Shemyaafr,Alaska 1992IRPFIELD INVESTIGATIONREPORT

EM0-1096 VOL 1

ShemyaAFR,Alaska 1992IRPFIELD INVESTIGATIOREPN ORT Volume 1 of 4 TECHNICAL

..,

FINAL February1993

preparedfor U.S.Air Force IO ElmendorfAFB,Alaska 11th AirControlWing 1lth CivilEngineeringOperationsSquadron UnderContractDEU-91-06

Preparedby CH2MHILL RC.Box8748 Boise,Idaho83707

For EnvironmentalManagementOperations Undera RelatedServicesAgreement withtheU.S.Departmentof Energy EnvironmentalManagementOperations Richland,Washington99352

j OtSTR|BUTIOPJ 0_:: ii-tIU L_OCuiviENT iL, ',..;;'-,_;;;.,.';,:{:1;"

,. FINAL

I i i NOTICE i

This report has been prepared for the United States Air Force by CH2M HILL for the purpose of aiding in the implementation of a final remedial action plan under the Air Force Installation Restoration Program (IRP). As the report relates to actual or possible releases of potentially hazardous substances, its release prior to an Air Force final decision on remedial action may be in the public's interest. The limited objectives of this report and the ongoing nature of the IRP, along with the evolving knowledge of site conditions and chemical effects on the environment and health, must be considered when evaluating this report, since subsequent facts may become known which may make this report premature or inaccurate. Acceptance of this report in performance of the contract under which it is prepared does not mean that the Air Force adopts the conclusions, recommendations or other views expressed herein, which are those of the contractor only and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the United States Air Force.

Government agencies and their contractors registered with the Defense TechnicalInformationCenter (DTIC) should direct requestsfop copies of.this report to: Defense Technical InformationCenter (DTIC), Cameron Station,Alexandria, VA 22304-6145.

Nongovernment agencies may purchase copies of this document from: NationalTechnicalInformationServices (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,VA 22161.

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Governmentnor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi- bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer- ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. O 10010D5F.BOI/]c 26 February 1993 FINAL

CONTENTS 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... xvi

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1.1

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ...... 1.1

1.2 BACKGROUND ...... 1.1

1.2.1 Description and History of Shemya AFB ...... 1.1

1.3 AIR FORCE INSTALLATION RESTORATIONPROGRAM ...... 1.7

1.3.1 Introduction ...... 1.7 1.3.2 History of Installation Restoration Program on Shemya ...... 1.7 1.3.3 Other Investigations ...... 1.9

1.4 HISTORYAND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 1.11

1.4.1 Physiography ...... 1.11

O 1.4.2 Cultural Geography ...... 1.11 1.5 GEOLOGY ...... 1.12

1.5.1 Geologic Setting ...... 1.12 1.5.2 Bedrock Geology ...... 1.12 1.5.3 Surficial Geology ...... 1.15

1.6 HYDROLOGY ...... 1.16

1.6.1 Surface Water ...... 1.16 1.6.2 Groundwater ...... 1.18 1.6.3 Groundwater Quality ...... 1.18

1.7 AIR QUALITY ...... 1.22

1.8 MINERAL RESOURCES ...... 1.22

1.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 1.23

O 10010,3D4B, OI/ji ii 26 February1993 FINAL

CONTENTS (Continued)

1.10 BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY ...... 1.23 Q

1.10.1 Communities and Habitats ...... 1.23 1.10.2 Environmentally Sensitive Areas ...... 1.23 1.10.3 Endangered Species ...... 1.24 1.10.4 Economic Species ...... 1.24

1.11 CLIMATOLOGY/METEOROLOGY ...... 1.24

1.11.1 Precipitation ...... 1.24 1.11.2 Temperature ...... 1.25 1.11.3 Wind ...... 1.25 1.11.4 Evaporation ...... 1.25

2.0 1992 FIELD SEASON ...... 2.1

2.1 SITES INVESTIGATEDIN 1992 ...... 2.3

2.1.1 Water Gallery ...... 2.3 2.1.2 Fire Training Sites ...... 2.3 2.1.3 •Solid Waste Disposal Sites 2.4 2.1.4 Petroleum SpiliSites " 2.5 " 0 2.2 FIELD METHODOLOGIES USED ...... 2.6

2.2.1 Geophysics ...... 2.6 2.2.2 Surface Sampling...... 2.9 2.2.3 Backhoe Pits ...... 2.9 2.2.4 Soil Borings ...... 2.9 2.2.5 Well Points...... 2.10 2.2.6 MonitoringWells ...... 2.10 2.2.7 LakeSampling ...... 2.10 2.2.8 Surveying ...... 2.11

2.3 ANALYTICALMETHODS ...... 2.11

2.4 SAMPLES COLLECTEDAND ANALYZED ...... 2.12

2.5 QUALITYASSURANCE/QUALITYCONTROL ...... 2.12

2.5.1 Data Validation...... 2.12 2.5.2 Representativeness " 2.15

I ' II I I / 100109D4.BOI/ji iii 26 February 1993 FINAL

CONTENTS (Continued)

2.5.3 Comparability ...... 2.15 2.5.4 Accuracy ...... 2.17 2.5.5 Precision ...... , ...... 2.17 2.5.6 Completeness ...... 2.18 2.5.7 ' Laboratory Blanks ...... 2.18 2.5.8 Summary of Data Usability ...... 2.18

2.6 AUDITS PERFORMED ...... 2.18

2.6.1 Quality Assurance Audits ...... 2.19 2.6.2 Health and Safety Audit ...... 2.19

2.7 RISK ASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS ...... 2.19

2.7.1 Introduction ...... 2.19 2.7.2 Development of Human Health Preliminary Risk Levels ... 2.20 2.7.3 Development of Ecological Preliminary Risk Levels ...... 2.21

3.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICSAND NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION ...... 3.1

O 3.1 BACKGROUND SAMPLES " 3.1 3.2 WATER GALLERY ...... 3.1

3.2.1 Site Background ...... 3.1 3.2.2 Prgvious Investigations ...... 3.13 3.2.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.16 3.2.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 3.39 3.2.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment ...... 3.39 3.2.6 Future Actions ...... 3.43

3.3 FIRE TRAINING SITE 1: LIGHTNING STRIKE (FT-l) ...... 4.43

3.3.1 Site Background ...... 3.43 3.3.2 Previous investigations ...... 3.44 3.3.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.47 3.3.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 3.51 3.3.5 Prelimina_yRisk Assessment ...... 3.64 3.3.6 Future Actions ...... 3.64

ii ii 100109D4.BOI/ji iv 26 February 1993 FINAL

CONTENTS (Continued)

3.4 FIRE TRAINING SITE 2: AIRCRAFT MOCKUP (FT-2) ...... 3.66

3.4.1 Site Background ...... 3.66 3.4.2 Previous Investigations...... 3.68 3.4.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.68 3.4.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 3.92 3.4.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment ...... 3.92 3.4.6 Future Actions ...... 3.98

3.5 FIRE TRAINING SITE 3: FIRE DEPARTMENTSTRUCTURAL TRAINING AREA (FT-3) ...... 3.99

3.5.1 Site Backqround ...... ' ...... 3.99 3,5.2 PreviousI:westigations...... 3.99 3.5.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.100 3,5.4 Nature and Extentof Contamination...... 3.100 3,5.5 PreliminaryRiskAssessment ...... 3,106 3.5.6 FutureActions ...... 3.106

3.6 SOLID WASTE SITE SW-4: BARRELDUMP ...... 3.106

3.6.1 Site Background • _...... 3.106 O 3.6.2 PreviousInvestigations...... 3.108 3.6.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.108 3,6.4 Nature and Extentof Contamination ...... 3.123 3,6.5 PreliminaryRisk Assessment ...... 3.124 3,6.6 FutureActions ...... 3.1;Z4

3.7 SOLID WASTE SITE SW-5: HOSPITALLAKE ...... 3.125

3.7.1 Site Background ...... 3.125 3,7.2 PreviousInvestigations...... 3.126 3,7.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.126 3,7.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 3.135 3.7,5 PreliminaryRisk Assessment ...... 3,135 3.7.6 FutureActions ...... 3.135

3.8 SOLID WASTE SITE SW-10: BARRELBAY ...... 3.137

3.8.1 Site Background ...... 3.137 3,8.2 PreviousInvestigations...... 3.137 3,8.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.138

I II __ I 100109D4.BOI/jl V 26 February 1993 FINAL

CONTENTS (Continued)

3.8.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 3.144 3.8.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment ...... 3.166 3.8.6 Future Actions ...... 3.166

3.9 SOLID WASTE SITE SW-12: SCRAP METAL DISPOSAL SITE ... 3.167

3.9.1 Site Background ...... 3.167 3.9.2 Previous Investigations ...... 3.167 3.9.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.168 3.9.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 3.173 3.9.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment ...... 3.191 3.9.6 Future Actions ...... 3.191

3.10 SOLID WASTE SITE SW-14: SCRAP METAL LANDFILL ...... 3.194

3.10.1 Site Background ...... 3.194 3.10.2 Previous Investigations ...... 3.194 3.10.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.194 3.10.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 3.197 3.10.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment ...... 3.197 3.10.6 . Future Actions ...... 3.197

' _ 3.11 PETROLEUMSPILLSITE PS-lA: TRANSFORMER OIL SPILL AT COBRA DANE ...... 3.198

3.11.1 Site Background ...... 3.198 3.11.2 Previous Investigations ...... 3.198 3.11.3 1992 Investigation ...... , ...... 3.200 3.11.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 3.200 3.11.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment ...... 3.200 3.11.6 Future Actions ...... 3.200

3.12 PETROLEUMSPILL SITE PS-1B: TRANSFORMEROIL (PCB) SPILL AT OLD COBRA DANE ...... 3.204

3.12.1 Site Background ...... 3.204 3.12.2 Previous Investigations ...... 3.204 3.12.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.204 3.12.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 3.207 3.12.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment ...... 3.210 3.12.6 Future Actions ...... 3.210

O iii 100109D4.BOI/ji vi 26 February1993 FINAL

CONTENTS (Continued)

3.13 PETROLEUM SPILL SITE PS-2: WEST DOCK ...... 3.210 O

3.13.1 Site Background ...... 3.210 3.13.2 PreviousInvestigations...... 3.212 3.13.3 1992 investigation ...... 3.212 3.13.4 Nature and Extentof Contamination ...... 3.212 3.13.5 PreliminaryRiskAssessment ...... 3.212 3.13.6 Future Actions ...... 3.212

3.14 PETROLEUM SPILLSITE PS-3: WEST END OI_ATER SEPARATORPONDS ...... 3.214

3.14.1 Site Background ...... 3.214 3.14.2 PreviousInvestigations...... 3.217 3.14.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.217 3.14.4 Nature and Extentof Contamination ...... 3.218 3.14.5 PreliminaryRisk Assessment ...... 3.218 3.14.6 FutureActions ...... 3.219

3.15 PETROLEUMSPILL SITE PS-4: TANK 123 ...... 3.'220

3.15.1 Site Background ...... 3.220 3.15.2 PreviousInvestigations.... , ...... 3.220 3.15.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.222 3.15.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 3.222 3.15.5 PreliminaryRiskAssessment ...... 3.222 3.15.6 Future Actions ...... 3.222

3.16 PETROLEUM SPILLSITE PS-5: POWER PLANT ...... 3.222

3.16.1 Site Background ...... 3.222 3.16.2 PreviousInvestigations...... 3.225 3.16.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.226 3.16.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 3.226 3.16.5 PreliminaryRisk Assessment ...... 3.226 3.16.6 FutureActions ...... 3.226

3.17 PETROLEUM SPILLSITE PS-6: BUILDING605 JP-4 SPILL ..... 3.226

3.17.1 Site Background ...... 3.226 3.17.2 PreviousInvestigations...... 3.229 3.17.3 1992 Investigatioa ...... 3.230

-- II O 100109EH.BOI/ji vii 26 February 1993 FINAL

CONTENTS (Continued)

3.17.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 3.231 3.17.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment ...... 3.231 3.17.6 Future Actions ...... 3.232

3.18 PETROLEUM SPILL SITE PS-7: BUILDING 616 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP ...... 3.232

3.18.1 Site Background ...... 3.232 3.18.2 Previous Investigations ...... 3.232 3.18.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.235 3.18.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 3.235 3.18.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment ...... 3.236 3.18.6 Future Actions ...... 3.236

3.19 PETROLEUM SPILL SITE PS-8: OLD WHITE ALICE ...... 3.236

3.19.1 Site Background ...... 3.236 3.19.2 Previous Investigations ...... 3.239 3.19.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.239 3.19.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 3.240 3.19.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment ...... 3.240 3.19_6 FutureActions ...... 3.240

3.20 PETROLEUM SPILLSITE PS-9: ASPHALTICDRUM STORAGE.. 3.244

3.20.1 Site Background ...... 3.244 3.20.2 PreviousInvestigations...... 3.244 3.20.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.247 3.20.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 3,247 3.20.5 PreliminaryRisk Assessment ...... 3.248 3.20.6 FutureActions ...... 3.248

3.21 PETROLEUM SPILLSITE PS-10: BASE OPERATIONS TERMINAL JP-4 SPILL ...... 3.248

3.21.1 Site Background ...... 3.248 3.21.2 PreviousInvestigations...... 3.251 3.21.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.251 3.21.4 Nature and Extentof Contamination ...... 3.251 3.21.5 PreliminaryRiskAssessment ...... 3.251 3.21.6 FutureActions ...... 3.251

10010904.BOI/ji viii 26 February 1993 FINAL

CONTENTS (Continued)

3.22 PETROLEUM SPILL SITE PS-11' CURRENT BARRELDRUM Q STORAGE ...... 3.253

3.22.1 Site Background ...... _. 3.253 3.22.2 Previous Investigations ...... 3.253 3.22.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.254 3.22.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 3.254 3.22.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment ...... 3.254 3.22.6 Future Actions ...... 3.254

3.23 PETROLEUM SPILL SITE PS-83: ABANDONED TANK FARM ... 3.257

3.23.1 Site Background ...... 3.257 3.23.2 Previous Investigations ...... 3.257 3.23.3 1992 Investigation ...... 3.257 3.23.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 3.258 3.23.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment ...... 3.258 3.23.6 Future Actions ...... 3.258

4.0 SUMMARY ...... 4.1

5.0 REFERENCES ...... : ...... 5.1

iii i ii ii I i imm / 100109D4,BOI/Ji ix 26 February 1993 FINAL

FIGURES 0 1.1 Location Map ...... 1.2

1.2 Vicinity Map ...... 1.3

1.3 22 Sites Included in Plan Scope of Work ...... 1.5

1.4 Bedrock Geology of Shemya Island ...... 1.13

1.5 Drainage Courses on Shemya Island ...... 1.17

1.6 Location of Wells and Foundation Studies, Shemya Island, 1952-1958 ... 1.19

3.1 Background Sample Location ...... 3.5

3.2 WG Water Gallery ...... 3.7

3.3 Enlarged Plan ...... 3.9

3.4 Water Gallery Water Supply ...... 3.11

3.5 WG Geophysical Interpretive Map (Collection Area) ...... 3.17

3.6 WG Groundwater Contour Map-Water Level ...... 3.35

3.7 FT-1 Lightning Strike Fire Training Area ...... 3.45

3.8 FT-1 Geophysical Interpretive Map ...... 3.49

3.9 FT-2 Location Map ...... 3.67

3.10 FT-2 Aircraft Mockup ...... 3.69

3.11 FT-2 Geophysical Interpretive Map ...... 3.71

3.12 FT-2 Groundwater Contour Map-Water Level ...... 3.93

3.13 FT-3 Structural Training Area ...... 3.101

3.14 FT-3 Geophysical interpretive Map ...... 3.103

3.15 SW-4 Location Map ...... 3.107

100109D4.BOI/ji X 26 January 1993 FINAL

FIGURES (Continued)

3.16 SW-4 Barrel Dump Site ...... 3.111

3.17 SW-5 Hospital Lake ...... 3.127

3.18 SW-10 Barrel Bay ...... 3.139

3.19 SW-10 Geophysical Interpretive Map ...... 3.141

3.20 SW-10 Groundwater Contour Map-.Water Level ...... 3.145

3.21 SW-12 Scrap Metal Dump ...... 3.169

3.22 SW-12 Geophysical Interpretive Map ...... 3.171

3.23 SW-14 Scrap Metal Landfill ...... 3.195

3.24 PS-lA New Cobra Dane ...... 3.199

3.25 PS-1B Old Cobra Dane ...... 3.205

3.26 PS-1B Geophysical Interpretive Map ...... 3.206

3.27 PS-2 West Dock ...... 3.211

3.28 PS-3 and 4 West End Oil/Water Separator and Diesel Fuel Tank No. 123 ...... 3.215

3.29 PS-5 Power Plant ...... 3.223

3.30 PS-6 Refueling Vehicle Maintenance Shop ...... 3.227

3.31 PS-7 Vehicle Maintenance Shop ...... 3.233

3.32 PS-8 Old White Alice ...... 3.237

3.33 PS-8 Geophysical Interpretive Map ...... 3.241

3.34 PS-9 Asphalt Tar Drum Storage 3.245

3.35 PS-10 Base Operations Terminal ...... 3.249

iiiiiii ' lilii i i 100109D4.BOI/ji xi 26 January 1993 FINAL

FIGURES(Continued) O 3.36 PS-li Current Barrel Drum Storage Area ...... 3.255

3.37 PS-83 Old Bulk Fuel Storage Area ...... 3.259

O i,i __ 100109D4.BOI/ji xii 26 January 1993 FINAL

TABLES (Continued) Q E1 Sites Investigatad in 1992 and Future Actions ...... xvii

1.1 Priority HARM Ranking of Disposal Sites-Shemya AFB ...... 1.8

1.2 Previous Investigations of IRP Sites ...... 1.10

1.3 Sand and Gravel Operations on Shemya Island ...... 1.22

2.1 Site Activities Completed in 1992 ...... 2.2

2.2 Samples Collected and Analyzed by Site Location, Analysis Method, and Analysis Location ...... 2.13

3.1 Positive Results from Offsite Data from Background Samples ...... 3.2

3.2 Sampling Performed by Bioenvironmental Engineering ...... 3.14

3.3 Positive Results from Onsite (CSL)Data at the Water Gallery ...... 3.20

3.4 Positive Results from Offsite Data at the Water Gallery ...... 3.24

3.5 Water Gallery Monitoring Wells ...... •3.38

3.6 Analytes with Positive Results in Soil at the Water Gallery ...... 3.40

3.7 Analytes with Positive Results in Water at the Water Gallery ...... 3.41

3.8 Contaminants of Potential Concern at the Water Gallery that Exceed Human Health Preliminary Risk Levels ...... 3.42

3.9 Positive Results from Onsite (CSL) Data at FT-1 ...... 3.48

3.10 Positive Results from Offsite Data at FT-1 ...... 3.52

3.11 Analytes with Positive Results in Soil at FT-1 ...... 3.62

3.12 Contaminants of Potential Concern that Exceed Human Health Preliminary Risk Levels ...... 3.65

3.13 1988 FT-2 Analytical Results for Soil ...... 3.73

i i ii / =0, v 100109D4.BOI/ji Xlll 26 January 1993 FINAL

TABLES (Continued)

3.14 Positive Results from Onsite (CSL) Data at FT-2 ...... 3.75

3.15 Positive Results from Offsite Data at FT-2 ...... 3.82

3.16 Analytes with Positive Flesultsin Soil at FT-2 ...... 3.95

3.17 Analytes with Positive Flesults in Water at FT-2 ...... 3.96

3.18 Contaminants of Potential Concern at FT-2 that Exceed Human H':;,ith Preliminary Risk Levels ...... 3.97 / 3.19 Analytes with Positive Flesults at FT-3 (1988 Data) ...... 3.105

3.20 Positive Results from Onsite (CSL) Data at SW-4 ...... 3.110

3.21 Positive Results from Offsite Data at SW-4 ...... 3.113

3.22 Analytes with Positive Results at SW-4 ...... 3.124

3.23 Positive Results from Onsite (CSL) Data at SW-5 ...... 3.129

3.24 Positive Results from Offsite Data at SW-5 3.130

3.25 Analytes with Positive Flesultsat SW-5 ...... 3.136

3.26 Positive Results from Onsite (CSL) Data at SW-10 ...... 3.147

3.27 Positive Results from Offsite Data at SW-10 ...... 3.148

3.28 Analytes with Positive Results at SW-10 ...... 3.164

3.29 Positive Results from Onsite (CSL) Data at SW-12 ...... 3.174

3.30 Positive Results from Offsite Data at SW-12 ...... 3.175

3.31 Analytes with Positive Results at SW-12 ...... 3.192

3.32 Positive Results from Offsite Data at PS-lA ...... 3.201

r 3.33 Positive Results from Offsite Data at PS-1B ...... 3.208

iii

IO0109D4,BOI/ji xiv 26 January 1993 FINAL

TABLES (Continued)

3.34 Positive Results from Onsite (CSL) Data at PS-2 ...... 3.213

3.35 Results of TPH Soil and Surface Water Analyses at Ponds ...... 3.217

3.36 Tank No. 123 Piezometer Measurements ...... 3.221

3.37 PS-4 Analytical Results of Volatile Organics ...... 3.221

3.38 PS-6 Analytical Results of Volatile Organics ...... 3.230

3.39 Positive Results from Onsite (CSL) Data at PS-8 ...... 3.243

3.40 Positive Results from Onsite (CSL) Data at PS-lO ...... 3.252

4.1 Sites Investigated in 1992 ...... 4.2

4.2 Contaminants of Potential Concern that Exceed Human Health Preliminary Risk Levels ...... 4.3

4.3 Contamin_;lts of Potential Concern that Exceed Ecological Preliminary Bisk Levels ...... 4.5

4.4 Future Actions at Each Site ...... 4.6

100109D4.BOI/ji XV 26 January 1993 FINAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i ,] iii i

The U.S. Air Force is currently investigating 22 sites on Shemya Air Force Base (AFB) to determine if past spill and disposal activities have caused environmental damage. These investigations are being carried out under the Air Force's Installation Restoration Program (IRP). As a part of the IRP program, field investigations were performed in 1992 to obtain the information needed to assess what future actions will need to be carried out at each site. The island's drinking water supply was also investigated.

Activities completed at 10 selected sites during the 1992 field investigation included surface sampling to determine the lateral extent of contamination, subsurface sampling to determine the vertical extent of contamination, and the installation of well points and monitoring wells to determine the direction of groundwater flow and if the groundwater has been affected by a site. In addition, geophysical surveys were performed at most sites to identify site boundaries and check for the presence of buried metal to be avoided during drilling activities.

Sites were also surveyed to develop site-specific maps and document the location of sampling points and monitoring wells. Table E.1 lists the activities that were performed at each of the IRP sites on Shemya plus the water gallery.

The results of the geophysical investigations and the analytical data from the samples that were taken were combined with past sampling results to determine the nature and extent of contamination present at each site. Analytical results were used to establish numerical preliminary risk levels for human and ecological receptors. Analytical results were then compared to risk levels to determine if there is human health or ecological risk at each site. If there was sufficient information to determine the nature and extent of contamination at a site, then, based on risk levels, a recommendation for remedial action or a No Further

O ii i Q 10010B7A.BOI/mm XVI 26 February1993 FINAL

TABLE E.1. Sites Investigatedin 1992 and Future Actions Q Site Types of Investigation FutureAction Water Gallery Surface sampling, well points,monitoring Water treatment to remove wells, geophysics,surveying TCE FT-1 Surface sampling, subsurface sampling, Additionalinvestigation monitoringwells, geophysics,surveying FT-2 Surface sampling,subsurface sampling, Additionalinw_stigation monitoringwells, geophysics,surveying FT-,3 Geophysics Additional investigation SW-4 Surface sampling, subsurface sampling, Site grading and monitoring geophysics,surveying wells SW-5 Surface water sampling, sediment sampling, No further action geophysics,surveying SW-10 Surface sampling, monitoringwells, Remedial action (impermeable geophysics, surveying cap) and seawall stabilization SW-12 Surface sampling, monitoringwells, Remedial action (permeable geophysics,surveying cap) SW-14 Geophysics,surveying Additional investigation PS-lA Surface sampling, subsurface sampling, No further action surveying PS-1B Surface sampling, subsurface sampling, Additional investigation geophysics,surveying PS-2 Surface sampling,surveying No further action PS-3 Geophysics Additional investigation PS-4 None Additional investigation

PS-5 Surveying Additional investigation PS-6 Geophysics,surveying RCRA program PS-7 Geophysics,surveying RCRA program PS-8 Subsurface sampling,geophysics,surveying Remedial action PS-9 Geophysics,surveying Remedial action PS-10 Surface sampling,surveying RCRA program PS-11 None Additional investigation

PS-83 Geophysics Additional investigation

10010B99.BOI/Jp xvii 26 February 1993 FINAL

O toActiodetnermineDecisiothenwasnaturemadande. Ifextentthereowasf contanotmsuination,fficienfturthinformeration investigationswere recommendedfor that site. Table E.1 presentsthe actionsrecommendedfor each site. Three sites are recommendedfor no further action, four sites are recommended for remedial action,three sites are being transferredto other programs, and twelvesites stillrequireadditionalinvestigations.

li I IIIII o0= 10010B7A.BOI/mm XVIII 26Februa_/1993 Introduction

. lO010B46.BOI/_c FINAL

1.0 ii1|1INTRODUCTION I i i

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

The U.S• Air Force is currentlyinvestigatingseveral sites on Shemya Air Force Base (AFB)to determine if past spilland disposalactivitieshave caused environmentaldamage. As part of these investigations,environmentalsamplesware collected and analyzedduringthe summerof 1992. This report presents a brief historyand backgroundof the island(Chapter 1), then describes the field activitiesthat were carriedout (Chapter 2), and presents the findingsof this investigationand makes recommendationsfor future activitiesat each site (Chapter 3). Recommendationsare based on the resultsof ali samplingefforts o,1Shemya. A summaryis presented in Chapter 4.

1.2 BACKGROUND

1.2.1 Description and History of Shemya AFB

Shemya AFB occupiesthe entire 3.5-mile-long by 1.5-mile-wide Shemya Island. The islandis locatedat the western tip of the AleutianArchipelago,1,500 milessouthwestof Anchorage• . ' Figures1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 are the LocationMap_VicinityMap, and a detailed vicinitymap, respectively,for Shemya AFB.

The following history of the installationis taken from the 1984 IRP Phase Import prepared by JRB Associates(JRBA1984).

Historically,Shemya Island was uninhabited, lt was known to support a limitedfur huntingtrade as long ago as 1824 (Cohen 1981). One of the few low-lyingplatformsin the windswept western islands,it was firstdeveloped in May 1943 by the U.S. Army, whichconstructedthe existing10,000-foot runway and hangarsfor use in the war campaign againstthe Japanese occupationforces then on Attu,Agattu, and Kiska Islands (Ross 1969). Shemya became the home of the 28th Bomber Group and • laterthe 343rd FighterGroup. The latter was inactivatedon August 15, 1946. Shemya Air ForceStation activitieswere reduced followingWorld War II, but again servedas a refueling and stagingpoint on the Great Circle Route for air support and suppliesduring the Koreanconflict. When the Korean conflict terminated,activitieson Shemya once again were reduced, and

III III I I I IIllnInn ,, IO0108C9.BOI/jc 1.1 26 February 1993 q

f 12 • i

FINAL

on July 1, 1954, the base was declared surplus and inactivated. Facilitieswere transferredto the CivilAeronauticsAuthority(CAA) in 1955 and subsequentlyleased to a commercialcarrier (North- west Airlines)for support and communicationpurposes.

The Air Force returned to Shemya in 1958 in support of various Air Forceand Army strategicintelligencecollectionactivities. Shemya was redesignatedfrom an Air Force Stationto an Air Force Base on June 21, 1968. There are currentlyno aircraft squadronsassignedto the base. Instead, a number of tenant unitsare located at Shemya AFB. The base missionhas been and remainsan early warningradar installationwhose principal purpose involvesmonitoringspace and missileactivities. Shemya Islandis part of the AlaskaMaritimeNationalWildlifeRefuge administeredby the U.S. Fishand WildlifeService (FWS). The FWS has agreed to let the Air Force use Shemya Islandas long as it is needed for nationaldefense.

Approximately 700 personnel are assigned to the base on an annualbasis, 400 of whom are U.S. Air Force (USAF) personnel who operate and maintainali structures,utilities,and exteriorfacili- ties, and provide base support. The remaining300 personsare contractorpersonnelwho .operateand maintainDepartment of Defense (DOD) fac(litie_;.Duringthe summer months,base popu- lationmay increaseby another200 to 400 persons, most of whom are contractorsprovidingconstructionand related support services.

Duringthe militaryoperationson Shemya, vast quantitiesof diesel fuel, heatingoil, aviationfuel, and gasolinewere used on the island. Spillsduringtransfer operationsand disposalof contaminated fuels have resultedin areas of the islandbeing contaminated. In additionto fuels, solventshave been used on the islandand residualamountshave been found at several locations. The remotenessof Shemya and associateddifficulty and expense in shippingunwantedmaterialsoff of the island has compounded the hazardouswaste disposalproblemsthat are found on most militaryinstallations. Because of these past disposal activities,the Air Forceis investigatingvariousareas under the InstallationRestorationProgram (IRP).

iiii iii ii ii i i i IO0108C9.BOI/jc 1.4 26 February 1993 FIRETRAININGAREAS (FTSITES) Q LIGHTNINGSTRIKE

AIRCRAFT MOCKUP

FIRE DEPT. STRUCTURAL TRAINING AREA SOUD WASTE STORAGE

& DISPOSAL(SWSITES) Cc__ el [_] BARREL DUMP SITE I_IHOSPITALLAKE £ _" J" BARREL BAY '%_''L_:_"

[!_] SCRAP METAL LANDFILL UQUID FUELSMANAGEMENT (PSsl s) I_ NEW COBRA DANE

OLD COBRA DANE q /. • _2_ WESTDOCK

Q WEST END OIL/WATER SEPARATOR

® DIESEL FUEL TANK NO. 123 _ I_ , POWER PLANT _,_.

REFUELING VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP

Q VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP

<_<_> ASPHALTWHITE ALICETAR DRUM STORAGE ._)4Ci/_

BASE OPERATIONS TERMINAL

CURRENT BARREL DRUM STORAGE AREA

OLD BULK FUEL STORAGE AREA MISC SITES

WATER GALLERY O 1000 2000 4-000

Z_ Hg-1 MERCURY SITE BEHIND SCALE" 1 "= 2000' DOD ANDERS

FIGURE 1..:3. 22 Sites In(

BO131941,RT/SHEM YA,DWG :-. _ '4# ._ L

uded in Plan Scope of Work 1.5 26 February 1993 FINAL

1.3 AIR FORCE INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM

O 1.3.1 Introduction

The IRP is a DOD program, establishedto identifyand remediate hazardouswaste problemson DOD propertyresultingfrom past practices. The program is funded by the Defense Environmental RestorationAccount (DERA).

The U.S. Air Force iRP objectivesat Shemya AFB are to assess past hazardouswaste disposaland spillsiteson Air Force installa- tionsand to develop remedialactionsconsistentwith the National ContingencyPlan (NCP) for those sites that are determinedto pose a threat to human health and/or the environment. Under the IRF, future actionsat Shemya AFB mustmeet the requirementsof the ComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponse,Compensationand Uability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund), as amended by the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorizaton Act (SARA) and the NCP. The work phases of the IRP are similar to the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) in that a field investigation is performed and the requirem6nts for site restoration, or remediation, are evaluated, where appropriate. These phases may be performed separately in O or parallel. 1.3.2 History of Installation Restoration Program on Shemya

Phase I work under the IRP was a records searchconducted by JRBAfor ShemyaAFB in September 1984, that identified28 sites as potentiallycontaininghazardous materialsfrom past activities. The sites consistedof 10 petroleum,oil, and lubricants(POL) spill sites (identifiedas PS); 15 solid waste disposalsites (identified as SW); and three fire trainingsites (identifiedas FT). Eight of these siteswere assessed as having a low potentialfor contaminant release (JRBA 1984) and were therefore removedfrom the IRP list.

JRBAused the Air Force Hazard AssessmentRating Methodology (HARM) system to prioritizethe 20 remainingsites for purposes of IRP schedulingand budgeting (JRBA1984). Table 1.1 lists the HARM score rankingfor each site. These sites were determined to be likelysitas of hazardousmaterialcontaminationwhere significant potentialfor contaminantmigrationwas thoughtto exist.

O w iii IO0108C9.BOI/jc 1.7 26 February 1993 FINAL

I I II

TABLE 1.1. Priority HARM Ranking of DisposalSites--ShemyaAFB

Site No. Site Name HARM Score

PS-5 Power PlantSpills 75 FT-1 LightningStrike 74 PS-4 Diesel FuelTank No. 123 62 PS-7 Vehicle MaintenanceWaste Oil Storage and Spill Area 61 PS-1 TransformerOil (PCB) Spillsat Cobra Dane 57 FT-2 AircraftMockup 57 PS-3 West End Oil/WaterSeparator Ponds 68(a)/56 PS-9 AsphalticDrum Storage 56 SW-15 AmmunitionsDisposalArea_) 55 SW-12 Scrap Metal DisposalSite 54 SW-10 BarrelBay 53 SW-13 Base Sanitary Landfill(°) 52

PS-6 JP-4 Spill at RefuelingVehicle Maintenance Shop 52 @ PS-2 West Dock JP-4 Spill 49 FT-3 Fire DepartmentFoam TrainingArea 47 PS-10 JP-4 Spill at Base OperationsTerminal 47 SW-5 Hospital Lake 46 SW-4 BarrelDump Site 46 SW-14 Scrap Metal Landfill 43 PS-8 Old WhiteAlice 6(d)

(a)Beforeremoval of spilled oil only. _Munition site handled by USAF munitions specialists; not addressed further under the IRP. (C)Activesite; permitted by ADEC, removed from IRP list. (al)Reflectspost-closure cleanup and soils chemistry. Source: Adapted from JRBA (1984).

llIll I I II @ 100108CD,BOI/Jc 1.8 26 February 1993 FINAL

i The Alaskan Air Command (now called the 1lth Air Force) elected to includeali 20 sitesfor follow-oninvestigation. Two of the sites • (SW-13, SW-15) were subsequentlyremoved from the IRP list and were not includedin the 1988 investigationconducted by, H2M HILL. Four additionalsites were later identifiedand added to the IRP list (PS-1B, HG-1, PS-11, and PS-83) in 1988, resultingin a total of 22 sites (Figure 1.3) identifiedas being potentiallycontami- nated with hazardousmaterialsthat may pose a threat to human health and/or the environment.

CH2M HILL prepared a Stage I Work Plan to address these 22 IRP sites and conducted field sampling in 1988. The general objectivesof the work were: to determinewhat contaminants were present;to determinethe effectivenessof previous restorationactivities;and to recoi'T,mendfurther action, whether it be remedialmeasures,expanded confirmation,or no further action. Three of the 22 sites were determinedto containvery low or no potentialfor contaminantrelease and environmental degradation. These sites are the old hospitalsite (HG-1), West Dock (PS-2), and Base OperationsTerminal (PS-10). The results of the field investigationare presented inthe September 14, 1990, Final Technical Report, prepared by CH2M HILL. Two of these O sites,West Dock (PS-2) and Base OperationsTerminal (PS-10), were restoredto the listto be investigatedin 1992. A No Further Action Decision(NFAD) documentwas prepared for HG-1 in 1992. Data collectedin 1988 are used to support the NFAD.

On March 7, 1991, CH2M HILL entered into an agreement with Battelle Environmental Management Operations (EMO) to prepare work plans and perform follow-on work at Shemya AFB. In addition to the IRP sites, the water gallery, which is used to collect the base drinking water, was to be investigated to determine the potential for current or future contaminant sources that could affect water quality.

1.3.3 Other Investigations

Environmental samples have been collected in or near the IRP sites during severalrecent investigationson Shemya. Table 1.2 liststhese investigationsand how the resultingdata are used in this report. Evaluationof the data is based on the field documentationavailableand the type of laboratory quality

O ii i i 100108C9.B0[/_c 1.9 26February 1993 FINAL

,e.-

._====_ILl .¢::

< u. ,=x: =

lr II II 1.10 26 February 1993 FINAL

assurance/qualitycontrol (QNQC) data available for review. Data from these investigationsare discussedin the appropriatesite sections. These data may fall into one of three categories: not of sufficientqualityfor use;to be used in a qualitativemanner, but not in a quantitativemanner; or to be used the same as the data generated duringthe currentsamplingeffort in a quantitative manner.

Concurrentwith the 1992field season, samples were collected on behalfof EPA Region 10. These sampleswill be used by Region10 to score the sitefor potentialadditionto the National PriorityUst (NPL) and are used in this report where appropriate.

There may be other investigationsthat have been completed on behalfof the Air Force at some of the Shemya IRP sites. How- ever, any informationproduced has not been made available.

1.4 HISTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

1.4.1 Physiography

Shemya Island is a flat-topped seamount of the Aleutian volcanic arc in the north PacificOcean. The islandis rimmed with small gravel beachesand rugged bedrockcrags. A small raised beach platformnearly encirclesShemya Islandand suggestsprevious sea levelchanges. Ground surface is typical of a hummocky glaciatedterrain and tundra region. Numerous smallponds are found on the island.

Maximum local relief of the island is 275 feet. Maximum elevations are located on the north side facing the BeringSea. The topography gentlyslopes south-southwestto 20 to 25 feet above the PacificOcean.

1.4.2 Cultural Geography

Shemya Island is owned by the U.S. Government and is part of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge is admin- istered by the FWS. The Air Force occupies Shemya under permit agreement with FWS.

Shemya AFB is an active military base and is not scheduled for closure at this time. The installation occupies the entire island and loozoscg.Boujc 1.11 26February1993 FINAL

is only accessibleby air or water. The major land use within the installationboundariesis that of supportfacilitiesincludingbuild- ings, roads, a runway,POL tank farms, training areas, and waste disposalareas.

There are approximately700 militaryand civilservice personnel stationedat Shemya AFB. The populationof the islandoften increasesto nearly 1,000 during the summer constructionseason.

1.5 GEOLOGY

1.5.1 Geologic Setting

Shemya Islandis part of the Aleutianvolcanicarc of the north PacificOcean• The AleutianIslandarc is located on the overriding North Americantectonicplate. The Pacificplate subducts beneath the islandsat an estimatedrate of 6 cm per year. Tectonic and volcanicactivitiesalong the AleutianIslandarc are frequent and often violent. Althoughthere is no volcanicactivityon Shemya Island,there have been at least two recent majorearthquakes of 7.5 or greater on the Richterscale. These earthquakes caused some damage to runwaysand structureson the island•

Shemya Island is composed of a late Tertiary volcanic/sedimentary ( sequence of rocks, bedded pyroclasticrocks, and minor amounts of intrusiverocks, which are overlainby a varying amount of unconsolidatedsurficialsediments(Figure 1.4).

1.5.2 Bedrock Geology

The bedrock inthe middle and western parts of the islandconsistsof thin-bedded argillites,sUtstone,graywackes, and conglom- erates (Figure 1.4). Small and isolatedoutcrops of hornblende porphyry are alsofound in this area. Dips rangingfrom 30° to 60° north-to-northwestwere measured in several exposed outcrops. Intensejointingand fracturingto a depth of approximately10 feet causesthese rocks to break apart intosmall gravel-sizedpieces. Some fractures extend much deeper than 10 feet.

