PB97-964508
EPA/541/R-97/130
January 1998
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base, OU 3 & 4
Barstow, CA
6/3/1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA - CTO 0293
OPERABLE UNITS 3 and 4
DRAFT FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION REPORT
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0016
Revision 0
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
1220 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92132-5190
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA
OPERABLE UNITS 3 and 4
RECORD OF DECISION REPORT
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-Q018
02 June 1997
PREPARED BY:
Engineering Command
1 220 PtelOc Highway
Sm DfcfiNV CBMnrhfe 92132-9117
THROUGH:
CONTRACT «Mf*7f 1-99D-92M
CTO9O293
DOCUMENT CONTROL NO:
WITH:
401 West -A-Stntt, Suttt 1905
92101
tncssocMionwitt): •
MtnuOootl Technology Corjpontton
CMMTMU
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA - CTO 293
OPERABLE UNITS 3 and 4
RECORD OF DECISION REPORT
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
PREPARED BY:
SoutttMrf DMtton MM* FmeOOm
San 0M0o, Csfftomto 921324117
THROUGH:
COttTKACT «NMTf f ««MM2M
CTO W03t3
DOCUMEHT CONTROL MO:
WITH:
i& « ** «Aa>.
nvnocwi wn.
AP^M^^^^MAMM
inivfnHiani
CMHTMU
Stove Griswold
CLEAN Project Manager
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., Pasadena
Dan Longpre r//
CLEAN Technical Reviewer
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., Pasadena
Robin Smrth
Operable Units 3/4 Manager
International Technology Corporation, Irvine
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xi
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 20, Strata 1
and 2 1-3
1.4.2 Description of Selected Remedy for CAOC 20, Stratum 3 1-3
1.4.3 Description of the Selected Remedy for CAOC 23, Zone 1 1-4
1.4.4 Description of Selected Remedy for CAOC 23, Strata 1, 3, 4,
5, andSa 1-4
1.4.5 Description of the Selected Remedy for CAOCs 2, 5, 9, 11,
18, and 34 1-4
1.5 Statutory Determinations for CAOC 20 Strata 1 and 2, and
CAOC 23 Zone 1 1-4
1.6 Declaration Statement for CAOCs 2, 5, 9,11, 18, 34, 20 (Stratum 3),
and 23 (Strata 1, 3, 4, 5. and 5a) 1-5
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY 2-1
2.1 Site Name, Location, and Description 2-1
2.1.1 Site History and Enforcement Activities 2-1
2.1.2 Scope and Role of Operable Units 3 and 4 2-3
2.1.3 Highlights of Community Participation 2-3
2.2 OU 3 - CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low-Level
Radiological Area 2-4
2.2.1 CAOC 20 - Name, Location, and Description 2-4
2.2.2 Operations 2-5
2.2.3 Investigation History 2-6
2.2.4 Summary of Site Characteristics 2-7
2.2.5 Summary of Site Risks 2-10
-------
CTO293VB70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
2.2.6 Description of Remedial Action Alternatives 2-21
2.2.7 Summary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 2-25
2.2.8 The Selected Remedy 2-29
2.2.9 Statutory Determinations 2-34
2.2.10 Documentation of Significant Change 2-36
2.3 OU 3 - CAOC 23 - Landfill Area 2-37
2.3.1 CAOC23-Name, Location and Description 2-37
2.3.2 Operations 2-38
2.3.3 Investigation History 2-39
2.3.4 Summary of Site Characteristics 2-41
2.3.5 Summary of Site Risks 2-49
2.3.6 Description of Alternatives 2-54
2.3.7 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 2-65
2.3.8 The Selected Remedy 2-68
2.3.9 Statutory Determinations 2-71
2.3.10 Documentation of Significant Change 2-74
2.4 OU 3-CAOC 18-Sludge Waste Disposal Area 2-75
2.4.1 CAOC 18 - Name, Location and Description 2-75
2.4.2 Operations 2-76
2.4.3 Investigation History 2-77
2.4.4 Summary of Site Characteristics 2-78
2.4.5 Summary of Site Risks 2-83
2.4.6 Description of the No Action Alternative 2-84
2.5 OU 3 - CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area 2-85
2.5.1 CAOC 34 - Name, Location and Description 2-85
2.5.2 Operations 2-86
2.5.3 Investigation History 2-86
2.5.4 Summary of Site Characteristics 2-88
2.5.5 Summary of Site Risks 2-92
2.5.6 Description of the No Action Alternative 2-94
2.6 OU 4 - CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area 2-95
2.6.1 CAOC 2- Name, Location, and Description 2-95
2.6.2 Operations 2-96
2.6.3 Investigation History 2-96
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
2.6.4 Summary of Site Characteristics 2-98
2.6.5 Summaiy of Site Risks 2-103
2.6.6 Description of No Action Alternative 2-105
2.7 OU 4 - CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area 2-105
2.7.1 CAOC 5 - Name, Location, and Description 2-105
2.7.2 Operations 2-106
2.7.3 Investigation History 2-107
2.7.4 Summary of Site Characteristics 2-111
2.7.5 Summary of Site Risks 2-115
2.7.6 Description of No Action Alternative 2-117
2.8 OU 4 - CAOC 9 - Fuel Disposal Area 2-118
2.8.1 CAOC 9-Name, Location, and Description 2-118
2.8.2 Operations 2-119
2.8.3 Investigation History 2-120
2.8.4 Summary of Site Characteristics 2-121
2.8.5 Summary of Site Risks 2-123
2.8.6 Description of No Action Alternative 2-124
2.9 OU 4 - CAOC 11 - Fuel Bum Area...'. 2-124
2.9.1 CAOC 11 - Name, Location, and Description 2-124
2.9.2 Operations 2-125
2.9.3 Investigation History 2-125
2.9.4 Summary of Site Characteristics 2-127
2.9.5 Summary of Site Risks 2-130
2.9.6 Description of No Action Alternative 2-132
3.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 3-1
4.0 REFERENCES 4-1
in
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROO-R2
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
Tables
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Table 2-1 CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological
Area, Stratum 1 - Radiological Waste Well, Maximum Organic
Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-2 CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological
Area, Stratum 1 - Radiological Waste Well, Maximum Inorganic
Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-3 CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area,
Stratum 2 - Disposal Wells and Intervening Area, Maximum
Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-4 CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area,
Stratum 2 - Disposal Wells and Intervening Area, Maximum
Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-5 CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area.
Stratum 3 - Northern Portion of CAOC 20, Maximum Organic
Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-6 CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area,
Stratum 3 - Northern Portion of CAOC 20, Maximum Inorganic
Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-7 CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area,
Human Health Risk Results, Residential Land-Use Scenario
Table 2-8 CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area,
Stratum 2 - Human Health Risk Results, Industrial Land Use
Scenario
Table 2-9 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area, Stratum 1 - Northern Area, Maximum
Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-10 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area, Stratum 1 - Northern Area, Maximum
Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-11 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area, Stratum 2 - North-Central Area (Trench)
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-12 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area, Stratum 2 - North-Central Area (Trench)
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-13 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area, Stratum 3 - Southern Area Used
for General Storage, Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-14 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area, Stratum 3 - Southern Area Used for
General Storage, Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-15 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area. Stratum 4 - South-Central Area,
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-16 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area, Stratum 4 - South-Central Area,
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
IV
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2
CLE-J 02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 20 May, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Table 2-17 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area, Stratum 5 - Southwestern Area,
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-18 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area. Stratum 5 - Southwestern Area,
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-19 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area, Stratum 5a - PCB Hit Area,
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-20 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area, Stratum 5a - PCB Hit Area,
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-21 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring
Analytical Results
Table 2-22 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area, Groundwater General Chemistry
Results
Table 2-23 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area, Groundwater Analytical Results,
Phase II
Table 2-24 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area, Human Health Risk Results,
Residential Land-Use Scenario
Table 2-25 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area, Human Health Risk Results,
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Table 2-26 Summary of Soil Sample Data, CAOC 18 Confirmation Study,
1986
Table 2-27 CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area, Stratum 1 - West Bank,
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-28 CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area, Stratum 1 - West Bank,
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-29 CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area, Stratum 2 - Drainage
Channel, Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-30 CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area, Stratum 2 — Drainage
Channel, Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-31 CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area, Stratum 3 - East Bank,
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-32 CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area, Stratum 3 - East Bank,
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-33 CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area, Stratum 4 - Drainage
Channel Outfall, Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-34 CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area, Stratum 4 - Drainage
Channel Outfall, Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-35 CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area, Human Health Risk Results,
Residential Land-Use Scenario
Table 2-36 CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area, Human Health Risk Results,
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
-------
CTO293\B700t B\DFROD-R2
CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Table 2-37 Summary of Surface Soil and Concrete Data - Stratum 2,
CAOC 34 Confirmation Study, 1986
Table 2-38 CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area, Stratum 1 - Area Covered by
Concrete Basins, Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-39 CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area, Stratum - Area Covered by
Concrete Basins, Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-40 CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area, Stratum 2 - Soils Inside
Concrete Basins, Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-41 CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area, Stratum 2 - Soils Inside
Concrete Basins, Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-42 CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area, Stratum 3 - Concrete, Maximum
Organic Concentrations in Concrete
Table 2-43 CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area, Human Health Risk Results,
Residential Land-Use Scenario, Post-Removal Action
Table 2-44 CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area, Human Health Risk Results,
Industrial Land-Use Scenario, Post-Removal Action
Table 2-45 Summary of Soil Sample Data, CAOC 2 Confirmation Study,
1986
Table 2-46 CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area, Stratum 1 -
Concrete Wash Pads, Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-47 CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area, Stratum 1 -
Concrete Wash Pads, Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-48 CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area, Stratum 2 -
Underground Storage Tank. Maximum Organic Concentrations
in Soil
Table 2-49 CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area, Stratum 2 -
Underground Storage Tank, Maximum Inorganic Concentrations
in Soil
Table 2-50 CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area, Stratum 3 -
Yard, Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-51 CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area, Stratum 3 -
Yard, Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-52 CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area, Stratum 4 -
Flow Path to Drainage Ditch. Maximum Organic Concentrations
in Soil
Table 2-53 CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area, Stratum 4 -
Flow Path to Drainage Ditch, Maximum Inorganic Concentrations
in Soil
Table 2-54 CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area, Human Health Risk
Results, Residential Land-Use Scenario
Table 2-55 CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area, Human Health Risk
Results, Industrial Land-Use Scenario
VI
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2
CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Table 2-56 Summary of Soil Sample Data, CAOC 5 Confirmation Study,
1986
Table 2-57 CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area, Stratum 1 - Northern Portion
of CAOC 5, Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-58 CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area, Stratum 1 - Northern Portion
of CAOC 5, Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-59 CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area, Stratum 2 - Northern Half of
Lot 352, Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-60 CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area, Stratum 2 - Northern Half of
Lot 352, Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-61 CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area, Stratum 3 - Southern Half of
Lot 352, Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-62 CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area, Stratum 3 - Southern Half of
Lot 352, Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-63 CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area, Human Health Risk Results,
Residential Land-Use Scenario
Table 2-64 CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area, Human Health Risk Results,
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Table 2-65 Summary of Analytical Results for Soil Samples, CAOC 9
Confirmation Study, 1985
Table 2-66 CAOC 9 - Fuel Disposal Area, Straturfi 1 - Entire CAOC,
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-67 CAOC 9 - Fuel Disposal Area, Stratum 1 - Entire CAOC,
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-68 CAOC 9 - Fuel Disposal Area, Human Health Risk Results
Table 2-69 Summary of Soil Sample Data, CAOC 11 Confirmation
Study, 1986
Table 2-70 CAOC 11 - Fuel Bum Area, Stratum 1 - Entire CAOC,
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-71 CAOC 11 - Fuel Bum Area, Stratum 1 - Entire CAOC.
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Table 2-72 CAOC 11 - Fuel Bum Area, Groundwater Analytical Results,
Well NS11-1
Table 2-73 CAOC 11 - Fuel Bum Area, Human Health Risk Results
Figures
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
Figure 1-3
MCLB Barstow Vicinity Map
Operable Unit 3, CAOC Locations, Yermo Annex
Operable Unit 4, CAOC Locations, Nebo Main Base
VII
-------
CTO293\B70018VDFROD-R2
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Figure 2-1 CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological
Area Site Plan
Figure 2-2 CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological
Area Soil Sample Locations
Figure 2-3 CAOC 20 - Grading Plan, Alternative 2
Figure 2-4 CAOC 20 - Grading Plan, Alternative 3A
Figure 2-5 CAOC 20 - Grading Plan, Alternative 3B
Figure 2-6 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Figure 2-7 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area Soil Boring and Monitoring
Well Locations
Figure 2-8 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area Areas Addressed by Remedial Action
Alternatives
Figure 2-9 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area Cap Plan for Alternatives 3 and 4
Figure 2-10 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area Grading Plan, Alternative 3 - Option 1
Figure 2-11 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area Grading Plan Alternative 3 - Option 2,
Alternative 4 - Option 3
Figure 2-12 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area Grading Plan Alternative 4 - Options 1,2,
and 4
Figure 2-13 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area Cap Detail Alternative 4 - Option 1
Figure 2-14 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area Cap Detail Alternative 4 - Option 2
Figure 2-15 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area Cap Detail Alternative 4 - Option 3,
Alternative 5 - Option 2
Figure 2-16 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area Cap Detail Alternative 4 - Option 4
Figure 2-17 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area Cap Plan Alternative 5
Figure 2-18 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area Grading Plan Alternative 5 - Options 1 and 2
Figure 2-19 CAOC 23 - Landfill Area Cap Detail Alternative 5 - Option 1
Figure 2-20 CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area
Figure 2-21 CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area Soil Boring Locations
Figure 2-22 CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area
Figure 2-23 CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area Sampling Locations
Figure 2-24 CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area
Figure 2-25 CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area Soil Boring Locations
Figure 2-26 CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area
Figure 2-27 CAOC 5 - Soil Sample Locations 1976 Field Survey and
Confirmation Study
Figure 2-28 CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area Rl Soil Boring Locations
Figure 2-29 CAOC 9 - General Area Layout Nebo Main Base
Figure 2-30 CAOC 9 - Fuel Disposal Area
Figure 2-31 CAOC 11 - Fuel Bum Area
VIII
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2
Figure 2-32
CLE^J02-01 F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 26 May, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
CAOC 11 - Fuel Bum Area CS Study Area Boundary and Sample
Locations
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Chemicals of Concern
Transcript of Public Meeting
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Revised Cost Estimates - CAOC 20
Administrative Record Index
IX
-------
CT0293U70018VDFROD-R2 ClfrJOMlF2»WW>Oia
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
(intentionally blank)
-------
CTO293VB70018\DFROD-R2
CLE-J02-01 F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACL alternate concentration limit
ARARs applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
AT&SF Atehison, Topeka. and Santa Fe Railway
bgs below ground surface
CAA Clean Air Act (1970, 1977,1990)
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
CAOC CERCLA area of concern
CAP corrective action plan
CAS Chemical Abstract Service
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLEAN Comprehensive Long-term Environmental Action Navy
CLP contract laboratory program
cm centimeters
cm/s centimeters per second
cm3 cubic centimeters
COC chemical of concern
COD chemical oxygen demand
COPC chemical of potential concern '
CRDL contract-required detection limit
CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board
CS confirmation study
CTO contract task order
DCA dichloroethane
DCE dichloroethene
DOC dissolved organic carbon
DRMO Defense Realization Marketing Office
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DURA Data Useability in Risk Assessment
DWTF domestic wastewater treatment facility
EE/CA engineering evaluation/cost analysis
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERA ecological risk assessment
ESD explanation of significant differences
F Fahrenheit
FFA Federal Facility Agreement
FID flame ionization detector
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FS feasibility study
ft3 cubic feet
ft/day feet per day
XI
-------
CTO293VB70018\DFROD-R2
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-001B
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
ft/ft foot per foot
FWQC federal water quality criteria
g grams
GCL geosynthetic day liner
gpd gallons per day
HOPE high-density polyethylene
HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
HELP hydrologic evaluation of landfill performance
HI hazard index
HRS hazard ranking system
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (of 1984)
HWCA Hazardous Waste Control Act
IAS initial assessment study
ILCR incremental lifetime cancer risk
IR Installation Restoration
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
IWTP industrial wastewater treatment plant
IWTRF industrial wastewater treatment and recycling facility
Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
LLDPE linear low-density polyethylene
MCL maximum contaminant level
MCLB Marine Corps Logistics Base '
MCLG maximum contaminant level goal
MDAQMD Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
mg/L milligrams per liter
mph miles per hour
MSL mean sea level
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NACIP Navy Assessment and Control of Installation Pollutants
Navy U.S. Department of the Navy
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (1969)
NEESA Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity (currently Naval
Facilities Engineering Services Center [NFESC])
NPL National Priorities List
OCPs organochlorine pesticides
OSHA Occupational Health and Safety Administration (DOL) or Act (1970)
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OU operable unit
O&M operations and maintenance
PAHs polycyciic aromatic hydrocarbons
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
PCE tetrachloroethene
XII
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
pCi picocurie
pCi/g picocuries per gram
ppb parts per billion
PPE personal protective equipment
ppm parts per million
PR6 preliminary remediation goal
PR/VSI preliminary review/visual site inspection
RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
RBC risk-based criteria
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD/RA remedial design/remedial action
RFA RCRA facility assessment
RfD reference dose
RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study
RME reasonable maximum exposure
ROD Record of Decision
RSE removal site evaluation
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (1986)
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SI site investigation
SIP state implementation plan
SOV soil organic vapor
SVOC semivolatile organic compound
SWAT solid wastewater quality assessment test
SWDIV Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command
SWMU solid waste management unit
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board (California)
TBC to be considered
TCA trichloroethane
TCE trichloroethene
TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TDS total dissolved solids
TIC tentatively identified compounds
TOX total organic halides
TPH-D total petroleum hydrocarbons for diesel
TRPH total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TTLC total threshold limit concentration
UCL upper confidence limit
UMTRCA Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
V, volume of air
VLEACH vadose zone leaching model
VOA volatile organic analysis
XIII
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
VOC volatile organic compound
vol/vol volume per volume
V. volume of soil
VSI visual site inspection
Vt volume total
Vw volume of water
WESTDIV Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
yd* cubic yards
uCi/kg microcuries per kilogram
pg/kg micrograms per kilogram
ug/L micrograms per liter
ug/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
uS/cm microsiemens per centimeter
1,1-OCA 1,1-dichloroethane
1,1 -DCE 1,1-dichloroethene
1,1-TCA 1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-TCA 1.1,2-trichloroethane
1,2-DCE 1,2-dichloroethene
4,4'-DDD 1,1 -dichloro-2,2-bis(4-chlorophenyl)ethane
4,4'-DDE 1, 1-dichloro-2,2-bis(4-chlorophenyl)ethene
4,4'-DDT 1,1,1 -trichloro-2,2-bis(4-chlorophenyl)ethane
XIV
-------
CT0293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 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). Eight Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) Areas of Concern (CAOCs) at MCLB Barstow are
addressed by this Record of Decision (ROD). These include the following Operable
Unit (OU) 3 CAOCs: CAOC 18 - Sludge Disposal Area; CAOC 20 - Second
Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area; CAOC 23 - Landfill Area; and CAOC 34
- PCS Storage Area, and OU 4 CAOCs: CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout
Area; CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area; CAOC 9 - Fuel Disposal Area; and CAOC 11
- Fuel Bum Area. The OU 3 CAOCs are within the Yermo Annex (Figure 1-2) and the
OU 4 CAOCs are within the Nebo Main Base (Figure 1-3). The 4,051-acre Nebo Main
Base is 1 mile east of Barstow and intersected by Interstate 40. The 1,681-acre Yermo
Annex is 7 miles east of Barstow, between Interstates 15 and 40, and is 6 miles east of
the Nebo Main Base.
r
1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial actions for CAOCs 20 (Strata 1
and 2) and 23 (Zone I). Zone I of CAOC 23 refers to the combined area of the
southern portion of Stratum 1 and all of Stratum 2 - the only areas where landfilling
activities occurred. In addition, this document sets forth the basis for the no remedial
action decisions for CAOCs 18, 34, 2, 5, 9, 11, 20 (Stratum 3), and 23 (Strata 1, 3, 4, 5,
and 5a). 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
Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
The decisions for these CAOCs are based on the information contained in the
administrative record file for MCLB Barstow. The two primary documents used for the
basis of the decisions are the Feasibility Study Report for CERCLA Areas of Concern
23 and 20, Operable Units 3 and 4 (October 1995) and the Remedial Investigation
Report for Operable Units 3 and 4 (June 1995).
1-1
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O016
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
The U.S. Marine Corps, the U.S. Department of the Navy, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the California Environmental Protection Agency's Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) concur with the selected remedies for each CAOC.
1.3 Assessment of the CAOCs
Of the eight CAOCs addressed by this ROD, if CAOC 20 Strata 1 and 2 and CAOC 23
Zone I 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 1989), this assessment section does not apply to the six CAOCs requiring no
further action.
1.4 Description of the Selected Remedy
The potentially contaminated areas at MCLB Barstow are grouped into seven 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 (Rl).
• 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 Rl.
• 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
-------
CTO293\B70018VDFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
This ROD for OUs 3 and 4 is the first to be completed. The ROD for OUs 5 and 6 is
scheduled for completion in September 1997, followed by the completion of the ROD
for OUs 1 and 2 in August 1997. The OU 7 ROD will be completed last, at an as-yet-
undetermined date.
The selected remedies for each of the CAOCs within OUs 3 and 4 are described in this
section.
1.4.1 Description of Selected Remedy for CAOC 20. Strata 1 and 2
The major components of the selected remedy for CAOC 20 include:
• Modification of the Base master plan to allow for limited activities only,
such as equipment storage and continued maintenance of adjacent
railroad tracks. Details of the restrictions on property use of CAOC 20
are specified in Section 2.2.8 of this ROD.
• Groundwater monitoring that includes sampling one upgradient and one
downgradient well once a year for 4 years. Sample analytes include
volatile organic compounds, metals, gross alpha, gross beta, radium-
226, radium-228, and general chemistry parameters consisting of pH,
total dissolved solids, chloride, fluoride, nitrate, phosphate, sulfate,
potassium, sodium, and calcium. An evaluation will be performed during
the fifth year to determine if any further action is required.
• Precipitation infiltration monitoring.
• Drainage control to facilitate rainwater runoff away from Strata 2 and 3
and to prevent ponding on these strata.
• Modification of the concrete cap in Stratum 1 to minimize potential for
infiltration.
The principal threats posed by the contaminants at this CAOC are addressed by
limiting potential exposure to the wastes remaining on site.
1.4.2 Description of Selected Remedy for CAOC 20. Stratum 3
The no action remedy was selected for CAOC 20, Stratum 3. No remedial
action is planned for this stratum.
1-3
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROO-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
1.4.3 Description of the Selected Remedy for CAOC 23. Zone I
The major components of the selected remedy for CAOC 23 Zone 1 include:
• Installation of a concrete cap over an approximate 11-acre area
(Zone I).
• Precipitation infiltration monitoring.
• Modification of the Base master plan to prevent activities that would
compromise the integrity of the cap. Details of the restrictions on
property use at CAOC 23 are specified in Section 2.3.8 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 performed at CAOC 23, Zone I, although details will be addressed in the OU
1 (Yermo groundwater) documentation and are not discussed in this ROD.
1.4.4 Description of Selected Remedy for CAOC 23. Strata 1 (northern
portion). 3. 4. 5. and Sa
t
The no action remedy was selected for CAOC 23, Strata 3, 5, and 5a. No
remedial actions are planned for these strata. Although Stratum 1 (northern
portion) and Stratum 4 are considered protective, limited action was agreed to
by the parties to the FFA. Several small geophysical anomalies were detected
in these two strata, and will be excavated and consolidated under the Zone I
cap prior to requiring no further action.
1.4.5 Description of the Selected Remedy for CAOCs 2. 5. 9. 11. 18.
and 34
The no action remedy was selected for CAOCs 2, 5, 9, 11, 18, and 34. No
remedial actions are planned for these CAOCs.
1.5 Statutory Determinations for CAOC 20 Strata 1 and 2. and CAOC 23 Zone I
The selected remedies for CAOC 20, Strata 1 and 2, and CAOC 23, Zone I use
permanent solutions and alternative remediation technologies to the maximum extent
1-4
-------
CT0293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CUE-J02-01F29.VB7-0018
Print Date: 28May, 1997
practicable for these two CAOCs. For these CAOCs, a presumptive remedy approach
for landfilled wastes was pursued. This approach assumes that treatment is neither
cost-effective nor practical. Therefore, this remedy does not satisfy the statutory
preference for treatment as a principal element
Reviews will be conducted within 5 years of the start of the remedial actions at CAOC
20, Strata 1 and 2, and CAOC 23, Zone I to ensure that the remedy is continuing to
provide adequate protection of human health and the environment because hazardous
substances remain in place. 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 cost-effective.
1.6 Declaration Statement for CAOCs 2, 5, 9, 11, 18, 34, 20 (Stratum 3), and 23
(Strata 1 [northern portion], 3, 4, 5, and 5a)
No unacceptable health risks from contaminants present in the soils were found to
exist, for either an industrial or residential exposure, at CAOCs 2, 5, 9, 11, 18, 34, 20
(Stratum 3), and 23 (Stratum 1 [northern portion], 3, 4, 5, and 5a). 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.
1-5
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2
CLE-JQ2-01F233-87-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
FOR THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE,
BARSTOW:
/ >ECT
.C./dcBnde
Colpnel, U.S. Marine Corps
Commanding
Date
FOR THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
incurrence: Daniel^T
Chief, Federal Faa'lities Cleanup Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region \X
Date
FOR THESTATE OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
Concurrence: Johprt^Scandura
/ Chief, Souttiem California Operations
' Office of Military Facilities
Department of Toxic Substances Control.
Date
Concurrence: Harold/. Singer v Date
Executive Officer
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region
1-6
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY
General MCLB Barstow information, 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 3 and 4, and the history of community participation. These
subsections are followed by information specific to each CAOC.
2.1 Site Name, Location, and Description
MCLB Barstow (also referred to as the Base) is within the central Mojave Desert in San
Bernardino County, California (Figure 1-1). The Mojave River traverses the Base in an
east-west direction. The Base consists of two areas: Nebo Main Base, which includes
the Rifle Range, and the Yermo Annex. The Nebo Main Base (1,569 acres) is 3.5 miles
east of Barstow and is intersected by Interstate 40. The Rifle Range (2,338 acres) is
south and adjacent to the Nebo Main Base. The Yermo Annex (1,680 acres) is 7 miles
east of Barstow adjacent to Interstate 15. Other surrounding communities include
Yermo to the northeast and Daggett to the east.
2.1.1 Site History and Enforcement Activities
MCLB Barstow was established in 1942 at Nebo Main Base (Figure 1-1) as a
Marine Corps Depot of Supplies; that is, 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 western United States and the
Pacific.
Yermo Annex (Figure 1-1) was acquired in 1946 because Nebo Main Base
operations outgrew escalating mission requirements. In 1961, a 10-acre central
repair shop (Building 573) was built to provide additional vehicle repair and
rebuilding capabilities. The Rifle Range (Figure 1-1) was acquired in the mid-
1950s for shooting practice and continues to serve the same function today with
minimal changes.
Until the early 1960s, MCLB Barstov/s major industrial operations were
conducted at Nebo Main Base; in the early 1960s, the major industrial
2-1
-------
CTO293\B70016\DFROD-R2 CLE^02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
operations were relocated to Yermo Annex. The hazardous waste generation
and disposal operations associated with these industrial activities began at
Yermo at this same time.
Operations at MCUB Barstow have included maintaining, issuing, and shipping
materials held in the Marine Corps Stores Distribution System. During its 50-
year period of operation, MCLB Barstow has generated industrial waste such as
waste oil, fuel, solvent, paint residue, grease, hydraulic fluid, battery acid.
various gases, and other components, including some that are sources of low-
level radiation. Additional waste generated included pesticides, herbicides,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), calcium hypochlorite, and sodium
hypochlorite. In the early years, some of these wastes were disposed of in
landfills, bum trenches, and other areas located throughout the Nebo Main
Base, Yermo Annex, and the Rifle Range.
With the passage of CERCLA in 1980, the Department of the Navy began a
program to identify, investigate, and dean up past hazardous waste disposal
sites. MCLB Barstow and the Department of the Navy have been actively
involved in this program since the early 1980$.
Originally the program was called the Navy Assessment and Control of
Installation Pollutants (NACIP) program. When the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) was passed in 1986, which required Federal
facilities to comply with all procedural and substantive requirements of CERCLA,
the Navy modified the NACIP program. The NACIP program closely paralleled
Superfund and procedurally was the same. The Department of the Navy
subsequently adopted the EPA/Superfund terminology and procedures in lieu of
those used under NACIP.
The Navy conducted a series of studies as part of the NACIP program to
determine the presence of contamination in soil and groundwater at the Base.
An initial assessment study (IAS) (Naval Energy and Environmental Support
Activity [NEESA] 1983) was conducted at MCLB Barstow in 1983 to evaluate
past practices of hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal and to
identify areas representing a potential threat to the environment or human
health; the IAS identified 33 potentially contaminated sites. Confirmation
2-2
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
studies were conducted between 1984 and 1986 at 11 of the sites considered to
pose a potential threat to the environment; CAOCs 2, 5, 9, 11, 18, 23, and 34
were included.
In 1986, the EPA prepared a hazard ranking system (MRS) document for MCLB
Barstow that included results from the confirmation studies. The MRS score
was 37.93. A site is proposed for placement on the National Priorities List
(NPL) if the MRS is greater than 28.5. On 15 November 1989, MCLB Barstow
was added to the NPL, primarily in response to the detection of trichloroethene
(TCE) in Base wells, including well YM-3. downgradient of CAOC 23.
Contaminants of concern identified for Barstow are listed in Appendix A. A
Phase I Rl was conducted for OUs 3 and 4 between March and October 1992,
and additional Phase II investigative activities were conducted between May and
June 1994.
2.1.2 Scope and Role of Operable Units 3 and 4
Many suspected hazardous waste sites are present at MCLB Barstow and (per
the Federal Facility Agreement) have been grouped into seven soil and
groundwater OUs based on location and availability of existing data as
presented in Section 1.4.
The ROD for OUs 3 and 4 is the first to be completed for MCLB Barstow.
2.1.3 Highlights of Community Participation
The remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) and the Proposed Plan for
MCLB Barstow OUs 3 and 4 were released to the public in August 1996. The
documents were made available to the public in the information repositories at
the County of San Bernardino Public Library, Barstow Branch and at MCLB
Barstow, Facilities and Services Division, Environmental Department,
Warehouse 3. The notice of availability for the proposed plan and supporting
documents was published in the Barstow Desert Dispatch, the Sun (San
Bernardino), and the Daily Press (Victorville), on 4 August 1996. Also the
proposed plan was mailed to approximately 1,500 local and interested parties
2-3
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-001B
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
per the site mailing list. A public comment period was held from 5 August
through 3 September 1996. A public meeting was held at the Barstow Holiday
Inn on 29 September 1996. No significant comments were received from the
public during the public comment period. Transcripts from the meeting are
contained in Appendix B. One comment was received relating to the design of
the cap at CAOC 23. A response to this comment is included in the
° Responsiveness Summary, Section 3.0 of this ROD.
This decision document presents the selected remedial actions for OUs 3 and 4,
MCLB Barstow, California, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by
SARA and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan. The
decisions for the CAOCs in OUs 3 and 4 are based on the information
contained in the administrative record.
2.2 OU 3 - CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area
2.2.1 CAOC 20 - Name. Location, and Description
CAOC 20, Second Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area, is on the
eastern side of the Yermo Annex. This site is bounded on the east and
southeast by the Industrial Waste Disposal Area (CAOC 21) and Landfill Area
(CAOC 23) and by railroad tracks to the north and south. The First Hazardous
and Low-Level Radiological Area (CAOC 19) of OU 5 is also located to the north
(Figure 1-2). CAOC 20 includes a low-level radiological waste disposal well
capped by a concrete pad and surrounded by a chain-link fence, which is
designated as S-596, and 31 uncapped nonradioactive waste disposal wells
(Figure 2-1); the wells are approximately 30 feet deep and 4 feet in diameter.
Although no engineering drawings were obtained for any of the disposal wells,
they are likely unlined and were drilled by a large-diameter solid-stem soil auger.
A pit containing metallic debris is located near the eastern boundary of the site
(SWDIV 1993). An underground water line runs beneath the site in a northeast-
southwest direction (Figure 2-1). Groundwater is 150 feet below ground
surface.
CAOC 20 was divided into three subunits in order to develop the strategy for
sample collection and to assess the data collected (Figure 2-1). Each subunit is
2-4
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
referred to as a stratum, which is defined as an area where the release of
wastes occurred through similar mechanisms. The strata were identified by
evaluating historical aerial photographs and records, conducting interviews with
Base personnel to identify past waste practices, and reviewing the results of site
reconnaissance surveys. Stratum 1 is in the northwest comer of the CAOC and
includes the radiological waste well and a 60- by 60-foot area surrounding the
well. Stratum 2 is in the central portion of the CAOC and includes the
nonradiological waste wells and the area between and surrounding the wells.
Stratum 3 lies in the northeastern portion of the CAOC between the
convergence of the railroad tracks and includes areas of discoloration observed
in aerial photographs of the CAOC.
2.2.2 Operations
Between 1953 and 1975, low-level radiological waste was reportedly buried in
one disposal well (Building S-596), and nonradioactive waste was buried in 31
nearby disposal wells (SWDIV 1991 a). Waste was buried in the approximate
10-foot interval between 20 to 30 feet below grade in each 4-foot diameter,
apparently unlined, well. The radiological was/e well was filled to approximately
4 feet below surface elevation with fill; a concrete cap was constructed over the
well. The nonradioactive disposal wells were filled to grade with fill; the source
of the fill is not documented.
The nonradioactive waste consists mainly of highly oxidizing bleaching powder.
MCLB Barstow records document that cans, drums, pails, and barrels of
chlorinated lime, calcium hypochlorite, sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate,
potassium hydroxide, waste electrolytic acid, and sodium-filled valves
(potentially containing sodium metal) were buried in the nonradioactive disposal
wells (NEESA 1983; SWDIV 1991 a). The contents of the nonradioactive wells
are listed in Table 7-1 of the Rl. Contents of two of the disposal wells (12 and
15) were detected by the geophysical surveys, thereby suggesting that wastes
may be buried starting at less than 15 feet from the surface elevation.
Additionally, cans of unknown content were disposed of in wells 24 and 25. The
total volume of nonradiological waste in the 31 disposal wells is estimated at
approximately 130 cubic yards (yd3).
2-5
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
According to NEESA (1983), the radioactive waste in S-596 consists of scrap
luminescent dials and "linsatic" compasses contained in 30-gallon steel barrels.
The term "linsatic" is apparently an incorrect spelling of the word "lensatic,"
which is used to describe a compass equipped with an optical or hairline sight to
accurately locate distant targets. The lensatic compasses reported at CAOC 20
may have been equipped with luminescent dials that were visible at night.
Although it is undocumented, the paint used to coat the dials could have
contained radium, because radium historically was added to paints used on
luminescent instruments. The exact quantity of wastes buried in the radiological
waste well is uncertain because Base documentation does not provide this level
of detail.
In addition to low-level radiological and nonradiological waste disposal, the site
was also periodically used for vehicular storage.
2.2.3 Investigation History
The IAS conducted by NEESA (1983) identified and assessed potential threats
to human health and the environment due tp contamination from hazardous
wastes. Conclusions presented in the IAS indicated that because the
groundwater is relatively deep (about 70 feet below grade at the time of the IAS)
and the solid waste is covered by approximately 20 feet of clean fill, there was
no significant mechanism for transport. The IAS did not consider the site a
threat to human health or the environment and a confirmation study was not
recommended or conducted.
A preliminary review/visual site inspection (PR/VSI) was, however, conducted in
1991 as part of the MCLB RFA program. Aerial photographs documenting
historical activity at CAOC 20 were evaluated. The PR/VSI reported that
photographs from 1973 showed the use of CAOC 20 for vehicular storage and
no evidence of radiological storage. The PR/VSI also documented that the
wastes were placed in 30-gallon grease barrels before burial (SWDIV 1991 a).
Although not documented by MCLB or NEESA (1983), the 30-gallon grease
barrels were likely containers that were originally used to hold grease for
lubrication.
2-6
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F29J-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
The Rl at CAOC 20 was completed in a single-phase field investigation of three
strata during March through October 1992.
2.2.4 Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the assessments conducted at
CAOC 20, analytical results from soil sampling, and a general summary of water
quality risk and uncertainties as related to water quality protection. Potential
sources of contamination at this CAOC include the one low-level radiological
disposal well and 31 nonradiological waste disposal wells. Nine soil borings,
three per stratum, were advanced within CAOC 20 to characterize the nature of
contamination in the soils. The Marine Corps did not directly sample landfilled
waste at CAOC 20 because there was already a fairly high level of certainty
regarding the characterization of the waste. Characterization of the waste using
statistical sampling procedures would have been burdensome and unnecessary.
To avoid disturbance and potential migration of the buried wastes, the
characterization is based on surrounding soil data. The sample locations are
shown in Figure 2-2. The borings in Strata 1 and 2 were advanced to 42 feet
below grade, and the borings in Stratum 3/were advanced to 22 feet below
grade.
Results of laboratory analytical testing for organic and inorganic compounds for
Strata 1, 2, and 3 are summarized in Tables 2-1 through 2-6. Maximum
concentrations by depth are presented. To help identify potentially significant
contaminants, residential soil risk-based criteria (RBC) are also shown on these
tables. RBC 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 the inorganics, the 95th percentile background concentrations for shallow
soils (0 to 3 feet) are also shown for comparison.
Stratum 1
Stratum 1 organic and inorganic results are presented in Tables 2-1 and 2-2,
respectively, and are summarized as follows.
2-7
-------
CT0293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
• Only one semivolatile compound, ethylene glycol, was detected twice in
boring YB2001 at depths of 1 foot and 20 feet The concentration in the
sample at 1 foot was reported at 228 ng/kg; the concentration in the
sample at 20 feet was 148 pg/kg. Since CAOC 20 was periodically used
for vehicle storage, the source of the ethylene glycol may be a result of
release of vehicle-related wastes, such as engine coolants. One
pesticide, dieldrin, was detected once at an estimated concentration of
10 ng/kg in boring YB2003 at a depth of 1 foot Neither ethylene glycol
or dieldrin concentrations exceed their respective residential soil RBC.
• Arsenic, beryllium, and selenium were detected in Stratum 1 at
concentrations exceeding 95th percentile background concentrations.
They are not considered site related due to their low potential for use at
MCLB Barstow.
Stratum 2
Stratum 2 organic and inorganic results are presented in Tables 2-3 and 2-4,
respectively, and are summarized as follows.
• The only two organics detected in Stratum 2 soils, acetone and
methylene chloride, are attributable to laboratory contamination.
• Sodium, boron, and vanadium were detected at maximum
concentrations that exceeded the 95th percentile background
concentrations. Sodium, however, has no health-based criteria. Boron
and vanadium are assumed to be naturally occurring because there is
low potential for use and release of these compounds at MCLB Barstow.
Stratum 3
Stratum 3 organic and inorganic results are presented in Tables 2-5 and 2-6,
respectively, and are summarized as follows.
• One pesticide, DDE, was detected at a depth of 0 to 3 feet in boring
YB2009 at a concentration of 8 fig/kg, which is below the residential soil
RBC of 839 ng/kg for DDE. The only volatile organic compound
detected in Stratum 3, acetone, is attributable to laboratory
contamination.
• Beryllium is the only inorganic compound that exceeded the 95th
background concentration. Beryllium is, however, considered to be
naturally occurring due to its low potential for use at MCLB Barstow and
its consistency with concentrations in the background study.
2-8
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater
For CAOC 20, records indicate wastes were discharged to 32 cylindrical
disposal holes located there. Survey monuments for 30 of the 32 holes have
been located. One of the holes was reportedly filled with containerized low-level
radioactive waste consisting of scrap luminescent dials, from compasses,
coated with radium (radioactive) paint. The other 31 holes received
nonradioactive wastes consisting of acid solution for disposal hole 17, and
mainly powdered calcium hypochlorite (bleach) for the other disposal holes.
Records indicate that the acid waste was discharged to disposal hole 17 over 21
years ago. Evaluation indicates the acid would be neutralized by alkaline soils
yielding chemical reaction end products consisting mainly of nontoxic salts.
Assuming the acid was vehicle battery acid (sulfuric acid), the primary end
products would be calcium sulfate, sodium sulfate, and magnesium sulfate.
There are no groundwater monitoring wells currently located at CAOC 20. The
nearest downgradient monitoring well is approximately 1,300 feet downgradient
of CAOC 20 and does not indicate leakage from CAOC 20. For the acid
disposal hole, records indicate that liquid wastes may have been supplied in
quantities sufficient to percolate downward to groundwater. Evaluation of the
acid discharged to disposal hole 17 indicates that the portion of liquid that would
ultimately be expected to reach groundwater would have already reached the
groundwater. Liquids not reaching groundwater would be adsorbed onto soil
particles and no longer be a source to groundwater.
The Marine Corps used two mathematical models to predict contaminant
migrations in soils; the Designated Level Methodology (DLM) model and the
VLEACH (SWDIV 1995c). The DLM and VLEACH modeling assumes deep
percolation of precipitation, even though it is unlikely to occur at the site.
Evaluation and the modeling process indicate that remaining contaminants in
the soils would not reach groundwater at concentrations that would degrade the
groundwater.
The RWQCB summarizes the possibility that the wastes at CAOC 20 could
present a source of contaminants to the groundwater as presented in the
2-9
-------
CTO293VB70018VDFROD-R2
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 (May. 1997
following table. There is a degree of uncertainty associated with this
assessment; however, the selected remedy for CAOC 20 includes a
groundwater monitoring program that will address these uncertainties.
Portion of CAOC 20
Excluding Waste
Disposal Holes
Radioactive Disposal
Hole
Acid Disposal Hole
Nonradioactive
Disposal Holes
Past Source?
(contaminants)
No
No
Likely
(IDS. pH,
heavy metals)
No
Current
Source?
No
No
No
No
Future Source?
No
No
No
No
Surface waters are not present at CAOC 20 except if there is heavy
/
precipitation. The contaminants located at CAOC 20 will not threaten surface
waters during precipitation events because of the existing thick, overlying soil
cover.
2.2.5
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for OUs 3 and 4
using data collected during the Rl. The human health evaluation methodology
is provided in Section 5.0 and Appendix H of the draft final Rl report for OUs 3
and 4, June 1995. Specific results of the assessment for CAOC 20 are
provided in Section 7.0 of the Rl Report. The ecological assessment is provided
in the draft final Phase I ERA, February, 1996. Both are summarized here in
support of the decision to take action at CAOC 20.
2-10
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
2.2.5.1 Human Health Risks
The human health evaluation used for CAOC 20, and the other OUs 3 and 4
CAOCs, represent a simplified procedure for addressing carcinogenic risks and
noncarcinogenic health hazards to potential human receptors from exposure to
contaminants for a defined exposure scenario. The evaluation incorporates
health-protective exposure assumptions and addresses relevant exposure
routes.
The evaluation quantitatively compares the contamination detected in each
stratum to a common set of criteria assuming no action has been taken to
control the contamination. To characterize the range of potential impacts, two
future land-use scenarios were evaluated: a hypothetical on-site resident and a
hypothetical on-site industrial worker.
Contaminant Identification
Samples were collected from each stratum within CAOC 20 using a random
sampling approach. Only soil samples ^ere evaluated; groundwater is
evaluated under OUs 1 and 2.
The procedures used to identify the chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) to
be evaluated in this assessment are consistent with EPA's Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) (EPA 1989) and Guidance for Data Useability
in Risk Assessment (DURA) (EPA 1992).
A stratum-specific list of COPCs for the human health evaluation were included
or excluded based on the following criteria:
• Metals within the naturally occurring background range have been
excluded as COPCs.
• 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
2-11
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
site) are not considered COPCs. These metals are calcium, iron,
magnesium, potassium, and sodium.
• Only tentatively identified compounds (TICs) that have been specifically
identified (i.e., with a Chemical Abstracts Service [CAS] number) are
inducted as COPCs.
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 (RME) scenario and potential exposure pathways.
The RME, defined as the highest exposure that is reasonably expected to occur
at a site (EPA 1989), is intended to estimate a conservative exposure case that
is within the range of possible exposures. Currently the strata of OUs 3 and 4
have an industrial land use or are vacant property. However, because the long-
term land use is unknown, it is conceivable that MCLB 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, which assume
that no mitigation or control action has been taken (i.e., a baseline evaluation).
Pathways of exposure are the means through which an individual may come in
contact with a chemical contaminant. Soil exposure pathways that were
deemed to be complete and relevant for OUs 3 and 4 are soil ingestion, dermal
absorption of contaminants from soil, 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. For those strata where a sufficient
number of samples exist, a calculation of a mean soil exposure was calculated.
The 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) of the arithmetic mean has been
calculated assuming a lognormal distribution consistent with EPA-recommended
procedures (EPA 1992). When the 95 percent UCL of the mean concentration
2-12
-------
CTO293VB70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
exceeds the stratum-maximum concentration, the stratum-maximum
concentration is used as the soil exposure point concentration (EPA 1992).
ToxtcHv Assessment
The toxicity assessment involves the process of characterizing 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 1989). Cancer slope factors, as published by the EPA in the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) data base (EPA 1994a) and in the
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) (EPA 1994b), 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,
including sensitive subpopulations, that do not pose an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime. RfDs are expressed in units of mg/kg-day.
Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount of a
chemical ingested from contaminated soil) can be compared to the RfD. Animal
to human extrapolation uncertainty factors have been applied to the RfDs to
help ensure that the RfDs will not under estimate the potential for adverse
noncarcinogenic effects to occur.
In this evaluation, the chronic oral and inhalation reference concentrations as
published in the IRIS data base and HEAST are used.
Development of Risk-Based Criteria
Risk-based criteria (RBC) were developed for use in the human health
evaluation. RBC are specific to a chemical for a given set of exposure
2-13
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
PrtntDate 28 May. 1997
assumptions for a particular medium (e.g., soil). The R8C 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
noncarcinogenic health effects have two RBC. For carcinogens, RBC are
calculated by setting the target cancer risk at 1 x 10-6. For noncarcinogens,
RBC are calculated by setting the hazard index at 1.0. In addition, separate
RBC are calculated for each exposure scenario (i.e., residential and industrial).
Chemical-specific risk quotients and hazard quotients are calculated by dividing
the soil exposure point concentration of each detected COPC 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 and noncarcinogenic RBC indices based on the total (background
plus any site-related) concentration are calculated. In addition, that portion of
the total that is attributable to background is presented. For carcinogens, the
incremental (the total minus the background) RBC index is also presented.
/
Strata with either an incremental carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic (residential)
index greater than 1.0 warrant further risk management evaluation.
Human Health Risk Characterization
The human health risk assessment considered soil to be the only exposure
medium. Maximum concentrations detected in the top 13 feet of soil were used
for this assessment. The associated groundwater risk assessment is being
prepared separately as part of the OUs 1 and 2 assessment. The results and
findings of the human health risk assessment for CAOC 20 are presented in
Table 2-7 for the residential land-use scenario and Table 2-8 for the industrial
land-use scenario.
2-14
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O01B
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Residential Land Use Scenario
As shown in Table 2-7. the calculated incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) for
Strata 1, 2, and 3 are each below 1 x 10* and the contaminants detected in the
soils pose no potential significant risk.
The total noncarcinogenic RBC indices for each stratum were determined to be
greater than 1.0. As shown in Table 2-7, virtually all the hazard can be
attributed to naturally occurring metals, and therefore, the site-related impact is
considered insignificant.
The risk assessment results summarized above, for the residential scenario,
indicate that exposure to Strata 1, 2, and 3 soils at depths of 0 to 13 feet would
not have an adverse effect on human health.
Industrial Land Use Scenario
As shown in Table 2-8, the ILCR for each stratum is less than 1 x 10-6; no
significant carcinogenic risk is posed by these, soils under an industrial land-use
scenario.
The total noncarcinogenic RBC indices for each stratum are considered to be
negligible as they are almost entirely attributable to naturally occurring metals.
These results indicate that exposure to CAOC 20 soils at depths of 0 to 13 feet,
under an industrial land-use scenario, would not have an adverse effect on
human health.
2.2.5.2 Environmental Risks
At the request of the U.S. Department of Defense, an ecological risk
assessment (ERA) for MCLB Barstow was performed by the EPA Region IX
staff in support of the Rl. The purpose of the ERA was to assess what threats,
if any, past 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
2-15
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01 F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
conclusions is discussed. Details are provided in the draft final ERA, dated
February 1996 (EPA 1996).
The ERA was composed 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 utilizing 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. A
discussion of the methodologies for these components is provided in the
following sections.
Habitats
The purpose of the habitat assessment was to determine the dominant floral
and fauna! communities and receptors within a given area that may have been
adversely impacted by the Base disposal practices. A screening site survey
included review 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
• Each transect line was observed at least twice a day (once at dawn and
once in the evening)
2-16
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
• 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 "zig zag" 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
t
• Identification of dominant vegetation (patch size or structure)
• Determination of canopy
• Identification of slope
• Determination of soil type
• Identification of range qualified by tracks.
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 literature, Biological Technical Advisory Group guidelines, and Cal/EPA
DTSC guidelines. Criteria for establishing COCs for the ERA are presented as
follows.
2-17
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROO-R2 CLE>J02-01F293-B7-001B
Print Dale: 28 May. 1997
• Naturally occurring chemicals were deleted from the COC 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 COC list
Chemicals such as iron and aluminum were deleted from the COC list
because they are often found in high concentrations in the soil.
Background concentrations for MCLB Barstow, developed for naturally
occurring chemicals during the Rl, were used in this process.
• Chemicals at less than 1 mg/kg concentration, being not highly toxic and
posing no significant threat to environmental receptors, were deleted
from the COC list.
• Infrequent chemical occurrence, appearing to represent no significant
risk to the environmental receptors, were deleted from the COC list.
Summarizing the results of the COC screening as presented in the ecological
risk assessment, the following chemicals were retained for the ERA:
• Arsenic
• Cadmium
• Chromium
• Copper
• Lead
• Zinc
4-4 DDT
• Dieldrin
PCBs.
Receptors
Selection of the potential environmental receptors for the ecological risk
assessment (ERA) was predicated upon 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
• Establishment of the receptors' home range
• Identification of sentinel species, which could be used to represent a
number of species residing within a site
2-18
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
• 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 homed owl
• Deer mouse
• Mallard duck
• Desert tortoise
• Arachnoid species
• Grasshoppers
• Termites
• Salt cedar
• Rabbitbrush
• Creosote bush.
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 contaminated soil, which, through soil erosion and runoff during
storm events, releases contaminants to surface water and groundwater via
leaching. It should be noted that because the contents of the disposal units in
Strata 1 and 2 at CAOC 20 were not sampled, the risk assessment was
2-19
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
performed based on the surrounding shallow soil data. 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.
Following the identification of potential exposure pathways, a risk
characterization further refined the exposure assessment to focus on site-
specific concerns. 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.
Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion
The low levels of contamination present in the soil at CAOC 20 do not present
an ecological risk. Detailed information can be found in the MCLB Barstow draft
final Phase I ERA (EPA 1996).
>•
2.2.5.3 Uncertainties
There is some uncertainty associated with the results of the human health risk
assessment for Strata 1 and 2 because only the soils surrounding the buried
wastes, and not the buried wastes themselves, were sampled for analysis
during the Rl. Therefore, the calculated risk numbers do not account for
potential direct exposure to the buried wastes.
Some uncertainties also exist regarding the potential for buried wastes to affect
groundwater. The analysis of potential migration of contaminants used only
soils data; the wastes were not sampled. Potential future risk to groundwater
may result from direct release of contaminated wastes as the containers age.
2.2.5.4 Basis for No Action for Stratum 3
Only Stratum 1 and Stratum 2 contain buried wastes. Stratum 3 does not and
subsequently does not require remedial action.
2-20
-------
CTO293VB70018\DFROO-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Stratum 3 is considered protective of human health and the environment for the
following reasons:
• Risk levels are below the target human health risk range.
• Contaminants in the soils do not threaten to impact the quality of
groundwater or surface water. This is described in further detail in
Section 2.2.4.
• The ecological assessment found that low levels of contaminants
detected would not have an adverse impact on ecological receptors.
2.2.6 Description of Remedial Action Alternatives
Alternatives were developed for CAOC 20, Strata 1 and 2, to address the
uncertainties just discussed and to comply with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs). The objectives of the alternatives are to:
• Minimize potential for disturbance of wastes
• Minimize potential future releases to groundwater
• Attain landfill closure ARARs.
t
The following alternatives were developed to meet these objectives:
• Alternative 1 - No Action
• Alternative 2 - Institutional Control
• Alternative 3 - Containment
- Alternative 3A - Grading/Groundwater Monitoring
- Alternative 3B - Cap/Groundwater Monitoring.
These alternatives were selected to provide an appropriate range of options for
comparison with each other. The descriptions of the alternatives presented
here vary slightly from those presented in the draft feasibility study for OUs 3
and 4 and the OUs 3 and 4 proposed plan. Subsequent to the preparation of
these documents, changes in the proposed groundwater monitoring program
were agreed to by the agencies and the Marine Corps. These changes are
described here and in Sections 2.2.8 and 2.2.10 of this document. The costs
have been revised based on the changes for the monitoring. The total
2-21
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
decrease in cost is the same for each alternative, so relative comparisons
remain unchanged.
2.2.6.1 Alternative 1 - No Action
The NCR (40 CFR 300.430[e][6J) requires that a no action alternative be
evaluated. Under the no action alternative, no institutional controls,
containment, or treatment would be provided to reduce potential site risks. This
alternative would result in no disturbance to the existing environment.
2.2.6.2 Alternative 2 - Institutional Control
Institutional control refers to remedial technologies other than engineering
control and treatment technologies. Institutional controls generally reduce risk
to human health and the environment by controlling exposure pathways rather
than removing or controlling the risk source. The institutional controls in
Alternative 2 consist of limiting future land-use at CAOC 20. This alternative
also includes groundwater monitoring, vadose zone precipitation infiltration
monitoring, drainage control, and modification) of the concrete cap at Stratum 1.
The property use will be limited to activities within the top 5 feet of soil. The
intent of these limits is to reduce potential for disturbance of the in situ wastes.
The maintenance of adjacent railroad tracks would not be affected by these
limitations.
Groundwater monitoring entails collection and analysis of groundwater samples.
The proposed locations of the groundwater monitoring wells, one upgradient
and one downgradient, are depicted in Figure 2-3. The wells are assumed to be
completed at a depth of 165 feet below grade (groundwater is at approximately
150 feet). Groundwater sampling will be conducted annually for 4 years. The
groundwater samples will be analyzed for pH. anions (chloride, fluoride, nitrate,
phosphate, and sulfate), cations (potassium, sodium, and calcium), gross alpha,
gross beta, radium-228, radium-226, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and
metals. The results will be evaluated and if the monitoring results indicate a
statistically significant release at CAOC 20, any appropriate further action will be
proposed after consultation with the EPA, DTSC, and RWQCB. An evaluation
2-22
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
of the 4-year sampling will be presented at the 5-year review. Any change in
the groundwater sampling will be in consultation with and must receive the
concurrence of the EPA, the DISC, and the Lahontan RWQCB.
Annual monitoring of the vadose zone precipitation infiltration for the first
4 years is also proposed as part of this alternative. A neutron access hole will
be drilled to approximately 10 feet at the proposed location in Figure 2-3. One
monitoring location is considered to be adequate based on the relatively uniform
geology at CAOC 20. Monitoring will be performed at the frequency specified
above using a neutron access probe at an approximate depth of 10 feet into the
subsurface.
In addition to the institutional controls and monitoring activities discussed above,
this alternative also includes drainage control across the CAOC to prevent run
on and ponding of surface water, the performance of work required to ensure
that the radiological waste well in Stratum 1 is filled to the surface with dean fill,
and maintenance of the integrity of the cap. At the start of remediation, the
configuration of the cap will be modified to minimize potential for infiltration.
Currently, the well cap includes a 30- by 30-foot concrete platform at a minimal
slope with the 4-foot-diameter radiological waste well near the center. The
radiological waste disposal well is not backfilled completely to surface elevation.
A 4- to 6-inch-high section of riser sticks out from the ground surface and
includes a cap to cover the well head.
During remediation, the concrete cover will be modified to provide a continuous
concrete cap over the 30- by 30-foot area. Prior to this cap modification, the
well will be filled with appropriate fill to surface elevation. This work will be
performed for all of the alternatives except for no action.
The net present worth for this alternative was estimated at $174,500, which
includes $10,000 for administrative costs and $164,500 for well installation and
groundwater monitoring.
2-23
-------
CT0293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
2.2.6.3 Alternative 3 - Containment
This alternative focuses on limiting infiltration into the subsurface, thereby
reducing potential leachate migration into the groundwater. Two options were
considered as potentially suitable containment alternatives for this site:
• Alternative 3A - Grading/Groundwater Monitoring
• Alternative 3B - Cap/Groundwater Monitoring.
Alternative 3A - Grading/Groundwater Monitoring
This alternative involves grading Stratum 2 to facilitate diversion of water and
reduce infiltration. Additionally, groundwater monitoring will be performed and
the Base master plan will be amended to limit use. The concrete cap in
Stratum 2 will also be modified as discussed in the description for Alternative 2.
Grading and restoration of Stratum 2 will be performed to reduce wind and
water erosion and infiltration at CAOC 20. These areas will be graded to a
1-percent slope to promote drainage and reduce ponding. In addition, the
surface of these areas will be restored using rock/gravel to minimize erosion
due to wind or precipitation. A regular maintenance program will be
implemented to maintain a stable surface environment and to reduce infiltration
into the subsurface. The grading plan for this alternative is shown in Figure 2-4.
Groundwater monitoring will be performed as discussed for Alternative 2.
Construction activities are expected to be completed in 7 weeks followed by 4
years of monitoring. The present net worth of Alternative 3A is estimated to be
$339,200, which includes $174,700 for the grading/surface restoration and
$164,500 for well installation and monitoring.
Alternative 3B - Cap/Groundwater Monitoring
This alternative involves placement of a cap in compliance with the
requirements of Title 23 California Code of Regulations (CCR). This cap will
consist of a 2-foot-thick soil foundation layer, a 40-mil high density polyethylene
(HOPE) liner, and a 2-foot-thick soil cover. The grading plan and cap cross-
2-24
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CUE -J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
section are shown in Figure 2-5. The geomembrane liner was selected over low
permeability clay because of a strong potential for desiccation of the clay in
Barstow's arid climate. The geomembrane liner is expected to be more durable
and effective and at the same time provide comparable permeability and cost as
the day layer.
The design and construction of the geomembrane liner will be performed
according to commonly practiced standards of the industry. Examples of
geomembrane liners include HOPE or linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE)
liners, and the specific membrane material will be selected during remedial
design. After compaction and grading of the foundation layer, sheets of
geomembrane will be placed and extrusion-welded together, followed by weld
testing (vacuum box) to ensure the integrity of welded seams. The
geomembrane will be anchored around the boundary of the cap to provide slope
stability. The side slopes of the cap will be covered by a gravel armor layer to
minimize erosion.
Surface preparation will be performed as required before the cap installation.
Runoff/run-on control will be accomplished using site contour grading and
diversion. The cap will be installed over an approximate 1.2-acre area of
Stratum 2.
In addition to capping and surface water control, groundwater monitoring will be
performed and limitations on uses of the land will be implemented as discussed
for Alternative 2. Additionally, cap modification of the existing concrete cap in
Stratum 1 will be performed as discussed for Alternative 2. The groundwater
monitoring program for this alternative is identical to the one described for
Alternative 2. The construction activities will last for approximately 9 weeks
followed by 4 years of monitoring. The net present worth of Alternative 3B is
estimated at $707,800, which includes $543,300 for cap installation and
maintenance and $164,500 for groundwater monitoring.
2.2.7 Summary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
This section provides the basis for determining which alternative presents the
"best balance" of tradeoffs with respect to the evaluation criteria.
2-25
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Nine evaluation criteria have been developed to address not only CERCLA
requirements and considerations, but also additional technical and policy
considerations for selecting a site remedy from remedial action alternatives.
The evaluation criteria and their associated statutory considerations include two
threshold criteria, five balancing criteria, and two modifying criteria, as
presented below.
• Threshold Criteria
- Overall protection of human health and the environment
- Compliance with ARARs.
• Balancing Criteria
- Long-term effectiveness and permanence
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment
Short-term effectiveness
Implementability
Cost.
>•
• Modifying Criteria
State acceptance
Community acceptance.
The comparative evaluation of each criterion for CAOC 20 is summarized as
follows.
2.2.7.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives 1, 2, 3A, and 3B provide adequate protection of human health from
ingestion, inhalation, or direct contact exposure from soils. The ILCR for the
soils at all three strata is less than the 1 x 10*6 target risk level for the residential
land-use exposure scenario. In addition, the hazard index (HI) is below 1.0 for
all three strata. Low concentrations in the soils do not represent a threat to the
environment. However, Alternative 1 would not control potential future
2-26
-------
CTO293VB70018\DFROO-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
PnntDate: 28 May. 1997
groundwater effects and would not prevent disturbance of buried waste and,
therefore, is considered nonprotective.
2.2.7.2 Compliance with ARARs
All of the alternatives are in compliance with the location-specific ARARs.
Except for Alternative 1. all other alternatives comply with the action-specific
ARARs. For Alternative 3B, the engineered cap meets landfill closure
requirements. For Alternative 3A, grading the existing soil above the waste
(approximately 20 feet thick) meets performance standards specified by landfill
regulations. Similarly, for Alternative 2, the existing conditions of the soil layer
above the waste are adequate to meet the objectives of the landfill closure
requirements.
2.2.7.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 3B is the most effective for the long-rterm because it provides the
greatest protection against potential infiltration. Alternative 3A is also effective
for limiting potential contact of precipitation with buried wastes by proper grading
and sloping. Although rated slightly lower than Alternative 3A, Alternative 2
provides adequate long-term effectiveness and permanence by limiting land-use
and monitoring the groundwater migration pathway. Although Alternative 1
currently provides adequate protection of human health and the environment,
uncertainty exists regarding potential future disturbance of buried wastes and
groundwater impacts.
2.2.7.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
None of the alternatives reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment
because no treatment actions were considered.
2.2.7.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
This criterion was not rated for Alternative 1 because no actions are
implemented. Some potential short-term health and safety risks would exist
during implementation of Alternative 2. Greater potential short-term risks would
2-27
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
exist from dust emissions for Alternatives 3A and 3B from construction activities
due to the larger quantities of material handling required to grade and/or
construct the cap.
2.2.7.6 Implemerrtability
This criterion was not rated for Alternative 1 because no actions would be taken.
No problems are expected during implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3A.
Although Alternative 3B is more difficult to implement and maintain than
Alternatives 2 and 3A, it also entails standard, proven practices known to be
readily implementable.
2.2.7.7 Cost
There are no costs associated with Alternative 1. The net present worth for
Alternative 2 is estimated to be approximately $174,500. The net present worth
for Alternatives 3A and 3B is estimated to be $339,200 and $707,800,
respectively. Because the groundwater monitoring cost is identical for
Alternatives 3A and 3B, the difference in net present worth for the two
alternatives is associated with soils handling.
2.2.7.8 State Acceptance
The State of California has reviewed and approved the OUs 3 and 4 FS and
proposed plan and concurs with the preferred and selected alternative,
Alternative 2 for CAOC 20, Strata 1 and 2.
2.2.7.9 Community Acceptance
No significant comments were received from the public regarding any of the
alternatives.
2.2.7.10 Summary
Alternatives 1, 2, 3A, and 3B provide adequate protection of human health from
ingestion, inhalation, or direct exposure from soils. However, under
2-28
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Alternative 1, groundwater impacts are not monitored or controlled, and
potential disturbance of the wastes, although unlikely, is possible. Therefore,
only Alternatives 2, 3A, and 3B are considered to be protective of human health
and the environment Alternatives 2, 3A, and 3B meet the ARARs for landfill
closure requirements and are considered to be comparable in providing long-
term effectiveness and protection of human health and the environment.
Accordingly, even though all three of these alternatives are considered
effective, Alternative 2 provides a cost savings of $164,700 compared to
Alternative 3A and a cost savings of $533,300 compared to Alternative 3B.
2.2.8 The Selected Remedy for CAOC 20. Strata 1 and 2
The selected remedy for CAOC 20, Strata 1 and 2, is Alternative 2 - Institutional
Control. This alternative involves risk reduction to human health and the
environment through controlling and monitoring exposure pathways. This
alternative primarily entails implementation of future land-use limitations,
groundwater monitoring, vadose zone precipitation infiltration monitoring,
surface drainage control, modification of the existing concrete cap in Stratum 1,
and relocation of a buried water line.
Stratum 1 contains a concrete cap that will be modified to provide further
protection from infiltration. For Stratum 2, the selected remedy uses the existing
final cover for waste containment. The existing final cover consists of 15 feet of
native fine-grained soils. Considering that the majority of the buried wastes in
Stratum 2 lie over 15 feet bgs and that CAOC 20 naturally slopes down from
Stratum 1 toward Stratum 3, the existing conditions at Stratum 2 provide the
same effect as a 15-foot-thick soil cap. A regular maintenance program will be
implemented to maintain a stable surface environment. Drainage controls will
be implemented as necessary to prevent surface water run-on and ponding on
the final cover. Mathematical modeling results (SWDIV 1995) indicate that the
characteristics of the final cover and the area climate will prevent percolation of
water into buried solid wastes.
Regarding ARARs, Title 23, Article 5, Chapter 15 prescribes standards for liner
systems and leachate collection and removal systems (LCRS). The CAOC 20
2-29
-------
CTO293VB70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
waste disposal pit area has been inactive since 1974 and is classified as an
abandoned "inactive" unit under Title 23 CCR, Section 2510(g). Therefore, the
liner and LCRS requirements are not applicable to CAOC 20. Based on
evaluation of Rl data, the landfill has been designated as not being a current or
future source of leakage. Retrofitting of the landfill with the liner system and
LCRS prescribed in Chapter 15 is not required because evaluation of Rl and FS
data indicates that retrofitting is unnecessary and infeasible (Title 23 CCR
Sections 2510[b] and [c]). Therefore, the liner and LCRS requirements are not
relevant and appropriate for CAOC 20.
The selected remedy is equivalent to an engineered alternative under Chapter
15 (Title 23 CCR, Sections 2510[b] and (c]) (RWQCB 1996). The final remedy
is consistent with the performance standards for the final cover prescribed in
Chapter 15 because the final cover will prevent precipitation from reaching
buried wastes. Alternative 3B, which incorporates the final cover prescribed in
Chapter 15, was not selected because it is not required to control waste
migration, and it would be burdensome and unnecessary. The prescriptive cover
and LCRS are not relevant and appropriate requirements.
/
Remediation goals for soil focused on preventing exposure to contaminants in
excess of an incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) of 1 x 10-6 and a hazard
index of 1.0. The calculated human health risk results for the soils in the area to
be capped (Stratum 2) and Strata 1 and 3 are already below 1 x 10-6. While the
risk is below the acceptable risk range of 10-4 to 10-6, uncertainties exist
because of the lack of analysis of the buried wastes themselves and the
potential for disturbance of the wastes. This alternative satisfies the objectives
of reducing the potential for disturbing the waste and for contamination
migration to groundwater
To ensure that human health is protected in the future, no excavation of soils
(e.g., in the course of construction or maintenance of building or utility facilities)
within CAOC 20 Strata 1 and 2 may occur below a 5-foot depth unless prior
approval of the FFA signatories is obtained as provided below. Because of the
uniqueness of the site, an agreement was reached concerning excavation within
the top 5 feet of soil. Although the risk assessment supports that no significant
risk is associated with the top 13 feet of the soil at the site, the FFA signatories
2-30
-------
CTO293VB70018\DFROD-R2 CLE^)02-01 F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
have agreed to provide a factor of safety because the wastes remain buried.
The maintenance of railroad tracks adjacent to CAOC 20 is not affected by
these limitations.
If an excavation below the 5-foot level in CAOC 20 Strata 1 and 2 is proposed,
the DTSC, RWQCB, and EPA 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 OU 3/4 ROD in
the written notification of a proposed change. 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 such an action is implemented by the Navy.
The Navy shall notify the FFA signatories of any plan to lease or transfer CAOC
20 Strata 1 and 2 as real property to a non-federal or federal entity. Such
notification shall be provided at least 30 days/ in advance of the lease or transfer
conveyance. The Navy shall comply with Section 120(h)(3) of CERCLA in any
such transfers to a non-federal entity.
The MCLB Barstow Base Master Plan (Master Plan) will be amended to
incorporate the above-mentioned use limitations and notice requirements for
CAOC 20 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 20 Strata 1 and 2; references to the MCLB Barstow OU 3 Rl,
FS, and ROD; and will provide a legal description (metes and bounds) of the
boundaries of CAOC 20 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 OU 3/4 ROD.
The FFA signatories will be provided with a copy of the amendments to the
Master Plan reflecting the land use limitations and notice requirements at CAOC
20 Strata 1 and 2.
2-31
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Groundwater monitoring will involve installation of two monitoring wells, periodic
collection of groundwater samples, and subsequent analysis for detection
monitoring. Additionally, vadose zone precipitation infiltration monitoring is also
proposed via a neutron access hole to evaluate the extent of infiltration
occurring at the CAOC.
In addition to these controls, this alternative also includes ensuring that the
radiological waste well in Stratum 1 is filled to the surface with dean fill and to
maintain the integrity of the concrete cap. At the start of remediation, the
configuration of the cap will be modified to minimize potential for infiltration. The
well will be filled with appropriate dean fill to surface elevation. The concrete
cover will then be modified to provide a continuous concrete cap over the 30- by
30-foot area. The conditions of the existing cap and the reconstructed cap will
be documented in writing and with photographs. This information will
subsequently be provided in the administrative record file.
The remedial action will be reevaluated after the fourth year of monitoring for
decisions on further or additional actions. An evaluation of the 4-year sampling
will be presented at the 5-year review. If the monitoring proposed under the
final remedy indicates a statistically significant release at CAOC 20, any
appropriate action will be proposed after consultation with the EPA, DTSC, and
RWQCB.
Following the submittal of the draft final feasibility study report, certain changes
were proposed in the groundwater monitoring program with concurrence from all
three of the involved regulatory agendes (EPA, RWQCB, and DTSC).
Information from additional site visits by the agendes and additional fate and
transport modeling of the radioactive and nonradioactive disposal wells
(modeling results are provided in Project Note No. 42, dated 18 December
1995) was considered in subsequent discussions between the Navy and the
regulatory agendes and a modified groundwater monitoring program was
finalized as discussed below.
Two monitoring wells (one upgradient and one downgradient of CAOC 20) will
be installed to a depth of approximately 165 feet below ground surface
(groundwater is at approximately 150 feet). The downgradient well will be
2-32
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLEO02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
placed within 100 feet of the disposal pits. Groundwater monitoring will be
performed annually for 4 years. Because there is a relatively high degree of
certainty regarding the types of waste disposed of at CAOC 20, groundwater
samples will be analyzed for only those Base-wide COCs that could have been
released from CAOC 20. These constituents were selected based on the
evaluation contained in the OUs 3 and 4 Rl report and include pH, anions,
cations, VOCs, metals, radium-226, radium-228, gross alpha, and gross beta.
The remainder of the selected remedy is unchanged from the description
provided in the draft final FS. The procedures for sampling, analysis, and
reporting of the results to the agencies will be included in the next revision of the
Yermo Annex Operable Unit 1, Marine Corps Logistics Base - Barstow,
Groundwater Monitoring Plan, OHM Remediation Services Corp., 16 August
1996.
The modifications to the groundwater monitoring program impact the costs
accordingly. In the draft final FS report, the groundwater monitoring component
and corresponding costs were identical for Alternatives 2, 3A, and 3B. As the
revised monitoring program is applicable to all three of these alternatives, the
net change in costs from the FS estimate for^ll of these alternatives would also
be identical. Therefore, the relative evaluation of the cost criteria in the detailed
and comparative analysis of alternatives is not affected and does not need
reevaluation.
Both capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs have been considered
in the estimates for the revised alternative. The net present worth for the
selected remedy is estimated to be $174,500. The capital cost for this
alternative was estimated at $103,000, which includes $93,000 in well
installation and $10,000 in administrative costs for amending the Base master
plan to limit land use. The annual O&M costs for monitoring is estimated to be
$20,200. The costs do not include monitoring after the fourth year, as results
will be evaluated to determine if any further action is required. The O&M cost
includes maintenance, labor, material, sample shipment and analysis, waste
disposal, and report preparation. The present worth of monitoring costs for
4 years is estimated to be approximately $71,500.
2-33
-------
CTO293\B70018\OFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print D*e: 28 May. 1997
2.2.9 Statutory Determinations
This section discusses how the selected remedy for CAOC 20 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 remediation
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, toxicrty, or mobility of hazardous wastes.
2.2.9.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment by
implementing institutional controls to limit and control the potential for exposure
to human or ecological receptors. The current human health risks from Strata 1.
2, and 3 soils are already below 1 x 10-6. As mentioned previously, although
these results show that the site is currently protective, data for the assessment
were limited to surface samples and soil samples surrounding the wastes; no
direct samples of the buried wastes were collected. Some potential exists for
disturbance of the buried wastes, although it is limited as the majority of the
wastes are buried deeper than 15 feet below ground surface. Additionally, the
lack of analytical data of soils underneath the wastes provides further
uncertainty regarding the potential for future releases to the groundwater.
However, fate and transport modeling performed for CAOC 20 suggests that
even under conservatively assumed conditions for contaminant migration, the
groundwater quality is unlikely to exceed acceptable standards.
An ecological risk assessment was also conducted to evaluate potential effects
on plants and animals. CAOC 20 was found not to have an adverse impact on
ecological receptors.
2-34
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
2.2.9.2 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 20 are listed and discussed in Appendix C.
2.2.9.3 Cost-Effectiveness
The selected alternative was evaluated for cost-effectiveness relative to the
other three alternatives evaluated for CAOC 20. The selected alternative is the
least expensive option protective of human health and the environment.
2.2.9.4 Use of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy for CAOC 20, Alternative 2 - Institutional Controls, meets
the statutory requirement to use permanent solutions and treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. A presumptive remedy for
landfill was pursued for CAOC 20. This approach assumes that treatment is
neither cost-effective nor practical. Therefore, this remedy does not satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment as a principal element.
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
of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment, short-term effectiveness,
Implementability, and cost.
Each of the alternatives provide adequate long-term effectiveness and
permanence. As mentioned, the calculated human health risks are within the
protective range. The actions for Alternative 2 address risk uncertainties by
limiting land use and monitoring the groundwater migration pathway.
The reduction of mobility, toxicity, or volume is not met by any of the alternatives
because treatment was found to be infeasible.
2-35
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Minimal short-term health and safety risks from dust emissions result from the
actions taken for each of the alternatives. The preferred alternative would result
in the least amount of impact because disturbance of soils is minimal.
No problems are expected during implementation of the preferred alternative.
Alternatives 3A and 3B are slightly more involved than Alternative 2, but they
also entail standard construction methods and materials.
The preferred alternative is the least costly. The estimated present worth value
is $174,500. The estimated present worth value of Alternatives 3A and 3B are
$339,200, and $707,800, respectively.
The DTSC and the RWQCB agree with the selected alternative. The state has
been active in reviewing and providing input on the data collected and evaluated
throughout the evaluation process for cleanup of CAOC 20.
2.2.9.5 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 NCR
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 20, because the wastes are a combination of inorganic
salts and low-level radiological waste, treatment is not practicable. However,
the majority of the waste is buried deeper than 15 feet bgs and based on the
results of the fate and transport modeling, the buried wastes were found not to
have an adverse impact on groundwater.
2.2.10 Documentation of Significant Change
As discussed previously in Section 2.2.8, the selected remedy was modified
after the submittal of the draft final FS report. Certain changes were proposed
in the groundwater monitoring program with concurrence from all three of the
involved regulatory agencies (EPA, RWQCB, and DTSC). The groundwater
monitoring locations and parameters were reevaluated and revised as
discussed in detail in Section 2.2.8.
2-36
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROO-R2 CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
The modifications to the groundwater monitoring program has significantly
changed the overall cost of the selected alternative. The estimated net present
worth of the revised groundwater monitoring program ($164,500) is
approximately $381,700 less than the net present worth estimated for the
original groundwater monitoring program in the feasibility study ($546,200).
Considering that this cost reduction applies to the selected remedy as well as
Alternatives 3A and 3B, because the groundwater monitoring component and
corresponding costs are identical for Alternatives 2, 3A, and 3B, the selected
remedy is still the least expensive of these three alternatives. As a result, the
comparative analysis for the cost criterion and remedy selection are unaffected
by this modification. Revised cost tables are provided in Appendix D.
2.3 OU 3 - CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
2.3.1 CAOC 23 - Name. Location and Description
CAOC 23, known as the Landfill Area, is an irregular L-shaped area located at
the south to southeast comer of the Yermo Annex (Figure 1-2) that is sited
between the railroad tracks that serve the warehouse areas and the industrial
operations' perimeter fence. This area is approximately 5,000 feet long, 400 to
500 feet wide, and comprises an area of approximately 60 acres. The
topography across the landfill area is slightly sloped and in general is shaped by
landfill activities. The geology in the vicinity of the landfill consists of reworked
alluvium. The depth to groundwater in this area is approximately 130 feet. The
only structure within the boundaries of CAOC 23, Building 593, houses the
Defense Realization and Marketing Office (DRMO). Truck scales associated
with the DRMO scrap and salvage operations are located near Building 593.
CAOC 23 was divided into six strata in order to develop the strategy for sample
collection and to assess the data collected (Figure 2-6). The strata were
identified by evaluating historical aerial photographs and records, conducting
interviews with Base personnel to identify past waste practices, and reviewing
the results of site reconnaissance surveys. Strata 1 and 3 are general storage
areas located in the northeastern and north-central portions of the CAOC. The
trenches that comprise Stratum 2 are located around the southwestern
perimeter. Stratum 4 consists of the waste management area located in the
2-37
-------
CTO293\B70018VDFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01 F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
south-central area of CAOC 23. Stratum 5, the potential waste burial area, and
Stratum 5a, the PCB-hrt area, are sited in the western portion of CAOC 23.
2.3.2 Operation*
Historical records for CAOC 23 indicate that between 1946 and 1980 it was
operated as a storage area for waste and rollback equipment (equipment and
materials returned from World War II and the Korean and Vietnam conflicts) and
for disposal of solid waste and some hazardous liquid waste. Scrap metal
recovery was part of the landfill operations (NEESA 1983). The historical
information reported here on CAOC 23 is derived from the initial assessment
study (IAS) report prepared by NEESA in 1983 and the preliminary review/visual
site inspection report (PR/VSI) prepared by the Navy (SWDIV 1991 a) in 1991.
The IAS team gathered their information from Base historical records, aerial
photographs, surface and aerial surveys, and personnel interviews. Information
in the PR/VSI was gathered through interviews with MCLB personnel and files
and inspection reports gathered from numerous federal, state, and local
government offices.
/
The IAS report also indicated that the cities of Barstow and Daggett reportedly
conducted their sanitary landfilling operations outside the industrial operations'
perimeter fence in the area south and west of CAOC 23. However, the IAS did
not provide the specific location of these activities. The quantity of waste and
periods of operation could not be established. The review of the aerial
photographs as part of the PR/VSI revealed no evidence of these landfill
operations. This reported landfill area operated by the cities of Barstow and
Daggett was not included as part of the Rl because it was not operated by
MCLB Barstow and was reported to have existed outside the Yermo Annex
fence line (SWDIV 1991 a).
The IAS also reported that between 1946 and 1955 specific use of the area
west of Building 477 included storage of rollback equipment. Waste material
and ordnance comprised the equipment stored in this area. This specific area
could not be identified for the Rl because Building 477 is not shown on any of
the facility maps. The reference to this building may have been reported in error
in the IAS.
2-38
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE^J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Between 1947 and 1952, an area south of Building 550 (Figure 2-6), 3 to
5 acres in size, was used for disposal of a wide variety of waste material.
Materials, including chemicals and paints, were generated from the Central
Pacific and Eastern Pacific military operations and transported to the Yermo
Annex for disposal. General construction debris was also reportedly disposed
of in this area between 1952 and 1954. No estimate of the quantity of waste
disposed of at this site could be obtained (NEESA 1983).
Landfill operations started in 1961 in the area identified as Stratum 2 in
Figure 2-6; the area received waste from both Nebo Main Base and Yermo
Annex as the Nebo landfill phased out in 1964. Solid waste was off-loaded to
100- by 10- by 8-foot-deep trenches (Stratum 2), drenched with flammable
waste liquids (waste solvents, gasoline, and oil), and burned to reduce waste
volume. An electromagnet was used to recover iron and steel materials from
the ashes for recycling. Ashes were pushed to one end of the trench and
covered with dirt. Recovery operations would take place at one end of the
trench, while landfilling and volume reduction continued at the other end.
Landfilling here continued until 1980, when it was covered with soil.
/
Approximately 80 to 240 cubic yards of waste were disposed of daily in this
area. The wastes consisted primarily of general trash, but included wood, paint
cans, metal parts, gears, waste rubber, clothing, Orations, and parts from
wrecked or deactivated vehicles. Sources for the waste included base
operations and rollback equipment received on Base. Sludge from industrial
process sumps and from the sanitary wastewater treatment plant was disposed
of at this site (NEESA 1983).
A majority of the surface area of CAOC 23 is currently used by the Defense
Realization Marketing Office (DRMO) for material scrap and salvage
operations. Tires, vehicles, and aluminum are stored in this area, and metal
and parts are segregated for reuse and/or resale.
2.3.3 Investigation History
An IAS was conducted at CAOC 23 by Brown and Caldwell in 1983 to evaluate
if there was evidence of a potential threat to human health or the environment.
2-39
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
The IAS, which designated the area as Site 23, involved a review of site archival
and activity records, interviews with on-srte personnel, and an on-site survey.
The significant findings of the IAS were that past operations conducted at
Site 23 involved mostly refuse and nonhazardous solid materials; however, two
operations did involve hazardous materials. In the 1950s, ammunition received
from rollback was stored here, and as part of the landfilling operation,
flammable liquids were used as fuel to combust trash.
The IAS report concluded that the majority of the wastes disposed of at Site 23
do not pose a problem because they are nonhazardous. The report also
concluded that the majority of flammable liquids used as fuel for trash burning
have likely been combusted or absorbed in the solid waste, and the top soil
covering the deposits effectively prevents a downward driving force for liquid
waste migration (NEESA 1983). Therefore, the IAS team did not recommend a
confirmation study (CS) for Site 23.
