Union
Pacific Railroad enter the facility (see Figure 8-2). The arroyo is now filled with soil and
the exact location could not be identified during a geophysical survey (Jacobs 1991a),
possibly due to the interference of the fence. Reportedly, the fuel and oil stored in 55-
gallon drums were hauled to the arroyo and drained onto the ground approximately once
a month. An estimated 12,000 gallons of gasoline, diesel fuel, and lubrication oil were
estimated to have been disposed of each year by this method. This practice started
before 1953 and continued until sometime between 1956 and 1958.
From about 1963 to 1965, a small area of approximately 100 square feet at the southem
portion of the site was used for fire fighting practice (see Figure 8-2). It was reported in
a personnel interview that a tracked vehicle was filled with waste flammable liquids and
ignited for fire fighting practice. Approximately 1,000 gallons of flammable liquids were
used every week during intensive training periods. By 1965, the vehicle was
deteriorated and leaked extensively when filled with flammable material. The exact
location of this fire fighting practice was not documented.
In the early 1970s, fire fighting training was moved to old barracks foundations north of
the original fire fighting training' site. During the fire fighting training exercises, the
concrete pads were flooded with waste flammable liquids and ignited. Ignited fuels and
fire fighting liquids flowed freely from the foundation and onto the surrounding soils. Of
the estimated 1 ,000 gallons of waste flammable liquids used in individual fire fighting
drills conducted approximately once a month, the IAS estimated that approximately 10
percent of the flammable materials percolated into the surrounding soils.
An IAS was conducted in 1983 to evaluate whether potential contamination from past
waste management activities at the Industrial Waste Disposal Area posed a threat to
human health or the environment. IAS activities involved a review of site archival and
activity records (including historical aerial photographs), an on-site survey, the
development of a ranking system rating each site for confirmation study (CS), and
recommendations for the scope of the CS. The IAS team designated the Industrial
Waste Disposal Area as Site 21.
8-3
-------
CT026<7\B70027\FJNAL
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
The IAS report (Brown and Caldwell 1983) concluded that much of the waste disposed
of at CAOC 21 was highly volatile and had probably evaporated in the arid and hot
climate. The report also stated that although unknown quantities of DDT were stored, no
intentional disposal of DDT had occurred. The immobility of waste oil, the lack of a
downward driving force (Le., sparse rainfall), and the depth to groundwater were cited as
additional reasons not to conduct further investigations at CAOC 21.
Although not recommended for further study in the lAS, Site 21 was included for
investigation during negotiations for the CS. The CS was conducted in 1985 to
. determine whether specific toxic or hazardous materials had contaminated the sites
(Burke 1985 and 1986). CS field activities included soil and groundwater sample
collection and analysis. The results of the CS indicated the presence of metals, total
organic halides, PCBs and pesticides in the soils. The groundwater investigation results
indicated the presence of metals petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs and SVOCs.
In 1991 during the RFA process, which is a requirement of the FFA, a PANS I was
conducted at Site 21. The PANSI report recommended further investigation of this area
as part of OU 5. This area is now referred to as CAOC 21.
8.3
Summary 01 Site Characteristics
CAOC 21 is divided into four main strata. Five substrata were later defined as part of
the Phase IIa investigation to further target suspected fire fighting training areas. The
boundaries of the strata and substrata are shown in Figure 8-2.
Stratum 1 is a known source of contamination and includes the old fire fighting area and
concrete pads located in the southern portion of the site.
.
Substratum 1 a: The Substratum 1 a boundary encompasses the area of
observed stained soil, partially buried vehicle parts, and subsurface metallic
debris detected in the Phase IIa geophysical survey.
Substratum 1 b: Circular Pits. This substratum has been defined to encompass
the three former circular pits within Stratum 1 and the former circular pit within
Stratum 3.
.
.
Substratum 1 c: Stained Soil. This substratum consists of the three separate
elongated areas of stained soil adjacent to the former circular pits in Stratum 1.
8-4
-------
CT0260\S70027\F/NAl
CLE..J02-o1 F2~87-()()27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
Stratum 2 is a suspected source of contamination and is located in the northern portion
of the site. Stratum 2 includes the lightly discolored concrete pads shown in historical
aerial photographs and the electrical substation S-530. Transformer decommissioning
reportedly took place on one of the two concrete pads located west of the electrical
substation S-530.
.
Substratum 2a: Concrete Pads. Substratum 2a consists of the two rectangular
concrete pads in the northwestern portion of theCAOC 21 where fire fighting
may have been conducted. .
Stratum 3 includes the area in the western portion of the site where the bermed storage
area was observed in historical aerial photographs taken from 1964 to 1978 (Figure
8-2). One UST (T-530b) was formerfy located in the eastern portion of the stratum. The
UST (also referred to as SWMU 9.60) was removed (Jacobs 1992b) in 1992 under the
MCLB Barstow AFA program.
.
Substratum 3a: Bermed Area. The bermed area is defined within Stratum 3 as
the limits of the bermed storage area.
Stratum 4 includes an arroyo that was reported to be in the northeast corner of the site.
Uquid wastes were discharged in the arroyo.
8.3.1
Stratum 1
The maximum concentrations of organics and metals detected at Stratum 1 are
presented in Tables 8-1 and 8-2, respectively. Phase lIa PCB sampling results
are included in Table 8-3.
.
Twelve chlorinated pesticides were detected at low levels in soil samples
collected in Stratum 1. Except for 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(4-chloro-
phenyl)ethane (4,4'-DOO), 1, 1-dichlorO-2,2-bis(4-chlorophenyl)ethene
(4,4'-DOE), 4,4'-DDT, and Endosulfan II, detections of the pesticides were
sporadic.
Aroclor-1260 was detected in three soil samples collected from boring
YM2108 during Phase I at concentrations above residential soil ABCs.
These Aroclor-1260 detections prompted the Phase II PCB field
screening survey. The six soil samples submitted for laboratory
confirmation tests during the Phase II AI revealed a sporadic distribution
pattern of Aroclor-1260 in the southeastern comer of CAOC 21.
.
8-5
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02.Q1 F260-B7 .0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concern from a human health perspective.
.
PCBs were detected above 0.5 mglkg in 15 of the 66 Phase lIa field
screening samples collected at the extended Stratum 1 PCB sampling
grid. Twelve of the field detections exceeded 1.0 mglkg and the
maximum PCB detection, in a laboratory confirmation sample, was 247
mglkg. Most of the detections are located on the floor of the unlined
drainage channel along the southern border of CAOC 21. Because of the
relatively frequent and high PCB detections and the history of burning,
soil samples from the Stratum 1 PCB grid were selected for dioxin/furan
analysis. Five of the samples contained furan compounds (up to 380
picograms per gram [pg/g)) and three samples contained dioxins (up to
210 pg/g).
8.3.2
Stratum 1a
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected at Stratum 1 A are
included in Tables 8-4 and 8-5, respectively and summarized as follows.
.
At Stratum 1 a (Metallic Debris Pit), low levels of pesticides and significant
levels of Aroclor-1260 were detected in the Phase lIa soil boring samples.
All Stratum 1 a pesticide concentrations are below applicable RBC values,
but each detection of Aroclor-1260 at Stratum 1a exceeds the Aroclor
residential soil RBC. Each Aroclor detection falls below the 25-mglkg
EPA-recommended criterion for PCBs in an industrial land use scenario,
but four detections exceed the EPA-recommended 1-mglkg criterion for
PCBs in residential soil. The maximum Aroclor-1260 detection at
Stratum 1a is 5.7 mglkg. .
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concern from a human health perspective.
.
8.3.3
Stratum 1b
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected at Stratum 1 bare
included in Table 8-6 and 8-7, respectively.
.
Aroclor-1260 was detected in Stratum 1 b soil samples at concentrations
less than 0.1 mg/kg. Except for the Aroclor-1260 detections, low levels of
pesticides were the only other common organics detected, and each
pesticide detection falls below applicable RBC values. Because of the
relatively high PCB detection, one sample from Stratum 1 b was selected
for dioxin/furan compound analysis, and both furan and dioxin
compounds were detected in the sample. Furan compounds were
detected up to 540 pg/g and dioxin compounds were detected up to
1,600 pg/g.
8-6
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
.
.
.
8.3.6
CLE-J02-Q1 F260-B7 "()()27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
.
The cadmium and lead detected in Stratum 1 b samples are considered
site related, and the remaining detected metals are believed to be
naturally occurring.
8.3.4
Stratum 1c
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected in soils at Stratum 1 c
are included in Table 8-8 and 8-9, respectively.
.
Pesticide compounds at levels below applicable ABC values were the
only organic detections in Stratum 1 c soil samples. .
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
.
8.3.5
Strata 2 and 2a
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected in soils at Stratum 2 are
included in Tables 8-10 and 8-11, respectively, and those detected at Stratum 2a
are included in Tables 8-12 and 8-13, respectively. Due to similarities in
contaminant distribution between Strata 2 and 2a, these strata have been
combined for decision making purposes.
.
Twelve chlorinated pesticides were detected at low levels in soil from
Stratum 2. Except for 4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-DDT, detections of the
pesticides were sporadic.
Aroclor-1260 was detected in 3 of the 15 samples collected from
Stratum 2.
Trace amounts of 1,1,1-TCA and petroleum hydrocarbons were also
detected sporadically.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
Strata 3 and 3a
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected in soils at Stratum 3 are
included in Tables 8-14 and 8-15, respectively, and those detected at Stratum 3a
are included in Tables 8-16 and 8-17, respectively. Due to similarities in
8-7
-------
CT026CPS70027\FINAL
.
.
8.3.8
CLE.J02-Q1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
contaminant distribution between Strata 3 and 3a, these strata have been
combined for decision making purposes.
.
Twelve chlorinated pesticides were detected at low levels in soil from
Stratum 3. Except for 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, and 4,4'-DDT, detections of
the pesticides were sporadic.
PCBs were not detected in any soil samples collected in this stratum.
.
.
PCE and 1,1,1- TCA were detected at concentrations lower than their
residential RBC values.
.
Although TRPH was detected in a sample at 7,590 mg/kg, TPH-D and
TPH as gasoline (TPH-G) were not detected in any soil sample from this
stratum.
.
No site-related metals were identified in this stratum.
8.3.7
Stratum 4
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected in soils at Stratum 4 are
included in Tables 8-18 and 8-19, respectively.
.
Five chlorinated pesticides were detected sporadically at low levels in soil
collected from Stratum 4.
Aroclor-1260 was detected in only three samples, all of which were
collected from boring YM2101. The maximum Aroclor-1260 detection of
0.13 mglkg is well below the EPA-recommended action level for PCBs in
both residential and industrial soils. .
Low-level concentrations of phthalates and VOCs below residential soil
RBC values were also detected in this stratum.
UST 530b
Tank 530b, a waste oil tank located within CAOC 21, was removed in 1992 under
. the RFA program. Clean soils were used to backfill the pit. Soil analyses using
non-CLP methods indicated residual TRPH (11,579 mg/kg) and various VOCs,
including PCE (10.1 mglkg). In addition, N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine was
detected.
8-8
-------
CT026<71B70027\FINAL
CLE..J02001 F261}.B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
8.4
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 21 using data
collected during the AI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final AI report for OUs 5 and 6. Aesults of the
assessment for CAOC 21 are provided in Section 9.0 of the AI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 21 are presented here in
support of the decision to take no action. Also presented in this section is a general
summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection.
8.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 21 are presented in Table 8-20
for the residential land-use scenario and Table 8-21 for the industrial land-use
scenario.
8.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCA for Stratum 1 is approximately 5 x 10-3 and is based on the maximum
detected PCB concentration of 247 mglkg. The ILCAs for Strata 1 a, 1 b, and 1 c
are approximately 1 x 10",4 x 10", and 4 x 10", respectively, and result primarily
from PCBs.
The ILCA for Stratum 2/2a is approximately 3 x 10" and also results from PCBs.
The ILCA for Stratum 3I3a is approximately 6 x 10.7, which is below the 1 x 10"
point of departure.
The ILCA for Stratum 4 is approximately 3 x 10" and also results from PCBs.
The noncancer hazard indices for all strata exceed 1.0, but as shown in
Table 8-20,this results almost entirely from background metal concentrations
and is therefore considered insignificant.
8-9
-------
CT026a1S70027\FlNAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
8.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, the ILCRs for Strata 1 C, 2/2a, 3/3a, and 4
are less than 1 x 10". The risk at Strata 1 and 1a are well above 1 x 10". The
ILCR for Strata 1 b is 1 x 10".
The total noncancer hazard indices are all less than 1.0.
8.4.2
Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion
The ecological risk assessment shows that no sensitive species or sensitive
habitats would be affected by the residual contamination at CAOC 21. The
detailed assessment can be found in the Phase I ERA (EPA 1996a).
8.4.3
Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater
Impacts to groundwater were evaluated using the Marshack model. The results
indicate that residual contaminants present at CAOC 21 would not adversely
impact groundwater except for PCE, which was detected in the RFA sampling
performed when UST T-530b was removed. The modeling conservatively
assumes that the maximum detected PCE concentration in soil persists all the
way to groundwater.
Although some VOC contamination may be present in the vadose zone, it does
not appear that UST T-530b is a significant ongoing threat to groundwater. This
is based on the results of soil sampling from boring YM21-12, which is
immediately adjacent to the location of the former UST. Samples were collected
down to 21 feet bgs, which is well below the depth of the RFA soil sampling. No
VOCs were detected except for methylene chloride, which is believed to be an
analytical artifact. The conclusion that CAOC 21 does not represent an ongoing
or future source of contamination is further supported by downgradient
groundwater monitoring results. PCE was not detected in well YS21-1. At well
Y4-1, PCE was detected at low levels (up to 5 J!gIL). These results also support
the conclusion that these soils do not represent an ongoing threat to
8-10
-------
CT026O\B10027\FlNAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
groundwater. However, to minimize any uncertainty regarding whether soils
associated with T-530b represent an ongoing threat to groundwater, the draft
RFA report recommended this UST for further action.
Surface waters are not present at CAOC 21 except during heavy precipitation.
Based on the DLM and VLEACH analysis, the other residual contaminants at
CAOC 21 are not a threat to groundwater.
8.5
Description of the No Action Alternative for CAOC 21
The no action alternative selected for CAOC 21 does not involve institutional or
engineering controls. It does not inctude containment, excavation or treatment.
CAOC 21 is considered to be protective of the human health and the environment for the
following reasons.
.
A removal action was completed in Stratum 1, 1a, and the drainage channel to
address residual PCB and furan contamination. All soils containing PCBs at
concentrations greater than 1 mg/kg were be excavated, removed, and
transported off site for disposal. Confirmatory sampling was performed to
demonstrate that no residual contamination is present at concentrations of
concern from a human health perspective. Appropriate site closeout
documentation was provided to and concurred with by all signatories of the FF A.
Detections of PCBs in Strata 1b, 2, and 4 are below the EPA guidance levels.
.
.
Modeling indicates a possible threat to groundwater from PCE detected in soils
beneath former UST T-530b. This area, also known as SWMU 9.60, has been
recommended for further action in the draft RFA report. This further action will
consist of a deep boring to determine the vertical extent of PCE and petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination. Based on the results of that investigation, the
Marine Corps/Navy will decide if any remedial action is appropriate. A work plan
for completing this effort will be provided to all signatories of the FFA for review
prior to commencing any field work. The results of the human health risk
assessment indicated the PCE does not pose any adverse health threat through
direct soil contact. Therefore, the decision for no action at CAOC 21 under OUs
5 and 6 is appropriate.
The ERA shows that no sensitive species or sensitive habitats would be affected
by the residual contamination at CAOC 21.
.
8-11
-------
CT026aIB70027\FINAL
CLE-J02-Q1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
.
CAOC 21 is currently unoccupied property with no existing structures or facilities
which greatly reduce any potential on-site human exposure to the low levels of
contaminants detected. .
Because the incremental carcinogenic human health risks at this CAOC exceeded
1 x 10", for information and future planning purposes, a description of the history of this
CAOC will be provided in the Base Master Plan. The low levels of PCBs and furans will
also be documented in the Base Master Plan. Language in the Master Plan will indicate
that any actions planned in these areas or changes in site use should be coordinated
and reviewed by the MCLB Barstow Environmental Department.
8-12
-------
CT026aIB70027\FJNAL
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
9.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR
CAOC 22 - DOMESTIC WASTEWATER DISPOSAL AREA
9.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 22, the Domestic Wastewater Disposal Area, is in the southeastern portion of the
Vermo Annex, adjacent to the eastern property boundary (Figure 9-1). The site consists
of three unlined percolation ponds that were used for disposal of treated wastewater
(both domestic and industrial wastes) at the Vermo Annex between 1952 and 1958
(Brown and Caldwell 1983) and treated domestic wastewater thereafter. The ponds first
received effluent from the old domestic wastewater treatment plant (DWTP) in 1952.
Throughout their historical use, the unlined percolation ponds received treated effluent
from both the old (1952 to 1976) and new (1976 to present) domestic wastewater
treatment plant. The three unlined percolation ponds and associated overflow area of
CAOC 22 shown in Figure 9-1 comprise approximately 4 acres.
9.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC 22 history is compiled from the lAS, PANSI, records search, and historical aerial
photographic review. The old DWTP was constructed in 1942 (Jacobs 1991d). The old
DWTP processed influent containing both domestic and industrial wastes between 1942
and 1958. Treated effluent was disposed at the ground surface in the area south of
CAOC 22 until 1952. The three unlined percolation ponds were then constructed at
CAOC 22 in 1952 to better contain the treated effluent. On the basis of information
obtained from the historical records review and the interviews with the Base personnel,
the IAS roughly estimated a quantity of 1,531 acre-feet of wastewater discharged to the
ground at this CAOC (Brown and Caldwell 1983).
The percolation ponds received treated effluent from the old DWTP between 1952 and
1958. In 1958, industrial operations were expanding at the Vermo Annex and
consequently an industrial wastewater treatment plant (IWTP) was constructed at the
location of CAOC 15/17 to handle all industrial wastes separately from domestic wastes.
Any subsequent industrial influent to the domestic wastewater plant was inadvertent and
9-1
-------
CT026G\B70027\FINAl
CLE-J02.Q1 F2~B7 '()()27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
was due to IWTP malfunction or overload. The frequency of IWTP malfunctions was not
well documented. These malfunctions resulted in oils and other waste chemicals
occasionally entering the domestic wastewater treatment facility (Jacobs 1991e).
Interviews with MCLB Barstow personnel conducted during the IAS (Brown and Caldwell
1983) noted continuing instances of wastewater treatment problems, including a fire that
burned an oily scum on the disposal ponds during the 1960s.
Wastes at the old DWTP were treated in two Imhoff tanks, followed by a trickling filter, a
secondary clarifier, sludge drying beds, and were then disposed of into the percolation
ponds at CAOC 22. A new domestic wastewater treatment plant was constructed east
of the old DWTP in 1976. This plant included primary sedimentation, scum and sludge
removal, anaerobic digestion, and aerobic biological treatment in oxidation ponds prior to
effluent discharge to the percolation ponds at CAOC 22. Insecticides such as malathion
have been applied to the percolation ponds for pest control. The percolation ponds are
currentty in operation for the disposal of treated domestic waste. The C.AWQCB,
Lahontan Aegion. regulates the wastewater flow to the percolation ponds under a waste
discharge permit (WDP). The WDP stipulates the waste discharge requirements, which
include monitoring the influent quality and also monitoring the groundwater wells located
adjacent to the percolation ponds.
Brown and Caldwell, under contract to NEESA, conducted an IAS at Site 22 in 1983.
The boundaries of Site 22 under the IAS encompass the area investigated under the AI.
The IAS concluded that contaminants were not likely to leach or percolate to
groundwater at this CAOC. The rationale for this conclusion was that the residual
contaminant migration beneath the percolation pond had probably been attenuated due
to the great thickness (approximately 134 feet) of the vadose (Le.. unsaturated) zone.
Moreover, the quantity of industrial waste residues that may have passed through the
treatment plants to the percolation ponds from 1952 to 1958 (when both industrial and
domestic wastes were treated at the same plant) were cited as relatively minor. This
inference seems reasonable because the large-scale generation of industrial waste did
not occur until 1961 and the IWTP was in operation at that time. Based on this rationale,
the IAS did not recommend a confirmation study for CAOC 22.
9-2
-------
CT0260\B7OO27\F1NAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7.()()27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
In 1991 during the RFA process, which is a requirement of the FFA, a PANS I was
conducted at Site 22. The PANSI report recommended further investigatiDn of this area
as part of OU 5. This area is now referred to as CAOC 22.
9.3
Summary o. Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the assessments conducted at CAOC 22 and
analytical results from chemical sampling. Only a Phase I soil sampling effort was
performed as this CAOC. Based on the results of that sampling, it was determined that
further sampling (Le., Phase II) was unnecessary.
CAOC 22 has been divided into two strata consisting of known sources of environmental
releases. Each stratum has been defined based on a separate environmental release
mechanism. A third stratum (water in ponds) was eliminated from Phase I investigation
because the effluent from the oxidation pond at the domestic wastewater treatment plant
has already been sampled and analyzed (Jacobs 1994b). The remaining two strata are
described as follows.
.
Stratum 1, Percolation Ponds: the three unlined percolation ponds currently in
use. Each received treated effluent from both domestic and industrial
wastewater treatment plants.
Stratum 2, Overflow area: the area east of the southem pond is a potential
source of contaminant releases because of reported overflows.
.
Figure 9-2 shows the approximate CAOC and strata boundaries at CAOC 22.
Five borings were advanced in each of the two strata at CAOC 22 (Figure 9-2). Eight of
the soil borings were advanced to 2 feet bgs. Two soil borings were advanced to a
maximum of 12.5 feet bgs. These borings were drilled up on the berms between the
percolation ponds in Stratum 1 '(Figure 9-2). The bottom depth of these borings
correspond to approximately 2 to 3 feet deeper than the floor of the percolation pond.
The locations of the soil borings are shown in Figure 9-2. Samples were collected at
depths where the potential for contamination was greatest.
9-3
-------
CT026O\B7OO27\F1NAL
CLE.J02-Q1 F260-B7 "()()27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
The analytical results for organic and inorganic compounds obtained for Strata 1 and 2
during the soil investigation are presented in this section. Maximum concentrations of all
detected analytes are presented in Tables 9-1 through 9-4. To help identify potentially
significant contaminants, residential soil RBCs are also shown on the tabl,es. RBCs
represent soil concentrations that correspond to a 1 x 10" cancer risk or a 1.0 noncancer
hazard index for a residential soil exposure scenario. For inorganics, the 95th percentile
background concentrations for shallow soils (0 to 3 feet bgs) are also shown for
reference. Complete analytical results are presented in the Draft Final RI for OUs 5
and 6.
9.3.1
Stratum 1
Organic and inorganic concentrations detected in Stratum 1 soils are presented
in Tables 9-1 and 9-2, respectively, and are summarized as follows.
.
.
.
.
9.3.2
VOCs and SVOCs were not detected in Stratum 1 soil samples.
Low levels of pesticides were detected: 4,4'-DDD (0.76 1J9Ikg); 4,4'-DDE
(0.53 IJglkg), alpha-Chlordane (6 IJglkg); Dieldrin (61 IJglkg); Endostilfan II
(0.34 IJglkg); Endrin aldehide (1.2 IJglkg); and gamma-Chlordane (8.7
lJg/kg).
Low levels of TPH-D were detected. The highest concentration was
170 mglkg. . .
All metals were present at concentrations consistent with background
except for lead (at a maximum of 30 mglkg) and zinc (72 mglkg).
Stratum 2
Organic and inorganic concentrations detected in soils at Stratum 2 are
presented in Tables 9-3 and 9-4, respectively, and are summarized as follows.
.
.
.
.
SVOCs, OCPs, and PCBs were not detected in any of the soil samples.
Two VOCs were detected at very low levels: 2-butanone (3 IJglkg) and
methylene chloride (21Jg/kg).
TPH was not detected.
Low levels of metals were detected in the soil samples; however, all were
present at concentrations statistically within background.
9-4
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-01 F2ro-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
An SOV survey was conducted during the Phase I investigation to aid in locating
VOCs and distinguishable areas of anomalous concentrations (e.g., plumes).
The methods used to conduct the survey and the results obtained are fully
detailed in the Final Report Soil Gas Survey, OUs 5 and 6 (Target 1992). The
SOV surveys revealed low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons (1.0 to 23 ~gIL),
PCE (1.3 to 8.3 ~gIL), toluene (1.2 to 3.7 ~g/L) and maximum detected
concentrations of ethyl benzene and xylene of 4.4 and 22 ~gIL, respectively.
Other than PCE, no additional chlorinated analytes were detected above the
reporting limit concentration 1 ~gIL.
9.4
Summary 01 Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 22 using data
collected during the RI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final RI report for OUs 5 and 6. Aesults of the
assessment for CAOC 22 are provided in Section 10.0 of the AI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 22 are presented here in
support of the decision to take no action. Also presented in this section is a general
summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection.
9.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterizations for CAOC 22 are presented in Table 9-5
for the residential land-use scenario and in Table 9-6 for the industrial land-use
scenario.
9.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCR for Stratum 1 is 3 X 104, which is above the point of departure of
1 x 104. The potential human health risk at Stratum 1 is driven by detections of
the pesticide Dieldrin. The pesticide levels detected are consistent with those
resulting from Basewide application of pesticides for maintenance purposes.
9-5
-------
CT0260'B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02.Q1 F260-B7 '()()27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
The calculated ILCR for Stratum 2 is below 1 x 10" and poses no potential
significant risk.
The total noncancer hazard indices exceed 1.0 at both strata, but as shown in
Table 9-5, are due almost entirely to background concentrations of metals. Thus,
potential noncancer impacts are al~o considered insignificant.
9.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, both the cancer risk and noncancer
hazards are within acceptable levels. The .ILCRs are less than 1 x 10" and the
hazard indices are less than 1.0.
9.4.2
Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion
The ERA indicated that no sensitive species or sensitive habitat would be
affected by the contamination at CAOC 22.
9.4.3
Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Grounctwater
Results of the RI sampling effort identified VOCs, pesticides, and metals as being
potentially site related. No PCBs or SVOCs were detected. This section focuses
primarily on metals and pesticides because the VOCs are attributed to laboratory
contamination.
OCPs were detected sporadically in the near-surface samples at Stratum 1 but
no pesticide~ (induding dieldrin) were detected in the slightly deeper samples
taken beneath the berms. Because the percolation ponds are still in use, the
artificial recharge could increase contaminant mobility. Dieldrin is an extremely
immobile constituent in soils. Its low water solubility and strong adsorption to soil
makes leaching into groundwater unlikely (Howard 1991). Studies by
EI-Beit et al. (1981) indicate that even under high temperatures and prolonged
leaching, dieldrin is immobile. The Marshack model was used to determine if the
detected pesticides could affect groundwater.
9-6
-------
CT0260\870027\FINAL
CLE-J02-Q1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
The results of the Marshack modeling indicate that, except for dieldrin, residual
pesticides would not affect groundwater. Dieldrin would affect groundwater at a
concentration exceeding its tap water RBC of 0.0031 jJglL and its DLR
concentration of 0.002 jJg/L (CRWaCB 1996). This result is believed to be an
artifact of the overly conservative assumptions employed by the Marshack model.
In reality, it is extremely unlikely that any migration to groundwater would occur:
Furthermore, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether the modeled
dieldrin concentration or its DLR can even be measured.
Because predicted groundwater impacts are at concentrations so low that they
are essentially undetectable, long-term groundwater monitoring is not
recommended.
As mentioned in Section 9.3, lead and zinc were shown to be statistically
elevated relative to background. The Marshack model was used to predict the
potential effect on groundwater from these possibly site-related metals. The
analysis indicated that they would not affect groundwater.
No VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, or PCBs were detected at Stratum 2. The only
organic compounds detected were those attributable to laboratory contamination
(e.g., acetone and 2-butanone). The detected metals at
Stratum 2 were statistically within background concentrations.
9.5
Description 0' the No Action Alternative for CAOC 22
The no action alternative was selected for CAOC 22. The selected no action alternative
does not involve institutional controls or engineering controls. It does not include
containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC 22 is considered to be
protective of human health and the environment for the following reasons.
.
Metals detected were consistent with background except for lead and zinc in
Stratum 1. However, the leaching potential model predicted that these two
metals would not impact the groundwater.
9-7
-------
CT0260\870027\FINAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
.
Contaminants remaining in the soils do not threaten to impact the quality of
groundwater or surface water.
.
Risk levels are below the target risk range for Stratum 2.
The human health risk assessment indicates that for Stratum 1 the total
residential cancer risk excluding the contributions from the naturally occurring
background metals is approximately 3 x 1 O~ and results primarily from Dieldrin.
The incremental cancer risk for Stratum 1 (3 x 10-; exceeded the de minimis risk
level of one in one million as a result of dieldrin being detected at a maximum of
0.061 mglkg. This concentration of Dieldrin, however, is consistent with Dieldrin
concentrations at other areas of the Base. Therefore, the incremental cancer risk
for Stratum 1 is considered to be acceptable with respect to threats to human
health. The noncancer hazard index for Stratum 1 is 1.8, which is primarily
attributable to background metals.
.
.
The ERA shows that sensitive species or sensitive habitats would be affected by
the contamination at CAOC 22.
9-8
-------
CT0260\B70027\FJNAL
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-()()27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
10.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 24 - TRACKED VEHICLE TEST AREA
10.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 24, the Tracked Vehicle Test Area, is an elliptical area of approximately 4,500 by
500 feet (Figure 10-1) in the southwestern portion of the Yermo Annex. The tracked
vehicle test area was used to test drive various types of tracked vehicles. Waste oils
and industrial wastewaters were sprayed onto the surface of the track area to control the
wind erosion of the sandy subgrade, to suppress dust, and to help form the vehicle test
track. These materials are referred to as "dust suppression" and "desert mix. materials
(Jacobs 1993c). COPCs at this CAOC inctude the constituents of waste oils and
solvents such as heavy metals, PAHs, and possibly PCBs.
10.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC 24 history was assembled from the lAS, PANSI, records search, and historical
aerial photographic review.
The IAS reported that dust suppression and desert mix materials were used from 1961
to 1980. Verifiable waste quanti~ies could not be obtained; the IAS provided a rough
estimate of 10,000 to 50,000 gallons. The site is still unpaved and continues to be used
for test driving tracked vehicles. No desert mix material or other significant staining is
currently visible at the site.
Brown and Caldwell, under contract to NEESA, conducted an IAS at this area in 1983.
The IAS was conducted to identify and assess sites posing a potential threat to human
health or to the environment due to past use of hazardous materials. The IAS did not
recommend a confirmation study at this site because it was not believed to pose a threat
to human health. CAOC 24 was identified in the FFA as part of OU 5.
In 1991 during the RFA process, which is a requirement of the FFA, a PANS I was
conducted at Site 24. The PANSI report recommended further investigation of this area
as part of OU 5. This area is now referred to as CAOC 24.
10-1
-------
CT026a1B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-Q1 F260-87 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
10.3
Summary 0' Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the assessments conducted at CAOC 24 and
analytical results from chemical sampling. Only a Phase I soil sampling effort was
performed at this CAOC. Based on the results of that sampling, it was determined that
further sampling (i.e., Phase II) was unnecessary.
CAOC 24 was originally subdivided into two strata: Stratum 1 was the southern part of
the vehicle test track and Stratum 2 was the northem part. However, as documented in
Tech Memo 0018 (Jacobs 1994b), they were combined into a single stratum because of
a similar contaminant release mechanism.
.
Stratum 1, Tracked Vehicle Test Track: the sampling stratum encompasses the
entire tracked vehicle test area. Reportedly, only the southern side of the facility
received dust suppression materials; however, it is assumed that waste oil was
uniformly applied over the entire track at different times.
Figure 10-2 shows the approximate location and stratum boundaries at the site.
Near-surface (0 to 0.5 feet bgs) samples were collected from five locations at
CAOC 24, as shown on Figure 10-2.
Maximum concentrations of all detected analytes are presented in data summary tables.
To help identify potentially significant contaminants, residential soil RBCs are also
shown on the tables. RBCs represent soil concentrations that correspond to a
1 x 10" cancer risk or a 1.0 noncancer hazard index for a residential soil exposure
scenario. For inorganics, the 95th percentile background concentrations for shallow
soils (0 to 3 feet bgs) are also shown for reference. Complete analytical results are
presented in the Draft Final RI for OUs 5 and 6.
Organic and inorganic compounds detected at CAOC 24 are presented in Tables 10-1
and 10-2, respectively, and are summarized as follows.
.
VOCs were not detected in any of the soil samples.
Two SVOCs were detected at low levels: bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (34 J,Jglkg)
and di-n-butyl phthalate (62 J,Jg/kg). The detected levels are lower than the
residential soil RBC values.
.
10-2
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7 '()()27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
.
No pesticides or PCBs were detected in the soil samples except Endosulfan
sulfate at 52 J,Jglkg.
TPH-D was detected at 4,400 mglkg.
.
.
All metals were present at concentrations statistically consistent with background
except for boron (at a maximum of 14 mglkg), chromium
(46 mglkg), and nickel (24 mglkg).
An SOV survey was conducted during the Phase I investigation to aid in locating VOCs
and distinguishable areas of anomalous concentrations (e.g., plumes).
Toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes were generally present in the samples with higher
levels of total flame ionization detector (FID) volatiles. The maximum concentration of
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were 71, 6.9, and 35 J,JglL, respectively. The elevated
detections of these VOCs were also limited laterally to the vicinity of a single SOV
sample, suggesting that a laterally extensive source is not present.
1,1,1-TCA (4.6 J,lgIL) was detected in one sample from the south-central survey
boundary. None of the remaining chlorinated analytes were present above the 1-J,lglL
reporting limit in any samples.
The laterally limited and sporadic detections of fuel (gasoline)-related hydrocarbons in
the vapor phase suggests minor surface spillage of fuel that would be expected at a test
track area.
10.4
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 24 using data
collected during the AI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final AI report for OUs 5 and 6. Aesults of the
assessment for CAOC 24 are provided in Section 11.0 of the AI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 24 are presented here in
support of the decision to take no action. Also presented in this section is a general
summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection.
10-3
-------
CT026<7\B70027\FlNAL
CLE..J02-o, F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
10.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 24 are presented in Table 10-3
for both the residential and industrial land-use scenarios.
10.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCA for Stratum 1 is 6 x 10", which is well below the point of departure of 1
x 10-41.
The total noncancer hazard indices exceed 1.0, but as shown in Table 10-3, is
due almost entirely to background concentrations of metals. Thus, potential
noncancer impacts are also considered insignificant.
10.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, both the cancer risk and noncancer
hazards are within acceptable levels. The ILCA is less than 1 x 10-41 and the
hazard index is less than 1.0.
10.4.2
Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion
The EAA indicated that no sensitive species or sensitive habitats would be
affected by the contamination at CAOC 24.
10.4.3
Summary 01 Evaluation 01 Impacts to Groundwater
The AI sampling effort identified SVOCs (Le., phthalates), one pesticide, and
TPH-D in soils at CAOC 24. The Marshack model indicates that residual
contaminants will not impact groundwater.
The TPH-D detected at this stratum is highly weathered and therefore generally
immobile. The Marshack model evaluated the potential for TPH-D to leach to
groundwater. The concentrations were compared to the DLR of 200 1Jg/L
10-4
-------
CT0260\B7OO27\F1NAL
CLE-J02-o1F2~B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
(CRWQCB 1996) because an RBC does not exist for TPH-D. The model, which
is very conservative, indicates that residual TPH-D in soils would not impact
groundwater. A discussion as to the applicability of using the DLR criteria is
presented in Draft Final RI report for OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a).
Several metals (boron, chromium, cobalt, and nickel) were present in soil at
concentrations statistically above background. The Marshack model was then
used to predict the impact to groundwater from these potentially site-related
metals. The results of the analysis indicated that these metals would not affect
groundwater.
10.5
Description of the No Action Alternative for CAOC 24
The no action alternative was selected for CAOC 24. The no action alternative does not
involve institutional or engineering controls. It does not include containment, excavation,
or treatment technologies. CAOC 24 is considered to be protective of human health and
the environment for the following reasons.
.
No VOCs were detected in any of the soil samples.
Low levels of two SVOC compounds were detected at concentrations lower than
the residential soil RBC values. Early speculation that the waste oils applied at
this CAOC may have contained heavy metals or PCBs was determined to be
incorrect.
.
.
The statistically elevated metals (boron and chromium) are present at
concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
.
The Marshack model analysis indicated that the low levels of metals, pesticides,
SVOCs, and TPH-D detected would not impact groundwater.
Risk levels are below the target risk range.
.
10-5
-------
CT0260\B70027\FINAL
CLE.J02-Q1 F260-B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
(intentionally blank)
10-6
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
11.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR
CAOC 26 - BUILDING 533 WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
11.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 26. the Building 533 Waste Disposal Area. encompasses Building 533 (the
Packaging and Maintenance Shop) and the area around the building (Figure 11-1). This
CAOC is in the west-central portion of the Vermo Annex, south of CAOC 27 and east of
CAOC 28. The shop consisted of a waterfall-type paint booth, several dip tanks for
cleaning and preservation operations, a vapor degreaser, and a sandblasting unit.
According to the lAS, wastes generated at this site included petroleum solvents, TCE,
waste oil, and preservatives. Other wastes generated at CAOC 26 as identified in the
PANSI include paint thinner, paint sludge, sandblast grit, and wastewater containing
these same materials.
The perimeter areas of Building 533 contains a steam cleaning rack, an oil/water
separator (OWS) , a concrete sump to the north, a pad area that formerly housed a
transformer, and a French drain area (formerly misidentified as UST T-533). During the
UST program in 1992, it was discovered that T-533 was not a UST but a French drain
system consisting of a 12-inch diameter, 12- to 15-foot-long perforated pipe, positioned
vertically in sandy soil. Uquid wastes that entered the French drain leached into the
surrounding subsurface and likely resulted in the groundwater contamination directly
below CAOC 26. The sump collected wastes from eight floor drains in Building 533 and
discharges these wastes to the IWTP sewer line.
11.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC 26 history was assembled from the lAS, PANSI, records search, and historical
aerial photographic review. The IAS reported that from the late 1950s to the late 1970s
industrial waste generated from the preservation and packaging operations was
discharged to the ground west of Building 533. However, the IAS also stated that the
Base periodically removed these wastes from the site. According to the Domestic and
Industrial .Waste study conducted by Brown and Caldwell (1970), approximately 100
gallons of petroleum solvent were discharged every 4 months. The percentage of this
volume collected for disposal is unclear. Other estimated quantities listed for Building
11-1
-------
CT026
-------
CT0260\B70027\1'-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F2~-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
In 1991 during the RFA process, which is a requirement of the FFA, a PANSI was
conducted at Site 26. The PANSI report recommended further investigation of this area
as part of OU 5. This area is now referred to as CAOC 26.
UST T-533 (the French Drain) was removed in 1992 under the RFA program. Three soil
samples were collected from the bottom of the UST excavation pit and from the stockpile
of excavated soil. The excavated soils were later taken off site for disposal. Clean soils
were used to backfill the pit. The results of this sampling have been considered in
CAOC 26 decision making.
11.3
Summary 01 Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the assessments conducted at CAOC 26 and
analytical results from chemical sampling. A Phase I soil sampling effort was perfonned
as this CAOC. Based on the results of that sampling, it was determined that further
sampling (Le., Phase II) was necessary to characterize the vadose zone in support of
the OU 1 program.
A review of aerial photographs dated from 1945 to 1986 and reported activities in and
around Building 533 identified six sampling strata of known or suspected sources of
chemicals released at CAOC 26. Each stratum has been defined based on a separate
environmental release mechanism.
.
Stratum 1: Includes the area of the steam cleaning rack, the OWS, associated
piping, and the previous location of the open drainage ditch west of Building 533.
During the historical records search and the Base personnel interviews, it was
reported that waste from floor drains was discharged to the ground through open,
unlined channels prior to the construction of the IWTP. Waste quantities
discharged at CAOC 26 could not be verified. However, the IAS estimated that
as much as 6,000 gallons of floor drain waste was discharged through the
unlined channels from the 1950s to the 1970s (Brown and Caldwell 1983). In
addition, deteriorated concrete at the steam cleaning rack indicates that
contaminated wastewaters may have leaked to the subsurface.
Stratum 2: A darkly discolored area west of Building 533 was noted in historical
aerial photographs from 1956 and 1978 to 1980. This stratum comprises the
western half of the CAOC.
.
.
Stratum 3: The perimeter area north, south, and east of Building 533. The area
exhibited discoloration in historical aerial photographs from 1984 to 1986. The
discoloration could be related to UST T-533 (a French drain), the sump, the
11-3
-------
CT0260\870027\ 11-27AOD
CLE-J02-o 1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
.
transformer, or surface spills or surface application of some kind, such as dust
suppression materials.
Stratum 4: UST T-533 (the French drain) is east of Building 533. It was
investigated separately under the Base UST removal program in 1992 as SWMU
9.61. As previously discussed, T-533 was not a UST but a French drain system
with a 12-inch-diameter, 12- to 15-foot-long perforated pipe vertically located in
sandy soil. This French drain was removed and clean soil was used as backfill.
.
Stratum 5: The sump at the north end of Building 533. The integrity of the sump
is unknown.
.
Stratum 6: The location of the former transformer north of Building 533. This
transformer was reportedly damaged by fire in 1989 and leaked petroleum
residue that may have contained PCBs.
Figure 11-2 shows the approximate location and strata boundaries at CAOC 26.
Five borings were advanced at each of the six strata (Figure 11-2). Ten of the soil
borings (Strata 3 and 6) were advanced to either 0.5 foot or 2 feet bgs by using hand
augers. Fifteen soil borings were advanced by a hollow-stem auger drilling rig (at Strata
1, 2, and 5) to a maximum of 16.5 feet bgs. The deepest borings at Stratum 4 were
drilled one to two feet below the bottom of the former (excavated and removed) French
drain.
The analytical results collected during the soil investigation are presented in this section.
Maximum concentrations of all detected analytes are presented in data summary tables.
To help identify potentially significant contaminants, residential soil RBCs are also
shown on the tables. RBCs represent soil concentrations that correspond to a 1 x 10"
cancer risk or a 1.0 noncancer hazard index for a residential soil exposure scenario. For
inorganics, the 95th percentile background concentrations for shallow soils (0 to 3 feet
bgs) are also shown for reference. Complete analytical results are presented in the
Draft Final RI report for OUs 5 and 6.
11.3.1
Stratum 1
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected at Stratum 1 of
CAOC 26 are presented in Tables 11-1 and 11-2, respectively, and are
summarized as follows.
11-4
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11.27ROD
CLE..J02.Q1 F260-87-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
.
SVOCs were not detected in any soil samples.
.
Only acetone (7 ~g/kg) was detected in the VOC group. This low-level
detection is most likely an analytical artifact due to the common use of
acetone as a solvent in the laboratory.
Two pesticides were detected: alpha-benzene hexachloride (BHC)
(3.9 ~g/kg) and beta-BHC (10 ~g/kg). No other pesticides or PCBs were
detected in the soil samples.
.
.
Boron (13 mglkg) was the only metal statistically elevated relative to
background.
11.3.2
Stratum 2
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected at Stratum 2 of
CAOC 26 are presented in Tables 11-3 and 11-4, respectively, and are
summarized as follows.
.
The only VOC detected was acetone (16 ~gIkg), which appears to be an
analytical artifact due to the common use of this chemical as a solvent in
the laboratory.
In the SVOC group only two phthalates were detected: di-n-butyl
phthalate (43 ~g/kg) and diethyl phthalate (140 ~gIkg).
.
.
Pesticides and PCBs were not detected in any of the samples.
All metals were present at concentrations statistically consistent with
background except for calcium (at a maximum of 17,200 mg/kg), lead (32
mg/kg) , mercury (0.1 mg/kg), and sodium (1,050 mglkg). Calcium and
sodium are essential human nutrients and the levels detected are not of
concern from a human health perspective. Lead and mercury were both
present at concentrations well below their corresponding residential soil
ABC values.
.
11.3.3
Stratum 3
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected at Stratum 3 of
CAOC 26 are presented in Tables 11-5 and 11-6, respectively, and are
summarized as follows.
.
.
SVOCs were not detected in any of the soil samples.
One pesticide was detected at a low level: 4,4-DDT (3.9 ~glkg).
11-5
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11-27ROD
.
.
.
CLE-J02..Q1 F260-B7..()027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
.
Only one VOC was detected: PCE (3 ~g/kg).
.
All metals were present at concentrations statistically consistent with
background except for boron (at a maximum of 19 mg/kg).
11.3.4
Stratum 4
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected at Stratum 4 of
CAOC 26 are presented in Tables 11-7 and 11-8, respectively, and are
summarized as follows.
.
No SVOCs were detected in the soil samples collected at this stratum.
No pesticides or PCBs were detected.
.
.
PCE at 2 ~g/kg was the only VOC detected in the soil samples collected.
.
Two metals were detected in the soil samples at concentrations
exceeding background levels: arsenic (at a maximum of 6 mg/kg) and
boron (27 mg/kg).
Sampling of soils also occurred under the RFA when the French drain was
removed (SWMU 9.61). Low levels (i.e., below quantitation limits) of various
PAHs were detected in these soils, which included benzo(a)anthracene at 0.067
mglkg, benzo(a)pyrene at 0.051 mglkg, benzo(b)fluoranthene at 0.109 mglkg,
chrysene at 0.076 mglkg, fluoranthene at 0.044 mglkg, and pyrene at 0.044
mglkg. Although VOCs (including PCE and TCE) were analyzed for in these
samples, none were detected. .
11.3.5
Stratum 5
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected at Stratum 5 of
CAOC 26 are included in Tables 11-9 and 11-10, respectively, and are
summarized as follows.
Three VOCs were detected: acetone (5 ~glkg), PCE (120 ~glkg), and
TCE (7 ~g/kg).
Diethyl phthalate (140 ~g/kg) was the only SVOC detected.
One pesticide (4,4'-DDT) was detected at a low level (4.2 ~gIkg) in one
sample.
11-6
-------
CT026G\870027\11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
.
Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected at 6,860 mg/kg.
Boron (at a maximum of 14.2 mg/kg), calcium (20,400 mglkg) , copper
(23.2 mg/kg), and lead (16.7 mglkg) were statistically elevated relative to
background values.
.
11.3.6
Stratum 6
The organic compounds detected at Stratum 6 of CAOC 26 are summarized in
Table 11-11.
.
Because PCBs were the only chemicals of potential concem at this
stratum, the soil samples were not analyzed for metals, VOCs, or SVOCs.
Low levels of pesticides were detected: 4,4'-DDE (130 ~g/kg), 4,4'-DDT
(65 ~gIkg), aldrin (3.8 ~gIkg), alpha-chlordane (160 ~gIkg), and gamma-
chlordane (160 ~gIkg).
.
.
No PCBs were detected in any of the soil samples collected.
SOY surveys were conducted during the Phase I and II investigations to aid in
locating possible VOCs and vapor phase plumes. In addition, a vertical profile
boring was advanced during the Phase II investigation to further characterize the
extent of VOC contamination in the vadose zone.
Nine soil gas samples were collected from CAOC 26 during the Phase I SOY
survey. Soil permeability conditions facilitated a successful collection of valid
samples at this site; all samples were collected from 5 feet bgs.
Analytical results revealed elevated concentrations of PCE and TCE (up to 91
and 1.9 ~g/L. respectively). The highest concentrations of PCE were detected
adjacent to the southeast corner of Building 533 and near the location of the old
French drain. TCE was present in several samples in a pattern similar to PCE.
Cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE) and 1,1,1- TCA were also detected in the
sample. None of the remaining chlorinated analytes were measured above the
1-~gIL reporting limit in any of the samples.
A deep vertical profile boring, YS26-1, was advanced approximately 100 feet
east of Stratum 4 at CAOC 26 during the Phase II investigation to determine the
11-7
-------
CT0260\870027\ 11-27ROD
CLE.J02.()1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
vertical distribution of VOCs in the vadose zone near the suspected source at
Stratum 4. Vapor samples were collected at 20-foot intervals as the boring was
advanced to the groundwater table. The borehole was later converted into a
groundwater monitoring well, also identified as YS26-1. The results of the
analyses are shown in Table 11-12.
Three chlorinated compounds were detected in the sampled vapors. They were
TCE, PCE, and cis-1,2-DCE. The maximum concentrations occur at 100 feet
bgs.
11.4
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 26 using data
collected during the RI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final RI report for OUs 5 and 6. Results of the
assessment for CAOC 26 are provided in Section 12.0 of the RI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related tQ CAOC 26 are presented here in
support of the decision to take no action. Also presented in this section Js a general
summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection.
11.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 26 are presented in
Table 11-13 for the residential land-use scenario and Table 11-14 for the
industrial land-use scenario.
11.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCRs for all six strata are well below the point of departure of 1 x 10. and
are considered to be insignificant from a human health perspective.
The noncancer hazard indices for Strata 1 through 6 are above 1.0, but as shown
in Table 11-13, these result. almost entirely from background metal
concentrations and are therefore considered insignificant.
11-8
-------
---
CT026O\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-()()27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
11.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, both the cancer risk and noncancer
hazards are within acceptable levels. The ILCRs are less than 1 x 10-41 and the
hazard indices are less than 1.0.
11.4.2
Ecoloaical Risk Assessment Conclusion
The ERA indicated that no sensitive species or sensitive habitats would be
affected by the contamination at CAOC 26.
11.4.3
Summary of Evaluation of ImDacts to Groundwater
Pesticides, VOCs, TPH, and possibly metals were the primary contaminants
detected at CAOC 26. The potential for contaminants to leach to groundwater
was evaluated using the Marshack screening approach and VLEACH. The
results indicated that the non-VOC contaminants would not affect groundwater.
PCE was the only organic contaminant of significance detected at Stratum 4. The
Marshack screening was used to evaluate the leaching potential of residual
contaminants detected during the Phase I investigation. Based on this model,
PCE would not affect groundwater; however, VLEACH analysis was conducted
on the Phase II soil gas results, and is discussed as follows.
As discussed in Section 11.3, the Phase II investigation included a vertical profile
boring drilled at Stratum 4. Elevated levels of PCE and TCE were detected in the
soil gas. The soil gas was converted to soil concentrations and evaluated using
VLEACH. Results indicated that PCE concentrations in soil would continue to
affect groundwater for approximately 100 years. To address this residual vadose
zone contamination, the OU 1 groundwater removal action at the Yermo Annex
includes air sparging and soil vapor extraction at CAOC 26 along with
downgradient extraction wells.
In addition, various low-level SVOCs were detected as part of the SWMU 9.61
sampling performed under the RFA program. Several metals were present at
11-9
-------
CT0260.B70027\11-27ROD
CLE-J02001 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
11.5
concentrations statistically elevated relative to background. Although these
metals are believed to be naturally occurring, they are conservatively assumed to
be site related for the Marshack analysis. The results of the Marshack analysis
indicate that neither the SVOCs nor the metals represent a threat to groundwater
quality. Details of the contaminant fate and transport analysis is included in the
Draft Final RI for OUs 5 and 6.
Description of the No Action Alternative for CAOC 26
The no action alternative was selected for CAOC 26 soils under OUs 5 and 6. The
selected no action alternative does not involve. institutional or engineering controls. It
does not include containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC 26 soils
are considered to be protective of human health and the environment for the following
reasons.
.
.
.
The results of the human health risk assessment indicate that contaminants
detected in the soil at all the six strata of CAOC 26 do not pose a risk to human
health or the environment.
The ERA conducted at MCLB Barstow shows that no sensitive species or
sensitive habitat would be affected by the contamination at CAOC 26.
Based on the vertical soil gas profiling, residual soil gas contamination is still
present in the vadose zone. The leaching potential analysis of the soil gas data
indicates that groundwater may be affected over the next 100 years.
Groundwater beneath CAOC 26 is subject to a groundwater removal action now
in progress at the Vermo Annex. The chosen removal action alternative entails
an array of groundwater extraction wells at the Base boundary and down gradient
of CAOC 26. In the vicinity of CAOC 26, air sparging and vapor extraction are
also being used to reduce contaminant mass in the vadose and saturated zones
near and downgradient of CAOC 26. The Marshack modeling indicated that non-
VOC contaminants would not threaten groundwater quality.
Because of concerns over the potential for vapor-phase contaminants to escape from
the subsurface and impact future on-site receptors, a description of this CAOC will be
provided in the Base Master Plan for information and planning purposes. Language in
the Master Plan will indicate that any actions planned in this area or changes in site use
will be coordinated through and reviewed by the MCLB Barstow Environmental
Department. In addition, system performance monitoring and ambient air sampling will
be performed under OU 1 to conclusively verify that an on-site inhalation threat does not
exist.
11-10
-------
CT026O'S70027\11-27ROD
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7.()()27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
12.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 27 - BUILDING 436 FUEL STORAGE AREA
12.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 27, the Building 436 Fuel Storage Area, encompasses approximately 1.5 acres in
the north-central portion of the Vermo Annex (Figure 12-1) and includes the former
location of Building 436, the boiler plant, which has been decommissioned. Four USTs
and associated underground piping were located in this CAOC; three of these USTs
have been removed. Other potential sources at the site include a steam cleaning pad,
oil interceptor, and boiler blowdown sump.
12.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC 27 history was assembled from the lAS, records search, and historical aerial
photographic review. This site is the former location of Building 436 (the boiler plant),
which was built in 1942 and operated until about 1978. Two former concrete USTs T-
590a and T-5"9Oc were located at the site, each 4 feet square by 40 feet long, were
reported to have a 4,8oo-gallon capacity (Brown and Caldwell 1983) and supplied
Number 6 fuel oil to the Boiler plant via pipelines.
In 1976, the Boiler plant switched from Number 6 fuel oil to Number 2 fuel oil. Shortly
after the fuel oil switch, fuel was discovered to be leaking through the cracks in the
tanks. Approximately 2 months later, two 16,5oo-gallon steel USTs (T-590b and
T-59Od) were installed and used in place of the concrete tanks. The concrete tanks
(T -59Oa and T -590c) remained in place and were used to store waste fuel oil along with
one steel tank (T-590b). In 1992, the two concrete tanks (T-590a and T-590c) and one
steel tank (T-590b) were removed under the Base UST program. Upon removal, the
concrete tanks were discovered to be considerably larger than reported; each concrete
tank had a capacity of 55,000 gallons.
Brown and Caldwell, under contract to NEESA, conducted an IAS at CAOC 27 in 1983.
Under the lAS, the site boundaries of CAOC 27 encompassed a smaller area than the
area investigated under the RI. The IAS did not recommend a confirmation study for this
site because fuel oil Number 6 is immobile, its viscosity is relatively high, and the depth
to groundwater beneath the site is greater than 100 feet bgs.
12-1
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F26
-------
CT0260\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
and present fuel oil operations, and the operations of the steam cleaning pad, oil
interceptor, boiler blowdown sump, and associated piping (Stratum 5).
.
Stratum 5: This stratum consists of several subareas that were originally referred
to as Substrata SA, 58, 5C, and 50. It addresses discrete areas not specifically
targeted in Strata 1 through 4, including likely release areas associated with
Buildings 436 and 613. These are the two 16,500-gallon steel USTs, T-590b and
T-59Od (SA and 5B); the steam cleaning pad, oil interceptor and associated
piping (5C); and the boiler blowdown sump and associated piping (5D). One of
the USTs (T-590b) was removed in 1992 and the soils independently sampled
under the RFA program.
The analytical results collected during the soil investigation are presented in this section.
Maximum concentrations of all detected analytes are presented in data summary tables.
To help identify potentially significant contaminants, residential soil RBCs are also
shown on the tables. R8Cs represent soil concentrations that correspond to a
1 x 10" cancer risk or a 1.0 noncancer hazard index for a residential soil exposure
scenario. For inorganics, the 95th percentile background concentrations for shallow
soils (0 to 3 feet bgs) are also shown for reference. Complete analytical results are
presented in the Draft Final RI report for OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a). The chemicals of
concern identified at each of the five strata are summarized as follows.
12.3.1
Strata 1 and 2
Strata 1 and 2 pipelines carried only fuel oils; therefore, the soil sample
underneath these pipes were analyzed for TPH-O. There were no detections.
12.3.2
Stratum 3
As with Stratum 1, only TPH-O was sampled for in this stratum. It was detected
at concentrations up to 22,000 mglkg.
.
Independent sampling performed at the time the USTs were removed
indicated that total petroleum hydrocarbons were present at
concentrations up to 62,500 mglkg.
The RFA data indicated that cadmium (3.4 mg/kg), lead (35 mg/kg),
mercury (0.17 mglkg) , molybdenum (2 mglkg) , and zinc (79 mglkg)
exceeded the 95th percentile background concentration but are below
residential soil RBC values.
.
12-3
-------
CT026C7\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
.
The RFA indicated very low levels of pesticides. All detections were
below their respective residential soil RBC values.
VOCs detected in RFA soil samples included 2-butanone (7 ~gIkg),
benzene (147 ~gJkg), acetone (298 ~glkg), ethyl benzene (926 ~glkg),
PCE (6 ~gIkg), and xylenes (3, 722 ~glkg).
.
.
SVOCs detected in the RF A soil samples included 2-methyl naphthalene
(29 mglkg), and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (8.5 mg/kg).
12.3.3
Stratum 4
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected at Stratum 4 are
included in the Tables 12-1 and 12-2, respectively, and are summarized as
follows.
. VOCs were not detected in any of the soil samples.
. Three SVOCs were detected at low levels: benzo(b)fluoranthene
(190 ~glkg), benzo(g,h,i)perylene (1,700 ~g/kg) and butyl benzyl phthalate
(470 ~g/kg).
. Several pesticides were detected but all were below their respective
residential soil RBC values. Methoxychlor (190 ~glkg), 4,4'-DDT (21 ~gIkg)
and Alpha Chlordane (11 ~gIkg) were among the pesticides detected. No
PCBs were detected in any soil sample.
. Several metals were present at concentrations statistically elevated relative to
background. Except for zinc, they are believed to be naturally occurring;
however, zinc is present at concentrations well below its residential soil RBC
value.
12.3.4
Stratum 5
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected at Stratum 5 are
presented in Tables 12-3 and 12-4, respectively, and are summarized as follows.
. No VOCs, SVOCs, or petroleum hydrocarbons were detected.
. One pesticide (4,4'-DDT) was detected at a low level (3.4 ~gIkg).
. All detected metals were determined to be consistent with naturally occurring
background levels.
12-4
-------
CT026a\B70027\11-27AOD
ClE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
12.4
Summary 01 Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 27 using data
collected during the RI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final RI report for OUs 5 and 6. Results of the
assessment for CAOC 27 are provided in Section 13.0 of the RI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 27 are presented here in
support of the decision to take no action. Also presented in this section is a general
summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection.
12.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 27 are presented in Table 12-5
for the residential land-use scenario and Table 12-6 for the industrial land-use
scenario.
12.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
At Strata 1, 2, and 3, only petroleum hydrocarbons were analyzed for. None
were detected in Strata 1 or 2, and levels up to 62,500 mg/kg were detected in
Stratum 3. Because no health-based criteria exist for such petroleum
hydrocarbon detections, a human health evaluation was not performed. Any
potential health threat from the soil exposure pathway is not significant in this
stratum because the residual contaminants are at a depth (greater than 13 feet
bgs) where the soils are not available for contact under typical future land use
scenarios. Soils nearer the surface were removed and backfilled with clean soil
as part of the previously described UST removal.
The ILCRs for Strata 4 and 5 are well below the point of departure of 1 x 10" and
are considered to be insignificant from a human health perspective.
The noncancer hazard index for Stratum 4 is greater than °1.0, but results almost
entirely from background metals concentrations and is therefore considered
insignificant. The noncancer hazard index for Stratum 5 is below 1.0.
12-5
-------
CT0260\B70027\11 ~27ROD
CLE.J02-01 F260-B7 '()()27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
12.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, both the cancer risk and noncancer
hazards at Strata 4 and 5 are within pcceptable levels. The ILCRs are less than
1 x 10" and the hazard indices are less than 1.0.
12.4.2
Ecoloaical Risk Assessment Conclusion
The ERA indicated that no sensitive species or sensitive habitats would be
affected by the contamination at CAQC 27.
12.4.3
Summary of Evaluation 01 ImDacts .0 Groundwater
Samples collected from Strata 1, 2, and 3 were only analyzed for TPH-D under
the QUs 5 and 6 soil investigation. TPH-D was detected in Stratum 3 at
22,000 mglkg. As discussed in the RI for QUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a), the
samples represent a highly weathered petroleum hydrocarbon, indicating a low
mobility in soils.
However, soil samples collected immediately under the USTs at Stratum 3 as
part of the RFA (SWMU 9.69) indicated TRPH concentrations as high as
62,500 mglkg. The resulting VLEACH mC?deling indicated that this concentration
of TRPH in soil would affect groundwater. However, there is considerable
uncertainty in this result because the analysis conservatively assumed that the
high TPH levels persisted all the way to groundwater. It also does not address
environmental fate considerations that would tend to degrade the plume.
Therefore, a definitive conclusion cannot be made regarding future petroleum
hydrocarbon effects on groundwater.
In addition, various low-level SVOCs were detected as part of the RFA (SWMU
9.69) sampling. Several metals were present at concentrations statistically
elevated relative to background. Although most of these metals are believed to
be naturally occurring, they are conservatively assumed to be site related for the
Marshack analysis. The results of the Marshack analysis indicate that neither the
SVQCs nor the metals represent a threat to groundwater quality.
12-6
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11-27ROD
ClE~02"() 1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
12.5
SVOCs and pesticides were detected at Strata 4 and 5. The Marshack model
indicated that groundwater would not be affected by SVOCs or pesticides.
As mentioned in Section 12.3, several metals at Stratum 4 were shown to be
statistically elevated relative to background. The Marshack model was used to .
predict the potential impact to groundwater from these potentially site-related
metals. The results of the analysis indicated that no metals would affect
groundwater.
Description 01 the No Action Alternative for CAOC 27
The no action altemative was selected for CAOC 27 soils under OUs 5 and 6. The
selected no action altemative does not involve institutional or engineering control. It
does not include containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC 27 soil is
considered to be protective of human health and the environment for the following
reasons.
.
VQCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and PCBs were detected at levels lower than
residential soil RBC values.
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present at
concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective and from a
groundwater impact perspective.
No groundwater impacts result from contaminant detections, except for residual
petroleum hydrocarbon contamination associated with USTs T-590a and
T -59Oc. Because releases from these USTs involved only petroleum product,
they are exempt from remedial action under CERCLA Section 101. However,
further evaluation will be conducted under the MCLB Barstow UST program to
determine the need for any additional response action. The areas where the
USTs were removed has been backfilled with clean soil and therefore poses no
risk from a direct soil contact perspective.
.
.
The ERA conducted at MCLB Barstow indicates that no sensitive species or
habitat would be affected by the contamination at CAOC 27.
12-7
-------
CTQ26a'870027\ 11-27ROD
CLE.J02.Q1 F260-B7.()()27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
(intentionally blank)
12-8
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
13.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 28 - WEST LOT, DUST CONTROL AREA
13.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 28, the West Lot, Dust Control Area, is in the northwestern quadrant of the Vermo
Annex, which is west of the main industrial facilities (Figure 13-1). Various storage
activities took place at CAOC 28 between 1965 and 1978. A review of historical records
revealed that the site was used for storage, maintenance-related activities, and railroad-
related activities. In addition, wastewater and waste oil were applied at this CAOC to
suppress dust. The waste oil came from various operations at the Base. An asphalt-like
material (designated 8desert mix.) was also applied to the site for dust control (Jacobs
1993c). Additionally, wastewater from the ponds at the Base sanitary wastewater
treatment plant was sprayed on this site to control dust.
13.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC 28 history was assembled from the lAS, PANSI, records search, and historical
aerial photographic review. The first evidence of site disturbance was apparent in aerial
photographs taken in 1942. These photographs show the site area to be cleared of its
native desert vegetation. Between 1942 and 1965, the site appeared vacant in aerial
photographs except for some minor storage in the northeastem portion of the CAOC.
Aerial photographs of the site indicate that sometime between 1965 and 1968 the site
began to be used as a storage area of unknown content. The IAS reported that waste
oil and wastewater were applied to the site between 1965 and 1978. A review of
historical records support the aerial photographic data further documenting storage and
maintenance activities and railroad-related activities until about 1978. The exact period
during which specific dust control activities occurred was not documented; however, it
appears reasonable to assume that desert mix was applied from the early 1960s until at
least 1978.
Total quantities of waste disposal were not documented; however, the IAS provided
estimated quantities from Base personnel reports. Based on these personnel reports,
the IAS estimates that between 50,000 and 200,000 gallons of waste oil and 7 million
gallons of wastewater were discharged to the ground (Brown and Caldwell 1983).
13-1
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE..J02-Q1 F260-B7-Q027
Print Date: 29 Dec9l'Tlber, 1997
COPCs at this CAOC include the constituents of waste oils and solvents, heavy metals,
PAHs, and possibly PCBs.
In 1991 during the RFA process, which is a requirement of the FFA, a PANS I was
conducted at Site 28. The PANS I report recommended further investigation of this area
as part of OU 5. This area is now referred to as CAOC 28.
13.3
Summary of Site Characteristics
, This section provides a brief overview of the assessments conducted at CAOC 28 and
analytical results from chemical sampling. Only a Phase I soil sampling effort was
performed as this CAOC. Twenty-five soil borings were advanced at the five strata in
CAOC 28. Based on the results of that sampling, it was d~termined that further
sampling (Le., Phase II) was unnecessary.
Seeping and reconnaissance activities identified the following eight sampling strata of
known or suspected sources of COPCs for the Phase I investigation Qf CAOC 28.
.
Stratum "1: the original IAS area extending to the fence lines (including the area
north of the railroad track) and characterized by chemical storage and the use of
wastewater and waste oil for dust control.
.
Stratum 2: the perimeter road and the road transecting the site characterized by
the historical use of waste oil for dust control.
.
Stratum 3: Lots 485 and 490, which appear darker in the historical aerial
photographs.
Stratum 4: as observed in historical aerial photographs, a line of dark rectangles
in a diagonal pattem along the north side of the CAOC.
.
.
Stratum 5: several dark areas observed in historical aerial photographs along
the south side of the middle road.
.
Stratum 6: a darker area west of Lot 485, with a radius of approximately 115
feet, in the west-central portion of the IAS area.
Stratum 7: an area in the south-central portion of the IAS area, identified through
the AITS, consisting of two distinct areas: Strata 7 A and 7B.
.
.
Stratum 8: a dark, discolored, elongated area along the westem perimeter road,
south of the middle road.
13-2
-------
CT0260\B70027\ "-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
Each stratum has been defined according to a separate environmental release
mechanism. Although eight strata were originally identified, only Strata 1 through 3 were
sampled. The remaining strata (4,5, 6, 7, and 8) were eliminated as individual sampling
strata for the Phase I AI investigation and incorporated into Stratum 1 in accordance with
the rationale (Le., common release mechanism) presented in Technical Memorandum
0018 (Jacobs 1994b). Figure 13-2 shows the approximate location and strata
boundaries for Strata 1, 2, and 3.
Fifteen borings were advanced to 0.5 feet bgs at these three strata. The location of
these soil samples are included in Figure 13-2. The sampling depth was chosen to
characterize any contamination associated with surficial releases.
The analytical results collected during the soil investigation are summarized in this
section. Maximum concentration of all detected analytes are presented in data summary
tables. To help identify potentially significant contaminants, residential soil ABCs are
also shown on the tables. ABCs represent soil concentrations that correspond to a 1 x
10" cancer risk or a 1.0 noncancer hazard index for a residential soil exposure scenario.
For inorganics, the 95th percentile background concentrations for shallow soils are also
shown for reference. Complete anaJytical results and detailed discussions are presented
in the Draft Final AI for OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a).
13.3.1
Stratum 1
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected at Stratum 1 are
presented in Tables 13-1 and 13-2, respectively, and are summarized as follows.
.
No SVOCs or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in any
of the samples.
Extremely low levels of two pesticides (below residential soil ABC values)
were detected: 4,4'-DDT was detected at 1 fJg/kg and Endosulfan II was
detected at 0.45 fJg/kg.
.
.
The statistical tests indicated that the detected concentrations of metals
are consistent with naturally occurring background concentrations.
13-3
-------
CT0260\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE.J02-Q1 F2~B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
13.3.2
Stratum 2
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected at Stratum 2 are
presented in Tables 13-3 and 13-4, respectively, and are summarized as follows.
.
.
13.4
No PCBs or petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in the soil samples.
Low levels of four pesticides were detected in the soil samples:
4,4'-000 (14 ~gIkg), Aldrin (11 ~glkg), gamma-BHC (13 ~gIkg), and
heptachlor (6.8 ~gIkg).
.
Low levels of SVOCs were detected in the soil samples. These included
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (49 ~gIkg), bUtyl benzyl phthalate (140 ~glkg),
and phenanthrene (310 ~glkg).
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concern from a human health perspective and
from a groundwater impact perspective.
13.3.3
Stratum 3
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected at Stratum 3 are
presented in Tables 13-5 and 13-6, respectively, and are summarized as follows.
.
PCBs and petroleum hydrocarbons were not detected in the soil samples.
Two SVOCs were detected: bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (120 ~gIkg) and
butyl benzyl phthalate (740 ~glkg).
.
.
Low levels of pesticides were detected: alpha-BHC (0.29 ~gIkg) and
methoxychlor (12 ~g/kg).
A number of metals were statistically elevated relative to background but
are believed to be naturally occurring. These metals are discussed in
detail in the Oraft Final AI for OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a).
.
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 28 using data
collected during the AI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final RI report for OUs 5 and 6. Aesults of the
assessment for CAOC 28 are provided in Section 14.0 of the AI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA. Both of these assessments have been
13-4
-------
CT026U1B70027\ 11.27ROD
CLE.J02-01 F2~B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 28 are presented here in
support of the decision to take no action. Also presented in this section is a general
summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection.
13.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 28 are presented in Table 13-7
for the residential land-use scenario and Table 13-8 for the industrial land-use
scenario.
13.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCAs for Strata 1, 2. and 3 are below the point of departure of 1 x 10" and
are considered to be insignificant from a human health perspective.
The noncancer hazard indices for Strata 1. 2, and 3 are above 1.0, but as shown
in Table 13-7, this results almost entirely from background metal concentrations
and are therefore considered insignificant.
13.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, both the cancer risk and noncancer
hazards at Strata 1, 2, and 3 are within acceptable levels. The ILCAs are less
than 1 x 1 O~ and the hazard indices are less than 1.0.
13.4.2
Ecoloalcal Risk Assessment Conclusion
The ERA indicated that no sensitive species or sensitive habitats would be
affected by the contamination at CAOC 28.
13.4.3
Summary of Evaluation of ImDacts to Groundwater
As a result of the Phase I RI sampling and analysis effort, PAHs, OCPs, and
various statistically elevated metals were detected at this CAOC. In addition,
phthalates were periodically detected, but are believed to be artifacts associated
with either the sampling effort or with the analytical process.
13-5
-------
CT026<1S70027\11-27ROD
CLE..J02.()1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
The impacts to groundwater from the chemicals of concern present at CAOC 28
were evaluated using the Marshack screening approach as described in detail in
the Draft Final AI for OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a). The Marshack model
indicated that groundwater will not be affected at any of the three strata.
13.5
Description of the No Action Alternative for CAOC 28
The no action alternative was selected for CAOC 28 soils under OUs 5 and 6. The
selected no action alternative does not involve institutional or engineering control. It
does not include containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC 28 is
considered to be protective of human health and the environment for the following
reasons.
.
Aisk levels are below the target risk range.
The ecological risk assessment indicates that no sensitive species or habitat
would be affected by the contamination at CAOC 28.
.
.
The results of the human health risk assessment found no risk to human health
from the chemicals of concern in the soils at CAOC 28.
.
The Marshack model was used to evaluate the potential for leaching of the
contaminants to groundwater. The results indicated that the contaminants would
not impact the groundwater.
Currently no structures or facilities $xist on site and there are no plans to change
the use in the foreseeable' future, which greatly reduces any potential on-site
human explosive to the low level of contaminants detected.
.
13-6
-------
CT026
-------
CT026a1B70027\11-27ROD
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
Only one stratum has been identified at CAOC 29. The stratum boundary as defined in
the Draft Final SAP (Jacobs 1991 b), representing the suspected sludge disposal area,
was reconfigured after evaluation of the geophysical survey results. As documented in
the Amendment to Draft Final SAP (Jacobs 1994c), two areas of decreased conductivity
were identified during the geophysical survey. The boundaries of these two areas of
Stratum 1 are shown on Figure 14-2.
Five soil borings were advanced to 2 feet bgs at CAOC 29 and soils samples were
collected. The location of these soil borings are shown on Figure 14-2. The sampling
depth was chosen to characterize any contamination associated with the release of
sludge to subsurface. Based on the results of that sampling, it was determined that
further sampling (Le., Phase II) was unnecessary.
The analytical results obtained during the soils investigation are summarized in this
section. Maximum concentrations of all detected organic and inorganic compounds are
presented in Tables 14-1 and 14-2, respectively. To help identify potentially significant
contaminants, residential soil RBCs are also shown on these tables.
RBCs represent soil concentrations that correspond to a 1 x 1 O~ cancer risk or a 1.0
noncancer hazard index for a residential soil exposure scenario (see Section 5.0). For
inorganics, the 95th percentile background concentrations for shallow soils (0 to 3 feet
bgs) are also shown for reference. Complete analytical results are presented in the
Draft final RI report for OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a).
The results of the chemical analysis of the soil samples revealed the following.
.
No VOCs, PCBs, or pesticides were detected in any of the soil samples.
Only one SVOC. bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, was detected at a maximum of 2,500
~gIkg.
.
.
. The statistical tests indicated that metal concentrations were consistent with
naturally occurring background.
14-2
-------
CT026Ol870027\ 11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
14.4
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 29 using data
collected during the AI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final AI report for OUs 5 and 6. Results of the
assessment for CAOC 29 are provided in Section 15.0 of the AI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 29 are presented here in
support of the decision to take. no action. Also presented in this section is a general
summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection.
14.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 29 are presented in Table 14-3
for both the residential and industrial land-use scenarios.
14.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCA for Stratum 1 is below the point of departure of 1 ic 10" and considered
to be insignificant from a human health perspective.
The noncancer hazard index for Stratum 1 is 1.3, but as shown in Table 14-3,
this results almost entirely from background metal concentrations and is
therefore considered insignificant.
14.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, both the cancer risk and non cancer
hazard are within acceptable levels. The ILCA is less than 1 x 10" and the
hazard index is less than 1.0.
14.4.2
Ecoloaical Risk Assessment Conclusion
The ERA indicated that no sensitive species or sensitive habitats would be
affected by the contamination at CAOC 29.
14-3
-------
CT026<7B70027\11-27ROD
CLE~02~1F2~B7~27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
14.4.3
Summary of Evaluation of ImDacts to Groundwater
The only organic contaminant detected in the samples of this CAOC was
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, which is most likely a laboratory or field sampling
artifact. The compound would not impact groundwater based on the results of
the Marshack analysis (Jacobs 1996a).
The inorganic analytes detected at this CAOC were within background. Their
fate and transport is therefore inconsequential.
14.5
Description of the No Action Alternative for CAOC 29
The no action alternative is selected for CAOC 29 soils under OUs 5 and 6. The
selected no action alternative does not involve institutional or. engineering control. It
does not include containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. A human health
risk assessment, an ERA (EPA 1996a), and an ARARs evaluation were conducted to
assess the significance of the constituents detected in the soils at CAOC 29. An
evaluation of the potential groundwater impacts, using the Marshack model, was also
conducted in conjunction with the ARARs evaluation. Data were also reviewed for
potential gaps.
CAOC 29 soils is considered to be protective of human health and the environment for
the following reasons.
.
Risk levels are below the target risk range.
The ecological risk assessment indicates no sensitive species or habitat would
be affected by the contamination at CAOC 29.
.
.
The Marshack model was used to evaluate the potential for leaching of the
contaminants to groundwater. The results indicated that the contaminants would
not impact the groundwater.
14-4
-------
CT0260\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-()()27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
15.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR
CAOC 30 - LOCOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP DISPOSAL AREA
15.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 30, the locomotive Repair Shop Disposal Area, encompasses approximately
1 acre in the northwest portion of the Yermo Annex (Figure 15-1). This site contains the
present location of the Locomotive Repair Shop (Building 628) and also contained the
former Repair Shop (now defunct Building 479). Minor repairs to locomotives are
performed at the facility inside Building 628. Repairs and maintenance include steam
cleaning. draining fluids. lubricating parts, and changing oil. The facility includes a repair.
pit and a collection sump. A small wood shed (former Building 532) was located south of
Building 628 prior to being dismantled. The wood shed covered an oillwater separator
(OWS). A UST (T -479) in the immediate vicinity but outside the CAOC 30 boundary was
removed in 1992 under the RF A.
15.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC 30 history is assembled from the lAS, PANSI, records search, and historical
aerial photographic review. The first evidence of site activity is from a 1942 aerial
photograph of the site area. The photograph shows Building 479 and an area on the
east side of the building (of unknown cause) darker than the surrounding terrain. The
original Building 479 is apparent in aerial photographs until the mid-1980s, at which time
it was replaced by the smaller Building 628. approximately half the size of the original
(Jacobs 1994c). The present location of the repair shop occupies a portion of the former
location of Building 479.
Waste disposal operations at the site have been described briefly in the IAS. According
to the IAS. industrial wastes generated by operations at the Locomotive Repair Shop
were disposed of on the south side of Building 479 (Le.. prior to construction of the
present repair shop). The reported waste stream included detergents. grease, oil, and
spilled diesel fuel. Reportedly. these wastes were washed to a sump inside Building 479
and then pumped outside to the southeast comer of the building (Brown and Caldwell
1983). Although not explicitly stated in the lAS, it appears that the wastes were pumped
to a concrete sump on the south side of the building. This practice of discharging waste
15-1
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE.J02..()1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
continued until the mid-1970s, at which time the sump was connected to the industrial
sewer. Waste quantities discharged at CAOC 30 could not be verified; however, based
on historical records and interviews with Base personnel, the IAS estimated that 10,000
gallons of liquid waste were discharged from 1942 and 1982.
In 1991 during the RFA process, which is a requirement of the FFA, a PANSI was
conducted at Site 30. The PANSI report recommended further investigation of this area
as part of OU 5. This area is now referred to as CAOC 30.
15.3
Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the assessments conducted at CAOC 30 and
analytical results from chemical sampling. Only a Phase I soil sampling effort was
performed at this CAOC.
Scoping and reconnaissance activities identified three sampling strata of known or
suspected sources of COPCs at CAOC 30 (Figure 15-2). Each stratum has been
defined based on a separate environmental release mechanism. These strata
encompass potential release areas identified in the PANSI.
.
Stratum 1, Former Disposal Area: The former disposal area outside the
southeast comer of former Building 479, Locomotive Repair Shop, is estimated
to have received as much as 10,000 gallons of wastes from facility operations
over approximately 30 years. The wastes were pumPed onto the ground.
Analytical results of a sample of sump wastes collected in 1970, although
unvalidated, showed concentrations of phenol, chromium, oil, and grease.
.
Stratum 2, Building 628 and Perimeter Area: This area includes Building 628
(the present site of the Locomotive Repair Shop) and the perimeter area not
included in Stratum 1 that may have been affected by the operations of both
Buildings 479 and 628. The wastes generated by Building 628 are not expected
to be markedly different from those at Stratum 1.
Stratum 3, Sump and Associated Piping: This stratum includes the original
Building 479 sump and the associated piping on the south side of Building 628.
This sump was also used as an OWS. The PANSI identified Building 532
(SWMU 9.119) as a potential source of contamination. Building 532 was a small
wooden structure that covered the OWS, which generated unknown quantities of
waste oil. During the 1940s and 19505, the OWS was connected to the industrial
sewer line. The OWS was disconnected from the industrial sewer system in
1985. At the time of the VSI, it was used as a waste oil repository and was
serviced by an outside contractor. Approximately 50 gallons per month of waste
.
15-2
-------
CT02~OO27\ 11-27ROD
CLE.J02-O 1 F2~B7-
-------
CT026G\870027\11-27ROD
CLE-J02.Q1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
15.3.2
Stratum 2
Soil samples were analyzed for SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, TPH, metals, and
cyanide. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected at Stratum 2
are presented in Tables 15-3 and 15-4, respectively.
.
SVOCs were not detected in any of the soil samples at Stratum 2.
PCBs were not detected.
.
.
Low levels of three OCPs were detected, which included alpha-Chlordane
(0.28 ~g/kg), gamma-Chlordane (0.46 ~glkg), an~ heptachlor (0.23
~glkg).
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concern from a human health perspective.
15.3.3
Stratum 3
r
Soil samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, TAPH, metals, and
cyanide. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected at Stratum 3
are presented in Tables 15-5 and 15-6. respectively
.
No SVOC, OCPs, or PCBs were detected in any of the soil samples.
Only one VOC, acetone, was detected at very low level (4 ~gIkg) and is
believed to be an analytical artifact.
.
.
All metals detected were present at concentrations statistically within
background.
15.4
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 30 using data
collected during the AI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final AI report for OUs 5 and 6. Results of the
assessment for CAOC 30 are provided in Section 16.0 of the RI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 30 are presented here in
support of the decision to take no action. Also presented in this section is a general
summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection.
15-4
-------
CT026O'B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE-J02~1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
15.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk charaderization for CAOC 30 are presented in Table 15-7
for the residential land-use scenario and Table 15-8 for the industrial land-use
scenario.
15.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCA for Strata 1 and 3 are below the point of departure of 1 x 10.e and are
considered to be insignificant from a human health perspective. The ILCR for
Stratum 2 is approximately 2 x 10.e and results from beryllium which is present at
concentrations statistically elevated relative to background. As explained in
Sedion 16.6.2.2 of the AI report, the deteded beryllium, is believed to be
naturally occurring but was conservatively assumed to be site related in the
human health evaluation. Excluding beryllium, the ILCA is less than 1 x 10.e.
The noncancer hazard indices for Strata 1 and 2 exceeds 1.0, but as shown in
Table 15-7, this results almost entirely from background metal concentrations
and is therefore considered insignificant. The hazard index at Stratum 2 is 0.7
and is also considered insignificant.
15.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, both the cancer risk and noncaneer
hazard are within acceptable levels. The ILCR is less than 1 x 10.e and the
hazard index is less than 1.0.
15.4.2
Ecoloalcal Risk Assessment Conclusion
The EAA indicated that no sensitive species or sensitive habitats would be
affected by the contamination at CAOC 30.
15-5
-------
CT026G\B70027\11.27ROD
CLE-J02001 F2~-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
15.4.3
Summary of Evaluation of ImDacts to Groundwater
The results of the RI sampling effort identified OCPs and diesel-range petroleum
hydrocarbons as COPCs for CAOC 30. Metals detected at this CAOC are
generally believed to be naturally occurring. Impacts to groundwater were
evaluated using the Marshack screening approach as described in the Draft Final
RI report for OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a). The Marshack screening indicated
that residual contaminants detected would not affect groundwater.
15.5
Description of the No Action Alternative for CAOC 30
The no action alternative was selected for CAOC 30 soils under OUs 5 and 6. The
selected no action alternative does not involve institutional or engineering controls. It
does not include containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC 30 soil is
considered to be protective of human health and the environment for the following
reasons.
.
Risk levels are below the target risk range.
The ecological risk assessment indicates that no sensitive species or habitat
would be affected by the contamination at CAOC 30.
.
.
Contaminants remaining in the soils do not threaten to impact the quality of
groundwater or surface water.
15-6
-------
CT0260\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE.J02-Q1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
16.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 31 - NORTH VEHICLE TEST TRACK ROAD
16.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 31 is the North Vehicle Test Track Road, located within Lot 486 in the north-
central portion of the Vermo Annex (Figure 16-1). This area is used to test various types
of tracked vehicles. CAOC 31 consists of approximately 6,500 linear feet of unpaved
test track to which waste oil and industrial wastewater effluent were applied to alleviate
the dust problem associated with this site (as was done at CAOC 28). The waste oil was
spread throughout the area of the track and was used in road construction. Chemicals
of concern at this CAOC include the constituents of waste oils such as heavy metals,
PAHs, and possibly PCBs.
16.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC 31 history is assembled from the IAS (Brown and Caldwell 1983), PANSI
(Jacobs 1991b), records search, and historical aerial photographic review. According to
the lAS, waste oil and industrial wastewater effluent were periodically spread over the
site from the mid-1960s to the late 1970s. The IAS roughly estimated that 10,000 to
50,000 gallons of waste oil were applied at the site; however, documented waste
quantities were not obtained. Aerial photographic observations suggest that the test
track was active during the 1950s. Areas darker (of unknown cause) than the
surrounding terrain are evident in aerial photographs along northern portions of the test
track.
In 1991 during the RFA process, which is a requirement of the FFA, a PANS I was
conducted at Site 31. The PANSI report recommended further investigation of this area
as part of OU 5. This area is now referred to as CAOC 31.
16.3
Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the assessments conducted at CAOC 31 and
analytical results from chemical sampling. Only a Phase I soil sampling effort was
performed as this CAOC.
16-1
-------
CT026G\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE~2~1F2~~7
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
Based on the usage and disposal history of the site, CAOC 31 is considered to be one
stratum. The stratum represents a specific environmental release mechanism (i.e., dust
suppression spraying). Figure 16-2 shows the stratum boundary of CAOC 31. Five
hand-auger borings were advanced at CAOC 31 to 0.5 foot bgs. The location of these
soil borings are shown on Figure 16-2. The sampling depth was chosen to characterize
any contamination associated with release of wastes to the subsurface.
The analytical results obtained during the soil investigation are summarized in data
summary tables included in this section. To help identify potentially significant
contaminants, residential soil RBCs are also provided on these tables. For inorganics,
the 95th percentile background concentrations for shallow soils are also shown.
Complete analytical results are provided in the Draft Final RI report for OUs 5 and 6.
Soil samples collected at CAOC 31 were analyzed for SVOCs, OCPs and PCBs, metals,
cyanide, and TRPH. The maximum concentrations of organics and inorganics
compounds detected at CAOC 31 are presented in Tables 16-1 and 16-2, respectively.
The highlights of sampling results are summarized as follows.
.
No SVOCs, PCBs, or cyanide were detected in any of the soil samples.
Low levels of pesticides were detected. The maximum concentrations of some of
these pesticides include 4,4'-DDD (1.6 IJglkg), 4,4'-DDE (1.3 IJglkg), 4,4'-DDT
(7.8 IJglkg) , Endosulfan sulfate (14 IJglkg) and Endrin ketone (2.4 IJglkg).
.
.
TPH-D was detected at 2,300 mglkg, which is below the maximum LUFT-
allowable concentration of 10,000 mglkg for the Vermo Annex.
Detected metals were either statistically within background or were present at
concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
.
16.4
Summary 01 Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 31 using data
collected during the RI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final RI report for OUs 5 and 6. Results of the
assessment for CAOC 31 are provided in Section 17.0 of the RI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 31 are presented here in
16-2
-------
CT0260\870027\11-27AOD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
support of the decision to take no action. Also presented in this section is a general
summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection.
16.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 31 are presented in Table 16-3
for both the residential and industrial land-use scenarios.
16.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCA for Stratum 1 is below the point of departure of 1 x 1 O~ and considered
to be insignificant from a human health perspective.
The noncancer hazard index for Stratum 1 is 1.8, but as shown in Table 16-3,
this results almost. entirely. from background metal concentrations and is
therefore considered insignificant.
16.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, both the cancer risk and noncancer
hazard are within acceptable levels. The ILCA is less than 1 x 1 O~ and the
hazard index is less than 1.0.
16.4.2
Ecoloalcal Risk Assessment Conclusion
The EAA indicated that no sensitive species or sensitive habitats would be
affected by the contamination at CAOC 31.
16.4.3
Summary of Evaluation of ImDacts to Groundwater
Impacts to groundwater were evaluated using the Marshack screening approach
as described the Draft Final AI for OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a). The Marshack
screening indicated that the detected contaminants would not affect groundwater.
16-3
-------
CT026<1.B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE~2~1F2~~7
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
16.5
Description of the No Action Alternative for CAOC 31
The no action alternative was selected for CAOC 31 soils under OUs 5 and 6. The
selected no action alternative does not involve institutional or engineering controls. It
does not include containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC 31 soil is
considered to be protective of human health and the environment for the following
reasons.
.
Risk levels are below the target risk range.
The ecological risk assessment indicates no sensitive species or habitat would
be affected by the contamination at CAOC 31.
.
.
Contaminants remaining in the soils do not threaten to impact the quality of
groundwater or surface water.
16-4
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11-27AOD
CLE..J02-C1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
17.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR
CAOC 32 - PRESERVATION AND PACKAGING STORAGE AREA
17.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 32, the Preservation and Packaging Storage Area, is in the north-central portion
of the Vermo Annex (Figure 17-1), and comprises approximately 1.5 acres. The CAOC
encompasses Building 203 (the Preservation Shop) and the perimeter, a drum storage
area, an operating steam wash rack, a sump and associated piping, and the former
location of an excavated underground storage tank. The area west of Building 203 was
reportedly used to store drums containing hazardous materials (Brown and Caldwell
1983). Waste handling and disposal operations at the site are discussed as follows.
Operations at the facility consist of the preservation of military equipment for long-term
storage using a light petroleum-based oil and depreservation after long-term storage.
Depreservation is performed by draining the preservation oil from the engines and fuel
tanks into drums, flushing the engines and tanks with diesel fuel, and steam cleaning the
vehicle to remove the oily film. In addition, the Preservation Shop replaces lube oil,
transmission oil, and antifreeze before equipment goes into storage, and cleans the
equipment at the steam rack near Building 203 following depreservation (Jacobs 1991 a).
Waste streams generated at this shop consist of dieseVpreserving oil mixtures, waste
automotive fluids, equipment steam cleaning wastes, and spill cleanup wastes.
A concrete steam wash rack is located north of Building 203 for equipment cleaning after
depreservation. The rack encompasses an approximately 400-square-foot, 4- to
6-inch-thick concrete slab. The wastewater generated from steam cleaning operations is
discharged to the IWTP. This wastewater is fed to the IWTP lines via a sump on the
northern side of the steam wash rack (Jacobs 1991 a). COPCs at this CAOC would
include the constituents of waste oils and solvents, heavy metals, petroleum
")
hydrocarbons, PAHs, and PCBs.
17-1
-------
CT026CNJ70027\11-27ROD
CLE.J02.() 1 F260-B7 '()()27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
17.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC 32 history was assembled from the lAS, the PANSI, records search, and
historical aerial photographic review. The area now known as CAOC 32 was referred to
in the PANSI as SWMU 9.101 and as Site 32 in the IAS. The IAS reported that from
1960 to 1980 the area west of Building 203 was a storage area for up to 15 drums of
hazardous materials. The materials consisted of paints, oils, thinners, and other
solvents. Some of the drums stored at the site had reportedly corroded, resulting in
some leakage of contents. Some spillage may also have occurred during transfer
operations (Brown and Caldwell 1983). Aerial photographs indicate that from 1980 to
1984 no storage activity occurred at the site.
The Department of Public Works Record of Repair indicates that an underground tank
and contaminated soil were removed from the area of Building 203 on 08 August 1985.
The 6oo-gallon tank (Stratum 4) was located approximately 150 feet north of Building
203 and reportedly contained waste oil and solvent.
The Fire Station "Run Reports" recorded that approximately 40 gallons of phosphoric
acid were spilled on 05 December 1988 on the east side of Building 203. The spill was
neutralized, as reported, with -sodium bicarb and sorbent- and was cleaned up. The
collected wastes filled approximately two 55-gallon drums. The exact location of the spill
was not recorded.
On 13 March 1989 a spill was reported, involving an overturned drum of solvent, ketone,
and antifreeze. The spill occurred on the north end of Building 203. The reporte~
remedy was to upright the overturned drum. No mention was made 01 any cleanup 01
the spill itself (Jacobs 1991 a).
In 1991 during the RFA process, which is a requirement of the FFA, a PANSI was
conducted at Site 32. The PANSI report recommended further investigation of this area
as part of OU 5. This area is now referred to as CAOC 32.
17-2
-------
CT0260\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7..()()27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
17.3
Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the assessments conducted at CAOC 32
analytical results from chemical sampling.
Based on the historical information available for CAOC 32, four sampling strata of known
or suspected sources of COPCs have been identified. Each stratum has been defined
based on a separate environmental release mechanism.
.
Stratum 1, Drum Storage Area: Stratum 1 is west of Building 203 and was used
to store drums of hazardous materials. The area of potential contamination
encompasses both paved and unpaved sections to the fence line and, as a result
of the Phase I investigations, was extended west of the fence line to include a
thermal anomaly (Spot Number 8) revealed in the AITS.
Stratum 2, Building 203 and perimeter area: This stratum has had reported
releases of waste oil, solvents, ketones, antifreeze, and phosphoric acid. Aerial
photographs reveal darker areas that are likely associated with contaminant
staining in patches throughout this stratum.
.
.
Stratum 3 (includes former Substrata 3A, 3B, and 3C), Steam Wash Rack,
Sump, and Piping: Stratum 3 includes the following specific single sources: a
concrete steam wash rack where equipment is cleaned to remove residual oil
(Substratum 3A); the waste oil sump where the wastewater from the steam wash
rack is collected and discharged to IWTP lines (Substratum 3B); and the piping
connection between the wash rack and sump (Substratum 3C).
Stratum 4, Former UST Location: an area that includes the former location of a
6oo-gallon UST reported to have leaked. The UST was reportedly removed in
August 1985. Stratum 4 may contain abandoned piping previously connected to
the tank.
.
Figure 17-2 shows the approximate CAOC and strata boundaries at CAOC 32.
Five soil borings were advanced at each of the four strata identified in CAOC 32. Strata
1 and 2 borings were advanced to 2 feet bgs to characterize any contamination
associated with surficial releases. Strata 3 and 4 borings were advanced to a maximum
6.5 and 21 feet bgs, respectively.
The analytical results obtained during the soil investigation are summarized in data
summary tables included in this section. To help identify potentially significant
17-3
-------
CTO~OO27\11.27ROD
CLE..J02-Q1 F260-B7 "()()27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
contaminants, residential soil RBCs are also provided on these tables. For inorganics,
the 95th percentile background concentrations for shallow soils are also shown.
17.3.1
Stratum 1
Soil samples collected at Stratum 1 were analyzed for SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs,
metals, and cyanide. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations detected at
Stratum 1 are presented in Tables 17-1 and 17-2, respectively. The highlights of
the contaminants detected at Stratum 1 are listed as follows.
.
A low level of 4,4'-DDT (3 ~gIkg) was detected in one soil sample.
No SVOCs, PCBs, or cyanide were detected in any of the soil samples at
Stratum 1.
.
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
17.3.2
Stratum 2
Soil samples collected at Stratum 2 were analyzed for SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs,
metals and cyanide. Maximum concentrations of organic and inorganic
compounds detected in the Phase I and Phase II sampling at Stratum 2 are
presented in Tables 17-3 and 17-4, respectively. The highlights of contaminants
detected at Stratum 2 are listed as follows.
.
A low level of one SVOC, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (350 ~gIkg), was
detected.
.
Low levels of OCPs were detected. Only heptachlor epoxide (200 ~gIkg)
was detected at a concentration that exceeded the residential soil RBC
value.
.
Aroclor-1242, a PCB, was detected at 5,700 ~gIkg (5.7 mglkg), which
exceeded the EPA screening criteria for PCBs in residential soils.
Because of the high detection of Aroclor-1242, additional surficial
samples were collected as part of the Phase II investigation to determine
contaminant extent. Sampling locations are shown on Figure 17-3.
These samples were tested for PCBs using the DTECH bioassay kit. Of
the 67 samples tested, only two displayed positive results at a level
greater than 0.5 mglkg. Ten percent of the samples tested with the
bioassay kit, including the two samples with positive results, were sent off
. site for conventional analysis of pesticides and PCBs by the CLP protocol.
The positive results from the bioassay test were not confirmed by the CLP
17-4
-------
CT02~OO~11.27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
.
analysis. The only detected compounds were 4,4'-DDT and endosulfan
sulfate, both at very low levels. The Phase II results indicate that there is
no widespread PCB contamination at this stratum.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concern from a human health perspective.
17.3.3
Stratum 3
Soil samples collected at Stratum 3 were analyzed for SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs,
metals, cyanide, and TPH-D. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations
detected at Stratum 3 are presented in Tables 17-5 and 17-6, respectively. The
highlights of contaminants detected at Stratum 3 are listed as follows.
.
No SVOCs, PCBs, cyanide, or TPH-D were detected in any of the soil
samples.
Methoxychlor was detected at 38 ~gIkg, a concentration much lower than
the RBC value.
.
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concern from a human health perspective.
17.3.4
Stratum 4
Soil samples collected at Stratum 4 were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs,
PCBs, metals, cyanide, and TPH-D. Maximum concentrations of organic and
inorganic compounds detected at Stratum 4 are presented in Tables 17-7 and
17 -8, respectively.
.
No SVOCs were detected in any of the soil samples.
No OCPs or PCBs were detected in any of the soil samples.
.
.
Cyanide was not detected in any of the soil samples.
A low-level acetone detection (1 0 ~gIkg) is believed to be a laboratory
artifact.
.
17-5
-------
CT026<7IB70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE.J02~ 1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
17.4
Summary 01 Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 32 using data
collected during the Rio The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final RI report for OUs 5 and 6. Results of the
assessment for CAOC 14 are provided in Section 18.0 of the RI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 32 are presented here in
support of the decision to take no action. Also presented in this section is a general
summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection.
17.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 32 are presented in Table 17-9
for the residential land-use scenario and Table 17-10 for the industrial land-use
scenario.
17.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCRs for Strata 1, 3, and 4 are below the point of departure of 1 x 10" and
are considered to be insignificant from a human health perspective.
The ILCR for Stratum 2 is approximately 1 x 10" and results from an isolated
Phase I detection of Aroclor-1242 (5.7 mglkg). However, as explained in Section
18.8.2 of the draft final OU 5 and 6 RI report, extensive Phase" sampling (67
samples in a systematic grid pattem) was unable to confirm the presence of
PCBs in this stratum. Therefore, the true mean exposure point concentration is
considerably less than the maximum detected value. The true mean PCB
concentration in this stratum is believed to be below the test kit detection limit of
0.5 mglkg. Assuming a mean PCB concentration of 0.5 mglkg results in an
incremental risk of approximately 2 x 10-5, with PCBs contributing approximately
1 x 10.5 and pesticides contributing approximately 7 x 10". Because the detected
levels are below the EPA guidance level of 1 mglkg for a residential land-use
scenario, and because the pesticides are attributable to their facility-wide
17-6
-------
CT026<1S70027\11-27ROD
CLE.J02-o1 F2~-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
application, the potential - carcinogenic human health risk at this strata is
considered insignificant.
The noncancer hazard indices for all four strata exceed 1.0, but as shown in
Table 17-9, this results almost entirely from background metal concentrations
and is therefore considered insignificant.
17.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, the IlCRs for Strata 1, 3, and 4 are less
than 1 x 10" while Stratum 2 exceeds this level. The total noncancer hazard
indices are all less than 1.0.
17.4.2
Ecoloalcal Risk Assessment Conclusion
The low levels of contaminants in the soils at CAOC 32 were not found to have
an adverse impact on ecological receptors.
17.4.3
Summary of Evaluation of Groundwater ImDacts
The mathematical modeling performed at CAOC 32 using DlM indicated that the
contaminants remaining in the soils would not migrate at concentrations that
would contaminate or degrade the aquifer. DLM assumes deep percolation
although it is unlikely to occur. CAOC 32 is not a likely past, current, or future
source of contamination to the groundwater based on the levels of contaminants
remaining in the soils.
Surface waters are not present at CAOC 32, except for during periods of heavy
precipitation. The contaminants would not be a threat to surface waters because
concentrations levels are minor (i.e., at concentrations classified as inert).
17.5
Description of the No Action Alternative for CAOC 32
The no action alternative was selected for CAOC 32 soils under DUs 5 and 6. The
selected no action alternative does not involve institutional or engineering controls. It
17-7
-------
CT0260\B70027\11-27AOD
CLE.J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
does not include containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC 32 soil is
considered to be protective of human health and the environment for the following
reasons.
.
Phase I sampling indicated a PCB detection of 5.7 mglkg, which exceeds the
EPA guidance level of 1 mglkg for residential soils. However, extensive
Phase II sampling resulted in no PCB soil detections. The true mean PCB
concentration, is believed to be below the test kit detection limit of 0.5 mglkg.
This concentration is below the EPA guidance level.
No groundwater impacts result from contaminant detections.
.
.
The ERA revealed that no sensitive species or sensitive habitats would be
affected by the contamination found at CAOC 32.
17-8
-------
CT026
-------
CT026C7B70027\11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
ethylhexyl)phthalate. butyl benzyl phthalate, di-n-octyl phthalate, and di-n-butyl phthalate
(Benton Engineering 1989).
The PANS I Aeport (Jacobs 1991a) presented little additional information on CAOC 36
beyond that discussed in the supplemental soil investigation. Aerial photographs
compiled and reviewed during the PANS I indicated that heavy equipment and/or drums
were stored at the site from 1965 to the present.
18.3
Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the assessments conducted at CAOC 36 and
analytical results from chemical sampling. Only a Phase I soil sampling effort was
performed at this CAOC.
CAOC 36 has been considered as one stratum of suspected contamination sources.
.
Stratum 1, Storage Area: Based on site scoping activities, the site was originally
unpaved; it was reportedly paved in concrete by about 1976. The soil beneath
the approximately 1.5-acre paved storage area is believed to have been used for
heavy equipment and/or drum storage related to Building 573, Aepair Division.
Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination is believed to be present in the underlying
soils.
Figure 18-2 shows the approximate location and stratum boundary at CAOC 36.
During Phase I of the AI, . five soil borings were advanced to 2.5 feet bgs. All samples
were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs. OCPs, PCBs, metals, cyanide, and TPH-D. The
samples were collected at approximately 2.5 feet bgs.
The analytical results collected during the soil investigation are presented in this section
along with a discussion of contaminant nature and extent. Maximum concentrations of
all detected analytes are presented in data summary tables. To help identify potentially
significant contaminants, residential soil RBCs are also shown on the tables. RBCs
represent soil concentrations that correspond to a 1 x 10. cancer risk or a 1.0 noncancer
hazard index for a residential soil exposure scenario (see Section 5.0 of the AI Aeport).
For inorganics. the 95th percentile background concentrations for shallow soils (0 to 3
feet bgs) are also shown for reference.
18-2
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE..J02.() 1 F26G-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations at this CAOC are presented in Tables
18-1 and 18-2, respectively, and are summarized as follows.
.
VOCs were not detected in any of the samples.
The only measured SVOC compounds consisted of low-level (below RBC)
phthalates in two samples. In sample YB36-o1, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and
butyl benzyl phthalate were detected. .
.
.
A single pesticide, delta-BHC, was detected at 0.2 ~gIkg and may be an
analytical artifact. This concentration is well below its residential soil RBC value.
Detected metals were either statistically within background or were present at
concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
.
18.4
Summary 01 Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 36 using data
collected during the AI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final RI report for OUs 5 and 6. Results of the
assessment for CAOC 36 are provided in Section 20.0 of the RI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 36 are presented here in
support of the decision to take no action. Also presented in this section is a general
summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection.
18.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 36 are presented in Table 18-3
for both the residential and industrial land-use scenarios.
18.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCR for Stratum 1 is below the point of departure of 1 x 10" and considered
to be insignificant from a human health perspective.
The noncancer hazard index for Stratum 1 is 1.9, but as shown in Table 18-3,
this results almost entirely from background metal concentrations and is
therefore considered insignificant.
18-3
-------
CT0260\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
18.4.1.2
Industrial land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, both the cancer risk and noncancer
hazard are within acceptable levels. The ILCA is less than 1 x 10" and the
hazard index is less than 1.0.
18.4.2
Ecoloaical Risk Assessment Conclusion
The ERA indicated that no sensitive species or sensitive habitats would be
affected by the contamination at CAOC 36.
18.4.3
Summary of Evaluations of ImDacts to Groundwater
The results of the Phase I AI sampling effort showed only the presence of low-
level phthalates, a single detection of trace-level pesticides, and nietals. The
Marshack model was used to evaluate impacts to groundwater. The results
indicated that the residual contaminants at CAOC 36 do not pose a threat to
groundwater.
18.5
Description of the No Action Alternative for CAOC 36
The no action alternative was selected for >CAOC 36 soils under OUs 5 and 6. The
selected no action alternative does not involve institutional or engineering controls. It
does not include containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC 36 soil is
considered to be protective of human health and the environment for the following
reasons.
.
The results of the human health risk assessment found no risk to human health
from the chemicals of concern in the soils at CAOC 36.
.
The Marshack model was used to evaluate the potential for leaching of the
contaminants to groundwater. The results indicated that the contaminants would
not impact the groundwater.
The EAA conducted shows that the low levels or organics and inorganic detected
would not negatively affect the environment.
.
18-4
-------
CT026
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE.J02-<11 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
sludge were disposed of at this site, based on 30 tons per year disposal over a 3O-year
waste disposal history. The hazardous constituents were estimated to be less than 0.06
percent of the total weight.
In 1991 during the RFA process, which is a requirement of the FFA, a PANSI (Jacobs
1991 a) was conducted at Site 1. The PANSI report recommended further investigation
of this area as part of OU 6. Based on information obtained from the records search,
interviews, and the PANSI, chemicals of concern at this CAOC include metals and
SVOCs.
19.3
Summary 01 Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the soil investigations conducted at CAOC 1
and soil sampling analytical results. CAOC 1 has been divided into three strata
consisting of documented and suspected contamination sources. Each stratum has
been defined based on a separate environmental release mechanism.
.
Stratum 1, Landfill Area: includes the landfill area identified as Site 1 in the IAS
(Brown and Caldwell 1983) where construction debris and other materials were
placed for erosion and flood control. Stratum 1 is a triangular area approximately
900 by 500 feet.
.
Stratum 2, Suspected Landfill Area: the area identified by site scoping (Jacobs
1993a) as an extension to the original landfill area. . Based on results of the
geophysical surveys, a smaller portion of Stratum 2 was targeted for soil borings
because it was considered to be a more probable location of waste disposal.
.
Stratum 3, Sludge Disposal Area: the area where sludge disposal reportedly
occurred. Stratum 3 is a rectangular area approximately 400 by 200 feet.
Figure 19-2 shows the approximate locations and stratum boundaries at CAOC 1.
During Phase I of the RI, fifteen borings were advanced within the three strata as shown
in Figure 19-2. Five borings were advanced at each stratum. Surface samples were
collected in all three strata to evaluate potential health risks associated with direct soil
contact. In addition, samples were taken at approximately 5 feet bgs in Stratum 3 to
evaluate soils, that may have been affected by the reported sludge disposal.
19-2
-------
CT02~~11~7ROD
CLE-J02.()1 F26G-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
Borings within Strata 1 and 2 were drilled on 17 August 1993 and within Stratum 3 on 23
August 1993. It was later discovered that borings intended for Stratum 1 and Stratum 3
were advanced in the wrong locations and were actually located within CAOC 1 Stratum
3 and CAOC 3 Stratum 1, respectively. Ten new borings were drilled at the correct
locations on 12 July 1994, at CAOC 1 Stratum 1 (Borings NB01-Q1, NB01-02, NB01-Q3, .
NB04-04, and NB01-Q5) and CAOC 1 Stratum 3 (NB01-11 A, NB01-12A, NB01-13A,
NB01-14A, and NB01-15A). The original (mislocated) borings NB01-01, NB01-Q2,
NB01-Q3, NB01-04, and NB01-Q5, were renamed NB01-11,
NB01-12, NB01-13, NB01-14, and NB01-15, and are within CAOC 1 Stratum 3.
The analytical results collected during the soil investigation are presented in this section
along with a discussion of contaminant nature and extent. Maximum concentrations of
all detected analytes are presented in data summary tables. To help identify potentially
significant contaminants, residential soil RBCs are also shown on the tables. RBCs
represent soil concentrations that correspond to a 1 x 10-6 cancer risk or a 1.0 noncancer
hazard index for a residential soil exposure scenario (see Section 5.0). For inorganics,
the 95th percentile background concentrations (see Appendix K of the RI [Jacobs
1996a» are also shown for reference. The collected samples were tested for SVOCs,
OCPs, PCBs, metals, cyanide, and TPH-D. Complete analytical results are presented in
Appendix D of the RI (Jacobs 1996a).
19.3.1
Stratum 1
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at Stratum 1 are presented
in Table 19-1 and 19-2, respectively.
.
low-level detections of several pesticides, particularly the DDT family of
compounds, the Chlordanes, beta-BHC, Endosulfan II, and Endrin, were
reported in three of the five samples at concentrations below the
quantitation limits and the residential soil RBC values.
low levels of extractable petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in four
of the five samples.
.
.
SVOCs and cyanide were not detected in any of the soil samples.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concern from a human health perspective.
.
19-3
-------
CT026Q\B70027\ 11-27ROD
19.3.3
CLE-J02-Q1 F260-87-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
19.3.2
Stratum 2
The collected samples were tested for the SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals, cyanide
and TPH-D. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at Stratum 2
are presented in Tables 19-3 and 19-4, respectively.
.
Diethyl phthalate was reported at a concentration significantly below the
quantitation limit and is of minor concem from a human health
perspective.
PAHs including benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(k)-
fluoranthene, chrysene, phenanthrene, and pyrene were detected in one
sample (NB01-QS). The benzo(a)pyrene detection of 580 ~g/kg is above
its residential soil RBC value of 39 ~gIkg. The other PAHs were reported
at concentrations comparable to or below their RBC values. The PAH
detections are probably due to the disposal of waste oils or tars of
petroleum hydrocarbon products.
