501 0 File: 17(3

D.S.P.

ELLSWORTH AFB

SOUTH DAKOTA

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

COVER SHEET

AR File Number
i

i

li! File:

--_- D.P. /_/'_

501 1 --

- FINAL

- FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

- OPERABLE UNIT 01

w

AT

ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE, SOUTH DAKOTA

_ Prepared For:

United States Air Force

Air Combat Command

EIIsworth Air Force Base

South Dakota

July 1995
File:

_ 501 2 D.P. /7_t(=>

J

w

- FINAL

- FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

i

OPERABLE UNIT 01

AT

ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE, SOUTH DAKOTA

_ Prepared For:

United States Air Force

Air Combat Command

EIIsworth Air Force Base

South Dakota

July 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS

---_ Page

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

-- LIST OF APPENDIXES

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION

-- 1.1 PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT .................... I- I

1.2 SITE BACKGROUND AND SETTING ........................... 1-2

-- 1.2.1 Site Description ........................................ 1-2

1.2.2 Site History ............................................ 1-7

1.2.3 Previous Investigations ................................... 1-8

1.3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS ......... 1-14

1.3.1 Sources .............................................. 1-14

1.3.2 GroundWater ......................................... 1-14

1.3.3 Soil ................................................. 1-15

1.3.4 Sediment ............................................. 1-16

1.3.5 Surface Water ......................................... 1-16

1.4 FATE AND TRANSPORT .................................... 1-16

- 1.4.1 VOC ................................................ 1-16

1.4.2 SVOC ............................................... 1-17

1.4.3 Pesticides ............................................ 1-17

-- 1.4.4 Metals and Inorganics ................................... 1-17

1.5 RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................ 1-18

1.5.1 Human Health ......................................... 1-18

1.5.2 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment ................. 1-18

- 1.5.3 Ecological Evaluation/Risk Assessment ...................... 1-19

1.6 SUMMARY ................................................ 1-20

2. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES ................ 2-1

- J F:'&ROJ_6037884L_DUt.FSWINAD, TOC.WPD luly 19, 1995
50[ 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

= =

P__Og_¢

2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................ 2-1

2.2 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES ............................. 2-1

2.2,1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) ... 2-1

2.2.2 Remedial Action Objectives Methodology ..................... 2-4

2.2.3 Remedial Action Objectives ............................... 2-5

2.3 AREA OF ATTAINMENT ..................................... 2-6

2.4 GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS ............................... 2-6

2.5 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGY TYPES AND

PROCESS OPTIONS ......................................... 2-6

2.5.1 Presumptive Remedies ................................... 2-7

2.5.2 Remedial Technology Identification and Screening .............. 2-8

2.6 DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES ....... 2-13

3. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ........................... 3-1

3.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA ..................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Threshold Criteria ....................................... 3-2

3.1.2 Balancing Criteria ....................................... 3-2

3.1.3 Modifying Criteria ....................................... 3-3

3.2 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ........... 3-3

3.2.1 Alternative No. h No Action .............................. 3-3

3.2.2 Altematvie No. 2: Source Area Soil Treatment with Ground-Water

Containment ........................................... 3-4

3.2.3 Alternative No. 3: Source Area Soil and Ground-Water Treatment .. 3-9

3.2.4 Contingency Ground-water Discharge Option: Reinjection ....... 3-12

4. SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES . 4-1

4.1 OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE

ENVIRONMENT ............................................ 4-1

4.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs .................................. 4-1

4.3 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERFORMANCE ............. 4-2

4.4 REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME THROUGH

TREATMENT ............................................... 4-2

F:WRO/V_037884Xb'SXOUI.FSLleINAL\TOC.WPD Iuly 19, 1995
n

501 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS (co_t.)

-- eag

-- 4.5 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS ............................... 4-2

4.6 IMPLEMENTABILITY ........................................ 4-2

4.7 COST ....................................................... 4-3

4.8 STATE ACCEPTANCE ....................................... 4-3

4.9 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE ................................. 4-3

5. RECOMMENDATIONS .... 5-1

-- 5.1 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION ........................ 5-1

5.2 IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ............... 5-1

5.3 RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER ACTION ................... 5-2

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

-- APPENDIX C 1

APPENDIX C2

APPENDIX C3

-- APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

F:WRO/Xfi037884k_'_UI._AL\TOC.WPD luly 19, 1995
501 G

LIST OF FIGURES

1-1 Area Location Map

_ 1-2 Site Location Map

1-3 1994 FS OU-1 (FPTA) Site Area

1-4 1994 FS OU-1 (FPTA) Location Map Showing Underground Utilities and Areas of Fill

_ 1-5 1994 FS OU- 1 (FPTA) Location of Geologic Cross-Sections

1-6 1993 RI N-S Cross-Section A-A' OU-01

1-7 1993 RI E-W Cross-Section B-B' OU-01

-- 1-8 1993 RI W-E Cross-Section C-C' OU-01

1-9 1994 FS Potentiometric Surface Map Shallow Aquifer OU-1, OU-2, OU-4 and OU-12

1-10 1994 FS Potentiometric Surface Contours Shallow Aquifer, 29 October 1993, OU-1

-- 1-11 OU-1 (FPTA) IRP Phase II, Stage 1 & 2 Sample Location Map

1-12 OU-1 (FPTA) IRP Phase II, Stage 1 Soil Vapor Survey Location Map

1-13 OU-1 (FPTA) IRP Phase II, Stage 2 Soil Vapor Survey Location Map

-- 1-14 OU-1 (FPTA) IRP Phase II Cross Sections A-A' and B-B'

1-15 1994 FS OU-1 (FPTA) Sample Location Map

1-16 1994 FS Location of Original Basewide Background (BG) Wells and Soil Borings

-- 1-17 1994 FS Location of Background Wells and Soil Borings

1-18 July 1994 Treatability Study Layout

1-19 1994 FS General Area Where Organics Exceed MCLs

-- 1-20 1994 FS Extent of Reported COC in Ground Water OU-1

1-21 1994 FS Extent of Reported COC in Soil Bumpit Area OU-1

2-1 Area of Attainment for Source-Area Soils

2-2 Area of Attainment for Ground Water

-- 3-1 Alternative No. 2 Soil Treatment Process Flowchart

3-2 Site Access Control Fence

3-3 Alternatives 2 & 3 Proposed SVE Well Locations

3-4 Alternative 2 Ground-Water Containment Layout

3-5 Alternative 3 Ground-Water Treatment Layout

. F:\PRO_6037884WS\OU1 .FSWINALLLOF.WPDLIuly 19, 1995
501 7

LIST OF TABLES

Number Table

1-1 OU-1 (FPTA) Soil Boring VOC, TRPH, and O & G Reported Results from Phase II,

_ Stage 1 and 2 IRP Investigation, Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota (1987-

1989)

1-2 OU-1 (FPTA) Soil Borings SVOC and EP Toxicity Metals Results from Phase II,

-- Stage 1 IRP Investigation, Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota

(1987-1988)

1-3 OU-1 (FPTA) Surface Soil VOC and TRPH Reported Results from Phase II, Stage 2

-- IRP Investigation, Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota (1989)

1-4 OU-1 (FPTA) Ground Water Analytical Data from Phase II Stage 1 and 2 IRP

Investigation, Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota (1987-1989)

-- 1-5 OU-1 (FPTA) Sediment Analytical Data from Phase II, Stage 1 and 2 IRP

Investigation, Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota (1987-1989)

1-6 OU-1 (FPTA) Surface Water Analytical Data from Phase II, Stage 2 IRP

-- Investigation, Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota (1989)

1-7 OU-1 (FPTA) 1993 RI Field Investigation Analytical Summary, Ellsworth Air Force

Base, South Dakota

-- 1-8 Background Ground-Water and Soil Boring Sample and Analysis Summary for OU-1

1993 RI/FS.

1-9 OU-1 Summary of Detection Frequency and MCL's of Organic Analytes in

Ground-Water Samples, 1993 RI, Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota

1-10 OU-1 Summary of Detection Frequency and MCL's of Inorganic Analytes in

Ground-Water Samples, 1993 RI, Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota

-- 1-11 State of South Dakota Ground-Water Quality Standards - Potentially Toxic Pollutants

2-1 Evaluation of Federal and State ARARs That May Apply to OU-1, Ellsworth AFB,

South Dakota

2-2 OU-1 Proposed Clean-up Goals - Ground Water

2-3 OU-1 Proposed Clean-up Goals - Soils

2-4 General Response Actions and Remedial Technologies for OU-1, Ellsworth Air

Force Base, South Dakota

_ 2-5 Summary of Technology Screening for OU-1, EUsworth Air Force Base, South

Dakota

2-6 Remedial Technologies and Process Options

3-1 Cost Summary for Alternative No. 2

3-2 Cost Summary for Alternative No. 3

-- 3-3 Cost Summary for Contingency Ground-water Discharge Option: Reinjection

4-1 Summary of Remedial Action Alternatives for Operable Unit No. 1, Ellsworth AFB,

- South Dakota

F:kPROJX_037 $$41F_OU 1.FSWIN AL\TAB LE.L._'Fduly 19, 1995
50! 8

LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

4-2 Comparison of Feasible Remedial Alternatives, Operable Unit No. 1, Ellsworth AFB,

South Dakota

4-3 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives Operable Unit I,

Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota

5-1 Ranking of Alternatives for OU-1, Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota

I_:WROJ_6_378_W_OU I.I_%FINkd.WABL.KI,ST_u]y 19, 1995
5 ,I 9

List of Appendixes

Appendix A Presumptive Remedies

_ Appendix B References

Appendix C1 Detailed Direct Cost Report for Alternative No. 2

Appendix C2 Detailed Direct Cost Report for Alternative No. 3

_ Appendix D SUMMERS Model Calculations

Appendix E Time Calculations

F:WROJ_6037g 84_d_O U1.FSLDRA_A_I 9 July !995
_ Acronyms and Abbreviations 5 0 l 1 0

_ ACC: Air Combat Command.

ARARs: Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements. Those federal and state

-- requirements that apply to this cleanup action.

BRA: Baseline Risk Assessment. A scientific assessment of the public health and

-- environmental risks posed by the contamination at the Operable Unit (OU).

CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, compensation and Liability Act. The

-- federal Superfund law.

COC: Chemicals of Concern. Those chemicals identified in the risk assessment as posing

-- public health or environmental risks.

DCA: 1,2-dichloroethane. A solvent used for fats, oils, waxes, resins, and rubber. DCA

is used in the manufacture of certain chemicals.

_ DCE: 1,1-dichloroethene. An intermediate chemical reaction product used in a variety of

industrial applications including the manufacture of certain plastics.

DENR: South Dakota Department of the Environmental and Natural Resources.

DOD: Department of Defense.

EAFB: Ellsworth Air Force Base.

"- EPA: Environmental Protection Agency.

FFS: Focused Feasibility Study. A Feasibility Study with a limited number of

-- alternatives.

FS: Feasibility Study. A public document that explains the examined cleanup

-- alternatives and the proposed alternative in detail.

IRP: Installation Restoration Program. The Department of Defense program for site

restoration.

_ JP-4: Jet Propulsion Fuel Number Four; contains both kerosene and gasoline fractions.

NCP: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan. Cleanup actions must

_ be consistent with the NCP.

F:LPROJ16037584kFS_OU1.FSWINAL_GLOS$.WPD July 19, 1995
5 :I

NPDES:' { National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The federal program for point

source wastewater discharges.

NPL: National Priorities List. The federal list of the highest priority sites for cleanup. --

OU-I: Operable Unit I. The Fire Protection Training Area Study area.

OU-4: Operable Unit 4. The Landfill No. 3 Study Area.

PAH: Polyaromatic hydrocarbon.

PCE: Perchloroethylene. A liquid used in degreasing or paint removal.

Rt: Remedial Investigation.

ROD: Record of Decision. A public document that explains which remedial activities

will be used at the site and why.

SARA: Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.

SVE: Soil Vapor Extraction. A system that uses ground-water wells under a vacuum to _

remove VOCs from soil.

SVOC: Semivolatile Organic Compounds. A group of organic chemicals that vaporize at a

slower rate of speed then VOCs.

TCA: 1,1,1-tetrachloroethane. A common degreasing solvent.

TCE: Trichloroethylene, a solvent and suspected carcinogen.

USAF: United States Air Force.

USEPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency.

VOCs: Volatile Organic Compounds. A group of organic chemicals that vaporize easily.

WWTP: Waste water treatment plant.

F:kPKO/_O37884_'xOUI.FS_WINAL_GLOS$.WPD lu|y 19, 1995
501 12

Section Tab
501 13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

-- This Feasibility Study (FS) Report summarizes findings of the FS conducted for Operable

Unit I (OU-I), at Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota. The FS was conducted in

accordance with the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement and in response to

f-mdings of the Final Remedial Investigation (RI) Report submitted December 1994 to the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the South Dakota Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR).

The purpose of the FS is to develop and examine remedial action alternatives to address

existing and potential future risks posed by OU-1 to human health and the environment, as

-- identified in the RI Baseline Risk Assessment and Ecological Evaluation/Risk Assessment

for OU- 1.

-- Remedial action alternatives were developed and screened based on protection of human

health and the environment, the nature and extent of contamination identified in the RI, and

applicable, relevant, or appropriate regulations and requirements. The FS was prepared to

-- analyze and present relevant information concerning potential remedial action alternatives

for OU-1. The USEPA Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) approach to use

presumptive remedies (see Appendix A) was incorporated into this FS. This approach

streamlines the FS. For OU-1, the presumptive remedy for VOC in Soils was used to help

develop this FS. In accordance with EPA protocols, this document does not recommend

final remedial action, but rather, provides sufficient information for decision-makers to

compare alternatives, and select an appropriate remedy for the site. The proposed remedy

will be stated in the Proposed Plan and the selected remedy will be stated in the Record of

Decision (ROD).

REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

Remedial action objectives are site-specific clean-up objectives based on the nature and

extent of contamination, the resources that are currently and/or potentially threatened, the

-- potential for human and ecological exposures, and the current and future uses of the site.

The nature and extent of reported chemicals at OU-1 are detailed in Chapter 4 of the RI.

Ecological and human health risks were assessed in Chapter 6, and have been summarized in

-- Chapter 1 of this report.

Specific remedial action objectives for OU-1 are to achieve the ground-water clean-up goals

-- set forth in Table ES-1 and achieve the soil clean-up goals set forth in Table ES-2.

F:W RO _6_37 $$4XF"S_O U I.F'SLDRFTF'INLkEXSUMOU I,FS\I 9/uly 1995 ES -1
501 14

TABLE ES-1

OU-1 Proposed Clean-up Goals

Ground Water (#g/L) "-

Analyte Clean-up Goal Basis

1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) 5.0 MCL --

1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1 -DCE) 7.0 MCL

1,2-Dichloroethylene (1,2-DCE) 70.0 MCL --

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5.0 MCL

Benzene 5.0 MCL

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 5.0 MCL

Trichloroethylene (TCE) 5.0 MCL

Vinyl Chloride 2.0 MCL

TABLE ES-2

OU-1 Proposed Clean-up Goals

Soils (#g/kg)

Clean-up SUMMERS

Analyte Goal Estimates Basis --

1,2-Dichloroethylene (1,2-DCE) 41 41.4 Ground water protection

Benzene 10(_) 2.5 Ground water protection -

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 10 10.5 Ground water protection

Trichloroethylene (TCE) 10(1) 3.3 Ground water protection

JP-4 10,000 State Regulation

_'Note: When the SUMMERS model estimates are less than standard detection limits, remediation clean-up goals

will be based on standard detection limits.

F:LaROA60378_4_S'XOU1.FS_DRFTI_NL_ES 1&2.TAB\17 March 1995
: 501 15

SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Table ES-3 defines the remedial alternatives for OU-I. A detailed analysis of the

,, alternatives presents the relevant information that is need for decision makers to select the

appropriate site remedy. Pursuant to Section 300.430(e)(9)(iii) of EPA's revised National

Contingency Plan, the remedial action to be implemented should be selected based upon

-- consideration of nine evaluation criteria.

These criteria are as follows:

1. Overall protection of human health and environment.

2. Compliance with ARARs.

-- 3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence.

4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination.

5. Short-term effectiveness.

6. Implementability.

7. Cost

8. State acceptance.

-- 9. Community acceptance.

Table ES-4 and ES-5 summarized the comparative analysis for the alternatives. Chapter 4 of

-- this report offers a corresponding discussion of this comparison.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The primary recommendation associated with this study is that the most appropriate feasible

remedial action alternative be selected and implemented at the earliest possible time. In

conjunction with the presumptive remedy, the selection should be based upon the nine

evaluation criteria as specified in EPA's National Contingency Plan.

1. Overall protection of human health and environment

2. Compliance with ARARs

_ 3. Long-term effectiveness and performance

4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination

5. Short-term effectiveness

_ 6. Implementability

7. Cost

8. State acceptance

-- 9. Community acceptance

This feasibility study has been prepared to examine altematives with respect to criteria

-- numbers 1 through 7. Appropriate agency review of the report and the public meeting and

public review and comment period are intended to address criteria numbers 8 and 9. A final

selection should be based upon these nine criteria.

F:WROJ_037884WS'_U I.FS_,DR FT'_ NLkEX$ L'M OU I.F_ 19 July 1995 ES-2
50L IG ,) •

TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES FOR

OPERABLE UNIT NO. 1, ELLSWORTH AFB, SOUTH DAKOTA

Aternative Description

1 No Action --

2 Source Area Soil Treatment with Ground-Water

Containment

3 Source Area Soil and Ground-Water Treatment

F:\PROJ_03788,_kFS_OU 1.FSLDRFTFIN LkES 3 TAB k17 March 1995
!

50! 17

iii i_iiiilililililiiiiiil iiii_i_i_

p-

- _- _ _ z

0 o o o

.2

- .oz Z z Z

z

- _ _ _ _

Z -- < g

_ -

z
501 18 i

_ _ _ _ .-

i

__ = _ _ _ o_

___ ._ .

"_ _ E

•-_ _ __

._ o _ __ _ ._ _ ° ,,4

.- - _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _

._ _=

C _ ua
- :_Yiiiiiii_!i!_!!iiiii_ii!_!i!i!i!_!iii!iii!iii!ii

• _ 501 19

o

-- _ _ -_

_i!i!!i!iiiiiii_ii!i!_}!!ii_iiii_i!!_°°° _° -- _ _ _ _ _

_iii !ii_iiiiiiiiiii__ _°_o _°

iii!i!iiiii!!i!!!iiii'!!i_!'_!!i!'!iill

_ !:_!i!i!!i!!_!i!i!i_!ii!i!_!_iiiii_!ii_i!i!iii!i!i!ii _ _o

_i!!!i!iiiii!!{!i!i!!i!i{ii_ii!!_iiiii!!ii_ o

= iili

.............. _.,_ii_iii _._ g _

....,,..................... ,_. ........z _ _ =

i_iiiiiii!i!i!ili_i_iiiiiiiill !_i!i_i:_iiiiiiiii!iii . °_

_- _

.... ___-

_ __ _ _'__ _ '_

-- _ __ _

<_ <

<_ _

iiiiiiiE!,iiii![iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii[i;ii_;iii_iiiiiiiiiii _ _ _ .- ,_

i!ilili!!i_!i!iiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiii!ii! _'_ _

iiiiiiiii_iiiiiiiiiiiiii!ilililiiiiiiiiiiiii_i_iiii_ilili_iiiiiiiiili_ 0 _ _ _

iiiiiii}ii!!iiiiii!iiiiiii!!i}iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_i!!_iiiil __ _ o - _i_iiii_i!_iiiiiii!ii!}}iiiiiiiiiiii}iiiiiiiii!i!ii!!!!i!_!_i!il _ _ _ _

_

_ _ <

- _ _
501 20

............... _ , _:_ "_ _ _ _..

,.=

_..__ _ _ o"_ _,_ _ _ _.'-" _ _

,.__ _._ _ __ _._ -- ....... --_ _o _ "- _=

__ _ _ ._ .= _ ._ _ _ _ --

•: __ • _ _ ' Or= _0 : _ .._:_,_=._ _ _'"_0 _.___ __c__ _ E_ --

................................ =._ _"*,,,- £ •

_- _ _ _ _ , _ _ _._

= o0_ _'_ _ _ "- ,o "_o-o - _ --

.- ._ ._ o

° -

_-_ _ _ ,-_ _ < __

'" 501 2_

_. _-_ _ __ _ § : =

_ _ -_ _ _ _ _ _. _ - _ _ ___ _ >_ _ _ -

- _o_ _ • _ = _ _ _ - = _ < _ _o_ -

-.-_ -__ o= _- = _ _ _ _ _'_

._ _ _ - _ _ _ _'_ _ _ _.o :_ __'- _ !_iiil

- _ =_ _ . _ _ _ -

"_ i_ _ _ _ -_ "° _ _ _

.................... _ __ -_. _ e i .___ _-o° _ _ _ _ _ _ ° _

i): i: :}!i;! _, _ _ o

,. c_ ,;_

_- _ - _ _ _ - ,, _ -_ .-_ •_ ._. _ .._ _ =°_ ._ _ .o -_= _ _ _ -a-

.......... _o o o _ _ _ _ _ ; .... = _ _ g "_ ° _ _ _ z z

.............. _ •_ _ _ o 0 ,o .- "_ .................................................... , c _ o g < _ B._
w

501 23

E _

- _ _

.__ _ :_ -__ '_

-- <

[-

-- iliiiiiiiii_iiiiiiiiiiiii_iiiii!!i!i!!iiii_!!i!i!iiiiiiiiiiiiiii

!iiii_iiiii!iiii_iiiiiii_iiii_i_iiiiii!_!iiiiiiiiii_iiiiiiiiiiili!_i:iil __m

_ iiiiii!ili!ii_!!i_!!_!ii!_iiiiii"_

i!i!iiiiiiiiii!i!!i!!ii!_iiii!ii!i!i_iiiiiiiii_!iiiiiiiiili _

w _

_ .-. _ _
5oI 24

A generalized ranking system can be applied to place the remedial alternatives in perspective ...

when compared against NCP criteria numbers 1-7. The ranking system employed in this

section uses a high, medium, or low designation for the overall effectiveness of any one "-

alternative. Table ES-6 lists the designation of the three alternatives evaluated in this FS.

TABLE ES-6 RANKING OF ALTERNATIVES FOR OU-1, ELLSWORTH AFB,

SOUTH DAKOTA

Alternative 1 No Action Low

Alternative 2 Source Area Soil Treatment with Ground-Water Containment High ""

Alternative 3 Source Area Soil and Ground-Water Treatment High

RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER ACTION

This FS has not addressed the coordination with the remediation of other Operable Units at

Ellsworth AFB. An examination of Base-wide alternatives could become appropriate as

feasibility studies are completed for these other OU's. The impact of the additional

characterization of the Base-wide ecological assessment could have a potential impact on the

remedial alternatives established in this report. Also, data generated from on-going interim

actions could impact the ultimate remedial design for OU-1 should the results of the IRA

differ significantly from expectations.

FAPROJXrO37894WS'_ U I.ImSkDk t: i vINLklEXSUMOU |.F_I9 July1995 ES-3
501 25

Section Tab
' 501 26

1. INTRODUCTION

\j

This Feasibility Study (FS) Report summarizes findings of the FS conducted for Operable Unit 1

_ (OU-1), at Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota. The FS was conducted in response to

findings of the Final Remedial Investigation (RI) Report submitted December 1994 to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the South Dakota Department of Environment

-- and Natural Resources (SDDENR).

1.1 PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

purpose

- The purpose of the FS is to develop and examine remedial action alternatives to address existing

and potential future risks posed by OU-1 to human health and the environment, as identified in

the RI Baseline Risk Assessment and Ecological Evaluation/Risk Assessment for OU-1.

Remedial action alternatives were developed and screened based on protection of human health

and the environment, the nature and extent of contamination identified in the RI, and applicable,

relevant, or appropriate regulations and requirements. The FS was prepared to analyze and

present relevant information concerning potential remedial action alternatives for OU-1. The

USEPA Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) approach to use presumptive remedies

- (see Appendix A) was incorporated into this FS. This approach streamlines the FS. For OU-1,

the presumptive remedy for VOC in Soils was used to help develop this FS. In accordance with

EPA protocols, this document does not recommend final remedial action, but rather, provides

sufficient infom_ation for decision-makers to compare alternatives, and select an appropriate

remedy for the site. Final site remedy selection is recommended in the Record of Decision

(ROD).

Organization

The FS report is divided into five chapters:

• Chapter 1: Introduction

• Chapter 2: Development and Screening of Alternatives

• Chapter 3: Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

-- • Chapter 4: Summary and Comparison of Remedial Action Alternatives

• Chapter 5: Recommendations

In using a streamlined approach, the chapter organization for this FS varies from the traditional

foi:inat. Use of the presumptive remedy approach allows acceleration of remedy selection by

- using preferred technologies for common categories of sites. The process, discussed in additional

.j: detail in Chapter 2, eliminates or streamlines selected phases of the Feasibility Study. Although

presumptive remedies streamline all phases of the RIFFS,the FS is streamlined more than any

I_:WROJ_60_Tg84_,OUI.FSWINAL_IC_API.FSkluty 19, 1995 1-1
501 27

other phase. A focused FS eliminates the technology identification and screening step. Generally,

the study is limited to the no action altemative and the presumptive remedy technologies. This is

possible because the EPA has conducted an analysis of potentially available technologies for most "_-"_

of the presumptive remedies' site categories and has determined that certain technologies are

routinely and appropriately screened out either on the basis of effectiveness, implementability, or

excessive cost (NCP Section 300.430(e)(3) and (7)), or have not been selected under the nine

criteria analysis identified in NCP Section 300.430(e)(9) [EPA, 1993]. The detailed analysis

substitutes for the development and screening of alternatives phases of the FS. This allows for

any remaining alternatives to be limited to variations of the presumptive remedy. To support the

elimination of technology identification and screening and the streamlining of alternative

development, the directives explaining presumptive remedies and site specific presumptive

remedies are included as appendices to this report.

Chapter 2 is impacted the most when using the streamlined, presumptive remedy process.

Identification of potential treatment technologies, screening technologies, assemblage of

technologies into alternatives, and screening of alternatives are generally eliminated from the FS.

Further refinement of alternatives does occur. Chapter 3 still addresses the analysis of alternatives

against the nine criteria. Chapter 4 provides a comparison of alternatives against each other.

1.2 SITE BACKGROUND AND SETTING

Ellsworth Air Force Base (EAFB) is a U.S. Air Force Air Combat Command (ACC) installation

located 12 mi east of Rapid City, South Dakota, and adjacent to the small community of Box

Elder (Figure 1-1). EAFB was officially activated in July 1942 as the Rapid City Army Air ___

Base, a training facility for B-17 bomber crews. EAFB has been the headquarters of operations

for a variety of aircraft, the Titan I Intercontinental Ballistic Missile system and the Minuteman I

and Minuteman II Missile systems. The Base has historically provided support, training,

maintenance, and/or testing facilities.

The main Air Base covers approximately 4,858 acres within Meade and Pennington counties and

includes runways, airfield operations, industrial areas, housing, and recreational facilities (Figure

1-2). Open land, containing a few private residences, lies to the north, south, and west of EAFB;

residential and commercial areas lie to the east.

1.2.1 Site Description

OU-I Surface Features

OU-1 is situated in the south-central portion of EAFB, and includes the abandoned Fire

Protection Training Area (FPTA). The abandoned FPTA lies south-southwest of the active

FPTA and approximately 500 ft due west of the southern edge of Building 6908. Both

Buildings 6908 and 6905 are presently unused, however, Building 6908 will be used to house

the IRA treatment plant. An underground storage tank (UST) was removed in spring 1993 at the

southeast comer of Building 6908. The UST was over excavated and the excavation backfilled

in summer 1993. No further action is pending regarding the former UST at this time. The

bomber alert apron (presently inactive) lies across a drainage and to the southeast. Immediately

F:WRO J_603788,1WS'_OU 1.FSWIN ALH CHAp I.FSUuIy 17, 1995 1-2
" " 50[ 28

-...j

__ SOUTH DAKOTA /

IOWA

,I.LSWOm'HAF'B

T T '?

Sc_Io in MU_

APPI_OXIMA"rE

I

EL_WORTH I:11_ORTH AFB I AREALOCATIONMAP = AIR FORCE BJi.SE _ 01Y, _

I _ MRG SHOWN APRIL94 I 60378.81
-- -, 501 29

WEAPONS r_ -- STORAGE _ I....-7._,r --.--__..

AREA ... .

,

BURIAL I

• ? i - N 00-10 --

, _,"° __

I DR.

I SPAATZ

-q WASTEWATER

0 1200 24.00 ,TREATMENT --

I T I PLANT _,ALE IN I-_.1 .t _N_

EASDAENT

LEGEND u-_.I ' HOUSINg%

OPERABLE UNITS GATE AREA

OU--1 R_==¢.,=_40_1 TRAINING '-".'-"."'-"."'.""

OU--2 LANDFILLS 1 & 6 (LF-02) OU-2

OU-3 LANDRLL 2 (LF-03) INDUSTRIAL

ou-4 LANDnLL3 (LF-O¢) GATE

OU-5 LANDRLL 4 (LF-05)

OU--6 LANDFILL 5 (LF-06)

OU-7 LOW LEVEL RADIATION WASTE BURIAL AREA (RW-07) o CU-B EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL AREA & PRAMITOL SPILL (SS-11)

/ cu-g OLD AUTO HOBBY SHOP AREA (OT-15) _.

OU-IO NORTH HANGAR COMPLEX (ST-lg) _

CU-11 BASEWIDE CROUND WATER

_ OU-I2 HARDF'ILL NO. 1

Z--

_._=_ ELLSWORTH ELL%VORTHAFB SITELOCAIIONMAP

:_= AIR FORCE BASE R/tPICCIIY, S0LrI_ I_AKOTA

_ t _ %_ow,oc,_,i _o_._,! '-_ -
501 30

west of the OU lies Kenney Road, and approximately 200 ft further west is the Base perimeter

fence (Figure 1-3). -_.¢

,, The topography of OU-1 is characterized by a local topographic high, especially in the area

where fire training was conducted, which is bounded on the southwest and southeast by

drainages that converge.

Surface water which flows onto and through OU-I originates from several separate sources.

These source areas, from upstream to downstream, are discussed below and illustrated on Figure

•- 1-3.

• The main drainage channel at OU-1 flows from north to south along the

•-, southeastern perimeter of OU-1. The main channel drains a portion of the

southern area of EAFB including some of the hangar complex, runways, and OU12. The main channel is approximately 12-15 fl across and 3-4 ft deep. The

-- channel is considered to be ephemeral; however, standing water was observed in

the channel throughout the 1993 RI field investigation. The main drainage

channel eventually empties into the upstream end of Pond 001.

• Flow in the drainage channel along the southeast boundary of OU-1 originates as

surface water run-off from the landfill area (OU-12) to the northeast of OU-1 and

from drainage pipes that discharge storm water run-off from the South Dock area

of the flight line and from portions of the adjoining taxiways and flight lines.

Flow was measured at approximately 1 cubic foot per second (cfs) above Pond

001 during the OU-I field investigation.

• A secondary shallow drainage ditch delivers surface runoff from the eastern

-- portion of the abandoned FPTA to the main drainage channel. This secondary

drainage ditch is generally dry.

-- • Two drainage culverts extend beneath the alert apron and discharge surface water

from the east into the main drainage channel. The source of the discharge from

these two culverts is presumed to be runoff from the alert apron.

• Surface water runoff from the above sources is temporarily held in Pond 001.

Pond 001 is located at the southern extreme of the Operable Unit. At the

downstream end of the pond is an oil skimmer and earthen dam. On the

downstream side of the skimmer, flow passes through piping beneath Kenney

_ Road and discharges into an open drainage ditch on the west end of OU-2. The

skimmer is designed to allow water to exit Pond 001 without allowing LNAPL or

floating debris to discharge. In addition, a floating aerator is used in the pond to

-- help oxygenate water. The skimmer is not designed to remove or eliminate

dissolved chemicals or soluble product in discharge water.

-- • A secondary unnamed ephemeral drainage channel is located along the

southwestern edge of OU-1. Flow originates as sheet flow and surface run-off

from fields to the northwest of OU-1. This channel receives surface water runoff

F:LPROJ_037594WS_OU I,FSWINAL\ICHAPI.FSkluT y 17, 1995 1-3
\ APPROXT_ATE _: .- _:.q- --_z-_._----------__1-_7; .-

t,,l

.-r '_ X "t 'W >.'_"n_"_o-,_'Ix-UNDERGROUNO_ ..,_-:..'d; t

/ \\ '" _( / X \ /z--EXTENT OF /11 __-

t, t /\' --J

"i, Y/is

LEGEND '_"h_._.....

-- - -- SURFACEDRAINAGE _ f "---:._.-L_._...._.__"_

-- _#?0 ABOVE MSL _, % t_ r._

SOURCE: EPA 1991, BURN PIT HISTORICAL AREAS FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, 1952-1992

1994 FS DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY [}ATE PROJECT NO.

ELLSWORTH ELLSWORTHAIRFORCEBASE OU-1 (FPTA) STAFF DEC94 60378.84 AIR FORCE BASE liAPII) crn,, soum [_KOT^ SITE AREA CHECKED BY PROJECT MGR. SCALE RGURE

TR AS SHOWN 1-3
- 501 32

from the off-Base area west of OU- 1 and from the western edge of the FPTA.

This ancillary drainage channel empties into Pond 001 approximately 200 ft

--- downstream of the main drainage channel discharge into Pond 001. There was no

_ measurable discharge in this drainage ditch during the OU-1 field investigation,

although there was standing water.

_ The slope break into the unnamed ephemeral drainage to the southwest is gentle, whereas the

slope break into the unnamed main drainage, to the southeast, is much steeper. Wetlands were

found along both drainage ways and along Pond 001. The relief from the topographic high of

-- OU-1 to the pond is approximately 40 ft.

Several underground utility lines run through OU-1. Two underground water lines, running in a

-- northwest-southeast direction, transect the northeast comer of OU-1 at a depth of approximately

9 ft. Underground electric lines parallel the eastern and northern boundaries of OU-1 at a depth

of approximately 5 ft (Figure 1-4).

OU-1 Soil and Fill

-- Native soil types present at OU-1 consist of Nunn clay loam on the slopes and terraces, and

Zigweild-Nihill complex, gravelly loam beneath and along the west shore of Pond 001. Most of

OU-1 and the surrounding area contain native soil, described as a dry-moist, brown to dark grey

-- brown, silty clay with roots and a trace of sand and fine gravel. Native soil thickness ranged

from approximately 0.5 ft to 6 ft. The remaining soil cover at OU-1 consists of two types of fill:

a soil consisting of a mixture of reworked, silt, clay, sand and gravel, and an anthropogenic fill

--,_4 consisting of construction debris material (Figure 1-4). There is no documentation or physical

evidence that household waste or hazardous industrial waste was used as fill material at OU-I.

-- OU-1 Geology

Subsurface geologic features encountered during RI drilling activities at OU-1 were composed

primarily of unconsolidated Quaternary-age silty clay, interbedded sand and gravel and a basal,

poorly sorted gravel with pebble and cobble sized gravel mantling the Pierre Shale. The gravels

are generally comprised of granitic feldspar and quartz.

Unconsolidated deposits at OU-1 consist of a silty clay layer containing discontinuous lenses of

-- sand and gravel. The clay layer is in turn underlain in most areas by a sand and gravel layer.

The sand and gravel layer thins out toward the west and south and is absent in some areas across

Kenney Road. Where the sand and gravel are absent, the silty clay rest directly upon the Pierre

_ Shale.

Weathered Pierre Shale at OU-1 contains relict layering and fracturing, and except for the relict

-- layering typical of shale, the texture of the weathered Pierre Shale resembles silty to fat clay.

Intermixed within the weathered shale are traces of both a fine sand and a white mineral

precipitate field identified as gypsum. Iron-oxide staining is also present.

The upper portion of the Pierre Shale consists of weathered/fractured shale to a depth of

-4 approximately 35 ft. Interspersed with the weathered shale zone at OU-1 is a soft to moderately

F:WRO J'_60378 $4WS'_OU I.FSx.b'IN AL\ I CHAP I .FS'duly |7, 1995 1-4
v

/

2o;?2

\ /\\,. !_ X_\ (oii,_i _ \ \ ' "_[_ ,Y W \ \ \ \ :L.-_

I ::ABAND 3NED , "'J

 37S

. ABOVE MSL 200' ,_ /

CONTOUR INTERVAL = 10' _'_ .....

z _ I SCALE Z_

_- NOTE',THESUBSURFACCON E DITIONSSHOWNREPRESENTOUR F THEMOSTP

CONDITIONSBASEDUPONINTERPRETAllONOF PRESENTLYAVAILABLEDATA.SOMEVARIATIONS

4 FROM THESE CONDITIONSMUST BE EXPECTED. F:\HORIZONS\NEW\OUI\I-20OB.DWG _ F_I L'-LO

C,}_ DESIGNEDBY DRAWNBY DATE PROJECTNO.

.<,,;_ _ 1994 FS

z'_3 ELLSWORTHAIR FORCEBASE ou-1 (FPTA) MGL MAR94 60378.84

__ AIR ELLSWORTH FORCE BASE RAPIDCI1Y,SOUIHDAKOTA UNLODECRGR ATIOONUNDU MAP STILITIE HOWSINGAND CHECKEDBY PROJECTMGR. SCALE FIGURE Bd_

_ AREAS OF FILL AS SHOWN I-4 c_ c',
m

501 34

- hard, fractured, olive grey to dark greenish grey claystone and shale containing iron staining.

Fracture seams are typically less than 0.10 in. thick, but on occasion may be as wide as 0.25 in.

--" Iron-oxide staining is visible along the fracture planes which are predominantly horizontal but

can also be inclined to vertical.

Cross-secti0n locations are illustrated in Figure 1-5. Figures 1-6 through 1-8 illustrate

_ generalized geologic cross-sections through selected borings at OU-1.

Regional Hydrogeologic Setting

At EAFB there is one shallow unconfined aquifer and three confined aquifers which could be

used for water supplies. None of the confined aquifers are in hydraulic communication with the

-- overlying unconfined aquifer. The base of the shallow aquifer is defined by the unfractured

shale at a depth of approximately 50 ft or less, and is the aquifer with the highest potential to be

adversely impacted by past FPTA activities at OU-1. Thick sequences of Upper Cretaceous

-- confining beds separate the shallow aquifer from deeper ground-water aquifers. These deeper

aquifers are not considered further as potential pathways at OU-1, and are not discussed in this

report. A comprehensive discussion of the deep aquifers can be found in the Final Remedial

-- Investigation Report CUSAF, 1994)

The shallow unconfined aquifer at EAFB is considered a Federal Class II-B (potential source of

-- drinking water) aquifer and possibly a Class II-A (discharge to surface water) aquifer

(EPA, 1986). Ground water which has an ambient concentration of 10,000 mg/L or less total

dissolved solids (TDS) is classified as having a beneficial use as a drinking water supply,

suitable for human consumption (S.D. Chapter 74:03:15, Groundwater Quality Standards).

Unconfined Aquifer

At EAFB, the upper shallow aquifer consists of both alluvial and colluvial deposits and fractured

Pierre Shale and may extend in depth from only a few feet below the surface to approximately

50 ft or less. The thickness and yield of the shallow aquifer is dependent upon the extent of

unconsolidated material and the thickness of water yielding fractures in the Pierre Shale (which

-- in turn is dependent upon the amount of weathering a specific area has undergone) and

consequently ground-water yields are sporadic. In several areas toward the northern end of

EAFB, no ground-water bearing zones were found, while in the southern area of the Base sand

and gravel beds and shallow fracture zones typically produce less than 2 gallons per minute to

monitoring wells. The shallow, unconfined aquifer at EAFB is present within the fractured shale

horizon near the top of the Pierre Shale and the contiguous overlying deposits of unconsolidated

_ material.

Recharge to the unconfined aquifer is via direct infiltration of precipitation minus

-- evapotranspiration through the overlying soil and unconsolidated material. Seasonal differences

in recharge will cause the water table to drop and may at times leave stranded zones of ground

water in unconsolidated materials filling paleotopographic lows in the Pierre Shale surface.

-- Perched water may also exist in local pockets when spatially discontinuous zones of low

peimeability, such as a clay lens, trap infiltrating precipitation above the water table of the

F:WROJ36037854WS_OUI .FSWINAL_]CHAPI.FS_July 17, 1995 1-5
ILj -._.--"

/X) ' X'Jf // \ _-- ]

%

o_!,! ,.0 _-=_/vag=:-=:....... g: =_i

I / \..jI

<, i s, o /" _iR_t -

f ,,_,=.=tIt \ & _m_u_;_/, / c.'/l / 1

I_ \\( _,...=,:l.F?"'t_°""'" .................................

,,or=o: -- '_'_,_=":"_"_,r]l _)=,==I "

[] SURFACEWATER/SED,MENT--,,_;_ _\{ ,',6,o..\ " \ "'_."'e. \-.

, ,=o,=,_,,,o,,,,o=,,,=_ _',¢,_......_,,\_ ,%. WELL/SOILBORING LOCATION _ _'-_,,,,,_"_XX._t LI::x_,i;Z;, "xN N "_\

tD 1t91 RI-FIELD SCREEN/SOiL _ t_ _.",_,\ t1:_,iiii ) _ X'_...... ._------" \.>:: BORINGLOCATION ---% x._x..\ \_Z:=: .....

• _a_'_r_=o,,• _ __.s_'_....\ =Z/_"_i"_ . .......

A' CROSSSECTION l

Do

..... SURFACEDRAINAGE _ " ...--_---.._"_a_:'--=

-----BASE BOUNDARY FENCE _ /<

--_ooo--TOPOGRAPHICELEVATIONABOVE % {I} J-_ _-

MSL- CONTOUR 'NTERVAL=I5 _ //r ]_[.' __o _].'