Even though the IAS concluded that a confirmation study was not necessary for
Site 23, the area adjacent to Site 23 was included during the negotiation phase
for the CS. The Marine Corps requested Jthat borings be drilled in the area
adjacent to Site 23, (near Building 550) (Figure 2-6), in the area where a
proposed storage facility was to be constructed. The storage facility has since
been constructed and is identified as Building 635 in Figure 2-6. The purpose
of the borings was to install gas monitoring probes to determine the presence of
landfill gas from Site 23 in this area. Six vapor wells installed on 18 December
1984 (Figure 2-7) were drilled to a depth of 21 feet. Only native alluvium was
encountered during drilling. Each well was sampled for vinyl chloride, paraffin
hydrocarbons (on the basis of n-octane), and aromatic hydrocarbons (on the
basis of benzene) using a Orager Gas Detector pump. Test results indicated an
absence of these classes of vapors, with the lower limits of detection being 1,
100, and 2 ppm, respectively. Based on these results, the confirmation study
concluded that no further investigation was necessary at this site. The details of
the study were reported by A.L Burke Engineers, Inc. (WESTDIV 1985 and
1986).
Site 23 was also included as part of the PR/VSI under the RFA program. The
PR/VSI report presented little additional information on Site 23 from that
2-40
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
presented in the IAS and CS reports. Aerial photographs were, however,
compiled under this study and later reviewed for planning sampling locations as
discussed in the amendment to the draft final sampling and analysis plan for
OUs 3 and 4 (SWDIV1991 b). Although the CS report recommended no further
investigation for Site 23, the recommendation presented in the PR/VSI report
entailed further investigation of Site 23 as part of OU 3, because Site 23 is an
identified site in the FFA.
The field investigations for the Rl were conducted in two phases during March
through October 1992 and May and June 1994. Phase I activities included
scoping, stratum definition, reconnaissance, and a soil/geologic investigation.
Phase II included surface soil sampling at three strata and soil/geologic
investigation at one additionally identified stratum.
2.3.4 Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the assessments conducted at
CAOC 23. analytical results from soil sampling, and a general summary of water
quality risks and uncertainties as related tq water quality protection. During
Phase I of the investigation. 14 soil borings were advanced within CAOC 23 to
characterize the nature of contamination in the soils. During Phase II, an
additional 5 soil borings were advanced in a newly identified stratum, and 14
surface soil samples (6 to 12 inches) were collected from Strata 2 and 3.
Sample locations are shown in Figure 2-7. The Phase I borings were advanced
to depths ranging between 21.5 and 41.5 feet, and Phase II borings were
advanced to depths of 5 feet. Potential sources of contamination at this CAOC
include the landfilled wastes at Stratum 2 and potential leaks from material and
equipment storage. To avoid disturbance of the buried wastes at Stratum 2, the
wastes were not specifically targeted for sampling and the characterization is
based on surrounding soil samples. Characterization of the landfilled wastes
using statistical sampling procedures would have been burdensome and
unnecessary.
Results of laboratory analytical testing for organic and inorganic compounds for
Strata 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 5a are summarized in Tables 2-9 through 2-20.
Maximum concentrations by depth are presented. To help identify potentially
2-41
-------
CTO293\B70016\OFROO-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
significant contaminants, residential soil RBC are also shown on these tables.
For the inorganics, the 95th percentile background concentrations for shallow
soils (0 to 3 feet) are also shown for comparison. Because of the applicability of
groundwater monitoring for landfills, groundwater results are presented in
Tables 2-21 through 2-23.
Stratum 1
The results for organic and inorganic compounds detected in Stratum 1 soils are
presented in Tables 2-9 and 2-10, respectively and are summarized as follows.
• Carbon disulfide was the only organic compound detected that was not
attributed to laboratory contamination. It was detected only once at
in boring YM2303 at 10 feet bgs.
• Chlorinated pesticides were detected in boring YB2301. DOT and DDE
were detected at 1 foot bgs and endosulfan I and gamma-chlordane
were detected at 20 feet bgs; the detections are 5.9. 6.7, 3.2, and
6.6 ng/kg, respectively.
• TRPH was detected in boring YM2303 from 5 to 42 feet at
concentrations ranging from 14 to 22 mg/kg.
/
None of the detected organic compounds exceed residential soil RBC. The
guidance used for comparison of petroleum-related contaminants is the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Manual (SWRCB 1989). Using this guidance, the
acceptable levels for gasoline-related products and diesel-related products at
CAOC 23 would be 1.000 and 10,000 mg/kg, respectively. The total
recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) diesel concentrations detected are
below each of these levels.
• Aluminum, arsenic, beryllium, boron, cyanide, iron, selenium, and
vanadium were detected at maximum concentrations exceeding their
corresponding 95th percentile background concentrations. Except for
cyanide, each of these organics is believed to be naturally occurring and
not site related based on the lack of scoping information to suggest its
use or release at CAOC 23.
• Cyanide was detected in two samples, boring YB2303 at 5 to 7 feet and
boring YB2302 at 10 to 11 feet bgs. Detections are below residential soil
RBC.
2-42
-------
CTO293VB70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
Stratum 2
Results of analytical testing for organic and inorganic compounds in Stratum 2
soils are presented in Tables 2-11 and 2-12 and are summarized as follows.
• No volatile or semivolatile organic compounds were detected other than
those attributed to laboratory contamination.
• Several chlorinated pesticides (alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane,
dieldrin, DDT, DDE, and DDD) were detected in borings YM23-2-4 and
YM23-2-5 in the samples collected from 2.5 to 3 feet bgs. DDT, DDE,
and DDD were detected at the greatest concentrations. The pesticides
had concentrations ranging from 0.2 to 100 ng/kg. Each of these is less
than the associated residential soil RBC.
• Aroclor-1260 was detected in boring YM23-2-4 at 2.5 to 3 feet at 11
lig/kg and in boring YM23-2-5 at 2.5 to 3 feet at 100 ng/kg. Aroclor-1260
was not detected in the other 16 samples analyzed. The one detection
of 100 jig/kg is above the RBC for Aroclor-1260 of 47.3 jig/kg. The 95
percent upper confidence limit (UCL) of the arithmetic mean
concentration is 38 fig/kg; thus, representative concentrations are below
the RBC. All detections are below the EPA-suggested action level of
1 mg/kg for residential land-use scenarios and 10 to 25 mg/kg for
industrial settings. These suggested action levels are derived from the
EPA Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB
Contamination, OSWER Directive No. J9355.4-01, August 1990.
TRPH was detected in borings YM2304 and YM2305 at 5, 10, 20. 30,
and 40 feet bgs with concentrations ranging from 11 to 75 mg/kg. TPH-
gasoline and TPH-diesel were not detected in this stratum. Using the
TPH-diesel criteria as comparison with the TRPH detections, Stratum 2
concentrations are well below the criterion.
• Stratum-maximum concentrations of beryllium, boron, cadmium, lead,
manganese, mercury, iron, sodium, vanadium, and zinc were above their
respective 95th percentile background concentrations. Only cadmium,
lead, and mercury are considered possibly site related. None of the
three site-related metal concentrations exceeded their respective
residential soil RBC.
Stratum 3
The analytical results for soil samples collected from Stratum 3 are presented in
Tables 2-13 and 2-14 and are summarized as follows.
• The only organic compound detected that was not attributed to
laboratory contamination was toluene. Toluene was detected at 40 feet
in both borings YM2307 and YM2308 at concentrations of 17 and
5.4 ng/kg, respectively. Both concentrations are below the RBC.
2-43
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
• Chlorinated pesticides (DDT, ODD. DDE) were detected in borings
YM23-3-1, YM23-3-2, YM23-3-4, YM23-3-5, YM23-3-6. and YM23-3-7 at
2.5 feet bgs. These pesticides were at concentrations ranging from 0.2
to 5.2 ng/kg, which are below residential soil RBC.
• TRPH was reported in boring YM2306 at 5 and 40 feet bgs. and in
boring YM2308 at 5, 10, 20, 30, and 40 feet Concentrations ranged
from 11.3 to 40 mg/kg. These concentrations are below the guidance
levels derived from the LUFT Manual.
• Boron, cyanide, and mercury are present at stratum-maximum
concentrations exceeding their 95th percentile background
concentrations. Boron is not considered site-related because it is
consistent with detected background concentrations. Cyanide is
assumed to be site related because it was not detected in any of the
background samples; cyanide detections are below the residential soil
RBC. Mercury was detected only once at a concentration of 0.09 mg/kg.
Detections for the background samples ranged from 0.10 to 0.12 mg/kg.
Therefore, the single detection is not considered site related.
Stratum 4
The results of the organic and inorganic analyses are presented in Tables 2-15
and 2-16. They are summarized as follows.
• Xylene was the only organic compound detected other than those
attributed to laboratory contamination. It was detected at 4 ng/kg in
boring YM2310 at 5 feet bgs.
• Chlorinated pesticides were detected in boring YM2313 at 1, 2, and
5 feet bgs. ODD, DDT, and DDE concentrations ranged from 1 to
369 fig/kg. None of the concentrations exceeded their respective
residential soil RBC.
• TRPH was reported in boring YM2309 at 5, 10, 20, 30, and 40 feet, and
in boring YM2310 at 5 and 10 feet. Concentrations ranged from 16.2 to
5,180 mg/kg. TPH-diesel was detected in boring YM2310 at 5 feet at a
concentration of 508 mg/kg. The detected concentrations, using the
guidance from the LUFT Manual, are below the acceptable levels.
• Stratum-maximum concentrations of barium, cyanide, selenium, and
silver also exceeded their respective 95th percentile background
concentrations. Cyanide was not detected in any of the background
samples, and therefore is conservatively assumed to be site related;
none of the detections exceed the RBC. Selenium and silver are
considered to be naturally occurring because of a lack of scoping to
suggest their use or presence at this CAOC. Barium is also considered
naturally occurring because the detections appear consistent with the
range of background concentrations.
2-44
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Stratum 5
The organic and inorganic analytical results for Stratum 5 soils are presented in
Tables 2-17 and 2-18 and are summarized as follows.
• No volatile or semivolatile compounds, other than laboratory
contaminants, were detected in Stratum 5 soils.
• Chlorinated pesticides (alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, dieldrin,
DDT, and DDE) were detected in boring YM2314 at 0.5, 1.5, and 5 feet
bgs. These pesticides were at concentrations ranging from 1 to
110 ng/kg. None of the detections exceed their respective residential
soil RBC.
• Arodor-1254 was detected in only one boring, boring YM2314. within
Stratum 5 at 0.5, 1.5, and 5 feet bgs. Reported Arodor-1254
concentrations were 251, 99.8, and 77.6 ng/kg, showing a decrease with
depth. Arodor-1254 was not detected below 6 feet in this boring. The
detections in this stratum are above the RBC of 47.3 mg/kg, but appear
to be isolated. Stratum 5a was defined as a result of these detections
for the purpose of defining the extent of PCBs in this area. All
detections in this stratum are, however, below the EPA suggested action
level of 1 mg/kg for residential land-use scenarios and 10 to 25 mg/kg for
industrial settings.
• TRPH was detected in boring YM2311 at 0.5 and 6 feet, in boring
YM2312 at 1, 2, 5, and 20 feet and in boring YM2314 at 0.5, 1.5, 5, and
20 feet. Concentrations ranged from 11.1 to 24.2 mg/kg. TPH-diesel
and TPH-gasoline were not detected at Stratum 5. The criteria for TPH-
diesel (10,000 mg/kg) is used for comparison; detected TRPH
concentrations are well below this level.
• Several metals were detected at concentrations exceeding their 95th
percentile background concentrations: boron, barium, beryllium,
cadmium, cyanide, mercury, and strontium. Barium, cadmium, cyanide,
mercury, and strontium are assumed to be site related in the human
health risk assessment. The maximum detections of each are below
their respective residential soil RBC. Boron and beryllium were
assessed as naturally occurring.
Stratum 5a
The detected organic and inorganic compounds for Stratum 5a are presented in
Tables 2-19 and 2-20 and are summarized as follows.
• No volatile or semivolatile organic compounds were detected except for
laboratory contaminants.
2-45
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CIE-J02-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Date. 28 May. 1997
• Chlorinated pesticides (alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, dieldrin,
endosulfan II, endrin, endrin ketone, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide.
DDT, ODD, and DDE) were detected sporadically in borings YM23-5A-1,
YM23-5A-2, YM23-5A-3, YM23-5A-4, and YM23-5A-5 at 0.5 and 5 feet.
These pesticides were reported at concentrations ranging from 0.19 to
51 ng/kg, with the highest concentrations detected at the surface.
Maximum concentrations are below respective residential soil RBC.
• Aroclor-1254 was detected at a maximum concentration of 39 ng/kg in
boring YM23-5a-4 at 5 feet Arodor-1254 was also detected at 0.5 feet
in boring YM23-5A-5 at a concentration of 35 ng/kg. These detections
are below the RBC of 47.5 ng/kg and the EPA action level of 1 mg/kg.
• Eleven metals were detected at concentrations statistically above
background in the soils at Stratum 5a: aluminum, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, boron, calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, sodium, and
vanadium. Aluminum and barium are consistent with site use and are
addressed as site related contaminants; maximum detected
concentrations do not exceed residential soil RBC. The other metals are
not consistent with site scoping information and site use and are
considered naturally occurring.
Groundwater
Five wells (YS23-1 through YS23-4 and YS23-6) were installed downgradient
from CAOC 23 (Figure 2-7) during Phase I investigations. Wells YS23-1
through YS23-4 are screened at 15 feet below the water table (shallow depth)
and well YS23-6 is screened at 50 to 60 feet below the water table (intermediate
depth).
TCE and tetrachloroethene (PCE) were detected in excess of the Cal/EPA and
EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for primary drinking water
constituents (SWDIV 1995a). To define the contaminant source, two wells were
installed upgradient from CAOC 23 during the Phase II investigations. These
two wells, YS23-7 and YS23-9, are screened at the shallow depth.
Phase I wells were sampled quarterly for volatile organics from April 1992
through October 1993, and Phase II wells were sampled in June 1994. Volatile
organic analysis (VOA) was performed according to contract laboratory program
(CLP) protocol. The VOA results are presented in Table 2-21.
Samples were also collected from the Phase I wells and analyzed for the
following general chemistry parameters:
2-46
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE^I02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
• Total alkalinity
• Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
• Fluoride
• Methylene blue active substances (surfactants)
• Nitrate
• Nitrite
• Sulfate
• Total dissolved solids (TDS)
• Total kjeldahl nitrogen.
Samples were collected for four quarters (September 1992, January 1993, April
1993, and July 1993) from wells YS23-1, YS23-2. YS23-4, and YS23-6.
Samples were collected for five quarters from well YS23-3, March 1992, June
1992, September 1992, January 1993, and July 1993. The general chemistry
results are summarized in Table 2-22.
Phase II groundwater sample analysis from /he upgradient wells indicates low
levels of 1,2-dichloroethane (DCA) in well YS23-09 below the MCL. Results are
shown in Table 2-23.
The groundwater data from CAOC 23 suggest the TCE and PCE detected in
Phase I wells downgradient from the landfill do not originate from a source
upgradient from CAOC 23. Because DCA is a daughter product of TCE and
PCE degradation, the DCA detected in wells upgradient from CAOC 23 likely
did not originate in the Yermo landfill, but was transported southeast with
groundwater from a source of degrading PCE or TCE farther upgradient to the
northwest. The extent of groundwater contamination and potential response
actions are being further evaluated as part of the OU 1 investigation.
Summary of Evaluation of Impacts to Groundwater
For CAOC 23, Stratum 2, records, including aerial photographs, indicate the
waste located there is in the form of bum residue (ash) mixed with soil. There is
expected to be heterogeneous distribution of pollutants in the mixture, because
2-47
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
of variability in the solid waste burned during any given day. The bum residue is
assumed to contain hazardous constituents, including heavy metals and dioxins.
During the active waste disposal phase at CAOC 23, operators poured
flammable liquid wastes over the solid wastes prior to ignition. Hazardous
liquids were likely to have been applied in quantities sufficient to percolate
downward to groundwater. This practice is believed to have contributed to the
existing PCE/TCE plume of contaminated groundwater downgradient of CAOC
23. Evaluation of the results of sampling of groundwater and soil pore gas
directly under the landfill areas indicate that concentrations of PCE/TCE that
remain are not likely a continuing source to groundwater contamination.
The potential for remaining wastes at the landfill and in soils to affect
groundwater was evaluated using the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill
Performance (HELP) Model (SWDIV 1995b). The HELP Model predicts
downward migration of precipitation. The results indicate significant deep
percolation of precipitation is not likely to occur at the CAOC 23 landfill because
of the arid climate and fine-grained soils located there. In addition, significant
deep percolation is also not likely to occur a; the other areas of OUs 3 and 4,
except in:
a) ephemeral channels during the period of precipitation runoff,
b) areas where substantial off-site runoff flows on site to form a pond, and
c) locations where water/liquids are applied/released as a result of base
activities (i.e., landscape irrigation, pipeline leaks, effluent percolation
ponds, etc.).
The Marine Corps used two mathematical models, which predict contaminant
migration in soils; the DLM model and VLEACH model (SWDIV 1995c). The
DLM and VLEACH modeling assumes deep percolation of precipitation, even
though it is unlikely to occur. Evaluation of the Rl data and the modeling
process indicated that remaining contaminants in the soils would not reach
groundwater at concentrations that would degrade the groundwater.
Under the groundwater operable units (OUs 1 and 2), monitoring wells and
piezometers have been installed and are being sampled. The Marine Corps has
2-48
-------
CTO293\B70018VDFROD-R2
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
installed 83 groundwater monitoring wells, including 44 for the Yermo Annex
and 39 for the Nebo Main Base. Up to 10 rounds of quarterly sampling have
been completed for individual monitoring wells. The results of sampling do not
indicate the significant presence of organic COCs. except for PCE/TCE. PCE
and TCE account for 99 percent of the organic pollutant mass in groundwater.
COCs in the category of heavy metals have been detected in samples of
groundwater at significant levels; however, the cause/source is still being
investigated under OUs 1 and 2. OUs 3 and 4 sites are not suspected of being
sources of these metals.
The RWQCB has summarized the possibility that the wastes at CAOC 23 could
present a source of contaminants to groundwater. There is a degree of
.uncertainty associated with this assessment; however, a groundwater
monitoring program that will address these uncertainties will be included as part
ofOlM.
Portion of CAOC
Stratum 2
Remainder of
CAOC 23
Past Source?
(contaminants)
Yes
(PCE, TCE)
No
Current
Source?
' No
No
Future Source?
No
No
For Stratum 2, records indicate that liquid wastes may have been applied in
quantities sufficient to percolate downward to groundwater.
Surface waters are not present at CAOC 23 with the possible exception of when
there is heavy precipitation. The contaminants located at CAOC 23 will not
threaten to impact surface waters during precipitation events because of the
existing thick, overlying soil cover.
2.3.5
Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 23
using data collected during the Rl. The human health evaluation methodology
2-49
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
is provided in Section 5.0 and Appendix H of the draft final Rl report for OUs 3
and 4, June 1995. Results of the assessment for CAOC 23 are provided in
Section 9.0 of the Rl Report The ecological assessment is provided in the draft
final Phase I ERA, February 1996. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.2.5 and conclusions related to CAOC 23 are presented
here in support of the decision to take action.
2.3.5.1 Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 23, Strata 1 through 5 and 5a,
are presented in Table 2-24 for the residential land-use scenario and Table 2-25
for the industrial land-use scenario.
Residential Land-Use Scenario
As shown in Table 2-24, Strata 5 and 5a pose a potential ILCR in excess of
1X10-6.
The ILCRs calculated for Strata 5 and 5a, 6.§ x 10-6 and 1.3 x 10-6. respectively,
are both above the point of departure level of 1 x 10^. The potential human
health risk at Stratum 5 is driven by detections of Aroclor-1254 in excess of the
residential soil RBC, but are below the EPA guidance level of 1 mg/kg for
residential land use. For Stratum 5a, while no individual analyte exceeds 10-6,
the cumulative effect of the maximum detections of Aroclor-1254 and several
pesticides results in a potential risk in excess of 10-6. The Aroclor-1254 levels
are below the EPA guidance level for residential land use and pesticide levels
are consistent with those resulting from basewide applications of pesticides for
maintenance purposes.
The calculated ILCRs for Strata 2, 3, and 4 are each below 1 x 10-6 and pose no
potential significant risk.
The total noncancer RBC indices are exceeded for all strata. As shown in
Table 2-24, virtually all the hazard can be attributed to background
concentrations, and therefore, site-related impact is considered insignificant.
2-50
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
As shown in Table 2-25, only Stratum 5 exceeds this 1 x 10-6 target incremental
carcinogenic risk level. The contaminants driving this risk level are the same as
those discussed for the residential land-use scenario. The total noncarrinogenic
hazard RBC indices are all below the target index of 1.0, signifying no potential
significant health impact.
2.3.5.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion
As previously mentioned, because the buried wastes were not sampled at
Stratum 2, the ecological assessment was performed based on surrounding
shallow soil data. The low levels of contamination present in the soil at CAOC
23 do not present an ecological risk. Detailed information can be found in the
MCLB Barstow draft final Phase I ERA (EPA 1996).
2.3.5.3 Uncertainties
For the landfill trench area, Stratum 2, data vyere limited to surface soil samples;
no samples were taken of the landfilled wastes. The potential exists for the
workers to disturb the wastes, because the thickness of the existing soil cover is
not known. This creates uncertainty in the risk results. Additionally, the lack of
analysis of soil beneath the wastes 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 downgradierit of the landfill at concentrations
above regulatory limits, but not in upgradient wells. The data indicate that the
landfill was a source for these contaminants in the past, but are inconclusive in
addressing a potential continuing release.
2.3.5.4 Basis of No Action for Strata 3, 5, and 5a
Strata 3, 5, and 5a at CAOC 23 do not require action.
2-51
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date. 28 May. 1997
Stratum 3
No action is required at Stratum 3 for the following reasons:
• Human health risk is below the target risk levels for both carcinogenic
and noncartinogenic constituents.
• Contaminants remaining in the soils do not threaten to impact the quality
of groundwater or surface water. This is described in further detail in
Section 2.3.4.
• Low levels of contaminants detected would not have an impact on
ecological receptors.
Stratum 5
Stratum 5 is considered protective of human health and the environment for the
following reasons:
• The detections of Aroclor-1254 are below the EPA guidance level of
1 mg/kg for a residential land-use scenario
• Contaminants remaining in the soils do not threaten to impact the quality
of groundwater or surface water. This is described in further detail in
Section 2.3.4.
• Contaminants detected would not adversely impact ecological receptors.
However, because the carcinogenic risk falls within the risk range, for future
planning purposes, a brief description of the history of CAOC 23, Stratum 5, will
be provided in the MCLB master plan. The low levels of PCBs detected in the
soils will be documented in the master plan. Language provided in the master
plan will indicate that any actions planned in this area, or changes in site use,
should be coordinated and reviewed by the MCLB Environmental Department.
Stratum 5a
Stratum 5a is considered protective for the following reasons:
• Maximum levels of individual pesticides and PCBs are below
concentrations that would pose a 10*6 risk.
• Pesticide detections are consistent with levels that result from basewide
application for maintenance.
2-52
-------
CTO293VB70018VDFROD-R2 CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Dote: 28 May, 1997
• Aroclor-1254 detections are below the EPA guidance level of 1 mg/kg.
• Contaminants remaining in the soils do not threaten to impact the quality
of groundwater or surface water. This is described in further detail in
Section 2.3.4.
• Contaminants detected would not adversely impact ecological receptors.
• The residential land-use scenario has been used conservatively for this
stratum, but the industrial use of this property is not anticipated to
change in the foreseeable future.
Because the carcinogenic risk lies within the risk range under the residential
land-use scenario, for information and planning purposes, a brief description of
the history of this stratum will be included in the Base master plan. The low
levels of pesticides and PCBs will be documented. Language provided in the
master plan will indicate than any actions planned in this area that change the
site use should be coordinated through and reviewed by the MCLB
Environmental Department.
2.3.5.5 Basis of Limited Action for Strata 1 and 4
Although Strata 1 and 4 are considered protective, limited action was agreed to
by the parties of the FFA, as discussed in the following paragraphs.
Stratum 1 (Northern Portion)
Stratum 1 is considered protective for the following reasons:
• Risk 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. This is described in further detail in
Section 2.3.4.
• The ecological assessment found that the low levels of contaminants
detected would not have an adverse impact on ecological receptors.
2-53
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
However, four small pits were identified in this stratum through the geophysical
survey. These pits were not specifically targeted during the Rl sampling
program. To address any uncertainties of impacts to human health or the
environment associated with these areas, these areas will be excavated and
consolidated with the landfill trenches in Zone I during implementation of the
selected capping option.
Stratum 4
The reasons for taking limited action at Stratum 4 are the same as those given
for Stratum 1.
One small pit was identified in this stratum through the geophysical survey. This
pit was not specifically targeted during the Rl sampling program. To address
any uncertainties of impacts to human health or the environment associated
with this small pit, this area will be excavated and consolidated with the landfill
trenches in Zone I during implementation of the remedial action selected for
Zone I.
f
2.3.6 Description of Alternatives - Zone I
Alternatives have been developed to address the uncertainties just discussed
for CAOC 23. Stratum 2 and the southern portion of Stratum 1 (Zone I). The
regulatory requirements for closing landfills and the Base's requirements for
continuing to use the area for DRMO also played a major role in developing
alternatives for CAOC 23. CAOC 23 Stratum 2 has been identified as an
unclassified landfill as a result of the ARAR evaluation. Regulations exist for
proper closure and management of landfills. Discussion of the groundwater
monitoring requirements for landfill closure at CAOC 23 will be addressed in the
OU 1 (Yenmo groundwater) documentation and are not discussed as part of this
OU 3 ROD. 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 Rl 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
2-54
-------
CTO293\B70018VDFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
wells at levels above the MCLs. ICE and PCE were not, however, detected in
upgradient wells or 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 currently a significant source to the groundwater.
The presumptive remedy approach was used in the development of alternatives
for CAOC 23. Presumptive remedies are preferred technologies for common
categories of sites based on historical patterns of remedy selection and EPA'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 1993) defines
municipal landfills as those containing principally municipal wastes and, to a
lesser extent, hazardous wastes. As indicated by the historical records for
CAOC 23. the landfill trenches received largely refuse and nonhazardous
materials, and flammable hazardous liquids were used to combust the wastes.
Based on the consistency between the EPA definition and the presumed waste
inventory of CAOC 23, the presumptive remedy was used at CAOC 23.
r
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 23: engineering controls (i.e., cap) and institutional controls.
Based on the reported historical information, aerial photographs, results of
geophysical surveys, and results from soil sampling activities, Stratum 2 and the
southern portion of Stratum 1 (Zone I) are the only areas of CAOC 23 where
2-55
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE^02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
landfilling activities occurred. The locations of these areas and the boundaries
of the response actions addressed for CAOC 23 are shown in Figure 2-8 (noted
as Zone I). Stratum 2, which consists of four former trenches, was operated as
a landfill area. These trenches were identified during the PR/VSI through facility
interviews and the aerial photograph review (SWDIV 1991 a). Additional (during
the preparation of the Rl report) review of Base photographs dated April 1975
and February 1978 revealed a pit in Stratum 1 between the trench locations.
These combined areas, referred to as Zone I, encompass approximately 11
acres.
The following remedial action objectives were developed for Zone I:
• Minimize potential for disturbance for wastes
• Minimize potential future releases to groundwater
• Attain landfill closure ARARs (exclusive of groundwater monitoring
requirements, which will be addressed as part of OU 1).
An additional objective is to provide a final remedy that minimizes impacts to
existing DRMO activities.
Five alternatives were developed for evaluation to address the CAOC
contaminants and objectives as follows.
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: Institutional Control - Master Plan Amendment
Alternative 3: Single-Layer Cap
Option 1: Native Soil Cap
Option 2: Concrete Pavement
Alternative 4: Multilayer Cap
Option 1: Title 23 Prescriptive Cap
Option 2: Modified Title 23 Prescriptive Cap with
Geomembrane Liner
Option 3: Concrete Pavement with Geomembrane Liner
2-56
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Date 28 May, 1997
Option 4: Modified Title 23 Prescriptive Cap with
Geosynthetic Clay Liner
Alternative 5: Consolidation and Capping
Option 1: Concrete Pavement
Option 2: Concrete Pavement with Geomembrane Liner
Subsequent to the release of the draft final FS and the Proposed Plan for OUs
3 and 4, the FFA signatories decided to include any monitoring required for the
closure of CAOC 23, Zone I under OU 1, the Yermo groundwater OU. The
California Integrated Waste Management Board also determined that landfill
gas monitoring is not required at CAOC 23, Zone I. On this basis, the
groundwater and landfill gas monitoring components have been deleted under
the description of alternatives in this ROD. Additionally, the cost of the
alternatives in this section reflects the deduction of the associated monitoring
costs. These changes are further described in Section 2.3.10.
2.3.6.1 Alternative 1: No Action
The NCR (40 CFR 300.430[e][6]) require^ 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.
2.3.6.2 Alternative 2: Institutional Control - Master Plan Amendment
Institutional control refers to remedial technologies other than engineering
controls and treatment technologies. Institutional controls generally reduce
potential risk to human health and the environment through 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 23 Zone I. Precipitation
infiltration will be monitored.
2-57
-------
CTO293\870018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
The master plan amendment will limit future land use at Zone 1 to ensure that
human health is protected in the future.
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.
Semiannual monitoring for the first 2 years and annual monitoring for 28 years
is proposed at the neutron access hole. The proposed monitoring location is
depicted in Figure 2-8.
The estimated capital cost for this alternative is $8,500.
2.3.6.3 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 23 prescriptive landfill cap is intended to
serve: minimizing water infiltration and leachate migration. The general
remediation site plan is shown in Figure 2-9. Two single layer cap options were
evaluated: a native soil cover and concrete pavement.
Institutional controls restricting future land use would be implemented under this
alternative and documented in the Base master plan.
The precipitation infiltration monitoring for this alternative is identical to that of
Alternative 2 and would be implemented following the installation of the cover.
The precipitation infiltration monitoring is only applicable to Option 1 of
Alternative 3. The groundwater monitoring requirements for landfill closure at
CAOC 23 will be discussed in the OU 1 (Yermo groundwater) documentation
and are not discussed in the OU 3 ROD.
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
2-58
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
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 is usually
dependent 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 installation will be addressed in the remedial
design phase, although surface soil compaction was included in the cost
estimate for cap installation at CAOC 23 Zone I.
This alternative also consists of the removal of material from the four anomalous
pits in Stratum 1 and the one anomalous area in Stratum 4 (outside the Zone I
area) and consolidation under the selected Zone I landfill cover.
Option 1: Native Soil Cover
This option includes the installation of a 3-foot soil cover over the estimated
11-acre area (Figure 2-10). This soil will be clean soil imported to CAOC 23
Zone I from other parts of the Base, which,, will be excavated by a front-end
loader or similar equipment and loaded onto trucks for transportation to CAOC
23 Zone I. The volume of imported soil, estimated to be 53,000 cubic yards, will
be placed over CAOC 23 Zone I and graded to a slope of 0.5 to 1 percent. The
existing surface will be graded and filled prior to placement of the soil cover. A
cross-section of the cap is shown in Figure 2-10.
The estimated total present worth cost of this option is $1.5 million.
This soil cover will 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 B of the FS. The
absorbed moisture in this soil cover will readily evaporate because of the dry
climate of the Barstow area, which will minimize generation of landfill leachate
and direct contact with the impacted soil of the Zone I landfill area.
2-59
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0016
Print [Me: 28 May. 1997
Option 2: Concrete Pavement
Concrete pavement typically consists of 6 to 8 inches of concrete on prepared
subgrade; 8-inch-thick concrete pavement is used for this option. The structural
integrity of the pavement relies on the strength of the foundation soils.
The subsurface of the landfill will require densification or improvement before
placing concrete pavement, or the concrete surface could settle prematurely
and fail by cracking until eventually becoming unusable or requiring a great deal
of maintenance. The minimum slope on the pavement should be 0.5 percent
after settlement. Foundation improvement to minimize nonuniform settlement
will substantially reduce infiltration because runoff into drainage channels is
maximized in the vicinity of CAOC 23 Zone I. A plan view and cross-section of
the cap are depicted in Figure 2-11.
The appropriate engineering properties, as well as design and construction
specifications for the subgrade and concrete pad, will be determined during the
remedial design phase, and will be based on commonly practiced industry
standards. If necessary, clean soil will be imported from the vicinity of CAOC 23
Zone I and used for the construction of the subgrade for the concrete pavement.
The total estimated present-worth cost of this option is $4.2 million.
2.3.6.4 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 23 Zone I. The institutional controls consist of future land use
restrictions. Groundwater monitoring is not included as a component of this OU,
but is included under the groundwater OU (OU 1). The engineering controls for
Alternative 4 consist of removal of material from the five anomalous pits in
Stratum 1 and Stratum 4 (outside the Zone I area) and consolidation under the
selected Zone I landfill cover. Additional engineering controls include the
installation of a multilayer cap to minimize infiltration and direct contact. Surface
settlement issues are also pertinent to the construction of a multilayer cap for
2-60
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE^)02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Alternative 4, and will be addressed during the remedial design phase. Four
separate multilayer cap options were considered:
• Titie 23 Prescriptive Cap
• Modified Title 23 Prescriptive Cap with Geomembrane Uner
• Concrete Pavement with Geomembrane Liner
• Modified Prescriptive Cap with GCL.
Option 1: Title 23 Prescriptive Cap
The prescriptive landfill cap for Zone I will 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
1x10* cm/s. (Alternatively, a manufactured soil/bentonite 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 will be determined during the remedial design phase and will be
based on commonly practiced standards of the industry. The foundation layer
requires about 35,000 cubic yards of soil and will take about 3 weeks for
construction.
The material for the clay layer will be obtained from clay deposits around the
Barstow area. The clay will be excavated, transported to CAOC 23 Zone I, and
graded and compacted to achieve a permeability of 1 x 10-6 cm/s or less. The
design specification and properties of the clay layer will be determined during
the remedial design phase. The estimated volume of clay material is 18,000
cubic yards, and the estimated time for the construction of this layer is about
3 weeks. If clay material is not available, a manufactured soil/bentonite mixture
will be used.
Clean soil for the top layer will be imported from on Base or off Base and,
because of the arid climate of Barstow, no vegetation is expected. The purpose
of the top layer is to protect the day layer from burrowing animals and traffic.
2-61
-------
CTO293\B70018\OFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Although the regulations only require 1 foot of cover, the top will be a 2-foot-
thick layer. This layer will 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 35,000 cubic
yards. The side slopes of the cap will be covered by a gravel armor layer to
reduce erosion. The cap grading plan and cross-section are shown in
Figures 2-12 and 2-13.
The total present-worth cost of this option is approximately $2.3 million.
Option 2: Modified Title 23 Prescriptive Cap with Geomembrane Liner
Because of the arid climate at MCLB Barstow, gradual desiccation of a low
permeability day layer used in Option 1 is a strong possibility, which would
compromise the effectiveness of the Title 23 prescriptive cap for 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 plan is shown in Figure 2-12 and a
cross-section is shown in Figure 2-14.
The design and construction of the geomembrane liner will be according to
commonly practiced standards of the industry. Examples of geomembrane
liners include high-density polyethylene (HOPE) or linear low-density
polyethylene (LLDPE). The specific membrane material will be selected during
remedial design. After compaction and grading of the foundation layer, sheets
of geomembrane will be placed and extrusion-welded together, followed by weld
testing (vacuum box) to ensure the integrity of welded seams. The
geomembrane will be anchored around the boundary of the cap to provide slope
stability. The side slopes of the cap will be covered by a gravel armor layer to
minimize erosion.
The total present-worth cost of this alternative is approximately $2.1 million.
2-62
-------
CTO293\B70018VDFROD-R2 CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Option 3: Concrete Pavement with Geomembrane Liner
This option is a variation of Option 2, and replaces the top 2-foot soil layer by 6
to 8 inches of concrete on top of the geomembrane liner, as depicted in
Rgures2-11 and 2-15. Geotextile will be placed between the geomembrane
and concrete to protect the geomembrane layer from puncture. The
combination of concrete pavement and the geomembrane liner virtually
eliminates infiltration and direct contact while allowing for continued future use
of the Zone I land without disturbing the surface soil. Clean soil will be imported
from the vicinity of CAOC 23 Zone I for the construction of the foundation and
general fill using standard construction equipment.
The total present-worth cost of this option is estimated at $4.7 million.
Option 4: Modified Title 23 Prescriptive Cap with GCL
Option 4 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 10-6 cm/s, and/ is simpler to construct than a
geomembrane liner. A cross-section of this cap is shown in Figure 2-16. 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 $2.2 million.
2.3.6.5 Alternative 5: Consolidation and Capping
This alternative provides a combination of engineering and institutional controls
to control exposure pathways associated with Zone I contaminants. The
engineering controls include excavation, consolidation, and capping of landfill
contents in CAOC 23 Zone I. Two capping options were considered: concrete
pavement and concrete pavement with a geomembrane liner. The institutional
controls include land use restrictions.
Capping (approximately 11 acres) was considered in Alternatives 3 and 4 to
minimize leachate generation and direct contact. Excavation of a 2-acre portion
2-63
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
of Zone I followed by capping would reduce the area of landfill to be capped to
approximately 9 acres. Backfill of the excavated area with dean soil imported
from the vicinity of CAOC 23 Zone I would allow continued future use of the site.
While the area to be capped is smaller in this alternative, the excavation and
transportation cost associated with dean fill would be an additional cost incurred
to implement the consolidation. The areas of excavation and consolidation in
Zone I are delineated in Figure 2-17. The volume of excavated waste/soil is
estimated to be about 19,000 cubic yards, assuming a landfill depth of 10 feet.
In addition, material from five anomalous pits in Strata 1 and 4 would be
excavated and consolidated under the cap.
Excavation activity would first dear surface debris and remove the piles of
stored parts and scrap, while controlling and limiting traffic around the
excavation area. Excavation would be performed using standard construction
equipment such as backhoes, front-end loaders, and if necessary, trucks to
transport excavated soil to the area to be capped. Dust suppressants used
during the excavation would minimize fugitive dust emissions. Site personnel
would also use personal protective equipment (PPE) as called for by the health
and safety plan to minimize risk to site workers.
After the excavation reaches the assumed landfill boundaries and a depth of
10 feet, excavation may continue if visual inspection reveals that buried debris
still remains in place.
The excavated soil will be transported to the other portion of Zone I for capping,
graded to 6- to 8-inch lifts, and compacted. A foundation for the cap installation
will consist of local clean soils. Thus, surface settlement concerns discussed for
Alternatives 3 and 4 are of less concern in this alternative.
Option 1: Concrete Pavement
This option is similar to Option 2 of Alternative 3 but the cap covers only a
portion of Zone I. The estimated area of the cap is approximately 9 acres
situated in the southern portion of Zone I. The placement of the concrete
pavement will allow the Base continued use of the land for storage. The
evaluation of soil geotechnical properties, as well as determination of design
2-64
-------
CTO293M370018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
and construction specification, will be addressed during the remedial design
phase. The grading plan is shown in Figure 2-18 and a cross section is shown
in Figure 2-19.
The estimated total present-worth cost of this option is $4.3 million.
Option 2: Concrete Pavement with Geomembrane Liner
This option is different from Option 1 in that a geomembrane liner will be placed
immediately beneath the concrete pavement to provide an additional barrier to
infiltration. The conceptual design and details of the cap are presented in
Figures 2-15 and 2-18 and were discussed for Alternative 4, Option 3.
The estimated total present-worth cost of this option is $4.7 million.
2.3.7 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
The relative advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives are discussed in
this section. /
2.3.7.1 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, which both
used soil data only because the wastes were not directly sampled. The
potential exists for disturbance of the waste and future impact to the
groundwater if no action is taken. Alternative 2 provides overall protection of
human health and the environment, as long as the land use restrictions are
enforced. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 (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.
2-65
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0016
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
Compliance with ARARs
Alternative 1 does not meet landfill closure requirements. Alternatives 2, 3, 4,
and 5 meet all ARARs. The requirement to eliminate all infiltration (California
Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66264.310[a][1D 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.
2.3.7.2 Primary Balancing Criteria
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 3, Option 2, Alternative 4, Option 3, and Alternative 5 (both options)
provide the highest degree of long-term effectiveness if adequately maintained
because they provide the greatest assurance that ongoing DRMO activities will
not disturb the buried wastes. Long-term effectiveness of Alternative 2 is
dependent on the continued enforcement of access/use limitations. The
effectiveness of the remaining capping alternatives is compromised by
continuing DRMO activities. Alternative /I does not provide long-term
effectiveness and permanence.
Reduction of Toxicitv. 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.
Short-term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness is not rated for Alternative 1 because no actions are
taken. Except for Alternative 5, none of the alternatives present a significant
potential human health or ecological risk during implementation. Alternative 5
presents the highest potential risk to Base personnel, the local community, and
site personnel because it involves excavation of the landfilled wastes. This
alternative also involves more extensive field operations than the other
alternatives.
2-66
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F233-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
The shortest amount of time for completion of the remedial alternatives,
excluding monitoring, is estimated to be 9 months for Alternative 1. Option 3.
Alternative 4, Options 1 and 4 are estimated to be completed in about 11
months and Alternative 4, Option 2 is expected to be completed in about 11.5
months. Remediation durations are estimated at 13.5, 15.5, 17.5, and 21
months for Alternative 3, Option 2; Alternative 5, Option 1; Alternative 5,
Option 2; and Alternative 4, Option 3, respectively.
Implementabilitv
This criterion is not rated for Alternative 1 because no actions are implemented.
Each of the other alternatives is comparable with respect to the fact that they
use proven technologies and commercially available services. The ease of
implementation is also comparable for each of the alternatives except for
Alternative 5, which is complicated by the excavation activities.
Cost
No costs are associated with Alternative 1. The costs for the other alternatives
range from approximately $8,500 to approximately $4.7 million: the least costly
is Alternative 2, Institutional Control; the most costly are Alternative 4 (Option 3)
- Multilayer Cap, Concrete Pavement with Geomembrane Liner and Alternative
5 (Option 2) - Consolidation and Capping, Concrete Pavement with
Geomembrane Cap. Estimated costs for the other alternatives, in ascending
order are:
• $1.5 million - Alternative 3 (Option 1) - Single-Layer, Native Soil Cap
• $2.1 million - Alternative 4 (Option 2) - Multilayer Cap, Modified Title 23
Prescriptive Cap with Geomembrane Liner
• $2.2 million - Alternative 4 (Option 4) - Multilayer Cap, Modified Title 23
Prescriptive Cap with Geosynthetic Clay Liner
• $2.3 million - Alternative 4 (Option 1) - Multilayer Cap, Title 23
Prescriptive Cap
• $4.2 million - Alternative 3 (Option 2) - Single-Layer Cap, Concrete
Pavement; and Alternative 5 (Option 1) - Consolidation and Capping,
Concrete Pavement.
2-67
-------
CT0293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
2.3.7.3 Modifying Criteria
State Acceptance
The State of California has reviewed and approved the OUs 3 and 4 FS and
proposed plan, and concurs with the preferred and selected alternative.
Alternative 3, Option for CAOC 23, Zone I.
Community Acceptance
Only one comment was received from the public regarding the selected
alternative for CAOC 23, Zone I. This comment is addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary. Based the lack of comments, it is assumed that the
public accepts the selected alternative.
2.3.8 The Selected Remedy for CAOC 23 - Zone I
The selected remedy for CAOC 23, Zone I is Alternative 3, Option 2 - Single
Layer Cap - Concrete Pavement. The major,, component of this alternative is a
concrete cap. The cap consists of 8 inches of concrete, approximately
53,000 square yards, placed over a prepared subgrade of general fill. The cap
will be sloped at no less than 5 percent and will cover an approximate 11-acre
area. The cap will be designed to perform as an engineered alternative to a Title
23 prescriptive cap.
Mathematical modeling results (SWDIV 1995b) indicate that characteristics of
the concrete cap and area climate will prevent percolation of precipitation into
buried solid wastes.
Regarding ARARs, Title 23, Article 5, Chapter 15 prescribes standards for liner
systems and leachate collection and removal systems (LCRS) for active
landfills. The CAOC 23 landfill area is an unlined landfill that has been inactive
since 1980 and is classified as an abandoned or inactive waste management
unit under Title 23 CCR Section 2510(g). Therefore, the liner and LCRS are not
applicable to CAOC 23. Based on evaluation of Rl data, the landfill has been
designated as not being a significant current or future source of leakage.
2-68
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Retrofitting of the landfill with the liner system and LCRS prescribed in Chapter
15 is not required to control waste migration because evaluation of Rl and FS
data indicates that retrofitting is unnecessary and infeasible (Title 23 CCR
Section 2510[b] and [c]). Therefore, the liner and LCRS requirements are not
relevant and appropriate for CAOC 23.
Based on evaluation in the FS, the Marine Corps contends that the selected
remedy is equivalent to an engineered alternative under Title 23 CCR Chapter
15, Sections 2510(b) and (c). Therefore, the Marine Corps contends that the
final remedy is consistent with the performance standards for the final cover
prescribed in Chapter 15 because the final cover will prevent precipitation from
reaching buried wastes. Based on evaluation presented in the FS, the Marine
Corps also contends that the final cover prescribed in Chapter 15 would not
perform as well as the selected concrete cover for this site; therefore, the
Marine Corps contends that the final cover requirements are not relevant and
appropriate. The selected remedy, concrete, will provide:
a) a better working surface for the existing salvage yard operation, and
b) better protection against accidental surface disturbance that could result
in worker exposure to buried waste.
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 human health risk results for
the area to be capped are 9 x 10'7 based on a hypothetical on-site resident.
While this is below the acceptable risk range of 10-6 to 1CH, 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 and potential for direct exposure. The
cap will also minimize the potential future migration of contaminants to
groundwater.
The other components of the selected alternative include precipitation infiltration
monitoring and restrictions on future land use. Groundwater monitoring at
CAOC 23 is not part of this ROD, but instead is included under OU 1.
2-69
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 (May, 1997
The boundaries of Zone I will be surveyed during remedial design at which time
the information will be added to the Base Master Plan.
To ensure that human health and the environment are protected in the future,
no breaching of the concrete cap at CAOC 23. Zone I, through trenching,
excavation, or any other similar activity may occur unless prior approval of the
FFA signatories is obtained. This restriction does not apply to maintenance
activities for purposes of preservation or restoration of the physical and
structural integrity of the cap. If a breaching of the concrete cap is proposed
other than for purposes of such maintenance, 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 OU 3/4 ROD in the written notification of a
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 requjred, before such an action is
implemented by the Navy.
The Navy shall notify the FFA signatories of any plan to lease or transfer CAOC
23, Zone I real property to a non-federal or federal entity. Such notification shall
be provided at least 30 days in advance of the lease or transfer conveyance.
The Navy shall comply with Section 120(h)(3) of CERCLA in any such transfers
to a non-federal entity.
The MCLB Barstow Base Master Plan will be amended to incorporate the
above-mentioned use limitations and notice requirements for CAOC 23, Zone I.
The Master Plan amendments will also include language that describes the risk
to human health and the environment that exists at CAOC 23, Zone I; will
reference the MCLB Barstow OU 3/4 Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study,
and ROD; and will provide a legal description (metes and bounds) of the
boundaries of CAOC 23, Zone I. 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
2-70
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
the Navy within 1 year of signing the MCLB Barstow OU 3/4 ROD. The FFA
signatories will be provided with a copy of the amendments to the Master Plan
reflecting the land use limitations at CAOC 23, Zone I.
The cost for this alternative is estimated to be $4.2 million for general
engineering requirements, earthwork, dynamic compaction, concrete placement,
and contingency. The estimated costs for each of these listed components are
$0.45 million, $0.36 million, $1.1 million, $1.1 million, and $1.2 million,
respectively.
2.3.9 Statutory Determinations
This section discusses how the selected remedy for CAOC 23, Zone I 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 fede/al 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.
2.3.9.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment through
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 California Code of Regulations, Titles 14, 22, and 23
landfill closure requirements. The human health risks for this area before
capping are calculated as 9 x 10~7. As mentioned previously, although these
results show that the site is currently protective, data for the assessment were
limited to surface soil samples only; no samples were taken of the landfilled
2-71
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01 F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
wastes. The potential exists for DRMO workers to disturb the wastes, because
the thickness of the existing soil cover throughout the entire area is not known.
This creates uncertainty in the risk results. Additionally, the lack of analysis of
the soil beneath the waste adds uncertainty regarding the potential for future
releases to the groundwater. TCE and PCE were detected in groundwater
downgradient of the landfill, but not in upgradient wells. This indicates that the
landfill was a source for these contaminants in the past based on the use of
solvents to ignite the wastes, but the data do not address continuing releases.
The cap and land use restrictions address these uncertainties.
An ecological risk assessment was also conducted to evaluate potential effects
on plants and animals. CAOC 23 was found not to have an adverse impact on
ecological receptors.
2.3.9.2 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 23 are listed and discussed in Appendix C.
2.3.9.3 Cost-Effectiveness
The selected alternative was evaluated for cost-effectiveness relative to the
other four alternatives evaluated for CAOC 23, Zone I and their associated
options. Several other capping options were evaluated that are less costly than
the selected alternative and would be just as effective as the selected
alternative if current DRMO activities were discontinued. However, because the
scrap and salvage operations will continue at this CAOC after the remedial
action is complete, the integrity of the caps without concrete covers is likely to
be compromised. Therefore, of the four concrete cap options evaluated, the
selected alternative is the least expensive, or is equal to the other three options,
and provides the same level of long-term effectiveness.
2-72
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE>J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
2.3.9.4 Use of 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
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
of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment, short-term effectiveness,
implementability, and cost
Each of the alternatives considered leaves waste in place. The three
alternatives evaluated that incorporated a concrete cap, one of which is the
selected alternative (Alternative 3, Option 2), provide the highest degree of long-
term effectiveness if adequately maintained because they provide the greatest
assurance that ongoing DRMO activities will pot disturb the on-site wastes.
Reduction of mobility, toxicity, or volume is not met by any of the alternatives
because treatment was found to be infeasible.
Short-term effectiveness is not rated for Alternative 1 because no actions are
taken. Except for Alternative 5, none of the alternatives presents a significant
potential human health risk during implementation. Alternative 5 presents the
highest risk to Base personnel, the local community, and site personnel
because it involves excavation of the landfill wastes. This alternative also
involves more extensive field operations than other alternatives.
No problems are expected during the implementation of the preferred
alternative or the other alternatives, except for Alternative 5. Alternative 5 is
complicated by the proposed partial excavation of the landfill.
The preferred alternative is one of the more costly options. However, the
additional cost is warranted because of the amount of activity that continues to
2-73
-------
CTO293VB70018VDFROD-R2 CLE>J02-01F293-B7-«M8
Print Date: 28 (May. 1997
take place at CAOC 23. Alternative 3, Option 2, is estimated to cost
approximately $4.2 million.
The OTSC and the RWQCB agree with the preferred alternative. The state has
been active in reviewing and providing input on the data collected and evaluated
for determining the appropriate cleanup at CAOC 23.
2.3.9.5 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 NCR
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 23, Zone I, because the wastes are a heterogeneous
mixture of municipal waste and industrial and/or hazardous waste, treatment is
not practicable. In addition, the landfill was most likely a significant source of
contamination to the groundwater because of the practice of pouring solvents
onto the wastes to ignite them, but is not expected to pose a continuing long-
term threat to groundwater because this practice was discontinued over 15
years ago.
2.3.10 Documentation of Significant Change
The selected remedy was modified after the submittal of the draft final FS report
for OUs 3 and 4 and the Proposed Plan. The signatories to the FFA agreed to
include any required monitoring associated with the closure of CAOC 23r Zone I
as part of OU 1, the Yermo Annex groundwater OU. This modification has
significantly changed the cost estimates included in the Proposed Plan and the
FS, including the estimate for the selected remedy. The groundwater
monitoring program was estimated to cost $2.1 million. Additionally, the
California Integrated Waste Management Board determined that landfill gas
monitoring is not required at CAOC 23, Zone I. This monitoring component and
associated cost, approximately $130,000, have also been eliminated from the
description of the alternatives. Although the deduction of these costs from each
of the alternatives significantly changes the individual alternative cost, the
relative comparisons remain unchanged because the corresponding cost
2-74
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
reduction is the same for each alternative. Ultimately the comparative cost
analyses for the cost criterion and remedy selection are unaffected by these
modifications.
2.4 OU 3 - CAOC18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area
2.4.1 CAOC 18 - Name. Location and Description
CAOC 18, the Sludge Waste Disposal Area, is north of 12th Street and east of
Building 573, on the eastern side of the Yermo Annex (Figure 1-2). The
unpaved 6-acre area is adjacent to the eastern edge of the vehicle repair and
storage area (under investigation as CAOC 36 of OU 5) of the Central Repair
Division (Figure 2-20).
The physical features of CAOC 18 include a drainage channel and its banks
and outfall, three concrete pipes that drain from the nearby areas into the
drainage channel, and part of a circular radiation storage compound at the
southern portion of the site (Figure 2-20). Vegetation is evident at the bottom of
the drainage channel where the concrete ^pipe discharges. The drainage
channel is part of the Yermo Annex areawide drain and is being investigated
under the RFA. The southernmost of the three concrete pipes is connected to
the roof drain of Building 573 (Figure 1-2). The northernmost concrete pipe is
part of the pipe gallery drainage system of Building 573. The source of the third
concrete pipe is unknown. However, neither the drainage channel nor the
concrete pipes are part of the MCLB industrial or domestic wastewater collection
systems and are believed to be used for the discharge of occasional storm
water runoff. The outfall of the drainage channel is located in the north portion
of the CAOC. The CAOC is presently used for vehicle storage.
CAOC 18 includes four strata (Figure 2-20). Stratum 1 is the west bank of the
drainage channel that runs northeast-southwest through the center of the
CAOC. Stratum 2 is the drainage channel and Stratum 3 is the east bank of the
drainage channel. Stratum 4 is a northern triangular area of the CAOC that
includes the channel outfall.
2-75
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
2.4.2 Operations
From 1961 to the late 1970s miscellaneous industrial wastes from the Central
Repair Division were reportedly discharged directly to the ground of an unlined
channel that runs through the middle of CAOC 18 (Figure 2-20). Sludge from
the clean, paint, and lubrication shops was reportedly disposed of on the ground
just east of the current radar test area. Sludges were placed in barrels or bins
before disposal in this area. The actual discharge locations and disposal
methods are not known. At the same period of time, this area was also used for
defueling of amphibious personnel carriers and as a waste oil storage area for
the weapons shop in the Central Repair Division. The maximum number of
drums stored at any one time was estimated at 50. The IAS reported that
during transfer and transport of the waste oil, spillage occurred (NEESA 1983).
The types of wastes discharged at CAOC 18 that were reported in personnel
interviews conducted during the IAS included paint sludge, degreasers, oil, fuel.
and bilgewater. This site was described by personnel as swamp-like and
saturated with the wastes. Based on the record research, the IAS team
estimated that approximately 130 gallons pf vapor degreaser sludge, 150
gallons of parts cleaning sludge, and 200 gallons of paint sludge were disposed
of at the site each month (NEESA 1983). The vapor degreaser sludge
generated during parts cleaning consisted of oil, dirt, and paint removed from
parts and some residual PCE. The parts-cleaning sludge consisted of oil, paint,
and grime removed from parts and residual cleaners that were predominantly
caustic solutions. The paint sludge consisted of water and paint residue. In
addition, the nearby oxidation ponds located northwest of CAOC 18, which are
part of the MCLB Barstow industrial wastewater collection system (Figure 1-2),
occasionally overflowed, allowing the spilled wastewater to percolate into the
ground (NEESA 1983). The oxidation ponds are under investigation as part of
Site 16 of OU 5. The total quantity of wastes disposed of at this site could not
be determined. The specific chemicals of concern for each type of material
handled by MCLB Barstow are available in Section 5.3 of the PR/VSI (SWDIV
1991a).
2-76
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLEO02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
2.4.3 Investigation History
Brown and Caldwell, under contract to NEESA, conducted an IAS at CAOC 18
in 1983. The site boundary of CAOC 18 under the IAS is presented in
Figure 2-20; aerial photograph reviews, personnel interviews, and an on-site
survey were conducted. Because of the large quantity of miscellaneous
industrial wastes reportedly discharged to the site over a period of
approximately 20 years and oil stains observed during the site visits, the IAS
concluded that the site presented a concern to groundwater and recommended
a CS for the site (NEESA 1983).
A CS conducted by A.L. Burke Engineers, Inc., in 1985 (WESTDIV 1985 and
1986) confirmed and expanded on the results of the IAS. A total of seven soil
borings (soil borings B-1 through B-7 in Figure 2-21) were advanced during the
CS to depths ranging from 0 to 100 feet below ground surface (Table 2-26).
Parameters analyzed for the soil samples included petroleum hydrocarbons,
electrical conductivity, anions, heavy metals, pH, total organic halides (TOX),
and VOCs. Table 2-26 summarizes the concentrations of chemicals detected in
soil samples collected from CAOC 18 during the CS. The results indicated
heavy metals in soil. TOX was detected at concentrations of 4 and 9.2 mg/kg in
soil samples collected at 40 and 79 feet below ground surface, respectively,
from soil boring B-3. However, the detection of TOX cannot be reconfirmed by
VOC analyses. VOCs were not detected in any soil sample collected at
CAOC 18 to a depth of 94 feet below ground surface.
Three groundwater monitoring wells, W-1, W-2, and W-3, were installed at the
open boreholes of soil borings B-2, B-3, and B-7, respectively. Groundwater
samples collected from these wells were analyzed for specific conductance,
phenols, petroleum hydrocarbons, TOX, total organic carbon (TOC), dissolved
organic carbon (DOC), and VOCs. VOCs were detected in the groundwater;
heavy metals were not. Specific VOCs identified in groundwater samples
collected from CAOC 18 included 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) and PCE at
concentrations ranging from 2 to 7 micrograms per liter (jag/L) at wells W-1 and
W-3. TOX was detected in well W-2 at a concentration of 19.1
2-77
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
A remedial action plan was presented at the completion of the CS, which
recommended that the site be sealed to encapsulate the contaminated soil and
the groundwater monitoring wells at the site be sampled and tested periodically
to detect any change in groundwater quality that could be induced by changes
in surface conditions.
In 1989, CAOC 18 was included as part of OU 3 RI/FS in the FFA. During the
RFA process, which is a requirement of the FFA, a PR/VSI (SWDIV 1991a) was
performed at CAOC 18 in 1991, which involved an extensive records search
(including historical aerial photograph reviews) and a site visit by the regulatory
agencies, the Navy, and MCLB personnel. The historical aerial photographs
revealed that no buildings or structures were present around CAOC 18 prior to
1952; however, the drainage channel was shown in aerial photographs from
and after 1945. Discoloration was present on both banks, inside the channel,
and north of the site boundary (IAS designation [Figure 2-20]) in several aerial
photographs taken during 1965, 1973, and 1978 through 1980. Discoloration
was present in the area immediately south of the site boundary, designated by
the IAS, in the aerial photographs taken between 1978 and 1980. Because
CAOC 18 had been included in the RI/FS,.based on the FFA, no additional
recommendation was presented in the PR/VSI report for this CAOC.
Only one phase of sampling was conducted during the Rl for CAOC 18 in 1992.
Other associated activities included scoping, stratum definition, and
reconnaissance surveys.
2.4.4 Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the assessments conducted at
CAOC 18, analytical results from soil sampling, and a general summary of water
quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection. During
Phase I of the Rl, 18 soil borings were advanced within CAOC 18 to
characterize the nature of contamination in the soils. Boring locations are
shown in Figure 2-21. All soil borings were advanced to a depth of 21.5 feet.
Potential sources of contamination at this CAOC include the reported discharge
of industrial wastes to an unlined ditch that intersects the CAOC, storage of
2-78
-------
CTO293\B7001B\DFROD-R2 CLE^J02-01 F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
sludge (in containers) from the clean, paint and lubrication shops, and from
defueling of amphibious personnel carriers.
Results of laboratory analytical testing for organic and inorganic compounds for
Strata 1, 2, 3, and 4 are summarized in Tables 2-27 through 2-34. Maximum
concentrations by depth are presented. To help identify potentially significant
contaminants, residential soil RBC 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.
Stratum 1
The results for organic and inorganic compounds detected in Stratum 1 soils are
presented in Tables 2-27 and 2-28, respectively, and are summarized as
follows.
• Toluene was detected at 1 ng/kg in boring YB1812 at a depth between 2
and 3 feet.
• TCE was also detected in boring YB1812 at a depth of 20 to 21 feet.
• Several semivolatiles (benzo(b)fluoranthene, chrysene, fluoranthene,
phenanthrene, and pyrene) were detected at depths ranging between 0
and 3 feet; pyrene was also detected at a depth between 3 and 13 feet.
Concentrations ranged from 37.8 to 110 fig/kg. All detections were
significantly less than associated residential soil RBC.
• Chlorinated pesticides (dieldrin, endrin, DDT. ODD, DDE, endosulfan II,
alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, and metnoxychlor) were detected in
samples collected at 1 to 3 feet. DDT, DDD, and DDE were detected
most frequently and at the greatest concentrations. All detections were
below respective residential soil RBC.
• Aroclor-1260 was reported at a maximum concentration of 8.3 ng/kg in
boring YB1811 at 1 foot below ground surface: this concentration is
below the residential soil RBC of 47.3 ng/kg and the EPA guidance level
of 1 mg/kg.
• Petroleum hydrocarbons analyzed as TRPH were detected in nearly all
the samples at concentrations ranging from 10 to 321 mg/kg; gasoline
and diesel were not detected in any samples. Each of these detections
is below the acceptable levels for gasoline and diesel for CAOC 18 soils,
1,000 mg/kg for gasoline and 10,000 mg/kg for diesel, derived from
guidance presented in the LUFT manual.
2-79
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date. 28 May. 1997
• Beryllium, boron, cadmium, calcium, silver, and sodium were detected at
maximum concentrations exceeding their corresponding 95th percentile
background concentrations. Beryllium, boron, silver, and calcium are
abundant in regional soils and are not believed to be site related.
Cadmium is consistent with site history and is assumed to be site related
for the human health assessment Sodium is an essential human
nutrient and has been demonstrated to show no adverse health effects
with exposure to high concentrations. None of the maximum
concentrations exceed residential soil RBC.
Stratum 2
The results for organic and inorganic compounds detected in Stratum 2 soils are
presented in Tables 2-29 and 2-30, respectively, and are summarized as
follows.
• PCE was detected in two soil samples collected from Stratum 2. A
concentration of 3 |ig/kg was reported in boring YB1802 at 1 foot below
grade, and a concentration of 2 ng/kg was detected in boring YB1803 at
a depth of 10 feet.
• Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected at a maximum concentration of
16.300 fig/kg in boring YB1802 at depth of 1 foot. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate is a common plasticizer used in many commercial polymers
and is routinely detected in laboratory methods blanks at concentrations
less than 500 M-g/kg; the concentration reported in boring YB1802 is
higher than normally observed. Detections are, however, below the
residential soil RBC.
• Chlorinated pesticides (DDT, endrin, heptachlor epoxide, alpha- and
gamma-chlordane) were detected in samples collected at depths of 0 to
3 feet. Pesticides were not detected below 3 feet. Concentrations
ranged from 2.1 to 5.1 ng/kg. All detections were less than the
residential soil RBC.
• TRPH was detected in nearly all samples, with the highest concentration
(62.6 mg/kg) in boring YB1801 at 1 foot below ground surface. Detected
concentrations are below criteria derived from the LUFT manual.
• Maximum concentrations of beryllium, boron, cyanide, lead, nickel, and
thallium exceed their respective 95th percentile background values.
Cadmium, lead, and nickel are consistent with historical uses at this
CAOC and are assumed to be site related. Because cyanide and
thallium were rarely detected in the background sample population, they
are also assumed to be site related. Beryllium and boron are not
typically related to the waste streams at MCLB Barstow and
concentrations are consistent with background sample concentrations;
these three metals are considered not to be site related.
2-80
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 (May. 1997
Stratum 3
The analytical results for organic and inorganic compounds detected in
Stratum 3 soils are presented in Tables 2-31 and 2-32, respectively and are
summarized as follows.
• Carbon disulfide was detected at a maximum concentration of 1 ng/kg in
boring YB1808 at a depth of 2 feet Quantification of such a low level is
suspect and the detection may be a false positive. The concentration is
below RBC. The only other volatiles detected are attributed to laboratory
contamination.
• PAHs, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
indeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene, phenanthrene, and pyrene were detected at
concentrations ranging from 23 to 135 jig/kg in boring YB1806 at 1 foot
below ground surface. None of these detected semivolatile
concentrations exceed residential soil RBC values. Detections of
phthalate compounds are attributable to laboratory contamination.
• Aldrin and heptachlor epoxide, chlorinated pesticides, were detected at
less than 5 ng/kg in boring YB1806 at 1 foot below ground surface.
These concentrations are below residential soil RBC.
• TRPH was detected at Stratum 3 with maximum concentrations ranging
from 33.8 to 58.8 mg/kg at depth intervals from 0 to below 13 feet. All
detections were below specified LUFT criteria.
• The following metals: aluminum, arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium,
cobalt, copper, molybdenum, selenium, silver, sodium, thallium,
vanadium, and zinc, were assessed as statistically elevated or in excess
of the 95th percentile background concentrations. Of these metals, only
cadmium, silver, thallium, and zinc are considered possibly site related
because they are consistent with site scoping information. The other
metals were not consistent with site scoping information and are
considered to be naturally occurring.
Stratum 4
The analytical results for organic and inorganic compounds detected in
Stratum 4 soils are presented in Tables 2-33 and 2-34, and are summarized as
follows.
1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1 -TCA) was detected at 3 Mg/kg in boring YB1818
at 1 and 20 feet. Two other volatiles, attributed to laboratory
contamination, were detected.
2-81
-------
CT0293\B70018\DFROD-R2
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
• Phenol was detected at less than 50 jig/kg at various depth intervals. At
less than 300 ng/kg, quantitation of phenol is estimated. Two other
semivolatiles were detected, but attributed to laboratory contamination.
• Chlorinated pesticides (DDT, DDD, DDE, endosulfan II, and
rnethoxychlor) were detected in boring YB1817 at a depth of 20 feet
Methoxychlor was also detected in boring YB1818 at 2 feet
Concentrations ranged from 0.12 to 1.5 ng/kg. No detections were
above the RBC. In addition, the pesticide detections in the 20-foot
sample were not confirmed during the second column analysis of the GC
and are most likely false positives.
• Aroclor-1254 was detected in boring YB1818 at 20 feet at a
concentration of 5.6 ng/kg. This detection was not confirmed in the
second column analysis of the GC and the detection is most likely a
false positive.
• TRPH was detected at 12.6 mg/kg in boring YB1818 at 10 feet. TPH-
diesel and TPH-gasoline were not detected in the soils. The detected
concentrations were below specified criteria per the LUFT manual.
• Maximum concentrations of beryllium, boron, cadmium, lead, and silver
exceed the 95th percentile background concentrations. All of these
samples were collected from boring YB1818. Beryllium, boron, and lead
are considered to be naturally occurring because the levels detected in
the stratum soils are comparable to the levels in the background soils.
Cadmium and silver are possibly site related but are present at
concentrations well below residential soil RBC.
r
Summary of Evaluation of Groundwater Impacts
The mathematical modeling performed at CAOC 18 using DLM indicated that
the contaminants remaining in the soils would not migrate to the groundwater at
concentrations that would contaminate or degrade the aquifer. DLM assumes
deep percolation although it is unlikely to occur.
CAOC 18 is likely a past source of TCE and PCE to the groundwater. Records
indicate that liquid wastes may have been applied in quantities sufficient to
percolate to groundwater. It is not likely a current or future source based on
results of soil pore gas sampling at shallow and deep depths that indicate the
concentrations of PCE/TCE remaining in soils are low and not a threat to the
quality of the underlying groundwater.
Surface waters are not present at CAOC 18 except for when there is heavy
precipitation. The contaminants would not be a threat to surface waters
2-82
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
because contamination in the surface soils is minor (i.e., concentrations
classified as inert).
2.4.5 Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 18
using data collected during the Rl. The human health evaluation methodology
is provided in Section 5.0 and Appendix H of the draft final Rl report for OUs 3
and 4, June 1995. Results of the assessment for CAOC 18 are provided in
Section 6.0 of the Rl report. The ecological assessment is provided in the draft
final Phase I ERA, February 1996. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.2.5 and conclusions related to CAOC 18 are presented
here in support of the decision not to take action.
2.4.5.1 Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 18, Strata 1 through 4, are
presented in Table 2-35 for the residential land-use scenario and in Table 2-36
for the industrial land-use scenario. f
Residential Land Use Scenario
As shown in Table 2-35, the ILCRs for Strata 1 and 4 are less than 1 x 10-6.
The levels of contaminants found in these strata pose no potential significant
risk. The cumulative ILCR for Stratum 2 is 2 x 10-6. The two contaminants
driving the potential risk are bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and Aroclor-1260 and
individually present a risk of less than 1 x 10-6. The detected levels of Aroclor-
1260 are below the EPA guidance level of 1 mg/kg for a residential land-use
scenario. The cumulative ILCR for Stratum 3 is 1.5 x 10-6; however, none of the
individual contaminants are at levels that present a potential risk in excess of
1 x 10-6. The two primary constituents contributing to the carcinogenic risk are
benzo(a)anthracene and benzo(a)pyrene. These two compounds were
detected in only one of 25 samples collected from this stratum. Therefore, the
cumulative ILCR calculated based on these results is likely to overestimate the
cancer risk for the overall stratum. For these reasons, the potential
carcinogenic human health risk at these two strata is considered insignificant.
2-83
-------
CTO293\B7001B\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
The total noncancer RBC indices for all strata exceed the acceptable index of
1.0. As shown in Table 2-35, virtually all the risk can be attributed to
background concentrations, and therefore, site-related impact is considered
insignificant
Industrial Land Use
As shown in Table 2-36, none of the strata exceed the 1O6 carcinogenic risk
level or the 1.0 hazard index. Each stratum is considered not to pose a
significant potential risk to human health under the industrial land-use scenario.
2.4.5.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion
The low levels of contaminants in the soils at CAOC 18 were not found to have
an adverse impact on ecological receptors.
2.4.6 Description of the No Action Alternative
The no action alternative selected for CAOC,. 18 does not involve institutional or
engineering control, and does not include containment, excavation, or treatment
technologies.
CAOC 18 is considered to be protective of human health and the environment
for the following reasons:
• Detections of PCBs are below the EPA guidance level.
• The calculated risk is based on maximum detections of polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons and likely overestimates the risk.
• No groundwater impacts result from contaminant detections.
• The ecological risk assessment shows that low levels detected would not
negatively affect the environment.
• CAOC 18 is currently unoccupied property, with no existing structures or
facilities and no plans to change the use in the foreseeable future, which
greatly reduces any potential on-site human exposure to the low-level
contaminants detected.
2-84
-------
CT0293\B7001B\DFROD-R2 CLEJ02-01F293-B7.0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Because the potential carcinogenic human health risk is greater than 1 x 10"6
for both Strata 2 and 3, a brief description of the history at these two strata will
be provided in the Base master plan. The low level PCBs and pesticides
detected in the soils will also be documented in the Base master plan.
Language provided in the master plan will indicate that any activities planned in
these areas or changes in site use should be coordinated through and reviewed
by the MCLB Environmental Department.
2.5 OU 3 - CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area
2.5.1 CAOC 34 - Name. Location and Description
During the time of the Rl, CAOC 34, the PCB Storage Area, (former Building
S-345) was located on the eastern side of the Yermo Annex adjacent to the
western side of the MCLB Effluent Disposal Pond (Building 426). The Sludge
Waste Disposal Area (CAOC 18) is to the north of this area and the Industrial
Waste Disposal Area (CAOC 21) is to the south (Figure 1-2). The PCB Storage
Area consisted of two separate concrete basins labeled Basin A (western basin)
and Basin B (eastern basin). Basin A was 40 feet long and Basin B was 62 feet
long, and both basins were 38 feet wide and 5 feet below grade (Figure 2-22).
The volume of Basin A was about 7,600 cubic feet and the volume of Basin B
was about 11,800 cubic feet. Two concrete access ramps were built into the
northeastern basin walls; the concrete basin walls were sloped inward and were
about 7 to 12 inches thick. The basins were apparently constructed directly
over the wastewater effluent ponds of the former MCLB Domestic Wastewater
Treatment Facility (DWTF) (SWDIV 1992). In 1994, the basins were excavated
and demolished in a removal action at the site. A new MCLB industrial
wastewater treatment and recycling facility (IWTRF) was constructed in 1995 at
the former basin locations. During the IWTRF construction, a concrete pad was
poured directly over the filled basin excavations (SWDIV 1995a). The depth to
groundwater in the area is about 150 feet below grade.
The three strata identified for CAOC 34 are shown in Figure 2-22. Stratum 1 is
the area covered by the concrete basins and adjacent soils. Stratum 2 is the
soils within the basins and Stratum 3 is the concrete basins themselves.
2-85
-------
CTO293\B70018VDFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
2.5.2 Operations
The basins at the former PCB Storage Area were originally used to receive and
store domestic sludge from the former MCLB DWTF. However, the basins were
drained in 1978 and subsequently used as a temporary staging area for inactive
electrical transformers, drums of oil contaminated with PCB compounds, and
PCB-contaminated sludge. The transformers and drums were stored on pallets
in the basins before disposal. In a 1991 on-site survey, however, soil stockpiles,
metallic debris, and concrete fragments were observed inside the basins, and in
1992, the soil piles were observed to be evenly distributed across the basin
floors. In July 1994 the basins were demolished and removed, along with the
soils, in a time-critical removal action.
2.5.3 Investigation History
An IAS was not conducted at the PCB storage area. The first environmental
study of the basins is the CS completed in 1986. A statistically based sampling
plan was designed to investigate potential contamination associated with
historical use of the basins. The objective of^the study was to first determine the
presence or absence of contamination in the basins and in the concrete of the
basin floors, then evaluate the potential for subsurface soil contamination
beneath the basins. Before any sample locations were selected, an on-site
survey for visible contamination was conducted, available photographs and
historical records were reviewed, and on-site personnel interviews were
conducted to determine where contaminants would likely be found. The CS
used the designation Site 34 to refer to the basins, the soil within the basins,
and the basin concrete. No formal study boundary was developed.
Four CS soil samples were collected within Basin A, and two soil samples were
collected within Basin B. One soil sample was also collected outside of Basin B
near the access ramp, and one sample of the concrete joint filler material was
collected to determine if contaminants have migrated into and possibly through
the joints in the concrete. Five concrete samples were collected from Basin A
and three concrete samples were collected from Basin B. Sample locations are
shown in Figure 2-23.
2-86
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
The PCB compound Arodor-1260 was detected in the soil samples from both
basins. The measured concentrations ranged from 3.5 mg/kg to 3,400 mg/kg
(Table 2-37). The detected Arodor-1260 concentrations in the concrete
samples ranged from 0.40 mg/kg to 9.7 mg/kg. An unspecified, trace
concentration of Arodor-1260 was reported in the joint filler material sample
(WESTDIV 1986).
In the CS. the analytical soil sample results were compared to the DHS TTLC
value of 50 mg/kg: only one sample (3,400 mg/kg) exceeded the TTLC. The
low concentrations of Arodor-1260 in the concrete samples were considered
indicative of minor or negligible contaminant migration into the basin concrete or
into the soils beneath the basins (WESTDIV 1986).
The CS recommended removal of the basin soils and deactivation of the
storage area. To decommission the site, the CS recommended filling the basins
to grade with dean fill and mounding the fill to promote surface water drainage
and to discourage cross-site traffic (WESTDIV 1986). Because of the low
potential for contaminant migration through the concrete, a groundwater
investigation was not recommended for Site 34.
As part of the MCLB RFA Program, a PR/VSI was conducted at Site 34 in 1991.
The PR/VSI reported that the concrete basins were drained in 1978 after the
domestic waste treatment plant was dismantled. Two photographs of the basins
were taken and recorded during the VSI. Part of the scope of the PR/VSI was
to obtain and evaluate historical aerial photographs that document activity at
various sites within the MCLB. Several aerial photographs were evaluated for
past hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal, but no significant
information was reported for Site 34 in the PR/VSI. The recommendation for
Site 34, as presented in the PR/VSI report, entailed further investigation as part
of OU 3 because Site 34 is an identified site in the FFA (SWDIV 1991 a).
An Rl was conducted during March through October 1992 and January 1994.
2-87
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROO-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
2.5.4 Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the Rl conducted at CAOC 34,
analytical results from soil sampling, and a general summary of water quality
risk and uncertainties as related to water quality protection. During Phase I
investigations, five slant borings were completed in Stratum 1. The borings
were advanced beneath the basins at an angle of between 9 and 14 degrees
from vertical to a maximum borehole length of 31.5 feet. Also, within Stratum 2,
two borings were advanced in the soils in Basin B and one boring was
completed in Basin A during Phase I. These borings were advanced to depths
between 3 and 5 feet. Two additional borings and fourteen shallow borings
were advanced in Stratum 1 during Phase II. PCB field sampling was
conducted during Phase II for Stratum 2 soils. Fifty-six locations were tested in
Basin A and 70 locations were tested in Basin B. Five concrete samples were
collected from Stratum 3 during Phase II. Sample locations are shown in Figure
2-23. Potential sources of contamination at CAOC 34 include leakage or
spillage from transformers and drums of PCB-contaminated sludges and oils
stored within the basins.
Results of laboratory analytical testing for organic and inorganic compounds for
Strata 1. 2, and 3 are summarized in Tables 2-38 through 2-42. The results
shown in these tables are from samples collected prior to the removal action
conducted at CAOC 34. Maximum concentrations by depth are presented. To
help identify potentially significant contaminants, residential soil RBC are also
shown on these tables. For inorganic compounds, the 95th percentile
background concentrations for shallow soils are also shown for comparison.
Analytical results collected from confirmation samples obtained as part of the
removal action are also discussed in this section.
Stratum 1
The results for organic and inorganic compounds (pre-removal action) are
presented in Tables 2-38 and 2-39, respectively and are summarized as follows.
• Five PAH compounds were detected in shallow soils in Stratum 1.
Benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene were detected at
2-88
-------
CTO293\B7001 8\DFROD-R2 CIE-J02-O1 F293-67-001 B
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
concentrations ranging from 410 to 2,499 iig/kg. Each of these
compounds were detected at concentrations exceeding their respective
RBC. These PAHs were detected primarily near the surface in YM3409
and are localized within the area bounded by borings YM34-143 through
YM34-150 to a depth of 2 feet There are no other areas of PAH
contamination adjacent to the concrete basins; the PAHs do not appear
to be related to the Stratum 2 activities and are considered to be the
result of an unknown source.
• Phenol was detected at 60 fig/kg in boring YB3409 at 7.5 feet and at
21 ng/kg in YM3419 at 24 feet. These detections are below the
residential soil RBC.
• Several chlorinated pesticides were detected in Stratum 1 soils as listed
in Table 2-34. Dieldrin was the only pesticide detected above its
residential soil RBC; it was detected in boring YM3409 at 1 foot at a
concentration of 17.8
• Aroclor-1260 was detected at 71 jig/kg at 2 feet in boring YM3404. It
was also detected in boring YM3401 at 3 feet at a concentration of
120 ng/kg. These detections are above the residential soil RBC of
47.3 ng/kg, but below the EPA guidance level of 1 mg/kg for residential
land use.
• Several other organic constituents were detected, acetone,
n-nitrosodiphenylamine, and phthalates, but are attributed to laboratory
contamination.
• Eleven metals were detected in Stratum 1 soils that were considered
statistically elevated. These include antimony, beryllium, boron,
cadmium, chromium, cyanide, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, and
sodium. Of these, five are assumed to be potentially site-related,
including cadmium, chromium, cyanide, lead, and mercury. The
detections of each of these constituents were below residential soil RBC.
The other metals are not considered site related because their presence
is not consistent with site scoping information and the ranges of
detections are generally consistent with background detections.
Stratum 2
The results of analytical sampling for organic and inorganic compounds for
Stratum 2 soils are presented in Tables 2-40 and 2-41, respectively, and are
summarized as follows.
• Carbon dtsulfide was detected at a maximum concentration of 2 fig/kg in
boring YM3406 at a depth of 4 feet. This concentration is below the
residential soil RBC.
• Two semivolatile organic compounds, pyrene and chrysene, were
detected in boring YM3408. Pyrene was detected at a maximum
concentration of 19 MQ/kg in a shallow soil sample from boring YM3408.
2-89
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01 F293-B7-001 B
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Chrysene was also detected in boring YM3408 at a depth of 1 foot and a
concentration of 16 jig/kg and at 40 ng/kg in the 5-foot sample from
boring YM3406. The detections are below the residential soil RBC.
• Chlorinated pesticides were also detected in the basin soils (Table 2-37).
Four of the pesticides exceeded their RBC: alpha-chlordane, dieldrin.
gamma-chlordane, and heptachlor epoxide. The highest concentrations
were found in samples from borings YM3461 and YM3466. Alpha-
chlordane was detected twice above its RBC of 219 ng/kg: at 950 jig/kg
in boring YM3466 in the 2.5-foot sample and at 590 jig/kg in the 2-foot
sample from boring YM3461. Dieldrin was also detected above its
residential soil RBC in borings YM3461 and YM3466 at 26 and 30 fig/kg.
These detections were in shallow samples, 2 to 2.5 feet. Gamma-
chlordane was detected above its RBC in boring YM3461 at 630 ng/kg in
the 2.5-foot sample. Heptachlor epoxide was detected above its RBC in
boring YM3466 at 36 fig/kg in the 2.5-foot sample.
• Aroclor-1260 was detected above its residential soil RBC of 47.3 pg/kg in
several Stratum 2 samples at concentrations up to 2,500 ng/kg. PCB
field screening was conducted to define the extent of the PCB
contamination in Stratum 2. Thirty-seven of the 56 samples screened in
Basin A were at concentrations greater than 1 mg/kg and 5 samples
from the 70 samples tested from Basin B were greater than 1 mg/kg. No
samples were greater than 25 mg/kg.
• TPH-diesel and TRPH were detected in Stratum 2 soils. The maximum
TPH concentration detected was 44 mg/kg, which is below the guidance
level of 10,000 mg/kg for diesel. TRPH was detected at a maximum
concentration of 4,500 mg/kg, which is'also below acceptable levels.
• Several other organic compounds were detected, but were attributed to
laboratory contamination. These include acetone, methylene chloride,
n-nitrosodiphenylamine. and phthalates.
• Eleven metals were considered statistically elevated. These include:
boron, cadmium, chromium, cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium,
silver, sodium, and zinc. Except for boron, silver, and selenium, the
elevated metals are considered to be site related. None of the detected
concentrations of these metals exceeded their respective RBC. Boron,
selenium, and sodium are considered not to be site related because they
are not consistent with site scoping information.
Stratum 3
Five concrete samples were collected and analyzed for PCBs and pesticides.
The results are shown in Table 2-42. Aroclor-1260 was detected in two of the
five samples at concentrations less than 1 mg/kg. Pesticides were detected in
all of the concrete samples and in the laboratory blank. The trace pesticide
levels are likely laboratory contamination.
2-90
-------
CT0293\870018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Removal Action
The area adjacent to and surrounding CAOC 34 was selected in December
1994 as the cite for construction of a new IWTRF. Because of the detected
PCB contamination at CAOC 34, a time-critical removal action was considered
appropriate to protect the IWTRF construction workers from exposure to the
contaminants. The approval of the removal action was based on the results of
the removal site evaluation (RSE) completed and reported in May 1994 (SWDIV
1994). The RSE report evaluated the results of the Phase I and Phase II Rl
sampling at CAOC 34.