.
.
Low levels of several pesticides, particularly the DOT family of
compounds and the Chlordanes, were reported in all samples. Except for
Dieldrin, all were detected at, concentrations below their residential soil
RBC values. .
.
Aroclor-1254, a PCB, was found in three of the samples at up to
100 Jjglkg.
.
Extractable petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in three of the five
samples. Detected hydrocarbon concentrations were as high as 460
mg/kg. The sample in which the PAHs were found did not contain
measurable extractable petroleum hydrocarbons. This suggests that the
PAHs are not due to the disposal of waste oil, but more likely. tarry
products such as asphalt.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
.
Stratum 3
The collected samples were tested for the VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals,
cyanide and TPH-D. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations at
Stratum 3 are presented in Tables 19-5 and 19-6, respectively.
.
.
VOCs were not detected at this stratum.
The only SVOCs detected were bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and diethyl
phthalate, both at concentrations significantly below their quantitation
19-4
-------
CT026a\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
limits and residential soil RBC values. Phthalates were detected at levels
likely to be attributable to laboratory contamination.
.
low levels of several pesticides, particularty the DDT family of
compounds, the Chlordanes, and Dieldrin, were reported in all but one of
the samples of Stratum 3.
Low levels (up to 17 mglkg) of extractable petroleum hydrocarbons were
detected in eight of the ten samples.
.
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
19.4
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 1 using data
collected during the RI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final RI report for OUs 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1996a).
Results of the assessment for CAOC 1 are provided in Section 21.0 of the RI report.
The ecological assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA (EPA 1996a). Both of these
assessments have been summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to
CAOC 1 are presented here in support of the decision to take no action. Also presented
in this section is a general summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to
water quality protection.
19.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 1 are presented in Table 19-7
for the residential land-use scenario and Table 19-8 for the industrial land-use
scenario.
19.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The IlCA for Stratum 1 is below the point of departure of 1 x 10" and is
considered to be insignificant from a human health perspective.
The IlCR for Stratum 2 is approximately 2 x 10-6 and results from the low-level
PAH detections. As explained in Section 21.6.2.1 of the RI report, PAHs were
detected in one out of the five samples and are believed to be associated with
19-5
-------
CT026a1B70027\ 1 1-27ROD
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7.()()27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
tarry products such as asphalt. This is consistent with scoping information, which
suggests that construction debris was disposed of in this stratum.
The ILCA for Stratum 3 is approximately 1 x 10-5 and results from the pesticide
Dieldrin.
The noncancer hazard indices for Strata 1, 2, and 3 exceed 1.0, but as shown in
Table 19-7, this results almost entirely from background metal concentrations
and is therefore considered insignificant.
19.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, the ILCA for Stratum 1 is less than
1 x 10"; for Strata 2 and 3 ILCAs are 7 x 10" and 3 x 10", respectively. The total
noncancer hazard indices are all less than 1.0.
19.4.2
Ecoloalcal Risk Assessment Conc~
The low levels of contaminants in the soils at CAOC 1 were not found to have an
adverse impact on ecological receptors. The supplemental, limited investigation
of off-site transport of contamination from Nebo Main Base into the Aiparian
Fringe and MOjave Wash habitats showed that there is no evidence of
contamination in soils or surface water from Nebo Main Base sites. The detailed
assessment can be found in the Phase I ERA (EPA 1996a).
19.4.3
Summary of Evaluation of ImDacts to Groundwater
The mathematical modeling performed at CAOC 1 using DLM and VLEACH
indicated that residual Dieldrin in the soil could migrate to the groundwater at
concentrations that would contaminate or degrade the aquifer. DLM and
VLEACH assumes deep percolation although it is unlikely to occur.
CAOC 1 is not likely a past source of contamination to the groundwater.
However, it may be a current or future source based on the levels of Dieldrin
remaining in the soils and the shallow depth to groundwater. To address this
19-6
-------
CT026C71B70027\ "-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-87"()()27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
uncertainty, the groundwater will be monitored as part of the au 2 remedial
action.
Surface waters are not present at CAOC 1 except during periods of heavy
precipitation. Dieldrin would not be a threat to surface waters because of is
extremely low solubility.
Based on the DLM and VLEACH analysis, the other residual contaminants at .
CAOC 1 are not a threat to groundwater.
19.5
Description 01 the No Action Alternative 10r CAOC 1
The no action altemative was selected for CAOC 1 soils under OUs 5 and 6. The
selected no action altemative does not involve institutional or engineering controls. It
does not inctude containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC 1 soil is
considered to be protective of human health and the environment for the following
reasons.
.
No evidence of the reported sludge disposal was identified in Stratum 3. The
disposal activities at Strata 1 and 2 involved only inert construction debris.
Pesticide concentrations are similar to levels found Basewide that result from
application of pesticides for maintenance.
.
.
Modeling indicates a possible threat to groundwater, but further action will be
taken as part of the OU 2 remedial action.
The ERA found that the low levels of contaminants detected would not have an
adverse impact on ecological receptors.
.
Because the incrementaJ carcinogenic risk at Strata 2 and 3 exceed 1 x 10.e, for
information and future planning purposes, a description of the history of these two strata
will be provided in the Base Master Plan. In addition, a description of the activities that
occurred for flood control purposes will be provided in the Base Master Plan. The
Master Plan amendments will also include a legal description (metes and bounds) of the
boundary of CAOC 1. The low levels of pesticides and PAHs detected in the surface
soils at these two strata will also be documented in the Base Master Plan. Language in
the Master Plan will indicate that any actions planned in these areas or changes in site
19-7
-------
CT026G\B70027\"-27ROD
CLE-J02-o 1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
use should be coordinated through and reviewed by the MCLB Barstow Environmental
Department.
19-8
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE-J02-Q1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
20.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 3 - WASTEWATER DISPOSAL AREA
20.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 3, the Wastewater Disposal Area, is in the northern portion of the Nebo Main
Base, adjacent to the southem boundary of CAOC 1. The site includes Stratum 1, the
golf course, an area approximately 3,250 by 500 feet; and Stratum 2, the
evaporation/percolation disposal ponds with an overflow area of approximately 1,500 by
1,000 feet. Stratum 3 represents surface water within the disposal ponds, which was
eliminated from further investigation. The evaporation/percolation disposal ponds are
approximately 2,000 feet east of the golf course (Figure 20-1). A review of the IAS
revealed that wastewater was disposed of via evaporation/percolation disposal ponds
from 1942 to 1974. Secondary effluent was used to irrigate the golf course from 1952 to
1972 and from 1978 to the present.
20.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC 3 history was assembled from the lAS, PANSI, records search, and historical
aerial photographic review. According to the lAS, the Nebo Main Base sanitary
wastewater treatment facility was constructed in 1942 and treated both industrial and
domestic wastes until 1974. When industrial wastewater treatment facilities were
constructed in 1974, industrial waste discharges to the Nebo Main Base sanitary
wastewater treatment facilities were phased out. Effluent has been disposed of primarily
to evaporation/percolation disposal ponds in the floodplain of the Mojave River.
The percolation ponds are currently in use; the source of wastewater is the treated
domestic wastewater from the oxidation pond. The CRWaCB, Lahontan. Region,
regulates the wastewater flow to the percolation ponds under a waste discharge permit
(WDP). The WDP stipulates the waste discharge requirements, which include
monitoring the influent quality and monitoring the groundwater wells adjacent to the
percolation ponds. The Base is in compliance with all requirements of the WDP.
Secondary effluent has been used to water the golf course from 1952 to 1972 and from
1978 to the present. In 1991 during the RFA process, which is a requirement of the
FFA, a PANS I was conducted at Site 3. The PANSI report recommended further
investigation of this area as part of OU 6. This area is now referred to as CAOC 3.
20-1
-------
CT026O\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
20.3
Summary 01 Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the soil investigation conducted at CAOC 3 and
soil sampling analytical results.
CAOC 3 was subdivided into three sampling strata of sources of COPCs (Section 3.0)
for the Phase I investigation. The strata were based both on the significant distance
between the golf course and disposal ponds and the different media from which samples
were collected. Stratum 3, surface water in disposal ponds, was later eliminated
(Jacobs 1994b) from further Phase I AI investigation because the ponds were
periodically dry and the surface water represents only the most recent water discharged.
Figures 20-2 and 20-3 show the approximate locations and strata boundaries for Strata
1 and 2. They are described as follows.
.
Stratum 1, Entire Golf Course: the entire golf course area; this is a wedge-
shaped area approximately 3,250 by 500 feet.
Stratum 2, Effluent Disposal Ponds and Overflow Area: the area identified by the
IAS (Brown and Caldwell 1983), the aerial photographic review, and land surveys
conducted at the effluent disposal ponds and overflow area. This is an oblong
area approximately 1,500 by 1,000 feet.
.
.
Stratum 3: the surface water in the disposal ponds. This stratum subsequently
was eliminated from further Phase I investigation (Jacobs 1994d).
The boundaries and the locations of Strata 1 and 2 are presented in Figures 20-2
and 20-3.
Fifteen borings were advanced within the two strata at CAOC 3 (Figures 20-2
and 20-3).
Five borings originally intended for CAOC 1 were inadvertently drilled in CAOC 3
Stratum 1. These borings are now designated NB03-11 through -15 and were sampled
at the surface (0 to 0.5 feet bgs) and in the mid-depth range (5.5 to 6 feet bgs).
Therefore, the only mid-depth samples from this stratum are not randomly located
across Stratum 1 but rather are grouped together in the northeast comer of the stratum
(Figure 20-2).
20-2
-------
CT0260\870027\ 11-27ROD
CLE..J02.() 1 F2~7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
The analytical results collected during the soil investigation are presented in this section
along with a discussion of contaminant nature and extent. Maximum concentrations of
all detected analytes are presented in data summary tables, To help identify potentially
significant contaminants, residential soil RBCs are also shown on the tables. RBCs
represent soil concentrations that correspond to a 1 x 10-6 cancer risk or a 1.0 noncancer
hazard index for a residential soil exposure scenario (see Section 5.0). For inorganics.
the 95th percentile background concentrations are also shown for reference.
20.3.1
Stratum 1
The collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals,
cyanide, and TPH-D. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at
Stratum 1 are presented in Tables 20-1 and 20-2, respectively.
.
VOCs were detected sporadically and always below the quantitation
limits. Of the detected VQCs, methylene chloride and acetone are likely
to be laboratory contaminants given their common use in the laboratory
and their detection at concentrations below the CRDL. The detection of
2-butanone may be a false positive.
Xylene was found in one out of 11 samples (NB03-01 at 1.5 to 2 feet bgs)
at a concentration below the CRDL and is most likely site related.
.
.
All VOC detections were in the near-surface (0 to 2 feet bgs) soil
samples.
.
The only SVOCs detected were bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and pyrene, at
concentrations significantly below the quantitation limit and the residential
soil RBC value and are believed to be analytical artifacts.
Low-level detections of several pesticides, particularly the DDT family of
compounds and the Chlordanes, were reported in many of the samples.
Except for Dieldrin. the pesticides are all present at concentrations well
below their residential soil RBC values.
.
.
Low-level (up to 93 mglkg) extractable petroleum hydrocarbons were
detected in a few of the samples.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
.
20-3
-------
CT0260\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE..J02-Q1 F26(}.B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
20.3.2
Stratum 2
The collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals, and
cyanide. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at
Stratum 2 are presented in Table 20-3 and 20-4, respectively, and are
summarized as follows.
.
Acetone is a common laboratory contaminant and its presence in one of
five samples (NB03-QS) at half the CADL suggests that it is not site
related.
.
No SVOCs were detected in the samples of this stratum.
Of the pesticides and PCBs analytical group, 4,4'-DDD and heptachlor
were detected sporadically, at concentrations considerably below their
respective quantitation limits and residential soil ABC values.
.
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
20.4
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 3 using data
collected during the AI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final AI report for OUs 5 and 6. Aesults of the
assessment for CAOC 1 are provided in Section 22.0 of the RI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 3 are presented here in
support of the decision to take no action. Also presented in this section is a general
summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection.
20.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 3 are presented in Table 20-5
for the residential land-use scenario and Table 20-6 for the industrial land-use
scenario.
20-4
-------
--
CT026<1B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE.J02.Q1 F2~-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
20.4.1.1
Residential land-Use Scenario
The ILCR for Stratum 1 is approximately 6 x 10-6 and results from the pesticide
Dieldrin.
The ILCR for Stratum 2 is below the point of departure of 1 x 10-6 and is
considered to be insignificant from a human health perspective.
The noncancer hazard index for Stratum 1 exceeds 1.0, but as shown in
Table 20-5, this results almost entirely from background metal concentrations
and is therefore considered insignificant. The hazard index at Stratum 2 is less
than 1 .0.
20.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, the ILCR for Stratum 2 is less than
1 x 10" and for Stratum 1 is 2 x 10-41. The total noncancer hazard indices are all
less than 1.0.
20.4.2
Ecoloalcal Risk Assessment Conclusion
The low levels of contaminants in the soils at CAOC 3 were not found to have an
adverse impact on ecological receptors. The supplemental, limited investigation
of off-site transport of contamination from Nebo Main Base into the Riparian
Fringe and Mojave Wash habitats showed that there is no evidence of
contamination in soils or surface water from Nebo Main Base sites. The detailed
assessment can be found in the draft final Phase I ERA.
20.4.3
SummarY of Evaluation of ImDacts to Groundwater
The mathematical modeling performed at CAOC 3 using DLM and VLEACH
indicated that residual Dieldrin in the soil could migrate to the groundwater at
concentrations that would contaminate or degrade the aquifer. DLM and
VLEACH assumes deep percolation although it is unlikely to occur.
20-5
-------
CT0260\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
CAOC 3 is not likely a past source of contamination to the groundwater.
However, it may be a current or future source based on the levels of Dieldrin
remaining in the soils and the shallow depth to groundwater. To address this
uncertainty, the groundwater will be monitored as part of the OU 2 remedial
action.
Based on the DLM and VLEACH analysis, the other residual contaminants at
CAOC 3 are not a threat to groundwater.
20.5
Description of the No Action Alternative for CAOC 3
The no action alternative was selected for CAQC 3 soils under OUs 5 and 6. The
selected no action alternative does not involve institutional or engineering controls. It
does not include containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC 3 soil is
considered to be protective of human health and the environment for the following
reasons.
.
Pesticide concentrations are similar to levels found Basewide that res~lt from
application of pesticides for maintenance.
Modeling indicates a possible threat to groundwater from Dieldrin, but further
action will be taken as part of the OU 2 remedial action.
.
.
The ERA found that the low levels of contaminants detected would not have an
adverse impact on ecological receptors.
Because the incremental carcinogenic risk at Stratum 1 exceeds 1 x 10", for information
and future planning purposes, a description of the history of this stratum will be provided
in the Base Master Plan. The low levels of pesticides detected in the surface soils at this
stratum will also be documented in the Master Plan. Language in the Master Plan will
indicate that any actions planned in this area or changes in site use should be
coordinated through and reviewed by the MCLB Barstow Environmental Department.
20-6
-------
CT026O\B70027\ "-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
21.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 4 - OLD TRAP AND SKEET RANGE AREAS
21.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 4, the Old Trap and Skeet Range Areas, is in the northeastern quadrant of the
Nebo Main Base (Figure 21-1). The site was used to store wooden containers of
calcium hypochlorite. A review of historical records revealed that the calcium
hypochlorite was originally stockpiled in an area near the golf course (CAOC 3) from the
middle to late 19405 before its relocation to CAOC 4. These wooden containers of
calcium hypochlorite were piled near a gully on CAOC 4 and were buried in the gully
when they began to deteriorate and leak.
The original area identified as Stratum 1 (formeny CAOC 4) consisted of an area
between the oxidation ponds and the industrial and sanitary sewage disposal plant.
During a site visit in 1990, the area east of the industrial and sanitary sewage disposal
plant was noted as being littered with skeet debris. This area became Stratum 2. The
site boundaries were further adjusted to include an aerial infrared anomaly. The area of
the anomaly became Stratum 3, just north of the industrial and sanitary sewage plant
and south of the wastewater treatment ponds.
A small portion of the southern end of Stratum 3 lies within the Nebo Main Base IWTP.
The IWTP was investigated under the RFA as SWMU 10.37 in 1994.
21.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC 4 history is assembled from the lAS, PANSI, records search, and historical aerial
photographic review.
According to the lAS, an estimated 45,000 containers (90,000 cubic feet) of calcium
hypochlorite was originally stockpiled in an area northeast of the oxidation ponds near a
gully. In 1950, the calcium hypochlorite was in the process of being disposed of in the
gully when a violent chemical reaction occurred and produced a large cloud of chlorine
gas. This incident forced the evacuation of MCLB Barstow and the city of Daggett.
21-1
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE~02~1F2~B7~7
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
The fire department periodically doused the area with water from the time of the initial
reaction to the early 1960s. Vegetation would not grow in the area, and on two
occasions smoke was reported on the ground surface (Brown and Caldwell 1983).
From the historical information obtained, it is not clear if the calcium hypochlorite was
packed in sealed containers. Even if it had been packed in sealed containers, the
increased temperature and pressure generated during the fire would have decomposed
the highly unstable and reactive calcium hypochlorite, producing oxygen and chlorine
gas that would have resulted in explosion of the containers. .
The decomposition of calcium hypochlorite is exothermic. Once the temperature
reaches 1800 Celsius (C), the decomposition becomes self-sustaining and propagates
throughout the batch. In the process, chlorine monoxide (CI:P, a gas) and calcium oxide
or hydroxide are formed. Chlorine monoxide further decomposes to chlorine and oxygen
(both of which are gases). Because a fire had been reported, it is obvious that the
temperature reached and exceeded 1800 C. Once one container has formed
degradation products it would explode due to the pressure of the generated gases,
which in tum is likely to have set off adjacent container explosions. Thus, a significant
amount of calcium hypochlorite is unlikely to have remained.
Some of the calcium hypochlorite that would have remained in trace quantities would
have decomposed due to the periodic dousing of the area with water. In the presence of
water, calcium hypochlorite decomposes either through disproportionation to chlorate
and chloride or through the formation of chlorine monoxide and calcium hydroxide.
Again the hypochlorite is dissipated, although to a certain extent forming another strong
oxidizing agent, chlorate. In addition to degradation, both hypochlorite and chlorate ions
will act as oxidizing agents, and will react rapidly with organic matter or oxidizable
inorganic matter. It is therefore unlikely that any calcium hypochlorite would remain in
the soil for over 40 years.
In 1991 during the RFA process, which is a requirement of the FFA, a PANSI was
conducted at Site 4. The PANSI report recommended further investigation of this area
as part of OU 6. This area is now referred to as CAOC 4.
21-2
-------
CT0260\870027\11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
21.3
Summary 01 Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the soil investigation conducted at CAOC 4 and
soil sampling analytical results.
CAOC 4 consists of three strata of suspected contaminant sources. The individual
strata were identified' based on the results of the seoping and reconnaissance surveys.
An estimated 45,000 containers of calcium hypochlorite (90,000 cubic feet) were
disposed of at CAOC 4. Strata 1 or 2 may have been used as disposal sites for the
calcium hypochlorite. No known waste-related activity has occurred at Strata 1 and 2
since the 1940s, but Stratum 3 may have been impacted by overflow from the industrial
and sanitary sewage disposal plant. All three strata fit the description of the calcium
hypochlorite disposal area. The three strata of CAOC 4 are briefly described as follows.
.
Stratum 1, Area Identified in IAS: Identified in the IAS (Brown and Caldwell
1983). Stratum 1 (formerly CAOC 4) comprises the westem part of the site, east
of the oxidation ponds.
Stratum 2, Trap and Skeet Range: Identified during site scoping as an area that
is similar in location and physical. characteristics to Stratum 1. Stratum 2
(formerly CAOC 4A) is east of the industrial and sanitary sewage disposal plant.
.
.
Stratum 3, Infrared Photo IR Anomaly: Identified as an anomaly in the infrared
thermographic survey (Jacobs 1991e), Stratum 3 (formerly CAOC 48) is
northeast of the industrial and sanitary sewage disposal plant between Stratum 1
and Stratum 2.
Figure 21-2 shows the approximate soil boring locations and stratum boundaries at
CAOC 4.
Sixteen borings were advanced within the three strata in CAOC 4 (Figure 21-2). All
borings were advanced by hollow stem auger except for boring NB04-06. Due to limited
access, this boring was originally drilled by hand auger to 3.5 feet bgs. Loose sandy
soils subject to caving prevented further advance. The boring was relocated 30 feet
south of its original location and drilled with a hollow stem auger to the prescribed depth.
The analytical results collected during the soil investigation are presented in this section
along with a discussion of contaminant nature and extent. Maximum concentrations of
all detected analytes are presented in data summary tables. To help identify potentially
21-3
-------
CT026<71B70027\ 11-27AOD
CLE-J02-o 1 F26CH37 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
significant contaminants, residential soil RBCs are also shown on the tables. RBCs
represent soil concentrations that correspond to a 1 x 10. cancer risk or a 1.0 noncancer
hazard index for a residential soil exposure scenario (see Section 5.0 of the RI Report
[Jacobs 1996a)). For inorganics, the 95th percentile background concentrations for
shallow soils (0 to 3 feet bgs) are also shown for reference (see Appendix K of the RI
report). Complete analytical results are presented in Appendix D of the RI report.
21.3.1
Stratum 1
The collected samples were tested for VOCs. SVOCs, OCPs. PCBs, metals, and
cyanide. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at
Stratum 1 are presented in Tables 21-1 and 21-2, respectively.
.
No VOCs, SVOCs, or pesticidesIPCBs were detected in any of the
samples of Stratum 1.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concern from a human health perspective.
.
21.3.2
Stratum 2
. The collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs. OCPs, PCBs, metals, and
cyanide. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at
Stratum 2 are presented in Tables 21-3 and 21-4, respectively.
.
No VOCs or PCBs were detected in any of the samples of Stratum 2.
In the SVOC analytical group, the PAHs were detected in three of five
near-surface samples, but not in any samples collected at depth. The
PAH concentrations were near the quantitation limits, and are thought to
arise from waste oil.
.
.
Di-n-butyl phthalate was sporadically detected in the near-surface
samples and in one deep sample and is believed to be an analytical
artifact.
.
Alpha-chlordane was detected in one of the five near-surface samples
(NB04-15) at a concentration well below the CRDL. Such low-level
pesticide detections are common in MCLB Barstow surficial soils and its
presence may not be directly related to activities at this CAOC. It was not
detected in any of the deep samples from this stratum.
21-4
-------
CT026O\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 Decembef. 1997
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concern from a human health perspective.
21.3.3
Stratum 3
The collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals, and
. cyanide. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at
Stratum 3 are presented in Tables 21-5 and 21-6, respectively.
.
VOCs were not detected in any of the samples of Stratum 3.
In the SVOC analytical group, di-n-butyl phthalate was detected in several
samples and is believed to be an analytical artifact. The concentrations
were below the quantitation limit and the residential soil RBC values.
.
.
Low-level detections of alpha-BHC was reported in the OCP fraction. The
concentrations were considerably below the quantitation limit and the
residential soil RBC value.
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concern from a human health perspective.
A limited soil sampling investigation was conducted at SWMU 10.37 for the RFA.
One soil boring (N10.37-8) was drilled to 5.0 feet bgs inside the southern
boundary of Stratum 3 at CAOC 4. The results of the soil sampling analysis
indicated the following PAHs.
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b )fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Concentration (mg/kg)
17.41
14.56
14.96
11.89
7.67
15.77
Compound
21.4
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 4 using data
collected during the RI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final RI report for OUs 5 and 6. Results of the
assessment for CAOC 4 are provided in Section 23.0 of the RI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the draft final Phase I ERA. Both of these assessments have
21-5
-------
CT026O\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE..J02-Q1 F2~B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
been summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 4 are presented
here in support of the decision to take no action. Also presented in this section is a
general summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality
protection.
21.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 4 are presented in Table 21-7
for the residential land-use scenario and Table 21-8 for the industrial land-use
scenario.
21.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCR for Stratum 1 is below the point of departure of 1 x 10-41 and is
considered to be insignificant from a human health perspective.
The ILCR for Stratum 2 is approximately 1 x 10-5 and results from the low-level
PAH detections. As explained in Section 23.6.3.1 of the RI report, higher
concentrations of PAHs were detected in samples collected as part of the RFA
which investigated adjacent SWMU 10.37. This area has been recommended for
further action in the draft AF A report.
The ILCR for Stratum 3 is less than 1 x 10".
The noncancer hazard indices for Strata 2 and 3 exceed 1.0, but as shown in
Table 21-7, these result almost entirely from background metal concentrations
and are therefore considered insignificant. The index from Stratum 1 is 0.9.
21.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, the ILCAs for Strata 1 and 3 are less than
1 x 10-41. The ILCA at Stratum 2 is 3 x 10". The total noncancer hazard indices
are all less than 1.0.
21-6
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE~2~1F2~B7~7
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
21.4.2
Ecoloaical Risk Assessment Conclusion
The low levels of contaminants in the soils at CAOC 4 were not found to have an
adverse impact on ecological receptors. The supplemental, limited investigation
of off-site transport of contamination from Nebo Main Base into the Riparian
Fringe and Mojave Wash habitats showed that there is no evidence of
contamination in soils or surface water from Nebo Main Base sites. The detailed
assessment can be found in the Phase I ERA.
21.4.3
Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater
The mathematical modeling performed at CAOC 4 using DLM indicated that the
contaminants remaining in the soils would not migrate at concentrations that
would contaminate or degrade the aquifer. DLM assumes deep percolation
although it is unlikely to occur.
CAOC 4 is not likely a past, current, or future source of contamination to the
groundwater based on the levels of contaminants remaining in the soils.
Surface waters are not present at CAOC 4, except for during periods of heavy
precipitation. The contaminants would not be a threat to surface waters because
concentrations levels are minor (Le., at concentrations classified as inert).
21.5
Description of the No Action Alternative for CAOC 4
The no action alternative was selected for CAOC 4 Strata 1 and 2 soils under OUs 5 and
6. The selected no action altemative does not involve institutional or engineering
controls. It does not include containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC
4 Strata 1 and 2 soils are considered to be protective of human health and the
environment for the following reasons.
.
Risk levels at Stratum 1 is below the target risk range. The risk at Stratum 2 of 1
x 10-5 results from P AH detections below the quantitation limit. Such low-level
detections do not warrant further action because comparable levels are relatively
common in disturbed areas.
.
No groundwater impacts result from contaminant detections.
21-7
-------
CT0260\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE.J02~1 F260-B7 .0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
.
The ERA found that the low levels of contaminants detected would not have an
adverse impact on ecological receptors.
Stratum 3 of CAOC 4 is not included as part of OUs 5 and 6 ROD. PAH conta~ination
associated with SWMU 10.37 (Nebo Main Base IWTP) is believed to extend into the
southern portion of Stratum 3. This SWMU has been proposed for further action as part
of the RF A program. This further action will also address any residual contamination that
might extend into Stratum 3.
21-8
-------
CT0260\B70027\11-27AOD
CLE-J02-o1 F26<>-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
22.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR CAOC 6 - ORIGINAL TRASH LANDFILL
22.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 6, the original Trash landfill, is north of Interstate 40 in the eastern portion of the
Nebo Main Base (Figure 22.1). The site reportedly was used between 1946 and 1952
for disposing of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of lumber, building materials, empty
paint cans, and other general trash (Brown and Caldwell 1983). In addition, CAOC 6
was used for storing approximately 80 tons of various formulations of DDT and other
unknown materials. These materials were stored in 13 revetments on and adjacent to
the CAOC 6 landfill area. All revetments were bermed and opened away from the
facility.
22.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC history was assembled from the lAS, PANSI, records search, and historical aerial
photographic review. The area now known as CAOC 6 was referred to in the PANSI as
SWMU 10.90 and in the IAS as Site 6. CAOC 6 was reported to have operated as a
landfill for the disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. All trash and industrial
solid waste from the Nebo Main Base was reportedly hauled to this site. Aerial
photographs of the site do not corroborate the purported use of the site as a landfill. As
discussed in site scoping, above.grade revetment structures were used for storage
between 1953 and 1964. Earlier photographs (1948 to 1952) do not indicate the
presence of landfill activities.
In 1991 during the RFA process, which is a requirement of the FFA, a PANSI was
conducted at Site 1. The PANSI report recommended further investigation of this area
as part of OU 6. This area is now referred to as CAOC 6.
22.3
Summary 0' Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the soil investigation conducted at CAOC 6 and
soil sampling analytical results.
CAOC 6 is subdivided into three sampling strata of known COPCs as follows.
22-1
-------
CT026C71870027\ 11-27ROD
CLE-J02001 F2~~27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
.
Stratum 1, Landfill Area: The landfill area identified in the IAS. This source, as
identified in the lAS, consists of two areas that, when connected, form a
backward L-shaped area approximately 500 feet along one leg by 400 feet along
the other leg. Each area is approximately 50 feet wide. The geophysical surveys
identified several anomalies within this stratum that were specifically targeted for.
investigation.
.
Stratum 2, Revetment Area: Two of the 13 revetments identified through the
aerial photograph review. Each revetment is a rectangular-shaped area
approximately 100 by 50 feet.
Stratum 3, General Soils: The surficial site-wide soils. This stratum was
identified to consider the residue from DDT storage and leakage.
.
The boundaries and locations of the strata are presented in Figure 22-2.
Twenty borings were advanced within three strata at CAOC 6 using hand auger and
angled (30 degrees from vertical) hollow-stem auger borings. Angle borings were
completed in order to sample soils beneath the former revetment areas. A review of the
geophysical survey results with the aerial photographs definitely collocates CAOC 6
revetments with geophysical anomalies A-1, A-2, A-3 (Stratum 1), and anomalies A-4
and A-5 (Stratum 2). Boring locations in these two strata were judgmentally locat~d to
specifically target these anomalies while five random locations were selected in
Stratum 3.
The analytical results collected during the soil investigation are presented in this section
along with a discussion of contaminant nature and extent. Maximum concentrations of
all detected analytes are presented in data summary tables. To help identify potentially
significant contaminants, residential soil RBCs are also shown on the tables. RBCs
represent soil concentrations that correspond to a 1 x 10-6 cancer risk or a 1.0 noncancer
hazard index for a residential soil exposure scenario.
22.3.1
Stratum 1
The collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals, and
cyanide. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at
Stratum 1 are presented in Tables 22-1 and 22-2, respectively.
.
VOCs and SVOCs were not detected in any of the samples of Stratum 1
except for a single detection of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate at
22-2
-------
CT026M70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
concentrations considerably below the quantitation limit and the
residential soil RBC value. It is believed to be an analytical artifact.
.
Low-level detections of several pesticides were
concentrations well below their residential soil RBC values.
at
reported
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
.
Cyanide was detected in this stratum.
22.3.2
Stratum 2
The collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals, and
cyanide. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at
Stratum 2 are presented in Tables 22-3 and 22-4, respectively.
.
VOCs were not detected in any of the samples of Stratum 2.
In the SVOC group, a single sample (NB06-11) contained
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chrysene, and carbazole. The three compounds
were detected at concentrations lower than their respective quantitation
limits, but their presence as a group may. imply a very minor
contamination by PAHs. T~y were detected at concentrations well below
their residential soil RBC values.
.
.
Pesticides of the DDT group were detected in two of the samples. In both
cases the concentrations were significantly below the quantitation limits.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
.
22.3.3
Stratum 3
The collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals, and
cyanide. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at
Stratum 3 are presented in Tables 22-5 and 22-6, respectively.
.
VOCs were not detected in any of the samples of Stratum 3.
In the SVOC group, in a single sample (NB06-16) three phenols, four
phthalates, and phenanthrene were found, all at concentrations of minor
concern from a human health perspective. The three phenols were
2,4-dimethyfphenol, 4,6-dinitro-2-methyfphenDI, and 4-methylphenol.
Only 4,6-dinitro-2-methyl-phenol was reported at a concentration that
exceeded the quantitation limit. The four phthalate esters were di-n-octyl
.
22-3
-------
CT026C11870027\ 11-27ROD
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
.
phthalate, diethyl phthalate, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and dimethyl
phthalate, all below the quantitation limits. .
Among the pesticides, the DDT group (4,4'-DDT; 4,4'-DDD; and
4,4'-DDE) was found in virtually all the samples, with concentrations as -
high as 110 JJg/kg for DDE. In addition, sporadic detections were made of
Endrin, Endrin al~ehyde, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide,
Endosulfan I, and methoxychlor. All pesticide detections were at
concentrations below their respective residential soil ABC values.
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concern from a human health perspective.
22.3.4
Vertical Profile Borinas
In support of a removal action pilot study under OU 2, OHM Aemediation
Services Corporation (OHM) completed two vertical profile borings (VPBs) in
CAOC 6 at NS6-A 1 and NS6-A2 (see Figure 22-3). VPB methods are presented
in the OUs 1 and 2 Draft Final AI (Jacobs 1995b). At VPB NS6-A2, TCE was
detected in SOV samples at a maximum concentration of 1,700 volumetric parts
per billion (ppbv) at 79 feet bgs and ranged from 270 ppbv at 18 feet bgs to 210
ppbv at 97 feet bgs. Toluene exhibited a similar range of SOV concentrations
detected, including 59 ppbv at 18 feet bgs, 270 ppbv at
79 feet bgs, and 35 ppbv at 97 feet bgs. Similar compounds were detected in
VPB NS6-A2, but at lower concentrations. Soil samples collected from NS6-A 1
and NS6-A2 did not indicate the presence of VOCs. TCE was not detected in
groundwater samples at NS6-A 1, but was detected in groundwater samples at
NS6-A2, with the highest concentrations at the water table at 55.9 JJg/L. Further
details regarding the VPBs at CAOC 6 are presented in the OUs 1 and 2 Draft
Final AI. VLEACH modeling results based on VPB data are presented in Section
24.7 of the AI report.
In addition to the VPBs, a number of other borings have been advanced in
support of the air sparging/soil vapor extraction (ASISVE) pilot study at CAOC 6.
Several of these borings penetrated the suspected landfill areas of Stratum 1.
No evidence of landfilled materials was identified in any of these borings (OHM
1994a).
22-4
-------
CT0260\B70027\ t t -27ROD
CLE.J02-ot F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
22.4
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 6 using data
collected during the AI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final AI report for OUs 5 and 6. Results of the
assessment for CAOC 1 are provided in Section 24.0 of the AI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the draft final Phase I ERA. Both of these assessments have
been summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 6 are presented
here in support of the decision to take no action. Also presented in this section is a
general summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality
protection.
22.4.1
Human Heahh Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 6 are presented in Table 22-7
for the residential land-use scenario and Table 22-8 for the industrial land-use
scenario.
22.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCR for Strata 1. 2. and 3 are below the point of departure of 1 x 100& and
are considered to be insignificant from a human health perspective.
The noncancer hazard indices for Strata 1. 2, and 3 exceed 1.0, but as shown in
Table 22-7. this results almost entirely from background metal concentrations
and is therefore considered insignificant.
22.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario. the ILCAs for Strata 1. 2. and 3 are less
than 1 x 10-6. The total noncancer hazard indices are all less than 1.0.
22-5
-------
CT026a\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE..J02-Q1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
22.4.2
Ecological Risk Assessment ConclY.!!sm
The low levels of contaminants in the soils at CAOC 6 were not found to have an
adverse impact on ecDiogical receptors. The detailed assessment can be found
in the Phase I ERA.
22.4.3
Summary 01 Evaluation ofJmDacts 10 Ground.!!!!!!
Aesults of the Phase I AI sampling effort identified PAHs and OCPs as the only
contaminants of significant concentrations at Strata 1, 2. and 3. P AHs and OCPs
are generally insoluble and are immobile in soils. In addition, several metals
(e.g., lead and thallium) were detected at concentrations statistically elevated
compared to background and are conservatively assumed to be site related.
Impacts to groundwater were evaluated using the Marshack model and VLEACH.
The Marshack model indicates that these contaminants are not a threat to
groundwater.
Although VOCs were not detected in the soil samples from CAOC 6, there is
known VOC contamination of downgradient groundwater. The VOC plume at
CAOC 6 appears to be a result of historical use and disposal practices of
solvents for equipment cleaning. Two VPBs were drilled in the CAOC 6 area in
support of a removal action pilot study. VlEACH modeling was conducted based
on the results of this soil gas data (OHM 1995). The VLEACH modeling results
indicate that organic vapors in the vadose zone soils pose a continuing, long-
term source of VOCs for groundwater (Jacobs 1995b). VLEACH estimates
indicate that the. maximum TCE concentration that would occur in 1 year is
5.6 IJglL, which is slightly above the MCL (5 IJgIL).
Groundwater contamination by VOCs has been confirmed to exist beneath this
CAOC. An ASiSVE pilot study is being conducted at this site. Because remedial
actions have been recommended in the OUs 1 and 2 ROD for VOC
contaminants at CAOC 6, no further site characterization of VOCs is
recommended under OUs 5 and 6.
22-6
-------
CT026(PS70027\11-27ROD
CLE-J02..()1 F261>B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 Decemb8f, 1997
Surface waters are not present at CAOC 6, except for during times of heavy
precipitation.
22.5
Description of the No Action Alternative for CAOC 6
The no action alternative was selected for CAOC 6 soils under OUs 5 and 6. The
selected no action alternative does not involve institutional or engineering controls. It
does not include containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC 6 soil is
considered to be protective of human health and the environment for the following
reasons:
.
A comprehensive evaluation of all available data indicates that CAOC 6 was
misidentified as a landfill. No evidence of landfilling was found.
Risk levels are below the target risk range.
.
.
Modeling indicates a possible threat to groundwater from residual VOCs in the
vadose zone, but further action is being taken as part of the au 2 remedial
action.
.
The ERA found that the low levels of contaminants detected would not have an
adverse impact on ecological receptors.
22-7
-------
CT026O\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
(intentionally blank)
22-8
-------
CT0260\870027\ 11-27AOD
CLE-J02..Q1 F260-B7..()()27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
23.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR
CAOC 8 - BUILDING 197 WASTEWATER DISPOSAL AREA
23.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 8, the Building 197 Wastewater Disposal Area, is in the northeast corner of
Building 197 (Figure 23-1). Activities inside this machine shop building included
plumbing, machining, and machine cteaning operations. Cleaning operations in Building
197 reportedly generated industrial wastes consisting of acid solutions, solvents, alkaline
cleaners, and detergents (Brown and Caldwell 1983). Chemicals were reportedly
discharged through a drain in the cleaning area slab east .of the building and to a
drainage swale also east of the building. The reported drain was not observed at the
site during the PANSI.
23.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC 8 history was assembled from the lAS, PANSI, records search, and historical
aerial photographic review. The area now known as CAOC 8 was referred to in the
PANSI as SWMU 10.92 and in the IAS as Site 8. Based on the information presented in
the lAS, various chemicals were used in the cleaning operations at the northeast comer
of the machine shop in Building 197. Waste quantities were relatively small. Quantities
reportedly varied for the acid and detergent cleaners, while 15 gallons of soak cleaner
(alkaline) were discharged four times per year. An estimated 2,000 gallons of hazardous
waste were reportedly discharged to the ground at CAOC 8 between 1959 and 1975
(Brown and Caldwell 1983). The discharge frequency varied, with long periods of no
activity. The drain used for the discharge from Building 197 was no longer present at the
time of the January 1991 visual site inspection.
In 1991 during the RFA process, which is a requirement of the FFA, a PANSI was
conducted at CAOC 8. The PANSI report recommended further investigation of this
area as part of OU 6. This area is now referred to as CAOC 8.
23-1
-------
CT026<7B700Z7\11.27ROD
CLE-J02001 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
23.3
Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the soil investigation conducted at CAOC 8 and
soil sampling analytical results.
1
One stratum of a known source of COPCs was identified at CAOC 8 as a result of
scoping and reconnaissance activities; Stratum 1, Drainage Pathway, which includes
the unpaved drainage swale adjacent to and east of Building 197. The stratum is
approximately 400 feet by 65 feet. Figure 26-2 shows the location of the CAOC.
Five borings were advanced at the one stratum in CAOC
Figure 23-2. These borings were located by the systematic
methodology outlined in the Draft Final SAP (Jacobs 1991 b).
8 as shown in
random sampling
The analytical results collected during the soil investigation are presented in this section
along with a discussion of contaminant nature and extent. Maximum concentrations of
all detected analytes are presented in data summary tables. To help identify potentially
significant contaminants, residential soil RBCs are also shown on the tables. RBCs
represent soil concentrations that correspond to a 1 x 10" cancer risk or a 1.0 noncancer
hazard index for a residential soil exposure scenario (see Section 5.0). For inorganics,
the 95th percentile background concentrations for shallow soils (0 to 3 feet bgs) are also
shown for reference.
Stratum 1
The collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals, cyanide,
TPH-D, and pH. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at Stratum 1 are
presented in Tables 23-1 and 23-2, respectively.
.
Xylene was detected in one out of five samples (NB08-05 at 1.5 to 2 feet bgs) at
a concentration well below the CRDl. Xylene was not detected in a collocated
sample collected at 2 to 2.5 feet bgs. This detection is most likely due to
contamination either in the laboratory or in the field. However, it is conservatively
assumed to be site related in the human health evaluation to demonstrate that it
is of minor concern.
.
In the semivolatile fraction, phthalates, primarily di-n-butyl phthalate and
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, were detected in virtually all the samples.
23-2
-------
~T026<7\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE.J02.Q1 F260-B7 '()()27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
.
Pesticides or PCBs were not detected ;n any of the samples. An extractable
petroleum hydrocarbon measured as diesel was detected in one sample
(NB08-04) at 17 mglkg.
.
All organic compounds detections were at concentrations well below their
residential soil ABC values.
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present at
concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective. .
23.4
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 8 using data
collected during the AI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final AI report for OUs 5 and 6. Results of the
assessment for CAOC 1 are provided in Section 26.0 of the AI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAoe 8 are presented here in
support of the decision to take no action. Also presented in this section is a general
summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection.
23.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 8 are presented in Table 23-3
for both the residential and industrial land-use scenarios.
23.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCR for Stratum 1 is below the point of departure of 1 x 10" and is
considered to be insignificant from a human health perspective.
The noncancer hazard indices for Stratum 1 exceeds 1.0, but as shown in
Table 23-3, this results almost entirely from background metal concentrations
and is therefore considered insignificant.
23.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial. land-use scenario, the ILCRs for Stratum 1 is less than
1 x 10041. The total noncancer hazard index is less than 1.0.
23-3
-------
CT026G'B70027\ 11-27AOC
C LE..J02.()1 F260-B7-0027
Print Cale: 29 December. 1997
23.4.2
EcoloGical Risk Assessment Conclusion
The low levels of contaminants in the soils at CAOC 8 were not found to have an
adverse impact on ecological receptors. The detailed assessment can be found
in the Phase I ERA (EPA 1996a).
23.4.3
Summary of Evaluation of ImDacts to Groundwater
Results of the Phase I RI sampling effort identified SVOCs, xylene, and thallium
as possibly being site related at Stratum 1, the drainage pathway. Effects on
groundwater were evaluated using the Marshack model. Results indicate that
residual contaminants detected in the vadose zone at this CAOC would not affect .
groundwater.
Surface waters are not present at CAOC 8 except during periods of heavy
precipitation. The contaminants would not be a threat to surface waters because
concentration levels are .minor (Le., at concentrations classified as inert).
23.5
Description of the No Action Alternative for CAOC 8
The no action alternative was selected for CAOC 8 under OUs 5 and 6. The selected no
action altemative does not involve institutional or engineering controls. It does not
include containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC 8 soil is considered
. .
to be protective of human health and the environment for the following reasons.
.
Risk levels are below the target risk range.
No groundwater impacts result from contaminant detections.
The ERA found that the low levels of contaminants detected would not have an
adverse impact on ecological receptors.
.
.
23-4
-------
CT026<71B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
24.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR
CAOC 12 - RADIATOR CLEANING CHEMICAL DISPOSAL AREA
24.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 12, the Radiator Cleaning Chemical Disposal Area, is an oval-shaped area in the
southem portion of the Nebo Main Base (Figure 24-1). The IAS describes the disposal
area as being adjacent to and north of the fuel farm (i.e., the above-grade fuel tank
farm). During the PANSI (Jacobs 1991a). the site was identified by MCLB Barstow
personnel as being approximately 30 feet northeast of the existing aboveground fuel
tank farm and adjacent to an existing UST. The UST (Tank No.
189-A) was removed in 1992 during the Basewide tank removal program. The UST
contained waste fuel and oil. The site is currently unpaved and has no structures on it.
24.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC 12 history is assembled from the lAS, PANSI. records search, and historical
aerial photograph review. The area now known as CAOC 12 was referred to in the
PANSI as SWMU 10.96. It was also referred to as Site 12 in the IAS.
The IAS states that between 1943 and 1947 the area was used for disposing radiator
cleaning chemicals. Reportedly, the deaning chemicals contained chromic acid and
phenols. The aerial photograph review did not reveal any site activity, although small
areas of tonal contrasts, possibly representing stained soil, were apparent in
photographs from 1955 to 1985.
The PANS I identified a 500-gallon UST (T-189A) within the site boundaries that was
removed in 1992 during the Basewide tank removal program. The UST was referred to
as SWMU 10.60 in the PANSI. The tank was used for storing waste fuel and oil.
During the PANSI site visit it was noted that a 3-foot-high embankment caused by
grading operations to widen Guam Avenue (north and northeast of the site) appeared to
encroach upon the site. The PANSI report recommended further investigation of this
area as part of OU 6.
24-1
-------
CT026(N310027\11-27ROD
CLE-J02.Q1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
24.3
Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the soil investigation conducted at CAOC 12
and soil sampling and analytical results.
Based on the IAS and PANSI, one sampling stratum of a common disposal mechanism
and source of COPCs was identified at CAOC 12. The approximate location and
stratum boundary for CAOC 12 is presented in Figure 24-2. The Stratum 1 boundary
coincides with the CAOC boundaries and encompasses an area of approximately 80 by
200 feet. The stratum is unpaved and has no structures on it.
The UST represents a separate release mechanism at this CAOC: however, affected
soils were sampled under the RFA program.
Sixteen hand auger borings were advanced at Stratum 1 (Figure 24-3).
The analytical results collected during the soil investigation are presented in this section
along with a discussion of contaminant nature and extent. Maximum concentrations of
all detected analytes are presented in data summary tables. To help identify potentially
significant contaminants, residential soil RBCs are also shown on the tables. RBCs
represent soil concentrations that correspond to a 1 x 10. cancer risk or a 1.0 noncancer
hazard index for a residential soil exposure scenario (see. Section 5.0). For inorganics,
the 95th percentile background concentrations for shallow soils (0 to 3 feet bgs) are also
shown for reference.
Soil samples were also collected at the time the UST was removed and were analyzed
for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals, and TRPH. Although CLP-Ievel data were not
sought, the results are still considered usable from a decision-making perspective.
Therefore, they are also discussed in this section. Additional information on these data
is presented in the RFA Report (Jacobs 1996c).
Stratum 1
The collected samples were tested for SVOCs, metals, and cyanide.
24-2
-------
CT026<7\B70027\ 1'-27ROD
CLE..J02-o 1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at CAOC 12 are presented Tables
24-1 and 24-2, respectively.
.
The SVOCs that were detected were primarily phthalates. They consisted of
di-n-butyl phthalate, detected in three samples ranging from 1,700 to
3,000 IJglkg; bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, detected in one sample at 1,300 lJg/kg;
and diethyl phthalate, detected in one sample at 66 IJglkg. No samples
contained more than one phthalate ester. The phthalates are believed to be
sampling or analytical artifacts.
A single detection of pyrene at 580 lJg/kg was reported (NB12-D1). Very low
levels of other PAHs were initially reported by the laboratory in several samples.
They are not included in the summary because their concentrations are about
two orders of magnitude below the lowest calibration standard. Their mass
spectra were therefore not sufficiently defined to state unequivocally that they
were present. It is believed that a low level of PAH contamination does exist at
the site, but concentrations are not sufficient to identify them.
.
.
Analytical results for soil samples collected during the UST removal indicate the
presence of low-level OCPs (less than 0.02 mg/kg). Di-n-butyl phthalate and
acetone were detected at concentrations that suggest that they are laboratory or
field artifacts. All detected organic compounds were reported at concentrations
significantly below their residential soil RBC values.
TRPH was detected at concentrations up to 6,413 mglkg. .
.
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present at
concentrations of minor concern from a human health perspective.
24.4
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 12 using data
collected during the AI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final RI report for OUs 5 and 6. Results of the
assessment for CAOC 1 are provided in Section 27.0 of the AI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I EAA. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 12 are presented here in
support of the decision to take no action.
24.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 12 are presented in Table 24-3
for both the residential and industrial land-use scenarios.
24-3
-------
CT026O\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE.J02-ot F26o-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
24.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCR for Stratum 1 is below the point of departure of 1 x 10~ and is
considered to be insignificant from a human health perspective.
The noncancer hazard indices for Stratum 1 exceeds 1.0, but as shown in
Table 24-3, this results almost entirely from background metal concentrations
and is therefore considered insignificant.
24.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, the ILCRs for Stratum 1 is less than
1 x 1 O~. The total noncancer hazard index is less than 1.0.
24.4.2
Ecoloalcal Rl!.k Assessment Conclusion
The low levels of contaminants in the soils at CAOC 12 were not found to have
an adverse impact on ecological receptors. The detailed assessment can be
found in the Phase I ERA.
24.4.3
Summary of Evaluation of ImDacts to Groundwater
Results of the Phase I RI sampling effort identified SVOCs and metals at
CAOC 12. In addition, sampling performed under the RFA at the time of the UST
removal indicated various low-level chlorinated pesticides (e.g., DDT) were
present. These compounds are highly immobile and would, have only limited
migration potential. Impacts to groundwater from SVOCs and pesticides were
evaluated using the Marshack model. Results indicated that groundwater would
not be affected.
Surface waters are not present at CAOC 12 except during periods of heavy
precipitation.
24-4
-------
CT0260\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-Q027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
24.5
Description of No Action Alternative for CAOC 12
The no action alternative was selected for CAOC 12 under OUs 5 and 6. The selected
no action alternative does not involve institutional or engineering controls. It does not
include containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC 12 soil is considered
to be protective of human health and the environment for the following reasons.
.
Risk levels are below the target risk range.
No groundwater impacts result from contaminant detections.
.
.
The ERA found that the low levels of contaminants detected would not have an
adverse impact on ecological receptors.
24-5
-------
CT026CUJ70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7'()()27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
(intentionally blank)
24-6
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11.27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-87-Q027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
25.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR
CAOC 13 - PRESERVATION AND PACKAGING STORAGE AREA
25.1
Name, Location and Description
CAOC 13, the Preservation and Packaging Storage Area, is in the southern portion of
the Nebo Main Base, south of 1-40 and east of the main housing area. A review of the
IAS indicated that the Preservation and Packaging Division, currently known as the
Preservation and Maintenance Support Section, maintained a storage building for paints,
thinners, and other solvents at CAOC 13 prior to its destruction in a 2-day fire in 1957
(Brown and Caldwell 1983). The only remains of the former storage building are an 800-
square-foot slab of concrete and perimeter foundation. The CAOC includes the former
building area (concrete slab) and approximately 400 square feet of surrounding soil
(Figure 25-1).
25.2
Operations and Investigative History
CAOC 13 history is assembled from the lAS, PANSI, records search and historical
aerial photograph review. According to the lAS, the storage building at CAOC 13 was
constructed in 1949 and was in operation until 1957, when it was destroyed by a fire.
About 15,000 gallons of paints, thinners, and solvents were stored in this building.
During the PANSI, site personnel reported that the former building area was bermed
and used as a vehicle wash rack in 1958. During this site inspection, the former building
location was determined to be approximately 1 ,200 feet southeast of the area depicted
as Site 13 in the IAS. The PANSI report recommended further investigation of this area
as part of OU 6. This area is now referred to as CAOC 13.
25.3
Summary 01 Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the soil investigation conducted at CAOC 13
and soil sampling analytical results.
For investigative purposes, CAOC 13 is considered to be one stratum of a known source
of COPCs. The stratum boundary for CAOC 13 is presented in the Figure 25-2.
25-1
-------
CT026aIS70027\ 11"27ROD
CLE~02-o1 F26<;B7 '()()27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
Five hand auger borings were advanced to 2 feet bgs at this stratum.
The analytical results collected during the soil investigation are presented in this section
along with a discussion of contaminant nature and extent. Maximum concentrations of
all detected analytes are presented in data summary tables. To help identify potentially
significant contaminants, residential soil RBCs are also shown on the tables. RBCs
represent soil concentrations that correspond to a 1 x 10" cancer risk or a 1.0 noncancer
hazard index for a residential soil exposure scenario. For inorganics, the 95th percentile
background concentrations for shallow soils (0 to 3 feet bgs) are also shown for
reference.
The collected samples were tested for SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, TPH-D, metals, and
cyanide. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at CAOC 13 are
presented in Tables 25-1 and 25-2, respectively.
.
The only SVOC detected was diethyl phthalate. detected in three samples at
concentrations below the CRDL (around 210 J,lglkg). It is believed to be an
analytical artifact.
OCPs and PCBs were not detected in any of the samples.
.
.
Extractable petroleum hydrocarbons calculated as diesel were found in two
samples at a maximum of 42 mg/kg.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present at
concentrations of minor concern from a human health perspective.
.
25.4
Summary 01 Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 13 using data
collected during the AI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final RI report for OUs 5 and 6. Results of the
assessment for CAOC 1 are provided in Section 27.0 of the RI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I EAA. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 13 are presented here in
support of the decision to take no action. 'Also presented in this section is a general
summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection.
25-2
-------
CT0260\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE.J02-o1 F2~B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
25.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 13 are presented in Table 25-3
for both the residential and industrial land-use scenarios.
25.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
(
The ILCR for Stratum 1 is below the point of departure of 1 x 10" and is
considered to be insignificant.from a human health perspective.
The noncancer hazard index for Stratum 1 exceeds 1.0, but as shown in
Table 25-3, this results almost entirely from background metal concentrations
and is therefore considered insignificant.
25.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, the ILCR for Stratum 1 is less than
1 x 10". The total noncancer hazard index is less than 1.0.
25.4.2
Ecoloalcal Risk Assessment Conclusion
The low levels of contaminants in the soils at CAOC 13 were not found to have
an adverse impact on ecological receptors. The detailed assessment can be
found in the Phase I ERA.
25.4.3
Summary of Evaluation 01 Impacts to Groundwater
Results of the Phase I RI sampling effort did not identify any definitive, site-
related contamination at CAOC 13. The Marshack model was used to evaluate
the leaching potential of any potentially site-related contaminants. The results
indicated that neither the statistically elevated metals nor the phthalate would
impact groundwater resources. Surface waters are not present at CAOC 13
except during periods of heavy precipitation.
25-3
-------
CT02w.B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE~02~1F2~B7~7
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
25.5
Basis for the No Action Alternative for CAOC 13
The no action alternative was selected for CAOC 13 under OUs 5 and 6. The selected
no action alternative does not involve institutional or engineering controls. It does not
include containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC 13 soil is considered
to be protective of human health and the environment for the following reasons.
.
Risk levels are below the target risk range.
No groundwater impacts result from contaminant detections.
.
.
The ERA found that the low levels of contaminants detected would not have an
adverse impact on ecological receptors.
25-4
-------
CT026C7\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE..J02.Q1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
26.0 DECISION SUMMARY FOR
CAOC 14 - DRAINAGE CHANNELS AND MOJAVE RIVERBED OUTFALLS
26.1
Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 14 consists of three main stormwater drainage channels that constitute the Nebo
Main Base surface drainage system and four outfalls that discharge into the Mojave
River (Figure 26-1). The channels (designated A, F, and G) and outfalls (designated B,
C, D, and E) are essentially unlined trenches, although short segments are lined with
concrete. Between the mid-1940s and 1974, industrial wastes from cleaning and
plating operations in Buildings 2, 27, 50, and 53 were discharged through area drains,
culverts, and ditches to the banks of the Mojave River. The IAS states that the waste
streams included grease, oil, phenols, chromium phosphate, and detergents. The area
now known as CAOC 14 was referred to as SWMU 10.98 in the PANSI and as Site 14
in the IAS.
26.2
Operation and Investigative History
CAOC 14 history is assembled from information provided in the IAS. PANSI, and
historical aerial photographic review. According to the lAS, drainage channels and
outfalls received. industrial wastes from cleaning and plating operations from the
mid-1940s to 1974. Buildings 2, 27, 50, and 63 discharged industrial wastewater
through Outfalls Band C (Figure 26-1). Liquid waste from Building 21 was probably
discharged without treatment to the Mojave River through Outfall D. Buildings 225 and
322, which housed the vehicle maintenancellubrication shop and an auto maintenance
facility, respectively, discharged industrial waste to Drainage Channel G. Aerial
photographs corroborate that the drainage channels and outfalls were in use between
the mid-1940s and 1970s.
Since the startup of the industrial wastewater treatment plant (IWTP) and the wastewater
treatment operations in 1974, these channels have not been used to discharge
wastewater into the Mojave River. Currently, however, surface water runoff from the
aforementioned cleaning and metal plating facilities may enter these channels.
26-1
-------
. .
CT0260\870027\ 11-27ROD
CLE-J02-01 F26~-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
26.3
Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the soil investigation conducted at CAOC 14
and soil sampling analytical results.
CAOC 14 was divided into seven strata, assuming that each channel and outfall could
have been impacted by different sources. The location and strata boundaries for CAOC
14 are presented on Figure 26-2.
.
Stratum 1, Channel A. Stratum 1 is approximately 8,100 by 40 feet. Stratum 1
originates at the fish pond in the southernmost region 01 the Nebo Main Base,
runs along the western boundary, and discharges into the Mojave River.
Stratum 2, Outfall B. Stratum 2 is approximately 700 by 40 feet.
Stratum 2 originates north of the railroads and Building 27, runs northeast, and
discharges into the Mojave River.
.
.
Stratum 3, Outfall C. Stratum 3 is approximately 700 by 40 feet. Stratum 3
originates north of Building 53 and the railroad, runs northeast. and discharges
into the Mojave River.
Stratum 4, Outfall D. Stratum 4 is approximately 700 by 40 feet. It originates
north 01 Building 19 and the railroad, runs northeast, and discharges into the
Mojave River.
.
.
Stratum 5, Outfall E. Stratum 5 is approximately 1,200 by 40 feet. This stratum
originates north of Building 232 and the railroads and discharges into the Mojave
River.
Stratum 6, Channel F. Stratum 6 is approximately 5,400 by 40 feet. This area
originates at the southem boundary of the Nebo Main Base at CAOC 9, and runs
northeast along the eastern boundary before joining Channel G at Joseph Boll
Ave.
.
Stratum 7, Channel G. Stratum 7 is approximately 6,000 by 40 feet. One section
of Channel G originates at Building 322; the other section originates near Joseph
Boll Avenue where waste from Building 225 is discharged. These two sections of
Channel G join at North Tinian Street and run west until joining Channel F. From
there, Channel F runs northeast and discharges into the Mojave River.
Prior to locating the soil borings, the channels and outfalls were visually inspected. No
obvious sources such as drums, stains, or oily liquids were found. Other than greases
and oils associated with runoff from vehicle traffic areas, no ongoing releases would
impact these areas. Thirty-five hand auger borings were advanced to 2 feet bgs at the
seven strata in CAOC 14. Boring locations are shown on Figure 26-2.
26-2
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11-27AOD
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
The analytical results collected during the soil investigation are presented in this section
along with a discussion of contaminant nature and extent. Maximum concentrations of
all detected analytes are presented in data summary tables. To help identify potentially
significant contaminants, residential soil RBCs are also shown on the tables. RBCs
represent soil concentrations that correspond to a 1 x 10. cancer risk or a
1.0 noncancer hazard index for a residential soil exposure scenario. For inorganics, the
95th percentile background concentrations for shallow soils (0 to 3 feet bgs) are also
shown for reference.
26.3.1
Stratum 1
The collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals,
cyanide, and TPH-D. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at
Stratum 1 are presented in Tables 26-1 and 26-2, respectively.
.
No VOCs, SVOCs, or total extractable petroleum hydrocarbons were
detected in any of the samples of Stratum 1.
Pesticides were found at low levels (Le., at concentrations below their
residential soil RBC values) in several of the samples. No other organic
contaminants were detected in Stratum 1.
.
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
26.3.2
Stratum 2
The collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals,
cyanide, and TPH-D. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at
Stratum 2 are presented in Tables 26-3 and 26-4, respectively.
.
No VOCs, SVOCs, or total extractable petroleum hydrocarbons were
detected in any of the samples of Stratum 2.
Pesticides were found at low levels in several of the samples. They
consisted of methoxychlor, detected in two samples at approximately
30 J,lglkg; and the DDT group, the Chlordanes. Endrin, and Dieldrin at
concentrations near or below their quantitation limits and below their
residential soil RBC values.
.
.
Sample NB14-o6 contained Aroclor-1260 (a PCB) at 110 j.Jglkg. PCBs
were not detected in any of the remaining samples.
26-3
-------
CT026(N370027\11-27ROD
26.3.4
CLE-J02.() 1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
.
No other organic contaminants were detected in Stratum 2.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present'
at concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
.
26.3.3
Stratum 3
The collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals,
cyanide, and TPH-D. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at
Stratum 3 are presented in Tables 26-5 and 26-6, respectively.
.
The only VOC detected was methylene chloride in two samples at 2
~g/kg, which is below its residential RBC value. Methylene chloride is a
common laboratory contaminant, and at this concentration, it is very likely
to be attributable to laboratory contamination.
Two phthalates were detected: bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate at 490 ~g/kg
and butyl benzyl phthalate at 81 ~g/kg, both in sample NB14-11. They
were detected at concentrations less than their residential soil RBC
values.
.
.
Pesticides were found in several samples, most notably the DDT family of
pesticides (with a maximum of 410 ~gIkg for 4,4'-DDE in NB14-12), the
Chlordanes, and single detections of Dieldrin and Endrin. Aroclor--1260
was detected in sample NB 14-11 at 330 ~g/kg. It was not detected in any
of the remaining samples.
Diesel was found in three of the samples in concentrations ranging from
16 to 22 mglkg. The diesel fractions appeared highly weathered.
.
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concern from a human health perspective,
except for lead, which was detected at 206 mg/kg.
Stratum 4
The collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals,
cyanide, and TPH-D. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at
Stratum 4 are presented in Tables 26-7 and 26-8, respectively.
No VOCs or extractable hydrocarbons were found in any of the samples.
.
The only SVOC reported was N-nitrosodiphenylamine in sample NB14-19
at
46 ~g/kg, which is well below its residential soil RBC value. This is
probably a laboratory artifact or a misidentification.
26-4
-------
CT026O\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
.
Very low levels of pesticides were found in two of the samples. They
consisted of the DOT group and alpha-Chlordane. All values were below
the quantitation limit and below their residential soil ABC values.
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
26.3.5
Stratum 5
The collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals,
cyanide, and TPH-O. Maximum organic and inorganic concentrations found at
Stratum 5 are presented in Tables 26-9 and 26-10, respectively.
.
No VOCs or extractable hydrocarbons were found in any of the samples.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and N-nitrosodiphenylamine were the only
SVOCs detected. They were detected at concentrations below their
residential soil RBC values and are believed to be laboratory artifacts.
.
.
OCPs were found in all of the samples. The pesticides detected
consisted of the DOT group, the Chlordanes, and Dieldrin. The sample
showing the highest concentration of the pesticides was NB14-24. All
pesticide detections were at concentrations less than the corresponding
residential soil RBC values except for Dieldrin.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
.
26.3.6
Stratum 6
The collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals,
cyanide, and TPH-O. Maximum organic and inorganics concentrations found at
Stratum 6 are presented in Tables 26-11 and 26-12, respectively.
.
No VOCs (except for acetone and 2-butanone) or extractable
hydrocarbons were found in any of the samples. Acetone was found in
one sample at
4 ~gIkg and is not believed to be site related: it is a common laboratory
contaminant. 2-Butanone was found in one sample at 3 ~gIkg. At this
concentration the identification of the compound is uncertain.
.
N-nitrosodiphenylamine, ranging from 47 to 57 ~glkg, was found in three
samples. It is not believed to be site related.
.
Sample NB 14-28 contained various P AHs at concentrations near the
quantitation limits. All were at concentrations below residential soil RBC
values except for benzo(a}pyrene.
26-5
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11-27ROD
26.4
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
.
OCPs were found in all of the samples at concentrations below residential
soil ABC values. The pesticides detected consisted of the DDT group,
the Chlordanes, Dieldrin, and Endosulfan I.
Aroclor-1254 was found in one sample (NB14-28) at 43 ~gIkg, which is
just below the ABC value. This is the same sample in which the PAHs
were detected.
.
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
26.3.7
Stratum 7
The collected samples were tested for VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, metals,
cyanide, and TPH-D. Maximum organic and inorganics concentrations found at
Stratum 7 are presented in Tables 26-13 and 26-14, respectively.
.
No VOCs, SVOCs, or extractable hydrocarbons were found in any of the
samples.
.
OCPs were found in all of the samples. The pesticides detected
consisted of the DDT group. the Chlordanes, and Dieldrin. The
concentrations were low (Le., less than ABC values), except for the DDT
group in sample
NB14-33. where 4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-DDT were detected at 35 and 37
~gIkg, respectively.
PCBs were not detected at this stratum.
.
.
All detected metals are believed to be naturally occurring or are present
at concentrations of minor concem from a human health perspective.
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 14 using data
collected during the AI. The human health evaluation methodology is provided in
Section 5.0 and Appendix A of the draft final AI report for OUs 5 and 6. Aesults of the
assessment for CAOC 14 are provided in Section 29.0 of the AI report. The ecological
assessment is provided in the Phase I ERA. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.5.2 and conclusions related to CAOC 14 are presented here in
support of the decision to take no action. Also presented in this section is a general
summary of water quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection.
26-6
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-SHI027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
As previously discussed, the sampling strata at this CAOC correspond to individual
drainage channels. These channels are relatively long and narrow; consequently the
likelihood of hypothetical residential or industrial receptors being physically confined in
these areas is considered low. However, the residential and industrial evaluations have
been made to provide a measure of contaminant significance. Actual risks and hazards
to any future receptor are likely to be substantially less than the estimates presented in
this section.
26.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 14 are presented in
Table 26-15 for the residential land-use scenario and Table 26-16 for the
industrial land-use scenario.
26.4.1.1
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCRs for Strata 1, 4, and 7 are below the point of departure of 1 x 10" and
are considered to be insignificant from a human health perspective.
The ILCRs for Strata 2 and 3 are approximately 3 x 10" and 9 x 10", respectively,
and result from low-level Aroclor-1260 detections. However, the detectsd levels
are below the EPA guidance level of 1 mg/kg for a residential land-use scenario.
For this reason, the potential carcinogenic human health risk at these strata are
considered insignificant.
The ILCR for Stratum 5 is approximately 5 x 10" and results from a low-level
Dieldrin detection.
The ILCR for Stratum 6 is approximately 1 X 10-5 and results from low-level PAH
detections. PAHs are a common constituent in urban runoff and their presence
in a drainage channel is not unexpected.
Although the risk estimates for several strata of CAOC 14 are above the 1 x 10"
point of departure, they are not considered an unacceptable threat to public
health. The risk estimates are conservative, upper-bound values based on long-
26-7
-------
CT026O\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE..J02-Q1 F2~B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
term continuous exposure to the stratum-maximum detections. As discussed
previously, the drainage channels and outfalls are long and narrow; consequently
the likelihood of any significant residential or industrial exposure in these areas is
considered low.
The non cancer hazard indices for all seven strata exceed 1.0, but as shown in
Table 26-15, this results almost entirely from background metal concentrations
and is therefore considered insignificant.
26.4.1.2
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, the ILCRs for Strata 1, 2, 4, and 7 are
less than 1 x 10" and for Strata 3, 5, and 6 are 2 x 10", 2 x 10", and 4 x 10",
respectively. The total noncancer hazard indices are all less than 1.0.
26.4.2
Ecoloalcal Risk Assessment Conclusion
The low levels of contaminants in the soils at CAOC 14 were not found to have
an adverse impact on ecological receptors. The supplemental, limited
investigation of off-site transport of contamination from Nebo Main Base into the
Riparian Fringe and Mojave Wash habitats showed that there is no evidence of
contamination in soils or surface water from Nebo Main Base sites. The detailed
assessment can be found in the Phase I ERA.
26.4.3
Summary 01 Evaluation 01 ImDacts to Groundwater
Seven strata, all of which are drainage channels or outfalls. were investigated at
CAOC 14. They have similar leaching pathways and, for conciseness and
clarity, are not discussed separately in this section. Aesults of the Phase I AI
sampling effort identified VOCs, SVOCs. OCPs, and PCBs as being present in
the soils of this CAOC. Impacts to groundwater were evaluated using the
Marshack screening method and VLEACH.
The Marshack screening indicated that alpha-Chlordane, Aroclor-1260,
benzo(a)anthracene, DOE, DOT, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fIuoranthene,
26-8
-------
CT026C'IB70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE-J02.()1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
benzo(k)fluoranthene, dieldrin, gamma-Chlordane, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
could affect groundwater quality. All of these contaminants are nonvolatile,
insoluble, and adsorb easily to soil particles. Their primary mode of transport is
in the form of particulate matter sorbed onto soil particles. They are expected to
be immobile in vadose zone soils.
Impacts to groundwater were further evaluated using VLEACH. Results indicate
that the groundwater concentrations of all these contaminants would be below
their respective RBCs and MCLs except for Dieldrin and gamma-Chlordane,
detected in Stratum 5 (sample NB14-24) in the northern portion of the CAOC.
The calculated groundwater concentration of Dieldrin and gamma-Chlordane
occurs in the first year. The Dieldrin concentration detected at CAOC 14 is very
low (0.061 mglkg) and is consistent with Basewide pesticide applications. The
only samples collected were from 2 feet bgs. For the VLEACH modeling, a
conservative approach was taken that assumed the maximum concentration of
each contaminant from these shallow (2 feet bgs) samples were the same all the
way down to the water table. This greatly overestimates the predicted impact to
groundwater. To address this uncertainty, the groundwater will be monitored as
part of the OU 2 remedial action.
26.5
Description of the No Action Alternative for CAOC 14
The no action altemative was selected for CAOC 14 under OUs 5 and 6. The selected
no action alternative does not involve institutional or engineering controls. It does not
include containment, excavation, or treatment technologies. CAOC 14 soil is considered
to be protective of human health and the environment for the following reasons: .
.
The calculated risks are based on maximum detections of site contaminants.
Given the physical dimensions of the strata (Le., long, narrow channels), the
likelihood of any significant residential or industrial exposure in these areas is
considered small. Furthermore, these are unoccupied areas with no plans for
use in the foreseeable future, which greatly reduces the potential for on-site
human exposure.
.
Detections of PCBs are below the EPA guidance level.
Modeling indicates a possible threat to groundwater from residual pesticides in
Outfall E near CAOC 2 but further action (Le., monitoring) will be taken as part of
the OU 2 remedial action. .
.
26-9
-------
CT0260\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE.J02.Q1 F260-B7-D027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
.
The ERA found that the low levels of contaminants detected would not have an
adverse impact on ecological receptors.
. Because low levels of pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs were detected in the soils that were
within the risk range for carcinogenic site-related risks, a description of site history will be
documented in the Base Master Plan for information and planning purposes. The levels
of pesticides detected will also be documented. Language provided in the Master Plan
will indicate that any activities planned in this area or changes in site use should be
coordinated through and reviewed by the MCLB Barstow Environmental Department.
26-10
-------
CT0260\B70027\11-27R0D
CLE.J02-Q1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
27.0
DECISION SUMMARY FOR NEBO MAIN BASE RIPARIAN FRINGE HABITAT
27.1
Name, Location, and Description
The Riparian Fringe Habitat is located on the Nebo Main Base and extends along its
northern boundary adjacent to CAOC 1, CAOC 2, CAOC 3, CAOC 4 and the Mojave
River Wash. The Riparian Fringe Habitat is a long, narrow, roughly L-shaped corridor
approximately 5,000 by 250 feet (Figure 27-1). This is a heterogeneous habitat with a
high diversity of plant and animal life compared to other areas of MCLB Barstow. Berm
construction for flood control and disposal of construction debris have created
intennittently ponded areas adjacent to the Mojave Wash and have significantly altered
the natural habitat. A detailed description of the ecological characteristics of the Nebo
Main Base Riparian Fringe Habitat is provided in the Phase I ERA.
27.2
Operations and Investigative History
The EPA conducted a Phase I ERA for MCLB Barstow, California, under a
memorandum of agreement with the United States Department of Defense (EPA 1996).
The purpose of the ERA was to qualitatively and/or quantitatively evaluate the actual or
potential impacts of site-related activities on plants and animals other than humans and
domesticated species.
The habitat has been significantly disturbed by flood control practices, frequent grading
activities associated with various nearby industrial operations, and the artificial storm
water drainage channels from the Nebo Main Base and Golf Course.
The ERA identified four potential contaminant source areas that could directly or
indirectly affect the Riparian Fringe Habitat. These inctude CAOC 1 (Landfill North of the
Golf Course), CAOC 2 (Pesticide Storage and Washout Area), CAOC 3 (Wastewater
Disposal Area), and CAOC 4 (Old Trap and Skeet Range Areas). Detected
contaminants in the surface soils of these CAOCs include PAHs, pesticides, phthalates,
and possibly metals. Although the detected levels of residual contaminants at these
CAOCs were not determined to be an ecological threat, concem was expressed that
contaminants could have migrated from these CAOCs during heavy runoff periods. The
Phase I ERA recommended that sediment and surface waters in this area be sampled to
27-1
-------
CT026O'IB70027\ 11-27AOD
CLE-J02-Q1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
determine whether contamination is present that could threaten species that use, the
area.
Samples were not taken at the Nebo Main Base Riparian Fringe Habitat prior to its
identification as an ecologically sensitive area during preparation of the Phase I ERA.
The Nebo Main Base Riparian Fringe Habitat was not identified as a' site in the IAS or
during the PANS I.
27.3
Summary of Site Characteristics
This section summarizes the field activities conducted during the remedial investigation
of the Nebo Main Base Riparian Fringe Habitat. Field activities included surface water,
sediment, and soil sample collection. The scope of work for the Nebo Main Base
Riparian Fringe Habitat was defined in the Draft Final Phase II Field Sampling Work Plan
for Operable Units 5 and 6 (Jacobs 1995a) based on discussions with an EPA ecological
risk assessment representative in August 1994. The Nebo Main Base Riparian Fringe
Habitat itself was defined in the ERA using transect surveys conducted from spring 1993
through fall 1994, and the habitat assessment methodology presented in Appendix A of
the ERA (EPA 1996a).
Phase I sampling was conducted on 14 February and 14 March 1995, at the Nebo Main
Base Riparian Fringe Habitat in order to identify any contamination due to site-related
activities at adjacent suspected source areas (CAOCs 1, 2, 3, and 4). In particular,
sampling was targeted to determine if surface water, sediments, or soil are sufficiently
contaminated to present a threat to flora or fauna.
Three sampling locations within the Riparian Fringe Habitat were selected by an EPA
ecological risk assessment representative and samples collected from each site were
analyzed for OCPs, PCBs, VOCs, SVOCs, OCPs PCBs, target analyte list (TAL) metals,
and cyanide according to CLP protocol. Surface water (0 to 0.5 foot) and surface
sediment (0 to 1.5 feet below the surface water/sediment interface) were sampled at one
location (NRH-Q1). At two locations (NRH-02 and -03), only surface sediment samples
were collected because no surface water was present at the time of sampling. The
sample locations are shown on Figure 27-1. The locations were selected in order to: 1)
27-2
-------
CT026a\B70027\11.27ROD
CLE..J02..()1 F260-B7 "()()27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
provide a representative sampling of the Riparian Fringe Habitat, and 2) sample those
areas most likely to have been affected by adjacent potential contaminant sources.
27.3.1
Sediment SamDles
The samples collected from the three Riparian Fringe Habitat sites were
analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, OPCs, PCBs, chlorophenoxy herbicides, metals,
and hexavalent chromium. Maximum organic and inorganic concentra~ions
found in the sediment samples are presented in Tables 27-1 and 27-2,
respectively.
. The detected VOCs consisted of 2-butanone, acetone, and carbon disulfide.
Maximum concentrations were detected in sample NRH-01. As explained in
Section 30.6.1.1 of the draft final RI report, these detections are believed to
be associated with natural processes (Le., decaying organic matter).
. No SVOCs, OCPs, PCBs, or chlorophenoxy herbicides were detected in any
of the samples.
. The results suggest that the detected metals are generally consistent with
background levels and are not indicative of an anthropogenic source.
27.3.2
Surface Water Sam Dies
Tables 27-3 and 27-4 present the maximum concentrations of organic and
inorganic compounds found in the surface water samples.
. The detected VOCs consisted of 1,2-dichloroethane and carbon disulfide,
each at a concentration of about 1 ~gIL compared to the CRDL of 2 ~g/L The
origin of these compounds could not be definitively ascertained, although the
carbon disulfide may be associated with natural processes. However, they
are present at concentrations of minor concern from an ecological
perspective.
. Two SVOCs were detected: 2-methylphenol and N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine.
The phenol is believed to be associated with natural processes; the other
compound is believed to be an analytical artifact.
27-3
-------
CT0260\870027\11-27AOD
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-Q027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
27.4
Summary of Site Risks
27.4.1
Human Health Risk Characterization
As the objective of the Phase I investigation at the Riparian Fringe Habitat was to .
evaluate actual or potential threat of site-related activities on plants and animals,
a human health risk assessment was not performed.
27.4.2
Ecoloaical Risk Assessment Conclusion
The investigation of off-site transport of contaminants from the Nebo Main Base
to the Riparian Fringe Habitat showed that there is no evidence of contamination
in soils or surface water. Consequently, no adverse impacts to ecological
receptors are anticipated.
27.5
Description of the No Action Alternative for the Riparian Fringe Habitat
The no action altemative selected for the Riparian Fringe Habitat does not involve
institutional controls or engineering control, and does not include containment,
excavation, or treatment technologies.
The Riparian Fringe Habitat is considered to be protective. of the environment for the
following reasons.
.
No evidence of site-related contamination was detected in sediment and surface
water sampling.
.
The Phase I ERA concluded that no adverse impacts would occur.
27-4
-------
CT0260.B70027\ 11.27ROD
CLE.J02.()1 F260-B7 '()o27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
28.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
No written or verbal comments were received .from the public concerning the proposed
actions for OUs 5 and 6.
28-1
-------
CT0260\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE-J02-Q1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
(intentionally blank)
28-2
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11.27ROD
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
29.0 REFERENCES
Benton Engineering. 1989. Geotechnical Investigation.
,
Brown and Caldwell. 1970. Domestic and Industrial Waste Study.
Brown ~nd Caldwell. 1983. "Initial Assessment Study of Marine Corps logistics Base,
Barstow, CA.. NEESA 13-035. September.
A.l. Burke Engineers. Inc. (Burke) 1985. .Confirmation Study Marine Corps logistics
Base. Barstow, California." Vol. 1. October.
Burke. 1986. .Confirmation Study Marine logistics Base, Barstow, California..
Volume 1: General Report; Volume 2: Site 2 Pesticide Storage and Washout
Area; Volume 3: Site 11, Fuel Bum Area; Volume 4: Site 18, Sludge Waste
Disposal Area; Volume 5: Site 21 Sludge Waste Disposal Area; Volume 6:
Industrial Waste Treatment Area, Vermo Annex Base; Volume 7: Site 34, PCB
Storage Area. February.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1967. Mojave River Ground Water
Basins Investigation. Bulletin No. 84.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), lahontan Region. 1996.
Staff Report: Engineered Alternatives to Prescriptive Standard for Class '"
landfill Cover. July.
EI-Beit, 100 et al. 1981. International Journal o( Environmental Study. Volume 16,
pp. 189 -196.
Hardt, W. 1971. Hydrologic Analysis o( Mojave River Basin, Using Electric Analog
Model. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report.
Howard. Philip. 1991. Handbook o( Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic
Chemicals. Lewis Publications.
29-1
-------
CT026O\B70027\11-27AOD
CLE--.l02-Q1 F260-B7 00027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
Hyatt, E. 1934. Mojave River Investigation. California Division of Water Resources
Bulletin No. 47.
International Technology Corporation (IT). 1988. "Report of Analytical Data, Sample, and
Analyze Monitoring Potable Water Wells, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow,
California." 11 November.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs). 1990a. "SWAT Proposal: Solid Waste
Assessment Test Report for the Vermo Annex Sanitary Landfill, Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Barstow, California." June.
Jacobs. 1991a. "RCRA Facility Assessment, Preliminary ReviewNisual Site Inspection
Report for the Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California." Vols. I and II.
02 August.
Jacobs. 1991 b. "Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California, Draft Final
Phase I Field Sampling and Analysis Plan, Remedial InvestigationlFeasibility
Study for Operable Units 3, 4, 5, and 6." 02 December.
Jacobs. 1991c. Draft RCRA Compliance Evaluation Report, Marine Corps Logistics
Base, Barstow, California. 07 February.
Jacobs. 1991 d. Draft Final Sampling and Analysis Plan, RIIFS, OUs 5 and 6, Marine
Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California. 15 October.
Jacobs. 1991e. "Draft Aerial Infrared Thermographic Survey and On-Site Visual
Investigation and Infrared Surface Scans During August 1991 of Nebo Site, Rifle
Range, and Vermo Site." Tech Memo 003.24 December.
Jacobs. 1992a. Waste Minimization Plan for Vermo Annex. Vol. I (Parts 1 and 2) and
Vol. II, Final Report. Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California.
07 December.
29-2
-------
CT0260\B70027\11-27ROD
CLE..J02-<11 F26C>-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
Jacobs. 1992b. Draft Underground Storage Tank Removal Report, Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Barstow, California. 19 November.
Jacobs. 1992c. -Draft Quality Assessment of Aerial Photo Review." Technical
Memorandum 0004. 29 May.
Jacobs. 1993a. "Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California, Draft, Operable Units
1 and 2, Results of Stage B, Groundwater Investigation" Technical
Memorandum 0012. 09 November.
Jacobs. 1993b. "MCLB Barstow Draft Report Geophysical Investigation, Operable Units
5 and 6. II 22 July.
Jacobs. 1993c. "Draft Final Underground Storage Tank Removal Report." Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Barstow, California. 25 January.
Jacobs. 1993d. uMarine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California, Preliminary Draft
Desert Mix and Dust Suppression Materials - Results of Preliminary
Investigation.u Technical Memorandum 0017.29 December.
J~cobs. 1994a. "Revised Final Quality Assurance Project Plan; Appendix C - Sampling
and Analysis Plan for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Barstow, California." 30 March.
Jacobs. 1994b. "Draft Elimination Rationale for Sampling Requirements for Specific
Strata, Operable Units 5 and 6." Technical Memorandum 0018.09 March.
Jacobs. 1994c. "Draft Final Phase II Field Sampling and Work Plan, Remedial
InvestigationlFeasibility Study, Operable Units 3 and 4, Marine Corps Logistics
Base, Barstow, California." Technical Memorandum 0010.09 March.
Jacobs. 1994d. "Draft Rationale for Elimination from Further Investigation of Specific
Geophysical Anomalies, Operable Units 5 and 6." Technical Memorandum 0020.
24 June.
29-3
-------
CT026<1.B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F2~B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
Jacobs 1994e. "Draft CAOC 16 Phase I Report, Operable Unit 5, MCLB Barstow,
California." Technical Memorandum 0019.19 August.
Jacobs. 19941. "Draft Phase I Remedial Investigation Operable Units 5 and 6." Technical
Memorandum 0022. Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California. 26
September.
Jacobs. 1994g. "Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California, Background Soils
Investigation." Technical Memorandum 0023 Draft. 26 September.
Jacobs. 1995a. Draft Final Phase II Field Sampling Work Plan, Remedial Investigation I
Feasibility Study, Operable Units 5 and 6, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow,
Califomia. 14 August.
Jacobs. 1995b. Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Operable Units 1 and 2, Marine
Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, Califomia. 15 June.
Jacobs. 1995c. Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report, Operable Units 3 and 4,
Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California. 15 June.
Jacobs. 1996a. "Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow, Califomia Remedial Investigation
I Feasibility Study: Remedial Investigation Operable Units 5
and 6." Draft Final.
Jacobs. 1996b. .MCLB Barstow, California Remedial Investigation I Feasibility Study
Operable Units 5 and 6 Feasibility Study Report For CERCLA Areas of Concern
7. 16. and 35." Draft Final. December.
Jacobs 1996c. Draft Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility
Assessment (RFA) Report. In progress.
. Jacobs. 1997a. .MCLB Barstow Proposed Plan for Operable Units 5 and 6. .
29-4
-------
CT0260\B70027\ 11-27ROD
CLE.J02-o1 F260-87-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
Kennedy & Jenks Consultants. 1993. -Remediation Plan, Spill Prevention/Cross
Contamination Sources to the Sanitary Sewer, Marine Corps Logistics Base,
Barstow, California. U 02 August.
Miller, G.A. 1969. Water Resources of the Marine Corps Supply Center Area, Barstow,
California. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division. Open-File Report.
OHM Remediation Services, Corp. (OHM). 1994. Facsimile Transmittal of Information on
Work Performed at CAOC 2, Removal Action, Marine Corps Logistics Base,
Barstow, CA. Sent to Ms. Robin Smith. 18 November.
OHM. 1994a. Preliminary Draft Technical Memorandum A. Removal Action for
CAOC 6 Air SpargeNapor Extraction and Monitor Well Installation, Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Nebo Annex, Barstow, California. Decernber 1994.
OHM. 1995. Draft Technical Memorandum A. Removal Action for CAOC 6
Air SpargeNapor Extraction and Monitor Well Installation, Marine Corps Logistics
Base, Nebo Main Base, Barstow, California.
RADIAN. 1984-1988. -Air Monitoring Report for the Cool Water Coal Gasification
Program. - Annual Reports presented to Cool Water Coal Gasification Project,
Daggett, CA.
Target Environmental Services (Target). 1992. Phase I. -Final Report Soil Gas Survey,
Operable Units 3 and 4, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California.-
September.
Target Environmental Services (Target). 1995. Phase II. -Final Report Soil Gas Survey,
Operable Units 3 and 4, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California. n May.
Turin, J. 1990. -VLEACH, One-Dimensional Finite Difference Vadose Zone Leaching
Model. n Prepared by CH2M HILL. Reading, CA, for EPA, Region IX. August.
29-5
-------
CT0260\S70027\11-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F2~-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1968. "Flood Plain Information, Mojave River
(Vicinity of Barstow) San Bernardino County, California." October.
EPA. 1986. Remedial Response Program. Document Records for Hazard Ranking
System.
EPA. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund; Vol. I, Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A), Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/oo2. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. Washington, D.C. December.
EPA. 1989b. Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA Publication No. EPA/600/8-89/043. July.
EPA. 1990a. EPA Region IX, the State of California, and the United States Department
of the Navy. "Federal Facility Agreement Under CERCLA, Section 120, Marine
Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California." 24 October.
EPA. 1990b. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. Final
Rule (40 CFR 300). Federal Register. Vol. 55, No. 46. 08 March.
EPA. 1992a. Guidance for Data Usability in Risk
of Emergency and Remedial Response.
EPA/540/G-90/00s. Revised April.
Assessment, Part A. Office
Document No. 9585.09A,
EP A. 1993a. Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites.
EPA. 1994a. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, Annual, FY 1994. EPA
5401R-94/020, OERR 9200.6-303(94-1), PB94-921199. Office of Solid ~aste
Management and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. March.
EPA. 1996b. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). February.
EPA. 1996a. Phase I Ecological Risk Assessment. Marine Corps Logistics Base,
Barstow, California. 12 February.
29-6
-------
CT0260\B70027'\ 11-27ROD
CLE~02'()1 F260-B7 .()Q27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993. Biological Opinion for Operations and
Maintenance of the Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, San Bernardino
County, California (CA-932.5, 1-8-93-F-16). 12 August.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1968. Water Resources at Marine Corps Supply
Center, Barstow, CA for the 1968 Fiscal Year.
USGS. 1975. Professional Paper 878. "Evaluation of Groundwater Degradation
Resulting from Waste Disposal to Alluviums near Barstow, California."
29-7
-------
CT026C71B70027\ "-27ROD
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
(intentionally blank)
29-8
-------
TABLES
-------
CT0260\B7OO27\F1NAl
CLE-J02-o1 F26C}.B7-()027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
Table 1-1
Listing of CAOCs In Operable Units 5 and 6
Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow
CAOC NUMBER CAOC NAME
Operable Unit 5
15/17 Oil Storage/Spillage and IWTP Areas
16 Building 573 and Perimeter Area
19. First Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area
21 Industrial Waste Disposal Area
22 Domestic Wastewater Disposal Area
24 Tracked Vehicle Test Area
26 Building 533 Waste Disposal Area
27 Building 436 Fuel Storage Area
28 West Lot. Dust Control Area
29 Sludge Storage Area
30 Locomotive Repair Shop Disposal Area
31 North Vehicle Test Track Road
32 Preservation and Packaging Storage Area
35 Class III Landfill
36 Proposed Paint Combat Vehicle Maintenance Shop
Operable Unit 6
1 Landfill North of the Golf Course
3 Wastewater Disposal Area
4 Old Trap and Skeet Range Areas
6 Original Trash Landfill
7 Drum Storage and Landfill Areas
8 Building 197 Wastewater Disposal Areas
12 Radiator Cleaning Chemical Disposal Area
13 Preservation and Packaging Storage Area
14 Drainage Channels and Mojave Riverbed Outfalls
Riparian Fringe Habitat Nebo Main Base Riparian Fringe Habitat
:
-------
CT02601B700271TBl'2.I.XLS
ClE.J02.01 F2611-B7.0027
Table 2-1
MCLB Barstow Chronology
Date Source Investigation/Event
Preliminary Investigations
1983 B&C 1983 Initial Assessment Study (IAS)
1984-1986 Burke 1986 Confirmation Studies
March 1986 EPA 1986 Hazard Ranking System (HRS) document
prepared for MCLB Barstow
OcUNov 1988 IT 1988 Trichloroethene (TCE) groundwater
contamination detected in Base wells
November 1989 EPA MCLB Barstow placed on National Priorities
List (NPL)
Federal Facility Agreement-Driven Investigations
October 1990 EPA 1990a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) with
U.S. Marine Corps and regulatory agencies
August 1991 Jacobs 1991a Preliminary ReviewNisual Site Inspection
(PRNSI) Report
December 1991 Jacobs 1991 e Aerial Infrared Thermographic Survey (TM 0003)
May 1992 Jacobs 1992c Draft Quality Assessment of Aerial Photograph
Review Technical Memorandum (TM 0004)
September 1992 Target 1992 Final Report Soil Gas Survey OUs 5 and 6 Phase II
July 1993 Jacobs 1993b Appendix A MCLB Barstow Draft Report
Geophysical Investigation (OUs 5 and 6)
August 1994 Jacobs 1994e Draft CAOC 16 Phase I Report (TM 0019)
September 1994 Jacobs 1994f Draft OUs 5 and 6 Phase I Remedial Investigation
(TM 0022)
September 1994 Jacobs 1994g Draft Background Soil Investigation (TM 0023)
May 1995 Target 1995 Final Report Soil Gas Survey OUs 5 and 6 Phase II
June 1995 Jacobs 1995b Draft Final OUs 3 and 4 Remedial Investigation
August 1995 Jacobs 1995a Draft Final OUs 5 and 6 Phase II Field Sampling
Work Plan
B&C Brown & Caldwell
Burke A.L. Burke Engineers. Inc.
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
IT International Technology Corporation
Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
MClB Marine Corps Logistic Base
NEESA Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity
OU Operable Unit
1M Technical Memorandum
-------
CT0260\B7OO27\RN35_' XLS
Table 3-1
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 35: Class 811 Landfill
Stratum 1: Landfill Area
CLE.JONI1 F280.B7 .0027
Depth Depth Depth Risk-Based
o to 3 It 3 to 13 It Below 13 It Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Regular Regular Cancer Non-Cancer
I PesticideS/t'\;t:lS
ALPHA-CHLORDANE IJglkg 1.8 219 2,340
AROClOR-1242 IJglkg 4,000 J 47
DIELDRIN IJglkg 1.1 J 18 1,950
ENDRIN IJglkg 0.99 J 11 ,700
GAMMA-CHLORDANE 1J9lkg 1.5 J 219 2,340
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH - DIESEL mglkg 1,14OJ
!~emIVOlame urgamcs
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE IJglkg 100 J 391
BENZO(A)PYRENE IJglkg 82 J 39
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE IJglkg 120 J 391
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYlENE IJglkg SOJ
BENZO(K)FlUORANTHENE IJglkg 76 J 610
BIS(2.ETHYlHEXYl)PHTHALA TE IJglkg 6,500 J 20,400 780,000
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE IJglkg 240 J 7,800,000
CARBAZOLE 1J91k9 64 J 14,300
CHRYSENE IJglkg 130 J 6,100
DI-N-BUTYl PHTHALATE IJgJkg 57 J 3,900,000
DI-N-OCTYl PHTHALATE IIglkg 77 J 780,000
DIETHYL PHTHALATE IJglkg 1,200 J 3.1 E+07
FLUORANTHENE IJglkg 260J 1,560,000
FLUORENE 1./91k9 84 J 30,000
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE I./g/kg 60J 391
NAPHTHALENE I./g/kg 360 J 80,900
PHENANTHRENE IIg/kg 460
PYRENE I./g/kg 300 J 1,170,000
Notos'
, A blank 'ndlcates thai the anllyle _s not detected
2 Rlsk.Based Criteria are based on U 5 Environmental Protection Agency toxlcologic.1 data. . ,esidenlialeltpOsure scenario,
a larget cancer risk of 0 (X)()()() 1 , and. target noncarcinogenic hazard mde»e of 1 O. Exposure routes considered Include soil ingestion,
dermal contact, inhalation 0' ~latil'I'rom soil, and Inhalation 0' particuf~te.bound substances. a "." indicates not applicable
3 'J quahfier Indlcales vllue is In eslom.te due to being lower thin the lowest standard 0' due to inte~e'ence
4 Units' mglkg . milligrams per kilogrlm: ~glkg . mic'ograms per kIlogram.
S Resutts &hewn represent a compoSIte of tho data 'Of all regular samples.
6 Duphcate resu~s (when dlSpllyed) ,ep,esent the dlta obtained on a single held duplicale 01 one 01 the regular simples Ag,eement with
the ,esults shown in the ",egull( column is coincidental
II
PaQe 1 of 2
-------
er02801Bl00271RN35_1 XlS
ClE.J02.01 F260.B7 -0027
Table 3-1 (continued)
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
. CAOC 35: Class'" Landfill
Stratum 1: Landfill Area
Depth Depth Depth Risk-Based
o to 3 ft 3 to 13 ft Below 13 n Criteria
Analyte Unit. Regular Regular Regular Cancer Non.(;ancer
Volatile Organics
2.BUTANONE II9lkg 160 J 5,140,000
2-HEXANONE II9lkg 35 13 273
4-METHYL-2.PENTANONE jJglkg 4J 1,940,000
ACETONE jJglkg 46 190 J 1,370,000
ETHYLBENZENE J.l9lkg 17 310,000
METHYLENE CHLORIDE II9lkg 10 J 2 J 14,800 385,000
STYRENE jJglkg 3J 220,000
TETRACHLOROETHENE jJglkg 7 J 5,090 97,300
TOLUENE jJglkg 19 J 278,000
TRICHLOROETHENE jJglkg 2 J 9,670 42,600
XYLENES (TOTAL) jJglkg 81 98,800
Tentatively Identified Compounds
ACETALDEHYDE jJglkg 71 J 2.2E+07 101,000
BENZENE PROPANOIC ACID jJglkg 410 J
CYCLOHEXANECARBOXYLIC ACID jJglkg 730 J
HEXANOIC ACID, 2.METHYL- IJglkg 1,100 J
PENTANOIC ACID jJglkg 1,300 J
Notes
1 A blank Ind,cates thaI the anallte was not detected
2 Risk.eased enteria are based on U S Environmental Protection Agency toxicological data. a reSIdential exposure scenario,
a target cancer risk 01 0 000001, and a target noncarcinogenic hazard index 0' 1.0. Exposure route. considered include soil ingestion,
dermal contact ,nhalation 01 volatiles Irom soil. and inhalation of particulate.bound substances; a ".'. indicates not applicable
3 'J qualilier ,ndlcat.. value is an ..tlmate due to being lower than the lo_st standard or due to interference
4. Un,ts. mg"'g . milligrams pel kilogram, ~gIkg . micrograms per kilogram
5 Resu~s shown represent a composite 01 the data lor all .egular samples
8 Duplicate results (when displayed) represent the data obtained on a single 'ield duplicate 01 one 0' the .egular samptes.
the re,ults shown in the "regular" column il coincidental
Agreement with
Par
::A2
-------
C l0260IB7oo271RN35_1 XLS
CLE.m-OI F2eQ.B7 .0027
Table 3-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 35: Class'" Landfill
Stratum 1: Landfill Area
Depth Depth Depth 15th Percentile Risk-Based
o to 3 It 3 to 13 It Below 13 It Background Cr"erla
Anatyee Un"s Regula, Regula, Regula, Concentration Cancer Non.cance,
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 8,130 J 6,000 1 I ,200 J 16,245.3 71,100
ARSENIC mglkg 3.0 J 2.1 3.2 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 95.9 69.2 125 195.03 1,540
BERYLLIUM mglkg 0.40 J 0.49 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON mglkg 12.4 J 14.3 J 11.65 5,970
CADMIUM mglkg 2.5 1.91 9 39
CALCIUM mglkg 10,800 3,800 4,010 16,772.1
CHROMIUM mglkg 9.0 19.2 12.7 21.52 71,100
COBALT mglkg 4.6 J 8.3 J 8.8 J 15.28 4,540
COPPER mglkg 14.5 21.9 J 11.6 19.6 2,630
IRON mglkg 13,400 J 13,800 17,400 J 2,3702.1
LEAD mglkg 5.5 J 18.3 6.0 J 15.45 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 4,780 2,610 4,850 8,086.43
MANGANESE mglkg 282 J 181 286 438.03 136
MERCURY mglkg 0.74 0 21
NICKEL mglkg 8.7 J 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM- mglkg 1.750 1,660 2,030 5,78565
SODIUM mglkg 1,450 373 J 675.29
STRONTIUM mglkg 85.4 38.2 41.7 210.69 42,700
VANADIUM mglkg 36.2 28.2 J 39.7 49.03 498
ZINC mglkg 36.5 68.9 38.6 64.82 21,300
Notes
I A blank Indicates that the anaiyTe was not detected
2 RlSk.eased Criteroa a,e based on U S Envoronmenlll P,otection Agency to.icologlcal data. a residential ..posur. sc.na,;o.
a ta'get cancer risk of 0 000001. and a target noncarcinogenic hazard Inde. 01 I 0 Exposure routes considered include soil ingestion.
dermal conlact. inhalation 01 \/Olatilestrom soil. and Inhalation 01 partlculate.bound substances. a"." indicalea not applicable
3 95 Percentile Background Concentration is calculated Irom MCLB Barstow background soil data (0 to 3 'oot): ,e'erence Jacobs 1995 ''Marine
Ccorpa LogIStics Base. Ba..lo... California Background Sodslnvestigalion" Tochnical Memorandum 0023 Ora" lina' 30 March 1995.
4 'J' qu.llt.er Indicates vah..e is an estimate due to being lower thin the towest st8nd.,d Of due to interfe,ence
5 Units' mglkg . milligrams per kilogram: ~gJkg . micrograma per kilogram
8 Result's shown represent a composite 0' the data '0' .11 regula, lamples
7 Duplicate resulls (wilen dISplayed) repre..nt the doll obtained on a aingle field duplicate 01 one oIlhe regular samples Agrooment WIlli
the results shown in the "'egull'" column 15 cOincidental
Page 1 of 1
-------
CT026O\Bloo271RNJ5_2 Jl.LS
CLE-J02-0 1 F260-B7 -0027
Table 3-3
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 35: Class III Landfill
Stratum 2: Aerial Infrared Survey Anomalous Area
Depth Rllk-Baled
0 to 3 ft Criteria
Analyte Unltl Regular Duplicate Cancer Non-Cancer
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-DDT IIglkg 0.75 J 839 19,500
DIELDRIN IIglkg 0.38 J 18 1,950
Not,,:
1 A blink Indlcot" thllthe InllY'e wat not detected
2 Risk.Blled C'.e,. Ire blsed on U 5 EnYtronmental P'otectlon Agency lo.lcologlcl' dill, I '"tklentlal eocposure acenlrlo.
I IIrgel coneer rbk 01 0 000001. Ind IlIrget noncl,clnogenlc hlzo,d Indn 0110. Ewpoou'e rout.. contldered Include eoIlngeo1lon.
derml' cont:act, Inhilition 01 YO'"til" from 8011. Ind Inhllilion 01 particullte-bound lubllane..; I "." Indlclt" not Ippllclt>te.
3 ',f qU111ttef Indlcltel ..Iue II tn estImlte due to being '_thin tile _It ItIndl'd Of due to Interference
4 Un/b' mg/kg . mlUgroml pe' klogrom, I'8II
-------
CT0260\87oo271RN35_2 KlS
ClE-J02-Q1 F2ro-B7.0027
Table 3-4
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 35: Class III Landfill
Stratum 2: Aerial Infrared Survey Anomalous Area
Depth 95th Percentile Rilk-6ased
o to 3 ,t Background Criteria
Analyte Unit. Regular Duplicate Concentration Cancer Non~ancer
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 5,630 J 2,250 J 16,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC mglkg 1 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mg/kg 43.7 14.8 J 195.03 - 1,540
CALCIUM mgJkg 4,330 J 1,680 J 16,772.1 - -
CHROMIUM mgJkg 5.4 J 2.5 J 21.52 . 71,100
COBALT mgJkg 2.5 J 1.1 J 15.28 - 4,540
COPPER mglkg 3.9 J 2.2 J 19.6 - 2,630
IRON mglkg 9,320 J 5,470 J 23,702.1 . -
lEAD mglkg 13.7 J 1.6 J 15.45 - 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 2,450 923 J 8.086.43 . .
MANGANESE mglkg 411 J 54.8 J 438.03 136
NICKEL mglkg 3.4 J 15.27 150 1.400
POTASSIUM mglkg 1,420 J 787 J 5,785.65 . -
SELENIUM mglkg 0.61 J 0.61 J 0 - 356
SODIUM mglkg 371 J 122 J 675,29 - .
STRONTIUM mglkg 38.2 19,4 210.69 - 42,700
VANADIUM mglkg 22 12.9 49.03 . 498
ZINC mglkg 19.9 8.6 64.82 . 21,300
Note.
" A blank Indocat.. "'.t th. analyto ..... nOl d.tected
2 RISk.BlSed Cr~.rlo or. b...d on U S En.konm.ntal Prot.ctlon Agency to,lcologlca' doll. I ro,,'ontlol .'po'ur. IClnlrio.
I lar~.1 canc.r rISk of 0 000001. and a tar~.1 noncarcinog.nlc haurd Ind., of' 0 Exposur. rout.. conllclored InClud.lOIIln~ostlon.
dormll conllCI. Inhalaloon 0' vola""'rDm .011. Ind InhalallOn 01 partlcullt&-bound lubOlanc... a .."lndicatos not Ippllcabl.
~ '/ qual~..r indocat.. .alu. II an .stimat. dUll 10 betn~ lowe, Ihan "'0 lowest OIandlld or due to Int.rI.renc.
5 Un~ mgJk~. mllirgrom. por kUogram; 1III1k~ . micrograms per kHogrom
3 95 Pert.ntd. Back~round Concen"llIon is calculaled 'rom MClB Barstow back~round 101 dlta (0 to 3 '00'). ro'.,onco. Jacobi 1995 .M.rin.
Corps logistics Bu.. Blrstow. CIIWornla BIC.~tound SOU, In...tigltlon " Technlcll M.morondum 0023 0,," nnll. 30 Milch '995
6 Relult. th~ represent. composlt. of the data 10' .11 "gull' ..mpl..
7 Dupllcal. ..sulll (wilen dISplayed) represent 'hi dill obtalnod on I IIn~lo'''1d dUpilca'. 01 ono of tho lo~ulor .ampl.. A~I..monl wftII
the relultt Shown 10 the .regular- column tI coincidental
-------
CT0260\870027\T AB3-5.XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
Table 3-5
CAOC 35 - Class III Landfill
Human Health Risk ~esults
Residential Land-Use Scenario
Total. BackgroundD IncrementalC
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 2 x 1 0.5 2.6 1 x 1 0.5 2.5 3 x 10-6
2 3 x 10-6 3.2 3 x 1 0-6 3.2 2 x 1 0-8
a The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
e The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
CT0260\B70027\T AB3-6.XlS
ClE-J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
Table 3-6
CAOC 35 - Class III Landfill
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Total. BackQroundD IncrementalC
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 3 x 10~ 0.3 2 x 1 0-6 0.3 1 x 1 0-6
2 5 x 10.7 0.4 5 x 10.7 0.4 <1 x 10-8
a The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
II Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only. 8
-------
C T0260\B70027\RN07 _1XlS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7-OO27
Table 4-1
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 07: Drum Storage Area and landfill
Stratum 1: Eastern landfill Area
Depth Depth Risk-8ased
o to 3 n Below 13 n Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Duplicate Regular Cancer Non-Cancer
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-000 \J91kg 390 J 1,190 -
4,4'-ODE \J91kg 5.1 J 4.4 J 3.5 J 839 -
4,4'-DDT \J91kg 770 J 0.91 J 839 19,500
ALPHA-CHLORDANE \J91kg 0.64 J 219 2,340
AROCLOR-I254 IJglkg 2,700 J 11 J 47 -
DIELDRIN IJ9Ikg 96J 18 1,950
ENDRIN \Jg/kg 130 - 11,700
GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE) \Jglkg 0.89 J 219 11,700
GAMMA-CHLORDANE l.Ig/kg 130 J 219 2,340
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH - OIESEL mg/kg 120 J 11 J 8.3 J . -
Semivolatile Organics
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE \J91kg 97 J . 221,000
BIS(2-ETHYlHEXYL)PHTHALA TE jJglkg 510 20,400 780,000
Tentatively Identified Compounds
PROPANE, 1,2,3- TRICHLORO- IJglkg 400 J 250 J 106 234,000
BIS(4-CHLORPHENYl)METHANONE \Jglkg 360 - "
Volatile Organics
1,2-0ICHLOROETHANE 119lkg 28 671 .
1,2-0ICHLOROPROPANE \Jglkg 31 6J 1,020 8,000
2-BUTANONE \Jglkg 6 J " 5,140,000
ACETONE 119lkg 12 J - 1,370,000
TETRACHLOROETHENE IIglkg 22 5,090 97,300
TRICHLOROETHENE I.Iglkg 23 9,670 42,600
Notes
1. A blank indlC.tes th.t the .n'lyte was not detected
2 Risk.Based Crrteria are based on U S EnVlfonmenta' Protection Agenoy toxicological data, a r"'~ential exposure scenario,
a target cancer risk 0' 0 000001, and a target noncarcinogenio hazard in~.. of 1.0 Exposure routes considered inclu~a 80il ingestion,
~ermal oontaot, inhalation 01 "Olatil.. 'rom soil, and inhalation of particulate, bound substances: a ".' Indicates not epplicable
3 'J qualifier indicates value is an e.timate ~uelo being lowe. than "'elowesl slandard or due to inter1erence
~ Units' mglkg ,milligram. per kilogram, ~~kg. microgram. per kilogram.
5 Results shown represent a compoSIte of the data for all regular sample.
S Duplicate rosulls (whon displayed) repre...nt the data obtained on a single field duplIcate of one of the regular samples Agreemenl willi
the results shown in tho "regula(' column ~ coincIdental
-------
C T0260IB70027\RN07 _'.XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
Table 4-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 07: Drum Storage Area and Landfill
Stratum 1: Eastern Landfill Area
Depth Depth 91th Percentile Rlsk.a.-ed
o to 3 It Below 13 It Background Crlterll
Analyte Units Reaullr Duplicate Regular Concentration Cancer Non.cancer
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 8,000 4,490 14,000 J 22,434.3 - 71,100
ANTIMONY mglkg 45.2 J O . 28.4
ARSENIC mglkg 7.4 J 4.8 J 5.1 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mg/kg 358 214 1,560 205.97 . 1,540
BERYLLIUM mg/kg 0.44 J 0.33 J 0.67 J 1.16 0.129 356
BORON mg/kg 88.3 J 104 J 48.51 - 5,970
CADMIUM mglkg 230 6.5 0.86 J 1.28 9 . 39
CALCIUM mgJkg 9,520 J 11,200 J 16,600 J 27,311.4 - .
CHROMIUM mgJkg 84.5 7.3 32.6 33.15 . 71,100
COBALT mglkg 6.4 J 4.0 J 6.9 J 44.87 - 4,540
COPPER mg/kg 2,800 306 17.7 45.78 . 2,630
CYANIDE mg/kg 0.69 O . 1,420
IRON mglkg 35,000. 6,400 22,800 J 38,831.9 - .
LEAD mg/kg 839 J 99.0 J 4.7 17.82 . 130
MAGNESIUM mg/kg 4,410. 3,030 6,590 J 13,347.8 . .
MANGANESE mg/kg 570 J 178 J 309 J 695.88 - 136
MERCURY mg/kg 0.34 0.19 0 - 21
MOLYBDENUM mglkg 18.7 1.6 J 0 - 354
NICKEL mg/kg 51.2 11.7 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM mg/kg 1,990. 1,390 2,380 11,501.4 . .
