Superfund Record of Decision Fort Devens-defense Reutilization Marketing Office Yard AOC 32 and Petroleum Oil and Lubricants Storage Area Aoc 43A Devens MA


                                    EPA/ROD/R01-98/001
                                    1998
EPA Superfund
     Record of Decision:
     FORT DEVENS
     EPA ID: MA7210025154
     OU05
     FORT DEVENS, MA
     02/18/1998

-------
EPA 541-R98-001

                                         FINAL RECORD OF DECISION
                                     FOR THE DEFENSE REUTILIZATION AND
                                     MARKETING OFFICE YARD (AOC 32) AND
                           PETROLEUM,  OIL,  AND LUBRICANTS STORAGE AREA (AOC 43A)
                                           DEVENS,  MASSACHUSETTS

                                               February 1998

                                               Prepared for:

                                      U.S. ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL  CENTER
                           Restoration, Program Management & Oversight Division
                               Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010-5401

                                               Prepared by:

                                     Home Engineering Services, Inc.
                                    2750 Prosperity Avenue,  Suite 450
                                       Fairfax, Virginia 22031-4312

-------
                     DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Area of Contamination  (AOCs) 32, the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office  (DRMO) Yard and AOC 43A,
the Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants  (POL) Storage Area Devens, Massachusetts

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND BASIS

This decision document presents the U.S. Army's  (Army's) selected remedial actions for AOCs 32 DRMO Yard,
including Underground Storage Tank  (UST) #13), and 43A  (the POL Storage Area) at Devens; MA. It was
developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980 as amended, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) °9601 et seg., and the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan  (NCP) as amended, 40 Code of Federal Regulations  (CFR)
Part 300, to the extent practicable. The Devens Base Realignment and Closure  (BRAG Environmental
Coordinator; the Installation Commander; and the Director of the Waste Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) New England have been delegated the authority to approve this
Record of Decision  (ROD).

This ROD is based on the Administrative Record that has been developed in accordance with Section 113(k)
of CERCLA. The Administrative Record is available for public review at the Devens BRAG Environmental
Office, Building P-12, Devens, MA, and the Ayer Town Hall, Main Street, Ayer, MA. The Administrative
Record Index  (appendix A of this ROD) identifies each of the items considered during the selection of the
remedial actions.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

Actual or potential releases of hazardous substances from AOCs 32 and 43A, if not addressed by
implementing the response actions selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health and welfare or to the environment.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDIES

These remedial actions address long-term site worker exposure to contaminated soil at AOC 32 and
potential consumption of groundwater at AOCs 32  (including UST #13) and 43A.

The selected soil remedial alternative for AOC 32 is excavation and off-site disposal. This alternative
will remove soils identified as contaminated and reduce the potential risk of future site worker exposure
to contaminated soils. The major components of the selected remedy include the following:

       •      Excavating contaminated soil (1,300 cubic yards)  (confirmatory sampling will be conducted
              prior to backfilling)
       •      Immediately  transporting soils to an off-site,  nonhazardous landfill for disposal
       •      Backfilling  the excavated area with clean material and revegetating the area
       •      Monitoring groundwater on an annual basis and reviewing the site every 5 years for 30 years
              or until contamination is reduced to acceptable concentrations

The selected groundwater remedial alternative for AOCs 32 and 43A includes institutional controls,
intrinsic remediation, groundwater flow and contaminant transport modeling, and long term groundwater
monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the alternative at mitigating groundwater contamination and
site risk. This ROD will use the more descriptive name "monitored natural attenuation" in place of
"intrinsic remediation." This usage is consistent with current USEPA guidance. The remedy will mitigate
existing groundwater contamination through use of restrictions, natural attenuation, and bioremediation,
thereby reducing the potential risk that future site workers will be exposed to contaminated groundwater.
Monitored natural attenuation is the combination of physical, chemical, and biological processes that act
without human intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration of
contaminants in soil or groundwater in a reasonable time frame. These insitu processes include
biodegradation, dispersion, dilution, adsorption, volatilization, and biological and chemical
stabilization or destruction of contaminants. The major components of the selected remedy
include the following:

       •      Establishing institutional controls
       •      Installing additional groundwater monitoring wells
       •      Providing for monitored natural attenuation
       •      Collecting data on monitored natural attenuation,  assessing the data,  and performing
              groundwater  modeling

-------
• Performing long-term groundwater monitoring on an annual basis
• Reviewing the site every 5 years for 30 years or until contamination is reduced to
acceptable concentrations
• Providing annual data reports to USEPA and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (MADEP)

If the monitored natural attenuation assessment results at AOC 32 and 43A indicate that the groundwater
contaminant plume can not be remediated within 30 years, an additional clean-up action will be evaluated
and implemented as appropriate for each AOC. If at any time during the monitored natural attenuation
there is an indication that the contaminants are migrating into the currently established Zone II
boundary or an area located sufficiently inside the boundary in which compliance will be determined,
according to clean-up criteria stated in the Record of Decision, that a minimum will meet drinking water
standards; then the Army will implement an additional remedial action which will be protective of human
health and the environment.

STATE CONCURRENCE

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has concurred with the selected remedy. Appendix B of this ROD contains
a copy of the declaration of concurrence.

DECLARATION

The selected remedies are consistent with CERCLA, and to the extent practicable, the NCP; protective of
human health and of the environment; in compliance with Federal and Commonwealth reguirements that are
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action; and cost-effective. The remedies
use permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable for both
AOCs 32 and 43A.

Because the selected remedies for both AOCs 32 and 43A may result in hazardous substances remaining
on-site in soil and groundwater above certain health-based exposure levels, a review will be conducted
within 5 years of commencing the remedial action to ensure that the remedy at each AOC continues to
provide adeguate protection of human health and the environment.
The foregoing represents the selection of a remedial action by the U.S. Department of the Army and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with the concurrence of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection.

Concur and recommend for immediate implementation:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

The foregoing represents the selection of a remedial action by the U.S. Department of the Army and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with the concurrence of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection.

Concur and recommend for immediate implementation:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Concur and recommend for immediate implementation:

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
TABIiE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION I
TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xiv
UNITS OF MEASURE XV
DECISION SUMMARY 1
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 1
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
A. Land Use and Response History 1
1. DRMO Yard (Area of Contamination 32) 1
2. POL Storage Area (Area of Contamination 43A) 2
B. Enforcement History 2
III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE RESPONSE ACTION 4
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5
A. Area of Contamination 32 -The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard and
UST#13 5
B. Area of Contamination 43A -The Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area 6
1. Soils 7
a. Area of Contamination 32 -Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard and
UST#13 7
b. Area of Contamination 43A -Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area 8
2. Groundwater 9
a. Area of Contamination 32 -The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office
Yard and UST #13 9
b. Area of Contamination 43A -The Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area..11
3. Asphalt (Area of Contamination 32 only) 12
4. Surface Water (Area of Contamination 32 only) 13
5 . Sediment 13
a. Area of Contamination 32 -The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office
Yard 13
b. Area of-Contamination 43A -The Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area..13
6. Air (Area of Contamination 32 only) 14
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 14
A. Human Health Risk Assessment 14
1. Area of Contamination 32 -The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard
and UST #13 15
a. Surface Soil and Asphalt 15
b. Groundwater 16
2. Area of Contamination 43A - Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area 17
a. Surface Soil 17
b. Groundwater 17
B. Ecological Risk Assessment 18
1. Area of Contamination 32 -The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard ...19
2. Area of Contamination 43A -The Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area 19
VII. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES 19
A. Statutory Reguirements/Response Obj ectives 19
B. Technology and Alternative Development and Screening 20
1. Area of Contamination 32 -Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard Soils
Operable Unit 21
2. Area of Contamination 32 -UST #13 Groundwater Operable Unit 22
3. Area of Contamination 32 and 43A -The Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage
Area/Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard Groundwater
Operable Unit 22
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 22
A. Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard Soils Operable Unit (Area of
Contamination 32) 22
1. Alternative Al: No Further Action 22
2. Alternative A2: Institutional Action 23
3. Alternative A3: Containment via Capping 23
4. Alternative A4: Excavation, Solidification, and On-Site Disposal 24
5. Alternative A6 Excavation and Off-Site Disposal 25
B. UST #13 Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32) 25
1. Alternative Bl: No Further Action 25
2. Alternative B2: Institutional Actions 26
-------
3. Alternative B3: Monitored natural attenuation 26
C. Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area/Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office
Yard Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32 and 43A) 27
1. Alternative Cl: No Further Action 27
2. Alternative C2: Institutional Action 27
3. Alternative C3: Monitored natural attenuation 28
IX. SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 28
A. Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard Soils Operable Unit (Area of
Contamination 32) 30
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 30
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Reguirements 30
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 30
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment 31
5. Short-Term Effectiveness 31
6. Implementability 31
7. Cost 32
8 . State Acceptance 32
9. Community Acceptance 32
B. UST #13 Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32) 32
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 32
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Reguirements 33
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 33
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment 33
5. Short-Term Effectiveness 34
6. Implementability 34
7. Cost 34
8 . State Acceptance 34
9. Community Acceptance 34
C. Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area/Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office
Yard Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32 and 43A) 35
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 35
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Reguirements 35
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 35
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment 36
5. Short-Term Effectiveness 36
6. Implementability 36
7. Cost 36
8 . State Acceptance 37
9. Community Acceptance 37
X. THE SELECTED REMEDY 37
A. Surface Soil Cleanup Levels (Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Soils Operable
Unit - Area of Contamination 32) 37
B. Groundwater Cleanup Levels 38
1. UST # 13 Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32) 38
2. Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area/Defense Reutilization and Marketing
Office Yard Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32 and 43A) 39
C. Description of Remedial Components 39
1. Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard Soils Operable Unit (Area of
Contamination 32) 39
2. UST # 13 Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32) 41
3. Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area/Defense Reutilization and Marketing
Office Yard Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32 and 43A) 44
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 46
A. The Selected Remedy is Protective of Human Health and the Environment 46
B. The Selected Remedy Attains Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Reguirements 47
C. The Selected Remedy is Cost-Effective 47
D. The Selected Remedy Uses Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment and Resource
Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practical 48
1. Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard Soils Operable Unit (Area of
Contamination 32) 48
2. UST # 13 Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32) 49
3. Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area/Defense Reutilization and Marketing
Office Yard Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32 and 43A) 49
XII. Documentation of No Significant Changes 49
XIII. STATE ROLE 50
-------
Appendix A - Administrative Record Index
Appendix B - Declaration of State Concurrence
Appendix C - Figures
Appendix D - Responsiveness Summary
Appendix E - Tables
FIGURES

Figure 1 - Location of Devens in Massachusetts
Figure 2 - Location of Functional Area II Sites
Figure 3 - Approximate Boundaries of AOC 32 and AOC 43A
Figure 4 - Contamination in Surface Soils and Asphalt at AOC 32
Figure 5 - Location of Surface Soil Sampled at AOC 43A
Figure 6 - Distribution of TPHC Concentrations in Soil by Depth in Boreholes as Derived from
Field Screening at AOC 43A
Figure 7 - DRMO Yard Soils Operable Unit
Figure 8 - DRMO Yard and POL Storage Area Groundwater Operable Units

TABLES

Table 1 - Chemical Summary Report for Surficial Soil, AOC 32
Table 2 - Chemical Summary Report for Subsurface Soil, AOC 32
Table 3 - Chemical Summary Report for Subsurface Soils, AOC 32 (Waste Oil Tank Area)
Table 4 - Chemical Summary Report Surficial Soils, AOC 43A
Table 5 - Chemical Summary Report Subsurface Soils, AOC 43A
Table 6 - Chemical Summary Report for Organics and Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater, AOC 32
Table 7 - Chemical Summary Report for Metals in Groundwater, AOC 32
Table 8 - Chemical Summary Report for Organics and Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater, AOC 43A
Table 9 - Chemical Summary Report for Metals in Groundwater, AOC 43A
Table 10 - Chemical Summary Report for Asphalt Cores, AOC 32
Table 11 - Chemical Summary Report for Surface Water, AOC 32
Table 12 - Chemical Summary Report for Sediments, AOC 32
Table 13 - Chemical Summary Report for Air Sampling Results for Metals and PM 10, AOC 32
Table 14 - Chemical Summary Report for Air Sampling Results for PCBs/Pesticides, AOC 32
Table 15 - Summary of Estimated Excess Cancer Risks Associated with AOC 32
Table 16 - Summary of Estimated Hazard Indices for Noncarcinogenic Effects Associated with AOC 32
Table 17 - Summary of Estimated Excess Cancer Risks Associated with AOC 43A
Table 18 - Summary of Estimated Hazard Indices for Noncarcinogenic Effects Associated with AOC 43A
Table 19 - Chemical of Potential Concert!, AOC 32 - DRMO Yard
Table 20 - Chemicals of Potential Concern, AOC 43A - POL Storage Am
Table 21 - Main Post Soil Cleanup Goal Determination
Table 22 - Main Post Groundwater Cleanup Goal Determination
Table 23 - Natural Attenuation Assessment Sampling Parameters, AOCs 32 and 43A
Table 24 - Synopsis of Federal and State ARARs for Monitored Natural Attenuation
Table 25 - Synopsis of Federal and State ARARs for Excavation and Off-site Disposal
-------
a-BHC alpha-Benzene hexachloride (alpha-lindane)
AOC Area of Contamination
ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
AST aboveground storage tank
BGS below ground surface
BRAG Base Realignment and Closure
BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COPC chemical of potential concern
DCE dichloroethene
DDD dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DNB dinitrobenzene
DRMO Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office
EBS Environmental Baseline Survey
E&E Ecology and Environment, Inc.
EPH extractable petroleum hydrocarbons
FS feasibility study
HA health advisory
HI hazard index
TAG Interagency Agreement
IRP Installation Restoration Program
MADEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
MCL maximum contaminant level
MMCL Massachusetts maximum contaminant level
MEP Master Environmental Plan
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NFA no further action
NPL National Priorities List
O&M operation and maintenance
ORSG Office of Research and Standards Guidance
PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PM 10 particulate matter less than 10 microns (A) in si ze
POL petroleum, oil, and lubricants
PPE personal protection equipment
PRE preliminary risk evaluation
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RAB Restoration Advisory Board
RAO remedial action obj ective
RBC risk-based concentration
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI remedial investigation
RME reasonable maximum exposure
ROD Record of Decision
SA study area
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthor!zation Act of 1986
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SF slope factor
SI site investigation
TAL target analyte list
TBC to be considered
TCE trichloroethene
TCL target compound list
TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TOG total organic carbon
TNB trinitrobenzene
TPHC total petroleum hydrocarbons
TRC Technical Review Committee
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USAEC United States Army Environmental Center
U.S.C. U.S. Code
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
UST underground storage tank
VOC volatile organic compound
VPH volatile petroleum hydrocarbons
-------
I microns
Ig/g microgram(s)/gram
Ig/L microgram(s)/liter
mg/kg milligram(s)/kilogram
ppm part(s) per million
-------
DECISION SUMMARY

I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION

Devens is a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended,
National Priorities List (NPL) site located in the towns of Ayer and Shirley (Middlesex County) and
Harvard and Lancaster (Worcester County), approximately 35 miles northwest of Boston, MA (figure 1,
appendix C). Prior to closure, the Fort Devens installation occupied approximately 9,600 acres and was
divided into the North Post, Main Post, and South Post.

This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses soil contamination in Area of Contamination (AOC) 32 (the Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) Yard) and groundwater contamination in AOC 32 and 43A (the
Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants (POL) Storage Area). AOC 32 is located in Functional Area 11, which is in
the northeast corner of the Main Post at Fort Devens. AOC 43A is located just to the south of AOC 32,
across Market Street (figure 2, appendix Q.

II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

A. Land Use and Response History

Devens was established in 1917 as Camp Devens, a temporary training camp for soldiers from the New
England area. In 1931 the camp became a permanent installation and was redesignated as Fort Devens.
Throughout its history, Fort Devens served as a training and induction center for military personnel and
as a unit mobilization and demobilization site. Some or all of these functions were conducted during
World Wars I and II, the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, and Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
During World War II, more than 614,000 inductees were processed, and Fort Devens reached a peak
population of 65,000.

The primary mission of Fort Devens was to command, train, and provide logistical support for
nondivisional troop units. Fort Devens was selected for cessation of operations and closure under the
Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAG) Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510) . The installation was
officially closed in 1996, and the site was renamed Devens, MA. Devens presently supports the Army
Readiness Region and National Guard units in the New England area.

1. Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard (Area of Contamination 32)

AOC 32, the DRMO Yard, consists of three fenced areas (figure 3, appendix C). The DRMO Yard on the west
side of Cook Street (West Yard) contained used eguipment, including lead-acid batteries,
telecommunications equipment, and administrative eguipment. The yard on the east side of Cook Street
(East Yard) was used for disassembling vehicles for reusable parts and previously contained scrap metal,
tires, stored items ready for sale, and used photographic solutions. The only unpaved, fenced area is
located just north of the East Yard and was used to store and recycle tires.

A former underground storage tank (UST) site (UST #13) has been incorporated into AOC 32. This UST was
used to store waste oil and was located just northeast of Building T-204. UST #13 and the remainder of
AOC 32 are in separate groundwater regimes.

2. Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area (Area of Contamination 43A)

The POL Storage Area is located across Market Street from AOC 32 and served as the central distribution
point for all gasoline and other fuels at Fort Devens from the 1940s to the present. AOC 43A consists of
a fenced lot located within a developed industrial area (figure 3, appendix C.

A more complete description of AOCs 32 and 43A can be found in the Remedial Investigation (RI) Reports
for Functional Area II, prepared by Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E) (August 1994), section 1.2, and
the feasibility study (FS) report (January 1997), subsection 1.2.

B. Enforcement History

In conjunction with the Army's Installation Restoration Program (IRP), Fort Devens and the U.S. Army
Environmental Center (USAEC) initiated a Master Environmental Plan (MEP) in 1988. The MEP assessed the
environmental status of study areas (SAs) , discussed necessary investigations, and recommended potential
responses to environmental contamination. Priorities for environmental restoration at Fort Devens were
also assigned. The MEP identified 18 historic gas station sites (SA 43B through 43S) and the then-active
POL storage area (SA 43A) as some of the potential sources of groundwater contamination and recommended
that each SA be investigated to determine the distribution of contamination.
-------
On December 21, 1989, Fort Devens was placed on the NPL under CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). The Army and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) New
England developed and signed a Federal Facilities Agreement (Interagency Agreement (IAG)) on May 13,
1991. It was finalized on November 15, 1991. The IAG provides the framework for implementing the
CERCLA/SARA process at Devens.

In 1991, the Army, through the USAEC, initiated site investigations (SIS) at AOC 32. The final SI report
was issued in December 1992. The SI reported contamination exceeding screening levels for soil, water,
and sediment in the storm drains and in the groundwater at AOC 32.

An SI was conducted in 1992 on the POL and the historic gas station SAs at Fort Devens. The results are
presented in the 1993 SI report. Field screening followed by confirmation sampling showed a low level of
xylene and elevated petroleum hydrocarbons in subsurface soils at AOC 43A.

The objectives of the RI were to determine the nature and distribution of contamination at the AOCs,
assess the risk to human health, and provide a basis for conducting feasibility studies. The final RI
report was issued in 1994.

The FS report that evaluated remedial action alternatives for cleanup at AOCs 32 and 43A was issued in
January 1997. The FS report identified and screened seven remedial alternatives at AOC 32 Soils Operable
Unit, six remedial alternatives for AOC 32 (UST #13) Groundwater Operable Unit, and three remedial
alternatives at POL Storage Area/DRMO Yard Groundwater Operable Unit (AOC 43A and 32). The FS also
provided a detailed analysis of each of these remedial alternatives to allow decision makers to select a
remedy for soil cleanup at AOC 32 and groundwater cleanup at POL Storage Area/DRMO Yard and UST #13.

The proposed plan detailing the Army's preferred remedial alternative was issued on July 18, 1997, for
public comment. Technical comments presented during the public comment period are included in the
Administrative Record. Appendix D, the Responsiveness Summary, contains a summary of these comments and
the Army's responses and describes how these comments affected the remedy selection.

III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The Army has held regular and freguent informational meetings, issued a proposed plan and press releases,
and held public meetings to keep the community and other interested parties informed of activities at
AOCs 32 and 43A.

In February 1992, following public review, the Army released a community relations plan that outlined a
program to address community concerns and keep citizens informed about and involved in remedial
activities at Devens. As part of this plan, the Army established a Technical Review Committee (TRC) in
early 1992. The TRC, as reguired by SARA section 211 and Army Regulation 200-1, included representatives
from USEPA, USAEC, Devens, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) , local officials,
and the community. Until January 1994, when it was replaced by the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB), the
TRC generally met guarterly to review and provide technical comment on schedules, work plans, work
products, and proposed activities for the SAs/AOCs at Devens. The SI, RI, and FS reports; proposed plan;
and other related support documents were all submitted to the TRC or RAB for their review and comment.

When an installation closure involves transferring property to the community, the Army, as part of its
commitment to involve the affected communities, forms a RAB. The Devens RAB was formed in February 1994.
The RAB consists of 28 members (15 original TRC members plus 13 new members) who are representatives from
the Army, USEPA New England, MADEP, local governments, and citizens of the local communities. The RAB
meets monthly and provides advice to the installation and regulatory agencies on Devens cleanup programs.
Specific responsibilities include addressing cleanup issues such as land use and cleanup goals, reviewing
plans and documents, identifying proposed reguirements and priorities, and conducting regular
meetings that are open to the public.

On June 18, 1997, the Army issued the proposed plan to citizens and organizations to provide the public
with a brief explanation of the Army's preferred remedy for cleanup at both AOC 32 and 43A. The proposed
plan also described the opportunities for public participation and provided details on the upcoming
public comment period and public meetings.

A public notice announcing the public meeting was published the week of June 18, 1997, in the Times Free
Press/Public Spirit, the Lowell Sun, Fitchburg-Leominster Centennial and Enterprise, and the Worcester
Telegram. The Army also made the proposed plan available to the public at the information repositories at
the town libraries in Ayer, Shirley, Lancaster, and Harvard and in the Devens BRAG Environmental Office.
-------
From June 18, 1997, to July 18, 1997, the Army held a 30-day public comment period to accept public
comments on the alternatives presented in the FS and the proposed plan, as well as other documents
released to the public. On July 17, 1997, the Army held a public meeting at Devens to present the Army's
proposed plan to the public, accept verbal or written comments from the public, and discuss the cleanup
alternatives evaluated in the FS. This meeting also provided the opportunity for open discussion
concerning the proposed cleanup. A transcript of this meeting, public comments, and the Army's response
to comments are included in the attached Responsiveness Summary (appendix D).

All supporting documentation for the decision regarding AOCs 32 and 43A is contained in the
Administrative Record. The Administrative Record is a collection of all the documents the Army considered
in choosing the remedy for both AOCs 32 and 43A. The Army has made the Administrative Record available
for public review at the Devens BRAG Environmental Office and at the Ayer Town Hall, Ayer, MA. An index
to the Administrative Record is available at the USEPA Records Center, 90 Canal Street, Boston, MA and is
provided as appendix A.

IV. SCOPE AND ROIiE OF THE RESPONSE ACTION

The Army developed the selected remedies by combining components of different source control and
migration management alternatives. The selected remedies for AOCs 32 and 43A will remove contaminated
soil and control the migration of contaminants in groundwater, reduce contaminant concentrations, and
control potential groundwater use. The selected remedies will also provide environmental monitoring of
groundwater for a period of up to 30 years. Implementing the selected alternatives will not adversely
affect any future response actions at AOCs 32 and 43A, should they be reguired.

These remedial actions will address the principal threats to human health at AOCs 32 and 43A posed by
long-term site worker exposure to contaminated soils and groundwater.

V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

A. Area of Contamination 32 - The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard and Underground Storage
Tank #13

AOC 32, the DRMO Yard, is located in the northeast corner of the Main Post at Devens (figure 2, appendix
C). This site is bordered on the north by the recently capped Shepley's Hill Landfill. To the south
across Market Street is the POL Storage Area (AOC 43A) and the remainder of the Main Post, which consists
of buildings, roads, and mowed grass lots. The DRMO was used as a materials storage facility. Operational
records indicate that the facility was active from at least 1964 to 1995. The nature of materials that
were processed and the activities conducted in this yard varied significantly.

AOC 32 consists of three fenced areas incorporating approximately 280,000 sguare feet (figure 3, appendix
C). The DRMO yard on the west side of Cook Street (West Yard) contained used eguipment, including
lead-acid batteries, telecommunications eguipment, and administrative eguipment. The yard on the east
side of Cook Street (East Yard) was used for disassembling vehicles for reusable parts and previously
contained scrap metal, tires, stored items ready for sale, and used photographic solutions. The only
unpaved fenced area is located just north of the East Yard and was used to store and recycle tires. The
enclosure for the two paved sections of the DRMO Yard and the tire storage area consists of a 6-foot tall
chain-link fence, topped with barbed wire.

Because vehicle scrap was found in the East Yard, a radiation survey was performed. Twelve "hot spots"
were found. All were located in the north end of the East Yard and all were remediated in 1996 by
removing radium-contaminated soil or radium dials.

A pit is located in the East Yard that was reported to be part of the remediation of a polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated rectifier oil spill in 1990. Approximately 600 gallons of liguid from the
remaining electrical units and 40 cubic yards of potentially contaminated asphalt and soil were removed
from the site. The oil was analyzed and found to not contain PCBs (minimum detection level of 21 parts
per million (ppm)). The removed material was, therefore, handled as oil-contaminated waste.

A former UST site (UST #13) was incorporated into AOC 32. This UST, which was removed in 1992, was used
to store waste oil and was located just northeast of Building T-204. Three trenches were excavated around
the former UST site during the RI in an attempt to characterize any hydrocarbon plume that may have
migrated from the former tank. Two of the three trenches were found to be clean based on field screening
for organic vapors. The third trench was extended to a drainfield, where approximately 2 cubic yards of
petroleum-contaminated soil were encountered. The source of the contamination was found to be waste
debris that included oil filters. UST #13 is located in a separate groundwater regime from the DRMO Yard.
-------
B. Area of Contamination 43A - The Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area

AOC 43A, the POL Storage Area, is located across Market Street from AOC 32 and is bounded on the south,
west, and north by Antietam Street, Cook Street, and Market Street. It is located in the northeast corner
of the Main Post, adjacent to Shepley's Hill Landfill.

The POL Storage Area served as the central distribution point for all gasoline stations at Fort Devens
during the 1940s and 1950s. It was subseguently used to store fuels for various purposes. The
distribution facility formerly consisted of a main gasoline station building (T-401) (figure 3, appendix
C), a pump house, four 12,000-gallon USTs, one 10,000-gallon UST, two 12,000-gallon aboveground storage
tanks (ASTs) , and two 8,000-gallon ASTs. Gasoline was delivered to the facility by rail car and
transferred to the tanks.

Between 1965 and 1972, four ASTs located in a pit behind T-401 were removed. In 1989 and 1990, five USTs
located near the pump house were excavated at the site. All five tanks were listed as storage tanks for
fuel oil. In 1989 and 1990, three USTs and 800 cubic yards of soil beneath the pump house were excavated.
The excavated soil was analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHCs). The highest TPHC concentration
was 237 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg). In 1991, five new USTs were installed in the POL Storage Area
and were used to store fuel for military vehicles.

The POL Storage Area consists of a fenced lot located within a developed industrial area of buildings,
roads, and grass lots, with the exception of the east side of the site, which is bounded by a wooded area
on a rock outcrop. A set of railroad tracks, formerly used to transport fuels to the site, forms the
site's northern boundary. The UST area is fenced. An asphalt driveway leads into the POL Storage Area
from Antietam Street. The driveway is bermed to contain any spills. A pump station is located in the
center of the fenced area and the new USTs are located on the eastern side.

Section 1 of the AOCs 32 and 43A FS report contains an overview of the RI completed for each AOC. A
complete discussion of site characteristics can be found in sections 5, 6, and 7 of the RI report (E&E
1994). Significant findings of the RI are summarized in the following subsections of this ROD.

1. Soils

a. Area of Contamination 32 - The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard and Underground Storage
Tank #13

Twenty surface soil samples were collected from AOC 32 and the surrounding area. Surface soil sampling
locations are shown in figure 4, appendix C). The samples were analyzed for target analyte list (TAL)
metals, target compound list (TCL) pesticides/PCBs, and TPHC. Petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, PCBs,
and pesticides were detected in soils surrounding AOC 32. The RI report identified cadmium, lead, and
beryllium as exceeding various standards. Except for two samples showing dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
(DDT), the pesticide levels were below screening values. Since DDT was detected mainly in areas near
roads and buildings, its presence may or may not be site related. The elevated TPHC, metals, and PCBs
were primarily located around the East Yard and the Tire Recycling Yard. PCBs were detected in site soils
at concentrations in excess of State standards. These locations were all possible drainage points for the
asphalt-covered East Yard. Results of the chemical analysis are summarized in table 1, appendix E. It
appears that the contaminated soil is caused by site drainage, perhaps from oil laden with heavy metals
and PCBs. The northeast portion of the East Yard is also the area where suspected PCB oils were spilled
from stored rectifiers.

Fifteen boreholes were advanced in October 1992. The boreholes were located in the West Yard, Tire
Storage Area, and East Yard (figure 4, appendix C.. The boreholes were generally sampled at depths of 1,
5, and 10 feet, except for one sample that was collected at the surface because the location was unpaved.
The subsoil samples were analyzed for TAL metals, TCL pesticides/PCBs, and TPHC. The analytical results
are summarized in table 2, appendix E. Lead concentrations exceeded the screening value for subsurface
soil at the 1-foot depth in two boreholes. Arsenic exceeded the screening value at the 5-foot depth in
one borehole and at the 10-foot depth in another borehole. No organic compounds exceeded screening values
for subsurface soils in the DRMO Yard.

In general, no significant contamination appeared in the subsurface soils at the DRMO Yard, with the
exception of one borehole. That borehole had elevated metals, pesticides, and TPHC concentrations at the
1-foot depth. Elevated levels of PCBs could be due to the boring's location, adjacent to the area where
it is suspected that PCB-laden oil was spilled onto the soil. The TPHC and metals concentrations are
probably the cumulative result of very localized incidents at the DRMO Yard.
-------
On October 29, 1992, three test trenches were excavated around the former UST #13 excavation. The
trenches were located on the east (T-shaped), north, and south sides (T-shaped) of the former UST
location. The samples were analyzed for TAL metals, TCL pesticides/PCBs, TCL volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and TPHC. The analytical results are summarized in table 3, appendix E. The east trench showed
elevated TPHC and lead concentrations that could be associated with debris (e.g., oil filters, cans,
glass bottles) and a former leachfield encountered during the excavation and was not apparently
associated with the former UST. During the RI, three test pits were sampled around the former UST site.
Arsenic exceeded its screening value in one pit. Lead exceeded its screening value in a second pit, which
also exhibited TPHC.

b. Area of Contamination 43A - The Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants Storage Area

Ten surface soil samples were collected from the POL storage area and analyzed for TAL metals,
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides/PCBs, and TPHC. Sampling locations are shown in
figure 5, appendix C. Several metals concentrations in surface soils exceeded background: arsenic,
calcium, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, sodium, and zinc. Arsenic exceeded the screening level in one
sample. Organic compounds detected in surface soils included DDT, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE),
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (ODD) , alpha-benzene hexachloride (a-BHC), nine PAH compounds, and
heptadecane. Five PAH compounds exceeded screening values in one sample. The levels of TPHC are very low
considering their location within a POL storage area. Results of the chemical analysis are summarized in
table 4, appendix E.

One hundred eighty-three subsurface soil samples were collected from boreholes during field activities at
the POL Storage Area. The samples were collected at intervals of 5 feet above the water table, at the
water table, and 5 feet below the water table. Fifteen of the subsurface samples were collected and
analyzed for TCL VOCs, TCL PAHs, TCL pesticide/PCBs, TAL metals, and TPHC. Most of the samples underwent
field screening analysis for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) and TPHC.

None of the 18 samples collected from six additional confirmation boreholes had metal concentrations
above screening values. Three of the 18 samples contained arsenic concentrations slightly above the
screening value for soils. Subsurface soils showed relatively high TPHC concentrations in two boreholes.
One sample (21,000 micrograms per gram (Ig/g) exceeded the screening value. No organics or pesticides
exceeded screening values for subsurface soil. The results of the chemical analysis are summarized in
table 5, appendix E.

Two onsite hydrocarbon plumes and one small offsite plume were detected in the subsurface soils by field
screening. The easternmost plume, which is approximately 120 feet long and 100 feet wide, originates
close to the site of the removed USTs, inside the fenced area. A second plume (120 feet long by 90 feet
wide) , defined from field screening, originates on the western side of the POL Storage Area, close to the
former ASTs site . The third plume originates north of Building T-247, which is across Antietam Street
from AOC 43A. All three plumes are presented in figure 6, appendix C.

The highest TPHC concentrations (30,000 mg/kg at 25 to 27 feet below ground surface (BGS)) in subsurface
soils were measured in the easternmost plume. No BTEX compounds were detected during the soil screening
within the boundaries of the easternmost plume. The elevated TPHC concentrations were verified by two
confirmation borehole samples. Apparently the contaminants migrated vertically through the vadose zone
before matching the top of bedrock or the silty material just above the bedrock, then spread laterally to
the southeast and northwest. The source of the plume appears to be subsurface related.

Concentrations of TPHC were much lower in the westernmost plume. BTEX compounds were detected in three
boreholes. Apparently the product migrated vertically through the vadose zone before dissolving in
groundwater and spreading laterally to the southwest without leaving any residual contamination in the
soil, suggesting that the material forming the plume was more mobile, volatile, and biodegradable. The
source of the plume appears to be surface related.

The third plume is north of the lawnmower maintenance building across Antietam Street from AOC 43A.
Screening concentrations of TPHC were very low in the third plume, but BTEX compounds were detected as
high as 4,700 mg/kg. This plume may have been identified due to a high "background." Since the occurrence
of high background levels cannot be definitely asserted, the data were reported. Confirmation samples
from two additional soil borings had relatively low TPHC concentrations and did not contain detectable
BTEX compounds.

TPHC were also detected in several boreholes unrelated to the aforementioned plumes. A TPHC concentration
of 100 Ig/g was found in 43SA93-44S, which was located in front of Building 213. Three soil borings in
the parking lot across Antietam Street from AOC 43A had TPHC levels ranging from 56 Ig/g to 180 Ig/g.
Since TPHC levels were not detected in the two confirmation boreholes between these borings, the results
suggest variability in the screening analysis or in the distribution of the contaminant.
-------
2. Groundwater

a. Area of Contamination 32 - The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard and Underground Storage
Tank #13

Groundwater samples were collected in November 1992 and March and June 1993. The first two rounds of
samples were analyzed for TCL organics, TAL metals, TPHC, and hardness. A few samples were also analyzed
for dissolved TAL metals. The results of the chemical analysis are summarized in tables 6 and 7, appendix
E. The third round of samples was analyzed for total and dissolved TAL metals, explosives, and hardness.
Due to the silt and clay content of the groundwater from all wells, the metals concentrations in the
unfiltered samples exceeded screening values. To distinguish between total and dissolved metals in the
groundwater, additional samples were collected and filtered through 0.45-micron (I) glass filters. Toxic
heavy metals concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and copper often correlated with aluminum and
iron concentrations, suggesting that the heavy metals could be present in suspended material or could be
sorbed onto aluminum or iron oxides.

The unfiltered metals results exceeded screening values for aluminum, iron, and manganese, indicating
that concentrations of other metals associated with particulates would also be elevated. Other unfiltered
metals that exceeded USEPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) were arsenic, beryllium, chromium, lead,
sodium, and nickel. Filtered samples exceeded the MCLs for aluminum, manganese, sodium, and iron.
Elevated sodium is attributed to the proximity of the well to an area that carries runoff containing road
salt. Manganese concentrations were as high or higher in filtered samples as they were in unfiltered
samples from the same well. High levels of soluble manganese appear to occur naturally in the groundwater
at this site. Apart from an elevated dissolved manganese concentration, which appears to be a natural
condition, there is no convincing evidence that AOC 32 has any dissolved metals concentrations above
screening values attributable to DRMO activities.

The upgradient well contained several organic compounds. Bis(2-ethlhexyl)phthalate exceeded the screening
value in only one round of analysis. The other down-gradient wells contained one or more of eight
detected organic compounds, including 6-aminohexanoic acid lactum, dodecanoic acid, di-n-butylphthalate,
1,2-dichloroethane, acetone, toluene, chloroform, and trichloroethene (TCE). TCE was the only chemical
that exceeded its screening value. It exceeded its screening value in only one well, POL-3, which is
immediately downgradient of the DRMO Yard. Wells further downgradient of the site in the POL Storage Area
do not have detectable levels of TCE.