The removal action included excavating all soils in the basins and demolishing
the concrete basins. In addition, surface soil contamination near Basin A was
excavated. This included the approximate area bounded by borings YM34-143,
YM34-145, YM34-146, YM34-147, and YM34-144 (Figure 2-23).
Analytical soil and concrete samples were collected to separate clean and
contaminated waste. Basin B soils from three areas (Figure 2-23) were
combined with all the Basin A soils, and/ the soils from near Basin A in
Stratum 1, to form one stockpile. The remaining soils in Basin B were removed
to form a second stockpile. Soil samples were collected from both stockpiles
and analyzed for TRPH, PCBs, semivolatile organic compound (SVOCs),
organic lead, and metals (SECOR 1994). Contaminated soil and concrete
(containing at least 1 mg/kg PCBs) were transported off Base for disposal. The
uncontaminated concrete (with less than 1 mg/kg PCBs) was transported off
Base for recycling and the uncontaminated soils from the Basin B stockpile (with
less than 1 mg/kg PCBs) were used with clean fill for backfilling the excavations.
Three-hundred cubic yards of contaminated soil were removed from Basin A,
and 325 cubic yards of contaminated soil were removed from Basin B. Sixty
cubic yards of contaminated concrete were removed from Basin A, and 80 cubic
yards of contaminated concrete were removed from Basin B.
All the soils from Basin A and the soils from the excavated area adjacent to
Basin A were transported off Base for disposal. In addition, the soils from the
three excavated areas within Basin B were transported off Base for disposal;
the remaining Basin B soils were used to fill the Basin A excavation.
2-91
-------
CT0293\B70018\DFROC>-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
SVOCs and pesticides were not detected in the analytical soil samples collected
from the Basin B stockpile that was used for fill. The detection limits for the
SVOC analyses were from 300 to 2,000 ng/kg and the detection limits for the
pesticide analyses were from 2 to 80 tig/kg (SECOR 1994). PCBs were also
not detected in spedated analyses with a 50 jig/kg detection limit Organic lead
was not detected in the Basin B soils in an analyses run with a 0.4 fig/kg
detection limit. TRPH was detected from 66 to 520 mg/kg. The analytical
organics data from the removal action samples (SECOR 1994) were utilized in
the CAOC 34 risk assessment to verify post-removal risk reduction. The CAOC
34 removal action is detailed in the Site Closeout Report (SWDIV 1995d).
Summary of Evaluation of Groundwater Impacts
The mathematical modeling performed at CAOC 34 using DLM indicated that
the contaminants remaining in the soils would not migrate to the groundwater at
concentrations that would contaminate or degrade the aquifer. DLM assumes
deep percolation although it is unlikely to occur. CAOC 34 is most likely not a
past, current, or future source to groundwater based on the levels of
contaminants remaining in the soils. /
Surface waters are not present at CAOC 34, except for when there is heavy
precipitation. The contaminants would not be a threat to surface waters
because contamination in the surface soils is minor (i.e., concentrations
classified as inert).
2.5.5 Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 34
using data collected during the Rl and the removal action. The human health
evaluation methodology is provided in Section 5.0 and Appendix H of the draft
final Rl report for OUs 3 and 4, June 1995. Results of the assessment for
CAOC 34 are provided in Section 10.0 of the Rl report. The assessment was
performed using concentrations in the soil prior to and after the removal action
was conducted. Results of the post-removal assessment are discussed here.
The ecological assessment is provided in the draft final Phase I ERA, February
1996. Both of these assessments have been summarized in Section 2.2.5 and
2-92
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F29W7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
conclusions related to CAOC 34 are presented here in support of the decision to
take no action.
• 2.5.5.1 Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 34, Strata 1 and 2 (post-
removal action), are presented in Table 2-43 for the residential land-use
scenario and in Table 2-44 for the industrial land-use scenario. An assessment
was not conducted for Stratum 3, the concrete.
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The calculated cumulative ILCR for Stratum 1 is 7 x 1O6. This exceeds the
point-of-departure level of 1 x 10-6 for acceptable carcinogenic risk. The risk is
due primarily to residual levels of benzo(a)pyrene detected in borings YM34-149
and YM34-150. The entire CAOC has been covered by concrete evaporation
ponds, which are part of the new Industrial Wastewater Treatment and
Recycling Facility. Because the soils are capped, a complete exposure pathway
does not exist for the residual PAH compou/ids in Stratum 1 soils. The post-
removal ILCR for Stratum 2 is 2 x 10-7. Residuals do not pose a significant
human health risk.
The noncancer indices for both strata exceed the acceptable level of 1.0. As
shown in Table 2-43, this is due almost entirely to naturally occurring metals,
and therefore site-related impact is considered insignificant.
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, the ILCR for Stratum 1 is 2 x 10*. As
mentioned for the residential land-use scenario, the risk is due primarily to
residual levels of benzo(a)pyrene. Because this area has been covered by
concrete basins, no exposure pathways exist, and site-related impact is
considered insignificant. The ILCR for Stratum 2 is 1 x 10*7, which is less than
the acceptable risk range.
2-93
-------
CTO293\B70018\OFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
The hazard indices for both strata are less than 1.0, thus potential noncancer
risks are considered insignificant
2.5.5.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion
The low levels of contaminants in the soils at CAOC 34 were not found to have
an adverse impact on ecological receptors. The detailed assessment can be
found in the draft final Phase I ERA (EPA 1996).
2.5.6 Description of the No Action Alternative
The no action alternative selected for CAOC 34 does not involve institutional or
engineering control, and does not include containment, excavation, or treatment
technologies.
CAOC 34 is considered to be protective of human health and the environment
for the following reasons.
• A removal action has been completed to excavate the most
contaminated soils at CAOC 34
• The foundation of the new treatment plant covers CAOC 34 soils, thus,
eliminating potential exposure
• No groundwater impacts result from contaminant detections
• The ecological assessment conducted shows that the low levels
detected would not negatively affect the environment.
Although the current wastewater treatment plant eliminates potential exposures
at Stratum 1, information regarding contaminants in the soils will be provided in
the Base master plan for information and future planning purposes, if for some
reason the treatment plant is removed or compromised in any way. The low
levels of benzo(a)pyrene detected in the surface soils at Stratum 1 will be
provided in the Base master plan. Language in the master plan wHI indicate that
any changes in site use should be coordinated through and reviewed by the
MCLB Barstow Environmental Department.
2-94
-------
CTO293\B7001B\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-Q1F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
2.6 OU 4 - CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area
2.6.1 CAOC 2 - Name, Location, and Description
CAOC 2, the Pesticide Storage and Washout Area, is located on the north side
of the Nebo Main Base (Figure 1-3). The facility is bounded by an access road
and railroad tracks on the south, oxidation ponds on the east, and an unlined
drainage channel and the MCLB golf course on the west (Figure 2-24). The
adjacent drainage channel flows north about 1,200 feet and gradually widens
from about 10 to 30 feet where it meets the Mojave River. The Pesticide
Storage and Washout Area covers about 1.8 acres of relatively flat terrain within
the 100-year floodplain boundary of the Mojave River. The surrounding yard is
open, unpaved, and covers about 1.3 acres. Overhead power lines cross the
yard area in three places and an electrical transformer is located in the
northwest. A subsurface pipe traverses the yard and carries wastewater from
the industrial plant to the nearby oxidation ponds. The exact location of the pipe
is unknown (SWDIV 1991 a). The depth to groundwater in the area ranges
between 12 and 27 feet below grade.
t
During the time of the Rl, the facility had 10 buildings and 2 rectangular
concrete wash pads (15 by 20 feet in size) and was used for equipment storage,
cleaning and repair, pesticide and herbicide storage, and other operations
related to MCLB yard maintenance. Six of the buildings are located within a
fenced area south of Building 124 (Figure 2-24). The wash pad north of
Building 143 (northern wash pad) and outside of the fenced area is currently not
in use. The pad is cracked and its western curb (berm) is broken. The pad
drained west directly into the unlined channel. The wash pad south of Building
227 (southern wash pad), also cracked, was within the fenced area. These two
wash pads comprise Stratum 1. The southern wash pad drained into a 13,000-
gallon underground storage tank (UST) T-227, designated as Stratum 2, from
the 1970s to 1984. The pad was excavated and demolished in a time-critical
removal action completed in 1994. Stratum 3, entitled Yard, consists of the 1.3-
acre yard where, over the years of MCLB operations, pesticide spills from daily
activities may have occurred. Stratum 4 is on the western side of the CAOC
and is called Flow Path to Drainage Ditch. Spills and rinse water drain over this
stratum en route to the adjacent drainage ditch.
2-95
-------
CTO293VB70018VOFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print (Me: 28 May. 1997
2.6.2 Operations
The facility has been used as an herbicide and pesticide container storage and
rinsing area since the early 1950s. Until about 1970, the rinsing operations
were conducted at the northern and southern concrete wash pads. Pesticide
and herbicide residues were washed from holding tanks and other various
containers at the pads. The rinse water from both pads was discharged to the
adjacent unlined channel to the west Pesticides were stored and mixed in
Building 227, which has a concrete floor. A drain pipe exits Building 227 at its
southwest comer. Rinse water from Building 227 was directed through the drain
pipe to the unlined drainage channel. In 1961, the channel was straightened
and widened (SWDIV 1992). In the 1970s, use of the northern wash pad was
discontinued and UST T-227 was installed to collect rinse water generated at
the southern wash pad. The tank was abandoned in 1984 and removed in 1992
under the MCLB RFA program. The tank was fully intact upon excavation. The
surrounding yard at the Pesticide Storage and Washout Area (Figure 2-24) has
also been used for vehicle repair and pesticide storage. The Pesticide Storage
and Washout Area is currently an active MCLB facility used for equipment
storage and repair and other operations associated with MCLB yard
maintenance.
2.6.3 Investigation History
An IAS was conducted at the Pesticide Storage and Washout Area in 1983
(NEESA 1983). The IAS labeled the area Site 2 and described the historical
pesticide handling and disposal operations at the site. Site 2 was assessed on
the basis of information available from historical MCLB records, MCLB
personnel interviews; and an orvsite inspection. To indicate the location of
Site 2, the IAS presented only a generalized and approximate rectangular
boundary that encompassed the washout facility buildings, the concrete wash
pads, and a drainage ditch to the west. No formal site boundary was
developed.
The IAS estimated that approximately 200 gallons of a 4-percent pesticide
waste solution were discharged annually at the site. This estimate was
extended for the estimated discharge duration of 20 years to provide a total
2-96
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
discharge estimate of 4,000 gallons (NEESA 1983). The discharge was
considered a potential threat to groundwater because soil does not readily
attenuate pesticide compounds and because it was considered likely that the
washwater released at the site may have transported the compounds to
groundwater or to the nearby Mojave River. The IAS reported that the site was
within the river's 100-year floodplain. The discharge from washing and rinsing
operations was thus considered a potential threat to human health and the
environment and a CS was recommended. The IAS recommended the CS
involve analytical soil and groundwater sampling and the evaluation of
groundwater flow toward nearby production wells.
The CS was completed at the Pesticide Washout and Storage Area in 1986
(WESTDIV 1986). The objective of the CS was to determine the presence or
absence of contamination in the soil and groundwater at Site 2, and to evaluate
the potential for contaminant transport. Fourteen soil borings were completed to
collect soil samples for analytical testing and six monitoring wells were installed
to evaluate groundwater conditions. The locations of the CS soil borings are
presented in Figure 2-25. (CS groundwater data analysis is included in the Rl
report for OUs 1 and 2.) /
CS soil samples were found to contain DDT and its breakdown products DDE
and DDD in addition to other pesticide and herbicide compounds. The detected
concentrations in the soil samples ranged from a low of 0.3 tig/kg of dieldrin
(15 feet below grade) in boring B1 to a maximum of 740 pg/kg of DDE (1 foot
below grade) in shallow boring S2 (Table 2-45). In the CS, the measured
concentrations were compared to the DHS total threshold leaching criteria value
of 50 mg/kg. None of the measured soil concentrations, however, exceeded the
criteria (WESTDIV 1986).
Because of the relatively low potential for vertical migration or subsurface
transport of contaminants in the silty and clayey soil at the washout area, the
CS concluded that encapsulation of the area with clean fill and asphalt would
serve to adequately reduce the risk of groundwater contamination. To eliminate
additional release of contaminants to soil, the CS also recommended enlarging
the concrete pads at the washout area (WESTDIV 1986). These
2-97
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE^J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
recommendations were not immediately accepted because the site was
targeted for additional investigation under the RFA and CERCLA programs.
As part of the MCLB RFA program, a PR/VSI was conducted at Site 2 in 1991
(SWDIV 1991 a). Two photographs of Site 2 were taken and presented in the
PR/VSI document. Part of the scope of the PR/VSI was to obtain and evaluate
aerial photographs that document historical activity at various sites within the
MCLB. Several aerial photographs were evaluated for past hazardous waste
handling, storage, and disposal. The PR/VSI reported that 1961 aerial
photographs show the MCLB drainage ditch at Site 2 was straightened and
doubled in width. The recommendation for Site 2, as presented in the PR/VSI
report, entailed further investigation as part of OU 4 because Site 2 is an
identified site in the FFA (SWDIV 1991 a).
The Rl at CAOC 2 was completed in a single-phased field investigation of four
strata during March through October 1992.
2.6.4 Summary of Site Characteristics
/
This section provides a brief overview of the Rl conducted at CAOC 2, analytical
results from soil sampling, and a general summary of water quality risks and
uncertainties as related to water quality protection. Only one phase of the
investigation was completed at CAOC 2. A total of 17 vertical soil borings were
completed. Six borings were advanced at Stratum 1, three borings were
advanced at Stratum 2, five borings were advanced at Stratum 3, and three
borings were advanced at Stratum 4. Sample locations are shown on
Figure 2-25.
Results of laboratory testing for organic and inorganic compounds in Strata 1, 2,
3, and 4 soils are summarized in Tables 2-46 to 2-53. The results shown in
these tables are from samples collected prior to the removal action conducted at
CAOC 2. Maximum concentrations by depth are presented. To help identify
potentially significant contaminants, residential soil RBC are also shown on
these tables. For inorganics, the 95th percentile background concentrations are
shown for comparison. Analytical results from confirmation samples collected
as part of the removal action are also discussed.
2-98
-------
CTO293\B70018VDFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Stratum 1
The results for organic and inorganic compounds (pre-removal action) are
presented in Tables 2-46 and 2-47, respectively and are summarized as follows.
• Chlorinated pesticides (dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor epoxide, DDT, ODD.
DDE, endosulfan I, endosulfan sulfate, atpha-chlordane, and gamma-
chlordane) were detected in several samples collected from 0 to 3 feet.
None were detected at concentrations exceeding 90 ng/kg. DDT, DDD,
and DDE were detected most frequently and at the highest
concentrations. The maximum concentrations of DDT, DDD, DDE, and
endosulfan were detected in boring NB0202 at a depth of 3 feet.
Concentrations were 3.6, 88.8, 63.5, and 1.5 tig/kg, respectively. The
maximum concentrations of alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, and
endrin were detected in boring NB0206 at a depth of 3 feet and at
concentrations of 19.3, 18.1, and 0.38 ng/kg. Maximum dieldrin
concentrations were found in boring NB0204 at 2 and 3 feet;
concentrations were 19.2 and 54.6 ng/kg. The dieldrin concentrations
were the only ones to exceed the residential soil RBC.
• Low levels of PCE, toluene, carbon disulftde, and carbon tetrachloride
were detected primarily in boring NB0204 at levels between 1 and
4 ng/kg. Each detection was below the associated residential soil RBC.
• Acetone, methylene chloride, and phthalates were detected but are
attributed to laboratory contamination.
• Fourteen metals were statistically elevated above background
concentrations. These include: aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium,
boron, cadmium, calcium, lead, magnesium, manganese, potassium,
sodium, strontium, thallium, and zinc. Aluminum, beryllium, manganese,
potassium, sodium, and strontium are not considered site related
because they are not components of herbicide or pesticide formulations.
The other metals, except for thallium and lead, are also considered
naturally occurring due in large part to the lack of site scoping
information to suggest its use. Thallium is considered potentially site
related because it was commercially used in insecticides prior to 1965.
Lead is also potentially site related because it is also a component of
pesticides and its concentration patterns follow the detections of
pesticides.
Stratum 2
The Stratum 2 analytical results for organic and inorganic compounds
(pre-removal action) are presented in Tables 2-48 and 2-49 and are
summarized as follows.
2-99
-------
CT0293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-001B
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
• Chlorinated pesticides (ODD, DOE, DOT, alpha-chtordane, and gamma-
chlordane) were detected in all samples collected from 0 to 3 feet ODD,
DDE, and DDT were detected above RBC in boring NB0207. DDD was
detected in this boring at 4,490 and 34 fig/kg at 2 and 3 feet DDE was
detected at 7,140 pg/kg at 2 feet, and DDT was detected at
72,300 no/kg and 599 no/kg at 2 and 3 feet DDD, DDE, and DDT were
also detected in boring NB0208 at 3 feet at concentrations of 24.34, 215,
and 225.75 ng/kg. Alpha-chlordane and gamma-chlordane were
detected at 3 feet in boring NB0209 at 7.69 and 11.31 pg/kg.
• Several volatile organic compounds were detected at low maximum
concentrations. These include carbon disulfide at 98 jig/kg, PCE at
15 }ig/kg, and toluene at 1 fig/kg. Each of these detections are below
residential soil RBC.
• Several semivolatile organic compounds were also detected at low
concentrations. These include fluoranthene at 11 fig/kg,
pentachlorophenol at 15 iig/kg, and pyrene at 6 }ig/kg. These maximum
detections are below residential soil RBC.
• Acetone, methylene chloride, and butyl benzyl phthalate were detected,
but attributed to laboratory contamination.
• Eleven metals were statistically elevated above background
concentrations. These include aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium,
boron, cadmium, calcium, lead, potassium, sodium, and strontium. None
of these, except for lead, are site related as discussed for Stratum 1.
/
Stratum 2 - Removal Action
The Pesticide Storage and Washout Area is currently still an active MCLB
facility used for equipment storage and repair and other operations associated
with MCLB yard maintenance. The detected pesticide contamination at
Stratum 2 was considered a potential significant health threat to MCLB workers,
and the implementation of a time-critical removal action was considered
appropriate (SWDIV 1994b). The removal action plans were developed in July
1994 and field operations were completed from August to September 1994.
The southern wash pad and contaminated soils from an excavation 36 by 16
feet by 14 feet deep were removed for disposal. In total, 318 tons of soil were
removed from an excavation immediately west of the former LIST location and
surrounding boring NB0207 (Figure 2-24). Analytical soil samples were
collected and analyzed to determine the final dimensions of the excavation.
The excavation was considered complete when contaminant concentrations in
the soil samples from the limits of the excavation were measured lower than the
prescribed 4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-DDE/4,4'-DDT action levels of 1.2 and 0.84 mg/kg
2-100
-------
CTO293\B7001B\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
(SWDIV 1995b). The soils at CAOC 2 where the highest concentrations of
pesticides were detected were excavated for disposal during the removal action.
Details of the removal action at CAOC 2 are provided in the removal action site
doseout report prepared by SWDIV (1995a).
Stratum 3
The analytical results for soil samples (pre-removal action) from Stratum 3 are
presented in Tables 2-50 and 2-51 for organic and inorganic compounds and
are summarized as follows.
• Acetone and methylene chloride, which are attributed to laboratory
contamination, were the only volatile organics detected in Stratum 3.
• One semivolatile, phenanthrene, was-detected in boring NB0211 from 0
to 3 feet at a concentration of 14 jig/kg. No toxicity data are available to
calculate an RBC for this constituent.
• Chlorinated pesticides (dieldrin, DDT, DDE, DDD, alpha-chlordane,
gamma-chlordane, and methomyl) were detected in samples collected
from 0 to 13 feet and also below 13 feet. All detections are below RBC.
DDD, DDE, and DDT were detected at 3 feet in boring NB0214 at
concentrations of 237.91, 173, and £75 fig/kg. DDD, DDE, and DDT
were also detected in boring NB0213 along with alpha-chlordane,
gamma-chlordane, and dieldrin. Each was detected in the 2-foot sample
at 6.54, 161.61, 110.82, 9.13, 9.76, and 8.5 ng/kg, respectively. DDE
was also detected in an 11-foot sample from this boring at 1.24 ng/kg.
DDD, DDE, DDT, alpha-chlordane, and gamma-chlordane were again
detected in boring NB0211 in a 3-foot sample at 0.65, 1.15, 4.03, 1.31,
and 2.01 iig/kg. Methomyl was detected in borings NB0211. NB0212
and NB0213 at depths ranging from 2 feet to 21 feet. Concentrations
ranged from 106 to 263 ng/kg. Methomyl has no RBC value.
• Phthalates were detected, but are attributed to laboratory contamination.
• Thirteen metals were assessed as statistically elevated relative to
background concentrations. These include arsenic, barium, beryllium,
boron, cadmium, calcium, lead, manganese, potassium, selenium,
sodium, strontium, and zinc. As discussed for Stratum 1, none of these
metals is likely site related, except for lead.
2-101
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-O1F293.B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
Stratum 4
The results of organic and inorganic laboratory analyses are presented in
Tables 2-52 and 2-53, respectively, and are summarized as follows.
• PCE was detected once at as estimated concentration of 1.1 ng/kg in
boring NB0215 at a depth of 11 feet. This concentration is less than the
RBC.
• Toluene was detected once at an estimated concentration of 1 ng/kg in
boring NB0217 at a depth of 21 feet This concentration is less than the
residential soil RBC.
• Pyrene was detected once at a concentration of 4.56 fig/kg, which is less
than the RBC, in boring NB0215 in a sample collected from 2 feet.
• Chlorinated pesticides (ODD, DOE, DDT, alpha-chlordane, gamma-
chlordane, dieldrin, and endrin) were detected in Stratum 4 soils. All of
the detections are less than the RBC. DDD, DDE, and DDT were
detected in boring NB0215. DDD was detected in the 3-foot sample at
6.16 tig/kg and DDE was detected in both the 3-foot sample and the
11-foot sample at 61.85 and 2.34 ng/kg. DDT was also detected in the
11-foot sample from this boring at 2.46 ng/kg. DDD, DDE, DDT, alpha-
chlordane, gamma-chlordane, dieldrin, and endrin were each detected in
the 11-foot sample from boring NB0216. Concentrations were 0.72,
13.30, 15.03, 6.38, 5.86, 5.38, and 0,32 fig/kg, respectively.
• Fifteen metals were assessed as statistically elevated above background
concentrations. These include aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium,
boron, cadmium, calcium, lead, manganese, mercury, potassium,
selenium, sodium, strontium, and zinc. As discussed in Stratum 1, none
of these metals is likely site related, except for lead.
Summary of Evaluation of Groundwater Impacts
The mathematical modeling performed at CAOC 2 using DLM and VLEACH
indicated that the contaminants remaining in the soils, specifically dieldrin,
would possibly 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 2 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 OU 2 remedial action.
2-102
-------
CT0293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Surface waters are not present at CAOC 2, except for when there is heavy
precipitation. The contaminants would not be a threat to surface waters
because of the existing thick, overlying soil cover.
2.6.5 Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 2
using data collected during the Rl and the removal action. The human health
evaluation methodology is provided in Section 5.0 and Appendix H of the draft
final Rl report for OUs 3 and 4, June 1995. Results of the assessment for
CAOC 2 are provided in Section 11.0 of the Rl report. The assessment was
performed using concentrations in the soil prior to and after the removal was
conducted. The ecological assessment is provided in the draft final Phase I
ERA, February 1996. Both of these assessments have been summarized in
Section 2.2.5 and conclusions related to CAOC 2 are presented here in support
of the decision to take no action.
2.6.5.1 Human Health Risk Characterization
/
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 2 are presented in Table 2-54
for the residential land-use scenario and in Table 2-55 for the industrial land-use
scenario. Pre-removal and post-removal action assessments are discussed for
Stratum 2.
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCRs for Strata 1, 2, and 3 exceed 1 x 10*6 for the residential land-use
scenario. The ILCRs are 3.5 x 10-*, 9.5 x 10*5, and 1.3 x 10-6, respectively. The
potential risk at Stratum 2 was driven by detections of ODD and DDT. Because
CAOC 2, Stratum 2 is an active area used for the storage and repair and other
operations associated with the MCLB yard and golf course maintenance, a time-
critical removal action was conducted to remove the pesticide contaminated
soils. DDD, DDE, and DDT were not detected in confirmation samples taken at
the completion of the removal action. In addition, dean soil was used to replace
the soil that was excavated to a depth of 14 feet. There is no potential for
exposure to any residual contamination that may be at depths greater than 14
2-103
-------
CT0293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
PrtntDate: 28 May. 1997
feet The lack of a complete exposure pathway indicates that the post-removal
action risk and hazard is essentially zero. The potential risk at Stratum 1 is due
primarily to two detections of dieldrin at concentrations just above its RBC of
17.8 ng/kg. Dieldrin was detected at 1 to 2 feet and 2 to 3 feet in the same
boring at 19.22 and 54.62 M0/kg. Dieldrin was not detected above its RBC in
any of the remaining 19 samples collected in Stratum 1 soils. No single
contaminant detected in Stratum 3 soils exceeded the 1 x 10-6 risk level. The
calculated risk is due to the sum of risks calculated for single detections of
dieldrin and DDT.
The noncancer indices for all strata exceeded the acceptable level of 1.0. As
shown in Table 2-54, this is due almost entirely to naturally occurring metals,
and therefore site-related impact is considered insignificant.
Industrial Land Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, the ILCRs for Strata 1 and 2 exceed
1 x 10-6. As mentioned for the residential land-use scenario, a removal action
was conducted at Stratum 2, and the risk at Stratum 1 was due to two isolated
detections of dieldrin in the same boring af levels just above the RBC. The
hazard indices for each strata are less than 1.0, thus potential noncancer risks
are considered insignificant.
2.6.5.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion
The low levels of contaminants in the soils at CAOC 2 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 (EPA 1996).
2-104
-------
CT0293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
2.6.6 Description of No Action Alternative
The no action alternative selected for CAOC 2 does not involve institutional or
engineering control and does not include containment, excavation, or treatment
technologies.
CAOC 2 is considered to be in a protective state for the following reasons:
• Pesticide concentrations are similar to levels found Basewide that result
from application of pesticides for maintenance
• A removal action has been conducted to excavate the most
contaminated soils from this CAOC
• Modeling indicates a possible threat to groundwater, but further action
will be taken as part of the OU 2 remedial action.
• The ecological assessment found that the low levels of contaminants
detected would not have an adverse impact on ecological receptors.
Because the incremental carcinogenic human health risks at Strata 1 and 3
exceed 1 x 10-6, for information and future planning purposes, a description of
the history of these two strata will be provided in the Base master plan. The low
levels of pesticides 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 use should be
coordinated through and reviewed by the MCLB Environmental Department.
2.7 OU 4 - CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area
2.7.1 CAOC 5 - Name. Location, and Description
CAOC 5, the Chemicals Storage Area, is located in the southeastern portion of
the Nebo Main Base, north of the Drum Storage Area and Landfill (CAOC 7),
northwest of the Original Trash Landfill (CAOC 6), and south of Joseph Boll
Avenue (Figure 1-3). The CAOC includes three lots, Lot 351, 352, and 357
(Figure 2-26), which encompass a total area of about 50 acres. Interstate 40
traverses the southern part of the CAOC (Lot 352).
2-105
-------
CTO293VB70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-O016
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
CAOC 5 was divided into three strata. Stratum 1 consists of the northeastern
portion of CAOC 5 and includes Lots 351 and 357. Stratum 2 is the central
portion of the CAOC, called Lot 352 North and Stratum 3 is the southwestern
portion of the CAOC, called Lot 352 South.
The Chemicals Storage Area is bounded to the north/northeast and southeast
by two stormwater drainage channels (Channels G and F, respectively) that
comprise part of the Nebo Main Base surface drainage system (CAOC 14 -
Drainage Channels and Mojave Riverbed Outfalls) (SWDIV 1994). The
southwest, northwest, and west sides of the site are bordered by an earthen
berm, Tinian Street, and a fence line, respectively, the depth to groundwater
below the site is approximately 50 feet.
2.7.2 Operations
The following history of the Chemical Storage Area was derived primarily from
the IAS and CS reports (NEESA 1983 and WESTDIV 1985)^ The IAS team
gathered their information by reviewing Base historical records and aerial
photographs, and by conducting on-site suryeys and personnel interviews. The
CS report summarized the scope and conclusions of the CS that was performed
subsequent to the IAS for Lot 351.
The entire Chemical Storage Area (Lots 351, 352, and 357) was reportedly used
from 1948 to 1978 to store rollback equipment (equipment and supplies
returned from World War II and the Korean and Vietnam conflicts) and
hazardous chemicals. Around 1967, the military began phasing out the use of
DDT. The Nebo Main Base was selected as the west coast collection point for
the decommissioning of DDT at military facilities throughout the west. From
1967 to 1976, DDT received from these facilities was stored with rollback
equipment and hazardous chemicals in an unpaved 10- to 15-acre area in the
northwestern portion of the Chemical Storage Area (Lot 351) (Figure 2-26).
DDT materials arrived in both dry powder form and dissolved in oil and were
stored in the open in a variety of forms and packages, including cardboard
cartons, fiberpacks, drums, and paper bags.
2-106
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
In fiscal year 1975/76, the Navy arranged for the disposal of approximately 300
tons of the accumulated material. During the process of removal, an estimated
1 ton of material was spilled onto the ground at Lot 351. A field survey was
conducted in April 1976 to determine the extent of DDT contamination outside
of Lot 351. The survey involved the collection of soil samples from areas that
were visibly contaminated with DDT. Four isolated DDT-contaminated areas
were identified in Lots 357 and 393, based on the presence of DDT crystals or
containers and oil-stained soils. Many containers at Lot 393 were reportedly
leaking or swollen and in need of repackaging. DDT was detected in the soil
samples collected in these areas and in a drainage ditch adjacent to these
areas. In 1978, an effort was made to dean up the contaminated areas by
removing the top 6 inches of soil and replacing it with clean fill. The actual
extent of the remediated area(s) is unknown. A 1- to 3-inch-thick layer of
asphalt and concrete was reportedly placed over the remediated areas;
however, no concrete and only patches of asphalt have since been observed at
the site.
Industrial wastes containing oils and solvents were reportedly discharged to the
site soils during the same period of time. The waste types, quantities, and time
periods of disposal were not disclosed. The Chemical Storage Area has also
been used occasionally by Base personnel for general vehicular storage and
maintenance (repairs, oil changes, etc.).
2.7.3 Investigation History
A field survey was conducted by the Navy in April 1976 to determine the extent
of DDT-contaminated material outside of Lot 351 (SWDIV 1991 a). As
previously discussed, the survey identified DDT-contaminated areas in Lots 357
and 393. Soil samples were collected from three locations in Lot 357, three
locations in the drainage ditch to the north and west of Lot 357, and one
location in Lot 393 as shown in Figure 2-27 (Lot 393 is part of CAOC 6, OU 6).
The samples were analyzed for DDT derivatives and reported as total DDT. A
summary of the analytical results is presented in Table 2-56.
The three locations sampled in Lot 357 corresponded to areas either covered by
DDT crystals (Location 1), deteriorated 2-ounce cans of 10 percent DDT dust
2-107
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
(Location 2), or stained with oil (Location 3). Each location covered an
approximate 9-square-foot area. Soil samples were collected from each
location from 0- to 1-foot and 1- to 2-foot intervals. In addition, a surface
sample was collected at Location 3. All samples were analyzed for DDT-derived
residues. Analytical results were reported as total DDT contamination. 'DDT
was detected in all but one of the samples collected (1- to 2-foot interval at
Location 3) at concentrations ranging from 0.02 to 3,944 mg/kg (SWDIV 1991a).
The three locations sampled in the drainage ditch north and west of Lot 357
corresponded to points upstream (Location 4), adjacent to (Location 5), and
downstream (Location 6) of Lot 357. Surface samples were collected at each
location. DDT was detected in all of the samples at concentrations ranging from
0.022 to 3.9 mg/kg (SWDIV 1991 a).
The one location sampled in Lot 393 corresponded to a 7 square-foot area
adjacent to the new storage area where a 5-gallon container was observed to
be leaking. Samples were collected from the 0- to 4-, 4- to 16-, 16- to 28-, and
28- to 34-inch intervals. DDT was detected in all of the samples at
concentrations ranging from 597 to 17,773 mg/kg (SWDIV 1991a).
/
An IAS was performed by Brown and Cafdwell in 1983 to evaluate whether
potential contamination from spills and leaks from containers previously stored
at the Chemical Storage Area posed a threat to human health or the
environment. The IAS involved a review of site archival and activity records
(including historical aerial photographs), an ornsfte survey, the development of a
ranking system rating each site for a CS, and recommendations for the scope of
the CS. The IAS designated the Chemical Storage Area as Site 5 (NEESA
1983).
The IAS report noted that approximately 300 tons of DDT were stored on an
unpaved, 10- to 15-acre area in the northeastern portion of Site 5 from 1967 to
1976, and that a site cleanup had been performed in 1978. The report also
noted that the Chemical Storage Area was used as a disposal site for industrial
wastes containing oils and solvents. The IAS report concluded that Site 5
posed a potential threat to human health because waste oils, solvents, and DDT
were stored and possibly spilled in the same areas. The type and origin of the
2-108
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0016
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
solvents stored were not described. The IAS report therefore recommended
that a CS be conducted at Site 5 (NEESA 1983).
A CS was performed by A.L Burke Engineering in 1985 at the IAS Site 5 study
area (Lot 351). The primary objective of the study was to confirm that the
remedial activities performed in 1978 had effectively removed the DDT-
contaminated soils in Lot 351. The CS did not address Lots 357 and 393,
portions of which were also reportedly remediated in 1978. CS activities
involved the collection of 45 soil samples from 15 borings drilled to depths
ranging from 3.5 to 5.5 feet below ground surface. Boring locations are shown
in Figure 2-27. The samples were analyzed for total DDT, TPH, and TOX. The
TPH and TOX analyses were used to screen the soils for waste oils or solvents
(WESTDIV 1985).
DDT was detected in only one CS sample at a concentration of 0.0059 mg/kg,
which is below the California soluble threshold limit concentration for DDT. TPH
was detected in 10 samples collected from 8 borings at concentrations ranging
from 3.2 to 103.3 mg/kg, and TOX was detected in two samples collected from
two borings at concentrations of 6 and 50 mg/kg (WESTDIV 1985). At the time
the CS was completed, neither federal nor state standards were available by
which to compare the TPH and TOX concentrations. Therefore, these analytes
were not evaluated in the CS report; a summary of the CS analytical results is
presented in Table 2-56.
Geologic descriptions recorded on boring logs prepared during the CS
characterized the top 5.5 feet of soil in the area investigated as a medium- to
coarse-grained gravelly sand with cobbles and boulders. A layer of asphalt was
noted in the top 3 inches of 7 of the 15 borings drilled. The approximate extent
of the asphalt as described in the boring logs is shown in Figure 2-27. Although
the asphalt was present in only half of the borings drilled, the CS report stated
that the site was covered by a nearly continuous 1- to 3-inch layer of asphalt
that inhibited infiltration of surface water runoff. The CS report concluded that
because the potential for migration of contaminants away from the site was
minimal, no remedial action was necessary. The report recommended that the
area not be used for vehicular storage or maintenance because these activities
contributed to the presence of TPH and TOX in the site soils.
2-109
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE>«2-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
A PR/VSI was conducted at Site 5 in August 1991 as part of the RFA program.
The PR/VSI report (SWOIV 1991 a) documented additional research and
detailed the 1976 survey that prompted the remedial action conducted in 1978.
As discussed above, the 1976 survey identified DDT contamination in Lots 357
and 393 and many containers In Lot 393 that required repackaging. The
PR/VSI summarized the soil removal activities performed in 1978 and noted that
no evidence was acquired through review of historical aerial photographs or the
VSI to confirm that the area had ever been covered with asphalt or concrete. A
short summary of CS activities and results was also included in the PR/VSI
report.
Although the CS report did not consider remedial action necessary at Site 5, the
PR/VSI report recommended further investigation be conducted at the site as
part of OU 3 because the area had been identified as a site in the FFA.
A separate investigation of the material used for dust suppression at MCLB was
conducted at Yermo Annex and Nebo Main Base in 1993. Two suppression
methods were used: an asphalt-like material was applied to surface soils to
control dust, and slurries of wastewater and^ waste oil were directly sprayed on
the soil for dust suppression. The asphalt-like pavement was termed "desert
mix" and the sprayed liquids were termed "dust suppression" liquids. Two dust
suppression material samples were collected from Lots 351 and 353 and one
desert mix sample was collected from the north portion of Lot 352. Sample
locations are shown in Figure 2-28. The samples were analyzed for VOCs and
semivolatiles, organochlorine pesticides (OCRs), PCB compounds, and
inorganic analytes (metals) with molybdenum, boron, and strontium. Analytical
results from this sampling event are summarized in Section 2.7.4, and complete
results of the sampling are presented in the preliminary draft desert mix and
dust suppression materials report (SWDIV 1993).
The Rl for CAOC 5 consisted of two phases during 1992 and 1994. Phase I
activities consisted of scoping, stratum definition, reconnaissance, and a
soil/geologic investigation. Phase II activities were limited to field screening for
PCBs in Lots 351 and 357.
2-110
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
2.7.4 Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the assessments conducted at
CAOC 5, analytical results from sofl sampling, and a general summary of water
quality risks and uncertainties as related to water qualify protection. During
Phase I investigations, 47 soil borings (NB0501 through NB0547) were drilled in
Strata 1, 2, and 3; 37 borings were drilled in Stratum 1, while 5 were drilled in
Stratum 2, and another 5 in Stratum 3. Boring locations are shown in
Figure 2-28. The depth of the borings ranged from 11.5 to 21.5 feet. Phase II
consisted of field screening for PCBs. A grid was established around boring
NB0545 (the boring in which Arodor-1260 was detected at 180 jig/kg), and
5 samples were collected from a depth of 1.5 to 2 feet The most likely potential
contamination source at CAOC 5 includes past storage of DDT.
Results of laboratory analytical testing for organic and inorganic compounds for
CAOC 11 soils are summarized in Tables 2-57 through 2-62. Maximum
concentrations by depth are presented. To help identify potentially significant
contaminants, residential soil RBC are also shown on these tables. For
inorganics, the 95th percentile background^ concentrations are also shown for
comparison.
Stratum 1
The results for organic and inorganic compounds are presented in Tables 2-57
and 2-58. respectively, and are summarized as follows.
• MEK (2-butanone) was detected at concentrations ranging from 8 to
11 ng/kg in the samples collected from 6 to 7 and 10 to 11 feet in boring
NB0511, and 5 to 6 and 10 to 11 feet in boring NB0525.
• Chloroform was detected at 3 tig/kg in two samples collected from the
5- to 6- and 10- to 11-foot intervals in NB0524.
• Toluene was present at a concentration of 2 ng/kg from 5 to 6 feet in
NB0529 and 10 to 11 feet in NB0531.
• Xylenes (total) were present in only one sample collected from 5 to
6 feet in NB0525 at a concentration of 3 ng/kg.
• . Acetone and methylene chloride were also detected; however, their
presence was attributed to laboratory contamination.
2-111
-------
CTO293VB7001 8VOFROO-R2 CLE-J02-01 F293-B7-O01 8
PfWDate: 28 May. 1997
Each detection of these VOC and semivolatile concentrations is below their
respective residential soil RBC.
• Chrysene (36 fig/Kg), dibenzofuran (6 pg/kg), n-nitrosodiphenylarnine
(59 jig/kg), and phenanthrene (120 pg/kg) were each detected from 5 to
6 feet in NB0525.
• Di-n-butyl phthalate was detected from 1 to 2, 5 to 8, and 10 to 12 feet in
1 1 borings at concentrations ranging from 6 to 140 fig/kg.
• Di-rvoctyl phthalate was detected at 47 ng/kg in NB0545 (10 to 11 feet)
and 46 ng/kg in NB0546 (1 1 to 12 feet).
• Phenol was present at 20 ng/kg in NB0546 (6 to 7 feet) and 25 ng/kg in
NB0545(10to11feet).
• Pyrene was detected at the 5- to 6-foot interval in NB0512 and NB0525
at 60 and 47 fig/kg, respectively, and at the 10- to 11-foot interval in
NB0511, NB0525. and NB0545 at 25, 7, and 18 ng/kg, respectively.
Each of these contaminant concentrations is below the residential soil RBC.
• Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was also detected; however, its presence
was attributable to laboratory contamination.
• Low-level chlorinated pesticides (4/-DDT, 4.4'-DDD, and 4,4'-DDE;
alpha- and gamma-chlordane; alpha-, delta-, and gamma-BHC; aldrin;
dieldrin; endosulfan I and II; endrin; endrin aldehyde and ketone;
heptachlor; heptachlor epoxide; and methoxychlor) were detected
sporadically between 0 and 12 feet in 112 samples collected from 23
borings. The highest detected concentration (140 ng/kg) was reported
for 4,4'-DDT, which was present in 19 samples, followed by 4,4'-DDE at
120 ^g/kg in 1 of 24 detections. 4,4'-DDD was detected in 11 samples
at concentrations ranging from 0.20 to 23 txg/kg. Detections of these
pesticides were below their respective RBC, except for dieldrin.
• Dieldrin was detected in 10 samples at concentrations ranging from
0.071 to 29 |ig/kg. The two highest concentrations of dieldrin, 27 tig/kg
(NB0545, 5 to 6 feet) and 29 fig/kg (NB0516, 10 to 11 feet), both
exceeded the RBC of 17.8
Ranging from 0.26 to 0.42 jig/kg, alpha-chlordane was detected seven
times at concentrations below RBC.
Gamma-chlordane (0.41 to 0.32 ng/kg), methoxychlor (0.26 to
3.7 tig/kg), and aldrin (0.15 to 14 |ig/kg) were each detected five times at
the ranges noted, which are below RBC.
Endosulfan I (0.25 and 14 ng/kg), endrin ketone (0.12 and 6.5 jig/kg),
gamma-BHC (13 and 14 ng/kg), heptachlor (12 and 14 fig/kg), and
2-112
-------
CTO293VB70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
a!pha-BHC (0.12 and 0.15 fig/kg) were all detected only two times each,
below RBC.
• Endosulfan II, endosulfan sulfate, endrin aldehyde, and heptachlor
epoxide were each detected only once at concentrations of 1.9, 0.89,
1.2, and 0.056 jig/kg, respectively, which are below RBC.
• Arodor-1260 was detected in four samples collected between 5 and
7 feet in NB0524, NB0536, NB0545, and NB0546 at concentrations
ranging from 11 tig/kg (NB0536) to 180 fig/kg (NB0545). The 180 ng/kg
concentration exceeded the respective RBC of 47.3 rig/kg. Additional
field screening was performed around boring NB0545; however, no
PCBs were detected.
• All detections of PCBs were below the EPA guidance level of 1 mg/kg for
residential land use.
• TRPH was detected in 11 samples ranging in concentrations from
1.1 mg/kg in boring NB0527 (5 to 6 feet) to 310 mg/kg in boring NB0525
(10 to 11 feet). TPH-diesel and TPH-gasoline were not detected at
Stratum 1. Because gasoline was not detected, the TRPH is probably
representative of heavier petroleum hydrocarbons; therefore, the TPH
criteria for diesel (10,000 mg/kg) as established by the LUFT manual is
used for comparison. All TRPH detections are below 10,000 mg/kg.
• Four VOCs (2-butanone, acetone, methylene chloride, and toluene) and
12 pesticides/PCBs were detected in two desert mix samples (DXNB08
and OXNB09) collected from Stratum 1. The 2-butanone, acetone, and
methylene chloride (common laboratory contaminants) were detected at
low concentrations (3 to 21 ng/kg) and were most likely introduced by
laboratory contamination. Pesticide concentrations ranged from 0.55 to
97 ng/kg.
• Seven metals were detected in Stratum 1 soils that were assessed as
being statistically elevated background concentrations. These include
beryllium, boron, cadmium, calcium, lead, mercury, and molybdenum.
Except for lead, these metals are considered to be a result of natural
occurrences because site history does not indicate their use. Lead was
detected at a maximum concentration of 47.9 mg/kg, which is below the
RBC.
Stratum 2
The results for organic and inorganic compounds are presented in Tables 2-59
and 2-60, respectively, and are summarized as follows.
• Three volatile organics were detected in two borings (NB0506 and
NB0510). Chlorobenzene was detected from 1 to 2 feet in boring
NB0510 at a concentration of 3 fig/kg. Trichloroethane was detected at
11 ng/kg in NB0506 (0 to 1 foot) and 3 ng/kg in NB0510 (1 to 2 feet),
respectively. Toluene was present in one sample collected from NB0510
2-113
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
PrWDate: 28 May, 1997
(1 to 2 feet) at 10 fig/kg, and in two samples collected from NB0506 at
13 fig/kg (4 to 5 feet) and 11 ng/kg (20 to 21 feet). None of the
detections exceeded RBC.
• Acetone and methylene chloride were also detected; however, their
presence was attributed to laboratory contamination. ^
• Only one semivolatile was detected that was not attributed to laboratory
contamination. Pyrene (a PAH) was detected in one sample collected
from 20 to 21 feet in NB0510 at a concentration of 30 Mg/kg, which is
less than the RBC.
• Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, and di-n-octyl phthalate
were also detected; however, their presence was attributable to
laboratory contamination.
• The chlorinated pesticides aldrin, 4.4'-DDT, dieldrin, endosulfan I,
gamma-BHC, and heptachlor were all detected in NB0508 between 10
and 11 feet at concentrations ranging from 0.17 tig/kg (endosulfan I) to
0.74 Mg/kg (dieldrin). Heptachlor was also detected in NB0507 from 10
to 11 feet in NB0507 at a concentration of 0.27 Mg/kg. All detections
were less than the RBC.
• Aroclor-1260 was present from 6 to 7 feet in NB0506 at 2.5 Mg/kg, and 7
to 8 and 10 to 11 feet in NB0508 at 42 and 6.6 Mg/kg. respectively. The
detections are less than the RBC.
• TRPH (930 mg/kg) and TPH (diesel) (47 mg/kg) were each detected in
N 60510 at 10 to 11 and 20 to 21 feet, respectively. All detections are
significantly less than the 10,000 mg/kg criteria established using LUFT
manual guidance.
• One VOC (acetone) and five pesticides were detected in the dust
suppression material sample collected in Stratum 2 (DXNB07). Acetone,
at 13 Mg/kg, was most likely present as a laboratory contaminant.
Pesticide concentrations ranged from 5.10 Mg/kg (alpha-chlordane) to
200 M^kg (endosulfan sulfate). Sample DXNB07 was located near a
segment of the abandoned pipe identified by the geophysical survey.
The absence of any organic compounds at elevated concentrations in
this sample indicates that the abandoned pipe has not adversely
affected the surrounding soils.
• Two metals were detected and considered statistically elevated or above
the 95th percentile background concentration; these are mercury and
boron. Both are considered not to be site related because site history
does not suggest its use.
2-114
-------
CTO293\B70018VOFROO-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O016
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
Stratum 3
The results for organic and inorganic compounds for Stratum 3 soils are
presented in Tables 2-61 and 2-62, respectively, and are summarized as
follows.
• DDT was detected once at 1 to 2 feet in boring NB0502 at a
concentration of 0.53 ng/kg; this is less than the RBC.
• TRPH was also detected once at 1 to 2 feet in boring NB0502 at a
concentration of 12 mg/kg. Comparison of this detection to levels
established by the LUFT manual indicate that this detection is not
significant.
• As with Stratum 1 and 2, mercury and boron were statistically elevated
relative to background concentration in Stratum 3 soils. Neither is
considered site related.
Summary of Evaluation of Groundwater Impacts
The mathematical modeling performed at CAOC 5 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 5 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 5, except for when there is heavy
precipitation. The contaminants would not be a threat to surface waters
because concentration levels are minor (i.e., at concentrations classified as
inert).
2.7.5 Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 5
using data collected during the Rl. The human health evaluation methodology
is provided in Section 5.0 and Appendix H of the draft final Rl report for OUs 3
and 4, June 1995. Results of the assessments for CAOC 5 are provided in
Section 12.0 of the Rl report. The ecological assessment is provided in the
2-115
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
draft final Phase I ERA, February 1996. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.2.5 and conclusions related to CAOC 5 are presented
here in support of the decision not to take action.
2.7.5.1 Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 5 are presented in Tables 2-63
and 2-64 for the residential and industrial land-use scenarios.
Residential Land-Use Scenario
As shown in Table 2-63. the calculated ILCRs for Strata 2 and 3 are 1 x 10-6
and less than 1 x 10-8, and are not considered to pose an unacceptable risk.
For Stratum 1, the ILCR is 7 x 1O6. The potential risk is driven by dieldrin and
Aroclor-1260. Dieldrin was detected in 10 of 77 samples, with the two maximum
detections exceeding the RBC. The presence of dieldrin is likely related to
Basewide applications and not site related. Aroclor-1260 was detected seven
times, but only once above the RBC of 47.3 fig/kg. All Aroclor-1260 detections
were below the EPA guidance level of 1,0 mg/kg for residential land use.
Considering the above information, and the fact that the elevated levels were
isolated to two borings, Stratum 1 soils are considered protective of human
health.
The hazard index for both Strata 2 and 3 is less than 1.0. The hazard index for
Stratum 1 is 3.38, but as shown in Table 2-63, this results almost entirely from
background metal concentrations.
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
The ILCRs for both Strata 2 and 3 are less than 1 x 10*. The ILCR for Stratum
1 is 2 x 10-6. For the reasons discussed for the residential land-use scenario,
Stratum 1 is considered protective.
The hazard indices for all three strata are less than 1.0.
2-116
-------
CTO293\B70016\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F233-87-0018
Print DMe: 28 May, 1997
2.7.5.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion
The low levels of contaminants in the soils at CAOC 5 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 the Mojave Wash habitats showed that there is no evidence
of contamination in the soils or surface water from Nebo Main Base sites. The
detailed assessment can be found in the draft final Phase I ERA (EPA 1996).
2.7.6 Description of No Action Alternative
The no action alternative selected for CAOC 5 does not involve institutional or
engineering control, and does not include containment, excavation, or treatment
technologies.
CAOC 5 is considered to be in a protective state for the following reasons:
• Detections of PCBs are below the EPA guidance levels.
• Pesticide concentrations are similar to levels found Basewide that result
from application of pesticides for maintenance.
• No groundwater impacts result from contaminant detections.
• The ecological assessment found that the low levels of contaminants
detected would not have an adverse impact on ecological receptors.
• CAOC 5 is currently unoccupied property with no existing structures or
facilities and no plans for use in the foreseeable future, which greatly
reduces the potential for on-site human exposure.
Because the carcinogenic site-related risk for Strata 1 and 2 is within the risk
range, for information and future planning purposes, a brief description of the
history of these two strata will be provided in the MCLB master plan. Low-level
pesticide and PCB detections in Stratum 1 soils will be noted in the master plan.
The presence of desert mix/dust suppression material in this stratum will also be
documented. Language provided in the master plan will indicate that any
activities planned in these areas or changes in site use should be reviewed by
and coordinated through the MCLB Environmental Department.
2-117
-------
CTO293VB70018VDFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
2.8 OU 4-CAOC 9-Fuel Disposal Area
2.8.1 CAOC 9 - Name. Location, and Description
CAOC 9, the Fuel Disposal Area, encompasses a small, unpaved area
(approximately 150 by 250 feet) in the southwest comer of Nebo Main Base,
just west of the Drum Storage Area and Landfill (CAOC 7) and the Amphibious
Vehicle Testing Area (Fish Pond) (Figure 1-3) (NEESA 1983). The CAOC is
bisected by part of an unlined drainage channel, Channel F, which originates in
the southwest comer of the site and continues through the northeast comer of
the site (Figure 2-29); the channel is not considered part of the Fuel Disposal
Area. Channel F is one of three main stormwater drainage channels that
constitute part of the Nebo Main Base surface drainage system (CAOC 14 -
Drainage Channels and Mojave Riverbed Outfalls).
The Fuel Disposal Area is situated on an alluvial fan complex south of the
Mojave River Valley and is covered with desert vegetation, cobbles, and
boulders. The depth to groundwater is estimated at approximately 200 feet
below ground surface. ,
Circa 1950, waste fuel and oil were discharged to the ground surface in an
arroyo along the south perimeter of Nebo Main Base. The exact location of the
arroyo/disposal area was not documented. Based on available descriptions and
extensive review of historical aerial photographs, the arroyo may actually have
been a short segment of Channel F, which was isolated from the rest of the
channel by an approximate 300-foot-iong-breached section of the channel.
According to a 1948 photograph, the tail end of an arroyo adjacent to the
southern perimeter of Nebo Main Base merged directly into the origin of this
isolated channel segment. The point at which the two drainage features
intersected is dearly visible in the photograph; however, from ground surface (at
the time of disposal) it most likely was not visible. Consequently, a distinction
between the isolated segment of Channel F and the arroyo was never made
and the disposal site was described as an arroyo.
2-118
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
The discharged wastes were transported down the arroyo/channel segment via
surface runoff and intentional flushing (Figure 2-29) to the washed-out area
where they were deposited. A dark-toned variation observed in this area in
1948 and 1954 aerial photographs is believed to reflect the deposition of the
waste fuel and oil (Figure 2-29). As shown in Rgure 2-29, this discolored area
falls within the current Fuel Disposal Area boundaries, which are believed to
adequately delineate the area ultimately affected by the waste disposal
activities. The arroyo/channel segment was backfilled and/or graded after
disposal activities ceased in the early 1950s (Figure 2-29).
2.8.2 Operations
The following history of the Fuel Disposal Area was derived from the IAS report
(NEESA 1983) and a recent review of historical aerial photographs. The IAS
team gathered their information by reviewing Base historical records and aerial
photographs, and conducting on-srte surveys and personnel interviews.
In the 1950s, waste fuel and oil generated by vehicle maintenance operations
performed in the Wheeled and Tracked ^Vehicle Preservation Shop were
reportedly discharged into the segment of Channel F (Figure 2-29). The wastes
were collected at the shop in 55-gallon drums and hauled by truck to the
disposal area. Although the exact composition of the wastes is not known, the
waste oil may have included acid, caustics, solvents, paint sludge, phenolic
preservative compounds, detergents, lubricating oil, diesel, and gasoline
(SWDIV 1991 a and 1993). Reportedly, any wastes that accumulated were
periodically washed down the arroyo/channel by the MCLB Fire Department
(NEESA 1983). As previously discussed, the wastes were deposited in the
washed-out section of Channel F. Migration of the waste from that point was
influenced by the slope of existing drainage and surface-water runoff from the
wash to the south. Eventually, the wastes ended up in the area now designated
as the Fuel Disposal Area.
Approximately 20 drums of waste fuel and oil were discharged to the ground
surface in the anroyo each month. It is estimated that 120,000 gallons of
gasoline, diesel fuel, and lubrication oil were disposed of by this method. The
120,000-gallon estimate was apparently derived by assuming disposal of 50
2-119
-------
CT0293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
gallons of waste 20 times a month for 10 years. The estimate is probably high
because during this time period, the practice of dumping these liquids alternated
between the Fuel Disposal Area at Nebo Main Base and CAOC 21 at Yermo
Annex (NEESA1983).
2.8.3 Investigation History
An IAS was performed by Brown and Caldwell (NEESA 1983) at the Fuel
Disposal Area to evaluate whether potential contamination from past disposal
activities posed a threat to human health or the environment. The IAS 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 a CS, and recommendations for the scope of the CS. The IAS
designated the Fuel Disposal Area as Site 9. Conclusions stated that, because
of volatilization of the lighter fuel fractions, immobilization and biodegradation of
the heavier fuel fractions, and overall site conditions, the potential for off-site
migration was low and, therefore, the Fuel Disposal Area did not pose a threat
to human health or the environment. A CS was not recommended for Site 9.
/
However, during the subsequent negotiation phase for the CS, it was
determined that enough evidence existed to indicate the presence of
contamination at the Fuel Disposal Area, and the contamination posed a
potential threat to human health and the environment. As a result, a CS was
conducted at this site. The primary objective of the study was to determine
whether or not the disposal of specific toxic or hazardous materials identified by
the IAS had contaminated the environment at Site 9.
A CS was performed at Site 9 by A. L Burke Engineers, Inc. (Burke) (WESTDIV
1985), which involved short-term analytical testing and monitoring. Twelve soil
samples were collected from two soil borings (B-1 and B-2) drilled at the site
(Figure 2-30). The samples were analyzed for TPH, DDT, and TOX. Results of
the analyses identified the presence of TPH, DDT, and TOX at low
concentrations in one boring at and below a depth of 20 feet. The other boring
was described as being relatively clean with respect to the presence of these
constituents. A summary of the analytical results is presented in Table 2-65.
2-120
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
Groundwater was not encountered during drilling; however, it was reported to be
present more than 200 feet below the site.
Based on information gathered during the CS, the Fuel Disposal Area was
characterized as being isolated with a low potential for health and environmental
impacts (WESTDIV 1985). As a result, a remedial action plan was not
recommended.
Site 9 was also included in the PR/VSI under the RFA program. Discussion of
Site 9 in the PR/VSI report (SWDIV 1991 a) is limited to a summary of IAS and
CS conclusions and analytical results as described above. In particular, this
report noted that the depth to groundwater below the site was estimated at 50 to
100 feet in the IAS report and over 200 feet in the CS report.
Although the CS report recommended no further investigation for Site 9, the
recommendation concerning Site 9 as presented in the PR/VSI report entailed
further investigation of Site 9 as part of OU 3 because Site 9 is an identified site
in the FFA.
An Rl was conducted at CAOC 9 between'March and October 1992. The Rl
was completed in one phase and included scoping, stratum definition,
reconnaissance, and a soil/geologic investigation.
2.8.4 Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the assessments conducted at
CAOC 9, analytical results from soil sampling, and a general summary of water
quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection. Only one
phase of investigation was completed at CAOC 9. Four borings were drilled to
depth of 22 feet and one boring was drilled to depth of 23.5 feet. Sample
locations are shown on Figure 2-30. Potential sources of contamination at
CAOC 9 are the result of past discharge of waste fuels and oils to the ground
surface.
Results of laboratory analytical testing for organic and inorganic compounds for
CAOC 9 are presented in Tables 2-66 and 2-67. Maximum concentrations by
2-121
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-87-0018
Print DUe: 28 May. 1997
depth are shown. To help identify potentially significant contaminants,
residential soil RBC are also shown on these tables. For inorganic compounds,
the 95th percentile background concentrations are also presented for
comparison.
Stratum 1
• Carbon disulfide was detected once at a concentration of 10.2 iig/kg in
boring NB0901 between 10 and 11 feet This concentration is below the
residential soil RBC.
• Acetone, methylene chloride, and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate were also
detected, but are attributed to laboratory contamination.
• Two pesticides, DDT and DDE, were detected in CAOC 9 soils. DDE
was detected two times at concentrations of 2.5 and 1.8 tig/kg in boring
NB0902 from 2 to 4 and 10 to 12 feet, respectively. DDT was detected
three times at concentrations ranging from 3.0 to 3.7 ng/kg also in boring
NB0902. None of these detections exceed RBC.
• Arodor-1248 was detected once at a concentration of 19 ng/kg in boring
NB0902 between 20 and 22 feet. This is below the RBC and the EPA
guidance levels.
• TPH-gasoline was present in seven Camples at concentrations ranging
from 5.2 mg/kg in boring NB0904 at 0 to 2 feet to 9.2 mg/kg in boring
NB0901 at 0 to 1 foot; TPH diesel was not analyzed. TRPH was
detected 18 times at concentrations ranging from 12.2 mg/kg in boring
NB0901 at 2 to 3 feet to 280 mg/kg in boring NB0902 at 0 to 1 foot.
Based on LUFT guidance, the action levels for gasoline related products
at CAOC 9 would be 1,000 mg/kg and for diesel-related products.
10,000 mg/kg. The detected levels at CAOC 9 are well below these
levels.
• Eight metals detected in CAOC 9 soils were assessed as statistically
elevated relative to background concentrations. These include boron,
calcium, copper, lead, potassium, selenium, sodium, and zinc. Except
for lead, these metals are considered a natural occurrence because they
are not consistent with site history. Considering the history of gasoline
disposal at this site, the presence of lead is believed to be site related.
Summary of Evaluation of Groundwater Impacts
The mathematical modeling performed at CAOC 9 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.
2-122
-------
CT0293\S70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-JQ2-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
CAOC 9 \s not likely a past current or future source of contamination to the
groundwater based on the levels of contaminants remaining in the soils.
t
Surface waters are not present at CAOC 9, except for when there is heavy
precipitation. The contaminants would not be a threat to surface waters
because concentration levels are minor (i.e., at concentrations classified as
inert).
2.8.5 Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 9
using data collected during the Rl. The human health methodology is provided
in Section 5.0 and Appendix H of the draft final Rl report for OUs 3 and 4, June
1995. The results of the assessments for CAOC 9 are provided in Section 13.0
of the Rl report. The ecological assessment is provide in the draft final Phase I
ERA, February 1996. Both of these assessments have been summarized in
Section 2.2.5 and conclusions related to CAOC 9 are presented here in support
of the decision to take no action.
/
2.8.5.1 Human Hearth Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 9 are presented in Table 2-68
for both the residential and industrial land-use scenarios.
Residential Land-Use Scenario
The ILCR calculated for this CAOC is less than 1 x 10-8, which indicates any
contaminants present do not present a significant risk. The hazard index is 2.7,
but as shown in Table 2-68, is due entirely to background concentrations of
metals. Thus, potential noncancer risks are considered insignificant.
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial land-use scenario, both the cancer index and the
noncancer index are at acceptable levels. The ILCR is less than 1 x 10-8 and
the hazard index is less than 1.0.
2-123
-------
CT0293\B70018\OFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O01B
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
2.8.5.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion
The low levels of contaminants in the soils at CAOC 9 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 the Mojave Wash habitats showed that there is no evidence
of contamination in the soils or surface water from Nebo Main Base sites. The
detailed assessment can be found in the draft final Phase I ERA (EPA 1996).
2.8.6 Description of No Action Alternative
The no action alternative selected for CAOC 9 does not involve institutional or
engineering control, and does not include containment, excavation, or treatment
technologies.
CAOC 9 is considered to be in a protective state for the following reasons:
• Risk levels are below the target human health risk range.
• No groundwater impacts result from contaminant detections.
• The ecological assessment found that the low levels of contaminants
detected would not have an adverse impact on ecological receptors.
• CAOC 9 is currently unoccupied property with no existing structures or
facilities and no plans for use in the foreseeable future, which greatly
reduces the potential for on-site human exposure.
2.9 OU 4 - CAOC 11 - Fuel Bum Area
2.9.1 CAOC 11 - Name. Location, and Description
CAOC 11, the Fuel Bum Area, is in the southwest comer of the Nebo Main
Base (Figure 1-3), between the tank farm area (Structure S-189) to the north
and aboveground water storage tank (Structure-72) to the south (Figure 2-31).
The site is accessed via a dirt road off Guam Avenue. The area investigated
measures approximately 240 by 680 feet and is relatively flat with no structures
or significant surficial features. The ground surface is partially vegetated and
partially graded with what appears to be road-base gravel and sand. Surface
2-124
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F233-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
drainage flows from the northeast to southwest through a series of gullies. The
depth to groundwater below the site is approximately 140 feet.
2.9.2 Operations
The following history of the Fuel Bum Area was derived primarily from the IAS
report (NEESA 1983). The IAS team gathered their information by reviewing
Base historical records and aerial photographs, and by conducting on-site
surveys and personnel interviews.
The Fuel Bum Area was used from the early 1940s to the 1960s for the burning
of waste fuels and oils generated in the Repair Division shops. Waste diesel,
gasoline, and oil were collected in common tanks that were hauled to the Fuel
Bum Area for combustion. Specific details regarding the location, containment,
and management of the bum areas are not available. The locations of dark
spots (potential bum areas) as observed on aerial photographs taken in 1953,
1955, 1958, 1959, and 1965 are shown in Figure 2-31. Approximately 1,000
gallons per week of waste fuels and oils were reportedly discharged to the
ground and burned at this site. Assuming burning activities were performed
once a week for 20 years (1.040 weeks), an Estimated 1 million gallons of waste
fuels and oils were burned from the early 1940s until the 1960s when this
method of disposal was phased out. According to the draft final SAP for OUs 3,
4, 5, and 6 (SWDIV 1991 a), waste oils were primarily recycled after the 1960s.
2.9.3 Investigation History
An IAS was performed by Brown and Caldwell in 1983 to evaluate whether
potential contamination from past waste management activities practiced at the
Fuel Bum Area posed a threat to human health or the environment. The IAS
involved a review of site archival and activity records (including historical aerial
photographs), an on-site survey, the development of a ranking system that rated
each site for a CS, and recommendations for the scope of the CS. The IAS
designated the Fuel Bum Area as Site 11 and presented an approximate site
boundary for Site 11 that included a small, circular area located between
Structures S-189 and S-72; no formal site boundaries were developed.
2-125
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
The IAS report (NEESA 1983) concluded that of the average 1,000 gallons of
waste gasoline and diesel fuel burned each week at Site 11, almost all
(approximately 99 percent) had combusted or volatilized. The report implied
that residues would have consisted of a relatively immobile, heavier petroleum
fraction (low potential for off-site migration), which would have been subject to
biological degradation and stabilization. Therefore, the Fuel Bum Area was
characterized as a site that posed little threat to human health and a CS was not
recommended.
During the subsequent negotiation phase for the CS, additional evidence of
contamination was presented and a CS was proposed for Site 11. The
evidence presented was not described. The primary objective of the CS was to
determine whether the combustion of the waste fuels identified by the IAS had
contaminated the environment at Site 11. The CS targeted an approximate
35.000 square-foot area (350 by 100 feet) (WESTDIV 1985 and 1986), which
was not delineated by formal boundaries (Figure 2-32).
The CS was performed in two phases during 1984 and 1985. Phase I activities
involved the collection of nine soil samplers from two borings (B-1 and B-2)
drilled to 24 and 44 feet. Boring locations were determined using a random
sampling method and are shown in Figure 2-32. The samples were analyzed
for TPH, DDT, and TOX. TPH was detected in three of the nine samples at
concentrations ranging from 3.0 to 53.9 mg/kg. DDT was detected in five
samples at concentrations ranging from 0.003 to 0.0154 mg/kg. TOX was
detected once at a concentration of 2.8 mg/kg. A summary of Phase I CS
analytical results is presented in Table 2-69.
Phase II CS activities involved the collection of 10 soil samples from two borings
(B-3 and B-4) drilled to 43 and 45 feet, and 17 soil samples from exploratory
trenches excavated to depths ranging from 5 to 14 feet. The soil boring
samples were analyzed for BTEX, pesticides/PCBs, and 17 metals that are
listed in Table 2-69. The trench samples were analyzed for pesticides/PCBs
and the same 17 metals for which the soil samples were analyzed (Table 2-69).
None of the soil samples collected at Site 11 during Phase II of the CS
contained detectable concentrations of BTEX, pesticides, or PCBs. Of the 17
2-126
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
metals analyzed, all but antimony, molybdenum, selenium, and silver were
detected. At the time the CS was completed, background metal concentrations
had not been established; therefore, the concentrations of the metals detected
at Site 11 were not evaluated in the CS report. A summary of Phase IJ CS
analytical results is also included in Table 2-69.
The CS report described the top 1 to 6 feet of soil at Site 11 as dry, gravelly,
sandy fill. The report concluded that because DDT was detected only in the
Phase I samples and at concentrations below the soluble threshold limit
concentration, conditions at Site 11 did not pose a significant environmental
hazard, and therefore, no remedial action was recommended (WESTDIV 1985
and 1986).
A PR/VSI was conducted at Site 11 in 1991 as part of the RFA program. The
PR/VSI report (SWDIV 1991 a) did not present any additional information
regarding Site 11 other than that provided in the IAS and CS reports. However,
aerial photographs were compiled during this study and later reviewed for
planning sampling locations as discussed in the SAP amendment (SWDIV
1991 a). During the VSI portion of the study,, numerous 6- to 8-foot high debris
piles were observed on the ground surface at the site (Figure 2-32).
Although the CS report did not consider remedial action necessary at Site 11,
the PR/VSI report recommended that further investigation be conducted as part
of OU 3 because the area had been identified as a site in the FFA (SWDIV
1991 a).
An Rl was conducted in two phases at CAOC 11 during 1992 and 1994.
Phase I activities consisted of scoping, stratum definition, reconnaissance, and
a soil/geologic investigation. Phase II activities consisted of a soil/geologic
investigation and a groundwater investigation.
2.9.4 Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides a brief overview of the assessments conducted at
CAOC 11, analytical results from soil sampling, and a general summary of water
quality risks and uncertainties as related to water quality protection. Two
2-127
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Flint Date: 28M«y. 1997
phases of investigation were completed for CAOC 11. As part of Phase I, four
soil borings were completed to a depth of 21.5 feet A fifth boring was
terminated at 13 feet because of auger refusal. Two Phase II soil borings were
hand-augered to 1.5 feet and one down gradient monitoring well was installed.
The boring and well locations are shown on Figure 2-32. The expected source
of possible contamination at CAOC 11 was the burning of waste oils and fuels.
Results of laboratory analytical testing for organic and inorganic compounds in
soils at CAOC 11 are presented in Tables 2-70 and 2-71. Maximum
concentrations by depth are shown. To help identify potentially significant
contaminants, residential soil RBC are shown for comparison. For inorganic
compounds, the 95th percentile background concentrations are also presented.
Groundwater results are presented in Table 2-72.
Stratum 1
The organics detected in soils at CAOC 11 included 8 semivolatiles, 11
pesticides, TPH, and TRPH. Nine inorganics were considered statistically
elevated or greater than the 95th percentile Background concentrations. These
include barium, boron, cadmium, cyanide, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and
sodium.
• Acenaphthene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, fluoranthene,
phenanthrene, and pyrene were detected sporadically in 12 samples
collected from 2 of the 7 borings drilled at CAOC 11. Pyrene was
detected most frequently and was present in three samples at
concentrations ranging from 14 tig/kg in boring NB1102 (10 to 11 feet) to
110 tig/kg in boring NB1102 at 1 to 2 feet. Fluoranthene and chrysene
were each detected twice at concentrations ranging from 37 ng/kg
(NB1104, 1 to 2 feet) to 100 ng/kg (NB1102, 1 to 2 feet), and 64 ng/kg
(NB1104. 1 to 2 feet) to 69 fig/kg (NB1102, 1 to 2 feet), respectively.
Acenaphthene, benzo(a)anthracene. benzo(a)pyrene, and benzo(b)-
fluoranthene were each detected only once (NB1102, 1 to 2 feet) at
concentrations of 11, 58, 62, and 91 tig/kg, respectively. Phenanthrene
was also detected in NB1102 (8 fig/kg), but at a depth of 10 to 11 feet.
Of these detections, benzo(a)pyrene is the only compound detected at
concentrations above its residential soil RBC.
• Low-level chlorinated pesticides (4.4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, and 4,4'-DDT.
alpha BHC, alpha- and gamma-chlordane, dieldrin, endosulfan II, endrin,
heptachlor epoxide, and methoxychlor) were detected sporadically in
46 samples collected from 5 of the 7 borings drilled at CAOC 11. The
most frequently detected pesticide was 4,4-DDT, which was detected
2-128
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROO-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print [Me: 28 May. 1997
seven times at concentrations ranging from 0.54 jig/kg in NB1106 (1 to
1.5 feet) to 15 ng/kg in NB1105 (2 to 3 feet). The highest detected
pesticide concentration was reported for dieldrin, which was present in
six samples at concentrations ranging from 0.16 im/kg in NB1101 (1 to
2 feet) to 100 ng/kg in NB1102 (1 to 2 feet). The two highest
concentrations of dieldrin, 100 ng/kfl (NB1102,1 to 2 feet) and 79 ng/kg
(NB1105, 2 to 3 feet), both exceeded the respective RBC of 17.8 ng/kg.
The presence of dieldrin at CAOC 11 is attributable to the fadlrtywide
surface application of pesticides and is not considered to be site related.
• 4.4'-DDE (0.43 to 18 ng/kg), alpha-chlordane (0.085 to 7.5 ng/kg), and
gamma-chlordane (0.037 to 7.3 jig/kg) were also detected six times each
at the range of concentrations noted. Methoxychlor was detected in five
samples at concentrations ranging from 0.35 tig/kg in NB1102 (20 to
21 feet) to 5.8 ng/kg in NB1104 (1 to 2 feet). Endrin and heptachlor
epoxide were each detected three times at concentrations ranging from
0.56 tig/kg (NB1101, 1 to 2 feet) to 1.1 ng/kg (NB1105, 2 to 3 feet), and
from 0.11 ng/kg (NB1102, 1 to 2 feet) to 0.62 ng/kg (NB1105, 2 to 3
feet), respectively. 4,4'-DDD was detected twice at concentrations of
0.91 in NB1102 (1 to 2 feet) and 2.9 fig/kg in NB1105 (2 to 3 feet).
Alpha-BHC and endosulfan II were each detected only once at
concentrations of 0.13ng/kg (NB1104, 1 to 2 feet) and 0.25 ng/kg
(NB1102, 1 to 2 feet), respectively. None of these detections exceeded
the respective RBC.
• Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in three of the seven borings
drilled at CAOC 11. TPH (diesel) was present in three samples at
concentrations ranging from 9.7 mg/kg in NB1104 (10 to 11 feet) to
35 mg/kg in NB1104 (2 to 3 feet). TRPH was detected in two samples at
concentrations of 23.3 mg/kg (NB1101, 20 to 21 feet) and 790 mg/kg
(NB1105, 1 to 2 feet). Concentrations were below acceptable levels
suggested by the LUFT manual.
• Several other volatile and semivolatile organic compounds were
detected, but were attributed to laboratory contamination. These include
acetone, methylene chloride, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, butyl benzyl
phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, and n-nitrosodiphenylamine.
• None of the metals are considered site related because they are not
consistent with site history. However, for purposes of the human health
assessment, the portion of the stratum-maximum detection that exceeds
the 95th percentile background concentration is considered site related
for barium, cadmium, cyanide, mercury, and silver.
The results of the groundwater analyses showed few detections of organics
(Table 2-72). At the time of the preparation of the Rl report for OUs 3 and 4,
background data were not available for assessing the inorganics compared to
background. This is currently addressed in the OUs 1 and 2 Rl report.
• Chloroform and chloromethane were detected in well NS11-1 at
concentrations of 0.2 and 0.3 jig/L, respectively. These concentrations
2-129
-------
CTO293VB70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01 F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
are below the contract required quantification limit (2 ng/L) and the
values should be considered estimates. Chloroform is below the MCL
and there is no MCL for chloromethane.
• All metals detected were below MCLs.
Summary of Evaluation of Groundwater Impacts
The mathematical modeling performed at CAOC 11 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 11 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 11, except for when there is heavy
precipitation. The contaminants would not be a threat to surface waters
because concentration levels are minor (i.e., at concentrations classified as
inert).
2.9.5 Summary of Site Risks
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted for CAOC 11
using data collected during the Rl. The human health methodology is provided
in Section 5.0 and Appendix H of the draft final Rl report for OUs 3 and 4, June
1995. The results of the assessments for CAOC 11 are provided in
Section 14.0 of the Rl report. The ecological assessment is provided in the
draft final Phase I ERA, February 1996. Both of these assessments have been
summarized in Section 2.2.5 and conclusions related to CAOC 11 are presented
here in support of the decision not to take action.
2.9.5.1 Human Health Risk Characterization
The results of the risk characterization for CAOC 11 are presented in Table 2-73
for both residential and industrial land-use scenarios.
2-130
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
Residential Land-Use Scenario
Results of the human health risk assessment for the residential land-use
scenario indicate that a potential incremental lifetime carcinogenic risk of
5.6 x 10* is present at CAOC 11. When the risk factor falls within the 10* to
10-4 range, the decision to take or not take action becomes site-specific. The
slightly elevated risk factor for CAOC 11 is driven by the only detection of
benzo(a)pyrene and the two highest detections of dieldrin. Benzo(a)pyrene was
detected in boring NB1102 from 1 to 2 feet at a concentration of 62 tig/kg,
which exceeds the respective RBC of 39.1 ng/kg. Dieldrin was detected in
NB1102 (1 to 2 feet) and NB1105 (2 to 3 feet) at concentrations of 100 ng/kg
and 79 fig/kg, respectively, both of which exceed the respective RBC of
17.8 tig/kg. All other contaminant concentrations are well below 1O6 levels.
The risk of 6 x 10-6 is believed to be conservatively high for the following
reasons:
• The specified seven samples necessary to support a mean calculation
(SWDIV 1993) were not available for benzo(a)pyrene. In the absence of
a mean value, the one and only detection of the compound was used in
the risk assessment. As previously noted, this detection exceeds the
RBC. The contribution of this detection in the risk-factor calculation is
conservative while its relevance is speculative.
• The presence of dieldrin at CAOC 11 is attributable to the facility-wide
application of the pesticide and is not considered to be site related.
Considering that without the benzo(a)pyrene and dieldrin contributions, the risk
factor for CAOC 11 would fall below the 10-6 RBC, the 6 x 10-6 risk factor for
CAOC 11 should be considered acceptable and protective of human health
under the residential scenario.
The hazard index is 3.4, but as shown on Table 2-73, is due almost entirely to
background concentrations of metals. Thus potential noncancer risks are
considered insignificant.
2-131
-------
CT0293\B70018\OFROD-R2 CLE>W2-01F293-B7-0018
Print Oite: 28 May. 1997
Industrial Land-Use Scenario
Under the industrial scenario, the ILCR is 2 x 1(K As discussed for the
residential scenario, this potential risk is driven by detections of dieldrin and a
single detection of benzo(a)pyrene. For reasons discussed under the
residential scenario, these detections do not pose an unacceptable risk.
2.9.5.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Conclusion
The low levels of contaminants in the soils at CAOC 11 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 the Mojave Wash habitats showed that there is no evidence
of contamination in the soils or surface water from Nebo Main Base sites. The
detailed assessment can be found in the draft final Phase I ERA (EPA 1996).
2.9.6 Description of No Action Alternative
The no action alternative selected for CAOQ 11 does not involve institutional or
engineering control and does not include containment, excavation, or treatment
technologies.
CAOC 11 is considered to be in a protective state for the following reasons:
• Pesticide detections were similar to levels that result from Basewide
application of pesticides for maintenance.
• The risk included a singular detection of polynudear aromatic
hydrocarbons.
• No groundwater impacts result from contaminant detections.
• The ecological assessment found that the low levels of contaminants
detected would not have an adverse impact on ecological receptors.
• CAOC 11 is currently unoccupied property with no existing structures or
facilities and no plans for use in the foreseeable future, which greatly
reduces the potential for on-site human exposure.
Because low levels of pesticides were detected in the soils that were within the
risk range for carcinogenic site-related risks, a description of site history will be
2-132
-------
CT0293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
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 Banrtow
Environmental Department
2-133
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
(intentionally blank)
2-134
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0016
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
3.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
One written comment was received from the public (the MCLB Barstow Public Works
Department) concerning the alternatives evaluated for CAOC 23. The comment and
response are as follows.
Comment: Remedial Action CAOC 23 - Alternative 3, Option 2, Concrete
Pavement, page 7 of handout
Stratum 2 will be the only area covered with concrete? Talking with
our geotechnical personnel, I have been advised that: Geotechnical
drilling will have to be done, 1 foot to 5 foot deep of soil
removed/excavated and recompacted, 6 to 8 inches gravel placed
on top of recompacted soil, and then followed by 8 inches of
concrete. The concrete pavement is sloped to prevent water
ponding.
Response: Stratum 2 and a small portion of Stratum 1, which we have designated
as Zone I. are the only areas that wilj.be capped because these are the
only areas where landfilling activities took place at CAOC 23.
Geotechnical concerns will be addressed during detailed design of the
landfill cap.
3-1
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print (Me: 28 May, 1997
(intentionally blank)
3-2
-------
CTO293\B70018\OFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0016
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
4.0 REFERENCES
EPA, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1996. Memorandum - "Operable
Units No. 3 and 4 (OU 3&4); Draft Record of Decision; Marine Corps Logistics
Base - Barstow (Base); San Bernardino County."
Naval Energy and Environmental Support Agency. 1983. "Initial Assessment Study of
Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, CA," NEESA 13-035, prepared by Brown
and Caldwell, September.
NEESA, see Naval Energy and Environmental Support Agency.
RWQCB, see Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.
SECOR. 1994. "Soil and Concrete Removal Report, Marine Corps Logistics Base,
Barstow. California, Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Recycling Facility,"
prepared by Science and Engineering Analysis Corporation (SECOR), San
Diego, California and Cox Construction, Vista, California, 23 September.
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1991 a. "RCRA Facility
Assessment, Preliminary Review/Visual Site Inspection Report for the Marine
Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California," Vols. I and II, prepared by Jacobs
Engineering Group Inc., 02 August.
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1991b. "Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Barstow, California, Amendment to Draft Final Sampling and
Analysis Plan, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study" prepared by Jacobs
Engineering Group Inc.. 02 December.
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1992. "Draft Quality
Assessment of Aerial Photo Review," Technical Memorandum 0004, prepared
by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., 29 May.
4-1
-------
CTO293\B70018\DFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1993a. "Draft Phase I
Remedial Investigation, Operable Units 3 and 4, Marine Corps Logistics Base,
Barstow, California," Technical Memorandum 0009, Volume IV, Appendix B,
Geophysical Survey Report, prepared by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., 01
July.
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1993b. "Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Barstow, California, Preliminary Draft Desert Mix and Dust
Suppression Materials - Results of Preliminary Investigation," Technical
Memorandum 017, prepared by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., 29 December.
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1994a. "Draft Removal Site
Evaluation Report - CAOC 34," Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow,
California, prepared by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., 10 May.
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1994b. "Revised Draft Final
Operable Units 5 and 6 Sampling Work Plan," prepared by Jacobs Engineering
Group Inc., 30 March.
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1995a. "Preliminary Draft
Removal Action Site Closeout Report, CERCLA Area of Concern 2, Stratum 2,"
Pesticide Storage and Washout Area, Marine Corps. Logistics Base, Barstow,
California, prepared by OHM Remediation Services Corp., 10 January.
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1995b. Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Barstow, California, Operable Units 3 and 4, Draft Final
Feasibility Study Report for CERCLA Areas of Concern 20 and 23, prepared by
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., Appendix B. Hydrogeologic Evaluation of
Landfill Performance, 30 October.
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1995c. Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Barstow, California, Operable Units 1 and 2, Draft Final
Remedial Investigation Report, prepared by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.,
Appendix H, Vadose Zone Modeling, 31 October.
4-2
-------
CT0293\B70018\DFROO-R2 CLE>J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1995d. Draft Removal
Action Site Cioseout Report PCBs Storage Area CAOC 34, Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Barstow, California. Prepared by OHM Remediation Services
Corp. 18 August
SWDIV, see Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Guidance on Preparing Superfund
Decision Documents: the Proposed Plan, the Record of Decision, Explanation
of Significant Differences, the Record of Decision Amendment, EPA/540/G-
89/007, July.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund; Vol. I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), Interim Final,
EPA/540/1-89/002, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington.