SELENIUM mg/kg 0.79 J 0 . 356
SILVER mglkg 15.1 O . 356
SODIUM mglkg 3,290. 3,700 367J 455.42 - -
STRONTIUM mglkg 52.2 J 43.4 J 107 J 167.96 - 42,700
VANADIUM mglkg 28.1 17.9 51.5 J 84.14 . 498
ZINC mg/kg 2,700. 1,710 35.1 79.68 - 21,300
Notes
1 A blank ,ndical.. that the analyle wal n04 detected
2 Rosk.Based Crite"a are based on U S EnVIronmental ProtectIon Agency IOkicological data. a relidantoal ekposure Icenario.
a larget cancer risk of 0 000001, and I target noncarcinogenic hazard ind.. of 1 0 Exposure routl' considered Include soil ingesttOn.
dermal contact, ,"hal.hon 0' volatile. from lOti, and InhalaltOn of particulate-bound substance., .-.- indicates net applicable
3 95 Percenhle Background Concentrahon il calculaled"om MClB Barstow background loil data (0 to 3 '.et); relerence. Jacobi 1005 "Marine
Corp. logistic I Base. Barstow. Cahlornia Background Soillinyeltigation' Technical Memorandum 0023 Draft linal 30 March 1005
.. . j qualifier Indlcatel value is In estimate due 10 being lower than the lowest standard or due 10 intelferenc.
5 Units mglkg. milligrams per kllogr.m, ~g1kg . micrOGrams per klJogr.m
8 Relu"s Ihown represent a compoSIte 01 the data lor all regular lamplel
1 Duplicate results (when displayed) ,epresent th~ dilta obtained on . lingle field duplicate of one of the regular .Imp'es Agr..ment with
the r.'ults shown in the ",egular" column '1 COincidental
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN07 _2.XLS
CLE-J02-01 F26O-B7 -0027
Table 4.3
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 07: Drum Storage Area and Landfill
Stratum 2: Western Landfill Area
Depth Rlsk-8ued
Below 13 n Crnerla
Analyte Units Regular Duplicate Cancer Non-Cancer
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-DDD ~glkg 0.34 J 1,190 "
4,4'.DDE ~glkg 1.9 J 0.73 J 839 "
4,4'-DDT ~glkg 1.5 J 839 19,500
ALPHA-CHLORDANE ~glkg 0.57 J 029J 219 2,340
AROCLOR-1254 ~glkg 8.9 J 6.3 J 47 ..
GAMMA-CHLORDANE ~gIkg 0.39 J 219 2,340
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH . DIESEL mglkg 14 J 12 J " ..
Volatile Organics
2.BUTANONE ~glkg 3 J " 5,140,000
ACETONE IIglkg 10 J 24 J " 1,370,000
Notes'
1. A blank indicates thai the analyte was not detecled
2. Risk.Based Cr~eria ..e based on U.S Environmental Protection Agency toxicological data. a residential exposure scenario,
a target cancer risk of 0 000001. and a target noncarci""ll"nic hazard inde. 011.0 Exposure rout.. considered include soil ingestion,
dermal contact. Inhalation 01 volatiles from soil. and inhalation 01 particulate. bound substances. a "." indicates not applicable.
3 oJ qualirler indicates value is an estimate due to being ~r than the lowest standard or due to interference
. Units mg/I
-------
CT0260\B7oo27\RN07 ]XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
Table 4-4
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 07: Drum Storage Area and Landfill
Stratum 2: Western Landfill Area
Depth 95th Percentile Risk-8ased
Below 13 n Background Criteria
Analyte Unit- Regular Duplicate Concentration Cancer Non-Cancer
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 7,900 J 7,800 J 22,434.3 - 71,100
ANTIMONY mglkg 6.4 J 0 - 28.4
ARSENIC mglkg 4.2 J 4.7 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 105 42.1 205.97 - 1,540
BERYLLIUM mglkg 0.55 J 0.36 J 1.16 0.129 356
CADMIUM mglkg 1.1 1.28 9 39
CALCIUM mglkg 9,990 J 9,040 J 27,311.4 . -
CHROMIUM mglkg 38.6 J 30.6 J 33.15 - 71,100
COBALT mglkg 5.6 J 4.4 J 44.87 - 4,540
COPPER mglkg 13.0 18.4 45.78 - 2,630
IRON mglkg 17,600 J 16,500 J 38,831.9 - .
LEAD mglkg 5.5 6.1 17.82 - 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 6,960 J 4,270 J 13,347.8 - -
MANGANESE mglkg 273 J 188 J 695.88 - 136
MOLYBDENUM mglkg 2.5 J 2.1 J 0 - 354
NICKEL mglkg 14.7 9.0 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM mglkg 1,920 1,480 11,501.4 - -
SELENIUM mglkg 1.4 J 0.81 J 0 - 356
SODIUM mglkg 659 J 598 J 455.42 - -
STRONTIUM mglkg 93.9 J 42.0 J 167.96 - 42,700
VANADIUM mglkg 34.2 J 34.7 J 84.14 - 498
ZINC mglkg 24.2 26.4 79.68 - 21,300
Notes
I A blank indicates that the analyte was not detected
2 RlSk.Based Cnteria are based on U 5 Erwuonmental Protection Agency tox.cologlCal data. a resident.al exposure scenario.
a target cancer risk 0' 0 000001. and a target nonca.cinogenic hazard index of I O. Expo,ure rout... considered include soil inge'hon.
dermal contact. inhalation o' \'Olatlles from soil, and Inhalabon of parhc:utate.bound aubstances; a 00.00 indicates not applicabte
3 95 Percen',le Background Concent,alion is calcula'ed from MClB Bars10w background 10,1 da... (0'03 reel). ,e'erence Jacobs. 1995 ''Marine
Corps logishcs Bile. Barstow. Caldornia Background Soil' In"",ligation. Technica' Memorandum 0023 Drall ',nal 30 March 1995
e ''/ qualdier .ndicite, .a'ue is an estimate due to being lower than thelawes' standard or dUlto interference
5 Units mglkg. m.lligrams per kilogram. ~gIkg . m'crogramo per kilogram
6 Results shown represent a composite 0' the data 'or all regular samplas
7 Duplicate resul~ (when dISplayed) ,epre,ent Ihe data obtained on a o.ngle ',eld duplicate 0' one 01 the regular samples Agreement with
the results shown in the M,egul,r" column.. coinctdental
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN07 _3.XLS
CLE-J02-Q1 F26O-B7-OO27
Table 4-5
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 07: Drum Storage Area and Landfill
Stratum 3: Drum Storage and Spillage Area
Depth Risk-Sued
310 13 n Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Cancer Non-Cancer
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-000 lIg/kg 1.0 J 1,190
4,4'-ODE lIg/kg 200 839 -
4,4'-DDT lIg/kg 11 839 19,500
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE lIg/kg 1.6 J . 1,950
Volalile Organics
2-BUTANONE lJg/kg 4J - 5,140,000
ACETONE lJg/kg 12 - 1,370,000
BENZENE IJglkg 1 J 2,150 -
Noles'
1. A blank indicat.. that the analyle was no! detected
2 RISk.Based Crneria are based on U S. Environmental Protection Agency toxic:ologlcal deta, e re.identialexposure scenario.
a target cancer risk 01 0.000001. and a target noncarcinogenic: haJOard index of 10 Exposure route. con.idered include soil ingestion,
dermal contact, inhalation 01 volatile- 'rom soil. and inhalation of particulate, bound tub_tances: a ",n indicates not applic:able
3 'J qualifier indIcate. value i. an e.timate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interferellCe
4 Unn.. mglkg , milligram. per kilogram, .~glkg . micrograms per kilogram
5. Re.ult. shown repre.ent a compo.ite 01 the data 'or an regular samptes
e Duplic:ate rnuns (when d,splayed) represent the data obtained on a $Ingle "eld duplicate 01 one 01 the regular sam pi.. Agreement with
II
the results shown in the ",egula(' column ts coincidental.
-------
CT02601B700271RN07 _3XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
Table 4-6
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 07: Drum Storage Area and Landfill
Stratum 3: Drum Storage and Spillage Area
Depth 95th Percentile Risk-Based
3 to 13 II Background Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Concentration Cancer Non-Cancer
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 6.530 J 22,434.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC mglkg 4.2 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 84.5 205.97 - 1,540
BERYLLIUM mglkg 0.29 J 1.16 0.129 356
CALCIUM mglkg 58,400 J 27,311.4 - -
CHROMIUM mglkg 18.4 J 33.15 - 71,100
COBAL T mglkg 3.7 J 44.87 - 4,540
COPPER mglkg 10.2 45.78 - 2,630
IRON mglkg 15,900 J 38,831.9 - -
LEAD mglkg 6.2 17.82 . 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 3,620 J 13,347.8 - -
MANGANESE mglkg 410 J 695.88 - 136
MOL YBDENUM mglkg 2.0 J 0 - 354
NICKEL mglkg 6.6 J 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM mglkg 1,590 11,501.4 - -
SELENIUM mglkg 0.88 J 0 . 356
SODIUM mglkg 273 J 455.42 - -
STRONTIUM mglkg 199 J 167.96 - 42,700
VANADIUM mglkg 34.5 J 84.14 - 498
ZINC mglkg 19.8 79.68 - 21,300
a
Notes'
I A blank indicates that the anal)'le was not detecled
2 Risk-Based Crjferia are based on U.S Environmental Protection Agency toxicologic.1 d.l~. . reSidentIal exposure scen.rio.
. target cancer risk of 0 000001, Ind. targel noncarcinogenic hazard index of 1 0 Exposure routes considered include soil ingestion,
dermal cont;ocl. ,nhalallon 01 votallleslrom soil, and inhalalton 01 particulate.bound substances, a -." indicates not applicable
3 95 Percentile Background Coneenltatoon IS calculated ',om MCLB Barstow background so,l data (0 to 3Ieet): relerence. Jacobs 1995 "Maline
Corps Loglshcs Base, Barstow, Caillornia Background Soils InvestIgatIon." Technical Memorandum 0023 Dralt hnal. 30 March 1995
4 'J quall',e, indlcat.. value IS an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interterence
5 Units mgl1
-------
CT0260\870027\RN07 - 4.XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7-OO27
Table 4-7
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 07: Drum Storage Area and Landfill
Stratum 4: Playground .
Depth Rlsk.sasect
o 103ft Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Cancer Non.cancer
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-DDE IJglI
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN07 - 4.XLS
CLE.J02-01 F260-B7-OO27
Table 4-8
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in 5011
CAOC 07: Drum Storage Area and Landfill
Stratum 4: Playground
Depth 95th Percentile Risk-Based
o to 3 It Background Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Duplicate Concentration Cancer Non.cancer
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 6,770 J 4,970 J 22,434.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC mglkg 2.6 J 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 127 54.7 205.97 . 1540
BORON mglkg 4.8 J 3.7 J 48.51 . 5,970
CALCIUM mglkg 20,100 J 13,900 J 27,311.4 . -
CHROMIUM mglkg 9.6 J 7.0 J 33.15 . 71,100
COBAL T mglkg 3.6 J 3.1 J 44.87 - 4,540
COPPER mglkg 8.6 7.1 45.78 - 2,630
IRON mglkg 12,200 J 9,580 J 38,831.9 - .
LEAD mglkg 51.7 J 3.3 J 17.82 .. 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 3,520 2,980 13,347.8 - -
MANGANESE mglkg 227J 209 J 695.88 .. 136
MOLYBDENUM mglkg 3.5 J 0 - 354
NICKEL mglkg 6.4 J 6.5 J 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM mglkg 2,130 J 1,890 J 11,501.4 . .
SELENIUM mglkg 0.64 J 0.63 J 0 - 356
SODIUM mglkg 386J 276 J 455.42 - -
STRONTIUM mglkg 67.6 59.4 167.96 - 42.100
THALLIUM mglkg 0.64 J 0 - 4.98
VANADIUM mglkg 25.7 19.5 84.14 - 498
ZINC mg/kg 36.7 21.2 79.68 - 21,300
Notes
1 A blank indicat.. lIIallll. analyte wal not detecled
2 Risk.Bilsed Criteria are based on U S Environmental Protection Agency toxicologic.' dal., . residential exposure scenario.
a larget cance' ,,"k 01 0 000001. and a larget noncarcinogenic hazard inde. 01 1 0 Exposure roulel conlidered include ...il ingelbon.
dermal contlct. Inhalation of W)'atitel hom loil. and Inhalation of particulate-bound substances, 8 "." indicates not apphcable
3 95 Percenl,le eackground Concentrot,on il calculaled from MCLe earstow background soli data (0 to 3 loot). rele..nc.: Jacobs 1995 "Marine
Corps Logi.t,cl ea.e. earstow. California Background Soils In"".tigation" Techn,cal Memorandum 0023 Draft final. 3D March 1995
4 'J' quahf,er ind,cate. value is an elbmate due to being lower lIIan \tie Iowelt standard or due to .nterference
5 Units mglkg. milligrams per kilogram; II9iIIg . mIcrograms per kilogrom
6 Resu~s shown represent a compoSIte of the dala'OI an regular samples
7 Duplicate "SU~I (wilen disptayed) represent the data obtained on a single lield duplicato of one of the regular sampl.. ...greement WIth
the results shown in the "regula(' column i. coincidental.
-------
CT0260\B70027\T AB3-9.XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7-OO27
Table 4-9
CAOC 7 - Drum Storage and Landfill Areas
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land-Use Scenario
Total8 BackgroundD IncrementalC
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 1 x 1 O~ 14.0 3 x 1 0.5 4.9 9 x 1 0.5
2d 1 x 1 O~ 14.0 3 x 10.5 4.9 9 x 1 0.5
3 2 x 10.5 3.4 2 x 1 0.5 3.4 3 x 10.7
4 1 x 1 0.5 2.2 8 x 1 0-6 2.0 4 x 10-6
a The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
e The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
d Because surficial soil samples were not collected at Stratum 2. the risk and hazard estimates
are assumed to be the same as Stratum 1.
-------
CT0260\870027\T AB~ 1 O.XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7-OO27
Table 4-10
CAOC 7 - Drum Storage and Landfill Areas
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
T otal8 BackgroundD Incrementaf
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 3 x 1 0-5 1.0 5 x 1 0-6 0.6 3 x 1 0.5
2d 3 x 1 0-5 1.0 5 x 1 0-6 0.6 3 x 10-5
3 3 x 10-6 0.4 3 x 1 0-6 0.4 8 x 1 0-8
4 2 x 10-6 0.3 1 x 1 0-6 0.3 1 x 1 0-6
a The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
d Because surficial soil samples were not collected at Stratum 2. the risk and hazard estimates
are assumed to be the same as Stratum 1.
-------
CT0260\B70027\ST1 ORGXlS
ClE-J02-0t F260-B7 -0027
Table 6-1
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 15/17: Oil Storage/Spillage and IWTP Area
Stratum 1: Oxidation Ponds
Depth Rlsk.aasld
o to 3 n Criteria
Anllyte Units Regular Cancer Non~ancer
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH - OIESEl mglkg 13 . -
Noles'
1 A blank indlc.t.s thatth. anal~. was not detected
2, Risk.Bas.d Crrteri. ar. bas.d on U S Environmental Protection Ageney toxicological d.ta, . residential .xposure acenario,
.targel cancer nsk 01 0 000001, end a targel noncarcinog.nic hazard index 011,0 Exposure routes consldared Include soil ingestion,
derm.1 contact, inh.lation 01 \/Olatiles from 5001, .nd inh.lation 01 p.rticul.te-bound sUbstan""; . -."lndic.Ies not .ppllcable
3 './ quali'ier indicat.s value Is .n esbm.t. duo to being lower th.n the ioweststandard 0< du.to interference
4 Units' mglkg . milligrams per kIlogram, ,~glkg . micrograms per kilogram
5, Results shown represent. composile 0' the data lor all regular ..mples
8 Duplicate results (when displ.yed) represem the d.ta obtained on . single field duplic.te 01 one 01 the regulll samples Agreement with
the results shown in the "regula'" column is coincidental
-------
CT0260\B7oo27\ST1 ORGXLS
CLE.J02-01 F260-B7-oo27
Table 6-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In SoU
CAOC 15/17: Oil Storage/Spillage and IWTP Area
Stratum 1: Oxidation Ponds
Depth 95th Percentile Rlsk.aased
o to :I It Background Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Duplicate Concentration Cancer Non~ancer
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 3,090 1,520 J 16,2453 .. 71,100
ARSENIC mglkg 1.4 J 1 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 50.2 23.6 J 195.03 " 1,540
BERYLLIUM mglkg 0.17 J 0.59 0.129 356
CALCIUM mglkg 4,080 2,380 16,772.1 " ..
CHROMIUM mgJkg 8.4 4.6 21.52 . 71,100
COBALT mglkg 6.1 J 3.7 J 15.28 . 4,540
COPPER mgJkg 8.1 19.6 - 2,630
IRON mglkg 8,830 J 6,990 J 23,702.1 " "
LEAD mgJkg 5.8 J 2.1 J 15.45 " 130
MAGNESIUM mgJkg 1,910 922 J 8,086.43 " "
MANGANESE mgJkg 116 71.7 438.03 " 136
POTASSIUM mgJkg 2,010 J 590 J 5,785.65 .. "
SELENIUM mgJkg 0.25 J 0 .. 356
SODIUM mgJkg 902J 675.29 " "
STRONTIUM mg/kg 33.3 17.6 210.69 - 42,700
VANADIUM mglkg 23.5 J 18.3 J 49.03 .. 498
ZINC mgJkg 18.7 64.82 " 21,300
Notes'
I " blAnk indicates that the analyle was nal detec1ed
2 Risk.Bued Cntena are based on U S Environmental PJoIec1ion "gency toxicological data, a resident.., elposur. ",ena"o.
8 targel CAncer nsk of 0 000001. 8nd 8 target noncarcinogenic hazald Indel 011.0 E"I'Osure loules considered include soil ingestion,
derm81 contac1. ,nhalaloon 01 YO'AtileslTom soil, and inhalation 01 particulate.bound substances, a "'"Indicates not8pplicable.
3 95 Percentile BAckglound Concentration IS calculated Irom MeLB BABtow background soil data (0 10 3 feet); relerence: Jacobs 1995 "Marine
Corps Logistics a...., Barstow, CaldOlnia Background Soils l_sligAtion" Technical Memorandum 0023 Oran final 30 March 1995
~ 'J qual,loellndlcat" value is an ..timAte due 10 being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference
5 Units' mgl1
-------
C T0260IB70027IS T2SLUDG ,XLS
CLE-J02-{)1 F26O-B7 -0027
Table 6-3
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 15/17: Oil Storage/Spillage and IWTP Area
Stratum 2: Sludge Drying Beds
Depth Risk-Based
3 to 13 n Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Duplicate Cancer Non"cancer
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-DDE jJg/kg 11 J 839 -
AROCLOR-1260 jJglkg 52 J 47 -
Petrol,eum Hydrocarbons
TPH - DIESEL mglkg 400 J - -
Volatile Organics
TETRACHLOROETHENE IJglkg 410 5,090 97,300
TRICHLOROETHENE IJglkg 83 9,670 42,600
Notes.
1. A blank indicates that the analyte was not det8C1ed
2 Risk-Based Crderia are based on US Environmenta' Protection Agency toxicological data, a residential exposure scenario,
a target Cancer risk 010000001, and a target noncarcinogenIC hazard index 011.0 Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestion,
dermal contact, inhalation 01 \IO'at,'es Irom soil, and inhalation of particulate-bound substances; a ".- indicates not applicable.
3 'J' qualifier indicates value is an estimale due to being lower than tha lowest standard or due 10 inlerference
4 Units mg"'g - milligrams per kilog,am; ~gJkg. micrograms per kilogram.
S Results shown represent a composrte 01 the data lor all regular samples
8. Duplicate resufts (wilen dISplayed) represenllhe data obtained on a single lield duplicate 01 one 01 the regular samples. Agreement WIth
the results shown in the "'egulaf' column is coincidental.
-------
C T0260\B70027\ST2SLUDG .XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7-OO27
Table 6-4
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 15/17: Oil Storage/Spillage and IWTP Area
Stratum 2: Sludge Drying Beds
Depth 95th Percentile Risk-Based
310 13 It Background Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Duplicate Concentration Caneer Non.cancer
Metals
ALUMINUM mg/kg 8,180 J 811 J 16,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC mglkg 3.6 0.54 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 80.2 12.4 J 195.03 . 1,540
BERYLLIUM mglkg 0.67 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON mglkg 32.0 J 11.65 . 5,970
CADMIUM mg/kg 12.6 1.91 9 39
CALCIUM mglkg 5,100 .972 J 16,772.1 . .
CHROMIUM mglkg 79.5 4.2 21.52 " 71,100
CHROMIUM, HEXAVALENT mglkg 0.96 2.08 30 360
COBALT mglkg 14.5 1.4 J 15.28 .. 4,540
COPPER mglkg 24.0 J 1.2 J 19.6 " 2,630
CYANIDE mglkg 0.83 0 " 1,420
IRON mglkg 17,500 2,460 23,702.1 . .
LEAD mglkg 139 2.9 15.45 " 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 5,390 458 J 8,086.43 . -
MANGANESE mglkg 336 25.7 438.03 " 136
POTASSIUM mglkg 2,560 5,785.65 - "
SODIUM mglkg 9,060 675.29 - ..
STRONTIUM mglkg 48.6 12.2 210.69 " 42,700
THALLIUM mglkg 0.25 J 0 . 4.98
VANADIUM mg/kg 51.4 J 7.2 J 49.03 . 498
ZINC mglkg 94.1 7.0 64.82 - 21,300
Notes:
1 A blank indicates that the analyte was not dotected
2 Risk.eased Criteria aro based on u.s Environmental Protection Agency toxicological data. a residential exposure scenario.
. target cancer risk of 0 000001, and a target noncartinogenac hazard index of 1.0. Exposure rOU'li considered include soil ingestion,
dermal contact. inhalation 01 \/Ofatil.. Irom soil. and inhalation 01 particulate.bound substances; a "." indicates not applicable
3 95 Percenble Background Concentration is calcul.ted 'rom MClB Bal$'- beck9round soil data (0 10 3 '000. relerenco Jacobs 1995. "Manne
Corps logistics Bl$e. Ba..'_. Calilornia Background Soils In_tigation." Technical MemOfandum 0023 Ora" 'ina' 30 March 1995
.. 'J' qUillifler Indic.tel value is an estimate due to being lower than the k)west ltand~rd Of due to interference
5 Un,'s. mg"'g . milligrams per kllogrlm. ~g"'g . mICrograms pe' kilogram
6 Reluh shown ,epresent a composi'e 0' the data lor all regular umples
7 Duphcate ,esufts (when dr.pl.yed) rep,esent the data obt8ined on 8 single Field duplicate of on, 0' the ,egula, simples. Agreement With
the resurb shown in the "r8gula(' cotumn is coincidental
-------
CT026018 70027IST3EVAPO .XlS
ClE-J02-01 F260-B7-0027
Table 6-5
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 15/17: Oil Storage/Spillage and IWTP Area
Stratum 3: Evaporation Ponds
Depth Risk-Based
o to 3 n Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Cancer Non.cancer
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH - DIESEL mglkg 56 - -
Semlvolatl/e Organics
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE ",glkg 49 J - 780,000
("
Notes
1. "blank indicales th.ltha anal\'le was not deleded
2. Risk.BaSad C,rte,i8 ara based on V.S E"..;,onmantal Protection Agency to.;coIogical data, a ,esidential e.posure scenario,
ala,gal Cancer ri5l< 0/ 0 000001, and a targel nonca,cinogenic hazard inda. 0/1.0 Exposure roules considered include soil ingesbon,
dermal contact, inhal.1ion 0/ volatiles ',om soil, and inhalation of partIculate-bound substances; a"." indical.. not applICable.
3 './ qualilier indicatas value i. an estimate due to being Iowa, than the Iowasl.tand.,d 0' due to interfe,ellCe
4 Units: mglkg , millig,ams per kilogram; llgikg . microgram. pe, kilog,am
5 Results Ihown 'ep...enla composite of the data lor an ,egula, .ampl...
e Duplicate ,esults (when displayed) ,epresent the data obtained on a singte field duplicate 0/ ona oIlhe ,egula, IImples Ag,eement with
the ,esuOs shown in \he ",egul.f' column is coincidental
-------
C T02601B700271S T3E V APO .XlS
ClE-J02-01 F260-B7-OO27
Table 6-6
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 15/17: Oil Storage/Spillage and IWTP Area
Stratum 3: Evaporation Ponds
Depth Depth 96th Percentile Rlsk-Based
o to 3 II 3to1311 Background Criteria
Anllyte Units Regular Regular Duplicate Concentration Cancer Non~ancer
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 4380 J 8,850 9,610 16,245.3 - 71,100
ANTIMONY mg/kg 7.6 J 0 - 28.4
ARSENIC mg/kg 4.8 2.1 J 2.6 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mg/kg 71.7 64.3 84.5 195.03 - 1,540
BORON mg/kg 25.2 J 22.7 J 11.65 - 5,970
CADMIUM mg/kg 0.62 J 1.91 9 39
CALCIUM mg/kg 5,960 3,090 2,980 16,772.1 - -
CHROMIUM, Total mglkg 11.3 12.3 13.2 21.52 - 71,100
CHROMIUM, Hexavalenl mglkg 0.32 0.0 - -
COBALT mglkg 6.1 J 7.5 J 9.1 J 15.28 - 4;540
COPPER mglkg 8.1 14.9 J 11.8 J 19.6 - 2,630
CYANIDE mglkg 0.70 0 - 1,420
IRON mg/kg 9,800 J 12,200 15,700 23,702.1 - -
lEAD mglkg 17.3 J 3.5 3.8 15.45 - 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 2,620 3,730 4,390 8,086.43 - -
MANGANESE mglkg 137 240 277 438.03 - 136
POTASSIUM mglkg 1,830 J 1,820 2,370 5,785.65 - -
SelENIUM mg/kg 0.27 J 0 - 356
STRONTIUM mglkg 69.0 38.7 25.0 210.69 - 42.700
VANADIUM mglkg 42.3 J 29.6 J 40.0 J 49.03 - 498
ZINC mglkg 21.7 35.7 38.6 64.82 - 21,300
Notes'
1 A blank .ndlcates lI1at the analVle was not deteded
2 Risk.Based Crotena are based an U 5 Envoranmen"'l Pralectian Agency talicalog,cal data. a residential elpasure scenario,
a target cancer risk 010000001. and a target noncarcInogenic haza.d indel 011.0. EKpasure routn considered include soil inges~an.
dermal contact. inhalahon 01 ¥Otiltilos "om lod, and inhalabon of particulate. bound substances; 8 "." indicates not applicable
3 95 Percentil. Background Concentration II calculated !ram MClB Barstow background soil da... (0 10 3 leel). relerence Jacobs 1995 -Marine
Carps logIStics Bas.. Barstow. Calilornla Background Soils Investigation" Technical Memorandum 0023 Drall final 30 March 1995
.. . J' quahtl&f indicates value IS an eslimate due 10 being tower than the 10000st sQnd~rd or due to interference
5 Un,ts mgJkg. millIgrams per kilogram. ~glkg . micrograms per kilogram.
S Results shown represent a compaSI'e 01 the data lor a" regular sampl"
1 Duplicate rnults (when dISplayed) represent lI1e data obtained on a singl. roeld duplicat. 01 ane of lI1e regular samples Agreement with
the results shown In the ",egular" column 15 coincidental
-------
CT0260IB70027\sT5UNP A V.XLS
CLE -J02-1 F260-B7 -0027
Table 6-7
Maximum Organic Concentrations
CAOC 15/17: Oil Storage/Spillage and IWTP Area
Stratum 5: Unpaved Area
Depth Rlsk-8ased
Ot03n Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Duplicate Cancer Non-Cancer
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-DDE jJgIkg 0.5 J 839 -
4,4'-DDT IJglkg 0.5 J 839 19,500
ALPHA-CHLORDANE IJglkg 0.4 J 219 2,340
ENDRIN KETONE IJg/kg 2.1 J - 11,700
GAMMA-CHLORDANE IJglkg 0.2 J 219 2,340
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE IJglkg 0.4 J 31 507
METHOXYCHLOR IJQlkg 25 J 25J - 195,000
Semivolatile Organics
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE IJglkg 55J 391 -
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE 1J9lkg 160 J - 7,800,000
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 1J9lkg 100 J . 3,9QO,OOO
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE IJglkg 86 J - 780,000
FLUORANTHENE 1J9lkg 45J - 1,560,000
PYRENE 1J9lkg 56 J - 1,170,000
Notes.
1 A blank indicates that the analyle was not detected
2 Risk.Based Cllte,ia Ire based 0" U S Environmental Protection Agency toxicological data. I residential exposure scenario,
. target cance, ,tsk of 0 OOO(XU, and a target noncarcinogenic hazard indo. of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil ingestion,
dermal contact. inhalation of YOlatile.trom soil. and Inhalation of particulate, bound substance.: a "," Indocates no! applicable.
3 'J qual~ier indicate. yalue is an estimate due to being lowe, than the lowest standard or due to interference
4 Units mglkg. mtllog.am. per kilogram; ~gJkg, microgram. per kilogram
5 Results shown represent a composrte 0' the data lor all regular sample.
e DuplICate lesults (when displayed) represent the data obtained on a lingle ',eld duplicate 0' one ollhe regula. samples Agreement WIth
the results shown in the ".egula(' column is coincidental
(
-------
CT0260\B7oo27\ST5UNPA V.XLS
CLE-J02'()1 F260-B7 -0027
Table 6-8
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 15/17: Oil Storage/Spillage and IWTP Area
Stratum 5: Unpaved Area
Depth 85th Percentile Risk-Based
Ot03ft Background Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Duplicate Concentration Cancer Non~ancer
Metals . .
ALUMINUM mglkg 8,150 5,970 16,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC mglkg 2.60 J 1.50 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 100 61.10 195.03 - 1,540
BORON mglkg 7.40 11.65 . 5,970
CALCIUM mglkg 5,800 5,920 16,772.1 . .
CHROMIUM mglkg 19.60 9.10 21.52 . 71,100
COBALT mglkg 4.60 J 2.60 J 15.28 . 4,540
COPPER mglkg 12.80 6.50 19.6 . 2,630
IRON mglkg 13,700 8,300 23,702.1 - ..
LEAD mglkg 52,20 J 23.90 J 15.45 .. 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 3,790 2,770 8,086.43 . .
MANGANESE mglkg 281 156 43803 . 136
NICKEL mglkg 6.30 4.40 J 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM mglkg 1,500 1180 5,785.65 . ..
SODIUM mglkg 1,790 277 J 675.29 . ..
STRONTIUM mglkg 69.3 62.2 210.69 - 42,700
THALLIUM mglkg 0.53 J 0.41 J 0 . 4,98
VANADIUM mglkg 24.0 17.4 49.03 . 498
ZINC mglkg 53.2 35.5 64.82 " 21,300
Notes
1 A blank indicates tha! the analyte was not detected
2. RlSk.Based CriterIa are based on U S Enwonmental Protection Agency toxicologIcal data, a residentia! ellpOsure scenario.
a targel cancor risk 01 0 000001, and a target noncarcinogenic hazard index 011 O. Exposure routes considered include SOIl ingestion.
dermal contact. inhalation of YOIatiles "om soil. and inhalation of particulate.bound substances, a "." indicates not applicable
3 95 Percenlile Background ConcentratIon is calculaled "om MeLB Barstow background soil data (0 to 3 leet). relerence: Jacobs 1995 "Marine
Corps LogIStiCS Base. Barstow. Call1ornia Background Soils Investigabon" Technical Memorandum 0023 !>fall linal 30 March 1995.
.. 'J qualifier indicate, value is an estimate due 10 being lower than the lowest standard or due to Interference
5 Vnots mglkg. milligrams per kdogram; ~gl1r.g . micrograms per kilogram
6 Results shown represenl a compoSIte oIlhe data lor alt regular samples.
1 Dupllcale results (when dISplayed) represen! the data obtained on a Single field duplicate of one of the regula' samples Agreement WIth
the results shown in the "regull(' column is coincidental
-------
C T0260\B70027\S T6CONT AXlS
C LE -J02~1 F260-B7 -0027
Table 6-9
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 15/17: Oil Storage/Spillage and IWTP Area
Stratum 6: Containment Ponds
Depth Rlsk-8ued
310 13 II Criteria
Anllyte Units Regullr Clncer Non-Clncer
Petroleum Hydrocarbon$
TPH - DIESEL mglkg 147 J - -
Semivolatile Organics
BENZO(A)PYRENE IIQlkg 78 J 39 -
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 119lkg 56J 391 -
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYlENE 119lkg 48J - -
CHRYSENE IIg/kg 210 J 6100 -
PHENANTHRENE 119lkg 120 J - -
PYRENE Ul1lkg 190 J " 1,170.000
Notes
1 A blank indicates that the anal~e was not detected
2 Risk,Based Cllteria are based On US. Environmental Protection Agency toxicological data, a residential exposure lleenario,
a target cancer risk 01 0 000001, and a target noncarcinogenic hazard inde. 011.0 Exposure routea considered inctude soil ingestion,
dermal contact, inhalahon 01 lIOIati'es 'rom soil, and inhalation 01 particulateo~und substances; a "0" indicates not applicable.
3 . J' qualilier indIcates value IS an estimate due to beIng lower than the lowest standard or due to interference
4 Units mgl1cg 0 milligrams pel kilogram; .~gl1cg 0 micrograms pel kilog.am.
S Results shown rep,esent a compos~e of the data lor aU regular samples
8 Duplicate ,esults (when displayed) .epresent the data obtained on a single field duplicate of one 01 the .egula. samples Agreement with
the resutts shown in the ",egu'a(' column i. coincidental.
-------
C T0260\B7oo27\ST6CONT A. XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
Table 6-10
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 15/17: Oil Storage/Spillage and IWTP Area
Stratum 6: Containment Ponds
Depth 95th Percentile Risk-Based
3 to 13 n Background Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Concentration Cancer Non~ancer
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 8,670 16,245.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC mglkg 5.4 5.47 0,31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 131 195.03 - 1,540
BORON mglkg 25.3 J 11.65 - - 5,970
CALCIUM mglkg 2,640 16,772.1 . -
CHROMIUM mglkg 14.9 21.52 - 71,100
COBALT mglkg 9.9 J 15.28 - 4,540
COPPER mglkg 11.2 J 19.6 - 2,630
CYANIDE mglkg 0.64 0 - 1,420
IRON mglkg 18,900 23,7021 - -
LEAD mglkg 3.5 15.45 - 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 3,760 8,086.43 . -
MANGANESE mglkg 350 438.03 . 136
POTASSIUM mglkg 2,200 5,785.65 - -
STRONTIUM mglkg 30.6 210.69 - 42,700
VANADIUM mglkg 49.7 J 49.03 - 498
ZINC mglkg 29.4 64.82 . 21,300
NoIea,
I A blank indicates that the anal)1e ....a not detec:1ed
2 Risk.Based Criteria are based. on U S Environmental Protaction Agency toxicologica' dala, a residentialaxposure scenario.
a target cancer risk 01 0 000001. and a target noncarcinogenic hazard indew 01 1.0 Exposure routes considered include aoil ingestion,
dermal contact. inhalation oIwlatiles /rom lOil. and inhalation 01 particulate. bound aubalances, a "." indicates nol applicable,
3 9S Percentile Background Concentration is calculated 'rom MClB Barstow background 1011 data (010 3 18811. relerance' Jacobs 1995 "Marine
CO/ps logishca Base, Barstow. Calolornia Background Soilaln_tigation," Technical Memorandum 0023. Draft IInal, 30 March 1995,
.. 'J qualifier indicates Yalue is an aSllm.le due 10 being l0'N8r than the lowest ,tandard 0' due 10 interference
S. Units mglkg. milligrams per kilogram; ~91kg . micrograms per kilogram
e Results shown represent. c:omposit. of the data tor all regular sampl.s
7 Duplicate resuh (when dISplayed) represent the data obtained on a SIngle Ileld duplicate 01 one of the reguiar samples Agreement WIth
tile lesufts shown In tile -regulaf' column is coincidental
-------
CT0260\B70027\TAB6-11.XlS
ClE-J02-01 F260-B7-OO27
Table 6.11
CAOC 15/17 Oil StoragelSpillage and IWTP Areas
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land-Use Scenario
Total. BackgroundD IncrementalC
Stratumd Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 6 x 1 O~ 1.0 6 x 1 0-6 1.0 Od
2 2 x 10.5 3.3 2 x 1 0.5 3.0 2 x 1 O~
3 2 x 1 0.5 2.8 2 x 1 0.5 2.6 1 x 1 0-8
5 9 x 1 0.5 2.5 8 x 1 0.5 2.4 2 x 10.7
6 2 x 10.5 3.1 2 x 1 0.5 3.1 2 x 1 O~
II The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk is equal to the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk.
d The incremental risk is zero because no site-related carcinogens were detected.
-------
CT0260\B70027\T AB6-12.XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-S7-OO27
Table 6-12
CAOC 15/17 Oil StoragelSpiliage and IWTP Areas
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Total. BackgroundD IncrementalC
Stratumd Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 9 x 10-7 0.1 9 x 1 0-7 0.1 0.0
2 4 x 1 0-6 0.4 3 x 10-6 0.4 9 x 10.7
3 3 x 1 0-6 0.4 3 x 10-6 0.3 <1 x 10-8
5 1 x 1 0-6 0.3 1 x 1 0-6 0.3 4 x 10-8
6 3 x 1 0-6 0.4 3 x 10-6 0.4 7 x 10.7
a The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
e The incremental lifetime cancer risk is equal to the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk.
d The incremental risk is zero because no site-related carcinogens were detected.
-------
CT0260\B70027\TBL5-1'2.XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
. Table 7-1
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soli
CAOC 19: First Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area
Stratum 1: Low-Level Radiological and Hazardous Material Storage Area
Depth Depth Rlslc-Based
o to 3 n 3to 13 II Criteria
Analyte Units Regular ReQular Cancer Non.cancer
Pesticides/PCBs - -
ALPHA-SHC lJg/kg 0.2 J 45 -
ALPHA-CHLORDANE IJglkg 0.28 J 0.22 J 219 2,340
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE IJglkg 0.39 J 31 507
Semivolatile Organics - "
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALA TE IJglkg 750 J 20,400 780,000
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE IJglkg 640 110 J - 7,800,000
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE IJglkg 2,300 J - 3,900,000
Notes.
I " blank indical" that the analyla was not detected
2 RlSk,eased Criteria are based on U 5 Environmental Protection "gency toxicological data, a residentiat elCpOSure scenario,
a larget cancer risk 01 0.000001, and a target noncarcinogenic hazard index 0/1.0 Exposure route. considered include soil ingestion.
dermal contact. inhalation of volatiles from soil, and Inhalation 0' particulate,bound aubstances; a -," indicates n04 applicable
3 'J qualifier indicates value is an astimate due 10 being lower than the Ioweslstandard Of duato inteoferenca
4 Units mglltg, milligrama per kilogram; I/IIIkg, micrograms per kilogram.
5 Reaults shown represenl a composite of the data 'Of an regular samples.
8 Duplicate re.ults (when displayed) represent tha data obtained on a single "ald duplicate of one of the regular samplea "greement with
the reaubs ahown in the "regutaf' column ia coincidental
-------
8601B700271TBL5-1'2XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7.0027
Table 7-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soli
CAOC 19: First Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area
Stratum 1: Low.Level Radiological and Hazardous Material Storage Area
Depth Depth 95th Percentile Rlsk.8ased
, 0 to 3 It 3 to 13 It Blckground Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Regular Duplicate Concentrltlon Cancer Non~lncer
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 22,000 J 6,670 J 7,530 J 16,245.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC mglkg 13.7 J 2.6 J 2.8 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 228 153 48.2 195.03 . 1,540
BERYLLIUM mglkg 0.79 0.59 0.129 356
,
BORON mglkg 38.8 3.3 6.9 11.65 - 5,970
CALCIUM mglkg 25,600 3,370 3,340 16,772.1 - -
CHROMIUM mglkg 17.3 6.4 6.7 21.52 - 71,100
COBAL T mglkg 8.3 J 4.2 J 3.2 J 15.28 - 4,540
COPPER mglkg 18.7 6.0 6.3 19.6 - 2,630
IR0N mgJkg 22,500 J 8,680 J 10,100 J 23,702.1 - -
LEAD mglkg 9.3 J 6,1 J 2.6 15.45 - 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 7,570 2,830 3,080 8,086.43 . -
MANGANESE mglkg 363 J 133 J 132 J 438.03 . 136
MOL YBDENUM mglkg 3.4 J o . 354
NICKEL mglkg 11.5 4,1 J 3.5 J 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM mglkg 3,060 1,240 1,570 5,785.65 - -
SODIUM mglkg 6,300 1,360 2,300 675.29 - -
STRONTIUM mglkg 145 34.6 36.5 210.69 - 42.700
THALLIUM mglkg 1.1 J 0.41J 0.61 J 0 - 4.98
VANADIUM mglkg 82.3 18.8 22.4 49.03 . 498
ZINC mglkg 60.4 26.8 31.0 64.82 - 21,300
II
Noles
, A blank indicates that the anal)'le was not detected
2 Risk.Based Criteria Ir. based on U S Envlfonmental Protection Agency toxicological data, 8 residential exposure scenario,
a larget cancer nsk of 0 000001. and a larget noncarcinogenic hazard inde. 011 0 e.posure routes conSIdered include soil ingestion.
dermal contact. inhalation of yoJahlel trom seNl, and Inhalation of parhC:IJ'ate.bound lubltance.. . "'." indicate, not applicable
3 95 Percent,le Background Concentralion is calculatad from MCLB Barstow background soil dala (0 to 3 leel): relerence Jacobs 1995 ''Marine
Corp, Logistics Blse. Bi~tow, C..hfornia Background Soils Inyestlgatlon" Technical Memorandum 0023 0,." final 30 March 1995
4 . J' qualifier ,ndicatel v.lue IS an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard Of due to Interference
5 Untts mglkg . milligrams per kilogram, J.lSJlkg . micrograms per kilogram
6 R.suhs shown represent a composite 0' the data for aU regular umples
7 Duplicate results (wilen d'.played) repre.ent the dala obtaIned on a single field dupllcale 01 one 01 the regular 'amples Agreement WIth
the 'e'un, shown In Ihe ",egula(' column is cOincidental
-------
C T0260lB 70027ITBL5.3' 4,XLS
CLE.J02-01 F260.B7-OO27
Table 7.3
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 19: First Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area
Stratum 2: Area 0' Underground Storage Tank T -598
Depth Rlsk-Based
3 to 13 ft Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Duplicate Cancer Non.cancer
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'.DDE 119lkg 8,6 J 839 .
ENDOSULFAN I 119lkg 16 J - 1,950
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE IIglkg 24 J - 11 ,700
ENDRIN KETONE IIglkg 16 J - 11,700
GAMMA-CHLORDANE IJQlkg 16 J 219 2,340
METHOXYCHLOR 119lkg 140 J . 195,000
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH . DIESEL mglkg 2,100 ' -
Semivolatile Organics
DI-N.BUTYL PHTHALATE IIglkg 560 J - 3,900,000
Notes.
1 A blank indicales thai the analyle was not delecl.d
2 Risk,8ased Crileria are based on U S. Environmental Prolection Allency toxicolOlJical data, a resodenlial exposyr. scenario,
a tarllet cancer risk 0/ 0 000001, and a la'gel noncarcinOlJenic hazard Index 0/1 0 Exposure rOYles conSidered inclyde soil inllesbon,
dermal contact, inhalatIOn 01 volatiles from soil, and inhalation 0' palt'cylale,boynd sYbslances; . "," Indicales not applicable
3 'J' qualifier indicates value is an estimate due 10 being lower than the lowest standard or due 10 interlerence
., Units mglkg. mill'IIrams per kilOlJram: ~gIkll' micrOlJrams per kilogram.
S Resylls shown 'epresent a composrte ot the data '01 'all ,ellyla, samples
8 Duplicate results (when displayed) represent the da'~ obtained on 8 single field duplicate 0' one of the rogular umpfes Agreement WIth
the results shown in the ",egulaf' cOlumn is coincidental
-------
C T 0260\B7oo27\ TBLS-3' 4 XL S
CLE-J02~1 F26O-B7.0(127
Table 7-4
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 19: First Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area
Stratum 2: Area of Underground Storage Tank T -598
Depth 95th Percentile Rlsk-8ilsed
3 to 13 ft Background Criterll
Anllyte Units Regullr DupllCite Concentration Clncer Non-Clncer
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 2,730 2,520 16,245.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC mglkg 2.5 1.5 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 15.8 J 14 J 195.03 . 1,540
BORON mglkg 4.9 J 11.65 . 5,970
CALCIUM mglkg 1,280 1,110 16,772.1 - -
CHROMIUM mglkg 3.8 3.1 21.52 - 71,100
COBALT mglkg 1.7 J 15.28 - 4,540
COPPER mglkg 2.8 J 2.2 J 19.6 - 2,630
IRON mglkg 7,500 5,480 23,702.1 - -
LEAD mglkg 1.4 1.3 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 944 766 8,086.43 . -
MANGANESE mglkg 81.4 76.7 438.03 - 136
POTASSIUM mglkg 456 J 472 J 5,785.65 . .
SODIUM mglkg 260 J 245 J 675.29 - -
STRONTIUM mglkg 13.4 9.7 210.69 - 42,700
VANADIUM mglkg 17 12.2 49.03 - 498
ZINC mglkg 9.9 8.8 64.82 - 21,300
Noles
I, A blank indicales lIIat lIIe anal)'le was not delec:1ed
2 Risk.B.sed Cllle"a are based on U S Environmental P,oIec1ion Agency lox"ological data. a 'esiden~a' exposure scena,io.
a largel cancer ,isk 01 0 000001. and a targel noncarcinogenic hazard ,ndex 01 I 0, ElIpOSu,e routes considered include soil ingestion.
dermal contacl. inhalalion 01 yolatiles 'rom so'i. and inhalatoon 01 particulale.bound subslances; a"." indicales not applicable
3 9S Percentile Background Concentration is calculated from MCLB Barstow background soil dlta (01031881), rele,ence Jacobs 1995 '?Ilrine
Corp.logist"s Base, Barstow. Calilornia Background Soils In""sligalion "Technical Memorandum 0023 Ofa" hnll 30 March 1995
. . J' qualifier Indicates value 'I .n estimate due to being lower than the lowell standard Of due 10 interference
S Units' mglkg . milligrams per kilogram. ~gJkg . m'crograms per kilogram
6 Results shown represenl a composite oIlhe data lor alt regular samples
7 Duplicate results (when displayed) rep,esenl the data obtained on I single ',eld duplicate 01 one 01 \he regular sampl.. Agreement with
the ,esuks shown in the "r'gular" cOlumn is coincidental
-------
CT0260\B70027\T AB7.S.xLS
ClE-J02-01 F260-B7-OO27
Table 7-5
CAOC 19 - First Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land-Use Scenario
Total8 Backg roundU IncrementalC
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 5 x 10-5 4.2 5 x 1 0-5 3.8 5 x 1 0-8
2 8 x 1 0-6 0.8 8 x 10-6 0.8 8 x 1 0-8
a The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
CT0260\B70027\T AB7 -6.XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
Table 7-6
CAOC 19 - First Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Total. BackgroundD IncrementalC
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 8 x 10-6 0.6 8 x 10-6 0.5 1 x 10-8
2 1 x 1 0-8 0.1 1 x 10-6 0.1 2 x 10-8
a The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
CT0260'B70027IRN21_'.XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7-OO27
Table 8.1
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 1: Old Fire Fighting Area
Depth Depth Rilk-8ased
Oto3ft 3to13ft Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Regular Duplicate Cancer Non.cancer
Dloxlns/Furans - -
1.2.3.4.6.7.8-HpCDO pglg 24 " -
1.2.3.4.6,7,8-HpCDF pg/g 69 - -
1.2.3.4,7.8.9-HpCDF pg/g 13 " -
1.2.3.4.7,8-HxCDF pg/g 63 - -
1.2.3.6.7 ,8.HxCDF pg/g 22 " .
1,2,3.7.8-PeCDF pg/g 11 - .
2,3.4.6.7.8-HxCDF pg/g 24 -
2.3.4.7.8-PeCDF pglg 57 ' .
2.3.7.8-TCDF pglg 28 - .
HpCDDS (TOTAL) pg/g 53 ' -
HpCDFS (TOTAL) pglg 140 - .
HxCDFS (TOTAL) pg/g 340 . "
OCDD pglg 210 - -
OCDF pg/g 110 - .
PeCDFS (TOTAL) pg/g 380 ' -
TCDFS (TOTAL) pg/g 120 ' .
Pesticides/PCBs
4.4'-ODD IIglkg 68 J 1.190 "
4.4'-DDE IIglkg 64J 839 -
4.4'.DDT IIglkg 60J 3.9 J 839 19.500
ALPHA-CHLORDANE IIglkg 5.1 J 219 2.340
AROCLOR-1260 IIglkg 247,669.30 590 J 47 -
DIELDRIN IIglkg 3.3 J 18 1.950
ENDOSULFAN II IIglkg 160 J . 1,950
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE IIglkg 0.92 J 1,950
ENDRIN IIglkg 25 J 8.1 J - 11.700
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE IIglkg 3.5 J 11,700
GAMMA-CHLORDANE IIglkg 5.8 J 219 2,340
HEPTACHLOR IIglkg 0.21 J 63 19,500
METHOXYCHLOR IIglkg 22 J - 195.000
Noles.
I A bII.. incklles Ihot ... onal)1e WlS not deIec:Ied
2 Risll.Besed CII'er11 If 0 bned an V S EtMrormentll Prolec1lan Agency toJllc'*9sI8rIco.. I ", "!rdCltl' "'" """'C"bIe
3 'J' CJJ8lfier irdcole. v_I. on os-to"" 10 being - tIIn the lowell_erG 0( <10010 lnIIr1eronco
4 Uri1s"9'Icote ro.... (wtIon IIIspIoyoGI reproserd'" doto oblllned an'l sIr90 ftolcl ~coto 0' one 01 "" rop. umples ~eenW1l....
"" roSUls shown In "" "re~ CoUM t. cotnc_. OCDf . OcIIctIoroctborvol".n
HpCDD' HeplocNorodber\lo-p.llloxln HxCDf : He.lcNorodborvo"'on TCDF. Tn.cNorodbenzor'lIn
HpCDf . HepllcNorodbef\rol\nn PeCDF . PonIIcHoroclborv.,.,." OCDD . Oc1lcNorodborvo-p.cIOk!n
Page 1 01 2
-------
CT~OO27\RN21_1.XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7.0027
Table 8-1
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 1: Old Fire Fighting Area
Depth Depth Depth Rlsk-8ued
Ot03ft 31013ft Below 13 ft Criteria
Analyte Units ReQular Regular Duplicate Regular Cancer Non.cancer
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH - DIESEL mpg 535 J . -
TRPH mglkg 127 J 74.7 28.7 J - -
Semlvolatlle Organics
ANTHRACENE IIgIkg 55 J - 1,950
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE IIglkg SOJ 391 -
BENZO(A)PYRENE IIglkg 52 J 39 .
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE IIglkg 50J 391 -
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE IIgIkg 93 J . .
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE IIgJltg 59 J 610 .
BIS(2.ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALA TE IIgIkg 40J 95J 20,400 780,000
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE IIpg 240 J 240 J 140 J 130 J - 7,800,000
CARBAZOLE IIg/kg 55 J 14,300 -
CHRYSENE IIg/kg 41 J 6,100 .
DI.N.BUTYL PHTHALATE IIglkg 3.400 J 1 ,400 J 1,900 J 1.300 J - 3.900,000
DI.N-OCTYL PHTHAlATE IIglkg 69 J . 780,000
DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE IIglkg 65 J 39 -
DIETHYL PHTHALATE IIglkg 360 J . 3.1E+07
FLUORANTHENE IIglkg 42 J - 1,560,000
INDENO(1,2,3.CD)PYRENE IIpg 100 J 391 -
PYRENE IIpg 100 J . 1,170,000
Tentatively Identlfled Compounds
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) ADIPATE IIgJltg 120 J 238,000 2.3E+07
FREON 113 IIglkg 10.2 J - 446,000
HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL IIglkg 180 J -
HEXANE IIglkg 11 J 9 J - 160,000
Volatile Organics
2.BUTANONE IIglkg 3 J 5.140,000
ACETONE IIglkg 49 J 22 J 34 J 9 J 1,370,000
CHLOROFORM IIglkg 2 J 793 53,000
METHYLENE CHLORIDE IIgJltg 37 J 36 J 44 J 64J 14,800 385,000
II
Nole'
, A 1>11"" I,,",clles ..., ... ""'11' wel no! dOleel'"
2 RIsk.eased Cnlen. Ole based on U 5 ErMr~ Protecton Agency lo>dc~c81 dOlo. I rHktenllal 'xposu'l 1C~0.
I 18rgel clncer nslc 01 10 '. Ind I I8rgel noncardnogeric halard Inde. of , 0 e""".... roulas considered Inc:UIo Ioilingeston.
derm81 cont.cl. ,"""Io'on 0,...,..1101 ',om 1Oit, Ind 'rtI8I8lon of p'rlcU8'..-III8nc..; I -.- rdc.... not oppIClt>18
3 'J' ~ifi..lnclcl'" VOW IS In .,,""',. ctJo 10 b8InQ - """ hi _st "ancllrd or ctJo tolnlorfOfonc.
4 Un'. "9'<9' magrlms per lalogr:om. ~9 . rricrograms per kIIoVam
5 RosUls """'" reproson' I C_"" 01 hi dOlo lor II r~ ~.
6 ~c.t. '''''''1'''''''" ctspayedl represone "" data ob'- on. IingIa nald c1c>Ic8le 01 one or hi r~~. Ajp'--....
hi ,os.-, lhown III ... 'f~'" coLfm" cOinddlnlal
Page 2 of 2
I
I
-------
CT02601870027'RN21_1.XLS
CLE-J02~1 F260-B7.oo27
Table 8-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 1: Old Fire Fighting Area
Depth Depth Depth 15th Percentile Ri.k-B..ect
o to 3 ft 3to13ft Below 13 ft Background Criteria
Analyte Unll. Regular Reaular DUDIlcate Regular Concentration Cancer Non-Gancer
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 13,700 J 7,370 J 6,527 J 4,603 J 16,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC mglkg 10 J 1.04 J 1.96 1.94 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 359 J 69.4 J 44.4 34.8 J 195.03 - 1,540
BERYLLIUM mglkg 0.69 J 0.32 J 0.17 J 0.15 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON mglkg 81.1 J 40.1 J 25.8 J 26.1 J 11.65 . 5,970
CADMIUM mglkg 1.8 J 0.71 J 1.91 .9 39
CALCIUM mglkg 12,500 J 4,810 J 5,970 J 1,520 16,772.1 . "
CHROMIUM mglkg 13.1 J 8.9 J 7.2 5.1 21.52 . 71,100
COBALT rngIkg 7.2 J 3.5 J 3.8 J 2.3 J 15.28 . 4,540
COPPER mglkg 14 7.0 5.2 J 4.9 J 19.6 - 2,630
CYANIDE rngIkg 1.8 0 . 1,420
IRON rngIkg 23,400 J 11 ,200 J 11,700 7,730 J 23,702.1 .
LEAD mgikg 126 4.98 J 2.78 J 2.34 15.45 " 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 6,960 J 3.690 J 2,780 J 1,690 J 8,086.43 .
MANGANESE mglkg 297 J 131 J 197 127 J 438.03 . 138
MERCURY mglkg 0.84 J o . 21
NICKEL mglkg 7.8 2.8 J 4.3 J 2.8 J 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM mglkg 2.840 1.850 1,550 990 5,785.65 . .
SODIUM mglkg 2,390 1,210 656 J 122 J 875.29 . .
STRONTIUM mglkg 80.2 32.6 J 22.8 J 13.5 210.69 . 42,700
VANADIUM mglkg 69 J 27.2 J 27.9 17.8 J 49.03 . 498
ZINC rngIkg 87.9 30.2 J 22.6 32.2 64.82 . 21,300
Notes
, A I>Iarl< IndIclle. 1I1811he ln8lyle wu nol deloCled
2 Rlsk.Bued Cnlono Ire bosecl on U'S ErwIr- Prolocton AoencY kndcaIo9Icli dola. 0 residenllllolCpO"'" .cenorio,
o t8tgol Clneer "sk d 10'. end I IIrgot noncordnOgoric hlzord Indo. 011 0 EICpOstII roulu considered InctJdo .oIlngos1on.
dennol conIaC'- Im8lnon d _lie. from SOlI. end tmoIIlIon d Plr1ioJl"- ~'lancl': I "."IrdCI'" nol oppIcII>Ie.
3 95 PerconIII Blc.",..m Contentlton I. ClloJ81ed Irom MClB Borslow b8c1<~ 5011 dola (0 to 3 loot): releroncl Jlcobs 1995 "Mor1ne
Corp. LogI.ec. el... BI~tow. CIUoml 8ocI<",...,., Soh _.Ogo.on. 1_01 ~ 0023. Drift fine!. JO Morell '995.
. 'J qJIInor Irdcele' VlUI II on ullmllo U 10 being - III" III _1.lando.4>ICI'o res"". (- clSjIIoyedl roprosenl!he dolll Qblllned on a single ftelcll14>lclle of one of Ihe r~r .~.. Awa- oj"
Ihe re""'. shoWn In"'''~ CDUm I. coincidental
-------
CT0260\B70027\TA89-6.DOC
CLE-J02-01 F260-87-OO27
TABLE 8-3
CAOC 21 - Industrial Waste Disposal Area
Phase lIa Investigation
PCB Sampling Results
(Sheet 1 of 3)
Test Kit Results Confirmatory Laboratory
Serial Grid Sample PCB Analysis
Number YM21- Light Meter Equivalents Aroclor-1260
Reading. (ppm) (mg/kg)
Stratum 1
1 005W Low <0.5 NA
2 005W2 9% <0.5 NA
3 006W2 22% 1.1-4.0 NA
4 006W2D High >25 NA
5 006W2D1 30% 1.1-4.0 NA
6 006W3 Low <0.5 NA
7 006W4 22% 1.1-4.0 NA
8 006SW 7% <0.5 NA
9 007W 58% 4.1-15 10.323
10 007WD 5% <0.5 NA
11 007W2 7% <0.5 NA
12 007W3 47% 4.1-15 NA
13 007W4 High >25 247.67
14 008W Low <0.5 NA
15 008W2 2% <0.5 NA
16 008W3 46% 4.1-15 4.178
17 008W4 7% <0.5 NA
18 009W2 25% 1.1-4.0 4.56
19 009W2D 23% 1.1-4.0 NA
20 009W3 Low <0.5 NA
21 009W4 22% 1.1-4.0 NA
22 010W 14% 0.5-1.0 NA
23 010WD Low <0.5 NA
24 010W2 Low <0.5 NA
-------
CT0260\B70027\T AB9-6.DOC
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7-OO27
TABLE 8-3
CAOC 21 - Industrial Waste Disposal Area
Phase lIa Investigation
PCB Sampling Results
(Sheet 2 of 3)
Test Kit Results Confinnatory Laboratory
Serial Grid Sample PCB Analysis
Number YM21- Light Meter Equivalents Aroclor-1260
Reading. (ppm) (mg/kg)
Stratum 1, continued
25 010W3 Low <0.5 0.109
26 011NW 21% 1.1-4.0 NA
27 011NWD Low <0.5 NA
28 011 NW1 Low <0.5 NA
29 011 NW2 14% 0.5-1.0 0.630
30 011NW3 6% <0.5 NA
31 011N2 Low <0.5 NA
32 011W2 17% 0.5-1.0 0.295
33 022N Low <0.5 NA
34 044N Low <0.5 NA
Stratum 2
35 122 Low <0.5 NA
36 123 Low <0.5 NA
37 124 Low <0.5 NA
38 125 Low <0.5 NA
39 126 Low <0.5 NA
40 127 Low <0.5 NA
41 128 Low <0.5 NA
42 129 Low <0.5 ND(0.034)
43 130 Low <0.5 NA
44 131 Low <0.5 NA
45 132 Low <0.5 NA
46 132-LD Low <0.5 NA
47 133 Low <0.5 NA
-------
CT0260\B70027\T AB9-6.DOC
CLE -J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
TABLE 8-3
CAOC 2~ - Industrial Waste Disposal Area
Phase lIa Investigation
PCB Sampling Results
(Sheet 3 of 3)
Test Kit Results Confinnatory Laboratory
Serial Grid Sample PCB Analysis
Number YM21- Light Meter Equivalents Aroclor-1260
Reading. (ppm) (mg/kg)
Stratum 2, continued
48 134 Low <0.5 NA
49 135 Low <0.5 NA
50 136 Low <0.5 NA
51 137 Low <0.5 NA
52 137-LO Low <0.5 NA
53 138 Low <0.5 NA
54 139 Low <0.5 NA
55 140 Low <0.5 NA
56 141 Low <0.5 NA
57 141-LO Low <0.5 NA
58 142 Low <0.5 NA
59 142S 7% <0.5 NA
60 143 36% 1.1-4.0 ND(O.067)
61 1430 12% 0.5-1.0 NA
62 143S Low <0.5 NA
63 144 Low <0.5 NA
64 144S Low <0.5 NA
65 145 Low <0.5 NA
66 146 Low <0.5 NA
.Values represent relative percent difference in reflectance between sample and calibration standard in D-TECHe
immunoassay test kit.
D - Label suffix indicating additional sample to delineate vertical extent of detected PCBs.
LD - Laboratory test kit duplicate.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
NA - Not analyzed.
ND - Not detected (Detection Limit).
PCB - Polychlorinated biphenyl.
ppm - Parts per million.
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN21_1A.XLS
CLE-J02-Q1 F260-B7 -0027
Table 8-4
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 1A
Depth Depth Depth Rllk-Baled
o to 3 « 3to 13 « Below 13 ft Criteria
Analyte Unitl Regular Regular Duplicate Regular Cancer Non-Cancer
Dioxins/Furans - .
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD pglg 120 - -
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF pglg 79 - -
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF pg/g 20 - -
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF pg/g 69 - -
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF pglg 28 - .
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF pglg 18 . -
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF pglg 16 . -
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF pglg 24 . -
2,3,7,8-TCDF pglg 13 - -
HpCDDS (TOTAL) pgIg 240 - .
HpCDFS (TOTAL) pglg 100 - -
HxCDDS (TOTAL) pgIg 21 - -
HXCDFS (TOTAL) pglg 210 . -
OCDD pgIg 880 - -
OCDF pglg 170 - -
PeCDFS (TOTAL) pglg 110 - -
TCDFS (TOTAL) pgIg 36 - -
Pesticides/PCBs
AROCLOR-1260 ~g/kg 5,712.97 4,815.37 54.00 J 108.11 47 -
BETA-BHC jJglkg 2.30 J 158 -
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE ~glkg 0.40 J - 11,700
GAMMA-CHLORDANE jJg/kg 0.31 J 219 2,340
Semivolatile Organics
BIS(2-ETHYLH EXYL)PHTHALA TE jJglkg 59.00 J 87.00 J 38.00 J 60.00 J 20,400 780,000
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE jJglkg 570.00 J 48.00 J . 7,800,000
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE IJglkg 2,900 J 2,600 J 2,600 J 1,400 J - 3,900,000
Notes'
I A blInk Indiclles thaI thl Inllyte _I not dltected
2 Risk-Based c.re,1I Ife based on U S. Envlronmlntal P.otection Agency toxicologicll data. I IIlldenl.., e'posure scenlfio.
I ta'gel cancer rllk or 10', Ind I hI.gII nonelrclnogenic hallfd Index 011.0 Expolure loutes conlldered Includl sollnglllion.
dermal contact. Inhllilian 01 volailleslrom soH. and "'hilltion 01 particulal.bound substancel; I "," Indicates not Ippliceble.
3 'J' qua"It' indicates ..Iue II In esUmatl due 10 being lowe. than the lowest standa'd 0' due 10 Inler1erenCI
4 Un'l mg/kg' mllig'lml pe' klogrom. ~"'kg . mic'ogreml pel kilogrem: Wg . plcograml pel grom.
5 Results shown repre..nt I composfte 01 the data lor III regular aamples
6 Duplicate rosults (wilen drtpl,y"d) represen' thl dal. oblalned on I Ilngll IIIld dupllclle 01 one 01 thl regula' samples Agreement with
the results shown r, the .,egular- cotumn .. colncactental
1-
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN21_1A.XLS
Table 8.5
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 1A
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
Depth Depth Depth 95th Percentile Rlsk~sed
o to 3 ft 3to13f1 Below 13 't Background Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Regular Duplicate Regular Concentration Cancer Non.cancer
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 19,100 11,500 1,830 6,140 16,245.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC mglkg 7.30 2.70 1.40 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 129.00 90.60 15.60 J 53.50 195.03 - 1,540
BERYLLIUM mglkg 0.52 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON mglkg 34.60 30.90 4.60 J 11.65 - 5,970
CADMIUM mglkg 0.52 J 1.91 9 39
CALCIUM mglkg 40,800 6,730 977.00 J 2,810 16,772.1 . -
CHROMIUM mglkg 17.20 12.10 4.00 7.10 21.52 - 71,100
COBALT mglkg 10.10 J 6.60 J 2.50 J 15.28 - 4,540
COPPER mglkg 19.80 12.50 6.90 19.6 - 2,630
IRON mglkg 27,400 17,500 5,130 9,250 23,702.10 - -
LEAD mglkg 16.50 42.70 1.70 3.80 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 10,200 6,400 952.00 J 2,740 8,086.43 - -
MANGANESE mglkg 684.00 332.00 54.60 146.00 438.03 - 136
MERCURY mglkg 0.19 0 - 21
MOLYBDENUM mglkg 3.60 J 3.60 J O . 354
NICKEL mglkg 8.80 J 1527 150 1,400
POTASSIUM mglkg 2,390 1,940 615.00 J 1,340 5,785.65 - -
SELENIUM mglkg 1.00 J 0 - 356
SODIUM mglkg 4,460 1,790 238.00 J 613.00 J 675.29 - -
STRONTIUM mglkg 182.00 73.10 10.20 32.70 210.69 - 42,700
THALLIUM mglkg 1.80 J 0 - 4.98
VANADIUM mglkg 72.60 37.40 11.60 21.80 49.03 . 498
ZINC mglkg 71.60 52.00 14.90 24.10 64.82 - 21,300
Not...
1 A blink IndlCltel rhlt rhe Inllylt WI' not delected
2 Risk.Bued Cr."11 ..t bt..d on U.S Enwonmtntal ProttCtion Agency 10.1C01oglCtl dtta. I r..idenllal'lCp01Iure ac.n..lo.
tillge. Clncor rllk 0110 '. Ind IIIIgtt noncllcinogenlC hll..d Ind.. 011 0 ElCp01Iu" rOule. conlldored tnclud. oolllnge011on,
dermll contlc!. Inhalation 01 volltil.. from IOU. Ind Innllatlon 01 plltlCulate-bound lubstanc... I .,. IndlClt" nol appllClble
3 9~ PorcentUe Background Conc.ntratlon II calculated Irom MClB Baratow blckground '01 data (0 to 3 'eet); relerencl: Jacobi. 199~. ......lnl
Corp.logiStlCl Bu.. Barstow. CII~ornla Blckground SoNllnvestigation. TechnlCII "'emollndum 0023 Draft IInl' 30 March 199~
4 . J' Qua".r Indicattt value II In .stlmate due to being lower thin the k»welt standard Of' due to ",tl"",nc.
5 Units mg'kg, mHlogrom. per kilogram. ~g/I
-------
CT0260\87oo27\RN2'_'B.XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
Table 8.e
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 1 B
Depth Depth Depth Rlsk.a..ed
o to 3" 3 to 13" Below 13" Crnerla
AnaMe Units Regular Duplicate Regular Regular Cancer Non.cancer
Dloxlns/Furans - -
1,2,3,4.6.7,8-HpCDD pglg 190 "
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF pg/g 82 - -
1.2,3,4,7.8.9-HpCDF pg/g 5.5 J . .
1.2.3.6.7.8-HxCDD pg/g 6.3 J . ,
2,3.7,8-TCDF pg/g 1.8 J .
HpCDDS (TOTAl) pg/g 360 - .
HpCDFS (TOTAl) pg/g 400 - .
HxCDOS (TOTAl) pg/g 24 - -
HICCOFS (TOTAl) pg/u 57 . ,
OCOO pg/g 1.600 -
OCDF pglg 540 "
PeCDFS (TOTAl) pglg 6.0 "
TCDFS (TOTAl) pg/g 3.8 . -
Pesticides/PC Bs
4,4',000 IJOIkg 0.64 J 1.51 J 1.190 .
4,4'-00E IJOIkg 2.67 J 7.65 839 -
4,4',DOT I'glkg 0.39 J 0.98 J 2.35 J 839 19.500
ALPHA-BHC llglkg 0.33 J 45
AROCLOR.1260 IJOIkg 36.53 98.14 33.57 47 .
DIELDRIN "glkg 0.64 J 0.82 J 18 1,950
ENDOSULFAN I IJOIkg 1.09 J ' 1,950
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE IJOIkg 121 J . 1,950
ENDRIN jIg/kg 0.66 J . 11.700
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE "g/kg 0.34 J 0.39 J 11,700
ENORIN KETONE "glkg 0.69 J 3.61 11,700
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE IllIlkg 0.60 J 31 507
Tentatively Identified Compounds
2 ,4-BIS(1,1-DIMETHYLETHYL)PHALA TE "glkg 168.35 J -
Semlvolatlle Organics
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALA TE "glkg 50.00 J 35.00 J 45.00 J 20,400 780.000
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE "glkg 51.00 J ' 7.800.000
Ol-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE "glltg 5,222.00 4.599.00 4,102.00 . 3,900.000
Noe..
, A 1>10'* indc....1II8t !lie .""1',1. WII. not iHC~ed
2 RlSk.Bued Cnllftl .,e baled on U 5 ErMrCJm'\ltf1lel Ptofec:tion AQ8ncy to1ic~c'l dill, . 'e~der8.' expOSU'8 scenano,
. target canellf"1It of 10 '. and. target noncardnogeniC l\uwd Iron of 1 0 EqH)sw, red" conllder.d tnci.IdI soIllngetiion.
dennal conlld. Wwtltlon 0' voleU'" 'rom 1081. Ind iN'IUatlon 0' p.r1ic~.-bot.nd tt*ltllnc... I 8.8Irdut.. noI ~cab'e
3 'J' qu8'fi8f imcat" Y8i.M it In .18im1t, <*Je 10 being towef Ih8" the towe. .1nd8rd Of due to nerfer.-.cl
4 UnIIs mg.tg. m.gr.m. per lalog.m. IJ!Io4Iclle 01.... 01 tho r8jJJlr ..~. Agre_-
lhe res"', shown an the -re~r- coUm II Cofnctdeftl.
-------
CT0260187oo27\RN21_1B.xLS
CLE.J02..o1F260.B7-oo27
Table 8-7
Maximum Inorganic ConcentraUons In 5011
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 18
Depth Depth Depth 95th Percentile Rlsk-8lSed
o to 3 ft 3t013ft Below 13 ft B.ekground Crnerll
AnlMe Un"s Rtgul.r Duplleltt Regullr Regul.r Coneentrilion Clnetr Non-c.netr
Metals
ALUMINUM mg/kg 6.880 7.380 10.100 1,530 16,245.3 71,100
ARSENIC mglkg 2 J 2.30 J 2.40 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 186 107 112.00 62.50 195.03 - 1,540
BERYLLIUM mg/kg 0.48 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON mglkg 6J 4.8 J 18.10 J 11.65 5.970
CADMIUM mglkg 0.44 J 3.00 1.91 9 39
CALCIUM mglkg 5,S60 5,950 3,910 1.120 16,772.1 . .
CHROMIUM mglkg 6.7 8.7 10.80 2.60 21.52 . 71,100
COBALT mglkg 3.9 J 4.7 J 8.10 J 15.28 . 4.540
COPPER mglkg 8 8.5 9.70 8.70 19.6 - 2.630
IRON mglkg 10.800 12.400 18.100 3.380 23,702.1 - -
LEAD mglkg 12.2 J 7.7 J 36.10 J 234.00 J 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 3.890 4.010 4.810 761.00 J 8.086.43 . -
MANGANESE mglkg 198 201 289.00 62.80 438.03 136
NICKEL mglkg 5.3 J 6.3 J 8.80 J 15.27 150 1.400
POTASSIUM mglkg 1,900 2,020 2,290 538.00 J 5.785.65 -
SODIUM mglkg 878 J 613 J 1,720 462,00 J 675.29 -
STRONTIUM mg1kg 47.7 50.1 57 10.00 210.69 - 42,700
VANADIUM mg1kg 24.2 28,4 33.20 8,60 J 49.03 498
ZINC mglkg 42.1 42,7 41.60 44.00 64.82 - 21,300
Not" .
1, "bIa,* ird'ltlllh8llh8 .IIO¥. ... no! doI.CI.d
i Rlsk.Based C",ent Ir. based on U S Erwlrcwnertll Protedion ~ toJdcolo9cl1 dill, . rllhtentlaltllPON' ,ceneno,
. target clneer "A 01 10', and . target nonclrdnogeriC Nz8fd Lndtl of , 0 E~. rWI. conlldered Inck.de .otI ingestion.
d8fm8I conlct 1""'''Uon of votaIlle,'rom tOil. and w...tion of p8rtlct8l.bot.nd Mmstance., I -.- N'dc8t.. not IfJPIc..
3 95 P..,....... IIIdlgrOUld Coneonl,"""" ,.Ic\UI.d ',om MCle e.n.ow be"grOUld .01' dol. (0103 ''''1: r.I.."",. Jocobl1995 "M8I1n8
Corp.l~sli" e..., lII,stow. C.I'omI. IIIcIIgrOUld SOIIIlnvesllgeti.." hctric:8I Memore..un 0023 Or.ft ft.., 30 M.rdI 1995,
.. 'J' ~Inlf' Incleltl' V8Ue 'I In fshtnlte P 10 betng lower th8n Iht bwest ".ndIrd Of 0Je 10 Wet18f8hCt
5 Unt. moAOJlte of the elite tor II r'QUlf IIrrcMI
1 ~c8t. reM' (~(hPlyed) reprlSer( the dill ob48ined or'Il Itrge fletd ~c.'e of one of the r.~r S8fT'C)8e1 Ageemerf 'A4lh
,he re,"', WIown in ,"- .,eQlMr'" toUm it cOIncidenllll
-------
CT0260\8700271RN21_1C.XlS
ClE-J02-01F260-B7 -0027
Table 8-8
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 1 C
Depth Depth Rlsk-881ed
3to 13ft Below 13 ft Criteria
Anllyte Units Regular Regular Canc:er Non.canc:er
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-DDD jlg/kg 1.72 J 1190
ENDRIN jlg/kg 097 J - 11,700
ENDRIN AlDEHYDE jlglkg 0.63 J " 11,700
ENDRIN KETONE l'9/kg 0.62 J " 11,700
Tentatively Identlfted Compounds
2 ,4-BIS( 1,1-DIMETHYLETHYL)PHENOL I'91kg 138.05 J - -
Semlvolatlle Organics
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYLIPHTHALA TE "glkg 94J 20,400 780,000
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE jlglltg 408 - 7,800,000
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE "glltg 2,707 4,337 - 3,900,000
Tentatively Identlfted Compounds
PHOSPHORIC ACID, DIOCTADECYL jlglltg 1,348.8 J . "
Not...
,. A bIo,*lncIcaI........ l1li ~. ... noI dotldod
2 R'III.Bo..d CltOfto 0.. b.1ed on U 5 EIM'_8I Proloc:tlon AooneYtoxlcologlc:8I dolo, 0'_81 t>pOIU" .._~o.
. I"~ cenc. risk 0' 10 .. end . tlrget nonclrctnogefic hal,reI 6ndn of 1 0 EJ!po....1 f(M,fn cOMidet'ed tnc8Jde soiIlngettion.
_I......... IrNlotion 01.....110. from lOll, ond _on of pottI.......- NlII"""". . "."lncIc"" noI o""'c-
3 'J' ~.n..lnclcot.. .....1. on .1Ilmol. ... to b8tng _Ihon l1li""'11 11'- 01 M to lr1Ierf.......
4 Unit. mg.IOIII. 01 till dol. 101 .. 'ogoD' ........
6 ~cll' ...... 1- ctsplo~d, 'eprosert tilt.... oI>IoIned on . lingle noli! ct.ll>lcaI. of 01\1 01 tilt ,olJAll.....,..' .tq--
tho ...... _In Iho "opt" coLml II .oIncIdo,UI
-------
C.IB7oo27IRN21]XLS
CLE.J02..Q1 F260-B7-OO'fI
. Table 8-11
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 2: Northern Half of CAOC 21
Depth Depth Depth 85th Percentile Rlsk&sed
o to 3 n 3 to 13 ft Below 13 n Background Criteria
Analyte Units Regutar Regutar Duplicate Regular Concentration Cancer Non-Cancer
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 10;600 J 7,930 J 11,200 J 21,800 J 16,245.3 " 71,100
ANTIMONY mglkg 14 J 0 " 28.4
ARSENIC mglkg 4.1 J 1.98 J 1.6 J 11.5 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 120 103 J 120 116 J 195.03 " 1,540
BERYLLIUM mglkg 0.53 J 0.32 J 0.50 J 0.95 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON mglkg 59.9 J 44.6 J 61.1 J 113 J 11.65 " 5,970
CADMIUM mglkg 1.3 0.76 0.58 J 0.87 J 1.91 9 39
CALCIUM mglkg 9,780 6,160 J 5,330 7,940 J 16,772.1 " "
CHROMIUM mglkg 12 8.3 J 15.6 24 J 21.52 " 71,100
COBALT mglkg 7.4 J 3.1 J 7.2 J 13.8 15.28 " 4,540
COPPER mglkg 9.8 J 9.7 11.6 18.5 19.6 " 2,630
IRON mglkg 17,100 J 12,100 J 17,600 J 32,200 J 23,702.1 " "
LEAD mglkg 11.3 J 9.7 J 4.66 13.5 J 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 5,230 J 3,960 J 5,780 J 9,470 J 8,086.43 . "
MANGANESE mglkg 251 J 197 J 265J 653 J 438.03 " 136
MERCURY mglkg 0.103 0.197 0 " 21
NICKEL mglkg 6.6 3.2 J 7.3 10.9 15.27 " 1,400
POTASSIUM mglkg 1,550 1,630 2,580 4,810 5,785.65 " "
SODIUM mglkg 1,960 1,090 1,460 581 J 675.29 " "
STRONTIUM mglkg 64.5 44.0 J 48.5 69 J 210.69 " 42,700
THALLIUM mglkg 0.15 J 0 . 4.98
VANADIUM mglkg 47.3 27.6 J 38.7 54.9 J 49.03 " 498
ZINC mglkg 72 58.3 J 48.7 74.3 J 64.82 " 21,300
Notes
1 A blank indicates that the analyte was not detected
2 Rlsk.Based Crileria are based on U S Environmental PrOIec:bon Agency toxicological data. a residentla' ellpOSure scenario.
a lalgel cancer risk 01 10'. and a target noncarcinogenIc hazard inde. 01 1.0. E>posure routes conSIdered ,nclude soillngesbon.
dermal conlact Inhalation 0' \IOlallleslrom soil, and inhalation 01 pamculall,bound lubstances; a"," indicatls not applicable
3 95 PercentIle Background Concentration IS calculated !rom MCLB Barstow background soil data (0 to 3 'eet). referlnce' Jacoba 1995. ''Marine
Corps LogIStICs Base. Barllow. Cal~ornia Background Soils Investigalion" TechnicI' MlfTIOfandum 0023 Dllft linal 30 March 1I195
. . J' quall',er Indicales value IS an estimate due 10 bllng lower Ihan the lowell ltandard or due 10 inll/fl..nce
5 Unitl mg/'i
-------
CT0260IB7oo27\RN21_1C.XLS
CLE.J02-01 F260.B7 -0027
Table 8.9
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 21: Industrtal Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 1 C
Depth Depth Depth 95th Percentile . Rlsk-Based
o to 3 ft Uo 13 ft Below 13 ft Blckground Criteria
Anllyte Units Regullr Dupllclte Regular Regullr Concentration Clncer Non-Cancer
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 24,100 11,500 9,230 5,410 16,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC mglkg 8.4 J 2.4 1.9 J 1.1 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 281 126 78.4 59.7 195.03 . 1,540
BERYLLIUM malkg 1.1 J 0.5 J 0.42 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON mglkg 32.8 5.3 J UJ 2.2 J 11.65 . 5,970
CALCIUM mglkg 17,300 6,690 6,530 5,360 16,772.1 . .
CHROMIUM mglkg 23.1 10 9.6 5.2 21.52 - 71,100
COBALT mglkg 12 5.8 J 8.3 J 3.4 J 15.28 . 4,540
COPPER mgikg 20.8 10 7.9 4.9 J 19.6 . 2,630
IRON mgikg 31,100 18,600 16,300 8,520 23,702.1 . .
LEAD mgikg 9.4 J UJ 3.8 J 2.7 J 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM mg/kg 9,510 5,680 4,500 2,870 8,086.43 - .
MANGANESE mglkg 523 282 209 144 438.03 . 136
MOLYBDENUM mglkg 5.6 J 0 . 354
NICKEL mglkg 14.1 6.3 J 6.5 J 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM mg/kg 3,470 2,320 2,550 1,350 5,785.65 . .
SODIUM mglkg 3,470 2,550 2,100 575 J 675.29 - .
STRONTIUM mglkg 178 65.2 67.6 31.5 210.69 - 42,700
THALLIUM mglkg 1.5 J 1.4 J 1.3 J O . 4.98
VANADIUM mg/kg 82.9 38 35 19.4 4903 . 498
ZINC mglkg 73.1 44.9 37.6 22.7 64.82 . 21,300
I
"
NOC"
1 A bill" !rdcII., tNt the 8IW¥e ..s nul detected
'l RI~.BII'd Cnteril .r. bind on U S ErMrcwnerc81 Protection AlJfJftt:'f loxh;oIogIcI' dlCl, . r.~defti.I.JpDSU" 1C8""'0,
. r.,08t nf'IClf rilll of to'. and. tlfOM nonc:.rdnoQenlc hazl,d Index of 1 O. UpoN' r04"Ce, cQMIdet'.d ifdJde Rllngettion,
cMrm81 Cortlct,ltNtaUon 01 voIatlln from toil. end W\aI8Ilon of perUaAlle-bou'w:I Mbttanc... ~:.. nie"I' not apple".
3 9S POfcefC.. Bedlgr""'" ConcOl1l'otlon 11<_0<1 fiom MClB Borllow bealli'''''''' ""I dote (0 to 3 loetl: ,eI.._e: Jocob. 1995. "Merino
Corp'loglll'CI B..e. Be,lIow, Ce".....e Bedlgr""'" SOdIIn\I.stlgo~on . To_cel M.......-.n 0023 Dreft tlnel 30 Me'ell ,itS
. 'J' quI,ft« inclcltn vUJe II In .stimllte CUI tobetng IOw8f thanttle lowest ...nd8rd Of ItJe to lnIerflf8nC.
5 u.... ~g. ...Igroms per lDIogrem. ~g . muogrems per Iologrom
6 Reds shown repnenl . cC)rrC)O~' of the dIIll for I. r.~ s..,.,
7 OIc*cote re"", c-n clII'Ieyed) '0I"..0I1I1fIo dele obIolned on e single Roid ~cote 01 one 0I1fIo rep, ,....,... "gre_..ch
the re"", 'Ihown in Ihi "'r.~,... coU'm it coincidenlal
-------
C T0260IB7oo27\RN21_2.XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
Table 8-10
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soil
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 2: Northern Half 0' CAOC 21
Depth Depth Depth Rlsk-8ased
o to 3 ft 3 to 13 ft Below 13 ft Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Regular Duplicate Regular Cancer Non-Cancer
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-DDD jJglkg 0.75 J 0.67 J 1,190 .
4,4'-DDE jJglkg 9.9 J 4.2 J 3.4 J 839 -
4,4'-DDT jJglkg 11 J 9.4 J 839 19,500
ALDRIN jJglkg 0.76 J 17 1,170
ALPHA-CHLORDANE jJglkg 0.3 J 219 2,340
AROCLOR-1260 jJglkg 120 J 110J 47 .
DEL TA-BHC jJglkg 1.0 J 0.29 J 1.7 J 158 -
DIELDRIN jJglkg 1.3 J 18 1,950
ENDRIN jJglkg 3.0 J 2.1 J - 11,700
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE jJglkg 2.7 J 4.1 J - 11,700
GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE) jJglkg 0.54 J 219 11,700
HEPTACHLOR IIgIkg 0.87 J 0.72 J 63 19,500
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH - DIESEL mglkg 10.8 J 11.3 . -
TRPH mglkg 35.5 J 22.5 J 18.3 J 68.6 J . -
Semlvolatlle Organics
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE IIgIkg 340 J 42 J 340 J 20,400 780,000
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE IlgIkg 1,900 1,100 1,400 1,700 . 3,900,000
DlETHYL PHTHALATE IIgIkg 120 J - 3.1E+07
PHENANTHRENE IIgIkg 55 J - -
Tentatively Identified Compounds
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) ADIPATE IJglkg 12,000 J 39,000 J 260 J 26,000 J 238,000 2.3E+07
II
Noles
, A blank ondocates that the anal)'le was not detected
2 Rlsk.Based Criteria are based 0" U S Environmental Protection A;ency lo)CtCologica' d.bt. a resldentla' exposure aeenario,
a target cancer fisk 01 108, and a blrget noncarcinogenic hazard ande. o' , O. Exposure routes considered include soil ingestion,
dermal contact, inhal..tion 01 volatiles 'rom sOil, and inhalatIOn of particulate. bound substances, 8 .." indicates not applicable.
3 . J' qualil", indicates value IS an .stlmate due 10 bling lower than the Iowesl .tandard Of due to inlerference
4 Units mg/kg. milligrams per kilogram, JIglkg. micrograms pe, kilogram. pglkg. picograms per kitogram
S Results shown ,epresenla composite 01 the dalalo, an regula, .amples
6 Duplicate results (when dISplayed) ,epresent the data obtaoned on a single loold duplicate of one of tho regula, samples Agreemenl WIth
Ihe results shown in Ihe "regular" cotumn IS cooncldental
Page 1 of 2
-------
C 1026018 70027\RN21 ]XLS
Table 8-10
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soli
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 2: Northern Half of CAOC 21
CLE.J02-01F260.B7~27
Depth Depth Depth Rlsk.aased
o to 3 ft 3 to 13 ft Below 13 ft Criteria
Analyte Units Regula, Regula, Duplicate Regular Cance, Non.cancer
Volatile Organics
1,1,1. TRICHLOROETHANE IIglkg 4 J 3 J 14 . 297,000
ACETONE IIglkg 28 J 7.2 J 14 J .. 1,370,000
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 1191k9 25 J 46J 19 J 64J 14,800 385,000
Tentatively Identified Compounds
BEHENIC ACID IIglkg 14,000 J .. .
BENZALDEHYDE IJg/kg 110 J .. 3,880,000
BIS(2.ETHYLHEXYL) ADJPATE IIglkg 12,000 J 39,000 J 260 J 26,000 J 238,000 2.3E+07
HEXANE IIglkg 7J 11 J .. 160,000
LAURIC ACID IIglkg 120 J 530 J .. .
PALMITIC ACID uglka 180 J .. .
Notes
1 A blank indicates that the analVle was no! detected
2 Ri.k.Based Crile"a ere based on U 5 Environmental Protection Aoency tolric:ological data. a reaidentialexposure scenario.
a laroet cancer risk 0110 t. and a taroet noncarcinogenic hazard index 011 O. Exposure routes con.idered inctude lOiI inoe.tion,
dermal contact, inhalation of \/Olatile,'rom 1OiI, and inhalation 01 particulate.bound .ubltance.; a "." indicate. nOlapplicable.
3 'J qualilier indicates value is an e.bmata due to being lower than the lowest standard Of due to interlerence
4 Unils mgJkg. milligram. per kilogram; ~gJkg. microgram. per kilog,am; pgJkg . picogram. per kilogram,
S Results shown represent a compooite of the data lOf all regular samples
II Dupllcale results (when displayed) represent the data obtained on a single lield duplicate 01 one 01 the regular samples Agreement with
the resulls shown in the ",egula(' column is coincidental,
I
Page 2 of 2
-------
CT026018 70027\RN21_2A.XlS
ClE.J02..o1F26G-B7 -0027
Table 8-12
Maximum Organic ConcentraUons In Soli
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and DIsposal Area
Stratum 2A
Depth Depth Depth Risk-Based
Oto3ft 3 to 13 ft Below 13 ft Criteria
AnaMe Units Reoular Duplicate Reoular Reaular Cancer Non-Cancer
PesUcldesiPCBs
4,4'-DDE IJgJkg 2.49 J 0.93 J 4.78 J 839 -
4,4'-DDT IJg/IIg 1.25 J 839 19,500
ALPHA-CHLORDANE IJgJkg 0.21 J 219 2,340
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE IJg/IIg 0.42 J . 11,700
ENDRIN KETONE IJg/IIg 0.39 J . 11,700
GAMMA-SHC (LINDANE) IJg/IIg 0.37 J 219 11,700
Noles'
1 " -IrdCltIl - tho onoIjI. .... no! cIIIodod
2 RIIII.eo.... C.-on. or. be.... on U S EM-II -- AooneY 1000c'*'lll'" ..., . '111_1.- K..no.
.1I/1lOl COIICII "III 0110', .nd .lorOOl noncor~c _d - of 1.0. EJpow. ""'n conoIdorod - toIIlIgnIIon,
-. c""'"eI, ImnIIon 01_111 trom toll, end ~ of portIcI8IHoonI8ObIIoncn; I "."IrdClln not ~.
3 'r ""'... -.. ....,. on ._. ~ 10 beIng"""lIIon tho - - or ....10 HOff.onc.
e U,.", "'11*0''''''- pol ~,1JIIoI<0' mere.- pot Ii"""'.
5 R..... - ,""- I OIII. 01 tho do4l'orol ,.., ........
6 DICoII ,..... (- dlljlllyod) '''''._1110 cIIIl 01>1- on I .... - ""'''.01 one 01 tho ~....,.... Ag--
tho ,..... _In tho "Y0\P0NI" coum I. c-dlrtll.
-------
CT0260IB7oo27\RN21- 2A.XLS
CLE.J02-01F260-B7.oo27
Table 8-13
MaxImum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 2A
Deptll Depth Depth IItll Percentll. Rille-Sued
Ot03" 310 13 ft Below 13 ft Blckground Crlt.rll
Anllyte Unltl Regullr Dupllclte Regullr Regullr Concentrltlon Clneer Non-<:Incer
Metl'l
ALUMINUM mglkg 7,940 9,900 7,370 5.620 18,245.30 71,100
ARSENIC mglkg 2.7 1.4 J 1.8 J 1.1 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 128 79.5 70.2 91 195.03 - 1,540
BERYLLIUM mglkg 0.44 J 0.59 0.129 358
BORON mg/kg 4.5 J 4.4 J 8.2 J 5.1 J 11.65 . 5,970
CALCIUM mglkg 3,890 8.050 3,420 2,840 18,772.1 - -
CHROMIUM mglkg 8.2 8.7 8.1 5.8 21.52 - 71,100
COBALT mglkg 5.1 J 8 J 3.9 J 2.7 J 15.28 - 4,540
COPPER mglkg 8.6 7.4 8.1 5.2 19.8 . 2,830
IRON mglkg 12,500 13,400 11.400 9.870 23,702.1 -
LEAD mglkg 3.8 J 3.3 J 2.7 J 3.9 J 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 4,030 5,180 3,370 2,720 8,088.43 - -
MANGANESE mglkg 178 219 132 125 438.03 . 138
MERCURY mglkg 0.18 0 21
NICKEL mglkg 4.4 J 5.8 J 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM mg/kg 1,760 1,870 1.520 1,430 5,785.85 - -
SODIUM mglkg 473 J 586 J 586 J 675.29 -
STRONTIUM mg/kg 47.3 68 40.5 32.5 210.69 42.700
VANADIUM mg/kg 25.6 27.7 28.2 22 49.03 498
ZINC mglkg 29.3 36.6 28.2 25.5 64.82 . 21,300
NoI..
1 A btI,. Indc.... rt\8t the I""" ...., not dI4.cted
2 Rlu.BIMd Client "1 bind on U S ErNtrClf'Wneftai Pr~ectlon Ageney loldcoIogIcll d81I, . 'Isldenli., Iq>OUI SCenario.
. "'08' clncer nslc of 10., end IllrOlt nont8fctnogenIc hazerd Index 01 1 0 ~. rOtA" conllde;'ld it'd.Ide 101 mgeStlon.
derrNI Contlct, """Ion 0' y.,U.. 'rom sol. Ind IrNlltion 0' pattit\Mte.bowId U1fence,; I ..-IncIC8lel not ~c.bIe
3 95 Percenli.. e.ck"OU'Id Concenlr.'ion is clbIIled from MClS BarilOW' blct"c.m lOti dill (0103 'eet), r.f.rence J.~obs '995 -Mann.
COt!>' LogI"iu B.... S.r.."",. C."om. Bockgr...., SoIls 1nYe..lgotion . Toctv;coJ M-..wn 0023. Droft ",,"I 30 M.rch 1995
. 'J' q.a8flet' Irdclfll va..... I. In eltitnlf, ctJe to b8tng lower thin the 80M. ".ndlrd or 4Ie to inlerf.enc8
5 Un!, mg.Icg. milgr..... por kiIogrom. IJIIoIcg. II'ICfogr.",. per "~m
6 Re~' sno.n repreienl I c~"'. of lhe dlt. '01 .. r.~ .8ft'C)le1
7 ~cole 10"" (When dlspIoyOdI leprO'enlthO do'. otJI.ined on 0 Iirge neid lcOCo 01 ono o'thO ,oPt U"",,"' "grOemer'llWlth
lhe reds ~ In the "e~ coUm it comcldefill
-------
CT0260IB7oo27IR N21- 3.XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
Table 8-14
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soil
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 3: Area ofthe Pit
Depth Depth Depth Rlsk..eased
o to 3 n 310 13 n Below 13 n Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Regular Duplicate Regular Cancer Non-Cancer
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-DDD I/gIkg 3.1 J 3.5 J 1,190
4,4'-DDE I/glI
-------
C T0260\B70027\RN21_3XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7-OO27
Table 8-14
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 3: Area of the Pit
Depth Depth Depth Risk-8ased
o to 3 II 3 80 13 II Below 13 II Cr"erla
Analyte Un"s Regula, Regular Duplicate Regula, Cancer Non~ancer
Tentatively Identified Compounds
BIS(2-E THYLHEXYL) ADIPA TE IJglkg 810 J 238,000 2.3E+07
METHYL ACETATE IJglkg 54J - 5,220,000
PALMITIC ACID IJglkg 130 J 180 J - -
TRICHLOROANILINE IJglkg 150 J - -
Volatile Organics
1,1,1- TRICHLOROETHANE IJg/kg 8 J - 297,000
2-BUTANONE I.Iglkg 3J 2 J - 5,140,000
ACETONE I.Iglkg 12 J 12 J 4 J - 1 ,370,000
METHYLENE CHLORIDE I.Iglkg 52 J 17 J 33J 21.5 J 14,800 385,000
TETRACHLOROETHENE IJg/kg 58 5,090 97,300
Noles
1 A blank indicates "'at !tie anal~e -a not detected
2 Rosk.Based Crrteria are baaed on U.S Environmental Protec1ion Agency 10000cologica' da", a residential e>cposure teenario,
atargel cancer riak at 10', and al8rgel noncarcinogenic hazard ind.. at 1.0. Exposure roul.. considered include tOil ingestion,
\
, i
dermal contact. inhalation at \IOlatiles trom soil, and inhalation at particulate-bound sUbs"nc..: a ". - indicat.. not applicable
3 'J' qualilier indicales value is an .stimale due 10 being lower than the lowest atandard or due 10 interference
4 Units mglkg. milligrams per kilogram, ~glkg - mICrograms per kilogram
5 Results shown represenla composite ollhe data lor all regular samples.
6 Duplicate resuns (when displayed) represent the dala obtained on a singl.field duplicale 01 one 01 the regular tamples Agreement with
the resulls shown in !tie "regulaf' column is cOincidental
Page 2 of 2
-------
CT0260\B70027\R N21- 3,XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260.B7 -0027
Table 8-15
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 3: Area 0' the Pit
Depth Depth Depth 95th Percentile Risk-Bued
o to 3 ft 3 to 13 n Below 13 n Background Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Regular Duplicate Regular Concentration Cancer Non-Cancer
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 11,600 J 7,770 J 5,590 J 4,450 J 16,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC mglkg 4.94 J 1.92 J 1.76 J 1.3 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 186 184 J 37.4 J 30.6 J 195.03 - 1,540
BERYLLIUM mglkg 0.52 J 0.48 J 0.27 J 0.14 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON mglkg 79.6 J 47.1 J 43.8 J 9.7 J 11.65 - 5,970
CADMIUM mglkg 1.2 0.90 J 0.34 J 0.51 J 1.91 9 39
CALCIUM mgJkg 6,610 4,590 J 2,600 J 1,600 16,772.1 . -
CHROMIUM mglkg 12.7 J 9.2 J 7.6 J 6.0 21.52 . 71,100
COBALT mglkg 7.0 J 4.3 J 3.1 J 1.3 J 15.28 . 4,540
COPPER mglkg 12 9.1 6.1 5.2 J 19.6 . 2,630
IRON mglkg 21,700 J 13,500 J 13,500 J 6,460 23,702.1 . -
LEAD 'mglkg 6.86 J 14.2 J 3.09 J 2.2 J 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 6,310 J 3,780 J 2,910 J 1,070 8,086.43 . -
MANGANESE mglkg 287 J 266 157 J 129 438.03 - 136
MOLYBDENUM mglkg 1.1 J 0.60 J O . 354
NICKEL mglkg 7.6 J 4.5 J 2.6 J 3.1 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM mglkg 3,150 1,810 1,630 707 J 5,785.65 . -
SELENIUM mglkg 0.56 J 0.81 J O . 356
SODIUM mglkg 2,940 1,570 597 J 392 J 675.29 - -
STRONTIUM mglkg 69.8 J 73.6 20.6 J 13.5 210.69 - 42,700
VANADIUM mglkg 49.7 J 31.1 J 30.8 J 15.0 4903 . 498
ZINC mglkg 52.1 J 53.7 J 24.2 J 11.7 64.82 . 21,300
Note.
1 A blInk ,ndicat.. thaI tho analyt. -. nol dolKlod
2 Risk.Based Criteria are based on U S EnVIronmental Protection Agency toxicotogical data, iI re,idenhal ..posur. leenario.
a "'rge' cancer risk 0110'. and a ""get noncarcinog.nic hazard Index 011.0, Expo.ure route. considered includo .oil inge.tlon.
dermal contact, ;nh8'ation 0' vol.lile~ ',om .011, and inhalation of particulate-bound substances. I "." indicates not appticable
3 95 P.'cenl,le Background Concenlralion i. calculated Irom MCLB Barstow background $011 data (0 to 31.et); ,e'.r.nc.' Jacob. 1995. "M.nne
Corps LOgistiCS Bas.. Baf5tow. Calilornia Background Soils Investigation," Technical Memorandum 0023. Draft fin.' 30 March 1995
4 'J' qualifle, indlcat~' value is an I.tlmate due to being lower thin the lowest stanard or due 10 interference
5 Unlls mg/lr.g. milligram. per kilogram. ~g/lr.g . mICrogram. per kilogram
6 Results shown '.ptesent a composite of the d~t.l for an ,egula, .amples.
7 Duplocate re.u". (when dISplayed) repre..nt l11e do'" obtaln.d on a .ingl. 'i.ld duplocale 01 on. of Ih. regula, sample. Agr.ement with
the result. shown In the ",agula," column II cOinCidental
-------
CT 0260\B70027\R N21- 3A ,XLS
CLE-J02'{)1 F26O-B7.{)027
Table 8-16
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 3A
Depth Depth Depth Rlsk-Based
o to 3 ft 3 to 13 ft Below 13 ft Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Regular Regular Cancer Non.cancer
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'.OOE 1J9/kg 0,67 J 839 -
4,4'-OOT IJQ/kg 232 J 0,34 J 839 19,500
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE IJQ!kg 0,41 J 0,57 J - 1,950
Volatile Organics
ACETONE IJQIkg 12 - 1,370,000
BENZENE IJglkg 4 J 2,150 -
CHLOROBENZENE IJ9Ikg 4 J " 82,600
TOLUENE IJglkg 5 J . 278,000
TRICHLOROETHENE 1J9/kg 4J 9,670 42,600
XYLENE (TOTAL) ualkg 6J - 98,800
Noles:
1 A blank indicat'" that IIIe analyte wa. not detected
2 Risk-Based Criteria ere be.ed on U S. Environmental Protection Agency 10'icologiea' data, a residentiale>cposure route. considered include aoiI inges1ion,
dermal contact, inhalation of ...Iahles from soil, and inhalation of particulate.bound substance.; a".. indicat" no4 applicable
3 'J' qual~ier indicates ..Iue is an eahmate due to being towet than IIIe lowest standard or due 10 interference
4 Un,ts mglkg - milhgrams per kilogram, jlglkg - micrograms per kilogram
5 Resulls shown represenl a compoll18 01 the data lor all regular samples,
e Duphcate resulls (when displayed) r"llresenl IIIe dala obtained on a single field duplicate of one 0I1IIe regular samples Agreement willi
the resulls shown in the .reguI8(' column is coin!,idental
-------
C T0260\B 7oo27\R N21- 3A.XLS
CLE.J02-01 F260.B7 -0027
Table 8-17
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 3A
Depth Depth Depth 85th Percentile Rlsk-8ased
o to 3 II 3 to 13 II Below 13 II Background Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Regular Regular Concentration Cancer Non~ancer
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 11,500 5,180 2,220 16,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC mglkg 2.9 2.2 1.5 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 180 44 21.4 J 195.03 . 1,540
BERYLLIUM mglkg 0.51 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON mglkg 12.6 J 2.6 J 11.65 . 5,970
CADMIUM mglkg 0.55 J 1.91 9 39
CALCIUM mglkg 5,290 2,050 1,070 16,772.1 . .
CHROMIUM mglkg 11.6 5.8 3.3 21.52 . 71,100
COBALT mglkg 6.7 J 3.7 J 2.3 J 15.28 . 4,540
COPPER mglkg 11.4 14.5 5.2 19.6 . 2,630
IRON mglkg 16,200 10,400 5,640 23,702.1 . .
LEAD mglkg 5.9 2.4 1.5 15.45 - 130
MAGNESIUM mglkg 5,510 2,920 1,050 8,086.4 - .
MANGANESE mglkg 286 186 89.1 438.03 - 136
NICKEL mg/kg 8.7 5 J 15.27 - 1,400
POTASSIUM mglkg 2,640 1,850 802 J 5,785.65 - .
SELENIUM mglkg 1 J 0 - 356
SODIUM mglkg 2,300 617 J 68J 675.29 - -
STRONTIUM mglkg 169 28.9 12.3 210.69 - 42,700
VANADIUM mglkg 34.1 22.8 13.9 49.03 . 498
ZINC mg/kg 43.2 27.3 10.4 64.82 - 21,300
Notes
1 A blank 'ndlcates that the analy1e was not detected
2 Rlsk.Based Cnteria are based on U 5 Environmental ProtectIOn Agency toxicological data, 8 residential exposure ,cenaria.
a target cancer fisk 0'10', and. target noncarcinogenic: hazard indele of 1 0 Exposure routes considered Include $Oil ingestion,
dermal contact. inhalation 01 volatil.. ',om soil. and ,nhalation 01 particulate. bound substances; a -.-,ndlCates not applicable
3 95 Percentile Background Concent,ation is calculated ',om MCLB Ba~tow background soli data (0 to 3 leet). reference' Jacobs. 1995. "Marone
Corps LogIStics Base. Barstow. Cahfornia Background Soils InvestIgation . Technical Memorandum 0023 Drall',nal 30 March 1995.
of 'J' quall'.er Indlcales value II an estimate due 10 being lower Ihan the towest standard or due 10 interference
5 Units mglkg. milligrams pe, kilogram. ~gJkg . micrograms per kilogram
6 Results shown represent a com~rt. ot the data to' all regular samples
7 Duphcate results (when dISplayed) ,epresent the data obtained on a single field duplICate 01 one of the ,egular samples
Agreement WIth
the resutts shown in the "regula'" column IS coincidental
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN21- 4.XlS
ClE.J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
Table 8-18
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 4: Location of Arroyo
Depth Depth Depth Rlsk.eased
o to 3 It 3 to 13 It Below 13 It Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Regular DUDlicate Regular Cancer Non~ancer
Pesticides/PCBs
4,4'-DDE 1J9lkg UJ 839
4,4'-DDT IJglkg 1.9 J 839 19,500
AROClOR-1260 IJglkg 130 J 19 J 47
DIELDRIN IJglkg 0.53 J 18 1,950
ENDRIN IJglkg 3.4 J 11,700
Semivolatile Organics
DI-N-BUTYl PHTHALATE lJg/kg 2,000 J 2,400 J 3,900,000
Tentatively Identified Compounds
BIS(2-ETHYlHEXYl) ADIPA TE lJg/kg 16,000 J 11,000 J 13,000 J 14,000 J 238,000 2.3E+07
Volatile Organics
2-BUTANONE IJOlkg 4J 5,140,000
ACETONE IJglkg 29 8.0 J 16 J 1,370,000
METHYLENE CHLORIDE ualkg 36J 34J 13 J 22J 14,800 385,000
Tentatively Identified Compounds
2-HEXANONE-5-METHYl 1J9lkg 8 J
HEXANE 1J9lkg 8 J 160,000
PALMITIC ACID IJQlkg 230 J
Notes
1 A blank indicates that the analyle was not detected
2 RlSk.Based Cllteria are based on U S Environmental Protection Agency tOKlcotogical data, a residential e.posure scenaroo,
a target cancer rosk 0110', and a target noncarcinogenic hazard ,nde. 0' 1 O. Exposure routes conSIdered include so,',nge.tion,
dermal contact. Inhalation of volatiles from sad, and Inhalation of particulate-bound substanees. . "." indicates not applicable
3 'J' quah'l.' indicates value is an estimate due 10 being Jower than the lowest standard Of due to interference
4 Umts mglKg. milti~rams pe, kilogram, ~g/kg . mtCrograms per kilogram
5 Resuns shown represent. composite 01 the data for .11 re~ular samples
6 Duplica'o results (when dISplayed) represent the data obt;lined on a SIngle ',eld duplicate 01 one 01 the regular umple. Agreement WIth
the results shown in the "regula(' column is coincidental
-------
CT0260\B7oo27\RN21- 4.XLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-87 -0027
Table 8-19
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
CAOC 21: Industrial Waste and Disposal Area
Stratum 4: Location 0' Arroyo
Depth Depth Depth 85th Percentile Risk-Based
o to 3 n 3 to 13 n Below 13 n Background Criteria
Analyte Units Regular Regular Duplicate Regular Concentration Cancer Non-Cancer
Metals
ALUMINUM mglkg 7,740 J 5,280 J 854 J 7,390 J 16,245.3 71,100
ANTIMONY mglkg 12.0 J 0 28.4
ARSENIC mglkg 3.3 1.1 J 1.0 J 4.6 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mglkg 81 43.3 J 8.3 J 35.1 195.03 1,540
BERYLLIUM mglkg 028 J 0.36 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON mglkg 53.4 J 11.6 J 6.4 J 53.1 J 11.65 5,970
CALCIUM mglkg 14,900 2,580 633 J 3,610 16,772.1
CHROMIUM mglkg 8.4 5.7 2.6 J 9.1 21.52 71,100
COBAL T mglkg 4.2 J 3.5 J 4.2 J 15.28 4,540
COPPER mg/kg 4.1 J 6.5 4.9 J 19.6 2,630
IRON mg/kg 12,000 J 7,440 2,050 J 15,500 J 23,702.1
LEAD mglkg 10.1 3.97 J 0.97 J 4.3 15.45 130
MAGNESIUM mg/kg 3,480 J 2,230 J 339J 3,520 J 8,086.43
MANGANESE mg/kg 166 J 94.9 22.3 J 173 J 438.03 136
NICKEL mglkg 4.1 J 3.3 J 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM mg/kg 1,560 1,090 J 178J 2,000 5,785.65
SILVER mglkg 1.1 J 20.2 J 0 356
SODIUM mglkg 893 838 J 83.6 J 240 J 675.29
STRONTIUM mglkg 237 22 4.4 26.4 210.69 42,700
THALLIUM mglkg 2.0 J 0 4.98
VANADIUM mglkg 27.8 18.3 5.5 J 38.1 49.03 498
ZINC mglkg 33.8 20.9 3.4 J 32.8 64.82 21,300
Note.
I "blank IndIcate. that the analyle wn not detecled
2 Rlsk.Based Crite,ia are ba.ed on U S Envuonmental Protection Agency to.icological dala. a re.idenlial elqlOSure Icenario.
OIl tafget cancer risk 0' 10 t, and I ..,get noncarcinogenic hazard index of '.0 Expos.ure routes considered include $Oil ingestion.
dermal contact, InhalatIon 01 vela',le. from .oil. and Inhalation 01 partlculate.bound lub.tance.; a"." indlcatM nol applicable
3 95 Pe,cenlile Background Concentratoon is calculaled Irom MCLB Balltow background .011 data (01031..1); relerence. Jacobs 1995 "Marine
Corp. Logl.tlCS Ba.e. Ba..tow. Calofornia Background Sollslnvest'galion" Technical Memorandum 0023 OIa" linal. 30 March 1995.
