Records Center -**"'
250286
Massachusetts Military Reservation
Decision Document Study Area CS-9 Final JUNE 1998
Prepared for: AFCEE/MMR Installation Restoration Program 322 E. Inner Road Box 41 Otis ANGB, MA 02542 DSN: 557-4670 Comm: 508-968-4670 Prepared by: Harding Lawson Associates (Formerly ABB Environmental Services, Inc.) Submitted by: Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-7606 Managed by: LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under contract DE-AC05-840R21400 INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM
DECISION DOCUMENT STUDY AREA CS-9
FINAL JUNE 1998
Prepared for: Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence and Air National Guard
Prepared by: Harding Lawson Associates (Formerly ABB Environmental Services, Inc.) Portland, Maine Project No. 8703-46
Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program Environmental Management and Enrichment Facilities Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-7606 Managed by: LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400 STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 BACKGROUND AND PHYSICAL SETTING 2-1
2.1 HISTORY OF OPERATIONS 2-1 2.2 CLIMATE 2-2 2.3 GEOGRAPHY 2-3 2.4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 2-3 2.4.1 Regional Geology 2-3 2.4.2 Regional Hydrogeology . . 2-4 2.5 LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS 2-5 2.6 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY 2-5 2.7 SITE INVESTIGATION 2-8 2.7.1 Exploration Program 2-8 2.7.2 Screening Analysis 2-8 2.7.3 Off-site Laboratory Analysis 2-8
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 3-1
4.0 NATURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF DETECTED ANALYTES ... 4-1
4.1 STRUCTURES 4-1 4.2 SOIL 4-2 4.3 GROUNDWATER 4-14 4.4 SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALYTES 4-14
5.0 PRELIMINARY RISK EVALUATION 5-1
5.1 INTRODUCTION 5-1 5.1.1 Approach 5-1 5.1.2 Study Area CS-9 Objectives 5-2 5.2 PRELIMINARY HUMAN HEALTH RISK EVALUATION 5-3
W0129414.080 8703-46 STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Title Page No.
5.2.1 Data Evaluation 5-3 5.2.2 Exposure Assessment 5-3 5.2.3 Toxicity Assessment 5-7 5.2.4 Risk Characterization 5-7 5.2.5 Uncertainty Assessment 5-15 5.3 PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL RISK EVALUATION 5-17 5.3.1 Data Evaluation 5-17 5.3.2 Ecological Exposure Assessment 5-18 5.3.3 Ecological Effects Assessment 5-18 5.3.4 Risk Screening 5-18 5.3.5 Ecological Uncertainty Assessment 5-22 5.4 SUMMARY OF PRE RESULTS 5-24
6.0 RESULTS OF A REMOVAL ACTION AT STUDY AREA CS-9 ... 6-1 6.1 EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES 6-1 6.2 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY 6-3
7.0 CONCLUSIONS 7-1
8.0 DECISION 8-1
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
REFERENCES
APPENDICES APPENDIX A - STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT
W0129414.080 8703-46 ii STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title ; Page No.
1-1 Location of Study Area CS-9 1-2
2-1 Former Site Features and Locations of Explorations at Study Area CS-9 2-6 2-2 Locations of Soil Gas Explorations 2-11
4-1 Summary of Organic Analytes Detected in Structures 4-6 4-2 Summary of Inorganic Analytes Detected in Structures 4-7 4-3 Summary of Analytes Detected in Surface Soil 4-10 4-4 Summary of Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil 4-12 4-5 Summary of Analytes Detected in Groundwater 4-15
6-1 Areas Excavated/Stockpiled for Thermal Treatment 6-4
W0129414.080 870i46 iii STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page No.
2-1 Summary of Explorations . 2-9 2-2 Summary of Exploration Locations 2-10 2-3 Summary of Soil Sampling 2-12 2-4 Monitoring Well Completion Details 2-13 2-5 Summary of Gas Chromatograph Screening 2-14 2-6 Summary of Analytical Program 2-16
4-1 Summary of Analytes Detected in Structure Liquid Sample 4-3 4-2 Summary of Analytes Detected in Structure Sediment Samples 4-4 4-3 Summary of Analytes Detected in Surface Soil 4-9 4-4 Summary of Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil 4-11 4-5 Summary of Analytes Detected in Groundwater 4-16
5-1 Contaminants of Potential Concern in Surface Soil 5-4 5-2 Contaminants of Potential Concern in Subsurface Soil 5-5 5-3 Contaminants of Potential Concern in Groundwater 5-6 5-4 Human Health and Ecological PRE Tier I for Surface Soil 5-9 5-5 Human Health and Ecological PRE Tier II for Surface Soil 5-11 5-6 Human Health PRE Tier I for Subsurface Soil 5-13 5-7 Human Health PRE Tier I for Groundwater 5-16 5-8 Tier I and Tier II Hazard Indices for Soil 5-20 5-9 Soil Phytotoxicity 5-23
6-1 Summary of Remedial Action Levels 6-2 6-2 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Leaching Wel 1l (CD-I) .... 6-6 6-3 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Leaching Wel 2l (CD-2) ... . 6-7 6-4 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Leaching Wel 3l (CD-3) .... 6-8 6-5 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Fuel Island (CD-4-FFI ) 6-9 6-6 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Sum 5p (CD-5) 6-10 6-7 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Sump 5 Pipe Trench Headwall (CD-5-HW) 6-11 6-8 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Sum 6p (CD-6) 6-12 6-9 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Sum 7p (CD-7) 6-13
W0129414.080 8703-46 iv STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Title Page No.
6-10 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Sump 7 Pipe Trench Headwall (CD-7-HW) 6-14 6-11 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Sump 8 (CD-8) 6-15 6-12 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Sump 9 (CD-9) 6-16 6-13 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Sump 9 AOC "Hot Spot" (CD-9-HW) 6-17 6-14 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Grease Rack 1 (GR-1) 6-18 6-15 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Grease Rack 2 (GR-2) 6-19 6-16 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Grease Rack 3 (GR-3) ... . 6-20 6-17 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Grease Rack 4 (GR-4) .... 6-21 6-18 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Wash Rack 6-22 6-19 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: Misc. "Hot Spot" B/L STA 9+00 O/S 460 FT. South 6-23 6-20 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil: UST Removal Former Bldg. Location 4105 6-24
W0129414.080 8703-46 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Decision Document is being issued by the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) under the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR). This decision document was prepared to support a no-further-action decision at Study Area CS-9, a former motor pool located on the northeast side of Connery Avenue. The document was prepared as part of the U.S. Department of Defense IRP to assess the nature and extent of contamination associated with previous site operations at MMR.
From 1941 to 1946, Study Area CS-9 was used by the U.S. Army as a motor pool and vehicle maintenance area. Based on observations during the site investigation (SI), the motor pool-related buildings have been removed and most of the study area is unused. Wastes potentially generated during operations included oil, halogenated and nonhalogenated solvents, paint residues, battery electrolytes, antifreeze, and some motor gasoline.
As part of the records search, the study area was ranked using Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology and received an overall score of 62.8. Additionally, the records search recommended that a limited Phase II SI be conducted.
Fifteen test pits were excavated, stockpiled at Area of Contamination (AOC) CS-4, and soil samples were collected for chemical analyses to evaluate surface soil conditions. Two monitoring wells were installed to characterize groundwater quality, and surface and subsurface soil conditions. In addition, one liquid and nine sediment samples were collected from within sump structures.
The subsurface soil and groundwater data indicate that motor pool-related compounds have not migrated vertically within the overburden. Groundwater results showed low levels of fuel- and solvent-type compounds that are likely migrating from upgradient at AOC LF-1, rather than from this study area.
Preliminary risk evaluations (PREs) were conducted for human health and the environment. Results of these PREs suggested no unacceptable risks to human health or ecological receptors.
Study Area CS-9 soils identified to be contaminated were excavated between March and June of 1994 as part of an accelerated removal action. Uncontaminated soil from the Study Area and excavated sump structures were used as subgrade fill material in the Main Base Landfill (AOC LF-1) cover system. Contaminated soils were initially stockpiled at AOC CS-4 but were later relocated to AOC FTA-1 where
W0129414.080 870W6 ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
they received treatment in a low-temperature thermal treatment unit (TTU) between August and October of 1995. Approximately 3,663 tons of soil from Study Area CS-9 were treated in the TTU. Following treatment, soils were stockpiled in an on-site storage area and are currently scheduled for use as backfill material for the FTA-1 soil excavation proposed for October of 1996.
A remedial action summary report has been prepared to provide a detailed summary of Study Area CS-9 soil treatment activities and certification that the remedial action is completed (Appendix A).
This decision document summarizes the SI findings and results for Study Area CS-9 and provides the rationale for the no-further-action decision.
W0129414.080 8703-46 ES-2 SECTION 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The objectives of this decision document are to describe the history of Study Area CS-9; present results of the site investigation (SI) at Study Area CS-9; present results of the human health and ecological preliminary risk evaluations (PREs); and explain why no further action is appropriate for this site.
Study Area CS-9 is located at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) on Cape Cod, Massachusetts and is situated in the north-central portion of the MMR (Figure 1-1). This study area was initially identified in the preliminary assessment of the MMR as part of the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Task 6 Records Search (E.C. Jordan Co., 1986). The IRP is a program that identifies, evaluates, and remediates waste disposal and spill sites at military facilities that have become contaminated through historical practices.
As part of the records search, Study Area CS-9 was. ranked by the Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology (HARM) and received an overall score of 62.8. HARM recommends further investigation for sites rated greater than 50.
Consequently, an SI was conducted at the study area. Results of the SI indicate minor releases of motor pool fluids at the study area; however, risks to human and ecological receptors from the presence of compounds detected appear to be minimal.
W0129414.080 8703-46 1-1 MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
LEGEND
STUDY AREA
AREA OF CONTAMINATION LOCATION OF STUDY AREA IHLA CS-9 Harding Lawson Associates APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET STUDY AREA INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM CS-9 MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION DECISION FIGURE 1-1 0 2,000 4,000 DOCUMENT
9806001D SECTION 2
2.0 BACKGROUND AND PHYSICAL SETTING
This section describes the background and physical setting at Study Area CS-9, including history of MMR operations, geography, regional geology and hydrogeology, land use and demographics, study area description and history, and SI activities.
2.1 HISTORY OF OPERATIONS
Military use of locations now comprising the MMR began in 1911. From 1911 to 1935, the Massachusetts Army National Guard (ARNG) periodically conducted maneuvers and weapons training in portions of Shawme Crowell State Forest. In 1935, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts purchased the area now occupied by the MMR for permanent training facilities. Most activity at the MMR has occurred since then, including operations by the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy (USN), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Air Force (USAF), Massachusetts ARNG, Air National Guard (ANG), U.S. Marine Corps, and Veterans Administration (VA). In general, two different types of operations have dominated military activity at the MMR: (1) mechanized Army training and maneuvers, and (2) military aircraft operations, maintenance, and support.
Intensive Army activity occurred during World War II (WWII) and demobilization after the war. During that time, large-scale motor pool activities and troop billeting occurred in parts of the Cantonment Area, designated as the Inner Truck Road and Outer Truck Road areas. Operations were conducted in areas surrounding a central parade ground. Air operations during this time were at a relatively low level of activity. During the last two years of WWII, the USN used the MMR runways, flightline, and housing areas for flight training.
A military hospital was in operation at the MMR from 1940 to 1970. Immediately following WWII, the hospital became a major orthopedic rehabilitation center. In the early 1970s, the hospital was decommissioned and demolished.
Intensive aircraft operations occurred from 1955 to 1970, when large numbers of surveillance and air defense aircraft operated from the MMR. During this period, the USAF operated 45 EC-121 (Super Constellation) Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft and a Fighter Wing (FW) from the MMR. These operations
W0129414.080 8703-46 2-1 SECTION 2
occurred along the expanded flightline areas located in the southeastern portion of the Cantonment Area.
From 1962 to 1972, a Boeing Michigan Aeronautical Research Center air defense missile installation was located at the MMR. During the 1970s, the Strategic Air Command also used the runways at the MMR to park refueler aircraft In 1970, the airborne surveillance activity was phased out. The air defense mission was continued by the USAF until 1973, when this mission, as well as management of the base, was transferred to the 102nd FW of the Massachusetts ANG.
Other major operations have been ongoing at the MMR. ARNG and U.S. Army Reserve training has been conducted since the early 1950s and continues at varying levels. In 1970, the USCG began operations at Air Station Cape Cod at the MMR. These operations continue today. Since 1978, the USAF has operated the Precision Acquisition Vehicle Entry - Phased Array Warning System missile and space vehicle tracking system from Cape Cod Air Force Station at the northern end of the MMR. In addition, in 1978, the VA acquired 750 acres in the western portion of the MMR to develop the Massachusetts National Cemetery, which began operation in 1980.
AVCO, Inc., has operated a test-firing range at the MMR since 1968, primarily for testing armor detection, weapons guidance, and anti-armor warhead systems. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has operated a laboratory since 1960 at the MMR, primarily to study biological control measures for the gypsy moth.
22 CLIMATE
The climate at the MMR is categorized as humid continental, modified by proximity to the Atlantic Ocean. Prevailing winds are from the northwest from November to March and from the southwest from April to October. Wind speeds range from an average of 9 miles per hour (mph) from July through September to an average of nearly 12 mph from October through March. Short periods of much higher wind velocities (i.e., 40 to 100 mph) occur periodically due to tropical and oceanic storms.
Precipitation is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year, with June being the driest month. Average precipitation is 4 inches per month throughout the year, with a variation of 2 to 4.8 inches per month. Average annual rainfall is 47.8 inches.
W0129414.080 8703-46 2-2 SECTION 2
Temperature extremes are mitigated by the influence of the Atlantic Ocean, producing milder winters and cooler summers than those experienced in inland areas of Massachusetts. In February, the coldest month of the year, the daily temperature ranges from an average minimum of 23 °F to an average maximum of 38 °F. In July, the warmest month of the year, the average temperature ranges from daily lows of 63 °F to daily highs near 78 °F.
2.3 GEOGRAPHY
The MMR is located on two distinct types of terrain on the Cape Cod peninsula. The main Cantonment Area lies on a broad, flat, gently southward-sloping glacial outwash plain. Elevations in this area range from 100 to 140 feet above mean sea level (MSL). North and west of the Cantonment Area, the terrain becomes hummocky with irregular hills and greater topographic relief. This area lies in the southward extent of Wisconsin Age recessional moraines. Elevations in this area generally range from 100 to 250 feet above MSL. The highest elevation reported at the MMR is 306 feet above MSL in the vicinity of Pine Hill (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985). The entire reservation is dotted with numerous kettle holes and depressions, some of which contain water.
2.4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The regional geology and hydrogeology of western Cape Cod are summarized in this subsection, including a description of the physical nature and conditions occurring in the subsurface environment of the MMR. The regional geology and hydrogeology of Cape Cod and the MMR are discussed in detail in the Hydrogeologic Summary Report (E.G. Jordan Co., 1989).
2.4.1 Regional Geology
The geology of western Cape Cod where the MMR is located is dominated by glacial sediments deposited during the Wisconsinan Period glaciation, approximately 7,000 to 85,000 years ago. Two moraines, the Buzzards Bay Moraine (BBM) and the Sandwich Moraine (SM), were deposited along the western and northern edges of western Cape Cod, respectively. Between them lies a broad outwash plain known as the Mashpee Pitted Plain (MPP).
W0129414.080 8703-46 2-3 SECTION 2
Sediments associated with the BBM and SM, both ice contact deposits, are generally poorly sorted, ranging from silty till to gravel-sized material. Deposited in a glacial outwash environment, MPP sediments are characterized by well-sorted, stratified sands and gravel with only traces of silt. Fine-grained sediments and basal till are found below the MPP unconsolidated sediments. The total thickness of unconsolidated sediments is estimated to vary between 175 and 325 feet in the central and northern parts of the MMR (E.G. Jordan Co., 1989).
2.4.2 Regional Hydrogeology
The MMR is located over the Sagamore lens of the Cape Cod aquifer, a water table or unconfined aquifer characterized by highly permeable glacial deposits. Total aquifer thickness has been estimated to range from 250 feet in the northern moraines to 80 feet in the southern MPP. The highest aquifer groundwater elevation is located in MPP sediments beneath the northern section of the MMR. Groundwater flow is generally in a radial direction from this high point. The regional water table slope across the industrialized areas of the MMR is southward between 0.001 and 0.003 feet per foot (ft/ft).
Hydraulic conductivities and the respective calculated groundwater seepage velocities vary with the geologic unit. Hydraulic conductivities generally range from 50 to 800 feet per day (ft/d) in outwash material, while conductivities in moraine sediments are generally only one-fifth to one-tenth as high (E.C. Jordan Co., 1989). Previous investigations have shown that under the influence of recharge from precipitation, water arriving at the water table beneath the MMR sinks gradually as it moves downgradient.
Groundwater recharge is solely from precipitation and averages approximately 20 inches per year. Integrating the area from the highest groundwater elevation in the undeveloped northern areas of the MMR to the industrialized southern sections, the average recharge from precipitation is approximately 7 million gallons per day. Groundwater recharge within the western and northern parts of the MMR supplies water for the towns of Bourne and Sandwich. Groundwater recharge within the southern MMR flows south toward the towns of Mashpee and Falmouth, where it is also used for water supply. In areas where town water supply lines are nonexistent, residences use private wells for domestic water supplies.
W0129414.080 870^46 2-4 SECTION 2
2.5 LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS
The MMR has a year-round population of approximately 2,000 people, with an additional 800 non-resident employees working on the reservation. Year-round residents live in a housing area operated by the USCG. Intermittent use of the area for Reserve and National Guard activities increases the MMR population by as many as several thousand people (E.G. Jordan Co., 1986). Many of the year-round and intermittent populations live on the MMR and in the towns of Bourne, Falmouth, Mashpee, and Sandwich, adjacent to the MMR.
Land in areas near the MMR is used for residential, recreational, and agricultural purposes. Recreational land uses include golfing, swimming, boating, and other water sports. Horse stables are also present near the boundaries of the MMR. The Crane Wildlife Management Area is located along the southern boundary of the MMR. Many local residents pursue recreational activities in this area, including model-plane flying, bird watching, and hunting.
Agricultural use of land near the MMR includes blueberry and other fruit and vegetable farms, and cultivation and harvesting of cranberries from lowland bogs of the river valleys. Many of the soil types located on the MMR are federally designated as Prime Farmland. Some commercial and industrial development exists in the area, including service industries, sand and gravel pit operations, municipal landfills, and wastewater treatment facilities.
2.6 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
Study Area CS-9 is a former motor pool located on the northeast side of Connery Avenue (Figure 2-1). From 1941 to 1946, it was used by the Army as a motor pool and vehicle maintenance area. Based on observations made during the SI, the motor pool-related buildings had been torn down and most of the study area was unused. During the SI, the northern end of Study Area CS-9 contained a BMX bicycle racetrack used by the surrounding communities. According to a BMX track official, in 1993 the track was used one night per week with some special events scheduled on weekend days through the fall. The BMX track is accessed by Beebee Road. As part of the landfill cap construction project, a chain link fence was erected to encompass Beebee Road and the BMX track, restricting access to the LF-1 cover. The BMX track is still active. Except for the BMX track, the study area was nearly level, with most of its surface covered with aging asphalt. Small pine trees and
W0129414.080 870M6 2-5 TO AOC LF-1
Weathered Asphalt
Former Wash Rack
Location of Former USTs
LEACHING WELL4(CD-4)
Weathered Asphalt With Pirn Grow*
Former Pump Island
LEACHING p. WELL1 V (CD-1/CL-irSr
CONCRETE HEADWALL OUTFALL
VEHICLE SERVICE AREA
TREE LINE
LOCATION OF REMAINING BUILDING FOUNDATION
FORMER GREASE RACK
FORMER DRY WELL LOCATION
FORMER SUMP LOCATION
EXISTING MONITORING WELL LF-1/MW-20A,B,C,Z CONCRETE MONITORING WELL LOCATION \ \*-|QWELL3(CD-3) HEADWALL TEST PIT LOCATION MW-IM^S1 L OUTFALL -—-L. TP-5 INTERPRETED GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION BASED ON REGIONAL WATER TABLE CONTOUR MAP OF THE MMR USING MAY 1990 WATER LEVEL DATA
GROUNDWATER EOUIPOTENTIAL LINE TRANSPOSED FROM REGIONAL WATER TABLE CONTOUR MAP OF THE MMR BASED ON MAY 1990 DATA (FEET. MSL)
FORMER SITE FEATURES AND LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATIONS APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Harding Lawson Associates AT STUDY AREA CS-9
0 200 400 STUDY AREA SOURCE. OAFB MASTER PLAN TAB NO. G-7, AERIAL INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM CS-9 SURVEY PHOTO TAKEN IN APRIL. 1990, AND FIELD MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION DECISION FIGURE 2-1 OBSERVATION. APRIL, 1993. DOCUMENT
9806001 D(b) 12345 8 2-6 SECTION 2
shrubs grew through cracks in the pavement at the study area. No soil staining was evident at the exploration locations. The main base landfill, Area of Contamination (AOC) LF-1, is located north of Study Area CS-9.
Study Area CS-9 was evaluated as part of the Task 6 Records Search. According to the records search, the USAF also operated a motor pool at this location from 1955 to 1967. Features observed near the racetrack included former grease and wash racks and an abandoned motor gasoline (MOGAS) refueling system (see Figure 2-1). Wastes potentially generated during operations included oil, halogenated and nonhalogenated solvents, paint residues, battery electrolytes, antifreeze, and a limited amount of MOGAS (E.G. Jordan Co., 1986). During operational periods, vehicle maintenance wastes were reportedly disposed of onto the ground (E.G. Jordan Co., 1986). During SI field investigations, leaching well and sump structures were identified as possible points for waste collection. Four leaching wells and four sumps were located at the former vehicle service areas (see Figure 2-1).
A fifth leaching well, designated as Leaching Well 4, was located at the former MOGAS fuel pump island adjacent to the BMX track. The MOGAS refueling system included three underground storage tanks (USTs) (i.e., AT-19, AT-20, and AT-21) and an associated abandoned fuel pump island. AT-19 and AT-20 were 5,000-gallon-capacity steel USTs, each installed in 1941, and AT-21 was a 12,000-gallon-capacity steel UST installed in 1959. According to National Guard Bureau (NGB) records, the USTs were scheduled for removal in 1985 (E.G. Jordan Co., 1986). With the permission of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the NGB excavated the tanks in 1985 and moved them elsewhere on the MMR.
The primary source of soil contaminants at Study Area CS-9 is potential releases from the piping network, the sump structures, and grease racks. Intermittent spills of fuel and maintenance fluids represent another potential source of soil contaminants at the study area. Groundwater underlying this study area is migrating from the Main Base Landfill (AOC LF-1) located immediately upgradient.
Possible contaminant transport pathways include the spills and infiltration of motor pool-related wastes, percolation of contaminants through the soil, and the migration of groundwater containing dissolved phase contaminants. The potential human receptors include future residents and construction workers. The potential ecological receptors include small mammals and birds.
W0129414.080 8703-46 2-7 SECTION 2
2.7 SITE INVESTIGATION
This subsection describes the explorations that were completed during the SI and briefly discusses the rationale for exploration locations. Soil sampling and monitoring well completion details are also, summarized. In addition, samples collected for on-site chemical screening and off-site laboratory analysis are summarized.
2.7.1 Exploration Program
The exploration program at Study Area CS-9 is summarized in Table 2-1. Exploration locations were selected based on findings of the records search and observations of study area conditions; Table 2-2 summarizes the potential contaminant sources and the corresponding explorations conducted to investigate their presence or absence in environmental media. Exploration locations are shown on Figure 2-1 except for soil gas explorations, which are shown on Figure 2-2. Soil sampling was conducted during completion of test pits and monitoring wells for the purpose of geologic logging, and chemical screening and analysis. Soil samples collected during these explorations are summarized in Table 2-3. One monitoring well was installed during Phase 1 of the field investigation, with an additional well installed during Phase 2. The details of monitoring well installations at this study area are summarized in Table 2-4.
2.12 Screening Analysis
As part of the Phase I field investigation, 13 soil gas samples were collected and screened for target volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a gas chromatograph (see Figure 2-2). In addition, five soil samples, eight groundwater samples, and two structure sediment samples were screened for the presence of target VOCs. Table 2-5 summarizes these screened samples.
2.7.3 Off-site Laboratory Analysis
During the Phase 1 and Phase 2 SI, three surface soil samples and six subsurface soil samples were collected and submitted for off-site laboratory analysis. Samples collected from six soil locations and two groundwater wells were not analyzed within specified holding times and were recollected in Phase 3. This is discussed in more detail in the SI report (ABB Environmental Services, Inc. [ABB-ES], 1993).
W0129414.080 870M6 2-8 TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF EXPLORATIONS
STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
EXPLORATION NUMBER EXPLORATION IDENTIFICATION
1 GROUND-PENETRATING NA (1989) RADAR
SOIL GAS 13 CS-9-1 THROUGH CS-9-13
TEST PIT 7 TP-1 THROUGH TP-7
STRUCTURE LIQUID 1 CL-1
STRUCTURE SEDIMENT 2 CD-1.CD-2
MONITORING WELL 1 MW-1
2 TEST PIT 4 TP-8 THROUGH TP-11 (1990) STRUCTURE SEDIMENT 7 CD-3 THROUGH CD-9
MONITORING WELL 1 MW-2
3 TEST PIT 4 TP -8C THROUGH TP -11C (1993)
NOTES: EXPLORATIONS Phase 3 = Confirmation Study CS-9-1 = Soil gas sample location ** Ground-penetrating radar used to confirm TP = Test Pit absence of AT-19, AT- 20, AT- 21. CL = Liquid sample from a structure CD -= Sediment sample from a structure MW = Soil boring completed as a monitoring ' NA = Not Applicable
CS9DD\2-1 2-9 TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF EXPLORATION LOCATIONS
STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
EXPLORATION MEDIUM POTENTIAL SOURCE AREA INVESTIGATED
STRUCTURES CD-I THROUGH CD-9 SEDIMENT WASTES OPERATED FROM OPERATION OF A VEHICLE SERVICE AREA
STRUCTURE CL-1 UOAJD WASTES OPERATED FROM OPERATION OF A VEHICLE SERVICE AREA
AREA NEAR LEACHNG WELL 1 TP-1 THROUGH TP-3 SOIL WASTES OPERATED FROM OPERATION OF A VEHICLE SERVICE AREA
AREA NEAR LEACHNG WELL 2 TP-4 SOIL WASTES GB4ERATED FROM OPERATION OF A VEHICLE SERVICE AREA
AREA NEAR LEACHNG WELL 3 TP-5 SOIL WASTES GB4ERATED FROM OPERATION OF A VEHICLE SERVICE AREA
AREA NEAR LEACHNG WELL 4 TP-6THROUGH TP-8 SOIL WASTES GENERATED FROM OPERATION OF A VEHICLE SERVICE AREA
AREA NEAR FORMER WASH RACK TP-9ANDTP-10 SOIL WASTES GENERATED FROM VEHICLE WASHING
N FOOTPRNT OF A FORMER GREASE RACK TP-11 SOIL WASTES GENERATED FROM WASHING
NTERPRETED DOWNGRADIENT OF CS-9 MW-1 SOIL AND PERCOLATNG CONTAMNANTS TO GROUNDWATER FROM GROUNDWATER LEACHING WELLS
NTERPRETED DOWNGRADIENT OF CS-9 MW-2 GROUNDWATER PERCOLATNG CONTAMNANTS TO GROUNDWATER FROM LEACHING WELLS
NOTES: IDENTIFICATION
CS9DD\2-2 Pag* 1 of 1
I I I I f I f TO AOC LF-1
WEATHERED ASPHALT
FORMER WASH RACK
VENDING BUILDINGS
LOCATION OF FORMER USTs
0« FORMER PUMP ISLAND
WEATHERED ASPHALT / WITH PINE GROWTH / CONCRETE PAD
VEHICLE SERVICE AREA
TREE LINE
LOCATION OF REMAINING ' BUILDING FOUNDATION
Illllllllllimi FORMER GREASE RACK
0 SOIL GAS SAMPLE POINT
LOCATIONS OF SOIL GAS APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET EXPLORATIONS Harding Lawson Associates
0 200 400 STUDY AREA SOURCE: OAFB MASTER PLAN TAB NO. G-7. AERIAL INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM CS-9 SURVEY PHOTO TAKEN IN APRIL, 1990. AND FIELD MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION DECISION FIGURE 2-2 OBSERVATION. APRIL. 1993 DOCUMENT
9806001 D(c) 2-11 TABLE 2-3 SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLING
STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
EXPLORATION PHASE EXPLORATION SAMPLE COMPLETION METHOD \.--TYPE.:::-: V;j '/'•: JD INTERVAL DEPTH OF ; ::; (bgs) (bgs) COMPLETION
MONITORING WELL 1 MW-1 EVERY5FT 87 MONITORING WELL FROM 10 FT TO 87 FT
TEST PIT 1 TP-1 5-6 6 BACKFILLED
TP-2 5-6 6 BACKFILLED
TP-3 8-9 9 BACKFILLED
TP-4 6-7 7 BACKFILLED
TP-5 8-9 9 BACKFILLED
2 TP-8 0-1 4 BACKFILLED
7P-9 2 6 BACKFILLED 6
TP-10 1 6 BACKFILLED 6
TP-11 3 3 BACKFILLED
3 TP-8C 1-1.5 1.5 BACKFILLED
TP-9C 2-2.5 6.5 BACKFILLED 6-6.5
TP-10C 1-1.5 6.5 BACKFILLED 6-6.5
TP-11C 3-3.5 3.5 BACKFILLED
NOTES: This table summarizM all soil samples collected during the completion of explorations. These samples include those collected for geologic logging and/or chemical screening and analysis. For soil samples submitted for chemical screening and/or off-site chemical analysis, see Tables 10-5 and 10-6, respectively from SI Report (ABB-ES, 1993). ID = Identification bgs = below ground surface (in feet) Phase 3 - Confirmation Study MW = Monitoring Well TP = Test Pit FT = Feet Unless otherwise indicated, sample interval was 2 feet
CS9DD\2-3 2-12 TABLE 2-4 MONITORING WELL COMPLETION DETAILS
STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
SOIL EFFECTIVE COMPLETION WELL YEAR DRILLING SCREEN INTERVAL : DEPTH CONSTRUCTION DESIGNATION INSTALLED METHOD (bos) "•'•• (bgm) MATERIAL
MW-1 1900 HOLLOW STEM AUGER 72-82 87 2.0' ID PVC
MW-2 1890 HOLLOW STEM AUGER 64-89 118 2.0' ID PVC
MW-20A [a] 1989 HOLLOW STEM AUGER 139-144 144 2.0' ID PVC
MW-20B [a] 1989 HOLLOW STEM AUGER 123-128 128.5 2.0' ID PVC
MW-20C (a] 1989 HOLLOW STEM AUGER 89-94 94 2.0- ID PVC
MW-20Z [a] 1989 HOLLOW STEM AUGER 173-178 178 2.0' ID PVC
NOTES: [a] - MW-20A,B.C,Z were located in Study Area CS-0 but were associated with AOC LF-1. MW • Monitoring Well If ID - 2-inch inside diameter PVC - Polyvinyl Chloride bgs — below ground surface (in feet)
CS9ODV2-4 2-13 TABLE 2-5 SUMMARY OF GAS CHROMATOGRAPH SCREENING
STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
EXPLORATION EXPLORATION SAMPLE INT. TYPE OF QC 1 :-- ,,-.-. E-twe^-^v PHASE ... "V ..;;,....." » "• ' • MEDIUM IFEETBQ8) ANALYSIS
SOIL GAS 1 CS-9- 1 THROUGH GAS 3-6 HS CS-9-13
STRUCTURE SAMPLE 2 CO-5THROUGHCD-6 SED NA PT
TEST PIT 2 TP-9 SOIL 2 PT 6 TEST PIT 2 TP-10 SOIL 1 PT 6 TEST PIT 2 TP-11 SOIL 3 PT
MONITORING WELL BORING 2 MW-2 GW 78-83 PT 83-88 88-93 93-98 98-103 103- 108 108- 113 113- 118
NOTES: HS = HMdspoc* PT = Purge and Trap BGS «= b«low ground surtac* GC = GM Chromatograph ID = Identification INT = Interval GW Groundwatar SED = S«dim*nt NA = Not Applicable
CS9DD\2-5 2-14 SECTION 2
Five groundwater samples were collected and submitted for off-site laboratory analysis; three from MW-1 and two from MW-2. In addition, sediment samples were collected from the nine underground structures and submitted for off-site laboratory analysis. One liquid sample also was collected from an underground structure for analysis. A summary of analyzed samples is provided in Table 2-6. The depth interval, validation level, and analytical parameters for each sample are also provided in this table.
W0129414.080 870*46 2-15 TABLE 2-6 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
...; • I^IUM; PHASE EXPLORATION DEPTH* PARAMETERS VALIDATION IDENTIFICATION (bgs) LEVEL SURFACE SOIL 2 TP-8 i V,SV,I,TPH c TP-9 2 V.SV.I.TPH c TP-10 1 V.SV.I.TPH c
3 TP-8C 1.5 V c ' TP-9C 1.5 V.TPH D TP-10C 1.3 TPH C
SUBSURFACE SOIL 1 TP-3 8-9 V.SV.I D TP-4 6-7 V.SV.I C TP-5 8-9 V.SV.I C
2 TP-9 6 V.SV.TPH C TP-10 6 V.SV.I.TPH C TP-11 3 V.SV.P/P.I.TPH C
3 TP-9C 6.3 V.TPH C TP-10C 6 TPH C TP-11C 3-3.5 V C
GROUNDWATER 1 MW-1 72-82 MLDL-V.SV.I D
2 MW-1 72-82 V.SV.I C MW-2 84-89 V.SV.I C MW-2dup 84-89 V.SV.I C
3 MW-1 72-82 LCW-V D MW-2 84-89 LCW-V C
STRUCTURE LIQUID 1 CL-1 NA V.SV.P/P.I C
STRUCTURE SEDIMENT! 1 CD-I NA V.SV.P/P.I.TPH C CD-2 NA V.SV.P/P.l.TPH C
2 CD-3 NA V.SV.P/P.I.TPH C CD -4 NA V.SV.I.TPH C CD-5 NA V.SV.I.TPH C CD-6 NA V.SV.P/P.I.TPH C CD-7 NA V.SV.P/P.I.TPH C CD-8 NA V.SV.I.TPH C CD-8 dup NA V.SV.I.TPH C CD-9 NA SV.P/P.I D V.TPH C
NOTES: Parameters Validation Levels Phase 3 Confirmation Study MLOL Modifed Method for Low Detection UmK C HAZWRAP Level C bg» = below ground surface (in feet) V TCL Volatile Organic Analytes D * HAZWRAP Level D * = Indicates screened interval for SV TCL SemivoUrtila Organic Analytes monitoring well P/P TCL Pesticides/Polychlorinated biphenyls TCL = Targat Compound Ust I - TAL Inorganics dup = Indicates duplicate sampla TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (USEPA Method 418.1) NA = Not Applicable LCW = Organic Analyses for Low Concentration Water
CS9DD\2-e 2-16 SECTION 3
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
Information from subsurface sampling indicates that the geology beneath Study Area CS-9 consists of 1 to 5 feet of fill/reworked native soil overlying outwash sand. The fill was described as silty fine sand to sandy silt with varying amounts of gravel. The outwash sand was described as a fine-to-coarse sand with little fine gravel and trace silt. The outwash deposit contained occasional gravelly sand layers and was alternately poorly and well sorted.
The top of the groundwater surface recorded in February 1993 was approximately 75 to 78 feet below ground surface (bgs) in MW-1 and MW-2, in the outwash deposit. Based on the Regional Water Table Contour Map of the MMR prepared using May 1990 basewide water level data, groundwater flow at Study Area CS-9 is to the southwest (see Figure 2-1). The horizontal gradient in the outwash sands is approximately 0.0008 ft/ft in this study area, with no significant vertical gradients expected. Using a hydraulic conductivity of 160 ft/d (ABB-ES, 1992), an.effective porosity of 0.3 for outwash sands at the MMR (E.G. Jordan Co., 1989), and a local gradient of 0.0008 ft/ft, the horizontal groundwater flow velocity beneath the study area is anticipated to be approximately 0.4 ft/d.
W01294H080 870M6 3-1 SECTION 4
4.0 NATURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF DETECTED ANALYTES
As outlined in Subsection 2.6, the primary contaminants potentially released at Study Area CS-9 are typical of those wastes associated with motor pools, including MOGAS, oil, paint residues, battery electrolytes, antifreeze, and solvents used to clean engine parts. This section describes the compounds and analytes detected in various samples collected as part of the SI conducted at Study Area CS-9.
4.1 STRUCTURES
Of the sediment samples collected from each of the nine underground structures at Study Area CS-9, all but CD-4 were analyzed using medium-level VOC analytical protocols. Four structures were reported to contain chlorinated hydrocarbons (i.e., CD-I, CD-2, CD-6, and CD-9) and six were reported to contain fuel-related VOCs including ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes (i.e., CD-I, CD-2, and CD-6 through CD-9). Benzene was also reported in two samples, CD-I and CD-2, at estimated concentrations of 5.1 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 6.1 mg/kg, respectively. Among the detected chlorinated solvents were 1,1,2,2,-tetrachloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethene, and trichloroethene. Additionally, chlorobenzene was detected in two structure sediment samples: CD-I and CD-9. Because most of these samples were analyzed using medium-level protocols resulting in elevated sample quantitation limits (SQLs), other Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs may be present at concentrations less than the SQLs.
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected in each of the structure sediment samples with the exception of CD-4. Benzo(a)pyrene was reported in four of the nine samples, with the highest concentration, 43 mg/kg, reported in the CD-7 sample. Phthalates were also detected in two samples.
Nine pesticides were reported in four of the structure sediments, with the highest concentration of any individual compound less than 1 mg/kg. The polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), Aroclor-1254, was reported in the CD-6 sample at a concentration of 15 mg/kg.. A VOC commonly associated with PCBs, chlorobenzene, was also observed in this sample.