The bedrock in the eastern half of the island consistsof extrusive andesite and dacite hornblende porphyries, intruded by small bodies of fine-grained basaltic rock with distinct columnar jointing. A basaltic tuff and tuff breccia extends from the northeastern

i i lm i i i I00108C9.B01/_c 1.12 z6 February1993 - QTb

Alcmn Cove

Tsr S

NOTE: BASE MAP FROM FEULNER et oi. 1976

FIGURE 1.4. Bedrock

BOI31941 .RT/_EOROCK.OW(;: 0 1500 3000 6000

SCALE" 1"=3000'

/ _ BASALTPORPHYRY BLACK FINE-GRAINED BASALTIC ROCKS WITH COLUMNAR JOINTING. GROUND U WATER POTENTIAL UNEXPLORED.

HORNBLENDEPORPHYRY VERY HARD HORNBLENDE ANDESITE OR IIIIIIIIII DACITE. WEATHERED ZONE ABOUT 6 IN TERTIARY INTO LARGE BLOCKS AND POLYGONAL OR < IIl_llTiPlllI TO5COLUMNS.FT DEEP,RELATIVELYUNWEATHEREDLOW YIELDSROCK BREAKS QUATERNARY WELLS(5-15 GALCOMPLETED/MIN) HAVEIN THESEBEEN OBTAINEDROCKS. FROM

TUFF AND TUFF BRECCIA

BASALTIC TUFFS AND AGGLOMERATES

Tr. 'i'i".'::".'i'_"" 10VARIABLETO 1O0. FTGROUNDWATERTHICK. HARDNESSPOTENTIAL _q [_!)il STRATIFIEDUNEXPLORED.SEQUENCE OF ANDESITIC AND _ ..._b ,NTERBEDDEDSEDIMENTARY AND VOLCANIC ROCKS STRATIFIEDSEQUENCE OF THIN-BEDDED ARGILLITE,TUFF,AND GRAYWACKE TERTIARY Tsv SOFTCONGLBENEATH.OMERATE.TUNDRA;DEEPLYHARDWEATHEREDNEAR COASTAND AND WHERE BAKED BY VOLCANIC HEAT. HIGHLY FRACTURED TO DEPTHS OF ABOUT 10 FT. WELLS WITH HIGHEST YIELDS COMPLETED IN THESE ROCKS.

--- FAULT, DASHED WHERE INFERRED

]ology of Shemya Island 1.13 26 FebruGry 199.3 FINAL

portion southward. Severaljointsexistin this outcrop but not to the extentas those found in the basement rocks. However,the basalt is believedto be in faultcontactwith the basement rocks (Feulneret al. 1976).

1.5.3 Surflclal Geology

The surficialgeology on the islandconsistsof a veneer of Pleisto- cene glacialdeposits,activeand stableeolian deposits,a thin layer of outwashsand and silt,and an extensivelayer of peat. Unconsolidatedmaterialcoversthe bedrock over most of the islandand averages 5 to 15 feet in thickness,althoughsome of the sand dunes are up to 50 feet thick. There is no permafroston Shemya Island.

Glacialtill and outwashdepositsare relativelysmalland limitedto the upper elevationsinthe northcentral-to-northeastregions of the island. Topographicalfeatures includeground moraines,outwash sand and gravel,and boulders. The average thicknessis about 5 feet but occasionaldepositsreach 12 feet or more. Most of this is overlainby a peat layer.

A layer of tundra peat extends over most of the islandexcept in the southern portion'paralleltOthe coastline, and in the western 'quarter of the island. The peat remainssaturatedfor most of the year, makingthese areas marshy. The depth of the peat ranges from 6 inchesto 10 feet thick and interfingerswith layersof sand and unconsolidatedmaterialbelow it.

Eolian deposits are represented by active and stable sand dunes alongthe southshore of the island. The dunes vary in size and reach up to 50 feet in height. Narrow beach deposits of sand, gravel,and bouldersencirclethe island.

In addition to naturaldeposits, large areas of the island have been filled. One area is directly north of the main runwaywhere several support buildingsexist. Materialfor this fill area most likelycame from one or more of the quarrieson the island. Information regardingthe fill depth was not available.

I I II II IO0108C9.BOI/jc 1.15 26 February 1993 FINAL

1.6 Hydrology

Shemya Island has an annual precipitationof 31.3 inchesthat occurs in the form of rain, mist,or snow more than 330 days each year. A north-southtopographic divideseparates the islandinto two watersheds (Figure 1.5). A portion of the eastern watershed is used for a water gallery. The slopingtopography of the island causes ali significantstreamsto drain towards the southern coastline. A mass water balance has not been conducted on the islandand it is uncertainhow much precipitationcontributesto surface runoffand how much infiltratesintothe groundwater system. However, it is believedthat any groundwaterrecharge to the bedrock aquiferfrom the overlyingsedimentsis minimaland occurs throughsecondary porosityinthe joints and fractures withinthe bedrock. Most of the precipitationprobably recharges the unconsolidateduppermostaquifer.

1.6.1 Surface Water

Surface water on Shemya Islandoccurs as numerous small, naturalponds, creeks, and streams (Figure1.5). The quantityand qualityof this surface water is highlyvariable and, thus, limitsits use as a water supply. A 1952 U.S. Army surveyestimatedsur- face waterstorage in lakes to be approximately30 milliongallons (U.S. Army 1952). DuringWorld War II, 16 ponds were used for potablewater. These ponds were abandoned as a water supply source in the mid-1940s because of the deteriorationof surface water qualityassociatedwithfuels and munitionshandling practices.

Surface and subsurfacedrainageflowsalong the direction of the gentle structuraltilt (s0uth-southwest). Communicationbetween the two distinctwatershedsof the islandis possiblethrough ditching and abandoned sewage, water, and fuel lines. Much of • the surface drainage has been modifiedby the constructionof runways,buildings,and gravel pits. Interiordrainage is poor and : standingwater is common, primarilyas a resultof tundra degra-

i • dation (areas where the tundra has died), frost ponds, and open . pits. Duringthe dry months,stream baseflowis provided by groundwaterdischarge.

- Ilia I III II I I I loolos_.BOl/}c 1.16 26February1993

FINAL

1.6.2 Groundwater

There are two aquifersystemson Shemya Island. The upper primary aquifer consistsof unconsolidatedmaterialand is generally5 to 10 feet below ground surface (bgs). The upper aquifer isthe main source of water for the island. The second aquifer systemoccurs in the jointsand fractureswithinthe bedrock.

Precipitationis the primarysource of groundwaterrecharge. Both surface and groundwaterdischargesrespond directly and rapidly to precipitation. Much of the precipitationpercolatesthroughthe peat, gravel,and sand depositsto the underlyingbedrock. The water then flowslaterallyacrossthe bedrock/sedimentinterface. Some water finds itsway into fracturesin the bedrock where it is stored. The remainingwater is either dischargedby streams or springsto the southerncoastline,or it is interceptedby the water gallerycollectionsystem.

The base's main water supplyconsistsof a water gallerysystem (Figure 1.6) built inthe early 1950s that collectsapproximately 140 gallonsper minute (gpm) from the shallowaquifer in the eastern watershed. Water use requirements,includingfire protection, total approximately200,000 gallonsper day (138 glSm): The gallery consistsof eight horizontalcollectorsthat interceptwater from the peat layerof the shallowaquifer. Althoughsubject to seasonalvariationsin water quantityand quality,the water gallery systemsufficientlyservesthe present base populationexcept during exceptionallydry periods. Two wells (Figure 1.6) provide a backup drinkingwater supply. They withdrawwater from the bedrock aquifer and can pump up to 155 gpm.

Although groundwater flow directions are known for some sites, the overallislandgroundwaterflow regime is not yet fullyunder- stood. The complexitiesassociatedwith fractureflow phenomena within the bedrock are difficultto quantifyand interpret.

1.6.3 Groundwater Quality

During World War II, approximately 30 water supply wells were drilledinto the bedrock aquiferto replace contaminatedsurface water suppliesthen in use. By the end of 1944, only 18 of these wells were producingwater at yields limitedto 25 gpm. Reports

i ii i i 100108Cg.BOI/jc 1.1 8 26 February1993

FINAL

indicate there were problems with saltwater intrusioninto many of these wells,and they were abandoned at the time the water gallerywas constructed. Wells 400 and 410 (formerlyWells 4 and 29), located inthe westernwatershed,were rehabilitatedin the late 1950s, and are designated as the island's backup water supply,with a potentialcombinedyield of 155 gpm. The two wells are probablylocated along a north-southtrending fault or fracture zone, whichmay explaintheir significantyields. The locationsof Wells 400 and 410, the abandoned wells,the water gallery, and test pit sites used for foundationstudiesare shown in Figure 1.6.

The hydrologic communicationbetween the surface and subsurface on Shemya Islandprovidesa potentialpathway for contaminationfrom surface sourcesto the base's primary and backup groundwatersupply. Surface contaminationin the eastern watershed could have an effect on the shallowgroundwaterthat suppliesthe water gallery.

Backup water supply wells are also at risk because of spills and leaks from the Power Plant (PS-5), Oil/WaterSeparator (PS-3), and DieselFuel Tank 123 (PS-4) (Figure1.3). One source of groundwatercontaminationis the base power plant (Figure 1.3), located in.theWesternwatershed,that has been the site of several majorfuel oil spillsin past years. Fuel spilledat this site has been observed to flow westward in a drainageditch along North Road. Fuel cannot move directlyacrossthe surface drainage divideto the east watershed, but could enter the water supply after it seeps into the ground if the groundwatermoves east beneath the topographic divide.

Other sources of groundwater contamination are five 'temporary" oil/water separator ponds (PS-3) constructed in drainageways in the mid-1980s to collect spilled or leaked fuel oil. During this time, two fuel oil tanks reportedly failed as the result of corrosion and spillage. In addition, Diesel Fuel Tank 123 was overfilled in 1984, resulting in the spilling of 67,000 gallons of fuel oil. Ali of this volume was reportedly recovered during cleanup operations. Tank 123, located approximately 800 feet southeast from Well 410, received a HARM score of 62 (JRBA 1984). These recent events demonstrate that the backup wells are continually at risk of contamination from surface facilities and military activities.

iii ii iii iiii i i i

100108C9.BOI/J¢ 1.20 26 February 1993 _=INAL

The backup wells may also be at risk from the Cobra Dane facility, O which uses and stores polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) oils and, possibly, degreasing solvents. Analysesof water samples collected from the two backup wells at varioustimes have detected the presenceof petroleumhydrocarbonsand volatileorganics (U.S. Army 1958; CH2M HILL 1990). In addition,water from these two wells has been describedas havinga sulfursmelland a dis- agreeabletaste (COE 1988). Groundwaterwithinthe bedrock aquifer may have been affected in other locationsas weil.

The water gallery system is at risk from other sources. A sanitary waste sewer lineruns acrossthe eastern watershed,near the water gallery and upgradient. Failureof this linecould have immediate detrimentaleffectson the qualityof the shallow water supply. The possibilityof this occurringis increasedby the poten- i tial for earthquakes in this area.

The quality of water from the water gallery has been evaluated within the last several years and some trace levels of trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination have been detected (less than 5 #g/L). However, the TCE levels are acceptable and within current EPA drinking water standards. Available water quality information recorded for Shemya Island can be found in the IRP • Phase I Records Search (JRBA 1984) and Appendix J of the • CH2M HILL Stage 1 Final Technical Report 1990. Overall, the quality of surface and groundwater has not changed since 1958. Quarterly monitoring of the water supply is conducted by USAF Bioenvironmental Engineering on Shemya Island.

Isolated reports of water ccntamination in other parts of the island have been recorded. Specifically: 1) "lh 1945, many wells began pumping saltwateror gasoline..." (U.S. Army 1952); and 2) "Water from well No. 7 is abnormallyhigh in sulfate. Thisconditionis undoubtedlythe resultof contaminationby runoff or seepage from a nearby area (hospitalboilerplant) where sulfate materialhad been stockpiledand subsequentlydisperse_." (U.S. Army 1958). In additior, several leachate-typeseeps occurringalong the south shore of the islandare contaminatedby nearby solid waste land- fills (SW-10 and SW-12).

O IO0108C9.BOI/jc 1.21 26 Februar1993y FINAL

1.7 AIR QUALITY O Potentialsourcesof airborneemissionson Shemya Islandinclude: exhaustfrom gasoline,diesel, propane, and aircraftengines; exhaustfan power plantoperations;solid waste burning;and construction. Air samplinghas been performed on the Shemya incinerator,but no records of previousor existingair sampling related to the investigationareas are available. With an average of 31 inchesof precipitationper year and an annualaverage wind velocityof nearly 20 mph, dilutionand dispersionof airborne emissionsis extreme.

1.8 MINERAL RESOURCES

Severalactive sand and gravel operations,operated by the 1lth CivilEngineeringOperationsSquadron (CEOS) and a local contractor, are located on the Islandas summarizedbelow.

TABLE 1.3. Sand and Gravel Operations on Shemya Island

Quarry Description Location Operator, 0 East Quarry, South West of Current Landfill 1lth CEOS East Quarry, North West of Current Landfill Contractor North Beach Quarry BehindBuilding3050 1lth CEOS Grand Canyon Quarry North of Cross IslandRoad Contractor Lagoon Quarry* SouthwestEnd of Runway 1lth CEOS Five Point Quarry North of Landfillat Road Contractor Intersection

*The Lagoon Quarry is no longer active; it was last used in 1987.

These facilitiesproduce sand and gravel for concrete and other mixturesfor constructionand road surface preparation. Estimates of annualproduction and known reserves at these sand and gravel facilitiesare not available.

i , iiii 100108C9.BOI/jc 1.22 26 February 1993 FINAL

1.g CULTURAL RESOURCES

The State Officeof Historyand Archaeologyhas identifiedfive potentialhistoricalsites on Shemya Island,four of which are listed inthe Alaska Herita.qeResourcesSurvey (AHRS). Copies of these reportsare attached inAppendix I of CH2M HILL's 1990 Final Technical Report (CH2M HILL 1990). The report for the remaining site, the Old WhiteAlice Communicationslocation,has not been completed.

Althoughdescriptionsof the sites are very limited,the AHRS indicates that two of the sites are locatedon the northside of the island. Anothersite is on the south coast and south of the western end of the airport, and a fourth is on the northeast coast of the island. The fifth site (WhiteAlice)is on the east coast of the island. Exceptfor the Old White Alicesite, none of the historical sitesare adjacentto any of the IRP sites.

1.10 BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY

1.10.1 Communities and Habitats

Vegetationon Shemya Islandconsistsprimarilyof various grasses, lichens,and mosses. Much of the land surface is coveredwith peat and meadow types of vegetation. Seaweeds are common alongthe rocky shore and reef areas of the island. Only a few of the trees that were plantedby soldiersduring World •War II remainon the island.

Substantial transient water fowl populations stop on Shemya Island. During a 5-season survey in the late 1970s, 145 species of 27 families of birds were recorded on the island. The principal land mammal on the island is the blue phase arctic fox. Sea lions are frequently observed basking on rocks along the shoreline. Other marine mammals in the area include several types of whales and porpoises.

1.10.2 Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Environmentallysensitiveareas are those areas where a small disturbancecan have a very large impact. To date, there have been no environmentallysensitiveareas identifiedon Shemya Island.

II I III

IO0108C9.BOI/jc 1.23 26 February 1993 FINAL

1.10.3 Endangered Species

No endangered species currently inhabit Shemya Island.

The AleutianCanadian goose (Brantacanadensisleucopareia) is indigenousto the AleutianIslandsof the north Pacific. The Aleutiantundra servesas a nestingarea for this migratoryendan- gered species. The presence of these geese on Shemya Island is solelylimitedto their migratory path. At one time they nested throughoutthe AleutianIslands. Now, Buldirand Agattu Islands (80 mileseast and 20 milessouthwest,respectively)have the only known nestingpopulationsof AleutianCanadian geese. The populationis knownto be increasingas more than 1,600 birds were believedto frequent the islandsin 1978 (Todd 1979). The intentionalintroductionof the blue phase arcticfox by fur farmers between the 1830s and 1930s proved to be detrimentalto the AleutianCanadian goose and was responsiblefor their extinction on Shemya Island. No AleutianCanadian geese are expected to nest on Shemya Islandunlessthe fox is eliminatedfrom the island.

1.10.4 Economic Species

No species consideredof economic importance currentlyinhabit Shemya Island. However,there is commercialfishingin the ocean around Shemya.

b 1.11 Climatology/Meteorology ,.._.._----_=-'"-""-_" ' '

Detachment 3, 1lth Weather Squadron, at Shemya AFB maintains meteorological data for the island. Review of their records indicates that Shemya Island is dominated by a persistent low pressure system referred to as the "Aleutian Low." Frequent storms track across the north Pacific into the Aleutian Islands. The Aleutian low pressure cells are responsible for the relatively mild maritime climate of the Aleutian Islands. Summer fogs are severe and frequent. The persistent wind, fog, and salt spray are responsible for the highly corrosive and harsh conditions at Shemya AFB.

1.11.1 Precipitation

Average precipitationon Shemya Islandis 31.3 inches, and the maximum 24-hour rainfallwas recorded as 5.20 inches during

...... iii i I 100108C9.BOI/jc 1.24 26 Februar1993y FINAL

October 1962 (Becker 1978). Precipitation occurs more than 330 days per year. The average annual snowfall is 70 inches, with an average 24-hour snowfall of 3 inches (Becker 1978). Drifting snow and driving rain are common because of high wind velocities. The highest precipitation typically occurs in the months of October and November.

1.11.2 Temperature

The mean annual temperature at Shemya AFB is 38.5°F (Becker 1978). The maximum and minimum recorded temperatures are 63°F and 7°F, respectively. The diurnal temperature variation rarely exceeds 10°F.

1.11.3 Wind

The average surface wind speed on Shemya Island is 17 knots (approximately 20 miles per hour) (Becker 1978). The direction of the wind is evenly distributed, without any true prevailing wind direction. Ali months of the year have recorded wind speeds greater than 55 knots (approximately 63 miles per hour).

1.11.4 Evaporation There is no identified informationavailable at this time on evaporation rates.

e IO0108C9.BOI/jc 1.25 26 February 1993 1992 Field Season

100!0B46.BOI/_c FINAL

2.0 1992 FIELD SI=ASON iii i

To determine what remedial actions are appropriate, if any, at the IRP sites on Shemya, additionaldata were required. Because of funding and time constraintsit was not possibleto obtain ali of the informationrequired in 1992 for ali of the IRP sites on Shemya. Therefore, each IRP site investigationwas prioritizedand the sites with the highestprioritieswere completed first. Table 2.1 presents the sites and the type of investigationsthat were completed at each site. Prioritizationof the IRP siteswas based on input from the Alaska Departmentof EnvironmentalConservation(ADEC) and the Air Force 1lth CEOS. ADEC and the Air Force had differentcriteriafor selectingsites to be investigatedfirst; however, the top prioritiesof each were investigatedin 1992. The first priorityin the 1992 field season was the water gallerybecause of the contaminationthat had been discovered. Second in priority were the FireTraining(FT) sitesthat had the potentialof having heavy contamination. Followingthe FT sites were sites where it was believedthat sufficientdata for closurecould be obtained in one field season.

Duringthe 1992 field season on Shemya, a Close Support Laboratory (CSL) was used to analyze samplesquicklyfor Total PetroleumHydrocarbons(TPH), Benzene,Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene (BTEX). These data were used to guide further sampling. Additionally,sampleswere sent to an offsitelaboratory for analysisof a greater listof parameters. Offsiteanalyseswere completedin accordancewith SW 846 protocols. The CSL and the offsitelaboratorywere used during both shifts of the field season. The two shiftswere from July 9 through July 30, and from August 24 through September 15.

Collected data were used to complete preliminary human health and ecological risk assessments(Appendices C and D). These assessmentsare the basisfor determiningthe need for, and the type of, remedialaction necessary for each site.

I 10010AC9.BOI/mrn 2.1 26 February 1993 FINAL

TABLE 2.1. Site ActivitiesCompleted in 1992

Site Types of Activities Water Gallery Surface sampling,well points,monitoringwells,geophysics, surveying FT-1 Surface sampling,subsurfacesampling,monitoringwells, geophysics,surveying FT-2 Surface sampling,subsurfacesampling,monitoringwells, geophysics,surveying FT-3 Geophysics SW-4 Surface sampling,subsurfacesampling,geophysics,surveying SW-5 Surfacewater sampling,sedimentsampling,geophysics,surveying SW-10 Surface sampling,monitoringwells,geophysics,surveying SW-12 Surface sampling,monitoringwells,geophysics,surveying SW-14 Geophysics,surveying PS-lA Surface sampling,subsurfacesampling,surveying PS-1B . Surface sampling,subsurfacesampling,geophysics,surveying PS-2 Surface sampling,surveying PS-3 Geophysics PS-4 None PS-5 Surveying PS-6 Geophysics, surveying PS-7 Geophysics, surveying PS-8 Subsurface sampling,geophysics,surveying PS-9 Geophysics,surveying PS-10 Surface sampling,surveying PS-11 None PS-83 Geophysics

i i i lira 10010929.BOI/mm 2.2 26February1993 FINAL

2.1 SITES INVESTIGATED IN 1992

Presentedbelow is a discussionof the rationalefor the data collectedand the types of techniquesused to collect the data. A more detailed account is presentedin the Field InvestigationPlan (CH2M HILL 1991).

Table 2.1 presentsthe types of investigationsthat were completed at each of the sitesto obtainthe needed information. Chapter 3 discussesthe resultsof these investigationsand futureactions.

2.1.1 Water Gallery

Becausethe water galleryis the primary drinkingwater source for the base, any threatsto its water qualityare serious. Low levels of TCE have been detected,making an investigationof the water gallery the highestpriorityduring the 1992 field season. The purposesof the investigationsat the water gallery were to provide data necessary to:

• define the area contributing recharge to the shallow aquifer • determine if anylarge areas of surface contamination • exist withinthe watershed

• determine the extentof groundwatercontamination.

2.1.2 Fire Training Sites (FT)

The FT sites were used for fire trainingactivitiesin whicha variety of fuels and oilswere burned and then extinguished. Some of the fuels burned containedcontaminantsthat were left on the ground. Also,during the burningprocess other contaminantsmay have been formed. The investigationsat the FT sites were designed to determinewhat chemicalswere currentlypresent at each site. Surface and subsurfacesamplingwere used to determinethe lateraland verticalextent of contamination,monitoringwells were used to determinethe impact that the site had on the groundwater,and geophysicswas used to determine if large areas of buriedmetal were present at the site.

10010AC9.BOI/mm 2.3 2eFebruary1993 FINAL

The goal of the Investigationsat the FT sites was to collect sufficientdata to design a closurestrategy.

A suitably protective closure for the FT sites is expected to signifi- cantlylimithuman exposureto soil and groundwatercontamination and to attenuateany contaminantmigration. Closure of FT sites may includeone or more of the followingremedial strategies:

1. excavation'and removal of soilcontaminatedabove the sRe-specificcleanup levels

2. surfacecapping over ali or part of the site, as needed

3. free-floatingprodu_ removal,if any, from groundwater

4. groundwaterremediation, if needed.

2.1.3 Solid Waste Disposal Sites (SW)

The SW sites investigatedhad ali been used for the storage and disposalof drums and variouspieces of metal debris. The amount of metal buried at each site and the depth of burialare not known. Some remediationhas occurred at each of the five sites in the past. The investigationsat these sites were designed to: 1) identifythe extent of each site by use of geophysical techniques;2) determine the risk posed by surface sampling;and 3) determineif they were impacting the local groundwaterthrough the use of monitoringwells.

Each of the five sites is similarin terms of field investigationand possibleclosureoptions. The intentof these investigationsis to collectsufficientdata to determinean appropriate site closure. Closurestrategiesfor the SW sites could involvecapping the landfillsurface area with an impermeableor a permeable materialand embankmentstabilization.

Capping would be used site-specificallyover ali or portions of the affected siteas appropriateto: 1) controlexposure from contaminated surface soils;and 2) minimizeleachate production. The SW sites withoutcontaminationabove risk-basedconcentrationswill be closed using a minimalcap designconsistingof the following elements:

. I II|l

10010ACg,BOI/mm 2.4 26 February 1993 FINAL

1. drainage controlusingsurfacegrading to: a) divertand minimizeoffsiterunon onto the site, and b) maximize runoff and minimizeinfiltrationon the site, and

2. coveringexposed debris withrock-rubble blankets.

The SW sites displayingcontaminationthat cannot be controlled by simplesurfacegrading or with groundwatercontaminationwill require more impermeablecap implementation. These designs may use, if needed, engineeredsoil or geosyntheticelements to isolatecontaminatedsurfacesoils and minimizeleachate production. In addition,SW sites exposedto the ocean will need specialhard bank designs.

2.1.4 Petroleum Spill Sites (PS)

There are 13 PS sites on Shemya. The PS sites are areas that have contaminatedsoilfrom spilledpetroleumproducts. These spillsmay have also contaminatedthe groundwaterthat underlies the site. The 1992 investigationsat the PS sites included geophysicsto identifyareas of buried metal and surface and subsurfacesamplingto determinethe lateraland verticalextent of contamination. The sitesinvestigatedin 1992 were those where No FurtherAction Decisions(NFADs) were probable, The restorationfor each PS site is expected to reduce human and ecologicalexposureto soiland groundwatercontamination. The PS site restorationmay includeone or more of the following actions on ali or portionsof each site:

1. excavationand removal of soil contaminated above risk- based cleanup levels

2. surface capping

3. free-floatingproduct removal, if any, from groundwater

4. groundwater remediation,ifneeded.

The generalstrategyat each PS site is to determine,to a levelof detail adequate to supportrisk assessmentand remedial design, the nature and extent of soiland groundwatercontamination.

I III I iiiiii

10010ACg.BOI/mm 2.5 26 February 1993 FINAL

2.2 FIELD METHODOLOGIES USED

Duringthe 1992 fieldseason on Shemya, several fieldinvestigative techniqueswere used. The followingbrieflydescribes each of the techniques;a more thoroughdescriptioncan be found in the IRP Field InvestigationPlan (CH2M HILL 1991).

2.2.1 Geophysics

Geophysicalelectromagnetic(EM) conductivitysurveyswere performedto aid in locatingburied metal, wastes, or utilitiesand delineatingboundariesfor a given site. Data were used to locate monitoringwells by identifyingpotentialproblem areas for drilling as wellas by delineatingthe extent of buried waste or fill. Detailed surveys were performedat the water gallery, FT-l, FT-2, FT-3, SW-4, SW-5, SW-10, SW-12, SW-14, PS-1B, PS-6, PS-7, PS-8, and PS-9. Reconnaissance.levelsurveys were performed at PS-3 and PS-83. No geophysical surveyswere conducted at PS-lA, PS-2, PS-4, PS-5, PS-10, or PS-11 because of time constraints. Detailed surveys consistedof recording measurementsat known locations and subsequentlyplottingand analyzingthe data.

Reconnaissancesurveyswere performed by directly observing conductivityvalueswhilewalkingalong the traverses. Reconnaissanceinvestigationswere performed to provide a basis for planningfuture work at the area, but site boundariesWere not delineated at the time.

2.2,1.1 Data Acquisition

The geophysicalEM conductivityinvestigationswere performed between July 15 and July 29, 1992. Detailedsurveyswere performed over approximately49 acres and reconnaissancesurveys were performed over approximately20 acres. Priorto acquisition of detailed geophysicaldata, a grid was establishedover each site by registeredsurveyors.

Data were collectedat 5-foot intervalsalong parallelgrid lines using a Geonics EM31 ground conductivitymeter. Measurements consistedof conductivityand in-phasevalues and were stored along with the grid coordinatesfor each measurementlocationin a digitaldata logger.

i1_ iiiii i i ii1| ii i iiii i iii 10010ACg.BOI/mm 2.6 26 February 1993 FINAL

The raw EM data consist of computer files in X, Y, Z formats. The X and Y refer to the grid locationand the Z refers to the measurement. Several,data processingsteps were performed prior to interpretationof the data:

1. Data flies were edited to remove unwanted data, such as that from sectionsof linesthat were duplicated.

2. Data were input into a spreadsheetprogram and rearrangedinto a grid format. Profileplotsof the data were generated usingthe spreadsheetprogram (in Appendix B).

3. Contourmaps of the data were generated usingthe edited X, Y, Z files (inAppendixB).

2.2.1.2 Data Interpretation

Boththe profile plots (crosssections)of the data and the contour maps were used to interpretthe data. Data profileplotswere used to identifyanomaliesand determinetheir locationalong the surveylines. Anomalypositionswere transferredto a base map. Contourmaps of the conductivityand in-phase values were used to help establishspatialrelationshipsbetween anomalieson adjacentlines. Anomalies,or groups of anomalies,on adjacent linesthat appear to be related to the same source have been grouped together and are shown as a singlearea on the interpre- tationmaps. Onlythe interpretivemaps are presented in the main part of this document. Profileplots and contourmaps are presented in AppendixB.

Buriedmetal can often be mapped with EM conductivitymethods because of the characteristicchange in the soilconductivitypro- duced by the metal. If enough metal is present and is relatively shallow,both conductivityand in-phase values will be negative compared to a positiveresponse in background soils. With lesser amountsof metal or deeper burial,the conductivitymay exhibit values less than backgroundwithoutgoing negative. If the fill containsscattered metal ratherthan closelypacked metal,the amplitudeof the EM data may not be particularlyanomalous. Instead,variationsin values along the survey line indicatethe presence of metal (i.e.,the data appear "noisy.") Fillmaterialcontain- ing littleor no metal can often be identifiedby conductivityand/or

mini 10010ACg,BOI/mm 2.7 26 February 1993 FINAL

in-phase measurementsthat are differentfrom the surrounding area.

Severaltypes of features have been interpretedfrom the data based on the appearance of the data as described above. Althoughthe distinctionbetween these interpretedfeatures is somewhatsubjective,there has been an attempt to maintaincon- sistencyin categorizingthe features interpretedin the different areas. A descriptionof each of these features follows:

Isolated BuriedMetal. An anomalywas observed in the data that indicatesburied metal. Correspondinganomalieson adjacent lineswere not observed.

PossibleIsolatedBuried Metal. A relativelyweak anomalythat does not exhibitalithe characteristicsof buried metal was observed in the data. Correspondinganomalieswere not observed on adjacentlines.

Buried Utility. If narrow metal or possiblemetal responseswere observed on several adjacentlines and if they lined up in a straightline,this was interpretedas a utilitylineand may be either aburied pipe or cable.

Area of BuriedMetal. Anomaliesobserved on a singletraverse indicatedmultipleburied metal objects or wide continuoussec- tions of buried metal. Similaranomalieswere observed on adjacentlines,indicatingextensiveareas of metal.

Area of ScatteredBuried Metal. This category is similarto Areas of Buried Metal, exceptthat the buried metal is more scattered. Metal objects are sufficientlyclosetogether to make delineationof individualsources unwarranted,however.

Area of Waste or Fillwith Littleor No Metal. These areas are definedby anonymouslyhigh conductivities,but there are few in any of the characteristicmetal-typeresponses. Similaranomalies are observed on adjacentlines,indicatingsome extent of these features.

i i i 10010AC9,BOI/mm 2.8 26 February1993 FINAL

2.2.2 Surface Sampling

Surface sampleswere used to delineatethe lateralextent of surface contaminationand to determineexposure concentrationsand pathwaysduring risk assessment.

Surface soilsampleswere collectedat the water gallery, SW-4, SW-10, SW-12, PS-lA, PS-1B, PS-2, PS-10, FT-l, and FT-2. Samples were taken at the surface from an intervalof 0 to 6 incheswiththe exceptionof FT-1 (sampleswere taken below fill) and FT-2 (sampleswere taken below the asphalt) (see Sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively). Ali surfacesamples were collected with stainlesssteel trowelsand placed directlyinto sample jars as specifiedin the Field InvestigationPlan.

2.2.3 Backhoe Pits

Backhoe pits were dug at SW-4, FT-l, and the water gallery to collect soilsamples at depth. Backhoe pits were used at sites where the soil was too rocky for soilboring, a better profile was needed, or in areas that were to be remediated (i.e., the water gallery). Samples were collected,from the pit when the pit was

taklessenthfaromn 4 thfeete backhodeep. eFobucket,r pits deeusingper carethanto4 fsampleet, saempleundisturbeds were soil.

2.2.4 Soil Borings

Soil borings were used to collect samples to determine the vertical extent of contamination.

Soil borings were advanced using a CME 850 track-mounted hollow stem auger drill rig belonging to the 1lth CEOS. Samples fror¢ the soil borings were obtained by driving a stainless steel split spoon sampler ahead of the augers. Soil borings were used at FT-2, PS-lA, and PS-8. Soil borings were scheduled for FT-1 but, because of the rocky conditions, backhoe pits were used instead.

-J- ii 10010ACg.BOI/mm 2.9 26 February 1993 FINAL

2.2.5 Well Points

Well points (drive points) were used in the water gallery to obtain groundwaterleveldata and to obtain groundwatersamplesfor analyses. Well pointswere used in place of monitoringwells wherethe emphasiswas on obtainingwater level data. Since well pointscan be installedmuch faster than monitoringwells,they were used to collectmore data in a short period of timeto direct furtherfield activities.

Well pointsconsistedof a 5-foot-long, 1-1/4-inch-diameter,stainless steel,factory-fabricatedscreen with one or more pieces of 5-foot-longblank pipe. Well pointswere manuallydriven intothe ground using a fence post pounder untilthe screen was withinthe water table. The top of pipe was surveyedso that water level comparisonsbetweenwell pointscould be made. Water level measurementswere made usingelectronicwater lev:_=probes.

2.2.6 Monitoring Wells

Groundwatermonitoringwells were installedat the water gallery, FT-l, FT-2, SW-10, and SW-12. Ali wells were completed with 2-inch PVC Schedule 40, factory-slotted (0.01-inch) screens and a==" blank pipe. The area aroundthe screen on each wellwas filled W with 10/20 Coloradosilicasand. Above the silicasand, 2 feet of bentonite pellets were placed followed by a cement-bentonite slurryto 2 feet below ground surface. A concrete surfaceseal was placed at each wellthat also anchored the well protector. Centralizerswere used on each wellto ensure that the PVC pipe remainedvertical.

Locking well protectors were placed over each well and cemented intothe ground. Aliwellswere developed by bailingafter comple- tion, and allowedto equilibratefor a minimumof 2 days withthe aquifer before sampling. Ali monitoringwellswere installedusing an 850 CME auger drillrig with 4-1/4-inch lD augers (10-inch OD).

2.2.7 Lake Sampling

Lake surface water samples and lake sedimentsamples were collected from Hospital Lake (SW-5). Surface water sampleswere collected using a Van Dorn sampler at the midpointof the water column, approximately2 feet below the surface. Sediment

10010AC9.BOI/mm 2.10 26 February1993 FINAL

O Ssamedimplesentwsamplere coelles werctedeusiobtainng aestadfrominlessjuststebeellowhandtheaugseedimentr. water interface.

2.2.8 ' Surveylng

Ali grids used in sampling, and geophysical surveys, well points, monitoring wells, and sampling locations were surveyed. Where possible, ali site locations were tied into the UTM grid system that is currently being used by the Air Force on Shemya. Ali horizontal coordinates were surveyed to within 1 foot accuracy and ali monitoring well elevations were surveyed to within 0.01-foot accuracy. Ali survey data have been r_duced and are incorporated into the sitedrawingspresented inthis document.

2.3 ANALYTICAL METHODS

EPA Methods (EPA 1990), were used by both the onsite and offsite laboratories for ali analyses except soil moisture which was measured following ASTM Procedure D2216 (ASTM 1992). The CSL was equipped to perform TPH analyses on soil using a fixed wavelength infrared spectrophotometer. The CSL was not set up

O tographanalyzewasfalsoor TPsHetiupn water.onsiteAtopurgeanalyzanedfortrabpenzg_iesnec,hrtoluomeato-ne, ethylbenzene,and xylenes (BTEX);trichloroethene(TCE); and tetrachloroethane(PCE) in soil and groundwater. Calibration curves for each analyte were developed and are presented in AppendixF.

The general strategyused for soil samplesanalyzed by the CSL was to screeneach sample (head space) in the laboratoryusinga photoionizationdevice (OVM 580B). Those with a positive detectionwiththe organic vapor monitor(OVM) were analyzedfor TPH and volatileorganics. Those that did not registera detection were analyzedonlyfor TPH.

As a QA check, a minimumof 1 in 10 soil sampleswas analyzed for both TPH and volatileorganics. As a further QA check, 10 percent of ali samples analyzed by the CSL were shipped to the offsitelaboratory for confirmationof the CSL results. Percent moistureswere not determinedat the onsite laboratory and ali resultsare presentedon a wet weight basis. Ali offsiteanalytical resultsare presentedon a dry weight basis. Therefore, in the • _ 10010AC9.BOI/mm 2.11 26 February 1993

- FINAL

comparison between the onsite and offsite analyses,the onsite would have a low bias. The CSL was used to provide sample resultsto guide subsequentsamplingactivities. This "observa- tionalapproach" was necessaryto optimizethe collectionof data in the field.

2.4 SAMPLES COLLECTED AND ANALYZED

The number of samplescollectedat each site are presented in Table 2.2, along withthe types of analysisrequestedfor each sample and whether it was analyzed on or offsite. Table 2.2 does not includeQA/QC samplesthat were collected and analyzed. Analyticalresultsof ali samples collectedduringthis investigation are presented in AppendixA and a site-by-sitediscussionof the resultsis presented in Chapter 3.

2.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)

The qualityassuranceobjectivefor data collectionis to develop and implementproceduresthat provide data of known and sufficientqualityas a basisfor engineeringdecisions. These decisionsincludethe degree of human health and ecological risk, the amount of contaminatedmaterial, and potentialremedial alter- alk natives, Data qualitywas determinedthrough data validationand I comparisonto blank data to assess representativeness, comparability,accuracy, precision,and completeness. Each of these areas is discussedin this section, followinga brief discussionof data validationprocedures. A complete QAJQC assessmentof the data for the 1992 field investigationis presented in AppendixF.

2.5.1 Data Validation

In the data validationprocess, analyticalresultsare reviewed to determineif they are withinacceptable guidelines. These guidelines are developedfrom establishedfieldand laboratory protocols that are based partially on historicalperformance and partially on what is perceived to be reasonable, lt is expected in ali data bases that some data will be "qualified." That is, the result of an analysis may not be as near the true value as desired. The qualifi- cation of data is based on comparing the laboratory results with stated quality criteria presented in the Field Investigation Plan and applying professional judgment.

II _ ii ii IIIII l 10010AC9.BOI/mm 2,12 26 February1993 FINAL FINAL

A Initialdata reduction, validation,and reporting were performed at the laboratoryin compliancewith SW 846 (EPA 1990). Data associated with offsitesample analyseswere reviewed outsidethe laboratoryusing EPAdata reviewguidelinesfrom Laboratory Data Validation, Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Inorganic Analyses (EPA 1988a), and Laboratory Data Validation, Functional Guide- lines for Evaluating Organics Analyses (EPA 1988b). CSL data were also evaluatedwith respect to the criteriapresented in the Field InvestigationPlan. These evaluationswere clone on a daily basis and discrepancieswere correctedbefore sample analysis.

