# 5 0 1 0 Fi le: 1 7 ( 3 D . S . P . 

# ELLSWORTH AFB

SOUTH DA KO TA



# ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD C O VE R SHEE T AR File Nu mberi i 

### l i! File:

-- _ - D.P. /

_

/

'

_ 

# 50 1 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 O F CO N TENTS

- -- _ Page LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES -- L I S T OF APPE NDIXES ACRONYMS AND AB B REV IATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION

-- 1 . 1 PURP O SE AND O R GANIZATION O F REPORT .................... I- I 1.2 SITE BA CKGROUND 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 EXT E NT OF CHEMICAL CONSTITU E NTS ......... 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- 1 9 1.6 SUMM A RY ................................................ 1 - 20 2. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES ................ 2 - 1

- J F :' & R OJ_60378 84L

_ D U t .F S W INAD , T O C .WPD lu l y 19 , 199 5

# 50[ 4 TABLE OF C O NTENTS ( cont.)

= = 

### P__Og_¢ 2 .1 IN TR ODUCTION ............................................ 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 RES P ONS E 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 AC T ION 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 C riteria ....................................... 3 - 2 3.1.3 Modifying Criteria ....................................... 3 - 3 3.2 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ........... 3-3 3.2.1 Altern ative No. h No Action .............................. 3 - 3 3.2.2 Altematvie No. 2: Source Area Soil Trea t ment with Ground - Water Containment ........................................... 3 - 4 3.2.3 Alternative No. 3: Source Area Soil and Gro u nd - Water Treatment .. 3-9 3.2.4 Contingency Ground - water Discharge Option: Reinjection ....... 3 - 12 4. SUMMARY AND COM PARISON OF REMEDIAL ACT I ON ALTERNATIVES . 4 - 1 4.1 OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT ............................................ 4 - 1 4.2 COMPLIAN C E WITH ARARs .................................. 4 - 1 4.3 LONG-TERM EFFE C TIVENESS AND PE RFORMAN C E ............. 4 - 2 4.4 REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME THROUGH TREATM E NT ............................................... 4-2
F : W

RO

/V

_03 78 8 4 X b'SX O UI. F S L leINAL\TO C .WPD I ul y 19 , 199 5n 

# 501 5 TABLE O F CONTEN T S (co

_t.)



# - - eag

-- 4 .5 S HO RT-TERM E FFE C TIVE NE SS ............................... 4 -2 4.6 IMPLEMENTABILIT Y ........................................ 4-2 4 . 7 COST ....................................................... 4-3 4.8 STATE ACCEPT A NCE ....................................... 4-3 4.9 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE ................................. 4-3 5. RECOMMENDATIONS .... 5-1

-- 5.1 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION ........................ 5-1 5.2 IDENTIFICATION OF PRE FERRED ALTERNATIVE ............... 5 - 1 5.3 RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTH E R ACTION ................... 5 - 2 APPE NDIX A APPENDIX B

-- APPENDIX C 1 APPENDIX C2 APPENDIX C3

-- APPENDIX D APPENDIX E

F : W

R O

/ Xfi037 88 4k_'_UI._AL\TO C .WPD lu ly 19, 1995

# 501 G LIS T O F FI GURES 1 - 1 Area Location Map

_ 1-2 Site Locati on M ap 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) L o cation o f Geologic Cro ss-S e cti o ns 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 - 1 1 OU- 1 (FP TA ) IRP Phase I I , Sta ge 1 & 2 Sampl e L o cation 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 Sectio n s A-A' and B - B ' 1 - 15 1994 FS OU - 1 (FPTA) Sample Location Map 1 - 16 1994 FS Location o f Original Basewide Backgroun d (BG) Wells and Soil Borings

-- 1 - 17 1994 FS Location of Background Wells and Soil Borings 1 - 18 July 1994 Treatability Study Layout 1- 1 9 1994 FS General Area Where Organics Exceed M CLs

-- 1-20 1994 FS E xtent of Reported COC in Ground Water OU-1 1 - 21 1994 FS Extent of Reported COC in Soil Bu mpit Area OU - 1 2 - 1 Area of Attainment for Source-Area Soils 2 - 2 Area of Attainment for Gro und 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: \P R O_6037 88 4 W S\OU1 .FS W INA LLLOF.WPDL Iuly 1 9, 19 9 5

# 5 0 1 7 L IST OF TABL ES Number Tabl e 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, E llsworth 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 (198 9 ) 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 B ackground Ground-Water and S o il Boring Sample and Analysis Summary for OU-1 1993 RI / FS. 1-9 OU-1 S u mmary of Detection Frequen c y 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 T oxic 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 S u mmary of Techn o l o gy Sc r eening f or OU-1, EUsworth Air F orce Base , S o uth 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 $$41 F _OU 1.FS W IN AL\TAB LE.L._'Fduly 19, 1995

# 5 0! 8 L I ST O F TABLES ( c o n t.) 4-2 Comparison of Feasible Remedial Alternatives, Operable Unit No. 1, Ellsworth AFB, South D akota 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_: W

R O J_6_378_ W _OU I.I_% F INkd . W A B L . KI, ST_u ] y 19, 1995

# 5 ,I 9 List of Appendixes Appendix A Pres u mp ti v e Remedies

_ Appendix B Refere n ces Appendix C1 Detailed Direct Cost Report for Alternative No. 2 Appendix C2 Detailed Direct Cost Report for Altern ative No. 3

_ Appendix D SUMMERS Model C alc u latio n s Appendix E Time Calculations

F : W

R OJ_6 0 3 7 g 84

_d

_ O U1. F S LDRA

_A _I 9 Jul y !99 5

### _ Acronyms and Abbreviations 5 0 l 1 0

_ ACC: Air Comb at Command . AR A Rs: Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requiremen t s. Those federal and state

-- requirements that apply to this cleanup acti on. BRA: Baseline Risk Assessment. A scientific assessment of the public heal th and

-- environmental ri sks posed by the contamination at the Operab l e Uni t (OU). CERCLA : Comprehensive E n viro n mental Response, compensation and Li abil i ty Act. The

-- fe d eral S uperfund 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 pro du ct used in a variety of industrial applications including the manufacture of certain plastics. DENR: So u th Dakota Departme nt of the E n vironme ntal and Natural Resources. DOD: Department of Defense. EAFB: Ellsworth Air Force Base.
" - EPA: Environmental Protection Agency. FFS: Focuse d Feasib i lity Stu d y. A Feasibil i ty Study with a limited nu mber o f

-- alternativ es. FS: Feasibility S tu dy. 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. C l eanup actions must

_ be consistent with the NCP. F :LPRO J1 603 758 4kF S_OU1. FSW INAL

_ GL O S $. W PD Jul y 1 9 , 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: Semiv o latile Organi c Compounds. A group of organic chemicals that vaporize at a slower rate of speed then VOCs. T C A: 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 /

_ O 37884_ ' xOU I. F S

_ W INAL_GLOS$ . WPD lu |y 19, 1995

# 501 12 

# Section Tab

# 501 13 EXE C UTIVE SUMMARY

-- This Feasibility Study (FS) Report summariz es 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 o f the Final Remedial Investigati o n (RI) Repo rt 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 info rmation conce rning po tential remedial action alternatives fo r OU-1. The USEPA Supe rfund Accele r ated C l eanup Model (SA C M) app r oach to u se pre s umptive remedie s (see App e ndix A) was inco rporated into this F S. Thi s app r oach s treamlin es the F S. F or OU- 1 , the p r esumptive re me dy fo r VOC in Soil s was u s ed to h elp dev e lop this FS . In acco r dance with EPA pro tocols, this documen t does not r ecomme nd final re medial action, bu t r ath er , p r ovide s s ufficient info rmation fo r decision - makers to compare al ternatives, and s elec t an appropriate remedy fo r the si te . The p r opo s ed re medy will be stated in the P r opo s ed Plan and the s elec ted re medy wi l l be s tated in the Reco r d of D e ci s ion (ROD) . REMEDIAL ACT I ON O B JECTIVES R e medial action objectives ar e site-specific cl e an-up objec tiv e s bas ed on the natu r e and exten t of contamination, the resources that ar e cu rren tly and /

or po tentiall y th r eatened , the

-- po te n tial fo r human and ecological exposu r es, and th e curren t and fu ture uses of the si te. The natu re and ex tent of reported chemical s at OU-1 are detailed in Chapte r 4 of the RI . Ecological and human health ri s ks we r e as se ss e d in C hapte r 6, and have been summariz e d in

-- Chapter 1 of this report. Specific remedial action obje c tives for OU-1 are to a chieve the ground-water clean-up goals

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

F: W R O _6_3 7 $$4 X F "S_O U I .F' SLD RFT F ' IN L kEX SUMOU I, FS\I 9 / u l y 199 5 

### ES -1

# 5 01 1 4 TABLE E S -1 O U-1 Proposed Clean-up Goals Ground Water (#g / L) "- Analyte Clean-up Goal Basis 1,2-Dichloroe thane (1,2-DC A ) 5.0 M CL -- 1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1 -DCE) 7.0 MCL 1,2-Dichl oroethy l ene (1 , 2-DCE) 7 0 .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 C lean-up Goals Soils (# g

/ kg ) Clean-up SUMME R S Anal y te G o al E stimates Basis -- 1,2-Dichl oroethylene ( 1 ,2-DCE) 4 1 4 1 .4 Gro und w ater prote cti o n 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 1 0,000 State Regulation

_ '

Note: When th e SUMMERS model estimates are less than standard dete ction limits, remediation clean-up goals will be based on standard detection limi t s.

F :LaROA60 3 7 8

_4_S ' XOU1. FS _DRFTI_N L_ES 1& 2 .TAB\1 7 M ar c h 1995

# : 501 15 SUMMARY AND COMPARI SON OF REMED IAL A C TION 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 bas ed 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: W

R O J_037884 WS '_U I . F S _, D R F T'_ N LkE X $ L'M O U I. F_ 19 Ju ly 1995 

### ES-2

# 5 0L 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:\PRO J_03788,_kF S_OU 1 . F S LD RF TFIN LkES 3 TAB k 1 7 Marc h 199 5! 

# 5 0 ! 17

iii i_iiiilililililiiiiiil iiii_i_i_ 

### p-



## - _- _ _ z 0 o o o

. 2 

# - .o z Z z Z

z 

# - _ _ _ _ Z


### -- < g

_ -

z

# 501 18 i



## _ _ _ _ .- i



### __ = _ _ _ o_



# ___ ._ .

"_

_ E



## •-_
_ __ 

# ._ o _ __ _ ._ 

# _ ° ,,4


# - _ _ .-



# _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _= C

_ u a

# - :_Yiiiiiii_!i!_!!iiiii_ii!_!i!i!i!_!iii!iii!iii!iiii_!il • _ 501 19 o

-- _ _ -_ 

# _i!i!!i!iiiiiii_ii!i!_}!!ii_iiii_i!!_i!i_ili!!!!!i_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!!iiiiiiii

_ 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

_ _ _ _



# _ _ _ <

- _ _

# 5 01 20



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

, .=



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

_ _



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



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

# •: __ • _ _ ' O r= _0 :
_ .. _:_ ,_ = . _ _ _'"_ 0 _.___ __c__ _ E

_ --



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

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

### = o 0 _ _'_ _ _ "- ,o "_o - o - _ --

. - . _ . _ o 

# °

- 

# _-_ _ _ ,-_ _ <
__

# '" 50 1 2_

_ . _-_ _ __ _ § : =

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

_ _ ___ _ >
_ _ _ -

- _o_ _ • _ = _



# _ _ - = _ < _ _o_ - -.-_ -__ o =
_- = _ _ _ _ _ '

_



# _ _ _ '- ._ _ _ - _ '_

_ _ _ .o :

_ __ _ !_iiil



## - _ =_
_ . _ _ _ - 

# "_ i_ _ _ _ -_ "° _ _ _ 

# ° _ .................... _ __ - _. _ e i .___ _-o° _ _ _ _ _ _ i ): i: : }!i;! _, _ _ o

, . c_ ,;_ 

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

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

# .......... _o o o _ _ _ _ _ ;

.... = _ _ g "_ ° _ _ _ z z

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

# 501 2 3

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 2 4 A generalized ranking system can be applied to place the remedial alternatives in pe r spective ... when compared against NCP criteria numbers 1-7. The ranking system employed in this section uses a high, medium, or low designati on f or the o verall effectiveness of any one "- alternative. Table ES-6 lists the designation of the three alternatives eval u ated in this FS. TABLE ES- 6 R A NKING OF ALTERNATIVES FOR OU-1, ELLSWORTH AFB, SO UTH DA K O T A 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 REC O MMENDATI O N F O R FURTHER ACT ION This FS has not addressed the c oordination with the remedi ation o f o ther Operable U nits at Ellsworth AFB. An examination of Base-wide alternatives could become appropriate as feasibility s tudies are completed for these other OU's. The impact of the additional characterizati o n of the Base-wide ecological assessment c o uld hav e a potential impact o n the r emedial alternativ es e stablished in this report . Also, dat a g e n er ated from on-going interim actions could impac t the ultimate remedial design for OU-1 shou l d the results of the IRA di ffer significantly f r om expec t ati ons.

FA P R OJXrO378 94 W S '

_ U I.ImS kDk t: i vIN L kl E X S UMO U |.F_I 9 J u l y 19 9 5 

### ES-3

# 5 01 2 5


# Section Tab

# ' 501 2 6 1. IN T R O DUC T I O N \j This Feas ib i lity Study (FS) Rep ort s u mmarizes findings o f the FS c o ndu c te d f or 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 N atural R es o urces (SD D ENR). 1.1 PURPOSE AND ORGANIZ ATION OF REPORT purp ose

- The purpose of the FS is to devel op and examine remedi al acti o n 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 o n protecti o n of human health and the environment, the nature and extent of contamination identified in the RI, an d 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 u se presumptive remedies

- (see A p p endix A ) was in c orporated into this FS . T his a p proach streamlines the FS. For O U-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 f ive chapters: • Chapter 1: Intro duction • Chapter 2: Development and Screening o f Alternatives • Chapter 3: Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

-- • Chapter 4: Summary and Comparis o n of Remedial Ac tion Alternatives • Chapter 5: Rec o mmendations In using a streamlined approach, the chapter organization for this FS varies f r om 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 : d etail in Chapter 2, eliminates or streamlines selected phases of the Feasibility Study. Alth o ugh presumptive remedies streamline all phases of the RIF FS,the FS is streamlined more than any I_ :WR O J_6 0

_T g84_, OU I.FS WI NAL

_ IC

_API . FS k lu t

y 1 9 , 1 995 1- 1

# 501 27 o ther 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 v ariations 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 altern atives against the nine criteria. Chapter 4 provides a comp arison of alternatives against each other. 1.2 SITE BACKGROUND AND S ETTING El l sworth Air Force Base (EAFB) i s a U.S. Air Force Air C ombat Comman d (ACC) instal l ation located 12 mi east of Rapid City, South D ako t a, and adjacent to the small community of Box Elder (Fi g ure 1- 1 ). EAFB was o ffi c i ally activated i n July 1 942 as the Rapid C i ty 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 Intercontinen t al Ballistic Missi le system and the Minuteman I and Minute m an II Missile systems. The B as e has hi storical l y pro vided support, training, maintenance, and /

or testing facilities. The main Air Base covers approx i mate l y 4,858 acres within Meade an d Pe nn i n gton co u n ti es an d 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 an d commercial areas lie to the east. 1.2. 1 Si te Description OU-I Surf ace Features OU-1 is s i tuated in the s o uth-central portion of E AFB, and inclu d es the abando n ed 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, B uilding 6908 will be used to house the IRA treatment plant. An underground storage t ank (UST) was removed in spring 1993 at the southeas t 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 : W

R O J_6 0 37 88 ,1 W S '

_ O U 1. FS W IN A LH CHAp I. FSUuIy 1 7 , 1995 

### 1 -2

# " " 50[ 28

- ...j

__ SOU T H DAKOTA /

IOWA


### ,I .LSWO m' H AF ' B



# T T '? Sc_ Io i n M U_ APP I_ OX I MA " rE


### I EL_WO RTH I:11

_ ORTH AFB I AREA L OCATIONMAP = AIR FORCE B J i. S E

_ 0 1 Y , _ 

# I

_ MRG SH O WN AP R I L 9 4 I 60378 . 81

# -- -, 5 01 29

W EAP ON S r_ -- 

### S T ORAGE _ I....- 7 ._,r --. -- __ . . A REA . .. . 

# ,

BURIAL I 

# • ? i - N 00 - 10 -- 

# , _,"° __

I D R. I S P AAT Z
-q W ASTE WATER 0 1 200 24.00 ,TREATM EN T -- 

### I T I PL AN T

_, A L E IN I -_ .1 .t _N_ EA SD A ENT 

### LEGEND u-_. I ' 

### HOUSINg% OPERABLE UNITS G ATE AREA OU -- 1 R _== ¢., =_4 0

_ 1 TRAINING ' - ".'-" . "' - " . " ' . " " O U --2 LAN D FILL S 1 & 6 ( L F - 0 2 ) OU - 2 OU - 3 LAN D RLL 2 (LF -03 ) I N D USTRIA L 

### ou - 4 LANDnLL 3 (LF-O¢ ) GATE O U-5 L AND RLL 4 (LF - 0 5 ) O U -- 6 LAN DFILL 5 (LF-0 6 ) O U-7 LOW LEVEL R A D IATION WA S T E BU RI A L AREA ( RW- 0 7 ) o CU- B EXPL OSI VE O R DNA NC E DI SP O SAL AREA & P R AM ITO L S P IL L (SS -1 1) / c u -g OLD A UTO HO B BY SH O P AREA ( O T - 15) _. O U- IO N ORT H HA NGA R CO MP L E X ( ST -l g )

_ CU -1 1 BASEW ID E CRO UND WATER _ OU - I 2 HARDF ' I LL NO. 1 Z--


### _._= _ E L L SWORTH EL L %VORTHAFB SITELOCAIIONMAP : _= AIR F OR C E BA SE R/ t P

ICC I I Y, S 0Lr I_ I_AKOTA 

# _ t _ %_o w ,oc, _,i _o_._,! ' -_ -

# 501 30 west o f the OU lies Kenney Road , and approximately 200 ft further west is the Base perimeter fence (Figu r e 1-3).

- _ . ¢ 

### , , The top o graphy 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 s o urce areas, from upstream to d o wnstream, are discussed below and illustrated on Figure •- 1-3. • The main drainage channel at OU-1 fl o ws from north to sou th al o ng the •- , southeastern perimeter o f OU-1. The main channel drains a p ortion o f thesouthern 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 s o utheast b o undary o f OU-1 originates as s urface water run- o ff fro m the landf il l area (OU-12) to the n ortheast o f OU-1 and fro m drainage p ipes that d ischarge storm wate r ru n- o ff f ro m the S ou th D o ck ar ea o f the flight line an d fro m p orti o ns o f the ad j o ining taxiways and flight lines. F

l o w was meas ured at appro x i mate l y 1 c ub i c f oo t per sec o n d (cfs) ab o ve Po nd 001 during the OU - I field investigation. • A sec o n d ary shallow drainage ditch delivers surface run o ff fro m the eastern

-- po rt ion of the abandoned FPTA to the main drainage channel. This secondary drainage ditch is generally dry.

-- • Two drainage culverts extend beneath the alert apro n and di scharge 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 fro m the above s o urces is temporarily held in P o nd 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

_ R o ad and discharges into an open drainage ditch o n 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 l o cated al o ng 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_0 37594 WS _OU I, FS W INAL\I C HAPI.FSkl u T y 1 7, 1 995 1-3

# \ APPROXT_ATE _: .- _: .q - --_z-_._----------__1-_7; . - 

# t,,l .-r '_ X "t 'W >.'_"n_"_o-,_'I x -UNDERGROUNO_ . . ,_-:..' d ; t / \\ ' "

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

# t, t /\ ' --J "i, Y /i s

LEGEND '_" h _._.....

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

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

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

1994 F S D ESIGNED BY DRAWN BY [}ATE PROJECT NO. 

### ELLSWORTH ELLS W ORTHAIRFORCEBASE O U -1 (FPT A ) STAFF DEC94 6037 8 . 84 A I R F OR CE BASE liA P II) crn,, sou m [_ KOT^ SITE AREA CHECKED BY PR OJ E CT MGR. SC AL E 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

-- - d o wnstream 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 southeas t, 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 :W RO J ' _6 0 378 $ 4 W S'_OU I.FSx . b 'IN AL\ I CHAP I . F S'du ly |7, 1 9 9 5 

## 1-4v



# / 

# 2o ; ?2 \ /\\,. !_ X_\ (oii,_i _ \ \ ' "_[_ ,Y W \ \ \ \ : L.-_ I : : ABA ND 3NE D , "' J



# 37S

. ABOVE MSL 200' , _ / 

### CONTOU R INT ER VAL = 1 0' _'_ ..... z _ I SCALE Z_

_ - NO TE ',T H ESU BSUR FAC E CON DI TIONSS H OWN R EP RE S E NTOU R F T H EMO S TP C O NDITIO NSB A S E DUPO NINTE RPRE T A ll O NO

F PRES ENT LYAVA ILAB LEDATA .S OM E V ARIATIONS 4 F ROM THESE CONDITIONSMUST BE EXPECTED. F:\HORIZONS\NEW\OUI\I-20OB.DWG

_ F_ I L'-LO C , }_ D E SIGN E DBY DRAWNBY DAT E PROJECTN O .

. <,,;_ _ 1994 FS 

### z ' _3 ELLS W ORTHAI R FORCEBASE ou-1 ( F P TA) 

### MGL MAR94 60378.84

__ ELLS W ORTH LO C AT I O N MA P S HO W I NG AIR FO RC E BASE RAPID CI 1Y, S O U I H DAKOTA U N D E RGR O UNDU TILITIE S AN D CH ECKE DBY PROJE CT MG R . SCALE FI GURE B d_

_ AR EAS O F FILL AS SHOW N I-4 c_ c ' ,m 

# 5 01 34

- hard, fractured, olive grey to dark greenish grey claystone and shale containing iron staining. Fracture seams are typical ly 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 p o tential 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 Rep ort CU SAF, 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, 0 00 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. Rech arge 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 : W

ROJ360 3785 4 WS _O U I .F S W INAL_ ] C HAPI. FS

_Ju l y 17 , 1 995 1-5ILj -._.- -" 

# /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=I 5

_ //r ]_[.' __o _].' 