Each of the Target Analyte List (TAL) analytes were reported in at least one sediment sample. Notable detections included lead, which was reported in all of the
W0129414.080 8703-46 4-1 SECTION 4
samples, and was detected at concentrations of several thousands mg/kg in four samples. Cadmium was reported in seven of nine samples, with the highest concentration, 87.1 mg/kg, in the CD-I sample. Most cadmium results were detected between 15 and 30 mg/kg. Sample CD-6 had the greatest variety of inorganic analytes reported, including mercury (0.21 J mg/kg) and cyanide (2.9 mg/kg). Chromium, reported in all samples, was detected in each of samples CD-I, CD-6, and CD-8 at several hundred mg/kg.
Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were reported at concentrations in excess of 10 percent by weight in three samples (CD-I, CD-6, and CD-8), and all of the sediment samples were found to contain detectable concentrations of hydrocarbons.
Volatile tentatively identified compounds (TICs) were reported in seven of the nine structure sediment samples while semivolatile TICs were reported in all of the structure sediments. Most of the TICs reported were evaluated to be the result of fuel degradation.
Although sediment samples were collected from each of the nine structures, only one structure, Leaching Well 1, contained enough liquid to be sampled. Three VOCs were reported, with chloroform (55 micrograms per liter [/tg/L]) being the only compound above the SQL. Twelve PAHs were also reported in this sample, as were isophorone, and two isomers of phthalate. All the detected semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were qualitatively identified, as they were flagged as estimated during validation. Most of the TAL inorganic analytes were also detected, including cadmium (850 ng/L), chromium (1,800 /*g/L), cyanide (41.9 J /*g/L), lead (7,700 J ng/L), mercury (0.84 J / Tables 4-1 and 4-2 summarize the analytes detected in the nine underground structures at this study area. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the detections in relation to their location. 42 SOIL This subsection describes the results of analyses on soil samples collected from this study area. The results are discussed by the location at the study area from which they were collected, as follows: • area around the Former Wash Rack East of the BMX Track W0129414.080 8703^6 4-2 TABLE 4-1 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN STRUCTURE LIQUID SAMPLE STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION Exploration ID: CL-1 ANALYTES Sampled: 07- DEC- 89 Depth: VOLATILES fc/g/L) 2-Butanone 9 J Bromodichloromethane 3 J Chloroform 55 SBHIVOLATILES tog/L) 2-MethylriaphtniJene 72 J Acenaprrthene 5 J BenzD(a)anthracene 6 J Benxo(g,h,i)perylene 6 J Chryaene 9 J Di-n-octylphthalate 13 J Dibenzofuran 4 J Fluoranthene 8 J Fluorene 5 J lndeno(1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene 4 J Isophorone 10 J n- NHroeodiphwiylamin* 15 J Ntaphlhalen* 46 J Pyr*n« 11 J Bb(2-*thylh«xyl)pMhalate 9 J PEST1CIDES/PCB« (^g/L) - INORGANICS (pg/g Aluminum 121.000 Arsenic 28.5 J Barium 3.900 J Beryllium 150 J Cadmium 850 Calcium 82.000 J Chromium 1.800 Cobalt 400 J Copper 2.750 J Cyanide 41.9 J Iron 3.030.000 Lead 7,700 J Magnesium 22.700 J Manganese 3,650 Mercury 0.64 Nickel 1.200 J Vanadium 1.950 J Zinc 128,000 Notes: - -Not Detected N/A Not Analyzed CS9DD\4-1 4-3 TABLE 4-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN STRUCTURE SEDIMENT SAMPLES STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION Exploration 10: CD-1 CO-2 CD -a CD-4 CO-8 ;!;;•' C0~»" ••:.. tempted: 07-DEC-89 07-DEC-89 17-NOV-90 17-NOV-90 17-NOV-90 17-NOV-90 17-NOV-90 ANALYTES ffli inn VOLATILES (mg/kg) 1 ,1 ,2.2-Tefrachlcroethane 22 J 9.4 J 1,2-Dtehloroethene (total) R R 0.56 J - - 140 - - - — — — — — — Benzene 6.1 J 5.1 J — — Chlorobenzene 27 J R — — — 18 — — — _— Chloroform 67 J R — — — — — _ _ Ethylbenzene 120 J 66 J - - - 53 27 94 J 88 0.65_ Tefrachloroethene R R — — — 94 — — — _ Toluene 100 J 14 J — — — 95 — 87 J 110 Total Xylenes 720 J 120 J - -- 250 130 280 280 3.3 Trtehloroethene R R — — — 21 — — — — SEMIVOLAT1LES (mg/kg) _ 2-Methytnaphthalene 390 39 0.28 NJ _ _ 140 100 140 N t Acenapnthene 31 J — — — 1.5 J — — — — — — — — — — — Acenaphthylene — — — 2 J Anthracene 1.3 J 1.2 J — — 3N — — — — 6 Benzo(a)anthracene 4.7 J 3.8 0.51 — 9.8 — 37 — — 11 Benzo(a)pyrene 7.1 J 3.4 0.6 - 8 — 43 — — 8.2 Benzofb)fluoranthene 11 J 6.5 2.8 NJ — 8 — 35 J — — 15 NJ Benzo(g,h,l)perylene 3.8 J 1.7 J 0.3 J — 4.5 — 26 J — — 4.1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene — — -NJ — 8.8 — 48 — — -NJ Chrysene 11 J 4.1 0.57 — 9.3 N — 38 — — 1_2 Dl-n-octylphthnlate — — — — — 9.8 NJ — — — Dlbenz(a,h)an1hracene — — — — 2.1 — — — — 2.6 NJ Dlbenzofuran 26 J 1.9 J — — 0.94 J — — — — 2.6 J Fluoranthene 13 J 9.1 0.7 — 19 — 52 — _ 30 — — Floor ene 16 J 2.2 — 1.7 J — — 4.7 lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene 2.9 J 1.9 J 0.41 — 5.5 35 J 5.8 Naphthalene 210 28 130 77 110 2.1 J Pentachlorophenol — — — — — — — 11 NJ 17 NJ — Phenanthrene 42 8.6 0.39 J — 15 — 32 J — 14 J 28 Pyrene 12 J 8.5 0.61 - 13 - 40 - - 23 Bte(2- ethylhexyQphthalate 1.5 J CS9DD\4-2 I I TABLE 4-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN STRUCTURE SEDIMENT SAMPLES STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION Exploration ID: CO-1 CD-2 CD-3 CD-4 CD-5 CD~6 ; ••• CO-TV-:-' :,;:;.; CO H*'*" eo^« CD~« ; tempted: 07-DEC-89 07-DEC-89 17-NOV-90 17-NOV-00 17-NOV-BO 17-NOV-M 17-NOV-flO i7-NOV-r90 17-NOV-M 1B-NOV-9O ANALYTE8 PESTICIDES/PCBe (mg/kg) 4.4--DDD — 0.066 — N/A N/A — — N/A N/A 0.011 J 4.4'-DDE — — — N/A N/A — — N/A N/A 0.016 J 4.4'-DDT — — — N/A N/A — — N/A N/A 0.91 J Aroclor-1254 — — — N/A N/A 15 — N/A N/A — Dieldrin 0.1 — — N/A N/A — — N/A N/A — Endosulfan II 0.013 J — — N/A N/A — — N/A N/A — Endrin ketone — — — N/A N/A — 0.024 J N/A N/A 0.021 J Methoxychlor — — — N/A N/A — — N/A N/A 0.86 J alpha- BHC. 0.016 J — — N/A N/A — — N/A N/A — beta-BHC — 0.038 — N/A N/A — — N/A N/A - MORGANICS (mg/kg) Aluminum 5,350 5,080 5.470 1,290 1.920 4,710 11.200 6.400 5.140 2,450 Antimony — — — — — 11 J 17.7 J 12.5 J 10.9 J — Arsenic 9 2.6 J 2.4 — 2 J 64.6 14.4 35.8 34.9 2.1 Barium 562 126 39 J 10.9 J 395 J 1,090 J 1,020 J 2,270 J 1,260 J 24.2 J Beryllium 1.7 J 0.92 J — — — — — — — — Cadmium 87.1 16.9 1.6 — 6.2 30 27.2 25.8 18.8 — Calcium 3,420 1,800 583 J 405 J 1,610 2.590 14,600 4,970 3,760 325 J Chromium 276 62.5 9.3 19.4 19.9 665 151 421 550 4.7 Cobalt 4.5 J 5.2 J 2.4 J — 1.9 J 6.1 J 15.5 J 8.2 J 7 J 2.1 J Copper 538 139 16.9 6.3 72.2 761 927 942 643 10.3 Cyanide — — — — — 2.9 — — — — ton 25,700 16,100 8.200 2,630 5,680 17,100 37,100 25,000 20.500 5,320 Lead 4,990 1.310 159 24 496 5,650 4,570 5,070 4,290 101 Magnesium 1.330 J 1.630 815 J 616 J 456 J 1,930 3,370 2,090 1,740 494 J Manganese 89.3 84.9 129 39 35.9 109 421 148 132 40.6 Mercury — — — 0.18 J — 0.21 J — 0.87 J — — Nickel 41.6 88_ — — 4.7 J 34.4 45.2 39.4 30 — Potassium — 288 J 216 J 166 J 463 J 930 J 593 J 444 J 191 J Selenium 0.51 J — — — _— — — — — — Silver _ _ _ — — — 4.2 _ _ Sodium _ _ 46.7 J 22.9 J 52.2 J 141 J 2320 278 J 207 J 51.9 J Vanadium 19.1 J 38.2 13.2 3.9 J 6.1 J 19 75.8 21.2 17.2 7.3 J Zinc 12,400 2,640 264 30.9 935 1,150 1,660 987 716 57.9 TPH (mo/kg) 186.410 29.630 1.090 80 806 166.000 51.800 24.500 J 114.000 J 610 Notes: - = Not Detected N/A = Not Analyzed * = Duplicate Sample TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Rounded to the nearest whole number) CS9DD\4-2 NOTES: LF-1/RFW-3A TO AOC LF-1 1. ALL SOIL AND SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN mgVkg. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL AQUEOUS CONCENTRATIONS IN (iQVL CD-1 12/7/W 2. •- INDICATE• S NO TARGETED COMPOUNDS SNOW FENCE WERE DETECTED. VOCs 3. TIC RESULTS INDICATE NUMBER OF l.1.2,2-T8trachloroethane 22J COMPOUNDS IDENTIFIED. TOTAL Benzene 6.1J CONCENTRATION OF TICs IS SHOWN IN Chlorobenzene 27J PARENTHESIS. Chloroform 67J 4. FOR DEFINITIONS OF QUALIFIERS. SEE SI Ethylbenzene 120J REPORT (ABB-ES. 1993). Toluene 100J 5. NO SAMPLES FROM THE STRUCTURES Total Xylenes 720J WERE SUBMITTED FOR OFF-SITE TICs 3 (170.0J) CHEMICAL ANALYSIS FROM SVOCs EXPLORATIONS WITHOUT A DATA BOX. TOTAL PAHs 781.8 TICs 17 (6640.0J) PEST/PCBs Dieldrin 0.1 Endosulfan II 0.013J FORMER WASH RACK alpha-BHC 0.016J CD-2 12/7/S9 VENDING VOCs BUILDINGS 1.1.2.2-Tetrachk>roemane 9.4J Benzene 5.1 J CL-1 12/7/89 Ethylbenzene 66 J IATION OF FORMER USTs Toluene 14 J VOCs 2-Butanone 3J Total Xylenes 120J f tE CrtlNG TICs 2 (40.0J) Bromodicriloromethane 3J TP^c"fMb * SVOCs Chloroform 55 >WELL4(CD-4) Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 1.5J TICi NO DATA TOTAL PAHs 119.9 SVOCs 11/17/90 TICs 14 (408.0J) Di-n-octylphthalate 13J VOCs PEST/PCBs Isopftorone 10J 1.2-Dichloroethene (total) 140 4,4'-DDD 0.066 Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 9J Chlorobenzene 18 beta-BNC 0.038 TICs 10 (61OJ) PEST/PCBs Ethylbenzene 53 Tetrachtoroethene 94 Toluene 95 £ Total Xylenes 250 LEACHING WELL 1 Q Trichtoroethene 21 TICs 5 (202.QJ) (CD-1/CL-1)j; SVOCs Z^TP-S Di-n-octylphmalale 9.8 TOTAL PAHs 270 TICs 3 (6370.0J) PEST/PCBs Aroctor-1254 15 CD-7 11/17/90 WEATHERED ASPHALT WITH PINE GROWTH VOCs RFW-2A CONCRETE PAD Ethylbenzene 27 Total Xylenes 130 SUMP 8 TICs 4(144.0J) LEACHING ®(CM) SVOCs WELL 2 (CD-2)( TOTAL PAHs 386 ' 'o/- , TICs 2(1733.0J) LEACHING PEST/PCBs CD-3 11/17/90 WELLS(CD-S) Endrin Ketone 0.024J VOCs 1.2-Dichloroethene (total) 056J CM 11/17/90 (DUP) TICs 2 (3.57J) SVOCs WEATHERED ASPHALT r — VOCs TOTAL PAHs 7.17 WITH PINE GROWTH /4105, Ethylbenzene 88 94J TICs 6 (25.95J) Toluene 110 87J PEST/PCBs Total Xylenes 280 280 , CONCRETE PAD TICs 3052.0J) 4 (634.0J) ;SUMP 91 SVOCs LEGEND LF-1/MW-20A,B,C,Z LEACHING Pentaenkvophenol 17 11 (CM) TOTAL PAHs 264 177 WELL 3 (CD-3) FORMER DRY WELL LOCATION TICs 2 (9810.0J) 4 (5600. OJ) ^ \ FORMER SUMP LOCATION CD-9 11/17/90 ^ ASPHALT EXISTING MONITORING WELL VOCs Ethylbenzene 0.65 MONITORING WELL LOCATION Total Xylenes 3.3 2 TICs 1 (8.3J) APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET TEST PIT LOCATION SVOCs TOTAL PAHs 157.1 TICs 3 (42.6J) 200 400 PEST/PCBs 4.4'-DDD 0.01 U SUMMARY OF 4.4'-DDE 0.016J 4.4'-DDT 0.91J ORGANIC ANALYTES Endrin Ketone 0.02J DETECTED IN STRUCTURES Methoxychlor 0.86J Harding Lawson Associates STUDY AREA SOURCE: OAFB MASTER PLAN TAB NO. G-7. AERIAL INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM CS-9 SURVEY PHOTO TAKEN IN APRIL. 1990, AND FIELD MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION DECISION FIGURE 4-1 OBSERVATION. APRIL. 1993. DOCUMENT 9806001 D(c) 12345 B 4-6 LF-1/RFW-3A TO AOC LF-1A NOTES: 1. ALL SOIL AND SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/kg. SNOW FENCE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL AQUEOUS CONCENTRATIONS IN pg/L 2. TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON (TPH) RESULTS HAVE BEEN ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST WHOLE CD-4 11/17/90 NUMBER. 3. •-• INDICATES NO TARGETED COMPOUNDS WERE INORGANICS DETECTED. WEATHERED Aluminum 1290 4. ONLY INORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE MMR Barium BACKGROUND ARE SHOWN ASPHALT 10.9J .Calcium 405J 5. FOR DEFINITIOI QUALIFIERS. SEE SI REPORT 1 11/17/90 Chromium 19.4 (ABB-ES, 1993). CD-6 Copper 6.3 HE STRUCTUREE S WERE SUBMITTED I/ INORGANICS Iron 2630 jA^ALl ArJALTOlAhlAI VQIQo 1I rooHUMu ^Ji 1/ Aluminum 4710 Lead 24.4 OUT A DATA BC y - V]/ Antimony 11J Magnesium 616J J/ Arsenic 64.6 Manganese 39 " Barium 1090J Mercury 018J CD-1 12/TO9 CL-1 12/7/89 Cadmium 30 Potassium 216J Calcium 2590 Sodium 22.9J INORGANICS I INORGANICS Chromium 665 Vanadium 3.9J Aluminum 5350 Aluminum 121000 Cobalt 6.1J Zinc 30.9 Arsenic 9 Arsenic 28.5J Copper 761 TPH 80 Barium 562 Barium 3900J Cyanide 2.9 Beryllium 1.7J Beryllium 150J Iron 17100 Cadmium 87.1 > Cadmium 850 Lead 5650 Calcium 3420 Calcium 82000J Magnesium 1930 CD-2 12/7/89 Chromium 276 Chromium 1800 Manganese 109 Cobalt 4.5 J Cobalt 400J Mercury 0.21J INORGANICS Copper 538 Copper 2750J Nickel 34.4 Aluminum 5080 Iron 25700 Cyanide 41. 9J Potassium 463J Arsenic 2.6 J Lead 4990 Iron 3030000 Sodium 141J Barium 126 Magnesium 1330J Lead 7700J Vanadium 19 Beryllium 0.92 J Manganese 89.3 Magnesium 22700J Zinc 1150 Cadmium 16.9 Nickel 41.6 Manganese 3650 TPH 166000 Calcium 1800 Selenium 0.51J Mercury 0.84 Chromium 62.5 Vanadium 19.1J Nickel 1200J ; // JPT410 4 Vanadium Cobalt 5.2 J Zinc 12400 1950J / A Copper 139 TPH 186410 Zinc 128000 Tl F / CD-7 Iron 16100 SUMi P «'J IM r 11/17/90 Lead 1310 Magnesium 1630 LEACHING WELL I (CD* SUMP 7 INORGANICS Aluminum Manganese 84.9 (C07) 11200 Antimony 17.7J Nickel 88 Vanadium 38.2 •• Arsenic 14.4 CD-8 11/17/90 (DUP) Barium 1020J Zinc 2640 Cadmium 27.2 TPH 29630 CD-5 11/17/90 INORGANICS Calcium 14600 Aluminum 5140 6400 Chromium 151 INORGANICS Antimony RFW-2 10.9J 12.5J Cobalt 15.5J Aluminum 1920 Arsenic 34.9 35.8 Copper 927 Barium Arsenic 2J 1260J 2270J Iron 37100 Barium Cadmium 395J 18.8 25.8 Lead 4570 Cadmium Calcium 6.2 3760 4970 Magnesium 3370 Calcium Chromium 1610 550 421 Manganese 421 Chromium 19.9 Cobalt 7J Ci 8.2J Nickel 45.2 Cobalt 1.9J Copper 643 942 Potassium 930J LEACHING Copper 72.2 Iron 20500 25000 Sodium 2320 Iron 5680 WELL 2 (CD-2)C Lead 4290 5070 Vanadium 75.8 Lead 496 Magnesium 1740 2090 Zinc 1660 Magnesium 456J Manganese 132 148 TPH 51800 CD-3 11/17/90 Manganese 35.9 Mercury . 0.87J Nickel 4.7J Nickel 30 39.4 Potassium 166J Potassium 444J 593J Sodium 52 .2J Silver . 4.2 Vanadium 6.1J CD-9 11/18/80 Sodium 207J 278 J WEATHE Zinc 935 Vanadium 17.2 21.2 WITH PI TPH 806 INORGANICS Zinc 716 987 Aluminum 2450 TPH 114000J24500J CONCRETE PAD Arsenic 2.1 Barium 24.2J :,z LEACHING Calcium 325J LEGEND Chromium 4.7 WELL 3 (CD-3) Cobalt 2.J FORMER DRY WELL LOCATION Copper 10.3 uw-r Iron 5320 FORMER SUMP LOCATION TP-5 Lead 101 Magnesium 494J EXISTING MONITORING WELL Manganese 40.6 Potassium 191J MONITORING WELL LOCATION Sodium 51.9J Vanadium 7.3J TEST PIT LOCATION Zinc 57.9 CONNefty TPH 610 AV*NUC; SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTES APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET DETECTED IN Harding Lawson Associates STRUCTURES 0 200 400 STUDY AREA SOURCE: OAFB MASTER PLAN TAB NO. G-7, AERIAL INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM CS-9 SURVEY PHOTO TAKEN IN APRIL. 1990. AND FIELD MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION DECISION FIGURE 4-2 OBSERVATION. APRIL, 1993 DOCUMENT 9806001 D(c) 12345 4-7 SECTION 4 • area around the Former Wash Rack West of the BMX Track • area around the Former USTs and Pump Island • area around the Leaching Well 1 • area around the Leaching Well 2 • area around the Leaching Well 3 Table 4-3 summarizes the analytes detected in surface soil and Figure 4-3 shows the detections in relation to their locations. Table 4-4 summarizes the analytes detected in subsurface soil samples and Figure 4-4 shows the detections at subsurface sample locations. For the areas listed previously, the following text describes the data in more detail. Former Wash Rack East of the BMX Track. Methylene chloride (0.008 mg/kg) was detected in one surface soil sample collected from the Former Wash Rack east of the BMX track for VOC analysis. Several PAHs were detected in the surface soil samples from test pit TP-9, including benzo(a)pyrene (0.59 mg/kg). Pyrene was detected at the highest concentration (1.4 mg/kg) of any individual PAH. The total concentration of PAHs in this sample was 9.46 mg/kg. A similar concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons was reported in this sample, 16 mg/kg. Benzoic acid was also detected in this sample (0.27 J mg/kg). The subsurface samples from test pits TP-9 and TP-10 indicated results similar to those in the surface soil samples. PAHs were detected in the TP-9 sample from 6 feet bgs, at a total concentration of 9.46 mg/kg, while none were reported in TP-10. TPH results for these samples correlated well with PAH detections, with 14 mg/kg reported in the 6 foot bgs sample from TP-9 and none reported in the subsurface sample from TP-10. No petroleum hydrocarbons were reported in the 6 foot bgs sample from TP-9C, obtained approximately 10 feet south of TP-9. TPH (2 mg/kg) were reported in the subsurface sample collected from TP-10C, located approximately 10 feet south of TP-10. Several inorganics were also detected above MMR background in both surface and subsurface samples collected from around this wash rack, but most were near observed background concentrations. Semivolatile TICs were reported in TP-9 and TP-10 samples that were indicative of weathered petroleum compounds. Former Wash Rack West of the BMX Track. PAHs and aromatic hydrocarbons were detected in the only sample collected from this area. A total concentration of 6.82 mg/kg of PAHs was detected in the 3 foot bgs sample from TP-11. The W0129414.080 8703-46 4-8 TABLE 4-3 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SURFACE SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION Exploration ID: TP-10 TP-10C TP-8 TP-8C TP-9C TP-9 ANALYTES Sampled: OliDEC^-90 24-FEB-93 18-NOV-90 24-FEB-03 25-FEB-33 01 -DEC -90 : : : : ; \", - . :X::-: :::; :-.': . ' A. '. * •' .i' : : DeptHl 1 t . .- .•-:- ..1. ...-I v.,.-,1.H :. :— -. '^V.iMWi •^••/•:2 - VOLATILES (mg/kg) Methylene chloride 0.008 J N/A 41 J - — — Toluene — N/A 1.4 J — — — SEMIVOLATILES (mg/kg) Acenaphthylene — N/A 0.21 J N/A N/A — Anthracene — N/A 0.16 J N/A N/A 0.21 J Benzotatanthracene — N/A 1.4 N/A N/A 0.86 Benzojajpyrene — N/A 1 N/A N/A 0.59 Benzoibjfluoranthene — N/A 1.2 N/A N/A 0.76 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene — N/A 0.64 N/A . N/A 0.3 J Benzo(k)fuoranthene — N/A 1 N/A N/A 0.74 Benzole acid — N/A — N/A N/A 0.27 J Chrysene — N/A 1.3 N/A N/A 0.88 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene — N/A 0.29 NJ N/A N/A — Fluoranthene — N/A 1.9 N/A N/A 1.9 Fluor ene — N/A — N/A N/A 0.14 NJ lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene - N/A 0.79 N/A N/A 0.38 Phenanthrene — N/A 0.46 N/A N/A 1.3 Pyrene — N/A 1.7 N/A N/A 1.4 INORGANICS (mg/kg) Aluminum 11.100 N/A 1,760 N/A N/A 8,350 Arsenic 2 J N/A 4.5 N/A N/A 2.S Barium 33.3 J N/A 14.8 J N/A N/A 12.7 J Calcium 279 J N/A 442 J N/A N/A 144 J Chromium 9.8 N/A 1.4 J N/A N/A 8.9 : : Cobalt 3.2 J N/A 2.7 J N/A N/A ••-i ':. -' Copper 7.3 N/A 10.2 N/A N/A 2.1 J Iroh 11,500 N/A 4.350 N/A N/A 8,220 : Lead .• :i" . .6.9 :.; N/A 171 N/A N/A 3.»::: " : ' ; ' Magnesium 737 J N/A 376 J N/A N/A 552 J Manganese 191 N/A 49.2 N/A N/A 35.9 — Nickel 5 J N/A N/A N/A — Silver 1.8 J N/A — . . N/A N/A 1.4 J Sodium 35.6 J N/A 47.2 J N/A N/A 30.7 J Vanadium 18.2 N/A 5.3 J N/A N/A 144 Zinc 52.5 N/A 54.2 N/A N/A 39.9 TPH (mg/kg) - 6 192 N/A - 16 Notes: - = Not Detected N/A = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Rounded to the nearest whole number) Depth indicates top of sample interval. Shaded results are below MMR background concehfrations CS9DD\4-3 TP-e 11/1V1 M DEPTH I LF-1/RFW-3A TO AOC LF-1 VOCs Methylene Chloride 41J NOTES: Toluene 1.4J TICs Nl SNOW FENCE 1. ALL SOIL AND SEDIMENT SVOCs CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/kg. Acenaphthylene 0.21J 2. DEPTH. WHERE SHOWN. Anthracene 0.16J INDICATES THE TOP OF THE . Benzo(a)Anthracene 1.4 SAMPLE INTERVAL Benzo(a)Pyrene 1 Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 3. •-• INDICATES NO TARGETED 1.2 Benzo(g,h.i)perylene 0.64 COMPOUNDS WERE DETECTED. WEATHERED Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 1 4. TIC RESULTS INDICATE NUMBER Chryxene 1.3 ASPHALT OF COMPOUNDS IDENTIFIED. Dfeenz(a,h)Anthracene 0.29 TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF TICs Ruoranthene 1.9 IS SHOWN IN PARENTHESIS. IndenoO .2,3-c.d)Pyrene 0.79 5. ONLY INORGANIC Phenanthrene 0.46 ^ CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE MMR Pyrene 1.7 TICs 1 (2.9J) BACKGROUND ARE SHOWN. FORMER WASH RACK INORGANICS 6. FOR DEFINITIONS OF QUALIFIERS. Arsenic SEE SI REPORT (ABB-ES, 1993). Bahum 7. NO SAMPLES FROM THIS MEDIUM Copper WERE SUBMITTED FOR OFF-SITE Lead CHEMICAL ANALYSIS FROM Zinc EXPLORATIONS WITHOUT A DATA TPH BOX. 8. TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON (TPH) RESULTS HAVE BEEN ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST WHOLE NUMBER. 9. N OCYANIDE RESULTS FROM PHASE 3 ARE REPORTED AS THEY WERE NON-DETECT. VOCs SVOCs TP-10 12/1 /SO DEPTH V Anthracene 0.21J Benzo(a)Anthracene 0.86 VOCs Benzo(a)Pyrene 0.59 Melhytene Chloride 0.008J Benzo LEACHING WELL2(CD-2) WEATHERED ASPHALT /...„/ WITH PINE GROWTH / 4105 LF-1/MW-20A,B,C,Z LEACHING WELL3(CD-3) LEGEND O FORMER DRY WELL LOCATION ) FORMER SUMP LOCATION EXISTING MONITORING WELL -A- MONITORING WELL LOCATION TEST PIT LOCATION SUMMARY OF ANALYTES APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET DETECTED IN Harding Lawson Associates SURFACE SOIL 0 200 400 STUDY AREA SOURCE: OAFB MASTER PLAN TAB NO. G-7, AERIAL INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM CS-9 SURVEY PHOTO TAKEN IN APRIL, 1990. AND FIELD MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION DECISION FIGURE 4-3 OBSERVATION. APRIL. 1993. DOCUMENT 9806001 D(c) 12345 4-10 TABLE 4-4 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SUBSURFACE SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION Exploration K>: TP-$ TP-4 TP-5 TP-» TP-9C TP-10 TP-10C TP-lf TPM1C Swvpwoi M-NOV-W 20-NOV-80 20-NOV-M 01-DEC-OO 26-fEB-M dl~DEC~*0 *4~F£B~tf) M-DEC-M tSr^eB-W' : : ; : : : ;: ANALYTES Deptr. 8 : : .• a :.. :,: •:..;.;;;;;• « ::,:::;-.:::: ,.ii-:;.« .&'• .' -. *,£?:";•. :"i; :> *«:::;:*: •?:.Si: '•;!•:? ::::.:;:.;.. • VOLATILES (mg/kg) — — — Acetone 0 003 J 0.004 J — — N/A — Methylene chloride 0.008 — 0.008 — — — N/A — — SEMIVOLATH.ES (mg/kg) iu«k«AMMl — — — — 4-NKn ipnenoi N/A — N/A 0.25 J N/A Benzo •|antiracene — — 0.31 J N/A _ N/A 0.60 N/A Benzo sjpyrene _ 0.25 J N/A N/A 0.65 N/A — — — Benzo b)fluorarrthene 0.39 N/A — N/A 1.1 N/A Benzo g.n.i) pen/tone ~ — N/A _ N/A 0.3 J N/A Benzoj k)tkJorantiene 0.44 N/A N/A 1 N/A Chryser>e - — — 039 N/A N/A — N/A — — — Fluorarrtiene — 0.73 N/A — N/A 1.3 N/A lndeno(1 ,2,3-c.d)pyrene — — 0.16 NJ N/A _ N/A N/A . PentacHorophenol _ N/A N/A 0.22 NJ N/A — — — Phenanthrene 033 J N/A — N/A 0.48 N/A Pyrene — — — 0.63 N/A — N/A 1.1 N/A PESTICIDES/PCS* (mg/kg) 4.4' -DDE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.012 N/A Endrin kvtofw N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.015 N/A INORGANICS (mg/kg) Aluminun 99_1 6,850 016 N/A N/A 9.690 N/A 4.100 J N/A Arsenic 1.4 J — N/A N/A 1.8 J N/A 2J N/A Barium 1.4 J 10.4 J 12 J N/A N/A 20 J N/A 8.8 J N/A Calcium 56.4 J 256 J 07.3 J N/A N/A 172 J N/A 2*8 J N/A Chromium —_ 10 2 J N/A N/A 9.2 N/A R N/A Cobalt 2 J • — N/A N/A 5.1 J N/A 3.5 J N/A Copper 7.3 2,5 J N/A N/A 4.1J N/A 8.7 N/A Iron 1.43—0 5,540 1.520 N/A N/A 9.750 N/A 6.650 J N/A Lead 2.0 J 7.3 J 2.3 J N/A N/A 3.9 N/A 141 J N/A Magnesium 115 J 1,540 333 J N/A N/A 1,550 N/A 1.260 N/A Manganese 10 J 57.0 J 18 J N/A N/A 79.9 N/A 70.0 J N/A — Nickel —_ 5._8 J N/A N/A 5.7 J N/A 6.3 J N/A Silver _ _ : — N/A N/A 1.5 J N/A 1.4 J N/A Sodium N/A N/A 36.6 J N/A 57.3 J N/A Vanadium 1.0 J 10.7 J 1>— J N/A N/A 16.6 N/A 13.1 N/A Zinc -i 160 J 25.3 J N/A N/A 13.0 N/A 15.1 J N/A TPH (mg/kg) N/A N/A N/A 14 - - 2 1280 N/A Notes: - = Not Detected N/A -Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Rounded to the nearest whole number) Depth Indicates top of sample Interval. Shaded results are below MMR background niaBotis. CS9DD\4-4 TM 12/1/M DEPTH 6 NOTES: VOCs 1. ALL SOIL AND SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN mgrVg Acetone 0.003J UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. Memytone Chloride 0.006 2. DEPTH. WHERE SHOWN. INDICATES THE TOP OF THE TICs Nl SAMPLE INTERVAL SVOCs 3. •-• INDICATES NO TARGETED COMPOUNDS WERE WEATHEREC TICs Nl WITH PINE DETECTED. INORGANICS 4. TIC RESULTS INDICATE NUMBER OF COMPOUNDS VOCs IDENTIFIED. TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF TICs IS TICs SHOWN IN PARENTHESIS. SVOCs LEACHING 5. ONLY INORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE MMR BACKGROUND ARE SHOWN. TICs WELL2(CD-2) INORGANICS 6. FOR DEFINITIONS OF QUALIFIERS. SEE SI REPORT Aluminum (ABB-ES. 1993). Banum 7. NO SAMPLES FROM THIS MEDIUM WERE SUBMITTED Chromium FOR OFF-SITE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS FROM Copper EXPLORATIONS WITHOUT A DATA BOX. Iron 8. TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON (TPH) RESULTS Lead HAVE BEEN ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST WHOLE Magnesium WEATHERED ASPHALT NUMBER. Nckel WITH PINE GROWTH 9. NO CYANIDE RESULTS FROM PHASE 3 ARE Vanadium REPORTED AS THEY WERE NON-DETECT. Zinc LF-1/MW-20A.B.C.Z LEACHING WELL3(CD-3) FORMER DRY WELL LOCATION VOCs Acetone 0.004J FORMER SUMP LOCATION MethyMne Chloride 0.006 TICs Nl EXISTING MONITORING WELL SVOCs •net 1 (4.28J) MONITORING WELL LOCATION INORGANICS Znc 25.3J TEST PIT LOCATION SUMMARY OF ANALYTES APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET DETECTED IN Harding Lawson Associates SUBSURFACE SOIL 0 200 400 STUDY AREA SOURCE: OAFB MASTER PLAN TAB NO. G-7. AERIAL INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM CS-9 SURVEY PHOTO TAKEN IN APRIL. 1990. AND FIELD MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION DECISION FIGURE 4-4 OBSERVATION. APRIL. 1993. DOCUMENT 9806001D(c) 12345 4-12 SECTION 4 aromatic hydrocarbons, 4-nitrophenol and pentachlorophenol, were also detected in this sample at concentrations below the SQLs. Petroleum hydrocarbons were reported at concentrations of 1,280 mg/kg. Several inorganics were detected in this sample above MMR background. Most inorganic concentrations were slightly above established background; however; lead was reported at concentrations up to ten times higher than background, at 141 J mg/kg. Semivolatile TICs were reported in the TP-11 sample. Both TICs reported were indicative of weathered petroleum-based compounds. Area around the Former USTs and Pump Island. Soil gas screening results showed the presence of 1,1-dichloroethene in samples from points 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 13. Toluene was reported in soil gas from point 12. During off-site laboratory analysis, fuel-related organic compounds were detected in the surface sample analyzed from TP-8. Toluene (1.4 J mg/kg) and 12.05 mg/kg of total PAHs were detected in this sample. In addition, 192 mg/kg of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in this sample. Several inorganics were also detected in this sample above MMR subsurface soil background concentrations. Except for lead, which was detected at 171 mg/kg, inorganic analytes were close to background concentrations. The common laboratory contaminant, methylene chloride (41 J mg/kg), was also reported in this sample. Detection of this compound at this concentration is suspicious, as methylene chloride is a common laboratory contaminant and has a low vapor pressure making it highly volatile. It would only be expected to be present in surface soils if a spill of a liquid containing this compound occurred recently, as it tends to quickly vaporize. Additionally, the volatile extract from this sample was diluted four times, primarily due to the identification of TICs. If methylene chloride contamination occurred in the laboratory after the sample was diluted, the detection of this compound may have been magnified by four times. A final indication that this result may be a laboratory artifact is that methylene chloride was not reported in the sample from TP-8C collected approximately 10 feet west of test pit TP-8. An unknown PAH was reported in the sample from TP-8 in the semivolatile TIC data. Area around Leaching Well 1. One subsurface sample collected from TP-3 was analyzed from this area, with no organic analytes reported except for the common laboratory contaminants acetone and methylene chloride. All inorganic analytes detected were below MMR background. In addition, no volatile or semivolatile TICs were reported in this sample. Table 4-4 summarizes the analytes detected in subsurface soil samples, and Figure 4-4 shows the detections at subsurface sample locations. W0129414.080 8703-46 4-13 SECTION 4 Area around the Leaching Well 2. No TCL organic compounds were reported in the subsurface sample collected from 1P-4. In addition, no volatile or semivolatile HCs were reported in this sample. Several inorganic analytes were detected, but all were close to the established MMR background levels. Table 4-4 summarizes the analytes detected in subsurface soil samples, and Figure 4-4 shows the detections at subsurface sample locations. Area around the Leaching Well 3. One subsurface sample collected from TP-5 was analyzed from this area, with no organic analytes reported other than the common laboratory contaminants acetone and methylene chloride. A semivolatile TIC, identified as an unknown hydrocarbon, was detected in this sample. All inorganic analytes detected were below MMR background levels in this sample, with the exception of zinc. Table 4-4 summarizes the analytes detected in subsurface soil samples, and Figure 4-4 shows the detections at subsurface sample locations. 4.3 GROUNDWATER This subsection discusses the analytical results of groundwater samples collected from Study Area CS-9. In the three groundwater samples collected from MW-1, methylene chloride was reported in the Phase 3 sample at a concentration (1 J /tg/L) less than the SQL. During Phase 2, tetrachloroethene was detected in the sample from MW-2 and its duplicate at concentrations less than the SQL. Toluene and xylene were reported in the Phase 3 sample collected from this well. No SVOCs or inorganics above background ranges have been detected in either of these wells in any of the sampling rounds. An unknown ketone was the only identified TIC in the groundwater samples from this study area. Figure 4-5 shows the analytes detected in samples, and Table 4-5 summarizes the detected analytes. 4.4 SUMMARY OF DETECTED ANALYTES Residual compounds from reported fuel and solvent disposal were detected in underground structures at Study Area CS-9. Compounds including PAHs, volatile and semivolatile aromatic hydrocarbons, and halocarbons were detected in these structures. Lead, likely from the fuel, was also detected in the sediments of the W0129414.080 8703-46 4-14 TO AOC LF-1 WEATHERED ASPHALT tL>_A_y FORMER WASH RACK SPLIT RAIL FENCE LOCATION OF FORMER USTs LEACHING WELL4(CD-4) WEATHERED ASPHALT WITH PINE GROWTH FORMER PUMP ISLAND TP-2 LEACHING WELL 1 NOTES: 1. ALL AQUEOUS CONCENTRATIONS IN |ig/L 2. •-' INDICATES NO TARGETED COMPOUNDS WERE DETECTED. 3. TIC RESULTS INDICATE NUMBER OF COMPOUNDS WEATHERED ASPHALT IDENTIFIED TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF TICs IS WITH PINE GROWTH SHOWN IN PARENTHESIS. 4. ONLY INORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE MMR BACKGROUND ARE SHOWN. SUMPS 5. FOR DEFINITIONS OF QUALIFIERS, SEE SI REPORT (ABB-ES. 1993). ® LF-1/MW-20A,B,C,Z MW-2 1/8/91 (DUP) 2/24/93 LEGEND VOCs FORMER DRY WELL LOCATION Chloromethane 1 Tetrachloroethene 3J . 5J FORMER SUMP LOCATION Toluene 2 MW-1 3/2WM 1/KV91 2/24/»3 - Total Xylenes 3 EXISTING MONITORING WELL TICs Nl Nl 2(5JN) VOCs SVOCs . N/A MONITORING WELL LOCATION Methylene Chloride 1J TICs Nl Nl TICs Nl Nl Nl WA INORGANICS • TEST PIT LOCATION SVOCs N/A TICs 1(8J) Nl INORGANICS N/A SUMMARY OF ANALYTES APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER Harding Lawson Associates 0 200 400 STUDY AREA SOURCE: OAFB MASTER PLAN TAB NO. G-7, AERIAL INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM CS-8 SURVEY PHOTO TAKEN IN APRIL, 1990, AND FIELD MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION DECISION FIGURE 4-5 OBSERVATION. APRIL. 1993. DOCUMENT 9806001 D(C) 12 345 4-15 TABLE 4-5 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION Exploration ID: MW-1 MW-1 MW-1 MW-2* '••: ' MW^2:-W ^•MW-^^f Sampled: 29 -MAR -90 10-JAN-91 24-FEBr-9S 08-JAN-91 08-JAN-91 24r-fE^-§i4| ANALYTES VOLAT1LES fc/g/L) Chloronntlhftrw — _ — — — 1 Melhylene chloride - - 1 J - - — _ _ — Tefrachloroethene 5 J 3 J — Toluene _ _ _ — — 2 Total Xylenes - - — - - 3 SEMIVOUVTILES (fig/L) - - N/A - - N/A NORGANICS (M8/g Aluminum 14.2 J «. N/A • +** N/A Barium 11.9 J 10J N/A 7.2 J 6.5 J N/A Calcium 3.320 J 3,200 J N/A 3,060 J . ,:: ,.$,050j;,::,::;;: N/A Os Magnesium 2.960 J 2,940 J N/A 2.290 J ;:p'S> -.2,280. js» N/A •• — ' ' • - -.:•—: ;.-• " Manganese 24_7 26 N/A : N/A Potassium 1200 J N/A 924 J «- • ' •• N/A Sodium 4,620 J 4.470 J N/A 4.770 J 4,890 J N/A Not*s: - - Not Detected N/A = Not Analyzed * = Duplcate Sample Shaded results are below MMR background concentration*. CS9OCA4-5 I I SECTION 4 structures. Based on sample results, oil containing PCBs has been deposited in Sump 6 in the past as evidenced by the detection of PCBs and chlorobenzene. PAHs and elevated concentrations of lead were detected in soil around the wash racks east and west of the BMX track. These were likely present from disposal of liquid during the washing of motor vehicles when the study area was used as a motor pool. PAHs and lead were also detected in soil near the former MOGAS pump island and were likely the result of spills of leaded fuel that occurred during the pump island refueling operations. In addition, non-point sources (i.e., engine exhaust) likely contributed to the concentrations of PAHs. Evaluation of TIC data supports the historical uses of the study area, indicating degradation of fuel-related compounds in areas where TCL fuel-related compounds were detected. Results from groundwater analysis indicate that solvents were detected in groundwater during the Phase 2 time period (i.e., 1990). The Phase 3 sample results indicate fuel-related VOCs were present in the groundwater. The source of analytes detected in groundwater during the three phases of the SI were the result of contaminant migration from Study Area CS-9 or from the upgradient AOC LF-1 (see Figure 2-1). W0129414.080 8703-46 4-17 SECTION 5 5.0 PRELIMINARY RISK EVALUATION This section describes how the PREs were conducted for human health and ecological receptors, and presents the results for each PRE. Data collected from within the sump structures was excluded from the PRE because direct exposure to the sump contents was not likely to occur. The remaining data for soil and groundwater were included in the Study Area CS-9 PRE. 5.1 INTRODUCTION A PRE was conducted at Study Area CS-9 to provide a screening level assessment of potential risks to human health and ecological receptors associated with exposure to environmental contaminants identified during site characterization efforts. 5.1.1 Approach A PRE is a worst-case analysis that addresses the most sensitive receptors and all current and potential pathways. This PRE followed the approach outlined in the MMR Risk Assessment Handbook (RAH) (Automated Sciences Group, 1994), and is consistent with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance provided in Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Manual (Parts A and B) (USEPA, 1989a and 1991a), Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 2: Environmental Evaluation Manual (USEPA, 1989b), and other USEPA guidance (USEPA, 1989c,d; 1991b; 1992a,b,c). The approach of the PRE consists of the following three components: (1) data evaluation; (2) human health risk assessment; and (3) ecological risk assessment. Data were evaluated for three media (surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater) collected at Study Area CS-9 during the SI. No surface water or sediment exists on site. The data were determined to be sufficient to complete human health and ecological PREs at the study area. The ecological PRE considered exposures to surface soil only, while the human health PRE included an evaluation of exposures to all three media. The human health PRE followed the tiered approach as summarized in Figure 1 in the RAH (Automated Sciences Group, 1994). In the Tier I analysis, maximum W0129414.080 8703-46 5-1 SECTION 5 reported analyte concentrations were compared to hazard/risk equivalent contaminant concentrations (HECs) which equate to specific risk levels for worst-case land-use and exposure scenarios. If maximum site concentrations did not exceed the HECs for Tier I, risks were considered insignificant and no further evaluation was required. If there were exceedances, a Tier II screening was conducted. A Tier II analysis compares maximum contaminant concentrations to HECs which equate to specific risk levels for current land-use and exposure scenarios. Exceedance of Tier II HECs could be indicative of high risk and possibly the need for immediate action. The ecological PRE also followed a tiered approach. The ecological PRE differs from the human health PRE hi that it evaluates current exposures in Tier I, and future exposures in Tier II. In the Tier I analysis, maximum reported analyte concentrations were compared to HECs based on the most sensitive receptor species likely to inhabit the study area. If maximum site concentrations exceed HECs for Tier I, a remedial investigation can be recommended without Tier II evaluation. Otherwise, a Tier II evaluation is completed to compare maximum concentrations to HECs for indicator species likely to inhabit the study area based on future land use plans. In the Study Area CS-9 SI, the human health PRE consisted of Tier I evaluations for surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater, and a Tier II analysis of surface soil. The ecological PRE consisted of Tier I and II evaluations for surface soil exposures only. 5.13 Study Area CS-9 Objectives The purposes of this PRE were to: • select contaminants of potential concern (CPCs); • identify human and ecological exposure pathways; • identify human and ecological receptors; • compare CPCs at Study Area CS-9 to HECs and applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements; and W0129414.080 8703-46 5-2 SECTION 5 • provide a preliminary evaluation of the potential threats to human health and the ecological receptors. The PRE was conducted to support the recommendation of one of the following alternatives: (1) decision document (no further action); (2) remedial investigation/ feasibility study; or (3) removal action. 