4 . J' qualifier indicates value is an estimate due to being lowe, than tho lowest standard Of due to interference
5 UnIts mgl1
-------
CT0260\870027\T AB8-20.xLS
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
Table 8-20
CAOC 21 - Industrial Waste Disposal Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land-Use Scenario
Total. BackQ round!! IncrementalC
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 5 x 10.3 3.4 4 x 10.5 3.2 5 x 1 0.3
1A 2 x 10-4 6.3 3 x 1 0.5 5.8 1 x 1 0-4
1B 2 x 1 0.5 2.7 1 x 10.5 2.6 4 x 1 0.0
1C 4 x 10.5 5.3 3 x 10.5 4.8 4 x 1 0.0
2 and 2ad 2 x 10.5 3.1 2 x 1 0.5 2.5 3 x 1 0.0
3 and 3ad 2 x 10.5 2.8 2 x 10.5 2.8 6 x 10.7
4 2 x 10.5 2.0 1 x 1 0.5 1.6 3 x 10.0
a The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the .
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
d Based on the sampling results, there is no evidence to suggest a separate release in either
Stratum 2a or 3a. Therefore,for purposes of the human health evaluation, Strata 2 and 2a
have been combined and Strata 3 and 3a have been combined.
-------
CT0260\B70027\T AB8-21.XlS
ClE-J02-01 F260-B7-OO27
Table 8-21
CAOC 21 - Industrial Waste Disposal Area
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Total. BackgroundD IncrementalC
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 1 x 1 0.3 0.5 6 x 1 0-6 0.4 1 x 1 0.3
1A 4 x 1 0.5 0.8 4 x 1 0-6 0.8 3 x 10.5
1B 3 x 1 0-6 0.4 2 x 10-6 0.4 1 x 10-6
1C 6 x 1 0-6 0.8 5 x 1 0-6 0.7 6 x 10.7
2 and 2ac:l 4 x 1 0-6 0.4 3 x 1 0-6 0.4 8 x 10.7
3 and 3ac:l 3 x 1 0-6 0.4 3 x 10-6 0.4 2 x 10.7
4 3 x 1 0-6 0.3 2 x 10-6 0.2 8 x 10.7
a The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related adivities for all deteded substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
c:I Based on the sampling results. there is no evidence to suggest a separate release in either
Stratum 2a or 3a. Therefore. for purposes of the human health evaluation, Strata 2 and 2a
have been combined and Strata 3 and 3a have been combined.
-------
CT026CN1700271RN22_1.xl8
ClE .J02-G1 F260-B7-0027
Table 8-1
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 22: Domestic Wastewater Disposal AI'8II
Stratum 1: Percolation Ponds
Depth RIak-8888d
0103" Crller18
AMllyt. Units Reaul. C.... NorM:....
P_1IcIdeeIPC88
4,4'-DDD ~g 0.78 J 1,190 -
4.4'.DDE ~ 0.53 J 839 -
ALPHA-CHLORDANE ~ 8J 219 2,340
DIELDRIN ~ 81 J 18 1,950
ENDOSULFAN II ~g 0.34 J - 1,950
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE ~ 1.2 J . 11,700
GAMMA-CHLORDANE ~ 8.7 219 2,340
Petroleum HychArb0n8
TPH . DIESEL mo'ka 170 J . .
Not..:
I. A blank Indical.. Ih8l1118 _1yI1 - naI d818deel
2. Riek-B888d Cnt_.,1 _eel on U.S. Enn- P,oI8d1on AII8f1CY IDlti""I"gic81 d81.. 1 IMid8nti81upD8url 1-..,iD,
Illrget c..- riok 01 0.0000111. 8IIcI118rge\ noncenrinDg8niD hu8ld indeo 011.0. EopD8"'" rout.. oonliclw8d incUc18 .",1 i_lion,
_".1 cont"',lnh8l8lion 01 voI..i..""", 8011. Ind inhIl8lion 01 particullll.bDund 8Ub8I1I1Cft; 1 '.' ndic8I.. notappiiDabla.
3. ',/ qu8ldie, indicet.. valua 18 an ..timat8 duelD baing - lhan \he "'-I llandard or duel" Irtlff--
.. Units: rng/I
-------
CT0260\870027\RN22_'.XLS
CLE.J02'()1F260-B7~7
Tabl. 9-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 22: Domestic Wastewater Disposal Area
Stratum 1: Percolation Ponds
D8paI D8paI 15th Perc8'ittle Rlak-68Md
GtoSft S to 1S ft 88Ckgrouncl Criteria
AMlyt. Un1t8 Regu" ReguW Dupllc8te Concenlr8llon CMCer ~8IIC8I'
II."
ALUMINUM !n91tg 3,470 J 3,910 J 8,140 J 18,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC !n91tg 1.3 J 2.2 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM "" 39.8 J 14.7 J 27.1 J 195.03 . 1,540
CALCIUM !n91tg 1,830 1,300 J 1,850 J 18,772.1 - -
CHROMIUM "" 15.2 8.3 J 8.4 J 21.52 - 71,100
COBALT ~ 0.95 J 1.7 J 15.28 .' 4,540
COPPER ~ 15.4 3.8 J 5.5 19.8 - 2,630
IRON I\'91(g 5,160 J 5,010 J 7,520 J 23,702.1 . -
LEAD ~ 29.8 J 1.2 2.2 15.45 - 130
MAGNESIUM ~ 855 J 1,010 J 1,410 J 8,086.43 . -
MANGANESE "" 53.4 J 66.2 J 210 J 438.03 . 138
NICKEL !n91to 1.7 J 3J 15.27 150 1;400
POTASSIUM !n91tg 718 J 681 J 1,000 J 5,785.65 . -
SODIUM !n91tg 70.2 J 875.29 - -
STRONTIUM !n91tg 17.4 15.1 J 21.5 J 210.69 - 42,700
VANADIUM rng.1cg 12 11.3 J 17 J 49.03 - 498
ZINC rng.1cg 71.5 8.9 12 64.82 . 21.300
Not..:
1. A blank indi08l.. thld the an"". - nat d818ded
2. Riok-B- Criteria... baed on U.S. Environment.' P,oC8dIon A08ftCY IoxIcologlc8l d8la,. -idenlid 8Ipoeur. ...".,iD,
. t.rget ca- rnk 01 0.000001, and .18f1I8I ~io hllDtd index 01 1.0. Eapoeu,."""'" 00Mid8r8d inck1c18 .oil invntiDn,
'.
cI8t".., contact, InhaletiDn 01 voletileeltom .oi. and Inheletion 01 p8ttIoullll.bound ..,..18....: . '.' Indicat.. nat appIiaeble.
3. 115 P8R*IIi1e Becl!ground Cono8nIt8l1on II celcul8l8d Itom MCLB B8"1oW b8cIIglOUnd aoiI d818 (0 to 31881); ...-: .I8aob8. 1l1li5. 'Mama
Corpe Logiat1c8 8_, 88'"_, Calfomia BadIg,ound 9018 '_Ilgation.' Technio8l Mamatandum 0023. Dt811 final. 30 Mnh 1l1li5.
~. 'J' qU8I~.. indIo8l. v.k18 io an 88Iim8I. due to "'110 "'- \tIan the ~I .I8nd8,d Dr due 10 1r1I8IIet-
5. Unill: mWko . ttIIIig- 1* 1UIogt8m; \I11III8 . microgt8t1'8 pet IUIogt8tl\.
8. Re8uft1.hown '._111 8 QOn'CIOde ollila cI88 let 8" f8tIUI8t a"""".
7. Dupllcat. ,- (_n diwplayedl 'epre- th. d... obtained on . lingle field duplcate 01 one of the '8IIule' aamplee. Aot--
the ,.ut. .hown in the "8IIu18,. ooIurm II ooinoidental
-------
CT0260\B70027\AN22_2.XLS
CLE-J02001 F2f!O.B7-<1027
Table 9-3
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 22: Dome8tlc Wastewater D18po..1 Area
Stratum 2: Overflow Area
AIUII
Volatile Organlc8
2. BUTANONE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
R....a8Hd
Crlter18
C8nCer ~8nC8r
Un1t8
~g
3 J
2J
14,800
5,140,000
385,000
No-
t. A 1118n- indIo8188 Iholthe 8ft8¥8 - "'" d8Ied8d
2. RiI_-B- C- ar. bu8d on u.s. EIWW- P,_ion Agency taxlcologiD81 d8Ia, . rwlcl8nl18''''''''ur. -»,
.18rg8I c- riI- cf 0.000001, 8nd ...- ~ia h8Dtd IncI8x cf 1.0. Expoou'. rout. oon8ld8Ncl1ncbt8 .oillng8lltton,
d8rrral oonI8CI, Inh8l8tlon cf voI8IiI88 from 801. end iIh8IoIion aI P8/IICIMI.oound 1UI8I8no88;. '-' lndic8l. "'" .pp/ia8b18.
3. 'J qu8lWier india8l. YW. iI ... .tirl18l8 clu810 b8Ing ~ !hen the Iow8I ,18nd8nI '" due 10 1n18If_-
4. Unlta: mg/1qj - rril1iO- p8f 1U1og18nt; IIWko . nicrogr8m8 p8f 1UIogrem.
6. ~.... ,hown .._nt a ~ aI tII8 d8I8 lor .. 1811"'" ~.
8. Duplicata ,nun, (wilen dlapley8d) 'apre- lhe d8I8 otIIaIned on a aing" field dupIo8Ie cf ona althe '811"18,~. Ag,--, with
the rwull8 thown in 1118 "811"181' ooiurm iI ooIncid8nI8L
-------
CT026O\B70027\AN22~.XLS
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Table 9-4
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 22: Domestic Wastewater Disposal Area
Stratum 2: Overflow Area
DepIh ISth PercenUIe R"k~8Hd
Ot03n B8Ckground Crlt...
AlUllyte Unll8 R8IIu" Dupllc8t8 Concentr811on C8nCW' Non.c8nCW'
Metals
ALUMINUM mg.1cg 4,910 J 4,550 J 18,245.3 . 71,100
BARIUM mg.1cg 84.4 100 195.03 - 1,540
BERYLLIUM mg.1cg 0.25 J 0.59 0.129 3S6
CADMIUM mg.1cg 0.99 J 1.91 9 39
CALCIUM rngkg 5,920 3,870 18,772.1 . -
CHROMIUM rngkg 5.8 8.9 21.52 . 71,100
COPPER rngkg 8 8.8 198 . 2,630
IRON f'l9'kg 8,880 J 7,22.0 J 23,702.1 - .
LEAD "9'k9 4.5 J 4.3 15.45 - 130
MAGNESIUM f'l9'kg 2,320 1,460 8,088.43 - -
MANGANESE mg.1cg 141 J 111 J 438.03 . 138
POTASSIUM "9'k9 1390 831 J 5,785.85 - -
SODIUM "9'k9 81.3 J 875.29 - -
STRONTIUM mg.1cg 31.1 27.4 210.69 - 42,700
VANADIUM "9'k9 14.8 19.2 49.03 - 498
ZINC ~ 18.4 14 84.82 - 21,300
NoIe8:
1. A bl8nk indi08ln 11I8IIhe 8MIyI. - not dIII.oIed
2. Ailk.8888d Criteria... baed on U.S. Erwwon_8I P,oI8CItion..." loIIicoIogic8l del., I ...id8ntiel8Xpoeu'l I-x.,
8181g81 C811C8f rIIIk 01 0.000001, Ind 118IV8I noncarcinogenic ...,.,d incIa 011.0. Expoeu'8 - oon8id8Nd Include 80iI inoaetlon,
daf...., oontec:t, inhalation 01 vol8tiln I,om 101, Ind ..halation 01 paI1iculol.bound lubal8.-.o; I '.' WldIc81.. not IppIio8bla.
3. 85 Par....... 8acl
-------
CT026OI870027\TAB9-5.XLS
CLE-J02-o1 F~B7-0027
Table 9-5
CAOC 22 - Domestic Wastewater Disposal Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land-Use Scenario
Total. Backe! roundD Incrementar
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 1 x 1 0.5 1.8 7 x 1 0-6 1.8 3 x 1 0-6
2 2 x 1 0-6 1.2 2 x 1 0-6 1.2 <1 x 10-6
8 The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
e The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
CT0260\S70027\TAB9-6.XLS
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Table 9-6
CAOC 22 - Domestic Wastewater Disposal Area
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Totar Backe roundD lnerem.ntar
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncanc.r Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 2 x 10~ 0.2 1 x 10~ 0.2 1 x 1 O~
2 3 x 10.7 0.2 3 x 10.7 0.2 <1 x 10-6
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
CT02601870027\RN24_1.XLS
CLE.J02-01 F~B7..()()27
Table1Q..1
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 24: Tracked Vehicle Te.t Area
Stratum 1: Tracked Vehicle Te.t Track
Depth Rlsk-88Hd
OloSft Crlter18
An8IyIe Units Regu" C8nC8r Non-C8nC8r
P8.tlcldesIPCB.
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE ~g 52J - 1,950
Semlvoletlle Organics
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE ~g 34J 20,400 780,000
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE ~ 62J . 3,900,000
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH - DIESEL ~ 4,400 . -
Not-
1. A blank indialol88 I"" lhelll18lyle - ncI d8I8cHcI
2. Rllk-8888d Critefj, Ire b8Md on U.S. E.............., p,ateGIIon Agenoy IoxIIIoIogIoeI .... I reeld8ntl8llGqlO8llrl -tio,
II8rge1 -- rilk of 0.000001, end II8rget IICIrIC8IWIoo8nIo h8Dtd -- of 1.0. Expoeon. ftIUI88 -1d8r8d InobIe 8OI11ng881ion,
dermal-.t8CI, Inhel8lion of vaI8IiI88 I,om 801, end inh8J8Iion of pelticullle-bound eube-: . '.' Indicat.. ncI appIiaIobl8.
3. 'I quel_18r indio8t88 VUlI ill 8/1 ..lim8I. due 10 being IoMr !hln Ihe loMei 8I8nd8rd Of due 10 itt8l1.-
.. Unitt: moIkll . millig',mtI petllilog',m; """'" . mIolVtI'.... per iii""',8/1'\.
6. Raub .110"" repr-nt I ~ of 1/18 d8I8 lor In reguI8r I'''''''''.
8. Duple".,88Uh (-'*' dllpley8cl' '8PlW88nl11I8 dill obI8in8cl on . lingle 118IcI cIupIcaI8 of - of the 'egul8' lamplee. Ag,-.nt willi
1118 _ull Ihown in Ihe ',egull1' oaIumn ill ooincicI8nI8l
-------
CT026O\870027\AN24_1.XLS
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7.0027
Table 10-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrlltlon. In Soli
CAOC 24: Tracked Vehicle Te.t Area
Stratum 1: Tracked Vehicle Teat Track
D8pat Nth Percentile Rlak.a8Md
0103" a_ground CrU".
Al18Iyte UnI.. Regul. Concenlrlltlon C8nCer Noft.C8nCer
Metals
ALUMINUM "91qJ 5,540 16,245.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC "91qJ 2.2 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM fn91tg 136 195.03 . 1,540
BERYLLIUM fn91tg 0.44 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON fn91tg 14 J 11.65 . 5,970
CALCIUM "91cg 5,300 16,772.1 - .
CHROMIUM "" 46.' 2'.52 - 71. '00
COBALT "" 7.9 J 15.28 - 4,540
COPPER "" 10.5 19.6 - 2,630
IRON fn91tg 14,100J 23,702.1 - -
LEAD fn91tg 4.8 J 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM fn91tg 3,060 8,086.43 . .
MANGANESE fn91tg 207 438.03 . '36
NICKEL fn91tg 24 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM fn91tg 1,300 5,785.65 . .
SODIUM fn91tg 5'5 J 675.29 . -
STRONTIUM fn91tg 121 210.69 - 42,700
VANADIUM fn91tg 33J 49.03 - 498
ZINC nQ'kg 28.7 J 84.82 - 2',300
Notee:
I. A blank indic8l. 11181 1118 81181yte - naI c1818d8d
2. Rilk.B8Md Criteria ... _eel on U.S. e"".onrn8n181 Pral8dion Agency laIicoIogi;81 d81a, a _id8ntl8l 8XpG8UIa ._rlo,
ala'V81 c- rilk r:A 0.000001, and al8l1l8lllClft08rV......1c I'Iuard nI8X r:A 1.0. expolW.rout- ---.... incbI8 .",1 ing88100n,
d8t1Y'e1 cont8CI, inl'l8l8lion r:A voIlII_'rom 801, 8nd m.t8lion 01 pMicul8t..bound ""'1_; a '.' nd~ nal8pplic8b18.
3. 85 P8fC8IIIi18 88Clrgrouncl c-m8lion 18 C81cul8leel from MCl8 B_- b8ckgJound.oiI d... (010 3'881); ....-: J8C0b8. 1885. 'Mar...
Corpe lagialic8 8_, 8"810., CII'omla Baokon>und Boh Inwslig8tion.' TacI'InIoaI Memorandum 0023. Drlllllinal. 30 Man:1I1886.
... ',r qualifier indicat.. YaW 18 an ..,imIda due 10 bai"lllowf 111..1118 Iowal "'ndard Of due 10 m8lf..-
5. UniI8: ~ . rhllig...... '* kilogram; I9'k8 . rnictogr... '* kllogl8ITI.
8. Raaulb .1'10... --nI a COfI1I08iI. r:A Ilia dU lor aU ..gutor ..q>Iea.
7. Duplic818 r_1b (wt.I diaplayed) ,apl8-111a d8Ia obtained on a IIngia fiaId dUpicala 01..... r:A 1118 regular .....,.... AQr-.t witll
ilia r..uh 'llown in ilia 'r."" coIurm iI ooincidantal
-------
CT0260\B70027\T AS1 0-3JQ.s
CLE-J02.01 F260-B7.fXfZ7
Table 10-3
CAOC 24 - Tracked Vehicle Test Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential and Industrial Land Use Scenarios
Tota" BackCl roundD lnerememar
Cancer Noncaneer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
Residential Land-Use
Scenario 1 x 10-5 1.9 1 x 10.5 1.9 6 x 1 0-8
Industrial Land-Use
Scenario 2 x 1 0-8 0.2 2 x 1 0-8 0.2 3 x 1 0-8
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
CT02600370027\RN28_1 J
-------
CT026OOJ70027\RN26_1 JelS
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-o11!7
Tab1811-2
Maximum inorganic ConcentraUona In Soil
CAOC 28: Building 533 Wa.t. Disposal Aru
Stratum 1: Steam Cleaning Rack, OIUWater Separator, and Drainage D"ch
Depth D8pth 86th Percentile Ri.k.I..ect
Ot03ft 3 to 13 fI I_ground Crlterl.
Anelyte Unlta Aeaul.r Regul8r Concentr.tion C.ncer Non-C8ncer
Metal.
ALUMINUM I19'kg 4,220 J 3,060 J 16,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC I19'kg 1.9 J 1.4 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mgkg 34.3 J 26.8 J 195.03 . 1,540
BERYLLIUM I19'kg 0.27 J 0.24 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON m!1kg 5.6J 12.8 J 11.65 . 5,970
CADMIUM m!1kg 0.77 J 1.91 9 39
CALCIUM "9'ku 3,950 J 2,900 J 16,772.1 - -
CHROMIUM mgkg 5.7 5.1 21.52 - 71,100
COBAlT "9'ku 4.3J 4.1 J 15.28 - 4,540
COPPER "9'ku 5.3 17.3 19.6 - 2,630
IRON "9'ku 7,470 J 7,890 J 23,702.1 . -
LEAD "9'ku 10.8 6 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM "9'ku 2,080 1,390 8,086.4 . -
MANGANESE "9'ku 108 69.4 438.03 - 136
POTASSIUM "9'ku 1,050 J 1,140 J 5,765.65 - .
STRONTIUM "9'ku 29.7 21.9 210.69 . 42,700
VANADIUM "9'ku 21.3 J 19.5 J 49.03 . 498
ZINC mdIca 22 J 23.7 J 64.82 . 21,300
H,-":
1. A bllnic WIdaI.a "811118 8II8IyIo ..I nat cIIIt8CI8d
2. .RiM.Baed Crt"",,'" b888d on U.S. E-_I PIot8cIIon.ncy Iolllcologic8l d818, . - """"" _rio,
.18Ig8I C8nc.t rt8II '" 0.000001. and .l8rgal nonc:archIgenC heDl'd indo. 01 1.0. E..-- III"" 00""'" lncIuIIa 80iI ingoltlon.
donna! C_d, inhalalion "'''''.1 '""" 8OI..nd Wllillion 01 p~_und """.ncaa;. '.' indic8188 noI eppIicell.
3. 85 "-rwnt- Badoground Conca""'l..n io ca1cli8l8d 110m MCl8 ........ becllground 0011 data (010 3 IMI); "'...nca: Jacobe. 1886. "Mame
Corpa Logiltlc8..... ._, CaIIomIl Bacllground 9o..IIM8Iigllon.' Tocmic8lUemora"""" 0023. DI8ft final. 30 March 1886.
4. 'J' quoMi8r Indic8l88 v.w ia.n 88IirNd8 d.-Io ~ 1o_1IIan tha 1o..8Iltandard.. u to 1rt8of.-
5. Un": rng/IIg . miligr8m8patldbgrllft1: 19'ku' mictogr.1II8 pel IIIogram.
8. Raaut. olio... ""'_... . 00"'-- oItha dat.IoI 811 F8IIINr ..........
7. D",ic8I. raub (when dioplly8d) "",._1118 data obIainod on I oingIo liolll ...,eic818 '" 0"" of the fIOUIar -plea. .-anI w~h
1118 ...1AI8 ohown in the "r~.," column ia'coinddlnl8l.
I
!
-------
CT026O\B70027\RN26_2.XLS
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Table 11.3
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 26: Building 533 Waste Disposal Area
Stratum 2: Dartdy Discolored Area
Depth Depth RIsk.e8Md
0103" 3 to 13 " CrItw'18
ANllyte Unla. Reaul8r DuDl\cale Reau" C8nC8F Non-C8nC8F
Semlvolatlle Organics
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE ~ 43J - 3,900,000
DIETHYL PHTHALATE ua.1ca 140 J - 3.10E+07
Volatile Organics
ACETONE IJCIt1ca 11 J 7J 16 J . 1,370,000
No"':
I. A -- Ind..- 11181 1118 -lyle - no! d8Ied8d
2. Rilk-88Md Crte
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN26..,2. XLS
CLE.J02-Q1 F260-B7-0027
Table 11-4
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 26: Building 533 Waste Disposal Area
Stratum 2: Darkly Discolored Area
Depth Depth Nth Pen:enUIe RI8II~888d
Oto3n 110 13 n B8Ckgrounci CrIt.,l.
An8lyte Unl18 Reau" - DUDlIc8I8 Reaul8r Concentr.aon C8nC8I' Non.c8l1C8'
Metals
ALUMINUM ~g 8,120 J 4,580 J 1,830 16,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC ~g 2.2 J 1.9 J 1.1 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM ~g 91.7 77.8 15.4 J 195.03 ' 1,540
BERYLLIUM ~g 0.49 J 0.32 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON ~g 10.9 J 3.3 J 7.2 J 11.85 . 5,970
CALCIUM ~ 17 ,200 J 7,070 J 1,220 J 16,772.1 . -
CHROMIUM "'91tg 18.1 5.4 3.1 21.52 . 71,100
COBALT ~g 7.8 J 4.2 J 15.28 . 4,540
COPPER ~g 9.8 10.9 19.8 . 2,630
IRON .g 11,400 J 7,360 J 3,840 23,702.1 ' .
LEAD .g 32.4 3.8 4.1 J 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM ~ 4,300 2,080 788 J 8,088.43 . .
MANGANESE .g 198 110 41 438.03 - 136
MERCURY ~ 0.1 0.1 0.00 . 21
POTASSIUM fT9'kg 1,280 5,785.85 - .
SODIUM .g 1,050 J 675.29 . -
STRONTIUM .g 71.8 37.8 11.9 210.69 . 42,700
VANADIUM ~g 28.2 J 22.2 J 9.1 J 49.03 . 498
ZINC no'ka 32J 20.8 J 9.3 J 84.82 ' 21,300
Not-
1. A blank indica... thai the ....tyt. - noI d8I8d8d
2. Rilk.B- Crileri8... bu8d on U.S. Envir.......ul Pral8dion AlI8noy lallioGIogI<.' d8t8,. _id8nII8Iapoeur. _iD,
. '"fV8I ca.- ri8k of 0.00000 t, and . t8fV81 --irIoganIo hazard inda of t .0. Expoaur. - oonoid8f8d I""" IOiIlngestian,
derrno' oonI8ct, inhalation of volalilaa Irom .oiI, and irIh.18Iion of peItioulot..bound IUbot-; . '.' hi"*- naI appIioIbla.
3. 85 P8n:entila B8cllGround Conc8ntralian iI oelcu1818d Irom MCLB B_tow backplund 1011 d8l810 to 31881); ....-: Jaoobo. 11195. 'Merna
Corpa LOViolicl B_, B..llo., C.ll0rni8 a-ground Soilo 11M8\ig81ion.' Technical Memorandum 0023. Draft final. 30 March 1885.
~. 'J' qu"~ier indicel.. vu. iI an ..1imaI. due to baing "'- U- ItIa ~t I18ndard or due to inlarf_....
S. Unito: mgIItg . nilligrlml per kilogram; I9'1oaiI. of the datI lor all r.gular """"".
7. Duplical. '_I (- dlopl.,8d) r..,....nI the d818 oIII8in8d on I lingle field dupllcat. of one ofltla ragular IlmpIae. Aclr--
. the r..ull .hown in the "ragul'" ooIurm iI coi_l
-------
CT0260.B70Cll7\RN26_3.XlS
CLE.J02.01 F260-B7-0Cll7
Table 11-5
Maximum Orpnlc Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 28: Building 533 Waste Dlapo..1 Area
Stratum 3: Perimeter Ar88
Depth AI.k-B..8d
0 to 3 It C,lterl.
An.Ivt8 Unlta Aeaul., DUDllc.ta C.ncer Non-Cancer
Pe.tlclde8IPCB.
4,4'-DDT uo'ka 3.9 839 19,500
Volatile Organics
TETRACHLOROETHENE uo'ka 3J 5,090 97,300
Nalo.:
1. II blank i1dicatn """ !he .nslyll .. ...1 d8I8ct8d
2. RiIk-e.-l Cderil - b888d on U.S. E...............I ~n Agency 101lico1ogic81 d8t1, . N81d8n1l8l.JIPOIUIO -no.
'18IV4'I- riIII 01 0.000001. 8nd ...."" .......n:8Iog8nIc hlDIII ~I 011.0. E......IO 10'" COftIidII8d Indude 1OiI1ngMt1on.
d8...".1 c_.1M8I8IIon 01 voI8tlln fnIIn 801,.nd inIII18tion 01 p8Itic:IMI8-41ol81d .......-.; . ...lndlca.. not sppIlclb18.
3. 'J qullillf indiclll. val.. iI In 1IIimIt. ciullo being .,.. th811h8 10... ...nd8nI or M 10 ,..111.-
4. U.: mg/Iqj. mlliura""pII idiogram; I0'Il8 . mlcnlgra"" pe' 1IIognm.
5. A8eub.- ......... . coq>o8it8 0I1h8 dill '0' III ... ..~.
8. D~IicI', ,....b ""hi" dilpilW8d) fIIH8-lhe..... obIIinId on . .i1gI81i11d ~i:l1I III 0" o..hI ragu18, IIrnpIII. ......."".Ih
II
IhI ,aub .ho"" i> Ih8 .'-VIA..' coklmn iI coincidlnlll.
-------
CT~70027\RN26_3.XlS
CLE.J02-01 F260-B7-0027
Table 11"
Maximum Inorg8nlc ConcentnlUona In Soli
CAOC 21: Building 533 Wa.t. DI.po..1 Aru
Str.tum 3: PerIm.ter Ar..
Depth 86th Per~..,til. AI.k-B..ed
Ot03ft BKkground Crlterl.
An.lvte Units ANuI.r DUDllc." Co~..,tr.tlon C.n~... Non-C8ncar
Metals
ALUMINUM fT9'kg 9,810 5,790 16,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC fT9'kg 3.4 2.1 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mgkg 87.1 65.2 195.03 . 1,540
BERYlLIUM mgIcg 0.53 J 0.35 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON fT9'kg 18.9 J 7.3 J 11.65 - 5,970
CALCIUM fT9'kg 7,890 4,810 16,772.1 . .
CHROMIUM fT9'kg 11.9 8.1 21.52 . 71,100
COBALT mgIcg 11.4 15.28 . 4,540
COPPER rngIcg 11.8 7.6 19.6 . 2,630
IRON mgIcg 14,600 J 10,400 J 23,702.1 - .
LEAD mgIcg 9.7 J 3.4 J 15.45 - 130
MAGNESIUM mgkg 4,700 3,120 6,086.43 - -
MANGANESE mgIcg 253 162 438.03 - 138
NICKEL mgkg 6.9 J 4.3J 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM mgIcg 1,700 1,310 5,765.65 . -
SODIUM "" 311 J 317 J 675.29 - .
STRONTIUM rngIcg 62 40.4 210.69 . 42,700
VANADIUM "" 35.5 J 24.7 J 49.03 . 498
ZINC rndko . 36J 24.4 J 64.82 . 21,300
No...:
I. A blenk inckat.. "'al lhe analyta waa 1101 dalectad
2. Riak.Saaed Cltaria IN baaed on U.s. Emriro_1 Platadion Agency Iollicological daI.. a""""" alp08Ul8~,
alargal waf riIII 01 0.000001. and a 1111181 nonca'cNgenic llaunl index 011.0. EJIIIOIU18ro- conIidared include aoiI ilgallion.
_81 contad. Inhalation oIlIOI8Iiloa- 801. and Inhelolion of patIIc
-------
CT026O\B70027\RN26- 4.XLS
CLE.J02.o1F260-B7~7
Table 11-7
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 26: Building 533 Waste Disposal Area
Stratum 4: Underground Storage Tank T-533
Depth RIsk~88ed
Below 13 It Criteria
AlUllvte Unl18 Reaullr C8nC8r Non-ClInC8r
Volatile Organics
TETAACHLOROETHENE IJII/kg 2J 5,090 97,300
No'"'
1. A blllnk indtc8t..11181 the ~ - net d8I8d8d
2. Rilk.Bu8d Cm... ... b8ed an U.S. Envlr"""""" P,_ion Agency IDxIcoIogIc8I dll18, . _idanlial ppoaur. -.-iD,
. targ8I...- ri8k 01 0.0000111, and .targ8I ~ hazwd IncIu 011.0. Ex_. raoda --...cI incklcla aaillngasliDn,
danr8loan18c1, Inhalalian 01....... hem"" and Inhalation 01 partloulala-bounclauba_;. '.' lndioola8 net applicable.
3. '.r qualiliat Indio8Iw v.. 18 an _tirn8Ia dualo baing Iowr 1h8n the ~ 81andanI or dua to 1n18ffar-
... UniI8: n9I<8 . INligrama 1* kiIogtam; IIW'8 . Iricrogr8m8 1* kilogram.
5. RMub ahown rapr_1II . ~ 01 the dId8 1.. aIIl88u1ar a"""".
8. DupIIcII18""" (.man dIIpIayad) ,.,..._1" cIaIa oIII8inad an . alnglallald cIupIcMa 01 ana 01 the ragula,""""'. Agr"""'" """
,.. _u118 ahown In the "aguIar" ooIurm 18 ooInddanIaL
-------
CT0260\870027\RN26- 4.XLS
CLE.J02-o1F~B7~7
Table 11-8
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In 5011
CAOC 26: Building 533 Waste Disposal Area
Stratum 4: Underground Storage Tank T-533
D8pIh 15th Percentile AIsk-88Md
Belaw1Sft B8Ckground Criteria
Anlllvt8 U... Aeau" COIIC8nlralion Cancer Non-C8I1CW
Metals
ALUMINUM II91nm8n181 p,~ AII8"CY loxloo6oolo8l cI8I.. . __I Gpc18Uf8 108...,10,
I 18rge1 08.... riok 01 0.000001, and '18/v8I nanoaroiloglnlo haza,d .... 011.0. Expoeuf8 rout.. oonaIcI8r8d InoUI8 IOil ing8Illon,
d8m'8loon18ct, inhel8tion 01 ¥OI8IiI88l'om 101. 8nd lnhalltion 01 plllticul8t..bound oub8-: . ',' Indlcal.. not applicable.
3. 85 P_iII B8CIoground eo.-,8Iion 18 calculal8d ',om MCLB B...I- b8ckground ,oM d818 (0 to 3 1881); 18I.,.n08: J8OOb8. 1885. 'Ma,....
COIp8 Logl8l1c8 B_. B._. Clilomil Baokground Soh l_tig8lion.' T8Chnio8J Mlmor.nctum 0023. Croft 11...1. 30 M_h 1885.
4. 'J' qualdl8r Ind_.. v... 18 an ..limal. MID being la_than 111810_1 ltandard 01' due 10 InItIIf.,-
5. Un,,: mA . milligr8m, per kiIog,.m; Wk8 - miciog,..... per kilogrlm.
8. R88ulll .hown ..,.._111 I 00IJ'4I0III. 01 "'- d8Ia for .11 rwvullr .~.
7. Duplicat. 'IOUIII (when dl8p18)'8d) '1pfI-lhi d8Ia 011181n8d on llingIIliIkI duplo8la 01- 01 "'- 'Igule, ,.....,.... AQrMlTJll'lt with
lhe ,..uI. 'hown in tho "Iguill" ooIumn io ooInoIdInI.l
-------
CT026CNl70026\RN26_5.JCLB
CLE.J02.oIF260-B7.0027
Table 11-9
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 26: Building 533 Waste Disposal Area
Stratum 5: Sump
D8pIh R"k~8Hd
3 to 13 It Crttw18
An8lyte UnI.. Reau" DuDilcate C8nC8r Noft.C8nC8r
PestlcldeslPCBs
4,4'-DDT IJQIkg 4.2 839 19,500
Semlvolatlle Organics
DIETHYL PHTHALATE IJao1Ia 140 J - 3.10E+07
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH . DIESEL rrQ1cg 8,860 J 38.4 J . .
Volatile Organics
ACETONE I91cg 5J . 1,370,000
TETRACHLOROETHENE ~ 120 J 20 5,090 97,300
TRICHLOROETHENE IJQIkg 7J 9,670 42,600
No"':
I. A blenk indica... 11181 1118 ana"," - no! d8\8dlOCl
2. Rilk.B888d CrIIlri8... bulOCl on u.s. Env~on"""81 P,-ion Agency I",,1ooIog1cal dllll, I -id8ntielIXpoeu," 1~'Io,
"'"rvet co.-. rilk aI 0.000001, - I lerget -rcWIog8nIa haz8rd -- aI 1.0. Expoeu.."""" oonoid8r8d IncIucl8 10011...lion,
de...... conl8al, inh8l..ion aI voI8IJ188 '.om 101, - 111I8I811on aI p8Jti0ulol.bound oubole_: I ... lIdic8l.. noI Ippficebl8.
3. '.I qual~i8< Indlcat.. YI~I iI In ..Iimetl due \a being Iowr """ Ih8 Iow881 II8nd8rd or due 10 111811_-
4. Unil8: "9'k8 . nWligre... per kilogram; ~ . mIcrogr.... per kilogram.
5. Reoull8 lhown rapr-nt I -..poeiIe allhe dele lor 811 rI\Iul8r I""'"
8. 0upIic8l1 r..ullo (_n di8pl8y1OCl) ,..- 1118 d8t8 obI8In8d on llingt8 field dupioale 01 - allh8 'evull...".,.... AQ.........-
Ih8 ...unl thown in \he .'evuI8.' GOIurM iI ooinoid8nIlL
-------
CT02IKNJ7002 7I1RH2tI.5J1LS
ClE -J02.o1 F260-87.0027
Tabla 11.10
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 26: Building 533 Wast. Disposal Area
Stratum 5: Sump
Depth Hila P8I'C8I'I1I1e RIak-8Med
3 to 13 II I_ground Crn...
An81y18 Un1t8 Reguler DuplIc8t8 Concenlr8llon C8IIC8I' Non-C8IIC8I'
Metals
ALUMINUM fI91cg 9,950 2,390 18,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC "" 2.4 0.9 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM .g 114 24.4 J 195.03 . 1,540
BORON I191
-------
CTcmcNl1OO271IRN2It e.xLS
CLE .,102.01 F2eO-B7-C1027
Table 11-11
Maximum Organic Concentrations In SoU
CAOC 26: Building 533 Waste Disposal Area
Stratum 6: Transformer
D8pCh RI8k~8Hd
Ot03ft Cr1tw18
Analyte Un1t8 Regu" C8ftCW Non-C8IM*'
PestlcldeslPCBs
4,4'-DDE I'Qo1tg 130 J 839 -
4,4'.DDT I'Qo1tg 85 839 19,500
ALDRIN I'Qo1tg 3.8 J 17 1,170
ALPHA.CHLORDANE I'Qo1tg 160 J 219 2,340
GAMMA-CHLORDANE IJDo1cg 160 J 219 2,340
No"':
I. A blink tncIIo8I88ll181l118 ~ - naI d818d8d
2. Ailk.B8I8d C"'" - beaed on U.S. Envlronnwnl8l PraI8dIon Agenoy IalIooIogio8I cI8I.8, I ...id8nti8I 8Xpo8Utl _10,
118l1l8I ~ rlak 01 0.000001, Ind 118/g8I nonaaro8Iog8nIo h8z8rd ind8II 011.0. Elpo8Ufl rouI88 00II8Ic*8d 1nck1d8 loiI1no-tion.
.'11181 oonI8cI.lnh818llon oIvoI8IiIn ',om 801, 8nd 1r1h81811on 01 P8I1loullll..bouncIeubel_: I '.' irldlo8l88 ""'lppllc8bl8.
3. 'I qu8lWiI, Indlo8l.. VOIIII.....limltl dUlIo b8ing Iowr 1h...lhllo_lllllndard Of dUllo lr1Ierter-
4. UnWl: mgIkg - rrOI'ig""" ....1IiIog..m; 19'1<8 . mlclOll'''''' .... ltilog..m.
6. ReluIII lhown .....-111 I oompoIitl 0I1h8 dill lOt .. Ngullr llII'C'Ie8.
8. Duplic8l8 ,8811ft8I.'" diopIeyed) '~88nlIh8 cI8I.8 obI8ln8d on I oIngll lleld dup1c818 01- 0I1h8 '80"" I,"",". Ail'''''''' with
th8 _ull8 Ihown in 1118 "egu\8,' 001""," II ooInoidenI8l
-------
CT0260\B70027\TBL9-12WK3
CLE-J02-01 F260-B7 -0027
Table 1 F-12
Vertical Profile Boring YS26-1 Sampling Results
Soil Vapor
----_._,.. n___.._--
""'-'------'.".
....---
TCE
2,800
10,000
S,700
---A --. u_.--
- --. Depth 100-10is' (FD)
80-81.5' 100-101.S' 120-121.S' 140-141.5'
.-. --"----", ..,.-,--
8,900 9,800 16,000 19,000 200
220,000 130,000 240,000 S6,OOO 210
.3,700 2,600 4,100 1,900 18
C()rTlP-°~~ -- --_uu- -
.------ --.. .--- _.u_- ---
20-22' 40-41' 60-61'
-- ""-'----' '.- ,_..
"-0___-
PCE
160,000
440,000
140,000
cis-1,2-DCE
ND
ND
2,300
-'----'-"'--".
All resuhs reported in parts per billion by volume.
FD = field duplicate
ND = not detected
Groundwater
"-'---.-..,--.
.....-..---......--
__u__D~Jh _.-.-
154'
-----.-.-...
--. _.9~~p~und
PCE
31
TCE
141
cis-1,2-DCE
26
trans-1,2- DCE
0.5J
chlorobenzene
0.2J
. -'-----"-"
-.._----",
- .0._,...-.... ." --,. "---
All results reported in micrograms per liter (lJg/l)
J = estimated value
-------
--
CT026O\S7OO27\T AB11-13JeLS
CLE-J02001 F~B700027
Table 11-13
CAOC 26 - Building 533 Waste Disposal Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land-Use Scenario
Totar Backaround' Incrementaf
Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Stratum Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 8 x 10~ 1.0 8 x 10~ 1.0 2 x 1 0-7
2 1 X 10.6 1.8 1 x 10.5 1.8 0
3 2 X 10.6 2.3 2 x 1 0.5 2.3 <1 x 10~
4 2 X 10-5 2.4 2 x 10.6 2.4 <1 x 10~
5 8 x 10~ 1.6 8 x 1 O~ 1.6 3 x 10~
ff 2 x 10~ 0.1 - .- 2 x 10~
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
d Based in scoping information, only PCBs were of concern at this stratum. Consequently, metals
were not analyzed for and background values are not available.
-------
CT0260\B70027\TA811-14.XlS
CLf-J02001 F~B7-0a2.7
Table 11-14
CAOC 26 - Building 533 Waste Disposal Area
. . Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
T ota" BackaroundD Incrememar
Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncaneer Cancer
Stratum Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 1 x 1 0-6 0.1 1 x 1 0-6 0.1 5 x 1 0-6
2 2 x 1 0-6 0.3 2 x 1 0-6 0.3 0
3 2 x 1 0-6 0.3 2 x 1 0-6 0.3 <1 x 10-6
4 3 x 1 0-6 0.3 3 x 1 0-6 0.3 <1 x 10-6
5 1 x 1 0-6 0.3 1 x 1 0-6 0.3 1 x 1 0-6
6d 6 x 10.7 <0.1 - .. 6 x 1 0-7
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contri>ution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
d Based in scoping information, only PCBs were of concem at this stratum. Consequently, metals
were not analyzed for and background values are not available.
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN27 - 4.XLS
CLE-,m-01 F280-B7 «12.7
Table 12-1
Maximum Organic Concentrations In 5011
CAOC 27: Building 436 Fuel 011 Storage Tanks
Stratum 4: Intervening Area
Depth RIak-8888d
GIGSft Crlterta
An8lyte Units Reaul8r DUplicate C8nC8f Non-C8IIC*'
P.lclcl-.IPCS8
4,4'-DDD jJgIkg 1.1 J 1,190 -
4,4'-DDE jJgIkg 3.8 J 839 .
4,4'-DDT jJgIkg 21 J 839 19,500
ALPHA-CHLORDANE jJgIkg 11 J 219 2,340
ENDRIN KETONE jJgIkg 0.57 J - 11,700
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE ~ 0.53 J 31 507
METHOXYCHLOR UQ/1(a 190 J - 195,000
Semlvol8t118 Org8111c8
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE ~ 190 J 391 .
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE ~ 1700 J - -
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHAlATE UQ/1(a 470 . 7,800,000
NoIe8:
I. A bIIInk IncIlc8t- that .... 8II8IyI8 - noI d8I8d8d
2. Riok.Sued Critari.... baaed on U.S. Envkonnwnl8l P,Clt8dkln Agency laxloologloal dat.. a _--I UpcI8l118.--io,
. I.rget ca- riIIk aI 0.000001, - . \8rg8I nonc:8I'Clnog8nIo hazard index aI 1.0. Ezpoaura rout- coneid8r8d I~ .ail ingnlion,
da"..1 oontact, Inhalation aI y_l... from"", - kdI8I8Iion aI ptrllcul8l..1IounCI """I8~;' '." nficat.. noI appIloabla.
3. 'I qu.l~iar Indioal.. YUl. it an _Ii""" due 1o baing 10- th8n """"'1 tI-ard 01 due 1o 1nI""-
4. Unb: rr9kg . mIIigr..... par kilogram; IIQIkg . miorogr81111 par kilcgram.
S. Rt8ulb .hown ..-nt . ~a aI 1M cIaIa '01 .n I8gUIar Mft1'Ia8.
8. Duplicata ,.ulb (wMn di~ rtpl'888n1 I'" cIaIa obI8in8d on . tingle IiaId dup1c8\8 aI- aI \h8 regula, ..".... Agraamanl willi
I'" relulb .hown In "" ",aguI.." oaIuIm it coIncidanl.L
-------
CT0260\870027\RN27 - 4.XLS
CLE.J02-01 F260-B7-0027
Table 12-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 27: Building 436 Fuel 011 Storage Tanks
Stratum 4: Intervening Area
DepIh ISth P8rcen1i1. RIak-88ed
Oloaft B8Ckground Criteria
AMlyt. Un1t8 R8IIu" DuIIIIc818 CCNIC8Itntion C8nC8I' Non-C8nC8I'
Metals
ALUMINUM ~ 10,900 J 5,030 J 16,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC "91!g 3.9 J 5.5 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM "91!g 94.2 49.0 195.03 - 1,540
BORON "91!g 9.2 8.8 11.65 . 5,970
CADMIUM "91!g 1.2 1.91 9 39
CALCIUM mglkg 24,100 18,800 16,772.1 - -
CHROMIUM mglkg 47.1 4.7 21.52 . 71,100
COBALT rng1Ig 6.5 J 3.1 J 15.28 - 4,540
COPPER ~ 1"." 6.1 19.8 . 2,630
IRON fT91cg 13,100 J 8,580 J 23,702.1 - .
LEAD ~ 51.4 J 5.8 J 15.45 - 130
MAGNESIUM ~ 4,920 2,790 8,086.43 . .
MANGANESE "91!g 190 J 173 J 438.03 . 138
NICKEL ~ 9.3 3.9 J 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM ~ 1,520 1,460 5,765.65 . -
SODIUM ~ 752 304 J 675.29 . -
STRONTIUM ~ 285 249 210.69 . 42,700
THALLIUM "91!g 0.83 J 0.33 J 0 . 4.98
VANADIUM "91!g 28.0 14.7 49.03 . 498
ZINC 88.0 21.6 64.82 . 21,300
Not..:
I. A blenk indicat.. that the an1¥8 - no! clel8d8d
2. Rilk-8aMd Criteria... baHd on U.S. E.",lron""'" p,- AII8"C'Y IQllIooIogIcal cI8I.. a __iel _ura _10,
a large! car-. rl8k... 0.000001, - a targe! noncarcilaganlo hea,d inda ... 1.0. Expoeur. rout.. conaIdarad IncUc18 aailingeatian,
dermal contact, Inhalation... -180 trom 801. - _ion'" p8Jticulot.bound aublt_; a'.' 1ndic8t.. no! applicable.
3. 115 P.rcentile Beologround c-trlllion iI calc_aci I,om UClB B_ow background aoll dat. (010 31881); rwlar_: ~. 111K. 'Ma,ine
Corpe logilllc8 B_.lIaratow, C8I~omia B**OlOUnd 90118 I_ligation.' Technloa' Memorandum 0023. Crallllna!. 30 March IIIK.
4. 'J' qu8l~iar indicat88 v- II en ..1im8I. dU810 b8cng ~ III8n the ~talanclard '" due 10 interler-
5. UniI8: "9'kg . milllg,ama par kiIog..m; 19'kII- microgr- par kiIog,8m.
8. Rnuna a'"-> repr_nI . oor..-Ita 0I1IIe cIaU "" 811 regular a"""'.
7. Duplicat. ,..ulbo (when diaplayed) ,epre_the dala obIaIn8d on. ainglall8lcl duplcat. 01 one 0I1IIe regular a....,.... Agr..ment willi
lhe ,..ub ahown in the 'regula.- ooIurm II ~al
-------
CT0260\B70027\AN27 _5.XLS
Table 12-3
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 27: Building 436 Fuel 011 Storage Tanks
. Stratum 5: Specific Single Source Area
D8pIh Rlak-8888d
3 to 13 II Crlter18
Analvte Units Regul8r C8nC8 Non.c8llC*
PestlcldeslPCBs
4,4'-DDT I UQ/1(o 3.4 J 839 19,500
Notes:
1. A bIaM In
-------
CLf-J02001 F260-B7-0027
CT0260\B70027\RN27 _5.XlS
Table 12-4
Maximum Inorganic Concentration. In 5011
CAOC 27: Building 436 Fuel 011 Storage Tanks
Stratum 5: Specific Single Source Area
DepCh DepCh 95th PercenUIe R"k~8Md
3to 13 ft Below 13ft B8Ckground CrI....
An8lyte Units Reaul8r Reaua. Concenlr8t1on Cmcer N~8nC8I'
Metals
ALUMINUM IJ91cg 1,920 J 10,700 J 16,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC - ~ 0.71 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM ~ 13.4 J 90.8 J 195.03 . 1,540
CALCIUM IJ91cg 1,270 J 3,400 J 16,772.1 . -
CHROMIUM ~ 3J 8.4 J 21.52 - 71,100
COBALT IJ91cg 5.9 J 15.28 . 4,540
COPPER mg.1qJ 2.4 J 12.7 J 19.6 - 2,630
IRON IJ91cg 5,530 J 14,200 J 23,702.1 - -
LEAD ~ 2.1 3.3 15.45 - 130
MAGNESIUM .9 720 J 5,460 J 8,066.43 - -
MANGANESE ~ 36.7 J 283 J 438.03 - 136
NICKEL ~ 4.9 J 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM .9 405 J 3,240 J 5,785.65 . .
SODIUM .9 377 J 691 J 675.29 . .
STRONTIUM .9 9.3 J 48.5 J 210.69 . 42,700
THALLIUM IJ91cg 0.3 J 0.69 0 - 4.98
VANADIUM .g 14.8 J 28.6 J 49.03 - 498
ZINC mG'1to 9.8 J 42.1 J 64.82 - 21,300
Noles:
1 . A blank Inc:Icat8s tlst the ana/yt8 was not de89ct8d
2. Risk-Based CfltBria are based on U.S. EnvIronmental Prot8clon ~ to~ data, s residential exposwe scenario,
s target cancer risk of 0.000001, and a target noncarcinogenic haZard Index 0' 1.0. Exposure routes considered Include soli Ingestion,
dennal contact, Inhalation of volatiles from soil, and inhalation 0' pMlculatB-bound subStances; a "-" Inclcates not applicable.
3. 95 Percentile Background Concentration 18 calculatBd from MCLB Bars~ background 8011 data (0 to 3 '88t); reference: Jacobs. 1995.
"MarIne Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, Callfomla Background SoIlslnY8sllgation." Technical MernorarDlm 0023. Draft final. 30 March 1995.
4. 'J qua/iller tnclcal8s value Is an estima" due ~ being loWer than the lowest standard Of dJe to Interference
5. Unlts:"'91
-------
CT026O\B70027\T AB12-7 JQ.S
CLE.J02..()1 F26G-B7-0027
Table 12-5
CAOC 27 - Building 436 Fuel 011 Storage Tanks
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land-Use Scenario
Total8 BaekQ roundD lnerementaf
Stratumd Cancer Noneaneer Cancer Noneaneer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
4 2 x 10.5 2.1 2 x 10-5 2.0 6 x 1 0-7
5 2 x 1 0-8 0.4 2 x 1 0-8 0.4 <1 X 10-8
8 The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
e The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
a
standards exist for petroleum hydrocarbons. a human health evaluation was not perfonned for
these strata.
-------
CT0260\870027\T AB 12-3.XLS
CLE-J02'()1 F~B7.()(J27
Table 12-6
CAOC 27 - Building 436 Fuel 011 Storage Tanks
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Total8 BaekgroundD IncrementalC
Stratumd Cancer Noncaneer Cancer Noneaneer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
4 3 x 10~ 0.3 3 x 1 O~ 0.3 2 x 10-7
5 4 x 10-7 0.1 4 x 10-7 0.1 <1 x 10"
8 The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
d Only petroleum hydrocarbons were sampled for in Strata 1, 2, and 3. Because no health-based
standards exist for petroleum hydrocarbons, a human health evaluation was not performed for
these strata.
-------
CT02~70027\RN28_1 J(l5
ClE.J02-01 F260-B7-0027
Table 13-1
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 28: West Lot Dust Control Area
Stratum 1: IAS Area
Depth Ri,k-8..ed
0 to 3 It Criteria
An81yt. Unite R.gular Dupllca. Cancer Non-C8ncer
Pestlclde8lPCBs
4,4'-00T '" 1 J 839 19,500
ENOOSULFAN II U!t\cg 0.45 J . 1,950
H-
I. A blank ndc:at.. .... 118 onaIy1I ... 1101 d8I8CtId
2. AiIII-IIaed Crieria ... b888d on U.S. Enm_1 PnII8c:IIon Agency tollioologlcal dII8. '''''''''''IIPD8UI'8~.
"8'8'1 calIOIt riU of 0.000001. 1IId, Wg8I"'ncareinogtnlc 18JM1Ind1. of 1.0. EJIPOIUI8 1'0" CIOI'8icItrtcllnc1ud8 8Dl11nge.1on.
dennal -. irII8I8tion of ......iIn Irom 101. 8nd W.101ion of part.......obound """""8: 8 '.'1ndica188 noI eppIIc..lo.
3. 'J qua_Indica". VIII.. 18 .n l1li- ciullO b8i~ tow" Ihan "" 1ow...nd8rd Of clu810 .......-
4. Unb: IftIIIIr8 . 11111111'- per Id",,,,; 1O'kg. mIcrogr81118 pa' kIograrn.
I. R..ub "-' NIl"'''' . OD~ of 118 d8I8 lor d"", ..,....
e. D",1ic8I8 ,88Ub "'18n dIIpIa~ IIP- "" d8I8 obIaintd on 8181g1a IillII ""1c8" of Dna 01 "" 18IPoJIo' ..mplat. Awaam"" wlh
"" ,taU" 8hown II .... "eg"" coklmn 18 colncicl8n181.
-------
CT026OOJ70027\RN28- 1 J
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN28_2.XLS
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7.0027
Table 13-3
Maximum Organic Concentrations In 5011
CAOC 28: West Lot Dust Control Area
Stratum 2: Perimeter and Interconnecting Roads
Depth RIak-8888d
GtoSft Crtt.....
ANllyt- UnI.. Regu" C8nC8' NorM:8nCer
Pe8t1c1ded'CB.
4,4'.000 ~ 14 J 1,190 .
ALORIN ~g 11 J 17 1,170
GAMMA.BHC (LINDANE) ~g 13 J 219 11,700
HEPTACHLOR ~g 8.8 J 83 19,500
Semlvol881e Org..1ea
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE ~g 49J 20,400 780,000
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE ~g 140 J . 7,800,000
PHENANTHRENE uaAta 310 J . .
Nol-
I. A bl8nk Indica... 11181 the 8naJyI8 - not cl8l8ded
2. Rilk.S-.d Crl8ri8.. M8ed on U.S. e,."wOftft*Ql Pral8dion Agency toxloaloglD8l cI8Ia, I rwld8nll8lapl*lf8 '_10,
I \811181 -- riak at 0.0000(11, 8nd . \811181-............,..., huatd Index at 1.0. EapolU'8 rout.. 00II8id8r8d ..... 1Oi11ftv88Uon.
delnloonl8cl. inh8l8lion at voIatilo8 "om .01, 8nd iIh8I8Iion at perticul8tHlound IUbl18.-; I '.' ~ natlppliceble.
3. 'J qul/i.. Indical.. wikle II In "Iimate due to being 10- IhIn the Iowftl '18nda,d 01 due 10 1nt8l1er-
4. Unit.: mg!kll . riligllm. pe' kilogllm; 1'Wk1l- rricmg"... PI' kilogllm.
6. A8Iull8.hoM1 repr-nt I compoo~e at 11>8 dati 101 ,II ..gular .....,....
8. Ouplic818 ,88Uft8 (when d18p1eyed) ,....nt lhe daI, obt,ined on I lingle lield duplic8te at one at the raguII, "II'CJI88. Ag,ee...nt with
the ,..uIIa olio.., in the "egular' coIurm II coincidental
-------
CT026O\B70027\RN28...2.XLS
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Table 13-4
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 28: West Lot Dust Control Area
Stratum 2: Pert meter and Interconnecting Roads
DepIh Hth P8fC8IIUIe Rlak-8888d
Oto3n B8dlground Crlt".
AMlyte Unlta Regu" Concenlr.1Ion CMCeI Non-CMC8I'
Metals
ALUMINUM ~g 10,700 16,245.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC ~g 2.4 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM ~g 64.9 195.03 . 1,540
BORON ~g 406 11.65 - 5,970
CALCIUM ~g 4,150 18,772.1 - -
CHROMIUM ~ 10.6 21.52 - 71,100
COBALT ~g 4.7 J 15.28 - 4,540
COPPER "91<9 8.9 J 19.8 - 2.630
IRON ~g U',100 23,702.1 - .
LEAD ~g 5.1 J 15.45 - 130
MAGNESIUM ~g 3,650 8,086.43 . -
MANGANESE ~g 209 J 438.03 . 136
NICKEL "91qJ 6.9 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM ~g 2,450 5,765.65 - .
SODIUM "91qJ 818 J 875.29 . .
STRONTIUM I19\g 203 210.69 . 42,700
THALLIUM I19\g 0.54 J 0 . 4.98
VANADIUM "91genlo hu8rd mu 01 1.0. E.xpae............ DOn8IcIeIwcIIncUde loillnonlion,
Clef..., oonI8CI, inh8l8lion 01 voI8IiI8I ',om 1CIi. and InII8'-'ion 01 pMicutale-bound IU~; a'.' indic8l.. noI eppIlc8bla.
3. t5 P_lila 8eellg_nd CancenI,lIion II calculaled ',am Mel8 88f81oW beckgoound IoiIdata (0 to 31881'; ......-: Jecobe. 11195. 'M.,....
CorpelogilliD8 8_.8,,,,_, Callamle 8edlgnlund Boh I-illllion.' Technlo8l Memot,ndum 0023. Dr"" linal. 30 March 11195.
4. 'J' qualK"" Indlcal.. ..... 111ft nli""', due to baing Io-Illan \he ~I 'l8nd8rd 01 due 10 inleof,,-
6. Unil8: n9k8 . mIIliII- p8< kiIog18m; II8Ik8 . mioIvgr.... pe' kiIog18m.
8. Anuftl ,hown ..pr_nI a 0Gn1'0IiI' of 1118 d8la lor .U ..gulul8J11)l88.
7. Oupllcal8 ,....118 (wilen dleplay8cl) ,epra"'" 1118 dat. otIC.lned on a Iingl.'1eId dupllo818 01- 01 \he 'egula' ,.".... Au,.....111 with
1118 ,null lhown in 1118 "egula" ooIumn II ooincidenlal
-------
CT026O\B70027\RN28_3.XLS
CLE.J02'()1 F26G-B7.0027
Table 13-5
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 28: West Lot Dust Control Area
Stratum 3: Lot 485 and 490
D8pIh Rlak-8888d
0103" Crltwla
An" Units R u18 C8RC8r Non.c8lC8r
Pe8lcld88IPCB8
ALPHA-SHC I'IJI1tg 0.29 J 45
METHOXYCHLOR 12 J 195,000
Semlvol8lle Org8n1c8
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 120 J 20.400 780.000
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE 740 7,800,000
Not..:
t. A blink IndIc8I88 tll8ll11e anatrt. - not dIII8cDd
2. Rilk.1I888d CrtI8ri8... b88ee1 on U.S. Envwonmenl8l Pr0l8Ction Agency toxloologic8l del... 188id8nti81upcIIU" ......,iD,
. IIrgeI ce- rilk 01 O.OOOOOt. end. tIt{IIII_1nogen1c IlUlrd IncIa 011.0. Expaeu,. rout.. OOIIIideNd 1nck1d8 .oill"ll88tion,
eI,,,,,"I conI8at. Inh8I8IIan 01 voI8tillllrom .01, end WI8IIIIIon GI pertlcul8tHlouncllUbo_; . '.' ildical.. not eppIic8ble.
3. . r que\jIIIr IndicIII88 v... II en ..1im8I8 ciullo being 10.- thin till Iow8I .18ncI8rcI or due 10 1nI1ff_-
... UnI8: 119'1<0 . .....- per kIogrem; IIWko -'*"9-per _181ft.
5. R88ulll.- .....-nt . 0IJI11I08iI. 0I1IIe d818 lor II' reguIIr .....-.
e. DuplIc8I. r88U1t8 (when dioplly8d) replW88nI thl dill obIlllIId on .1IngI8 II8Id duploete 01- GIllie 'eguler ..rI'C)IeI. AgreelTllnl with
IhI _uIIIlhown In till "IIJUI..' 001- II OOInoId8nt.L
-------
CT026O\870027\RN28_3.XLS
CLE-J02001 F260-B7-0027
Table 13-6
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 28: West Lot Dust Control Area
Stratum 3: Lot 485 and 490
Depth 15th Percentile RI.k~888d
olosn Baground Crlt'"
An8Ivt. Units Reau" Concentration Cane« Non-C8ftCeI'
Metals
ALUMINUM "9 8,430 18,245.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC ~ 19.5 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM "9 295 195.03 - 1,540
BORON "9 1,690 11.65 . 5,970
CALCIUM "9 55,100 16,772.1 . -
COBALT rng\g 13.3 15.28 ' 4,540
COPPER ,.g 7.8 J 19.6 - 2,630
IRON "9 11,100 23,702.1 .
LEAD rng\g 10.8 J 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM nVk9 18,200 8,086.43 ' -
MANGANESE nVk9 313 438.03 - 136
MOLYBDENUM "9 7.1 J 0 . 354
NICKEL If91tg 5J 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM nVk9 2,280 5,765.65 . .
SELENIUM nVk9 1.7 J 0 . 356
SODIUM nVk9 316 J 875.29 . .
STRONTIUM If91tg 10,200 210.69 - 42,700
THALLIUM If91tg 0.32 J 0 - 4.98
VANADIUM "9 27.4 49.03 - 498
ZINC mo1
-------
CT026O\870027\T AB13-7JeLS
CLE-J02~1 F260-B7..00z7
Table 13-7
CAOC 28 - West Lot Dust Control Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land-Use Scenario
T ota" Backaround' Incrementaf
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 9 x 10~ 2.2 9 x 1 O~ 2.1 <1 x 10~
2 9 x 10~ 2.1 8 x 1 O~ 1.9 8 x 10-7
3 6 X 10-5 4.2 6 x 10-5 3.5 <1 x 10~
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
----
CT026O\B70027\TABt3-8.XLS
CLE-J02-Qt F260-B7.0027
Table 13-8
CAOC 28 - West Lot Dust Control Area
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Tote" Backaround!! Incrementef
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk H8Z8rd Index . Risk
1 1 x 1 0-6 0.3 1 x 1 0-6 0.3 <1 x 10-6
2 2 x 1 0-6 0.3 1 x 1 0-6 0.3 3 x 10.7
3 1 X 10.5 0.5 1 x 10-5 0.4 <1 X 10-6
. . The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
II Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
\: The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
CT0260\B70027\AN29- t J(LS
CLE.J02..() 1 f260-B7-0027
Table 14-1
Maximum Organic Concentnltlona In Soli
CAOC 29: Sludge Storage Area
Stratum 1: Sludge Storage Area
Depth Rlak-8888d
o to 3 ft Criteria
AMlvte Units R8IIul. DuDlIc.8t8 C8ftcef Non-C8nC8f
SemlvolaU18 OfIJ8lk:8
BIS(2.ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE &Jgt\g 2,500 J 20,400 780,000
Not..:
1. A blank indic8t..1h811118 8II8IyIe - notd818c:ted
2. Rilk.B8Md CItl8ri8 are baed on U.S. envi'anrT'811181 P,oIac:tian Agency laxiaologlc8l cI8I8. a realcl8nll8l ..~. _,io,
.18tV8I ca- rl8kol 0.000001, and alargel noncaRIl1og8nio hazard hda 011.0. Expo8lll8lO11t.. conaid8red IncbIa .oillngeotion,
d8raloonl8Gl, Inh8Mltian 01 vol"" Irom .01, and i1haI8Iion 01 par1iaulat..bound ~; a'.' ndlcC.. naI appIic8blo.
3. 'I qU8lifl8l1nd1cale8 v... iI .. 88tinW8 MID baing - -.". .....t llandard Of due to ...111--
4. Unlto: rnWka . mlllgr8m8 1* kilogram; IIIfI<8 . rricrogr... 1* kilogram.
6. Reo..- ..,._nI a 0
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN29_'.XLS
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-ooz1
Table 14-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 29: Sludge Storage Area
Stratum 1: Sludge Storage Area
DepIh ISth Percenlil. Alsk.a8Md
0103ft B_ground Criteria
AlUllyt. Un1t8 Regu18 Duplicate Concentration Can«*' Non-C8nC8'
Metals
ALUMINUM ~g 2,300 1,740 16,245.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC ~g 0.63 J 0.52 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM ~g 19.5 J 17 J 195.03 . 1,540
CALCIUM mgkg 2,030 1,730 16,772.1 - .
CHROMIUM mgkg 3.2 2.9 21.52 . 71,100
COBALT ~ 0.73 J 15.28 ' 4,540
COPPER ~g 3.1 J 19.6 - 2,630
IRON mgkg 8,570 4,190 23,702.1 . -
LEAD ~ 1.9 J 1.7 J 15.45 - 130
MAGNESIUM mgkg 903 J 792 J 8,086.43 - -
MANGANESE ~ 164 66.4 438.03 - 136
NICKEL ~ 2.1 J 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM ~ 670 J 487J 5,785.65 . -
SODIUM ~g 58.8 J 675.29 , -
STRONTIUM rng.1Ig 25.7 J 20.9 J 210.69 - 42,700
VANADIUM ~g 15.3 9.8 J 49.03 . 498
ZINC ~ 8.6 8.1 64.82 - 21,300
Not..:
1. "blank indat.. 11181 the analyla - na\ cIaIed8d
2. Riok.B- Criteria are b888d an U.S. Envir......-l P,oI8dian "1J8IICY ""'1coIog1oal cI8I8, a _ldantialaxpo8Ufa.-..rio,
a 18JV8\ c..-r liak 01 0.000001, - a \8rg8I nancarclnoganlc _II Indu 011.0. Expoaura IOUI88 COII8ider8d IncUcI8 aoll i"ll88lian,
da"..1 con1ac1, inhalation 01 valali188 "am 801, and ..h8l81ian 01 p8r11cutal.bound 1Uba'-;. '.' 0Id1c8l.. na\ appIable.
3. 86 P_IIII Backllround ConoanI,8IIon it calculal8d "am UClB B8r1tow b8eqround IIOiI 11818 (0 Ie 3 18a\); ......-: Jacoba. 1l1li6. 'Ma,ine
Co
-------
CT026O\B70027\TAB 14-3. XLS
CLE-J02'()1 F~B7.()()27
Table 14-3
CAOC 29 - Sludge Storage Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential and Industrial Land Use Scenarios
T otar Backe! round" lnerementar
Cancer Noncaneer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
Residential Land-Use
Scenario 2 x 1 0-6 1.3 2 x 1 0-6 1.3 1 x 10.7
Industrial Land-Use
Scenario 4 x 10.7 0.2 3 x 10-7 0.2 4 x 1 0-6
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurri':!g and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
e The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
CT0260'B70027\RN30- 1 JClS
Table 15-1
MlXlmum Organic Concentratlonl In Soli
CAOC 30: Locomotive Repair Shop Dllponl Are.
Str.tum 1: Former Dllpoul Area
Depth Alak-8...
Oto3ft Crttltrla
An8ly" Unl.. Aeaulu Cane... Non-C_ar
p..tlcld881PCBa
4,4'.OOE I/(JAIg 0.5J 839 -
4,4'-DDT I/(JAIg 2.7 J 839 19,500
AlPHA-CHLORDANE I/(JAIg 0.41 J 219 2,340
GAMMA.CHLORDANE I/(JAIg 0.81 J 219 2,340
TOXAPHENE uaAca 85J 259 -
Semlvol8llle arv_Jca
BUTYl BENZVL PHTHALATE I/(JAIg 37 J - 7,800,000
DlETHYl PHTHAlATE uaAco 820 - 3.10E+07
Petroleum Hydroc.bona
TPH - DIESEL rnat1Ia 1,000 J - .
Noles:
1. . A blank 1ncIc81es thai 1118 _lyee was not detected
2. Risk-Based CrIteria are ba8ed on U.S. EnvIronmerUJ PI'oIection A/i1IKv:y toxicological data, a residential expoetn _rio,
a larget cancer risk ~ 0.000001, and a Ia/'ge1I1OI1C8Idnogeni hazard Index 011.0. Expos," routes mnIidered Include sol ingestion,
dermal contact, Inhalallon ~ voIalllaslrom soil, and inhalation 01 partlctAat.bound 81bs1anc:e8; a '.'lncIcales not applcable.
3. 'J' qualifier Indlca/es value Is an eslimale c1Je 10 being lower than the 1ow881 standard or due 10 Inlerf~
4. Units: mgntg - milligrams per kilogram; pg.1cg - micrograms per kilogram.
5. Resub shown represent a oomposile 011118 dala for all regular samples.
8. Duplicale resuls (when cl8played) ,....llhe data obtained on a Bingla field ckIpilcale of one ~ the regular ..mp!e8. Agreement wlh
the results shown In lhe 'regular" column Is coincidental.
CLE-J02-01 F280-B7-0027
-------
C T0260'B70027\RN3O _1 JQ.S
CLE.J02-01 F2~B7-0027
Table 15-2
Maximum inorganic Concentrlltlon. In Soli
CAOC 30: Locomotive Repair Shop Dlapo..1 Area
Stratum 1: Former DI.po..1 Area
Depth 11th P.centlla A18k.e..8cI
Otolft BlCqrounci Criteria
An8lvt8 UnIts A"uI. Concentration Cane. Non.canc8l'
Metal.
AlUMINUM JTV1Io 13,400 18,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC JTV1Io 0.59 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM JTV1Ig 80.8 196.03 . 1,540
BERYlLIUM JTV1Ig 0.4 J 0.59 0.129 358
BORON ~g 5.5J 11.65 - 5,970
CADMIUM ~g 1.2 1.91 9 39
CAlCRJM ~g 4,250 18,772.1 . .
CHROMIUM JTV1Ig 12.1 21.52 . 71,100
COBAlT ~g 4.2 J 15.28 . 4,540
COPPER ~o 10.7 19.8 . 2,830
IRON ~g 16,100 23,702.1 . .
LEAD ~g 5.2 J 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM ~g 4,910 8,088.43 . .
MANGANESE JTV1Ig 233 438.03 . 138
POTASSIUM mg.1tg 2,840 6,786.65 . .
SELENIUM mg.1tg 0.87 J 0 - 358
SOOIUM mg.1tg 208J 875.29 . .
STRONTIUM JTV1Ig 54 210.89 . 42,700
VANADIUM JTV1Ig 38.3 49.03 . 498
ZINC lIIQI1co 39.8J 84.82 . 21,300
Noles:
1. A blank I1dcates thai the _lyIa was not del8ded
2. RiBk-Ba88d Criter1e ara balled on U.S. Erwtronmerul Protection AQerq toJdcologtcaldata, a reeldentlalaxpo8lA _rio,
a target cancer risk ~ 0.000001, and a targeI noncardnogenlc hazard Index ~ 1.0. Expo8IA routes 00I18dered Include eoIlngestlon,
dennel ~8d, inhalation ~ vdatil88lrom 101/, and inhalation of partlcl.Ute-bound 81b1tanoee; a '.'Inclcates notapplcable.
3. 96 Percentle Back~ Concentration 18 calcWlled lrom MCLB Barstow ~ eoI data (0 to 31881); relerence: Jacobe. 1995. 'Mama
Cofpe L.tics Base. BanIIow, Callomla Background SoIls InYestlgatlon,' Tectmlcal Memoranddn 0023. Drall 11na!. 30 Mard11995.
4. 'J' qualifier lncIcatea value Is an 88Ilmata cbt to being lower than the 1ow881 8landan:t 01' due to lntert8f8nC8
5. Urits: mglkg - mlll9ame per kilogram; IIIIi1Ig. micrograms per kItc9Im.
8. Resuts shown repmsent 8 composite of the data 101' an regular IBmples.
7. Dupicata resuls (when chpIayed) ~t lhe data obtained on a tingle lleid duplicate of one d the regular 18ff\P1e8. ~t wlh
the rasults shown In the 'regular' coIlnln Is coIncidBntaI.
-------
CT0260\B70027\AN30_2.XLS
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Table 15-3
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 30: Locomotive Repair Shop Disposal Area
Stratum 2: Building 628 and Perimeter Are.
Noles:
1. A blank indicates thai the anlllyte WIIS not deteded
2. RIsk.Based Crterta - bIISed on U.S. EIIWonmentaJ PnJtec:t1on Agenc:y toJdcoIoglcal dIfa. a I88IdenttBI exposure 808narto,
. target cancer risk o. 0.000001, Met al8rgelllOllCllldnogenlc hazard Index 011.0. Exposure routea consIcIenId tndude IOIlngetlllon,
dennal c:ontact,lnhalatlon of voIaIlleelrom lIOII, and InhaI8Ion of p8ItIculetHlound eubltanoe.; a '.'lncIc:aIe. nol applk:able.
3. 'J' quaJller In
-------
CT026O\B70027\AN30_2. XLS
CLE-J02-o1 F26<>-B7.0027
Table 15-4
Maximum Inorganl~ Concentration. In Soli
CAOC 30: Locomotfve Repair Shop Disposal Area
Stratum 2: Building 628 and Perimeter Area
DepCh 16th P8n:en1f1e RI8k-68Hd
Oto3ft 88ClIgrounci Crtt....
ANllyte Uniia Regul8r Dupllc8t8 COncenlr8t1on C8nC8I' Non.(:8nC8r
Uet8..
ALUMINUM I'f91qJ 24,900 24,400 16,245.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC !Y9'kg 2.7 2.1 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM "9'k9 175 128 195.03 . 1,540
BERYLLIUM !Y9'kg 0.81 J 0.75 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON "9'k9 8.6 J 9.3 J 11.65 - 5,970
CADMIUM !Y9'ku 1.3 J 1.91 9 39
CALCIUM "9'k9 7,410 8,540 16,m.1 - .
CHROMIUM "9'k9 24.2 21.2 21.52 . 71,100
COBALT "9'k9 7.8 J 5.7 J 15.28 . 4,540
COPPER "9'k9 20.7 18.1 19.8 . 2,630
CYANIDE "9'k9 0.29 J o . 1,420
IRON "9'kg 30,500 28,500 23,702.1 - .
LEAD mgIkg 7.4 J 8.5 J 15.45 - 130
MAGNESIUM mgIkg 9,560 8.180 8,088.43 . .
MANGANESE "9'k9 534 508 438.03 . 138
MOLYBDENUM "9'k9 0.84 J o . 354
NICKEL mgIkg 15.8 12.6 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM !Y9'kg 3,520 3,070 5,785.65 - .
SODIUM !Y9'kg 1,740 1,500 875.29 . .
STRONTIUM mgIkg 86.1 J 84.3 J 210.69 . 42,700
VANADIUM mgIkg 65.4 57 49.03 . 498
ZINC mgIkg 72.2 62.2 84.82 . 21,300
Noles:
1. A blank lndlcalealhat ItI8 Malyle was not deleded
2. Risk-Based Crieria 81'8 bued on U.S. Envlron"*llil Protection Agency 10Jdcologlclll d8t8, 118IIIden1JaJ exposul1l eQmarto,
Ilarget C8I1CIIIr ltall 01 0.00000 1, and. IIIg8I ~ogenlc hazlRl ndex 01 1.0. ExpoeuI1lIVu!ee conllldenld Indud8 IIOllnge&llon,
dermal conlect, Inhal81lon 01 volatiles IIIIm 8011, and InII8IaIIon 01 pIII1Icullle-bound 8UbtIt11lale; I '-' lncIadee nol appllc8ble.
3. 95 Percenlle Badlground Conc:enIraJlon 18 cala.dated'rom MelB BInIIow badlground 801 data (0 103 ,eel); 11I'8I1I1IaI: Jacab8. 1995. "MaRIe
Corps logistics Hue, Barslow, CdfomlB B8ckgr0und SolIs Inv"'IgaIIon.' Technical Memorandum 0023. DndIllnBl. 30 M8rd11995.
4. 'J' quBl.1er IncIcalea vBlue lalll estimate u to being lower ItI8n IIIllowelil stlUld8ld or u 10 lnt.rfel1ln08
5. Unls: "9110' mlllgnlln8 per idiogram; ~O . mIa'ograms per~.
8. Resuh shown represent. COfI1JOsIIe 0I1IIe d81a lor II ~ ~s.
7. Duplcale reaule (When cII!p18ylld) I1IpI1II811t IIIe dall obClIned on I dlgle field ~lcatl 01 0lIl 01 tile ~18r~. AlJlllernent wfth
Ihe I1Isults shown In Ihl "~..,. Ql/umn 18 coInddentll.
-------
CT0200870027\RN30_3.Xl.S
ClE~"()1 F260-B7-«127
1abl.15-5
Maximum Organic ConcentrBtlonl In Soil
CAOC 30: Locomotlv. Repair Shop DIapo..1 Area
Stratum 3: SUmp end Auocl.tec:t Piping
Depth AI.k-8..8d
310 13 It Criteria
An.Ivt8 Unite A.gul. C8nCer NorH:8ncer
Vol.tile Organic.
ACETONE luo'ka 4J - 1,370,000
Noles:
1. A blank indcaan lhat .. .r.1ytB was no! detected
2. Risk-8ased Criteria are based an U.S. Environmental Protection ~ mxicological data, a residential ellpOSlle scenario,
a target cancer risk 0' 0.000001, IWId a target noncarcinogenic hazard Index 011.0. ElCpOSUfe IOU- considered incbte soil ingestion,
dBm\aI contect, inhalation of volatiles from soli, and inhalation of particUal&-boood substances; a "-" indicates not applicable.
3. 'J' qualifier indcal88 value is an estimal9 olD bang lower I1an the ~t standard or 010 InI9rfBrelI08
4. Units: n1I1kg . miIIigr81\8 per kIogam; Wltg . mic:rogr81\8 per kilogram.
5. Results shown repr--.t a composiI9 of the data tar .. regwlf~.
6. Duplicate results (when dspIayed) represent the data obtained an 8 single field c1JpIicate of one of the regUar samples. Agreement with
the results shown in the "regular" coIurm is coincidental.
-------
CT0260.B70027\RN30_3.XlS
ClE~.01 F260-B7-«127
Tab1815-e
Maximum bwganlc Concentrations ~ Soli
CAOC 30: Locomotive Repair Shop Disposal Area
Stratum 3: SUmp and Associated Piping
Noles:
1. A blank incIcales lhalh analyt9 was nol detected
2. Risk-Based Criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Proleclon AtJtIrcf IDJCicok)gk:aI data, a residential exposu-e scenario,
a largel cancer risk of 0.000001, and a largel noncarcinogenic hazard index of 1.0. Exposure roulBs considered incUde soil ingestion,
dermal contact, Inhalation of volatiles from soil, and Inhalation of parlicUale-bound substances; a ... Indicates not applicable.
3. 95 Percentile Back~cxnd Concentration is calcUaled from MClB BarslDw t.ckgromd soil data (0 10 3 feel); ref8f8nC8: Jacobs. 1995. .Marine
Corps logistics Base, Barstow, CaUfonia Back~OW1d Soils Investigation." Technical MernorancM11 0023. Ora" final. 30 March 1995.
4. 'J' qualifier Indicales value is an estimate file to being lower lhan the Iowesl standard or file to inlerterelloe
5. Units: rngkg. nilligrams per kilc9am; ~g. nicrograms per kilogram.
8. Results shown represent a oomposi89 of the data for all reglAr ~.
7. D~le results (when cisplayed) represenlthe data obtained 00 a single field ciJplicate of ooe of the regUar samples. Agreement with
the r&suls shown in the .regular" column is ooincidBnlal.
Depth 86th Percentile Ai,k-Ba,ed
3 to 13ft B8Ckground CrUerla
Analy.. UnI18 A-utar DUDllca". Concentration Canc... Non-C8ncer
Metals
ALUMINUM mgkg 2.880 1,380 18,245.3 . 71.100
ARSENIC mgkg 0.65 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mgkg 19.7 J 11.0 J 195.03 . 1,540
CADMIUM mgkg 0.82 J 1.91 9 39
CALCIUM mgkg 2,840 1,830 18,772.1 . .
CHROMIUM mgkg 5.3 2.3 21.52 . 71,100
COBAlT mgkg 0.41 J 15.28 . 4,540
COPPER mgkg 3.8J 19.8 . 2,830
IRON mgkg 8,800 3,310 23,702.1 . .
LEAD mgkg 2.8 J 0.82 J 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM mgkg 1,030 460J 8.086.43 . .
MANGANESE mgkg 81.7 52.9 438.03 . 136
NICKEL mgkg 3.2 J 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM mgkg 426 J 5,785.65 . .
SODIUM mg1cg 143 J 92.8 J 875.29 . .
STRONTIUM mg1cg 15.1 9.9 210.69 . 42,700
VANADIUM mg1cg 15.9 7.7 J 49.03 . 498
ZINC maiko 14.7 J 8.4 J 64.82 . 21,300
-------
CT026O\B70027\T AS 1 ~ 7JCL.S
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Table 15-7
CAOC 30 - Locomotive Repair Shop Disposal Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land-Use Scenario
T otal8 Back«l roundD lnerementar
Stratum Cancer Noncaneer Cancer Noncaneer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 5 x 1 0-8 2.1 5 x 1 0-8 2.1 3 x 1 0-7
2 2 X 10-5 4.7 1 x 10-5 3.8 2 x 1 0-8
3 2 x 1 0-8 0.7 2 x 1 0-8 0.7 O.Od
8 The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
e The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
d The incremental risk is essentially zero because no site-related carcinogens were detected.
-------
CT026O\870027\TAB1 ~J(LS
CLf-J02001 F260-B7-«127
Table 15-8
CAOC 30 - Locomotive Repair Shop Disposal Area
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
T ot.r Backe! roundD lnerementar
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 9 x 1 0.7 0.3 8 x 10.7 0.3 1 x 10-7
2 2 x 10~ 0.7 2 x 1 0-6 0.6 3 x 10-7
3 4 x 10.7 0.1 4 x 1 0.7 0.1 O.Od
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
d The incremental risk is essentially zero because no site-related carcinogens were detected.
-------
CT026(NI700211RN3 t - t.XLS
CLE.J02.o t F28G-B7 .0027
Tabla 16-1
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 31: North Vahlcle Test Track Road
Stratum 1: Vehicle T..t Track Road
DepCh RI8k.-888d
Oto3" Crlter18
ANllyt. Un1t8 Reaul8r C8IIC8I' Hon.(:8I1Cef
p..lckl...-cBa
4,4'-DDD ~ 1.6 J 1,190 -
4,4'-DDE ~ 1.3 J 839 -
4,4'-DDT ~g 7.8 J 839 19,500
ALDRIN ~ 0.19 J 17 1,170
ALPHA-CHLORDANE ~g 0.32 J 219 2,340
DIELDRIN ~ 1.5 J 18 1,950
ENDOSULFAN I ~ 1.4 J . 1,950
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE ~ 14 J . 1,950
ENDRIN ~ 1.8 J - 11,700
ENDRIN KETONE ~g 2.4 J - 11,700
GAMMA-CHLORDANE ua.1m 0.48 J 219 2,340
Petroleum HydrOC8Fbona
TPH - DIESEL II'D1aJ 2,300 - -
Not..:
t. A blank india8188 lhal the -1y\8 - not d8\ec1ed .
2. Riok.B- C- - baed on U.S. Envir......- Pr~ Agency ImIDologIcal data, a rwldenlial axpoaur. _10,
. t8/1l8l c- rilk '" 0.000001, and -18/1181 noncarairlaganio h_d index 011.0. Expoaura lOIII.. 0Dn8idaf8d inckId8 loillngaalion,
clar...' contact, IntIaIaIIon '" -... from 101, and Inhalation '" partIoulat.bound ..118_: - . -. indical- not applia8b".
3. '.I qualdier India8t.. value io an ..limata due 10 baing Iowr than \he "'-at llandard or due to intart..-
4. Unilll: rng/I
-------
CT028CNI70021\RN3I. ULS
CLE .J02.o1 F26G-87-0027
Table 16-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 31: North Vehicle Test Track Road
Stratum 1: Vehicle Test Track Road
Depth 16th Pwcen61. RIsk-8888d
Oto3ft 8aground crn...
AMlyt. Unite Regu" Conc8ntratlon C8IIC8I' No~8ncer
Metals
ALUMINUM "" 10,100 16,245.3 . 71,100
BARIUM "" 71.9 195.03 - 1,540
BERYLUUM ~ 0.33 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON "" 25J 11.65 . 5,970
CADMIUM ~g 1 1.91 9 39
CALCIUM ~ 4,810 J 16,772.1 - -
CHROMIUM ~g 9.2 21.52 . 71,100
COBALT ~g 2.8 J 15.28 - 4,540
COPPER ~ 9.1 19.6 . 2,630
IRON "" 12,500 23,702.1 . .
LEAD ~ 9.4 J 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM ~ 4,150 8,086.43 . .
MANGANESE "" 212 438.03 . 136
NICKEL ~ 5J 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM ~ 2,590 5,765.65 . -
.
SODIUM ~g 1,620 675.29 . -
STRONTIUM ~g 51.4 J 210.69 - 42,700
VANADIUM ~g 22.3 49.03 . 498
ZINC I~ 33J 64.82 . 21,300
,I
II
NoI":
I. A blink india8188 111811118 _1yI8 - noc d8IecI8d
2. Rllk-8888d CriIerie....8II on U.8. EnvwOltfNlllel P,aI8dIon AOIfICY -1OOIo01c8I cIeI8, 8 I8IId8nII8I 811pC18Uf8 _10,
8I8I11II- rilk 01 0.00000', and 81arg81 nona8nIinaganlo h8lard iIda 011.0. EIqI08UI8 IOUI88 oon8Id8I8d 1nck1d8 .oiIlft088tion,
d8....I--,1nh8IIIt1on 01 voI8IiI88lrom 801, 8nd WI8I8tIan aI p8IIiouW.bound aubI'-; 8 '.' 1ndicm88 noc appIlo81118.
3. 85 P8A*IIi18 B8c~1UUIId c-t,aIIon II C81cul8l8d ',om MeLB B-'- b8cIoQlUUIId aoiI dllla (0'" 3 ....); ...-: "-'be. 1885. 'M8rile
~ LogiaUca 118M, B_, C8lfom18 88C11qjround "1a'_lgalion.' T.......108I ~ancIum 0023. Du'" fin... 30 March 1885.
4. 'J' qualiliar 1ndic8t.. YUle II an ..1imId8 due to being to..lh8n 1h81ow881.iandard Of due 10 ~8ff..-
5. UIIiIa: mgIIcg - rNllg- 1* kJIog18111; I9k8 . miolOll'- 1* kiIog......
8. R88ulta .110- ,._nl8 ~ 011118 dal8 lot .. ..... .......-.
7. Dupticate ,eaula ("'*' dieplay8d) '8pI8.m 1118 d8Ia otUin8d on e lingle lleld dup1c818 aI - allh8 legule, ..".,.... AQ''''''''' wtIh
1118 ,..ula.t>own In the "egul8r" oaIurm i8 ooinGid8nt8L
-------
CT026O\B70027\T AB 16-3,)(1.5
CLf-mo01 F260-B7-0027
Table 16-3
CAOC 31 - North Vehicle Test Track Road
Human Health Risk Results
Residential and Industrial Land-Use Scenarios
Totar Backel roundD lnerememar'
Cancer Noncaneer Cancer Noncaneer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
Residential 3 x 10~ 1.8 3 x 10~ 1.8 1 x 10.7
Industrial 5 x 1 0.7 0.3 5 x 10.7 0.3 3 x 10~
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
e The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
C T0280\87OO21\AN32_'.XlS
CLE.JD2~IF~B7.oo27
reble 11-1
Mexlmum Orgenlc Concentretlona In 5011
CAOC 32: Preservation end Peclc8glng Storege Area
Stretum 1: Drum Storege Aru
A
P..tlcIde8IPC8.
4,4'.DDT
11c818
AI.k-B..ecI
Crlt8rl.
Cancer Non-C8ncer
UnI..
3J
839
19,500
-:
I. II bIoIIk ~.............. - ""'-
2. AIok-888od ~ ... b888d.. U.S. ~ p........., ~...........,.... 8 ~...-... 8081\8110,
818rgo1- rIok 01 O.CIOOOOI. 1nc1818rgo1 ~Iic hu8rd ~ 01'.0. ~ -. 0III'8iI808d i1cW8"""',
d8rmoI~ WIUIIonol_""'''''''''' ~- oIp8IIIcII- ---- 8 "." --..........,...
I. 'J qudlior ntic8I88 ...... 10 .. ...... du8... b8ing "'-........ ...... oI8nd8nI......1O -...
4. UIh: "" . .....- '* IIIDgI8III; '" . .........- '* .......
a. A88ub - ..- 8"""""'8011118 - lot.. NgI8t"""
.. D..,.... -- Cw'-"""'" ""-1118 - CIIIIoIn8d..8 ""Iolltld...... 01 - 011118...,......... ~ willi
... -- - in...".....,. ollk"... .. .......,.,..
-------
C T02eO\8700271RN:J2_I.XlS
ClE..n2~IF2e0.87~27
Table 17-2
Mulmum Inorganic Concentr8tlona In 5011
CAOC 32: Preeerv8tlon and Packaging Storage Area
. Stratum 1: Drum Storage Area
Depth 8511 Perc8ftlile Allk-B8I8CI
OtDlft Becklround Crlt8rIa
An81vt8 Unl" Aeaular Dupllca.. Concentration Cancer Non.cancer
.....1,
AlUMINUM mg.1cg 11,400 J 8,520 J 18,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC mg.1cg 3.4 2.3 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mg.1cg 73.8 70.5 195.03 - 1,540
BERYllIUM mg.1cg 0.54 J 0.59 0.129 358
BORON mg.1cg 33.' J 32.1 J 11.85 .. 5,970
CADMIUM mg.1cg 1.2 1.91 9 39
CAlCIUM mg.1cg 4,000 3,780 18,772.1 .
CHROMIUM mg.1Ig 13.3 11.7 21.52 . 71,100
COBAl T rngt1Ig 10.2 J 7.8 J 15.28 . 4,540
COPPER mg.1cg 12.8 9.2 19.6 . 2,630
IRON mg.1Ig 17,500 14,800 23,702.1 . .
lEAD mg.1Ig 13.8 J 16.7 J 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM mg.1Ig 4,430 3,450 8,088.43 . .
MANGANESE rngt1Ig 387 J 207 J 438.03 . 136
NICKEL mg.1Ig 9.1 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM rngt1Ig 2,320 1,800 5,785.65 . .
SODIUM rngncg 1420 1260 875.29 . .
STRONTIUM mg.1Ig 79.3 J 57.7 J 210.89 . 42,700
VANADIUM mg.1Ig 44.4 J 38.3 J 49.03 . 498
ZINC mallea 38J 33.4 J 64.82 . 21,300
-:
I. A bIonklrd--the... -....-
2. RIoIc~~ - b8Md on U8 E--- p.......,...,., ~d818. 8 ~_......-.
818g81............. 0.00000I. .... 8"'" --,.no ........ -- all.O. ~.. - ---..,We aoIlftoao8ion.
darmaI- irll8llional"""''''''''.... and inIIaIIIon.. ~ ~ 8 "."""" .... ~.
3 8IIP_"~ndC"'-'8ianIl""'-f......YCUla.-"""",nd "-COIO'fMII: Nf_:'-'. 18811.-
Coope logIoIica-. a.-. ~.,.".."""'" 8oio,.........,."T-.-lIamoIandumOCllZ3. DId final. 30 101.1<11 18811.
4. ',/ quail.. _...... II on""" due 10 baing lower..... the ......1I8nd1fd or dua 10----
5. Un""". milgrall8l* IiIogt8n; I9'IV ''''''''''1*'''''''' .
I Aaaub",-, -- 8""""'.01 fhe""'!Dr II ~......
7. ~..... CW'- diIpIayad) .- tha d8I8 obIIinad on 8 alnglatiafd ~ .. -.. tha...,......... ~I-
.. ..... - In" "...,........... II aoInc:id8ICaI
-------
C T~70027\RN:J2_2JCLS
ClE.J02~1 f28C).87.oo21
Tlble 17-3
Mlxlmum Orgenlc Concentrltlon8 In Soli
CAOC 32: Preaervltlon Ind Packlglng Storege Area
Stratum 2: Building 203 end Perimeter Aru
Depth RI.II.s..ecI
OblUt Crft8tl8
A Unlta R utu Cllflcer Non.(:8ncer
P..tk:Ide8lPCB.
4,4'.OOE IJIIo1Ig 51 J 839
4,4'.DDT IJIIo1Ig 1.29 J 839 19,500
AROClOR-1242 IJIIo1Ig 5.700 47
ENOOSULFAN SULFATE IJIIo1Ig 1.14 J 1,950
HEPT ACHLOR IJIIo1Ig 30J 63 19.500
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 200J 31 507
s-/vol81lle Organic.
BIS 2.ETHYlHEXYL PHTHALATE 350J 20.400 780.000
~:
1. A-InII--"'''''-''''--
2. RioUI.-d ~ - b8Md 01\ U.S. ~ p...., ....1aIioDIagi:8Ida, . """"'....,...-no,
..........,....01 0.000001, ond...... -n:inogoric!l8l8d - 011.0. E- _. --...... ooIlhglOlioft,
- --. -- 01_"''''''''''' 8nd ~ 01 p8IIiouIIIHound""""'" . '-' ...... "'" 1AJIicot8.
3. 'J quo" incIlc8. -."--"-'-""''''- _"""'0-
4. UnIa"" - ...-g-I* IdIog18m; ..... . ...........1* 1IIognm.
5. ,...,.. -- --. .....--. 01 ,he .....Iot.. NOuI8r.....
. 0""'" -- (IrIIIn diopl8y8d)..-.'" cIII8....... on. ..... tI8Id ~ 01- 01 ,he ~..... ~...
.,. - -- in... 'r."'''''nII . coft:idoot8l
-------
CT0280\B7OO27\RN32_2.XL9
CLE..II2.o1 F28G-B7-OO27
Table 17-4
Maximum Inorganic Concentration. In 5011
CAOC 32: Pr...rv8tlon and P8ckaglng StOl1lge Area
Stratum 2: Building 203 and Perimeter Area
Depth 11th P8rCenlll. AI.k.e..8d
OlD In B8CQrounci Crlt8rl.
ANllvta UnI.. Reaul. Canc:entrlltlon Cen- Non.c_...
"'tel.
AlUMINUM mg.1cg 8,960 J 16,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC fI91Ig 7J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM fI91Ig 68 195.03 . 1,540
BERYllIUM fI91Ig 0.19 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON fI91Ig 37.5 J 11.65 . 5,970
CAlCIUM fI91Ig 5,980 16,772.1 . .
CHROMIUM fI91Ig 21.7 21.52 . 71,100
COBAlT ~g 9.3J 15.28 - 4,540
COPPER fI91Ig 10 19.6 - 2,630
IRON fI91Ig 19,800 J 23,702.1 . .
lEAD fI91Ig 6.7 J 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM ~g 3,900 8.086.43 . .
MANGANESE ~g 194 J 438.03 . 136
NICKEL ~g 10.6 16.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM ~g 1,970 5,785.65 . .
SODIUM mg.1Ig 186 J 675.29 . .
STRONTIUM mg.1Ig 167 210.69 . 42,700
VANADIUM .g 66.8 J 49.03 . 498
ZINC no'cg 27.8 64.82 . 21,300
~:
1. A blink -... 1II81O\81V18 -....-
2. FWt~ c.-. - b8Md on U.S. E"'"""-taI p........, "-"" -......... 8 ..................,..-.
81orgo1- _a/0.000001. one! 81orgo1 ~ -..- a/1.0. ~ - _Inc... 001 ingooIIIon.
--_d_"'_""8ndm_d"----8'.'--nal~
3. 8& p_ilt",,-nd Conc8nInnn 10 -....... WCI.8 98- b8dqjr0und 001..... CO'" 3~; NI_: Jeoobe. 100II. ........
~ U>giItic8 e-. ~. C8IIonri8 ~ - ,...0IIig0II0n.. T-- _ndum - 0...1.... 30 Meidl 100II.
4. '.I q..'" _. ...10.. - clue... being""'''' lie - -....t or""l0-
S. ~Ia""'.""-- pelldIogIwn; ""' . ........-". .........
8 ANub - ..- 8 ........... aI\he"'" ... II 1811" .......
7. D~- (IrII8n~ -"'''- -..d... 8 oinglo_d",-doneallhe --....... ~-
... - - m \he''''''''' - 10.............
-------
CT0260'87002MN32_3.XI..S
CLE--m.o1F280-B7-0027
Table 17.5
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 32: Preservation and Packaging Storage Area
Stratum 3: Steam Wash Rack, Sump 8nd Piping
D8pIh AIak-88Hd
3 to 13 n ' Crtter18
AMlvt8 Unl88 Aeaul8r C8nC8I' Non-C8IM*
P-~'
METHOXYCHLOR uaAca 38J . 195,000
NoIMI:
1. A blink Indiaal88lh81 ... ~ - nul d8I8d8d
2. Rlak.B8McI CIII8ri8 ........ on U.S. Envionmenl8l PraI8dIon AgIN/'/ IoIdIIoIogIDaI d8Ia, . _1d8nU8I apa8Ur8 _10,
.\81981 -- ritk 01 0.000001, 8IId ...... noncaro8Iog8nlo h8Dtd i1da 01 1.0. EJIpoeuf8 rouS88 ~ InckIcII .oiIlng88Iian,
d8rm8loon18a1, Inh8I8Iion 01 voI8IiI88 I,om ..... 8nd WI8I8IIon 01 pelliDulllHlound 8UtI8-: . '.' iIdic8t.. nul .ppUceb..
3. 'r qU8lili8r Indic8I88 v... II en..1in88 due 10 b8inO ~ III8n ... Iow88I 8I8ndanI 011 due 10 intert_-
4. Unitt: n9ko . riligr8m8 p8f kiIogrem; I'Wk8 . rNcIogf- p8f kilogram.
5. R88ull8.- ..,.._1'11 . 00ft1I0III8 01... - lor .. ~ .."....
8. DupIio88 ......!"'- dI8pIeyed) '''-1118 - obI8in8d on . 8IngIe fl8lcl dupic8\8 01 0118 01... 'egu.'."" Aer--
... ....... tho- In ... "..., ooIlIINIli ooincid8fUL
-------
CT0260'B7002MN32_3.XLS
CLE.J02-()tF~B7-0027
Table17~
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 32: Preservation and Packaging Storage Ar..
Stratum 3: Steam Wash Reck, Sump and Piping
08pIh 1S1hPerc8n1lle Rlsk-8888d
S to 13 n B_ground Crn...
An8Ivte Un1t8 R8IIu18 Concenlr81Jon C8nC« tfon.C8nC«
U.....
ALUMINUM "91tg 3,230 J 18,245.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC ~ 2.3 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM ~g 39J 195.03 - 1,540
BERYLUUM ~ 0.14 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON ~ 8.5 J 11.65 - 5,970
CALCIUM ~ 3,650 18,772.1 - .
CHROMIUM ~g 8.3 21.52 . 71,100
COBALT ~g 5.5 J 15.28 . 4,540
COPPER IJ91Ig 8.4 19.8 . 2,830
IRON IJ91Ig 11,800 23,702.10 - °
LEAD ~ 2.3 J 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM IJ91Ig 1,780 8,088.43 ° .
MANGANESE ~ 122 J 438.03 . 138
STRONTIUM ~g 51.1 J 210.89 .' 42,700
VANADIUM ~g 32.8 J 49.03 . 498
ZINC no1ca 28.5 J 84.82 . 21,300
HoI88:
1. A blank indic8188 ,II1II the MalyI. - nee cMIMI8CI
2. Rilk.B888d Cri1eri8 - b888d ... u.s. e..,irOlllll8fll8l P.oI8oIion AgeIqIlclllloaIogiaat "-, - 18I1d8nII8I-P'*If' ._.10,
-18rV8I....-r ritk 01 0.000001, and '18rV8I ~Io huard nIa 011.0. Upot"'. rouI88 oon8icI8<8d inoUI8 "'" ingn1ian,
cI8r...1 O«IIacI, inh8l8tian aI ....... Irom 801, 8IId InIIaI8IIon 01 pe/llcultlHIound ~; - "-" IndIcal88 nee tppic8II...
3. H P8f08fIII.. Bteleround c-.trtlion II 08I0uIIII8d Irom a£LB B..m. btalqjlound IOiI dlll8 (0 to 3 1881); ,.,--: JaooIIt. 1885. °M8riM
COIp8 Logietiol B_, S.-, C.lloml8 B8dqpound 8o"1~." T8Cllnia8I _.ndum 0023. Or811 fintI. 30 M8nIh 1885.
4. '¥ qutIIIi8r indic8l- .- II ... 881im8I8 due to being ..... III8n 1M ~,.18nd8rd or dill '0 1nI1ff_-
5. UnII8: mwq- "'110'''''' 1* kIag..m; I'OIk8 . mIcrogr.... per IIJIogI8I'I\.
8. Rttull8.hown Npr_nI - -..a. allM cI8t8 lor 811 regu1llr ......,....
7. Duplicele.88U118 (wII8n di8pl8y8d) ,,,,,,""'118 cI8t8 abI8in8d 011 . II"".. field dupIc8I. aI 0118 allM '801118. .......... All'''''''' with
Ih8 ,au" .lIown in th8 "'8l1li"" 001"",, II ooIndd8nt.L
-------
CT0260187002MN32- 4.)(1.5
CLE.J02-01F~B70Q027
Table 17-7
Maximum Organic Conc8ntratlons In Soli
CAOC 32: Preservation and Packaging Storage Area
Stratum 4: Former Underground Storag8 Tank Location
Depth RIsk.a888d
Below 13 II Crt....
ANllyte Unl18 Reau" DuIlllC8t8 C8IIC8F H~8IIC8F
VoI8ll. Orpnlc8
ACETONE lJQI1co 10 J . 1,370,000
Not.:
1. A blllnk 1nd""'I""''''' 8/I8IyI8 - not d8t8d8d
2. Riok-Baed Cri18ri8 are b888d on U.9. Environ......" p,~ A_loxIcaIcJoIoaI d8Ia, . --ial__f. -ii>,
.1arg8I- rlekal 0.000001, 8ncI.18fV8I ~Io heard Index all.0. Expoeur. - -.oicIerwd Inc.. .oIllnOeetion,
d8rmeloontect, Inh8I8Iion 01 "0181- from 101, encIlnh8I8tIon 01 peJtioulet.bound ""'w-; . '.' 1ndic8t. not appIlo8bll.
3. 'I qualifier 1ncIia8t. ".... io en .11met8 due 10 being 1o_1IIen .... tow.! ,lencI.,d or d.-Io ftterl8f-
4. Unit8: mWk8 . /IIIIIigt8mI1* kilo,,,",,, I'A . mIcrog,.nw 1* kilogram.
5. Aft..... ,hown ,._nt . 00fr1I0III. 01.... d8ta lor atl Ngul8t ~.
8. DuplIc8I. ,...".. (w'- cII8pIooJ8d) '..88fIIIhe d8I8 obt8Jn8d on . lingle II8Id duplcele 01 - 01 \he '8111118,,~ AG,..ment with
.... -u118 1Iho"" In .... "eguIar' ooturm It ooincident8l
-------
CT0260'87002MN32 - 4JQ..S
Clf --'02-0 1 F2tJO.B1-0021
Table 17-8
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In 5011
CAOC 32: Preservation and Packaging Storage Area
Stratum 4: Former Underground Storage Tank location
Depth Mitt Percenlile RIsk-8_ect
Below 13ft B8Ckgraund Cr1t8r18
Analvte Un1t8 Reau" Duplicate Concentr.1Ion C8I'IC« Non~8I'IC8I'
Me""
ALUMINUM "9'k9 19,800 J 4,910 J 16,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC ~g 4.1 0.98 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM ~g 135 48.3 195.03 - 1,540
BERYLUUM "9'k9 0.97 J 0.59 0.129 356
BORON "9'k9 &oJ 23.3 J 11.65 . 5,970
CALCIUM ~g 5,790 2,100 16,772.1 . .
CHROMIUM ~g 39.1 18 21.52 .. 71,100
COBALT ~g 18.2 6.8 J 15.28 - 4,540
COPPER "9'k9 18.5 8.1 19.6 . 2,630
CYANIDE "9'k9 0.76 J O . 1,420
IRON ~g 27,600 14,300 23,702.1 . ..
LEAD ~g 6.1 J 1.8 J 15.45 - 130
MAGNESIUM "9'k9 7,890 2,060 6,086.43 . ..
MANGANESE .g 460 J 352 J 438.03 . 136
NICKEL "91
-------
CT026OI870027\T AB17-9JeLS
CLE-J02-o1F~B7~
Table 17-9
CAOC 32 - Preservation and Packaging Storage Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land-Use Scenario
Totar BackaroundD Incrementaf
Stl'8tum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 2 x 10.5 3.2 2 x 10-5 3.2 <1 X 10-8
2 2 x 1 0-3 2.5 2 x 10.5 2.0 1 x 1 0-3d
3 9 x 1 0-8 1.1 9 x 1 0-8 1.1 <1 x 10-8
4 2 x 10-5 4.1 2 x 10.5 3.9 7 x 1 0-8
8 The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and sile-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet. .
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that Is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
e The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the totaf risk minus the background risk.
This represents the sile-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
d The incremental risk presented in this table is based on the maximum detected Phase I PCB
detection of 5.7 mglkg. Extensive Phase II sampling did not detect any PCBs. Excluding PCBs,
incremental risk is approximately 7 x 10-8,
-------
CT026O\B70027\T AS 17-10JCLS
CLE-J02-o1 F2tIO-B7.0027
Table 17-10
CAOC 32 - Preservation and Packaging Storage Area
Human Health Risk Results
. Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Tatar 8ackaroundb lnerementar
Stratum Cancer Noncaneer Cancer Noncaneer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 2 x 10~ 0.4 2 x 10~ 0.4 <1 x 1 O~
2 4 X 10.5 0.3 4 x 10~ 0.3 1 x 10.5d
3 1 x 10~ 0.1 1 x 10~ 0.1 <1 x 10~
4 3 x 10~ 0.6 3 x 10~ 0.6 3 x 10~
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occuning and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occuning background metals.
e The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
d The incremental risk presented in this table is based on the maximum detected Phase I PCB
detection of 5.7 mg'kg. Extensive Phase" sampling did not detect any PCBs. Excluding PCBs,
incremental risk is approximately 2 x 1 O~.
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN36_1.XLS
CLE.J02~1 F260-B7~7
Table 18-1
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 36: Proposed Paint Combat Vehicle Maintenance Shop
Stratum 1: StOr8ge Area
Depth RI.k-88Hd
Oto3ft CrIt...
An8IYIe UnItII Reau- DuJJllc8I8 C8I1C8I' Non.(:8nC8r
Pe811c1c188/PC8.
DEL TA.BHC uanca 0.2 J 158 .
Semivollltlle Oft8n1ce
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE ~ 46J 20,400 780,000
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE IJQI1ca 740 . 7,800,000
NoI88:
1. A blink IndIo81..1h8t I118I1n81yte - not d81eded
2. Rilk.1I888d Crit8r18 a.. baaed 011 U.S. Envlranmantal P,OCedlon Agency lalrlcologlc8l d8ta. a 188ld8nt11lupoaura .-,ario,
a WgaI oa..- It8k 01 0.000001, and al8lgalnonaanllr1oganio hua,1I ndax OC 1.0. EXpoauIa rouIae ~ IncWe .DII ing881iDn.
d8nr81 DDnI8GI, inhalation 01 volati188 ',om 801, and inhIIIIIIan 01 paItIoullt.bouncI 8Uba'-;. '.' ftIic8t.. not apptioabla.
3. 'r qual~i8f IncIio8I88 v"'. .. an ..IIm8Ie clue ID baing ..... 1'-1118 ....., 81811d8ld Dr due ID inl8II.-
4. Units: rr9ku . mlllgrama per idiogram; I'OIkg . rNoIogr8m8 per Idlogrwn.
5. R8a1l1la .hawn .."._nt . ~a 01 Ilia 11818 tor 8A regula, ......,....
8. Duplioat. r88lll\a ("'*' 1118pI8)'ed) r....,. 1118 d8Ia obIaInad an allngla'l8IcI lIupIc8ta 01 ana 01 the 18ll1l1a, .~. "'Or""'" with
1118 _lib ahown In 1118 "811111'" Dol"",,, .. DoInddantal
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN36_1. XLS
CLE-J02001 F260-B7.0027
Table 18-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 36: Proposed Paint Combat Vehlcl. Maintenance Shop
Stratum 1: Storage Area
DepCh I5Ih PlrC8l'ltlle Rlak.e888d
OloSft Beckgrouncl Crtter18
Anlilyte Unl18 Reaul8r Duplicate Concenlratlon C8nC8I' Non-C8nC8I'
Metals
ALUMINUM mWkg 9,540 6.300 16,245.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC rT9kg 2.1 J 1.3 J 5.47 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mWkg 102 103 195.03 - 1.540
BORON mWkg 1.4 J 11.65 - 2,970
CALCIUM ~g 4,220 2,890 16,772.1 - -
CHROMIUM ~g 9.7 21.52 . 71,100
COBALT rT9kg 4.5 J 3.7 J 15.28 . 4,540
COPPER If9'kg 12.8 J 9.4 J 19.6 . 2,630
IRON ~9 13,800 10,700 23,702.1 . -
LEAD If9'kg 5.3 J 3.7 15.45 . 130
MAGNESIUM "9'1<9 3,810 2,830 8,086.43 . -
MANGANESE If9'kg 202 147 438.03 . 136
NICKel rT9kg 7.1 5.6 15.27 150 1,400
POTASSIUM rT9kg 1,860 1,360 5,785.65 - .
SELENIUM ~g 1.5 J 0 - 356
SODIUM ~g 201 J 147 J 675.29 - .
STRONTIUM ~ 63.2 52.5 210.89 - 42,700
THALLIUM ~g 0.46 J 0.35 J 0 . 4.98
VANADIUM ~g 28.1 22.6 49.03 - 498
ZINC mg.1(g 31.9 27.2 64.82 - 21,300
No...:
1. Ii. blank lndic8.,ha11h8 8naIy18 - net d818d8d
2. Riok.8eMe1 Criterta - b8Md on u.s. Ennonm8fll8l p,gl8C!IJon Agency toxiooloOlcaI d8la, a -idantial8Iound ""'18_: e'.' iIdica1.. net eppIic8b18.