The groundwater guality and flow in the area of the former UST (UST #13) were defined by three wells
adjacent to the excavation area and two additional wells. These five wells are located east of the
groundwater divide in a separate groundwater flow system from the other DRMO Yard wells. Inorganics in
the groundwater showed the same characteristics as those in the DRMO Yard wells. Unfiltered samples were
typically high in aluminum, iron, and manganese and exceeded MCL values for lead and arsenic. Only one
well exceeded screening values (arsenic and manganese) in filtered samples. It appears that both arsenic
and manganese could reflect residual impacts from the former UST, but these impacts do not appear to
extend off-site.

The two wells closest to the UST excavation greatly exceeded screening values for TPHC. They also showed
a wide range of organics (13 in one well and 10 in the second well), dominated by dichlorobenzenes, that
exceeded screening values. TCE exceeded screening values in 32M-92-06X. A significant decline in organic
concentrations was noted during subseguent groundwater analyses, except for TPHC concentrations, which
were consistent. Based on existing data, only the two wells closest to the excavation exceeded MCLs. Both
wells have multiple exceedences. The groundwater regime in the area is complex and difficult to predict.
The detailed directions of groundwater flow and the possible contamination migration routes cannot be
identified with any certainty. Oil that contained chlorinated aromatics was apparently spilled on the
surface. Analytical results from the UST and oil-soaked overburden removals and excavation trench
confirm that no contaminant source associated with the UST activity remains at the former UST site except
within fractures in the bedrock. The existing information strongly implies that groundwater contamination
is not migrating from the spill location.

b. Area of Contamination 43A - The Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area

Five rounds of groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for both total and dissolved TAL metals,
TCL VOCs, pesticides/PCBs, PAHs, explosives, and TPHC. The results of the chemical analyses are
summarized in tables 8 and 9, appendix E. The initial screening of the borings demonstrated no
exceedances of the BTEX screening levels. TPHC screening values were exceeded in the eastern plume only
at 43MA-93-04X.

Filtered and unfiltered metals analyses were conducted on all water samples collected from the newly
installed monitoring wells. Silt and clay particles in the samples often resulted in metals levels in
-------
unfiltered samples that exceeded MCLs. To determine the level of dissolved metals, the samples were
filtered. Low solubility metals (aluminum and iron) were reduced, while the soluble metals (sodium and
calcium) were not significantly affected.

All of the wells exceeded screening values for aluminum, iron, manganese, and sodium in unfiltered
samples. The wells with the highest aluminum and iron concentrations also had the highest concentrations
of other metals, indicating a relationship between the presence of particulates and the content of metals
in groundwater.

Filtered samples from these wells had lower levels of inorganics, indicating that the majority of the
metals were in the suspended solids. Aluminum levels exceeded background in a few wells, which may be
attributable to weathering of aluminosilicate bedrock minerals. Manganese levels were also above
background in several wells. With the exception of manganese and aluminum, which occur naturally at the
site, the data collected do not indicate the widespread presence of dissolved metals above background
concentrations. The background level of dissolved iron was exceeded in one monitoring well, but this
appeared to be localized, as samples from two nearby downgradient wells did not exceed background.

Groundwater samples from the boreholes following soil sample collection were screened in the field by
analyzing for BTEX and TPHC. Two contaminant plumes (eastern and western) were defined by the field
screening at AOC 43A. The contaminant distribution is similar to the general patterns noted during soil
analyses. The lack of confirmation of these results by monitoring well samples implies that much of the
BTEX and TPHC found during screening was sorbed on the particulates in the turbid samples collected from
the bottom of the boreholes. Thus the BTEX and TPHC concentrations in the groundwater may be much lower
than levels reported during the field screening.

Samples collected from monitoring wells were analyzed for TAL metals, VOCS, PAHS, explosives, and TPHC.
Results of the groundwater analyses for BTEX and TPHC were significantly lower than the screening
results, indicating a poor correlation. The groundwater screening samples were determined not to be
representative of the groundwater conditions. Only a few VOCs were detected in groundwater. TCE was
detected in three wells and exceeded its screening value once, but was not found in any wells
downgradient of AOC 43A. The TCE source is attributed to the DRMO Yard. In two monitoring wells
2-Methylnaphthalene was detected at levels exceeding screening values. This contaminant was not detected
in a sample collected from one of the wells 3 months later. TPHC concentrations exceed screening values
in two wells. The maximum measured concentration was 7,820 micrograms per liter (Ig/L) .

Explosive compounds were detected in three wells at or near the POL Storage Area. According to available
information, the POL Storage Area has never treated, stored, or disposed of explosive compounds,
therefore, the origin of these compounds is unknown. The detection of explosives in the groundwater
correlates directly with high levels of TPHC and may not be related to explosive contamination. The
rationale for this conclusion follows: At one well, intended to be down gradient of POL/DRMO Yards, the
groundwater was clearly derived from local sources since it was heavily contaminated with road salt (up
to 420 mg/kg of sodium), which is more than an order of magnitude greater than the average level in
POL/DRMO Yards groundwater. This well showed traces of explosive-related compounds, 1,3-nitrobenze, 2-
nitrotoluene, 3-nitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, and an estimated low level of cyclonite (less than 2
Ig/L). Well 43MA93-10x, at the POL area, also showed a trace of cyclonite (0.673 Ig/L). There is no site
history to link the location of these wells to explosive use or storage. Both wells show high levels of
TPHC and the chemists reviewing the data could not eliminate these compounds on quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) grounds, but stated in the RI that the reported results "could be artifacts of the
analytical method related to the presence of petroleum products" in these wells.

PAHs were detected in two wells. Because PAHs have high retardation factors, they move very slowly in
groundwater and are readily sorbed on soils or aquifer materials. Because of their tendency to sorb, they
would not be expected to move with the groundwater, except at a slow rate and in low concentrations

A complete presentation of the groundwater results can be found in section 7 of the AOC 43A final RI
report.

3. Asphalt (Area of Contamination 32 only)

Fifteen asphalt samples were collected at AOC 32. Sample locations are shown in figure 4, appendix C. The
samples were analyzed for pesticides and PCBs. The results of the chemical analysis are summarized in
table 10, appendix E. No pesticides were detected above soil screening values. PCBs were detected in 12
samples taken in the east DRMO Yard. PCB-1248 exceeded screening values in four samples. Based on the
samples with detectable PCB concentrations, the soil contamination at the DRMO Yard, and the history of
site usage, there are site-related PCB contamination in the asphalt. Some of the samples with PCBs were
collected in the area of the known rectifier oil spill.
-------
4. Surface Water (Area of Contamination 32 only)

No naturally occurring surface waters are found within AOC 32. One surface water sample was collected in
a catch basin, north of the East Yard. This storm drain discharges to a drainage ditch that would flow to
the Plow Shop Pond. The sample was analyzed for TAL metals, TCL pesticides/PCBs, and water guality
parameters. The analytical results are summarized in table 11, appendix E. Copper and lead were found to
be above the screening values for chronic effects on aguatic life. Other metals were found to be elevated
above background concentrations including antimony, cadmium, and zinc. Under normal runoff conditions,
any discharges to the storm sewer system would percolate into the sandy soil before reaching a permanent
surface water body.

5. Sediment

a. Area of Contamination 32 - The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard

Four sediment samples were collected from the storm drain system (catchment basins north of the East Yard
and the storm drain outlet to the drainage ditch). Two samples were collected from further down the
drainage ditch south of Shepley's Hill Landfill into which the storm drain discharges. The samples were
analyzed for TCL pesticides/PCBs, TAL metals, TPHC, and total organic carbon (TOG). The analytical
results are summarized in table 12, appendix E.

Both storm drain system samples exceeded background levels for metals, TOG, and TPHC. Metals of
particular concern in the catchment basin were cadmium and lead. The metal concentrations were higher in
storm drain discharge to the drainage ditch than in the catchment basin, probably due to sorption on
organic carbon in the sediment.

The metals concentrations in the drainage ditch samples were in the same range or higher than those noted
in the storm drain system. Runoff from the DRMO storm drain contributed metals to the sediment along the
drainage ditch and to the groundwater recharge area. Much of the runoff percolates into the soil and
recharges groundwater. The pesticide/PCB results showed DDD, DDT, and PCB-1254 in the storm drain
sediments. The ditch sediments contained lindane and DDD. The PCBs may have migrated from the DRMO Yard.
The low levels of pesticide may reflect historic pest control activities.

b. Area of Contamination 43A - The Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area

Several storm drain catch basins exist at the junction of Cook Street and Antietam Street. One catch
basin is located on the southwest comer of the POL Storage Area. A storm drainage ditch originates within
the Coal Pile area across Cook Street (west) from AOC 43A. Seven sediment samples were collected and
analyzed for organics along Willow Brook and the associated storm drains. All of these sediments
contained moderate to high levels of organic carbon and TPHC above background. Three groups of organics
were detected: PAHs, pesticides, and plithalates. Several individual compounds, such as toluene and
dibenzofuran, were also detected.

There is no evidence of any specific impact from AOCs 32 or 43A on Willow Brook either via stormwater
runoff or groundwater discharge. No pattern of contamination is attributable to a single source, nor are
there correlations between levels of contaminants within a sample. No metals concentrations in sediments
from the storm drains or Willow Brook were found to be above background levels.

6. Air (Area of Contamination 32 only)

Air samples were collected at three locations: (1) the field next to Fort Devens Elementary School, (2)
near the southwest comer of the DRMO, and (3) at center of the East DRMO Yard. A collocated sample was
taken at the latter location. Nine samples were collected: three VOCs, three particulate matter less than
101 (PM 10)/metals, and three pesticide/PCBs. The first location was considered to be background.

The results of the sample analysis are summarized in table 13 and 14, appendix E. This analysis showed no
detectable concentrations or concentrations above background, with exceptions discussed as follows.

The second and third locations showed levels of PM 10 above background, but within the range of normal
ambient conditions. Unless further investigation reveals high concentrations of metals in the surface
soils, no further action is warranted.

The collocated samples had measurable concentrations of the pesticide a-BHC and PCB-1248. The results,
based on samples collected under less than optimum conditions, indicate that emissions of PCBs and
pesticides from the DRMO are of concern if the site is left unremediated.
-------
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

A. Human Health Risk Assessment

A human health risk assessment was conducted to evaluate potential health risks to individuals under
current or foreseeable future site conditions at AOC 32 and 43A. The risk assessment is consistent with
relevant guidance and standards developed by the USEPA and incorporates data from the scientific
literature used in conjunction with professional judgment.

The human health risk assessments for AOC 32 and 43A consist of the following components:

• Selecting chemicals of potential concern (COPCs)
• Assessing exposure
• Assessing toxicity
• Characterizing risk
• Evaluating uncertainty
• Developing a summary and conclusions

Potential human health effects associated with exposure to the contaminants of concern were estimated
guantitatively or gualitatively by developing several hypothetical exposure pathways. These hypothetical
pathways were developed to reflect the potential for exposure to hazardous substances based on the
present uses, potential future uses, and location of the site.

1. Area of Contamination 32 - The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard and Underground Storage
Tank #13

The exposure pathways evaluated for the human health risk at AOC 32 are listed below:

• Direct contact (dermal contact and incidental ingestion) with contaminants in asphalt,
surface soil, or sediment (sediments were not guantitatively evaluated)
• Inhalation of contaminant vapor emissions from the asphalt and soil by site workers and
visitors
• Direct contact with contaminants in subsurface soils near underground utility lines by
utility workers (not guantitatively evaluated)
• Inhalation of airborne soil particles by utility workers (not guantitatively evaluated)
• Inhalation of vapors that have diffused via the soil gas to indoor air of a new building
(UST #13)
• Ingestion of contaminants in drinking water

a. Surface Soil and Asphalt

The cancer risks associated with AOC 32 are listed in table 15, appendix E. The maximum estimated
potential cancer risk under the case of reasonable maximum exposure (RME) to contaminants at the DRMO
Yard for a site worker exposed to asphalt paving and surface soil under current conditions is 9.2 X 10
-5, which is within the acceptable range (10 -4 to 10 -6). The maximum estimated potential cancer risk
associated with soil and asphalt under the case of RME under future conditions, when the higher
contaminated subsoil could be exposed during construction, is 1.3 X 10 -4. The cancer risks are
associated with PCBs, arsenic, and beryllium. The hazard indices for noncarcinogenic COPCs at the DRMO
Yard are listed in table 16, appendix E. The only hazard index (HI) exceeding 1.0 under current site
conditions is associated with the RME case of worker soil exposure. The HI for dermal absorption and
ingestion is 4.4 for PCBs and 0.9 for lead.

Under future conditions associated with soils, His exceed 1.0 for construction workers (RME value) and
site workers (RME and average values). These exceedances are primarily due to PCBs and lead and, to a
lesser degree, arsenic, mercury, and chromium (assuming that 10% of the chromium in soils is hexavalent
chromium).

b. Groundwater

At the DRMO Yard, the estimated cancer risk from consuming unfiltered groundwater for the RME case is 6.0
X 10 -3, which exceeds the acceptable range. Almost all of the risk is associated with ingesting arsenic
and beryllium, which are found in groundwater with high suspended sediments. When metals data from
filtered groundwater samples are used, the estimated cancer risk for the RME case is reduced to 5.7 X 10
-5, which is within the acceptable range.
-------
Future consumption of filtered and unfiltered groundwater at the DRMO Yard yields His above 1.0. The
contaminants associated with the unfiltered groundwater scenario are arsenic, manganese, and lead. The HI
for filtered groundwater is solely due to manganese. However, any future use of area groundwater as a
drinking water source is unlikely because of the existing public water supply system and the aguifer's
low yield.

In the former UST #13 area, the estimated cancer risk from consuming unfiltered groundwater for the RME
case is 5.2 X 10 -3, which exceeds the acceptable range. Almost all of the risk is associated with
ingesting arsenic, with additional risk from PCBs and 1,4-dichlorobenzene. When metals data from filtered
groundwater samples are used, the estimated cancer risk for the RME case is reduced to 6.2 X 10 -4.

Future consumption of filtered and unfiltered groundwater at the former UST # 13 site yields His above
1.0. The contaminants associated with both groundwater scenarios are arsenic, PCBs, and manganese. The HI
for filtered groundwater is solely due to manganese. However, any future use of area groundwater as a
drinking water source is highly unlikely because of the existing public water supply system and the
aguifer's very low yield.

2. Area of Contamination 43A - Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area

The exposure pathways evaluated for the human health risk at AOC 43A are listed below:

• Direct contact (dermal contact and incidental ingestion) with contaminants in surface soil
• Direct contact with contaminants in subsurface soils near underground utility lines by
utility workers (not guantitatively evaluated)
• Inhalation of airborne soil particles by utility workers (not guantitatively evaluated)
• Ingestion of contaminants in drinking water

a. Surface Soil

The cancer risks associated with AOC 43A are listed in table 17, appendix E. The maximum estimated
potential cancer risk under the case of RME to contaminants at the AOC 43A is 2.1 X 10 -5 for a site
worker under current conditions, which is within the acceptable range. For AOC 43A, most of the estimated
cancer risk is due to ingestion and dermal absorption of arsenic (85%) and ingestion of carcinogenic PAHs
(15%). As shown in table 18, appendix E, the noncarcinogenic His are less than 1.0 for the exposure
scenarios under the current site conditions.

For future construction workers exposed to surface soil contaminants, estimated cancer risks are 2.2 X 10
-5 for RME cases and 3.0 X 10 -6 for the average case, which also fall within the acceptable range. The
majority of this risk (85%) is due to arsenic. Approximately 17% of the total cancer risk is due to
carcinogenic PAHs, which was considered for ingestion and inhalation pathways only. Noncancer His total
4.7 for the RME case and 0.75 for the average exposure case. Most of the RME total is due to ingestion
and dermal absorption of arsenic, with a total HI of 4.1. Arsenic was the only COPC with an HI greater
than 1.0.

b. Groundwater

At AOC 43A, estimated potential cancer risks from consuming groundwater based on data from unfiltered
groundwater samples are 1.9 X 10 -4 for the RME case (above the USEPA acceptable range), and 4.1 X 10 -5
for the average exposure case. More than 99% of the risk is associated with ingesting beryllium. The
highest concentrations of beryllium detected in unfiltered groundwater are associated with high levels of
suspended sediments, levels that would not be present in groundwater actually used as drinking water.

It should be noted that the cancer slope factor (SF) for beryllium was derived from the laboratory using
soluble salts; however, beryllium at the POL Storage Area is mostly in an insoluble and inactive form.
Therefore, these risk estimates are probably unrealistic.

Total His for noncarcinogenic effects from consuming groundwater at the POL Storage Area, based on data
from unfiltered groundwater samples, are 21 for the RME case and 3.9 for the average exposure case. The
FH for the RME case is due to manganese (HI = 16) and lead (HI = 3.0) . The measured concentration of many
metals in groundwater is due to high levels of suspended sediments. Using metals from filtered
groundwater, total His drop to 2.7 for the RME and 0.8 for the average exposure cases. Manganese was the
only COPC in filtered groundwater with an HI greater than 1.0.

The highest estimated soil risks are for workers in the future, and the highest estimated groundwater
risks are for unfiltered groundwater. The RME risk is mostly from ingesting groundwater. Any future use
of area groundwater as a drinking water source is unlikely because of the existing public water supply
system and the low yield of the aguifer. Therefore, the most realistic risks in the future are those for
-------
the site worker from potential exposure to soil
contaminants alone.

B. Ecological Risk Assessment

The ecological risk assessment followed a four-step process:

• Problem Formulation - This section is based on information collected during the site-
specific ecological characterization and hydrogeological studies, as well as the chemical
data provided from the RI sampling effort. This phase of the ecological risk assessment
is presented in four parts: (1) ecosystems of concern; (2) potential stressors, exposure
pathways, (3) ecological affects; ecological endpoints; and (4) the conceptual model.

• Exposure Assessment - This section includes only site-specific information pertinent to
assessing potential ecological exposures to contaminants at AOC 32. This phase of the
ecological risk assessment is presented in three parts: (1) exposure point
concentrations, (2) exposure scenarios and pathway, and (3) exposure estimates.

• Ecological Effects Assessment - This section includes site-specific information pertinent
to assessing potential ecological effects of contaminants at AOC 32. This phase of the
ecological risk assessment is presented in two parts: (1) toxicity reference values and
(2) field studies/summary of findings.

• Risk Characterization - This section, which integrates the three earlier steps,
summarizes the potential and actual risks posed by hazardous substances at the site. This
phase of the ecological risk assessment is presented in three parts: (1) hazard
guotients, (2) summary of risks and uncertainties, and (3) ecological significance.

A summary discussion of the ecological risk assessment approach is presented in volume I, section 6 of
the RI report, while more detailed discussions are presented in section 9 of volumes II (DRMO Yard) and
III (POL Storage Area) of the RI. COPCs were established for the DRMO Yard (table 19, appendix E) and the
POL Storage Area (table 20, appendix E).

1. Area of Contamination 32 - The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard

The only COPCs selected in the media potentially affected by activities in the DRMO Yard were cadmium and
nickel in sediments of the drainage ditch. The DRMO Yard site lacks vegetation because of human
activities. The site consists of paved areas that are surrounded or bordered by grass strips and a gravel
parking lot. The drainage ditch is the only area of the site that is not directly affected by human
activity. The ecological assessment addressed incidental contact and ingestion, as well as uptake of
these contaminants in the food chain for the drainage ditch and adjacent habitats. Levels of cadmium and
nickel exceed reference values for invertebrates, but these exceedances are not likely to be ecologically
significant, due to the limited extent of contamination. Potential risks of contaminants to wildlife
species, such as small mammals and carnivores, are minimal. Therefore, no action to further investigate
or to mitigate ecological risks of sediment contamination at the site is considered to be necessary at
the DRMO Yard.

2. Area of Contamination 43A - The Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area

A few metals and organic chemicals were detected in soils and groundwater at the POL Storage Area at
levels exceeding background and ecological criteria. However, none of these contaminants are considered
to be COPCs for ecological receptors due to the minimal chance of exposure. No ecologically significant
receptors or pathways are present at the POL Storage Area and, therefore, no risks from site
contamination were identified for this site.

VII. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

A. Statutory Requirements/Response Objectives

Under its legal authorities, the Army's primary responsibility at NPL sites is to undertake remedial
actions that protect human health and the environment. In addition, ° 121 of CERCLA (42 USC 9621)
establishes several other statutory reguirements and preferences:

• The remedial action, when complete, must comply with all Federal and any more stringent
State environmental standards, reguirements, criteria, or limitations, unless a waiver is
invoked.
-------
• The remedial action must be cost-effective and use permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable.

• A preference must be given to those remedies in which treatment permanently and
significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances as a
principal element.

Response alternatives were developed to be consistent with these mandates.

Based on preliminary information relating to types of contaminants, environmental media of concern, and
potential exposure pathways, remedial action objectives (RAOs) were developed to aid in developing and
screening alternatives. These RAOs were developed to mitigate existing and future potential threats to
human health and the environment.

The RAOs for site-related surface and subsurface soils are as follows:

• Prevent direct and indirect contact, ingestion, and inhalation of the soil contaminated
with COPCs by human and ecological receptors at levels that could pose risks.

• Prevent erosion and migration of soil contaminated with COPCs to storm sewers and
surface water bodies.

• Prevent COPC migration to the groundwater at levels that could adversely affect human
health and the environment.

The RAOs for site-related groundwater include the following:

• Prevent off-site migration of COPCs at levels that could adversely affect flora and fauna.

• Prevent lateral and vertical migration of COPCs at levels that could adversely affect
potential and existing drinking water supply aguifers.

• Prevent seepage of groundwater from the site that could result in surface water
concentrations in excess of ambient water guality standards.

RAOs were not developed for surface water because it is impracticable to remediate this medium directly.
Rather, surface water contamination is addressed by proactive RAOs; in other media. RAOs were not
developed for sediments because of minimal site effects.

B. Technology and Alternative Development and Screening

CERCLA and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establish the
process by which remedial actions are evaluated and selected. In accordance with these reguirements, a
range of alternatives were developed for AOCs 32 and 43A. The NCP reaffirms CERCLA's preference for
permanent solutions that use treatment technologies to reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of
hazardous substances to the maximum extent practicable.

With respect to soil within AOC 32, the FS developed several remedial alternatives that attain
site-specific cleanup levels using different technologies, as well as institutional control and no
further action alternatives. All alternatives included extended monitoring programs.

The residual soil contamination detected at UST #13 (AOC 32) was sporadic in nature, and excavation was
conducted to remove all soil above screening values. Development of soil remedial alternatives was
therefore deemed not to be warranted. As the soil contamination noted at AOC 43A was isolated or only
marginally above cleanup goals, no remedial action program was developed.

Surface water within the DRMO Yard (AOC 32) consists of drainage runoff from the yard. Addressing
contamination of the AOC 32 soils would improve the guality of the surface water. The surface water was,
therefore, not considered for direct remediation.

With respect to groundwater (UST #13 and POL/DRMO), the FS developed one remedial alternative that
eventually attains site-specific cleanup goals using intrinsic remediation, as well as institutional
controls and no further action alternatives. This ROD will use the more descriptive name "monitored
natural attenuation" in place of "intrinsic remediation." This usage is consistent with current USEPA
guidance. Monitored natural attenuation is the combination of physical, chemical, and biological
-------
processes that act without human intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume or
concentration of contaminants in soil or groundwater in a reasonable time frame. These insitu processes
include biodegredation, dispersion, dilution, adsorption, volatilization, and biological and chemical
stabilization or destruction of contaminants. The alternatives in the FS used monitored natural
attenuation as the primary remedial action. All the alternatives included extended environmental
monitoring programs.

Section 3 of the FS identified, assessed, and screened technologies and process options based on
Implementability, effectiveness, and cost. In section 4 of the FS, these technologies and process options
were combined into the candidate alternatives listed below for each operable unit.

1. Area of Contamination 32 - Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard Soils Operable Unit

• Alternative Al: No Further Action
• Alternative A2: Institutional Actions
• Alternative A3: Containment via Capping
• Alternative A4: Excavation, Solidification, and On-site Disposal
• Alternative A6: Excavation and Off-site Disposal

2. Area of Contamination 32 - Underground Storage Tank #13 Groundwater Operable Unit

• Alternative Bl: No Further Action
• Alternative B2: Institutional Actions
• Alternative B3: Monitored Natural Attenuation (with Long-Term Monitoring)

3. Area of Contamination 32 and 43A - Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area/Defense Reutilization
and Marketing Office Yard Groundwater Operable Unit

• Alternative Cl: No Further Action
• Alternative C2: Institutional Actions
• Alternative C3: Monitored natural attenuation (with Long-Term Monitoring)

The alternatives were then evaluated and screened in section 4 of the FS based on Implementability,
effectiveness, and cost, as described in section 300.430(e) (4) of the NCP. From this screening process,
each remedial alternative was retained for detailed analysis.

VIII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Based on preliminary information relating to the types of contaminants, environmental media of concern,
and potential exposure pathways at Fort Devens, remedial alternatives for three operable units are
discussed in the following sections. These operable units are soil contamination in and around the DRMO
Yard (AOC 32), groundwater contamination in the area of the removed UST #13 (AOC 32), and the groundwater
in the POL Storage Area/DRMO Yard (AOC 43A and 32).

This section provides a narrative summary of each alternative evaluated in detail in the FS completed for
AOC 32 and AOC 43A. A detailed assessment of each alternative can be found in sections 4 and 5 of the FS
report.

A. Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard Soils Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32)

Five alternatives for remediation of the DRMO soils were retained from the initial screening.

1. Alternative Al: No Further Action
This alternative does not involve remedial actions. No treatment or containment will be performed. This
alternative would leave contaminated soil in place. No action would be taken to eliminate the exposure
pathways of these contaminants. Groundwater monitoring of the existing wells would be performed annually
for 5 years, at which time the program would be reviewed. As reguired by CERCLA, Alternative Al was
developed to provide a basis of comparison for the remaining alternatives.
Total Direct and Indirect Costs:
Present Worth of Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) costs:
Total Present Worth:
$0

$80,380 (over 5 years)
$80,380
-------
2. Alternative A2: Institutional Actions

• Limit land use to restricted development through deed restrictions.
• Install approximately 60 feet of new fencing and move 840 feet of existing fencing to
isolate contaminated soils in drainage ditches.
• Review site conditions every 5 years for a period of 30 years, including groundwater
monitoring.

No remediation would occur under this alternative; activity would be limited to minimal measures intended
to reduce exposure to the contaminants of concern. Deed restrictions would limit land use and
development. The existing fencing on the east and west side of the East Yard would be modified to isolate
contaminated soils in drainage ditches along the perimeter. Groundwater monitoring would be conducted
once every 5 years for a period of 30 years, in conjunction with the site condition reviews. Exposure
scenarios would be revisited based on site use at the time of each review. If warranted, additional
action will be considered at these times.
Total Direct and Indirect Costs:
Present Worth of O&M costs:
Total Present Worth:

3. Alternative A3: Containment via Capping
$17,950
$64,880 (over 30 years)
$103,690
• Excavate and consolidate contaminated soils.
• Backfill excavated areas with clean material.
• Install a new drainage swale.
• Install a multilayered cap.
• Maintain cap and monitor groundwater annually for 30 years.
• Impose future site restrictions.

Under this alternative, direct contact with the contaminated soils and asphalt around the East Yard would
be eliminated by installing an impermeable cap. The cap would minimize the generation of contaminated
groundwater. Contaminated soil is found in four areas: the southern portion of the tire storage area
(north of the East Yard), the center of the East Yard, and two drainage swales along the eastern and
western edges of the East Yard. The excavated soil from the swales would be placed on and between the
other two contaminated areas. The multilayered clay cap would be vegetated and fenced. Annual O&M
activities would be conducted for 30 years and includes repairing holes, revegetation, and groundwater
monitoring.
Total Direct and Indirect Costs:
Present Worth of O&M costs:
Total Present Worth:
$470,320
$366,200
$836,520
(over 30 years)
4. Alternative A4: Excavation, Solidification, and On-Site Disposal

• Excavate the contaminated waste (1,300 cubic yards).
• Transport the waste to a temporary storage area.
• Mix the waste with a binder.
• Cure the waste for approximately 30 days.
• Transport the waste to a final disposal location.
• Sample groundwater annually for 30 years.
• Impose future site restrictions.

This alternative includes the excavation, on-site treatment via solidification, and on-site disposal of
contaminated soils. Contaminated soils and asphalt (center portion of the East Yard) would be excavated
using earth-moving equipment such as bulldozers, transported to the southern portion of the East DRMO
Yard to await treatment, and mixed with a solidification agent (portland cement and water). The
waste/binder mixture would be placed in forms and allowed to cure for up to 30 days to achieve full
strength. Finally, the monoliths would be disposed of on-site. The probable location for disposal would
be the northern DRMO Yard and southern tire recycling area, the areas from where the soils would be
excavated. The disposal site would be covered with top soil and vegetated.

Groundwater monitoring wells would be sampled on an annual basis for a period of 30 years to evaluate
potential contaminant migration. Under this alternative, the contaminants would be treated and contained
but not removed from the site. Solidification is intended to address inorganic contaminants such as lead
and cadmium in the soil. Physically binding large organics, such as PCBs and pesticides, would reduce the
risk of exposure. Groundwater monitoring would also aid in protecting human health and the environment in
because it would detect and evaluate potential contaminant migration.
-------
Total Direct and Indirect Costs:
Present Worth of O&M costs:
Total Present Worth:
$490,870
$287,270 (over 30 years)
$778,140
5. Alternative A6: Excavation and Off-site Disposal

• Excavate the contaminated waste (1,300 cubic yards). Perform confirmatory sampling prior to
backfilling.
• Transport the waste immediately to a final off-site disposal location (nonhazardous
landfill).
• Backfill the area with clean material and revegetate.
• Monitor groundwater after 5 years.

Under this alternative, all soil identified as being contaminated would be excavated and disposed of
off-site. Figure 7, appendix C shows the soil to be excavated. A total of 1,300 cubic yards of
contaminated soil would be excavated and transferred immediately to a final off-site disposal area: a
nonhazardous landfill. The excavated areas would then be regraded or backfilled to grade with clean soils
and revegetated for stabilization. The southern portion of the East DRMO Yard could be used as a
decontamination pad for the excavation eguipment. Because the source of contamination would be removed
from the site, no long-term monitoring would be reguired. However, a review of site conditions, including
groundwater monitoring, would be conducted in 5 years to ensure that no contaminants migrate from any
unidentified sources. This alternative would not treat or destroy the contaminants, but would completely
remove them from the site. All three RAOs would be achieved permanently. Therefore, this alternative
would provide complete protection of human health and the environment.
Total Direct and Indirect Costs:
Present Worth of O&M costs:
Total Present Worth:
$543,696
$19,850
$563,550
B. Underground Storage Tank #13 Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32)

Three alternatives for remediation of UST #13 groundwater were retained from the initial screening.

1. Alternative Bl: No Further Action

The no further action alternative would neither contain, treat, nor destroy the contaminants in the
groundwater near UST #13. Under this alternative, no remedial action of any type would be undertaken. It
is assumed that the contamination would remain in its present state and pose the same risks as currently
exist. Monitoring, however, would be performed to detect contaminant migration. Groundwater monitoring
would be performed annually for 5 years, at which time the continuation of the program would be reviewed.
This alternative would not meet the RAOs.
Total Direct and Indirect Costs:
Present Worth of O&M costs:
Total Present Worth:

2. Alternative B2: Institutional Actions
$0
$75,820 (over 5 years)
$75,820
Institutional actions would not treat or destroy any of the contaminants. No remediation would occur
under this alternative. Figure 8, appendix C shows the lateral extent of this groundwater operable unit.
Activity would be limited to minimal measures intended to reduce exposure to contaminated media. Deed
restrictions would limit land use and development. Groundwater monitoring would be conducted once every 5
years for a period of 30 years, in conjunction with the site condition reviews. Exposure scenarios would
be revisited based on site use at the time of each review. If warranted, additional action would be
considered at these times. This alternative would not meet the RAOs.
Total Direct and Indirect Costs:
Present Worth of O&M costs:
Total Present Worth:
$0
$58,140 (over 30 years)
$58,140
3. Alternative B3: Monitored Natural Attenuation
The monitored natural attenuation alternative will not directly treat, contain, destroy, or reduce the
mobility of contaminants. The principal components of this alternative are the assumed natural
attenuation and bioremediation taking place at the site.
-------
The key components of this alternative are as follows:

• Establish institutional controls to prevent intrusion into or installation of wells into
the known area of contamination in the bedrock.
• Allow for monitored natural attenuation by naturally occurring microorganisms in the
groundwater.
• Install additional groundwater monitoring wells.
• Collect and incorporate additional field data into groundwater flow and contaminant
transport models.
• Perform long-term monitoring and report annually on groundwater guality.
• Review field data, modeling predictions, and compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate reguirements (ARARs) at 5-year intervals.
• Review the need for continued monitoring and additional action at 5-year intervals.

Total Direct and Indirect Costs: $0
Present Worth of O&M costs: $170,910 (over 30 years)
Total Present Worth: $170,910

C. Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area/Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard
Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32 and 43A)

Three alternatives for remediating AOC 32 and 43A groundwater were retained from the initial screening.

1. Alternative Cl: No Further Action

The no further action alternative would neither contain, treat, nor destroy the contaminants in the
groundwater within the AOC 32 and 43A areas. Under this alternative, no remedial action of any type would
be undertaken. It is assumed that the contamination would remain in its present state and pose the same
risks as currently exist. Monitoring, however, would be performed to detect contaminant migration.
Groundwater monitoring would be performed annually for 5 years, at which time the continuation of the
program would be reviewed. This alternative would not meet the RAOs.

Total Direct and Indirect Costs: $0
Present Worth of O&M costs: $84,840 (over 5 years)
Total Present Worth: $84,840

2. Alternative C2: Institutional Actions

Institutional actions would not treat or destroy any of the contaminants. No remediation would occur
under this alternative. Activity would be limited to minimal measures intended to reduce exposure to
contaminated media. Deed restrictions would limit land use and development. Groundwater monitoring would
be conducted once every 5 years for a period of 30 years, in conjunction with the site condition reviews.
Exposure scenarios would be revisited based on-site use at the time of each review. If warranted,
additional action would be considered at these times. This alternative would not meet the RAOs.

Total Direct and Indirect Costs: $0
Present Worth of O&M costs: $69,460 (over 30 years)
Total Present Worth: $69,460

3. Alternative C3: Monitored Natural Attenuation

The monitored natural attenuation alternative would not directly treat, contain, destroy, or reduce the
mobility of contaminants. Figure 8, appendix C shows the lateral extent of this groundwater operable
unit. The principal components of this alternative are the assumed natural attenuation and bioremediation
taking place at the site. The institutional restrictions, if properly executed, prevent exposure to
contaminants and reduce potential risks to human health to within acceptable levels.

The key components of this alternative are as follows:

• Establish institutional controls to prevent intrusion into or installation of wells into
the known area of contamination in the bedrock.
• Allow for monitored natural attenuation by naturally occurring microorganisms in the
groundwater.
• Install additional groundwater monitoring wells.
• Collect and incorporate additional field data into groundwater flow and contaminant
transport models.
-------
• Perform long-term monitoring and report annually on groundwater guality
• Review field data, modeling predictions, and compliance with ARARs at 5-year intervals
• Review the need for continued monitoring and additional action at 5-year intervals

Total Direct and Indirect Costs: $0
Present Worth of O&M costs: $258,870 (over 30 years)
Total Present Worth: $258,870

IX. SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

° 121(b)(1) of CERCLA (42 USC 9621) presents several factors that, at a minimum, the Army is reguired to
consider in assessing alternatives, Building upon these specific statutory mandates, the NCP describes
nine evaluation criteria to be used in assessing the individual remedial alternatives. The nine criteria
are used to select a remedy that meets the goals of protecting human health and the environment,
maintains protection over time, and minimizes untreated waste.

A detailed analysis was performed on the alternatives using the nine evaluation criteria to select a site
remedy. Specific discussion regarding this analysis is provided in section 5 of each FS report.
Definitions of the nine criteria are provided as follows:

Threshold Criteria

The two threshold criteria described below must be met for an alternative to be eligible for selection in
accordance with the NCP:

1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment -- This criterion assesses how well an
alternative, as a whole, achieves and maintains protection of human health and the environment.

2. Compliance with ARARs - This criterion assesses how the alternative complies with location-,
chemical-, and action-specific ARARs and whether a waiver is reguired or justified.

Primary Balancing Criteria

The following five criteria are used to compare and evaluate the elements of alternatives that meet the
threshold criteria:

3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence -- This criterion evaluates the effectiveness of the
alternative in protecting human health and the environment after response objectives have been met. It
considers the magnitude of residual risks and the adeguacy and reliability of controls.

4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment -- This criterion evaluates the
effectiveness of treatment processes used to reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of hazardous
substances. It considers the degree to which treatment is irreversible and the type and guantity of
residuals remaining after treatment.

5. Short-Term Effectiveness — This criterion examines the effectiveness of the alternative in protecting
human health and the environment during the construction and implementation of a remedy until response
objectives have been met. It considers the protection of the community, workers, and the environment
during implementation of remedial actions.