52 PRELIMINARY HUMAN HEALTH RISK EVALUATION The human health risk evaluation for Study Area CS-9 was conducted using the tiered approach. A detailed discussion of the methodology is in the RAH (Automated Sciences Group, 1994). The purpose of the risk evaluation was to identify potential human health risks associated with exposures to study area-related CPCs. The risk evaluation was not intended to quantify study area-specific health risks. 5.2.1 Data Evaluation The analytical data available for Study Area CS-9 were evaluated to identify study area- and media-specific CPCs. Frequencies of detection, ranges of SQLs, and a range of minimum to maximum detected concentrations of CPCs in surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater are presented in Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3, respectively. Selection of human health CPCs was completed in accordance with steps described in the RAH (Automated Sciences Group, 1994). Inorganic analytes detected in surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater, at concentrations below the MMR basewide media-specific background levels and also below Tier I HECs were not considered to be CPCs (Automated Sciences Group, 1994). Additionally, the essential dietary nutrients - calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium - were excluded as CPCs. The maximum detected concentrations of CPCs were used in the PRE Tier I and Tier II evaluations. 52.2 Exposure Assessment Study Area CS-9 is located outside the Security Zone/Flightline Area. Therefore, the PRE Tier I evaluation of surface soils assumed exposures associated with future residential activities (Automated Sciences Group, 1994). W0129414.080 8703-46 5-3 TABLE 5-1 CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN SURFACE SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION RANGE OF FREQUENCY SAMPLE QUANTITATION : : ; : : : RANGE OF DETECTED • • - -- v^.;}-'l?-^^|g(^^ ::--v?jV -- :r •'•••• •"'...••.:'• OFJ5ETECTIQN LIMITS (mo/ko) CONCENTRATIONS fmo/kci) VOLATILE COMPOUNDS Toluene 1/5 0.006-0.011 1 .4- 1 .4 Methytene chloride 21* 0.006-0.011 0.008-4.1 *r SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS Benzole Acid 1/3 1.6-2.2 0.27-0.27 PAH* Acenaphthylene 1/3 0.45-0.45 0.21-0.21 Anthracene 2/3 0.35-0.45 0.16-0.21 Benzo(a)anthracene 2/3 0.45-0.45 0.86-1.4 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2/3 0.45-0.45 0.76-1.2 Benzo (kjfluoianthene 2/3 0.45-0.45 0.74-1 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2/3 0.45-0.45 0.3-0.64 Benzo(a)pyrene 2/3 0.45-0.45 0.59-1 Chrysene 2/3 0.45-0.45 0.88-1.3 Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene 1/3 0.35-0.45 0.29-0.29 Fluorantnene 2/3 0.45-0.45 1.9-1.9 Ruorene 1/3 0.34-0.45 0.14-0.14 lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene 2/3 0.45-0.45 0.38-0.79 Phenanthrene 2/3 0.45-0.45 0.46-1.3 Pyrene 2/3 0.45-0.45 1.4-1.7 INORGANICS Aluminum 3/3 1.760-11,100 Arsenic 3/3 — 2-4.5 Barium 3/3 12.7-33.3 Chromium 3/3 — 1.4-9.8 Cobalt [b] 2/3 1.6-1.6 2.7-3.2 Copper 3/3 2.1-10.2 Lead 3/3 — 3.9-171 Manganese 3/3 35.9-191 Silver 2/3 1-1 1.4-1.8 Vanadium 3/3 — 5.3-18.2 Zinc 3/3 39.9-54.2 NOTES: [a] Analytic occurring Mow background and also below In* ecological and human health Tiers I and II HEC» are not shown. The essential nutrients calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium were not retained as CPCs. (b] The maximum detected concentration of this analyte is below background, but was retained as a human health CPC because a human health HEC Watt not MVWWOW. - - Chemical was detected in all samples analyzed. CSODD\5-1 5-4 TABLE 5-2 CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN SUBSURFACE SOIL [a] STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION FREQUENCY SAMPLE QUANTITATION RANGE OF DETECTED ':" -'-U::- -•:•;: ^*»^iC^ •W^'V;-.".':. •; OF DETECTION LIMITS imoSkoV CONCENTRATIONS {mo/kql VOLATILE COMPOUNDS Acetone 2/13 0.01 -5.2 0.003-0.004 Toluene 1/13 0.005-0.011 1.4-1.4 Methylene chloride 4/13 0.005-0.011 0.006-41 SEMIVOLAT1LE COMPOUNDS Benzole acid 1/9 1.6-3.9 0.27-0.27 4-Nitrophenol 1/9 1.6-3.9 0.25-0.25 Pentachlorophenol 1/9 1.6-3.9 0.22-0.22 PAHs Acenaphthylene 1/9 0.35-0.81 0.21 -0.21 Anthracene 2/9 0.35-0.81 0.16-0.21 Benzo(a)anthracene 4/9 0.38-0.81 0.31-1.4 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4/9 0.38-0.81 0.39-1.2 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4/9 0.38-0.81 0.44-1 Benzo(g,h,i) perylene 3/9 0.35-0.81 0.3-0.64 Benzo(a)pyrene 4/9 0.38-0.81 0.25-1 Chrysene 3/9 0.38-0.81 0.39-1.3 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1/9 0.35-0.81 0.29-0.29 Fluoranthene 4/9 0.38-0.81 0.73-1.9 Fluorene 1/9 0.34-0.81 0.14-0.14 lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene 3/9 0.38-0.81 0.16-0.79 Phenanthrene 4/9 0.38-0.81 0.33-1.3 Pyrene 4/9 0.38-0.81 0.63-1.7 PCBs and PESTICIDES 4,4'-DDE 1/1 - 0.012-0.012 Endrin ketone 1/1 — 0.015-0.015 INORGANICS Aluminum 8/8 - 591-11,100 Arsenic 6/8 0.61 -0.62 1.4-4.5 Barium B/8 — 1 .2-33.3 Chromium 6/7 1.9-1.9 1.4-10 Cobalt 5/8 1.4-1.6 2-5.1 Copper 7/8 1.9-1.9 2.1-10.2 Lead 8/8 - 2.3-171 Nickel 4/8 2.4-3.8 5-6.5 Silver 4/8 0.62-1 1.4-1.8 Vanadium 8/8 - 1.7-18.2 Zinc 7/8 14.4-14.4 13.9-160 NOTES: [•] Subsurface loll samples include uunplM collected from 0-10 feet bgs, which include turtle* toil (0-2 feet bgs) samples. [b] Analytes occurring below background and also below the human health Tiers I and II HECt are not shown. The essential nutrients calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium were not retained as CPCs. - = Chemical was detected in all samples analyzed. CSODD\5-2 5-5 TABLE 5-3 CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN GROUNDWATER STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION FREQUENCY SAMPLE QUANTTTAHON RANGE OF DETECTED '"•' 'CHiElylJC/iLlj^'^."''"^ OF DETECTION LIMITS (pq/L) CONCENTRATIONS fyig/L) PHASE 2 VOLATILE COMPOUNDS TetracNoroethene 1/2 tb] 5 3 - 5 [b] PHASES VOLATILE COMPOUNDS Chloromethane 1/2 1 1 - 1 Methylene chloride 1/2 2 1 - 1 Toluene 1/2 1 2-2 Total Xytenes 1/2 1 3-3 NOTES: [a] AnalytM occurring balow background and also balow th* human haalth Ti*r» I and II HEC» ar« not shown. Tha assantial nutriants calcium, magnasium, potassium, and sodium w*r* not ratairwd as CPCs. [b] Ranga shown is for duplicate and original sampto. Bacausa thara wara dHfarant concantrabons datactad in aach individual sample, a rang* is shown. Itowavaf. thasa samplas wara collactad from lha sama location, so tha fraquancy indicates 1 of 2 samplas. CS90D\5-3 5-6 SECTION 5 Exposures to CPCs in surface soil may occur through incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of volatile compounds, or inhalation of soil particles with sorbed semivolatile or inorganic compounds. The exposure parameters for surface soil were based on the residential exposure scenario described in the RAH. Because the RAH does not present HECs for exposure to subsurface soil, evaluation of subsurface soil was conducted assuming exposures associated with excavations or utility work. Exposures to CPCs in subsurface soil may occur through incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of volatile compounds, or inhalation of soil particles with sorbed semivolatile or inorganic compounds. The exposure parameters for subsurface soil were based on the worker exposure scenario to soil described in the RAH. Residential exposures to subsurface soil are not expected. Exposure to groundwater was assumed to occur through residential use and to include ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of volatile compounds while showering. The exposure parameters for groundwater were based on the residential exposure scenario described in the RAH. The formulas and assumptions used in the exposure assessments are presented in Appendix Q of the RAH. 5.2.3 Toxicity Assessment The toxicity assessment for compounds identified at Study Area CS-9 is presented in Appendix N of the RAH. Pre-calculated, media-specific HECs used in the PRE Tier I and Tier II evaluations are based on carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic effects. The HECs for the appropriate PRE tier and exposure scenario are presented in Appendix F of the RAH. As toxicity data allowed, HECs were calculated for both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects and the lower (more conservative, or health-protective) concentration was used in the PRE. The oral slope factor for benzo(a)pyrene, along with the appropriate relative potency factors (USEPA, 1993), were used to calculate cancer HECs for the Class B PAHs, as described in the RAH. Naphthalene was used as a surrogate for the calculation of noncancer HECs for Class C and Class D PAHs lacking chemical-specific oral reference doses (Automated Sciences Group, 1994). 5.2.4 Risk Characterization PREs characterize potential human health risks by comparison of media-specific concentrations of CPCs to pre-calculated HECs. The PRE is a screening process to ascertain whether a CPC exceeds a risk-based HEC. Tier I of the PRE established W0129414.080 870*46 5-7 SECTION 5 the risk levels of 10"6 for cancer risks and a hazard quotient (HQ) of 0.2 for noncancer risks. Tier n used a cancer risk level of 10~3 and an HQ of 10. The RAH provides a thorough discussion of the rationale for screening at the designated risk levels. The PRE was constructed to be a conservative (i.e., health-protective) evaluation of potential health risks. Tier I provides a conservative evaluation of potential long-term health risks. Tier n evaluates whether an immediate health risk is present or an immediate response is warranted. Tier I of the PRE evaluated potential health risks by using HECs based on residential exposures to surface soil and groundwater, and construction worker exposure to subsurface soil. Tier n, however, used HECs based on recreational older child exposures. Surface Soil. Maximum concentrations for CPCs in surface soil at Study Area CS-9 were compared to PRE Tier I HECs for human health (Table 5-4). Benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and arsenic were identified as exceeding the Tier I HECs. The CPCs that exceeded the HECs indicate that the potential cancer risk is greater than 10"*. Although arsenic exceeds the HEC of 0.366 mg/kg, the maximum concentration detected (4.5 mg/kg) only slightly exceeds the maximum MMR background concentration of 3.6 mg/kg. Therefore, while the potential cancer risk associated with exposure to this analyte is greater than 10"6, the risk is not much greater than that associated with exposure to background arsenic concentrations. In accordance with the PRE methodology, and because of Tier I exceedances, the CPC concentrations were compared to PRE Tier II HECs for human health risks (Table 5-5). No compounds were identified as exceeding the human health Tier II HECs. Subsurface Soil. Maximum concentrations for CPCs in subsurface soil at Study Area CS-9 were compared to PRE Tier I HECs for human health risks (Table 5-6). Subsurface samples included samples from 0 to 10 feet bgs, which may include surface soil. The lack of CPCs exceeding the HECs indicates that the potential cancer risk from exposure to subsurface soil is less than 10"6 and the HQ is less than 0.2. No Tier II evaluation was conducted because no compounds were identified as exceeding Tier I HECs. W0129414.080 8703-46 5-8 TABLE 5-4 HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL PRE TIER I FOR SURFACE SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION HUMAN HEALTH -.:.;... • \:::;::;,,':EC0LOQiCAL '• :,:"• ;--.;v.;:;,. ..,. :j RISK/HAZARD DOES HAZARD'. "••;•.••. -..'".; •.' odes; .; • .., MAXIMUM SOIL EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATION EQUIVALENT ; CONCENTRATION CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION EXCEED CONCENTRATION* EXCEED (mg/kg) (mg/kg) CRITERION? (mg/kg) CRITERION? VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS Methytene chloride 41 85.4 NO 3.75 YES Toluene 1.4 593 NO 1.23 YES SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS Ui Acenaphthylene 0.21 2,200 NO 0.625 NO Anthracene 0.21 16.500 NO 62.4 NO Benzo(a)anthracene 1.4 0.877 YES 0.625 YES Benzo(a)pyrene 1 0.0877 YES 0.625 YES Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.2 0.877 YES 0.625 YES Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.64 2,200 NO 0.625 YES Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 8.75 NO 0.625 YES Benzole add 0.27 220.000 NO 1.33 NO Chryaene 1.3 87.7 NO 0.625 YES Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.29 0.0877 YES 0.625 NO Ruoranthene 1.9 2,200 NO 7.81 NO Fluorene 0.14 2.200 NO 7.81 NO lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.79 0.877 NO 0.625 YES Phenanthrene 1.3 2,200 NO 0.625 YES Pyrene 1.7 1.650 NO 4.69 NO CS9DD\5-4*5-0 Pnqel of 2 TABLE 5-4 HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL PRE TIER I FOR SURFACE SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION : HUMAN HEALTH .% - ;;.:;:::::;v;.-:::;.--;';|||^,i|CpLpC rtpAL:',; -; . :-.;:;:;::.;.';'-:;; ; .-;•••;••,, RISK/HAZARD - :,' DOES ;•';••. '•'-.< ': HAZARD' ••'^''iV.;.' iitfi?bS^:i:: MAXIMUM SOIL EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATION EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATION CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION EXCEED CONCENTRATlONf :>•:•. -;: EXCEED ;- V- \ (mg/kg) (mg/kgl CRITERION? _ (mfl/kfl) U CRITERION? INORGANICS Aluminum 11.100 54.900 NO 26,400 NO Arsenic 4.5 0.366 YES 2.37 YES Barium 33.3 3.800 NO 13.900 NO Chromium 9.8 274 NO 7.28 YES Cobalt 3.2 NA NE - - Copper 10.2 NA NE 77.4 NO Lead 171 300 NO 15.8 YES Manganese 191 274 NO 7.87 NO Silver 1.8 274 NO 20.6 NO Vanadium 18.2 384 NO 27.5 NO Zinc 54.2 16,500 NO 3.98 YES NOTES: * Lowest HEC value from Table 5-8. NA = No HEC available. NE = No HEC available therefore, not evaluated. - = Not a CPC for this assessment I Pnno? nf? TABLE 5-5 HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL PRE TIER II FOR SURFACE SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION HUMAN HEALTH ..; ...... ,::;;;,,,::Jp0LOGICAL • . '• I;/,.:-.: RISK/HAZARD DOES HAZARD bOE8 MAXIMUM SOIL EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATION EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATION CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION EXCEED CONCENTRATION* EXCEED (ma/kg) (mg/kg) CRITERION? (mg/kg) CRITERION? VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS Methytene chloride 41 196.000 NO 3.75 YES Toluene 1.4 50,800,000 NO 1.23 YES SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS Acenaphthytone 0.21 1 .020,000 NO 0.625 NO Anthracene 0.21 76,200,000 NO 62.4 NO Benzo(a)anthracene 1.4 40,600 NO 0.625 YES Benzo(a)pyrene 1 4,060 NO 0.625 YES Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.2 40,600 NO 0.625 YES Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.64 1 .020.000 NO 0.625 YES Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 404.000 NO 0.625 YES Benzole add 0.27 102.000,000 NO 1.33 NO Chryaene 1.3 4,060.000 NO 0.625 YES Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.29 4,060 NO 0.625 NO Ruoranthene 1.9 10,200.000 NO 7.81 NO Fluorene 0.14 10,200.000 NO 7.81 NO lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.79 40,600 NO 0.625 YES Phenanthrene 1.3 1 .020,000 NO 0.625 YES Pyrene 1.7 7.620.000 NO 4.69 NO P»0«1 Of? TABLE 5-5 HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL PRE TIER II FOR SURFACE SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION : : HUMAN HEALTH ,,;,.;... . •^;4:;;;|,;;;,EC$L INORGANICS Aluminum 11100 25.400.000 NO 26.400 NO Arsenic 4.5 7,620 NO 2.37 YES Barium 33.3 1 .770,000 NO 13,900 NO K) Chromium 9.8 508,000 NO 7.28 YES Cobalt 3.2 NA NE - . Copper 10.2 NA NE 77.4 NO Lead 171 300 NO 15.8 YES Manganese 191 3,560,000 NO 787 NO Silver 1.8 127,000 NO 20.6 NO Vanadium 18.2 178.000 NO 27.S NO Zinc 54.2 7,620,000 NO 3.98 YES NOTES: * Lowest NEC value from Tabb 5-8. NA = No HEC available. NE = No HEC available therefore, not evaluated. - = NotaCPCforthhastenment TABLE 5-6 HUMAN HEALTH PRE TIER I FOR SUBSURFACE SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION HUMAN HEALTH RISK/HAZARD DOES MAXIMUM SOIL EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION I* r- :'••• EXCEED -T^- :" :':,.,••. •::•:..;. ' CHEMICAL V:>:.. •' ::::•. .-.^, (mg/kg) (mgVkg) CRITERION? VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS Methytene chloride 41 1,440 NO Toluene 1.4 116,000 NO Acetone 0.004 58,200 NO SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS Acenaphthytene 0.21 2,330 NO Anthracene 0.21 175,000 NO Benzo(a)anthracene 1.4 27.9 NO Benzo(a)pyrene 1 2.79 NO OJ Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.2 27.9 NO Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.64 2,330 NO Benzo(k)fluorantnene 1 279 NO Benzole acid 0.27 233,000 NO Chrysene 1.3 2,760 NO Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.29 2.79 NO Fluoranthene 1.9 23,300 NO Fluorene 0.14 23,300 NO lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.79 27.9 NO Phenanthrene 1.3 2,330 NO Pyrene 1.7 17,500 NO 4-Nitrophenol 0.25 NA NE Pentachlorophenol 0.22 170 NO CS9DDV5-6 Page 1 of 2 TABLE 5-6 HUMAN HEALTH PRE TIER I FOR SUBSURFACE SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION : HUMAN HEALTH :•••: 7'.r- --'£- ;•*•••,: RISK/HAZARD ^.•V^V.DOEV/'VIU. ,-v MAXIMUM SOIL •••:.•::. = EQUIVALENT ^-.m CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION f :m-^ EXCEED V'f VvV^is CHEMICAL (mg/kg) (mg/kg) ; CRITERION? : ; PCBs AND PESTICIDES 4,4' -DDE 0.012 136 NO Endrin ketone 0.015 NA NE METALS Aluminum 11,100 58,200 NO Arsenic 4.5 11.6 NO Barium 33.3 4,070 NO Chromium 10 1,160 NO Cobalt 5.1 NA NE Copper 10.2 NA NE Lead 171 1,000 NO Nickel 6.5 1,160 NO Silver 1.8 291 NO Vanadium 18.2 407 NO Zinc 160 17,500 NO NOTES: * = HEC used for subsurtac* soil based on worker exposures to soil Inside the FltghUine. NA = No HEC available. NE = No HEC available, therefore, not evaluated. CS9DD\5-6 Page 2 of 2 I I ffI SECTION 5 Groundwater. Maximum concentrations for CPCs in groundwater at Study Area CS-9 were compared to PRE Tier I HECs for human health risks and to available Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), (Table 5-7). No CPCs were identified as exceeding the HECs or MCLs. The lack of CPCs exceeding the HECs indicates that the potential cancer risk from exposure to groundwater is less than 10* and the HO is less than 0.2. 5.2.5 Uncertainty Assessment General uncertainties associated with the human health PRE process are discussed in the RAH. Study area-specific uncertainties associated with the PRE were identified as follows: 1. The evaluation of CPC concentrations was based on comparison to HECs. No HECs for copper or cobalt, which were detected in surface soil, are available. No HECs for 4-nitrophenol, endrin ketone, cobalt, or copper, which were detected in subsurface soil, are available. Although the lack of HECs limited the PRE evaluation, some qualitative evaluation is possible. The HEC for endrin for subsurface soil is 58.2 mg/kg, which is much greater than the maximum detected subsurface soil concentration of endrin ketone (0.015 mg/kg). Since endrin ketone and endrin are structural analogs, and the HEC for endrin exceeds the maximum detected endrin ketone concentration, it is likely that endrin ketone in subsurface soil does not pose a significant health risk. Although there is no available HEC for 4-nitrophenol, the subsurface soil HEC for phenol is 34,900 mg/kg and for 4-methylphenol is 291 mg/kg. Since the HECs for these two structural analogs are much greater than the maximum detected concentration of 4-nitrophenol (0.25 mg/kg), this compound is not expected to pose a significant health risk. Cobalt and copper were retained as CPCs because there are no HECs available. Cobalt was detected in surface soil at a maximum concentration (3.2 mg/kg) lower than the MMR maximum background concentration (4.1 mg/kg). The maximum detected copper concentration (10.2 mg/kg) exceeded the maximum MMR surface soil background concentration (5.2 mg/kg). Although no HECs are available for these two inorganics, the cobalt concentration in Study Area CS-9 surface soil is consistent with background; copper, which is generally considered to have low toxicity (Amdur et al., 1991), would not likely pose a significant health risk at the maximum detected concentration. W0129414.080 8703-46 5-15 TABLE 5-7 HUMAN HEALTH PRE TIER I FOR GROUNDWATER STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION MAXIMUM RISK/HAZARD DOES •;;;,•/-. MAXIMUM; f ;,;. *: GROUNDWATER EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATION CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION* • :?' EXCEED."; .'•'•• •p; LEVEUl'^ff'J ^%hBkCBED;:eJ;;^ Gig/L) C/O/U CRITERION? • •.•.."•". .• : f^Af^iiyi^^t iefc nit Jtl^.t itmjittUf Qft LtI •- ••' '•'• • '•'• PHASE 2 VOLATILE COMPOUNDS Tetrachloroethene 5 63.8 NO 5 NO PHASE 3 VOLATILE COMPOUNDS Chloromethane 1 2.32 NO NA NE Methylene chloride 1 11.2 NO 5 NO Toluene 2 191 NO 1,000 NO Total Xylenes 3 12,900 NO 10.000 NO NOTES: * = Based on most sfringvnt Risk/Hazard Equivalent value. " = Federal or Massachusetts MCU, whichevert omor e stringent. NA = No HEC available. NE = No HEC available, therefore, not evaluated. CS9DD\5-7 Page 1 of 1 I I i f SECTION 5 2. The conservative nature of the PRE methodology may overestimate potential health risks. 3. TICs were present in some samples at this study area. The concentration of TICs was estimated to be an order of magnitude greater than the summed concentration of identified CPCs. The majority of TICs were identified as SVOCs. TICs were not included in the quantitative risk evaluation. The exclusion of TICs may result in an underestimation of potential health risk. 4. TPH was detected at a concentration of 192 mg/kg in one surface soil sample (TP-8) and 1,280 mg/kg in one subsurface soil sample (TP-11). Because there is no HEC for TPH, no quantitative evaluation of potential health risks was conducted. Not including TPH in the evaluation may result in an underestimation of potential health risks. 5. VO Canalysis on one surface soil sample (TP-8, 1 foot bgs) used in the PRE was analyzed using medium-level protocols only, resulting in elevated detection limits. Risks may have been underestimated if chemicals were present and not detected due to the elevated detection limit in this one sample. 5.3 PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL RISK EVALUATION The ecological PRE at Study Area CS-9 was completed in order to provide a screening-level evaluation of potential risks that environmental CPCs in surface soil may pose to ecological receptors at the study area. A detailed discussion of the PRE methodology is presented in the RAH. The following sections discuss the PRE and present the results. 5.3.1 Data Evaluation Table 5-1 summarizes the frequencies of detection, ranges of SQLs, and a range of detected concentrations of CPCs in surface soil. Selection of ecological CPCs was completed in accordance with steps described in the RAH. Inorganic analytes detected in surface soil at concentrations below MMR background (see Table 4-3) and also below Tier I and Tier n HECs were not considered to be CPCs, and are not included in Table 5-1. In addition, the essential dietary nutrients - calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, and sodium - were not retained as CPCs. The analytes W0129414.080 8703-46 5-17 SECTION 5 detected are discussed in Subsection 42. The maximum detected concentrations for CPCs were used in the ecological PRE Tier I and Tier n evaluations. 5.3.2 Ecological Exposure Assessment Study Area CS-9 was formerly used as a motor pool and for vehicle maintenance. Nearly all of this 5-acre study area is covered by weathered asphalt. Small pine saplings and shrubs have grown through cracks in the pavement, offering very limited wildlife habitat. Pitch pine/scrub oak habitat in the area surrounding the study area may provide food and cover for small mammals and birds. The following receptor species, representing a range of taxonomic groups and trophic levels, were used to evaluate risk from surface soil contamination in the PRE: white-footed mouse (omnivorous small mammal), upland sandpiper (insectivorous small bird), and red fox (omnivorous predatory mammal). These three species were chosen to represent other species within the same trophic level at the study area (Automated Sciences Group, 1994). The red fox and white-footed mouse could potentially use the limited habitat. Although the state-endangered upland sandpiper is not known to occur in the vicinity of this study area, it was included in this PRE to represent those species of insectivorous or omnivorous birds that may periodically occur. Species-specific ecological exposure parameters, which were used to estimate potential dietary exposure to surface soil contaminants are presented in Appendix P of the RAH. 5.3.3 Ecological Effects Assessment Development of HECs for animal and plant receptors is described in the RAH. HECs for receptor species and soil-critical values for phytotoxicity are provided in Appendices F and O of the RAH, respectively. 5.3.4 Risk Screening PREs characterize potential ecological risks by comparison of maximum site concentrations to pre-calculated, media-specific HECs or phytotoxicity data. For the ecological PRE, Tier I HECs (based on current exposures) and Tier n HECs (based on future exposures) are the same, because exposures of ecological receptors are likely to be similar under current and future land use conditions (Automated W0129414.080 8703^»6 5-18 SECTION 5 Sciences Group, 1994). Risks to ecological receptors were evaluated by calculating HQs and hazard indices (His) as described in the RAH. An HQ is a receptor- and chemical-specific value equivalent to the ratio of the maximum detected site concentration of a particular CPC to the receptor-specific HEC for that particular CPC. An HI is a receptor-specific value which is equivalent to the sum of all of the chemical-specific HQs for a given receptor. Separate His are calculated for organic and inorganic CPCs. If an HI for a receptor for organics exceeds 1, or for inorganics exceeds 10, a remedial investigation is recommended (Automated Sciences Group, 1994). Otherwise, a no-further-action decision can be made subsequent to a Tier II analysis. Surface Soil. A screening-level evaluation of potential risk from surface soil was conducted by comparing the maximum concentrations of CPCs to the lowest (most protective, and therefore most conservative) of the ecological HECs for receptor species evaluated in this PRE (see Tables 5-4 and 5-5 for Tiers I and n, respectively). The maximum concentrations of surface soil CPCs were also used with species-specific HECs to derive species-specific HQs and His. In general, the upland sandpiper HECs were the most conservative values for the organic chemicals, and the white-footed mouse HECs were the most conservative values for the inorganic chemicals. The maximum surface soil concentrations of the following compounds exceeded the ecological Tier I and Tier n HEC values: methylene chloride, toluene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, phenanthrene, arsenic, chromium, lead, and zinc. The maximum concentrations of surface soil CPCs were also compared with species-specific HECs to derive species-specific HQs and His (Table 5-8). The maximum surface soil concentrations of two VOCs, eight SVOCs, and three inorganics exceeded the upland sandpiper HEC values, with HQs ranging from 1 (toluene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene) to 10 (methylene chloride, lead, and zinc). Maximum surface soil concentrations of methylene chloride, chromium, lead, and zinc were greater than the white-footed mouse HECs, with HQs of 1 (chromium, lead, and zinc) and 3 (methylene chloride). Other HQs were less than 1 for this receptor. Maximum surface soil concentrations were all below red fox HECs. The cumulative white-footed mouse His were 4 for organic compounds and 5 for inorganic compounds; those for the upland sandpiper were 30 for both organic and inorganic compounds. W0129414.080 8703-46 5-19 TABLE 5-8 TIER I AND II HAZARD INDICES FOR SOIL ECOLOGICAL PRE FOR STUDY AREA CS-9 STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION HAZARD EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATION [a] ;:. •: HAZARD QUOTIENT [b] >-:'^^ MAXIMUM SOIL CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION WHITE WHITE* (mg/kg) FOOTED RED UPLAND FOOTED :£ UPLAND MOUSE FOX SANDPIPER [cl MOUSE FOki: ..; SANDPIPER [Cl VOLATILE ORGANC COMPOUNDS Methylene chloride 41 12.3 2.150 3.75 •.••\': 3E46oK • 2E-02 1E+OJ Toluene 1.4 17.2 616 1.23 BE -02 2E-03 16+00 8EM [VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS N) o Acenaphthylene 0.21 41.4 585 0.625 5E-03 4E-04 3E-01 Anthracene 0.21 5.530 79.700 62.4 4E-05 3E-06 3E-03 Benzo(a)anthracene 1.4 76.7 3.030 0.625 2E-02 5E-04 8E+00 Benzo(a)pyrene 1 71.3 637 0.625 1E-02 2E-03 2E+00 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.2 77.3 3,830 0.625 2E-02 3E-04 2E-4-00 Benzo(g,h,l)perylene 0.64 77.5 4.580 0.625 BE -03 1E-04 1E+00 Benzo(k)fluorarrthene 1 77.3 3,830 0.625 1E-02 3E-04 2E+00 Benzole acid 0.27 1.33 1.230 2.5 2E-01 2E-04 1E-01 ; : Chrysene 1.3 76.7 3.030 0.625 2E-02 4E-04 - :•":'.:.• ' • 2E^66- Dibenz(a. h)anthracene 0.29 77.5 4.570 0.625 4E-03 6E-05 5E-01 Fluoranthene 1.9 867 17.000 7.81 2E-03 1E-04 2E-01 Fluorene 0.14 572 7.980 7.81 2E-04 2E-05 2E-02 lndeno(1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene 0.79 77.5 4.580 0.625 1E-02 2E-04 ic+oo Phenanthrene 1.3 56.8 839 0.625 2E-02 2E-03 2E+00 Pyrene 1.7 562 16.400 4.69 3E-03 IE -04 4E-01 ORGANICS HAZARD INDEX (d| 4E+00 3E-02 3E+01 CS9DD\5-8 P«g« 1 of 2 TABLE 5-8 TIER I AND II HAZARD INDICES FOR SOIL ECOLOGICAL PRE FOR STUDY AREA CS-9 STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION HAZARD EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATION [a] HAZARD QUOTIENT [b] : : MAXIMUM SOIL (mg/kg) ; . . ; ; (unitkws) CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION WHITE- WHITE- ; (mg/kg) FOOTED RED UPLAND FOOTED RED ; UPLAND MOUSE FOX SANDPIPER [cl MOUSE FOX SANDPIPER [el INORGANICS Aluminum 11,100 26,400 317,000 494.000,000 4E-01 4E-02 2E-05 : Arsenic 4.5 25.7 762 2.37 2E-01 6E-03 ;-,;x: ' •• 2E+66 Barium 33.3 13.900 73.000 94.100,000 2E-03 5E-04 4E-07 Chromium 9.8 7.28 185 50.4 sV,1 \iEtp6s 5E-02 2E-01 Copper 10.2 77.4 4.610 1.130,000 1E-01 2E-03 9E-06 Lead 171 173 66,100 15.8 1E+00 3E-03 • '/: • '" " lE-fbi Manganese 191 787 13,200 381,000,000 2E-01 1E-02 5E-07 Silver 1.8 69.3 950 20.6 [e] 3E-02 2E-03 9E-02 Vanadium 18.2 27.5 1 1 1 55,300,000 7E-01 2E-01 3E-07 Zinc 54.2 40.2 7,720 3.98 lE-fOO 7E-03 ie+bi INORGANICS HAZARD INDEX Id) 5E+OO SE-01 3E+01 NOTES: [•) Hazard Equivalent Concentrations (HECt) are presented in Table F-2, Appendix F, of the MMR RAH (Automated Science* Group, 1804) [b] Hazard Quotients are calculated by dividiig the maximum soil concenfration by the HEC. Shaded values represent individual HQs greater than one. [c] Although the upland sandpiper may not occur at this site. K is used as a surrogate for a more common species found In urban envfronments. [d] Hazard Index is the sum of Hazard Quotients [e] An HEC is not available for the upland sandpiper for this chemical: therefore, the HEC for the cardinal was used as a surrogate. CS9OD\5-8 Page 2 of 2 SECTION 5 The maximum concentrations of surface soil CPCs were also compared with the soil critical concentration values for phytotoxicity presented in the RAH (Table 5-9) (Automated Sciences Group, 1994). The maximum concentration of lead exceeded its soil critical concentration, with an HQ of 2. HQs for all other chemicals were less than 1. The cumulative plant His for Study Area CS-9 were 2 for organic compounds (with no individual HQs exceeding 1) and 3 for inorganic compounds. 5.3.5 Ecological Uncertainty Assessment Several uncertainties are associated with the ecological PRE at Study Area CS-9. Additional general uncertainties inherent in the ecological PRE process are outlined in the RAH (Automated Sciences Group, 1994). Study area-specific uncertainties were identified as follows: 1. There is uncertainty associated with the HECs. Several HECs are lower than MMR background concentrations, and therefore, a proportion of the risks at the study area may be attributable to background levels (i.e., natural content of inorganic analytes in the soil). For example, approximately 30 percent of the arsenic HQ and 40 percent of the zinc HQ for the upland sandpiper may be attributable to natural sources (arsenic and zinc HQs are 2 and 10, respectively). 2. VOC analysis on one surface soil sample (TP-8, 1 foot bgs) used in the PRE was analyzed using medium-level protocols only, resulting in elevated detection limits. Risks may have been underestimated if chemicals were present and not detected due to the elevated detection limit in this one sample. 3. Concentrations of inorganics in surface soil were compared to soil critical concentrations for plants. No critical soil concentrations were available for aluminum, barium, silver, or vanadium. Insufficient data for over one-third of the detected inorganics in surface soils adds an uncertainty to the phytotoxicity evaluation for Study Area CS-9. 4. TICs were present in some samples at this study area. TICs were not included in the quantitative risk evaluation. The exclusion of TICs may result in an underestimation of potential ecological risk. The majority of TICs were identified as SVOCs and would be detected in a TPH analysis. W0129414.080 8703-46 5-22 TABLE 5-9 SOIL PHYTOTOXICITY STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION : : : : --:--- ••;..' 1;:H: •', ' -:..'-' --" IIAXIMUM SOIL SOIL CRITICAL HAZARD CHEMICAL ; CONCENTRATION "• CONCENTRATIONS QUOTIENT [b] (mg/kg) FOR PLANTS M (mg/kg) (unitless) VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS Methylene chloride 41 138.4 3E-01 Toluene 1.4 33.6 4E-02 SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS Acenaphthylene 0.21 5.77 4E-02 Anthracene 0.21 6.59 3E-02 Benzo(a)anthrac*ne 1.4 7.82 2E-01 Benzo(a)pyrene 1 8.48 1E-01 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.2 8.46 1E-01 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.64 8.98 7E-02 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 8.46 1E-01 Benzoic acid 0.27 28.894.53 9E-06 Chryeene 1.3 7.82 2E-01 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.29 9.0 3E-02 Ruoranthene 1.9 7.26 3E-01 Ruorene 0.14 6.26 2E-02 lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.79 8.98 9E-02 Phenanthrene 1.3 4.16 3E-01 Pyrene 1.7 7.08 2E-01 ORGANIC HAZARD INDEX [c] 2E+00 INORGANICS Aluminum 11,100 NA NA Arsenic* 4.5 20 2E-01 Barium 33.3 NA NA Chromium* 9.8 75 1E-01 Copper* 10.2 60 2E-01 Lead* 171 100 2E+00 Manganese* 191 1500 1E-01 Silver 1.8 NA NA Vanadium 18.2 NA NA Zinc* 54.2 70 8E-01 INORGANIC HAZARD INDEX [c] 3E+00 NOTES: (a] Soil Critical Concentrator! valiMi from Table O-3 (organic*) and Table O-4 (inorganics), Appendix O, in the MMR RAH (Automated Sciences Group, 1094). [b] Hazard Quotient! are calculated by dividing the maximum soil concentation by the toil critical concentration. Shaded value* represent individual HQ« greater than 1. [cj Hazard Indax »the sum at Hazard Quotients. NA - Not Available in the RAH (Automated Sciences Group, 1904). • Lowest In range of available plant toncfy values presented in the RAH (Automated Sciences Group, 1994). CS80D\5-8 5-23 SECTION 5 5. TPH was detected at 192 mg/kg in a surface soil sample (TP-8). Because there are no screening values for TPH, no quantitative evaluation of potential ecological risks was conducted. Potential ecological risks may be underestimated because TPH has not been evaluated. 5.4 SUMMARY OF PRE RESULTS Results of Tier I of the PRE for future residential use showed HEC exceedances for human health for selected carcinogenic PAHs and arsenic in surface soil. No Tier I or Tier II human health HEC exceedances were identified in subsurface soil or groundwater samples. Tiers I and n of the ecological PRE showed that maximum concentrations of several organic and inorganic chemicals exceeded the lowest species-specific HECs. His for the upland sandpiper exceeded 1 for organics and 10 for inorganics. For the white-footed mouse, the organic HI exceeded 1 due to methylene chloride, but the inorganic HI was less than 10. There were no HEC exceedances for the red fox, and both organic and inorganic His were less than 1. The organic HI for plants exceeded 1, although all chemical-specific HQs were less than one. The inorganic HI for plants was less than 10. The PRE may have overestimated ecological risk at Study Area CS-9 from potential surface soil exposure to inorganics. According to Appendix S of the RAH (Automated Sciences Group, 1994), organic and inorganic His slightly above 1 and 10, respectively, should not be unexpected for ecological receptors. W0129414.080 8703-46 5-24 SECTION 6 6.0 RESULTS OF A REMOVAL ACTION AT STUDY AREA CS-9 The underlying soil of Study Area CS-9 was identified in 1993 as suitable subgrade fill material for AOC LF-1, the Main Base Landfill, where a cover closure system would be constructed. To utilize this soil, the NGB needed to remediate the sump structures and excavate contaminated soil identified during the SI. In March 1994, the NGB initiated removal of the sump structures and contents, as well as excavation of the contaminated soils. The target analytes for the remedial action were chosen based on data collected during the Priority 2 and 3 Sis. These were reviewed and negotiated between the NGB and regulatory agencies during development of the CS-9 remedial action scope of work. Table 6-1 summarizes the target clean-up levels for this remedial action. 