# -_ _ I 'xl sc_ IF : \ HOR I ZON S_ NE I_ OUI \ I- i OOB . D II_ . _1 2 

### 1994 FS DESIGNED BY DRAW N BY !DATE PROJECT NO

### ELLSWORTH ELLSWORTHAIR FORCEBASE OU-1 (FPTA) MAY95 6037884 AIR FO R C E BA SE I W :IB C I TY, $OL r ITID AK OTA LOCATION OF G EOLOGIC OI'tECK E. 5 13"l " PROJr :CTlaa.. ' .L S ( 14LE F'ICI . iRE 

### CROSS-S EC TIONS STAFF AS SHO W N 1 -5 i1[ i i i iDRAWING 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- - SB 9 3 0 127 Z 

# M _ i (MW 9 30106) ). o 

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

# o ) / _ x °
! i I WI........... _" -- (MW870101) O I Wl



### _ I °I + H +++ H +
__ SB930121

V

_ _ )-- 

### (MW 9 30105) 

# - i rqm _B 

### o ou o , " S B9 3 0102 ) _ ' . =_ -'- 1_ m S B9 3 0101

..... (MW930101 ) 

# " /-_ i _ _ti " =l $Bg 3 0104 o SB930105 { .n
_



### -- SBg30 1 09 z (MW 9 30102) 

# / I _° V 

# :I> / /

_ .,'

_ i

- i I tl o£ , = _ / o_'" J "'_ "/rQ° / (MW880105) m° SBg30115 o u _° (MW930103)
_--- oc_ "7 O 

### SB9301 ]9 i I 

### ,-, o SBg30120 I r l q ; E z



### _ SBg30147 

# _!_ o q

T

_ _ 

### o
_ SBg30150 z < _ (MW93011 I) ( .D mo 

# i -
• O O >l-- r'Fq _rl _ Fi-I '' 

### i i _ .-,oil# UlODRAWING NAME: F:\HORIZONS\N EW \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

) 

### _u SB930106 0 I 

### I Fq 0 Z 

### c

_ I SB930 1 07 W

z 

# I

0 ! O,"lo I. # l


# • "- " 1 r _ m 

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

### I- ! -I 

### o :_ 0 (MW 9 3 0107) z <_ o _ rrlo 

### ._ r- _r-- __ _ F- in"l _ _ rrl "" 

### m II --' O0

## k.j J"
DRAWIN G NAME: F:\ItORIZONS\NEW\OUI\FS\CROSS C DATE:0 5/ 17 1995 TIME: 10:2 3 i

n 

### > m 0 m 

### I N "' SB930130 N I m_


### _m r II

z 

### m z o I SB930144- t - - "_ N._ 

# _ °

_ ,

r-
_ 2 0 ,-p 

# o o
_ O 3 O r) m "--'t 

## N Z ::o
_ 0 m 

# o° ,.-._

_.._ -- 

### o t SB930115 z (MW930103) 

# ? q _n 

# ° i # # _r" 

### P • 

# o g 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. A verage 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 Shal e 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 we l ls by utiliz i ng the c o mputer program "AQTESOLV®" and the Bouwer - Rice rising head slug test method. The resulting hydrau l ic 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 hydrau l ic 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. T he aband o ned FPTA an d fill material at the OU do n ot extend into the saturated zone (Figures 1 - 6 through 1 - 8). F :kPR O Y_6037 88 4_ S '_O U LFS LF ' IN AL_ICHA PI .FS kIuI y 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 piezometri c surfa c e 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 His tory OU- 1 contains the former FPTA located in the southwestern segme nt 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 ce ntrally 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 i ncl u des the former b u m pit areas and a steel aircraft mo ck-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 lo c ations based upon aerial photos is illustrated in Figure 1-3. The training exercises c onducted 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 in c luded solvents, oils and aviation fuels, particularly JP-4 (USAF, 1989). Prior to 1972, traini n g exercises were conducted by pouri n g 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 an d 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 form ing 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: W

Ro.r

_o 37 88 4 WS

_ O UI. ' FSWINAL '_ICHA PI. FS

_uly 1 7 , 19 9 5 

## 1-74 i" 

# __ ___ . . ". ."

_ ), ' I s = _, _ ' " + 'IV . , \ "_\ f . 1" I"

_ i 

### </'" . I ',,

_ X ! "h._...-- "_ f k E _- .¢" / _%\ I -', _ , _ , 

## ./

" / ' < .<i Tx.._\ " \ I \ . + 1 r_' ' , ,- - ". _ .x: i '.,x_ ( . "jIf J _\\\ t \ \ _ _ E _ io_ • h ...... i"

_ / \X " , ......... 

# ............................... .+. _ ........Y :
_ - -_ , _ . .-,_I .......7'_\\ h _ I i , "_ k _o_1_ " . Y i . _" %1 1 -< 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:; i _=o _

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

_ '

_ k >i

_"

i/ .......................................L_, t _ ' _ 3'( 1

_ i, , // \ t t

__ !\ {\ "\ ""' 'i\_ _ 1 8 

## _< . k ] 

# t , -._ .-_ _ .... / X

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

# -" ,- /-'. '_-" I

_ I ',

__ '

_ ........"' ' _. ." / >" ."

_ . - - : .+ " /

_ I i !i D _'i!_'___

_ "_,lt <I k t ' . I . . / _o @ _ i! . , Jl I 

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



# .. ,-" /-- ' I = i o
"X / ,7. 11111i ;)I ii // ' ?, . ' L_" %+ . i , _ o ' 7 f]

_ l _, ' i I p 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-- " _. .. i o_ zOrn c_ o I_I c_ J_ crTI c n " r" z z p _ m I _ I]£ _\X" - ' - Z

] _ r-,. f _"- - -_', J t I I l_ v . .- P" I,\ W _z_-, I _ ,,.,, -- r,,. _ _,...? _ _ ' l m_ - ' :_ 

### , ¢ A - _P_ i_ ___ 

## _--_- -- ' --" --_ - / --4, -- _ o • < ,_ _ ' _ £!_ _. _ t'tt_l_l#_l ) 

# ' _ _ __.q_ _. _!l__ 

# i II ....... 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'i t "-\ _ ! , _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 1 1// ,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 /

_ :=l O "_ ,t '_'l -- I_ II 0 • __i.X 013 _ r_ r
_ ,,-', "-if- b q J ,iT l"l J,_ I_,.-_ _ , -, . ZI #

_ 

## o e...,.=, . _f 1 - I

_ / / ,,- ,.,o _i o,,,_# ,,,_ _<.oo_,. ZL,.i 

# iW =_ I 09, ( / / , _I _o._ _ _< _a_--__, _,, - __,,__._._0

-- ,_'

__ N

__ . i z-- _-z-- ,., ..... -- =_ -,,0,-.r-.- 

## •,.-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 I t G l / ZO:31V(]1_ ! " _



# - 5 0 1 4 3 The new FPTA was built 600 ft to the north-northeast o f 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 Previ o us Investigations Env ironme ntal investigation activiti es at EAFB were initi ate d by the Air Force i n 1985 through -- the preparation of an Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Phase I Installation Assessment / Records Search (USAF, 1985).

-- A two-stage, Phase II inves tigation was c onducted between 1987 an d 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 I nvestigatio ns Ph a s e l I sampl e lo c ati o n s are s h o w n o n Figur e 1- 1 1. T h e follo w ing fi e ld inv e stigation s wer e c omp l e te d during Ph as e rl. Soil Vapor Survey

_ Two soil vapor s urveys we r e c onducted at OU-I as part o f the Phase II IRP Study (Fig ures 1-12 and 1-13). The results of these two separate soil vapor surveys indicated the following: • Organ i c vapor readings were reported i n soil vapor samples northe a st, 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 surf a ce /

overland fl ow of product was concluded to be generally toward the south and southeast following the surface grade. • A trend of decreasing concentration with d epth was observed at all sampling locations where multiple depth readings were obtained. According to the IRP

-- report, this trend was the result of fuel pro duct 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 bori n gs for laboratory analysis. The res u lti n g 1 8

- -- soil samples were c ollected from evenly sp a ced intervals fro m grade to boring termination and were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOC), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC), FAPR OJ

_60 37 884

_ '

_ O UI. FS

_ - ' INA L_l C H A Pl . F$_ / uly 1 9 , 19 95 

### 1- 8

# 501 44



# " <',\ ; -- l / \ \ - "_ / _o' 

# \ - i +_ __-.---_-__r+ _ / + _,l b_-_ \ l i_IL .. '"---k.......... \ "_i_'-|_O) '_" A _ I1 l_l_ll_ _ \ ',_; u s_ 

# ..... i__ 1 +_, \\ ,. .e/.

_y t------------ 

# ,,

++,_ //

_ y/, y ,, \ Ill ! , _> .. _ . I?"i\. I'__.
= ._, - - " '."<'=- _ _ _ , . , %_ '

_ . "% . tt 0 P t,l#_ l. S TIL E 2, 5E _ll_I T, S IM PL[ • _ II _ ' l'i_ l _I,. 5 1 ill ll C[S _l. S li / " L

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


### b .,_ E L ..LSWORTI'-I ELLS WORTH AIR FORCE BASE OU-I (FPTA)IRP PHASE II , STAGE A I R FOR C E BASE R A P I D c _, SO U l_DAKOTA I AND 2 S AM PLELO CA TION MA P PROJ E CTM(IR D E S ... DR A

_ gl BY CH E CKED . SC_.E 

### I _TE I PROJECTNO mu E 

## M GL , _S SHOW N I FEB 9 5 I BO578.B4 1- 11w N

_23 50 0
LEGEND \ • IRPPHA SEI f ,STAOE I

SOILVAPOR SURVEYP O I NT

(_. / 25,3" I25' (Z 2 50 ' o 

# :il l ® - S CAL E
ELL'_WORTH 

### ELLSWORTHAIR FORCEBASE OU-1 (F'PTA)IRP PHASEII , A I R FO RCE B A S E RAPID crr_ . S 0L m_ 0

_X O T * STAGE 1 S01LVAPORSU RV EY

__ _ LOCATIONMAP

-- _._ DRAWNBY CHECKEDBY S _'_ _l STAFF SHOWN FEB 95 6 0 378.84 1-12

# : ,_ 501 4 G 

# 11 \r • I,! d 

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

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

a: 2_' _25' 250'

_ " SCALE 

### g=

_ =- _ OU-1 (FPTA) IRP PHASEII, , C_ EI - LSWORTH ELLS W ORTHAIR FORCEBASE

_ AIR FOFt_: BASE R A I_DCITY, SOUTH B AI(OTA 

### STAGE2 S01LVAPOR S URVEY LOCATIONMAP = PROJECT BY DRA_N BY HECKEDBY PROJECT N O R OU 

### oo_<_- I ST A FF SHOWN 95 60378.84 - 13

# - 5 0 1 4 7

. o il and grease (O&G), extracti o n procedure (EP) toxic i ty metals, and EP to xicity 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, three piezometer 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 1 5 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 :k P ROJ Y_)37854kFS'_O U I.Ie $ _'I NAL\I CHAP I ,F Sklul y 1 9, 1995 

### I-9

# - ;
_ . 501 4 9

_-_ _ c -] V V V 

### ¢ D 

# _- _a _ _ ___.a_. V V V V r. /

'J

_ vv ' d v o o 

# §_ _-

_ _ _ _ _ 

# _-_, <_ 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.

# _ 5 0 1 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

_

# 5 0 ! 5 3

- Z ! f i i i i 

### U2 r_r_ rm o 

## 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 northe a st 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 du ri ng 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 Pi l ot Study -- A g r o un d - water recovery system an d treatment pl ant was installed, operated, and tested du ri ng September and October 1990 at OU-1 as part of the IRP, Phase H I Technology Base Development Study at EAFB. The purpose of the test was to detemaine the feasibility of using a ground-water p u mp an d 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 f t long and 75 ft wide at its longest and widest points, and is

-- approx i mately 22 f t deep. The treatment system i s compose d 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 pumpi n g tes t co n du cte d at the FPTA predicted that a yie l d o f 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).

_ I t was co n clu d e d that an intermittent pumping scheme which produces maximum trench drawdown during the day an d allows recovery overnight would be advantageous in reducing total plant operation and monito ring time, and may also prevent bio-fouling of the air stripper

- packing. This pumpi n g scheme would hav e the effect o f lowering the ave r age trench flow rate to 338 gpd (based on 0.47 gpm). 1.2.3.3 Re medial Inve stigatio n

- To a ss ess the impa c t o f the OU on ground w ater, s urfac e wate r , s oil, an d sediment, th e f o llowin g fi e ld investigations were c omplete d during 19 9 3 :

w F:_ P R OP Cz 03 78 8 4 ' tFS_ U I . F S W I i_IA L \I CHAP I .FS ' du ] y 19,1995 

### I-10

### [- _o

_ -- ; : > o Z o . _ Z o

_ e- -- 

### <_ •


## m ,._ U

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

_ . _. _ _

# - 5 0 1 57 TABLE 1"-6 OU-1 (FPTA) SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL DATA FROM PHASE II, STAGE 2 IRP INVESTIGATION, ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE, SOUTH "-- : DAKO T A (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 l imit are not sh o wn, and are indicated by (-) i n the tab l e.

F :xPR ODI _037 884 kI_SK)UI, F SLDRAFT_I-6.TAB6 Dece mber 19 94-° ! --- 

# 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 ad jacent to , the burn pit. T hree samples (s urface, mi d -depth, and capillary fringe) were c o llected from each of the four borings, for a total of 12 samples. • The remaining 29 soil borings sampled for laboratory analysis were located o utside of the burn pit. Two samples (surface and cap i llary fringe) were c o llected 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 outs i de the burn pit. • Laboratory analyses of the soil boring samples included the USEPA Target Compound List (TCL), V O C, 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 :_'R OJ_6 0 37g8 4"

_$ hOUI. '

_ Cl NA L_IC H A PI.F S

_Iu l y 17,I 9 95 1 - 11

# i , \, , I - \ . _ . L I ', '--, ..,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' +/ ................S U R F ACE DRAI N A G E _ ...... -,LL.' A - ZE -- :
_ :: . : . T__ . __ .... i ,, - m-_ BASE BO U NDAR Y FENCE . .. . _i

_ .. ... .., . _ ...... i [

_


## , k

_ , _'-_. l CONTOUR IN TER VAL = IO " " - --- -A D E SIGN E D BY DRAWN BY DATE PRO J ECT NO . 

### , _ 1994-FS MGL FEB95 60378.84 ELLSWORTH ELLSWORTHAIRFORCE BASE OU - 1 (FP TA ) SAMPLE AIR FORCE 

### BASE RAP I D C FIY, S O_TH _ O T_ L OC ATIO N M A P CHECKED BY PROJECT M G R, SCALE F I G U RE 

### AS SHO W N 1-15

# _ 50[ 60 TABLE 1-7 OU-I (FPTA) 1993 RI FIELD I N

VESTIGATION AN A LYTICAL SUMMARY, ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE, SOUTH DAKOTA Number of Total Analysis Samp l e Number of Field T rip Numbe r t _) Matrix (Method) Locations Samples Duplicates Blanks Blanks Analyses S o il Borings TCL VOC (8240) 51(b) 68 5 2 0 75 (soil ) TCL SVO C ( 8 2 7 0) 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 VO C (8240) 2 2 1 0 0 3 On-Site Analysis VOC (on-site) 64c° 64 2 - 1 67 (water) Monitoring Wells T C L V O C (8240) 18 18 2 5 26 (water / Aug. & Viny l Chl ori d e (8 0 10) 18 18 2 0 21 Oct.) TCL SVOC (8270) 18 18 2 0 21 Polycyclic A romatic Hydrocarbons (8100) 18 18 2 0 21 Pentachlorophenol (8150) 18 18 2 0 21 TCL Pesticide / PCB (8080) 18 18 2 0 21

-- TAL M etals (to tal) 18 18 2 0 21 TAL Metals (dissolved) t8 18 2 0 21 Cyanide (9010) 1 8 18 2 0 21 --x....j (water / Nov.) TCL VOC (8240) 1 6 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 VO C (8240) 8 8 ] 0 2 11 Vinyl Chloride (8010) 8 8 1 0 0 9 TCL SVOC (8270) 8 8 1 0 0 9 Po l y cyclic Aro m ati c H ydrocarbons (8100) 8 8 1 0 0 9

__ Pentachlorophenol (8150) 8 T C

L P esticide / P C

B (80 8 0) 8 8 1 0 0 9 T A L Metals (total) 8 8 1 0 0 9 T A L Metals (dissolved ) 8 8 1 0 0 9 w Cyanide (9010) 8 8 1 0 0 9 Stream Sediment T CL VO C (8240) 8 8 ! 0 0 9 T CL SVOC (8270) 8 8 I 0 0 9 T CL 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 numbe r does not include MRD splits, (b) Includes boring locations associated with direct push samples , which were no t 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$4 W S_,OUI , FSYDR A F'I_I-7 . TA B X6 December 1994 w

# 5)1 6 1 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 we l l (MW930106), was completed as a site specific upgradient well. • Seven wells from the IRP in v estigation 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 chlo ri de, 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: W

RO J_5037 $8 4X b '_OU 1 . I_ L _rlN

A L\ I CH A P1 . b 'Skl u l y I9, 199 5 

### 1 -12

# 5 0 1 62

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

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

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

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

# !. kY-/

_ " \_' > t "\i ,;, I , - _,_,, - _ v" _- d l- J 

# G i B ",,,,,v . _ A \ / ..... . '_ ..................... - .. t .. ' :L . . :._: ." 7..... .i" s
_ la _. _ "-. i B: .," ; m .--- _.... - " ' " . : - : - '._: .. .. . .- i . .,7_ ......... ': | 

### _.s s e;_ COl . . ,. , _>:s . '- .T ,: _ ' _T_ f :: <_{_ -- - - 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


# - . RE ,(

. -o ,) - T_ . /

_____ _ _



# _J 0U-2 LA NDF I L L SI & 6 (LF-0 2) OU -3 L ANDF I LL2 (L F -0 3 ) . N_,. ' - ' . ; .R :. OU- 4 LA NDR LL ] (L F -04 ) c/ : : r :
_ : OU-S LANDF 1LL4 (_LF-05)
-- _ OU -6 LA N DR LL 5 {L F- O B ) / OU-7 LO W LEVEL R ADIATIONWA b_ E BURIALAREA (RW-07) 

# oo - B _ < P L O_O_O_C_O_S_O_AREA• P_, , _O L SP ,LL _SS - ,,) / OU -9 O L D A UTO H OBB Y S H O P A RE A (0T-15) ! . _ . . : :: :
_ : OU-IO NO R T H H A NGAR C O MP LE X (ST-'9) OU-11 B ASE ' WID E GR O U ND WATER ....._ i 0U -- 12 HARDRL L N O. 1 ......._ / ::::::: ::::: " (

_ MW BACK G ROU N DWELL DE SIGN ATIO N -- o S B B A CK G ROU N D SOIL B O R I N G DESI GN ATION 

### @ I 1 99 4 FS _ " ELL SW ORTH ELL S W 0R T H AFB L OCATIONOF ORI GI NALB ASE -W IDE L

_ AIR 

### F OR CE B A SE R A PIDcr n '

, s 0 u m _KO TA BAC K G R OU ND( BG) W ELLS

-- _ AND S01 L BORIN G S 

# °°-°'-° " =° ' t r ; '-°=r°

-- I STA FF AS SHOWN EB 9 5 I 60378.83 1 -t6J 

# 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. .._ : • T he Gro up 1 backg r ound wells and borings were analyzed f or the parameters in d icate d in T able 1-8. • One well, MW930106, was installed as the OU-I specific upgradient well. 8. Ec o l o gical Characteri zati o n • Quantitative terrestrial vegetatio n data were collected fro m 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 f or OU- 1 using quantitati v e 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 we tland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. The assumption was made that hydric soils were likely to be present if the f irst two parameters were also present. • Pitfall traps were used to sample the terrestrial s o il 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 o f 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 d o wnstream 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 hab i tat 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 AP R O Jx_5 037 8 g 4

_F SM) U 1, P '_k r ' T NAL\ I C " H A P I./ : S XJ ul y 17, 1 9 9 5 

### 1- 13

## \ / i 

# / !



## 1.li." f _- .- . ' " ' " " " ' " ' " ' '_" ' • " ' _ " ""- _'' "' _ _ " ' ' " 

# • '- ..1, t I I. , .5, , .-t : .-._ . d... < ,.. , :F ,.. :

_ , . .