-_ _I 'xl sc_ IF:\HORIZONS_NEI_OUI\I-iOOB.DII_. _12

1994 FS DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY !DATE PROJECT NOELLSWORTH ELLSWORTHAIR FORCEBASE OU-1 (FPTA) MAY95 6037884

AIR FORCE BASE IW:IBCITY,$OLrITIDAKOTA LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC OI'tECKE.13"l 5 " PROJr:CTlaa..'.L S(14LE F'ICI.iRE

CROSS-SECTIONS STAFF AS SHOWN 1-5 i1[ iii i
DRAWING NAME: F:\HORIZONS\NEW\OUI\FS\CROSSA

DATE:03fl 7/1995 TIME: 10:21

; ::I: I I I

i _ _ _ ELEV (FT)

m 0

_ ,_i_ <__ o o o o o o o

_0 °_ o _ T4 o m +H+H-t- - SB930127 Z

M _ i (MW930106) ). o

k .<2_'-- _ _ _ f'T

o ) /_ x °

! i I WI........... _" -- (MW870101)

O I

Wl

_ I °I+H+++H+__ SB930121

V _ _ )-- (MW930105)

- i rqm _B

o ou o , " SB930102

) _ ' . =_ -'- 1_ m SB930101 ..... (MW930101 )

" /-_i _ _ti" =l $Bg30104

o SB930105

{.n _

-- SBg30109

z (MW930102) / I _° V

:I> / / _.,'_ i - i I tl o£,

= _ / o_'" J"'_ "/rQ°/ (MW880105)

m° SBg30115

ou_° (MW930103)

_--- oc_ "7 O

SB9301 ]9

i

I

,-, o SBg30120 I rlq

;E z

_ SBg30147

_!_ q o

To _ _ SBg30150 _

z < _ (MW93011 I) (.D mo

i - • OO

>l--

r'Fq _rl _ Fi-I ''

i i _ .-,oil# UlO
DRAWING NAME: F:\HORIZONS\NEW\OUI\FS\CROSSB

DATE:03/I 7/1995 TIME: 10:22

_#_..,F.j_ =__ * ,I,i ELEV (FT) i I I I T

=i !Z z

I° ! _ _,°.............. \ _\ \ SB930 t 51

° !

_3 ° __

FI z r_

o

o SB930143 0

II SB930110

= , = _--.x\F, _

> SB930103

0

Z

G)

C)

_u0 I SB930106

I

Fq 0

Z

c_ I SB930107 W

z

I

0 ! O,"lo I.#l

• "-" 1 r _ m

T >;_ -r -=I', ', ',: ',I I IIIIIIIII i SB930116 I-!-I

o :_ 0 (MW930107)

z <_

o _ rrlo

._ r-

_r--

__ _ F- in"l

_ _ rrl ""

m II--'

O0
k.j J"

DRAWING NAME: F:\ItORIZONS\NEW\OUI\FS\CROSSC

DATE:05/17 1995 TIME: 10:23 i

n

>m

0 m

I N "' SB930130 N I m_

_m r II

z

mt-- z"_ N._ o I SB930144-

__ ° ,

r- _

2 0 ,-p

o o _

O3

Or) m

"--'t

N

Z

::o _ 0 m

o° ,.-._

_.._-- o t SB930115

z (MW930103)

?

q

_n

° i

# #

_r"

P •

g o x ._i _ C

_ o _ _ r_ C

o ,.o T SB930132 I-I-I ¢.J"l

mN

.m

£') ¢')

_! _ m.m

u_ It It

O0
unconfined aquifer. Average depth to the water table varies seasonally, and in general, where

present, the depth to the water table is 5-30 ft. -_.../

-- Shallow ground-water-flow directions at EAFB are influenced by the local bedrock and surface

topography. Ground-water flow within the unconfined aquifer takes place within the upper

saturated zone in the direction from high to low head potentials. At EAFB this means that

_ ground water generally moves toward topographic lows and along those lows once they are

reached. As the ground water enters and moves along the stream valleys, which are the

topographic lows on EAFB, it becomes either base flow or subsurface flow beneath the stream

-- bed. Ground-water flow may be restricted where the primary flow path is through secondary

porosity (discontinuous fractures in weathered shale).

-- Ground water from alluvial aquifers near the Base is exploited for domestic and Iivestock use.

There are 40 to 45 known, shallow domestic wells or infiltration galleries near EAFB (State of

South Dakota, 1992). These shallow wells are generally large diameter cistern-type wells and

-- range in depth from approximately 10 ft to 60 ft. No shallow wells exist within EAFB

boundaries. Previous studies (USGS, 1984) and nearby well logs show that the Pierre Shale is a

lower confining unit to the upper shallow aquifer, and fails to yield water to wells within a short

-- distance of the Pierre Shale surface. Preliminary results of studies (Nichols, 1992) of the Pierre

Shale near Pierre, South Dakota suggest that unweathered shale at depth is saturated but is too

dense and exhibits porosity which is too low to yield water to wells.

OU-1 Hydrogeology

A thin (approximately 20 ft), shallow ground-water zone is present in the subsurface at OU-1.

Within the saturated zone, ground water moves through a combination of geologic materials

including silty clay, silty to clayey sand and gravel and fractured shale. Ground water is present

-- within the fractured shale at monitoring well locations MW930102, MW930107, MW930108,

MW930109, MW930110, and MW930111; and is present within fractured shale/unconsolidated

deposits at the remaining monitoring well locations. The predominant ground-water-flow

-- direction at OU-1 is toward the south and east. Ground-water flow gradients were estimated by

dividing the total drop in water levels between wells MW930106 and MW930110 (30.8 ft) by the

distance between the two locations (1,875 ft). The resulting ground-water gradient was estimated

to be 0.016 ft/ft.

_ Hydraulic conductivity was calculated for the RI monitoring wells by utilizing the computer

program "AQTESOLV®" and the Bouwer-Rice rising head slug test method. The resulting

hydraulic conductivity values ranged from 3.725 x 10.6ft/min at MW930106 to

-- 2.824 x 10.3 ft/min in well MW930105. The higher values are generally more typical of areas

where wells receive water from saturated sand or gravel and the lower values are more typical of

areas where wells receive water solely from the fractured shale.

Using the above estimated hydraulic conductivity values, gradients, and a range of estimated

effective porosity values from 5% for the fractured shale to 25% for clayey gravel,

- ground-water-flow velocity was calculated as ranging from 0.64 ft/yr in the fractured shale to 96

_j ft/yr in the clayey sand and gravel. The abandoned FPTA and fill material at the OU do not

extend into the saturated zone (Figures 1-6 through 1-8).

F:kPROY_6037884_S'_OU LFSLF'INAL_ICHAPI.FSkIuIy 17. 1995 1-6
501 40

Depth to ground water ranged from approximately 10 ft to 35 ft below grade. Seasonal and

yearly fluctuations in the piezometric surface at OU-1 have been documented. Fluctuations

ranging from 0.50 to 5 ft were measured, with the highest ground water elevation associated

with measurements taken in spring, and the lowest elevations associated with August

measurements. Figures 1-9 and 1-10 show a representation of the potentiometric surface from

29 October 1993. Shallow ground-water-flow patterns at OU-I are influenced by the surface

topography, and ground water typically flows toward topographic lows and migrates toward the

drainage channels. These drainages are discharge points for shallow ground-water flow. The

rate of ground-water discharge to these drainages varies seasonally according to precipitation

and snow melt patterns.

1.2.2 Site History

OU- 1 contains the former FPTA located in the southwestern segment of EAFB, near the

southern perimeter of EAFB, northwest of the alert apron and east of Kenney (formerly

Bismark) Road (Figure 1-3). OU-1 covers approximately 10 acres, and consists of a centrally

located shallow, bermed burn pit and surrounding land. No containment (liner) was installed

under the old FPTA. The FPTA was operated by the EAFB Fire Department at this location

from 1942 to 1990.

OU-1 includes the former bum pit areas and a steel aircraft mock-up which was set ablaze for

fire training exercises. The location of the bum area within the former FPTA has changed

several times over the years. Aerial photographs of EAFB dated 28 May 1952, 8 October 1954,

25 August 1962 and 19 June 1968 show numerous areas of staining presumed to be a result of

titre training activities within the former FPTA. The extent of the historical burn pit locations

based upon aerial photos is illustrated in Figure 1-3. The training exercises conducted at the

FPTA involved simulation of aircraft fires and spills, and consisted of dispersing various fuels

and solvents within the burn pit area, and subsequently igniting and extinguishing the titre. Fuels

used during training exercises included flammable products from various Base operational areas.

Waste materials burned in the FPTA included solvents, oils and aviation fuels, particularly JP-4

(USAF, 1989).

Prior to 1972, training exercises were conducted by pouring fuels directly from 55 gallon drums

onto the soil of the bum pit. The burn pit soil was not pre-wetted, and in the summer, up to two

bums (1,000 to 2,000 gallons of liquids, each) were conducted daily. In 1972, a 20,000 gallon

above-ground fuel tank, a 1,000 gallon UST and underground lines connecting the tanks were

installed and connected to the bum pit. These tanks are empty and no longer in use since the

new FPTA area was built, and are in the process of being abandoned (DeYoe, 1993). Since

1972, exercises conducted in the FPTA area consisted of 200 to 300 gallon bums (approximately

10,000 to 15,000 gallons annually). The fuel used in these exercises prior to 1984 consisted

primarily of waste JP-4, but also included waste oil and solvents. Clean JP-4 fuel was reportedly

used between 1984 and 1990. The practice of pre-wetting burn pit soil with water prior to fuel

application was implemented in the late 1980s. Extinguishing chemicals used during the ftre

training exercises have included aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), halon, protein-foams,

carbon dioxide, dry chemicals, and chlorobromomethane (USAF, 1989). The former FPTA at

OU-1 is no longer in use and all training activity now takes place at the new FPTA.

F:WRo.r_o37884WS_OUI.'FSWINAL'_ICHAPI.FS_uly 17, 1995 1-7
4i"

__ ___ . .".." _ ),'Is =_, _' "+'IV . , \ "_\ f .1" I" _ i

</'" .I ',, _ X ! "h._...-- "_fk E _- .¢" / _%\ I -', _ , _ , ./" /' < .<iTx.._\ " \ I \ . +1

r_'• h', ...... ,--i""._ .x: _/ \Xi'.,x_ ( .","jIf J _\\\ ......... t \ \ _ _ E _ io_ ............................... .+._ ........Y:_- -_ , _ ..-,_I .......7'_\\ h _ I i , "_ k _o_1_

" .Y i ._" %11 -<iiL..-:::::::_S x_ _ '/ I I I > i _"I_

Z_ .D!......./ _.v 'xL_'F" .l / ,/ I )_ / / / _ I = --" /-;,' -"--T ....... 1t //z'_ / x _ ". ......_' P / _ ,,i / r _ k_ / / _ _ ........ ""'-- ....... j "_._ x_x , x_ ....... v . .-" -_ _

................ ::_................. ..._ .,. _,. _<_ f I_ ,_/, c:;_=o _ i

....._........................................... I '\ /, \\ \ _ _ ' _

_<k>i_".i/k.......................................L_, t _ ] '_ 3'(1 _i,,//\ t t __ {\ "\ ""' 'i\_ !\ _ 18

t ,-._.-_ _ .... / X _ , _ __.... .....-._ -",-/-'.'_-" I _ I ',__'_ ........"' ' _. ."/>" ." _.- -: .+" / _ I i !iD_'i!_'____"_,lt <I k t '. I .. / _o @ _ i!. ,Jl I

.'.-T..-"/ / , , 3!F!F!F!F!cjR /.i"/" ) H _- " / ,_ I_H ,<,_:_._ I _ ;

..,-" /--' I = io

"X /,7.11111i;)I ii //'?,.

'L_" %+. i_ o , ' 7f]_l_,' iIp Ji.__/J_>'/l _ £

. "....... _ i__i_--_ r.'/.'liG+, i l i'[ __x" _o_

U ".'f i ] .- ' II f '/ .... -. I -

H L_

I_ _ .......':= ''":=:.: -.: '.._--=':= ::" il I :, .,. _.-.,f") ,,tl w __ _ i#i i_E _'

_ $ - ' o_. _ ozt= _&_ _ _ - _',.k'-_ m

_o i / t 2-- "_...io_ zOrn c_ o I_I c_ J_ crTI cn "r" z z p _ m I _ I]£

_\X"-'-Z] _ r-,. f_"---_', Jt II l_ v . .-P" I,\W _z_-, I _ ,,.,,--r,,._ _,...? _ _'l m_ -':_

, ¢ A - _P_ i_ ___

_--_---'--"--_ - /--4,-- _ o • < ,_ _ ' _ £!_ _._ t'tt_l_l#_l) ' _ _ __.q_ i II ....... _._!l__

L I :gO'.]l_ll[ _661/C0/90:31Vg

l_-_- _MO\IGO-I/IlG!_'_A]N\SNOZINOI4\:I :3_VN ONIMVNCl
i / __ i _k.I _ il / i / {............... _ i z _

.d / oo _/ / "1 i".................d / t i <_

/ - ° i_ / d il 1 _ "'_ i

i_ _ / °= _._"_ / / ..J _ ii ri / _o<< _ ; / / "" l! i 1 o<,=,_

" ......... "!i i "\. "°

/ __._,_d _ "----" 12 _ %. _:_ {i / 1 {

/ "'-As'it"-\ _ ! , _1 It i t <":'

'_:#::::77: L "=:,

......' .......'- :i=- £

, ,...., ,_ @......... ,/

_I o .- . °o

" -IL co . I_

/"/i/,'; '..../ 1, /J I/I ,,;,,"H _' zJ-----_ _ IF is'l

>- _iiI

i 11//,i> 'i _- 0 0 ZZ

, _ I II "i- _ I._ 0 .,.,\. • I i / / / _-J • _

"'i _-'_" _ l ,¢ / z 9 _z_ z_ u.l_" ___.

_--_-_.___-_"- \ 00 / _ / e ,,,___ _=._o___.<.-,__.o, .............. _~"-_ "'_- ' _ 0 I_ #i _ _ Z u- 0 _ ........................... 0 13[') " _ 0 I/_ :=lO"_ ,t'_'l -- I_ II 0

• __i.X 013 _ r_ r_ ,,-', "-if- bqJ ,iT l"l J,_ I_,.-_ _,-,.ZI#_

o e...,.=,_f 1 - . I _ / / ,,-,.,o _i o,,,_# ,,,_ _<.oo_,. ZL,.i

-- iW =_ I 09, ,_' __ N __( / / . i , _I _o._ _ _< z-- _-z-- ,., ..... _a_--__, _,, --=_ -,,0,-.r-.- -__,,__._._0 •,.-C._ il • ,,,"1_-- o ,9,,_ o "' _"'o !_o • , _il _ _ : z,,,, -=_ o _ _!_\ ,,j ,,, eq , I//11/ w - _ ooo o_ _ _ _z n o I ' n 0 I_ e,"ee z

<q ,-:_ )_. o • < ,i, '7"- II'1 .. _-_='__ I

9#:01 :]_li g66 ItG l/ZO:31V(]
1_ ! " _

- 501 43

The new FPTA was built 600 ft to the north-northeast of the former FPTA in 1992 and started

operation in 1993. The burn pit of the new FPTA is an approximately 100 ft diameter, circular,

concrete-fined depression. Water and waste products associated with training activities flow

_ through a collection system and are piped to a nearby oil/water separator. A 60 ft wide

reinforced concrete apron surrounds the perimeter of the new burn pit.

-- 1.2.3 Previous Investigations

Environmental investigation activities at EAFB were initiated by the Air Force in 1985 through

-- the preparation of an Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Phase I Installation

Assessment/Records Search (USAF, 1985).

-- A two-stage, Phase II investigation was conducted between 1987 and 1989. Stage 1 of the Phase

II IRP study was conducted in 1987 and 1988 (USAF, 1988); and Stage 2 of the Phase II

investigation was conducted in 1989 (USAF, 1989).

A Remedial Investigation, including a Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Treatability Study, of the

site was subsequently conducted in 1993 and 1994 (USAF, 1994).

1.2.3.1 IRP Phase II Investigations

Phase lI sample locations are shown on Figure 1-11. The following field investigations were

completed during Phase rl.

Soil Vapor Survey

_ Two soil vapor surveys were conducted at OU-I as part of the Phase II IRP Study (Figures 1-12

and 1-13). The results of these two separate soil vapor surveys indicated the following:

• Organic vapor readings were reported in soil vapor samples northeast, south, and

southeast (within 100 ft) of the bermed burn pit. Migration of fuels through

gravel related to surface spills and training-related events appears to be the cause

-- of the elevated vapor readings. The direction of near surface/overland flow of

product was concluded to be generally toward the south and southeast following

the surface grade.

• A trend of decreasing concentration with depth was observed at all sampling

locations where multiple depth readings were obtained. According to the IRP

-- report, this trend was the result of fuel product vapor residue in the near surface.

Subsurface Soil Samples

A total of 22 borings were drilled during the Phase II, Stage 1 and 2 field programs

(Figurel-11). Six borings were drilled during Phase II, Stage 1. Three soil samples were

- collected from each of the six Phase II, Stage 1 borings for laboratory analysis. The resulting 18

--- soil samples were collected from evenly spaced intervals from grade to boring termination and

were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOC), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC),

FAPROJ_6037884_'_OUI.FS_-'INAL_lCHAPl.F$_/uly 19, 1995 1-8
501 44

"<',\ ;-- l/ \ \ -

"_ / _o' \ -

i +_ __-.---_-__r+ _

/

+ _,l b_-_ \ li_IL..'"---k..........

\ "_i_'-|_'_" O) A _ I1 l_l_ll_ _ \ ',_; us_

..... i__ 1 +_, \\ ,. .e/._yt------------

,,++,_ //_y/,y ,,

\ Ill !,_>.. _. I?"i\. I'__.

=._,-'."<'=- _ _ _ -",.,%_'_"% . . tt

0 Pt,l#_ l. STILE2, 5E_ll_IT,SIMPL[

• _ II _'l'i_l_I,. 51illllC[S_l. Sli/"L_

# ! it,i 2, I _ ! 250' 125' o 25o>

b.,_ EL..LSWORTI'-I ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE OU-I (FPTA)IRP PHASE II,STAGE

AIR FORCE BASE RAPcID_, SOUl_DAKOTA I AND 2 SAMPLELOCATIONMAP

PROJECTM(IR DES... DRA_glBY CHECKED. SC_.E I_TE IPROJECTNO muE

MGL ,_S SHOWN I FEB95 I BO578.B4 1-11
w

N _23 500

LEGEND \

• IRPPHASEIf,STAOEI

SOILVAPOR SURVEYPOINT

(_.

/

o 25,3" I25' (Z 250'

:ill® - SCALE

ELL'_WORTH ELLSWORTHAIR FORCEBASE OU-1 (F'PTA)IRP PHASEII,

AIR FORCE BASE RAPIDcrr_S. 0Lm_0_XOT* STAGE1 S01LVAPORSURVEY

__ _ LOCATIONMAP

-- _._ DRAWNBY CHECKEDBY S _'_

_l STAFF SHOWN FEB 95 60378.84 1-12
:,_ 501 4G

11

\r • I,! d

l :_',_..\_///.</_'---

4\\\ . _\\,_,\'.

a:

2_' _25' 250'

_" SCALE

g=

_=- _ OU-1 (FPTA) IRP PHASEII,

,C_ EI-LSWORTH ELLSWORTHAIR FORCEBASE

_ AIR FOFt_: BASE RAI_DCITY, SOUTHBAI(OTA STAGE2 S01LVAPORSURVEY LOCATIONMAP

= PROJECT BY DRA_N BY HECKEDBY PROJECTNO ROU

oo_<_- I STAFF SHOWN 95 60378.84 - 13
- 501 47

. oil and grease (O&G), extraction procedure (EP) toxicity metals, and EP toxicity pesticides.

Sixteen additional borings were drilled during Phase II, Stage 2, and 10 of these were logged,

"-" lithologically classified and one sample from each boring was collected for VOC and total

_ recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) analysis. Tables I-1 and 1-2 present Phase II soil

boring results. The remaining six borings were drilied to install piezometer (i.e. two, threepiezometer clusters). These borings were not sampled.

Soil borings drilled in the area during the IRP investigation indicate that the site is underlain by

a silty clay layer, up to 15 ft thick, with some discontinuous lenses of sand and gravel The clay

-- layer in turn was found to be underlain by a sand and gravel layer ranging 2 to 15 ft in thickness,

and interfingered with discontinuous clay lenses. The sand and gravel layer which was

considered to be fluvial in origin was not encountered in all borings and appears to pinch out to

-- the west and south of the FPTA. In particular, a 4 ft silty gravel lens was encountered during the

Phase II, Stage 2 borings beneath the bum pit. Fill materials consisting of loose gravel and hard

clay was encountered in the southern portion of the site ranging from 2 to 10.5 ft in thickness.

The fill and alluvial deposits were determined during the IRP investigation to overlie gray to

black weathered shale of the Pierre Shale Formation. The weathered shale interval ranges in

-- thickness from 13 to 20 ft and overlies unweathered shale. Based on IRP Phase II study borings,

the Pierre Shale surface appears to be sloping, generally to the south and southeast. Figure 1-14

illustrates the cross-sectional view of FPTA geology based upon IRP data (USAF, 1989).

Shallow Surface Soil

Six shallow (0-6 in.) surface soil samples were collected during Phase II, Stage 2 and analyzed

for VOC and TRPH. Analytical results are presented in Table 1-3.

Ground Water

A total of seven monitoring wells and two three-piezometer clusters were installed during the

IRP Phase II investigation at the FPTA (Figure 1-11). Two wells were installed and sampled

during Phase II, Stage 1. These samples were analyzed for VOC, SVOC, O&G, and priority

pollutant metals. An additional five monitoring wells were installed during Phase II, Stage 2

(April-May 1989). During Phase l'I, Stage 2, ground-water samples were collected from all

seven monitoring wells and analyzed for VOC and TRPH.

The reported analytes from both ground-water sampling events conducted at the FPTA are

presented in Table 1-4. During Phase II, Stage 1, it Was noted that non-aqueous phase liquid

-- (NAPL) was withdrawn from well MW870102, while developing the well. During Phase II,

Stage 1 sampling, it was noted that approximately 2 in. of NAPL had accumulated in the well.

NAPL was also observed in MW890105 during Phase II, Stage 2 sample collection. These

- reports indicated that the NAPL was of hydrocarbon origin.

Stream Sediment Samples

_.. During Phase II, Stage 1, three stream sediment samples were collected from the dralnageway

located south of the site and from Pond 001 (Figure 1-11). These samples were analyzed for

F:kPROJY_)37854kFS'_OUI.Ie$_'INAL\ICHAPI,FSkluly19, 1995 I-9

- ; _ . 501 49

_-_ _ c-] V V V

¢D

_- _a _ _ ___.a_.

V V V V

r./'J

_ vv 'dv

oo

_ _ _ _ §_ _- _ _-_, <_ o_ ' ' o° " • • ,..._ ,.-_ V V

_,..,

<_ _ '_',o ° _ "

- _:=

_ _ _ _° . . .

©<

_la_ < o_ ' • I,=Ir...) _ _ vv

© Zu.,

O< < _ ' o • •

z_ _ _ , , o_o . .

0..1 vv v vv

o _

_ _- _

_> _

--- _ _

_ _ _ __ __-_-_o_O_o il.
_ 501 50 -

,_ c,t'_ V V V _:

o

-_ "_ _ _o° _vv =

J.1_ V V V ._.

"o

, _ _ _ _ -_

e_

_r._ V V V oO

_ d

<m

.....

_ "_ -_ _

t- _- .<

• _ _- ;._

'= "_ "o "o "_ ,_ -- _ _ __ -

[.. ,--
501 51
5O[ 52

r,3 _ _

< "=

< =

= _ _ _

o= __ _, , ._

_ - N

_ s

M _ N

_ _ .'_

ZO _ u._ •<_ <..=, _ r._

0"

__.=__ _ , _,.

<N

oZ _
50! 53

- Z

! f i i i i

U2

r_r_ rmo

A _ _ " OC

_< _ ..... o

_O

-1[.O" _ N ........... *** * _.

< ,. NN=-

_ z_o _g° <

< _ o r- " O0

o

n_

$

_ -

•.- _ ¢_ __ _ _= -_

e

- _ _ :_ " _ _ _,1__
5,:,I 54

_ _ -

0

c_

_ _-_ =

_ _ _

V V V v_ _ _ _"

_- _ ._ ° o _ o-_

- _ "_'_ _ =

vo,_ "o_ _ _"o o'u

-_I_I-'°_ _._ _-_ = "_ = .-
• 53I 55

VOC, SVOC, O&G, EP toxicity metals, and EP toxicity pesticides. An additional four sediment

__j samples were collected from the drainage ditch downgradient south, and from the drainage ditch

upgradient to the northeast of the FPTA during Phase H, Stage 2 sampling (Figure 1-11). The

_ Phase H, Stage 2 samples were analyzed for VOC and TRPH. Table 1-5 presents the analytical

results.

Surface Water Samples

Surface water samples were not collected during the Phase II, Stage 1 investigation. Three

-- surface water samples were collected during Phase II, Stage 2 from the inflow, middle and

outflow of Pond 001, south of the OU (Figure 1-11). These samples were analyzed for VOC

and TRPH, and results are presented in Table 1-6.

1.2.3.2 Pilot Study

-- A ground-water recovery system and treatment plant was installed, operated, and tested during

September and October 1990 at OU-1 as part of the IRP, Phase HI Technology Base

Development Study at EAFB. The purpose of the test was to detemaine the feasibility of using a

ground-water pump and treat system at OU-1. This pilot system was still in place at the time of

the RI field investigation and consists of an interceptor trench equipped with a pneumatic ejector

pump. The trench is 115 ft long and 75 ft wide at its longest and widest points, and is

-- approximately 22 ft deep. The treatment system is composed of an oil/water separator, chemical

pre-treatment (to control the deposition and precipitation of iron and other cations in the air

stripper), air stripper, bag filtration (to remove solids and precipitated metals), followed by

activated carbon filtration.

A Phase Ill pumping test conducted at the FPTA predicted that a yield of 0.47 gpm was

expected from an interception trench (of the dimensions used in the pilot study) in the fractured

clay at EAFB. The pilot study established that the pilot ground-water treatment system

operating at an average flow rate of 745 gallons per day (gpd), successfully removed target

compounds from the ground water at the FPTA (USAF, 1991).

_ It was concluded that an intermittent pumping scheme which produces maximum trench

drawdown during the day and allows recovery overnight would be advantageous in reducing

total plant operation and monitoring time, and may also prevent bio-fouling of the air stripper

- packing. This pumping scheme would have the effect of lowering the average trench flow rate

to 338 gpd (based on 0.47 gpm).

1.2.3.3 Remedial Investigation

- To assess the impact of the OU on ground water, surface water, soil, and sediment, the following

field investigations were completed during 1993:

w

F:_PROPCz037884'tFS_UI.FSWIi_IAL\ICHAPI.FS'du]y 19,1995 I-10
[- _o _ --

;:> o

Z

o ._

Z

o

_ e- --

<_ •

m ,._

U_ _ ,, , _ , . , , ' _ ,._

_. _. _ _
- 501 57

TABLE 1"-6 OU-1 (FPTA) SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL DATA FROM PHASE II,

STAGE 2 IRP INVESTIGATION, ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE, SOUTH

"--: DAKOTA (1989)

Parameter EAF-SW01 EAF-SW02 EAF-SW03

3/89 3/89 3/89

voc (u m)

Methylene Chloride 11

-. 2-Butanone 16 -

TRPH (mg/L)

_ NOTES:

1. Data summarized from IRP Phase II, Stage 2 report (USAF, 1989).

2. Reported results shown in this table reflect only confirmed concentrations. Results that

were below analytical detection limit are not shown, and are indicated by (-) in the table.

F:xPRODI_037884kI_SK)UI,FSLDRAFT_I-6.TAB6 December 1994
-° ! ---

501 58

1. Soil Borings

• A total of 51 soil borings were advanced at OU-1 in conjunction with the 1993 _ "

Field Program (Figure 1-15). Samples from 33 of the 51 borings were submitted

for laboratory analysis, the remaining 18 borings were associated with field

screening samples and were not submitted for off-site laboratory analysis.

Locations of the borings were based on characterization of the burn pit, source

area, lateral extent of the source area, and potential downgradient migration of

source area chemical constituents. Boring depths ranged from 8.0 to 43.5 ft.

• Four of the 51 soil borings sampled for laboratory analysis were located within,

or adjacent to, the burn pit. Three samples (surface, mid-depth, and capillary

fringe) were collected from each of the four borings, for a total of 12 samples.

• The remaining 29 soil borings sampled for laboratory analysis were located

outside of the burn pit. Two samples (surface and capillary fringe) were collected

from 27 of the borings, one sample (surface) was collected from two borings, and

one duplicate sample (surface) was collected from one boring. A total of 56

samples were collected from borings located outside the burn pit.

• Laboratory analyses of the soil boring samples included the USEPA Target

Compound List (TCL), VOC, SVOC, and pesticides/PCB; Target Analyte List

(TAL) inorganics, cyanide, and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons

(TRPH) using SW-846 methodologies (Table 1-7). The surface samples (0 to 6

in.) were analyzed for dioxins/furans using USEPA method 1613 (U.S EPA,

1990).

2. Surface Soil

• Two surface soil samples and one duplicate were collected from locations near

storm drain outfalls along the west boundary of the alert apron (Figure 1-15) and

analyzed for TCL VOC.

3. Geotechnical Analysis

• Two soil borings (SB930109, and SB930115) were selected for geotechnical

analyses that included:

1) permeability (vertical hydraulic conductivity)

2) grain size analysis

3) Atterburg limits

4) moisture content

5) moisture-density relationship

F:_'ROJ_6037g84"_$hOUI.'_Cl17,INA995L_ICHAPI.FS1_-11Iuly
i, \,,I - \. _ . LI ', '--, ..,t,_,o,t':l"_lttl_l_______ A rct_llllllll i_ l i '-----,

! I i ell II " ""A o,o ' _.

" \ \, ....

..ie=,)_,=,i I-_ ::'°_ ......-::J

IW"'iT( _,-:,$i"!"'I£==='..............................

, Mo=,===,,==..=o,<,------_ ... _!.:o,i . _. 1\

/' _E'D,k_,_,_,2, _ _ _ "" "" I'+/

................SURFACE DRAINAGE _ ...... -,LL.'A-ZE--:_::.:.T__.__ .... i,,-

m-_ BASE BOUNDARYFENCE ...._i_.......,._ ...... i[_

, k _ ,_'-_. l

CONTOUR INTERVAL= IO " " ---- -A

DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY DATE PROJECT NO.

,_ 1994-FS MGL FEB95 60378.84

ELLSWORTH ELLSWORTHAIRFORCE BASE OU-1 (FPTA)SAMPLE AIR FORCE BASE RAPID CFIY, SO_TH _OT_ LOCATION MAP CHECKED BY PROJECT MGR, SCALE FIGURE

AS SHOWN 1-15
_ 50[ 60

TABLE 1-7 OU-I (FPTA) 1993 RI FIELD INVESTIGATION ANALYTICAL SUMMARY,

ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE, SOUTH DAKOTA

Number of Total

Analysis Sample Number of Field Trip Number t_)

Matrix (Method) Locations Samples Duplicates Blanks Blanks Analyses

Soil Borings TCL VOC (8240) 51(b) 68 5 2 0 75

(soil) TCL SVOC (8270) 51c_) 68 5 2 0 75

TCL Pesticide/PCB (8080) 51c°_ 68 5 2 0 75

_. TAL Metals 51c_l 68 5 2 0 75

Dioxin/Furan (1613) 33 33 4 0 0 37

Cyanide (9012) 51_1 68 5 2 0 75

TRPH (8015) 51c_ 68 5 2 0 75

Surface Soil TCL VOC (8240) 2 2 1 0 0 3

On-Site Analysis VOC (on-site) 64c° 64 2 - 1 67

(water)

Monitoring Wells TCL VOC (8240) 18 18 2 5 26

(water/Aug. & Vinyl Chloride (8010) 18 18 2 0 21

Oct.) TCL SVOC (8270) 18 18 2 0 21

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (8100) 18 18 2 0 21

Pentachlorophenol (8150) 18 18 2 0 21

TCL Pesticide/PCB (8080) 18 18 2 0 21

-- TAL Metals (total) 18 18 2 0 21

TAL Metals (dissolved) t8 18 2 0 21

Cyanide (9010) 18 18 2 0 21

--x....j (water/Nov.) TCL VOC (8240) 16 16 0 0 0 16

TAL Metals (total) I6 16 0 0 0 16

TAL Metals (dissolved) 16 16 0 0 0 16

-- Surface Water TCL VOC (8240) 8 8 ] 0 2 11

Vinyl Chloride (8010) 8 8 1 0 0 9

TCL SVOC (8270) 8 8 1 0 0 9

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (8100) 8 8 1 0 0 9

__ Pentachlorophenol (8150) 8

TCL Pesticide/PCB (8080) 8 8 1 0 0 9

TAL Metals (total) 8 8 1 0 0 9

TAL Metals (dissolved) 8 8 1 0 0 9

w Cyanide (9010) 8 8 1 0 0 9

Stream Sediment TCL VOC (8240) 8 8 ! 0 0 9

TCL SVOC (8270) 8 8 I 0 0 9

TCL Pesticide/PCB (8080) 8 8 I 0 0 9

TAL Metals 8 8 I 0 0 9

Cyanide (9010) 8 8 I 0 0 9

NOTES:

(a) Total number does not include MRD splits,

(b) Includes boring locations associated with direct push samples, which were not submitted for laboratory analysis.

(c) Includes 43 direct push sample locations, 18 monitoring wells (7 IRP wells and 11 RI wells), 2 piezometer locations, and one existing COE well

(EL9128),

F:'xI_OJ'_037S$4WS_,OUI ,FSYDRAF'I_I-7.TABX6 December 1994

w
5)1 61

4. On Site Analysis of Ground Water

• Field screen ground-water samples were obtained from 43 boring locations, and "--

analyzed for VOC onsite (Figure 1-15). In addition, onsite VOC laboratory

analysis was conducted on ground-water samples from 18 monitoring wells (7

IRP wells, and 11 RI wells), two upgradient piezometer, and one existing U.S.

Army Corp of Engineers well (EL9128), (Figure 1-15).

5. Monitoring Wells

• Monitoring wells were installed in 11 soil boring locations (Figure 1-15), and

ground-water samples were collected. The placement of wells was determined

based on field screen sampling and analysis data. One well (MW930106), was

completed as a site specific upgradient well.

• Seven wells from the IRP investigation were also sampled (Figure 1-11). One

well, MW870101 was located upgradient of the source.

• Ground-water samples from the 11 RI monitoring wells and the seven IRP wells

were analyzed for TCL VOC, SVOC, and pesticides/PCB, pentachlorophenol,

vinyl chloride, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), TAL total and dissolved

metals, and cyanide by SW 846 methodologies (Table 1-7).

6. Surface Water/Sediment Samples

• Eight surface water samples were collected (Figure 1-15). In conjunction with

the water samples, eight stream sediment samples were collected from co-located

sites.

• The surface water samples were analyzed for TCL VOC, SVOC, and

pesticides/PCB; pentachlorophenol, vinyl chloride, polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAH), TAL total and dissolved metals, and cyanide by SW-846

methodologies (Table 1-7).

• The sediment samples were analyzed for TCL organics, TAL metals, and cyanide

by SW-846 methodology, Table 1-7.

7. Background Wells

• Five locations across EAFB were selected to be representative of "background"

conditions (Figure 1-16). Soil borings were advanced, and monitoring wells were

completed and analyzed for the parameters outlined in the OU-1 Workplan. One

background well (MW93BG02) was dry, and has been abandoned. Analytical

results indicated the remaining locations were not representative of naturally

occurring concentrations due to the reported presence of Target Compound List

constituents and TPH (JP-4) in the soil and ground-water samples. Consequently,

existing ground-water data were assessed, and six alternate "background"

F:WRO J_5037 $84Xb'_OU 1.I_L_rlNAL\ ICH AP1 .b'Skluly I9, 1995 1-12
501 62

• ! _-::::_':,b;._:;;-._:-.--...-L..,-L_£"i J3' .::;...--.':._.,_,. "-,, \,

--, xv ;"\\ / "_'_":'"t N_ ...._....! - ",,\, % ..¢ i i"_. " I

-- \ //:-e)_:-X ".. _\ \ ............ i

: -_,_ %.*-<,>'2';_\.' , .................,----.........'..... /

kY-/_" \_' >t "\i ,;, I ,-_,_,,- _ v" _-dl- J!. G iB ",,,,,v._ A \/ ......'_..................... -..t..':L..:._:."7..... .i"s_la_. _

"-. i B: .,"m; .--- _.... - " '" .:-:-'._:......-i..,7_ ......... ': |

_.sse;_COl ..,.,_>:s .'-.Tf :: ,:_<'_{__T_ ----i

---- I L- ",: \,% ...H ._ _.,i L • ....................._J " . ,U'_ i_- , "7 _!-_i _:I

!, " -_" \_ , \, t'..i..i =_ _i /

i o ,-...,_ii \ " ,.xX ) ,cJ_,_i _'_;,:_;.':_i w.,_sT_v_,,.n_-,ll

L..-t:;;:L_,_=ENT --.,.--._. k ",, i !" _" _-.

-- LEGEND _ ;_._'-<"--._t" W,.:, --.__ I -

OU_l J [', _'::_z:_:_::_ ,,/'?.'w"_ _bsr,, % %\.._ ...........j- ......... %. OPERABLEUNITS .x.. _"_ ; ...... ,,A_r: _,_,r*'_l

- 0U-2 LA.NDF REILLSI & 6 (LF-0 .,( -o,) 2) -T_ ./ _____ ___J

OU-3 LANDFILL2 (LF-03) .N_,.'-'.:.;.R

OU-4 LANDRLL ] (LF-04) c/::r:_:

OU-S LANDF1LL4 (_LF-05)

-- _ OU-6 LANDRLL 5 {LF-OB) /

OU-7 LOW LEVEL RADIATIONWAb_E BURIALAREA (RW-07) oo-B _<PLO_O_O_C_O_S_O_AREA• P_,,_OSPL ,LL_SS-,,)

/ OU-9 OLD AUTO HOBBYSHOP AREA (0T-15) !. _..::::_:

OU-IO NORTH HANGARCOMPLEX (ST-'9)

OU-11 BASE'WIDEGROUNDWATER ....._ i

0U--12 HARDRLLNO. 1 ......._/::::::: ::::: "(_ MW BACKGROUNDWELL DESIGNATION

-- o SB BACKGROUNDSOIL BORINGDESIGNATION

@ I 1994 FS

_" ELLSWORTH ELLSW0RTHAFB LOCATIONOF ORIGINALBASE-WIDE

L_ AIR FORCE BASE RAPIDcrn',s0um_KOTA BACKGROUND(BG) WELLS -- _ AND S01LBORINGS

-- °°-°'-°I STAFF"=°'AS SHOWN EB t r;95 '-°=r° I 60378.83 1-t6
J

501 63

locations were identified as "Group 1" background wells (Figure 1-17). Seven

separate locations were identified as Basewide surface (0-.5 ft) soil background. .._:

• The Group 1 background wells and borings were analyzed for the parameters

indicated in Table 1-8.

• One well, MW930106, was installed as the OU-I specific upgradient well.

8. Ecological Characterization

• Quantitative terrestrial vegetation data were collected from 45 one m2quadrants

within OU-1. The OU was divided into four quarters, and three random transects

were placed in each. Quadrants were placed randomly along each transect. Data

collected from each quadrant included the percent vegetative cover, the number

of species, a qualitative disturbance factor, and wildlife observations.

• A vegetative cover type map was prepared for OU- 1 using quantitative data

obtained from the vegetation surveys, topographic maps, aerial photos, and visual

observation.

• Wetlands on OU-1 were identified and characterized based on the presence of

wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. The assumption was made that

hydric soils were likely to be present if the first two parameters were also present.

• Pitfall traps were used to sample the terrestrial soil fauna community at five

quadrant locations. Two pitfall traps were placed at each of four quadrant

locations. One of the five quadrants received three pitfall traps.

• A bird survey was conducted to record avian species present on OU-1. The

numbers of birds observed were counted along transects which were chosen to

allow observation of all habitat types within the OU.

• Reference areas were chosen to provide an off-Base benchmark against which the _

ecological data from OU-1 could be compared. Activities carded out at the

reference areas were terrestrial vegetation quadrant sampling, pitfall trap

sampling, wetlands characterization, and a bird survey. Sampling techniques

followed those used at OU-1.

• Benthic analyses were conducted in Pond 001 and in the drainage downstream

from this pond. Samples were collected along shorelines in the bottom substrate,

and around submerged aquatic vegetation. A habitat assessment was conducted

in the field to assess the overall habitat quality. At each benthic sampling

location, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, Ph, and conductivity were

measured. In the laboratory, benthic samples for identification and analysis were

randomly chosen using a numbered grid system. =

F APRO Jx_50378g4_FSM)U 1,P'_kr'TNAL\ IC"HAP I./:SXJuly 17, 1995 1- 13
\ /

i

! /

1.li."f_- .- . ' " ' " " " ' " ' " ' '_" ' • " ' _ " ""- _'' "' _ _ " ' ' " • '- ..1, t

I I., .5,,.-t:.-._.d...<,..,:F,..:_,.:,_1 . :_._! - •'._'. ;. \ \ ! '. ." -L "_t_ s_3o !ol . •,. _:-'.-¢....../:-:. • .L,,... .. •.. . .' . .. . .' . ,_)1 ",,, . - .- -. . . ( . 1

1'I 4.' .'" .'." .'." #.."-'." .'." .'." .'.'.'." .'.'I'.", ,'_.... ' ".' .'." .'i j . ._. _ _!_ ...... . . . .. X_. -.. , .... >.... , ................. /..-...-... 1_ J......I ....._,..I.I _..... .. ........,,_, ..............

"+ _, "7 _--, _. ._'r_'_" \ c,_,, _",._- ......... ___

_. . _ -.,r-..._=.,_._ ..... .,,_ =,. . . , , ,

"_.."% ........ ;. , %:..... _._ #_:_c,._,=...,tL.._.._.... _ _, "''-- i"

\\ ' :::UI, " i i _ '1 Ii I i "-_ / n _" _:

,,,, _# ,,_ \%!X, ? _ r_ /...... ,',, ,,,, "%\ Ix ( \_\_ \. ,/ f / I Ill i ....... ii .....i I " ". \\_. t. _ ; Ill* ! ......... i .....,$, ,,_m=,_ I \. ".- -,. ,.-./ 1 ....... ..-" ,t (.. ",.,! ',, \ _\\ _: _ _)tJ ...... ! t ; . t ,..... i.... I ., "'._., ..................p,: .,, _* ,_') _, |

\K, 'I /

.........17............. \ \ '_ '_' > _'£__' _''j'_ _ * _;{'_' '_ ' I'-., '_ "'_;, !t ,,--,

I .... ..._ _-; .... "" '\ _\, "- .......... 4_ .........................L.J ,.._ -.... /

,, \ ,_W _ _. ,;, . ,,, _.. _._ ],.. ..... t ,;, , ,' ............... _ -_i)k_ , ........._ .... _._, ,, =,,,_ .o ,,

, ,' ...........X. _.................. / ..... i _ _j_x 1_:' "%v ,,/<_ _ ......i_ #* ¢,-_'_>._, x ,_' __ ,,_ I, :, ' " - k.............\ \ n . ........ .; _,,.... ,_:_........,,.... .I ,. .i_ '__ • ..........