6.1 EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES Each drainage structure was excavated as a separate area. Initially, soil material was removed from the structure, if possible, or the structure was removed from its location and demolished in a manner which allowed collection of its contents. No structures observed during remediation contained standing liquids or sludge. Sediment was removed through decontamination procedures and drummed for off- base disposal. In addition, the decontamination washwater containing sediments was collected from the drainage structures and drummed for off-base disposal. In some instances, a layer of material up to six inches thick was observed in the base of the structure, which exhibited staining or apparent visual contamination. This material was considered sediment and collected for disposal. Some drainage structures had been previously backfilled with granular soil. This material was considered contaminated and stockpiled with other excavated contaminated soils. The remaining structures and associated piping were excavated and inspected for faulty or deteriorated connections or construction joints. If the surrounding soil was stained in a manner that was indicative of contamination, the soil was stockpiled with other contaminated soils. Soils adjacent to excavated pipelines were screened using headspace analysis with an organic vapor analyzer as the excavation proceeded. An action level of 10 mg/kg was implemented as guidance for additional excavation activities. The soil clean-up or action levels concentrations chosen for the remediation were based on the proposed soil target clean-up levels for MMR, outside W0129414.080 8703-46 6-1 TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION LEVELS STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION MATRIX EPA METHOD 8260/TCL SOIL MMR PROPOSED STCL (1) VOLATILE ORGANICS (GC/MS) s EPA METHOD 8270/TCL SOIL MMR PROPOSED STCL (1) SEMIVOLAT1LE ORGANICS (GC/MS) CARCINOGENIC PAHs ONLY (2) 5 mg/kg TOTAL TRACE METALS (ICP/AA) SOIL TARGET COMPOUND LEAD 300 mg/kg RCRA (TCLP) SOLID MMR PROPOSED STCL (1) ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES (GC/ECD) EPA METHOD 418.1 (MODIFIED) SOIL 300 mg/kg TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (IR) Notes: STCL = Soil Target Clean-up Level PAH = Polynuctear Aromatic Hydrocarbons TCL = Target Compound List GC/MS = Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer ICP/AA = Inductively Coupled Plasma/Atomic Absorbtion TCLP = Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure GC/ ECD = Gas Chromatograph/Electron Capture Detector IR = Infrared, Spectrophotometric RCRA = Resource Conservation Recovery Act (1) Concentrations from proposed MMR STCLs, outside flightline, (HAZWRAP, 1994) (2) PAH probable human carcinogens: benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. 6-2 i:\projKa\BimiVloa\aftid\6-l.WKl SECTION 6 the flightline (HAZWRAP, 1994). Table 6-1 summarizes the parameters and action levels which were used during the remedial action. Piping discovered and removed between drainage structures and existing foundation appurtenances (i.e., floor and trench drains) was either vitrified clay or cast steel. Pipes, with contaminated sludge or sediment present in the bore, were crushed and stockpiled with contaminated soil. If no contamination was identified (visually or with field screening) the material was crushed and used as subgrade fill in the AOC LF-1. Contaminated concrete was decontaminated by pressure washing and crushed to the size limitations defined in the AOC LF-1 specifications (i.e., 4-foot maximum dimension). The material was then disposed of in the LF-1 subgrade fill sections. Soil surrounding the drainage structures in Figure 6-1 was screened through headspace analysis and visual observation. Upon reaching apparent clean excavation limits based on field screening, the excavation bottom and sidewalls were sampled for TCL VOCs and SVOCs, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure pesticides, TPH, and TAL inorganic analytes. If upon return of analytical data, the results did not meet the designated cleanup levels, the drainage structure locations were further excavated and sampled until closure verification for backfill was achieved. Contaminated soils were initially stockpiled at AOC CS-4 but were later relocated to AOC FTA-1 where they received treatment in a low-temperature thermal treatment unit ('ITU) between August and October of 1995. Approximately 3,663 tons of soil from Study Area CS-9 were treated in the 'ITU. Following treatment, soils were stockpiled in an on-site storage area and are currently scheduled for use as backfill material for the FTA-l soil excavation proposed for October of 1996. A remedial action summary report has been prepared to provide a detailed summary of Study Area CS-9 soil treatment activities and certification that the remedial action is completed (see Appendix A). 62 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY Results of sampling and analysis activities for the contaminants of concern indicate that all samples collected during the Remedial Action were non-detect or below W0129414.080 870W6 6-3 TO AOC LF WEATHERED ASPHALT GREASE RACK 1 (361 ey) FORMER WASH RACK (90 cy) SPLIT RAIL FENCE VENDING BUILDINGS LOCATION OF FORMER USTs LEACHING WEU.41CD-4) (144 cy) Weathered Asphalt with Pine Growth CONCRETE LEACHING WELL 1 PAD FORMER PUMP ISLAND [CD-1/CL-1] (81 cy) SUMP 7 [CD-7] (144 cy) GREASE RA< 3 / LEACHING ,144cv» ' WELL 2 [CD-2] ** SUMP 8 (72 cy) CONCRETE : LEACHING HEADWALL • WELL5[CD-S] OUTFALL (104 cy) Weathered Asphalt with Pine Growth ' ~7 /4105 LOCATION OF REMAINING SUMP9 BUILDING FOUNDATION ;.' [CM] ORMER UST FORMER GREASE RACK (36 cy) FORMER DRY WELL LOCATION FORMER SUMP LOCATION AREAS EXCAVATED AND STOCKPILED PIPING FOR THERMAL TREATMENT (Cubic Yards) CONCRETE EXCAVATED STRUCTURES USED FOR HEADWALL SUBGRADE FILL MATERIAL AT AOC LF-1 OUTFALL (1,»26cy) AREAS EXCAVATED/STOCKPILED APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET FOR THERMAL TREATMENT Harding Lawson Associates 0 200 400 STUDY AREA SOURCE: OAFB MASTER PLAN TAB NO. G-7. AERIAL INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM CS-8 SURVEY PHOTO TAKEN IN APRIL. 1990. AND FIELD MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION DECISION FIGURE 6-1 OBSERVATION. APRIL 1993. DOCUMENT 9806001 D(a) 12 E 6-4 SECTION 6 established cleanup levels. Tables 6-2 through 6-20 provide data summary results for the Study Area CS-9 excavations. Field headspace screening and analytical protocols were performed. Information is provided in the Study Area CS-9 Remedial Action Summary Report (see Appendix A). W0129414.080 870^46 6-5 TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL LEACHING WELL 1 (CD-1) STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION LEACHING WELL 1 (CD-1) ANALYTES B C-SW O C- (B & SW) VOLATILES 0/g/kg) - - - NA SEMIVOLAT1LES tug/kg) MA NA NA - Phenanthrene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)f)uoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/U NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) MA NA NA * Aluminum 1.400 Beryllium - Arsenic — Calcium 140 Chromium 1.6 Copper - Iron 1.700 Lead 1.2 Magnesium 330 Mercury — Manganese 39 Nickel — Potassium - Selenium - Sodium — Vanadium — Zinc 6.8 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA= Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter pg/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall O = outlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure H:\CTSOCW-Z.WK1 6-6 TABLE 6-3 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL LEACHING WELL 2 (CD-2) STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION LEACHING WELL 2 (CD-2) ANALYTES B c-sw 0 C- (B&SW) VOLATILES (ua/kgl - - NA SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg) NA NA NA - Phenanthrene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracena Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo (k)f luoranthene Benzo (a)pyrene lndeno(.2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/U NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 690 Beryllium - Arsenic - Calcium 130 Chromium - Copper - Iron 1,100 Lead 1.6 Magnesium 170 Mercury - Manganese 29 Nickel - Potassium - Selenium - Sodium - Vanadium - Zinc 8.2 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH » Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter fjg/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW * side wall O = outlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure 6-7 H:\CJ9Drw-5. WKI TABLE 6-4 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL LEACHING WELL 3 (CO-3} STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION LEACHING WELL 3 (CD-3) ANALYTES fi c-sw I C- (B & SW) VOLATILES (uo/kert - - - NA SEMIVOLATILES (uo/ka) NA NA NA . Phenanthrene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h ,i) perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (rno/U NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mo/ka) NA NA NA Aluminum 2.200 Beryllium - Arsenic — Calcium 170 Chromium 2.5 Copper - Iron 2,600 Lead 2.2 Magnesium 370 Mercury — Manganese 37 Nickel — Potassium 130 Selenium - Sodium 320 Vanadium - Zinc 16 TPH (mq/kq) NA NA NA 130 Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter yg/kg = micrograms per kilogram 6 = bottom SW = side wall 1 = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure 6-8 H.-W39DIM-4.WK] TABLE 6-5 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL FUEL ISLAND (CD-4-FFI) STUDY AREA CS-B DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION FUEL ISLAND (CD-4-FFI) ANALYTES C-B c-sw S I C (B & SW1 VOLATILES too/kg) - -• - NA SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg) MA NA NA Phenanthrene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/U MA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) MA NA NA Aluminum 630 Beryllium - Arsenic — Calcium 120 Chromium 1.4 Copper - Iron 1,600 Lead 1.8 Magnesium 160 Mercury - Manganese 34 Nickel — Potassium 100 Selenium — Sodium 330 Vanadium — Zinc 5.2 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA 74 Notes: - = Not Detected NA= Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter ^g/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump 6-9 HAC39DDU-J.WK1 TABLE 6-6 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL SUMP 5 (CD-5) STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION SUMP 5 (CD-5) ANALYTES B c-sw 1 1 C (B & SW) VOLATILES (ug/kd) - - - NA SEMIVOLATILES 0/g/kg) NA NA NA - Phenanthrene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ^,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,0perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/U MA NA NA . INORGANICS frng/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 880 Beryllium - Arsenic — Calcium 94 Chromium 1 Copper 2.5 Iron 2,100 Lead 1.9 Magnesium 220 Mercury — Manganese 46 Nickel — Potassium 120 Selenium — Sodium 320 Vanadium — Zinc 10 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter (jg/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall l = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Tbxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure 6-10 TABLE 6-7 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL SUMP 5 PIPE TRENCH HEADWALL (CD-5-HW) STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION SUMP 5 PIPE TRENCH HEADWALL (CD-5-HW) ANALYTES B I C-SW I C (B & SW) VOLAT1LES (ug/kg) MA NA NA SEMIVOLATILES b/g/kg) NA NA NA Phenanthrene Ruoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chiysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,0perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/L) MA NA NA NA INORGANICS (mo/kg) NA NA NA NA Aluminum . Arsenic Cadmium Calcium Chromium Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Mercury Manganese Nickel Potassium Selenium Sodium Vanadium Zinc TPH (mg/ka) NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter Mg/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall I = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicrty Chacteristic Leaching Procedure H:\CS9DCM-rWKl 6-11 TABLE 6-8 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL SUMP 6 (CD-6) STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION SUMP 6 (CD-6) ANALYTES B f C-SW 1 C (B & SW1 VOLATILES fa/g/kg) - - - NA SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg) NA NA NA - Phenanthrene Fluoranthene Pyrene Be nzo(a) anthracene Chrysene Benzo (b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/L) NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 2,500 Beryllium — Arsenic 1.3 Calcium 74 Chromium 2.8 Copper - Iron 3,100 Lead 1.9 Magnesium 460 Nickel — Manganese 40 Potassium 150 Sodium 320 Vanaduim - Zinc 6.6 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter Mg/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall I = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure 6-12 HACMDIM-I.WK1 TABLE 6-8 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL SUMP 7 (CD-7) STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION SUMP 7 (CD-7) ANALYTES B C-SW I I C (B & SW) VOLATILES 0/g/kg) - - • - NA . SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg) MA MA NA Phenanthrene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/L) NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) MA NA NA Aluminum 940 Arsenic — Cadmium — Calcium 160 Chromium 1.6 Copper - Iron 1,400 Lead 4.6 Magnesium 250 Mercury — Manganese 27 Nickel — Potassium 130 Selenium — Sodium 200 Vanadium — Zinc 7.6 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA 35 Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum (Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter A/g/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall I = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure 6-13 TABLE 6-10 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL SUMP 7 PIPE TRENCH HEADWALL (CD-7-HW) STUDY AREA CS-0 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MIUTARY RESERVATION SUMP 7 PIPE TRENCH HEADWALL (CD-7-HW) "•".W *-. ANALYTES "" • :, B • c-sw C IB & SW) * VOLATILES tug/kg) - NA NA Tetrachloroethene 9 SEMIVOLATILES (uo/ka) NA NA NA Phenanthrene Ruoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluorarrthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h.i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mo/U MA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 1,500 Arsenic — Calcium 71 Chromium 2 Copper - Iron 1,400 Lead 2.4 Magnesium 270 Mercury — Manganese 60 Nickel — Potassium - Selenium - Sodium — Vanadium — Zinc 6.2 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA 64 Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter Mg/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall I = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Tbxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure 6-14 HACWDCM-10.WK1 TABLE 6-11 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL SUMP 8 (CD-8) STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION SUMPB(CD-B) ANALYTES -, • .. .B...: ••. C-TRENCH 1 C- (B & SW) VOLATILES (wo/kg) _ ^ NA NA SEMIVOLATILES (uo/kg) NA NA NA Phenanthrene 590 Fluoranthene 950 Pyrene 980 Benzo(a)anthracene 400 Chrysene 510 Benzo (b)f luoranthene 670 Benzo(k)fluoranthene - Benzo(a)pyrene 440 lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene - Benzo(g.h,0perylene — TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/U NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 2,100 Beryllium - Arsenic 4.4 Calcium 1.300 Chromium 11 Copper 3.1 Iron 13,000 Lead 18 Magnesium 1.500 Mercury - Manganese 66 Nickel 5.8 Potassium 520 Selenium - Sodium 640 Vanadium 17 Zinc 21 TPH (ma/kg) NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter PS/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall I = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure 6-15 HAC39DDW-1I.WK1 TABLE 6-12 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL SUMP 9 (CD-9) STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION SUMP 9 (CD-9) ANALYTES B c-sw 1 C (B & SW) VOLATILES (uq/kg) - - - NA SEMIVOLATILES (ua/kol NA NA NA - Phenanthrene Ruoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/U NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kq) NA NA NA Aluminum 1.000 Arsenic - Cadmium — Calcium 83 Chromium 1.1 Copper - Iron 1,700 Lead 1.5 Magnesium 210 Mercury — Manganese 52 Nickel — Potassium 160 Selenium - Sodium 580 Vanadium — Zinc 6.1 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA= Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter M9/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW-side wall I = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicrty Chacteristic Leaching Procedure 6-16 HM39DDM-12.WK1 TABLE 6-13 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL SUMP 9 AOC 'HOT SPOT* (CD-9-HW) STUDY AREA CS-8 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION SUMP 9 AOC "HOT SPOT* (CD-9-HW) ANALYTES B c-sw 1 C (B & SW) VOLATILES (ug/kg) - - - NA SEMIVOLATILES 0/g/kg) NA NA NA - . Phenanthrene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i) perytene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/L) NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 910 Arsenic — Cadmium — Calcium 74 Chromium - Copper - Iron 1,800 Lead 1.3 Magnesium 140 Mercury - Manganese 52 Nickel — Potassium — Selenium — Sodium 140 Vanadium — Zinc 5.8 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA 220 Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter Mg/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall I = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Tbxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure 6-17 HIW39DDW-1J.WKJ TABLE 6-14 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL GREASE RACK 1 (GR-1) STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION GREASE RACK 1 (GR-1) ^••V'l'^vf/Ai^YT^V-* -" •. .• SW SW I B C- (B& SW VOLATILES (ug/kg) - - - NA SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg) NA NA NA - Phenanthrene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,0 perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/L) NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mo/kg) NA NA NA " Aluminum 880 Beryllium 0.78 Arsenic — Calcium 61 Chromium 2 Copper - Iron 1100 Lead 63 Magnesium 160 Mercury — Manganese 21 Nickel — Potassium - Vanadium - Selenium - Sodium - Zinc 4.8 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter M9/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure 6-18 HAC39DIM-KWK1 TABLE 6-15 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL GREASE RACK 2 (GR-2) STUDY AREA CS-0 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION GREASE RACK 2 (GR-2) ANALYTES B c-sw r o C- (B & SW) VOLATILES fc/g/kg) - -' NA NA SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg) NA NA NA - Phenanthrene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i) perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/L) NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 2,000 Beryllium - Arsenic 1.5 Calcium 730 Chromium 3.4 Copper 3.8 Iron 3,000 Lead 3.8 Magnesium 300 Mercury — Manganese 39 Nickel — Potassium 200 Selenium — Sodium 410 Vanadium — Zinc 8.5 7PH (mg/kg) NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter MQ/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall O = outlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure 6-19 HACS9DDU-1S.WK1 TABLE 6-16 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL GREASE RACK 3 (GR-3) STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION GREASE RACK 3 (GR-3) ANALYTES B C-SW I 0 c- re & swn VOLATILES (uo/kg) - - NA NA SEMIVOLATILES O/o/kg) MA NA NA Phenanthrene 1.100 Fluoranthene 1,100 Pyrene 1,200 Benzo(a)anthracene 460 Chrysene 610 Benzo (b)f luoranthene 760 Benzo(k)fluoranthene — Benzo(a)pyrene 460 lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene — Benzo(g,h,i)perytene — TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/U NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 10,000 Beryllium - Arsenic 1 Calcium 130 Chromium 3 Copper - Iron 2,700 Lead 11 Magnesium 400 Mercury — Manganese 61 Nickel — Potassium 170 Selenium - Sodium 490 Vanadium — Zinc 8.4 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA 98 Notes: - = Not Detected NA= Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter Mg/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall O = outlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure 6-20 TABLE 6-17 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL GREASE RACK 4 (GR-4) STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION GREASE RACK 4 (GR-4) ANALYTES B I C-SW 1 C (B & SW) VOLATILES fug/kg) - - NA NA SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg) NA NA NA - Phenanthrene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/U NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 900 Beryllium - Arsenic — Cadmium — Calcium 120 Chromium 1.2 Copper - Iron 1.400 Lead 1.4 Magnesium 260 Mercury — Manganese 26 Nickel — Potassium 100 Selenium - Sodium 170 Vanadium — Zinc 7.2 TPH (mg/ka) NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter ^g/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall I = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure 6-21 TABLE 6-18 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL WASH RACK STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION WASH RACK ANALYTES B c-sw 1 C- (B & SWt VOLATILES (ug/kg) - - - NA SEMIVOLAT1LES (t/g/kg) NA NA NA - Phenanthrene 300 Fluoranthene 560 Pyrene 710 Benzo(a)anthracene 200 Chrysene 330 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 520 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 200 Benzo(a)pyrene 330 lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene 300 Benzo(g,h,Q perylene 300 TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/U NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 13,000 Arsenic " 4.6 Cadmium 0.85 Calcium 410 Chromium 15 Copper 5.6 Iron 11,000 Lead 19 Magnesium 1,000 Mercury 0.08 Manganese 60 Nickel 6.8 Potassium 530 Selenium 0.61 Sodium 380 Vanadium 18 Zinc 63 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA 130 Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter Mg/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall I = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure 6-22 HACSVDDW-llWKl TABLE 6-19 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL MISC. 'HOT SPOT B/L STA 9+00 O/S 460 FT. SOUTH STUDY AREA CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION MISC. •HOT SPOT" B/L STA 9+00 O/S 460 FT SOUTH ANALYTES B I C-SW 1 C {B & SW) VOLATILES 0/g/kQl NA NA NA NA SEMIVOLATILES fc/g/kg) NA NA NA NA Phenanthrene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo (a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/L) NA NA NA NA INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA NA Aluminum Arsenic Cadmium Calcium Chromium Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Mercury Manganese Nickel Potassium Selenium Sodium Vanadium Zinc TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter MQ/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall I = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicrty Chacteristic Leaching Procedure 6-23 HACS9DDU-19.WKI TABLE 6-20 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL UST REMOVAL FORMER BLDG. LOCATION 4105 (UST) STUDY AREA CS-B DECISION DOCUMENT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION UST REMOVAL FORMER BLDG. LOCATION 4105 (UST) ANALYTES -• B c-sw I C (B & SW) VOLATILES (Ud/kgl - - NA NA SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg) NA NA NA Phenanthrene 460 Fluoranthene 620 Pyrene 620 Benzo(a)anthracene 330 Chrysene 360 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 600 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 200 Benzo(a)pyrene 390 lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene 200 Benzo(g,h,0perylene 200 TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/U NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 1,200 Arsenic - — Cadmium - Calcium 210 Chromium 1.2 Copper - Iron 1,600 Lead 4.6 Magnesium 280 Mercury — Manganese 31 Nickel — Potassium 140 Selenium — Sodium 280 Vanadium — Zinc 9.5 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA= Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter pg/kg = micrograms per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall I = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure UST = underground storage tank 6-24 SECTION 7 7.0 CONCLUSIONS The soil at Study Area CS-9 that may have been contaminated and, therefore, a potential risk to human and ecological receptors, has been excavated and received treatment in a low-temperature TTU. Following treatment, soils were stockpiled in an on-site storage area and used as backfill material for the FTA-1 soil excavation. The sump structures and remainder of the soil from this area were excavated and have been used as fill material beneath the AOC LF-1 landfill cover system. Because the potential risks posed by contaminants in soil, as identified in Section 5.0 of this document, have been eliminated by excavating the surface soil, no further action is recommended at Study Area CS-9. W0129414.080 8705-46 7-1 SECTION 8 8.0 DECISION On the basis of these findings, there is no evidence of significant environmental contamination remaining at Study Area CS-9 that would pose an unacceptable threat to human healthor the environment. The decision has been made to remove this site fr^m^urtherpbnsideration in the IRP process. GARYM, Date Director W0129414.080 8703-16 8-1 SECTION 8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New England Division Concur _ FRANK J. CIAVATTIERI, Deputy Director OflBce of Site Remediation and Restoration Date [ ] Non-concur (please provide reasons): WO 129414.080 8-2 8703-tf SECTION 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection [vr ff/ rConcur PAUL TAURASI Regional Director Date [ ] Non-concur (please provide reasons) W0129414.080 8703-46 8-3 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ABB-ES ABB Environmental Services, Inc. ANG Air National Guard AOC Area of Contamination ARNG Army National Guard BBM Buzzards Bay Moraine bgs below ground surface CPC contaminant of potential concern FW Fighter Wing ft/d feet per day ft/ft feet per foot HARM Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology HEC hazard equivalent concentration HI hazard index HLA Harding Lawson Associates HQ hazard quotient IRP Installation Restoration Program MCL Maximum Contaminant Level mg/kg milligrams per kilogram MMR Massachusetts Military Reservation MOGAS motor gasoline mph miles per hour MPP Mashpee Pitted Plain MSL mean sea level NGB National Guard Bureau PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon PRE preliminary risk evaluation PCB polychlorinated biphenyl RAH Risk Assessment Handbook W0129414.080 8703-46 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS SI site investigation SM Sandwich Moraine SOL sample quantitation limit STCL soil target clean-up level SVOC semivolatile organic compound TAL Target Analyte List TCL Target Compound List TTU thermal treatment unit TIC tentatively identified compound TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon micrograms per liter USAP U.S. Air Force USCG U.S. Coast Guard USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USN U.S. Navy UST underground storage tank VA Veterans Administration VOC volatile organic compound WWII World War II W0129414.080 8703-46 REFERENCES U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc y(USEPA), 1989a. "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund; Vol. 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual"; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; USEPA 540/1-89/002; Washington, DC; December 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989b. "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund; Vol. 2, Environmental Evaluation Manual"; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; USEPA 540/1-89/002; Washington, DC; December 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989c. "Exposure Factors Handbook; Exposure Assessment Group; Office of Health and Environmental Assessment; USEPA 600/8-89/043; Washington, DC. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989d. "Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance for the Superfund Program"; USEPA Region I Risk Assessment Work Group; USEPA 901/5-89/001; Washington, DC; June 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) ,199la. "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals)"; Interim Final; OSWER Directive 9285.7-01B; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Washington, DC; December 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1991b . "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol. I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors"; Interim Final; OSWER Directive 9285.6-03; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Washington, DC; March 25, 1991. U.S. Environmental Protectio nAgency (USEPA), 1992a. "Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications"; Interim Report; Office of Research and Development; USEPA 600/8-91/01 IB; Washington, DC; January 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1992b. "Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment, Part A"; Final; OSWER Directive 9285.7-09A; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Washington, DC; June 1992. W0129414.080 8703-46 REFERENCES ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES) 1992. "Focused Feasibility Study for the AOC CS-4 Groundwater Operable Unit"; Installation Restoration Program; Massachusetts Military Reservation; prepared for HAZWRAP; Portland, Maine; February 1992. ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES), 1993. "Priority 2 and 3 Study Areas Site Investigation"; Massachusetts Military Reservation; prepared for HAZWRAP; Portland, Maine; October 1993. Amdur, M.O., J. Doull, and C.D. Klaasen, (editors), 1991. Casarett and Doull's Toxicology, The Basic Science of Poisons; Fourth Edition; Pergamon Press; New York, New York. Automated Sciences Group, 1994. "Risk Assessment Handbook (RAH)"; prepared for HAZWRAP Support Contractor Office; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; September 1994. E.G. Jordan Co., 1986. "U.S Ai. r Force Installation Restoration Program, Phase I: Records Search Air National Guard, Camp Edwards (ARNG), U.S. Air Force and Veterans Administration Facilities at Massachusetts Military Reservation, Massachusetts, Task 6"; Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; December 11, 1986. E.G. Jordan Co., 1989. "Tas k1-8 Hydrogeologic Summary Report"; Installation Restoration Program; Massachusetts Military Reservation; prepared for HAZWRAP; Portland, Maine; April 1989. HAZWRAP, 1994. "Drainage Structure Program Conceptual Model/Proposed Target Clean-up Levels"; Installation Restoration Program; Massachusetts Military Reservation; prepared for Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence and Air National Guard; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Draft, February 1994. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985. "Environmental Assessment for Master Plan/ Multiple Construction at Camp Edwards Training Site, Massachusetts"; Massachusetts Army National Guard, Directorate of Facilities Engineering; Boston, Massachusetts; May 1985. W0129414.080 8703-46 REFERENCES U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1992c. "Framewor kfor Ecological Risk Assessment"; Risk Assessment Forum; USEPA/630/R-92/OQ1; Washington, DC. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1993. "Provisional Guidanc foe r Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons"; Office of Research and Development; EPA/600/R-93/089; Washington, D.C., July 1993. W0129414.080 8703-46 VPIMNDIX A A STl.'DY AKhA CS-0 K1 Remedial Action Summary Report Study Area CS-9 Drainage Structure Removal Final September 1996 Prepared for: AFCEE/MMR Installation Restoration Program 322 E. Inner Road Box 41 Otis ANGB, MA 02542 DSN: 557-4670 Comm: 508-968-4670 Prepared by: ABB Environmental Services, Inc. Submitted by: Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program Environmental Management and Enrichment Facilities Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-7606 Managed by: LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under contract DE-AC05-840R21400 INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT STUDY AREA CS-9 DRAINAGE STRUCTURE REMOVAL FINAL SEPTEMBER 1996 Prepared for: Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence and Air National Guard Prepared by: ABB Environmental Services, Inc. Portland, Maine Project No. 7623-27 Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program Environmental Management and Enrichment Facilities Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-7606 Managed by: LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT STUDY AREA CS-9 DRAINAGE STRUCTURE REMOVAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Pag Noe . 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 2.0 BACKGROUND 2-1 2.1 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS 2-5 2.2 CERTIFICATION THAT THE REMEDIAL ACTION is COMPLETE 2-6 3.0 SPECIAL PROJECT PROCEDURES 3-1 4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 4-1 4.1 STRUCTURE REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS 4-1 4.2 EXECUTION OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 4-2 4.3 QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE 4-5 5.0 CONSTRUCTION ACnvnTES 5-1 5.1 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 5-1 5.2 CONSTRUCTION COSTS 5-18 5.3 PROBLEMS AND PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS 5-18 6.0 DOCUMENTATION 6-1 6.1 INSPECTIONS 6-1 6.2 RECORD DOCUMENTS 6-1 6.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 6-1 6.4 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS 6-22 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS REFERENCES W0019571.080 7623-27 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT STUDY AREA CS-9 DRAINAGE STRUCTURE REMOVAL TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section Title Page No. APPENDICES APPENDIX A STATEMENT OF WORK FOR EXCAVATION AND REMOVAL OF DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND SOIL AT STUDY AREA CS-9 APPENDIX B CONTRACTOR REMEDIAL ACTION WORK PLAN LETTER AMENDMENT FOR STUDY AREA CS-9 APPENDIX C BORROW TRACKING REPORTS FOR DISPOSAL OF CONCRETE DEBRIS AT AOC LFrl APPENDIX D CONTAMINATED SOIL STOCKPILE SCHEMATIC AT AOC CS-4 THERMAL TREATMENT SITE APPENDIX E PUBLIC NOTIFICATION NEWS RELEASE FOR REMEDIAL ACTION AT STUDY AREA CS-9 APPENDIX F CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS P-10 AND P-ll WITH COST ASSESSMENT FOR STUDY AREA CS-9 W0019571.080 7623-27 11 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT STUDY AREA CS-9 DRAINAGE STRUCTURE REMOVAL LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title Page No. 2-1 Base Location Map 2-2 2-2 Study Area CS-9 Location Map 2-3 2-3 Former Site Features and Locations of Explorations Study Area CS-9 2-4 5-1 Locations of Remediated Features Study Area CS-9 5-2 W0019571.080 7623-27 iii REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT STUDY AREA CS-9 DRAINAGE STRUCTURE REMOVAL LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page No. 5-1 Drainage Structure Remediation Summary 5-3 6-1 Analytical Method Summary 6-2 6-2 Summary of Analytes Detected in Soil 6-3 W0019571.080 7623-27 iv SECTION 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION In March 1994, the National Guard Bureau (NGB) initiated a Remedial Action to address soil contaminants at Study Area Chemical Spill No. 9 (CS-9) at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR). Subsequent construction, excavation, clean closure verification, and backfilling operations were the responsibility of the general contractor. The purpose of this document is to evaluate that the removal of drainage structures and contaminated soil from Study Area CS-9 has been executed in compliance with the contract documents and that the remedial action performance standards have been met. It is not the intent of this document to assess the contractor's methods or approach to the work, except as required by regulatory guidance. This report determines that the Study Area CS-9 remedial action was completed within specified parameters and standards. W0019571.080 7623-27 1-1 SECTION 2 2.0 BACKGROUND The MMR on Cape Cod, Massachusetts consists of Otis Air National Guard (ANG) Base and the Camp Edwards Area, and is currently on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Priorities List (Figure 2-1). The location of Study Area CS-9 at the MMR is shown on Figure 2-2. Study Area CS-9 is a former U. S. Air Force motor pool that operated from 1955 to 1967. From 1941 to 1946, the site was used by the U.S. Army as a motor pool and vehicle maintenance area. Wastes potentially generated during operations included oil, halogenated and nonhalogenated solvents, paint residues, battery electrolytes, antifreeze, and a limited amount of Motor Gasoline (MOGAS). During operational periods, maintenance wastes were reportedly disposed onto the ground. Site assessment and site investigation (SI) activities initiated in 1985 identified former grease and wash racks, an abandoned MOGAS fuel island, and various leaching wells and sump structures as possible points for spills and waste collection (ABB Environmental Services, Inc., [ABB-ES], 1993b). Figure 2-3 provides an overview of site features and SI exploration locations. The former facilities and drainage structures at the Study Area CS-9 were initially recommended for response under the proposed Drainage Structure Removal Program (DSRP) anticipated for remedial construction in the spring of 1995. However, the remedial design for Area of Contamination (AOC) Landfill No. 1 (LF-1) proposed that the uncontaminated soil beneath Study Area CS-9 be utilized as subgrade common borrow under the landfill cover system. As a result of this conflict, the NGB negotiated an accelerated removal action of the drainage structures and contaminated soil at Study Area CS-9 with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) and the USEPA. Under this removal action, contaminated soil would be treated under the current thermal removal action project, consisting of thermal desorption of the soil and carbon treatment of off gases. Concrete debris would be disposed of under the landfill cap after appropriate decontamination. The execution of the work was performed through a contract change order to the existing AOC LF-1 closure project. Performance of these activities are the basis of this report. W0019571.080 7623-27 2-1 MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION HAMBLIN POND \ ) LEGEND TOWN BOUNDARY .._._ BASE BOUNDARY CROOKED COONAMESSETT RUNWAY POND POND ABB Environmental BASE LOCATION MAP AIM* Services, Inc. REMEDIAL NOT TO SCALE INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM ACTION MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION SUMMARY FIGURE 2-1 REPORT W9412021D 2-2 '^-^/^ ^,'l^^r * i*'l ®^»Iflx.;^^ L^TH^^fe'HL- n^£a^g*r$^/ STUDY AREA CS-9 vpf - LL' - — SOURCE: USGSTOPOQRAPHC QUADRANGLE 7J-MMUTE SERIES, POCASSET, MA. 1967, PHOTOREVWED ItTt. J^ IK II ABB Em STUDY AREA CS-9 QUAORANGLE LOCATION LOCATION MAP BE MEDIAL MVTAUATKM HUTCNATIOM PNOONAM ACTION MUMCMUKTIl MUTAMT MKKMVAHON SUMMARY FIGURE 2-2 KPOOT 0780-00 2-3 WEATHERED ASPHALT FORMER WASH RACK TP-9 SPLIT RAIL FENCE TP-10, VENDING TP-10C BUILDINGS LOCATION OF FORMER USTs LEACHING WELL 4(00-4) WEATHERED ASPHALT PINE GROWTH FORMER PUMP ISLAND LEACHING WELL IQ (CD-1/CL-1)J, ^F WEATHERED ASPHALT WITH PINE GROWTH VEHICLE SERVICE AREA LEACHING TREE LNE WELL2(CD-2) LOCATION Of REMAINING BUILDING FOUNDATION LEACHING / WELLS(CD-S) FORMER GREASE RACK J FORMER DRY WELL LOCATION FORMER SUMP LOCATION WEATHERED ASPHALT WITH PINE GROWTH EXISTING MONITORING WELL MONITORING WELL LOCATION ' SUMP 9 LF-1/MW-20A,B,C,Z TEST PIT LOCATION LEACHING / (CM) WELL 3 (CO-3) INTERPRETED GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION BASED ON REGIONAL WATER TABLE CONTOUR MAP OF THE MMR USING MAY 1900 WATER LEVEL DATA GROUNDWATER EOUIPOTENTIAL LINE TRANSPOSED FROM REGIONAL WATER TABLE CONTOUR MAP OF THE MMR BASED ON MAY 1090 DATA (FEET. MSL) ABB Environmental FORMER SITE FEATURES AND APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET JP^IPIP Services. Inc. LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATIONS ASEA SHOWN 80VER AT STUDY AREA CS-9 200 400 REMEDIAL SOURCE: OAFB MASTER PLAN TAB NO. G-7. AERIAL INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM ACTION SURVEY PHOTO TAKEN IN APRIL. 