:,_1 : _._! - •'._'. ;. \ \ ! ' . ." -L "_t_ s _3 o !o l 

## . •,. _:-'.-¢...... /:-:. • .L,,... .. •.. . . ' . .. . .' . ,_ . )1 ",,, ( - .- -. . . . 1 1 '

I 4.' .'" .'." .'." #.."-'." .'." .'." .'.'.' . " . ' .'I'." , ,' _.... ' ".' .'." .'i j . ._. _ _!_ ...... . . . .. X_. -.. , .... >.... , ................. /

..-...-... 1_ J......I ....._ , ..I.I _..... .. ........, , _ , .............. "+ _, "7 _ -- , _. ._'r_'_" \ c ,_,, _" , . _ - ......... ___ _. . _ - . , r-..._=.,_ . _ ..... .,,_ =,. . . , , , "_.."% ........ ; . , %:..... _._ #_:_ c ,._,=.. ., tL.._.._.... _ _, "''-- i "

' :: : U I , " i i _ '1 I i I i " - _ / n
_ "

_ : 

# \\ ,,,, _ # ,,_ \%!X, ?

_ r
_ /.. .... , ',, ,,,, " %\ I x ( \_\_ \. ,/ 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 _ _>.... , ; // \ \ _- z 2 -_x "q-, . \',._ / ..d_'_ _, ' i J IP ! _ _, _ 4 d H , ,/ ; _ "_y 'igw_r"" I; "% J:" ¢ '" "" .... _ _ 'k ...."_'_ "" .-_ / _Z i " < )

_ ;- _-_, . _'._ q ;"_......... .=

... k

_ <_.'= = _r . :

'_.__

' J V ! ' k i . _9_' L ., r, _...... / _--_ I ' "_ . . ;': ._ -- ,2 - ', . \ "

_ x " 2 " : '_ _.- z _"._ ' , . .$.. . .._. - $: :_.......,,,,'_'"1""-,_' < " = ',: ,z : ::
_ . =4_ ' _" ='_"__ _ = ...._ ;. " _" + _' - " - ......... / // ., 4/ \ \ ¢ . s...... _ . ':o:._#_ ..... , I.llf_ I,, _ 1 i,_ ;, 1." o_il ,,_ C .z--"-_-,. •_ '

--- d ..\ 6/" k \ 1

_ ) > I.:_ ZX . i ,':x : ' ,, 't i_-_ _ _,t I 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,. _;_ t i;' - r .........._,,_ 

# .... ,. ! < , "_ --_ X',". ' ,,_ _ J' .I." . .'\ _ . _ , \- , _ I>"_-_. ' ,'_li,, / - I I , _"l ......... k_)_ "- ' ' . ....... . ' '_ . ..::.:::::. r+ " . " _ ' "- . 2 ; _........."--', ' ;.........
, . - -_; I , J

U I • -.. . -. , <4 , '=.> . . . . _'.'.,_........... _ ,, , ,, , 

# o - =,,, . ,; . -. :, /, ?> . , , ,,\ J

_ SgD / ! \ -_.y" i _ ! • " • ' • "'_ ,, t' "¢, _J,_ % >,

__ . . ", ) 4 ;a & s_l,._22 ,1 / d ; . . , _ _ " X %. \:x_ , _ . L " ' - " • " ._-_ ii ": _.J_..-. =- _"" ; ' _!I it !i " "%, " > "_',



## _ ' .="-:.:-.- - ' - ;>._ - _ '

-_ ! v,,_ _, " , , ,'_'k,-,_ "_. .-/ . ".' -_i-_ . _ _ ; ' !, i i '\ \\ 1", , _ill_'. ' .'.i " . .' ._l se
_o z_ ! [ il il l , ,- ".......'k , x, I i ......................_s_t . '

_; .__: ,'.- .' I F / _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'

l k M w BACKGROUND WELL DESIGNATION i ili 

## i i II J

SB BACKGROUND SOIL BORING DESIGNATION t ..... / I /; OU-I FIRE PROTECTION "':::;:::--.- ,. ..._il ............ 41_ , TRAINI N G 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) 

# _i U:::::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 G ROUND WATER I I _" "_:' : ;_U'_ .....

__,_ OU-12 HARDFILL NO. 1 SCALE I _ .... <z_• _ _ 1_ FS 9 ESIGNED BY DRAWN BY DATE PROJECT NO. o -

__ _ ELLBWORTH ELLSWORTH A FB LOC A TIONOF ST A FF DE C 94 6 037 8. 83 - 7

- 7

- AiR FORC E B A B E RAP I D c_ , SOUTH _X0T^ BACK6ROU N D W ELLS CHECKED BY PROJECT MGR SCALE F I GURE _6J _<_ A N D SOI L BO R INCS TR A S SHO WN 1-17

# - 5 0 1 65 TABLE 1-8 BACKGROUND GROUND-WATER AND SOIL BORING SAMPLE AND AN ALYSIS SUMMARY FOR OU-1 1993 RI / FS Number of Number of Sample Field Total Parameter Locations Samples Samples

-- SOIL BORING A NAL YSIS ( Gro up 1 ) TCL VOC 61 ' 2 6 6

-- Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (Jet Fuel) 61'2 6 6 T C L SVO C 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 01 2 0 0 Radiologic Screen 0L2 0 0 SURFACE SOIL ANALYSIS (Basew i de) 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 AN A LYSIS (Gro up 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 / P C B (TCL) 6 I' 2 0 6

_ C yanide 6 _'2 0 6 TAL Total Metals 61' 2 6 6 TAL Disso l ved 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 iden tified in the F S P are not used as background data for OU-1. One of the wells was dry, and concen trations of VO C and TPH in the other four indicated that they were not

_ represen t ative of background c o nditions. 2. The 6 backg r ound we l l s that w er e u s ed fo r OU- 1 were upgradien t and c r o ss gradien t to OU-2 and OU- 4 . Data f r om ground water samples from these wells did no t indicate impac t s associated with anthropogenic activity from EAFB.
F : W

RO J36 0 3 788 4 " u
_ S _O U 1 . FS LDI_A F'_L-

_ , TA B _6 December 1 994

# 51,1 GG 9. T reatab i l i tyS udy • 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 N A TURE A N

D EXTENT OF C HEMICAL CONSTIT U E

N

TS b 

### 1 . 3. 1 S o urces Based o n the data c o llected during the RI and from previ o us 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, sto c m water run off from operation are a s upstream of OU- 1 and historic al pest man a gement 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 inclu d e VOC, and to a lesser extent SVOC, which are a result of hi s torical use of fuel and w a ste oil /

solvent in the FPTA. Chemicals were found in ground-water samples collected both within and down gradient of the fo_m er FPTA. A summary of the reported compounds and their concentration compared to relevant Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) is given in Table 1-9. Seven V O C, one SVOC and one pesticide were reporte d at least once at concentratio n s exceeding the MCL. Because benzene was the most frequently reported organic compound above MCL, and is mobile in the
F:'

_ PRO / '_37 8

_U I, F S_F I N AL

_ ICHAP I, FS

_u l y 17. 1 995 

### I - 14

# - _ 50/ 67

-- I GW

5 SB93010 1 V$15 0

-- P 22 Vs22-_ 1 35 " P7

_ Vd15
-- Ve T P15 5 • -- -- Vd30 P30



# _ EL 4 L •--vd so LEGEND P 60 • E SV E (ENH A NCE DSOIL Vs 60 V A P OR EX T RAC TI ON ) W E ll _ G) SVE W Ell O S OIL BO R IN G LOCATION • DEEP VANDOSE Z ONE

-- r MONITO R IN GP O I NT

_ - Z _ P IE Z OME T ER ± f [] SHALLOWVANDOSE ZON E
- MONITORING 2_ Z

_ 

### _J NOT TO SCALE w _ :
__ E_ ELL S WC R TH ELLSWORTH AFB JULY 199 4 L J_ AIR FORCE BASE



### _ _ , u e nY,so l. re um 'A T R E ATABI LITY STUD YLA Y OUT Zr_ e 

# I ; I I _---c PROJECT k_OR DESIGNE Y DRAWN BY CH E CKED _Y IFIGURE



# __ _ JSS TR I NONE 95 803 7 8 . _ "i 1-18i 

# 5_3I 68 

# _1_ _ _ _ _ "__ :_ 0 u Z g < Z



# _ ° 0 I:_ :_ ,_ _ - o,=,_ oo =
_ _o= Z< o Z'-'

_ <
_ Z=: z == 

# =_ _ - r-! ,- .

_ _ _.8-8 - 

# _ _ _ _ _ _ooooo_ooo

_ _ - 

# or / ,,,_, _ _ -

- = =, _-


### _, 8.=== .8 _ , - , 0

• - : - - ,4

# - 5 "., I6 9

- en vironment; the 10 tzg /1 isocontour interval of benzene in ground water (Figure 1-19) generally portrays the area where organic compounds exceed the MCL.

_ Thi rteen separate inorganics were reported in gro u nd-water samples at concentrations exceeding background. A comparison of the concentration of inorganics reported above background and the M C L 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 rep orted in soil samples fro m 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 repo rted inorganic c o mpound found abo v e background levels in surficial

-- soil samples from OU- 1 was calcium. Silver, lead, copper, cyanide and bari u m 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 samp l es is believed to be from a combination of bum pit activities and naturally

i.- - - occ urring v ariations in geologic deposits and soil. No distinct pattern was observed for elevated inorganics in OU-1 surficial soil samples.
F: W

R OIXtO3788 4kFS'_)UI.FS' u_INAL_I C HA PI. F S U u ly 17. 199 5 

### 1-15 iXT I / \' , . _ ' "_\ % ' ',\ _ /:/

"", , '. J " : " ' - .'

_ ," ............... _° , I_1 / i .... , / .\ , , X-- -, '_V'. ,' _ ' ,- .... i ' 11 / / 692s _ \ \ ........ _ i I ,' : ....... -."_ : : ' "" " "'-, (. _.. /-: _. "................. :' :J: : _ ; " '"" .. " ' " " _"2 ", / / • -"........ ; " / - " ' U "

_ w a ll 1 ' " J " \ \ _' "( `

_ •_ ' "."-. _>" : ' X • i 

# "'--L".... < ) : ...................... _., ' ' , ! "'. " '-. .\ : _uwg_6 1o 6 / . - "" . ........." . _ii'-= _ _. • ", .... "'-...' .' ... , _ _) / -=..........,_:<.............: -.. ' ,. i!!!_o_i / ".

' _, " " = =:Z2,,= ..:: ," "" // "' -.= , _ / =l

_ = \ =, :"

_ . _, ..-.,- " \ / .., - -..... / AEL 9 2 8MW

. . I ',

_ b : • \ . . ", ,, , , / . '

_ ' ',\ \ _ ,. \' _ \. J .... .i - / _ . • _. ,, ik , \ _ , - . . ..... .. ' \ ' i[ ...... , ! "i !i % ' \ " . _ _ ........ _ TP W O i_ " • ..... '\ ' , , - ; " ' " i ,

_ _ T PWO D ( ', " . ' I .... , " , \ - (_) TP w o_s
_ '

, ., _- g,T P1 o

_2 _ -,- , , ' .A ,, _7 o o ..................: : : , : ............. / 4 i i I :
., _\ -. ! ....)_ , i _ "_ : '""' : ; o _"_ . \ 1 . ..: 

## " ' "\ ", _ _ ' : ' : < ° _"- :_ _ ' _b. "..,. • i \ : ' , , '_ _ \k_

_ , \ , , = :: .....

•
_ I, i '; /I/ 'i_ 7 ' 7

- 7

7/11

_ I _ ',

.. i ' , - . ////

_ , //////// _.. : I '. k

_ !_ i I \

_ . - 

# ', , l' , , i , ', i \ ', : ] I1 ! / IIII1 " 1111111111

_ i : ...... _ " I " 

# , , , , . , ,,,,,, , ! , i . _ " .i i I//I

_ IIlll

_ t

, Y IIIII i i_

_ MW 9 30 1 0 / .......' ?. • ',, : _ _ t

_ M// . ////X/ X

///// V' I.... Jj) _i_ '

" , \ A

___ ///

', ///////

_ '

_ : ;' 

## , , , .',_ / \. w . o_)__ //// /. ////////A IX. w - 0 , 0 , .. ............. 

# , .-................ ..................... ........................................ ,,,. / ', '_ '... Y _ ................................................................. i :::: ............... : :: - : i \ _ " . ?....... . ........................................... \

_ " i 2 ; " " - .... • ................................................. . ! l , , , /" . ....... ._- _ ', \ , , , " i ; ", '_ ' , / i i i ' , '

_ , , /, 

# • -, , , , / / i :: / 

# ', "' ',. , i_ Y///////////// ,: / / •.............._!.........

= " ....................

_ ", \ _ ,_ //////// ' //A

_ !_ " . " - . ", : ' ,, ',

_ i ....................



# -, - = _ • , , '_

/.

_ l '_li -

.............. X\_ , ' _ _ _ : ,\ ,, ESTIMATED AREA WHERE

_ """. . _ ,, '", ", , \ \, - _' w ._o, , o\

_

//A OR G ANICS E X CEED MCL s

_ " \X ' "" 1 \ '-. Ii_.. \ 6

_ RP P EZOMETER

_ ( ']

_ uw. _o o_ ".,\_. ", \ \ _

_ ' "\, "\\ "- J CLUSTER/ NEST

_ _l_ k.',, k " , \ _ " .\ \.'\ " -. ...................................................... 7 ,, x_ i \ \ , \.\ ........ i! \\ -" ) I • 1993 RI MONITORI NG WELL /

_ ............... " , ...\ i \ _ "\ "

_. \ ! SOL B O RNG LO C ATON

_ ............ ",\.\ i \ "\ \ _.\ i

............ : \\ '., " , , "_ \ \._ ! L IRP, PHASE If,STAGE I & " . _ .........\_ ' \ ...... : , , .....' . -".....\ "-:............................. / 2 MONITORING LOCA T ION "-_ .. _.'<% i "......) / " .. = === = = === = = ====== ==== == = = ============ ........................... \\ / / EXTENT OF REPO R TABLE " "........... .,: .... ._.,,." , , _ i " . COMPOUNDS _ ......._.......................... ".... k . ........ " . "-.= T

_ . .. . . , ........ a, _o I I I E S I M ATED E X TE NT O F "...... _ i ......'.'' .''

_ . "" "" R EPO R TABLE COMPOUNDS " '* '_ " -_I, l;:jl k _w g

_ 0 _,, ( ."_":'-': ....... " ' ".... "............... (1 / 2 DETECTION LIMIT) _. • .... !, : ' .......2 : ': : ......... ". . ...... "



# _ ' ................................. " k ..........::: : :: : ::.................. ................. :. .: ::. :: >.-..

_ ;
_ KE HN

_y R OAD ............ SURFACE D R AINAGE

_ : l.i "................... ::: 7 :':: Z ...............r_ ' II.II. : Q : -.I : . : . : ,:: ' _iT ::
_ : T : . ,: )-4 c -" 

# :/ ..... .... I I I BASE BOUNDARY FENCE _" _ooo TOPOGRAPHIC ELEVATION ABOVE

_ ! j _" . : 'i' ,,,,,J " M SL - ONTOUR INTERVAL= 10 ,,,,, , = " _. . .: ' / " , i O o

_ : N OE: US E D N OV EMBE R 1 993RES U LTS E XCEPT FO RMt

_J 30 111( O C T OB E R 1 903) 20o ' 0 2oo' NOTE :THE S U BS U RFACE ISOPLE T H S SHOWNR E P R E S ENTO UREVALUA'I I ONOFTHEMO S T PRO B ABLE

_ I _j C OND ITION S BASED U P ON INTE R PRETAIION O F PR ESENT L Y AV AItAB LEDAT A. S OM E VARL_ O N S SCALE <= F RO MTHESE CO ND n l ONSMUST BE EXP E CT ED , o _ DES I G N ED B Y DRA WN BY DA TE PROJECT N O. 1 99 4 FS

_ E L LS WO R TH ELLS W 0RTHAIR FORCE BASE STAFF OCT 94 60378.84 __ GENERAL AREA W HERE c_ AIR FOR C E BA S E RAPID cnY, S OU I H D _KO TA OR GA NICS EX C EEDED M C L s CHECKED BY PRO J ECT MGR. SCALE F IGURE STAFF AS SHOWN 1-19

# - : :7 i. 5 0 1 71 TABLE 1-10 OU-I SUMMARY OF DET E CTION FRE Q UENCY AND MCL OF ELEVATED INORGANI C 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 20 00 < 1 0 3 Dissolved Barium 4 /17 965 644 -- <1 0 3 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 8 t i 7 6290 1740 -- <22.0-682 Dissolved Iro n 7 /17 6230 378 0 -- <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 Diss o lved Antimo ny 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 f or 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:kPR O J_03 7_$4 W Sa. OU I. F gL ! ) RA b ' / _ 1- I 0 .TAB 'S 6 D ecemb er 199 4

# " 50[ 72 - TABLE 1-11: STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA GROUND-WATER QUALITY STANDARDS - POTENTIALLY TOXIC POLLUTANTS Ace tone Endothall -- Acrylamide Epichlorohydrin Adipates Fonofos -- Bromobenzene Glyphosate Bromoethane Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Butyle acetate Metolachlor Chlorambe n M ethyl ethyl ketone C hlorob enz e ne Methylene chloride Ch l oroeth an e Metrib u zin Chloromethane Napth alene o - C hlorotoluene PA H p - C hlorotoluene Parathion Dalapon Phenol D C PA Phthalates Dibromomethane Phorate D i camba Pi chloram

_ m - Dichlorobenzene Simazine 1,1 - Dichl oroethane 2,3,7,8 - TCDD (Dioxin) Dichloromethane Trichlorobenzene 1,3 - Dichloropropane 1,1,2 - T richloro ethane -- 2,2-Dichloropropan e 1,2,3-Trichlorop r opane 1, 1 -Dichloropropene Tri fl u r ali n 1,3 - Dichloropropene 1,1,1,2 - Tetrachloroethane Dinose b 1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane Diquat Note: B old chemicals were reported i n the OU-I RI.
F: W

ROJ Vo O37 88 4 W SkOUI .F SXDRAPUAI-I ] TABXt7 Decembe r 199 4m


# - - - 501 7 3 1. 3. 4 Se d i m en t

- - . . . . j 

### VOC, SVOC and pesticides were reported in sediment samples collected both upgradient and

_ down gradient of OU-1. The presence of these organic c o mpounds 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 surfa c e spills outside of OU - 1.

-- Reported arsenic, manganese and nickel exceed e d Federal Ambient Water Quality C riteria. 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 FAT E AND TRANSPORT The primary physical route of migrati o n for chemicals from OU - 1 is through surface waterrunoff or through shallow ground-water transport and discharge. Surface water runoff from OU1 flows into an southeastern or southwestern stream and then fl o ws into Pond 001 located immediately south o f the OU. Overflow fro m 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 0 0 1. Deeper percolation of gro und 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 pro vided fro m the field investigation at OU-1 indicate that specific VOC present at the site

... . - are pri m arily aro m atic hydro carb o n type comp ou nds o f fuel origin (benzene and ethylbenzene); and chlorinated solvents and their breakdown products: trichloroethene (T C E), 1,2- F: W

ROJX_03 7 884 W $_O U I .F $_NAL\I_API.F$_ / uly 17 . 1995 

### 1-16w 

# 531 74 di chloroethene (1,2-D CE), 1,l-dich]oroethene (l, 1-D CE) , {,2-dich]oroethane (1,2-DCA), and vinyl chloride. VO C are known to migrate through the envi r onment by meansof the atmosphere,soil and water. Migration of VOC are affected by their partition coefficient, sorption potential, aq u eo u ssolubility, and high Henry's Law constant . Volatilization, biodegradation, and sorption arethe throe potential fate and transport processeswhi ch govern the long-term distribution and persistenceof VOC in the envi r onment. The primary en vironmental 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 S V OC Data provided from the field i n vestigation and risk assessme nt at OU-1 indic ate that spec i fic SVOC presenting an unacceptable risk are primarily PAH type compou n ds (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, base d on the ir 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 p rimary environmental fate of PA H at OU-1 is sorption to soil. The p rimary transport pathway fo r SVO C at OU- 1 is via tr an s port of suspended s oi l particles in sto rm wate r run off. 1 . 4 . 3 Pesticide s Pesti c id e che m icals o f c o n c ern at OU-1 in c lud e: dieldri n , e ndrin , lindan e, gamma- chlord ane, alph a - chlord ane , he p tachl or e po x id e , an d p , p'- DD T in s urf a ce s oi l du e to unac ce p tab l e ecological risk; and heptachlor, alpha-BHC, and gamma- B HC in gro und water du e 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 environme nt. The primary fate of pe s ticides 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 I x ansport pathway for pesticides at OU-1 is to streams through surface water run off. 1.4. 4 Met al s and Inorganic s I n general, metals can fore, both organi c or inorgani c compoun d s in so i l and s edi ment. 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 catio n exchange capacity (CEC) is most commo n ly controlled by the clay fraction of a soil matrix. The primary environmental fate of metals and inorganic F:kPROJ_6 0 37 894

_FS XO U I. FSXr-- INAL\I C I'IAP I .F $ 'du l y 17. 1995 

### 1-1 7

# - : 5 0 ! 7 5

. analytes at OU-1 is sorptio n 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 h a s 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 a re not expected to be transported far beyond their source area. 1 .5 RISK A SS E SSM E NT

-- 1 .5.1 Hu man H e alth 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 E x posure Ass es sment A current land use exposure assessment was ev aluated 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 i n gestion, 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 Sum mary of Human Health Risk Assessment Noncarcinogenic Risk Non- c ar c inog e ni c ri sks at OU-1 in e xc e s s of a HI of 1.0 exis t for the fu ture r es id e ntial adult wh o e i the r i ngests s hal lo w ground w ater or sh ow ers w i th s h allow

- grou n d water (for both the ce ntral te n dency and RME exposure groups). Risk is driven by the volatile compound 1,2-dichl orethe n e.
F: W

R OJ ' _603 78 g4_FS_O U I . FS W IN ALM C H A P 1.FSUul y 17. 1995 

### 1-18

# 501 76 - C arcinogenic risks which are based o n the use o f central tendency exp o sure ... _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- dichl oroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, TCE, alpha-BHC) and arsenic in the shallow ground water, and are incurred during ingestion or showe ring 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 org anics (benzene, vinyl chloride, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, TCE, alpha-BHC, bis(2- ethylhexyl-phthalate, gamma-BHC, chloro form, 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 n o 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 E cological Evaluation /

Risk Assess ment T h e e cological e v al uati o n of OU-1 was b as e d on a comb ination of data an d literature re v i ew s , fiel d and l aboratory analyses, analyte e v alu ation and screeni n g, and prel i minary risk screening. -._ The pertinent findings are summarized below. In terms of ecological value, OU-1 presents a highly disturbed environment with dominant fe atures such as the abandoned b urn pit and surrounding gravel patch. Notwithstandi ng 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 i n O U- 1 h abitats. 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 p ri mary con trol of biotic community structure. [ :: W ROA6_37 $$ 4kFS_UIFS ' L_INAL\lCH A p I._3 klu l y 1 7

.1995 1 -19

# - 5 0 1 77 Surface water d oes not appear to present sufficient risk to ec o logical receptors to w arran t further investigation on an OU - specific basis. Therefore, a Tier III assessment for potential OU - speci fi c " - " 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 sou r ce 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 su rrounding 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 installati on - 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 SUMM ARY 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 sto Huwater

-- 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 : W

R OJ_603 7884 W S

_ O UI._ ' ffqN AL_I C H A PI .FS 'Ouly 1 7 , 199 5 

### 1-20

### to a lesser extent in ground water; metals and cyanide in sediment, surfa c e water and ground water. 'x_. / 

### • T he 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 repo rted 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 :
_R OJ_6037 Sg4 W S

_ O U I .F S

_ C l N AL\I C I-1A_I . F S U oIy 17 . 19 9 5 

### 1-21/ / - _ ...... " ........ GO" _ / " ' { ..... / - i ", "-........ ; . . ' 

# tt , ; ............ . . ......... ' " I * "" -- : ° " - ."C;\ ', , 

# - -.. t_? > ./ " -- ................ 'ui , , . \ \ / 

# L' : L. ; !;- ,
.......... ' ] t 

## , .-. . .... " - . . ) £p _=,_o1_7 ..................... ,...... - , ii l.J.... " " , , - ' 3 " - . "'. ) O P 9 3 O1 2 5

_ d .s' :: " ; ........ <"

__ = ," -- \ \,< ..... - .:.. - : . +" " . _ i i i ......... i ' , ,

- ,' ._,_ ==== ================== , I _ " ' - . -. / ' i AE L gI28 M W ,; "_ : '- . + \ f



## - -- _ __ - > ........T "-'-._ " ........................... . .\:_ , , .........................." " , ' .... . / . > , \ \ ;.',>, . - , % \ 

## ,. - : ,_ \ - - . i \ " _'_. % ,_ ".,. "i " " : + !.,! )_I D /i 7:"-__ ' . 

## (",.

_ _:::::. :: -. . :-:..:.. "A ...._, : ..::_+ \ . " -\ 

# t . \ /f -..; : ., H " i \ " . , . '

_ . J oPg]O t 3 _! = ¢ ....... ., 

## + ' ,',,I ..,.'__m)oIO 7 ' , ' , \L...

_ P JSB93 011 6

_ \' - . _ _IJ DP93 011 2 . . ,

; /_ S Bg301 0 7 

# _., o .. o , o

_ V ' // Y? '/

_ °' 0 "............. : 

# .............................................. ,,,0 r- . . " •_i % = ........................................

_ 0 1 4 1 ./ ," - .................... :: ] : J ....................... 