.........., "_. "7"'_'": >-. } _-_-..:_'_iK_-.-_..,,.Y ; _{ I "";_:=:=.... /',% ' ,,.,_,

, ( . \ ,_ _ _.,_.__._ .........._. ,,.. .... i . -'. " _;t ", _ " _ _....

_. \ \ _7_:,\ % _.'_) . \_ i;' "_ ;_ ':, " l[!_ _'< ;_i _,, t&" 'I _ ......

• , . . _:'" ..'" '_: _ .... _1'!. _ _ , "" _,,'it _ _>.... ,

; // \ \ _- z2-_x "q-,.\',._/..d_'_ _, 'i J IP ! _ _, _ 4 d H , ,/; _ "_y'igw_r"" I; "% J:" ¢'" "".... _ _ 'k ...."_'_ "" .-_/_Zi" < )_;- _-_,._'._q;"_......... .=... k_<_.'==_r.:''_.__JV! ' k i ._9_' L .,r, _...... /_--_ I' "_ .. ;': ._ -- ,2-',.\ " _ x" 2 ":'_ _.-z_"._ ' , ..$...-.._. $::_.......,,,,'_'"1""-,_'<"=',::::,z _.=4_'_"='_"__ _= ...._ ;. " _"+ _'- "-......... / //., 4/ \ \ ¢ .s...... _.':o:._#_ .....,I.llf_ I,, _1i,_;,1." o_il ,,_C .z--"-_-,.

•_'--- d..\ 6/" k \ 1_ )> I.:_ZX.i ,':x:',,'t i_-_ _ _,tI I ,ii _ _ ..........I"

,; !...... _ _ , \ '-. x'_,v;-_:,\i \',...?" __t " r _._!_-":i"W;".`_........._:_' \ ]d;Z-%t

N if ........, /.>.c. i _ x _..J_ :_-.-@._ I ..... t !-, '.... \_;;{-f-

•"; ".".._ s _"..... _..:. -\ \ i _r ..',>_. "J_;? :if............. -f""=h-/_,b -;_:._.-_............,,.c...::.... <--,'I ¢ > " " ' _-_%, /-i \. "-_.. ' \ \ l .f" _,, :/',_'_". / I\ 1 ..... "-...,if .-_ ,.- -"11 'Y '_

..... \ ..... '-" ' _ ' ' J " t ................... '

. ."!.'. • 1_! _t ,.X "_\," ' -V." •N \ , i& _, I _t ",. , i' -4,iu', :'I ,_. 'o' ...... ;'. . " .', ................ -.' ,"_. _ , "_, , " I r '. tj / - " "\ • I ._._,:L\. U \ ".\--. ,'k ,'&% ,i -_ i _ ":,, I I ril [_:_ 1_.... _I t-

' <:_....................... ' _i--._' _ ii _ \ -- "_\,_tVW,,-._, \ ', _::--""TT,. _;_ti;'-r .........._,,_

.... "_ --_ ,. ! X',".',,_ _ J' .I." . .'\ _ ._,\-,_ I>"_-_. ' ,'_li,, <,/- I I , _"l .........

k_)_ "- ' '......... ' '_ ...::.:::::. r+ " . " _ ' "-. 2 ; _........."--',';.........

,.- -_; I,JU I • -...-., <4,'=.>.. .._'.'.,_........... _ ,,, ,, , o -=,,,.,;.-. :,/, ?>. ,, ,,\ J _ SgD /! \ -_.y" i _ ! • " • ' • "'_,, t' "¢, _J,_ % >,

__.. ",)4;as_l,._ & 22,1/ d ; .., _ _ "X%. \:x_ ,_.L" ' - " • " ._-_ ii ":_.J_..-.=-_"" ;'_!I it !i " "%, " >"_', _'.="-:.:-.--'-;>._-_'-_ ! v,,_ _, ",,,'_'k,-,_ "_. .-/. ".' -_i-_._ _ ; '!, i i '\ \\ 1", ,_ill_'.' .'.i " . .' ._l se_oz_ ! [ il il l, ,-".......'k, x, I i ......................_s_t.'_;.__: ,'.- .' IF / _1 , I):..,!........._x:::__:;:,..,, "t,/ ............. "...... ' .....----J .......................... L_,'_ ,--" h[ ....f:'::;:"-"........_ I

....... _.. (",,I i __ S' t !| _-- _-"'---",'J'_,_,_-_- -- _ '<. I

_ LLh[I'_U: ' ,-' J L if !i_ , ",,_

\ ,, '1 ----- BASEBOUNDARYFENCE , +.

BACKGROUND SURFACE SOIL \ /2 ....-.,_ J i! ti7..

SAMPLE LOCATION \"'- "[ "i) I,!

f'lkMw BACKGROUND WELL DESIGNATION i ili i i

IIJSB BACKGROUND SOIL BORING DESIGNATION t..... / I/;

OU-I FIRE PROTECTION "':::;:::--.-,...._il............ 41_,

TRAINING AREA (FT-O 1) _:-::_::: l_:.-=.,m;.:':.'.:_'_

OU-2 LANDFILLS 1 8¢ 6 (LF-02) <_ iu_

OU-3 LANDFILL 2 (LF-D3) _ .1<}._,-._..,, _,_

OU-4 LANDFILL 3 _LF-04_ .......:',:!_--/ "_::7;:_2_.:Z:_- _

OU-5 LANDFILL 4 _LF-OSJ t:"11_ X _ " ll=lllillll'lll'i='_lll_ '_/

OU-6 LANDFILL 5 (LF-06) '7:,,!:.:.!.1.............;:._. _ ...................... ',,:2I:.i,{_.._::::

OU-7 LOW LEVEL RADIATION WASTE BURIAL AREA (RW-07) _iU:::::2_i:Z::_::t_......................W _

o_,_ ou-8 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL AREA & PRAMITOL SPILL (SS-11) ...................:"::t_!_-_:'_:

#_ OU-9 OLD AUTO HOBBY SHOP AREA (0T-15) , , _]__"_'.-_-_ _c: OU 10 NORTH HANGAR COMPLEX (ST-19_ _60o 0 1600 , ._

G- OU-11 BASEWlDE GROUND WATER I I _" "_:':;_U'_ .....

__,_ OU-12 HARDFILL NO. 1 SCALE I _ ....

<z_• _ _ 1_ FS 9ESIGNED BY DRAWN BY DATE PROJECT NO.

o-__ _ ELLBWORTH ELLSWORTHAFB LOCATIONOF STAFF DEC 94 60378.83

-7-7- AiR FORCE BABE RAPIc_D ,SOUTH_X0T^ BACK6ROUNDWELLS CHECKED BY PROJECT MGR SCALE FIGURE _6J

_<_ AND SOIL BORINCS TR AS SHOWN 1-17
- 501 65

TABLE 1-8 BACKGROUND GROUND-WATER AND SOIL BORING SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS

SUMMARY FOR OU-1 1993 RI/FS

Number of Number of

Sample Field Total

Parameter Locations Samples Samples

-- SOIL BORING ANALYSIS (Group 1)

TCL VOC 61'2 6 6

-- Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (Jet Fuel) 61'2 6 6

TCL SVOC 61'2 6 6

TCL Pesticide/PCB 61'2 6 6

u Cyanide 61'2 6 6

TAL Total Metals 61'2 6 6

Dioxins/Furans 01"2 0 6

Pramitol 25 E 2t: 2 2

w Explosives, HPLC 012 0 0

Radiologic Screen 0L2 0 0

SURFACE SOIL ANALYSIS (Basewide)

TCL VOC 7 7 7

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (Jet Fuel) 6 6 6

-- TCL SVOC 5 5 5

TCL Pesficides/PCB 5 5 5

Cyanide 5 5 5

TAL Total Metals 7 7 7

Dioxins/Furans 2 2 2

Pramitol 25E 2 2 2

Explosives, HPLC 2 2 2

w Radiologic Screen 0 0 0

GROUND-WATER ANALYSIS (Group 1)

TCL VOC 6L2 6 6

Vinyl Chloride 61'2 6 6

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (Jet Fuel) 0_'2 0 0

-- TCL SVOC 61'2 0 6

Pentachlorophenol 6 .'2 0 6

Pesticide/PCB (TCL) 6 I'2 0 6

_ Cyanide 6 _'2 0 6

TAL Total Metals 61'2 6 6

TAL Dissolved Metals 61'2 6 6

Pramitol 25 E 2 L2 2 2

-- Explosives, HPLC 01'2 0 0

Radiologic, Screen 012 0 0

w NOTE S:

1. The original 5 Basewide background wells identified in the FSP are not used as background data for OU-1. One

of the wells was dry, and concentrations of VOC and TPH in the other four indicated that they were not

_ representative of background conditions.

2. The 6 background wells that were used for OU-1 were upgradient and cross gradient to OU-2 and OU-4. Data from

ground water samples from these wells did not indicate impacts associated with anthropogenic activity from EAFB.

F:WROJ36037884"u_S_OU1 .FSLDI_AF'_L-_,TAB_6 December 1994
51,1 GG

9. TreatabilitySudy

• A 36-hour pilot test was conducted using a single SVE well and twelve

monitoring points (Figure 1-18) on 11-12 July 1994.

• Offgases contained 0.03 to 2.94 lbs/day total chlorinated hydrocarbons and 1.49

to 175 lbs/day of total hydrocarbons detectable by a Flame Ionization Detector

(FID). An estimated 1.07 lbs of chlorinated hydrocarbons and 93.1 lbs of FID

hydrocarbons were removed during the 36-hour test.

• High flow rates and low vacuum pressures indicate a favorable lithology. Soil air

permeabilities were within acceptable ranges. Excellent contaminant removal

occurred during the test, and the radius of influence (80 to 85 ft) was well within

acceptable ranges. All indications are that SVE is feasible to implement at this

site.

1.3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS

b

1.3.1 Sources

Based on the data collected during the RI and from previous investigations conducted at OU- 1,

there are three potential sources which are contributing chemicals to the soil, sediment and

ground water at OU- 1. These potential sources are the former FPTA, stocm water run off from

operation areas upstream of OU- 1 and historical pest management practices. __

Training exercises conducted at the FPTA involved the use of fuels (JP-4) and waste solvents.

These exercises consisted of dispersing fuels or waste oils/solvents in the burn pit area and

subsequently igniting and extinguishing the fire.

Storm water runoff and sediment in the drainage channels adjacent to OU-1 potentially contains

fuels, SVOC and pesticides. A specific source of these chemicals is the fueling operations

associated with flight line operations along taxiways upstream of OU-1.

Numerous pesticides have been and are currently used by EAFB Pest Management. Residuals

from normal use of these compounds are still present in shallow EAFB soil and may be expected

to migrate into storm water run off and consequently into sediment.

1.3.2 Ground Water

Organics reported in ground-water samples from OU-1 include VOC, and to a lesser extent

SVOC, which are a result of historical use of fuel and waste oil/solvent in the FPTA. Chemicals

were found in ground-water samples collected both within and down gradient of the fo_mer

FPTA. A summary of the reported compounds and their concentration compared to relevant

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) is given in Table 1-9. Seven VOC, one SVOC and one

pesticide were reported at least once at concentrations exceeding the MCL. Because benzene

was the most frequently reported organic compound above MCL, and is mobile in the

F:'_PRO/'_378_UI,FS_FINAL_ICHAPI,FS_uly 17. 1995 I-14
- _ 50/ 67

-- I GW

5

SB930101 V$15

0

-- P22

Vs22-_

135"

P7 _ Vd15 -- VeT P15

5

• ---- Vd30

P30

_ EL4L•--vdso LEGEND

VsP6060 • ESVE (ENHANCEDSOIL

VAPOR EXTRACTION) WEll

_ G) SVE WEll

O SOIL BORING LOCATION

• DEEP VANDOSEZONE

-- r MONITORINGPOINT

_- Z_ PIEZOMETER

±

f [] SHALLOWVANDOSE ZONE - MONITORING

2_

Z_

_J NOT TO SCALE

w _:__

E_ ELLSWCRTH ELLSWORTH AFB JULY 1994

LJ_ AIR FORCE BASE _ _,u enY,sol.reum'A TREATABILITYSTUDYLAYOUT Zr_e

I;I I _---c PROJECT k_OR DESIGNE Y DRAWN BY CHECKED _Y IFIGURE__ _ JSS TR I NONE 95 80378._"i 1-18
i

5_3I 68

_1_ _ _ _ _ "__ :_

0 u

Z g

<

Z

_ °

0

I:_ :_ ,_ _ _o= - o,=,_ oo = _ Z< o

Z'-'

_< _

Z=: z ==

r-! ,-=_. _ - _ _ _.8-8 -

_ _ _ _ _ _ooooo_ooo _ _ -

or/ ,,,_, _ _ -

-= =, _-

_, 8.=== .8 _ ,-,0

•-: - - ,4
- 5 ".,I69

- environment; the 10 tzg/1 isocontour interval of benzene in ground water (Figure 1-19) generally

portrays the area where organic compounds exceed the MCL.

_ Thirteen separate inorganics were reported in ground-water samples at concentrations exceeding

background. A comparison of the concentration of inorganics reported above background and

the MCL is shown on Table 1-I0. Two compounds, manganese and antimony were reported at

-- least once at concentrations exceeding the MCL. Regional and site specific background results

indicate that these two inorganic compounds naturally occur at levels in ground water that

exceed the MCL and their presence is not thought to be a result of historical activities at OU-1.

-- The background range was selected because it corresponds to a 95.4% confidence that the

computed mean lies within 2*Standard Deviation of the "true" population mean. The

reasonableness of this range is supported by comparison of EAFB background results to three

-- other studies (USAF, 1994). Dissolved arsenic was reported in four ground-water samples at

concentrations of 2 to 6 times background from locations within and downgradient of the bum

pit. In general, the remaining elevated inorganics were also collected from locations within, and

-- immediately downgradient of, the bum pit area. The source of the elevated analytes is

considered to be primarily a result of historical activities at the FPTA, although some elevated

inorganics may be a result of natural variations in soil and geologic deposits.

State of South Dakota Groundwater Quality Standards state that potential toxic pollutants shall

be below detection limits of currently acceptable sampling and analytical technologies until a

-- maximum contaminant level (MCL) is set by the EPA (S.D. Chapter 74:03:15:, 1992). Table 1-

11 lists these compounds. Ten of the compounds, which are bolded in the table, were detected at

OU-1. An eleventh compound, dibromomethane, was tentatively reported at a value of 15 mg/1.

1.3.3 Soil

w

Organics reported in soil samples from OU-1 include VOC, jet fuel, SVOC, pesticides and

dioxin/furans. In general, the highest concentrations of organics in soil are jet fuels associated

_ with past fire training activities. Total petroleum hydrocarbon (jet fuel) concentrations above

the State of South Dakota remediation criteria (t0 ppm) were reported in 7 surficial soil samples

and 14 capillary fringe soil samples located in and adjacent to the former burn pit areas. Soil

_ which has been impacted by past activities at OU-1 appears to extend from the surface to the

capillary fringe beneath the fom_er FPTA, and within the capilIary fringe from the former FPTA

to approximately 800 ft to the south. The only applicable ARAR's for organic compounds in _ soil in South Dakota are for TPH.

The most commonly reported inorganic compound found above background levels in surficial

-- soil samples from OU- 1 was calcium. Silver, lead, copper, cyanide and barium were also

reported once each. The most frequently reported analytes above background in subsurface soil

samples were calcium, thallium and lead.

In general, the subsurface samples with the highest frequency of elevated inorganics were

collected within the former bum pit area. The source of the elevated analytes in OU-1

-- subsurface soil samples is believed to be from a combination of bum pit activities and naturally

i.--- occurring variations in geologic deposits and soil. No distinct pattern was observed for elevated

inorganics in OU-1 surficial soil samples.

F:WROIXtO37884kFS'_)UI.FS'u_INAL_ICHAPI.FSUuly 17. 1995 1-15

i
XT I / \',. _'"_\ % ' ',\ _/:/"",, '. J ": " '-.' _ ,"............... _° , I_1 / i .... ,/ .\ , , X---, '_V'. ,' _ ' ,- .... i' 11 / / 692s _ \ \ ........ _ i I ,' : ....... -."_::'"" " "'-, (. _..

/-: _. "................. :' :J: : _ ; " '"" .. "'" " _"2",

/ / • -"........ ; " / - " ' U " _ wall

1 ' " J " \ \ _' "(`_

•_' "."-. _>":' X • i

"'--L".... < ) : ...................... _.,',' !

"'."'-. .\: _uwg_61o6 / .-"" ..........". _ii'-= _ _.

• ", .... "'-...'.',... _ _) / -=..........,_:<.............: -..',. i!!!_o_i / ".

' _, ""==:Z2,,=..::,""" // "'-.= , _ / =l _ =\=,:"_

. _, ..-.,-" \ /.., - -..... / AEL9 28MW

. .I',b_ : • \ .. ", ,, , , / . ' _ ' ',\ \ _ ,. \' _ \.J .... .i - /_ . • _.,, ik, \ _, - .. ..... .. ' \ ' i[ ...... , ! "i !i% '\ "._ _ ........ _ TPWO i_ " •..... '\ ', ,- ; "'" i , _ _ TPWO D ( ',

". ' I .... , " , \- (_)TPwo_s _ '

, ., _-g,TP1o_2_ -,- ,,'.A,,_7o o ..................:::, :............. /4 i i I :

., _\ -. ! ....)_i _ "_ , :'""':_"_ ;o . \ 1 . ..:

" ' "\ ", _ _ ':°'_"- :<:_ _ '_b. "..,. • i \ : ',,'_ _ \k_ _ , \ , ,=:: .....

• _ I, i '; /I/'i_7'7-77/11_ I _ ', .. i ',-.////_, ////////_.. : I '. k _ !_ i I \ _ . -

',i \, l'

', ,, i: ] I1!/ IIII1"1111111111_ i

,:...... _" I ',"

, , , ,. , ,,,,,, , !, i. _" .i i I//I_IIlll_t, YIIIII i i_ _MW93010/ .......' ?. • ',, :__t _M//.////X/X///// V' I.... Jj) _i_ '

", \ A ___:///',///////_'_ ;' , ,, .',_ /\.w.o_)__/////.////////A IX.w-0,0, .. .............

, .-...................................,,,.

/ ', '_ '... Y _.....................................i:::: ............:::-:

i \ _ " . ?...............................................

\ _ " i 2 ;" " - .... •.............................................

.! l , ,, /" ........

._- _ ', \ , , ,"

i ii ;i ",', '_'_ ' ,, , /,/

• -, i,,, :: / //

', "' ',. ,i_Y///////////// ,: // •.............._!.........

= " .................... _ ", \ _ ,_////////'//A _ !_ ". "-. ", :',, ', _ i ....................

-, -= _ • ,,'_/._l '_li -

.............. X\_,' _ _ _ : ,\ ,, ESTIMATED AREA WHERE _ """.._ ,, '", ", , \ \, -_'w._o,,o\

_//A ORGANICS EXCEED MCLs _ " \X ' "" 1 \ '-. Ii_.. \

6_ RP P EZOMETER _ (']_uw._oo_ ".,\_. ", \ \ _ _'"\, "\\

"-J CLUSTER/NEST _ _l_ k.',, k ", \ _ ".\ \.'\ "-....................................................... 7 ,, x_ i \ \ , \.\ ........ i! \\ -" ) I

• 1993 RI MONITORING WELL/ _ ............... ", ...\ i \ _ "\ "_.\ !

SOL BORNG LOCATON _ ............ ",\.\ i \ "\ \ _.\ i ............ : \\ '., ",, "_ \ \._ ! L

IRP, PHASE If,STAGE I & " . _ .........\_' \ ...... :,, .....' .-".....\ "-:............................. /

2 MONITORING LOCATION "-_ .._.'<% i "......) / " .. ================= ..................==============

\\ / / EXTENT OF REPORTABLE " "........... .,:.... ._.,,.",, _ i " .

COMPOUNDS _ ......._.......................... "....k. ........ " . "-.=

T _. .. .., ........a,_o I I I ES IMATED EXTENT OF "...... _ i ......'.''.''_. "" ""

REPORTABLE COMPOUNDS "'*'_" -_I, l;:jlk_wg_0_,,(."_":'-': ....... "'".... "...............

(1/2 DETECTION LIMIT) _. • .... !,:' .......2:'::......... ".. ...... "

_ '................................. " k ..........:::::::::.................. ................:..:::.::>.-

_; _ KEHN_y ROAD

............ SURFACE DRAINAGE _ :l.i "................... :::7:'::Z...............r_'II.II.:Q:-.I:.:.:,::'_iT::_:)-4 T:.,:c-

:/ ..... .... I I I BASE BOUNDARY FENCE

_" _ooo TOPOGRAPHIC ELEVATION ABOVE _ !j_".: 'i' ,,,,,J

" MSL - ONTOUR INTERVAL= 10 ,,,,,,= "_. ..:' / " , i O

o

_: NOE: USEDNOVEMBE1993RES R ULTSEXCEPTFORMt_J30111(OCTOB1903) ER 20o'0 2oo'

NOTE:THESUBSURFACE ISOPLETHSHOWNR S EPRESENTOUREVALUA'IIONOFTHEMOSTPROBABLE _ I

_j CONDITIONBASED S UPON INTERPRETAIION OFPRESENTLAVY AItABLEDATA.SOMEVARL_ONS SCALE

<= FROMTHESECONDnlONSMUSTBEEXPECTED,

o _ DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY DATE PROJECT NO. 1994 FS

_ ELLSWORTH ELLSW0RTHAIR FORCE BASE STAFF OCT 94 60378.84

__ GENERAL AREA WHERE

c_ AIR FORCE BASE RAPID cnY, SOUIH D_KOTA ORGANICS EXCEEDED MCLs CHECKED BY PROJECT MGR. SCALE FIGURE

STAFF AS SHOWN 1-19
- ::7 i. 501 71

TABLE 1-10 OU-I SUMMARY OF DETECTION FREQUENCY AND MCL OF

ELEVATED INORGANIC ANALYTES IN GROUND-WATER SAMPLES,

--" 1993 RI, ELLSWORTH AFB, SOUTH DAKOTA

No. of Maximum Mean (2) Background

Occurrences Reported Reported Range

Above Concentration Concentration MCL (mean+/- 2 x StD)

Inorganic Analyte Background(l) (pg/1) (pg/1) (lag/l) (_tg/l)

Barium 4/17 971 744 2000 < 103

Dissolved Barium 4/17 965 644 -- <103

Total Chromium 5/17 7.9 7.5 100 <3.5

Cobalt 2/17 34.0 26.1 -- <6.5

Dissolved Cobalt 3/17 37.6 23.3 -- <6.5

Copper 1/17 24.7 10.0 -- <5.0-14.55

Iron 8ti 7 6290 1740 -- <22.0-682

Dissolved Iron 7/17 6230 3780 -- <22.0-67.04

Manganese 3/17 5540 1092 200 <7.0-2222

Dissolved Manganese 3/17 5820 1184 -- <7.0-2340

Mercury 2/17 0.21 0.19 -- <0.05

Dissolved Mercury 3/17 0.15 0.13 -- <0.05

Nickel 2/17 75.9 31.8 100 <15.0-37.15

Dissolved Nickel 2/17 71.7 37.2 -- <15.0-32.34

Selenium 2/17 128 48.9 -- <5.0-I 12.61

Zinc 2/17 45.0 25.4 -- <15.0-29.13

Dissolved Zinc 2/17 I6.7 16.6 -- 2.32-16.08

Antimony 3/17 11.0 7.1 6.0 <3.0-8.1

Dissolved Antimony 8/17 15.6 11.3 - <3.0-12.03

Arsenic 5/17 15.4 3.8 50 0.13-2.2

Dissolved Arsenic 7/17 12.3 5.5 -- 0.52-2.15

Lead 4/17 4.1 2.8 15_ <2.47

Notes:

(I) November sample results used except for MW930111 (October sample results). August sample results

not included due to possible effects of elevated turbidity.

(2) Mean concentration of reported values

(3) Lead level is action level at tap.

F:kPROJ_037_$4WSa.OU I.FgL!)RA b'/_ 1- I0.TAB'S6 December 1994
" 50[ 72 -

TABLE 1-11: STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA GROUND-WATER QUALITY

STANDARDS - POTENTIALLY TOXIC POLLUTANTS

Acetone Endothall --

Acrylamide Epichlorohydrin

Adipates Fonofos --

Bromobenzene Glyphosate

Bromoethane Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

Butyle acetate Metolachlor

Chloramben Methyl ethyl ketone

Chlorobenzene Methylene chloride

Chloroethane Metribuzin

Chloromethane Napth alene

o-Chlorotoluene PAH

p-Chlorotoluene Parathion

Dalapon Phenol

DCPA Phthalates

Dibromomethane Phorate

Dicamba Pichloram _

m-Dichlorobenzene Simazine

1,1-Dichloroethane 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)

Dichloromethane Trichlorobenzene

1,3-Dichloropropane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane --

2,2-Dichloropropane 1,2,3-Trichloropropane

1,1-Dichloropropene Trifl uralin

1,3-Dichloropropene 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane

Dinoseb 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

Diquat

Note: Bold chemicals were reported in the OU-I RI.

F:WROJVoO37884WSkOUI.FSXDRAPUAI-I ] TABXt7 December 1994
m

- - - 501 73

1.3.4 Sediment

--....j

VOC, SVOC and pesticides were reported in sediment samples collected both upgradient and

_ down gradient of OU-1. The presence of these organic compounds in surface water samples

collected at location SS930101, upstream of OU-1 indicates that their source is from areas

outside of OU-1. Possible sources for organic compounds in sediment samples are the

operations areas along the taxiways and flightlines.

The majority of the inorganic analytes were reported in each of the 9 sediment samples with the

-- exception of cyanide and thallium which were reported only once, and mercury which was

reported in 5 of 9 samples. Silver was not reported. The source of the inorganic analytes is

though to be a combination of surface water run off from both outside and within OU-1 and

-- natural variations in geologic deposits and soil.

1.3.5 Surface Water

Three VOC, one phthalate and one polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) were reported in

samples collected from surface water locations during the OU-1 RI investigation. The organic

-- compounds reported in surface water samples were not reported in soil or ground-water samples

from within OU-1 and are believed to be a result of surface spills outside of OU-1.

-- Reported arsenic, manganese and nickel exceeded Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria. The

source of the inorganic analytes in OU-1 surface water samples is not known, but is suspected to

be from upstream sources outside of OU-I.

1.4 FATE AND TRANSPORT

The primary physical route of migration for chemicals from OU-1 is through surface water

runoff or through shallow ground-water transport and discharge. Surface water runoff from OU1 flows into an southeastern or southwestern stream and then flows into Pond 001 located

immediately south of the OU. Overflow from Pond 001 continues downstream and eventually

leaves the Base to the south of OU-1.

Ground water from beneath OU- 1 discharges seasonally into the two drainage ways and

eventually flows toward the Pond 001. Deeper percolation of ground water to regional aquifers

is not likely, due to hundreds of feet of relatively impermeable shale underlying the site.

Pond 001 and wetland areas are considered a sink for sediment transport, and while fine grain

-- material in suspension may flow through these areas, silt and larger sized particles will be

trapped and settle out. The sediment within the wetland and the pond areas is not considered

mobile unless the channels are physically disturbed.

1.4.1 VOC

Data provided from the field investigation at OU-1 indicate that specific VOC present at the site

....- are primarily aromatic hydrocarbon type compounds of fuel origin (benzene and ethylbenzene);

and chlorinated solvents and their breakdown products: trichloroethene (TCE), 1,2-

F:WROJX_037884W$_OUI.F$_NAL\I_API.F$_/uly 17. 1995 1-16
w

531 74

dichloroethene (1,2-DCE), 1,l-dich]oroethene (l, 1-DCE), {,2-dich]oroethane (1,2-DCA), and

vinyl chloride. VOC are known to migrate through the environment by meansof the

atmosphere,soil and water. Migration of VOC are affected by their partition coefficient,

sorption potential, aqueoussolubility, and high Henry's Law constant. Volatilization,

biodegradation, and sorption arethe throe potential fate and transport processeswhich govern

the long-term distribution and persistenceof VOC in the environment. The primary

environmental fate of VOC at OU-I is percolation to the ground water and transport with the

ground water to either discharge zones along the streams or with ground-water flow to the south.

1.4.2 SVOC

Data provided from the field investigation and risk assessment at OU-1 indicate that specific

SVOC presenting an unacceptable risk are primarily PAH type compounds (fluorene, and

benzo(a)pyrene) in surface soil and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and chrysene in ground water.

Volatilization, biodegradation, and sorption are the three potential fate and transport processes

which govern the long term distribution and persistence of SVOC at OU-1.

Based on their relatively small Henry's Law constants, PAH are not expected to volatilize from

ground water and surface water to a significant extent. Furthelmore, based on their low vapor

pressures, PAH are not expected to volatilize from soil. The PAH compounds have a high

tendency to bind to dissolved organic carbon in the aqueous phase and sorb to soil organic

carbon. The primary environmental fate of PAH at OU-1 is sorption to soil. The primary

transport pathway for SVOC at OU-1 is via transport of suspended soil particles in storm water

run off.

1.4.3 Pesticides

Pesticide chemicals of concern at OU-1 include: dieldrin, endrin, lindane, gamma-chlordane,

alpha-chlordane, heptachlor epoxide, and p,p'-DDT in surface soil due to unacceptable

ecological risk; and heptachlor, alpha-BHC, and gamma-BHC in ground water due to

unacceptable human health risk. Volatilization, biodegradation, and sorption are the three

potential fate and transport processes which govern the long-term distribution and persistence of

pesticides in the environment. The primary fate of pesticides at OU-1 is sorption to soil,

however, percolation of lindane to ground water is considered possible. With the exception of

lindane, the reported pesticides in ground-water samples are considered to be the result of

elevated turbidity in the samples. The primary Ixansport pathway for pesticides at OU-1 is to

streams through surface water run off.

1.4.4 Metals and Inorganics

In general, metals can fore,both organic or inorganic compounds in soil and sediment. Metals

may sorb to sediment and soil via interaction with organic matter or clay particles to form stable

complexes that are relatively insoluble in water. The fundamental factors that determine an

analyte's affinity for either soil or water are the soil-water chemistry and the adsorbent surface

charge deficiency that requires an accumulation of ions near the solid/liquid interface to

neutralize the surface charge. The cation exchange capacity (CEC) is most commonly controlled

by the clay fraction of a soil matrix. The primary environmental fate of metals and inorganic

F:kPROJ_6037894_FSXOU I.FSXr--INAL\ICI'IAPI .F$'duly 17. 1995 1-17
- : 50! 75

. analytes at OU-1 is sorption to soil. The primary transport pathway for metals and inorganics is

to the streams through surface water run off. Metals and inorganics were reported at elevated

levels in ground-water samples indicating that some percolation to ground water has occurred.

_ The environmental fate of inorganics in ground water is transport with the ground water to the

south. Because inorganic analytes preferentially complex with common soil elements,

inorganics and metals are not expected to be transported far beyond their source area.

1.5 RISK ASSESSMENT

-- 1.5.1 Human Health

The purpose of the human health risk assessment was to determine chemical constituents

-- occurring in OU-1 media that pose an elevated risk to human health. The risk calculations were

based on pre-determined exposure scenarios and assumptions.

-- 1.5.1.1 Exposure Assessment

A current land use exposure assessment was evaluated for adult Base personnel engaged in

-- maintenance activities on the OU (grass mowing). Exposure routes included in this assessment

were: surface soil ingestion, dermal contact with surface soil, surface water ingestion, dermal

contact with surface water, inhalation of volatiles associated with surface water, and sediment

ingestion.

A construction scenario (earth moving), a residential scenario, and an adolescent wading

scenario were evaluated for future land use exposure scenarios. The following exposure routes

were evaluated with future exposure scenarios as part of the risk assessment:

• Ground water ingestion, inhalation of volatiles associated with ground water

during showering, surface soil ingestion, and surface soil dermal contact

_ (Child/Adult Resident).

• Ingestion of soil associated with digging, and inhalation of soil particulates

_ (fugitive dust) and volatiles during digging (Adult Construction Worker).

• Ingestion of surface water and sediment during wading, dermal contact with

-- surface water, and inhalation of volat'tles associated with surface water during

wading (Adolescent).

-- 1.5.2 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment

Noncarcinogenic Risk

Non-carcinogenic risks at OU-1 in excess of a HI of 1.0 exist for the future

residential adult who either ingests shallow ground water or showers with shallow

- ground water (for both the central tendency and RME exposure groups). Risk is

driven by the volatile compound 1,2-dichlorethene.

F:WROJ'_60378g4_FS_OU I .FSWIN ALMCHAP 1.FSUuly 17. 1995 1-18
501 76 -

Carcinogenic risks which are based on the use of central tendency exposure ..._i

assumptions indicate the sources of risks in excess of I x 10.6are due primarily to

the presence of several organic compounds (benzene, vinyl chloride, 1,1-

dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, TCE, alpha-BHC) and arsenic in the shallow

ground water, and are incurred during ingestion or showering by a future

residential adult. Risks which are based on the use of RME exposure assumptions

indicate there are excess risks again associated with several organics (benzene,

vinyl chloride, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, TCE, alpha-BHC, bis(2-

ethylhexyl-phthalate, gamma-BHC, chloroform, chrysene) and arsenic in the

shallow ground water used as a drinking water source and for showering. In

addition, there is risk greater than 1 x 106 associated with the ingestion of the

PAH benzo(a)pyrene in surface soil (ingested by a future residential adult), and

combined risks from dex'mal contact with surface soil in excess of 1 x 10-6,

attributable to no single compound. Sediment-related risks greater than 1 x 10_

are due to combined risk from arsenic and beryllium (ingested by a future

residential adolescent), although neither inorganic analyte exceeds 1 x 10.6by

itself.

1.5.3 Ecological Evaluation/Risk Assessment

The ecological evaluation of OU-1 was based on a combination of data and literature reviews,

field and laboratory analyses, analyte evaluation and screening, and preliminary risk screening. -._

The pertinent findings are summarized below.

In terms of ecological value, OU-1 presents a highly disturbed environment with dominant

features such as the abandoned burn pit and surrounding gravel patch. Notwithstanding the high

level of disturbance, habitat features such as grass fields, weedy old fields, and wetlands are

prevalent in the eastern and southern sections of the OU. These could be used intermittently by

some receptors.

A variety of potential receptors were identified that could forage in OU- 1 habitats. These range

from the benthic invertebrates and amphibians inhabiting the drainage channels to birds and

mammals. Any of these are potential receptors of elevated chemical concentrations.

Rare, threatened, or endangered species are unlikely to use OU-1 for more than very transient

habitat. Most of these species would not be expected to occur on OU-1 at all because of the high

disturbance level and lack of habitat.

Terrestrial vegetation and soil fauna communities sampled outside the bum pit and surrounding

gravel area do not reveal patterns indicating chemical-related impacts. This finding is consistent

with the relatively low levels and limited distribution of elevated concentrations in soil outside

the burn pit area, and with the active and disturbed nature of the site which appears to be the

primary control of biotic community structure.

[::WROA6_37 $$4kFS_UIFS'L_INAL\lCHAI._p3klu17ly.1995 1-19
- 501 77

Surface water does not appear to present sufficient risk to ecological receptors to warrant further

investigation on an OU-specific basis. Therefore, a Tier III assessment for potential OU-specific

"-" chemicals of concern in surface water does not appear to be warranted.

Similarly, sediment does not appear to present sufficient risk to ecological receptors to warrant

further investigation on an OU-specific basis. Therefore, an OU-specific Tier III assessment for

_ potential chemicals of concern in sediment does not appear to be warranted.

The pattern of surface soil chemical concentration indicated that the burn pit was the source of

elevated organic chemicals, containing elevated levels of jet fuel, pesticides, PAHs, and volatile

organics. Except for jet fuel, elevated concentrations in surface soil was restricted to the burn pit

and surrounding gravel area. An OU-specific assessment of surficial soil chemicals of concern

-- does not appear to be warranted.

Potential chemicals of concern could be an important component of an installation-wide

-- ecological risk assessment. These chemicals of concern would include silver in surface water,

cyanide in sediments, and lead and cyanide in surface soil.

-- 1.6 SUMMARY

Based upon the data collected during the IRP and RI at OU-1, the following conclusions can be

made:

• Physically, OU-1 is mostly covered with grasses and weeds. The burn pit area is

exposed soil and gravel. The site slopes gently to the south and south-east, inside

the perimeter fence. Outside the fence it breaks into two ephemeral drainage

ways, which ultimately flow south into Pond 001.

• The geologic setting at OU-1 consists of unconsolidated alluvium mantling the

Pierre Shale. A shallow aquifer exists beneath OU-1, but is not utilized as a

- water supply source. The closest water supply well is located approximately

2,250 ft to the southeast. There is no hydraulic connection between the shallow

_ aquifer and deeper aquifers in the area.

• The source of the surface water which flows through OU- I is primarily from

_ upstream Base operational areas. A minor amount of the stream flow is from

ground-water discharge.

-- • There is virtually no vegetation growing in either the burn pit or in the

surrounding buffer area. Existing vegetation on OU-1 is dominated by

introduced grasses. A small wetland associated with the Base stoHuwater

-- drainage system is located in the extreme southeast comer of OU-1. While the

wetlands on OU-1 are too small to provide much habitat, they are part of a larger

system which offers shelter, foraging, and nesting habitat for a variety of species.

• The identified chemicals of concern which pose a risk to human health include:

VOC in ground water and surface soil; SVOC and pesticides in surface soil and

F:WROJ_6037884WS_OUI._'ffqNAL_ICHAPI.FS'Ouly 17, 1995 1-20
to a lesser extent in ground water; metals and cyanide in sediment, surface water

and ground water. 'x_. /

• The primary environmental fate of VOC at OU-1 is percolation to the ground

water and transport with the ground water to either discharge zones along the

streams or off-Base to the south. The primary environmental fate of SVOC,

pesticides, metals and cyanide at OU-1 is sorption to soil and the primary

transport pathway for these chemicals is via transport of suspended soil particles

in storm water run off. However, percolation of lindane and some inorganics,

including arsenic, to the ground water has occurred, and these chemicals of

concern will migrate with the general ground-water flow toward the south.

• A ground-water plume exists beneath OU-1. This plume contains dissolved

hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents and extends from north of the former

FPTA to approximately 1,200 ft south of the burn pit. The source of the plume is

historical use of these compounds in fire training exercises at the former bum pit.

Figure 1-20 illustrates the general area in which chemicals of concern exceed

ARAR's in ground water.

• Chemicals of concern were reported in soil samples collected from the surface to

the capillary fringe in the area of the former burn pit (Figure 1-21) and in the

capillary fringe samples collected downgradient of the burn pit.

F:_ROJ_6037Sg4WS_OU I.FS_ClNAL\ICI-1A_I.FSUoIy 17. 1995 1-21
/ / -_ ...... "........ GO" _/" ' { .....

/

-i ", "-........ ;.. '

tt ,; ............ .. ......... '" I* "" --:°" - ."C;\ ',,

- -.. t_?>./" -- ................ 'ui ,,. \ \ /

L':L. ; !;-, .......... ' ] t

,

,.-..-'3 ....""-. "'. -. . ) ) £pO_=,_o1_ P9 3 O12 5_d.s'::"7; ........ ..................... ,...... - , ii l.J.... " " <" , __=

," -- \ \,< ..... - .:..- :.+" "._ i i i ......... i ',,

-,' ._,_ ====================== ,I _ "'-. -. /' i AELgI28MW ,; "_:'-.+\ f

- -- _ __ ->........T"-'-._........................... " ..\:_ , , .........................." ", ' .... . /.> , \ \ ;.',>,\ .-, %

,. -:,_ \ --. i \ "

_'_. % ,_ ".,."i ""

: + !.,! )_ID /i 7:"-__ '.

(",._ _:::::.::-..:-:..:.. "A...._,:..::_+

\ . "-\

t . \ /f-..; : .,

H "

i \ ' ".,. _.JoPg]Ot3_! = ¢ ....... .,

+ ' ',,',,I\L... _..,.'__m)oIO PJSB930116 7', _ \'- . _ _IJDP930112 .. ,

; /_ SBg30107

_.,o..o,o_ V'// Y?'/_ °'0"............. :

r-.." •_i%= .......................................................... ,,,0 _ 0141 ./ ," - .................... ::]:J .......................

o,_ ;, .....:];....................................................:

(_ i ! / /

{' ! (_ o"SB':m' ._mo.__ _ s.._o,+. ................................... DPg30142 ........ i-'E.L'Li. ........................... _

, k ' ." .;: ........ '[ " /:i II

" i .,._++?_ ,o y ......... ,........ • /./ / ...................................................... OU- 1

-. BOUNDARY ) "1',

/- ///i / • , // /

\ / ¢ sBg_oI_ ' m/Sa 9{_.013_/' .",I_-_T DP9501 _ 103 ,"

..... - r: _ /

,.&93wo,oo7 ' t B930135 !

i '

i ii ' .................. i ]0119 ' t"T SB930131

"" f 30115 _ _]: DPg3012g ......................................

\.. _ _ ...........................................

"-, i -, ,,t \ i L

;. ............................... _ ', _ ',, ,, ! _ SB_O21 ...................... " ' ' _ ' 0Pg30132 •

....... _, ,. ,, ,, , _/'/_ < ,,

I .......... "- " \\ ', g _._DP0_30115 i '. _, /k_'i_ '_- / '-,. '. ',", ', ': _ , '. i.K=._.._ \

/ ' \.\ ", ".. ; ", '- \\.. \ i ,,,. : -, \ \ . \ ...... "-..

_wo_oloo \\,_ ': \, \. ".... "\ ....................

LEGEND; , --..... _s°.+o1+o :,],k _!IgIIIl \ \ " _X x" " ..............................................

o ,=CLUSTER ..,=zo+== -\. %" \ \ -.. /N EST ""............. "" i ........•-r.,s=+_o2':'"\ '_ _)m_o 2+ "\ _-

1993 RI MONITORING WELL/ ...... % '(;_:;t_ml_ _._ ", WD_ g3012_ _ \ \)-'_ /"' SOIL BORING LOCATION ............ _ _'. \ Po+eoo+ ./ ...... "" "-:" ...................................................._ ......% ".. '.,, _ / ,tl_ sm_o_5" ...............................................

@ 1993 RI FIELD SCREENING/ %-, :'-_. _r" _ " _ 0_0' _ " "

% ,',+.... : ......_ / / ? -.

SOIL BORING LOCATION ......... ' -.'\.\ ..+/ +, ". "

a IRP, PHASE II, STAGE 1 & _ "--" • " .... 2 MONITORING LOCATION '- i .... -..'-_. -. -. -.. +._._ ._Oi,yo..

(_.,,_o111,........,.... o_5o_i;" .......;"........ .,,"_..... .......... .. ................ SURFACEDRAINAGE ........... t_i ....... " ].:i]...........-...................