3. 86 P..-rtlle Bacloground c-t,8Iion io O8lcul8l8d ',om MeL8 8...low background loll dela (010 31881); ......-: J8oob8. 1886. 'Merna
Corpe logillic8 BaN, 8.,l\ow. Calilomialledlilround 80.. '_ligIIIion.' Technioel ~andum 0023. 0.811111181. 30 March 1l1li6.
... . J' quald.., Indlc8l.. .akHI io an -tim81e due to being low. ItIan 1118 tow.l I18nderd or clue 10 ",erfar-
6. Unill: mg/IIe . millig,amo per kilogram; \9'ICII . mlcrogr- per idiogram.
8. ReI"" llIown repr_nI e ~ 011118 dale lor ell '811. .........
7. Duplicate ,....111 (when dilplayed) 'eprel8nllhe dela obtained on elingle lleid duplcele 01 01\8 011118 ,,,,,,,Ie, 18frC)IeI. AQ'MmIIII willi
1118 ,..u" llIown In lhe "811""" ooIumn io ooinoidenIaL
-------
CT026O\B70027\TAB1~.XLS
CLE-J02.01 F260-B7-00z7
Table 18-3
CAOC 36 - Proposed Paint Combat Vehicle Maintenance Shop
Human Health Risk Results .
Residential and Industrial Land-Use Scenarios
T ota" Backarouncr' lnerem.ntar
Cancer Noneaneer Cancer Noneaneer Cancer
Risk Hszard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
Residential 7 x 1 0-8 1.9 7 x 1 0-8 1.9 <1 X 10-8
Industrial 1 x 1 0-8 0.3 1 x 1 0-8 0.3 <1 X 10-8
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
II Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
e The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
CT02e0\B7OO27\RNOI - t ,)(LS
CLE-.kI2.ot F28G-87-OO27
t.ble 19-1
M.xlmum Orgenlc Concentr81lon8 In 5011
CAOC 01: landfill North 01 the Go" Course
Str.tum 1: The landfill Ar88
Depth AI.k-8.ed
OlOlft Crlt8rl.
AMlYa. UnI.. A8Qulu DupIJc.a. C.ncer Non..c_er
P..tJclcle8IPCB,
4,4'-DOE IJOI1IG 0.99 J 0.92 J 839 -
4,4'-00T l'IJI1Iu 1,0 J 1.4 J 839 19,500
AlPHA-CHlORDANE lJOI1Iu 0.34 J 0,74 J 219 2,340
BET A-BHC lJOI1Iu 0.21 J 0,50 J 158 -
ENORIN IJOI1IG 0,41 J - 11,700
GAMMA-CHlOR>ANE I UQ/1(a 0.20 J 219 2,340
,.Iro"'m Hydroc.ban.
TPH-DIESEl I ma.1ca 41 J 14 J . .
-:
1. A--"''''~-'''''''''
2. -- c.-.... b8Md Oft U.S. E"'---" P"'" ~ miooIogIc8I cIaI8. . .................---.,
. '"'VOI--!1011 '" 0._, and . '"'VOInoo..-.....1Ic h8IInI ftI8c '" I .0. ~ - --.....cI"'" aoI"""",
cI8rmII c:onI8<:I. inII8IIIion "'........ '""".... and .......... "'''''''-..1''-''''' . "."Indic-."" ..,.,.,....
3. 'J --Ird_'- it.. _d.-to""",, _Nn'" _....sn Of _to-"
4. 1M""" -mi8g-I*!llagram;.1OA .........,...,.........
5. fIooub - --. -...... '" ttw d- lor II ......, ~
e. o~ - CW-~ --ttw_""""'''' .......-~"'_oIttw _..~ ~-
.. -.. - III"'''''''''''''''' 10----
-------
C T028O\B70027\RN!' - 1.IQ.8
CLEoJ02.o' F28G-97'()()27
Table 1&-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentration. In Soli
CAOC 01: landfill North of the Go" Cour88
Stratum 1: The landfill Area
Depth Hth P.C8I1"1e RI.k-Ba..d
OtoSft B8Ckgrounci Criteria
Ana1yt8 UnI.. Reaulu DuDUc... C_8I1tr8llon Canc... Non.canc...
Metale
ALUMINUM .9 11,100 J 22.434.3 - 71,100
ANTIMONY .9 12.0 J 10.9 J 0 . 29.4
ARSENIC .9 5.0 2.7 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM .g 167 82.8 205.97 . 1,540
BORON .g 17.0 J 27.9 J 48.61 . 5,970
CADMIUM .g 3.4 2.7 1.28 9 39
CALCIUM .g 21.000 12,400 27,311.4 . -
CHROMIUM .g 16.1 J 10.3 J 33.16 . 71.100
COBALT .9 10.6 J 8.3 J 44.87 - 4.540
COPPER .g 2U J 12.1 J 45.79 - 2,630
IRON .9 14,100 J 10.700 J 38,831.9 .
LEAD .g 15.3 12.1 17.82 . 130
MAGNESIUM .g 8,390 6.820 13,347.8 .
MANGANESE .9 816 434 895.88 . 138
MOL YBOENUM If91Ig 0.64 J 0 . 35-4
NICKEL fl9'\g 13.3 7.8 J 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM .9 4,910 J 3,560 J 11,501.4 . -
SODIUM .g 2.870 2,180 456.42 - .
STRONTIUM .g 188 J 128 J 187.98 " 42.700
VANADIUM .g 40.9 29.0 84.14 - 498
ZINC I maiko 72.6 60.9 79.88 . 21,300
-:
1. A_k Ind_'" the ~ -_-.:lId
a. Rioll-ll..8d CrtIori8 - b888d Oft US. E........... p.......,..., 1IIIIiooIDgic8I-....-..._--.
........... .... of 0_1. IIId ..... _---...,..ic _1nd8I of 1.0. e....,. -- - new. ""1ngaoIiDn.
donnII COII18o\ -- of...wIN.......... and In- "'~ ............ . "0" -- naI ~.
3. 11& P.....101ladlgoound c-1r.... II cU:uIo18d""'" MCUI e.- "",*"",,,ncI....... (0" 31Mt1: rtI_: .-. 'IIOII. ........
Coopa LogiIIIoa 1880. aa-. Call1omio ~ 8010 I............." r...-. -....nduon oorn. D"" final. 30 - 'IIOII.
4. ',/ qual.. 1nd1co8...-" .. - d.... boing --... - ....... or MID-
5. ~'a: "" 0 nilgl8mlparldlaO- '" 0"""'" par .....,...
e. Roauh Ihwn ..-. -.... "'.,. - tor.........-""
7. D....,....-.. fw1Ian~~'" - allClNdCIII. oin8lo_d~ "'.... dllla ~Iof -.... ~...
....-.. - in... --... -"" 18--
-------
CT0260\B7002MN01_2JClS
CLE~1F260-B7-(I027
Table 19-3
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 01: landfill North of the Golf Course
Stratum 2: Suspected Landfill Area
DepIh Rllk-88Ud
0103" Crft8r18
Anlllyt. Unltll R8IIu" Duplicate C8nC8r ~8nC8r
P..tIcI~.
4,4'-Doo ~ 11 J 1.4 J 1,190 -
4,4'-DDE ~g 150 0.67 J B39 -
4,4'-DDT ~ 110 3.7 J B39 19,500
ALDRIN ~g 0.49 J 17 1,170
ALPHA. CHLORDANE ~ 6.4 J 3.7 J 219 2,340
AROClOR-1254 ~ 100 J 47 ,
DIELDRIN ~ 42J 2.2 J 18 1,950
ENDOSUlFAN II ~ 1.8 J - 1,950
ENDRIN ~ 0.94 J - 11,700
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE ~ 0.67 J - 11,700
ENDRIN KETONE ~g 1.7 J . 11,700
GAMMA-CHLORDANE ~g 10 J 3.7 J 219 2,340
Semlvolalle Org_1c8
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE ~g 280 J 391 .
BENZO(A)PYRENE ~g 580 39 '
BENZO(K)FlUORANTHENE ~g 750 610 '
CHRYSENE ~ 370 6,100 '
DIETHYl PHTHALATE ~g 73 J - 3.1E~7
PHENANTHRENE ~g 52J -
PYRENE UQ/1(g 250 J . 1,170,000
Petroteum HydrOC8fbon8
TPH - DIESEL no'ka 340 J 460 J . -
Not...:
1. A bIoInk indical_lhai the IIna""a -- naI d8tac:led
2. Rilk.B888d Criteria... baed on u.s. Envwonmentat Pralec:lion Agency toxicological data, a ...ld8ntial upoIUra _nerio,
a t8fV81 08IlO8l riak 01 0.000001, end ala/g8l noncarcftogenic huard ma 01 1.0. EIpCI8,.a rouI- coMJd8r8d Incklde aoillngeetion,
......t conIact, Inhalation 01 vol.i... Irom 8011, IIId Inh8I8tion 01 peI1iculel.bound ~; a . -' 1ndic81. naI applicable.
3. 'r qualdl8rlndicat. valua Ie 8ft ..lim8Ia due 10 being ~ then 11181OW81 8I8nderd Of due to Interf..-
4. Unit.: mgIkg - millig.."" pe, kiIog..m; .1IWkO - 1Tictog- per kilogram.
5. Re8uft8.hown ~""nla ~ 01 the dale tOf 8111811""'''''''''
8. -OUplicata ,eeull8 (wII8n di8pl8y8d) 'epNII8III lhe d818 otJI8in8d on a lingleli8ld duplcala 01- 01 the regule, a..... AQr""'" w!Ih
the 18ul!8 8hownln 1118 "egular' ooIumn 18 ooInoicI8n1aL
-------
CT0260'B7002MN01_2.XLS
ClE .J02-G1F260-BH)027
Table 19-4
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 01 : landfill North of the Golf Course
Strlltum 2: Suspected Landfill Area
DepIh Hili percena.. RI8k.a888d
Oto3ft B8Ckground CrIt8I18
An8lyte Unltll A8Gu" DuDilcat. Concentr8llon C8nC8r N~8nCer
Meta's
ALUMINUM meN 14,200 6,100 22,434.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC meN 8.5 J 4.3 J 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM n91q) 139 75.5 205.97 . 1,540
BERYLLIUM meN 0.65 J 0.35 J 1.18 0.129 356
BORON n91q) 32.1 J 10.4 J 48.51 . 5,970'
CADMIUM n91q) 1.1 1.28 9 39
CAlCIUM ~ 27,000 12,400 27,311.4 - .
CHROMIUM ~ 16.9 8.8 33.15 . 71,100
COBALT ~ 8.7 J 2.8 J 44.87 . 4,540
COPPER n9\g 33.4 10.5 45.78 " 2,630
IRON "" 17,400 9,820 38,831.9 . .
lEAD n9\g 84.1 J 13.7 J 17.82 . 130
MAGNESIUM n91cg 7,820 3,330 13,347.8 . -
MANGANESE "" 418 223 695.88 . 138
MERCURY meN 0.13 O . 21
NICKEL ~g 14.4 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM meN 4,590 2,070 11,501.4 . .
SELENIUM .9 0.80 J O . 356
Sil YER rng.1(g 1.6 J O . 356
SODIUM rng.1(g 546 J 220 J 455.42 . -
STRONTIUM ,.g 200 66.7 167.96 - 42,700
VANADIUM :: 34.4 21.7 84.14 . 498
ZINC 88.7 J 84.4 J 79.88 . 21,300
NoI":
1. A blink IncIio8l..lhatlhe 8I1a1y1e - naI d81eded
2. Ailk.8aed Crtl8ri8 .ra baed on U.S. Envi'onm811181 P,oI8dIon Ag8IICy 1oa1cologic81 d818, . -1d8nII8J .opoour. 1_'10,
. 18l'1l8I c.- ..II or O.OOOOC)1. .nd . \arg8I -Inogenio haatd Index 011.0. Eopo8l" rout.. ccineId..8d incMIe IOIIIng88Uon,
cIer...1 conI8c1, Inh8l8\ion or ..OI8III8I"om 101, 8I1d InhMUIn 01 parllcul8lHM>und IIUI:II_;. "." iId~ ncI 8PPI1c8b18.
3. 85 P.R*lli18l18ckground Conc8nt,.1ion it calcul8Wd from MeL8 8...10. b8c:kground loll 0181810 10 3 18811; ..,.,-: ....... 1885. ,,.,iIe
eo.p. Logitl... 8_, 8_0., eal'omi. 8ecq.ound Soh 1_1g8\ion." T_rncal ~.ndum 0023. Drall line'. 30........ 1885.
4. 'J' qU8'~" .~ ...1118 iI 811 ..limat. due \0 being ..... \1Ian Ihe "'-Illandard 01 01.'0 lnIarf_-
5. Una: "9'k8 . nifHg- lief idiogram; I9k8 . mlc:rogr... lief kilogram.
8. Aftub l\\own "_III . ~. or 1118 d8I8 lor .. NgUIer 18"1118a.
7. Duplicate ,aauftl (w,*, dilf'layad) rapraMnllha d8I8 otJI8Inad on alingla liaIcI dupllc8le 01- or Ihe ,egu18, I~ Agr88lY*1l willi
1118 ,nub lhown In Ihe "'88""1' ooIurm it ooinoidanIaL
-------
CT026(NJ70027\RN01_3Jic:otl .IOU" twten dIIpIopld) 18p1l""", 1118 dill obIto- on I M1gIo Iillill ~icotl 0/ 0"" 01..... ~. 8M1pI88. .-ont w."
tho 'llutl lhown In tt8 ..eg"". cot.Jmn ill coincIcIo_l.
-------
CT~70027\RNOI_3J
-------
CT026O\B70027\T AS 19-7JeLS
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Table 19-7
CAOC 1 - landfill North of the Golf Course
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land-Use Scenario
10tal8 BackCl roundD lnerementar
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 2 x 1 0.6 5.7 2 x 10.5 5.2 2 x 1 0.7
2 5 x 1 0-5 3.8 3 x 10-5 3.7 2 x 10.5
3 4 x 10-5 5.6 3 x 1 0-5 4.7 1 x 10.5
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
e The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
CT026O\B70027\TAB1~.XL.S
CLE.J02-01 F260-B7.()()27
Table 19-8
CAOC 1 - landfill North of the Golf Course
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Total. Backgroundll Incrementaf
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 3 x 1 0-8 0.7 3 x 1 0-8 0.7 1 x 1 0-8
2 1 X 10.5 0.5 4 x 1 0-8 0.5 7 x 1 0-8
3 8 x 1 0-8 0.7 5 x 1 0-8 0.6 3 x 1 0-8
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
II Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN03_1.XLS
CLE-J02'()1 F260-B7.()(Y27
Table 20-1
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 03: Wastewater Disposal Area
Stratum 1: GoI' Course
D8pItI Depth RIak-88Hd
Ot03ft 3 to 13 ft crn...
Arullyte Un1t8 Regu" R8IIul. C8nCer Non.c8nCer
Peallcld88lflC8a
4,4'-Doo ~g 4.1 J - 1,190 -
4,4'-DDE ~ 48J - 839 -
4,4'-DDT ~g 45J 1.3 J 839 19,500
ALPHA-CHLORDANE IIg/1(g 21 J 4.3 J 219 2,340
DIELDRIN IIg/1(g 94J - 18 1,950
GAMMA-CHLORDANE ~ 20J . 219 2,340
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE ~ 3.4 J 0.78 J 31 507
Semlv.'" Org8n1ce
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE I'IJI1tg 220 J . 20,400 780,000
PYRENE ualka 71 J - - 1,170,000
P81roleum HycRc8rb0n8 - -
TPH . DIESEL I1Qta 93J . . .
VoI.tI.. Org8n1ce
2-BUTANONE I'IJI1tg - 3J - 5,140,000
ACETONE ~g 8J . - t ,370,000
METHYLENE CHLORIDE ~g 3J . 14800 385,000
XYLENES (TOTAL) ~g 2J - - 98,800
Nol.:
1. A blank indica... Ih8IlM 8II8IyIa -- not d8t8deel
2. Rillk.8888d Cm.,;a .,. b88ee1 on U.S. E"".on"""" p,CC- Ag811CY loaiDatogiDIIJ d81a, a __181 -_a _10,
a telll8l ca..- rIIIk eI 0.00001)1, and al8lJl8l""",*"inog8nlc huard ~ eI 1.0. Ex_ra """.. conaid8rwd Inck1d8 aoill"ll88lion,
....1 cont8d,Inh818tion eI vol8li8l,om"", 8ncI in11818Iion eI pertlcul8t.bound aub8te_; a'.' incIic81.. not eppIlc8ble.
3. 'I queldie< indic8l8tl va. II.. ..Iimeta d...1o being low< Ih.., th8 _I al8nd8td or dU8 1o ntell_-
4. UnIl8: rrcJko . "'11gr8rr8 pe' kiIog..m; .1IOfkg . microv''''' 1* kilDgl8m.
S. R..ui1l lhown """..... a ~ ellM date lor an I8g\It8f ...........
8. Oupticll1a ,esua, (when diapl8yed) 'epre88n1lh8 d818 otII8inad on a 8ingIa liald duple". eI - ellh8 ragule, ..~. AG,..ment with
1118 ""ulla Ihown in 1M "agul..' coIurm ill coinoidenlaL
-------
CT0260\B70027\AN03_1.XLS
ClE-J02-Q1 F260-B7~7
Table 20-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 03: Wastewater Disposal Area
Stratum 1: Golf Course
Depth Depth IS'" PercenUIe RI.k~8Md
OtoSft 110 13 ft BlICkground Criteria
Analyte Units Regu" Reaul. Dullllc81e ConcentraUon Cancer Non-Cancer
Metals
ALUMINUM .9 18,400 24,300 15,400 22,434.3 ' 71,100
ARSENIC .9 7.7 J 5.6 J 2.9 J 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM .9 234 162 126 205.97 . 1,540
BERYLUUM .9 0.91 J 0.85 J 0.57 J 1.18 0.129 3S6
BORON .9 57.0 J 43.5 J 32.6 J 48.51 . 5,970
CALCIUM .9 39,900 J 41,500 J 68,800 J 27,311.4 . -
CHROMIUM .9 17.8 24,3 12.7 33.15 . 71,100
COBALT .9 8.5 J 7.5 J 4.2 J 44.87 . 4,540
COPPER .g 24.1 22.8 13.1 45.78 - 2,630
CYANIDE mglkg - 0.31 J - o . 1,420
IRON mgikg 19,900 25,000 15,700 38,831.9 - -
LEAD mgikg 17.2 J 10.0 J 4.9 J 17.82 . 130
MAGNESIUM mgIkg 11,700 13,400 10,900 13,347.8 - -
MANGANESE mgIkg 556 589 373 895.68 - 138
NICKEL mgIkg 17.3 18.9 9.7 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM mgIkg 6,330 7,090 3,370 11,501.4 - .
SELENIUM IJ91cg - 14.3 J - o . 3S6
SODIUM. IJ91cg 3,490 4,840 2,040 455.42 . .
STRONTIUM IJ91cg 304 J 459 J 521 J 187.98 . 42,700
VANADIUM IJ91cg 39.4 49.6 26.2 84.14 . 498
ZINC !T9'kg 89.2 J 75.3 J 43.1 J 79.68 . 21,300
NoI"':
I. A blank indi08I..lhllllhe lnaIyIl - not cI8I8Clled
2. Riok.8888d Cril8f18 818 baed on U.S. ErwIrOM'l8nl81 P,0I8dIan Agenay kllllooIogio8I d818, I -identi8I Upoeurl t-»,
al8rgt1-- ..k 01 0.000001, InCI Il8rgt1_8IClrIogtnio h8Z8rd indu aI 1.0. Elpoeurl rouI88 oontId8Ied 1ncb18 toillngMtion,
cl8rrral-ucl, Inh8l8lion 01 wol8tillt ',om 101, 8IId inII8I8ion aI partiouItIHIaund ----: I '.' lrlclioIII8t not 8ppI1081118.
3. 85 P_III 8ec~round C-',1IIIon II c81cul8t8d ',om MCl8 8..1- btakground 80iI data (010 3'881); 181"'_: J8ooIIt. 1885. 'M8r1rl8
COfJI8 logmm 8..., 88111_, Cal'omla 8adoground Soh 'rweetivtlion.' Techniotl Memorandum 0023. Draft II"". 30 Mtrch 1885.
.. 'J' _I~itr IndlC8l.. wakle iI an ..tim8lt due 10 baing 1o_1htn Ihe 1o_I8Iandard Of dll810 1r11811..-
6. Unh: "9'1<8 . milHg""" ",,1IiIog"m; I'Wk8 . rricnIgr.... per IUIogI8m.
8. A88ullt thown NIW-nI a""""",,,", aI\he d818 lor In regular a"""'"
7. Ouplical' ,et. (wh811 diopl8yed) "pre88111 the d8I8 obt8in8d on I lingle field duplCett 01 - allM ''IIuII, ..,.... .-..
Ihl ,...utt tllown In Ih8 "'IIu"" ooIurm it oaincicltnllL
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN03~.XLS
CLE.J02.01F~B7~7
Table 20-3
Maximum Orgenlc Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 03: Wasteweter Dlspoul A....
Stratum 2: Disposel Ponds and Overflow Area
AIUII
Pe81c1~.
4,4'.DDD
HEPTACHLOR
YoI8t11e 0rg8nIc8
ACETONE
UnI..
8Hd
Crttwla
C8ftC8' Non-Cancer
~g
0.49 J
0.26 J
0.71 J
1,190
83
19,500
SJ
1,370,000
No"':
I. A bIIonk IndIo8t- th81 the 8118¥8 - no! cI8teGI8d
2. Rl8k.B888CI Crlt8lla .. b888d on U.S. EnvlrOllllWllal Prol8dlon Agency laIiDoIoglc8I dU, . _ld8ntiel IIXpoIUr8 _10,
8 \8IgeI- rIIk III 0.000001, end 818rge1 ~ "-d ftI8X III 1.0. ex...". - oon8Id8I8d ilia.. eoil ingeation,
....loonI8Ct, InII8I8tIon III-_Iram 101, end Inh8I8tIon III p8ItIculod""""" ----; 8 '.' ~ no! eppIiaeble.
3. 'I qII8IIIl8r Indlo8l88 "Ul8 18 811 _ti- due to being Iow8t then the '--' 8I8nderd or due to inteot..-
4. Unitt: mg/IIO . mIIIIgrwN per kJlognom; .19'1<8 . rriotog..... per kJlDgnun.
5. R88u118 lhown ,._nt . ~. III the dllla for ,II ..gul8r .."....
8. DupIicaI8 ,...111 ('"'*' diaplayad) ,.,...nt lhe data obt8in8d on . aingla flald dup1c818 III - III the regular 88fT1'1a8. AQraamanl with
the _u118 aho- in Ih8 'regular' ooIumn 18 ooinc:id8nt8L
-------
CT026O\870027\RN03-2.XLS
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Table 20-4
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 03: Wastewater Disposal Area
Stratum 2: Disposal Ponds and Overflow Area
Depth 15111 Perc8nale RIak~8Hd
310 13ft 88ClIground Crlt...
Analyte Unlta Reaul8r DuDtlcete Concentraaon Cancer NorM:ancer
M.....
ALUMINUM IT9'kg 2.320 2.250 22,434.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC IT9'kg 0.90 J 0.83 J 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM IT9'kg 29.2 J 28.7 J 205.97 - 1,540
BORON IT9'kg 3.0 J - 48.51 . 5,970
CALCIUM IT9'kg 1,0460 1,310 27,311.4 . -
CHROMIUM IT9'kg 3.0 2.8 33.15 . 71,100
COPPER If9'kg - 3.0 J 45.78 - 2,830
IRON IT9'kg 3,870 4.200 38831.9 - .
LEAD If9'kg 2.0 J 1.7 J 17.82 . 130
MAGNESIUM IT9'kg 1,150 1,170 13,347.8 . -
MANGANESE IT9'kg 72.5 73.8 895.88 . 136
POTASSIUM .g 898 J 891 J 11,501.4 . -
SIL YER II91tg 0.57 J - 0 . 356
SODIUM II91tg 190 J . 455.42 . .
STRONTIUM mg1tg 25.7 J 28.0 J 187.98 - 42.700
VANADIUM .g 8.8 J 8.5 J 84.14 - 498
ZINC ma/ka 18.6 18.9 79.88 - 21,300
No...:
1. A bl8nk Indi08188 IhIIt th8 ..,~ - naI d8I8Cll8d
2. Rilk.B888d CrillIri.... b888d on U.S. env.onmenl8l P,0I8GIIon AII8fICY 101-"'" d818,. ....ld8nti8Iupoeu18 '-10,
. \8IgeI C8I-. ritk r:A 0.000001, and.'8JV8I noncan:hogenla hua,d nd8x 011.0. ~...IOUt- -.Ider8d Inc" .011 ""'ion,
.......loonI8ct, inh8l8lion r:A voI8IiIe8 from"", .nd ..-ion r:A pertlwlet.bound 8&1Ilol'_;. ',' Wldla- nal8PPIio8I>".
3. 85 Pe
-------
CT026O\S70027\T AB20-5JCLS
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Table 20-5
CAOC 3 - Wastewater Disposal Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land-Use Scenario
Totar BackCl round" lnerementar:
Stnrtum Cancer Noncaneer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 4 x 10-5 5.3 3 x 10.5 .5.1 6 x 1 0-8
2 3 x 1 0-8 0.7 3 x 1 0-6 0.7 <1 X 10-8
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
e The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
CT0260\B70027\T AB20-6JCLS
CLE-J02-o1F~B7-0027
Table 20-6
CAOC 3 - Wastewater Disposal Area
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Totar BackaroundD Incrementar
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 7 x 1 0-6 0;8 5 x 10-6 0.7 2 x 1 0-6
2 5 x 1 0-7 0.1 5 x 10.7 0.1 <1 x 10-6
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN04_1.XLS (Sheet 2)
CLE-JQ2-Q1 F260-B7-0027
Table 21-1
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 04: Old Trap and Skeet Range Area
Stratum 1: Area Identified In IAS
No Analytes Detected
-------
CT026O\B70027\RN04_1.XLS (Sheet 1)
CLE-J02'()1F2~B7~7
Table 21-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In 5011
CAOC 04: Old Trap anet Skeet Range Area
Stratum 1: Area Identified In IAS
Depth 15th Pen:wltlle AIek-8.ed
31013 n Background crn...
An"yte UnI.. Aeau.. Concenlnltlon C8nC8' N~8nC8l'
Uet8'8
ALUMINUM mg.1
-------
CT026O\870027\RN04,..2.XLS
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7.()()27
Tabl.21.3
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 04: Old Trap and Skeet Rang. Area
Stratum 2: Trap and Skeet Range
Depth Depth RI.k-6.8d
o to SII , 10 13 II Crll.....
AMlyt. Unltll Regul8r Regul8r Cencer Non-Cencer
P_lIcId8lJPC8.
ALPHA-CHLORDANE IIQIkg 0.21 J 219 2,340
Semivolallie Organics
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE ~ 150 J 391 -
BENZO(A)PYRENE IIQIkg 270 J 39 .
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE ~g 3eO 391 .
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE ~ 240 J . .
CHRYSENE ~ 170 J 8,100 '
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE ~g 1,800 J 2,100 J . 3,900,000
DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE jJgI1qJ 52 J 39 -
FLUORANTHENE jJgI1qJ 120 J . 1,580,000
INDEN0(1,U-CD)PYRENE ~g 190 J 391 -
PYRENE IIQIkg 130 J . 1,170,000
NoI88:
1. A blink IndicIIl..lhat tile 81181yt1 - naI del8d8d
2. Rlok.S- Criteria Ire _eel on U.S. Erwi-onmentel Proledion Agency toxlcologlcel dele, I reoiclenli8lexpoeurl '--lriD,
I large! ce..- rtak 01 0.000001, Ind llerget nonc8ICinogenlc huerd Index 011.0. Expoeurl rouI88 -.- include ooil ingeetion,
derfl'lll-.tect, Inhllation 01 voleli1e8 'rom 101, end Inhll8tion 01 pertioullt..bound .ubalefICII; I -.' IndIc8t88 noIlppliceble.
3. '" queldi8r indic8t.. Velol io an lllimeIl due 10 being IowM IhIn the ~1118nderd Of due to 1n18I18
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN04_2.XLS
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Tabl.21-4
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 04: Old Trap and Skeet Rang. Area
Stratum 2: Trap and Skeet Rang.
Depth Depth ISth Percenllle RI.k~8Md
OtoSIt S to 13 It 8_ground Crn...
An8lyt. Unl18 Regu- Reaul. COhC:81traUon Can..- NorH::ancer
11...1.
ALUMINUM fTI91tg 8,670 2,200 22,434.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC fTI91tg 3.4 J 1.7 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM fTI91tg 68.8 18.0 J 205.97 - 1,540
BORON "91Ig 7.1 J 2.6 J 48.51 - 5,970
CALCIUM .g 27,700 1,590 27,311.4 - -
CHROMIUM .g 11.0 4.9 33.15 . 71,100
COBALT fTI91tg 6.2 J 2.0 J 44.87 . 4,540
COPPER ,.g 11.5 2.3 J 45.78 - 2,630
IRON .g 14,300 J 5,880 J 38,831.9 . .
LEAD fr91qJ 10.4 1.8 17.82 . 130
MAGNESIUM ,.g 4.420 813 13,347.8 . -
MANGANESE r'9'kg 253 68.8 695.68 . 138
MOLYBDENUM I'f91Ig 3.4 J 0 . 354
NICKEL fTI91tg 10.2 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM r'9'kg 2,800 800 J 11,501.4 . .
SODIUM r'9'kg 807 446 J 455.42 . .
STRONTIUM ~ 83.8 J 20.5 J 167.98 . 42,700
THALLIUM .9 0.48 J O . 4.98
VANADIUM "91Ig 28.2 13.1 84.14 - 498
ZINC mo'ka 32.1 11.0 79.68 . 21,300
NoI":
I. II blink indica... lhat the -Iyte - no! d8t1ld8d
2. Ritk.8- Cril8lia ... b888d on U.S. Envlronnwntal P,al8dion Ag8ncy lalliaolagical d8la, a -1d8nt18l-_,a .-.8<10,
a 18rgee ..- rilk '" 0.000001, 8IId al8tg8l noncarcmg.nic huwd Indn '" 1.0. Elpaour8 rout.. oonaIcI808d !new. aoillngealion,
dar.... contact, 1nh8l8tion '" volati188.,om 101, and inhalation '" pIII1Jcu1818-bound ...ba18"""; a'.' IndIc8t88 noIapptic8b18.
3. 85 P_i18 8ackground ~8Iion II calcul8l8cllrom Met8 Be18tow ~round.oiI d818 (0 to 3 18811= --: "-'bo. 1885. 'M8IM
C....,. LOOillic8 8_, 88181ow, CalilomI8 8acIoo"",nd Soh I~ion" Tac-looI8naandum 0023. Draft linal. 30 MIICIII885.
4. 'J' quald... indic8I88 vn.. it 811 ..tim8le due to b8ino 10- then the IoMeI 11ancl8rd 01 due to in181i..-
5. Un~l: "9'k8 . miIigr8ms per kitogram; W'8 . rricrog,.... per 1U1og,8/ft.
8. Rauno lhawn ..- a ooqIOIIta '" the d8t8101 ... r-uu18, I""'.
7. Duplic8Ie ,...... ("'- cIiopleyad) ,aprnant the d8I8 obI8Jn8d on a Iinole'i8Id duplica1a '" one '" lhe ,agula, .a"""'. Ag,Mm8n1_h
the ,au" lhawn in the "agu'8I" aaIumn . ooincidental
-------
CT0280\870027\RN04_3.XLS
CLE.J02-o1 F~B7-0027
Table 21-5
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 04: Old Trap and Skeet Range Area
Stratum 3: Infrared Photo-IR Anomaly
Depth Rlak-8aecl
3 to 13 It Crlterl.
An8IIyte Un118 Reau" Dupllc8t8 C8ncer No~8nC8r
Pallclde8lPC88
ALPHA.BHC ~ 0.3 J 45 .
SemlvoiaUIe Org..a
CI.N.BUTYl PHTHALATE ~ 100 J 190 J . 3,900,000
NoI8e:
1. A blank....l..Ih8Ithe ~ - nald8I8OIed
2. Rilk.B888d Cn18ri8 ... b888d on U.S. ErmOMWll8l P,oI8cIIlon Agency toxlcoloGlo8I d81a. 8 -ldentiIJ expoeu,e .-..10,
elerg8l c- riak of 0.000001, 8nd 818f1181l101108J'Cinog8io hu8rd... of 1.0. Expoeu,e routn conlidered Include loil inge8tion,
......1 conI8at, inh.18l1on of wol8lilnlrom 801, 8nd ~h81811on of poIIticulllHlound .ublll8l1C88; . '.' 1ndic8t- noI.ppllceble.
3. '" qualnl. indic8t- waJue iI 811 _Ii""" dU8to being '-- then 1M ~ .18nd8rd Of due 10 merter-
... lInJtI: ~ . m8igtM8 pe, kilogr8ni; .Wkg . micq..... perldlogl8lll. .
5. Re8ullllhown ..-nt 8 ~ of the d8t8 lor 811 regullr .......
8. Duplicate '_111 (when ~ ...-nt '118 d8Ia obI8inecI on 811ng1811e1d dupic8t8 of - of 1M '8IIuI8, I~. Ag,--.t wtth
the -.... Iho- In the "811""" ooIumn II ooIncidenl8L
-------
CT026O\B7002MN04_3.XLS
CLE-JQ2-01 F260-B7-0027
Table 21~
Maximum Inorganic Concentration. In Soli
CAOC 04: Old Trap and Skeet Range Area
Stratum 3: Infrared Photo-IR Anomaly
Depth 15th P.-cen1l18 RI.k-8aed
3 10 13 n BlICkground Criteria
An8lyte Units Reau- DuIlllc8- Concentration Cancer No~ancer
Metals
ALUMINUM ~g 4,700 J 1,940 J 22,434.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC ~g 2.8 J 1.4 J 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM ~ 57.8 17.2 J 205.97 - 1,540
BORON ~g 5.5 3.4 48.51 . 5,970
CALCIUM ~ 8,590 1,490 27,311.4 - -
CHROMIUM ~ 8.5 4.8 33.15 - 71,100
COBALT "9tg 3.3 J 44.87 - 4,540
COPPER "" 6.1 2.9 J 45.78 . 2,630
IRON "" 7,840 J 3,070 J 38,831.9 - .
LEAD "" 5.4 0.87 J 17.82 - 130
MAGNESIUM ~g 2,150 593 J 13,347.8 - .
MANGANESE .9 155 J 47.3 J 895.88 - 138
NICKEL "91qJ 3.7 J 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM ~ 1,170 388 J 11,501.4 . -
SODIUM ~ 653 J 413 J 455.42 . -
STRONTIUM In91c9 78.4 J 15.9 J 187.98 - 42,700
THALLIUM ~ 0.38 J 0 - 4.98
VANADIUM ~ 18.8 9.2 84.14 - 498
ZINC ma1
-------
CT0260\870027\TAB21-7.XLS
CLE-J02001 F260-B7-0027
Table 21-7
CAOC 4 - Old Trap and Skeet Range Areas
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land-Use Scenario
Tota" Backe! roundD lnerementar:
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 4 x 1 0-6 0.9 4 x 1 0-6 0.9 O.Od
2 2 x 10-5 2.3 1 x 10.5 2.3 1 x 1 0-5
3 9 x 10-6 1.5 9 x 1 0-6 1.4 <1 x 10-6
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally Occurring background metals. .
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
d The risk is essentially zero because no site-related carcinogens were detected.
-------
CT0260\870027\T AB21-8.XLS
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0a27
Table 21-8
CAOC 4 - Old Trap and Skeet Range Areas
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Totar Becka rouncf IncrementaF
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 6 x 10.7 0.1 6 x 10-7 0.1 O.Od
2 5 x 10~ 0.3 2 x 1 O~ 0.3 3 x 10~
3 1 x 10~ 0.2 1 x 10~ 0.2 <1 X 10-8
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
d The risk is essentially zero because no site-related carcinogens were detected.
-------
CT026O\B70027\RN06_1.XLS
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7.()()27
Table 22-1
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 06: Original Trash landfill
Stratum 1: landfill Area
Depth R18k-88Md
0103ft Crn...
An8IyIe UnIta Regu" Duplicate C..cer Non-C8rIC8r
Pe8lcld88lflCBa
4,4'-DDD ~g 9.7 J 1.3 J 1,190 -
4,4'.DDE ~g 9.47 J 18 J 839 -
4,4'.DDT ~g 2.9 J 839 19,500
ALDRIN ~g 0.20 J 17 1,170
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE IIIJt1
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN06_1.XLS
CLE-J02'()1 F~B7.0027
Table 22-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 08: Original Trash Landfill
Stratum 1: landfill Area
DepItt Depth Hth Percenlile Rllk-8888d
Oto3n B"'311 B8Ckground Criteria
AMyte Unlta Reau" DuDlIcaI8 Reau" CGnC8ntrllllon C8I1C*' ~8I'IC8r
Metals
ALUMINUM "91<0 8,710 J 8,020 J 6,140 22,434.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC "91<0 4.0 J 2.6 2.60 J 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM IT91
-------
CT026O\B70027\RN06~.XLS
CLE.J02001 F260-BH)()27
Table 22-3
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 06: Original Trash Landfill
Stratum 2: Revetment Area
Depth RI8k-88Hd
310 13 " Crlt....
An8Iyte Units Reau" C8nC8I' Non-CWlcer
P_1IcId88IPCB8
4,4'.DDD ~ 0.5 J 1,190 .
4,4'.DDE ~ 1.2 J 839 -
Semlvol8'" Orpnlc8
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYlENE ~ 51 J . -
CARBAZOLE ~g 53J 14,300 .
CHRYSENE UIJI1ta 38J 8,100 .
Nola:
I. A blank india8lalh81111e -'VI8 - naI cI8I8d8d
2. Ru.B888d CriI8rie ... b8McI on U.S. E...~on"""" "-ion Ag8ncy IaIdooIogIo8l dII8, . _1d8nIi8I .."'*". --10,
. .... ~ rl8k 01 0.000001. end . ...... -iqenio hu8nl1nda 01 1.0. Expoeur. rouI88 ooneIder8d incWe eoil inge8IIon,
....loontacI, inhlll8tion 01 YoI8IiI88l,om .01, end InIIaI8IIon 01 petIiouIIIIHIound ...~;. '.' ndio8le8 naI eppIio8bla.
3. '1 qu8lilief indiael.. v". Ie ... ..tim8I. clu810 being 10- "'... IIIe 10_1 .18nd8rd Of clu8ID inlerfwr.....
4. UnII8: mgIq . milligre... pe' 1dIog'8m; ...wq - rricrog- 1* IUIogrem.
6. R88ut18.- ,.pr_1II . ~ DIllie d8la lor all...,.... I~. .
8. DupClcaI8,aulIa (when di8played) '..- 1118 d8Ia -..... on . ."".. fiakI dupIic8Ia 01 - 0I1IIe 'egula, """"'. Ag'Mm8I1I with
IIIe _ulla oIIown in tha "eg""" ........... Ie """""""'L
-------
CT026O\870027\RN06_2.XLS
CLEoJ02-o1 F260-B7.()()27
Tabl.22-4
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 06: Original Trash Landfill
Stratum 2: Revetment Area
Depth ISIh Percenllle RIak-68Hd
ItoUR 88Ckground Crttw18
An8lY18 Un1t8 R8IIua. Concentr8aon Cencer Non-CIII'IC*'
Mete..
ALUMINUM ~ 7,930 J 22,434.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC /I'9'kg 2.6 J 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM I191cg 67.4 205.97 - 1,540
CALCIUM ~ 20,700 27,311.4 -
CHROMIUM mg.1tg 12.1 33.15 . 71,100
COBALT ~ 7.1 44.87 - 4,540
COPPER "" 12.3 45.78 - 2,630
IRON ~ 14,600 J 38,831.9 . .
LEAD mg.1tg 4.0 J 17.82 . 130
MAGNESIUM ~g 4,570 13,347.8 . -
MANGANESE mg.1tg 293 J 895.88 . 138
NICKEL I191cg 12.8 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM ~ 2,140 11,501.4 - .
SODIUM mg.1tg 546 J 455.42 . .
STRONTlUM ~ 58.5 187.98 . 42,700
THALLIUM mg.1tg 0.55 J 0 . 4.98
VANADIUM mg.1tg 30.8 84.14 . 498
ZINC nQ1cg 31.9 79.88 . 21,300
No...:
I. A bIoInk IncIic8t.lh8t tile IIIIaIVII - naI ..8d8d
2. Rilk.8aed Crit....... b8Md on U.S. E""..onnw\I8I Pr0l8CllJon Agency 10ldoologlc8l d8t8, 8 ..kMnIl8lapoeur8 -10,
8l8/'1l8I- riIIk of 0.000001, end 818/g81 ~Io hu8rcI..... 011.0. ExpcI8U'8 ftIUI88 00n.id.8d 1ncW. loillnglltion,
.INI CIOIUot, Inh8l8lJon 01 ¥OIIIiIIIlrom 101, end n/l81811on of po8fticuIII.bound 1IIb8~; 8 '0' ndio8I. naI eppIio8b...
3. 8& P_nti.. 8eckground C-.8Iion1l C-...cIlrom MeL8 B- b80kground loll d818 (0 10 3 ....); "'8'_: J8oob8. 1"5. 'M8rn.
COIpII Logilliioe 8_, 8."'0., C8Ifomil B8Okground 80ila '.-ligation.' Technlo8l M8na8ndum 0023. Dr8ft 11na!. 30 MarcI1I"5.
4. 'r qualiliar indicat. .MIa II an lllimII8 dua 10 baing ..... tI\8ft tile "'-' ltanda,d Of du8 10 nt_-
5. Unila: n9It8 . mlligtam8 per kiIogr.m; I9'k8 . ........- 1* kiIogl8In.
8. Raaulb lhown ,.,.._nI . ~ of tile cIaIa lor 1111811* ~.
7. DupIicaIe r- (when dilplayld) reprllWlllhe dill otICaInId on . linglelialcl duplc8le 01- 01 tile 'evu'" """""'. Aer--
tile ,.utl lhown In tile "evu"" ooIumn II ooinaidenI.l
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN06_3.XLS
CLE-J02-01F2~B7 -ofYZ7
Table 22.5
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 06: Original Trash Landfill
Stratum 3: General Solis
Depth RIak-8888d
0103" Crt....
An8lyte U.... Reguler C8nC8I' Non-Cencer
p..acld88IPCBa
4,4'.DDD ~ 65J 1,190 .
4,4'.DDE JJgI1tg 110J 839 .
4,4'.DDT JJgI1tg 25J 839 19,500
ENDOSULFAN I JJgI1tg 0.29 J . 1,950
ENDRIN JJgI1tg 0.85 J . 11,700
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE JJgI1tg 17 J . 11,700
ENDRIN KETONE JJgI1tg 2.0 J . 11,700
GAMMA.CHLORDANE JJgI1tg 1.8 J 219 2,340
HEPTACHLOR JJgI1tg 14 J 63 19,500
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE JJgI1tg 0.84 J 31 507
METHOXYCHLOR ucv1ca 5.2 J . 195,000
Semlvoleale 0rgM1C8 .
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL JJgI1tg 180 J . 780,000
4,&-DINITR0-2-METHYLPHENOL JJgI1tg 550 J . .
4-METHYLPHENOL ~g 120 J . 195,000
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE JJgI1tg 35 J 20,400 780,000
DI-N-oCTYL PHTHALATE ~g 88J - 780,000
DIETHYL PHTHALATE ~ 190 J . 3.1E-+07
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE ~ 110J . 1.0E+07
PHENANTHRENE UQ/1(Q 100 J . .
Not..:
1. A bl8nk 1_1881h81111811n81yt8 - not d81~
2. Rllk.8aed Cr1t8ri8 ... baed on U.S. Envir"""*ll81 P,_1on Agency lalliookIglc8I d8Ia, 8 -1denI18I expoeur8 --.,
8 18rget '*'- ..k 01 0.000001, 8nd 818rge1 noncarcnogenlc huard inda 01 1.0. Expaeu'8 - conaicI_Incbt8.oiI ingeeUon,
derrral-.l8Ct.lnh8l8lion 01 ¥OI8tiI88lrom 801, end intI8l811an 01 p8ItiauIot..bound lUb8tanws; 8 '.' ild1c81.. not eppIlc8b18.
3. ',J qU8lilie, IndIc8t88 VUl8 II 8n ..t1m818 due to b8Ino low. III8n 1118 "'-I el8nd8,d 01 due 10 m8ll8r-
4. Unit8: mgIkg . nilligra... pe, kilogram; .J11111<8 . rNcrog- pot kiIog,.....
5. Reoufto.hewn rwpr_nt 8 00I'/1I08iI8 011118 d8I8 lor .. l8llular .8mPI88.
8. Cup/icer. ,..ub (wilen d;.pl8y8d) '8Pf888n1 the dat8 obI8ined on 8 lIng"fieid dup/ic818 01- 011118 ,egu18, ..".... AQl88m8nI with
1118 188ufto 1Iho... in 1118 ',egul8l' COIUIM iI ooincid8nI8L
-------
CT026O\870027\RN08_3.XLS
CLE-J02.01F260-B7~7
Tabl.22-6
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 06: Original Trash Landftll
Stratum 3: General Solis
D8pIh 15th Pen:enlile Rlak.fJ8Md
0103" B_ground Crlteri.
AMlyta Unn. Reaul8r Concenlr8Uon C8nCeI' Non.(;8nC8I
Me"l.
ALUMINUM "91cg 10,800 22,434.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC If91cg 4.4 J 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM If91cg 88.2 205.97 - 1,540
BORON If9'kg 19.9 48.51 . 5,970
CALCIUM If91cg 9,790 27,311.4 . .
CHROMIUM If91cg 20.9 33.15 . 71,100
COBALT "" 8.8 J "".87 . 4,540
COPPER "9'kg 24.3 J 45.78 . 2,630
IRON r'91cg 19,200 38,831.9 - -
LEAD "" 89.2J 17.82 - 130
MAGNESIUM If91cg 4,830 13,347.8 . .
MANGANESE "" 303 895.88 . 138
NICKEL "" 9.4 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM "" 2,240 11,501.4 . -
SELENIUM "" 1.5 J 0 - 356
SODIUM If9'kg 1,770 455.42 . .
STRONTIUM If91cg 95.4 167.98 - 42,700
THALLIUM IT91qJ 0.48 J 0 - 4.98
VANADIUM If91cg 45.7 84.14 . 498
ZINC no1
-------
CT026O\S70027\T A822- 7JClS
CLE-J02001 F260-B7-0027
Table 22.7
CAOC 6 - Original Trash landfill
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land-Use Scenario
Totar Backa roundD 'nerementar
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 1 x 10.5 2.2 1 x 1 0.5 2.1 3 x 1 O~
2 8 x 10-8 2.6 8 x 1 0-8 2.6 <1 x 10-8
3 1 X 10.5 2.8 1 x 1 0-6 2.7 5 x 1 0.7
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
e The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
CT0260\B70027\TAB22-8.XLS
CLE-J02~1 F260-B7~
Table 22-8
CAOC 6 - Original Trash landfill
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Totar Backe roundll Incrementar
Stratum Cancer Noncaneer Cancer Noncaneer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 2 x 1 O.e 0.3 2 x 10.e 0.3 <1 x10.e
2 1 x 1 O.e 0.3 1 x 1 O.e 0.3 <1 X 10-8
3 2 x 10.e 0.4 2 x 1 0-8 0.4 1 x 10-7
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
II Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
e The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
CT0260\870027\AN08_1.XLS
CLE.J02"()1F~B7~7
Table 23-1
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 08: Building 197 Waste Disposal Area
Stratum 1: Drainage Pathway
AINII .
Petro...... HydrOC8rbon8
TPH . DIESEL
Semlv."" OrgMIc8
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
DI-N.BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
V.tlie OrpnIc8
XYLENES TOTAL
UnIIII
D8pIh
0103 II
R u"
RIak-88Hd
Crtt.18
C8IIC8I' Non-eMcer
17 J
810 J
180 J
36J
20,400
780,000
3,900,000
780,000
2J
98,800
1. A bl8nk India8t8s ,hat IN 8II8IyIe - nac "8d8d
2. Rllk.~ Criteria ... baed OIl U.8. Envlr""'-" P.-Ion Agency lallDaklgiD8ld8I8, 8 -1denIioJ -poeur8 ........,
818/1181-- rl8k of 0.000001, 8nd 8'81g81 nao_lrIoge.... haanI hd8x of 1.0. Expaeur8 RIUI88 -.8ide<8d 1nck0d8 .oillngeelian,
.....1 conI8aI, Inhalation 01 val8til8ol from .01, - ~ 01 p8llioulldHoound --; . '.' 1nd1c8l- nac eppIlo8bl8.
3. . J q"".'" 1ncIio8I- v"'8 II ." 88I1IT88 due 10 being ..... then IN "*-, ~d Of - '0 1n18If8r-
4. Unb: n9I<8 . mIIig1am8 per kilogram; 19'1<8 . mIcIogr- pit' kllogf8m.
6. R8ull8.hown ..",_nt . ~. 011118 cI8I8 101111 reguI8t .."....
8. Duplio8t. ,....118 (when cIi8pIey8d) ,epre_nt '118 d8Ia otIt8in8d OIl 8 lingle field dupicale 01- 01'''' '8IIuIII,............ Ag,""*" with
'118 lWIull8 Ihown In the "8IIula,' ODIwm II ODIncld8nlal
-------
CT026O\B70027\ANoe_1.XLS
CLE-J02-01 F~B7.0027
Table 23-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 08: Building 197 Waste Disposal Area
Stratum 1: Drainage Pathway
\.
Depth 15th Perc.nUIe Alsk-88Hd
010311 B_ground Crtt8l18
ANllyt8 Un1t8 Aegu18 Concenlr811on C..cer NoIH::8nC8I'
lIetal.
ALUMINUM .0 7,140 J 22,434.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC f'I91tg 3.3 J 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM .0 84.6 205.97 . 1.540
BORON I191tg 10." 48.51 . 5,970
CALCIUM f'I91tg 12.600 27,311." . -
CHROMIUM f'I91tg 10.6 33.15 . 71,100
COBALT I191tg 4.1 J "".87 - 4,540
COPPER f'I91tg 9.7 45.78 . 2,630
IRON f'I91tg 12,300 J 38,831.9 . -
LEAD "" 14.3 J 17.82 . 130
MAGNESIUM f'I91tg 3,810 13,347.8 . .
MANGANESE "'" 265 J 895.88 . 138
NICKEL rrR 7.8 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM n91cg 1,880 11,501.4 . .
SODIUM ft91tg 842 455.42 - -
STRONTIUM f'I91tg 80.4 J 167.98 - 42,700
THALLIUM .g 0.56 J 0 . 4.98
VANADIUM "'" 2".6 84.14 - 498
ZINC mo1ca 38.0 J 79.68 - 21,300
Not...
1. A blllnk 1ndiC818o thai the ~ - -.-..-
2. Rllk.e.. Crtl8ll. ... b8Hd on U.S. Environrrwn181 P,oI8GIIon Ag8noJ laIiDoIogIc8I d8I8, . -1d8nIi8I -po8U'8 --io,
'18rg8I- riak 01 0.000001, 8IId .18rg8I ~ ~d .... III t .0. EXpoeur8 rout.. 0CIII8ider8d IncUIe .,,11 inge8tion.
"INI-.lnh8l8lion 01 voI8IiIo8lrom 801, - irIII8IItian III pelllcul81e-bound eube_:. "." ncs..... no! eppIio8b18.
3. 85 P_i18 B8CIoground c-.tr8lion II 08IcuI8I8d from MelB 8..tow b8c1lQlound 8011 d8la (010 318e1); "".-: J8c0b8. 1886. "Merine
CorP8lopli08 8_. 8wIIIow, Callomi. 88d1gtound 80.. 1,-'1g8lion." T8Cllnio8t Memor8ndum 00:l3. Dr'" fin8J. 30 MarcIl 1l1li5.
4. 'J' qu8l.... Indioat.. ..... II 8ft..tin88 due 10 being lei-. ..... the "'-'lI8nd8rd 01 due'" ~...-
5. Unit8: mwq . millig- 1* IIiIogrem; 19'kg. microgr- 1* idiogram.
8. R88ull8.hewn ....._nt . -..... IIIIh8 data '01 811 f80UIw ..........
7. Oupllca18,...,... (when di8l*y8d) repw88nl,he data obI8J* on .1ingI81181d dupicIII8 111- 011118 '8IIulll,.....,.. AgrMn8nl with
the ,..u" .hown In'he "'8IIuI8r" ooturm II ooindd8nIaL
-------
CT026O'1870027\T AB2~3J(lS
CLE..J02-o1 F260-87-0027
Table 23-3
CAOC 8 - Wastewater Disposal Areas
Human Health Risk Results
Residential and Industrial Land-Use Scenarios
Totar Backarounct» Incrementar
Cancer Noncancer Cane... Noncancer Cancer
Risk Huard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
Residential 1 x 10" 2.4 1 x 10.' 2.3 3 x 10"
Industrlll 2 x 10" 0.3 2 x 10" 0.3 <1 x 10"
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcInogentc hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and slte-r&lated activities for all detected substances
In the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that Is attrtbutabIe to naturaUy occurring background metals.
C The Incremental UfeUme cancer risk equals the total risk minus 1he background risk.
This represents the slte-related risk. Applicable for cardnogenc risk only.
-------
CT026O\B7002MN12_1.XLS
CLE.J02-o1 F280-87-0027
Table 24-1
Maximum Organic Concentrations In 5011
CAOC 12: Radiator Cleaning Chemical Disposal Area
Stnltum 1: Radiator Cleaning Chemical Disposal Area
Depth RI8k~8Hd
aloIn Criteria
Anlllyt8 Un1t8 Reg"" C8IIC8I' Non-C8nC8I'
6.mh,0I8"18 Organlc8
BIS(2.ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE I'9t1cg 1,300 J 20,400 780,000
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE IJ9t1cg 3,000 J . 3,900,000
DIETHYL PHTHALATE IJ9t1cg 66J - 3.1E+07
PYRENE IJ9t1cg 580 J . 1,170,000
Nola:
I. II blllnk 1ndIca- th81the III8IyW - noI d818cI8cI
2. Rllk.Bu8d Crit8ria .. bII88d on U.8. ErwIr-.t81 P,oI8c&n AoencY IIRilalaglc8l d8Ia, . _1dantiaJ ........ ......10,
.18ftI8I- riak'" 0.000001, and .l8/1l8I ~Io IIaI8nIIndax '" 1.0. Expcl8U......- oanaicI8f8d lnoble 8011 inga8lion,
_1-.1"'" inhal8lion '" voIaIillalrom 801, and Inh8I8IIon '" p8lticutllHlaund -1anoa8; . '.' iIdIoaIao noI eppIioable.
3. . r _iii.. 1ndio8I- ..... II 8ft ....... dua to baing "'- lIIanthe _I 8I8nda,d or due to ftIarfar.....
.. Un":"9'k8' mIIigranw pa, kilogram; .1IWkO . mcrograma par 1U1ogram.
6. R88ulta.hown ..".._nt . ~e 01 the d8t8 lor .n r8gU1a. .~.
8. Duplic8te ,nulla Iwhen di8pleyad) '.....- .he data obtained on . 8ingIa lield duplicate'" one '" the 'egula, .....,.... Ag,.."""" with
the ...ulla ahown in the ',egular' coIurm II oomoidanIaL
II
11
-------
CT026O\B70027\RN 12_1.XLS
CLE-J02-o1 F~B7-0G27
Table 24-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 12: Radiator Cleaning Chemical Disposal Area
Stratum 1: Radiator Cleaning Chemical Disposal Area
DepIh 16th Percenlile RI8k-B8Md
0103n 88dcgrouncl Crtl...
An8Iyt8 UnI.. Regul8r Duplicate Concentr.tIon C8nC8r NorH:8I'I1*'
Ueta18
ALUMINUM ~ 22,800 8,900 22,434.3 . 71,100
ANTIMONY ~g 11.2 O . 28.4
ARSENIC ~g 11.7 3.0 J 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM ~ 120 53.1 J 205.97 . 1,540
BORON I'I91tg 24.1 J 19.4 48.51 . 5,970
CALCIUM "" 53,100 J 26,300 J 27,311.4 . .
CHROMIUM "" 24.0 7.3 33.15 . 71,100
COBALT "" 8.7 4.5 J 44.87 . 4,540
COPPER IngI1tg 18.1 8.8 45.78 - 2,630
IRON "" 26,500 J "10,100 38,831.9 . .
LEAD "" 13.1 J 5.90 J 17.82 - 130
MAGNESIUM n91fg 8,840 3,0820 13,347.8 . .
MANGANESE ~ 333 130 895.88 . 138
NICKEL !l9'kg 14.7 8.9 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM "" 4,200 1,420 11,501.4 - .
SODIUM ~ 2,910 814 J 455.42 . .
STRONTIUM ~g 146 92.5 167.96 . 42,700
THALLIUM ~g 0.74 J 0 - 4.98
VANADIUM ~ 55.0 21.4 84.14 . 498
ZINC mWkg 50.5 27.3 79.88 - 21,300
,
,
il
Nola:
1. A lllank indic8t"lh8Il118 8n8/yte - not d8t8ded
2. Rilk.B888d Crit8fla... baed on U.S. EnvirOM8l18l Pratedion Agency toxicological cl8t8,' _ld8ntia1upoeur. -10,
. 18fV8I ~ rilk at 0.000001, 81KI .1811181 nonc8IIIlnogenlo h8z8rd irMMx at 1.0. Expoeu,......... COft8icI8f8d incUM 8CMI inge8lion,
de,.... oonI8C1, inh8l8tion 01 voI8tiIe8 ',orn loll, 81KI1nh8I8tIon 01 pIIrticul8l.bound ~; . '.' indlc8l.. not .ppllc8bll.
3. 115 PIfOeIIIIII BlClouround Cono8ntr8lion II C81cul8t8d Irom MClB a.mow b8cII;rvund loll dIU (0 to 3'881); ....-: .I8oob8. 1885. 'Metin8
Corpe logialic8 B_, BlllIow, C.llornl8l18d18round SotII_tiglllon.' TIChnlc81 Merrallndum 0023. Dr8ftIlIl8l. 30 Meroh 1885.
4. 'J' qu8l~i8< indlc8l.. ,,81u8 II 8n ..tim81. due to being~ then the ~11tand8,d or due 10 inllII.-
5. Un~:"'D'ko' rnilligl8m1 per kllogl8m; fIII/1Ig . microo''''' per kllog..m.
8. R88uftl lho... ..pr_nt . ~ at the cI8t. 'or .. NlluI8r .."... .
7. Duplic811 ,88uft8 (wh8n di8pl8y1d) '1PfI_lhe cI8t8 obt8ined on . lingle'lekI duplc8l. at- 011118 'IIIUII, I"""". Agr.......... willi
the ,..uti lhewn In 1118 "I!IUI8" oaIurm iI coinoId8nI8L
-------
CT02eO\B7OO27\T AB24-3JeLS
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-oazT
Table 24.3
CAOC 12 - Radiator Cleaning Chemical Disposal Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential and Industrial Land-Use Scenarios
Tota" Backe: rounctt Incrementaf
Cancer Noncanc.r Cance{ Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
Residential 4 x 10.5 4.1 4 x 1 0-5 3.5 6 x 10~
Industrial 6 x 1 O.e 0.6 6 x 1 O.e 0.5 2 x 10~
8 The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet. .
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
e The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN 13_1.XLS
ClE-J02-o 1 F260- B7-0027
Table 25-1
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 13: Preservation and Packaging Storage Area
Stratum 1: Building Foundation and Surrounding Solis
Anal
Petroleum Hychc8rb0n8
TPH . DIESEL
Semlvol8. Orpnlc8
DlETHYl PHTHALATE
NoI88:
UnI..
DepIh
Ot03ft
R u"
Rlsk~888d
Crn...
CIIftCer N~anC*'
42 J
210 J
3.1E+07
t. A bl8nk 1ndio81881h11 1118 ~ - naI dII8d8d
2. Rl8k.1Ia88d Cr118ri8 118 b88ee1 on u.s. Erwi'OI'IITI8fII8I PrGMctIon Agency bdDaloglc8l dlla, . rwid8nli81 Gpoe... _n.,lo,
.18rg8I C8- rilk 01 0.000001, 8IKI .18'1181 nono8IOInog8nlc h8ard Ind8X 01 1.0. Expoeur. rout.. -*d8r8d inobI8 .011 ingalion,
.,,,,.1 oonI8C\, Inh8t8lion ", voI8IiI88 Irom 801, 8IKI i'ItI8l1111on oIl)8IIIcuI8IHIound IUb8t8noft; . '.' i'Idio8I88 naI 8PPIio8b18.
3. '~qU8lilI8r 1ncIIc888 v... 18 ." 88Iim8Ia du8 to b8Ing Iowr III8n I118Iow8t """'rd or clu8la 1nI..-..-
~. UniI8: II'9IkG . rnlligr8m8 per kilogram; .1IWk8 '1Ncrog- per kllogr8m.
5. R88ulll.hown repr_nt . ~ "'1118 d8Ia lor .. r8gulu .....-.
8. DupliD8t. r88U118 (when di8p4ayeel) r8P'8- 1118 d8Ia oIII8In8d on . 8Ing18 lield dupic... ", 01'18 ", the regu18r."""" Agr-.nl with
1118 _u118 8hown In 1118 'regular' ODIumn io coInoidantal.
-------
CT026O\B70027\AN13_1.XLS
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7.()Q27
Tabl.25-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 13: Preservation and Packaging StOl'8ge Area
Stratum 1: Building Foundation and Surrounding 50118
D8pth HItt Percentile RI.k~-8d
010311 BlICIIground CrIt8r18
AMlyt8 UnI.. Reau" Conc«'Ilrallon C8nCer NOIH:~
Meta88
ALUMINUM "9'kg 6,030 22,434.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC "9'kg ".5 J 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM "9'kg eo." 205.97 . 1,540
BERYWUM "9'kg 0.36 J 1.16 0.129 356
BORON "9'k9 22.9 J 48.51 . 5,970
CADMIUM "9'k9 0.61 J 1.28 9 39
CALCIUM "91cg 18,600 J 27,311.4 - .
CHROMIUM "" 9.8 33.15 . 71,100
COBALT "9'k9 6.2 J 44.87 . 4,540
COPPER "" 9.0 45.78 . 2,630
CYANIDE "" 0.77 J 0 . 1,420
IRON "" 9,190 38,831.9 - .
LEAD "9'kg 26.1 J 17.82 . 130
MAGNESIUM "" 3,430 13,347.8 . .
MANGANESE IT9'kg 521 695.88 - 138
NICKEL "9'kg 9.7 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM "9'k9 2,320 11,501.4 . -
SODIUM "9'kg 2,010 J 455."2 . .
STRONTIUM "9'kg 131 167.96 . 42,700
THALLIUM "9'kg 0.24 J 0 . 4.96
VANADIUM "9'kg 22.7 J 84.14 . 498
ZINC mg,1(g 43.1 J 79.88 - 21,300
NoI..:
1. A bIoonk indic8... Ih.. lhe ....Iyt. - no! d8t8d8d
2. Riak-B888d Criteri8 - bu8d an U.S. Envlr_1 P,~ AD8"CJ lc8iDo1aglc8l cI8I8, . -idert1818qI08Ufa ."""io.
. IIWgII cer-. ri8k cf O.OOOOOt, 8IId .181;81 ftOI-vII_oio '--d IrIda cf 1.0. Ex_a - oanoid8r8d Incklda .aiI ingalion,
...... canI8ct, inh8Iotion cf vol8tiloo !rom 001, 8IId irlll8l8l1an cf I*lloulala-tJound 1Ubo18nce8; . '.' 1ndic8I- noI appIioabll.
3. 115 P..--.lall8cllghlUnd c-.lr8llan 10 oaIDul8t8d "om McLB B...- ~ 80it d... (010 318811: .....-: Jaooba. 1l1li5. 'Morlna
Corpo LogIoIloo Baoo, 1IarwIow, CII.0mi8 B"'*;raund 8010 r_Ilg8lIan.' Taohnloal""'andum 0023. Drill fonll. 30 Match 1885.
4. 'J' qualHi8r indic... v"" ill .. ati..... clu810 baing ..... tII8n the 10888I.t.Md8'd 01 due 10 ~"'8f-
5. UnIl8: "9'ko . miIIigrwN par kJIogram; '" . mIcIogr- 1* kilogl8lll.
8. Rae............. --... . ~ cf lhe cI8I8 lor lit regular .~.
7. OupIic8t.,18U1Io ("'*' diopI8y8d) 'opra_lhe cI8I8 otII8in8d an .linglaliald dupIcate cf ana cf the 'eg"'.."""'. iIg'oement with
tho ,au" .hown in the "egular" column io ooInoicI8nt.L
-------
CT026O\B70027\TA82s.3.XLS
CLE.J02-01 F26().B7~
Table 25-3
CAOC 13 - Preservation and Packaging Storage Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential and Industrial Land-Use Scenarios
Totar Back~ roundD lnerementar
Cancer Noncaneer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index. Risk
Residential 2 x 10-6 4.3 2 x 10.5 4.3 <1 X 10-8
Industrial 3 x 10-8 0.5 3 x 10-8 0.5 <1 X 10-8
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk and hazard that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk equals the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
-------
CT026O\870027\RN 14_1.XLS
CLE-J02-G 1 F260- B7-0027
Table 26r1
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 14: Drainage Channels and Outfall. to Mojave River
Stratum 1: Channel A
Depth RIsk-88Md
Oto3ft CrItwI.
A Un1t8 R u.. Cancer Non-<:ancer
P88l1clde8l1'CB8
4,4'.DDE JIgI1tg 0.83 J 839
4,4'.DD1 ~g 0.94 J 839 19,500
ALPHA-CHLORDANE ~ 0.4 J 219 2,340
GAMMA-CHLORDANE ~ 1.7 J 219 2,340
METHOXYCHLOR 20J 195,000
Not-
I. A blank incIIaa.. 11181 th8 -lyle - naI cI8I8d8d
2. Riok-B888d Crtl8f18 ... baaed ... U.8. e"".- P,"""" ~ 1coI"""", d8Ia, a _ld8ntI8Ia_,. .-...10,
ala1V8l-- rlak 01 0.000001, and a target noncarclnoganio "-d Ind8X 01 1.0. EJlpoeure RIUI88 00II8id8r8d IncbIa 1011 /ngaItion,
.lI8lo...18c1, Inh8I8IIon of voIatIln!rom IlOl, ancI WI8I8tion of p8IIIoulatHlound~; a'.' ildlclll88 naI appI/c8bla.
3. 'J qua/W_lncfioaI8a v.kI. io .n .Umet. d.-to being ~ th8n ... ""-' II8ndard Ot due to 1118IIar-
4. Unit8: '"IIIk8 - mIIig,.... pe' 1d1ogr8rn; .19'kII' mlcrog- 1* idiogram.
6. R.u...'- repr_1II . ~ 01... cIat8 lOt 8llregullr ......,...
8. 0upIc.t. ,..... (when di8pl8y8d) ,..l8IIIlhe cIat8 oIoIeJn8d on a ti",,1e field duploal8 of - 01 ... 'egula, ......,... Ao'- with
the _u.. Iho- in th8 "egular' ocIumn io ooinoidantaL
-------
CT0260\870027\RN14_1.XLS
ClE-J02-o1 F260-B7-002.7
Table 26-2
Maximum Inorganic Concentration. In Soli
CAOC14: Drainage Channel. and Outfall. to Mojave River
Stratum 1: Channel A
D8pIh NIII P8n:en1i1e Rlak-8888d
OtoSft B8Ckgrouncl crn...
All8lyte Units Regu" Concenlr8tlon C8IM:8r Non-C8IM:8r
Metals
ALUMINUM If91tg 4,450 22,434.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC If91tg 2.70 J 10.43 0.31 21.3 .
BARIUM I191tg 53.1 205.97 . 1,540
BORON If91tg 3.00 48.51 . 5,970
CALCIUM If91tg 23,500 27,311.4 . .
CHROMIUM If91tg 8.10 33.15 - 71,100
COBALT I191tg 2.40 J 44.87 . 4,540
COPPER If91tg 8.50 45.78 - 2,830
IRON If91tg 9,230 38.831.9 - .
LEAD If91tg 20.0 J 17.82 . 130
MAGNESIUM I191tg 2,840 13,347.8 . -
MANGANESE I191tg 190 895.88 . 138
NICKEL I191tg 5.10 J 42.75 160 1,400
POTASSIUM I191tg 1,280 11,501.4 - .
SODIUM "91cg 115 J 455.42 . .
STRONTIUM "91cg 81.7 187.98 . 42,700
THALLIUM "91cg 0.32 J 0 - 4.98
VANADIUM ~g 19.7 84.14 . 498
ZINC nQ'ka 28.1 79.88 . 21,300
NoI":
1. A bl8nk 1nclIo81881M1 the 8M"" - not d8I8Gled
2. Rilk.B888d C..- - baed on U.S. Envi'onnwnIaJ P,oIedion Aeenqo toalDolagiD81 d8Ia, l...id8nti8I axpciaurl 1-10,
llarg8t ~ lilt 0/ 0.000001, and 118Ig8I1IOIIC8Iainagan '--d ~ 0/ 1.0. EIIp08U'1 - ---.ct incWa loll i"llfttion,
dIr...t 0CIfII8d. inllllllloII 0/ val8lJlIo from 001, and Inhll8tloll 0/ perticulll.bound ~; I ..' ncIIcII.. not Ipplialblo.
3. 85 P~1o Bllllrgrvund ~,1Iion II ....1cu1ll8d from MOlB 81- b8c1r;rvund loll dill (010 31811); ......-: Jaoobo. 1885. .Marine
Cotpo LOOllticl 81M, e.._, ClllomI8 BodIg,"'''''' 801l'_1ig8IIan: TIChnIo8l Monallldum 0023. Dr'"" 'Inol. 30 Moroh 1885.
4. 'J' qU8ldilf ~ ..... ilon 18tim8I1 dUiIo baing "'- Ih8n the tow.1118nd8n1 or dUllo illlI1or-
5. Unilo:""",,,,,,,,,,,,, kilognom; 1III/ICo. mIcrog,......... kilDgrom.
8. R8Iu,," 1'-' repr_nt I 0IJn1IGIiI8 0/ the d8t8 lor III '-IIulir .."..
7. 0upIic8t1 ,....1111- diopIIpd) '..""'1111 d8t8 obtain8d on lling18 fllld duplio8l8 0/ - 0/ the 'oguIo'~, Ag,1InWII with
l1li ,..ull llIown In l1li .'111"" ooIurm II coIncidontoL
-------
CT026O~7002'MN14_2JQ.S
CLE .JI)2'()1 F2CIO-B7.0027
Table 26.3
Maximum Organic Concentrations In 5011
CAOC14: Drainage Channels and Outfalls to Mojave River
Stratum 2: Outfall B
D8pIh RI.k~8Md
OtoUt Crt....
An8lyte UnIIa Regular CMCer Non-C8nCeI'
P_ac~B.
4,4'-DDD ~g 3.2 J 1,190 -
4,4'.DDE '" 1.9 J 839 -
4,4'-DDT ~ 1.4 J 839 19,500
ALPHA-CHLORDANE ~ 2.0 J 219 2,340
AROCLOR-1260 ~g 110 J 47 .
DIELDRIN ~g 2.8 J 18 1,950
ENDRIN '" 0.60 J . 11,700
GAMMA-CHLORDANE ~g 1.8 J 219 2,340
METHOXYCHLOR ~ SOJ . 195,000
No-
I. I/o blank 1ndIa8.. IhIII "" ~ - naldII8CII8d
2. Riak.8-.1 CrII8ria.. baed on U.8. Envir"""", ProI8GIIon /Iog8nor IoIdoaIogIc8I cI8Ia, 8 _id8nti8Iapoeur8 """"10,
8181g81-- rl8k cf 0.000001, 8nd 8181g81-raftooenIo haard...... cf 1.0. Expceu.. - oon8idet8d Incklde 8011 mg.lion.
d8trNl oanI8oI,lnh8l8lion cf voI8til88lrom 101, end inh8l8lion cf perlicul8l~ndaubll8_; e '.' 1IdicaI.. noI8pplic8ble.
3. 'J qU8llfi8lInclia8t.. vakl. 18 8ft "UmaIe due 10 being 10-. Ihan lhe Iowel tI8ncIard Of due 1o inl8II..-
... Uw: rr9fkO - rriI1ig.- per kI!ogl8ll1; .I'OIIOG . nIol'O\l- perldbgrem.
6. Reo"" at-. ..-nt 8 ............ CIC "" - IOf 8IIl'8IIul8r .......,...
8. Dupllc8l8 .nulla ('"'*' dilplay8d) ...- lhe d8I8 _1n8d on 8 linglelleld duploat. cf one cf "" ,egula. .~. AII',,- with
"" _ulla Ihown in the ',egular' ooIurm 18 ooincici8nI8L
-------
CT026O\B70027\AN 14_2.XLS
CLE.J02001 F260-B7-0027
Table ~
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC14: Drainage Channel. and Outfalls to Mojave River
Stratum 2: Outfall B
D8pIh 15111 Percentile RIak-8888d
0103" BlICkground Crtterta
An8Ivte Unlta Regu" Concentrallon Cancer Non-CanC8r
Metals
ALUMINUM /I'91Cg 17,900 22,434.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC .g 8.00 J 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM n9kg 144 205.97 . 1,540
BERYLUUM ~ 0.31 J 1.18 0.129 356
BORON "'9'1Ig 8.20 48.51 . 5,970
CADMIUM rnw1cg 1.7 1.28 9 39
CALCIUM ~ 13,200 27,311.4 - .
CHROMIUM "" 37.3 33.15 . 71,100
COBALT n9kg 8.80 J 44.87 - 4,540
COPPER ~g 17.3 45.78 . 2,830
IRON "" 23,300 38,831.9 . .
LEAD "" 95.9 J 17.82 . 130
MAGNESIUM ~ 9,890 13,347.8 . -
MANGANESE ~g 532 695.88 . 138
NICKEL ~g 11.1 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM f'n91
-------
CT026O\S70027\RN 14_3.XLS
CLE.J02001 F260-B7-0027
Table 26-5
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 14: Drainage Channels and Outfalls to Mojave River
Stratum 3: Outfall C
D8pIh R18k-88Hd
0103ft Crlt...
Anelvte Units Reaul. DuDllc8te C8I1C8r NorM::8I1C8r
P88~B.
4,4'.DDD ~ 11 J 1,190 -
4,4'.DDE ~g 410 J 0.52 J 839 .
4,4'-DDT ~ 18 J 0.91 J 839 19,500
ALPHA-CHLORDANE ~g 12 J 0.67 J 219 2,340
AROClOR-1260 ~g 330 J 47 .
DIELDRIN ~g 14 J 18 1,950
ENDRIN jJgAcg 29J - 11,700
GAMMA.CHLORDANE uanca 13 J 0.61 J 219 2,340
Petroleum HyclrOC8rbon.
TPH . DIESEL IYQ1(a 22J . .
Semlvol8U.. 0rpnIca
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE ~g 490 20,400 780,000
BUTYl BENZYL PHTHALATE uw'ka 81 J . 7,800,000
Void.. Orgenlc8
METHYLENE CHLORIDE aJg/kg 2J 14,800 385,000
I:
I
NoI88:
I. A blllnk 1ndi081_lh8Ithe ....~. - naI d81eded
2. Riok.~ Crtl8ri8 ... bued on U.S. Envlr- P,ct8Cllion Agency lalrlDalogioel det.. . __iol_. _n.riD,
. tarvat- riak ct 0.000001, and .1af1I8I ~ haDrd ..- '" 1 .0. expoau,. -- -..id8r8d ,...... toillngeetlon,
1Iar....I conIaot, inhalation '" volatiloot fram 801, and IrlhaI8IIon ct poutIcuIIiI~ eublw-; . '.' 1rIdic8I- naI appIiaab18.
3. '.I quallf*lndioat- valu. II an ..1Imat. dIM to baing Ioww IIIan ilia ~ 8I8nd8rd or dIM 10 n8ll_-
4. UnII8:"". dUg,.... pe' kilogram; .\9118 . "*'108- par kilogram.
6. Rea"" ,hown rapt_III . ~. ct the data lor all Ngular ,....,..
8. Duplioal.,...... (- di8pl8y8d) ,apra- u. dill. oIICaln8d on . 8Ingl8l181d dupIcat. ct one ct tII8 'agu8' '"",,". Agr.....m with
the -u1t8 ahown In the ',aguta,' ooIurm II ooincIdanIaL
II
. !
i
-------
CT026O\870027\AN 14_3.XLS
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Table 26-6
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 14:'Dralnage Channels and OutfaUs to Mojave River
Stratum 3: Outfall C
Depth 16th P8IC8I'IUIe Rlak.e8Hd
0103" B_ground Crt....
Analyte Urfla Rea,," Dupllc8t8 Concentr.tIon Cancer Non-Cancer
Metals
ALUMINUM ~ 9,800 1,980 22,434.3 - 71,100
BARIUM ~g 81.0 25.2 J 205.97 - 1,540
BERYWUM ~g 0.38 J 1.16 0.129 356
BORON I'I91qJ 3.5 J 48.51 - 5,970
CADMIUM fI'9'cg 2.2 1.28 9 39
CALCIUM fI'9'cg 9,320 J 2,7311.4 - .
CHROMIUM fI'9'cg 24.7 33.15 - 71,100
COBALT fI'9'cg 3.1 J 0.71 J 44.87 - 4,540
COPPER fI'9'cg 14.6 3.0 J 45.78 - 2,630
IRON fI'9'cg 14,200 4,660 38,831.9 - -
LEAD fY9'1cg 208 J 8.2 J 17.82 - 130
MAGNESIUM fI'9'cg 5,100 1,270 13,347.8 - .
MANGANESE fI'9'cg 247 J 95.4 J 895.88 . 138
POTASSIUM I'I91qJ 3,610 984 J 11,501.4 . -
SODIUM I'I91qJ 491 J 105 J 455.42 . -
STRONTIUM "91tg 62.8 J 14.2 J 167.96 . 42,700 .
VANADIUM mg1tg 29.2 10.4 J 84.14 - 498
ZINC InG'1uJ 87.1 12.7 79.68 - 21,300
\
NoI..:
.. "bl8nk 1ndic8... 11181 1118 8I\8IyI8 - IlOl del8d8d
2. Riok.8888d Crtl8118... ba8d on U.S. EnvirG1VT18n181 Prol8Cll1on "1I8"OY IoxicologlceJ d818, a ....ldenllalaxpo8Ur8 .-io,
al8JV8l c- rl8k ell 0.000001, and . larval nanoarcmgenlc h8Drd Inda
-------
CT026O\B70027\RN 14- 4.XLS
CLE.J02-o1F~B7.0027
Table 26-7
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 14: Drainage Channels & Outfalls to Mojave River
Stratum 4: Outfall D
D8pCh Rlak-8888d
0103" Criteria
An8lva- Units Regular C8nCer Non-C8nC8I'
Pe811c1c1881PCB.
4,4'.OOE ~g 0.68 J 839 .
4,4'.OOT ~ 3.0 J 839 19,500
ALPHA-CHLORDANE .~ 0.22 J 219 2,340
S8m1vof.ale 0rpnI0a
N.NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE I'Qo1cg 48J 58.200 .
Nol-
I. A bIIn~ 1ncl1oI.. 11181 lhe ....Iyte - naI cl8tedad
2. RII~'B888d CriIaria... baad on U.S. Erwlr........... PrGl8Clllon Agency lmriaologlo8l elate,...idanti8J -poaur. _rio,
.1aIgaI.....- 118- GI 0.000001, and. \811181 noncaroIr1oganI hu8nl1rlcla GlI.O. Expoaur.rout- -'dared Incwa aoIIlngaalion,
dermaloontact, 1nhaI..1on GI voIatitaa!rom 801, ancIlnlIaIaIIon GI p8IIlcul81..t1ound ""'-:' '.'lndioal- naI appIlcabla.
3. 'I quailliar IncIio8Iaa v.-', II .n _timet. d.. to being Iowat IIIan 111810_1 .tandard Of d.. 1o Intaoflfanoe
4. Unita: qlltg . mIIig- per 1U1ogr8m; .1IWkII' "*I"0Il- 1* kilogram.
6. Raeulta.hown repr_nt . ~. GlIh8 cIata lor all ragu... .....,....
8. 0upIica\a r~1ta (-'- dlaplayad) r"",""", lhe cIata obtained on . lingle field duplcat. Glone GI lhe regular 18JI1IIa. Aor- with
1118 raulta ahown In 1118 'ragular' ooIumn iI ooIncid8ntaL
-------
CT0260\87002MN14_4.XLS
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Table 26-8
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC14: Drainage Channel. and Outfalls to Mojave River
. Stratum 4: Outfall D
Depth 85th Pen:enU18 RI8k-68Hd
0103ft Background CrI.",
AMI,.. Un/t8 Regular Concenlr811on C8nCeI' Non-Cencer
U.t818
ALUMINUM "91tg 7,150 J 22,434.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC "91tg 3.1 J 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM mg1cg 81.8 205.97 - 1,540
BERYLLIUM "91tg 0.25 J 1.18 0.129 356
BORON "91tg 12.8 J 48.51 - 5,970
CALCIUM mg1cg 12,200 J 27,311.4 . -
CHROMIUM Ir91!g 7.0 33.15 - 71,100
COBALT "91tg 1.9 J 44.87 - 4,540
COPPER mg1cg 7.1 45.78 - 2,630
IRON mg1cg 11.200J 38,831.9 - .
LEAD "91tg 3.8 J 17.82 - 130
MAGNESIUM mg1cg 3,820 13,347.8 . .
MANGANESE "91tg 204 895.88 . 136
MOLYBDENUM mg1cg 0.80 J 0 . 354
NICKEL n9kg 5.9 J 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM "91tg 2,280 11,501.4 . -
SELENIUM mg1cg 0.69 J 0 - 356
SODIUM mg1cg 360 J 455.42 - -
STRONTIUM /T91(g 98.7 167.98 - 42,700
VANADIUM Ir91!g 24.7 84.14 . 498
ZINC /T91(g 26.0 J 79.88 . 21,300
Nol.:
1. A ~k indlo8188 Ih8IlN an8Iy\8 - no! """ect
2. Riok.S.... Crtlitri. ... b88ect on U.S. Envlronll18flt8t P,oI8dion Agency IcodDDID8ic81 d8t., 8 -id8ntI8Iexpceur8 _,ID,
. 18'1181 ca- IiIk'" 0.000001, 8nd . I"" lICnC8R:inDg8niD hullrd Index DI 1.0. Expo8ur. IIIUI- -.Id8r8d i"'" .cllngeelion,
d8r...1 conI8d, inll8l8llon 01 vDl8li188lrom .oiI, 811d1nh8l8liDn '" p8IIiouI8lHlcuncl8Ub8'-; 8 '0' Micat. noIeppllo8bl8.
3. 85 P_18 B8ClIgrcuncl ~"ion io D81cul8l8cllrom MeLS S...1Dw b8Ckgn>uncI.DiI d... (0 to 31881); f818r_: J8ccboo. 1805. 'M8ri1e
Corpe LogltlliDe S_, S_, C8I.DIIII. B8CkgIaunci Soh I~..' T""nlo8l M8mDr8nclum 0023. Dr.,. lin81. 30 M8R>h 1805.
... 'J' qU81dler indlcat- v.... 18 811 -tim818 cIu8 to being "'- Ih8n the "'-I .18nd8td '" due ID .....".,-
5. Unite: """"" . ml1iII- per kiIogt8rn; Wku 0 mcrog,.... per kIIognun.
8. R8eult8.hown ..,.,-nt8 COII'C)C8II8 Dlthe d818 Icr .n ..gular 88"'.
7. DupliD8I8 r.uIIe 1- di8pl8yect) '81'1818n1 IN del. Dbl8in8d on. 8ingI81i81d dupliDel. '" - olIN 'egul8, ..",,*. Agr..".", with
lhe r.u" .hown in Ih8 "8gUI8r" DDiumn 18 DDincid8nl8L
-------
CT026O\B70027\AN 14_5.XLS
CLE-J02-o1F26().B7~7
Tabl.26-9
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 14: Drainage Channel. and Outfalls to Mojave River
Stratum 5: Outfall E
Depth RIak~8Hd
Ot03ft Crlt...
Anal". Unltll Reau" Cancer NorH:ancer
P_1c1d88If)CB8
4,4'-DDD I91cg 180 J 1,190 -
4,4'-DDE Jl9lkg 110 J 839 -
4,4'-DDT JI9Ikg 250 J 839 19,500
ALPHA-CHLORDANE ~ 100 J 219 2,340
DIELDRIN ~ 61 J 18 1,950
GAMMA-CHLORDANE ~ 120 J 219 2,340
S8mlvol8l118 0rganIca
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE I91cg 230 J 20,400 780,000
N-NITROSODIPHENYlAMINE IIa/1(a 67 J 58,200 -
No...:
1. A blilnk 1ncl1oal8elhallll8 ~ - naI d8I8ct8d
2. RII.-1IMed Cri18ri8 ... b8Hd on U.S. Enwi'onmen181 p~ Ag8na)' lalliooIoglI:aI d8I8, e _id8nti8I ..".,...,. _10,
el8/gll- ria. of 0.000001, 8nd el8/gll ~ haard i'Idu of 1.0. Eqaure - CIOIIIid8owd 1ncbI81Oi11ng88t1on,
d8nnaloont8Cl, InII8I8IIan of vol8tll8l from aal, 8nd WI8I8tion of p8llIouIalHlDund aubalarlQ8a; 8 '.' ndlc:alea naI eppIloabla.
3. 'J qlleln;., IncIIo8I8a Vlkl8 II ... aalim8l8 dill 10 b81ng ....... I/I8n 1118 .,... 8I8ndlrd Of du810 lIt.rter-
4. Un,,: ft'OIk8 . mIIigrwna pa' kllogr8m; .19'k8 . microg- par kllog......
6. Rat. a'-1 .....-nt . ~. 011118 d8I8 lor... regular ......,....
8. Duplioa18 ,..,111 (w'- diIpIeyed) ,...88nl11I8 cIaI8 obIlIinad on 8 lingle Ii8Id cIupicat. of - 011118 ,agull, a.~. Agr-..m with
1118 _II" IhoWIIln 1118 ',ag""" column II ooInaicIanI8l
-------
CT0260\870027\RN 14_5.XLS
CLE-J02'()1 F260-B7.0027
Table 26-10
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 14: Drainage Channels and Outfalls to Mojave River
Stratum 5: Outfall E
Depth Nth Pwcenlile RI.II-8_ed
010311 a_ground Criteria
An8Iyte Un1t8 Reaul. Concentrallon Cancer Non~anc8'
Metal.
ALUMINUM IT91tg 18.400J 22.434.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC I191tg 5.2 J .10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM IT91tg 143 205.97 - 1,540
BERYWUM ~ 0.59 J 1.16 0.129 356
BORON ~ 34.9 J 48.51 - 5,970
CADMIUM "91qJ 1.5 1.28 9 39
CALCIUM "91qJ 26,300 J 27,311.4 - .
CHROMIUM rr91cg 16.4 33.15 . 71,100
COBALT ~ 4.9 J 44.87 - 4,540
COPPER ~g 17.7 45.78 . 2,630
IRON n9'kg 19,500 J 38,831.9 - .
LEAD ~ 8.4 J 17.82 - 130
MAGNESIUM IT91tg 7.980 13.347.8 - -
MANGANESE n9'kg 448 695.88 . 138
NICKeL n9'kg 13.0 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM IT91tg 4.760 11,501.4 . -
SELENIUM IT91tg 0.65 J 0 . 356
SODIUM n9'kg 751 J 455.42 . .
STRONTIUM IT91tg 180 187.96 - 42,700
VANADIUM ~g 39.0 84.14 . 498
ZINC rI'Q1(a 57.1 J 79.88 . 21.300
Not.
I. A blank Indio8t..'h8Ilh8 ~ - naI cMI8ded
2. Ailk.B888d Cril8ri8 I18I18Md on U.S. EnWon'-" P,oe8Cllion Agency IoIClcoIogical dat8, 8 ...1cIenti81 apcl8Uf8 I_riD,
818rV81 c--. rilk 01 0.000001, end 818rV81 ~ haafd ...... 01 1.0. Ea......,. rout.. -..id8r8d Inc.. loilingeetion,
d8r...1 oontact. Inh8lation 01 voI8IiII8 ',om 801, 8nd nhaIIIIIon 01 p8I1iou18te-bound 1U1I8'-; 8 '.' IndIc888 noI 8ppIIo8b1e.
3. 85 P..-.ti18 B8clograund eor-.trlllon it C81cul8l8d ',om UCLa a...tow b8c1qpuund 8011 dB (0 10 3 1811): rwI__: J800b8. 1885. 'M"1I8
Corpe Loplic8 a_, a8nllaw, CeI.0mi8 88dqjrvund Soh I_tiplion.' T8Cllnio8l M8m0rendum 0023. Dr8ll1in8l. 30 M8IOh 1885.
4. 'J' quemi8f Indio8t.. w8k18 II 8ft..Ii...... clu810 being IoMf III8n Ih81ow8tltand8ld Of d.-to ....-
5. Unitt: "9'ko . mlllt'..... per kiIotrem; I9'k8 . microer- per kJlDgl8II\. .
8. AMu1t8 lho.! "_III 8 ~e 011118 d8la lor 8n ....... I"""".
7. Duplic8le ,...... (when dl8pley8d) r.,....mlhe d818 otII8Il18c1 on 8 line- Ii8kI dup1c818 01- 011118 'egula, I""'. AerMm8nt with
1118 ,nub lhown in 1118 "egul8r" ooIurm ill ooOncId8nI8L
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN 14_8.XLS
CLE.,J02-o1 F280-B7.0027
Table 26-11
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 14: Drainage Channels and Outfalls to Mojave River
Stratum 6: Channel F
D8pIh Alsk-8888d
Oto3n Crn.la
ANllyte UnIIII Aegu" Dupllc8te Cancer Non-Cancer
P-~8.
4,4'.DDE ~ 4.8 J 839 .
4,4'.DDT ~ 3.2 J 3.4 J 839 19,500
ALPHA-CHLORDANE ~ 1.2 J 219 2,340
AROCLOR.1254 ~ 43J 47 .
DIELDRIN ~ 2.7 J 0.89 J 18 1,950
ENDOSUlFAN I IJgI1cg 0.50 J . 1,950
GAMMA.CHlORDANE ~ 1.2 J 219 2,340
Semlvolalle OrganIc8
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE ~ 330 J 391 -
BENZO(A)PVRENE JIg/1(g 380 39 .
BENZO(B)FlUORANTHENE ~g 350 391 -
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE ~g 200 J - .
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE ~g 280 J 610 .
CHRYSENE ~g 370 6,100 .
FlUORANTHENE ~g 370 . 1,560,000
INDENO( 1 ,2,3-CD)PYRENE IJgI1cg 280 J 391 .
N.NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE ~ 57 J 47 J 58,200 .
PHENANTHRENE ~ 89J . .
PVRENE IIaJka 430 . 1,170,000
VoIallle OrganIc8
2.BUTANONE . ~ 3J . 5,140,000
ACETONE ~g 4 J . 1,370,000
No...:
1. A blank Indioot.lhIIIlh8 8II8Iy1. - naI d81edeel
2. Riok.B888d Crfteria ... b88ee1 ... U.S. Enwironnwd8l PrOC8dIon Agency 1aI,
.181;81 08- ri8k eI 0.000001, end .lIIrgeI noncarainogenio hUard incIa ell.0. Expoeu'....... -*der8d IncWe eoil ingeetlon,
dermel_, inll8l8tlon 01 woIaIiII8from IlOl, end inh8lldian eI P8/IIOUI8I.bouncIeub8I11_: . '.' ftdioeI. noc.pplio8bIe.
3. 'J quet~i8r 1ndio8t. .... II en .timet. du810 being Jaw. th8n the ~t .1IInd8rd Of du810 nt_-
4. Unite: mu/IIo . millig- 118' kilogrem; .~ . mIctog- pet kilogram.
6. Retub.hown repr_nI . oon...-. 01 the daI8 lor .. MIl"'" .......
8. Duplic8l. ,.u1t8 (when di8pley8d) ...- Ihe daI8 obIIIlned ... . eingle field dupllca1. eI one elthe 'egull' ..,..... Ag,...-.nt with
Ihe _ulla aho- in the ',egu1IIr' aoIumn II oair>cicI8nt8L
-------
CT0260\B70027\RN 14_8.XLS
CLE-J02-o1 F280-B7.0027
Table 26-12
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 14: Drainage Channels and Outfall. to Mojave River
Stratum 6: Channel F
DepIh Hili Percenlile Rlak-B_ed
GiGsn I_ground Criteria
AMlYt8 UnIta Reg- Duplicate Concentration Cancer Non.cancer
Metals .
ALUMINUM "" 4,360 J 3,810 J 22,434.3 . 71,100
ARSENIC "9'k9 3.0 J 2.7 J 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM "9'k9 57.8 34.8 J 205.97 . 1,540
BORON "9'k9 4.6 J 4.3 J 48.51 . 5,970
CALCIUM mg1Ig 11,300 J 8,100 J 27,311.4 . -
CHROMIUM "" 8. t J 4.7 33.15 - 71,100
COBALT "9'k9 2.6 J 1.8 J 44.87 - 4,540
COPPER mg1Ig 53.9 6.0 45.78 - 2,630
IRON "9'k9 12,700 J 7,370 J 38,831.9 . -
LEAD mg1Ig 27.8 J 7.8 J 17.82 - 130
MAGNESIUM ~g 2,550 2,300 13,347.8 . -
MANGANESE "9'k9 t75 142 895.88 - 136
MOLYBDENUM ~ 0.74 J 0 . 354
NICKEL ~ 5.9 J 3.7 J 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM "9'k9 1,390 J 999 J 11,501.4 - .
SELENIUM ~g 0.61 J 0 - 356
SODIUM ~g 120 J 102 J 455.42 . .
STRONTIUM mg.1(g 42.1 24.7 167.96 . 42,700
VANADIUM mg.1(g 27.6 16.9 84.14 . 498
ZINC 19.0 20.8 J 79.68 . 21,300
Nai-
l. "blink 1ncl1oa188 Ihlllll8 8MIyIa - naI deladed
2. Rilk.B88ed Crt18118 - lIMed on U.S. e"".............. P,......ion Agency toxloologlc8l d818, a _ldenIiel8IIpoeu,a a_io,
al8fll8l ~ ria. 01 0.00000 I, IIIId al8rget ~ic h8ard IncIex 011.0. Expoau,a rouIea conaidenod include aoillngealion,
""1181-' in_ion 01........ from aol, end InIIel8lion 01 perticuIIIIe-bouncl_te_: a"." incIiceI.. nalapPiaeb..
3. 85 P-. BacllOrauncI ~,ation 10 caIoulalad ',om MCLB Baratow backgroundaoil d818 (0 to 3.881); ..ar_: JaooI>a. 1885. .Ma,1na
Corpa Logialica B_. Baralow, Callomle Badlerouncl Bola '__ion." Technical Marnarendum 0023. Drall final. 30 March 1885.
4. 'J' qualKi8r incllc8l- v"" ia an 881im81. due to baing Iowr Ihan 1118 1o_lalandard or dualo inlarf.,-
5. Una: mgIk; . milligrama par IUIograrn; IIW1I8 . microgr.... par idiogram.
8. Raaub ahown l8pf_nI a ~. ollila d818 lor "l'8IIul8r aarnpl88.
7. Duplic8l8,nub (when dlaplayad) ,__1118 d8I8 oIII8Inad on a aingla.iekI duplicela 01 one 011118 'egula, aarnpl88. AII,_nt-
1118 ,..u" ahown in 1118 ",aguIar" column 10 coincid8nI8l
-------
CT0260\870027'IRN 143 JClS
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7.{XJ27
Table 26-13
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 14: Drainage Channels and Outfalls to Mojave River
Stratum 7: Channel G
Depth Allk.a..ed
Ot03ft CrIt.....
AMlyte Un1t8 Aegu" Dupllc8te C8nC8I' No~8nCeI'
P-~.
4,4'-DDO ~g 4.8 J 1.9 J 1,190 -
4,4'-DDE ~g 35J 9.0 J 839 -
4,4'.DDT ~g 37 J 7.9 J 839 19,500
ALPHA-CHlORDANE ~ 3.3 J 2.8 J 219 2,340
DIELDRIN ~g 7.3 J 1.4 J 18 1,950
ENDRIN ~ 0.79 J - 11,700
GAMMA-CHLORDANE ualka 3.8 1.5 J 219 2,340
NoI88:
,. A bl8nk lndioa1e8 'h8IlN ~ - naI d8I8cII8d
2. RilII-B888d C- ... baed on U.B. eM_8I P_1on Ag8nGy IaxicoIogIc8I d8Ia. . -1d8nI18I UPOSU" --10,
'18/1181""'- rtak 01 0.00000', ...., '18/1181 ~Ia haDrd Indu 01 '.0. ~. rout- .....-...cI inck1d8 ooiJ 1"1188lIOII,
d8rm8I-.18c1, InII8- oI""""om 801, 8fId ~h81a11on 01 p81ticulol.bound IUbe_:. "." hllc8I.. nal8ppIio8b18.
3. 'I qualKI8r India8I8 VUI. iI M ......... du8 to b8ing 10- Ih8n Ih8 ~, .land8rd '" due to ...811...-
4. Una: mg/kQ . mlligr8n8 pl' kilogram; .19'<8 . rnicrog..... per kilog......
6. R88ut18 .110"" -_nI . ............. olIN d8t8 lor .n NOu'" .."..-.
8. Dup!ic8I8,88ut18 1-- di8pl8y8d) '..- 'hi d8t8 obI.inld on . ling18lie1d cluplc8l. 01 0118 011118 'lIIu18, ..".... Ag,...,..". willi
IN -ub 8110"" In \hi ",,,,,,181" aoIurm iI coIncIcNnI8L
-------
CT0260\S70027\AN 14_7 .XLS
CLE-JQ2-01 F260- B7-0027
Table 26-14
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soli
CAOC 14: Drainage Channel. and Outfall. to Mojave River
Stratum 7: Channel G
DepIh 15th Percentile RIak-8ased
Oto3n 8_ground Crlt.....
An8lyte Unila Regul8r Dupllc8. Concentr.tIon C8I1C8I' Non.c8l1Cel'
Metal.
ALUMINUM ~ 5,170 J 1,990 J 22,434.3 - 71,100
ARSENIC fI'91cg 3.3 J 10.43 0.31 21.3
BARIUM ~g 60.3 20.0 J 205.97 - 1,540
BORON "" 2.5 J 48.51 - 5,970
CALCIUM "" 18,400 J 3,990 J 27,311.4 - -
CHROMIUM "" 13.2 J 2.8 J 33.15 - 71,100
COBALT I\'9'kg 3.9 J 44.87 - 4,540
COPPER ~ 9.9 4.8 J 45.78 - 2,630
IRON ~g 11,800 J 4,970 J 38,831.9 - -
LEAD fI'91cg 30.0 J 4.8 J 17.82 - 130
MAGNESIUM I\'9'kg 2,750 1,310 13,347.8 - -
MANGANESE I\'9'kg 217 J 81.4 J 895.88 . 136
NICKEL ~ 7.8 J 3.0 J 42.75 150 1,400
POTASSIUM I\'9'kg 1.890 J 11,501.4 - -
SELENIUM ~ 0.81 J 0.60 J 0 - 358
SODIUM I\'9'kg 113 J 52.4 J 455.42 - .
STRONTIUM ~g 76.3 18.1 167.96 - 42,700
VANADIUM ~g 26.0 10.7 84.14 - 498
ZINC :mWkg 77.1 13.3 79.88 . 21,300
No..:
1. A bl8nk Indical88 IhId the 8II8IyIa - not d818d8d
2. Rllk.8«McI Crtleria a.. baMd on U.S. Envi'~ ProI8dion Agency loxlcologlcal data, a -id8n1i81 ..potUr. 100n81io,
a large! 08- rl8k '" 0.000001, 8ncI al8rgel non08ICftogenio hazard Index 011.0. ExplllUfa rout- ~ Include laillngeelion,
darmal-.l8ct, Inhalation oI__!rom 8011, 8ncI i'Ih8I8Iion 01 pII1iculal.bound I~; a'.' indlcale8 ""'applicable.
3. 85 P.-nti18 Baollvraund c-1rallon II O8Icul8led "om MelB I1818Iow b8clcgrauncl ..... d818 (010 3 feel); "'.,enoe: Jacobe. IlK. 'Mar...
Corpelogl8tic8 B-, BarwIow, Callomia Bacqraund 8oiI8 I_Ilgalion.' Technio8J Memorandum 0023. Dr811 Iinal. 30 Meroh IlK.
4. 'J' qualdilf indlc8t. vakJa II an .'Imllla due 10 baing ~ I118n the lowMi 8I8nd8rd or due 1o 1n1811ar-
5. Unb: mg/IqJ . mIIigrame par kilogram; I9'kO - miorogr.... par idiogram.
8. R8ub lhown _-nla --- 01 the data far .. Ngular I"""".
7. Duplio8l8,.... (When dl8played) rapte- lhe data obtained on a lingle ,laid duplcala 01- 01 the r8llul8'lampia. Agr.menlwllll
the r.ull lhown In '''' 'r"," ooIumn II coincidenI8l
-------
CT0260\B70027\T A826-15.XL.S
CLE-J02-o1 F26G-B7 «YO
Table 26-15
CAOC 14 - Drainage Channels and Mojave Riverbed Outfalls
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land-Use Scenario
Totar Back~ roundD Incrementar
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncancer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 9 x 10~' 1.7 9 x 1 O~ 1.7 <1 x 10~
2 2 X 10-6 4.9 2 x 10-6 4.7 3 x 10-8
3 1 x 1 0-6 2.1 3 x 10~ 2.1 9 x 10~
4 1 x 1 0-6 1.8 1 x 1 0-6 1.8 <1 X 10-8
5 3 x 1 0-6 4.2 2 x 1 0-5 4.0 5 x 10~
6 2 x 1 0-6 1.6 1 x 1 0-6 1.6 1 x 10.6
7 1 X 10-6 1.9 1 x 1 0.6 1.9 5 x 10-7
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activhies for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk that is attrbJtable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk is equal to the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the she-related risk.
-------
CT026O\B70027\TAB26-16.XLS
CLE-J02'()1 F260-B7-0027
Table 26-16
CAOC 14 - Drainage Channels and Mojave Riverbed Outfalls
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Totar Backa roundD IncrementalC
Stratum Cancer Noncancer Cancer Noncaneer Cancer
Risk Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Risk
1 1 x 1 0-6 0.2 1 X 10-6 0.2 <1 x 10-6
2 4 x 1 0-6 0.7 4 x 1 0-6 0.7 7 x 1 0~7
3 3 x 1 0-6 0.3 5 x 1 0-7 0.3 2 x 1 0-6
4 2 x 1 0-6 0.2 2 x 1 0-6 0.2 <1 x 10-6
5 5 x 1 0-6 0.6 3 x 1 0-6 0.6 2 x 1 0-6
6 6 x 10-6 0.2 2 x 1 0-6 0.2 4 x 1 0-6
7 2 x 1 0-6 0.2 2 x 1 0-6 0.2 2 x 1 0-7
. The total carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard Indices include the
contribution from naturally occurring and site-related activities for all detected substances
in the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
b Portion of the total risk that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
C The incremental lifetime cancer risk is equal to the total risk minus the background risk.
This represents the site-related risk.
-------
CT0260870027\SUAFSEOJCL8(OAQANJC)
CLE..J02'()IF~B7'0027
Table 27.1
Maximum Organic Concentration. In Sediment
Nebo Main 88.8 Potential Riparian Habitat
A
Volatile C)rpn1c8
2.BUTANONE
ACETONE
CARBON DISULFIDE
Nola: .
,. A bIIInk indica- thldlhe ~ - not cI8I8cIed
2. 'I qu8ltl1er Indica... velue Ie en -.l1m8I8d due to being "'- then the
bw88I 118nd8n:I 01 due 10 inIIfI_-
3. Unill: IIIWk8 - "...,.,. per kilogram; 19'\1li- mic,...... per kilogram.
4. Themuillun dll8ded 00IIC8IItr8llon -"eel. ~ IooIIIion NRH-OI.
Depth
0103ft
R u"
Unl18
~g
~g
247 J
1,440 J
56J
-------
CT028lNl70027\SURFSEDJCl..SI1NORGANIC)
ClE .J02'()1 F2tG-B7-0027
Table 27.2
Maximum Inorganic Concentl'8tlon8 In Sediment
Nebo Main 8a88 Potential Riparian Habitat
Depth IS"" Pen:enU"
0103" Background
Anlilyte UnI.. Regu" Concenlr.tIon
Metel.
ALUMINUM ~g 20,300 22,434.3
ANTIMONY ~g 9.7 J 0
ARSENIC ~ 3.4 10.43
BARIUM IJ'91Ig 194 205.97
BERYLUUM ~g 0.83 J 1.16
BORON ~g 16.5 J 48.51
CALCIUM ~g 16,600 27,311.4
CHROMIUM ~ 21.8 33.15
COBALT ~ 10.7 J 44.87
COPPER "'91c9 21.2 45.78
IRON ~g 27,500 38,831.9
LEAD ~ 9.9 J 17.82
MAGNESIUM "" 10,700 13,347.8
MANGANESE ~ 419 695.88
NICKEL ~g 13.5 42.75
POTASSIUM ~g 6,170 11,501.4
SILVER ~ 6.5 0
SODIUM .g 772J 455.42
STRONTIUM .g 124 167.96
TITANIUM .g 1,720 2,200
VANADIUM ~ 59.2 84.14
ZINC ~g 98.8 79.68
NoI":
I. 85 P..cenli18 Becll8rouncl c-ntr8lion 10 O8Ir:Ul8led trom MCLB B...Io. b8ck8_ncI .0;1 dllla (0 10 3111811: ..........: J8C0b8. 1885. "MUM
Cofpe Logi8ta B_, 88l81ow, C".omIa B~ncI eo.. 1_II81III0Il: T__Memorandum 0023. Dr8ll1in8l. 30 MMOh 1886.
2. 'I qual"- IndIcale8 VPM it ... _1imIII. dullo being ~ Ih8n th8 tow.tetanclard Of d.. to ""Iff........
3. Unil8: mg/I
-------
CT02ClCNl7002718UAFSURF JlUI(OAGAHIC)
CLE .J02'()1F2tO-B7 -0027
Tabl.27-3
Organic Concentrations In Surface Water (Sample location NRH~1)
Nebo Main 8a.. Potential Rlpartan Habitat
Depth Ambient W."
0103ft QUIIII Crll8rI8
ANllyIe Un1t8 Reau" Acute Chronic
88mlvol8l118 0rg8nIc8
2-METHYLPHENOL ~ 12 na na
N.NITROSQ.DI.N.PROPYLAMINE UG'L. 12 5,850 na
VoI8III8 0rpnIc8
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE w'l 1 J 20,000 20,000
CARBON DISULFIDE uWl 0.9 J na na
NoI88:
1. 8oura8 at Ambi8nI W" QU8IIy C,I8rI8. EPA'.'nI8gl818d Riok InIormaIIon Syal8m (IRIS) (Allllual 1885)
NIA: net 8ppIio8III8, I" an8Iyte 18 _Iuded - . oh8Irio8I at poI8nII8I8OCIIogIc8I - . ft 18 en _nlla~
non-laIIo nutr"'" ...: No d8I8 18 ..8181118.
2. 'r qualifie, Indio8t88 VUle Ie 811 .1im8t8d du810 baing "'- than Ih8 lawal 8I8nd8nI Of d... 10 "'811..-
3. Unlta: 1IIJIl- mlarog,... 1* I".
-------
CT028lNl700271SURFSURF JClS/lNORGANIC)
CLE.J02'()IF~B7-0D27
Teble 27-4
lnorgenlc Concentrations In Surtece Wete, (Semple Locetlon NRH-G1)
Nebo Meln Be8e Potentlel Rlperlen Hebltat
Surfece Weter
Depth Amblenl W."
0103ft QU8IIlty Criteria
AMlyt. Unlta Reau.. Acut. Chronic
M.a.I.
ALUMINUM ~~ 222 N/A N/A
ARSENIC ~Wl 7.8 J 380 190
BARIUM ~~ 91.2 J N/A N/A
BORON ~~ 1,240 NlA 750
CALCIUM ~~ 312,000 N/A NlA
IRON ~~ 1,850 N/A N/A
MAGNESIUM ~~ 53,500 N/A N/A
MANGANESE I9l 1,740 . N/A N/A
MOLYBDENUM ~~ 20.8 J N/A NlA
POTASSIUM JI~ 10,800 N/A N/A
SELENIUM I9l 5.1 20 5.00
SODIUM II~ 410,000 N/A N/A
STRONTIUM uGII... 3,280 N/A N/A
1'10188:
1. 'J' qU81~..IncIica1........ II an ..tim81e due 10 being Iowr than Ih8Io_tlland8rd Of due to m8l1er-
2. Una: pgIl. "*'I'I1II''''' .... IiI8
-------
FIGURES
-------
I ~
! I~' :~
," ~
I
-.
.
",'
"
I.
Base
0" .j
M
o
., .~c.
.-. ..,..
.=
. -"
..'" ~-~
~...:.;..-
,--
1'.' ,.
,
.
. .
.
,
. ~'" '1.
~
. ....~ ""'.,
t.
. .'...-
n
.,
-.
.-
1..-:
.... 2 :-
f . ~ - J.:'~-:-:;:' ~.~
Scale in mlli!s. ; -..-..,. ;.-:':'
., ~~::: ," 1.. ~ '_""~~~'~-:':'':~ f~'~;. :,~
, ,
......
., ..110 Co
..