DC, December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Guidance for Data Usability in Risk
Assessment, Part A, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Document
No. 9585.09A, EPA/540/G-90/008, Revised April.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA
Municipal Landfills, Quick Reference Fact Sheet, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Hazardous Site Control Division, 5203G, OSWER
Directive No. 9355.0-49FS, September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994a. Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS), February.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994b. Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables, Annual, FY 1994, EPA 540/R-94/020, OERR 9200.6-303(94-1), PB94-
921199, Office of Solid Waste Management and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC, March.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Phase I Ecological Risk Assessment,
Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California, February.
4-3
-------
CTO293VB7001B\OFROD-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
WESTDIV, see Western Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
Western Division* Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1985. "Confirmation Study
Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California," Vol. 1, prepared by_A.L
Burke Engineers, Inc., October.
Western Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 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,
Yermo Base; Volume 7: Site 34, PCB Storage Area, prepared by A.L. Burke
Engineers, Inc., February.
4-4
-------
TABLES
-------
10293\B70018V293B714W.21
CLE-JO241F293-B7 0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-1
CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low Level Radiological Area
Stratum 1 • Radiological Waste Well
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Analyte
Semlvolatila Organics
Ethylene Glycol
Pestlddes/PCBs
Oieldrin
Depth
0 to 3 feet
U/g/kg)
228,000
10J«
Depth
3 to 13 feet
U/g/kg)
<33
Depth
Below 13 feet
0/g/kg)
148,000
<33
Risk-Based Criteria*
1/rg/kg)
Cancer
_b
17.8
Noncancer
78,000,000
1,950
Blank spaces Indicate analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicologlcal data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10',
and a
target noncardnogenlc hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered Include soil ingestlon, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil, and
Inhalation of
partlculate-bound substances.
'Indicates not applicable.
°J qualifier Indicates value Is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to Interference.
//g/kg - Mlcrograms per kilogram.
-------
~ ,B70018\293B714W.T22
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-2
CAOC 20 • Second Hazardous and Low Level Radiological Area
Stratum 1 - Radiological Waste Well
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soil
Analyte
Metals, Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Calcium*
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron*
Lead
Magnesium"
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium*
Selenium
Sodium*
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
0 to 3 feet
(mg/kg)
12.500J8
2.6
95.7
0.743
10.8
12,900
12.5
7.21
11.8
18.900J
3.4
6890J
286J
7.99
2,320J
0.65J
1.790J
85.3
41.9
52.6
Depth
3 to 13 feet
(mg/kg)
3,630J
3.5
39.8
2,560
4.44
2.53
4.02
6.840J
4.3
1.700J
99.8J
**v
2.52
81 3J
664J
22.8
17.8
16.0
Depth
Below 13 feet
(mg/kg)
17,600J
9.17
114
0.509
7,470
16.2
8.68
13.6
23.400J
9.32J
8.060J
61 7J
0.0573J
10.8
4,990J
1.07
461J
53.3
51.3
63.3
95th Percentfle
Background
Concentration
(mg/kg)
16,245.27
5.47
195.03
0.59
11.65
16,772.14
21.52
15.28
19.60
23,702.13
15.45
8,086.43
438.03
0.05
15.27
5,785.65
0.49
675.29
210.69
49.03
64.82
Risk-Based Criteria*
(mg/kg)
Cancer
.«•
0.310
-
0.129
-
.
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
'
.
-
-
-
Noncancer
71,100
21.3
1,540
356
5.970
.
71.100
4,540
2,630
-
500
-
136
21.0
1,420
.
356
.
42,700
498
21,300
Blank spaces Indicated that the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxlcofogical data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10^, and a
target noncardnogenie hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil, and inhalation of
partlculate-bound substances.
"Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soil data (0 to 3 feet); reference: 'Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023, Draft Final.*
°J qualifier indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
"Indicates not applicable.
•No toxidty data available; analyte an essential human nutrient (Attachment 1 to Appendix H).
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
-------
C r0293\B70018V293B714W.T23
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-3
CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low Level Radiological Area
Stratum 2 - Disposal Wells and Intervening Area
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
AnaJyte
Volatile Orgenlo
Acetone*
Methylene Chloride*
Depth
0 to 3 feet
(//g/kg)
45.9Jk
Depth
3 to 13 feet
(//g/kg)
28.3J
Depth
Below 13 feet
(//g/kg)
U
Risk-Based Criteria
U/g/kg)
Cancer
.e
14,800
Noncancer
2,770,000
385,000
Blank spaces Indicate not detected.
'Detection likely attributable to laboratory contamination.
•J qualifier Indicates value Is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to Interference.
"Indicates not applicable.
//g/kg - Mlcrograms per kilogram.
-------
u f 0293VB70018V293B714W.T24
CLE- J02-O1F293-B7-O010
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-4
CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low Level Radiological Area
Stratum 2 - Disposal Wells and Intervening Area
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Analyte
Metals Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Calcium*
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron'
Lead
Magnesium*
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium*
Sodium*
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
Oto3ft
(mg/kg)
12,800Je
1.3J
142
0.568
16.3
7,640
12.9
6.66
11.2
17.500J
5.0
6.590J
229J
8.29
201 OJ
2160J
73.0
65.2
49.1
Depth
3 to 13 ft
(mg/kg)
1,900
2.2
22.7
1,540
3.81
2.03
3.960J
1.6
733J
94.3J
1.50
411J
294J
11.2
9.03
9.13
Depth
Below 13 ft
(mg/kg)
7,500J
3.6
98.2
0.849
4.3J
3,040
8.84
6.52
8.56
10.700J
3.5
4,160J
304
6.68
2,71 OJ
525
31.2
22.4
33.5
95th Percentfle
Background
Concentration0
(mg/kg)
16,245.27
5.47
195.03
0.59
11.65
16,772.14
21.52
15.28
19.60
23,702.13
15.45
8,086.43
438.03
15.27
5,785.65
675.29
210.69
49.03
64.82
Risk-Based Criteria*
(mg/kg)
Cancer
_d
0.310
-
0.129
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
Noncancer
71,100
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
-
71,100
4,540
2,630
-
500
.
136
1,420
•
.
4,270
498
21,300
Blank spaces Indicate that the analyte was not detected.
'Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicotoglcal data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10'",
and a target noncardnogenlc hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of votatiles from soil,
and inhalation of particutate-bound substances.
Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soil data (0 to 3 feet); reference: "Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023, Draft
Final.*
"J qualifier indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to Interference.
"Indicates not applicable.
•No toxldty data available; analyte an essential human nutrient (see Attachment 1 to Appendix H).
Milligrams per kilogram.
-------
11O293VB70018V293B714W.T26
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-5
CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low Level Radiological Area
Stratum 3 - Northern Portion of CAOC 20
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soil
Analyta
Volatile Compounds
Acetone*
Pestleidas/PCBs
4,4'-DDE
Depth
0 to 3 feet
(//g/kg)
10.7J'
8.0J
Depth
3 to 13 feet
(//g/kg)
149J
Depth
Below 13 feet
(//g/kg)
2,100
Risk-Based Criteria*
(//g/kg)
Cancer
.<
839
Noncencer
2,770,000
-
Blank spaces indicate that the analyte was not detected.
*Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lexicological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10'*, and
a target
noncardnogenlc hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered Include soil Ingestion, dermal contact. Inhalation of volatiles from soil, and inhalation of
particutate-
bound substances.
'Detections likely attributable to laboratory contamination.
"J qualifier Indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
"Indicates not applicable.
//g/kg • Micrograms per kilogram.
-------
CTOk. -\B7001 BV293B714W.T26
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-6
CAOC 20 • Second Hazardous and Low Level Radiological Area
Stratum 3 - Northern Portion of CAOC 20
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Analyto
Metals Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium*
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron*
Lead
Magnesium*
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium*
Silver
Sodium*
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
0 to 3 feet
(mg/kg)
7,200
2.2
235
0.738
4.8J
23,100
8.32
3.87J
7.07
11,500
9.7J
4,220
150
5.35
1,900
694
44.6
33.1
35.5
Depth
3 to 13 feet
(mg/kg)
1,530
1.9J'
21.5
0.433J
1,160
4.56
2.09J
3,860
4.0
573
41.5 ,
2.03J
318J
0.492J
456J
9.8
9.24
11.1
Depth
Below 13 feet
(mg/kg)
2.100
1.7J
21.0
0.352J
1,010
4.85
4.43
4,500
1.5
730
65.6
2.06J
437J
270
9.2
11.6
11.4
95th Percentile
Background
Concentration1*
(mg/kg)
16,245.27
5.47
195.03
0.59
11.65
1.91
16,772.14
21.52
15.28
19.60
23,702.13
15.45
8.086.43
438.03
15.27
5,785.65
0.33
675.29
210.69
49.03
64.82
Risk-Based Criteria*
(mg/kg)
Cancer
^0
0.310
-
0.129
-
27.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Noncancer
71.100
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
71.100
-
4;540
2,630
500
•
136
-
21.0
1,420
-
356
-
42.700
498
21,300
Blank spaces indicate that the analyte was not detected.
'Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soil data; reference: Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023, Draft Final (SWDIV, 1995).
''Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicologies! data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10~", and a target
noncardnogenic hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatfles from soil, and Inhalation of paniculate-
bound substances.
'Indicates not applicable.
•J qualifier indicates value Is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
'No toxidty data available; analyte is an essential human nutrient.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
-------
CT0293\B70018\TAB2-7.DOC
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-7
CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low Level Radiological Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land Use Scenario
Stratum
1
2
3
Total*
Cancer
Index "
12.42
11.51
12.84
Risk
1.2XKT5
1.2x1
-------
CTO293\B70018\TAB2-e.DOC
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-8
CAOC 20 - Second Hazardous and Low Level Radiological Area
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land Use Scenario
Stratum
1
2
3
Total'
Cancer
Index4
2.06
1.80
2.00
Risk
2.1x10*
1.8x10*
2.0x10*
Noncancer
Index *
0.37
0.33
0.22
Background b
Cancer
Index
1.88
1.80
2.00
Risk
1.9x10*
1.8x10*
2.0x10*
Noncancer
Index *
0.37
0.33
0.22
Incremental e
Cancer
Index
0.18
<0.01
<0.01
Risk
1.8x10'7
<1.0x10*
<1.0x10*
' The total risk-based criteria (RBC) carcinogenic and noncarclnogenlc 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.
0 The Incremental cancer RBC Index and the Incremental lifetime cancer risk are equal to the total Index or risk minus the background index or risk,
respectively. This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
d The cancer RBC Index Is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the chemical
poses a 10* risk. An Index of 1.0 Indicates a 1x10* risk and an index of 100 indicates a 1x10"* risk.
* The noncancer RBC Index Is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the
hazard Index equals 1.0.
-------
J293\B70018\293B714W.T29
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-OV18
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-9
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Stratum 1 - Northern Area
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Analyta
Volatile Organic*
Acetone4
Carbon Disulfide
Methylene Chloride"
SerrHvolatfle Organics
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate4
di-n-Butylphthalate"
Diethylphthalate"
Pestiddes/PCBs
4.4'-ODE
4,4'-DDT
Endosulfan 1
Gamma-chlordane
Total Recoverable Petroleum HC
TRPH (mo/ko)0
Depth
0 to 3 ft0
U/g/kg)
5J*
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
6.7J
5.9J
ND
ND
ND
Depth
3 to 13 ft
0/g/kg)
5J
1.0J
ND
59.0J
ND
335
ND
ND
ND
^ND
21.6
Depth
Below 13 ft
Urg/kg)
6.2J
ND
20.8
75.1J
11J
ND
ND
ND
3.2J
6.6J
16.2
Risk-Based Criteria1
0/g/kg)b
Carcinogenic
• _f
14,800
20,400
839
839
219
.
Noncardnogenic
1,370,000
34,600
385.000
780,000
3,910,000
31,200,000
19,500
1,950
2,340
.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxlcological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target carcinogenic risk of
10*.
and a target noncardnogenlc hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil,
and
inhalation of particulate-bound substances.
"Mlcrograms per kilogram.
"Feet below grade.
"Detections likely attributable to laboratory contamination.
*J qualifier Indicates value Is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to Interference.
Indicates not applicable.
•Milligrams per kilogram: no toxldty data available.
ND - Not detected.
-------
J93\B70018\293B714W.210
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-10
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Stratum 1 - Northern Area
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soil
Analyte
Metals Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium0
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron1
Lead
Magnesium9
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium*
Selenium
Sodium*
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
Oto3ff
(mg/kg)
21.400J*
1.7
107
0.67J
10.0J
0.93J
11,200
20.0
7.6J
17.6
NO
25,800
3.3J
7,210
322J
1.0J
8.4J
2,900
0.60J
1,280
65.1
58.8
54.7
Depth
3 to 13 ft
(mg/kg)
4.100J
17.3
52.8J
0.3 1J
17.2J
0.51J
1,820
6.8
3.4J
8.7J
4.7J
8,860
2.3J
1,320
81 .8J
NO
4.7J
733J
0.73J
51 5J
14.6
20.9
14.5J
Depth
Below 13ft
(mg/kg)
9.340J
1.9J
46.9J
0.28J
10.3J
NO
2,690
13.6
3.0J
14.8J
NO
14,200
3.4J
2,390
366J
1.5J
4.2J
1,380
0.23J
643J
20.9
32.2
23.6
estimated 95th
Percentite of
Background**
(mg/kg)
16,245.27
5.47
195.03
0.59
11.65
1.91
16,772.14
21.52
15.28
19.60
0.32
23,702.13
15.45
8,086.43
438.03
4.31
15.27
5,785.65
0.49
675.29
210.69
49.03
64.82
Risk-Based Criteria*
(rag/kg)"
Carcinogenic
.1
0.31
-
0.129
-
27.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
. -
.
-
.
-
Noncardnogic
71,100
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
35.6
-
71.100
4,540
2,630
1,420
-
500
-
136
354
1,420
.
356
.
42,700
498
21,300
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target carcinogenic risk of
and a target noncardnogenlc hazard Index of 1 .0. Exposure routes considered Include soil Insertion, dermal contact, Inhalation of volatiles from soil,
and
inhalation of particulate-bound substances.
"Milligrams per kilogram.
"Feet below grade.
"Calculated from MCLB Berstow background soil data (0 to 3 feet): Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1995b.
•J qualifier Indicates value Is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
Indicates not applicable.
"No toxidty data available; anatyte Is an essential human nutrient.
Not detected.
-------
J022938714
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-11
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Stratum 2 - North-Central Area (Trench)
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soil
Analyte
Volatile Organic*
Acetone*
Methylene Chloride'
Semivolatlto Organlcs
bls(2-Ettiylhexyi)
phthalate*
Dlethylphthalate*
Pestlcldes/PCBs
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
alpha-Chtordane
Aroctor-1260
Dleldrin
gamma-Chlordane
Total Recoverable
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
TRPH (mg/kg)h
Depth
0 to 3 n°
(Mgftg)
NO
NO
NO
NO
11J
91J
59J
2.2J
100J
0.22J
3.5J
NO
Depth
3 to 13 n
(Mgftg)
36.7
18J*
74.5J
NO
NO
NO
2.3J
NO
NO
NO
NO
75.7
Depth
Below 13 ft
(Mgfcg)
30.9
2.1J
1.500J
NO
ND
ND
N&
NO
ND
ND
ND
28.5
Estimated 95 Percent
Upper Confidence Limit
Mean Concentration"
(Mgfeg)
26.76
13.67
210.53
6.05
27.43
14.64
1.61
38.07
3.31
1.88
-
Risk-Based Criteria1
(cgftg)'
Carcinogenic
.8
14,800
20,400
1,190
839
839
219
47.3
17.8
219
-
Noncarclnogenlc
1,370,000
385,000
780,000
31,200.000
19,500
2.340
1,950
2,340
-
'Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lexicological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target carcinogenic risk of 10"*, and
a target noncarcinogente hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestlon. dermal contact, inhalation of volatlles from soil, and inhalation of
paiticulate-bound substances.
'Micrograms per kilogram.
Teet below grade.
"Values calculated using concentrations detected In the first 13 feet.
'Detections likery attributable to laboratory contamination.
'J qualifier indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
'Indicates not applicable.
"Milligrams per kilogram; no toxteity data available.
ND - Not detected.
-------
v293\B70018\2293B714.212
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 20 May 1997
TABLE 2-12
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Stratum 2 - North-Central Area (Trench)
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soil
Analyte
Metals Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium" .
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron"
Lead
Magnesium*1
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium"
Selenium
Sodium"
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
Oto3ff
(mg/kg)
16.700
5.0
139
0.70J
14.7J
3.0J
5,670
17.5
11. 2J
17.0
24,100
37.8J
7,640
753
0.08J
1.8J
11.6
3,950
NO
2,110
41.2J
NO
54.5
74.5
Depth
3 to 13ft
(mg/kg)
3.630J1
1.3J
30.6J
0.37J
10.2J
1.7
2,260
6.2
4.3J
4.6J
7.730J
3.0J
1,860
116J
0.22
NO
4.0J
1.150
0.29J
308J
20.9
ND
17.2
16.1J
Depth
Below 13 ft
(mg/kg)
14,100J
4.3J
103J
1.1J
53.4J
3.1
4,870
16.1J
16.1J
14.6J
22,200J
5.3J
7,810
434J
ND
ND
14.3J
5,090
0.29J
272J
42.3
0.35J
53.7
63.3J
Estimated 95
Percent Upper
Confidence Limit"
(mg/kg)
12,599
3.45
144.07
0.41
78.06
1.96
4,405
12.59
7.46
12.90
16,610
22.57
5,910
340.51
v 0.10
8.92
8.52
3,843
0.35
1,861
62.41
.
35.72
62.32
Estimated 95th
Percentfle of
Background*
(mg/kg)
16.245.27
5.47
1 95.03
0.59
11.65
1.91
16,772.14
21.52
15.28
19.60
23,702.13
15.45
8,086.43
438.03
0.05
4.31
15.27
5,785.65
0.49
675.29
210.69
0.60
49.03
64.82
Rlsk-Besed Criteria*
(mg/kgf
Carcinogenic
.0
0.31
-
0.129
-
27.3
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
Noncarcinogenic
71.100
21.3
1.540
356
5,970
35.6
-
71,100
4,540
2,630
•
500
.
136
21.0
354
1,420
356
.
42,700
4.98
498
21,300
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxlcologfcal data, a residential exposure scenario, a target carcinogenic risk of
10'*,
and a target noncardnogenlc hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatfles from soil,
and
Inhalation of partJculate-bound substances.
"Milligrams per kilogram.
"Feet below grade.
"Values calculated using concentrations detected In the first 13 feet.
•Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soil data (0 to 3 feet): Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1995b.
'J qualifier indicates that value Is an estimate due to being lower the lowest standard or due to interference.
•Indicates not applicable.
#:oxidty data available; analyte is an essential human nutrient.
Not detected.
-------
w, 0293\B70018\293B714W.213
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-13
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Stratum 3 - Southern Area Used for General Storage
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soil
Analyta
Volatile Organics
Acetone*
Methylene chloride*
Toluene
Semlvolatile Organlcs
bls(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate'
Diethylphthalate*
PeatJddea/PCBa
4.4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Total Recoverable Petroleum
HC
TRPH (mo/kg)h
Depth
Oto3ft°
(//g/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.34J
5.2J
4.4J
ND
Depth
3 to 13ft
(//g/kg)
33.5J'
35.7J
ND
79.7J
ND
ND
ND
ND
28.6
Depth
Below 13
ft
U/g/kg)
48.5J
35.3J
16.9
75.1J
113J
ND
ND
ND
40.0
Estimated 95
Percent Upper
Confidence Umrt"
(//g/kg)
14.7
22.1
-
198.7
-
2.86
4.14
2.73
38.90
Risk-Based Criteria*-
(//g/kg)
Carcinogenic
.0
14,800
-
20,400
-
1,190
839
839
-
Noncarcinogenic
1,370,000
385,000
278,000
780,000
31,200,000
-
-
19.500
-
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxlcologlcal data, a residential exposure scenario, a target carcinogenic risk of 10',
and
a target noncardnogcnlc hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered Include soil ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil, and
inhalation of
particulate-bound substances.
bMlcrograms per kilogram.
cFeet below grade.
"Values calculated using concentrations detected In the first 13 feet.
•Detections likely attributable to laboratory contamination.
'J qualifier Indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
•Indicates not applicable.
''Milligrams per kilogram; no toxidty data available.
ND - Not detected.
-------
J293\B70018V293B714W.214
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-14
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Stratum 3 - Southern Area Used for General Storage
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Anafyte
Metals Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium*1
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron"
Lead
Magnesium"
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium"
Sodium"
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
Oto3ff
(mg/kg)
4,590
2.3J
127
0.26J
6.2J
1.4J
5,250
4.7
3.0J
5.4
0.30J
8,390
4.2
2,340
147
0.09J
4.0J
1,290
146J
20.5J
ND
18.1J
19.0
Depth
3 to 13 ft
(mg/kg)
5.030J'
3.3J
97.8
0.4 U
23.4J
1.2
3,710
6.8J
5.7J
6.8J
74.3J
10.400J
4.6J
2,400
134J
ND
7.0J
1,380
275J
30.6J
0.21J
24.5J
18.3J
Depth
Below 13
ft
(mg/kg)
19,OOOJ
5.7J
128
1.2
67.3J
3.3
5,760
18.8J
18.8
18.8J
42.0J
27.200J
6.7J
8,850
686J *•
ND
16.5J
5,650
324J
50.7J
0.45
62.9J
67.3J
Estimated 95
Percent Upper
Confidence
Until"
(mg/kg)
4,642
2.27
174.2
0.32
17.92
1.15
3,832
5.28
3.26
5.16
460.8
7,362
3.87
2,243
132.8
0.05
4.73
1,262
323
32.6
0.82
16.5
16.3
Estimated
95th
Percentile of
Background"
(mg/kg)
16,245.27
5.47
195.03
0.59
11.65
1.91
16,772.14
21.52
15.28
19.60
0.32
23,702.13
15.45
8,086.43
438.03
0.05
15.27
5,785.65
675.29
210.69
0.60
49.03
64.82
Risk-Based Criteria*
(mg/kgf
Carcinogenic
.0
0.31
-
0.129
.
27.3
-
-
-
-
.
-
.
-
-
-
.
.
-
.
.
.
-
Noncardnogenic
71.100
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
35.6
-
71,100
4,540
2,630
1.420
-
500
.
136
21.0
1,420
.
.
42.700
4.98
498
21,300
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicologies! data, a residential exposure scenario, a target carcinogenic risk of
10"*, and a target noncardnogenic hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil ingestion. dermal contact, Inhalation of volatiles from
soil, and
Inhalation of particulate-bound substances.
bMilligrams per kilogram.
"Feet below grade.
"Values calculated using concentrations detected In the first 13 feet.
•Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soil data (0 to 3 feet): Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1995b.
*J qualifier Indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to Interference.
'Indicates not applicable.
"No toxldty data available; analyte Is an essential human nutrient.
Not detected.
-------
10293\B70018V293B714W.216
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-15
CAOC 23 • Landfill Area
Stratum 4 - South-Central Area
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
AnaJyte
Volatile Organics
Acetone'
Methylene Chloride4
Xylenes, total
Semivolatfle Organic*
bi3|2-Ethylhexyl)phthalated
Diethylphthalate"
Pestiddes/PCBs
4,4'-DDD
4.4'-DDE
4.4'-DDT
Endosulfan I
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons -
Diesel
TPH • Diesel (mo/kg)9
Total Recoverable Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
TRPH (mg/kg)
Depth
Oto3ff
(pg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
59J
42
140J
2.0J
ND
ND
Depth
3 to 13 ft
0/g/kg)
10.1J*
ND
4J
284J
162J
74J
91.4J
369J
ND
»,
508J
5,180
Depth
Below 13 ft
(//g/kg)
9.6J
5.2J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
23.0
Risk-Baa
(?
Carcinogenic
.f
14,800
20,400
1,190
839
839
ed Criteria*
>/kg)b
Noncardnogenic
1,370,000
385,000
780,000
31,200,000
19,500
1,950
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicologlcal data, a residential exposure scenario, a target carcinogenic risk of 10'",
and
a target noncardnogenlc hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestion. dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil, and
Inhalation of
particulate-bound substances.
'Micrograms per kilogram.
°Feet below grade.
'Detections likely attributable to laboratory contamination.
•J qualifier indicates value Is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
'Indicates not applicable.
'Milligrams per kilogram.
ND - Not detected.
-------
110293\B70018V2293B714.216
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Daw: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-16
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Stratum 4 - South-Central Area
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soil
Analyte
Metals Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium*
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron*
Lead
Magnesium*
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium"
Selenium
Silver
Sodium*
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
Oto3ff
(mg/kg)
6.260J*
1.6
26.6J
0.29J
ND
ND
2,110
7.1
2.3J
5.6J
NO
11,100
1.6J
1,950
97.9J
2.4J
1,260
0.70J
ND
500J
16.8
24.7
17.1
Depth
3 to 13 ft
(mg/kg)
6.190J
1.6
257
0.40J
27.4J
1.9
3,090
9.9
6.9J
9.6
66. U
11.400J
7.8J
2,830
172J
6.7J
1,730
2.0J
2.4J
288J
38.6J
24.8J
30.5J
Depth
Below 13 ft
(mg/kg)
9.970J
3.8J
70.5
0.74J
120J
2.6
3,980
15.0
11. 6J
9.5J
50.4
16.200J
3.6J
4,640
-276J
10.2
2,990
0.26J
359J
29.4J
41.0J
35.8J
Estimated 95th
Percentile of
Background*1
(mg/kg)
16,245.27
5.47
195.03
0.59
11.65
1.91
16,772.14
21.52
15.28
19.60
0.32
23,702.13
15.45
8,086.43
438.03
15.27
5,785.65
0.49
0.33
675.29
210.69
49.03
64.82
Risk-Based Criteria"
(mg/kg)b
Carcinogenic
,i
0.31
.
0.129
-
27.3
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
.
-
.
.
-
-
Noncarcinogenic
71,100
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
35.6
-
71,100
4,540
2,630
1.420
-
500
.
136
1,420
.
356
356
.
42,700
498
21,300
10*.
and a target noncardnogenic hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered Include soil Ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil,
and
inhalation of partfcufate-bound substances.
'Milligrams per kilogram.
'Feet below grade.
"Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soils data (0 to 3 feet): Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1995b.
•J qualifier Indicates value Is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to Interference.
Indicates not applicable.
•No toxldty data available; analyte Is an essential human nutrient.
ND • Not detected.
-------
C rO294\B70018\293B714W.217
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-17
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Stratum 5 • Southwestern Area
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Analyte
Volatile Organlcs
Acetone4
Methylene chloride'
Semivolatile Organic*
bls|2-Ethylhexyl)phthalated
Diethyiphthalate*
Pestiddes/PCBs
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
alpha-Chlordane
Aroclor-1254
Dleldrln
gamma-Chlordane
Total Recoverable Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
TRPH (mg/kg)«
Depth
Oto3ff
0/g/kg)
48.2J'
44.2J
59.0J
NO
14
5.2J
95.5
251J
5.9J
111
24.2
Depth
3 to 13ft
0/g/kg)
46.4J
40.3J
50.4J
81 .6J
9.7
5.1
5.3
77.6J
ND
7.6
19.6
Depth
Below 13 ft
(//g/kg)
59.2J
ND
132J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
18.2
Risk-Based Criteria*
U/g/kg)b
Carcinogenic
_»
14,800
20,400
-
839
839
219
47.3
17.8
219
-
Noncarcinogonic
1,370,000
385,000
780,000
31,200,000
-
1,950
2,340
-
1,950
2,340
-
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicoJoglcal data, a residential exposure scenario, a target carcinogenic risk of 10',
and
a target noncardnogenlc hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestion, dermal contact, Inhalation of volatiles from soil, and
Inhalation of
particulate-bound substances.
bMlcrograms per kilogram.
"Feet below grade.
'Detections attributed to laboratory contamination.
*J qualifier indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
'Indicates not applllcable.
•Milligrams per kilogram.
ND - Not detected.
-------
c fO293\B70018X293B714W.218
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-18
CAOC 23 • Landfill Area
Stratum 5 - Southwestern Area
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Anafyte
Metals Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium*
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron*
Lead
Magnesium*
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium0
Selenium
Sodium*
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Risk-based criteria are Used
Depth
0 to 3 ft0
(mg/kg)
7,61 OJ*
2.4J
471
0.61J
40.2J
2.1
5,550
12.0J
8.4
11. OJ
NO
16.100J
9.1
3,810
215J
NO
9.4
2,010
NO
368J
2,520J
39. U
32.7J
Depth
3 to 13ft
(mg/kg)
5.620J
2.1
189
0.50J
27.2J
1.2
3,510
9.2
6.0J
7.4
11. 4J
11.200J
7.4
2,620
216J
0.10J
7.0J
1,280
0.40J
525J
36.7J
27.9J
27.2J
Depth
Below 13 ft
(mg/kg)
23.800J
6.6J
153
1.4
67.9J
3.6
6,410
29.1J
18.3
22.6J
ND
29.300J
7.2J
8,720
**419J
ND
18.3
4,820
0.30J
650J
63.6J
67.9J
60.3J
Estimated 95th
Percentile of
Background4
(mg/kg)
16,245.27
5.47
195.03
0.59
11.65
1.91
16,772.14
21.52
15.28
19.60
0.32
23,702.13
15.45
8,086.43
438.03
0.05
15.27
5.785.65
0.49
675.29
210.69
49.03
64.82
Risk-Bast
(mg
Carcinogenic
j
0.31
-
0.129
-
27.3
•
-
- .
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
.
.
-
.
-
.
-
id Criteria*
/kg)"
Noncarcinogenic
71,100
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
35.6
-
71,100
4,540
2.630
1,420
-
500
.
136
21.0
1,420
.
356
.
42,700
498
21,300
on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lexicological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target carcinogenic risk of
10*
and a target noncardnogenlc hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered Include soil fngestion, dermal contact, Inhalation of volatiles from soil,
and
Inhalation of particulate-bound substances.
"Milligrams per kilogram.
'Feet below grade.
"Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soils data (0 to 3 feet): Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1995b.
*J qualifier Indicates value Is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
Indicates not applicable.
•No toxldty data available; analyte Is an essential human nutrient.
ND • Not detected.
-------
c r0294\B70018V293B714W.219
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-19
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Stratum 5a - PCB Hit Area
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Analyte
Semivolatfle Organics
bis|2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate<
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine*
Pestfddes/PCBs
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4.4'-DDT
alpha-Chlordane
Aroclor-1254
Dieldrln
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Endrin ketone
gamma-Chlordane
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Depth
Oto3ff
(//g/kg)
3.300J'
ND
1.5J
51J
5.6J
4.1J
35J
1.5J
ND
ND
0.081J
4.2J
ND
0.1 9J
Depth
3 to 13 ft
U/g/kg)
5.200J
350J
ND
1.1J
1.9J
7.9J
39J
1.7J
0.55J
ND v
ND
8.7J
ND
0.63J
Depth
Below 13 ft"
U/g/kg)
Risk-Besed Criteria*
(ligfkgf
Carcinogenic
20,400
58,200
1,190
839
839
219
47.3
17.8
-
-
-
219
63.4
31.3
Noncarcinogenic
780,000
.0
-
-
19,500
2,340
-
1,950
1,950
11,700
11,700
2,340
1,950
507
'Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicologies! data, a residential exposure scenario, a target carcinogenic risk of 10'*,
and
a target noncardnogenic hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered Include soil Ingcstion, dermal contact. Inhalation of volatiles from soil, and
Inhalation of
particutate-bound substances.
'Micrograms per kilogram.
"Feet below grade.
'No samples collected below 5 feet.
•Detections attributed to laboratory contamination.
'J qualifier Indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
•Indicates not applicable.
ND • Not detected.
-------
>293\B70018V293B714W.220
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-20
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Stratum 5a • PCB Hit Area
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Son
Anatyte
Metals Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium"
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron"
Lead
Magnesium"
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium"
Selenium
Sodium"
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
Oto3ff
(mg/kg)
24.100J'
3.7
319
0.59J
32.6J
1.0J
25,300
17.3
8.1J
14.8
28.000J
8.7
8,260J
428J
2.5J
9.0
2,280
0.85J
3,350
138
61.2
61.4
Depth
3 to 13 ft
(mg/kg)
10.200J
2.1
428
0.26J
ND
ND
5,820
11.0
4.5J
8.6
18.500J
4.3
3,460
187J
2.3J
3.7J
1,560
0.78J
1,310
23.6
44.2
32.3
Depth
Below 13 ft"
(mg/kg)
V
Estimated 99th
Percentile of
Background*
(mg/kg)
16,245.27
5.47
195.03
0.59
11.65
1.91
16.772.14
21.52
15.28
19.60
23,702.13
15.45
8,086.43
438.03
4.31
15.27
5,785.65
0.49
675.29
210.69
49.03
64.82
Risk-Bas
(m
Carcinogenic
.9
0.31
-
0.129
-
27.3
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
-
.
-
od Criteria1
)/kg)b
Noncardnogenic
71,100
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
35.6
-
71,100
4,540
2,63*0
.
500
-
136
354
1,420
.
356
.
42.700
498
21,300
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicologfcal data, a residential exposure scenario, a target carcinogenic risk of
10'f,
and a target noncardnogenic hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil,
and
Inhalation of particulate-bound substances.
'Mlcrograms per kilogram.
'Feet below grade.
"No samples collected below 5 feet.
•Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soils data (0 to 3 feet): Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1995b.
'J qualifier Indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to Interference.
*No toxidty data available; analyte is an essential human nutrient.
•Indicates not applicable.
- Not detected.
-------
JO22938714
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-21
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Analytical Results
Well6
YS23-1
YS23-2
YS23-3
YS23-4
YS23-6
Analyte
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichlorothene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Sampling Event"
Jury 1993
September 1992
January 1993
April 1993
July 1993
September 1992
April 1993
July 1993
September 1992
January 1993
April 1993
Jury 1993
June 1992
September 1992
March 1992
June 1992
September 1992
January 1993
, Jury 1993
September 1992
Jury 1993
April 1993
Jury 1993
Resulf
-------
CTO293\B70018V293B714W.222
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-22
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Qroundwater General Chemistry Results
(Page 1 of 3)
Analyte
Total Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
(Alkalinity)
Carbonate (Alkalinity)
Suffate
Sampling Event
March 1992
June 1992
September 1992
January 1993
April 1993
July 1993
March 1992
June 1992
September 1992
January 1993
April 1993
July 1993
March 1992
June 1992
September 1992
January 1993
April 1993
July 1993
March 1992
June 1992
September 1 992
January 1993
April 1993
July 1993
Wed YS23-1
NS
NS
140
140
120
130
NS
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NS
68
61
6.0
52
Results (mo/I)
Wen YS23-2
NS
NS
150
150
140J
110
NS
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NS
87
76
76J
68
Wen YS23-3
100
130
140
150
NS
98
NS
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
73
65
70
60
NS
57
WeH YS23-4
NS
NS
130
140
120
100
NS
NS
NS
NS
110
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
9.7
NS
NS
NS
46
43
55
60
Well YS23-6
NS
NS
150.
140
140
110
NS
NS
NS
NS
130
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
9.7
NS
NS
NS
61
60
78
77
-------
CT0293\B70018V293B714W.222
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-22
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Qroundwater General Chemistry Results
(Page 2 of 3)
Anafyte
Total Dissolved
Solids
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
Specific Conductivity
Chloride
Sampling Event
March 1992
June 1992
September 1992
January 1993
April 1993
July 1993
March 1992
June 1992
September 1992
January 1993
April 1993
July 1993
March 1992
June 1992
September 1992
January 1993
April 1993
July 1993
March 1992
June 1992
September 1992
January 1993
April 1993
July 1993
Results (mg/l)
Well YS23-1
NS
NS
NS
300
270
280
NS
NS
0.11
0.050U
0.050U -
0.084
NS
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NS
27
13
27
23
Well YS23-2
NS
NS
320
320
31 OJ
310
NS
NS
0.13
0.050U
0.050U
0.18
NS
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NS
28
17
29
25
WeH YS23-3
315
250
NS
310
NS
290
0.05U
0.20
0.14
0.050U
NS
0.19
450
NA
NA
NA
NS
NA
28
23
25
14
NS
24
Well YS23-4
NS
NS
270
250
NS
340
NS
NS
0.050U
0.050U
0.050U
0.21
NS
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NS
31
26
45
53
WeH YS23-6
NS
NS
380
350
NS
360
NS
NS
0.080
0.050U
0.11
0.28
NS
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NS
37
35
53
44
-------
CT0293VB70018 \293B714W.222
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
Print Oats: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-22
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Groundwater General Chemistry Results
(Page 3 of 3)
AnaJyte
Flourlde
Nitrate
Sampling Event
March 1992
June 1992
September 1992
January 1993
April 1993
July 1993
March 1992
June 1992
September 1992
January 1993
April 1993
July 1993
Results (mo/I)
WeH YS23-1
NS
NS
0.60
0.92
0.62
0.66
NS
NS
0.68
0.84
0.91
0.86 v
Wed YS23-2
NS
NS
0.60
0.77
0.68
0.67
NS
NS
1.2
1.3
1.5J
1.4J
Wen YS23-3
0.0008J
0.47
0.46
0.57
NS
0.66
2.0
1.8
0.43
2.0
NS
1.3J
WeH YS23-4
NS
NS
0.55
0.90
0.73
0.55
NS
NS
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2J
WeH YS23-6
NS
NS
0.65
0.80
0.75
0.71
NS
NS
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.3J
J - Indicates that value Is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
NA - Not applicable.
NS • No sample was analyzed.
rrtfl/l - Milligrams per liter.
-------
v. i O293\870018V293B714W.223
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-23
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Qroundwater Analytical Results
Phase II
Analyte
Total Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
Volatiles
1 ,2-Dichloroe thane
Acetone'
Methylene Chloride*
MCL'
Cal-EPA
(vgnr
1,000
50
1,000
_•
-
-
-
-
-
v,
-
-
-
0.5
.
-
MCL"
USEPA
(//g/1)
11
2,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
50"
-
-
-
5
5
-
Well YS23-7
Results
U/g/i)
62.1J"
3.9J
53.9J
177J
49,800
2.5J
45. 6 J
1.1J
9,660
10.5J
49,600
288
4J
0.2J
Well YS23-9
Results
(pg/l)
840
4.1J
54.7J
179J
52,600
593J
9,730
56.3
50,400
304
15.8J
0.4J
4
0.6J
Blank spaces Indicate that the analyte Is not detected.
California Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
'Groundwater Maximum Contaminant Levels
bGroundwater Maximum Contaminant Levels
"Micrograms per liter.
dj Indicates that the concentration is estimated.
Indicates not applicable.
'Detection contributed to laboratory contamination.
'Groundwater Secondary Maximum Containment Level - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
JO229387U
CLE-J02-O1F280-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-24
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land Use Scenario
Stratum
1
2
3
4
5
5A
Total*
Cancer
Index4
61.00
15.20
9.80
8.95
19.13
17.86
Risk
6.1x10*
1.5x10*
9.8x10*
9.0x1 0*
1.9x10*
1.8x1 V*
Noncancer
Index*
4.30
3.07
1.40
1.77
2.40
4.10
Background"
Cancer
Index
60.98
14.33
9.80
8.33
12.53
_ 16.53
Risk
6.1x10*
1.4x10*
9.8x1 0*
8.3x10*
1.3x10*
1.6x10*
Noncancer
Index
4.30
3.07
1.34
1.70
2.07
3.84
Incremental0
Cancer
Index
0.02
0.87
<0.01
0.63
6.60
1.33
Risk
2x10'
8.7x1 07
<1x10*
6.3x1 0T
6.6x1 0*
1.3x10*
The total risk-based criteria (RBC) carcinogenic and noncardnogenlc Indices Include the contribution from naturally occurring background and site-related
activities for ad detected substances In the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
•Portion of the total risk that Is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
The Incremental cancer RBC Index and the Incremental lifetime cancer risk are equal to the total Index or risk minus the background Index or risk, respectively.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
The cancer RBC index Is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the chemical
poses a 10** risk. An Index of 1.0 Indicates a 1x10* risk and an index of 100 Indicates a 1x10~4 risk.
The noncancer RBC Index Is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the hazard
index equals 1.0.
-------
JO22938714
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-25
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land Use Scenario
Stratum
1
2
3
4
5
5A
Total*
Cancer
Index"
9.70
2.51
1.56
1.52
3.82
2.99
Risk
9.7x1 0*
2.5x1 0*
1.6x10-*
1.5x10"
3.8x10*
3.0x10*
Noncancer
Index*
0.60
0.43
0.17
0.23
0.32
0.64
Background6
Cancer
Index
9.70
2.29
1.56
1.33
1.99
*i
2.61
Risk
9.7x1 0*
2.3x1 Q-9
1.6x10*
1.3x10"
2.0x10*
2.6x10*
Noncancer
Index
0.60
0.43
0.17
0.23
0.27
0.54
Incremental*
Cancer
Index
<0.01
0.23
<0.01
0.19
1.83
0.38
Risk
<10x10*
2.3x1 0'7
<1,0x108
1.9x107
1.8x10"
3.8x1 07
The total risk-based criteria (RBC) carcinogenic and noncardnogenlc indices Include the contribution from naturally occurring background and site-related
activities (or all detected substances In the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
'Portion of the total risk that Is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
The Incremental cancer RBC Index and the Incremental lifetime cancer risk are equal to the total index or risk minus the background Index or risk, respectively.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
The cancer RBC index is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the chemical
poses a 10* risk. An index of 1.0 Indicates a 1x10* risk and an Index of 100 indicates a 1x104 risk.
The noncancer RBC index Is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the hazard
Index equals 1.0.
-------
CT0293\B7O018U93B714.226
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-26
Summary of Soil Sample Data
CAOC 18 Confirmation Study, 1986
(Sheet 1 of 5)
Location
Stratum 1
(West Bank)
Boring"
B-1
B-2
Depth
(feet)
2
18
29
52
61
73
79
99.
2.5
22
35
45
72
81
Compound
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
Chromium
Chromium
Lead
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Lead
TPH"
Chromium
Lead
TPH
Chromium
Lead
Chromium
TPH
Chromium
Chromium
Lead
Chromium
Concentration
(mg/kg)
2.95
13.8
4.9
3.9
7.4
4.2
2.7
16.2
11.3
24.6
11.6
3.2
3.0
9.1
2.5
9.4
19.8
4.9
31.2
8.0
8.74
6.8
5.8
2.99
3.2
3.5
4.4
16.4
6.97
4.0
-------
CTO293\B70018 \293B714.226
CLE-JO2-O1F293-B7-OO18
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-26
Summary of Soil Sample Data
CAOC 18 Confirmation Study. 1986
(Sheet 2 of 5)
Location
Stratum 1
(West Bank)
(continued)
Boring*
B-2 (cont'd)
B-3
B-4
Depth
(feet)
99
106
1.5
26
40
48
66
79
87
101
9
Compound
Chromium
Lead
Chromium
TPH
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Molybdenum
Vanadium
' Zinc
Chromium
Chromium
Total Organic
Halides
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Total Organic
Halides
Chromium
Lead
Chromium
Lead
Arsenic
Copper
Zinc
Concentration
(mg/kg)
14.6
6.98
4.5
90
51.8
138
2.0
17.9
13.1
16.9
8.71
10.4
45.9
53.2
62.0
1.9
2.8
9.2
0.5
1.2
1.9
4
13.0
4.49
7.0
2.5
0.26
7.9
11
-------
CT0293\B70018 \293B714.226
CLE-JO2-O1F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-26
Summary of Soil Sample Data
CAOC 18 Confirmation Study, 1986
(Sheet 3 of 5)
Location
Stratum 1
(West Bank)
(continued)
Boring'
B-4 (cont'd)
B-5
Depth
(feet)
17
54
94
7
31
43
Compound
Arsenic
Copper
Zinc
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
f Copper
Zinc
Arsenic
Copper
Zinc
Arsenic
Barium
Copper
Zinc
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.51
22
16
1.7
63
7.5
4.7
20
3.3
33
42
0.65
30
3.1
11
27
0.72
21
19
0.61
20
29
19
1.4
54
6.0
24
4.2
32
39
-------
CTO293\B70018 \293B714.226
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-26
Summary of Soil Sample Data
CAOC 18 Confirmation Study, 1986
(Sheet 4 of 5)
Location
Stratum 1
(West Bank)
(continued)
Stratum 3
(Wastewater
Overflow)
Boring*
B-5 (cont'd)
B-6
B-7
Depth
(feet)
77
7
24
54
82
1
Compound
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
t Copper
Zinc
Arsenic
Barium
Copper
Zinc
.Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.80
35
2.5
22
32
1.1
11
2.4
15
14
0.55
14
2.6
13
13
0.49
20
15
14
0.55
19
2.5
32
44
0.91
31
3.4
9.2
21
-------
CTO293\B70018\293B714.226
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-26
Summary of Soil Sample Data
CAOC 18 Confirmation Study, 1986
(Sheet 5 of 5)
Location
PStratum 3
(Wastewater
Overflow)
(continued)
Boring*
B-7 (cont'd)
Depth
(feet)
23
49
90
Compound
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Zinc
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.66
15
2.6
15
12
8.0
2.2
16
9.9
1.4
48
6.5
9
17
35
* Boring locations are shown in Figure 6-2.
TPH - Total petroleum hydrocarbon compounds.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
-------
J293VB70018V293B714W.227
CLE-JO2 01F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-27
CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area
Stratum 1 • West Bank
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Anelyte
Volatile Organic*
Acetone*
Methylene Chloride"
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Semivolatfle Organic*
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalatek
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Chrysene
di-n-Butylphthalate*
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene*
Pyrene
Pestfddes/PCBs
4,4'-DDD
4.4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
alpha-Chlordane
Aroclor-1260
Endosulfan II
Dieldrin
Endrin
gamma-Chlordane
Methoxychlor
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(mg/kg)
TRPH
Depth
Oto3ft
U/g/kg)
30J°
18.9J
1.0J
11 OJ
55.2J
39.9J
33.6J
61J
37.8
64J
0.26J
0.47J
0.65J
0.1 9J
8.3J
0.12
0.34
0.23
0.11
1.19J
321
Depth
3 to 13 ft
U/g/kg)
12.5J
11. 2J
.U
280J
X.
41.0J
Depth
Below 13 ft
U/g/kg)
36J
10.2J
35.6J
Risk-Base
u/g
Cancer
_d
14,800
5,090
20,400
391
39.100
1,190
839
839
219
47.3
17.8
219
18.300
.
d Criteria*
/kg)
Noncancer
1.370.000
385,000
97,300
278,000
780,000
3,900,000
1,560,000
1,170,000
19,500
2.340
1,950
1,950
11.700
2,340
195,000
f
Note: Blanks Indicate that the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxlcological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10'*,
and a
target noncardnogenlc hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestion, dermal contact, Inhalation of volatiles from soil, and
inhalation of particulate-bound substances.
fcOetectlons likely attributable to laboratory contamination.
•J qualifier Indicates value Is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
'Indicates not applicable.
•No toxicfty data available.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
TRPH - Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons.
l/g/kg - Micrograms per kilogram.
-------
J293\B70018V293B714.228
CLE- J02-01F293-B7H/U18
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-28
CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area
Stratum 1 • West Bank
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Anafyta
Metals Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium*
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron*
Lead
Magnesium*
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium*
Selenium
Silver
Sodium*
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
Oto3ft
(mg/kg)
16,100
1.6
152
0.97
48.9J
5J
17.300J
16.4
10.8
18.7
0.07
18,600
13.0
6.390J
224J
0.01
0.83J
12.2
1,850J
0.26J
3.9J
1.410J
97.7
0.11
43.4
52.8J
Note: Blanks indicate Inat the analyte was not c
Depth
3 to 13 ft
(mg/kg)
3.470J'
2.3J
36.2
0.57J
19.4J
1.9J
3,120
6.0
4.8J
6.0
0.06
7.080J
6.4J
2,110
129
%
0.92J
7.6
1,160
496J
37.7J
0.12
22
19.5
Depth
Below 13 ft
(mg/kg)
6,580
2.1
51.2
0.63J
22.5J
2.4J
2,440
8.6
7.2
9.6
10,500
2.9J
2,950
224 J
0.81J
7.8
1,750
662J
23.8
0.12
53.4J
26.9J
95th Percentile
Background
Concentration"
(mg/kg)
16,245.27
5.47
195.03
0.59
11.65
1.91
16,772.14
21.52
15.28
19.60
0.32
23,702.13
15.45
8,086.43
438.03
0.05
4.31
15.27
5,785.65
0.49
0.33
675.29
210.69
0.60
49.03
64.82
Risk-Based Criteria*
(mg/kg)
Cancer
.«•
0.31
-
0.129
-
27.3
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
-
.
-
Noncancer .
71,100
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
35.6
-
71,100
4,540
2,630
1,420
-•
500
-
136
21
354
1,420
-
356
356
-
42.700
4.98
498
21,300
Detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicologies! data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10"*,
and a target noncardnogenlc hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil, and
inhalation of particulate-bound substances.
"Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soil data (0 to 3 feet); reference: Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023, Draft Final,
March 1995, SWDIV.
°J qualifier Indicates value Is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
'Indicates not applicable.
'No toxldty data available; analyte is an essential human nutrient (see Attachment 1 to Apendix H).
g • Milligrams per* kilogram. l
-------
CTO293\B70018V293B714W.229
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-29
CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area
Stratum 2 - Drainage Channel
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Analyto
Volatile Organic*
Acetone*
Methylene Chloride*
Tetrachloroethene
Samivolatile Organlcs
bis(2-Ethylhexvl)phthalateb
Diethylphthalate*
PestiddM/PCBs
4,4'-DDT
alpha-Chlordane
Aroclor-1260
Endrfn
gamma-Chlordane
Heptachlor Epoxide
Total Recoverable
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(mg/kg)
TRPH
Depth
0 to 3 ft
(pg/kg)
17J°
23J
3.0J
16,300J
3.8J
2.4J
46.8
5.1J
3.4
2.1J
62.6J
Depth
3 to 13 ft
U/g/kg)
20J
12.6J
2.0J
s
29.6J
Depth
Below 13 ft
(pg/kg)
24J
11. 8J
4J
25.7J
Risk-Based Criteria*
U/g/kgl
Cancer
mt
14,800
5,090
20,400
839
219
47.3
219
31.3
Noncancer
1,370,000
385,000
97,300
780,000
31,200,000
19,500
2,340
1 1.700
2,340
507
Note: Blanks Indicate that the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicologies! data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk
of 10"*, and a target noncardnogenic hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles
from soil, snd inhalation of particulate-bound substances.
"Detections likely attributable to laboratory contamination.
°J qualifier indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
"Indicates not applicable.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
TRPH • Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons.
//g/kg • Mlcrograms per kilogram.
-------
J293\B70018V293B714W.230
CLE-JO2-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-30
CAOC 18 • Sludge Waste Disposal Area
Stratum 2 - Drainage Channel
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Anafyte
Metals, Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium*
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron'
Lead
Magnesium*
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium*
Selenium
Sodium*
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
Oto3ft
(mg/kg)
8.360J0
3.6J
137
0.80J
35.0J
4.4
8,460
13.5
8.4J
12.3
1 4,400 J
41 .3J
4,490
167
38J
1,800
0.1 U
2,380
81.3
0.84J
47.7
50. U
Depth
3 to 13 ft
(mg/kg)
7,010
2.0
70.3
0.51J
25.8J
3.9
3,100
9.9
7.8
11.0
0.76
14,300
4.0
3,690
231
6.5
1.900
0.11J
409J
27.0
0.14
33.0
55.2
Depth
Below 13 ft
(mg/kg)
12.900J
1.9
86.5
0.95J
45.3
3.9
3.590J
11.1
8.9J
10.4
16.500J
4.4J
4.530J
472J
11.7
3,290
894J
36.0J
0.13
40.0
48.2
95th Percentfle
Background
Concentration8
(mg/kg)
16,245.27
5.47
195.03
0.59
11.65
1.91
16,772.14 .
21.52
15.28
19.60
0.32
23,702.13
15.45
8,086.43
438.03
15.27
5,785.65
0.49
675.29
210.69
0.60
49.03
64.82
Risk-Based Criteria*
(mg/kg)
Cancer
m«
0.31
-
0.129
-
27.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
.
-
-
Noncancer
71,100
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
35.6
-
71.100
4,540
2.630
1.420
-
500
-
136
1,420
.
356
-
42.700
4.98
498
21,300
Note: Blank spaces Indicate that the analyte was note detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10",
and a target noncardnogenlc hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil, and
inhalation of particulate-bound substances.
'Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soil data (0 to 3 feet); reference: Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023, Draft Final,
March 1995, SWDIV.
°J qualifier indicates that value Is an estimate due to being lower the lowest standard or due to Interference.
'Indicates not applicable.
'No toxldty data available; analyte is an essential human nutrient (see Attachment 1 to Appendix H). Toxicological evaluation generally not
required.
I/kg - Milligrams par kilogram.
-------
-, 0293\B70018\293B714W.231
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-31
CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area
Stratum 3 - East Bank
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Anatyte
Volatile Organics
Acetone*
Carbon Disulfide
Methylene Chloride"
Semrvolatila Organics
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzolaipyrene
Benzojbltluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene*
bis(2-Ethylhexyi)phthalate
Chrysene
di-n-Butylphthalate
Diethylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Indenod ,2,3-cdlpyrene
Phenanthrene*
Pyrene
Peatfddes/PCBa
Aldrin
Heptaclor Epoxide
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(mg/kg)
TRPH
Note: filank spaces indicate tha
Depth
Oto3ft
U/g/kg)
23J°
1J
8J
47.3J
33.8J
42.8J
23.6J
54.2J
64.2J
5J
135J
27.0J
112J
110J
2.0J
4.1J
33.8
Depth
3 to 13ft
U/g/kg)
29J
23.4J
54.8J
37.0J
5J
V
44.3J
Depth
Below 13 ft
U/g/kg)
22J
12.0
47.5J
53.8J
Risk-Besed Criteria*
(//g/kg)
Cancer
_d
14,800
391
39.1
391
20,400
39,100
391
16.8
31.3
Noncancer
1,370,000
34,600
385,000
780,000
3,900,000
31,200,000
1,560,000
1,170,000
1,170
507
the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxlcological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 1O4, and
a target noncardnogenic hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil, and inhalation
of particulate-bourid substances.
'Detections likely attributable to laboratory contamination.
°J qualifier indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to Interference.
"Indicates not applicable.
•No toxidty data available.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
TRPH • Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons.
//g/kg • Mlcrograms per kilogram.
-------
J293VB70O18V293B714W.232
CLE-JO2-01F293 B7-vv 18
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-32
CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area
Stratum 3 - East Bank
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Analyta
Metals Total
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium*
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron-
Lead
Magnesium-
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium-
Selenium
Silver
Sodium*
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
Oto3ft
(mg/kg)
10.500J'
10.2J
169
0.84J
35. 9J
4.4
11.400
12.6J
10.2
20.4
16.000
6.9
4,870
212
9.4
2,680
0.11J
2,080
90.2
0.18J
58.8
133
Depth
3 to 13ft
(mg/kg)
16.500J
0.92J
4.5J
114
0.87
30.8J
5.3
4.320J
15.9
11. 5J
12.8
20.200J
6.4J
5.440J
303
1.4J
9.8
2,790
3.7J
1.510J
45.0J
1.0J
44.9
51.8
Depth
Below 13 ft
(mg/kg)
8.330J
1.4
61.0
0.7J
20. 1J
1.7
2.370J
9.0
7.0
8.1
11,100
2.5J
3,200
234
0.02J
6.9J
2,060
U
772J
22.6
0.12
24.1
29.9J
95th Percentfle
Background
Concentration
(mg/kg)
16,245.27
3.96
5.47
195.03
0.59
11.65
1.91
16,772.14
21.52
15.28
19.60
23,702.13
15.45
8,086.43
438.03
4.31
15.27
5,785.65
0.49
0.33
675.29
210.69
0.60
49.03
64.82
Risk-Base
(mg
Cancer
.<•
-
0.31
-
0.129
-
27.3
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
-
.
.
-
d Criteria*
/kg)
Noncancer
71,100
28.4
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
35.6
-
71,100
4,540
2,630
-
500
-
136
354
1,420
-
356
356
.
42,700
4.98
498
21,300
Note: Blank spaces indicate analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxlcological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10'*,
and a target noncarcfnogenlc hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil, and
inhalation of paniculate-bound substances.
••Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soil data (0 to 3 feet); reference: Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023, Draft Final,
March 1995, SWDIV.
"J qualifier indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
'Indicates not applicable.
•No toxidty data available; analyte is an essential human nutrient (see Attachment 1 to Appendix H).
Beg • Milligrams pe^kflogram.
-------
i, IO293VB70018V293B714W.233
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-33
CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area
Stratum 4 • Drainange Channel Outfall
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Analyte
Volatile Organic*
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Acetone0
Methylene Chloride"
Semlvolatile Organlcs
bls(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalated
Butylbenzylphthalate'
Phenol
Pestiddes/PCBs
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aroclor-1254
Endosulfan II
Methoxychlor
Total Recoverable Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (mg/kg)
TRPH
Depth
Oto3ft
(//g/kg)
3Jb
34J
10J
10J
43J
1.14J
Depth
3 to 13ft
(pg/kg)
25J
10.5J
42J
14J
43J
*>-
12.6J
Depth
Below 13 ft
(fig/kg}
3J
46J
9J
38J
0.1 2J
0.1 4J
0.75J
5.6J
0.1 6J
1 .53J
Risk-Based Criteria*
(pg/kg)
Cancer
_o
14,800
24,000
1.190
839
839
219
18,300
Noncancer
297,000
1,370,000
385,000
780.000
7,800,000
23,400,000
19.500
2.340
1.950
195,000
.
Note: Blank spaces indicate that the analyte Is not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxlcological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10", and
a target noncardnogenlc hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestion, dermal contact. Inhalation of volatiles from soil, and inhalation
of paniculate- bound substances.
bj qualifier Indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to Interference.
'Indicates not applicable.
'Detections likely attributable to laboratory contamination.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
TRPH - Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons.
x/g/kg - Micrograms per kilogram.
-------
-293\B70018\293B714W.234
CLE-J02-01 F293-B7-Ow 18
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-34
CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area
Stratum 4 - Drainage Channel Outfall
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Analyte
Metals Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium*
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron'
Lead
Magnesium"
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium*
Silver
Sodium*
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
0 to 3 ft
(mg/kg)
6,190
1.2J
61.8
0.63J
24. 1J
3.7J
4.090J
6.8J
6.7J
6.8
9,440
20.9J
2,660J
169J
1.8J
7.7
1,350J
572J
31.4J
22.1
22.6
Depth
3 to 13 ft
(mg/kg)
3,830J«
1.3J
53.0
0.52J
17.0J
1.7J
1,600
6.2
4.7J
5.1
6,260J
14.4J
2,350
90.1J
0.81J
6.1J
950
2.6J
481J
26. U
0.12
13.9J
19.1J
Depth
Below 13 ft
(mg/kg)
6.030J
0.94J
47.9
0.30J
15.6J
1,970
6.2J
4.6J
3.7J
9,010
2.3J
3.050J
163J
1.2J
5.1J
2,010
349J
18.2
19.4
24.8J
95th Percentfle
Background
Concentration*
(mg/kg)
16,245.27
5.47
195.03
0.59
11.65
1.91
16,772.14
21.52
15.28
19.60
23,702.13
15.45
8,086.43
438.03
4.31
15.27
5,785.65
0.33
675.29
210.69
0.60
49.03
64.82
Risk-Based Criteria*
(mg/kg)
Cancer
_d
0.31
-
0.129
-
27.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
.
•
-
.
.
-
Noncancer
71,100
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
35.6
.
71,100
4,540
2,630
.
500
-
136
354
1,420
-
356
.
42,700
4.96
498
21,300
Note: Blank spaces Indicate that the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxlcological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10"',
and a target noncardnogenic hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestion, dermal contact, Inhalation of vdatiles from soil, and
inhalation of paniculate-bound substances.
"Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soil data (0 to 3 feet); reference: Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023, Draft Final,
March 1995, SWDIV.
°J qualifier Indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to Interference.
"Indicates not applicable.
•No toxidty data available; analyte is an essential human nutrient (see Attachment 1 to Appendix H).
mffl/ko - Milligrams per kilogram.
-------
JO2293B714
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-35
CAOC 18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land Use Scenario
Stratum
1
2
3
4
Total*
Cancer
Index"
15.45
19.85
41.22
13.73
Risk
1.5x10*
1.9x10*
4.1x10*
1.4x10*
Noncancer
Index*
2.35
2.52
3.57
3.13
Background6
Cancer
Index
15.00
17.87
39.69
13.65
Risk
1.5x10*
1.8x10*
4.0x10'*
1.4x10*
Noncancer
Index
2.25
2.24
3.26
3.13
Incremental
Cancer
Index
0.45
1.97
1.54
0.08
Risk
4.5x107
2x1 0*
1.5x10*
8x10*
The total risk-based criteria (RBC) carcinogenic and noncardnogente Indices Include the contribution from naturally occurring background and site-related
activities for al detected substances In trie sol from 0 to 13 feet
"Portion of the total risk that to attributable to naturaly occurring background metals.
The Incremental cancer RBC Index and the incremental Rfetime cancer risk are'equal to the total index or risk minus the background Index or risk, respectively.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
The cancer RBC Index to the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the chemical
poses a 1O* risk. An index of 1.0 indicates a 1x10* risk and an index of 100 indicates a 1x1 CT* risk.
The noncancer RBC Index to the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the hazard
Index equate 1.0.
-------
J022S38714
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-36
CAOC18 - Sludge Waste Disposal Area
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land Use Scenario
Stratum
1
2
3
4
Total-
Cancer
Index4
2.51
3.42
6.82
2.20
Risk
2.5x10*
3.4x10*
6.8x10*
2.2x10*
Noncancer
Index*
0.36
0.29
0.47
0.38
Background"
Cancer
Index
2.35
2.82
6.30
2.16
Risk
2.4x10*
2.8x10*
6.3x10*
2.1x10*
Noncancer
Index
0.36
0.29
0.46
0.38
Incremental0
Cancer
Index
0.16
0.59
0.52
0.04
Risk
1.6X107
5.9x1 07
5.2x1 07
4x10*
The total risk-based criteria (RBC) carcinogenic and noncardnogenlc Indices Include the contribution from naturally occurring background and site-related
activities (or all detected substances In the sod from 0 to 13 feet.
^Portion of the total risk that Is attributable to naturally occurring backgroundtnetals.
The Incremental cancer RBC Index and the Incremental lifetime cancer risk are equal to the total Index or risk minus the background Index or risk, respectively.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
The cancer RBC Index Is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the chemical
poses a 10* risk. An Index of 1.0 Indicates a 1x10* risk and an Index of 100 Indicates a 1x1 (T* risk.
The noncancer RBC Index is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the hazard
index equals 1.0.
-------
CTO293\B70O18V293B714W.237
CLE-JO2-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-37
Summary of Surface Soil and Concrete Data - Stratum 2
CAOC 34 Confirmation Study, 1986*
Sample
Type
Soil
Concrete
Sample
Number
001
002
003
004
005
006
007b
008
009
010
011
012
013
014
015
016
Description
W. Pond/Sandblast Waste/N.W. Corner
W. Pond/Sludge/N.E. Corner
W. Pond/N. Central
W. Pond/E. Central side/soil
E. Pond/N. E. corner (oily rancid smell)
E. Pond/N. E. corner (oily, rancid smell)
E. Pond/Central join/middle-joint
material
East side of E. pond ramp greenish
yellow streaks in soil
W. Pond/E. Central side
W. Pond/E. Central side *
W. Pond/Central area
W. Pond/Central N. area
W. Pond/W. Central side
E. Pond/W. Central side
E. Pond/S.E. side
E. Pond/E. Central side
Arodor-1 260
Concentration
(mg/kg)
3.5
40
Trace
3,400
19
5.7
Trace
None detected
9.7
6.2
2.5
4.0
0.85
None detected
0.40
2.0
•Data from WESTDIV (1986).
'Sample of concrete joint filler material.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
-------
v. I O293\B70018\293B714W.238
CLE-J02-O1F293 B7-O018
Print Dato: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-38
CAOC 34 - PCS Storage Area
Stratum 1 - Area Covered by Concrete Basins
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
(Sheet 1 of 3)
Anatyta
Semivolatfles
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzolalpyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzolg.h.ilperylene
Benzolklfluoranthene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate'
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
di-n-Butylphthalate*
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Ruoranthene
Ruorene
Indenod ,2,3-CD)pyrene
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine*
Depth
Oto3ft
Urg/kg)
33J°
300J
22J
29
2,200
1,600
2,400
1,500
1,600-
2,200
51
730J
2,900
54J
410
160J
5,200
130J
1,200
43J
Depth
3 to 13 ft
(//g/kg)
Depth
Below 13 ft
0/g/kg)
65J
13
57J
25 J
64J
28J
60J
15J
22J
Estimated 95 Percent
Upper Confidence
Limit
(//g/kg)b
190.41
185.15
146.94
192.13
235.74
224.73
239.42
223.84
221.08
218.68
189.77
216.10
256.68
206.97
190.66
178.73
313.40
178.73
216.32
203.48
Risk-Based Criteria*
U/g/kg)
Cancer
_d
-
-
-
391
39.1
391
-
391
-
-
14,300
39,100
-
39.1
-
-
-
391
-
Noncancer
80.900
35,900
-
1.950
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
1.560,000
30,000
-
-
-------
li0293\B70018\293B714W.238
CIE-J02-O1F293-B7-O018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-38
CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area
Stratum 1 • Area Covered by Concrete Basins
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
(Sheet 2 of 3)
AneJyte
Pestiddes/PCBs (continued)
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
Aroclor-1260
delta-BHC
Dieldrin
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Endrin Ketone
gamma-Chlordane
Heptachlor Epoxida
Depth
0 to 3 ft
ifiglkg]
Depth
3 to 13ft
U/g/kg)
Depth
Below 13 ft
(//g/kg)
43J
4.700
5.200
2.7J
5.7
39J
0.087^
6.1J
120
0.35J
19J
2.7J
0.35J
0.99J
1.1J
0.79J
3.1J
0.54J
47J
60J
80J
6.3J
20J
20J
0.058J
1.8J
42J
3.3J
0.1 4J
1.4J
2.4J
21J
3.5J
12J
0.081J
0.1 7J
0.22J
0.051J
Estimated 95 Percent
Upper Confidence
Limit
U/g/kfl)b
186.81
277.54
183.34
303.28
4.54
4.52
11.56
1.52
1.31
2.29
33.72
0.99
8.83
2.78
2.32
1.87
2.00
2.15
1.93
0.99
Risk-Based Criteria*
(//g/kg)
Cancer
Noncancer
-
-
-
-
1,190
839
839
16.8
178
219
47.3
178
17.8
-
-
-
-
-
219
31.3
80,900
-
23.400,00
1,170,000
-
-
1,950
1,170
3,120
2,340
-
3,120
1,950
1.950
1,950
11,700
11,700
11,700
2,340
507
-------
CI O293\B70018\293B714W.238
CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-38
CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area
Stratum 1 - Area Covered by Concrete Basins
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
(Sheet 3 of 3)
Anafyte
Metftoxychlor
Depth
Oto3ft
0/g/kg)
8.0J
Depth
3 to 13ft
0/g/kg)
5.2J
Depth
Below 13 ft
U/g/kg)
1.2J
Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/kg)
TRPH
670
33
18
Estimated 95 Percent
Upper Confidence
Limit
0/g/kg)b
25.46
Risk-Based Criteria*
U/g/kg)
Cancer
18,300
Noncancer
195,000
.»
-
-
Note: Blank spaces indicate the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxlcological ,data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10s,
and a target noncardnogenlc hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes covered Include soil Ingestion, dermal contact,
Inhalation of voiatdra from sod, and inhalation of paniculate-bound substances.
•Values calculated using concentrations detected In the first 13 feet.
•J qualifier Indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to Interference.
'Not applicable.
•Detections attributed to laboratory contamination. s
Value not utilized In risk assessment and thus was not calculated.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilograms.
pg/kg - Micrograms per kilogram.
-------
CT0293\b/0018V293B714W.239
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-39
CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area
Stratum 1 - Area Covered by Concrete Basins
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Analyta
Depth
0 to 3 ft
(mg/kgl
Metals. Total
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium*
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron*
Lead
Magnesium*
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
8,330J«
5.8J
1.7J
101
0.36J
9.1J
6.4
4,440
29.6
4.6J
14.9J
0.97
14,300
45.6J
3,620
174
0.49J
1.2J
13.4
Depth
3 to 13ft
(mg/kg)
15.000J
3.5J
110
0.65J
6.1J
2.1J
6,250
16.6*
7.5J
13.9J
20,200
6.4J
6,070
598
2.3J
8.5J
Depth
Below 13 ft
(mg/kg)
Estimated 95th Percentfle
of Background
Concentrations
(mg/kg)b
Risk-Based Criteria*
(mg/kg)
Cancer
Noncancer
24.100J
3.7J
118
0.86J
11. 9J
1.0J
6,630
22.7
7.4J
19.4J
1.1
26,800
6.1J
7,980
430
0.11J
1.6J
14.8
16,245.27
3.96
5.47
195.03
0.59
11.65
1.91
16,772.14
21.52
15.28
19.60
0.32
23,702.13
15.45
8,086.43
438.03
0.05
4.31
15.27
.<•
•
0.310
-
0.129
-
27.3
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
71,100
28.4
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
35.6
71,100
4,540
2,630
1,420
-
500
-
136
21.0
354
1,420
-------
CT0293VB/0018\293B714W.239
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-39
CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area
Stratum 1 - Area Covered by Concrete Basins
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
(Sheet 2 of 2)
Analyte
Potassium*
Selenium
Sodium*
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
0 to 3 ft
(mg/kg)
1,960
0.31J
1.460
48. U
35.0
52.3
Depth
3 to 13ft
(mg/kg)
3,120
1,330
47.3J
40.3
50.2
Depth
Below 13 ft
(mg/kg)
4,840
675J
47.1
48.5
60.2
Estimated 95th Percentfle
of Background
Concentrations
(mg/kg)b
5,785.65
0.49
675.29
210.69
49.03
64.82
Risk-Based Criteria'
(mg/kg)
Cancer
-
.
-
-
-
-
Noncancer
-
356
-
42,700
49.8
21,300
Note: Blank spaces Indicate that analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lexicological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10', and a target
noncardnogenlc hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered Include soil Ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil, and inhalation of paniculate-
bound substances. *"
•Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soils data. Reference: Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023,
(SWDIV, 1995b).
°J qualifier Indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
'Not applicable.
•No toxlcrty data available. Analyte Is a macronutrient. lexicological evaluation generally not required.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
-------
110293\B70018V293B714W.240
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-40
CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area
Stratum 2 - Soils Inside Concrete Basins
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Analyte
Volatile*
Acetone*
Carbon Disulfide
Methylene Chloride"
Depth
Oto3ft
U/g/kg)
Depth
3 to 13ft
U/g/kg)
Estimated 95 Percent Upper
Confidence Limit
ferg/kg)b
Risk-Based Criteria*
(//g/kg)
Cancer
55J"
2J
5J
12.64
6.46
5.55
jt
•
14,800
Noncancer
1,370,000
34,600
385,000
Semivolatfles
Butylbenzylphthalate
Chrysene
dl-n-Octylphthalate
Pyrene
7J
250J
6J
19
40J
640.08
368.55
701.74
396.39
-
39,100
-
-
-
-
-
1,170,000
PestJddes/PCBs ->
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
alpha-Chlordane
Aroclor-1260
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Dieldrin
Endosulfan II
84J
11J
44J
0.32
950J
2.500J
4.6J
15J
30J
7.8J
6.3
47J
31 OJ
12
23.52
17.97
22.62
10.19
68,199.72
2.745.25
4.09
5.85
10.39
10.51
1,190
839
839
16.8
219
47.3
178
178
17.8
-
-
-
1,950
1,170
2.340
•
31,200
31,200
1,950
1,950
-------
C i O293VB70018\293B714W.240
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-40
CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area
Stratum 2 - Soils Inside Concrete Basins
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
(Sheet 2 of 2)
Analyta
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Endrin Ketone
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
oamma-Chlordane
Heptachlor Epoxide
Methoxychlor
Depth
Oto3ft
U/g/kg)
t.4J
0.30J
33J
0.29
0.20J
630
36J
1.0J
Depth
3 to 13ft
0/g/kg)
0.1 4J
55J
1.6J
Estimated 95 Percent Upper
Confidence Limit
(//B/kg)b
7.43
13.03
10.92
8.95
3.08
112.436.67
12.37
144.5
Risk-Based Criteria*
Urg/kg)
Cancer
-
-
-
•
178
219
31.3
18,300
Noncancer
1,950
11,700
11,700
11,700
31,200
2,340
507
195,000
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Diesel (mg/kg)
TPH • Diesel
0.44J
Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/kg)
TRPH
1.800J
2.16
4,500
3,011.77
.
-
Note: Blank spaces indicate that the anatyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicologies! data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10', and
a target
noncardnogenlc hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered Include soil Ingestion, dermal contact. Inhalation of volatiles from soil, and inhalation of
partlculate-
bound substances.
bValues are calculated using concentrations detected in the first 13 feet.
'Detections attributed to laboratory contamination.
*J qualifier indicates value Is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
•Not applicable.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
j/g/kg • Microgrsms per kilogram.
-------
293\B70018V293B714W.241
CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-W .8
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-41
CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area
Stratum 2 - Soils Inside Concrete Basins
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Anafyta
Metals. Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium*
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron*
Lead
Magnesium*
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium*
Selenium
Depth
0 to 3 ft
(mg/kg)
6.81 OJ°
3.5J
120
0.30J
10.4J
2.2
6,730
44.4
3.9J
16.6
0.72
11.600J
147J
2,710
173
0.14
1.2J
18.3
1.410J
0.62J
Depth
3 to 13 ft
(mg/kg)
Estimated 95th
Percentfle of
Background
Concentrations
(ma/kolb
Risk-Based Criteria*
(mg/kg)
Cancer
Noncancer
5.420J
3.5J
79.0
0.23J
8.6J
8.1
7.150J
45.6
4.7J
19.4
14.000J
140J
3,270
222
2.6J
27.3
1.600J
16,245.27
5.47
195.03
0.59
11.65
1.91
16,772.14
21.52
15.28
19.60
0.32
23,702.13
15.45
8,086.43
438.03
0.05
4.31
15.27
5,785.65
0.49
jt
0.310
-
0.129
-
27.-3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
71.100
21.3
1,540
356
5.970
35.6
-
71.100
4,540
2,630
1,420
-
500
-
136
21.0
354
1,420
-
356
-------
293\B70018V293B714W.241
CLE- JO2-01F293-B7-V/W18
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-41
CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area
Stratum 2 - Soils Inside Concrete Basins
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
(Sheet 2 of 2)
Analyte
Silver
Sodium*
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
Oto3ft
(mg/kg)
2.2J
748J
52.6
26.4
88.4
Depth
3 to 13ft
(mg/kg)
1,080J
53.6
23.2
72.0
Estimated 95th
Percentile of
Background
Concentrations
(moVkor*
0.33
675.29
210.69
49.03
64.82
Risk-Based Criteria*
(mg/kg)
Cancer
-
-
-
-
-
Noncancer
356
-
42,700
49.8
21,300
Note: Blank spaces indicate that the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10*,
and
a target noncarcinogenic hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil, and
inhalation of particulate-bound substances;
•"Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soils data, Reference: Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023,
Draft Final, March 1995 (SWDIV, 1995b).
°J qualifier Indicates that value is an estimate due to being lower the lowest standard or due to Interference.
"No toxidty data available. Analyte is a macronutrient. Toxicological evaluation generally not required.
•Not applicable.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
-------
CT0293VB70018\293 B714W.242
CLE-JO2-O1F293-B7-OO18
Prim Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-42
CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area
Stratum 3 - Concrete
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Concrete
Anatyte
Pestictdes/PCBs
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
Aroclor-1260
Oieldrin
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Endrin Ketone
oamma-Chlordane
Methoxychlor
Result
(//Q/kn)
13
13J'
13J
0.22J
5.5J
730J
11
13
2.2J
12J
5.0J
5.9J
*J qualifier indicates that value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to
interference.
x/g/kg • Micrograms per kilogram.
-------
JO22938714
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0018
Prim Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-43
CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land Use Scenario
Post-Removal Action
Stratum
1
2
Total*
Cancer
Index4
23.25
13.91
Risk
2.3x10*
1.4x10*
Noncancer
Index*
5.36
2.28
Background6
Cancer
Index
16.39
13.67
Risk
1.6x10*
1.4x108
Noncancer
Index
5.20
2.10
Incremental'
Cancer
Index
6.86
0.24
Risk
6.9x1 09
2.4x107
'The total risk-based criteria (RBC) carcinogenic and noncarcinogenlc Indices Include the contribution from naturally occurring background and site-related
activities for all detected substances In the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
"Portion of the total risk that Is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
The incremental cancer RBC Index and the Incremental lifetime cancer risk are equal to the total Index or risk minus the background index or risk, respectively.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
The cancer RBC index Is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the chemical
poses a 10* risk. An Index of 1.0 indicates a 1x10* risk and an Index of 1 (^Indicates a 1x10' risk.
The noncancer RBC Index is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the hazard
Index equals 1.0.
-------
JO229387M
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-44
CAOC 34 - PCB Storage Area
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land Use Scenario
Post-Removal Action
Stratum
1
2
Total*
Cancer
Index"
4.76
2.32
Risk
4.8x10*
2.3x10*
Noncancer
Index*
0.68
0.27
Background6
Cancer
Index
2.60
2.19
Risk
2.6x10'
2.2x10*
Noncancer
Index
0.67
0.26
Incremental6
Cancer
Index
2.16
0.13
Risk
2.2x10'
1.3x1 a7
The total risk-based criteria (RBC) carcinogenic and noncarclnogenlc Indices include the contribution from naturally occurring background and site-related
activities (or all detected substances In the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
'Portion of the total risk that Is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
The incremental cancer RBC Index and the Incremental lifetime cancer risk are equal to the total index or risk minus the background index or risk, respectively.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
The cancer RBC Index Is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the chemical
poses a 10* risk. Ah Index of 1.0 Indicates a 1x10'* risk and ah Index of KXJTndicates a 1x10" risk.
The noncancer RBC Index is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the hazard
index equals 1.0.
-------
. O293\B70018V293B714W.24S
CLE-J02-01F293 B7-OO18
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-45
Summary of Soil Sample Data
CAOC 2 Confirmation Study, 1986
Location
Yard (Stratum 3)
Row Path to Drainage Ditch
(Stratum 4)
Concrete Wash Pads
(Stratum 1)
Concrete Wash Pads
(Stratum 1)
Boring*
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B3
63
B3
B3
B3
B6
S2
S2
S2
B11
B11
B11
B11
B11
S1
SI
S10
Depth
(feet)
5
15
18
22
22
22
22
22
19
44
44
19
19
9
*>.
1
1
1
3
3
3
7
42
1
1
1
Compound
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDT
Silvex
Dieldrin
2,4,5-T
2,4-D
Silvex
2.4-D
Silvex
Chlorprophan
2,4-D
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDD
4.4'-DDE
Heptachlor epoxide
2,4-D
2,4,5-T
2,4,5-T
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
Concentration
0/g/kg)
490
0.3
0.84
1.53
2.0
2.53
2.8
8.1
6.9
49.3
5.0
50
73.6
0.8
740
40
28
0.8
2
50
1
2
3.2
4.8
5.6
•Boring locations are shown In Figure 2-25.
-------
CT0293VB70018\293B714W.248
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-46
CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area
Stratum 1 - Concrete Wash Pads
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Analyte
Volatile Organic*
Acetone*
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Methylene Chloride*
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Setnlvolatile Organlcs
Bis|2-Ethylhexyl)phthalateb
Butylbenzylphthalatek
Di-N-Butylphthalate"
PestiddM/PCBs
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Alpha-Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Gamma-Chlordane
Heptachlor Epoxlde
Depth
0 to 3 feet
(pg/kg)
159J«
1.1J
1.2J
24J
1.2J
1.2J
9.29J
3.60J
88.84J
63.50J
19.31J
54.62
1.51J
1.75J
0.38J
18.11J
1.56J
Depth
3 to 13 feet
0/g/kg)
71J
19J
1.0J
383.7J
H 0.06J
Depth
Below 13 feet
(pg/kg)
91J
13J
17.24J
Risk-Based Criteria*
0/g/kg)
Cancer
_d
669
14,800
5,090
20,400
1,190
839
839
219
17.8
219
31.3
Noncancer
1,370,000
34,600
2,480
385,000
97,300
278,000
780,000
7,800,000
3,900,000
19,500
2,340
1,950
1,950
1,950
11,700
2,340
507
Note: Blank spaces indicate that the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicologies! data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10**,
and a target noncardnogenic hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil,
and Inhalation of particulate-bound substances.
'Detections attributed to laboratory contamination.
°J qualifier indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to Interference.
"Not applicable.
j/g/kg • Mlcrograms per kilogram.
-------
v,, O293VB70018\293B714W.247
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-O018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-47
CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area
Stratum 1 - Concrete Wash Pads
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Analyte
Metals Total
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium*
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron*
Lead
Magnesium*
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium*
Silver
Sodium*
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
0 to 3 ft
(mg/kg)
20.900J"
17.6J
193
1.1
82.4J
6.6
138.000J
20.5
14.0
22.7
21,200
108J
8,270J
481J
2.5J
19.8
6,250
2.1J
3.900J
356J
2.0J
49.6
62.0
Depth
3 to 13 ft
(mg/kg)
12,800
117
0.91J
29.7J
4.5
4,600
13.2
9.3J
9.3
18,400
4.0J
6,120
535J
7.45
8.4
3,340
1.6
2.600J
45.2
0.99J
43.0
50.5
Depth
Below 13 ft
(mg/kg)
3.700J
1.6J
44.5J
0.54J
21. U
1.7
1.490J
8.4
3.8J
4.5J
5,660
5.1J
1.070J
86. U
0.77J
4.6J
690J
505J
23.3
14.7
10.4
Estimated 95th
Percentile of
Background*
(mg/kg)
22,434.28
4.55
10.43
205.97
1.16
48.51
1.28
27.311.43
33.15
44.87
45.78
38,831.88
17.82
13,347.76
695.88
13.82
42.75
11,501.42
0.34
455.42
167.97
0.40
84.14
79.68
Risk-Based Criteria*
mg/kg
Cancer
_d
-
0.31
-
0.129
-
27.3
.
-
.
-
-
Noncancer
71,100
28.4
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
35.6
.
71,100
4,540
2,630
-
500
-
136
354
1,420
-
356
-
42.700
4.98
498
21,300
Note: Blank spaces Indicate that the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxlcologlcal data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk
of 10", and a target noncardnogenic hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil ingestion, dermal contact, Inhalation of
volatiles from soil, and inhalation of particulate-bound substances.
'Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soils data. Reference: Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023, Draft Final (SWDIV,
1995c).
°No toxidty data available. Analyte Is a macronutrient. lexicological evaluation generally not required.
"Not applicable.
•J qualifier Indicates value Is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
jBB/kg - Milligrams pejjcllogram.
-------
C rO293\B70018\293B714W.248
CLE-JO2-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-48
CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area
Stratum 2 - Underground Storage Tank
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Anetyte
Voletfle Organic*
Acetone
Carbon Disurfide
Methytene Chloride'
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Samtvolatfle Organics
Butylbenzylphthalate*
Ruoranthene
Pentachlorophenol
Pyrene
PestJddes/PCBs
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Alpha-Chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
Depth
04f* O f*A4
TO «J T0BI
U/g/kg)
98Jb.
15J
1.3J
17J
11J
15J
6J
4490J
7140J
72300J
7.89J
11.31J
Depth
34*1 1 ^) t **•
TQ 1 w TOOT
U/g/kg)
63J
15J
V
Depth
U/g/kg)
91
1.1
12J
1J
5.76J
Risk-Based Criteria*
U/g/kg)
Cancer
-°
-
14,800
5,090
-
-
20,400
-
-
1,190
839
839
219
219
Noncancer
1,370,000
34,600
385,000
97,300
278,000
7,800,000
780,000
7,800,000
3,900,000
-
-
19,500
2,340
2.340
Note: Blank spaces indicate that the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lexicological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10", and
a target
noncardnogenlc hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered Include soil ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil, and inhalation of
particulate-bound substances.
'J qualifier indicates value Is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
"Not applicable.
'Detections attributed to laboratory contamination.
//g/kg • Micrograms per kilogram.
-------
. 293VB70018V293B714W.249
CLE-JO2-01 F293-B7-Ov 18
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-49
CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area
Stratum 2 - Underground Storage Tank
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Analyte
Metal* Total
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium'
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron*
Lead
Magnesium*
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium*
Silver
Sodium*
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
0 to 3 feet
(mg/kg)
17.500J8
0.76J
13.5J
191J
0.92
66.6J
5.2
26.400J
16.4
11.5
15.8
18,400
91.8J
7.050J
406J
1 .9J
16.3
4,980
3.790J
214
0.85J
40.8
55.3
Depth
3 to 13 feet
(mg/kg)
1,800
0.73J
16.8J
0.47J
19.5J
1.5J
866J
3.5J
3.2J
2.7J
3,360
1.1J
670J
88.7
1.2J
505J
2.1J
625J
. 9.0
8.9
8.2
Depth
Below 13 feet
(mg/kg)
1.810
1.2J
32.2
0.46J
1.4
2,760
4.3J
5.3J
3.2J
3,420
1.5J
813
135J
3.9J
441J
4.9J
414J
12.6
9.1
8.7
Estimated 95th
Percentile of
Background*
(mg/kg)
22,434.28
4.55
10.43
205.97
1.16
48.51
1.28
27,311.43
33.15
44.87
45.78
38,831.88
17.82
13,347.76
695.88
13.82
42.75
11,501.42
0.34
455.42
167.97
0.40
84.14
79.68
Risk-Based Criteria'
(mg/kg)
Cancer
_d
-
0.31
-
0.129
-
27.3
.
.
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
.
-
-
Noncancer
71,100
28.4
21.3
1,540
356
5.970
.
.
71,100
4,540
2,630
-
500
-
136
354
1,420
-
356
-
42,700
4.98
498
21,300
Note: Blank spaces indicate that the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10',
and a target noncardnogenic hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil ingestlon, dermal contact, Inhalation of volatile* from soil, and
Inhalation of partlculate-bound substances.
"Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soils data. Reference: Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023, Draft Final (SWDIV,
1995a).
°J qualifier indicates that value Is an estimate due to being lower the lowest standard or due to interference.
'Not applicable.
•No toxtdty data available. Analyte is a macronutrlent. Toxicologies! evaluation generally not required.
fcfcg - Milligrams pet kiloflram.
-------
• 0293\B70018\293B714W.260
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-50
CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area
Stratum 3 - Yard
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Analyte
Volatile Organics
Acetone*
Methylene Chloride"
Semhrolatile Organics
Butylbanzytphthalate*
Di-N-Butylphthalate*
Phenanthrene*
Pestiddes/PCBs
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Alpha-Chlordane
Dieldrin
Gamma-Chlordane
Methomyl
Depth
0 to 3 feet
(//g/kg)
113J«
26J
345J
1,304J
14J
237.91J
173J
275J
9.13
8.5J
9.76
106J
Depth
3 to 13 feet
(//g/kg)
110J
11J
8.08J
584J
1.24J
**
183J
Depth
Below 13 feet
(//g/kg)
73J
12J
21J
263J
Risk-Based Criteria*
(//g/kg)
*r W 9*
Cancer
-"
14,800
• -
-
-
1,190
839
839
219
17.8
219
-
Noncancer
1,370.000
385.000
7,800,000
3,900,000
-
-
-
19.500
2,340
1,950
2,340
975,000
Blank spaces Indicate that the analyte was not detected.
•Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soils data. Reference: Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023, Draft Final (SWDIV,
1995a).
"Detections attributed to laboratory contamination.
°J qualifier Indicates value Is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
"Not applicable.
•No toxidty data available.
//g/kg - Micrograms per kilogram.
-------
. O293\B70018\293B714W.261
CL6- J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-51
CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area
Stratum 3 - Yard
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Analyte
Metals Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium*
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron*
Lead
Magnesium*
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium*
Silver
Sodium*
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
0 to 3 feet
(mg/kg)
20,900JC
14.1J
207
1.1
83. U
6.2
38.600J
19.9
13.0
18.0
20,600
81. 3J
7.750J
496J
0.05J
2.9J
17.2
5.750J
5.840J
226
1.2J
44.4
62.2
Depth
3 to 13 feet
(mg/kg)
22.100J
12.1J
192
0.87J
75.3J
5.5J
20.000J
20.6
12.3
21.8
20.600J
11.5
9.070J
608J
•>
1.5J
18.8
6.670J
3.5J
4.470J
290
1.4J
41.6
73.3
Depth
Below 13 feet
(mg/kg)
8.460J
2.1J
68.3
0.61J
24.8J
2.7J
8,3 10J
7.7J
6.8
7.4
11.200J
11.8
3.570J
262J
1.5J
7.5
2.230J
3.3J
1.180J
88.4
24.1
34.6
Estimated 95th
PercentJIe of
Background*
(mg/kg)
22,434.28
10.43
205.97
1.16
48.51
1.28
27,311.43
33.15
44.87
45.78
38,831.88
17.82
13,347.76
695.88
0.05
13.82
42.75
11,501.42
0.34
455.42
167.97
0.40
84.14
79.68
Risk-Based Criteria*
(mg/kg)
Cancer
,d
0.31
-
0.129
-
27.3
-
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Noncancer
71,100
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
35.6
-
71.100
4,540
2.630
-
500
-
136
21.0
354
1,420
-
356
-
42,700
4.98
498
21,300
Note: Blank spaces indicate that the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicologies! data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10'",
and a target noncardnogenlc hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered Include soil ingestion, dermal contact. Inhalation of volatiles from soil, and
inhalation of paniculate-bound substances.
•"Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soils data. Reference: Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023, Draft Final (SWDIV,
1995a).
•J qualifier indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
"Not applicable.
•No toxldty data available. Analyte is a macronutrlent. lexicological evaluation generally not required.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram. ~
-------
. I O293\B70018V293B714W.262
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-52
CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area
Stratum 4 • Flow Path to Drainage Ditch
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Analyta
Volatile Organic*
Acetone*
Methylene Chloride1*
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Semivolaffle Organic*
DI-N-Butylphthalate"
Diethylphthalate*
Pyrene
Pestiddes/PCBs
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-ODT
Alpha-Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endrin
Gamma-Chlordane
Depth
0 to 3 feet
(pg/kg)
114J°
14J
25.48J
50J
4.56J
6.16J
61.85
2.17J
Depth
3 to 13 feet
0/g/kg)
85J
1.1J
0.72J
13.30
15.03J
6.38J
5.38
0.32J
5.86J
Depth
Below 13 feet
(pg/kg)
165J
9J
1J
Risk-Based Criteria*
(//g/kg)
Cancer
_d
14,800
5.090
-
1,190
839
839
219
17.8
219
Noncancer
1,370,000
385,000
97.300
278,000
3,900,000
31,200,000
1,170,000
19,500
2,340
1,950
11,700
2,340
Note: Blank spaces indicate that the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxlcological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10", and
a target noncardnogenlc hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil, and inhalation
of particulate-bound substances.
bDetections attributed to laboratory contamination.
°J qualifier Indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to Interference.
"Not applicable.
//g/kg - Micrograms per kilogram.
-------
293\B70018\293B714W.263
CLE-JO2-O1F293-B'/ 3
Print Date: 28 May ltd?
TABLE 2-53
CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area
Stratum 4 - Flow Path to Drainage Ditch
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Analyta
Metals Total
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium*
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron'
Lead
Magnesium*
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium*
Sodium*
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
0 to 3 feet
(mg/kg)
24,100
0.91J*
12.3J
201
1.2
88.2
5.6
42,400
22.0J
15.5
23.4
22,300
100J
11,000
690J
19.0
7,930
3.840J
448
1.4J
45.4
79.6
Depth
3 to 13 feet
(mg/kg)
8,400J
1.1J
4.6J
58.6
0.70J
3.0
8,590
10.3J
5.3J
9.8
9,510
5.3J
3,440
172J
6.1
2,360
1.470J
85.2J
22.4
31.1
Depth
Below 13 feet
(mg/kg)
3,700
30.7
0.51J
1.3
2,290
6.5J
4.4J
4.7
6,830
1.9J
1,520
128J
4.5J
906
626J
18.9
13.8
21.0
Estimated 95th
Percentfle of
Background
(mg/kg)
22,434.28
4.55
10.43
205.97
1.16
48.51
1.28
27,311.43
33.15
44.87
45.78
38,831.88
17.82
13,347.76
695.88
42.75
11,501.42
455.42
167.97
0.40
84.14
79.68
Risk-Based Criteria'
(mg/kg)
Cancer
_o
0.31
0.129
27.3
Noncancer
71,100
28.4
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
35.6
71,100
4,540
2,630
500
136
1.420
42,700
4.96
496
21,300
Note: Blank spaces Indicate that the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10'*,
and a
target noncardnogenlc hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestion, dermal contact, Inhalation of volatile* from soil, and
inhalation of
particulate-bound substances.
'Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soils data. Reference: Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023, Draft Final (SWDIV,
1995a).
'Not applicable.
*J qualifier Indicates value is an estimate due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
'No toxicity data available. Analyte Is a macronutrient. Toxicological evaluation generally not required.
kg - Milligrams peV kilogram.
-------
JO22938714
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-54
CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land Use Scenario
Stratum
1
2
3
4
Total'
Cancer
Index4
68.98
145.62
54.19
49.60
Risk
6.9x10"
1.5x10^
5.0x10'
5.0x10^
Noncancer
Index*
5.96
6.15
5.88
6.75
Background11
Cancer
Index
65.49
50.83
54.19
49.15
Risk
6.5X108
5.1x10'
5.4x10*
5.0x1 0*
Noncancer
Index
5.53
4.28
5.88
6.47
Incremental0
Cancer
Index
3.49
94.79
1.30
0.45
Risk
3.5x10*
9.5x1 0s
1.3x10'
4.5x1 Or
The total risk-based criteria (RBC) carcinogenic and noncardnogenlc indices include the contribution from naturally occurring background and site-related
activities for all detected substances In the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
^Portion of the total risk that Is attributable to naturally occurring background flietals.
The incremental cancer RBC Index and the Incremental lifetime cancer risk are equal to the total index or risk minus the background index or risk, respectively.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
The cancer RBC Index Is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the chemical
poses a 10°* risk. An Index of 1.0 Indicates a 1x10°* risk and an Index of 100 Indicates a 1x10" risk.
The noncancer RBC Index is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the hazard
index equals 1.0.
-------
JO22938714
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-001B
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-55
CAOC 2 - Pesticide Storage and Washout Area
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land Use Scenario
Stratum
1
2
3
4
Total*
Cancer
Index"
11.59
38.18
9.08
7.99
Risk
1.2x10«
3.8x10*
9.1x10"
8.0x10*
Noncancer
Index*
0.74
1.02
0.80
0.90
Background"
Cancer
Index
10.48
8.13
8.67
7.84
Risk
1.0x10*
8.1x10°
8.7x10"
7.8x10'
Noncancer
Index
0.72
0.57
0.79
0.88
Incremental
Cancer
Index
1.11
30.05
0.41
0.14
Risk
1.1x10'
3.0x1 0s
4.1x107
1.4x1 (T7
•The total risk-based criteria (RBC) carcinogenic and noncarclnogenlc Indices Include the contribution from naturally occurring background and site-related
activities lor an detected substances In the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
"Portion of the total risk that Is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
The incremental cancer RBC index and the Incremental lifetime cancer riskvre equal to the total Index or risk minus the background Index or risk, respectively.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable foe carcinogenic risk only.
The cancer RBC Index Is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the chemical
poses a 10°* risk. An index of 1.0 Indicates a 1x10"* risk and an Index of 100 Indicates a 1x10 4 risk.
The noncancer RBC Index is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the hazard
index equals 1.0.
-------
JO2293b<
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0016
Print Oat*: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-56
Summary of Soil Sample Data
CAOC 5 Confirmation Study, 1986
(Page 1 of 2)
Location
Northern Portion of CAOC 5 (Stratum 1)
Boring*
B1
B1
B1
B2
B2
B2
B3
B3
B3
B4
B4
B4
B5
B5
B5
B6
B6
B6
B7
B7
B7
Depth
(feet)
2.0
3.5
4.5
2.0
3.5
4.0
1.5
3.5
4.0
1.0
v. 2.5
3.0
2.5
4.5
5.0
1.5
3.0
5.0
1.5
3.5
5.0
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
mg/kg
<2.0
10.7
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
10.1
103.3
39.8
64.3
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
20.1
<2.0
<2.0
DDT
fcg/kg)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
TOX
(mg/kg)
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
8
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
-------
JO229X.
CLE-J02-01F200-B7-0018
PrM Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-56
Summary of Soil Sample Data
CAOC 5 Confirmation Study, 1986
(Page 2 of 2)
Location
Northern Portion of CAOC 5 (Stratum 1)
(continued)
Boring*
B8
BB
B8
B9
B9
B9
BIO
BIO
BIO
B11
B11
B11
B12
B12
B12
B13
B13
B13
B14
B14
B14
B15
B15
B15
Depth
(feet)
2.0
3.0
4.5
2.5
4.0
5.0
1.5
3.0
4.5
1.0
2.5
" 5.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
3.5
4.5
1.0
2.5
4.0
2.5
3.5
5.0
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
mg/kg
<2.0
<2.0
3.2
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
6.1
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<12.1
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
5.5
DDT
fcgftg)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
5.9
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
TOX
(mg/kg)
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
6
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
5.0
<4.0
6.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
50.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
'Boring
m
ilions are shown In Figure 2-27.
ams per kitograrn
ajps per kilogrartv»
-------
C r0293\B70018\293B714W.257
CUE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-57
CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area
Stratum 1 - Northern Portion of CAOC 5
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Analyte
Volatile Organics
2-Butanone
Acetone*
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride"
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
SemivolatRa Organics
bls-(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalateb
Chrysene
di-n-Butylphthalatek
di-n-Octylphthalate"
Dibenzofuran"
Fluoranthene
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene"
Phenol
Pyrene
Depth
Ofn 1 ff
10 w n
U/g/kg)
15J
65J
Depth
3 tn 1*1 ft
ID IO IK
U/g/kg)
11
51
3J
28J
2J
3J
250J
38J
140J
47J
. 6J
97J
59J
120J
25J
60J
Depth
Ralnnu H ft
DBIOW 1 «3 1C
(//g/kg)
30J
50J
100J
Risk-Based Criteria*
U/g/kg)
Cancer
-
-
3,720
14,800
-
-
20,500
39,100
-
-
-
-
58,200
.
-
-
Noncancer
5,140,000
1,370,000
161,000
385,000
278.000
98,800
.
7811000
-
3,190,000
781,000
-
1,560,000
-
-
23,400,000
1,170,000
-------
CT0293\B70O18\293B714W.267
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-57
CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area
Stratum 1 - Northern Portion of CAOC 5
Maximum Organic Concentrations In Soil
(Sheet 2 of 2)
Analyte
PestfddM/PCBs
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4.4'-DDT
alpha-Chlordane
alpha-BHC
Aldrin
Aroclor-1260
delta-BHC
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Endrin Ketone
gamma-BHC (Undane)
gamma-Chlordane
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Methoxychlor
Total Recoverable
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(mg/kg)
TRPH°
Depth
Ofn 1 ft
IV v 11
U/g/kg)
0.71J
0.62J
0.89
2.4J
11.6
Depth
3tn 11 ft
IV 1 w IK
(pg/kg)
.
23J
140
120J
0.42J
0.1 5J
14J
180J
0.3J
29J
14J
1.9J
v 32
v 1.2J
6.5J
14J
0.32J
14J
0.056J
3.7J
•
310
Depth
R*lnw I1? ft
DBItJW 1 0 It
Ovg/kg)
Risk-Based Criteria'
(pg/kg)
Cancer
1,190
839
839
219
45.3
16.8
47.3
158
17.8
-
.
-
.
-
-
219
219
63.4
-
18,300
-
Noncancer
_b
-
19,500
2,340
-
1,170
.
*
1,950
1,950
1,950
1,950
11,700
11,700
11,700
11,700
2,340
19,500
-
195,000
-
-
Note: Blank spaces Indicate that the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicologlcal data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10'*,
and a target noncarcinogenic hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil, and
Inhalation of particulate-bound substances.
'Indicates not applicable.
"No toxicfty data available.
-------
110293VB70018 \293B714W.268
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-58
CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area
Stratum 1 - Northern Portion of CAOC 5
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Analyte
Metals Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium'
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron-
Lead
Magnesium'
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium4
Sodium"
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
Oto3ft
(mg/kg)
8470J
5.06J
82.7
0.45J
57.1J
122,000
14.1
4.6J
6.4
12,300
12.6J
4.940J
181J
0.123
7.1J
2,430
1,350
82.1
55.3
23.7
Depth
3 to 13ft
(mg/kg)
7.700J
4.5
109J
0.67J
46.9J
2.6J
1 1 2.000J
25.1
6.2J
22.3
1.8
13.500J
47.9J
4,590
354J
0.229
1.6J
9.7
2,590
61 7J
143J
0.29J
24.1
37.1
Depth
Below 13 ft
(mg/kg)
5.470J
2.6J
50.9
0.28J
38.8
13,300
17.6
3.8J
8.0
13.900J
4.04J
3,470J
180
7.1
1,260
272J
48.3
31.5
24.3
Estimated 95th
Percentfle of
Background^
(mg/kg)
22,434.28
10.43
205.97
1.16
48.51
1.28
27,311.43
33.15
44.87
45.78
0.38
38,831.88
17.82
13,347.76
695.88
0.05
13.82
42.75
11,501.42
455.42
167.97
0.40
84.14
79.68
Risk-Based Criteria*
(mg/kg)
Cancer
_o
0.310
.
0.129
-
27.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
.
.
-
Noncancer
71,100
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
35.6
-
71,100
4.540
2,630
1,420
.
500
136
21.0
354
1,420
.
42,700
4.98
498
21,300
Note: Blank spaces indicate that the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxlcological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10',
and a target noncardnogenic hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered Include soil Ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil, and
inhalation of particulate-bound substances.
'Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soils data. Reference: Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023, Draft Final, March
1996 (SWDIV, 1995).
•Indicates not applicable.
"No toxldty data available.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
-------
v, 10293VB70018V293B714W.269
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-59
CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area
Stratum 2 - Northern Half of Lot 352
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Anatyte
Volatile Organic*
Acetone*
Chlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride"
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Semivolatne Organic*
bis(2-
EthylhexyDphthalate*
di-n-Butylphthalatek
di-n-Octylphthalate*
Pyrene
Pesticldea/PCBs
Aldrln
Aroclor 1 260
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan 1
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
TPH Diesel* (mo/ka)
Total Recoverable
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TRPH' (mg/kg)
Depth
Oto3ft
(pg/kg)
3J
21J
11J
3J
71 OJ
68J
Depth
3 to 13 ft
0/g/kg)
6J
15J
13
115J
87J
34J
0.2J
42
0.46J
0.74J
0.17J .
0.41 J
0.43J
930
Depth
Below 13 ft
U/g/kg)
17J
11
25J
270J
60J
30J
47J
Risk-Based Criteria*
(j/g/kg)
Cancer
_o
14,800
9,670
20,400
16.8
47.3
839
17.8
219
63.4
.
Noncencer
1,370,000
82,600
385,000
42,600
278,000
780,000
3,900,000
780,000
1,170,000
1,170
19,500
1,950
1,950
11,700
19,500
.
Note: Blank spaces indicate that the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxlcoioojcal data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10"', and
a target noncardnogenic hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestlon, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil, and inhalation
of participate- bound substances.
•"Detections attributed to laboratory contamination.
indicates not applicable.
"No toxldty data available.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
ftg • Micrograms pter kilogram.
-------
.293\B70018V293B714W.260
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-U,18
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-60
CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area
Stratum 2 - Northern Half of Lot 352
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations In Soil
Anolyte
Metals Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Calcium'
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron'
Lead
Magnesium'
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium'
Sodium'
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
0 to 3 ft
(mg/kg)
6160J
3.0
67.0J
0.32J
41. 9J
12.600J
11. OJ
4.0J
24.4
12,800
17.2
3,260
21 2J
0.285
6.2J
1,960
220J
54.5
0.32J
27.5
39.5
Depth
3 to 13ft
(mg/kg)
5680J
7.3J
369J
0.3 1J
45.3J
14,OOOJ
12.4J
6.0J
23.1
11.748J.
7.7J
3.180J
218J
,
5.7J
1,650
209J
95
0.25J
25.0
29.1
Depth
Below 13 ft
(mg/kg)
4790J
2.7
55.7J
0.26J
41.7J
12.700J
52.5J
4.5J
7.2
12.600J
4.5
3,01 OJ
189J
5.3J
1,290
327J
67.2
25.2
17.2
Estimated 95th
Percentite of
Background6
(mg/kg)
22,434.28
10.43
205.97
1.16
48.51
27,311.43
33.15
44.87
45.78
38,831.88
17.82
13,347.76
695.88
0.05
42.76
11,501.42
455.42
167.97
0.40
84.14
79.68
Risk-Based Criteria*
(mg/kg)
Cancer
_0
0.31
-
0.129
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
.
.
-
Noncancer
71,100
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
-
71,100
4,540
2,630
-
500
-
136
21
1,420
-
-
42,700
4.98
498
21,300
Note: Blank spaces Indicate that the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxlcologlcal data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10",
and a target noncardnogenlc hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered Include soil ingestion, dermal contact, Inhalation of volatiles from soil, and
Inhalation of particulate-bound substances.
bCalculated from MCLB Barstow background soils data, Reference: Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023, Draft Final, March
1995(SWDIV, 1995).
•Indicates not applicable.
"No toxldty data available.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
-------
t, i O293VB70018V293B714W.261
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-OO18
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2*61
CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area
Stratum 3 • Southern Half of Lot 352
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Anafyte
Volatile Organic*
Methylene Chloride'
Swnhrolatile Organic*
Diethytphthalate*
di-n-Butylphthalate*
Pestiddes/PCBs
4,4'-DDT
Total Recoverable
Petroleum nyorocarDons
TRPH (mg/kg)«
Depth
0 to 3 ft
U/g/kg)
30J
0.35J
12.0
Depth
3 to 13 ft
U/g/kg)
14J
260J
550
Depth
Below 13 ft
(pg/kg)
6J
56J
Risk-Based Criteria"
(pg/kg)
Cancer
14,800
839
Noncencer
385,000
31,200,000
3.900,000
19,500
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. EPA toxicological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10"*, and a target noncardnogenlc hazard
Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered Include soil ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatile* from soli, and inhalation of particulate-bound
substances.
"Detections attributed to laboratory contamination.
'No toxidty data available.
-------
I. O293\B70018V293B714W.262
CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-62
CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area
Stratum 3 - Southern Half of Lot 352
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Analyte
Metals Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Calcium4
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron4
Lead
Magnesium4
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium"
Sodium4
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
0 to 3 ft
(mg/kg)
801 OJ
4.87J
100
0.40J
53. U
21,300
10.8J
6.4J
12.1
15,200
5.4
4.720J
243
0.334
10.7
1,950
731J
67.4
35.0
26.6
Depth
3 to 13ft
(mg/kg)
6.980J
5.0J
61.6
0.41J
45.6J
12,100
10.0
6.0J
10.2
13,600
10.8
3,590J
182
0.125
7.4J
1,590
530J
57.1
31.5
26.8
Depth
Below 13 ft
(mg/kg)
4.940J
5.0J
71. 2J
0.28J
32.8
14,200
11. 5J
3.8J
7.4
11,OOOJ
5.43J
3,020J
180
0.104
7.3J
1,370
226J
50.4
23.3
19.0
Estimated 95th
Percentfle of
Background1*
(mg/kg)
22,434.28
10.43
205.97
1.16
48.51
27,311.43
33.15
44.87
45.78
38,831.88
17.82
13,347.76
695.88
0.05
42.75
11,501.42
455.42
167.97
84.14
79.68
Risk-Based Criteria*
(mg/kg)
Cancer
_0
0.310
-
0.129
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
Noncancer
71,100
21.3
1,540
356
5,970
-
71,100
4.540
2,630
-
500
-
136
21.0
1,420
-
-
42,700
498
21,300
"Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soils data. Reference: Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023, Draft Final, March
1995ISWDIV, 1995).
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10"',
and a target noncardnogenfc hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestion. dermal contact. Inhalation of votatiles from soil, and
Inhalation of particufate-bound substances.
"No toxfefty data available.
'Indicates not applicable.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
-------
JO22938714
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-63
CAOC 5 - Chemical Storage Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential Land Use Scenario
Stratum
1
2
3
Total*
Cancer
Index4
29.75
26.97
19.29
Risk
3.0x108
2.7x10*
1.9x10'
Noncancer
Index*
3.38
2.51
2.29
Background6
Cancer
Index
22.85
26.02
19.29
Risk
2.3x1 0s
2.6x10'
1.9x10'
Noncancer
Index
3.35
2.51
2.29
Incremental4
Cancer
Index
6.89
0.95
<0.01
Risk
7.0x10*
1.0x10*
<1x108
The total risk-based criteria (RBC) carcinogenic and noncarcinogenlc indices include the contribution from naturally occurring background and site-related
activities for all detected substances In the soil from 0 to 13 feet.
"Portion of the total risk that Is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
The Incremental cancer RBC Index and the Incremental lifetime cancer risk are equal to the total index or risk minus the background Index or risk, respectively.
This represents the site-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
The cancer RBC Index Is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average}concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the chemical
poses a 10* risk. An Index of 1.0 Indicates a 1x10* risk and an index of 100 indicates a IxlO4 risk.
The noncancer RBC index is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the hazard
index equals 1.0.
-------
JO22938714
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-64
CAOC 5 • Chemical Storage Area
Human Health Risk Results
Industrial Land Use Scenario
Stratum
1
2
3
Total'
Cancer
Index"
5.63
4.38
3.05
Risk
5.6x10*
4.4x10*
3.0x10"
Noncancer
Index*
0.43
0.31
0.30
Background6
Cancer
Index
3.64
4.13
3.05
Risk
3.6x10*
4.1x10*
3.0x10*
Noncancer
Index
0.43
0.31
0.30
Incremental6
Cancer
Index
2.0
0.25
<0.01
Risk
2x10*
2.5x1 07
<1.0x10*
The total risk-based criteria (RBC) carcinogenic and noncarclnogenlc Indices Include the contribution from naturally occurring background and site-related
activities (or alt detected substances In the soil from 0 to 13 (eel.
••Portion of the total risk that Is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
The Incremental cancer RBC Index and the Incremental lifetime cancer risk are equal to the total Index or risk minus the background Index or risk, respectively.
This represents the she-related risk. Applicable for carcinogenic risk only. **
The cancer RBC Index Is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the chemical
poses a 10* risk. An Index of 1.0 Indicates a 1x10* risk and an Index of 100 Indicates a IxlO4 risk.
The noncancer RBC Index Is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the hazard
index equals 1.0.
-------
CTO293\B70018\293B714W.265
CLE-JO2-O1F293-B7-OO18
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-65
Summary of Analytical Results for Soil Samples
CAOC 9 Confirmation Study, 1985
Boring*
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
Depth
(feet)
12
20
29
36
39
43
9
.15
30
35
43
49
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
(mg/kg)
<2.0
<2.0
8.8
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
DDT
0/g/kg)
<1.0
3.5
<1.0
<1.0
4.4
<1.0
<1.0
3.5
<1.0
<1.0
4.4
<1.0
TOX
(mg/kg)
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
<4.0
32.1
<4.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
2.8
2.8
•Boring locations are shown in Figure 2-30.
//g/kg - micrograms per kilogram
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Source: (WESTDIV. 1985).
-------
JO2293B714
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-66
CAOC 9 - Fuel Disposal Area
Stratum 1 - Entire CAOC
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
Analyte
Volatile Organlcs
Acetone"
Cartoon Dlsulflde
Methylene Chloride"
Semlvolatlle Organlcs
Bls-(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalateb
Pestlcldes/PCBs
4.4--DDE
4.4--DDT
AroclOf-1248
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(mg/kg)
TRPrf"
TPH-Qasollned
Depth
0 to 3 feet
tofl/kg)
22.8J
15J
255J
2.5J
3.7J
280J
9.2
Depth
3 to 13 feet
fcg/kg)
18.5J
10.2J
28J
1.8J
3.0J
^
83.2J
6.0
Depth
Below 13 feet
fc9/kg)
30.2J
30J
19J
98.0J
5.7
Risk-Base
foa
Cancer
.0
14,800
20,400
839
839
47.3
-
td Criteria*
/kg)
Noncancer
1.370,000
34,600
385,000
780,000
19,500
-
NOTE: Blank spaces Indicate that the analyle was not detected.
'Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lexicological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10 *, and a
target noncarclnogenlc hazard Index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil Ingestlon, dermal contact. Inhalation of volatiles from soil, and Inhalation of
parttoulate-bound substances.
''Detections likely attributable to laboratory contamination.
'Indicates not applicable.
"No loxtelty data available.
ug/kg - Micrograms per kilogram
-------
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0018
PrMOata: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-67
CAOC 9 - Fuel Disposal Area
Stratum 1 • Entire CAOC
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
Analyte
Metals Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Calcium"
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
lrond
Lead
Magnesium"
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium*
Selenium
Sodium"
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
0 to 3 feet
(mg/kg)
5.820J
3.0J
99.6
0.43J
5.09
20,800
30.4J
9.9J
56.8J
25.000J
70.2J
4.420J
298J
17.6
170,000
0.10J
343J
132J
0.12J
29.5
114J
Depth
3 to 13 feet
(mg/kg)
5.700J
2.5J
76.0
0.38J
33.8J
33.400J
28.6J
8.3J
27.5J
16.600J
47.5J
3,240
234J
12.2
1,620
223J
104J
28.2J
78.7J
Depth
Below 13 feet
(mg/kg)
8.230J
2.7J
132
0.74J
29.7
19,100
21. U
12.4
33.8
16.900J
27.7J
6.460J
31 OJ
- 18.3
2,880
0.10J
340J
75. U
34.9J
45.3J
Estimated 95th
Percentlle of
Background6
(mg/kg)
22,434.28
10.43
205.99
1.16
48.51
27,316.43
33.15
44.87
45.78
38.831.88
17.82
13.347.76
695.88
42.75
11,501.42
0.41
455.42
167.97
0.40
84.14
79.68
Risk-Base
(mo
Cancer
_e
0.310
-
0.129
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
.
-
-
d Criteria*
/kg)
Noncancer
71,100
21.3
1,540
356
5.970
-
71,000
4.540
2.630
500
-
136
1.420
.
356
.
42.700
4.98
498
21.300
NOTE: Blank spaces Indicate that (he analyle was not detected.
•Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soils data. Reference: Background Soils Investigation. Technical Memorandum 0023, Draft Final. March 1995.
(SWDIV, 19958).
"Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicologies! data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk ol 10'. and a
target noncarclnogenlc hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered Include soil Ingestion, dermal contact. Inhalation of volaliles from soil, and Inhalation of
particulaie-bound substances.
'Indicates not applicable.
'No toxtelty data available.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
-------
JO2293B714
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-€8
CAOC 9 - Fuel Disposal Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential
Land Use
Scenario
Industrial
Land Use
Scenario
Total-
Cancer
Index"
13.01
Risk
1.3x108
Noncancer
Index*
2.72
Total-
Cancer
Index"
2.04
Risk
2.0x10*
Noncancer
Index0
0.31
Background"
Cancer
Index
13.00
Risk
1.3x108
Noncancer
Index*
2.72
Background"
Cancer
Index
2.04
Risk
2.0x10'
Noncancer
Index*
0.31
Incremental"
Cancer
Index
0.01
Risk
1.0x10-"
Incremental0
Cancer
Index
<0.01
Risk
<1.0x10*
'The total risk-based criteria (RBC) carcinogenic and noncardnogenlc indices include the contribution from naturally occurring background and site-related
activities for all detected substances In the soil from 0 to 13 feet. «.
"Portion of the total risk that is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
The Incremental cancer RBC Index and the Incremental lifetime cancer risk are equal to the total index or risk minus the background index or risk, respectively;
this represents the site-related risk and is applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
The cancer RBC Index Is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the chemical
poses a 10"* risk. An index of 1.0 Indicates a 1x10** risk and an Index of 100 Indicates a 1x10^ risk.
The noncancer RBC Index Is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the hazard
Index equals 1.0.
-------
JO2293BTM
cUMOMnnaMr.011
UBL£Z-W
Summary of Sol Sampla Data
CAOC11 - CunflHMflon Study. 18M
(Sheatloiz)
a«2*
LOCflOOn^
B-t
B-t
B-1
B-2
B-Z
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-3
B-3
B-3
B-3
B-3
B-4
B-«
B-4
B-4
B-4
T-l
T-1
T-1
T-2
T-2
--2
"•3
T-3
T-3
T-4
Dapttl
((MO
12
19
24
e
16
24
31
39
44
1
17
22
32
43
3
9
24
26
49
1
5
10
2
4
12
Surtae*
6
14
1
Ajitknofl1
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
AnWlfc
14
0.86
1J
1.7
4.6
NO
NO
3.5
4
1.5
1.9
NO
NO
4.2
Barium
33
14
110
90
91
18
22
58
61
30
79
25
20
5»
BanrMtm
NO
NO
NO
NO
09
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
3.3
02
)2
_«. ._
CXMM
NO
NO
NO
NO
02
NO
NO
02
02
NO
0.1
0.1
NO
NO
Chromium
54
3.1
24
4J
84
3.6
4.1
8
3
3.1
39
2.5
3
6.7
Court
NO
NO
NO
NO
8J
4.4
4.9
6.5
5.7
3.8
6.1
2.9
3.5
54
Copper
120
24
21
65
17
6J
7.3
11
7.1
4.9
8.1
44
5.3
7,4
LM*
NO
NO
NO
NO
14
6
8
24
16
3
15
4
3
34
Chai
Mercury
NO
NO
NO
NO
0.01
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
0.01
NO
NO
NO
•leal and Gone
MoMxkmira
NO
NO
• NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
tntntfo
McM
73
NO
ND
6.5
15
5.6
4.5
9.4
6.9
4J
7.6
3.5
5.1
66
itmD/kgJT
SrtMhim
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
Sfew
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
MO
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
Thankim
NO
ND
ND
NO
2
NO
ND
4
4
2
4
2
ND
3
Vniadhm
NO
NO
NO
NO
26
12
12
17
12
11
14
9
10
17
one
52
21
14
41
30
11
12
26
19
1.7
29
7.8
9.'
??
BTU
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
i
I
foifltJdM
andPfBt
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
•o
TaMMMaiM
Hydrocarbon*
NO-
NO
9.1
NO
3
NO
NO
53.9
NO
DOT
NO
NO
NO
ND
0.0113
9.003
0.0047
04044
0.0154
•
Total Organ*
HaMa»
Na>
NO)
2*
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
tart Mr » U*i 1997
TABLE 3-69
Summary of Soft Samplo Date
CAOC11 - ConOrmatkm Study, 19K
-------
JO229387U
Anal
Volatile Organic*
Acetone6
Methytene Chloride'
Semlvolatlte Organlcs
Acenaphthene
Benzo(a)anlhracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Bls(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalatee
Butylbenzylphthalatec
Chrysene
DI-n-Butylphthalatec
Fluoranthene
n-Nitrosodlphenylamlne
Phenanthrene'
Pyrene
Pertlcit
4,4'-DDD
4.4'-DDE
4,4'-ODT
Alpha-BHC*
Jpha-chtofdane
TABLE 2-70
CAOC 11 • Fuel Burn Area
Stratum 1 - Entire CAOC
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Depth
0 to 3 ft
Depth
3 to 13 ft
0.74J
Depth
Below 13 ft
Estimated 95 Percent Upper
Confidence Limit of the
Mean*
11J
58J
62J
91J
180J
18J
69J
100J
43J
8J
110J
12J
40J
8J
14J
0.43J
0.59J
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0016
Print Date: 28 May 1997
Risk-Based Criteria*
Cancer | Noncancer
1.370.000
J4800 I 385,000
-
391
39.1
391
20.400
-
39.100
-
-
13.0
-
35,900
w
w
—
780.000
7.800,000
.
3,900,000
1,560,000
-
1,170.000
219
1.950
-------
JO229387H
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-70
CAOC 11 - Fuel Burn Area
Stratum 1 - Entire CAOC
Maximum Organic Concentrations in Soil
(Sheet 2 of 2)
Analyte
Pesticldes/PCBs (Continued)
Oieldrin
Endosulfan II
Endrln
Gamma-chlordane
Heptachlor epoxlde
Methoxychlor
Depth
0 to 3 ft
(ug/kg)
Depth
3 to 13 ft
(ugftg)
Depth
Below 13 ft
(pg/kg)
100
0.25J
1.1J
7.3
0.62J
5.8J
5.3
0.61J
0.78J
0.78J
0.037J
0.35J
Estimated 95 Percent Upper
Confidence Limit of the
Mean"
(Mg/kg)
Risk-Based Criteria*
(ug/kg)
Cancer | Noncancer
63.63
2.36
1.86
3.37
1.11
27.26
17.8
-
-
219
31.3
18,300
1,950
1,950
11,700
2,340
507
195.000
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
TPH-Dlesel (mo/kg)1
35
9.7
» 21J
.
.
Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbon
TRPH (mg/kg)'
790J
23.3
-
-
Note: Blank spaces Indicate that the anatyte was not detected.
'Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lexicological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10 *, and a
target noncarcinogenic hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered include soil ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of volatiles from soil, and inhalation of
paniculate-bound substances.
'Values are based on concentrations detected In the first 13 feet, and the 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean is calculated only for those constituents
analyzed during the Phase II Investigation (i.e., five samples).
'Detections attributed to laboratory contamination.
"Indicates not applicable.
*J - The concentration was estimated due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
'No toxiciry data available.
ug/kg - Mircrograms per kilogram.
-------
JO22938714
Anal'
I Metals. Total
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium*
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron'
Lead
Magnesium*
Manganese
Mercury
bdenum
Depth
0 to 3 ft
TABLE 2-71
CAOC11 - Fuel Bum Area
Stratum 1 - Entire CAOC
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Estimated 95th
Percentlle of
Background"
Depth
3 to 13 ft
(moTkg)
10.100J
2.61
105
0.73J
25.7J
7.050
14.5
7.4J
12.3J
I7.600J
8.5
4,980
328
0.93J
Depth
Below 13 ft
{mg/kg}
4.9 10J
2.91
132J
0.50J
4.0J
0.88J
3.890
30.4
7.5J
23.7
3.5
14.100J
5.68J
3.180
296
5.4J
CLE-J02-01F2SO-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
Risk-Based Criteria*
Cancer
Non-cancer
500
-------
JO229387M
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-71
CAOC11 - Fuel Bum Area
Stratum 1 - Entire CAOC
Maximum Inorganic Concentrations in Soil
(Sheet 2 of 2)
Analyte
Metals, Total
Nickel
Potassium"
Selenium
Silver
Sodium"
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
Depth
0 to 3ft
(mgflcg)
13.0
2.470
0.66J
1AT
1,080
92.4
31.5
68.1
Depth
3 to 13 n
(mgflcg)
Depth
Below 13 ft
(mgflcg)
9.6
2,610
1.0J
3,260
. 56.3
32.0
28.7
12.5
1,560
1,150
34.4J
28.1
19.1
Estimated 95th
Percentlle of
Background6
(mg/kg)
42.75
11.501.42
0.41
0.34
455.42
167.97
84.14
79.68
Risk-Based Criteria*
(mgflcg)
Cancer
-
-
-
^c
:
-
-
Non-cancer
1,420
-
356
356
42.700
498
21.300
Note: Blank spaces Indicate that the analyte was not detected.
•Risk-based criteria are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lexicological data, a residential exposure scenario, a target cancer risk of 10'*, and a
target noncarclnogenic hazard index of 1.0. Exposure routes considered Include soil ingestton. dermal contact. Inhalation of volatites from soil, and inhalation of
particulate-bound substances.
Calculated from MCLB Barstow background soils data; reference. Background Soils Investigation, Technical Memorandum 0023, Draft Final. March 1995.
Navy.
'Indicates not applicable.
"No toxteity data available.
The concentration was estimated due to being lower than the lowest standard or due to interference.
ug/kg • Micrograms per kilogram.
-------
JO2293B7H
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-72
CAOC11 - Fuel Burn Area
Groundwater Analytical Results
WELL NS11-1
Analyte
Total Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
Pesticides/PCBs
Heptachlor Epoxide
Volatlles
Acetone"
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Methylene Chloride"
MCL'
Cal-EPA
(M9/I)
-
1,000
50
1,000
.01
MCL"
USEPA
(119/1)
50
2,000
.2
100
5
Result*
OiO/l)
131J
4.6J
20.5J
925
48,100
161J
7,040
27.4
18.5J
227,000
426
51. 7J
0.0028J
4J
0.2J
0.3J
0.2J
•Groundwater Maximum Contaminant Levels - California Environmental Protection Agency.
kGroundwater Maximum Contaminant Levels - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
M indicates that the concentration is estimated.
"Detection contributed to laboratory contamination.
POrfUMterograms per liter.
-------
CLE-J02-01F260-B7-0018
Print Data: 28 May 1997
TABLE 2-73
CAOC11 - Fuel Burn Area
Human Health Risk Results
Residential
Land Use
Scenario
Industrial
Land Use
Scenario
Total-
Cancer
Index"
28.84
Risk
2.9x10'
Noncancer
Index*
3.37
Total*
Cancer
Index"
4.80
Risk
4.8x10*
Noncancer
Index*
0.44
Background"
Cancer
Index
19.24
Risk
1.9x10*
Noncancer
Index*
2.99
Background"
Cancer
Index
3.04 I
Risk
3.0x10"
Noncancer
Index*
0.41
Incremental6
Cancer
Index
5.60
Risk
5.6x10*
Incremental*
Cancer
Index
1.76
Risk
1.8x108
•The total risk-based criteria (RBC) carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic Indices Include the contribution from naturally occurring background and site-related
activities for all detected substances In the sod from 0 to 13 feet.
"Portion of the total risk that Is attributable to naturally occurring background metals.
The Incremental cancer RBC Index and the incremental lifetime cancer risk are equal to the total Index or risk minus the background index or risk, respectively;
(his represents the site-related risk and Is applicable for carcinogenic risk only.
The cancer RBC Index is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the chemical
poses a 10°* risk. An Index of 1.0 Indicates a 1x10°* risk and an Index of 100 Indicates a 1x104 risk.
The noncancer RBC index Is the sum of the ratios of the maximum (or average) concentration of a detected chemical to the concentration at which the hazard
index equals 1.0.
-------
FIGURES
-------
|M«rine Coip*
Logistic. Bu«
1 »• -J* ,• ,t S i i>> V ! T;^:
S*VA-** ,f'.,<^
Marine Corps Logistics Base
- . ... I Jf——^
4.-..- ---•— TiSswR
Manne Corps Logistics Base
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.
Pasadena, California
Marine Corps Logistics Base
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
Barstow, California
MCLB Barstow Is located east of the City of Barstow in the central Mojave Desert In
San Bernardino County. California
MCLB Barstow
Vicinity Map
DRAWING NO.
1152NF293-40.CDR
MADE FROM
969A/F298-106.CDR
Source: U.S.Q.S. 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangles; Daggett. CA1971; Minneola, CA
1971; Nebo, CA Photorevised 1971; Yermo. CA Photorevlsed 1970.
-------
- *ii« mm onrawi
JACOBS ENGINEERING CROUP INC
MSMOU. CALIfOMNM
Operoble Unit 3
CAOC Locotions
Yermo Annex
•MO-01TWV17-OOW
-------
K
i
LEGEND
— - M»O *OIO M MKA
WUMIOICD ROW
L_ vr. WIDCC
ODAHUCC M1QI
MWOttT
O=
A --™u»»l»It UKATKM OF US COASt
A AM cracnc MKT
"^ WMUWNT 100-
OU4 CAOC
ffiH OUtCAOC.
J - tJTicme douce msiour AQA
s - OCMICAI route ««A
f - ntL tHfOUL AHA
II - IVO. MM ««A
sauKC; cc«»i»(On or BC MAOT
•ww can uKWia
JACOBS ENGINEERING CROUP INC
PASAMNA. CALIFORNIA '
UARINC CORPS IDCISTICS BASE
BorllM. CaMcm.o
Operoble Unit 4
CAOC Locotions
Nebo Main Base
-------
RADIOLOGICAL WASTE WELL
STRATUM 1
CAOC aouMOMrr
STRATUM BOUNOMW
NONMOnUKICM. DISPOSAL OtU.
MCTALUC SKW
CONCRETE PAD
OCCTROM.
VMJlf
fffUHC
LMC (OXCTMEW)
LOCATION Of WkTER UN£
RAIROO TRACKS
DISPOSAL WELLS AND
INTERVENING AREA
STRATUM 2
NORTHERN PORTION OF
CAOC 20
STRATUM 3
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
PASAOCNA,
VARINt CORPS IOCISTICS IASC
tM. CXIIoml.
CAOC 20 - Second Hozordous and
Low-Level RadioloQicol Area
Site Plan
-------
RADIOLOGICAL WASTE WELL
STRATUM 1
CAOC aouHCiurr
STRATUM KKMUfflT
• RAJUHOAO TWOS
SURFACE
SOi. SAMPl£ UJOkTHM
NORTHERN PORTION
OF CAOC 20
STRATUM 3
DISPOSAL WELLS AND
INTERVENING AREA
STRATUM 2
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
PASADCN*. CAliroBHl*
HARWE COM LWIST1CS 8ASC
CAOC 20
Second Hozordous and
Low-Lev* Radiological Area
Soil .'ample Locations
-------
EXTENT OF DISPOSAL WELLS
AND INTERVENING ARE>
STRATUM 2
\
N
i
LEGEND
""] STRATUM 2
• RAILROAD TRACKS
PROPOSED MONITORING WELL LOCATION
NCUTRCN ACCESS HOU LOCATION
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP !NC
PAS^OCNA.
CORPS LOGISTICS
Bviln. tMlamta
CACC 20
Grading Plan
Alternative 2
-------
ARMOR lAVO
EXTENT OF DISPOSAL WELLS
AND INTERVENING AREA%
STRATUM 2 ^
\
LEGEND
/
©
NEW GRADING AREA
STRATUM 2
RAILROAD TRACKS
FENCE
• CONCRETE LINED DRAINAGE CHANNEL
FINAL COVER CONTOUR
STORMWATER DISCHARGE OUT WELL
FINAL SLOPE
FINAL LIMIT OF EARTHWORK
pe-0-jSEO MONITORING WELL LOCATION
NEUTRON ACCESS HOLE LOCATION
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
PASADENA. CALIFORMI*
UARII
CORPS LOGISTICS 0AJC
Barttam. Ui'omii
CAOC 20
Grading Plan
Alternative 3A
-------
CONCRETE LINED
DRAINAGE CHANNEL
EXTENT OF DISPOSAL WELLS
AND INTERVENING AREAv
STRATUM 2
NEW GRACING AREA
} STRATUM I
RAILROAD TRACKS
•«— raa
— CONCRETE LIMED DRAINAGE CHANNEL
—<337Jt>— HNAL COVER CONTOUR
• STORUMTER DISCHARGE DRY HCLL
0
®
FINAL 3LOPC
FINAL LIMIT Of I
PROPOSED UONITORINC WELL LOCATION
NEUTRON ACCESS HOLE LOCATION
[ IB
MS
JACOBS ENGINEERING CROUP INC
PlSAOtNA. CALIFORNIA
UMINC CORPS LOGISTICS «»St
Smto.. Cditvnii
CAOC 20
Grading Plan
Alternative 38
-------
-N 500000
NORTHEASTERN AREA
GENERAL STORAGE
STRATUM 1
I
LEGEND
CAOC BOUNDARY
STRATUM BOUNDARY
PHASE I SHALLOW DEPTH
MONirORMC WELL
PHASE I MTERMEDUTE DEPTH
MONITORMC WELL
PHASE 0 SHALLOW DEPTH
MONITORHC WELL
RA1ROAD TRACKS
FENCE
PHASE I SOI.
60RMC LOCATION
PHASE II SURFACE
SOI. SAMPLE LOCATIONS
DEBRIS PIT IDENTIFIED IN
1973 AND It78 AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHS
MICROCKAM PER KILOGRAM
MOlt SMA1XOW KP1H MONITODMC "tLLS U*.
soKtico TO 13 rtrr «u» THE VATER
TABU. INTERMEDIATE DEPTH MONITORING
KCOS ARC SOSCNCD 5O-W FEET 9aOW
WAIEM TABLE.
^ YStt-J
ED YS2J-6
-------
-N soaooo
POTENTIAL
WASTE BURIAL
STRATUM 5
!
LEGEND
•VJ
• rsw-j
CAOC BOUNOARr
STRATUM BOUNDARY
OnNFWMATION STUDY
SOL VAPOR «EU
PHASE I SHALLOW DCPTH
MONTTORMC WELL
PHASE I MTERMEDIATE DEPTH
YDW-3
1M23O1 •
PHASE D SHALLOW DEPTH
MONTTORWC WELL
BASE PRODUCTION WELL
RALROAD TRACKS
PHASE • SOL
LOCATIOH
PHASE 0 SURFACE
SOL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
LOCATION OF
SLANT
rullO* >
NOTE: SHALLOW DEPTH MONITORING "EOS ARE
SCREEICD TO U FEET BELOW THt WATM
TABLE. INTERMEDIATE DEPTH MONITORING
«LLS vHt SCREENED 3O-«0 FEET BELOW
WATER TABLE.
SCALE IN FEET
SCALE: r-100'
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
PASAPENA, CALirpPNIA
CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
Borito>». Caittanaa
CAOC 23 - Londfill Areo
Soil Boring ond
Monitoring Well Locations
-------
CAOC BOUNDARY
STRATUM BOUNDARY
PHASE I SHALLOW OtPTH
MONTTORMC WELL
PHASE I MTERMEOtMt DEPTH
MONITORMC OKU.
RA&ROM TRACKS
FENCE
PHASE I SOI.
BORM6 LOCATION
PHASE D SURFACE
SOL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
PROPOSED LANOFU.
CAS PROBES
NORTHEASTERN AREA
GENERAL STORAGE
STRATUM i
PROPOSED NEUTRON
ACCESS PROBE
BURIED METAL DEBRIS.
ANOMALY FROM GEOPHYSICS
suRvcr
DEBRIS PIT IDENTIFIED IN
1973 AND 1978 AERIAl
PHOTOGRAPHS
UICROCRAM PER KILOGRAM
NOTfc SHAU.OW DOHM • •ilTORIHC W€U.S
SCRRNCO TO 1} .- saow ix WATEK
TABLE. IHTERMOl.t OCPTM MCNITORINC
•ELLS MS SCREENED 50-80 rt£T BELOW
WATER TAtLL
POTENTIAL
WASTE 3URIAL
STRATUM 5
JACOBS ENGINEERING CROUP INC
PASADENA.
CORPS LOEISTICS BASE
. C*i(orr.lo
CAOC 23 - Londfill Areo
Areas Addressed by
Remedial Action Alternatives
-------
NORTHEASTERN AREA
GENERAL STORAGE
STRATUM 1
-Jtt-J .
TRENCH LOCATIONS
— — — — STRATUM BOUNOART
RALROAD TRACKS
SEE DETAIL "A
•- flNCt
AREA or CAP
BURN osctxoRAnoM AREA
PROPOSED LANOnu.
CAS PROSES
PROPOSED NEUTRON ACCESS PROBE
(ONLT APPLICABLE FOR JPTION 1)
GENERAL STORAGE
PHASE SOL BORING LOCAfCN
POTENTIAL
WASTE BURIAL
STRATUM 5
MANAGEMENT AREA
PHASE n SURfACE
SOL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
PASADENA. CAlirOMNIA
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS 8»St
Borilo.. MOonti*
CAOC 23 - Londfill Areo
Cop Plon
For Alternatives 3 and 4
-------
?
HEIGHT
EXISTING SU
1975
1970
1965
" ' 19SO
r
' r
/ 1 /
v /
* r
s
ABOVE /" *(IM01' LATW HEIGHT ABC
KFACt. Fttl / EXISTING SURFM
~i MATCH EXISTING / —
_| GRADE y l« MIN_
~ ^EXISTING SURFACE V*3fe\^ ~
^-^ ' IMPORT GENERAL f
/A\ SECTION
Vlx
p^=j^l=il^^^«M
0 100 20B ftCT
VCKTICM SCAiC
o a «nn
LEGEND
nc
I. FEET
1975
1970
196J
1960
ILL
PRUW5EI1 LANOTILL CAP
I
TRENCH LOCATIONS STRATUM J
1AJLOOAO TRACKS
- :. - EM5TMG HATER LINE
--- CONCRCTE-LMED DMAVMCC OWMEL
- -
-------
MtlCMT ABOVE
EXISTING SURFACE. FEET
1973
:£
V
MATCH EXISTING
GRADE
- OENSirr OR 1ECOMPACT
WASTE SU8CPA9E BEFORE
PLACING CONCRETE PAVEMEN
IX HIN.
EXISTING SURFACE
ADDITIONAL GCOMEMBRANE
BARRIER LAID* FOR
ALTERNATIVE 4. OPTION ) ONLT
HEIGHT AM*
EXISTING SURFACE. FEET
ttn
CONCRETE PAVEMENT JI970
INS
I960
SECTION
- IMPORT GENERAL FIU.
LEGEND
E
19M*
PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMEHT
TRBCH LOCAHONS STRATUM 2
RAUKM) TRACKS
FENCE
EXISTING "ATE* UNE
CONCRETE-LWEO ORAMDCC CHMML
RELOCATED WTOi UNE
FMM. COVER CONTOUR
(HEICNT ABOVE EXISTING
SURFAtt)
BURN DISCOLORATION AREA
FINAL COVER SLC' I
FINAL COVER LIMIT
ADJUSTED
TO MATCH FIELD
OBSERVATIONS
SCALE IN FEET
JACOfcS -INGINCERING CROUP INC
PASADENA. CALIFORNIA
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS SASt
?ortlo«. CdMbm«
CAOC 23 - landfill Area
Grading Plan
Alternative J - Option 2
Alternative 4 - Option 3
-------
HCICHT ABOVE
EXISTING SURFACE, FEET
4:1 S.OPC AMUNO
PCRIMC1EK (TW.)
-VEGETATION LATE*
-BARRIER LAYER
•TOUNOATION LATEW
HCICHT ABOVE
EXISTING SURTACC. FCET
1975
-GENERAL TILL AND WASTE OW3U
TRENCH EXCAVATION
'-COMPACT WASTE SU8CRADC
SECTION
HORIIVIM SOU
LEGEND
P03POSED LANOria CAP
j tXISTtttC TRENCH LOCATIONS
1- RAUOAO TRACKS
EXBTMC VATER LME
CONCRETE -LINED ORAMACE CHANNEL
RELOCATED WATER LME
—(ffTfr FKAL COVER CONTOUR
(KEIGHT ABOVE EXISTING
SURFACE)
BURN DISCOLORATION AREA
FINAL ?OVER SLOPE
FINAL COVER LIMIT
ELEVATIONS ADJUSTED
TO MATCH FIELD
4SERVATIONS
1956'
JACOBS ENGINEERING CROUP INC,
PASADENA. CALIFORNIA
UARINE CORPS LOGISTICS 8ASE
BarXav. C*tlt
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Grading Plan
Alternative 4 - Options 1. 2. and 4
-------
5JZ MIN. SLOPE
(37. MIN. SLOPE AFTER SUBSIDENCE)
ARMOR LAYER
• 6" THICK LAYER OF ROCK OR GRAVEL
SOIL COVER LAYER
CONTAINS NO WASTE OR LEACHATE
2 FEET DEPTH FOR PROTECTION TO
MINIMIZE DESS1CAT10N OF UNDERLYING
SOIL BARRIER LAYER
OIL BARRIER LAYER
2* MIN.
DEPTH
VARIES
' - > , ' - « , ' »
• * ' >"'. •-'.
***>*^r7?7&^
0 **
-------
5% WIN. SLOPE
(3% MIN. SLOPE AFTER SUBSIDENCE)
ARMOR LAYER
• 6" THICK LAYER OF ROCK OR GRAVEL
SOIL COVER LAYER
• CONTAINS NO WASTE OR LEACHATE
• 2 FEET DEPTH TO PROTECT THE
UNDERLYING BARRIER LAYER
FROM PUNCTURE
GEOTEXTILE
GEOMEMBRANE BARRIER LAYER
• PERMEABILITY LESS THAN 10-« cm/s
• 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 PROVIDED 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
INTO SUBGRADE AREAS AROUND THE PERIMETER
• SCARIFY AND COMPACT BEFORE PLACING
SUBSEQUENT LAYERS
CAP DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PKOL MCM.
*. GHISM10
•wo* ota
M. VIUIAMS
MAUN BY
J WINCXIUO
MAVIMC NO.
TEOOJ7-AS7
UAOC
7SOOJ7-A47
0»It
5-IS-96
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
PASADENA. CALIFORNIA
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
Borstow. Colifornio
CAOC 23 - Londfill Area
Cop Detoil
Alternative 4 - Option 2
PRO) MO.
01-F293-YB
FIGURE 2-14
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0016
-------
0.5% MIN. SLOPE
MIN. SLOPE PREFERRED)
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
• 8" CONCRETE PAVEMENT
WfTH REINFORCEMENT
GEOTEXT1LE
GEQMEMBRANE BARRIER LAYER
• PERMEABILITY MUCH LESS THAN 10'6 cm/s
• CAN BE HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HOPE)
GEOMEMBRANE. AN OVERLYING DRAINAGE LAYER
IS NOT NECESSARY IN AN ARID ENVIRONMENT
GENERAL FILL
LOCALLY AVAILABLE SOILS FREE OF LARGE
ROCKS AND DELETERIOUS MATERIALS
SUBGRADE
• FOUNDATION LAYER MAY BE INCORPORATED
INTO SUBGRADE AREAS AROUND THE PERIMETER
SCARIFY AND COMPACT BEFORE PLACING
SUBSEQUENT LAYERS
WASTE
• IMPROVE FOUNDATION FOR PAVEMENT BY
DENSIFYING WASTE USING DYNAMIC COMPACTION
OR BY EXCAVATING. SCREENING. AND
BACKFILLING WITH SOIL COMPONENT OF WASTE.
DISPOSE.OF WASTE COMPONENT OFF SITE.
CAP DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PftOJL UOt.
& cmswoto
PftOJ. ENC.
H. W1U.IAUS
DRAWN BT
J. CHINCHIU.O
DRAWING NO.
760M7-A62
tune
76OU7-A48
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP
PASADENA. CALIFORNIA
INC.
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
Borstow. California
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Cap Detail
Alternative 4 - Option 3
Alternative 5 - Option 2
DATE
3-IS-90
PROa NO.
(M-F793-V8
FIGURE 2-'5
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0016
-------
55! MIN. SLOPE
(3J5 MIN. SLOPE AFTER SUBSIDENCE)
2'
3 on it trroam 11
- \ * v - \ .
• ;~ ' » - >'"
/iKi /i\' , i j
»- •:*--•: >'W
ARMOR LAYER
6" THICK LAYER OF ROCK OR GRAVEL
COVER LAYER
• CONTAINS NO WASTE OR LEACHATE
• 2 FEET DEPTH TO PROTECT THE
UNDERLYING BARRIER LAYER
FROM PUNCTURE
CEOSYNTHET1C CLAY LINER fCCL)
• PERMEABILITY LESS THAN 10~6 cm/s
• MANUFACTURED PANELS CONSIST OF 1/4-INCH
SODIUM BENTONITE EITHER ENCAPSULATED BY
GEOTEXTILES OR GLUED TO THIN HIGH-DENSITY
POLYETHYLENE (HOPE)
• AN OVERLYING DRAINAGE LAYER IS PROBABLY
NOT NECESSARY IN AN ARID ENVIRONMENT
FOUNDATION LAYER
• MAY BE SOIL. CONTAMINATED SOIL. OR
WASTE MATERIALS PROVIDED 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 INTO
SOME SUBGRADE AREAS AROUND THE PERIMETER
• SCARIFY AND COMPACT BEFORE PLACING
SUBSEQUENT LAYERS
CAP DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
\
PftOJ. WCR.
S.
PftOl CMC.
H. WILLIAMS
PT
J CMIN04IUO
DRAWING NO
HOOJ'-AM
MAOC FROM
T600J7-A4B
OATt
S-1S-9*
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
PASADENA. CALIFORNIA
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
Borstew. California
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Cop Detail
Alternative 4 - Option 4
PROJ NO.
OI-F29J-YB
FIGURE 2-16
CLE-J02-01F293-87-O016
-------
— '- RALROAO TRACKS
— — FWCE
AREA Or PROPOSED CAP
EXCAVATE WASTE AND
CONSOLIDATE UHOC* NEW
CAP. B/KXFIU. EXCAVATIOM
WITH CLEAN IMPORTED FIU
BURN DISCOLORATION AREA
/-TOP Of EXCAVATION
/ r BOTTOM Or EXCAVATION
NORTHEASTERN AREA
GENERAL STORAGE
STRATUM 1
SEE DETAIL A"
SLOPE SIOCS Of EXCAVATION
WOT l£SS THAN 2 HORIZONTAL:
I VERTICAL
PLAN-EXCAVATION DETAIL
BACxria -MO COMPACT
EXCAVATIOk AREAS ATTE*
RCWOVINC CONTAUIHANTS
GENERAL STORAGE
STRATUM 3
POTENTIAL
WASTE BURIAL
STRATUM 5
JACOBS £NCIN££RING GROUP INC
PASAOENt. CALirORNIA
CAOC 23 - Londfill Area
Cjp Plan
Alternotive 5
-------
HEIGHT A80VC
EXISTING SURFACE. FEET
197S
- OENSIFT OR RCCOUPACT
WASTE SUBCR'DE BEFORE
PLACING CONCRETE PAVEMENT/
tOtlZOHTW. SOU
GEOMEMBRANC BARRIER
UNDER CONCRETE PAVEMENT
(ALTERNATE l OPTION 2 ONL»)
HEIGHT ABOVC
EXISTING SURFACE. FEET
1875
-Jl»70
- IMS
-| 1960
T 19S3
<- Fla WITH WASTE FROM
TRENCH EXCAVATION AND
IMPORTED GENERAL FILL
COMPACT WASTE FROM TRENCH
EXCAVATION FOR FOUNDATION
LAYER
GRACES TO SUIT
OF EXCAVATED
WASTE TfCNCH
2:1 CONCRETE-FACED SLOPE
tome* SMI
LEGEND
EXCAVATE WASTE AND CONSOLIDATE
UNDER NEW CAP. BACKFILL EXCAVATION
WITH CLEAN IMPORTED FILL
PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVCMfNT
TRENCH LOCATIONS STRATUM 2
—i •- RAUOAD TRACKS
—< •— FENCE
. EXSTWC WATERU*
- CONCRETE-UNCO ORAMAGE
5Tw RELOCATED WATER IMC
-------
0.5% (1% PREFERRED) SLOPE
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
• 8" CONCRETE PAVEMENT
WFTH REINFORCEMENT
• VAPOR BARRIER SHEETING
UNDER SLAB
• FINE-GRADE SURFACE
BEFORE PLACING CONCRETE
GENERAL FILL
• LOCALLY AVAILABLE SOILS FREE OF LARGE
ROCKS AND DELETERIOUS MATERIALS
• ADD FILL TO MEET GRADE
SUBGRADE
• GRADE. SCARIFY. AND COMPACT BEFORE
PLACING PAVEMENT
WASTE
• IMPROVE FOUNDATION FOR PAVEMENT BY
DENSIFYING WASTE USING DYNAMIC COMPACTION
OR BY EXCAVATING. SCREENING. AND
BACKFILLING WITH SOIL COMPONENT OF WASTE.
DISPOSE OF WASTE COMPONENT OFF SITE.
CAP DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
P*OU not.
S. GBIMCUD
P*OJ CMC
y. WILLIAMS
MAM 0V
J. CMINCHIUO
WAVING NO
760037-AM
UAOC FROM
7COOJ7-A4S
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP
PASADENA. CALIFORNIA
INC.
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
Borstow. Colifornio
CAOC 23 - Landfill Area
Cop Detail
Alternative 5 - Option 1
OATt
S-tS-t6
PRO) NO.
0>-F293-tB
FIGURE 2-19
CUE-J02-01F293-B7-0016
-------
N S09SOO
OUTFALL TO THE
NORTH OF CAOC 18
STRATUM 4
CONCRETE
STRUCTURE
677
VEHICLE REPAIR AND
STORAGE AftCA OF THE
CENTRAL REPAIR DIVISION
RADIATION
STORAGE
COMPOUND
DRAINAGE CHAN
I
LEGEND
REMEDIAL MVESTICAnON BOUNDARY
MTML ASSESSUE-.: STUDY BOUNDARY
— STRATUM BOUNDARY
•— FENCE
' ORANAIX DITCM
-C CONCRETE PPEUNE AND DISCHARGE POINT
SHALLOW DEPTH MONITORING
YS18-I «CU (SCREENED '5' BELOW
WATER TABLE)
INTERMEDIATE DEPTH MONITORING
YS18-2 «ELL (SCREENED W TO W
BELOW WATER TABLE)
I tour-tin
JACOBS ENCiNE£3ING CROUP IMC
PASADENA. CALIFORNIA
VARINC CORPS LOGISTICS 8ASC
CAOC 18
Sludge Waste Disposal Area
-------
i
5
N SOMOO
OUTFALL TO THE
NORTH OF CAOC
STRATUM 4
DRAINAGE CHANNEL
STRATUM 2
!
LEGEND
8-4 .
CAOC BOUNDARY
STRATUM BOUNDARY
FENCC
SOI. BORMC LOCATION
CONFRUATKM STUDY
BORMC LOCATIONS
CONCRCTC PIPELINE AMD
DISCHARGE PONT
SCALE IN Ft£T
JACOBS EN::NE£RING CROUP INC
PASAOOtA.
UMINC CORPS LOGISTICS BASC
BoriKM. CdUomli
CAOC 18
Sludge Woste Disposal Area
Soil Boring Locations
-------
STUDY AREA FOR
PROPOSED IWTR FACILITY
(STOIV. 1992
CONCRETE
STRATUM 3
AREA COVERED BY
CONCRETE BASINS
STRATUM 1
CAOC MIMMRY
snunjM BOUMXMY
9wu.a« DCPIM MONITORING
-1 *EU (SOUXD IV BCLOw
INTCRKOUIC OCPTH UONITORINC
• YS34-2 «Q1 (SCHtPCO SO" TO (W
aa.cn mm i«ai£)
SOILS IN
CONCRETE BASINS
STRATUM 2
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
PASADENA. CALIFORNIA
DETAIL A
10 0 20
n< CORPS LOOSTICS BA
8or(to>. Cdllomio
CAOC 34
PCB Storage Area
-------
STUDY AREA FOR
PROPOSED IWTR FACILITY
(SWOIV. 1992
AREA COVERED BY
CONCRETE BASINS
STRATUM 1
DETAIL A
0 20
SCALE IN FICT
PLAN
;—
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
CMC MUNDAftV
STRATUM BOUNDARY
i 39
PCS FltLO TCSTKIT
SAMPLING POBIT
YM34-05
YHJ4-10
PCB ritU) ttsr KIT
OMASC I SO*. BOMINC Q51 S«*MMC POINT WITO
> 1 (VMPCBi
PMXX I MKU
son aoRMC PCS rnxD itsr KIT
AM SAUPUMC POINI WITH
PHASE II «NCU > to PPU PCBl
SOB. BORING _
— . ../. I ID
-------
N 90UOO
w
N 90UOO
(CONCRETE WASH PAO|
I STRATUM 1 |
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF
DRAINAGE DITCH
TO MOJAVE RIVCA
CONCRETE WASH PAD
STRATUM I
UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANK
STRATUM 2
N
I
LEGEND
CAOC BOUNDARY
— STRATUM BOUNDARY
— FENCE
APPROXIMATE LOCATION Of
FUWPATH TO DRAINAGE
DITCH
L_J
FORMER STRUCTURE
SMAUOW ;€PTH CROUNDWATCR
MON(TORMC «EU. SCREENED
IS FEH 8OOW THE WATER TABU
60
120
SCALE IN FEET
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC,
CASAOENA. CAUfflRNiA
WARINC CORPS LOGISTICS RASE
. CoKlornia
CAOC 2
Pesticide Storaje* Washout Area
-------
N'UJJOO
NORTH WASH PAD ~~•
SCALf
0 30 60 FEET
CONCRETE WASH
STRATUM
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION Or
DRAINAGE DITCH
TO MOJAVE RIVER
CONCRETE WASH PAD
STRATUM 1
SOUTH WASH PA'. AND
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
so FEET
1
LEGEND
NB0710 •
B-1
s-i
L_J
CMC BOUNDARY
STRATUM aouNOMir
SOIL eORMC LOCATION
FENCE
APPROXIMATE CONFIRMATION
STUOT BORINC OX SAMPLE
LOCATION
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
FUmPATN TO DRAINAGE
OlItM
FORMER STRUCrUNE
wnoo
SCALE IN FCCT
UNCCRCROUND
STORAGE TANK
STRATUM 2
JACOBS tNGINEERINC CROUP INC
PASAOCNA, ULIFCRNIA
•MINC CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
Borttoe. COUmnOf
CAOC 2
Pesticide Storogeft Washout Area
Soil Boring Locations
fioum t-n
-------
CURRENT APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY
snuua «t* ut> UNDTU
SRSSSSSSSS1""110*"
AMPHIBIOUS VEHICLE
TESTING
(FISH POND)
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
PASAOCNA. CALIFORNIA
: SHALLOW OCF1M WtMrTOBMC
-------
DOT CANS
SAMPLES 5.6
DOT CRYSTALS
SAMPLES 2.3
OIL SPOT
SAMPLES 7.6,9
STORAGE AREA
LOT 371
IAS AND CS
STUDY
BOUNDARY
STORAGE
AREA
Y//////////S///////A
8-12 X
LOT BOUNDARY
1976 FIELD SURVEY
SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
CONFIRMATION STUDY
SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
IAS STUDY BOUNDARY
SCALE IN FEET
Tl APPROXIMATE EXTENT
! i or AS°HALT BASED
-Li ON CS BORING LOGS
CCO.
MA*M tv
J. CXINCHIU.O
MAWIMC (Ml.
7M037-ACO
MAM ntou
7WXU7-AX
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
PASADENA. CALIFORNIA
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
Barslow. Colilornio
CAOC 5 Soil Sample
Location 1976 Field Survey
and Confirmation Study
01-F29J-YB
FIGURE 2-27
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0016
-------
I ~^&«
^^
NORTHERN PORTION
STRATUM 1
LOTS 351 AND 357
CAOC BOUNDARY
STRATUM BOUNDARY
NBOSM e SOIL BORING LOCATION
N40M03 • PHASE II SAMPLE LOCATION
LOT 352 NORTH
STRATUM 2
ORIGINAL
TRASH LANDFILL
(CAOC 6)
. . m LOCATION or SMAU. PIT
*"' 9 CONTAINING MCTAU.IC DEBRIS
NOTE:
LOCATION OF QXNB07 APPROXIMATE
ONLY. NO SURVEY DATA AVAILABLE.
LOT 352 SOUTH
STRATUM 3
JACOBS ENGINEERING CROUP INC
PASAOENA. CALIFORNIA
CAOC 5
Chemfcol Storoge Area
Rl Soil Boring Locations
-------
DARK-TONED VARIATION
(BASED ON 1948
AERIAL PHOTO)
DARK-TONED VARIATION
(BASED ON 1954
AERIAL PHOTO)
CHANNEL F ORIGIN
(BASED ON 1984 •
AERIAL PHOTO)
ISOLATED SECTION OF
ARROYO/CHANNEL F
(ASSUMED DISPOSAL AREA)
UNDERGROUND
PIPELINE INSTALLED CIRCA
1960 (SOURCE: 1968
AERIAL PHOTO)
LEGEND
1948 AERIAL PHOTO DATA
DRAINAGE
CAOC 9 - FUEL DISPOSAL MCA
CAOC 6 - DRUM STORAGE AREA AND LANDFILL
CAOC 8 - DRAINAGE CHANNELS AND MOJAVC
RIVER OUTTAUS
JACOBS ENGINEERING CROUP INC
PASAKNA. CALIFORNIA
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
M. Cdllomlo
DRAINAGE WASH
CAOC 9
General Areo Layout
Nebo Main Base
-------
GENERAL AREA
STRATUM 1
SCALE IN FEET
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
PASADENA. CALIFORNIA
CAOC BOUNDARY
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
Borstow. Cofifornio
— STRATUM BOUNDARY
N3090* © SOIL BORING LOCATION
CAOC 9
Fuel Disposal Area
(MAWINC MO.
7M037-M1
CONFIRMATION STUDY
BORING LOCATIONS
CLE-J02-01F2fl3-67-0016
-------
I
LEGEND
——— CURRENT APPROXIMATE CAOC BOUNDARY
STRATUM SOUNOA4T
O<= TANKS
~
OU4 CAOC
0AM SPOTS OISERVED IN ACTIAL
PHOTOGRAPHS DATED, ItSl ItSS. 1M*
IMI. AND IBfti
OCMIS rus
(im ACTUAL
9UM.OW DEPTH arauNomtEW MCNITORIMC
«tu. SCRCANCO u mr aaow HATER TABU
- EARTHEN CONTAINMENT 8ERM
(CCNSTRUCTCD CIRCA 1911)
N 498«OO
100 so
200
ABOVCCROUNO DRAINAGE PIPE
FROM STORAGE TANK S- n
(INSTALLED CIRCA 1991)
ENGINEERING CROUP INC.
PASAOCNA. CALIFORNIA
WARINC COOPS LOGISTICS BASE
. Cdltorrdo
CAOC 11 - Fuel Burn Area
-------
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE CONFIRMATION
STUDY (CS) AREA
——— CAOC BOUNDARY
STRATUM BOUNDARr
B-2 SOIL BORINC LOCATION
Q FROM CS
Ql-S TRENCH LOCATION FROM CS
MHOS $ PHASE I SOIL BORING LOCATION
., PHASE II HANO-AUCEREO
BORINC LOCATION
n SHALLOW GROUNDWATER
v MONITORING WELL
REGIONAL DIRECTION OF
CROUNDWATEft FLOW
N 498400
9EFERCNCE: *ESTOIV. I9BS
JACOBS ENGINEERING CROUP INC,
PASAOCNA. CALIFORNIA
MABINt CORPS LOGISTICS 8»S£
a
-------
APPENDIX A
Chemicals of Concern
-------
CTO293\B70018\APPEND-A CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: May 28.1997
APPENDIX A
Chemicals of Concern
The MCLB Barstow analytical program addressed the following groups of chemicals.
CLP volatile compounds
CLP semivolatile compounds
CLP organochlorine pesticides and PCBs
CLP inorganics, 23 metals plus cyanide (plus 3 additional metals)
Fuel related (total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons [TRPH], TPH-diesel,
TPH-gasoline)
Phenoxy acid herbicides
Carbamate pesticides
Organophosphorus pesticides
Groundwater parameters (NO3, Cl, SO4, Fl, ortho-PO4, IDS, total Kjeldahl
nitrogen [TKN], methylene blue active substance [MBAS], COD, alkalinity)
Radioactivity (gross a and b, gamma radioactivity, radium, and tritium)
The CLP semivolatile compounds and CLP inorganics were analyzed for in nearly
every sample. The CLP volatile compounds 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.
All analyses were performed using methods from the EPA (including CLP methods),
the California Department of Health Services, or from the Standard Methods for the
A-1
-------
CTO293\B70018\APPEND-A CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: May 28,1997
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 £LP
methods (Table A-1) and modified-CLP methods (Table A-2). Those chemicals that
were analyzed for in specific samples are listed in Table A-3.
A-2
-------
CTO293\B70018\APPEND-A
CLE J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: May 28,1997
Table A-1
Chemicals Analyzed for at MCLB Barstow Via CLP Methods1
Volatile**
CAS Number3
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
1,2-Dichloropropane
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Ethyl Benzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes (total)
71-55-6
79-34-5
79-00-5
75-34-3
75-35-4
107-06-2
540-59-0
78-87-5
78-93-3
591-78-6
108-10-1
67-64-1
71-43-2
75-27-4
75-25-2
74-83-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
108-90-7
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
10061-01-5
124-48-1
100-41-4
75-09-2
100-42-5
127-18-4
108-88-3
10061-02-6
79-01-6
75-01-4
1330-20-7
1. CLP Method OU/101-2 (1/91)
2. The most current CLP Statement of Work (SOW)
3. Chemical Abstract Service
A-3
-------
CT0293VB70018\APPEND^ CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: May 28.1997
(intentionally blank)
A-4
-------
CTO293VB70018VAPPEND-A
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: May 28.1997
Table A-1 (continued)
Chemicals Analyzed for at MCLB Barstow Via CLP Methods1
Semivolatiles2
CAS Number3
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane)
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichloraphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl-phenyl ether
4-Methylphenol
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
120-82-1
95-50-1
541-73-1
106-46-7
108-60-1
95-95-4
88-06-2
120-83-2
105-67-9
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
91-58-7
95-57-8
91-57-6
95-48-7
88-74-4
88-75-5
91-94-1
99-09-2
534-52-1
101-55-3
59-50-7
106-47-8
7005-72-3
106-44-5
100-01-6
100-02-7
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
207-08-9
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
191-24-2
111-91-1
111-44-4
117-81-7
85-68-7
86-74-8
218-01-9
1. CLP Method OLM01-2 (1/91)
2. The most current CLP Statement of Work (SOW)
3. Chemical Abstract Service
A-5
-------
CT0293\B70018\APPENDWV CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-O018
Print Date: May 28,1997
(intentionally blank)
A-6
-------
CTO293\B70018\APPEND-A
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: May 28.1997
Table A-1 (continued)
Chemicals Analyzed for at MCLB Barstow Via CLP Methods1
Semivolatiles2
CAS Number4
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diehylphthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
lndeno(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. CLP Method OLM01-2 (1/91)
2. The most current CLP Statement of Work (SOW)
3. Chemical Abstract Service
A-7
-------
CT0293\B70018\APPEND-A CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: May 28,1997
(intentionally blank)
A-8
-------
CT0293\B70018\APPEND-A
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: May 28,1997
Table A-1 (continued)
Chemicals Analyzed for at MCLB Barstow Via CLP Methods1
Pesticides/Aroclors2
CAS Number3
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
Arodor-1016
Aroclor-1221
Aroclor-1232
Aroclor-1242
Aroclor-1248
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
gamma-BHC (LJndane)
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. CLP Method OLM01-2 (1/91)
2. The most current CLP Statement of Work (SOW)
3. Chemical Abstract Service
A-9
-------
CTO293\B70018\APPEND-A CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Date: May 28.1997
(intentionally blank)
A-10
-------
CTO293VB70018NAPPEND-A
CLE-J02-01 F293-B7-0018
Print Date: May 28,1997
Table A-1 (continued)
Chemicals Analyzed for at MCLB Barstow Via CLP Methods1
Metals2
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
CAS Number9
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. CLP Method ILM01-0
2. The most current CLP Statement of Work (SOW)
3. Chemical Abstract Service
A-11
-------
CTO293\B70018\APPEND-A CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: May 28.1997
(intentionally blank)
A-12
-------
CT0293\B70018\APPEND-A
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: May 28,1997
Table A-2
Chemicals Analyzed Under Non-CLP Methods at MCLB Barstow
Metals
Boron
Molybdenum
Strontium
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Gasoline
Analytical Method
SW6010
SW6010
SW6010
Analytical Method
E418.1
CDHS, LUFT(8015M)
CDHS, LUFT(8015M)
A-13
-------
CTO293\B70018VAPPEND-A CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: May 28,1997
(intentionally blank)
A-14
-------
CT0293\B70018\TABC-3.XLS
(XE-J02-01 F29«7-0018
Table A-3
Chemicals Analyzed for in Specific Samples
>
Analyte
Metals
Analytical Method
Chromium VI SW7196
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TRPH
TPH-Dlesel
TPH-Gasollne
Serrtvolatiles
Ethytene Glycol
Ethylene Glycol
E 418.1
CDHS,LUFT(SW8015M)
CDHS.LUFT(SW8015M)
SW8270
SW8015
Chlorinated Herbicide*
2.4.5-T 8150
2,4,5-TP (Sllvex) 8150
2,4-D . 8150
2.4-DB 8150
Dalapon 8150
Dlcamba 8150
Dtehtoroprop 8150
Olnoseb 8150
MCPA 8150
MCPP 8150
Tanks (CT0177)
Hydrazlne
IgnKabillty
ASTM 1385-88
SW 1010
1.MBAS= Methytene blue active substances
2. TDS = total dissolved solids
3. TKN = total KJekJaW nitrogen
4. COD = chemical oxygen demand
Analyte Analytical Method
Organophosphorus Pesticides
Azlnpnos Methyl
Botetar
Chtorpyrifos
Cournaphos
Demeton
Dtazlnon
Dlchlorovos
Dteutfoton
Ethoprop
Fensutfothton
Fftnthlon
Morphos
Movlnphos
Nated
Parathton. Methyl
Phorate
Ronnel
Stlrophos
Tokuthion
Trtehloronate
SW8140
SW8140
SWB140
SW8140
SW8140
SW8140
SW8140
SW8140
SW8140
SW8140
SW8140
SW8140
SW8140
SW8140
SW8140
SW8140
SW8140
SW8140
SW8140
SW8140
General Chemistry (GW only) v
Alkalinity
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrate
Nitrite
Phosphate
Sulfate
MBAS'
TOS2
TKN1
COD4
pH
SM 2320B/4500B
EPA 300
EPA340.2
EPA 300
EPA 300
EPA 300
EPA 300
EPA 425.1
EPA 160.1
EPA 351.1
EPA 410.1
Analyte Analytical Method
Carbamate and Urea Pesticides
Barban
Carbaryl
Chkxpropham
Diuron
Fenuron
Fhjometuron
LJnuron
Methlocarb
Methomyl
Monuron
Neuburon
Oxamyl
Propham
Radiological Survey
Gross alpha
Gross beta
Tritium
Lead-210
Pdonlum-210
Radlum-226
EPA 632
EPA 632
EPA 632
EPA 632
EPA 632
EPA 632
EPA 632
EPA 632
EPA 632
EPA 632
EPA 632
EPA 632
EPA 632
SM7110
SM7110
EMSL-LV-0539-17, DOE HASL 300
EMSL-LV-OS39-17, DOE HASL 300
EMSL-LV-0539-17, DOE HASL 300
-------
CT0293\B70018VAPPENr>A CLE^02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: May 28,1997
(intentionally blank)
A-16
-------
APPENDIX B
Transcript of Public Meeting
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6 MCLB BARSTOW INSTALLATION
7 RESTORATION PROGRAM PUBLIC MEETING
8
9
10
11
12 HOLIDAY INN
13 1511 EAST MAIN STREET
14 BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA
15 THURSDAY, AUGUST 29, 1996
16 6:00 P.M.