Althoughsome data are qualified,the data qualityassurance reports generallyindicatethat the analyseswere completed properly. Data qualityis adequate to meet the objectives of the samplingprogram for the Shemya IRP project. The remainderof this section detailsvariousqualitycontrolrequirementsand their potentialeffecton the usabilityof the data if the requirementswere not met.

2.5.2 Representativeness

Representativenessis a measure of how closelya collected sample resemblesthe entiremediumfrom which the sample is taken. Representativenessis assured through proper sample collection,handling,and analysisprocedures (Sections 2.3 through2.5) as specifiedin the Field InvestigationPlan.

Holdingtimes for ali samples were reviewedduring externaldata validation. Holdingtime criteriaare specifiedfor constituentsin the variousSW 846 procedures. Data validatorsused sample holdingtime criteriafor qualificationof sample data. Data validationindicatesthat holdingtimes are acceptable for ali analytes. The QA audits indicatethat sample collection, handling, and analysisprocedures were followed as specified in the Field InvestigationPlan.

Most samplesanalyzed offsitewere shipped to the CH2M HILL laboratoryin Redding, California. From Redding, selected sampleswere sentto the CH2M HILLlaboratoryin Montgomery, Alabama (for TPH analysis),the CH2M HILL laboratory in Gainesville,Florida (for TOC analysis),and Enseco Laboratoriesin Sacramento,California(for BNA, Pesticides/PCBand GC/MS VOA

mnu iron I I I I IPl O 10010AC9.BOI/rnm 2.14 26Februan/1993 FINAL

analyses). Samples collected for dioxin analysiswere shipped to PacificNorthwestLaboratory(PNL) in Richland,Washington,and then to TMS Laboratory in Indiana for analysis. Sample integrity was maintainedthroughoutthe programthrough the proper use of sample containers,chain-of-custodyseals, and custody forms as verifiedby QA audits. Chain-of-custodyprocedures are presented in detail in the Field InvestigationPlan.

2.5.3 Comparability

Comparabilityis a measure of how closely data generated by differentmethodscompare with each other. Data comparabilityis maintainedby use of consistentmethods and consistentunits.

Comparability of the data has been maintained by using EPA- defined procedures,where available,and other documented procedureswhen EPA methods were not applicable (Table 2.2). Data comparabilitywas also maintainedby using consistent methods and consistentunits.

Field Sampling Procedures

Operation of the sample collection effort was presented in the Field InvestigationPlan. Field audits indicatedthat the sampling procedures presentedwere followed. The Field InvestigationPlan standardizedthe sample collectionand analysiseffort so that data collected are comparableand representativeof the materialbeing sampled,

Laboratory Procedures

Samples were analyzed following the procedures in SW 846, or other EPA methodologies. Comparabilityof data has been maintained throughthe use of standard laboratory procedures.

Data Comparison

Duplicatesof samples analyzed by the CSL were submitted to the offsitelaboratoryat a frequency of 10 percent, for confirmationof the CSL data. AppendixF presents an indepth comparisonof the two sample sets.

e i 10010AC9.BOI/mm 2.15 26 February 1993 FINAL

Forty-eight sampleswere submittedfor confirmatoryanalysisof BTEX,TCE, and PCE. Only one sample (SW10-68) did not meet the duplicatesample criteriabetween onsite and offsiteanalyses (variationof _+35 percent). Onsite analYSiSof sample SW10-68 indicatedlevelsof toluene,ethylbenzene,and the xylenesof 62.8, 54.2, and 171 I_g/L,respectively,althoughthe offsitelaboratory resultswere ali less than the 12 i_g/Ldetection limit.

Six samples had suspiciouscomparisons. Three samples (FT1T25.9, FT1T41.2, and FT1W219.5) had CSL resultsof less than detectionand offsiteresults of greater than 1,000 I_g/kg, whilethree other samples (FT2B20.5, FT2B25.0, and FT2B210.0) had CSL resultsof greaterthan 500 i_g/kgand offsiteresultsof less than detection, lt should be noted that ali six sampleswere deliveredto the offsitelaboratory in the same shipmentbut were deliveredto the CSL on differentdays. lt is therefore unlikelythat the CSL switchedthe samples, lt is thoughtthat these six samples may have been mislabeledat the offsitelaboratory but a review of the documentationdid not reveal any discrepancy. Data from the CSL will be used for these samples.

Thirty-threesamples were submittedfor confirmatoryTPH analysis.Seventeensampleswere determinedto be below the detection limitfor TPH analysis(25 mg/kg). Sample data from O these 17 nondete_ samples were consistentbetween the two laboratories. Twelve other sampleswere determinedby the onsite laboratory to containhigher levelsof TPH than reported by the offsitelaboratory. After investigationof both methods used by the laboratories,it was discoveredthat the offsitelaboratory used only a one-pointcalibrationcurve, whereas the onsite laboratory compared the sample to eithera low concentrationfive-pointcurve or a high concentrationfive-pointcurve. The use of the one-point calibrationcurve by the offsitelaboratory may have resultedin the flatteningof the curveat higherTPH concentrations. Because of the better definitionprovidedby the CSL calibrationcurves,it is felt that the CSL data has more validityand it will be used in this report.

I iii I I I lill II 10010AC9.BOI/mm 2.16 26 February1993 FINAL

2.5.4 Accuracy

Accuracy is an assessment of the closenessof the measured valueto the true value. Accuracy, or bias, of the chemicaltest resultswas assessed inthis investigationby evaluatingmatrix spikes.

For matrixspike analyses,one sample in every sample delivery group (SDG) is divided intotwo aliquots. One is analyzed in the normalfashionwhilethe other is spiked with known amountsof certain analytesand reanalyzed. A comparisonof the detected valuefor the spiked sample (after subtractingthe originalsample concentration)withthe actualamount of anaiyte added indicates the accuracy of the method for spiked analytes. Accuracyis a combinedparametertaking intoaccount method suitabilityas well as matrixeffects, lt is possiblein certain instancesto isolatethe matrixeffectsfrom the method suitabilityby usingthe method precisiondata. For example, in the event of a good precision agreement, any accuracy deviationscan be attributedto matrix effects. Ali matrixspikes for the CSL were in complianceand more than 95 percent of the matrixspikes at the offsite laboratorieswere in compliance. Samples associatedwith out-of-compliancematrixspikedata havebeen qualifiedwith a "J".

2.5.5 Precision

Precisionof data is a measure of the spread of the data when more than one measurementis taken on the same sample. For duplicatemeasurements,precisioncan be expressed as the relative percent difference,or RPD.

To establishlaboratory duplicateprecision,a sample is divided in two portionsand analyzedin duplicateto establishthe reproduci- bility(precision)of the laboratorysample preparationand analysis procedures,and the homogeneityof the sample matrix. Duplicate precisioninformationdoes not lend itseffto a predictionof bias. Both onsiteand offsite laboratoryduplicateanalysesare discussedin more detail in AppendixF. Both CSL and offsite duplicateanalyseswere withinrecommended ranges (+_20. percent for water and +_35 percent for soil) over 95 percent of the time. Samples associatedwith duplicateanalyses exceedingthese ranges have been flagged with a "J".

i ii i ii III 10010ACg.BOI/mm 2.17 26 February 1993 FINAL

2.5.6 Completeness

Completenessis a measure of the amount of usable data obtainedfrom the analyticalmeasurementsystem, lt is the number of nonrejecteddata pointscompared with the total number of data points generated by the laboratory. No data collectedin this investigationare rejected and completenessis 100 percent.

2.5.7 Laboratory Blanks

Laboratory blanksare contaminant-freewater that is analyzed using identicalprotocolsas field samplesto determine if there is any laboratorycontaminationthat could be affectinganalytical results. Laboratoryblanks indicatethe presence of some common laboratorycontaminates,such as methylenechloride, acetone,and bis(2.ethylhexyl)phthalate. This indicatesthat low concentrationsof these compounds reportedby the laboratory may not be associatedwiththe field sample but may have been introducedin the laboratory. Therefore,these analytes in the affected SDGs have been qualified(flagged with a "B" or 'UI") in the data base (AppendixA).

2.5.8 Summary of Data Usability

Data collected duringthis sampling and analysiseffort have been qualifiedthrough data validation,as shown by the flags on appro- priatedata in AppendixA. A predictionof bias is indicatedby the qualifier. Whilenot as good as unqualifiedvalues, the qualified values with known bias are more usable than values with unknown bias. These qualifieddata are used in conjunctionwith unqualified data for the purpose of this report. The data are of known and sufficientqualityto be used in the Shemya InstallationRestoration Program.

2.6 AUDITS PERFORMED

Three auditswere performed during the 1992 field season on Shemya; two qualityassuranceaudits and a health and safety audit. These are discussedbelow.

iii i iii I __ i ii iii I I 10010ACg.BOI/mm 2.18 26 February 1993 FINAL

2.6.1 Ouallty Assurance Audits

Two quality assurance audits were performed during the firstshift of the fieldseason, one by an EMO representativeand one by a CH2M HILLauditor. Each of these audits reviewedthe procedures being followedboth in the CSL and by the field crew. Procedureswere compared to what was stated in the Field InvestigationPlan (CH2M HILL 1991). Auditfindingsindicatedthat procedureswere being followedwith the exceptionof some minor discrepanciesconcerningrequired paperworkand placement of the required informationon the paperwork. Ali discrepancieswere correctedin the fietdand no correctionsto the Field Investigation Plan were required.

2.6.2 Health and Safety Audit

A health and safetyauditwas performed by a CH2M HILL Health and Safety Specialist. This audit was performedto ensure that the provisionsof the health and safetyplan were being followedand to assess if the conditionson the islandrequired any modification of the health and safetyplan. Auditresultsindicatedthat some modificationof the plan was necessarybecause of the weather conditions(highwinds and rain). Modificationsincludedfrequent rest periods during cold weathei',not.drinkirlgcaffeinein the field, and holdingdaily healthand safetymeetings. Ali modifications were implementedinthe field and an addendum to the health and safetyplan was issued.

2.7 RISK ASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS

2.7.1 Introduction

Human health and ecologicalrisk assessmentshave been completed for the 10 IRP sites investigatedduringthe 1992 field season. The detailedassessmentsare includedas AppendixesC (Human Health)and D (Ecological)to this report.

The objectiveof the risk assessmentfor the IRP sites at Shemya AFB is to generate preliminaryrisk levels(PRLs)for soil and groundwater. These risk assessmentlevelscan then be compared to analyticalresultsfrom each site to determine if remediation is necessary. Thisinformation,in turn, can be used to

h I

10010AC9.BOI/mm 2.19 26 February 1993 FINAL

determine the approximatevolume of materialto be remediated and the appropriate actioncan be selected.

PRLsare cleanup levelsthat: 1) are protectiveof human health and the environment;and 2) comply with regulatorystandards, criteria,or action levels. Federal or state recommended action levelsfor soiland groundwaterwere used when available. If no action levelexistsfor exposureto humans, a risk-basedPRL was calculatedfollowingprocedures outlinedby the EPA (EPA 1989b; EPA 1991a). Methods and equationsused for developmentof the human health PRLs are providedin Appendix C. If no action level existsfor ecologicalreceptors(i.e., ambientwater quality),soil and groundwaterconcentrationsassociatedwith no adverse health effect have been calculatedfor each chemicalof concern using literature-derivedvalues. Methods and equationsused for the ecologicalassessmentare provided in Appendix D.

2.7.2 Development of Human Health PRLs

The human health PRLsconsistof medium-specific(i.e., groundwater and soil)goals for protecting human receptors. PRLshave been establishedusingreadilyavailableinformationsuch as reference doses, slope factom (used in the developmentof risk-based levels)and federal or state action levels.

The receptor used in ali exposurescenariosfor this project was the constructionworker for a 30-year period, followingstandard EPA guidance.

This scenario was chosen because it is more conservativethan the scenario involvingbase personnelor a trespasseron the island. The base personnelare on the islandonly 1 year, compared to 15 to 20 years for a constructionworker.

The exposure scenariosused in the developmentof the human health PRLswere the constructionworker exposed to: 1) contaminatedsurfaceand subsurface soil;2) contaminated surface water; and 3) contaminateddrinkingwater from the water gallery.

Equationspresented in Part B of Risk AssessmentGuidelinesfor Superfund (RAGS) have been used to calculate risk-basedreme- diationgoals (EPA 1991a). Two risk-basedPRLsfor each

I i i 10010AC9.BOI/mrn 2.20 26 February 1993 FINAL

exposure scenariohave been developed based upon the type of toxicologicaleffectthe chemicalmay exhibit(noncarcinogenicor carcinogenic). The PRLswere calculatedfor the followingtarget risk levels:104,10s, and 104 for carcinogensand a hazard quotientequal to one for noncarcinogens.

2.7.3 Development of Ecological PRL.s

The objectiveof the EcologicalRisk Assessmentis to identifycon- ditionsat the areas of concernthat may pose a threat to ecological receptors. Guidanceutilizedfor the completionof this effort includes:

• Risk AssessmentGuidancefor Superfund-Volume II, EnvironmentalEvaluationManual (EPA 1989c)

• Framework for EcologicalRiskAssessment (EPA 1992)

• SummaryReporton Issuesin EcologicalRisk Assessment(EPA 1991b)

• EcologicalAssessmentof Hazardous Waste Sites: e A Field and Laboratory Reference (EPA1989a) • EcologicalRisk Assessment(Suter 1992)

The purpose of the EcologicalRiskAssessment is to provide a method of comparing levels of potential exposure to wildlife from site-related contaminants to establish levels which do not have an adverse effect on wildlife. Because of the uncertainties and lack of standard procedures, an overall semiquantitative approach has been used, whereby, observed concentrations of chemicals in soil and surface water were utilized to calculate incidental soil ingestion dose and surface water ingestion dose for terrestrial life. These dose levels were then compared to literature toxicity values to assess risk.

Terrestrialwildlife species and aquatic species were addressed as the potentialreceptorssincesurface water, soilsediment,and groundwatermatricesare the primary concern. Because of limitedinformationregardingexistingaquatic species, the risk posed to aquatic environmentswas addressed by comparisonsof observed chemicalconcentrationsin sedimentand surface water

.w 10010AC9.BOI/mm 2.21 26 February1993 FINAL

to applicable surface water and sedimentcriteriafor the protection of aquatic life.

Groundwaterseep exposureto aquaticorganismswas limitedto SW-10 because of the lack of data at other sites to prove the exis- tence of this exposurepathway. For those locationswith soil and groundwatercontamination,terrestrialorganismrisk was determined. For those locationswith surface water and sediment contamination,aquaticand terrestrialorganismrisk was established.

Maximumconcentrationsof the contaminantsof concern observed at each area were used as potentialexposure concentrationsand compared to concentrationswith no observed effect. If observed concentrationsexceed the no-effect concentrations, risk to the potentiallyexposed populationsmay exist.

__ i ii iili III 1 0ACg.BOI/mm 2.22 26 February1993 Physical Characteristics and Nature ant; Extent of Contamination

• di W

lO010B46.BOI/jc FINAL

el 3.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATIO N

Thischapter presentswhat is currentlyknown about each site. At sites where there is sufficientdata, risk assessmentinformationis presented. Future actionsare recommendedfor ali sites.

3.1 BACKGROUND SAMPLES

As a part of the 1992 fieldinvestigation,fivebackground samples were obtained [two soilsamples (BS-124, BS-125), two beach sand samples (BSSD-126, BSSD-127), and one groundwatersample (BKG-01)]. Each of the sample locationsis shown in Figure3.1.

Aliof these sampleswere analyzed for volatileorganic compounds (VOCs), semivolatileorganic compounds (semiVOCs), PCB/pesticides,and metals. Ali of the soil/beachsamples show low levels (79 to 630/_/kg) of bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,but this compound was also present intha laboratoryblanksand is therefore considered a lab contaminant. Ali other organic compounds O were less than their respective.detection limits. Metals concentrations are shown in Table 3.1. Most of these concentrations are fairly low compared to other samples in this investigation, except chromium in soil sample BS-124 at 18.2 mg/kg, and arsenic in sediment sample BSSD-126 at 8.3 mg/kg.

3,2 WATER GALLERY

3.2.1 Site Background

The water gallery (WG) is located in the south central part of the island south of Hangar 4 and east of Hangar 3 (Figure 1.3, Figure 3.2, and Figure 3.3). Since the early 1950s, potable water has been collected by a permanent infiltration gallery system. The gallery uses eight horizontal infiltration collectors to intercept shallow groundwater in the unconfined aquifer just above the bedrock (Figure 3.4). There are no defined stream channels within the water gallery and nearly ali precipitation infiltrates into the peat layer.

10010AF4.BOi/mm 3.1 26 February 1993 FINAL

o v

0 E _ • _ _ _ • • _ _ • _ _ _ _m_ _ 0 o_o_oooooooooo_oooooooooooooooo _ .,..o.,,,....,,.,ooeJ,o,.,,o,.,

_ o ______• 0

_ 0

E 2 _ _ _ _:_ _ • 0

0 _ _ _ 0

0 _ "_

_ m

AAAAAAAAAA_AAAAAA_AAAAAAAAAAAAA -______0 0000000000000000000000000000000 ._ llillllJllJllililiililiillJiJii _ 0 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ._ _ ._

lllllll llllllllllllllllllllllll _-M _ _ _._ _

0 ______

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm U t J _ n , , 0 a a 0 _ J , _ , t 0 0 a _ _ 0 _ j _ t t _ u J t _ _ mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm_mmmmmmmmmmmmmm v _

3.2 26 February 1993 O FINAL

26 February 1993' 3.3 FINAL

/ ' -- ' ..... 21_"February 199J 3.4 = FIGURE 3.1. Backc

B0131941 .R T,,/IBORINGS.DWG 0 1000 2000 4000

SCALE: 1"=2000'

BS-124 _ BS-125 • o _ I

BW-01 _IG-1 LEGEND _b 988) O 1988 BACKGROUND ,,_I3 . SAMPLING LOCATION :":,_ -_ SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION .._, SEDIMENT LOCATION (BEACH) SAMPLING LOCATION

BW GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOCATION

BS-127 v

,und Sample Location 3.5 26 February 1995

p/.{q" ,I , SCALE" 1"=300' ,. ../ . / / / / i'

-.,.

.. ,..

.,,,.,. , • ;b,::;:/;_" . • "',i*"_.,

// qp'-q-,,,....,...... ,,,\\,

ro!_l //'-,,.,, ...... /'/ ."- ,,,

j ,," ..== • • ,,,.;. .."

__,<__WATER . ,,, /",'-r,4__ z ,_...... '_ * COLLECTORSOIL SAMPLETUBESLOCATION COLLECTIONMANHOLE - ' "i .',''"'T_I'_.'; ","4:',(/,'_ • WELL POINT LOCATION

_/_ , ,& MONITORING WELL , LOCATION © MANHOLE

Water Gallery 3.7 26 February lgg3 FIGURE ,5. _:_ .7:"'"...... _, _, _:,_. /" ...... ,...... ,.,@_,_., ....._I_}_;_7 ,.,1- •...... 2:,. ,......

"i. • _"

ON LEGEND SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION --..--. COLLECTOR TUBES L_i_."i_'_WELL POINT LOCATION

MONITORING WELL LOCATION (_ MANHOLE

WG Enlarged Plan 5.9 26 Februery 1995 i I '--_ L/ / AIRCRAFT N / HARDSTAND I (NOT USED) I L_/ I

BERM _ 2-6" CONC (_,,\

BERM

_- AREA, GEOPI SURVl ABBREVIATIONS MH=MANHOLE CMP=CORRUGATED METAL PIPE CONC=CONCRETE PIPE FIGURE 3.4. Wat_ 0 0 160

SCALE: 1"=80' I I /" _------. I

Fj . L7I

_, HARDSTAND I _ # I (NOT USED) I L___ I __ "_-_..../ b

I I 8" DRAIN _MP ,, II 6" OVERFLOW

U.S. GEOLOGICAL "Q I SURVEY STREAM GAGING STATION 12" CMP (INACTIVE) BYPASS MH

F "SICAL "(FIGURE 3.3)

Gallery Water Supply 3.1 1 26 February 1993 FINAL

Water is collectedin a central galleryholdingtank with an approximate capacityof 24,000 gallons. Water is chlorinatedand pumped to three water storage holdingtanks with a combined capacityof 800,000 gallons. Water requirementsof Shemya AFB are normallymet by this system. Most of the area aroundthe water galleryhas been impacted by human activities. To the northwestof the water galleryis an abandoned tank farm with possiblepetroleumcontamination. Two aircrafthard stands are just north of the system,as is Hangar 4. Ali of the immediatearea has been disturbed;however,nativevegetation is startingto return. Much of the water gallery was rebuiltin 1992 after this investigationhad finished. Duringthe late 1980s, samplingof the water at the gallery indicatedthe presenceof TCE. Subsequent samplingconfirmedthat the water enteringthe system was contaminatedwith TCE. This led the Air Forceto request that the water gallerybe studiedalong withthe rest of the IRP sites.

Investigationsinthe area of the water gallery indicatethat much of the area has been disturbed. A siltysand layer 1 to 5 feet thick coversthe originalpeat surfaceof the area. The peat layer varies from less than 1 foot thick to over 7 feet thick in some areas. Areas of buried peat horizons have also been observed in the water gallery. Underthe peat is a layer of gravel or gravel mixed withsand that variesin thicknessfrom 5 to 10 feet. The gravel, probablya hornblendedacite porphyry,has some lenses of sandy clay mixedin. The depth to bedrock variesfrom 11 to 22 feet below ground surface(bgs) and is also made up of hornblende.

3.2.2 Previous Investigations

The base BioenvironmentalEngineering(BE) office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) have both conductedinvestiga- tionswithinthe area of the water gallery. Each of these investigationsis discussedbelow. The water gallery was not part of the 1988 IRP investigation.

BE has been collectingwater samplesfrom the drinkingwater systemon Shemya since 1989. Resultsof this sampling indicatea consistentpresence of TCE at 3 to 4.5/_g/L. Table 3.2 presents the samplingdata and onlythose compounds detected. In addition to TCE, many chlorinationby-productsare also found in the

ii iiiii IO010AF4.BOI/mm 3.13 26 February 1993 FINAL

TABLE 3.2. Sampling Performedby BioenvironmentalEngineering

Date ' Sampled EPA Method Compounds Found Concentration 08/29/89 503.1 Trichloroethylene 3.4 pg/L 11/11/89 503.1 Trichloroethylene 2.5 pg/L 01/03/90 50_°.2 Trichloroethylene 3.6 pg/L 01/21/90 503.1 Trichloroethylene 2.9 pg/L Benzene 0.6 pg/L 02]26/90 _ 503.1 Trichloroethylene 4.5 pg/L 03/29/90 502.1 Trichloroethylene 3.0 pg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethylene 0.6 pg/L 06/12190 503.1 None detected

08/27/90 502.2 Trichloroethylene 2.8 pg/L Dichlorodifluoromethane* 0.83 pg/L Bromomethane* 2.2 pg/L : 09/25/90 503.1 Trichloroethylene 1.2 pg/L 10/23/90 . 503.1 Trichloroethylene 3.5 pg/L Ben_.ene 0.66 pg/L 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 3.57 #g/L 12117/90 503.1 Trichloroethylene 3.2 pg/L 01/30/91 502.2 Trichloroethylene 4.2 pg/L 02/28/91 502.2 Trichloroethylene 3.2 pg/L cis- 1,2- Dichloroethane 0.41 pg/L : 03/19/91 502.2 Trichloroethylene 4.1 pg/L 06/18/91 501.1 None detected

06/18/91 502.2 Trichloroethylene 3.0 pg/L 06/18/91 cis- 1,2- Dichloroethane 0.8 pg/L 06/18/91 EPA 600/4-81-053 None detected Iron 330 pg/L Manganese 402 pg/L 09/04/91 502.2 Trichloroethylene 3.2 pg/L cis- 1,2- Dichaoroethene 0.44 pg/L 10/16/91 502.2 Trichloroethylene 28 24 #g/L cis- 1,2- Dichioroethene 3.49 pg/L

i ii i " m / lO0109BI.BOI/jc 3.14 _ February 1993 FINAL

O TABLE 3.2. (cont.)

Date Sampled EPA Method Compounds Found Concentration 10/16/91 502.2 Chlorodibromoethane* 33/Jg/L cis- 1,2- Dichloroethene 0.33 IJg/L Bromodichloromethane* 23 pg/L Bromoform* 9.0 tJg/L Chloroform* 7.5 pg/L Trichloroethylene 3.9 IJg/L 01/02/92 502.2 Chlorodibromomethane* 33/Jg/L cis- 1,2- Dichloroethene 0.33 tJg/L Bromodichloromethane* 23 pg/L Bromoform* 9.0 pg/L Chloroform* 7.5/Jg/L Trichloroethylene 3.9 tJg/L *Chlorinationby-products.

WA s 100109B1.BO|/jc 3.15 26 February 1993 FINAL

water supply; these compounds are common when water with a high organic content is chlorinatedand are not consideredto be contaminationcaused by externalsources.

The COE .has drilled borings and installed monitoringwells in and aroundthe water galleryon severaloccasions, beginningin 1984. Soil samplesand water sampleshave been collectedand analyzedduring these investigations.During 1989, the COE performed an investigationof the water galleryon Shemya to determine groundwaterflow patterns,identifyPOL contamination,and determinethe depth to bedrock. This informationwas necessary to designchanges to the collectionsystem of the galleryto increasethe flow. Elevenboringswere drilledusing a hollowstem auger and eight of the holeswere completed as monitoringwells. Eighteensoilsamples were sent to an offsitelaboratoryfor analysis of POL constituents. Drillinglogs are availablefor each borehole. Analyticaldata from this investigationare used inthis report in a qualitativemanner onlybecause of the lack of parame- ter-specificQNQC that is availablefor the offsiteanalyses. No TCE was found in any of the seven water or soilsamples analyzed for TCE by the COE (COE 1990). However, petroleum contaminationwas found in some of the soil samples. _t 3.2.3 "1992 Investigation

During the 1992 investigation,surface soil sampling, well points, monitoring wells, and backhoe pits were used to try to identify the source area of TCE contamination. A geophysical survey was conducted over approximately 2 acres at the water gallery (Figure 3.5) to locate any buried objects. Data were collected at 5-foot intervals along lines 25 feet apart. The data are presented as contour maps of conductivity and in-phase values in Appendix B.

Resultsof the geophysical investigation are shown in Figure 3.5. An area identified as buried metal was identified in the west side of the survey area. This feature probably corresponds to utility lines along the east side of the road, but because the survey lines are parallel to the utility line, its location is poorly defined. Several other interpreted utility lines are shown in the figure. These _re apparently water lines since they align with manholes seen at the

...... i, I, I I II I _ li 10610AF4.BOI/mm 3.16 2e February1993 i:L •

"!:". I-- oNrv"

_ _ 0 0 Oi O, I-- 0 i .0_i ,--0 ,Lr--) (xliOi u(xli31 w U_{W! W W Wf W_

N300 i _ ARTH BERl

+'_ I-\ "t'X. .... __ _

N250 i _ + . . + 4- ...... + + "1- + + "!- I t- + + + 4- I , + + f I- + + + ""- + 4- + I- + + + t) + + + 4-

N200 t- + ...... + ,.+...... +..+..1...... +...... I...... _ ...... ' I t- + + + + _ 1 , + .t- 4- + + i- + 4- 4.- + + + + + + _' I- + + + 4- + + -I- + 4- " + + + + + I 4- Jr "t" + + ,,-- J N150 + ! ...... m + + ...... _ LT...... _ ...... '" ""......

++ + (" i EART & + + + HBRM t I j DIR_ ROAD v // / NIO0 I" ,i ',,:...... !...... /.....--.../...... / / /

I HIGH VOL+AGE ! _ ,.. ,

...... i OUSE...... i......

FIGURE 3.5. WG Geophysicol i .i 0 25 50 100

SCALE: 1"=50'

o o o _, ol o u3 oi _i F3 F_ _I

- _...... 7- ! ( CEN _AL IvANHO4E

...... /_ ...... i ......

_ESSJC_ _ _.__ -----_ LEGEND ...... @ MANHOLE , iGEOPHYSICAL SURVEY LINE

...... METAL

'///,// 0 POSSIBLE BURIED "/ / L METAL -i _ , @ ISOLATED BURIED ' --x..... METAL x-_------_. FENCE__i--/ "----- UTILITY LINE

-lterpretive Map (Collection Area) 5.1 7 26 February 19945 FINAL

site. Short features also identified as utilitylinesare mapped at 140 northbetween 100 and 200 east. These do not lineup with the manholesor connectwiththe other utilitylinesshown and may not be water lines. Isolatedburied metal and possibleisola- ted buried metal have also been identifiedat several locations (Figure3.5).

Surface soil samples (0 to 6 inches)were collectedat each loca- tionwhere a well point was installed. Each sample was analyzed for TPH, and if volatileswere detected using an organic vapor monitor(OVM), then the sample was also analyzed for BTEX, TCE, and PCE. A total of 57 sampleswere collectedand analyzed at the CSL for TPH, withthe range of concentrationsbeing <25 mg/kg to 4,763 mg/kg; 29 of the 57 samples were over 100 mg/kg (Table 3.3). Most of the surface samples withTPH concentrationsabove 100 mg/kg were taken from just north of the collectionsystem and along both sides of Tower Road west of Hangar 4. In additionto onsite analysis,five surface samples were collected for offsiteanalysisof volatileorganics (VOAs), semivolatileorganics(semi VOAs), pesticides/PCBs,and metals. Positiveresultsfrom these analysesare summarizedin Table 3.4.

O , sampleAli five Sam(WG-109),plesshotakweednsoeastmeocof Hangarntaminatio4, wn,aswhheavilyile onlycontami-one nated with semivolatilecompounds. This area east of Hangar 4 has since been remediatedby the 1lth CEOS through excavation of contaminatedsoiland stockpilingelsewherefor bioremediation.

A total of 55 well points were installedupgradient of the water gallerycollectionsystemto map the potentiometricsurface. Water levelswere measuredin each well point that reachedthe water table (48 of 55) and the resultsare presented in Figure 3.6. As can be seen, the area from the collectionsystem to north of Hangar 4 contributeswater to the collectionsystem.

In additionto water leveldata, a water sample was obtained from each well point and analyzedfor BTEX,TCE, and PCE. No TCE or PCE was found in any of the well points. The well points installedimmediatelynorthof the water gallery (Figure 3.3) appear to have intercepteda perchedwater table. The well pointswere unableto be driven to the same depth as the collectiontubes. One well point (WP7, Figure3.2) was positivefor benzene at 1.8/_g/L, and two well points(EWP9 and EWP22) were positive

=-- i iii i iii i i iii 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3,19 26February1993 A ..... 26 Februarv 1993 3.20 FINAL

H H N

,,eeoeeeooee=eoeeoeteeeoeeeeeeoeeoo

0 g m

...... _----_ ._

...... _ 0 j ...... oo _ ._o _

M _ 0

U ,,llllllll,lll,l,lllllllllll,lll,ll -- -- 0 _ _ _ _

26 February 1993 3.21 FINAL

...... 26 Feb,uarY 1993 3.22 FINAL

H H X .M

__o_o_____ 0

_ _ 0

_ 0 _ NN NM M _ u

_ 0

• _ _ _ _ .

°_

mmm m mm _m •

oooooooooooooooooo oo = vv_lllll_lllllll_v v_ *M 00000 0000000 _ 0 ., ,_o_,___, ,_-, _ 0

000 __0____00 _ _00000_0000000_ _ 0 • .

0 ___ o__ • ______0

llllllllllllllll'llll -- -- 0

...... " 26'February199-3 3.23 FINAL

i i iiiii iii iii 26 February 1993 Q 3.24 FINAL

.... 26 February 1993 3.25 FINAL

i i 26 February 1993

3.26 FINAL

- ..... 26'f:ebruarv 1993

3.27 FINAL

ii,, 26 February 1993

3.28 FINAL FINAL

26 February 1"993 0 3.30 FINAL

H H O ._ _a N 0 oooooooooooo_oooooooo0ooooooooo _ _oo_ooooo_o_ooo_oo_oo_ooooo.eeeeeeoeeeoeeoeeeeeeoeeeoeoeee

_ 0______0 0 _ 0 _ 0

m o m

m_ • o

m m _ o

4 _8 o _ • _ _ _ _ _ o

•ii.. _ 0°•

=28M "'_ o _ _=oo_ _ o.. .

mmmmmmm_ommmmmmmmmmmm_mmmm_m_o_ _ 0 • o.'.o..I ...... oo,,, ...... ',1" _'M 0000000000000000000000000000000 -M_ llllllll_llllllllllllllllllll_l _ 0 00000000 00000000000000000000 0 .H _ -M

Illlllll_llllllllllllllllllll _ m ______O_ .NO _-_ _

o ___mmm_mm_mm_mmmmmm_mmm o_ _

O ,,lllllllllllll,ll,lllli,ll,lll ------

26 February 1993

3.31 FINAL

0 u v

H _ N 0 ._

0 oo_oooooooooooo_ooooooooooooooo _ oo_o_ooooooo_oooooooooooooo ...... g_dd''d ......

_ 0

_ u m •

_ _ 0

_ _ _ __ o_oooo_ _ "_' . _ ._

°______= o 0000000000000000000000000000000 "_ lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll _ 0 0000000000000000000000000000000 ,H _ "_ i ...... 0 _ 0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ "_ I I I I l , I , , , l I l I I l l I I l ' l I l ' I ' I I I I _ _ _

o __,______o

IIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_ _ _

I'LII A 26 February 19_}3' W 3.32 FINAL

H H

0 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO_OOO _

eo.oe,eeeo.ooeeeeee,oeee,oeeeee

_ _ _ 0

N ggg_gggg_ggggggggg_gggg___ _ g • _ 0

• . ______0

_ oooo__ _ _ _=

" ...... lllllllllllllllll ...... _.H 0000000000000000000000000000000 ._ I I I I I I I _ _ I I I I I I I _ 0 ooooooo ooooooo ._ m -_

mmmm_mm_mm_mm_mmmmmmmmm___ -_ O_ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo _ ._ ''"'"'"''''''"'"'''''"''' _ _ _._ _

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll _ _

O_ _ _

' 26 Fobrua'r_/ 1993 3.33 FINAL

0 u

H _ N 0 .M

000000000000 _

_0ee_.llt00...io_, 000_00

_ _ _ _ 0

_ _ 0

m • m

_ 0 0 _ _

-M

_ m _ m _ ._.

______0 oooooooooooo "_ IIIIIIIIIIII _ 0 000000000000 -M _ -H i 0 _m __0__ "_ _ 0 _ _ ' '"

Illiilllllll _.M_ _ _._ _

H ______0

// II _ _ llllllll__ _ _

26 February 1993

3.34 FIGURE ,3.6. WG Groun,

B0131941 .RT/WG-WL.DWG- WL ater Contour Map - Water Level 3.35 26 February 1993 FINAL

for toluene at 1.3 and 1.0 #.g/L,respectively (Table 3.3). Well pointsWP1 and WP2 were positivefor xylenesat 8 #g/L and 5/_g/L, respectively. Aliwell pointswith BTEX compounds detected inthe groundwaterhad surface TPH concentrationsof over 100 mg/kg. However, many of the well pointswith high surfaceTPH concentrationsdid not have BTEX in the water samples.

Water sampleswere collectedat three differenttimes during the investigationfrom insidethe water gallery collectiontubes where the tubes enter the water collectionmanhole (Figure3.4). These sampleswere analyzedfor BTEX,TCE, and PCE. Resultsindi- cated that most of the TCE contaminantwascoming from the collectiontubes to the west of the center manhole. These two tubes a_sowere providingthe majorityof the flow for the system. TCE concentrationsduringthe firstshiftwere approximately3 to 5/_g/L (Table 3.3) and approximately7 #g/L during the second shift.

Usingthe informationfrom the well points, monitoringwellswere installedto more closelydefine where the TCE contaminationwas originating. Eight monitOringwells were installedand sampled for BTEX,TCE, and PCE usingthe CSL for quick turnaround. F!gu:'e3.3 shows the locationsof the wells,and Table 3.5 pre- serltsthe contaminantsfound in each weil.

Duringthe drillingof each weil, soilsampleswere obtained throughoutthe soilprofileand again analyzedfor TPH, BTEX, TCE, and PCE. TPH concentrationsranged from less than detection (25 mg/kg) to 117 mg/kg (Table 3.3). Well 4 (WG-W4) showed minor amounts of xylene (14 #g/kg) and Well 2 (WG-W2) had higherconcentrationsof xylene (124 #g/kg) (Table 3.3) and minor amountsof other volatiles. No other wells had detects of volatilecompoundsin the soilsamples.

, ii i i i i 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.37 26 February1993 FINAL

TABLE ._3_.Water Gallery Monitoring Wells

Well Groundwater Contaminants (w) (/_g/L) 1 TCE = 2.4 2 T = 16.3, E = 3.7, X = 18.9 • 3 TCE = 4.7 4 TCE - 20, DCE = 1 5 TCE = 1, Acetone = 920, T=11 6 T=8 7 TCE - 18 8 T=3 T = Toluene E = Ethylbenzene X = Xylene

No sourcefor TCE was found in the drilled sediments above the water table, althoughthe concentrationin the groundwaterindi- cate;dthat the source was just northof the collectionsystem.

As a lasteffort to locatethe source of the TCE, backhoe trenches and pits were dug in the berm on the north side of the water gallery. These pits extendedto a hardpan where water was pool- ing during excavation. Soil sampleswere analyzedfor BTEX, TCE, and PCE. Resultsfromthese samples again showed some BTEXcompounds present in the soil but no TCE.

The soilboring logs (AppendixE) indicatethat the surface material comprisespeat and sand. Because most of the area has been disturbed,the thicknessof these layersvarieswidely, from 2 feet to 13 feet. Belowthese layersis a gravel hardpan of 2 to 4 feet followed by bedrock. The top of the bedrock is fairlyweathered and was penetrated up to 2 feet before auger refusal.

i I lO010AF4.BOI/rnm 3.38 26 February 1993 FINAL

3.2.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

Sampling that has been performed within the water gallery indicates that there is fairly widespread low-level TPH contamination within the watershed of the water gallery. Table 3.6 and Table 3.7 present the analytes with positive results, the total number of samples analyzed, the number of samples with a positive result, and the range of the positive results. The area around Hangar 4 seems to be the most heavily contaminated, although some of that contamination has been removed since it was sampled in July.

An area of TCE contaminationexistsbetween monitoring wells 4, 6, 7, and 8 (WG-W4, WG-W6, WG-W7, and WG-W8). Backhoe pits dug in the area did not revealany TCE contaminationin the zone betweenthe surfaceand the water table. Because the TCE does not appear to be comingfrom the vadose zone, it may be a dense non aqueous phase liquid(DNAPL) lyingin a pool on top of, or within, the bedrock.

3.2.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

Several water samples from the water gallery exceeded preliminary risk levels (PRLs)for human health. These samples are listed • in Table 3.8. Only one soilsample exceeded the PRLs,sample WG-109, taken from an area southeastof Hangar 4. This area has been excavatedsince the time the sample was taken and the excavated materialis stockpiledon Runway B.