6. Implementability - This criterion assesses the technical and administrative feasibility of an
alternative, as well as the availability of reguired goods and services. Technical feasibility
considers the ability to construct and operate a technology, its reliability, the ease of undertaking
additional remedial actions, and the ability to monitor the effectiveness of a remedy. Administrative
feasibility considers the ability to obtain approvals from other parties or agencies and the extent of
reguired coordination with other parties or agencies.

7. Cost -- This criterion evaluates the capital and O&M costs of each alternative.

Modifying Criteria

The following modifying criteria are used on the final evaluation of remedial alternatives, generally
after the Army has received public comments on the FS and proposed plan:

8. State Acceptance — This criterion considers the State's preferences or concerns about the
alternatives, including comments on ARARs or the proposed use of waivers.
-------
9. Community Acceptance -- This criterion considers the community's preferences or concerns about the
alternatives.

Following the detailed analysis of each alternative, the Army conducted a comparative analysis focusing
on the relative performance of each alternative against the nine criteria. The comparative analysis of
the alternatives for each AOC are summarized in the following sections.

A. Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard Soils Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32)

1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

This criterion, according to CERCLA, must be met for a remedial alternative to be chosen as a final site
remedy. Alternative Al would not provide any additional protection above that which already exists in the
current zoning, fencing, and land-use plans for the site. Alternatives A2, A3, and A4 would minimize the
exposure routes to human and environmental receptors, thus reducing risks to acceptable levels.
Alternative A6 would remove contaminated soils to an offsite landfill, eliminating contamination at the
site. All alternatives would involve some duration of groundwater monitoring to detect potential
contaminant migration.

2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement

CERCLA reguires that the selected alternative also meet a second threshold criterion of compliance with
ARARs or obtain a waiver if the criterion cannot be met. The PCB ARAR would be exceeded in all
alternatives except Alternatives A6 and possibly A4. However, minimizing the exposure routes via
Alternatives A2 and A3 would minimize risks for the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) ARAR for PCBs,
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) action levels for pesticides and cadmium, and the human
health risk assessment calculated cleanup goals for lead. Also, Alternatives Al, A2, and A3 would
eliminate the possibility that the RCRA action-specific ARAR would apply.

3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

This criterion evaluates the magnitude of residual risk and the reliability of controls after response
objectives have been met. Alternatives Al, A2, A3, and A4 reguire continued institutional controls.
Alternatives Al and A2 reguire continued control of access to the DRMO Yard, and thus are not considered
to be effective in the long term. Alternative A3 reguires maintaining the fence and the integrity of the
cap, and Alternative A4 reguires protecting the buried monoliths. Of these alternatives, A4 would be more
effective in the long term. In Alternative A6, the burden of responsibility shifts to the offsite
landfill operator to ensure that the landfill integrity is upheld. However, the site risks would be
eliminated in the long term. All alternatives would reguire monitoring well sampling to ensure that no
continued contaminant migration occurs.

4. Reduction of Toxicitv, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment

This criterion evaluates whether the alternatives meet the statutory preference for treatment under
CERCLA. The criterion evaluates the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants and the
type and guantity of treatment residuals. Alternatives Al and A2 do not involve treatment and would not
reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination. Alternatives A3 and A6 would not provide a
reduction in toxicity or volume, but they would reduce the mobility of contamination. Of these two,
Alternative A6 would be more effective in this reduction. Neither alternative satisfies the preference
for on-site treatment. A4 would reduce the toxicity of lead and cadmium contamination, but not that of
PCBs or pesticides. It would drastically reduce the mobility of these contaminants, but would likely
increase the volume. Alternative A4 is the only option that would satisfy the regulatory preference for
on-site treatment. Monitoring under all alternatives would serve to verify reduction in contaminant
migration.

5. Short-Term Effectiveness

CERCLA reguires that potential adverse short-term effects to workers, the surrounding community, and the
environment be considered during selection of a remedial action. Alternative Al would cause no
disturbance of surface soil that might endanger human health. Alternative A2 would cause a brief
disturbance to surface soils while fencing was installed. Alternatives A3, A4, and A6 would involve
extensive short-term earth moving and remedial activities, which would reguire Level C personal
protection eguipment (PPE) to prevent worker exposure, as well as dust and runoff control activities to
prevent community exposure. In addition, these three alternatives would reguire air monitoring during
excavation activities. Under all alternatives, groundwater sampling would be performed in dermal and
respiratory protection to minimize exposure risks.
-------
6. Implementabilitv

This criterion evaluates each alternative's ease of construction and operation and availability of
services, equipment, and materials to construct and operate the alternative. Also evaluated is the ease
of undertaking additional remedial actions and administrative feasibility. None of the alternatives face
any technical obstacles to implementation. However, Alternatives Al, A2, and A3 would require waivers for
the PCB ARAR. On the other hand, Alternatives A4 and A6 would possibly require RCRA action-specific ARARs
for lead and cadmium. Alternative A4 would require the longest time to implement, approximately 4 to 5
months. All of the alternatives except A6 would require future site-use restrictions.

7. Cost

Alternative Al requires annual monitoring costs, of approximately $80,380 over 5 years. Alternative A2
requires minimal work and an estimated $103,690 to implement. Alternative A3 would require consolidation
and capping of the soil, which could be implemented relatively easily at an estimated cost of $836,520.
Alternative A4 would require slightly more time for solidification and burial, at an estimated cost of
$778,140. Alternative A6 could be implemented easily and quickly for an estimated cost of $563,550.

8. State Acceptance

This criterion addresses whether, based on its review of the RI/FS and proposed plan, the State concurs
with, opposes, or has no comment on the alternative the Army is proposing as the remedy for the DRMO
soils operable unit (AOC 32). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has reviewed the RI/FS, proposed plan,
and this ROD and concurs with the selected remedy (see section X).

9. Community Acceptance

This criterion addresses whether the public concurs with the Army's proposed plan. No comments were
received from the community during the public comment period. The Army believes this shows community
acceptance of the proposed plan and selected remedy.

B. Underground Storage Tank #13 Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32)

1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

This criterion, according to CERCLA, must be met for a remedial alternative to be chosen as a final site
remedy. Alternatives Bl, B2, and B3 will not directly treat, contain, destroy, or reduce the mobility of
contaminants in the UST #13 groundwater area. Alternative Bl would not provide any additional protection
above that which already exists in the current zoning, fencing, and land-use plans for the site.
Alternative B2 would minimize the exposure routes to human and environmental receptors by isolating the
AOC by development restrictions, thus reducing risks to acceptable levels. Alternative B3, in conjunction
with institutional controls, will provide good data on contaminant migration and the potential for human
health risks outside the controlled area. All alternatives would involve some duration of groundwater
monitoring to detect potential contaminant migration.

2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

CERCLA requires that the selected alternative also meet a second threshold criterion of compliance with
ARARs or obtain a waiver if the criterion cannot be met. The chlorobenzene ARAR would be exceeded in all
alternatives except Alternative B3, where the groundwater would eventually comply with the ARAR.
Minimizing the exposure routes via Alternatives B2 and B3 would minimize risks for the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) ARAR for chlorobenzene.

3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

This criterion evaluates the magnitude of residual risk and the reliability of controls after response
objectives have been met. Under Alternatives Bl and B2, the potential for human and ecological exposure
to contaminants in groundwater endure. These alternatives do not satisfy the preference for treatment and
permanence. Alternatives B2 and B3 require continued institutional controls. In Alternative B3 (the
microbial degradation process of monitored natural attenuation), the organic COPCs would ultimately be
converted to inert compounds such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water. Inorganic COPCs would persist
after completion of organic degradation but may be naturally occurring. Because of the actual
degradation/destruction of organic contaminants that occurs in this process, intrinsic bioremediation
provides permanent treatment effectiveness without secondary waste disposal. Alternative B3, if
successful, would provide a permanent and effective long-term remediation of the site. All alternatives
would require monitoring well inspection.
-------
4. Reduction of Toxicitv, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment

This criterion evaluates whether the alternatives meet the statutory preference for treatment under
CERCIA. The criterion evaluates the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants and the
type and quantity of treatment residuals. Alternatives Bl and B2 do not involve treatment and would not
reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination. Alternative B3 meets the statutory preference for
treatment under CERCLA because monitored natural attenuation is a naturally occurring treatment.
Monitoring under all alternatives would serve to verify reduction in contaminant migration. Alternative
B3 proposes more intensive monitoring to determine whether the expected results are or are not attained.

5. Short-Term Effectiveness

CERCLA requires that potential adverse short-term effects to workers, the surrounding community, and the
environment be considered during selection of a remedial action. No alternative will have any significant
impact on existing site conditions. Under all alternatives, groundwater sampling would be performed in
dermal and respiratory protection to minimize exposure risks.

6. Implementabilitv

This criterion evaluates each alternative's ease of construction and operation, as well as availability
of services, equipment, and materials to construct and operate the alternative. None of the alternatives
face any technical obstacles to implementation. However, Alternatives Bl and B2 would require waivers for
the chlorobenzene ARAR. Alternative B3 has the ultimate objective of meeting ARARs and poses no apparent
administrative obstacles.

7. Cost

Capital, O&M, and present worth costs were estimated for Alternatives Bl through B3. Cost estimates for
these alternatives included similar expenses for long-term groundwater monitoring. As would be expected,
Alternatives Bl and B3 are the least and most expensive alternatives, respectively. The only alternative
with capital costs is B3. These expenditures are designated for installing additional monitoring wells
and creating and calibrating a site-specific flow and contaminant transport model. The O&M costs
associated with Alternative B3 include the potential adjustment of the site-specific model.

8 . State Acceptance

This criterion addresses whether, based on its review of the RI/FS, and proposed plan, the State concurs
with, opposes, or has no comment on the alternative the Army is proposing as the remedy for the UST #13
Groundwater Operable Unit (AOC 32). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has reviewed the RI/FS, proposed
plan, and this ROD and concurs with the selected remedy (see section XIII).

9. Community Acceptance

C. Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area/Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard
Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32 and 43A)

1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

This criterion, according to CERCLA, must be met for a remedial alternative to be chosen as a final site
remedy. Alternatives Cl, C2, and C3 will not directly treat, contain, destroy, or reduce the mobility of
contaminants in the POL/DRMO groundwater area. Alternative Cl would not provide any additional protection
above that which already exists in the current zoning, fencing, and land-use plans for the site.
Alternative C2 would minimize the exposure routes to human and environmental receptors by isolating the
area of contamination though development restrictions, thus reducing risks to acceptable levels.
Alternative C3, in conjunction with institutional controls, will provide good data on contaminant
degradation migration and the potential for human health risks outside the controlled area. All
alternatives would involve some duration of groundwater monitoring to detect potential contaminant
migration.

2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

CERCLA requires that the selected alternative also meet a second threshold criterion of compliance with
-------
ARARs or obtain a waiver if the criterion cannot be met. The ARARs for petroleum hydrocarbons would be
exceeded in all alternatives except Alternative C3, where the groundwater would eventually comply with
the ARARs. Institutional controls contained in Alternatives C2 and C3 would minimize exposure routes and
thereby risks associated with the ARARs for TCE and methyl naphthalene.

3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

This criterion evaluates the magnitude of residual risk and the reliability of controls after response
objectives have been met. Under Alternatives Cl and C2, the potential for human and ecological exposure
to contaminants in groundwater endure. These alternatives do not satisfy the preference for treatment and
permanence. Alternatives C2 and C3 reguire continued institutional controls. In the C3 alternative
(microbial degradation process of monitored natural attenuation), the organic COPCs are converted
ultimately to inert compounds such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water. Inorganic COPCs will continue
to exist following completion of organic degradation but are thought to be of natural origin (except for
sodium from road salt). Because of the actual degradation/destruction of organic contaminants that occurs
in this process, intrinsic bioremediation provides permanent treatment effectiveness without secondary
waste disposal. Alternative C3, if successful, would be a permanent and effective long-term remediation
of the site. All alternatives would reguire monitoring well inspection.

4. Reduction of Toxicitv, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment

This criterion evaluates whether the alternatives meet the statutory preference for treatment under
CERCLA. The criterion evaluates the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants and the
type and guantity of treatment residuals. Alternatives Cl, C2, and C3 do not involve treatment and would
not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination. Alternative C3 meets the statutory preference
for treatment under CERCLA because monitored natural attenuation is a naturally occurring treatment.
Monitoring, under all alternatives, would serve to verify reduction in contaminant migration. Alternative
C3 proposes more intensive monitoring to determine whether the expected results are or are not attained.

5. Short-Term Effectiveness

CERCLA reguires that potential adverse short-term effects to workers, the surrounding community, and the
environment be considered during selection of a remedial action. No alternative will have any significant
impact on existing site conditions. Under all alternatives, groundwater sampling would be performed in
dermal and respiratory protection to minimize exposure risks.

6. Implementabilitv

This criterion evaluates each alternative's ease of construction and operation and availability of
services, eguipment, and materials to construct and operate the alternative. None of the alternatives
face any technical obstacles to implementation. However, Alternatives Cl and C2 would reguire waivers for
the TCE and methyl naphthalene ARARs. Alternative C3 has the ultimate objective of meeting ARARs and
poses no apparent administrative obstacles.

7. Cost

Capital, O&M, and present worth costs were estimated for Alternatives Cl through C3. Cost estimates for
these alternatives included similar expenses for long-term groundwater monitoring. Alternatives Cl and C3
are the least and most expensive alternatives, respectively. The only alternative with capital costs is
C3. These expenditures are designated for installing additional monitoring wells and creating and
calibrating a site-specific flow and contaminant transport model. The O&M cost associated with
Alternative C3 includes the potential adjustment of the site-specific model.

8. State Acceptance

This criterion addresses whether, based on its review of the RI/FS and proposed plan, the State concurs
with, opposes, or has no comment on the alternative the Army is proposing as the remedy for the POL/DRMO
groundwater operable unit (AOC 32 and 43A). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has reviewed the RI/FS,
proposed plan, and this ROD and concurs with the selected remedy (see section XIII).

9. Community Acceptance

This criterion addresses whether the public concurs with the Army's proposed plan. No comments were
received from the community during the public comment period. The Army believes this shows the
community's acceptance of the proposed plan and selected remedy.
-------
X. THE SEIiECTED REMEDY

The selected remedy to address surface soil contamination at AOC 32 is Alternative A6. The selected
remedies to address groundwater contamination at AOC 32 (UST #13) and AOCs 32 and 43A (POL/DRMO) are
Alternatives B3 and C3, respectively. Each of these alternatives includes components for monitoring
contaminant degradation and contaminant migration. The remedial components of the selected remedy are
described in detail as follows.

A. Surface Soil Cleanup Levels (Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard Soils Operable Unit -
Area of Contamination 32)

Table 21 presents the main post soil cleanup goal determination. For all contaminants except PCBs, the
values calculated from the risk assessment were used as candidate cleanup goals. For PCBs, an ARAR that
existed from TSCA was selected as the cleanup goal. For any compounds not addressed by these two sources,
the lower value of the USEPA Region III risk-based concentrations (RBCs) or the RCRA corrective action
levels was selected as the candidate cleanup goal. If these values were below the background
concentration, the background level was established as the cleanup goal.

At the DRMO Yard, several samples exceeded cleanup goals at the northern perimeter and on the surface of
the asphalt yard. Lead was the most consistently-detected contaminant at levels up to 2,260 mg/kg.
Cadmium was detected above cleanup goals in three samples, with a maximum of 78.0 mg/kg. PCBs were also
widespread, with individual species up to 5.22 mg/kg in the soil and 9.3 mg/kg in asphalt samples. DDT
and its degradation products, ODD and DDE, exceeded cleanup goals in two samples located in the northeast
comer of the DRMO yard.

Arsenic exceeded cleanup goals in two samples, but the concentrations were near the background range, and
the conservative risk estimate of just above 10 -5 is within the USEPA's acceptable range.

The total estimated volume of contaminated soil reguiring remediation is approximately 1,300 cubic yards.
Four areas reguire remediation: the southwestern portion of the tire storage area (500 cubic yards), the
center portion of the East DRMO yard (330 cubic yards) , the western drainage swale (220 cubic yards), and
the eastern drainage swale (250 cubic yards). The depth of contamination in the four areas is estimated
to be 1 foot.

B. Groundwater Cleanup Levels

Table 22 presents the main post groundwater cleanup goal determination Where available, the most
stringent of the ARARs was selected as a potential candidate cleanup goal. If no ARAR was available, the
site-specific risk value was selected. If site-specific risk values were not established, then the most
stringent of the USEPA Office of Drinking Water Health Advisories (HAs), USEPA Region III tap water
criteria, or the MADEP Office of Research and Standards Guidance (ORSG) for chemicals for which
Massachusetts MCLs (MMCLs) have not been promulgated was selected. If measured concentrations were below
background levels, the background concentration was established as the candidate cleanup goal. For
inorganic contaminants, data from filtered samples were used to develop cleanup goals. Risk based clean-
up levels will be established for extractable petroleum hydrocarbons/volatile petroleum hydrocarbons
(EPH/VPH) during the "Monitored Natural Attenuation Remediation Assessment."

1. Underground Storage Tank #13 Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32)

COPCs in the source area groundwater exceeded several Federal and State drinking water standards. In the
source area groundwater, the following COPCs were detected at concentrations above a Federal or State
standard: 1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-dichlorobenzene; Aroclor 1260; DDT; 1,2-dichloroethylene (DCE); and TCE. In
addition, benzene was detected just below the MCL. This plume has not migrated far because it is present
in a low permeability bedrock aguifer that has a very low hydraulic gradient.

Although bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in one well at approximately seven times the groundwater
standard, contamination is believed to be due to sample handling.

Dissolved metals, including arsenic and iron, exceeded groundwater standards. The arsenic contamination
is associated with the former UST activities but does not appear to have migrated off site. Iron does not
pose a risk to human health. Metals therefore were not considered for remediation.

2. Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area/Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard
Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contaminations 32 and 43A)

Three wells at the POL Storage Area exceeded cleanup levels for dissolved aluminum, iron, and sodium. The
-------
first two metals are considered to be naturally occurring. The source of sodium is the winter salting of
the roadway, which is ongoing and not subject to regulation. One thallium sample (1 Ig/L) exceeded the
cleanup goal (0.5 Ig/L). These metals were not slated for remediation.

Two wells in the center of the POL area had 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene (TNB) concentrations of 2.18 and 3.03
Ig/L, above the TBC-based cleanup goal of 1.8 Ig/L. One downgradient well exceeded the TBC-based cleanup
goal for 1,3-dinitrobenzene (DNB) and showed extremely elevated chloride concentrations (600 to 800
mg/L). DDT and BHC also exceeded cleanup goals in the same well. The contamination in this well does not
appear to be from the POL site.

Two wells upgradient of the DRMO Yard had dissolved manganese concentrations of 7,000 and 7,700 Ig/L.
Three wells located between the DRMO Yard and POL area contained low levels of TCE. Only well POL-3
exceeded cleanup goals for TCE (5 Ig/L) at concentrations of 15 to 19 Ig/L. Although it is apparent that
the contamination came from the DRMO Yard, there is no apparent continuing source, nor does it appear
that TCE is migrating downgradient. The levels of contamination are only slightly above MCLs, but the
extent of contamination has not been established.

C. Description of Remedial Components

1. Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard Soils Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32)

Alternative A6: Excavation and Offsite Disposal

Under Alternative A6, all soil identified as being contaminated would be excavated and disposed of off
site in a nonhazardous industrial landfill. Because of the absence of RCRA hazardous wastes (listed or
characteristic) and the relatively low concentrations of PCBs (less than 50 mg/kg), the soil does not
need to go to a RCRA- or TSCA-regulated landfill. If hazardous waste is found, RCRA Subtitle C will
apply, and the waste will be properly disposed. Backfilling may not be reguired because the contaminated
soils are mostly surficial. Regrading may be sufficient for handling any of the deeper areas of
excavation and for generally smoothing out the excavated area. This alternative would not treat or
destroy the contaminants, but would completely remove them from the site. All three RAOs would be
achieved permanently. Therefore, this alternative would provide complete protection of human health and
the environment. Key components of this alternative include the following:

Each of these components is described in the following paragraphs.

Excavate Contaminated Waste. The contaminated soils are currently found in four areas: the southern
portion of the tire storage area, adjacent to the northern border of the DRMO Yard, the center of the
East Yard, the drainage swale along the western edge of the yard, and the drainage swale along the
eastern, edge of the yard. Based on an interpretation of the soil sampling data collected during the RI,
approximately 1,300 cubic yards of soil need to be excavated. Since the contaminated material is not
located in a vegetated area, clearing and grubbing would not be reguired. Contaminated soils and the
asphalt, located in the center portion of the East Yard, would be excavated using conventional
earth-moving eguipment such as backhoes, bulldozers, and dump trucks. The asphalt would have to be broken
into pieces small enough for handling. Level C PPE would be reguired for site workers to prevent
inhalation, ingestion, and dermal exposure routes. Dust control measures would be employed.

During excavation, verification sampling would be reguired to ensure that cleanup goals were achieved.
This verification would involve collecting soil samples from the bottom and edges of the excavation areas
and analyzing the samples for site-specific cleanup goal parameters (PCBs, pesticides, lead, and
cadmium). If sample results exceed cleanup goals, then additional soil would be excavated and the
excavation resampled. If results were acceptable, the excavation for that area would be considered to be
complete and the area would be prepared for backfilling. As the material would be removed from the site
immediately, a staging area would not be necessary.

The southern portion of the east DRMO Yard could be used as a decontamination pad for the excavation
eguipment. Wastewater generated from decontamination procedures would be contained, treated, and disposed
of, if necessary.
-------
Transport the Waste Immediately to a Final Off-site Disposal Location. The excavated soil would undergo
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) testing for lead and cadmium. If the material failed
the TCLP, it would be transported to an offsite, RCRA-regulated landfill. If the material passed the
TCLP, it would be transported to a nonhazardous industrial landfill for final disposal.

Backfill the Area with Clean Material and Revegetate. If verification sample results are acceptable, the
excavation for that area would be considered to be complete and the area would be prepared for
backfilling. The excavated areas would be regraded or backfilled to grade with clean soils and
revegetated for stabilization.

Monitor Groundwater and Review the Site After 5 Years. Because the source of contamination would be
removed, no long-term monitoring would be required. However, a review of site conditions, including
groundwater monitoring, would be conducted in 5 years to ensure that no contaminants continue to migrate
from unidentified sources. Appropriate action would be considered at that time.

2. Underground Storage Tank #13 Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32)

Alternative B3: Monitored Natural Attenuation

The monitored natural attenuation approach relies on natural attenuation to remediate contaminants in the
subsurface. Because it relies on slow, natural processes and involves long-term monitoring to observe the
gradual, natural restoration of the site to precontamination conditions, it necessarily involves
institutional action. The Army will follow the Technical Protocol for Implementing Intrinsic Remediation
with Long-Term Monitoring for Natural Attenuation of Fuel Contamination Dissolved in Groundwater. This
document was co-developed by the USEPA and the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence and
published on November 11, 1995. During the period of restoration, access to the site for some uses, such
as water supply, would be restricted, since the groundwater contaminant levels exceed ARARs. Monitored
natural attenuation is differentiated from institutional action by the degree of site characterization,
modeling of the groundwater flow and contaminant migration, and the long-term monitoring effort to ensure
that natural attenuation is working. Key components of this alternative are as follows:

• Establish institutional controls to prevent intrusion into or installation of wells into
the known area of contamination in the bedrock.
• Allow for monitored natural attenuation by naturally occurring microorganisms in the
groundwater within the bedrock.
• Install additional groundwater monitoring wells.
• Collect and incorporate additional field data into groundwater flow and contaminant
transport models.
• Monitor groundwater over the long-term and annually report on groundwater quality.
• Review field data, modeling predictions, and compliance with ARARs at 5-year intervals.
• Review the need for continued monitoring and additional action at 5-year intervals.

Each of these components is described in the following paragraphs.

Establish Institutional Controls. Deed restrictions would limit land use and development. The land would
be limited to restricted development, including a ban on drinking water well installation. The land is
currently slated for industrial use by the Massachusetts Government Land Bank (November 1996 Devens Reuse
Plan), which will control development upon the Army's release of the property. Therefore, no further
zoning alterations would be required.

Allow for Monitored Natural Attenuation. Naturally occurring bioremediation is expected to reduce the
compounds present in the bedrock beneath the site to protoplasm, carbon dioxide, water, and chlorides by
a combination of physical, chemical, and biological processes that act without human intervention to
reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil or groundwater in a
reasonable timeframe (maximum 30-years). These insitu processes include biodegredation, dispersion,
dilution, adsorption, volatilization, and biological and chemical stabilization or destruction of
contaminants.

Install Additional Groundwater Monitoring Wells. Additional groundwater monitoring wells will be required
to improve data collection coverage within the source area, as well as downgradient of the site. The
ultimate number and location of additional wells selected for long-term groundwater monitoring will
depend on the results of the fate and transport modeling. A long-term monitoring plan would be developed
as part of the monitored natural attenuation remediation assessment and would undergo regulatory review.
These wells would be used to monitor contaminant plume location and concentration in relation to the AOC
boundary and to collect intrinsic degradation indicators. To estimate costs for this alternative, it was
estimated that three additional shallow wells would be necessary.
-------
Collect and Incorporate Additional Field Data into Groundwater Models. Prior to refining a long-term
groundwater monitoring plan, additional data collection and modeling may be reguired. Data collection may
consist of installing additional monitoring wells and performing additional rounds of groundwater
sampling and analysis to refine estimates of monitored natural attenuation effectiveness in protecting
downgradient receptors. A monitored natural attenuation assessment work plan would be developed and
provided for regulatory review. Data collected would include groundwater elevation, monitored natural
attenuation indicators, and relevant COPCs, including TPHC by MADEP method for EPH and VPH. Monitored
natural attenuation indicator data would be used to provide additional evidence that monitored natural
attenuation is occurring and to determine future intrinsic bioremediation potential. Relevant COPC
concentration data, including VPH/EPH via MADEP methods would directly assist in estimating site-specific
degradation rates and the effectiveness of monitored natural attenuation in achieving groundwater cleanup
goals.

Monitor Groundwater Over the Long-term and Annually Report on Groundwater Quality. Long-term groundwater
monitoring is proposed to assess the monitored natural attenuation progress and detect any potential
migration of contaminants that exceed groundwater cleanup levels. Groundwater monitoring would be
conducted annually for 30 years or until groundwater contamination has been reduced to acceptable levels.

If the monitored natural attenuation assessment results at AOC 43A indicate that the groundwater
contaminant plume can not be remediated within 30 years, an additional clean-up action will be evaluated
and implemented as appropriate. If at any time during the monitored natural attenuation there is an
indication that the contaminants are migrating into the currently established Zone II boundary or an area
located sufficiently inside the boundary in which compliance will be determined, according to clean-up
criteria stated in the Record of Decision, that a minimum will meet drinking water standards; then the
Army will implement an additional remedial action which will be protective of human health and the
environment.

The point of compliance for this site shall be the currently established groundwater Zone II boundary.
Monitoring points shall be established at areas sufficiently inside the boundary to provide adeguate time
to evaluate the need for more aggressive actions to protect human health and the environment. Specific
details will be provided in the Monitored Natural Attenuation Assessment Work Plan to be submitted after
ROD finalization.

The Army may reguest a reduction in the freguency of groundwater monitoring if warranted by site
conditions. Annual monitoring would be reguired unless USEPA and MADEP agree to a reduced freguency. A
long term groundwater monitoring plan would be developed by the Army and provided for regulatory review.
Likely analytical parameters for the monitored natural attenuation assessment are provided in table 23,
appendix E. Annual reports would be submitted to USEPA and MADEP and would include a description of site
activities, a summary of the long-term groundwater monitoring program results, and any modeling updates.

Review Field Data, Modeling Predictions, and Compliance with ARARs at 5-Year Intervals. Under CERCLA °
121(c)(42 USC 9621), any remedial action that results in contaminants remaining on-site must be reviewed
at least every 5 years. During 5-year reviews, the existing data, monitoring program, and model
predictions are evaluated and modified, as necessary. Whether the implemented remedy continues to be
protective of human health and the environment or if the implementation of additional remedial action is
appropriate are assessed.

The 5-year review would evaluate the alternative's effectiveness (compliance with ARARs) at reducing
potential human health risk from exposure to groundwater on-site and downgradient, considering current
and potential future receptors. This evaluation would be based on how successful the alternative is at
attaining groundwater cleanup levels at the long-term monitoring wells.

Review the Need for Continued Monitoring and Additional Action at 5-year Intervals. Details were provided
in the previous subsection and will not be repeated here.

3. Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Storage Area/Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard
Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contaminations 32 and 43A)

Alternative C3: Monitored Natural Attenuation

The monitored natural attenuation approach relies on natural attenuation to remediate contaminants in the
subsurface. Because it relies on slow, natural processes and involves long-term monitoring to observe the
gradual natural restoration of the site to precontamination conditions, it necessarily involves
institutional action. During the period of restoration, access to the site for some uses, such as water
supply, would be restricted, since the groundwater contaminant levels exceed ARARs. Monitored natural
attenuation is differentiated from institutional action by the degree of site characterization, modeling
of the groundwater flow and contaminant migration, and the long-term monitoring effort to ensure that
-------
natural attenuation is working. Key components of this alternative are as follows:

• Establish institutional controls to prevent intrusion into or installation of wells into
the known area of contamination.
• Allow for monitored natural attenuation by naturally occurring microorganisms in the
groundwater.
• Install additional groundwater monitoring wells.
• Collect and incorporate additional field data into groundwater flow and contaminant
transport models.
• Monitor groundwater over the long-term and annually report on groundwater guality.
• Review field data, modeling predictions, and compliance with ARARs at 5-year intervals.
• Review of the need for continued monitoring and additional action at 5-year intervals.

Each of these components is described in the following paragraphs.

Establish Institutional Controls. Deed restrictions would limit land use and development. The land would
be limited to restricted development, including a ban on drinking water well installation. The land is
currently slated for rail, industrial, and trade-related uses by the Massachusetts Government Land Bank
(November 1996 Devens Reuse Plan), which will control development upon Army release of the property.
Therefore, no further zoning alterations would be required.

Allow for Monitored Natural Attenuation. Naturally occurring bioremediation is expected to reduce the
compounds beneath the site to carbon dioxide, water, and chlorides, by reductive dechlorination and
metabolism of nonchlorinated contaminants concentration in a reasonable timeframe (maximum 30-years).

Collect and Incorporate Additional Field Data into Groundwater Models. Prior to installing additional
long-term groundwater monitoring wells and refining a long-term groundwater monitoring plan, additional
data collection and modeling may be required. Data collection may consist of installing bedrock wells and
performing an additional round of groundwater sampling and analysis to refine estimates of monitored
natural attenuation effectiveness in protecting downgradient receptors. Data collected would include
groundwater elevation, monitored natural attenuation indicators, and relevant COPCs. Monitored natural
attenuation indicator data will be used to provide additional evidence that monitored natural attenuation
is occurring and to determine future intrinsic bioremediation potential. Relevant COPC concentration data
will directly assist in estimating site-specific degradation rates and the effectiveness of monitored
natural attenuation in achieving groundwater cleanup goals.

Monitor Groundwater Over the Long-term and Annually Report on Groundwater Quality. Long-term groundwater
monitoring is proposed to assess the progress monitored natural attenuation and detect any potential
migration of contaminants that exceed groundwater cleanup levels. Depending on the results of the fate
and transport modeling, groundwater monitoring would be conducted on an annual basis and reviewed under
the site review for any necessary modifications.

If the monitored natural attenuation assessment results at AOC 32 and 43A indicate that the groundwater
contaminant plume can not be remediated within 30 years, an additional clean-up action will be evaluated
and implemented as appropriate. If at any time during the monitored natural attenuation there is an
indication that the contaminants are migrating into the currently established Zone II boundary or an area
located sufficiently inside the boundary in which compliance will be determined, according to clean-up
criteria stated in the Record of Decision, that a minimum will meet drinking water standards; then the
Army will implement an additional remedial action which will be protective of human health and the
environment.

The point of compliance for this site shall be the currently established groundwater Zone II boundary.
Monitoring points shall be established at areas sufficiently inside the boundary to provide adequate time
to evaluate the need for more aggressive actions to protect human health and the environment. Specific
details will be provided in the Monitored Natural Attenuation Assessment Work Plan to be submitted after
ROD finalization.

Annual reports would be submitted to USEPA and MADEP and would include a description of site activities,
a summary of the long-term groundwater monitoring program results, and any modeling updates.
-------
Review Field Data, Modeling Predictions and Compliance with ARARs at 5-Year Intervals. Under CERCLA °
121(c)(42 USC 9621), any remedial action that results in contaminants remaining on-site must be reviewed
at least every 5 years. During 5-year reviews, the existing data, monitoring program, and model
predictions are evaluated and modified, as necessary. Whether the implemented remedy continues to be
protective of human health and the environment or if the implementation of additional remedial action is
appropriate are assessed.

Review the Need for Continued Monitoring and Additional Action at 5-year Intervals. Details were provided
in the previous subsection and will not be repeated here.

XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The selected remedies for DRMO Soils Operable Unit (AOC 32), UST #13 Groundwater Operable Unit (AOC 32),
and POL Storage Area/DRMO Yard Groundwater Operable Unit (AOCs 32 and 43A) (Alternative A6, Alternative
B3, and Alternative C3, respectively) are consistent with CERCLA and, to the extent practicable, the NCP.
The selected remedies are protective of human health and the environment, attain ARARs, and are
cost-effective. The remedies use permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable for this site.

A. The Selected Remedy is Protective of Human Health and the Environment

The alternatives chosen for AOC 32 and 43A will permanently reduce the risks to human health and the
environment by eliminating, reducing, or controlling exposures to human and environmental receptors
through engineering and institutional controls. The principal soil threat at AOC 32 is exposure of site
workers to contaminated soil. The contaminated soil will be removed and disposed of off-site. The
principal groundwater threat at AOC 32 and 43A is potential consumption of unfiltered contaminated
groundwater. The reuse of these portions of Devens will be controlled by zoning and deed restrictions,
which would prevent the use of groundwater from the contaminated aguifer, resulting in reduced potential
for exposure.

B. The Selected Remedy Attains Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

The selected remedies will attain all applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal and State
reguirements. No waivers are reguired. ARARs for the selected remedial alternatives were identified and
discussed in the final FS (sections 2 and 5). Environmental laws from which ARARs for the selected
remedial action are derived and specific ARARs are summarized in table 24 and 25, appendix E.

C. The Selected Remedy is Cost-Effective

In the Army's judgment, the selected remedies are cost-effective (i.e., the remedies afford overall
effectiveness proportional to costs). In selecting these remedies, once the Army identified alternatives
that protect human health and the environment and that attain ARARs, the Army evaluated the overall
effectiveness of each alternative according to a combination of the relevant criteria: long-term
effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment; and
short-term effectiveness. The relationship of the overall effectiveness of these remedial alternatives
was determined to be proportional to costs.

The costs of the selected remedy, Alternative A6, for soils at AOC 32 in 1996 dollars are as follows:

Estimated Capital Cost: $543,696
Estimated O&M Cost: $19,850
Estimated Total Cost: $563,550
Estimated Time for Restoration: Approximately 5 months for engineering
evaluations, design, excavation, and disposal

The costs of the selected remedy, Alternative B, for groundwater at AOC 32 (UST #13) in 1996 dollars are
as follows:
-------
Estimated Capital Cost:
Estimated O&M Cost:
Estimated Total Cost:
Estimated Time for Restoration:
$0
$170,910
$170,910
Approximately 12 months for engineering
evaluations, design, and construction
The costs of the selected remedy, Alternative C3, for groundwater at AOCs 32 and 43A (POL Storage
Area/DRMO Yard) in 1996 dollars are as follows:
Estimated Capital Cost:
Estimated O&M Cost:
Estimated Total Cost:
Estimated Time for Restoration:
$0
$258,870
$258,870
Approximately 12 months for engineering
evaluations, design, and construction
D. The Selected Remedy Uses Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment or Resource Recovery
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable.

Once the Army identified those alternatives that attain ARARs and that are protective of human health and
the environment, the Army determined which alternative made use of permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. This
determination was made by deciding which one of the identified alternatives provided the best balance of
trade-offs among alternatives in terms of (1) long-term effectiveness and permanence; (2) reduction of
toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment; (3) short-term effectiveness; (4) implementability; and
(5) cost. The balancing test emphasized long-term effectiveness and permanence and the reduction of
toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment and considered the preference for treatment as a
principal element, the bias against off-site land disposal of untreated waste, and community and State
acceptance. The selected remedies provided the best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives.

1. Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard Soils Operable Unit (AOC 32)

Alternative Al would not provide any additional protection above that which already exists. Alternatives
A2, A3, and A4 minimize the exposure routes, thus reducing risks to acceptable levels. Alternative A6
eliminates contamination at the site.