-----BASE BOUNDARY FENCE 4i .............. ].-Y.....................;:":::::'•....... "

_°° TOPOGRAPHIC ELEVATION : ,_., o ABOVE MSL _ ,..... "

z _) -. ..... / ,+/:

_:l ....... .............................. ,,....... ::%:! _ 2oo' o ,,00'

_ NOTE: GROUND-WATERSAMPLESCOLLECTEDDURINGAUGUSTAND NOVEMBERI993 SCALE

<£_"

,.y_ _ 1994 FS DESIGNEDBY DRAWN BY DATE PROJECT NO. _o

_;i -4._+ ELLSWORTH ELLSWORTHAIR FORCE BASE EX)EI,rr OF MGL JUNE 95 60378.84 _"< REPORTEDCOO

nn AIR FORCE BASE R/)PtDCFPf,SOUTHDAKOTA IN GROUND WATER CHECKEDBY PROJECTMGR. SCALE FIGURE

ou-1 I AsSHOWI N;-20
i ii1= _ i n

" i.L...'L-- ' #

i .i /.\\ \ "_._\\\ \, i.. { i _ , ", ,,.j ,"..............................

i" " °'_ \_x " \-.:7-::--":, ., i' .... -.......:........ -- ,,

t/I t \\;:_ ". .... .liD"" .//#/ ; / / ". "'\ t" / .." ",-,_.. ../.4I: " " i)

:c \ "

'\ .... _<°.il "\ / I ,_, i

x

"". "-. \ I /'lililW930106 J .-"" - ..........--_ '

/"..... "-. "-. , i II_SB930127 .... ,,............... <: I " ' i iU690,=

•, "'-", "'-. "'... ;} _,_ _DI_30125+_':'''::::_'.... ._. _" "! \: i L_. / _

J "- "\ "'" ":........ ":/ _ _'" \ J " _ELgIIBMW d' "_;"""

............... ...............:?....-.-:............... \ , -- .

'!ii:: J:

I1 ,'.-, -, -..

' _ , / /'/"\*. \.

'! % , ,' \ \''-_\._/ . .. .\

.... \'_t.\ " • ' " i_ T_woii_ I/r-"_".... k

: i ,,\.. "--',TPWO,,S , ! I )

_w_7o_i -:::.:::...................... :_., ii ................. ,......l'[.:j ."

'-, ' i ,, • t,\ \_ \ '_b {..... :::

". • SB930114 ) '_ • \..- @o..o,,o 1, • ! !i

I \ ',,,., i!-7..::.)>i! ,

\ I , fr_.$Bg}OllZ.ti i _ i ' _'

I \ " _ " MW930107 , •. i \ , L ...ii J l_SBg;mllo '

• I _i ' ''_ SBI)3015t- ',-........:,., -,--'oP_3o._ ..... ', _ DPg30144 106

p

, .: ,102 5Bg3Ol(]7 itl 3 ...... / , @ov,so,os A ..............

i I >:. ................................. ...............,,,o

i

i I t',,', ', • '",, -" ..........................

[..... ..................................- ........

i I % ', " , _:hs._o_,/ ,,,.................... ::::: ........................... ....... ? " \,, \ _joP._Ol_S > ....................................

: l ' ,, ',\ >l',s./ ," " ._o,o_ - -.............. i ! \ : $B9301 III ,....... _ i_Wll§O104 / / <, : I i, ', "iX.. ,//

:. I _ \, _ :. 41 : .,._sdg_o_on / / , / ,_ ....................... _, _ I("_seg3oll3 k i , -" LA_opg30105 , , / / I (._!_SBg}OIIB ...................... :::..... f ........ """, ] I_ oPg3010g '_ x, _, _ _ t / ! %_ 0Pg30142 .. ........ .:........................ \ t : \ x M_ go 6ll _ ," t /"].- ........ t

', " , "'. .$B930137 _o _, i f " I

", \ i k _ "' - , ,_1_ SBg3Ol4_I t x ' • ' _', _" I i / _/ 0P9301¢3 / ..................... . "I '. , ,_1"_'SB930117 _ 1 / //" - ....................

- ._' I <' I _;;Z,_o _ _ / . / • ! ...................... " t "ili '., .. ." ,3/ I

', i / i _,, x 5B930115 t . /

'- BOUNDARY" /I _ , lh I " ' O'"]O I 1 ' _ '' I , ' / [ /t • , " sBg3o130] I'i _' _' ' _ • 13 '_, S T

[ I I ' i' k .... X 71 I \ P I I I': [ j '_

'I I " \ "- - ,,: fi_wg3oIog ' "

",, _ _ _ ',, • ,_IF Dpg30133 ...... • _ i _ " I ..........

..._ _ t _oPg_O3O \ i {l ", Sag 128 _ " \ l I i 1 1

" . 'i_ _ _ %1,_._0P__Oi1_ li".i_ViOP_0192n ......................................

-. , " \" ' , I!

-- k - \ • _ _.,,o_, " \ ' 1L o,_, li , \ _ \ _l 0Pg30127 I "+ _ ,_, I_l SB93 ........................

"- ............................. "'". / ", \ ", \ ] \ t _i_ 0Pn_0932

S S9 S ¢ _ ' 'L _ _ t I :

,.,o,,s , t 5B9301 5 , _ I

OP9301_O \ , , • \ ¢ DP9_0121 ; /_'_Bg3(]133 ,

I1 ...........- ', \ \ ,, _ _0_0 si _ ,,'\ "-

X ".-' ' -x,_, _ '. _ \ -.. \ ....... ,\ ',, , t \ , \\ \

_\ e ....:,,<,,:<:,Ic:bi_l_T'" "- "":'-_X,.""....................

CLUSTER PIEZOME-TER /NEsTIRP X ................... '' _X _ t _" . ". _ .

© ""- SB930122 _ g_0122 \ • \ '

¢ 1993 RI MONITORING WELL/ ..... _ _ oP_o,7 _ ". t3_7_ " "- \"-0- /

SOIL BORING LOCATION ........_ II \\.:. \ Pe,_o:o_ / ........ -'........................................ : ::::::::::.... :7

t_ 1993 RI FIELD SCREENING/ s "':\ \ : kJA o_o 2_ ". SOIL BORING LOCATION ...... .- -' "-'- _- /@f ', - ........................ -7- ........*) , --

IRP, PHASE II, STAGE 1 &

2 MONITORING LOCATION .... "_i i_ *-"..... """_'_t" "" "" ....

"" e'_" " " M w _O L_ I " ". , " " " " _#W ......... "

_B030150 ....... : .........

................SURFACE DRAINAGE _ ........... ,............................... -......... ::]'i ........... :::::.......... L: -.................... .::::::- I---BASE BOUNDARY FENCE _ ili .................... :::..................

_,::_........:_:

_l_o.- TOPOGRAPHIC ELEVATION IV i......", - o ABOVE MSL it "'_ "

--"_ _ ,i]i,.-"

,c_ .............. <..... i :=

7;, -...... ,.........".....................".......'_l ,'! \ _oo' o _oo' ..... L-_I_.-- _ . l 3:

_ NOTE: GROUND-WATERSAMPLESCOLLECTEDDURINGAUGUSTAND NOVEMBER1993 SCALE

>_

7=Ci ELL.SWORTH ELLSW0RTHAIR FORCE BASE EXTENTOF MGL JUNE 95 6037B.B4 < _-. REPORTEDCOCIN SOIL

c_'<(3 AIR FORCE BASE RAPIrl CITY. SOUTH D/_OTA BURNPrArREA CHECKED BY PROJECT MGR. SCALE FiCURE1_21

OU-01 I AS SHOWN
501 81

Section Tab
2. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this section is to present the development of remedial action objectives

(RAOs) for the media of concern (soil and ground water) and to develop and screen

_ appropriate alternatives for remediation of the media.

This section summarizes the process of identifying and screening potential technologies.

-- Specific goals of the chapter are listed below:

• Establish RAOs and clean-up goals based on risk to human health and the

-- environment and on Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Federal Standards,

Requirements, Criteria, and Limitations (ARARs) for the Area of Attainment

(Section 2.2).

• Identify Area of Attainment (Section 2.3).

-- • Develop general response actions based on RAOs (Section 2.4).

• Identify potential technologies associated with response actions including any

" appropriate presumptive remedies (Section 2.5).

• Develop alternatives (Section 2.6).

2.2 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

2.2.1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)

Remedial actions at Superfund sites must attain a level of clean-up that, at a minimum,

ensures protection of human health and the environment. Under this scenario, provisions for

_ identifying site RAOs are based primarily on considerations of potential risk to human health

and the environment. RAOs and potential site remedial actions must also consider

compliance with ARARs as specified by Section 121(d)(2)(A) of CERCLA.

In recognition of the unique characteristics and circumstances associated with remediation of

individual sites, neither SARA nor the NCP provides specific standards for the determination

-- of whether a particular remedy provides sufficient dean-up at a given site.

2.2.1.1 Definition of ARARs i

Applicable requirements are those clean-up standards, standards of control, and other

substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal/state

- _s" F:WROJ36037884WSXOUI .FSXFINAL\ICHAP2.FSXJuIy 18, 1995 2-1
50[ 83 -

environmental or facility citing laws that specifically address a hazardous substance,

pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstances found at a

CERCLA site. i

Relevant and appropriate requirements are those substantive environmental protection

requirements, promulgated under federal and/or state law, that, while not jurisdictionally

applicable, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the

CERCLA or IRP site and are well suited to the particular site. ARARs must be identified on

a site-specific, case-by-case basis.

State standards identified by a state in a timely manner and more stringent than federal

requirements may be applicable.

2.2.1.2 Types of ARARs

There are three types of ARARs:

•location-specific

•chemical-specific

• action-specific

A further discussion of each type of ARAR is provided below.

Location-specific ARARs may apply if the CERCLA or IRP site is located in an area that

has archaeological, historical, Wilderness Protection Act, and/or endangered species

significance. Wetlands considerations, and critical area designations are also potential

location-specific ARARs.

Chemical-specific requirements set health-risk-based concentration limits in various

environmental media for specific hazardous substances or pollutants. When more than one

chemical-specific ARAR has been identified for a compound, a screening process is used to

detemtine the specific ARAR to be applied. These requirements set protective clean-up

levels for the chemical of concern in the designated media. No chemical-specific ARARs

are available for soils. Ground-water ARARs are established by the Safe Drinking Water

Act MCLs.

Ie:WROP6037884WS_OUI.FSklelNALklCItAP2.FSkluly t8, 1995 2-2
$01 84

Action-Specific

_'-"_ Action-specific ARARs are not triggered by the specific chemicals, but by the particular

_ alternatives evaluated. Action-specific ARARs are technology-based performance standards,

such as the Best Available Technology Standard.

2.2.1.3 TBC Criteria

In addition to ARARs, advisories, criteria, or guidance may be identified as To Be

-- Considered (TBC) for a particular scenario. As def'med, the TBC category consists of

advisories, criteria, or guidance developed by the EPA, other federal agencies, or states that

may be useful in developing remedies.

2.2.1.4 Identification of ARARs

-- Table 2-1 provides an evaluation of ARARs for the project. This listing includes both

federal and state requirements. The impact of ARARs on individual remedial alternatives

will be further addressed in Chapter 3 of this document.

2.2.1.5 Circumstances In Which ARARs May Be Waived

-- Pursuant to Section 300.430(f)(3) of CERCLA, several conditions presently exist under

which all ARARs need not be attained. These waivers apply only to meeting ARARs with

respect to remedial activities occurring onsite. A waiver must be invoked for each ARAR

"-'-" that will not be attained or exceeded. Other statutory requirements, such as those requiring

that remedies must be cost-effective, cannot be waived.

-- Six criteria for waivers of ARARs are provided for by CERCLA Section 121(d)(4)i One of

the six is applicable to superfund lead projects only. The other five criteria are as follows:

1. The remedial action selected is only part of a total remedial action that will attain

such level or standard of control when completed.

2. Compliance with such requirements at the facility will result in greater risk to

human health and the environment than alternative options.

3. Compliance with such requirements is technically impracticable from an

engineering perspective.

4. The remedial action selected will attain a standard of performance that is

equivalent to that required under the otherwise applicable standard, requirement,

-- criteria, or limitation, through use of another method or approach.

"'_" F:WRO/_603758,_W$_OUI.FSL181_5 2-3 _NAL\I_IAI_2.1mSkluly
50[ 85

w

.__.® ®u. =

< _, _- _ _" <

,_ [[ _-® __ ®® _ _

o _ --® _ -® _-_'_'° _-_ -- = _ _:_ _-_

I.L <

"I-

_ ._ _ _ o_ --

o _ _ ® _ _ E - 0 - _3

II

ILl

v-

__ ® .

_._. __

.__ , _.___ -'".__ - ____ __ -_

rr _.

:_ 0 0 D 0

w _ _

0 _

- . ,, _ _ _ _ _-. ..

_ o ___|_ - _ _ -
501 86

_g °oo

u

m

_- _ _ _ o-_ o-a

o o o._. o o _ o_ _ .... _'_ _-_ =

_ _._ o

= u u = o = _-,.= (o

° _ -- LO

_ _ _ _:

® _ ._

_m
53]. 87

=: _ 0 0 0 0 "_i

:_o • _ _ _

= _-

_" _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,< -

.,:= _ _ _ _- _ _ - -_ :,_

_:__ - .- _:._ _ _ _ _ --

0

_ _

.. o

XLL _

-_ _. _ _ -= ._ •

| _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - O. _) ® Z

rn _ _ _ _ .

I--
w

_= __ 5_I 88

0

i_ m m . • _ ._ --E E

_ _ _i_ _ _-__ _ c _m

- _ _ _ _ i _ _

.. ,_ ..

=__

- i

I-- '_
m

501 89

5. With respect to a State standard, requirement, criteria, or limitation, the State has

not consistently applied (or demonstrated the intention to consistently apply) the

standard, requirement, criteria, or limitation in similar circumstances at other

remedial actions.

w

2.2.2 Remedial Action Objectives Methodology

Remedial action objectives are site-specific clean-up objectives based on the nature and

extent of contamination, the resources that are currently and/or potentially threatened, the

potential for human and ecological exposures, and the current and future uses of the site.

The nature and extent of reported chemicals at OU-1 are detailed in Chapter 4 of the RI.

Ecological and human health risks were assessed in Chapter 6, and have been summarized in

Chapter 1 of this report. The objectives specify whether clean-up is necessary, the extent of

clean-up required, area of attainment, and restoration time frame.

Remedial action objectives are developed to address any ecological and human health risks

posed by exposure to the site under current industrial land use and future residential land use.

As noted above, risk is primarily driven by the future residential land use scenario. In some

instances, the more conservative RME method indicates risk when the central

tendency/average method does not. Medias of concern identified in the risk assessment are

ground water, surficial soils, and sediments in adjacent drainages.

The OU-1 RI risk assessment identified twelve potential chemicals of concern in ground

water. Four of the identified chemicals (alpha-BHC, gamma-BHC,

bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate, and chrysene) have not been included in the evaluation of RAOs

due to low detection frequencies and concentrations. Three additional chemicals (heptachlor,

chloroform, and arsenic) were screened out because their maximum concentrations were

below their respective MCLs. PCE, 1,I, 1-Trichloroethane, and 1,2-DCE were added

because their maximum concentration levels exceeded MCLs. Non-carcinogenic risk was

identified in the adult future land use scenario for 1,2-DCE. Ground water ingestion and

showering were identified as pathways.

It is noted that the unconfined aquifer for which these risks are based will not yield sufficient

water normally associated for drinking/showering uses. A sustained yield of 0.25-0.5 gpm is

. a conservative interpretation of the potential sustainable aquifer yield at OU-1. Therefore,

developing clean-up goals based on the future potential use of the aquifer should be

evaluated during final remedy selection.

The only surficial soil chemical of concern identified by the OU-1 RI risk assessment was

benzo(a)pyrene. Remediation is not warranted as its reported concentration falls within the

10"_to 10 -7 risk range and is typical of an industrial setting.

w

F:WROY_037gg4'_S_OUI.F'SWINAL\ICHAI_2 _'duly IS, 1995 2-4 v
J

- 501 90

The state of South Dakota does have state regulations setting the maximum allowable JP-4

(as TPH) concentrations at 10,000 _g/kg. Additional source-area soil remediation would be

needed to prevent recontamination of the aquifer, The SUMMERS model (Summers, 1980)

_ was used to back-calculate estimated chemical concentrations in the soil protective of the

ground water. SUMMERS is an interactive computer program for estimating soil cleanup

levels. The model assumes that a percentage of rainfall at a polluted site will infiltrate and

_ desorb contaminants from the soil based on equilibrium soil-water partitioning. Using a

mass balance approach and assuming equilibrated, complete mixing in the aquifer, the soil

cleanup level is calculated from the original soil concentration, the concentration of the

-- infiltrating water, and an equilibrium coefficient. The model was developed to estimate

when contaminant concentrations in the soil will produce aquifer contaminant concentrations

above acceptable levels. The output files from the model are included in Appendix D. In

-- some cases, these concentrations are below reasonable standard detection limits. When this

is the case, remediation goals are based on the standard detection limits.

-- The OU- 1 RI risk assessment identified arsenic and beryllium as chemicals of concern in

sediment. Remediation is not warranted as reported concentrations fall within the 10-4to 10.7

risk range. Additionally, elevated levels of chemicals in sediment are considered to be due

-- to upstream activities; primarily runoff from OU-12. These activities will be addressed in

the FS for OU- 12.

-- For surface water, the OU-1 RI identifies four inorganics (Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and

Nickel) above ambient federal water quality criteria. These inorganics are not considered to

have originated in OU-l, therefore, they will not be addressed in this FS.

2.2.3 Remedial Action Objectives

Specific remedial action objectives for OU-1 are as follows:

• Achieve the ground-water clean-up goals set forth in Table 2-2. These goals are

based on chemical-specific ARARs.

• Achieve the soil clean-up goals set forth in Table 2-3. These goals were developed

using the SUMMERS analytical model in the absence of chemical-specific ARARs.

It is anticipated that PCE will drive the ultimate ground-water remediation due to the

chemical properties of PCE as compared to the remaining chemicals identified in Table 2-2.

Of these chemicals, PCE has the highest sorption coefficient, which provides an indication of

-- a chemical's tendency to partition between particles containing organic carbon and water.

For this reason, PCE will have the greatest tendency to sorb to soil media, thus reducing its

travel velocity through the aquifer. As a result, PCE will have the longest remediation time

-- frame. The other chemicals listed in Table 2-2 would likely reach their respective proposed

clean-up goals before PCE. If ground water were to be left to naturally attenuate, however,

other chemicals of concern would be more persistent. 1,2 DCE, due to its high maximum

F:WROf_6037884WSXDUI.FSWINAL\lCHAP2.FSkluly 18, 1995 2-5
r _ w

501 91

TABLE 2-2

OU-1 Proposed Clean-up Goals .__ Ground Water (#g/L)

Analyte Clean-up Goal Basis

1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) 5.0 MCL --

1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE) 7.0 MCL

1,2-Dichloroethylene (1,2-DCE) 70.0 MCL --

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5.0 MCL

Benzene 5.0 MCL --

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 5.0 MCL

Trichloroethylene (TEE) 5.0 MCL

Vinyl Chloride 2.0 MCL

TABLE 2-3

OU-1 Proposed Clean-up Goals

Soils (#g/kg)

Clean-up SUMMERS

Analyte Goal Estimates Basis --

1,2-Dichloroethylene (1,2-DCE) 41 41.4 Ground water protection

Benzene 10u_ 2.5 Ground water protection

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 10 10.5 Ground water protection

Trichloroethylene (TCE) 10u) 3.3 Ground water protection

JP-4 10,000 State Regulation

_)Note: When the SUMMERS model estimates are less than standard detection limits, remediation clean-up goals will be based on standard detection limits.

FAPROJ_O37884WS_OU LFSkDRFTFINL_CU I.TAB_I 7 March 1995
- 501 92

concentration (5300 _tg/L) along with its potentially long maximum half life of 95 months

(Howard et al., 1991) would drive the attenuation scenario time frame.

2.3 AREA OF ATTAINMENT

The areas of attainment for this remedial action are the source-area soils as shown on Figure

_ 2-1 and the ground-water area as shown on Figure 2-2. The areal extent of the source-area

soil attainment area was based on reported concentrations of chemicals of concern. Softs

within the attainment area are above the concentrations in the soil that may impact ground

-- water from their continued migration. The only chemical-specific ARAR for soils at OU-1 is

the state of South Dakota's TPH standard for softs containing petroleum products. Chemical

concentrations were developed at levels, that if the chemical remained in the soil, it would

-- likely not impact ground water. Table 2-3 lists the concentration goals for soils. The area

includes most of the historical burn pit area. Approximately 81,800 yd3 of soil are estimated

to be within the attainment area from the surface to the top of the Pierre Shale.

The ground-water attainment area was based on MCLs for the reported chemical

concentrations at OU-I. Plume maps generated from interpretation of RI data defined the

-- areal extent. Ground-water chemical concentrations within the attainment area exceed MCLs

for one or more of the chemicals listed in Table 2-2. One flush volume in the area of

attainment contains approximately 7 Mgal of ground water. It is anticipated that at least five

-- flush volumes would be required to reach the proposed clean-up goals.

2.4 GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS

General response actions describe the actions that have the potential to satisfy site-specific

RAOs. General response actions for OU-1 address two problem areas: (1) source area

remediation, and (2) ground-water remediation. Table 2-4 summarizes the general response

actions at OU-1. General response actions for this FS include no action, institutional

controls, source area treatment actions, ground'water collection/containment actions, groundwater treatment actions, and ground-water discharge actions.

2.5 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGY TYPES AND

PROCESS OPTIONS

In streamlining the FS, presumptive remedies and strategies have been incorporated. The

interim remedial action (IRA) for OU-1 (USAF, 1995) has also been included, and

-- references to the impact the IRA will have are made where appropriate. This section

discusses the presumptive approach and appropriate technology screening.

F:WROI360371.F88S4_' WSINCxOALHUAklP2.FiS' 8.1_, 2-6 du]y
501 93

I -J'i!', f ll '; I

I \ ',, ,-_,-,J_,-,-_",,s," ARF_AOF AI-IAINMEF-L-WI ',. I

I _ _.,. _"z'_/Z./K///_o, ,,0,,.,M_,H_ _.,. I

, . i:_.... _',,_//_/_ y.,///, ¢ ..............................-................' I

I_ , ,,. ', _/,,//W'/__ ,'_,:_,,,/_.........................:......... : - ' I ,i ",,\ \., 7///,//'/_//_/,_ _t/ ,.r,,_gso'"_"/ / "" "_2 ...................................................I

I , , _ _,,, ,, m, _////"/_MI_/'; / ," / z" _ _ ( '

I ". '. _,,00,,, "-. "'-> ,4,...':,_ / / ." // t I

'\',\ _'_, X "_'"" "'_" • /'" " "/ SB93C14

I I',,_ i , ',k_ "-..... / // / _ / I

• i,',, i_ i ", _o-_" " ," I '--_._=',_i___._OF. __,_s__o_,CALI

I ! _ ii I"', EE)s__ _£:,_' BURN PIT AREAS I

',. ii__'..," ". \_ ,,_ / T/ "

I 1⁄2 . , I

I _::;_\\ j ',, '_s,fo,,_; (_ ""'°'-" _ AREA OF A'iTAINMENT I

I t , X\ 'i fr_s._o..o ' k i . e 199. RI SOIL I

:I _ " \\" _' 4) i _..o,.. .o.,_.oc,,.,o_ I

_i I --. t '. \X ". ",, \ _, i ¢4-_°_ MONITORING/SOIL I

_1 ......... -4..................\ \\ ", 'k ¢::I_o_.o\i "_h\ _, BORING LOCATION I

z_, \-" ", ", ", -- -- --

.J \ '-:_\\, ,.._l \. _,&=, o =1 o-°1 -.. t, .-_ \\! ' ....... \ "X \ \-x. = _ _ !1 _I ........ _ _-_o'_o ,>..X_,d:Y_-o,,,"\ \, "-.. \ ' -- "--

=o=" "........._ .......... ,::%\ ',.b, ',. \. SCALE I

_I _ TITLE: FIGURE: DWN BY: APP'D: I

_<_|_ _, ELLSWORTH

AREA OF ATi'AINMENT FOR _ 1 STAFF TR I

}o AIR FORCE BASE ................ _-- DATE" PJT NO" '

_1-_ :SUUNUI---ANEA3UIL:5 MAR 95 60378.84t'1
- '" -,- , 501 _4.,

.... , ,.. ,,,, _-_ ", _ " \.,

,-" ',. ; _ i • _ ",-:_:Pwo_:s ] I tl J

v''_'_s _ _': "-'-'- --------"_'-- .-J/-. I II _ I i _--._.._ "----_.._ ' ./ ,

I I I , -,B_ ", "_ _" : GROUND-W(kT..ER I /--; I

"-, ! "I \ \_ ./ AREAOFAr_I'_,_NMgNT n ,,.'._._-; _1

" "" )'t \" ..... \ :, I " f"' " " _9301 _4

_\., i r; 193o"4 '9,_oJ,_

"_ _)"",\\"Ji___'" ' !'_ ; '" "..................................

sog' _13 . ' /

_,_,_,ii , R,CAL

_ooq_/'/////////z _gi , E_m_ IF/.,')AREAOFATI-AINMENT

, ii I,1993RISOIL

i, "",, \\ "',_"__.,'_,) " i !."_oP_=,.,_] BORINGLOCATIONS

- _ .......... --t-.................... "a\\'.. _ e_:_\ _ "_\- k I .oR,.GLOOAT,O. \ - \\_ ,, \\'-. _,=. o =

- _-_°_................._ @_9_o,,o,,-_,,Xk (_:_ "X \\ _- -SCALE

_,=, _ TITLE: FIGURE: DWN BY: APP'D:

_ I_ STAFF TR

__._ ELLSWORTH AREA OF A-FFAINMENT FOR 2-2 _.C; AIR FORCE BASE DATE: PJT NO: <._ GROUND WATER -- C3=<d3 MAR 95 60,378.8,
5::t 9,5

u_

e_ N

_ o ) ooo_N

m

_'_ _._

._= o> _-_=

-__. _ _ _ .>_= _ _ _._

___- _ _ _ __ _

z_<

e- 0 0

o o '= .=

"-" 0 o

[. ,,-
2.5.1 Presumptive Remedies 5,3 [ 9

As explained in Presumptive Remedies: Policy and Procedures (OSWER Directive 9355.0-

_ 47FS), presumptive remedies are preferred technologies for common categories of sites

(Appendix A). Presumptive remedies are based on the historical selection of remedial

actions for common sites. The EPA has evaluated the technologies that have been

-- consistently selected against the selection criteria set out in the National Contingency Plan

(NCP); reviewed available performance data on the application of the remedy; and

determined that a particular remedy, or set of remedies, is presumptively the most

appropriate for addressing specific types of sites.

The EPA notes that presumptive remedies are expected to be used at all appropriate sites.

While specifying specific remedies, the directives recognize and allow for the examination

for additional technologies or remedial approaches under unique site conditions. Benefits of

presumptive remedies include a focusing of resources and a tool for the implementation of

-- site remedy acceleration within the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM)_

Presumptive remedies do not preclude the consideration of innovative technologies should

these technologies prove to be as effective or superior to the presumptive remedy.

During the FS the presumptive remedy allows for the streamlining of the FS approach. This

includes the elimination of treatment technology identification, screening of technologies,

and the screening of alternatives. Refinement of alternatives and their detailed analysis is

streamlined in the process. This approach is possible because the EPA has conducted an

_v- analysis of potentially available technologies for the presumptive remedies. The EPA

determined that certain technologies are routinely and appropriately screened out based on

effectiveness, implementability, or excessive cost, or have not been selected under the nine

_ criteria analysis identified for the FS process. The detailed analysis serves to substitute for

the development and screening of alternative phases of the FS and allow the remaining

alternatives to be limited to variations of the presumptive remedy.

2.5.1.1 Presumptive Remedies for CERCLA Sites with VOC in Soils

v Presumptive Remedies: Site Characterization and Technology Selection for CERCLA Sites

with Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils (OSWER Directive 9355.0-48FS) was used to

streamline the FS process for OU-1. The directive establishes soil vapor extraction (SVE),

-- thermal desorption, and incineration as presumptive remedies for VOC-contaminated soil.

The directive streamlines the detailed analysis of alternatives within the FS. The

presumptive remedies are expected to be used for all VOC sites except under unusual

-- circumstances. Data available for OU-1 does not indicate any unusual circumstances that

may preclude the presumptive remedy.

-- SVE is the primary presumptive remedy. Performance data indicates that SVE is an

effective in-situ process that can be performed at relatively low cost. Treatability studies

conducted in 1994 confirmed SVE to be a viable remediation method. In situations where

_1 F:'_PROIV_037f184WS_OU I.FSWINAL_I CHA/_2.FSUuly 1fi, 1995 2-7
5[,I 97

SVE may notwork,thermaldesorptionmay bethemoreappropriateresponsetechnology.

Incinerationmay beappropriatefora limitednumberofsituations.

2.5.1.2 ResponseStrategieasnd Technologiefos rCERCLA SiteswithContaminated

Ground Water

Although no published guidance is available relating to presumptive remedies for

groundwater, a streamlined approach was employed at OU-1 in a response to using focused

FS approaches. The universe of successfully applied response strategies can be limited by

examining the characteristics of OU-1. Alternatives should consider long-term extraction

and treatment remedies for restoration and/or containment. Discharge components should

evaluate options for on-site (to surface water) or off-site (to POTW) discharge. Groundwater extraction components should include evaluation of extraction wells; gravity drains for

horizontal extraction wells; subsurface barriers for containment or to direct ground-water

flow; reinjection of treated for enhanced recovery; and in-situ technologies. Ex-situ

technologies for treatment include, air stripping, activated carbon, chemical precipitation,

biologic reactors, ion exchange, and chemical and/or UV oxidation.

The FS will focus on remedy components most important for attaining remedial objectives.

When examining extraction alternatives, emphasis will be placed on evaluating different

methods for controlling sources and removing contaminants from the aquifer rather than

evaluation of different technologies for treatment of extracted water.

2.5.2 Remedial Technology Identification and Screening -_--_

The purpose of this section is to briefly examine available remedial technologies and identify

technologies that warrant more detailed consideration. Inclusion of both the presumptive

remedy for VOC in Soils and the interim action for OU-1 have focused the evaluation of

remedial technologies. Source area treatment technologies are limited to those specified in

the presumptive remedy. Ground-water treatment technologies will utilize the water

treatment plant to be constructed as part of the IRA. In-situ alternatives such as aquifer air

sparging are not evaluated as the capital expenditures for the ex-situ treatment plant have

already been committed. Additionally, the proposed ex-situ treatment processes are more

reliably controlled than in-situ technologies, especially given the heterogeneity of the

saturated zone at OU-1. Table 2-4 lists the remedial technologies screened for OU-1

2.5.2.1 No Action

In accordance with the NCP and EPA's guidance for conducting remedial

investigations/feasibility studies (RI/FS), the no action option must be evaluated as a

potential remedial action. The no action alternative is used as a baseline by which other

remedial options are compared.

F:LPROY%6037884WSkOU1 FSLt'INAL\ICHAI_2.FSkluly18, 1995 2-8 v
2.5.2.2 Institutional Controls 5 0 [ 9

Institutional controls affect site management and/or activities occurring at the site.

_ Institutional controls do not physically alter site conditions and do not reduce the volume,

toxicity, or mobility of contamination at the site. Institutional controls do limit potential

exposure and therefore reduce potential risks. Institutional controls will therefore be retained -- for further consideration.

2.5.2.3 Source Area Treatment Actions

Source area treatment will follow the presumptive remedy for VOC in soils. Soil vapor

extraction (SVE), thermal desorption, and incineration are the primary remedies for VOC

-- contaminated soils. Reducing VOC concentration levels to targeted clean-up goals may be

accomplished by using one or more of these methods; however, SVE is the primary

presumptive remedy.

Primary Remedies

-- SVE is an in-situ or ex-situ process which physically removes chemicals of concern from

vadose zone soils. Air flow through the soil strips volatile compounds from the solids and

carries them to extraction wells. The recovered vapors may then require further treatment.

Thermal desorption is an ex-situ process that uses direct or indirect heat exchange to

vaporize organic chemicals from soil. Waste streams are heated from 200°-600°F

(93 °-315 °C). The vapors are then condensed or otherwise collected for further treatment.

The process is most effective for treating volatile organics. In temps of costs, thermal

_ desorption costs less than incineration as operating temperatures and gas flow rates are

lower.

_ Incineration is an ex-situ process that employs thermal decomposition via oxidation at

temperatures ranging from 1600°-2200 °F(871 °-1204 °C) to destroy the organic fraction of

the waste. Ash and sludge remaining from the incineration process must be disposed of

_ using a secondary technology such as landfilling. Four common incinerator designs are

rotary kiln, liquid injection, fluidized bed, and infrared incinerators.

.- Primary Remedy Screening

A treatability study for soil vapor extraction was conducted during July, 1994. Results of

-- this treatability study indicate SVE to be an effective method of achieving site clean-up goals

for soil. The presumptive remedy recommends SVE as the primary treatment process and it

will be retained for further consideration. Thermal desorption and incineration both would

-- incur greater cost than SVE and would likely require abandonment of the SVE wells

installed as part of the interim action. While it is anticipated that the chemicals of concern at

OU-I can effectively be remediated using SVE, thermal desorption will also be retained as a

-J 2-9 F:kPRO/_6037884_FSxK)UI .FSWINALMCHAP2.FSVuIy 18, 1995
w

5,'.,1 99

secondary source area treatment action. Incineration will be not be retained for further

consideration.

The July, 1994 treatability study was originally intended to be an enhanced soil vapor

extraction (ESVE) study. ESVE systems are designed to lower the water table and pull

vapor through the previously saturated zone. The intent is to allow stripping to occur in the

smear zone, thereby decreasing the time of remediation. The ground water that is extracted

while lowering the water table must be treated prior to discharge. When the study was

drilled, however, a continuous water table was not present and the treatability study was

modified to SVE. For the purposes of this FS, a standard SVE system will be subjected to a

detailed analysis. Should a significant number of SVE wells encounter water, however, an

ESVE system could be deemed feasible and implemented by pumping the wells and treating

extracted waters.

2.5.2.4 Ground-Water Collection/Containment Actions

Ground-water collection/containment actions control the migration of identified chemicals of

concern within the aquifer. Identified actions include extraction wells, injection wells, and

ground-water recovery trenches.

Extraction Wells

Ground-water pumping systems can be an effective means of controlling and reducing down

gradient migration of site chemicals of concern. Pumping techniques involve the extraction

of ground water through a series of strategically placed wells. Ground-water extraction

induces a flow toward the pumping wells. This flow directs contaminated ground water

toward the wells for removal. Implementing a ground-water pumping system requires

installation of extraction wells, pumping equipment, and a suitable means of treating

(Section 2.5.2.5) and disposing (Section 2.5.2.6) of the liquid withdrawn.

The effectiveness of ground-water pumping is related to site hydrology, aquifer yield, and

other hydrogeologic factors. Conditions favorable for extraction wells include:

• a homogeneous aquifer

• hydraulic conductivity greater than 10-Scm/sec

• mobile chemicals --

• low organic carbon content of aquifer

The aquifer characteristics at OU-1 are not conducive to ground-water extraction via wells.

The heterogeneity of the saturated zone at OU-1 results in a range of potential capture zones

for a given extraction well from around 5 ft to nearly 75 ft. Available data suggests that the

majority of wells would have a radius of influence at the lower end of this range. Ground

water at OU-1 may also be flowing through fractures in the weathered shale, a flow pattern

which p_ecludes the effective use of extraction wells. A ground-water trench is both more
- 501 IG0

L cost effective and technically feasible under these types of site conditions. The IRA at OU-1

does, however, propose four vacuum enhanced ground-water extraction wells (USAF, 1995).

_ While these wells are not likely to provide containment of ground-water, they may extract a

_ small amount of ground water for treatment. Therefore, this technology will be retained for

further consideration.

-- Injection Wells

Ground-water barriers can be created using injection wells to change both the direction of a

plume and the speed of plume migration. Injection of water into an aquifer creates an area

with a higher hydraulic head, thereby forcing the plume to change direction. This technique

may be desirable when short-term diversions are needed or when diversion will provide the

plume with sufficient time to naturally attenuate so that containment and removal is not

required. Based on literature values (Howard et al., 1991) of half life for 1,2 DCE in ground

water, and the maximum reported concentration of 1,2 DCE in ground water, it is estimated

-- that it would take approximately 50 years for 1,2 DCE to degrade to less than 70 lag/1

(MCL), subsequently forming vinyl chloride. There are no potable wells in the vicinity of

OU-1 for which short-te_m diversions would be needed. Regulatory approval for injection

-- wells can be difficult to obtain if other methods are available for plume modification and

control.

-- This technology is dropped from further consideration since a short-term diversion of ground

water will not be sufficient to develop natural attenuation.

Ground-Water Recovery Trenches

-- The concept for application of recovery trenches is to create a long area of low hydraulic

head which causes subsurface flow to be directed to a recovery location. Recovery trenches

create a linear zone of influence within which ground water flows toward the trench. They

_ can be used to contain or remove a plume, or to lower the ground-water table to prevent

contact of water with contaminated soil. Trenches have the advantage over extraction wells

in that they can contain contaminants in lithologies which preclude effective ground-water

_ extraction with wells (such as in soils with low permeabilities) by intercepting the natural

flow gradient. Conditions favorable for the construction of recovery trenches include:

-- • unrestricted access for excavating equipment

• depth to ground water less than 25 ft

• few subsurface utilities or excavation restrictions present

At OU-1, a ground-water trench could be placed near the leading edge of the plume as a

passive ground-water remediation/containment system. Ground water would enter the

-- trench, be piped to a sump, extracted, and treated. Remediation time is generally limited by

the ground-water flow rate into the trench. This is the case at OU-1.

w

F:LPROJ36037884WS_OU I .FSWINALHCHAP2.FSkluIy 18, 1995 2-11
w

A pilotstudywas conductedatOU-I wherean interceptitrenchand on treatmentplant

systemwereinstalled,operatedandtestedduringSeptemberandOctoberof1990.Basedon

the positive results of this test and the geologic site conditions at OU-1, this technology will _ :

be retained for further consideration.

2.5.2.5 Ground-Water Treatment Actions

Ground-water treatment actions are technologies that may be applicable for the

removal/destruction of chemicals of concern in ground water. The water treatment plant

constructed as part of the IRAs at Operable Units 1, 2, and 4 is to be used for ground-water

treatment (EPA et al, 1995), therefore, an extensive evaluation of ground-water treatment

technologies has not been performed.

A complete discussion of the ground-water treatment train for OU-1 can be found in the final

design plan (USAF, 1995) for the IRA. Reviewing this plan for OU-1 indicates that

extracted ground water will be pumped to the central treatment facility (Building 6908,

Figure 2-2) east of the OU. The ground water will be directed through an oil/water

separator, filtered through a shallow tray air stripper, and polished with granular activated

carbon. Treated ground water will then be discharged to Pond 001.

The alternatives developed for this FS involving ground-water extraction all assume the use

of the water treatment plant. When examining extraction alternatives, emphasis will be

placed on evaluation of source control and extraction efficiencies rather than treatment of

extracted ground water.

2.5.2.6 Ground-Water Discharge Actions

Discharge of ground water will be necessary for all ground water extraction and treatment

technologies. In most instances, treatment prior to discharge will be necessary. However, in

certain cases, discharge to wastewater treatment plants or RCRA disposal facilities may not

require treatment. Identified discharge actions include discharge to surface water,

reinjection/recirculation, and deep well injection.

Discharge to Surface Water

Discharge of treated ground water to surface water may be feasible and would be contingent

upon meeting ambient water quality criteria and obtaining regulatory approval, including

meeting the substantive requirements of a Clean Water Act NPDES permit. This discharge

option is used in the IRA and will be retained for further consideration.

Reinjeetion/Recireulation

Reinjection can be used in conjunction with an extraction well system or an in-situ

remediation system. Injection is performed by discharging water to the subsurface through
501 I(!2

- injection wells or infiltration basins. Before approval to inject water from a remedial

treatment system is given, it may be necessary to evaluate the residual levels of contaminants

-J in the water, remedial treatment system reliability,etc. The low permeablilty of the aquifer

__ at OU- 1 may make reinjection technically infeasible. Water that is to be reinjected will

likely require pretreatment to minimize problems relating to metal precipitation,

sedimentation, iron bacteria formation, and oxygen content. Additionally, site lithology may

-- lend itself to the development of preferential flow paths within secondary porosity

fractures/joints in the shale.

-- Reinjection could potentially increase the speed of plume transport and shorten remediation

time-frames, therefore, it will be retained on a contigency basis to be used should

performance of the IRA ground-water removal system warrant it.

Deep Well Injection

-- Deep well injection consists of the reinjection of treated groundwater into the aquifer as a

means of final discharge and not as part of a recirculation system. Injected ground water

would need to meet deep well injection water quality criteria. Regulatory agency approval

-- for deep well injection is often difficult to obtain. This discharge system will not be retained

for further consideration.

2.6 DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

A summary of the technology screening is shown in Table 2-5. Table 2-6 shows the

remedial technologies and process options that were retained for further consideration after

the preliminary screening in Section 2.5. The process options have been combined into three

alternatives as follows:

• No Action

• Source Area Soil Treatment with Ground-Water Containment

Six SVE wells in addition to those installed during the IRA

1015 ft of trench

Two ground-water extraction wells

_ • Source Area Soil and Ground-Water Treatment

Six SVE wells in addition to those installed during the IRA

1265 ft of trench

-- Ten ground-water extraction wells

F:WROJ_6037854_S'_OU I ,FS_qNAL_ICHAP2.FSUuly 18, 1995 2-13
50! 193

501 I,L,5

TABLE 2-6 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONS

Remedial Technology Process Option

No Action -None

Institutional Controls ,Site Use Restrictions

.Monitoring

Source Area Treatment .Soil Vapor Extraction

•Low Temperature Them_al Desorption

Ground-Water Containment -Ground-Water Recovery Trenches

Ground-Water Treatment .Interim Action Process Plan --

Ground-Water Discharge .Discharge to Surface Water

.Reinjection

F:kPROJ_037894k!_3_UI._WINALk2-6.TBL luly18,1995
5,)1 1_6

Section Tab
_ . .- 501

3.0 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

_._.J

The purpose of this chapter is to subject the alternatives developed from the process options

-- in Chapter 2 to a detailed analysis.

3.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

This section describes the criteria used for the evaluation of the remedial action alternatives

and includes both non-cost and cost criteria. Pursuant to current EPA guidance, alternatives

-- must be examined for adherence to nine criteria as specified in the NCP. These criteria are

as follows:

-- 1. Overall protection of human health and environment.

2. Compliance with ARARs.

3. Long-term effectiveness and performance.

- 4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume of contamination.