"
!
.
.
. .
:-
,.
.
l
"
PRO, UGR
I ~ Gnt-
, 'AOJ GEO
! D It.
1~.DfU.~'" 8Y
J Wo''''''
MCLB Barstow is located east ollhe City 01 Barstow in the central Mcjave Desert in San Bernardino Cc Jnty. California, I ~.:';~~COR
Source: U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangles: Oaggen. CA 197 I Minneola, CA 1971: Nebo, CA phoro.;>, 'sed 1971: J~~~::\"90 COR
Yermo, CA Photorevis~d 1970, n5F~i'iOG.- I DATE
. Ie...,.,., ~97
...
,,'
'"
:.
,.
J~: JACOBS ENGINURING GROUP INC.
. 0 - PaSIdeN, ColI"""'"
MARINE CORPS L ')GISTICS BASE
8.'1108. C~iiIOlTMa
A
Nebo and "ermo
Vicinity Map
11,F260-Y8
F';.J'':~: ,.,
-------
+
+
..-.. "
I
a
....
+
...
~
0.'
.
+
.
n..
...
'0
.
....
._"""
.
9
+
.
...'
~
~
~
~
;
!?
!
.
~
.
.
"
.
+
+
1000 500
,....-----~j
SCAlE
IN FUT
.
......
+
+
¥
LEGEND
=
IflUCruc
'a'" I0Il0 08 dCto
-.-
==
=-
-,,""
....... ......
Oc::::l ,....,
OU I R(CIONAl CROUNDWA 1(11
. 1In-' E~:~~~~~~::'~
.
~. ::!!a'!a..or"~~tr'
u. Loc.allOI
.. "1.1' PIUUlCIP LQtAtlOl
OU 5 CAOC.
9 GJ'e..oc
"~:: ::,~':~-=::~.:e ,.. .,.",
,t - r'~~-::,~J) ...
180IQ.CICIt.I& -~.'o.-tJ.o.
:;~ =,:~::,D~"""
~ : ::=~ ~J~ 1t~~ ~ ...
I' - lUaJlI",'JI SII DI9'U'IAI. MIA
:;: :~O~.:'~:I=:« MIa
. - rll'tC 0.. ,.. ~
: : :;:dl tU' "101 tIOAO
""'. ,tOil . ,...o.c8C "0IIa«
JS.. CIa" III lMCl'a&.
JI- :=o~~'" ~aa.I
'SCUta. OP" "Clift. ftoC' ..."" --tIC
tCIIII'\ U:JCtS"C:S '''51 811it1t'\tOll. CA.
N
!
1000
2000
~ JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.
PASAD[~A. CALIrOllNIA
"AA:~( cc",.s LOCISTICS 8AS(
OIAS 'c.-, CAL II(WiIHIA
OPER ABLE UNIT ~
CAOe LOCA TleNS
VERt.lO ANNEX
01-f260- VB
FIGURE 1- 2
Cl[ .J01-orr150-87-000I
-------
-,
+
~
,
I
,
~
1
~
-::
/1
I
;( L - - ~\ -..-T.J
\ ._+
\\
I \
(
\, Q
,I 0
, co
)
f ':t "-
..........
'-......
- i :,- -t - 1\ .:,
+ ,~"" r ~.., ~+ / /\ +
+
+,
LEGEND
c::=:2 llIIoICtIoIC
= ...ca 8080 011 a.8IA
==--= ~8OJroD
- rroa
- .......a (NO
Oc::s 'N8I'S
OU l RECIONAl CROUNOWA fER
. "'''-1 =o.3":)(~I'I'
...lrc.UIlC...U lOtAlic.
. 1fUo.' :.\.~~~~::.~ur
..fOIl- ...u ,,01:.&'.
A -Z-" "'UMIP UIC.I.'ICII
OU 6 CAOC.
a ca.'CMJC
, - ,...... IG'tfM 01 N CII:Lf ((UIW
:: =~'I: :'~':~A
~ : :"'''*:08'::r Jr-:a:.~u
I' : =: '~.:: ==: ::.:... «&
::: :=.=~~::-u~....
~c thO
~ =~~~ ":.:~~';'O:Cu.
N
!
1000
2000
.
1000 ~ j
-.....; ~-
seAU: IN f'[U
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.
~ PA$AO[NA, CAllrORNIA
w""lN( CORPS LOCI!flCS BAS[
8"$10., CAurOAlrflA
OPER ABl[ UN IT 6
CAOC lOCA liONS
N[BO UAIN B>S[
+
+
-----
I
7
II (
\ \
V
NE90 RlrlE RANCE
+
+
01-r260-'Wt!
rIGUR[ 1- J
CU - J01-r160-87-00' J
-------
I~~
~[ .. H£T
II] ~ ENGJE£RJNQ GROUP INC.
AS>I)[NA, CAI."OIINIA
"""':.:r'!s LOCrSIOCS &AS[
-. CAl.I'O'IIOO
CAOC 35 KEY P~'I
C~SS III ~Nonll
vERuQ AN'IEX
.. .
-
+
+
....... ..
a
+
..
..
-.
.
+
.
fr-'
..
..
.
-.
. .....
.
9
+
.
-.
+
+
.
,,'....
.-...-. -
LEGEND
=--
= .............
~ -=- ...........
=c::;):O. -
--
---
O<=> -
011 I R[CIQIW. ~..Ttlt
. CJI-' ~
=~.J:!~~
. -.. ::::"-:;:.d!""'...JW_~
---
. ...... RtIDICIIII .....
011 ~ i:-oc.
B 8IIC!IQC;
I"::: ~ - WfP""
IIJUIIIC p,"" trIIIA'"
...~-~
n...OIJCSI'C IIIIIII.I
:: : ==.=.-: =-...
f: : :;r::. ::. =-:-=.-:c.
I: : :-=...---c:;- ...
... .,... ... .....
:: : =.:r 1Ut t8IDI ...
,.,. .. IIIICIIIfCII4 ......
~:=.=.~
..-...a ..-- ...
wuaz :::-r~""''''
.. ..... 0..
N
!
1000
2000
QI-F260-YB
- .~URE 3-1
0.( -.10,-0;;-160-&,::00.)
-------
,.- ----'
N
~
(\
1"5.1~-1 'I
.
I"5J~..8. 'I
'I
~ ~J505
':::-..
REFERENCE
POINt
SIr/filUM 2 '::\"
Am I ilL -j NfRiiii[i)SURVI: Y
ANOUAIOUS AREA
LEGEND:
YBJ502
o
I&Y8J~OJ
Y8J~.
o
Y8J507
o
~
~
0YBJ~ ~
fENC(
CAOC BOUNDARY
lOt 505
---
5 IRA tuu BOUNDARY
~
Y8J~8
1&
~
~
~
~
Y9J201
o
SOil BORING lOCATION (1993)
STRATUM I
lANOrlll AREA
'1[-11
+
GROUNOWATER MONITORING WEll
(CONFIRMA TlON STUDT)
~J~- 2 1
SHAllOW DEPTH GROUNDWAIER
MONitORING 'IIo(ll (OU I)
v
YSI~- 2 .
Y8J510
o
Y83509
o
o
Y8J5100
o
YBJ5090
o
YSJ~- 2
.
1"511-7
.
INtERMEDIATE DEPTH GROUNDWAIER
uONJlORING 'IIo(Ll (OU 1)
0008 rr trT.
--
GROUNDWA TER now DIREC TlON
UAGNJlUOE or GRADIENT
:::-..
~
:::-..
:::-..
HOlE: OtPIt< 10 GAOUNO"AltR '5 - "0 rr aes
I YE. 12.
~
"
:::-..
E;;-~
OXIOA TlDN
PONDS
YSI7- II ....1~---;;- --J
8/"--
~J Y517-5
.
SOUR;!; BAS[ WAP ORA" rRQW INrOQUA flON
rRau !II( CH2U Hill AUCUS! 1991 AtRIAL'
PHOtOCRAPHY ANO suaStOU(N! lAND 5URVE~
.
1"517-7
2'~....~_- J 2.0
SCALE IN r£ET
.ao
.'
lJS .w:oes EHOIHEERINO GROUP 1NC.
;S CltI\IIQ.O
...n, loot: II'SAatMA, CAI,.lrOA..IA
!~ .e... - vt.l,N( COltP~ LOCISIICS BaS(
...- I" 0...1,10-. C'lIfCl'tfilll"
I.,~,.
lI,n
10 27 97
CAac J5
CLASS III LANDFIll
SOIL BORING LOCA IIO~
-"''O.-060-Y8 rIGUREJ-2
".at ...
II-DwG\SB
.. an II" 000
5BJ5
(.11 10) J" J~'I '1' ',"1'"
..., -._. -. --
,'.-- .---- ---
-------
+ " ~11200
N ~11200
o
o
N
+ \
~
N
..
..,
N
\
\
".;::: \
~
h
N
~
STR"'~II[Y
-rRAREO SUR
A[ R I A~N:;:'Al OUS AR[ A
Y
'I
'I
K
~~
LEGEND:
---.
fENCE
CAOC BOUNDARy
TUU BOUNDARY
STRA
--
Or PROPDS[D CAP
AREA
(ZONE 1)
IHrORU. HON 1111....
OR""'" (ROW GUst 1991 At SU~v(TS
BAS( ..AP CH2'" Hill A~POU(N1 lANO
SOUR«(. rROW TH( Y AND su9;x.
PHOJQCRAPN
D
240 120 - ...J
~~ - SCALE IN rEEl
240
4eo
-------
T
3 ft.
MIN.
DEPTH
VARIES
~
5% minimum slope
(3% minimum slope after subsidence)
.
"...0.. ...0. .0" 00 ...0. '0° ...- .0. .."...-.0..." .-.0
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - .- -
- - - - - -. - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - -
...~., /..-; ~ -:-~._- '-
~ .:.:..., ... -"~
- ~":.. ~4.:'>~
WASTE
-
CLE.J02.01 F260.B7.0013
ARMOR LAYER
. 6.inch.thick layer of rock or gravel
SOIL COVER (NATIVE SOIL)
. .
. Contains no waste or leachate
. Grade to minimize ponding
. 3-100t minimum depth desirable to
minimize infiltration
GENERAL FILL
. Locally available soils free of large
rocks and deleterious materials
. Fill low areas of cap area
SUB GRADE
. Scarify and compact before placing
subsequent layers .
CAP DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PROJ. MGR.
S. Griswold
PROJ. ENG.
T. Adair
DRAWN BY
J. Lawrence
DRAWING NO.
1157\F260.210.CDR .
MADE FROM
1103\F260-195.CDR !
DATE
04114197
!JE' JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.
I~ Pasade!'Ci, California
I MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
Barstow. Califomia
Landfill Area Cap Detail
Alternative 3
PROJ. NO. 01 .F260- VB .
FIGURE 3-4
-------
T
2 ft.
+-
1 ft. MIN.
-t
2 ft.
MIN.
t
DEPTH
V ARIES
--L
5% min. slope
(3% min. slope after subsidence)
.
~fj~1~[frh~,iRs}iit)!~~]tr31j~
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- '- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - -
- -
~. 1-
,~
:;m:;::::;
.>'"
-..\
WASTE
-
ClE .J02.{) 1 F260.B7-0\.
ARMOR LAYER
. 6-inch-thick layer of rock or gravel
SOIL COVER
. Contains no waste or leachate
. 2.foot depth for protection to
minimize dessication of underlying
soil barrier layer
SOIL BARRIER LAYER
. Permeability less than 10-6 cmls
. Can be locally available clay or
manufactured soil-bentonite
FOUNDATION LAYER
. May be soil, contaminated soil, or
waste materials if material can be
compacted.
GENERAL FILL
. Locally available soils free of large
rocks and deleterious materials
. May not be needed around
perimeter cap
SUB GRADE
. Foundation layer may be
incorporated in some subgrade
areas
. Scarify and compact before placing
subsequent layers
CAP DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PROJ. MGR.
S. Griswold
PROJ. ENG.
Y. Yap
DRAWN BY
J. Lawrence
DRAWING NO. I
1157\F260-211.CDR I
MADE FROM I
1103\F260.197.CDR
DATE
04109/97
;JEi JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.
~ Pasadena. California
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
Barstow. California
Landfill Area Cap Detail
Alternative 4, Option 1
PROJ NO 01.F260.YB .
FIGURE 3-5
-------
T
2 ft.
+
2 ft.
MIN.
t
DEPTH
V ARIES
~
5% min. slope
(3% min. slope after subsidence)
.
~(;J~[JNi~~~~~!~lr.Mi~
:'"'..'" ". :,"..,',. "" :,"..".. '. :';'.' .. '. ..:.~. '.. '",,.,',.,',: '. ,';'.- '.. '" :.:. ,,' ',: ',. .-
J1?1~;i'~~clc~2i~~I:I~'~!~1~!il~l~~i~
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
'- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
. - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
-----
~/~
-
.~.
--\
WASTE
-
ClE .J02-o1 F260.B7.0013
ARMOR LAYER
. 6-inch-thick layer of rock or gravel
SOIL COVER LAYER
. Contains no waste or leachate
. 2-foot depth to protect the
underlying barrier layer from
. puncture
GEOTEXTILE
GEOMEMBRANE BARRIER LAYER
. Permeability less than 10011 cmls
. Can be high-density polyethylene
(HOPE) geomembrane. An
overlying drainage layer is not
necessary in an arid environment.
FOUNDATION LAYER
. May be soil, contaminated soil, or
waste materials if material can be
compacted.
GENERAL FILL
. Locally available soils free of large
rocks and deleterious materials
. May not be needed around
perimeter cap
.
SUBGRADE
. Foundation layer may be
incorporated in subgrade areas
around the perimeter
. Scarify and compact before placing
subsequent layers
CAP DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PROJ. MGR.
.s. Gnswold
PROJ. ENG.
Y. Yap
DRAWN BY
J. Lawrence
DRAWING NO.
1157\F260-212.CDR
MADE FROM 1
1103\F260-198.CDA I
DATE
04/09/97
'JE~, JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.
Pasadena. Califomia
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
Barstow. Califomia
Landfill Area Cap Detail
Alternative 4, Option 2
PROJ. NO. Q1-F260- YB .
FIGURE 3-6
-------
T
2 ft.
+
2 ft.
MIN.
t
DEPTH
VARIES
~
5% min. slope
(3% min. slope after subsidence)
..
...::::: ,,: ~': ':::.:' :.. ::::: ,,: ~: '::'.:' :...:::~: ,,:~: :::.:' :..::::: ,,: ~': '~.:' :..:::: :-\: ':::.:
Y/Jjk.2j k:2!~ k:2!~MWj,
.:~~i~~~~~~g~~i.~;;ik~~~;~:
." ~'..' . .' .".. .
".. "." ..,"
". . .:",":' :"..- "...- .";' . '""::"'" ..:....
,':"
,",":",
, ,
, .
. .
".,."..." .
;"-':.-':'.:::':":'''::'0":::':':'>:' . -" ".
'." "'..-.'
:.".. .
'".."'-
. -..
"0"
, .
, .
""..-
, .
. '
'. '. '"0:"
...
'.; ..-.: ".'''.': :.""'.~:..' 0". . .
-'.'. .
:.....,
.'"
--
..,
"
.. "",
...
, .
", ".
",on
. ..
. . ..".
,", "..". ,",." "'.,
-... .......-,......."
,"'" "..." ,""
.. .", n"" ',".
.. .. . ."
,""
. -.."
. ,
. .
... .
- - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- -
~I--
-
~
--\
WASTE
-
:.. ..
. '
CLE.J02.()1 F260.B7.0013
ARMOR LAYER
. 6-inch-thick layer of rock or gravel
SOIL COVER LAYER
. Contains no waste or leachate
. 2-foot depth to protect the underlying
barrier layer from puncture
GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCL)
J
. Permeability less than 10. cm/s
. Manufactured panels consist of 0.25-
inch sodium bentonite. Either
encapsulated by geotextiles or glued
to thin high-density polyethylene
(HDPE).
. An overlying drainage layer is
probably not necessary in an arid
environment.
FOUNDATION LAYER
. May be soil. contaminated soil, or
waste materials if material can be
compacted.
GENERAL FILL
. Locally available soils free of large
rocks and deleterious materials
. May not be needed around perimeter
cap
SUB GRADE
. Foundation layer may be incorporated
in some subgrade areas around the
perimeter
. Scarify and compact before placing
subsequent layers
CAP DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PROJ. MGR.
S. Gnswold
PROJ, ENG.
T, Ada.r
DRAWN BY
J. Lawrence
DRAWING NO, I
1157\F260-213.CDR
MADE FROM 1,
1103\F260-200.CDR .
DATE
04109/97
:JE\ JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.
~ Pasadena. California
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
Barstow. California
Landfill Area Cap Detail
Alternative 4, Option 3
PROJ NO. 01-F260-YB ;
FIGURE 3-7
-------
1000
~ ~-...~-J
5CAl[ IN ItU
JACOBS ENGINEERIHQ GROUP INC.
IJE] PASAO(HA. CAlIr~IA
"''''''IN( CC)IItPS LOCIS"!:S BAS[
BARS 'Ow. CAllrQAWIA
CAOC 7 KEY PLAN
DRUU S fORAGE ARE A AND LANDr III
NEBD "'AIN BASE
I
+
A
)
\
I
""""-
+
.
!
&
i
~
i
;
~
.
+
LEGEND
~'NIWC"--
= ~.".tIOIrOCI8""
=--= I,III~D~
-'....
~CI8'''O''C)I
00 '...
au ~ RECIONAl CROUNOWA TER
. .u., =~~~I(~tI.
....0.... ~u. 1.0l:Io'"
. ..,., :.~..:.~,~-.w
-..1QIt.c tCu ,cu.11a1
... ..,... PC~1U ,,~IIDI
au 8 CADC.
D""'C.t.OC
I ~ ,....1U. ICIII"" ~ ftC:..' C~
: : ::,~'t: ::~~ ....
I : c'''''''::o.'::..'- AC. . luG'" "
' =.c It. -,. DlP05IIL ~ .....
,; : IUOf"OII Q1-:~.:...c~I'CII.cI -.
:: : =='~, ... (a,I"tU' ..
IIIOaC .nn
....,..., 01 hoC .'". ......... (A
sa.aa CCIIW'I ~ClCI'tla ,a. 8"'"'08.
N
!
2000
-'i - -t - 1\ .-:,
rOR~( R, I NOARY ( /
+ (+ I /;, + __O_ES£RI IORTOIs[
\ PROOr r[N([
-----
----
\ \
Ii
.
NEBO RiflE RANCE
+
+
--...---
-------
o
o
o
.
;;
N
,..
o
o
o
on
;;
N
N 49Booo
+
I
><
><
r --------- --------------------
.
.
L.
L
'.:: :::_~-x--:--==~::"--
&
~
!
.
.
n
.
..
.
,
STRATUM 2
Wt:S TERN lANOrill AREA
N 4<)1000 --\.-
LEGEND:
+
-~
x --
fENCE
fA-I'
[:=J
CAOC DOI/NOARY
SIRA'UU eOt/NOARY
SOil BORING lOCA liON 199J
SOli BORING lOCA'lON 199J
SOIL SAUJ'lES ANAL YIEO
ONI , lOR J'CBs
'HER'''l ANOUAl Y DE 'EClEO BY AiTS/ISS
1993 ANClE BOAI"'; ..OCAIION
(ARROW SHOWING iNCliNAIION OF' BORING)
E
;,;
~
.
"'1'0109
QI
(!)
e.
NSP-J
$
GROUNOWA TER MONI TOAING
wEll lOCATION (au 2)
+ STRATUM .3
ORUU S fORAe( &
SPlllACE AREA
",...-...........
,/ 8)_7"',
/' HII07)' "
,@ (II !II
. , N8074 7 ..eo,.,.
, \ ;
+ ..' ", (llHIIO'/" "+
I ",-::.
: OGfAlL
I IsyU I'.~O)
/
o
o
o
'"
;;
N
]
I e:J J1,' I!i'" .l' ..-,
I ~ e51 ~ il Ii ~
. (Jl' ~ ~~.!
: /¥' . It IS:'
! n !~..
, I ,. ,
. . ,. ,
. I .
: .. u~ CI 2: :
: ." ~. :: II:
: HIIo70;'.i: 411..:
. . , , ~I
. N80~'~'e" I 51 I
I 1I & ' II"'
. «1>3' (i ....._~ \ . I
+ !@.O ~. ~~ O::~~ x i2~' i@':oii
. s ~070J -----_":0 I
: f-- -:;~~Qr--------~0:;;~ ----.--:
oX==--= I-x---'-- X H~i-
l~ -~- .
==--~ .
+
8
...
;;
N
1'1
+ &
u
+N 49Booo
~
~
~
SQURCE: BASE OoAAP ORAYoN fROU INfORUA liON
fROM THE AUGUST 1991 CH2U Hill AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHY AND SuBSEQUENT lAND SURvEYS.
+
+
+N
250 125 0
ro--......-...-_.J
491GOO
~
AOC N-2 AREA 1
...
SuRfACE SOil SAMPLE lOCATIONS
f'WM Rf A INvESTIGA liON
250
500
SCALE IN FEET
'JEI JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.
~ 'ASAO£"A, CAlIr
-------
/'/' ". "90142;
/,-.- " NBO~''''
"00;" t--~ "x\
.90'44 ~0 ~. ;',
, '-- ~~ / ,
\. / \
',-..--. NBQ14!t,
,
o 021 ~!," !,
--
" I'
\. I '.
.... \..Ir~:'~\
...... ,\'~ I'
'.-.-/'
5-199
[ ---~:~~~----------~~;::-----------
---------------------------------
LECEND:
IfNt.:[
CAO[ 110UNI'ARY
MIUlt't
QI
SINAIV.. DOilINIlARY
5011 (lIININI;' 10CA"ON 199J
()t'I'" I I ,f I
CI!IIIINOWA\I R ", ow OIRfC' ION
- ~NII lAAI:NIIIIII[ Of CRAOlfNf
----.--.-.
STRATUM ..
PlAYGROUNO
,;f.-
if'"
...(I 'i'
: 2 : "
: ~ i :;1
: 022 I" ~: i'l
I 0" : 0 8. '
: Ii: Ii
! ! II
:..." W~: ;: 11: III
: ~, ..:~ i,,: :
I I . I ii( 1
: N801 ~......~\ I~ ; I
: ~'~'0\ : ~ : .
. e 11 ,I Z I
: 0 ]4 ~ - '4p7.: II I :
: SO' I : ~ I
,.0 J!t 0 -' 1~ " . I .
I ° ,0 HII01O. I ',010 I . i
. S NB0703 "'--...'.':. I ~
! C--:;;';'T------- 90-.;;,;;----- : I
t_----_:::::::::::_-----~------_::::~:.~!
/.0
I' HBD147
"
I '.
STR,ruM .3
DRVM SIORACC ac
SPilt ACE ARfA
. . '
DEPTH 10 CROVNDwA':' . 160- 210 rT BCS
,."" o'~ ~'E-
,~~
,~.". .....
SOl/RCf. BASE ..loP DRAWN FROU INFORMA TlON
FR()IJ 1HE AvCuST 1991 CH2" Hill AERIAL
PHOIOCRAPHY AND SuBS£OVfNT lAND SURvEY'S,
2~0 '2~ 0 2~ 500
~.. ..............J
, ~"
'".....-
J""'..a:
..,to ",UIt
.~8'B '001
Ala}'"1 '-4'1
SB07A
SC'.l I" FEET
11.1.
10 27 97
N
~
JAC08S ENGINEERIHG GROUP INC.
PASAO(NA, CALIfORNIA.
.."AIM[ CCA~ ,"OCISlln BAS(
8n~IO". CAllfQANIA
CAOC 7
LANDfill AREA CAP PLAN
fOR
,,'fRNAl/vfS .J AND 4
.", O'-f260-YB fICUR( .-J
LII 14./ (111:' 'I It' 1111"
-------
....- -----
.~
+
-I-
.t("-" ,.
r
I
a
..
..
-I
+
..
..
.
+
...
..
0"-
o
W
.~
..J
" II
.
..-.
+
.
..-.
+
+
.
",.t
.'-t
ft..
.. .-.
.
ft-.
LEGEND
=
--
= NWU"""""
-=. -=- ~. 81:1188
=-
- ntCI
-""""'''1('8
00 -
ou , A(C1ONAl CAOUNOWAI[A
. fII..' =E-!!!:.:='~':a
. fIB-I :f.~ac1\~-
--.c ..u. ,....... .
.. .,.,. "JOe...,~
au 5 CAOCI
H OUIc..c.
''':; : :""'V:""UCI - .... ....
_8IIIC ,.,-- ........
,. . ::..~ - U..\M\
:: : :=: ~-.~::"" IRA
" . == :: _II ........ .-u.
:: : ~~.=.~_.I= ~
..~.,....-:..~
f;: =':=I.~:a
: : :O:~=\
..........a; ",. ~ ..!Ct'
IOACI' 0(-"""':111" ,.., -" ........
C'08"\ ,QC4tCS .... """08. CA
N
!
1000
1000 500 a
~-----.J 1000
SCIl( IN rUI
;;Q;i ...i-- -:..-.-- ---
:"'i~t-- !JEI JAC08S ENOUfEERNJ QAOOP iNC.-
D "'- U. PAs,..O£NA. CAl,rORHIA
~ iT -- -" YA'tlN( CORPS LOOSt
-------
. YSt6- J
\&..,
j-il lip
~g ~ ::"~9'
.. -.. .JI-\J>, .. ",.
:-=:, =-::::::0 ~
CS/CO ~7C II
,,- OUI
IRO" UtiLiTY I
IR(NCH
IYPICAL
I
n
II
~
II
II
II
II
~
L
I
-~ RP.ll
&===
==:::::;:
- ~ -EX'''PlE-or
" BOUIIOARr LINES
10DOM(SIIC
WASIEWAI(R
IRE AI"EN I
rACILIly
NOt[ I"E SOUNOARIES or eAOe 16 INCLUDE All or IHE SYSIE"S 5..0WN
AND tHE StEA" RAC~ SU"PS NORI"EA51 or BUILDINC ~73 INCLUDED
WIIHIN IH[ CAOC IS A DISTANCE 101[[1 OUISIDE or I"ESt SVSIE"S
L____-
I
'-
ID
-
== ==
~
II
o
o
[ED
II; !Ie
'::J:Y'"
,
.... ...
f I)"S"'O
~I""
~...
cia,;: ..
1 III~'"
... .. ."U-
-- .~- ---
~,
~
LEGEND
CAOC BOUNDARIES
(SEE NO IE SElOw)
StRUCTURE
-
IND WASIE LINE
SEWER LINE
su"P PU"P
CAICH SASIN/ClEAN OUI
.... ("_OlE)
fLOOR DRAIN
PIPElIN( LOCAIION AND
DESICNAtlON NuUBtR
RP
REfERENCE POI"I
. YSI6-~
CROUNDWArER UON/1ORINC
WELL LOCAIION
o
_J
100
200
SCALE IN I[E I
rR!JAC()8'; (HCIN([R1NC CROuP INC.
o ....... &111"-
.....c (GIPI \(&.'fICS ...
~'OI.C",IfQl8ll"
CAOC 16
BUILDINC ~7} AND VICINITY
PtuSE I INv(5I1CAIiON
-C), -r260-Vu-mUR( ;."2 --
Q(:A»:o.;~i;-~j
-------
i',
I "
/ "
I '~
/ (,
I "
I "
Co, '
, '..
)
/1 "" ""-./Z/<..fJ'1o/
I 0:-..:-.. f.1 ,
I $.>S "
" " '
" I ' "
"'" BUILDING <'" "'~'"
, ~ m , "
, ~ ' ,,)
, '''''''''''~".. . "") ,~
:-.. I
:-.. I
~~, DYNAMOMETER I"
/:;f~, TEST AREA I
" I
" I
" /
" I
, I
" I
" /
" I
... I
, I
" I
....
IN~E~~
EO G~OtJ
~OW"TE~ 0,
FlECTIOIY
...oJ MGII
SGm-
~AOJ EHG
R """0
iiiiAwio BY ---
,.ll-ene.
;AAwiNQijQ-- ..
11""2602" COR
~._-
115111260-209 COR
DAft
ICYIM7
.\
ClE JQ2 DIF;160 87 DO'I
N
~
LEGEND
CA~ 16 boundary
o
Groundwater monitoring
well location
o 100
Inn-
300
600
.
SCAlE: ." . 300'
'Jf1E JACOBS ENGIN£E~ING GI!OUP INC.
~ 'ASADENA. CALIfORNIA
- ----liAAiNECORPS LOGiSiIcS BASe---
88'I&ow. C.I.lamia
CAOC 16 Building 573 and
Perimeter Area Showing Steam
Rack, Quench Furnace, and
Dynamometer Test Areas
PROJ NO OI.F260.vB FIGURE 5,
-------
----'-'
--- ,. - --..---------- ---""'"
+
+
.-.,pAC "
I
..
.
+
+
""-,
..
...
+
.-
I)
+
.
....
..
..
.
00-'
+
. ....
.
..,
.
"..
+
+
"000
D
.
...
~
LEGEND
= ..--
= ...~..........
~~ ~...
~-
- ....
---
Oc::» ...,
011 I RECIONAI. CROUNOW.'[R
. ....-, =~~~~
. ....., ~-=.:r--t:.:~
---
. "'-f' .....,.........
011 ~ c.ooc.
o "108
..,., ... .. ~ ... ......
.. - ....... .... ......
aa8IC ,rJ
.. ... NI' ........ - ~~
---- -
n ..~~......-.
,. - -.on 'ICJCU '"' .."
.. .. ....... to» ..,. ~ ...
" - --- .. I\G .. I'QIIIIIIIIGI ....
II - ... "" alii' IPf'IQ. .....
" - ...... ,.... ......
. -~........~
-
It ... --. IOG.I ar t8IOI ...
II - .......... . IIIICJYiDIIC PJIIIICI
-
»- CLIIII."""""
. - ~ .... CJ88I CtGI
--
.....; .,.....,.w tII ... ~ .....
CDIIJII UIDSII:I ... 1IIIM1DI. ca.
N
!
500
'000
2000
J
SCAlE .. rUT
riil .w:oea ENQINEEAttO 0A0tii INC.
~ 'ASOOI:'" c;.tI.WORNIA
--"'LIIGI5'CS-
_100. CAtW-
CAOC 1~/17 KEY PlAN
Oil STORA(;E/SPILVoGE AHD IWTP ARE-.S
YtRIIO ANNEX
--
01 -r260-YB
fIe.uRE 6-1
___~_4'_.-. ..
CU -.I01-0InlO- I' -001)
-------
.
~
t
~
i
~~
~~
.~
~~
+~
/
. YtP-.
x
x
...
"'(
~..
x
. YSJ5.2
. .""-1 \
TS 17 - '!"
o
~
.
~
:.1
~ I
I
II
-----
""'-I
.
G>
YS15-5
.
ysu- 7
.
YBI!>OI
'/[-11
.
'\1).-5
$
... - to .II: 11
~
LEGEND:
N
~
(J
II
FENCE
CAOC BOUNDARY
STRATUU BOUNDARY
IttR IICAl PRQrll( BORING
1995 PHASE II BORING LOCATIONS
(RI;rS) OU 1/2 SHAllOW D£PTH
CROUNDWATER IION/TORINC WEll
(RI/FS) OU 1/2 INTERIIEDIATE
CROUNDWATER UONITORING WELL
1993 PHASE I BORING LOCA liON
CONriRUA liON STUDY
CROUNDWA IER UONITORINC WELL
OISTINC BASE DRINKING
WATER WELL
THERU'L ANO"'AL Y
~Q.!t; STRA TUU 4 WAS REUOlttO FRO\A RI DuE
TO EARLIER REUOVAl ACTION
I
sOuRCE: BASE UAP DRAWN FRON INFORIIA liON
ffiOij'fHE CH211 Hill AUCUST 1991 AERIAL
0HOTOCRAPHY AND SUBSEOUENT lAND SURVEYS.
, 220 110 0
~.._.....-.....J
--
, ........
"'"
......
~:::~,
1;;..--
S81~
SOI!>A
04 07 97
220
440
SCAlE IN FEE T
'JE JACOBS ENOINEERINO GROUP INC.
~ I1A5AO[,....., CAurQRNIA
WAIII"'( CORPS lOCIS1l~ 8AS(
BAAS T08. CAllr(JfNIA
CAOC 15/17
OIL STORACE/SPILLACE
.~.m IwTP AREAS
SOIL BORINC LOCATIONS
01-r260- YB r ICURE 6..2
0.( -J01-o,rno-8'. 00')
-------
+
+
I
+
+
..
..
.
+
.
Of.,
...
..
.
-.
+
. -....-
.
,..
.
..-.
+
...+
"""," . ",,".'
+
+
+
;000
~
.
,.,..'
o
+
~
=-
- ,.... ... . ...
- -:=. ........-
==---
-,,-
---
0= -
au I RECOONAL CRQUNOWAIER
. 11»-1 ==~~IJ~-:::'
. ~ :fc':c:=.!~\111
.......... .'" UICo'fDI lit
. .,... .......... ......
au ~ c.ooc.
H au I Cd:
.tI::~aIID"'"
-- "I ......
"" ~- \.88*'\ha
:: : == ~ CI8IOIIL ...
: : == ~ _Ut':" lID
:: :,:" J::.~S:- ...
. .. ~ ~-:.......
:::.='.....--
- --
: : =-"="
...-rMG .:--- C'CAI
-..a: :=:-u:::..s M_- -
_.'"
ill
!
!lOG
9
'000
2000
SCAlE IN fEET
~ .w:oes ENOINEERINO OAOUP INC.
PA5AlXNA, CA4,orO."'"
~ ~~ 80S(
CAOC 19 KEY PL,A.N
rlRST HAlARDOUS
AND LOW-LEvEL RAOIOLOCICAl AREA
QI-r260-YB
ncuRE 7 - 1 .
elt -.10'-01"60-9'-001'
-------
--
~ -."
./" /~ APPIIOI'IoIA IE \.
./" lOCA lION or
/ \ ....... USI 1-~98
'18~90;-' '181904 \
1'I81901~ ~ ....... J:B'90~ \
\ J' ';a/
\ L- ~3-/
STRATUM 2
\. VSI T-~98 AREA /
" DETAIL A /'"
-..-::=r---
-
-
--
N
._.~ A
(\
LEGEND:
II
II
rENCE
CAOC BOUNDARY
---
STRA IVIoI BOUNDARY
'18'901
.
RI BORINC lOCAIiON (1993)
SOURCE: BASE 4AP DRAYofj fROM INfORUAIiON
FiiOMTHE CH211 Hill AVGuST 1991 AERIAL
PHOIOCRAPH' AND SUBSEOUENI lAND SURI/[YS.
~P
CAN A l
STRATUM 1
lO1ll-l[l/[l RAOIOlOCIC
AND HAl ARDOUS UA ![RIAl
S IDRACE AREA
(RE\i1SED TO ! ARCET
CEOPHYSICAl ANOUALIES
COINCIDEN T "'" IH
SURfACE STAININC+
80 40 0
ez'--....-_""J
SCALE IN fEU
80
160
!;IEJACOOS ~~ CROOP It«:.
L___,
N ~D8DOO +
....... ~ I.CDlIICI .....
8881'08'. tA.'0III8a
CAOC 19
roRST HAlARDOUS AND
lOW-lEl/[l RADIOlOGICAL AR(A
SOil BORINC lOCA liONS
OI-f26D- Y9 fiGuRE 7-2
0.( - JOl~Olr1l0- ,'-ooIJ
-------
r"
+
+
...."'- "
I
~
a
=
.-
- ........ - ....
-=. ~ ....-.-
...
..
+
+
=c::>= -
- '1'"
---
0= -
..
...
...
..
...,.
.
OU , A((;I()NIIl CAOIINO'MI[A
........ e'E~""-=
.,.-.
+
. ,..., :~d~-WH-
----
.""..~~
D
OU ~ c.ooc.
D ..,~
.
?I-t
."., .. .. ~ -......
,t .. ......... ..... ....
_v.
"-NIJ~"""""""
---
,. .. ~ .... ..... ....
n .. IOIIIII"IN: ~ ....... ...
It .. ..... 'IIIbGI 'till ..
It ... ..... us -- ...... fIIIIU.
n .. .......-c .. MI. .. ae.8 ....
. .. .If LDII CUP CDIII8& ...
II .. ...... -- ...
. .. UXDtCJIIIII .... ... ......
-
................~---
D .. ........ . ....... .....
-
...~.~
. - III8QIIIDII8 .... c--.. .........
----
+
..
..
.
..-.
. wlOII- .
+
-...a.: ............. -.. ....
CIIIfII't UICIPI3 ... ...... ca.
.
..-.
N
!
.
\l
o
+
+
+
'000
...
$00
o
oJ
SCALE IN rUI
1000
2000
~
+
c=J .
~
--.1--
+
~ JAC08S ENOINEERNG GAOU' NC.
~ PA$AO(NA, CAlIf()AJiM
- COlI" lOClS11tS lIAS(
aul'STOW, t.M.---
CAOC 21 KEy PlAN
INOUSTRIAl WAS IE OtSPOSAi. AREA
YERIoIO ANNEX
Ol.r260-YB
fIGURE 8-1
CU -.(JJ-Olf260-8'-OO'J
-------
EFFLUENT PONDS 426
~
\
NOR THERN HALF OF CAoe 21
STRA TUM 2
n ,-
6100_, U
UNION
PACIfiC
RAILROAD
8ERUED AREA
STRATUM 3a
61
'1'\1211S
*1'14
61
"" "
YW2'1U
61
SIAAIUW I
PCB SA"PlIHC; GRID
'.
A.. 0
WID I H
)(
~,
-------
+
-
~,.
I
_L--...---
+
~
=-
'So"" ............
--
~-
--
---
0= --
--
..
+
... -.
+ .
...
..
.-
.
9
a
+
,,+
,,;"" . .....
+
+
o
+
.,~,~:~~~~~
OU , A(GIOIW.
_AltA
. ..... == 1!!.J!I"""':'
.----
==,'C;"#'
. ..... ........ .......
+
OU ~ CJIOCA
H ...,.
-::~.....,.
11-::::-"'-- -
a - ~:::-..-~
::=::-:::---
:: : :=:.:: ='~...
:: : -- .:::. "=" - -
=:--c ..,.. ...
1:::.::'---
IIIIA .~..
:::=:"- ,-
--.a -.;--""
-
~~ -:.:- ....
-...
.
n.'
.
-.
+
.
-.
N
!
+
+
i
ItJO
..,
SCH.( oN rut
III JACOII8 fJtQI&fIN) -
PASOl)(", c..l.lr 0A0UP..c.
----
..=. =c::. 8.51--'
00 C100C 22 KEY "\.AN
MESne wASIEWA'ER OISPO
yEP..O ANNEX SAl AREA
01 -'260-'8
-'-- .- ---"~CURE 9-1
Q.[ -.IOJ-o,ri";:'i;-cXu J
~_J
'000
.
-.
-------
N ~06.62~
~
.
...
....
w
. -..-.. - -- .----
~; II~A 1 UM
OIl(RrLOW AREA
. - .--- ..--- --
r- ?IRATUM T
PERCOlAIiON PONDS
II
J
.
----
Y112201
.
1'£-11
.
\'522-2
.
\'522-2
, .-
----.--- -------
N
A
()
LEGEND:
II
FENC(
CAOC BOUNDARY
SIRAIU" B()UNOARY
SOil BORING lOCAIiON (I99J)
EKIStlNG CROUND"A1tR
"ON ITOR ING wEll
(CONF IR"AIION S IUDY)
SHAllOW DEPtH CROUND..A fER
IoIONIIQRING wEll (OU 1)
IN rER"EDIA rE DEPtH CROUNDWA rER
"ONITORING wEll IOU I)
SOURCE: BASE "AP DRAWN FRQI,t INFOR"A!lON
i'iiQiATHE CH2" HILL AUGUST 1991 'ERIAl
PHOIOCRAPHY AND SUBSEQUENT lAND SURII(YS
---;Qi- -
, ",,_0
,...
~-- .""'~i.~--
.. ....-. u."~
, .._, CAOC 22
~26(j,02B- OOIA£3"C 'NASI[WA!ER DISPOSAL AR[A
- ..... SOIL BORING lOCAIiONS
SB22
~f.~~i-1t-=-F260' ~~L--~~R£_~:! -~.
cu-m-O"~""OOIJ
eo - 40 0
~...-~J
".-
.--
eo
160
SCALE IN FEE I
IDJ1£OBS ~~~ CIW' INC.
-------
100II -
~ - - --.1
2000
~- SCAlC" rt[1 .
~"0 ~-=.-W1.w:oBi~---'
~'\ ~,~ -~AW)["" QflCU'INC.
-.. ~--,CotI...-
~I ..fs~ 'OOira -' --
- ,..-- .... CN."-
- f211'J~92 .".,. CAOC 24 KEY"""
... J\i ---KED V(H r..,...
1024 IClE IE51 AREA
- - - Y(RIoiO ANNEX
04
01 -f260:::~-
-'
+
+
....... .0
!
...
.. +
"-
.
9
.
..,
+
.
....
+
+
.
.....
-,
~
=-
-=. ~ ............
--
~-
--
---
Oc::o -
011.11£-
. ...... - ~It.
==.J!!JP!!! -:"".
. .....-
==:~ "'l!"
. .... ~...... ~
.
,,-.
011 S c.ooc.
B ..ce
ttf:::~-"
...=-".-- -
a . ;:::;:~- ~
:::=.=-=::---
:: ~~:r:':.""
:::=-..::::.."="'- -
.. - :. .,.. .. ..-
D .;;f ~.':o:'"
::=:.- -
~....:-- 'IIDCU
--
u.I ~ -:.-..:: ca.
N
~
1000
,~IGURE 10-1
Cl£ -..oj~o;niO-8i~aOtJ
-------
--.--
/
./
./
./
Vi
~'"
./
II
\1'
./
./
/
8
o
..
..,
..,
II
N S06000
+
I I
II
II ~
o
I'C
,-
...
I.)
u
..
C')
IRACKEO V\.HIC,E
TEST TRACK
+
___L- --
~".al
C ......
II
Ya2401
.
.---.----- -
N
~
LEGEND:
FENCE
CAOC AND STRAIUW BOUNDARY
SOIL BORING lOCI. TlON (199')
SOURCE: BASE "'AP ORA~ FROM INFORWAIION
rRcii:iTHE CH2W Hill AUGUST 1991 AERiAl
PHOIOGRAPHY AND SUBSEOUENT 'AND SURvEyS
'.') 200 0
"""",--_-...-J
~=-
..-.
Iii... .
e._SM'
... 'I0Il
bF26011 ~B
.... ..
~. S924
L04 14 97
400
800
SCALE IN fEE I
---.
'l1!J.lCOBS (NCMIRINC ~ INC.
o ........ ca....
...... COW'I \~"IO ...
IM'SfD8. CM.c...
CAOC 24
TRACKEO vEHICLE lEST AREA
SOil BORING 'OCA liONS
OI-F260-_~~GUR~0~i~:-
CU - .I01-D"IIO-"-OO1)
-------
+
+
...--- "
I
~
+
+
......
..
..
.
+
.
,,-.
...
..
.
"-I
. .....
.
~
+
.
-.
+
+
11)011 500
~IC' - J
SCAI.l
IN r[o
.
......'
+
+
~
=-
= 1fIiMI....'"
-=- -=- ------
~-
--
---
0= -
011 1 RECIOOW. ~AT[R
. ..... r=-1!!~":=:'
. ....... =f-:C=~~
-~ ........,.. .
. ""- 'I IIClDII(U ~
011 ~ CAOCa
H .108
..,:: : ~ _....,.
_III -
.. - ~ .........
D '" ::c- 1aA" ~
,. '" ...... -=-= ~ 8IIU
J; : == ~ :::r .:.. ...
:: : ::.:-..::. ~ s:a ..
. - ~ .... ~.......
:: : :=---=- l1li ... -
oIIIIP . ....... IIQ8CI
..Q,Ift.~
. .. =:=a-::- ....
-..r: ~~.. _..-c
--..
N
!
1000
2000
rliI JAC08S ENQINEERN1 OROUP
g P.5AO(NA, ClliorOA>M INC.
- C~ IDClSTCS 11015(
wstow. CIIL ,'O't-
C-'OC 26 KEY PI..UI
BUILDING 533 w.o.slE DISPOSAL AREA
Y(RMO ANNEx
OI-r260-YB
FICURE 11-1
0.[-.80) -01' 260 - B7 -001 J
-------
L--- -
.---.------.
----,--
I I \'82626 C8 I
I \'8260~ I C8 I I
I I I I
I \'82610 I I '/II 620 I
I C8 I \'82604 I Y82619 r, C8 I \'82614
I - - - - -. - I C8 I \'82618 I C81 I
: -""t~~'--~:';,~m.;I~~~:': ~:: !;t~i
I Y8:09 . . .\'8762) /-/IYB 603 I BLDG. I
1.--.'" rAZ624 1...1 533 I .
- f I I PAD C8 YB261J ~
C8YB2608 lOCA!lON I
I I I I
I YB26021C8 I I
I I I I SIRATUM3
I C81 I I. /PfRllA[llR AREA
I \'82601 I C8 I ~
I IYB2601 1---C8' ,. YB2612
~~~-- _~L~__~~~-~
<"
...,
~
-------
+
+
..-- ..
I
a
..
..
+
+
..
..
.
+
+
.
-
.
.r..
...
...
.
....
II t8-,,, ..
q
+
.
....
+
+
~; 'I'Ue-t
",,' .
+
+
+
'~ -~ - J
SCAI.[ IN r[[I
o
.
"I.'
CJ
-=---J
.-+
+
L__-
LEGEND
=-
-
....... ... CI8 ...
-.-
-==--
--
- -....
00 ,...
au 1 R£CI~ ~A'[A
. ".., =~-1.!!~"::'
. ..... :It':':;.'".Jr' ..m.:'o\:'
-... ~ ~
A .,-.. ~ .......
au s ~.
D
"'.-
'1/11' ... ... ......fPU.CC .. ... .....
'1 .. ...... .... IIIIIA8t
_01'
.. .. ,., ..zMIIIDUI .. ~
--
n .. CDI(1IC ........ ~ ...
"...IIIIICCDClCUltsr.....
II .. M.DM W ..... 8IW'VUL 8IIU
I' .. aa.DIC .. nib. c.. SIIQIIWICiI ...,..
. .. 8(11 \.GI ...,.. CDIt8. .IIIIIIIa
II ... tu8I. JICIIIIIIIGI IIIIU
. ... ~ .... ... ......
-
SI ... ..... .oGI. 1['If --- ...
.----Ot.~JIIIIII8iIIG
-
.-a;a.~
. - ...-088 ...... CDI8'I 'IIOCl
--
8CII..8CI: ."""'''f1I'''-~
~ ,CII'oI!I1CS'" ~. CA
N
~
1000
2000
rftI JACOBS E.NOINEERINO OROUP INC.
ti PASAD£.... CAl~OR'"
- C~ lQCISICS 111&
&IaS'OW. CJtt.1I~"
CAOC 27 KEY PLAN
BUllDINC 436 fuEL OilS IORACE ARE"
YE RUO ANNE x
01-f260-YB
flCURE 12-1
Ct( -.10'-0" l60-B' -001)
-------
,- --
BlOG
590
EXISIING
fU£L OIL TANK
(16.500 GAl.. STEEL)
STEA"
ClE ANING
PAD
L__-
401
~
~
~-
fORMER LOCI. liONS
Of BUILDINC 436
x
~
!oJ
!oJ
'"
....
'"
.
:--
##
+
K
II
---
...,-
o
~
\
LEGEND:
fENCE
CAOC AND STRAI\JU BOUNDARY
S TRio TU" BOUNDARY
SOIL BORING lOCATION (1993)
SOURC£: BASE MAP DRAWN fROU INfQRMA"ON
fiiOj;THE AUGUST 1991 CH211 HILL AERIAL
. PHOTOGRAPHY AND SUBSEOU[NT lAND SUR\I£YS.
40
80
~ - ':0 - ~j
----
SCALE IN fEET
. rlIIJACOBS EHCiNEERINC CROUP INC.
W& ........~-
.... taI'I't l.Dll'tncl ...
....tD8. tAlrCIIIII8A
CAOC 27 (STRATV" I)
BLOC. 436 FuEL OiL STORAGE AREA
SOIL BORING LOCA liONS
DI-f26D- YB
FIGURE 12 - 2
:J..[ - ..cJ-Qlr2l0-97-001J
-------
- -'-'---- ---.----
----------
BlOC:
!>90
)
SIRAIUM 2,/' I
19i6 PIPi:l1N[S
.. - I
I
I
I
1--
I
I
1.--
I
. rORIAER LOCATIONS
Of BUILDING .36
x
0tB2708
I
I
I
\
---
BlOC
61'
--
---'--- --...
.--
.01
~
..
-:xX-
...
w
~
III
.
I'"
---- J
\
I
I
i
I
tf/'.JP
+
,
I
i
II
-,--
I
.<12701
o
-
~
\
LEGEND:
II
r[Ne(
CAOC ANO STRATUM BOUNDARY
STRATUM BOUNQARY
SOIL BORINC LOCATION (199')
SOURCE. BAS[ \lAP DRAWN rROW INr OR\I A I JON
rRQiiI"ft[ AUGV:I 1991 :H2IA HIU A[RIAl
PHOIQCRAPHY AND SUBS[OUENI LAND SURV£ YS
.0 20 0
~-- - J
--
.. CIt""'D
~
D ,...,
tI.~
J"~'
...,..- - .
r260111B
MiOi~
sa27BB
~ 'I' .. ~..-----
c ..... _~~L~
40
80
SCALE IH r([I
IJlJACOBS ~~~ CROO' INC.
...... ~ ,ClClSla ...
..-srv.. c."""'''
CAoe 27 (S TRA TU'" 2)
BlDG 436 ruEl Oil STORAG( ARE A
SOIL BORING lOCA liONS
-- 01-r26;~ .[.r.~RE.'~~~J -.'
Q.I-.a2-D1I:I6O- 17-1101'
-------
1---
401
aDG
~90
~-
rORIA[R lOCA TIONS
or BUilDING 436
x
~
...
~
'"
.
:-
BLDG.
81J
L.u._- --
4'4'
'"
I
II
II
---
",21OS
o
~
\
LEGEND:
fENCE
CAOC AND STRATUM BOUNDARY
STRATUY BOUNDARY
SOIL BORING LDCAnON (1993)
~ BASE YAP DRAWN fROW INfOR"A nON
fROW TH( AUGUST 1991 CH2Y HILL A(RIAL
PHDTDCAAPHY AND SUBSEOUENT lAND SURVE~.
40 20 0
"""-- -....-.....-,.j
...-
.-
pe.
..-
..
40
80
SCAlE IN rEET
~JACOBS ~~~ CRW' INC.
...... (DI8II t,.CID'IJIO 11&.
aMKt08. UU'CIIIIIM
CAOC 27 (STRAWIA J)
BLDG. 436 fUEl OIL S TOR AGE ARE A
SOIL BORING lOCA liONS
D1 -r260-YB
fiGURE 1 2 - 4
Q.t. .oZ.OIf160-81-001J
-------
- SIRAIUI.l 4
INiiR~NG AiitA
-----
-l
I
I
I
BLOC
~90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L--------
~!~~11~~
SltA"
ClEANING
PAD (!Ie)
0#0 ~~!~~Y.~- ~ \ /
BLOWOOWN ~
SUfoIP (!>O)
IILDC.
813
.- -.----'
fORU[R LOCA liONS
Of BUILDINC 436
, - rUEL 011
r, 0'" AND
R[ 1URN liNtS
~
w
w
I!
III
I"
---
--- REfERENCE
POINI
001
~-
~
~
x
I
-L--- .-
#.JP
0#0
II
II
---
""'"
o
~
\
LEGEND:
f[NCE
CAOC AND SIRAIUIoI BOUNDARY
S IRA IUIoI BOUNDARY
5011 BORINe LOCAIION (199~)
SOURCE BASE UAP DRAv.t/ fROU INfORUAIIDN
'RO" THE AUeus I '991 C..2u HilL AERIAL
PHOIOeRAPHY AND suBSEOUENI LAND SURVEYS.
'0
~-....
---a-.-- -
, (08""0
--iiii-- -
....
-.....'- -
~ ---~I
-....
.2601l3B
~.i'Jil ~
58 2 700
~~~~~~~{~~
20
o
-.J
'0
80
SCAlE IN f(( r
.-------- - ----
IJI-W:oas ~~~ CROOP K.
-'. --.--- ----.'
...... ~ IDelI'1C'S ....
8A8t108. CJII&" CIIiI"
CAOe 27 (SIRAa 4 " ~)
BlOC 06 fuEL 011 SIORAeE ARE A
SOIL BORINe IOCAIiONS
. -.~0:~~~-')~~J~;~Ri 12: 5 .
CU-.IIJ-O"JtO-II.OO1J
-------
+
I
+
..-v14 ,.
a
..
..
+
+
..
..
.....
.
+
+
--
.
"..
. ..
---..
...
..
.
-.
+
. .....
.
11
.
..-.
+
,+
," "",.,
~ .
+
+
+
1000
~
o
.
"..1
+
+
LEGEND
=-
_f'8IIIIU_-~
-=- '::. .........u...
=-
- .....
---
0= -
011 1 A(CIONAl CROUNDIIATtR
. C8-1 E~'5' ~~....
. ...... ::Ic~~~~
---
.. ....... fIiIIU8C1IP UICII8I
011 $ CADC.
B ClUtCollClC
...", ... OIL ~/PU118 .. - ......
II .. 8IIPI8IP ..... .......
....-c 111
.. .. NIl 8I8bIDIUI .. ~
--
D .. 8IIPC ---- ..... ....
It .. l8IIOI(1 ~CI.I 101 --
,. ... -pIC UI ..,.; ...... aIIU
I' ... -....c .. f\G .. SIMJIIII .....
. .. .P UII aN ~ ...
. .. ...... ..-aI .-a
. ... ,,~ ...... ... ......
-
,I, .. ...... CtCU: tI-. ..cI ..
II ... ......... . ~ .......
-
. ... CU8I . \MOf"U
. .. ..... ..... CD8I ecaI
--
IauIIm: ............. --- -
CCIIft LGIDPICS ... 8fi11811D1'. CL
N
!
~
'000
2000
-
o
.J
SCAlE IN rEU
~~~~IC
-00( C;~ L~CS 80S[
~,ow.c:.a.or-
CAOC 28 KEy PlAN
WEst LOT CONTROl AREA
Y[RIoiO ANNEX
OI-r260-YB
nCUR£ IJ - I
Cl[ ....101-0112&0-87-001)
-------
'/
'/
"'...eYll2811
...
\\ ...... ~
" ...... Y112812
I\ Y1128011 ...
\\ ...,
\\ "
\\ '
\\ "
\\ ...
\\
\\
"
"
\,
,\
"
e \,
YB2801 YPZ-} ..
I "
I "
I "
i "
I " YII~07
. \ D I Y112802 Y11280} ~
'll ~ YB 806 ~ ":~ STRATUM 2
,\ - PERI...E TER ANO "
J II ,\ INTERCONNECTING ROAOS~ YB280~ I.
" e I.
..._-------------~~~-- ~ ~~~ ;.~
)0 - - - -,- - - -,- -- - ,- -,,-;- - - --;:::. .-::'-:;-::'-=:::''73--::'-=:=-'7 -;- ,_...-
~ R(fER[NC[ POINT "
~ SIR.IV'" , I
~ ~
.- - ._0------
@l~m
~
N
:;;
SIRAIUM 2
.- -. P(RluiiiR AND
,NTERC()NN(CTING ROADS
z
+[2
z
+E
2}}'OOO
+
SIHAIUU 1
-iAs-;:RtA
REFERENCE POINI
FOR LOI '90
SIRA TV'" }
z
-t-
I
o
....
z
+[ 2}},~....-
Ie a...u8
+--
I
I
I
I
I
, I I I I I
II
-----
Y11281 !o
e
'/PZ -}
.
.-.. ...----'
-,.- -- . -
N~-
LEGEND:
RAllROAO TRACK
II
FENCE
CAOC BOUNDARY
SIRAIUIi BOUNDARY
SOil BORING lOCAIION (199})
PIEZOUETER lOCAIiON
SOURCE: BAS[ UAP DRAWN rROU INFORUA liON
f'Rciii'1HE CH2U HILL AVGUSI 1991 AERIAL
PHOIOGRAPHY AND SUBS[OUENI lAND SUR\lEYS.
.00 200 0
""- ~ -J
...
F260116B
...
SB28
..
O' \. 97
400
800
SCALE IN FEE'
m~08S [NCIN([R1NC ~ INC.
111.& ......."&-.,,.....
..... c-' ""Ilia...
8A8'Ifk c.."CIIIiIIIA
CAOC 28
~SI lOT. DUSI CONIROl ARlA
SOil BORING lOCA liONS
O.-F260-YB
FIGURE \J-2
- . - - ~ .-- .
Ct.t - .ol- OH16D-HJ. oau
-------
+
+
~
I
+
+
....
...
,
+'
-
..
.
...,
. to"..
.
V
+
.
'9-'
+
....+
,'" ..,...,
.", .
+
+
+
+
o
.
"".,
+
,:,,:,'~_.
L
LEGEND
= --...
= ........ 01 aMa
~ '::.. ............
~-
- ..-
---
0= -
OIl 1 R£CIONAI. CAOUIOOW"I[R
. 'Ul-I ='= ,=,~L88 ...
8IU l~'" .........
.-"::I.~~~
..-sCI8IC tIIb.i ~
,. .,... fiIUDIIC1tII dIICAIDI
au ~ CIiOC8
B
...-
.
,,-,
"':: :: :.==- .. ... ..
--au IIJICA88
t, . :::..::.:-::" - ......,.
II - ...... ......
:: c::CtCl&..::-....cA
:: : ~ ~Ss,=-:=.z~
II - IU*Z SJfI/IIG. t:DtIfWA ....
. .. -=-- ..... -:.. IIUIaM.
:: : =.::'. 1Ur_-- -
- -
. - CUll . VI8'U
. .. ::.a"",:-- C8IIQI
~ r:=:-~ -:.:-..:: ea.
PI
I~
()
'000 ~ 0
n.. - --- .J 1000
SCAlE IN r[[1
!;IEJ JACOBS ENOINEERING OAOUP INC.
PASIOI:NA. CAlifORNIA
- COIIPS lOClSICS 805(
81t1tS'OW.CA&..~
CAOC 29
-------
l_-
l L
0 0
'" 0
'" ...
:II :II
., .,
... ...
w w
+ N Sit 3!>O N S113S0 +
N
CONC PAOS ~
-. . -.w' ,u_-. .---
N S11J:l0
~ErER'[NCE
POINI
REFER(NC[
POINI
II
'--~
, X --"---... 'B2901
'... .
," \
I ~ \
I W I
; + I
I N SII000:""" S1lMIUM 1
: i ,-- 5uSr(CiiD-;~or.r \
I 0: (1~~:~~":~\'o,,)
: YB2902 I
I ' ~---,
I I ,-..
, I I 0 Y8290' \
, I' \
, I' \
I .B2903' , \
I " ,
, 0, , "
; , : 0 'B2905 ,
I ' I '
\ I ",'
, ,,' ----,,'"
,...------..
~
...
:II
.,
...
-------
Y9290'
o
LEGEND:
11
rENt(
CAOC BOUNDARY
SIRArUII BOUNDARy
SOIL BORINe LOCA"ON (199J)
~RC[. BAS( UAP ORO.",.. rROu INrOR..AIION
iii"OiAIHE CH2U Hill AueuSI 1991 AERIAL
rt40rQCRAPHY AND SUBS[OU[NI LAND SuRvEYS
70 3S 0
~-_-...-J.
SeAL [ IN H£!
-
, C.lon.8G.b
'''''
t. f,."
riiii"ii-
.,,~,
..;;x.;;;.--
F 260120B
OG.>-..r..--
SB29
0"'--
S.~14 97
.. -._--- --- _.-
70
1'0
,
'------.
IDJICOOS ~~~~ CROUP INC.
----.-.---- --
...... caw1 ~OCI'ha I..
8M'Ilo.. CM IIfQIIIIII,a
CAOC 29
SluDGE srORAcr AREA
SOIL BORING 10CA1IOtlS
_~~~~260- ~.= r ri.c~~!' 14- 2
CU-J01-01'76Q 91.(1)11
-------
+
+
".,.... ..
I
a
..
..
+
+
.....
..
..
.
+
~
.
ft..
...
..
.
,,-.
. ......-
+
.
w
.
....
+
.,,+
--" ""..1
;~ .
+
+
+
I~~_J
5CAll IN rEEl
o
.
.-0-1
CJ
-=t
.-+
L_---
+
LEGEND
=
..-
..... ... . 8IU
--
-
- -
=<:::::>= -
-,-
- -....
0= ....
au 1 RtCIONAl C~AI[R
. "8-1 =5~':':.:c
. ""-. :.~~~~~
~ 8Q&. ~...
. .,-.. ~1PI""""
'ou ~ c.eoc:.
H _toa::
.tlll - .. ~ .. .,. ....
I. .. ~ ..... .....
..... III
.. .. NIt ~ - .........
--
u .. DeIiC ~.. ...... ...
,. .. J8JO,(8 c.GA 1UI .....
JI.._OICW'8llld:lISJICSII.aIIIA
IJ .. ~ .. AG 01. ItaICII ....
JI - ." ,Of CIUSI' CDifIIIIIIIL ...
II .. "'*I ~ ....
. - \GICDIOIIIII ..... ... ~
-
JI - .........at 101 -.ca: -
II - ...._!- . IIiIIIIDIIOIIIi SIIII:IIIIJrC8
-
JJ .. 0JiISS.""""
.-~"'CDI8I~
---
--...a;: .....,..... 01 "'f -" ...
c.-s P.CDIIICI ... --. QL
IN
~
1000
2000
nil JACOBS ENGINEERNJ OROUP INC.
~ P.5AO(HA. CN."OIlMA
.....1hN( C~ l()C.ISICS 8'S(
eMSIOW. ""..-
c.o.oc JO KEY PLAN
lOCOWO'~E REP~R SHOP
DISPOSAL AREA - YERWO ANNEX
OI-r26D-YB
nCURE 15- I
ell -JOI'0"160-87-00')
-------
r-"-
o
/
J"
"7
...
TN 510JOO
8
...
CD
...
...
...
...
""
II
---
'183010
e
N
~
LEGEND:
II
. rENt[
CAOC BOUNOAAY
SIRA TV" 9QUNDAAY
SOIl BORtHe; lOCATION (1993)
SOURCE; BASE "AP DRAWN rROU INrORUA liON
mouTH[ AUCUST 1991 0.211 HIU AERIAl
"HOTOCRAPHY AND SUBSEOUENT lAND SUR~YS.
!
,
,
~~ 2!> 0
"",-...-....-........J
SCALE IN rEE T
[
F." ,.:.
..... PC
io ....
till'.
. ...
<2601258
~
100
~EJI(OIIS ~~ CRW' IIC:.
..... ~ lOOl8CS ....
..... CIIt....
CAOC 30
lOCOYOTl~ REPAIR SHOP
SOIL BORINe; lOCA TlONS
01 - r260- Y9
r,GuRE 15- 2
Q.J. J01-01F lIO-II'. ClUJ
-------
'~~---J' 1000
SCAlE IN rUT
~ JACOBS EHGIHEERJHO GROUP INC.
-.... C-'I.~O"""
- COIIPS l~ICS lIAS[
-'OW. CAt~O.'"
CAOC J' KEY PLAN
NORTH vEHICLE TEST TRACK ROAD
vERMO ANNEX
-
+
+
a
I
.
.....
+
+
..
..
..
..
.....
.
....
lII'tOllll8-
+
I)
.--.
+
...
..
.
-.
. .NIII-
+
.
'l
.
...,
o
+
...+
.",,4/1 . f'UIo.'
+
+
+
o
.
",...,
+
L.
.
ft..
~
=--
= JII8IIC8......-u
'S. -=- .....-.....
-==--
- .....
---
O~ .....
011 1 R£CIONAI, CAOuNOWAIEII
....., =~~~~
. ~"'.. :::..~~~
-....-
.. ....... ,.,...... UICAIQII
011 ~ CAOC.
D ..Ic.c:
"':; : =-':/P'WG - .. ......
...-..c In"'" IIJCMIM
..-.....~
II ... :CCDCII. tfIIU - UIIIIHI'IIIQ.
.. ... 81IlOO ~ IWIDIII. ...
:: : == :t: :...:" ~ ..u
. ... ... LDII ~ uD. elL ''''''''' ....
: : =-_':.... -
... ..... ... .....
:: : =-=- l1li r8ICI ....
.... .~tIDIIIIIII
::=:.-
_....a.....,,:-- CMCU
-..z: ~:.s~ ~..:=
....
N
!
2000
OI-r260-YB
FiCURE 16-'
Ct.( -.101-01 rJlO... 17... 001 J
-------
~--~.
.L
t
g
I ~
to
.-
..
I~
0-
W
i!
II'
J.
lO,
~"
- STRAI.~~
II[HIClE TEST
TRACK ROAD
- -----. -
....-
.-.
_L______------ _u- -
N
~
LEGEND:
-
..
, fENCE
CAOC AND SIRATUII
BOUNDARY
II
'l'8JIO'
e
VPZ-2
.
SOil BORING lOCA liON (I99J
PIZOUETER lOCATION (OU I>
SOURCE: BAS( UAP ORAYIf< fROII INfORUA liON
r~ou THE CH2U Hill AUGUSI '991 AERIAL
t>HOIOCRAPHY AND SuBS(OUEtl! lAND SUR\/{ YS
~oo 1 !>II 0
,..,...._-...-......J
JOO
600
SeAL[ IN [[(1
-
, r,l1''''O
.;--
"'.., -- --"-;;~ia.. - .. -- .
- .iiln- ...,~ ~.~.
I .wu, CAQC J1
-"G£09JJ' NORt.. vEHICLE fESf
~ TRACK ROAD
SBJI SOil BORING lOCA TlONS
-OC/14/97 - o.-mo, y~- Crj~~RC~'6~2',
0.( ...IDI.OIl KG- If. oolJ
!;I)JAC09S ~~~ CRW' 11«:.
-------
+
+
a
I
+
+
......
..
..
.
+
+
.
,,-.
...
..
.
-.
+
. .,..-
.
w
.
...,
+
+
'~-- ~~ 1000
SCALE IN rEET
looo
.
,10-'
+
~
=-
= ......... 01 88I.a
~ ~ ...........
=-
- nIG
---
O~ ,..-
au 1 AECIQIW. CIIOUNDWAIEA
. ....... =~..J.:.!:.:r=: ";,",
.~=~r~
6 ........ ..-. &.IDI*
au ~ CAOCI
H ........
tSI:: : :.==-.::. - ...
_"'
.. . :.:=-::.. - ~
:: : =::-: =- ..,.
:;:==~~:=.~
..."'-OfDull'QIII8CI.'"
. - ..... ..... .....
. - LCICDIDftII ~ .... .....
-
J' - .... CJCU .. IIICII -
8.:--.~""
.- CLMI.~
. ... ,...... .- ~ CMU
--
.-z: ........".....,...
~ UIDPCI ... .....,.. Q.
N
!
IJi1 .IAC08S EHOIEERINO 0A0tJI1NC.
~ P-"" C.&lO"oa....
- COOf'I l0Cl511CS II
-------
----
POSSiBlE LOCAIION Of PIPE
SIEA.. ClEANING PAO
(20' . 20' . .')
UNPAvEO
~TRATU'-A ~
BlOG 20J A"O
"ERI"'EI[R AW[A
-y
;OURCE. BASE UAP ORA"" FROU INFORuAIiON
.~HE C"2u ~ILl AUCUST 1991 AERIAL
PHOTOCRAPHY At'O SUBSEOUENI lAND SURVE YS.
\
i
i~ J~ 0
~........-- .J
I
____L___-
I
!
I
I
'11
I
.l------
'I1IJ20'
.
o
~..
c ...at
,:'-
;E09JJ2
.c:~
59'2.
S~~?
II
._----" -.-- .----
N
~
LEGEND:
FENCE
CAOC BOUNDARY
S mATUM BOUNDARY
PHAS£ I SOil BORINC
lOCATION ('993)
FORMER lOCAIION Of
UNO(RCROUNO STORAC£ T"NI<
70
100
SCALE IN fEEl
~J.I£OOS ~~~ CROOP INC.
..... ~ UICI'hCl ...
8frI8I108 CAt.-...a
CAOC '2
PRESERVATION AND PACK ACINC
SIORACE ARE.
SOil BORINC lOCAIIO"S
_~07I_F~~R_~~~.:.~-.
C1I..Dl-O\f:rlO--ll-OOI S
-------
..- ... -- _...-
POSSIBlE IOCAIiON 00 PIPE
POSSIBLE LOCAIION or
RrMO\1:0 USI
- ?!~!t,!~-1
BI DC 10J AND
"LRI"'L I[R AR[A
--.----....
.. --.-----.-.
-i
~.c8
c.I'G.--
N
~
LEGEND:
II
II
rENt(
CAOC BOUNDARY
-------
SIRAIUM BOUNDARY
I1IJ201
.
PHASE II SOIL BORING
LOCAIION (199J)
o
fORMER LOCATION or
UNOERGROUND STORACE TANK
SOURCE BASE MAP DRA""" fROM INfORMA T'ON
~'E CH2M HILL AUGUSI 1991 AERIAL
PHOIOGRAPHY AND SUBSEOUENI LAND SURVEYS.
10 J~ °
~--..r:'>-"'J
70
140
SCALE IN fEEl
-------
-
, :181'''0
-..c--
--'------
...., .-JIC c~ ,DC""" ...
.. IT ...,f08. C~If~I.
, '-"' CAoe J2
'r;;;;-- PRESERVATION "'D PACKAGIW;
~.~J~A STORACE AREA
SBJ2E PHASE II SOIL BORING LOCAIIC,NS
.~~ ---~-~~-~io.-~~_--r~ICU~-'7-j
Q.(-.I)J. 01' 160-1'.001.1
IBJACOBS ~~~ GROUP INC.
-------
+
+
........ "
I
a
_.1
+
+
"...
..
..
.
+
.
n.,
..
..
.
'9-'
+
. M',,- .
.
~
.
..-.
+
+
+
1000
e..
~
=.-
= ............
-=- ~ ~....
==--
- ....
- .......tQII
OC2 ,...
OIl , R{CIONAl c;AOUNOWAI[R
. ca.1 =~) '!:...c!,:'" -..,.
cu~- ~
. t'UI.8 :f~::"~~~LOr
_1C8C 8U.I. Ux:..... ..t
. '"~t. ~It. UIIC&'8
OIl ~ CAlICo
H ..led.
tV:; : :.==- .. .... ....
It . ~ SfJ ...-.
~"""".t.I'G.
:: . ...UIC ":118 ....,..
..: ==~JCU. 1111 ~ lIMA
=: : =::. .~~:s=a~
: : ~-::."'I8Ia.--
- --
;; : =.::c tC. 8CII ..
IIIU " ...... IJ'C*G
:::,:.~
.....-G .., tDtt8I .ocLC
ICIUIICL ~.. f1I tIC .." .....
~ LCWIPCI ... ....snM. fA
N
!
\.
~oo
2000
J '000
SOI..[ IN FEEl
~ JACOBS ENOIN£EAINO OROUP INC.
PI.SiO(MA, c:.ALlrom..1A
~~cr~ ~~ BAS(
<:AOC )6 KfY PL-'-N
PROPOSfO PA'NI COI.ABAI VEHICLE
MAINTENANCE S
HOP - YERI.AO ANNEX
-
01-F260-YB
."'CURE 18-1
ClI -..01- 0."6/1. HI. OIl' J
-------
()
/'
"
"-
",
+N
~
N
..
....
N
+ rE-9
--.-'-----.
. Y5':-2/
'5.8-1/
of~ I'
o 1//'---' \
. ()-
'"
._~-
509500
LEGEND:
II
Y8 3601
18
'It-IO
.
'l'S16-3
.
'l'S18-2
.
--- ~~..-
N
~
tJ
II
FENCE
CAOC AND STRATUM
BOUNDARY
SOil BORING lOC""QN (199J)
[KISliNG GROUNDWA TER
MONI TORING i\£ll
SHAllOW DEP IH GROUND""A rER
MONITORING i\£lL (OU I)
GROUNDW" fER
INIERM[QIATE QEP(TOUH 1)
MONITORING i\£Ll
UAP DRAWN fRQU INfQRUA liON
~OURCE: BASE GuST 1991 AERIAL
fROUT><£ CH2U Hill AU ENT lAND SUR v( YS
FHDTOGRAP"r AND 5UB5EOU
100
200
---,
100 50 - -J
~---
SCAlf IN f(( T
-....
,C8ll8o..0 -
,...
:..;, ~_.
~ _WAI
...--.-- --
Gf09336
""""'....
SB36
-.-- ...----"
::'7' ~~fl!
---~JACOOS [1GN{[ii!;.c GRW> INC.
-.n_- -- ;.;.;.t~ ~~ ;;Ii' . -
IM'Sf08, tAl"--
CAOC 36
PROPOSED PAINT COUBAT
v(HICtE UAINJ("ANCE SIIOf-
SOIL BORING l?~~ I~ONS
. ..--.-- .-- ..[- flCuRE 18 -2 . -
01-f260-YB - ---.,. - S
-. "----- 0..[-..02-01'"0.17-001
-------
+
-::R i.o-::'
{
I
-1-
(
,+
\ \
V
,
R IFLE R .NCE
NEBO
+
+
+
+
l.EGEtIO
.--
~ ."'''DfIOAOOI'''''
- --= -~1iI8tOAO
'I'"
= ptUIAQ 01'01
Oc:::J ,_,
CROUNOWA 'E R
OU 2 RECIONAl
0- 0("'" j~q:.
. ....J =~~~ ,~I",
_DI." Dt.~...~:-
. ..u., :::1o:.:-::~ \OUltQIII
. ..,-.. ..rc.c1P ..DtAUOll
OU 6 C..oc.
G.....- ....,~
~ 10''''' .. a.c...
:: ~~": ~~~ ....
:: =.~"'::."'+':'1='~....
: : 8.lU8IIIG I~~=- 04~'IQIII.a .....
:~ : ::-=I~::-": 0loI.."1 to
.. - ::.". 8....
ar...hC'" ~ ":.::'~~o: c:.
~~'~'I
N
~
1000
2000
.
-------
-..-.-.- .-----
.
N51-11
STRAIUY 2
SUSPECIED lANDfill AREA
(IDEN m lED DURING SIIE SCOP IHe)
.
NSI-$
-x
SIRKUY 1
THE l.ANCrill ARE A
~_IS
S-Z44
NBOIIS
1'1.~1 I
N5000--
'0 JjJ 0
- ~
COt,. C.....
......RSC
NBOIU -
lIII0112
CEDPHY5ICAll y
IDENTIriED
lANDfiLL BOUNDARY
(IARCE lED fOR SOIL BORINGS)
SIRATUII 3
SLuoa: DISPOSAl AREA
~
~
~~
~
.
.
.
,.
..
~
f
~
.
-- ,.---
N
&
u
LEGEND:
-x- rlNa
CAOC BOUNDARY
SUitlA tOW BOUNOARY
.- CCOPNYSICAlLY IDENliriED
~ LANor ILL BOUHOARY
NB01l I
~ SOIL BOIliNG lOCAIiON (199' . 1990)
N£-9 GROUNDWA1ER wONI1OAIHC wEll
. LOCAIION (CONf'I""'AIiON SIUOY)
. SHAllOW D[PTH CROUNOW"1[A
IIONIIOAING II[LL LOCAIION IOU 2)
. INIE""£OIAIE DEPIH CROI.ooDWA1£R
"ONIIOAINC II[U LOCAIION IOU 2)
.to PIE lOW! I£R (OU 2)
. usc,;; CROUNOwol£R
WONIfORINC w(ll lOCAT!
-------
?
~ I
~ ~
t-
OAA'
'UA~IR I )UN
I
+
----
.
..
\ \
V
E RANCE
NEBO RIFL
+
+
+
LEGEND
"8IoICfUIIII
c:=::I "''''0 8060 CII ....
--= Io8~OI8CMO
tt""
= oa......a. 011011
OCI 1-1
GROUNDwA IER
2 RECIONAl
OU .. ..... I~...
. .....J :.~~-::~ UK.e''''
8QIIt IIIII(DI.. rr"~~:-
. wu.. =~08"i:~~ ,cg...
.. -r... p.lOroiI.n:a ,CICA'"
OU 6 CAOC.
I
~ ~.u«
~ flINCD'CQUIt1I
IU --.. ....
; : ~.::(: :.~-: AlII.
: : ~~"":..'::."'..:.. '.=~. ....
' . :::..:.c '8' =~ :"antIIL,.:.s::-...."
.; : hO~~:,:' . ,.~.:-:.....U to
'.. NIIIIMAC( OW8CL
,. . ::..C 8''''
0(""..',. -:..:~=C.
sa..-cr COll"tHIGI\ItC'S
N
~
1000
2000
.
+
!lOG 9
;000 - --
~ ~---- - [ IN H£I
SCAL ROUP INC.
ENGINEERING G
nil JACOBS CAllrQRH IA
~ PASA[)(NA. OCIS "CS -I'S(
"ARIN( CORPS ~Allrc)llt"I'
D..srow'KE Y PLAN
CADC J SPOSAl AREA
WASIEWAI[R 01 BAS(
NEBO "'AIN ,
nr;'JRE 20-
CU- JOI-060. D'-DOl)
-------
.-.---
- -'----------
-----.---... -.. -. --- --..-..
x
x x - x
~
------ NSI-9
----'" ..
NSI-J
x
x
APPRO'IMA IE eASE BOUt/DARY
x---<-
X--- N
--xt---
U
~
NSI-7
.. NSI-6
$
NE-1I
51
..
...
;;
..
STRATUM 1
GOlf COURSE
+
.
NBOJ02
o
NBOJI~
NOOJO'.NBOJ..
.
NBOJ' J
.
NBOJOJ
COl,.
COLI
~s~
1- N ~02~OO
SOURCE OA$( UAP DRAWN fROU INfORUAIiON
r-RI)...It.( CH2U till L AUGUSI 1991 A(RIAL
!'IIOIOCRA",n ANO SlJ8$(0\)(NI LANO SuRvEYS
SI
..
..,
;;
..
LEGEND:
-x-
FENCE
...
CAOC ANO S'RAIU~ HIJIJl/OARY
NPI..;: 17 PI(ZOU[ I[R LOCA liON (au 2)
---- -----
NBOJD~
.
SOIL BORING LOCAII')" (199J)
1151-9
.
INI£R"EDIA'E O(PTH GROUNOWATER
MONITORING wELL (Ou 2)
IJI»cOBS ~~~ CROUP INC.
:~o 1'~ 0
~~,,--;;.;. J
2~O
500
+
NE -'2
$
CROUNOW.a f£R UON! TI)Aluc
w[LL (CQNfIR"AIION ~'UOv)
NS2 - 2
.
SHALLOW DEPTH GROUNOWATER
"ONIIORING wELL (OU 2)
11M'" C08I"IlOCllflCS ....
. ""'0.. (.aI.IIC8II.a
CAOC J wESI (SIRAII.!U I)
WAS f(WATER DISPOSAL ARE A
SOIL OORIt/G LOCAIIONS
-.------. .-.--.-'
ON" ,(RIICAL
PROf ILE BORINGS 0
NOIE. BORING NUMBERS NBOJII I~PQuCH NBJO'~ ORIGINALL Y IN.(NDED fOR CAOC ,
.__n__---
.1 j~~U.~_E 20..7 .
Q(-A)J-OI'HO-IJ- ~~'J
SCAli IN f[( I
01 - f 260 - vO
---------
-------
-- .-..-.---.-
- -.-.--..--. - ..-.
-- ----.---.----
STRAtUM 2
DIsPOSAL POM)S AND
O\ll:lIllOW AII[A
o
NBOJ10
[rrlU(NI DIsPOSAL PONDS
"
NOO J09
..
....
..
w
--......
--......
.........
--...... --......
--...... --......
--......
--......
--......
...........
- --. -..-
I
i
,
I
-- L--.
M
$ N(-26
o NOOJIO
. NSJ-S
. NSJ-4
N
~
LEGEND:
I(NC(
ICAOC AND SIRAIUtiI
OOUNDARY
CONI IR'" TlON S IUOY
CROUNDW' '[R "ONITORING W(ll
t
199J BORING lOCATION
INI[RUrDIAIE DEPIH
GROUNDwA I(R YONIIORING y,{ll
SHAllOW O(PIH
CROUND"'A I(R ..ONITORING y,{ll
SOURCE BA~E "AP DIIAWN IIIOU INIOR"A liON
fiiOiAiHE C..2" Itlll AuGUST 1991 AERiAl
Pt
-------
,
~ ~w 1;,.,,= -1- I _..
( ;\
'OA" .
I / /\ +
(+
+ I
."..(
I
l)...
/-
\
+ \
+
+
+
+
----
\ \
V
"'lflE A~NC(
NEBO "
+
+
LEGEND
'5'IIu('~
c=:J (JIll"'.
-""oCOItOilO
- I.fiIIIW'IIOCO 8CNO
-
'IOU
- oa&,.1Q. 01104
O~ r_t
. CROUNDWA I[R
au 2 R(CIONAl
o.OI"""I~I(.
. 0(".1 E~-::~~ LOCAIlOIt
DI.t(O("~~r
. WlJ.' =~~ f,.GCA1"
. ..,.It ....roc.8 U:C"""
OU 6 CAOCI
~ CUICIIOC
~ ., ...~ .. ..~' ......
~ : ~a,::.": ::~--: .....
: : ~':.~':..:::.r.~. :'='~. ....
: : ~~~ .~;=~oc...~...~~.
:~ : ::1IIhA';::'U ... auWIIIL1
.& . =-~IC.
., aI fIrC -~~:CA
1A.IIIC! ~c:.::~I'U""".
N
1\
u
1000
rlCIIRr 21-1
Cl[. JOl-1260- 91-00IJ
-------
P---_'.'_--~~-
...
...
'0-
+ N 502000
STRATUM 2
IRAP AND SKEE T
RANCE
TANKS 0
* 0
k~~
----
. '-'-~----~-'"
---
I
..--.--
!>OJOOO
.:....-x-
NeD" 2
e
N(-2]
$
NSI-S
.
NSI-'
.
... -.-. --..
N
~
tJ
LEGEND:
fENCE
CAOC ANO STRATU" BOUNDARY
SOil BORING lOCA liON 1993
o oWAT[R "ONIIORING WEll
~~'OH (CONrlR..AIION SIUOY)
INTERMEOIA'E OlP1H CAOUNOWAllA
"Dr
-------
I
II
1
L
._+
A
)
\
I
,
~
~
~
~
I
?
~ I
~ \
+
+
LEGEND
c:=::::J s.-..cr.....-.:
= ..IoIIO.~o....-.:.
=. -= "'*"'0"'0 ~
-'flllCl
- -.,..au DIIOrI
Ot:::) '_S
ou 2 RECIOt.Al CROUNOWAIER
. .....-, SMAuo. C("'" Itt- .~08
..,.. 'SUIIfACZI ~'II'
"'UOII""lI(uUX"".
. "1)., ."--=D'." w." (to- _'08
-It. sV'''at ~I('
""Cltl8oC Cu. \guf$Olll
.. "'-10 ~1I10ll0C'I' 'Cll:.AtliCll
OU 6 CAce.
~ I1IICAOC
t . LIIII(JI'., ~- tJ1 .. ca.' COUIIII
J . -,,,..,,. DI~ ......
. - OLD """ . SIIU' .,... aM.
. . OtiC"'" ..", ''''''&.1.
J . ... 1fOhcr ..... . \ilrllCltlU
. . "'''O-C It) -'E( o'~ .....
.It . '.-eI'.'CIt a.t....MC CMIII8IC.8L ..SPOIotII. ....
I) - '.~UI"IU", . ."IiGJIIIG IIQltotC( MfA
14 - DU...u 0."""" Me 0.-"'1 10
--.. '11(.
IIIu8Q 0("""".' '" "- ...w. If"'"
CCIIPIl~I"tt' ... ~'08. CA
N
~
~ '~ ~--oJ 1000
SCAl[ IN F[EI
-i--j
'''''WIR I ~'NO'R' f
+ / (+
/\ ...,
/ 1
/ /\ +
\ \
V
NEBO R "lE RANC£
+\
\
+
+
+
2000
~ .JACOBS ENGINEERINQ GROUP INC.
I!t!J PASADENA. CAlllOANIA
UAlU,.( C~~ lOGIStiC'S SA$(
BARSTOW, C"'llr~IIifIA
CAOC 6 K[.( PLAN
ORIGII~AL IRA51< L...or III
NEBO MAIN BASE
01-'260- ,a
"Cl./R[ 2]-1
CU -JQ1.r16Q-87. 001 J
-------
r---
-1-
N ~002~0
+
o
g
..
;;
..
o
t:!
..
~
...
-1- N 499:'00
STRATUM 2
RE\I['''ENI >REA
@~d'
tori-
~+
<
~
e
-1-
NB061 &
e
NB0606
(1+
N[P-4
$
.
N
~
LEGEND:
fENCE
CAOC BOUNDARy
STRAIUY BOUNDARY
SOIL BORING lOCA nON (19'13)
1993 ANGlE BORING lOCATION
GROUND.A IER YONITORING
WEll lOCA liON (OU 2)
OHY \I[ R TICAl
PROf IlE BORING
SOURCE: BAS[ YAP DRAWN fROI.t INfOR"A"ON
iiiQi;!H[ CH2" Hill AUGuSI 1991 A[RIAl
PHOTOGRAPHY AND SUBSEOUENT lAND SURvEYS.
150 1:' 0
~-........~
ISO
)00
SCALE IN FEET
~JACOBS [NCIN([RIIC CROOP IHC
--
....... ~ UDJIIQ ,..
~f08. ""'oa-.
CAOC 6
ORIGINAL TRASH lANDfill
SOIL BORINC lOCATIONS
01 -F260- Y9
flCURE 22 - 2
0.( - A)J- 0" 210 -8' - 001 J
-------
+
)
f'i"
'"
-t - I _..
f / \
~ + / /, +
+
.....(
I +
l,l...
+
i-
.RT
'OR"( R I "NO
I
\ '
y
E AA~CE
NE80 AIH
+
+
LEGEND
. S18.IC"""
t==::> .''''D 8010 G8 ....
-= ...~.,.,.
flOC<
= _.,.... DIIOI
OCi ,..,
CROUNOWA IER
au 2 RECIONAl
08 ...81 (~II.
. tClIII.J ::~~~ ..0tA'~
IlOl8 II1II(".. "~ri~
. "'..., ~~~ Lat£1OI
.. LCEAI-
.. -,.'O"1[lCll8
au , CAOCI
~ m.1C.tC
~ "COI.'~
I .. =~:£m-.::...
J .. ..- . NClU.
: : ~':.~':::'':''; :.=.~ "I'
I : =I"C 1.' :.:c Cf4.It",.... ..."
,~ .. ::~=f~~IJ~'"
:::=,,~'11(8
\
I
".'fII tIC:~:c..
tAIIICI = ,QCI,'ICI"
N
~
1000
2000
-------
... ..-.-.---.----
o
o
...
..
;;;
...
-1- N ~OO400
BL DG 347
(;
/
CONCRETE PAD
/ +-.~
. -----.....
--
.....
'-~-~-......
-----
+
RHERENCE
POINT
I
L.--_---..
- . .... -.-
N
&
u
LEGEND:
"
rENCE
CAOC AND SIRAIU~
BOUNDARY
NB0801
'II
199J BORINC LOCA liON
~OURCE BASE ,.IAP DRAWN rRO~ INrOR~A liON
I"R"OM!HE C"2U "ILL AUCUSI 199' AERIAL
FHOIOCRAPHY AND SUBSEOUENI LAND SURVEYS
6' 30 0
~.J
60
120
.
SCALE IN rE[!
.~. -.
J
/
~,=. - -~j~~ !i~[~~CROOP INC. -
,....;c-- - - '----- -'-"-'
P...~~- ..8111( CDW't lacll'ln loll.
08"-" ''''108 U&."'OIhI~
~ ':~-- CAOC 8
Co... ,- BUllDINC 191
.J;~9!:8. wASIE DISPOSAL AREA
r::;:~h.~~~i -=.~I~f;i~;_~N[~~~Pk2--.
C1[ -JDJ-OlfJlO-BJ-OOIJ
'.
-
..... .. --------
-------
,.:'00 ~oo \I
-...:; ~ ---~
SCAl£ IN fEn
rHt JACOBS ENGINEERING OROUl' INC.
~ PASAD(NA. CAl"OR>
-------
~OURCE: 8ASE "AP DRO'" FRQII ,NrOR"AnON
rRcjijIHE CH2" HIll OUGUST \991 AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHY ANO, Su8SEQUENT lAND SuR'
-------
+
(I
I
l
A
)
\
I
....- +
+
~
!
~
i
~
f
--/---1-
'UII"lR ~~O'R' (
+ r (+
+
?
f: /
~
t. ~
\ \
V
NE80 RIFLE RING[
+
....(
I
...... lJ..,
/-
+\
\
+
+
---
+
, III',
r;60591
..., 00)
I:NI3
~
O~ .07 97
LEGEND
~'''''-'Cf\IC
= MWI(DlIO..oc."".
=- -= .~DItOIO
- tltCI
- E:8a..a 01'01
o~ I_~
OU 2 R[CIONAl CROU"O'" IIR
. C".' ."'''08 01"- C'I' "'0.
-'1:. -.-aa) ~tD
....-... ~ \OUnGII
. 111).' :~-:r=':atlf~.tr
.,..1UhC .u1 l~"CII
.. ..,... ....,.... I.CIIC.&'"
OU 6 C'OC.
o .,ltIIOC
, . ..*llD1U .,.... 01 1M[ ., o::a...c
J . .,,,."8 DISI"'O\oIIL ....
" - ca.D ... . .." 8-c1 ....
. - 088G-- fIt_.. ,,,,-10.
I . ... "OUa: alii*' 8; ........
I - ""'DIIIG ," ..,. DI~ .....
I' - ."".108 Qt-- OCWCM. OI~ «.
It . ..........,~ . ..fIOt~ 'ta8111C1 ...
'" . g8....a: OUIIJI.cU ... au8'.u.1 '.
""C 81"'.
taYICS ........... tJI W -.... ...tIC
~ ,IICtIIlCJ". """108, CofI
N
; &
()
';!!O - -J
--
1000
2000
SCAU: IN fEET
~ JACOBS ENOINEERINQ GROUP INC.
~ PaSAD(HA.. CAllrORNIA
"ARnt( CQRPt; lOCISflCS e,t,sr
B.utS'O-, CAlIHJA'HIA
CAOC 1 J K[ Y PLAN PRESERVA liON
AND PACKAGING STORAGE AREA
NEBO UAIN BAS(
01-' 260- VB
rlGURE 25-1
ell. ..:U-r760-81-~OtJ
-------
----- ---
-.---- .,---
+" 500400
. . 0
~ ...
N
N
;;
N
W
+"500400
8
..
N
;;;
N
[:=1
~
o
.w
o
e 1191304
.
1191303
....... Cor.CRE TE
....... FOUN!)A TlON
.......
....... N91J01
......
+ ......
....... e N91301
--
DE TAIL.
o
0
o
STRATUM I
9UllDIUC FOUIIDA liON
AND SURROUIIDIIIC SOilS
+ N SD0250
.. - -- --
._._-L.. -.
!
I
o
LEGEND:
.-- - --. - - -. -
N
~
CAOC AND STRATUM BOUNDARY
N9130-
e
1993 BORINC lOCA liON
SOURCE BAS[ UAP DRA\\N fRO\.I INrORUA liON
FRau TH[ CH2U Hill AUGUSI 1991 A[RIAl
PHOTOCQAPHY A..D SU8S£OU[1I1 lAND SURVEYS
.;0 IS 0
r-w-...-...........J
30
60
-.
~.::o np
,.~_.
o f'(-"
0"- ~-_.
~ _IOAI
.~_.
GE09313
.-c'iilU'iIiO -.
~ SBU
----~:'" -, ~L2~
SCALE IN r([ I
----- - ..--- ---
UEJAC08S ~~[~~ CROUP INC.
-..- -. ---_...._---_.~. .-.-
...... c.CJIII"'I ~OGIJIIC' 868
..., lOw. "". ""'..
CAOC 1 J
PR£S(RIIA liON ANI) PACKAGII'C
SIORAG£ AR[A
SOil BORING I OCA IIOUS
- 'f,'-7;;~'-YB .. I .. r 1;;';;;( 15.2
. Q.(...o/:ii"HO.IP.OOU
-------
I +
II
1
A L
) .-+
\
I
+
.
~
~
~
.~
~
.
?
~ I
: ~
J
r ~"
"-
~
::::>
1\ -..
/
I } +
/ \
L~GEND
~St-..cf1.88
= ....D 808D" ....
=- -= \.8I.....-OIIID ~
-.....:1
- Clta...c&D6tOi
oc:::» '-I
OU 2 'RECIONAl CRQUNO.A lEA
. ....1 SMaU,08 0("" (f'" _LD8
-11. tIM.cn ~
--",,_1C£&.1.QC.a101
. 11'''-' ..-.,.(0........ tW ....
-". ..-au) ~....
~'08- -.u. LOU''''
.. .'-10 NlOII... """0l1li
ou 6 CAOC,
9 cutc...ac
'-lMIIJI,-,-...tII"-'~
. . -III-a:. ...... ....
.. - F;J.D --- .. NIt 8M1C1 ...
I-OIIIC""" ....,....or""
, - -- lJOI'..cot ... . LlfllllCll'IU
. - ...,.D8C ItJ .,W 01'" ..
n - ...108 cu.- OCIICIII. Ot1Jl'Ol.lliL _.
I' - ........,.. . NCI"'" ,JCJhC;8 ....
'6 .081-.:1 o-G.I - ....au.s ..,
,,-'111( .,e8
~ DI"""'.'" .. ...'" ..-...
CQlllil"1 U~I,'a 8A. ..."to.. 'III
N
~
+
+
~~I~ ~--J
---- ---
SCAU: IN rEEl
1000
2000
NEBO RIFLE R~c(
+\
\
+
..... ....
. ..-
""....
......
tita."----
t_~
-Q'.
r 26059\
OliO. ;r;;o-
~
G'"
O. '07 97
--1---1-
I ()R'" A ,l''',OAR' (
+ I (+
\ \
V
+
+
IJi' JAC08S ENGINEERING QAOIJP INC.
~ PAIjA,,(HA. Cl(lrOANIA
..&AI"( CORP\ tOCISf1CS liAS(
II~ 10-, tAt ,(eRNlA
CAOC 14 .(f Pl Atj
DRAINACE CltArm£lS AfjO Ou1l All
10 IAOJAII( RIII(R
01-r260-,e
r 'C!JRr. 26..1
Q(. JOl-rHo-Bl-00I)
-------
. ------.- .--------.-.---
-.- -- .--. ---.-..-.--.- .--.
. .-.- -.. ..
)
\
N
~
8J
+
/
.-+
LEGEND:
II
II
r£NCt
PROP£RIY BOUNDARY
SIRAIUU BOUNDARY
-----
+
NB~)O .
199) BORING lOCAllON
SOURC£: BAS£ ....P DRA~ IROU ',IORUA liON
lfiOUTit£ CH~U Hill AUGUSI 1991 A£RIAl
P"OIOGRAP", AND SUBS£OU£NI lAND SURVEYS
I
I
u
+
+
1000 soo 0
PS1SL-. - oJ
SCAl£ IN r[£I
1000
~ooo
-.
--
~~!.-- ~EJAC08S [1O([RlIC: CROI.f INC.
..... (IIC ....... --
~ ...... CIJIIft 'GCIIIICI;';-- - -.
- I' 8M'I'-. tAl. "~I"
, ~~ _. C.AOC ,.
l""d09)H DRAINAG£ CHANN£lS AND
~. QUlrAllS 10 UOJAI/[ RII/[R BID
5814 SOil SORING LOCATIONS
_._L---__I~~~ - °14/14j'!1. ..: .:Fr26D-VB.- [1~~.U!..[j6-2-.
cu....J32 - 0" 1100-' J - D01)
+
(
1\
..I~ ..t._:t
+
\ \
L+
.. + \,
-------
. --
--_.- -_.-
'\
I +
/1
I
I
I
A I -....-
) ...:.-;-- \ --I
\ \
I
+
..-
..(
I +
l,L..
-1-
1000 ~ 0
~~
SCALE IN r[[T
1000
2000
.
~----- r1I!JACoBs ['GN[[R~~ INC.
!.~~ IJI.I --- ua.-. --
- -'';';..c~;a...
" ~- 8A"f08. c.IFallllIoA
....
~~ RIPARI,t.1II rp.-.cr HABITAT
n~1506J IIIEBO IIAIIII BAS(
ICAD ;u.-
rl91506T. 'id'---"-'-' I . -"--'-'
0:'-- 97 01-r260-Y9 . FlC~R~ 2!:-'
."-' ---. .--' _9~L!!L.- U'U'-'-' ,- 0.1....3-0"360-8'.OCIIJ
+
+
\ \
V
+
111(80 RlrLE IMIIIGE \
+ + \
-----
. ...-------.-------
-----...-
N
!
LEGEND
~ 1-":'"
= ..08QlO OIl ...
"C. ~ -.....0""
=-..-
- .....
- ..............
Oeo -
. .........- .......
m ",c.8
I ... ...pc" ...... ....., ...
, ... CMIfIIC& 10- ~
t ... NIl ....... ...
It - ~ .... ...
\
o ...c..ae
. ... -....u .... ,. .. .., ~
J ... ..~-~ ........ ...
. ... ... -II' . ..at .... ....
. ... CIItICI-. .... 1.1tICI...
, ..... ,..... ..... . UlC"U
. : IUII.DIIIC 'I' ..,. ........ ....
'. ... _UI ...c ...~ .... ...
:: : ==.':-::'.auc...:~...
M-DU--~-.
as.. =-.=..... ...... ~
....: =~:a r:.::.s-::'CA
-------
I
,
I ...
APPENDICES
-------
Appendix A
Administrative Record Index
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE 8/29189 11.0002 SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT TEST PERFORMANCE FOR YERMO SOLID MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL 1.5
WASTE DISPOSAL SITE. MCLB AND COMMENTS ON THE DUE DATES SET BOARD
IN THE RWOCB'S CORRESPONDENCE DATED 05115/89
CORRESPONDENCE 11/25/57 1.1 . 0004 EXCESS REAL PROPERTY AT DAGGETT. REGARDING ACQUISITION OF US DEPT OF COMMERCE, CIVIL NFEC & MCLB 5
QUARTERS, HOUSING AREA AND OTHER EXCESS PROPERTY FROM THE AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION.
MCLB WASHINGTON DC
COMMENTS. RWOCB 8/28/88 1.1 . 0008 REVIEW OF HAZARDOUSITOXIC WASTE DISPOSAL SITE INSPECTION ON REGIONAl WATER QUALITY CONTROL REGIONAl WATER QUALITY CONTROL 3.4.5
IN THE SOUTH LAHONTAN BASIN BOARD BOARD
REPORT,ASSESSMENT 1/8/86 1.1 . 0011 PHASE 2. STAGE 2 DRAFT FiNAl REPORT MEETING & PRELIMINARY US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1.2.3.4.5,6.7
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REGULATION. ACT 10127/86 1.1 . 0027 TOXIC PITS CLEANUP ACT. CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF UNAPPROveD REGIONAl WATER QUALITY CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
SURFACE NPOUNDMENTS, ETC. BOARD
. .. ...- .. ..~. . --.--.-.'-
REPORT, HAZARDOUS WASTE 6/1183 1 2 . 0001 DRAfT INITIAL ASSESSMENT STUDY. RESULTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BROVt91 AND CALD~LL NEESA & MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS 3,4.5.6
DISPOSAL SITE ANAl. YSIS BASE
REPORT. CONFIRMATION 2/1185 1.3 - 0001 CONFIRMATION STUDY CONDUCTED FOR CAOC, 2.5.9. I" 18. 19.21. A L BURKE ENGINEERS INC NFEC & MCLB 3.4.5.6
AND 23
REPORT. CONFIRMATION 1011185 13 - 0002 CONFIRMATION STUDY CONDUCTED FOR CAOC, '5.9. 19. AND 23 A L BURKE ENGINEERS INC NFEC & MCLB 3.4.5
PLAN. MASTER 3/1/88 1.4 . 0036 MASTER PLAN UPDATE MCLe. CALIFORNIA DRAfT, 1968, SUMMARY OF MIRALLES ASSOCIATES IN ASSOCIATION MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
ONE FUll YEAR'S STUDY OF EXISTING OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES, WITH CH2M HILL, CANNETT & FLEMING
TO EVALUATE THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF MCLe
PLAN. WASTE 1111/84 14.0042 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AT MCLB TO IMPLEMENT J B YOUNG & ASSOCIATES NFEC & MCLB 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND TO PROVIDE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SAFE HANDLING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
JANUARY 7,1997
-------
MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOCI SU8JECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
PLAN, SAMPLING & ANAL YSIS 5117191 14 - 005~ OUAlITY ASSURANCE SAMPLING AND ANAlYSIS PlAN, MCLB, TO ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENTAlINC US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION 5
EVAlUATE REMOVAl ACTIONS FOR SLUDGE IN 22 SURFACE AGENCY
IMPOUNDMENTS IN YERMO ANNEX
PlAN, SAMPLING & ANALYSIS 8/14/91 1.4 .. 0056 QUAliTY ASSURANCE SAMPLING AND ANAlYSIS PlAN AMENDMENT, ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENTALINC US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION 5
MCLB TO EVAlUATE REMOVAl ACTION FOR SLUDGE IN 22 SURFACE AGENCY
IMPOUNDMENTS IN YERMO ANNEX
PlAN. SAMPLING & ANAlYSIS 6I2~1 1.4 - 0057 QUAliTY ASSURANCE SAMPLING AND ANAlYSIS, MCLB, FOR SAMPLING ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENTAlINC US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION 3,5
SOIlS IN THE 22 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS IN VERMO ANNEX AGENCY
. .. . . u_-.-. .,---.-." -.
EE/CA 1131191 14.0058 PROPOSED REMOVAl ACTION, VERMO ANNEX INDUSTRIAl WASTE NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 3,5
TREATMENT PlANT AND DOMESTIC WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY,
MCLB, BARSTOW .. INCLUDES REMOVAl ACTION MEMORANDUM, FOR
PlAN, SAMPLING & ANAlYSIS 5117/91 14.0060 QUAliTY ASSURANCE SAMPliNG AND ANAlYSIS PlAN FOR INDUSTRIAl ECOLDGY & ENVIRONMENTAlINC US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION 5
WASTE TREATMENT PlANT, MeLB PlAN TRANSMITTED TO THE EPA AGENCY
. --..---.- .. . ..o-n-- _..
CORRESPONDENCE 9121/94 1.4 .. 0087 SUBMITTAl OF DRAFT BACKGROllND SOILS INVESTIGATION TECHNiCAl MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE BARSTOW DTSC, CRWClCB, US EPA 3,4,5,6
MEMORANDUM WITH REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
REPORT 12/27/96 1.4 - 0088 DRAFT FiNAl REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONlFEASIBILITY STUDY OPERABLE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5.6
UNITS 5 AND 6
CORRESPONDENCE 9129193 17 . 0037 COMPLETION OF OU 5 AND 6 PHASE I FIELD WORK ON SEPTEMBER 23, SOUTHWEST DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE 5,6
1993 CONTROL
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, NE~ 5131190 18.0004 ''OA TO FILE CHARGES IN DUMPING BY MARINE BASE" DESERT DISPATCH PUBLIC RELEASE 5
ARTICLE
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, NE~ 6/1/91 18 - 0005 '"fAD WASTE DUMPED IN LANDFILL" SUN STAFF ~ITER PUBLIC RELEASE 5
ARTICLE
2
JANUARY 7, 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
ACTION MEMORANDUM 1/10191 21.0003 CONCERNS REGARDING DRAFT REMOVAl ACTION MEMORANDUM DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 3.5
COMMAND
CORRESPONDENCE, 1131/91 21 - 0004 PROPOSED WASTE REMOVAl AT CAOC. 17 AND 34 YERMO ANNEX NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND PROJECT FILE 3.5
MEMORANDUM
CORRESPONDENCE 21619' 2.1 - 0006 ClARIFICATION FOR REMOVAl OF SLUDGE FROM SURFACE MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE REGIONAl WATER QUAliTY CONTROL 3.5
IMPOUNDMENT AT MCLB BOARD
. .. --_..... ._. --'--'--".
CORRESPONDENCE 2/15/91 2.1 - 0007 REMOVAl OF SLUDGE FROM SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS AT MCLB AND MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 3.5
TECHNICAl REVIEW COMMITTEE INVOLVEMENT COMMAND
. --- .------ .
COMMENTS. EPA 1/18/91 21 . 0009 REVIEW OF THE REVISED DRAFT REMOVAl OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 3.5
SLUDGE AT MCLe COMMAND
.-- .-, ,--- "--' .' -.--....-.--- .... .._. ..,--..--..-..
COMMENTS. MCLB 1001/90 21 - 0010 PRELIMINARY DRAFT REMOVAl ACTION MEMO FOR INDUSTRIAL STUDY MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5
YERMO ANNEX COMMAND
ACTION MEMORANDUM 12/21/90 21 . 0011 REVISED ACTION MEMORANDUM FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTE SLUDGE AND NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US EPA. DTSC. & RWOCB 3,5
PCB AT YERMO ANNEX
- -. ... -..- ---.
ACTION MEMORANDUM 11/2/90 2.1 - 0012 PRELIMINARY DRAFT REMOVAl ACTION FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTE NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 3,5
SLUDGE AT YERMO AGENCY
REMOVAl ACTION 11/29190 21 - 0013 REQUIREMENTS ON THE REMOVAl ACTION FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTE AT REGIONAl WATER QUAliTY CONTROL NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 3.5
YERMO ANNEX BOARD COMMAND
CORRESPONDENCE 1112~/92 2 1 - ool~ PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE BARSTOW SLUDGE POND REMOVAl DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 3.5
ACTION COMMAND
JANUARY 7. 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOCI SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
REMOVAl ACTION 3112/93 2 I . 00\5 NOTIFICATION OF REMOVAl ACTION AT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY VoEll JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB. RWOCB. OTSC. & US EPA 6
CONTAMINATED WITH TRICHlOROETHENE (TCE) ADJACENT TO THE
NEBO ANNEX
REMOVAl ACTION 8/18193 2 I . 0017 NOTIFICATION OF THE SUCCESSFUL COMPlETION OF THE MClB BECHTEL ENVIRONMENTAllNC US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION 5
REMOVAl ACTION AT CAOC 17 AGENCY
REMOVAl ACTION 9/22193 2.1 . 00\8 MClB REMOVAL ACTION REPORT AT CAOC 17 BECHTEL ENVIRONMENTAlINC US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION 5
AGENCY
ACTION MEMORANDUM 4/21/93 21 . 0019 ACTION MEMORDANDUM DOCUMENTING THE DISCOVERY OF MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE OFF-BASE RESIDENT 6
TRICHlOROETHENE (TCE) IN PRIVATE VoELL O~ER'S PROPERTY
ACTION MEMORANDUM 5125/93 2\ . 0020 REMOVAl ACTION MEMORANDUM FOR INDUSTRIAl WASTE TREATMENT NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND MCLB. RWOCB. DTSC. & US EPA 5
PlANT SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS. YERMO ANNEX FOR CAOC 17
......_-
REMOVAL ACTiON 4/1/95 2.1 . 0029 DRAFT ASl5VE PROJECT SYSTEM DETAIlS; AIR SPARGINGNAPOR OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES CORP NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB. DTSC. & US EPA 6
EXTRACTION REMOVAL ACTION PILOT STUOY FOR CAOC 6 (ORIGiNAl
TRASH LANDFILL); REFER TO CAT-DOC '5.1-0150 FOR THE DOCUMENT
.. ."'-..-----
REPORT. STARTUP TEST 7/1/95 21. 0036 DRAFT ANAlYTICAl SUMMARY REPORT FOR START.UP TEST - AIR OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES-PLEASANTON NFESC PORT HUENEME 6
SPARGINGIVAPOR EXTRACTION REMOVAL ACTION PILOT STUDY
REPORT-REMOVAL ACTION 918197 2.1 - 0037 TIME-CRITlCAl REMOVAL ACTION CLOSURE REPORT; REMOVAL OF PCB- OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES.IRVINE SOUTHv.EST DIVISION 5.6
CONTAMINATED SOIL MCLB CAOC 2\
ACTION MEMORANDUM 9/17/97 2\ - 0038 ACTION MEMORANDUM FOR PCB REMOVAL AT CADC 21. MClB YERMO OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES.IRVINE SOUTHv.EST DIVISION 5.6
ANNEX. BARSTOW
REMOVAL ACTION \tn/97 2.\ - 0039 TIME-CRITICAL REMOVAL ACTION CLOSURE REPORT; REMOVAL OF PCB- OHM REMEDIATiON MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 5.6
CONTAMINATED SOIL
JANUARY 7.1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC. SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
REPORT 616197 2.1 - 0040 DRAfT TIME.CRITICAl REMOVAL ACTION IMPLEMENTATION v,(IRK OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES CORP SOUT~ST DIVISION 5,6
PLAN, REMOVAL OF PCB-COMTAMINATED SOIL
CORRESPONDENCE, 5I2J97 21 - 0041 LETTER REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF TCRA FOR MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE 5.6
NOTIFICATION TCRA REMOVAl OF PCB. AT CAOC 21 CONTROL
---...---- -.. ..
REPORT 8125/97 2.1 . 0042 PRELIMINARY DRAfT SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND CONFIRMATORY OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES CORP. SOUT~ST DIVISION 5,6
ANAlYTICAl DATA FOR PCB REMOVAL AT CAOC 21
...- . ...--.-.-....--.. .. ...--.----.-.- .-- ----- .