The PCB ARAR would be exceeded in all alternatives except Alternatives A6 and possibly A4. Alternatives
A2 and A3 would minimize risks for the TSCA ARAR for PCBs, the RCRA action levels for pesticides and
cadmium, and the cleanup goals for lead. Also, Alternatives Al, A2, and A3 would eliminate the RCRA
action-specific ARAR.

Alternatives Al, A2, A3, and A4 reguire continued institutional controls. Alternatives Al and A2 reguire
continued control of access to the DRMO yard. Alternative A3 and A4 reguire extended maintenance of the
site. Alternative A6 is effective in the long-term, as the burden of responsibility shifts to the
off-site landfill operator to ensure that the landfill integrity is upheld.

Alternatives Al and A2 do not involve treatment and would not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of
contamination. Alternatives A3 and A6 would not provide a reduction in toxicity or volume, but would
reduce the mobility of contamination. Of these two, Alternative 6 would be more effective in this
reduction. Neither Alternative A3 or A6 satisfies the preference for onsite treatment. Alternative A4 is
the only option that would satisfy the regulatory preference for on-site treatment. Alternative A4 would
reduce the toxicity of lead and cadmium contamination, but would only affect (dramatically reduce) the
mobility of PCBs and pesticides. This alternative would probably increase the volume of the wastes.

Alternatives Al and A2 would have little or no short-term impact. Alternatives A3, A4, and A6 would
involve extensive short-term site disturbance.

2. Underground Storage Tank #13 Groundwater Operable Unit (Area of Contamination 32)
Alternatives Bl and B2 do not involve any remedial action, and no relevant ARARs would be satisfied.
Alternative B3 provides for better safeguards in that the distribution of contaminants is more
extensively characterized and monitored. It ensures that the site eventually complies with ARARs. Both
Alternatives B2 and B3 reguire institutional controls. Only Alternative B3 meets the statutory preference
for treatment because monitored natural attenuation is a naturally occurring treatment.
-------
3. POL Storage Area/DRMO Yard Groundwater Operable Unit (AOCs 32 and 43A)

Alternatives Cl and C2 do not involve any remedial action, and no relevant ARARs would be satisfied.
Alternative C3 provides for better safeguards in that the distribution of contaminants is more
extensively characterized and monitored. It ensures that the site eventually complies with ARARs. Both
Alternatives C2 and C3 require institutional controls. Only Alternative C3 meets the statutory preference
for treatment because monitored natural attenuation is a naturally occurring treatment.

XII. DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

The Army presented a proposed plan (preferred alternative) for remediation of soil contamination at AOC
32 and groundwater contamination at AOCs 32 and 43A at a public meeting held on July 17, 1997.

The components of the preferred alternative (at DRMO Soils Operable Unit AOC 32, Alternative A6:
Excavation and Off-site Disposal) include the following:

The components of the preferred alternative at UST #13 Groundwater Operable Unit (AOC 32) (Alternative
B3: Monitored Natural Attenuation) and at POL Storage Area/DRMO Yard (AOCs 32 and 43A) (Alternative C3:
Monitored Natural Attenuation) include the following:

• Establish institutional controls to prevent intrusion into or installation of wells into
the known area of contamination in the bedrock.
• Allow for monitored natural attenuation by naturally occurring microorganisms in the
groundwater within the bedrock.
• Install additional groundwater monitoring wells.
• Collect and incorporate additional field data into groundwater flow and contaminant
transport models.
• Monitor groundwater over the long-term and annually reports on groundwater quality.
• Review field data, modeling predictions, and compliance with ARARs at 5-year intervals.
• Review of the need for continued monitoring and additional action at 5-year intervals.

No changes or additions have been made to any alternative since the publication of the proposed plan.

XIII. STATE ROIiE

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has reviewed the alternatives presented in the FS and proposed plan and
concurs with the selected remedy for the cleanup of the soil and groundwater contamination at AOCs 32 and
43A. The Commonwealth has also reviewed the RI/FS to determine if the selected remedy complies with
applicable or relevant and appropriate laws and regulations of the Commonwealth. A copy of the
declaration of concurrence is attached as appendix B.
-------
APPENDIX A - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

1.0 PRE-REMEDIAL

1.0 Pre-Remedial

Reports
1. Final Basewide Environmental Basewide Survey (BBS) for Proposed Lease and/or Transfer,
Fort Devens - Basewide, Arthur D. Little, Inc., (December, 1995). Filed in Group 1A.

Comments
1. Comments dated February 2, 1996 from D. Lynne Welsh, MADEP on the December, 1995
"Final Basewide Environmental Basewide Survey (BBS) for Proposed Lease and/or
Transfer, Fort Devens - Basewide," Arthur D. Little, Inc. Filed in Group 1A.

1.2 Preliminary Assessment

Reports
1. Final Master Environmental Plan for Fort Devens, Argonne National Laboratory, (April,
1992). Filed in Group 1A.
2. Preliminary Zone II Analysis for the Production Wells at Fort Devens, MA, Draft
Report, Engineering Technologies Associates, Inc., (January, 1994). Filed in Group 1A.

Comments
1. Comments dated May, 1992 from Walter Rolf, Montachusett Regional Planning Commission
on the April, 1992 "Final Master Environmental Plan for Fort Devens," Argonne National
Laboratory. Filed in Group 1A.
2. Comments dated May 7, 1992 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the April, 1992
"Final Master Environmental Plan for Fort Devens," Argonne National Laboratory. Filed
in Group 1A.
3. Comments dated May 23, 1994 from D. Lynne Welsh, MADEP on the January, 1994
"Preliminary Zone II Analysis for the Production Wells at Fort Devens, MA, Draft
Report," Engineering Technologies Associates, Inc. Filed in Group 1A.

Responses to Comments
1. Responses dated June 29, 1992 from Carol J. Howard, Fort Devens to the comments on the
April, 1992 "Final Master Environmental Plan for Fort Devens," Argonne National
Laboratory. Filed in Group 1A.

1.3 Site Inspection

Work Plans
1. Final Quality Assurance Project Plan, Ecology and Environment, Inc., (November, 1991).
Filed in Group IB.
2. Final Health and Safety Plan, Ecology and Environment, Inc., (November, 1991). Filed
in Group 1A.
3. Final Work Plan and Field Sampling Plan, Ecology and Environment, Inc., (February,
1992). Filed in Group IB.
4. Final Task Order (Site Investigations) Work Plan - Historic Gas Stations, ABB
Environmental Services, Inc., (December, 1992). Filed in Group 2&7.

Reports
1. Final Site Investigations Report, Ecology and Environment, Inc., (December, 1992).
Filed in Group IB.
2. Final SI Report, Groups 2 & 7 and Historic Gas Stations, Volume I - IV, ABB
Environmental Services, Inc., (May, 1993). Filed in Group 2&7.
3. Revised Final Site Investigation Report, Groups 2 & 7 and Historic Gas Stations,
Volumes I, II, III and IV, ABB Environmental Services, Inc., (October, 1995). Filed in
Group 2&7.

Comments
1. Comments dated March 19, 1992 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the February,
1992 "Final Work Plan and Field Sampling Plan," Ecology and Environment, Inc. Filed in
Group IB.
-------
2. Comments dated March 19, 1992 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the November,
1991 "Final Quality Assurance Project Plan," Ecology and Environment, Inc. Filed in
Group IB.
3. Comments dated March 19, 1992 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the November,
1991 "Final Health and Safety Plan," Ecology and Environment, Inc. Filed in Group IB.
4. Comments dated January 12, 1993 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the December,
1992 "Final Site Investigations Report," Ecology and Environment, Inc. Filed in Group
IB.
5. Comments dated January 12, 1993 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the December,
1992 "Final Task Order (Site Investigations) Work Plan-Historic Gas Stations," ABB
Environmental Services, Inc. Filed in Group 2&7.
6. Comments dated January 25, 1993 from D. Lynne Chapell, MADEP on the December, 1992
"Final Site Investigations Report," Ecology and Environment, Inc. Filed in Group IB.
7. Comments dated July 9, 1993 from D. Lynne Chapell, MADEP on the May, 1993 "Final SI
Report, Groups 2 & 7 and Historic Gas Stations, Volume I - IV," ABB Environmental
Services, Inc. Filed in Group 2&7.
8. Comments dated July 15, 1993 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the May, 1993
"Final SI Report, Groups 2 & 7 and Historic Gas Stations, Volume I - IV," ABB
Environmental Services, Inc. Filed in Group 2&7.

Responses to Comments
1. Responses dated September, 1993 from U.S. Army Environmental Center to the comments on
the May, 1993 "Final SI Report, Groups 2 & 7 and Historic Gas Stations, Volume I -
IV," ABB Environmental Services, Inc. Filed in Group 2&7.

Meeting Notes
1. SI Data Package Meeting Notes for Groups 2 & 7 and Historic Gas Stations, ABB
Environmental Services, Inc., (April, 1993). Filed in Group 2&7.

2.0 REMOVAL RESPONSE

2.2 Removal Response Reports

Reports
1. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Closure Report for Explosive Ordnance
Demolition Open Burn/Open Detonation Area, Ecology and Environment, Inc., (September,
1994). Filed in Group IB.

Comments
1. Comments dated October 20, 1994 from D. Lynne Welsh, MADEP on the September, 1994
"Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Closure Report for Explosive Ordnance
Demolition "Open Burn/Open Detonation Area," Ecology and Environment, Inc. Filed in
Group IB.

2.9 Action Memoranda

Reports
1. Final Action Memorandum for the Removal Action at Study Area 32 (Signed October 26,
1992), (October, 1992). Filed in Group IB.

3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (RI)

3.2 Sampling and Analysis Data

Reports
1. Data Comparison Report, Group 2 & 7 Sites Through Round 1 Sampling, COM Federal
Programs Corporation, (March, 1993). Filed in Group 2&7.

3.4 Interim Deliverables

Work Plans
1. Final Projects Operations Plan - Volume I - III, ABB Environmental Services, Inc.,
(December, 1992). Filed in Group 1A.

Reports
1. Final Ground Water Flow Model at Fort Devens, Engineering Technologies Associates,
Inc., (May 24, 1993). Filed in Group 1A.
-------
2. Final Radiological Survey and Remediation Report DRMO Yard, ABB Environmental
Services, Inc., (November, 1996). Filed in Group IB.

Comments
1. Comments dated January 12, 1993 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the December,
1992 "Final Projects Operations Plan - Volume I - III," ABB Environmental Services,
Inc. Filed in Group.
2. Comments Dated February 1, 1993 from James P. Byrne, EPA Region I and D. Lynne
Chapell, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on the
October 30, 1992 "Draft Final Ground Water Flow Model at Fort Devens,". Filed in Group
1A.
3. Comments dated February 17, 1993 from D. Lynne Chapell, MADEP on the December, 1992
"Final Projects Operations Plan - Volume I - III," ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
Filed in Group.
4. Comments dated September 3, 1996 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the July, 1996
"Draft Radiological Survey and Remediation Report DRMO Yard," ABB Environmental
Services, Inc. Filed in Group IB.
5. Comments dated September 16, 1996 from John Regan, MADEP on the July, 1996 "Draft
Radiological Survey and Remediation Report DRMO Yard," ABB Environmental Services,
Inc. Filed in Group IB.

Comments on Responses to Comments

1. Comments dated December 3, 1996 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the responses
on the November, 1996 "Final Radiological Survey and Remediation Report DRMO Yard,"
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. Filed in Group IB.

3.5 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Reguirements (ARARs)

Reports
1. Draft Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Reguirements (ARARs) for CERCLA Remedial
Actions, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, (June, 1992). Filed in Group
IB.
2. Draft Assessment of Location-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Reguirements (ARARs) for Fort Devens, Massachusetts, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Agency, (September, 1992). Filed in Group IB.

3.6 Remedial Investigation (RI) Reports

Reports
1. Final Remedial Investigations Report, Functional Area II, Volume I - IV, Ecology and
Environment, Inc., (August, 1994). Filed in Group IB.

Comments
1. Comments dated October 14, 1994 from D. Lynne Welsh, MADEP on the August, 1994 "Final
Remedial Investigations Report, Functional Area II, Volume I - IV," Ecology and
Environment, Inc. Filed in Group IB.

Responses to Comments

1. Responses dated December 21, 1994 from U.S. Army Environmental Center to the comments
on the December 21, 1994 "Responses on the following document: "Draft Remedial
Investigation Addendum Report," ABB Environmental Services, Inc.," U.S. Army
Environmental Center. Filed in Group 1A.
2. Responses dated March 17, 1995 from U.S. Army Environmental Center to the comments on
the August, 1994 "Final Remedial Investigations Report, Functional Area II, Volume I -
IV," Ecology and Environment, Inc. Filed in Group IB.

3.7 Work Plans and Progress Reports

Work Plans
1. Final Oversight and Screening Activities, DRMO Yard Addendum to Work Plan Supplement
Remedial Investigations - Group IB Sites, Fort Devens, Massachusetts, Ecology and
Environment, Inc., (February, 1993). Filed in Group IB.
2. Final Work Plan Supplement - Remedial Investigations, Group IB Sites, Ecology and
Environment, Inc., (February, 1993). Filed in Group IB.
-------
3. Draft Quality Assurance Project Plan, Remedial Investigations, Groups 2 & 7 and South
Post Impact Area, Fort Devens, Massachusetts, Ecology and Environment, Inc., (June,
1993). Filed in Group IB.
4. Technical Plans Supplement B Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies Group IB
Sites and Functional Areas I and II Fort Devens, Massachusetts, Ecology and
Environment, Inc., (September, 1993). Filed in Group IB.
5. Final Radiological Survey Work Plan, Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO)
Yard, Fort Devens, Massachusetts, ABB Environmental Services, Inc., (August 4, 1995).
Filed in Group IB.
6. Radiological Survey Work Plan Addendum Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office
(DRMO) Yard, ABB Environmental Services, Inc., (February 14, 1996). Filed in Group IB.

Comments
1. Comments dated March 3, 1992 from Carol J. Howard, Fort Devens on the February, 1992
"Final Work Plan and Field Sampling Plan," Ecology and Environment, Inc. Filed in
Group 1A.
2. Comments on the "Draft Remedial Investigation Work Plan for Group IB," Ecology and
Environment, Inc. Filed in Group IB.
3. Comments dated September 30, 1992 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the August,
1992 "Draft Work Plan Supplement - Remedial Investigations," Ecology and Environment,
Inc. Filed in Group IB.
4. Comments dated October 13, 1992 from D. Lynne Chapell, MADEP on the August, 1992
"Draft Work Plan Supplement - Remedial Investigations," Ecology and Environment, Inc.
Filed in Group IB.
5. Comments dated January 11, 1993 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the November,
1992 "Draft Final Work Plan Supplement - Remedial Investigations, Group IB Sites,"
Ecology and Environment, Inc. Filed in Group IB.
6. Comments dated January 15, 1993 from D. Lynne Chapell, MADEP on the November, 1992
"Draft Final Work Plan Supplement - Remedial Investigations, Group IB Sites," Ecology
and Environment, Inc. Filed in Group IB.
7. Comments dated March 23,1993 from D. Lynne Chapell, MADEP on the February, 1993 "Final
Oversight and Screening Activities, DRMO Yard Addendum to Work Plan Supplement
Remedial Investigations - Group IB Sites, Fort Devens, Massachusetts," Ecology and
Environment, Inc. Filed in Group IB.
8. Comments dated June 21, 1993 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the September,
1993 "Technical Plans Supplement B Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies Group
IB Sites and Functional Areas I and II, Fort Devens, Massachusetts," Ecology and
Environment, Inc. Filed in Group IB.
9. Comments dated November 3, 1993 from D. Lynne Welsh, MADEP on the September, 1993
"Technical Plans Supplement B Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies Group IB
Sites and Functional Areas I and II, Fort Devens, Massachusetts," Ecology and
Environment, Inc. Filed in Group IB.
10. Comments dated July 25, 1995 from D. Lynne Welsh, MADEP on the July 10, 1995 "Draft
Radiological Survey Work Plan, Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) Yard,
Fort Devens, Massachusetts," ABB Environmental Services, Inc. Filed in Group IB.
11. Comments dated August 11, 1995 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the August 4,
1995 "Final Radiological Survey Work Plan, Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office
(DRMO) Yard, Fort Devens, Massachusetts," ABB Environmental Services, Inc. Filed in
Group IB.
12. Comments dated August 18, 1995 from D. Lynne Welsh, MADEP on the August 4, 1995 "Final
Radiological Survey Work Plan, Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) Yard,
Fort Devens, Massachusetts," ABB Environmental Services, Inc. Filed in Group IB.
13. Comments dated February 21, 1996 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the February
14, 1996 "Radiological Survey Work Plan Addendum Defense Reutilization and Marketing
Office (DRMO) Yard," ABB Environmental Services, Inc. Filed in Group IB.
14. Comments dated March 8, 1996 from John Regan, MADEP on the February 14, 1996
"Radiological Survey Work Plan Addendum Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office
(DRMO) Yard," ABB Environmental Services, Inc. Filed in Group IB.

Responses to Comments
1. Responses from U.S. Army Environmental Center to the comments on the September, 1993
"Technical Plans Supplement B Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies Group IB
Sites and Functional Areas I and II, Fort Devens, Massachusetts," Ecology and
Environment, Inc. Filed in Group IB.
-------
2. Responses dated August 4, 1995 from U.S. Army Environmental Center to the comments on
the July 10, 1995 "Draft Radiological Survey Work Plan, Defense Reutilization and
Marketing Office (DRMO) Yard, Fort Devens, Massachusetts," ABB Environmental Services,
Inc. Filed in Group IB.

Comments on Responses to Comments
1. Comments dated November 8, 1993 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the responses
on the September, 1993 "Technical Plans Supplement B Remedial Investigations/
Feasibility Studies Group IB Sites and Functional Areas I and II, Fort Devens,
Massachusetts," Ecology and Environment, Inc. Filed in Group IB.

3.9 Heath Assessments

Work Plans
1. Risk Assessment Approach Plan (RAAP) Remedial Investigations - Group IB Sites, Ecology
and Environment, Inc., (May, 1994). Filed in Group IB.

4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS)

4.4 Interim Deliverables

Work Plans
1. Draft Initial Screening of Alternatives for Functional Areas I and II, Ecology and
Environment, Inc., (June, 1994). Filed in Group IB.

Reports
1. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives for Functional Areas I and II, Ecology and
Environment, Inc., (September, 1994). Filed in Group IB.

Comments
1. Comments dated July 18, 1994 from D. Lynne Welsh, MADEP on the June, 1994 "Draft
Initial Screening of Alternatives for Functional Areas I and II," Ecology and
Environment, Inc. Filed in Group IB.
2. Comments dated October 13, 1994 from D. Lynne Welsh, MADEP on the September, 1994
"Detailed Analysis of Alternatives for Functional Areas I and II," Ecology and
Environment, Inc. Filed in Group IB.

Responses to Comments
1. Responses dated August, 1994 from U.S. Army Environmental Center to the comments on
the June, 1994 "Draft Initial Screening of Alternatives for Functional Areas I and II"
Ecology and Environment, Inc. Filed in Group IB.

4.6 Feasibility Study (FS) Reports

Reports
1. Final Feasibility Study for Functional Area II, Ecology and Environment, Inc.,
(September, 1996). Filed in Group IB.
2. Revised Final Feasibility Study for Functional Area II, Ecology and Environment, Inc.,
(January 1997). Filed in Group IB.

Comments
1. Comments dated May 8, 1995 from D. Lynne Welsh, MADEP on the March, 1995 "Draft
Feasibility Study for Functional Area II, Fort Devens, Massachusetts," Ecology and
Environment, Inc. Filed in Group IB.
2. Comments dated November 8, 1996 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the September,
1996 "Final Feasibility Study for Functional Area II," Ecology and Environment, Inc.
Filed in Group IB.
3. Comments dated May 9, 1997 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the January 1997
"Revised Final Feasibility Study for Functional Area II," Ecology and Environment,
Inc. Filed in Group IB.

4.9 Proposed Plans for Selected Remedial Action

Reports
1. Proposed Plan for the Defense Reutilization Marketing Office (DRMO) Yard (AOC 32) and
Petroleum, Oils, and Lubrication Storage Area (POL) (AOCs 43A) , Home Engineering
Services, Inc., (June, 1997). Filed in Group IB.
-------
Comments
1. Comments dated March 3, 1997 from John Regan, MADEP on the January 31, 1997 "Proposed
Plan for the Defense Reutilization Marketing Office (DRMO) Yard (AOC 32) and
Petroleum, Oils, and Lubrication Storage Area (POL) (AOCs 43A) ," Home Engineering
Services, Inc. Filed in Group IB.
2. Comments dated May 9, 1997 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the January 31, 1997
"Proposed Plan for the Defense Reutilization Marketing Office (DRMO) Yard (AOC 32) and
Petroleum, Oils, and Lubrication Storage Area (POL) (AOCs 43A) , " Home Engineering
Services, Inc. Filed in Group IB.

5.0 RECORD OF DECISION (ROD)

5.4 Record of Decision (ROD)

Reports
1. Draft Record of Decision for the Defense Reutilization Marketing Office (DRMO) Yard
(AOC 32) and Petroleum, Oils, and Lubrication Storage Area (POL) (AOCs 43A) , Home
Engineering Services, Inc., (February, 1997). Filed in Group IB.

Comments
1. Comments dated April 17, 1997 from John Regan, MADEP on the February, 1997 "Draft
Record of Decision for the Defense Reutilization Marketing Office (DRMO) Yard (AOC 32)
and Petroleum, Oils, and Lubrication Storage Area (POL) (AOCs 43A) ," Home Engineering
Services, Inc. Filed in Group IB.

10.0 ENFORCEMENT

10.16 Federal Facility Agreements

1. Final Federal Facility Agreement Under CERCLA Section 120, EPA Region I and U.S.
Department of the Army with attached map, (November 15, 1991) . Filed in Group 1A.

13.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS

13.2 Community Relations Plans

1. Final Community Relations Plan, Ecology and Environment, Inc., (February, 1992). Filed
in Group 1A.

Reports
1. Fort Devens Community Relations Plan for Environmental Restoration, 1995 Update, ABB
Environmental Services, Inc., (May, 1995). Filed in Group 1A.

Comments
1. Comments dated March 19, 1992 from James P. Byrne, USEPA Region I on the February,
1992 "Final Community Relations Plan," Ecology and Environment, Inc. Filed in Group
IB.
-------
APPENDIX B - DECLARATION OF STATE CONCURRENCE

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE

ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI TRUDY COXE
Governor Secretary

DAVID B. STRUHS
Commissioner

December 29, 1997
Mr. Harley F. Laing, Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New England
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203

RE: Record of Decision for Area for Contamination (AOC) 32 and AOC 43A Devens, Massachusetts.

Dear Mr. Laing:

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) has reviewed the Record of Decision
(ROD) proposed by the United States Army and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for the Area
of Contamination AOC 32 and AOC 43A and the selected remedy.

The ROD identifies three separate Operable Units. The Operable Units and the selected remedies are:

1. Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) Yard Soils Operable Unit AOC 32; The excavation
and removal of 1,300 cubic yards of Polychlorinated Biphenyls impacted soil is planned for the DRMO
yard as the selected remedial alternative.

2. Underground Storage Tank (UST) #13 Groundwater Operable Unit AOC 32; The chosen remedial alternative
for UST #13, Groundwater Operable Unit AOC 32, is intrinsic remediation and groundwater monitoring
for 30 years to evaluate natural attenuation and bioremediation progress. Along with above noted
remedy the UST and 227 cubic yard of waste oil contaminated soil was removed in May, 1992.

3. Petroleum, Oils and Lubricants Storage Area Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard
Groundwater Operable Unit AOC 32 and AOC 43A; The selected remedial alternative is intrinsic
remediation and groundwater monitoring for 30 years to evaluate natural attenuation and
bioremediation progress.

The MADEP concurs with the ROD for AOC 32, UST #13 and AOC 43A and would like to thank the US Army,
particularly Jim Chambers BRAG Environmental Coordinator, and Jim Byrne, EPA, the Fort Devens Remedial
Project Manager, for their efforts to ensure that the reguirements of the MADEP were met. We look forward
to continuing to work with the EPA at other sites at Devens.

If you have any guestions, please contact David M. Salvadore at (508) 792-7653, ext. 3842.

CC: Edward Kunce, MADEP
Jay Naparstek, MADEP
Informational Repositories
Fort Devens Mailing List
Ron Ostrowski, DCC
Jim Byrne, EPA
Jeff Waugh, AEC
Patricia Momm, ABB
Mark Applebee, ACOE

627 Main Street • Worcester, Massachusetts 01608 • Telephone (508) 792-7692
Fax (508)792-7621 TTD #(508)767-2788
-------
APPENDIX C - FIGURES

-------
APPENDIX D - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
U.S. ARMY

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

DEVENS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA

Volume I
Pages 1 to 4
-------
1 PROCEEDINGS

2 MR. CHAMBERS: Good evening. My name is
3 James Chambers. I'm the BRAG environmental
4 coordinator for the United States Army here at the
5 Devens Reserved Forces training area.
6 Thank you for coming out this evening. We
7 are holding a public hearing for the proposed plan
8 for remediation for areas of contamination, 32 DRMO
9 yard and 43A, the petroleum oil and lubrication
10 storage facility.
11 This evening we are moving towards the end
12 of the public comment period, the end of the 30 day
13 public comment period which commenced on June 18th.
14 The comment period ends tomorrow, July 18th. I
15 invite you to either submit any comments you would
16 like for the record, either written by close of
17 business tomorrow or verbally this evening. I also
18 would ask you that if you have a comment to make
19 this evening, you announce your name for the court
20 stenographer we have for recording the meeting this
21 evening.
22 It's 7:30 right now. I'll hold the meeting
23 open for five minutes. As there's only one member
24 of the public here this evening, we'll see if

DORIS 0. WONG ASSOCIATES
-------
1 there's anybody else that would like to make a
2 comment. Again, please announce your name and
3 comment or submit a written comment. Thank you.
4 We will take a timeout for a moment.
5 (Pause)
6 MR. LINDE: For the record, my name is
7 Richard Linde from the Town of Ayer Water
8 Department. My concerns, which I believe were
9 handled to my satisfaction and possibly the Town's
10 satisfaction, were the groundwater flow from the
11 dismantling of the yard. My concerns were answered
12 to my satisfaction. I don't believe there will be a
13 threat to the Town of Ayer.
14 I would like to thank the office for
is assisting me today with my concerns.
16 MR. CHAMBERS: You're welcome.
17 (Pause)
18 MR. CHAMBERS: There being no further
19 comments, I hereby close the public hearing for
20 AOC's 32 and 43A. Thank you all for coming.
21 (Whereupon the proceedings
22 were adjourned at 7:35 p.m.)
23
24

DORIS 0. WONG ASSOCIATES
-------
CERTIFICATE

1 I, KEN A. DiFRAIA, Certified Shorthand
2 Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing
3 transcript, Volume I, is a true and accurate
4 transcription of my stenographic notes taken on
July 17, 1997.

-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Areas of Contamination 32 and 43A
Devens, Massachusetts
RECORD OF DECISION

Reviewed By: Page: Line:

James Byrne
EPA New
England
May 9, 1997
Section: Comment:

Please change the name of the "Intrinsic Remediation" alternative
to "Monitored Natural Attenuation". Please use the following
definition when describing monitored natural attenuation:
"Monitored natural attenuation is the combination of physical,
chemical, and biological processes that act without human
intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume or
concentration of contaminants in soil or groundwater in a
reasonable time frame. These in-situ processes include
biodegredation, dispersion, dilution, adsorption, volatilization,
and biological and chemical stabilization or destruction of
contaminants."
Comment Response:

The term "Intrinsic Remediation" has been replaced in the
ROD by "Monitored Natural Attenuation." The ROD
offers the following explanation for (he name change;
"This ROD will use the more descriptive name "monitored
natural attenuation" in place of "Intrinsic remediation."
The terms are synonymous.
ARARs Tables: a: Please see the ARARs tables in the October
1996 ROD for AOCs 43G & J for the correct ARARs for the
groundwater alternative and title accordingly. Additionally, in the
header at the top of the page please state what type of ARARs
they are (i.e., action specific, etc.) The 43G & J Tables should be
very similar, if not the same.

b. Please note the SDWA is both an action- and chemical specific
ARAR in this case. Additionally, in your "Action to be taken to
attain reguirement" section of the Table for both MCL and
MMCLs, please state that they will be met by this alternative as
well as being used to evaluate performance.

c. Please add an ARARs table for Alternative A6 with an
appropriate title, please see that handwritten attachment for
details.
a & c. The ARAR tables from AOC 43G & 43J ROD will
be added and modified as appropriate.

b. Reguested clarification will be incorporated.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Areas of Contamination 32 and 43A
Devens, Massachusetts
RECORD OF DECISION

Reviewed By: Page: Line:
Section: Comment:

Alternative A6. Was on-site use of the soil as part of the landfill
remediation project considered? Are we confident that the soils
excavated will be non-hazardous? Please add a contingency for
hazardous oil disposal.
Comment Response:

Yes. On-site re-use of the excavated soils is currently
being considered as part of the landfill remediation project.
If, based on waste characterization, the excavated soils
meet the reguirements for "Reuse and Disposal of
Contaminated Soils at Landfills" Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Prevention,
Interim Policy #BWP-94-037, then the soils would likely
be re-used as daily cover material during the construction
of the new landfill cell.
Alternative B3. Please discuss approximately how long you
expect natural attenuation to take as compared to more active
remediation.
No estimated have been made regarding the length of time
reguired to remediate the site via Monitored Natural
Attenuation or more active alternatives. This information
will be developed as part of the Monitored Natural
Attenuation Assessment.
John Regan
MADEP
April 17, 1997
Para 1 1st bullet
Para 1 4th bullet
Para 3 5th bullet
Note that all excavated soil will be disposed of off-post and that
confirmatory sampling will be conducted prior to backfill
Note groundwater will be monitored on an annual basis and site
reviews will be conducted every five years for thirty years or until
groundwater contamination is reduced to acceptable
concentrations.
Note that long term monitoring will be conducted on an annual
basis.
The following text has been added: "Perform confirmatory
sampling prior to backfilling."
The section being commented upon is intended to be a
summary of the major components of the selected remedy.
Details on the selected remedy are provided in Section X of
the ROD. No changes will be made to the existing text.
The Army may reguest a reduction in the freguency of
groundwater monitoring if warranted by site conditions.
Annual monitoring will be reguired unless EPA and
MADEP agree to a reduced freguency.

See response to previous comment.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Areas of Contamination 32 and 43A
Devens, Massachusetts
RECORD OF DECISION

Reviewed By: Page:
Line: Section: Comment:

Para 3 7 th bullet Note groundwater will be monitored on an annual basis and site
reviews will be conducted every five years for thirty years or until
groundwater contamination is reduced to acceptable
concentrations.
Comment Response:

The text was modified.
Para 1 V.b.l.a
21
Para 5
VII
38
Para 3 X.B
41
Para 2 X.C.2
41
Para 3 X.C.2
The description of DRMO Yard soils should state that site soils
also contained PCBs in excess of state standards

The detailed analysis of remedial alternatives presented in the
Functional Area II Feasibility Study specifies that long term
monitoring will be conducted in conjunction with IR. This should
be reflected in the ROD. Please add "with long term monitoring"
to the bullet describing IR.

Groundwater cleanup goals should include meeting VPH/EPH
standards. This section must include language regarding
development of performance standards for VPH/EPH which will
be based upon risk based numbers developed during the IR
assessment or Method 1 Standards. The IR assessment shall
include a trend analyses to predict future petroleum contaminant
migration and concentration estimates.

Please note that the Army will follow the "Technical Protocol for
Implementing Intrinsic Remediation with Long-Term Monitoring
for Natural Attenuation of Fuel contamination Dissolved in
Groundwater". This document was co-developed by the USEPA
and the US Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence and
published November 11, 1995.

The MADEP recommends that the discussion on institutional
controls include restrictions on the use of groundwater, depth of
excavation and risk management for any future use.
The following text was added: "PCBs were detected in site
soils at concentrations in excess of state standards."

This section being commented on is intended to be a
summary, the details for the alternatives are provided in
later sections of the ROD. No change to text.
The following text was added at the end of Section X.B.
"Risk based clean-up goals will be established for
EPH/VPH during the Monitored Natural Attenuation
Assessment." It is anticipated that a trend analysis will
be a component of the Monitored Natural Attenuation
Assessment.
The desired modification was made.
The specific language for the institutional controls will be
developed as part of the property transfer documentation.
All regulatory agencies will be provided the opportunity to
review and comment on the language at that time.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Areas of Contamination 32 and 43A
Devens, Massachusetts
RECORD OF DECISION
Reviewed By: Page:

42
Line:
Para 1
42
Para 2
X.C.2
Section: Comment:

The technical discussion of biological degradation of
hydrocarbons should be expanded to note the differences between
aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation. This discussion should
include a description of respective electron acceptors for each
condition and discussion regarding the decrease in oxidation-
reduction potential for aerobic conditions as progression of
electron acceptor use occurs. Note that in anaerobic degradation,
the presence of reduced forms of inorganics can be used as an
indicator that biological activity is occurring and inorganic
speciation can be used to model anaerobic degradation.

Please note that final monitoring well locations will be submitted
for regulatory review and concurrence.
Comment Response:

The selected remedy performance criteria and details will
be provided as part of the reguired Monitored Natural
Attenuation Assessment. No change to text.
The following text was added after the 2 nd sentence: "A
Long Term Monitoring Plan shall be developed as part of
the Monitored Natural Attenuation Assessment and shall
undergo regulatory review."
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Areas of Contamination 32 and 43A
Devens, Massachusetts
RECORD OF DECISION
Reviewed By: Page:

42
Line: Section: Comment:

Para 3 X.C.2 Please specify that relevant chemicals of potential concern (CPC)
will include total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHC) as evaluated
using the MADEP's volatile petroleum hydrocarbon (VPH) and
extractable petroleum hydrocarbon (EPH) methods.

Please note that an intrinsic bioremediation assessment will be
conducted. A work plan should be prepared detailing the
proposed activities of the assessment and submitted to the
regulatory agencies for review prior to implementation. The
additional data collection will consist of additional rounds of
groundwater sampling and analysis to refine estimates of IR
effectiveness. Collected data should include groundwater
elevation, intrinsic bioremediation indicators and CPCs. The
CPCs should be listed in the ROD and TPHC include analysis
using the MADEP's VPH/EPH method. CPC concentration data
will be used in the estimation of site specific degradation rates
and the effectiveness of IR in achieving groundwater cleanup
levels.

The ROD should state that the Intrinsic Bioremediation Work
plan will contain procedures for evaluation of CPCs and TPHC
(using VPH/EPH) and that criteria for contaminant evaluations
will use risk based concentrations, MCLs and/or MMCls. Data
collected from the intrinsic bioremediation assessment
groundwater sampling program must be incorporated into the fate
and transport modeling specified in this paragraph.
Comment Response:

Part 1. The 3 rd sentence has been revised to read: "Data
collected would include groundwater elevation, intrinsic
remediation indicators, and relevant COPCs, including
TPHC by MADEP Methods for extractable petroleum
hydrocarbon (EPH) and volatile petroleum hydrocarbons
(VPH).

Part 2. The 2 nd sentence has been revised to read: "Data
collection may consist of installing additional monitoring
wells and performing additional rounds of groundwater
sampling and analysis to refine estimates of intrinsic
remediation effectiveness in protecting downgradient
receptors. The following text has been added after the
second sentence: "A Monitored Natural Attenuation
Assessment Work Plan will be developed by the Army and
provided for regulatory review." The 3 rd sentence has
been revised to read: "Data collected would include
groundwater elevation, intrinsic remediation indicators,
and relevant COPCs, including TPHC by MADEP Methods for
extractable petroleum hydrocarbon (EPH) and volatile
petroleum hydrocarbon (VPH."

Part 3. The last sentence has been revised to read:
"Relevant COPC concentration data, including VPH/EPH
via MADEP Method will directly assist..."
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Areas of Contamination 32 and 43A
Devens, Massachusetts
RECORD OF DECISION

Reviewed By: Page:

42
Line:

Para 4
Section:

X.C.2
43
Para 1
X.C.2
3-44

3-30
Table
1-10
Table
8-6
Comment:

Please detail the analytical parameters likely to be included in the
monitoring program either in this paragraph or as a separate
appendix. Please note that groundwater monitoring will be
conducted for thirty years. Additionally, the final Long Term
Groundwater Monitoring Plan shall include performance
standards that will determine the effectiveness of the remedial
action. The final plan would be developed in conjunction with
regulatory review and comment.
The ROD must note that if at any time during the implementation
of the remedy, there are indications that site groundwater
contaminants are increasing or spreading, than more aggressive
remedial action will be taken to enhance he intrinsic
bioremediation alternative.
Please include VPH/EPH in table for DRMO Yard.