17
18
19
20 REPORTED BY: RHONDA M. ELSTON
21 C.S.R. NO. 9516
22
23
24
25
26
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
1 APPEARANCES OF SPEAKERS:
2
3 KEVIN MORONEY
4 BRET RAINES
5 DAVE HODGES
6 MICHAEL COX
7 ROBIN SMITH
8
9 APPEARANCE OF REPORTER:
10 RHONDA M. ELSTON
11 C.S.R. NO. 9516
12 909 ARMORY ROAD, SUITE 158
13 BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA 92311
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
1 MR. MORONEY: Good evening/ ladies and gentlemen.
2 Thank you for coming. I'm Captain Kevin Moroney, the
3 environmental officer on Marine Corps Logistics Base
4 Barstow. On behalf of our commanding officer Colonel B. C.
5 McBride, I welcome you to this public meeting for the
6 proposed plan for Operable Units 3 and 4. The purpose of
7 this meeting is to provide you, the public/ with the
8 opportunity to ask questions and provide input on actions the
9 Marine Corps proposes to take to implement the cleanup of the
10 base.
11 At this time I'd like to introduce Mr. Bret Raines
12 from the Navy Southwest Division in San Diego/ who will be
13 the facilitator for tonight's meeting. Thank you, sir.
14 MR. RAINES: As the captain said/ my name is Bret
/
15 Raines/ and I will be acting as the facilitator for tonight's
16 meeting. We have a court reporter tonight who will be
17 recording the official transcript for this meeting. The
18 transcript will be available as part of the administrative
19 record file for all interested parties. These files may be
20 reviewed either at the environmental office at Warehouse 3 on
21 base or at the local county library here in Barstow.
22 Now I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce
23 some of the key personnel that have been active in the
24 investigation and cleanup of this site. Mr. Michael Cox, the
25 Installation Restoration Program coordinator; Mr. Dave
26 Hodges/ who represents the U.S. Environmental Protection
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
1 Agency; Mr. Steven Baxter, who represents the state of
2 California/ Department of Toxic Substances Control. Also
3 tonight we have the IT Corporation. We have Jacobs
4 Engineering Corporation, and we have the Lahontan
5 Corporation, all of whom provide technical support to the
6 Marine Corps.
7 Tonight you will hear what the Marine Corps'
8 proposal is to address the sites within our Installation
9 Restoration Program. He will begin with a brief overview of
10 CERCLA. We will also provide information about the
11 Installation Restoration Program/ explain the alternatives
12 that were evaluated/ and present the rationale for the
13 preferred alternatives. We will then'open the floor to
14 questions and comments. I'd like to ask that if you have any
t
15 questions as we go through that you hold them until that time
16 so that we can actually get through the material. We have a
17 lot of material to cover tonight.
18 So with that I'd like to introduce our first
19 speaker, Mr. Dave Hodges, from the U.S. EPA.
20 MR. HODGES: Thank you, Bret.
21 As Bret said, I'm with the EPA. I am out of San
22 Francisco. I work in the Hazardous Waste Management
23 Division, and I have been involved in the Barstow project for
24 about three years now. So I think I — coming in here today/
25 I think I understand why we sometimes try to have a project
26 manager's meeting in San Francisco in August. It's a bit
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
1 hotter up here than it is down at home.
2 But basically what I want to do is give sort of a
3 short course in CERCLA, because that's the regulation that is
4 sort of driving the investigation that we're here tonight to
5 talk about. What I want to do is try to describe for you
6 essentially three things; that is, what is the law? What is
7 it intended to do? How does it apply to federal facilities?
8 I also want to briefly describe for you the CERCLA process
9 and also describe for you a bit about what the proposed plan
10 is, because that's what we're here tonight to talk about, and
11 how we make a final decision on a remedy for cleanup at
12 Marine Corps Logistic Base Barstow.
13 So, again, I'm going to talk about the law, the
14 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
(
15 Liability Act, which is clearly a mouth full of words; so we
16 most often just use the acronym CERCLA to describe that. And
17 another common term for the CERCLA regulation is Superfund.
18 And in a minute I will describe where that term comes from.
19 CERCLA was passed in 1980, and it basically has
20 three primary goals. The first is to Identify sites where
21 releases of hazardous substances have occurred or might occur
22 and pose a serious threat to human health or the environment
23 or, in other words, clean those sites where there have been
24 releases of toxic chemicals, and see if they pose a threat.
25 The second goal of CERCLA is to — if we find releases, do
26 they pose a threat to human health and the environment? And
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
1 if so, we should take an action to clean those sites up. The
2 third goal of CERCLA is to ensure that those parties who are
3 responsible for the releases of contaminates Into our
4 environment pay for those cleanups.
5 This Is where the term Superfund comes from
6 because — for private sites, not federal sites. When the
7 law was passed/ congress authorized a multi-billion dollar
8 fund to pay for cleanups where responsible parties couldn't
9 be found to pay for cleanups. And if there were clearly
10 situations where there were releases of contaminates that
11 posed an imminent threat to human health and the environment,
12 then the federal government would step in with this fund of
13 money and pay for the cleanup.
14 So, interestingly enough, the initial CERCLA law
/
15 which was passed in 1980 was silent on whether it applied to
16 federal facilities. So in 1986 the Superfund Amendments and
17 Reauthorization Act, or SARA, was passed, and that was
18 essentially an amendment to the CERCLA law. It Included
19 specific language in the law to federal facilities.
20 What I'm going to try to find out on this overhead
21 here is just some of the key points that are applicable to
22 federal facilities in Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow.
23 The first is that federal facilities are held to the same
24 standards as the cleanup in private sites. That is, the
25 CERCLA law does apply to federal facilities, a military base
26 in this case. The lead agency is the Department of Defense.
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
I
-------
1 In this case it's the Marine Corps. What I mean by lead
2 agency is they are responsible for the investigation and
3 cleanup.
4 On private sites and not federal sites EPA is the
5 lead agency. In some cases lead agency status is deferred to
6 the state. But, again, in a case of federal facilities, the
7 Department of Defense bases, they are the lead agencies.
8 However, there is a regulatory oversight role given in the
9 law to EPA and the state, the state in which the federal
10 facility is located.
11 SARA also said that all state regulations apply,
12 which was intended to give the states a strong role in the
13 cleanup of federal facilities. And it also said that no
14 Superfund money would be spent. So no money was to come out
f
15 of that Superfund, but the basis is it had to procure their
16 own funding to pay for the investigation of the cleanup.
17 So that in a nutshell is what I wanted to say
18 specifically about the law. What I want to move on to now
19 was to describe briefly the processes of Superfund.
20 Basically, what I'm showing up here is sort of an eight-step
21 process, site discovery to site closeout. And I just kind of
22 want to highlight what those steps are and where Barstow is
23 in the process at least with respect to OU 3 and 4, which is
24 what we're here to talk about tonight.
25 The first four steps we've basically completed,
26 site discovery through remedial investigation and feasibility
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
8
1 studies. Where we are at right now is remedy selection and
2 record of decision. Once we complete that step, we will move
3 on to the last three, which is basically clean-up actions.
4 So what I'm going to do is Just quickly bounce through each
5 of these specific sites and say what has been done with
6 respect to Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow.
7 Site discovery essentially occurred when EPA
8 became aware through the Marine Corps that contaminated
9 groundwater was found beneath the facility. The groundwater
10 was contaminated with chlorinated organlcs. EPA takes that
11 information — or actually, what the Marine Corps does is
12 prepare what is known as a preliminary assessment/site
13 inspection to evaluate sort of on a small scale the extent of
14 release and gives that information to EPA.
t
15 EPA takes that information and does a hazard
16 ranking system scoring for the facility. And that allows us
17 to determine if the base should go on the national priorities
18 list. Basically, the national priorities list just allows
19 the EPA to prioritize those sites that should have
20 investigations and cleanups sooner rather than later. So we
21 took the information on Bars tow and supported it, found it.
22 It did qualify to be placed on the national properties list,
23 and this was done in 1989.
24 So we then began the process of remedial
25 investigation and feasibility study. Remedial investigation
26 was to accomplish three things: Essentially to define the
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
1 nature of contamination on the base. That is, what kind of
2 contaminants do we have? What is the extent of the
3 contaminants? How widespread is it? What risk does the
4 contamination present to human health and the environment?
5 And essentially we have completed that step for OU 3 and 4.
6 The feasibility study is done if it's found,
7 through our remedial investigation, we do have sites that
8 present risks to human health or human health and the
9 environment. And when we do the feasibility study, we look
10 at various clean-up alternatives and compare them and see
11 which one — which one or ones appear to be better than
12 others. And we've completed that step for OU 3 and 4, as
13 well.
14 So we are now at the stage remedy selection and
>'
15 record of decision. And I'm going to say a little bit more
16 about this in a minute, but let me just skip that in the
17 meantime and say that once we do decide on a remedy, we move
18 into remedial design and remedial action. Remedial design is
19 simply designing our remedy to clean up what needs to be
20 cleaned up on the base. Remedial action is simply taking the
21 action to get the cleanup done. Then site completion. Once
22 the site is clean, then we can take the site off the national
23 priorities list. So that in a nutshell is the eight steps of
24 the Superfund Process that we're engaged at here in Barstow.
25 Now what I want to spend a little bit of time
26 talking about is the remedy selection/record of decision box
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
10
1 because that's where we are at right now, in the remedy
i
2 selection phase. And this essentially consists of two
3 components: The proposed plan and the record of decision.
4 The proposed plan identifies a preferred remedial
5 alternative. In this case it's going to be for Operable
6 Units 3 and 4 on the base. Actually, I think — why don't we
7 just skip to the next slide before I get into record of
8 decision. What I want to do is tell you what the proposed
9 plan is supposed to summarize.
10 The proposed plan would summarize the
11 environmental conditions at the site. In other words, it
12 takes the information from the remedial investigation and
13 tells us, again, what's the environmental condition? What
14 sites need some sort of remedial action? What sites don't?
f
15 The proposed plan describes the alternative clean-up
16 technologies considered for addressing the contamination, and
17 that information comes from the feasibility study.
18 The proposed plan.also describes the remedy that's
19 proposed to be selected by Marine Corps Logistics Base
20 Barstow. Now, the remedy is selected really in concurrence
21 with EPA, myself, and the state. That is, I've been involved
22 with this project for three years. EPA was involved before
23 my time and the state equally, as well. So we've been
24 working together through the investigation feasibility study
25 phase and have jointly come to an agreement with the
26 alternatives that you see or the preferred remedy you see
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
11
1 described in the proposed plan. And also the proposed plan
2 gives the reasons for selecting one remedy over another. So
3 if you could flip back to that other slide.
4 So once the proposed plan is complete and reviewed
5 and we have comments in on it/ it's accepted/ verbal comment
6 from the public/ such as you have the opportunity to provide
7 us tonight/ then a record of decision is prepared. This is
8 the official reporting document — the official report
9 documenting the background information on the site and
10 describing the chosen remedy and why it was selected. This
11 is essentially a legal document. It's signed by the EPA, the
12 state/ and the Marine Corps. And/ again/ it describes the
13 remedy/-and it is legally binding that that be implemented by
14 the Marine Corps to clean up the facility where needed.
/
15 So how do we get to the record of decision? What
16 do we use to decide on what remedy we want to go forward
17 with? Well, what is required is that all alternatives be
18 evaluated against nine criteria. And this overhead basically
19 highlights those nine criteria. The first is overall
20 protection of human health and the environment. The second
21 is compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
22 regulations; in other words/ compliance with state or federal
23 laws/ typically environmental laws. Those two are called
24 threshold criteria. Any alternative has to meet those two
25 criteria.
26 The following criteria, three through seven/ are
RHONDA M. ELSTON/ CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
12
1 known as balancing criteria. Long-term effectiveness and
2 permanence — that simply means is the remedy going to
3 maintain protectlveness over time? Reduction of toxicity,
4 mobility, or volume through treatment — that basically comes
5 from the law which states a preference for this. The idea
6 being we prefer that a remedy reduce the toxicity, mobility,
7 or volume of contamination as opposed to simply picking it up
•.
8 from one spot and moving it over to another. It's creating a
9 problem potentially in another area.
10 Short-term effectiveness — there we are looking
11 at the short-term adverse impact from an alternative would be
12 greater than the long-term beneficial Impact — long-term
13 adverse impacts. Then most likely that alternative isn't
14 going to be considered very serious. Implementability — we
/
15 have to be able to perform the remedy. Cost — essentially
16 we want to pick the most cost effective alternative. If we
17 have two alternatives and one costs 50 percent less than the
18 other and they both achieve the same clean-up goals, most
19 likely we're going to take the least cost alternative.
20 Then finally, the last two criteria, state
21 acceptance and community acceptance. Once we've kind of
22 screened our alternatives against those first seven, we kind
23 of balance them against the last two. Is the alternative
24 acceptable to the state? And finally, is the alternative
25 acceptable to the community, which is, again, in part why we
26 are here tonight, to allow you the opportunity to let us know
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
13
1 what you think of the alternatives that are described in our
2 proposed plan.
3 So that in a nutshell basically covers what I
4 wanted to go over. I was going to add one further thing
5 about removal actions and remedial actions. This is some
6 terminology you are going to hear tonight; so I Just want to
7 highlight the difference between the two. Removal actions
8 are described in this light, anyway/ as generally short-term
9 response actions taken to reduce or eliminate substantial
10 threats. In other words, if you have an area that has high
11 contamination and you have the likelihood that people are
12 going to be exposed to that in the near term, you may decide
13 you need to do something to clean that site up right away.
14 So we do that under a removal action. Several removal
(
15 actions have been done as part of Operable Units 3 and 4,
16 which will be discussed tonight.
17 The other type of action is remedial action. And
18 that's the bulk of what will be discussed tonight. And
19 that's permanent solutions to mitigate risk to human health
20 and the environment from the release of hazardous substances
21 to the maximum extent practicable. That simply means that
22 you will be taking some sort of remedial action potentially,
23 but the threat to human health and the environment is not
24 necessarily imminent. We have the time to allow us to get
25 through this eight-step Superfund Process that I showed you
26 in an earlier overhead.
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
14
1 So that's basically what I had to go over. If
2 there are any questions, I'd be glad to take those now.
3 MR. TEVIS: Where does Yermo get its drinking
4 water from? And is this affecting the drinking water out
5 there, too?
6 MR. HODGES: I believe Yermo gets its drinking
7 water from the base and that they have a carbon treatment
8 system on their unit which removes the contamination in the
9 groundwater.
10 MR. TEVIS: Okay. Where are OU 3 and 4? Where
11 are they actually located?
12 MR. HODGES: Well, that's what we're going to be
13 going into in a little bit. That may be up next.
14 MR. RAINES: Thank you, Dave.
>•
15 Yeah. I would ask that — I know there's a lot of
16 material being covered and stuff like that, but if you hold
17 your questions to the end, it will — we've got a lot of
18 material to cover. And I'm sure if you are writing them
19 down, you will have lots more questions to give us.
20 So here to give a brief overview of the status of
21 MCLB Barstow Installation Restoration Program is Mr. Mike
22 Cox.
23 MR. COX: Thank you, Bret.
24 Good evening. Before we begin discussing the
25 alternatives in the proposed plan, I'd like to tell you a
26 little bit about the environmental program Installation
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
15
1 Restoration Program, or IRP, of Barstow.
2 With the passage of CERCLA in 1980, the Department
3 of Defense began a program to investigate the cleanup of past
4 waste sites at military installations. MCLB Barstow has been
5 actively involved in this process and the IRP since the
6 1980s.
7 For those of you not familiar with MCLB Barstow,
8 the base is divided into three distinct areas. The first
9 area of the base is the Nebo Main Base. And at this point
10 this is the handling of the administrative complexes on base,
11 recreational activities, and where military housing is
12 located at.
13 The Yermo Annex is the site of all of our
14 industrial-type activities. It is here that we repair our
t
15 trucks, tanks, and other military components. And they are
16 repaired, maintained, and stored and eventually shipped out
17 to marine activities around the world.
18 The third area is our Rifle Range. And this is
19 where our marines get a chance to use small arms practice and
20 kind of get better at marksmanship. And it is basically
21 considered part of the Nebo Main Base.
22 MCLB is kind of unique in the fact that the base
23 is separated by seven miles apart. The Yermo Annex and the
24 Nebo Main Base are separated by seven miles of distance. And
25 it kind of creates a challenge because basically what we have
26 is two IRPs going on at the same time. And it's quite an
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
16
1 amount of effort trying to take care of two installations and
2 doing all of this at the same time. To give you a
3 perspective, the Nebo Main Base covers about 4,000 acres, and
4 that includes the Rifle Range. Yermo covers about 1680
5 acres.
6 Again, MCLB maintains and rebuilds equipment,
7 vehicles, and weapons. And if you look at the slide, you
8 will see that you are looking at a picture of our 10-acre
9 repair facility in which equipment basically comes into the
10 facility torn down right to the last bolt and nut. And it
11 can actually be rebuilt and comes out on the other end.
12 I'll just mention that the base Installation
13 Restoration Program was created to address environmental
14 cleanup of the base. To do this we potentially have
/
15 contaminated sites that have been grouped together in
16 Operable Units, and they are called OUs. The two OUs we will
17 be focusing on tonight are Operable Units 3 and 4, which are
18 soil contamination sites at the Yermo Annex and the Nebo Main
19 Base.
20 Before I discuss the details of OU 3 and 4, I'd
21 like to continue with some more information about our
22 program. We have Identified 36 potentially contaminated soil
23 sites in two groundwater areas at MCLB Bar stow. These are
24 called CERCLA Areas of Concern, or CAOCs. CERCLA, as David
25 Just explained, is the federal law, which is commonly used or
26 known as Superfund law, to address the nation's contaminated
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
1
-------
17
1 sites.
2 There are more than 247 Solid Waste Management
3 Units on the base, also, where waste is treated — where
4 waste treatment and disposal have taken place aboard the
5 installation. These sites are still being investigated under
6 the RCRA Facility Assessment Program as Information or any
7 additional information comes through on these sites. They
8 may or may not be added depending on the contamination that
9 is found on other CAOCs.
10 At Nebo we have 15 soil sites which have been
11 identified. Four of these are part of Operable Unit Number
12 4. 21 soil sites have been identified at the Yermo Annex,
13 and again four of these are part of Operable Unit Number 3.
14 By looking at the slide, you can tell that the
r
15 different types of sites that we have investigated have
16 included landfills; industrial waste disposal areas;
17 pesticide disposal areas; underground storage tanks, commonly
18 referred to as USTs; low-level radioactive waste sites;
19 drainage channels; and basewide groundwater.
20 As you look at the slide, the first six types of
21 sites listed are the ones that most of these activities fall
22 into tonight. The basewide groundwater at both Nebo and
23 Yermo are covered individually and are designated as separate
24 sites.
25 The major type of chemicals that have been
26 identified at the sites through our investigative process
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
18
^«^•
1 have included petroleum hydrocarbons; solvents; pesticides;
2 herbicides; plating wastes; PCBs; metals; solid wastes, both
3 industrial and domestic.
4 Some cleanup aboard the base has already occurred
5 under the IRP process. These cleanups were completed as
6 removal actions/ which David talked about earlier. The
7 removal actions under the CERCLA process usually occur if the
8 contaminate site poses a potentially urgent risk to human
9 health and the environment. This allows us to take the
10 action immediately to protect the human health and
11 environment without waiting. The clean-up processes are
12 accelerated through these actions.
13 Two of the removal actions were conducted in CAOC
14 Operable Units 3 and 4. A removal action was completed and
e
15 conducted during July of 1994 at CERCLA area of concern
16 Number 2, which is referred to as pesticide storage and
17 washout area. Trucks and equipment used for distributing
18 pesticides and herbicides were washed down at this location.
19 An underground storage tank containing pesticides and
20 herbicides were also located at this site. As result of
21 these activities, the soils at this location were
22 contaminated. Approximately 270 cubic yards of contaminated
23 soils were removed from this area and disposed of.
24 Another removal action was conducted during July
25 of 1994 at CAOC 34. It is referred to as PCB storage area.
26 The cleanup included the excavation disposal of PCB
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
19
1 contaminated soils and concrete. The contamination resulted
2 from the former storage of equipment containing PCBs at this
3 site.
4 Now I'd like to give you a brief overview of the
5 IRP progress and status program. This slide and the next two
6 are a list of the major IRP milestones to date for our
7 program. As you can see, the program started in 1983 with
8 the first look of our potentially contaminated sites. It
9 wasn't until 1988, though, that we found groundwater
10 contamination was a serious threat. And at that time we
11 finally realized the seriousness of the problem. At that
12 point in time, we were placed on the national priorities list
13 for Superfund sites, and we qualified for federal clean-up
14 monies through the Department of Defense. The federal
r
15 facility agreement was signed a year later. The agreement
16 lays out specific time tables for cleanup of the base.
17 This slide provides a summary of the major
18 milestones which relate to documents published for review in
19 the first five years of the federal facility agreement
20 signed. The milestones for OU 3 and 4 are highlighted in
21 this overhead and include the first phase of the remedial
22 investigation in July, starting in July of 1993 through the
23 completion of the feasibility study in June of 1995. You can
24 see there's quite an amount of documentation that is
25 involved.
26 This is a list of the major milestones
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
20
1 accomplished and those that are anticipated to be
2 accomplished during this fiscal year. The milestones
3 completed this year for OUs 3 and 4 include completion of the
4 proposed plan/ the draft record of decision. And the final
5 record decision, which will be documented in selective
6 alternatives to OU 3 and 4, is scheduled to be completed by
7 the end of this year after the public has had the opportunity
8 to be heard and receive and incorporate it.
9 MR. RAINES: Thank you, Mike.
10 Here to discuss the proposed plan and to provide a
11 brief description of the alternatives evaluated for CAOC 20
12 and 23 is our technical consultant from IT Corporation, Robin
13 Smith.
14 MS. SMITH: Thank you, Bret.
*•
15 As Bret said, I'd like to just give you a brief
16 description of the alternatives that we looked at for sites
17 20 and 23. There are eight sites or CERCLA areas of concerns
18 covered in the proposed plan for Operable Units 3 and 4. The
19 evaluation and cleanup of these CAOCs focuses on soils only.
20 There's — no further action has been proposed for six of the
21 CAOCs. Feasibility studies were prepared for two of the
22 CAOCs — CAOC 20, the second hazardous and low-level
23 radiological area, and CAOC 23, the landfill area.
24 Let's start with CAOC 20. This CAOC 20 is
25 approximately two and a half acres and is located on the
26 eastern side of the Yermo Annex. The site is triangular in
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
21
1 shape, and railroad tracks border two sides of the site. The
2 site includes 32 disposal holes, and the holes are about four
3 feet in diameter and 30 feet deep. Wastes were burled at
4 this site between 1953 and 1975. 31 of the holes contained
5 barrels of chlorinated lime, calcium hypochlorite, and sodium
6 carbonate. Wastes were placed in holes up to about 20 feet
7 below the ground surface. Then the holes were backfilled
8 with soil. One hole at this site was used for disposal of
9 low-level radioactive waste. This hole is currently covered
10 with a concrete pad and is surrounded by a chain-link fence.
11 And per state and federal regulations, this site is
12 classified as a landfill. One other fact is that the
13 groundwater at this site is about 150 feet below ground
14 surface; so it's pretty deep. And currently there are no
/
15 structures on this property.
16 This is a little site map, and it shows the area
17 that we investigated under the RI. The red circles on here,
18 which is most of them, shows the nonradiological disposal
19 locations, and the red triangle is the radiological
20 disposal.
21 Based on the results of the RI and radiological
22 risk assessment, a feasibility study was conducted to
23 evaluate clean-up options for this CAOC. The objectives are
24 to minimize potential disturbance of the buried waste, to
25 minimize future potential releases to groundwater, and attain
26 landfill closure ARARs. And ARARs, I think as Dave
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
22
1 mentioned/ are applicable or relevant and appropriate
2 requirements for state and federal regulations that we must
3 comply with.
4 Three alternatives were developed in evaluating
5 detail: No action; institutional controls and groundwater
6 monitoring; and two containment alternatives, grading with
7 groundwater monitoring and capping with groundwater
8 monitoring.
9 In my next few slides I'll give you a brief
10 description of each of these alternatives. For Alternative
11 1: No action, as the name implies, the site will remain as
12 it is, and no monitoring or access control will be
13 conducted.
14 Alternative 2 — institutional controls and
>•
15 groundwater monitoring includes limiting the uses of the
16 property. Since the waste will remain on site, uses of the
17 land would be limited to surface activities only, such as
18 equipment storage. The surface drainage would also be
19 controlled to minimize any standing water above the waste.
20 And the groundwater monitoring portion of this alternative
21 includes installing two monitoring wells, collecting samples,
22 and analyzing for constituents related to the site waste.
23 The monitoring will continue for four years. And at that
24 time and date, it would be evaluated, and a decision would be
25 made on whether or not further monitoring was required or
26 additional action would be needed.
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
23
1 And the last part of this alternative deals with
2 the modification of the concrete cap above the
3 nonradiological disposal hole. Currently there's about a
4 four-foot diameter cap, and it is surrounded by a
5 30-by-30-foot area of more concrete, and we'd like to make
6 that continuous.
7 Alternative 3A — grading and groundwater
8 monitoring would include grading the area above the 31
9 nonradiological disposal holes for the purpose of promoting
10 surface runoff, and the surface would be sloped about one
11 percent. And this alternative incorporates the benefit of
12 the existing soil cover, which is about 20 feet. The
13 remainder of the alternative is the same as I just described
14 for Alternative 2.
f
15 Alternative 3B — cap and groundwater monitoring.
16 This option is similar to 3A, but instead of grading the
17 existing soil layer, we are proposing to put an engineered
18 cap in place. And the cap would be layered. And the bottom
19 layer, or foundation layer, would be two feet of soil. The
20 middle layer, or the barrier layer, would be geomembrane,
21 which is a man-made material similar to heavy plastic. And
22 then that layer would be covered with another two feet of
23 cover soil. Again, Alternative 3 includes the installation
24 of the monitoring wells, sampling and analysis, limited
25 property use, and modifications of the concrete cap.
26 Each of these alternatives were assessed based on
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
24
1 the criteria defined in the national contingency plan. And
2 Dave had given you the definition of these criteria earlier.
3 And just to go over them again, it's overall protection of
4 human health and the environment; compliance with ARARs;
5 effectiveness/ both long-term and short-term; reduction of
6 toxicity, mobility/ or volume; implementability; cost; the
7 state acceptance; and the public acceptance.
8 So using these criteria/ we conducted an
9 assessment to see which alterative would provide the most
10 benefits. In summarizing the results of the analysis/ the no
11 action alternative was considered not to be protective of
12 human health and the environment. And as Dave again
13 mentioned/ if an alternative doesn't meet the first two
14 criteria/ the overall protection and the compliance with
r
15 ARARs/ we can't select that as a final remedy.
16 The other three alternatives, Alternative 2/ 3A/
17 and 3B, are considered comparable in how they meet long-term
18 effectiveness and short-term effectiveness, and we don't
19 anticipate any major problems in implementing any of these
20 alternatives. Alternative 2 is estimated to be the least
21 expensive, and Alternative 3A is the most expensive. This
22 information was used by the Marine Corps and the regulatory
23 agencies in selecting the preferred alternative for CAOC 20.
24 Alternatives were also developed and assessed for
25 the CAOC 23, the landfill area. The landfill area is an
26 approximate 60-acre site located on the southeast side of the
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
25
1 Yermo Annex. The actual landfill portion of the trench area
2 Is about 11 acres. Wastes were burled In these trenches at
3 about eight feet between 1946 and 1980. The wastes that were
4 reportedly buried here Include general trash, wood, paint
5 cans, metal parts, waste rubber, clothing, and some liquid
6 waste. Currently the site is covered with soil, but the
7 thickness of the cover isn't known throughout the entire
8 area. The majority of the surface area of the entire CAOC
9 continues to be used by the DRMO, which is the Defense
10 Reutilization and Marketing Office, for scrap and salvage
11 operations. The depth of the groundwater at this area is
12 about 130 feet.
13 As shown in this figure, we divided the site into
14 six separate areas for investigative purposes. If you look a
15 little closer, we just call those separate areas stratum. A
16 decision was made based on the agency MCLB Barstow that no
17 action was necessary for five of these areas. So the only
18 area that we evaluated in the feasibility study and developed
19 alternatives for is the area shown in red, which is the
20 trench area where the wastes are actually buried. It's
21 likely that the practices from those waste disposal
22 activities contributed to contamination of the groundwater in
23 that area.
24 Based on the site conditions and the results of
25 the RI investigation, objectives were established for cleanup
26 of this CAOC, also. The objectives are, as with CAOC 20, to
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
26
1 minimize the potential for disturbing the waste, minimize
2 future potential releases to groundwater, and attain landfill
3 closure ARARs. And we developed an additional objective for
4 this site/ which was to allow DRMO activities to continue.
5 Five alternatives were developed in evaluating:
6 No action/ institutional control/ several single-layer cap
7 options, several multilayer cap options/ and two options
8 involving consolidation of the waste followed by capping.
9 And I'll give you a brief description of these. The no
10 action is the same as for CAOC 20. The site will remain as
11 it is, and no monitoring or access control will be provided.
12 Alternative 2, institutional controls, includes
13 limiting the property uses so that the buried wastes are not
14 disturbed, continuing to monitor existing groundwater
15 monitoring wells near the site, and monitoring how far
16 precipitation would penetrate the soil layer that is
17 currently there.
18 For Alternative 3, the single-layer cap
19 alternative, we looked at two different options. The first
20 option Includes a three-foot soil cover as the cap,
21 groundwater monitoring, precipitation monitoring, and limited
22 property uses are also part of this option. Option 2 under
23 this alternative includes a concrete cap instead of a soil
24 cap. Again, groundwater monitoring and limited use of the
25 property were included.
26 Under Alternative 4 we looked at four multilayer
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
27
1 cap options. And I've listed the components of these options
2 on this slide and the next slide. This is Option 1. You can
3 see the various layers of the cap. Option 2, very similar.
4 And then Option 3, again multilayer, and Option 4.
5 This is a schematic of the multilayer cap. The
6 layer that we call the barrier layer was buried in the
7 options to evaluate the cost effectiveness of using different
8 materials for this layer. For Option 3 we also evaluated
9 using concrete as the cover layer instead of soil. Limited
10 property uses and groundwater monitoring are also parts of
11 each of these options.
12 And the final alternative, Alternative 5, is
13 consolidation and capping. And this alternative was
14 developed to look at minimizing the surface area that would
15 need to have a cap placed on it. The area would be reduced
16 from about 11 acres to 9 acres, and the waste would be
17 excavated prior to capping. And the excavated area would be
18 backfilled and then available for use. Again, this
19 alternative includes the groundwater monitoring and the
20 limited property use.
21 These alternatives were also evaluated based on
22 nine evaluation criteria. Two of the alternatives, the no
23 action alternative and institutional controls, do not provide
24 adequate protection of human health or the environment and do
25 not attain ARARs; so they won't be considered further in the
26 evaluation. The three capping alternatives and their
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
28
1 associated options do, however/ provide protection and comply
2 with ARARs.
3 There were two alternatives that were rated
4 highest in all the criteria with the exception of cost. And
5 they are Alternative 3, Option 1, the single-layer concrete
6 cap, and Alternative 4, Option 3, the combination geomembrane
7 and concrete cap. The two other concrete cap options that
8 were designed with consolidation aren't considered as
9 favorable as these two options because of the potential risk
10 to human health during excavation of the waste. Long-term
11 effectiveness of the single layer or soil covers are not
12 considered to provide long-term effectiveness because of the
13 activities the DRMO would be practicing at the site.
14 And one last comparison. The cost of the two most
r
15 favorable options are among the highest evaluated. And all
16 of these alternatives and factors were balanced to select the
17 preferred alternative for CAOC 23.
18 With that I'd like to turn it back over to Mike so
19 he can tell you about the preferred alternatives and why they
20 were selected.
21 MR. COX: Thank you, Robin.
22 Before we open the floor to comments, I would like
23 to have an opportunity to share with you the alternatives
24 which we have selected and which we feel are the best
25 selections.
26 Six of the OU 3 and 4 sites are recommended for no
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
29
1 further action. These sites include the pesticide storage
2 and washout area, the chemical storage area, the fuel
3 disposal area, the fuel burn area, the sludge disposal area,
4 and the PCB storage area. No further action is proposed
5 because these sites basically have been found to be protected
6 of human health and the environment. Removal actions are
7 completed at two of these sites, at CAOCs 2 and 34, and most
8 of the highly contaminated soils were removed from these
9 areas. In addition, CAOCs 5, 9, 11, and 18 are currently
10 unoccupied property and with no existing structures or
11 facilities on them. This greatly reduces any potential to
12 on-site human exposure to low levels of contaminates that may
13 remain. The Marine Corps does not have plans at this time to
14 change existing use of these properties or in the foreseeable
f
15 future.
16 For CAOC 20 the preferred alternative is
17 Alternative 2, institutional controls and groundwater
18 monitoring. Based on any current information, this
19 alternative appears to provide the best balance among the
20 alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria Robin
21 just spoke about.
22 The reasons Alternative 2 is preferred are a low
23 potential exists for risk to human health. Current potential
24 risk associated with the contaminates meets the EPA
25 protective risk range. Also, the property is currently
26 vacant and a likelihood that CAOC 20 would be used for either
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
30
1 industrial or residential purposes is low due to its small
2 size and location between two railroad tracks.
3 There is a minimal potential for disturbance of
4 the waste at this site. The majority of the wastes are
5 burled at depths up to 20 feet below the ground surface. And
6 limiting the uses of this property will protect against
7 exposure to the waste. It is unlikely that the waste will
8 migrate to the groundwater due to site conditions.
9 There is a thick soil cover currently in place at
10 this site. We have a very low annual rainfall in the
11 desert. Temperatures are high, which promotes evaporation.
12 There's a minimal surface area which is available for surface
13 water for infiltration, and the depth of the groundwater is
14 greater than 150 feet. This alternative is the most
15 cost-effective. It provides protection for both human health
16 and the environment and is the least costly to implement.
17 The preferred alternative for CAOC 23 is
18 Alternative 3, Option 2, a single-layer cap consisting of
19 concrete pavement. This alternative appears to provide the
20 best balance among the evaluation criteria in meeting the
21 objectives for this site. The cap material is the most
22 effective due to the continued operations of the DRMO
23 facility. The cap prevents potential disturbance of the
24 buried wastes, and the cap provides a barrier through
25 groundwater infiltration.
26 MR. RAINES: Thanks, Nike.
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
31
1 Well, that concludes the formal briefing portion
2 of our meeting. We'd like to open up the floor to questions
3 and comments. I'd like to ask that prior to you actually
4 asking a question or providing a comment, if you would tell
5 us your name and where you are from so we can have a complete
6 transcript for the record. So with that I open the floor to
.7 you, and fire away.
8 Yes, sir.
9 MR. TEVIS: My name is Lewis Tevis, and I'm
10 representing the Dagget Community Service. And I did have
11 some questions, but in the process Mike and Robin answered my
12 questions. So I'd say you guys are doing a great job, you
13 know. And it seems like you've got the situation under
14 control. Keep up the good work.
;•
15 MR. RAINES: Thank you.
16 Any other questions? I'll even take them from my
17 own people.
18 Well, if we don't have any further questions, then
19 tonight's meeting is concluded. I'd like to let you know
20 that on the far table in the back we have copies of tonight's
21 presentation and also copies of the proposed plan.
22 Thank you.
23 (Whereupon, the hearing was
24 concluded at 6:55 p.m.)
25
26
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
32
1
2
3
4 CERTIFICATE
5
6
7 I, RHONDA M. ELSTON, C.S.R. No. 9516, in and for
8 the State of California, do hereby certify:
9 That the foregoing 31-page Proceedings were taken
10 down by me in shorthand at the time and place stated herein,
11 and represent a true and correct transcript of the
12 proceedings.
13 I further certify that I am not interested in the
14 event of the action.
15 Witness my hand this 12th day of September, 1996
16
17
18 .
^7~
19 Certified Shorthand
20 Reporter in and for the
21 State of California
22
23
24
25
26
RHONDA M. ELSTON, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
(619) 252-7677
-------
APPENDIX C
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS C-iii
C1.0 INTRODUCTION C-1
C1.1 Summary of CERCLA and NCR Requirements C-1
C1.2 Description of Methodology C-3
C1.3 General Issues C-3
C2.0 CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS C-7
C2.1 Summary of Chemical-Specific A RAR 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-8
C2.1.4 All Media Chemical-Specific ARAR Conclusions C-9
C2.2 Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARARs C-9
C2.2.1 Federal Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARARs C-9
C2.2.2 State Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARARs C-10
C2.3 Soil Chemical-Specific ARARs C-11
C2.3.1 Federal Soil Chemical-Specific ARARs C-11
C2.3.2 State Soil Chemical-Specific ARARs C-12
C2.4 Air Chemical-Specific ARARs C-12
C2.4.1 Federal Air Chemical-Specific ARARs C-13
C2.4.2 State Air Chemical-Specific ARARs C-13
C2.5 All Media Chemical-Specific ARARs C-14
C3.0 LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS C-17
C3.1 Federal Location-Specific ARARs C-17
C3.1.1 Historical and Cultural Resources C-18
C3.1.2 Special Status Spedes C-18
C3.2 State Location-Specific ARARs C-18
C4.0 ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS C-21
C4.1 Groundwater Monitoring C-21
C4.2 Capping/Cover Requirements C-22
C4.2.1 Federal Requirements C-22
C4.2.2 State Requirements C-25
C4.2.3 Conclusions C-26
C5.0 REFERENCES C-29
C-i
-------
CTO293\B70018VAPP-C-R2
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
List of Tables
Table C-1 Federal Chemical-Specific ARARs
Table C-2 State Chemical-Specific ARARs
Table C-3 Federal Location-Specific ARARs
Table C-4 Rare, Endangered, Threatened, and Species of Special Concern
Table C-5 State Location-Specific ARARs
Table C-6 Federal Action-Specific ARARs
Table C-7 State Action-Specific ARARs
Table C-8 Technical Requirements for Landfill Closure
C-ii
-------
CTO293NB70018VAPP-C-R2
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS
ACL
ARARs
CAA
Cal/EPA
CAOC
CAP
CCR
CEQA
CERCLA
CFR
cm
cm/s
CWA
DHS
DISC
EE/CA
EPA
ERA
FIFRA
FS
FWQC
gpd
HSWA
HWCA
LCRS
MDAQMD
MCL
MCLB
MCLG
mg/L
NAAQS
NCP
NEPA
NPDES
NRC
alternate concentration limit
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
Clean Air Act
California Environmental Protection Agency
CERCLA area of concern
corrective action program
California Code of Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
centimeters
centimeters per second
Clean Water Act
Department of Health Services
Department of Toxic Substances Control
engineering evaluation/cost analysis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ecological risk assessment
f
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
feasibility study
federal water quality criteria
gallons per day
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
Hazardous Waste Control Act
ieachate collection and removal system
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
maximum contaminant level
Marine Corps Logistics Base
maximum contaminant level goals
milligrams per liter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Contingency Plan
National Environmental Policy Act
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
C-iii
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O016
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
ou
PCBs
PCE
pCi/g
ppm
PRG
RBC
RCRA
ROD
RWQCB
SARA
SDWA
SIP
SMCL
STLC
SWDIV
SWRCB
TBC
TCE
TCLP
TDS
TSCA
TTLC
UMTRCA
use
USGS
VOC
WQCP
fiCi/kg
tiglL
fiS/cm
operable unit
polychlorinated biphenyls
tetrachloroethene
picocuries per gram
parts per million
preliminary remediation goal
risk-based criteria
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Record of Decision
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
state implementation plan
secondary maximum contaminant level
soluble threshold limit concentration
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command
State Water Resources Control Board
to be considered
trichloroethene
toxicity characteristics leaching ppcedure
total dissolved solids
Toxic Substances Control Act
total threshold limit concentration
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
United States Code
U.S. Geological Survey
volatile organic compound
Water Quality Control Plan
microcuries per kilogram
micrograms per liter
micrograms per cubic meter
microsiemens per centimeter
C-iv
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE^/02-O1 F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
C1.0 INTRODUCTION
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 ARARs. Chemical-specific ARARs are addressed in
Section C2.0, and Section C3.0 addresses location-specific ARARs. Action-specific
ARARs are discussed for each proposed alternative in Section C4.0.
C1.1 Summary of 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 (40 CFR) Section 300.400(g)(2) and include the following.
• Purpose of the requirement and the purpose of the CERCLA action
• Medium regulated 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
• Variances, waivers, or exemptions of the requirement and their availability for the
circumstances at the CERCLA site
C-1
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
• 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 potential 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 and will only be discussed in the text for
specific cases.
To qualify as a state ARAR under CERCLA and NCR, 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.
To constitute an ARAR, a requirement must be substantive. Therefore, only
substantive provisions of requirements identified as ARARs 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.
C-2
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
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 of Methodology
As the lead federal agency, the Marine Corps has identified the federal ARARs at
MCLB Barstow for OUs 3 and 4. In addition, the Marine Corps identified the state
ARARs by reviewing the potential state ARARs submitted by the lead state agency, the
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC). Federal ARARs for CAOCs 20 and 2i are discussed in this appendix.
C1.3 General Issues
General Approach to Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 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
C-3
-------
CT0293\B7001fl\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
• 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 California 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 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-RCRA,
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.
Records indicate that CAOC 20 (Second Hazardous and Low-Level Radiological Area)
received calcium hypochlorite and sodium-filled valves, among other materials.
Depending on the physical and chemical form in which these wastes were disposed,
they may be classified as hazardous waste. Because this disposal occurred prior to the
promulgation of the hazardous waste regulations in 1980, Title 22 requirements for
closure of hazardous waste landfills are not considered to be applicable but would be
relevant and appropriate for CAOC 20.
C-4
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
In the case of CAOC 23 (Landfill Area), the Marine Corps' position is that although
hazardous materials were placed in the landfill, Title 22 requirements for closure of
hazardous waste landfills are not applicable to CAOC 23 because operations ceased
prior to promulgation of hazardous waste regulation in 1980. Title 22 regulations are
evaluated to determine whether they are considered potentially relevant and
appropriate.
Grading activities are components of the landfill closure alternatives for both CAOCs 20
and 23. The activities planned do not, however, constitute disposal or placement of
hazardous waste as defined under RCRA; soil and/or waste will be consolidated within
the same CAOC. Therefore, land disposal restrictions and waste generator
requirements contained in 22 CCR Division 14, Chapter 18, would not apply. Further
discussion of RCRA requirements as they relate to specific actions can be found in
Section C4.0.
California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act
The CEQA is applicable to state action and not action of the federal government. In
addition, the EPA and the Navy have determined that the substantive requirements of
the NEPA and CEQA are no more stringent than thQ requirements for environmental
review under CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA). Pursuant to the provisions of CERCLA, NCP. and other
federal environmental impact evaluation requirements, selecting a remedial action with
feasible mitigation measures and providing for public review are designed to ensure
that the proposed action provides for the short-term and long-term protection of the
environment and public health and thus perform the same function as, and are
substantially parallel to, the state requirements under CEQA.
For the reasons set forth above, NEPA and CEQA are not ARARs for this site.
C-5
-------
CT0293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
(intentionally blank)
C-6
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
C2.0 CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC 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 discussed 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
CAOC 20 and 23 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
Evaluation indicates that past discharges have resulted in groundwater
contamination with tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) at CAOC
23, Stratum 2 (the landfill trenches) (SWDIV 1995a). Groundwater remediation
and monitoring ARARs, such as concentration limits for cleanup of groundwater,
will be identified for CAOC 23 in OUs 1 and 2.
Federal and state groundwater detection monitoring program requirements of
Title 22 CCR 66264.98 and Title 23 CCR 2550.8 were evaluated for CAOC 20.
Because the Marine Corps believes that CAOC 20 does not pose a threat to
groundwater as discussed in the summary of site characteristics in Section 2.0,
these requirements were determined not to be ARARs. However, the selected
remedy for CAOC 20 includes monitoring that complies with both federal and
C-7
-------
CTO293\B70016\APP-C-R2 CLEO02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
state detection monitoring program requirements as if they were ARARs.
Therefore, the state does not intend to dispute the OUs 3 and 4 ROD.
The application of Title 23 CCR, Division 3, Chapter 15 evaluation and
corrective action monitoring requirements and SWRCB Resolutions Nos. 68-16
and 92-49 to groundwater remediation is being addressed in OUs 1 and 2.
C2.1.2 Soil Chemical-Specific ARAR Conclusions
The following federal and state ARARs and TBCs were identified for soil.
• Federal and state requirements for hazardous waste determinations are
applicable to any contaminated soil generated during the implementation of
the remedial actions.
• Cleanup levels for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) found in EPA Guidance
for Remedial Action on Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination, OSWER
Directive No. 9355.4-01 (EPA 1990) would be TBCs for determining residual
soil cleanup levels. The guidance indicates the use of 1 part per million
(ppm) for residential (unrestricted use) areas and 10 to 25 ppm for industrial
settings.
• 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 20 and 23 may
create discharges of fugitive dust that must be managed to comply with the
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) rules. The
MDAQMD Rules 401, 402, and 403 are ARARs for the alternatives being
considered. Any air ARARs approved by the EPA as part of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) are therefore federal ARARs. More specific
information on these requirements is provided in Section C4.0.
C-8
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
C2.1.4 All Media Chemical-Specific ARAR Conclusions
There is currently no indication of any releases of radioactivity from CAOC 20
and the scrap paint disposed of at CAOC 20 does not fit the definition of waste
described in 10 CFR 61.40.
C2.2 Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARARs
The Phase I and II groundwater investigations at the Yermo Annex indicated that the
groundwater downgradient of CAOC 23 Landfill Area, is contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). Background information on the nature and extent of
groundwater contamination is contained in Section 2.0 of the OU 1 Engineering
Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) (SWOIV 1995b). No groundwater monitoring has
been conducted in the immediate vicinity of CAOC 20; however, an evaluation of the
mobility of the potential contaminants of concern at CAOC 20 indicates a very low
potential to impact groundwater.
The objectives of the alternatives selected for CAOCs 20 and 23 focus on
closure/containment and monitoring/leak detection. Groundwater contamination from
CAOC 23 that has resulted from past releases will be addressed in OU 1, including
monitoring ARARs. Groundwater ARARs identified in this section are discussed in
terms of monitoring and leak detection for CAOC 20. Groundwater remediation ARARs
will be fully addressed in OUs 1 and 2.
C2.2.1 Federal Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARARs
Federal chemical-specific requirements for leak detection monitoring are
identified in this section and in Table C-1.
RCRA Groundwater Detection Monitoring Program
As discussed in Section C1.3, RCRA requirements under Title 22 are potentially
relevant and appropriate requirements for CAOCs 20 and 23. Although the
RCRA requirements are not applicable, the RCRA leak detection requirements
are relevant and appropriate because of the similarity of contaminants at the
sites to RCRA contaminants and the similarity between the remedial alternatives
C-9
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7XXJ18
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
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 concern. 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. Further discussion of the monitoring
requirements other than chemical-specific requirements is included in the
action-specific ARARs (Section C4.0).
The Marine Corps will conduct detection monitoring at CAOC 20 in compliance
with Title 22 OCR Section 66264.98 as if it were an ARAR. The specific
monitoring program is presented in Section 2.2.8 of the main text of this ROD
and will also be specified in the remedial design document.
C2.2.2 State Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARARs
r
Issues pertinent to identified state chemical-specific ARARs for groundwater are
discussed in this section and presented in Table C-2.
23 CCR. Division 3. Chapter 15. Sections 2550.8
The detection monitoring program requirements of Title 23 CCR Section 2550.8
are essentially identical to the detection monitoring program requirements of
Title 22 CCR 66264.98 discussed in Section C2.2.1. The Marine Corps believes
that CAOC 20 does not pose a threat to groundwater as discussed in the
Summary of Site Characteristics, Section 2.2.4 of the main text 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 23 CCR 2550.8 are
not ARARs. Even if detection monitoring requirements were ARARs, the State
requirements at 2550.8 are not more stringent than federal requirements at Title
22, 66264.98. However, the selected remedy does include monitoring of the
groundwater at CAOC 20 that will comply with 23 CCR 2550.8 as if it were an
ARAR. The State does not agree with the Marine Corps' position that the
C-10
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE^02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
State's Title 22 requirements can be potential federal ARARs, and believes that
additional information is needed to evaluate the threat to water quality from
CAOC 20. Because the ROD will include monitoring requirements in
compliance with Title 23 CCR Section 2550.8, the State does not intend to
dispute the ROD.
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 closures 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 U.S. EPA and the State, will propose further action and
address the need to identify ARARs at that time.
C2.3 Soil Chemical-Specific ARARs
The nature and extent of soil contamination at CAOC 20 and CAOC 23 are discussed
in detail in the draft final FS for CERCLA Areas of Concern 23 and 20, 30 October
1995 (SWDIV 1995a).
C2.3.1 Federal Soil 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.
C-11
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
TSCA
EPA has used the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PCB Spill Policy (40
CFR 761.120-761.139), recommending 10 ppm as a cleanup level in soils for
residential areas and 25 ppm for industrial settings as a basis for establishing
guidance on cleanup levels for PCBs. The TBC is derived from EPA Guidance
on Remedial Action for Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination, OSWER
Directive No. 9355.4-01 (EPA 1990). The guidance indicates the use of 1 ppm
for residential areas and 10 to 25 ppm for industrial settings. These cleanup
levels are TBCs for determining soil cleanup levels.
C2.3.2 State Soil Chemical-Specrfic 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.
OUs 3 and 4 soil sampling results indicate that contamination remains in the
shallow soils at all OUs 3 and 4 CAOCs. Evaluation indicates the remaining
contamination at the sites is minor and not a'threat to water quality, with the
possible exception of pesticide (dieldrin) contamination at CAOC 2.
Contaminated groundwater at CAOC 2 is the subject of OU 1.
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.
C2.4 Air Chemical-Specific ARARs °
The results of soil organic vapor sampling at CAOC 23 and CAOC 20 are discussed in
the draft final FS for CERCLA Areas of Concern 23 and 20 (SWDIV 1995). ARARs for
air are discussed in more detail under action-specific requirements.
C-12
-------
CTO293\B70018VAPP-C-R2 CLE^J02-01 F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
C2.4.1 Federal Air Chemical-Specific ARARs
Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). NAAQS are not enforceable in and of themselves, and are translated
into source-specific emission limitations by the State (EPA 1989).
Substantive requirements of the MDAQMD rules that have been approved by
the EPA as part of the SIP under the CAA are federal ARARs for air emissions
(CAA Section 110) as follows.
• Rule 401 — Visible Emissions
• Rule 402 — Nuisance
• Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust.
C2.4.2 State Air Chemical-Specific ARARs
14 CCR. Division 7. Chapter 3. Disposal Site Standards. Closure, and
Postclosure
Title 14 CCR 17783 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 17783.5.
• Trace gases must be controlled to prevent adverse acute and chronic
exposure to toxic and/or carcinogenic compounds.
C-13
-------
CT0293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE^02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
Section 17783.17 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, on factors such as 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.
Moiave Desert Air Quality Management District
No state ARARs from the MDAQMD rules have been identified at this time. Any
air ARARs approved as part of the MDAQMD SIP rules identified for the
selected remedial actions for CAOCs 20 and 23 are federal ARARs.
C2.5 All Media Chemical-Specific ARARs
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste
The records indicate that the radiological waste disposed of at CAOC 20 was primarily
luminous dials that would have contained radium-226 or radium-228. Both of these are
alpha-emitting radionuclides with half-lives of greater than 5 years. Table 1 of 10 CFR
61.55 provides a total limit of 100 microcuries per kilogram (jiCi/kg) for alpha-emitting
radionuclide wastes with half-lives greater than 5 years that is suitable for near surface
land disposal. If the waste disposed of at CAOC 20 is determined to contain less than
10 jiCi/kg of radium, the area can be dosed as a Class A landfill under 10 CFR 61. If it
is between 10 and 100 nCi/kg, it would need to be closed as a Class C landfill.
The general performance objectives that would need to be met in closing CAOC 20 as
either a Class A or Class C landfill under 10 CFR Subpart C contain the following
chemical-specific criteria that would be potentially applicable to CAOC 20.
Concentrations of radioactive materials which may be released to the general
environment in groundwater, surface water, air, soil, plants or animals must not
result in an annual dose exceeding an equivalent of 25 millirems to the whole
body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other organ of any
member of the public. Reasonable effort should be made to maintain releases
of radioactivity in effluents to the general environment as low as is reasonably
achievable. (10 CFR 61.41)
C-14
-------
CT0293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
There is currently no indication of any releases of radioactivity from CAOC 20. Further
discussion of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements can be found in
Section C4.0 for action-specific ARARs.
C-15
-------
CTO293\B70018WPP-C-R2 CLE^J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
(intentionally blank)
C-16
-------
CT0293VB70018WPP-C-R2 CLE^J02-01 F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
C3.0 LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS
Potential 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 ARARs
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 federal ARARs for CAOCs 20 and 23 selected remedial
actions.
• 22 CCR 66264.18 (a), (b), and (c) (Hazardous Waste Control Act)
• 40 CFR Part 6, 6.302 and Appendix A (excluding 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 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 (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)
• 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 the column denoted "ARAR
Determination" 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
C-17
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
prepared by the administering agency. References to the document or agency are
provided under "Comments" and in footnotes to the table. Specific issues concerning
some of the requirements are discussed in the following sections.
C3.1.1 Historical and Cultural Resources
Table C-3 lists several historical and cultural resource protection laws to be
considered for federally funded projects. Based on the scope of the selected
remedial actions for CAOC 23, it is not expected that any buildings or landmarks
would be impacted. However, Phase I archaeological surveys are needed if
remedial activities take place in areas that have not been surveyed for cultural
resources.
C3.1.2 Special Status Species
Table C-3 lists federal requirements evaluated for the protection of threatened
and endangered species and migratory birds for CERCLA actions at MCLB
Barstow. The ARAR determinations are listed in Table C-3. Table C-4 lists the
rare, threatened, endangered, and species of'special concern reported in the
Nebo, Yermo, Minnelo, and Daggett U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) map
quadrangles.
The Phase I ecological risk assessment (ERA) did not identify any potentially
critical habitats at the Yermo Annex during the assessment, nor did it find that
surface soil contamination at any of the source areas at the Yermo Annex
presented a potential threat to ecological receptors (EPA 1994).
C3.2 State Location-Specific ARARs
State location-specific ARARs are presented in Table C-5. 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 taking of birds and mammals. Specific citations are provided in Table C-5.
C-18
-------
CT0293\87001BVAPP-C-R2 CLE-J02-O1F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
The Phase I ERA did not identify any potentially critical habitats at the Yermo Annex
during the ecological assessment, nor did it find that surface soil contamination at any
of the source areas on the Yermo Annex presented a potential threat to ecological
receptors (EPA 1994).
C-19
-------
CTO293\B7001B\APP-C-R2
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
(intentionally blank)
C-20
-------
CTO293VB70018VAPP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
C4.0 ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS
Federal action-specific ARARs for the selected remedial actions for CAOCs 20 and 23
are presented in Table C-6; state action-specific ARARs are presented in Table C-7.
The requirements that have been determined to be pertinent to the remedial
alternatives selected for CAOCs 20 and 23 are discussed in this section.
C4.1 Groundwater Monitoring
No contamination has been detected in CAOC 20 groundwater. Evaluation of the
landfilled waste at CAOC 20 indicates that remaining pollutants in the soil would not
migrate to groundwater. The contaminated groundwater at CAOC 23 will be addressed
in OU 1, including ARARs determinations for remediation and monitoring. Only leak
detection monitoring requirements are addressed in this section. The federal and state
leak detection monitoring requirements in Title 22 CCR 66264.98 and Title 23 CCR
2550.8 have already been discussed in Section C2.2.1. The following requirement for
radioactive wastes was evaluated for CAOC 20.
NRC Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste
Based on the operation history of CAOC 20, containerized low-level radioactive
waste consisted of scrap luminescent dials and compasses coated with radium
paint, which were disposed of into one of the waste pits. The requirements at
10 CFR 61 for closure of radioactive waste landfills contains the following
general performance standard for environmental monitoring.
After the disposal site is closed, the licensee responsible for post-
operational surveillance of the disposal site shall maintain a monitoring
system based on the operating history and the closure and stabilization
of the disposal site. The monitoring system must be capable of
providing early warning of releases of radionuclides from the disposal
site before they leave the site boundary. (10 CFR 61.53[d])
The requirements at 10 CFR Part 61 address "radioactive wastes containing
byproduct, source and special nuclear material..." The scrap paint disposed of
at CAOC 20 does not fit this definition. Therefore, these requirements are not
ARARs for the selected remedy at CAOC 20.
C-21
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE^02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
The federal and state leak detection monitoring requirements have been
determined not to be ARARs. However, the selected remedy for CAOC 20
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 20 conducted during the implementation of
the selected remedy indicates a statistically significant release, any appropriate
further action will be proposed after consultation with U.S. EPA and the State.
Other requirements for already contaminated groundwater will be addressed in
OUs 1 and 2.
C4.2 Capping/Cover Requirements
Capping or covering the landfills is a component of several of the selected alternatives
for CAOCs 20 and 23. 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-8.
C4.2.1 Federal Requirements
Federal requirements that are ARARs for capping/cover actions are described in
the following sections.
\
RCRA
CAOCs 20 and 23 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 closure.
The RCRA landfill closure requirements (22 CCR 66264.111, 66264.117, and
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.
C-22
-------
CTO293\B70018WPP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
The grading conducted for the capping/cover options at CAOC 23 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.
NRG Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste
The general performance objectives that would need to be met in dosing
CAOC 20 either as a Class A or Class C landfill under 10 CFR Subpart C
contain the following action-specific criteria.
• Closure of the land disposal facility must ensure protection of any individual
inadvertently intruding into the disposal site and occupying the site or
contacting the waste at any time after active institutional controls over the
disposal site are removed (10 CFR 61.42).
• The disposal facility must be closed to achieve long-term stability of the
disposal site and to eliminate to the extent practicable the need for ongoing
active maintenance of the disposal site following closure so that only
surveillance, monitoring, or minor custodial care are required (10 CFR
61.43).
/
The substantive technical requirements that would need to be met under 10
CFR Subpart D for capping/cover of CAOC 20 are as follows.
• Covers must be designed to minimize to the maximum extent practicable
water infiltration, to direct percolating or surface water away from the
disposed waste, and to resist degradation by surface geologic processes
and biotic activity.
• Surface features must direct surface water drainage away from disposal
units at velocities and gradients that will not result in erosion that will require
ongoing active maintenance in the future.
The requirements at 10 CFR Part 61 address "radioactive wastes containing
byproduct, source and special nuclear material..." The scrap paint disposed of
at CAOC 20 does not fit this definition. Therefore, these requirements are not
ARARs for the selected remedy at CAOC 20.
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 CAOC 23 did not receive wastes after the
C-23
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
effective date of these requirements (09 October 1991), they would not be
applicable. However, the substantive portions of these requirements are
considered relevant and appropriate because CAOC 23 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 alternative 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.
CAA
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. Any MDAQMD rules that are in the SIP
are federal ARARs. These requirements are discussed as follows.
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
60-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.
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.
C-24
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
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 (ng/m3) when determined 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.
C4.2.2 State Requirements
State requirements that are ARARs for capping/cover actions are described in
the following sections.
Minimum Standards for Solid Waste Handling and Disposal (14 CCR. Division 7.
Chapter 3)
Article 7.8 sets forth detailed standards for landfill closure. The substantive
portions of Article 7.8 are applicable to CAOCs 20 and 23 because the landfill
did not commence closure prior to the effective date of the requirements (18
August 1989). Table C-7 lists the specific sections of Article 7.8 that have been
identified as ARARs. The technical requirements for landfill closure under 14
CCR are detailed in Table C-8.
MDAQMD Requirements
MDAQMD rules for emissions were identified in Section C2.4.1, and any of
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.
Discharges of Waste to Land (23 CCR. Division 3. Chapter 15)
Article 8 sets forth closure and postdosure maintenance requirements for waste
management units, and requires that the unit be closed in accordance with
C-25
-------
CT0293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May. 1997
approved closure and postclosure plans. Article 4 Section 2546 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 23 CCR, Division 3, Chapter 15 that were
determined to be ARARs are listed in Tables C-7. The technical requirements
for the cap/cover are listed in Table C-8.
C4.2.3 Conclusions
A comparison of 40 CFR 258 and Title 22 federal requirements for landfill
closure to the state requirements in Title 14 and Title 23 indicates that certain
portions of the state requirements are more stringent; therefore, a number of the
state requirements are controlling ARARs for this remedial action. However,
certain of the Title 22 federal requirements are 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 general, the performance-based standards of the NRC requirements for land
disposal of radioactive wastes are no more stringent that the corresponding
federal RCRA and state requirements.
The State and the Marine Corps disagree on whether SWRC6 Resolution 92-49
is an ARAR for the closure of landfilled waste at CAOCs 20 and 23. The State
believes that Resolution 92-49, Section III.F. requires the Marine Corps to
comply with Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 15
(Chapter 15), and that Section III.G. requires the closure of sites to prevent
migrations of waste and impacts to the beneficial uses of waters of the State.
The Marine Corps does not intend to identify Resolution 92-49 as an ARAR.
The results of evaluation of current site conditions at CAOCs 20 and 23 indicate
that the wastes located there do not threaten to impact water quality. However,
C-26
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
due to uncertainties in the evaluation, both the State and Marine Corps believe
that remedial action is appropriate. The selected remedies of CAOCs 20 and 23
comply with Resolution 92-49 and Chapter 15 and provide further protection of
groundwater and surface water. Therefore, the State does not intend to dispute
the ROD.
C-27
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
(intentionally blank)
C-28
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May, 1997
C5.0 REFERENCES
Bamett, R. 1995. Wildlife Biologist, EPA Region IX. Personal communication.
Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (SWDIV). 1995a. "Marine
Corps Logistics Base, Draft Final Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study,
Barstow California, Remedial Investigation Report, Operable Units 3 and 4."
Prepared by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 30 October.
SWDIV. 1995b. "Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California, Draft Engineering
Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Operable Unit 1, Yermo Annex." Prepared by Jacobs
Engineering Group Inc. 17 January.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988. CERCLA Compliance with Other
Laws Manual, Draft Guidance. EPA/540/G-89/006. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. Washington, D.C. August.
EPA. 1989. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Part II - Clean Air Act
and Other Environmental Statutes and State Requirements. EPA/540/G-
89/009. OSWER Directive 9234.1-02. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Washington, D.C. August.
EPA. 1990. Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB
Contamination. OSWER Directive 9355.4-01. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. August.
EPA. 1994. "Phase I Ecological Risk Assessment, Marine Corps Logistics Base,
Barstow, California." OSWER Directive 9355.4-01. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. December.
C-29
-------
CTO293\B70018\APP-C-R2 CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
PrtnfDate: 28 May. 1997
Western Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (WESTDIV). 1988. "Master
Plan, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California." Contract No. N624-85-
C-5602.
C-30
-------
293*79018\TA1-R2«6c
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-1
Federal Chemical-Specific ARARs*
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 1 of 3)
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
ARAR
Determination
Comments
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)b
Definition of RCRA hazardous waste; TCLP
regulatory levels.
Groundwater protection standards:
Ownws/opefators of RCRA treatment,
storage, or disposal facfflUes must comply with
conditions In this section that are designed to
the groundwater from a regulated unit do not
exceed me uunuenuauun limns TOT
contaminants of concern set forth under
Section 66264.94 In the uppermost aquifer
underlying the waste management area
beyond the point of compliance.
Waste generation.
Uppermost aquifer underlying a
waste management unit beyond
the point of compliance; RCRA
hazardous waste, treatment,
storage, or disposal.
22 OCR 66261 .21.
66261. 22(a)(1),
66261.23,
66261 .24(a)(1). and
66261.100
22 CCR 66264.94.
except 66264.94(a)(2),
and94(b)
Applicable
Not an ARAR
Hazardous waste determinations are needed only If waste
Is being generated for storage, treatment, or disposal.
Not an ARAR for OUs 3 and 4.
Concentration limits under these sections are being
evaluated In OUs 1 and 2.
-------
CT0293\B70018\TA1-R2.DOC
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-1
Federal Chemical-Specific ARARs*
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 2 of 3)
Requirement
Prerequisite
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)"
Procedures recommended for all pesticide
storage and disposal activities.
Recommendations for the
disposal of organic pesticides,
metal-organic pesticides,
organic mercury, lead,
cadmium, arsenic, and alt
Inorganic pesticides.
Citation
40 CFR 165.8
ARAR
Determination
TBC
Comments
FIFRA contains nonbfnding recommendations for storage
at non-EPA sites. At this Ume, these procedures are not
potential ARARs for CERCLA cleanup actions, but should
Clean Air Ad (CAA), 42 USC 7401 et seq.'
NAAQS: primary and secondary standards
for ambient air quality to protect public health
and welfare (Including standards for
paniculate matter and lead).
Provisions of SIP approved by EPA under
Section 110 of CAA.
Contamination of air affecting
public health and welfare.
Major sources of air pollutants.
40 CFR 50.4 -50.12
42 USC 7410; portions
of 40 CFR 52.220
applicable to Air
Quality Management
District,
Applicable for
actions
Applicable for
actions
Emission of air pollutants covered by NAAQS fs not
suspected under current conditions. This regulation Is
further evaluated under action-specific ARARs.
No emissions covered by the SIP are suspected under
current conditions. This regulation Is further evaluated
under action-specific ARARs.
-------
CT0293\B70018YTA1-R2.DOC CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-1
Federal Chemical-Specific ARARs"
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 3 of 3)
'Chemical-specific concentrations used for feasibility study (FS) evaluation may not be ARARs indicated In this table, but may be concentrations based upon other factors. Such factors may
Include the following:
• Human health risk-based concentrations (risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals; 40 CFR 300.430[e][A|[1] and [2]).
• Ecological risk-based concqitiaUons (40 CFR 300.430f.eRGl).
• Practical quantitation limits of contaminants (40 CFR 300.430(e)[A][3]).
"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 accepted the statutes or policies as ARARs. Specific ARARs are addressed in the table below each general heading; only substantive requirements of the specific
citations are considered ARARs.
AppfeiU* or ratevw* and •pprephte nquiranwnta PCS - Po(ycMo*i«t»d Wphw^b
ARAR*
CAA
CCR
CERCLA
CFR
EPA
RFRA
NAAQS - Natlml Ambhnt Air Qutfty Standard* tfxknwy and Moondny)
ClMnAlrAot RCRA
California Code of Regulations SIP
Cocnpratumtv* Envkonnantal n»«poi»«, Companution. and Lbbfflty Act TBC
Cod* of FadMal RtguMm TCtP
U.S. Envlrorwn»nM Pntaethm AgMwy USC
FMhnl hMotleielt, FungUch, and RodwrtkM* Art
RtKHrc* ConMfVitlon and FUoovwy Act
SUrt. knptomMitMion Ptan
ID DC OOflWO^fMl
Toxidtv chwKtwfatlo* twcNng prendura
Unrt*d State* Cod*
-------
CTO293\B70018\TA2-R2.DOC
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-2
State Chemical-Specific ARARs*
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 1 of 4)
Requirement
Prerequisites
Citation
ARAR
Determination
Comments
Cal/EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DISC)"
Definition of "non-RCRA hazardous waste'; persistent
and btoaccumulaOve toxic substances TTLCs and
STLCs.
Waste generation.
22 CCR 66261.22(a)(3) and
(4).66261.24<8)(2)to(a)(8).
66261.101. 66261.3(a)(2)(C),
or 66261.3(a)(2)(F)
Applicable
Hazardous waste determinations are needed only
as wastes generated are stored, treated, or
disposed of.
California Integrated Waste Management Board*
Requires that landfill gases are controlled during
periods of closure and poatctosure maintenance such
thatr 1) the concentration of methane gas does not
exceed 1.25 percent of the volume In air within orvslte
structures; 2) the concentration of niettiaiio gas
migrating from the landfill must not exceed 5 percent
by volume In air at the facBtty property boundary or at
an alternative boundary In accordance with Section
17783.5.; and, 3) trace gases shall be controlled to
prevent adverse acute and chronic exposure to toxic
and/or carcinogenic compounds.
Period of control must continue for 30 years or until It
can be demonstrated that there Is no potential for gas
migration beyond the property boundary or Into ort-sRe
structures.
Landfill closure and postclosure
maintenance
14 CCR 17983 (a)(b){d)
Applicable
It has been demonstrated that there Is no
potential for gas migration beyond the property
boundary or Into orvsite structures at CAOCs 20
and 23.
-------
CT0293. Y8\TA2-R2.DOC
CLE-JO2-1.., ^93-87-0018
TABLE C-2
State Chemical-Specific ARARs*
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 2 of 4)
RcKjufrofncnt
Prerequisites
Citation
ARAR
Determination
Comments
State and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)"
Describes the water basins In Lahontan region.
Establishes beneficial use of ground and surface
water; water quality objectives, hdudlng narrative and
numerical standards; Implementation plans to meet
water quality objectives and protect beneficial use.
incorporating sunewMe water quality control plans ana
nntli-lmm
policies.
incorporated into an regional Doara oasin puns.
Designates all ground and surface waters of the State
as drinking water except where the IDS Is greater
than 3.000 ppm. the well yfeM Is less than 200 gpd
from a single wed, the water te a geotherrrari resource
or In a water conveyance facility, or the water cannot
reasonably be treated for domestic use using either
best management practices or best economically
achievable treatment practices.
Incorporated Into an regional board basin plans.
Requires that quality of waters of the State that Is
better than needed to protect ad beneficial use be
maintained unless certain findings are made.
Discharges to high-quality water must be treated using
best practicable treatment or control necessary to
prevent pollution or nuisance and to maintain me
highest quality water. Requires cleanup to
background water quality or to lowest concentrations
technically and economically feasible to achieve.
Beneficial use must, at least, be protected.
Water Quality Control Plan for
the Lahontan Region (Water
Code 13240), which became
effective on 31 March 1995.
SWRCB Resolution No. 88-63
(sources of drinking water
policy)
»>
SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16
(policy with respect to
maintaining high quality water In
California) (Water Code 13140,
Clean Water Act regulations 40
CFR131.12)
Not an ARAR
Applicable
Not an ARAR
Identification of the substantive provisions in
Chapters 2, 4. and 5 of the plan, Including
beneficial use designations, water quality
objectives, and water discharge Omits, are not
necessary for actions taken In this ROD.
Releases to groundwater from CAOCs 20 and 23
are being addressed In OU 1 .
This resolution provides the basts for drinking
water determinations In California. Substantive
provisions are ARARs. The groundwater at
MCLB Barstow has been Identified as a source
of drinking water.
Releases to groundwater from CAOCs 20 and 23
are being addressed in OU 1.
The State and Marine Corps disagree on the
application of this requirement to migration of
waste; however, no migration of waste to
groundwater Is anticipated from the sites
addressed In this ROD.
-------
CTO293\B70018\TA2-R2.DOC
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-2
State Chemical-Specific ARARs"
Oils 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 3 of 4)
Reojtnr 6ii will
Establishes policies and pracadum for the oversight
of Investigations and cleanup and abatement activities
resulting from discharges of waste that affect or
threaten water quality. It authorizes the regional
boards to require cleanup of afl waste discharged and
restore affected water to background conditions.
Requires actions for cleanup and abatement to
conform to Resolution No. 68-16 and applicable
provisions of 23 OCR Division 3, Chapter 15. as
feasible.
Water Quality Monitoring Program.
A detection monitoring program must be maintained.
The detection monitoring data are compared to
background groundwater quality data to determine
whether a release has occurred.
Prerequisites
Discharge affecting water.
Citation
SWRCB Resolution 92-49
(policies and procedures for
investigation and cleanup and
abatement of discharges under
Water Code Section 13304)
THIe 23 OCR, Division 3,
Chapter 15, Article 5, Section
2550(a), 2550.4(d), (e), and
2550.5
V-.
ARAR
Determination
Not an ARAR
Not an ARAR
Comments
As Resolution 92-49 Is no more stringent than 22
CCR 66264.94, K does not qualify as a state
ARAR under CERCLA. The State contends that
Resolution 92-49 Is an ARAR for setting
concentration limits to determine If a release has
occurred. The State and Marine Corps disagree
on this application of Resolution 92-49 as a
ARAR. The State does not Intend to dispute the
ROD because the proposed actions essentially
comply wtth Resolution 92-49.
Not more stringent than federal teak detection
monitoring ARARs. The Marine Corps will
conduct detection monitoring at CAOC 20 In
compliance witn i me zz, ecu, section 50204. so
as If ft were an ARAR. The monitoring program
Is Included In Section 2.2.8 of the main text of
this ROD and will also be Included In the
remedial design document.
-------
CTO293 B\TA2-RZDOC CLE-JO2-*. /S3-B7-0018
TABLE C-2
State Chemical-Specific ARARs"
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 4 of 4)
•Chemteal-speclfic concentfatloiis used for remedial action alternative evaluation may not be ARARs Indicated In this table,
but may be concentrations based upon other factors.
Such factors may include the following:
• Human health risk-based concentrations (Risk-based preliminary remediation goals) [40 CFR 300.430(e)(A)(1) and (2)].
• Ec»loglcaln^k-ba8edMn<«fitratk>ns(40crR300.430(e)(G)].
• Practical quantftation limits of contaminants [40 CFR 300.430(e)(A)(3)|.
"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 all the statutes or policies as ARARs. Specific ARARs are addressed In the table below each general heading; only substantive requirements of specific citations are considered ARARs.
ARAR * AppUcabto or relevant and appropriate requirements.
CaVEPA - Catfromta Environmental Protection Agency.
CCR - California Code of Reputations.
CFR-Code of Federal Regulation*.
CERCLA - Compraherwlwe Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act.
CAOC • CERCLA Area* of Concern.
DISC. Department of Trade Substances Control
gpd - Gallon* per day.
MCLB • Marine Corps Logistic* Base.
ppm - Part* per minion.
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
ROD • Record of OecWon.
RWQC8 • California Regional Water Quality Control Board
SMCL • Secondary maximum contaminant level
STLC • SoluMe threshold Omit ouneentiatloii.
SWRCB - State Water Resource* Control Board
TOS - Total dissolved solids.
TTLC • Total threshold limit concentration.
-------
CTO293\B70018\TA3REV1 .WP
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-3
Federal Location-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 1 of 5)
Location
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
ARAB
Determination
Commente
Hazardous Waste Control Act (HWCAr
Within 61 motors
(200 feet) of a fault
displaced in
Holocene time
Within 100-year
floodplain
Within salt dome
formation,
underground mine, or
cave
Executive Ordar 11988
Within floodplain
New treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous
waste prohibited.
Facility must be designed,
constructed, operated, and
maintained to avoid
washout.
Placement of
noncontainerized or bulk
liquid hazardous waste
prohibited.
, protection ei riooapiaina
Actions taken should avoid
adverse effects, minimize
potential harm, restore and
preserve natural and
beneficial values.
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
hazardous waste;
treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous
waste.
RCRA hazardous waste;
treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous
waste.
RCRA hazardous waste;
placement.
22CCR
66264.18(a)
22 CCR
66264. 18(b)
22 CCR
66264. 18(c)
*!
Action that will occur in a
floodplain, i.e., lowlands,
and relatively flat areas
adjoining inland and
coastal waters and other
flood- prone areas.
40 CFR 6, Appendix
A; excluding 6|a)(2|,
8(a)(4), 6(a)(6); 40
CFR 6.302
Not an ARAR
Not an ARAR
Not an ARAR
Not an ARAR
*
No faults in the immediate vicinity of
CAOCs 20 and 23 meet this criterion.
CAOCs 20 and 23 are outside of this
area.
[Source: WESTDIV 1988}
Salt domes, mines, or caves do not
exist on MCLB Barstow.
CAOCs 20 and 23 are outside the
100-year floodplain of the Mojave
River.
-------
TC93\B70018\TA3REV1 .WP
CLE-J02-01F293-L J18
TABLE C-3
Federal Location-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 2 of 5)
Location
M.tLirul ArfthAAjJjwibtal
Within area where
action may causa
irreparable harm,
loss, or deetruction
of significant
artifacts
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
ARAR
Determination
Comments
and Historical Preservation Act*
Construction on previously
undisturbed land would
require an archaeological
survey of the area.
National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106*
Historic project
owned or controlled
by federal agency
Action to preserve historic
properties; planning of
action to minimize harm to
properties listed or eligible
for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places.
Alteration of terrein that
threatens significant
scientific, prehistoric,
historic, or archaeologic
data.
Property included in or
eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places.
Substantive
requirements of 1 6
USC 469a-1 and 36
CFR65
Not an ARAR
Activities for CAOCs 20 and 23 are all
within previously disturbed areas.
Substantive
requirements of 1 6
USC 108 and 110(f)
and 36 CFR 800
Endangered Species Act of 1973*
Critical habitat upon
which endangered
species or threatened
species depend
Action to conserve
endangered species or
threatened species,
Including consultation with
the Department of the
Interior.
Determination of effect
upon endangered or
threatened species or its
habitat.
Executive Order 1 1990, Protection of Wetlands*
Wetland
Action to minimize the
destruction, loss, or
degradation of wetlands.
Wetlend ae defined by
Executive Order 1 1 990
Section 7.
16 USC 1536(a)
40 CFR 6, Appendix
A; excluding 6(a)(2).
6(a)(4), 6(a)(6); 40
CFR 6.302
Not an ARAR
Not an ARAR
Not an ARAR
No buildings or landmarks will be
impacted by alternatives at CAOCs 20
and 23.
CAOCs 20 and 23 has not been
determined to be a potentially critical
habitat area.
There are no wetlands in the vicinity
of CAOCs 20 and 23.
-------
CTO293\B70018\TA3REV1 .WP
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-3
Federal Location-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 3 of 5)
Location
Reojuwefyiefit
Prerequisite
Citation
ARAR
Determination
Comments
dean Water Act Section 404*
Wetland
Wlderrwsa Act*
Wilderness araa
Action to prohibit
discharge of dredged or fill
material into wetland
without permit.
Area must be administered
in such a manner as to
leave It unimpaired as
wilderness and preserve its
wilderness character.
Wetland as defined by
Executive Order 1 1990
Section 7.
Federally owned area
designated as wilderness
area.
40 CFR 230.10;
40CFR231 (231.1,
231.2,231.7.
231.8)
60 CFR 35.1 etseq.
Not en ARAR
Not an ARAR
There are no wetlands in the vicinity
of CAOCs 20 and 23.
MCLB Baretow i« not located in a
federally owned wilderness araa.
National WMIita Refug* System'
Wildlifa refuge
Only actions allowed under
the provisions of 1 6 DSC
Section 068 ddlcl may be
undertaken in areas that
are part of the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
Araa designated as part of
National Wildlife Refuge
System. »>•
Fish and Wldltfa Coordination Act Section 662*
Araa affecting
•tream or other
water body
Action taken should
protect fish or wildlife.
Diversion, channeling, or
other activity that modifies
a stream or other water
body and affects fish or
wildlife.
50 CFR 27
1 6 USC 662
Not an ARAR
Not an ARAR
MCLB Barstow is not located in an
area designated as part of the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
No actions affecting a stream or other
water body are planned as part of the
proposed remedial actions for CAOCs
20 and 23.
Wld and Scenic Rivera Act"
Within araa affecting
national wild, scenic,
or recreational river
Avoid taking or assisting in
action that will have direct
adverse effect on scenic
river.
Activities that affect or
may affect any of the
rivers specified in Section
1276(8).
16 USC 1271 et
s»g. and 7(a)
Not an ARAR
No wild, scenic, or recreational rivers
are located in the vicinity of MCLB
Barstow.
-------
593\B70018\TA3REV1 .WP
CLE-JO2-01F293-B. .18
TABLE C-3
Federal Location-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 4 of 5)
Location
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
ARAR
Determination
Comments
Coastal Zone Management Act*
Within coastal zone
Conduct activities in a
manner consistent with
approved state
menagement programs.
Activities affecting the
coastal zona including
lands thereunder and
adjacent shoreland.
Section 307(c) of
16 USC 1456(c|; 15
CFR 930 and
923.45
Not en ARAR
MCLB Barstow is not located near a
coastal area.
Coaatal Banlar Resource* Act. Section 3604*
Within designated
coastal barrier
Prohibits any new federal
expenditure within the
Coastal Barrier Resource
System.
Activity within the Coastal
Barrier Resource System.
1 6 USC 3504
Not an ARAR
MCLB Barstow is not located near a
coastal area.
Historic Sites. Buldlngs, end AnHquMee Act"
Historic sites
Avoid undesirable impacts
on landmarks.
Areas designated as
historic sites.
16 USC 46 1-467
Not en ARAR
No buildings or landmarks will be
impacted by remedial actions for
CAOCs 20 and 23.
Rivera end Harbors Act of 1890*
Navigable waters
Permits required for
structures or work in or
affecting navigable waters.
Activities affecting
navigable waters.
33 USC 403
Not an ARAR
MCLB Barstow is not located in the
vicinity of navigable waters.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 197?
Migratory bird area
Protects almost all species
of native birds in the
United States from
unregulated take, which
can include poisoning at
hazardous waste sites.
Presence of migratory
birds.
16 USC 703
Applicable
Migratory birds end nesting activities
have been documented on MCLB
Barstow, particularly in the riparian
edge zone on the northern boundary
of Nebo Main Base. Actions to be
taken at Yermo Annex are not
expected to impact migratory bird
activities.
(Source: Barnett 1995. Personal
communication)
-------
CT0293\B70018\TA3REV1 .WP
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-O018
TABLE C-3
Federal Location-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 5 of 5)
Location
Requirement
Marine mammal area
Proteeta any marine
mammal In the United
Statea, except aa provided
by International treaties,
from unregulated take.
Prerequisite
Citation
ARAR
Determination
Continents
Presence of marine
mammals.
16 USC 1372(2)
Not an ARAR
MCLB Barstow is not near a coastal
area.