5. Short-term effectiveness.

6. Implementability.

7. Cost.

8. State/Support Agency Acceptance.

9. Community Acceptance.

Criteria numbers 8 and 9 are not addressed until completion of the review and comment

period of the RI/FS. Adherence to these criteria is addressed in the Record of Decision

document.

For the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, EPA's evaluation criteria can be grouped

into three criteriacategories: threshold criteria, balancing criteria, and modifying criteria.

Threshold Criteria

• Overall protection of human health and the environment.

_ • Compliance with ARARs.

Ealm0nggatma

° Long-term effectiveness and permanence.

• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume of contamination.

- • Short-term effectiveness.

• Implementability.

• Cost.

b

F:'_ROJ_O37884_FSFS''_AL_U1. FICNHHAP3FS.LIuly ,9.,_5 3-l
Modifying Criteria

• State/Support Agency Acceptance. _'- _

• Community Acceptance,

3.1.1 Threshold Criteria

The threshold criteria relate to statutory requirements that each alternative must satisfy in

order to be eligible for selection.

• Overall protection of human health and the environment - The assessment against this

criterion describes how the alternative, as a whole, achieves and maintains protection of

human health and the environment.

• Compliance with ARARs - Under this criterion, an alternative is assessed in terms of its

compliance with ARARs, or if a waiver is required, how it is justified.

3.1.2 Balancing Criteria

The balancing criteria are the technical criteria considered during the detailed analysis.

• Long-term effectiveness and permanence - This criterion evaluates the long-term

effectiveness of alternatives in maintaining protection of human health and the

environment after response objectives have been met.

• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume of contamination - This criterion evaluates

the anticipated perfoimance of the specific treatment technologies an alternative may

employ.

• Short-term effectiveness - This criterion examines the effectiveness of alternatives in

protecting human health and the environment during the construction and

implementation of a remedy until response objectives have been met.

• Implementability - This assessment evaluates the technical and administrative

feasibility of alternatives and the availability of required goods and services.

• Cost - This assessment evaluates the capital and operation and maintenance (O&M)

costs of each alternative. Costs for the FS have been developed using the Remedial

Action Cost Engineering and Requirements System (RACER). RACER is a well

developed and accurate system for estimating remedial action costs and components.

Costs were evaluated using escalation methodology as presented in the RACER models.

Costing models are summarized in this report, indicating the main components of the

remedial action.

F:'_PROJ_037884'_cS_OLI1.FS_IN_L'd CHAP3,FS_July 19, 1995 3-2
- ':- 501 Ir '9

_ 3.1.3 Modifying Criteria

As previously noted, these criteria are not addressed at this time in the FS.

• State/Support Agency Acceptance - This assessment reflects the state's (or support

agency's) apparent preferences among or concerns about alternatives.

• Community Acceptance - This assessment reflects the community's apparent

preferences among or concerns about alternatives.

3.2 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

-- 3.2.1 Alternative No. 1: No Action

3.2.1.1 Description

The No Action alternative is presented as a baseline to which other remedial measures are

_ compared. The EPA, through the March 1990 National Contingency Plan (NCP) revisions,

requires that the No Action option be examined in detail during the remedial alternatives

evaluation phase. Under this alternative, no further remediation efforts would be conducted.

3.2.1.2 Evaluation

_" Threshold Criteria

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment - This alternative does not reduce

-- the risks from this site to potential human or ecological receptors. Ground-water MCLs

would not be met. Source area soils would remain a pollutant source to underlying ground

water. South Dakota state regulations pertaining to petroleum-contaminated soils would not

-- be met. There are no identified risks to ecological receptors resulting from FPTA activities

at OU- 1.

-- Compliance with ARARs - Since there are no remedial activities currently being conducted

and none are proposed under this alternative, there are no remediation ARARs applicable.

The No Action alternative does not comply with CERCLA ARARs as a stand-alone action.

-- The ground water at the site would remain contaminated.

This alternative does not meet the remedial action objectives established for this site.

Balancing Criteria

Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence - This alternative does not provide long-term

effectiveness in achieving the remedial action objectives established for this site. After

_ completion of the IRA, residual risk associated with ground water would be reduced only

FAPRO&6037884_FS_C,U 1.FS'_INAL\I CHAP3.FS'_uh/19, 1995 3-3
5,-'III0

through natural attenuation. It is important to recognize that, in addition to chemical

structure, a number of factors affect degradation rates, including: composition and size of M...I

soil microbial population, energy sources, temperature, moisture, presence of essential

elements (nitrogen, phosphorus, trace metals, pH, soil type, organic chemical concentration,

oxygen level, and adsorption. The problem of estimating time for natural attenuation is

further complicated by the step wise degradation of TCE to DCE and vinyl chloride. The

degradation rate constant can be calculated from the half life, assuming first order kinetics

and assuming the site conditions are equivalent to conditions used in the literature. Based

on literature values of half life for 1,2 DCE in ground water, and the maximum reported

concentration of 1,2 DCE in ground water, it is estimated that it would take approximately

50 years for 1,2 DCE to degrade to less than 70 _tg/1(MCL), subsequently forming vinyl

chloride. There are no long-term operational or maintenance considerations under this

alternative.

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume - No reduction of potential source area

chemicals with respect to toxicity, mobility, or volume, would be achieved with this

alternative.

Short-term Effectiveness - By def'mition, this alternative does not provide any short-term

effectiveness in reducing potential threats from this site to human health or the environment.

There are no short-term threats or safety concerns specifically associated with

implementation of this alternative; however any existing threats or risks associated with the

site would remain.

Implementability - There is nothing to implement under this alternative.

Cost - The No Further Action alternative does not involve capital or operation and

maintenance costs.

3.2.2 Alternative No. 2: Source Area Soil Treatment with Ground-Water

Containment

3.2.2.1 Description

Alternative No. 2 would involve expanding the IRA SVE system to remove VOC from

source-area soils and excavating a ground-water trench to contain contaminated ground

water at OU-1. Figure 3-1 shows the soil treatment process flowchart for this alternative.

The soil vapor extraction system generates negative (vacuum) pressure in the well casing and

in the vicinity of the well. This pressure induces air flow toward the soil vapor extraction

well. Once the vapors are extracted, they are treated and discharged. The ESVE water

treatment system is shown in the case that should enough water be encountered during SVE

well installation that ESVE would become feasible. ESVE labor and materials are not

considered in the cost analysis. Institutional controls would be implemented to control site

F:_PROj'f_37884"_F_UI.FS_elNAL\1CHAP3.FS%Iub/19, 1995 3-4 -_
- ti ( i"

,._ ---,, "" a g | _

i "l- i <_

I _ _

_L I _' ---1_ ... I ZZ

o _-E_ 1 ? °

-I I z.i w_"

> I <i I,,,') I_ "

k_J

£g:90;_!I _6_ ti9 LiLO:'_lV(]

L-EOIA\S=I\I_O\M3N\SNOZI;WOH\:A :31NVN 9NIM_'_O
,! "" 5,31 I12 -

access and to place consumption restrictions on ground-water. Site access would be

controlled with a fence around the area, as indicated in Figure 3-2. _

Design consistency will be maintained between the interim action and this FS alternative by

using the design parameters specified in the Final Design Analysis for the IRA at OU-1. Six

SVE wells would be located within the area of attainment for source area soils in addition to

the SVE wells of the IRA. (Figure 3-3). Depending upon the efficiency of the IRA's ESVE

wells at extracting ground water, these six SVE wells could be designed as ESVE wells for

ground water extraction. The location of the SVE wells was based upon the area of

attainment for source area soils and a design radius of influence (ROI) of 64 ft. The

construction and operation of the wells would match the IRA specifications.

Exhaust gas from the SVE system could be treated using a number of vapor treatment

technologies. Factors affecting the choice of which vapor treatment technology to use

include offgas concentrations, offgas composition, and time of operation. Results from the

treatability study suggest that vapor-phase granular activated carbon (GAC), thermal

oxidation, or catalytic oxidation could be used. The design plans for the IRA indicate that

initial vapor treatment will use oxidation, and that as concentrations decrease, treatment will

switch to GAC. For the purpose of estimating costs for this alternative, GAC wilI be

assumed.

The time frame for the SVE system to remediate the site is determined by a number of

factors:

1. The total mass of the contaminants in the vadose zone within the site;

2. The number of SVE wells installed in the site and the operational conditions for the

system;

3. The VOC mass removal rate for each well;

4. The desorption speed of the contaminants from the soil particles.

It is estimated that 6-10 years (calculations in Appendix E) would be needed to achieve

remediation goals for the source-area soils at OU-1 using SVE. This time frame is based on

the VOC mass removal rate of the extraction wells, the number of SVE wells, the total VOC

mass within the site, and that no VOC contamination would be entering the site from outside

the OU. The time estimate includes the operational time of the IRA. If, at the conclusion of

the IRA, it is determined that SVE will not effectively reduce VOC in the soil, the

presumptive remedy process allows for a secondary treatment process. Low temperature

thermal desorption could be used at the site if SVE is not effective. Typically, treatment

costs are approximately $100/ton to treat contaminated soil with low temperature thermal

desorption. As thermal desorption is specified in the presumptive remedy and is only being

F;_PROJ'd_O37884_FS_UI.FS_FINAL_,1CHAP3.FS_July 19, 1995 3-5 -_
501 113

"'.! s, \",\__ ._t.\ / i -.. \-.,I

,J ,,_iil t ' ,>, /j_l_ i

\ t..,_ '_Z _-_ouRc_-,,R_so,<hU ',,

- I r"'-,, _ '__ i / ................................-:......................

I ', , \ i ............................. '_,, "_'li____- .............. ,....................

\ ; /i / '. ........................... - . i • ° )I - / ....." " " •..... ,,',\ __'_,

""//,A;"_ ....................

i\ ,_r, "// ////.,,f/_)_ /,,/////. t\ !/',.'_d#'_/_s,/,/<."

? i 1, ,, ....... "... ,,ii\ _" o/_EXTENT OF HISTORICAL

"- ; I" __ S,J,'T._',,A_.C}SESSBURN PIT AREAS

[ \ iiil \ ',,% _\d' / ¢>ON-I'ROLFENCE i ! '! [ If h "_ ..... _ ...... •....

tt t '_;rTREN_ H 12 _°

_i \ \ __ ! I1_ AREA OF ATTAINMENT i " \\t 'i , i t I . IRA WELL LOCATION

i \ \\', t, )\ i il IDW DUALEXTRACT,ON

• \ ",,\Y "'xit' it 11 w<,_, ",, '-, t VE VAPOR EXTRACTION

:-.............. l.............. ,.,,,

_I_'

i

-- q_ _ TITLE: FIGURE: DWN BY: APP'D:

_ STAFF

_.._. ELLBWORTH SITE ACCESS CONTROL

-_o AIR FORCE BASE 3-2 '

_m FENCE DATE: PJT NO:

-- =< MAR 95 60378.8_

g;) E:) I
=

50L 1L4

_iuw|u illrl

# ',,,,, ', \ , --.../-./

• # _ ....__. ___ ____

I i _r",_ -_ _ ' -/

" _"'-C._ ._ "/./ _I ",

\ -:, , I _"_--,2_ /---SOURCE-AREA SOILS_-... , --

\ \ ,, _///W/////_,_&__OFA_A,N_Er7 ,\ , V//t . ......

"k ;'l :_ ;

!:_-., i"_d.#__./_. _I / ..................................-

'x IO_ I" ,2 ...................................... -- \ ', , "///.zZAd_/A/I£///I_'/. / ... / ./ / /

'. ". "'-. _.o_ _ / / / / //

'. X ',, -\ "...... ._ / / " ./ //

, % / /

,, , \ ,L,..o,o...._,/ , // J_---_L * \ I ,.-.. , ", \ %,

' iF,, [ _ ',,_ "", "'-"/ / ." //_ ................ - ", ii i_ _( / _-EXTENT OF HISTORICAL

I " _I [", "_/ _f--.xL..._ BURN PIt AREAS : " ii ', ",,

',,!_, ',,,,\__.'M '.: // ] .... -

", 'o.,oJLo I

.! _ i '_\_. _ IITA GROUNDWATER

f: \\ ! _O-F ",_l:'i'AiNMENT , -i \ \ _ _ENI,'H I''" ............

I _,\\_, i ', 'i I" IRA WELL LOCATION

\ \\", 'I i _ _ I_ PROPOSEDSVE i \ \\',, ,\ /\! \ I" WELL LOCATION

zo

" .............._ ,,'..X,'g. ", "" "" "" SCALE

_._ % ..... '%\ , , \ . U-u7

== _ TITLE: FIGURE: DWN BY: APP'D:

z= ALTERNATIVES 2 AND 3 STAFF

c_ ELLBWORTH _zo AIF_ FORCE: BASE PROPOSED SVE WELL 3-3 DATE: PJT NO:

=<_ LOCATIONS MAR 95 60378.8 _(:D I Mr im
- :' 501 115

considered as a contigency should SVE not perform as expected, no further evaluation will

be done. Thermal desorption is to be considered only after evaluating the results of the IRA.

Ground water would be contained with a cutoff trench located at the down gradient end of

the contaminant plume as shown in Figure 3-4. It is anticipated that the trench would tie into

the east end of the ground-water treatment pilot study trench installed in October 1990

(USACE, 1991) and used as part of the IRA (USAF, 1995). Based on the October 1990

pilot study results, it is anticipated that the cutoff trench would deliver an average flow rate

of 10 gpm. The cutoff trench would be installed with a single pass trenching machine which

-- would eliminate the need for workers to enter the trench during construction. Based on

average trench dimensions of 15 ft deep by 2 ft wide, the 1,015 ft long trench would require

excavating approximately 1,900 yd3of soil. This includes excavating a bench road for the

-- trenching machine. Approximately 20-30 years (calculations in Appendix E) would be

required to mobilize and flush contaminants from the alluvium. Immobile dissolved phase

contaminants in the shale would require much longer remediation times. A remediation time

-- of 25 years will be used for cost comparative purposes. Extracted ground water would be

collected at the sump located in the trench being used during the IRA and pumped to the IRA

treatment plant for remediation and discharge.

In addition to the cutoff trench, two extraction wells would be placed down gradient of

MW930107, as shown in Figure 3-4. Based on the soil lithology and ground-water elevation

-- data from MW930107, it is anticipated that these extraction wells would have a 20 to 30 ft

radius of influence, extracting from 0.1 to 0.25 gpm during operation. Roughly 10 years

would be required to flush mobile contaminants. The extracted ground water would be

pumped to the IRA treatment plant for remediation and discharge.

The primary treated ground-water discharge option is to the stream adjacent to OU-I. This

- also is the option specified as part of the IRA and will be the assumed discharge option for

comparing Altematives 2 and 3. A secondary, contingency discharge option would be

reinjection. While the data available at this time suggests that reinjection may not be

technically feasible, information gained from the IRA could show use for this process.

Therefore, reinjection will be presented as a contingency discharge option in Section 3.2.4

_ and a separate cost estimate will be developed.

3.2.2.2 Evaluation

Threshold Criteria

-- Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment - This alternative reduces the risk

of source-area soils contaminating the underlying aquifer. South Dakota state regulations

pertaining to petroleum-contaminated soils would be met. Extractable ground water would

-- meet MCLs. There are no identified risks to ecological receptors resulting from FPTA

activities at OU- 1.

,,..4- F:_PROJ_O37884_FS_)UI.FS_FINALHCHAP3.FS_uly lg, lgg5 3-6
i i i,

i : t! . i _ o , i --

i _- ' _ \f ----_ _ ----.-.//- L_ I -'

I L._ a' "07;_" r-CROU,:.-",V.,,-C_. ,--- \\ _ _,..J.."--"_._So_,A_._._ fi 1 AREA OF A_I'NMENT m ......"- II -

_. "__/////_ _V/_ x / ................................................. _.. <_ ./. , ........................ Ic-,,,;__ _,!_ ',, _ •f/I/Yflllll./Vlfl/_ ",'# 1//////!/I//. ////// " _........ ..........

__::::::: .................................... :

t I " if i i \,..," . " ..............

:i "\\ ':--',,,i,_ _.___'" "" "' " ..........-

",, -, ,'//////,//'//SY_ g_/_/'/"_" // "--PROPOSED CUTOF:

,\_ ,.. __///_ _ _;_/___c__ _,_----

i' "'ip ' " il ! iL_ " __.Z _, _TORICAL -

i 7 it _/"//-K/Vx//'Y_/_//f/// _._' / /..-,.L/ BURN PIT AREAS

\ !i!:t'V_/_/l__/ _---E:XlSTINGII "_.... ......... --

t t V////W///'//_ f __-"_TRE_CH I LEGE:ND

i tt_///_i i , _ Ir_-_0;,.OW_TE

, <_ \ \ "///////X///7"/, i I_/#1 AREAOF ATIAINMENT -- t t Xt_////__ < x i I, IRA WELL LOCATION \ \\t///////Z///,_, \ t _1 I_,PROPOSEDSVE

/ ",,, ",",",,'//'///i'X//,_ \ ! h I _ WELLLOCATION -

i % ',, \\Y'_///_, \t tl \1 _=oPOS_D_ROU._

> ... _, \ \\ ",. "_ -\ ; \\ _. Ill WATEREXTRACTION "..........._-...........'__-"t-_ '1_ \",,',,I ,,,_,,LOC,,T,ON

_°m ..................""'k ":XX i \ "_ "\..,, SCALE _/ •....... \\\ i _ \ .

FIGURE: DWN BY: APP'D:

TITLE: ALTERNATIVE 2 STAFF

_ AELLSWORTH IR FORCE BASE GROUND-WATER CONTAINMENT ,3-4 DATE: PJT NO: _ LAYOUT

_g MAR 95 60378.8 --
w

. Compliance with ARARs: 5 ') l I J 7

The following chemical-specific ARARs are applicable:

•Safe Drinking Water Act

National Primary Drinking Water Standards 40CFR 14 I. 11-12

40CFR141.60-61

National Secondary Drinking Water Standards 40CFR143.03

Maximum Contaminant Level Goals 40CFR141.50

•Clean Water Act

_ Water Quality Criteria 40CFR 131

Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 40CFR 125.1-3

•State Standards, Requirements, Criteria, and Limitations

-- South Dakota Remediation Criteria for Petroleum-Contaminated Soils 74:03:32

South Dakota Ground Water Standards 74:03:15

-- The Safe Drinking Water Act will be complied with by extracting and treating ground water

to drinking water quality (MCLs). Table 2-2 shows the target list of chemicals to be

remediated and their respective MCLs. The Clean Water Act will also be complied with by

-- extracting and treating ground water. Immobile ground water bound in the shales may be

technically impracticable to remediate from an engineering perspective. The ability to

remove these chemicals may be better understood following examination of the IRA

-- performance. Ground water discharged from the IRA treatment plant will comply with the

Base's current NPDES permit. The proposed SVE system will reduce the concentrations of

JP-4 in the soils and comply with the South Dakota Petroleum-Contaminated Soils

regulations.

The following action-specific ARARs are applicable:

•Clean Water Act

Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures of the Analysis of Pollutants 40(St-K136.1-5 and

Appendices A-C

=Clean Air Act

National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standard 40CFRS0.1-

_ 6,8,9,11,12, and

Appendices A, H, J, K

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 40CFR61.19,245-247

-- *Solid Waste Disposal Act

Land Disposal Restrictions 40CFR268

-- .Executive Order on Protection of Wetlands

•State Standards, Requirements, Criteria, and Limitations

South Dakota Air Pollution Control Regulations 74:26:01:09,24,25,26-

-- 28

F:_PROJ_60371.F88S4WWINALSO\I_HAP3 U .FS,9,,_5 kJuly 3-7
5,"1 118

¢,

South Dakota Water Discharge Permit Rules 74:03:18:01-17

74:03:19:01-08

74:03:01 __i

South Dakota Water Quality Standards 74:03:04:02,10

Discharge from the IRA treatment facility will meet the guidelines established for testing

pollutant discharge and will be in compliance with the Clean Air Act. Process residuals such

as spent carbon will be disposed of in a manner complying with appropriate disposal

restrictions. Construction of the cutoff trench will not degrade onsite wetlands so as to

comply with the Executive Order on Protection of Wetlands. Air and water discharges from

the IRA treatment facility will comply with South Dakota Air Pollution Control Regulations,

Water Discharge Pe_iifit Rules, and Water Quality Standards.

There are no applicable location-specific ARARs for this alternative.

This alternative meets the remedial alternative objectives of the site.

Balancing Criteria

Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence - Residual risk levels would be low enough that

source-area soils would not pose a risk to ground water. Ground-water MCLs would be met

for extractable ground water. The cutoff trench would preclude migration of the

contaminant plume. Long-term monitoring of vapor extraction rates and concentrations

would be necessary to maintain proper system operation.

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume - Results from the July, 1994 pilot study

indicate SVE to be effective in reducing the volume of VOC in source-area soils. VOC

concentrations in source-area soils would be reduced to levels protective of ground water

quality. Treatment of process residuals would be as described in the IRA. The cutoff trench

would reduce the mobility of the contaminant plume to migrate further down gradient and

would also reduce the volume of contaminated ground water.

Short-term Effectiveness - Adverse environmental impacts due to the construction and

implementation of this alternative are expected to be minor. Construction would comply

with OSHA requirements to help eliminate the risk to construction workers. Community

risk is expected to be minimal. Remediating source-area soils is anticipated to take 6-10

years. Remediating ground water located in coarser alluvium is anticipated to take 20-30

years.

Implementability - Implementing this alternative would involve modifying the existing SVE

system installed as part of the IRA to accommodate six additional SVE wells. Modifications

are expected to be minimal. Necessary permits would have already been secured as part of

the IRA. SVE is a well developed technology that is generally available and has been

sufficiently demonstrated for this application. Availability of equipment and labor is not

anticipated to be a problem. Construction of the cutoff trench is not anticipated to be a

F:'_PROJT_3"_84kF $_ U 1,FSkFINAL\I CHAP3.FS'_Iuly 19. 1995 3-8
_ .... , 501 119

problem as the trench would be constructed with a one pass trenching machine that has

, successfully trenched down to 65 ft. Cutoff trenches are proven technologies for containing

contaminants and extracting ground water for treatment from aquifers with low hydraulic

_ conductivities. Availability of equipment and labor is not anticipated to be a problem.

Costs - Costs are summarized in Table 3-1. Appendix C1 lists a detailed direct cost report

-- for Alternative 2.

•Capital costs are $482,655.

•Operation and Maintenance costs are $2,306,959.

-- 3.2.3 Alternative No. 3: Source Area Soil and Ground-Water Treatment

3.2.3.1 Description

Alternative No. 3 builds on Alternative No. 2 by adding an additional extraction trench

through the southern part of the contaminant plume and adding a row of eight extraction

-- wells through the northern part, as shown in Figure 3-5. The decision to place wells to the

north and a trench to the south was based on anticipated higher hydraulic conductivities in

the northern part of OU-1. Should the IRA find that extraction wells are not feasible, the

-- row of extraction wells could be converted to a trench. The purpose of this alternative is to

provide a comparison between shortened ground-water remediation times and costs. The

trench and wells were located in order to reduce remediation of mobile contaminants in the

ground water from 20-30 years to approximately 10-15 years (calculations in Appendix E)

by reducing the flow path distance. The well spacing was based on an estimated radius of

influence of 25 ft. Extracted ground water will pumped to the IRA treatment plant for

remediation and discharge.

3.2.3.2 Evaluation

Threshold Criteria

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment - This alternative reduces the risk

of source-area soils contaminating the underlying aquifer. South Dakota state regulations

-- pertaining to petroleum-contaminated soils would be met. Extractable ground water would

meet MCLs. There are no identified risks to ecological receptors resulting from FPTA

activities at OU-1.

Compliance with ARARs:

The following chemical-specific ARARs are applicable:

•Safe Drinking Water Act

FSPROJ_6037B84_FS_UI .FSWINAL'd CHAP3.FS_IUly 19, _995 3-9
' 51)t 1.20 -

u

TABLE 3-1: COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE NO. 2

RA

Item Description Construction O&M

1 Air Stripping $0 $130,006

2 Carbon Adsorption (Liquid) $0 $402,118 --

3 Extraction Wells $165,505 $9,520

4 Monitoring $0 $1,552,365

5 RA Professional Labor $26,843 $0 --

6 Sampling & Analysis $2,641 $134,637

7 Soil Vapor Extraction $20,397 $78,313

8 Single Pass Trenching $215,293 $0

9 Access Roads $2,699 $0

10 Fencing $49,277 $0

11 Sub-Total $482,655 $2,306,959 --

12 Mobilization/De mobilization, 10% $48,266

Construction Management,

Site Services

13 Implementation, Design, 22% $106,184

Permits "_'--

14 Contingency 30% $144,797

15 TOTAL $781,901 $2,306,959
501 121

- "_-. "". _ !.. ',", t' " %. " / I ',,"_i" '%L%,>),.\ -. )_

I L... ! '_1' \.[L_ '. .----GROUND-WA-[ER _ ,.---" il

-- \\ _ L_',_s_,_# :#: / AREA OF A_M_NT _ ..,:]_._'_-.il

_ \ ,, , t'v \ ,

) ........ • : ._'/.x//_o4_ kgz._ /, x_///-'A/////// ..................._'_ .......... -- _.-,, _ _ ...................... .._ I ,, ,71/m"/,;'_<//_ _,_7///////.// ...-............... _.............................

I ", / /,' ,/ ......................... ,,•", ., 5x/////7/_ , _v///y/////¢,_ ." __..-......... ...........................

,. _ ._,_ _, . ../ ",-.-__ • . _............

, , /' , /,_ /"

', ",, ': \-///////z'///.4",,' ¢,,_-"./_ /" //"'- PROPOSEDCUTOr} -- ",, ", _//////'_ __,_/_:5 _,_,_ ./ /// ZRENCH L_ L

IV" i .4 , - _'_ i,i _ "//Z._//////Y/_Z e,, _y// / //"'..z"

' " i ii _'Y// , _2Y//////II# _-_7./ _( / _ EXTENT OF HISTORICAL "

,, _ii",,,_Y//X/////'///> _:"7'__-N_f AR_kS-

_ _}_'_/////-_-_X,ST,NG ////-/'"_//I/_ -- _,, t_ _"///////_///_/)_ f'l d UT-OF_ff'rRE_CH I LEGgND

- '_ \\ _ _ i , IF_41AREAOFATFAINMENT

i k \\i_///////M'//Z1 _ IO IRAWELLLOCATION " , ii P oPo Fo -- _ _ "", \\"(//'/'-//_-_ _ i /_ I "F WELL LOCATION _ "- \\",'_/////_ \i 11 _I PROPOSED GROUND

> ..,. / \ \\ "., '/S,_,a \ \ ! \_ _ I @ WATEREXTRACTION -- --.-.......-.I,............ fR_O_U,_.2LR[_,,, _ \ , \\ _ I WELL LOCATION [

=_9 't----7 _JCALE

GJc m

_5 _ TITLE: FIGURE: DWNBY: APP'D:

;_ (_ ALTERNATIVE3 STAFF

_ AIR F ELLSWORORC TH E BASE GROUND-WATER TREATMENT 3--5

<_1 LAYOUT DATE: PJT NO: -- =< MAR 95 60378.8,

w,
501 122

National Primary Drinking Water Standards 40CFR 141.11 -12

40CFR141.60-61

National Secondary Drinking Water Standards 40CFR143.03 -._

Maximum Contaminant Level Goals 40CFR 141.50

!

•Clean Water Act

Water Quality Criteria 40CFR131

Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 40CFR 125.1-3

•State Standards, Requirements, Criteria, and Limitations

South Dakota Remediation Criteria for Petroleum-Contaminated Soils 74:03:32

South Dakota Ground Water Standards 74:03:15 --

The Safe Drinking Water Act will be complied with by extracting and treating ground water

to drinking water quality (MCLs). Table 2-2 shows the target list of chemicals to be

remediated and their respective MCLs. The Clean Water Act will also be complied with by

extracting and treating ground water. Immobile ground water bound in the shales may be

technically impracticable to remediate from an engineering perspective. The ability to

remove these chemicals may be better understood following examination of the IRA

performance. Ground water discharged from the IRA treatment plant will comply with the

Base's current NPDES pe.tfit. The proposed SVE system will reduce the concentrations of

J'P-4 in the soils and comply with the South Dakota Petroleum-Contaminated Soils

regulations. !

The following action-specific ARARs are applicable:

-Clean Water Act

Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures of the Analysis of Pollutants 40CFR 136.1-5 and

Appendices A-C

•Clean Air Act

National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standard 40CFR50.1-

6,8,9,11,12, and

Appendices A, H, J, K

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 40CFR61.19,245-247

•Solid Waste Disposal Act

Land Disposal Restrictions 40CFR268 -

•Executive Order on Protection of Wetlands

•State Standards, Requirements, Criteria, and Limitations

South Dakota Air Pollution Control Regulations 74:26:01:09,24,25,26-

28

South Dakota Water Discharge Permit Rules 74:03:18:01 -17 --

74:03:19:01-08

74:03:01

South Dakota Water Quality Standards 74:03:04:02,10 _.

F :_PRO&6037_4"_FS'_OU 1.F_FINAL\I CH AP3. FS"duly 19, 1995 3-10
- " ; : 5bl 123

_ Discharge from the IRA treatment facility will meet the guidelines established for testing

pollutant discharge and will be in compliance with the Clean Air Act. Process residuals such

-" as spent carbon will be disposed of in a manner complying with appropriate disposal

_ restrictions. Construction of the cutoff trench will not degrade onsite wetlands so as to

comply with the Executive Order on Protection of Wetlands. Air and water discharges from

the IRA treatment facility will comply with South Dakota Air Pollution Control Regulations,

_ Water Discharge Permit Rules, and Water Quality Standards.

There are no applicable location-specific ARARs for this alternative.

This alternative meets the remedial alternative objectives of the site.

-- Balancing Criteria

Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence - Residual risk levels would be low enough that

-- source-area soils would not pose a risk to ground water. Ground-water MCLs would be met

for extractable ground water. The cutoff trench would preclude migration of the

contaminant plume. Long-te,u monitoring of vapor extraction rates and concentrations

-- would be necessary to maintain proper system operation.

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume - Results from the July, 1994 pilot study

-- indicate SVE to be effective in reducing the volume of VOC in source-area soils. VOC

concentrations in source-area soils would be reduced to levels protective of ground-water

quality. Treatment of process residuals would be as described in the IRA. The trenches and

extraction wells would reduce the mobility of the contaminant plume to migrate further

down gradient and would also reduce the volume of contaminated ground water.

- Short-term Effectiveness - Adverse environmental impacts due to the construction and ,

implementation of this alternative are expected to be minor. Construction would comply

with OSHA requirements to help eliminate the risk to construction workers. Community

risk is expected to be minimal. Remediating source-area soils is anticipated to take 6-10

years. Remediating ground water located in coarser alluvium is anticipated to take 10-15

_ years.

Implementability - Implementing this alternative would involve modifying the existing SVE

_ system installed as part of the IRA to accommodate six additional SVE wells. Modifications

are expected to be minimal. Necessary permits would have already been secured as part of

the IRA. SVE is a well developed technology that is generally available and has been

-- sufficiently demonstrated for this application. Availability of equipment and labor is not

anticipated to be a problem. Construction of the cutoff trench is not anticipated to be a

problem as the trench would be constructed with a one pass trenching machine that has

-- successfully trenched down to 65 ft. Trenches and extraction wells are proven technologies

for extracting ground water for treatment. Availability of equipment and labor is not

anticipated to be a problem.

_"_- F:\PROJ_6037884_FS_OUI.FS' ,9,,_S 3-11 d=INAL\lCHAP3.FS_July
: 5,31 124 -

Costs - Costs are summarized in Table 3-2. Appendix C2 lists a detailed direct cost report w

for Alternative 3.

•Capital costs are $608,557.

•Operation and Maintenance costs are $1,478,750.

3.2.4 Contingency Ground-water Discharge Option: Reinjection

3.2.4.1 Description

The primary treated ground-water discharge option, which is the discharge option included

in Alternatives 2 and 3, discharges to the stream adjacent to OU-1. This option is also

specified as part of the IRA. A secondary, contingency discharge option would be

reinjection. While the data currently available suggest that reinjection may not be

technically feasible, info,nation gained from the IRA could show use for this process to be

added to Alternatives 2 and 3.

Locations and sizes of these wells cannot be determined from currently available data. This

information would need to be gathered from a reinjection pilot study. Reinjection would

only be used to improve the ground-water cleanup process through a reduction in

remediation time and process enhancement. Even if reinjection is used, excess treated

ground water will may still be discharged to the stream adjacent to OU-I as the treatment

plant will be treating water from several OUs and the volume of water could exceed the

amount that could be effectively reinjected.

Any proposed reinjection plan would need to be approved by the EPA through the

Underground Injection Control (UIC) program.

3.2.4.2 Evaluation

The evaluation of this discharge option is in addition to the evaluations of Alternatives 2 and

3. This evaluation focuses on reinjection specifically. __

Threshold Criteria

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment - Prior to being reinjected,

ground-water remediation will not cease until analyzed constituents have reached MCLs or

Health Advisory Levels (as established by EPA) or better.

Compliance with ARARs:

The following action-specific ARARs are applicable: --

,Prohibitionof movementof fluidsintoundergroundsourcesofdrinkingwater 40CFR144.12

F:_F,ROJ"_6037884kF_,OU1 .FS_FINAL'_ICHAP3.FS_uly 19, 1995 3-12
- 501 125

i

TABLE 3-2: COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE NO. 3

RA

-- Item Description Construction O&M

1 Air Stripping $0 $56,974

_ 2 Carbon Adsorption (Liquid) $0 $201,059

3 Extraction Wells $235,293 $62,152

4 Monitoring $0 $996,349

5 RA Professional Labor $27,410 $0

-- 6 Sampling & Analysis $2,629 $83,903

7 Soil Vapor Extraction $20,397 $78,313

8 Single Pass Trenching $270,852 $0

-- 9 Access Roads $2,699 $0

10 Fencing $49,277 $0

11 Sub-Total $608,557 $1,478,750

12 Mobilization/Demobilization, 10% $60,856

Construction Management,

Site Services

13 Implementation, Design, 22% $133,883

Permits

14 Contingency 30% $182,567

15 TOTAL $985,862 $1,478,750

i

w
501 126

ol_'olubifion of Class IV Wells 40CFR 144.! 3(c)

The basic requirements for reinjection are specified in 40CFR 144.12. 40CFR 144.13(c)

allows for the injection of treated ground water.

There are no additional chemical-specific or location-specific ARARs for this alternative.

Balancing Criteria

Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence - Fluid samples of the recovery fluid and the fluid

prior to injection (after treatment) will be collected and analyzed (constituents specified by

EPA) daily for the first week of operation, weekly for four weeks, biweekly for the next

three months, and monthly thereafter. Other samples may be required depending on the type

of remediation. Reports will be furnished to EPA three months after the beginning of

injection and every three months thereafter.

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume - As a discharge option, reinjection does not

reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume.

Short-term Effectiveness - Adverse environmental impacts due to the construction and

implementation of this alternative are expected to be minor. Construction would comply

with OSHA requirements to help eliminate the risk to construction workers. Community

risk is expected to be minimal.

Implementability - EPA must be notified in writing as to the start-up date and thirty days

prior to closure of all or any part of the injection system. Continous recording records of the

quantity pumped from the recovery well/trench and also the quantity pumped into the

injection well/trench must be maintained. In case of a mechanical failure of the system, EPA

must be contacted within twenty four hours of the failure.

Costs - Costs are summarized in Table 3-3. Appendix C3 lists a detailed direct cost report

for the reinjection discharge option. The estimate is based on constructing six injection wells

with an injection rate equal to 0.25 gallons per minute (gpm) per well.

•Capital costs: $30,380.

•Operation and Maintenance costs (20 years for Alternative 2): $3,810,600.

•Operation and Maintenance costs (10 years for Alternative 3): $1,905,300.

F:%PROJ_037884_FS_OU 1.FS_']NAL\I CHAP3. FS_uly 19, ! 9¢35 3 - 1 3
_ 501 127

TABLE 3-3: COST SUMMARY FOR CONTINGENCY GROUND-WATER

DISCHARGE OPTION: REINJECTION

__j RA

Item Description Construction 10-yr O&M 20-yr O&M

1 Install Reinjection Wells $30,380 $0 $0

2 Operate and Maintain System $0 $1r905_300 $3r810,600

-- 3 Sub-Total $30,380 $1,905,300 $3,810,600

4 Mobilization/Demobilization, 10% $3,038

_ Construction Management,

Site Services

5 Implementation, Design, 22% $6,684

-- Permits

6 Contingency 30% $9,114

7 TOTAL $49,216 $1,905,300 $3,810,600

w
5_1 128

Section Tab
m 501 129

4. SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

The results of the detailed analysis of alternatives coupled with the use of the presumptive

remedy combine for a narrower range of feasible approaches to address remedial activities at

-- OU-1. The remedial action objectives, previously defined in Chapter 2 are as follows:

• Achieve the ground-water clean-up goals set forth in Table 2-2.

• Achieve the soil clean-up goals set forth in Table 2-3.

Pursuant to Section 300.430(e)(9)(iii) of the EPA's revised National Contingency Plan, the

remedial action to be implemented should be selected based upon consideration of nine

evaluation criteria. These criteria are as follows:

1. Overall protection of human health and environment.

_ 2. Compliance with ARARs.

3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence.

4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination. _ 5. Short-term effectiveness.

6. Implementability.

7. Cost.

-- 8. State acceptance.

9. Community acceptance.

-- The following sections provide a brief review and comparison of the remedial alternatives

according to the EPA's evaluation criteria. Table 4-1 summarizes the alternatives that will be

examined in the comparative assessment. Table 4-2 presents a summary of key points

-- related to alternative selection. Table 4-3 presents a summary of the comparative analysis.

4.1 OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE

-- ENVIRONMENT

Alternatives 1 does nothing to reduce risk levels at OU-1. Alternatives 2 and 3 both reduce

- the risk of source-area soils contaminating the underlying aquifer and address ground-water

remediation. Alternatives 2 and 3 would remediate ground water to levels at or below

MCLs.

4.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS

The evaluation of the ability of the alternatives to comply with ARARs included a review of

chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific ARARs that were present in

_ Chapter 2.

F:WRO/X_5037 $$4WS\OU 1.FS_.F-fN AL\ ICH AP4.1_Iul y 18, 1995 4-l
-'._ _ 5341 130

TABLE 4-I SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES FOR

OPERABLE UNIT NO. l,ELLSWORTH AFB, SOUTH DAKOTA

Atemative Description

1 No Action

2 Source Area Soil Treatment with Ground-Water

Containment

3 Source Area Soil and Ground-Water Treatment

F :\PRO J_6037584'u_JXOU I .F'5"XDRF'rFINL_4- I.TAB_] 7 March 1995
501 131

0o

w

0 o

_ _- z _. ,_

o _ o _

,-1

-- Z

z _ _

©

N _

__ ., , ._

_N
_z°= _ 5,_,I_132 -

_

¢_ "= 0

• _,_.- _-_ _ _ ._._

< _ -.-._-_ _ .- -£_ --_

< _ _ _._ _ .___. .__

_ _._ _ _,) --

0 .=

___-_ _.. c¢_ __ _ _ ,_ __

.... £ _ _ _ _ _ "r-._

:_ ............................> "2_'-°°_ ° ............. =._-= _ _ -_ 0 _ _ _ ._ _ _ _= _- ..

_ .l --

_ _='_ _ _ _'-_ ._.

....... _ _-'_ ,_ _._ _ ,_ . _ _ _. ___ _ = _ __ = _ _ _ ¢, ._

_"_ '_-_ _=-g_-_ _ _ _" __ _ _ , _ ,.._ _ _ 8 _

e4
501 133 -- i:i!iiiiiii:i_i:_i_iiiil i:iii!i_i_iiiiii!iiiiiiiiiii_,

_z iiii!iii!iiiili_ !ii!iiiii! . ._

_ =.

g aE g_ _

_._ _ _ ¢_

ii !ii:ili _ E

_ ,:ii!_i _ _ o _ _ -

_i:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiii!!i!iiiii!iii!iiiiii!i!i_i_i! _ _ _ " -

iiiiiiiiiiiii!!iiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiii!!iO_i:ii!iii_iiiiiliiiiiiiii = iii!!_!ili!i!iiiiiiii_iiiiiiiiii!i

- i!i!ii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii, ii_!iiiiiiiiiiiiii_ _

iiii_iiiiiiiiiiiiii_iiiiiiiiii:i -_ _ _ '_

• !iiiiii!._!:_!_ ¢_!iiiiii = - _ :!i!!iiii!i_:i_!:_!_i!_ii!ii_ _ _ =_ °=

.............. _iiiiiiii_iiiiiiiiiii_!_!iiiii!ililili!iiiiii i_i!i_ -=

iiiiiiiii_!_i!!!!!!i!i!!!!_!_ii_i!!!_!i!!ii!!!!!i!!!iiiiii_i!i_il _ _ _ _

_i_i_iiiiiiii::i:i'_.¢iiii < _ _ "¢ - : iii!!iiiii!i:_o !!!iiiii _ _¢ !!i!iiiiiiiii:i_i :iii:_:iiiiiiiii >,'_ _

iiii!iiiii_i:i!i!_!!iliiiiii!_! _ _ _ _- _. :_!!!i!!ii!iiiiiiiii!

-- iiiiiiiiiii_ii_iiii!iiiii_iliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiii_iiiiii!_ii!i!iii _ _ '_ _ _

i!ii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!i_ili!iiii_i!iii!!! _ ._ _ _ ._ _ ............................................................... ,..... _'_

'i!iiiiiiiiiiiii!i!i!ii!!iiiiiii! iiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiii i!!!!! i il _!!i!i!_i_!iiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiii:iiii!!iii!iii!iiiiiil;!_ii_i_i_i_ii ¢3 ,_ Z"

iiii!iii_i!i!i!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!i!iiii!!i!i!iii!!ili!iiiii_i!_i!i z

!.

< ¢¢

=o ._
.. 0,! 134

..................= "6_ o _ o g "__ o '_ m._g ,, _ E ._o _,e,- o .

_ 8_ _'_ _._ :,, _o

•- m .=o,m= _'E '_ _ E _E

.._ _ o° ,-..o , _ o o--'- "-

......... _ o _ o_ "_'_ _ _ 8

.... "_ "_ _ = _ _ o _. ...................... _'__o z ,_, _,, o_i_

.................. _ _ _ ,,0-_ -

. .__._ _ .'_ __

< o _ o_,s o ,,,, _,,;. ,o

................. _ _ _ _ = - _ _ -__ --

..... ......... o" ".-Z ,-_ ! .._"_ _°"_.__

- _ _ _ .e "_

"='6 v ,o

..........