Please include VPH/EPH in table for POL Yard.
Comment Response:

Likely analytical parameters for the Monitored Natural
Attenuation Assessment are provided in table 18, appendix
E. The last sentence has been revised to read:
"Groundwater monitoring will be conducted annually for
30 years or until groundwater contamination has been
reduced to acceptable levels." The following text has been
added to the end of the paragraph: "The Army may request
a reduction in the frequency of groundwater monitoring if
warranted by site conditions. Annual monitoring will be
required unless EPA and MADEP agree to a reduced
frequency. A Long Term Monitoring Plan will be
developed by the Army and provided for regulatory
review."

Paragraph 6 on page 42 provides language that requires
that assessment of the effectiveness of the selected remedy
every five years. If the selected remedy does not continue
to be protective of human health and the environment, the
Army will evaluate and implement other measures to
ensure the appropriate level of protection.

The parameter has been added.

The parameter has been added.
Bob Burkhardt
No mention is made of the possibility of the two groundwater
OUs contaminating adjacent groundwater via plumes. Are there
investigatory findings which justify this conclusion? If so, could
you briefly summarize them.

What is your best guess about where the soil will be disposed of
off-site, and the situation and conditions it will be contained in?
The groundwater modeling performed as part of the
remedial investigation examined the possibility of ground
water contaminant migration. The results are presented in
the RI and were taken into consideration when preparing
the FS and this ROD.

It is not yet possible to identify possible disposal
locations.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Areas of Contamination 32 and 43A
Devens, Massachusetts
RECORD OF DECISION

Reviewed By: Page:

James Byrne,
USEPA New
England
November 7,
1997
Line:
Section: Comment:

Overall, this Record Of Decision (ROD) should be structured
in a similar fashion to that of AOCs 43G & J in that we are
dealing with similar issues and remedies.
The Remedy: a. Cleanup levels for the contaminants of
concern (COCs) need to specifically called out in the ROD.
b. An estimated time frame for meeting these cleanup levels
should also be discussed, c. Provisions for the evaluation and
implementation of "contingency remedy" (i.e. more
aggressive action) needs to be added to the remedy, d. The
concept of a point of compliance needs to be discussed for
the monitored natural attenuation portion of the remedy. It
should say that one will be established based on cleanup
goals and that it will allow us enough time to evaluate the
need and implementation of a more aggressive remedy before
either human health or the environment are threatened.
Comment Response:

The specific EPA comments provided below will be responded
to in a manner consistent with the 43G and J ROD. Language
will be taken from the 43G and J ROD and modified to
address the site specific reguirements of the AOC 32 and 43A
sites.

a. ROD Sections X.A. Surface Soil Cleanup Levels (Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Office Yard Soils Operable Unit -
Area of Contamination 32 and X.B. Groundwater Cleanup
Levels provide the methodology for selection of the soil and
groundwater cleanup levels for the sites. Tables delineating
the contaminants of concern (COCs) and the cleanup levels
agreed upon in the Final Feasibility Study will be provided in
the Final ROD. Tables 21 and 22 present the Main Post Soil
and Groundwater Cleanup Goal Determinations, respectively.
Cleanup goals for MADEP EPH/VPH will be established as
part of the Natural Attenuation Assessment Work Plan.
b. No detailed evaluation has been done to predict the time
frame for meeting the cleanup levels. The Army proposes that
if the sites cannot be remediated via Natural Attenuation
within 30 years that other alternatives will be evaluated.
This information will be added to the Final ROD.
c. Provisions for evaluation and potential implementation of
other alternatives if Monitored Natural Attenuation proves to
be ineffective will be added to the Final ROD.
d. The point of compliance for these sites shall be the
currently established groundwater Zone II boundary.
Monitoring points shall be established at areas sufficiently
inside the boundary to provide adeguate time to evaluate the
need for more aggressive actions to protect human health and
the environment. Specific details will be provided in the
Natural Attenuation Assessment Work Plan to be submitted
after ROD finalization.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Areas of Contamination 32 and 43A
Devens, Massachusetts
RECORD OF DECISION

Reviewed By: Page: Line:
Section: Comment:

In addition to 5-year reviews, EPA requests that annual
groundwater monitoring reports be added to the remedy
12
34
ARARs: We expected that the ARARs would follow those
of 43 G and J, but we find that they differ, a. Specifically,
43 G and J include RCRA Subtitle C, Subpart F as "Relevant
and Appropriate" establishing a groundwater protection
standard as an action specific ARAR. The present ROD does
not include this ARAR. Please include or justify why it is
not included. The last two pages of Table 23 include TBC
ARARs that do not appear in 43 G and J. Please delete or
justify their inclusion. Additionally, the first Chemical
specific entry for TSCA needs to have a "status" (e.g.
applicable or relevant and appropriate) identified, e. The two
entries under "Action Specific" should also be eliminated. A
reference in the text that states "If hazardous waste is found,
RCRA Subtitle C will apply, and the waste will be properly
disposed" should be included. Perhaps p. 25 would be a
good place for this entry.

"May be site related PCBs" is not a correct statement. There
are site related PCBs.
Comment Response:

Annual groundwater monitoring reports are currently included
as part of the remedy. See ROD sections X.C.2 and X.C.3.
Each of the referenced sections contain a paragraph titled
Monitor Groundwater Over the Long-term and Annually
Report on Groundwater Quality which describes annual
reporting requirements.

a) The indicated ARA has been added.
d) The ARARs in the AOC 43G and 43J ROD pertains to
groundwater and treatment residues. Soil will be excavated as
part of the remedial action at AOC 32. The ARARs included
are those listed in the January 1997 feasibility study for this
site. These ARARs and TBC can be found on Table 5-14 of
the feasibility study.
e) The action specific ARARs have been eliminated. The
following sentence was added to the text on page 39 "If
hazardous waste is found, RCRA Subtitle C will apply, and
the waste will be properly disposed.
The indicated change was made.
14
20
PCBs "could be of concern." PCBs are of concern.
The indicated change was made.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Areas of Contamination 32 and 43A
Devens, Massachusetts
RECORD OF DECISION
Reviewed By: Page:

28
Line: Section:

Institutional
controls
John Salvadore
MADEP
November 6,
1997
Comment:

How would be they instituted? How long would they be in
place? Who would enforce them? Deed restrictions can only
be created if a property interest is transferred. If the property
is sold, then who would enforce them? How can deed
restrictions be attached if the property is not sold? Please
clarify.
However, in the source area at Underground Storage Tank
#13. Groundwater Operable Unit AOC 32, contaminants of
potential concern, 1,2-1,3-, and 1,4 dichlorobenzene;
Aroclor 1260; DDT; 1,2-dichloroethylene (DCE); and TCE,
exceeded Federal and State drinking water standards in the
groundwater. Benzene was detected just below the MCL of
(5) parts per billion in groundwater. The (2) existing shallow
cored bedrock monitoring wells do not provide adequate
hydraulic yield for well purging and sampling of these
contaminants.
Comment Response:

The Army will maintain control of the property associated
with AOCs 32 and 43A until such time that the remedy is
deemed to be operating successfully. While the Army
maintains ownership of the property the Army will be
responsible for ensuring that drinking water wells are no
installed in an area that would be impacted by the AOCs.
When the property is transferred the restriction would be
written into the deed for the property and the new property
owner is responsible for enforcing the deed restrictions.
The deed restriction would be required until such time that
the site is determined to meet the appropriate groundwater
cleanup goals.

Additional bedrock monitoring wells are currently planned for
the UST # 13 Area. Specific details for the installation of
the additional monitoring wells will be provided in the
Natural Attenuation Assessment Work Plan.
MADEP recommends that the (3) shallow monitoring wells
proposed for the Underground Storage Tank # 13
Groundwater Operable Unit AOC 32, be substituted with (3)
rotary drilled monitoring wells installed into consolidated
bedrock. The monitoring wells should be installed to a depth
to provide a sustainable groundwater yield for sampling.
-------
APPENDIX E - TABLES
RECORD OF DECISION
Areas of Contamination 32 and 43A
Devens, Massachusetts

Results in the following tables have been coded as follows:

B: Attributable to field or laboratory contamination.
C: Confirmed by reanalysis (second column).
J: Estimated Value.
K: Result biased high.
L: Result biased low.
R: Result rejected.
U: Unconfirmed (reanalysis performed, compound not found).

Bold results exceed screening values developed in Section 4.

N/A = Not Available

Field Sample Numbering System (8 Characters):

Character 1 23 and 4 5 and 6 7 and 8

Sample Type: QC type: AOC Number of Depth indicator for borings
M = groundwater X = regular sample designator boring, borings (i.e., 01 to 99) or the
S = surface water F = filtered sample Monitoring well, or round number for all other
B = subsurface soil D = field duplicate sample, i.e., (00 to samples (i.e., XI for round 1,
D = sediment 99) X2 for round 2)
W = surface water
E = excavation trenches
C = asphalt core
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Areas of Contamination 32 and 43A
Devens, Massachusetts
File Type: CSO
Site Type: AREA
Table 1
Chemical Summary Report For Surficial Soils
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGG
Part 1 of 3
Test
Parameter
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
32S-92-01X
SX3201X1
10/17/92
32S-92-02X
SX3202X1
10/17/92
32S-92-03X
SX3203X1
10/17/92
32S-93-04X
SX3204X1
10/17/92
32S-92-05X
SD3205X1
10/17/92
32S-92-05X
SX3205X1
10/17/92
TAL
METAL

TCL BNA

Aluminum

Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
1 -Me thylnaphthal ene
2,6,10,14-
Tetramethylpentade
2-Methylnapthalene
Chrysene
Decane
Dibenzofuran
Eicosane
Fluorene
1000000 ugg

40 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
0.80 ugg
80 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
60 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
N/A
7200 ugg
2500 ugg
N/A
N/A

0.70 ugg
0.70 ugg
N/A
N/A
N/A
400 ugg
6160

<1.09
33.0 J
26.8
0.561
<0.700
1230
27.8
8.30
24.4
15100
44.0
4190
320 J
<0.050
36.0
836
<0.250
206
17.5
76.8

6150

1.47
23.0 J
43.6
0.654
1.79
845
26.6
5.73
26.2
15100
560
3820
288 J
<0.050
26.8
981
<0.250
213
15.2
258

5180

<1.09
5.47 J
14.6
<0.500
<0.700
113
5.94
2.49
3.87
4940
8.43
920
74.0 J
<0.050
5.05
293
<0.250
161
5.81
18.6

6350

<1.09
16.0 J
31.5
<0.500
<0.700
497
18.8
3.52
12.6
9600
190
3530
144 J
0.053
15.0
1290
0.517
202
13.2
69.4

9790

1.98
18.0
37.1
<0.500
2.55
674
35.6
4.05
48.3
12300 B
160
3010
126 B
0.225
17.2
788
0.825
322
25.9
92.4

10300

<1.09
19.0 J
52.8
<0.500
3.22
672
36.5
4.24
50.7
13600
170
3090
136 J
0.190
18.5
956
0.918
324
28.0
108

Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: AREA
Table 1
Chemical Summary Report For Surficial Soils
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGG
Part 1 of 3
Test Parameter

Hendecane/
Undecaner
Heptadecane
Hexadecane
Napthalene
Octadecane
Pentadecane
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Tetracosane
Tetradecane
TCL BNA Tridecane
DDD
DDE
DDT
PCB 1254
PCB 1260
gamma-Chlorane
TOG Total Organic Carbon
TPHC Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
WQP PH
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
N/A
32S-92-01X
SX3201X1
10/17/92
32S-92-02X
SX3202X1
10/17/92
32S-92-03X
SX3203X1
10/17/92
32S-93-04X
SX3204X1
10/17/92
32S-92-05X
SD3205X1
10/17/92
32S-92-05X
SX3205X1
10/17/92
N/A
N/A
4.0
N/A
N/A
700
500
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
N/A
2500
ugg
ugg
ugg

ugg
ugg
ugg
ugg
ugg
ugg

ugg

<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.082
<0.080
<0.005

59.5 K

<0
0.
<0
0.
<0
<0

.008
018 C
.007
119 C
.080
.005

27500

<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.082
<0.080
<0.005

<28.5

<0
0.
0.
<0
<0
<0

.008
018 C
0150
.082
.080
.005

259

0.
0.
0.
0.
<0
0.

025
040
210
226
.080
007

CJ
C
C
JC
J
C

327 B

0.011 CJ
0.024 C
0.150 C
<0.082 J
0.217 JC
<0.005

337
N/A
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: AREA
Table 1
Chemical Summary Report For Surficial Soils
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGG
Part 2 of 3
Test

TAL
METAL
TAL
METAL
TCL BNA
TCL BNA
Parameter

Aluminum

Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Mangnese

Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
1-Methylnphthalene
2,6,10,14-Tetramethylpentade
2-Methylnapthalene
Chrysene
Decane
Dibenofuran
Eiosane
Fluorene
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
1000000 ugg
32S-92-06X
SX3206X1
10/17/92
4860
32S-92-07X
SX3207X1
10/17/92
5360
32S-92-08X
SX3208X1
10/19/92
6920
32S-93-09X
SX3209X1
03/04/93
9780 K
32S-93-09X
SX3209X1
03/04/93
7990 K
32S-93-10X
SX3210X1
03/04/93
2490 K
40 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
0.80 ugg
80 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
60 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
N/A
7200 ugg
2500 ugg
N/A
N/A
0.70 ugg
0.70 ugg
N/A
N/A
N/A
400 ugg
<1.09
6.43 J
33.8
<0.500
<0.700
717
8.13
3.58
9.10
8220
20.0
1170
259 J
<0.050
11.2
330
<0.250
257
7.98
39.8

3.54
14.0 J
35.1
<0.500
4.87
386
22.7
3.59
51.6
12800
150
2330
155 J
0.234
15.9
948
0.545
215
16.6
83.5

<1.09
10.2 J
44.5
0.682
3.35
1520
20.4
4.73
8.90
7240
19.0
2140
234 J
0.063
16.7
608
0.648
242
14.7
67.4

<1.09
41.0
106
<0.500
<0.700
5200
36.8
6.70
42.0
26700
130
3590
551
0.177
30.1
1780
5.32
790
37.0
254
20.0
9.00
30.0
<1.00
20.0
3.00

<0.300
<1.09
44.0 J
89.9
<0.500
<0.700
5110
28.4
6.48
35.9
21100
150
2880
499 J
<0.050
26.3
1520
5.42
700
30.6
235
20.0
10.0
30.0
<1.00
20.0
6.00

<0.300
<1.09
29.0 J
23.8
<0.500
<0.700
915
10.5
3.13
7.22
7600
27.0
1310
76.5 J
<0.050
9.17
906
1.64 B
318
9.76
21.9

<5.00
<10.00

<4.00

<3.00
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: AREA
Table 1
Chemical Summary Report For Surficial Soils
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGG
Part 2 of 3
Test Parameter

Hendecane/Undecane
Heptadecane
Hexadecane
Napthalene
Octadecane
Pentadecane
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Tetracosane
TCL BNA Tetradecane
Tridecane
TCL Pest DDD
DDE
TCL Pest DDT
PCB 1254
PCB 1260
gamma-Chlordane
TOG Total Organic Carbon
TPHC Tot. Petroleum Hydrocarbons
WQP PH
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
N/A
N/A
N/A
4 . 0 ugg
N/A
N/A
700 ugg
500 ugg
N/A
N/A
N/A
3 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
N/A
32S-92-06X
SX3206X1
10/17/92

<0.008
0.019 C
2.90 C
<0.082
0.113 C
<0.005

171

32S-92-07X
SX3207X1
10/17/92

<0.008
0.035 C
0.140 C
<0.082
0.266 C
<0.005

165

32S-92-08X
SX3208X1
10/19/92

<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.082
<0.080
<0.005

57.6 K

32S-93-09X
SX3209X1
03/04/93

10.0

20.0

10.0
3.00

9.00

297000

5.87
32S-93-09X
SD3209X1
03/04/93

10.0

20.0

10.0
3.00
10.0

8.00

490000

5.56
32S-93-10X
SX3210X1
03/04/93

<4.00

<3.00
<3.00

352000

6.05
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: AREA
Table 1
Chemical Summary Report For Surficial Soils
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGG
Part 3 of 3
Test

TAL METAL
TAL METAL
TCL BNA
TCL BNA

Parameter

Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
1 -Methylnaphthal ene
2, 6,10,14-
T e t r ame thylentade
Chrysene
Decane
Dibenzofuran
Eicosane
Fluorene
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
1000000 ugg
40 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
0.80 ugg
80 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
60 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
N/A
7200 ugg
2500 ugg
N/A
N/A
32S-93-11X
SX3211X1
03/04/93

1220 K
<1.09
18.0 J
90.1
<0.500
<0.700
2490
<4.05
<1.42
8.04
8570
27.0
490
29.6 J
0.145
4.04
503
2.82
279
9.24
<8.03
10.0
10.0
2-Methylnapthalene
0.70 ugg
N/A
N/A
N/A
400 ugg
3.00

4.00
4.00
<0.300
32S-93-12X
SX3212X1
03/04/93

265 K
<1.09
2.85 J
<5.18
<0.500
<0.700
222
<4.05
<1.42
1.87
2610
9.90
166
3.99 J
0.064
<1.71
207
2.39
229
5.73
<8.03
7.00
7.00
0.70 ugg
<1.00
9.00
1.00
6.00
0.700
32S-92-13X
SX3213X1
03/04/93

3390 K
<1.09
9.69 J
17.1
<0.500
<0.700
1290
10.7
2.85
9.90
7650
26.0
1700
87.2 J
<0.050
11.2
712
0.433 B
281
11.5
19.7

10.0
<1.00

0.800

<0.300
7.00
4.00
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: AREA
Test
TCL Pest
TOG
TPHC

WQP
Parameter

Hendecane/Undecane
Heptadecane
Hexadecane
Napthaiene
Octadecane
Pentadecane
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Tetracosane
Tetradecane
Tridecane
DDD
DDE
DDT
PCB1254
PCB1260
gamma-Chlordane
Total Organic Carbon
Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
PH
Table 1
Chemical Summary Report For Surficial Soils
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGG
Part 3 of 3
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
N/A
N/A
N/A
4 . 0 ugg
N/A
N/A
700 ugg
500 ugg
N/A
N/A
N/A
3 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
32S-93-11X
SX3211X1
03/04/93

4.00

10.0
4.00

6.00
<0.300

5.00

317000

32S-93-12X
SX3212X1
03/04/93

10.0
7.00
8.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
7.00
<0.300
9.00
10.0
10.0

267000

32S-92-13X
SX3213X1
03/04/93

3.00

2.00
<0.300

15000

N/A
6.69
4.35
6.20
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: BORE
Table 2
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGG
Part 1 of 9

Test

TAL METAL

TCL Pest

TCL PEST

TOG
TPHC

Parameter

Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
DDD
DDE
DDT
Heplachlor epoxide
PCB 1254
PCB 1260
Total Organic Carbon
To. Pet. Hydrocarbons
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
1000000 ugg
40 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
3 . 0 ugg
80 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
60 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
200 ugg
N/A
7200 ugg
5000 ugg
10 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
0.30 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
32B-92-01X
BX320101
10/19/92
1.0 ft.

5750
<1.09
11.4
67.9
<0.500
<0.700
1840
15.6
3.15
7.91
8870 J
13.0 J
2300
104
<0.050
10.9
1140
<0.250
<0.589
372
13.6
18.9
<0.008
<0.008
0.014C
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

<2.87
32B-92-01X 32B-92-01X
BX320102
10/19/92
5.0 ft.

6560
< 1.09
867
29.9
<0.500
<0.700
701
17.4
3.91
10.2
7790 J
4.52 J
2390
133
<0.050
13.3
823
<0.250
<0.589
298
10.6
21.4
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

<2.95
BX320103
10/19/92
10.0 ft.

2790
<1.09
11.1
14.1
<0.500
<0.700
418
9.25
3.03
6.96
6350 J
3.45 J
1420
139
<0.050
11.5
375 K
<0.250
<0.589
257
5.11
15.7
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

<28.5
32B-92-02X
BX320201
10/19/92
1.0 ft.

3160
< 1.09
19.0
25.7
0.694
<0.700
448
7.99
2.24
15.1
11700 J
24.0 J
732
73.8
0.225
6.10
321 K
0.892 J
<0.589
204
10.6
16.0
<0.008
0.012C
0.065 C
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

842
32B-92-02X
BX320202
10/19/92
5.0 ft.

3760
<1.09
10.1
14.6
<0.500
<0.700
130
9.94
<1.42
5.83
6960 J
5.32 J
1180
57.4
<0.050
6.02
453 K
<0.250
<0.589
173
6.58
13.8
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

<28.5
32B-92-02X
BX320203
10/19/92
10.0 ft.

3430
<1.09
15.0
14.1
<0.500
<0.700
205
12.0
<1.42
6.85
8330 J
4.43 J
1540
55.4
<0.050
8.53
386 K
<0.250
<0.589
179
6.60
13.9
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

<28.5
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: BORE
Table 2
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGG
Part 2 of 9

Test
TAL METAL

TAL METAL

TCL Pest

TOG
TPHC

Parameter
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
DDD
DDE
DDT
Heplachlor epoxide
PCB1254
PCB 1260
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
1000000 ugg
40 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
3 . 0 ugg
80 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
60 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
200 ugg
N/A
7200 ugg
5000 ugg
10 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
0.30 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
32B-92-03X
BX320301
10/19/92
1.0 ft.
2120
<1.09
8.96
46.5
<0.500
<0.700
415
9.75
2.18
20.0
19500 J
33.0 J
719
281
0.073
7.35
387 K
1.68 1J
<0.589
214
8.87
14.2
<0.008
<0.008
0.021 C
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080
32B-92-03X
BX320302
10/19/92
5.0 ft.
6400
<1.09
11.2
21.2
0.614
<0.700
398
26.1
2.74
10.8
10300 J
6.53 J
2950
110
<0.050
15.7
851
<0.250
<0.589
163
13.1
23.8
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080
32B-92-03X
BX320303
10/19/92
12.0 ft.
3170
< 1.09
13.0
13.8
<0.500
<0.700
243
8.42
<1.42
6.13
6630 J
3.21 J
1610
87.8
<0.050
8.73
298 K
<0.250
<0.589
170
5.16
13.5
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080
32B-92-04X
BX320401
10/19/92
0.0 ft.
6300
<1.09
15.0
30.5
0.792
<0.700
4130
14.9
4.96
17.9
12300 J
980 J
2450
243
<0.050
22.6
507
<0.250
<0.589
181
11.2
76.6
0.014 C
0.087 C
0.320 C
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080
32B-92-04X
BX320402
10/19/92
5.0 ft.
3030
<1.09
7.04
12.9
<0.500
<0.700
241
6.06
2.17
4.95
4400 J
100 J
940
73.6
<0.050
6.58
451 K
<0.250
<0.589
152
4.86
19.4
<0.008
<0.008
0.014 C
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080
32B-92-04X
BX320403
10/19/92
10.0 ft
2450
<1.09
13.0
9.91
<0.500
<0.700
236
6.45
1.96
4.62
4430 J
7.42 J
1120
82.0
<0.050
8.56
280 K
<0.250
<0.589
167
<3.39
16.3
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080
Total Organic Carbon N/A
Tot. Petroleum
5000 ugg
2170
30.2
34.6
95.9
30.1
30.2
Hydrocarbons
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: BORE
Table 2
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGG
Part 3 of 9

Test
TAL METAL

TAL METAL

TCL Pest
TCL Pest

TOG
TPHC

Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Parameter Screening Values
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Magnanese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Valnadium
Zinc
ODD
DDE
DDT
Heptachlor epoxide
PCB 1254
PCB 1260
Total Organic Carbon
Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
1000000 ugg
40 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
3 . 0 ugg
80 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
60 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
200 ugg
N/A
7200 ugg
5000 ugg
10 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
0.30 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg

32B-92-05X
BX320501
10/20/92
1.0 ft.
7870
<1.09
17.0
17.5
<0.500
<0.700
288
9.99
3.01
8.33
8900 J
13.0 J
1190
115
<0.050
10.5
294 K
<0.250
<0.589
160
9.59
31.0
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080
1960

32B-92-05X
BX320502
10/20/92
5.0 ft.
4210
<1.09
17.0
15.6
<0.500
<0.700
305
10.7
3.69
10.1
7820 J
7.21 J
1720
149
<0.050
13.9
534
<0.250
<0.589
177
7.20
30.0
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080
126 K

32B-92-05X 32B-92-06X 32B-92-06X 32B-92-06X
BX320503 BX320601 BX320602 BX320603
10/20/92 10/20/92 10/20/92 10/20/92
10.0 ft. 10.0 ft. 5.0 ft. 10.0 ft.
2810
<1.09
10.5
10.4
<0.500
<0.700
216
7.73
2.20
5.02
5520 J
2.65 J
1470
95.9
<0.050
9.04
307 K
<0.250
<0.589
151
4.67
16.5
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080
63.7 B

9280
<1.09
9.46
33.2
<0.500
<0.700
696
18.1
3.28
16.3
8920 J
49.0 J
2020
108
<0.050
12.6
648
<0.250
<0.589
231
12.5
41.0
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080
226 K

5520
<1.09
21.0
25.0
<0.500
<0.700
371
14.3
4.97
11.5
10300 J
11.0 J
2470
254
<0.050
17.2
848
<0.250
<0.589
166
9.58
29.2
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080
251 K

2590
<1.09
11.0 J
12.1
<0.500
<0.700
265
7.55
2.20
4.39
5050 J
2.49 J
1090
84.5
<0.050
8.00
358 K
<0.250 J
<0.589
152
4.47
13.0
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080
63.1 B

Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: BORE
Table 2
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGG
Part 4 of 9

Test
TAL METAL

TAL METAL

TCL Pest

PCL Test

TOG
TPHC

Parameter
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Magnanese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
DDD
DDE
DDT
Heptchlor epoxie
PCB 1254
PCB 1260
Total Organic Carbon
Tot. Petroleum
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
1000000 ugg
40 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
3 . 0 ugg
80 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
60 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
200 ugg
N/A
7200 ugg
5000 ugg
10 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
0.30 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
32B-92-07X
BX320701
10/20/92
1.0 ft.
13500
7.32
23.0
214
1.20
6.51
2640
53.9
7.35
377
34300 J
670 J
7010
330
0.340
58.0
3020
0.824 J
0.815
253
32.0
976
6.60 C
2.70 C
5.60 C
<0.006
<0.082
0.680 C

1360
32B-92-07X
BX320702
10/20/92
5.0 ft.
6030
<1.09
17.0
23.8
0.723
<0.700
507
17.1
4.73
16.2
10500 J
18.0 J
2820
168
<0.050
15.3
954
<0.250
<0.589
220
10.8
38.4
0.050 C
0.064 C
0.110 C
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

193
32B-92-07X
BX320703
10/20/92
10.0 ft.
2980
<1.09
13.0
13.2
<0.500
<0.700
321
8.11
2.61
7.04
5980 J
2.78 J
1550
110
<0.050
10.6
407 K
<0.250
<0.589
155
5.23
18.2
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

<28.4
32B-92-08X 32B-92-08X 32B-92-08X
BX320802 BX320801 BX320802
10/20/92 10/20/92 10/20/92
5.0 ft.
7260
<1.09
15.0
25.1
0.670
<0.700
528
17.6
5.65
13.9
10900
22.0
2830
280 B
<0.050
18.9
805 B
<0.250
<0.589
212
12.1
42.3
<0.008
0.009 C
0.042 JC
0.009 JC
0.360 JC
<0.080

636
1.0 ft.
8490
<1.09
17.0
31.6
0.821
<0.700
568
19.5
3.85
11.6
10600 J
28.0 J
1890
170
<0.050
14.4
523
<0.250
<0.589
207
12.3
46.2
0.010 C
<0.008
0.062 C
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

255
5.0 ft.
6400
<1.09
14.0
25.1
0.555
<0.700
865
13.2
4.30
11.3
9680 J
25.0 J
2260
223
<0.050
14.1
736
<0.250
<0.589
218
11.6
34.0
<0.008
<0.008
0.013 JC
<0.006 J
0.097 JC
<0.080

616
Hydrocarbons
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: BORE
Table 2
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGG
Part 5 of 9

Test
TAL METAL

TAL METAL

TCL Pest

TOG
TPHC

Parameter
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
DDD
DDE
DDT
Heplachlor epoxide
PCB 1254
PCB 1260
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
1000000 ugg
40 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
3 . 0 ugg
80 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
N/A
60 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
200 ugg
N/A
7200 ugg
5000 ugg
10 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
0.30 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
32B-92-08X
BX320803
10/20/92
10.0 ft.
3420
<1.09
37.0
15.3
<0.500
<0.700
253
9.23
3.11
7.41
7190 J
7.75 J
1560
128
<0.050
13.0
505
<0.250
<0.589
187
6.22
24.2
<0.008
<0.008
0.014C
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080
32B-92-09X
BX320901
10/20/92
1.0 ft.
6870
23.0
7.47
24.8
<0.500
<0.700
273
9.22
2.06
22.7
7020 J
540 J
1060
72.3
<0.050
8.35
310 K
<0.250
<0.589
221
8.34
73.9
<0.008
<0.008
0.110 C
<0.006
<0.082
0.341 C
32B-92-09X
BX320902
10/20/92
5.0 ft.
5200
<1.09
18.0
18.9
<0.500
<0.700
441
15.0
4.21
13.8
9580 J
57.0 J
2090
226
<0.050
14.5
679
<0.250
<0.589
173
8.90
44.4
<0.008
<0.008
0.035 C
<0.006
<0.082
0.091 C
32B-92-09X
BX320903
10/20/92
10.0 ft.
2730
<1.09
20.0
14.3
<0.500
<0.700
272
7.47
3.14
8.12
5500 J
42.0 J
1330
142
<0.050
9.57
349
<0.250
<0.589
193
4.81
20.9
<0.008
<0.008
0.010 C
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080 J
32B-92-10X
BX321001
10/20/92
1.0 ft.
7160
<1.09
4.77
22.7
<0.500
<0.700
379
9.53
2.17
12.4
7190 J
16.0 J
1110
96.8
<0.050
8.37
272 K
<0.250
<0.589
211
8.20
186
<0.008
<0.008
0.030 C
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080
32B-92-10X
BX321002
10/20/92
5.0 ft.
5310
<1.09
14.0
23.8
<0.500
<0.700
314
11.2
5.14
12.2
9460 J
8.06 J
2070
304
<0.050
16.8
702
<0.250
<0.589
210
8.23
38.6
<0.008
<0.008
0.041 C
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080
Total Organic Carbon N/A
Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
5000 ugg

138 K

204 K

256

233

120 B

50.0 B

Test
TAL METAL

TAL METAL

TCL Pest

TCL Test

TOG
TPHC

Parameter
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Magnanese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vandium
Zinc
DDD
DDE
DDT
Heptachlor epoxide
PCB 1254
PCB 1260
Total Organic Carbon
Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
1000000 ugg
40 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
3 . 0 ugg
80 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
NA
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
60 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
200 ugg
N/A
7200 ugg
5000 ugg
10 ugg
9.0 ugg
9.0 ugg
0.30 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg

32B-92-10X
BX321003
10/20/92
10.0 ft.
2510
<1.09
13.0
12.0
<0.500
<0.700
267
7.19
2.02
4.87
4380 J
2.90 J
1090
87.3
<0.050
8.37
355 K
<0.250
<0.589
221
4.68
15.2
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

40.1 B

32B-92-11X
BX321101
10/19/92
1.0 ft.
6370
<1.09
28.0
35.8
0.984
<0.700
1480
19.4
7.21
16.5
12600 J
55.0 J
2510
363
<0.050
27.0
813
<0.250
<0.589
224
11.5
39.4
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

1750

32B-92-11X
BX321102
10/19/92
5.0 ft.
10100
<1.09
20.0
48.3
0.693
<0.700
988
39.3
7.24
11.1
13500 J
15.0 J
5450
229
<0.050
24.9
3280
<0.250
<0.589
209
25.0
37.6
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

469

32B-92-11X 32B-92-12X 32B-92-12X
BX321103 BX321201 BX321202
10/19/92 10/20/92 10/20/92
10.0 ft.
5200
<1.09
15.0
24.6
<0.500
<0.700
414
20.5
4.91
11.9
9880 J
5.21 J
2400
208
<0.050
16.8
1100
<0.250
<0.589
178
10.3
26.4
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

48.2 B

1.0 ft.
9280
<1.09
10.4
44.8
0.709
<0.700
1590
21.9
4.39
10.6
11800 J
12.0 J
2940
177
<0.050
15.3
1490
<0.250
<0.589
269
15.5
40.8
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

483

5.0 ft.
7190
<1.09
18.0
34.0
<0.500
<0.700
853
25.3
6.32
15.5
12600 J
18.0 J
3590
236
<0.050
21.8
1190
<0.250
<0589
260
15.3
38.2
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

467

Test
TAL METAL

TAL METAL

TCL Pest

TOG
TPHC

171 K
BX321301
10/20/92
1.0 ft.
8840
<1.09
10.9
34.4
<0.738
<0.700
585
18.6
4.66
18.8
11500 J
19.0 J
2480
203
<0.050
18.2
575
<0.250
<0.589
257
12.9
46.4
0.019 C
0.018 C
0.052 C
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

95.1 B
32B-92-13X
BX321302
10/20/92
5.0 ft.
7060
<1.09
16.0
42.2
<0.500
<0.700
568
20.5
7.57
19.0
11500 J
11.1 J
3470
377
<0.050
24.5
1040
<0.250
<0.589
223
12.7
39.3
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

1100
32B-92-13X
BX321303
10/20/92
10.0 ft.
2350
<1.09
15.0
11.1
<0.500
<0.700
272
5.74
2.35
5.22
4910 J
2.02 J
997
108
<0.050
9.18
261 K
<0.250
<0.589
172
<3.39
13.2
<0.008
<0.008
0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

29.8 B
32B-92-14X
BX321401
10/19/92
1.0 ft.
5140
3.11
19.0
74.2
0.627
2.98
1400
38.4
4.64
53.1
16100 J
110 J
2480
199
0.332
28.1
1030
0.896 J
0.767
240
17.6
219
<0.008
0.039 C
0.110 C
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

247 K
32B-92-14X
BX321402
10/19/92
5.0 ft.
4980
<1.09
9.46
23.4
<0.500
<0.700
477
12.3
3.47
9.43
7380 J
21.0 J
1910
200
<0.050
12.1
666
<0.250
0.621
188
9.14
44.3
<0.008
<0.008
0.014 C
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

158 K
Hydrocarbons
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: BORE
Table 2
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGG
Part
of 9

Test
TAL METAL

TAL METAL

TCL Pest

TOG
TPHC

Parameter
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
DDD
DDE
DDT
Heptachlor epoxide
PCB 1254
PCB 1260
Total Organic Carbon
Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
1000000 ugg
40 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
3 . 0 ugg
80 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
60 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
200 ugg
N/A
7200 ugg
5000 ugg
10 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
0.30 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg

32B-92-14X
BX321403
10/19/92
10.0 ft.
6820
<1.09
19.0
41.5
<0.500
<0.700
597
51.9
5.09
11.4
10700 J
10.9 J
3280
447
<0.050
17.8
1630
<0.250
<0.589
220
14.7
137
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

<28.4

32B-92-15X
BD321501
10/19/92
1.0 ft.
6400
2.96
21.0
97.8
<0.500 J
1.42
1350
19.8
4.93
37.8 J
13200 J
310 J
2110
189 B
0.088
44.4
658 B
<0.250 J
<0589
224
13.9
235
<0.008
0.011 C
0.017 C
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

332

32B-92-15X
BX321501
10/19/92
1.0 ft.
5730
2.49
19.0
88.8
0.726 J
1.77
1880
25.7
6.23
72.3 J
25300 J
130 J
2630
244
0.255
62.5
851
0.421 J
<0.589
315
14.9
224
<0.008
0.009 C
0.013 C
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

442

32B-92-15X
BX321502
10/19/92
5.0 ft.
8030
<1.09
32.0
37.0
<0.500
<0.700
1170
35.2
7.04
17.1
13800 J
23.0 J
4240
284
<0.055
27.3
1820
<0.250
<0.589
223
18.0
50.2
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080

747

32B-92-15X 32M-92-10X
BX321503 MX320101
10/19/92 10/17/92
10.0 ft. 22.0 ft.
4660
<1.09
19.0
19.6
<0.5.00
<0.700
585
15.0
4.01
9.02
8640 J
8.70 J
2500
174
<0.050
18.8
655
<0.250
<0.589
185
9.21
27.7
<0.008
<0.008
<0.007
<0.006
<0.082
<0.080
1160
156 K

TOG
TPHC
Parameter

1000000 ugg
40 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
3. 0 ugg
80 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
60 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
200 ugg
N/A
7200 ugg
5000 ugg
10 ugg
9. 0 ugg
9. 0 ugg
0.30 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
32M-92-02X
MX320201
10/18/92
24.5 ft.
32M-92-03X
MX320301
10/18/92
34.0 ft.
387
722
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 31E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: EXCV
Table 3
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 32 (Waste Oil Tank Area)
Units: UGG
Part 1 of 1
Test
TAL METAL
TAL METAL
TCL Pest