Magnuaon Fishery Conservation and Managamant AcT
fishery under
management
Provide* for conservation
and management of
specified fieheriea within
apecified flattery
conservation zone*.
Presence of managed
fisheries.
16 USC 1801 et
seq.
Not an ARAR
MCLB Baratow is not near areas of
managed fisheries.
•Statutes and policies, and their citations, are provided aa headings to identify general categories of ARARe for the convenience of the reader.
Listing the statutes and policiea does not indicate that the Navy accepts the entire statutes or policies as ARARs.
Specific ARARs are addressed in the table below each general heading; only substantive requirements of the specific citations are considered ARARs.
ARAM • Appfcsbls or rsfcvsnt snd »nJ»opitst» raquksmsflts.
CCR • CsOfomb Cods of Rsgulstions.
CFR • Cods of Fsdsnl Rsguhrtions.
HWCA • Hszsntous Wssts Control Act.
RCRA - Hssouros Conswvstkm snd Rseovsiy Act.
USC • UnHsd Ststss Cods.
-------
CTO293VB70018VTA4REV1 .WP
CLE-JO2-O1F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-4
Rare, Endangered, Threatened, and Species of Special Concern
(Natural Diversity Database 1994 and 1995)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Listing Status
Plants
Eriophyllum mohavense
Mimulus mohavensis
Phace/ia parish//'
Barstow woolly
sunflower
Mojave monkey flower
Parish's phacelia
F/C2
F/C2
F/C3c
Animals
Gila bicolor mohavensis
Xerobates agassizzi
Clemmys marmorata pa/I/da
Toxostoma lecontei
Falco mexicanus
Icteria virens
Spermophilus mohavensis
Mojave tui chub
Desert tortoise
Southwestern pond turtle
Le Conte's thrasher
Prairie falcon
Yellow-breasted chat
Mojave ground squirrel
F/E, CA/E
F/T, CA/T
F/C2, CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
F/C2, CA/T
Federal Listing
F/C2 - Candidate for listing, Category 2.
F/C3 - Candidate for listing, Category 3.
F/E - Endangered.
F/T - Threatened.
California State Listing
CA/E - Endangered.
CA/T - Threatened.
CSC - Species of Special Concern.
-------
CTO2931 >18VTA6REV1.WP
CLE-JO2-V J93-B7-0018
TABLE C-5
State Location-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow. California
Location
Requirement
Prerequisites
Citation
Fieh and Osme Coda*
Water of the
State
Fieh or Wildlife
Habitat
Endangered
Species Habitat
Prohibit* deposition into elate water of any
substance deleterious to fieh, plants, or birds.
Requires agency consultation for actions that
may have substantial adverse impacts to
existing fish or wildlife resources.
Projects within the state shall not jeopardize the
existence of any endangered or threatened
epecies or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of habitat essential to the species,
if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives
available consistent with preserving the species
that or its habitat that would prevent jeopardy.
No person shall import, export, take, possess, or
sell any endangered or threatened species or
part or product thereof.
Placement of toxic materials
where they can enter waters of
the state.
Substantial adverse impact to
an existing fish or wildlife
resource.
Threatened or endangered
species determination on or
before 1 January 1985 or a
candidate species with proper
notification.
V
Fish and Game code
Section 5650(1)
Fish and Game Code
1601
Fish and Game Code
Section 1900, 2053,
2060
ARAB
Determination
Comments
Not an ARAR
Applicable
Applicable
No discharge to surface waters of the
State are planned as part of the
remedial ection alternatives being
considered for CAOC 23 or CAOC 20.
The selected actions to be taken as
part of. OUs 3 and 4 remedial
alternatives are not expected to have
substantial adverse impacts to
existing fish or wildlife resources.
The selected actions to be taken as
part of OUs 3 and 4 remedial
alternatives are not expected to have
any long-term impacts on threatened
or endangered species.
'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 Marine Corps accepts the entire statutes or policies as ARARs.
Specific ARARs follow each general heading; only substantive requirements of the specific citations are considered ARARs.
ARAR • Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
-------
CTO293VB: 8\TA6REV1.WP
CLE-JO2-01 J-B7-0018
TABLE C-6
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 1 of 12)
Actions; 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Requirement
Prerequisites
Citation
ARAR
Determination*
A
RA
TBC
Comments
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 42 USC 6901 et eeq.'
On-site waste
generation
Hazardous waste
accumulation
Recordkeeping
Person who generates waste shall
determine if that waste la a
hazardous waste.
Generator may accumulate waste on
site for 90 daya or less or must
comply with requirements for
operating a storage facility.
Generator must keep records.
Generator of hazardous waste in
California.
Accumulate hazardous waste.
Generate hazardous waste.
22CCR
66262.10(8).
66262.11
22 CCR 66262.34
22 CCR 66262.40
Applicable for any operation
where waste is generated.
Operations planned for CAOC
23 alternatives include
consolidation of wastes
within the CAOC. This does
not constitute disposal or
waste generation.
No storage of hazardous
waste is planned as part of
proposed remedial actions.
Accumulation of hazardous
wastes on site for longer
than 90 daya would be
subject to RCRA
requirements for storage
facilities. Applicability of this
requirement is contingent
upon generation and
management of hazardous
waste during the remedial
activities.
Applicability of this
requirement is contingent
upon generation and
management of hazardous
waste during the remedial
activitiea. Nona planned.
-------
CT0293M
8VTA6REV1.WP
CLE-J02-0. -J3-B7-0018
TABLE C-6
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 2 of 12)
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Container storage
Container storage
(continued)
Requirement
Containers of RCRA hazardous
waste must be:
• Maintained in good condition
- Compatible with hazardous waste
to be stored
- Closed during storage except to
add or remove waste.
Inspect container storage areas
weekly for deterioration.
Place containers on a eloped, crack-
free base, and protect from contact
with accumulated liquid. Provide
containment system with a capacity
of 10 percent of the volume of
container* of free liquids. Remove
spilled or leaked waste in a timely
manner to prevent overflow of the
containment system.
Keep containers of Ignltable or
reactive waste at least 60 feet from
the facility property line.
Keep incompatible materials
separate. Separate Incompatible
materials stored near each other by
a dike or other barrier.
At closure, remove all hazardous
waste and residues from the
containment system, and
decontaminate or remove all
containers and linera.
Prerequisites
Storage of RCRA hazardous waste
not meeting small quantity generator
criteria held for e temporary period
greater than 90 days before
treatment, disposal or storage
elsewhere, in a container.
Storage of RCRA hazardous waste
not meeting small quantity generator
criteria held for a temporary period
greater than 90 daya before
treatment, disposal or storage
elsewhere, in a container.
»>
Citation
22 CCR 66284. 171,
172, 173
22 CCR 66264. 174
22 CCR
66264.176(8) and
(b)
22 CCR 66264. 176
22 CCR 66264. 177
22 CCR 66264. 178
ARAR
Determination*
A
RA
TBC
Comments
Applicability of this
requirement is contingent
upon generation and
management of hazardous
waste during remedial
actions. None planned.
Not an ARAR. Applicability
of this requirement is
contingent upon generation
and management of
hazardous waste during
remedial actions. None
planned:
-------
CT0293\B7WT&\TA8REV1 .WP
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-6
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 3 of 12)
Actions; 1 ) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Placement of
waste in land
disposal unit
Discharge to
groundwater from
regulated unit
Discharge to
groundwatar from
a regulated unit
Requirement
Attain land disposal treatment
standards before putting waste into
landfill in order to comply with land
ban restrictions.
Groundwater protection standards:
Owners/operators of RCRA
treatment, storage, or disposal
facilities must comply with condi-
tions In this section that are
designed to ensure that hazardous
constituents entering the ground-
watar from a regulated unit do not
exceed the concentration limits for
contaminants of concern set forth
under Section 66264.94 in the
uppermost aquifer underlying the
waste management area beyond the
point of compliance.
Water Quality Monitoring Program.
Owners/operators of RCRA
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities must develop and
implement a water quality
monitoring program to monitor the
potential for releases from the
facility or to demonstrate the
effectiveness of a corrective action
program (CAP).
Prerequisites
Placement of RCRA hazardous waste
in a landfill, surface impoundment,
waste pile, injection well, land
treatment facility, aalt dome
formation, or underground mine or
cave.
Uppermost aquifer underlying a waste
management unit beyond the point of
compliance; RCRA hazardous waste,
treatment, storage, or disposal.
V
Uppermost aquifer underlying a waste
management unit beyond the point of
compliance; RCRA hazardous waste,
treatment, storage, or disposal.
Citation
22 CCR 68288.40
22CCR
68264.94(81(1),
(a)(3), (c), (d). and
(e)
22 CCR Sections
66264.93;
66264.94,
66264.96,
66264.97(e),
86264.98,
66264.100
ARAR
Determination'
A
RA
TBC
Comments
Consolidation of materials
within the same CAOC is
planned, which does not
constitute placement.
Not en ARAR for selected
remedial actions.
Minimization of discharges to
groundwater from CAOCs 20
and 23 is addressed by
proposed remedial actions;
however, past and current
discharges from CAOC 23
will be addressed by the
removal action for OU 1
groundwater and subsequent
remedial actions for
groundwater at MCLB
Barstow.
Not an ARAR for the selected
remedial actions. The
groundwater monitoring
requirements for corrective
action programs under RCRA
will be addressed in OU 1
and OU 2.
-------
CTO293U
8VTA6REV1.WP
CLE-J02-0. ,3-87-0018
TABLE C-6
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 4 of 12)
Actions; 1 ) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Discharge to
groundwatar from
a regulated unit
Closure and post-
closure
Post-closuro care,
usa of property.
and plan
Requirement
Detection monitoring program
requirements.
General performance standard
requires elimination of the need for
further maintenance and control;
elimination of postclosure escape of
hazardous wastes, hazardous
constituents, leachate, contaminated
runoff, or hazardous waste
decomposition products; and
cleenup to health-based standards.
Requires monitoring and
maintenance for 30 years unless it is
demonstrated that human health and
the environment ere protected.
There are also security and land use
restriction requirements.
Prerequisites
**
Land-based unit containing RCRA
hazardous waste placed after the
effective date of the requirements, or
placed into another unit. Not
applicable to material treated, stored,
or disposed of before the effective
date of the requirements, or if treated
In situ or consolidated within the area
of contamination.
Citation
22 CCR Section
66264.98
22 CCR 66264. 1 1 1
except as it cross-
references procedural
requirements such as
preparation and
submittal of closure
plans and other
notifications.
22 CCR 86264. 117
and 68264.1 18
ARAB
Determination*
A
RA
3
3
TBC
Comments
Not an ARAR because it has
been demonstrated that the
site ie not a threat to
groundwater which is
protective of human health
and the environmental under
Title 22 CCR
66262. 117(b)(2|(A).
However, the selected action
for CAOC 20 includes
groundwster monitoring that
complies with these
requirements as if they were
ARARs. The monitoring
program is included in
Section 2.2.8 of the main
text of the ROD and will also
be included in the remedial
design document.
CAOCs 20 and 23 are not
classified as hazardous waste
landfills so this requirement
would not be applicable;
however, because some of
the wastes in the landfill may
contain hazardous
constituents, it is considered
to be potentially relevant and
appropriate for landfill closure
under the capping
alternatives.
The substantive requirements
of these provisions are
relevant and appropriate for
the closure of CAOCs 20 and
23.
-------
CT0293\B7WTiB\TA6REV1 .WP
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-6
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 5 of 12)
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Landfill Closure
Requirement
Require* that final cover muat be
designed and constructed to provide
long-term minimization of migration
of liquids through the cloaed landfill;
function with minimum
maintenance; promote drainage and
minimize erosion or abrasion of the
cover; accommodate settling and
subsidence so that the cover's
Integrity is maintained; and have a
permeability less than or equal to
the permeability of any bottom liner
or the natural subsoils present. Also
requires maintenence of cover,
continued operation of leechate
collection and groundwater
monitoring systems, and
maintenance of surveyed
benchmarks.
Prerequisites
Landfill containing RCRA hazardous
waste placed after the effective date
of the requirements, or placed into
another unit. Not applicable to
material treated, stored, or disposed
before the effective date of the
requirements.
V
Citation
22 CCR 264.310
except as it cross-
references procedural
requirements such as
preparation and
submittal of closure
plans and other
notifications.
ARAB
Determination*
A
RA
3
TBC
Comments
CAOCs 20 and 23 are not
classified as hazardous waste
landfills so this requirement
would not be applicable;
however, because some of
the wastes in the landfills
may contain hazardous
constituents, it is considered
to be relevant and
appropriate for in-place
landfill closure.
Requirements are identical to
those found in 40 CFR
268.80 (see page 10 of this
table).
Clean Air Act (CAA) 40 USC 7401 at eeq."
Discharge to air
Discharge to air
Provisions of SIP approved by EPA
under Section 11 0 of CAA.
Primary arid secondary NAAQS -
standards for ambient air quality to
protect public health and welfare
(including standards for paniculate
matter and lead).
Major sources of air pollutants.
Contamination of air affecting public
health and welfare.
40 USC 74 10;
portiona of 40 CFR
52.220 applicable to
Mojave AQMD.
40 CFR 60.4 -60. 12
3
Specific pertinent rules are
listed below.
Not an ARAR; federal
NAAQS are not enforceable
standards.
-------
CTO293U
8\TA6REV1.WP
CLE-J02-0.. _d3-B7-0018
TABLE C 6
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 6 of 12)
Actions: 1 ) Land ma restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Requirement
Vitibla emissions atandard that
•tatea a paraon ahatl not discharge
into tha atmosphere from any single
•ourea of emission, any air
contaminant for a period or parioda
aggregating more than 3 minutes in
a 60-mlnute period, which Is: a) aa
dark or darker In shade aa that
designated No.' 1 on tha Ringlemann
Chart, or b) of such opacity as to
obscure an observer's view to a
degree aqua) to or greater than does
smoke described in a).
Nuisance standard that states a
paraon ahall not discharge from any
source such quantities of air
contamlnanta or other material that
cauae injury, detriment, nuisance, or
annoyance to any considerable
number of paraons or to tha public.
Prerequisites
Discharge of visible emissions.
Discharge to air.
v
Citation
Mojava AQMD Rule
401
Mojave AQMD Rule
402
ARAR
Determination*
A
3
3
RA
TBC
Comments
Grading and excavation
activities could produce
visible emissions due to
fugitive dusts. Mitigation
measures, such as wetting
the soil or waste, may be
required to meet discharge
requirements.
Grading and excavation
activities could produce
fugitive dust. Mitigation
measures, such as watting
the soil or waste and limiting
the amount of waste exposed
at any one time, may be
necessary to meet discharge
requirements.
-------
CT0293\B7OTTiB\TA6REV1 .WP
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-6
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 7 of 12)
Actions; 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Discharge to air
Requirement
Fugitive dust standard states that a
person shall not cause or allow
•missions 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 tske every
ressonable precaution to minimize
fugitive dust emissions from
grading, excavation, and aolid waste
dispose! activities. Paniculate
matter must not be allowed to
exceed 100//g/m' when determined
SB a difference between upwind and
downwind samples collected on high
volume asmplers at the property line
for a minimum of 6 hours.
Exceptions to these limits are
allowed when the wind speed
instantaneoualy exceeds 40
kilometers (26 miles) per hour, or
when average wind speed is greater
than 24 kilometers (16 miles) per
hour.
Prerequisites
Discharge of fugitive dust.
«!
Citation
Mojave AQMD Rule
403
ARAR
Determination*
A
3,4
RA
TBC
Comments
Grading and excavation
activities could produce
fugitive dust. Mitigation
measures, such as wetting
the soil or waste, may be
required to meet discharge
requirements.
-------
CT0293V
8VTA6REV1.WP
CLE-J02-C J3-B7-0018
TABLE C-6
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 8 of 12}
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Requirement
U.S Department of Transportation. 49 USC 1802 et seq.
Hazardous
Materials
Transportation
Hazardous
Materials
Marking, Labeling.
and Placarding
No parson shall represent that a
container or package is safe unless
it meets tho requirements of 49 USC
1 802 at *«/. or represent that a
hazardous material is present in a
package or motor vehicle if it is not.
No person shall unlawfully alter or
deface labels, placards or descrip-
tions, packages, containers, or
motor vehicles used for
transportation of hazardous
materials.
Each person who offers hazardous
material for transportation or each
carrier that transports it shall mark
each package, container, and vehicle
in the manner required.
Each peraon offering nonbulk
hazardoua materials for
transportation shall mark the proper
shipping name and identification
number (technical name) and
conaignee'a name and address.
Prerequisites
Citation
ARAR
Determination*
A
RA
TBC
Comments
Interstate carriers transporting
hazardous waste and substances by
motor vehicle. Transportation of
hazardous material under contract
with any department of the executive
branch of the federal government.
Person who offers hazardoua material
for transportation; carries'hazardous
material; or packages, labels, or
placards hazardous material.
49CFR 171.2(0
49CFR 171.2(g)
49CFR 172.300
49 CFR 172.301
Not an ARAR. No wastes are
being transported outside of
the CAOC.
See comment above.
See comment above.
Sea comment above.
-------
CTO293\B7flffT8\TA6REV1 .WP
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-6
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 9 of 12)
Actions: 1 ) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Hazardous
Materials
Marking. Labeling,
and Placarding
(continued)
Requirement
Hazardous materials for
transportation in bulk packages must
be labelled with proper identification
(ID| number, specified in 49 CFR
172.101 table, with required eize of
print. Packages must remain
marked until cleaned or refilled with
material requiring other marking.
No package marked with a proper
shipping name or ID number may be
offered for transport or transported
unless the package containa the
Identified hazardous material or its
residue.
The markings must be durable, in
English, in contrasting colors,
unobscured, and away from other
markings.
Labeling of hazardous material
packages shall be as specified in the
list.
Nonbulk combination packagea
containing liquid hazardous materials
must be pecked with closures
upward, and marked with arrows
pointing upward.
Prerequisites
»!
Citation
49 CFR 172.302
49 CFR 172.303
49 CFR 172.304
49 CFR 172.400
49 CFR 172.312
ARAB
Determination*
A
RA
TBC
Comments
See comment above.
See comment above.
See comment ebove.
See comment above.
See comment above.
-------
CTO293U
8\TA6REV1 .WP
CLE-J02-0. .J3-B7-0018
TABLE C 6
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 10 of 12)
Actions: 1 ) Land use restrictions. 2} Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Hazardous
Materials
Marking, Labeling,
and Placarding
(continued)
Requirement
Bulk packaging or transport vehicle
containing any quantity of
hazardous material must be
placarded on each side and each end
with the type of placarda Hated In
Table* 1 and 2 of 49 CFR 172.604.
Prerequisites
Each person who offera for transport
or transports any hazardous materials
shall comply with these placarding
requirements.
Citation
49 CFR 172.504
ARAR
Determination*
A
RA
TBC
Comments
See comment above.
Criteria for Cbeeffloatlon of SoM Waste Disposal Faentles and Practices. 40 CFR 267*
Solid Waste
Disposal
A facility or practice shall not
contaminate an underground
drinking water source beyond the
solid waste boundary or a court- or
State-established alternative.
Solid waste disposal facility and
practices except agricultural wastes,
overburden resulting from mining
operations, land application of
domestic sewage, location and opera-
tions of septic tanks, solid or
dissolved materials in irrigation return
flows, industrial discharges that are
point sources subject to permits under
CWA, nuclear or by-product material
aa defined by the Atomic Energy Act,
hazardous waste disposal facilities
that are subject to regulation under
RCRA Subtitle C, disposal of solid
waste by underground well injection,
and municipal solid waste landfill
units.
40 CFR 257.3-4 and
Appendix 1
Minimization of discharges to
groundwater from CAOCs 20
and 23 are addressed by
selected remedial actions;
however, past and current
discharges will be addressed
by the removal action for OU
1 groundwater and
subsequent remedial actions
for groundwater at MCLB
Barstow.
-------
CT0293\B73W5\TA6REV1 .WP
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-6
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 11 of 12)
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Qroundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Requirement
Criteria for Municipal 8oM Wist* Landfflh, 40 CFR 268*
Landfill closure
Set* forth requirements for closure
and post-closure care of municipal
waste landfills.
Requires the fins) cover system to
be designed to minimize infiltration
and erosion. Provides specific
technical standards for cover design,
but allows for alternative cover
designs if it is demonstrated that
they achieve the same level of
performance.
Prerequisites
Citation
ARAR
Determination*
A
Applicable to municipal waste landfills
that received waste after 9 October
1991.
V,
Placement of final covers.
40 CFR 268,
Subpart F, Closure
and Postclosure Care
(258.60 and 268.61)
Section 258.60 (a)(b)
RA
TBC
3,4
3,4
Comments
CAOCs 20 and 23 did not
receive wastes after 9
October 1991; therefore the
requirements of 40 CFR 258
would not be applicable.
However, the substantive
portions of the landfill closure
requirements in 40 CFR
258.60 would be considered
relevant and appropriate for
CAOC 23 because CAOC 23
received domestic wastes
from MCLB Barstow that are
similar or identical to wastes
managed in municipal waste
landfills.
Substantive requirements are
relevant and appropriate to
the cover designs.
-------
CTO293M
8VTA6REV1 .WP
CLE-JO2-0.. -3-B7-0018
TABLE C-6
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 12 of 12)
Actions; 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Landfill Closure
(continued)
Requirement
Require* postclosure maintenance
for 30 yeare unless it can be
demonstrated that a shorter or
longer maintenance period 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
terminated.
Prerequisites
Postclosure maintenance.
Citation
Section 268.61
ARAR
Determination*
A
RA
1
TBC
Comments
Substantive requirements are
relevant and appropriate for
landfill closure. Analysis of
alternatives assumes e
minimum postclosure period
of 30 years.
•A blank in all three columns indicates that the requirement is not an ARAR or TBC.
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.
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.
NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standards (primary and secondary).
RA - Relevant and appropriate.
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
SIP - State Implementation Plan.
TBC - To be considered.
USC - United States Code.
3 - Micrograms per cubic meter.
-------
CT0293\B70018VTA7REV1 .WP
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-7
State Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 1 of 17)
Actions; 1 ) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring.
Action
Requirement
California Envhonmwtd Quality Act (CEOAf
R0«pon«a
action
Require* analytic of environmental
Impacts of response action*,
comparison of alternative actions,
and implementation of appropriate
mitigation measure*. No hazardous
substance* may remain on site
unle** further mitigation la not
feasible.
«. .!• 11. ._...<..• . _ J.
Landfill
Closure
Seta forth the performance
•tandard* and minimum
requirement* for proper closure,
postelosure maintenance, and
proper reuse of *olid waste disposal
sites to assure that public health
and safety and the environment are
protected from pollution due to
disposal of solid waste.
Emergency Response Plan.
Potential emergency conditions that
may exceed the design of the site
and could endanger the public
health or environment must be
anticipated. Response procedure*
for these condition* must be
addressed in the RD/RA plans.
Security at Closed Sites. All points
of access to the site must be
restricted, except permitted entry
point*. All monitoring, control, and
recovery systems shall be protected
from unauthorized acce**.
Prerequisites
3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Citation
ARAR
Determination*
A
RA
CEQA, California
Public Resources Code
21100etseq. 15000
and 15002
Applicable to solid
waste disposal sites
that did not
commence closure
prior to 18 August
1989 or any new
postclosure activities
that may jeoperdize
the integrity of
previously closed
sites.
14 CCR, Division 7,
Chapter 3 (Minimum
Standards for Solid
Waste Handling and
Disposal), Article 7.8,
1*7760.
14 CCR 17766
14 CCR 17767
3
3
1
TBC
Comments
Not an ARAR. CEQA is applicable to state
actions and not to federal actions. The
CERCLA process, as amended by SARA, is
the functional equivalent of NEPA and
CEQA. Because CEQA is not more
stringent then CERCLA, CEQA is not an
ARAR for this action.
Section 17760 not an ARAR in itself but
•eta the scope end applicability of
regulations discussed below. The
substantive portions of Article 7.8 listed as
applicable below are applicable to CAOCs
20 and 23 because the landfills did not
commence closure prior to 1 8 August
1989.
The substantive portions of this
requirement will be addressed in the RD/RA
plans.
More stringent than Federal 22 CCR
requirements at Section 66264. 117. MCLB
Bsrstow is an operating military facility with
access controls in place. The need for
additional controls to protect monitoring,
control, and recovery systems will be
assessed during remedial design.
-------
CT029S
J18VTA7REV1.WP
CLE-J02-U..293-B7-0018
TABLE C-7
State Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 2 of 17)
Actions: 1 ) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Landfill
Closure
(continued)
Requirement
Specifies final cover requirements.
Cross-references Title 23, Section
2581 (o) with regard to specific
cover requirements and states that
engineered alternatives to the
prescriptive standard will only be
allowed when the prescriptive
standard is determined not to be
reasonable and when there is an
alternative that is consistent with
the performance goal of the
prescriptive standard and affords
equivalent protection of water
quality impairment. Additional
cover requirements can be required
if they are determined to be needed
to limit infiltration of water; to
control landfill gas emissions; to
provide for future reuse of the site;
or to protect the low permeability
layer from desiccation, penetration
by rodents, and heavy equipment
damage.
Specifies testing and inspection
requirements to ensure that
materials utilized in the placement
of tha final cover will be tested.
constructed, and monitored in
accordance with the design
specifications.
Final Grades. The final grades for
the covered landfill must meet the
grading standards provided in 23
CCR 2S81, they must be
appropriate to control runoff and
erosion.
Prerequisites
Placement of final
covers.
Citation
Section
17773(b)(c)(d)
**•
Section 17774
(a)(c)(el(f)(g)(h)|il
14 CCR 17776
ARAR
Determination"
A
3
3
3
RA
TBC
Comments
Substantive requirements ere potentially
applicable to the placement of the final
cover.
Substantive testing end inspection
requirements specified in this section would
be potentially applicable to the placement
of the final cover. Procedural requirements.
such as preparation of a construction
quality assurance report are not ARARs for
proposed alternatives.
The requirements of 23 CCR 2581 have
already been identified as a potential ARAR.
-------
CT0293\B70O18\TA7REV1 .WP
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-7
State Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 3 of 17)
Actions; 1 ) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring.
Action
Landfill
Closure
(continued)
Requirement
Final Sita Faea. The design of the
final aita face mutt provide for the
integrity of the final cover under
both static and dynamic condition!.
Final Drainage. The deeign of the
final cover mutt control run-on and
runoff produced by a 100-year
24-hour etorm event and must be
prepared according to construction
quality assurance requirements.
Requires development and
implementation of procedures to
protect the Integrity of the final
cover and enhance ita ability to
prevent erosion and minimize soil
erosion from undisturbed areas on
site.
Requires monitoring, collection,
treatment, and proper disposal of
landfill leachate until such time that
it can be demonstrated that
leachate ia no longer being
produced, or the discharges of
leachate will have no effect on
water quality. Specifies a minimum
of quarterly monitoring.
Prerequisites
Placement of final
covers.
Landfill closure and
postclosure
maintenance.
3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Citation
14CCR 17777
14CCR 17778
Section 17779
••.
Section 17781
(a)(b)(c)(e)
ARAR
Determination*
A
3
3
RA
^TBC
Comments
Substantive requirements pertaining to the
establishment and maintenance of a
vegetative cover and maintaining slope
stability may be applicable for
capping/cover alternatives.
Not an ARAR. The RWQCB has determined
that retrofitting with a leachate collection
and removal system is not required for
abandoned and inactive units constructed
without leachate collection systems
because CAOCe 20 and 23 are inactive
landfills that do not contain liquids or gases
that are leaking from the waste
management unit. Retrofitting was found
to be infeasible. The selected remedy,
which includes a landfill final cover, will
provide additional protection for weter
quality. Evaluation indicates that the CAOC
20 and 23 landfills are not likely sources for
current or future leakage or impact to
groundwater.
-------
CT0293 J18VTA7REV1.WP
CLE-J02-*,. .293-87-0018
TABLE C-7
State Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow. California
(Sheet 4 of 17)
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Landfill
Closure
(continued)
Requirement
Requires that landfill gases are
controlled during periods of closure
and postcloaure maintenance such
that: 1 ) tha concentration of
mathana gaa does not excaad 1 .25
pareant of tha volume in air within
on-slte structures; 2) tha
concentration of mathana gas
migrating from tha landfill must not
exceed 5 pareant by volume in air
at tha facility property boundary or
at an alternative boundary in
accordance with Section 17783.5.;
and 3) traca gasas shall ba
controlled to prevent adverse acute
and chronic exposure to toxic
and/or carcinogenic compounds.
Period of control muat continue for
30 years or until it can ba
demonstrated that thera is no
potential for gas migration beyond
the property boundary or into on-
site structures.
Requires postclosura maintenance
for a period not less than 30 years.
If at the and of 30 years it can ba
demonstrated that tha site poses
no threat to public health and
safety, or tha environment, tha
postclosura maintenance period
may ba terminated.
Prerequisites
Landfill closure and
postcloaura
maintenance.
Postclosura
maintenance.
Citation
Section 17783
(aXbl(d)
V
Section 17788
ARAR
Determination*
L A
3
1
RA
TBC
Comments
Not an ARAR. It has been demonstrated
that there is no potential for gas migration
beyond tha property or into on-site
structures. Section 17783.17 provides
exemptions from all or part of these
requirements if it can be demonstrated that
thera are no potential impacts to public
health and safety and environment based
on, but not limited to: tha size, nature, and
age of tha refuse; projected gas generation;
and remoteness of the facility.
Substantive requirements are applicable
because they are more stringent than
Federal ARARs and do not allow a shorter
poatclosure period. Analysis of alternatives
assumes a minimum postclosure period of
30 years.
-------
CT0293\B70018VTA7REV1 .WP
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-7
State Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow. California
(Sheet 5 of 17)
Actions; 1} Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Landfill
Closure
(continued)
Requirement
Poatclosure land use. Site closure
design shall show one or more
proposed uses of the closed site or
show development that Is
compatible with open space.
Changes In postolosura land use
must be approved by the
appropriate state agency prior to
Implementation.
State Water RMOUTCM Control Board (8WRCB) and R*
Discharges to
land or surface
or
groundwater
that could
affect water
quality
Authorizes the Stata and regional
water boards to establish In water
quality control plans beneficial uses
and numerical and narrative
standards to protect both aurfaca
and groundwater quality.
Authorizes regional water boards to
issue permits for discharges to land
or surface or groundwater that
could affect water quality, including
NPOES permits, and to take
enforcement action to protect
water quality.
Prerequisites
Citation
14CCR 17796
ARAR
Determination*
A
1
RA
TBC
Comments
To the extent these requirements are not
more stringent that Federal ARARs at 22
CCR 66262.117, these requirements do
not apply. Substantive provisions that
provide additional requirements other than
Federal ARARs are applicable.
tonal Water Quality Control Board (RWQCBT
California Water Code,
Division 7, Section
13241, 13243,
13360, and 13263|a)
(Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act)
Not an ARAR for the selected remedy.
Groundwater ARARs will be addressed in
OU 1 and OU 2. Only leak detection
monitoring requirements area addressed in
this ROD.
-------
CT029i
J18VTA7REV1.WP
CLE-J02-^ .293-67-0018
TABLE C-7
Stale Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 6 of 17)
Actions: 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Discharges to
land or surface
or
groundwatar
that could
affoct water
quality
(continued)
Dischargee to
land or surface
or
groundwatar
that could
affect water
quality
(continued)
Requirement
Prerequisites
Citation
California Water Code,
Section 13225
California Water Code,
Section 13260
»i
California Water Code,
Section 13263
ARAR
Determination*
A
2
RA
TBC
Comments
Section 1 3225 governs the regional board
authorities rather than the obligations of
dischargers. Any requirements indirectly
aimed at dischargers are administrative and
not substantive and are therefore not
ARARs.
Thie section defines who is required to file
a report of waste discharge and the fee
schedule. As theee are primarily
adminiatrative and not substantive
requirements, they are not ARARs for OU
3/4 remedial actions. However, the
CERCLA documentation that is submitted
for regional board review should satisfy the
report of waste discharge requirements.
This section authorizes the regional board
to prescribe the requirements under which
a waste discharge may take place. These
are referred to as Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDRs). Theee requirements
will be addressed in OU 1 and OU 2.
CERCLA response actions taken entirely on
site are exempt from permitting
requirements. Ae stated above, the
purpose of the remedial actions at CAOC
20 and 23 are to minimize further
discharges to groundwater from these
units; however, the groundwater
contamination that has resulted from those
diecharges will be addressed by OUs 1 and
2.
-------
CT0293\B70018VTA7REV1 .WP
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-7
State Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 7 of 17)
Actions; 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Discharge* to
land or •urfaca
or
groundwatar
that could
affact watar
quality
(continued)
Requirement
Prerequisites
Citation
California Water Code,
Section 13267
California Water Code,
Section 13304
V
California Watar Coda,
Section 13377
Other provisions of
Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act
ARAR
Determination*
A
RA
TBC
Comments
This section authorizes the regional board
to require technical or monitoring program
reports for waste discharges. Monitoring
program information will be transmitted for
RWQCB review and comment. Specific
monitoring requirements evaluated for this
remedy area addressed under Title 23 CCR
Section 2550.8 and Title 22 CCR
66264.98.
Section 1 3304(a) contains general language
regarding the obligation of a discharger that
craates a condition of pollution or nuisance
to clean up or abate the effects of the
discharge. This language is not more
stringent than the other federal and state
ARARs that have been identified and
therefore is not an ARAR. Sections
1 3304(b) and 1 3304(c) are cost-recovery
provisions that are administrative and not
substantive and are therefore not ARARs
for the OU 3/4 remedial action.
This section establishes the state and
regional boards authority to issue waste
discharge requirements and dredge and fill
permits. It governs the state and regional
board authorities rather than the obligations
of dischargers. Any requirements indirectly
aimed at dischargers are administrative and
not substantive and are therefore not
ARARs.
The Marina Corps has evaluated remaining
requirements of the California Water Code
and determined the requirements are not
ARARs.
-------
CTO293 018VTA7REV1 .WP
CLE-J02-W ..293-87-0018
TABLE C-7
Stata Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow. California
(Sheet 8 of 17)
Actions; 1) Land usa restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Actions
affecting
water quality
in Lahontan
region
Discharges to
high-quality
water
Requirement
Describes the water basins in the
Lahontan region, establishes
beneficial use of ground and
turf ace watera, establishes water
quality objectives, including
narrative and numerical standards,
establishes implementation plan* to
meat water quality objectives and
protect beneficial uea, and
incorporates statewide water
quality control plans and policies.
Incorporated into all regional board
basin plans. Requires that quality
of water of the Stata that is better
than needed to protect all beneficial
usa be maintained unless certain
findings are made. Discharges to
high-quality water must be treated
using best practicable treatment or
control necessary to prevent
pollution or nuisance and to
maintain the highest quality water.
Requires cleanup to background
water quality or to lowest concen-
trations technically and
economically feasible to achieve.
Beneficial use must, at least, be
protected.
Prerequisites
Citation
Water Quality Control
Plan for the Lahontan
Region
SWRCB Resolution
No. 68- 16 (policy with
respect to maintaining
high quality of water
in California) (Water
Code 13140, CWA
regulations 40 CFR
131.12)
ARAR
Determination*
A
RA
TBC
Comments
Not an ARAR for selected remedial actions.
Groundwater contamination resulting from
CAOCe 20 and 23 will be addressed by
other removal and remedial actions at the
site under OU 1 .
Not an ARAR for CAOCs 20 and 23
selected alternatives. Groundwater
contamination resulting from these CAOCs
is outside the scope of these remedial
actions and will be addressed by other
removal and remedial actions within OU 1 .
-------
CT0293\B70018VTA7REV1 .WP
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-7
State Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 9 of 17)
Actions; 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Cleanup and
abatemant of
wastes that
affect or
threaten water
quality
Requirement
Establishes policies and procedures
for the oversight of investigations
and cleanup and abatement
activities resulting from the
discharges of waste that affect or
threaten water quality. Requires
cleanup of all waste discharged and
restoration of affected water to
background conditions. Requires
actions for cleanup and abatement
to conform to Resolution No. 68-16
and applicable provisions of 23
CCR, Division 3. Chapter 16, as
feasible.
Prerequisites
Citation
SWRCB Resolution
No. 92-49 (Policies
and Procedures for
Investigation and
Cleanup and
Abatement of
Discharges Under
Water Code 13304)
ARAR
Determination"
A
RA
TBC
Comments
The Marina Corps has determined that
SWRCB Resolution 92-49 does not
constitute an ARAR for CAOC 23 because
its pertinent requirements are not more
stringent than the ARAR provisions of
Title 22, Section 66264.94. See Section
C2.1 .1 for further discussion.
The State contends that Resolution 92-49
is an ARAR for closure of landfill waste.
The Stete of Marine Corps dwagree on this
application of Resolution 92-49 as an
ARAR. See Sections C2.1.1 and C4.2.3
for further discussion of this issue.
-------
CT029:
J18VTA7REV1.WP
ClE-JO2-<. 293-B7-0018
TABLE C-7
State Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 10 of 17)
Actions; 1 ) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Discharge of
waste* to land
Requirement
Implement* the State Water
Board'* regulation governing the
discharge of waste to land (23 CCR
Section 2510 »t seq., 'Chapter
1 6"), and implements those water
quality related portions of the
federal regulations governing the
discharge of municipal solid waste
(MSW) at landfills (4O CFR 258.
•Federal MSW regulations') that
are not addressed by Chapter 1 5.
The Federal MSW regulations apply
to all landfills that receive waste on
or after 9 October 1991.
Prerequisites
Citation
SWRCB Resolution
93-82 (Policy for
Regulations of
Discharges of
Municipal Solid
Waste)
*i
ARAR
Determination*
A
RA
TBC
Comments
The Stete asserts that SWRCB Resolution
No. 93-62 contains substantive
requirements that apply to the discharger.
as well as the Boards. Even if it were
found to apply only to the Boards, it would
still be relevant and appropriate for the
discharger.
The Marine Corps notes that this resolution
primarily consists of SWRCB direction to
the RWQCB addressing the scheduling of
phased Implementation of an integration of
new Federal RCRA Subtitle D solid waste
disposal regulations with the State of
California's Title 23 CCR Chapter 1 6
requirements for new and existing landfills
and does not include additional
promulgated requirements. As noted
elsewhere, CAOCs 20 end 23 are
considered 'closed, inactive, or abandoned"
units under Section 2510 (g) of Title 23
CCR, Chapter 1 5, subject only to Article 5
requirements. The Marine Corps, therefore,
assarts that SWRCB Resolution 93-62 does
not constitute an ARAR.
In addition, the Marine Corps notes that
Title 23, Chapter 1 5, and 40 CFR 258
requirements are evaluated and ARARs
identified are presented in other portions of
this ARARs evaluation.
-------
CT0293\B"f6lB\TA7REV1 .WP
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-7
State Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 end 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 11 of 17)
Actions: 1 ) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Discharge of
waste* to land
(continued)
Requirement
Water quality aspect* of waste
discharge to land regulations
specified below.
Actions taken by or at the direction
of pubic agencies to clean up or
abate conditions of pollution or
nuisance resulting from
unintentional or unauthorized
releases of waste or pollution to the
environment area exempt from the
provisions of Chapter 1 6 provided
that remedial actions intended to
contain the waste at the place of
release shall Implement applicable
provisions to the extent feasible.
Waste managsment units which are
abandoned or Inactive on the
effective data of these
requirements (27 November 1 984)
may be required to develop and
implement a monitoring program in
accordance with Article 5.
Allows for alternatives to
construction or prescriptive
standards contained In Chapter 1 6
if the standard is determined not to
be feasible and there is a specific
engineered alternative that is
consistent with the performance
goal addressed by the prescriptive
performance or standard and it
affords equivalent protection
against water quality impairment.
Prerequisites
Weste management
unit.
Waste management
unit.
Citation
23 CCR, Division 3,
Chapter 16 (California
Water Code Sections
13172 and 13267)
Article 1, 2511 (d)
V
Article 1, Section
2510(g)
Article 1, Section
2510(c)
ARAR
Determination'
A
RA
TBC
ARAR determinations
made for Subsections
as listed below
3
3
3
Comments
The application of specific sections of
Chapter 1 5 that are ARARs are discussed
below. Requirements that ere not ARARs
are listed only for completeness.
The selective remedy is to contain waste at
the place of release for closure of a landfill.
Chapter 1 5 requirements wilt be applied to
the extent feasible as discussed below.
Only monitoring under Article 5 may be
required because CAOCs 20 and 23 area
inactive units. Therefore, under the
251 1(d) exemption, the requirements under
23 CCR Chapter 1 5 are not potentially
applicable requirements for other then
monitoring. Other Chapter 1 5 requirements
are evaluated for determining whether they
are relevant end appropriate below.
The Regional Board hes determined that the
methods of waste containment proposed in
the final remedies for buried wastes at
CAOCs 20 and 23 are equivalent to en
engineered alternative under Chapter 1 5. A
description and basis for the engineered
elternatives of the methods are given in
Section 2.2.8 and 2.3.8 titled "The
Selected Remedy." The engineered
alternatives meet the performance
standards as set forth by Chapter 1 5.
-------
CTO29S
J18VTA7REV1.WP
CLE-JO2-V.. ^93-87-0018
TABLE C-7
State Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 12 of 17)
Actions; 1 ) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Discharge of
wastes to land
(continued)
Requirement
Specifies classification and siting
criteria for waste management
units. Existing units shall be
reclassified according to the
applicable criteria in this article
provided that they comply with the
siting criteria for each category of
existing units in Section* 2531,
2532, and 2633 and are operating
in compliance with Section
261 Old).
Specifications permeability testing
and for earthern materials used in
containment structures.
Requirements for liners for Class 1
and Class II waste management
units.
Prerequisites
Waste management
unit.
Citation
Article 3, 2530-2533
Article 4, Section
2541(c),(d)
Article 4, Section
2542(b)
ARAR
Determination*
A
RA
3
TBC
Comments
Not ARARs. CAOCs 20 and 23 ere inactive
units.
Substantive portions of this requirement are
relevant and appropriate for the design of
the final cover because they are more
stringent than Federal ARARs.
Not an ARAR. CAOC 20 and CAOC 23 are
abandoned end inactive units constructed
without clay liners. The RWQCB hes
determined that retrofitting with a liner
system and leachata collection and removal
systems is not required because CAOCs 20
and 23 are inactive landfills that do not
contain liquids or gases that are leaking
from the waste management unit.
Retrofitting was also found to be infeasible.
The selected remedy, which includes a
landfill final cover, will provide additional
protection for water quality. Evaluation
indicates that CAOCs 20 and 23 landfills
are not likely significant current or future
sources of either leachata or impacts to
water quality.
-------
CTO293V
18VTA7REV1.WP
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-7
State Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 13 of 17)
Actions; 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Discharges of
waste to land
(continued)
Requirement
Precipitation on landfills or waste
piles that is not diverted by covers
or drainage control systems shall be
collected and managed through the
leachate collection and removal
system.
Monitoring requirements for waste
management units; establishes
water quality protection standards
for corrective action including
concentration limits for
constituents of concern at
background levels unless infeasible
to achieve.- Cleanup levels greater
than background must meet all
applicable water quality standard*,
must be the lowest levels
technologically or economically
feasible, must consider exposure
via other media, and must consider
combined lexicological effects of
pollutants. A detection monitoring
program must be maintained except
during any periods when an
egency-approved corrective action
program is underway.
Prerequisites
Citation
Article 4, Section
2646(b)
__
Article 5, Sections
2550.0(a),
2550. l(aHI),
2650.4(dl, (e), (f)
ARAR
Determination*
A
RA
TBC
Comments
Not an ARAR. CAOC 20 and CAOC 23 are
abandoned and inactive units constructed
without leachate collection systems. The
RWQCB has determined that retrofitting
with a liner system and leachata collection
and removal systems is not required
because CAOCs 20 and 23 are inactive
landfills that do not contain liquids or gases
that are leaking from the waste
management unit. Retrofitting was also
found to be infeasible. The selected
remedy, which includes a landfill final
cover, will provide additional protection for
water quality. Evaluation indicates that
CAOCs 20 and 23 landfills are not likely
significant current or future sources of
either leachate or impacts to water quality.
Not an ARAR for this operable unit.
Groundwater ARARs other than detection
monitoring ARARs will be addressed in OU
1 and OU 2.
-------
CT029:
J18VTA7REV1.WP
CLE-J02-V .293-87-0018
TABLE C-7
State Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 14 of 17)
Actions; 1 ) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Discharge* of
watte to land
(continued)
Requirement
Water Quality Monitoring Program.
Owners or operator* of facilities
that treat. More, or dispose of
watte at waste management unite
mutt implement a water quality
monitoring program to monitor the
potential for releatet from the unit
or to demonstrate the effectiveness
of a corrective action program.
Detection monitoring program.
Surface Water Monitoring Systems.
Requirement that a discharger
establish a surface water
monitoring system to monitor each
surface water body that could be
affected by a release from a waste
management unit.
Prerequisites
Citation
Article 5, Sections
2SS0.3, 2550.4,
2550.5, 2550.7(8),
2650.8, 2550.10
Article 5, Sections
2550.8
Article 5, Section
2550.7(c|
ARAR
Determination*
A
RA
TBC
Comments
Not ARARs for this operable unit. Thase
and other groundwater requirements other
detection monitoring requirements will be
addressed in OU 1 and OU 2.
Not an ARAR because there has been no
evidence that the site is a threat to
groundwater under Title 23 CCR 2580(al.
However, the selected actions for CAOC 20
includes groundwater monitoring that
complies with these requirements as if they
were ARARs.
There are no surface water bodies that
could be impacted by a release from
CAOCs 20 and 23. Therefore, this
requirement is not a potential ARAR for
OUs 3/4 remedial actions.
-------
CTO293\B?Obl8\TA7REV1 .WP
CLE-J 02-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-7
State Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow, California
(Sheet 15 of 17)
Actions; 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Closure and
postclosure
Closure and
postclosure
(continued)
Requirement
Requlree that classified waste
management units be closed in
accordance with en approved
closure and postclosure plen that
provides for continued compliance
with the applicable standards for
waste contaminant and
precipitation and drainage controls
in Article 4 of this subchapter, and
the monitoring program
requirements in Article 5 of this
subchapter. Requires that the
waate management unit 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
postolosure and maintenance
period*.
Establishes final cover
requirements, including cover
thickness and permeability, grading.
and postclosure requirements to
maintain structural integrity and
effectiveness of all containment
structures. Requires operating
leachate collection and removal
systems as long as leachate is
generated and collected;
maintaining monitoring systems for
groundwater and the unsaturated
zone in accordance with Article 5
of this Chapter, preventing erosion
and related damage of final cover
due to drainage; and protecting and
maintaining surveyed monuments.
Prerequisites
Closure and
postclosure
maintenance
Closure and
postclosura
maintenance.
Citation
Article 8. 2580(a) and
(d)
Section 2681
(a) and (b), Section
2541 (c) end (d)
ARAB
Determination*
A
RA
3
3
TBC
Comments
Substantive requirements of this section
that are more stringent than Federal ARARs
are relevant and appropriate for closure of
CAOCs 20 and 23.
Substantive requirements of these
provisions that are more stringent than
Federal ARARs are relevant and appropriate
requirements for placement of final cover.
-------
CTO29:
)18\TA7REV1.WP
CLE-JO2- ^93-B7-0018
TABLE C-7
State Action-Specific ARARs
OUs 3 and 4
MCLB Barstow. California
(Sheet 16 of 17)
Actions; 1) Land use restrictions. 2) Groundwater monitoring. 3) Capping/Cover. 4) Consolidation.
Action
Stormwater
Runoff
Controls
Stormwater
Runoff
Controls
(continued)
Requirement
Design report and operations plan
requirements
Closure and post-closure care
maintenance plan requirements
Prior to closure, inactive waste
management units must comply
with the substantive requirements
for eliminating most non-storm
water discharges, developing and
implementing a Stormwater
pollution prevention plan, and
monitoring the Stormwater
discharges.
Waste management units that are
going through final closure with
five acres of disturbance or more
must comply with the substantive
requirements for eliminating most
non-storm water discharges,
developing and implementing a
storm water pollution prevention
plan, and performing monitoring of
Stormwater discharges.
Prerequisites
Citation
Article 9, Section
2596
Substantive provisions
of Article 9, Section
2597
SWRCB Order No.
91-13-DWQ, as
amended by Order No.
92-1 2-OWQ (General
Industrial Storm Water
Permit)
SWRCB Order No.
92-08-DWQ (General
Construction Activity
Storm Water Permit)
ARAR
Determination*
A
RA
3
TBC
Comments
Not an ARAR. These requirements address
operations and monitoring. CAOCs 20 and
23 are inactive unite no longer in
operations. The monitoring requirements
will be addressed in OU 1 and OU 2.
Only the substantive provisions of these
requirements that are more stringent than
Federal ARARs are relevant and appropriate
for the closure of CAOCs 20 and 23. This
sections outlines the requirements for the
•closure and post-closure maintenance
plans. Preparation of closure and post-
closure plens are procedural requirements
and are not potential ARARs. However, the
design documents will document how the
substantive requirements that are more
stringent than Federal ARARs will be met.
Current etorm water discharges from the
landfill areas at MCLB Barstow are
addressed by the base's Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Program Plan (dated
16 September 1994).
The substantive requirements of the storm
water pollution prevention program outlined
in the general permit will be incorporated
into the remedial design documents and
implemented during the remedial action. A
separate Stormwater pollution prevention
plan will not be prepared.
-------
.WP CLE-JO2-
-------
CT0293\B70018VTA8REV1 .WP
CLE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-8
Technical Requirements for Landfill Closure
(Sheet 1 of 3)
Closure Activity
Final cover
Technical Requirements
Minimum 2 feet of appropriate materials as
foundation layer, which may be soil, contaminated
soil, 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
engineering practice. Lesser thicknesses may be
allowed 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
leachate shall be placed on top of the foundation
layer and compacted to attain a permeability of
either 1x1 0"* cm/s or less, or equal to the
permeability of the underlying natural geologic
materials, whichever is less.
Not less than 1 foot of soil containing no waste or
leachate shall be placed on top of the material
described in Section 2581 (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 2581 (a)(2).
Cover shall be designed and constructed to function
with the minimum maintenance possible.
Citation'
23CCR2581 (a)(1)
"-»
23CCR 2581(a)(2)
23 CCR 2581(a)(3)
23CCR 2581(a)(4)
Comments
14 CCR 17773(b) cross-references 23
CCR 2581 (a) with regard to final cover
requirements. Section 17773 also states
that engineered alternatives to the
prescriptive standard will only be allowed
when the prescriptive standard is
determined not to be reasonable and there
is an alternative that is consistent with
the performance goal of the prescriptive
standard and affords equivalent protection
to water quality impairment.
-------
CT«
0018VTA8REV1.WP
CLE-J02-01Fi. J7-0018
TABLE C 8
Technical Requirements for Landfill Closure
(Sheet 2 of 3)
Closure Activity
Final cover
(continued)
Post closure
maintenance
Post closure
maintenance
(continued)
Technical Requirements
Closed landfills must be graded and maintained to
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 percent, surface drainage courses,
and areas subject to erosion by water shall be
protected or designed and 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 1 00 years.
Accommodate lateral and vertical shear forces
generated by maximum credible earthquake so that
the integrity of the cover Is maintained.
Landfill must be maintained and monitored for a
period of not less than 30 years after completion of
closure. The postdosure maintenance period can
be terminated at the end of 30 years if it can be
demonstrated that the site poses no threat to public
health and safety or the environment. y
Maintain structural integrity and effectiveness of all
containment structures, and maintain final cover as
necessary to correct the effects of settlement or
other adverse factors.
Prevent erosion and damage of final cover due to
drainage.
Provide for site security
Protect and maintain surveyed monuments.
Citation*
23 CCR 2581(b)
22 CCR 66264.310 (a)(1)
22 CCR 66264.310 (a)(5)
14 CCR 17788(a)(b)
22CCR 66264.310{b)(1)
22 CCR 66264.310(b)(4)
14 CCR 17767(c)and
1 7788(a)(3)
23 CCR 2581 (c)(5), 2580(d), 14
CCR 17767(f), and 22 CCR
66264.309(3)
Comments
-------
CT0293\B70018VTA8REV1 .WP
CUE-J02-01F293-B7-0018
TABLE C-8
Technical Requirements for Landfill Closure
(Sheet 3 of 3)
Closure Activity
Technical Requirements
Citation*
Comments
Postclosure land use
Construction Improvements on completed sites
must maintain the integrity of the final cover, any
liner systems, all components of containment
systems, and the functions 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 structures.
22 CCR 66264.310(b)(1)
•Only the substantive portions of the dted regulations are ARARs for CAOCs 20
and 23. Full citations are as follows:
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 3, Article 7.8 (Disposal Site Standards, Closure and Postclosure)
California Code of Regulations. Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 15, Article 8 (Closure and Postclosure Maintenance)
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 14, Article 14 (Landfills)
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 14 and Title 23 requirements cited.
cm/s - centimeters per second.
-------
APPENDIX D
Revised Cost Estimates
CAOC 20
-------
CTO293\B70018\TAB-B1 .DOC
CLE-JO2-O1F293-B7-001B
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE D-1
Summary of Total Cost Alternatives
Alternative
1
2
3A
3B
Description
No Action
Institutional Controls (Limit Use)
Groundwater Monitoring
Grading
Groundwater Monitoring
Modified Prescriptive Cap
Groundwater Monitoring
Medium
Soil
Groundwater
Soil
Groundwater
Soil
Groundwater
Soil
Groundwater
Cost
Estimate
($)
0
0
10,000
164,500
174.700
164.500
543,300
164.500
Total Cost
of
Alternative
($)
0
174,500
339,200
707,800
-------
CT0293\B70018\TAB-B2.DOC
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE D-2
Cost Estimate for Well Installation
Drilling Subcontractor
Mob/Demob Cost
Drilling
Downtime/Standby
Well completion
Decon/Setup (labor)
PVC casing
Screen
Per diem
Labor/Equipment
Workplan preparation
Field labor
H&S equipment
PPE
Misc. equipment
Travel
Hotel
Rental car
Per diem
Waste (cuttings)
Waste (development)
Capital Costs
Dedicated well pumps
Support equipment
Subtotal
Contingency 40 percent
Total
Unit
lump sum
foot
hour
well
hour
foot
foot
day
lump sum
hour
week
lump sum
lump sum
hour
day
day
day
drum
drum
well
well
Quantity
330
12
2
3.5
330
30
28
160
2
13
28
14
28
25
36
2
2
Unit Price
($)
30
250
650
120
15
31
80
65
550
65
60
50
40
200
200
1,000
500
Cost ($)
1,420
9.900
3.000
1,300
420
4,950
940
2.240
7,000
10,400
1,100
200
200
850
1,680
700
1,120
5,000
11,000
2.000
1.000
66,420
26.570
$93,000
-------
CTO293VB70018YTAB-B3.DOC
CLE^JO2-01 F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE D-3
Annual Cost Estimate for Well Monitoring
Annual O&M Costs
Analytical:
VOCs"
Metals
TDS
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Radium - 228
Radium - 226
Anions
Cations
Maintenance (10% of capital)
Wastes
Labor
Time
Car rental
Hotel
Expenses
Data Validations/Reports (1)
Subtotal
Contingency @ 40%
Total
Unit
number
number
number
number
number
number
number
number
number
drums
hour
day
day
day
lump sum
Quantity
2b
2b
2" .
2b
2b
2b
2b
2b
2b
2
42
2
*
2
4
Unit Price
($)
500
250
15
65
50
135
125
75
75
200
65
50
60
40
Cost ($)
1.000
500
30
130
100
270
250
150
150
300
400
300
2,730
100
120
160
8.000
14.390
5.760
$20,200
* This line item includes sampling, packaging, and shipping labor in the cost estimate.
b QA/QC samples not included in the cost estimate.
-------
CTO293\B70018\TAB-B4.DOC
CLE-JO2-01F293-B7-0018
Print Date: 28 May 1997
TABLE D-4
Present Worth Analysis for Groundwater Monitoring
Year
0
1
2
3
4
Total
Annual O&M
0
20.200
20.200
20.200
20,200
Present Worth of O&M Cost
0
19.240
18,300
17,400
16,600
Capital Cost
93.000
0
0
0
0
Cumulative Total Cost *
93,000
112.200
130.500,
147.900
164,500
$164,500
-------
APPENDIX E
Administrative Record Index
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD . ,LE CATEGORY STRUCTURE
11.0 Remedial Response Background Information
1.1 Hazardous Waste Management Activity Background
1.2 Initial Assessment Study
13 Confirmation Studies
1 4 Other Previous Studies/Reports
1 5 Drawings and Maps
16 Board Orders, Discharge, Monitoring, Correspondence
1.7 Sampling and Analysis of Wastes, Soils, and Groundwater
12.0 Removal Response Background Information
2.1 Action Memoranda, Clean-Up. Reports
22 Monitoring
2.3 Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
24 Conceptual Design/Remediation System
13.0 Technical Sources and Guidance Documents
3 1 EPA/Navy Guidance Documents
32 State Guidance Documents
33 Technical Sources
] 16.0 RI/FS and RFA Site Activities
41"
42
43
44
45
46
47
5.0
5.1
52
53
54
Planning Document
RI/FS Work Plan
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Data Management Plan
Waste Management Plan
Health and Safety Plan
RCRA Facility Assessment Planning Documents
Bum£n. andJEcolggicaJ Risk AssessmenlPlan
omSi)fl? fliv»/m*ffi. Prajfflma flkumja
Correspondence, Permits, Comments, Comment Response |
Technical Memoranda, Meeting Notes, Correspondence
Comments from Agencies
Responses to Comments
Permits
6.1 Sampling Analyses Data and Chain-of-Cuslody Forms
62 ARARS
63 Health Risk Assessment
64 Reports
65 Proposed Plan
66 Site Visits
17.0 Record of Decision
9.1
9.2
9.3
94
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
7.1 Record of Decision
7.2 Explanations of Significant Difference
[8.0 State/Federal Agencies Coordination (FFA)
81 Correspondence
8.2 Inter-Agency Agreement
1Z.1
[9.0 Community Relations
Correspondence
Community Relations Plan
List of People to Contact
Meeting Summaries
News Releases/News Clippings/Fact Sheets/Public Notices
Comments and Responses
Transcripts
Summary of Proposed Plan
Responsiveness Summary
10.0 Imagery
101 Drawings
102 Photographs
10.3 Maps
11.0 Enforcement
111 Facility/Compliance Inspeclion/Response/Memoranda
11.2 Cease and Desist Orders
11 3 Clean-up and Abatement Orders
HAPOSUPPWECSCTRVMMCIB'.CATGYALIDOC
Page 1 of 2
*«j AM
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE CATEGORY STRUCTURE
13.0 Correspondence By Author |
13.1 MCLB
13.2 NFEC
13.3 EPA
13.4 DISC
135 RWQCB
13.6 Other Agencies (County & Local)
13.7 JEG
13.8 Misc.
H:\POSUPP\RECSCIRtMMCLB\CATCYALL.DOC Page 2siL2
> •>•> M.I
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT • DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
REPORT. SOLID WASTE
6/1/90 1.1 . 0003 SOLD WASTE ASSESSMENT TEST PROPOSAL FOR THE YERMO ANNEX JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
SANITARY LANDFILL
34
COMMENTS, RWQCB
8/28/88 1 1 . 0008 REVIEW OF HAZARDOUS/TOXIC 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
1/8/88 11 . 0011 PHASE 2. STAGE 2 DRAFT FINAL REPORT MEETING & PRELIMINARY US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1234567
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REPORT. UST
5/19/89 1.1 . 0021 UNDERGROUND TANK TESTING AND CERTIFICATION AT MOTOR HEKIMIAN & ASSOCIATES
TRANSPORT BLDG. S-231. REPORT CONTAINING RESULTS OF TESTS
PERFORMED ON 5/10/89
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
REPORT. WASTEWATER
3/25/86 1.1 . 0022 WASTE CATEGORIES GENERATED AND WASTE STREAM INVENTORY MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
DATED 03/25/86
DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
1.2.3.4
PERMIT. WASTE
6/18/84 1.1 . 0023 UNDERGROUND CONTAINERS. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE STORAGE MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
STATEMENT
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL 1.2.3,4
BOARD
PERMIT. WASTE
6/2/81 1.1 . 0026 NOTIFICATION OF PCB STORAGE AT MCLB
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
REGULATION. ACT
1007/88 1.1 . 0027 TOXIC PITS CLEANUP ACT. CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF UNAPPROVEO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1,234,5,6,7
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS. ETC. BOARD
REPORT. HAZARDOUS WASTE
6/1/83 1.2 . 0001 DRAFT INITIAL ASSESSMENT STUDY. RESULTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BROWN AND CALDWELL
DISPOSAL SITE ANALYSIS
NEESA & MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS 3,4,5,8
BASE
REPORT. CONFIRMATION
2/1/85 13. 0001 CONFIRMATION STUDY CONDUCTED. FOR CAOCi 2. 5. 9 11.18. 19 21. A L BURKE ENGINEERS INC
AND 23
NFEC A MCLB
3,4.5,6
MARCH 25. 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE "ATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
REPORT, CONFIRMATION 1CV1/85 13. 0002 CONFIRMATION STUDY CONDUCTED FOR CAOCsfS, 9, 19, AND 23 A L BURKE ENGINEERS INC NFEC « MCLB 3.4.5
REPORT. CONFIRMATION 2/1/86 13 . 0007 CONFIRMATION STUDY FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT AREA A L BURKE ENGINEERS INC NFEC & MCLB
(VOL 6 OF 7)
REPORT, CONFIRMATION 2/1/86 13 . 0008 CONFIRMATION STUDY FOR PCS STORAGE AREA (VOL 7 OF 7) A L BURKE ENGINEERS INC NFEC ft MCLB
REPORT. CONFIRMATION 2/1/86 1.3. 0009 CONFIRMATION STUDY GENERAL REPORT (VOL 1 OF 7) A L BURKE ENGINEERS INC NFEC & MCLB 3.4
REPORT, WASTE STUDY 12/23/70 14 . 0005 DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE STUDY. MARINE CORPS SUPPLY BROWN AND CALN AND CALDWELL NFEC ft MCLB 34
CENTER WITH RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE ABANDONMENT OF
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY AND CONSTRUCTION OF
REPORT. SOLID WASTE 11/1/87 1.4 . 0014 SOLID WASTE LANDFILL STUDY EVALUATING PRESENT SYSTEM. GUNNY BRIZENDINE ft POGGEMEYER NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 34
DESCRIBES RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALTERNATE SYSTEMS. AND COMMAND
PROVIDE COST ESTIMATE TO IMPLEMENT EACH ALTERNATIVE
REPORT. SOIL 2/9/89 14-0015 SOILS INVESTIGATION, PAINT COMBAT VEHICLEHMINTENANCE SHOP. BENTON ENGINEERING INC ATKINSON JOHNSON ft SPURPIER INC 1.3
SUPPLEMENT TO THE 05/27/88 REPORT
REPORT. WASTE MINIMIZATION 11/1/89 1.4 . 0019 INDUSTRIAL WASTE MINIMIZATION STRATEGY AND OPTIONS TO NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1234
EVENTUALLY MODIFY OR ELIMINATE THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE
TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONS
PLAN. MASTER 3/1/88 1.4 . 0038 MASTER PLAN UPDATE MCLB. CALIFORNIA DRAFT. 1988. 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, GANNETT ft FLEMING
TO EVALUATE THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF MCLB
PLAN. WASTE 11/1/84 14 . 0042 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AT MCLB TO IMPLEMENT J B YOUNO»ASSOCIATES NFEC A MCLB 12345,67
APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND TO PROVIDE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SAFE HANDLING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MARCH 25.1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
REPORT, CONTAMINATION 4/1/76 14 . 0046 REPORT ON DOT CONTAMINATION AT TWO STORAGE AREAS USED 8Y US ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL. HYGIENE NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 4
RELEASE DPOO, BARSTOW AGENCY COMMAND
REPORT, SLUDGE 3/1/90 14.0047 TECHNICAL OPTIONS FOR THE REMOVAL/DISPOSAL OF OILY. METAL- NAVAL CML ENGINEERING LABORATORY & NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 3.4
CONTAMINATED INDUSTRIAL SLUDGE AT MCLB BATTELLE COMMAND
REPORT. SLUDGE 5/1/77 14 . 0053 INDUSTRIAL WASTE SLUDGE DISPOSAL AT NAVY AND MARINE CORPS NFEC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 1.2,3.4
ACTIVITIES SUPPORT SERVICE COMMAND
PLAN. SAMPLING & ANALYSIS 6/25/91 14 . 0057 QUALITY ASSURANCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS. MCLB. FOR SAMPLING ECOLOGY » ENVIRONMENTAL INC US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 3,5
SOILS IN THE 22 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS IN YERMO ANNEX AGENCY
EE/CA 1/31/91 14. 0058 PROPOSED REMOVAL ACTION. YERMO 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
REPORT. INSPECTION 2/25/87 14.0081 RCRA COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION REPORT, CONTAINS A JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWOCB OTSC »US EPA 1,3.4
SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS, ETC.
PLAN. SAMPLING A ANALYSIS 6/25/91 1.4 - 0063 PCS SAMPLING PLAN ATTACHMENT SUBMITTED«/17/91 MCLB YERMO ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENTAL INC US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 3,4
ANNEX DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY AGENCY
CORRESPONDENCE 9/21/94 14.0067 SUBMITTAL OF DRAFT BACKGROUND SOILS INVESTIGATION TECHNICAL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE BARSTOW OTSC CRWOCB US EPA 3,4,5.6
MEMORANDUM WITH REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
ENFORCEMENT. BOARD ORDER 10/21/85 16 - 0001 UPDATED WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS AND MONITORING AND REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
REPORTING PROGRAM (BOARD ORDER NO. 6-85-119. PACIFIC-YERMO BOARD
ANNEX SANITARY LANDFILL)
REMOVAL ACTION 8/17/95 2.1.0002 DRAFT REMOVAL ACTION SITE CLOSE-OUT REPORT FOR OU 3. CAOC 34 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB. RWQCB DTSC i, US EPA 3
(PREVIOUS PCB STORAGE AREA)
MARCH 25. 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. uNrr
ACTION MEMORANDUM
1/10/91 2.1-0003
CONCERNS REGARDING DRAFT REMOVAL ACTION MEMORANDUM DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
3.5
CORRESPONDENCE,
MEMORANDUM
1/31/91 2.1 . 0004 PROPOSED WASTE REMOVAL AT CAOCl 17 AND 34 YERMO ANNEX NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND PROJECT FILE
3.5
COMMENTS, EPA
11/5/90 2.1 . 0005
REVIEW ON THE REMOVAL ACTION FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTE AT YERMO US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
ANNEX INDICATING CONCERNS COMMAND
CORRESPONDENCE
2*91 2.1 - 0006
CLARIFICATION FOR REMOVAL OF SLUDGE FROM SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT AT MCLB
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD
3.5
CORRESPONDENCE
2/15/91 2.1 - 0007 REMOVAL OF SLUDGE FROM SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS AT MCLB AND MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE INVOLVEMENT
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
3,5
CORRESPONDENCE
3/27/91 2.1 - 0008
ASSISTANCE WITH THE REMOVAL OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT SLUDGE NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
COMMENTS. EPA
1/18/91 2.1 . 0009
REVIEW OF THE REVISED DRAFT REMOVAL OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE
SLUDGE AT MCLB
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
3.5
ACTION MEMORANDUM
12/21/90 2.1 . 0011 REVISED ACTION MEMORANDUM FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTE SLUDGE AND NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US EPA. DTSC t RWQCB
PCB AT YERMO ANNEX
3.5
ACTION MEMORANDUM
11/2/90 2.1 . 0012
PRELIMINARY DRAFT REMOVAL ACTION FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTE
SLUDGE AT YERMO
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
3.5
REMOVAL ACTION
11/29/90 2.1 - 0013
REQUIREMENTS ON THE REMOVAL ACTION FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTE AT REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
YERMO ANNEX BOARD
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
3.5
MARCH 25.1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE
11/24/92 2.1 - 0014
PROPOSED SCHEQULE FOR THE BARSTOW SLUDGE POND REMOVAL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILrTIES ENGINEERING
ACTION COMMAND
3.5
REMOVAL ACTION
9/30/93 21 . 0016 MCLB BARSTOW REMOVAL ACTION AT CAOC 17
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
REMOVAL ACTION
9/14/94 2.1 . 0022 FINAL REMOVAL ACTION MEMORANDUM FOR CAOC 34
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB, DTSC. & US EPA 3.4
REMOVAL ACTION
10/4/94 21 . 0023 REMOVAL ACTION MEMORANDUM AT CAOC 2. PESTICIDE STORAGE & JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB. RWQCB. DISC. & US EPA 3.4
WASHOUT AREA. AT NEBO MAIN BASE
REMOVAL ACTION
9/23/94 2.1 . 0024 SOIL ft CONCRETE REMOVAL REPORT. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER COX CONSTRUCTION CO (PREPARED BY NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB. DTSC. & US EPA 3
TREATMENT & RECYCLING FACILITY. OU 3. CAOC 34 SEACOR)
REMOVAL ACTION
10O/95 21 . 0025 FINAL NOTIFICATION OF REMOVAL ACTION AT SITE 2 (PESTICIDE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
STORAGE AND WASHOUT AREA) COMMAND
CORRESPONDENCE
10/25/94 21 - 0032
FINAL REMOVAL ACTION MEMORANDUM FOR C*DC 2 AT THE
PESTICIDE STORAGE AND WASHOUT AREA MCLB BARSTOW
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE VARIOUS AGENCIES
3.4
GUIDANCE. EPA
6/1/88 31 . 0004
COMMUNITY RELATIONS IN SUPERFUND A HANDBOOK (INTERIM
VERSION)
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC RELEASE
1.2.3.4.5.6.7
GUIDANCE. EPA
3/1/87 3.1 . 0006
DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR REMEDIAL RESPONSE ACTIVITIES
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC RELEASE
1.2.3.4.5.6.7
GUIDANCE, NFEC
5/1/88 3.1 . 0007 NAVY INSTALLATION RESTORATION (IRP) MANUAL
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND PUBLIC RELEASE
1,2.3.4.5.6.7
MARCH 25. 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
GUIDANCE. EPA
1CV1/M 3.1 - 0008
GUIDANCE FOR CONDUCTING REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND
FEASIBILITY STUDIES UNDER CERCLA-INTERIM FINAL
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC RELEASE
1.2.3,4.5,6.7
GUIDANCE. EPA
10/1/86 3.1 - 0009 SUPERFUND PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION MANUAL
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC RELEASE
1.2.3.4.5,6.7
GUIDANCE. EPA
11/1/91 31 . 0015 GUIDE TO MANAGEMENT OF INVESTIGATION DERIVED WASTES FOR US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC RELEASE
CERCLA SITES
1,2.3.4.5.6.7
GUIDANCE. EPA
3/1/87 3.1 . 0016
DATA QUALITY OBLECTTVES FOR REMEDIAL RESPONSE ACTIVITIES.
EXAMPLE SCENARIO (EPA) 540/G-87(004)
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC RELEASE
1.2.3.4,5,6,7
GUIDANCE. STATE
6/22/90 3.1 . 0017
INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR PREPARATION OF ENDANGERMENT
ASSESSMENT REPORT
DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
PUBLIC RELEASE
1.2.3.4,5.6.7
GUIDANCE. STATE
11/1/90 33 . 0001 PROCEDURES FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT COMPLIANCE FOR THE US DEPT INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE PUBLIC RELEASE
MOJAVE DESERT TORTOISE SERVICE REGIONS 1.2 AND 6
1.2.3.4,5,6,7
PLAN. RI/FS WORK
3/1/91 4.1.0003 DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBIUTY STUDY WORK JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWOCB DTSC S US EPA 1.2345.6.7
PLAN. MCLB. BARSTOW
PLAN. RI/FS WORK
1/24/95 4.1 . 0008
PROJECT NOTE 22 • PCB CLEANUP GOAL & OU» 3 « 4 FEASIBILITY
STUDY, CONTAINS PROPOSED REMEDIATION FOR PCBl IN SOIL AT
CAOC« 5,18, » 21
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB, RWOCB, DTSC.« US EPA 3.4
REPORT. PLANNING DOCUMENT 8/30/91 4.1 . 0014
RESPONSE TO AGENCY COMMENTS VOLUME I DRAFT FINAL RUTS
PLANNING DOCUMENTS
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
MARINE CORPS LOGISTIC BASE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.6. 7
RI/FS WORKPLAN
10/30/95 41 . 0016 SUBMITTAL OF DRAFT FINAL RI/FS Ol/i 3 AND 4 FEASIBILITY STUDY JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP. INC SOUTHWEST DIVISION
REPORT FOR CAOC 23 AND 20
3.4
MARCH 25.1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT-OOCf SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
PLAN. RI/FS WORK 4/1/91 4.2-0002 DRAFT FINAl REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY SAMPLING JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCIB. RWQCB. OTSC & US EPA 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
AND ANALYSIS PLAN. MCLB, BARSTOW
PLAN. SAMPLING & ANALYSIS 12/2/91 4.2 - 0009 DRAFT FINAL SAMPLING « ANALYSIS PLAN. RI/FS FOR OU» 3/4 (VOL 1) JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB. OTSC, » US EPA 3.4
PLAN. SITE 4/15/91 4.2 . 0010 SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR MCLB JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1.2.3,4.5.6.7
PLAN. RI/FS WORK 7/8/91 4.2 . 0014 SOILS INVESTIGATION FOR OU» 3/4 FOR Rt/FS AT MCLB. BARSTOW JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB, RWQCB. DTSC, & US EPA 3,4
PLAN, SAMPLING « ANALYSIS Ml/92 4.2-0016 PROJECT NOTE 202 - REVISIONS TO THE APPROVED SAMPLING AND JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB RWQCB. DTSC. S US EPA 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
ANALYSIS PLAN. SECTIONS 11 0 AND 12.0. DATED SEPTEMBER 1992
REPORT 1/28/94 42-0023 PROJECT NOTE 333 - DESCRIBES CLARIFICATION OF SURFACE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB RWOCB DTSC & US EPA 3.4
SAMPLING DEPTHS
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3/BS4 4.2.0024 DRAFT FINAL PHASE 2 FIELD SAMPLING WORK PLAN. BASED ON JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB DTSC & US EPA 3.4
RESULTS OF PHASE 1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION. TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM 10
PLAN, SAMPLING « ANALYSIS 7/21/95 4.2. 0032 PROJECT NOTE 32 - AMENDMENT TO THE DRAFT FINAL PHASE 2 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB. RWOCB DTSC. » US EPA 34
SAMPLING & ANALYSIS PLAN FOR OUf 3 » 4 (TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
10)
PLAN. SAMPLING ft ANALYSIS 3/9*4 42.0033 DRAFT FINAL PHASE 2 SAMPLING * ANALYSIS PLAN FOR OU» 3 « 4; JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB DTSC & US EPA 34
REFER TO TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 10 DATED 3/9/94: REFER TO CAT-
DOC M 2-0024 FOR THE DOCUMENT
CORRESPONDENCE 5/5/93 42. 0040 SUBMfTTAL OF DRAFT PHASE II FIELD SAMPLING WORK PLAN FOR OU MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE BARSTOW DTSC CRWQCB US EPA 3.4
3/4
MARCH 25. 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
PLAN.QAPP 10/1*93 4.3 - 0005 PROJECT NOTE 312 - ELIMINATION OF SPECIFIC CHEMICALS FROM THE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB RWOCB DTSC * US EPA 1.2.3-456.7
CHEMICALS OF CONCERN AND THE PROJECT TARGET ANALYTE LIST
CORRESPONDCNCE, REPORT 2*93 43 - 0013 SUBMITTAL OF FINAL QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN APPENDIX A SOUTHWEST DIVISION CRWOCB 34
FOR SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN FOR RI/FS. MCLB BARSTOW WTO
ATACHMENT
PLAN, WASTE MANAGEMENT S/11/92 4.5 . 0004 PROJECT NOTE 133 - INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTEWATER « JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC«MCLB 1.2.345,67
DISPOSAL OPTION TELECONFERENCE BETWEEN JEG » RWQCB HELD
ON 5/11/92. RE: TREATED IDW WATER DISPOSAL OPTIONS A ANALYSIS
PLAN. HEALTH 4 SAFETY 3/1/91 4.6 . 0001 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN RI/FS. MCLB. BARSTOW JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB. DTSC.«US EPA 3.4
PLAN. HEALTH & SAFETY S/13/94 46. 0009 PROJECT NOTE 14 • HEALTH » SAFETY PLAN ADDENDUM FOR JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 3.4
ADDITIONAL WORK, PHASE 2 FIELD INVESTIGATION FOR OUt 3/4 COMMAND
REPORT. HEALTH RISK 10/14/94 4.8 . 0002 PROJECT NOTE 21 • RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS OF THE OUf 3 & 4 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC « MCLB 3.4
ASSESSMENT BACKGROUND METALS ANALYSIS THAT WILL ASSIST EPA IN
PERFORMING THE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
PLAN. RISK ASSESSMENT WORK 9/7/95 4.8. 0005 PROJECT NOTE 98. DRAFT APPROACH TO CONDUCTING BASELINE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB RWOCB DTSC & US EPA 34
BASEWIDE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT: REFER TO CAT-DOC *
5 1-0144 FOR THE DOCUMENT (ATTACHMENT E)
MEETING AGENDA 8/16/91 51 . 0002 MEETING NOTIFICATION AND TENTATIVE AGENDA NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1,2.3.4.5.6.7
AGENCY
CORRESPONDENCE 5/22/91 5.1 . 0004 TWE EXTENSION FOR SAMPLING & ANALYSIS PLAN SUBMITTAL FOR NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
THE RI/FS ACTIVITIES AT MCLB, BARSTOW AGENCY
CORRESPONDENCE 4/29/91 5.1.0005 CONCERNS REGARDING TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CHARTER DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1.2.3.45.6.7
FOR THE RI/FS AND RFA ACTMRIES AT MCLB. BARSTOW
MARCH 25.1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE 5/23/91 51 . 0006 RESPONSE TO THE CONCERNS OF DHS ON TECHNICAL REVIEW MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE DEPT TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL 1.2.3.4.56.7
COMMITTEE CHARTER FOR RI/FS AND RFA ACTIVITIES AT MCLB.
BARSTOW
CORRESPONDENCE 4/3/91 5.1 - 0007 TIMELY SUBMfTTAL 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 51 . 0008 CONCERNING APPROVAL OF DRAFT COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN AND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1,2,3,4.5.6.7
HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FOR THE Rt/FS AND RFA ACTIVITIES AT
MCLB. BARSTOW
CORRESPONDENCE. REQUEST 8/29/91 51 - 0011 TIME EXTENSION FOR RI/FS SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 1.2.3.4,5,6,7
COMMAND
MEETING NOTES 4/9/92 51.0012 PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING NOTES HELD ON 4/9-10/92, RE: NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US EPA, OTSC »RWQCB 1,2,3.4,5.6,7
GEOPHYSICAL & SOIL GAS SURVEYS, FIELD AUDITS, DATA A WASTE
MANAGEMENT. OUl 1/2 GROUNOWATER STAGE MB, USGS STATUS,
MEETING NOTES 6/27/91 5.1 . 0013 DRAFT NOTES FROM PROJECT MANAGERS MEETINGS HELD ON 6/27- NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US EPA. OTSC. S RWQCB 1.2.3.4,5.6
28«1, RE: PROJECT SCHEDULE. YERMO SLUDGE REMOVAL, OUl 1&2
WORK PLAN AMENDMENTS, RI/FS WORK PLAN AMENDMENTS. WASTE »
MEETING AGENDA 8/1*91 51.0014 PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING NOTIFICATIONS RI/FS ACTIVITIES AT NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US EPA. OTSC & RWQCB 1.2.3.4.5.6,7
MCLB, BARSTOW
PLAN, SAMPLING S ANALYSIS 7/15/91 51-0016 SUBMITTAL OF SAMPLING«ANALYSIS PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR OUt MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE US EPA. DTSC ft RWQCB 3.4
3/4. RI/FS ACnvTTIES AT MCLB. BARSTOW
MEETING AGENDA 11/15/91 5.1 . 0021 PROJECT MANAGEMENT MEETING MCLB. TENTATIVE AGENDA NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND MCLB, RWQCB, DTSC.ftUS EPA 1.2.3.4,5,6.7
MEETING NOTES 1/13/92 5.1.0022 PROJECT MANAGERS TELE-CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON 1/13/92, RE: NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US EPA. DTSC ft RWQCB 1.2,4
OUl 142 STAGE A. OU 4 SAMPLING PLAN. REDUCED SAMPLING
REQUIREMENTS « FEDERAL FACILITIES AGREEMENT SCHEDULE
MARCH 25. 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE °*TE CAT-OOC* SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE 5/15/91 5.1 . 0023 RI/FS WORK PLAN. TIME EXTENSION SUBMITTAL FOR MCLB, BARSTOW US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
COMMAND
CORRESPONDENCE. RESPONSE 5/22/91 51 . 0026 RESPONSE TO US EPA LETTER DATED MAY 15.1991, ON THE APPROVAL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1.2,3.4.567
OF TIME EXTENSION FOR SAP SUBMITTAL AGENCY
CORRESPONDENCE. 9/30/91 5.1 . 0027 PROPOSAL FOR SCHEDULE EXTENSIONS FOR OPERABLE UNITS 1. 2.3, NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1.2.3.4
RECOMMENDATION AND 4. MCLB AGENCY
MEETING AGENDA 10/1/91 51 . 0028 AGENDA FOR REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY PROGRAM NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1.2.3,4.5,6,7
AND WORKSHOP ON 10/03/91 AGENCY
CORRESPONDENCE. REQUEST 6/17/91 5.1 . 0029 REQUEST FOR TME EXTENSION FOR SUBMISSION OF DRAFT REMEDIAL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
INVESTIGATION REPORT AGENCY
CORRESPONDENCE 6/20/91 5.1 . 0030 TIME EXTENSION FOR CLARIFICATION TO NFEC LETTER DATED 6/20/91 NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1.2.3.4,5.6,7
AGENCY
CORRESPONDENCE. 1O/92 51.0032 PROPOSED REVISION FOR SAMPLING STRATEGY FOR RI/FS ACTIVITIES US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NFEC DTSC « RWOCB 1234.567
RECOMMENDATION AT MCLB, BARSTOW
MEETING NOTES 11/1/94 5.1-0036 PROJECT NOTE 66 - REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB OTSC & US EPA 1.2.3.4.5.6
HELD ON 11/1-2/94. RE: CHEMICALS OF CONCERN. PILOT
GROUNDWATER REMOVAL ACTION. EE/CAi, CAOC 10. FUNDING. OUi 5
MEETING NOTES 12/14/94 5.1-0036 PROJECT NOTE 69 - REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS'MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB DTSC & US EPA 1.2,3.4.5.6.7
HELD ON 12/14-1504. RE. OUl 1 » 2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING
PROGRAM. OUl 1 & 5 EE/CA, OU 1 PILOT TEST RESULTS. OUl 3 & 4
MEETINGAGENDA 3/28/92 5.1. 0042 LETTER ENCLOSING MEETING NOTIFICATION AND OVERVIEW OF NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND MCLB. US EPA. DHS « RWOCB 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
PROJECT COSTS FOR RI/FS, MCLB. BARSTOW
MARCH 25. 1997
10
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
MEETING NOTES 1/21/93 S.I . 0046 DATA OUAUTY OBJECTIVES TRAINING/WORKSHOP MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB. DTSC & US EPA 3.4
HELD ON JANUARY 21-22. 1993. FOR OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
CORRESPONDENCE. 12/12)91 51.0048 PROPOSED REVISION FOR SAMPLING STRATEGY FOR RI/FS ACTIVITIES US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NFEC MCLB. RWOCB. DTSC S US EPA 1.2.3.4.5,6,7
RECOMMENDATION AT MCLB. BARSTOW
MEETING NOTES 3/3/92 51.0049 PROJECT NOTE 108 • TESTING, CLASSIFICATION AND WASTE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWOCB DTSC ft US EPA 3
MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR INVESTIGATION DERIVED WASTE SOB.