## o ,_ ; , ..... : ];. : ............................................................... (_ i ! / / {' ! (_ o . _mo. " SB':m'

__ _ s. ._ o , +. ................................... DPg30142 ........ i - ' E. L ' Li. ........................... _ 

# , k ' . " .; : ........ '[ " / : i II 

# " i . ,._ ,o ++?_ y ......... , ........ • /./ / ...................................................... 

# OU- 1 -. BOUNDARY ) "1', / - ///i / • , / / / \ / ¢ sB g_oI_ ' m / Sa 9 {_.013_ /' . ",I

_ -_T DP9 5 0 1

_ 103 , " ..... - r :
_ / 

# ,. &w o,oo7 ' 93 t B93 01 35 ! i ' 

## i ii ' .................. i ]0 119 ' t " T SB930 1 3 1 "" f 301 1 5 _ _]: D Pg30 1 2g ......................................

\. . _ _ ........................................... 

# "- , i -, ,,t \ i L ;. ............................... _ ', _ ' ,, ,, ! _ SB_O21 ...................... " ' ' _ ' 0Pg3 01 3 2 • 

# ....... _, ,. , , ,, , _ /'/

_ < ,, I .......... " - " \\ ', g _._ D P 0_3011 5 i '. _, / k_' i_ '_- / ' - , . ' . ' , " , ', ' :
_ , '. i. K = ._. . _ \ 

## / ' \.\ ", ".. ; ", '- \\.. \ i ,,,. : - , \ \ . \ ...... "-.. _w o _oloo \\ ,_ ' : \, \. ".... "\ ................... . 

### LEGEND; , - -..... _s°.+o1+o 

## : ,] , k _!IgIIIl \ \ " _X x" " .............................................. 

# o ,= . .,=zo+== -\. %" \ \ -.. i CLUSTER/ N EST " " ............. ""


## ........ •- r . , s=+_o2 ': '"\ '_ _)m_o 2+ "\ _- 1 993 R I MO N I T O R ING W ELL / ...... % '( ;
_ : ;t_ml_ _._ ", W D

_ g 3 012

_ _ \ \)- '

_ / "' SOIL BOR IN G LOCATIO N ............ _ _ ' . \ Po+eoo+ . / ...... "" "-:" ...................................................._ 

## ......% ".. '.,, _ / ,t l_ sm_o _5" ....................................................... 1993 R I FIELD S CR EE N I N G / %-, : '-_. _ r"

_ "

_ 0_0'

_ " " 

## @ % , ' , + .... : ......_ / / ? -. SOIL BO RI NG LOCATION ......... ' - . ' \ . \ . .+ / +, ". " a I R P, PHASE II, STAGE 1 &

_ "--" • " .... 2 MONITORING LOCATION '- i .... -..'-_. -. -.

- . . +.
_ ._ ._ Oi,y o . . 

# (_. , ,_o111,........,.... . , , .......... o

_5o _i ; " .......; " ........ "

_

..... 

## .. ................ SURFACEDRAI N AGE ........... " t_i ....... ]. :i]...........-...................... -----BASE BOUNDARY FENCE 4i .............. ].-Y.....................;:"::::: ' " •....... _° ° TOPOGR A PHIC ELEVATION : ,_. , o ABOVE MSL _ ,..... " z _) -. ..... / , +/:



## _: l ....... .............................. , ,....... :: % :! _ 2oo ' o ,,00' _ NOTE: GR O U ND-WATERS AMP LES C OLLECTE DD U R INGAU G UST AND NOVEMBE R I 993 SCALE <£_" ,.y_ _ 1994 FS D E S IGNE DBY D R AWN BY DATE P R O JE CT N O. _o _;i ELLSWORTH E LLS W O R THAI R FO R CE BAS E EX)EI,rr O F MGL JU N E 9 5 6 0378.84 -4._+ _"< R EP ORTEDC O O nn AIR FOR CE BAS E R/ ) P

t DCF P f, SOU T HDAKOTA IN G ROU ND WATER CHECK E D BY PRO J ECT M G R. S CALE FIG UR E 

# ou-1 I AsSHO W N I ;-20i i i1 = _ i n 

## " i.L...' L -- ' # i .i / .\\ \ "_._\\\ \ , i .. { i _ , ", ,,. j , ".............................. 

## i " " °' _ \_x " \-.:7-::--":, . , i' .... -. . .....:........ -- ,, t/I t \\;:_ ". .... .li D " " . //#/ ; / / ". "'\ t" 

## / . . " ",-,_.. . ./.4 : I " " i ) 

# :c \ "
'\ .... _ < ° . il "\ / I ,_, i x "". "-. \ I / 'lilil W9 3 0106 J . - "" - .......... - - _ ' 

# U / "..... "-. " - . , i II_ SB930127 .... , , < : ............... I " ' i i 6 9 0 , = •, " ' - ", " '-. "'.. . ;}

_ , _ _D I_ 30125 +
_ ' : ' : '' : ::
_ ' ._ . .... _" "! \: i L _. /

_ J "- " \ "' " " : ........ ": /

_ _ ' " \ J " _E LgIIBMW d ' "

_ ; """

............... . .............. : ?.... -.-: ............... \ , -- . 

# '!ii:: J: I 1 ,' . - , -, - . . '

_ , / / ' / "\*. \. ' , ' \ \''-_ \. _

/ . .. .\ 

## ! % , .... \ ' _t.\ " " "....

• ' i_ T _woii_ I/ r-"_ k : i ,,\.. "--',T PWO,, S , ! I )



## _w
_7 o_i - :: : . :: :...................... : _. , ii
................. ,...... l'[.: j ." 

# '- , ' i ,,

• t,\ \_ \ '_ b { . ::: .... " . • SB930114 ) '_ 

# • \..- @o . . o,,o 1 , • ! !i 

# I ' ,, , ., i !-7.. : : .)>i! , \ 

### \ I , fr_ .$Bg} Oll Z. ti i _ i '

_ ' I \ " _ " MW93 0 1 0 7 , •. i \ , L ...ii J l_ SBg ;ml l o ' I _i ' ''_ ',-........: , ., - ,- -' oP_3 o._ ..... • SB I )3015t - ' , _ D P g3 01 44 1 0 6 p , .: ,1 0 2 5Bg3 Ol ( ] 7 itl 3 ...... / 

# , @o v , so , o s A .......................... i I > : . ................................. ............................. ,, ,o i I t',,', ' , -" ................................................ .......... i ', • ", [..... ..................................- i I % ', " , _:h s. _o_, / ,,,.................... ::::: ........................... ....... ? " \, , \

_ j o P. _Ol_S > .......................................................... 

## : l ' , , ',\ > l ' ,s . ._o , o_ / ," " - -.............. i ! \ : $B93 01 I II , ....... _ i_W ll§ O 1 0 4 / / 

# <, : I i, ', "i X . . , // :. I _ \, _ :. 41 : . , . _s d g _o_on / / , / ,

_ ....................... _, _ I ( "_seg3o ll3 k i , - " LA

_ opg30 1 05 , , / / I ( ._!_ SBg }O IIB ...................... :::..... f ........ """ , ] I_ o Pg 3 010g '

_ x, _, _ _ t / ! %_ 0 Pg3 0 1 4 2 . . ........ .: ........................ \ t : \ x M

_ go 6ll _ , " t / "] .- ........ t ', " , " ' . .$B930137

_o
_ , i f " I

", \ i k

_ " ' - , ,_1_ S B g3Ol 4_ I t x ' • ' _ ',

_ " I i / _ / 0 P93 01¢ 3 / ..................... . "I '. , ,_1"_ 'S B 930117

_ 1 / // " - ....................

- ._' I <' I _;;Z,_ o

_ _ / . / • ! ......................



# " t "ili '., .. ." ,3/ I

' , i / i _, , x 5 B 930115 t . /

'- 

# BOUNDARY

" / I 

## _ , lh
I " ' O' " ]O I 1 ' _ '' I , ' / [ /t • , " sBg3 o 130 ] I'i _' _' ' _ • 13 '_, S T

[ I I ' i' k

.... X 7 1 I \ P I I I' : [ j '_ 'I I " \ "- - ,, : f i_ wg3o I og ' " ",, _ _ _ ', , • ,_IF Dpg30133 ...... • _ i

_ " I ..........

. .._ _ t _ o P g _O 3O \ i {l " , Sa g 128

_ " \ l I i 1 1 " . ' i_ _

_ %1,_._0P__Oi1_ li".i_ V iOP 9

_01 2 n ...................................... -. , " \" ' , I!


## -- k - \ • _ _. , ,o_ , " \ ' 1L o,_, li , \ _ \ _l 0 P g3 0 127 I "+ _ ,_, I_l SB93 ........................ "- ............................. "' ". / ", \ ", \ ] \ t _i_ 0Pn_0932

S S9 S ¢

_ ' ' L

_ _ t I : 

# , . ,o,, s , t 5B 9 301 5 , _ I OP930 1_ O \ , , • \ ¢ DP9 _01 21 ; / _'_ Bg3( ] 133 , I1 ...........- ', \ \ ,, _ _0_ 0 s i _ ,,'\ "- X ". -' ' - ' ,, , t \ , \\ \ 

## x,_, _ '. _ \ -.. \ ....... ,\ _\ e ....:,,<,, : < :,Ic:bi_l_T'" "- "":'-_X,.""....................................... CLUSTER / NEsTIRP PIEZOME-TER 

### X

................... '' _X

_ t _" . ".

_ . 

# © ""- SB930122

_ g

_ 0122 \ • \ ' ¢ 1993 RI MONITORING W E L L / ..... _ _ oP

_ o , 7 _ ". t3_7

_ " "- \"- 0 - / SOIL BORING LOCATION ........ _ II \\. : . \ Pe,_o:o_ / ........ -' . : ....................................... :: ::: : : : :: :7 .... t_ 1993 RI FIELD SCREENING/ s " ':\ \ : kJ A o_ o 2 _ ". SOIL BORING LOCAT ION ...... . - - ' "-'- _- / @ f ' , - 

## ........................ -7- ........*) , -- IRP, PHASE II, STAGE 1 & 2 MONITORING LOCATION .... "_i i_ *-"..... """_'_t" "" "" .... "" e'_" " " M w

_O L_ I " ". , " " " "

_ #W ......... "

_ B 0 30 1 50 ....... : ......... ................SU R FACE D R AINA G E

_ ........... , ............................... - ......... :: ] 'i ........... ::::: L : .......... - .................... . :::: ::- I - --B A SE BOUNDARY FENCE



## _ ili .................... ::

:........................ _, : : _.........-:_._._ . : _: _l_o.- T OPOGRAPHIC ELEV A TION IV i ......", - o ABOVE MSL i t " '_ "

- - "_

_ ,i ] i ,.-" 

## ,c_ .............. <

..... i : =' 7;, -...... ,......... " .....................".......'_l , '! \ _oo' o _oo' 

## ..... L-_I_.-- _ . l 3: _ NOTE: GR O U N D- WA TE R S A MPLES C OLLEC T ED D U R I NGA U GUST AN D N OVEM B E R 1 993 SCALE >_ 7=Ci ELL.SWORTH ELLS W0 RTHAI R FORCE B ASE EXTENTOF M GL J U NE 9 5 6 03 7 B . B 4 < _-. REPO R TEDCO C IN SOIL c _'<(3 A IR FORCE B AS E RAP I rl C ITY. SOU T H D/

_ OTA BU R NPr r A R EA CHE C KED B Y P R O J ECT M GR . S CA LE FiCURE1

_21 O U- 01 I A S S HOWN

# 5 0 1 81


# Section Tab

### 2. DEVEL O PMENT AND S C REENING OF ALTERNATIVES 2.1 INTROD UC TIO N T h e purp o s e of this se c tion i s to p re se nt the d e v e lopm e nt of r eme dial action ob j ecti v e s ( RAO s) f or the m e dia o f c on ce rn (s oil and ground w ate r ) and to d e velop an d s c r ee n

_ approp ri ate altern ativ e s f or r eme diati o n of the media . T hi s s ec tion summariz e s the pro cess of id e nti fying and sc r ee ning pote ntial te ch nologi es.

-- Spec i fic goals o f the chapter are listed below: • Establish RAOs and clean-up goals based on risk to human health and the

-- environment and on Applicable or Rele v ant 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 ge n eral 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 ACT I O N O BJE C TI VE S 2.2.1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) Reme di al a c tion s at Sup erf und site s must attai n a l e v e l of c l e an-up th at, at a mini mu m , e nsur e s prote ction of hu man he alth an d th e e nvironm e nt . Und e r thi s sce nario, provi s ions for

_ i d entifying site RAOs are based primaril y on co n sideratio n s 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 D e fin iti o n of ARARs i 

### Applicable re quirements are those clean-up standards, standards of control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal /

state - _s" F : W ROJ3603 788 4 WS XOUI .F S XFINA L\I CHAP2. F S XJ u Iy 1 8 , 199 5 

### 2-1

# 50[ 83 - e nviro nmental or facili ty citing laws that specifically add r ess a hazard o us substance, p o llutant, c o ntaminant, remedial acti o n, l o cati o n, or o the r circumstances f ou n d 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 Typ e s of ARARs There are three types of ARARs:
• l o cati o n-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 cons i derations, and critical area designations are als o 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 chemic al 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: W

R O P6 0 3 788 4 WS _O UI .FS klelNALklCItAP2 .F S kl u ly t8, 1 995 

### 2-2

# $01 84 Action-Specific _' - "_ Action-specific ARARs ar e not triggered by the specific chemicals, but by the particular

_ al ternatives evaluated. Action-specific ARARs are technology-based performance s t andards, such as the B est Available Technolog y Standard. 2 . 2.1 . 3 T B C Cri teria I n addition to AR ARs , advisorie s , crite ria, or guidance may be identifi e d as To B e

-- Considered (T B C) for a particular scenario. A s def'med, the T B C catego ry consi st s of adviso ri e s, c rite ria, o r guidanc e developed b y the EPA, othe r federal agencies, or state s that may be useful in developing remedies. 2.2 . 1 .4 Iden tification of ARARs

-- Table 2-1 provides an evaluation of ARARs for the project. This listing inc l udes 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 C ircumstances In Which AR A Rs May Be Waived

-- Pursuan t to Section 300.430(f)(3) of CERCLA, several conditions pre s ently 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. O ther statu tory requirements, such as those requiring that remedies must be cost-effective, cannot be waived.

-- Six criteria for waivers of ARARs are provided for b y C ERCLA 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,

-- cri teria, or limitation, through use of another me thod or approach.

" ' _" 

### F : W RO / _6 0 3758,_ W $_ O UI .F S L _N A L\I_IAI_2.1 mS kl u l y 181_5 2-3

# 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, requ irement, 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 Re medial Action Objectives Methodology Re m edial action objec tives 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 n ature and extent of reported chemicals at OU-1 are d etaile d in Chapter 4 of the RI. Ecological and human health ri sks 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 attainmen t , and restoration ti m e fr ame. Remedial action objectives are developed to address any ecological and human health ri sks pose d by exposure to the site und er curre nt indu strial land u se an d future res i de ntial lan d use. As noted above, ri sk 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 d oes n ot. Medias of concern i dentified i n 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, an d arsenic) we r e scree n e d out bec ause their max i mu m co n centrati ons 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 ri sk was identified in the adult future land use scenario for 1,2-DCE. Ground water ingestion and showering were i denti fi ed as pathways. It is noted that the unconfined aquifer for which these risks are based will not yield su ffi cient water normally associated for d ri nking /

showe ri ng 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 surf icial soil chemical of concern identified by the OU-1 RI ri sk assessment was benzo(a)pyrene. Remediation is not warranted as its reported concentration falls within the 10"_ to 10 -7 

### ri sk range and is typical o f an i n dustrial setti n g.
w F: W

RO Y

_ 0 37 gg4 '

_ S _OUI. F 'S W IN

A L\IC HAI_2 _ 'du ly I S, 1995 

### 2-4 vJ



# - 501 90 The state of So u th D akota does hav e state regulati o ns setting th e maximum allowable JP-4 (as TPH) concentrations at 10,000 _g / kg. Additio n al source- are a soil remediation would be nee d ed to prevent recontamin ation of the a quifer, The SUMMERS model (Summers, 1980)

_ was used to back-calculate estimated chemical concentrations i n the s o il 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 re mediation 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 con t aining organic carbon and water. For this reason, PCE will have the greatest tendency to sorb to soil media, thus red u cing its travel velo c ity through the aquifer. As a result, P C E 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 2-5 F: W

R O f

_6 037 88 4 W S XD UI .F SW I NAL\lC H A P2 .F S klu l y 1 8 , 19 95r
_ w 

# 5 0 1 9 1 TABLE 2-2 OU-1 Proposed Clean-up Goals . __ Ground Water (#g / L) Anal y te 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 O U-1 Proposed C l ean-up Goal s Soils (#g / kg) Clean-up SUMMERS Analyte Goal Esti mates B a sis -- 1,2-Dichloroethylene (1,2-DCE) 41 41.4 Ground water protectio n 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 Reg u lation _)Note: When the SUMM E RS model estimates are less than standard detection limits, remediation clean-up goals will be based on standard detection limits.

FAPROJ_ O 378 8 4 W S _OU L F S kDRF TF I NL_CU I.TA B_I 7 Marc h 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 ARE A 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 M C Ls 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 RESP O N S E ACTION S General respo n se acti ons describe the actio n s 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, ground water treatment actions, and ground - water discharge actions. 2. 5 ID E NTIFICATION AND SCREE NING OF T E C HNOLOGY TYPE S AND PROC E SS 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 IR A will have are made where appropriate. This section discusses the presumptive approach and appropriate technology screening.
F: W ROI3 6037 88 4 WS xO U 1.F S _' INAL kl C

H

A P2 .F S' d u ]y

i 8 .1_, 2-6

# 5 0 1 93 

# I -J'i!', f ll '; I
I \ ',, ,-_,-,J_,-,-_",,s," ARF_AOF AI-IAINM E F-L-WI ',. I 

# I _ _.,. _ " z '

_

/

Z. / K

/// _o, ,,0,,., M

_ , H_ _.,. I 

# , . i:_.... _',,_ //

_ /

_ y . , /// , ¢ ......................................... -. ..................' I I_ , ,,. ', _ /

,, //W ' /

__ ,'_, :_,,, / _.........................:......... : - ' I ,i ",,\ \., 7/// , //

' /

_

//

_

/ ,_ _ , .r,,_gso t/ '"_" / / "" "_2 ...................................................I 

## I , , _ _,, , ,, m, _ //// " /

_ MI

_

/

'; / , " / z "

_ _ ( ' 

# I " . '. _, , 00, , , "-. "'-> ,4,.. . ':,_ / / . " // t I '\ ' ,\ _'_ , X "

_ ' "" "'_ " • / ' " " " / SB 93C1 4 

# 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'iTAINM ENT I I t , X\ 'i f r_s . _o .. o ' k i . e 199 . RI SOIL I :I _ " \\" _' 4) i _ .. o, . . . o . ,_.oc , ,., o

_ I _i I --. t '. \X " . ", , \ _, i ¢4-_°_ MO N ITORING / SOIL I



# _ 1 ......... 

# -4..................\ \\ ", 'k ¢::I_o_ . o\i "_h\ _, B O RING 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: D W N BY: A PP'D : I _<_|_ TR ELLSWORTH STAFF 

# I _, AREA OF ATi'AINMENT FOR _ 1 }o AIR FO R CE B ASE ................ _-- 

### DATE" PJ T NO " ' 

# _1-_ :S UUNUI- --A NEA 3U IL : 5 MAR 95 60378 . 84 t '

1

# - '" -,- , 501 _ 4 .,

... . , , . . ,, ,, _-_ ", _ " \. , 

### , -" ' , . ; _ i • _ ",- : _:P w o_: 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 " ' " "

_9 301 _4
193o"4 _\., i r; '9,_oJ,_ 

# "_ _)"",\\"Ji___ ' " ' ! '

_ ; '" ".......................................... so g ' _1 3 . ' /



# _ , _,_,ii , R,CAL

_o o q_ /'/////////z , _gi E _m_ IF/.,') AREAOFATI-AINMENT 

# , ii I, 1993 RI SOIL i, "",, \\ "',_"__ . ,'_ , ) " i !."_oP_ = , . ,_] BORINGLOCATIONS 

# - _ .......... --t-.................... "a\\'.. _ e _:_\ _ "_\- k I . oR ,.GLOOAT,O. \ - \\_ ,, \\' - . _,= . o = - _-_°_ ................._ @_9_o, , o,,-_,,Xk (_:_ " X \\ _- -SCALE

_, =, _ TITLE : FI G URE : D W N BY: APP'D:

_ I_ STAFF TR __. _ ELLSW OR T H 

### AREA OF A-FFAINMENT FOR 2 - 2 _.C; AIR FORCE BASE DATE: PJT NO: 

### <._ GROUND WATER

-- =< MAR 95 60,378 . 8 , C3 d3

# 5 : : t 9,5 u
_



### e_ N 

# _ o ) ooo _N

m 

# _'_ _._ ._= o> _-_=

- __. _ _ 

# _ .>_= _ _ _._



# _ - _ _ _ __ __ _ z_< e- 0 0 

## o o ' = . =

"- " 0 o 

### [. , , -

### 2.5.1 Pr e sumptive Remedies 5 , 3 [ 9 A s explained in Presumptive Remedies: Policy and Procedures (OSWER D irective 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 (N CP); reviewed available performance dat a on the application of the remedy; and determined that a particular remedy, or set of remedies, is presumpti vely the most appropriate for addressing specific types of sites. The EPA notes that presumptive remedies are ex p ected 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 EP A has conducted an

_v - analy s is of potentially available technologies f or 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 f or 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 Presump tive R e medi e s for C ER C LA Site s with V OC i n Soils v Presumptive Remedies: Site Characterization and Technology Selec ti on 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 vap or extraction (SVE),

-- thermal d esorp ti o n, and i nci ne rati on as presumptive r emedies 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 f or 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 2-7 F: '_PR OI V

_0 37f1 8 4 WS

_ OU I. FSW INAL_I C HA / _2. F SUuly 1fi , 19 9 5

# 5[, I 97 SVE may no t wo r k , therm a ldesorptionmay be t hemoreappropriateresponse t echno l o gy. In ci nerationmay beappropriatefo r a limitednumberofsit u at i ons. 2 .5.1. 2 Respons eStr ategie s a nd Tec hn ologie s fo rCERCLA S iteswit h Co nt a m inat e d 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 shouldevaluate options for on-site (to surface water) or off-site (to POTW) discharge. Groundwater extraction components should include e v aluation of extraction w ells; 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 Re medial Technology Ide n tification and Screening - _ -- _ The p urpose of this section is to briefly examine available re m edial techn o logies and i dentify 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 alre a dy been committed. Additio n ally, the propo s ed ex-si tu 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 I n accordance with the NCP an d 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 :LP R O Y %6037 88 4 W SkOU1 FSLt 'INAL\IC H AI_2. FS kl u l y 1 8 , 1995 

## 2-8 v

### 2.5.2.2 I nstitu tional C ontrols 5 0 [ 9 Institutional co ntrol s aff ec t site manag e m e nt and /

or activitie s oc c urri ng at the s ite .