_ _'_ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ -- _ _ __

!!ii_iili!iiiiii_!i!i!i!!iiiiiii!_i!i!ii!_i!iii!iii_ii!

i - !
= ._ o 5,"tl 135

i!!iii!i[iiiil _ e

ii!iiiiiiiiii_iiiiiiiiiii:ililiiii!_iii,_71iiiii_[iiiiiiii!i o___ _._o.= _

e..a.._

._ era

!_!i;ii:i;:iliiiiii!iii;_;iiiiiiii_iii_ii_iii;:!i!_i:!iiiii!iiiiiilil;i

!iiiiiiil;;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiii!:_:_i!_!!!i!!i!iiiill . _ _ _ ,.a

o- e _ N

- _ _ > ,.,

_i!!!:ii!!i!i_!i_i !iiiiii! _ " ,_

iiiiii!ii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiii_ _iiiiii!i!iiill _ _ _ '_

= i!i!ili!i!_!i!!!i!i!!!_{i!iiiiiiiii!! _ _ _ _ .=,-_ _ .=

'_ ii!iii!i!;:i!!!i!iiii_ = iiiiiii_i::_iii_i!!iii_==_i:iii,lililil.__ o '/..a_!iii!iii :".

ii!iiiiiiii_iiiii!iii!i!i!!;_i_i:i:iiiil;!;;_!;_;iiiill° = _ _ 8 = _ _ _ =_ ,=

iii

,.e iii!i!iiii!i!ii!ili!i!ii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiii!:!!iiiiiii{iiiiiiiii{i;i!:ag

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_ili!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iii!iiiii{i!!iii_

- R #

g_ .=- , i!!!i!iiiii!!i!i!iiiiiiiii!i!ii!ii!iii!i{!}}!!ii}:_!_!_!{iii!iii!iiiiiii = ,.a ._

!!ii!ii!i!;ii!iii!i;iii!i!i!ii!ii!ii; !!_!i!::iii!iiiii!iiiii _ _ .,o e= _

i!!!iiiii{iiiiiiiii!i!iiiii!:!ii!!_!{!i!i!!!i{i!i!!i!ii;ii:iiiilili _ =.', ._

e_

i:i_i:_i;!iiiii!ii_ii!i!i!!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_iiiiii!ii!_i!i

!i!ii!iiii!?i!iii7!;!!i!?N!!ii!iiiiiiiii!ii!iiS!!!!i!!!!!i!i!i!ii!?i:: _, _ :iiiiii!ii!;!i_iii!ii}!iil;!)iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_ii!iii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii _ : ,_

!!i!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_!iiiiii_ii!ii:!_!ii!i:!_!i!i!i_iiiii_!iiiiiiiii _ _ = _

i!i!i!i!iiiii)?!iiiiiiiii!iiiiiii!_!iiii_):_!_i_!!?i!!ii!ii!;ii!!ili_ _ N _ .._ _

i!iiiili!ilililili!i!ilili_ii¢!!ii!i!iiiii;i_i_i4i{!_ii4i}i!i!i!iii!iil; .= "_ _ _ _ _ ,_ ili!i!i!ili}i_iiiii!i!ii!iiiii!!iiii!i!i!iii_:;iliiiiiii!ili!ililila _ _ _. _

- _!ii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii{}ii!iiil}8'iiiiiiiii _ _ _ ¢ _ " _ e

_.J _ili_iJi_!iiii_iiiii!iiiisiiii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilil}ig}ili_i_i_i _ ._ _ = _ ._ O' _ ,.g e

!iiiiii{i!ii_ii!_!i!iiiiiiii!iii!iiiiiiiii!ii[ii!i!!ii!i!iiiii!i![!i!il;i_i = _ _ ..=. =

•- _ "- _ i_iii_ii}_!i_i_ii;ii_iiiiii}iiiiiiiii{iiii!iiiiii_iiiiiii{iiiiiiiii_i _i= _ _, ._ _ _ _. iiii!iliiiiii_!ii!i!i!ii_ilili{iiii{ii{iiiiii_!i!i_i:iiiiiiii{!ii!ii .= ._ _ ei_> g, _ _
5_"! I _,r,

............._"- ,____ ,_-_"_ 8 _ E ° --_ _

_ .= _ .='_

_ _ ,_= o _ -

_"_ _ _,.i _'_ o E _ _ _ - _ _._ _ __ _, _.--- _ _ _ _ - _ '

<:

= o.= ._ "6

...... _: ,,: '_ ._ _ r'-. _

_ _0._._ _,_, _ _ - ._.

,<

Z _ _ s

-r--

'_ _ _'_'_<_._._ r_ --

._. _ - = _. =._ -_ _, - _ ,,_ _ "_ .,., _ o ,_ - " :-Z_ "_ _ "_ _ o "_._ .== ._ _ ,_

.............................. _ _ ._ _

e-

,= - = = _. :_ ._ .. _ ,_

._ ,:, o _ _ _' = 2, _-_
m,_ iiiiiii_!i!i!iiiiiii!iii!i:,!_!_[i!!i!ii!:!)_iiiiii!iiii_ii:i_

i_i!i!!,!!ii!i!ii!ii!!!!!i)Aii!i!!i!!i_!i!i!i!!!i!_!_)i_!_i_i:i(_

501 137

d

iiiiiiiiiiiliiii

!i!ii_iilJ!iiii!i!_ii!_!!ii i?! _ "_

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!i_i!!:i!,

ii!iiiiii!i!iiiiiii!i!i_!iii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiii!il;::!i!

i!i!iiiiii!iL iiF!_ !iiiiiiii

]ii!!i iii! !ii!i_ !_::i

-- iiiiliiiii;iiii_ii;'_ _iiiili

!iiiii!iii!_!!iiiiii!!!!!ii!iLi_!!i!:!ii?ii_!]i -_

i:iiii!!ii!!_:;_:iii _

-- !i_iiii!:!!!!!i!i_:!i_'i__iiiii!i_iiiii "_ iiiiiiiiiii i_ _iiii!iiiiiiii _' _;

_D

= iii!!i!_:_-:i_!i _iii!iiiiiiil!_ _

o !_!:i!!!i]i_ii_!iGiii_iiii!iiiii!iilI -j !i:!!i:iii!i_iiiiii D*J

-- i!iii!iil; !iii!iiii! i i, i iiiiiii!iii!iiiiiii!ii -- _J 4 i:!!i!i!_;i::!i!iii!iiiii?i!£::::i!!i!?i!iii!!!i; I

<

_!!!:!;!ii;i:iiiiiiii!i)iiiii!!?;_!!i!i!iiiii!i!!!!!:_

,!:i![:'!!!i!i!:ii!ii!i:![i:k:::!ii!iiii:;iiii:!ii!i!ii!;i

- i

i_i:ii!:!!:!:_!!ii_:!!!!!_)!!!!!!i!!!iiiiiiiiiiiii!ii g ii ! ):::!!::_! :i_::::! !i_ii!i;iii

::!i_ iiiiiiii!il

_i:iii!!_i:!_iiii!iii!i!!i!!ii!i!iiiiiil

!]i:iii!iii;iii!!ii!iiiii:!:!!!!ii!!iii!ii!!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ' ._ i:!ii[i:[!liii!i!]i!:]li!i!!k!i!iiii!i[i!i!iii;i;i;i!iiii _ _i o

i!iiii!i:i!!!iiiii!iiiiii!)!!!!i]iii!iii!i!i!i]i!i!iiiii!i!iiiiiiiii _i

iiiiiiiii_iiiiiiiiiiiii![:i;!ii:iiiiiiiii:ili!iiiiiiiiiiii!i]i!iiiiiii_ _!

iiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiili;!!!!i!i!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil]iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii[ I :;;ii]iiiiiiiiiii!i!ii!i i]!iiiiiil;_iiiiiiiiii?iiiiiiiiiii;l!iiiiiiii_!;::iii!i!i!;!ii!!i _ _

N'-" e
551 138

Chemical-specificA]_Rs rel_tetoground-waterMCLs, ground-waterdischargeandso , ils

contaminated with petroleum. Alternatives 2 and 3 meet all of the chemical-specific "-._t"

ARARs.

Action-specific ARARs relate to specific media quality preservation, testing procedures,

wetlands protection, and pemdtting actions. Altematives 2 and 3 would meet the actionspecific ARARS.

There were no location specific ARARs.

4.3 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERFORMANCE

Alternative 1 would not provide additional effectiveness or perfo_inance in reducing the

potential for source-area soils to contaminate the underlying aquifer or in remediating

ground water. No further controls for the OU would be developed under this alternative.

Alternatives 2 and 3 offer a high level of long-term effectiveness. The potential for sourcearea soils to contaminate ground water would be reduced. Ground water concentrations

would be remediated to levels at or below MCLs. Permanency and reliability of these

controls would be enhanced through long-term monitoring and maintenance of the OU.

4.4 REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME THROUGH

TREATMENT

Alternative 1 would not provide for the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of the

chemicals of concern at OU-I. Alternatives 2 and 3 reduce the volume of VOC and IP-4 in

soil and VOC in ground water.

4.5 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS

Alternative 1 offers no short-term effectiveness. Alternative 2 would require 6-10 years for

SVE to remediate source-area soils and 20-30 years for treatment of ground water.

Alternative 3 would take 6-10 years for soils to be remediated with SVE and 10-15 years for

ground-water treatment.

4.6 IMPLEMENTABILITY

Alternative 1 requires no implementation because of the no action scenario. The remaining

alternatives require no special or unique activities and could be implemented with widely

available equipment, materials, and methods. Alternatives 2 and 3 may require NPDES

permit action.

F:WROJ_037g$oa=SMDUI.FSWINAL\IC'HAP4.FSkluly |$. 1995 4-2 -._i
- 501 139

4.7 COST

Table 4-2 presents a summary of the capital, operation and maintenance, and total costs for

each alternative.

4.8 STATE ACCEPTANCE

-- To be addressed in the Record of Decision.

4.9 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE

To be addressed in the Record of Decision.

J

_-_ F:_PROJ'_6037884_XDLIl.FS'_BNALXI_AP4.FSXJUly 18, 1995 4-3
501 I40

Section Tab
- 501 141

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

"_J 5.1 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION

-- The primary recommendation associated with this study is that the most appropriate feasible

remedial action alternative be selected and implemented at the earliest possible time. In

conjunction with the presumptive remedy, the selection should be based upon the nine

evaluation criteria as specified in EPA's National Contingency Plan.

I. Overall protection of human health and environment

2. Compliance with ARARs

3. Long-term effectiveness and performance

_ 4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination

5. Short-term effectiveness

6. Implementability

7. Cost

8. State acceptance

9. Community acceptance

This feasibility study has been prepared to examine alternatives with respect to criteria

numbers 1 through 7. Appropriate agency review of the report and the public meeting and

-- public review and comment period are intended to address criteria numbers 8 and 9. A final

selection should be based upon these nine criteria.

- 5.2 IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

A generalized ranking system can be applied to place the remedial alternatives in perspective

-- when compared against the seven NCP criteria. The ranking system employed in this section

uses a high, medium, or low designation for the overall effectiveness of any one alternative.

Table 5-1 lists the designation of the three alternatives evaluated in this FS.

TABLE 5-1 RANKING OF ALTERNATIVES FOR OU-1, ELLSWORTH AFB,

- SOUTH DAKOTA

Alternative 1 No Action Low

Alternative 2 Source Area Soil Treatment with Ground-Water Containment High

Altemative 3 Source Area Soil and Ground-Water Treatment High

i

_x_._" F:WROJ'_6037884WS'OU I.FS',FqNAL\ICHAPS.FSaJuIy 19, 1995 5-1
5.3 RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER ACTION

This FS has not addressed the coordination with the remediation of other Operable Units at

Ellsworth AFB. An examination of Base-wide alternatives could become appropriate as

feasibility studies are completed for these other OU's. The impact of the additional

characterization of the Base-wide ecological assessment could have a potential impact on the

remedial alternatives established in this report. Also, data generated from on-going interim

actions could impact the ultimate remedial design for OU-1 should the results of the IRA

differ significantly from expectations.

F:LPROJ_603?8$4x.FS'_OUI FS_ffiNAL'xlCHAPS.FS_July 19, 1995 5-2
5,)I 143

Appendix Tab
501 144

w

Appendix A

Presumptive Remedies

!
_Jn_te_States 'Cffice or ._irec:_ve: ._':5--":--:.==5

•-nwronmental Protection Soli_ Waste and E_A 540-F-_3-C4.__

5 0 1 ]. 4 5 Agency Emergency ResPonse PB 93-963346

Se13tember 1993

-

_-" ¢,.EPA Presumptive Remedies: Site Characternzatnonand Technology

- Selection For CERCLA Sites With

Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils

Office of Emergency' and Remedial Response . Quick Reference Fact Sheet

Hazardous Site Control Division 5203G

S lace Superfund'sinceptionin t,980, the remedialand removalprog_m_ have found thatcerr_ihcategonesof siteshave

similar characteristics, suchas.typesof contaminantspresenLtypes of disposalpractices,or how environmental me_i_i_

-- areaffected.Basedon informationacquixedfromevaluatingand cleaningup thesesites,theSuperfundprogramis

undertakingan initiativetodeveloppresumptiveremediestoacceleratfue turecleanups_ typesof sites.The

presumpffveremedyapproachisonetoolofaccelerauonwithintheSuperfundAcceleratedCleanupModel (SACM).

-- Presumptiveremediesarepreferredtechnologifeorco s mmon categoriesofsites, based on histo_riF.pa_l tternsofreL__y

selection and EPA's scientific and engtheenng evaluauon of perforvnance a_t:a on technology implemevtavton, xne

objective of the presumptive remedies initiative is to use the program's past experience to streamli_: site investiganon

_ andspeedupselectionof cleanupacuons. Over time presumptiveremediesamexpectedtoensureconsistencyin remedy

selection and reducethe cost and time required to clean up similar typesof sites. Presumptive remediesarc expected

to be useda_all approvttate sites except underunusual site-specific circumstances.

Thisdirectiveidentifithesepresumptiveremedies.forComprehensiveEnvironm'ntalResponse,Compensanon.and

LiabilityAct (CERCLA) simswithsoilscontaminatedby ¢o/at//eorgan/¢compounds (VOCs). In_clclition EPA.is

developingguidanceon presumptiveremediesforwood treatrrmntmunicipall , andfallCB, ,P grainstoragecoal ,

gasificauonndc ,a ontaminatedground,-watesites r E.PAhasalsodevelopedacfzrectiveentitledPresumgriveRemedies:

-- Policy. and Procedures, (DirectLve 9355.O-47F$) which outlines and addressegthe issues common to all presumpnve

remedies (e.g., role of innovative technologies, consistency with the NCP. St_t_, commu_tJ involvement).

-- PURPOSE site-speci_ anal_'sis of remedies by focusing the "-

feasibility study efforts. Where several pres,mpUVe

• " remedies are identified. EPA believes that ag deserve

_ The purpose ofthl_'_ditecu've is to provide gulel_nce on substantial cofisideration before utilizing the

selecting a presumptive remedy at sims 0.,ith soils presumptiverenaxiyapptuaclL EPA personnel should

- contaminated, with VOCs. Specifleally this guidance: review tim directive exmfled Presumptive Remedies:

- Policy'and Procedures (Dixect/ve 9355.0-47F5_ for

- Presents the presumptive "remedies for this site generalinforma_!noonthepres||mn_iveremedyla-ocess. type;

Soli vlpor extraction (SVE), thermal desor¢0on.

• Describesthepresumptiveremedylaucessinterms and iat_tion L-e die p_,sumpdve remediesfor

-- of site characl_mtion and tJ'choology screening Superfund sims with YOC-contaminalod soil assum'ng

steps: _ " -- the site ch3r'd¢_'11_ _ ce_,in _'tena. Table I

providesabriefdescription of oath oftheset_'esum-pave

_ • Outlines the data required to select these remedies.

presumpnveremedies.

The decision to establish these technolostesas

Since a presumptive remedy is a U_:hnoIogy that EPA presumptive remedies for this site type is based on

believes, basedupon its past experience, generally w=ll EPA's collective knowledge about site sn_esn gauoo

he themoStappropriatreme edy fora specifiedtypeof , and remedy selectiofor n VOC..contanunatesdods. site. the presumptive remedy approachwill accetemm

1
5:'t t46

TABLE 1 USE OF DOCUMENT

Presumptive Remedies for VOCs Thisdirecuve'ispnmznlyintendedforusebySuperruud -

in Soil sl,, m_nngcrsHoweve . rs. item_ncgersin omerprog1_m_

(suchas RCRA cormcdveacuon,the UST prog'_mSoil Vapor Extraction - Soil vapor extraction States).andtheprivatesector,mayalsousethisdirective. --

(SVE) is an in-situ or ex-situ process which

physicallyremoves'contaminantsfrom vadose Thisdirectiveisnota "standalone"document.Toensure

a full understanding of VOC site char_tenzauon and

•, zone soilsby inducingair flow_mugh the soil remedy selection,site managersshouldrefer to all

mathx. Theflowmgairstripsvotatilecompounds documentscited in the dh-ecuve. For assistancein

from the solidsand carries _em to extraction understandingcomplexsite conditions, an experien____

wells. Therecoveredvaporsmayrequirefurther sitem_n_tger,thepresumptiveremedyexpertte_m the --

.- treatment.In-situSVEisthepnmaryfocusofthis SuperfundTechnicalAssi.cf_nc=and ResponseTe_m (START) tP_m or the Eovi_onmeDiaJ R_'sponse Te _m

document, shouldbeconsuP-_ -- •_._"-_ - ..

Thermal Desorption- Thermaldesorption,s an ANTICIPATED BEN EFITS O.F

ex- situ process that usesdirect_)rindirect heat. PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES

excl_angetovavortzeorganiccontaminantsfrom - -

soil.sediment,sludgeorothersolidandsemisolid Useof thisdirectivewill reducecostandt_e inremedy

matrices. The vapors are then condensed or selection at VOC sites in the following ways:

o_erwiss collectedforfurthertraaU'nent. I. ThedLmcuvefacflitau_identifi_-onofthetxesumed

•' -_'" or likely rem_i_l options eady in the invesligacion

Incineration - Incineration is an ex:situ procnss.bencealiowingforamomfocusedcoUection

engineered process that employs thermal of a_,,, duringdz t'e_'__i=l invesug_on (1_ or --

decomposition via oxidalJonat temperatures removalsiteevaluation.In ,,_idon. knowledgeof

dsuailygreaterthen900°C todestroythe organic thepresumptiveremedymayfacili*-h-co,ectiouof

someremedialde_gn'_ befor_d= ROD °r zc_-°a

fractionofthe waste, memo.thereby=llowmgthe==ionto_ more

qn'icldyaftersignam_ofthe(:k_siondocument..

ThemajordifferencebetweenthermaldesoqYdon

and incinerationis Mat incineretionoxidizes 2. Thisdi.,eetiveelimi-_,,._the_ fortheinidalstep _

organic compounds, thereby destroying the of ldendf'yiagamisct_emag a+'/ari_ Pf altemanves

hazardous material. Thermal desorption tiering di¢-Feasibifit_Study. Additio,=ily.it will reduce the numberof t_dmoiog_s id,_tificd:and

volat_lizescont_'ninantsth, ertconcentratesthem, analyzec_i_"_e EFJCA. -The National OiJ...and -- Thermal desorption reduces, the volume of H_,dons SubstancesPollutiCoo_ntingency Plan

contamicat_onb, ul_leconcent_tedwaste SlTeam (NCP) (Secure]00.430(eXl)) states that "the.!e__3_

stillreduirestmal:ment Disoosalortreatment of agemysh-Uinclude_m=d_ves screeningstep, _ w_bfJllll_Eil_(emphasisabidedto) selectareason_hle residual waste abeam, ash, and concentrated • " s " - numh,=ofr alle.-l_VeSfoe detailed,anaJyI_. EPA's

;... VOC effluent is not c_vered by this direc'dve. _,=iysisoffeasibLlitystudies f_ VOC-coo_r-",=f_

OptJonssuch_off-sitedisposaPregenerationor soft sites (see Appendix A) found that cer_n

reuseshouldbe considered, r_:bnoioipesam mutioely screcoedout basedon

• effectiveness, inm|emenutbility, or excessivecosts,

consistent with NCP Section 300.430(e)(7).

including fieldexperience fromtheSuperf_B_ Resource "_" Accordingly, EPA has _ that. when using

Conservation and Recovery Act "(RCRA). and presumpave remediesat Voc-coe ''mi"''_ sites.

UnderipoundStora_T_nk (UST) pmlp'.mw In =,_lidon.

_" EPAconductedananaiysisofFYg6toFY91 Recordsof site-specific identification and screening of aJtemafivesis notnecessary. However. thisdLmcove

Decision (RODs) for sites whe_ VOC coataminanon andsupporangdocumemadon(see'l:ea-_tbilitySmdy -

drove remedy selection. The results of this analysis. Analysis for CERCLA Sites WithVolatile Organic

whi_la_pmvidediaAppendixA.demonslratethatthese Compounds in Soils") sboldd I_ included tn the

three technologiesrepresent over 90% of the remedies Admini_w4tive Record for aJl sites _ use _he --

• ":" selectedin theRODsanalyzed, presumpUverem_(ies) to doeu-meat the l_ts_sfor

eliminating the "site-spocific idenUfi_noo and

2
- -- 501 147

TABLE 2 presumpUveremedyapproachth, edetn_Jedn_mysts

can be limited to the ttLmeprtsumpuve reme_es _m

- Typical VOCs Addressed by this addition to the no-actionalternative), thereby

. j Directive s_tining that pomon of the FS. Appeod_ B

providesa genenc evaluationof thepresumpuve

-,. Haloqenated Volatile Organic_ remediesforsevenofthemnccritena. Thisevaluauon

- may serve as • basis for each detadcd anaJy_s

Cart)on Tetrachloride conducted u_r_lerthe presumptive remedy process

ChloroDenzene and should be augmented,as needed,toaddresssite-

• • Chloroethane specific condinons.

Chloroform

1,1 -Dichloroethane ., Oneof thesepresumptiveremediesis expectedto beused

w .. 1,1-Dichloroethylene for all VOC sites except under unusual circumstances.

1,2-Dichlorot_nzene Such circumstances may include unusual site soil

1,2-Dichloroethane .... characteristics, demons_tion of significant advantages

1,2-Dichloroethylene of aJmrnam(or o=h¢ innovative) mcbnoiogiesover the

-- 1,2-Dichloropropane presnmpdveret:ncdies,or exlz-4ordinarycommumW arid

1,4-Dichlorobenzene " _ s).fe concerns. If suchcircumstancesare encountered.

1,1,1-Trichloroethane additional analyses may be necessary or • more

_ 1,1,2-Trichioroethane convendormldetailed RI/FS may be performed.

1,1 2,2-Tetrac_loroethane

EthyleneDibromide PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES PROCESS

Methylene Chloride

Tetrachloroethylene

Trichloroethylene This section and the accompanying diagram (Figure [)

Vinyl Chloride describethesequenceofstepsinvolved m thepmsumpuve remedy process(siteclk3uacte_:,_)ionand techno|ogy

selection) for sites cont_inin$.soii Co_=min:_)ed wld:l

Non-Haloaenated Volatil_ Orqanics vocs. Whilftheprocessisnotmandatory, EPAbefieve=

that following the stepsoutlin_ below will expedite the

]_ -.-., clean-up processforthiscamgory ofsites. Acetone

-" Methyl Ethyl Ketone SVE is =heprimary presumptiveremedy. SVE h_ been

Methyl ISobutyl Ketone selectedmostfl-equenlJytoadd_ssVOCconr_m_o.auoQ=

-. Superfund sitesand imlial performancea_r_ m_cacc ttu=

Aromati¢_ it effectively treats waste in ptaceat :irelatively low coil

Benzene In caseswhen=SVE will =totwork or where there u very

Ethyl Benzene high/y concen_ cdor=minatioa, therm_J desorpaoa

-- _ --- Styrene may be the mum appmpriam responseIcchnoIogy In •

Toluene limnmdnumber of situations, mcmeradon may be nx_e

m-Xylene '_'"

o-Xylene appropna_.

-- p-Xylene The numbered paragraphs below correspond to the

',_-- -. numbered stepsin Figurel and i_rovidea det_ed

Note: OthercomDoundsthat have ghys_it/chemP.a discussioofn each step.

_ cnaracteristi_ _ll_il(tOI_f comnoundsfistedmay

ats°beaddresse_Wtlle.?resumDtivereme<_ " 1. AreVOCsPreseatintheSoil?iTheErstszep,sm

process, determinewhether VOCs ate the major co_

. presentinsoilatthesiteT.able2 ListstheVOC_

-- scmemng oftnchnolog/es"section.In_idon, other areamenabletothepresumpe.veremedies out_medm

suppordngm_r,'nals(e.g..FSre'poetsm¢ludedmthe this cRn_)we. If VOC.s ate present at _vett of

_nnlysis. technical reports) will be m_1_ available at com_'n (see forthcoming guidance on sod _¢eemlNg

EPA Headquarte_and areav_i!_blfore inclusion in levels),then the presumptive remedies_ um

theAdministrative Record if needed, thisdimc-_ive m.y be appficable. Hewers. ,_ . ,_

confirmed (at th!_ point or at any laterpoint duateal tan

3. ThJsditecdvesu_'amYmesthedetaJled_.ntysispornon pre_umpove remedy process) that there are ae _ ¢_'t

of the FS. Remedial alternatives developed for a sir,' present m the soft. thenthis diaeceve is not tl_p_.te4e

must be evaluatedagainsttheni_ecriteria (r_qui_md for use m technologyselectionatthes_te

under NC'P Section300.430(e)(9)).Under =h/s

3

w

501 149

Most likely, thts analysis will occur dunog scop_Qg not take into account St,_e A_AR_. For tnxs reasoo,

- of the RI/FS or EE/CA. However. there may be only Slam ARARs :eiaung to the presum_puve remedies

lin'ut_d inforrna,on avmlable m that urne ebout the shouldbecon._dcr_onaszte-spectficbasis. Re_ons

"-_ site. Therefore. whamver information is avmlable may want to supplement this di_c_ve by compdmg

shouldbeusedtodemrn_newhetherVOCs arepresent therequirementsoftheSt_t*_sintheirRegionstha/are

orsuspectedm thesoilbasedon priourse.Chemacal likeltobe_sociated y withtheuseofthepresumpuve ....

use at a site can be ascertained from a number of remedies _nd placing them in the a_mm_sa-aJve

sources such as facility records, previous sampling record for a si: where presumpuve remedies are

_ efforts by local or State agencies or through being considered. This _"ecuve along with the

• • Infor-mn,ion Request letters. "Feasibility Study Analysis for CERCLA Sites with

VolatileOrganicCompounds in Soils"shouldbe 2. Are Non-VOC.ConraminantaPresentThatPr¢clu_le inc|udedmrl_ad_mJstr_verecordforthesi_ifone

" _heUse of Presur_tiveRetouches?In:_u'J,'i!ilonto ofthepr_sun_iveren_diesispn_osedforapamcular

detenmn/ngwhetherVOCs arepresentinthesoil.it VOC-contaminatedsire.

is also necessary to identify other.non-VOC

_ conlaminantsi,fany,presenint t hesoft. 4. ReviewAdvamagedl..imiranonso.fthePresumpnve

Remedies.Dudng initialsitecharacmriT_riTab on.le

The sitec_nzar.ion and teclmologyselecuon 3 shouldbereviewedtoconsidertheadvantageasnd

proceduresoudthedinthisdirecuvearerecommend__d Hm/tstious of the presumpuve remedies. This

-- foruseprimar/lyon soicon l _ning VOCs only,See informationmay be usefulinpreparinfgorand/or

Table2forVOCstbarareamenabletod_epresumpnve modifying the si_ cha,Fac_ri,a)inOor _IP'I"-1aVes

remedies, analysis process. The "Pratt/ca/Considerano_"

secuooof this direcuve should also be reviewed at

-- _. For sices-contmninga mixture of VOCs and other " this time to ensure a comprehensive site ..

_, contnminantsin soil. thepresumFdveremediesshould charac_riz_fion'and remedy evabm_on.

-: be considered only if theycan alsobe effective in

_ removingthe non-VOC contaminantor combi s ned ' 5. Conduc_5ite Chammerization: Sitechatacter_'r.at/oo

with odae_,non-presumlxiveremediesin a _'en,ment for sites usingVOC Ixesumpuve remedies shouldbe

train, assuming the presumpuve remedies do nm designed to:

" exacerbamtheproblemspresentedbythenon-VOCs.

_-- Fore le, sitesVll_hVOCsandme_Iscommin ed Posilive[y ideali_ lhe site_ (i.e., VOC site);

-tnsoil maybe effe_-fively m_ by employing '< ' .,,

SV_to remove VOCs foH_ by'_'f_x_tionor • Obe,-,in,-I*_*_odemrmi_whesJ_mrthepn_s'umpiive

_olidific_on to addressthe metalcon,_minauon. In remedyis feasi_e for the site: -- _06t_asL a voc and polyaromauc h'ydi'ocarb_: s

{PAHs) cootaminmt_bmbina_,-_ix_ • Focus (and possibly streamline) site

more appropriatelywithasinglebidiog!__t characteriT_rbiyocoa llec0ngdatatosupportme ..

. sc_enmdmtwml_dbee_cti_/e fof1_itheVOCs a_ se_,_ono_ prnsumptiverenL_dy(ies) only(e.g.,

PAHs.+j%teth_ simsconmih£ngrmxmresofVOCs volumeandcostin_onmuon);and.

andnon-VOCs are vaned,and.for this reason, remedy .

selection may be more complicated than the • Collect some d_ign dam (i.e.. pilo/studies to

-- fr.n_.worpres k entedm thisdirect/ve:thesefore,the determi_radiusofiafluenc_ and flow ratesof

presump_ve remedy analysis may need to be SVE),_m_bysu.eand_ab_d_='acollectionduring

supplementedormodifiedo_ a site-specific basis, theremedial_desi_g;'n _

-- 3. [ninate Early Co_, State; and Potennally Table 4 iists the data that are. required .for

.. Responsible Party (PI_P} Im_vement. As early in ch_"4cm_a_,ionof siteswilh soil COnmmins_''sr4Wilh

the clean-upprocessaspossible.EPA should notify VOCs. This ruble also inctud_ the rauonale for

-- thecommtmity,Sl_e,_mdanyPRPsth_aptl_um_ve coIl_g these dramand l_fi_'_ncus for e$_hlisl_d

remedy is being comidemd for the site. It is important collection methods. Note that bench-scaleand pdoV.

for all stakeholders to u_i,-tstandcomplethow th ely e tt,'*)_,hility studies should be pe_ormed whenever

presumpuve _tnc_y process varies fi-om the usual possiblecou_withsiu-._ri_,',nontodefine

ciean-up process and.,.lhe benefits of using the thepm-ameters)h*)wiilbe_mnm'mnttodesigningthe

presump0veremedies process, system

,_ Early ide_lification of $1aie applicable or reievant In areaswith low organ/c content soil (e.g.. alluvial

nr__ appropti_ reClU_nis (._LRs) also is a basms).orwherethese_'¢i .mpedin_ntstoot'_,n,'_g

_ pm'tof_h_¢process,i_ecausethe pmsumpuon soil s%_ples (e.g.,u_,,__buildings), soil gassampling

set forth io _ directive is national in scope, it does _,

L;
501 150

is highlyrecommended as a sitecharacterization risk-basedPRGs axeoP_n setforsods.dcpen_ng on

technique.In_,',tion.theuseof soilgassampling depth.Shallowsoillevelsareusuallybasedbothon

dunng implemenmuon ofSVE andcoofu'mau)rysod directcontactexposureand protecUonof ground

sampting_rwm_ islessexpensivmae n constantly water,whilelEVelSfordeepersoilsam generally "-- ."

installinngew soilbonngs,especiallyfordeep basedonlyou mass_ransponmodelingofeffectson

conlamin_rion, ground water. Ecologicaleffectsmay alsobe --

importantocoasid_m seningPRGs.

Ifincinef"_iorthno ermaldesorptionisunderserious

consideration, bench-scale 1re_t_Killty studies may 7. ConductTime.CriticcdRemovalActionfifnecessary).

•, be conducted, especially if metals or om_r inorganic During imdal sir- characteriser+on, dam will be

compound.sam present. Therm=l desocp_iongenerally gathered to determine whcthera _imc.cndcal removal

should be considered if concemtalioos of VOCs axe aclioo will be needed and to dcl_rmine wh_ther the

lessthan 5 to I0 percent:inciner_ionmay be con,_minanqspl'esellta_nahlet0thepresumpQve --

appropriate if VOC concentrations ex_cee__5_ to 10 remedies. "rime-ctidcal removal actions, such as

percent. No_ thatexcavafion and mixing of soil can drum removal or actions addressing highly

produce a desort_r in,It of less than 10 percent contaminamd(lypicallysmall-volunms)ofs0il.shouid --

-:" contaminant concentration and allow thermal be conducmd in acco_nce with current guidance

desoq_iontobechosen. .- _n,4regulations.The decisionto,_,k,.a +in_-criUcal

-- removed acuon may be m_ by the Regronal Dectmon :

Addiuoually, the feasibility of excavauon should be Team (RD'ID or if time does. not permit, by an On- - --

demrminedbyevaluatmgs_condidoesanddepth See_he Coordinator (OSC) or a Re_ ",dIMPro)ec;

of confaminants as well as the pomnUal for any mx M=_get (RPM) in consul .ruff'onwith an OSC. . -

emissions associated with the excavauon. Test digs - -

should be mo_md closely to assureprotocuon of 8. lsThereaThreatPosedbyt_Site? Atiskassessn_m

thepublicandtheenvimnmem, mustbe conductedtodemrmin¢ifasufficienhetalth

.... . ...... or envirommenml tlxmatexists to warrant a removal or

It is'"importantto note that during the site rem=dial_'efion (Refer . mRiskAssezsme_Guidance _

cimmm_rizafion, the volume and conee6[ration of for Supcr_ Volume_ I and 11.EPA/540/1-89/002

wasteconstitutingtheprincipal threats at the site -- andEPA/540/l-89/001). Wlle_itif, determinedthal

"should be identified. The NCP (Section suchathremexisls, sim-speci6oexpesumdatacanbe

300.430(a)(IXiiiXA) andA GuidemPrinCipalThrea _ used to modify the PRGs i.demified_in. Stop 6 (NCP "------

andLowLeveiThremWaxtes, SupeffundPublie=_oo: S_'lioo 300.430(eX2Xi)). If it .is d_mtwlined _ ._-

9380.3-06FS. November 1991.defineprincipal suchad_.atdo_no{eLxist.nofuttheracu_0natme"s_t"'-

threats as souree mamriais, including liquids, that am will be required. -- _

highly toxic or highly mobile wastes which generally

cannot be reliably contained or would present a 9. proceed With Technology Assessment and Revww

sigaifi_arJnsic t _ohuman healthandorenvim_t "Pracno2/Considemtionase" t_rio_IftheanaJyms

shouldexposure occur..In accordance with NCP cl_cribedinstep8confu'msthaxthecoommman_ar_

expectations, waste consumung "pnncipai threats" a threat to human healthand/ortheenvuronmenL a

posed by a site generally are expected to be n-eared, proposed remedy should then be identifi.+e+d=, ~

-. The sitemm_g_t is_couraged tochas_mn_ the

sirein termsof pdncil_l _d iow.t_vel th_e_ az_.a#Io .... [f thi_ pt.oject is a remediaJactioe, a detailed analysts

d_termine m_g,'eiai$to be targetSfor treagment and ,,_ing r_- _ C_ will be reqtlir_l uod_ NC'P

" contamm_nt- Section 300.430<eX9)) to justify the selecuonof

.... remedydecision.AppendixB p_ovideans analystsof

6. Identif'yPot_AR_Ra, ToBeConawlered(TBCs). SV_ d_m'maJde--on, m_d incineration agam._

andPrelimina_yR_,ti,_on Goals(Pl_s). Potential seven of the _ se.l_cdon crii_ia. In ,_d,didouto [be

Federal and Stl!_ ARARs and pertinent TBCs seven criteriadiscussed m Appendix B. comm_ury.

inform_ion shouM be identified on a chemical-, andStateaceepmaeenmstMsobeevaluazed, lfanoolocation-, and action-specific basis concurrent with tim_*cridcah'emovM_donisplmmed,__

site chatactm-_,'m. For a morn derailed ARARs analysis described in the _ guidancewdJ be

""-' didcussion, refertothevarious ARARs fact sheets, r_ that uses the three criteria of effecuv -e_---_

(See Compendium of CERCLA ARA_ Factsheer_ imptenmnmbility, and cost. During the technology --

andDirecnves. EPAPublicalion 934"/.3-15. October assessment, the factors list_,_i_in the "Pracucal

1991). -, : - Considerations"seClionof this dixec'dvshould be e

reviewed tO ensure a comprehensive evaluauoe of

At this stop, PRGs shouldalsobe identified (NCP al_l'ives. .,

Section300.430(eX2)(c)).Notetha_diffe_nhte.alth

6
isF'edslble? SVEisthepnma_. p_s_m_trveremedy, amencted to reflect me presumptlve remedy _pproach :o

Piio_treatability study tesnng of S':E should be sltecharactenza.uonandremedyselecuon. Thepomnua/

conducted prior tO final remedy selec_on. Such savings in um¢ and money to be gained by using the

tesung will provideinformanononth_rateofremoval presumptive remedy approach are expected to outwexgh

-- ofcom_mmants. EPM540/2-911091Acimd inthe theburdenofmodifylng_escopeofworkiumanycases.

Referencessectionfn thidis recuveprovidegui s cl_ncC

on conducungthepilot/_eatabisltitudyy .Remov_ Initi-SiteActi I ons: IftheVOC material-iss..tillin

efficiencieand tr s eatmenteffectivenemus ss t be originalintactcontmne_s , ,itmay be returnedto the

--., Careful|yconsideredalongsidemePRGsidentified_m_ufacm.rm- (ifthemanuf_mrer is willingto accep_

the[:Stoesum_ thepotentialforSuccesfulrem s edial theseco_,,i,etsass ), umingthisresponseisacost-effective

acuonusingSVE." " and feasibleacuon asopposedto B'e:_ring the_I_eiai.

-- Reuse.of _ (i.e.. process liquids _d relocadon of

II.IsThermalDesorptionFeasible? IfSVEwillnotbe equipmenttootherpermittedfacilitiehsoul )s dalsobe

sufficiendeyffectiveinachievingPRGs dueto low considered.Further.phaseseparanonshouidbeconducted_

permeabilityi,l thologor in y sufficientremoval of and_cyclingconsideteddependingon thepurityof the

-- contamination during the pilot study, thermal recovered phaseor for any exisung liquids that ate high

desorption should be considered as the prunary ex- enoughioconcenwadoo. Refer to Appendix C for alist of

_itu presumpnve remedy, the currently recogmzed waste exchanges.

-- Thermal desnrption technologies cover a variety of Site Characterization: Site characterization should

vendors and processes. However. ample data are proceed as a single, multi-media activity whenever

available to substantiate remedy selection of thermal possible. Field screemng methods should be integrate_

._. " " desorpnonforsoiJcontaminatedsolelwithVOC y s. _into.thsampfin e gandanalysisplaninor_r tnaccelerate

informaunngathenng. Data qualitymust reflecthe t

12.Is Incineration Feasible? If contaminant ultimateuseof theinformaf!ou.

concentrations and bench-scale testing indicate -. -- ....

-- "" thermal desorpuon will not achieve destred PRG iGromutWa_.: Thedecisioumak_shouidconsiderthe

levels, incinerauon is thesecondex-sim presumptive ground-water stramgy for the site since soft cleaa-up

remedy. I_veis are often set to protect ground-water quality.

Therefor_,ground-waterclean-uplevelsmayhaveadirect

" lfincinerationisplanned.andasubstantialnumberof impact on the selected clean-up levels for So_. (See

innrganic contaminants are expected to be present forthcoming guh'hnee nO SoilScreening Levels and the

basedonsitecharacteri_rlondata._aa,-r_alshandling dL_cnve enuded PresumlYm¢ Remedies: Rernedia_

problems, or slagging problems are likely. Strategy and Treatment Technologies for CERCLA Sites

with Contaminated Ground Water.) It should be noted

Ifnone of the three presumptive remedies is considered that. of the VOC-type contaminants, listed in Table 2. the ,<

to be feasible at a parucular site. it will be necessary halogenated volatiles are dense nonaqueous phase liquids

-- toconsiderother technnlngies. (Formore informs,on, (dense NAPI.s or DNA?Ls) and many of the others are

.... refer to the Practical Considerauons sect/on below.) light NAPLa_(LNAPLa) in their pun) liquid form. If

LNAPLs are pro___i_it/(y he ,/apossible toaclclressttmm by

13. SelecrRemedyforRemedial/RemovalAction. Atthis lowermgthewatettable.removingfireelmX/uct(ifp,_sent).

point, there should be enough dam to identify a and applying SVE. To _ DNAPLs con,amino, on.

- preferred remedy in the proposed plan and dismbute refer to the above mentioned ground-wa_er guidance. ..

the plan for pobfic comn_nL Once the remedy ha_ ---.,:

-- been selected in the ROD. the user can proceed to do Management of Differen¢ Soils: A situation may arise

alimiteddesignwhichrelieslargelyonthesubstanua] where highly contaminateshd allow material cannot be

-amnunt of design-related data collected during the _,essedbySVE. Theactioum,,,idnessghisconmmmanon

RI. The extent of addiuonai or supplemental a_)_ rnaydifferfromtherestofthesoilcont/mmationandwiLI

-- required will be deternaned on a site-specific basts, most likely involve mcinerat/ou nr thermal desorpoon. If

it is suspected that soil contami_t_on existing at greazer

Practical Considerations depths will also be ueau_din this manner, then the excavated

-- shaUow matenal should be staged and stored ia order to

The following factors should be considered prior to taking treat zt with the deep material.

any remedial action. Another situation may arise where VOCs are maxecLw_th

Enforcement: This directive applies to fund-lead sims as moa,¢, and none of the presumptiveremediescan ad_ess both sets of con_ts. The actioo to address thzs well as to sites where a PRPis conducting the mvestigauon

and/or response action. In ,he event _ha! thene is an stma_on may consistofalxParm°nto'ain where VOCs

7
: 5,31 152 - addressed througrlSV_ or thermal desorpuon and'the However, thelowercos_andea.seofS%'Eimptement_uon

memJsareaadzessed through fixauon, will often weigh heavdy in il_ favor, a_ longas protecuon

of human health and the envitonmem is ensured.