Monitoring wells 4 (WG-W4) and 7 (WG-W7) exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL) (5/_g/L) for TCE as did one of the samples taken from the center manhole (CMl) of the collection gallery and a sump in the pump house (SO2). This indicates that, at times, the drinking water from the water gallery may be above the MCL for TCE. With reconstruction of the water gallery in late 1992, now complete, it is not known how this has affected the TCE concentrations. Well 3 (WG-W3) exceeded the MCL for chromium. Other metals were also above PRLsfor wells 3 and 4 (Table 3.8).

i1'11 iii 10010AF4,t3OI/mm 3.39 26 February 1993 FINAL

TABLE3.6. Analyteswith PositiveResultsin Soils at the Water Gallery Numberof Total Samples Number with Positive Range of Analyte of Samples Result Results(_)

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 5 5 180 to 2,000 Fluoranthene 5 2 59 to 130,000 Aroclor-1254 . 5 1 36 Phenol 5 1 160 4-methylphenol 5 t 1,000 Naphthalene 5 1 1,600 2-methylnaphthalene 5 1 1,290 Acenaphthalene 5 1 15,000 Dibenzofuran 5 1 12,000 Fluorene 5 2 70 to 21,000 Phenanthrene 5 2 60 to 120,000 Anthracene 5 1 38,000 Carbazole 5 1 13,000 Pyrene 5 1 81,000 Benzo(a)anthracene 5 1 43,000 Chrysene 5 1 35,000 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 5 1 61,000 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5 1 21,000 Benzo(a)pyrene 5 1 36,000 Indeno(1:2,3-cd)pyrene 5 1 20,000 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 5 1 4,800 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 5 1 13,000 Endrin Ketone 5 1 3.4 Methylene Chloride 5 3 8 to 17 Xylene 106 15 7 to 347 Toluene 106 3 10 to 99 Arsenic 5 5 5 to 6.8 Chromium 5 5 20.5 to 38.7 Lead 5 5 6.4 to 137 Zinc 5 5 38.4 to 320 Total PetroleumHydrocarbons 106 60 25 to 4,763

('}Metals and TPH are in mg/kg. Ali other analytes are in/Jg/kg.

O 2 IO010CF3.BOI/jc 3.40 26 February 1993 FINAL

O TABLE 3.7. Analytes with Positive Results in Water at the Water Gallery

Number of Total Number Samples with Range of, Analyte of Samples PositiveResult Results_a_

Trichioroethene 68 12 2 - 25 Acetone 6 1 920 Benzene 68 1 2 Toluene 68 7 1 - 11 Ethylbenzene 68 2 1 - 2 Xylene 68 6 1 - 33 2-Butanone 6 1 200 1,2-Dichloroethene 6 1 1 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 6 1 1 • .

10010D15.BOI/jc 3.41 26 February1993 FINAL

TABLE 3.8. Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPCs)at the Water Gallery that Exceed Human Health Preliminary Risk Levels (PRLs) e Depth PRL PRL Sample NO (ft.) Chemical ...... Concentration Qualifier Laboratory Concentration Source

GROUNDWATER COPCs (ug/L) (ug/L)

Water Gallery , CMl Trichloroethylene 7.2 ONSITE 5 MCL SO2 Trichlcroethylene 5.1 ONSITE 5 MCL WGW4 Trichloroethylene 24.9 ONSITE 5 MCL WG4 Trichloroethylene 16.4 ONSITE 5 MCL WGW4 Trichloroethylene 22.2 ONSITE 5 MCL WG7 Trichloroethylene 17.6 ONSITE 5 MCL WGW7 Trichloroethylene 18.2 ONSITE 5 MCL A-WGW3 Antimony(a) 31.1 WC 10 MCL-p A-WGW3 Beryllium 0.75 WC 0.0039 WQC A-WGW3 Chromium 53.4 WC 50 MCL A-WGW3 Manganese 2170 WC 710 NC A-WGW4 Antimony(a) 31.1 WC 10 MCL-p A-WGW4 Beryllium(a) 0.5 WC 0.0039 WQC A-WGW4 Manganese 892 WC 710 NC A-WGW4 Trichloroethene 15 WC 5 MCL

SURFACE SOILS COPCs (ug/kg) (ug/kg)

WG: Water Gallery WG-109 0.5 Chrysene 35000 OFFSITE 1400 C WG-109 0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 43000 OFFSITE 1400 C i_i WG-109 0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 61000 " OFFSITE 1400 C WG-109 0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 21000 OFFSITE 1400 C WG-109 0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 36000 OFFSITE 1"400 C WG-109 0.5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 20000 OFFSITE 1400 C WG-109 0.5 Arsenic 6800 OFFSITE 5700 C

(a) = detection limit Notes:

MCL = Safe DrinkingWater Act Maximum Contaminant Level MCL-p = ProposedSafe DrinkingWater Act Maximum Contaminant Level WQC -- Ambient Water Quality Criteria NC = Risk-basedConcentration/NoncarcinogenicEffects C = Risk-basedConcentration/CarcinogenicEffects ONSITE = Close Support Laboratory (onShemya Island) OFFSITE = Contract Laboratory ProgramMethodology(samples sent to offsite lab) WC = Woodward-Clyde Data J = estimated value D = dilution B = blank contamination

e 3.42 26 February 1993

BOLT918/014.xls/jc FINAL

Q The preliminary ecological risk assessment (Appendix D) determined that indeno (1, 2, 3-cd) pyrene and phenanthrene in one soil sample (WG-WP7 sample lD = WG-109) may present some risk to terrestrial animals at the site. However, the area was remediated after the sample was taken. No groundwater constituents were determined to pose an ecological risk. Antimony, iron, aluminum, and cobalt also exceeded ecological PRLs within the water gallery.

3.2.6 Future Actions

The probable locationof the TCE source is a DNAPL pool on, or within,the fracturedbedrock. This locationmakes removalof the source very difficultand expensivefor the concentrationsbeing found inthe drinkingwater.

Consequently,recommendedactions at the water gallery include monthlysamplingfor TCE, movingvehiclemaintenanceactivities out of Hangar 4, restrictingali futuredevelopmentwithinthe water gallery, and the installationof a filtrationsystem capable of remov- ingTCE from the water. As an interimmeasure,untilthe filtration O _ .system is installed,water from the backup wells could be mixed with the water fromthe collectionsystemto ensure that TCE levels remain below the MCL.

3.3 FIRE TRAINING SITE 1: LIGHTNING STRIKE (FT-l)

3.3.1 Site Background

FT-1 is locatedon a peninsulaon the west side of Skoot Cove (Figure3.7). lt is bordered by bedrock cliffsthat rise to a grassy knoll on the west and the ocean on the south and the east. The only road access to the siteis from the northwhere a narrow flat piece of land leadsto the main portion of the island. The site has been graded flat and is approximately5 feet above the high tide mark on the adjacent beach. Surface water drainagefrom this site is directly intothe ocean. However, because of the flat terrain of the site and the low intensityof rainfallthat is normalfor Shemya, little surface water runoff is created at this site and no defined drainage channels exist.

O ! '10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.43 26 February 1993 FINAL

From the early 1970s untilthe mid-1980s, FT-1 was used as a fire trainingarea by the Air'Force. Waste oil, diesel, and JP-4 were used to start and sustainfires that were then put out by the fire department using aqueousfilm-formingfoam (AFFF). After the fire was extinguishedsome of the flammable fluids remainedand were allowedto infiltrateintothe soil. In recent years,the area has been used by base personnelfor barbecues and to build bonfires.

The entire area of FT-1 tlas been disturbed by past activities. The surface of the area is a siltysand and gravel that extends down to 3 to 4 feet. This is generallyfollowedby a claystoneclownto at least 20 feet bgs, the deepest of the boreholes at this site. lt is not known what lies beneath the claystone. Groundwaterhas been encounteredwithinthe claystonebut well below the gravel layer.

3.3.2 Previous Investigations

In September 1987, the CH2M HILL investigationteam reported that no barrelsor drumswere visibleand no oil-stainedsoilwas noted. The 1988 field investigationidentified an approximately 100-foot-diameterdarkened soils area at this site."One backhoe • pit was excavated near the center of the disturbedarea. The pit exposed ash and 'oxidizedresidues,broken glass, metal debris, and darkened soils. The backhoe pit was excavatedto a depth of 4 feet. At this depth, it appears that the amount of debris diminished. Largefillrock and sloughingof the pit walls made excavationof the pit below 4 feet too difficultto continue.

Concentrationsof TPH identified in the backhoe pit sampling were 2,300 mg/kg at the 2-foot depth and 2,000 mg/kg at the 4-foot depth. Total lead was detected at 320 mg/kg at the 2-foot depth and 280 mg/kg at the 4-foot depth. The semivolatilecompound di-n-Butyl-phthalatewas detected at 0.55 mg/kg at the 4-foot depth (resultwas qualifiedas an estimate). Volatileanalysis resultsshowed 1.4 mg/kg 2-butanoneat the 4-foot depth. Both of these compoundsare commonlaboratorycontaminants.

Whether or not these debris existthroughout the disturbed area was not ascertained. Sincethat investigation,this area has been graded and a crushed rock cover placed over the disturbedarea by the 1lth CEOS.

I I 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.44 26 February1993 28"33'06"| -r" ...._-'T1-01 5

FT1-OO._. "' " L,'" ' • ".. _._r_,Z

,,_ "t... . _.... \ KT1-OO7_ "" "., ..,. ' .• . ',,

", ",,

FT1-00% WELL NO..3 ",, \

FT1- 00_''" \.

k WELL N(

_ FT1-OI

_'_" TRENCH N( FT.-1

LOCATION MAP

FIGURE 5.7. FT-1 Lightr

B_31941._T/FTI .DV_ o 30 60 120

SCALE" 1"=60'

016

#T1-017,,,,, . .s j ,..... ,,FT1-018 \

,._#T1-020

._,,-' ",,

..t.f.s ''j "_. '"x ,,_"J_T1-021 ,,. f'" ",,, \_. ,.,,"_ f' .,...

", ,,_'FT1-022 .= \

FT1_1 ;._,-'1_T1_012 ": _550, [._'-" t._ ,_'FT1-023

• . I_WELL NO. 1 -_3"_ ...." Z.2._&"-. ,_oo i -003,_ ...... ,'_,,"FT1-024

2 _ FT2-0!_ ."" / "_., "_-A ...... : // ",, eb,_o,... LEGEND / /_,,,Z_Y___,._,_, #/ROCKS ,.,,,,;.,_i...... _ SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION 3 "'"'_.A_", // '.,... ,,...... _,., "1_ • BORING LOCATION CLIFF_ ,FT1;'005 _- (-_ L , . J_\_," _O,o 'O__'_" TRENCH LOCATION _ 0 0 1988 SAMPLE LOCATIONS _'o o _ /_ WELL LOCATION

lg Strike Fire Training Area 3.45 26 February 1993 FINAL

3.3.3 1992 Investigation

During the 1992 field investigation,surface soil sampling, subsurface soilsampling,groundwatersampling,and a geophysical surveywere performed at FT-I. Each of these is discussed below.

A 50-foot by 50-foot grid patternwas establishedat FT-1 to aid in the geophysicalinvestigationand to establishsurface sampling locations. The geophysicalsurvey conductivityinvestigation covered approximately0.4 acre (Figure3.8). Conductivitydata were collected at 5-foot intervalsalong lines 10 feet apart. The objectiveof the survey was to locateburied features (metal or utilities)to be avoidedduring drilling. Contour maps of the conductivityand in-phasemeasurementsare presented in AppendixB.

Figure3.8 shows the locationsof buried features interpretedfrom the geophysicaldata. Two areas of buried metal have been identified.One is adjacentto the cliffat the northwestcorner of the survey area and the other is centered on the west side of the site. A utilitylinewas interpretednear the east side of the site, in an •area overgrownwithweeds. The locationof the utilityshown in the figure is approximatebecause the surveylines are nearly par- allelto the feature and resolutionis lost under these circumstances. Isolated buriedmetal and possibleburied metal have also been identifiedin several locationsas shown in the figure.

Twenty-threesurface sampleswere collectedand analyzed onsite for TPH, and three were analyzedfor volatileorganics (Figure 3.7). The TPH concentrationsranged from less than 25 mg/kg to 1,255 mg/kg (Table 3.9). The highestTPH concentrationswere found on the west side of the site near the cliffs. However, only 4 of the 24 surface sample locationshad TPH concentrationsbelow the detection limit,indicatingwidespread TPH contamination. One sample (FT1-022) had a positivehitfor xylene at 26.8/_g/kg. Ali sampleswere taken at the originalsoil surface, or under the rock " cap where it was present.

i iii i 10010AF4.BOI/mrn 3.47 26 February 1993 i 26 February 1993 3.48 :4

CLIFF

FIRE

FIGURE 3.8. FT-1 Gec

BOI31941.RT/'F'T1 -INT.DWG o 50 60 120

SCALE: 1"=60'

I PROBABLE PIPE \ OR OTHER "UTILITY"

_ \'_'_ _'_t _?" _ " _

z i \LL

__ LEGEND

_'_,_._,,,_/ / " _o,,. _ LINEGEOPHYSICALSURVEY /(,ROCKS ,t: INTERPRETED FEATURES

\_/ _ _ AREA OF BURIED METAL _ _ _ -" 0 POSSIBLE BURIED METAL

%°o "_------oO1#,e -----• UTILITYISOLATEDLINEBURIED METAL

)hysical Interpretive Map 5.49 26 February 199,5 FINAL

O Subsurfacesoil sampling locations were selected based on the resultsof the surface sampling. The locationof the two highest TPH concentrations,a low concentrationnextto a high concentration, and the center of the fire trainingburn area were chosen. BecauSeof the amountof rock at this site, backhoetrenches were used to collectthe subsurfacesamples insteadof soilborings. Trench locationsare shown in Figure3.7. Two sampleswere collectedfrom each trench, one near the surface and one at the bottom of the trench• Ali sampleswere analyzed onsitefor TPH (Table 3.9) and offsitefor VOAs, semi VOAs, pesticides/PCBs,and metals (Table 3.10). The upper sample from each trench was also analyzedfor dioxins(Table 3.10). Logs of the test pits are presented in AppendixE•

Three monitoring wells were attempted at FT-l; however, only one was completedas two of the holes were stilldry at the time of auger refusal• Soil boring logs for each boreholeare presented in AppendixE. Soil sampleswere taken for onsite analysisof TPH at approximately5-foot intervalsfrom each boring. The wellthat was completed, FT1-W1, had the highestTPH concentrationof any of the borings, at 1,062 mg/kg at a depth of 4.5 feet (Table 3.9). One soilsample from each boring, near the bottom of the hole, was sent offsitefor analysisof VOAs, Semi VOAs, pesticides/ PCBs, and metals. Resultsare presented in Table 3.10.

The one well that was completed was developed and sampled. The water level inthis wellwas approximately13 feet below ground surface. A single sample was shipped offsiteand analyzed for VOAs, semi VOAs, pesticides/PCBs,and metals. Results indicateno organicspresent,and metals were below MCLs (Table 3.10). Based on a sodiumcontent of 739 rag/L, it does not appear as if the well is completed in seawater, althoughsome saltwaterintrusionis probable.

3.3.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

• Table 3.11 presents a summary of the analytical results from FT-1. The table presentsthe analytesfound, the total number of samples, the number of samples with positiveresults,and the range of the positiveresults.

ii 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.51 26 February1993 FINAL

A u

H H 0 "_

0 O0000000000000000000000000_OQO0 _

0_..**.00...._.,.o0,)ol_o00000,.....ooo...._00_0000_00_

O0 ______0

_ _ 0

°_ _I _ o

_ _H . • _ • ..

m m _ °_ •

mmm _ _

II100000000000000000000___ _ 0 000 ...... _-H ...... _ 0 o_oooooooooooooooooooo___ _ _ '_ t _ ...... 0 _

_._ _

o______0 IIIIIIIIIIIIlilllllllllllllllll

...... 26 February 1993'

3.52 FINAL

H H _ 0 ._ b bbbbbbmm b _ C 0

.oeeooooeeoaooleo.oo.ooloooeeoo

_ _ _00 ______0

°_

_° _ °_

______=oo_ o_o ._.o._

AAA_AAAA_AAAAAAAA_AA_AAAAA_AAAA .______0000000000000000 _ _ 0

_ _ _ 0

_._ _

0 ______0 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

26 February 1993

3.53 FINAL

' "-- 26 February' 1993_ O

3.54 FINAL

26 February 1993 i i 3.55 FINAL

- ' 26 February 1993 0 3.56 FINAL

26 February 1993

3.57 FINAL

' ' ' 26 February 199'3 O

3.58 FINAL

2e February 1993

3.59 FINAL

I 26 February 1993

3.60 FINAL

26 February 1993 O i I 3.61 FINAL

TABLE 3.1!. Analyteswith PositiveResultsin Soil at FT.1

Number of Total Number Samples with Range of Analyte of Samples PositiveResult Results¢°_

Di-n-Butylphthalate 11 2 160 - 710 Fluoranthene 11 1 490 Fluorene 11 1 78

Pyrene 11 1 460 Benzo(a)anthracene 11 1 220 Chrysene 11 1 440 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 11 3 46 - 760 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 11 1 280 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 11 1 84 Benzo(a)pyrene 11 1 200 Naphthalene 11 1 130 Dibenzofuran 11 1 92 Phenanthrene 11 1 630 Anthracene 11 1 98 Butylbenzylphthalate 11 1 63 Di-n-octylphthalate 11 1 68 Benzene 11 1 12

Toluene 11 2 48 - 1,600 Ethylbenzene 11 2 1 - 270 Xylene 11 4 12 - 1,700 PCDD 4 3 0.3 -4.9 PCDF 4 2 0.1 - 1.1

TOC 7 7 650 - 31,000 Cadmium 11 11 1.1 - 11 Chromium 11 11 5.1 - 87.3

Copper 11 11 42.3 - 238

i1|1 i iii i ii 10010955.BOl/jc 3.62 26 February 1993 FINAL i

TABLE3,11. (cont.)

Number of Total Number Samples with Range of AnaMe of Samoles PositiveResuit Results(') Lead 11 5 6.9/J. 671 Zinc 11 11 41.1,320 TPH 34 26 35 - 1,255

(')Metals,TOC, and TPH are in mg/kg. Aliother analytesare inpg/kg.

I I toolo95s.soHc 3.63 26February1993 FINAL

The resultsof the 1988 and 1992 samplingat FT-1 indicate that the area has widespread, but low-level,contaminationwith TPH, semivolatilecompounds,and metals. Some volatilecompounds (BTEX) have been detected that are associatedwith diesel fuel and JP-4, but again at low concentrations. This residualcontami- nationat FT.1 is probablyfrom the fire fightingtrainingsessions where the fuels were used to start and sustainfires. Dioxinswere also found at this site in three out of the four samples analyzed; however,because of the limited number of samples analyzedfor dioxins,the extent of dioxin contaminationis not known at this time. But lt does not appear that the dioxinscorrelatedirectly to concentrationsof any other constituentsfound at this site. The dloxinsmay have been the resultof burningwaste oil with PCBs.

3.3.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

The maximumconcentratio,'lsof each contaminantabove the detectionlimitwere compared with PRLsfor human health and ecologicalrisk (presented in AppendixesC and D). Ali concentrations were less than the PRI.s, withthe exceptionof dioxins (Table 3.12).

3.3.6 Future Actions

Disposalof dioxin-contaminatedsoil is problematicat this time. There is no allowableland disposalof these soilsand incineration is the only alternativedisposaltechnique,althoughit is extremely expensive. Anotherpossiblealternativeat this site is in situ vitrification. This process uses electricityto melt the surrounding soiland encapsulatethe contamination. High heat is also pro- duced, which may destroythe dioxins. At thistime, it is recommended that site acc_essbe permanentlyrestrictedand clean fill materialbe placed over the trenchareas where dioxinswere discovered. The EPA is reevaluatingits dioxinregulationsand may come outwith new guidelinesfor disposalin 1993. If soil removalis contemplatedin the future,a more detailed study of the dioxinconcenVationsinthe near surfacesoils is recommended. A more intensesample grid should be used with ali samples being analyzedfor dioxins. Determiningexactly how much dioxin con- taminatedsoilmay have to be removed prior to any removaleffort could greatly reduce the cost of the removal.

10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.64 26February1993 FINAL

TABLE 3.12. Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPCs) at FT-1 that Exceed Human Health Preliminary Risk Levels (PRLs)

PRL PRL Sample No. Depth (ft,) Chemical Concentration Qualifier Laboratory Concentration Source

SURFACE SOILS COPCs (ug/kg) (ug/kg)

FT- 1: Lightning Strike FT1T21.0 1 PCDD 0.3 OFFSITE 0,066 C FT1T310.5 0.5 PCDD 4.9 OFFSITE 0,066 C FT1T310.5 0.5 PCDF 1.1 OFFSITE 0,066 C FT1T41.2 1.2 PCDD 0.9 OFFSITE 0,066 C

FT1T41.2 t 1.2 PCDF 0.1 OFFSITE 0.066 C FT1T41.2D 1.2 PCDD 15 OFFSITE 0.066 C FT1T41.2D 1.2 PCDF 1.1 OFFSITE 0.066 C

Notes: C ,- Risk-based ConeentretlonlCarolnogenlo Effects OFFSITE - Contraot Laboratory Program Methodology (samples sent to offsite lab)

BOLT918/015.xls/jp 3.65 26 February 1993 FINAL

3.4 FIRE TRAINING SITE 2: AIRCRAFT MOCKUP (FT-2)

3.4.1 Site Background

FT-2 is located on the northern end of abandoned RunwaysC and B (Figure3.9). Three distinctareas are now included in FT-2: 1) the recentlyidentifiedold fire trainingarea at the north end of RunwayB; 2) the fire trainingarea near the union of RunwaysB and C; and 3) another recentlyidentifiedarea to the west of RunwayC where numerous55-gallondrums have be_)ndumped (Figure3.9). The runwaysare paved with asphaltand the fire training areas were builton top of the asphalt. The two recently identifiedareas were incorporatedintothe IRP program too late to be included inthe 1992 fieldseason. The followingdiscussion focuses on the fire trainingarea at the unionof RunwaysB and C.

FT-2 was used as a trainingarea from the early 1970s untilthe mid-1980s. Waste oil, diesel, and JP-4 were used to create fires that were then extinguished,leavingresidualfuel to penetratethe asphaltand infiltrateintothe underlyingsoils. The area located at the end of RunwayB had the surface debris removed from the area ir_1985 by the 1lth CEOS (CH2M HILL 1990), and the newer area had ali surface debris removed in 1992 during the time this investigationwas in progress. None of these areas have been used in recentyears. Because of the pavement, much of the precipitationcreates runoff. Surface drainage in this area is to catch basins in the runwaysor toward the edge of the runway.

The firetrainingarea investigatedin 1992 consistedof an aircraft mockup of metal cylinders,whichwas located insidetwo concen- tric earthen berms. The inner berm was approximately90 feet in diameterand the outer berm was approximately170 feet in diameter (Figure3.10). Duringthe firstshift of the 1992 field season, the metal cylindersand the berms were removed from the site. The surface at FT-2 is covered with a very weathered asphalt that is underlainby a siltysand layer that extends to at least 12 feet. The bottomof the siltysand layer has not been encounteredin any of the boringsto date.

10010/_F4.BOI/mm 3.66 26February1993 FIGURE 3.9. FT-2 Location Map

3.67 26 February 1993

_0131941 .RT/F'T2-LM.OWG • FINAL

3.4.2 Previous Investigations O In the 1988 field investigationof the firetraining area on Runway C, a backhoe was used to removethe asphalt withinthe bermed area alongthe northside. A hand-augured soil boring indicatedthat approximately4 feet of a poorly graded sand lies beneath the asphalt. Belowthe sand, a hard layer, which the hand auger could not penetrate,was encountered. An additional boring was located near the catch basin to determine whether migration, of hazardousconstituentsfrom withinthe bermed area had occurred. The backhoe was again used to peel away the asphaltto expose the underlyingsoils.

Analyticalresultsfrom these two soilborings (FT-2-1 and FT-2-2, Figure 3.10) indicatea varietyof volatileand semivolatilecontami- nants at the site (Table 3.13). Lead levelswere at or below background levels. Most of the contaminationencounteredwas within the burn area with onlyminor amounts (lessthan the PRLs) near the catch basin.

Two aCditionalso!l borings were placed at the northeastern edge of the paved area to determinethe northerlyextent of subsurface contaminants. No organic vapor analysis (OVA) measurements O above background levelswere observed at eitherof these locations;therefore, no soilsampleswere collected.

3.4.3 1992 Investigation

Duringthe 1992 field investigationat FT-2, surface and near surface sampling,subsurfacesampling,groundwater sampling,and a geophysicalsurvey were performed at the newerfire training area on Runway C. The other two areas were added to FT-2 during the 1992 field season,too late for investigationsto be carried out. _

- The extent of the geophysical conductivityinvestigation is shown in Figure3.11. The data were collected at 5-foot intervalsalong lines 10 f'_etapart. Approximately1.2 acres were investigated. The objectiveof the surveywas to identifyburied metal or utilities to be avoided during drilling. Conductivityand in-phase data are presented as contourmaps in AppendixB. Fire refuse, including

i • i i I vg 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.68 26 February 1993

b. ",, /

)--TI 40"40'09" ,'/X\, 0 _ < Z

"_I.-- ""\./,_" Z3 ,,_,.h ,,,

N ,p,^,,,. /" *',\

WELL NO. 5,.'"'I/'`, """\./. -, .\ / /,'\. ,,

j. "/" /," .,,x,,.,,\ // .,.,. ..,," \\ .23/2,4 / ,.,,- ,/,.,..-"< /"21/22¢i(. \, _ ,, _z_/ .i,-I" ",., }..9//_20 ../ ;X.,, .,7 \ ,>">'_)'_ FT2

.-" ;.'>q,I //\ / \ ,""".-"" ""..... ,.",./ / /"// l \, ""\ ../ ,"' ...-" ,,_3 /" 13/14_ ...... / l "\. ,/ ,,-"'"o ";X I /-,., -,,-" ,,.'( ,,o' ,,. ..",,,,',,, _iI;2,_..<, .' "\,,,,\" // ",,,\ 1I" ,,,q4v" EDGE OF FIRE/PIT x..._---_....._\ " \,_X, // \', /" "_-_'t_" .,,. ,,, , x,.,. ,,I

,,-"_" _'" "'",,, ,/'" "".'",g/lO'_X 128/12.'9"_'__'_'----'''/e ....,-""" ,/',,WELL N O. I ,/" ""-,,,_. B- 2, "'" x.\.... / ,. .. .. -. -,,/. • ,, .,./ ""FT,2 _/'// "''_ "',,< ( 19"8_ 3/'4__Z_?_-_J_ < •./"-\ [/"j,.,-"'\ "_ ,... ,,.,_ /."_ • ",, /Y "'x X " ", / . ,f_ ..," '.., "% , '\ .../ ",.....4"' ",.....".:i i:',', ...->i;>.:: ...,.,.y, ,.. . ,, / ,,.,," -.\ ,. -\ ./ ",,,, /

....--" / -- .. ./" _ ""- ,,, ",,.., . /'" . _./"' \ 1 +., %. . \.,... . -t_'' "''. "' ,/""" '',..- "" :>':_.. ,_l#' ,.I" ...... 4 ...... " ">'. "'"","_., -' z "\ .._._ \, // \ .... _,"" _.:-'_.,-...... _.

.,¢,#" -,.- ,,

.._,,'..'.& ,,.," "..\ ..fV "" ---":"" ".. #0 \- .- .,,

.. .j" • _" ..) .. ,,

. FIGURE 3.!0. FT

00131941 .RT,/IFT2,DWG -2 ,_,.,;'"".,^_,_,.Mockup 3.69 26 Fcbru(]ry 1993 t 40"40'09"

Z \,-\

GROUND TANK

F_ PIPING FROM ABOVE

- ..,.

FIGURE3.11. FT-2' STEEL BEAMS

SURFACE WITHIN INNER BERM COVERED WITH SCRAP METAL LEGEND

".... LINE _ ;4,r_...o,, _ _GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY ...... _,z._....",o %,. " (_ METALAT SURFACEOBSERVED INTERPRETED FEATURES*

_ 0 POSSIBLE BURIED METAL -, 0 ISOLATED BURIED METAL UTILITY LINE

, SEE TEXT FOR FURTHER EXPLANATION

ophysical Interpretive Map 5.71 26 February 1993 FINAL

O TABLE3.13. 1988 FT-2 Analytical Resultsfor Soil (mg/kg) FT-2-1 FT-2-2 Depth (ft) Depth (ft) 2 4 3 8

TPH 6,300 12,000 300 < 75 Lead 2 2.3 1.6 1.4

Naphthalene 9.1 8.8 2-methylnaphthalene 16 18 Fluorene 1.2J 1.6

n-Nitrosodiphenylamine O.95J Phenanthrene 0.94,1 i .3J

Methylene Chloride 3.4J 3.3J Acetone 5.4 2-Butanone 8.6,1 Tetrachloroethene 3.3J Toluene 20 50

O Ethylbenzene 3.9J I Xylenes 93 210 0.51J 0.037 Chlorobenzene 0.018J 0.018J

Styrene 0.022J

J = Estimate. Blank - Below detection limit.

O lO01098E.BOI/jc 3.73 26 February 1993 FINAL

scrap metal, was present within the inner berm, which could have resultedin missingsome areas of buried metal. Steel beams, which also interferedwith the measurements,were present in the northeasternportionof the site.

The data indicateseveral utilitylines are present at the site. These are shown in Figure3.11. Isolatedburied metal and possible buried metal were encounteredat several locationsand are also shown in the figure. Data collectedwithinthe inner berm and withinabout 15 feet of the steel beams could not be used to identify buried metal.

This firstsamplingat FT-2 consistedof obtainingsamplesfrom soilon the surface of the asphaltand at a depth of 0.5 foot below the asphaltat the perimeterof the outsidering. Samples were collected every 25 feet for a total of 21 sites and 42 samples (Figure3.10). These samples were analyzedonsitefor TPH (Table 3.14). The duplicateresultsindicatedhighlyerratic TPH values at both the surface and the 0.5-foot depths (2,000 to 5,000 mg/kg range), lt was believedthis could be due to the asphalt and not be connected withthe activitiesat the fire training . area. Therefore,deeper samples (1.2 feet) were collec"tedfrom 10 of the sample locationsand a pair of samples (surface and 0.5 foot) were taken 500 feet south of the burn area. Ali 1.2-foot samples had TPH less than 200 mg/kg and the samples 500 feet away were greaterthan 1,500 mg/kg) (Table 3.14). Resultsfrom these samples indicatethat the asphalt is a major contributorto the TPH and that most of the fuel oilsused in the fires are not migratinglaterallyunder the asphalt. One sample was also taken from a sump 125 feet to the east of the area. Thissump appears to collect runoffwater from the FT-2 area. TPH resultsof this sample were 1,150 mg/kg. The final part of the surface sampling consistedof collectingsix samples at a depth of 1.2 feet withinthe inner circleof the burn area. These sampleswere collected on a 50-foot grid spacing. They were analyzedfor TPH onsite with resultsbeing highlyvariable,rangingfrom 164 mg/kg to 29,883 mg/kg (Table 3.14). Three of the six samples were greater than 20,000 mg/kg, indicatingpetroleumcontaminationfrom the fire fightingactivitiesat this site.

i iiii i lll r 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.74 2s February 1993 FINAL

H X H .M

o.oljoooeoo,oe.oi_e6oooo.looooee,oo

______m __ _ 0

O _

______o_oo

______000 ______.

• 0000 _&_oo ,oooooo oooo _

000000__000__00000000_0000_0 _ IIIIII.°'''III ...... IIIIIIII.IIII'I _ 000000__000__00000000_0000_0

000000__000__0__t____ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .M ______0

00000000000000000000000000000000000 _

0 •

0 ______0000000000000000000000______0 00000000000000000000000000000000000 _ < IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 ______

i 26 February 1993

3.75 FINAL

A v

H X

.=e.eeeeoeeeeeoooeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeee"

______0

______o_ _ _ooo

IIIIIIIl.lllllllllllll'''o''llll'll _ OQOOOOOO_OOQQQOQOQOQQO__OOOO_QO

Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll "______0

m 00000000000000000000000000000000000 _

0 ______H ______0

000000000000000000000000000000IIIIIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 00000 _

' ' ' 26 February 1993

3.76 FINAL

H H X !

eeeooeeoeoeee.e.eeoeeeeoeeeee*eoeeo

= _ _ _o Ii IiiI i I m <

...... _ ...... o00000000000000 O00000__O000000000llltllllltllll _ IIIII1'''.'1111111111OOOOOOOOOOOOOO _

__0_____0...... _ 0

______@l______0

oooooooooooo_oooooo

0 • C C

H ______0

ooooooooooooooooooooo_____ll*llliilllllllllllllllllllllllllll _

26 February 1993

377 FINAL

...... 26 February1993

3.78 FINAL

ii i ii iiiii i i 26 February 1993

3.79 FINAL

A v

H X

e,eooooeee ____ 0

• 0

_ _ _ _'_

_i _ _ _ o

I I I _ 0

_ 0 I .... _

0 •

IIIIIIIIII

' 26 February 1993

3.80 FINAL

Samples from inside the ring were also analyzed for BTEX in the onsitelaboratorywithvery high concentrationsof total BTEX greaterthan 1,000,000 pg/kg. Severalof the samples from outsidethe ringwere also run for BTEXwith total BTEX concentra- tionsrangingto 100/.4g/kg (Table 3.14).

Four borings were completed at FT-2 to check for the vertical extent of contamination. Three were completedwithinthe fire ring and one adjacentto the ring (Figure3.10). Two to three samples were collectedfrom each boring and analyzedfor VOAs, semi.. VOAs, pesticides/PCBs,and metals. The three boringswithinthe ring showedhigh concentrationsof BTEX (Table 3.15) with some semivolatilesassociatedwith petroleumat the surface and near the water table (water at about 7 feet bgs). The boring outside the ring had only minor amountsof contamination,orders of mag- nitudeless than the amountsfound withinthe ring. The first sample in each boring was also analyzedfor dioxinsand furans. Alisamples had less than the detectionlimitsfor these compounds (AppendixA).

Three monitoringwells were installed at FT-2 (Figure 3.10), to determineif the groundwaterhas been contaminatedby the surfaceactivitiesand to determinethe direction of groundwater flow. Each wellwas developed and allowedto equilibratewith the aquifer and then sampled for VOAs, semi VOAs, pesticides/PCBs, and metals. Resultsof the samples indicatethat Well No. 1 (FT-W1) is contaminatedwiththe same compounds observed in the surface and subsurfacesamplingwithinthe fire trainingarea (Table 3.15). Resultsfrom the othertwo wells showed no organic contamination. Ali three wells had relativelyhigh concentrationsof zinc (59 to 87.6/_j/L) and chromium(13.5 to 15.6/_g/L). Water levelmeasurementsindicatethat the flow directionis to the northwest (Figure3.12). However,this is based on a singlemeasure- ment and onlythree wells and therefore may not be entirely accurate.

The soil boring logs from FT-2 indicatethat the runway was built on top of siltysand (AppendixE). In the seven boreholes drilled, onlysiltysand was encountered. The maximumdepth drilled was 12 feet.

I i i i IO010AF4.BOI/mm 3.81 26February1993 FINAL

0 u

H H

_ 0 ._ 0 oooooooooo_ooooooooooooooooooo _

ooooooooooeeeeeeeeeleeeee_eeeeo_eoee_oeoooooooeeeee _oooo_

_ 0 _ .M

_ m

______• 0

_) _ _ 0 _H

"- 0 _ . _ o -_

000000_ _ U_UH

°_ _ r_

00000 ...... ° .... oo°oooo°0o°o oH _ lllllO0000000000000000000000000 _ 0 O000011111111111111111111111H_H _'M ..... O0000OO0000000000000000 .... M_ ...... _ _ 0 __ ooo ._ _ ._ ___ ...... ooo 0 _ ___ooooooooooooooooooooo_ -_ _ 0 _

O000000__B_____B__B _ _ _._ _ •M _ II II 0 ___ _ _

IIIl|llllllllllllllllllllllllll

26 February 1993

,')o FINAL

H H 0 "_

0 _oooooooooooooooooo_ooooooooooo _

..oeeeomeoeeooooIieOooooeoooe_o

_ 0

m _ m

O " _ , °

000000000000000 ° _ ''''''''''''',,0 A_ ._ 000000000000000_000000000000000 _ _ 0 ______...... ,,,,, _._ _ ...... _ 0 oooooooooooooooo ._ _ -r_ ...... 000000000000000 _ _ ._ I 0000000000000000 ...... 0 _ _

_-_ _

0 ______0 IIIIlllllllllltll|lllllllllllll 0 ______

• , 26 February 1993 3.83 FINAL

u v

H _ H _ X 0 "_

0 00000000_0000000000000000000000 _ _0000_0_0000_0_0_00000000 _0_00_ 0_000___00000000 _ _ _ _ _ 0_0_0 _ 0

_ 0

_,______o _A_=.-_ _._

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ 0 • ....IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _.M ...... _ 0

__oooooooooooooooooooooooooo ._ _ 0 _

_._ _

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

26 February 1993

: 3.84 FINAL

O 26 February 1993 3.85 FINAL

A u

H H X _ 0 ._

0 w

6eooeeeeoeeoeeeeoeooeeeeeeeeeee

_ _ _ _ 0__0_ _ 0

_ _ 0 m

H ______u

_._ _ , .o _

_ o•_ _o_ _ __o_ _ _ ._._

w_ _ w

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo _ _ 0 llllllllllllllllllllllllll' .... _-M oooooooooooooooooooooooooo__ ,M______0

i ...... 0 _m oooooooooooooooooooooooooo__ -_ _ 0 _ C

0 _ _ H ______0 ,,,,lliil, ,lllil,lliilllli,l 111

I 26 February 1993

3.86 FINAL

H H

0 oooooooooo_oooooooooooooooooooo _

oeoeeeeooeeeeeoeeeeeeeeooee*oee

_ _ _ _000_ O _ _ 0 z _ 0 • u m

H ______

0 _ 0

I .H

_ o N _ u

• . ._ _ • _- _ _ _= 0 H ._

_88_ _o_o o_ _ _ .

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ 0 ...... llllllllll _-H ...... _ 0 H OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO______._ ...... 0 ______oooooooooo -_ O_

______._ _ _ _._ _

0 ______0 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

26 February 1993 3.87 FINAL

A u

0000000000000_00000000000000000 _

00Q00jee0o0oleeeot00eltlle000°le°_0000000_0_000_00_0000

_ _000_ _ 0_ _ 0_0 • 0

_ u m • m _ N

______0 H ______u

_ _ 0

• _ _ __. _!__ _ _ 0

oo __ _ __oo __ _ _

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ 0 IIIIIIIIII1" ...... "'''''" _._ .... _ 0 -H _ "_ ____oooooooooooooooooooo _ "_ I eeoeeeee_.=,ee,=*=_eeo='*'ee_'= ooooooooooo______-_m O_

_ _

o _ IIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

26 February 1993

3.88 FINAL

26 February 1993

3.89 FINAL

i i 2.6 February 1993

3.90 FINAL

26 February 1_)93

3.91 FINAL

3.4.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

Tables 3.16 and 3.17 present the anaiyteswith positiveresultsat FT-2. Thesetables present the analytes,the number of samples, the number of sampleswith positiveresults,and the range of the positiveresults.