_ Institutional controls do not physically alter site conditions and do not re duce the vol u me, 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
-- f or f urther c o nsideration. 2.5.2. 3 Source A re a Tr e atment A c tio ns Sour ce ar e a tr e atm e nt will fol l o w the pr es umptive r e m e dy for V OC in soil s . Soil vapor e xtraction ( SVE ), thermal d es orpti o n , and in c in eration are the primary re m e di es for VOC

-- contaminated soils. Reduc i ng VOC concentration leve l s to targeted clean- up goals may be accomplished by using one or more of these methods; however, SVE is the primary presumptive remedy. Primary R emedies

-- SVE is an i n -situ or ex-situ process which physical l y removes chemicals of co n cern 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 vapo ri ze 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

_ desorptio n costs less than incineration as operati n g temperatures and gas fl ow rates are lower.

_ Incineration is an ex - situ process that employs thermal d ecomposition via oxidatio n at temperatures ranging from 1600°-2200 °F(871 °-1204 ° C) to destroy the organi c fraction of the waste. Ash and sludge remaining from the incineration process must be disposed of

_ using a secondary technology such as lan d filling. Four commo n incinerator designs are rotary kiln, liquid injection, fluidized bed, and infrared incinerators.

. - Primary Remedy S creening A treatability study for soil vapor extraction was conducted during July, 1994. Results of

-- this treatability study indicate S VE to be an effecti ve method of achiev i ng s i te 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

-- i n cur greater cost than SVE and would likely r equire abandonment of the SVE wells installed as part of the interim action. While it is anticipated that the chemi c als of c oncern at OU-I can effectively be remediated using SVE, thermal desorption will also be retained as a

- J 2-9 F :kPRO / _6 0 3 788 4_F SxK ) U

I .FS W INA LMC HAP2 .FSV uIy 1 8 , 1 995w 

# 5,'.,1 99 secondary source area treatment action. Incineration will be not be retained for further consideration. The July, 1 994 treatab i lity 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 sme ar 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 stan d ard 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 Gro u nd-water collection /

co ntainment actio n s co ntrol the migration of i d e ntified chemicals of concern within the aquifer. Identified actions include extraction wells, injection wells, and gro und-water rec o very trenches. Extraction Wells Ground-wate r pump ing systems can be an effective means of controlling and r e ducing do w n gradient migrati on of site chemicals of concern. Pu mping techniqu es in v o l ve 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 h o mo gene o us aquifer • hydraulic conductivity greater than 10-Scm /

sec • mobile chemicals -- • low organic carbon content of aquifer The a quifer characte ristics at OU-1 are not conduci v e to gro u nd-water extraction via wells. The heterogeneity of the saturated zone at OU - 1 results in a range of potenti al capture zones for a given extraction well from around 5 ft to nearly 75 ft . Available da ta 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 cost effective and technically feasible u nder these typ e s of site conditions. The IRA at OU-1 L 

### does, however, propose four vacuum enhanced ground-water extraction wells (USAF, 1995).

_ While these wells are not likely to provi d e containment of groun d -water, they may extract a

_ small amount of ground water for treatment. Therefore, this technology will be retained for further consideration.

-- I n jection W el l s G ro un d-w ate r b arrie rs can b e c r eated u si n g i njecti o n we ll s to chan g e bo th the dir ectio n 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 c oncentration of 1,2 D C E 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 modi fi cation and c ontrol.

-- This technology is dropped from further conside ration since a sh ort-term diversion of ground water will not be s u fficient to develop natural attenuation. Gro u n d -Water Rec o very T renche s

-- The concept for application of re c overy trenches is to create a long area of low hydraulic head which causes subsurface flow to be directed to a re c overy location. Recovery trenches create a linear zone of influen c e within whi ch ground water flows toward the tren ch. They

_ can be used to contain or remove a plume, or to l o wer 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

_ ex tracti o n with wells (such as in soils with l o w permeabilities) by intercepting the natural flow gradient. Conditions favorable for the construction of recovery trenches include:

-- • u nrestricted access for excavating equipment • depth to ground water less than 25 ft • few s ubsurfa c e 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: LPR OJ 3 60 37 8 8 4 W S_OU I .F S W INAL HCH A P2 . FS kluIy 1 8, 1995 

### 2-11w 

### A p il otst u dywas con du cte d atOU- I wh erean i ntercept i o n trenchand t reatmentpla n t s y stemwere i nstalle d ,operateda nd testedd u r i ngSeptemberandOctoberof1990. B asedon the positive results o f thi s test and the ge o logic site conditi o ns at OU-1, this techn o l o gy will _ : be retained for further consideration. 2.5.2.5 Ground- W ater Treatment Actions Ground- w ater treatment action s are tech nologie s th at may be applicab le for the re moval /

de s truction of ch emicals of concern in ground water. T h e water treatment pl an t constructed as part of the IRAs at Operable Units 1, 2, and 4 is to be used for grou n d - 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 Acti o ns 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 W ater Discharge of treated ground water to surface w ater may be feasible an d would be co ntingent 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. Re i njeeti on /

R e cireulation R ein j ection can b e us e d in conjun cti on with an e xtra c tion w ell syste m or an in - situ re mediation s y s te m . Inj ec tion i s p e rform e d b y disch argi n g w ate r to th e sub surf a ce through

# 50 1 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.

-- Reinjec tion could potentially inc r eas e 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 Injec tion

-- 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 reci r culation 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 REME DIA L AC TI ON A L TERN A TIVE S 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 A ction • 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: WR OJ_6 03 7 8 54_S ' _O U I ,FS_ q NAL_I C HA P2 .F S U uly 18, 1995 

### 2-13

# 5 0 ! 193

# 50 1 I,L,5 TABLE 2-6 REMEDIAL TECHN OLOGIES 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 Deso rption G r ound-Water Con t ainment - Ground-Water Recove ry T r enches Ground-Water Treatment . Interim Action Process Plan -- Ground - Wate r Dischar ge . Dischar ge to Su rface Wate r
. Reinjection

F:kPROJ_03 7 89 4 k!_ 3

_U I._W INALk2-6 . T B L lu l y 18,1995

# 5,)1 1_6


# Section Tab

# _ . . - 5 0 1 3.0 DETAILED ANALY SIS OF ALTERNAT I VES

_ ._. J 

### Th e purpose of thi s ch apter i s to s ubj ect th e al ternatives developed from th e process option s

-- in C h apter 2 to a detailed analy s i s. 3.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA T his sec tion describes the criteria u sed f or the e v alu atio n of the remedial action al ternativ es and includes both non-cost and cost criteria. Pursuant to current EPA guidance, alternatives

-- must be examined for adherence to nine criteria as speci fi ed i n the NCP. These criteria are as fo ll o ws:

-- 1. Overall pro tectio n of human health and environmen t. 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. C ri te ri a numbers 8 and 9 are not addressed until completion of the review and comment period of the RI / FS. Adherence to these criteria i s a ddressed i n the Record of Dec i sion 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 protectio n of human health and the environment.

_ • Compliance with ARARs. 

# E al m0 n g g atma ° Lo n g-term e f fectiveness and permane n ce. • Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume of contamination.

- • Short-term effectiveness. • Impleme ntabil i ty. • Cos t.

b 

### F : '

_ R O

J

_ O 3 7 8 8 4_ FS' _U1. FS '

_ FI N AL H C

HA P3 . FS L Iuly , 9 .,_5 3- l

### Modifying Criteria • State/Support Agency Acceptance.

_ ' - _ • Community A c ceptan c e, 3.1.1 T h r esh old Crite ri a T he thresh o ld criteria relate to statu tory requ irements that each alternati ve must satisfy i n orde r to be el i g ible f or selecti o n. • Overall pro tecti o n o f human health and the enviro nment - The assessment against this criteri o n d escribes h o w the alternative, as a wh o le, achieves and maintains pro tecti o n o f human health and the enviro nment. • Complian ce with ARARs - Under this criteri o n, an alternativ e is assessed i n terms of its compliance with ARARs, or if a waiver is required, h o w it is justified. 3.1.2 Balanc i ng Cri teria The balancing criteria are the technical criteria considered during the detailed analysis. • L o ng-term effectiveness and permanence - This criteri o n evaluates the l o ng-term effectiveness of alternatives in maintaining protection of human health and the environment after response objectives have been met. • Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and vol u me of contamination - This criterion eval u ates the anticipated perfoimance of the specific treatment technologies an alternative may employ. • Short-term effectiveness - This criterion examines the effecti veness o f 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 eval u ates 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 (R A CER). 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 _I N

_ L ' d CHAP3 , FS

_July 19 , 19 9 5 

## 3-2

# - ':- 501 Ir '9

_ 3.1.3 Modifying Criteria A s pr e vi o u sly note d, th ese c riteri a are n o t addr es s e d at this time in the FS . • State /

S upport Age n cy Acceptance - This assessment r eflects the state's (or s upport agency's) apparent preferences among or concerns about alternatives. • Community A cceptance - This assessment re fl ec ts the community's apparent preferences among or concerns about alternatives. 3.2 DETA I LED ANALYSI S O F REME DIAL A L TERNATIVES

-- 3.2.1 Alternative No. 1: No Action 3.2. 1 . 1 Description T he N o A ction al te rnativ e is pr ese nte d a s a bas e lin e to whi ch o the r r eme dial me asur e s are

_ c omp ared . T he EPA , th rough the M arch 1990 National Conting e n c y Plan (N CP ) re visi o n s, re quires th at the N o Action o ption be e xamin e d in d e tai l during the re medial al te rnativ e s ev al uation p h as e . Und er this al te rnativ e , no furthe r r eme diati on e fforts would be c ondu c te d. 3.2.1.2 Evaluation

_ " Threshold Criteria Ov e rall Protec ti on of H u man H ealth and the E nvir o nm e nt - T hi s al te rn ativ e d oes not re duc e

-- the ris k s from this s ite to pote ntial hu man or e col o gi c al r ece pto rs . Gro und- w ater M CL s w ould no t be m et. S o urc e are a s o ils w ould remain a pollutant s ource to underlying ground w ate r . Sou th Dako ta state r e gulation s p e rtai ning to p e trol e u m -contam i nate d s o ils would not

-- be met. There are no i de nti fied risks to ecological receptors res u lti ng from FPTA activities at OU- 1.

-- Compliance w i th A RARs - S i nce there are n o r emedial a ctivities curren tly bei n g co ndu cted 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 ac ti on.

-- The ground water at the site woul d remain co ntamin ate d . This alternative does not meet the remedial action objectives established for this site. Balanc i n g Criteria Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence - This alternative does not provide long-term effectiveness in achieving the remedial action objectives es tablished for this site. After

_ completion of the IRA , res i dual risk associated w i th ground water would be reduced only FAPR O& 6037884

_ F S

_ C,U 1 . F S'

_ INAL\I CHAP3.F S'

_ uh / 19 , 1 9 95 

### 3-3

# 5 ,- 'III 0 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 concentrati o n, 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 ye ars 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, an d Volume - No reduction of potential source area chemi c als with respect to toxi c ity, mobility, or volume, would be achieved with this alternative. Short-term Effectiveness - By def'mition, this alternative does not provide any short-term effe c tiveness in reducing potential threats from this site to human health or the environment. There are no short-term threats or safety concerns spe c ifically as sociated 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 Al te rn ativ e No. 2 : S ourc e Are a S oil Tre atment w i th Grou n d-Wate r C o n t ai nmen t 3.2.2.1 Description Alte rnativ e No . 2 would involv e e xpan ding th e IRA S V E system to remove VOC fro m s o urce- are a soil s an d exc avati ng a ground- w ate r tr e nch to contain contaminated ground w ater at OU-1 . F i gure 3-1 s h o w s th e soil tr e atm e nt p roc e ss flowch art for this al ternative . T he soil vapor extraction syste m gen e rate s negative ( vacuum ) pressure in the well casing and in the vicinity of the wel l . This pressure induces air fl ow toward the soil v apor extra ctio n 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. ESV E labor and mate ri als are not considered in the cost analysis. Institutional controls would be implemented to control site

F:

_ PROj ' f

_37884"

_ F

_ UI . FS _e lNAL\ 1CHAP3.FS % Iu b/ 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_ t i 9 L iLO:'_l V (] L- E OIA\S=I\I_O\M3N\SNOZI;WOH\: A :31NVN 9NIM_ ' _O

# ,! "" 5,31 I 12 - access and to place consumpti on res trictions o n ground-water. Site acce s s w o uld 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 A nalysis 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 fac tors: 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 year s (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 VO C 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 no t 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 the rm al desorption is specified in the presumptive remedy and is only being
F;

_ PR O J ' d _O 37884

_ FS

_ UI.FS

_ FINA L_ ,1CHAP3 . FS

_July 19, 1 9 95 

### 3 -5 -_

# 5 0 1 113
"'.! s, \",\__ . _t.\ / i -.. \ - ., 

# I ,J ,,_ i il t ' ,>, / j_l_ i 

# \ t . . , _ '_Z _-_o u Rc_- , ,R_so,< h U ',, - 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'R O LFENCE i ! ' ! [ If h "_ ..... _ ...... • ....



### tt t '_; r TREN_ H 1 2

_ ° _i \ \ __ ! I1_ AREA OF AT T AINMENT 

# i " \\t ' i , i t I . IRA WELL LOCATION 

# i \ \\', t, )\ i il IDW DUALEXTRACT,ON 

# \ ",,\Y "'xit' it 11 w<,_, • ",, '- , t VE VAPOR EX TRACTI ON 

# .............. , .,,, :- l.............. _I_'

i 

### -- q_ _ TITLE : FIG UR E : DWN BY: A PP'D:

_ STAFF _ .. _ . 

### ELLBW O R TH SITE ACCESS CO NT ROL

-_o A I R FOR C E B A SE 

### 3 - 2 ' 

### _m FENCE DATE : PJT N O: -- =< MAR 95 60378.8_ g;) E :) I= 

# 50 L 1L 4

_ i uw|u illrl # ',, , ,, ' , \ , - -.. . /- . /

• # _ . ...__ . ___ ___ _ 

## I i _r",_ -_ _ ' - /

" _"'-C._ . _ " /./ _I " , \ - : , , I _"_- - ,2_ / ---SOURCE-AREA SOIL S _- . .. , -- 

# \ \ ,, _ ///W///// _,_&__OFA_A,N_Er7 ,\ , V// t . ...... "k ; 'l :_ ; 

# !:_-., i "

_d. #__. / _. _ I / ............................................................ -
'x I O

_ I " ,2 ...................................... -- 

### \ ', , "/// . z ZAd_ /A/I£///I _' / . / . .. / . / / /

' . " . "'-. _.o_ _ / / / / // '. X ' ,, -\ " ...... ._ / / " ./ // 

### , % / / 

# ,, , \ ,L,..o, o , / ...._ , // J_---_L * \ I , . -.. , ", \ % , 

## ' iF,, [ _ ',,_ "", "'-" / / ." // _ ................ - ", i i 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- u 7 

### = = _ TITLE: FIGURE: DWN BY: APP'D: z = ALTERNATIV E S 2 AND 3 STAFF c_ ELLBWORTH 

### _zo AIF_ F ORCE : B A S E PROPOSED SVE WELL 3-3 DATE: PJT NO : = <
_ LOCATIONS MAR 95 60378.8

_ (

:D Mr im I

# - : ' 50 1 1 1 5 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 el i minate the need for workers to enter the trench during construction. Based o n 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 i n 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 p art 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 Evaluati on T h reshold Criteria

-- O v erall 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 n o identi fi ed risks to ecological receptors res u lting from FPTA activities at OU - 1.

, , ..4- F :_ PR O J _O 37884

_ F S

_)UI . FS

_ FINALHCH A P3 .F S

_ u l y lg , lgg5 

## 3- 6i 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,_ _.___'" "" " .......................................... - ",, -, , '//////,//'// S Y

_ 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 : XlSTING II "_ .... ......... -- 

## 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 _=o P OS_D_ROU._ > ... _, \ \\ ",. "_ -\ ; \\ _ . Ill WATER EXTRACTION 

# "..........._-...........'__-"t-_ '1_ \",,',,I ,, , _,,LOC,,T,ON _°m ..................""'k ":XX i \ "_ "\..,, SCALE

_

/ • ....... \\\ i _ \ . FI G URE: DWN BY: APP ' D: TITLE: ALTERNATIVE 2 STAFF _ ELLSWORTH GROUND-WATER CONTAINMENT ,3-4 A IR FO R CE B A SE 

### DATE: PJT NO :

_ LAYOUT _g M A R 9 5 60378.8 --w



### . Compliance with ARARs: 5 ') l I J 7 The foll o wing chemical-specific ARARs are appli c able: •Safe D ri nking W ater Ac t National Primary D ri nking Water Standards 40CFR 14 I. 11-12 40CFR141.60-61 National Secondary D ri nking Water Standards 40CFR143.03 Maximum Contaminant Level Goals 40CFR141.50 •Clean Water Act

_ Water Quality Crite ri a 40CFR 131 C ri te ri a and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Eliminati o n 40CFR 125.1-3 •State Standards, Requirements, C rite ri a, 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 M C Ls. The C lean Water Act will also be complied with by

-- extracting and treating ground water. Immobile ground water bound in the shal es 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 concent rations of JP-4 in the soils and comply with the South D akota Petroleum-Contaminated Soils regulations. The following action-specific ARARs are applicable: •Clean Water Act Gu i delines Establishing Test Procedures of the A nalysis of Pollutants 40 ( St - K 136.1-5 an d Appendices A-C = Clean Air Act National Primary and Secondary A mbient Air Quality Standard 40CFRS0.1-

_ 6,8,9,11, 1 2, and Appendices A, H, J, K National Emission Standards for Haz ardous Air Pollutants 40CFR6 1 .19,245 - 247

-- * Solid Waste Disposal Act Land Disposal Restrictions 40CFR268

-- .E xecu tive Or der o n Protection of Wetlands
• State Standards, Requirements, Criteria, and Limitations South Dakota A ir Pollution Control Regulations 74:26:01:09,24,25,26-

-- 28 

### F:_ PROJ

_6 0 37 8 8 4 W S

_ U 1. F S W I NAL \ I O HAP3 . FS kJ uly ,9 , ,_5 3-7

# 5 , "1 118
¢ , South D akota 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 L o n g-term Effecti v e n ess and Permanence - Residu al risk levels would be l ow enough that source-area soils would not pose a risk to ground water. Ground-water MCLs would be met for extractable ground water. The c u toff trench would preclude migration of the contaminant plume. Long-term monitoring of vapor extraction rates and c oncentrations would be ne c essary 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 - Implementi n g this alternative wo u ld involve modifying the existing SVE system installed as p art of the IR A 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. Av ailability of equipment and labor is not anticipated to be a problem. Construction of the cutoff trench is not anticipated to be a
F: '

_ PR O JT

_ 3"_ 84 k F $_ U 1 , FS k FINAL\I CHAP3.FS '_ I u l y 1 9. 19 9 5 

### 3 - 8

# _ .. .. , 501 119 problem a s the trench would be c o nstructed with a o ne pass trenching machine that has , successfully trenched down to 65 ft. Cuto ff trenches are proven techn o l o g i es f or c o ntaining contaminants and extracting ground water for treatment from aquifers with low hydraulic

_ con ductivities. Availability of equipment and labor i s 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. •C apital costs are $482,655. •Operation and Maintenance costs are $2,306,959.

-- 3.2.3 Alternative No. 3: Source Area Soi l and Ground-Water Treatment 3.2.3.1 Description Alte rnativ e No . 3 b uilds on Al te rnativ e No. 2 b y adding an addi tional e xtra c tion tre n ch th rough the s o uthern p art of the c ontaminant plum e an d adding a ro w of e igh t e xtra c tion

-- wells through the n orthern part, as show n in Figure 3-5. The dec i sion 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 extra ctio n wells coul d be con v erted to a tre n ch. 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 Eval uation Threshold Criteria Overall Protection of Human He alth and the E n viro n ment - This alternative reduces the risk of source-area soils contaminating the underlying aquifer. South D ak ota state regulations

-- pertainin g to petroleum-contami n ated soils would be m et. Extractable gro u n d 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 Dri nking Water Act

F S PROJ

_6037B84_F S

_ U I . FS W INAL' d CHAP3 . FS _I Uly 1 9,

_9 9 5 

## 3-9

# ' 51)t 1.20 -

u 

### TABLE 3-1: COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 RA It e m Des cription 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 Servi ces 13 Implement ation, Design, 22% $106,184 P e r mit s "_' -- 14 Conting e ncy 3 0 % $ 1 44,797 15 TOTAL $7 8 1 , 901 $ 2,3 06 ,959

# 501 121 

# - "_-. / I ', ,"_i" , ,.\ ' %L% >) )_ "". _ !.. ',", t' " %. " -. I L. . . ! '_1' \.[ L_ '. . ----GROUND-WA-[ER _ ,. ---" il -- \\ _ L_ ' ,_s_,_# :#: / AREA OF A_M_NT _ .. , :]_._'_- . il 

# _ \ , , , t 'v \ , ) ........ • : ._' /.x// _o4_ k g z._ / , x_ ///- ' A/////// ..................._ ' _ ..........

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

# I ,, ,71/m "/, ;'_< //

_ _ , _ 7///////.// .. . -............... _................................. I ", / /,' ,/ ......................... 