MEMO 3131/97 21 . 0043 DRAfT IMPLEMENTATION MEMORANDUM, SAMPLING AND SCREENING OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES CORP. SOUTtMEST DIVISION 5,6
OF SOIL FOR POl YCHlDRlNATED BIPHENYl CONTAMINATION, CAC021
"---'---'- .." --...-.-.. .--'-""- ""'---'--.
ACTION MEMORANDUM 7/29/97 2.1 - 00« DRAfT CAOC 26 ASlSVE SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION AND SOIL VAPOR OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES. IRVINE SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6
MAONITORING PROBE EVAlUATION DATED JULY 28, 1997
CLEAN.UP 9/17/97 2.1 - 0045 AMBIENT AIR MONITORING PREFORMED AT CAOC 26, DATED OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES. IRVINE SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6
SEPTEMBER 16, 1997
. ----"--' -" -------.." - ----.- . - .
ACTION MEMORANDUM 5112197 2.1 - 0046 DRAfT ACTION MEMORANDUM FOR CAOC 21, DATED MAY 9, 1997 OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES. IRVINE SOUT~ST DIVISION 5,6
EEiCA 5117/93 2.3 - 0001 FiNAl PROPOSED REMOVAl ACTION FOR THE YERMO ANNEX NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND MCLB, Rv,(ICB. DTSC, & US EPA 5
INDUSTRIAl WASTE TREATMENT PLANT SLUDGE
... --- - ...
GUIDANCE. EPA 6/1/88 31 - 0004 COMMUNITY RELATIONS IN SUPERFUND A HANDBOOK (INTERIM US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC RElEASE 1,2.3.4.5.6.7
VERSION)
GUIDANCE, EPA 3/1/87 3.1 - 0006 DATA QUAliTY OBJECTIVES FOR REMEDIAl RESPONSE ACTIVITIES US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC RELEASE 1,2.3.4.5,6.7
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
5
JANUARY 7, 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
GUIDANCE. NFEC SII/88 3 1 - 0007 NAVY INSTAlLATION RESTORATION (IRP) MANUAl NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND PUBLIC RELEASE 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
-. .-.-.....-----
GUIDANCE. EPA 10/1/88 31 . 0008 GUIDANCE FOR CONDUCTING REMEDIAl INVESTIGATIONS AND US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC RELEASE 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
FEASIBILITY STUDIES UNDER CERCLA-INTER'M FiNAl
GUIDANCE. EPA 10/1/116 31 . 0009 SUPERFUND PUBLIC HEAl TH EVALUATION MANUAL US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC RELEASE 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
GUIDANCE. EPA 11/1191 3.1 - 0015 GUIDE TO MANAGEMENT OF INVESTIGATION DERIVED WASTES FOR US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC RELEASE 1.2.3.4,5.6.7
CERCLA SITES
----.- - ..-----..---.-..
GUIDANCE. EPA 3/1/87 3.1 . 0018 OATA QUALITY OBlECTIVES FOR REMEDIAl RESPONSE ACTMTIES, US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC RELEASE 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
EXAMPLE SCENARIO (EPA) S40/G-87(004)
...----.--. . - _._--~_._- -.. - - -. ."---..
GUIDANCE. STATE 8122190 3.1 - 0017 INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR PREPARATION OF ENDANGERMENT DEPT OF HEAl TH SERVICES PUBLIC RELEASE 1.2.3.4,5.6.7
ASSESSMENT REPORT
AGREEMENT, FFA 512196 3.1 . 0025 AGENCY AGREEMENT TO TRANSFER CAOC 21 FROM OU 3 TO OU 5 VARIOUS AGENCIES 3.5
GUIDANCE, STATE 11/1190 3 3 - 0001 PROCEDURES FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT COMPLIANCE FOR THE US DEPT INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE PUBLIC RELEASE " 2, 3, 4, 5.6.7
MOJAVE DESERT TORTOISE SERVICE REGIONS 1.2 AND 6
. ._-.~- -~ ._- - -.
PLAN, RIIFS WORK 3/1/91 41 . 0003 DRAFT FiNAl REMEDlAllNVESTlGATIONIFEASIBILITY STUDY WORK JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB. RWQCB. DTSC, & US EPA ',2,3.4,5.6.7
PLAN. MCLB, BARSTOW
PLAN. DATA QUALITY OBJECTM 10/25/94 4 1 . 0007 PROJECT NOTE 61 . PRELIMINARY PHASE 2 WORK PLAN DATA QUALITY JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB. DTSC, & US EPA 5.6
OBJECTIVES FOR OUt 5 & 6. GUIDES DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORK
PLAN
JANUARY 7, 1997
-------
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE
CAT. DOC'
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP UNIT
PlAN, RIfFS WORK
56
DRAFT FS REPORT
REPORT. PlANNING DOCUMENT
CORRESPONDENCE,REOUEST
CORRESPONDENCE, RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE, RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE, RESPONSE
PlAN, RIfFS WORK
PLAN, SAMPLING & ANALYSIS
PLAN, SAMPLING & ANAlYSIS
JANUARY 7.1997
8/ 14/95
7/15196
8/30191
7113194
.._---... -.
7/22J94
8/12J94
8/30194
411191
10/15/91
10/15191
4,1 - 0008
4,1 . 0009
41 . 0014
4.1 - 0019
41 - 0020
4,1 . 0021
41.0022
42 - 0002
.... ..,..,---
4,2 . 0003
42 . 0004
DRAFT FiNAl REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION / FEASIBILITY STUDY, PHASE 2 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
FIELD SAMPLING WORK PLAN FOR OU, 5 & 6
DRAfT REMEDIAlINVESTIGA TlONIFEASIBILITY STUOY OUS 5 AND 6,
AOCS 7 AND 35
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
RESPONSE TO AGENCY COMMENTS VOLUME I DRAfT FiNAl RIfFS
PLANNING DOCUMENTS
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
. - ... - ....--.-.-..., --...
.....,.--. .".-- ....
..."" -.'--- --.-.--..
REOUEST FOR 120 DAY EXTENSION ON THE au 5 AND 8 't>RAfT PHASE SOUTHWEST DIVISION
II WP' FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 1994 TO JANUARY 24. 1995
.. --._-..-_.....
.-.----
-- --..----..-.
US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHWEST DIVISION
RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR 120 DAY EXTENSION ON au 5 AND 8
'1IRAFT PHASE II WP"; DECISION WILL BE MADE AFTER AUGUST 4, 1994
. -'..---. ..--..., - .._~.. .-..
. ".-...." .......
US ENVIRONMENTAl. PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHWEST DIVISION
AND OTHERS
. ---.. -. ..- ".--
DRAfT RESPONSE APPROVING 120 DAY EXTENSION ON OU 5 AND 8
't>RAFT PHASE II WI'"
- -.. - ..-..
--'-"''''.'---
NOTifiCATION THAT CRITICAl PATH MODEL SCHEDULE WILL BE
FORWARDED SEPTEMBER 9, 1994
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
..-..0_"- -. '.-,-
DRAfT FiNAl REMEDIAlINVESTIGATIONIFEASIBILITY STUOY SAMPLING JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
AND ANALYSIS PLAN, MCLB, BARSTOW
DRAfT FINAl SAMPLING & ANALYSIS PLAN, RIfFS FOR OU, !iI6 (VOL 1 OF JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP !NC
6)
DRAfT FiNAl SAMPLING & ANAl YSIS PlAN, RIIFS FOR OU, ~ IVOL2 OF JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
6)
NFEC, MCLB, RwaCB, DTSC, & US EPA
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
MARINE CORPS LOGISTIC BASE
US ENVIRONMENTAl. PROTECTION
AGENCY
VARIOUS AGENCIES
NFEC. MCLB, RwaCB, DTSC. & US EPA
NFEC, MCLB, RwaCB, DTSC, & US EPA
NFEC, MCLB, RwaCB, DTSC, & US EPA
5,6
1,2.3,4,5.6,7
5,8
5,8
5,8
5,6
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
5,6
5,6
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT - DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
PLAN, SAMPLING & ANAl YSIS 10115191 42 . 0005 DRAFT FINAl SAMPLING & ANAlYSIS PlAN, RUFS FOR OUt 516 (VOL 3 OF JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB, RWQCB, DTSC, & US EPA 5,6
6)
- n _._+-. .
PLAN, SAMPLING & ANAl YSIS 10115191 42 . 0006 DRAFT FiNAl SAMPLING & ANAlYSIS PLAN, RUFS FOR OUt 516 (VOL 4 OF JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB, RWQCB, DTSC. & US EPA 5.6
6)
PLAN. SAMPLING & ANAl YSIS 10115191 42 - 0007 DRAFT FINAl SAMPLING & ANAl YSIS PLAN. RUFS FOR OUt 516 (VOL 5 OF JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP tHC NFEC, MClB, RWQCB, DTSC, & US EPA 5.6
6)
PLAN, SAMPLING & ANAlYSIS 10115/91 4.2 - 0006 DRAFT FINAl SAMPLING & ANAlYSIS PLAN, RUFS FOR OUt 516, JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RWQCB, DTSC. & US EPA 5,6
APPENOICIES, (VOL 6 OF 6)
- ----.----
PLAN, SITE 4/15/91 42 - 0010 SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR MCLB JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB, RWQCB, DTSC, & US EPA 1,2,3.4,5,6,7
...--"-------.. -.-......-... ---.,.., ,-- .. . ..__.- - ----..
PLAN. SAMPLING & ANAlYSIS 3f3OI94 4.2 - 0015 REVISED DRAFT FiNAl SAMPLING WORK PLAN FOR DU. 5 & 8 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5.8
COMMAND
PLAN, SAMPLING & ANAL YSIS 9121/92 42 - 0016 PROJECT NOTE 202 - REVISIONS TO THE APPROVED SAMPLING AND JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RWOCB, DTSC, & US EPA 1,2,3,4.5,6,7
ANAlYSIS PLAN, SECTIONS 110 AND 120, DATED SEPTEMBER 1992
PLAN. SAMPLING & ANAlYSIS 7/15193 <4 2 . 0017 PROJECT NOTE 300 - REVISION TO STRATUM BOUNDARIES ON JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB. RWOCB, DTSC. & US EPA 5.6
GEOPHYSICS AND SOil ORGANIC VAPOR INTERPRETATION FOR OUt 516
--......---... ---
PLAN. SAMPLING & ANALYSIS 10/21/93 <42 - 0019 PROJECT NOTE 14 . REORGANIZE OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 SAMPLING JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP !NC NFEC, MCLB, RWQCB. DTSC, & US EPA 5.6
PLAN
PLAN. fielD SAMPLING 1/17I1iS 4 2 . 0028 DRAfT PHASE 2 fiELD SAMPLING WORK PLAN FOR OUt 5 & 6 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB, RWOCB, DTSC, & US EPA 5.6
JANUARY 7.1997
8
-------
MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE 11n/91 4 2 . 0037 DRAFT FiNAl REMEDIAlINVESTIGATlONIFEASIBILITY STUDY (RI/FS) MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE SOUT~ST DIVISION 5.6
SAMPLING AND ANAl YS'S PLAN (SAP) AMENDMENT FOR OUt 5 AND 6
. --+-- ---.-- - --.+ -.....
PLAN. QAPP 10115/93 4.3 . 0005 PROJECT NOTE 312. ELIMINATION OF SPECIFIC CHEMICAlS FRDM THE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB. RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
CHEMICAlS OF CONCERN AND THE PROJECT TARGET ANAl YTE LIST
PLAN. QAPP 6116/94 43 - 0007 REVISED FiNAl QUAliTY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN. APPENDIX A. FOR JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP 'NC NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5.6
REMEDIAlINVESTIGA TIONIFEASIBILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND COMMAND
ANAl YSIS PLAN
PLAN. WASTE MANAGEMENT 5111/92 4.5 - 0004 PROJECT NOTE 133 .INVESTIGATION-OERNED WASTEWATER & JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC & MClB '.2.3.4.5.6.7
DISPOSAl OPTION TELECONFERENCE BE~EN JEG & RwaCB HELD
ON 5111/92. RE: TREATED lOW WATER DISPOSAl OPTIONS & ANAlYSIS
-...-..---..-. _.-- - ..-- ."-"..---... . .---..---.... .-'
MEETING NOTES 9122/93 4.5 - 0005 PROJECT NOTE 9. FIELD TRIP WITH DTSC REPRESENTATNES RE: JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC & MClB 5.8
INVESTIGATION DERNED WASTE MANAGEMENT AND AGREED
APPROACH FOR OU.!W
- .----.....---... .----.-...-.--. -.------...........---
PLAN. HEALTH & SAFETY 5113/94 46 . 0006 PROJECT NOTE 14. HEALTH & SAFETY ADDENDUM TO ADDRESS AIR JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5
SPARGINGNAPOR EXTRACTION ACTIVITIES FOR OUt 3/4 COMMAND
REPORT 7 f2J97 46 . 0008 FiNAl SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN. REMOVAl OF PCB. OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES CORP. SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5.6
CONTAMINATED SOIL
. ...._.- --..-..
HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN 6118197 48 - 0009 DRAFT SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN. REMEDIATION OF PCB. OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES. IRVINE SOUT~ST DIVISION 5.6
CONTAMINATED SOIL. DATED JUNE 13. 1997
HEAl TH AND SAFETY PLAN 3131/97 48 . 0010 SITE SPECIFIC HEAlTH AND SAFETY PLAN ADDENDUM FOR FIELDWORK OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES. IRVINE SOUT~ST DIVISION 5.6
PER THE IMPLEMENTATION MEMORANDUM FOR SOil SMAPLING AND
SCREENING AT CAOC 21 DTD 3/27/97
".- --.. -. -.
RF A PLANNING OOCUMENT 9/1/97 47 - 0009 DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN FOR RFA AND lUff SITES BECHTEL NATiONAlINC VARIOUS AGENCIES 1.2.3.4.5.6
9
JANUARY 7. 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC. SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
PlAN. PLANNING DOCUMENTS 12/24/97 47 - 0011 DRAfT FiNAl STRATEGIC PlAN FOR RFA AND LUFT SITES BECHTEL NATIONAl INC. SOUTHWEST DIVISION 1,2,3,4,5,6
. -- ------ -- -
PlAN. RISK SCREENING 8/1/94 4 8 - 0001 PROJECT NOTE 17. OUt 5 & 6 RISK SCREENING EVAlUATION JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB, ROOCB, DTSC, & US EPA 5,6
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY, OUTliNES PROPOSED APPROACH
CORRESPONDENCE 9113/91 5.1 - 0001 THANK. YOU LETTER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SUBMITTAlS NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION 5.8
OPERABLE UNITS 5 ANO 8, FOR RI/FS ACTIVITIES AT MCLB. BARSTOW AGENCY
MEETING AGENDA 6116/91 5.1 - 0002 MEETING NOTIFICATION AND TENTATIVE AGENDA NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION " 2, 3. 4, 5, 6, 7
AGENCY
.---."-...--.-
CORRESPONDENCE 5/22/91 51 . 0004 TIME EXTENSION FOR SAMPLING & ANAlYSIS PlAN SUBMITTAl FOR NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION 1,2,3. 4, 5, 8. 7
THE RI/FS ACTIVITIES AT MCLB, BARSTOW AGENCY
'--".'-'----- .-. ..-.--- _.-----
CORRESPONDENCE 4129191 5.1 - 0005 CONCERNS REGARDING TECHNiCAl REVIEW COMMITTEE CHARTER DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE " 2. 3, 4, 5.8. 7
FOR THE RI/FS AND RFA ACTIVIRIES AT MCLB, BARSTOW
CORRESPONDENCE 5/23/91 5.1 - DOOB RESPONSE TO THE CONCERNS OF DHS ON TECHNICAl REVIEW MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE OEPT TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL I, 2. 3. 4 5 6 7
COMMITTEE CHARTER FOR RI/FS AND RF A ACTIVITIES AT MCLB,
BARSTOW
CORRESPONDENCE 4/3/91 51 - 0007 TIMELY SUBMITTAl OF RI/FS SCOPING DOCUMENTS MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE DEPT TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL 1.2.3.4,5.6.7
...-----"'---.
CORRESPONDENCE,RESPONSE
5/15/91
5. 1 . OOOB
CONCERNING APPROVAl OF DRAfT COMMUNITY RELATIONS PlAN AND US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FOR THE RI/FS AND RFA ACTIVITIES AT
MCLB. BARSTOW
" 2, 3, 4, 5. 6. 7
- - ... -.-. -
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
319194
5 1 - 0010
DRAfT RATIONAlE FOR THE ELIMINATION OF SAMPLING
REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC STRATA FOR OUt 5 & 8, TECHNICAl
MEMORANDUM 18
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
NFEC, MCLB, ROOCB. DTSC, & US EPA
5.6
10
JANUARY 7. 1997
-------
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE
CAT - DOC'
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE. REQUEST
1.2.3.~.5.6.7
8129/91
5.1 . 0011
MEETING NOTES 4/9/92 51 . 0012
MEETING NOTES 8127/91 5.1 - 0013
MEETING AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE. REQUEST
CORRESPONOENCE.REQUEST
CORRESPONDENCE. REQUEST
MEETING AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE
JANUARY 7. 1997
8/16/91
8/22/91
8/14/91
7124/91
11/15/91
5/15/91
7124/91
5 1 . 0014
~. .. . --.----
5.1 . 0017
5 1 - 0019
51 . 0020
5.1 - 0021
51.0023
51 - 002~
TIME EXTENSION FOR RIIFS SAMPLING ANO ANAlYSIS PlAN
.-.-"'-'--""'--' .
PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING NOTES HELD ON ~/9-10192. RE
GEOPHYSICAL & SOIL GAS SURVEYS. FIELD AUDITS. DATA & WASTE
MANAGEMENT. OU.112 GROUNDWATER STAGE Ale. USGS STATUS.
DRAFT NOTES FROM PROJECT MANAGERS MEETINGS HELD ON 8/27-
28/91. RE: PROJECT SCHEDULE. VERMO SLUDGE REMOVAL. oUa 1&2
WORK PlAN AMENDMENTS. RIIFS WORK PlAN AMENDMENTS. WASTE &
PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING NOTIFICATION ON RIifS ACTMTIES AT
MCLB. BARSTOW
. -----_...
-"'-'--'--'-'~-
EXTENSION REQUEST, RIifS FOR OUt 516 MCLB, BARSTOW
-.,...-. ..-..-...-
REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSIONS FOR OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6
REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR SUBMISSION OF DRAFT
AMENDMENT RIlfS OU,5 AND6AT MClB. BARSTOW
PR9JECT MANAGEMENT MEETING MCLB, TENTATIVE AGENDA
-. - "'__H"'-
RIIFS WORK PlAN, TIME EXTENSION SUBMITTAL FOR MCLB. BARSTOW
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMANO US EPA, DTSC, & RWOCB
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US EPA. DTSC, & RWOCB
NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMANO US EPA, DTSC. & RwaCB
-- ---- ...- .._-
.- - -__._.'0.'.-
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
-.- '.-"-' ..
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION
AGENCY
NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMANO US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND MCLB, RwaCB, OTSC. & US EPA
US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
AIIFS SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PlAN SUBMITTAL TIME EXTENSION FOR NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AIifS ACTMTtES AT MCLB. BARSTOW AGENCY
1.2.3.~.5.6,7
1 ,2,3.~,5,6
1,2,3.4.5,6.7
5.6
5.6
5.6
1.2.3.4.5.8.7
, .2.3.~.5.6. 7
5.6
11
-------
MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE. RESPONSE 5122191 51 - 0026 RESPONSE TO US EPA LETTER DATED MAY 15. 1991. ON THE APPROVAL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1.2,3,4,5,6.7
OF TIME EXTENSION FOR SAP SUBMITTAL AGENCY
MEETING AGENDA 1011/91 5.1 - 0028 AGENDA FOR REMEDIAlINVESTIGATIONIFEASIBILITY STUDY PROGAAM NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
AND WORKSHOP ON 101DJ/91 AGENCY
CORRESPONDENCE,REQUEST 6/17/91 5.1 - 0029 REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR SUBMISSION OF DRAFT REMEDIAl NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1.2,3,4,5,6.7
INVESTIGATION REPORT AGENCY
-- . ..-- --. ._. ..- -
CORRESPONDENCE 6120191 5.1 - 0030 TIME EXTENSION FOR CLARIFICATION TO NFEC LETTER DATED 6120191 NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1,2,3.4.5,6.7
AGENCY
CORRESPONDENCE, 116192 51 - 0032 PROPOSED REVISION FOR SAMPLING STRATEGY FOR RIIFS ACTIVITIES US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NFEC, DTSC, & RWOCB 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
RECOMMENDATION AT MCLB, BARSTOW
.'. ---- -"- _.m -.-- ...-----..
CORRESPONDENCE. APPROVAL 6/29/91 5.1 - 0035 APPROVAL OF EXTENSION OF SUBMITTAL DATE FOR AMENDMENT TO NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 5,6
SAMPLING/ANALYSIS OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6. MeLB AGENCY
_._--.-----~--_.__.. -.
MEETING NOTES 1111194 5.1 - 0036 PROJECT NOTE 66 - REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RWOCB, DTSC, & US EPA 1,2,3,4,5.6
HelD ON 1111-2194, RE: CHEMICALS OF CONCERN, PILOT
GROUNDWATER REMOVAL ACTION, EE/CAt. CAOC 10, FUNDING, OUt 5
CORRESPONDENCE 6/22191 51 - 0037 TIME EXTENSION FOR REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 5,6
SAMPliNG AND ANALYSIS PlAN AMENDMENT, OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 AGENCY
MEETING NOTES 12114194 5.1 - 0038 PROJECT NOTE 69 - REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB, RWOCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1,2,3,4,5.6.7
HELD ON 12114.15194, RE OUt 1 & 2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING
PROGAAM. OUt 1 & 5 EE/CA. OU 1 PILOT TEST RESULTS, OUt 3 & 4
MEETING AGENDA 3/26/92 51 - 0042 LETTER ENCLOSING MEETING NOTIFICATION AND OVERVIEW OF NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND MCLB. US EPA. DHS, & RWOCS 1.2,3.4,5,6.7
PROJECT COSTS FOR RIIFS, MCLB, BARSTOW
12
JANUARY 7, 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE
CAT. DOC'
SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP UNIT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
8119/94
51.0045
DRAFT CAOC 16 PHASE I REPORT FOR OU 5. TECHNICAl
MEMORANDUM 19
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
NFEC. MClB. RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA
5
. -- - -.. .. _. -,,-_. -.- --..--. .-- - ....... -.- -'------'
CORRESPONDENCE. 12/12/91 5.1 . 004B PROPOSED REVISION FOR SAMPLING STRATEGY FOR RIIFS ACTMTIES US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NFEC. MClB. RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1.2.3,4.5,6.7
RECOMMENDATION AT MClB. BARSTOW
MEETING NOTES 8113192 51 . 0053 PROJECT NOTE 222 . PROJECT MANAGERS' TElE.cONFERENCE CAll. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB. RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1.2,3.4.5.8.7
HELD ON 8113192. RE: PUBlICIPRIVATE V\€llS. STAGE B INVESTIGTION.
RI PHASE '. BlDG 573. DESERT MIX. GEOPHYSICS & YERMO SlUDGE
.--- .. -.-...
MEETING NOTES 8114192 51 - 0054 PROJECT NOTE 221 . MINUTES OF PROJECT MANAGERS' TElE. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB. RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1.2.3.4,5.8.7
CONFERENCE CAll. HELD ON 8114192. RE PUBllCIPRIVATE WEllS. RI
PHASE '. DESERT MIX. YERMO SLUDGE REMOVAl. WASTE
MEETING NOTES 9/28/92 51 . 0056 PROJECT NOTE 200. MINUTES OF PROJECT MANAGERS' TElE. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB, RooCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1.2,3.4,5.8.7
CONFERENCE. HELD ON 9/28/92. RE: OUt 1&2 STAGE AlB SAMPLING
PlAN. PUBlICIPRIVATE V\€llS. TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
... .-..- ..- - ..--... nO" .... '. ---''''---'--''.'--'-'-- ---.-----.-------"-------.""""'----" .-,---_"_"..0'- --
MEETING NOTES 11/5192 51 . 0059 PROJECT NOTE 230 . PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES HelD ON JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB. RooCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1.2.3.4.5.8.7
11/5192. RE: YERMO SLUDGE REMOVAl. RCRA. STRATEGY FOR SOil
SITE DATA. PROJECT BUDGET. WASTE MANAGEMENT. OUt 1&2
MEETING NOTES 11125/92 51 . 0082 PROJECT NOTE 236. PROJECT MANAGERS' TElE.cONFERENCE CAll. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB. RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1.2,3,4.5.6.7
HELD ON 11/25192. RE: EEiCA FOR YERMD SLUDGE REMOVAl. RCRA.
PCE SPill. CAOC 18 BOUNDARIES. SCHEDULE OF DATA, SPill
-. -'" - --- -- - -
MEETING NOTES 12/4192 5.1 . 0085 PROJECT NOTE 7 . REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB. RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1,2,3.4,5.8.7
HELD ON 12/4192. RE USGS UPDATE. OUt 5&8 SAMPLING PROPOSAl,
COMMUNITY RELATIONS, YERMO SLUDGE REMOVAl. & CAOC 18
MEETING NOTES 12/15/92 51 . 0088 PROJECT NOTE 5 . REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS' CONFERENCE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB. RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA 5,6
MEETING NOTES. HElD DECEMBER 15. 1992
MEETING NOTES 12/21192 5.1 . 0087 PROJECT NOTE 8 . REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS' TElE. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB, RooCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1,2.3,4.5.8.7
CONFERENCE. HElD ON DECEMBER 21.1992
13
JANUARY 7. 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOCI SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
MEETING NOTES 1/19/93 5.1 . 0069 PROJECT NOTE 16. REMEDiAl PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES, JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLe, RV\lQCB, DTSC. & US EPA 1,2,3.5
HelD 1/19/93, OUt 1&2 GROUNDWATER. YERMO SLUDGE REMOVAl &
PUBlICIPRIVATE WEllS
MEETING NOTES 4/13/94 5 1 . 0010 REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING HELD ON 04113/94.04114/904 NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND NFEC, MClB, RV\lQCB, DTSC, & US EPA 1,2,3,4,5,6.1
----.-...---.--
MEETING NOTES 2/8/93 51.0013 PROJECT NOTE 8 . NOTES OF REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS' JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB. RV\lQCB. DTSC, & US EPA 1,2,3.4.5,6,1
MEETING, HELD 2I8-1D193, RE: OUI 1&2 GROUNDWATER. GEOPHYICAl &
SOil GAS SURVEYS. CHEMICAl CONCERNS, OUt 5&6 OBJECTIVES &
-----------"- --.
MEETING NOTES 3/17/93 5.1 . 0014 PROJECT NOTE 10 . REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES, JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB. RV\lQCB, DTSC. & US EP" 1,2,3,4,5,6,1
'HELD ON 3/11193. RE PROPOSAl NO FURTHER ACTION CAOC., BlDG
513 MAY BE OU 8. WASTE MANAGEMENT. OUt 3/4 PHASE 2 PLANNING
MEETING NOTES 5/5193 51.0016 PROJECT NOTE 142. TELE-CONFERENCE ON "CHEMiCAlS OF JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCle. RV\lQCB, DTSC. & US EPA 5.6
CONCERN" FOR OPERABLE UNITS 516. HELD ON MAY 5. 1993
u_-- - . n. ------ .. - - ---.--. - _._-----
MEETING NOTES 8/5193 5.1 . 0019 PROJECT NOTE 3 . REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING HELD 8/5- JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB, RV\lQCB, DTSC, & US EPA 1.2,5,6
6193, RE OUt 1&2 PHASE 2 PLANNING, OUt 5&6 V\lQRK PLAN REVISIONS
.-.. ...-- ..--..--....
MEETING NOTES 1/1/93 5.1 . ooeo PROJECT NOTE 30 . MINUTES OF REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RV\lQCe, DTSC, & US EPA 1.2.5.6
MEETING HELD 7/1/93, RE RISK BASED CRITERIA, OUt 1&2
GROUNDWATER. OUt 5&6 REVISIONS & PROJECT SCHEDULE
MEETING NOTES 8/19/93 5.1 . 0062 PROJECT NOTE 2 . INVESTIGATION DERIVED WASTE MANAGEMENT JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RV\lQCB. DTSC, & US EP" 1,2.5,6,
APPROACH FOR OU.5&6
.-----------. -." ---- ----.
MEETING NOTES 5/19/93 5.1 . 0083 PROJECT NOTE 29. MEETING NOTES FOR REMEDIAl PROJECTS JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB. RWOCB, DTSC, & US EPA 1.2.3.4.5.6.1
MANAGERS HelD ON 5/1&-20193, RE: BlDG 513. DATA MANAGEMENT &
YERMO SLUDGE REMOVAl
MEETING NOTES 9/2/93 5.1 . 0067 PROJECT NOTE 318. REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RV\lQCB. DTSC, & US EPA 1,2,5.6
HELD 9/2/93, RE: ECOLOGICAl RISK ASSESSMENT a BlDG 573 PLANNING
u
JANUARY 7, 1991
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC. SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
MEETING NOTES 8/13/93 51 . 0092 PROJECT NOTE 8. MEETiNG NOTES BETWEEN JACOBS ENGINEERING JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RWClCB, DTSC, & US EPA 1,2,5.8
AND THE REGIONAL WATER QUAliTY CONTROL BOARD RE:
INVESTIGATION DERIVED WASTE SOilS MANAGEMENT FOR OPERABLE
--...
COMMENTS, RWClCB 12/22/93 51 . 0112 ACKNOWlEDGES RECEIPT OF SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT TEST, REGIONAl WATER QUAliTY CONTROL MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE 5
REMOVAl ACTION IS SCHEDULED TO COMMENCE BY OCTOBER 19904 BOARD
... . .--. - .. . ---- - - ..----.. -.-. .- .---.. ----_.- "-. '...n.___- -- ...-"...
MEETING NOTES 3/10194 5 I . 0113 PROJECT NOTE 345- REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING HELD JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB, RWClCB, DTSC, & US EPA 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
ON 3/11>-11/904, PCB STORAGE AREA, FUNDING, PRDGRAM SCHEDUlE,
PHASE 2 PLANNING, YERMO REMOVAl ACTION STUOY, RCRA FACILITY
. -.-..- -' ".... ... ----.....
MEETING NOTES 12/9/93 5,1 . 0114 PROJECT NOTE 38 . REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING RE: JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB, RWClCB, DTSC, & US EPA 3,4,5,6
COMMENT RESPONSE ON THE DRAFT FiNAl PHASE 2 RCRA FACILITY
ASSESSMENT SAMPLING VISIT WORK PLAN AND COMMENTS ON
MEETING NOTES 2/4/904 5,1 . 0115 PROJECT NOTE 338 . REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETiNG HELD JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RWClCB, DTSC, & US EPA 1,2,3,4,5,6.7
ON 02104/904. RE, PERSONNEL CHANGES, CHEMiCAlS OF CONCERN,
PilOT GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION STUDY, AGENCY COMMENTS ON
-.. ......-.. . .... . _h'.-' -..-----..,..--- ....--.-....-.
TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM 9126/904 51 - 0119 DRAFT PHASE 1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FOR OUt 5 & 6, TECHNiCAl JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB, RWClCB. DTSC, & US EPA 5,8
MEMORANDUM 22, TEXT (VOL 1 OF 81
p'------ no" ...,'." . .....---- ...---
TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM !11261114 5.1 . 0120 DRAFT PHASE 1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FOR OUt 5 & 6, TECHNICAl JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB, RWClCB, DTSC, & US EPA 5,6
MEMORANDUM 22, TEXT (VOL 2 OF 8)
TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM !11261114 5 I - 0121 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATiON FOR OUt 5 & 6, TECHNICAl JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RWClCB, DTSC, & US EPA 5.6
MEMORANDUM 22, APPENDICES A & B (VOL 3 OF 8)
-" -- - -....-.
TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM !11261114 5 I - 0122 DRAFT PHASE 1 REMEDIAL INVESTiGATION FOR OUt 5 & 8, TECHNICAl JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB. RWClCB, DTSC, & US EPA 5,6
MEMORANDUM 22. APPENDIX C (VOL. OF 8)
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 9/26/94 5.1 - 0123 DRAFT PHASE 1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FOR OUt 5 & 6, TECHNICAl JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB, RWQCB, DTSC, & US EPA 5,6
MEMORANDUM 22, APPENDIX C (VOL 5 OF 8)
15
JANUARY 7, 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 9126194 5 1 - 0124 DRAFT PHASE 1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FOR OUt 5 & 6. TECHNICAl JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RWClCB. DTSC. & US EPA 5,6
MEMORANDUM 22. APPENDIX 0 IVOl 6 OF 8)
TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM 9/26194 5.1 - 0125 DRAFT PHASE 1 REMEDIAlINVESTIGA TICN FOR OUt 5 & 6. TECHNICAl JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB. RWClCB. DTSC. & US EPA 5.6
MEMORANDUM 22. APPENDIX D (VOL 7 OF 8)
TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM 9/26194 5.1 - 0126 DRAFT PHASE 1 REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION FOR OUt 5 & 6. TECHNICAl JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWClCB. DTSC. & US EPA 5.6
MEMORANDUM 22. APPENDICES E.K (VOL 8 OF 8)
----- --
TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM 9126194 5.1 - 0127 DRAFT BACKGROUND SOilS INVESTIGATION TECHNICAl JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWClCB. DTSC. & US EPA 3.4.5.6
MEMORANDUM 23
TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM 6/24/94 51 - 012B DRAFT RATIONALE FOR ELIMINATION FROM FURTHER INVESTIGATION JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB, RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA 5.6
OF SPECIFIC GEOPHYSICAl ANOMAliES OUt 516. TECHNICAl
MEMORANDUM 20
MEETING NOTES 5111/94 5.1 - 0129 PROJECT NOTE 39 - REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP!NC NFEC. MCLB. RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1,2.3.4,5.6
HELD ON 5111.12194. DISCUSSIONS ON OUt 5 & 6 PHASE 1 RISK
ASSESSMENT. VADOSE ZONE MODEL. PROJECT SCHEDULE. SITE
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 8126194 5.1 - 0130 PROJECT NOTE 53 - SUMMARY OF THE STATISTICAl METHODOLOGY JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB. RWClCB. DTSC. & US EPA 3.4.5.6
EMPLOYED IN THE OUt 3. 4. 5 & 6 BACKGROUND SOILS. TECHNICAl
MEMORANDUM 23. SATISFIES ITEM K406.3 OF THE RPM ACTION ITEM
REPORT. ANAlYTICAL DATA 1 G/5194 5.1 - 0131 PROJECT NOTE 36 - ANAlYTICAl DATA FOR THE OUt 5 & 6 PHASE 1 RI JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC & MCLB 5.6
NEESA LEVEL C & D DATA PACKAGES TO BE PLACED IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FilE (16 BOXES)
MEETING NOTES 8IJI94 5 1 - 0132 PROJECT NOTE 47 . RPM.' MEETING NOTES HELD 813-4'94 RE: TM 23. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1.2.3.4,5.6
VPB. GROUNDWATER SAMPLING & CLEAN-UP SCHEMATIC. INFRARED
THERMAl ANOMAliES. DLM. BASEWIDE SURVEY. INITIAl ASSESSMENT
MEETING NOTES 11/21/94 5 1 - 0133 PROJECT NOTE 73 - REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC & MCLB 1.2,3,4,5.6
HELD ON 11/21-22194. RE. CAOC 1 ANAlYTICAl RESULTS. GEOPHYSICAl
ANOMAliES. RECOMMENDED NFl.. DESERT MIX. CAOC 1915T
16
JANUARY 7. 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC. SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
MEETING NOTES 3/16195 51 - 0134 PROJECT NOTE 86 . REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWClCB. DTSC. & us EPA 1.2.3...5.6.
HELD ON 03116-17195; RE. CAOC 23. CHEMICALS Of POTENTIAL
CONCERN (TM.27). FY 98 BUDGET. OUt 1 & 2 STATISTICAL
-...--.--..-- 0-
MEETING NOTES 1/18/95 5 1 .. 0136 PROJECT NOTE 7. . REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWClCB. DTSC. & US EPA 12H56
HELD ON 01/18-20195; RE: RECORDS SEARCH. ABBREVIATED
FEASIBILITY STUDY, BUDGET. & EEiCA
--------..--- -..-.---- .-----. .-..- ...
MEETING NOTES 6/21/95 5.1 .. 01.0 PROJECT NOTE ~ - MEETING NOTES FOR REMEDIAl PROJECT JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWClCB. DTSC. & US EPA 563
MANAGER'S MEETING HELD ON 06121/95. RE: PN 31. OU 1 EEICA. CAOC
26 PHASE 2. & BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER SAMPliNG
--'---'------
MEETING NOTES 12/5195 51 - 0,., PROJECT NOTE 102 . ACTION ITEMS GENERATED FROM THE REMEDIAl JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCL8. RWCICB. DTSC, & US EPA 5 I 2
PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING CONDUCTED ON 12J5.M5
. -".-""--'
MEETING NOTES 7126195 5.1 .. 01.2 PROJECT NOTE 53 . REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWClCB. DTSC. & US EPA 12H567
CONDUCTED ON 07126-27/95; RE: REMOVAL ACTIONS. BACKGROUND
METALS. EEiCA. RAC DESIGN. ARM.. & SCHEDULE
---"'''-"--'''''--' -- .--.....,------ ..-.
MEETING NOTES 9112195 5 1 - 01.. PROJECT NOTE 100 - RPM.' MEETING NOTES HELD ON 09112-13/95; RE: JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA 12H567
BACKGROUND METALS; HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT; RCRA
FACILITIES ASSESSMENT; SCHEDULE; PROPOSED PLAN. OUt 3 &.
----------.--- - ....._----- ..-.... -
MEETING NOTES 9/12195 5 1 .. 01.5 PROJECT NOTE 101 . REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWClCB. DTSC. & US EPA 12H56
HELD ON 09112.13195; RE: OVERALL GOALS & OBJECTIVES OF THE
HUMAN HEAL TH BASEWIDE BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
.. ....-..-- ...-"'
CORRESPONDENCE 10116195 5.1 - 0157 DETERMINATION THAT ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS AND/OR NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND CRWCB 5.6
INVESTIGATIONS ARE REOUIRED TO FURTHER CHARACTERIZE THE
SITE IN ORDER TO EVAlUATE A PROPER REMEDIAl ACTION
..---- - ."-.
CORRSPONDENCE.REQUEST 7It~ 5.1 - 0160 REOUEST FOR A 120 DAY EXTENSION IN THE OUt 5 AND 6 "DRAFT SOUTHll\EST DIVISION US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 5.6
PHASE II WP" OF THE FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT FROM SEPEMBER AGENCY
26, 1994 TO JANUARY 2.. 1995
CORRSPONDENCE.RESPONSE 712~ 51 - 0161 DRAFT RATIONAL FOR ELIMINATION FRO FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 5.6
SPECIFIC GEOPHYSICAL ANOMAlIES. OUt 5 AND 6. TECHNICAl AGENCY
MEMORANDUM 0020. DATED JUNE 2.. 1994
17
JANUARY 7. 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE
CAT-DOC'
SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE
12/10/91
5 I . 0184
REQUEST FOR SCHEDULE EXTENSIONS FOR FEDERAl FACILITY
AGREEMENT IFFA) DEllVERABlES FOR THE MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS
BASE, BARSTOW .
NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION
AGENCY
" 2, 3, ~, 5, 6, 7
MEETING NOTES
2/14/84
5.1 - 0165
NOTES FROM MEETING ATMClB WITH REGIONAl QUAliTY CONTROL
BOARD, LAHONTAN REGION
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
3,~.5.6
CORRESPONDENCE,RESPONSE 711 0/84 5 1 . 0186 lETTER: COMMAND'S RESPONSE TO SUGGESTIONS MOE BY REGIONAl SOUTHWEST DIVISION REGIONAl QUAliTY CONTROL BOARD 3,~,6
QUAliTY CONTROL BOARD CONCERNING VARIOUS SITES
--- _.._-~-_. - .-. ------.- ---.-- ----. ---
CORRESPONDENCE 8/27/91 5.1 . 0206 DRAFT DETAILED PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR OU.'.2,3,~,5,6, AND 7AT DEPT. OF NAVY US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION " 2, 3 ~, 5, 6, 7
MClB BARSTOW OF JULY 2~, 1991 lETTER AGENCY
.--- .---------.-.. - .---------.- . -- -.- --.
MEETING NOTES 7n/91 5.1 - 0208 JUNE 27-28.1991, MEETING NOTES FROM PROJECT MANAGER'S SOUTHWEST DIVISION MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE 1,2, 3, ~, 5, 6
MEETING, MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
MEETING MINUTES 11/21/90 51 . 0210 NOVEMBER 1~, 1990 MEETING MINUTES OF PROJECT MANAGERS, SOUTHWEST DIVISION REGIONAl WATER QUAliTY CONTROL 5 \
MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE WI AGENDA. ATTENDANCE SIGN-UP BOARD
SHEET. AND STATUS REPORT
MEETING MINUTES 11/21190 5.1 - 0211 NOVEMBER 1~, 1990 MEETING MINUTES OF PROJECT MANAGERS, SOUTHWEST DIVISION MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE 5
MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE WI AGENDA. ATTENDANCE SIGN-UP
SHEET, AND STATUS REPORT
'-'-'- ..----------
MEETING MINUTES 11/21/90 5.1 - 0220 NOVEMBER 1~, 1990, MEETING MINUTES OF PROJECT MANAGER'S SOUTHWEST DIVISION DEPT OF HEAlTH SEV1CES 5
MEETING. MARINE CORPS lOGISITICS BASE, BARSTOW
CORRESPONDENCE 9/29193 5.1 - 0227 ACKNOWlEDGEMENT THAT REVIEW AND CONCURRENCE BY DTSC IS SOUTHWEST DIVISION DEPT. OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL 5,6
STill PENDING AND DETAIlS OF REVISED APPROACH TO CAOC 16 TO
FOllOW IN A "CONCEPTUAl SITE REMEDIATION PlAN FOR CAOC 16"
CORRESPONDENCE 6/10/92 51 . 02~ ATTORNEY'S lETTER EXPRESSING CONCERN RE CIRCULATION OF RUTTER AND WILBANKS CORPORATION JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP 1.2.3.~.5,6.7
REVIEWS OF SEISMIC REPORT (BISON INSTRUMENTS lETER ATTACHED)
-- --.....-- .
18
JANUARY 7, 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT - DOC' SUBJEC T AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE 3/17/97 5 1 - 0248 REVIEW OF DRAFT FiNAl FEASIBILITY STUDY OF OPERABLE UNITS 5 DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES SOUT~ST DIVISION 5.6
AND 6 CONTROL
CORRESPONDENCE, COMMENT: 213197 51.0249 DRAFT FiNAl FEASIBILITY STUDY RECEIVED AND REVIEWED FOR OllS 5 REGIONAl WATER QUALITY CONTROL DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE 5,6
AND 6, NO COMMENTS ON THE FINAL FIS BOARD CONTROL
CORRESPONDENCE, RESPONSE 7/22/94 5 1 - 0251 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR A 120 DAY EXTENSION TO THE DelIVERY US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY SOUT~ST DIVISION 5.6
DATE OF THE OlTl 516 DRAFT PHASE II WORK PLAN
..._- --.-____..n
CORRESPONDENCE,RESPONSE 1/24/97 5.1 - 0252 REVIEW OF DRAFT FiNAl FEASIBILITY STUDY OF Olll 5 AND 6 DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 5.6
CONTROL
MEETING NOTES 11~ 5.1 . 0254 NOVEMBER 6-7, 1996 REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1,2,3,4,5,6
MINUTES
TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM 8/19194 51 - 0255 TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM 0019 DRAFT CAOC 16 PHASE I REPORT, OU 5 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. SOUT~ST DIVISION 5
CORRESPONDENCE, REQUEST 5/4/94 5.1 . 0257 REQUEST FOR 30 DAY EXTENSION TO COMMENT ON TECHNICAL MEMO US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY SOUT~ST DIVISION 5,&
0018 DRAFT ELIMINATION RATIONAlE FOR SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS
FOR SPECIFIC STRATAOUS 5 AND 6
CORRESPONDENCE,REQUEST 7/22/94 5 1 - 0258 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON TECH MEMO OO2O,DRAFT RATIONAlE MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE VARIOUS AGENCIES 5,6
FOR ELIMINATION FROM FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF SPECIFIC
GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALIES, DATED JUNE 24, 1994
CORRESPONDENCE, REQUEST 8126194 5 1 . 0259 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM 0019, DRAFT MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE VARIOUS AGENCIES
CAOC 16 PHASE I REPORT FOR OU 5
CORRESPONDENCE,REQUEST 9120/94 5.1 . 0260 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM 0022, DRAFT MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE VARIOUS AGENCIES 5.6
PHASE I REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION FOR OUS 5 AND 6
19
JANUARY 7,1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEe OP. UNIT
MEETING NOTES 516197 51 . 0262 FEBRUARY 1IJ.1', 1997 REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP. INC SOUT~ST DIVISION 1,2,3,4.5.6.7
NOTES
CORRESPONDENCE. MEETING 5/19/97 5.1 . 0272 INVITATION TO ATTEND REMEDIAl PROJECTS MANAGERS MEETING ON SOUT~ST DIVISION VARIOUS AGENCIES 1,2,3,4,5.6
21.22 MAY 1997
MEETING NOTES, RPM 9118/97 51.0276 MINUTES OF MCLB BARSTOW RPM MEETING HELD 19-20 AUGUST 1997 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC VARIOUS AGENCIES 5,6
PROJECT NOTE 11/12197 51 . 0281 PROJECT NOTE 123 MINUTES OF THE REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP SOU~ST DIVISION 1,2,3.4,5,6
(RPM) MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 12, 1997
-. - --_. .. --..- .----. ----------------- -------_.-.'-'
MEMO 5/21/97 5.1 . 0284 DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM A FOR CAOC 21 OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES CORP. SOUT~ST DIVISION 5.6
..- .---------- ._.~ - \ I
CORRESPONDENCE If /6195 51.0285 PRELIMINARY DRAFT CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR GROUNOWA TER OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES- IRVINE SOUT~ST DIVISION 5,6
EXTRACTION AND MONITORING WELLS. DATED NOVEMBER 1995
COMMENTS. EPA 11128190 52 . 0005 REVIEW ON THE DRAFT WORK PLAN SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN, US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1,2.3,4,5.6.7
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS
PLAN FOR MCLB DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 1990
COMMENTS. RWOCS 11I30I9O 5 2 . 0007 REVIEW ON THE DRAFT RIIFS WORK PLAN, SAP. QUALITY ASSURANCE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1.2.3.4.5,6.7
PROJECT PLAN, COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN. HEALTH AND SAfETY BOARD
PLAN FOR MCLB
.. --..-- --.--- -
COMMENTS, EPA 5/3191 5.2 . DOO9 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION, FEASIB ILiTY US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
STUDY WORK PLAN MARCH " 1991. fOR MCLB, BARSTOW COMMAND
COMMENTS, EPA 416192 52 . 0012 REVIEW OF NEE SA REQUIREMENTS FOR ANALYTICAL DATA AND DATA US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 1.2.3.4.5,6.7
VALIDATION AT MCLB, BARSTOW COMMAND
20
JANUARY 7. 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOCI SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
COMMENTS. EPA 413019' 52 - 0015 CONDITIONAL APPROVAl AND REVIEW OF THE RUfS WORK PLAN AND US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE 1,2,3,4.5,6.7
SAMPLING AND ANAl. YSIS PLAN, MCLB, BARSTOW
COMMENTS, DTSC 3127/9' 5 2 . 0017 REVIEW Of THE DRAFT FINAl. RUfS WORK PLAN, MARCH 1991, MCLB. OEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAl FACilITIES ENGINEERING , ,2,3,4,5,6.7
BARSTOW COMMAND
COMMENTS, DTSC 3/27/91 5.2 . 00'8 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FINAl. COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN. MARCH DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
1991, MClB, BARSTOW COMMAND
....------ - .. .n .-..".
COMMENTS,DTSC 1 1128190 5.2 - 0021 REVIEW OF THE RUfS COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN, DATED 0!1/90 OEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE 1,2,3.4.5,&,7
'0 -- ...
COMMENTS. RWOCB 11129190 5.2 . 0022 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT RUfS WORK PLAN FOR MClB, BARSTOW, DATED REGIONAL WATER QUAliTY CONTROL MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE 1,2,3,4,5,6.7
SEPTEMBER 1990 BOARD
COMMENTS, DTSC ,,12,190 52 - 0023 REVIEW OF THE DRAfT RIIFS WORK PLAN FOR MClB. BARSTOW, DATED DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
SEPTEMBER 1990
COMMENTS, DTSC 11127190 5.2 - 0024 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT RUfS SAP FOR MClB, BARSTOW, DATED DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE 1,2.3.4,5,6,7
SEPTEMBER 1990
.--_. . --------
COMMENTS, DTSC 11/27190 52 - 0025 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT RUfS, HEAl. TH AND SAFETY PLAN FOR MClB. DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE 1,2,3,4,5.6,7
BARSTOW, DATED SEPTEMBER 1990
COMMENTS. DTSC II 127190 52 - 0026 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT RIIFS QUAliTY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FDR DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE 1.2,3,4.5,6,7
MCLB, BARSTOW. DATED SEPTEMBER 1990
COMMENTS. EPA 12113/91 5.2 . 0027 REVIEW OF THE FINAL ADDENDUM TO THE SAMPLING AND ANAl. YSIS US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5.6
PLAN FOR OU. 516 COMMAND
21
JANUARY 7,1997
-------
MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT - DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
COMMENTS, RWOCB 3127191 5.2 . 002B REVIEW OF THE DRAFT RIIFS WORK PLAN FOR MClB, BARSTOW REGIONAl WATER QUAlITY CONTROL MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
BOARD
COMMENTS, DTSC 12110/91 5.2 . 0029 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FiNAl SAMPLING AND ANAlYSIS PlAN FOR OUt DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5,6
~ FOR MClB, BARSTOW COMMAND
COMMENTS, DTSC 12J9191 52 - 0030 REVIEW OF THE RIIFS WASTE MANAGEMENT PlAN fOR MClB, DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAl fACILITIES ENGINEERING 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
BARSTOW COMMAND
COMMENTS, EPA 0419.'92 5.2 - 0032 REVIEW Of THE DRAFT AERIAl. INFRARED THERMOGRAPHIC SURVEY US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5,6
DURING AUGUST 1991, TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM 3. DATED 12/24/91 COMMAND
COMMENTS, EPA 4/9/92 5.2 - 0033 REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE TO EPA COMMENTS fOR FIELD SAMPLING US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5,6
PlAN fOR 0015 AND 6, MClB, BARSTOW COMMAND
-- -- .,.'. . ... .....--..--- --'._. -- -.-.--------..
COMMENTS, EPA 5/23/94 5.2 . 0041 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ELIMINATION RATIONAlE fOR SAMPLING US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5.6
REQUIREMENTS fOR SPECIFIC STRATA FOR OU.5&6, TECHNICAl COMMAND
MEMORANDUM 18, DATED 319194
COMMENTS, RWOCB 4/8/92 5.2 . 0042 REVIEW OF TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM TM'()()()2 AND TM'()()()3, RIIFS, REGIONAl WATER QUAliTY CONTROL NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 1,2,3,4,5,8,7
MClB, BARSTOW BOARD COMMAND
COMMENTS, EPA 3/13192 52 - 0043 REVIEW OF THE REVISED QUAliTY ASSURANCE PROJECT PlAN FOR US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 1,2.3.4.5.6.7
RIIFS AT MClB, BARSTOW COMMAND
COMMENTS, EPA 1/17192 5.2 - 0046 REVIEW OF RW'S, RCRA. AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 1,2.3.4.5.6.7
ACTIVITIES FiNAl DATA MANAGEMENT PlAN FOR MClB, BARSTOW COMMAND
COMMENTS, RWOCB 12112191 52 - 0050 REVIEW OF AMENDMENT TO DRAFT FINAl SAMPLING & ANAL YSIS PlAN REGIONAl WATER QUALITY CONTROL NAVAL fACiliTIES ENGINEERING 5.6
FOR OUt 5 AND 6 FOR RIIFS AT MClB, BARSTOW BOARD COMMAND
JANUARY 7. 1997
22
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT - DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
COMMENTS, RWOCB 2/18/92 52 - 0052 REVIEW OF THE QUAliTY ASSURANCE PROJECT PlAN FOR RIlfS AT REGIONAl WATER QUAliTY CONTROL NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 1,2.3,4,5,6.7
MClB, BARSTOW BOARD COMMAND
COMMENTS, RWOCB 12/31/91 5,2 - 0059 REVIEW OF THE WASTE MANAGEMENT PlAN RIIFS MClB. BARSTOW REGIONAl WATER QUAliTY CONTROL NAVAl FACilITIES ENGINEERING 1,2,3,4,5,6.7
BOARD COMMAND
COMMENTS. DHS 4130191 52 - 0060 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FiNAl RIIFS SAMPliNG AND ANAlYSIS PlAN DEPT OF HEAlTH SERVICES NAVAl FACiliTIES ENGINEERING 1,2,3,4,5,6.7
AND QUAliTY ASSURANCE PROJECT PlAN COMMAND
COMMENTS. RWOCB 4/29191 5,2 . 0081 REVIEW OF THE RIIFS SAMPLING AND ANAlYSIS PlAN AND QUAliTY REGIONAl WATER QUAliTY CONTROL MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE 1,2,3,4,5,6.7
ASSURANce PROJECT PlAN SAP AND QAPP, MClB. BARSTOW BOARD
COMMENTS, DTSC 418192 5.2 . 0082 REVIEW OF TECHNiCAl MEMORANDA TM-0002 AND TM.0003. MClB, DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 1,2,3,4,5,6.7
BARSTOW COMMAND
COMMENTS, EPA 1127/94 52 - 0078 REVIEW OF DRAFT REPORT GEOPHYSICAlINVESTIGA TlON, APPENDIX US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5,6
A, DATED 7/93 COMMAND
COMMENTS, EPA 1/20194 5,2 - 0079 REVIEW OF PROJECT NOTE 312. RE: CHEMICAlS OF CONCERN. DATED US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5,6
10115/93 COMMAND
COMMENTS, DTSC 81 1 8/93 52 - 0080 REVIEW OF PROJECT NOTE 2. INVESTIGATION DERIVED WASTE DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 5.6
MANAGEMENT APPROACH, DATED 8/93
COMMENTS, RWOCB 1/25/95 52 . 0091 REVIEW ON BACKGROUND SOilS INVESTIGATION. TECHNICAl REGIONAl WATER QUALITY CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
MEMORANDUM 23. DATED 9126194, NO COMMENTS BOARD CONTROL
COMMENTS, EPA 1127/95 52 . 0093 REVIEW ON OU. 5&6 DRAFT PHASE 2 FielD SAMPLING WORK PLAN FOR US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5.6
RIlfS. DATED 1/95. EPA CANNOT CONCUR UNTIL COMMENTS ARE COMMAND
ADDRESSED & RESOLVED FROM TECHNICAL MEMO 22, DTD 1/95, &
23
JANUARY 7, 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT - DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
COMMENTS. EPA 12113194 52 - 0094 REVIEW ON THE DRAFT PHASE 1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FOR OUt 5 US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5.6
& 6. TECHNiCAl MEMORANDUM 22. DATED 8194 COMMAND
COMMENTS, EPA 11123194 52 . 0098 REVIEW ON THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT PROJECT WORK PLAN. AIR US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 6
SPARGINGNAPOR EXTRACTION REMOVAl ACTION PILOT STUDY FOR COMMAND
OU 8. CAOC 8
- .h - -.. _.. _On
COMMENTS. EPA 9/1194 52 . 0099 REVIEW ON THE DRAfT RATIONAlE FOR ELIMINATION FROM FURTHER US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5.8
INVESTIGATION OF SPECIFIC GEOPHYSICAl ANOMALIES FOR OV. 5 & 6. COMMAND
TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM 20. DATED 6124/94 AND FIELD SAMPliNG
COMMENTS. EPA 1015194 5.2 - 0101 REVIEW ON DRAFT PHASE 1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT, OV 5. US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5
CAOC 16. DATED 8/18194, EPA CONCURS WITH MOST CONCLUSIONS, COMMAND
TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM 19
. .--., -_.~ --- -'--' ..--..
COMMENTS. DTSC 9129/94 5.2 . 0102 REVIEW OF THE DRAfT RATIONAlE FOR ELIMINATION FROM FURTHER DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5.6
INVESTIGATION OF SPECIFIC GEOPHYSICAl ANOMALIES FOR OUt 5 & 6, COMMAND
TM 20. DATED 8/24194, REQUESTS RE-EVAlVATION OF RATIONAlES.
...---.-.--.---.-.- - ",". -.
COMMENTS. RWOCB 9129/94 5.2 . 0103 REVIEW ON THE DRAFT RATIONAlE FOR ELIMINATION FROM FURTHER REGIONAl WATER QUAliTY CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 5.8
INVESTIGATION OF SPECIFIC GEOPHYSiCAl ANOMAliES FOR OU. 5 & 6, BOARD CONTROl
TECHNICAL MEMORANOLIM 20, APPROVES RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMENTS. RWOCB 2114195 5.2 - 0106 INTERNAl REVIEW ON THE DRAfT PHASE 1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REGIONAl WATER QUALITY CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 5.8
FOR OV. 5 & 6. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 22. DATED 9/26/94 BOARD CONTROL
COMMENTS. DTSC 1218194 52 - 0107 REVIEW OF THE DRAfT PHASE 1 RI REPORT FOR OVa 5 & 8 AND DRAfT DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5.6
BACKGROUND SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT. DATED 8194. COMMAND
CONCURRENCY MAY BE CONTINGENT ON THE NAVY BEING ABLE TO
COMMENTS. DTSC 7127/94 5.2 - 0108 REVIEW ON THE DRAFT ELIMINATION RATIONAlE FOR SAMPLING DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 5.6
REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC STRATA. OUt 5 & 8, TECHNICAL CONTROL
MEMORANDUM 18. DATED 3194
COMMENTS, DTSC 1014194 5.2 . 0109 REVIEW ON THE DRAFT CERCLA AREA OF CONCERN 16. PHASE 1 DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5
REPORT. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 19. DATED 8194 COMMAND
24
JANUARY 7. 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC. SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
COMMENTS. RWOCB 11/14/94 52 - 0110 REVIEW ON THE DRAFT CERCLA AREA OF CONCERN 16. PHASE 1 REGIONAL WATER QUAliTY CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 5
REPORT. TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM 19. DATED 8/94 BOARD CONTROL
COMMENTS. DTSC 6/29/95 52 - 0114 REVIEW OF PROJECT NOTE 84, RESPONSE TO AGENCY COMMENTS ON DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5.6
OUt 5 & 6 DRAFT PHASE 1 RI REPORT IN 22), & DRAFT FINAL COMMAND
BACKGROUND SOILS INVESTIGATION IN 23);
COMMENTS, DTSC 2/24/95 52 . 0116 REVIEW ON THE DRAFT PHASE 1 RI. OUt 5 & 6. TECHNiCAl DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5.6
MEMORANDUM 22. DATED 09126/94 COMMAND
.. .. ----.-. -- -------..- --. -- -. .-.. .
COMMENTS. EPA 8I11W5 5,2 . 0144 REVIEW OF PROJECT NOTE 91, TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THE DRAFT US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 56
REMEDIAlINVESTIGA nON REPORT FOR OUt 5 & 6 COMMAND
-,- -. --...-. .On ._- . -...-. .
COMMENTS. RWOCB 515195 5.2 - 0149 INTERNAL MEMORANUM RE: THE NEED TO INCLUDE GROUNDWATER REGIONAL WATER QUAliTY CONTROL DEPT Of TOXIC SUBSTANCES 12 J4 56
SAMPLING RESULT TABLES IN REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION REPORTS BOARD CONTROl
FOR OUt 1 THROUGH 6
- --- . ---.--.--...- ---'----- ---. .... -- . -.
COMMENTS. DTSC 5112195 5.2 . 0152 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT PHASE 2 FEASIBILITY STUDY WORK PlAN; DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 56
AGENCIES WILL NOT PROVIDE COMMENTS COMMAND
COMMENTS. EPA 6/5195 52 - 0153 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT PHASE 2 FIELD SAMPLING WORK PlAN US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 56 II
REMEDIAlINVESTlGATIONIFEASIBILITY STUDY FOR OUt 5 & 6, DATED COMMAND
1/17/95. RECOMMENDS SAMPLING ADJACENT TO CADC 7
COMMENTS, EPA 1/26/96 52 - 0176 REVIEW OV THE 65% DESIGN CADC 26 REMEDIATION SYSTEM FOR OU US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 15
1: MAJOR CONCERN IS THE FAILURE OF THE SYSTEM TO ACTIVELY COMMAND
REMEDIATE EXISTING PCE CONTAMINATION IN THE VADOSE ZONE
-_. - _.".0 - .._- .
COMMENTS. RWOCB 2/14/95 5.2 . 0169 REVIEW OF THE PHASE 1 REMEDIALINVESTIGA TION FOR OUt 5 & 6. REGIONAL WATER QUAliTY CONTROL DEpT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 56
TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM 22. DATED 9126195: ATTACHMENT TO DTSC'S BOARD CONTROL
LETTER DATED 2/24195
AGREEMENT. SIGNATURE PAGE 6fT f96 5.2 . 0194 FEDERAl FACILITY AGREEMENT UNDER CERCLA SECTION 120 EPA REGION IX STATE OF CAliFORNIA FFA 3.4.5
ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NUMBER ~1 TRANSFERING CAOC 21 FROM
OU3 TO OU 5
JANUARY 7.1997
25
-------
MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
GENERAL COMMENTS 6125/96 5.2 - 0191 USEPA REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON MCLB REMEDIAL EPA REGION IX SAN FRANCISCO SOUTHWEST DIVISION 3,4,5,6
INVESTIGATIONIFEASIBILITY STUDY OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6
COMMENTS 116196 5.2 - 0200 COMMENTS ON REVIEW OF MCLB OUTS 516 DRAFT REPORT; REQUEST DTSC LONG BEACH SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6
FOR DELAY ON REVIEW OF DRAFT RCRA FACILITY ASSESSMENT AND
CA-oOHS REVIEW OF RESPONSES FROM MCLB BARSTOW
. . .-_u_- .
COMMENTS 1/16/96 5 2 - 0201 COMMENTS ON OU 5 AND 6 DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT, REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6
MeLB BARSTOW BOARD
COMMENTS 1/31/96 5.2 . 0203 COMMENTS ON DRAFT FINAL FS REPORT OUS 1 AND 2; AND OUS 5 AND EPA REGION IX SAN FRANCISCO SOUTHWEST DIVISION 1,2,5,6
6
CORRESPONDENCE 8/14/96 52 - 0204 REVIEW OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS FOR MCLB BARSTOW OU 6, CAOC 6 DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6
CONTROL
. -..-.- --_...- ..- ----.-...-..
REPORT 919196 52 - 0201 DELAYED REVIEW OF MCLB BARSTOW DRAFT RCRA FACILITY DEPARTMENT OF TOXICS SUBSTANCE SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6
ASSESSMENT REPORT AND DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT OF OU CONTROL
5AND6
FA)(, AGENCY COMMENTS 9/19/96 52 - 0208 TRANSMITTAL OF DTSC INTEGRA TED WASTE MGT. BOARD'S DEPARTMENT OF TOXICS SUBSTANCE SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6
COMMENTS ON DRAFT FS OUt 5 ANO 6 CONTROL
CORRESPONDENCE 1014/96 52 - 0210 USEPA COMMENTS ON DON RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR OU5 &6 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EPA SAN FRANCISCO 5,6
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE 1014/96 5.2 - 0211 COMMENTS ON DRAFT RCRA RACILITY ASSESSMENT DEPARTMENT OF TOXICS SUBSTANCE DTSC LONG BEACH 1,2,3,4,5.6,1
CONTROL
CORRESPONCENCE, COMMENT: 1014/96 5.2 - 0212 COMMENTS ON DRAFT RCM FACILITY ASSESSMENT DEPARTMENT OF TOXICS SUBSTANCE SOUTHWEST DIVISION 3.4,5.6
CONTROL
26
JANUARY 1,1991
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL "RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC. SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE 10118/96 52 . 0215 Oil. 5 & 6 DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS) lANDFilLS LOCATED AT REGIONAl WATER QUAliTY CONTROL DTSC lONG BEACH 3.4.5
CAOC NO.7 AND 35 BOARD
COMMENTS 10/22/96 5.2 - 0220 FiNAl COMMENTS ON OU 516 ORAFT FS.INCLUDING RwaCB. CrowB DEPARTMENT OF TOXICS SUBSTANCE SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5.6
AND BRIAN DAVIS CONTROL
- O.A --- - --..
CORRESPONDENCE 11/12/96 5 2 . 0224 USEPA REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FiNAl REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION (RI) EPA REGION IX SAN FRANCISCO SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5.6
REPORT FOR OUt 5 AND 6
. . .,- p,~' -..---. .. .--.,.---"--.'
MCLB OUt 5 AND 6 DRAFT FiNAl 11/13196 52 - 0225 MClB OUt 5 AND 6 DRAFT FiNAl REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION (RII REPORT DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES SOllTHWEST DIVISION 5.6.7
REPORT CONTROL
.. --- -..---- -- .---.-. ".'-- -'
COMMENTS 10118/96 52 . 0229 COMMENTS ON OUt 5 AND 6 DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY CAOA 7 AND 35 REGIONAl WATER QUAliTY CONTROL DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 5,6
MClB BARSTOW BOARD CONTROL . \
-. .._n. -",.'. -----~. ..-., _-A ...-. .--- -- .--.." .. . -
1
COMMENTS 1019196 52 - 0232 COMMENTS ON DRAFT OUt 5 AND 6 FEASIBilITY STUDY REPORT FOR EPA REGION IX SAN FRANCISCO SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5.6
CAOC 7 AND 35
CORRESPONDENCE 519194 52 . 0240 COMMENTS ON OU3I4 DRAFT FiNAl PHASE II FIELD SAMPLING DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL" SOUTHWEST DIVISION 3.4,5.6
WORKPLAN FOR MClB LONG BEACH
COMMENTS. RwaCB 1118196 5.2 - 0243 COMMENTS ON OUt 5 AND 6; DRAFT FiNAl REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION REGIONAl WATER QUAliTY CONTROL OEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 5,6
REPORT MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE BARSTOW BOARD CONTROL
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 419192 5.2 - 0250 FiNAl TECNICAl REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5.6
DRAFT FIELD SAMPLING PlAN OUt 5 AND 6, DATED MARCH 11.1992.
MCLB BARSTOW
COMMENTS. EPA 619/91 52 - 0252 REVIEW COMMENTS ON THE DRAfT RIIFS PLANNING DOCUMENTS FOR US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHWEST DIVISION 1, 2, 3. 4. 5. 6
THE MClB BAA STOW DATED JUNE 15. 1991
27
JANUARY 7.1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT NPE DATE CAT. DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE 2/15/95 5.2 - 0262 REQUEST FOR JO-DAY EXTENSION FOR SUBMITTING REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES SOUTHWEST DIVISION 1.3.4,5,6
COMMENTS ON MClB DOCUMENTS CONTROL
CORRESPONDENCE, MEMO I 1/9194 52 - 0263 DIFFERENCES BETVW:EN EPA AND MClB BARSTOW LISTS IDENTIFYING UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL SOUTHWEST DIVISION 1.2,3,4,5,6.7
COMPOUNDS OF CONCERNS PROTECTION AGENCY
COMMENTS, DTSC, EPA,RWCCB 3/13197 5.2 - 0271 COMMENTS FROM VARIOUS AGENCIES ON THE OU'I 5 AND 6 DRAfT DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL SOUT~ST DIVISION 5.6.7,1,2
PROPOSED PlAN AND DRAfT FiNAl FS
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT: 4/29197 5.2 . 0288 COMMENTS ON THE DRAfT FINAl RECORD OF DECISION FOR OU'S 3 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SOU~ST DIVISION 3,4.5,6
AND 4
CORRESPONDENCE, COMMENT! 3/18/97 52 - 0290 COMMENTS ON DRAFT PROPOSED PLAN FOR OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5.6
. ........-----.-. ." ..0..._._----.------
CORRESPONDENCE, 217/97 5 2 . 0291 COMMENTS FROM AGENCY FOR OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FEASIBILITY DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE OFFICE OF MILITARY AFFAIRS. LONG 5.6
MEMORANDUM STUDY REPORT FOR CAOC 7 AND 35 CONTROL BEACH
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT: "112297 52 . 0292 COMMENTS ON THE REMEDIAlINVESTIGATIONIFEASIBILIN STUDY, US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 5.6
OU'I 5 AND 6, FS REPORT FOR CAOC 7.16 AND 35 DRAFT FiNAl CONTROL
COMMENTS, RESPONSE 6125/96 5.2 - 0293 COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EPA,CRWCCB AND DTSC COMMENTS ON JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP.INC SOUT~ST DIVISION 5.6
THE Olll 516 DRAfT RI REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT: 3/18197 52 . 0296 COMMENTS TO DRAFT PROPOSED PLAN OUS 5 AND 6, DATED JANUARY US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6.7
14,1997
CORRESONOENCE, COMMENTS 6/18197 52 . 0298 COMMENTS ON DRAFT FiNAl PROPOSED PLAN. DATED MAY 16. 1997 REGIONAL WATER QUALIN CONTROL MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE 5.6
ROD AND DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION. APRIL 30, 1997 BOARD
JANUARY 7. 1997
28
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC8 SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT: 6/10197 52 . 0299 COMMENTS ON DRAfT FINAL OU 5 AND 6 PROPOSED PlAN. DATED MAY DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 5.6
1997 CONTROL
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT: 9129194 52 . 0300 COMMENTS ON PRELIMINARY DRAFT PROJECT WORKPlAN. AIR DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES SOUTHV\IEST DIVISION 6
SPARGINGNAPOR EXTRACTION PilOT STUDY FOR CAOC B CONTROL
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT: SI3II9S 5 2 - 0301 DRAFT COMMENTS ON U.S. EPA REVIEW OF MClB DRAfT PHASE II US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHV\IEST DIVISION 5,6
FIELD SAMPLING WORKPlAN RIIFS (OUS 5 AND 6)
CORRESPONDENCE, COMMENT! 1/25/95 52 . 0303 TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM NO. 23, BACKGROUND SOilS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE 5,6
INVESTIGATION, DATED SEPTEMBER 26. 19904.NO COMMENTS BOARD CONTROL
.---'"
CORRESPONDENCE, COMMENT! 4128/95 5.2 . 0304 FOLLOW-UP TO COMMENTS DISCUSSED AT NAVAL FACILITIES REGIONAL WATER QUAliTY CONTROL SOUTHV\IEST DIVISION 3.4.5,6
ENGINEERING CQWAAND RESTORATION PROGRAM MEETING BOARD
~---,'._"'-" \
CORRESPONDENCE, COMMENT! 6/19197 52 . 0306 COMMENTS TO OU 5 AND 8 DRAfT FINAL PROPOSED PlAN DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6
CONTROL
CORRESPONDENCE, COMMENT: 6130197 52 - 0307 COMMENTS TO DRAfT RECORD OF DECISION FOR OUS 5 AND 6 DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES SOUTHV\IEST DIVISION 5.6
CONTROL
CORRESPONDENCE, COMMENT! 6/17/97 52 - 0308 COMMENTS TO RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON FINAl PROPOSED PlAN US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHV\IEST DIVIISION 5.6
FOR OU 5 AND 6
CORRESPONDENCE, COMMENT: 6/1/97 52 - 0310 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD ON DRAfT RECORD US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHV\IEST DMSION 5.6
OF DECISION TO if3Ol97
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT: 7118/97 52 - 0311 COMMENTS ON DRAfT TlME-CRITICAl REMOVAl ACTION DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES SOUTHV\IEST DIVISION 5.6
IMPLEMENTATION WORK PlAN, DATED JUNE 6,1997 CONTROL
29
JANUARY 7, 1997
-------
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE
CAT. DOC'
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
SUBJECT
AUTHOR
US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHWEST DIVISION
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE COMMENTS
5.6
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT:
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT:
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT:
CORRESPONDENCE, COMMENT:
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT:
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT:
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT:
CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE
JANUARY 7, 1997
7/29197
914197
915197
9/9/97
718198
6120/96
6/18/97
7110196
1012197
1018197
52 - 0312
52 . 0316
52 . 0317
5.2 - 0318
5,2 - 0320
5.2 - 0321
52 . 0323
52 . 0324
52 . 0330
52 . 0332
COMMENTS ON DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION OF OPERABLE UNITS 5
AN06
COLLECTIVE COMMENTS TO DRAFT FiNAl PROPOSED PLAN BY
VARIOUS AGENCIES
COlLECTIVE COMMENTS TO DRAFT fiNAl FEASIBILITY STUDY AND
DRAFT fiNAl PROPOSED PlAN BY VARIOUS AGENCIES
....n-.-_" .-------.-----
.....-----...-.... .--
COMMENTS ON PRELIMINARY DRAfT STRATEGIC PlAN DATED 21 JULY JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
1997
------.-- .
... --...----.-.
DTSC REVIEW COMMENTS ON DRAFT REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION
REPORT FOR OUS 5 AND 6
. -..-.--- -"-
MCLB BARSTOW COMMENTS TO DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY ON OUS 5
ANn 6
. - --'------'.'-
CRWQCB COMMENTS TO OUS 5 AND 6 DRAFT RI REPORT
DTSC COMMENTS ON DRAFT REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION REPORT fOR
OUS 5 AND 6
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
.....---+-"_U
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
mn_- --. ...
REGIONAl WATER QUAliTY CONTROL
BOARD
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
COMMENTS ON DRAfT CLOSURE REPORT fOR CADC 21 TIME-CRITICAL DEPT Of TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROl
REMOVAl ACTION
COMMENTS ON TIME-CRITICAl REMOVAl ACTION CLOSURE REPORT
FOR REMOVAl OF PCB.CONTAMINATED SOIL. CAOC 21
BECHTEL NATIONAl INC.
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHWEST DIVISION
1.2.5.6
1,2,3.4.5.6
5,6
5.6
5,6
5,6
5,6
5
5,6
30
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT.DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE 9/4197 5 2 . 03304 COMMENTS ON RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS COMMENTS ON DRAFT DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5.6
FINAL PROPOSED PLAN OU 516
COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES 11/26/97 5.2 . 0335 APPROVAl OF THE TIME.cRITICAl REMOVAl ACTION FOR REMOVAl OF US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE 5.6
PCB CONTAMINATED SOIL, CAOC 21
COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES 1213197 5.2 . 033B COMMENTS ON THE OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 TO FiNAliZE ROD REGiONAl WATER QUALITY CONTROL MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE 5,6
BOARD
COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES 11/21/97 52 . 0337 APPROVAl OF THE FiNAl CLOSURE REPORT FOR THE CAOC 21 TIME- DEPT. OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE 5.8
CRITICAl REMOVAl ACTION
COMMENTS RESPONSE 1/18/91 5.3 . 0001 RESPONSE TO REGULATORY AGENCY COMMENTS ON RUFS WORK JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RwaCB, DTSC, & US EPA 1.2,3,4,5.6.7
PlAN, MelB, BARSTOW SEPT 1990
.-.""- ,-.-_..._-_..... -
COMMENTS RESPONSE 8/1191 5.3 - 0002 RESPONSE TO REGULATORY AGENCY COMMENTS ON DRAFT FiNAl JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1,2,3,4.5,6.7
WORK PlAN AND SAMPLING AND ANAlYSIS PlAN APRil 1 , 1991
COMMENTS RESPONSE 3/11/92 5.3 . 0008 RESPONSE TO AGENCY COMMENTS FiNAl RUFS PLANNING JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB. RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1,2.3,4.5,6.7
DOCUMENTS VOL V FOR MClB, BARSTOW
COMMENTS RESPONSE 9f7 194 5.3 - 0017 PROJECT NOTE 48. RESPONSE TO DTSC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RwaCB, DTSC, & US EPA 5.6
ELIMINATION RATIONAlE FOR SAMPLING REOUIREMENTS FOR
SPECIFIC STRATA FOR OUt 5 & 6, TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM 18, DATED
COMMENTS RESPONSE 11 /8194 5.3 . 0018 PROJECT NOTE 60 - RESPONSE TO EPA & DTSC COMMENTS ON THE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB, RwaCB. DTSC, & US EPA 5.6
DRAFT RATIONAlE FOR ELIMINATION FROM FURTHER INVESTIGATION
OF SPECIFIC GEOPHYSICAl ANOMAliES OUt 5 & 6. TECHNICAl
COMMENTS RESPONSE 11/15/94 53 . 0019 PROJECT NOTE 62 . RESPONSE TO EPA COMMENTS DATED 09101194. ON JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RwaCB, DTSC. & US EPA 5.6
THE REVISED DRAFT FINAl OUt 5 & 6 FIELD SAMPLING WORK PlAN
DATED 03l3Of94, SPECIFICALLY GEOPHYSICAl ANOMALIES
31
JANUARY 7,1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT NPE OATE CAT. DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
COMMENTS RESPONSE 5/9/95 53 - 0025 PROJECT NOTE B4 . RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM EPA, DTSC, I JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB, RwaCB, DTSC, I US EPA 3,~,5,6
RwaCB ON THE DRAFT PHASE 1 RI FOR OUt S I 8, TECHNICAl
MEMORAHDUM22
COMMENTS RESPONSE 3110195 5 3 - 0021 PROJECT NOTE 77 . RESPONSES TO EPA (DATED 1211J19.e) I DTSC JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 56
(DATED 11/29/94 I 12108194) COMMENTS RE: DRAFT PHASE 1 REMEDIAl COMMAND
INVESTIGATION OUt 5 I 8
.---.... .-..-
COMMENTS RESPONSE 7124/95 53 . oo2B PROJECT NOTE 92 . RESPONSE TO US EPA'S COMMENTS DATED JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 583
01127/95 I 6/5/95, RE: DRAFT PHASE 2 FIELD SAMPLING WORK PLAN FOR COMMAND
OUI518
.. - . _.. -------.
COMMENTS RESPONSE 7125/95 5.3 - 0029 PROJECT NOTE 89. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM DTSC (DATED JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MelB, RwaCB, DTSC. I US EPA 356
3/1(05) & US EPA (DATED 3/1(05) RE: DRAFT IDENTIFICATION OF
CHEMICAlS OF POTENTIAl CONCERN TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM 0027
COMMENTS RESPONSE 618/95 5.3 . D030 PROJECT NOTE 32 - RESPONSE TO RwaCB'S COMMENTS ON EFFECTS JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 15
OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AT CAOC 28. OU 1 DRAFT COMMAND
ENGINEERING EVAlUATIONICOST ANALYSIS
. ------ _.-
COMMENTS RESPONSE 3/6/95 53 . 0031 PROJECT NOTE 14. RESPONSES TO US EPA (DATED 10105/94). DTSC I JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB, RWQCB. DTSC, & US EPA 5
RWOC8 COMMENTS (DATED 11/14194) RE: PHASE 1 REPORT OU 5
TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM 19 (TM.oo19)
..---.. --.. .--
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 11121/96 53 . 0053 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REMEDIAl JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6
INVESTIGA TlONIFEASIBlllTY STUDY ON OUI 5 AND 8
. - ..--'. H+'. .
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 12120/96 S3 . OO~ RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REMEDIAl JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC SOUTHWEST DIVISION S,6
INVESTIGATlONlFEASIBILITY STUDY ON OUt SAND 6
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 10116/96 53 - 0060 RESPONSE TO VARIOUS AGENCIES COMMENTS ON OUt 5 AND 8 DRAFT JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP 'NC SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6
RI REPORT
COMMENTS, RESPONSE 2120197 5.3 - 0062 RESPONSE TO AGENCY COMMENTS ON OUt 5 AND 6 DRAFT FiNAl JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP. INC SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6
REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION (RI) REPORT
32
JANUARY 7,1997
-------
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE
CAT. DOC'
MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT:
SOUTIM1:ST DIVISION
5.6
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT:
CORRESPONDENCE, RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE, RESPONSE
COMMENTS RESPONSE
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JANUARY 7.1997
5122191
3118/91
9130194
. 0" 0'.- --..
8/18/97
9125/97
10116/96
11121/96
In/96
5122197
12/23191
5.3 . 0064
53 - 0065
53 . 0068
53 . 0071
5.3 . 0073
5.3 . 0074
5.3 - 0015
5 3 . 0016
53 - 0077
53 . 0018
RESPONSE TO VARIOUS AGENCIES' COMMENTS ON THE OU ~ DRAfT
FINAL FS REPORT
RESPONSE TO AGENCIES' COMMENTS ON THE OU !W ORAFT
PROPOSED PLAN
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
RESPONSE TO AGENCY COMMENTS ON TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TM MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE
0018, DATED MARCH 9.1994
. ,0' ..----.
.'W'-- ...
RESPONSE TO AGENCY COMMENTS ON DRAFT FINAl PROPOSED PlAN JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
FOR OtIS 516
..-._"-
RESPONSES TO AGENCY COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ROD FOR OUt 5
AND 8 DATED 30 APRil 1997
. .."--. -.---..----...
--..----.----...-. .
.. .u..--.--
RESPONSES TO AGENCIES COMMENTS ON OUt 5 AND 8 DRAFT RI
REPORT
..----.-.
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
.'-.--_..-. ."
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
RESPONSES TO AGENCIES COMMENTS ON OUt 5 AND 6 DRAfT FINAL RI JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
REPORT
-_. '.0__"-'"
RESPONSE TO AGENCIES COMMENTS ON OUt 5 AND 6 DRAFT FINAl FS JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
REPORT
RESPONSE TO AGENCY COMMENTS ON OUt 5 AND 6 DRAFT FINAL FS
REPORT (CTO-ISO)
RESPONSES TO AGENCY COMMENTS ON OUt 5 AND 8
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
SOUTIM1:ST DIVISION
5.6
VARIOUS AGENCIES
5,6
5,6
SOUTIM1:ST DMSION
5,6
SOUTlM1:ST DIVISION
5,6
SOUTIM1:ST DIVISION
5,6
SOUTIM1:ST DMSION
5,6
SOUTIM1:ST DIVISION
5.6
SOUTt-M'£ST DIVISION
5,6
33
-------
MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT-DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS I 1126196 53 - 0079 RESPONSE TO EPA COMMENTS DRAFT GROUNDWATER MONITORING OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES- IRVINE SOUTHv.1;ST DIVISION 5.6
PLAN. DATED NOVEMBER 20.1996
REPORT 3111 192 6 I . 0001 DATA VAlIDATION FOR COOliNG TOWER AND DYNAMOMETER SITE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA 5.6
BUILDING 573 (MOD 6. SITE II AT MCLB. BARSTOW
REPORT. ANALYTICAl DATA 516193 61 . 0019 PROJECT NOTE 282 - RIifS OU'I. 2. 3. 4. 5. & 8 PHASE I JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA 123456
GROUNDWATER & SOIL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY RESUL TS
-.-. _. -.'----.
ARARS 4/8/92 62 - 0004 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR REGIONAl WATER QUALITY CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
THE RIifS. MClB. BARSTOW BOARD CONTROL
'. .-.----.-..
ARARS REQUEST 4/21195 6.2 . 0006 REQUEST FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ARARS AFFECTING THE PROPOSED DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 5.6.3.4
AND/OR POSSIBLE CERCLA ACTIONS TO BE PERFORMED AT MClB COMMAND
.._.-_. ..--. . - . '.'-_.- .---
CORRESPONDENCE. REQUEST 1131195 6.2 - 0007 REQUESTS IDENTIFICAlON OF POTENTIAl STATE CHEMICAL & NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 123456
lOCATION-SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE CONTROL
REQUIREMENTS FOR OU, 1 THROUGH 6
ARARS 615195 62 . 0010 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT & DEPT OF FISH & GAME DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 4356
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARAR., FOR MClB CONTROL
ARARS 6119/95 62 . 0012 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT & DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 123456
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR MCLB COMMAND
REPORT. HEAlTH RISK 7/26194 63 - 0001 PROJECT NOTE 43 - HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT. RESULTS OF THE OUt JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC & MClB 5.6
ASSESSMENT 5 & 6 BACKGROUND SOILS INCLUSIONlEXCLUSION ANALYSIS
REPORT. HEAL TH RISK 9/5197 6.3 - 0002 HUMAN HEAl TH RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CAOC 21 POST.REMOVAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC 5.6
ASSESSMENT ACTION
JANUARY 1, 1991
J.4
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
REPORT. WASTEWATER 2/17/92 6~ . 0009 SAMPLING AND ANAl YSIS DATA SUMMARY REPORT FOR YERMO ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENTAL INC US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 3.5
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. MCLB. BARSTOW AGENCY
REMOVAL ACTION ~122192 6 ~ . 0010 REMOVAL OPTIONS SUMMARY FINAl REPORT. FOR REMOVAL OF ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENTAlINC US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 5.6
SLUDGE. MCLB. BARSTOW AGENCY
.. -..,-.,.... ... '--'"
REPORT. INVESTIGATION 3/27/92 6~ . 0011 PRELIMINARY FINAL INVESTIGATION AT PROPOSED DYNAMOMETER JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP 'NC NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. & US EPA 5
AND COOLING TOWER CONSTRUCTION SITES. BLDG 573. SITE 16. (VOL
1 OF 2)
'-.--'--. "-"'--"-
REPORT. INVESTIGATION 3/27192 6 ~ - 0012 INVESTIGATION AT PROPOSED DYNAMOMETER AND COOLING TO\M:R JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. & US EPA 5
CONTRUCTION SITES BUILDING 573. SITE 16. (VOL 2 OF 2)
"""--'--'
REPORT. WASTEWATER 5/21/92 6.~ - ool~ PRELIMINARY DRAFT INVESTIGATION AT PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP 'NC NFEC. MCLB. R\\'OCB. DTSC. & US EPA 5
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION SITE. (MOO 6.
SITE 2), VERMO ANNEX, MeLB. BARSTOW (VOL 1 OF 3)
~ ... - ...- _'_.n_.. . --.--'--.--.." .-- ......- .. -----.--.-.--. .
REPORT. WASTEWATER 5/21/92 6~ . 0015 PRELIMINARY DRAFT INVESTIGATION AT PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. & US EPA 5
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION SITE. (M006,
SITE 2) MCLB, BARSTOW (VOl 2 OF 3)
.. ... -... -. ,'.... -.. .--.. -.-.
REPORT. WASTEWATER 9/3/92 6.~ - 0019 DRAFT INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAl JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. I US EPA 5
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION SITE. TEXT (VOL
1 OF 3)
REPORT. WASTEWATER 913192 6~ . 0020 DRAFT INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB, DTSC. & US EPA 5
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION SITE. (VOL 3 OF 3)
REPORT. WASTEWATER 9/3/92 6 ~ - 0021 DRAFT INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. I US EPA 5
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION SITE. (VOL 2 OF 3)
- . . -- '., - -
REPORT, SOIL 12/8/92 8~ - oo2~ STEAM RACK BAY 6/QUENCH FURNACE INSTAlLATION SAMPLING JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC, & US EPA 5
REPORT {VOl 2 OF 21
JANUARY 7. 1997
35
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC. SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
REPORT, SOil GAS 911/92 64 - 0043 FINAl REPORT SOil GAS SURVEY FOR OU 6 (VOL 1 OF 21 TARGET ENVIRONMENTAl SERVICES FOR NFEC, MClB, RmCB, DTSC, & US EPA 6
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
REPORT, SOil GAS 911/92 64 . 0044 FiNAl REPORT SOIL GAS SURVEY FOR OU 6 (VOL 2 OF 2) TARGET ENVIRONMENTAl SERVICES FOR NFEC, MClB, RmCB, DTSC, & US EPA 6
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
REPORT, SOil GAS 911/92 64 . 0045 FINAl. REPORT SOil GAS SURVEY FOR OU 5 (VOL 1 OF 2) TARGET ENVIRONMENTAl SERVICES FOR NFEC, MClB, RmCB, DTSC, & US EPA 5
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
REPORT, SOIL GAS 911/92 6.4 - 0046 FiNAl REPORT SOIL GAS SURVEY FOR OU 5 (VOL 2 OF 2) TARGET ENVIRONMENTAl SERVICES FOR NFEC, MClB, RmCB, DTSC, & US EPA 5
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
.__.~...-.
REPORT, SITE 11/3/94 6.4 . 0055 PROJECT NOTE 63. OU 6, CAOC ID SODIUM VAlVE DISPOSAl SITE, JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RWQCB, DTSC, & US EPA 6
PROVIDES THE RESUlTS OF ADDITIONAl. SCOPING
REPORT, GEOPHYSICAl 7122/93 64 . 006D DRAFT APPENDIX A. GEOPHYSICAlINVESTIGA TICN REPORT FOR OU. 5 INTERNATIONAl TECHNOLOGY CORP NFEC & MClB 56 I
& 6 (VOL 1 OF 3)
REPORT, GEOPHYSICAl 7122/93 64 - 0061 DRAFT APPENDIX A, GEOPHYSICAl INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OU. 5 INTERNATIONAl TECHNOLOGY CORP NFEC & MClB 56
&6(VOl20F3)
REPORT, GEOPHYSICAL 7122/93 64 - 0062 DRAFT APPENDIX A, GEOPHYSICAl INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OU. 5 INTERNATIONAl TECHNOLOGY CORP NFEC & MClB 56
&6 (VOL 3 OF 3)
REPORT, DNAPl 1126/96 64 - 0063 DENSE NON.AQUEOUS PHASE llQUIDES (DNAPl) EVAlUATION FOR US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 1.2,5,6
CAOC. 6, 7, 23, 26, & 35 COMMAND
REPORT, DNAPl 3127/96 64 - 0068 PROJECT NOTE 89 - EVAlUATION OF DENSE NON.AQUEOUS PHASE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RWQCB, DTSC, & US EPA 1,2.5.6
LIQUIDS FOR CAOC. 6,7,2326, & 35 PREPARED BY EPA DATED 1126/96
JANUARY 7,1997
36
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
REPORT, REMEDIAL 7/24/95 6.4 . 0090 PROJECT NOTE 91 . TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THE DRAFT REMEDIAl JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RwaCB, DTSC, & US EPA 56
INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OUt 5 & 6
REPORT, REMEDiAl 4122/96 6 4 . 0091 DRAFT REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OUI 5 & 6, TEXT (VOL I JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, R~CB, DTSC, & US EPA 56
INVESTIGATION OF 12)
REPORT, REMEDIAL 4/22/96 6.4 . 0092 DRAFT REMEDIAlINVESTIGA TION REPORT FOR OUI 5 & 6, TEXT (VOL 2 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RwaCB, DTSC, & US EPA 56
INVESTIGATION OF 12)
REPORT, REMEDIAl 4122196 64 . 0093 DRAFT REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OUI 5 & 6, APPENDICES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RwaCB, DTSC, & US EPA 56
INVESTIGATION A, B, C, & 0 (VOL 3 OF 12)
REPORT, REMEDIAl 4122196 6.4 - 0094 DRAFT REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OUt 5 & 6. APPENDICES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP IHe NFEC. MClB, RwaCB, DTSC. & US EPA 56
INVESTIGATION D, E, & F (VOl 4 OF 12)
REPORT, REMEDIAL 4122196 64 - D095 DRAFT REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OUI5 & 6, APPENDIX G, JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RwaCB, DTSC, & US EPA 56
INVESTIGATION PART 1 OF 3 (VOl 5 OF 12)
REPORT, REMEDIAl 4122196 6.4 - 0096 DRAFT REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OUI 5 & 6. APPENDIX G, JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB. RwaCB, DTSC, & US EPA 56
INVESTIGATION PART 2 OF 3 (VOL 6 OF 12)
REPORT, REMEDiAl 4122196 64 . 0097 DRAFT REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OUt 5 & 6, APPENDIX G, JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MClB. RwaCB, DTSC. & US EPA 56
INVESTIGATION PART 3 OF 3. (VOL 7 OF 12)
REPORT. REMEDIAL 4/22/96 64 . 00ge DRAFT REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OUt 5 & 6. APPENDICES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RwaCB, DTSC, & US EPA 56
INVESTIGATION H & " (VOle OF 12)
REPORT, REMEDIAl 4122/96 64 - 0099 DRAFT REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION REPORT fOR OUI5 & 6, APPENDIX J. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MClB, RwaCB, DTSC, & US EPA 56
INVESTIGATION PART I OF 3, (VOL 9 OF 12)
JANUARY 7,1997
37
-------
MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE
CAT. DOC'
SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP UNIT
REPORT, REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
4/22196
6 4 - OHIO
DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OU. 5 & 6, APPENDIX J. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
PART 2 OF 3. (VOL 10 OF 12)
NFEC. MCLB, RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA
56
REPORT. REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
4/22196
64 . 0101
DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OU. 5 & 6, APPENDIX J, JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP 'NC
PART 3 OF 3 (VOL 11 OF 12)
NFEC. MCLB. RwaCB, DTSC. & US EPA
56
REPORT. REMEDIAl
INVESTIGATION
4122/96
64 - 0102
DRAFT REMEDIAl INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OUt 5 & 6. APPENDICES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
K, L. & M (VOL 12 OF 12)
NFEC. MCLB. RwaCB. DTSC. & US EPA
56
REPORT. RI
2120197
6.4 - 0103
OUS. 5 AND 6 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (RI) REPORT-DRAFT FINAL
ADDENDUM 1
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP. INC
SOUTHY-IEST DIVISION
5.6
.. ---. ----------.-.
_. - --.-. .--..-
CORRESPONDENCE
5/18193
6.4 - 0104
PHASE' GROUNDWATER AND SOIL ANAlYTICAl DATA FOR RUFS Ollll MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW US EPA. DTSC. RwaCB
THRU 7 DATED MAY 6, 1993
1.2.3,4.5.6.7
.----'- -
.------ -----
.--..-."..
REPORT. RI
ICiIII96
64 . 0105
DRAFT FINAL RI OUS 5 AND 6, VOL. I
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
SOUTHY-IEST DMSION
5,6
REPORT. RI ICiIII96 64 - 0106 DRAFT FiNAl RI OUS 5 AND 6. VOL II JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP. INC SOUTHWEST OMS ION 5,6
- - - --. _... - ----- ----" . .
REPORT. RI ICiIII96 64 - 0107 DRAFT FiNAl RI OUS 5 AND $, REPLACEMENT PAGES VOL. III.XII, JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP. INC SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6
APPENDICES A.M REV. 0
REPORTS 12127196 64 . 0109 DRAFT FINAl FEASIBll TIY STUDY REPORT FOR au. 5 AND 6 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5.6
CORRESPONDENCE, COMMENT:
3113/97
65 . 0005
COMMENTS ON OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 DRAFT PROPOSED PLAN
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
5.6
JANUARY 7. 1997
38
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE 5/1/97 65 - 0006 DRAFT FiNAl OUt 50'8 PROPOSED PlAN COPIES BEING SENT TO THE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5.6
REGULATORY AGENCIES UNDER A SEPARATE COVER
CORRESPONDENCE. COSTS 7/11/94 6.5 - 0007 PROJECT NOTE 30 REGARDING PROJECT COSTS FOR SITE CLOSURE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5.6
OF CAOCS AT OUS 5 AND 6
CORRESPONDENCE,PLAN 1/1/97 8.5 - 0008 OUS 5 AND 6 PROPOSED PlAN MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE PUBLIC 5.6
PROPOSED PLAN 9/1/97 6.5 . 0010 FiNAl 00. 5 AND 6 PROPOSED PlAN JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6
RECORD OF DECISION 4130197 71.0009 DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION (ROO) FOR OU 5/6.REV 0 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP !NC SOUT~ST DIVISION 5.6
. - +-_... - . -
CORRESPONDENCE 9/17/97 7.1 . 0015 REQUEST FOR SUBMlnAl EXTENSION DRAFT FINAl ROD OU 50'8 SOUTHWEST DIVISION VARIOUS AGENCIES 5.6
REPORT. ROD
10l3OI97
7.1 . 0017
DRAFT FiNAl RECORD OF DECISION OU 516
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP
VARIOUS AGENCIES
5,6
AGREEMENT. FEDERAl FACILITI 2121192 81 - 0001 DISPUTE CONCERNING SCHEDULE EXTENSION REQUEST TO FEDERAl DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAl. FACILITIES ENGINEERING 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
FACILITIES ASSESSMENT FOR MCLB. BARSTOW COMMAND
AGREEMENT. FEDERAL FACILITI 7/21/94 8.1 . 0032 RESPONSE TO NFEC'S REQUEST (DATED 7/13194) FOR AN 120 DAY DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 56
EXTENSION; CANNOT ASCERTAIN GOOD CAUSE TO JUSTIFY GRANTING COMMAND
AN EXTENSION AT THIS TIME
CORRESPONDENCE. RESPONSE 1116195 81 - 0034 RESPONSE TO JEG'S REQUEST. DATED 10116195. TRANSFERRING CAOC DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 35
21 FROM OU 3 TO OU 5; DTSC AGREES TO PURSUE TRANSFER COMMAND
JANUARY 7.1997
39
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT-DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
AGREEMENT, FEDERAl FAC/liTI 11129195 81.0039 AGREES TO TRANSFER OF CAOC 21 FROM OU 3 TO OU 5; CHANGE WILL US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 35
ALLOW OU 3 TO REMAIN ON SCHEDLILE & NOT CREATE ADVERSE COMMAND
EFFECT THRU THE DELAY
AGREEMENT, FEDERAL FACILITI 1111 SI9S 81 - ~1 RESPONSE TO NFEC'S LETTER REOUESTION THAT CAOC 21 BE MOVED US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 35
FROM OU 3 TO OU 5, EPA MUST BE FULLY INFORMED ON THE COMMAND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE
CORRESPONDENCE 9/29193 8.1 - ~3 RECOMMENDS THE USE OF PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES IN LIEU OF NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONrD PHASE 1&2 RI SAMPLING WILL BE MORE COST EFFECTIVE, CONTROL
EXPEDIENT, & PRUDENT IN THE CLEANUP OF CONTAMINATION AT BLDG
AGREEMENT, FEDERAl FACILITI 8/1 SI94 B.1 - ~9 JOINT RESPONSE TO NFEC'S REQUEST (DATED 7/13194) FOR AN 120 US EPA, DTSC, & RWOCB NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 56
DAY EXTENSION TO THE FEDERAl FACILITIES AGREEMENT FOR THE COMMAND
SUBMITTAL OF OUt 5 & 6 DRAFT PHASE 2 WORK PlAN; APPROVES
.. .... -. .-,..-. ...,'.. - ..,..- -.,. -
CORRESPONDENCE 81.0055 NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1,2,3,4,5,6.7
SUBSTANCES CONTROl'S REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGER
- -......-. _... - ...-. ......... -..,--....
CORRESPONDENCE 1011 BI95 81.0056 REMOVAL OF CAOC 21 FROM OU, 314 AND REPLACEMENT IN OUt !W SOUTH'M:ST OMSION DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL 3,4,5,6
CORRESPONDENCE 9/27/97 9.1 - 0003 PUBLIC REQUEST FOR NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF MCLB BARSTOW DENNIS BELL MCLB BARSTOW 5,6
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTORS
PLAN, COMMUNITY RELATIONS 311/91 92 . 0001 DRAFT FINAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS PlAN, MCLB BARSTOW JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB, RWOCB, DTSC, & US EPA 1,2,3,4,5,6.7
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION 5/18/92 9.3 . 0001 PROJECT NOTE 136 - UPDATED MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP !NC NFEC, MCLB, RWOCB, DTSC, & US EPA 1,2,3,4.5.6.1
PARTICIPATION IN Rill'S ACTMTIES AT MCLB, BARSTOW
MEETING NOTES 1/20193 94 . 0002 PROJECT NOTE 17 . TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB, RWOCB, DTSC, & US EPA 1,2,3.4,5,6.7
HELD ON 1120/93
JANUARY 7,1997
40
-------
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE
CAT.. DOC'
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
DP UNIT
MEETING NOTES
1,2,3.4,5,6.1
MEETING NOTES
MEETING MINUTES
MEETING MINUTES
.. -"'.. ~ .
MEETING NOTES
MEETING MINUTES
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, PRES
RELEASE
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, PRES
RELEASE
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, PRES
RELEASE
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, PRES
RELEASE
JANUARY 7,1997
1218193
1215195
9/4196
1 116196
5I29/9B
" IIW8
... ---'.-"
1213/9 1
11127/91
7/26/91
2120191
94 . COOS
94 - 0006
9.4 " oooe
94 . 0009
.-- .--....u_-..
9.4 - 0010
. - -- - -.-- -- - . - -
94 . 0012
9.5 " 0015
95 . 0016
95 . 0019
9 5 .. 0023
PROJECT NOTE 330 - TECHNICAl REVIEW COMMlnEE MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
HELD ON 12JOB193 AT THE MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
PROJECT NOTE 104 .. TECHNICAl REVlEWCOMMlnEE MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
CONDUCTED ON 1215195
MEETING NOTES. REMEDIAl. PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 4-5. 1996
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
--'--- .... .,.
. .. - .. 0"""" -
MEETING AGENDA, REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 7. 1998
MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE
--- ----. .-".
. -- .---.-..
. __.n,'. " .
MEETING NOT£S: MAY 29-30. 1998 RPM MEETING IN BARSTOW
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
.._. ------ -. ...
.. ".---.-.
NOVEMBER 6. 1998. REMEDIAl PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING MINUTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
....--..---.---
-_. -.,.-...--
"SLUDGE TESTED AT MClB DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAl PONDS.YERMO. BARSTOW DESERT DISPATCH
MClB. BARSTOW'
"SLUDGE SAMPLING, TESTING BEGINS AT VERMO ANNEX. MClB,
BARSTOW'
MClB BARSTOW TODAY
"INSTAlLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM AT MClB. BARSTOW
REVIEWED"
MClB BARSTOW TODAY
'\oIARINE BASE AT BARSTOW UNVEilS SLUDGE REMOVAl PlAN"
BARSTOW DESERT DISPATCH
NFEC. MClB. RWQCB. DTSC. & US EPA
. ....--. .-..
TECHNICAl REVIEW COMMlnEE
MEMBERS
SOUTH'M:ST DIVISION
BARSTOW
SOU~ST DMSION
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
PUBLIC RELEASE
PUBLIC RELEASE
PUBLIC RELEASE
PUBLIC RELEASE
1234567
1.2.5.6
1.2.3.4.5.6
1,2.3.4.5.6
1.2.3.4.5.6
3.5
3.5
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
3.5
41
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT - DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. PRES I 1/30190 95 " 0024 ''''ClB. BARSTOW HOSTS FIRST TRC MEETING" MClB BARSTOW TODAY PUBLIC RELEASE 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
RelEASE
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, PRES IIY26190 95 . 0026 ''EPA. STATE AND NAVY SIGN FEDERAL FACiliTY AGREEMENTS FOR MClB BARSTOW TODAY PUBLIC RELEASE 1,2.3.4,5.6.1
RelEASE MelB, BARSTOW'
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. PRES 10/10190 9.5 . 0027 "PACTS SIGNED FOR CLEAN UP OF HAZARDOUS SITE AT MClB. BARSTOW DESERT DISPATCH PUBLIC RELEASE 1.2,3.4.5.6.7
RelEASE BARSTOW'
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. PRES 10/19190 9.5 - 0028 '"TEMPORARY TREATMENT UNIT FOR INDUSTRIAl WASTEWATER MClB BARSTOW TODAY PUBLIC RELEASE 1.2,3.4.5.6,1
RELEASE TESTED AT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY"
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, PRES 7/14189 9.5 - 0034 "GEORGE. BARSTOW BASES PUT ON EPA HAZARD LIST- SAN BERNARDINO SUN PUBLIC RELEASE 1.2.3,4.5.6.1
RELEASE
- ...--_._~.-
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. PRES 11124189 9.5 . 0035 ''-'ARINE BASE ON FiNAl SUPERFUND lIsr POLLUTED GROUNDWATER BARSTOW DESERT DISPATCH PUBLIC RELEASE 1.2.3.4.5,6.7
RELEASE SOIL SLATED FOR CLEAN UP
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. FACT In/92 9 5 . 0037 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT "SLUDGE REMOVAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB. DTSC, & US EPA 5
SHEET FACT SHEEr
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, PRES 1213192 95 - 0040 "CONTAMINATED WELL DISCOVERED.. RELEASE COVERING THE MClB PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE NEWS MEDIA 6
RELEASE HISTORY OF THE WEll CONTAMINATION AND MClB'S RESPONSE
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. NEIM 12n192 9.5 " 0041 ''CONTAMINATION FOUND IN MARINE BASE WELL" BARSTOW DESERT DISPATCH PUBLIC RELEASE 6
ARTICLE
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. NEIM '2"0192 9.5 . 0042 "TCE FOUND IN GROUNDWATER AT BARSTOW MARINE BASE" VlCTORVILlE DAilY PRESS PUBLIC RELEASE 6
ARTICLE
.2
JANUARY 7.1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
NOTICE, PUBLIC 2/2S193 9.5 .. 0044 LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT ANNOUNCING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE BARSTOW DESERT DISPATCH & SAN 6
PROPOSED ACTION CONCERNING WATER SUPPLY TO PRIVATE BERNADINO SUN
PROPERTY RESIDENTS
n. - - -- ."--.. -
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, FACT 6111/93 95 .. 0046 'NDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PlANT SLUDGE REMOVAl" JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP 'NC PUBLIC RELEASE 5
SHEET
NOTICE, PUBLIC 611/93 9.5 .. 0047 NOTifiCATION ANNOUNCING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON PROPOSED MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE PUBLIC RELEASE 5
CONTAMINATED SLUDGE REMOVAl ACTION AT THE INDUSTRIAl
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PlANT
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, NEW! 8/19/93 9.5 "0048 "SLUDGE UPDATE' WASTE POND CLEANUPS TO BE COMPLETED SOON" MCLB TODAY PUBLIC RELEASE 3,5
ARTICLE
-.. .--- ~ -. ... .""'.' .._.h- .---.. ...- -- -
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. NEW! 7/15/93 9.5 "0049 '1'lANS FOR SLUDGE REMOVAl SET. HEAlTH AND SAFETY PARAMOUNT" ENVIRONMENTAl BRANCH. MCLB BARSTOW PUBLIC RELEASE 3.5
ARTICLE TODAY
....-- -- --,.,-.--... .-- ...
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. 1/1195 95 "0050 MCLB BARSTOW COMMUNITY UPDATE. ISSUE 12. FOR THE IRP JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC PUBLIC RELEASE & IRP COMMUNITY 1,2.3,4,5,6
NEWSLETTER ACTIVITIES & ANNOUNCING A PUBLIC MEETING/OPEN HOUSE RELATIONS MAILING LIST
SCHEDULED FOR 1/19/95
NEWS RelEASE 9/17/97 95 .. 0071 NEWS RELEASE "",CLB BARSTOW INVITES PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC SOUTtMt:ST DIVISION 5,6
OUS 5 AND 6 PROPOSED PlAN
-" - .... ---.... . ._.- ,-- ---. ...--..--....
COMMENTS, DTSC 4/29/92 9.6 .. 0001 REVIEW ON DRAFT FACT SHEET FOR MCLB, BARSTOW DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROl NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING 1,2.3,4.5,6,7
COMMAND
,"._---, .. --.... .
CORRESPONDENCE,RESPONSE 5/29/92 9.6 .. 0003 COMPLIMENTS ON THE OPEN HOUSE/COMMUNITY WORKSHOP HELD DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1,2,3,4.5,6.7
ON MAY 12, 1992 FOR THE IRP AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE COMMUNITY MEETINGS
REPORT, INSPECTION 7/22/88 11 1 .. 0007 COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT. YERMO CLASS III lANDFILL REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 5
BOARD
43
JANUARY 7,1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
REPORT. INSPECTION 7/22/88 '" - 0008 FACILITIES INSPECTION REPORT: NONCOMPLIANCE. YERMO CLASS III REGIONAL WATER QUAliTY CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 5
lANDFILL BOARD
REPORT. INSPECTION , , /28188 "1. 0009 COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT - YERMO CLASS III LANDFILL REGIONAl WATER QUALITY CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 5
BOARD
REPORT. INSPECTION 81'189 '" - 0010 COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT. YERMO ClASS III lANDFILL REGIONAl WATER QUAliTY CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 5
BOARD
AGREEMENT. FEDERAl FACllITI 9128/90 "'.0023 FEDERAl FACILITY COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT MCLB NEBO, BETWEEN US EPA & MCLB MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE , .2.3,4.5.6.7
MCLB AND US EPA
AGREEMENT. FEDERAl FACILITI 9/29190 "". 0024 RESPONSE TO THE US EPA ON THE FEDERAl FACILITIES COMPLIANCE MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION , .2.3.4,5,6.7
AGREEMENT AGENCY
AGREEMENT, FEDERAL FACllITI 10l29I9O 1".0025 RESPONSE TO US EPA ON THE FEDERAl FACILITIES COMPLIANCE MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION , ,2.3.4.5.6.7
AGREEMENT AGENCY
AGREEMENT. FEDERAl FACILITI '0/24190 ", - 0026 FEDERAl FACILITY AGREEMENT UNDER CERCLA SECTION '20 US EPA, DTSC & NFEC MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE '.2.3,4.5.6.7
BETWEEN MCLB. USEPA AND CDHS
AGREEMENT. FEDERAl FACILITI 1215/90 ", - 0029 SUBMITTAl TO THE US EPA IN RESPONSE TO FEDERAl FACILITIES MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1.2,3.4,5.6,7
COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT AGENCY
AGREEMENT. FEDERAl FACllITI 9128/90 ", - 0030 FEOERAl FACILITIES COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT MCLB YERMO US EPA & MCLB MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE , ,2.3,4,5.6.7
BETWEEN MCLB AND EPA
CORRESPONDENCE, 1115185 ", - 0043 NAVAl ASSESSMENT & CONTROL OF INSTAlLATION POLLUTANTS REGIONAl WATER QUALITY CONTROL NAVAl FACILITIES ENGINEERING '.2,3,4.5,6.7
MEMORANDUM (NACIP) PROGRAM BOARD COMMAND
44
JANUARY 7, 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT - DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
ENFORCEMENT, CEASE & DESIS 10120189 11 2 . 0001 CEASE AND DESIST ORDER I BARSTOW LANDFILL) BY SAN BERNARDINO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, SAN MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE 5
ORDER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAl HEAlTH BERNARDINO COUNTY
ENFORCEMENT, CEASE & DESIS 12J8I77 11.2 . 0002 CEASE AND DESIST ORDER ,. 6-11-49 AND 6-77-50, CRWQCB, MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE REGIONAL WATER QUAliTY CONTROL 5
ORDER lAHONTAN REGION BOARD
ENFORCEMENT,ABATEMENT 7f27/89 11.3 - 0001 CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT ORDER NO 6-89-178 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 5
ORDER BOARD
.... .- -- .-.--.--
ENFORCEMENT,ABATEMENT 12119/89 11 3 - 0003 CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT ORDER NO 6-89-208 (YERMO CLASS III REGIONAL WATER QUAliTY CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 5
ORDER LANDFILl) BOARD
.--- ._._..h'-" ~ +"-- _.- .... .