TCL VOA

TPC
Parameter

Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
DDE
DDT
Acetone
Chloroform
Trichlorofluoromethane
Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
1000000 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
3 . 0 ugg
80 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
N/A
7200 ugg
5000 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
3 ugg
0 . 1 ugg
31000 ugg
5000 ugg
32M-92-01X
EX320101
10/29/92

4650
120
20.3
0.994
<0.700
731
7.27
3.79
6.66
7910
23.0
1160
268
8.92
537
0.545
183
5.79
32.2
<0.008
<0.007
<0.017
0.002
<0.006
<28.5
32M-92-02X
EX320201
10/29/92

4140
5.26
13.1
0.725
<0.700
158
5.92
2.35
4.18
4320
76.0
892
71.3
5.2
251
0.354
178
5.02
16.7
<0.008
<0.015 C
0.039
<0.001
0.006
1190
32E-92-03X
EX320301
10/29/92

6470
9.73
31.3
1.13
1.09
1390
12.4
4.18
12.8
8580
1100
1920
246
10.8
965
0.678
183
11.0
325
0.016 C
0.300 C
<0.017
<0.001
0.006
1190
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E. 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: AREA
Table 4
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units UGG
Part 1 of 2
Test
TAL METAL
TAL METAL
TCL BNA
TCL BNA
TCL Pest
TPHC
Parameter

Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Benzo[A]anthracene
Benzo[A]pyrene
Benzo[B]flouranthene
Benzo[G,H,I]perylene
Benzo[K]fluorathene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Heptadecane
Indeno[1.2.3-C,D]pyrene
Pyrene
DDD
DDE
DDT
alpha-Benzenehexachloride
Tot. Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
1000000 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
N/A
7200 ugg
2500 ugg
0.70 ugg
0.70 ugg
0.70 ugg
30 ugg
0.70 ugg
0.70 ugg
600 ugg
N/A
0.70 ugg
500 ugg
3 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
0.45 ugg
2500 ugg
43SA93-01X
SD4301X1
07/14/93

7600
13.0
20.9
1130
24.9
8.02
15.3
12000
100
3070
210
20.0
1030
236
20.8
68.2
<0.330
<0.330
0.380
0.160 J
0.140 J
0.330
0.700

0.190 J
0.580
<0.010
0.016 C
0.070 C
<0.005
<20.0
43SA93-02X
SX4301X1
07/14/93

6700
13.0
17.7
660
18.8
7.53
14.9
11000
56.0
2560
210
18.1
847
<200
17.8
60.8
<0.330
<0.330
0.130 J
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330
0.130 J

0.064 J
0.110 J
<0.010
0.017 C
0.075 C
<0.005
20.3
43SA93-02X
SX4302X1
07/14/93

6000
6.22
19.1
791
13.2
5.57
9.91
7800
23.0
1770
180
11.9
788
<200
11.4
27.5
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330

<0.330
<0.330
<0.008
<0.008
0.006 JC
<0.004
<20.0
43SA93-03X
SX4303X1
07/14/93

6400
4.98
22.0
1930
17.9
6.71
1.05
9700
49.0
2720
180
15.1
1080
<200
14.8
34.5
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330

<0.330
<0.330
<0.002
0.002 C
0.014 C
<0.001
<20.0
43SA93-04X
SX4304X1
07/14/93

4900
8.17
26.0
1240
12.2
5.88
13.7
7800
50.0
1890
150
12.0
634
<200
14.1
51.2
<0.330
<0.330
0.460
<0.330
0.120 J
<0.330
0.500
0.270
0.230 J
0.430
<0.080
0.100 C
0.240 C
<0.040
27.8
43SA93-05X
SX4305X1
07/14/93

6000
7.62
23.3
1700
21.7
7.84
13.5
12000
83.0
3110
220
18.5
970
<200
17.2
74.5
<0.330
<0.330
0.110 J
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330
0.120 J

<0.330
0.110 J
<0.020
0.034 C
0.010 JC
0.011 JU
27.6
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: AREA
Test
TAL METAL
TAL METAL
TCL BNA
TCL BNA

TCL Pest

TPHC
Table 4
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units UGG
Part 2 of 2
Parameter
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Benzo[A]anthracene
Benzo[A]pyrene
Benzo[B]flouranthene
Benzo[G,H,I]perylene
Benzo[K]fluoranthene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Heptadecane
Indeno[1,2,3-C,D]pyrene
Pyrene
DDD
DDE
DDT
alpha-Benzenehexachloride
Tot. Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
1000000 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
N/A
2500 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
N/A
7200 ugg
2500 ugg
0.70 ugg
0.70 ugg
0.70 ugg
30 ugg
0.70 ugg
0.70 ugg
600 ugg
N/A
0.70 ugg
500 ugg
3 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
2 . 0 ugg
0.45 ugg
2500 ugg
43SA93-06X
SX4306X1
07/14/93

6100
6.37
27.5
1790
24.6
7.09
13.1
11000
49.0
3460
190
18.4
1430
221
18.3
73.2
<0.330
<0.330
0.220 J
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330
0.290 J

<0.330
0.280 J
<0.010
0.010 C
0.063 C
0.009 JU
22.5
43SA93-07X
SX4307X1
07/14/93

4400
6.51
19.6
1280
18.1
57.6
11.0
9100
41.0
2650
170
15.5
727
<200
13.6
41.7
<0.330
<0.330
0.084 J
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330

<0.330
0.093 J
<0.008
0.005 JC
0.020 C
<0.004
28.9
43SA93-08X
SX4308X1
07/14/93

5400
6.15
41.1
1500
25.2
6.37
14.6
9200
83.0
2890
180
15.9
1420
<200
18.3
54.2
<0.330
<0.330
0.590
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330
0.600

0.280 J
0.460
<0.040
0.030 JC
0.170 C
<0.020
102
43SA93-09X
SX4303X1
07/14/93

3800
3.75
33.7
1370
18.8
4.20
10.1
6400
70.0
1530
98.0
9.22
661
256
13.7
42.1
2.00
2.00
4.00
2.00J
<2.00
2.00
4.00

2.00
3.00
<0.040
<0.400
0.430 C
<0.200
80.0
43SA93-10X
SX4309X1
07/14/93

5300
210
24.5
2020
17.8
51.3
11.9
7200
49.0
2150
140
11.0
1070
219
12.6
29.2
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330
<0.330
0.110 J

<0.330
0.078
0.003 JC
<0.010 JC
0.026 JC
<0.002
40.7
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: BORE
Table 5
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units UGG
Part 1 of 4
Test
TAL METAL
TAL METAL
TCL BNA
TCL Pest

TCL Pest

TCL VOA
Parameter

Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
1,6-Dimethylindan
2-Methylnapthalene
4,6-Dimethylindan
Hexadecane
Pentadecane
Phenanthrene
DDE
DDT
Heptachlor
alpha-Endosulfan
beta-Benzenehexachloride
delta-BHC
1,2-Dimethylbenzene/ o-
xylen
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
1000000 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
3 . 0 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
N/A
7200 ugg
5000 ugg
N/A
0.70 ugg
N/A
N/A
N/A
700 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
0.70 ugg
0.20 ugg
1 . 6 ugg
N/A
N/A
43BA93-01X
BD430101
07/27/93
20.0 ft.
4000
12.9
12.9
0.241 J
1080
7.09
3.71
5.82
5300
2.07
1170
58.6
9.22
744
166 J
7.02
16.3

<0.330

<0.330
<0.004
<0.004
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.005
43BA93-01X
BX430101
07/27/93
20.0 ft.
4000
14.0
11.6
0.230 J
892
6.67
3.49
5.98
5100
2.53
1140
61.5
8.91
701
142 J
6.32
15.5

<0.330

<0.330
<0.004
<0.004
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002

43BA93-01X
BX430102
07/27/93
25.0 ft.
4900
21.0
18.3
0.281 J
1090
9.51
4.51
6.91
6600
3.03
1620
95.5
9.94
1040
164 J
9.51
29.6

10.0

3.00
<2.00
<0.010
0.010 C
0.012 U
<0.005
0.045 U
<0.005
0.041
43BA93-01X
BX430103
07/27/93
30.0 ft.
5000
27.0
20.3
0.236 J
1290
11.4
5.44
7.09
7000
2.70
1880
116
11.4
926
275
9.70
57.0

2.90 J

0.690
<0.004
<0.004
<0.002
<0.002
0.019 U
<0.002
<0.020
43BA93-02X
BX430201
07/27/93
23.0 ft.
3500
12.0
11.7
0.164 J
787
8.09
4.52
6.65
6900
2.13
1560
110
9.96
601
112 J
7.42
18.4

<0.330

<0.330
<0.002
<0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.005
43BA93-02X
BX430202
07/29/93
28.0 ft.
2800
6.74
12.1
0.141 J
419 J
7.47
3.30
5.94
5100
2.15
1260
50.7
8.07
524
<200
6.05
16.9

<0.330

<0.330
<0.004
<0.004
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.005
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: BORE
Table 5
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units UGG
Part 1 of 4
Test
TPHC
Parameter

1,3-and/or 1,4-
Dimethylbenze
2,3,4-Triimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Carbon Bisulfide
Decane
Methylene chloride
Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values

N/A
43BA93-01X
BD430101
07/27/93
20.0 ft.

<0.005
43BA93-01X
BX430101
07/27/93
20.0 ft.

0.00
43BA93-01X
BX430102
07/27/93
25.0 ft.

0.082
N/A
N/A
1000000 ugg
N/A
0.10 ugg
5000 ugg

0.011 BJ

0.009 B
31.8

0.130 KJ

0.009 BJ
28.0

<0.005
0.710
0.016
21000
43BA93-01X
BX430103
07/27/93
30.0 ft.

<0.020
43BA93-02X
BX430201
07/27/93
23.0 ft.

<0.005
43BA93-02X
BX430202
07/29/93
28.0 ft.

<0.005
<0.020
0.170
<0.050
820
<0.005

0.011 BJ
20.6 J
<0.005

0.006 BJ
152
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: BORE
Table 5
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGG
Part I of 4
Test Parameter

TAL METAL Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
TAIL METAL Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
TCLBNA 1, 6-Dimethylindan
2-Methyinapthalene
4,6-Dimethylindan
Hexadecane
Pentadecane
Phenanthrene
TCL Pest DDE
DDT
TCL Pest Heptachlor
alpha-Endosulfan
beta-Benzenehexachloride
delta-BHC
TCL VOA 1,2-Dimethylbenzenel o-
-xYlen
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
1000000 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
3 . 0 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
N/A
7200 ugg
5000 ugg
N/A
0.70 ugg
N/A
N/A
N/A
700 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
0.70 ugg
0.20 ugg
1 . 6 ugg
N/A
N/A
43BX93-01 X
BD430101
07/27/93
MID ft.
4000
12.9
12.9
0.241 J
1080
7.09
3.71
5.82
5300
2.07
1170
58.6
9.22
744
166 J
7.02
16.3

<0.330

3.00
<0.330
<0.004
<0.004
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.005
43BA93-01 X
BX430101
07/27193
20.0 11.
4000
14.0
11.6
0.230 J
892
6.67
3.49
5.98
5100
2.53
1140
61.5
8.91
701
142 J
6.32
15.5

<0,330

<0.330
<0.004
<0.004
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
0,041
43BA93-OIX
BX430102
07/27/93
25.0 ft.
4900
21.0
18.3
0.281 J
1090
9.51
4.51
6.91
6600
3.03
1620
95.5
9.94
1040
1641
9.51
29.6

10.0

<2.00
<0.010
0.010C
0.012 U
<0.005
0.045 U
<0.005
<0.020
43BA93-OIX
0(430103
07/27/93
30.0 ft.
5000
27.0
20.3
0.236 J
1290
11.4
5.44
7.09
7000
2.70
1880
116
11.4
926
275
9.70
57.0

2.90 j

0.690
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: BORE
Table 5
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGG
Part I of 4
Test
TPHC
Parameter

1,3-and/or 1.4-
Dimethylbenzc
2,3,4-Triimethylpentane
2,4-Difne(hylpentant
Carbon Bisulfide
Decane
Methylene chloride
Tot. Petroleum
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values

N/A

N/A
N/A
1000000 ugg
N/A
0.10 ugg
5000 ugg
43BA93-01 X 43BA93-01 X 43BA93-OIX
BD430101
07127/93
20.0 ft.

<0.005
BX430101
07/27193
20.0 ft.

0.00
BX430102
07/27/93
25.0 ft.

0.082
43BA93-OIX
BX430103
07/27/93
30.0 ft.

<0.020
43BA93-02X
BX430201
07/29/93
23.0 ft.

<0.005
43BA93-02X
BX430202
07/29/93
28.0 ft.

<0.005
0,011 Hi
0.710
0.009 B
31.8
0.130 KI
0.170
OM9 Bi
28.0
<0.005

0.016 B
21000
<0.020

<0.050
820
<0.005

0.011 Bi
20.6 J
<0.005

0.006 BJ
152 ns
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 31E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: BORE
Table 5
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGG
Part 2 of 4
Test Parameter

TAL METAL Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Mangnese
Nickel
TAL METAL Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
TCL BNA 1,6-Dimethylindan
2-Methylnapthalene
4,6-Dimethylindan
Hexadecane
Pentadecane
Phenanthrene
TCL Pest DDE
TCL Pest DDT
TCL Pest Heptachlor
alpha-Endosulfan
beta-Benzenehexachloride
delta-BHC
TCL VOA 1,2-Dimethylbenzene/ o-xylen
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
1000000 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
3 . 0 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
N/A
7200 ugg
5000 ugg
N/A
0.70 ugg
N/A
N/A
N/A
700 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
0.70 ugg
0.20 ugg
1 . 6 ugg
N/A
N/A
43BA93-02X
BX430203
07/29/93
33.0 ft.
3000
8.22
12.2
0.169 J
561 J
8.02
3.30
6.58
5300
2.16
1500
49.2
9.02
444
157 J
7.05
51.1

6.20

2.00
<0.008
<0.008
0.010 U
<0.004
0.040 U
<0.004
<0.020
43BA93-03X
BX430301
07/29/93
23.0 ft.
2900
10.9
12.6
0.176 J
1720
8.76
4.09
7.05
6200
4.53
1380
80.7
10.3
458
109 J
6.08
25.7

<0.330

0.180
0.230
<0.330
0.003 U
0.005 C
<0.001
0.006 U
<0.001
<0.001
<0.005
43BA93-03X
BX430302
07/29/93
28.0 ft.
3600
11.8
22.2
0.209 J
538 J
11.4
3.95
7.95
7300
2.71
2100
60.4
10.9
822
<200
9.60
22.2

<0.330

<0.330
<0.002
<0.002
<0.001
0.003 U
<0.001
<0.001
<0.005
43BA93-03X
BX430303
07/29/93
33.0 ft.
2000
9.36
9.10
0.103 BJ
690
2.88
2.83
4.20
3800
1.68
619 J
37.0
5.39
336
122 J
3.57
16.7
0.270
<0.330
0.210

<0.330
<0.010
<0.010
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
43BA93-04X
BX430401
07/28/93
23.0 ft.
2900
15.0
8.91
0.127 J
319 J
7.66
3.58
5.07
5400
2.13
1460
82.4
9.03
424
<200
5.59
19.5

<0.330

<0.330
<0.004
<0.004
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
43BA93-04X
BX430402
07/28/93
28.0 ft.
2900
11.0
9.83
0.118 J
478 J
8.49
3.33
5.41
5300
1.88
1440
96.0
8.61
390
126 J
5.99
15.1

<0.330

<0.330
<0.004
<0.004
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: BORE
Test Parameter

1,3-and/or 1,4-dimethylbenze
2,3,4-Triimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpenthane
Carbon Bisulfide
TCL VOA Decane
Methylene chloride
TOG Total Organic Carbon
TPHC Tot. Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Table 5
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGG
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
N/A
N/A
N/A
1000000 ugg
N/A
0.10 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
43BA93-02X
BX430203
07/29/93
33.0 ft.
0.150
3.10
1.50
<0.020

0.200 B

2900
43BA93-03X
BX430301
07/29/93
23.0 ft.
<0.005

<0.005

0.007 BJ

46.9
43BA93-03X
BX430302
07/29/93
28.0 ft.
<0.005

<0.005

0.008 BJ

16.8 J
43BA93-03X
BX430303
07/29/93
33.0 ft.
<0.005

0.014B

0.019 B

138
Part 2 of 4
43BA93-04X 43BA93-04X
BX430401 BX430402
07/28/93 07/28/93
23.0 ft. 28.0 ft.
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005 <0.005

<0.010 <0.010

21.3 20.4 J
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: BORE
Table 5
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGG
Part 3 of 4
Test Parameter

TAL METAL Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
TAL METAL Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
TCL BNA 1,6-Dimethylindan
2-Methylnapthalene
4,6-Dimethylindan
Hexadecane
Pentadecane
Phenanthrene
TCL Pest DDE
DDT
TCL Pest Heptachlor
alpha-Endosulfan
beta-Benzenehexachloride
delta-BHC
TCL VOA 1,2-Dimethylbenzene/ o-xylen
1,3-and/or 1,4-Dimethylbenze
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
1000000 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
3 . 0 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
N/A
7200 ugg
5000 ugg
N/A
0.70 ugg
N/A
N/A
N/A
700 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
0.70 ugg
0.20 ugg
1 . 6 ugg
N/A
en N/A
ize N/A
43BA93-04X
BX430403
07/28/93
33.0 ft.
2900
12.1
14.2
0.115 J
<500
8.80
3.83
6.48
5400
2.00
1650
53.2
8.95
453
<200
6.49
16.4

<0.330

<0.330
<0.004
<0.004
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.005
0.008
43BA93-05X
BX430501
07/28/93
23.0 ft.
2700
11.3
8.81
0.122 J
445J
7.05
3.54
5.23
5000
2.27
1320
82.8
8.69
394
97.8 J
5.59
14.2

<0.330

<0.330
<0.004
<0.004
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.005
<0.005
43BA93-05X
BX430502
07/28/93
28.0 ft.
2900
11.0
11.3
0.124 J
2500
8.29
3.48
5.28
5400
2.30
1550
89.1
8.57
407
92.5 J
6.88
15.9

<0.330

<0.330
<0.004
<0.004
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.005
<0.005
43BA93-05X
BX430503
07/28/93
33.0 ft.
3300
10.1
10.1
0.145 J
546 J
9.87
4.25
6.78
7100
2.80
1860
117
11.3
427
<200
7.33
19.9

<0.330

<0.330
<0.004
<0.004
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
0.005 U
<0.005
<0.005
43BA93-06X
BX430601
07/28/93
23.0 ft.
3500
13.0
10.3
0.147 J
448 J
11.2
4.24
7.63
8400
3.04
1630
250
10.9
487
151 J
7.70
17.3

<0.330

<0.330
<0.008
<0.008
<0.004
<0.004
<0.004
<0.004
<0.005
<0.005
43BA93-06X
BX430602
07/28/93
28.0 ft.
3400
12.9
9.58
0.143 J
<500
8.71
4.51
8.22
7600
2.25
1870
150
12.1
404
<200
7.07
15.4

<0.330

<0.330
<0.004
<0.004
<0.002
0.004 U
<0.002
<0.002
<0.005
<0.005
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: BORE
Test Parameter

2,3,4-Triimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Carbon Bisulfide
Decane
Methylene chloride
TOG Total Organic Carbon
TPHC Tot. Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Table 5
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGG
Site ID
43BA93-04X
43BA93-05X
43BA93-05X
43BA93-05X
I Sample ID
lample Date
ling Values
N/A
N/A
1000000 ugg
N/A
0.10 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
BX430403
07/28/93
33.0 ft.
<0.005
<0.010
23.7 J
BX430501
07/28/93
23.0 ft.
<0.005
<0.010
22.8
BX430502
07/28/93
28.0 ft.
<0.005
<0.010
18.0 J
BX430503
07/28/93
33.0 ft.
<0.005
<0.010
<20.0
Part 3 of 4
43BA93-06X 43BA93-06X
BX430601 BX430602
07/28/93 07/28/93
23.0 ft. 28.0 ft.
<0.005 <0.005

<0.010 <0.010

<20.0 16.7 J
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: BORE
Table 5
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGG
Part 4 of 4
Test Parameter

TAL METAL Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
TAL METAL Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
TCL BNA 1,6-Dimethylindan
2-Methylnapthalene
4,6-Dimethylindan
Hexadecane
Pentadecane
Phenanthrene
TCL Pest DDE
DDT
TCL Pest Heptachlor
alpha-endosulfan
beta-Benzenehexachloridfe
delta-BHC
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
43MA93-06X
BX430603
07/28/93
33.0 ft.
1000000 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
3 . 0 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
700 ugg
N/A
N/A
7200 ugg
5000 ugg
N/A
0.70 ugg
N/A
N/A
N/A
700 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
0.70 ugg
0.20 ugg
1 . 6 ugg
N/A
5100
33.0
18.8
0.274 J
838
25.8
6.56
11.8
14000
3.98
3500
340
19.9
701
<200
14.3
26.5

<0.330

<0.330
<0.004
<0.004
<0.002
0.004 UJ
<0.002
<0.002
43MA93-04X
BX4304X1
07/27/93
29.0 ft.
43MA93-06X
BX4306X1
07/28/93
29.0 ft.
43MA93-07X
BX4307X1
07/30/93
24.0 ft.
43MA93-08X
BX4308X1
07/27/93
29.0 ft.
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSO
Site Type: BORE
Table 5
Chemical Summary Report For Subsurface Soils
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGG
Part 4 of 4
Test Parameter

TCL VOA 1,2-Dimethylbenzene/ o-xylen
1,3-and/or 1,4-Dimethylbenze
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Carbon Bisulfide
Decane
Methylene chloride
TOG Total Organic Carbon
TPHC Tot. Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
N/A
N/A
N/A
1000000 ugg
N/A
0.10 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg
43MA93-06X
BX430603
07/28/93
33.0 ft.
<0.005
0.005

<0.005

<0.010

13.3 J
43MA93-04X
BX4304X1
07/27/93
29.0 ft.

10700

43MA93-06X
BX4306X1
07/28/93
29.0 ft.

8880

43MA93-07X
BX4307X1
07/30/93
24.0 ft.

10300

43MA93-08X
BX4308X1
07/27/93
29.0 ft.

12800

Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 6
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and
Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 1 of 7
Test
Parameter
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
32M-92-01X
MX3201X1
11/19/92
32M-92-01X
MX3201X2
03/03/93
32M-92-01X
MX3201X3
06/22/93
32M-92-02X
MX3202X1
11/19/92
32M-92-02X
MX3202X2
03/03/93
32M-92-02X
MX3202X3
06/22/93
EXPLOSIVES 2-Nitrotoluene
TCL BNA 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Ethyl-l-hexanol
2-Methylnapthatene
3-Methylundecane
TCL BNA 6-Aminohexanoic
acid lactam
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Cyclohexene Oxide
Dodecanoic
Acid/Laurie Aci
Decane
Di-n-butyl-phthalate
Hendecane/
Undecane
Hexacosane
Napthalene
Pentacosane
TCL BNA Phenanthrene
Tetradecane
Tridecane
TCL Pest ODD
DDT
PCB1260
N/A
70 ugl
600 ugl
600 ugl
5.0 ugl
N/A
N/A
10 ugl
N/A
N/A

<1.80
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70

<1.70

<1.80
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70

5.00
<1.70

<1.00
<1.00
6. 0 ugl

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
20 ugl
N/A
300 ugl
N/A
N/A
0.10 ugl
0.30 ugl
0.50 ugl
8.50 <4.80

4.00 5.00
<3.70

<0.500

<0.500
<0.023
<0.034
<0.190
<3.70

<0.500

<0.500
<0.023
<0.034
<0.190
<1.80
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70
<4.80
<3.70

<0.500

<0.500
<0.023
<0.034
<0.190
<1.80
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70

<4.80

20.0

<3.70

<0.500

<0.500
<0.023
<0.034
<0.190
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following Values indicate data usability, (see key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 6
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and
Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 1 of 7
TCL VOA 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-
Trifluore
1,2-Dichloroethane
Acetone
Benzene
TCL VOA Chloroform
Dichlorobenzenes
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Total-1,2-
dichloroethene
Trichloroethylene
(TCE)
Xylene
TPHC Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
WQP Hardness
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
200 ugl
N/A
5.0 ugl
3000 ugl
5 . 0 ugl
5.0 ugl
N/A
700 ugl
5 . 0 ugl
1000 ugl
N/A
5.0 ugl
N/A
1000 ugl
32M-92-01X
MX3201X1
11/19/92
0.550

<0.500
<13.0
<0.500
<0.500
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
<0.500
<0.500
<0.500
<0.840
<199
32M-92-01X
MX3201X2
03/03/93
<0.500

0.770
<13.0
<0.500
<0.500
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
<0.500
<05.00
<0.500
<0.840
<193
32M-92-01X 32M-92-02X
MX3201X3 MX3202X1
06/22/93 11/19/92
<0.500

<0.500
<13.0
<0.500
<0.500
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
<0.500
<0.500
2.90
<0.840
<190
32M-92-02X
MX3202X2
03/03/93
<0.500

0.620
<13.0
<0.500
<0.500
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
<0.560
<0.500
<0.500
<0.840
<175
32M-92-02X
MX3202X3
06/22/93

N/A
1600
135000
120000
74800
76000
67000
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability, (see key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 6
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and
Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 2 of 7
Test Parameter

EXPLOSIVES 2-Nitrotoluene
TCL BNA 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Ethyl-l-hexanol
2-Methylnapthalene
3-Methylundecane
TCL BNA 6-Aminohexanoic acid
lactam
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Cyclohexene Oxide
Dodecanio Acid/Laurie
Aci
Decane
Di-n-butyl-phthalate
Hendecane/Undecane
Hexacosane
Napthalene
Pentacosane
Phenanthrene
Tetracosane
TCL Pest Tetradecane
Tridecane
DDD
DDT
PCB1260
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
N/A
: 70 ugl
600 ugl
60 ugl
5 . 0 ugl
N/A
N/A
10 ugl
N/A
N/A
6 . 0 ugl
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20 ugl
N/A
300 ugl
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.10 ugl
0.30 ugl
0.50 ugl
32M-92-03X
MD3203X1
11/19/92

<1.80
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70

<1.70

<4.80

<3.70

<0.500

<0.023
<0.034
<0.190
32M-92-03X 32M-92-03X
MD3203X3 MX3203X1
06/22/93 11/19/92

<1.00
<1.80
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70

<1.70

<4.80

<3.70

<0.500

<0.023
<0.034
<0.190
32M-92-03X 32M-92-03X 32M-92-04X
MF3203X2 MX3203X3 MR3202X2
03/04/93 06/22/93 03/04/93

<1.00
<1.80
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70

<1.70

<4.80

<3.70

<0.500

<0.023
<0.034
<0.190
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability, (see key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 6
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and
Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 2 of 7
Test
Parameter
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
32M-92-03X
MD3203X1
11/19/92
32M-92-03X
MD3203X3
06/22/93
32M-92-03X
MX3203X1
11/19/92
32M-92-03X
MF3203X2
03/04/93
32M-92-03X
MX3203X3
06/22/93
32M-92-04X
MR3202X2
03/04/93
TCL VOA
TCL VOA
TPHC

WQP
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloro- 1,2,2-
Trifluore
1,2-Dichloroethane
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroform
Dichlorobenzenes
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Total-1,2-
dichloroethene
Trichloroethylene
(TCE)
Xylene
Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Hardness
200 ugl
N/A
5 . 0 ugl
3000 ugl
5 . 0 ugl
5.0 ugl
N/A
700 ugl
5 . 0 ugl
1000 ugl
N/A
<0.500

<0.500
52.0
<0.500
0.610
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30 B
0.980
<0.500
<0.500
<0.500
5.0 ugl

N/A
1000 ugl

N/A
<0.500

<0.840
<190

58800
<0.500
51.0
<0.500
0.730
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
0.900
<0.500
<0.500
<0.840
<0.500
<13.0
<0.500
<0.500
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
0.700
<0.500
<0.500
<0.840
44000
<188
49600
57200
47000
<0.500

<0.500
<13.0
<0.500
31.0
<10.0
<0.500
61.0
<0.500
<0.500

<0.500

<0.840

<1000
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability, (see key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 6
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and
Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 3 of 7
Test Parameter

EXPLOSIVES 2-Nitrotoluene

TCL BNA 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Ethyl-l-hexanol
2-Methylnapthalene
3-Methylnapthalene
TCL BNA 6-Aminohexanoic acid
lactam
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Cyclohexene Oxide
Dodecanio Acid/
Laurie Aci
Decane
Di-n-butyl-phthalate
Hendecane/Undecane
Hexacosane
Napthalene
Pentacosane
Phenanthrene
Tetracosane
TCL BNA Tetradecane
Tridecane
TCL Pest DDD
DDT
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
N/A
: 70 ugl
600 ugl
600 ugl
5.0 ugl
N/A
N/A
10 ugl
N/A
N/A
6 . 0 ugl
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20 ugl
N/A
300 ugl
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.10 ugl
0.30 ugl
32M-92-04X
MX3204X1
11/20/92

40.0
6000
1000
600

40.0
100

<20.0

50.0
<20.0

9.00

20.0

500
300
0.385 C
4.00 C
32M-92-04X
MX3204X2
03/04/93

<9.00
200
60.0
40.0

<8.00

40.0

<20.0
100

<2.00

5.00

200

<0.023
<0.034
32M-92-04X 32M-92-05X 32M-92-05X
MX3204X3 MX3205X1 MX3205X2
06/22/93 11/19/92 03/04/93

<1.80
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70

<1.70

<4.80

<3.70

<0.500
7.00
<0.500

<0.023
<0.034
32M-92-05X
MX3205X3
06/22/93

<1.00

Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability, (see key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 6
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and
Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 3 of 7
Test
TCL VOA
TCL BNA

TCL VOA
TPHC

WQP
Parameter

PCB1260
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloro- 1,2,2-
Trifluore
1,2-Dichloroethane
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroform
Dichlorobenzenes
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Total-1,2-dichloroethene
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Xylene
Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Hardness
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
0.50 ugl
200 ugl
N/A
5 . 0 ugl
3000 ugl
5 . 0 ugl
5.0 ugl
N/A
700 ugl
5 . 0 ugl
1000 ugl
me N/A
1) 5.0 ugl
N/A
1000 ugl
32M-92-04X
MX3204X1
11/20/92

6.56 C
60.0

<50.0
<1000
<50.0
<50.0
8000
<50.0
400 B
<50.0
<50.0
<50.0
<80.0
960000
32M-92-04X
MX3204X2
03/04/93

7.60 C
<0.500

1.10
<13.0
<0.500
<0.500
270
<0.500
<2.30
<0.500
<0.500
1.70
<0.840
360000
32M-92-04X 32M-92-05X
MX3204X3 MX3205X1
06/22/93 11/19/92

<0.190
<0.500

<0.500
<13.0
<0.500
1.30
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
3.60
<0.500
<0.500
<0.840

32M-92-05X
MX3205X2
03/04/93

<0.190
1.20

1.80
<13.0
<0.500
<0.500
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
<0.500
<0.500
<0.500
<0.840
504
32M-92-05X
MX3205X3
06/22/93

N/A
16000
18800
17000
17000
74800
100000
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability, (see key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 6
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and
Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 4 of 7
Test
Parameter
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
32M-92-06X
MX3206X1
11/19/92
32M-92-06X
MX3206X2
03/04/93
32M-92-06X
MX3206X3
06/22/93
32M-92-07X
MD3207X2
03/04/93
32M-92-07X
MX3207X1
11/19/92
32M-92-07X
MX3207X2
03/04/93
EXPLOSIVES 2-Nitrotoluene
TCL BNA 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Ethyl-l-hexanol
2-Methylnapthalene
3-Methylundecane
TCL BNA 6-Aminohexanoic acid
lactam
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Cyclohexene Oxide
Dodecanio Acid
Laurie Aci
Decane
Di-n-butyl-phthalate
Hendecane/Undecane
Hexacosane
Napthalene
Pentacosane
Phenanthrene
Tetracosane
TCL BNA Tetradecane
Tridecane
TCL Pest ODD
DDT
PCB1260
N/A
70 ugl
600 ugl
600 ugl
5.0 ugl
N/A
N/A
10 ugl
N/A
N/A
6 . 0 ugl

<1.80
1000
190
120
800

7.60

<4.80

<1.80
700
110
70.0

<1.70

100
<4.80
<1.00 J
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20 ugl
N/A
300 ugl
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.10 ugl
0.30 ugl
0.50 ugl

<3.70

4.50

1.20

<0.023
<0.034
<0.190

3.70

1.60

<0.500

<0.023
<0.034
<0.190
<1.80
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70
<1.80
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70
<1.80
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70

70.0

<4.80
<3.70

<0.500

<0.500
<0.023
<0.034
<0.190
<1.70
<4.80
<3.70

5.00
<0.500
6.00
<0.500
7.00
<0.023
<0.034
<0.190
<1.70

70.0

<4.80
<3.70

<0.500

<0.500
<0.023
<0.034
<0.190
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability, (see key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 6
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and
Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 4 of 7
Test

TCL VOA
TCL VOA
TPHC

WQP
Parameter

1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloro- 1,2,2-
Trifluore
1,2-Dichloroethane
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroform
Dichlorobenzenes
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Total-1,2-
dichloroethene
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Xylene
Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Hardness
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
200 ugl
N/A
5 . 0 ugl
3000 ugl
5.0 ugl
5 . 0 ugl
N/A
700 ugl
5.0 ugl
1000 ugl
N/A
1) 5.0 ugl
N/A
1000 ugl
32M-92-06X
MX3206X1
11/19/92

8.00 K
20.0
<1.00
<30.0
4.00
1.00
2000
4.00
<5.00
<1.00
60.0
200
10.0
18500
32M-92-06X
MX3206X2
03/04/93

5.10

<0.500
<13.0
0.600
<0.500
1400
1.80
<2.30
<0.500
24.0
140
9.40
669
32M-92-06X 32M-92-07X
MX3206X3 MD3207X2
06/22/93 03/04/93

<0.500

<0.500
<13.0
<0.500
<0.500
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
<0.500
<0.500
<0.500
<0.840
<184
32M-92-07X
MX3207X1
11/19/92

0.970

<0.500
<13.0
<0.500
<0.500
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
<0.500
<0.500
<0.500
<0.840
<180
32M-92-07X
MX3207X2
03/04/93

<0.500

<0.500
<13.0
<0.500
<0.500
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
<0.500
<0.500
<0.500
<0.840
<202
N/A
87000
35200
25000
17200
23600
16000
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability, (see key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 6
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and
Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 5 of 7
Test Parameter

EXPLOSIVES 2-Nitrotoluene
TCL BNA 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Ethyl-l-hexanol
2-Methylundecane
3-Methylundecane
6-Aminohexanoic acid
lactam
TCL BNA Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Cyclohexene Oxide
Dodecanio Acid/
Laurie Aci
Decane
Di-n-butyl-phthalate
Hendecane/Undecane
Hexacosane
Napthalene
Pentacosane
Phenanthrene
Tetracosane
Tetradecane
TCL BNA Tridecane
TCL Pest DDD
DDT
PCB1260
Site ID 32M-92-07X
Field Sample ID MX3207X3
Sample Date 06/22/93
Screening
Values
N/A <1.00
: 70 ugl
600 ugl
600 ugl
5 . 0 ugl
N/A
N/A
10 ugl
N/A
N/A
6 . 0 ugl
POL-1
MX3208X1
11/20/92

<1.80
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70

<1.70

60.0
<4.80
POL-1
MX3208X2
03/04/93

<1.80
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70

<1.70

5.00
<4.80
POL-1 POL-3
MX3208X3 MX3210X1
06/21/93 11/20/92

<1.00
<1.80
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70

<1.70

<4 . 80
POL-3
MX3210X2
03/04/93

<1.80
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70

<1.70

20.0
<4 . 80
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20 ugl
N/A
300 ugl
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.10 ugl
0.30 ugl
0.50 ugl
4.00

<0.500

<0.500
<0.023
<0.034
<0.190
<3.70

<0.500

<0.500
<0.023
<0.034
<0.190
<3.70

<0.500

<0.500
<0.023
<0.034
<0.190
<3.70

<0.500

TCL VOA
TCL VOA
TPHC

WQP
Parameter

1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloro- 1,2,2-
Trifluore
1,2-Dichloroethane
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroform
Dichlorobenzenes
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Total-1,2-
dichloroethene
Trichloroethylene
(TCE)
Xylene
Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Hardness
Site ID 32M-92-07X
Field Sample ID MX3207X3
Sample Date 06/22/93
Screening
Values
200 ugl
N/A
5 . 0 ugl
3000 ugl
5.0 ugl
5 . 0 ugl
N/A
700 ugl
5.0 ugl
1000 ugl
N/A
5.0 ugl
N/A
1000 ugl
POL-1
MX3208X1
11/20/92

<0.500

<0.500
<13.0
<0.500
<0.500
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
<0.500
<0.500
0.730
<0.840
<1710
N/A
13000
62600
POL-1
MX3208X2
03/04/93
<0.500
<0.500
<13.0
<0.500
<0.500
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
<0.500
<0.500