The surfaceand subsurfacesamplingIndicatethat ali of the soil underlyingthe ringedfire trainingarea is contaminatedwith petroleum-relatedcompounds. TPH concentrationsexceeded, 20,000 mg/kg in samplestaken from withinthe bermed area, and concentrationsof other volatileand semivolatilecompounds associatedwith petroleumproductswere elevated. This contami- nationextends to the water table, but does not seem to have spread laterallywithinthe soilcolumn. Groundwateris also contaminatedwith petroleum-relatedcompoundsthat probably origi- nated from the firetrainingarea. Metals found in the groundwater are below MCLs. The extent of the groundwater contaminationis not known. No dioxinswere found in any of the soil samples analyzed.

Because the"othertwo areas of FT-2 were incorporated intothe site too lateto be investigated,no informationwas collected at the fire trainingarea at the northend of RunwayB, or the location where drumswere disposed of on the west side of Runway C.

3.4.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

Comparing the maximum valuesfound at FT-2 in both soils and groundwaterto the risk-basedPRLsdeveloped in Appendixes C and D, benzene and methylenechlorideinthe water sample taken from wellW1 (FT2-W1) exceed the human health risk criteria (Table 3.18). The TPH concentrationsin five soil samples exceededthe human health risk PRLsin soil (Table 3.18). This indicatesthat the groundwater,and the soilthat is contaminating the groundwater,may have to be cleaned up to attain human health criteria. Benzeneconcentrationsin soilwere determinedto be a potentialecologicalthreat to terrestrialreceptorsas were lead concentrations.

e 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.92 26February1993 I

FIGURE3.12. FT-2 Groun<

110151941 .RT_Fr2-_...DWG rater Contour Map-Water Level 5.9,5 26 February 1993 FINAL

T_BLE 3.16. Analyteswith Positive Resultsin Soil at FT-2

Numberof Total Number Samples with Range of Analyte of Samples PositiveResult ResultsC._ Xylene 80 25 2 - 660,000 Benzene 80 4' 11.14,000 Toluene 80 22 32 - 610,000

Ethylbenzene 80 17 13.13,000 4-Methyl.2-Pentanone 12 1 15 Chlorobenzene 12 1 5

Naphthalene 12 6 3,500 - 27,000 2.Methylnaphthalene 12 6 5,700 - 45,000 Fluorene 12 3 760 - 2,200 I I Phenanthrene 12 3 1,500 - 1,900 Fluoranthene 12 1 "1,500

Pyrene 12 1 1,300 Dibenzofuran 12 2 1,200 - 1,700

bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 12 3 700 - 2,200 Methylene Chloride 12 1 11 Acetone 12 1 30 TOC 3 3 6,330 - 15,600 TPH 80 72 45 - 29,360

C'_Metals,TOC, and TPH are in mg/kg. Aliother analytes are inpg/kg.

i ii ii i iii

10010D21.BOl/jc 3.95 26 February 1993 FINAL

TABLE 3.17. Analytes with PositiveResults.inWater at FT-2 0

Number of Total Number Samples with Range of, Analyte of Samples PositiveResult Results[aJ Benzene 3 1 710 Toluene 3 1 1,400 Ethylbenzene '3 1 680 • Xylene 3 1 3,600 Phenol 3 1 11 2-Methylphenol 3 1 18 4-Methylphenol 3 1 31 2-4-Oimeth__:phenol 3 1 26 2 Methylnaphthalene 3 1 1 Naphthalene 3 1 32 Chromium. 3 , 3 13.9 - 15.6 Zinc 3 3 59 - 87.6

(a)AIIan_,ytes are in/Jg/L.

10010D22.BOl/jc 3.96 26 Februar1993y FINAL

TABLE 3.18. Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPCs) at FT-2 that Exceed Human Health Preliminary Risk Levels (PRLs)

Depth PRL PRL Sample No. (ft.) Chemical Concentration Qualifier Laboratory Concentration Source

GROUNDWATER COPCs (uglL) (uglL)

FT-2: Aircraft Mockup FT2-Wl Benzene 512 ONSITE 5 MCL FT2-WIDL Benzene 710 D OFFSITE 5 MCL FT2-WlDL Methylene Chloride 420 BDJ2 OFFSITE 0.19 WQC

SOILS COPCs (ug/kg) (ug/kg)

FT-2: Aircraft Mockup FT2-128 0.5 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon 29360 ONSITE 20000 NC FT2-130 0.5 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon 28034 ONSITE 20000 NC FT2-134 0.5 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon 20107 ONSITE 20000 NC FT2-B3 5.0 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon 23649 ONSITE 20000 NC FT2-B6 0.5 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon 20573 ONSITE 20000 NC

Notu:

MCL 1=Safe DrinkingWater Act Max|mumContaminant Level WQC = Ambient Water Quality Criteda NC ==Risk-basedConcentretion/Noncarcinogeni¢EffeGts ONSITE = Close SupportLaboratory(on Shemya Island) OFFSITE = SW 846 Methodology(samplessent to offsitelab) J = estimated value D = dilution B = blank contamination

3.97 26 February 1993

BOLT918/016.xls/jp FINAL

3.4.6 Future Actions e

Remediationof the burn pit area investigatedin 1992 is recommended. Soil excavationto groundwaterand stockpilingfor bioremediationis the most logical alternative. Removal of 6,000 cubic yards of materialis anticipatedbased on the 1992 field investigationdata of 7 feet to groundwater and assumingthat ali of the soilwithin the bermed area willrequire remediationand that the area outsidethe berms will not need to be excavated.

Groundwaterremediationmay be recommendedto alleviatefur- ther groundwaterdegradation. After soilexcavation,a groundwater monitoringsystemshould be developed to monitorground- water quality. The extent of the groundwatercontaminationhas not been defined. This willneed to be accomplishedto determine if the qualityof the groundwaterimprovesafter remediation. If the qualityof the groundwaterdoes not improve,then a pump and treatmentsystem will need to be developed for the aquifer. To develop such a system,groundwaterflow directionneeds to be more closely defined and the groundwaterflow velocity must be . determined. In order to better determinethe groundwaterflow direction and groundwaterfluctuations,water level measurements in the three-wellnetwork shouldbe made, month'lyif possible. Other requiredinvestigationscan be coupled with site investigationsat the north end of RunwayB and the barrel area to the west of RunwayC.

Further investigationswillbe required at FT-2 to determine what impactsthe area at the north end of RunwayB and the barrel area to the west of RunwayC have on the environment. These investigationsshould consistof surface and subsurface sampling, similarto that conductedat FT-2 in 1992, and the installationof groundwatermonitoringwellsto determine if the uppermostaqui- fer has been impacted by these additionalareas.

I I A IIIII II 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.98 26 February 1993 FINAL

3.5 FIRE TRAINING SITE 3: FIRE DEPARTMENT STRUCTURAL TRAINING AREA (FT.3)

3.5.1 Slte Background

FT-3 is located approximately 1,000 feet southeast of Upper Lake on the southside of the old taxiway (Figure3.13). lt is bordered on the south by rollingtundra and to the north by the foundation and floorof an old hangar. Surface water from this site tends to flow southeast; however,because of the adjacenttundra, most water infiltratesand moves withinthe soil profileexcept during intenserainfallperiods. Groundwaterflow patterns in this area are not known.

Originallythe site of an old hangar building, the site consisted of a smallconcretestructure,about 30 by 15 by 15 feet, on the edge of the concreteon-grade slab of the originalhangar. This building was used as a structuralfire trainingarea. Wood, paper, and other combustiblematerialswere burned in the structure along withJP-4 and dieselfuel. There were holes in the concrete pad, which allowedfluids (i.e., diesel,JP-4, and AFFF) to drain through the foundationand possiblycontaminateunderlyingsoils. The O 1lth CEOS removedthe debris and placed backfillmaterialat this site. Since the 1988 field investigation,this buildingand concrete pad have been removed. The former hangar area is currently being used to stockpileasphalt removedfrom adjacent hardstands. The asphaltis stockpiledin mounds approximately 7 feet high and coversalmostthe entirearea. The land to the east and southof FT-3 slopes down toward Lower Lake.

3.5.2 Previous Investigations

Duringthe 1988 investigation,an auger boring was placed near the buildingin a darkened soils area. A poorlygraded fine sand was observed to a depth of 5 feet, underlainby bedrock. OVA measurementsup to 2 ppm were observed inthe near-surface soils.

Soil samples collected from the boring near the concrete building (Figure3.14) showed TPH levelsof 170 and 430 mg/kg at 2 and 5.5 feet, respectively. No semivolatileorganicswere detected in these samples. Volatileorganic analysisresultsindicatedmethy- lene chlorideconcentrationsat 0.015 and 0.017 mg/kg at 2 and

O III I 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3,99 26 February 1993 FINAL

5.5 feet, respectively. Acetone concentrationswere 0.013 and 0.021 mg/kg at 2 and 5.5 feet, respectively. Both methylene chlorideand acetone are common laboratorycontaminantsand may not indicatesitecontamination. Detected lead levelsat 2 and 5.5 feet are withinbackgroundlevels.

3.5.3 1992 Investigation

Duringthe 1992 investigation,a geophysicalsurvey of FT-3 was performed. The extent of the geophysicalinvestigationis shown in Figure3.14. Conductivitydata were collectedat 5-foot intervals along lines 10 feet apart. The conductivityand in-phase data are presented as contourmaps in AppendixB. The objective of the investigationwas to identifyburiedfeaturesto be avoided during drilling. Approximately0.6 acre was covered by the investigation. The site was gridded by the geophysicsteam. The grid was tied intofoundationsof an old hangar. Grid line 100 northwas estab- lishedalong the south side of the foundation,and grid line 100 east was establishedin linewith the metal hangar door tracks near the east side of the foundation.

Figure 3.14 shows the resultsof the investigation.A large area of buried metal was identifiedin the center of the site. The southern limitof the area of buried metal extends beyond the limitsof the investigationand is notfullydefined. Littleor no metal extends northwardbeneath the rubble pile. Buried metal was also encountered inthe extremesouthwestpart of the site, but the limitswere not defined as this was beyond the scope of work at this site.

No other investigationswere performed during the 1992 field season.

3.5.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

Based on the limitedsoils data from 1988, contaminationat FT-3 appears to be fairlyminor (Table 3.19). The TPH found is much lowerthan at FT-1 and FT-2, and the volatileorganicsdetected " could be from laboratory contamination,as methylene chloride and acetone are common laboratory reagents and the concentrationsfound were very low. However, the true extent or natureof contaminationat this site is not possibleto determine,based on the informationavailable.

II I I III I I J_ IP' 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.1 00 26 February1993 ._°02'00" I_1 ..,0__ _4 ROAD

__-

LAKE ,,,,.J / /

[ i_. J

U--- 7

FIGURE 3.13. FT-3 0 250 500 1000

SCALE" 1"=500'

' 5.1 01 26 February 199,5 -;tructural Training Area q

_._°02'00"

DOOR TRACKS OLD FOUNDATION i_-_ HANGAR I N__IO0...... i _

_A .... - t;+ +'_ •_ + + .q i-I- . ,,t-

-t- . + 4- .,tr ,4 4- 4- .-t-

.f'+ -t + + . / +,.-¢i+ + + I + /"_.4_: f+ -,l,,_Yi++ + NSO t+I + + ++ +i++.' + ++ +: ...... -_ + + ._ + + .: ...... [ ...... 'l+ + + i+ + + i i /+#+ + ++i+4 +++ .:+ f4- t- 4- -F 1- t- ,: i,, i /++++++++;+++++ i i I,.+++++++._+++,i + :. i t /" + +++ + + +

/ ,.t.+ ++4"ii'++.- + '.t-+ +.+ .,fL4_. ,4--t"+ +,'l-_.1" -:"

I ,, //+/" ++ + + + + + + + + + + +i++"_ -,-+ + . + : #. + 4" 4- 4- 4" -i- 4: 4-_4 ++2' i _ ++ +++++i++ +

! T 0 O Oi 0 ii') O iX') .,-- ,.- W Ld LH Iii

FIGURE3.14-. FT-3

80131941 .RT/'FT3-IN T.DWG 0 15 .50 60

SCALE" 1"=50'

q RUBBLE PILES J" , / _) ...... I...... [

+ + + . +t++ . + ;= 41-+-i-++++++ + + + 4- { + + . + ... + + 4 ++ 4- ++. 4" + + . + . + + +.+ + + g++ . + . +++ 4.+. + + +-i-++ + • ., i

+++ . + + + . + + + + +++.+ + . + . . +.+++ + + _++' ._ I

+ "_ "1". "i". -I- + -t- + ' + . +++.@ + + . . . +++'! "+ -i- + _i+ _-. i

+++_1-+.' . + i+ .++++ + . ++.++ + 1+ + + + + 4 + + 1 ++++++ 4. + . ._-t,-(, + ++.++ + . Jr + -f + _- + -1- #"_- + + + ..... + + . . . + . . + + . . . + .tj + + + . + -I, + + + + + . + + J,_"-t . . + . + l+ +_ . + + + fr I + + + + + 4- .Air- _- + . + aE I

. + + +/ : \+ + + % I ++++++;'+++"/,-"-- "+"+\:++ ::ki + + +# l \_ i . + • ! . + i

LEGEND : I _ GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY o _ o i o LINE Oi _ 0 04_ 04 t_) _,,! w w (_ METAL OBSERVED AT SURFACE INTERPRETED FEATURES

O AREA OF BURIED METAL 0 1988 SAMPLING LOCATION .... UTILITY LINE

_physical Interpretive Map 5.103 26 February 1993 FINAL

TABLE 3,19. Analyteswith PositiveResultsat FT-3 (1988 Data)

Number of Range of Total Number Sampleswith Results Analyte.... of Samples PositiveResult_ _ fmo./ka_ MethyleneChloride 2 2 0.015.0.017 Acetone 2 2 0.013 - 0.021 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 2 2 170 - 430

lOOIOD23.BOI/jc 3.105 26 Februar1993y FINAL

3.5.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

Concentrationsof compounds detected in 1988 were ali below the preliminaryrisk levelsfor human health and ecologicalrisk,which are establishedin AppendixesC and D. However, because the full natureand extentof contaminationis not known, a complete risk assessmentis not practical at this time.

3.5.6 Future Actions

Becausethe natureand extent of contaminationhas not been defined at this site,further samplingis recommended. As outlined in the FieldInvestigationPlan, a gridded surfacesamplingshould be performed along with soil boringsto evaluatecontaminationat depth. The areas of buried metal discoveredduring the geophysical surveyshould be includedin the investigation. Monitoring wells may also be required if additionalcontaminationis discovered duringthe surface and subsurfacesampling.

3.6 SOLID WASTE SITE SW-4: BARREL DUMP

3.6.1 Slte Background

SW-4 currentlycoversapproximately15 acres along the north shore of Shemya (see Figure 3.15). lt is bordered on the east, south, and west by 200-foot high grass-coveredslopes and on the north by the ocean (within50 feet). The area is relativelyflat and is covered withvariousdebris, main_,!peat scraped off other parts of the island. The entire area appears to be covered with a peat layerof irregulardepth. The landfillis estimatedto be up to 8 feet deep and there are no regulardrainage patterns.

The barrel dump site along North Beach Road had been used as a disposalarea sinceWorld War II for more than 1,000 barrels with unknowncontents. Sincethe records search of 1984, the 1lth CEOS has removed barrels and scrap metal from the barrel dump area and backfilledthe old dump site with 4- to 12-inch- diameterrock. This restorationwas completed in July 1987. Duringthe September 1991 sitevisit,the rock backfillwas not evident,as the area was coveredwith peat.

El i i iiiii 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.106 2s February 1993 0 1000 2000 4000

• SCALE: 1"= 2000'

i_I FIGURE 3.15. SW-4 Location Map

3.107 26 February 199,3

80131941 .RTfSW4-LM.DWG FINAL

The area is currentlynot used by the air base; however,the northeast portion of the landfillis used to access a local "jade" mine that is visitedby some base personnel,as is another mine shaft in the southwestportion of the site.

Investigationshave Shownthat the SW-4 sitecontainsvarious kinds of debris includingconcrete, metal, and domesticdebris. The debris layer ranges from less than 1 foot to approximately 8 feet deep. Beneath the debris lie beach sands and cobbles intermixedwith some organic matter (peat).

3.6.2 Previous Investigations

In the 1988 investigation,two backhoe pits were excavatedwithin the southeastand northwest cornersof the landfill. Samples were taken from these two backhoepits. The TPH levelsat one pit were 150 and 340 mg/kg at a depth of 1 to 4 feet, respectively. Metal concentrationsfrom SW-4 were above the 1988 background levelsat the 1-footlevelfor chromium(48.2 mg/kg), lead (242 mg/kg), zinc (68.8 mg/kg); and at the 4-foot levelfor arsenic (25 mg/kg), chromium(107 mg/kg), lead (534 mg/kg), nickel (96.5 mg/kg); and zinc (143 mg/kg), as would be expected in a metal debris landfill:

No semivolatileorganic compounds were detected in 1988. Organic volatilecompoundsdetected included methylenechloride (0.053 and 0.054 mg/kg at the 1- and 4-foot depths, respectively), 2-butanone (estimatedat 0.082 mg/kg at 4-foot depth), and toluene (estimatedat 0.038 mg/kg at 4-foot depth). Methylene chlorideand 2-butanone are common laboratorycontaminants.

3.6.3 1992 Investigation

The intentof the 1992 investigationwas to collect sufficientdata to recommend a remedialaction,if necessary. Closurestrategies could involvecapping the landfillsurfaceand installingmonitoring wells outsidethe landfillboundary to determine leachate quantity, and the potentialfor offsitemigrationof contaminants.

The objectivesof the investigationwere to determine:

• areal extent of the dump area ° nature of surface soil contamination, if any

i± .... i __ 10010AF40BOI/mm 3.108 26 February1993 FINAL

• nature of groundwater contamination,if any ° groundwater depth and direction ° significant,mappable sitefeatures.

The boundary(areal extent) of the site was determined by geo- physicalmethods (Figure3.16). The estimated area of the site fromthe 1992 field investigationis 14.7 acres. Geophysical mappingis shown in Figure 3.16.

Ten random surfacesamples were collectedin 10 locationsat the site (Figure3.16). Offsitelaboratory analysiswas completed for each of the 10 samplesfor VOAs, semi VOAs, pesticides/PCBs, and metals.

Three trencheswere dug by a backhoeto collect samples at depth (Figure3.16). One sample from each of the three trenches was also analyzedfor the above parameters.No groundwater monitoringwellswere installedat the site in 1992.

Tables 3.20 and 3.21 listthe SW-4 samplingresultsfrom the CSL and offsiteanalyticallaboratories,respectively.

The extent of the geophysicalconductiyityinvestigationis shown in Figure3.16. The gravel road definedthe northernsite limit. The southernand easternlimitof the surveywas defined by the base of the bluff. The surveyextendedto the west untilit was apparentfrom the data that the western limitof the buriedwaste had been defined. Data were collected at 5-foot intervalsalong lines25 feet apart. Contours of the conductivityand in-phase measurementsare presented in AppendixB. An estimated 14.7 acres were covered by the investigation. The objectiveof the surveywas to determinethe extentof buriedwaste materialat the site, whichwould help define siteboundaries.

A surveywas performed at the siteto establisha grid prior to the geophysicalinvestigation.

The resultsof the geophysicalinvestigationare presented in Figure3.16. Extensiveareas of buried waste and metal are present acrossthe site. Area 1 is the largestarea of buried metal, lt is locatedalong the southside of the siteand covers about

10010AF4.BOIImm 3.109 26 February 1993

' FINAL

O Figure 3.16 F/O

i iii iii " 10010AF4,BOilmm 3.I ";I 26 February 1993

- INTERPRETED FEATL

N...... 1100 iL...... _d::i'_ AREA OF BURIED ME

!i i O AREASOR FILLOFWITHBURIEDSCAT]V METAL

Ni°°°Ii_ ::...___-__' __/_GR!VELROADo,mTU_.OFF/ OLARGEBUR,EOAREASTE OFom_Pi ...j_---_ OOR POSSIBLE BURIED M

0 (_ "'_-i _".7,t"_'- ..____",7___ ' __. . 0 WITH LITTLE OR NO -N2° !__() --,C-X_ _.',/:

--I " " . . ' .,. ,'*. X

...... NZOO i •AI:RE._.-....:5i ...... _. "%...... _-...... '. :...... P ( ...... ( 4.k.\_ ! _\-,,,.--___+.__o,o_ __ ?,:.. _.__6.o...... 't e.... _ - ----_ _ '- _ F:["_-_-'I:-"_ :_"_""""_-_-"

r × x t_ _ x ,,'_-... × "_ ;* ..E. ._,...... po•-:,..,ml---- _''...... __' ''_"...... -_. ,,"_-IT;_,r,..-.. ,, __× ...... _,__i..:,,.__ _ic< × !

S4-098 1

0 0 O_ 0 0 O: 0 0 0 O: 0 0 O: 0 tO ,¢ LO1 CO r-. 0o:, cr_ Ld Ld I ii Ld Ld I_d_

FIGURE .3.16.S_

B0131941 .RT/SW4.DWG =

4 Barrel Dump Site 5.1 11 26 February 1993

= FINAL

- '...... 26 February 1993 3.113 FINAL

" 26 February 1993 0 3.114 FINAL

26 February 1993 O i n ii , =,m, 3.115 FINAL

H h H N

_ 0o ._

ooeeooeeoooooeeoooeeooeoeoeeooo

= oo_ m ______o

m m _ 0 -. _ _ _° .0_ _ _ °

_ _ _ . 0 0 u ' "

A_ ___ A _A_ _ ...... _ _ 0 0000000000000000000000000000000 _-_ Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllll "N_ 0000000000000000000000000000000 _ 0

______m____ ._ 0 _ _

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _._ _ .M

______0 0000000000000000000000000000000 1111111111111111111111111111111 _ _

26 February 1993 m i 0 3.116 FINAL

- 26 February 1993 3.117 FINAL

H _ X 0 "_ O ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo _

otloqooeliloee_eo6.oe_oee eeoooe

m •

• 0 H ______

_ m m _ 0 _ _ _ -U _ _0 _ ,_

•' _ _o u _o ______,,_ ._ 0

.... t ...... t... _ 0 0000000000000000000000000000000 _'M lill_llllllllllllll IIIIIII1_111 "_ 0000 0000000000000000000000 000 _ _ 0 H _ _ _ "_

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo _ _._ _

0 _ _ H ______0 0000000000000000000000000000000 IIIIIIIIIIllllllllllllllltlllll _ _

- ' " ' 26 February 1993 qp 3.118 FINAL

o v

H O "_

00000000000000000000_0000000000 _

_ _ _ _ _ 0 _ _ _ 0

_ 0

_ _ 0 H ______

_ 0

_o _ • ., , _ u ._

H _0 m _ _ ._mm . m 0 0 H ._ H •-_

...... 10000000000000 _ _ 0 000000000000000000 ...... _-H 00000000000000000 ______0 ______-M _ -M

I ______10 _

0000000000m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm_._mmm000000000000000000000 _.__ _=_ _._ _

0 _ _ H ______=_ _ 0 000000000000000000_____ IIIIIIIIlllllllllllllllllllllll _ _

i|11 i i 26 February 1993

3.119 FINAL

i 26 February 1993

3.120 FINAL

A u

H H 0 ._

0_000_00_00 000eoeaeooe0000oooeo0e 000000 _

• u m • m

_ _ o

oooooooooooooo _ _ 0

_ _ 0 H ______-_

00000000000000 _ m _._ _

U IIIIIIIIIIIIII _ _

ii i n 26 February 1933 __ A 3.121 FINAL

4 acres. The data indicate that metal distributionis essentially continuousthroughArea 1, with no identifiableareas withoutmetal responses,except at the extreme western end where buried metal appears to be more scattered. Elevatedconductivitiesinthe west end of this area are interpretedas being due to buried wastes withoutmuch metal.

Area 2 is located along the southside of the road between 600 east and 1400 east. The anomaliesbetween 925 and 1000 east indicatea concentrationof buried metal; however, elsewherethe anomaliesindicatewaste materialwith only scattered metal.

Two trenches (Trenches 1 and 2) were dug in Area 2 to verify that the geophysicalanomalieswere relatedto waste material. A third trenchwas dug in an area with no geophysicalanomalies. The locationsare shown in Figure3.16. The locationswere chosen to evaluatethe source of anomaliesof differentstrengths. Trench locationswere limitedto within a few feet from the road because surfaceconditionspreventedthe backhoefrom movingfarther into the site. Trench 1 (TP-1) was located over a strong anomaly at 790 northon line 850 east. Excavationsencounteredmiscella- neous waste includinga drum, miscellaneousscrap metal, cloth, " paper, and cans. A petroleum odor was present and elevated readings (maximum4 ppm) withthe organicvapor detector were . observed. Trench 1 was dug to a depth of 5.5 feet, where native beach sands and cobbles were found. Water was encounteredat 8 feet. Trench 2 (TP-2) was located over a strong anomaly on line 1225 east at 880 north. Concretewith metal reinforcingwas encounteredand was the most significantsource of the geophysical anomaly. The concrete may have been from a runway destroyed in an earthquakein the mid 1970s. Beneath the concrete was waste consistingof scrap metal, wood, fiberglass insulation,and domestictype trash (beverage cans and bottles). The debris extended to a depth of 7.8 feet under whichbeach sands and gravelswere encountered.

Areas 3 and 4 are located in the west end of the site. The data indicatelittlemetal is present hore, but elevated conductivitiesare interpretedas being due to buriedwaste or fill material.

Scattered isolated buried metal was indicated throughout the site and these locationsare shown in Figure3.16.

i _ i iiiii 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.122 26 February 1993 FINAL

O Trench 3 (TP-3) was located at 525 east, 800 north, in an area relativelyfree from anomalies. A thin horizon of miscellaneous waste was encounteredthere, but for the most part the fill was free of debris. The filllayer appeared to be approximately6 feet deep, under which lay nativebeach sand and gravels. Groundwaterwith an oilysheen was encountered at 7 feet.

3.6.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

Table 3.22 presents a summary of the analytical resultsfrom SW-4. Thistable presentsthe analyteswith positiveresults,the total number of samples analyzed,the number of samples with posil_iveresults,and the range of the positivevalues. The samplingat SW-4 indicatessome surface contaminationwith TPH, PCB, and 4,4'-DDD. In addition,metalsconcentrationsat the surface are above backgroundvalues. Subsurface contamination appears to be much less than that at the surface; fewer compounds were detected and at lower concentrations,with the exceptionof TPH, whichtended to be higherin the subsurface. This could be due to contaminatedfill materialbeing placed on top of the debris. The contaminationat this site, while widesPread,is at low concentrations.

O i 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.123 26 February 1993 FINAL

TABLE 3.22. Analytes with Positive Resultsat SW-4 Total Samples with Number Positive AnaMe of Samples Results Ranqec'_ Analyticalresultsfrom composite samples fromthe top 6 inches TPH 10 4 45 - 107 Acetone 10 8 3 - 14 Di-n-butylphthalate 10 2 140 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 10 1 91 PCB (Aroclor1260) 10 5 59 - 110 4,4'-DDD 10 3 25 - 56 Cadmium 10 1 2 Chromium 10 5 17.7 - 22.8 Copper 10 6 48.3 - 66.1 Lead 10 9 17.0 - 108 Zinc 10 8 48.4 - 94.2

Analyticalresultsfrom samplescollected at a depth of 4 feet below ground surface

TPH 3 3 67- 1,373 PCE 3 1 2 Diethylphthalate 3 1 1,000 ,el/ Di-n-butylphthalate 3 1 160 i Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 3 1 60 • Chromium 3 1 20.7 Copper 3 1 51.4 Lead 3 2 23.8 - 45.9 Zinc 3 2 69.8 - 87.6

¢'_Metalsand TPH are in mg/kg. Ali other analytes are in/_g/kg.

3.6.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

Preliminaryrisk assessmentcalculationsindicatethat constituent concentrationsin soilare not high enough to warrant remedial action at this site based on human health and ecologicalrisks. 3.6.6 Future Actions

Priorto the 1992 field season it was assumedthat the remedial actionto be taken at the sitewould be a landfillcap. The type of cap cannot be selectedyet sincethe impact of the landfillon the groundwaterhas not been determined. As an interimmeasure, it

- III O 10010AF4. BOI/mrn 3.124 26 February 1993 FINAL

is recommended that the landfill area be graded to allow surface water drainage away from the landfill. This will reduce the contact time between the contaminated soil and the water, reducing the leaching of the contamination. This grading is a minimum require- ment that would be required prior to the further development of .a cap over the site. Groundwater monitoring wells should be installed along the north side of the site to determine impacts to the groundwater. If future groundwater information indicates that the landfill is not impacting the groundwater from an ecological risk perspective, then the cap development would be complete. If there is adverse groundwater impact, then the cap would require further development, perhaps including flexible membrane liners and other impermeable materials.

3.7 SOLID WASTE SiTE SW-5: HOSPITAL LAKE

3.7.1 Site Background

HospitalLake is in the north central portion of the island (Figure3.17). lt coversapproximately2 acres, and the depth of the lake is approximately4 feet. The area surroundingthe lake is

O islandgently arrolelingonhthillse wcoevsterbaned ,wik othf thtunedrlake.a. The only shrubs on the

The lake is not currentlyused by the air base and it does not appear to be used in any recreationalcapacity, lt was used as a disposalarea for old ammunitionafter World War I1. Followingan accidentwitha live round inthe 1980s, Navy divers were brought in to remove the ammunition, lt is not known whether ali of the ammunitionwas removed, or whether any decompositionof the materialshad occurred priorto removal.

3.7.2 Previous Investigations

Duringthe September 1987 visit,water in the lake was dark brown, possiblyfrom the organicsin the surroundingsoil. No particular area of the lake could be identifiedas a past disposal area duringthe 1988 field investigation. One surface water sample and one sedimentsamplewere collected near the drainage outletof the lake; one sedimentsample was collected near the inlet (Figure3.17). At the time of sampling,no significant inflowor outflowof lake water was observed at the sampling points. Levelsfor ali parameters(organics and metals)were

10010AF4.BOI/mm 3,125 26 February 1993 FINAL

A nondetectable or were at or below background levelsexcept sedimentsamplesfor barium (94.7 mg/kg) and zinc (58.7 mg/kg), and TPH (200 mg/kg) at the 2-foot sampling depth.

3.7.3 1992 Investigation

The 1992 investigationfocused on determining if there was lake sedimentand surface water contaminationat the site. Also, the bottom of the lake was surveyedto determine its depth. This informationwould be necessaryif a remedialdesign would be requiredfor contaminatedsediment.

The geophysical investigationcovered the whole lake. The objective of the investigationat this site was to determine the extent of buriedmaterialat the bottom of the lake.

The sitewas gridded by staking the survey line endpoints on ' either side of the lake. A rope marked in 10-foot intervals was stretched between corresponding stakes across the lake. Data were collected from a rubber raft that was pulled along the rope, stopping at 5-foot intervals to make a reading. Survey lines were 25 feet apart. _I The resultsof the investigationare shown in Figure 3.17. Contour maps of the conductivityand in-phase data are presented in Appendix B. A singleisolatedmetal object was detected at the southerntip of the lake at 885 east, 525 north. Two other possible metal objects were also identified and are shown in the figure. The anomaliesdefiningthese features are very weak and may actuallybe a topographic effect due to the steep bank rising above the EM instrumentat the edge of the lake.

The bottom survey showed a fairly uniform lake bottom with an average depth of 4 feet.

Sediment and surface water sample locationsare irldicated in Figure3.17. Six surfacewater samplesand four lake sediment samples were collected. Surface water samples were collected from the water columnmidway between the lake bottom and the top of water using a Van Dorn sampler. Sediment samples were collectedfrom the top of the lake sediment. Tables 3.23 and 3.24 listthe analyticalresultsfrom SW-5 samples analyzed at the CSL and offsitelaboratories,respectively.

.... i ii i g 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.126 26 February1993 SAMPLES 1 THRU 7 WATER SAMPLES 8 THRU 12 SEDIMENT

FIGURE 3.17.

BOI31941.RT/SWS.DWG ,_:...... :;: _,...,,;_,_,_,_,...... _ ; .;.,...... =.,, ,:. ,: ...... 0 50 100 200

SCALE: 1"=100'

SW-5

LOCATION MAP LEGEND -,- SAMPLE LOCATION , ,GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY LINE INTERPRETED FEATURES " BURIED METAL 0 POSSIBLE BURIED METAL 1988 SEDIMENT SAMPLE O LOCATIONS 1988 WATER SAMPLE LOCATION SITE BOUNDARY

W-5 Hospital Lake 5.1 27 26 February 199.:5 i 26 February 1993 3.129 FINAL

26 February 1993

3.130 FIHAL

i,i i ii 26 February 1993 3.131 FINAL

H H 0 "_

0 _O000000000_O000000000_O0000Q _

o*.oo.,i..o...oooeeoIQ.,.._.ooo

______• 0 . ______0

______. 0

0 _ _ _ 0 ° _ _ _ 0

• _ _ _ _

• _

0000000000000000000000000__ _ 0 ...... __ _,_

l lllllllllllllllllllllllll 0 _

_._ _

R H ______o ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo _ _ _ _ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo O IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _ _

26 February 1993

3.132 FINAL

A u v

H H

_ _ 0 ______0

_ 0

m _ m

i _ ! _ ''_"

...... _ 0 ______._ ...... _ 0

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo _ _ ._

_-_ _

0 ______0 ooooooooooo______ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIii _ _ 0 ______0

26 February 1993

3.133 FINAL

i ,,i i i lm= i 26 February 1993

3.134 FINAL

0 3.7.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

Table 3.25 presents a summary of the analytical results at SW-5. Presentedare the analytesdetected, the total number of samples analyzed, the number of sampleswith positiveresults,and the range of the results.

Some elevated levels of copper and zinc occasionallyappear in the water columnand the sedimentsamples. TPH and nitrate/nitritewere detected in ali water samples collected. The nitrate/nitritemay be caused by decaying organic matter entering the lake. Withthe possibleexceptionof the buried metal objects, no apparentsources of contaminationwere located during the field investigation.

in the water samples, bis(2-ethylhexyl)pht/halatewas detected in one sample. Ali sediment contaminants, with the exception of bis(2-ethylhexyl)Dhthalate, a common laboratory contaminant, were detected only once in the four samples collected.

O 3.7.5 Preliminary Risk Assessmer t Ali of the constituentsdetected at SW-5 are less than the human health risk PRLsdeveloped in Appendix C. However, the preliminary ecological risk assessmentindicatedpotential risk aquatic receptors near or inthe lake based upon metals concentrations. Chromium, copper, lead, barium, and zinc in the sediment and water samples were above the PRLs and were also above background soil concentrations. These elevated metals concentrations could be the result of past disposal activitiesat this site.

3.7.6 Future Actions

Analytical results indicate relatively few constituents in the sediment and the surface water at concentrations less than that which pose human health risk. Metals concentrations in the submerged sediments may pose a threat to aquatic organisms, but, because there are no fish in this lake, there is no pathway for exposure at this time. Therefore, no further action is the suggested remedial decision for this site and an NFAD document should be developed. • , 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.135 26 Februan/1993 FINAL

TABLE 3.25. Analytes with Positive Results at SW-5

Total Number Total Number Analyte of Samples of Detects Results(a)(b)

Water sample results:

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 6 1 1 TPH 6 6 0.06 - 0.17 Copper 6 1 9.6 Zinc 6 1 13.3 Nitrate/Nitrite 6 6 0.038 - 1.41

Sediment samples collected from top of lake bottom:

0 2-Butanone 4 1 1.8 Fluoranthene 4 1 46 Bis(2-ethylhe×yl)phthalate 4 2 95 - 130 Pyrene 4 1 88 4,4' DDD 4 1 5.8 Endrin Ketone 4 1 21 Chromium 4 1 34.1 Copper 4 1 55.3 Lead 4 1 36.1 Zinc 4 1 101

(a)Metals and TPH in soils are in mg/kg. Ali other soil analytes are in pg/kg. (b)TPHand nitrate/nitrite in water are in mg/L. Ali other water analytes are in/Jg/L. O 10010D27.BOI/jc 3.136 26 February 1993 FINAL

3.8 SOLID WASTE SITE SW-10: BARREL BAY

3.8.1 Site Background

SW-10, BarrelBay is locatedon a flat area overlookingSkoot Cove (see Figure3.18). SW-10 was the site of a 55-gallondrum storage area after World War II. The number of drums placed in the solidwaste disposalsite is reportedto be inthe thousands. The sitehas been subjectto wave action that exposedthe landfill. Variouspieces of metal debris are visiblein the bank and along the toe of the bank. These includetruck bodies, batteries, and truck engines. The top of the landfillis covered with partially crushed rock and is relativelyflat. SW-10 is not currentlyused by the Air Force or base personnelfor recreationalactivities.

Past restorationefforts, completed in July 1987, by the 1lth CEOS, consistedof some debris removal,backfillingwith gravel and riprap, and grading. Varioustypes of debris such as vehicle axles, rims,and tires; gas cylindertanks; electricalcable; and pipe were observed during September 1987. No barrels or drums were observed.

Investigationsat this sitehave shownthat the surface of the area is covereclwith a siltysand down to a depth of 1.5 to 5 feet. This is followedby a sandyto siltygravel layer that ranges from 4 to 10 feet thick. Under the gravel layer is claystoneor hornblende dacite porphyry, which appear to be the bedrock in this area.

3..8.2 Previous Investigations

In 1988, two backhoe pits were excavatedwithinthe disposalarea in locationsof dense debris concentrations(Figure 3.18). The backhoe pitswere dug from the face of the bluffback into the bank to ascertain the width of the disposalarea.

One backhoe pit sample revealed TPH levelsof 16,000 mg/kg at 2 feet and 14,000 mg/kg at 4 feet. Analysisof samplesfor volatile organic constituentsrevealed detectable concentrationsof 2-Butanone, a common laboratory contaminant, at 2 feet (0.65 and 1.0 mg/kg) and at 4 feet (estimated at 0..59and 0.95 mg/kg). The semivolatile compound bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, a common laboratory contaminant, was detected at between 0.98 and

iii i i ii 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.137 26 February 1993 FINAL

A 5.3 mg/kg at 2 feet, and between 0.56 and 2.9 mg/kg at 4 feet. qp Metals analysisresultsranged from 11 to 53.1 mg/kg for arsenic, 47.2 to 561 mg/kg for barium, 54.8 to 81.3 mg/kg for chromium, 348 to 1,740 mg/kg for lead, 33.8 to 57.3 mg/kg for nickel, and 313 to 2,110 mg/kg for zinc, ali of which wereabove background.

DuringSeptember 1991, similardebris was observed protruding from the side of the bank, and a corroded batterywas partially buried in the tidalarea adjacentto the bank. In addition, inthe cove between SW-10 and SW-12, parts of 55-gallon drums were observed above the high tide mark.

3.8.3 1992 Investigation

The intentof the 1992 investigationwas to collectsufficientdata to recommend a remedialaction,if necessary. Closurestrategies could involvecapping the landfillsurface area with an impermeable materialand installingmonitoringwells outsidethe landfill boundary to determinethe impact of the landfillon groundwater quality,and the potentialfor offsitemigrationof contaminants.

The objectives of the investigationwere to determine: _t • areal extent of the dump area • natureof surfacesoilcontamination,if any • natureof groundwatercontamination,if any • groundwaterdepth and direction • significant,mappable site features.