Finally. the site mn.ager shouldbe aware of simauons

whereamxtureofprincipaandl l ow-levelthreatwastes AdditionalTechnologies:Iffd_somereasonnoneofthe "_-"

callforme useofn'eatmem(i.e..SVE orthermalueatrneml presumpUveremediesisapplicabletoaparuculaite. rs the

ofpnncipalthreazwasteandcontainmen(ct appingo)f sitemanagerisencouragedtorefetroFRA'sforthcoming

low-levelcoomnunaUoa.(SeeA GuidetoPrincipal documentenudedContaminantandR s ernedialOptions

Threat and Low-Level Wastes inReference Seclion). at._olvem$i;esforadlscussionof_'liuonalVOC ffeam_ent

technologiItes.shouldbenotedthatthiscomprehensive

• " Off-SiteDisposah Ingenend, itmaynotbecost-effeC-tive document, which identifies additional VOCs and

toshipquan_tiesofcow'_tminssroMil in excessof5,000 technologimesay,beappropriaIoteconsideron a sltecubicyardsforoff-sitedisposal.For thisreason, specific basis. ...... -- ..

pren'eaLment ofsoiland water may be requiredpriorto

shipment or dischargeto another u'eam_nt facility. Therml Tnmlment Technologies: The site manager

.... shonidrefemr E_'A'sDrafStu-ategyforCombustionof

Capping: Cappingalone is not recommendedto corm'ol H:,--ndons Waste (May 18. 1993) when consideringany

-tile migration of VOCs. However. capping can improve thermalIz_tm,,m technologies at a patucuiarsite.

theeffecuvenessof SVE by decreasing ._hnrateof --

infilltaUonof residualVOCs thi'onghthe v__l_ozo_ ne into Conclusion

the groundwaeerasweUas possibly increasingthe radius - ---

of influence and preventing "short circuiting" of ab For sites containing VOC-contaminated soil and

pathwaysin the vicinity of tbe extracuon well. Capping appropriate soil characteristics. SVE is a relatively

•-- canalso beused to address non-principal threat waste inexpensive mdefficiem _n_','hnniogy. Ifmatenal needs_o

unlessit is more cost-effective to _ this waste along be excavated,,lbermal desorp_on is preferred. In a._ew

with more highly contaminated materials, cases, incine_-_l_onmay be the most appropriateremedy -

- forexample,where SVE andthermaldesorpUonwill not

Patenta: SVEisapaxentedtechnology. Royalty payments n_tclean-upctiteriabasedonconuwn_-_n_coucentrancos

may be required under certain coudixions of or_comps,ilion:. implementation. -............

"" As remedies othe_ than SVE. thermal desomuonand

Attainmentof Remedistion Goa_: Itshouldbeno_ incmet',monbecome mr,n=widelyusedinthefuna'e,this

that. like od_erin-sire technologies, it is difflc_l to -dL,ecOve may be modified to reflect these trends. For

ascertain with confidence whether SVE will atmm _assistanceonpres.mptiveremedyrelswci_cuviUes -,

remediat_°ng°als untiltheaetionisacmallyimplemee-_ consult the Regioaal Presum_ve Remedies coamc_

i i

Notice: -_ "

The policiesset out in this document are intencleclsolely as guidance 4lothe U.S. Environmental

PrOteCtiOnAgency (EPA) personnel;they are notfinal EPA ac_ons and do not constituterulemaking.

Thesepolitiesare not intended,norcanthey bereliedupon,tocreateany rightsenforceablebyanyparty . --

. in lit_ja_ionwith the United States. EPA officialsmay _ecide to follow the guidance providedin l_iS

document.orto act at variance with the guidance,basedonan analysis of specificsi'#.circumstances.

EPA also resenmsthe right to change this guidanceat any time w_hout public noOce.

I II -I I I

8
__ ,_ , • = .

5,:pI153

1 '

._.__ L_-_,_ I; _ • _ -0-_ _ _ _+ _ _ ]

-_ _ _'_ _o _ /

_>" © • _'_=-_ :_ _ l.lZ",_ ._ _ " _'_ •

._,,_=o_ .,,_:__ 1_-_.=_o_.=8= _, _ _._

8 ++ _o _=_- . ®= = .m

+.+,++ --.+...+-+++ +_+, _ ,,'_-"Y' I|" +{+1 -_.__-_ _ _._

+

.,+.p..,,,,.,_= +., _+++._ ]

I : ._"_ _ _-"_J _ _ _'_I_

=.>=._.-_. o . .

uo.qo_x'd,IodeAI!o$ uo!lclaos_leU_otLI, uo.qeJeu._Ul _ a
571 154

10
501 i55

,_ _ .-_=_ _ _

.__=_ _,_

,_-_ I ff /

_ _ _l_ l >='= ® _ ,.-_o

• _ _ _ ,_

_.=I_ I.._- "='._ _"

E E ,_8

== _,= _ _ 1_--

i} a- --'_o_°" --"°:_

_. _ , ! I_ I _-__"-

....... Zl
_ _ : 5Ot t50 -

-

C II 4r.

,. . 11_ _ "

-_:/-.o i . '_ .

i.}- _

.,uiml ,'I== _, _ 1

..j r- _ =_

,_=_ _ - _-

II _ - •

- _. _':-'_

_ _ • ,,..

" 2 =_, I_ -"

i _ .fr i .ft

l _ i ._ lllll i!°- _. _. _l_

<'><':<_ lI.il_

_ _ _l.= _ .,_ _ . i i II _it ! -I l !l i I 0 tl .- .. _ _ _ ==' .. ,,,__..=,,

i2
- 5;:,1 157

APPENDIX A

TECHNICAL BASIS FOR PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES

-- " This Appendix summarizes the analyses that EPA conducteOof Record of Decision (ROD) and

FeasibilityStudy(FS) data fromVOC-contaminatedsiteswhichledto establishingsoilvaporexU'action

(SVE), thermaldesorption,andincinerationasthepresumptiveremediesforSuperfundsiteswithVOC-

_ contaminatedsoil. The analysesconsistedof:.

• IdentifyingVOC-contaminatedsites

• Determiningme frequencyof technologyseiec_onfor VOC si_tes

-- • Identifyingsitesfor the feasibilitystudy(FS) analysis

• Conductingthe FS analysis.

Resultsofthese analyses,alongwiththe scientificand engineeringanalysis of the performancedata

-- ontechnologyapplication(PrimaryReference0ocument),providea supportforthedecisionto eliminate

the initialalternativesidentificationand screeningstep forthissitetype. These technicalreviewsfound

that certaintechnologiesare eppropnatelyscreened out based on effectiveness,imptementabilityor,

v excessive costs. Review of technologies against the nine cnteria led to elimlhation of aad_onaJ .......

alternatives. Providedbelowis a discussionof each analysis..... _

" Identification of VOC-Contaminated Sites ,.. _,

The first analysis involved generating a list of signed Records of Decision(RODs) (post-SARA),

.- documentingVOC contamination,fromwhichdata couldbe usedfor subsequentanalyses. The ROD

InformationDirectorydatabase wasused for this purpose. Of the 821 signedFY86-FY91 RODs. 4i8

are iden_fiedin thedatabase as containingVOC contaminationin.sourcematerial. This listof RODs

was subsequenttydivided intotwo lists: RODs wi_ere VOCs were the onlycor_t_hiinantsof concern

identifiedinthe sourcematerialana RODs containingVOCs, as wellas other contaminatio_t,insource

material. ForthoseRODs involvingVOC plus othercontaminants, a reviewofthe ROD documentwas

conductedto identify cases where only VOCs were drivingthe selection of remedy. To make mis

determination;the Remedial Response Objectivesand Selected Remedy sectionsof the ROD were

revleweato identifyspecificlanguageindicatingthatthe remedialaclJonwasdesignedtoaddressonty

-- the VOCs at the site. In addition,if cleanup goalswere specifiedonly forVOCs, the assumptionwas

made thatVOCs were drivingthe remedy.

_ As a result of this analysis, 88 RODs were iden_ied as VOC-only RODs or VOCs plus other

contaminantsRODs where a cleardeterminationcouldbe made that VOCs were drivingthe selection

• of remedy.

-- Freauenev of Technoloav Selection for VOC-Contaminated Sites

Table 1 presentsthe distributionof the88 FYS6-FYgl RODs among the treatmenttechnologies used

" to addressVOCs insoil.This table demonstratesthat the three presumptive remedies (SVE. _erma=

-- desomtion;and incineration)togetherwere selectedmore often (over90% o!the RODsanalyze<]_man

the other applicabletechnologies. Presumptive Remedies were also those remedies where a _a=r

amountof pedormancedata ontechnologyimplementationwas available. Furthermore,SVE. cr_osee

_ - in over two-thirdsofthe RODs analyzed, was the primarypresumptiveremedy selected.

Identification of Sites for Feasibility Study Analysis

-- The purpose of the FS analysis was to document the technology screening step in FSs o_VOC.

contaminatedsoil/elude sitesandidentifytheprincipalmasonsgiven foreliminatingtechnologiesfrom

furtherconsideration.To achieve• representativesample of FSs fortheanalysis,siteswere se*ecm_

usingROD data accordingto the followingcriteria:

d

13
APPENDIX A

TECHNICAL BASIS FOR PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES i -

(Continued) 'ii "_

Table1

PresumptiveRemedyVOCSiteTreatment..-

-"" SummaryTable,FY86-FY91" --

TECHNOLOGIESUSEDTO TOTAL - ADDRESSVOCsIN SOIL ....

Bioremediation_;) 3 --

Incineration 11

" Soil FlushinojWashing(') 3 --

SoiI.Va_;0rExtraction 62

.. Thermal Treatment _z) . 9 --

Total 88

Source: ROD Information Directory(RID),:FY86 - FY91

Notes: (1) Relatively limitedamount of pedormancedata availableforffte_setechnologies

versus the presumptiveremedies. __

-" (2) Thermal treatment includesRODs employingthermal desorption,thermal aeration,

Iow-terrLoerstureth_'rnal desorption,andthe generic remedy 'thermal treatment'.

• A populationof 418 RODs was identifiedforthis studybased_n]he parameters: FY 1986-1991, and VOC contamination of ._ourcemedia.

• Siteswere chosen,basedon the selected remedy, toensurean evendisti'ibutionamongthe five

.... treatmehttechnologiesforVOCs insoil(i.e., bioremediation,incineration,SVE, soilflushing,and

thermal treatment).

• Wheneverpossible,bothVOC-onlysitesandVOCandothercontaminationsiteswere reDresented

undereach technology.

• Sites weceselected to ensure an even distributioningeographiclocation,ROD signature date,

anclsite size. -

.:._: ..

Feasibility Study Analvst_

The FS analysisinvolvesa reviewof thetechnologyscreeningphase,includingany pre-screeningstepo,

f_llowed by a rewew of the detailed anah/sksand compara_e analysis phases in each FS and ROD. •

Informationderived fromeach i;eviewwas documentedonsite-speciJicdate collectionforms,whch are

available for evaluation as part of the AdministratrveRecordfor thisdirec'dve. (See "FeasibilityStudy

AnalysisforCERCLA SiteswithVolatile Organ¢ CompoundsinSoils', September1993, available atEPA

Headquarters anO Regional Offices.)

14
- ,, 501 159

APPENDIX A

TECHNtCAL BASIS FOR PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES

'_ (Continued)

Forthe screeningphase,thefullrangeoftechnologiesconsideredwas listedonthedatacollectionforms,

a_ongwiththe keyreasonsguventot eliminatingtechnologiesfromfurtherconsideration.These reasons

-- werecategorizedaccordingto the screeningcriteria: cos_,effectiveness,or implementsbility•The

• " frequencywithwhichsDecdicreasonsweregtvenforeliminatinga technologyfromfurtherconsideration

was thentallied and compiled intoa screeningphase summary table (Table 2).

For the detailed analysis and comparativeanalysis,informationon the'relative performanceof ea_

technology/alternativewith respectto the nineNCP criteriawas documentedon the site-specificdata

collectionforms• The advantages and disadvantagesassociated with eacfl clean-up option were

highlighted.Insomecases,aVOCtechnologywascombinedwithoneormoretechnologiesthataddress

minorsite contaminants intoone or more alternatives. Only the componentof the alternativewhich

addressedthe VOC contaminationwasevaluatedinthisanalysis. The disadvantagesof a technology/

alternativewere then compiledintoa detailedanalysis/comparativeanalysissummarytable,underthe

assumptionthatthese disadvantagescontnioutedto non-selection•Allsummarytablesare availablefor

reviewas Dart of the AdministrativeRecord.

The FS analysishasbeen completedfor21 sites(representingapproximately25% ofuniversestudied).

Theinformationfromthese FSs hasbeencompiledand summarizedin Table2. AdditionalFS analysis

is plannedand will be_dded to the AclministrativeRecord,when available. Table 2 demonstratesthat

technologies,otherthan thepresumptiveremedies,areconsistentlyeliminatedfromfurtherconsideration

in the screening phase'due to effectiveness,implementability,or excessive costs• In addition,the

ana..lysisindicates that, althoughcertaintechnologiesroutinelypilssed the screeningphase, these

technologies weresetectedinfreouenflybecausethey didnot providethebest overaJlperformancewith

respectto the ninecriteria. Togetherthese analyses(AppendixA to thisdireclJveand"FeasibilityStudy

---1 AnalysisforCERCLA SiteswithVolatileOrganicCompoundsinSoils'), a_ongwiththe scientificanalysis

of performance data (USEPA (In Progress)Contaminantsand Rem.edialOptions at SolventSites)will

supportthe decision of usingpresumptiveremedies and bypassing the technologyidentificationand

screeningstep for a parlJcularsite• Aspreviouslyindicated,thisfactsheetandaccompanyinganalysis

shouldbe part of the AdministrativeRecordforthe site. Further supportingmaterials, notfoundin the

RegionalfUes,-canbe DrovidedbyHeadquarters,as n._cded. e

v -, v

o.

• vl

L5
iii
- _ 5_?I 16!

ii 6

w

m Q ,_

-- _" _ 'k ° ° ° ° ° ° °

- _

z

< oo,1:\

17
5C,I 162

, , j

_ _ __

_ % - _ o o _

!) -

\%; o o

I

_ _ ]P! °

18
. :_.i i  ̧ _

_ 5_I IB3

] ii

g,

- _-_ i

_ g

rat -- O

__ o o _:_

.... _

,_g_3 _ _

- _!_._

_ _.

19 "
5,.';1 164

_-_®-_._ =_'_._ _z •_ ._:_e __ ._ .. _ _ _,_._ _:_ _ -

. . - o . _ _-=_== ._=,_ _._-_._=._._,___ _._-;_ _ -

,7,

;.| .=-=. == o-=.= ,,,-

"_ _ eL. ':"=i :.__a _zs_& _.1 ]'_ " ;'_ ¢: j= _ "

--. _=" ,. .=_ =-> .=_,_:=_-._ .=-=-. .= _- ,; o=_=' =.

-: _°.!|L ..

!!

,_ov..;,_,o-,,o , ,,^_ "f

2O
501 165

.

• _z_-_._ _e_ _> _-_.- :_

_._,, _ _ c_._.--_ .,_

__-.|o

_ ._ o_ __ _

_ o _

-" °_ NOHoUOS30"IVMU3HJ. . j _

21
5:Jl .!66

_ _ ] -

_._ l_r, !_ _ '_ _._

] _ __ _oo_ ___

..... _ _ . '_

_- " _ _ _._' -"#! '_ _'-

-_ .-_!, 8_ _ _'_ _ -

NOLLVUgNIONI

22
501 167

APPENDIX C

_j- U.S. Waste Exchanges

- iii

',i CALIFORNIA WASTE EXCHANGE INDUSTRIAL WASTE INFORMATION

RobertMcCormick EXCHANGE ,i

-- . • Department of Health Services William E. Payne _! Toxic SubstancesControl Division New JerseyChamber of Commerce

400 P Street 5 Commerce Street ij,

-- Sacramento,CA 95812 Newark, NJ 07102 ,!

t- (916) 324-1807 (201) 623-.7070 "i

INDIANA WASTE EXCHANGE MONTANA INDUSTRIAL WASTE EXCHANGE _i

EnvironmentalQualityControl -"-_ Don Ingles ,'i

1220 Waterway Boulevar0 .... Montana.Chamber of Commerce I

P.O. Box 1220 P_O.Box 1730 - - "

Indianapolis. IN 46206 Helena, MT 59624.... :

(317) 232-8188 (406) 442-2405

-- INDUSTRIAL MATERIAL EXCHANGE NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL WASTE EXCHANGE!

SERVICE LewisM. CuRer

Diane Shockey 90 PresidentialPlaza, Suite 122

_ 2200 ChurchillRoad, #31 Syracuse, NY t3202

Spnngfield,IL 62794-9276 ...._ (315) 422-6572

(217) 782-0450 FAX: (315) 422-9051

= FAX: (217) 782-9142

SOUTHEAST WASTE EXCHANGE

INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS EXCHANGE Maxi May

BillLawrence -_ Urban Institute

-- 172 20th Avenue Department of Civil Engineering

Seattle,WA 98122 Universityof NorthCarolina

(206) 296-4899 Charlotte.NC 28223

_ FAX: (206) 296-0188 (704) 547-2307 . _.

PACIFIC MATERIALS EXCHANGE SOUTHERN WASTE INFORMATION

BobSmee EXCHANGE

1522 North WashingtonStreet, Suite 202 Gone Jones

- Spokane,WA 99205 .:- P.O. Box960 ....

(905) 325-0551 Tallahassee, FL 32313

-;- FAX: (509) 325-2086 (904) 644-5516

FAX: (904) 574-6704

NATIONAL WASTE EXCHANGE NETWORK

1-800-858-6625

-- RENEW

" Hope Castillo

Texas Water Commission

P.O. Box 13087

Austin,TX 78711

- (512) 463-7773

FAX: (512) 463-8317--,_,_-_,, " "

-. 23
5Sl 168

APPENDIX D i "

GLOSSARy. ] _ -

I

I

AonlicableorRetevantandAnnrnDriateReauirements p_ecordof Decision (ROD) - A public document that i --

CAthaRt AonsRstte re )-Cmedi ERCLaJactions mustatta A SectionI1 lld)am(orndjusthtiefNCP r yawa|veeqr uLr_ e_thapt iai winllsthbee basis taken or ser for se:veecd uunngtdhec er CERCLA lean-upaltem . auvet s) !

of')requtrements ofenvtronmemaJ laws that amdetermmed

.,• tobeFederalormore stringentStateapplicableorrelevant _- The run.dialacuonthatmvolves

and appropnaterequiz'ements, designtngand testintode= g mane whethertheremedy

willbe effectivata _ e at¢....

DenseNon-AaueousPhaseLiouidmNAPL_- DNAPLs ....

areimmisciblehydrocarbonliquidsthataredenserthan RemediaJInvesti_atioRInf )-Anin-depthstudydesigned

water,suchas chlonnatedsolvents(eitheras a single togatherthedatanecessartodetermine y thenatureand

component or as mixtures of solvents), wood preservative extent of the threat posed by contagunation at a Superfund

wastes, coal tar wastes. PC'Bs and some pesticides, site. It also heips toestablish the preliminary, criteria for

DNAPLs can sink to great depths, can penetrate into cleaning up the site in the FS and supports the technical

bedrock fractures, can move as a. liquid in a direction and cost analyses of th_"alternauves. It is generally

.,.. different from the flow of groundwater and can act as a completedandcombinedwiththeFS and referred to as the --

continual source ofgroundwamr conr_minanon over nn'_. RIIFS.

En_ineerin2Evaluation/Cost Assessment (EE./CA) - Risk Assessment- The qualitative and/or quantity.re

.. An analysis of removal alternmives for non-time crlncal evaluanon performedin an effort to define the risk posed

removal actions, to human'health and/or the envtrontnem by actual and

potenual exposures to specific pollutants inair, water.soil

",__- Ret_oval ofmamdal from the gx'ound or other media. . -- for treatment.. --

"" Sunerfund'Aecelenltted Cleanun Model fSACM) - An

-A descriptioand a n nalysis of the initiative designed toacceleramallaspectsoftheSuperfund,

potentialclean-u_altemanvesfora site.Itisgenerally clean-uprocess. _--

conducmd concurmudywith the remedial investiganon - ..

(RI);togetherthestudiesarerefern=_cltoasanRJ (See _ /FS. - The zone insod thatliesabove the

remedial invesUgation.) pernm_nt water table. _

- The treatment or remediation of Volatile Oro_nie Comt_ouncls (VOCs) - Any orgamc

media occumng in-pl_e= . compound which readily dissipates into the aft.

Innovative Treatment Technolo_k_- Technologies that

have been tested, selected, or used for treatment of -"

h_'_rdous s_bstaneesor contaminamdm=-,rials but lack -

well-documented costaM performance _*_ under a variety

. of operating conditions.. ..

Land Distmeai R_'trietlons (LDI_ - The Ha'_rdous

and Solid Waste ,_m_ndments (HSWA) to the Resource

Conservation =,,i Recovery Act (RCRA) include specific

• resmctioas on the land disposal of RCRA ha-_,dous

wastes. These restrictions, known as LDRs, prohibit the . --

landdisposal ofrestrictnd RCRA h_7_n:iouswastesunless

these wastesmeet tteammnt standardsspecified in 40 CF'R

268 or other complianceoptions.

Lieht Non-Aoueoes Phase Liouid_ CLNAPL'I - Like

DNAPLs. LNAPLs am immiscible liquids, but axe lighter

than water and then=fore float on water. As they are lighter

thanwater,theyaremos't'frequenfdyoundatthegroundwater tab|e3vadozezoneinterface. t

24
-_.,..:

REFERENCES

*p

-- Primaw Reference: U.S. EPA, 1991. la-Situ Soil Vapor Extraction

Treatment Engineenng Bulletin. EPM540F2-91/006.

U.S. EPA (In-Pro_ess). Comannnants and Remedial May.

Options at Solvent Sites.

U.S. EPA. 1991. Guide for ConductingTreatability

Compound Properties: Studies Under CERCLA: Soil Vapor Extraction.

RREL Treatability Data Base - Available through EPM540/2-91/O91A. September.

ATTIC (Contact Glenn Shaul (513) 569-7408)

U.S. EPA. 1992. A Technology Assessment of Soil

"_ General Site Investigations: Vapor Extracuon and Air Sparging. EPA/600/RU.S. EPA. 1986. A Compendium of Superfund Field 92/173,.September

Operauon Methods. EPA/540/87/001. . Thermal Desorptlon:

U.S. EPA. 1988 Guidance for Conducting Remedial

. lnvesugauons and Feasibility Studies Under U.S. EPA. 1991. Thermal Desorprioo Treatment

_ CERCLA. EPA/540/G-89/004. October. Engmeenng Bulletin. EPA/540/2-91/008, February.

U.S. EPA, 1989. Guide for Conducting Treatability U.S. EPA, 1991. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA. interim Final. EPA/540-2-89/

058. Studies Under CERCLA: Thermal Desorpuon

• " Remedy Selection - Interim Guidance. EPA/540/RU.S. EPA, 199 I. Soil Sampling and Analysis for Volatile 92/074A. September:-' "

_j Organic Compounds. EPA./540/4-91/001.

Incineration: - Additional References: -

-- Dempsey. C.R. and Oppett. E.T.. "Incineration of U.S. EPA, 1991. A Guide to Principal Threat and Low

Hazardous Waste: A Critical Review Update", Level Threat Wasms. Superfund Publication

Intemauonal Journal of Air Pollution Conn'ol and 93go.3-06FS.

Hazardous Waste Management. Volume 43. January, -:

-- i993. pp. 25-73. U.S. EPA. 1991. Risk Ass¢ssmcnt Guidance for

U.$.EPA. 1990.Mobile/TransportableIncineration Superfu.ndVo.lume l: Human Health Eval-_don

TreatmentEngineerinBgulletin.EPA/540/2-90/O14, Manual,Part A. EPA/54011-89/002Dece . mber.

Febma_,.

U.S."EPA, 1989. Risk Assessment GuM_nce for

Presumptive Remedies: Superfund. Volume 1I: Environmental Evaluauon

Manual. EPAJ54011-89/001. March.

U.S. EPA (In-ProgressL Presumptive Remedies: Policy and Procedures.

U.S.E.PA, 199 I.Compendium of CERCLA A.R.ARs

U.S. EPA (ln-Progressl. Presumptive Remedies: Factsbeets _d Directives. EPA Publication

Remedial Strategy and Treatment Technologies for 9347.3-15, October. CERCLA Sites with Contaminated Groundwater.

Soil Vapor Extraction:

_ U.S. EPA. i991. Soil VaporExtraction Technology

Re ference Handle>ok. EPA/540/'2-91/003. February.

• i

25
w

501 170

v

• q w

w

F

UniteclStates

EnvironmentalProtection

Agen_ .. -

Wasmngton, D.C. 20460

_.. OffictalBusiness .-,

Pena_ for Private Use

$300 ---

26
50! ITI

Appendix Tab
- 501 172

w

w

Appendix B

References
m

-, : 501 173

REFERENCES

_ DeYoe, John. 1993. USAF. Personal Communication.

Schultz, L.G. and H.A. Tourtelot, J.R. Gill, and LG. Boemgen. 1980. Composition and

-- Properties of the Pierre Shale and Equivalent Rocks, Northern Great Plains Region. U.S.

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1064-B.

-- State of South Dakota, Department of Environmental & Natural Resources. 1992. Unpublished

data on location of shallow domestic wells near Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota.

-- Nichols, T.C. 1992. Rebound in the Pierre Shale of South Dakota and Colorado - Field and

Laboratory Evidence of Physical Conditions Related to Processes of Shale Rebound.

U.S. Geological Survey Preliminary Open-File Report. 92-440.

U.S. Air Force. 1985. Installation Restoration Program. Phase I - Records Search. Ellsworth

Air Force Base, Rapid City, South Dakota. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -

-- Omaha District, Omaha, Nebraska.

U.S. Air Force. 1988. Installation Restoration Program, Phase II, Stage 1, Final Remedial

-- Investigation Report. Ellsworth Air Force Base, Rapid City, South Dakota. Prepared for

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District, Omaha, Nebraska.

U.S. Air Force. 1989. Installation Restoration Program, Phase II, Stage 2, Final Remedial

Investigation Report. Ellsworth Air Force Base, Rapid City, South Dakota. Prepared for

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District, Omaha, Nebraska.

U.S. Air Force. 1994. Final Remedial Investigation Report Operable Unit 1 at Ellsworth Air

_ Force Base, South Dakota. September 1994.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Final Draft Guidelines for Ground-Water

_ Classification Under the EPA Ground-Water Protection Strategy. U.S. EPA Office of

Ground-Water Protection, Washington, D.C. December, 1986.

-- U.S. Geological Survey. 1984. Elemental Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials

of the Conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270.

-- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Presumptive Remedies: Site

Characterization and Technology Selection For CERCLA Sites with Volatile Organic

Compounds in Soils. Publication PB 93-963346. U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and

Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Superfund Record of Decision:

-- Whitewood Creek, SD. EPA/ROD/R08-90/028. U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and

+....j Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.

F:WROIX6037854_FS_OUI.FSWINAL'tREFS.F$ July 19. 1995
w

501 174

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. Risk-Based Concentration Table, First

Quarter 1994. U.S. EPA Region IIIfRoy L. Smith, Senior Toxicologist Technical

Support Section, Philadelphia, PA. "-

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial

Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA. EPA/540/G-89/004. U.S. EPA

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Air Force. 1994. Treatability Studies Technical Report for Operable Units 1, 2 and 4 at

Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota. September 1994.

Summers, K., S. Gherini, and C. Chert. 1980. Methodology to Evaluate the Potential for

Ground Water Contamination from Geothermal Fluid Releases. EPA-600/7-80-117,

U.S. EPA/IERL, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. Air Force (USAF). 1995. Final Design Analysis for Interim Remedial Actions Operable

Unit 1 & 4 and Early Actions JP-4 & Flightline Refueling Area at Ellsworth Air Force

Base, South Dakota. March 1995

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State of South Dakota, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Ellsworth Air Force Base. 1995. Conference call. 6 March 1995.

Howard, P. 1991. Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates. Lewis Publishers, Inc.,

Chelsea, MI.

F:LDROP:o037594WS_UI ._'SWINAL_RE'_.FS July 19, 1995
51)1 175

Appendix Tab
- 5,.,I176

w

Appendix C1

Detailed Direct Cost Report for Alternative No. 2

s
-..ate 03/17195 501 177 Page 1

Time 16:28 _ i :

DETAIL COST REPORT

)ject:

_-_U-I#2

Ellsworth AFB SD

- OU-1 Alternative No. 2

EA Engineering

03/16/95

Project Comments:

Site:

OU-I ALT 2

Source Area Soil Treatment with GW contain.

EA Engineering

-- 03/16/95

Site Comments:

Labor Equip Material

_3 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.02 Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, Analysis

--_3.02.97 Sampling & Analysis

02.97.01 Sampling & Analysis - Capital Costs

Field Technician

32.00 HR 400.46 0.00 0.00

Mobilize Crew, Local, Per Person

8.00 EA 0 00 0 00 440.00

OVA Rental, Per Day

5.00 DAY 0 00 0 00 550.00

Monitoring Port W/Gas Monitor

_ 6.00 EA 45 18 0.72 5.94

Van Or Pickup Rental

4.00 DAY 0 00 0 00 132.00

Disposable Materials Per Sample

5.00 EA 0 00 0 00 31.52

Decontamination Materials Per Sample

5.00 EA 0 00 0 00 28.88

50 Quart Ice Chest

4.00 EA 0 00 0 00 303.16

Prncpl Organ Haz Constituents, Air (30/5040/8240)

_ 4.00 EA 0 00 0 00 704.00

Total Capital Costs 445 64 0.72 2,195.50

"-33.02.97.99 Sampling & Analysis - O&M Costs
Date03117198 50[ 178 Page 2 _ Time 16:28

DETAIL COST REPORT

Labor Equip Material _--;

33 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.02.97 Sampling & Analysis

33.02.97.99 Sampling & Analysis - O&M Costs

Field Technician

2,400.00 HR 30,034.29 0.00 0 00

Mobilize Crew, Local, Per Person

600.00 EA 0.00 0.00 33 000 O0

OVA Rental, Per Day

121.00 DAY 0.00 0.00 13 310 00

Van Or Pickup Rental

300.00 DAY 0.00 0.00 9 900 00

Disposable Materials Per Sample

361.00 EA 0.00 0.00 2 275 38 _

Decontamination Materials Per Sample

361.00 EA 0.00 0.00 2 084 78

60 Quart Ice Chest

300.00 EA 0.00 0.00 22 737 00 --

Prncpl Organ Haz Constituents, Air (30/5040/8240)

121.00 EA 0.00 0.00 21 296.00

Total O&M Costs 30,034.29 0.00 104 603.16

Total Sampling & Analysis _----

30,479.93 0.72 106,798.66

33.02.98 Monitoring

Field Technician

3,192.00 HR 39,945.60 0.00 0.00

Mobilize Crew, Local, Per Person

248 00 EA 0.00 0.00 13,640.00

Load Supplies/Equipment

124 00 LS 16,825.08 31,088.04 0.00

Security Pass/Protocol

124 00 LS 2,803.53 5,180.72 0.00

Furnish 55 Gal Drum For Development/Purge Water

3 00 EA 0.00 0.00 141.41

Hip Waders Rental

50 00 WK 0.00 0.00 i,I00.00

Do Meter, Digital, Portable, I0' Cable, Small Dia Probe

1 00 EA 0.00 0.00 1,028.50

Water Quality Parameter Testing Device

150.00 WK 0.00 0.00 34,650.00

Well Development Equipment Rental

20.00 WK 377.31 7.00 7,592.42
bate 03/17/95 ', . : _ . 501 179 age 3

ime 16:28

DETAIL COST REPORT

_ Labor Equip Material

3 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.02.98 Monitoring

_3.02.98.99 Monitoring - O&M Costs

Personal Low Flow Sampling Pump, Monthly Rental

121.00 MO 0.00 0.00 24,623.50

Van Or Pickup Rental

-- 372.00 DAY 0.00 0.00 12 276.00

Disposable Materials Per Sample

1,996.00 EA 0.08 0.00 12 580.79

w Decontamination Materials Per Sample

1,998.00 EA 0.00 0.00 ii 526.90

60 Quart Ice Chest

150.00 EA 0.00 0.00 Ii 368.50

Metals Screen, Furnace, Per Each (EPA 200S)

1,000.00 EA 0.00 0.00 27 500.00

Purgeable Halocarbons (EPA 601)

-- 1,200.00 EA 0.00 0.00 167 970.00

Base Neutral & Acid Extractable Organics (EPA 625)

1,000.00 EA 0.00 0.00 550 000.00

-- TAL Metals (EPA 6010/7000s), Water

1,000.00 EA 0.00 0.00 225 500.00

Volatile Aromatic Halocarbons, Air, TO-1

496.00 EA 0.00 0.00 136 400.00

Semivolatiles, Air (10/3550/8270)

496.00 EA 0.00 0.00 218 240.00

Total O&M Costs 59,951.52 36,275.76 1,456 138.02

Total Monitoring

_ 59,951.52 36,275.76 1,456,138.02

33.03 Site Work

--33.03.05 Fencing and Signage

33.03.05.01 Fencing and Signage - Capital Costs

Security Fence, i0' Galv W/3 Strands Barb Wire

2,100.00 LF 10,269.13 7,452.48 31,069.50

Hazardous Waste Signing

11.00 EA 185.82 2.06 298.02

Total Capital Costs 10,454.95 7,454.54 31,367.52

Total Fencing and Signage

10,454.95 7,454.54 31,367.52

--_ 03.78 Access Roads
j_ ....

Date 03/17/95 5_'I 180 Page 4 __

Time 16:28

DETAIL COST REPORT

Labor Equip Material _w

33 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.03.78 Access Roads

33.03.78.01 Access Roads - Capital Costs

Rough Grading, 14G, 1 Pass

2,667.00 SY 361.57 586.74 0.00

Fine Grading, 130G, 2 Passes

1,334.00 SY 55.65 80.04 0.00 --

Ditch Excavation, Normal Soil, Hauloff Spoil 1 Mile

750.00 CY 612.42 1,002.98 0.00

Total Capital Costs 1,029.64 1,669.76 D.00

Total Access Roads

1,029.64 1,669.76 0.00

33.06 Groundwater Collection and Control

33.06.02 Subsurface Drainage Collection

Single Pass Trenching

15,500.00 SF 50,235.21 100,471.00 64,587.11

Total Capital Costs 50,235.21 100,471.00 64,587.11

Total Subsurface Drainage/Collection

50,235.21 100,471.00 54,587.11

33.06.98 Extraction Wells

33.06.98.01 Extraction Wells - Capital Costs

H Stem, ii" OD Borehole For 4" Well

50.00 LF 402 05 743.03 0.00

4" Screen, Filter Pack

14.00 LF 25 33 46.81 131.95

4" Well, Bentonite Seal

2.00 EA 20 36 37.62 68.00

4" Well, Portland Cement Grout

31.00 LF 0 00 0.00 46.04

4" PVC, Sch 40, Well Casing

36.00 LF 65 13 120.37 80.78

4" PVC, Sch 40, Well Screen

14.00 LF 33 94 62.73 127.94

4" PVC, Well Plug

2.00 EA 5 31 9.81 43.38

Well Development Equipment Rental

2.00 WK 37.73 0.70 759.24
-,Date 03/17/95 ! _ 50_ _81 Page 5

?ime 16:28

DETAIL COST REPORT

_-_" Labor Equip Material

_3 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.05.98 Extraction Wells

._33.05.98.01 Extraction Wells - Capital Costs

Standby For Drilling

2.00 EA 90 46 167.14 0 00

Mob/Demob Drilling Rig & Crew

1.00 LS 361 83 668 56 0 00

Move Rig/Equipment Around Site

1.00 EA ii 31 20 89 0 00

-- Decontaminate Rig, Augers, Screen (Rental Equipment)

1.00 DAY 0 00 0 00 149 60

Furnish 55 Gal Drum For Drilling Cuttings & Devel Water

2.00 EA 0 00 0 00 94 27

OVA Rental, Per Day

1.00 DAY 0 00 0 00 ii0 00

Split Spoon Sample, 2" x 24", During Drilling

i0.00 EA 0 00 0 00 275 00

(1-1/2",3") Stainless Steel Dbl Wall Piping, w/Fittings

2,000.00 LF 41,482 35 711 60 63,309 40

(1-1/2",3") PVC Double Wall Piping, w/Fittings

2,000.00 LF 14,751.21 269 00 9,364 30

GW Pump, 1/3 HP, 230V, Controls, Probe

2.00 EA 358.81 4 78 9,559 00

PR Pump, 1/3 HP, 230V, Controls, Probe, Highly Corr Liq

2.00 EA 358.81 4 78 16,577 00

550 Gal Single Wall Steel Above Ground Tank

1.00 EA 245.93 4 21 660 00

Electrical Charge (KWH)

441.00 KWH 0.00 0 00 24 26

Restricted Area, Well Prot (W/4 Posts & Ep Receptacle)

2.00 EA 315.30 6 59 984 93

5' Galvanized Chain Link Fence

50.00 LF 36.30 0 43 332 75

5' Swing Gate, 12' Double

2.00 EA 100.31 32 33 587 93

Explosion Proof Electrical Receptacle For Product Pump

-- 2.00 EA 77.36 0 39 529.65

Total Capital Costs 58,779.83 2,911 77 103,813.40

33.06.98.99 Extraction Wells - O&M Costs

Electrical Charge (KWH)

57,485.00 KWH 0.00 0.00 3,161.58

m
Date 03/17/95 :

501 182 Page 6

Time 16:28

DETAIL COST REPORT

Labor Equip Material "_--

33 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.06.98 Extraction Wells

33.06.98.99 Extraction Wells - O&M Costs

Pump & Motor Maintenance/Repair

24.00 EA 4,794.72 1,564.08 0.00

Total O&M Costs 4,794.72 1,564.08 3,161.68

Total Extraction Wells

63,574.55 4,475.85 106,975.08

33.13 Physical Treatment

33.13.07 Air Stripping

33.13.07.01 Air Stripping - Capital Costs

Install Air Strip Tower, 1'-3' Dia, 13'-20' High

1.00 EA 0.00 0.00 0.00

3' Dia x Ht, Pre-Fab, FRP, Air Strip Column/Shell Only

25.00 FT 0.00 0.00 0.00 --

I" - 3.5" Packing for Air Strip Tower

128.00 CF 0.00 0.00 0.00

Internal Parts for Air Stripper, < 20' High _

8.00 SF 0.00 0.00 0.00

750 CFM, 8" Pressure, 1.5 HP, Blower

1.00 EA 0.00 0.00 0.00

Electrical Controls For Air Stripper

1.00 EA 0.00 0.00 0.00

1,000 Gal Horiz Plastic Sump W/4" NPT Connect

1.00 EA 0.00 0.00 0.00

High Sump Level Switch For Avoiding Overflow

1.00 EA 0.00 0.00 0.00

I00 GPM, 2-1/2" Discharge, CI Sump Pump

1 00 EA 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 Gal Bypass Chem Shot Feeder, Floor Mnt, 175 PSIG

1 00 EA 0.00 0.00 0.00

6" Structural Slab On Grade

150 00 SF 0.00 0.00 0.00

3", Class 200, PVC Piping

i00 00 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00

3" Polyethylene 40' Joints, 60 PSI

i00 00 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00

Electrical Charge (KWH)

1,174 O0 KWH 0.00 0.00 0.00
_ate 03/17/95 .... _ 501 183 Page 7

ime 16:28

DETAIL COST REPORT

__,/ Labor Equip Material

3 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.13.07 Air Stripping

_3.13.07.01 Air Stripping - Capital Costs

Total Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00

33.13.07.99 Air Stripping - O&M Costs

Electrical Charge (KWH)

1,000,000.00 KWH 0.00 0.00 55,000.00

-- Packing Reconditioning

60.00 EA 32,238.68 37,468.80 0.00

Blower And Motor Maintenance And Repair

20.00 EA 3,995.50 1,303.40 0.00

Total O&M Costs 36,234.28 38,772.20 55,000.00

Total Air Stripping

36,234.28 38,772.20 55,000.00

--J3.13.20 Carbon Adsorption (Liquid)

13.20.01 Carbon Adsorption (Liquid)-Capital Costs

100 GPM, 3000 Lb Fill, HDPE Lined Steel, Permanent

1.00 EA 0.00 0.00 0.00

Saturation Indicator

1.00 EA 0.00 0.00 0.00

12" Structural Slab On Grade

42.00 SF 0.00 0.00 0.00

100 GPM, 5 HP, Transfer Pump W/Motor, Valves, Piping

1.00 EA 0.00 0.00 0.00

Electrical Charge (KWH)

3,339.00 KWH 0.00 0.00 0.00

w Total Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00

)3.13.20.99 Carbon Adsorption (Liquid)-O&M Costs

-- Coal Based Gen Purpose,8X30 Sieve, 900 Iodine,2K-10K Lb

300,000.00 Ib 0.00 0.00 323,400.00

Remove/Reinstall Carbon Adsorber Unit

_ i00.00 EA 14,500.00 0.00 0.00

Electrical Charge (KWH)

1,088,722.00 KWH 0.00 0.00 59,879.71

Pump & Motor Maintenance/Repair

w 16.00 EA 3,196.48 1,042.72 0.00

m
Date03J17195 501 184 Page 8 -- Time 16:28

DETAIL COST REPORT

Labor Equip Material _-

33 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.13.20 Carbon Adsorption (Liquid)

33.13.20.99 Carbon Adsorption (L_quid)-O&M Costs

Total O&M Costs 17,796.48 1,042.72 383,279.71

Total Carbon Adsorption (Liquid)

17,796.48 1,042.72 383,279.71

33.13.23 Vapor Extraction w

33.13.23.01 Vapor Extraction - Capital Costs

5 HP, 230V, 280 SCFM, Vapor Recovery System

1.00 EA 196.79 2.50 8,250.00

Operational Labor Cost

4.00 DAY 1,720.21 76 88 0 80

DOT Steel Drum, 55 Gal

1.00 EA 0.00 0 00 47 14

Electrical Charge (KWH)

3,350.00 KWH 0.00 0 00 184 25

Surface Pad, Concrete, 4' X 4' X 4"

6.00 EA 14 16 0 94 61 47

Furnish 55 Gal Drum For Drilling Cuttings & Devel Water

8 00 EA 0 00 0 00 377 08

2" Well, Portland Cement Grout

60 00 LF 0 00 0 00 59 40

2" Screen, Filter Pack

72 00 LF 73 82 136 42 384 53

4" Iron Body Checkvalve

2 00 EA 90 54 1 69 353 i0

2" Well, Bentonite Seal

6 00 EA 24 42 45 14 79 18

2" PVC, Sch 40, Connection Piping

105 00 LF 160.74 2 93 68 15

2" PVC, 90 Degree, Elbow

6 00 EA 66.28 1 21 3 83

4"x2" Reducer, PVC Sch 40

6 00 EA 0.00 0 00 48 84

4" PVC, Sch 40, Tee

6 00 EA 204.36 3 73 36 96

2" PVC, Well Plug

6 00 EA 10.86 20 06 38 21

4" PVC, Sch 40, Manifold Piping

53 00 LF 174.69 3 19 99 69
Page 9

03/17/95 501 185

ime 16:28 .::- : : .