<0.500

<0.840
<202

57200
POL-1
MX3208X3
06/21/93
POL-3
MX3210X1
11/20/92
<0.500
67000
19.0

<0.840
<1710

113000
POL-3
MX3210X2
03/04/93
<0.500
<0.500
<13.0
<0.500
0.730
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
<0.500
<0.500
<0.790
<13.0
<0.500
<0.500
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
<0.500
<0.500
17.0

<0.840
<207

126000
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability, (see key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 6
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and
Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 6 of 7
Test
Parameter
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
POL-3
MX3210X3
06/21/93
SHL-15
MX3212X3
07/14/93
SHL-15
MX3212X2
03/04/93
SHL-15
MX3212X2
06/21/93
SHL-15
MX3212X3
07/14/93
SHL-25
MF3211X3
07/14/93
EXPLOSIVES 2-Nitrotoluene N/A
TCL BNA 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 ugl
12-Dichlorobenzene 600 ugl
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 600 ugl
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 5.0 ugl
1-Methylnaphthalene N/A
2-Ethyl-l-hexanol N/A
2-Methylnapthalene 10 ugl
3-Methylundecane N/A
TCL BNA 6-Aminohexanoic acid N/A
lactam
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) 6.0 ugl
phthalate
Cyclohexene Oxide N/A
Dodecanio Acid/ N/A
Lauri Aci
Decane N/A
Di-n-butyl-phthalate N/A
Hendecane/Undecane N/A
Hexacosane N/A
Napthalene 20 ugl
Pentacosane N/A
Phenanthrene 300 ugl
Tetracosane N/A
TCL BNA Tetradecane N/A
Tridecane N/A
TCL Pest ODD 0.10 ugl
DDT 0.30 ugl
PCB1260 0.50 ugl
<1.00
<1.00
<1.80
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70
<4.80
<3.70

<0.500

TCL VOA
TCL VOA
TPHC

WQP
Parameter

1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloro- 1,2,2
Trifluore
1,2-Dichloroethane
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroform
Dichlorobenzenes
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Total-1,2-
dichloroethene
Trichloroethylene
(TCE)
Xylene
Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Hardness
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
200 ugl
N/A
5 . 0 ugl
3000 ugl
5.0 ugl
5 . 0 ugl
N/A
700 ugl
5.0 ugl
1000 ugl
N/A
5.0 ugl
N/A
1000 ugl
POL-3
MX3210X3
06/21/93

SHL-15
MX3212X3
07/14/93
N/A
110000
70000
SHL-15
MX3212X2
03/04/93
<0.500
<0.500
<13.0
<0.500
<0.500
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
<0.500
<0.500

<0.500

<0.840
<202

41200
SHL-15
MX3212X2
06/21/93
SHL-15
MX3212X3
07/14/93
SHL-25
MF3211X3
07/14/93
69000
47000
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability, (see key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 6
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and
Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 1 of 1
Test
Parameter
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date

Screening
Values
SHL-25
MX3211X1
11/20/92
SHL-25
MX3211X2
03/04/93
SHL-25
MX3211X3
06/21/93
SHL-25
MX3211X3
07/14/93
EXPLOSIVES 2-Nitrotoluene N/A

TCL BNA 1,2,4- 70 ugl
Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1-Methylnapthalene
2-Ethyl-l-hexanol
2-Methylnapthalene
3-Methylundecane

TCL BNA 6-Aminohexanoic acid N/A
lactam
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) 6.0 ugl
phthalate
Cyclohexene Oxide N/A
Dodecanoic Acid/ N/A
Lauri Aci
Decane N/A
Di-n-butyl-phthalate N/A
Hendecane/Undecane N/A
Hexacosane N/A
Napthalene 20 ugl
Pentacosane N/A
Phenanthrene 300 ugl
Tetracosane N/A

TCL Pest Tetradecane N/A
Tridecane N/A
ODD 0.10 ugl
DDT 0.30 ugl
3.00 JU
<1.80
<4.80
<3.70

<0.500

<0.500
<0.023
<0.034
<1.80
600 ugl
600 ugl
5 . 0 ugl
N/A
N/A
10 ugl
N/A
<1.70
<1.70
<1.70

<1.70

<1.70
<1.70
<1.70

<1.70

<4.80
<3.70

<0.500

<0.500
<0.023
<0.034
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability, (see key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 6
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and
Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 1 of 1
Test
Parameter
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date

Screening
Values
SHL-25
MX3211X1
11/20/92
SHL-25
MX3211X2
03/04/93
SHL-25
MX3211X3
06/21/93
SHL-25
MX3211X3
07/14/93
TCL VOA
TCL VOA
TPHC
WQP
PCB1260

1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloro-
1,2,2-Trifluore
1,2-Dichloroethane
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroform
Dichlorobenzenes

Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Total-1,2-
dichloroethene
Trichloroethylene
(TCE)
Xylene

Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons

Hardness
0.50 ugl
200 ugl
N/A
5 . 0 ugl
3000 ugl
5 . 0 ugl
5.0 ugl
N/A
700 ugl
5.0 ugl
1000 ugl
N/A
5.0 ugl
N/A
1000 ugl
<0.190
<0.500
<0.500
<13.0
<0.500
<0.500
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
0.520
<0.500
1.10
<0.840
<1710
<0.190
<0.500
<0.500
<13.0
<0.500
<0.500
<10.0
<0.500
<2.30
<0.500
<0.500
<0.500
<0.840
<188
N/A
33000
32000
46000
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability, (see key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 7
Chemical Summary Report For Metals in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 1 of 9
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
32M-92-01X
MF3201X3
06/22/93
32M-92-01X
MX3201X1
11/19/92
32M-92-01X
MX3201X2
03/03/93
32M-92-01X
MX3201X3
06/22/93
32M-92-02X
MF3202X3
06/22/93
32M-92-02X
MX3202X1
11/19/92
Test
TAL METAL
TAL METAL
Parameter

<25.0
3.42
16.9
<5.00
40300
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
84.0
<5.00
4390
7000
<10.0
6780
3.71
14400
<10.0
<20.0

475
3.94
19.0
<5.00
42600
<6.02
<25.0
<8.09
1270
2.71
4370
6450
<34.3
6360
<4.60
10300
<11.0
<21.1

2680 J
23.6
32.3
<5.00
48300
<6.02
<25.0
<8.09
4210
2.49
5490
7930
<34.3
8250
<4.60
13100
<11.0
<21.1

330 J
6.12
19.6
<5.00
41000
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
744
<5.00
4480
7100
<10.0
6160
3.43
14800
<10.0
72.0 BJ

35.8
<2.00
36.4
<5.00
24200
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<25.0
<5.00
3110
28.6
12.8
1680
<2.00
9350
<10.0
31.5

11500
44.1
95.4
<5.00
24900
15.9
<25.0
15.6 B
14800
12.5
4980
756
56.0
5510
<4.60
10400
15.4
74.8
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 7
Chemical Summary Report For Metals in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 2 of 9
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
32M-92-02X
MX3202X2
03/03/93
32M-92-02X
MX3202X3
06/22/93
32M-92-03X
MD3203X1
11/19/92
32M-92-03X
MD3203X3
06/22/93
32M-92-03X
MF3203D3
06/22/93
32M-92-03X
MF3203X2
03/04/93
Test
TAL METAL
TAL METAL
Parameter

1900 J
5.54
51.3
<5.00
30000
<6.02
<25.0
<8.09
2330
4.23
3590
139
<34.3
2290 B
<4.60
10500
<11.0
46.2

121 J
<2.00
31.3
<5.00
22100
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
137
<5.00
2930
29.7
<10.0
2200
<2.00
10200
<10.0
16.7 BJ

9740
26.9
61.7
<5.00
17800
16.0
<25.0
12.8 B
13900
21.3
3170
1310
<34.3
6330
<4.60
33000
18.5
48.0

11000
9.64
32.7
<5.00
14300
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
3800
5.06
2020
929
<10.0
2640
<2.00
23300
<10.0
72.9 B

54.4
<2.00
20.0
<5.00
15900
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<25.0
>5.00
1870
894
<10.0
2350
<2.00
24400
<10.0
<20.0

<141
2.98
9.35
<5.00
15900
<6.02
<25.0
<8.09
239 B
<1.26
1730
1880
<34.3
3210
<4.60
32400
<11.0
<21.1
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 7
Chemical Summary Report For Metals in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 3 of 9
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
32M-92-02X
MX3202X2
06/22/93
32M-92-02X
MX3202X3
11/19/92
32M-92-03X
MD3203X1
03/04/93
32M-92-03X
MD3203X3
06/22/93
32M-92-03X
MF3203D3
06/22/93
32M-92-03X
MF3203X2
11/20/92
Test
TAL METAL
TAL METAL
Parameter

52.0
<2.00
19.5
<5.00
16000
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<25.0
<5.00
3110
899
<10.0
2290
<2.00
24800
<10.0
<20.0

8440
<22.0
54.3
<5.00
17700
15.5
<25.0
11.9 B
12800
13.3
3000
1260
<34.3
5800
<4.60
34000
15.6
43.6

17600 J
48.6
112
<5.00
21100
35.7
35.5
37.0
24900
20.4
4910
2470
<34.3
8880
<4.60
33500
30.4
96.0

2100 J
6.79
34.7
0.338 J
15000
7.36 J
<10.0
6.29 J
3400
5.37
2190
1000
11.2
3070
<2.00
26800
3.05 J
30.2 BJ

<25.0
<2.00
<10.0
<5.00
4970
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
67.3
<5.00
<500
11.9 K
<10.0
<1000
<2.00
<2000
<10.0
<20.0 K

971
3.62
18.1
<5.00
5330
<6.02
<25.0
<8.09
746
30.2
516
561
<34.3
1330
<4.60
1620
<11.0
<21.1
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 7
Chemical Summary Report For Metals in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 4 of 9
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
32M-92-04X
MX3204X2
03/04/93
32M-92-04X
MX3204X3
06/22/93
32M-92-05X
MF3205X3
06/22/93
32M-92-05X
MX3205X2
03/04/93
32M-92-05X
MX3205X3
06/22/93
32M-92-06X
MF3206X3
06/22/93
Test
TAL METAL
TAL METAL
Parameter

203 J
<2.54
18.8
<5.00
6450
<6.02
<25.0
9.44
141 B
9.98
639
141
<34.3
988
<4.60
1940
<11.0
<21.1

391 J
3.32
31.4
<5.00
5680
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
368
21.4
552
216
<10.0
<1000
<2.00
2020
<10.0
37.8 BJ

35.9
<2.00
21.2
<5.00
39300
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
30.2
<5.00
1550
11.1
<10.0
2300
<2.00
3830
<10.0
256

1030 J
<2.54
18.1
<5.00
27800
<6.02
<25.0
<9.99
1350
10.4
1170
177
<34.3
2510
<4.60
3670
<11.0
200

1900 J
3.55
35.4
<5.00
38300
<10.0
<10.0
10.9
3800
6.74
1880
580
<10.0
3010
<2.00
4660
<10.0
302 BJ

<25.0
55.8
25.4
<5.00
8480
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
2800
<5.00
1070
3600
<10.0
2830
<2.00
4030
<10.0
<20.0
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 7
Chemical Summary Report For Metals in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 5 of 9
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
32M-92-06X
MX3206X1
11/19/92
32M-92-06X
MX3206X2
03/04/93
32M-92-06X
MX3206X3
06/22/93
32M-92-07X
MD3207X2
03/04/93
32M-92-07X
MF3207X3
06/22/93
32M-92-07X
MX3207X1
11/19/92
Test
TAL METAL
TAL METAL
Parameter

3410
96.6
44.3
<5.00
30900
32.7
<25.0
<8.09
5190
13.8
2060
2360
<34.3
21200
<4.60
7570
<11.0
<21.1

1500 J
790
30.0
<5.00
10600
20.6
<25.0
10.3
13500
4.66
1240
3640
<34.3
4820
<4.60
4720
<11.0
24.9

1100 J
130
30.1
<5.00
8080
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
6000
7.34
1230
3700
<10.0
3150
<2.00
3970
<10.0
88.3 BJ

545 J
3.30
5.89
<5.00
5610
<6.02
<25.0
<8.09
583
<1.26
668
23.2 B
<34.3
1750
<4.60
3530
<11.0
21.1

<25.0
<2.00
<10.0
<5.00
4700
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
26.3
<5.00
507
7.23
<10.0
<1000
<2.00
3000
<10.0
<20.0

3300
22.6
29.2
<5.00
6880
<6.02
<25.0
<8.09
4170
4.99
1280
201
<34.3
3290
<4.60
3560
<11.0
<21.1
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 7
Chemical Summary Report For Metals in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 6 of 9
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
32M-92-07X
MX3207X2
03/04/93
32M-92-07X
MX3207X3
06/22/93
POL-1
MF3208X2
03/04/93
POL-1
MF3208X3
06/21/93
POL-1
MX3208X1
11/20/92
POL-1
MX3208X2
03/04/93
Test
TAL METAL
TAL METAL
Parameter

683 J
4.16
7.53
<5.00
5650
<6.02
<25.0
<8.09
687
<1.26
664
31.5
<34.3
925
<4.60
3700
<11.0
<21.1

588 J
6.53
<10.0
<5.00
4350
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
863
<5.00
618
27.7
<10.0
<1000
<2.00
2970
<10.0
43.0 BJ

392
<2.54
<5.00
<5.00
12800
<6.02
<25.0
<8.09
547
<1.26
824
16.4 B
<34.3
1870
<4.60
6450
<11.0
<21.1

<25.0
<2.00
<10.0
<5.00
10900
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<25.0
<5.00
660
<5.00
<10.0
1070
<2.00
5920
<10.0
30.2

70900
650
256
<5.00
25700
114
44.3
107
90200
160
17400
2430
111
17400
<4.60
10400
85.8
329

60600 J
920
281
<5.00
22400
99.0
41.0
92.7
73500
120
14400
2260
92.9
18400
<4.60
8120
69.6
300
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 7
Chemical Summary Report For Metals in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 7 of 9
Test
TAL METAL
TAL METAL
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
POL-1
MX3208X3
06/21/93
POL-3
MF3210X1
11/20/92
POL-3
MF3210X3
06/21/93
POL-3
MX3210X1
11/20/92
POL-3
MX3210X2
03/04/93
POL-3
MX3210X3
06/21/93
Parameter

31000 J
390
112
<5.00
15400
45.6
24.7
53.0
37000
54.7
6880
998
38.5
6170
<2.00
6620
36.3 J
247 BJ

<141
<2.54
15.6
<5.00
22200
<6.02
<25.0
<8.09
<38.8
1.95
2660
3.99
<34.3
1840
<4.60
11700
<11.0
<21.1

<25.0
<2.00
17.7
<5.00
17700
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<25.0
<5.00
2080
<5.00
>10.0
1220
<2.00
10600
<10.0
39.4

116000
68.4
623
<5.00
45900
169
81.8
116
213000
180
34300
5760
144
37100
<4.60
15100
176
738

175000 J
370
954
12.8
59600
241
107
158
273000
230
46700
8100
206
62500
<4.60
16900
254
935

31000 J
98.6
211
<5.00
23000
52.1
35.0
50.5
59000
70.5
12000
1600
53.9
10900
<2.00
11700
57.2 J
320 BJ
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 7
Chemical Summary Report For Metals in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part
of 9
Test
TAL METAL
TAL METAL
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
SHL-15
MF3212X2
06/21/93
Parameter

Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Screening
Values
50 ugl
50 ugl
2000 ugl
4 . 0 ugl
N/A
100 ugl
N/A
1000 ugl
300 ugl
15 ugl
N/A
50 ugl
100 ugl
N/A
40 ugl
N/A
N/A
2000 ugl
SHL-15
MF3212X3
07/14/93
SHL-15
MX3212X2
03/04/93
SHL-15
MX3212X3
07/14/93
57.4
2.21
46.4
<5.00
22800
<10.0
10.7
<10.0
<25.0
<5.00
3200
7700
10.8
3470
<2.00
10000
<10.0
22.5
5340 J
91.0
61.7
<5.00
14100
6.78
<25.0
<8.09
7770
10.7
2330
1010
<34.3
6120
<4.60
6560
<11.0
62.6
1400 J
36.6
53.2
<5.00
22000
<10.0
12.7
<10.0
2000
6.56
3360
7400
14.7
3910
<2.00
9880
<10.0
118 BJ
SHL-25
MF3211X3
06/21/93
SHL-25
MF3211X3
07/14/93
<25.0
<2.00
<10.0
<5.00
16900
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<25.0
<5.00
1120
<5.00
<10.0
1870

<2.00
15800
<10.0
<20.0
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 7
Chemical Summary Report For Metals in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 9 of 9
Test
TAL METAL
TAL METAL
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
SHL-25
MX3211X1
11/20/92
SHL-25
MX3211X2
03/04/93
SHL-25
MX3211X3
07/14/93
Parameter Screening
Values
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
50 ugl
50 ugl
2000 ugl
4 . 0 ugl
N/A
100 ugl
N/A
1000 ugl
300 ugl
15 ugl
N/A
50 ugl
100 ugl
N/A
40 ugl
N/A
N/A
2000 ugl
5200
17.6
27.6
<5.00
12200
12.5
<25.0
<8.09
6200
3.58
2290
107
<34.3
4170
<4.60
12900
<12.7
<21.1
531 J
3.09
4.67
<5.00
11800
<6.02
<25.0
<8.09
578
1.26
943
11.8
<34.3
1920
<4.60
10500
11.0
<21.1
299 J
2.98
<10.0
<5.00
16500
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
336
<5.00
1200
8.09
<10.0
1910
<2.00
15600
<10.0
<20.0
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 8
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGL
Part 1 of 4
Test Parameter

EXPLOSIVES 1, 3, 5-Trinitrobenzene
1, 3-Nitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-DNT
2-Amino-4,6-
dinitrotoluene
2-Nitrotoluene
3-Nitrotoluene
4-Amino-2, 6-
dinitrotoluene
4-Nitrotoluene
Cyclonite (RDX)
Cyclotetramethylenetetr
amine
EXPLOSIVES Nitrobenzene
Nitroglycerine
PETN
TCL BNA 1-Methylnaphthalene
13DNAP
2-Methylnapthakene
25DMPA
4.4'-Butylidenebis[2-
(1,1-dime
6-Aminohexanoic acid
lactam
Acenapthene
TCL BNA Di-n-butyl-phthalate
Napthalene
PAH
Phenanthrene
Tetradecane
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
ne N/A
1.0 ugl
30 ugl
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.0 ugl
tr 400 ugl
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10 ugl
N/A
2- N/A
43MA93.04X 43MA93-04X
MX4304X1 MX4304X2
08/20/93 11/12/93

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00 J
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<10.0 R

<10.0

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00 UJ
<1.00
2.29 U
<1.00
<1.00
<10.0
<10.0

<10.0

43MA93-05X
MD4305X2
11/12/93

<1.00 UJ
12.0 C
2.56 U
<1.00
1.07 U
<1.00
2.40 CJ
<1.00
<1.00
0.310 JC
<1.00 UJ
1.97 U
<10.0
<10.0

<120.0 K

43MA93-05X
MX4303X1
08/20/93

<1.00
7.66 C
<1.00 C
0.772 JC
1.81 C
1.52 C
5.91 C
<1.00
<1.00
1.20 C
2.84 JU
5.42 JU
<10.0 R
<10.0 R

<10.0

43MA93-05X
MX4305X2
11/12/93

<1.00 UJ
8.97 C
<1.00
<1.00
1.39 U
<1.00
5.04 CJ
<1.00
<1.00
0.638 JC
<1.00 UJ
1.99 U
<10.0
<10.0

<10.0

24.0
43MA93-06X
MX4306X1
08/20/93

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00 J
<1.00
<1.00
<10.0 R
<10.0 R

<10.0

N/A
20 ugl
N/A
20 ugl
N/A
300 ugl
N/A
<10.0

<10.0

<12.0 K

<10.0

Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 8
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGL
Part 1 of 4
Test

TCL Pest
TCL VOA
TCL VOA
TPHC

WQP
Parameter

Aldrin
DDT
alpha-
Benzenehexachloride
alpha-Endosulfan
delta-BHC
1,2-Dimetylbenzene
o-xyle
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-and/or 1,4-
Dimethylbenze
123TMB
Acetone
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
(TCE)
Xylene
Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Chloride
Hardness
Nitrate
Sulfate
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
N/A
0.30 ugl
N/A
0.40 ugl
N/A
N/A
5.0 ugl
N/A
N/A
3000 ugl
5.0 ugl
5.0 ugl
5.0 ugl
N/A
1000 ugl
250000 ugl
N/A
10000 ugl
250000 ugl
43MA93-04X
MX4304X1
08/20/93

<0.020 R
<0.040
<0.020
<0237
<0.020
<5.00
<5.00
<10.0

<10.0
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00

1050J
24000
40000
4000
40000
43MA93-04X
MX4304X2
11/12/93

<0.020
<0.040
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<5.00
<5.00
<10.0

<10.0
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00

1250 J
11000
140000
3100
110000
43MA93-05X
MD4305X2
11/12/93

0.420 J
5.00 UJ
18.0 UJ
<0.100
2.60 J
<5.00
<5.00
<10.0

<10.0
<5.00
4.00 B
<5.00

1070 J
600000
56000
3300
34000
43MA93-05X
MX4305X1
08/20/93

<1.00 R
7.50 U
20.0 U
<1.00
3.30 J
<5.00
<5.00
<10.0

23.0
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00

742 J
800000
92000
1500
27000
43MA93-05X
MX4305X2
11/12/93

0.300 J
3.60 UJ
13.0 UJ
0.120
2.00 J
<5.00
<5.00
<10.0

<10.0
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00

438 J
600000
54000
3400
34000
43MA93-06X
MX4306X1
08/20/93

<0.250 R
<0.040
<0.020
<0. 180
<0.020
<5.00
<5.00
<10.0

<10.0
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00

<2000
68000
81000
2500
51000
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 8
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGL
Part 2 of 4
Test Parameter
EXPLOSIVES 1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
1, 3-Nitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-DNT
2-Amino-4, 6-
dinitrotoluene
2-Nitrotoluene
3-Nitrotoluene
4-Amino-2, 6-
dinitrotoluene
4-Nitrotoluene
Cyclonite (RDX)
Cyclotetramethylenete
tramine
Nitrobenzene
EXPLOSIVES Nitroglycerine
PETN
TCL BNA 1-Methylnaphthalene
13DNAP
2-Methylnapthalene
25DMPA
4.4'-Butylidenebis[2-
(1,1-dime
6-Aminohexanoic acid
lactam
Acenapthene
Di-n-butyl-phthalate
Napthalene
TCL BNA PAH
Phenanthrene
Tetradecane
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values

N/A
1.0 ugl
30 ugl
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
2.0 ugl
400 ugl

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10 ugl
N/A
N/A

N/A
43MA93-06X
MX4306X2
11/11/93
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<10
<10
00
00 J
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
.0
.0
43MA93-07X 43MA93-07X 43MA93-08X 43MA93-08X
MX4307X1 MX4307X2 MD4308X1 MX4308X1
08/20/93
<1.
<1
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<10
<10
00
.00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
OOJ
00
00
.0 R
.0 R
11/12/93
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
0.
<1
<1
<1
<1
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
241 B
.00
.00
.00
.00
<10.0
<10.0
08/20/93
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<10
<10
00 J
00 J
00
00
00
00
00
.00
00
00
00
00 J
.0 R
.0 R
08/20/93
<1
<1
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1
.00 J
.00 J
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
.00 J
<10.0 R
<10.0 R
43MA93-08X
MX4308X2
11/12/93
<1.00
0.201
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<10.0
<10.0
J
B

<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
20 ugl
N/A
20 ugl
N/A
300 ugl
N/A
<10.0

<10.0

<10.0
<10.0 <10.0

<10.0 <10.0

<10.0 <10.0
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 8
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGL
Part 2 of 4
Test

TCL Pest
TCL VOA
TCL VOA
TPHC

WQP
Parameter

Aldrin
DDT
alpha-
Benzenehexachloride
alpha-Endosulfan
delta-BHC
1,2-Dimethylbenzene/
o-xyle
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-and/or 1,4-
Dimethylbenze
123TMB
Acetone
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
(TCE)
Xylene
Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Chloride
Hardness
Nitrate
Sulfate
Site ID
Field Sample
Sample Date
Screening
Values
N/A
0.30 ugl
N/A
0.40 ugl
N/A
N/A
5.0 ugl
N/A
N/A
3000 ugl
5.0 ugl
5.0 ugl
5.0 ugl
N/A
1000 ugl
250000 ugl
N/A
10000 ugl
250000 ugl
43MA93-06X
ID MX4306X2
11/11/93

<0.024 K
<0.049 K
<0.024 K
<0.024 K
<0.024 K
<5.00
<5.00
<10.0

<10.0
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00

678 J
81000
110000
2450
14000
43MA93-07X
MX4307X1
08/20/93

<0.020 R
<0.040
<0.020
<0.063
<0.020
<5.00
<5.00
<10.0

<10.0
5.00
<5.00
<5.00

<2000
36000
72000
2600
22000
43MA93-07X
MX4307X2
11/12/93

<0.020
<0.040
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<5.00
<5.00
<10.0

<10.0
<5.00
3.00 B
<5.00

187 J
48000
120000
1300
30000
43MA93-08X
MD4308X1
08/20/93

<0.020 R
<0.040
<0.020
<0.135
<0.020
<5.00
<5.00
<10.0

<10.0
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00

295

58000
1100 J

43MA9308X
MX4308X1
08/20/93

<0.020 R
<0.040
<0.020
<0.106
<0.020
<5.00
<5.00
<10.0

<10.0
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00

<2000
37000
57000
1080 J
43000
43MA93-08X
MX4308X2
11/12/93

<0.020
<0.040
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<5.00
<5.00
<10.0

<10.0
<5.00
4.40 B
<5.00

333 J
20000
67000
1400
43000
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 8
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGL
Part 3 of 4
Test
EXPLOSIVES
EXPLOSIVES
TCL BNA
TCL BNA
Parameter
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
N/A
1,3,5-
Trinitrobenzene
1,3-Nitrobenzene 1.0 ugl
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 30 ugl
2,6-DNT N/A
2-Amino-4,6- N/A
dinitrotoluene
2-Nitrotoluene N/A
3-Nitrotoluene N/A
4-Amino-2,6- N/A
dinitrotoluene
4-Nitrotoluene N/A
Cyclonite (RDX) 2.0 ugl
Cyclotetrta- 400 ugl
ethylenetramine
Nitrobenzene N/A
Nitroglycerine N/A
PETN N/A
1-
Methylnaphthalene
13DNAP N/A
2-Methylnapthalene 10 ugl
25DMPA N/A
4,4'- N/A
Butylidenebis[2-
(1,1-dime
6-Aminohexanoic N/A
acid lactam
Acenapthene 20 ugl
Di-n-butyl- N/A
phthalate
7.40
43MA93-10X POL-1 POL-1 POL-1
MX4310X2 MX3208X1 MX3208X2 MX3208X3
11/12/93 11/20/92 03/04/93 06/21/93
2.18 C <1.00

1.00 BC <1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
.70 U
.60 J
1.57 C

<1.00
2.81 C
3.96 C

1.13 C
<1.00 J
<1.00

<1.00
11.4 U
16.3 U
17.0
30.0
<10.0
60.0

<1.70
4.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00

<1.00
<1.70
5.00

<1.70
<3.70
<1.00
<1.00

<1.00
<10.0
<10.0
<1.70
POL-2 POL-2
MX3209X1 MX3209X2
11/20/92 03/04/93
30.0
34.0
2.10
<3.70
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 8
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGL
Part 3 of 4
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
43MA93-10X
MX4310X2
11/12/93
POL-1
MX3208X1
11/20/92
POL-1
MX3208X2
03/04/93
POL-1
MX3208X3
06/21/93
POL-2
MX3209X1
11/20/92
POL-2
MX3209X2
03/04/93
Test
TCL Pest
TCL VOA
TCL VOA
TPHC

WQP

WQP
Parameter

Napthalene
PAH
Phenanthrene
Tetradecane
Aldrin
DDT
alpha-
Benzenehexachlori
de
alpha-Endosulfan
delta-BHC
1,2-
Dimethylbenzene/
o-xyle
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-and/or 1,4-
Dimethylbenze
123TMB
Acetone
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
(TCE)
Xylene
Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Chloride
Hardness
Nitrate
Sulfate
Screening
Values
20 ugl
N/A
300 ugl
N/A
N/A
0.30 ugl
N/A
0.40 ugl
N/A
N/A
5.0 ugl
N/A
N/A
3000 ugl
5.0 ugl
5.0 ugl
5.0 ugl
N/A
1000 ugl
250000 ugl
N/A
10000 ugl
250000 ugl

7.70 J
9.20
6.30 J
71.0
<0.100
<0.200
<0.400
0.130 <0.023
<0.400
9.10
<5.00 <0.500
13.0
26.0
<10.0 <13.0
<5.00 <0.500
<5.00 <2.30
<5.00 0.730
<0.840
7820 <1710
26000
71000 62600
355
30000

<0.500

<0.092
<0.034
<0.039
<0.023
<0.029

<0.500

<13.0
<0.500
<2.30
<0.500
<0.840
<202

57200

<0.500

<0.092
<0.034
<0.039

<0.029

<0.023
<0.500
67000
3.20

1.30

<0.092
<0.034
<0.039
<0.029
<0.500
<13.0
<0.500
<2.30
<0.500
1.30
301
<13.0
<0.500
<2.30
<0.500
13.0

57800
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 8
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGL
Part 4 of 4
Test
Parameter
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
POL-2
MX3209X3
06/21/93
POL-3
MX3210X1
11/20/92
POL-3
MX3210X2
03/04/93
POL3
MX3210X3
06/21/93
EXPLOSIVES 1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
1,3-Nitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-DNT
2-Amino-4, 6-
dinitrotoluene
2-Nitrololuene
3-Nitrotoluene
4-Amino-2, 6-
dinitrotoluene
4-Nitrotoluene
Cyclonite (RDX)
Cyclotetramenthylenetet
ramine
Nitrobenzene
EXPLOSIVES Nitroglycerine
PETN
TCL BNA 1-Methylnaphthalene
13DNAP
2-Methylnaphthalene
25DMPA
4,4'-Butylidenebis[2-
(1,1-dime
6-Aminohexanoic acid
latem
Acenapthene
Di-n-butyl-phthalate
Napthalene
TCL BNA PAH
Phenanthrene
Tetradecane
N/A
1.0 ugl
30 ugl
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.0 ugl
400 ugl
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10 ugl
N/A
N/A
3.04 LC
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00 LUJ
<1.00
0.600 JC
1.91 C
1.38 C
0.673 JC
<1.00
1.81 JU
<10.0
<10.0

N/A

20 ugl
N/A
20 ugl
N/A
300 ugl
N/A
<70
<1.70
<3.70
<0.500

<0.500
<1.00
<10.0
<10.0
<1.70
20.0

<1.70
<3.70
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00

<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<0.500

<0.500
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 8
Chemical Summary Report For Organics and Water Quality Parameters in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGL
Part 4 of 4
Test
Parameter
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date

Screening
Values
POL-2
MX3209X3
06/21/93
POL-3
MX3210X1
11/20/92
POL-3
MX3210X2
03/04/93
POL-3
MX3210X3
06/21/93
TCL Pest
TCL VOA
TCL VOA
TPHC

WQP
Aldrin N/A
DDT 0.30 ugl
alpha- N/A
Benzenehexachloride
delta-BHC N/A
1,2-Dimethylbenzene/ N/A
o-xyle
1,2-Dichloroethane 5.0 ugl
1,3-and/or 1,4- N/A
Dimethylbenze
123TMB N/A
Acetone 3000 ugl
Chloroform 5.0 ugl
Methylene chloride 5.0 ugl
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 5.0 ugl
Xylene N/A
Tot. Petroleum 1000 ugl
Hydrocarbons
Chloride 250000 ugl
Hardness N/A
Nitrate 10000 ugl
Sulfate 250000 ugl
61000
<0.092
<0.034
<0.039

<0.029
<0.500
<13.0
0.730
<2.30
19.0
<0.840
<1710
113000
<0.092
<0.034
<0.039

<0.029
0.790
<13.0
<0.500
<2.30

<0.840
<207
17.0
126000
110000
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 9
Chemical Summary Report For Metals in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGL
Part 1 of 7
Test
TAL METAL
TAL METAL
Parameter

Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values

50 ugl
6. 0 ugl
50 ugl
2000 ugl
4.0 ugl
5 .0 ugl
N/A
100 ugl
N/A
1000 ugl
300 ugl
15 ugl
N/A
50 ugl
100 ugl
N/A
50 ugl
40 ugl
N/A
2.0 ugl
NA
2000 ugl
43MA93-04X
MF4304X1
08/20/93
104 B
<5.00
<2.00
21.2
<5.00
<5.00
12900
4.96 BJ
5.75 J
<10.0
23.0 J
<5.00
1700
596
<10.0
4690
<2.00
<2.00
19000
<2.00
<10.0
7.97 BJ
43MA93-04X
MF4304X2
11/12/93
178
<5.00
1.35 J
30.1
<5.00
<5.00
40000
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
14.4 J
<5.00
10100
513
<10.0
4090
<2.00
<2.00
14200
<2.00
<10.0
1.21 B
43MA93-04X
MX4304X1
08/20/93
2220
<5.00
30.2
25.7
<5.00
<5.00
12200
4.85 J
4.50 J
4.31 BJ
2960
3.60 J
2220
659
9.29 J
5110
1.67 KJ
<2.00
20600
<2.00
<10.0
21.1 B
43MA93-04X
MX4304X2
11/12/93
3970
<5.00
62.3
41.6
0.441 J
<5.00
37500
6.80 J
4.05 J
4.06 J
5340
4.78 J
10400
559
14.3
4190
<2.00
<2.00
12100
<2.00
6.37 J
30.7 B
43MA93-05X
MD4305F2
11/12/93
49.3
<5.00
6.39
33.4
<5.00
<5.00
19100
4.89 J
<10.0
<10.0
39.1
<5.00
1500
19.9
<10.0
7680
<2.00
<2.00
410000
<2.00
<10.0
190
43MA93-05X
MD4305X2
11/12/93
122
<5.00
6.00
35.8
<5.00
<5.00
19800
4.73 J
<10.0
<10.0
114
<5.00
1570
21.5
<10.0
7640
<2.00
<2.00
420000
<2.00
<10.0
200
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 9
Chemical Summary Report For Metals in Groundwater
Area or Contamination: 43A
Units: UGL
Part 2 of 7
Test
TAL METAL
TAL METAL

Parameter
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
50 ugl
6 . 0 ugl
50 ugl
2000 ugl
4 . 0 ugl
5.0 ugl
N/A
(total) 100 ugl
N/A
1000 ugl
300 ugl
15 ugl
N/A
50 ugl
100 ugl
N/A
50 ugl
40 ugl
N/A
2.0 ugl
N/A
2000 ugl
43MA93-05X
MF4305X1
08/20/93

69.9 B
<5.00
20.5
18.7
<5.00
<5.00
33600
27.9
<10.0
1.70 J
<25.0
<5.00
2870
3.99 BJ
<10.0
29200
<2.00
<2.00
270000
1.01J
<10.0
6.01 BJ
43MA93-05X
MF4305X2
11/12/93

92.3
<5.00
63.9
33.7
<5.00
<5.00
19600
4.63 J
<10.0
<10.0
100
<5.00
1540
21.3
<10.0
7740
<2.00
4.02
420000
<2.00
<10.0
196
43MA93-05X
MX4305X1
08/20/93

149
<5.00
41.0
19.5
<5.00
<5.00
32100
27.9
<10.0
4.10 BJ
202
<5.00
2870
9.93
<10.0
31300
<2.00
<2.00
310000
<2.00
<10.0
22. 6B
43MA93-05X
MX4305X2
11/12/93

80.6
<5.00
5.57
33.8
<5.00
<5.00
19000
3.24 J
<10.0
<10.0
87.6
3.63 J
1490
19.8
<10.0
7910
<2.00
<2.00
420000
<2.00
<10.0
191
43MA93-06X
MF4306X1
08/20/93

141 B
<5.00
<2.00
64.1
0.125 J
<5.00
15600
<10.0
4.20 J
<10.0
<25.0
<5.00
2500
205
<10.0
3320
<2.00
<2.00
38900
<2.00
<10.0
4.17 BJ
43MA93-06X
MF4306X2
11/11/93

446
<5.00
0.960 J
81.0
0.311 J
<5.00
19900
<10.0
<10.0
3.54 J
19.4 J
2.32 J
2280
145
<10.0
2620
<2.00
<2.00
49400
<2.00
<10.0
9.99 B
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 9
Chemical Summary Report For Metals in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGL
Part 3 of 7
Test
Parameter
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening
Values
43MA93-06X 43MA93-06X 43MA93-07X 43MA93-07X 43MA93-07X 43MA93-07X
MX4306X1 MX4306X2 MF4307X1 MF43072X MX4307X1 MX4307X2
08/20/93 11/11/93 08/20/93 11/12/93 08/20/93 11/12/93
TAL METAL Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
TAL METAL Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
50 ugl
6.0 ugl