1990, AND FIELD MASSACHUSETTS ULTTARY RESERVATION SUMMARY FIGURE 2-3 OBSERVATION. APRIL. 1103. REPORT 9412027D 12345 8 2-4 SECTION 2 ABB-ES was contracted through the Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program (HAZWRAP) to provide construction technical support services during remedial activities at Study Area CS-9. 2.1 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS A general outline of the removal action requirements, as presented in the statement of work (SOW) provided by the NGB Installation Restoration Program (IRP), is presented in the following discussion. The SOW for excavation and removal of the drainage structures and soil at Study Area CS-9 is provided in Appendix A. The objective of the contract services as described in Section 1.0 of the SOW is as follows: 1. Remove, drum, and dispose of off-site, any liquid contents and bottom sediments of the 10 sump/leaching well structures containing waste oil or solvents. 2. Demolish, dismantle, excavate, and decontaminate these 10 sumps and four additional grease rack (GR) structures from Study Area CS-9 and reduce the structures to the maximum size limitations as provided under the contract specifications for AOC LF-1 capping construction, (ABB-ES, 1993a). 3. Excavate, load, and haul the contaminated soil to a location to be designated by the Contracting Officers Representative (COR), tentatively planned to be the AOC CS-4 source area location at the MMR. The contaminants in the soil are primarily petroleum hydrocarbons. 4. The remaining clean soils and decontaminated concrete sump structure debris will then be used as common borrow material for the LF-1 landfill closure project. W0019571.080 7623-27 2-5 SECTION 2 22 CERTIFICATION THAT THE REMEDIAL ACTION is COMPLETE This Remedial Action required that the contractor excavate, remove and dispose the drainage structures and associated contaminated soil. The limits of contaminated soil were based on visual observation and appropriate field instrumentation, (i.e. organic vapor analyzer [OVA] headspace analysis). The excavations were sampled for laboratory analysis for various analytes, as specified in the SOW, to support clean closure of the excavations. Treatment and contaminant reduction of the soil from Study Area CS-9 has been executed under the Removal Action for AOCs CS-4, FS-25, and FTA-1 Excavation and Thermal Treatment of Soil, U.S. Property and Fiscal Office (USPFO) contract No. DAHA-19-92-C-0050. Treatment activities and final disposition of the CS-9 soils will be discussed in a Remedial Action Summary Report to be prepared for the soil excavation and thermal treatment project. Evaluation of the field instrumentation data, inspection reports, and laboratory analysis results, indicates that removal of the drainage structures and associated contaminated soil at Study Area CS-9 has been completed within specified parameters as provided in the NGB IRP SOW. Michael A. Donnelly, P.E. W0019571.080 7623-27 2-6 SECTION 3 3.0 SPECIAL PROJECT PROCEDURES The Study Area CS-9 Remedial Action was executed as a contract modification under the AOC LF-1 capping project, USPFO contract No. DAHA-19-93-C-0017. The Remedial Action contractor, Lawrence Lynch Corporation (LLC), was authorized to use existing project plans, (e.g., Remedial Action Work Plan [RAWP], Health and Safety Plan [HASP], Contractor Quality Control Plan [CQCP]), for the AOC LF-1 project as a basis for oversight, quality control, and documentation of the work in progress. The NGB SOW required that LLC provide a letter amendment to the existing project plans for site specific activities relative to execution of the Remedial Action for Study Area CS-9. Submissions of these plan amendments were made by LLC on October 20, 1993, and are provided in Appendix B. Amendments were reviewed and approved for implementation at the site by the COR and appropriate regulatory agencies. W0019571.080 7623-27 3-1 SECTION 4 4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The performance standards outlined in the following subsections provide requirements for the proposed Remedial Action and are further detailed in the NGB SOW, (Appendix A). Discussion of the execution of these standards is provided in Subsection 4.2 of this report. 4.1 STRUCTURE REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS • Remove standing liquids, sediments, and sludge from the drainage structures as outlined in the NGB SOW, and dispose of off-site in accordance with Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Regulations. • Decontaminate all drainage structures construction materials. Drum decontamination fluids and wash water and dispose of off-site, or treat with Granular Activated Carbon as allowed at the MMR (USEPA November 20, 1992 letter regarding proposal to Discharge Treated Groundwater, Attachment to the NGB SOW, Appendix A). • Demolish all decontaminated drainage structures and non-structure specific concrete foundation material and reduce in size to a four foot maximum dimension as required under the AOC LF-1 design specifications. Dispose of all concrete as subgrade fill material in the AOC LF-1 disposal cell construction. • Excavate, characterize, and stockpile all contaminated soils surrounding the drainage structures at the proposed AOC CS-4 source area Thermal Treatment Unit (TTU) site, as directed by the COR. • Excavation of the drainage structures will be based on Table 1 of the SOW and required screening methodology. Upon reaching apparent clean excavation limits, collect clean-closure confirmatory soil samples to verify that acceptable soil target clean-up levels (STCL) have been achieved. Confirmatory sampling requirements are specified in Subsection 3.2 of the NGB SOW (Appendix A). The STCLs are listed in a separate document "Drainage Structure W0019571.080 7623-27 4-1 SECTION 4 Program Conceptual Model/Proposed Target Cleanup Levels" (HAZWRAP, 1994). Clean up levels are summarized in Subsection 6.2. Observe all pertinent health and safety standards and work practices as required under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulation 29 CFR 1910.120. Additionally, provide a letter amendment to the HASP for the existing AOC LF-1 RAWP, as appropriate. Submit a site remediation and closure report documenting all Remedial Action activities. This report shall include, at a minimum, the contractor's daily reports and all field and analytical testing results. 42 EXECUTION OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The contractor's execution of performance standards as required in Subsection 4.1 of this report are discussed below. Revisions to the NGB SOW and changes to the approach of the work are summarized in the following discussion and in Section 5.0. Remediation of the Study Area CS-9 drainage structures was initiated on March 28, 1994. As discussed in Section 2.0, the Study Area CS-9 was located within the common borrow source area for the AOC LF-1 project. Therefore, execution of the Study Area CS-9 effort was intended to alleviate the limitations of the common borrow source for the AOC LF-1 project and decrease the construction schedule and potential additional cost occurrences. Execution of the work was initiated prior to the Contracting Officer's (CO) contract modification approval on September 21, 1994. This was a result of delays in operational funding by the NGB, United States Coast Guard, and the ANG Bureau. Initial activities required the contractor to provide a letter RAWP and HASP amendment to the existing AOC LF-1 project plans for Study Area CS-9 excavation activities. These document amendments are provided in Appendix B. • Each drainage structure was remediated as a separate area. Initially, soil material was removed from the structure, if possible, or W0019571.080 7623-27 4-2 SECTION 4 the structure was removed from its location and demolished in a manner which allowed collection of its contents. No structures observed during remediation contained standing liquids or sludge. Sediment was removed through decontamination procedures and drummed for off-site disposal, as required in the NGB SOW. In some instances, a layer of material up to six inches thick was observed in the base of the structure, which exhibited staining or apparent visual contamination. This material was considered sediment and collected for disposal. Some drainage structures had been previously backfilled with granular soil. This material was considered contaminated and stockpiled with other excavated contaminated soils. • Th remainine g structures and associated piping were excavated and inspected for faulty or deteriorated connections or construction joints. If the surrounding soil exhibited evidence of contamination (i.e., soil staining) the soil was stockpiled with other contaminated soils. Soils adjacent to excavated pipelines were screened using headspace analysis with an OVA as the excavation proceeded. An action level of 10 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) was implemented as guidance for additional excavation activities. A detailed discussion of Remedial Action construction activities is provided in Section 5.0 of this report. Piping discovered and removed between drainage structures and existing foundation appurtenances (i.e., floor and trench drains) was either vitrified clay (VC) or cast steel. Pipes, with contaminated sludge or sediment present in the bore, were crushed and stockpiled with contaminated soil. If no contamination was identified (visually or with field screening) the material was crushed and disposed of as subgrade fill in the LF-1 common borrow fill sections. • Contaminated concrete was decontaminated by pressure washing and demolished to size limitations defined in the AOC LF-1 specifications (i.e., 4-foot maximum dimension). The material was W0019571.080 7623-27 4-3 SECTION 4 then disposed of in the LF-1 subgrade fill sections. LF-1 subgrade placement location diagrams and Borrow Tracking Reports for the resulting debris are provided in Appendix C. All decontamination washwater with heavy sediments was collected from the drainage structures and drummed for disposal off-site as directed in the NGB SOW. Disposal off-site of contaminated material was performed by General Chemical Corporation of Framingham, MA. Appropriate manifesting and waste characterization has been generated by LLC and is included in the "Final Remedial Action Construction Report for AOC CS-9" (LLC, 1995). Soil surrounding the drainage structures as identified in the NGB SOW, Table 1, was screened through headspace analysis and visual observation. Upon reaching apparent clean excavation limits based on field screening, the excavation bottom and sidewalls were sampled as directed in the NGB SOW and outlined in Subsection 6.4 of this report. Clean closure verification for backfill was confirmed in Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) documentation for all drainage structures and is included in the LLC Final Remedial Action Construction Report (LLC, 1995). Contaminated soils from the excavations were transported by LLC to the AOC CS-4 thermal treatment site for future treatment. The soils were stockpiled on plastic sheeting and covered. A soil pile schematic showing the locations of stockpiles and approximate soil volumes from specific drainage structures as deposited at AOC CS-4 was generated by LLC and is provided in Appendix D. Subsection 3.2 of the NGB SOW required the contractor to characterize the soils excavated from the drainage structures to determine suitability for thermal treatment. However, characterization of soils is included in the current thermal soil treatment contract. The characterization requirement was deleted from the CS-9 SOW requirements by the NGB. W0019571.080 7623-27 4-4 SECTION 4 • Work for the effort was predominantly performed in modified Level "D" personal protective equipment (PPE), with upgrading of PPE as required by LLC air monitoring program action levels outlined in the AOC LF-1 project HASP (LLC, 1994). • AFinal Remedial Action Construction Report has been provided to the NGB (LLC, 1995). This report contains structure-specific configuration sketches, contaminated soil volumes resulting from each excavation, and analytical confirmatory data to support clean closure of the excavation. The drainage structure excavation activities are discussed in Section 5.0 of this report. 4.3 QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE As indicated in Subsection 3.1, the contractor was allowed to utilize the previously approved AOC LF-1 CQCP to identify personnel, procedures, records, and forms to be utilized in carrying out the requirements of the contract modification for Study Area CS-9. The basic formats, forms, and procedures as required in the base contract, the SOW modification, and the plans submitted by the contractor were utilized and executed. This summary report will provide assurance that the Remedial Action is complete. Efforts by the COR to inspect the contractor's work, and information contained in this report and the final construction record documents verifies that the physical aspects of the construction process, and the required laboratory data collection were completed. LLC conducted daily inspections of the work in progress and documented it through the use of daily reports, log books, and site sketches. LLC regularly communicated with the COR or his representatives to provide resolution of deficiencies and nonconforming work. Subsection 5.3 presents a discussion of problems encountered during the Remedial Action and how they were resolved. Analysis and testing was performed and reported within acceptable time frames and documented. The COR worked closely with the contractor to identify various contractual requirements, and consulted with regulatory agencies to assure contract compliance and meet regulatory concerns. W0019571.080 7623-27 4-5 SECTION 4 Documentation of sampling and analysis activities for the project were generally acceptable, conforming to HAZWRAP documents DOE/HWP-65/R1 and DOE/HWP-69/R1. This documentation includes equipment and calibration procedures utilized, labeling and recording of samples collected, and chain of custody procedures. LLCs sampling and analysis plan as provided for the AOC LF-1 project was written for collection of groundwater samples from screened auger borings for determination of screened interval placement in the installation of monitoring wells, and was not specifically intended for the collection of soil samples. This was an oversight in the revision of documents to address the specific activities included in the SOW for the Study Area CS-9 remediation. However, the activities executed for sampling and analysis of soil contaminants under the Study Area CS-9 contract modification are defined in the DOE/HWP-65/R1 and DOE/HWP-69/R1 guidance attached to the AOC LF-1 contract specifications. Furthermore, the SOW provided guidance for general locations, and specific USEPA methodologies to be utilized, in execution of the required sampling and analysis. The contract laboratory, Groundwater Analytical, Inc. (GAI) of Buzzards Bay, MA, was approved by the COR and was acceptable to the MADEP for these laboratory analyses. Project staffing was provided by LLC. The Quality Control Officer, Health and Safety Officer, and Superintendent were required by the contract specifications to be staffed separately to avoid conflicts between work production and safety and quality requirements. However, during the RA, these oversight responsibilities were filled by one individual. It was determined by the COR and ABB-ES that this occurrence was not detrimental to the execution of the proposed work. W0019S71.080 7623-27 4-6 SECTION 5 5.0 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES The Study Area CS-9 Remedial Action was executed by the USPFO Natick, MA, and the general contractor, LLC, of Falmouth, MA. Contract modifications 10 and 11 of the AOC LF-1 main base landfill closure contract No. DAHA-19-93-C-0017 were executed on September 21, 1994. The Remedial Action was commenced by LLC on March 28, 1994, and substantial completion of the work was reached on June 6, 1994, resulting in a total work duration of 71 calendar days. No contract time extensions for the modification have been requested by the contractor or granted by the CO. A final inspection was not performed by the COR or the regulatory agencies. Final completion notification of the Study Area CS-9 Remedial Action will be granted by the CO with the completion acceptance of the AOC LF-1 capping project. The following subsections discuss a general chronological listing of the construction activities, a review of contract costs, and problems encountered during construction and their resolutions. Detailed reports and daily logs of the work can be viewed in project record documents on file at the NGB IRP offices at Otis, ANG Base, MA. Figure 5-1 provides locations of structures and utilities removed for the site during the remedial action. Additionally, Table 5-1 provides drainage structure identification and description, quantities of soil excavated, and specific comments, if any, concerning the structures. Detailed sketches of individual structures and locations are provided in the LLC final remedial action construction report (LLC, 1995). 5.1 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS The following discussion contains excerpts from field logs and site reports. Where appropriate, the discussion has been edited for clarification and notes have been inserted to direct the reader to other sections of the Remedial Action Summary Report. Additionally, drainage structure identification designations are indicated W0019571.080 7623-27 5-1 LEGEND VEHICLE SERVICE AREA THEELNE LOCATION OF REMAINING CID BUILDING FOUNDATION iiiiiiiiiniim FORMER GREASE RACK (OR) FORMER DRY WELL LOCATION o WEATHERED FORMER SUMP LOCATION ASPHALT FORMER UTILITY MANHOLE EXISTING MONITORING. WELL MONITORING WELL LOCATION FORMER WASH RACK UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (LIST) INTERPRETED GROUNDWATER FLOW SPLFT RAIL FENCE DIRECTION BASED ON REGIONAL WATER TABLE CONTOUR MAP OF THE MMR USING VENDING MAY 1880 WATER LEVEL DATA BUILDINGS GROUNDWATER EOUIPOTENTUL LINE TRANSPOSED FROM REGIONAL WATER LOCATION OF FORMER USTs TABLE CONTOUR MAP OF THE MMR BASED ON MAY 1800 DATA (FEET. MSL) LEACHING WELL 4 (CO-4) MISC. "HOT SPOT" BASELINE STA. 8+00 OFFSET 450 FT. SOUTH THEREDASPHAL FORMER PUMP ISLAND WITH PINE GROWTH HYDRAULIC HOIST CYLINDER (TYP) 4 LF-1 LEACHING WELL 1 1970 CELL RFW-2 CONCRETE WEATHERED ASPHALT HEAD WALL WITH PINE GROWTH OUTFALL RFW-2A CD-7-HW SUMPS r LEACHING /4103. WELL2(CO-2) EACHINO WELLS(CO-S) CONCRETE HEAD WALL OUTFALL WEATHERED ASPHALT CD-5-HW WITH PINE GROWTH LEACHING LF-1 WELL3(CD-3) CONCRETE GRAVEL PIT HEAD WALL FOLLOWING OUTFALL REMEDIATION, THIS CD-Q-HW AREA WAS EXCAVATED TO APPROXIMATE ELEVATION OF ._• EXCAVATED 100.00 MSL FROM AREA NOTES: EL. 136.0 MSL 1. GENERAL AREA EXCAVATED TO EL. 115 MSL SffsSO* FROM EL 140 MSL FOR BORROW EXCAVATION EAST ASPHALT OF BMX ALLEY. 2. SEE TABLE 5-1 FOR REMEDIATION SUMMARY. ABB Environmental LOCATIONS OF APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Services. Inc. REMEDIATED FEATURES ASEA BROWN BOVEW STUDY AREA CS4 200 400 REMEDIAL SOURCE: OAFB MASTER PLAN TAB NO. G-7. AERIAL INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM ACTION SURVEY PHOTO TAKEN IN APRIL. 1880. AND FIELD MASSACHUSETTS HUTARY RESERVATION SUMMARY FIGURE 5-1 OBSERVATION. APRIL. 1883. REPORT 9601040D 1234 8 5-2 TABLE 5-1 DRAINAGE STRUCTURE REMEDIATION SUMMARY STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION EXCAVATED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE SOIL IDENTIFICATION DESCRIPTION rCUBlCYARDSl COMMENTS fll f2J CD-I LEACHING WELL 81 INLET TRACED TO FORMER BLDG. FDN WALL. 75' NORTHEAST, FLOOR DRAIN OBSERVED. (3) CD-2 LEACHING WELL 72 INLET TRACED TO FORMER BLDG. FDN WALL. 75' NORTHEAST, FLOOR DRAIN OBSERVED. (3) CD-3 LEACHING WELL INLET TRACED TO FORMER BLDG. FDN WALL 75' NORTHEAST, FLOOR DRAIN OBSERVED. (3) CD-4-FFI FORMER FUEL ISLAND WITH 144 USTs ASSOCIATED WITH FUEL (4) ADJACENT LEACHING WELL ISLAND PREVIOUSLY REMOVED SEE AOC CS-9 DECISION DOCUMENT CD-5 LEACHING WELL BRICK "BEEHIVE" MH. 6" DIA. OUTFALLTRACED TO LF-1 GRAVEL PIT. (5) CD-5-HW HEADWALL DISCHARGE UNCONTAINED DISCHARGE . 6" FROM LEACHING WELL VC PIPE. 350 LF EAST IN LF-1 GRAVEL PIT. CD-6 SUMP TRACED TO FLOOR DRAIN. FORMER BLDG. 4107, CLOSED CONCRETE SUMP. CD-7 SUMP 144 CLOSED CONCRETE SUMP TRACED TO FORMER BLDG. 4104 FLOOR DRAIN, AND OUTFALL TO LF-1 GRAVEL PIT. ALSO WASTE ASSOC. WITH HYDRAULIC HOISTS. CD-7-HW HEADWALL DISCHARGE 104 UNCONTAINED DISCHARGE. 6" FROM SUMP VC PIPE, 350 LF EAST IN LF-1 GRAVEL PIT. CD-8 SUMP CLOSED CONCRETE SUMP ATTACHED TO 50 LF TRENCH DRAIN , AND FLOOR DRAIN. ADDITIONAL PIPE TRACED TO THE WEST (PREVIOUSLY DISCONTINUED) CD-9 SUMP CLOSED CONCRETE SUMP TRACED TO FORMER BLDG. 4105 FLOOR DRAIN CD-9-HW HEADWALL DISCHARGE 1926 UNCONTAINED DISCHARGE . 6" FROM SUMP VC PIPE, TRACED TO WITHIN 20 LF OF CD-9 (SUSPECTED ORIGIN) 5-3 H:\MVOI1INE\CWSUMU- 1.WK1 TABLE 5-1 DRAINAGE STRUCTURE REMEDIATION SUMMARY STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION EXCAVATED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE SOIL IDENTIFICATION DESCRIPTION fCUBIC YARDS! COMMENTS f21 GR-1 GREASE RACK 361 WEST OF BMX TRACK. 12 CONCRETE SLAB STRUCTURES REMOVED (6) GR-2 GREASE RACK 10 CONCRETE SLAB STRUCTURES REMOVED, THREE TEST PITS EXCAVATED; NO CONTAMINATED SOIL GR-3 GREASE RACK 144 12 CONCRETE SLAB STRUCTURES REMOVED. EXCAV. TO 2' bgs GR-4 GREASE RACK 12 CONCRETE SLAB STRUCTURES REMOVED. THREE TEST PITS EXCAVATED; NO CONTAMINATED SOIL WASH RACK PITCHED SLAB 90 PITCHED SLAB (70'x 20') EAST OF BMX TRACK ' NO STRUCTURE ASSOCIATED WITH SLAB, EXCAVATION PROCEEDED OVER LENGTH AND 20' BEYOND SLAB TO 2' bgs MISC. HS TPH "HOT SPOT 26 LOCALIZED AREA, UNTRACEABLE TO LOCAL UTILITIES OR APPURTENANCES AS POTENTIAL SOURCE UST UNDERGROUND STORAGE 36 500 GAL. LOCATED ADJACENT TO TANK FORMER BLDG. 4105 REMOVED 200 GAL FUEL/ WATER (7) Notes: MH = Manhole VC = Vitrified Clay HW = Head wall bgs = below ground surface TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons LF = Linear Foot General Note: Clean closure for all excavations have been approved by NGB and are supported by confirmatory sample results. (1) For locations of site features refer to Figure 5-1. (2) Drainage-structure specific site sketches provided in Lawrence Lynch Corp. final construction report (LLC. 1995). (3) Associated former building foundation identification unavailable. (4) Former USTs removed by NGB 19B5 (ABB-ES. 1995). (5) For location of LF-1 gravel pit see drawing C-107, LF-1 closure design (ABB-ES, 1993a). (6) Concrete slabs constructed directly on subgrade with 1' macadam paving between, no associated appurtenances at GRs. (7) State notification and permit received for removal of UST. 5-4 SECTION 5 to correspond with the NGB SOW, and Figure 5-1 and Subsection 6.2 of this report. IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS. AND MEETINGS: 3/28/94 • During the Remedial Action for GR No. 1 (GR-1) structure, ABB-ES field engineers observed a number of activities which were inconsistent with execution of the construction requirements. These inconsistences, listed below, were discussed with G. Gallant, NGB IRP. G. Gallant proceeded to the site and required the contractor to implement corrective action. • N exclusioo n zone established within the site. • N decontaminatioo n procedures or designated area established for equipment and/or personnel at the work site. • No PP Ebeing utilized within the immediate work area. • N soio l migration efforts in place, (i.e., plastic under trucks in loading area). The contractors Quality Assurance/Quality Control supervisor indicated that these issues would be addressed in future activities. Some of these requests, most notably the use of basic PPE, were implemented directly. These concerns were later reiterated to W. Dawes, LLC project manager. 3/29/94 • Project representatives met at the IRP office to further discuss the above outlined issues and others listed below. Additionally, a letter was forwarded to the NGB through HAZWRAP by ABB-ES generally outlining the concerns of this work execution. • Activities should not be conducted in adverse weather conditions. • No pre-approved soil screening guidance, or photoionization detector calibration documentation apparent. W0019571.080 7623-27 5-5 SECTION 5 Stockpiled soils spilling off poly tarpaulins and not effectively covered. Trucks and equipment observed demobilizing from the immediate site to stockpile areas without proper decontamination efforts. G. Gallant, NGB, directed LLC to implement above mentioned activities in the execution of the Study Area CS-9 remediation. 4/1/94 P. Marchassault, USEPA; J. Connant, Technical Review Committee; J. Begley, and J. Hobble, MADEP, meet at the IRP offices with the NGB and ABB-ES to discuss the remediation activities for Study Area CS-9. The regulatory agencies will accept the remediation approach as performed and outlined for GR-1 structure removed on 3/28/94 with implementation of previously outlined corrective actions. However, a scope of services must be provided to the contractor clearly defining the Remedial Action objectives and sampling protocols for the work. The regulatory representatives toured the Study Area CS-9 site and were generally in agreement with the observed and documented activities to date. 4/6/94 LLC received laboratory analysis reports of Study Area CS-9 GR-1. Apparent contaminant levels were below verbally negotiated STCLs. E. Pesce, NGB, will forward data packages for review to the regulatory agencies upon receipt. 4/11/94 LLC requests approval for common borrow pit expansion under former GR-1 location based on analytical results received on 4/6/94. 4/12/94 J. Hobble, MADEP, on site to discuss soil sample analytical results with E. Pesce, NGB, for the previously remediated GR-1 structure. Analytical methods and results are W0019571.080 7623-27 5-6 SECTION 5 acceptable except for volatile organic compound (VOC) detection limits. MADEP suggested, with USEPA concurrence, that the current USEPA Method 8260 be revised to a lower method detection limit. E. Pesce directed LLC to provide collection and analysis of soil sample LSS #3 as indicated above. 4/13/94 P. Marchassault, USEPA, requested that the NGB address the National Contingency Plan 40 CFR 300.820 requirement for general public notification of the remediation of Study Area CS-9. D. Karson, IRP public relations officer, will prepare a news release for the activity. USEPA and MADEP review final analytical data for the Study Area CS-9 GR-1 and approve removal of common borrow material beneath this structure. Data reviewed included the analysis of sample LSS #3 at lower method detection limits. Note: Analytical data for this structure is presented in Subsection 6.4. E. Pesce, NGB, provided a scope of services for contractor activities at the remainder of the Study Area CS-9 drainage structures to the regulatory agencies. This included an appropriate news release to the general public, dated 4/14/94, for public notification of the drainage structure RA. Note: News release provided in Appendix E. 4/15/94 E. Pesce, NGB approved contractor removal of uncontaminated concrete foundations from the Study Area CS-9. It was directed that an appropriate 20-foot buffer area be left in place around each drainage structure to ensure activities do not encroach into potentially contaminated materials. 4/19/94 LLC requested that the concrete demolition activities be allowed to include the areas immediately surrounding the various drainage structures. The concrete associated with the drainage structures is proposed to be left in place until appropriate decontamination activities can be implemented. W0019571.080 7623-27 5-7 SECTION 5 This was acceptable to the NGB. However, upon field inspection, equipment operators were not aware of the proposed drainage structure limits. This was brought to the attention of the NGB and the work was halted. The drainage structure locations were then clearly staked and defined with orange marking paint in the field, and the requested 20-foot delineations were provided for equipment operator reference. 4/27/94 ABB-ES field engineers and LLC discussed that leaching well (LW) structures LW-1 (CD-I) and LW-2 (CD-2) inlet and outlet piping had been followed back to their respective source building foundation wall with no observed soil staining, sludge, and liquids present. There was also no OVA screening evidence of further contamination. The two drainage structures yielded a total of 137 cubic yards of contaminated soils. 4/29/94 E. Pesce and G. Gallant, NGB IRP, tour Study Area CS-9 with ABB-ES field representatives to review Remedial Action progress. LLC was requested to mark disposal barrels containing decontamination residue with dates, specific drainage structure and site identification, and contents information. This request was implemented by LLC. The COR directed that drainage structure-specific soil, piping, and other debris will be segregated for disposal. Soils in the stockpile area are to be segregated by drainage structure with a schematic prepared to track the soils for further disposition at the AOC CS-4 TTU site. Note: The stockpile schematic is provided in Appendix D. 5/4/94 MADEP, USEPA, LLC, NGB, and ABB-ES meet to review and discuss work progress and analytical data collected to date. Regulators review and approve analytical data for drainage structure excavation clean closure to date. W0019571.080 7623-27 5-8 SECTION 5 Approval includes analytical data from borrow pit "Hot Spot", located at baseline station 9+00 offset 450' South, discovered on 4/15/94 by equipment operators during AOC LF-1 borrow pit excavation activities. No drainage structure or utility appurtenances were traceable to this location to indicate a source. LLC was approved by the NGB to relocate Study Area CS-9 contaminated soils to the AOC CS-4 TTU site for staging prior to proposed thermal treatment. LLC was requested to provide the following as part of overall reporting: Study Area CS-9 overview site sketch OVA calibration data Soil stockpile location schematics 5/9/94 LLC and Environmental Health Research and Testing, Inc. (EHRT) layout soil stockpile area for Study Area CS-9 contaminated soils at the AOC CS-4 TTU site, (initial area size approximately 100 by 100-foot area at north end of the AOC CS-4 TTU site). G. Gallant, NGB, tours the Study Area CS-9 site. LLC was directed to remove waste materials from vehicle maintenance activities at the Study Area CS-9 site to a secure area. This was accomplished by LLC. 5/11/94 E. Pesce, NGB, on site to observe the LW-5 (CD-5) and Sump No.7 (CD-7) headwall piping discovered during Remedial Action activities. LLC was directed to excavate several test pits along the pipe section and perform headspace screening to determine if contamination exists in or around the piping. E. Pesce will request the USEPA and/or MADEP to visit the site to determine if additional activities are warranted. W0019571.080 7623-27 5-9 SECTION 5 SUMMARY OF WORK PERFORMED: 3/28/94 LLC laid out and installed proposed secondary containment area for Study Area CS-9 GR-1 soils utilizing 6 mil polyethylene sheeting at approximate AOC LF-1 borrow pit baseline station 8+00 offset 600' left at the former building No. 4105 foundation structure. Caterpillar 235 excavator and D-35 low ground pressure dump truck mobilized to the Study Area CS-9 GR-1 location at approximate LF-1 baseline station 8 + 20 offset 100' left. Removed 12 concrete slab structures to stockpile area for future decontamination. LLC excavated soils totaling approximately 350 cubic yards from the CS-9 GR-1 location. ABB-ES observed LLC collecting headspace samples from GR-1 excavation for soil screening to less then 10 mg/kg OVA response. ABB-ES observed contractor collecting grab and composite soil samples from the GR-1 excavation floor and walls for confirmatory analysis. Soil sample locations were based on headspace soil screening results. The confirmatory samples were submitted to off-site laboratory for VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds, toxicity characteristics leaching procedures, pesticides, total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH), and metals analyses. Note: Summary table for analytical requirements is provided in Subsection 6.4. 4/1/94 Six. mil polyethylene sheeting used to cover the stockpiled Study Area CS-9 excavated soil has been displaced by wind and the piles are exposed to the elements. This was addressed by LLC and further discussed as a constant maintenance requirement during remediation activities. 4/6/94 LLC laborers were observed securing soil stockpiles at staging area for Study Area CS-9. W0019571.080 7623-27 5-10 SECTION 5 4/15/94 During common borrow removal activities near the expanded Study Area CS-9 borrow pit, equipment operators detected fuel odors in soils near construction baseline station 9 + 00 off-set 460' left. LLC performed headspace analysis on several soil samples and identified a localized AOC. E. Pesce, NGB, approved the removal of this soil. Approximately 25 cubic yards of soil were excavated, as reported by LLC, and stockpiled at the Study Area CS-9 soil staging area. Excavation confirmatory soil samples were collected for TPH analysis only. No utilities or drainage structures were traceable as a source for this contamination. 4/19/94 LLC began excavation and demolition of uncontaminated concrete foundations with D-8 Caterpillar dozer and 235 Caterpillar excavator with ramhoe attachment. 4/22/94 LLC continued to demolish concrete at Study Area CS-9. Uncontaminated concrete was stockpiled within the site for removal and disposal under the common borrow sections of the AOC LF-1 disposal cells. Note: See Borrow Placement Tracking reports in Appendix C. 4/25/94 LLC continued to place uncontaminated concrete as common borrow at the AOC LF-1 site. LLC began removal and decontamination of concrete structures from specific sump exclusion zones within Study Area CS-9. Decontamination was performed as follows: A ground sump approximately 10 feet by 10 feet was excavated and lined with heavy plastic sheeting (10 mil). Concrete sections were demolished to the approximate allowable maximum size of 4 feet in largest dimension. Concrete sections were suspended by 25 ton hoist crane over the lined sump and pressured washed to remove all loose soils and apparent staining attached to sections. Concrete sections were then transferred W0019571.080 7623-27 5-11 SECTION 5 to trucks or staged for disposal in the borrow sections of the AOC LF-1 disposal cells. Decontamination liquids were then transferred from the sump to Department of Transportation-approved H-17, 55 gallon drums for further characterization and disposal. Decontamination activities were performed in level "C" PPE. LLC covered stockpiled soils at Study Area CS-9 with reinforced polyethylene sheeting because high winds ripped plain polyethylene sheeting. 