DETAIL COST REPORT

Labor Equip Material

3 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.13.23 Vapor Extraction

_3.13.23.01 Vapor Extraction - Capital Costs

2" PVC, Sch 4D, Well Casing

g0.00 LF 108.56 200 62 69.30

2" PVC, Sch 40, Well Screen

-- 60.00 LF 93.36 172 53 238.39

OVA Rental, Per Day

3.00 DAY 0.00 0 00 330.00

-- Pressure Gauge

5.00 EA 131.42 2 25 524.24

Mob/Demob Drilling Rig & Crew

1.00 LS 361.83 668 56 0.00

Move Rig/Equipment Around Site

5.00 EA 56.54 104 46 0.00

Split Spoon Sample, 2" x 24", During Drilling

36.00 EA 0.00 0.00 990.00

Decontaminate Rig, Augers, Screen (Rental Equipment)

2.00 DAY 0.00 0.00 299.20

-- H Stem, 8" OD Borehole For 2" Well

156.00 LF 1,026.32 1,896.78 0.00

Total Capital Costs 4,514.90 3,339.87 12,542.96

_3.13.23.99 Vapor Extraction - O&M Costs

Operational Labor Cost

-- 121.00 DAY 52,036.46 2,325.62 0.00

Electrical Charge (KWH)

435,489.00 KWH 0.00 0.00 23,951.90

Total O&M Costs 52,036.45 2,325.62 23,951.90

Total Vapor Extraction

56,551.36 5,665.49 36,494.86

33.88 Contractor Oversight

33.80.01 Professional Labor

__33.80.01.01 Construction Support

Project Engineer

32.00 HR 834.29 0.00 0.00

Staff Engineer

320.00 HR 6,340.57 0.00 0.00

w_
Date 03/17/95 Page i0 w

Ti e 16:28 50I' 18G

DETAIL COST REPORT

Labor Equip Material I

33 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.80.01 Professional Labor

33.80.01.01 Construction Support

Staff Hydrogeologist

345.00 HR 6,855.74 0.00 0.00

Field Technician

160.00 HR 2,002.29 0.00 0.00

Certified Industrial Hygienist

16.00 HR 417.14 0.00 0.00

Other Direct Costs

1.00 LS 0.00 0.00 345.50

33.80.01.04 "As Built" Drawings

Staff Engineer

4.00 HR 79.26 0.00 0.00

Surveyor

6.00 HR 93.86 0.00 0.00 --

Field Technician

8.00 HR I00.ii 0.00 0.00

Draftsman

24.00 HR 300.34 0.00 0.00

Word Processing/Clerical

8.00 HR 83.43 0.00 0.00

Other Direct Costs

1.00 LS 0.00 0.00 13.20

33.80.01.05 Operation and Maintenance Manuals

Staff Engineer

I0.00 HR 198.14 0.00 0.00

Field Technician

i0.00 HR 125.14 0.00 0.00

Word Processing/Clerical

10.00 HR 104.29 0.00 0.00

Other Direct Costs

1.00 LS 0.00 0.00 8.80

33.80.01.06 Monitoring Reports

Project Engineer

8.00 HR 208.57 0.00 0.00

Staff Engineer

24.00 HR 475.54 0.00 0.00

Staff Hydrogeologist

40.00 HR 792.57 0.00 0.00
bate0311719S 501 187 Page11

ime 16:28 _ _

DETAIL COST REPORT

__ r Labor Equip Material

3 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.80.01 Professional Labor

_3.80.01.06 Monitoring Reports

Field Technician

48.00 HR 600.69 0.00 0.00

Draftsman

-- 48.00 HR 600.69 0.00 0.00

Word Processing/Clerical

32.00 HR 333.71 0.00 0.00

-- Other Direct Costs

1.00 LS 0.00 0.00 62.70

_13.80.01.24 Sampling and Analysis Plan

Project Engineer

4.00 HR 104.29 0.00 0.00

Staff Engineer

i0.00 HR 198 14 0.00 0.00

Staff Hydrogeologist

i0.00 HR 198 14 0.00 0.00

Word Processing/Clerical

20.00 HR 208 57 0.00 0.00

Certified Industrial Hygienist

4.00 KR 104 29 0.00 0.00

Other Direct Costs

1.00 LS 0 00 0.00 16.50

"-33.80.01.32 Health and Safety Plan

Project Engineer

8.00 HR 208.57 0.00 0.00

Certified Industrial Hygienist

80.00 HR 2,085.71 0.00 0.00

Other Direct Costs

1.00 LS 0.00 0.00 48.40

33.80.01.46 Work Plan Amendments

Project Engineer

-- 20.00 HR 521.43 0.00 0.00

Staff Engineer

40.00 HR 792.57 0.00 0.00

_ Staff Hydrogeologist

20.00 HR 396.29 0.00 0.00

Word Processing/Clerical

64.00 HR 667.43 0.00 0.00

i
Date 03/17/95 " - _ [ Page 12 w

Time 16:28 5_, [ [88

DETAIL COST REPORT

Labor Equip Material k, -

33 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.80.01 Professional Labor

33.80.01.46 Work Plan Amendments

Certified Industrial Hygienist

i0.00 HR 260.71 0.00 0.00

Other Direct Costs

1.00 LS 0.00 0.00 55.00

Total Capital Costs 26,292.51 0.00 551.10

Total Professional Labor

26,292.51 0.00 551.10

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS REMEDIAL ACTION

352,600.43 195,828.04 2,241,192.06

* * * * This System Intended For Government Use Only * * * *

v
'_ 501 189

Appendix Tab
- 5_1 190

w

Appendix C2

Detailed Direct Cost Report for Alternative No. 3
_ate 03/17/95 5_I 191 Page 1 Time 16:05

DETAIL COST REPORT

Dject:

._U-l#3

Ellsworth AFB SD

- OU-I Alternative No. 3

EA Engineering

03/16/95

Project Comments:

Site:

w OU-I ALT 2

Source Area Soil Treatment with GW treatment

EA Engineering

03/16/95

Site Comments:

Labor Equip Material

3 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.02 Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, Analysis

__3.02.97 Sampling & Analysis

02.97.81 Sampling & Analysis - Capital Costs

Field Technician

32.00 HR 400 45 8.00 0.00

Mobilize Crew, Local, Per Person

8.00 EA 0 00 0.00 440.00

-- OVA Rental, Per Day

5.00 DAY 0 O0 0.00 550.00

Monitoring Port W/Gas Monitor

6.00 EA 45 18 0.72 5.94

Van Or Pickup Rental

4.00 DAY 0 00 0.00 132.00

Disposable Materials Per Sample

-- 4.00 EA 0 00 0.00 25.21

Decontamination Materials Per Sample

4.00 EA 0 00 0.00 23.10

60 Quart Ice Chest

4.00 EA 0 00 0.00 303.16

Prncpl Organ Haz Constituents, Air (30/5040/8240)

4.00 EA 0 00 0.00 704.00

Total Capital Costs 4&5 64 0.72 2,183.41

"_3.02.97.99 Sampling & Analysis - O&M Costs

D

w
501 192

Date 03/17/95 _. , Page 2 __

Time 16:05

DETAIL COST REPORT

Labor Equip Material _-

33 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.02.97 Sampling & Analysis

33.02.97.99 Sampling & Analysis - O&M Costs

Field Technician

1,200.00 HR 15,017.14 0.00 0 00

Mobilize Crew, Local, Per Person

300.00 EA 0.00 0.00 16,500 00

OVA Rental, Per Day

121.00 DAY 0.00 0.00 13,310 00

Van Or Pickup Rental

150.80 DAY 0.00 0.00 4,950 00

Disposable Materials Per Sample

121.00 EA 0.00 0.00 762 66

Decontamination Materials Per Sample

121.00 EA 0.00 0.00 698 78

60 Quart Ice Chest

150.00 EA 0.00 0.00 11,368 50 --

Prncpl Organ Haz Constituents, Air (30/5040/8240)

121.00 EA 0.00 0.00 21,296 00

Total O&M Costs 15,017.14 0.00 68,885 94

Total Sampling & Analysis

15,462.78 0.72 71,069.35

33.02.98 Monitoring

Field Technician

2,048.00 HR 25,629.26 0.00 0.00

Mobilize Crew, Local, Per Person

248 O0 EA 0.00 0.00 13,640.00

Load Supplies/Equipment

124 00 LS 16,825.08 31,088.04 0.00

Security Pass/Protocol

124 00 LS 2,803.53 5,180.72 0.00

Furnish 55 Gal Drum For Development/Purge Water

3 00 EA 0.00 0.00 141.41

12' Aluminum Pole with Polyhead Sampler

i 00 EA 0.00 0.00 323.40

Boat Without Motor, Rental

24 00 DAY 0.00 0.00 1,320.00

Do Meter, Digital, Portable, i0' Cable, Small Dia Probe

1 00 EA 0.00 0.00 1,028.58

Water Quality Parameter Testing Device

72 00 WK 0.00 0.00 16,632.00
_Jate 03/17/95 _i | _ _.501 193 Page 3

'ime 16:05

DETAIL COST REPORT

Labor Equip Material

3 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.02.98 Monitoring

_3.02.98.99 Monitoring - O&M Costs

Well Development Equipment Rental

10.00 WK 188.65 3.50 3 796.21

Personal Low Flow Sampling Pump, Monthly Rental

121.00 MO 0.00 0.00 24 623.50

Van Or Pickup Rental

372.00 DAY 0.00 0.00 12 276.00

-- Disposable Materials Per Sample

1,215.00 EA 0.00 0.00 7 664.45

Decontamination Materials Per Sample

1,216.00 EA 0.00 0.00 7 022.40

60 Quart Ice Chest

72.00 EA 0.00 0.00 5 456.88

Metals Screen, Furnace, Per Each (EPA 200S)

-- 480.00 EA 0.00 0.00 13 200.00

Purgeable Halocarbons (EPA 601)

575.00 EA 0.00 0.00 80 625.60

-- Base Neutral & Acid Extractable Organics (EPA 625)

480.00 EA 0.00 0.00 264 000.00

TAL Metals (EPA 6010/7000s), Water

480.00 EA 0.00 0.00 108 240.00

Volatile Aromatic Halocarbons, Air, TO-1

495.00 EA 0.00 0.00 136 400.00

Semivolatiles, Air (10/3550/8270)

-- 496.00 EA 0.00 0.00 218 240.00

Total O&M Costs 45,446.52 36,272.26 914 630.35

Total Monitoring

45,446.52 36,272.25 914,630.35

73.03 Site Work

3.03.05 Fencing and Signage

33.03.05.01 Fencing and Signage - Capital Costs

Security Fence, I0' Galv W/3 Strands Barb Wire

_ 2,100.00 LF 10,269.13 7,452.48 31,069.50

Hazardous Waste Signing

11.00 EA 185.82 2.06 298,02

-- Total Capital Costs 10,454.95 7,454.54 31,367.52

Total Fencing and Signage

10,454.95 7,454.54 31,367.52

=-=_3.78 Access Roads
Da e03/17/95 501 194 Page 4 _

Time 16:05

DETAIL COST REPORT

Labor Equip Material -,_

33 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.03.78 Access Roads

33.03.78.01 Access Roads - Capital Costs

Rough Grading, 14G, 1 Pass

2,667.00 SY 361.57 586.74 0.00

Fine Grading, 130G, 2 Passes

1,334.00 SY 55.65 80.04 0.00

Ditch Excavation, Normal Soil, Hauloff Spoil 1 Mile

750.00 CY 612.42 1,002.98 0.00

Total Capital Costs 1,029.64 1,669.76 0.00

Total Access Roads

1,029.64 1,669.76 0.00

33.06 Groundwater Collection and Control

33.06.02 Subsurface DrainageCollection

Single Pass Trenching

19,500.00 SF 63,199.13 126,399.00 81,254.75

Total Capital Costs 63,199.13 126,399.00 81,254.75

Total Subsurface Drainage/Collection

63,199.13 126,399.00 81,254.75

33.06.98 Extraction Wells

33.06.98.01 Extraction wells - Capital Costs

H Stem, ii" OD Borehole For 4" Well

250.00 LF 2,010.24 3,715.15 0.00

4" Screen, Filter Pack

70.00 LF 126.65 234.05 659.74

4" Well, Bentonite Seal

10.00 EA 101.79 188.11 329.98

4" Well, Portland Cement Grout

155.00 LF 0.00 0.00 230.18

4" PVC, Sch 40, Well Casing

180.00 LF 325.67 601.85 403.92

4" PVC, Sch 40, Well Screen

70.00 LF 169.71 313.63 639.72

4" PVC, Well Plug

10.00 EA 26.53 49.04 216.78

Well Development Equipment Rental

10.00 WK 188.66 3.51 3,796.21
--Date 03/17/95 _! i _ Page 5

501 195

?ime 16:05 !" _

DETAIL COST REPORT

Labor Equip Material

_3 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.06.98 Extraction Wells

--33.06.98.01 Extraction Wells - Capital Costs

Standby For Drilling

i0.00 EA 452.29 835.70 0 00

Mob/Demob Drilling Rig & Crew

1.00 LS 361.83 668.56 0 00

Move Rig/Equipment Around Site

9.00 EA 101.76 188.03 0 00

-- Decontaminate Rig, Augers, Screen (Rental Equipment)

4.00 DAY 0.00 0.00 598 40

Furnish 55 Gal Drum For Drilling Cuttings & Devel Water

_ 11.00 EA 0.00 0.00 518 49

OVA Rental, Per Day

5.00 DAY 0.00 0.00 550 00

Split Spoon Sample, 2" x 24", During Drilling

50.00 EA 0.00 0.00 1,375 00

(1-1/2",3") Stainless Steel Dbl Wall Piping, w/Fittings

1,000.00 LF 20,741.18 355.80 31,654 70

-- (1-1/2",3") PVC Double Wall Piping, w/Fittings

1,000.00 LF 7,375.61 134.50 4,682 15

GW Pump, 1/3 HP, 230V, Controls, Probe

10.00 EA 1,794.04 23.91 47,795 00

PR Pump, I/3 HP, 230V, Controls, Probe, Highly Corr Liq

10.00 EA 1,794.04 23.91 82,885 00

550 Gal Single Wall Steel Above Ground Tank

-- 1.00 EA 245.93 4.21 660 00

Electrical Charge (KWH)

2,204.00 KWH 0.00 0.00 121 22

-- Restricted Area, Well Prot (W/4 Posts & Ep Receptacle)

i0.00 EA 1,576.52 32.97 4,924 66

5' Galvanized Chain Link Fence

250.00 LF 181.51 2.15 1,683.75

5' Swing Gate, 12' Double

I0.00 EA 501.55 161.53 2,939.64

Explosion Proof Electrical Receptacle For Product Pump

-- i0.00 EA 386.78 1.94 2,648.25

Total Capital Costs 38,462.29 7,538.65 189,292.79

33.06.98.99 Extraction Wells - O&M Costs

Electrical Charge (KWH)

359,279.00 KWH 0.00 0.00 19,760.35

w

J

w
Date 03/17/95 5 [_[ 195 Page 6 --

Time 16:05

DETAIL COST REPORT

Labor Equip Material

33 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.06.98 Extraction Wells

33.06.98.99 Extraction Wells - O&M Costs

Pump & Motor Maintenance/Repair

160.00 EA 31,964.82 10,427.20 0.00

Total O&M Costs 31,964.82 10,427.20 19,760.35

Total Extraction Wells

70,427.11 17,965.85 209,053.14

33.13 Physical Treatment

33.13.07 Air Stripping

33.13.07.01 Air Stripping - Capital Costs

Install Air Strip Tower, 1'-3' Dia, 13'-20' High

1.00 EA 0.00 0.00 0.00

3' Dia x Ht, Pre-Fab, FRP, Air Strip Column/Shell Only

25.00 FT 0.00 0.00 0.00 --

i" - 3.5" Packing for Air Strip Tower

128.00 CF 0.00 0 00 0.00

Internal Parts for Air Stripper, < 20' High

8 00 SF 0.00 0 00 0.00

750 CFM, 8" Pressure, 1.5 HP, Blower

1 00 EA 0.00 0 00 0.00

Electrical Controls For Air Stripper

1 00 EA 0.00 0 00 0.00

1,000 Gal Horiz Plastic Sump W/4" NPT Connect

1 00 EA 0.00 0 00 0.00 _

High Sump Level Switch For Avoiding Overflow

1 O0 EA 0.00 0 O0 0.00

i00 GPM, 2-I/2" Discharge, CI Sump Pump

1 00 EA 0.00 0 00 0.00

5 Gal Bypass Chem Shot Feeder, Floor Mnt, 175 PSIG

1 00 EA 0.00 0 00 0.00

6" Structural Slab On Grade

150 00 SF 0.00 0 00 0.00

3", Class 200, PVC Piping

I00.00 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00

3" Polyethylene 40' Joints, 60 PSI

I00.00 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00

Electrical Charge (KWH)

1,174.00 KWH 0.00 0.00 0.00
501 197

--Jate 03/17/95 _ _, _ , Page 7

Time 16:05

DETAIL COST REPORT

k'-/J Labor Equip Material

_3 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.13.07 Air Stripping

-33.13.07.01 Air Stripping - Capital Costs

Total Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00

33.13.07.99 Air Stripping - O&M Costs

Electrical Charge (KWH)

450,000.00 KWH 0.00 0.00 24,750.00

-- Packing Reconditioning

25.00 EA 13,432.78 15,612.00 0.00

Blower And Motor Maintenance And Repair

__ 12.00 EA 2,397.36 782.04 0.00

Total O&M Costs 15,830.14 16,394.04 24,750.00

Total Air Stripping

15,830.14 16,394.04 24,750.00

--33.13.20 Carbon Adsorption (Liquid)

13.20.01 Carbon Adsorption (Liquid)-Capital Costs

_ i00 GPM, 3000 Lb Fill, HDPE Lined Steel, Permanent

1.00 EA 0 00 0.00 0.00

Saturation Indicator

1.00 EA 0 00 0.00 0.00

-- 12" Structural Slab On Grade

42.00 SF 0 00 0.00 0.00

I00 GPM, 5 HP, Transfer Pump W/Motor, Valves, Piping

_ 1.00 EA 0 00 0.00 0.00

Electrical Charge (KWH)

3,339.00 KWH 0 00 0.00 0.00

Total Capital Costs 0 00 0.00 0.00

33.13.20.99 Carbon Adsorption (Liquid)-O&M Costs

-- Coal Based Gen Purpose,SX30 Sieve, 900 Iodine,2K-10K Lb

150,000.00 Ib 0.00 0.00 161,700.00

Remove/Reinstall Carbon Adsorber Unit

_ 50.00 EA 7,300.00 0.00 0.00

Electrical Charge (KWH)

544,361.00 KWH 0.00 0.00 29,939.85

Pump & Motor Maintenance/Repair

8.00 EA 1,598.24 521.36 0.00

w
Date03/17/95 531 198 Page 8 --

Time 16:05

DETAIL COST REPORT

Labor Equip Material _-

33 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.13.20 Carbon Adsorption (Liquid)

33.13.20.99 Carbon Adsorption (Liquid)-O&M Costs

Total O&M Costs 8,898.24 521.36 191,639.86

Total Carbon Adsorption (Liquid)

8,898.24 521.36 191,639.86

33.13.23 Vapor Extraction

33.13.23.01 Vapor Extraction - Capital Costs

5 HP, 230V, 280 SCFM, Vapor Recovery System

1.00 EA 196.79 2.50 8,250.00

Operational Labor Cost

4.00 DAY 1,720.21 76 88 0.00

DOT Steel Drum, 55 Gal

1.00 EA 0.00 0 00 47.14

Electrical Charge (KWH)

3,350.00 KWH 0.00 0 00 184.25 --

Surface Pad, Concrete, 4' X 4' X 4"

6.00 EA 14.16 0 94 61.47

Furnish 55 Gal Drum For Drilling Cuttings & Devel Water

8.00 EA 0.00 0 00 377.08

2" Well, Portland Cement Grout

60.00 LF 0.00 0 00 59.40

2" Screen, Filter Pack

72.00 LF 73.82 136 42 384.53

4" Iron Body Checkvalve

2.00 EA 90.54 1 69 353.10

2" Well, Bentonite Seal

6.00 EA 24.42 45 14 79.18

2" PVC, Sch 40, Connection Piping

105.00 LF 160.74 2.93 68 15

2" PVC, 90 Degree, Elbow

6.00 EA 66.28 1.21 3 83

4"x2" Reducer, PVC Sch 40

6.00 EA 0.00 0.00 48 84

4" PVC, Sch 40, Tee

6.00 EA 204.36 3.73 36 96

2" PVC, Well Plug

6.00 EA 10.86 20.06 38 21

4" PVC, Sch 40, Manifold Piping

53.00 LF 174.69 3.19 99 69
501 199

_ate 03/17/95 Page 9

ime 16:05 [

DETAILC6sTREPORT

Labor Equip Material

3 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.13.23 Vapor Extraction

_3.13.23.01 Vapor Extraction - Capital Costs

2" PVC, Sch 40, Well Casing

90.00 LF 108.56 200.62 69.30

2" PVC, Sch 40, Well Screen

60.00 LF 93.36 172.53 238.39

OVA Rental, Per Day

3.00 DAY 0.00 0.00 330.00

-- Pressure Gauge

6.00 EA 131.42 2.25 524.24

Mob/Demob Drilling Rig & Crew

_ 1.00 LS 361.83 668.56 0.00

Move Rig/Equipment Around Site

5.00 EA 56.54 104.46 0.00

Split Spoon Sample, 2" x 24", During Drilling

-- 36.00 EA 0.00 0.00 990.00

Decontaminate Rig, Augers, Screen (Rental Equipment)

2.00 DAY 0.00 0.00 299.20

-- H Stem, 8" OD Borehole For 2" Well

156.00 LF 1,026.32 1,896.76 0.00

Total Capital Costs 4,514.90 3,339.87 12,542.96

_3.13.23.99 Vapor Extraction - O&M Costs

Operational Labor Cost

-- 121.00 DAY 52,036.46 2,325.62 0.00

Electrical Charge (KWH)

435,489.00 KWH 0.00 0.00 23 951.90

Total O&M Costs 52,036.46 2,325.62 23 951.90

Total Vapor Extraction

56,551.36 5,665.49 36 494.86

_3.80 Contractor Oversight

33.80.01 Professional Labor

--_3.80.01.01 Construction Support

Project Engineer

32.00 HR 834.29 0.00 0.00

Staff Engineer

320.00 HR 6,340.57 0.00 0.00

w
Date 03/17/95 Page I0 --

Time16:05 DETAIL COST REPORT 501 200

Labor Equip Material _---;

33 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.80.01 Professional Labor

33.80.01.01 Construction Support

Staff Hydrogeologist

374.00 HE 7,410.54 0.00 0.00

Field Technician

160.00 HR 2,002.29 0.00 0.00

Certified Industrial Hygienist

16.00 HR 417.14 0.00 0.00

Other Direct Costs

1.00 LS 0.00 0.00 358.60

33.80.01.04 "As Built" Drawings

Staff Engineer

4.00 HE 79.26 0.00 0.00

Surveyor

6.00 HR 93.86 0.00 0.00 --

Field Technician

8.00 HR i00.ii 0.00 0.00

Draftsman

24.00 HR 300.34 0.00 0.00

Word Processing/Clerical

8.00 HR 83.43 0.00 0.00 -_._

Other Direct Costs

1.00 LS 0.00 0.00 13.20

33.80.01.05 Operation and Maintenance Manuals

Staff Engineer

10.00 HR 198.14 0.00 0.00

Field Technician

I0.00 HR 125.14 0.00 0.00

Word Processing/Clerical

I0.00 HR 104.29 0.00 0.00

Other Direct Costs

1.00 LS 0.00 0.00 8.80

33.80.01.06 Monitoring Reports

Project Engineer

8.00 HR 208.57 0.00 0.00

Staff Engineer

24.00 HR 475.54 0.00 0.00

Staff Hydrogeologist

40.00 HR 792.57 0.00 0.00
 ate o3/17/95 : 501 2 Page ii

?ime 16:05

DETAIL COST REPORT'

Labor Equip Material

)3 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.80.01 Professional Labor

_33.80.01.06 Monitoring Reports

Field Technician

48.00 HR 600.69 0.00 0.00

Draftsman

-- 48.00 HR 600.69 0.00 0.00

Word Processing/Clerical

32.00 HR 333.71 0.00 0.00

-- Other Direct Costs

1.00 LS 0.00 0.00 62.70

_33.80.01.24 Sampling and Analysis Plan

Project Engineer

4.00 HR 104.29 0.00 0.00

Staff Engineer

-- i0.00 HR 198.14 0.00 0.00

Staff Hydrogeologist

i0.00 HR 198.14 0.00 0.00

-- Word Processing/Clerical

20.00 HR 208.57 0.00 0.00

Certified Industrial Hygienist

4.00 HR 104.29 0.00 0.00

Other Direct Costs

1.00 LS 0.00 0.00 16.50

--33.80.01.32 Health and Safety Plan

Project Engineer

8.00 _ 208.57 0.00 0.00

_ Certified Industrial Hygienist

80.00 HE 2,085.71 O.O0 0.00

Other Direct Costs

1.00 LS 0.00 0.00 48.40

33.80.01.46 Work Plan Amendments

Project Engineer

-- 20.00 HR 521.43 0.00 0.00

Staff Engineer

40.00 HR 792.57 0.00 0.00

__ Staff Hydrogeologist

20.00 HR 396.29 0.00 0.00

Word Processing/Clerical

64.00 HR 667.43 0.00 0.00

u
Date 03/17/95 Page 12 --

Time 16:05

DETAIL COST REPORT

Labor Equip Material "_J

33 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.80.01 Professional Labor

33.80.01.46 Work Plan Amendments

Certified Industrial Hygienist

i0.00 HR 260.71 0.00 0.00

Other Direct Costs

1.00 LS 0.00 0.00 55.00 --

Total Capital Costs 26,847.31 0.00 563.20

Total Professional Labor

26,847.31 0.00 563.20

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS REMEDIAL ACTION

314,147.18 212,343.02 1,560,823.03

* * * * This System Intended For Government Use Only * * * *

_r
5':JI 2_i3

Appendix Tab
501 2'-,_,_

w

Appendix C3

---__ Detailed Direct Cost Report for Contingency Dishcarge Option: Reinjection

v
"Date 07/17/95 501 205 Page 1

Time 8:52

DETAIL COST REPORT

Dject:

-_U-1

Ellsworth AFB SD

Injection Wells

Krush

06/06/95

Project Comments:

_Site:

INJECTION WELLS

06/06/95

Site Comments:

Quantity $/UM Totals

J3 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.18 Disposal (Other than Commercial)

--33.18.86 Injection Wells

18.86.01 Injection Wells - Capital Costs

--j Operational Labor Cost

6.00 DAY 449.27 2,695.64

Electrical Charge (KWH)

7,960.00 KWH 0.05 437.80

Water Flowmeter

6.00 EA 167.20 1,003.20

Water Lvl Chart Recorder for Mon Wells on Casing

-- 6.00 EA 29.68 178.13

Water Quality Parameter Testing Device

6.00 WK 231.00 1,386.00

__ i0 GPM, 1/2 HP, Cent Pump

6.00 EA 633.22 3,799.36

Surface Pad, Concrete, 4' X 4' X 4"

6.00 EA 12.76 76.57

-- Furnish 55 Gal Drum For Drilling Cuttings & Devel Water

9.00 EA 47.13 424.22

Well Development Equipment Rental

1.00 WK 398.84 398.84

Mob/Demob Drilling Rig & Crew

1.00 LS 1,030.39 1,030.39

Move Rig/Equipment Around Site

5.00 EA 32.20 161.00

v
Date 07/17/95 Page 2 --

Ti e8:S2 Z G

DETAIL COST REPORT

Quantity $/UM Totals --

33 REMEDIAL ACTION

33.18.86 Injection Wells

33.18.86.01 Injection Wells - Capital Costs

Split Spoon Sample, 2" x 24", During Drilling

36.00 EA 27.50 990.00

Decontaminate Rig, Augers, Screen (Rental Equipment)

3.00 DAY 149.60 448.80

OVA Rental, Per Day

4.00 DAY 110.00 440.00

2" Well, Bentonite Seal

6.00 EA 24.79 148.74

2" Well, Portland Cement Grout

102.00 LF 0.99 100.98 --

2" Screen, Filter Pack

78.00 LF 8.26 644.34

2" Iron Body Checkvalve

6.00 EA 120.72 724.37

H Stem, 8" OD Borehole For 2" Well

180.00 LF 18.73 3,372.78

2" Stainless Steel, Well Casing

120.00 LF 18.33 2,199.79

2" Stainless Steel, Well Screen

60.00 LF 40.39 2,423.72 _--

2" Stainless Steel, Well Plug

6.00 EA 33.40 200.43

2" Stainless Steel, 90 Degree, Elbow

6.00 EA 42.43 254.63

2" Stainless Steel Piping, Sch 40, Threaded

600.00 LF 12.15 7,290.35

Total Capital Costs 30,830.08

33.18.86.99 Injection Wells - O&M Costs

Operational Labor Cost

180.00 DAY 449.27 80,869.22

Electrical Charge (KWH)

258,349.00 KWH 0.05 14,209.20

Total O&M Costs 95,078.42

Total Injection Wells 125,908.50

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS REMEDIAL ACTION

125,908.50

* * * * This System Intended For Government Use Only * * * *
5,;_! 2'.",7

Appendix Tab
50! 2'-'8

w

w

Appendix D

__. SUMMERS Model Calculations

m

w
501 2"9

--2rogram SUMIKERS "- V_rsion I. 0 (3/93) IGWMC/CSM, Golden, Colorado

................................................................................

_=fl # 1

_Vsz ............. Seepage velocity in downward direction = 4 [ft^2]

E - Void fraction (water volume/volume of solid) in soil = .33

Vdz ....... Downward specific discharge (Darcy velocity) = 1.3200[ft/d]

_ Ap .................... Horizontal area of pond or spill = 60000 [ft^2]

Qp -- Volumetric flow rate of liquid transporting

pollutant into aquifer = 79200 [ft"3/d]

Vsa ........................ Seepage velocity in aquifer = .26 [ft/d]

-- Ea ...................... Porosity of aquifer [fraction] = .25

Vda ..... Specific discharge (Darcy velocity) in aquifer = 0.0650[ft/d]

Ha ................................ Thickness of aquifer = 25 [ft]

-- Wp --- Surface pond for spill width perpendicular to

flow direction in aquifer = 200 [ft]

Qa ................ Volumetric flow rate of ground water = 325 [ft_3/d]

_ Ca --- Initial or background concentration of

pollutant in aquifer = 0 [mg/l]

Cgw -- Maximum allowable concentration in ground water

(i.e., water quality goal) = .07 [mg/l]

Kd .................... Equilibrium partition coefficent = .589 [mi/g]

Cmax -- Maximum allowable concentration in the

w infiltration (leachate) = 7.028725E-02 [mg/l]

Cs ............. Soil cleanup level (soil concentration) = 4.139919E-02 [mg/kg]

End of calculations

12DCE.OUT

[-2 Dichloroethylene (I,2-DCE)
Program S_RS - Version 1.0 (3/93) - IGWMC/CSM, Golden, Colorado 55'I 2 _ q -- ................................................................................

Run # 4

Vsz ............. Seepage velocity in downward direction = 4 [ft^2]

E - Void fraction (water volume/volume of solid) in soil = .33

Vdz ....... Downward specific discharge (Darcy velocity) = 1.3200[ft/d]

Ap .................... Horizontal area of pond or spill = 60000 [ft^2]

Qp -- Volumetric flow rate of liquid transporting

pollutant into aquifer = 79200 [ft^3/d]

Vsa ........................ Seepage velocity in aquifer = .26 [ft/d]

Ea ...................... Porosity of aquifer [fraction] = .25

Vda ..... Specific discharge (Darcy velocity) in aquifer = 0.0650[ft/d]

Ha ................................ Thickness of aquifer = 25 [ft]

Wp --- Surface pond for spill width perpendicular to

flow direction in aquifer = 200 [ft]

Qa ................ Volumetric flow rate of ground water = 325 [ft_3/d]

Ca --- Initial or background concentration of

pollutant in aquifer = 0 [mg/l]

Cgw -- Maximum allowable concentration in ground water

(i.e., water quality goal) = .005 [mg/l]

Kd .................... Equilibrium partition coefficent = .49 [ml/g]

Cmax -- Maximum allowable concentration in the

infiltration (leachate) = 5.020517E-03 [mg/l]

Cs ............. Soil cleanup level (soil concentration) = 2.460054E-03 [mg/kg]

End of calculations _..__

BENZENE.OUT
501 211

--Program SUMMERS - Version 1.0 (3/93) IGWMC/CSM, Golden, Colorado

................................................................................

v_h#l

_'Vsz ............. Seepage velocity in downward direction = 4 [ftA2]

E - Void fraction (water volume/volume of solid) in soil = .33

Vdz ....... Downward specific discharge (Darcy velocity) = 1.3200[ft/d]

-- Ap .................... Horizontal area of pond or spill = 60000 [ft'2]

Qp -- Volumetric flow rate of liquid transporting

pollutant into aquifer = 79200 [ft^3/d]

Vsa ........................ Seepage velocity in aquifer = .26 [ft/d]

Ea ...................... Porosity of aquifer [fraction] = .25

Vda ..... Specific discharge (Darcy velocity) in aquifer = 0.0650[ft/d]

Ha ................................ Thickness of aquifer = 25 [ft]

--Wp --- Surface pond for spill width perpendicular to

flow direction in aquifer = 200 [ft]

Qa ................ Volumetric flow rate of ground water = 325 [ft^3/d]

_ Ca --- Initial or background concentration of

pollutant in aquifer = 0 [mg/l]

Cgw -- Maximum allowable concentration in ground water

(i.e., water quality goal) = .005 [mg/l]

Kd .................... Equilibrium partition coefficent = i [ml/g]

Cmax -- Maximum allowable concentration in the

infiltration (leachate) = 5.020517E-03 [mg/l]

Cs ............. Soil cleanup level (soil concentration) = 5.020517E-03 [mg/kg]

End of calculations

BENZENEI.OUT

v

m
5,I 212

Program SUMMERS - Version 1.0 (3/93) - IGWMC/CSM, Golden, Colorado

................................................................................

Run # 1 _---

Vsz ............. Seepage velocity in downward direction = 4 [ft_2]

E - Void fraction (water volume/volume of solid) in soil = .33

Vdz ....... Downward specific discharge (Darcy velocity) = 1.3200[ft/d]

Ap .................... Horizontal area of pond or spill = 60000 [ft_2]

Qp -- Volumetric flow rate of liquid transporting

pollutant into aquifer = 79200 [ft'3/d]

Vsa ........................ Seepage velocity in aquifer = .26 [ft/d]

Ea ...................... Porosity of aquifer [fraction] = .25

Vda ..... Specific discharge (Darcy velocity) in aquifer = 0.0650[ft/d]

Ha ................................ Thickness of aquifer = 25 [ft]

Wp --- Surface pond for spill width perpendicular to

flow direction in aquifer = 200 [ft]

Qa ................ volumetric flow rate of ground water = 325 [ft^3/d]

Ca --- Initial or background concentration of

pollutant in aquifer = 0 [mg/l]

Cgw -- Maximum allowable concentration in ground water

(i.e., water quality goal) = .005 [mg/l]

Kd .................... Equilibrium partition coefficent = 2.1 [ml/g]

Cmax -- Maximum allowable concentration in the

infiltration (leachate) = 5.020517E-03 [mg/l]

Cs ............. Soil cleanup level (soil concentration) = 1.054309E-02 [mg/kg]

................................................................................

End of calculations

PCE.OUT

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
5 .;I

•_'rogram S_RS _ _ - Ve_rsion 1.0 (3 r: /93) - IGWMC/CSM, Golden, Colorado

................................................................................

_, # 1

"_Vsz ............. Seepage velocity in downward direction = 4 [ftA2]

E - Void fraction (water volume/volume of solid) in soil = .33

Vdz ....... Downward specific discharge (Darcy velocity) = 1.3200[ft/d]

_ Ap .................... Horizontal area of pond or spill = 50000 [ftA2]

Qp -- Volumetric flow rate of liquid transporting

pollutant into aquifer = 79200 [ft^3/d]

Vsa ........................ Seepage velocity in aquifer = .26 [ft/d]

--Ea ...................... Porosity of aquifer [fraction] = .25

Vda ..... Specific discharge (Darcy velocity) in aquifer = 0.0650[ft/d]

Ha ................................ Thickness of aquifer = 25 [ft]

-- Wp --- Surface pond for spill width perpendicular to

flow direction in aquifer = 200 [ft]

Qa ................ Volumetric flow rate of ground water = 325 [ft^3/d]

_Ca --- Initial or background concentration of

pollutant in aquifer = 0 [mg/l]

Cgw -- Maximum allowable concentration in ground water

-- (i.e., water quality goal) = .005 [mg/l]

Kd .................... Equilibrium partition coeffioent = 3.6 [ml/g]

Cmax -- Maximum allowable concentration in the

infiltration (leachate) = 5.020517E-03 [mg/l]

Cs ............. Soil cleanup level (soil concentration) = 1.807386E-02 [mg/kg]

7nd of calculations

PCEI.OUT

?etrachloroethylene (PCE)

w
Program SUMMI_RS - Version 1.0 (3/93) IGWI_C/CSM, Coiden, Colorado 501 214 ................................................................................

Run # 1 \_

Vsz ............. Seepage velocity in downward direction = 4 [ft^2] w

E - Void fraction (water volume/volume of solid) in soil = .33

Vdz ....... Downward specific discharge (Darcy velocity) = 1.3200[ft/d]

Ap .................... Horizontal area of pond or spill = 60000 [ft'2]

Qp -- Volumetric flow rate of liquid transporting

pollutant into aquifer = 79200 [ft'3/d]

Vsa ........................ Seepage velocity in aquifer = .26 [ft/d]

Ea ...................... Porosity of aquifer [fraction] = .25

Vda ..... Specific discharge (Darcy velocity) in aquifer = 0.065O[ft/d]

Ha ................................ Thickness of aquifer = 25 [ft]

Wp --- Surface pond for spill width perpendicular to

flow direction in aquifer = 200 [ft]

Qa ................ Volumetric flow rate of ground water = 325 [ft^3/d]

Ca --- Initial or background concentration of

pollutant in aquifer = 0 [mg/l]

Cgw -- Maximum allowable concentration in ground water

(i.e., water quality goal) = .005 [mg/l]

Kd .................... Equilibrium partition coefficent = .65 [ml/g]

Cmax -- Maximum allowable concentration in the

infiltration (leachate) = 5.020517E-03 [mg/l]

Cs ............. Soil cleanup level (soil concentration) = 3.263336E-03 [mg/kg]

End of calculations

TCE.OUT

Trichloroethylene (TCE)
_rogram SUMMERS - Version 1.0 (3/93) - !GWMC/CSM, Golden, Colo_ I 2_ 5 ................................................................................

I

:_I# 1

_Vsz ............. Seepage velocity in downward direction = 4 [ft_2]

E - Void fraction (water volume/volume of solid) in soil = .33

Vdz ....... Downward specific discharge (Darcy velocity) = i.3200[ft/d]

-- Ap .................... Horizontal area of pond or spill = 60000 [ft'2]

Qp -- Volumetric flow rate of liquid transporting

pollutant into aquifer = 79200 [ft'3/d]

Vsa ........................ Seepage velocity in aquifer = .26 [ft/d]

Ea ...................... Porosity of aquifer [fraction] = .25

Vda ..... Specific discharge (Darcy velocity) in aquifer = 0.0650[ft/d]

Ha ................................ Thickness of aquifer = 25 [ft]

_ Wp --- Surface pond for spill width perpendicular to

flow direction in aquifer = 200 [ft]

Qa ................ Volumetric flow rate of ground water = 325 [ft_3/d]

Ca --- Initial or background concentration of

pollutant in aquifer = 0 [mg/l]

Cgw -- Maximum allowable concentration in ground water

(i.e., water quality goal) = .005 [mg/l]

Kd .................... Equilibrium partition coefficent = 1.3 [ml/g]

Cmax -- Maximum allowable concentration in the

infiltration (leachate) = 5.020517E-03 [mg/l]

Cs ............. Soil cleanup level (soil concentration) = 6.526672E-03 [mg/kg]

End of calculations

TCEI.OUT

rrichloroethylene (TCE)

m
501 216

Appendix Tab
- 501 217

w

Appendix E

_ Calculations
Soil Remediation Time Calculations

v Based on JP-4

From Pilot Study test, Total FID Hydrocarbon removal rate ranged from 1.49 to 175 lbs/day.

Will use 90 lbs/day in calculations.

Maximum concentration of JP-4 = 36,000 mg/kg = 36,000,000 _tg/kg

Targeted clean-up level = 10,000 gg/kg

-- Must remove 35,990,000 lag/kg (.08 lbs/kg)

Volume of Contaminant = Attainment Area * Depth * Bulk Density * Concentration

-- Area of Attainment = 250 ft * 300 ft = 75,000 ft2

Depth = 15 ft

Bulk Density = 124 lb/ft 3 = 56.3 kg/ft 3 (Based on Geotechnical analysis)

-- Volume of Contamination = (75,000 ftz) * (15 ft) * (56.3 kg/_) * (.08 lbs/kg) = 5,067,000 lbs

Removal Rate = (90 lbs/day/well) * (20 wells) = 1800 lbs/day

Removal Time = (5,067,000 lbs) / (1,800 lbs/day) = 2,815 days

Approximately 8 years

Range: 6-10 years

Ground water Remediation Time Calculations

Alternative 2:

Flow Distance from source to trench = 420 fl

Ground water velocity = 96 ft/yr in sands and gravel

Assume 5 aquifer flush volumes required

Time to remove 1 flush volume = (420 ft) / (96 ft/yr) = 4.3 yrs

Time to remove 5 flush volumes = (4.3 yrs) * (5) = 21.5 yrs

Range: 20-30 yrs

F:kPROJ_O3788g',FS_UI .]b_dWINAL_CAJ..CS.'_CPD July 14, 1995
Alternative 3:

Flow Distance from source to trench/cutoff wells = 2t0 fl "-/

Ground water velocity = 96 ft/yr in sands and gravel

Assume 5 aquifer flush volumes required

Time to remove 1 flush volume = (210 fi) / (96 ft/yr) = 2.2 yrs

Time to remove 5 flush volumes = (2.2 yrs) * (5) = 1t yrs

Range: 10-15 yrs

/-

F:_IROI_?$g4'_3_OUI.b'$_INAL_CALCS.W'PD Iuly 14, 1995
5nl 22n

FINAL PAGE

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

FINAL PAGE
501 221

I I

FINAL PAGE

i

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

FINAL PAGE