# , , •", . , 5x/////7/ _ , _v///y/////¢, _ ." __..-......... ............................ , . _ ._ , _ _ , . ../ ", - . - __ • . _............

, , / ' , / ,_ / " 

# ', ",, ' : \ -/////// z '/// .4", , ' ¢,,

_ - " ./

_ /" // "'- PROPOSED CUTOr}

-- ",, ", _/ ///// '_ __,_ / _: 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_41AREA OF ATFAINMENT 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,............ f R_O_U,_.2LR[_[ ,,, _ \ , \\ _ I WELL LOCATION

=

_9 't---- 7

_JCALE GJ c m 

### _5 _ TITLE: FIGURE: DWNBY: APP'D: ;_ (_ ALTERNATIVE 3 STAFF _ ELL SW OR TH 

### G R OUND-WATER TREATMENT AIR F ORC E BASE 3 --5 

### <_1 LAY O U T D ATE : PJT NO:

-- =< MAR 95 603 78.8 ,

w ,

# 501 122 Nati onal Primary Drinking Water Standards 40CFR 141.11 -12 40CFR141.60-61 Nati onal S ec ond ary D rinki n g W ate r S tan dards 40C FR 143.03 -. _ M aximum C ontaminant Lev el G o als 40CFR 141.50 ! •Clean Water Act Wate r Qual i ty Crite ri a 40CFR131 Cri teria an d Standards for the N ational Pollutant Dis charge Elimination 40CFR 125.1 - 3 •State Standards, Req u iremen t s, C ri te ri a, and Limitations So u th Dakota Remedi ation C ri teria for Petroleum-Contami n ated Soils 7 4:03:32 South Dakota G r o u nd Wate r Stan d ard s 7 4:0 3 :1 5 -- 

### The Saf e Drinking Water Act will be complied with by extracting and treating ground water to drinking water quality (MCLs). Table 2-2 sh o ws the target list of chemicals to be remediated and their respective MCLs. The Clean Water Act will also be c omplied with by extracting and treating ground water. Immobile ground water bound in the shales may be technically impracticable to remediate f rom 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 c o mply with the South Dakota Pe troleum-Contamin ated Soils regulations. ! 

### The following action-specific ARARs ar e applicable:

- C l ean Water Act Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures of the Analysis of Pollutants 40CFR 136.1-5 and A ppendices A-C •Clean Air A ct 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 A ct Land Disposal Restricti o ns 40CFR26 8 - •Exec u tive Order on Protec ti on of Wetlands •State Stand ar ds, Requireme nts, C ri te ri a, and Limitations South Dakota A ir Pollu ti on Control Regulati ons 74:26:01:09,24,25,26- 28 South Dako ta Water Discharge Permit Rules 74:0 3 : 18 :01 -17 -- 74:03:19:01-08 74:03:01 So u th D ako ta Water Q u ality Stan d ards 74:03: 04:02,10 _.

F :_ PR O& 6037

_4"

_ FS'

_ OU 1 . F

_ F INAL\ I CH AP3 . FS " dul y 19 , 1995 

### 3-10

# - " ; : 5 b l 123

_ Discharge from the IRA treatment facility will meet the guidelines established for testing pollutant discharge and will be in compliance with the C lean 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 loca t ion - specific ARARs for this alternative. This alternative meets the remedial alternative objectives of the site.

-- Bal ancing Criteria Long - term Effectiveness and Permanence - Residual risk levels would be low enough that

-- source-area soils w o u ld n ot pose a risk to gro u nd water. Ground- w ater M CLs wo u ld be met for extractable ground water. The cutoff trench would preclude migration of the contaminant plume. Long - te , u monito ri ng of vapor extraction rates and concentrations

-- would be necessary to mai ntain proper system operati o n. R e duction 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 desc ribed in the IRA. The trenches and extraction wells would reduce the mobility of the contami n ant plume to migrate f urther down gradient and would also reduce the volume of contaminated ground water.

- Short-term Ef fectiveness - Adverse environmental imp a cts 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 locate d in coarser alluvium is anticipated to take 10-15

_ years. Implementability - Implementing this alternative would involve modifying t he 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' d =I N AL\ lCH A P3 . FS

_July ,9,,_S 3-11

# : 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 Di s charge Option: Reinjection 3.2.4.1 Description T he p rimary tr e ate d ground- w ater discharg e option , whi ch i s the dis ch arg e option included in Alternatives 2 and 3, d ischarges to the stream adjacent to OU-1. This opti o n i s 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 f eas ible, i nfo,nation gained from the IRA could show use for this process to be added to Alternatives 2 and 3. Locations and s i zes of these wells cannot be d etermined 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 re m ediation time and process e nhancement. 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 evaluatio n o f this discharge optio n is in addition to the evaluations of Alternatives 2 and 3. This evaluation focuses on reinjection specifically.

__ Threshold Criteria Overall Protecti on of Human Health and the En vironment - Prior to be in g r einjected, ground-water remediation will not cease until analyzed constituents have reached MCLs or Health Advisory Levels (as established by EPA) or better. Compl i ance with ARARs: T he followi n g action-specific ARARs are applicable: - - ,Prohibitionof movementof fluidsintoundergroundsourcesofdrinkingwater 40CFR144.12
F:

_ F,ROJ "_603788 4k F

_ , O U1 .FS

_ F I NAL'

_ I C HAP3 . FS

_ uly 1 9, 1 9 95 

### 3-12

# - 5 0 1 1 2 5

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 Fen cing $49,277 $0 11 Sub-Total $608,557 $1,478,750 12 Mobilization / Demobilization, 10% $60,856 Construction Management, Site Servi ces 13 Impl e mentation, 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 f or 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. Balanc i ng 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 E ffectiveness - 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 p ri or to closure of all or any part of the injection system. Contin o us recording records of the quantity pumped from the recovery well / trench and also the quantity pumped into the injection wel l/ 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 ar e 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 injec ti on 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 Alte rn ative 3): $1,905,300.

F : % PROJ

_ 03 7 88 4_ FS

_ OU 1.FS _' ]NAL\ I CHA P 3. F S

_ u l y 1 9 , ! 9¢ 3 5 3 - 1 3

# _ 50 1 127 TABLE 3 - 3: COST SUMMARY FOR CONTINGEN C Y 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 Servi c es 5 Implementation, Design, 22% $6,684

-- Permits 6 C o ntingen c y 30% $9 ,1 14 7 TOTAL $ 49 , 2 16 $1,90 5 , 3 00 $3,810 , 600

w

# 5_1 128


# Section Tab

# 501 129 m 

### 4. SUMMARY AND C OM PARISON OF REME D IAL A C T IO N ALTERNA T IVES T he r e sul ts of the d e tai le d analy s i s of al tern ativ es co uple d with the u se of the pr esu mptiv e r e m e dy c ombi n e f o r a narro we r rang e of feas ible app roaches to addr e s s r e m e dial a c tivitie s at

-- OU-1 . The remedial acti o n objectives, prev i ously defined in Chapter 2 a re 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 compariso n of the remedial alternati v es 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 selecti on. T able 4-3 presents a summary of the comparative analysis. 4.1 OVERAL L PR O TE C TI O N O F HUMA N HEA L TH AND T HE

-- ENVIRONMENT Alternatives 1 does nothi n g to reduce risk levels at OU- 1 . Alternatives 2 an d 3 both reduce

- the risk of so urce-area soils contamin ating the underlying aquifer and address gro u nd-water remediation. Alternatives 2 and 3 would remediate ground water to levels at or below MCLs. 4 .2 C OMPL IAN C E WITH A RA RS 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 : W

RO

/ X_5 0 37 $$4 W S\OU 1.FS_.F-fN AL\ ICH AP4.1_I u l y 18, 1995 

## 4- l

# -'._ _ 5341 130 TABLE 4-I SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES FOR OPERABLE UNIT NO. l , ELLSWORTH AFB, SOUTH DAKOTA A temative Description 1 No Ac tion 2 Sou r ce A r ea Soil Treatment with G r ound-Water Containmen t 3 Sou r ce A r ea Soil and G r ound-Wate r Treatmen t

F :\PR O J_603 7 58 4 'u_JXOU I . F ' 5 "XDRF'rFI N L

_4 - I . TA B

_ ] 7 Mar ch 1 995

# 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

# 5 0 1 133

-- i : i!iiiiiii : i_i : i : iii!i_i_iiiiii!iiiiiiiiiii_, _i_iiiil iiii!iii!iiiili_ !ii!iiiii! . . _ _z
_ =. 

### 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 , ! 1 34 ..................= "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!! _ _ _ _ . =,-_ _ .= 

# = iiiiiii_i::_iii_i!!iii_==_i:iii,lililil.__ o '_ ii!iii!i!;:i!!!i!iiii_ '/ ..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!iii i !?i!iii7! ; !!i!?N!!ii!iiiiiiiii!ii!iiS!!!!i!!!!!i!i!i!ii!?i:: _, _ :iiiiii!ii!;!i_iii!ii}!iil; ! )iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii_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 e i_ .= ._ _ > 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[ :; ;ii]iiiiiiiiiii!i!ii!i I i]!iiiiiil;_iiiiiiiiii?iiiiiiiiiii;l!iiiiiiii_!;::iii!i!i!;!ii!!i _

_ N'-" e

# 551 138 Chemica l -specificA]_Rs re l _tetoground-water M CLs, ground-wa t erd i scharge , andso i ls contaminated with petroleum. Alternatives 2 and 3 meet all of the chemical-specific "-._t" A RARs . Action-speci fi c ARARs relate to speci fi c media quality preservation, testing proce dures, wetlands protection, and pe m dtting actions. Altematives 2 and 3 would meet the actionspecific ARARS. There were no location specific ARARs. 4. 3 L O NG-TERM EFFE C TIVENE SS AND PERF O RMANCE Alternative 1 would not provide ad di tional effectiveness o r perfo_i n ance i n 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 le v els at or below M C Ls. Permanency and reliability of these con tr ols would be enhanced through long-term monitoring and maintenance of the OU. 4.4 REDU C TI ON O F T O XI C ITY, MOBILITY, OR V O LUME THRO U GH TREATMENT Alternative 1 would not provide for the reductio n of toxicity, mobility, or volume of the chemicals of concern at OU- I . Alternative s 2 and 3 r educe the vo l ume of VOC and IP- 4 in s oil and VOC in g r ound water. 4.5 SH O RT-TERM EFFE C TIV ENESS A l ternative 1 offers n o short-term effecti veness. Alternative 2 wo u ld require 6 - 1 0 years for SVE to remediate source - are a soils and 20-30 years for tre atment 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 A lternative 1 requires no implemen t ation because of the n o action s cenario. 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: W

ROJ_037g$ o a= SMDUI.FS W INAL \I C'HAP 4 .FS klul y |$. 199 5 

## 4-2 -._i

# - 5 0 1 139 4.7 CO S T T abl e 4- 2 pr ese nts a s ummary of the c apital , o p e ration and maintenanc e, an d total co s ts f or e a ch alternati v e . 4.8 STATE ACCEPTANCE

-- To be a ddressed in the Record o f Decision. 4.9 COMMUNITY ACC E PTANC E To be addressed in the Record of Decision.

J



### _ - _ 4 -3 F:_PRO J ' _6 0 37 8 8 4_XD L I l.FS '

_ B NA LX I_AP4. F SXJUly 1 8 , 1995

# 501 I40


# Section T ab

# - 5 0 1 141 5. RECOMM E NDATIONS
" _J 5 . 1 REMEDIA L ALTERNAT I VE S ELE CT ION

-- The primary recommendation assoc i ated with this study is th at the mos t 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 ar e intended to add r ess criteria numbers 8 and 9. A final selection should be based upon these nine criteria.

- 5 .2 ID E NTIFICATION OF PREFE RRED ALT E RNATIV E A generalized ranking system can be applied to pl a ce the remedial alternatives in perspecti v e

-- when compared against the seven N C P 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 O F A L TERNATIVES F OR O U-1, E LLSWORT H AFB,

- S O UTH DAK O TA Alternative 1 No Ac tion 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: W R OJ ' _6037 88 4 W S 'O U I. F S ' , F qN AL\ICHAPS. F SaJ u Iy 19, 1 99 5 

## 5 - 1

### 5.3 RE C OMMENDATION FOR F U RTHER ACTI O N This F S h a s no t addre ssed th e co ordi nati on w i th the reme diati on of other Operable U ni ts at Ell sw orth AFB. An e xamination o f Bas e - w id e al tern ativ es c ould bec om e app rop riate a s f e asib ility studi e s ar e compl ete d f o r these othe r OU 's. The impact of the additional characteriz ation of the Base - wide ecolog i cal assessment c o uld have a po te ntial imp a ct 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 res u lts of the IRA differ significantly from expectations.

F:LPRO J_6 0 3 ?8 $4x . FS '

_ O UI FS_ff iN AL ' x lCHAPS .FS_July 19 , 1 9 95 

### 5 - 2

# 5 , )I 143 

# Appendix Tab

# 501 1 4 4

w 

### Appendix A Presumptive Remedies

!_Jn_te_ S tat es ' Cffi c e or ._ire c : _ve: ._ ' : 5 - -" : -- :. ==5 •- nwronmental Protection Soli_ W aste and E_A 540-F-_3 -C4.__ 5 0 1 ] . 4 5 Agency Emerg e n c y Res P ons e PB 93-963346 Se1 3 tember 1993

- 

# _- " ¢ , . EPA Pres u mp ti v e Reme dies: Si te C h aracter n zat n onand Techno l ogy

- Selection For CERCLA Sites With Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils Offi ce o f E m e rg e n c y' an d Remedial Response . Quic k R e f e renc e F a ct Sh eet Haz a r d ous S ite Control Division 5203G S l ac e Sup erfun d ' sin ce p t ionin t,980, th e remedia l a nd remov a l p rog

_ m _ have fou n d t h a tc e r r_ih c a tegonesof s i t e sh ave s i milar ch ara cte ri stics , s uchas . ty pesof c o nt ami nan tsprese n L ty pe s of dispo sa lp r a ctices,or how e n viro n m ental me_i_i_

-- areaf f e c t ed .Bas edon i nfo rma t i on a c qu i xe df ro m ev al ua t ing an d cle ani ngu p the s es it e s ,t

h e Superfu n dprogrami s u n dertakingan ini tia t i veto d eve l o p p re sump t i ve r eme d iestoa cce l e r at e fu ture c le an up s _ t yp esof s i t es. The p res umpffv eremed y

a pp roa chi s onetoolofac c elera u onwith i n t he S u per f un d Ac c eler a te d Clea n up M od el (SACM).

-- P r e sumptiv eremedi es ar epref e rred te c hn ol o gi e s f orcommo n ca teg or i eso f s i tes , based on histo

_ ri F . _l pa t te rn sofreL

__ y s e l ectio n an d EPA ' s sc ientifi c an d e n gth e e n n g e val u au o n of pe rforv n ance a_t:a o n techn ology i mplem e vtavto n, x n e objective o f the p res u mp ti v e rem e di es ini ti ati v e i s to use the program ' s pas t e x p erien c e to streaml i_: site inve sti gano n

_ a nd speed u p s e l ect i on of c l e a n up ac uons . Ove r ti m e p res ump ti v e re m ed i e sa m ex pec t ed t oe n su rec o ns is tency in r e medy s ele cti o n a n d reduce th e cost a n d ti me requi red t o cl ea n u p s i m i l ar type s o f s ites . Pre s umptive r e mediesa rc expe cted t o be u s ed a_all ap p ro vt tate si te s e xc ept under unus u al s i te-s pe cifi c cir c um s t an ce s . Thi sdir e c ti vei d e ntifi es th ep r e sumptive r eme dies . f or C ompre h e n siv eEnvironm'ntal Res ponse,C omp e n s a n o n .a n d Li a b i l ity Ac t (C ER C L A ) s i mswithsoi l scontamina ted by ¢o/at//eorgan/ ¢ c o mpounds (VOC s ) . I n_ c l c l ition . EPA i s deve l op i n gg ui da nc e on presump ti v ere m edi esfo r woo d treat r rmnt , municipall a ndfal l ,P

CB, g rain sto rag e , coal g asific au on ,a

ndc o nt a m i n a ted gr oun d ,-wate r sites . E P Ahasals o d ev e l op e dac fz rect i vee nti tl ed Pr e sumg ri veRemedies:

-- Polic y . and P r oce d ures , (D irectLve 93 55.O -4 7 F $ ) whi ch ou tl ine s an d addre ss e gth e is s ues co mmo n to al l pr e s ump nve re m e d ies (e. g . , rol e o f innova tiv e tech n ologies , c onsisten cy wi th the NC P . St_t_, c ommu
_ t J i n vo l v e m ent) .

-- 

### PURPOSE site - s p e c i_ a na l

_ ' si s o f re me di es by f oc us in g the " - f e as ib i lity st udy eff orts. W he re sever a l pre s ,mpUV e • " r e m e dies are i de ntifi ed. EPA belie v e s that ag deserv e

_ The p urp o se o fthl_ '

_d i tecu've is to provide gu l e l

_n ce o n substanti al co fis ideratio n before utiliz in g th e s e lecti ng a presum ptiv e re m e dy at s ims 0 . , ith s o ils pre s u mptiv e renaxiy apptuaclL E PA pe r s o nn e l shou ld - c ont ami n ate d, with V OCs. Spec i f le all y this g uidan ce : re view ti m di re ctive e xmfl e d Presumptive Remed ie s:

- Policy ' an d Proc e dure s ( Di xect / v e 9 3 5 5 . 0- 4 7 F5_ f or

- Presents th e pres u mptive "remed i e s for this s i te ge n er alin f o r

ma_! n oonth ep res|| m n_ivere medyl a-o ces s . ty pe; Soli vlpo r extr a ctio n (SVE) , t h e r m a l d e sor ¢ 0 o n . • D es c r i best h epresu mpti veremedy la u c essin te rm s a n d i a t

_tio n L -e d i e p_ ,sumpdve rem e di e s f or
-- of s i te c h a ra c l

_m ti on an d tJ'ch oology s cr e e ning Su perfund si ms wi th Y OC - c ontami nal o d soil ass um' n g ste p s: _ " -- t he s i te c h 3 r 'd ¢_ '11 _ _ ce_ , i n _'te n a . T able I pr ovidesa b r i e f des cri p tion of oa t h o f th ese t

_ 'es u m - pave

_ • Ou tl in es t h e dat a r e quired to select the s e remedi es . p re s u mpn v e remedies. T he dec i s ion to e stabli s h th ese techn o l ost es a s Si n ce a p res u mpti v e remedy is a U_:hn oIogy th at EPA p re s u mp tiv e re med i e s for thi s si te ty p e i s bas e d o n be l i ev e s , b asedupon i ts p as t expe rie nc e, ge ne r al l y w = ll E PA' s col l ecti ve kn owl e dge ab o ut site s n_es n g auoo he th emoS ta ppropriat e reme dy fora spec i fi ed typeof , an d rem e dy sel e c t io n for VO C ..c on tanu nate d s o d s . s i te . the presu mp tive remedy appro a chw il l a c ce t e mm 1

# 5 :' t t46 T A B LE 1 U SE O F D OC UME NT 

## Presumptive Remedies for VOCs This dir e cuve ' ispnm z n l yinte n d e d f oru se bySup er ru ud - 

## in Soil sl , , m

_ nn g c rs . Howeve r . s ite m

_ ncg e rsi n o m erp r o g1_ m

_ ( suc h a s R CRA c o rmc dv e acu on , th e US T p r o g '_mSoil Vapor Extraction - Soil vapor extrac ti on S t a te s ) .a n dt h e p ri v at e s e cto r , m aya ls o use t h i sdirectiv e . -- (SVE) is a n in-situ or ex-situ process which p h ys i ca l lyremoves ' conta mi nants f rom vadose Th isd i rectiv ei snot a " standalon e"d ocume nt.T oen s u re a full understandin g of V O C site ch ar_te nzauo n and •, zone soilsby inducing a ir flow _m ugh the soil r eme dy s e lectio n ,sit e manag ers s h ou l dr e fer to all m a th x. Th e flowmg a irstri p svotatilecompounds doc u m en tscit e d i n th e dh- e cuv e . For as sistanc e i n from the solidsand carries

_em to extra c tion un d e rstandi n gc o mpl e x s ite conditions, an exp e ri en
___ _ we l ls. T herecover edva po rsmayrequirefurther s i t e m

_ n

_tg e r,thepresump ti v e remed y expe rtte_m the --

. - treatment.In-situSVEis th epn m aryfocusofthis Sup e rfundT e chnicalA s si . c f_ n c = an d R e spons e T e_ m ( STA R T) tP_m or the Eovi_o n meDiaJ R

_ ' spo nse T e _ m 

### document, shouldbecons uP-

_ -- •_ . _" -_ - . . 

### T herm a l Desorption - Thermaldesorption,s an ANTICIPATED BEN 

## EFITS O. F ex- situ process th at usesdirect

_)rin d irect heat. 

## PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES excl_angetovavortzeorganiccon tam inantsfro m - - soil.s ed iment,s l udge or o th ersolidandsemi so lid U s e of thisdirectiv e will reducecostandt_e inrem e dy matrices. T he va po rs are then condensed or se lection at VOC sites in the followi n g ways: o_erwi ss col lectedforfurthert ra aU'nent. I. Th e d Lm c uve f acflitau

_ i d e nt i fi_ -on of t h e t xesum e d • ' -_ '" or likely rem_i_l optio ns e ady i n the invesligacion Incin er a tion - Incineration is an ex:situ pr ocns s.be n cealiowi n gf oramomfocus ed coU ectio n engineered process that employs thermal of a
_ ,,, d uringdz t ' e_'__i=l in vesu g_ o n (1

_ or -- decom po sition via oxidal J onat te m peratures removalsiteeva l uatio n .In ,,

_ idon . kn owledgeo f dsua i lygrea te rth en 900°C to d est ro yth e organ i c th e presu m ptiveremedymayfacili*- h- co,ectiouo f som e r e medial de_ gn'

_ b e for

_ d = ROD °r z c
_-°a fractionof th e wast e , memo.thereby = llow m g th e == ion t o

_ more qn'icldyaftersignam

_ ofthe (:k_si ondocum en t. . Them ajord iff erenc e between th ermaldesoqYdon and incineration i s M at incineretionoxidizes 2 . Thisdi. , e etiveel i m i-

_ , , . _ th e_ forth e inidal s t e p

_ organic co m pounds, thereby destroying the of ld endf'yia g amisct

_emag a+ '/ ari

_ Pf alte manv e s hazardous material. Thermal desorption tie ring di ¢-Fe as ibifit

_ Study. Additio, = ily . it will reduce th e numb e rof t

_dmoiog

_s id, _tificd: and volat_ lizes co nt

_ 'ninan ts , th ertconcentrates th e m , analyz e c

_ i _"_e EF J CA. -Th e Natio n al OiJ.. .an d -- Thermal desorption reduce s , the volume of H_ ,do ns Substances Pol lu ti o
_ Co n tin g ency Plan conta m ica t

_ on , b u l

_ le co nc e nt

_t edwas te Sl T eam (NCP) (Secu re ]00.430(eXl)) state s th at " the. !e

_ _3_ stillr ed ui re stm al :m e nt Disoosalortr eat m e nt of agemysh-Uincl u de_m = d

_ves screenings te p, _ w_bfJllll

_ Eil

_ (e mp ha s isa b i de d ) to se l e ctar e ason

_ hl e residual wast e ab e am, ash, and concentrated • " s "
- numh , = r of alle .-l

_V e S foe de tailed, an aJyI

_ . EPA' s ; ... VO C effluent is not c
_vered by this direc ' dve.

_ , = iysisof fe asibLli tys tudi e s f

_ VO C - c oo

_ r-", =f_ OptJonssu ch_ off-sit edis po saPr egene ra tionor soft si t es (see App e ndix A) found t h at c er_n reuse s houldbe considered, r

_ :bnoioipesam mu t io e ly s c recoe d out basedon • e ff e ctiven e ss, i n m|eme nutbili ty, or exc ess ive co sts , consisten t wi th NCP Se ction 3 00.4 3 0( e )(7 ) . includi ng field e xp eri e nc e fro m theSuperf

_B

_ R e source "_ " A cc ordin g ly, 

### EPA has

_ 

### that. whe n u s ing C onservatio n and R ecovery Act "(RCRA). an d pr e sumpav e r e m e diesat Voc -coe '' mi "'' _ s ite s. U nderipoundSto ra
_T

_nk (UST) pmlp'.mw In = ,_lidon.

_ " EPAconductedananaiysisofFY g 6 to FY91 R e c ordsof site-sp e cific identification and scr eeni n g of aJ te mafives is n ot n e c es s ary. Howeve r . this d Lm co ve De cisio n (RODs) f or s ite s wh e_ VO C coataminanon andsupporangdocum e madon(s ee ' l: e a-
_tbili ty Smdy - drove reme dy s e l e ction. The results of this analysis. Analysis for C ER C LA Si te s Wi thVolatile Organ i c whi_l a
_pmvid e diaApp e ndi xA.demonslratethatth ese C ompounds in Soil s") sboldd I_ includ e d tn th e thr ee te ch n ologies re pr e s e nt ov e r 90 % of th e re m e d i es Admin i_w 4tiv e R e c ord f or aJl s ites _ u se
_he -- • " :" selectedin th eRODsanalyzed , presump Uve rem_ (ies) to d oeu- me at th e l_t s_sf or e liminating the "si te - spo cific i de nUfi_n o o a n d 2

# - -- 501 14 7 TABLE 2 pre sumpUv ere medyapproach , th e detn_Jedn_mys t s c an be lim ite d to the t tLm ep rt s ump u ve re m e_e s _m


### - Typical VOCs Addre ssed by this ad d ition t o the no-ac t i on a l t e r nat iv e ) , t h e r e b y

. j 

## Directive s_tinin g tha t po m on o f t he FS. A pp eod_ B pro v i d es a genen c ev a lua t i o no

f thepresump uve



### - , . Haloqenated Volatile Or g anic_ re m edie sf o rs evenoft h e mn ccr iten a . Thi s evalu auon

- may se rv e as • b as i s f o r e ach d etadcd anaJy

_s Ca rt) o n Tetrac h lorid e c o n d u ct ed u_ r_l erthe pr es u mp t ive r e m e dy p ro cess ChloroDenzene a n d s h ou ld be aug me n te d , a s n e e de d , t oadd re sss i te- • • Chlo r o e than e s pe c i fic c o nd in o ns. Chloroform 1 , 1 - Dichloroethane . , On e o f t he s e pre su mpt i v e re m ed iesis expe c te dt o b e u s ed w .. 1 , 1 -Di chlo r o e thyl e n e for a ll V O C si te s ex c ep t u n d e r u n usua l ci r cu m s tan c e s . 1,2-Dichlorot

_ nzene Suc h circ umst a n c es may include un u s ual site so i l 1,2-Dich l oroe th ane .... c h a ra c teris t ic s , de mo ns_t ion of sign ifi c a n t ad v a n tages 1,2 - Di chl o r o e th yl ene of aJ mrn a m (or o =h¢ i n no v at i v e ) m cb n oiog ies ov e r the

-- 1,2-Dichloropropan e p r e snmpdver e t: n cdie s ,o r e x lz - 4o r d i na rycomm u m W ar id 1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene " _ s).f e co n c e rn s. If suchc ir c u ms t a n ce s a re en cou nt e red . 1 ,1,1-Trichloroethan e addit i o n a l a naly s es m a y be ne ces s a r y or • more

_ 1 , 1, 2-Trichioroethane co n v en dormldeta ile d RI / FS m a y b e pe rf ormed . 1 , 1 2 ,2 - T e trac

_ loroethane 

### EthyleneDibromi d e PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES PROCESS M e thylene Chloride Tetrachloroeth yl ene Trichloroethyle n e T hi s s ect i o n a n d t h e accompa nyin g di agram (Fi g u re [) Vinyl Chloride d e sc ri b e th es eq u e nceo fs te p sin volved m the pmsumpuve r e medy p r o c ess (sit e clk3 uac te_ :, _) ion an d te c hn o | ogy se l e cti on) for si tes co n t_i nin $.s o i i Co_= m i n: _) e d wl d: l 

### Non-Haloaenated Volatil_ Orqanics v oc s . Whilfthe proce ss i s not m a nd atory, EPAb e fi e v e= tha t followi n g the step s outlin _ b elow will e x ped i te th e ]_ - . -. , cl ean - up pro c e ss for t hi s cam g ory o f sit e s . Aceto ne -" Me th yl Ethyl Ketone S V E i s =h ep r ima ry p res u m ptiv e re m ed y . SV E h

_ b een Me th yl ISobu ty l Ketone se l ec tedm ost f l- eque n lJytoadd

_ssVO C c o nr_ m

_ o.auo Q= -. Su pe rf u n d s i tesa n d iml ial pe rfo rm a nce a_r_ m_ cac c t t u = A romati¢_ i t e ff ec ti ve ly tr e ats w as te i n pta ce at :ir e l atively low coi l Be n zene I n c as esw h e n= S V E w i l l = tot w ork o r w h e r e th e r e u v ery Eth yl B enzene hi gh / y c on c e n_ c do r=m inati oa , th e r m_J de s o rp ao a
-- _ --- S t y rene ma y be t he mum ap pmpria m res ponseI c c hnoI o gy In • T o luene limnmd num be r of situati o ns, mcm eradon m ay b e nx_e m -Xy l ene '

_ ' " o - Xylene a pp ro pna

_ .
-- p - Xy len e T h e n umb e red p aragraphs below c o rr e spond to t h e ',_ -- -. n um be r ed s t e ps in Fig u r el a nd i

_ rov ide a de t _e d Note : O thercomDoundsthat have ghys _i t/ chemP . a dis c uss io n of e ac h step .

_ cn ara c teri sti

_ _ ll_il( I f t O

_ comnound s fisted m ay a t s°b eaddress e
_ W tlle . ? re s umDt i vereme<

_ " 1. AreVO C sPrese a t i ntheSoil? i T h e Er s tsz ep , s m proc ess, d et e rmin e wh e th er VOC s at e th e m aj or co

_ . p r ese nt i nsoil at

th e s ite . T a b le 2 L i s ts th eVO C

_
-- s cmemn g o f t nchn olog / es "se c t ion. In

_idon , o the r ar e am en abletothe pr es umpe .ve rem ed ies out

_ m e d m suppordn gm

_ r ,' n a ls(e . g. .F Sr e' po e t sm ¢ lu dedm th e this cRn_) we. I f VO C . s ate pr e se n t at

_ve tt o f

_nn lysi s . tec hni cal rep orts) w ill be m
_ 1

_ av ai l able at co m_ ' n (s ee f o rthcoming gui d anc e on s o d

_ ¢ e emlNg E PA He adqua r t e
_ a nd ar e av
_ i !_bl e f or in cl us io n i n le v e ls), then th e p r e s u mp tive rem edi es_ um th e A dmi ni strativ e Re cord i f nee d e d, th i s dimc-

_ive m . y b e ap p fi cable. He w e r s. ,_ . ,_ c on fi rm e d (at th!_ poi n t or at any late rpo int d ua te al tan 3. T hJsd i te c d v e s u
_ 'am Y me s th e de taJ le d

_ . n ty s i s po r n o n p r e_ump o ve remedy proc e ss) th at the re a re ae _ ¢_ 't o f the F S. R emedial alte rn ati ves de velop ed for a sir, ' pr e s e nt m th e so ft . th e nthis di a e ceve is n o t tl_p_. te 4e mus t be ev a l uat e dagain s t th eni

_ e criter ia (r

_ qu i_ md fo r us e m te chnology selec t i o natthes_ t e u n d e r N C 'P S ect io n300. 4 30 ( e ) ( 9)). Und e r =h /s 3w 

# 5 0 1 14 9 Most like ly, thts analys i s will o ccu r du no g scop_Qg not take into a c c ou nt St ,_e A_AR_. For tnxs re a soo,

- o f the RI / FS or EE / C A . However. there may be o nly Sl am A RARs :e i au n g to th e pr esum_p uve remedies lin ' ut_d inforrn a , on avmlable m that urne ebout the shouldb ec o n . _d cr_onaszte-sp e ctficb a sis. Re_ons " -_ site . Theref ore. wh amve r informati on is a vmlable may want to supp l eme nt this di_c
_v e by c omp d mg should b eu sed to

demrn_ne whetherVOCs a r e present the r e q uirementsofth e St_ t *

_ sintheirRe g ionstha / a re ors us p ectedm th e s oilb asedon prio r u se . Che macal li k el y tobe_sociated wit htheu seo fth ep re s umpuv e .... use at a s ite can be as certained fro m a numb er of re medi es _nd p l acin g them i n the a_mm_s a- aJ v e so u rce s such a s f a cility r ecord s , previo u s s ampling re co rd f or a s i : w here p r e s umpuv e rem e die s are

_ ef f o rt s b y local or S tate agencies or through bei n g consid ered . T hi s _"e cu ve along with th e • • I n f

o r - m n,ion R eque s t l e tte rs . "F e a si bi lity S tud y A n al ys i s for C E R CL A Site s wi th Vola til e Or g ani c Comp o u n ds i n S o i l s " s h ou l db e 2. Ar e Non - VOC . Con r aminantaPresentThatP r ¢clu

_ le i n c |u d e dmrl_a d_mJ s t r
_v e rec o r d f orthe s i _if o n e "

_heUse o f P r esur
_ t i veRe to uc h es? In : _u'J , ' i !il on t o o f t h ep r_ s u n_i v e re n_d i e si s p n_o s e d f orapam c ul a r d ete nmn / ngwhetherVOCs are pre s e nt i nthe s oil.it VOC-c o nt a min a ted s i re . i s al so n e c e s s ary t o identi f y o th er . no n -VO C

_ con l am in a nts , i f

a ny,p res e n t int h es o ft. 4 . Re v iewAdv amagedl .. i m i r a n onso . ft hePre s u m pn v e Re medies . Dudng i n iti alsite c ha rac m ri T_ r i o n . Tab l e T he s i t ec_n z ar.ion and tec lm olo gys elec u on 3 s ho uldbere v i ew edt oc o n s i de rt hea dv anta ge s a n d proce dur eso ud th e dinthis direcu vearereco mme n d__d H m / ts tio us o f th e pres u mpuve r e me di e s. This

-- f oru sepr i m ar / lyon soi l con
_ning V OCs o nl y, See i n fo r ma t i on ma y be us ef u l inp r e par in g f or and / or T ab le2 f

orVOC s tb arareame n ab letod

_ep resu mp nv e mo dif y i n g the s i_ cha , F ac _r i ,a) in O or _IP'I"-1aV es re medi e s , a n a l ysis p ro c e s s. T h e " Pr a tt/ ca/ Co n sidera n o _" secuoo of th i s dire cuve should als o be re vi ewed at -- _. F o r s i c e s- c o nt mn inga m ixtu re o f V OCs and o th er " t h i s time t o ensu re a compreh e nsi ve s it e ..

_ , c ont n min an ts in soil . th epre su m Fd ve re mediessho ul d ch a r ac

_ ri z_fi o n 'a n d rem edy e v a bm_on .

- : be con s i dered onl y i f t h eyca n a lsob e eff ectiv e i n

_ remov in g th e non - V O C c o n ta minan t s or combi ned ' 5. Condu c_5ite Cha m me rizat i on: S ite c hat a ct e r

_ ' r.at/ oo w

ith o d a e_,n on-p re su m lx i ve re m ed i es in a
_ 'en , m e nt f or s i t es using VO C I xesumpuve remedi es shouldbe trai n , assuming th e presumpuve remed i es do nm des ig n e d t o: " ex a cer ba mth eproble m sp rese n t edby th e non - VOCs . _- - F ore l e, s i tes V ll_h V OC s an dme

_Iscommin ed Po s il iv e[y ideali

_ lh e si t e

_ (i. e ., VO C si te ); -t n soi l m ayb e effe

_ -fively m_ by em p loying '< ' . , , SV_t o re m ove VOCs foH_ b y'

_ 'f

_x
_tionor • Ob e , -, i n, - I*

_ *

_o demrmi_w h e sJ_mrth epn
_s 'umpi i ve _ol idifi c_on to ad dresst h e m etal con ,_min au on. In 

### remedyis f ea s i

_e for th e site:
-- _0 6t

_a s L a v oc and p olyaromauc h' y di 'ocarb

_ : s {PA Hs ) coo t a min mt

_ b m b i na

_ , -_ i x
_ • Focu s ( and possibly s treamli ne ) s ite mo re app ro priat e lywi th

asin g le b idio g !

__ t char a c t e riT_ r i o a by co l lec0 n g d ata tos u pport 

### me . . . sc_en md mtwm l_dbe e_cti

_ / e fof1_i t h eVOC s a
_ s e

_ , _o no

_ pr nsum p ti ve renL_dy ( i es) onl y (e .g . , P AH s.+ j % tet h

_ si ms co nmih £ n grm xm re s o f VOC s volum ea nd c o s t in

_onmu on );a n d . a ndnon- V OCs are va ne d,a n d. for thi s reas on, r emedy . sel ecti o n may be more c omp li cate d than th e • Coll e c t s o me d_ign d am (i.e.. pilo / s tu di es to
-- f r.n_.w or k pres ent e dm t h is d ire c t / ve:t hes e f o re,the d e t e rm i

_ radi u sof iafluenc_ and flow rat e s o f p res ump
_ve r e medy an al ysis may n eed to be S V E),

_m
_bysu.ean d

_a b_d_ = ' acol l ectio nduri ng s u pp l eme nt e dor mod i fie do_ a si te -specific bas is, t here me d i al _d esi g n
_ ;'

_

-- 3. [ni n ate Ea r ly Co

_ , State ; a n d Po te nnally T ab le 4 ii sts the data that are . requ i re d . for
.. Res pons i ble Part y (PI

_ P } Im

_ vement . As earl y i n c h _" 4cm _a_ ,i o n of si te swilh s o il COnmm i n s
_ ' ' sr 4Wilh t he cl ean -upproc essas po ss ible.EP A s h ou l d n ot i fy V O C s. T h is ruble al so inct ud_ th e rauo n al e for

-- th ecommtmity , Sl

_e,

_ m d a n yPR P st h _ap t l _u m

_ve c oIl_g th e s e draman d l

_fi

_ ' _n cus for e$_hli sl_d re me dy i s be ing comide md f or th e site . I t is important coll ection meth od s. N o te that be n ch - s cal ea n d p d o V . for al l st akeh ol d ers to u_ i,-t s ta n d c ompl e t ely how th e t t, ' * )_ ,hi lity s tudie s should be pe

_orme d whene v e r presumpu ve _tn c
_y process v ari e s fi-o m the usual possibl e co u_with siu -._r i

_ , ',n onto de fine c ie an -up pro cess and . ,.lh e benefits of usin g t h e th epm - a m e te r s) h* ) wiilbe

_ mnm ' mn ttode s i g n i n g the pr e s ump0v e re m ed i es proc ess , sy stem
,_ E arly ide

_ li fi ca t io n of $1aie a pplicable or re i e va n t In area s w ith low o rga n / c co ntent soi l (e. g . . allu v ia l n r__ appr o pt i_ re C lU

_n is ( . _LRs ) al so is a ba s ms) .orw h e reth ese_ ' ¢ i .m ped in_nt s toot '

_ ,n,'

_ g

_ pm' t of

_ h _¢pr ocess,i

_ eca u se th e pmsu mpuon s o il s%_ples ( e.g . ,u
_ ,, __ bui l d i ng s ), so il g as sampl in g set forth io _ di re ctive is natio n al i n sc o p e , it d oe s
_ , L ;

# 501 1 5 0 is high ly re c om m ended as a sit ech a r ac t e ri z a tion ri sk-b a sedPRGs ax eo P

_n s e t for s o d s. dc pen_ng on te c hni q ue.In_ ,' , tion. theu seo f s oilg assa mp ling d e p t h.Sh al lowsoil le vels a reusu a llyb a sedbothon dunng i m p l em e nmuon ofSVE a n dc oof u 'm a u ) r ys

od di r e ctc ont ac tex p o su re a nd prote c Uonof g ro u nd s am pti ng _rwm_ i sl e ssex p en s i v e ma n c on s t a n tly wat e r , whilel EVe lSf ord ee p ers o ils a m ge ner a ll y "-- . " in s ta l li n g n e w so i lbo n ngs, e sp ec i a l lyf o r d ee p b a se do n lyou ma ss_rans p o n mo de lin g o feffec tson c onl a mi n_r i on, g ro u nd w a te r . Ec olo g i c aleffe ct s ma y a lsobe -- i mporta n toc oasi d_m seningPRGs. Ifinc in e f"_ io no

rth erm aldes orption i s

u nde r s e rio u s con sid e rati o n , be nch- s cale 1re_t_Ki llty s tud i es may 7 . ConductTime . CriticcdR e mova l Actionfifn e c es sar y ) . • , b e conducted, esp e cial ly i f metal s or om_r in o rganic D uring imdal sir - chara cte ri ser+on , dam wi ll be c omp o u nd.s am pre s ent. Therm =l de s o c p_ion g e n e r al l y g athere d to dete rmi ne wh cthe ra
_i mc .c nd c al re m ov al should b e co n si dere d if c o nce m tali oos of V O Cs a xe acl i o o will be nee d e d an d to d c l_rmine w h_ther the le s s t han 5 to I0 pe r ce nt:i nc i n er_ion ma y b e co n,_m inan q sp l' e s e llta

_na hl e t 0 thep re s ump Q ve -- appropriate i f V O C c o nce n trati ons ex _cee__
_ 5 to 1 0 remedie s . " ri me- c t idcal re moval a cti ons , such as pe rc ent . No_ th ate x cavafi on an d mix in g of so il can drum r e moval o r action s addre ssin g high l y p r o duc e a de sort_r in , It of les s than 10 p e rc en t c on tamin amd( l ypic al ly small- volun ms )ofs0il. s h o uid --

- : " co ntami nan t con c entratio n and al lo w thermal be c on du cmd i n acco
_nc e with cu rrent gu id ance de s o q
_ io n t ob e c hos e n. . - _n, 4re gulati on s.Th e deci s i o nto,_ , k, .a + in_-c riU c al

- - remov e d acu on may b e m_ by the Re gro nal Dectmon : A ddiu oual ly, th e f e a s ibili ty of e x cavau on sh o ul d be Team ( RD'I D or if time d o e s . no t permi t , b y an On - - -- d em rm i nedb yev al uatmg s_condi d o es and dep th S ee_he Coord i nator (O SC ) o r a R e
_ ", dIMP r o)e c; o f c onfam i nants as we l l a s the pomnU al for any m x M =
_g e t ( RPM ) i n c o nsul .ru ff'o nwi th an O S C. . - emission s associated with th e excavauon. Te s t di gs - - s h ou ld be mo_md clo se ly to a ss ur e pr o tocuon o f 8. lsThereaThreatPo s edb y t

_Site ? A t iskasse s sn_m t h e publi c a n dt he envimnm e m, mustbe conduct e dto de mr m i n ¢ifasuffici en t he al th

.... . ...... or e nvir omme n ml tlx matex i sts to warrant a r e m o v al or It is' " i mp o rtantto note that duri ng the site rem =d i a l_' e fion . (R eferm Risk A ssezs m e
_ Gui d anc e
_ c i mmm
_ri z afion, th e vo l u me and co nee 6 [ ratio n of for Sup c r
_ Volume

_ I and 11 .E PA / 5 4 0 /1 -89 / 0 0 2 wastecon s t itu ti n gthe pri ncip al thre ats at the s i te -- an dEPA / 54 0 / l - 89 / 001). Wll e_iti f , determ in e dthal " s ho uld b e identified. The NCP ( Secti o n s uchathr e me x is l s, si m -sp e ci 6o e xp es u mdatacanbe

30 0. 4 30 (a)( I XiiiXA) and A Guid emP ri nCipalThrea

_ us e d to modify th e PR G s i . demifi e d

_i n . S to p 6 (N CP "--- - -- andLowLe v eiThre m Waxte s , Sup e ff u ndPubli e = _oo: S _' l ioo 300.43 0 (eX2Xi)). If it .is d_mtwl in e d