4/26/94 Remediated soil associated with leaching well structures LW-1 (CD-I) and LW-2 (CD-2). Approximately 75 cubic yards of soil were excavated from each structure based on proposed 10 mg/kg headspace samples. 4/27/94 Removed and decontaminated concrete debris at GR-1, GR-3and S-8 (CD-8). Soil samples from LW-1 (CD-I) and LW-2 (CD-2) were forwarded to contract laboratory for clean closure confirmatory analysis. Removed uncontaminated concrete from the area surrounding Sump 6 (CD-6). ABB-ES assisted LLC in locating apparent Sump 6 (CD-6) location, as observed location was not obvious. PPE from site activities was observed to be drummed with decontamination fluids for further disposal. 4/28/94 Completed decontamination of concrete associated with Sump 8 (CD-8). W0019571.080 7623-27 5-12 SECTION 5 Completed remediation activities at Sump 6 (CD-6) and GR-2. Began removal and decontamination of concrete associated with GR-3. Received analytical results from LW-2 (CD-2). Based on proposed STCLs for excavation, closure backfill is appropriate. The contractor was directed not to backfill structure excavations until approval from the NGB was received. Completed demolition of all uncontaminated concrete from Study Area CS-9 and transported to the AOC LF-1 disposal cell borrow sections. 4/29/94 • Completed remediation activities for Sump 8 (CD-8) and GR-3. 5/9/94 • Completed remediation activities for LW-3 (CD-3). Study Area CS-9 cleared of scattered live growth trees for remediation of structures along the southerly portion of the site. Located and sampled test pit surface soils GR-4. Headspace sample results were negative for this structure. Collected headspace and laboratory confirmation samples from LW-3 (CD-3). 5/10/94 ABB-ES requested that LLC remove contaminated drainage structures to appropriate stockpile area as soon as they are excavated. This request was made due to observance of structures lying in surface water from rain events. Completed remediation activities for LW-5 (CD-5) and Sump 9 (CD-9). WOOl 9571.080 7623-27 5-13 SECTION 5 It was observed at the LW-5 (CD-5) drainage structure excavation that headspace readings from the structure and surrounding soils were negative. However, it was observed that an outlet pipe from the structure may outfall at a headwall located approximately 350 feet east in the proposed AOC LF-1 gravel pit. The NGB was consulted as to the required course of action for this pipeline. Headspace surface soil screening from GR-4 observed to be negative. Confirmation samples will be collected. LLC was observed excavating drainage structure Sump 9 (CD-9) adjacent to former building No. 4105 foundation. The subsurface structure was located approximately 2-3 feet below ground surface (bgs) with inlet piping exiting the south side of foundation. The contractor found no identifiable signs of contamination with screening activities. 5/11/94 Observed that Sump 7 (CD-7) had VC pipe extending to a headwall in proposed AOC LF-1 gravel pit approximately 350 feet to the east similar to that found at LW-5 (CD-5). Continued to relocate contaminated soil stockpiles from Study Area CS-9 to the AOC CS-4 TTU site. 5/12/94 Completed remediation activities for the former wash rack adjacent to the existing bicycle motocross (BMX) facility. The excavation was approximately 70 feet long and 25 feet wide abutting the east edge of the concrete slab; no drainage structure was found. OVA headspace readings of 25 mg/kg were observed in the excavation. Soils were excavated and confirmatory samples were collected. No evidence of contamination was found beneath the concrete slab, which was disposed of as common borrow. During concrete demolition at former building No. 4105 foundation adjacent to drainage structure Sump 9 (CD-9), one 500-gallon underground storage tank (UST) was discovered. Approximately 36 cubic yards of soil were W0019571.080 7623-27 5-14 SECTION 5 removed following headspace screening activities. Confirmatory soil samples were collected for laboratory analysis. Note: MADEP notification requirements were met and appropriate permitting was acquired for removal and disposal of the UST. 5/13/94 Removed and decontaminated concrete structure at Sump 7 (CD-7). Completed concrete foundation removal at former building No. 4105. A haul road was constructed from BMX Alley to the so called "Fenceline Hot Spot", later identified as CD-9-HW. 5/16/94 Removed previously stockpiled topsoil from southwest corner of Study Area CS-9, at former building No. 4105. Began removal and screening of VC piping originating from LW-5 (CD-5) and traced to an existing headwall in the AOC LF-1 gravel pit approximately 350 feet to the east at CD-5-HW. LLC was directed by the COR to inspect the pipe joints along its length for signs of leakage and at a minimum to excavate at several locations, including the outfall, into the underlaying soils to investigate for signs of contamination. The entire pipeline was excavated and placed on plastic sheeting for inspection. Excavations along the pipeline indicated no evidence of contamination. Soils from an apparent low area at the headwall discharge CD-5-HW were sampled for confirmatory analysis. 5/17/94 Placed clean concrete from Study Area CS-9 former building No. 4105 at the limit of waste area of expansion for the 1970 cell. Note: Subgrade fill placement diagrams are provided in Appendix C. Removed VC piping from Sump 7 (CD-7) to headwall located in AOC LF-1 gravel pit, approximately 350 feet to the east to CD-7-HW. No leaks or soil staining was observed W0019571.080 7623-27 5-15 SECTION 5 around the piping during removal; however, the piping was considered contaminated as the contents of Sump 7 (CD-7) were found to be contaminated. 5/18/94 Continued to remove VC piping associated with Sump 7 (CD-7). During excavation of this piping, evidence of contamination was found to a depth of 5 feet: OVA readings were 50 mg/kg. The material was excavated and headspace screened to less then 10 mg/kg. 5/19/94 Continued to remove VC piping associated with Sump 7 (CD-7). Piping was found to pass through a structure to the south and under the paved portion of BMX Alley. This piping was excavated to its terminus in Study Area CS-9 near Sump 6 (CD-6). Screening and inspection of these utilities and soils indicated no evidence of contamination. LLC was requested to cover the Study Area CS-9 soil piles relocated to the proposed AOC CS-4 TTU site on West Truck Rd. The material had been exposed to the elements for a number of days. Cover maintenance was discussed as a regulatory requirement to prevent runoff from the soil piles into other areas. 5/20/94 Placed uncontaminated concrete debris from Study Area CS-9 former wash rack east of the BMX facility in the Kettle Hole disposal cell subgrade fill material. Began remediation of the former fuel island/Sump 4 (CD-4-FFI) south of the BMX facility. 5/25/94 LLC was requested to provide maintenance of the Study Area CS-9 soil piles located at the AOC CS-4 TTU site. LLC was requested to mark waste barrels generated from activities at the Study Area CS-9 with content, date, contractor, and site identification information. WOOl 9571.080 7623-27 5-16 SECTION 5 5/31/94 Completed soil excavation activities at the former fuel island/Sump 4 (CD-4-FFI) south of the BMX facility. Excavation continued to the depth of approximately 12 feet bgs. Total material excavated for the drainage structure was approximately 144 cubic yards. 6/1/94 Contractor removed approximately 100 cubic yards of soil associated with head wall from Sump 7 (CD-7-HW) at the AOC LF-1 gravel pit. Material was excavated until no evidence of contamination above 10 mg/kg OVA headspace analysis was recorded, and confirmatory soil samples were collected. Test pits were excavated at two locations suspected as potential sources of contamination. No additional evidence of contamination was observed. Confirmatory soil samples were collected. Test pit locations are as follows: Head wall associated with the former LW-5 (CD-5-HW) at the AOC LF-1 gravel pit. The test pit was dug to 10 feet bgs. Far southeast corner of the AOC LF-1 gravel pit at extreme low area, near existing drainage outlet, at the intersection of Turpentine Road and Connery Avenue. 6/2/94 Removed "beehive" brick utility manhole structure at former Sump 7 (CD-7) with solid concrete bottom. No elevated OVA readings were detected either in the structure or the subsurface soils beneath the drainage structure. No sludge or sediment was observed in the structure. LLC backfilled trenches leading to headwalls located in the AOC LF-1 gravel pit. WOOl 9571.080 7623-27 5-17 SECTION 5 • Began excavation at the headwall (CD-9-HW), at the AOC LF-1 fence line near BMX Alley. Removed approximately 162 cubic yards. 6/6/94 • Completed remediation of the headwall from Sump 9 (CD-9-HW) at the Study Area CS-9 site. A total of 1,950 cubic yards of soil were removed. During excavation activities, a headwall and 6 inch VC pipe was located. This piping showed no evidence of staining or leakage and was excavated and stockpiled as contaminated material. The headwall piping was traced back to the discharge side of former drainage structure Sump 9 (CD-9). 52 CONSTRUCTION COSTS Contract No. DAHA-19-93-C-0017 modifications 10 and 11 were executed by the USPFO Natick, MA. Itemized cost breakdowns were provided by the general contractor, LLC, in two separate estimates, dated August 15, 1994 and September 15, 1994, with associated costs placed at $47,044.80 (Uncontaminated Concrete Debris Demolition and Disposal) and $141,143.79 (Study Area CS-9 Drainage Structure Remediation). Supporting cost analysis and review for acceptability was provided by NGB IRP representatives, and is presented in Appendix F. Total construction cost after review and negotiation was placed at $188,188.59, including $44,699.88 for laboratory analytical costs. 5.3 PROBLEMS AND PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS Problem/Issue: It was observed during removal activities for the uncontaminated concrete foundations associated with Study Area CS-9 that the contractor had not provided a delineated exclusion zone around each drainage structure. It had been previously discussed and approved that the concrete demolition would include the concrete directly adjacent to the drainage structure; this material would be left in place for decontamination during structure removal. The demolition contractor was not properly instructed in this effort, which W0019571.080 7623-27 5-18 SECTION 5 resulted in the burial of one structure under approximately6 to 8 feet of concrete debris. Resolution: The issue was pointed out to LLC and the remaining drainage structure were marked and flagged with a 20 foot buffer exclusion zone delineation. The buried structure was relocated and excavated without incident. Problem/Issue: During drainage structure excavation activities, a hydraulic fluid leak from the excavation equipment was observed. Resolution: The leak was pointed out to the contractor. The source of the leak, a hydraulic actuator cylinder, was refitted with new seals. No further incidences were reported. Problem/Issue: During remediation activities for Study Area CS-9 additional structures, pipelines, headwalls, and AOCs were discovered at the site which had not been identified during previous SI activities. Resolution: The additional structures, pipelines, headwalls, and AOCs were delineated, field screened and sampled as indicated in the SOW. Each additional feature location was reviewed with the COR upon discovery. The structures were traced back to previously identified structures and or utility terminus if possible. The additional features are indicated in Figure 5-1 and are presented in Tables 5-1 and 6-1, and are documented in LLC Final Remedial Action Construction Report (LLC, 1995). Problem/Issue: Grease rack No. 1 west of the existing BMX facility was initially remediated as a project performance test by LLC. This effort was to be reviewed by the NGB and the regulatory agencies prior to further activities at the site. During the GR-1 remediation a number of health and safety issues as well as operational problems were observed in the execution of decontamination activities and exclusion zone delineation of the GR-1 drainage structure site. Concerns were relative to potential exposure of other nonhazardous W0019571.080 7621-27 5-19 SECTION 5 operations occurring at the adjacent AOC LF-1 borrow pit construction area. Resolution: LLC was required by the NGB to immediately stop operations and correct deficiencies prior to further remediation efforts. LLC addressed the deficiencies appropriately, and upon review of the GR-1 remediation effort was allowed to proceed with the remaining drainage structure sites. W0019571.080 7623-27 5-20 SECTION 6 6.0 DOCUMENTATION 6.1 INSPECTIONS Under contract through HAZWRAP, ABB-ES provided on site construction technical support services for this effort to verify through regular inspections that the work was executed in compliance with the technical specifications and the NGB SOW for the contract modification. 62 RECORD DOCUMENTS Final record documents for the project were generated by the contractor and the ABB-ES resident engineer. These documents consist of locations of pipelines and structures discovered during the Priority 2 and 3 Study Area SI (ABB-ES, 1993), and through the Remedial Action construction effort. A summary of analytical methods and Remedial Action required STCLs is provided in Table 6-1. Laboratory data summaries for each drainage structure as required in the SOW are provided in Table 6-2 of this report. Memoranda, daily reporting, supporting documentation and the contractors' final construction report can be reviewed in the final record documents on file at the IRP offices Otis ANG Base, MA. 6.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The Study Area CS-9 remedial action was originally listed for execution under the proposed DSRP, anticipated for public bid and construction in the summer of 1995. Execution of the Study Area CS-9 Remedial Action was accelerated under the AOC LF-1 contract, as previously discussed, due to the conflict with the LF-1 capping construction common borrow source acquisition. Under the DSRP, an operation and maintenance (O&M) program is being developed by HAZWRAP entitled Deep Soil Program. This effort will assess individual drainage structures in the event analytical data collected during the Remedial Action does not support clean closure at observed depths of contamination beyond the limits of standard excavation equipment. Assessment of structure contaminants, historical use, and location relative to existing downgradient monitoring wells will be employed to determine if additional study or remedial investigation is warranted for individual sites as contaminant source areas. Study area CS-9 is being W0019571.080 7623-27 6-1 TABLE 6-1 ANALYTICAL METHOD SUMMARY STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION PARAMETER MATRIX STCL EPA METHOD 8260/TCL SOIL MMR PROPOSED STCL (1) VOLATILE ORGANICS (GC/MS) EPA METHOD 8270/TCL SOIL MMR PROPOSED STCL (1) SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS (GC/MS) CARCINOGENIC PAHs ONLY (2) 5mg/kgTOTAL TRACE METALS (ICP/AA) SOIL TARGET COMPOUND LEAD 300 mg/kg RCRA (TCLP) SOLID MMR PROPOSED STCL (1) ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES (GC/ECD) EPA METHOD 418.1 (MODIFIED) SOIL 300 mg/kg TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (IR) Notes: STCL = Soil Target Clean-up Level PAH = Polynuctear Aromatic Hydrocarbons TCL = Target Compound List GC/MS = Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer ICP/AA = Inductively Coupled Plasma/Atomic Absorbtion TCLP = Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure GC/ ECD = Gas Chromatograph/Electron Capture Detector IR = Infrared, Spectrophotometric RCRA = Resource Conservation Recovery Act (1) Concentrations assumed for proposed MMR STCLs, outside flightline, (HAZWRAP, 1994) (2) PAH probable human carcinogens: benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. 6-2 H:\CSttUlf\6-l.WKl TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION LEACHING WELL NO. 1 (CD-I) ANALYTES B i C-SW I O C (B & SW) VOLATILES fog/kg) - - - NA SEMIVOLATILES (i/g/kg) NA NA NA - Phena theme Fluoroanthane Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoroanthene Benzo(k)fluoroanthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1.2.3-cd)pyrene Benzo (g, h, i) pery lene TCUP PESTICIDES (ma/L) NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 1400 Beryllium - Arsenic - Calcium 140 Chromium 1.6 Copper - Iron 1700 Lead 1.2 Magnesium 330 Mercury - Manganese 39 Nickel - Potassium - Selenium - Sodium - Vanadium - Zinc 6.8 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH " Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram pg/kg = microgram per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall 0 = outlet 1 = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S - Sump H:\C3nUMtf-2A. WK1 6-3 TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION LEACHING WELL NO. 2 (CD -2) ANALYTES B • : "' c-sw O C (B 4 SW) VOLATILES tog/kg) - - - NA SEMIVOLATILES fog/kg) NA NA NA - Phena theme Fluoroanthane Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoroanthene Benzo(k)fluoroanthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(,2,3- cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mall) NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mo/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 690 Beryllium - Arsenic - Calcium 130 Chromium - Copper - Iron 1100 Lead 1.6 Magnesium 170 Mercury - Manganese 29 Nickel - Potassium - Selenium - Sodium - Vanadium - Zinc 8.2 TPH (rrm/kg) NA NA NA - Notes: - »= Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH «= Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram pg/kg = microgram per kilogram B = bottom SW - side wall 0 = outlet 1 = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump 6-4 TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION LEACHING WELL NO. 3 (CD-3 ANALYTES B C-SW I 1 C (B & SW) VOLATILES 0/o/ko) - - - NA SEMIVOLATILES tog/kg) NA NA NA - Phena theme Fluoroanthane Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoroanthene Benzo(k)fluoroanthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h.i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/L) NA NA NA - INORGANICS (ma/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 2200 Beryllium - Arsenic - Calcium 170 Chromium 2.5 Copper - Iron 2600 Lead 2.2 Magnesium 370 Mercury - Manganese 37 Nickel - Potassium 130 Selenium - Sodium 320 Vanadium - Zinc 16 TPH (ma/kg) NA NA NA 130 Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram jug/kg = microgram per kilogram B -= bottom SW - side wall 0 - outlet 1 = inlet C »= composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump 6-5 TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION FUEL ISLAND (CD-4-FF1) ANALYTES C-B c-sw S C- (B & SWV VOLATILES (ug/kfl) NA SEMIVOLATILES tog/kg) NA NA NA Phena theme Fluoroanthane Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoroanthene Benzo(k)fluoroanthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 .2,3 - cd)pyrene Bonzo(g,h,i)perylena TCLP PESTICIDES (ma/L) NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 630 Beryllium - Arsenic - Calcium 120 Chromium 1.4 Copper - Iron 1600 Lead 1.8 Magnesium 160 Mercury - Manganese 34 Nickel - Potassium 100 Selenium - Sodium 330 Vanadium — Zinc 5.2 TPH (mg/ko) NA NA NA 74 Notes: - = Not Detected NA - Not Analyzed TPH - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram ^g/kg •= microgram per kilogram B «= bottom SW - side wall 0 = outlet 1 " inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump H:VCinUMVi-20.WKl 6-6 TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION SUMP5(CD-5) ANALYTES -:."B ' ' C-SW I 1 C- (B & SW) VOLATILES too/kg) • - - NA SEMIVOLATILES tog/kg) NA NA NA - Phena theme Fluor oanthane Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoroanthene Benzo(k)floroanthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1.2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/L) NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mo/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 880 Beryllium - Arsenic - Calcium 94 Chromium 1 Copper 2.5 Iron 2100 Lead 1.9 Magnesium 220 Mercury - Manganese 46 Nickel - Potassium 120 Selenium - Sodium 320 Vanadium - Zinc 10 TPH Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram A*S/Kg = microgram per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall 0 - outlet 1 = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump 6-7 H:VCmUk«-2E.WKl TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION SUMP 5 PIPE TRENCH HEADWALL (CD- 5-HW) ANALYTES B 1 C-SW 1 1 IC-fB&SW) VOLATILES Old/kg) NA NA NA SEMIVOLATILES fug/kg) NA NA NA P he na theme Fluor oanthane Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoroanthene Benzo(k)floroanthene Benzo(a)pyrene Indenofl ,2,3- cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h.i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES fmg/L) NA NA NA NA INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA NA Aluminum Arsenic Cadmium Calcium Chromium Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Mercury Manganese Nickel Potassium Selenium Sodium Vanadium Zinc TPH (mg/kq) NA NA NA Notes: - - Not Detected NA •= Not Analyzed TPH «= Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram A/g/kg = microgram per kilogram B *= bottom SW = side wall 0 = outlet 1 = inlet C = composite sample TCLP - Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump 6-8 H:VCinUkM-2F TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION SUMP6ICD-6) ANALYTES B c-sw I C- (B & SW) VOLAT1LES (uq/kq) - - - NA SEMIVOLAT1LES (uo/koj NA NA NA - Phenatherne Fluoroanthane Pyrene Benzo (a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo (b)f luoroanthene Benzo (k)floroanthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g.h,i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (ma/L) NA NA NA INORGANICS ftnq/ka) NA NA NA Aluminum 2500 Beryllium - Arsenic 1.3 Calcium 74 Chromium 2.8 Copper - Iron 3100 Lead 1.9 Magnesium 460 Nickel — Manganese 40 Potassium 150 Sodium 320 Vanaduim — Zinc 6.6 TPH (mq/kq) NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram fjg/kg - microgram per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall 0 = outlet 1 = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump H.-K39SIAM-2G.WK1 6-9 TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION SUMP7(CD-7) ANALYTES B c-sw 1 C- fB &SW1 VOLATILES too/kg) - - NA SEMIVOLATILES (uo/ka) NA NA NA Phenatherne Fluor oantnane Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoroanthene Benzo{k)floroanthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/L) NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mo/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 940 Arsenic - Cadmium - Calcium 160 Chromium 1.6 Copper - Iron 1400 Lead 4.6 Magnesium 250 Mercury - Manganese 27 Nickel - Potassium 130 Selenium - Sodium 200 Vanadium - Zinc 7.6 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA 35 Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Mg/kg m microgram per kilogram B = bottom SW •= side wall 0 - outlet 1 - inlet C «= composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump 6-10 TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION SUMP 7 PIPE TRENCH HEADWALL (CD-7-HW) ANALYTES B c-sw I C (B & SW) VOLATILES fog/kg) - . NA NA Tetrachloroethene 9 SEMIVOLATILES (uatka) NA NA NA - Phena theme Fluoroanthane Pyrene Be nzo (a)a nthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoroanthene Benzo(k)floroanthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1.2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/L) NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 1500 Arsenic - Calcium 71 Chromium 2 Copper - Iron 1400 Lead 2.4 Magnesium 270 Mercury - Manganese 60 Nickel - Potassium - Selenium - Sodium - Vanadium - Zinc 6.2 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA 64 Notes: - «= Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH •= Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Tig/kg «= milligrams per kilogram fg/kg •= microgram per kilogram B = bottom SW > side wall 0 «= outlet 1 -= inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S " Sump H:\CSnUMtf-2LWKl 6-11 TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-8 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION SUMP8fCD-8) ANALYTES B C-TRENCH ..•,.•..'• •••1'V: ' • • C (B & SW| VOLATILES (yq/ka) NA NA SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg) NA NA NA Phenatheme 590 Ruoroanthane 950 Pyrene 980 Benzo(a)anthracene 400 Chiysene 510 Benzo(b)fluoroanthene 670 Benzo(k)fk>roanthene - Benzo(a)pyrene 440 lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene - Benzo(g,h,0perylene — TCLP PESTICIDES fmg/U MA NA NA - INORGANICS (mo/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 2100 Beryllium - Arsenic 4.4 Calcium 1300 Chromium 11 Copper 3.1 Iron 13000 Lead 18 Magnesium 1500 Mercury — Manganese 66 Nickel 5.8 Potassium 520 Selenium — Sodium 640 Vanadium 17 Zinc 21 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Mg/kg = microgram per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall 0 = outlet 1 = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump 6-12 HACS9IUMV-2J.WK1 TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION SUMP 9 (CD-9) ANALYTES B C-SW 1 C-IB&SWV VOLATILES (ua/kg) NA SEMIVOLATILES tog/kg) NA NA NA _ Phena theme Fluoroanthane Pyrene Benzo (a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo (b)fluoroanthene Benzo (k)floroanthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo (g.h.i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (ma/L) NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 1000 Arsenic - Cadmium - Calcium 83 Chromium 1.1 Copper - Iron 1700 Lead 1.5 Magnesium 210 Mercury - Manganese 52 Nickel - Potassium 160 Selenium - Sodium 580 Vanadium - Zinc 6.1 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA= Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Ma/kg = microgram per kilogram B •= bottom SW = side wall 0 = outlet 1 •= inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump 6-13 TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION SUMP 9 AOC "HOT SPOT- (CD-9-HW) ANALYTES B c-sw .•: - I C- (B&SW) VOLATILES (uo/kcrt - - . - NA SEMIVOLATILES (t/g/ka) MA NA NA - Phenatheme Ruoroanthane Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoroanthene Benzo(k)floroanthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g ,h ,0 peiylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/U MA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) MA NA NA Aluminum 910 Arsenic — Cadmium — Calcium 74 Chromium - Copper - Iron 1800 Lead 1.3 Magnesium 140 Mercury — Manganese 52 Nickel -ERR Potassium — Selenium - Sodium 140 Vanadium — Zinc 5.8 TPH (mg/kg) MA NA NA 220 Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram isg/kg = microgram per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall O = outlet !-= inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump 6-14 TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION GREASE RACK NO. 1 (GR-1) ANALYTES SW SW B C (B & SW) VOLATILES (ug/kg) - - - NA SEMIVOLAT1LES (Ud/kg) MA NA NA - Phenatheme Ruoroanthane Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chtysene Benzo(b)fluoroanthene Benzo(k)fluoroanthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,0perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/L) MA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 680 Beryllium 0.78 Arsenic — Calcium 61 Chromium 2 Copper - Iron 1100 Lead 63 Magnesium 160 Mercury — Manganese 21 Nickel — Potassium — Vanadium - Selenium - Sodium — Zinc 4.8 TPH (mg/kg) MA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram fyg/kg = microgram per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall 0 = outlet 1 = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump 6-15 HH39SUMS6-2M.WKJ TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION GREASE RACK NO. 2 (GR-2) ANALYTES B c-sw 0 C- (B&SW) VOLAT1LES (ua/kg) - - NA NA SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg) MA NA NA - Phenatheme Fluoroanthane Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoroanthene Benzo(k)floroanthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,0perytene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/U NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 2000 Beryllium - Arsenic 1.5 Calcium 730 Chromium 3.4 Copper 3.8 Iron 3000 Lead 3.8 Magnesium 300 Mercury - Manganese 39 Nickel — Potassium 200 Selenium — Sodium 410 Vanadium — Zinc 8.5 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Mg/kg = microgram per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall 0 = outlet 1 = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicrty Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump HM39SUM4-2N.WICJ 6-16 TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION GREASE RACK NO. 3 (GR-3) ANALYTES B c-sw O C-fB&SW) VOLATILES tod/kg) NA NA SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg) NA NA NA Phenatheme 1100 Fluoroanthane 1100 Pyrene 1200 Benzo(a)anthracene 460 Chrysene 610 Benzo(b)fluoroanthene 760 Benzo(k)fluoroanthene - Benzo(a)pyrene 460 lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene — Benzo(g,h,i)perylene — TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/U NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 10000 Beryllium - Arsenic 1 Calcium 130 Chromium 3 Copper - Iron 2700 Lead 11 Magnesium 400 Mercury — Manganese 61 Nickel — Potassium 170 Selenium — Sodium 490 Vanadium — Zinc 8.4 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA 98 Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram pg/kg = microgram per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall 0 = outlet 1 = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump Htt3«SUMVt-2O.WK] 6-17 TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION GREASE RACK 4 (GR-4) ANALYTES B I C-SW 1 c- fB & swn VOLATILES (t/g/kol -- NA NA SEMIVOLATILES lya/kg) NA NA NA - Phenatherne Fluor oanthane Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoroanthene Benzo(k)floroanthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g.h.i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mti/L) NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mo/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 900 Beryllium - Arsenic - Cadmium - Calcium 120 Chromium 1.2 Copper - Iron 1400 Lead 1.4 Magnesium 260 Mercury - Manganese 26 Nickel - Potassium 100 Selenium - Sodium 170 Vanadium - Zinc 7.2 TPH (mg/kgl NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram M0/k8 = microgram per kilogram B - bottom SW «= side wall 0 = outlet 1 •= inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump H:\OnUMtf-2P.WKl 6-18 TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION WASH RACK ANALYTES B c-sw 1 C- (B & SW) VOLATILES fog/kg) • - - NA SEMIVOLATILES tod/kg) NA NA NA - Phenatheme 300 Fluoroanthane 560 Pyrene 710 Benzo(a)anthracene 200 Chrysene 330 Benzo(b)fluoroanthene 520 Benzo(k)floroanthene 200 Benzo(a)pyrene 330 lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene 300 Benzo(g,h ,i) perylene 300 TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/U NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) NA NA NA Aluminum 13000 Arsenic 4.6 Cadmium 0.85 Calcium 410 Chromium 15 Copper 5.6 Iron 11000 Lead 19 Magnesium 1000 Mercury 0.08 Manganese 60 Nickel 6.8 Potassium 530 Selenium 0.81 Sodium 380 Vanadium 18 Zinc 63 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA 130 Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Mg/kg = microgram per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall 0 = outlet 1 = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump H:\C39SUMVS-2Q.WKJ 6-19 TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION MISC. "HOT SPOT" B/L STA 9+00 O/S 460 FT SOUTH ANALYTES B c-sw 1 C- (B & SW) VOLATILES (uo/kcrt MA NA NA NA SEMIVOLAT1I-ES (uo/kg) MA NA NA NA Phenatheme Ruoroanthane Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoroanthene Benzo(k)floroanthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/U NA NA NA NA INORGANICS frng/kg) NA NA NA NA Aluminum Arsenic Cadmium Calcium Chromium Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Mercury Manganese Nickel Potassium Selenium Sodium Vanadium Zinc TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Mg/kg = microgram per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall 0 = outlet 1 = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump 6-20 H*CMSUM\t-3R.WKl TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTES DETECTED IN SOIL STUDY AREA CS-9 REMEDIAL ACTION SUMMARY REPORT MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION UST REMOVAL FORMER BLDG. LOCATION 4105 (UST) ANALYTES B c-sw I I C- fB&SWl VOLATILES (ua/kg) - - NA NA SEMIVOLATILES (ug/kg) MA NA NA Phenatheme 460 Fluoroanthane 820 Pyrene 820 Benzo(a)anthracene 330 Chrysene 360 Benzo(b)fluoroanthene 600 Benzo(k)floroanthene 200 Benzo(a)pyrene 390 lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene 200 Benzo(g,h.i)perylene 200 TCLP PESTICIDES (mg/U NA NA NA - INORGANICS (mg/kg) MA NA NA Aluminum 1200 Arsenic — Cadmium — Calcium 210 Chromium 1.2 Copper - Iron 1600 Lead 4.6 Magnesium 280 Mercury - Manganese 31 Nickel — Potassium 140 Selenium — Sodium 280 Vanadium — Zinc 9.5 TPH (mg/kg) NA NA NA - Notes: - = Not Detected NA = Not Analyzed TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Mg/kg - microgram per kilogram B = bottom SW = side wall 0 = outlet 1 = inlet C = composite sample TCLP = Toxicity Chacteristic Leaching Procedure S = Sump HM39SUMW-3S.WK1 6-21 SECTION 6 considered for inclusion under this program; however, all excavation analytical data support clean closure of the subject drainage structures based on STCLs established by the NGB. No O&M activities or support was required by the contractor under this RA 6.4 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS As indicated in Subsection 4.1, sampling and analysis were required by the NGB SOW for verification that the proposed STCLs were being achieved during construction, and to verify clean closure of the drainage structure excavations prior to backfill. Laboratory analysis of the collected samples was provided by GAI, Buzzards Bay, MA. CLP documentation has been provided by GAI under previous remedial actions and found to be acceptable by ABB-ES, relative to the Thermal Treatment Removal Action, CQCP (EHRT, 1994). Additionally, the MADEP reviewed and approved the use of GAI for the work during initial project review meetings at the site. Results of sampling and analysis activities for the contaminants of concern indicate that all samples collected during the Remedial Action were non-detect or below detection limits of required analytes. Table 6-2 provides data summary results for the Study Area CS-9 excavations. Field headspace screening and analytical protocols for the Remedial Action were performed as required in Subsection 3.2 of the NGB SOW. Supporting laboratory documentation, and specific analytical and headspace screening sample locations for all drainage structure excavations are provided in the LLC final Remedial Action Construction Report (LLC, 1995). The NGB SOW for the work required LLC to sample and characterize all excavated soil for treatment at the proposed AOC CS-4 source area TTU site. Direction by the COR indicated that this treatment would not be viable during the thermal action execution and requested costing for off-site disposal from LLC. This costing was provided by LLC; however, final disposition of the soil was approved through negotiation with the MADEP and USEPA for treatment at the aforementioned ITU. The requirement for waste characterization was deleted from the NGB SOW because characterization was included hi the TTU operations. W0019571.080 7623-27 6-22 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ABB-ES ABB Environmental Services, Inc ANG Air National Guard AOC Area of Contamination bgs below ground surface BMX bicycle motocross CLP Contract Laboratory Program CO Contracting Officer COR Contracting Officers Representative CQCP Contractor Quality Control Plan CS Chemical Spill DOE Department of Energy DSRP Drainage Structure Removal Program EHRT Environmental Health Research and Testing, Inc GAI Groundwater Analytical, Inc GR grease rack HASP Health and Safety Plan HAZWRAP Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program IRP Installation Restoration Program LF-1 Landfill No. 1 LLC Lawrence Lynch Corporation LW Leaching Well MADEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection mg/kg milligrams per kilogram MMR Massachusetts Military Reservation MOGAS Motor Gasoline NGB National Guard Bureau O&M Operation and Maintenance OVA organic vapor analyzer W0019571.080 7623-27 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS PPE personal protective equipment RAW? Remedial Action Work Plan SI site investigation SOW Statement of Work STCL soil target clean-up level TTU Thermal Treatment Unit USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USPFO U.S. Property and Fiscal Office UST Underground Storage Tank VC vitrified clay VOC Volatile Organic Compound W0019571.080 7623-27 REFERENCES ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES), 1993a. "Closure Plan for Area of Contamination LF-1 1970 Cell, Post 1970 Cell, and Kettle Hole Technical Specifications"; Installation Restoration Program; Massachusetts Military Reservation; prepared for HAZWRAP; Portland, Maine; March 1993. ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES), 1993b. "Priority 2 and 3 Study Areas Site Investigation"; Installation Restoration Program; Massachusetts Military Reservation; prepared for HAZWRAP; Portland, Maine; October 1993. ABB Environmental Services, Inc., 1995. " Decision Document For Study Area CS-9", Installation Restoration Program; Massachusetts Military Reservation; prepared for HAZWRAP; Portland, Maine; January 1995. Air National Guard Bureau, 1994. "Statement of Work for Excavation and Removal of Drainage Structures and Soil at Site CS-9"; Installation Restoration Program; Massachusetts Military Reservation; Otis Air National Guard Base, Massachusetts; April 1994. Environmental Health Research and Testing, Inc., 1994. "Chemical Quality Control Plan for Excavation and Treatment of Contaminated Soil at AOC's CS-4, FS-25, and FTA-1" Installation Restoration Program; Massachusetts Military Reservation; Section Two, approved construction submittal No. 4A, Lexington, Kentucky. May 1994. HAZWRAP, 1994. "Drainage Structure Program Conceptual Model/ Proposed Target Cleanup Levels"; Installation Restoration Program; Massachusetts Military Reservation; prepared for Massachusetts Air National Guard Bureau; Oak Ridge Tennessee. Draft, February 1994. Lawrence Lynch Corporation (LLC), 1994. "Remedial Operations Manual For LF-1 Cap/Closure Project"; Installation Restoration Program; Massachusetts Military Reservation; Section One, approved construction submittal No. 1A, Falmouth, Massachusetts. April 1994 Lawrence Lynch Corporation (LLC), 1995. " Final Remedial Construction Report for AOC CS-9"; Installation Restoration Program; Massachusetts Military Reservation; Draft, Falmouth, Massachusetts. January 1995. W0019571.080 7623-27 REFERENCES U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1992. "Remedial Action Report Documentation For Operable Unit Completion"; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Design and Construction and Management Branch; USEPA/publication 9355.0-39FS/Quick Reference; Washington, D.C.; June 1992 W0019571.080 7623-27 APPENDIX A STATEMENT OF WORK FOR EXCAVATION AND REMOVAL OF DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND SOIL AT STUDY AREA CS-9 W0019571.080 7623-27 DEPARTMENT OF WE AIR FORCE M9XAUADOM fiOTORATWN KWORAM|ANG) OTIS AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE MA 023424028 1 t April 25,1994"' Mr. Paul Marchessault U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ! HAN/CAN1 ) JFK Federal Building Boston, MA 02203 Mr. James Begley Department of Environmental Protection Southeast Region LakevOIe Hospital Lakevflle, MA 02347 Subject: Statement of Work for Excavation and Removal of Drainage Structures and Son at Site CS-9 Dear Mr. Marchessault and Mr. Begley: Attached please find for your review/approval; (1) the revised Statement of Work for Excavation and Removal of Drainage Structures and Soil at Site CS-9, and (2) a copy of the press release of the proposed activity for public notification. The revised SOW has incorporated the changes you requested during our recent conference call on April 13/ 1994. If you have any questions or care to discuss this matter further, please contact me at (508) 968-4676. Sincerely, EDWARD L. PESCE, P.E. Environmental Engineer Attachment: SOW for CS-9 ELP:bdc ffeatflness is cur Profession MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM STATEMENT OF WORK EXCAVATION AND REMOVAL OF DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND SOIL AT SITE C8-9 1. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the contract services to be provided, as described in this Statement of Work (SOW) is as follows: (1) first remove, drum, and dispose of off-site, any liquid contents and bottom sediments of 10 sump/leaching well structures containing waste oils or solvents, and (2) demolish, dismantle, excavate, and decontaminate these 9 sump structures and 4 additional grease rack structures, and crush and prepare for maximum size limitation, (3) excavate, load, and haul to a location to be designated (tentatively planned to be the CS-4 ^Location on Base), soil, primarily petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated, from the 10 sump/drainage structures and 4 additional grease rack structures from the former World War II motor pool located off Connery Avenue known as Study Area Site CS-9. The remaining clean soils and decontaminated sump structure concrete (crushed) debris will then be used as common borrow material for the LF-1 Landfill Cap/Closure project. 2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: The former World War II motor pool is presently identified as Study Area CS-9 (Chemical Spill No. 9) as part of the Air National Guard Installation Restoration Program (IRP). The IRP has identified CS-9 as a site containing drainage structures, sediments, and soils contaminated primarily with petroleum hydrocarbon compounds. Site Inspection and the Phase I Sump Investigation Reports, which contain additional information on sump contents and surrounding soils, will be made available to the contractor. 3. SCOPE OF SERVICES: 3.1. The contractor shall provide all facilities, equipment, labor, and personnel necessary to excavate or remove all soils and sediments associated with 14 total sump structures and leaching wells on the CS-9 Site. The contractor is also responsible for the demolition, decontamination, and disposal of the sump structures for use as common borrow material at the LF-1 Site. All existing concrete building foundations will be demolished as required to obtain access to soils to be excavated below sumps and leaching wells (after sump structures have been emptied of existing liquids and sediments). All other concrete foundations at the CS-9 Site will be demolished per specification for placement as common borrow material at the LF-1 site. 3.2. The Contractor shall accomplish this SOW as follows: • The contractor shall remove any standing liquids and sediments from the drainage structures as applicable. These sump contents shall be analyzed, drummed, and disposed of as a Hazardous Waste (HW) in accordance with State HW regulations - 310 CMR 30.00. The EPA Hazardous.Waste Generator I.D. # to be used on all HW manifests and associated documentation is MA2570024487. The contractor will coordinate with the IRP office to obtain Official Generator signatures from the Base EMO in Bldg #197 for all manifests. The COR will review contents of all wastes with the contractor prior to removal off-Base. • The contractor shall decontaminate the drainage structures/ concrete by pressure wash (water) of all surfaces. Decontamination water will be collected, analyzed and disposed of as a HW (as above) if applicable. Non - HW wash liquids will be drummed or collected at the contractor's option, and treated, using the method approved by the EPA via two 55 Gal. drums (in series) of activated carbon. This system is that commonly used on MMR for monitoring well purge water/groundwater (Note: the approved method/treatment protocol is as per letter from the EPA dated November 20, 1994, Re: Proposal to Discharge Treated Groundwater - copy attached). Decontaminated concrete/sump structure debris will be crushed and demolished to a 4ft. maximum size and placed at the contractor's discretion on the LF-l disposal cells (1970, Post - 1970, and Kettle Hole cells) for use as common borrow material. • All existing building foundations and site paving, not associated with contaminated structures, will be removed, crushed, and demolished to 4ft. maximum size. All material will be placed on the LF-1 disposal cells for use as common borrow. • The contractor shall excavate all soil surrounding the drainage structures. Actual quantities of soil removed shall be measured from the in-place excavation limits, and shall serve as the basis of quantities for payment. All excavated soil shall be sampled for analysis and temporarily stockpiled In the LF-l/CS-9 vicinity. To prevent surface water infiltration, this temporary stockpile shall be covered with plastic sheeting or other suitable material and inspected daily, until arrangements are made at a later date for movement and treatment at the CS-4 location via the pending Thermal Desorption System by others. The excavated soil shall be sampled for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) - EPA Method #418.1 (modified), and Trace Metals (ICP/AA analysis). Additionally, the excavated soil shall be sampled for TCLP Metals if directed by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR). The contractor's QA/QC Officer and the COR shall jointly review existing analytical data for the structures prior to initiating the work, in order to physically mark the work areas at specific structures. Excavated soils which will be sent to the CS-4 Thermal Treatment system will be evaluated, based on the soil sampling and analysis, for suitability of treatment by thermal desorptlon. Those soils found to be unsuitable will be disposed of as a HW off base. Excavation and Pay Limits for each drainage structure, based on previous Investigative efforts, are contained in Table 1. These excavation and pay limits are estimates for the purposes of determining the scope of services. The actual excavation effort will be determined as follows: a. Excavate soils to the depth shown on Table 1, or to a depth demonstrated to be clean by the following methods: (1) by visual Inspection of stained soil and (2) by Head - Space soil sample measurement of total VOC's of 10 PPM or less by use of a photo-ionization detector (PID). b. The contractor shall use all necessary care and caution to ensure that any additional excavation of clean soil, as may be necessary during site work, shall not become commingled with contaminated material. When the bottom of the excavation has been reached, based on the inspection and measurements described above/ the contractor shall obtain and conduct laboratory analysis of soil samples from the bottom and sides of the excavation to confirm the remaining soil as "clean* prior to backfill. This confirmatory field sampling shall be conducted using sound field sampling techniques, utilizing care in sampling to prevent cross- contamination of samples by use of disposable or properly decontaminated sampling apparatus after each Individual sample collection event, use of laboratory provided sampling containers, sampling chain of custody documentation, etc. This confirmatory soil sampling shall be conducted and analyzed per reference - "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA SW-846" as follows: a. 3 VOC samples - 1 grab from the bottom of the excavation - 1 sample each from the inlet and outlet of the structure, or from the location(s) at or below the contaminated soil which was removed as applicable (2 total). - US EPA Method #8260 (lowest detection level) b. Semi volatile Organ ics - 1 composite sample of the bottom and sidewall soils from the same areas sampled for VOC's. US EPA Method # 8270. c. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) 1 composite sample as described in b. above. US EPA Method # 418.1 (modified) 30 ppm DL d. Inorganics (Trace Metals) - 1 composite soil sample for trace metals from locations described in b. above. (ICP/AA analysis) e. TCLP Pesticides - 1 composite sample as in item c. above. US EPA Method # 1311 and # 8080 - Organochlorine Pesticides and PCB's. f. Appropriate laboratory quality assurance and performance data must also accompany the analytical results to confirm the validity of results as per US EPA SWR-846, Third Edition. After laboratory analysis is received, the COR will confirm or deny each site as clean and advise the contractor for follow on action as appropriate. This clean site determination will be made based on the acceptable Soil Target Clean-up Levels (STCL's) or acceptable standards from the USEPA and MA DEP. The contractor shall be compensated at the unit cost per cubic yard for all additional excavation if required at this point. When clean closure for each drainage structure location has been achieved, the contractor shall backfill each location, to the maximum extent possible, with any clean soil removed during the drainage structure remediation. It is not necessary to achieve original grade elevations and no vegetative stabilization of the CS-9 site is required. The contractor shall observe Health 6 Safety (H&S) guidelines contained in the approved H&S Plan for the LF-1 project. Additionally, the contractor shall establish a suitable exclusionary zone around all excavation during activities. The contractor shall begin all excavation activities in Personal Protection Level "C", Modified (without the wearing of a protective mask), and upgrade the protection level as required. Note: This Includes all individuals working In the exclusion zone and stockpile areas. The contractor shall prepare a letter amending the LF-1 HASP as appropriate, indicating narrative instructions for personnel protection, personnel and equipment decontamination procedures, etc. The contractor shall submit a Site Remediation and Closure Report documenting all remedial activities at the CS-9 Site. The Report shall Include a narrative summary of all activities, copies of the contractor's daily reports, and all field analytical and laboratory testing results. 4. PROJECT COST PROPOSAL. The contractor shall submit a cost proposal for this SOW as follows: A. A unit cost per gallon (drummed) for all sediment and liquids removal from sumps. B. A cost per cubic yard for contaminated soil excavated, temporarily stockpiled/covered, and hauled to the CS-4 location, when directed, for ultimate treatment. C. A unit cost per soil sample for TCLP Metals. D. A unit cost per cubic yard for HW soil disposal off* Base. E. A unit cost per gallon for HW decon/wash water disposal AND a unit cost per gallon for non-HW water to be collected and treated with activated carbon. F. Lump sum cost shall be provided for all remaining items such as, but not limited to, associated Personnel Protective Equipment, decontamination facilities/operation, stockpile covering, field screening of soils, field sampling/laboratory analysis of soils, backfill of excavations, and report preparation. G. A separate lump sum cost shall be provided for all concrete demolition activities, including placement of debris on the LF-1 site. TABLE 1. EXCAVATION AND PAY LIMITS Dry Well 1 12' 12' 12' 65 3.6 Dry Well 2 12' 12* 18' 100 5.5 Dry WeU3 12* 12' 12' 3.6 Dry Well 4 12* 12' 12' 65 3.6 Sump 5 12' 12* 30* 160 8.8 Sump 6 12' 12' 12' 65 3.6 Sump? 12' 12* 12' 65 3.6 Sump 8 12' 12' 12* 65 3.6 Grease Rack 125' 15' 10' 695 45.7 Fuel Island 30' 20' 12* 270 14.8 Wash Rack 12' 12' 12' 65_ 3.6 TOTAL 1680 100.0 flee* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONI *F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203-2211 November 20, 1992 Daniel Santos, Project Manager NGB/DEVR/OLO Building 868 Otis ANG Base, HA 02542 Re: Proposal to Discharge Treated Groundwater Dear Mr. Santos: This office is in receipt of your letter and supporting information dated October 26, 1992 which proposed the method for the discharge of treated groundwater at the Massachusetts Military Reservation. * Based upon our review of this information, which included the results of the pilot test which indicated no detectable levels of contamination, and a conference call which was held on November 12, 1992, it was agreed that the following protocol would be acceptable to this office: (1) all water withdrawn from wells will be pumped into a holding tank. (2) the water will be pumped to two granular activated carbon canisters which will be placed in series. (3) at a minimum, effluent samples from the second canister will be taken every 2000 gallons, or once per day. (4) if the sampling results indicate that MCLs have been exceeded, the water will be held in the holding tank while the canisters are replaced. If more than one set of canisters is being used in parallel, samples will be analyzed between the two canisters to determine which canisters require replacement. / (5) if the results of drilling indicate that an area of high contamination has been reached, the sampling frequency will be increased. HUNTED OM MCVCUEO MWM If you have any questions relative to the above information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (617) 573-5793. Sincerely yours, < (*&«&&. 9*k>&b* CONTRACTOR REMEDIAL ACTION WORK PLAN LETTER AMENDMENT FOR STUDY AREA CS-9 WOOl 9571.080 7623-27 LAWRENCE CAPE COD •" m*Z • -T-^l • ^^ Cal1to "free from (508)548-1800 I IF W1^ tJ/"*/"^ D Q anywhere in Mass. (508)775-6635 ^B I 111^^11 WVxfir. 1-800-352-7188 FAX* (508) 457-1825 CONTRACTORS Paving, Road Building, Tennis Court Construction Sand & Gravel Hot & Cold Mix October 20, 1993 Mr. Edward L. Pesce, P.E. National Guard Bureau Installation Restoration Program, ANGRC/CEVR-OLO Otis ANG Base, MA 02542 Re: DAHA19-93-C-0017, LF-1 Main Base Cap/Closure Project Massachusetts Military Reservation Dear Mr. Pesce: Enclosed please find LLC's preliminary proposal concerning short-term remediation for the contaminated soil which we encountered during our clearing and grubbing activities, coincidentally in the direct line in which our perimeter fence is to be erected. At this time we would like to offer an informal proposal to aid you in your decision making process relative to this issue. The following is the general workscope we are proposing for short term remediation: Test pits The purpose of the test pit would be to identify the approximate limits of contamination. An inexpensive alternative to excavating for test pits would be the utilization of a "Hydro Punch" (or compatible product/equipment). This method of observation eliminates the possibility of cross Contamination .. between sampling intervals. Sampling and Analysis (real-time) A photionization detector will detect total organic vapors (TOVs), however when dealing with waste oil contaminated soils or contaminated soils which has been exposed to the elements, a PID is somewhat ineffective. We would prefer to utilize an Organic Vapor Analyzer. This method of field screening/analyzing will aid in detecting volatiles in the soil. OFFICE & PLANTS 396 GIFFORD STREET FALMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS 02540 MAILING ADDRESS: P. O BOX M. FALMOUTH. MASSACHUSETTS 02541 This type of sampling will enable LLC to quickly classify soils and eliminate costly turn-around times associated with analytical results. Excavating and sampling schematic After the limit of contamination is studied and a conclusion can be drawn to identify the approximate boundary of contaminated soil, a sampling/excavation schematic will be produced to clearly document volumes and concentrated areas to decide whether or not to continue to excavate. The purpose of a sampling schematic is to clearly indicate where the samples are to be collected and to document the results of the respectful sample and area collected. Pending size of excavation, the sampling plan should entail the collection of samples from the side walls and the bottom of the excavation to clearly determine whether or not the limits of contamination has been exceeded. Laboratory analysis The benefit of real time sampling and analysis (field screening), is to obtain the results of sampling in the field in order to expedite the remediation process. As soon as the detection device demonstrates that the contaminated soil has reached the action limit set forth in the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) in regards to field screening for volatile compounds, additional soil samples will be collected to be analyzed in a laboratory for the necessary analytes. If the analytical results are returned not detected or below the action limit, the excavation can be backfilled and documented pending all approvals. Excavation Activities LLC proposes to excavate the contaminated soil utilizing an excavator and direct loading into dump trucks in order to transport the contaminated soil to a designated area indicated by you. - -~- - Stockpile/Disposal The contaminated soil will be placed on 6 mil. polyethylene at a location designated by the contracting officer's representative. After each work day the stockpile will be covered by said material. At the end of the remedial phase the stockpiled soil will be secured to ensure that the Polyethylene stays secured to the ground to withstand the elements. In the event that the soil has to be transported off-site to an alternate disposal facility (out of state), LLC will transport and arrange for all bills of lading and/or hazardous waste manifests Laboratory analytical reports. After all soils have undergone field screening and documented results indicate levels under the established action level (according to the MCP), Additional soil samples will be collected and laboratory analyzed in order to verify a "clean site". In the event that soils can not be treated on-site, LLC will collect soil samples from the stockpiled soils and make a composite, (note: the number of composite soil samples will be a factor of the total number of tons remediated). Air Monitoring Action levels are established to ensure that the over exposure criteria are not exceeded. The action levels shall also be used to determine the need to upgrade/downgrade PPE. For the short term remediation activities the following action levels will apply. Description Action Level Level Level D PPE C PPE Volatile Organic 25 ppm < 25 ppm > 25 ppm Benzene • .5 ppm < .5 ppm > .5 ppm Oxygen 20% < 20% > 20% Combustible Gas 10 % of < 10 % Of > 10 % Of LEL LEL LEL Nuisance Dust 10 mg/m3 < 10 mg/m3 > 10 mg/m3 Work zone monitoring will be done on a daily basis if field conditions warrant, utilizing a PID. If readings of 1 to 25 ppm as noted above are recorded after two successful tests, level C PPE will be utilized. note: Level C PPE will be utilized initially, however, can be upgraded or downgraded when field conditions warrant. Personnel Decontamination Stations and Heavy Equipment Decontamination Stations. Personnel decontamination stations will be constructed for the proper disposal of disposable protective outer garments, (i.e. Tyvek suits, gloves, boots, etc.). These garments will be disposed of in 55-gallon 17 H Drums in accordance with state and federal regulations. Equipment will be decontaminated in two 10 gallon wash tubs (one with detergent water and one with rinse water). Heavy equipment will be cleaned from top to bottom utilizing spray nozzles and scrub brushes. Personnel cleaning the machinery will be wearing the necessary protective clothing (i.e. slicker suit, face shield, chemical resistant clothes, and boots). Due to the large volume of contaminated rinse water which will be generated, controlled run-off will be established. Contaminated water will be collected for proper disposal in accordance with state and federal regulations. If you have any questions relative to this informal proposal, please do not hesitate to contact us at (508) 564-6889. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, LAWRENCE-LYNCH CORP. Craig D. Trombly Quality Control Manager cc: Gerard Gallant Wes Judge APPENDIX C BORROW TRACKING REPORTS FOR DISPOSAL OF CONCRETE DEBRIS AT AOC LF-1 W0019571.080 7623-27 Ooarjp . Otis AJSTG Ba.se, MA. O2542 C5OS) 54S — 2.8OO LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL No. 00131 Project: Main Base Landfill Closure Job: 9302 1 Installation Restortation Program Otis ANG Base Cape Cod MA 02542 i (508)968-4676 June 13, 1994 Attn: Edward L. Pesce 1 Ref : Borrow Tracking Report 1970 Cell/Kettle Hole week ending 06/10/94 i _ Attached Separate Cover Via: (_ Shop Dwg _ Prints _ Plans _ Samples _ Specifications _ Letter _ Change Order X Other: Borrow Tracking Report No. Date Item Number Description Status f These above items are transmitted for your action as noted: i _ For Approval _ For Review And Comment _ Returned For Corrections _ For Your Use _ Approved As Submitted _ Resubmit 0 Copies For Approval _ As Requested _ Approved As Noted X Submit 3 Copy For Distribution | _ Bids Due: _ Returned After Loan _ Return 0 Copies Correctd Print Please find tracking report enclosed for the concrete debris hauled in from CS-9 and deposited in the Kettle Hole. Transmitted by: Lawrence-Lynch Corp. Signed: L . . By: Craig D7. Trembly Date: . ice: G. Gallant, W. Judge, J. Nadeau, file Lawrence-Lynch Corp. Date of Report 6/13/94 Borrow Tracking Report s 1970 CELL • Baseline "C*. KETTLE HOLE - Baseline "B'. & POST 1970 CELL - Baseline "A" AREA OF PLACEMENT LF-1 C.B. PIT LF-1 C.B. PIT VOL. fcuvd'sl DATE I PELL I ELEVATION RELATIVE TO BASELINE ELEVATION LOCATION EST/LOAD PROCTOR I fiaaaaaaaaWHdrrnFJi.'.r?4 t'ill^^^^^^H LF-1 Common Borrow Pit 227865 Herbert Road Common Borrow Pit 89509 05/16/94 1970 Cell 141.0 4+00 to 7+50/right 275 ft and toft 1 50 ft 0.0* - 5.0" stat 8+00 to 1 1+507 left 650 ft. to 750 ft. 7680 128.1 @ 8.2 05/17/94 1970 Cell 141.0/area-1 2+00 to 5+OOMght 200 ft. and toft 300 ft O.O1 - 5.0* stat. 8+00 to 1 1+50/ left 750 ft to 850 ft 12000 128.1 @ 8.2 143.0/area-2 0+60 to 2+00/right 300 ft 05/18/94 1970 Cell 141.25/area-1 5+50 to 9+50/rignt 200 ft to 400 ft S.O'-IO.O1 stat 8+00 to 1 1+50/ left 650 ft to 750 ft. 10080 105.7 @ 7.2 SG/area-2 9+50to11+OOMcIh t 200 ft and toft 100 ft. 144.5/area-3 5+OOtol 0+00/left100ft 05/19/94 1970 Cel 145.0 3+50to6+00/left150ft S.O'-IO.O1 stat 8+00 to 11+50/left 750ft. to 850 ft. 11472 105.7 @ 7.2 r 05/20/94 1970 Cel 146.0/area-1 4+OOto8+00/ri|jh t 50 ft and left 50 ft 0.0" - 5.0" stat 8+00 to 1 1 +507 left 850 ft to 950 ft. 9312 126.6 @I 7.7 144.5/area-2 2+OOto3+00/rfg it 150 ft and left 150 ft 138.07area-3 4+00 to 8+007 right 350 ft to 450 ft Subtotals 50544 05/23/94 1970 CeH 3+00 to B+OD/right 200 ft (aver. to 350 ft 5.0" - 10.0" Stat 8+00 to 11+50/ left 850 ft. to 950 ft . 4968 11B.5@ 10.1 05/24/94 1970 Cell 5+50 to 7+50/left 100 ft and naW 150 ft. Detention Basin 4632 126.3(S 10.; Post 1970 158.0 1+00to4+00/rlg ht1501f t 0.0" - 5.0" HRCBP/stat 1+00 to 3+00/West 150 ft. 1968 114.7S »9.8 05/25/94 Post 1970 157.5/area-1 3+00 to 5+00/right 200 1f t and left 200 ft. 0.0* - 5.01 HRCBP/stat 1+00 to 6+50/West 150 fl. 7368 128.1 @ 8.2 155/area-2 2+OOto3+00/left200ft 05/26/94 Post 1970 158.5 1+00to4+00/rfeIh t 200 ft. 5.0 '- 10.0" HRCBP/stat 1+00 to 6+50/West 150 ft. 6095 128.1 @I 8.2 05/27/94 1970 Cell 147.25 4+50 to 7+50/lelf t 100ft. 5.0 '- 10.0* stat 8+00 to 11+507 left 850 ft. to 950ft 4464 1 18.5 @ 10.1 Post 1970 minimal borrow was placed 1224 Subtotals 30719 05/31/94 Post 1970 area-1/SG 3+25to4+5CVrl{ ht 12 ft and toft 125 ft 5.0 '- 10.01 HRCBP/stat 1+00 to 6+50/West 150 ft 3912 1 14.2 @ 9.7 * • area-2/159.0 0+00to2+00/rlg it 100 ft and toft 275 ft • " 1970 Cell SG 7+OOto8+00/rlflIh t 300 ft and toft 75 ft 5.0 '-10.0* 1 CBP/St 8+00 to 1 1+50/left 850 ft to 951 2088 118.5^ • • • Detention Basin 1776 122.4 € 9.3 06/01/94 1970 Cell 148.0 4+OOto8+00/rlght250ft max & left 150 ft meX Detention Basin 9024 122.4 € tf.ii 06/02/94 1970 Cell SG 3+00 to 7+00/rlght 200 ft max & toft 200 ft meX Detention Basin 7800 122.4 «J 9.3 • r " 140.0 0+50to1+50/rlght2( Oft 4 .left 150 ft. • " " LF-1 CBP 480 118.5<§ 10.1 06/03/94 1970 Cell SG 3+00 to 5+75/right 200 ft. & toft 200 ft 0.0* - 5.0" CBP/st. 8+00 to 1 1+507 toft 850 ft. to 10( 7824 126.6(3J7. 7 I Subtotals 32904 AREA OF PLACEMENT LF-1 C.B. PIT LF-1 C.B, PIT VOL {cuvo/si DATE CELL ELEVATlpN ELEVATION LOCATION EST/LOAD PROCTOR t>6/06/94 1970 Call SG 1+25 to 3+00/rtght 200ft. & lefl 200 ft. 15.01 - 20.1T South side slope 1li.4@ 10.5 06/06/94 Kettle Hole 151.0 6+50 to 8+25/Hght 100 ft. & left 100 ft. 1S.V-20.V South side slope 2304 118.40)10.5 06/07/94 1970 Cell SG 0+50 to 1+50/rtaht 200ft. & left 200ft. 15.ff-20.ff 8+50 to 4+100 4800 120.8 & 9.6 06/07/94 Kettle Hole area 1-/148 2+00 to 5+00/ieft 50 ft. & left 200 ft. 15.ff-20.ff 8+50 to 4+1 00 4464 120.8 & 9.6 06/07/94 Kettle Hole area2-/153 4+00 to 6+00/right 100 ft. & left 1 00 ft. 15.0* - 20.0" 8+50 to 4+100 120.8 @ 9.6 06/08/94 Kettle Hole area1-/150.5 3+25 to 5+75/left 100 ft. & left 300 ft. 10.01 - 15.01 8+00 to 11+00/left 800 ft to 1150 9024 120.5 €t 11.4 06/08/94 Kettle Hole area 2-/1 53.75 2+00 to 4+00/right 100 ft. & left 100 ft. lO.O'-IS.O1 8+00 to 1 1+00/left 800 ft to 1 150 120.5 £|11.4 06/09/94 Kettle Hole SG to 148 6+OOto9+00/left400ft. 15.ff-2Q.ff 8+00 to 1 1+00/left 7+00 to 9+00 8064 107.9 @ 8.4 06/10/94 Kettle Hole 144.5 8+OOto10+00/right125ft. O.a-5.01 8+00 to 1 1+50/left 9+00 to 10+50 5760 1 14.3 @ 8.2 Subtotal* 41520 r . Lawrence-Lynch Corp. ' i 396 Gtffbrd Street Falmouth, MA 02540 Project No. 9302 title: LF-1; Main Base Cap/Closure Project field cond: NA mm subject test pits time: NA location: HRCBP. LF-1 CBP. & Detention Basin by: C. Trombly date: 03JUN94 temp: NA im I.D DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE LOCATION DEPTH TIME PROCTOR TEST PIT NO. LF- :01 brown , sandy gravel common borrow pit 5.0' 10:00 113.5312.6 Test Pit No. 1.0 LF- :02 an. sandy gravel w/ cobbles common borrow pit 10.0' 10:10 118.3® 10.1 Test Pit No. 1.0 LF- :03 Ight, tan, fine sandy gravel common borrow pit 15.01 10:35 120.8 3 9.6 Test Pit No. 1.0 LF-1 03A common borrow pit 20.0* Test Pit No. 1.0 Mi LF- ;04 dark tan, sandy gravel w/ < 3" cob common borrow pit 5.0' 10:55 121.738.8 Test Pit No. 2.0 LF- :05 an. sandy gravel common borrow pit 10.01 11:05 118.7310.4 Test Pit No. 2.0 LF-1;06 ght tan, sand common borrow pit 15.0' 11:20 115.2311.9 Test Pit No. 2.0 LF-1:06A common borrow pit 20.0' Test Pit No. 2.0 LF-1;07 dar k tan, sany gravel common borrow pit 5.0' 11:30 116.3311.2 Test Pit No. 3.0 LF-1;08 an, sandy gravel common borrow pit 10.0' 01:40 122.7 3 9.9 Test Pit No. 3.0 LF-1;09 an, sandy gravel common borrow pit 15.0' 11:55 116.4310.5 Test Pit No. 3.0 LF-1.-08A common borrow pit 20.0' Test Pit No. 3.0 LF-1:10 an, sandy gravel common borrow pit 5.0' 02:25 119.3310.7 Test Pit No. 4.0 LF-1:11 an, sandy gravel common borrow pit 10.0' 02:45 123.1 3 9.7 Test Pit No. 4.0 LF-1;12 an, sandy gravel common borrow pit 15.0' 03:10 118.3310.4 Test Pit No. 4.0 LF-1;12A common borrow pit 20.0' Test Pit No. 4.0 DB;01 ght. tan. sandy gravel w/cobbles detention basin 6.0' 12:10 126.3310.7 Test Pit No. 5.0 DB;02 ght. tan. sandy gravel w/cobbles I detention basin 8.0' 12:25 122.4 3 9.3 Test Pit No. 5.0 Sample #1 sand y gravel (Herbert Rd. Borrow Pit 2:00 120.8310.5 Test PR No. 1.0 Sample #2 sand y gravel (Herbert Rd. Borrow Pit 2:05 110.1311.5 Test Pit No. 2.0 Sample #3 sand y gravel [Herbert Rd. Borrow Pit 5.0' - 10.0' 9:00 114.739.8 stat. 2+00: 200' East Sample #4 sand y gravel (Herbert Rd. Borrow Pit 5.0' -10.0' 9:15 113.8310.7 stat. 4+00: 200' East Sample #5 sand y gravel (Herbert Rd. Borrow Pit 5.0' -10.0' 9:30 110.9311.8 stat. 6+00: 200' East Sample #6 sand y gravel (Herbert Rd. Borrow Pit 5.0' - 10.0' 6:15 125.6 3 9.5 stat. 2+00: 100' West Sample #7 sand y gravel (Herbert Rd. Borrow Pit 5.0' -10.0' 6:20 114.239.7 stat. 4+00: 100' West Sample #8 sand y gravel (Herbert Rd. Borrow Pit 0.0' - 5.0' 6:30 116.839.1 stat. 6+00: 100' West TP#7 sandy gravel I Exp. LF-1 CBP O.O1 - 5.0' 10:30 128.1 3 8.2 stat 9+00: 750' South TP#7 sandy gravel Exp. LF-1 CBP 5.0' -10.0' 105.7 3 7.2 stat 9+00: 750' South TP#7 sandy gravel Exp. LF-1 CBP 1 0.0' -15.0 107.9 3 8.4 stat 9+00: 750* South TP#8 sandy gravel Exp. LF-1 CBP 0.0' - 5.0' 11:00 126.6 3 7.7 stat. 9+00: 950' South TP#8 sandy gravel Exp. LF-1 CBP 5.0' -10.0' 118.5310.1 stat 9+00: 950' South TP#8 sandy gravel Exp. LF-1 CBP 1 0.0' -15.0 120.5311.4 stat. 9+00: 950' South TP#9 sandy gravel Exp. LF-1 CBP 0.0' - 5.0' 114.338.2 stat 9+00: 1050' South note: trite document was generated by LLC for QC purpose*. Tri a proctor vah Mwere nputted from the iMutts received from PSI (sota laboratory). \ I •42 \ 1970 CELL I ^_ I r> n LE >> r* 12850 'i '--. —•••" *0 d v-/ i f+*lt g o 5 ^2 i^1? 15 9 ?j o> 2L ^^ s$ 3 1 G> V £ L: ? f »fr 2, *>4 '.* •Tfc PROJECT N REMARKS: 4302. LAWRENCE-LYNCH CORP. 504 V SP C-14 2917 / r 1970 CEH. 7 2610 SP-C-U \ 2614 SP 261A r SP C-5 SP/C-12 2613 'SP C-10 26t» 2612 SP C-4 > I \SP C-11 OATC I ocscnriKM REVISION S PUN OF 1970 CELL SETTLEMENTPLATrORMS MASS. MlimK? RESERVATION LAWRENC?0?NOi CORP. IIMIIKC27.1H4 ^ IwbiMcand mear«W J^J DMWt Wl PLAN OF KETTLE HOLE MASS. MUTAKY RESERVATION JDAlii: COMf. BY: Lf't PRCCT. PROJECT NQ: REMARKS. CLLC\ LAWRENCE-LYNCH CORP. C-21 2809 SP C-8 2809 \ \ *i SP C-14 .2017 1970 2B10 \ SP-C-13 2614 2818 SP C-5 2819 2807 I SP SP C-10 SP C-r16' 2819 SP C-4 ./ 2812 L VI S I O M 5 JML. JBJL. ^ PLAN OF 1970 CELL SETTUMENT PLATFORMS JBJL. MASS. MIUTXR^ RESERVATION LAWRtMCt-tYNCH CORP. I I I ROOM- i»< \ \\957 CR.L PLAN OF KETTLE HOLE ^PLATFORMS MASS. MUTARY RESERVATION PLAN OF KETTLE HOLE MASS. MUTAI RCSCftVATION £ £ -F ^ ' 5 : if R; VM ^ r s o » SrFT !""• t>^K 5IDII» PLAN O>rr KETKETTL1 E HOLE SCTUaiCNPLATFORMMOiTPLi S MASS. MUTAKY RCSCRVATION iHQTTX § •i i p» 2645 1 t * U47 CETTLE\HOLE *\ ho « N \ =13 \. ( + V B-19 265* 1 \. Otis AISTG Ba.se, MA. O2542 • - Csoe) 54e—xeoo LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL "" No. 00124 Project: Main Base Landfill Closure Job: 9302 "Installation Restortation Program Otis ANG Base Cape Cod MA 02542 .(508)968-4676 May 25, 1994 Attn: Edward L. Pesce *Ref: Borrow Tracking Report 1970 Cell/Exp LF-1 CBP week ending 20MAY94 _ Attached Separate Cover Via: — Shop Dwg _ Prints _ Plans _ Samples _ Specifications _ Letter _ Change Order X Other: Borrow Tracking Report No. Date Item Number Description Status These above items are transmitted for your action as noted: m _ For Approval _ For Review And Comment _ Returned For Corrections _ For Your Use _ Approved As Submitted _ Resubmit 0 Copies For Approval _ As Requested _ Approved As Noted X Submit 3 Copy For Distribution _ Bids Due: _ Returned After Loan _ Return 0 Copies Correctd Print Please find placement schematic for concrete relocation at the northern end of the 1970 cell. Transmitted by: Lawrence-Lynch Corp. Signed: By: Craig DT^ Troxnbl____ y Date: _ 6< -^S'oiH I I G. Gallant, J. Nadeau, W. Judge, File Lfcwranee-Lynch Corp. 1 396 Gilford Street Falmouth, MA 02540 Project No. 0302 title: LF-1 ; Main Bass Cap/Closure Project field cond: n/a subject test pits Mme: n/a location: LF-1 CBP. Exp. LF-1 CBP. HRCBP. Detention Basin by: C. TromWy date: 24MAY03 tamp: n/a I.D DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE LOCATION 1 DEPTH 1 TIME 1 PROCTOR TEST PIT NO. LF-1;01 xown, sandy gravel common Dorrow pit s.a 0:00 113.5® 12.6 Test Pit No. 1.0 -. . . LM:02 tan. sandy gravel w/ cobbles common Dorrow pit 10.01 0:10 118.3 O 10.1 Test Pit No. 1.0 LF-1;03 oht. tan. fine sandy gravel common borrow pit 15.0* 0:35 120.8 6 9.6 Test Pit No. 1.0 . 11 LF-1;03A common Dorrowpit 20.0* Test Pit No. 1.0 . LF-1;04 dark tan, sandy gravel w/ < 3* cobbles common borrow pit 5.01 0:55 121.768.8 Test Ptt No. 2.0 LF-1;05 Ian. sandy gravel common borrow pit 10.01 1:05 118.7610.4 Test Pit No. ZO . . LF-1;06 ght tan, sand common borrow pit 15.01 1:20 115.2811.9 Test Pit No. ZO LF-1;06A common borrow pit 20.01 Test Pit No. ZO . . LF-V.07 ark tan, sany gravel common borrow pit 5.01 1:30 116.3611.2 Test Pit No. 3.0 LF-1;08 tan, sandy gravel common borrow pit 10.01 01:40 12Z7 6*9.9 Test Pit No. 3.0 LF-1;09 an, sandy gravel common borrow pit 15.01 1:55 118.4610.5 Test Pit No. 3.0 LF-V.09A an, sandy gravel common borrow pit 20.01 3:30 115.169.1 est Pit No. 3.0 (test pit no. 5) LF-1;10 tan. sandy gravel common borrow pit 5.ff 02:25 119.3610.7 Test Pit No. 4.0 LF-1;11 tan, sandy gravel common DorroL w piItt 10.01 02:45 123.1 6 9.7 Test Pit No. 4.0 LF-1; 12 tan, sandy gravel common borrow pit i5. note: LF-1;09A identified as test pit no. 5: sample collec ed on 04/04/94 LF-1;12A Identified as test pit no. 6: sample collet ed on 04/04/94 note: thb document wnoMMrated by LLC yQCpurpoM*. Thcpro torvaluM •mlnpu •d from the rMul from PSI (Mfe laboratory). I I Lawrence-Lynch Corp. Date of Report 05/20/94 Borrow Tracking Report 1970 CELL-Baseline *C'. KETTLE HOLE - Baseline 'B*. & POST 1970 CELL - Baseline 'A' AREA OF PLACEMENT ILF-1 C.B. PIT LF-1 C.B. PIT VOL. fcuyiTs) DATE CELL ELEVATION RELATIVE TO BASELINE 1 ELEVATION LOCATION EST/LOAD PROCTOR ^^^^^^B SCI Ll-.li'j t'i-Ti K'i-i ^^^^^^H LF-1 Common Borrow Pit 227865 Herbert Road Common Borrow Pit 69509 05/16/94 1970 Cell 141.0 4*00 to 7+50/rlght 275 ft. and left 1 50 ft • O.O'-S.O' stat. 8+00 to 1 1+50/ left 650 ft. to 750 ft. 7680 128.1 & 8.2 05/17/94 1970 Cell 141.0/area-1 2+00 to 5+00/rlght 200 ft. and left 300 ft 0.01 - 5.01 stat 8+00 to 11+50/left 750ft. to 650ft. 12000 128.1 @ 8.2 143.0/area-2 0+50 to 2+OC/right 300 ft. 05/18/94 1970 Cell 141.25/area-1 5+50 to 9+50/right 200 ft. to 400 ft. S.ff-IO.O1 staL 8+00 to 1 1+50/ left 650 ft. to 750 ft. 10080 105.7 @ 7.2 SG/area-2 9+50 to 1 1+00/rlght 200 ft and left 100 ft. 144.5/area-3 5+00 to 10+00/left 100 ft. 05/19/94 1970 Cell 145.0 3+50to8+00/left150fL S-ff-IO-O* staL 8+00 to 1 1+50/ left 750 ft. to 850 ft. 11472 105.7 @ 7.2 05/20/94 1970 Cell 146.0/area-1 4+00 to 8+00/rkgh t 50 ft. and left 50 ft. 0.0* - 5.0* stat 8+00 to 1 1+507 left 850 ft. to 950 ft. 9312 126.6 @ 7.7 144.5/area-2 2+00 to 3+00/rig fit 150 ft. and left 150ft. 138.0/area-3 4+00 to 8+00/rlght 350 ft. to 450 ft. Subtotals 50544 PROJECT DATE: COMP. BY: Of PROJECT N REMARKS: LAWRENCE-LYNCH CORP. .•"•* V. f \ SPC-21 2M9 .2*17 1970 CEU:' S**' ^5* 2610 \-S* $p;c-« x /^-s7^»1«, / '•»< MW • / ^2621 t SP C-3 f SPd-2 1% P/fc-12^, 2813 2607 SP SP C-10 281* / SP C-4 2CI2 / \SP C-11 -AIMDUOfl l LCGUH.. »4_ ,- PUN OF J970 CELL ^ sernoftxr PIATTORMS ^-, ™ AM HTtf ^f » • UU UUL, MASS. MIUTM? KESCRVAHON tt JMI COUP. MM • *f \Q*riKtjr.»