ENFORCEMENT, ABATEMENT 8129/89 11.3 . 0005 RECEIPT OF CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT ORDER NO. 6-89-178 AND MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE REGiONAl WATER QUAlITY CONTROL 5
ORDER SCHEDULE DISCUSSION BOARD
. . -.-,.-.- -- --- ---.----------.. .- -- -.--- ---.
ENFORCEMENT, ABATEMENT 7/8/91 11.3.00II6 RESCISSION OF CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT ORDERS 6-89-178 AND 6-89- REGIONAL WATER QUAliTY CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 5
ORDER 208 BOARD
ENFORCEMENT,ABATEMENT 3111/92 11 3 . 0007 REMOVAl OF UNAUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS WASTE (SANDBLAST REGIONAL WATER QUAliTY CONTROL COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 5
ORDER WASTE) FROM BARSTOW CLASS III LANDFILL AND RECISSION OF CLEAN BOARD
UP AND ABATEMENT ORDER NO 8-88-209
CORRESPONDENCE 711 0/96 13.3 - 0001 REQUEST FOR DELAY ON REVIEW OF DRAFT RCRA FACILITY MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE SOUT~ST DIVISION 1,2,4,5,6
AS,SESSMENT FOR MClB BARSTOW
CORRESPONDENCE 919/96 13.3 . 0013 DELAYED REVIEW OF MCLB BARSTOW DRAfT RCRA FACILITY DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL SOUT~ST DIVISION 5,6
ASSESSMENT REPORT AND DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR
OUt 5 AND B
- -" - ---- .-
CORRESPONDENCE 919/96 133 . 0014 USEPA REVIEW OF MCLB DRAFT OU. 5 & 6 FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY SOUT~ST DIVISION 5.6
FOR CAOC 1 AND35
45
JANUARY 7, 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT. DOCI SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
CORRE SPONDENCE 7f22/94 13.3 - 0019 REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION TO THE BARSTOW MARINE CORPS US ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6
LOGISTICS BASE FEDERAl FACILITY AGREEMENT
CORRESPONDENCE 12120196 13.3 - 0020 RESPONSE TO LETTER OF OCTOBER 31,1996 EXPRESSING CONCERNS DEPT. OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTIC BASE 1.2,3,45,6
OVER THE STATE OF CAliFORNIA'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE FFA FOR
THE MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE BARSTOW
CORRESPONDENCE 5/12195 134 - 0004 MCLB BARSTOW DRAFT PHASE II FIELD SAMPLING WORK PlAN CROSS DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL SOUTHWEST DIVISION 3,4,5,6
REFERt 5.2
CORRESPONDENCE 4121/95 134 - COO6 OTSC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAl INFORMATION RE ARMS ADDECTING DEPT. OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL MCLB OUI ~ MAILING LIST 1,2,3,4,5,6
THE PROPOSED UPCOMING CERCLA ACTIONS
CORRESPONDENCE 5/5195 13.5 . 0002 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS OUI THROUGH 6, RI REPORTS. REGiONAl WATER QUAliTY CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 1,2,3.4,5,8
SAMPLE TABLE FORMATS ATTACHED BOARD CONTROL
. - .- .---.--. .------- ,.-------.---
CORRESPONDENCE 4128/95 13.5 . 0003 DIRECTION RE: FUNDING FOR MCLB OllS AND RECOMMENDATION OF REGIONAl WATER QUALITY CONTROL SOUTHWEST DIVISION 3,4,5,6
ENFORCEMENT ACTION IF SCHEDULE NOT CONSISTENT WITH FFA BOARD
SCHEDULE
46
JANUARY 7. 1997
-------
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE
CAT - DOC'
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION - January 6 7
ENTRIES
SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP UNIT
REPORT-REMOVAL ACTION
5,6
REMOVAL ACTION
REPORT
REPORT
MEMO
ACTION MEMORANDUM
CLEAN-UP
ACTION MEMORANDUM
REPORT
HEALTH AND SAfETY PLAN
JANUARY 7, 1997
9/8/97
11(7/97
616197
8I2S197
-."-.-. "...--."" ..
3/31/97
7129197
9/17197
5112/97
7 f2197
6/16/97
2 1 - 0037
21 - 0039
21 - 0040
2.1 - 0042
21 . 0043
21. OOM
.----- ."--'--""
2.1 - 0045
21 - ~
46 . 0008
48 . 0009
TI!.tE.CRITICAL REMOVAL ACTION CLOSURE REPORT, REMOVAL OF PCB- OHM REMEOIATION SERVICES. IRVINE
CONTAMINATED SOIL MCLB CAOC 21
TIME-CRITICAL REMOVAL ACTION CLOSURE REPORT. REMOVAL OF PCB. OHM REMEDIATION
CONTAMINATED SOIL
DRAFT TIME-CRITICAL REMOVAL ACTION IMPLEMENTATION WORK
PlAN, REMOVAL OF PCB-COMTAMINATED SOIL
PRELIMINARY DRAFT SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND CONFIRMATORY
ANALYTICAL DATA FOR PCB REMOVAL AT CAOC 21
._.----. ..- --.. - _.. '..-
DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION MEMORANDUM, SAMPLING AND SCREENING
OF SOIL FOR POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYl CONTAMINATION, CAC021
.' ..-. - .-..... --- ._------ - .."- -.
DRAFT CAOC 26 ASISVE SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION AND SOIL VAPOR
MAONITORING PROBE EVAlUATION DATED JULY 28, 1997
AMBIENT AIR MONITORING PREFORMED AT CAOC 26, DATED
SEPTEMBER 16, 1997
DRAFT ACTION MEMORANDUM FOR CAOC 21, DATED MAY 9, 1997
..."..- ..---.. --_.._.. .. ...
FiNAl SITE HEALTH AND SAfETY PLAN, REMOVAL OF PCB-
CONT AMINATED SOIL
DRAFT SITE HEAlTH AND SAFETY PLAN, REMEDIATION OF PCB.
CONTAMINATED SOIL, DATED JUNE 13, 1997
OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES CORP
-.. _.- -. - .
OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES CORP.
. . --., - .-..- .--- - ---. -- -.- - .
OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES CORP.
. _.-- - .. --.
OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES- IRVINE
. --. -.- --.
OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES-IRVINE
... -----. - ,....
OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES-IRVINE
OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES CORP.
OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES- IRVINE
SOUTHVIIEST DIVISION
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
SOUTHVIIEST DIVISION
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
SOUTIMEST DIVISION
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
SOUTHVIIEST DIVISION
SOUTHVIIEST DIVISION
SOUTHVIIEST DIVISION
SOUTHVIIEST DIVISION
5,6
5,8
5,8
5,6
5,8
5,6
5.6
5,8
-------
MARINE CORPS lOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR
OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION. January 6 7
ENTRIES
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT.DOC' SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN 3/31197 46 . 0010 SITE SPECIFIC HEAl TH AND SAFETY PlAN ADDENDUM FOR FIElD\WRK OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES. IRVINE SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6
PER THE IMPLEMENTATION MEMORANDUM FOR SOIL SMAPLING AND
SCREENING AT CAOC 21 OTD 3127197
MEMO 5/21/97 51 - 0284 DRAFT TECHNICAl MEMORANDUM A FOR CAOC 21 OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES CORP. SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6
CORRESPONDENCE 11/6/95 51.0285 PRelIMINARY DRAFT CONSTRUCTION PlAN FOR GROUNDWATER OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES- IRVINE SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5,6
EXTRACTION AND MONITORING WELLS. DATED NOVEMBER 1995
---.----.- --."
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 11126196 5.3 . 0079 RESPONSE TO EPA COMMENTS DRAFT GROUNDWATER MONITORING OHM REMEDIATION SERVICES. IRVINE SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5.6
PlAN. DATED NOVEMBER 20. 1996
2
JANUARY 7.1997
-------
Appendix B
Chemicals 01 Concern
-------
CT026O\870027\APPEND-B
CLE~02~1F2~B7~7
December 29,1997 1:47 PM
APPENDIX B
Chemicals of Concern
The MCLB Barstow analytical program addressed the following groups of chemicals.
.
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) volatile organic compounds
.
CLP semivolatile organic compounds
CLP organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls
.
.
CLP inorganics: 23 metals plus cyanide (plus 3 additional metals)
Fuel related (total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons [TRPH], TPH-cliesel,
TPH-gasoline)
.
.
Phenoxy acid herbicides
Carbamate pesticides
.
.
Organophosphorus pesticides
Groundwater parameters (N03, CI, 504, FI, ortho-P04, total dissolved solids
[TDS] , total Kjeldahl nitrogen [TKN] , methylene blue active substance [MBAS],
chemical oxygen demand [COD], alkalinity)
.
.
Radioactivity (gross a and b, gamma radioactivity, radium, and tritium)
The CLP SVOCs and CLP inorganics were analyzed for in near1y every sample. The
CLP VOCs were analyzed in most samples. focusing on samples where there was a
potential for volatile compounds to be found. The CLP pesticides and PCBs were
analyzed for in samples from areas where pesticides or PCB-containing materials were
used or disposed of.
The fuel-related analytes were evaluated in areas where fuels were used or disposed of.
The phenoxy acid herbicides, carbamate pesticides, and organophosphorus pesticides
were determined only in samples from areas where these compounds were used or
disposed of. The radioactivity analyses were performed only in samples from areas
known to have radioactive materials present. Hexavalent chromium was analyzed
where the speciation of total chromium was a concern.
B-1
-------
CT0260\870027\APPEND-B
CLE-JONI1 F260-B7-OO27
December 29.1997 1:47 PM
All analyses were performed using methods from the EPA (including CLP methods), the
California Department of Health SerVices (DHS), or from the Standard Methods for the
Examination of Waters and Wastes. The chemicals in each of the CLP methods are
attached.
The following tables list the specific chemicals that were analyzed for using CLP
methods (Table B-1) and modified.CLP methods (Table B-2). Those chemicals that
were analyzed for in specific samples are listed in Table B-3.
B-2
-------
CT0260\B70027\APPEND-B
ClE.J02-o1 F260-B7-
-------
CT026G'IB70027\APPEN[)..8
CLE~2-o1 F260-B7-OO27
December 29.1997 1:47 PM
(intentionally blank)
8-4
-------
CT026<1B7OO21\APPEND-B
CLE-J02-Q1 F260-B7.()027
December 29. 1997 1:47 PM
Table B-1 (continued)
Chemicals Analyzed for at MCLB Barstow via CLP Methods 1
SVOCs2 I CAS Number3
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7
2,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 108-60-1
2,4,5- Trichlorophenol 95-95-4
2,4,6- Trichlorophenol 88-06-2
2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2
2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9
2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2
2-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7
2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8
2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6
2-Methylphenol 95-48-7
2-Nitroaniline 88-74-4
2-Nitrophenol 88-75-5
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1
3-Nitroaniline 99-09-2
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 534-52-1
4-Bromophenyl-phenyl ether 101-55-3
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 59-50-7
4-Chloroaniline 106-47-8
4-Chlorophenyl-phenyl ether. 7005-72-3
4-Methylphenol 106-44-5
4-Nitroaniline 100-01-6
4-Nitrophenol 100-02-7
Acenaphthene 83-32-9
Acenaphthylene 208-96-8
Anthracene 120-12-7
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9
Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3
Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8
Benzo(b )fluoranthene ! 205-99-2
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene i 191-24-2
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane \ 111-91-1
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether I 111-44-4
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate I 117-81-7
Butyl benzyl phthalate 85-68-7
Carbazole 86-74-8
Chrysene 218-01-9
1.
2.
3.
CLP Method OLM01-2 (1/91)
The most current CLP Statement of Work (SOW)
Chemical Abstract Service
B-5
-------
CT026O\B70027\APPEND-B
CLE-J02.Q1 F260-B7 '()()27
December 29,1997 1:47 PM
(intentionally blank)
\
8-6
-------
CT0260\B70027\APPEND-B
CLE-J02-G1 F260-B7 -0027
December 29.1997 1:47 PM
Table B-1 (continued)
Chemicals Analyzed for at MCLB Barstow Via CLP Methods1
SVOCs2
CAS Number3
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
84-74-2
117-84-0
53-70-3
132-64-9
84-66-2
131-11-3
206-44-0
86-73-7
118-74-1
87-68-3 .
77-47-4
67-72-1
193-39-5
78-59-1
621-64-7
86-30-6
91-20-3
98-95-3
87-86-5
85-01-8
108-95-2
129-00-0
1.
2.
3.
CLP Method OlM01-2 (1/91)
The most current CLP Statement of WOfk (SOW)
Chemical Abstract ServIce
B-7
-------
CT0260\B70027\APPEND-e
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7.0027
December 29,1997 1:47 PM
(intentionally blank)
8-8
-------
CT026<11B70027\APPEND-B
CLE~2~1F2~B7~27
December 29. 1997 1 :47 PM
Table B-1 (continued)
Chemicals Analyzed for at MCLB Barstow via CLP Methods1
Pesticides! Aroclors2
CAS Number3
4,4'-00T
4,4'-000
4,4'-00E
Aldrin
alpha-SHC
alpha-Chlordane
Aroclor-1016
Aroclor-1221
Aroclor-1232
Aroclor-1242
Aroclor-1248
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
beta-SHC
delta-SHC
Oieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
gamma-SHC (Undane)
gamma-Chlordane
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxyclor
Toxaphene
Endosulfan sulfate
50-2-93
72-54-8
72-55-9
309-00-2
319-84-6
534944-70-5
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
319-85-7
319-86-8
60-57-1
959-98-8
33213-65-9
72-20-8
72-43-5
50-29-3
58-89-9
7421-36-3
76-44-8
1024-57-3
1031-07-8
8001-35-2
1031-07-08
1.
2.
3.
CLP Method OLM01-2 (1/91)
The most current CLP Statement of Wort< (SOW)
Chemical Abstract Service
S-9
-------
CT026C\B70027\APPEND-B
CLE-J02..()1 F260-B7 -0027
December 29.1997 1:47 PM
(intentionally blank)
8-10
-------
CT026a1B70027\APPEND-B
CLE-J02-Q1F2~B7-OO27
December 29. 1997 1:47 PM
Table B-1 (continued)
Chemicals Analyzed for at MCLB Barstow via CLP Methods 1
Metals2
CAS Number3
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
7429-90-5
7440-36-0
7440-38-21
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-73-9
7440-70-2
7440-47-3
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
57-12-5
7439-89-6
7439-92-1
7439-95-4
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7440-09-4
7782-49-2
7440-2204
7440-23-5
7440-28-0
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
1.
2.
3.
CLP Method ILM01-Q
. The most current CLP Statement o' Work (SOW)
Chemical Abstract Service
8-11
-------
CT026
-------
CT0260\B70027\APPEND-B
CLE",-,02'() 1 F260-B7-0027
December29,1997 1:47 PM
Table B-2
Chemicals Analyzed Under Non-cLP Methods at MCLB Barstow
Metals Analytical Method
Boron SW601 0
Molybdenum SW601 0
Strontium SW601 0
Petroleum Hvdrocarbons Analytical Method
Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons E418.1
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel DHS, LUFT (8015M)
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Gasoline DHS, LUFT (8015M)
B-13
-------
CT026C7\B70027\APPEND-B
CLE.J02-o1 F26D-B7-()()27
December 29.1997 1:47 PM
(intentionally blank)
8-14
-------
CT0260\870027\T ABA.3.XLS
CLE~2~1F~97~27
Table B.3
Chemicals Analyzed for In Specific Samples
Analyte An81ytlcal Method Analyte An81ytlcal Method Analyt8 An81ytlcal Method
Mel818 Org8noph08phoru8 Peaddde8 Cerb8m." .nd Urea PestIcIde.
Chromium VI SW 7196 Azlnphos Melhyl SW 8140 Barban EPA 632
Bolstar SW 8140 Carbaryl EPA 632
To181 Petroleum Hydrocarbons Chlorpyrifos SW 8140 Chlorpropham EPA 632
Coumaphos SW 8140 Dluron EPA 632
TRPH E 418.1 Demelon SW 8140 Feriuron EPA 632
TPH-Dlesel DHS, LUFT (SW8015M) Dlazlnon SW 8140 Fluometuron EPA 632
TPH-Gasoline DHS, LUFT (SW8015M) Dlchlorovos SW 8140 Unuron EPA 632
Disulfoton SW 8140 Methlocarb EPA 632
Semlvoletll.. Elhoprop SW 8140 Melhomyl EPA 632
Fensulfothlon SW 8140 Monuron EPA 632
Ethylene Glycol SW 8270 Fenthlon SW 8140 Neuburon EPA 632
Ethylene Glycol SW 8015 Merphos SW 8140 Oxamyl EPA 632
Mevtnphos SW 8140 Propham EPA 632
Chlorlneteel HerbIcIde. Naled SW 8140
Parathion, Methyl SW 8140 R8dlologlcal Survey
2,4,5-T 8150 Phorate SW 8140
2,4,5-TP (SiJvex) 8150 Ronnel SW 8140 Gross alpha SM 7110
OJ 2.4-D 8150 Stlrophos SW 8140 Gross beta SM 7110
I
~ 2,4-D9 8150 Tokuthlon SW 8140 Tritium EMSL-LV-0539-17, DOE HASL 300
(JI
Dalapon 8150 Trichloronale SW 8140 Lead-210 EMSL-LV-0539-17, DOE HASL 300
Dicamba 8150 Polonlum-210 EMSL-LV-0539-17, DOE HASL 300
Dichloroprop 8150 General Cheml.try (OW only) Aadlum-226
Dinoseb 8150
MCPA 8150 Alkalinity SM 23208145008
MCPP 8150 Chloride EPA 300
Fluoride EPA340.2
Tanks (CTO 177) Nitrate EPA 300
Nitrite EPA 300
Hydrazine ASTM 1385-88 Phosphale EPA 300
Ignitability SW 1010 Sulfate EPA 300
M8AS' EPA 425.1
TDS2 EPA 160.1
TKN3 EPA351.1
COD4 EPA410.1
pH
1. MeAS.
2. TDS .
3. TKN D
4. COD.
Methyt.... blu. .cliv. 8Ub.lanc.
10181 dl"olv.d BOlide
10181 Kj.ld8hl n"rogen
chemlc8l oxygen demend
-------
CT026C1\870027\APPEND-B
CLE.J02.()1 F260-B7 '()o27
December 29,1997 1:47 PM
(intentionally blank)
8-16
-------
APPENDIX C
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
-------
CT026C1870027\APPEND-C
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS'
Page
ABBREVIA TIONSI ACRONYMS................ [[[ C-iii
C1.0 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS.......C-1
C1.1 Summary of CERCLA and NCP Requirements................................... C-1
C1.2 Description of Methodology[[[ C-3
C1.3 General Issues ........................... ........ ....... ................................ .......... C-4
C2.0 CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS. ..... ...................................."... ........................ C-7
C2.1 Summary of Chemical-Specific ARAR Conclusions by Medium ......... C-7
C2.1.1 Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARAR Conclusions............... C-7
,-
C2.1.2 Soil Chemical-Specific ARAR Conclusions ............................. C-8
C2.1.3 Air Chemical-Specific ARAR Conclusions ............................... C-9
C2.2 Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARARs ............................................. C-9
C2.2.1 Federal Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARARs .................. C-10
C2.2.2 State Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARARs ...................... C-10
C2.3 Soil Chemical-Specific ARARs ............. ............................................. C-10
C2.3.1 Federal Soil Chemical-Specific ARARs ................................. C-11
C2.3.2 State Soil Chemical-Specific ARARs..................................... C-11
C2.4 Air Chemical-Specific ARARs[[[ C-11
C2.4.1 Federal Air Chemical-Specific ARARs................................... C-11
C2.4.2 State Air Chemical-Specific ARARs ...................................... C-12
C3.0 LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS ............................ ......................................... C-13
C3.1 Federal Location-Specific ARARs [[[ C-13
C3.1.1 Historical and Cultural Resources ......................................... C-14
C3.1.2 Special Status Species[[[ C-14
C3.2 State Location-Specific ARARs[[[ C-14
C4.0 ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS............................... ....................................... .... C-15
-------
CT026G\B7002"'M.PPEND-C
C5.0
CLE.J02001F260-B7..Q027
Print Date: . 29 December, 1997
C4.2
Groundwater 'Monitoring ................... .......................................... ....... C-16
C4.2.1 Federal Adion-Specific ARARs ............................................. C-16
C4.2.2 State Action-Specific ARARs ................................................. C-17
C4.3 Capping/Cover Requirements [[[ C-18
C4.3.1 Federal Requirements [[[ C-18
C4.3.2 State Requirements... [[[ ....,.. C-20
-------
CT026a1870027\APPEND-C
ARARs
CAA
CaUEPA
CAOC
CCR
CEQA
CERCLA
CFR
CWA
DTSC
EEiCA
EPA
FFA
FS
HSWA
MDAQMD
MCL
MCLB
MCLG
NAAQS
NCP
NEPA
OU
PCE
RCRA
ROD
SARA
SIP
SWDIV
SWRCB
TBC
TCE
USC
VOC
WQCP
J.1g1m3
ABBREVIA TIONSIACRONYMS
CLE~-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
Clean Air Act
Califomia Environmental Protection Agency
CERCLA area of concern
California Code of Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
Department of Toxic Substances Control
engineering evaluation/cost analysis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Facility Agreement
feasibility study
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
maximum contaminant level
Marine Corps Logistics Base
maximum contaminant level goal
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Contingency Plan
National Environmental Policy Act
operable unit
tetrachloroethene
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Record of Decision
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
state implementation plan
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command
State Water Resources Control Board
to be considered
trichloroethene
United States Code
volatile organic compound
water quality control plan
micrograms per cubic meter
C-iii
-------
CT0260\B70027\APPENO-C
ClE..J02-o1 F260-B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
(intentionally blank)
C-iv
-------
CT0260\S70027\APPEND.C
CLE.J02..()1 F2~87"()()27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
C1.0 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
Section C1.1 summarizes the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act
(CERCLA) and National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) requirements pertaining to applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs). In addition, a description of the methodology used in identifying and
evaluating ARARs and the general approach to the federal Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are provided. Section C2.0
addresses chemical-specific ARARs; Section C3.0 addresses location-specific ARARs.
Action-specific ARARs are discussed for the selected altemative in Section C4.0.
C1.1
Summary 01 CERCLA and NCP Requirements
Section 121(d) of CERCLA of 1980 states that remedial actions at CERCLA sites that
have hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants on site must attain (or the
decision document must justify the waiver of) any federal or more stringent state
environmental standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations that are determined to be
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate.
Applicable requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other
substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated
under federal or state law that specifically address the situation at a CERCLA site. The
requirement is applicable if the jurisdictional prerequisites of the standard show a direct
correspondence when objectively compared to conditions at the site. If the requirement
is not legally applicable, it is evaluated to determine whether it is relevant and
appropriate. Relevant and appropriate requirements are those cleanup standards,
standards of control, and other substantive environmental protection requirements,
criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal or state law, that, although not
applicable, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to the circumstances of the
proposed response action and are well-suited to the conditions of the site
(EPA 1988). The criteria for determining relevance and appropriateness are listed in
Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 3oo.400(g)(2) and include the
following:
C-1
-------
.
.
.
CT026<71B70021\APPEND-C
CLE-J02.o1 F260-B7.oo27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
.
Purpose of the requirement and the purpose of the CERCLA action
Medium regul~ted or affected by the requirement and the medium contaminated
or affected at the CERCLA site
.
.
Substances regulated by the requirement and the substances found at the
CERCLA site J
.
Variances, waivers, or exemptions of the requirement and their availability for the
circumstances at the CERCLA site
.
Type of place regulated and the type of place affected by the release or CERCLA
action
.
Type and size of structure or facility regulated and the type and size of structure
or facility affected by the release or contemplated by the CERCLA action
.
Consideration of use or potential use of affected resources in the requirement
and the use or potential use of the affected resource at the CERCLA site.
Tables included in this appendix present each ARAR with a determination of ARAR
status (i.e., applicable or relevant and appropriate). To determine relevance and
appropriateness, the pertinent criteria were examined to determine whether the
requirements addressed problems or situations sufficiently similar to the circumstances
of the release or remedial action contemplated, and whether the requirement was well-
suited to the site. A negative determination of relevance and appropriateness indicates
that the requirement did not meet the pertinent criteria. Negative determinations are
documented in the tables of this appendix are discussed in the text for specific cases
that are not necessarily agreed to by all parties to the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA).
To qualify as a state ARAR under CERCLA and NCP, a state requirement must be:
.
State law
.
Environmental or facility siting law
Promulgated (of general applicability and legally enforceable)
.
.
Substantive (not procedural or administrative)
More stringent than the federal requirement
Identified in a timely manner
Consistently applied.
C-2
-------
CT026<1\B70027\APPEND-C
CLE.J02..()1 F260-B7 "()o27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
To constitute an ARAR, a requirement must be substantive. Therefore, only substantive
provisions of requirements identi~ied as ARARs in this analysis shall be considered
ARARs. Section 121 (e)(1) of CERCLA states that "No Federal, State, or local permit
shall be required for the portion of any removal or remedial action conducted entirely on
site, where such remedial action is selected and carried out in compliance with this
section: Permits are considered procedural or administrative requirements. Provisions
of generally relevant federal and state statutes and regulations that were determined to
be procedural or nonenvironmental, including permit requirements, are not considered
ARARs.
Nonpromulgated advisories or guidance issued by federal or state government are not
legally binding and do not have the status of ARARs. Such requirements may, however,
be useful and are to be considered (TBC). TBC requirements complement ARARs but
do not override them. They are useful in guiding decisions regarding cleanup levels or
methodologies when regulatory standards are not available. Once a TBC requirement
has been identified in the Record of Decision (ROD), however, the performance of the
remedy must comply with it.
Pursuant to EPA guidance, ARARs are generally divided into three categories:
chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific requirements. These
classifications were developed to aid in identifying ARARs; some ARARs do not fall
precisely into one group or another.
C1.2 Description 01 Methodology
As the lead federal agency, the Marine Corps has identified the federal ARARs at the
Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB) Barstow for Operable Units (OUs) 5 and 6. In
addition, the Marines Corps identified state ARARs by reviewing the potential ARARs
submitted by the lead state agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency
(CaI/EPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Federal ARARs that have
been identified for CERCLA areas of concern (CAOCs) 7 and 35 are summarized in this
appendix. The complete ARARs evaluation is included in the feasibility study (FS) for
OUs 5 and 6.
C-3
-------
CT026O\B70027\APPEND-C
CLE.J02.()1 F260-B7.()Q27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
The Marine Corps undertook the following measures, consistent with CERCLA and the
NCP.
.
Identified federal ARARs for each remedial alternative addressed in the FS,
taking into account site-specific information for the OUs 3 and 4 remedial action
areas
.
Identified potential state ARARs consistent with the CERCLA and NCP criteria
that must be met in order to constitute state ARARs
.
Evaluated and compared federal ARARs and the state counterparts in order to
determine which state ARARs are more stringent or are in addition to the federal
ARARs
.
Reached a conclusion as to which federal and state ARARs were the most
stringent and/or .controlling. ARARs for each alternative.
C1.3 General.ssues
General Approach to Federal RCRA Requirements
RCRA is a federal statute passed in 1976 to meet three goals: protect human health
and the environment, reduce waste and conserve energy and natural resources, and
eliminate the generation of hazardous waste as expeditiously as possible. The
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 significantly expanded the
scope of RCRA by adding new corrective action requirements, land disposal restrictions,
and technical requirements. RCRA, as amended, contains several provisions that are
potential ARARs for CERCLA sites. Substantive RCRA requirements are applicable to
response actions on CERCLA sites if the waste is a RCRA hazardous waste, and either:
.
The waste was initially treated, stored, or disposed of after the effective date of
the particular RCRA requirement
The activity at the CERCLA site constitutes treatment, storage, or disposal, as
defined by RCRA (EPA 1988).
.
State regulations that are a component of a federally authorized or delegated state
program are generally considered federal requirements and potential federal ARARs for
the ARARs analysis (55 Federal Register 8742). The State of Califomia received
approval for its base RCRA hazardous waste management program on 23 July 1992 (57
Federal Register 8742). The State of California "Environmental Health Standards for the
C-4
-------
CT0260\B70027\APPEND-C
CLE-J02.Q1 F2ro-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
Management of Hazardous Waste" set forth in Division 4.5. Title 22, California Code of
Regulations (CCR) were approved by EPA as a component of the federally authorized
State of California RCRA program.
The regulations in Division 4.5, 22 CCR, are therefore, a source of potential federal
ARARs for CERCLA response action, except when a state regulation is "broader in
scope" than the corresponding federal RCRA regulation. In that case, such regulations
are not considered part of the federally authorized program or potential federal ARARs,
but purely state law requirements and potential state ARARs.
EPA's 23 July 1992 Federal Register notice approving the State of California RCRA
program specifically indicated that the state regulations addressed certain non-ACRA,
state-regulated hazardous wastes that fell outside the scope of federal RCRA
requirements. Division 4.5 requirements would be potential state ARARs for such non-
RCRA, state-regulated wastes.
A key threshold question for the ARARs analysis is whether the contaminants that will be
managed as part of the proposed remedial action constitute federal hazardous waste as
defined under RCRA and the State's authorized program, or if they qualify as non-RCRA
state-regulated hazardous waste.
In the case of CAOCs 7 and 35, the Marine Corps' position is that Title 22 CCR
requirements for closure of a landfill are not applicable because there is no
documentation of hazardous waste disposal in the landfills. Although records do not
indicate direct disposal of hazardous waste, it is possible that hazardous waste
constituents are pre~nt in the landfilled wastes. Therefore, Title 22 regulations are
considered potentially relevant and appropriate.
C-5
-------
CT026O\B70027\APPEN£H:
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
(intentionally blank)
C-6
-------
--
CT026C'1B70027\APPEND-C
CLE.J02..()1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
C2.0 CHEMICAL-SPECIAC ARARS
Chemical-specific ARARs are generally health- or risk-based numerical values or
methodologies applied to site-specific conditions that result in the establishment of
numerical values. Many potential ARARs associated with particular remedial
alternatives (such as closure/discharge) can be characterized as action-specific ARARs,
but include numerical values or methodologies to establish these numerical values. To
simplify the comparison of numerical values, action-specific ARARs with numerical
values are included in this section.
Federal and state chemical-specific ARARs are presented in Tables C-1 and C-2,
respectively. The conclusions for the ARAR determinations are presented in the
following sections, followed by a more detailed discussion of the ARARs assessment.
C2.1
Summary of Chemical-Specific ARAR Conclusions by Medium
Groundwater, soil, and air are the environmental media potentially affected by the
OUs 5 and 6 selected remedial actions. The conclusions for the ARARs pertaining to
these media are presented in the following sections.
C2.1.1
Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARAR Conclusions
Federal and state requirements for monitoring and leak detection were evaluated
to determine whether they were considered ARARs CAOC 7. Evaluation
indicates that past discharges have resulted in groundwater contamination with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the vicinity of
CAOC 35 (Jacobs 1996a). Groundwater remediation and monitoring ARARs,
such as concentration limits for cteanup of groundwater, will be identified for
CAOC 35 in OUs 1 and 2. federal and state groundwater detection monitoring
program requirements of Title 22 CCR 66264.98 and Title 27 CCR 20420 were
evaluated (Section C4.2). Because CAOC 7 does not pose a threat to
groundwater as discussed in the summary of site characteristics in Section 4.3,
these requirements were determined not to be ARARs. However, the selected
remedy for CAOC 7 includes monitoring that complies with both federal and state
C-7
-------
CTO~7~~PPEN~
CLE.J02-o1 F260-B7..()()27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
detection monitoring program requirements as if they were ARARs. The analysis
to determine whether Title 27 CCR, Division 2, Chapter 15 and State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCS) Resolutions Nos. 68-16 and 92-49 are
ARARs for setting concentration limits will be addressed in OUs 1 and 2.
However, the selected remedy for CAOC 7 includes monitoring and comparisons
to background water quality. Therefore, the State does not intend to dispute the
OUs 5 and 6 ROD.
The actions being evaluated for CAOCs 7 and 35 pertain only to containment of
the source areas of the landfill. The exposure pathways outside the landfill and
the long-term groundwater response actions are being addressed by the removal
action for OU 1 (Yermo Annex groundwater) and ultimately by the
OUs 1 and 2 final action. To provide a complete picture for OUs 5 and 6, a
summary of the groundwater ARARS that will be addressed under OU 1 is
provided here.
The substantive provisions of the following requirements were identified as the
most stringent of the potential federal and state groundwater ARARs for OUs 1
and 2 (Jacobs 1997):
.
Water quality control plan (WQCP) for the Lahontan region, 1975 (water
quality objectives, beneficial use, waste discharge limitations)
Federal maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for VOCs and nonzero
maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs)
.
.
State primary MCLs for VOCs in 22 CCR
RCRA groundwater protection standards in 22 CCR 66264.94(a)(1),
(a)(3), (c), (d), and (e).
.
C2.1.2
5011 Chemical-Specific ARAR Conclusions
No waste soil is expected to be generated at CAOCs 7 and 35. The waste will
be covered in place. No federal chemical-specific ARARs were identified for the
soil at CAOCs 7 and 35.
C-8
-------
CT0260\870021\APPEND-C
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Oate: 29 December. 1997
The State contends that Resolution 68-16 is an ARAR if a waste (soil
contamination) at a site is migrating to high quality groundwater. The State and
the Marine Corps disagree on this application of Resolution 68-16 as an ARAR.
The State does not intend to dispute the ROD because the Marine Corps has
conducted analysis that shows there will be compliance with Resolution 68-16.
Further details are provided in Sections C2.1.1 and C2.2.2.
C2.1.3
Air Chemical-Specific ARAR Conclusions
Grading and excavation activities for cap installation for CAOCs 7 and 35 may
create discharges of fugitive dust that must be managed in order to comply with
the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) rules. The
MDAQMD Rules 401, 402, and 403 are ARARs for the alternatives considered.
Any of these rules that have been incorporated into the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) by the EPA are federal ARARs. More specific information on these
requirements is provided in Section C4.0.
C2.2 Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARARs
The Phase I and Phase II groundwater investigations at the Vermo Annex indicated that
the groundwater downgradient of CAOC 35 is contaminated with VOCs. Background
information on the nature and extent of groundwater contamination is contained in
Section 2.0 of the au 1 engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EElCA) (Jacobs 1995).
Groundwater monitoring conducted near CAOC 7 detected tetrachloroethene (PCE) and
trichloroethene (TCE) at or below regulatory levels. An evaluation of the mobility of the
potential contaminants of concem at CAOCs 7 and 35 indicates a very low potential to
impact groundwater.
. The objectives of the selected alternatives for CAOCs 7 and 35 focus on
closure/containment and monitoring/leak detection. Groundwater contamination at
CAOC 35 is addressed in OU 1, including monitoring ARARs. Groundwater ARARs
identified in this section are discussed in t~rms of monitoring and leak detection.
Groundwater remediation ARARs will be fully addressed in OUs 1 and 2.
C-9
-------
CT026CNr10027\APPEND-C
CLE..J02-Q1 F26Q-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
C2.2.1
Federal Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARARs
No federal chemical-specific requirements were identified for leak detection
monitoring. Discussion of detection monitoring requirements are presented in
Section C4.2.1. ARARs for setting concentration limits are addressed in OUs 1
and 2.
C2.2.2
State Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARARs
Issues pertinent to identified state chemical-specific ARARs for groundwater are
discussed in this section. State chemical-specific ARARs are presented in
Table C-2.
Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan) contains
potential ARARs for protection of water quality, including water quality objectives
and beneficial uses. This ROD does not include those provisions of the Basin
Plan as ARARs because this ROD addresses dosures of land disposal units and
available information indicates that there is minimal or no remaining threat to
groundwater from those units. ARARs associated with the groundwater
remediation, including the Basin Plan, will be addressed in the ROD for OUs 1
and 2. If new information indicates otherwise, the Marine Corps, in consultation
with EP A and the State of Califomia, will propose further action and address the
need to identify ARARs at that time.
No state chemical-specific ARARs were identified for OUs 5 and 6. Discussion of
detection monitoring requirements are presented in Section C4.1.2.
C2.3 Soli Chemical-Specific ARARs
The nature and extent of soil conta",ination at CAOCs 7 and 35 are discussed in
Section 2.0 of the main text of the FS (Jacobs 1996b).
C-10
-------
CT026a\B70027\APPEND-C
CLE.J02~1F260-B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
C2.3.1
Federal Soli Chemical-Specific ARARs
RCRA
A hazardous waste determination is needed for any contaminated soil generated
from remedial actions prior to disposal, unless this soil is being consolidated
within the same CAOC. No waste soil is expected for the selected remedies for
CAOCs 7 and 35.
C2.3.2
State Soli Chemical-Specific ARARs
A determination is needed if contaminated soil generated from remedial action
activities is considered to be state-only non-RCRA hazardous wastes, unless this
soil is being consolidated within the same CAOC. No waste soil is expected for
the selected remedies for CAOCs 7 and 35.
The State contends that Resolution 68-16 is an ARAR if a waste (soil
contamination) at a site is migrating to high quality groundwater. The State and
the Marine Corps disagree on this application of Resolution 68-16 as an ARAA.
The State does not intend to dispute the ROD because the Marine Corps has
conducted analysis that shows there will be compliance with Resolution 68-16.
Further details are provided in Sections C2.1.1 and C2.2.2.
C2.4 Air Chemical-Specific ARARs
o
ARARs for air are discussed in more detail under action-specific requirements.
C2.4.1
Federal Air Chemical-Specific ARARs
Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CM) establishes the National Ambient Air Ouality Standards
(NMOS). NMOS are not enforceable in and of themselves, and are translated
into source-specific emission limitations by the State (EPA 1989a).
C-11
-------
CT026(1S70027\APPEND-C
CLE.J02-o1 F2~B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
Substantive requirements Df the MDAQMD rules that have been approved by the
EPA as part of the SIP under the CM are considered federal requirements for
air emissions (CM Section 110). MDAQMD rules that are induded in the SIP
and have been determined to be ARARs for the CAOCs 7 and 35 selected
remedial actions are as follows:
.
Rule 401 Visible Emissions
.
Rule 402 Nuisance
.
Rule 403 Fugitive Dust.
C2.4.2
State Air Chemical-Specific ARARs
Title 27 CCR 20921 requirements for landfill gas monitoring and controls were
evaluated as potential ARARs for landfill closure. Chemical-specific
requirements are as follows. Concentrations of methane gas must not exceed
1.25 percent of the volume in air within on-site structures. Concentrations of
methane gas migrating from the landfill must not exceed 5 percent by volume in
air at the facility property boundary or at an alternative boundary set in
accordance with Section 20925. Trace gases must be controlled to prevent
adverse acute and chronic exposure to toxic and/or carcinogenic compounds.
Section 20918 provides exemptions from all or part of these requirements if it can
be demonstrated that there are no potential impacts to public health and safety
and the environment based, but not limited to, the size, nature, and the age of
the refuse; projected gas generation; or remoteness of the facility. Because it has
been demonstrated that there is no potential for gas migration beyond the
property or into on-site structures, these requirements were determined not to be
ARARs.
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
No state ARARs from the MDAQMD rules have been identified at this time. The
MDAQMD rules identified as ARARs for the proposed remedial actions for
CAOCs 7 and 35 that have been approved by EPA in the SIP are considered
federal ARARs.
C-12
-------
.
.
.
CT0260\B70027\APPEND-C
CLE-J02.Q1 F260-B7.()()27
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
C3.0 LOCATION-SPECtRC ARARS
Location-specific ARARs are identified and discussed in the following sections. The
discussions are presented based upon various attributes of the site locations.
C3.1
Federal Location-Specific ARARa
Federal location-specific ARARs are summarized in Table C-3.
Pertinent and substantive provisions of the following potential ARARs were reviewed to
determine whether they were potential federal ARARs for CAOCs 7 and 35 proposed
remedial actions.
.
22 CCR 66264.18 (a), (b), and (c) (Hazardous Waste Control Act)
40 CFR Part 6, 6.302 and Appendix A (excfuding Sections 6[a](2], 6[a][4], and
6[a](6] (Executive Order 11988 Protection of Floodplains and Executive Order
11990 Protection of Wetlands)
.
.
16 United States Code (USC) 469a-1 (National Archaeological and Historical
Preservation Act)
16 USC 110 CF (National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106)
.
.
16 USC 106 1536(a) (Endangered Species Act of 1973)
40 CFR 230.10, 231, 231.1, 231.2, 231.7, and 231.8 (Clean Water Act [CWA]
Section 404)
.
.
50 CFR 35.1 et seq. (Wilderness Act)
50 CFR Part 27 (National Wildlife Refuge System)
.
.
16 USC 662 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)
16 USC 1271 et seq. and 7(a) (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act)
.
.
16 USC 307(c) and 1456(c); 15 CFR Part 930 and Section 723.45 (Coastal Zone
Management Act)
16 USC 3504 (Coastal Barrier Resource System)
16 USC 461-467 (Historic Site, Buildings, and Antiquities Act)
33 USC 403 (Rivers and Harbors Act of 1890)
C-13
-------
CT026C71B70027\APPEND-C
CLE-J02-Q1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
.
16 USC 703 (Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1972)
16 USC 1372(2) (Marine Mammal Protection Act)
.
.
16 USC 1801 et seq. (Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act).
Requirements determined to be ARARs are identified in Table C-3. Determinations of
status for location-specific ARARs were generally based upon consultation of maps or
lists included in the regulations or prepared by the administering agency. References to
the document or agency are provided under .Comments. and in footnotes to the table.
Specific issues conceming some of the requirements are discussed in the following
sections.
C3.1.1
Historical and Cultural Resources
Based on the scope of the selected remedial actions for CAOCs 7 and 35, no
buildings or landmarks are expected to be impacted. Therefore, historical and
cultural resources are not a concern for OUs 5 and 6.
C3.1.2
Special Status Species
CAOC 7 is adjacent to a robust creosote community that is home to a significant
population of desert tortoise. The remnants of a sparse creosote community at
CAOC 7 provide a habitat for a small community of desert tortoise and a diverse
population of herpetiles. Because the desert tortoise is an endangered species,
requirements pertaining to the protection of special-status species are ARARs as
listed in Table C-3.
C3.2 State location-Specific ARARs
State location-specific ARARs are presented in Table C-4. Currently, the only state
location-specific ARARs that have been identified for MCLB Barstow are those portions
of the Fish and Game Code that provide for the general protection and conservation of
fish and wildlife resources, the protection of endangered or rare species, and the
prevention of illegal take of birds and mammals.
C-14
-------
CT026O\B70Q27\APPEND-C
CLE-J02-o 1 F2~-0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
C4.0 ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS
Federal action-specific ARARs for the selected remedial actions for CAOCs 7 and 35 are
presented in Table C-5; state action-specific ARARs are presented in Table C-6. The
requirements that have been determined to be pertinent to the remedial alternatives
being evaluated are discussed in this section for each of the types of actions selected. A
discussion of how well each alternative satisfies the requirements that have been
determined to be ARARs can be found in Sections 4.0 and 6.0 of the FS (Jacobs
1996b).
C4.1
Land Use Restrictions
Amendment of the Base Master Plan to restrict future land use at CAOCs 7 and 35 is a
component of the selected alternatives. Federal and state requirements that pertain to
land use restrictions for landfills are described in the following sections.
C4.1.1
Federal
RCRA
22 CCR 66264.116 requires that after closure activities have been completed for
a hazardous waste land disposal unit, the owner must submit to the local land
use planning agency a survey plat indicating the location and dimensions of the
landfill cells or other hazardous waste disposal units with respect to permanently
surveyed vertical and horizontal benchmarks. The plat must contain a note that
states the owner's or operator's obligation to restrict disturbance of the
hazardous waste disposal unit under Title 22 requirements. This requirement is
relevant and appropriate for the institutional control actions for CAOCs 7 and 35.
C-15
-------
CT026O\B70Q27\APPEND-C
CLE.J02-Q1 F260-B7-0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
C4.1.2
State
Criteria for all Waste Management Units, Facilities, and Disposal Sites (27 CCR,
Division 2, Subdivision Chapter 3)
SUbchapter 5 sets forth detailed standards for closure and post-closure
maintenance, and 27 CCR 21190 addresses postclosure land use. It states that
construction improvements on completed sites must maintain the integrity of the
cover and any other containment and monitoring systems that are in place.
Detailed requirements are provided for on-site construction on the top of the final
landfill cover and within 1,000 feet of the waste holding area to mitigate the
potential effects of waste settlement. This requirement is applicable to
postclosure land use restrictions for CAOCs 7 and 35 as indicated in Table C-S.
C4.1.3
Conclusions
There is no overlap or conflict between the federal and state ARARs identified for
institutional controls.
C4.2
Groundwater Monitoring
CAOCs 7 and 35 do not pose a threat to groundwater as discussed in Sections 3.0
and 4.0 of the main text of this ROD. The contaminated groundwater at CAOC 35 is
addressed in OU 1.
C4.2.1
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
RCRA Groundwater Detection Monitoring Program
As discussed in Section C1.4, RCRA requirements under Title 22 are not
applicable requirements for CAOCs 7 and 35. Although the RCRA requirements
are not applicable, the RCRA leak detection requirements were evaluated to
determine whether they are relevant and appropriate because of the similarity of
contaminants at the sites to RCRA contaminants and the similarity between the
C-16
-------
CT026O\B7Q027\APPEND-C
CLE.J02~1 F2~B7~7
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
remedial altematives and RCRA actions. Title 22 ~66264.91 (a)(1) states that the
owner or operator shall institute a detection monitoring program. The detection
monitoring program requirements under ~66264.98(c) state that the owner or
operator shall establish a background value for each monitoring parameter and
for each constituent of concem. In determining whether statistically significant
evidence of a release exists, ~66264.98(i)(l) states that the methods at
~66264.97(e)(7) shall be used to compare data collected at the monitoring points
with the background water quality data.
C4.2.2
State Action-Specific ARARs
23 CCR, Division 3, Chapter 15, Sections 2550.8
The detection monitoring program requirements of Title 27 CCR Section 20420
are essentially identical to the detection monitoring program requirements of Title
22 CCR 66264.98 discussed in Section C2.2.1. CAOC 7 does not pose a threat
to groundwater as discussed in the Summary of Site Characteristics. Section 4.3
of this ROD. Detection monitoring is not required, consistent with closure
monitoring requirements at 2580(1) that state that monitoring is only required if
groundwater is threatened. Therefore. the requirements at 27 CCR 20420 are
not ARARs. Even if detection monitoring requirements were ARARs, the state
requirements at 20420 are not more stringent than federal requirements at Title
22, 66264.98. However, the selected remedy does include monitoring of the
groundwater at CAOC 7 that will comply with 27 CCR 20420 as if it were an
ARAR. The State does not agree with the Marine Corps position that Title 22
requirements can be potential federal ARARs, but because the ROD will include
monitoring requiren1ents in compliance with Title 27, the State does not intend to
dispute the ROD.
The federal and state leak detection monitoring requirements have been
determined not to be ARARs. However, the selected remedy for CAOC 7
includes monitoring that complies with the detection monitoring requirements of
both the federal and state detection monitoring requirements as if they were
ARARs. If the monitoring at CAOC 7 conducted during the implementation of the
C-17
-------
CT026CN370Q27\APPEND-C
CLE..J02-01 F26O-B7 "()()27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
selected remedy indicates that a corrective action may be required, any
appropriate further action will be proposed after consultation with EPA and the
state. Other requirements for already contaminated groundwater will be
addressed in OUs 1 and 2.
C4.3 Capping/Cover Requirements
Capping or covering the landfills is a component of the selected alternatives for
CAOCs 7 and 35. Federal and state requirements for landfill closure are the primary
source of ARARs for this action. The technical performance standards for landfill
closure are summarized in Table C-7.
C4.3.1
Federal Requirements
Federal requirements that are potential ARARs for capping/cover actions are
described in the fol/owing sections.
RCRA
CAOCs 7 and 35 would not be classified as a hazardous waste landfill because
there is no record of hazardous waste disposal. However, because some of the
wastes in these landfills may contain hazardous constituents, certain provisions
of RCRA are relevant and appropriate for landfill dosure.
The RCRA landfill closure requirements (22 CCR 66264.111, 66264.310) are
general performance standards that eliminate the need for further maintenance
and control; eliminate postclosure escape of hazardous wastes, hazardous
constituents, leachate, contaminated runoff, or hazardous waste decomposition
products; and cleanup to health-based standards.
The grading conducted for the capping/cover options does not constitute
placement or disposal under RCRA and therefore. the generator requirements for
hazardous waste determinations contained in 22 CCR 66262.10(a) and 66262.11
are not triggered.
C-18
-------
CT0260\B70027\APPEND-C
CLE-J02"()1F2~B7-OO27
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
Criteria for Municipal Waste Landfills, 40 CFR 258
Landfill closure requirements for municipal waste landfills are set forth in
40 CFR 258. Subpart F. Because CAOCs 7 and 35 did not receive wastes after
the effective date of these requirements (09 October 1991), they would not be
applicable. However, the substantive portions of these requirements would be
considered potentially relevant and appropriate because CAOCs 7 and 35
received domestic wastes from MCLB Barstow similar or identical to wastes
managed in municipal solid waste landfills.
Section 258.60 (a)(b) requires that the final cover system be designed to
minimize infiltration and erosion. It provides specific technical standards for
cover design (Table C-8), but allows for altemative cover designs if it is
demonstrated that they achieve the same level of performance.
Section 258.61 requires postclosure maintenance for 30 years unless it can be
demonstrated that a shorter or longer period of maintenance is required. If it can
be demonstrated that the site poses no threat to public health and safety or to the
environment, the postclosure maintenance period may be eliminated.
CM
Grading activities associated with placement of the cap and excavation of the
local soil area may generate fugitive dust, which needs to be controlled to comply
with MDAQMD requirements. The following MDAQMD rules that are in the SIP
are federal ARARs.
Rule 401 is the standard for visible emissions. Rule 401 states that a person
shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission any
air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than 3 minutes in a
6o-minute period, which is as dark or darker in shade as that designated NO.1
on the Ringelmann Chart (U.S. Bureau of Mines). or of such opacity as to
obscure an observer's view to a degree equal to or greater than smoke in the
Ringelmann Chart.
C-19
-------
CT0260\B70027\APPEND-C
CLE..J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
Rule 402 is the nuisance standard. Rule 402 states that a person shall not
discharge from any source such quantities of air contaminants or other material
that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number
of persons or to the public.
Rule 403 is the standard for fugitive dust. Rule 403 states that a person shall not
cause or allow emissions of fugitive dust from any transport, handling,
construction, or storage activity so that the presence of such dust remains visible
in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. It further
states that a person must take every reasonable precaution to minimize fugitive
dust emissions from grading, excavation, and solid waste disposal activities.
Particulate matter must not be allowed to exceed 100 micrograms per cubic
meter (J1g/m3) when detennined as a difference between upwind and downwind
samples collected on high volume samplers at the property line for a minimum of
5 hours. Exceptions to these limits are allowed when wind speed
instantaneously exceeds 40 kilometers (25 miles) per hour, or when average
wind speed is greater than 24 kilometers (15 miles) per hour.
C4.3.2
State Requirements
State requirements that are ARARs capping/cover actions are described in the
following sections.
Criteria for Landfills and Disposal Sites (27 CCR, Division 2, Subdivision, Chapter
3)
Subchapter 5 sets forth detailed standards for landfill closure. The substantive
portions of Subchapter 5 that are more stringent than federal ARARs are
applicable to CAOCs 7 and 35 because the landfill did not commence closure
prior to the effective date of the requirements (18 August 1989). Table C-6 lists
the specific sections of Subchapter 5 that have been identified as ARARs. The
technical requirements for landfill closure under 27 CCR are detailed in
Table C-7.
C-20
-------
CT026G\B70027\APPEND-C
CLE-J02-o1 F260-B7.Q027
Print Date: 29 December. 1997
MDAOMD Requirements
MDAOMD rules for emissions were identified in Section C2.4.1, and these rules
that have been approved by EPA in the SIP are federal ARARs. Therefore, no
state ARARs from the MDAQMD rules have been identified at this time.
Discharges of Waste to Land (27 CCR, Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 1,
Section 20080)
Section 21160(a), (c) and (d) sets forth closure and postclosure maintenance
requirements for waste management units, and requires that the unit be closed in
accordance with approved closure and postclosure plans. Section 20365(b)
provides for precipitation and drainage controls. Article 8 also requires that the
waste management unit provide two permanent surveyed monuments from
which the location and elevation of wastes, containment structures, and
monitoring facilities can be determined throughout the postclosure and
maintenance periods.
The substantive requirements of this section that are more stringent than federal
ARARs are state ARARs for closure of CAOCs 7 and 35; preparation of closure
and postclosure plans are procedural requirements and are not ARARs.
C4.3.3
Conclusions
A comparison of 40 CFR 258 and Title 22 federal requirements for landfill closure
to the state requirements in Title 14 and Title 27 indicates that certain portions of
the state requirements may be more stringent; therefore, a number of the state
requirements are controlling ARARs for this remedial action. However, certain of
the Title 22 federal requirements may be as stringent as, or more stringent than,
the state requirements. For example, the 22 CCR 66264.310(a)(1) requirement
that the final cover be designed to prevent infiltration for at least 100 years
appears to be more stringent than the counterpart state requirement. In these
cases, the federal ARARs are the controlling ARARs.
C-21
-------
CT026
-------
CT026
-------
CT026O'1B70027\APPEND-C
CLE-J0200 1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December, 1997
Western Division Naval. Facilities Engineering Command (WESTDIV). 1988. .Master
Plan, Marine Corps Logistics Base. Barstow, California." Contract No. N624-85-
C-5602.
C-24
-------
CT0260\B70027\TB '_56.DOC
CLE-J02-Q1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December 1997
TABLE C-1
Federal Chemical-Specific ARARs.
aus 5 and 6
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Requirement Prerequisite CIt8t1on .AAAR Comment8
Determination
Aesource Conservation and RecOVMV Act RCRA)~
Definition of RCRA hazardous waste; TCLP Waste generallon. 22 CCR 66261.21, Not ARARs Hazardous wasle determinations are needed only If
regulatory levels. 66261.22(a)( 1). waste Is being generated for slorage, treatment, or
66261.23, disposal. These actions are not planned for the CAOC 7
66261.24(a)(1), and or CAOC 35 altematlves.
66261.100
Groundwater protection standards: Uppermostaqulferundertylng 22 CCR 66264.94, Not ARARs These standards are not applicable because CAOCs 7
Owners/operators of RCRA trealment, a waste management unit except and 35 are not RCRA-regulated units. However,
storage, or disposal facilities must comply beyond the point of 66264.94(a)(2), and substantive provisions of these requirements are
with conditions In this section that are compliance; RCRA hazardous 94(b) evaluated In OU 1 and OU 2 for groundwater that a
designed to ensure that hazardous waste, treatment, storage, or significant detection has occurred to determine whether
constituents entering the groundwater from disposal. they are relevant and appropriate.
a regulated unit do not exceed the
concentration limits for contamlnanls of
concern set forth under Section 66264.94 In
the uppermost aquifer underlying the waste
management area beyond the point of
comDllance.
Clean Air Act lCM). 42 USC 7401 8t 88a.~
NMOS: prlmery and secondary standards Contamination of air affecting 40 CFR 50.4 . 50.12 Applicable for Emission of air pollutants covered by NMOS Is not
lor ambient elr quatity to protect public public health and welfare. actions suspected under current conditions. This regulation Is
health and wellare (Includ~~9 standards lor further evalualed under action-specific ARARs.
Darliculate matter and lead.
Provisions of SIP approved by EPA under Major sources of air pollutants. 42 USC 7410; Applicable for No emissions covered by the SIP are suspected under
Section 11001 CM. portions of 40 CFA actions current conditions. This regulation Is further evalualed
52.220 applicable to under action-specific ARAAs.
Air Ouality
Management District
-------
CT0260\B70027\TB1_56.DOC
CLE.J02-o1 F280-B7 '()()27
Print Date: 29 December 1997
TABLE C-1
Federal Chemical-Specific ARARs'
aus 5 and 6
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 2 of 2)
.Chemlcal-speclfic concantratlons used for feasibility study (FS) evaluation may not be AMRs Indicated In this table. but may be concentrations based upon other factors. Such
factors may include the lollowlng:
. Human heahh risk-based concentrations (risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals; 40 CFR 3OO.430(eftA)[1] and (2».
. Ecological rlsk-based concentrations (40 CFR 3OO.430{eftG».
. Practical quantitatlon limns of contaminants (40 CFR 3OO.430{e)[A)[3».
bStatutes and policies, and their cnatlons. are provided as headings to identify general categories of potential AMRs for the convenience 01 the reader. Usling the statutes and policies
does noIlndlcate that the Navy accepted the statutes or policies as potential AMRs. SpecIIIc potential AMRs ani addressed In the table below each general heading; onty substantive
requirements 01 the specific chatlons are considered potential AMRs.
ARAR.
CM
CCA
CFR
EPA
ApplIcable Of rMvanl and IIppropnele requIr8m8nU
CIftn ~r Ad
Celifoml8 Cod8 01 Regul8t1on8
Cod8 01 F8d8rel Revu181ion8
u.s. Envlronmenl8l Prot8Clion Agency
NMOS
RCRA
SIP
TClP
use
Netlon8l AmbIent ~r Quality SI8nd8rd8 (primaIy and HCOndary)
R8IouI'C8 Con88IvaIion end Recovery Ad
81818 ~"1Ion Plan
T oxlcily ch818Ct8ri811c8 I88cIq prOO8dure
Unh8d Stel.. Cod8
-------
CT0260\B70027\ TB2_56.DOC
ClE.J02-o1 F260-B7.oo27
Print Date; 29 December 1997
TABLE C-2
State Chemical-Specific ARARs8
OUs 5 and 6
MCLB Barstow, Callfomla
(Sheet 1 of 3)
Requlremenl Prerequisite. Cltellon ARAR Comments
Determlnallon
CaUEPA Deoarlmenl 0' ToxIc Sub.lance. Control DTScf
Definition 01 "non-RCRA hazardous waste'; Waste generalion. 22 CCR 66261.22(a)(3) and Not an ARAR Hazardous wasle determinations are needed
persis lent and bloaccumulatlve toxic substances (4), 66261.24(a)(2) to (a)(8), only as wastes generated are stored, trealed,
TTLCs and STlCs. 66261.101, 66261.3(a)(2)(C), or disposed 01. These actions are not planned
or 66261.3IaIl2I1FI lor the CAOC 7 or CAOC 35 alternatives.
California Intearaled Wa.ta Manaaemenl Board'
Requires thaI landfill gases are controlled during landfll ctosure and postclosure 14 CCR 17983 (a)(b)(d) Not an ARAR Based on current Information gathered during
periods of closure and postclosuru maintenance maintenance 27 CCR 20921 the AI, landfill gas Is not migrating beyond the
such that: 1) the concentration 01 methane gas does site boundary or Into on-site structures.
not exceed 1.25 percent of Ihe votume In air within
on-slle structures; 2) the concentration 01 methane
gas migrating lrom the landfill must not exceed 5
percent by volume In air at the lacility property
boundary or at an alternallve boundary In
accordance with Section 20925; and 3) trace gases
shall be controlled to prevent adverse acute and
chronic exposure to toxic and/or carcinogenic
compounds.
Period 01 control must continue lor 30 years or until
It can be demonslrated that there Is no potential lor
gas migration beyond the property boundary or Into
on-slle structures.
-------
CT0260\870027\ TB2_56.DOC
ClE.J02-o1 F260-B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December 1997
TABLE C-2
State Chemical-Specific ARARa8
aUa 5 and 6
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 2 of 3)
Requirement Prerequlslte8 Cltetlon ARAR Commanl8
Determlnltlon
Stlte Ind Realonll Wlter Qu.1I1Y Control BOird tRWQCB)b
Describes the water basins In Lahontan region. Water Quality Control Plan lor Not an ARAA Contaminated groundwater at CAOC 35 Is
Establishes beneficial use of ground and sur1ace the lahontan Region (Water being addressed In OU 1.
water; water quality objectives, Including narrative Code 13240), which became
and numerical standards; implementation plans to enective on
meet water quality Objectives and protect beneficial 31 March 1995.
use, Incorporating statewide water quality control
Dlans and DOlleles.
Incorporated Into an regional board basin plans. SWACB Appflcable This resolution provides the basis for drinking
Designates all ground and sur1ace weters of the Resolution No. 88-63 (sources water determinations In Califomla. Substantive
State as drinking water except where the TDS Is 0' drinking water policy) provisions are potential AAAAs. The
greater than 3,000 ppm, the well yield Is less than groundwater at MCLB Barstow has been
200 gpd from a single well, the water Is a identified as a source of drinking water.
geothermal resource or In a weter conveyance
lacUity, or the water cennot reasonably be treated for Contaminated groundwater at CAOC 35 Is
domestic use using either best management being addressed In OU 1.
practices or best economically achievable treatment
Dractlces.
Incorporated Into all regional board basin plans. SWRCB Not an ARAR Contaminated groundwater at CAOC 35 Is
Requires that quality of waters of the State that Is Resolution No. 68-16 being addressed In OU 1.
bener than needed to protect al benefldal use be (policy with respect to
maintained unless certain findings are made. maintaining high quality water
Discharges to hlgh-quality water must be treated In California) (Water Code
using best practicable treatment or control 13140, Clean Water Act
necessary to prevent poItutlon or nuisance and to regulallons
maintain the highest quality water. Requires 40 CFA 131.12)
cleanup to background water quality or to lowest
concentrations technically and economically faaslble
10 achieve. Beneficial use must. at 188st, be
protected.
-------
CT0260\B70027\TB2_56.DOC
CLE.J02.()1 F260-B7-()027
Print Date: 29 December 1997
TABLE C-2
State Chemical-Specific ARARs8
CUs 5 and 6
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 3 of 3)
Requirement Prerequisites Citation ARAR Comments
Determination
Establishes policies and procedures for the Discharge affecting water. SWRCS Resolullon 92-49 Not an ARAR The State contends that ResolU1lon 92-49 Is an
oversight 01 Investigations and cleanup and (policies and procedures for ARAR for Se"'ng concentrallon limits to
abatement activities resuttlng from discharges 0' investigation and cleanup and determine II a release has occurred. The State
waste that affect or threaten water quality. It abatement of discharges and Marine Corps disagree on this appllcallon
aU1horizes the regional boards to require cleanup of under Water Code Section of ResolU1lon 92-49 as a ARAR. The State
all wasle discharged and restore affected water to 13304) does not Intend to dlspU1e the ROD because
background conditions. Requires actions 'or the proposed actions essenllally comply with
cleanup and abatement to con'orm 10 ResoIU11on ResolU1lon 92-49. This requirement is
No. 68-16 and applicable provisions of 23 CCR addressed further for contaminated
Division 3. Chapter 15 (now 27 eCR Division 2. groundwater in OU 1 and
Subdivision 11. as 'easible. OU2.
'Chemlcal-speclflc concentrations used for remedial action altematlve evaluallon may nol be ARARs Indicated In this table. bU1 may be coocanlratlons based upon other factors.
Such lactors may InclUde the following:
8 Human health risk-based concentrations (Risk-based preliminary remediation goals) (40 CFR 3OO.430(e)(A)(1) and (2»).
. Ecological risk-based concentrallons (40 CFR 3OO.430(e)(G».
. Practical quantltatlon limits 01 contaminants (40 CFR 300.430(e)(A)(3».
bStatutes and policies. and their citations. 8re provided 8S headings 10 identify general categories of potenllal ARARs for the convenience of the reader. Listing the statutes and policies does not indicate
that the Navy accepts all the statU1es or policies as potential ARARs. Specific potenllal ARARs are addressed In the table below each general heading; only substantive requirements 01 specific citations
are considered potential ARARs. .
ARAR - AppIic8bl8 or r.lev.n. 8nd 8pproprl8l8 requiremen..,
C8I/EPA - Calffomi. Environmen.al PrOlec1lon Agency.
CCR . Calffom'- Code 01 Regulation..
CFR - Code 01 Federal R.allona.
CAOC - CERCLA Area 01 Concem.
DTSC - Departmen. 01 Toxic ~a~. Conlrol.
gpd - Gallon. par day.
MClB . Marina Corp. logl.1Iea Baaa.
ppm . Partl par million.
RCRA . Ra8OUr08 Con......1ion and R800V8ry Act.
ROD. Record 01 Decl.ion.
RWOCB . Califomla R-vional Wa'.r Queiii)' Control Board.
SMCL . Sacondary maximum con18mlnan'l8v8l.
STlC . Solubl. 1h...hoId Umn ooncan.ration.
SWRCB - SIal. Wa..r R.80U_, Con'rol Board.
TDS - T olal di.80Iv8d 8OIida.
TTlC - Total 1h...hoId Hmn concen...tion.
-------
CT0260\B70027\TB3_56.DOC
CLE.J02-Q1 F260-B7.oo27
Print Date: 29 December 1997
TABLE C-3
Federal Location-Specific. ARARs
OUs 5 and 6
MCLB Barstow, California
Location Requirement Prerequisite Clbltlon ARAR Comments
Determination
Endangered SpectH Act 0' 1en-
Critical habitat upon Action to conserve Determination 01 effect upon 16 USC 1536(a) Relevant and The Phase I Ecological Risk Assessment
which endangered endangered species or endangered or threatened Appropriate lor Identllied CAOC 7 as a possible risk to
species or threatened threatened species. species or Its habitat. CAOC 7. species 01 concem. Desert Tortoise
species depend Including consultation wllh mitigation measures will continue to be
the Department 01 the lonowed lor an site response actMtles.
Interior.
Not an ARAR lor CAOC 35 has not been determined to be
CAOC 35. a potentially critical habitat area.
Migratory Bird Truty Act of 1en-
Migratory bird area Protects almost all species Presence 0' mlgretory birds. 18 use 703 Applicable Migratory birds and nesting activities
01 native birds In the United have been documented on MCLB
States from unregulated Barstow, partlcular1y In the riparian edge
take. which can Include zone on the northem boundary 01 Nebo
poisoning at hazardous Main Base. Actions to be taken at Vermo
waste sites. Annex are not expected to Impact
migratory bird activities.
(Source: Bamen 1995. Personal
communication)
'Slatutes and policies and their citations are provided as headings to Identify general categories 01 potential ARARs lor the convenience 01 the reader.
Listing the statutes and policies does not Indicate thet the Navy accapts the entire statutes or policies as potential AAARs.
Specific potential ARARs are addressed In the table below each general heading; only substantive requirements 01 the speclflc citations are considered potential ARARs.
ARAR. . Applicable or relevanl end eppropriele requiremenl8.
CAOC . CERCLA Ar.. 01 ooncem.
CERClA . Comprehen.ive Environm...181 AI.pon.. Compen..lIon and liability Ad.
use - United 518188 Code.
-------
CT0260'8i7\ TB4_56.DOC
ClE.J02-
-------
CT0260\B70027\TB5_56.DOC
ClE-J02-Q1 F260.B7 -0027
Print Date: 29 December 1997
TABLE C-S
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
aus 5 and 6
MCLB Barstow, California
Actions: 1) Land use ,estrlctlons. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) ClpplnglCover.
Action Requirement Prerequisite. Citation ARAR Comment.
Determination
A RA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 42 USC 6901 et Hq..
Discharge to Groundwater protection standards: Uppermost aquifer underlying a waste 22 CCR Not an ARAR for selected
groundwater from Owners/operators of RCRA treatment, mana~ment unit beyond the point of 66264.94(~P J' (a)(3), remedial actions.
regulated unit stora~e, or disposal facilities must comp ance; RCRA hazardous waste, (c), (d), an e Minimization of dlschar~es to
comp y with concfrtions In this section treatment, storage, or disposal. groundwater from CAO s 7
that are designed to ensure that and 35 Is addressed by
hazardous constituents entering the selected remedial actions;
groundwater from a regulated unit do however, contaminated
not exceed the concentration limits for groundwater at CAOC 35 Is .
contaminants of concem set forth addressed In OU 1.
under Section 66264.94 In the ucrr-
most aquifer underlying the was e
mana~ement area beyond the point of
comp lance.
Discharge to Water Quality Mon;tori~rogram. Uppermost aquifer underlying a waste 22 CCR Sections Not an ARAR for the selected
groundwater from a Owners/operators of R A treatment, mana~ement unit beyond the point of 66264.93; 66264.94, remedial actions. The
regulated unit storage, and disposal facilities must comp lance; RCRA hazardous waste, 66264.95, groundwater monitOring
develop and Implement a water quality treatment, storage, or disposal. 66264.9~e), re~ulrements for corrective
monltOrlnPc pr~ram to monitor the 66264.1 act on programs under RCRA
potential or re eases from the facility is addressed in OU 1 and OU
or to demonstrate the effectiveness of 2.
a corrective action program (CAP).
.10.7
-------
CT0260~TB5_56.DOC
CLE.J02.Q1 F260-B7-d8'
Print Date: 29 December 1997
TABLE C-5
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
aus 5 and 6
MCLB Barstow, California
Actlonl: 1) Lend ule restrlctlonl. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequ'.'te. Citation ARAR Comment.
Determination
A RA
Discharge 10 Detection monitoring program 22 CCR Section Not an ARAR because it has
groundwater from a requirements. 66264.98 been demonstrated that
regulated unit CAOC 7 is not a threat to
(continued) groundwater, which Is
protective of human health
and the environment under
Title 22 CCR
66264.117(b)(2)(A). However,
the selected action for CAOC
7 Includes groundwater
monitoring that complies with
these requirements as if they
were ARARs.
Closure and post- General performance standard Land-based unit contalnln~ RCRA 22 CCR 66264.111 3 CAOCs 7 and 35 are not
closure requires elimination of the need for hazardous waste placed a er the except as It cross- classified as hazardous waste
further maintenance and control; effective date of the requirements. or references Erocedural landfills so this requirement
elimination of postclosure escape of placed Into another unit. Not aCPlicable requiremen s such as would not be applicable;
hazardous wastes. hazardous to material treated, stored, or d sposed preparation and however, because some of
constituents, leachate, contaminated of before the effective date of the submittal of closure the wastes In the landfill may
runoff, or hazardous was1e requirements, or if treated In situ or plans and other- contain hazardous
decomposltlo~roducts; and cleanup consolidated within the area of notiflcallons. constituents, It Is considered
to health-bas standards. contamination. to be potenllally relevant and
appropriate for landfill closure
under the capping
altematlves.
Post-closure care, Re~ulres monltorln~ and maintenance 22 CCR 66264.117 3 The substantive requirements
use of property, and for 0 years unless t Is demonstrated and 66264.118 of these provisions are
plan that human health and the environment relevant and a8proPriate for
are protected. There are also security, the closure of AOCs 7 and
and land use restriction requirements. 35.
Sheet 2 of 7
-------
CT0260\B70027\TB5_56.DOC
CLE.J02.Q1 F26O-B7 '()()27
Print Date: 29 December 1997
TABLE C-5
Federal Action-Specific ARARa
QUa 5 and 6
MCLB Barstow, California
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequisites Citation ARAR Comments
Determination
A RA
landfill Closure R:tulres that final cover must be LandflU containing RCRA hazardous 22 CCR 66264.310 3 CAOCs 7 and 35 are not
des gned and constructed to provide waste placed after the effective date of except as it cross- classified as hazardous waste
lon~-term minimization 01 migration 01 the re~ulrements, or placed Into another relerences r;ocedural landfills so this requirement
IIqu ds through the closed landfill; unit. ot ~Pllcable to material treated, requiremen such as would not be applicable;
lunctlon with minimum maintenance; stored, or Isposed 01 belore the preparation and however, because some 01
promote drainage and minimize effective date of the requirements. submittal of closure the wastes in the landfills may
erosion or abrasion of the cover: plans and other contain hazardous
accommodate settling and subsidence notifications. constituents, It Is considered
so that the cover's Integrity Is to be potentially relevant and
maintained; and have a permeability 8fcproPriate lor In-place landfill
less than or :Jual to the permeability c osure. Requirements are
01 any bottom Iner or the natural Identical to those lound In
subsoils present. Also requires 40 CFR 258.60 (see page 10
maintenance 01 cover, continued 01 this table).
operation 01 leachate collection and
groundwater monitoring st'tems, and
maintenance 01 surveyed enchmar1
-------
CT0260~TBS_S6.DOC
CLE.J02.{) 1 F260-87-od8"
Prinl Dale: 29 December 1997
TABLE C-5
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
aus 5 and 6
MCLB Barstow, California
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequisite. Citation ARAR Comments
Determination
A RA
Discharge to air Visible emissions standard that states Discharge of visible emissions. ~~ave AQMD Rule 3 Grading and excavation
(continued) a person shan not dlSCha~e Into the activities could produce visible
almosfchere from any Sl~ source of emissions due to fugitive
emlss on, anJc air contam nt for a dusts. MItigation measures,
g:.rtod or pe ods a~gaUng more such as wetting the soli or
n 3 minutes In a minute period, waste, may be required to
which Is: a) as dark or dar1ter In shade meet discharge requirements.
a8 that designated No.1 on the
Rlnglemann Chart, or b) of such
~actty a8 to obscure an observer's
ew to a degree equal to or ~reater
than does smoke descrtbed n a).
Nuisance standard that states a person Discharge to air. ~,ave AQMD Rule 3 Grading andexcavaUon
shall not dlSCharse from any 80urce activities cOUI~roduce
such quantities 0 air contaminants or fugitive dust. IlIgaUon
other material that cause Injury, measures, such as wetUn~ the
detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to soli or waste and limiting t e
an~ considerable number of persons or amount of waste exposed at
to e public. anyone time, may be
necessary to meet discharge
requirements.
Sheet 4 of 7
-------
CT0260\B70027\ TBS_S6.DOC
CLE .J02-ot F260-B7 -0027
Print Dale: 29 December 1997
TABLE C-S
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
CUs 5 and 6
MCLB Barstow, California
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequisites Citation ARAR Comment.
Determination
A RA
Discharge to air Fugitive dust standard states that a Discharge of fugJUve dust. ~ave AQMD Rule 3 Grading and excavation
(continued) person shall not cause or allow activities cour~roduce
emissions of f:mitive dust from any fugitive dust. itigatlon
transport, hand ng, construct/on, or measures, such as wettin~ the
storage activity so that the presence of so/lor waste, may be reQu red
such dust remains visible In the to meet discharge.
atmosphere beyond the prope~line of requirements.
the emission source. It further s tes
that a person must take every
reasonable precaution to minimize
fugitive dust emissions from ~radlng,
excavation and solid waste isposal
activities. Particulate matter m~st not
be allowed to exceed too l1~m when
determined as a difference elween
upwind and downwind samples
collected on high volume samplers at
the property line for a minimum of 5
hours. exceptions to these limits are
allowed when the wind speed
Instantaneousl~ exceeds 40 kilometers
(25 miles) per our, or when average
wind speed is greater than 24
kilometers (15 miles) per hour.
.-
5 of 7
-------
CT0260\B7t1TBS_S6.DOC
CLE.J02"()1F260-B7~~
Print Date: 29 December 1997
TABLE C-S
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
aus 5 and 6
MCLB Barstow, Callf~rnla
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwat.r monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequisites Citation ARAR Comments
Determination
A RA
Criteria for Municipal Solid Walt. Landfills, 40 CFR 2588
Landfill closure Sets forth requirements for closure and Applicable to municipal waste landfills 40 CFR 258, 3 CAOCs 7 and 35 did not
I:st-closure care of municipal waste that received waste after 9 October Subpart F Closure receive wastes after 9
andfilis. 1991. and postdosure Care ()c;tober 1991; therefore the
(258.60 and 258.61) requirements of 40 CFR 258
are not applicable. However,
the substantive portions of the
landfill closure requirements In
40 CFR 258.60 are relevant
and appropriate for CAOCs 7
and 35 because they received
domestic wastes from MCLB
Barstow that are similar or
Identical to wastes mana~ed
In municipal waste landfil s.
R:1ulres the final cover system to be Placement of final covers. Section 258.60 (a)(b) 3 Substantive requirements are
des ~ned to minimize Infiltration and relevant and appropriate to
eros on. Provides specific technical the cover designs.
standards for cover deSlrcn, but allows
for ahematlve cover des gns If It Is
demonstrated that they aChieve the
same level of performance.
Sheet 6 of 7
-------
CT0260\B70021\TB5_56.DOC
CLE.J02-01 F260-B7.oo27
Prinl Dale: 29 December 1997
TABLE C-5
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
QUs 5 and 6
MCLB Barstow, California
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequlshes Chatlon ARAR Comments
Determination
A RA
Landfill Closure Requires postclosure maintenance for Postclosure maintenance. Section 258.61 1 Substantive requirements are
(continued) 30 years unless It can be demonstrated relevant and appropriate for
that a shorter or W.er maintenance landfill closure. The selected
period Is required. It can be action assumes a minimum
demonstrated that the site poses no postclosure period of 30
threat to public health and safety or to years.
the environment. the postclosure
maintenance period may be
terminated.
.Statutes and policies. and their citations, are provided as headings to identify general categories of ARARs. SpecifIC ARARs are addressed in the table below each general
heading. Negative ARAR detenninations are included for requirements that the detennination Is not necessarily agreed to by all parties to the FFA.
A - Applicable.
AQMD - Air Quality Management District.
ARAR - Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement.
CAA - Clean Air Act.
CCR . California Code of Regulations.
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations.
CWA . Clean Water Act.
EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
FFA. Federal Facility Agreement.
NAAQS . National Ambient Air Quality Standards (primary and secondary).
RA . Relevant and appropriate.
RCRA . Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
SIP. State Implementation Plan.
USC . United States Code.
~glm3 . Micrograms per cubic meter.
87017
-------
CT026O\B70027\T ABC-6.DOC
CLE~2~1F2~B7~27
TABLE C-8
State Action-Specific ARARs
CUs 5 and 6
MCLB Barstow, California
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequisites Cltetlon ARAR Comments
Determlnetlon
A RA
Call1ornia Inteem I8d W..t. Man t Boerd"
landfill Closure Sets lorth the perfonnance standards Applicable to solid 27 CCR, DIvIsion 2, Not an ARAR In Itself but sets \he
and minimum requirements lor proper waste disposal sites Subdivision 1, Chapter scope and applicability 01 regulations
closure, postclosure maintenance, that did not co~ete 3. (Criteria For All discussed below. The substantive
and ultlmale reuse 01 disposal slles to closure prior to 8 Waste Management portions 01 this Article may be
assure tha:!rublic health and salely November 1990 or any Units, Facilities. and applicable to CAOCs 7 and 35
and the en ronment are protected. new postclosure Disposal Sites), because the landfills did not com~ete
activities \hat may Subchapter 5, Article 2, closure prior to 18 November 19 .
jeopardize the Inlegrily Section 21100.
01 previously closett
slles.
Emergency R:nse Plan. Potential 27 CCR Section 3 The substantive ~rtions of \his
emergency co itIons that may 21 13O(a), (b), and (c) requirement will addressed in the
exceed the desl~n 01 the slle and RDIRA plans.
could endanger he public health or
environment musl be anticlpaled.
Response procedures lor Ihese
condilions must be addressed In the
plan.
The final cover shalllunction with 27 CCR Section 3
minimum maintenance and provide 21140(a)
waste containment to protect public
health and safely bX controlll1at a
minimum, vectors, re, odor, I er,
and landfill gas migration. The final
cover shall also ba compatible with
poslclosure land use.
page 1 of 14
-------
CT026O\B70027\T ABC~.DOC
ClE.J02-01 F2~B7 -0027
TABLE C-6
State Action-Specific ARARI
OUs 5 and 6
MCLB 8arstow, California
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Coyer.
Action Requirement Prerequisite. Citation ARAR Comments
Determination
A RA
Pcmmn~~sure Specifies construction qua~ Placement of noal 27 CCR Section 3 Only substantive r:\ulrements
contnu
requirements to ensure that he covers. 20234(a~ (b);Jck (e), specified In this sect on that are more
placement 01 the final cover will be (I), (g), ( ). a I) strin~ent than lederal ARARs are
constructed In accordance with the appl cable to the placement of the
design specifications. final cover. Procedural requirements,
such as preparation of a construction
~uall~ assurance report are not
RA s lor the selected ahemative.
Final grades must be designed and 27 CCR Section 21142 3 Only the substantive requirements 01
maintained to reduce Ime:cts to these provisions that are more
health and salety and ta e into strin~ent than lederal ARARs are
consideration an~tclosure land appl cable lor the final remedy at
use. Flve-ye~ settlement m~ CAOCs 7 and 35.
will be requl~ If not required by
RWacS and are needed lor reasons
other than water quality protection.
The drelna~ and erosion control 27 CCR Section 21150 3 Only the substantive provisions 01
system sha I be designed and these requirements that are more
maintained to ensure Integrity 01 stri~nt than federal ARARs are
postclosure land uses, roads, and applicable lor the final covers at
structures; to prevent public contact CAOCs 7 and 35.
with waste and leachate; to ensure
Integrity of gas monitoring and control
systems; to prevent salety hazaros;
and to prevent exposure of waste.
Slopes not underlain ~ waste shall
be stabUlzed to preven soli erosion.
page 2 of 14
-------
CT0260\B70027\T ABc-a. DOC
CLE.J02.() 1 F260-B7'()()27
TABLE c-6
State Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 5 and 6
MClB Barstow, California
Actions: 1) land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequisites Citation ARAR Comments
Determination
A RA
Il£nnqm~ sure Implement and maintain landftll gas landfln closure and 27 CCR Section Not an ARAR. The RWacB has
control and prevent leachate contact postclosure 21160(a), (c), and (d) detennlned that retrofinlng w"h a
with the public or animals. Durtng the maintenance. leachate collection and removal
closurelpostclosure maintenance system Is not required for unhs
period, ensure that leachate collection constructed without leachate
and contrails done In a maMer which collection systems because CAOCs 7
prevents public contact and controls and 3S do not contain liquids or gases
vectors, nulsence and odors. In that are leaking from the weste
des~n, assure that the LCRS neither mana~ement un". Retroftnlng was
Inte eres with landfill gas control; nor found 0 be Infeasible. The selected
promotes landfill gas migration. remedy, which Includes a landftll final
cover, wiD croYide additional.
~rotection or water ~Ual%
valuation Indicates hat t e CAOC 7
and 35 landfills are not likely sources
for current or future leakage or Impact
to groundwater.
page 3 of 14
-------
CT0260\870027\T ABC-6.DOC
CLE~2~1F2~7~27
TABLE C-6
State Action-Specific ARARI
OUI 5 and 6
MCLB Barstow, California
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Clpplng/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequisites Citation ARAR Comments
Determination
A RA
LandflO Closure R~ulres that landfill gases are LandfOl closure and 27 CCR Section 20921 3 II has been demonstrated that there Is
(continued) con rolled during periods of closure postclosure no potential for gas migration beyond
and postc:losure maintenance such maintenance. ~rope~ or Into on-slle structures.
that: 1) the concentration of methane ion 21(bl allows diSCOntlnu::;p
~s does not exceed 1.25 percent of It: monitoring I It can demonstrat
e volume In air within on-site t there Is no potential for gas
structures; 2) the concentration of migration betond the ~roperty
methane gas migrating from the boUndary or nto on-s e structures.
landfill must not exceed 5 percent by Therefore. gas monitoring Is not
volume In air at the facility property required.
boundary or at an alternative
boundary In accordance with Section
20925; and 3) trace gases shall be
controlled to prevent adverse ecute
and chronic: exposure to toxic al'KUor
carc:lnogenlc: compounds.
Period of control must continue for 30
y.ears or until It can be demonstrated
hat there Is no potential for gas
migration betond tha property
boundarY or nto on.slte structures.
Requires postclosure rnaintenence for Postctosure 27 CCR Section 1,3 Substantive requirements for site
a period not less than 3O,J88rs rnalntenance. 2118O(a) security are applicable beCause they
Including site S8CUri1y a gas are more stringent than federal
monitoring and control system ARARs and do not allow a shorter
maintenance activities. postclosure period. Analysis 01
alternatives assumes a minimum
postClosure period of 30 years.
page 4 of 14
-------
CT0260\B70027\T ABC-6.DOC
CLE .J02-o1 F260-B7 '()()27
TABLE c-a
State Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 5 and 6
MCLB Bafstow, California
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequisites Citation ARAR Comments
Determination
A RA
landfill Closure Postclosure land use. Site closure 27 CCR Section 21190 1 To the extent these requirements are
(continued) design shall show one or more not more strtr8ent than federal
Proposed uses of the closed site or AAARa at 22 CR 66264.117 these
show development that Is compatible r~lrement8 do not apply.
with open space. Changes In Su stantlve provisions that provide
postclosure land use must be additional r:aulrements other than
approved by the ,:r;oprtate state federal AAA s are applicable.
a r to 1m ementatlon.
Stale Waler R88OU1'C88 Control Board (SWRCB) and RI alonel Wat., Quality Control Board (RWOCBr
Actions affecting Descrtbes the water beslns In the Water Quality Control Not an AAAR for the selected
. water quality In lahontan region. establishes Plan for the lahontan remedial actions. Groundwater
lahontan region beneficial use ot ground and surface Region contamination at CAOC 35 Is
waters. establishes water tality addressed In au 1.
objectives. Including narret e and
numertcal standards. establishes
Implementation plans to meet water
quallt objectives and protect
bene lal use. and Incorporates
statewide water quality control plans
and policies.
page 5 of 14
-------
CT0260\B70027\T ABC-6.DOC
CLE..J02~ 1 F260-B7 '()()27
TABLE c-e
State Action-Specific ARAR8
OUs 5 and 8
MCLB Barstow. California
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequisites Citation ARAR Comments
Determination
A RA
Discharges 10 Incorporated Into all ~I board SWRCB Resolution Not an ARAR lor CAOCs 7 and 35
high-qualily basin plans. Requires hat quality 01 No. 68-16 (policy whh proposed ahematlves. Groundwater
waler waler ollhe Siale lhat Is bener lhan r8S~ to malnlalnln~ contamlnallon al CAOC 35 Is
needed ~rolect aU beneficial use be hlg quality 01 water n addressed In OU 1.
malntal unless certain findings are Califomla) (Water Code
'made. Dlschar?: to high-quaHty 13140. CWA
water must be reated using best r~latlons 40 CFR
practicable traatment or control 1 1.12)
necessary to prevenll:lutlon or
nuisance and 10 main In the highest
quality waler. Requires cleanup to
background water qua~ or to Iowesl
concentrations lechnlca and
economically leaslble to achieve.
Beneficial use must, at least. be
protected.
.
Cleanup and EstabHshes policies and proceduras SWRCB Resolution No. The Martne Corps has delermlned
abatement 01 lor the oversight 01 Investigations and 9~oIicles and that SWRCB Resolution 92-49 does
wasles lhal cleanup and abalemenl aclivitles P res lor not consthute an ARAR lor CAOC 35
anect or resulting lrom the discharges 01 waste Investigation and because lis pertinent requirements
threaten water that affect or threaten water quality. Cleanup and are not more strtngent than the ARAR
quality Requires cleanup of all waste Abatement of ~ovlsions of
discharged and restoration of affected Discharges Under tie 22. Section 66264.94.
water to background condhlons. Water Code 13304) See Section C2.1.1 for further
Requires actions for cleanup and discussion.
abatement to conform to Resolution
No. 68-16 and applicable provisions The State contends that Resolution
of 92-49 Is an ARAR for closure of
23 CCR, DIvision 3, Chapter 15. as landlill waste. The State and Martne
feasible. Corps dlsawee on Ihis ~C8lion of
Resolution 2-49 as an R. See
Seclions C2.1.1 and C4.2.3 for further
discussion ollhls Issue.
page 6 of 14
-------
CT0260\B70027\T ABC~,DOC
CLE~"()1F260-B7'()()27
TABLE c-&
State Action-Specific ARAR.
ou. 5 and 6
MCLB Bar.tow, California
Action.: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequisites Citation ARAR Comments
Determination
A RA
DISCharrce of Implements the Slate Waler Board's SWRCB Resolution 93- The Stale asserts that SWRCB
wastes 0 land regulation goveml~ the discha~e of 62 (Policy for Resolution No. ~2 contains
waste to tand 123 C R Section 10 Regulations of substantive requirements that apply to
et SBq., 'Char.::,15"), and DisCharges of Municipal the discharger, as well as Ihe Boards.
Implements I water J:11Iy Solid Waste) Even if It were found to apply only to
relaled portions of lhe f era! the Boards, It would slill be relevanl
regulations ~vemlng the dlscha~e and approprlale for the discharger.
of munlclpa solid waste (MSW) a
landfills (40 CFR 258, "Federal MSW The Marine Corps notes lhatlhls
regulallons") that are not addressed resolullon rrrlmarily conslsls of
by Chapler 15. The Federal MSW SWRCB d rectlon 10 the RWQCB
regulallons apply to all landfills that addressing the scheduling 01 t:ased
receive waste on or alter 9 October Implementation of an Int:mrat 01
1991. new lederal RCRA Subt e D solid
waste dl~S8I re9.ulatlons with the
State 01 aillomias Title 23 CCR
Cha~ter 15 requirements lor new and
exls Ing landfills and does not Include
additional promulgated requirements.
The Marine Corps, therefore, asserts
lhat SWRCB Resolution 93~2 does
not conslitute ao ARAR.
In addillon, the Marine Corps not8S
that requirements at Title 23, Chapter
15 and 40 CFR 258 are ARARs
Identified In other portions 01 this table
and Table C-S.
page 7 of 14
-------
CT0260\B70027\T ABC~,DOC
CLE.J02.o1 F260-B7 '()()27
TABLE c.e
State Action-Specific ARAR.
au. 5 Ind 8
MCLB Blr.tow, Callfornll
Actions: 1) Land use restriction.. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequisites Cltltlon ARAR Comment.
Determination
A RA
DischarHe of Scope of SWRCB general 27 CCR, Division 2, ARAR determinations The tPtlcatlon of =flc sections of
wastes 0 land requirements. Water quality as~ects SWdlvislon 1, Chapter made lor Subsections 27 C Division 2 ubdlvlslon 1 that
(conllnued) of waste discharge 10 land regu lions 1, Article 1, Section as listed below are ARARs are discussed below.
specified below. 20080 Requlre:,ents that are not AMRs are
listed on for comPleleness.
Actions taken by or allhe direction 01 Waste management 27 CCR Section 20090 3 The selected ram~ Is 10 contain
public agencies 10 deanup or abale unit. waste atlhe place 0 release for
conditions of pollution or nuisance closure of a landfill. 27 CCR Division
resuhing from unlnlentlonal or 2 Subdivision 1 requirements will be
unauthorized releases 01 waste or a~"ed to the exlenl feasible as
pollution 10 the environment are d scussed below.
exemg from the ~OVlsionS of 27
CCR Ivlslon 2 ubdlvlslon 1
r,rovlded that ramadal ac1lons
nlended 10 conlaln the waste allhe
place of release shalt I~emenl
applicable provisions to he eXlent
feasible. .
Waste mana~menl units which 27 CCR Section 3 Only monltorl~ under Anlcle 1,
closed, aben ned or Inactive (CAI 20080(g) Subchapter 3 hapter 3 Subdivision 1
unilSI. on lhe effecllve date of lhese Division 2 27 CCR may be required al
requ remenls (27 November 1984) CAOC 7 because It Is a CAI unll.
may be required to develop and Therefore, under Ihe 20090(d)
Implemenl a monitoring fr~ram In exeWf:lon, the requirements under 27
accordance with Article, ubchapter CCR IvIsion 2 Subdivision 1
3, C~ler 3, Subdivision 1, Division (Subdivision 1) are not potentially
2, 27 CR. applicable requirements for other than
monitoring at CAOC 7. Other
Subdivision 1 requirements were
evaluated lor determining whether
lhebeere relevant and a~roprlate for
CA 7 below. CAOC 3 Is not
considered CAI unit and Subdivision 1
requirements were evaluated lor
determinl~hether they are
applicable low.
page 8 of 14
-------
CT0260\B70027\T ABC-6.DOC
CLE.J02-o 1 F260-B7.oo27
TABLE c-a
State Action-Specific ARARa
aUa 5 and 6
MCLB Barstow. Callfomla
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequisite. Citation ARAR Comments
Determination
A RA
Discharge 01 Allows lor ahematlves to construction Waste management 27 CCR Section 3Kor 3Kor Based on evaluation In the FS, the
wastes to land o~eSCriPtive standards contained In unh. 20080(b) and (c) C 00 35) C 007) Na~s determined that the
(continued) S ivlsion 1 II !he standard Is met 01 waste containment
determined not to be leaslble and C~ In !he final remedies lor
there Is a :ft8C1IIc engineered u ed wastes at CAOCs 7 and 35 are
ahernatlve hat Is consistent wt1h !he equivalent to an engineered
performance goal addressed by !he ahernatlve under Subdivision t. A
prescriptive performance or standard description and basis lor the
and it affords equivalent protection engineered ahematlves 01 the
against water quality Impairment. methods are given In Sections 3.6 and
4.6. The engineered ahematlves meet
the performance standards as set
lorth bv Subdivision t.
Crtterta lor hydraulic conductivity ;or 27 CCR 20320(c) and 3 3 Substanllve portions 01 !hIs
soils used In containment structures. (d) requirement are applicable lor CAOC
35 and relevant and ~rlatelor
CAOC 7 for the design 01 e final
cover because they are more
stringent than lederal ARAAs.
Requirements lor liners lor Class IJ 27 CCR Section 20330 CAOC 7 and CAOC 35 were
and Class III waste management constructed without clay liners. The
units. RWQCB has determined that
retrofitting with e liner system and
leachate collection and removal
systems Is not required because
CAOCs 7 and 35 are not operating
landfills and do not contain liquids or
gases that are leaking Irom the waste
management unit. Aetrofi"'~ was
81so lound to be Inleaslble. e
selected remedy, which includes a
landfill flnaf cover, will provide
additional protection lor wat~uallty.
Evaluation Indicates that CA s 7
and 35 landfills are not likely
si~illcant current or future sources 01
el er leachate or Impacts to water
I Qualltv.
II
page 9 of 14
-------
CT0260\B70027\T ABC-6.DOC
CLE.J02~1 F26().B7~27
TABLE c-6
State Action-Specific ARARs
CUs 5 end 6
MCLB B8rstow, C811fornla
Actions: 1) L8nd use restrictions. 2) Groundw8ter monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequisites Clt8tlon ARAR Comments
Determln8tlon
A RA
Discharges 01 Precipitation on landfills or waste 27 CCR Section CAOC 7 and CAOC 35 were
waste to land plies that Is not diverted by covers or 20365(b) constructed without leachate
(continued) drainage control systems shall be collection systems. The RWacB has
coAected and managed through the determined that retrofitting with a liner
leachate collection and removal system and leachate collection and
system. removal ~tems Is not required
because AOCs 7 and 35 do not
contain liquids or gases that are
leakl"a lrom the waste management
unit. etrolitllng was also found to be
Infeasible. The selected remedy,
which Includes a landfill final cover,
will provide additional f:tectlon for
water quality. Evaluat Indicates
that CAOCs 7 and 35 landfills are not
likely significant current or future
sources of either leachate or Impacts
to water quaHty.
page 10 of 14
-------
CT0260\870027\T ABC-6.DOC
CLE.J02-o1 F26O-B7 -0027
TABLE c-e
State Action-Specific ARARs
aus 5 Ind 6
MCLB Blrstow, Cln'omll
Actions: 1) Lind use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Clpplng/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequisites Cltetlon ARAR Comments
Determination
A RA
Discharges of Monitoring requirements for waste 27 CCR Sections Not an ARAR for this =.rable unit.
waste management units; estabUshes water =aJ.20385(a)(1), Groundwater ARARs 0 r than
quality ~rotectlon standards for 20400 d . (e). (f) detection monitoring ARARs will be
correct ve action including addressed In OU 1 and OU 2.
concentration limits for constituents of
concem at back~OUnd levels unless
Infeeslble to act! ve. Cleanur levels
greater than background mus meet
all af\:C8ble water quality standards.
must the lowest levels
technologically or economically
feasible. must consider exposure vta
other media. and must consider
combined toxicological eHects of
poIlulants. A detecllon monitoring
p";Prram must be maintained except
du ng any periods when 8n agency.
approved corrective aellon program Is
underwav.
Water Quality MOnhorln~ P~rem. 27 CCR Sections Not ARARs for this operable unit.
Owners or operators of acilit es that 20395, 20400, 20405, These and other groundwater
treat. store. or dispose of weste at 20415(e).2043O requirements other than detection
waste management units must monlt~ r~'rements will be
Implement a water ~uallty monitoring addre In U 1 and OU 2.
program to monitor he potenllal for
releases from the unit or to
demonstrate the eHectlveness of a
corrective action program.
Detection monitoring program 27 CCR Section 20420 Not an ARAR because there has bean
requirements. no statistically significant detection 01
contaminallon at CAOC 7 and the site
Is not a IIke~ threat to e:,oundwater
under Tille 7 CCR 29 (a).
However. the selected aelion for
CAOC 7 Includes groundwater
monitoring that complies with these
requirements as " they were ARARs.
page 11 of 14
-------
CT0260\B70027\TABC-6.DOC
CLE.J02~1 F260-B7 '()()27
TABLE c-6
State Action-Specific ARARs
aus 5 and 6
MCLB 8ar.tow, California
Actions: 1) Land us. restriction.. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequisites Citation ARAR Comments
Determination
A RA
Discharges of Surface Water Monitoring Systems. 27 CCR Section There are no surface water bodies
wastes Requirement that a discharger 20415(c) that could be Impacted b~a release
(continued) establish a surface water monlto::e from CAOCs 7 and 35. erefore,
system to monitor each surface wa er this r:lulrementls not a potential
body that could be affected by a ARAR or OUs 516 remedial actions.
release from a waste management
unit.
Closure and Requires that new and existing Closure and postclosure 27 CCR Section 20950 a 3 Substantive requirements of this
postclosure classified waste management units maintenance section that are more strin~entthan
be closed In accordance with an federal ARARs are a~"ce Ie for
al:'0ved closure and postclosure CAOC 35 and relevan and
p an that provides for continued appropriate for CAOC 7 for closure.
compliance with the applicable
standards for waste contaminant and
precipitation and drainage controls In
Article 4, Subchapter 2, Chapter 3,
Subdivision 1, and the monltOri~
~rogram requirements In Article,
ubchapter 2, Chapter 3, Subdivision
1. The post-closure period shan
eX1end as long as wastes pose a
threat to water quality. R~lres that
the waste management u be
provided with two permanent
surveyed monuments from which the
location and elevation of wastes,
containment structures, and
monitoring facilities can be
determined throughout the
postclosure and maintenance
periods.
page 12 of 14
-------
CT026O\B70027\T ABC-6.DOC
CLE.J02.{) 1 F260-B7 '()()27
TABLE C-8
State Action-Specific ARARs
au. 5 and 6
MCLB Barstow, California
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequl81tel Citation ARAR Comments
Determination
A RA
Closure and Establishes final cover requirements, Closure and postctosure 27 CCR Section 3 3 Substantive provisions of these
~slc'osure Including cover thickness and maintenance. 21090(a) and (b) requirements that are more strtngent
continUed) hydraulic conductivity, grading, and than federal ARARs and are
postctosure requirements to maintain applicable for CAOC 35 and relevant
structural Integrity and effectiveness and approprtate for CAOC 7 for
of an containment structures. placementoffinalcove~
Closure and postclosure care 27 CCR Sec1lon 21769 3 3 Only the substantive provisions of
malnlenance plan requirements. Ihese requlremenls lhal are more
slrt=nt than federal ARARs are
appl ble for CAOC 35 and relevant
and app~rtate for CAOC 7 for
closure. s section outlines the
requIrements for the closure and
~slclosure maintenance plans.
reparation of closure and
poslclosure plans are procedural
requirements and are not potential
ARARs. However, Ihe design
documenls will document how the
substantive requirements that are
more strl::penl lhan federal ARARs
will be me .
Siormwaler Prior 10 closure. InaC1lve waste SWRCB Order No, Current stormwater dlSCha~es from
Runoff Conlrols mana~ement units must coml>tv with 91-13-DWQ, as the landfill areas al MCLD rslow
the su stantlve requirements for amended ~ Order No. are addreSSed by the base's
eliminating most non-storm water 92-12.DW (General Stormwaler Pollution Prevention
discharges. developing and Industrial Storm Water Pr~m Plan (daled
implementln~ a slormwater ponutlon Permit) 16 ptember 1994).
prevenllon p an, and monitoring the
stormwater discharges.
page 13 of 14
-------
CT026O\B70027\T ABC-e.DOC
CLE.J02001 F260-87.0027
TABLE C-6
State Action-Specific ARARe
. aUs5andl
MCLB Barstow, California
Actions: 1) Land use restrlctlone. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover.
Action Requirement Prerequisites Citation ARAR Comments
Determination
A RA
Waste manaRement units that are SWRCB Order No. The substantive requirements 01 the
going throug final closure with five 92.()8.DWQ (General stormwater poUutlon prevention
acres of disturbance or more must Construction Adlvl~ p~m outlined In the ~neral permit
comply with the substantive Storm Water Perm ) will Incorporated Into he remedial
requirements for eliminating most design documents and Implemented
non-stormwater discharges, during the remedial action. A
developing and Implemenll~ a separate stonnwater pollution
stormwaler pollution £revent n plan, prevention plan wi. 001 be prepared.
and performing mon ortng 01
slormwaler discharges.
.Statutes and policies, and their citations, are provided as headings to identify general categories of ARARs for the convenience of the reader.
Listing the statutes and policies does not indicate that the Navy accepts the entire statutes or policies as ARARs. Negative determinations are presented for
requirements that are not necessarily agreed to by all parties to the FFA.
Specific ARARs are addressed In the table below each general heading; only substantive requirements of the specific actions are considered ARARs.
A . Applicable. RA. Relevant and appropriate.
ARAA . Applicable or relevant and approprlale requirement. RDIRA - Remedial Design/Remedial Action.
CCR - California Code of Regulations. RWacB . California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
CEQA . Califomia Environmental Quality Act. lahontan Region.
CERCLA . Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and liability Act. SARA. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act.
CWA - Clean Water Act. SWRCB . Califomla State Water Resources Control Board.
FFA - Federal Facility Agreement. WDR - Waste discharge requirements.
GCl . Geosynthetic Cla~layer. .
HDPE - High-density ~ ethylene.
MSW - Municipal Solid aste.
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act.
NPDES . National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
page 14 of 14
-------
CT026O'1B70027\TB7 _56. DOC
CLE.J02~1 F26(H37-0027
Print Date: 29 December 1997
TABLE C-7
Technical Requirements for Landfill Closure
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Closure ActIvity Technical Requirements Citation. Comments
Final cover Minimum 2 feet of appropriate materials as foundation 27 CCR 2109O(a)(1)
layer, which may be soil, contaminated soli, incinerator
ash, or other waste materials, provided that they have
the appropriate engineering properties to be used for a
foundation layer. The foundation layer must be
compacted to the maximum density obtainable at the
optimum moisture content in accordance with accepted
civil e:3ineering practice. lesser thicknesses may be
allow if the regional board finds that differential
settlement of the waste and ultimate land use will not
affect the structural Integrity of the cover.
Not less than 1 foot of soil containing no waste or 27 CCR 21 090(a)(2)
leachate shan be placed on top of the foundation la~r
and compacted to attain a permeability of either 1x10.
cm/s or less, or equal to the permeabi:h o. the
under1ying natural geologic materials. Ichever Is less.
Not less than 1 foot of soil containing no waste or 27 CCR 21090(a)(3)
leachate shall be placed on top of the material
described in Section 21090(a)(2) (see above). The
rooting depth of any vegetation planted on the cover
shall not exceed the depth to the material described in
Section 21090(a)(2).
Cover shall be designed and constructed to function 23 CCR 2581 (a)(4)
with the minimum maintenance possible.
Closed landfills must be graded and maintained to 27 CCR 21180(a)
prevent ponding and must provide slopes of at least 3
percent. lesser slopes may be allowed if an effective
system Is provided for diverting surface drainage from
covered wastes. Areas with slopes greater than 10 22 CCR 66264.310 (a)(1)
percent, surface drainage courses, and areas subject to
erosion by water shall be protected or designed and 22 CCR 66264.310 (a)(5)
constructed to prevent such erosion.
Final cover must be designed and constructed to
prevent downward entry of water into the closed landfill
throughout a period of at least 100 years.
Accommodate lateral and vertical shear forces
generated by maximum credible earthquake so that the
integrity of the cover is maintained.
-------
CT026O\B70027\TB7 _56. DOC
CLE.J02.o1 F260-B7.()()27
PItnt Date: 29 December 1997
TABLE C-7
Technical Requirements for Landfill Closure
(Sheet 2 of 2)
Clo8ure Activity Technical Requirements Citation. Comments
Postclosure Landfill must be maintained and monitored for a period 27 CCR 21180(a)
maintenance of not less than 30 years after completion of closure.
The postclosure maintenance period can be tennlnated
at the end of 30 years if it can be demonstrated that the
site poses no threat to public heahh and safety or the
environment.
Maintain strudural integrity and ,ffectiveness of all 22 CCR 86264.310(b)(1)
containment structures, and maintain final cover as
necessary to correct the effects of settlement or other
adverse fadors.
Prevent erosion and damage of final cover due to 22 CCR 86264.310(b)(4)
drainage.
Provide for site security 27 CCR 21135(b)
Protect and maintain surveyed monuments. 27 CCR 21090(c)(5)
Postclosure land use Construction Improvements on completed sites must 22 CCR 66284.310(b)(1)
maintain the Integrity of the final cover, any liner
systems, all components of containment systems, and
the fundions of monitoring systems. Detailed
requirements are provided for on-site construction on
top of the final landfill cover and within 1,000 feet of the
waste holding area to mitigate the potential effects of
waste settlement and landfill gas releases Into
strudures.
.Only the substantive portions of the cited regulations are ARARs for CAOCs 7 and 35 selected remedial actions. Full citations are as follows:
Califomia Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 14, Article 14 (Landfills)
Califomia Code of Regulations, TItle 27, Division 2, Subdivision 1, Consolidated Regulations for Treatment, Storage, Processing, or Disposal of Solid Wastes
Note: 40 CFR 258 (Criteria for Municipal Waste landfills), Subpart F (Closure and Postclosure Care) contain similar but less stringent closure requirements than the Title 27
requirements cited.
cmls . centimeters per second.
-------
Appendix D
Transcript for Public Meeting
-------
MCLB Barstow
Installation Restoration Program
Marine Corps Logistics-,.Base
Barstow, California
Public Hearing
Date:
Wednesday, October 15, 1997
Location:
Holiday Inn
1511 East Main Street
Barstow, California
Reported by: Mary L. Anderson, CSR 10319
f~)J?J~~')
~:< OCT 2 8 1997 i .
Ulji2:J~::~~' --_._.
..------- -.-..... ...-.
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.-----.
-- --
1
BARSTL~, CALIFORNIA~ WEDNESDA~. OCTOBER 15, 1997
2
6:30 P.M.
3
4
5
MR. DAWSON:
My name is Dave Dawson.
6
I'm from the Southwest division in S~ Diego.
~ ~~
It is
7
now 6:30 p.m. on October 15, 1997.
The public
8
meeting was scheduled to start at 6:00
p.m.
There
9
is no one from the public present.
We are now
canceling the meeting.
(Whereupon, at 6:30 p.m., the public
hearing was adjourned.)
2
ALPHA-OMEGA COURT REPORTERS
(909) 890-3642 (888) 335-7171
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
CERTIFICATL..
2
OF
3
COURT REPORTER
4
5
I, MARY ANDERSON, C.S.R. No. 10319,
in and
6
for 3he State of California, do here~y certify:
--, =-~-
7
That, prior to being examined, the witness
8
named in the foregoing deposition was by me duly
9
sworn
to testify the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth;
That said deposition was taken down by me in
shorthand at the time and place therein named, and
thereafter reduced to typewriting under my
direction, and the same is a true, correct and
complete transcript of said proceedings;
I further certify that I am not interested in
the event of the action.
Witness my hand this 15th day of October,
1997.
Shorthand
Reporter for the
State of California
3
ALPHA-OMEGA COURT REPORTERS
(909) 890-3642 (888) 335-7171
-------
|