2000 ugl
4 . 0 ugl
5.0 ugl
N/A
100 ugl
N/A
1000 ugl
300 ugl
15 ugl
N/A
50 ugl
100 ugl
N/A
50 ugl
40 ugl
N/A
2.0 ugl
N/A
2000 ugl
22000
5.67

186
1.60 J
<5.00
17800
49.6
51.6
68.1
44000
98.8
8880
2200
82.5
6560
<2.00
<2.00
41400
<2.00
37.4
118
23000
4.08 J

217
1.96 J
4.56 B
23600
64.7
54.0
85.3
53000
59.4
11200
1900
92.6
6440
<2.00
<2.00
51500
<2.00
53.6
357
22.7 BJ
<5.00

32.6
<5.00
<5.00
16000
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
418
<5.00
1490
96.2
<10.0
2140
<2.00
<2.00
27200
<2.00
<10.0
5.70 Bj
31.5
5.00

63.5
<5.00
<5.00
34300
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
396
<5.00
2860
107
<10.0
2080
<2.00
<2.00
25900
<2.00
<10.0
8.74 B
18000
3.44 J

210
1.12 J
<5.00
17100
49.1
21.9
640
47000
61.5
7090
691
71.3
4850
<2.00
<2.00
31700
<2.00
34.2
82.9
19000
<5.00

160
1.41 J
<5.00
31000
47.0
27.6
71.3
49000
43.9
9550
705
78.7
4340
<2.00
<2.00
22600
<2.00
42.0
96.2
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 9
Chemical Summary Report For Metals in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGL
Part 4 of 7

Test Parameter
TAL METAL Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
TAL METAL Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
50 ugl
6 . 0 ugl
50 ugl
2000 ugl
4 . 0 ugl
5.0 ugl
N/A
100 ugl
N/A
1000 ugl
300 ugl
15 ugl
N/A
50 ugl
100 ugl
N/A
50 ugl
40 ugl
N/A
2.0 ugl
N/A
2000 ugl
43MA93-08X
MD4308F1
08/20/93

34.6 B
<5.00
<2.00
31.4
<5.00
<5.00
19400
<10.0
4.92 J
<10.0
18.3 J
<5.00
2180
25.1
9.82 J
2050
<2.00
<2.00
8800
<2.00
<10.0
10.88
43MA93-08X
MD4308X1
08/20/93

1850
<5.00
14.7
50.2
<5.00
<5.00
18600
7.21 J
<10.0
5.39 B
3210
7.66
2660
103
11.1
2820
<2.00
<2.00
9820
<2.00
<10.0
44.9 B
43MA93-08X
MF4308X1
08/20/93

86.2
<5.00
<2.00
30.6
<5.00
<5.00
19600
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
24.5 J
<5.00
2180
25.8
<10.0
2200
<2.00
<2.00
8880
<2.00
<10.0
10.5 BJ
43MA93-08X
MF4308X2
11/12/93

38.6
<5.00
<2.00
32.7
<5.00
<5.00
22000
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
24.4 J
<5.00
2620
19.1
9.58 J
1330
<2.00
<2.00
12400
<2.00
<10.0
11.0 B
43MA93-08X
MX4308X1
08/20/93

1760
<5.00
15.4
50.1
<5.00
<5.00
18400
5.37 J
<10.0
4.40 BJ
3250
7.24
2640
105
14.4
2710
<2.00
<2.00
9660
<2.00
<10.0
24.2 B
43MA93-08X
MX4308X2
11/12/93

2800
<5.00
23.1
54.8
<5.00
<5.00
21300
6.44 J
2.65 J
5.50 J
4900
11.1
3270
123
15.5
873 J
<2.00
<2.00
12600
<2.00
5.24 J
33.2 B
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 9
Chemical Summary Report For Metals in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGL
Page 5 of 7

Test Parameter
TAL METAL Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
TAL METAL Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
50 ugl
6.0 ugl
50 ugl
2000 ugl
4 . 0 ugl
5.0 ugl
N/A
100 ugl
N/A
1000 ugl
300 ugl
15 ugl
N/A
50 ugl
100 ugl
N/A
50 ugl
40 ugl
N/A
2.0 ugl
N/A
2000 ugl
43MA93-10X
MF4310X2
11/12/93

28.1
<5.00
15.1
27.2
<5.00
<5.00
23100
<10.0
9.84 J
<10.0
1560
4.05 J
2990
887
10.2
1910
<2.00
<2.00
17800
<2.00
<10.0
15.3 B
43MA93-10X
MX4310X2
11/12/93

113
<5.00
16.8
27.9
<5.00
<5.00
23400
<10.0
9.67 J
<10.0
1650
9.47
2960
859
13.7
1740
<2.00
<2.00
16400
<2.00
<10.0
13.2 B
POL-1
MF3208X2
03/04/93

392
<3.03
<2.54
5.00
<5.00
<4.01
12800
<6.02
<25.0
<8.09
547
<1.26
824
16.4 B
<34.3
1870
<3.02
<4.60
6540
<6.99
<11.0
<21.1
POL-1
MF3208X3
06/21/93

<25.0
<5.00
<2.00
<10.0
<5.00
<5.00
10900
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<25.0
<5.00
660
<5.00
<10.0
1070
<2.00
<2.00
5920
<2.00
<10.0
30.2
POL-1
MX3208X1
11/20/92

70900
<3.03
650
256
<5.00
<4.01
25700
114
44.3
107
90200
160
17400
2430
111
17400
3.02
<4.60
10400
<6.99
85.8
329
POL-1
MX3208X2
03/04/93

60600J
<3.03
920
281
<5.00
<4.01
22400
99.0
41.0
92.7
73500
120
14400
2260
92.9
18400
<3.02
<4.60
8120
<6.99
69.6
300
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 9
Chemical Summary Report For Metals in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGL
Part 6 of 7

Test Parameter
TAL METAL Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
TAL METAL Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
50 ugl
6.0 ugl
50 ugl
2000 ugl
4 . 0 ugl
5.0 ugl
N/A
100 ugl
N/A
1000 ugl
300 ugl
15 ugl
N/A
50 ugl
100 ugl
N/A
50 ugl
40 ugl
N/A
2.0 ugl
N/A
2000 ugl
POL-1
MX3208X3
06/21/93

31000 J
<5.00
390
112
<5.00
<5.00
15400
45.6
24.7
53.0
37000
54.7
6880
998
38.5
6170
<2.00
<2.00
6620
<2.00
36.3 J
247 BJ
POL-2
MF3209X3
06/21/93

<25.0
<5.00
<2.00
11.2
<5.00
<5.00
18200
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<25.0
<5.00
2880
511
<10.0
1640
<2.00
<2.00
15700
<2.00
<10.0
<20.0
POL-2
MX3209X2
03/04/93

11700 J
3.03
120
41.7
<5.00
<4.01
19100
36.2
<25.0
18.9
15000
16.1
4850
502
<34.3
2960
<3.02
<4.60
15100
<6.99
13.6
34.8
POL-2
MX3209X3
06/21/93

3500
<5.00
23.3
26.1
<5.00
<5.00
17900
11.2
<10.0
10.4
5900
8.59
3870
632
<10.0
1870
<2.00
<2.00
15300
<2.00
<10.0
91.3 B
POL-3
MF3210XI
11/20/92

<141
<3.03
<2.54
15.6
<5.00
<5.00
22200
<6.02
<25.0
<8.09
<38.8
1.95
2660
3.99
<34.3
1840
<3.02
<4.60
11700
<6.9
<11.0
<21.1
POL-3
MF3210X3
06/21/93

25.0
<5.00
<2.00
17.7
<5.00
<5.00
17700
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<25.0
<5.00
2080
<5.00
<10.0
1220
<2.00
<2.00
10600
<2.00
<10.0
39.4
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CGW
Site Type: WELL
Table 9
Chemical Summary Report For Metals in Groundwater
Area of Contamination: 43A
Units: UGL
Part 1 of 1

116000
<3.03
68.4
623
<5.00
<4.01
45900
169
81.8
116
213000
180
34300
5760
144
37100
<3.02
<4.60
15100
<6.99
176
738
POL-3
MX3210X2
03/04/93

175000 J
<3.03
370
954
12.8
<4.01
59600
241
107
158
273000
230
46700
8100
206
62500
<3.02
<4.60
16900
<6.99
254
935
POL-3
MX3210X3
06/2/93

31000 J
<5.00
98.6
211
5.00
<5.00
23000
52.1
35.0
50.5
59000
70.5
12000
1600
53.9
10900
<2.00
<2.00
11700
<2.00
57.2 J
320 BJ
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CBX
Site Type: ASPH
Table 10
Chemical Summary Report For Asphalt Cores
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGG
Part 1 of 3
Test
TCL Pest
Parameter
DDE
DDT
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
2.0 ugg
2.0 ugg
2.0 ugg
2.0 ugg
2.0 ugg
32C-92-01X
CX3201X1
10/19/92
<0.008
0.008 C
<0.082
<0.082
<0.080
32C-92-02X
CX3202X1
10/19/92
<0.008
<0.007
<0.082
<0.082
<0.080
32C-92-03X
CX3203X1
10/19/92
<0.008
<0.007
<0.082
<0.082
<0.080
32C-92-04X
CD3204X1
10/20/92
<0.008
<0.007
<0.082
0.253 C
<0.080
32C-92-04X
CX3204X1
10/20/92
<0.008
<0.007
<0.082
0.191 C
<0.080
32C-92-05X
CX3205X1
10/20/92
<0.008
<0.007
<0.082
0.500 C
<0.080
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CBX
Site Type: ASPH
Table 10
Chemical Summary Report For Asphalt Cores
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGG
Part 2 of 3
Site ID 32C-92-06X 32C-92-07X 32C-92-08X 32C-92-09X 32C-92-10X 32C-92-11X
Test
TCL Pest
Parameter
DDE
DDT
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
2.0 ugg
2.0 ugg
2.0 ugg
2.0 ugg
2.0 ugg
CX3206X1
10/19/92
<0.008
<0.007
<0.082
0.239 C
<0.080
CX3207X1
10/20/92
<0.008
<0.007
<0.082
5.50 C
<0.080
CX3208X1
10/20/92
0.110 C
0.620 C
<0.082
9.30 C
0.038 C
CX3209X1
10/20/92
0.048 C
0.130 C
<0.082
2.60 C
<0.080
CX3210X1
10/20/92
0.077 C
0.270 C
<0.082
4.60 C
<0.080
CX3211X1
10/20/92
0.029 C
0.290 C
0.145 C
<0.082
<0.080
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E. 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CBX
Site Type: ASPH
Table 10
Chemical Summary Report For Asphalt Cores
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGG
Part 3 of 3
Site ID 32C-92-12X 32C-92-13X 32C-92-14X 32c-92-15X
Test
TCL Pest
Parameter
DDE
DDT
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
2.0 uqg
2.0 ugg
2.0 ugg
2.0 ugg
2.0 ugg
CX3212X1
10/20/92
0.020 C
0.069 C
<0.082
0.800 C
<0.080
CX3213X1
10/20/92
0.017 C
0.078 C
0.730 C
<0.082
<0.080
CX3214X1
10/19/92
0.012 C
0.019 C
<0.082
0.231 C
<0.080
CX3215X1
10/19/92
0.010C
0.026 C
0.388 C
<0.082
0.177 C
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E. 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type: CSW
Site Type: POND
Table 11
Chemical Summary Report For Surface Water
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 1 of 1

Test Parameter
TAL METAL Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
WQP Alkalinity
Chloride
Hardness
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl
Method
Nitrogen,
N03/N02
Phosphate
Total suspended
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
N/A
14 ugl
0.018 ugl
N/A
N/A
N/A
12 ugl
N/A
3.2 ugl
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
110 ugl
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A
32C-92-01X
WD3201X1

805 J
5.18
2.77 J
26.7 J
14.0
5180
28.0
1500 J
49.1 J
1060
94.5 BJ
2620 B
3180
258
17000
3970
16000
524

620

88.1
25000 K
32D-92-01X
WX3201X1

255 J
6.43
<2.54 J
12.3 J
16.2
4730
25.3
566 J
33.1 J
877
58.8 J
2500 B
2910
267
14000
2990
16000
562

620

87.1
29000 K
solids
Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
File Type; CSE
Site Type: POND
Table 12
Chemical Summary Report For Sediments
Area of Contamination: 32
Units: UGL
Part 1 of 1

Test
TAL
METAL

TAL
METAL

TCL Pest

TOG
TPHC

Parameter
Aluminum

Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium

Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
DDD
DDT
Lindane
PCB 1254
Total Organic Carbon
Tot. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Site ID
Field Sample ID
Sample Date
Screening Values
1000000 ugg

40 ugg
30 ugg
72000 ugg
80 ugg
N/A
5000 U99
N/A
38000 ugg
N/A
500 ugg
N/A
5100 ugg
60 ugg
700 ugg
N/A

200 ugg
N/A
7200 ugg
5000 ugg
10 ugg
9 . 0 ugg
N/A
2 . 0 ugg
N/A
5000 ugg

32C-92-01X
DD3201X1
10/20/92

4120

<1.09
9.12
29.7
2.66
986 J
9.15
3.84
10.7
11200
55.0
2060
160
<0.050
14.3
500

<0.589
231
10.3
85.1
<0.008
0.030 C
<0.006
0.306 C
2550 J
3000

32D-92-01X
DX3201X1
10/20/92

3820

<1.09
11.3
22.6
3.33
2600 J
12.9
5.02
13.5
11100
69.0
2800
215
<0.050
19.3
407

<0.589
210
16.9
73.0
0.011 C
0.028 C
<0.006
0.250 C
9240 J
2380

32D-92-02X
DX3202X1
10/20/92

6380

2.85
18.0
72.4
17.1
2040
32.6
7.19
41.3
14700
220
3010
344
0.182
47.4
1140

0.874
323
26.3
389
<0.083
0.360 C
<0.006
4.90 C
36800 J
2690

32D-93-03X
DX3203X1
06/22/93

12000

1.91
25.2
32.2
8.97
1360
30.8
10.0
57.6
16000
119
3380
152
<0.100
107
654

<0.200
<200
20.4
350

212000
169

32D-93-03X 32D-93-04X
6X3203X1 DX3204X1
07/14/93 06/22/93

4800

<0.500
12.3
12.5
3.33
<500
11.6
5.24
10.5
6500
22.0
1320
86.7
<0.100
25.2
313

<0.200
<200
8.19
71.6
<0.010
<0.010
0.021 JC
<0.100
42400
161

32D-93-04X
DX3204X1
07/14/93

0.011 JC
<0.010
<0.005
<0.100

Source: USAEC IRDMIS Level 3/E & E, 1994 - Codes following values indicate data usability. (See key above)
-------
Parameters
Table 13
Chemical Summary Report of Air Sampling Results For
Metals and PM 10
Area of Contamination: 32
(Ig/m 3)
AX3201P1
AX3202P1
AX3203P1
AB3200P1*
Silver
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Mercury
Potassium
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Selenium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
PM 10
<0.064
5.87
<0.0044
<0.14
13.12
<0.082
<0.0086
0.089
0.0096
0.40
<0.018
2.29
<1.53
0.019
4.06
0.020
<0.015
<0.10
<0.0047
<0.015
<0.025
0.11
NA
<0.056
5.99
<0.044
<0.13
14.62
<0.071
<0.0079
0.089
<0.0051
0.40
<0.016
2.18
<1.84
0.027
5.17
0.015
0.0059
<0.10
0.0026
<0.14
<0.023
0.095
10.0
* Blank values are in lg/filter.
Source: Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1994.
<0.055
6.13
<0.044
<0.13
13.33
<0.060
<0.0078
0.091
0.0022
0.38
<0.015
62
42
0.012
7.80
0.012
0.0072
<0.11
<0.0045
<0.014
<0.024
0.96
11.5
<0.40
40.23
<0.034
<1.00
102.92
<0.55
<0.061
0.80
0.016
3.22
<0.12
14.52
12.34
0.092
44.74
0.13
0.064
<0.87
<0.032
<0.11
<0.18
0.64
Table 14
Chemical Summary Report For Air Sampling Results For
PCB/Pes ticides
Area of Contamination: 32
(ng/m3)
Parameters

alpha-BHC
PCB-1248
AX3201B1
(9/23/92)

<0.30
<6.2
AX3202B1
(9/23/92)

<0.30
<6.2
AX3203B1
(9/23/92)

0.59
8.9
* Analytical results for blank samples are in Ig/PUF

Source: Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1994
AD3203B1*
(9/23/92)

0.37
10.4
AB3200B1*
(9/23/92)

<0.12
<2.5
METHOD
BLANK*

<0.12
<2.5
-------
Table 15
Summary of Estimated Excess Cancer Risks
Associated with AOC 32
Pathway Case
Exposure Scenarios Potentially Complete
Current Worker, Soil RME 9.2 x 10 -5
Receptor
Adult
Under Current
Adolescent
Site Conditions
Average 1.8 x 10 -5
Current Trespasser,Soil RME 7.9 x 10 -6
1.9 x 10 -6
3.7 x 10 -7
Average 1.6 x 10 -6
Exposure Scenarios Potentially Complete Under Possible Future Site Conditions
Soil and Air:
Future Construction RME 1.7 x 10 -5
Worker,Soil
Average 2.1 x 10 -6
Future Site Worker,
Outdoor Soil

Future Site Worker,
Indoor Air Exposure

Groundwater:
Future Site Worker,
Unfiltered
Groundwater, DRMO
Yards
Future Site Worker,
Filtered Groundwater,
DRMO Yards
Future Site Worker
Filtered Groundwater,
DRMO Yards
Future Site Worker,
Unfiltered
Groundwater,
UST Area
RME

Average
RME

Average

RME

Average

RME

Average
RME

Average
1.3 x 10 -4

1.3 x 10 -5
8.8 x 10 -7

1.7 x 10 -7

6.0 x 10 -3

1.2 x 10 -3

5.7 x 10 -5

4.7 x 10 -5
2.0 x 10 -5

9.8 x 10 -6
5.2 x 10 -3

5.1 x 10 -4
Risk Contributions
by Exposure Route 2

Soil ingestion-26%
Dermal contact-72%
Vapor inhalation-2%
Soil ingestion-28%
Dermal contact-72%
Vapor inhalation-
-------
Table 17
Summary of Estimated Excess Cancer Risks Associated with AOC 43A
Receptor
Pathway Case Adult Adolescent
Exposure Scenarios Potentially Complete Under Current Site Conditions
Current Worker, Soil RME 2.1 x 10 -5
Average
Current Trespasser, Soil RME
2.8 x 10 -6
9.7 x 10 -6 2.3 x 10 -6
1.3 x 10 -6
Average 3.2 x 10 -7
Exposure Scenarios Potentially Complete Under Possible Future Site Conditions
Soil:
RME
Future Construction
Worker, Soil

Future Worker, Soil
Average
RME
Average
Groundwater:
Future Worker, Unfiltered RME
Groundwater
Average
Future Worker, Filtered RME
Groundwater
Average
2.2 x 10 -5
3.0 x 10 -6

1.0 x 10 -4
1.4 x 10 -5
1.9 x 10 -4

4.1 x 10 -5
3.3 x 10 -6

2.4 x 10 -6
a. RME case for the receptor showing the greatest risk.

Source: Ecology and Environment, Inc. 1994.
Risk Contributions
by Exposure Route 2

Ingestion-99%
Dermal contact-21%

Ingestion-81%
Ingestion-36%
Dermal contact-3%
Inhalation-11%
Ingestion-79%
Dermal contact-21%
Ingestion-lOOt
Ingestion-100%
Risk Contributions
by Chemical 2

Arsenic-85%
Carcinogenic PAHs-15%

Arsenic-84%
Arsenic-83%
Carcinogenic PAHs-17%

Arsenic-85%
Carcinogenic PAHs-15%
Beryllium->99?
Beryllium-5 6%
Trichloreothene-22%
Cyclonite-14%
1,2-Dichloroethane-E
-------
Table 18
Summary of Estimated Excess Cancer Risks Associated with AOC 32
Receptor
Pathway Case Adult Adolescent b
Exposure Scenarios Potentially Complete Under Current Site Conditions
Current Worker, Soil RME 0.97
Current Trespasser, Soil
Average
RME
0.017
0.038
Average 0.006
Exposure Scenarios Potentially Complete Under Possible Future Site Conditions
Soil:
Future Construction Worker, Soil b RME
0.046

0.008
Future Site Worker, Soil
Average

RME

Average

RME
Groundwater:
Future Site Worker, Unfiltered
Groundwater
Average
Future Site Worker, Filtered Groundwater RME

Average
4.7

0.75

0.50

0.086

3.9
2.7

0.81
Risk Contributions
by Exposure Route 2

Ingestion-70%
Dermal contact-26%

Ingestion-78%
Dermal contact-22%
Ingestion-93%
Dermal contact-5%
Inhalation-2%

Ingestion-73%
Dermal contact-27%
Ingestion-100%
Ingestion-100%
a RME case for receptor showing the greatest risk.
b Hazard indices for adolescent trespassers and future construction workers were calculated using subchronic RfDs.
Risk Contributions
by Chemical 2
Arsenic-4.1
Manganese-16
Lead c-3

Manganese-1.2
-------
Table 19
Chemicals of Potential Concern
AOC 32 - DEMO Yard
Chemical
Surface
Water
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony X
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium X
Calcium
Chronium
Cobalt
Copper X
Iron
Lead X
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc X
Pesticides
Aldrin
y-Chlordane
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDT
Dieldrin
a-Endosulfan
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Lindane
PCB's
PCB-1016
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
Semivolatile Organics
1,2, 4-Trichlorobenzene
1, 2-Dichlorobenzene
1, 3-Dichlorobenzene
1, 4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methylnahthalene
Chrysene
Dibenzofuran
Flouranthene
Flourene
Sediment Asphalt
E
X
X
X
E
X
X
E
X
E

X
X
E
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
Subsurface
Soil
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

Subsurface
Soil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Groundwater
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Table 20
Chemicals of Potential Concern
AOC 43A - POL Storage Area

Chemical Surface Soil Subsurface Soil Groundwater
BBDMMFP a X
Benzo(k)flouranthene X
Benzo(ghi)perylene X
Chrysene X
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene X
Flouranthene X
Phenathrene X X
Pyrene X
Volatile Organics
Acetone X
Clrorophorm X
Trichloroethene X
Carbon disulfide X
1,2-Dichloroethane X
Xylene X X
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane X
2,4-Dimethylpentane X
Decane X
Tetrachloroethane X
Other Organics
Caprolactam X
Total petroleum hydrocarbons X XX
EPH,NPH X XX

Note: Groundwater COPC selection is based on unfiltered groundwater data.
a. 4,4 1 Butylindenebis[2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-5-phenol]

Source: Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1994
-------
Analytes
ARARs
TSCA
Surface
Soil
Subsurface
Soil
Ig/g(a) Ig/g(a)
Arsenic
Lead
DDD
DDE
DDT
Table 21
Main Post Soil Cleanup Goal Determination
TBCs
Reg. Ill RCRA
RBC Action Levels
Commercial/ (Residential)
Industrial
Levels
Ig/g(b)
3.3

24
17
17
Ig/g(c)
80

3
2
2
EPA Interim
Cleanup
level
Superfund
Sites

Ig/g(d)

400
Fort Devens
Background
Level
(Maximum)
Ig/g(e)
19
0.26
0.12
Human Health
Risk
Assessment
Levels
Concentrations
Corresponding
to 10 5 risk or
Hl=l

Ig/g(f,g)
24(f)
426(g)
Candid
ate
Cleanup
Goal
Ig/g(h)
24
426
3
2
2
Maximum Observed
Concentration
Cleanup Goal
Surface
Soil
210
2260
0.018
0.4
2.9
Subsurface
Soil
Surface Subsurface
Soil Soil
37
980
6.6
2.7
5.6
ig/g
24
426
ig/g
24
426
3
2
2
Key:
(a) Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) (15USC 2601) - The surface cleanup criteria is 1,000 Ig/kg and the subsurface soil cleanup criterion is 10,000 Ig/kg.
(b) EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table (USEPA 1995 January - June) values for commercial/industrial soil.
(c) Calculated RCRA CMS Action Level as outlined in 55FR30798: 27 July 1990, corresponding to a hazard index of 0.2 in compliance with MDEP for residential soil.
(d) EPA Interim Guidance on Soil Lead Cleanup Levels at Superfund Sites, EPA 1991, OSWER Directive 9355.4-02a, 29 August 1991.
(e) Background levels for soil derived from data compiled by E&E; (see Appendix K of the RI Report for Functional Area II (E&E 1994a) for background data rationale).
(f) Concentration corresponds to a cancer risk of 10 5.
(g) Concentration corresponds to a hazard index of 1.
(h) Candidate cleanup was chosen as follows: Values calculated from site-specific risk assessment, or ARARs, if available. If neither of these two values were available, the
lowest value of the remaining TBCs was selected. If background concentration was higher than the selected value, the background concentration was used as the candidate
cleanup goal.
(i) Maximum observed concentration based on RI surface soil data collected from DRMO and POL Storage Area.
(j) Maximum observed concentration based on RI soil boring data collected from DRMO and POL Storage Area.
(k) Proposed standard.
-------
Table 22
Main Post Groundwater Cleanup Goal Determination
Analytes
lug/L
(a)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Iron
Manganese
Sodium
Thallium
Benzene
Total 1.2
Dichloroethene
Trichloroethylene
(TCE)
alpha-
Benzenehexachloride
DDT
PCB1260
1, 3-Dinitrobenzene
1,3,5-
Trichlorobenzene
Bis(2- 6
ethylhexyl)phthalate
ARARs

SDWA MMCL SDWA
MCL MCLG

Ig/L Ig/L Ig/L
(b) (c) (d)
50(2)
50(3) 50
300(2)
50(2)
28000(4)
2 0.5
550

550
_
Le
0.5
0.5 0.5 0

TBCs

MA SDWA EPA Epa Region III
SMCL SMCL Drinking Tap Water
Water HAs Risk-Based
Concentrations
Ig/L Ig/L Ig/L Ig/L
(e) (f) (g) (h)
50/200 50/200 37000
0.02 0.038
300 300
50 50 180
20000
0.4 0.4
1 0.36
55
1.6
0.011
0.28
0.0087
1 3.7
1.8
Human Health
Risk
Assessment
Levels
MA Fort Devens Concentrations
ORSG Background Corresponding
to 10 5 risk or
HI=I
Ig/L Ig/L Ig/L
(i) (j) (k)
390
3.4 1.6 (j)
320
3500 500(k)
28000 10000
2

26(k)

0.39(j)

Candidate
Cleanup
Goal

Ig/L
(D
390
50
320
3500
28000
0.5
5
55
5
0.011
0.5
0.5
1
1.8
Maximum
Observed
Concentration

Ig/L
(m)
446
56
2800
7700
420000
1
4
60
200
20
7.5
7.6
12.0
3.04
Cleanup
Goal

Ig/L
(n)
390
50
320
3500
28000
0.5
5
55
5
0.011
0.5
0.5
1
1.8
6(4)
40
-------
Analytes
ARARs
Table 22
Main Post Groundwater Cleanup Goal Determination

TBCs
SDWA
MCL
1, 2-Dichlorobenzene 600
1, 3-Dichlorobenzene
1, 4-Dichlorobenzene 75
MMCL SDWA MA SDWA
MCLG SMCL SMCL
600

75
EPA Epa Region III
Drinking Tap Water
Water HAs Risk-Based
Concentrations
600 270
600 540
75 0.44
MA
ORSG
Fort Devens
Background
Human Health
Risk
Assessment
Levels
Concentrations
Corresponding
to 10 5 risk or
HI=I
12 (k)
Candidate Maximum
Cleanup Observed
Goal Concentration
Cleanup
Goal
600
600
75
600
1000
600
600
600
75
Key:
(a) EPA Drinking Water Regulations (USEPA 1991c), MCLs. 40 CFR 143.
(b) Massachusetts Drinking Water Standards and Guidelines (Massachusetts 1992) 310 CMR 22.
(c) Maximum Contaminant Level Goal. Note: MCLGs of zero are not considered ARARs in accordance with the NCP.
(d) Secondary maximum Contaminant Goal, Code of Massachusetts Regulations, Title 310 Section 22, Effective 20 November 1992.
(e) National Secondary drinking Water Standards designed to protect the aesthetic guality of water (FR 42198, 19 July 1979; 51 FR 11396, 2 April 1986; 56 FR 3526, 30
January 1991)
(f) EPA Office of Water Lifetime Health Advisories (HA), May 1993.
(g) EPA Region III, Risk Based Concentration table (USEPA 1993 Fourth Quarter), values for tap water.
(h) ORSG: Office of research and Standard Guideline, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Spring 1993.
(i) Background levels based on maximum or average detected in upgradient wells or located background concentrations as follows: Arsenic and barium based on DRMO Yard
local background. Calcium, Iron, Magnesium, Manganese, Potassium, Sodium, and Zinc based on POL upgradient well.
(j) Concentration based on cancer risk of 10 -5.
(k) Concentration based on a hazard index of 1.
(1) Remedial action objective was chosen as follows: lowest ARAs, if no ARARs, them human health risk assessment value. If risk is not calculated, then lowest-value of the
TBCs. If TBC or ARAR was lower than background level, background was used.
(m) Maximum observed concentration based on RI and SI groundwater data collected from DRMO and POL. Maximum observed concentration for metals is based on filtered
data only.
(n) Cleanup goal is below detection limit for this element. Cleanup should be to a level below detection limit.
(o) Action level.
(2) Secondary standard.
(3) Proposed standard.
(4) Massachusetts Guidance value.
-------
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
Redox
Nitrate
Nitrite
Phosphate
Sulfate
Sulfide
Manganese
Soluble iron FE II
Methane

Carbon dioxide
EPH/VPH
Arsenic
PCBs
Trichloroethene
Dichlorobenzene
Lead
Ammonia-nitrogen
TOG/COD
Temperature
PH
Conductivity

Alkalinity
Table 23
Natural Attenuation Assessment Sampling Parameters
AOCs 32 and 43A - Devens, Massachusetts

Purpose
Defines zone of potential aerobic activity (greater than 0.5 mg/I)
Define/confirm type of microbial respiration process occurring
Electron acceptor for anaerobic microbial respiration, microbial nutrient
Electron acceptor for anaerobic microbial respiration, microbial nutrient
Microbial nutrient (round 1 only)
Electron acceptor for aerobic microbial respiration
Product of sulfate based microbial respiration
Product or anaerobic biodegredation
Product of anaerobic biodegredation
Product of carbonate-based (C02) microbial respiration (anaerobic degradation of carbon
at redox less than -200mV)
Elevated concentrations can indicate an aerobic mechanism for bacterial degredation
Allows for comparison to risk based concentrations, provides BTEX, MTBE and PAH data
Comparison to PRGs
Comparison to PRGs (UST#13 area only)
Comparison to PRGs
Comparison to PRGs
Comparison to PRGs
Baseline date (round 1 only)
Baseline date (round 1 only)
Well development/purge parameter
Aguifer environment condition indicator
Well development/purge parameter; used as a marker to verify that site samples are from
the same groundwater system
Aguifer environment condition indicator
-------
Table 24
Synopsis of Federal and State ARARs for Monitored Natural Attenuation
Area of Contamination 32 and 43A
Devens, Massachusetts
Authority

Federal Regulatory
Authority

State Regulatory
Authority
Location Specific
Location Specific

Reguirement

No location-specific ARARs
will be triggered.

No location-specific ARARs
will be triggered.
Status
Reguirement Synopsis
Action To Be Taken
To Attain Reguirement
-------
Table 24
Synopsis of Federal and State ARARs for Monitored Natural Attenuation
Area of Contamination 32 and 43A
Devens, Massachusetts
Chemical Specific
Chemical Specific
Authority

Federal
Regulatory
Authority
Federal
Regulatory
Authority

Federal
Regulatory
Authority

State Regulatory
Authority
Groundwater
(Also applicable
as an Action
Specific ARAR)
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater (Also
applicable as an
Action Specific
ARAR)
Reguirement

SDWA, National Primary
Drinking Water Standards,
MCLs [40 CFR Parts 141.11-
141.16 and 141.50-141.521]
USEPA Reference Dose
USEPA HAs
Status

Relevant and
Appropriate
TBC
TBC
Massachusetts Drinking Water Relevant and
Standards and Guidelines Appropriate
[310 CMR 22.01].
Reguirement Synopsis

The NPDWR establishes MCLs for several common
organic and inorganic contaminants. MCLs specify
the maximum permissible concentrations of
contaminants in public drinking water supplies.
MCLs are federally enforceable standards based in
part on the availability and cost of treatment
technigues.
Action To Be Taken
To Attain Reguirement

Biodegradation of organic contaminants
exceeding MCLs is believed to be occurring
under existing conditions. MCLs will be
used to evaluate the performance of this
alternative through implementation of a
long-term groundwater monitoring program
will achieve MCLs at completion of remedy.
The Massachusetts Drinking Water Standards and
Guidelines list MMCLs which apply to water
delivered to any user of a public water supply
system as defined in 310 CMR 22.00. Private
residential wells are not subject to the reguirements
of 310 CMR 22.00; however, the standards are often
used to evaluate private residential contamination
especially in CERCLA activities.
Biodegradation of organic contaminants
exceeding MMCLs is believed to be
occurring under existing conditions.
MMCLs will be used to evaluate the
performance of this alternative through
implementation of a long-term groundwater
monitoring program.
-------
Table 24
Synopsis of Federal and State ARARs for Monitored Natural Attenuation
Area of Contamination 32 and 43 A
Devens, Massachusetts

Action Specific
Authority

Federal Regulatory
Authority

State Regulatory
Authority
Action Specific
Groundwater
State
Regulatory
Authority
Groundwater
Monitoring
Reguirement

RCRA Subtitle C Subpart F
Status

Relevant and
Appropriate
Massachusetts Groundwater Applicable
Quality Standards [314 CMR
6.00]
Massachusetts Hazardous
Waste Management Rules
(MHWMR)Groundwater
Protection; [310 CMR 30.660-
30.679]
Relevant and
Appropriate
Reguirement Synopsis

Groundwater protection standard.
Massachusetts Groundwater Quality
Standards designate and assign uses for
which groundwater of the Commonwealth
shall be maintained and protected and set
forth water guality criteria necessary to
maintain the designated uses.
Groundwater at Fort Devens is classified
as Class 1. Groundwater assigned to this
class are fresh groundwater designated as
a source of potable water supply.

Groundwater monitoring is reguired
during and following remedial actions.
Action To Be Taken
To Attain Reguirement
Biodegradation of organic contaminants
exceeding MMCLs is believed to be occurring
under existing conditions. MMCLs will be
used to evaluate the performance of this
alternative through implementation of a long-
term groundwater monitoring program.
A long-term groundwater monitoring program
is to be implemented to monitor the progress of
remediation.
Notes:
CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
MCLs = Maximum Contaminant Levels
MHWMR = Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Management Rules
MMCLs = Massachusetts Maximum Contaminant Levels
NPDWR = National Primary Drinking Water Standards
SDWA = Safe Drinking Water Act
-------
Table 25
Synopsis of Federal and State ARARs for Excavation and Off-site Disposal
Area of Contamination 32 and 43A
Devens, Massachusetts

Location Specific
Location Specific
Authority

Federal Regulatory
Authority

State Regulatory
Authority
Reguirement Status

There are no location specific
ARARs for the DRMO Yard.

There are no location specific
ARARs for the DRMO Yard.
Reguirement Synopsis
Action To Be Taken
To Attain Reguirement
-------
Synopsis
Authority

Federal
Regulatory
Authority
Federal
Regulatory
Authority

Federal
Regulatory
Authority
Table 25
of Federal and State ARARs for Excavation and Off-site Disposal
Area of Contamination 32 and 43A
Devens, Massachusetts

Chemical Specific
Chemical Specific
For surface soil (0 to
10 inches)

For subsurface soil
(below 10 inches)

Soil
Soil
Reguirement Status

Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) TBC
40 CFR 761.125(c)(4)
EPA Region III Risk Based TBC
Concentration Table
Resource Conservation and Recovery TBC
Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Levels
55 FR 30798, July 1990.
Reguirement Synopsis

Unrestricted access with less than 1
mg/kg PCBs.

Unrestricted access with less than 10
mg/kg PCBs.

Exposure levels to numerous chemicals
under specific scenarios.
To establish the need for a corrective
measure study. Numerous chemicals.
Action To Be Taken
To Attain Reguirement
Federal
Regulatory
Authority
Soil
Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance
for CERCLA Sites and RCRA
Corrective Action Facilities. EPA
OSWER Directive 9355.4-12, July
1994
TBC
State Regulatory Soil
Authority

State Regulatory Soil
Authority
Background levels for soil.
Massachusetts Contingency Plan
(MCP) 310 CMR 40.09705 (6) (a)
TBC
TBC
Total petroleum hydrocarbons not to
exceed 500 mg/kg.
-------