* holm** tnt wveyotv Int. A* •t^Mvw *v4 tov •••••• mt*nm*n» _ f *"*i °*Q> in~ VfP.1 Lf'\ CAPlC P2CCT2 . Dl. Suto&AA PROJECT NOL: REMARKS: (2.000 LAWRENCE-LYNCH CORP. ON S PLAN Of 1970 CELL SETTLEMENT^PLATTORMS MASS. CORP. soitir-w holni** and mevon, me AV M^MMV Vl4 IHV IHWW j ) PLAN OF 1970 CELL MASS, MIUTM^RtSOtVATION lA*nENOE-LWO1 CORP. • i. PROJECT DATE: 7 Rj g>57 t <*/*,/ PROJECT N REMARKS: (JLL€\ LAWRENCE-LYNCH CORP. SP C-2 2809 SP V-C-19 SP C-B 2609 SP C-14 1970 CEW: SP 2S10 .C-13 2614 SP C-3 SP/C-/C1 2808 2813 7807 SP C-.17 ' SP C-101 'SPC-U I • 2619 / SP C-4 p»TC I oocyncM R t VI SI OH 5 PUN OF J970 SETTLCMENT PLATFORMS MASS. MILITAR? RESERVATION CORP. LAWRENCE-LYNCH CORP. PLAN OF 1»70 COL SETTUMDirVlAVOftMS |Ti\\>JEQT P2CCT. PROJECTNOl: (JLLC. LAWRENCE-LYNCH CORP. 21 SPC-7/ 2809 \ SP C-19 SP C-8 2609 SP C-14 1970 CEkL SP C-22 2810 ( SP.C-13 1814 2 MIC 1 DftOVKM H t. vis i OT^ PLAN OFJ970 CELL SCTUEMOir PLATFORMS MASS. MIUTAj7 RESERVATION LAWRENCE-LYNCH CORP. MM APPENDIX D CONTAMINATED SOIL STOCKPILE SCHEMATIC AT AOC CS-4 THERMAL TREATMENT SITE W0019571.080 7623-27 WEST TRUCK ROAD VC Pipe N. 275' LW-1 Leaching Well 1 i81 . : ' •• . i . : : LW-2 Leaching Well 2 . ' 72 i ; ; : i : ' , GR-1 Grease 1 Rack 1 361 : ; ' : < GR-3 Grease1 Rack 3 144 :UST Underground Stor. Tank 36 S-7 ;Sump7 : : ! w- ' ' , i , , i • ] • • • ' • FI/LW4 Fuel Island :144 • : M i ' . ! . • ' • • WR Wash Rack !90 ; j : ' • ' ! ; ' ' ! , i l ST Stat. 9+00/460 ft. S. ; ;26 ! : ; | ! • ' . ' ' ' : • \ ' : : i CPHW/S7 Clay Pipe Headwall 104 AOC" Area of Contamination 1926 [totals 13128 note: FS-25 soils not under AOC/CS-9 scope of work. PROJECT: DATE: COMP. BY: 06/13/94 C. Trombly, CS-9/Soil Removal Action Stockpile schematic at CS-4 TTU site PROJ. NO. REMARKS: 9302 NTS Lawrence-Lynch Corp. APPENDIX E PUBLIC NOTIFICATION NEWS RELEASE FOR REMEDIAL ACTION AT STUDY AREA CS-9 W0019571.080 7623-27 News Release INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM Massachusetts Military Reservation 197 Granville Avenue, Box 41 Otis ANGB, MA 02542-5028 (508) 968-4678, FAX (608) 968-4673 News Release Nr. 94-12 UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED April 14, 1994 Ten underground drainage structures and surrounding soils will be removed in the next ten days by the Lawrence Lynch Corp., of Falmouth. The structures and soils are located at the Chemical Spill 9 (CS-9) site, which is adjacent to the BMX Racetrack off of Connery Ave., and the Main Base Landfill (LF-1) site on the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR). All of the structures have had their contents tested and contaminants were identified in several of them. After the drainage structures are excavated, any impacted soils surrounding the structures will be removed, covered and stored temporarily at the adjacent LF-1 Capping Project Site. The covered soils will be treated using the soon to be operational thermal desorption unit for treating impacted soils from several locations on the MMR. An estimated 1,000 cubic yards of soil will be removed from CS-9. Air quality monitoring will be conducted to ensure that the work is done safely. This work has been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection which oversee the cleanup projects at the MMR. Once the structures and impacted soils are excavated, the remaining clean soil will be used as fill material for bringing the LF-1 cap up to the proper height. Two benefits are gamed by this action. An area of contamination is removed, and clean fill material is now made available from an on-base source at no additional cost. • -30 Written and released by Douglas C. Karson, Public Affairs Specialist Installation Restoration Program FIRST-CLASS MAO. ANGRC/CEVO US. POSTAGE 197 Granville Avenue, Box 41 PAID Otis ANGB, MA 02242-5028 OTIS ANO BASE MA PERMTTKO. 1 APPENDIX F CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS P-10 AND P-ll WITH COST ASSESSMENT FOR STUDY AREA CS-9 W0019571.080 7623-27 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AND THE AIR FORCE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU OFFICE OF THE U.S. PROPERTY AND FISCAL OFFICER, MASSACHUSETTS 143 SPEEN STREET, NATICK. MASSACHUSETTS 01780-2S99 October 3, 1994 ATTENTION OK MAAR-PFO-PO (715-k) Contracting Branch Memorandum for: Mr. Ed Pesce, Project Engr., IRPO, Otis ANGB, MA 02542 Asst. USPFO for Air (Fiscal), Otis ANGB, MA 02542-5001 Accounting & Finance Officer, USAF Hanscom AFB, MA 02061 Lawrence Lynch Corp./ Mr. Craig Trombly, 396 Gifford St., Falmouth MA 02540 SUBJECT: Contract Number DAHA19-93-C-0017 1. Enclosed for your information and action, if necessary is an approved copy of Modification #P00010 and Modification IP00011 for the referenced contract granting Lawrence Lynch an increase of $188,188.59 and $26,620.00 respectively. 2. Telephone inquiries should be directed to the undersigned at telephone numbers (508) 651-5746 or DSN: 256-5746 between the hours of 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday. FOR THE USPFO, MASS. William Devitt SFC, MA ARNG Contract Specialist (508) 651-5746 DSN: 256-5746 AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT J 1 ' 2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE P00010 09/21/94 MA.MIL-LAND-FILL F9IRP8426400 C 6. ISSUED BY CODE CUSPFO 7.AOMINISTEHEDBY(lfotherthanlteme) CODE | t y IKi'S**"/ USPFO FOR MASSACHUSETTS ATTN: CONTRACTING, ROOM Iff U3 SPEEN STREET NATICK MA 01760-2599 William B. Devitt C02C508) 651-5746 «. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county. State and ZIP Code) Vendor ID: 00003047 po (A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO. — LAURENCE LYNCH CORPORATION (B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11) MR. CRAIG TROMBLY 396 GIFFORD STREET 10 A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER • FALMOUTH MA 02540 DAHA19-93-C-0017 X • . 10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13) 06/18/93 CODE OHPL3 | FACILITY CODE 11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPUES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS [] The above numbered solicitation is amended as set lorth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers Q is extended, Q is not extan Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following r h (a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning „,__ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy flatri submitted; or (c) By separate loner or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWl •••"j MENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. H by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by t >c lener. provided each telegram or tetter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and to received prior to the opening hour and date t^ic ^2. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION OATA(lt rtquirtd) ' Mod Obligated Amount US $188,188.5^ 5743400 304 41D9 011013 04 53440 412201 13. THIS ITEM APPUES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS, 1 IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14. (X) A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10 B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes In paying office, ippropriitlon dattWc. SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103 (b). C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF: X Mutual Agreement . _ 0. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) E. IMPORTANT: Contractor n is not, H is required to sign this document and return 5 copies to the issuing office. 14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings. Including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.) a. Modification #10 issued to implement change orders 10 2 11 per the attached Statements of Work. C/0 #10 - $141,143.79/0/0 f11 - (47,044.80 for a total Increase of $188,188.59. b. Increase total contract price FROM: $8,180,842.19 TO: $8,369,030.78 (NET INCREASE OF $188,188.59 FOR CHANGE ORDERS *10 AND *11). E»cept«» provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item »A or 10 A. «i heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect ISA. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME ANO TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or pong MAJ STEPHEN A. GARANIN K02 V/illiajn_C). Dawes Project ka.na.e-er 1S8. isc. DATFSIGNED 168. UNITED STATES OF AMEfll BY SET (Signature of person authorized to «ion| 9/28/94 NSN 7S40-01-1SZ-1070 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV.1 PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE Prescribed by GSA 30-105 FAR(4tCFR)S3.243 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM (ANG) OTIS AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE. MA 02542-5028 21 Sep 94 Mr. Richard Fopiano USPFO Contracting Section 143 Speen Street Natick, MA 01760-2599 SUBJECT: CS-9 Remediation/Landfill Common Borrow Pit Enlargement Contract No. DAHA-19-93-C-0017, LF-1 Main Base Landfill Dear Mr. Fopiano: Recommend approval of the attached change orders to (1) provide the removal of the CS-9 drainage structures, and (2) allow the enlargement of the Landfill Common Borrow Pit. These proposed change orders will combine to allow the necessary removal of contamination sites at CS-9, and provide availability of common borrow (after CS-9 removal) materials at this site for placement on the landfill disposal cells as subgrade fill. This is consistent with the contract plans and specifications. The plans and specifications state that the contractor is to excavate approximately 100,000 cu. yds. of common borrow at this site and await further direction by the contracting officer/COR as to additional excavation area to be used. The Landfill Common Borrow Pit is the best site for enlargement for additional excavation and placement at the 1970 Cell due to its close proximity. Remediation of the CS-9 site is required first to allow this to occur. The CS-9 remediation involves the removal and demolition of leaching wells, former grease racks, and other drainage structures together with the removal of contaminated soils. Additionally soil sampling and analysis is needed to confirm clean closure of the excavations (see attached SOW). The recommended borrow pit enlargement involves the removal/demolition of existing building foundations, stripping of topsoil, and haul of the excavated debris to the 1970 disposal cell. This accomplishes the dual task of removal of undesirable materials, foundations, former concrete grease racks, etc., and using this material as subgrade fill. This in turn offsets the need for some common borrow in the amount of debris hauled and placed. The newly created common borrow area .now prepared, will then be excavated and paid via site survey computation as common borrow as per the contract bid price of $0.80/ cu. yd. Thank you for your help on this project, and please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, EDWARD L. PESCE, P.E. Environmental Engineer Attachments: 1. CS-9 SOW 2. Cost Estimate MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM STATEMENT OF WORK EXCAVATION AND REMOVAL OF DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND SOIL AT SITE CS-9 1. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the contract services to be provided, as described in this Statement of Work (SOW) is as follows: (1) first remove, drum, and dispose of off-site, any liquid contents and bottom sediments of 10 sump/leaching well structures containing waste oils or solvents, and (2) demolish, dismantle, excavate, and decontaminate these 9 sump structures and 4 additional grease rack structures, and crush and prepare for maximum size limitation, (3) excavate, load, and haul to a location to be designated (tentatively planned to be the CS-4 location on Base), soil, primarily petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated, from the 10 sump/drainage structures and 4 additional grease rack structures from the former World War II motor pool located off Connery Avenue known as Study Area Site CS-9. The remaining clean soils and decontaminated sump structure concrete (crushed) debris will then be used as common borrow material for the LF-1 Landfill Cap/Closure project. 2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: The former World War II motor pool is presently identified as Study Area CS-9 (Chemical Spill No. 9) as part of the Air National Guard Installation Restoration Program (IRP). The IRP has identified CS-9 as a site containing drainage structures, sediments, and soils contaminated primarily with petroleum hydrocarbon compounds. Site Inspection and the Phase I Sump Investigation Reports, which contain additional information on sump contents and surrounding soils, will be made available to the contractor. 3. SCOPE OF SERVICES: * 3.1. The contractor shall provide all facilities, equipment, labor, and personnel necessary to excavate or remove all soils and sediments associated with 14 total sump structures and leaching wells on the CS-9 Site. The contractor is also responsible for the demolition, decontamination, and disposal of the sump structures for use as common borrow material at the LF-1 Site. All existing concrete building foundations will be demolished as required to obtain access to soils to be excavated below sumps and leaching wells (after sump structures have'been emptied of existing liquids and sediments). All other concrete foundations at the CS-9 Site will be demolished per specification for placement as common borrow material at the LF-1 site. 3.2. The Contractor shall accomplish this SOW as follows: • Th econtractor shall remove any standing liquids and sediments from the drainage structures as applicable. These sump .contents shall be analyzed, drummed, and disposed of as a Hazardous Waste (KW) in accordance with State KW regulations - 310 CMR 30.00. The EPA Hazardous Waste Generator I.D. # to be used on all HW manifests and associated documentation is MA2570024487. The contractor will coordinate with the IRP office to obtain Official Generator signatures from the Base EMO in Bldg #197 for all manifests. The COR will review contents of all wastes with the contractor prior to removal off-Base. • Th econtractor shall decontaminate the drainage structures/ concrete by pressure wash (water) of all surfaces. Decontamination water will be collected, analyzed and disposed of as a HW (as above) if applicable. Non - HW wash liquids will be drummed or collected at the contractor's option, and treated, using the method approved by the EPA via two 55 Gal. drums (in series) of activated carbon. This system is that commonly used on MMR for monitoring well purge water/groundwater (Note: the approved method/treatment protocol is as per letter from the EPA dated November 20, 1994, Re: Proposal to Discharge Treated Groundwater - copy attached). Decontaminated concrete/sump structure debris will be crushed and demolished to a 4ft. maximum size and placed at the contractor's discretion on the LF-1 disposal cells (1970, Post - 1970, and Kettle Hole cells) for use as common borrow material. • Al lexisting building foundations and site paving, not associated with contaminated structures, will be removed, crushed, and demolished to 4ft. maximum size. All material will be placed on the LF-1 disposal cells for use as common borrow. • Th econtractor shall excavate all soil surrounding the 'drainage structures. Actual quantities of soil removed shall be measured from the in-place excavation limits, and shall serve as the basis of quantities for payment. All excavated soil shall be sampled for analysis and temporarily stockpiled Ill in the LF-l/CS-9 vicinity. To prevent surface water infiltration, this temporary stockpile shall be covered with plastic sheeting or other suitable material and inspected daily, until arrangements are made at a later date for movement and treatment at the CS-4 location via the pending Thermal Desorption System by others. The excavated soil shall be sampled for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TFH) - EPA Method #418.1 (modified), and Trace Metals (ICP/AA analysis). Additionally, the excavated soil shall be sampled for TCLP Metals if directed by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR). The contractor's QA/QC Officer and the COR shall jointly review existing analytical data for the structures prior to initiating the work, in order to physically mark the work areas at specific structures. Excavated soils which will be sent to the CS-4 Thermal Treatment system will be evaluated, based on the soil sampling and analysis, for suitability of treatment by thermal desorption. Those soils found to be unsuitable will be disposed of as a HW off base. Excavation and Pay Limits for each drainage structure, based on previous investigative efforts, are contained in Table 1. These excavation and pay limits are estimates for the purposes of determining the scope of services. The actual excavation effort will be determined as follows: a. Excavate soils to the depth shown on Table 1, or to a depth demonstrated to be clean by the following methods: (1) by visual inspection of stained soil and (2) by Head - Space soil sample measurement of total VOC's of 10 PPM or less by use of a photo-ionization detector (PID). b. The contractor shall use all necessary care and caution to ensure that any additional excavation of clean soil, as may be necessary during site work, shall not become commingled with contaminated material. When the bottom of the excavation has been reached, based on the inspection and measurements described above, the contractor shall obtain and conduct laboratory analysis of soil samples from the bottom and sides of the excavation to confirm the remaining soil as "clean* prior to backfill. This confirmatory field sampling shall be conducted using sound field sampling techniques, utilizing care in sampling to prevent cross- contamination of samples by use of disposable or properly decontaminated sampling apparatus after each individual sample collection event, use of laboratory provided sampling containers, sampling chain of custody documentation, etc. This confirmatory soil sampling shall be conducted and analyzed per reference - "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA SW-846" as follows: a. 3 VOC samples - 1 grab from the bottom of the excavation - 1 sample each from the inlet and outlet of the structure, or from the location(s) at or below the contaminated soil which was removed as applicable (2 total). - US EPA Method #8260 (lowest detection level) b. Semivolatile Organics - 1 composite sample of the bottom and sidewall soils from the same areas sampled for VOC's. US EPA Method # 8270. c. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) 1 composite sample as described in b. above. US EPA Method # 418.1 (modified) 30 ppm DL d. Inorganics (Trace Metals) - 1 composite soil sample for trace metals from locations described in b. above-. (ICP/AA analysis) e. TCLP Pesticides - 1 composite sample as in item c. above. US EPA Method # 1311 and # 8080 - Organochlorine Pesticides and PCB's. f. Appropriate laooratory assurance and performance data must also accompany the analytical results to confirm the validity of results as per US EPA SWR-846, Third Edition. After laboratory analysis is received, the COR will confirm or deny each site as clean and advise the contractor for follow on action as appropriate. This clean site determination will be made based on the acceptable Soil Target Clean-up Levels (STCL's) or acceptable standards from the USEPA and MA DEP. The contractor shall be compensated at the unit cost per cubic yard for all additional excavation if required at this point. When clean closure for each drainage structure location has been achieved, the contractor shall backfill each location, to the maximum extent possible, with any clean soil removed during the drainage structure remediation. It is not necessary to achieve original grade elevations and no vegetative stabilization of the CS-9 site is required. The contractor shall observe Health & Safety (H&S) guidelines contained in the approved H&S Plan for the LF-1 project. Additionally, the contractor shall establish a suitable exclusionary zone around all excavation during activities. The contractor shall begin all excavation activities in Personal Protection Level "C", Modified (without the wearing of a protective mask), and upgrade the protection level as required. Note: This includes all individuals working in the exclusion zone and stockpile areas. The contractor shall prepare a letter amending the LF-1 HASP as appropriate, indicating narrative instructions for personnel protection, personnel and equipment decontamination procedures, etc. The contractor shall submit a Site Remediation and Closure Report documenting all remedial activities at the CS-9 Site. The Report shall include a narrative summary of all activities, copies of the contractor's daily reports, and all field analytical and laboratory testing results. , 4. PROJECT COST PROPOSAL. The contractor shall submit a cost proposal for this SOW as follows: A. A unit cost per gallon (drummed) for all sediment and liquids removal from sumps. B. A cost per cubic yard for contaminated soil excavated, temporarily stockpiled/covered, and hauled to the CS-4 location, when directed, for ultimate treatment. C. A unit cost per soil sample for TCLP Metals. » D. A unit cost per cubic yard for HW soil disposal off- Base. E. A unit cost per gallon for HW decon/wash water disposal AND a unit cost per gallon for non-HW-water to . be collected and treated with activated carbon. F. Lump sum cost shall be provided for all remaining items such as, but not limited to, associated Personnel Protective Equipment, decontamination facilities/operation, stockpile covering, field screening of soils, field sampling/laboratory analysis of soils, backfill of excavations, and report preparation. G. A separate lump sum cost shall be provided for all concrete demolition activities, including placement of debris on the LF-1 site. TABLE 1. EXCAVATION AND PAY LIMITS Dry Well 1 12' 12' 12' 3.6 Dry Well 2 12' 12' '18' 100 5.5 Dry Well 3 12' 12' 12' 65 3.6 Dry Well 4 12' 12' 12' 65 3.6 Sump 5 12' 12' 30' 160 8.8 Sump 6 12' 12' 12* 65 3.6 Sump 7 12* 12* 12* 65 3.6 Sump 8 12' 12' 12' 65 3.6 Grease 125' 15' 10' 695 45.7 Fuel Island 30' 20' 12' 270 14.8 Wash Rack 12' 12' 12' 65 3.6 TOTAL 1680 100.0 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION I 4.F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02203-2211 November 20, 1992 Daniel Santos, Project Manager NGB/DEVR/OLO Building 868 Otis ANG Base, MA 02542 Re: Proposal to Discharge Treated Groundwater Dear Mr. Santos: This office is in receipt of your letter and supporting information dated October 26, 1992 which proposed the method -for the discharge of treated groundwater at the Massachusetts Military Reservation. Based upon our review of this information, which included the results of the pilot test which indicated no detectable levels of contamination, and a conference call which was held on November 12, 1992, it was agreed that the following protocol would be acceptable to this office: (1) all water withdrawn from wells will be pumped into a holding tank. (2) the water will be pumped to two granular activated carbon canisters which will be placed in series. (3) at a minimum, effluent samples from the second canister will be taken every 2000 gallons, or once per day. (4) if the sampling results indicate that MCLs have been exceeded, the water will be held in the holding tank while the canisters are replaced. If more than one set of canisters is being used in parallel, samples will be analyzed between the two canisters to determine which •canisters require replacement. (5) if the results of drilling indicate that an area of high contamination has been reached, the sampling frequency will be increased. . If you have any questions relative to the above information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (617) 573-5793. Sincerely yours, (^jJ^k-. tyfa*ii***dK4tAsl Paul N. Marchessault, Remedial Project Manager Federal Facilities Superfund Section cc: Carl Wheeler, HAZWRAP Lorie Baker, HAZWRAP Bret Sullivan, HAZWRAP Steve Fleming, HAZWRAP Greg Kemp, COM Jane Connet, TRC James Begley, MA DEP Meghan Cassidy, EPA CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE BREAKDOWN 396 FALMOUTH, MA 02540 LF-1 MAIN BASE LANDFILL CAP/CLOSURE PROJECT PROPOSED TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE | $47,046.23 PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 06 PROJECT NO. SPBN937800 WORK LOCATION LF-1CB Pit Expansion MATERIAL COST LABOR COST OTHER LINE ITEM UNIT OF OUANTTTY UNIT TOTAL MANHOURS/ AVERAGE TOTAL DIRECT LINE TOTAL NO. I lEASURt MANDAYS RATE COSTS CONCRETE RAD 3200 DAYS BREAKUP HOE-RAM (RENTAL) NA 6 $1.997.60 $11.985.60 $1.000.00 $12.985.60 LOAD A TRANSPORT FOREMAN NA 4 $480.00 $1.920.00 $1.920.00 FRONT END LOADER NA 8 $1.092.87 $8.742.94 $8.742.94 END DUMPS (2) NA 8 $1.310.08 $10.480.64 $10.480.64 SPREAD AND COVER BULLDOZER NA 4 $1,188.00 $4.752.00 $4,752.00 SUBTOTAL $37.881.18 $1.000.00 $38,881.18 TOTAL MATERIAL COST TOTAL LABOR COST J37.881.18 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS 11.000.00 TOTAL DIRECT COST $38.881.18 OVERHEAD 10% J3.88B.12 UNIT COST $14.70 SUBTOTAL £42.769.30 PROFIT 10% t4.276.93 TOTAL PRICE t47.046.23 DATE: )9 5g/>y FIRM NAME: LA1 TITLE: "Pfcojger BY: INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING AF FORM 3062 Col I Item. Description of materials required, work to be done, special equipment needed, etc. Breakdown should be In cufficieot detan to permit hemtemg of all direct costs. Col a Unit of Measure. Description of the unit in which each teem is to be estimated <*x*mpU*-tqi*r* ymrdt-SY. auUe yints-CY. tqutrt ftet-SF. Hn«fr/tfi~LF. eoertf fttt-BF. meH-EA.\ Col 3 Quantity. Contractor* estimate of quantity required la term* of mlt of measure (column 3J. Items Mid emits of mea*ure wffl be fur nished by Ike Government. Quantity estimate* wfll be furnished by the Government only when It M anticipated that a unit price contract will be issued. Otherwise, the contractor is responsible for determining quantity estimates. Col 4 and S Material Costs. Enter unit cost (Col 4) of material to be supplied and total cost (col 5) for hem listed in column 1. Col t. 7 and I Labor Costs. Enter in col 6 the animated number of manhours or manday* needed to perform the work listed in column 1. Enter in col 1 the average rate per manhour Imatday) and in col S the total labor con. Col • Other Direct Costs. Enter estimated costs of special equipment and other hems fltttta In column /; which are special to the contract and of aignifieani dollar value. Col 10 Line Total. Self-explanatory. NOTE: In addition to other totals entered on various pages, the grand total of column 10, plus overhead and profit wfll be shown on the last page as follows. TOTAL MATERIAL COSTS TOTAL LABOR COSTS TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS . 1000 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS OVERHEAD JD SUBTOTAL PROFIT /n TOTAL PRICE DATE 2O TITLE INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS 1. The purpose of this form U to provide a standard format by which the offerer submits to the Government a summary of incurred and estimated costi (nut trucked tufporting Information) suitable for detailed review and analysis. Prior to the award of a contract resulting from this proposal the offerer Shall, under the conditions stated In ASPR 3-S07.3, be required to submit a certificate of current coat or pricing data lift ASfK U07.3(t) mna J-907.4). 2. In addition to the specific Information required by this form, the offerer b expected, in good faith, to incorporate In and submit wtth this form any additional data, supporting schedules, or substantiation which are reasonably required for the conduct of nn appropriate review and anilytu in the light of the specific facts of this procurement, l-or effective negotiations. It is essential that there be a clear understanding of a. The csjstmg. verifiable data. b. The judgmental factors applied in projecting from known data to the estimate, and c. The contingencies used by the offerer in bis propoeed price. In short, the offerer's estimating process itself need* to be disclosed. 3. When attachment of supporting coat or pricing data to this form is impracticable, the date wfll be described (wirfi jc*«ch/Je»«tf tfproprlttt). aad made available to the contracting officer or his authorized representative upon request. 4. toy submission of this proposal the offerer grants to the contracting officer, or his authorised representative, the right to examine, for the purpose of verifying the cost or pricing data submitted, thoee books, records, documents and other supporting data which wOl permit adquate rvaluatloa of such cost or pricing data, along with the computations and projections used thereto. This right may be exercised to connection with any negotiations prior to contract award. *"**' • U.S. COVC MNJCirT M1MTIMC OPTlCd 1MS-?4D-tT*tt13*e OMB No. 0704 0193 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE BREAKDOWN Exptrrs 31 Orwhrr 19*9 CONTRACT PON (Work to btpt'fomtd) £. /VF Form 1 NO. "" ' REQUEST FOR PURCHASE , ~ - F9IRP84 2640300 INSTALLATION DATE 102FW/MA 21 SEPT., 1994 TO: CONTRACTING OFFICER CLASS USP&FO THROUGH CONTRACT. PURCHASE ORDER OR DELIVERY 102RMS/AC ORDER NO. . FROM: (Insert RC/CC, If tpplicablc) ANGRC/CEVRO stS9//*?* f)SS/3 SJ IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE SUPPLIES AND SERVICES ENUMERATED BELOW AND IN THE ATTACHED LIST. BE PURCHASED FOR FOR DELIVERY TO NOT LATER THAN INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM BLDG.197 ITEM DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL OR SERVICES TO BE PURCHASED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST 1. FURNISH AND INSTALL ALL MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, LABOR, TRANSPORTATION, ETC. NECESSARY TO EXCAVAT1 AND REMEDIATE THE AREA KNOWN AS CS-9. $141,143 79 $141,143 PROJECT NO. SPBN 947814 CS-9 REMEDIATION FUNDING LF-1 CHANGE ORDER "J/?//^/^— ?3—^ "" 0Q/3~ t syvzwo $ 1 SITE SAFETY MATERIALS & SPECIALIZED DECON EQUIPMENT 4' CONSTRUCTION FENCE EACH 6 $46.00 $276.00 $276.00 4' CAUTION TAPE EACH 8 $12.00 $96.00 $96.00 6 MIL POLY EACH 6 $48.50 $291.00 $291.00 6 MIL POLY (40X100) EACH 3 $80.00 $240.00 $240.00 8 MIL REIFORCED POLY EACH 12 $193.00 $2,316.00 $2.316.00 10 MIL POLY EACH 25 $50.30 $1,257.50 $1,257.50 17 H DRUMS EACH 10 $21.00 $210.00 $210.00 CALIBRATION GAS EACH 1 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 SAMPLING BOTS & PLASTIC TANK LPSM 1 $717.50 $717.50 $717.50 RESPIRATOR EQUIPMENT ft SUPPLIES LPSM 0.5 $193.00 $96.50 $96.50 TYVEK TOTAL BODY COVERALLS EACH 55 $5.30 $291.50 $291.50 R. GLOVES.R BOOTS. SAFETY GLASSES LP.SM 1 $186.40 $186.40 $186.40 DECON SPRAYER & PRESSURE SUPPLIES LPSM 0.5 $844.00 $422.00 $422.00 PORTABLE DECON TUB EACH 0.5 $150.00 $75.00 $75.00 SUBTOTAL $8,525.40 $0.00 $0.00 $6.525.40 2 EXCAVATION (REMEDIATION! DAYS EXCAVATE BACKHOE 11 $686.96 $7.556.60 $7.556.60 LABORER W/TRUCK 11 $332.12 $3.653.32 $3.653.32 FLD. SCRNG. & DOCUMENTATION $315.00 11 $506.20 $5.568.20 $5,883.20 TRANSPORT 10 WHEELER 11 $404.25 $4.446.73 $4.446.73 SUBTOTAL $315.00 $21.224.85 $0.00 $21.539.85 3 DECON (CONCRETE & EQUIPMENT) DAYS CONSTRUCT DECON AREA SOFT 5000 $0.21 $1.037.50 $1,037.50 DECON CRANE 6 $762.77 $4.576.63 $4.576.63 1 LABORER 4 PICKUP 4 $332.12 $1.328.48 $1,328.48 LOAD & HAUL CONCR. 1 2 END DUMP TO HAUL CONC. 2 $1,506.59 $3.013.18 $3.013.18 CAT 980 TO LOAD END DUMP 2 $1.095.17 $2.190.34 $2,190.34 SUBTOTAL $1.037.50 $11.108.63 $0.00 $12.146.13 4 CONFIRM. SAMPLING <2 dav TAT^ 15 LOCATIONS HOURS VOLATILES (8260) low level TEST 45 $249.38 111.222.10 10 $50.62 $506.20 $11.728.30 S. VOLATILES (8270) TEST 15 $525.00 $7.875.00 5 $50.62 $253.10 $8,128.10 TCLP: PESTICIDES TEST 15 $249.09 $3.736.35 5 $50.62 $253.10 $3,989.45 INORGANICS (23 TAL Metals) TEST 15 $301.88 $4.528.20 5 $50.62 $253.10 $4,781.30 TCLP Metals TEST 15 ' $193.59 $2,903.85 5 $50.62 $253.10 $3,156.95 . TPH-IR TEST 15 $96.44 $1.476.60 5 $50.62 $253.10 $1.729.76 GREASE RACK-1 STPL LPSM 1 $2.018.00 $2.018.00 2 $50.62 $101.24 $2,119.24 JHA1N OF CUST. & DOCUMENTATION 16 $50.62 $809.92 $809.92 SUBTOTAL $33.760.10 $2,682.86 $0.00 $36.442.96 MJU DISPOSAL (UNIT PRICE COST PER BoJL JECON WATER (INCLUDES HRS. FOR VAC TRK) GALN 605 $1.19 $719.95 $719.95 STEEL DRAIN LINES DRUM 4 $191.00 $764.00 $764.00 JST CONTENTS (INaUDES MRS FOR VAC TRK) GALN 220 $3.01 $662.20 $662.20 SUBTOTAL $2,146.15 $0.00 $0.00 $2,146.15 6 MOVE STOCKPILE TO CS-4 days TRAILERS (4) 4 1 $1.984.99 $1.984.99 $1,984.99 FRONT END LOADER 1 1 $1.092.87 $1.092.87 $1.092.87 LABORER VWPU 1 1 $332.12 $332.12 $332.12 SUBTOTAL $0.00 $3,409.08 $0.00 $3.409.98 7 UST CLOSURE _^ HOURS R&DTANK BACKHOE 2 $85.87 $171.74 $171.74 INERT & DISPOSE OF UST LPSM $600.00 $600.00 EXC. CONT. SOIL & TRANS BACKHOE 5 $85.87 $429.35 $429.35 10 WHEELER 5 $50.53 $252.66 $252.66 LABORER W/PU 1 5 $41.52 $207.58 $207.58 FIELD SCREENING/C OF C HR 2 $50.62 $101.24 $101.24 RAD TANK CONTENTS ~ PUMP CONTENTS DRUMS 4 $21.00 $84.00 3 $41.52 $124.54 $208.55 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL WORK VGA'S (8260) 2 $249.38 $498.76 $498.76 SVOA'S (8270) ^ (525.00 $525.00 $525.00 PESTICIDES 1 $246.09 $246.09 $246.09 TPH-IR (418.1) 1 $98.44 $98.44 $98.44 23 TAL METALS (INORGANICS) 1 $301.88 $301.88 $301.88 SUBTOTAL $1.764.17 $1,287.11 $600.00 $3,641.28 1 ' • 8 QUAY PIP5 REMOVAL (CLEAN! IANHOURS BACKHOE LF 335 8 $85.87 $686.96 $686.96 LABORER W/PU 8 $41.52 $332.12 $332.12 LOAD & TRANSPORT LF 335 1 $136.61 $136.61 $136.61 BACKHOE 1 $85.87 $85.87 $85.87 LABORER W/PU 2 $41.52 $83.03 $83.03 10 WHEELER 1 $50.53 $50.53 $50.53 SUBTOTAL $0.00 $1.375.12 $0.00 $1,375.12 9 CLAY PIPE REMOVAL (CONTAMINATED) /IANHOURS EXCAVATE CONT: SOILS BACKHOE LF 375 8 $85.87 $686.96 $686.96 LABORER W/PU 8 $41.52 $332.12 $332.12 FIELD SCREENING/C OF C HR 4 $50.62 $202.48 $202.48 TRANS. CONT. SOIL 10 WHEELER 8 $50.53 $404.25 $404.25 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL WORK VOA'S (8260) 2 $249.38 $498.76 $498.76 SVGA'S (8270) 1 (525.00 $525.00 $525.00 PESTICIDES 1 $246.09 $246.09 $246.09 TPH-IR (418.1) 1 $98.44 $98.44 $98.44 23 TAL METALS (INORGANICS) 1 $301.88 ^$301.88 $301.88 SUBTOTAL - $1,670.17 $1.625.81 $0.00 $3,295.98 10 STAT 9+09. 460 FT. SOUTH AANHOURS EXC. CONT. SOIL BACKHOE 0.5 $85.87 $42.94 $42.94 TPH-IR (418.1) 1 $98.44 $98.44 $98.44 SUBTOTAL $98.44 $42.94 $0.00 $141.38 11 MH q SUMP -7 MANHOURS EXCAVATE CONT. SOILS BACKHOE 3 $85.87 $257.61 $257.61 LABORER W/PU 1 3 $41.52 $124.54 $124.54 R4D CLEAN MH 10 WHEELER 1 $50.53 $50.53 $50.53 SUBTOTAL $0.00 $432.69 $0.00 $432.69 12 LOW AREA (TEST PITTING! MANHOURS BACKHOE 1 $85.87 $85.87 $85.87 VOA'S (8260) 1 $249.38 $249.38 $249.38 SVGA'S (8270) 1 $525.00 $525.00 * $525.00 TPH-IR (418.1) 1 $98.44 $98.44 $98.44 SUBTOTAL $872.82 $85.87 $0.00 $958.69 13 AREA OF CONTAMINATION ANHOURS . , EXCAVATE CONT. SOILS CUYD 1926 BACKHOE 8 $85.87 $686.96 $686.96 CAT 330 16 $180.30 $2.884.75 $2.884.75 LABORER VWPU 24 $85.87 $2.060.89 $2.060.89 10 WHEELER (3) 24 $105.66 $2.535.89 $2,535.89 FRONT END LOADER 3.5 $136.90 $479.14 $479.14 FIELD SCREENING/C OF C 24 $50.62 $1,214.88 $1.214.88 BACKFILL MANHOURS CATD8 8 $154.38 $1.235.01 $1.235.01 FRONT END LOADER 8 $136.90 $1.095.17 $1.095.17 2 END DUMPS 8 $188.32 $1.506.59 $1,506.59 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL WORK VGA'S (8260) 3 $249.38 $748.14 $748.14 SVGA'S (8270) 1 $525.00 $525.00 $525.00 PESTICIDES 1 $246.09 $246.09 $246.09 TPH-IR (418.1) 1 $98.44 $98.44 $98.44 23 TAL METALS (INORGANICS) 1 $301.88 $301.88 $301.88 SUBTOTAL $1.019.55 $13.699.28 $0.00 $15.618.63 14 GREASE RACK <2 MANHOURS EXCAVATE/TEST PITS BACKHOE - 3 $85.87 $257.61 $257.61 R&D/CLEAN CONC. OR'S CRANE 2 $95.35 $190.69 $190.69 END DUMPS 1 $94.16 $94.16 $94.16 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL WORK VGA'S (8260) 2 $249.38 $498.76 $498.76 SVGA'S (8270) 1 $525.00 $525.00 $525.00 PESTICIDES 1 $246.09 $246.09 $246.09 TPH-IR (418.1) 1 $98.44 $98.44 $98.44 23 TAL METALS (INORGANICS) 1 $301.88 $301.88 - $301.88 SUBTOTAL $1.670.17 $542.47 $0.00 $2,212.64 15 GREASE RACK* 3 EXCAVATE CONT. SOILS BACKHOE 8 $85.87 $686.96 $686.96 LABORER W/PU 1 3 $41.52 $124.54 $124.54 TRANSPORT 10 WHEELER 8 $50.53 $404.25 $404.25 DECON CONC./R&D CRANE 3 $95.35 $286.04 $286.04 END DUMPS 1 $94.16 $94.16 $94.16 LABORER W/PU 1 3 $41.52 $124.54 $124.54 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL WORK VGA'S (82601 2 $249.38 $498.76 $0.00 $498.76 SVGA'S (8270) 1 $525.00 $525.00 $0.00 $525.00 PESTICIDES 1 $246.09 $246.09 $0.00 $246.09 TPH-IR (418.1) 1 $98.44 $98.44 $0.00 $98.44 SUBTOTAL $1,368.29 $1.720.50 $0.00 $3,088.79 * 16 GREASE RACK f4 TEST PITS BACKHOE 4 $85.87 $343.48 $343.48 DECON/R&D CLEAN CONC. CRANE 2 $95.35 $190.69 $190.69 END DUMPS 1 $94.16 $94.16 $94.16 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL WORK VGA'S (8260) 2 $249.38 $498.76 $498.76 SVGA'S (8270) 1 $525.00 $525.00 $525.00 PESTICIDES 1 $246.09 $246.09 $246.09 TPH-IR (418.1) 1 $98.44 $98.44 $98.44 23 TAL METALS (INORGANICS) 1 $301.88 $301.88 $301.88 SUBTOTAL $1.670.17 $628.34 $0.00 $2,298.51 17 STOCKPILE MAINTENANCE MANHOURS LABORER 42.5 $32.32 $1.373.39 $1.373.39 SUBTOTAL $1.373.39 $0.00 $1,373.39 GRAND TOTAL $54.807.93 $61.239.83 $600.00 $116.647.76 TOTAL MATERIAL COST 154.807.93 TOTAL LABOR COST S61.239.83 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS SfiQ&QQ TOTAL DIRECT COST 1116.647.76 OVERHEAD 10% S11.664.78 SUBTOTAL 3j128.312.S4 PROFIT 10% 112.831.25 TOTAL PRICE J141.143.79 DATE: August 15.1994 FIRM NAME: WRENCE-LYNCHCORP TITLE: Project Manager BY: William C. Dawes OMB No. 0704-019J CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE BREAKDOWN Explrei3IOciolxrl9lt9 CONTNACT row (Work la btptrfonntd) co TOTAL C'ONT'HACT PRICK F -i . Soft, a?/ I ir rl ,«eJ