The objectiveof the investigation was to delineate the extent of buried waste materialat the site. The extent of the geophysical investigationis shown in Figure3.19. The site consistsof the area between the road on the north and the top of the bank on the south, lt also includesa section of beach in the southeastern portion of the site and the sectionof beach between SW-10 and SW-12. Data were collectedat 5-foot intervalsalong survey lines 25 feet apart. Contourmaps of EM conductivityand in-phase values are presented inAppendix B. Approximately9.8 acres were investigated.

10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.138 26 February 1993 11"59' 35"

o! I--_rl/_ ----Q ol o i _N_:ro ',_-t oi o/ &Ji: '_"" O' ; O/ N5100 ;.," 14.1 _"ew;_' 0 .,' o ...... s Li-/" _ ; 0 ...... f_...... i' L_d/, ,_. ,,,-u- .st i ...... _i ,...... /' Ld_ _O.o i,' / T l ...... ; ._ ; ,. , _ / , ...... s.. i _; _Soon i _i i ...z i L, ...... v ,'# -__ i_ _ ,_' j? ...... ;/ ..... _ ..... _ _ i' S ...... ,_......

/i "__'_-_,__,___' : i / i ...... ! i AA ,'t"" : [ "1 _' '"...... _ _ ; " ...... i;. i i _ i ...... i"..... i -.i ! , AWCLt.No.is

r N4800 -J ('Sl- 06.§ QUARRY ..... ,

A ' ...... ]'" ...... '...... ,'t. [ i . "...... WELL NO. 2_ -x_ /°Z.2_.,..• ...... /i...... i_ /i ii ...... ¢......

, ...... i...... /',.,. Xl i i', ...... /...... _-- : ...... "...../ .... '. .... 7' 7...... t_-t_*.$10-070/ ii "'- / <- N,.,.,#600 i ...... /....'...... _ " _ ...... "_"_W-.1Q- 2 .iS101 "" / ' ; • '...... / •..... ] '/...... S10-0_68..:_%. t (1988)...... _ ...... : 15 ,iS10-

n/<5,50 i ...... )'...... ] $I0-10_ ...... -p'_ ..... _ . I i " ' ...... ,,:...... ,...... ,_ ...... ,_...... /. . .::/ , / i_",_,m;'"..:..:..i..., \ LEGEND ' -._1....., , i ' -.... s_o _o3 .... LOCATION ....._..... i SOIL SAMPLE ...... 4 ...... @ BORING LOCATION " ....i i _S10-114 .i " @ WELL POINT LOCATION .....:...... ' A MONITORING WELL LOCATION -- OCEAN /0" STEEP BANK 0 1988 SAMPLING LOCATION

FIGURE 3.18, SW-lO Borrel Bay 5.159 26 Februery 1993 //

11°59'35" 0 6 !0 240

_i__ =12 __/_ o/°!°' oi SCALE: 1" O' f ICi/ O/ O rO ...... / / tu ,., I'0 Oi ...... L., , ! _. O i / ...... Ld _ ;! 0 ! / / ..... ,..... / _" " O / ; i ...... iL _J' _) ,'

i / :, ...... ;...... : _i ...... ^_',500nv "i i _ ; ...... is"- i;

" ,i i_ ...... i i ,t N4go 0 i

I ! i i N4800

/ ; \ i N4700 ; ..... , i ., ...... [ N4650 ...... _...... I...... _ i N.._00 i ...... • ._ ...... ' f ; ' ; "" '. ,.,,...... N#550 ",...... / ..,

" L'", [ " ;" :, ..... , • ,.,, :i.... ,. : •, _7...,. , ...... _ .. ,... ,_,_

_. l t ...... • "".-. , . . _ ;

...... "'"_! ...... /i ....,; ...... ::l

...... •f.... . ," ...... _r......

t',. • . 7'

...... • • ...... ,, ".}

OCEAN

FIGURE 3.19. SW-lO

...... IIIIGII"llQ&I Iii" #,il_li.l'li"l_.lli_l"l" t"l_ LEGEND INTERPRETED FEATURES I IGEOPHYSICAL SURVEY FILLAREAWITHWITHSCATTEREDBURIED WASTEBURIEDOR METAL LINE _ AREA OF POSSIBLE BURIED WASTE (_) METAL OBSERVED _ OR FILLWITH LITTLEOR NO BURIED AT SURFACE METAL Z<< STEEPBANK _ AREA OF BURIEDMETAL O POSSIBLE BURIED METAL i ISOLATED BURIED METAL O/ I"oi,,j 0 , ---'- BURIED UTILITY LINE _; of _,: _130_ ' o0 "i SITE BOUNDARY • _.: o_i ol •...... ,..' ,{ ! L"_"_; .." OOii 0 ; "...... / ' tOi 0.' i ...... _ i (23;; ; ...... _. , ii,#/ tO i 0 i 0 ,: " :'s ...... Ji...... i' lui• ev,< Oi , ,' i ...... ;...... ' ,,4'_] ,"0i o i , ;...... i - I0_ 0+ J i ...... i ...... ;: L_#/ '_'7, O0;i ...... _ tO; ii3, r l ...... •] ...... , till / J ' ...... i...... _ l.u f ...... : i , ..,. ,_,., / .: i BOTTOM ; OF BANK

i Ii ,. ,, r

t J ,. i ,_":.... +_ .i / f .' t tt i" i ! l . .< ...... / i \ ...... ; , 4; : ...... 7 i ," i ......

i,; :; ...... • .,.f, . .! ......

.; f / SHORELINE ' _: ...... ,, ( • .,. i ...... ,...i.. : _ ,/ ...... : ...... i , ; ,, ' '" ) ...... t .,. _ :...... s ...... : i" ? .., ,. ".. ,, i ...... " '" ,., i i •,,, i .. --,,...... ! .., ,," " ...... : •. ,'...... , CONCRETE -,.. ._...... BUNKER

,physical Interpretive Map 3.1 41 26February199.3 FINAL

Buried metal was mapped mostly along the southern edge of the site,along the top of the bank. In several locationsscrap metal could be seen protrudingfrom the bank. The buried metal mapped between 4650 east and 4900 east does not.extend below the bank to the beach. However,the beach does Containone area of scattered buried metal as well as isolated buried metal in several locations. An extensivearea of buried metal was also delineatedat the beach between SW-10 and SW-12, between 5200 east and 5500 east. Most of tht_area between the bank and the edge of the water has buried meteJ. Drums were observed in the bank, particularlywhere eroded. The geophysicaldata indicate buried metal is present up to the water's edge. The southern limitof metal has not been fullydefined and metal may extend beneath the water. If the survey had been performed at low tide, perhaps the full extent of buried metal could have been defined.

Two areas of possibleburiedwaste or fillhave been identifiedby the investigation. One is locatedwithina borrowpit, centered at 4275 east, 4850 north. The other is located at 4550 east, 4900 north, at the base of a smalltopographic ledge. The data at both areas show elevatedconductivity,but indicate little or no metal.

Buriedutilitieshave been identifiedat several locationsat the Site. Utility1 is located at the west end of the site along the southside of the road. lt appears to turn north and cross beneath the road at 4350 east. Utility1 connectswith Utility2 at 4300 east, which runsto the south at least as far as the bank. Utility3 has been identifiedoriented diagonallyinthe west end of the site. lt is at the edge of an area of buried metal and the anomaliescaused by the utilitylinehave interferedwiththe interpretationof the limitof buried metal in the vicinity. Utilities4 and 5 are associatedwith a ditchat the north side of a dirt track.

Isolatedmetal and possiblemetal have also been identifiedat severallocationsaroundthe site as shown in Figure3.19.

Twentytwo surfacesoil sampleswere collectedat SW-10 (see Figure3.18); 10 from a random grid ($10-_4 to 74), and 9 from specificlocations[seeps ($10--100, 101), areas of metal ($10-102, 111-116]). Ali sampleswere analyzedfor VOAs, semi VOAs, pesticides/PCBs,and metals. Three samples ($10--.103, 104, 105) were collected and analyzedfor toxicitycharacteristicleaching

I III I I I ---- I 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.143 26 February1993 FINAL

procedure (TCLP) metals. The TCLP sampleswere collected to help determine if the soilwould have to be treated as a RCRA waste if it were to be removed. In addition,the TCLP resultsare usefulin determininghow'much metal mightbe leached out of the soilby infiltratingwater.

Tables 3.26 and 3.27 listthe analyticalresultsfrom the CSL and the offsitelaboratory,respectively.

In addition,three groundwatermonitoringwells were installedat SW-10 (see Figure3.18). Soil sampleswere taken from each boring at 5-foot intervalsfor onsiteTPH analysis,and a sample was taken just above the water table for analysisof VOAs, semi VOAs, pesticides/PCBs,and metals. Well No. 1 (S10-W1) and Well No. 2 ($10-W2) showed minor amounts of toluene, and Well No. 1 (S10-W1) showed carbon disulfideat the water table sample. After the wells were developed and allowedto equilibrate with the aquifer, a groundwatersample was obtained from ¢_ch well and analyzedfor VOAs, semi VOAs, pesticides/PCBs,and metals. Tables 3.26 and 3.27 listthe groundwatersample analytical results.

Groundwaterelevationswere taken from the three monitoring wells and a potentiometricgroundwatermap developed (Figure3.20). Groundwaterflowsto the southtoward the ocean.

3.8.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

Table 3.28 presentsa summary of the analyticaldata for SW-10. Presentedare the analyteswith positiveresults,the total number of samples analyzed,the number of samples with positiveresults, and the range of the results.

The boundary(areal extent) of the sitewas determined by geo- physicalmethods and is shown in Figure3.19. The estimated area of the sitefrom the 1992 field investigationis 9.8 acres.

i I i IO010AF4.BOI/mm 3.144 26 February1993 11°59'35"

of Cb / 0 / '_"i O/ (:bi _N _ N5700 _/ _; o, • ""...... : _ _r,/,') OI ...... ; _. x/-: 0 ...... ' _/ 0 ...... i Lu / u') C

NSO0 0 _ " ...... ,..... / ....I ...... / ...... _Jt" '_" r.....-_._ / ...... /,...... ":-,., I

I , ; , ._ , i i, / N i t

...... 4900, .... ' ' " ...... ' _ ; ...... i , / .! •"...... i ...... ,,,._/,., // _ / I : J N4800 / ,; /

WELL t_O. 2 / ; ;• .-i I i

N4700 "/ _ /J I _' I/ ...... i i: ,I ii ":...... : ts ., N4650 i ...... •...... / / ,7....

...... • ,.' .., i i i ...... ,. ,.,.,_,..,

t "",. • .... • -,, _' ,,_ .... # ; ..... ,,, ...... , .... • ; t

N4550 • ...... t'...... , ...... ;

...... /. ; ":_..,., ...... ; , •...... _' ..... _, .,, • ..,,: .,, ; ..

.... f, ,.,. ,... _... it •., ...... ,., / / •._ .... S .- . ,.., ...... I ...... , /' i ...... ,L • ,, LEGEND 't ...... ,'

OCEAN

MONITORING WELL A LOCATION (CONTOURINTERVAL1 FOOT) FIGURE 3.20. SW-lO Grout

.... BOI319 41,RT/$Wl O- WI...OWG 0 6O 120 24O

SCALE: 1"=120'

O" o ! Ix,: o/ _: (2) ' 0,: /4a' 0o,- o

...... ,,.... la./,/ o ' o ;' ...... ; : kt'),/ O/ ....,...... ; ,--_ 0 ...... : 0 C) .....;;...... //...... _// _Lo,/ o '_ ...... I. " tO, 0 ; ; _...... /taa tO' 0 OI i ,; ., ...... , : tO/. tOO// ...... ; ; t; ,/ ...... ,...... ;: It./ tO j ...... , : •...... j , : : ' / l _ ; ...... z, / /; ,H i:. i: I ,i ' i / ...... / i _ ; l ; ; i ...... ,, , / i BOTTOM - i / OF BANK " _ i ...... /...... : ; , / "" ' ,4., ;' r i / i ."- ---.-..

; ...... / ...... _ ;

• ,,.. / ...... , ...... / ...... _ ; g ...... N ,

;,: ,...... 7; ..; .....¢.X ; : ..... i : .....\ ...... : ...... J / \ -.i.. ._'

_WELL NO 1 / .... " ...... I / ' : ' k :

...... "...... / ::.. SHORELINE k : ...... : ...... -.. i':

/ •. : ' . " CONCRETE ,.. f ,.. [ ' : BUNKER

water Contour Map-Water Level ,3.1 45 26 Februory 1993 FINAL

H H X

oeo,oeeeooeeeeoeeeoo.e.

_ _ ._0

m _ •

mmm m mm mmm _ _

m _

_ o oo ooo

0000000000 oooooooooo _ _ _

_ oooooooo__ _ _ 0 oooooooooo o _ .______. • '_ _ 0

0000000000ooooooooooooo _

0 ___o_ _ oooooooo______

00000000000000000000000 _ 0 ______.4_ _

...... 26 February 199_3 3.147 FINAL

H H 0 "_

0 oo_ooooooooo_ooooooo_oooooooooo _ leeel_eoeleeeeeeeeeleeeeleelele

o oo______• 0

_ _ 0

_ .

o = N

=80= _o _ = _= _ o.__ _

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ IIIIIllllllllllllllllllllllllll ._ OOO0000OOOOO0000OO000OOOOOOOO00 _ 0 ______._ .______0

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ ._

0000000000000000000000000000000______" _._ _

0 ______0 0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ 0 ___r______

m •,,,, ,, 26 February 1993

3.148 FINAL

0 o

H H

0 ._ 0 000000000_0000000000000000_000 _ 0__00__0_000_0_0_0_0_

_ _ _0______0

_ 0

• u

c v _

N m _o m _

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllll .N O0000000000000000000000000OOOOO _ 0 _'_ -______0 H O000000000DO0000000000000000000 _ ._ I ______M__ 0 _

O000000000000000000000000OO0000 _ _ N • _ ____}______Om ._ _ _._ _

0 ______0 oooooooooooooo_oooooooooooooooo _ _ _ IIIIItllllllllllIIiiiiiiiiiiiii O0000000OO0000000000_O000000000 0 ___,_.______0

26 February 1993

3.149 FINAL

26 February 1993

3.150 FINAL

26 February 1993 3.151 FINAL

H H 0 .4

0 o_ooooooooo_ooooooooooooooooo_o _

o______o_ _ _ _ 0 _ _ 0

• u m _ m

m _

-4

_ mm m _OO___ _O______

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlll "H OOO00OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO _ 0 ._

H 0000000000000000000000000000000 _ "H I ______0 _ _

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ _._ _

0 ______000000000000000 ______0 0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ _ lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 0000000000000000000000000000000 _ 0 ______

.., , ,., 26 February 1993 @ 3.152 FINAL

H H O "_

0 0000000000000000000000000000000 _

______0 _ _ o m _ m

• o

_ _ o

_ _ ;i _ _ o_

0000000000000000000000000__ _ IIIIIIIIIIIIlllllllllllll...... _ O0000000000000000000OOOO0000000 _ 0 ____" IIIIII _'M

O00_Cq______...... _ 0 ooooooooooooooooooooooooo__ _ _ ._ ' ______0 _

m_mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm_m_mm__0000000000000000000000000__ _.._ __ N m mmmmmm_m_m_m_mm_mmmm_m_mmm_mmmm Om ._ _._ _

______0

000000000000000000000IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi 0000000000 _ _ _ 0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ _. 0 ______t______U

i 26 February 1993

3.153 FINAL

H H 0 ._

0 oooooooo_oooooooooooooooooooooo _

_oqloeoloo4aeoloooloolooeotQooeoo_oo_o_o_ooooooo_o_oooo_o _

_ _ o

=_ o

• __ _

! _ _ =_ _ _ i "" .

______...... _&_ ...... • 000000000000000 -_ 0000000000000000111111111111111 _ 0 IIit111111111111000000000000000 _'H O000000000000000 .... ____ ._ ...... _ 0 O00000000OO0000 ._ _ -_ H ______ooooooooooooooo _ .______,,_ __ NNN _NN_N_NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ______Om ._ _._ Q_

Z O ______OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO _ _ 0000000000000000______OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO _ _ 0 IIIIlllllllllllllllllllllllllll OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO _ O ______

, i i i i i 26 February 1993

3.154 FINAL

O 26 February 1993 3.155 FINAL

o v

H H 0 ._

0 ® oo_oooooooo_ooooooooooooooooooo _

eoooeeeeeee.oooeeeeeeeeleeQe.ee

______0 z o

__ • 0

O m _ O _ u

m _

_o 0 o • _ _ o _

0000000000000000000000000000000 .H Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllll _ 0 000(.--;_00000000000000000000000000 _._ ._ ____C______0 0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ .H I ______0 _ _ 0000000000000000000000000000000 "_ _ 0 _

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ _._ _

Z "_ _ IIII

H ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo _ H_ 0

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiiii 0 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

26 February 1993 3.156 FINAL

A u

H H O .M

ooooooo_oooooooooooooooooo_oooo _

_ _ _ o _ _ _ _ o • 0

.M , _ _ =_ Uo m •

______• 0

_ 0

_ _00 _._

0000 ...... 'o'°'''°'''_'°°'°°" "_ III1000000000000000000000000000 _ 0 O0001111111111111tlllllllllllll _-M __000000000000000000000000000 ,M_ ...... _ 0 H oooo______-_.

__ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo _ 0 _ _ 0000 ______._ _

0 ______00000000000000000000000___ _ _ 0 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlil 0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ 0 ______

26 February 1993

3.157 FINAL

H H

0 OOQOOOOOOOOOOO_OQOOOOOOOO_OOOOQ _ Oo_o_O0eooo_Oooo*eoo*ooeeoeee0_O00NO_O_Oooootoeo 0_O0_O_O000

m _

, _ _ • 0

• _ _ _ _ o

_ _ _oo ._ o._

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ 0 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _._

_ _ _ 0

I ______0 _ Iit1111111111111111111111t11111 _ ._ 0000000000000000000000000000000 _ 0 _ _

_._ Q_

______0

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

26 February 1993

3.158 FINAL

A U

H H O ._

0 oooo_oooooooooooooooooooooooooo _

oo_o_ooeoioeoooooooIo_oo_,o...eooogoeooeo.o_oooo_oo_oooo

______• 0 = °Mo m •

______._ • o

_ _ ._

_ 0

• _ _ _ U _ U U

_U_H ii'! i

oooooooooooooooooooo _ _ 0 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _.M 00000000000000000000 .M_ .... _ 0

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ 0 _ _

_.a _

H ______M_ 0 o a o o , , o i o , , o i , , _ o _ = o o o o _ _ i o , o o n 0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _

ii 26 February 1993

3.159 FINAL

o v

H H 0 "_

OOOOOOOOOOOOO_OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO _

e*oeeeoeeeeoeeeoe=e*oe|o*oeeoe.

H Z O O m =

_ • 0

_ O.

• _ _ m

_0 H._ M

0000000000000000000000 -_ ...... _ 0 ______._

0000000000000000000000 _ •H _ .0H H ...... _ .a u

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ 0 _ _

_._ _

0 _ _ H ______o < IIIIIIII11111111111111111111111

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _

26 February 1993

3.160 FINAL

o v

H H 0 '_

0 oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooQ_ _ oo_o_:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ooo_ooo_oooooooo_o_o

z _ _ _ 0 o 0

m _

_ 0 _00_ _H 0 O00H _ •

000000000 _ ...... ______0 .__'_

ooo....oooooo ...... _ _ _ ._0 H ___ _ .H ' ______0 _ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo e0 _

_._ Q_

0 o_ _

IIIIIIIllllllllllllllllllllllll ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo _ _ O _-i______o

i,i i 26 February 1993 3.161 FINAL

H H 0 ._

0 0000000000000000000000000000000 _

______0

Z 0

______0 • _ _

0 _ o

_ _ _ o

_ _ o, _ _ _ ._.mm m

...... _ 00000000000 _ ...... ______o __ _.M ooooooooooo _ 0

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo _0 _

_ _

0 ______0 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo _

26 February 1993

3.162 FINAL

26 February 1993 3.163 FINAL

TABLE 3.28. Analytes with Positive Resultsat SW-10 O

Total Number Total Number Analyte of Samples of Detects Ranqe

Analyticalresults of water samples: Chromium 3 3 25.0 - 48.3 Copper 3 3 71.8- 202' Zinc 3 3 149 - 700 Carbon Disulfide 3 1 3 Benzene 3 2 4- 5 Toluene 3 2 2 - 3 Xylenes (Total) 3 2 3- 7 Diethylphthalate 3 1 2 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 3 1 2 Naphthalene 3 1 8 2-Methylnaphthalene 3 1 12 Dibenzofuran 3 1 1 Fluorene 3 1 2

Analytical results of soil samples collected at a depth of 13 to 18 feet: O Carbon Disulfide 3 1 1 Toluene 3 2 2 - 3 Chromium 3 1 26.8 Copper 3 1 52.3 Lead 3 1 29.8 Zinc 3 1 79.6 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 3 2 45- 53 Aroclor 1248 3 1 110 TPH 3 3 42 - 149

10010D28.BO'I/jc 3.164 26 February 1993 O FINAL

O TABLE 3.28. (cont.)

Total Number Total Number Analyte of Samples of Detects Ran.qe

Analytical results of soil samples collected from 0- to 6-inch depth: MethyleneChloride 19 . 6 7 - 14 Chloroform 19 1 2 Anthracene 19 1 68 Fluoranthene 19 2 45 - 68 Phenanthrene 19 1 54 Pyrene 19 2 44 - 80 Benzo(a)anthracene 19 1 130 Chrysene 19 1 390 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 19 7 46 - 190 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 19 1 300 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 19 1 270 Benzo(a)pyrene 19 1 330 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19 1 300 O Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 19 1 270 Di-n-butylphthalate 19 1 46 4,4' DDE 19 1 3.2 4,4' DDD 19 2 2.1 - 15 4,4' DDT 19 4 2.5 - 12 Endrin Ketone 19 1 2.1 PCB (Aroclor 1248) 19 1 150 PCB (Aroclor 1254) 19 2 23 - 39 Total Organic Carbon 19 2 3,480 - 5,550 TPH 19 3 6.4- 548 Arsenic 19 3 5.2 - 6.9 Cadmium 19 4 1.8 - 5.8 Chromium 19 6 17.8 - 59.2 Copper 19 9 39.9 - 892 Lead 19 12 7.7- 317 Zinc 19 12 36.4 - 401 Lead (TCLP) 3 1 40.8 TPH 13 3 245 - 16,244

10010D28.BOI/jc 3.165 26 February 1993 FINAL

Analytical results indicate a greater number of constituents in the surface samplesas compared to the samplescollectedat depth. Thiscould be due to the at-depth samples being obtained from the wells that were locatedoutside the landfillarea and some surface samplescomingfrom the face of the landfill. Constituents detected at depth and in the surface soilsshow similarconcentra- tion ranges. One TCLP sample failed for lead with a concentration of 40.8 mg/L (Table 3.28). The organic contaminationat SW-10 appears to be limitedin areal extent and concentrationsare very low. Metals concentrationstend to be fairlyhigh at SW-10. This is probablydue to the metal debris that has been disposed of at this site. The metal debrisdoes not extend into the groundwater, based on the depth to groundwaterat the three wells. This does not apply to the areas directlyin contactwith the ocean.

3.8.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

Two of the surface soilsamples exceeded the human health risk PRLsfor arsenic (6 and 6.9 versus 5.7 mg/kg). In addition, Well No. 2 (SW-W2) had benzene contamination(5/_g/L) near the MCL of 5 #g/L. Well No. 3 ($10-W3) also was above the ecological water quality criteriafor 2-methylnaphthaleneand fluorene. The preliminaryecologicalrisk assessmentindicatesthere is risk to terrestrialreceptorsfrom cadmium in soiland sediment,and risk to aquatic receptorsfrom chromium,barium, lead, and zinc in sediment. These metalsconcentrationsare also above background values.

3.8.6 Future Actions

Priorto the 1992 fieldseason, it was assumed that the remedial action to be taken at the sitewould be a landfillcap. The extent of the landfillhas been determinedthrough geophysicsand the data indicatethat the landfillis impactinggroundwater. Therefore, an impermeablecap is recommended to be designed and installedat this siteto reduce or eliminatethe impact of the landfill on groundwaterand reduce the exposure to contaminatedsurface soil. Priorto placementof the cap, debristhat is extrudingfrom the fillshould be removedand reburiedat eitherthis site or at the current metal landfillon the island. Additionally,stabilizationof the southern edge of the landfillshould be completed to prevent erosion by wave action.

rB I II I I I I 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.166 26 February 1993 FINAL

3.9 SOLID WASTE SITE SW-12: SCRAP METAL DISPOSAL SITE

3.9.1 Site Background

The site is located at the southend of abandoned RunwayB and east of Skoot Cove near Building750 (see Figure 3.21). The landfillis on a bluffapproximately20 feet above the ocean, lt covers an area of approximately3 acres on a finger of land that juts into the ocean. Severalsmallbuildingsare located withinthe area of the landfilland are in use at the present time. Bedrockoutcrop- pings are visiblealong the bluffon both sides of the landfill.

Historically,scrap metal was dumped in this area. During September 1987, a fieldinvestigationteam noted a 200-foot-diameter disposalarea consistingof vehicleaxles, gasolineengines, and other metal debris. Most of the area has been backfUledwith large rock and graded for stabilizationby the 1lth CEOS. The area is activelyused by the Air Force; also, there are signs of campfiressuggestingthat the area may receive some recreational use.

The area outsidethe landfilledportionof SW-12 is covered with peat to a depth of approximately5 feet under which is a layer of gravel. This gravel layer continuesto approximately10 feet bgs where weathered bedrock of hornblendedacite porphyry is encountered. In areas wherefill has been placed, the fill appears to have been put directly on the bedrock. In some locationsthe fillis more than 15 feet thick.

3.9.2 Previous Investigations

in 1988, samples were collected with an auger from a portion of the site left uncoveredby the rock fill (Figure3.21). The TPH levelswere 380 mg/kg at 2 feet and 1,480 mg/kg at 14 inches. Metals detected abovethe background analyticalresultswere arsenic(18 mg/kg), barium (65.3 to 331 mg/kg), chromium (31.8 to 45.5 mg/kg), lead (219 to 335 mg/kg), nickel(32.6 to 62.4 mg/kg), and zinc (271 to 419 mg/kg).

10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.167 26 February 1993 FINAL

3.9.3 1992 Investigation

The intentof the 1992 investigationwas to collectsufficientdata to recommenda remedialaction, if necessary. Closure strategies could involvecapping the landfillsurfaceand installingmonitoring wellsoutsidethe landfillboundary to determinethe impact of the landfillon groundwaterquality,and the potentialfor offsitemigra- tion of contaminants.

The objectivesof the investigationwere to determine:

• areal extent of the dump area • natureof surface soilcontamination,if any • natureof groundwatercontamination,if any • groundwaterdepth and direction • significant,mappable sitefeatures.

The objectiveof the surveywas to delineatethe extent of buried metalwaste at the site. The extentof the geophysicalinvestigation is shown in Figure3.22. The limitsof the survey were defined by the road along the north side of the peninsulaand the cliffson • ali the other sides. A civilsurvey was performed to establisha grid priorto the geophysicalinvestigation. EM data were collected at 5-foot intervalsalong lines25 feet apart. The contourmaps of EM conductivityand in-phasevalues are provided in AppendixB. Approximately3.1 acres were covered by the investigation.Three large areas of buried metal have been identified at the site. Area 1 covers most of the peninsulasouth of grid line 4525 north. Buriedmetal is widespread in this area, resulting in numerousanomalies. Many of the anomaliesare strong con- ductivityhighs, in excess of 200 millimhosper meter. Although these anomaliesare not the characteristicnegative responses observed over metal objects, metal is interpretedas their source. lt is believedthat the EM responsesare not negative because of the depth of metal burial,interpretedas being as much as 10 feet deep or more.

ii iii

10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.168 26 February 1993 FIGURE 3.21. SW

BOI319,11.RT/SWl 2.DWG 0 50 100 200

o: SCALE: 1"= 100' 0 0,' (0_ tO" O/ tO; Oi

"...... "...... Li ....<>! oo'o,,°"

" ,.... t_:, NSo00 ,, ...... ¢.h

/ /WELL NO. 3 /, \

} ...... ===_ S12-0'86 ...... ,.Nzt.900 ...... i i...... "_ [:

_ _'_. "

/ tO0 i " / , LOCATIONMAP i CONCRETE ! , PAD (TYPICAL) S1 'N4200 " _ i ...... / /

...... / N46Oo _ LEGEND -o85/ o 13°UTILITYSERVICE BOX / _2 : '-o7_. / o & POSTS ...../...... "...... /N45oo i _ BUILDING ..i,. \ ,i ...... * SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION ' ...... /N4450 @ BORINGLOCATION '"T ...... "...... ,., "•-" ' A MONITORINGWELL -_SW12-2 _IN4400 LOCATION (1988) ";' ...... , MARKED UNDERGROUND '079 .....:'N435o UTILITY LINE ," "...... 0 1988 SAMPLING LOCATION

.2 Scrap Metal Dump 3.169 26 February1993 FIGURE3.22. SW-12 G,

F10131941 .RT/SW12-1NT.DV_ o SCALE" 1"= 100' O_ O:

• N5000

I ! !

...... _!N4900

CONCRETE LEGEND PAD (TYPICAL) _* UTILITYSERVICE BOX 700 & POSTS

• GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY Q ' 'LINE AREA _ _ BUILDING , "n46oo dz (E) METAL OBSERVED O AT SURFACE

: ;N'_5oo Io _AREA OF BURIED METAL • (!) AREA lD I; / -.iN4450 , / , 0 POSSIBLE BURIED METAL

"" A _N4400 @ ISOLATED BURIED METAL - . MARKED UNDERGROUND - N435o UTILITY LINE UTILITY LINE SITE BOUNDARY ophysical Interpretive Map 3.1 71 26 February199,3 FINAL

Area 2 is located on the northhalf of the east side of the peninsula. Most of the anomaliesare characteristicof buried metal which is interpretedas being present throughoutthis area.

The anomaliesdefiningArea 3 are somewhat more scattered than in the other areas; however,they are close enough together that subdividingArea 3 into smallerareas is notwarranted. Most of the anomaliesinthis area indicateburied metal.

A buried power lineleadingto a controlbox (at 5600 east, 4645 north) was partiallymarked before the geophysicalsurvey started. The surveyshowedthat the power line continuedsouthof the box towardsthe buildingat 5650 east, 4475 north. The power line could not be traced south of 4525 north because of the EM responsesof the buried metal there.

Duringthe 1992 field investigation,17 surface soilsampleswere collected (Figure3.21). Ten were randomlyselected grid samples, and sevenwere from specificlocationsfrom withinthe site (seeps, disturbedareas, etc.). Ali were analyzedfor VOAs, semi VOAs, pesticides/PCBs,and metals,and one sample was also analyzedfor TCLP metals. Tables 3.29 and 3.30 listthe analyticalresultsfromthe CSL and'the offsitelaboratories, respectively.

Two groundwater monitoring wells were installed at SW-12. A third monitoringwellwas attempted but was dry at auger refusal. Soil samples were collected at 5-foot intervalsfor onsite TPH analysisand a sample was collectedfrom just above the water table for VOAs, semi VOAs, pesticides/PCBs,and metals. These resultsare presented in Tables 3.29 and 3.30. Afterthe wells had been developed and had equilibratedwiththe aquifer,groundwater samples were obtained and analyzedfor VOA, semi VOA, pesticides/PCBs,and metals. High metals concentrations,espec- iallycopper and zinc, were observed in the water samples.

3.9.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

The boundan/(areal extent) of the site was determined by geophysical methods (Figure3.22). The estimatedarea of the site from the 1992 fieldinvestigationis 3.1 acres.

i i iiii i ii

IO010AF4.BOI/mm 3.173 26 Februaw 1993 FINAL

.... 2(_' February 1993 3.174 FINAL

H H 0 '_

0 QOO_OOOQOOOOOOQQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO _

,o=..e=oe=.e==.e.=ooom==...o...

_ _ _ _ o _ _ on _ 0

_ _ 0 0

______• 0

o, _ _ _ _ _o _ _ _ _ 00_0 _ _ _

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ Iltllllllllllllllllllllllltllll "M OOOOOOO0000OOOOO00OOOÙOOOOO00OO _ 0 _ .... _ _._

H OOOOOOOOOÙOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOÙ _ ._ I ______0 _

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ X m _mmmmmm_mmmmmmm_m__m_m_mm_m_ 0 _ ._ • _._ _

H ______0 ooooooooÙoooooooooooooooooooooo _ _ _ _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 ______o

26 February 1993 3.175 FINAL

u v

H H 0 "_

0 oooooooooooooooooooo_oooooooooo _

,..0..,...0,.,..,i.,.0,.o0,olo0

_ _ _ 0 ______0 _ _ o m _ m A N

• _ ° " 8 8 _ • _ _ 0

0 0 o

__HO0 ______.

...... _ O00000___U______llllll.'...... _ 0000000000000000000000000000000 _ 0 IIIIIIIIIIIIit11111111111 _'M ooooooooooooooooooooooooo ._ __ _ 0 H oooooo______._ i ______.____ 0 _ _

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ X _._ _

0 ______H ______H_ 0 0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiii

HHHH_HHHHHHHHHH_HHH_H_HHHHHHHH _ _

iii i 26 February 1993 3.176 FINAL

u v

H H

0 -_

,o.oo.....,i..eooi...,.lo.o.oo,

_ _ _ _ _0_ _ 0 _ _ 0

Z o

• u m _ m

_ 0 H ______'._ _

• _ _ _

_00_ OHO H_._._O _

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ 0 llllllllllIllllllllllllllllllll _.M 0000000000000000000000000000000 "mL ______'______0

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ _ X _._ _

0 ______0 0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ _ _ IIIllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

______....

26 February 1993 .i, 3.177 FINAL

_ 26 February 1993 @ 3.178 FINAL

@ o

H H _ o ._ 0

oe,,,oo,e,,..,.ooo.o,e.oeoe*e,,

______• 0

_ 0

m •

m m _ 0 _ _ _

• _ ._

• _ _ _ 0

_N _0 _ _0 o

i "_•_ 0 < _ 00 _ 0 _ 0 _o._ H_H'_ _ _._-_ • _

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ 0 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll _'N OOOOOO00OO00000OOOOOOOO00OO0000 ._ ...... _ 0 H _ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo_ _ _ ._ t ______0 _ m

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ _ _._ _

0 _ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo______H_ 0 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo _ _ _ IttittittttttttlO00titlltilttli ______A 0 ______0

26 February 1993 3.179 FINAL

26 February 199,3 3.180 FINAL

February O 26 1993 3.181 FINAL

A O u

H H

0 ._ 0 • OOOOOOOOOO_OOOOOOO_OOOOOOOOOOOO _

_ O______0

_ 0

__ _ 0

0 m _ o 0 _

0 _ • _ _ o

0 o'

00000000000000000000000000000_0 _ _ 0 IIIIIIII11111111111111111111111 _.M 0000000000000000000000000000000 .M_ ...... _ 0

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ _._ _

0 ______ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo _ _ _ < +lllllllllllllllllllllllillllli

0 ______O

26 February 1993 qp 3.182 FINAL

H H 0 .4

0 oooooooooooooooo_oooooooooooooo _

eo..o..,o.e.e,.olool.eoeoe.oe.e

m _ m ______• o

m _ 0

_0 o , • .4

...o _o______

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ 0 A IIIIIIlllllllllllllllllllllllll _-N 0000000000000000000000000000000 ._ ...... _ __ _ _ 0

I ______0 _ _

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ _-_ _

0 ______0 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo _ _ _ < tilllttilititttttlltittJtltlttl 0 ______l_ _ _

26 February 1993

3.183 FINAL

iiii , i 26 February 1993

3.184 FINAL

26 February 1993

3.185 FINAL

H H • O ._

O OOOOOOOOOOOO_OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO_ _ *eooo*eo=eo*=oeoelo,eoeoeo**.=o

_ = o_o m _ m

0 _ "_

W _ _ 0

< _ _

0000000000000000000000000000000 _ _ 0 Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllll _'H OOO0000000000000000000000000000 ._ ...... _ 0

Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllll _g ._

_._ _ C_ C

H ______0 Illilllllllllllllllllllllllllll

ii ii

2(3 February 1993 O 3.186 FINAL

26 February 1993

3.187 FINAL

_ i iii nl|l|l 26 February 1993 3.188 FINAL

...... 26February1993 3.189 FINAL

-- iii, i i i , i ,, i, , 26 February 1993

3.190 FINAL

e Table 3.31 presentsa summaryof the analyticalresultsfrom SW-12. Presentedare the analytesdetected,the number of samples analyzed,and the number of samples with a positive result.

These resultsindicate a greater number of constituentsin the surface samplesas compared to the samples collectedat depth. This could be due to obtainingthe subsurfacesamplesfrom the wells that were located outsidethe landfilland some of the surface samples from the face of the landfill. Constituentsdetected at depth and in the surface soilsshow similarconcentrationranges. Most contaminantsare at very low concentrationsand, except for metals,were found only in a few samples. This indicatesthat organic contaminationat this site is not widespread.

Groundwatercontaminationseems to be limitedto minor amounts of volatileorganicsand metals. Both the upgradient and down- gradient wells have elevated metals concentrations.

3.9.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

Three of the surface soilsamples exceed the human health risk PRLsfor arsenicand both the water samples from the wells had arsenic concentrationsabove the MCL. Some benzene was also detected in the groundwatersamplesbut at less than the human health risk PRLs. Analyticalresultsdid not exceed the preliminary ecologicalrisk assessmentgoals at this sitewith the exception of b_rium in soil samples.

3.9.6 Future Actions

Site data indicatethat arsenic in surface soiland groundwater poses a potentialhuman health risk. As a remedial measure, it is recommended that the landfillarea be graded to allow surface water drainage away frLm the landfilland capped with a permeable material. This will reduce or eliminatethe exposureto contaminated surfa(:esoiland reduce the impactof the landfillon the groundwater, lt is unlikelythat human exposureto groundwater from the sitewillever occur, and since ecologicalrisk is not impacted,an impermeablecap is notjudged necessary.

e ,-iiii 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.191 26 February 1993 FINAL

TABLE 3.31. Analytes with PositiveResults at SW-12 O

Number of Total Number Samples with Analyte of Samples PositiveResults Ranae

Analyticalresults of water samples: Arsenic 2 2 62.8 - 66.9 Chromium 2 2 19.2 - 80.7 Copper 2 2 52.9- 255 Zinc 2 2 163 - 369 Carbon Disulfide 2 1 4. Benzene 2 2 2 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2 1 1 Toluene 2 1 1

Analytical results of soil samples collected at a depth of 7.7 feet: Acetone ! 1 21 Benzene 1 1 49 Toluene 1 1 150 Xylene (Total) 1 1 16 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1 1 41 Total Organic Carbon 1 1 4,970

Analytical results of soil samples collected at a depth of 20 feet: Carbon Disulfide 1 1 2 Benzene 1 1 9 Toluene 1 1 19 Xylene (Total) 1 1 5 bis (2-ethylhexyl)phth alate 1 1 52 Total Organic Carbon 1 1 3,850

10010D29.BOI/jc 3.192 26February 1993 O FINAL

O TABLE 3.31. (cont.)

Number of Total Number Samples with Analyte . of Samples PositiveResults Range .