CUTTINGS. TELE-CONFERENCE CALL. HELD 3/3/92, WITH DTSC & JEG
MEETING NOTES 8/13/92 51.0053 PROJECT NOTE 222 - PROJECT MANAGERS1 TELE-CONFERENCE CALL. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB. RWOCB DTSC & US EPA 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
HELD ON 013/92. RE: PUBLIC/PRIVATE WELLS. STAGE BINVESTIGTION.
Rl PHASE 1. BLDG 573. DESERT MIX. GEOPHYSICS & YERMO SLUDGE
MEETING NOTES 6/14/92 5.1.0054 PROJECT NOTE 221 - MINUTES OF PROJECT MANAGERS'TELE- JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB DTSC S US EPA 1.23.4.56.7
CONFERENCE CALL, HELD ON 8/1*92, RE: PUBLIC/PRIVATE WELLS. Rl
PHASE 1. DESERT MIX YERMO SLUDGE REMOVAL. WASTE
MEETING NOTES 9/28/92 5.1 . 0056 PROJECT NOTE 200 - MINUTES OF PROJECT MANAGERS'TELE- JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWOCB DTSC & US EPA 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
CONFERENCE. HELD ON 9/28/92. RE: Old 142 STAGE MB SAMPLING
PLAN. PUBLIC/PRIVATE WELLS. TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
MEETING NOTES 11/5/92 5.1.0059 PROJECT NOTE 230 - PROJECT MANAGERS' MEBTING NOTES HELD ON JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB DTSC S US EPA 1.2.3.4.5,6.7
11/5/92. RE. YERMO SLUDGE REMOVAL. RCRA. STRATEGY FOR SOIL
SITE DATA. PROJECT BUDGET. WASTE MANAGEMENT. OU» 142
MEETING NOTES 11/25/92 51.0062 PROJECT NOTE 238 - PROJECT MANAGERS'TELE-CONFERENCE CALL. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB. RWOCB. OTSC. S US EPA 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
HELD ON 11/25/92. RE: EE/CA FOR YERMO SLUDGE REMOVAL. RCRA.
PCE SPILL, CAOC 16 BOUNDARIES, SCHEDULE OF DATA, SPILL
MEETING NOTES 12/4/92 51.0065 PROJECT NOTE 7 - REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS'MEETING NOTES. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWOCB DTSC 4 US EPA 1.2.3,4.5.6.7
HELD ON 12/4/92. RE: USGS UPDATE. OUt 5*8 SAMPLING PROPOSAL.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS. YERMO SLUDGE REMOVAL, ft CAOC 16
ME6TINGNOTES 12/21/92 5.1-0067 PROJECT NOTE 8 • REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS' TELE- JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWOCB. DTSC 4 US EPA 1,2.3.4.5,6.7
CONFERENCE. HELD ON DECEMBER 21, 1992
MARCH 25. 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
MEETING NOTES
1/19/93 51 . 0069
PROJECT NOTE 16 • REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
HELD 1/1903. OUt 1&2 GROUNDWATER. YERMO SLUDGE REMOVAL 4
PUBLIC/PRIVATE WELLS
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC, & US EPA 1.2.3.S
MEETING NOTES
4/13/94 51 . 0070 REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING HELD ON 04/13/94- 04/14/94 NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB, DTSC. S US EPA 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
MEETING NOTES
2/8/93
51 . 0073 PROJECT NOTE •• NOTES OF REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS' JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
MEETING, HELD 2/8-10/93. RE: OUt 142 GROUNDWATER, GEOPHYICAL S
SOIL GAS SURVEYS. CHEMICAL CONCERNS. OUt 546 OBJECTIVES &
NFEC, MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. A US EPA 1.2.3,4.5.6.7
MEETING NOTES
3/17/93 51 . 0074 PROJECT NOTE 10 • REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS'MEETING NOTES. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
HELD ON 3/17/93, RE: PROPOSAL NO FURTHER ACTION CAOCt, BLDG
573 MAY BE OU 8. WASTE MANAGEMENT. OUt 3/4 PHASE 2 PLANNING
NFEC, MCLB, RWQCB, DTSC, 4 US EPA 1.2.3,4,5,6,7
MEETING NOTES
3/17/93 51 . 0075 PROJECT NOTE 243 - LIST OF RESOLUTION AND ACTION ITEMS FROM JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING, HELD ON 3/17/93, RE: BLDG
573 MAY BECOME OU 8 4 OUi 3/4 PHASE 2 PLANNING
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. & US EPA 3.4
MEETING NOTES
4/21/93 51 . 0078 PROJECT NOTE 28 - REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING HELD ON JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
4/21-22/93. RE: OUi 344 PHASE 2 PLANNING. NO FURTHER
INVESTIGATION PLANNING, OUTLINE FOR PHASE 1 Rl REPORT (TM-
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB, DTSC. & US EPA 3.4
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 9/10/93 5.1 . 0081
DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OUi* AND 4. TECHNICAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
MEMORANDUM 9. (VOL 1 OF 20)
NFEC. MCLB, RWQCB. DTSC. 8 US EPA 3.4
MEETING NOTES
5/19/93 51 . 0083
PROJECT NOTE 29 - MEETING NOTES FOR REMEDIAL PROJECTS JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
MANAGERS HELD ON 5/19-20/93. RE: BLDG 573. DATA MANAGEMENT 4
YERMO SLUDGE REMOVAL
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1.2,3.4,5.6.7
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5/1/93 5.1 - 0084
DRAFT PHASE 2 FIELD SAMPLING WORK PLAN RI/FS OUt 3 AND 4.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 10
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB, RWQCB. OTSC, » US EPA 3.4
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
9/10/93 5.1 . 0085 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OUt 3 AND 4. TECHNICAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
MEMORANDUM 9. (VOL 2 OF 20)
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB, DTSC. 4 US EPA 3.4
MARCH 25. 1997
12
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
MEETING NOTES
11/4/93 51 . 0090
PROJECT NOTE 322 - REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
HELD 11/4/93. RE: PERSONNEL CHANGES. 8LDG 573. OUl 112
GROUNDWATER FIELD SAMPLING. YERMO SLUDGE REMOVAL & USGS
NFEC. MCLB. RWQC8. DTSC. S US EPA 1.2.3.4
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 11/17/93 $.1 . 0091
DRAFT VERSION OF CAOC t FOR INCLUSION AS SECTION 4.0 OF THE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
0009. VOL. I
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB, DTSC. & US EPA 4
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 51.0093 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNITS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC ft US EPA 3.4
MEMO 0009, APPENDIX A (3 OF 20)
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 SI . 0094 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNfTS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB, RWQCB. DTSC. & US EPA 3.4
MEMO 0009. APPENDIX B (4 OF 20)
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 5.1.0095 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNITS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB DTSC & US EPA 3.4
MEMO 0009. APPENDIX C (5 OF 20)
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 5 1 . 0096 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNITS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB DTSC & US EPA 3,4
MEMO 0009, APPENDIX D (6 OF 20)
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 5 1 . 0097 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNITS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB OTSC 8 US EPA 3 4
MEMO 0009. APPENDIX E (7 OF 20)
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 5.1 . 0098 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNITS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB DTSC 4 US EPA 34
MEMO 0009. APPENDIX E (8 OF 20)
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 51 . 0099 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNITS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
MEMO 0009. APPENDIX E (9 OF 20)
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. » US EPA 3.4
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 5.1 . 0100 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNITS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB DTSC 4 US EPA 3.4
MEMO 0009. APPENDIX E (10 OF 20)
MARCH 25. 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 5.1 - 0101
DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNFTS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
MEMO 0009. APPENDIX E (11 OF 20)
NFEC, MCLB. RWQCB. OTSC. & US EPA 3.4
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 51.0102 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNITS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB DTSC & US EPA 34
MEMO 0009. APPENDIX E (12 OF 20)
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 51 . 0103 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNITS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
MEMO 0009, APPENDIX E (13 OF 20)
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. ft US EPA 3.4
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 51 . 0104 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNITS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
MEMO 0009. APPENDIX E (14 OF 20)
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. « US EPA 3.4
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 5.1.0105 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNfTS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWOCB DTSC & US EPA 34
MEMO 0009. APPENDIX E (15 OF 20)
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 5.1-0106 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNITS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB DTSC » US EPA 34
MEMO 0009, APPENDIX F (16 OF 20)
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 51 - 0107 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNITS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
MEMO 0009. APPENDIX F (17 OF 20)
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. & US EPA 3.4
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 51 - 0108 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNITS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
MEMO 0009, APPENDIX F (18 OF 20)
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. OTSC. & US EPA 3.4
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 5.1 . 0109 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNITS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB DTSC 4 US EPA 34
MEMO 0009, APPENDIX F (19 OF 20)
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/93 5.1 - 0110 DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNITS 3/4 TECH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
MEMO 0009. APPENDICES G/H (20 OF 20)
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. A US EPA 3,4
MARCH 25. 1997
14
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOW SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
MEETING NOTES
3/10/94 5.1 . 0113
PROJECT NOTE 345- REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING HELD JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
ON 3/10-11/94. PCB STORAGE AREA, FUNDING, PROGRAM SCHEDULE.
PHASE 2 PLANNING. YERMO REMOVAL ACTION STUDY. RCRA FACILITY
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. « US EPA 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
MEETING NOTES
12/9/93 5.1 . 0114
PROJECT NOTE 38 • REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING RE: JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
COMMENT RESPONSE ON THE DRAFT FINAL PHASE 2 RCRA FACILITY
ASSESSMENT SAMPLING VISIT WORK PLAN AND COMMENTS ON
NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB. DTSC. ft US EPA 3.4.5.6
MEETING NOTES
214194 5.1 . 0115
PROJECT NOTE 338 - REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING HELD JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
ON 02/04/94. RE: PERSONNEL CHANGES. CHEMICALS OF CONCERN,
PILOT GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION STUDY. AGENCY COMMENTS ON
NFEC. MCLB, RWQC8. DTSC, & US EPA 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 9/26/94 51 . 0127
DRAFT BACKGROUND SOILS INVESTIGATION TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM 23
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB. RWQCB. OTSC, 4 US EPA 3,4,5.6
MEETING NOTES
5/11/94 5.1 . 0129
PROJECT NOTE 39 • REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
HELD ON 5/11-12/94, DISCUSSIONS ON OUi 5 ft 8 PHASE 1 RISK
ASSESSMENT. VADOSE ZONE MODEL, PROJECT SCHEDULE. SITE
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1,2.3.4.5,6
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 8/26/94 5.1 . 0130
PROJECT NOTE S3 • SUMMARY OF THE STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY
EMPLOYED IN THE OUl 3, 4, S ft 6 BACKGROUND SOILS. TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM 23, SATISFIES ITEM H9408.3 OF THE RPM ACTION ITEM
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. & US EPA 3.4.5,6
MEETING NOTES
8/3/94 5.1 . 0132
PROJECT NOTE 47 - RPMl' MEETING NOTES HECB 8/3-4/94 RE: TM 23.
VPB. GROUNDWATER SAMPLING ft CLEAN-UP SCHEMATIC. INFRARED
THERMAL ANOMALIES. DLM. BASEWIDE SURVEY. INITIAL ASSESSMENT
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB. DTSC. ft US EPA 1.2.3.4.5,6
MEETING NOTES
11/21/94 5.1 - 0133
PROJECT NOTE 73 - REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
HELD ON 11/21-22/94. RE: CAOC 1 ANALYTICAL RESULTS, GEOPHYSICAL
ANOMALIES. RECOMMENDED NFIl. DESERT MIX CAOC 191ST
NFEC ft MCLB
1,2,3,4,5,6
MEETING NOTES
3/16/95 5.1 , 0134
PROJECT NOTE 86 - REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
HELD ON 03/16-17/95; RE CAOC 23. CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL
CONCERN (TM-27), FY 98 BUDGET. OU$ 1 ft 2 STATISTICAL
NFEC, MCLB. RWOCB, DTSC. ft US EPA 1,2.3.4.5.6.
MEETING NOTES
1/18/95 51 . 0136
PROJECT NOTE 74 - REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
HELD ON 01/18-20/95: RE: RECORDS SEARCH. ABBREVIATED
FEASIBILITY STUDY. BUDGET, ft EE/CA
NFEC, MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. S US EPA 123456
MARCH 25. 1997
15
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-OOCt SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
MEETING NOTES
6/21/95 5.1-0140 PROJECT NOTE 46-MEETING NOTES FOR REMEDIAL PROJECT JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWOCB OTSC 4 US EPA 563
MANAGER'S MEETING HELD ON 06/21/95. RE: PN 31. OU 1 EE/CA. CAOC
26 PHASE 2. & BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
MEETING NOTES
7/26/95 51 . 0142 PROJECT NOTE 53 - REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS' MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWOCB DTSC S US EPA 1234567
CONDUCTED ON 07/26-27/95; RE: REMOVAL ACTIONS. BACKGROUND
METALS. EE/CA, RAC DESIGN. ARAR>, ft SCHEDULE
MEETING NOTES
9/25/95 51.0143 PROJECT NOTE 99-ACTION ITEMS FROM THE REMEDIAL PROJECT JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWOCB OTSC ft US EPA 1234
MANAGERS' MEETING HELD ON 9/12-13/95
MEETING NOTES
9/12/95 5 1 . 0144 PROJECT NOTE 100 - RPMi' MEETING NOTES HELD ON 09/12-13/95: RE: JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWOCB DTSC ft US EPA 1234567
BACKGROUND METALS; HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT; RCRA
FACILITIES ASSESSMENT; SCHEDULE: PROPOSED PLAN. OU» 3 * 4
MEETING NOTES
9/12/95 51.0145 PROJECT NOTE 101-REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS'MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWOCB DTSC ft US EPA 123456
HELD ON 09/12-13/95; RE: OVERALL GOALS S OBJECTIVES OF THE
HUMAN HEALTH BASEWIDE BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6/21/92 5.1 . 0146 PRELIMINARY DRAFT RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY. TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM 1 FOR OUa 3(4
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
34
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/92 5.1 . 0148 FINAL SOIL GAS SURVEY FOR OU 3. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1. (VOL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
2 OF 3)
NFEC » MCLB
34
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
7/1/92 5.1 . 0149 FINAL SOIL GAS SURVEY FOR OU 4. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1. (VOL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
3 OF 3)
NFEC ft MCLB
34
MEETING NOTES
12/S/9S 51 - 0150 PROJECT NOTE 76 -RPMi' MEETING NOTES HELD ON 12/5/95; RE: RFA, JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
CAOC 21 A 20. PROPOSED PLAN. 1,1-OCE; BACKGROUND METALS:
REMOVAL ACTIONS: RISK MANAGEMENT: PLUME BOUNDARIES: VOCl:
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. « US EPA 1234
CORRESPONDENCE
4/6/95 51 . 0156 PROPOSAL FOR EXTENSION FOR ALL REMAINING FEDERAL FACILITY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND EPA SAN FRANCISCO
AGREEMENT SUBMITTALS OF OUS 3 AND 4 (CROSS REFER 13.3)
3.4
MARCH 25.1997
16
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT - DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE
12/10/91 5.1 . Q164 REQUEST FOR SCHEDULE EXTENSIONS FOR FEDERAL FACILITY NAVAL FACILmES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1.2.3.4,5.6.7
AGREEMENT (FFA) DELIVERABLES FOR THE MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS AGENCY
BASE, BARSTOW
MEETING NOTES
2/1*84 5.1 . 0185 NOTES FROM MEETING ATMCLB WITH REGIONAL QUALITY CONTROL SOUTHWEST DIVISION
BOARD. LAHONTAN REGION
3.4.5.6
CORRESPONDENCE. RESPONSE 7/10/84 5.1 . 0186 LETTER: COMMAND'S RESPONSE TO SUGGESTIONS MDE BY REGIONAL SOUTHWEST DIVISION
QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CONCERNING VARIOUS SITES
REGIONAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 3.4.6
CORRESPONDENCE
8/27/91 5.1 . 0206 DRAFT DETAILED PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR OUt 1.2.3.4.5.6. AND 7AT DEPT OF NAVY
MCLB BARSTOW OF JULY 24.1991 LETTER
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1. 2. 3 4. 5. 6. 7
AGENCY
MEETING NOTES
7/7/91 51 . 0208 JUNE 27-28.1991. MEETING NOTES FROM PROJECT MANAGER'S SOUTHWEST DIVISION
MEETING. MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6
CORRESPONDENCE
8/16/93 5.1 . 0213 REQUEST TO REVIEW TM-0009, OU 3 & 4 PHASE I REPORT PRIOR TO SOUTHWEST DIVISION
PROVIDIO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON TM-0010. OU 3 A 4 PHASE II
WORKPLAN
DEPT. OF TOXICS SUBSTANCS
CONTROL
3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
8/16/93 5.1 . 0228 REQUEST FOR REVIEWING OF TM-0009 OU» 3 AND 4 PHASE I REPORT SOUTHWEST DIVISION
PRIOR TO PROVIDING WRITTEN COMMENTS ON TM-0010. OUs 3 AND 4
DRAFT PHASE'II WORKPLAN
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
3,4
CORRESPONDENCE
8/16/93 5.1 . 0229 REQUEST FOR REVIEWING OF TM-0009 OUl 3 AND R PHASE I REPORT SOUTHWEST DIVISION
PRIOR TO PROVIDING WRITTEN COMMENTS ON TM-0010 OUl 3 AND 4
DRAFT PHASE II WORKPLAN
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD
3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
2/3/96 5.1 . 0232 TRANSMITTAL OF REVISED PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR FFA DOCUMENTS MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE BARSTOW CRWOCB. US EPA. DTSC,
1.2.3.4
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT! 6/2/95 51 . 0233 TRANSMITTAL Of REVISION 1-MINUTES OF RPM MEETING HELD 17 SOUTHWEST DIVISION
AND 18 MAY 1995 IN MCLB BARSTOW
OTSC. US EPA, RWQCB. MCLB
1.2.3.4
MARCH 25. 1997
17
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE. MEMO 4W95 51 - 0234 TRANSMrTTAL OF MARCH 22,1995 MEMO FROM RWOCB ON LINER DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES SOUTHWEST DIVISION 34
ALTERNATIVES FOR CAOC 23 CONTROL
CORRESPONDENCE 1/24/95 51 - 0235 TRANSMITTAL OF SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CAL EPA - INTEGRATED WASTE 34
INVOLVEMENT IN DOCUMENT REVIEW AND RELATED CAOCS CONTROL MANAGEMENT BOARD
CORRESPONDENCE 1W95 51 . 0236 NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO CONDUCT AQUIFER TESTS IN JANUARY MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE BARSTOW CRWQCB 34
1995
CORRESPONDENCE 11/29/94 51 . 0237 AGENDA FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF 15 MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE BARSTOW SOUTHWEST DIVISION 12.34
DECEMBER 1994
CORRESPONDENCE. MTG NOTE 10J24/94 5.1.0238 MINUTES FROM PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING OF 2-4 AUGUST 1994 • MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE BARSTOW DTSC US EPA, CRWQCB 3.4
PROJECT NOTE 47
CORRESPONDENCE 5/23/94 51 . 0239 NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO CONDUCT VAPOR EXTRACTION PILOT MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE BARSTOW MOJAVE DESERT AIR QUALITY 34
TEST AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
CORRESPONDENCE 8/10/92 51 - 0240 ATTORNEYS LETTER EXPRESSING CONCERN Rfc CIRCULATION OF RUTTER AND WILBANKS CORPORATION JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP 1234567
REVIEWS OF SEISMIC REPORT (BISON INSTRUMENTS LETER ATTACHED)
CORRESPONDENCE 3/12/97 5.1 . 0241 EXTENSION TO DRAFT FINAL Ol/« 3 AND 4 RECORD OF DECISION US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 3.4
COMMENTS, EPA 8/9/91 5.2 . 0001 REVIEW ON THE RI/FS AMENDMENTS TO WORK PLAN FOR SOIL US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 34
INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4, MCLB. BARSTOW COMMAND
COMMENTS. DTSC 8/9/91 52 . 0002 REVIEW ON THE RI/FS AMENDMENTS TO WORK PLAN FOR SOIL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 34
INVESTIGATION OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4. MCLB. BARSTOW
18
MARCH 25.1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNrT
COMMENTS. EPA
10/1/91 5.2 - 0004
REVIEW ON THE RVFS FIELD SAMPLING PLAN AMENDMENTS OPERABLE US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
UNITS 3 AND 4. MCLB. BARSTOW COMMAND
3.4
COMMENTS. EPA
11/28/90 52 . 0005
REVIEW ON THE DRAFT WORK PLAN SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN, US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS
PLAN FOR MCLB DATED SEPTEMBER 26.1990
1.2.3.4,5.8.7
COMMENTS, RWOCB
11/30*0 5.2 - 0007
REVIEW ON THE DRAFT RUT 3 WORK PLAN, SAP. QUALITY ASSURANCE
PROJECT PLAN. COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN. HEALTH AND SAFETY
PLAN FOR MCLB
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
COMMENTS. EPA
S/3/91 5.2 . 0009
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION, FEASIB ILITY US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
STUDY WORK PLAN MARCH 1,1991. FOR MCLB. BARSTOW COMMAND
1.2.3.4,5.6.7
COMMENTS. EPA
10/1/91 52 . 0011 REVIEW OF THE RUFS FIELD SAMPLING PLAN AMENDMENTS OPERABLE US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
UNITS 3 AND 4. MCLB. BARSTOW COMMAND
3,4
COMMENTS. EPA
4/6/92 52 - 0012 REVIEW OF NEESA 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
COMMENTS. EPA
4/30/91 5.2 - 0015 CONDITIONAL APPROVAL AND REVIEW OF THE RWFS WORK PLAN AND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1.2.3.4.5,6.7
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN. MCLB. BARSTOW
COMMENTS, DTSC
307/91 52 - 0017
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FINAL RVFS WORK PLAN, MARCH 1991. MCLB. OEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
BARSTOW
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
1.2.3.4.5.6.7
COMMENTS. DTSC
3/27/91 5.2 . 0018
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FINAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN. MARCH DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
1991. MCLB. BARSTOW
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
1.2.3.4.5.6.7
COMMENTS. OTSC
6/15/94 52 - 0020 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ACTION MEMORANDUM FOR CAOC 34
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
3.4
MARCH 25. 1997
19
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
COMMENTS. DTSC
11/28/90 5.2 - 0021 REVIEW OF THE RI/FS COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN. DATED 09/90 DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1,2,3.4.5.6.7
COMMENTS. RWQCB
11/29/90 52 - 0022 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT RI/FS WORK PLAN FOR MCLB, BARSTOW. DATED REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 123.4.567
SEPTEMBER 1990 BOARD
COMMENTS. OTSC
11/21/90 52 - 0023
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT Riff S WORK PLAN FOR MCLB, BARSTOW, DATED DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
SEPTEMBER 1990
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1,2,3.4.5.6.7
COMMENTS. DTSC
11/27/90 5.2 - 0024
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT RI/FS SAP FOR MCLB. BARSTOW, DATED
SEPTEMBER 1990
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
COMMENTS. DTSC
11/27/90 52 . 0025 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT RI/F S, HEALTH 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
11/27/90 52 - 0026 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT RVfS QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1.2.3,4.5.6.7
MCLB. BARSTOW. DATED SEPTEMBER 1990
COMMENTS. RWQCB
3/27/91 52 - 0028 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT Riff S WORK PLAN FOR MlLB. BARSTOW
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1.2.3.4.5,6.7
COMMENTS. OTSC
12/9/91 52 - 0030 REVIEW OF THE RVFS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR MCLB.
BARSTOW
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
COMMAND
COMMENTS. EPA
2/11/92 52 - 0031
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL AND REVIEW OF RVFS DRAFT FINAL
SAMPLING & ANALYSIS PLAN FOR OUi 3/4
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
3.4
COMMENTS. RWOCB
4/8/92 52 . 0042
REVIEW OF TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TM-0002 AND TM-0003. RVFS.
MCLB. BARSTOW
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
1.2.3.4.5,6.7
MARCH 25. 1997
20
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-OOCf SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
COMMENTS, EPA
3/13/92 5.2 - 0043
REVIEW OF THE REVISED QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
RI/FS AT MCLB, BARSTOW COMMAND
1.2.3.4.5.6.7
COMMENTS, EPA
5/2S/94 52 . 0045 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT PHASE 1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FOR OU» US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
3S4, TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 9, VOL 20, APPENDIX G-4 COMMAND
3.4
COMMENTS, EPA
1/17/92 5.2 . 0046 REVIEW OF RI/FS, 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. DTSC
1/2*92 5.2 . 0049
REVIEW OF AMENDMENT TO DRAFT FINAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
PLAN RI/FS. OUl 3 AND 4 FOR MCLB. BARSTOW
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
3.4
COMMENTS, RWQCB
12/31/91 52 - 0051
REVIEW OF ADDENDUM SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN FOR OUl 1/2/3/4 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
AND FINAL DATA MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR RI/FS AT MCLB, BARSTOW BOARD
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
1.2.3.4
COMMENTS. RWQCB
2/18/92 5.2 . 0052 REVIEW OF THE QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR RVFS AT REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 1.2.3.4,5.6.7
MCLB, BARSTOW BOARD COMMAND
COMMENTS. RWQCB
12/31/91 5.2 . 0059 REVIEW OF THE WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN RWS MCLB. BARSTOW
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
1.2.3.4.5,6,7
COMMENTS. DHS
4/30/91 5.2 - 0060
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FINAL RI/FS SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
1.2,3,4.5.6.7
COMMENTS, RWQCB
4/29/91 5.2 . 0081 REVIEW OF THE RKFS 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
4/8/92 52 - 0062 REVIEW OF TECHNICAL MEMORANDA TM-0002 AND TM-0003, MCLB, DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
BARSTOW COMMAND
1,2,3.4.5.6.7
MARCH 25. 1997
21
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND A
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT • DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE
7/14/93 5.2 . 0070 DRAFT PHASE 2 FIELD SAMPLING WORK PLAN, RI/FS, OU« 3 » 4. SINCE US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 9 HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED. TECHNICAL COMMAND
MEMORANDUM 10 IS CONSIDERED INCOMPLETE UNDER THE FEDERAL
3,4
COMMENTS. RWQCB
11/19/93 52 . 0072
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT PHASE 2 FIELD SAMPLING WORK PLAN RI/FS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
FOR OU»3/4. DATED 5193 AND TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 10 DATED 9/93 BOARD
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
3.4
COMMENTS. DTSC
11/3/93 52 - 0073 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT PHASE (REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OPERABLE DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FAdLITIES ENGINEERING
UNITS 344, TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 9 (V0l» 1*2). DATED 9/93 COMMAND
3.4
COMMENTS. EPA
12/1/93 5.2 . 0076
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIATION REPORTS
OUt UNITS 3S4. DATED 9/93; DRAFT PHASE H RI/FS OUl 344 FIELD
SAMPLING PLAN. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 10. DATED 5/93; AND
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
1.2.3.4
COMMENTS. EPA
4/5/94 5.2 . 0087
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT PHASE 1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FOR OU« US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
3/4. TECHNICAL MEMORANUM 9 COMMAND
3.4
COMMENTS. OTSC
4/12/94 52 - 0068
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT PHASE 1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FOR CAOC OEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
5, TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 9. CAOC 5 WAS EXCLUDED FROM COMMAND
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 9. DATED 9/93
3.4
COMMENTS. EPA
S/20/94 52 . 0089
REVIEW OF THE PHASE 1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION. APPENDIX H,
RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON CAOC 20. TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM'S
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
COMMENTS. EPA
5/4/94 5.2 . 0090
REVIEW AND CONCURRENCE ON THE DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAL US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY PHASE 2 FIELD SAMPLING WORK COMMAND
PLAN FOR OUt 3/4, TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 10
3.4
COMMENTS. RWQCB
1/2V9S 52 - 0091
REVIEW ON BACKGROUND SOILS INVESTIGATION. TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM 23. DATED 9/28/94; NO COMMENTS
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
1.2.3.4.5.6.7
COMMENTS RESPONSE
7/27/94 52 . 0092
PROJECT NOTE 52 - RESPONSES TO EPA, DTSC 4 RWQCB COMMENTS JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
ON THE DRAFT PHASE 1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OU> 3
S 4, TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 9. DATED 7/93
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. & US EPA 3.4
MARCH 25.1997
22
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC*
SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
COMMENTS. EPA
11/23/94 52 - 0095
REVIEW ON THE DRAFT BACKGROUND SOILS INVESTIGATION, US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 23. EPA FINDS IT ACCEPTABLE: HOWEVER. COMMAND
FURTHER CLARIFICATION ft EXPLANATIONS SHOULD BE INCORPORATED
3.4
COMMENTS, EPA
11/23/94 5.2 . 0097
REVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT PROJECT WORK PLAN, US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION ft REMOVAL PILOT STUDY FOR OU 4. COMMAND
CAOC2
3.4
COMMENTS. EPA
7/12/94 5.2 . 0098
REVIEW ON THE DRAFT PHASE 1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION, OUl 3 & 4. US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 9 COMMAND
3.4
COMMENTS. EPA
2/15/95 52 - 0105
REVIEW OF DRAFT Rl REPORT FOR OUt 3 & 4. DATED 12/15/94. THE
REPORT WAS REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH CONCLUSIONS
FROM TECHNICAL MEMORANDA 4 ft 9
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
3.4
COMMENTS. RWQCB
7/3/95 52 - 0115
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR
OUl 3 ft 4. DATED 06/1595. ft PROJECT NOTE 28, DATED 0601/95: THIS
DOCUMENT IS AN ATTACHMENT TO DTSC'S LETTER DATED 8/4/95
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
BOARD CONTROL
34
COMMENTS. RWQCB
3/13/95 52 - 0117
REVIEW ON THE Rl REPORT FOR OUl 3 & 4 DATED 12/94; COMMENTS
ON ARARS. CLASSIFICATION OF WASTE. WATER QUALITY DATA
CORRECTIVE ACTION, CHAPTER 15 APPLICABILITY. SOIL
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
BOARD CONTROL
3.4
COMMENTS. DTSC
3/15/95 52 • 0118
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTK3ATI&N REPORT FOR OUt 3
ft 4 DATED 12/15/94; FINDS THE REPORT REQUIRES ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION ON PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS & REPORTS FOR OTSC'S
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
3.4
COMMENTS, OTSC
2/6/95 52 . 0119
INTERNAL REVIEW OF THE DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR OUl 3 ft 4, DATED 12/15/94
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
3.4
COMMENTS, RWOCB
4/B/95 5.2 - 0120
REVIEW OF LANDFILL COVER ALTERNATIVES FOR CAOC 23 THAT WAS
PRESENTED DURING 03/16-17/95 REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS1
MEETING
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
3,4
COMMENTS. OTSC
4/20/9S 52 - 0121 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT Rl FOR OU« 3 » 4. DATED 12/15/95
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
3.4
MARCH 25. 1997
23
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP UNIT
COMMENTS. OTSC
10/13/95 5.2 . 0122
REVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY ADDENDUM DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
FOR OU 3. CAOC 20 (2ND HAZARDOUS & LOW-LEVEL RADIOLOGICAL
STORAGE AREA)
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
COMMENTS. DTSC
10/13/95 5.2 - 0128
REVIEW OF PROJECT NOTE 38. DATED »11/95. REVISION 1 PAGES TO DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
THE DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OUi 344.
DATED 8/15/95
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
COMMENTS. RWOCB
10/12/95 5.2 .0128
DRAFT « FINAL COMMENTS ON DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR OUl 3 S REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
4 CAOC 20. ft STRATA f 1 (INACTIVE LOW LEVEL RADIOLOGICAL BOARD
LANDFILL SITE) ft 2 (INACTIVE UNCLASSIFIED SOLID WASTE LANDFILL),
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
34
COMMENTS. DTSC ft RWQCB 9/21/95 5.2 . 0129
DTSC ft RWQCB COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REMOVAL ACTION SITE
CLOSEOUT REPORT, DATED 06/18/95. REQUIRES NO FURTHER
REMOVAL ACTION UPON RECEIVING ON-SCENE COORDINATOR'S
OEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
COMMENTS. EPA
7/17/95 5.2 . 0130
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
OU» 3 ft 4, DATED 08/15/95; WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 2 MAJOR COMMAND
CONCERNS, EPA CONCURS WITH FINDINGS
34
COMMENTS. DTSC
B/2B/95 5.2 . 0131
INTERNAL REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
REPORT FOR OUi 3 * 4; CAOC 20. STRATUM 1
OEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
34
COMMENTS, OTSC
8/28/9S S.2 - 0137 DTSC COMMENTS ON DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUD>REPORT FOR OU 3. DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
CAOC 23 (LANQFILL AREA) COMMAND
COMMENTS. RWQCB
8/1405 5.2 . 0138
INTERNAL REVIEW OF DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR OU 3, CAOC 23
(LANDFILL AREA). STRATUM 2
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
COMMENTS. DTSC
8/21/95 5.2 . 0139
DTSC REVIEW OF DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PHASE 2A
FIELD SAMPLING WORK PLAN FOR OU> 3 & 4
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
34
COMMENTS. EPA
52 - 0142 REVIEW OF THE AMENDMENT TOOU« 3 4 4 DRAFT FINAL PHASE 2 FIELD US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
SAMPLING WORK PLAN, TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 0010. DATED 03/95 COMMAND
34
MARCH 25.1997
24
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC*
SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
COMMENTS. OTSC
8/4/95 5.2 - 0145
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
OUi 3 « 4, DATED 6/15/95
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
34
COMMENTS. RWQCB
3/22/95 5.2 . 0147 FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR CAOC 23 (LANDFILL AREA); PROVIDES
LANDFILL COVER ALTERNATIVES
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
BOARD CONTROL
34
COMMENTS. DTSC
3/31/95 5.2 . 0148
INTERNAL REVIEW OF THE DRAFT REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR OUi 3 ft 4. DATED 12/15/94;
ATTACHMENT TO DISCS LETTER DATED 4/20/95
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
34
COMMENTS. RWQCB
5/S/9S 52 - 0149
INTERNAL MEMORANUM RE: THE NEED TO INCLUDE GROUNDWATER
SAMPLING RESULT TABLES IN REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORTS
FOR OU*1 THROUGH 6
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
BOARD CONTROL
1 23456
COMMENTS. EPA
5/31/95 5.2 . 0160
REVIEW OF PROJECT 30 DATED 5/11/95. ON THE STRATUM-SPECIFIC
CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION TABLES FOR SOIL CHEMISTRY
ANALYTICAL DATA FOR CAOCl IN OUt 3 & 4
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
34
COMMENTS. RWQCB
2/2*96 52 • 0165
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY. DATED 10/30/95. &
THE DRAFT PROPOSED PLAN, DATED 10/16/95
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
BOARD CONTROL
34
COMMENTS. DTSC
12/22/95 52 - 016S
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT PROPOSED PLAN FOR OUi 3 & 4: COMMENTS
SUBMITTED CONCERN THE LANGUAGE. COMMUNICATION. & FORMAT
OF THE DOCUMENT & DOES NOT ENDORSE OR DENY THE PLAN;
OEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
34
COMMENTS, OTSC
12/19/95 5.2 . 0169
INTERNAL REVIEW OF THE DRAFT PROPOSED PLAN FOR OUi 3*4;
REVIEW FOCUSES ON THE 3 DESCRIPTIONS OF RISK ASSESSMENT IN
PARTS 1 & 2
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
34
COMMENTS, DTSC
12/20/95 5.2 - 0171
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR OUS 34 4;
CONCURS WITH INFORMATION ft MCLB HAS RESOLVED OUTSTANDING
ISSUES CONCERNING THE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
34
COMMENTS. EPA
12/18/95 5.2 . 0173 REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR OUi3& 4
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
34
MARCH 25. 1997
25
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
COMMENTS. EPA 11/2*95 52 - 0175 REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE TO EPA'S COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT FINAL US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 34
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR OU« 344. CAOCt 20 ft 23; DOCUMENT COMMAND
ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES CONCERNS & IS ACCEPTABLE
COMMENTS. RWOCB 3/5/96 52 - 0164 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR OU« 3 & OEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 34
4 S THE DRAFT PROPOSED PLAN COMMAND
COMMENTS. EPA 8/15/95 5.2 . 0188 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR OUi 3 * 4. US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 34
CAOC 23 COMMAND
COMMENTS. RWQCB 3/22/95 52 - 0187 FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR OU 3, CAOC 23; PROVIDES LANDFILL REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 34
COVER ALTERNATIVES; ATTACHMENT TO DTSC'S LETTER DATED 4/6/95 BOARD CONTROL
RESPONSE TO REQUEST 4/16/98 5.2-0192 EXTENSION OF THE FFA SCHEDULE FOR OPERABLE UNfTS 1.2.3 AND 4 DEPARTMENT OF TOXICS SUBSTANCES MCLB BARSTOW 1.2.3.4
AT MCLB BARSTOW CONTROL
PLAN 5/29/98 52. 0193 OPERABLE UNITS NO. 3 AND 4 DRAFT FINAL PROPOSED PLAN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MCLB BARSTOW 34
CONTROL BOARD
AGREEMENT. SIGNATURE PAGE 6/7/96 52.0194 FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT UNDER CERCI>SECTION 120 EPA REGION IX STATE OF CALIFORNIA FFA 34.5
ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NUMBER 90-41 TRANSFERING CAOC 21 FROM
OU3TOOU5
GENERAL COMMENTS 6/25/96 52-0197 USEPA REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON MCLB REMEDIAL EPA REGION IX SAN FRANCISCO SOUTHWEST DIVISION 34.56
INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY OPERABLE UNITS 5 AND 6
CORRESPONDENCE 7/3/96 52-0199 DTSC REVIEW OF RESPONSES FROM MCLB CONCERNING OU 3 CAOC DTSC LONG BEACH SOUTHWEST DIVISION 3,4
20 STRATUM 1
CORRESPONDENCE 10/4/96 52 - 0211 COMMENTS ON DRAFT RCRA RACILITY ASSESSMENT DEPARTMENT OF TOXICS SUBSTANCE DTSC LONG BEACH 1234567
CONTROL
MARCH 25, 1S97
26
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
CORRESPONCENCE. COMMENT! 10/4/98 52 . 0212 COMMENTS ON DRAFT RCRA FACILITY ASSESSMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TOXICS SUBSTANCE
CONTROL
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
3.4.5.6
CORRESPONDENCE
10/9/98 52 - 0214 REVIEW OF MCLB BARSTOW RECORD OF DECISION FOR OU> 3/4 EPA REGION IX SAN FRANCISCO
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
10/18*6 52 - 0215
OLTl 548 DRAFT FEASIBILFTY STUDY (FS) LANDFILLS LOCATED AT
CAOC NO. 7 AND 35
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD
DTSC LONG BEACH
3.4.S
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT! 10/11/96 5.2 . 0216
DTSC DRAFT COMMENTS ON MCLB OU> 3 AND 4 DRAFT RECORD OF
DECISION
DEPARTMENT OF TOXICS SUBSTANCE
CONTROL
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
10/17/96 52 . 0217 DELAYED REVIEW OF DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION OU« 3 AND 4 DEPARTMENT OF TOXICS SUBSTANCE SOUTHWEST DIVISION
CONTROL
3.4
COMMENTS
1028/96 5.2 . 0222 COMMENTS ON OU 3 AND 4 DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION
EPA REGION IX SAN FRANCISCO
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
3.4
COMMENTS
11/12/96 5.2 . 0226
DTSC COMMENTS ON MCBL BARSTOW OU» 3 AND 4 DRAFT RECORD OF DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
DECISION CONTROL
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
3.4
COMMENTS
10/9/96 5.2 . 0231
COMMENTS ON THE REVIEW OF MCLB BARSTOW DRAFT RECORD OF EPA REGION IX SAN FRANCISCO
DECISION FOR OUt 3 AND 4
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
5/22/96 52 . 0235 FFA EXTENTION LETTER FROM CRWOCB ON OUi 1.2,3. » 4
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD
MCLB BARSTOW
1.2.3.4.
CORRESPONDENCE
5/14/96 5.2 - 0238
CONCURRENCE REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FINAL PROPOSED PLAN FOR DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
OU*3AN04 CONTROL
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
3.4
MARCH 25.1997
27
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
COMMENTS
7I3I9S 5.2 - 0237
COMMENTS ON OUt 3 AND 4 DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
REPORT BOARD
OTSC LONG BEACH
3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
5/9/9* 52 - 0240 COMMENTS ON OU3/4 DRAFT FINAL PHASE II FIELD SAMPLING OEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL - SOUTHWEST DIVISION
WORKPLAN FOR MCLB LONG BEACH
3.4.5,6
COMMENTS. RWOCB
11W96 52 - 0242
COMMENTS ON OU» 3 AND 4; DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION MARINE
CORPS LOGISTICS BASE BARSTOW
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD
DEPT. OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
3.4
COMMENTS. EPT
2/15/94 52 . 0248
COMMENTS ON MCLB REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILrrY STUDY Rl US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHWEST DIVISION
REPORT OUi 3 AND 4 DRAFT DATED DECEMBER 15.1994
3.4
COMMENTS. EPA
8/9/91 52 . 0252 REVIEW COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT RVFS PLANNING DOCUMENTS FOR US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHWEST DIVISION
THE MCLB BARSTOW DATED JUNE 15. 1991
1.2.3,4.5.6
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT! 2/24/95 5.2 . 0261
TRANSMITTAL OF RWOCB COMMENTS ON NEBO AQUIFER TEST.
RESPONSE T01/6/95 CORRESPONDENCE (W/0 ATTACHMENTS)
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
BARSTOW
3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
2/15/95 5.2 . 0262
REQUEST FOR 304AY EXTENSION FOR SUBMITTING REVIEW
COMMENTS ON MCLB DOCUMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
1.3.4.5.6
CORRESPONDENCE. MEMO 11/994 52 . 0263
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EPA AND MCLB BARSTOW LISTS IDENTIFYING UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPOUNDS OF CONCERNS PROTECTION AGENCY
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
1.2.3.4.5.6.7
CORRESPONDENCE, COMMENT! 8/26/94 5.2 - 0264
US EPA COMMENTS ON THE NOTIFICATION OF REMOVAL ACTION AT UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PESTICIDE STORAGE AND WASHOUT AREA AT NEBO PROTECTION AGENCY
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
7/16/93 52 - 0265
NOTICE OF OTSC INABILITY TO REVIEW DRAFT PHASE II FIELD DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
SAMPLING WORKPLAN, RI/FS OU 3/4 PENDING RECEIPT OF TECHNICAL CONTROL
MEMORANDUM-009 IS SUBMITTED
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
3.4
MARCH 25.1997
28
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE °ATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE 7/16/93 52 . 0266 NOTICE OF DELAY IN PROVIDING DTSC COMMENTS ON PHASE II FIELD REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL SOUTHWEST DIVISION 3.4
SAMPLING WORKPLAN PENDING RECEIPT OF TECHNICAL BOARD
MEMORANDUM *9
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT! 9/16/93 52 . 0267 REVISIION OF REQUIREMENT TO SEAL SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 34
CRACKS RELATED TO EE/CA FOR YERMO INDUSTRIAL WWTP PONDS BOARD
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT! 11/V98 52 . 0268 US EPA COMMENTS ON OPERATION & MAINTENANCE MONITORING US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHWEST DIVISION 3.4
DATA SUMMARY GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION & TREATMENT REMOVAL
PILOT STUDY AT NEBO
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT! 11/S/96 52 - 0269 US EPA REVIEW OF MONITORING DATA SUMMARY AIR SPARGING/SOIL US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHWEST DIVISION 3,4
VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM PILOT STUDY AT NEBO
COMMENTS. DTSC 3/13/97 52 - 0270 COMMENTS ON THE OUi 1/2 DRAFT FINAL ADDENDUM AND DRAFT DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL SOUTHWEST DIVISION 1.2.3.4.5,6
FINAL PROPOSED PLAN
COMMENTS, EPA 1/2*97 5.2 - 0272 COMMENTS ON RECORD OF DECISION FOR OlTl 3 AND 4 MCLB OEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL SOUTHWEST DIVISION 3.4
BARSTOW
COMMENTS. EPA 2/11/97 52 - 0273 PROPOSED PROPERTY USE RESTRICTION LANGUAGE FOR CAOC 20 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 3,4
AND 23
COMMENTS, EPA 3/11/97 52.0274 COMMENTS REGARDING RECORD OF DECISION Ol/s 3 AND 4 ARAR» US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 3.4
SECTION
COMMENTS. EPA 3/12/97 52 - 0275 COMMENTS AND SCHEDULE EXTENSION FOR Ol/t 3 AND 4 DRAFT DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 3.4
FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
CORRESPONDENCE 10/1/96 52 - 0276 COMMENTS ON DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) FOR MARINE DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL 3.4
CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
MARCH 25.1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE. COMMENT! 9/27/96 5.2 . 0277
COMMENTS ON DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) FOR MARINE
CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD
OEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL 3.4
COMMENTS RESPONSE
1/18/91 $3. 0001 RESPONSE TO REGULATORY AGENCY COMMENTS ON RI/FS WORK JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB DTSC « US EPA 1.234567
PLAN. MCLB. BARSTOW SEPT 1990
COMMENTS RESPONSE
8/1/91 53-0002 RESPONSE TO REGULATORY AGENCY COMMENTS ON DRAFT FINAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWOCB DTSC & US EPA 1.2.3.45.6.7
WORK PLAN AND SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN APRIL 1.1991
COMMENTS RESPONSE
3/11/92 53 . 0008 RESPONSE TO AGENCY COMMENTS FINAL RI/FS PLANNING
DOCUMENTS VOL V FOR MCLB, BARSTOW
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB, DTSC. & US EPA 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
COMMENTS RESPONSE
3/16/94 5.3 . 0015
PROJECT NOTE 40 • RESPONSE TO AGENCIES COMMENTS FOR THE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
DRAFT PHASE 2 FIELD SAMPLING WORK PLAN FOR OU« 3/4. TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM 10
NFEC. MCLB, RWQCB. DTSC. & US EPA 3.4
COMMENTS RESPONSE
9/9/94 53 . 0022
PROJECT NOTE 19 - RESPONSE TO DTSC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
ACTION MEMORANDUM FOR OU 3. CAOC 34, FORMER
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL STORAGE AREA
NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB. DTSC. & US EPA
COMMENTS RESPONSE
7/1*94 5.3 . 0023
PROJECT NOTE 10 - RESPONSE TO EPA COMMENTS DATED 04/05/94 ON JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
OU> 344 PHASE 2 SAMPLING. SPECIFICALLY CAOC 5. TECHNICAL
MEMORANDA 9 & 10
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. & US EPA 3.4
COMMENTS RESPONSE
5/9/95 5.3 - 0025
PROJECT NOTE 84 • RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM EPA. DTSC. A
RWOCB ON THE DRAFT PHASE 1 Rl FOR OUt 5*6, TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM 22
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB. RWQCB. OTSC. » US EPA 3.4,5.8
COMMENTS RESPONSE
7/24/95 53 - 0028
PROJECT NOTE 92 • RESPONSE TO US ERA'S COMMENTS DATED JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
01/27/95 « 6/5/95. RE: DRAFT PHASE 2 FIELD SAMPLING WORK PLAN FOR
ou»5«B
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
563
COMMENTS RESPONSE
7/25/95 S3 - 0029
PROJECT NOTE 89 • RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM DTSC (DATED JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
3/10/95) ft US EPA (DATED 3/10/95) RE: DRAFT IDENTIFICATION OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 0027
NFEC, MCLB, RWOCB. DTSC. » US EPA 356
MARCH 25. 1997
30
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
COMMENTS RESPONSE
10/30/95 S3 - 0032
PROJECT NOTE 56 • RESPONSE EPA'S COMMENTS DATED 08/15/95.
RWOCB'S COMMENTS DATED 08/1*95. & DTSC'S COMMENTS DATED
06/15/96 & 08/24/95. ON THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC, 4 US EPA 12734
COMMENTS RESPONSE
11/B/95 53 - 0033
PROJECT NOTE 35 • RESPONSE TO DTSC & RWQCB'S COMMENTS ON JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
THE DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR CAOCs 23 » 20
NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. OTSC. & US EPA
COMMENTS RESPONSE
6/21/95 5.3 - 0037
PROJECT NOTE 28 • RESPONSE TO EPA 4 DTSC'S COMMENTS ON THE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FOR OU» 3 4 4 (DATED 12/15/94)
NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB. DTSC. 4 US EPA 3 4
COMMENTS RESPONSE
3/4/98 5.3 . 0038
PROJECT NOTE 43 • RESPONSE TO DHS1 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT
FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OU» 3*4. CAOC 20
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. OTSC. 4 US EPA 34
COMMENTS RESPONSE
4/28/98 53.0041 PROJECT NOTE 48 • RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DTSC (DATED JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB DTSC ft US EPA 34
12/22/95)4 RWQCB (DATED 03AM/9B) ON THE DRAFT PROPOSED PLAN
FOR OU» 344, DATED 10/13/95
COMMENTS
3/5/98 53 . 0043 COMMENTS FROM THE RWQCB LAHONTAN REGION ON THE MCLB DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE SOUTHWEST DIVISION
BARSTOWOUl 3 AND 4 DRAFT FINAL FS REPORT AND DRAFT CONTROL
PROPOSED PLAN
3.4
COMMENTS
2/29/98 a.3 . 0044 COMMENTS ON OUl 3 AND 4 DRAFT FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY AND REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL 3.4
DRAFT PROPOSED PLAN MCLB BARSTOW DATED OCTOBER 30.1995 BOARD
COMMENTS
2/28/96 5.3 . 0045
TRANSMISSION OF COMMENTS ON SAMPLE COLLECTION AND
ANALYSIS PLAN OF THE SYSTEM START-UP AND TESTING PLAN. GW
EXTRAC. ETC
EPA REGION IX SAN FRANCISCO
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
1.2.3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
10/13/95 5.3 . 0047
REVISIONS 1 PAGES TO DRAFT FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
REPORT FOR OUt 3 AND 4 ON MCLB BARSTOW
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL SOUTHWEST DIVISION
3.4
COMMENTS. MEMORANDUM
10/12/95 5.3 . 0048 COMMENTS ON OUl 3 AND 4 DRAFT FS CAOC 20 INACTIVE LOW LEVEL REGIONAL WATER QUALfTY CONTROL
RADIOLOGICAL LANDFILL SITE AND STRATUM NO. 2 INACTIVE BOARD
UNCLASSIFIED
OEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL 3,4
MARCH 25, 1997
31
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2/11/97 53 . 0061 RESPONSE TO AGENCY COMMENTS ON OU3/4 DRAFT ROD • JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP SOUTHWEST DMSION 34
COMMENTS FROM DTSC. CRWQCB. AND USEPA - CTO 293
COMMENTS. RESPONSE 2/20/97 S3. 0062 RESPONSE TO AGENCY COMMENTS ON OU» 5 AND 6 DRAFT FINAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP. INC SOUTHWEST DIVISION 5673
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (Rl) REPORT
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 3/12/97 5.3.0063 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS REGARDING CONCERNS ON THE SOUTHWEST DIVISION US EPA. DTSC SWRCB 3.4
LANGUAGE FOR RESOLVING THE FINAL ISSUES ON LAND-USE
RESTRICTION ON OLTi 3 AND 4 ROD
REPORT. ECOLOGICAL RISK 9/2*93 6.1 . 0003 PROJECT NOTE 310-DATA TO SUPPORT THE ECOLOGICAL RISK JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. & US EPA 3.4
ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT AS REQUESTED BY R BARNETT. US EPA
REPORT. ANALYTICAL DATA 1/1/93 6.1 . 0006 PHASE 1 VALIDATED SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR THE REMEDIAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC & MCLB
INVESTtATON/FEASIBILrTY STUDY. OU 4. CAOC 2. (PESTICIDE STORAGE
ft WASHOUT AREA). VOL 1
REPORT. ANALYTICAL DATA 1/1/93 6.1 . 0007 PHASE 1 VALIDATED SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR THE REMEDIAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC ft MCLB
INVESTIATION/FEASIBILrTY STUDY, OU 4, CAOC 5. (PESTICIDE STORAGE
« WASHOUT AREA), VOL 2
REPORT. ANALYTICAL DATA 1/1/93 6.1 . 0006 PHASE 1 VALIDATED SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULT»FOR THE REMEDIAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC & MCLB
INVESTIATION/FEASIBILrrY STUDY. OU 4. CAOC 9, (FUEL DISPOAL
AREA), VOL 3 *
REPORT. ANALYTICAL DATA 1/1/93 6.1 . 0009 PHASE 1 VALIDATED SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR THE REMEDIAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC S MCLB
INVESTIATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY. OU 4, CAOC 11. (FUEL BURN AREA).
VOL4
REPORT ANALYTICAL DATA 1/1/93 61.0010 PHASE 1 VALIDATED SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR THE REMEDIAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC 8 MCLB
INVESTIATON/FEASIBILITY STUDY. OU 3, CAOC 18. (SLUDGE WASTE
DISPOSAL AREA). VOL 5
REPORT ANALYTICAL DATA 1/1/93 6.1.0011 PHASE 1 VALIDATED SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR THE REMEDIAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC & MCLB
INVESTIATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY, OU 3. CAOC 20. (SECOND
HAZARDOUS 1 LOW-LEVEL RADIOLOGICAL AREA), VOL 6
MARCH 25.1997
32
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT • DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
REPORT. ANALYTICAL DATA 1/1/93 6.1 . 0012
PHASE 1 VALIDATED SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR THE REMEDIAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
INVESTIATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY, OU 3. CAOC 21, (INDUSTRIAL WASTE
DISPOSAL AREA). VOL 7
NFEC ft MCLB
REPORT. ANALYTICAL DATA 1/1/93 6.1 . 0013
PHASE 1 VALIDATED SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR THE REMEDIAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
INVESTIATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY. OU 3. CAOC 23. (LANDFILL AREA).
VOL 8
NFEC 4 MCLB
REPORT, ANALYTICAL DATA 1/1/93 8.1 . 0014
PHASE 1 VALIDATED SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR THE REMEDIAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
INVESTlATON/FEASIBILrTY STUDY. OU 3. CAOC 34. (PREVIOUS PCB
STORAGE AREA). VOL 9
NFEC 4 MCLB
REPORT. ANALYTICAL DATA 11/29/95 61 . 0016 PROJECT NOTE 39 - ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF OU 3. PHASE 2A SOIL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB DTSC 4 US EPA
SAMPLING, CAOC 21 (INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL AREA)
REPORT. ANALYTICAL DATA 11/20/95 6.1.001? EVALUATED ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR OU 3. CAOC 21 (INDUSTRIAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB OTSC & US EPA 3
WASTE DISPOSAL AREA), PHASE 2 SAMPLING
REPORT, ANALYTICAL DATA
S/B/93 6.1 . 0019 PROJECT NOTE 282 • RI/FS OUt 1. 2. 3. 4, 5, 46 PHASE 1
GROUNDWATER & SOIL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY RESULTS
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB, RWOCB, OTSC. 4 US EPA 123456
LABORATORY ANALYSES
3/28/92 6.1 . 0025 ORGANIC CHEMICAL ANALYSES FROM FINAL EFFLUENT AND EFFLUENT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
LEAD BED
3.4
ARARS
4*92 6.2 - 0004
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
THE RI/FS, MCLB. BARSTOW BOARD
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
1.2,3,4.5.6.7
ARARS
5/9/94 62 - 0005
IDENTIFICATION OF STATE APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED REMOVAL ACTION CONTROL
AT MCLB. SITE 34, PREVIOUS PCB STORAGE AREA
ARARS REQUEST
4/21/95 62 . 0006
REQUEST FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ARARS AFFECTING THE PROPOSED DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
AND/OR POSSIBLE CERCLA ACTIONS TO BE PERFORMED AT MCLB
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
5.6.3.4
MARCH 25. 1997
33
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE "ATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE. REQUEST 1/31/95 62 . 0007 REQUESTS IOENTIFICAION 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 6/29/94 62 . 0008 CHEMICAL. LOCATION, * ACTION SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 3
t APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARS) FOR PROPOSED CERCLA COMMAND
REMOVAL ACTION FOR OU 3, CAOC 34
ARARS B/S/9S 62 . 0010 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT» DEPT OF FISH & GAME DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 4356
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs) FOR MCLB CONTROL
ARARS 6/19/95 6.2 - 0012 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT & DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 123456
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR MCLB COMMAND
CORRESPONDENCE. REQUEST 8/2S/9S 62-0013 REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND ARAR-» FOR CAOC 20 AND CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL 34
CAOC 23 MANAGEMENT BOARD
CORRESPONDENCE 8/10/94 62. 0014 IDENTIFICATION OF STATE ARAR'i FOR THE PROPOSED REMOVAL MARINE CORPS LOGISTIC BASE. BARSTOW DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL 3 4
ACTION AT MCLB BARSTOW IR SITE W2
PLAN. RISK ASSESSMENT WORK 9/19/95 63.0003 PROJECT NOTE 98 - APPROACH TO CONDUCTING THE BASELINE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWOCB DTSC « US EPA 34
BASEWIDE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT. "DRAFT DISCUSSION
ONLY-
REPORT, WASTEWATER 2/17/92 64 - 0009 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS DATA SUMMARY REPORT FOR YERMO ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENTAL INC US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 35
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. MCLB. BARSTOW AGENCY
REPORT. SOIL 3/9/94 64.0042 PROJECT NOTE 39 - SOIL BORING COORDINATES AS REQUESTED FROM JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB DTSC & US EPA 34
US EPA REPRESENTATIVES AT THE 02/04/94 REMEDIAL PROJECT
MANAGERS' MEETING
REPORT 5/2/94 6.4.0049 PROJECT NOTE 3 - RESULTS OF PCS TEST KITS VERSUS CLP AT NAVAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB OTSC S US EPA
AIR STATION, NORTH ISLAND. AND CONCLUDES THAT THE PCS TEST
KITS ARE BIASED TO REPORT FALSE POSITIVE HITS OF
MARCH 25. 1997
34
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
REPORT
5/1*9* 64 - 0050 PROJECT NOTE 41-PHASE 1 STRONTIUM SAMPLING RESULTS JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB, DTSC. 4 US EPA 3.4
REPORT. REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
12/15/94 64 - 0052 DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OUs 3 4 4 (VOL 1 OF 3) JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB. DTSC. 4 US EPA 3.4
REPORT. REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
12/15/94 64 . 0053 DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OUi 3 ft 4 (VOL 2 Of 3) JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB. DTSC. 4 US EPA 3.4
REPORT, REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
12/15/94 64 - 0054 DRAFT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OUi 3 & 4 (VOL 3 OF 3) JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB, RWOCB. DTSC. * US EPA 3,4
REMOVAL RESPONSE,
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
5/11(95 6.4 . 0057
PROJECT NOTE 30 - STRATUM-SPECIFIC CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
TABLES FOR OU» 344
NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB. DTSC. 4 US EPA 3 4
REPORT. REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
9/11/95 64 . 0063
PROJECT NOTE 38 • REVISION 1. REVISED PAGES TO THE DRAFT FINAL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
OUi 3 S 4 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT DATED 06/15/95
NFEC. MCLB, RWQCB, DTSC. 4 US EPA 3 4
REPORT. SOIL GAS
7/1/92 6.4. 0078 FINAL SON. GAS SURVEY FOR OU 3. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1. (VOL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
2 OF 3) NOTE: REFER TO 51-0149 FOR THE DOCUMENT
NFEC 4 MCLB
34
REPORT. SOIL GAS
7/1/92 8.4. 0079 FINAL SOU GAS SURVEY FOR OU 4. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1. (VOL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
3 OF 3) NOTE: REFER TO 5.1-0150 FOR THE DOCUMENT
NFEC 4 MCLB
34
REPORT. FEASIBILITY STUDY 3/4/96 64 . 0060
PROJECT NOTE 44 - RECORDS DOCUMENTING CAOC 20 CONTENTS:
RESPONSE TO ACTION ITEM *5.12/5-6/95 RPMs' MEETING
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB, RWOCB. OTSC, 4 US EPA 34
REPORT. FEASIBILITY STUDY 3/4/98 64 . 0081
PROJECT NOTE 45 - STATUS OF FENCE LINE CONSTRUCTION AT CAOC JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
21; RESPONSE TO ACTION «3 FROM THE 12/54/95 RPMf MEETING
NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB. DTSC. 4 US EPA 34
MARCH 25. 1997
35
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UWT
REPORT, FATE & TRANSPORT 12/18/95 6.4 . 0082 PROJECT NOTE 42 - FATE S TRANSPORT ANALYSES FOR CAOC 20 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. » US EPA 3
REPORT. DNAPL
1/26/96 6.4 . 0083
DENSE NON-AQUEOUS PHASE LKJUIDES (DNAPL) EVALUATION FOR
CAOC»6. 7, 23, 26.435
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACIL!TIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
635
REPORT, DNAPL
3/27/96 6.4 . 0066
PROJECT NOTE 68 - EVALUATION OF DENSE NON-AQUEOUS PHASE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
LIQUIDS FOR CAOCt 8. 7. 23 26. * 35 PREPARED BY EPA DATED 1/26/96
NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB, OTSC. 4 US EPA 635
REPORT. FEASIBILITY STUDY 10/30/95 6.4 . 0069
DRAFT FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR CERCLA FOR OU 3.
CAOC«20*23
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB, RWQCB. DTSC. S US EPA
CORRESPONDENCE
5/1B/93 64 . 0104
PHASE IGROUNDWATER AND SOIL ANALYTICAL DATA FOR RI/FS Olfl 1 MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW US EPA. DTSC RWOCB
THRU 7 DATED MAY 6. 1993
1.2.3.4.5.6,7
PROPOSED PLAN
10/13/95 65.0001 DRAFT OUt 3 S 4 PROPOSED PLAN (FACT SHEET); NOTE: REFER TO CAT- MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE NFEC MCLB RWQCB DTSC S US EPA 34
DOC $.1-0150 FOR THE DOCUMENT (ATTACHMENT G)
PROPOSED PLAN
4/1/96 6.5 - 0002
DRAFT OUl 3 S 4 PROPOSED PLAN (FACT SHEET* NOTE: REFER TO CAT- MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
DOC 9 84002 FOR THE DOCUMENT
NFEC. MCLB, RWOCB. DTSC. & US EPA 3 4
PROPOSED PLAN
8/1/96 6.5 - 0003 FINAL OUt 3 « 4 PROPOSED PLAN (FACT SHEET)
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
NFEC, MCLB. RWQCB, OTSC. & US EPA 3 4
RECORD OF DECISION
2/12797 71 . 0001 DRAFT FINAL OUS 3 AND 4 RECORD OF DECISION - CTO 293
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
1MO/97 71 . 0002 LAND USE RESTRICTION LANGUAGE FOR INCLUSION IN DRAFT FINAL SOUTHWEST DIVISION
RECORD OF DECISION FOR OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. CO 3. 4
MARCH 25. 1997
36
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE 1/18/97 71 . 0003 LAND RESTRICTION LANGUAGE FOR DRAFT FINAL RECORD OF DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES SOUTHWEST DIVISION 3.4
DECISION FOR OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4 CONTROL. LONG BEACH
CORRESPONDENCE, ROD 2/26/97 7.1 . 0004 REPLACEMENT APPENDIX C-ARARl OF THE DRAFT FINAL OU 3/4/ROD: JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP. INC. SOUTWEST DIVISION 3.4
UPDATED VERSION OF APPENDIX C ORIGINALLY ISSUED WTTH OU 3/4/
DRAFT FINAL ROD. DATED FEBRUARY 12.1997 - CROSS REFERENCE*
RECORD OF DECISION B/6/98 7.1.0006 RECORD OF DECISION REPORTOlfS 3/4 REVISION 0 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP. INC SOUTHWEST DIVISION 3.4
AGREEMENT. FEDERAL FACILITI 2/21/92 8.1 . 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
CORRESPONDENCE 1/15/92 81 . 0011 REGARDING CHANGES TO THE AMENDMENT OF THE SAMPLING & NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1.2.4
ANALYSIS PLAN WHICH COULD RESULT IN REDUCED FIELD WORK. LAB AGENCY
TIME AND PROJECT COSTS
CORRESPONDENCE 6/7/93 8.t . 0018 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 3.4
WITH SECTION 120 OF CERCLA
CORRESPONDENCE. REQUEST 1/7/94 8.1 . 0021 REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE TO CONDUCT AN AQUIFER PUMP TEST MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL 1.2.3.4
BOARD
AGREEMENT. FEDERAL FACILITI 4/6/95 81 . 0024 REQUESTS AN EXTENSION FOR ALL REMAINING FEDERAL FACILITY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 3.4
AGREEMENT SUBMITTA1S FOR OUt 3 & 4 AGENCY
AGREEMENT. FEDERAL FACILITI 4/17/95 81 . 0026 EPA APPROVES THE NAVTS REQUEST DATED 04/06/95 FOR EXTENDING US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 3.4
TIME ON THE REMAINING FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT FOR OUt 3 « COMMAND
4 SUBMITTALS
AGREEMENT. FEDERAL FACILITI 4/18/95 81 . 0027 OTSC APPROVES THE HAWS REQUEST DATED 03/15/95 FOR DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 3,4
EXTENDING TIME ON THE REMAINING FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT COMMAND
FOR OU» 3 & 4 SUBMITTALS
MARCH 25. 1997 37
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNIT
AGREEMENT. FEDERAL FACILITI 4/25/95 81 . 0028 DTSC APPROVES THE NAVY REQUEST DATED 04/08/95 FOR EXTENDING DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 3.4
TIME ON THE REMAINING FEDERAL FACILITIES AGREEMENT FOR OU» 3 COMMAND
& 4 DEIIVERABLES
AGREEMENT. FEDERAL FACILITl 3/14/95 61 . 0030 GRANTS 30 DAY EXTENSION COMMENT PERIOD ON THE OU» 3 S 4 NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 34
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT AGENCY
CORRESPONDENCE. RESPONSE 11/8/95 81 . 0034 RESPONSE TO JEOS REQUEST. DATED 10/16/95. TRANSFERRING CAOC DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 35
21 FROM OU 3 TO OU 5; DTSC AGREES TO PURSUE TRANSFER COMMAND
COMMENTS. DTSC 11W95 81 - 0035 REQUESTS DELAY ON CONCURRENCE OF DRAFT FINAL FEASIBILITY DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 34
STUDY FOR OU« 3 4 4, DATED 10/30/95, CAOC«20«23 COMMAND
AGREEMENT. FEDERAL FACILITl 3/21/95 8.1 . 0038 APPROVAL OF THE NAVY'S REQUEST TO APPLY A 30-DAY EXTENSION US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING 34
TOALLREMAININGOU13&40ELIVERABLES COMMAND
AGREEMENT. FEDERAL FACILITI 11/2*95 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 SCHEDULE & NOT CREATE ADVERSE COMMAND
EFFECT THRU THE DELAY
AGREEMENT. FEDERAL FACILITl 11/15/95 81 . 0041 RESPONSE TO NFECS 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
AGREEMENT. FEDERAL FACILITI 2/14/96 8.1 . 0050 FEDERAL FACILITIES AGREEMENT SCHEDULE UPDATE MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE US EPA. DTSC. A RWQCB 1234
CORRESPONDENCE 8.1 . 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 10/18/95 8.1 - 0058 REMOVAL OF CAOC 21 FROM OUt 3/4 AND REPLACEMENT IN OU« 5/6 SOUTHWEST DIVISION DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL 3.4.5.6
MARCH 25. 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE
6*1093 9.1 . 0002 COPY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MPACT STATEMENT ON THE MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW SILVER VALLEY REALTY
REMOVAL ACTION MEMORANDUM AND ENGINEERING EVALUATION
/COST ANALYSIS PER REQUEST DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
3.4
PLAN, COMMUNITY RELATIONS 3/1/91 9.2 - 0001 DRAFT FINAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN. MCLB BARSTOW JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC, MCLB. RWOCB. OTSC. & US EPA 1.2.3,4.5.6.7
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
5/18/92 93 . 0001 PROJECT NOTE 136 -UPDATED MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IN RI/FS ACTIVITIES AT MCLB, BARSTOW
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWOCB, OTSC. » US EPA 1,2.3.4.5.6.7
MEETING NOTES 1/20/93 94-0002 PROJECT NOTE 17 -TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC. & US EPA 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
HELD ON 1/20/93
MEETING NOTES
12/8/93 94.0005 PROJECT NOTE 330- TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB RWOCB DTSC » US EPA 1.2,3,4.5.6.7
HELD ON 12/08/93 AT THE MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
MEETING NOTES
12/5/95 9.4 . 0006
PROJECT NOTE 104 - TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
CONDUCTED ON 12/5/95
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEMBERS
1234567
MEETING MINUTES
11*6/98 94 - 0009
MEETING AGENDA, REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 7.1996
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 8ARSTOW
1,2.3,4.5.6
MEETING NOTES
5/29/96 9.4. 0010 MEETING NOTES: MAY 29-30.1998 RPM MEETING IN BARSTOW JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC SOUTHWEST DIVISION
1.2.3.4.5.6
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES 8/27/96 94 . 0011
COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPTS FROM AUGUST 27,1998, PUBLIC
MEETING REGARDING PROPOSED PLAN OVS 3 AND 4
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC PUBLIC
3,4
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. PRES
RELEASE
12/3/91 9.5 . 0015
"SLUDGE TESTED AT MCLB DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL PONDS-YERMO. BARSTOW DESERT DISPATCH
MCLB. BARSTOW
PUBLIC RELEASE
3.5
MARCH 25. 1997
39
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. PRES 11/27/91 95 . 0016
RELEASE
"SLUDGE SAMPLING. TESTING BEGINS AT YERMO ANNEX MCLB.
BARSTOW
MCLB BARSTOW TODAY
PUBLIC RELEASE
3.5
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. PRES 7/26/91 9.5 . 0019 INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM AT MCLB. BARSTOW MCLB BARSTOW TODAY
RELEASE REVIEWED"
PUBLIC RELEASE
1.2.3.4.5.6,7
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. PRES 2/20/91 95 . 0023 -MARINE BASE AT BARSTOW UNVEILS SLUDGE REMOVAL PLAN" BARSTOW DESERT DISPATCH
RELEASE
PUBLIC RELEASE
3.5
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. PRES 11/30/90 95 . 0024 'VCLB. BARSTOW HOSTS FIRST TRC MEETING-
RELEASE
MCLB BARSTOW TODAY
PUBLIC RELEASE
1.2.3.4.5.6.7
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. PRES 10/28/90
RELEASE
9.5 - 0026
•EPA. STATE AND NAVY SIGN FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENTS FOR MCLB BARSTOW TODAY
MCLB. BARSTOW
PUBLIC RELEASE
1.2.3.4.5.6.7
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. PRES 10/10/90
RELEASE
9.5 . 0027
TACTS SIGNED FOR CLEAN UP OF HAZARDOUS SITE AT MCLB.
BARSTOW
BARSTOW DESERT DISPATCH
PUBLIC RELEASE
1.2.3.4.5.6.7
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, PRES 10/19/90
RELEASE
9.5 . 0028 TEMPORARY TREATMENT UNIT FOR INOUSTR I/ft. WAS TEWATER
- TESTED AT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY"
MCLB BARSTOW TODAY
PUBLIC RELEASE
1.2.3.4.5.6.7
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. PRES 7/14/89
RELEASE
9.5 - 0034 tSEORGE. BARSTOW BASES PUT ON EPA HAZARD LIST"
SAN BERNARDINO SUN
PUBLIC RELEASE
1.2.3.4.5,6.7
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. PRES 11/24/89
RELEASE
9.5 . 0035 -MARINE BASE ON FINAL SUPERFUNO LISr POLLUTED GROUNDWATER BARSTOW DESERT DISPATCH
SOIL SLATED FOR CLEAN UP
PUBLIC RELEASE
1.2.3.4.5.6.7
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. NEW! 8/19/93
ARTICLE
95 . 0048 "SLUDGE UPDATE: WASTE POND CLEANUPS TO BE COMPLETED SOON" MCLB TODAY
PUBLIC RELEASE
3.5
MARCH 25. 1997
40
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE 0*TE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP UNIT
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. NEW! 7/15/93 95. 0049 TLANS FOR SLUDGE REMOVAL SET. HEALTH AND SAFETY PARAMOUNT ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH. MCLB BARSTOW PUBLIC RELEASE 3.5
ARTICLE TODAY
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. 1/1/95 9.5 . 0050 MCLB BARSTOW COMMUNITY UPDATE. ISSUE«, 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
NOTICE. PUBLIC 9/17/94 95 . 0054 Tl/ICLB BARSTOW ANNOUNCES THE AVAILABILITY OF THE VlCTORVtllE DAILY PRESS. DESERT PUBLIC RELEASE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FOR A REMOVAL ACTION AT THE YERMO DISPATCH « SAN BERNARDINO SUN
ANNEX"- CAOC 34
NOTICE. PUBLIC 10/W94 95 . 0058 -MCLB BARSTOW ANNOUNCES THE AVAILABILITY OF THE WCTORVHAE DAILY PRESS. DESERT PUBLIC RELEASE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FOR A REMOVAL ACTION AT THE MAIN DISPATCH C SAN BERNARDINO SUN
BASE" - CAOC 2
PROPOSED PLAN 8/1/W 9.5 . 0066 FINAL-MCLB OUi 3 AND 4 PROPOSED PLAN JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC SOUTHWEST DIVISION 3.4
COMMENTS. DTSC 4/29/92 96 - 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 5129/92 96- 0003 COMPLIMENTS ON THE OPEN HOUSE/COMMUNITT WORKSHOP HELD DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1234567
ON MAY 12.1992 FOR THE IRP AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE COMMUNITY MEETINGS
PROPOSED PLAN 10/13/95 98-0001 DRAFT OUi 3* 4 PROPOSED PLAN (FACT SHEET); REFER TO CAT-DOC JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC MCLB RWQCB DTSC « US EPA 34
*5.1 -0150 FOR THE DOCUMENT (ATTACHMENT G)
PROPOSED PLAN 4/1/96 9.8 . 0002 DRAFT FINAL PROPOSED PLAN FOR OUt 3 & 4 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC NFEC. MCLB. RWQCB. DTSC, & US EPA 34
PROPOSED PLAN 5/8/98 98 - 0003 REVISED DRAFT FINAL PROPOSED PLAN OU3&4 W/CHANGE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC SOUTHWEST DIVISION 3.4
REQUESTED BY D. HODGES (EPA)
MARCH 25. 1997
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE
013/90 11.1 . 0012
TOXIC PITS AT THE (NDUTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
IN THE YERMO ANNEX BOARD
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
AGREEMENT, FEDERAL FACILm 9/2B/90 11.1 . 0023
FEDERAL FACIUTY COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT MCLB NEBO, BETWEEN US EPA a MCLB
MCLBANDUSEPA
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
AGREEMENT, FEDERAL FACILITI 9/2*90 11.1 . 0024
RESPONSE TO THE US EPA ON THE FEDERAL FACILITIES COMPLIANCE MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
AGREEMENT
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1.2.3.4.5.6,7
AGENCY
AGREEMENT. FEDERAL FACILITI 10/29/90 11.1 . 0025
RESPONSE TO US EPA ON THE FEDERAL FACILITIES COMPLIANCE
AGREEMENT
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
1.2.3.4.5.6.7
AGREEMENT. FEDERAL FACILITI 10/24/90 11.1 . 0026
FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT UNDER CERCLA SECTION 120
BETWEEN MCLB, USEPA AND CDHS
US EPA, DTSC & NFEC
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
AGREEMENT. FEDERAL FACILITI 12/5/90 111 . 0029
SUBMITTAL TO THE US EPA IN RESPONSE TO FEDERAL FACILITIES
COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1.2.3.4.5.6.7
AGENCY
AGREEMENT, FEDERAL FACILITI 9/28/90 11.1 . 0030
FEDERAL FACILITIES COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTUCL6 YERMO
BETWEEN MCLB AND EPA
US EPA & MCLB
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE 1.2.3,4.5.6.7
REPORT, INSPECTION
3/5/88 in . 0032 RCRA INSPECTION REPORT. INSPECTION OF RCRA FACILITY
CONDUCTED BY USEPA AT MCLB. BARSTOW
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
2.4
CORRESPONDENCE.
MEMORANDUM
11/5/BS 11.1 . 0043
NAVAL ASSESSMENT & CONTROL OF INSTALLATION POLLUTANTS
(NACIP) PROGRAM
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND
1.2.3.4.5.6.7
CORRESPONDENCE
3/30/92 131 - 0005
FOLLOW UP ON PROPOSALS FROM MARCH 23.1992 MEETING RE:
DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR MCAS EL TORO AND MCLB BARSTOW
CROSS REFER* 5.1
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
1. 2. 3.
MARCH 25.1997
42
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT - DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE
4/2/96 13.1 . 0007
REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF ALL REMAINING FFA SUBMIT!ALS OF MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
OUt 1.2.3. &4 ATMCLB
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
1.2. 3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
6/6/96 13.1 . 0008
REGARDING EXTENSION REQUEST: RPW» ARE PRESENTLY ROUTING MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
FOR SIGNATURE AN ADDENDUM TO THE FFA FOR THE SCHEDULE
EXTENSION
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL 1. 2. 3. 4
BOARD
CORRESPONDENCE
4/4/94 13.2 . 0001
DOCUMENTATION OF DISPOSITION OF 2 CU YDS SLUDGE AS PART OF SOUTHWEST DIVISION
YERMO SLUDGE REMOVAL ACTION
USEPA - SAN FRANCISCO
3,4
CORRESPONDENCE
T/10/96 13.3 - 0001 REQUEST FOR DELAY ON REVIEW OF DRAFT RCRA FACILITY
ASSESSMENT FOR MCLB BARSTOW
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE SOUTHWEST DIVISION
1.2.4,5.6
CORRESPONDENCE
10/17/96 13.3 . 0003
CONCURRENCE FROM DTSC TO THE 30-DAY EXTENSION REQUESTED MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
BY RWQCB, VICTORVIUE OFFICE FOR SUBMITTING THE REVIEW OF
THE DRAFT ROD FOR OUt 3 AND 4
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
4/11/96 13.3 . 0004
MCLB REQUEST FOR EXTENSION FOR EXISTING FEDERAL FACILITY US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MARINE CORPS LOGISTIC BASE
AGREEMENT FOR OUt 1. 2, 3, ft 4
1. 2. 3, 4
CORRESPONDENCE
10/B/95 133 - 0007 CONCURRENCE OF THE ON-SCENE COORDINATOR (OSC) REPORT FOR US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MARINE CORPS LOGISTIC BASE
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL (PCB) STORAGE AREA. CAOA 34
3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
4/17/95 13.3 - 0006
RESPONSE TO LETTER OF APRIL 6.1995 REGARDING REQUEST FOR A US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHWEST DIVISION
TIME EXTENSION FOR ALL REMAINING FFA SUBMITTALS FOR OUt 3 AND
4 AT MCLB
3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
3/21/9S 13.3 - 0009
RESPONSE TO LETTER OF MARCH 15.1995 REQUESTING FOR A 30 DAY US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SOUTHWEST DIVISION
EXTENSION TO ALL OUt 3 AND 4 DELIVERA8LES SUBJECT TO MCLB FFA
3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
9/20/96 13.3 . 0015 LAND USE RESTRICTIONS FOR CAOC 20 AND 23
DEPT. OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTIC BASE
3,4
MARCH 25. 1997
43
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE. BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT
AUTHOR
ADDRESSEE
OP. UNIT
CORRESPONDENCE
9/20/98 13.3 . OQ16 LAND USE RESTRICTIONS FOR CAOC 20 AND 23
DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
120096 133 - 0020
RESPONSE TO LETTER OF OCTOBER 31.1996 EXPRESSING CONCERNS DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL
OVER THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE FFA FOR
THE MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE BARSTOW
MARINE CORPS LOGISTIC BASE 1. 2. 3. 4 5.6
CORRESPONDENCE
4/16/98 13.4 . 0001
EXTENSION OF THE FFA SCHEDULE OF OUl 1.2.3. AND 4 AT MCLB
BARSTOW
DEPT. OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTIC BASE 1. 2. 3.4. 5.6
CORRESPONDENCE
9/21/95 13.4 . 0003
ON-SCENE COORDINATOR'S REPORT FOR REMOVAL ACTION AT MCLB DEPT. OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL
BARSTOW OU 3 CAOC 34
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
1.3
CORRESPONDENCE
5/12/95 13.4 . 0004
MCLB BARSTOW DRAFT PHASE II FIELD SAMPLING WORK PLAN: CROSS DEPT. OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL
REFER* 5.2
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
3. 4. 5. 6
CORRESPONDENCE
4/25/95 134 - 0005 RESCHEDULING REQUEST FOR MCLB BARSTOW OUl 3 AND 4 DEPT. OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL SOUTHWEST DIVISION
3.4
CORRESPONDENCE 4/21/95 134 . 0006 DTSC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE: ARARS ADDECTING DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL MCLB OUl -6 MAILING LIST
THE PROPOSED UPCOMING CERCLA ACTIONS
1.2.3.4.5.6
CORRESPONDENCE
4/18/95 134 . 0007 DTSC APPROVAL OF 30-DAY EXTENSION FOR REMAINING OU3/4 RI/FS DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL SOUTHWEST DIVISION
DELIVERABLES
3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
5/22/96 135 - 0001 RWOCB APPROVAL OF EXTENSION FOR REMAINING FFA SUBMITTALS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL MARINE CORPS LOGISTIC BASE
FOR OU1.2.3S4 BOARD
1.2.3.4
CORRESPONDENCE
5/5/95 135-0002 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS; OU1 THROUGH 6. Rl REPORTS • REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
SAMPLE TABLE FORMATS ATTACHED BOARD
DEPT. OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL
1.2.3.4.5.6
MARCH 25. 1997
44
-------
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
OPERABLE UNITS 3 AND 4
DOCUMENT TYPE DATE CAT-DOC* SUBJECT AUTHOR ADDRESSEE OP. UNfT
CORRESPONDENCE 4/28/95 135 . 0003 DIRECTION RE: FUNDING FOR MCLB CVS AND RECOMMENDATION OF REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL SOUTHWEST DIVISION 3.4.5.6
ENFORCEMENT ACTION IF SCHEDULE NOT CONSISTENT WITH FFA BOARD
SCHEDULE
MARCH 25.1897
------- |