Analytical results of soil samples collected at a depth of 5 feet: Ethylbenzene 1 1 780 Toluene 1 1 990 Xylene (Total) 1 1 2,680

Analytical results of soil samples collected from 0- to 6-inch depth: Chloroform 17 1 1 Diethylphthalate 17 2 58 - 130 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 17 10 40 - 390 Di-n-butylphthalate 17 5 46 - 5000 PCB (Aroclor 1260) 17 2 36 - 89

O 4PCB,4' D(AroclorDE 1254) 17 21 287.6 - 2.7 4,4' DDD 17 2 5.3 - 15 4,4' DDT 17 3 2.5 - 34 MethyleneChloride 17 6 5 - 19 TPH 17 2 43 - 85 Antimony 17 1 8.7 Arsenic 17 4 5.5 - 10.3 Cadmium 17 1 2.1 Chromium 17 3 20.4 - 59.3 Copper 17 9 41.3 - 371 Lead 17 9 12.9 - 381 Zinc 17 9 44.4 - 567

iii

_OO_OD29.Bo=_e 3.193 26February, 1993 FINAL

3.10 SOLID WASTE SITE SW-14: SCRAP METAL LANDFILL

3.10.1 Site Background

Thisarea is located at the extreme southeastcorner of the island (Figure3.23). lt appears to occur in two areas on the southeast portion of the island: 1) adjacent to the existingsanitarylandfill; and 2) directlyeast, acrossthe road from the sanitary landfill.

Currently, the area appears as a series of sandy hummocks inter- spersed with broken concrete. This site is approximately600 feet by 600 feet, withheightsaveraging 10 feet above grac_e.The site extends to a bluffoverlookingthe ocean on-the east, approximately 100 feet abovethe ocean.

3.10.2 Previous Investigations

No metal debris was observed at this site during the 1988 field investigation. However, concretedebris was observed. Two auger boringson the southern,downslopeperimeterof the disposal sitewere used to collectsoilsamples. The TPH levels ranged from 250 to 460 mg/kg. No semivolatileorganic compounds were detected. Commortlaboratorycontaminantvolatile organic compoundsdetected included methylenechloride (0.011 to 0.048 mg/kg), acetone (0.012 to 0.15 mg/kg), and 2-butanone (0.01 to 0.04 mg/kg). Metalsdetected above background were nickel at 21 to 23 mg/kg, zinc at 33.9 to 122 mg/kg, and lead at 9 to 36.1 mg/kg.

3.10.3 1992 Investigation

The 1992 investigationof the site consistedof a geophysical surveyof the siteto delineateits boundaries. No sampleswere collectedfor analysis.

The objectiveof the geophysicalsurvey was to map the extent of buried metal and waste at th.esite. The extent of the geophysical investigationis shown in Figure3.23. The east limitof the site is the top of the cliffs. At the northhalf of the site, the western limit was the road, and in the southern half, the western limitwas approximatelythe active landfillboundary. The north limitof the survey was the northernextent of an open field. The survey extended southwardto an asbestos disposalarea. The asbestos

II I II IIIIII 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.194 26 February 1993 FIGURE ,3.23. SW

80131941.RT/SWI 4.OWG / "%,,

__ Elooo

...... !.....,! E1500 ,,

-___ El_OO SW-14

..:_...... ,f""_._EA _,E...L2...o.oPILES ......

...'...... E.,. ! 1O0 J,',. ! LOCATION MAP

r) LEGEND ," E 1000

...... '...... T ...... - ...... • i LARGEAREA OF ______GEOPHYSICAL i SCATTERED BURIED SURVEY LINE i E 9OO METAL ...... !i...... O ® ATMETALsuRFAcEOBSERVED ' OR POSSIBLE ISOLATED

...... •...... E 800 0 BURIED METAL .,__ STEEPDITCH BANK Q ,,_\, i OR ISOLATED BURIED INTERPRETED FEATURES

o_-O! i o, ' O METAL 0 AREABURIEDOFMETAL z! z, _ 1988 SAMPLING _ AREA OF BURIED LOCATION _ WASTE OR FILL .... SITE BOUNDARY (PRESENCE OF METAL IS UNCERTAIN)

;crap Metal Landfill 3.195 26 February 1993 FINAL

area was specificallyexcludedfrom the geophysicalinvestigations and althoughit is apparentthat buried metal extends farther south,the surveystopped at the asbestosarea. Data were collected at 5-foot intervalsalong lines25 feet apart. The data are shown contouredin Appendix B. Approximately9.5 acres were investigated.

The resultsof the investigationare shownin Figure3.23. Several areas of buriedmetal were identifiedby the investigationand are shown in the figure. The most extensive areas of buried metal were encounteredat the southend of the surveyarea. An area of scattered buried metal connectsthe two areas of buried metal at the south part of the site. Other smallerareas of buried metal were delineatedat the siteas shown in the figure. One area, centered at 450 north and 1330 east, is definedby anomalouslyhigh conductivity,but the data do not indicatemetal is present. A short feature identifiedas a buried utilitywas mapped at approximately 850 north, 1140 east. Isolatedburied metal and possibleburied metal objectshave been identifiedat numerouslocationsacross the site and are also shownin Figure3.23.

Q 3.10.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination • The 1988 data indicate that some contaminationmay exist at this site, but data are insufficientto determinethe extent of contamination.

3.10.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

Because the nature and extent of the contamination is not known, a complete risk assessmentcannot be performed. However, none of the samplesfrom the 1988 samplingwere above the human healthPRLsor the ecologicalPRLs.

3.10.6 Future Actions

Further study is necessaryat the site to determine the impact of the landfillon groundwaterand the potentialfor surface soil contamination. A proposed investigationstrategyis contained in the InstallationRestorationProgram FieldInvestigationPlan (CH2M HILL 1991).

O 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.197 26 February 1993 FINAL

•3.11 PETROLEUM SPILL SITE PS-lA: TRANSFORMER OIL SPILL AT COBRA DANE

3.11.1 Slte Background

Thissite is located near the northwesternmostpoint on the Island (Figure3.24). The Cobra Dane is located on a bluffoverlooking the ocean to the west, approximately200 feet below. The area aroundthe buildingthat houses Cobra Dane has been graded fiat. Beyondthe flattenedarea aroundthe Cobra Dane is rolling terrainthat slopesto the southand is covered with vegetation. Surfacewater runoffflowsto the southtoward the tank farm and eventuallyto the west end oil water separator (PS-3). However, because of the vegetationand the generallylightto moderate precipitationintensity,littledirect runoffentersthe surface water systemdirectly, as mostof the precipitationinfiltrates.

Facilitydrawings indicate an underground tank just outside the front entrance to the Cobra Dane. This tank was fed by an underground linefrom severalfloor trenches in the Cobra Dane. Residuescollected duringspillresponse activitiesare collected in the trenchesand routedto the tank."When fluidsoverflowedthe sump, the tank was emptied by pumpingthrough an above- ground,2-inch pipe. The tank, sometimesreferredto as an "Askarel"tank, was last pumped in 1985. Accordingto the Phase I report, there have been spillsin this area, and the exact contentsof the tank had not been clearly identified.

3.11.2 Prevlous Investigatlons

In 1988, the residue in this 1,000-gallon underground tank was sampled as well as an auger boring soil sample near the tank. The liquidtank sample containeda TPH levelof 43,000 mg/I and recorded no detectable PCBs or pesticides. The tank contents measured 36 inchesdeep at the time of sampling. Tank integrity was not known. The TPH levelin the soil was 5,100 mg/kg at 3 feet and 100 mg/kg at 6 feet. No PCBs or pesticideswere detected in the soil. The underground tank was removed in June 1992 by the COE.

10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.198 26February1993 O 0_.+_" DOOR 6

GO_ _'-- PARKING LOT

P1A-B1

_S-_sA)- 1 P,A-1

_'_ PS_lA

I ,, o , * °

LEGEND _ LOCATION MAP •_" SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION BORING LOCATION 0 1988 BORING LOCATION

O ) FIGURE 3.24. PS-lA New Cobra Dane

3,199 26 February 199,3

001319,41 .RT,/1_$1A.OY_ FINAL

3.11.3 1992 Investigation

Duringthis project's1992 investigation,three soil samples were obtained--one from the surface near where the tank had been located and two from boringsat the approximate bottomof the tank excavation(Figure3.24). Alithree sampleswere analyzed for VOAs, semi VOAs, pesticides/PCBs,and metals. The surface sample had positivehitson numeroussemivolatilecompounds (Table 3.32). These compounds ar:egenerallyassociatedwith coal tar derivativesand could have come from asphalt. Some elevatedheavy metals were also found in the surface sample (Table 3.32). The two subsurfacesamples had one positiveresult for tolueneat 1 pg/kg and were below detection for ali other compounds. Metals concentrationsat depth were withinthe background range. Geophysicalinvestigationswere not performed at this site because of the large number of underground utilities.

3.11.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

Analyticalresults from samples taken at PS-lA indicate the surface materialthat was used tO constructthe parking lot is contaminated with semivolatilecompoundsthat may be associatedwith asphalt. Some minor amountsof TPH contaminationwere also found at the surface near the tank, but this is probably associatedwith the fill materialused to constructthe parking lot. However, there are no indicationsthat the tank that was removed in June 1992 had leaked.

3.11.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

None of the compounds detected at PS-lA were above the preliminaryrisk levelsdeveloped in AppendixC. Soil samples exceeded the PRLsfor aluminum,cobalt, and iron.

3.11.6 Future Actions

No remedialactions are necessaryfor the area around where the undergroundstorage tank had been located, based on sample resultsand the baselinerisk assessment. Therefore, it is recommended that an NFAD document be prepared for PS-lA.

--- ii i i 1 0010AF4.BOI/mm 5.200 26 February1993 FINAL

26 February 1993

3.201 FINAL

26 February 1993 3.202 FINAL

A u

M H O "_

0 ®

.oeoo,ooeoeoooooeeoe,

______• 0 _ 0 _ _ o m • m

m _

m _ _ __ _ .-.

_ ,-_

...... _ 0 ______.M ...... _ 0

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _0 _

llllltiliiJilllllitll _ _ _._ _

z 0 _ _ H ______.,_ _ 0

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIit111

26 February 1993

3.203 FINAL

3.12 PETROLEUM SPILL SITE PS.1B: TRANSFORMER OIL (PCB) SPILL AT OLD COBRA DANE

3.12.1 Site Background

The site is located on the northern portion of the island along North Road (Figure 3.25). The area around PS-1B is rolling hummocksof tundra. The buildingis located near the edge of the bluffon the north part of the island. The vegetation aroundthe site is grass and tundra. Surface water runofffrom this siteflows to the west and then south toward PS-3, the west end oil water separator. Much of the area aroundthe old Cobra Dane has been disturbed,leavingbare soilexposed. This wouldtend to increasethe amount of runoffgenerated from this site. Since the September 1987 site visit, OEHL personnelhave reported that the original Cobra Dane site is also the locationof an oil spill. Specific quantitiesare not known, but the oilspilled was thought to contain PCBs. The exact locationof the oil spillcould not be determined, but inspection of the area on the north side of Building 3050 revealed several areas of darkened soil.

3.12.2 Prevlous Investlgatlons

In 1988, three samples 'were taken in areas of stained soil at the site of historic transformer storage (Figure 3.25). Another sample was taken in a drainage ditch north of Building 3050. Soil samples were taken by hand auger boring to 2 feet. The TPH ranged from 21,000 mg/kg at 1 foot to 129,000 mg/kg at 2 feet. No PCBs or pesticides were detected.

3.12.3 1992 Investigation

A geophysicalsurveyof the sitewas conducted as part of the 1992 investigation.The extent of the geophysicalconductivity investigationis shownin Figure3.26. Conductivitydata were collectedat 5-foot intervalsalong lines 10 feet apart. The conductivityand in-phasevalues are presented as contour maps in AppendixB. The objectiveof the surveywas to identifyburied metalfeaturesto be avoided during drilling. Approximately 0.4 acre was covered by the investigation.

i I II III I nll|l iii II mn in i 10010AF4.F, OI/mm 3.204 26February 1993 B0131941 .RT/PS'I B.DWG LEGEND _GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY LINE T p- z_'oN (_ ATMETALSURFACEOBSERVED INTERPRETEDFEATURES ---- UTILITY LINE __AREA WHEREDATA WAS _AFFECTED BY SURFACE FEATURES

FIGURE 3.26. PS-1B Geophysical Interpretive Map I_I

5.206 26 FebruGry 1993

80131941 .RT/r_18-INT.DWG FINAL

O The site was gridded by the geophysics crew. The grid was established relative to a corner of the building, as shown in Figure 3.26. The northwest side of the building defined grid north and was assigned grid coordinate 100 east. The northeast side of the building at that corner was assigned grid coordinate 0 north.

Several features present at the site interfered with the EM data. These are shown in Figure 3.26 and are the building, storage trailers, concrete foundation and ditch, and a hydrant with guard posts. Data collected within about 15 feet of these features are generally unusable for the identification of buried metal.

Three utility lines were identified by the investigation and are shown in Figure 3.26. One Ofthe utility lines is associated with the hydrant located in the southwest corner of the site. Another interpreted utility line may be associated with the hydrant located in the northeast part of the site, although the utility line was mapped about 20 feet from the hydrant. A third utility line was identified beneath the small hill in the northern part of the site.

During the 1992 investigation, two soil samples were taken from O PS-1B, a surface sample (0 to 6 inches) and a subsurface sample (6 inches to 24 inches). The surface sample had a concentration of bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate of 88,000/_g/kg and minor amounts of TCA, TCE, and 4,4'-DDD (Table 3.33). Metals concentrations were elevated as compared to background concentrations, most notably mercury at 5.4 mg/kg (Table 3.33). Cyanide was also present in the surface sample at 2.2 mg/kg.

The subsurface sample had a TPH concentration of 38,503 mg/kg. The.chlorinated solvents TCA and TCE were also found in the subsurface sample at 600 and 2,200 _g/kg, respectively. In addition, the breakdown by-products dichloroethane and dichloroethene were also present at 96 and 97 #g/kg, respectively.

3.12.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

The samplestaken in 1988 and 1992 indicatethat the area to the north of the Old Cobra Dane has been contaminatedwith both organic and inorganiccompounds. Both investigationsconcen- trated on the most heavilystained areas and did not delineatethe lateralor verticalextent of the contamination. In addition, there is Q 10010_4.BOUm,,, 3.207 26February 1993 , FINAL

26 February 1993 O 3.208 FINAL

26 February 1993 i| 3.209 FINAL

some potential that the spill site in question may have been to the , south of the Old Cobra Dane building. However, the area to the south has been part of a constructionsitein 1992 and has been completelydisturbed,destroyingany surface evidence of any spills. Because of these limitations,it is notpossible to determine the extentof contaminationat this site.

3.12.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

No samples taken to date exceed the preliminaryrisk levelsfor human health risk establishedin AppendixC except for TPH. Cadmium, aluminum,antimony,iron, and silverin soilwere determined to be potentialrisksto terrestrialreceptorsat the site. Becauseof the limitednatureof the samplingperformed to date, a completerisk assessmentis not practicalat this time.

J 3.12.6 Future Actions

Becauseof the lack of data and the need to define the nature and extent of the contamination, additional investigations are needed at PS-lB. The investigation described in the Field Investigation Plan of grid sampling, subsurface sampling, and the.installation of groundwater monitoring wells should be implemerlted to obtain the information necessary to determine if remediation is necessary at this site, and, if so, what type of remedial actions would be appropriate.

3.13 PETRO!EUM SPILL SITE PS-2: WEST DOCK

3.13.1 Site Background

PS-2 is locatedon the west side of the islandapproximately 1,200 feet southeastof the dock near Alcan Cove (Figure 3.27). This area of the islandis coveredwith rollingsand dunes with limitedvegetation. The dunes slope to the west, toward the ocean. There are no definedsurface water channelsin the area; ali precipitationinfiltratesinto the sand.

In July 1983, a leak in the JP-4 distributionline spilledapproximately 100 gallonsof fuel. Sorbent materialwas applied to the spillarea and the pipelinewas repaired with a metal sleeve. Ali remedialactions were reported completeon the day followingthe spill.

iii i i i i i 100=0",_4.BOWm 3.2! 0 26 Feb_a_ 1993 g

0 5 10 20

"SCALE: 1"=10'

"1" F-

ZON

DOCK D N 19,179,854:0958

/_. ARMYE 991CORPS,103.0908OF ENGINEERS BRASS ' CAP MONUMENT S.E. DOCK

DOCK

SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION __ & IDENTIFICATION ,, LOCATION MAP O FIGURE 3.27. PS-2 West Dock

3.211 26 February 1993

B0_31g41.RT,/P32.DWG FINAL

3.13.2 Previous Investigations

During the 1988 investigation on Shemya, the onsite personnel could not locate any visualevidenceof the spillsite. Therefore, no samples from PS-2 were collectedin 1988.

3.13.3 1992 Investigation

Again during the 1992 investigation,no visual indicationof tna spill could be located. A distance of 1,200 feet was measured from the dock, according to the report on the spill, and four surface soil samples were obtained (Figure 3.27). lt was believed the spill probably occurred along the pipeline on West Beach Road and not West Road Cutoff because the distances would have been measured from closer landmarks along West Road Cutoff. The samples were taken from along the abandoned pipeline next to the West Beach Road. The samples were ali analyzed for TPH with ali results being less than 500 mg/kg and two samples less than the detection limit of 25 mg/kg (Table 3.34).

3.13.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination "thesampling conducted in 1992 indicates minor amounts of TPH contaminationin the vicinityof the JP-4 spillthat occurred in 1983. The contaminationappears to be intermittentand may not be associatedwith the fuel spill. Samples taken from around the islandshow elevatedTPH levelsthat are not associatedwith known spills.

3.13.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

The TPH contaminationfound at PS-2 is below ali preliminaryrisk levels establishedin AppendixesC and D. This indicatesthat, based on risk,no remediationwill be required.

3.13.6 Future Actions

lt is recommended that an NFAD document be prepared for this site.

11 i i i i i B IO010AF4.BOI/mm 3.212 26 February 1993 FINAL

A ,q

H X

Ch!-.I m 4£ o

_ 0

,,,J r_ tar) ..-., U .u 0

0 _ _

= o

•._ _ _ ._ •-- _;.-1 ,_' O0 _ '1_ 0 _ _ -,-4

E_ _ _ .,_

_j m _

I-- x: @

0 0 .PI g-I --- _ _ .El 0 .... ,--i El _ 0 H Lr) Irl -el I • • _ oo 0

0 • u,4

0 _ H _-'1 ('_1 ,,_ 0 oo _ oo r.j i I .-. ._ 0 _c,,l el ,El

26 February 1993 , ii 3.2!3 FINAL

3.14 PETROLEUM SPILL SITE PS-3: WEST END OIL/WATER SEPARATOR PONDS

3.14.1 Site Background

The west end oil/water separator is a seriesof five unlined, earthen ponds constructedby the 1lth CEOS near the west coast of the island(Figure3.28). The ponds flow through an area of rollinghills. To the northof the ponds are a series of above ground storagetanks for JP-4 and diesel. To the southare the abandoned RunwaysB and C, to the east is the main base headquarters, and to the west is the ocean. The vegetationalong the water course is mainlygrass and tundra. The drainage in which the oil water separatorwas constructed receivedsurface water runofffrom the tank farm, Cobra Dane, and from around the power plant and part of the runofffrom west side of the main base complex. While much of the area around PS-3 is covered with vegetationand produces littlesurface runoff,there are numerous roads, buildings,and disturbedareas that do produce appreciable quantitiesof runoff.

PS-3 is being actively used bY the Air Force; however, no recre- ationaluse of the area has been observed. The ponds extend from an area southwestof the power plantdownslopeto the BeringSea approximately1 mile, near the intersectionof North Beach and North Roads (Figure3.28). The function of the separator isto interceptthe oil-contaminatedsurface waters draining from areas to the northeastand trap the oil before the water reaches the ocean. Ponds 1 and 2, whichtreat a portion of the surface runofffrom the power plant, contained soils of a blackish color, and a strong POL odor was detected. Dischargefrom Pond 2 carrieswater with an oil sheen to a subsequent Pond 3, which is 100 feet southwestof Tank 123, the locationof a diesel fuel spill. Pond 4, locatedabout 1,000 feet west of Pond 3, receivesthe dischargefrom Pond 3. Soil in this area was visibly saturatedwith POL, as was soil in the ditch at Pond 5, located another 1,000 feet downslopeof Pond 4 near the intersectionof North Beach and North Roads.

-- I II II _1",,'1 II I / 10010AF4.BOl/nun 3.214 2_F=b_,,_1y993 3"02'00" o ,

0 d

COBRA DANE f /. • {

II TANK 10_

TANK 111_J/

f POND 4

POND 5 POND 3

FIGURE 3.28. PS-3&4 West End Oil, ----- LEGEND

SAMPLING LOCATION f. _f_/ _ A0 1988LOCATIoNSOIL1988 SURFACESAMPLINGWATER

Water Separator & Diesel Fuel Tank No. 123 3.215 26 February 1993 FINAL

3.14.2 Previous Investlgatlons

In 1988, 11 sedimentand soilsampleswere obtained from • uniformlyplaced locationswithinthe drainage pathwaysthat hydraulicallyconnecteach pond (Figure3.28). Additionally,surface water samples were collected at the drainage outletof Ponds 2, 3, 4, and 5.

The resultsof the TPH soiland sLr,face water analysesfor the ponds are shown in Table 3.35.

TABLE 3.35. Results of TPH Soil and Surface Water Analysesat Ponds

SoilTPH Surface Water TPH

Pond 1_._ 1,520 17,600 mg/kg 2.5 mg/I Pond 2 30 67,000 mg/kg 3.6 mg/I Pond3 18,000 - 141,000 mg/kg 3,1 mg/I Pond 4 130 - 4,770 mg/kg 1.7 mgJl Pond 5_'_ 340 - 710 mg/kg ?-2 mg/I

'West of power plant. bNearAlcan Cove.

Soil samples were taken by auger from 1- to 4-foot depths. Soil samplestaken near Pond 2 detected 374 mg/kg of lead. Pond 3 soilsamples detected 50.9 mg/kg of lead. Other soilsamples were withinbackgroundlevelsfor lead.

Pond 1 levelsappear to reflect drainagefrom the power plant. The increasein levelsat Pond 3 possiblyreflectsa reported spill of severalthousand gallonsof dieselfrom Tank 123. The levels decrease at Ponds 4 and 5; however,a visiblesheen was noticed .atthe outletof Pond 5 to AlcanCove.

3.14.3 1992 Investigation

Duringthe 1992 investigation,a limitedgeophysicalsurveywas conduct=.din the immediatevicinityof four of the five ponds to determineif any largequantitiesof buried metal was present. The resultsof the geophysicalsurvey indicatethe following:

ii i i iii _ i 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.217 26 February 1993 FINAL

Ponds 1 and 2--These ponds are located just south of North Road. The reconnaissancesurveyextended around both ponds out to a distanceof about 50 feet. The surveyindicated a utility lineis located on the southside of the road and a culvertcon- nects the two ponds. The culvertis obviousfrom the surface. A smallarea of buried metal is present near the southeastside of Pond 2.

Pond 3--Thissurvey surroundedthe pond, althoughmost of the effortwas concentratedin the area between the pond and the roads on the north and east sides. Two probable utilitylineswere detected near the road on the north side of the pond and a small anomaly,possiblya smallpiece of scrap metal,was observed on the southeastside of the pond, between the road and the pond.

Pond 4--The investigationcovered onlythe north side of the pond becausethe south side was too steep to traversewiththe instrument. No anomalieswere detected on the north side of the pond.

Pond 5--This pond was not investigatedbecause of the steep sides aroundthe pond.

' No other activitieswere performed at PS-3 during the 1992 field season because investigationof this site willrequire more than one fieldseason to completeand there was insufficienttime duringthe limited1992 season.

3.14,4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

The samplesthat were collectedand analyzed in 1988 along with visualobservationsindicatethat the ponds and the sediments aroundthe ponds are contaminatedwith TPH and metals. In addition,areas outside of the ponds have been contaminated by past spillsand are leachingcontaminantsinto the groundwater and the pond system. The extent of the contaminationis not known.

3.14.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

Samples collected in 1988 were not analyzed for constituents otherthan TPH and lead. Also,the site is currentlyused by the Air Force, and environmental concentrations are likely to be

i i i iii Ill IIIII PIii -- / 10010AF4.SO_m,_ 3.218 26Fcb,,=r_993y FINAL

O different from 1988 concentrations. Therefore, a risk assessment cannot be performed at this time.

3.14.6 Future Actions

PS-3 is a complexsite. lt covers a large area of varyingterrain and uncertainsubsurfaceconditions. The major concern is relatedto TPH contaminationin soil,surface water, and groundwater, includingareas of potentialsubsurfacefree-floatingproduct. Free-floatingproduct may exist in limitedareas as pools or seepage.

Restorationat PS-3is aimed at identifyingand remediating,as appropriate: 1) contaminatedsoil (includingsediment)posing eithera significanthealth risk or representinga significantground- water contaminationsource; and 2) contaminatedgroundwater posing a significanthealth risk. Assumingthe POL-contaminated surface water may continueto flow intothe pond system,restoration is anticipatedto includeupgradingthe pond system.

Significantlycontaminatedsoilshould be recommended for excavation and removalfromthe site, if practicable.Recommendations for s0il removal shouldinclude the standard POL-release/UST- removaltechniquewhere the exact extentof affected soil removal is determinedduring excavation. However, one goal is to minim- ize excavation (and capping) of undisturbedareas. Therefore,if contaminatedsoilexcavationis excessiveor otherwiseimpractical, other, non-cappingalternativesshould be developed. Nonexcava- tion controlalternativesmay include techniquesto: 1) intercept leachate in a controlledmanner; and 2) hydraulicallyisolate undis- turbed affected areas to help minimizeleachateproduction.

lt is anticipatedthat at least limitedgroundwatercontaminationwill be identified. Groundwatershould be evaluatedin terms of: 1) natureand extentof contamination;2) probable sources; and 3) remediationneeds and goals. Recommendationsfor source

,b control and groundwatertreatmentshouldbe developed if and as needed, based on interpretationof availableinformation.

In order to obtainthe informationto determinewhich remedial alternativeswillbe needed, the investigationpresented in the Field InvestigationPlan should be implemented. This plan calls for

O i lOOlOAF4.BOl/mm 3.219 26 February 1993 FINAL.

surface water sampling, surface soilsampling, subsurface 0 sampling, and groundwater monitoring wells.

3.15 PETROLEUM SPILL SITE PS=4: TANK 123

3.15,1 Site Background

Tank 123, a 490,000-gallon,above ground fuel tank surrounded by an unlineddike, is used for storage of diesel fuel. lt is located on the west side of the island(Figure3.28), approximately1/4 mile west of the main base complex. The area around the tank has been graded and developed and no vegetationis currentlygrow- ing inthe area. Surface water drainage from aroundthe tank flows into Pond No. 3 of the west end oil/waterseparatorsystem.

Records indicatethat this is the site of several spills,the largest being a 67,000-gallonspillin May 1984 (JRBA 1984). Of this total, 61,500 gallons of the spillwere reportedlyrecoveredfor reuse, and the other 5,500 gallonswere recovered and burned. This tank is located in a fuel tank farm consistingof ninefuel storage tanks scattered over an area 1/4 mile in diameter. Most of the tanks sit in depressionsformed duringtheir construction;overburdensoils were removed and the tanks are founded on bedrock. This area around Tank 123 is currentlybeing used by the Air Force as a refuelingpoint for tanker trucks.

3.15.2 Previous Investigations

The dike and area aroundTank No. 123 appeared clean in Sep- tember 1987. There was no signof spillageor leakage from the tank or fill/dischargelines. There was no oilsheen in the dike water or downstreamof the sluicegate. The drumsthat contained oil-saturatedsorbentpads, as mentionedinthe Phase I report, had apparentlybeen removed. Fillmaterialhad been placed around the tank by the 1lth CEOS. Duringthe September 1988 field investigation,a strong diesel odor was detected in the • sample area around Tank 123.

Three piezometers were placed aroundthis tank by the COE, Alaska District. The OVA headspace measurements and water levelswere measured and recorded for each of the piezometers during the 1988 field investigation. No groundwater samples were collected. These resultsare summarized in Table 3:36.

Illll II I I • O 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.220 26F,b_u,ry1993 FINAL

O TABLE3.36. Tank No. 123 Piezometer Measurements

OVA Headspace Estimated Piezometer Measurement Depth to Water(.) Total DepthC_) ld (ppm) . (ft) (ft)

1 BG(°) 15.7 19.75 2 50 > 15.3 15.3 3 BG(°) 16.8 19.25

(')Depth of water below ground surface. C")Totaldepth of PVC well casing; includes casing stickup above ground surface. C°)Background.

Two auger borings were placed downslope from the tank (Figure 3.28), The TPH ranged from less than 75 to 230 mg/kg. Semivolatile analysis revealed the presence of di-n-butylphthalate (a common laboratory contaminant) at 0.59 mg/kg at a 3.5-foot sampling depth. No PCBs or pesticides were detected. Analytical results of volatile organics are summarized in Table 3.37... i TABLE 3.37. PS-4 Analytical Results of Volatile Organics PS-4-1 P$-4-2 Depth (ft) m Depth (ft) Analytes 2 3.5 2 9.5 Methylene Chloride 0.13 0.17 0.034,1 0.046 Acetone 0.25 0.16 0.66 0.2 2-Butanone 0.18 Toluene 1.8

Xylenes 0.66 Styrene 0.65 Chloromethane 0.069J

Vinyl Acetate 0.061J : 4-Methyl 2-Pentanone 0.1

J = Estimated value. Ali results reported in mg/kg.

O ii i i lp 10010AF4.BOl/mm 3.221 26 February 19r FINAL O The area around Tank 123 was remediated in 1991. Contami- nated soilwas removed and a drain systemwas installedaround the insideof the diked area to interceptany spilledfuel.

3.15.3 1992 Investigation

No activitieswere performed at PS-4 during the 1992 field investigation.

3,15.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

Samples collectedand analyzed in 1988 show only minor amounts of contaminationin the area outsideof the berm of Tank 123. The area insideof the berm has been remediated sincethe last spillat this site. This indicatesthat probably not much near-surfacecontaminationremainsat PS-4. However, there is stillthe potentialfor groundwatercontaminationassocia- ted with past fuel spills.

3.15.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

Limitedsoil sampling and lack'of gr°undwater data from this site _) preclude the comparison of preliminary risk assessment information.

3.15.6 Future Actions

Future actions at PS-4 will concentrat_ on determining if the groundwater has been affected by past spills. To accomplish this, groundwater monitoring wells will need to be installed and sampled. These wells should be installed in conjunction with the work at PS-3, as stated in the IRP Field Investigation Plan. ',. ; 3.16 PETROLEUM SPILL SITE PS-5: POWER PLANT

3.16.1 Site Background ,

The base power plant is located on the northside of the island (see Figure3.29). The area aroundthe power plant has been extensivelymodifiedfor both the buildingand the storage areas near the building. Ali vegetationhas been removed and the area is graded flat. Surface water runofffrom PS-5 drainsto the west

i iii 0

10010AF_,.,..,.,,,nm 3.222 26 February 1993 I rr ozN

NEW POWER PLANT .4-.. BUILDING , _ 3051 PS5-1 -_ "..... PS5-5 (1988)

[_) POWERPLANT _ "x- BUILDING

PS5-3_

(1988)

FIGURE3.29, o_,2'2. ,_,.,,_° SCALE: 1"=1 O0'

_4_4"_ LEGEND

A 1988 SOIL SAMPLING 0 LOCATION1988 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOCATION

G, _o

o.._,

(J LAKEPPER

-X LOCATION MAP

PS-5 Power Plant. ,.5.223 26 February 1993 FINAL

in a man-made channel and enters Pond 1 of theWest End Oil Water Separator (PS-3). Because the entire area around the power plant is disturbed, appreciable amounts of runoff are pro- duced from this site.

The power plant has been the site of several documented diesel fuel spillssince 1978. Duringthe September 1987 site visit,the power plantwas undergoingan expansion,and the concrete pads for several abovegroundfuel tanks were being installed. Because of construction,the ditchbetween the power plantand the road runningto the West End Oil/WaterSeparator Ponds (PS-3) had been obliterated. Duringthe fall 1988 field investigation,there was evidenceof dieselfuel spillagein severalareas around the power plant. Darkenedsoilswere noted aroundthe south perimeterof the main building.

3.16.2 Previous Investigations

During the 1988 investigation,soil boring samples were taken from 2 feet to 9.5 feet, and one groundwater sample was taken from the bottom of a soil boring on the south side of the building O (Figure 3.29). TPH levelsfor the soil samples ranged from 15,000 mg/kg at 2 feet to less than 210 mg/kg at 9 feet. Three samplesanalyzed positivefor naphthalene,measuring2.6 mg/kg at 2 feet, 3.3 mg/kg at 4 feet, and 4.2 mg/kg at 5 feet. Also detected was 2-Methylnaphthalene,measuring5.9 mg/kg at 2 feet and 8.2 mg/kg at 4 feet. Benzo(a)pyrene was detected in one sample, measuring 5.8 mg/kg at 9.5 feet. The compound di-n-butylphthalate (a common laboratory contaminant) was detected at 0.9 mg/kg (estimated) and isophorone at 0.53 mg/kg (estimated). Volatile compounds were detected as follows: methylene chloride (a common laboratory contaminant) at 0.025 mg/kg (estimated) at 9.5 feet; and 0.11 mg/kg (estimated) at 5 feet. Acetone (a common laboratory contaminant) was detected at 0.17 mg/kg (estimated) in one 5-foot sample. Toluene and ethylbenzene were detected at the 5-foot sample depth at 0.081 and 0.11 mg/kg (both estimated), respectively. Xylenes were detected at 1.76 and 0.06 mg/kg at the 4- and 5-foot sampling depths in one location, respectively. A single groundwater sample was analyzed for TPH and 100 mg/I was detected.

ii 10010AF4.BOl/mm 3.225 26 February 1993 FINAL

3.16.3 1992 Investigation

The only activityperformed during the 1992 investigationat PS-5 was a mapping surveyof the site. Figure3.29 was developed from that activity. The investigationof this siteshould be per- , formed in conjunctionwith the investigationat PS-3 and PS-4. For this reason, this site was not investigated in 1992.

3.16.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

Samples collectedin 1988 show a wide variationin TPH concentrationsand onlyminor amountsof volatileand semivolatile compounds. This is Consistentwith the reported fuel spillsof at this site. The areas of the spillwill have high TPH but it will not migratevery far. Samplingcompletedto date has focused on visuallyaffected areas and has been very limitedin scope. Therefore,the extent of the contaminationcannot be defined at this time.

3.16.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment A Because of the limited quantity of data available, a risk assessment has not been performed for this site.

3.16.6 Future Actions

Because of the lack of data available for PS-5, additional investigations are recommended. Surface sampling, subsurface sampling, and the installation of groundwater monitoring wells as outlined in the Field Investigation Plan should be performed. Investigation of this site should be performed in conjunction with the investigation of the West End Oil/Water Separator (PS-3) as this site is directly upgradient of PS-3.

3.17 PETROLEUM SPILL SITE PS-6: BUILDING 605 JP-4 SPILL

3.17.1 Site Background

Building 605 (PS-6) is located s,_uthwestof the main headquarters of the base (Figure 3.30). The building is used as a refueling area and as part of the vehicle maintenance shop. To the east, north, and south of PS-6 are buildings and roads. To the west is rolling 0 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.226 26 February 1993 FIGURE 3.30. PS-6 Refu ing Vehicle Meintenance Shop 3.227 26 February 1993 FINAL

tundra that slopes to the west and south. Surface water runoff from this site flows to the west down a natural drainage.

This spill site was originally included as an IRP site because an oil/water separator inside Building 605 failed to contain a spill of about 100 gallons of JP-4 fuel. During the September 1987 site visit, oil spillage was evident in the immediate vicinity below the separator outlet, and a strong petroleum odor was noted. A , stressed vegetated area, about 200 by 200 feet, west of Build- ing 605 (Figure 3.30)was observed during the September 1988 site investigation. A small pipe that discharges from Building 605 may be the cause of the stressed area. During the 1988 site visit, it was noted that antifreeze may have been discharging from this pipe. AJuminumcans observed in the stressed area appeared to be undergoing chemical corrosion.

3.17.2 Previous Investigations

During the 1988 investigation, three borings were made along an area of stressed vegetation west of Building 605 (Figure 3.30). Soil TPH ranged from 27,000 mg/kg at 2 feet to 170 mg/kg at

O l6evelsfeet.forThrbariumee of the(69stoix 356sammgples/kg),colletwoctedforexceechromiumded ba(43.6ckgrotound . 110 mg/kg), five for lead (47 to 305 mg/kg), and five for zinc (37 to 239 mg/kg). One soil sample detected 1 mg/kg PCB. No semivolatile organic compounds were detected. Analytical results of volatile organics are presented in Table 3.38.

i ii 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.229 26 February 1993 FINAL

TABLE 3.38. PS-6 Analytical Results of Volatile Organics PS-6-2 PS-6-3 Depth (ft) Depth (ft) 2 3,5 2 6

MethyleneChloride 1.5J 0.046J Acetone 15 0.22 2-Butanone 4.6 1.0 Benzene 0.032J Toluene 2.1J 0.3"7

Ethylbenzene 0.054J Xylenes 5.1 1.46 7 Chlorobenzene 1.1J 0.65

J = Estimated value. Ali resultsare reported in unitsof mg/kg.

A sitetour in September 1991 disclosed that contaminant releases were continuing in this area. The water being discharged from Building 605 had a thick oily sheen on 'it.

' During 1992, the Air Force reported that the oil/water separator inside Building 605 had been repaired and future discharges would not contain any petroleum products.

3.17.3 1992 qnvestigation

Duringthe 1992 investigation,samplinggrid markers set up by the 1lth CEOS were surveyedand a geophysicalsurvey was performed. The area investigatedduringthe geophysicalsurvey is immediatelywest of the refuelingmaintenanceshop (Figure3.30). The site is mostlya weedy field crossed by a drainage. The drainagestarts at a pipe inthe bottom of the bank near the west side of Building605 and crossesthe site to the southwest. The drainage becomes progressively wider with increasing distance from the pipe until the drainage is overgrown with weeds and no longer definable. The soil is visibly oil-contaminated within the drainage. Several communication cables that cross the site lie on the ground.

i . __ .... _ _ LL___.___Jt[IL___ __ -- W

10010AF4.BOl/mm 3.230 26 February I993 FINAL

O The extent of the EM conductivity investigation covered approximately 1.7 acres and is shown in Figure 3.30. The EM data were collected at 5-foot intervals along grid lines 25 feet apart. The EM data are presented as contour maps in Appendix B. The objective of the investigation was to identify buried features to avoid during drilling.

Figure 3.30 shows the location of features identified by the survey. Anomalies observed over the cables seen at the site are not shown in Figure 3.30, as the source of those anomalies is known. Several utility lines were delineated by the investigation.

In addition to the interpreted utilities, isolated buried metal was encountered in three locations, as shown in Figure 3.30.

No other work was performed during the 1992 field investigation.

3.17.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

The samples collected in 1988 indicate there are areas of high TPH contamination downstream from Building 605. In addition, elevated concentrations of heavy metals were found along with some volatile organic compounds. The extent of the contamination is not known because of the small number of samples collected (three borings), and the relatively large area where there is visible surface contamination. In addition, it is not known whether the groundwater in the area has been affected by the disposal activities.

3.17.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

Some of the samplescollected in 1988 exceeded the human healthrisk preliminaryrisk levelsfor TPH in soil (AppendixC). However,there is sufficientdata to determinethe riskfrom this site to both human health and the environment.

O 10010AF4.BOI]mm 3.231 26 February 1993 FINAL

3.17.6 Future Actions O

PS-6 is scheduled to be remediated by the 1lth CEOS outside of the IRP program. Therefore, this site will not be considered for any future IRPwork.

3.18 PETROLEUM.SPILL SITE PS-7: BUILDING 616 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP

3.18.1 Site Background

PS-7 is located south of the main base headquarters (Figure 3.31). This area is heavily used for the maintenance, repair, and storage of various vehicles. Runoff from around Building 616 is directed through a culvert to the west into an open field of tundra.

This area was originally rated as having potential for environmental damage because of the storage of drums, batteries, vehicle oil, and hydrochloric acid onsite, and the facility's operation of an oil/water separator. No evidence of oil-stained ground or other releases was observed around the building perimeter during the . September 1987 sitevisit. However, stressed vegetation associated with two drainage outlets at the west end of the Building 616 parking area was noted. In 1988, it appeared that paint residues and associated solvent vapors were being discharged from the northern outlet.

3.18.2 Previous Investigations

During the 1988 investigation, three sample locations were placed within the drainage courses emanating from these discharge points (Figure 3.31). TPH levels from below detection levels (60 mg/kg) to 2,600 mg/kg were detected. Of the four samples taken, ali exceeded background for barium (45 to 140 mg/kg), and three exceeded background for lead (27 to 64 mg/kg). Ali exceeded background for zinc (42 to 95 mg/kg). No pesticides or PCBs were detected. Volatile organic compounds detected included methylene chloride, acetone, and 2-butanone (ali common laboratory contaminants). Methylene chloride concentrations were 0.02 and 0.024 mg/kg (both estimated) at a 2-foot depth and 0.078 mg/kg at a 3.5-foot depth. Acetone was detected in two samples at the 2-foot depth at 0.04 (estimated)

iiiiii i 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.232 26F_br.._1993 + + + + . 4- + + -t- + + + + + + + + + + + DITCH + + + * + + + + + + + + : + + + + + +

• i ...... PS7-2 (1988 ......

FIGURE 3.31. PS-7 \

BO(31941 .RT/'PS7.DWG 0 20 40 80

SCALE: 1"= 40'

oio! Lo o! 51 _ 5

I I _ SO

POWER LIllE & POLES I ...... s...... _s...2.....5...... I

$50 PS_-I (I 88) ...... _ ...... _.S.Z...... 5.

$100 J PS-7 S125 / LOCATION MAP

s150 LEGEND a. ., GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY LINE ...... S..!.7.5 INTERPRETED FEATURES

$200 _AREA OF BURIED METAL 0 POSSIBLE BURIED METAL • ISOLATED BURIED METAL UTILITY LINE 0 1988 SAMPLING LOCATION

;hicle Mointenance Shop 3.233 26 Februery 1993 4

• FINAL 1

and 0.11 mg/kg. The compound 2-butanone was detected in one 2-foot sample at 0.79 mg/kg (estimated).

3.18,3 1992 Investigation

Duringthe 1992 investigation,a samplinggrid set up by the 1lth CEOS was surveyedand a geophysicalsurvey of the sitewas conducted along the grid lines.

The area covered by the EM investigationwas approximately 0.9-acre and is shown in Figure3.31. Data were collected at 5-foot intervalsalong grid lines25 feet apart. Contourmaps of the conductivityand in-phase data are located in Appendix B. The objectiveof the investigationwas to identify buriedfeatures to avoid during drilling•

The data indicateseveral buriedfeatures are presentat the site (Figure3.31). An area of buried metal was delineatedcentered in the southernhalf of the site. The anomaliesdefiningthis area indicatea source wider than a utilityline. However, a utilityline crossedat a shallowangle may also appear similarlywide. Two utilitylineswere interpretedin its vicinityand the area of buried metal may be the combinedeffect of these. One of the utilitylines linesup directly with the manholeshown in Figure 3.31. One isolatedmetal object was identifiedbeneath the road and two possibleisolatedmetal objects were also mapped.

Thiswas the only work performed under the IRP projectat PS-7 in 1992.

3.18.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

The samplescollected in 1988 indicate minor amountsof contaminationat PS-7. TPH concentrationswere up to 2,600 mg/kg and severalmetalsconcentrationsexceeded background. Minor amountsof VOCs were found. The limitednumber of samples collected makes it impossibleto delineatethe fullextent of the contamination.

0 lOOlO_4.BOVmm 3.235 26F=bruary 1993 FINAL

3.18.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

None of the contaminantsfound during the 1988 investigation were at concentrationsexceedingthe preliminaryrisk levelsdeveloped in AppendixesC and D. However, because the extentof the contaminationis stillnot known, a completerisk assessment cannot be performedat this time.

3o18.6 Future Actions

Becausethere is insufficientinformationat PS-7 to determine if remediationis necessary or how much area is affected, additional investigationsare recommended. These investigationsshould includesurface sampling,subsurfacesampling,and groundwater monitoringwells,as outlinedin the Field InvestigationPlan. If this siteis to be investigatedby the 1lth CEOS, then a samplingplan should be prepared and reviewed by ADEC priorto startingthe investigation.

• 3.19 PETROLEUM SPILL SITE PS-8: OLD WHITE ALICE

3,19.1 Site Background

An existingfacilityhas been dismantledand replaced by a new communicationfacilityat this site. While Old White Alice was operational,a spillfrom a PCB transformerwas reported. During the constructionof the new facility,a large amount of earth movingand haulingin of additionalfillwas required. These activities have destroyed ali surface indicationsof where the reported spilloccurred. No evidence of the past PCB oil spillsreferenced in the Phase I report could be located duringthe September 1988 sitevisit.

The Old White Alice Communication Station, PS-8, (Figure 3.32) is located on the northeast portion of the island on a bluff overlook- ing the north shore. The area surrounding the site is rolling tundra with several small lakes to the south. Surface water runoff drains both towards the north and the south, depending on the location with'inthe site. The new parking lot may produce some runoff because of the compaction of the fill material, but most runoff from the area will infiltrate as soon as it reaches the tundra.

ii I i 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.236 26 F=bruary 1993

o_ 8O m-_E: I ''_ 40'

26 Februory 199.3 3.237

S-8 Old White Alice ...... FINAL

3.19.2 Previous Investigations

Duringthe 1988 investigation,two soilboringswere located in relativelyundisturbedareas near the new facility(Figure3.32). Two samples were taken from each boring; one at 2 feet and one at 4 feet. The highestTPH concentrationfound was 220 mg/kg at a depth of 4 feet. Maximumconcentrationsat 2 and 4 feet were PCB-1254 and PCB-1260 compounds(36 t:) 54 mg/kg), 4,4'-DDT (3.3 to 4.2 mg/kg), and methoxychlor(3.2 to 4.2 mg/kg) were detected.

3.19.3 1992 Investigation

The geophysicalinvestigation(EM) covered approximately 1.1 acres and is shownin Figure3.33. The area investigatedwith the EM surveywas mostlylimitedto the gravel parking lot, extend- ing intothe grass only on the two northernmostlinesand at the west end of the lines. The west edge of the area was limitedby the top of the bluff. The EM data were collected at 5-foot intervals along surveylines 25 feet apart. Contourmaps of EM conductivityand in-phase valuesare irlAppendix B. The objective of the investigationwas to locateburiedobjects to be avoided during drilling.

The site was gridded by the geophysicscrew. The grid was establishedrelativeto the buildingas shown in Figure 3.33. The northwestcorner of the buildingwas assigned grid coordinate 100 east, 0 north. The north edge of the buildingdefined grid east-westdirection.

The results of the EM investigation are shown in Figure 3.33. A very conductive area has been delineated beneath the gravel parking area and is shown in the figure as an area of buried metal. One explanation for the cause of the high conductivities is that the electrical grounding mat for the electronics used in the building is present at that location. Except for a single possible buried metal object on the southwest corner of the survey area, no other buried metal was identified by the investigation.

During the 1992 field investigation, five samples were taken from soil borings (Figure 3.32). Three borings were within the parking area and were advanced approximately 5 feet to the bottom of the fill and a sample was then taken. The other two were from the s

i iiii i i 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.239 26F=b,,,_1993 FINAL

area that had the highest PCB concentrations in 1988. These two boringswere advanced to approximately4 feet and a sample taken. These sampleswere analyzedfor pesticides/PCBs. One sample (Boring2) had a PCB concentration(Aroclor1260) of 140 pg/kg. Ali the other samples were at less than the detection limit. TPH concentrationsranged from 3(1mg/kg to 1,959 mg/kg (Table 3.39).

3.19.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

Resultsof the 1988 and 1992 investigationsindicate there is some PCB contaminationat PS-8, but it appears to be limitedto isolated areas. Some TPH contamination,up to approximately 2,000 mg/kg, is also present at the site. The TPH contamination appears to be fairlywide spread. The buildingat PS-8 is heated with fuel oil, and fresh spillswere evidentaround the fill spout of the undergroundtank. The widespreadTPH contaminationmay be associatedwith the mishandlingof this fuel oil.

3.19.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

Two out of nine samples taken at PS-8 have PCB concentrations above the human health risk preliminaryrisk levelsdeveloped in AppendixC. Ali other analyteswere at concentrationsless than the PRLs.

3.19.6 Future Actions

Sampling results from PS-8 indicate there is a small isolated area near Borings4 and 5, with PCB concentrationsabove the PRGs. This area should be excavateduntilacceptable levels are reached. Excavatedsoilshould be shipped off the islandto a permitted disposalfacilitythat can accept PCB-contaminatedsoil. Onsite analysisfor PCBs should be performed in order to expeditethe removaleffort. Once this small area of contaminationis removed, an NFAD document shouldbe prepared.

ii i 10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.240 26 F=bruary1993 pS-B Gc

B013_941.R-t/psB-tN't-O_ SO -0

-40 FIliaL

p i 26 February 1993

3.243 FINAL

3.20 PETROLEUM SPILL SITE PS-9: ASPHALTIC DRUM STORAGE

3.20.1 Site Background

PS-9 is locatedin the central portionof the island (Figure 3.34). The land aroundthis site is gently rollingtundra. The tar-likesub- stance that coversthe ground at PS-9 greatly increasesthe amount of runoffin the immediate area. However, most of the runoff,whichflowsto the south, infiltratesonce it reaches the vegetated areas. This site is withinthe watershed of the water gallery.

This area has seen a moderate amount of constructionin the past; however,nativevegetationis returninginthose areas where structures have been torn down. Thisarea is not being actively used by the Air Force at this time and no evidence of recreational use has been noted.

3.20.2 Previous Investigations

The Phase I report noted that there were large numbers of 55-gallondrumsof Pavex,some.of whichwere leaking,located on a hardstar_d.During.the 1987 sitevisit,the investigationteam found Pavex,a proprietary asphalt product used for roadway construction,on Shemya in a 50-foot by 85-foot area. The site also containedthe remainsof rusteddrums.

Duringthe 1988 field visit,the Pavexdrumswere no longerat the site. Ali that remained were two 100-foot-diametertar-covered asphalt pads (Figure3.34). The tar (Pavex) cover, estimatedto be 3 to 6 inchesthick, is relativelysoft and readilyshows footprintsor tire tracks.

Two soil borings were taken on the downslope edge of each pad (Figure3.34). The sampleswere analyzedfor TPH and volatile organicsfrom boringsto 3.5 feet. Ali TPH levelswere at or below 200 mg/kg. Methylenechlorideand acetone (common laboratory contaminants)were the only volatileorganic compounds detected. Methylenechlorideconcentrationsranged from 0.005 (estimated) to 0.021 mg/kg. Acetone concentrationsranged from 0.009 (estimated)to 0.042 mg/kg (estimated).

10010_4.SOUmm 3.244 26Februa1r99y 3 FIGURE 3.34. PS-9

B0131941 ,RT/,'Sg.DWG 0 25 50 100

SCALE" 1"=50'

0./

/i _ .SIGNPOST

LOCATION MAP LEGEND , ,_GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY LINE

® METAL OBSERVED AT SURFACE INTERPRETED FEATURES EAT PILES _ TAR-COVERED GROUND

AREA OF BURIED METAL

POSSIBLE BURIED METAL • ISOLATED BURIED METAL

I ISOLATED BURIED METAL (_) 1988 SAMPLING LOCATIONS UTILITY LINE sphalt Tar Drum Storage 5..245 26 February1993 FINAL

O 3.20.3 1992 Investigation

Duringthe 1992 field investigation,a geophysical(EM) surv, , was conductedat PS-9.

The EM conductivityinvestigationcovered approximately1.2 acres and is shown in Figure3.34. Data were collected at 5..footinter- vals along lines25 feet apart. Contourmaps of EM conductivity and in-phasemeasurementsare in AppendixB. Data were not collectedover the peat-coveredroad. The objectiveof the investigationwas to locateburied objects to be avoided during drilling.

The grid was establishedby the geophysicalcrew. A metal signpost and the southside of Spine _oad shown in Figure3.34 were the referencesfor the grid. The signpostwas assignedgrid coordinates 250 east, 300 north. The southedge of the road defined the east-westdirectionfor the grid.

The resultsof the investigationare shown in Figure 3.34. An area of buriedmetal was identifiednorthof the peat-coveredroad, in the west half of the site. Additionally,numerouspossibleisolated metal objects were identified and are shown in the figure. A buriedutilitylinewas interpretednear the southernboundary of the site. c The geophysicalsurveywas the onlywork performed at PS-9 duringthe 1992 IRP investigation.

3.20.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination z The two samplesthat were collected and analyzed in 1988 indicate very littlecontaminationat this site. Low TPH (<200 mg/kg) concentrationswere found and the methylenechlorideand acetone may have been laboratory contaminants. This indicatesthat the compounds inthe tar materialare not being leached out and transportedintothe environment. Becauseof this,it is unlikely that the groundwaterhas been affectedby the activitiesat this site.

O i| i 10010AF4.BOl/mm 3.247 26 February 1993 FINAL

3.20.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

Analytical results from PS-9 are less than the pr_:liminaryrisk levels developed in Appendixes C and D. However, more sampling is necessary to more fully characterize potential risk from the site.

3.20.6 Future Actions

Sincethe site is within the watershed of the water gallery, the tar- like substanceshould be removed to .avoiddirect contact. The amount of tar-likesubstanceto be removed is approximately 1,000 cubic yards. This volumeshould be excavated and perhaps used as an additiveto the asphalt plant locatedon the island. Additionally,during closure,areas of buried metal should be excavated to determineif they pose a risk to the water gallery. Excavationof these areas may generate an additional500 cubic yards of material,althoughthis volume is difficultto determine sincethe depth of the buried metal is unknown. After initial removalactivitiesare completed, confirmatorysamplesshould be collected arid analyzedfor TPH and VOCs and excavationshould be continuedif contaminationpersists. Excavatedsoil should be . placed on a hardstand for bioremediation. After site contamination has been remediated, an NFAD document should be prepared.

3.21 PETROLEUM SPILL SITE PS-10: BASE OPERATIONS TERMINAL JP-4 SPILL

3.21.1 Site Background

This site is located in the south-central portion of the island (Figure 3.35). Most of the area around this site has been developed and is coveredwith buildings,asphalt,or concrete. Considerableamountsof precipitationrunoffis generated in this area. The runoffis routed south under the runwayand into the ocean.

On August 9, 1983, a cracked fuel tank in a damaged C-5A aircraft spilledapproximately50 gallonsof JP-4 on the asphalt parking area near the Base OperationsTerminal. The Base Fire = Department hosed the fuel off the asphalt with water where it drained into sandy soils to the south of the runway. The g i i i lUll I 10m0_4.BOVmm 3.248 2_February 1993 LEGEND SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION & IDENTIFICATION

FIGURE 3.35.

80131941.RT/II:_IO.DWG 0 20 4-0 80

SCALE: 1"=40'

BUILDING (NOT TO SCALE)

OPERATIONS

LOCATION MAP

S-10 Base Operations Terminal 3.249 26 February 1993 FINAL

fuel-saturated soils were reportedly excavated, stored in barrels, and appropriately disposed at a fire training area.

3.21.2 Previous Investigations

Duringthe 1988 investigationon Shemya, no visualevidence of the spillat PS-10 could be located and no sampleswere obtained•

3.21.3 1992 Investigation

Duringthe 1992 field investigation,four surface soil sampleswere collectedfrom PS-10 (Figure3.35). No visualevidenceof the historicalspillwas noticeable. Samples were taken from the south side of the aircraft parking area where the water that was used to wash down the fuel spillis reportedto have infiltratedintothe soil. Ali four samples were analyzedfor TPH at the onsitelaboratory. The resultsshowedTPH concentrationsranged from 4,617 to 16,683 mg/kg (Table3.40)•

No geophysicalsurveywas performed at PS-10.

O 3.21.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination The TPH resultsof the four samples appear to indicate'a widespread amount of petroleumcontamination. This is not unusualat airportswhere large numbersof airplanesare fueled and serviced; smallspillsand drippingoil are common. Ali of the petroleum products that are spilledonto the asphaltare washed off with the rainfallto the area where the sampleswere collected•

3.21.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

Ali of the analyticalresultsto date are less than the PRLsthat are developed in AppendixesC and D. This indicatesthat, based on risk,no remedialactions are necessary at this site.

3.21.6 Future Actions

Because of the potentialfor additionalcontaminationfrom the servicing of aircraft in the general vicinity of PS-lO, additional sampling or remedial actions are not appropriate at this time. In the future, when this area is no longer in use, additional sampling to

10010AF4.BOI/mm 3.251 26 February1993 FINAL

H X o _

• • • e _ _o_ 0

_ __ 0

8888 _ o

u_ •- o_oo = 4

• 0000 _ ° _g

• .°. _

I I I I ._ oooo _ 0

__ _ 0 i oooo _

oooo _

• 0 = = Z 0 __ _ oooo _ 0

IIII 0000 _ 0 __ _

26 February 1993

3.252 FINAL

delineatethe full extentof the contaminationis recommended. Based on future samplingefforts,areas that requireremediation can be delineated.

3.22 PETROLEUM SPILL SITE PS-11: CURRENT BARREL DRUM STORAGE

3.22.1 Slte Background

Thissite is located around the flve.hardstands near abandoned RunwayC (see Figure3.36). This area in the southwestportionof the islandis dominatedby smallsand dunes that are overgrown with nativevegetation. Much of the area around PS-11 is part of RunwayC and is paved. Rainfallruns off of the paved areas and infiltratesintothe sand. No definedsurfacewater channelsexist near PS-11.

This area is currently being used for drum storage and for above ground tanks of fuel oilfor use in heatingsystems. Drums are stored on four of the five hardstands,whilethe fifth is used for the heatingoil storage area. The physicalconditionof the drums rangesfrom good to poor. Some drumsare rusted, and some have leaked fluidsonto the hardstands. Stafffrom OEHL requested that sampling for' PCB and oil contamination be performed in this area during the 1988 investigation.

3.22.2 Previous Investigations

During the 1988 investigation, only three of the hardstands were being used for drum storage. Three boringswere completed downslopeof the north pad, two boringsdownslopeof the center pad, and three boringsdownslopeof the south pad (Figure3.36). The analysisdetected above background levelsof TPH for the center pad (33,000 mg/kg at 2 feet and 42,000 mg/kg at 1 foot) and at the southpad (320 mg/kg to 360 mg/kg at 1 foot). Methoxychlorwas detected at the center pad at 0.09 mg/kg. No other pesticideswere detected. Naphthaleneand di-n-butylphthalate were detected in two samples. Naphthalenewas detected in one 2-foot sample at 1_9mg/kg, while di-n-butylphthalatewas estimatedat 0.2 and 0.26 mg/kg at 2- and 4-foot depths at one boringlocation(PS-11-8). The VOCs detected includedxylenes (one sample estimatedat 0.01 mg/kg at 1-foot depth) and trichloroethene (two samples,0.012 and 0.064 mg/kg at 1- and 2-foot depths, respectively).

lOOlO^F4.SO=/_m 3.253 26F=bruary 1993 FINAL

Additionally, a groundwater sample was collected from a nearby weil. Totalpetroleumhydrocarbonswere detected at 30 mg/l. No volatileor semivolatileorganic compoundswere detected. Metals were withinor below backgroundlevels.

3.22.3 1992 Investigation

No samplingwas performed duringthe 1992 investigation. However,visualinspectionof the area showedthat the number of drums stored at this sitehas been greatly reduced. Drums are stored on onlytwo of the five hardstands,with one being used for an above ground storage tank area for heatingfuel oil.

3.22.4 Nature and Extent of C,ontaminatlon

The 1988 samplingat this site indicatesareas of high TPH contaminationin areas adjacentto the pads. Because of the deterio- rated natureof the asphalt,of which the pads were made, there is a possibilityof contaminationbeneaththe pads. lt also appears that the groundwatermay be impacted, based on the one groundwater sample.

Based on the size of the area and the smallnumber of samples taken to date, the extent of the contaminationpresent cannot be estimated. However,most of the contaminationdoes seem to be petroleum-based.

3.22.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

The samplingaccomplishedto date indicatesthere are areas withinPS-11 that have TPH Concentrationsabove the human healthrisk PRLsdeveloped in AppendixC. The total area that has concentrationsof TPH above the PRLsis not known because the extent of the contaminationis not known at this time. Ali other contaminantsfound are less than their respective PRLs.

3.22.6 Future Actlons

Additional sampling is recommended at PS-11. Surface samples, subsurface samples, and groundwater samples are needed to determine the full nature and extent of contamination. The investigations outlined in the Field Investigation Plan should be implemented at PS-11 to obtain the necessary information to

IO010AF4.BOi/mm 3.254 26 F=bruary1993 FIGURE 3..36. PS-11 Curt

BOI31941.RT/T'SlI.DWQ I / 8 )0 1600

SCALE: 1"=800'

_/ ,/'/] j '

PS-11 .g - _----- 1

.___ 0,._._/--

.//'F _ \"\

LEGEND 0 1988 SAMPLING LOCATION

lt Barrel Drum Storoge Area 5.255 26 February 1993 FINAL

assess risk and select an appropriate remedial measure,if necessary.

3.23 PETROLEUM SPILL SITE PS-83: ABANDONED TANK FARM

3.23.1 Site Background

Thissite, added by the USAF during the 1988 fieldvisit,is the locationof .anabandoned tank farm (Figure3.37). This area is located inthe center of the island. Most of the area is covered by tundra with the exceptionof the dugout areas not yet revegetated. Ali that remainof the tank farm are earthen berms that surrounded each pair of tanks and abandoned pipelines. The field team also observed POL seeps at this site duringthe 1988 site investigation. Runoff from this site enters man-made ditches and is routed south, eventuallyenteringthe ocean.

3.23.2 Previous Investigations

In 1988, the soilsamples (Figure3.37) from this siteyielded TPH valuesfrom less than 420 to 1,100 mg/kg at a depth of 2 feet, less

O _ t4h30anmg150/kgmga/tkga depthat the o3f-foot4 feet.depth,semk;olaand frt_iomleslessdetectedthan were170 tolimi- ted to di-n-butylphthalate(estimatedat 0:26 mg/kg) and nitro- phenol (26 mg/kg). Volatilesdetected in most samples included methylenechloride(rangingfrom 0.22 to 0.33 mg/kg), acetone (rangingfrom 0.24 [estimated]to 2.6 mg/kg), and 2-butanone (rangingfrom 0.13 [estimated]to 0.49 mg/kg). Benzene was detected at an estimatedconcentrationof 0.084 mg/kg in one sample. Also,toluenewas detected at an estimatedconcentration of 0.067 mg/kg in one sample.

3.23.3 1992 Investigation

Duringthe 1992 fieldinvestigation,a reconnaissancelevelgeo- physical(EM) surveywas conducted at PS-83 to check for large areas of buried metal. This reconnaissancecovered approximately 20 acres, lt covered an area southof the radar station and west and northof Cross IslandRoad. The west side of the survey was a ditch and pipelinerunningapproximatelynorth-southabout 300 to 400 feet west of the road. The area was investigated by walkinglinesapproximately40 feet apart.

O I I I I I II 10010_4.SOVmm 3.257 26F=bruary 1993 FINAL

9 Most of the anomalies encountered at PS-83 were in the vicinityof the old berms present throughoutthe site. Most of the anomalies were detected inthe southernthird of the site, althoughsome anomalieswere encounteredassociatedwiththe berms elsewhere in the site. Some of the anomalieswere located insidethe berms and some were just outside. Few anomalieswere detected in the open areas, whichcomprise the majorityof the site. These open areas apparentlyhave not been disturbed. Anomaliesencoun- tered in open areas appear to be associatedwith cables (probably communicationcables) crossingthe site.

This was the only work performed at PS-83 during the 1992 IRP field investigation.

3.23.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination

The soil samples obtained in 1988 indicate low level TPH contaminationat PS-83, along with minor amountsof volatileand semivol- atirecompounds. The number of samples analyzedwas insufficientto determinethe extentof contamination,and compounds other than those encountered in 1988 may be present withinother a= parts of the site. I

3.23.5 Preliminary Risk Assessment

Ali of the contaminants found in the 1988 sampling episode were at concentrations less than the PRLs developed in Appendixes C and D. However, because the nature and extent of contamination has not been completely defined for PS-83, a complete risk assessment cannot be accomplished at this time.

3.23.6 Future Actions

Because the nature and extent of contamination has not been defined at PS-83, future samplingis recommended. Surface, subsurface, and groundwatersampleswill need to be collected as outlinedin the IRP Field InvestigationPlan.

I lOOlO_4.BOVmm 3.258 26February 1993 \

HANGAR NC

FIGURE 3.37. PS-83

DI"V'IIQ,I"I DT /111_1_"_I"l',NCt 0 500 600 1200

SCALE: 1"=600'

td Bulk Fuel Storage Area 5.259 26 FebruQry 1995 i Summary

10010B46.BOI/]c FINAL

i i I ii i ii i i el 4.0 SUMMARY To obtain information needed to assess futureremedial alterna- tivesfor the IRP sites on Shemya AFB, a field investigationwas performed in 1992. Twenty-twosites were studiedto varying degrees, from a reconnaissancesurveywith no samplingto complete sitecharacterization. Table 4.1 presentsa summary of the investigationsperformedat each site..Information developed during this investigationwas combinedwith existinginformationto determinethe natureand extentof contaminationon a site-by-site basis.

As a part of the investigation,two preliminary risk assessments were performed, one focusingon human health and one on envi- ronmentalreceptors. These risk assessmentsdeveloped Prelimi- nary Risk Levels(PRLs)that were compared to constituent concentrationsfound at each site. Five siteswere found to have at least one constituentabovethe human health PRLs (Table 4.2) along with one of the backgroundlocations. Five sites also had contaminantconcentrationsabove the environmentalPRLs (Table 4.3).

Based on the nature and extent of contaminationpresent (if known) and the PRLs,a recommendationis made as to whether a site requires remediation,requiresfurther investigation,or needs no further action. Table 4.4 presents recommendationsfor each of the 22 sites. Three sites are recommended for no further action, 4 sites for remedialaction,3 sites are being transferredto other programs,and 12 sitesstillrequireadditionalinvestigations to recommendfuture actions.

ii i 100109C,6,BOI/jp 4.1 26 February 1993 FINAL

TABLE4.1. Sites Investigated in 1992

Site Types of Investigation Water Gallery Surface sampling, well points, monitoring wells, geophysics, surveying FT-1 Surface sampling, subsurface sampling, monitoring wells geophysics, surveying FT-2 .Surface sampling, subsurface sampling, monitoring wells, geophysics, surveying FT-3 Geophysics SW-4 Surface sampling,subsurfacesampling,geophysics,surveying SW-5 Surface water sampling,sedimentsampling,geophysics,surveying SW-10 Surface sampling,monitoringwells,geophysics, surveying SW-12 Surface sampling,monitoringwells,geophysics, surveying SW-14 Geophysics,surveying PS-lA Surface sampling,subsurfacesampling,surveying PS-1B Surface sampling,subsurfacesampling, geophysics,surveying PS-2 Surface sampling,surveying PS-3 Geophysics PS-4 None PS-5 Surveying PS-6 Geophysics,surveying PS-7 Geophysics,surveying PS-8 Subsurface sampling,geophysics,surveying PS-9 Geophysics,surveying PS-10 Surface sampling,surveying PS-11 None PS-83 Geophysics

O 100109C4.BOI/Jp 4.2 26 February 1993 FINAL

TABLE 4.2. Contaminants of Potential Concern that Exceed Human Health ,Preliminary Risk Levels (PRLs) ,,

Depth PRL PRL Sample No. (ft.) Chemical Concentration Qualifier Laboratory Concentration Source

GROUNDWATER COPCs (ug/L) (ug/L)

FT-2: Aircraft Mockup FT2-ER Chloroform 2 J OFFSITE 0.19 WQC FT2-Wl Benzene 512 ONSITE 5 MCL FT2-W1DL Benzene 710 D OFFSITE 5 MCL FT2-WlDL Methylene Chloride 420 BDJ2 OFFSITE 0.19 WQC

Water Gallery CMl Trichloroethylene 7 2 ONSITE 5 MCL SO2 Trichloroethylene 5 1 ONSITE 5 MCL WGW4 Trichloroethylene 24 9 ONSITE 5 MCL WG4 Trichloroethylene 16 4 ONSITE 5 MCL WGW4 Trichloroethylene 22 2 ONSITE 5 MCL WG7 Trichloroethylene 17 6 ONSITE 5 MCL WGW7 Trichloroethylene 18 2 ONSITE 5 MCL A-WGW3 Antimony(a) 31.1 WC 10 MCL-p A-WGW3 Beryllium 0.75 WC 0.0039 WQC A-WGW3 Chromium 53.4 WC 50 MCL O A-WGW3 Manganes_ 2170 WC 710 NC A-WGW4 Antimony(a) 31.1 WC 10 MCL-p A-WGW4 Beryllium(a) 0.5 WC 0.0039 WQC A-WGW4 Manganese 892 WC 710 NC A-WGW4 Trichloroethene 15 WC 5 MCL

BOLT918/011 .xls/jp 4.3 26 February 1993 FINAL

TABLE 4.2. (cont.)

Depth PRL PRL qP Sample No. (ft.) Chemical Concentration Qualifier Laboratory Concentration Source

SURFACE SOILS COPCs (ug/kg) (ug/kg)

FT-1: Lightning Strike FT1T21.0 1 PCDD 0.3 OFFSITE 0.066 C FT1T310.5 0.5 PCDD 4.9 OFFSITE 0.066 C FT1T310.5 0.5 PCDF 1.1 OFFSITE 0.066 C FT1T41.2 1.2 PCDD 0.9 OFFSITE 0.066 C FT1T41.2 1.2 PCDF 0.1 OFFSITE 0.066 C FT1T41.2D 1.2 PCDD 15 OFFSITE 0.066 C FT1T41.2D 1.2 PCDF 1.1 OFFSITE 0.066 C

SW10: Barrel Bay SW10-114 0.5 Arsenic 6000 OFFSITE 5700 C SW10-116 0.5 Arsenic 6900 OFFSITE 5700 C

SW-12: Scrap Metal Disposal Site SW12-117 0.5 Arsenic 10300 OFFSITE 5700 C SW12-118 0.5 Arsenic 6100 OFFSITE 5700 C SW12-120 0.5 Arsenic 8300 OFFSITE 5700 C

WG: Water Gallery WG-109 0.5 Chrysene 35000 OFFSITE 1400 C •WG-109 0.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 43000 OFFSITE 1400 C WG-109 0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 61000 OFFSlTE 1_,00 C WG-109 0.5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 21000 OFFSlTE 1400 C WG-109 0.5 Benzo(a)pyrene 36000 OFFSlTE 1400 C WG-109 0.5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 20000 OFFSITE 1400 C WG-109 0.5 Arsenic 6800 OFFSITE 5700 C

SEDIMENT COCs (ug/kg) (ug/kg)

Background Samples BSSD-126 0.5 Arsenic 8300 OFFSITE 5700 C

(a) = detection limit Note=:

MCL = Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level MCL-p = Proposed Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level WQC = Ambient Water Quality Criteria NC = Risk-based Concentration/Noncarcinogenio Effects C = Risk-based Concentration/Carcinogenic Effects ONSITE = Close Support Laboratory (on Shemya Island) OFFSITE = Contract Laboratory Program Methodology (samples sent to offsite lab) WC = Woodward-Clyde Data J = estimated value D = dilution B = blank contamination

BOIT918/011 .xls/jp 4.4 26 February 1993 FINAL

TABLE 4.3. Contaminants of PotentialConcern that Exceed EcologicalPreliminaryRisk Levels(PRLs)

Site Chemical Media FT-2 Benzene Soil SW-5 Chromium Sediment SW-5 Copper Sediment SW-5 Lead Sediment SW-5 Zinc Sediment SW-10 Cadmium Soil SW-10 2-Methylnaphthalene Groundwater SW-10 Chromium Soil SW-10 Lead Soil SW-10 Zinc Soil Water Gallery Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Soil O Water Gallery Phenanthrene . Soil PS-1B Cadmium Soil

Q 10010CF"2.BOI/jp 4.5 26 February 1993 FINAL

TABLE 4.4. Future Actionsat Each Site

Site Action Water Gallery Water treatmentto remove TCE FT-1 Additionalinvestigation + FT-2 Additionalinvestigation FT-3 Additionalinvestigation SW-4 Site grading and monitoringwells SW-5 No furtheraction SW-10 Remedialaction (impermeablecap) and seawall stabilization SW-12 Remedialaction (permeablecap) SW-14 Additionalinvestigation PS-lA No further action PS-1B Additionalinvestigation PS-2 No further action PS-3 Additionalinvestigation PS-4 Additionalinvestigation PS-5 Additionalinvestigation PS-6 POL regulated (state) PS-7 POL regulated (state) PS-8 Remedialaction PS-9 Remedial action PS-10 POL regulated (state) PS-11 Additionalinvestigation PS-83 Additionalinvestigation

...... lJlJ i lr i 100109C7.BOI/Jp 4.6 26 February 1993 References

10010B46.BOI_c FINAL

5.0 , REFERENCESi lil i I i I I I i I I I I

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1992. D2216, Standard Test Methodfor LaboratoryDeterminationof Water (Moisture)Content of Soil and Rock. Philadelphia.

Becker, 1st Lt. L.J. 1978. The Climatologyof Shemya AFB, • AleutianIslands: DET 3 1lth Weather Squadron, Shemya AFB, AK. InternalMemorandum. 6 p.

CH2M HILL. 1990. "InstallationRestorationProgram Stage 1 Final Technical Reportfor Shemya Air Force Base, Alaska,"August 10, 1990.

CH2M HILL. 1991. Installation RestorationProgram Field Investi- gation Plan,Shemya Air Force Base, Alaska. October 4, 1991.

Cohen, S. 1981. The ForgottenWar. PictorialHistoriesPub- lishingCo. Missoula.

Feulner,A. J., C. Zenone, and K. M. Reed. 1976. Geohydrology and Water Supply, Shemya Island,AK. U.S. GeologicalSurvey, open-filemap report 76-82.

Garfield, B. 1982. The Thousand Mile War. Bantam Books•

JRB Associates(JRBA). 1984. InstallationRestoration Program Phase I RecordsSearch, 5073rd Air Base Group, Shemya AFB, Alaska, September 1984.

Ross,Cpt. J. L. 1969. Construction and Operation of a World War II ArmyAir Force Forward Base: Shemya AK. May 1943- December 1945. Officeof History, AlaskanAir Command.

Suter, G. W. 1992. EcologicalRisk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.

Todd, F. S. 1979. Waterfowl: Ducks, Geese, and Swans of the World. Sea World Press Publications.

U.S. Army. 1952. TerrainStudy of the AleutianIslands,Alaska (U), Pt 1., Near Islands (Attu, Agattu and Shernya). U.S. Army IntelligenceStudy 270, 16 pts.

ii i ii ii 100108E5.BOI-pc/mm 5.1 26 February 1993 FINAL

U.S. Army. 1958. Report of Foundationsand MaterialInvestiga- tions, U.S. Air Force Project,Shemya Island (prepared by Founda- tions and MaterialsBranch): U.S. Army, Alaska District,3 vol.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(COE). 1988. Memorandum CENPA-EN-6-M-(200-1c)by Clare L. Jaeger. October 1988.

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(COE). 1990. FinalDesign Analysis,Upgrade Water System, Phase II, Shemya AFB, Alaska. U.S. ArmyEngineer District,Alaska.

U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (EPA). 1988a. Laboratory Data Validation,FunctionalGuidelinesfor EvaluatingInorganics Analyses. November 1988.

U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (EPA). 1988b. Laboratory Data Validation,FunctionalGuidelinesfor EvaluatingOrganics Analyses. February 1988.

U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (EPA). 1989a. Ecological Assessmentof Hazardous Waste Sites: A Field and Laboratory Reference. EPA 600/3-89/013, Officeof EnvironmentalResearch- Laboratory.Corvallis.

U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (EPA). 1989b. Risk AssessmentGuidancefor Superfund: Volume I: Human Health EvaluationManual (Part A). PublicationEPN540/1-89/O02. December 1989.

U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (EPA). 1989c. Risk AssessmentGuidancefor Superfund Volume I1: Environmental EvaluationManual. InterimFinal. EPN540/1-89/O01, Office of Emergencyand RemedialResponse. Washington,D.C. March 1989.

U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (EPA). 1990. Statement of Work, SW 846, 1990 Edition,Revision1.

U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (EPA). 1991a. Risk AssessmentGuidancefor Superfund: Volume I: Human Health EvaluationManual (Part B, Developmentof Risk-BasedPreliminary RemediationGoals). Publication9285.7-01B. December 1991.

imnunl l _ 100108ES.BOI.pc/mm 5.2 26 February 1993 FINAL

U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (EPA). 1991b. Summary Reporton Issues in EcologicalRisk Assessment. Risk Assess- ment Forum. EPA 625/3-91/018.

U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA). 1992. Framework for EcologicalRiskAssessment. Risk AssessmentForum. EPA 630/R-92/001.1991.

i lUll I 100108E5.BOI-p¢/mm 5.3 26 February 1993 FINAL

DISTRIBUTION

No. of No. of Copies Copies

2 DOE Officeof Scientificand EnvironmentalManagement Technical Information Operations

AIR FORCE 2 MA Chamness 1 TL Page

5 Michael I. Rhoads Pacific NorthwestLaboratory 1lth CEOS/DEVR 21885 2nd Street Elemendorf AFB, AK 99506-4420 1 PublishingCoordination 2 Technical Report Files Alaska Department of EnvironmentalConservation CH2M HILL

2 Jennifer Roberts 3 Steve Sedlacek SouthcentralRegionalOffice 3601 C Street, Suite 1334 Anchorage, AK 99503

EnvironmentalProtectionAQencv

2 Mark Ader Region 10 1200 6th Avenue Seattle, WA 98101

US Fish and WildlifeService

2 Walter Stieglitz Region 7 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage,AK 99503

IO010D5F.BOI 26 February1993 i ' i ,, , , ,L ii llll,i ,, Ji _,,,, i ,, _ i,,,,II II, , , ill, , Jl i _il_,, , ,, ,i ,li,IJ,Ji,, , ""

' I ' I I