_ . _ - 93 80. 3 - 0 6 F S. N ove mb e r 1991.d e finepr in cip al suc h ad

_ .a t do_no {e L x is t . no fu t th eracu
_ 0na t m e s t" "

_ '- thr e ats as s oure e mam riais , including l i quids, that am w ill b e r e quir e d. -- _ highl y to xi c or highl y mobil e was tes which general l y canno t be r e liably c o ntained o r would p rese n t a 9. proceed With Technology A s s e s s ment and Re vw w sigaifi_ a n t rJ sic

_ o hum a n h ealt h an do r e nvim

_ t " Pracno 2 / C ons i de m t i ona " se t_ ri o _I f the a n a J yms s h ould exposure occur.. In accordance wi th NCP cl

_ c r i be di n s t ep8con f u'm sth axt he coomm ma n_ ar
_ expe ctation s, wa s te consu mung " pnncipai thr e ats" a th reat to human health a n d / or the envuronm en L a po s ed b y a si te generally a re expected to b e n-e are d, propo s ed re medy s h ould then be i dentifi .+e+ d=, ~

- . The sitemm_g
_ t i s_ cou r aged toc has_mn_ t he si re i n ter msof pd n cil

_ l

_ d iow.t

_vel t h_e

_ a z_ .a #Io .... [f thi

_ pt.oj e ct is a r e m e diaJa cti oe, a de tai le d an alysts d_termin e m_g ,' e i ai$to be target S for tre ag me n t an d ,,_ing r_- _ C

_ will be re qtli r
_l uo d_ NC' P " con ta m m

_n t- S e cti o n 3 0 0 .4 3 0 < eX9)) to justify th e selec u ono f

.... r e me dy dec ision. Appen dix B p_o v i de s an a nal y st sof 6 . Iden t if ' yPot _AR

_ Ra , ToBeConawlered(TBCs ) . SV_ d

_ m ' maJ d e -- on , m
_d inci n erati on agam.
_ andPrelimina

_yR

_ ,ti,

_on Goals(Pl

_s) . Po te n tial se v e n of th e _ s e .l

_cd on crii_i a. In ,_d , d i dou to [ be F e d e ral an d Stl!_ ARAR s an d pertine n t TB Cs s even cri teriadi s cuss e d m A ppe n d ix B. c o mm_ury . i nform_i on shou M be ide nt ifi e d on a ch e mical - , an dStateacee p ma ee n mstMsobe ev al uaz e d, lfanool o cation-, and action-specific basi s c o ncu r rent wi th tim_* cridcah' e movM

_doni s plm me d,

__ site ch a t actm -_ ,'m. For a morn d erail e d ARARs an alysi s d es crib e d in th e _ guida n ce wdJ be ""- ' didcu ss ion, ref e r tothe various A RARs fact s h eets, r

_ tha t u s es the th r ee criteria of effecu v -e
_ ---_ ( See Compendium of CERCLA ARA_ Factshee r
_ i mp te n mnmb il ity, an d c o st. Duri n g the te chn ol o gy -- andDirec n ve s . EPAPublicali o n 934 "/ .3 -15. Octobe r asses s me nt , th e factors li s t

_ ,_i

_ i n the "Pracuc al 1 991) . - , : - C o n side ration s "se C l i on of th is d i x e c ' dv e should be reviewed tO ensure a comp re hensive e v aluauoe o f At this s to p, PRGs sho uldalso be ide n ti fi e d (NC P al_l 'iv es . ., Section 3 0 0.4 30( eX2)( c )).Note th a
_diff e_n t h e.alth 6isF'eds l b l e? S V Eisth epnm a_. p _s_m_trvere medy , amen cted to re fl ect me p re s u mptlve r emedy _p p r oach :o Piio_tr e atab il ity study te snng of S ':E sho ul d be sltechara cte n za. u onan dreme dyselecuo n . The p omnua / co nducted p ri or tO final r emedy s e l e c
_o n . S u ch savi n gs in u m¢ and mone y to be gai n ed by u sin g the tesung wi ll pro vid e info rmano n onth_rate of r emoval pre su mp tive r emedy ap p roach ar e expected to outwex gh

-- o f co m _m mants. E PM 5 4 0 / 2 -9 1 1 0 91Ac i md inthe t he b u r d e n o fmodi f ylng_e sco pe o fw or kiumanycases . Re f e renc e sse cti o n nf thi s di re cuveprovi de s gui c l

_n cC on conduc u ngthepi l ot / _ea t abi l it y s t u dy .R emov_ Ini t i - I SiteActi ons : I ftheVOC mate r ial- is ..

s til li

n efficiencie s and tr e at me nteffectivene ss mus t be ori g ina l , intactcontmne_s , itmay be re turnedto the

-- . , Ca refu l| y consid e redalo ngs id e me P RG s id e nti fi ed_ m_u f a cm. rm- (ifth eman uf _m re r is wil l ing t o acce p
_ th e[: S toes um _ thepot e ntialfo r S u cces s fulrem e d i al theseco
_ ,, i ,et s ), ass uming th is responseisacost-effective a c u o nus in g SVE." " and f easi ble ac u on as o pp o s e d to B 'e : _ ring the _I_ei ai . -- R euse . o f _ (i . e.. process liqui d s _d re lo c a d o n o f II . IsThermalDesorp tio n Feasible? If S V E w ill n o tbe equ i pmen t t o o th e rpe rmi tt e dfa cili t ie s )s

h oul dal so be su f ficiend y e ffe ct i v ei

n

a chie v ingPRG s d ue to l ow cons i d er ed .F

u r the r. phas e se p a r anon s hou i d b econduct e d_ perme abi l i ty ,l

i th ol og y or in s u f fic i entremoval of an d _c y c l ingcons i det e ddepend i ngon t he p u rit y of the

-- co n ta mina t io n d uring th e pilo t s tu dy, th erm al re c overe d p h as e o r f o r any exisun g li q u i ds t h at a te hi g h d e so r p ti o n s h ould b e co ns id ere d as the prun a r y e x- e n oug h i oc once n w a d oo. Re fer to Ap p e n d i x C fo r a l i s t o f

_i tu pr e su mp nve r eme dy , th e curre ntly re cog mze d waste exch an ge s .

-- Th ermal de snrpti o n techn o lo g ies cove r a vari ety o f Site Ch aracte r i z ation: Site chara cterizati o n s hould ven dor s an d p ro cess e s. H ow eve r. amp l e data are p r oc ee d as a sin gle, mul ti- m ed ia activi ty w h eneve r avai l ab l e to substantiate reme dy se l ection of th ermal p o ss ible . Fie l d sc ree mn g meth o ds sh o u ld be i nteg r ate_

. _ . " " d eso rpnon for s o iJ co ntam i n at eds o l e l y withVOC s. _in to . t h e sampfin g and anal ysis p lanin or
_ r t n acc ele rate i nform au nngathe n n g. Da t a q ua li t y must re flec t the 1 2 . Is Inc i nera ti on Feasible? If con t am i nan t u l timateu s eo f thei n f o r maf!ou . c oncentr ati o n s and be n ch - s c ale testin g indicate - . -- .... -- "" t her ma l d e sorp u o n will n o t ac hi eve d es t r ed PRG i Gro m u t W a_ .: T hede ci s i ou m a k

_sho uidco n s i d e rth e leve ls, in c in e r au o n is t h ese co n d e x-s im p re su m p ti ve grou nd- wa te r s t ra m gy for t he s i te s ince s o ft cl eaa -u p re m ed y . I

_v e i s are o f ten set t o p ro t ect g r ound- wa t er qu ality. T

h e re for

_ , grou nd -wa te rcl ea n -up l evel s mayh a v ea d i r ect " lf i nci ner ati o ni s pl anned.andasub s t an ti alnu mberof impa c t on the se l e cted cl ea n - up levels for So

_ . (S ee i nnrg anic con t ami nants ar e e xpe cte d to be p resent forth comi n g guh'hn e e n O Soil Sc ree ning Level s and th e bas edonsi tec har acte r i

_rlon dat a . _aa , -r_al s handlin g dL

_cn ve enuded PresumlY m¢ Remedies: Rernedia

_ p roble ms , or sl agg in g problem s are l ike ly. Strategy and Treatment T e chnolog ie s for CERCLA Sites w i th Contam i nate d Ground Water . ) It sh ould b e noted I f no n e of the th re e pre s u mp ti v e re me di e s is c o n s idere d that . of the V OC - typ e c o ntamin ants , l isted in T ab l e 2 . th e , < to be fe as ible at a parucular s i te. it will be n e c e ssary haloge nate d v ol ati le s are d ens e n on aqu eo us ph as e l iqui d s

-- to c o n si d ero th er te ch nnlngie s. (Fo rmore i nforms , on , ( den se N A PI . s or D NA ? L s) and m any of th e o th ers are .... re f e r to the Pra ctical C o ns i d er au o ns se ct / o n be low.) ligh t NA PL a_(LN A PL a ) i n the ir p un ) li quid form. If LNA PL s are pro___ i _i t /( , /a y he po ss ible to a c l c lress ttmm by 13. SelecrR e medyforRemedial/R e mo v alAct i on . A tthis l owermgth ew atett ab l e.re m o vi ng fireel mX /u ct ( i f p ,_sent) . p oi nt, th ere should b e e n ough dam to i den tif y a and app l yin g SVE . T o
_ D NA PL s c o n , am ino, on . - p re f e rred reme dy in th e prop o s ed plan an d d is mbu te re fer to th e ab ove men tio n ed grou nd -w a_er gu id anc e. . . the p l an for po b fi c comn_ nL On ce th e rem e dy ha
_ --- ., :

-- b een se le cte d in th e R OD. th e user c an procee d to d o Management of Differen¢ Soil s : A si tu ation m ay a ri s e al imite d de signwh i chre l i eslargelyo n thesub s tanua] wh ere highly con tami nat e d sh allow mate ri al c an n ot b e
- amnunt of design -r elated data collected duri n g th e
_ ,e ss e dbySVE . T h e acti oum , , , id n e ss ghi s co nmmman o n RI. T he e xte nt of addi u o nai or supp leme ntal a_)_ rn aydi fferfrom th eres tof th e s o il c ont /m mati o nand wi L I

-- require d will b e detern ane d o n a site - specifi c b asts , mo st l ike ly invol v e mc i n erat / ou nr th erm al d e sorpoon. I f i t is su spec te d th at so i l co n tam i_t

_on exi s tin g at g re az er 

## Practical Considerations depths wi ll als o b e ue a u_din this man ner, th e n the excavate d

-- s haU o w mate n al s h o u l d be s taged an d store d ia or de r to T

h e followin g f a c tor s s ho u ld be c o nsi d e red pri or to takin g tre at zt wi th th e d eep m aterial. any r eme d ial a c ti on . A n oth er s i tu ati o n m ay a r ise wh ere VOC s are max ecL w_th En f o rcement : T hi s d i recti v e appl ie s to f un d - l ead s i ms as mo a , ¢, and non e of th e presu m ptiv e remed i e s can a d_e ss b oth se t s o f c on_ts. T he acti o o to ad dr ess t h zs w e ll as to site s whe re a PRPis c o n du ctin g the mv e s ti g au o n and / or r esp o nse a ctio n. In ,he even t _ha! the ne is an s tma_o n may con sistof al

xParm °nto ' ai n wh er e VO C s 7

# : 5,3 1 1 52 - addr essed th r ou grlSV_ or th ermal deso rp u on and'the Ho w ever, thelowercos_andea.seofS%'Eimptement_ u on me mJs area adzes s ed th r ou gh fixau on, w i ll often weigh heav dy in il_ favo r, a_ longas prote c u o n o f hu man health and the e n v i ton mem is e ns u re d. Fin a ll y . the s ite m n . ag er s houl db e a w ar e of sima u on s whe r e a mxtu r e ofpr incip a l a ndl ow- lev elt h re atw ast e s Ad d itionalT e chnologies:If fd

_ some r e aso n n o n eofthe " _- " callfor m e u s eofn 'eat m em (i . e ..SVE or t h e r m aluea t r ne ml p resump Uverem edi es isapp li c abl eto

a

p aru c u la rs

ite. t he of pn ncip a lt

hreaz was t e a nd co nt ai nmen t (c app i n g ) o f sitem a n ag e ris enc o u ragedtor efe r t o F R A's fo rt hc omin g low - levelco omn u naU o a.( S e e A GuidetoPr i nc i pal do cume nten ud ed Con t a m i nant s andR e rn e dialO p t i ons Threa t and Low - Le vel Was te s i n R ef ere n ce Se c lio n) . at. _olv e m $i ; es forad ls cussio n of

_ 'l i uon alV O C ffeam_ent te chn o l og i es. It

shoul d b en ot edthat t h is c omp rehe ns ive • " O ff-SiteDis po sah I n g e nend , itmay n o tb e cost- e ffeC - ti v e d ocu ment, which id e ntifi es additi onal VO Cs and t o

s h ipqua n_ ties o f c o w '

_ tmin s r M s o il i n ex c e sso f 5, 0 0 0 

### techn o l ogi es , m a y beapp ropria t e I o c o n s id ero n a s l t e c ubi c yar dsforo ff - si te di spo sal. Fo r t h isr e as on , s p e c i fic b a sis . ...... -- .. pr e n 'ea L me nt o f soila nd wate r ma y be re quire dpriorto shi pm ent or discharg e to an oth er u ' eam
_nt facility . Therml Tnmlment Techno l ogi e s : Th e s ite man ag e r
.... s h o ni d r e f e r m E

_ ' A' s D ra f t Su - at e gyf o r

C ombu st i on of Capping: C appingalon e i s no t r e comm en dedto c orm'ol H:,- - ndo ns W as te (May 18. 1 99 3 ) w he n co n s i d e ringany -til e migra ti o n o f V O C s . Ho w e v e r. capping can improve the r malIz_tm, ,m te chnologi e s at a p a t ucu iarsi te. t h e e ff ec uveness of SVE by de creas ing ._hn ra t e of - - i nfi ll taUo n of residualVO Cs t hi ' ong h th e v__ l_o

_ zo n e i nto 

## Conclu s io n the gr o u nd wa e erasweUas po s s ibly increas ing th e radius - --- o f influenc e and prev e nting " s h ort ci rcui ti n g " of ab Fo r s it es c o n taining VO C -co ntam i n ated soil an d pathway s in the vicinity of tbe e xtracu on w e ll. Capp in g appropriate soil chara cte ri s tic s. S V E i s a r e latively •- - c an a l so b e u sed to addres s non-princip al th r e at w as t e inexpens iv e md e ffici e m _n_ ', ' h nniogy. I fm atenal n e e ds

_o unl e s s i t is more c os t-effectiv e to _ thi s was te al ong be ex c av ated, ,lbe rmal de s orp
_on is p ref erred . I n a . _ew w i th mo re highl y c ontaminate d mat e rial s , cas es, i n cin e
_ - _l

_on may be th e mos t ap p r o pri ate rem e d y -

- for e xampl e ,wh ere SVE andthe rmald e s orpU on will n ot Paten ta : SVEisapax e nte d tec h n ology. Ro yalty payments n_tcl e an- upc t ite r iabasedo n conu wn
_ - _n
_co ucentranco s may b e r e quir ed un de r c e rtain c oudix i ons of or_c omp s, i li on : . i mp l em en tati on. -............ " " As re m e dies o th e
_ than SVE. the rmal d e somuo n a n d Attainment of Remedis tion Goa_ : It s h ouldben o_ i ncm et ',mon be com e m r , n= wide ly us ed inthe funa'e,this tha t. l ike od_e r i n- sire te chn o l o g i es , it i s diffl c_ l to -dL ,ecOve may be modified to re fl e ct the s e tr e n d s . For asce rtai n w ith confidence whe th e r SVE w ill atmm

_as s is tance onp re s.mp tivere m e dyrels w ci_c uvi U e s -, r e mediat_ °ng°als untilth ea e tion i sacmallyimpl e me e-_ con s u lt th e R e g i oa al Presum_v e Re m e di e s c oam c
_ i i 

### Notice: -_ " The policiesset out in t h is document are intencleclsolely a s g uida n ce 4l o th e U.S. E nvironmental P rOteCt i OnAgency ( E PA) personnel;they a re notfinal E PA ac

_ on s and do not constituteru lemakin g . Thesepoli ti esare n o t intended , norcan th ey bereliedupon,toc re ate a ny rightsenforceablebyanyparty . -- . in lit

_j a_ ionwi th the United States. EPA officialsmay

_e cide to f o ll ow the gu i dance provided i n l_i S document.orto a c t at varian c e w i th th e guidance,basedonan ana ly sis of specificsi' # .circums t ances. EPA als o resenms th e rig h t to change th i s guidanceat any time w
_ho ut pu b li c noOce. I II -I I I



### 8__ ,_ , • = . 

# 5, : pI153

1 '



## ._.__ L

_ - _,_ I ; _ • _ -0- _ _ _ _+ _ _ ]

- _ _ _'_ _o
_ /

_ > " © •
_ '

_ =-
_ : _ _ l.l Z " , _ ._ _ " _'_ •



### . _, , _= o

_ . , , _ :
__ 1_-_.=_ o _.=8= _, _ _._


## 8 ++ _o
_ = _- . ®= = .m 

# + . +, ++ - -. + .. . +-+++ +
_+, 

# + " +{+1

_ ,,'_ -" Y' I| -_ . __-_ _ _ . _



# . ,+.p . . ,,,,., _= + ., _+++._ ] I : ._"_ _ _-"_J

_ _ _ '

_ I

_ 

# = .>=.
_ . -_ . o . .

uo.qo_x' d,IodeAI!o$ uo!lclaos_leU_otLI, uo.qeJeu._Ul

_ a

# 57 1 154

1 0

# 5 0 1 i55

,_ _ . -_ =_ _ _

. __=_ _ , _

, _-_ I ff /



# _ _ _l_ l > = ' = ®

_ , . -_ o

• _ _ _ , _



# _ . =I_ I.._ - "= ' ._ _"

E E 

### ,_8

= =
_ , = _ _ 1

_-- 

# i} a- - - '

_ - - " o_°" ° :_

_ . _ , ! I_ I _ - __"-

....... Z l

# _ _ : 5Ot t50 -

-
C II 4r. 

# ,. . 11_ _ "

-_: / -.o i . '_ . 

# i.}- _

., , 'I= = _, _ 1 uiml

.. j r- _ =_ 

# ,_=_ _ - _-

II _ - • 

# - _. _':-'_ _ _ • ,,..



## " 2 =_, I_ -" i _ .f r 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 BAS I S FOR PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES

-- " T h i s A pp e n dix su mm ar i zes t h e an a lys e s t h at E P A con d ucteOof Rec o r d of Decis i on ( R OD ) a nd F eas ib ilityStudy(FS) d ata fromVOC-con tam inatedsi t eswhic h ledto establishin g soilvaporexU'act i o n (SVE), t he rm a ldesorption,and i ncin e rationasthepresump tivere m ediesfor S upe rf u n dsiteswit h V O C-

_ co nt a m inate d so il. Th e analyse s co nsist ed of :. • IdentifyingV O C-con ta min a tedsites • D e termining m e f r eq u e ncyo f tec hno l ogys e ie c
_ on f or V O C si

_tes

-- • I d entifyi n gsites f or th e f easibilitystudy(F S ) analysis • Conducting th e FS analysis. R esultso fth ese analyses,alongwiththe scientifican d e n gin eering a na ly sis o f the p erformancedata

-- o ntechno l o g ya p pl i cation(Pri m aryRe f er e nce0ocu m ent), p rovi d e a supportforthedecisionto eli mi nate the initiala l ternativesi de ntificationan d scre e ningstep fort h i s sitetyp e . T h ese t ec hni ca lr e viewsfoun d that certaint ech nologi es a re ep pro p nat e lyscr ee n ed out ba s ed on e ff ec tiv e n es s,i m pt e m e nta b ility , or v e x c essive c osts . Review of t ec h no l ogies a g ainst t h e n i n e cnter ia l ed t o e l im l ha ti on of a ad _o naJ ....... alte rn atives . Prov id edbelowis a discuss i onof e a ch analys i s .....

_ 

### " Identification of VOC-Contaminated Sites , . . _,



### T he f irst analysis involv ed g e n e ratin g a list o f sign ed R ecords o f D ecision(RODs) (post-SARA),

. - d ocu m en ti ngVOC conta m ination, f romwhichdata could b e use df or su bse q uent a nalys es . Th e R OD In f orma ti onDirecto ry d ata base wasus ed f or t h is purpos e . O f the 821 signedFY86 - FY91 RODs. 4i8 a r

e i d e n

_fi edin the da ta base as containingV O C conta mi na ti onin.sourc e material. Th is l isto f RODs w a s subsequ e nt ty divid ed intotwo lists: RODs wi_ere VOCs w ere th e onlycor

_t_ h iinantsof conce r n identi f i ed int he s o urce m aterial a na RODs co n ta iningVOCs, as wellas o th er conta m in a tio

_t,insou rce materi al . ForthoseR O Ds involving V OC pl us o th er co n tam inants, a r e v i e wof th e ROD doc um e ntw a s conduct ed to iden tify ca ses where on ly VOCs wer e driving th e se l ect i on of r e medy . To m a ke m is determination;the Reme d ial Res po n se Objectives a nd Sele c t ed R e m edy sectionso f the ROD w e re r e

v le we a to identifyspecificlanguageindi ca tingth a t th e r e medialaclJonwasdesignedto a ddres s on ty

-- t h e VOCs at the sit e . I n ad d it io n , if cl eanup goalswer e specifi ed on ly forVOCs, th e assumpt i onwa s m ade t h atV O Cs were drivingthe r e m edy.

_ As a r esult o f this an aly sis, 88 RODs we re i d en
_ ie d as VOC-on ly ROD s or VOCs plus oth er con tam inantsRODs w h ere a cleardetermin a t i oncould b e m ade th a t VOCs were driving th e s e l ect ion • o f rem ed y.

-- Freauenev of Technoloav Selection for VOC-Contaminated Sites Tabl e 1 p r ese ntsth e dist ri butionof th e 88 F YS6-FYg l R O Ds a mong th e treat m e nt t echno logi es use d " to ad d ressVOC s insoil.This ta b le d emonstratesthat th e three pr esu mpti ve re m edies (SVE.

_e r ma =

-- d es o m ti on;and incinera ti on)toge th e rw e re se lect ed m or e oft e n (over90% o ! th e RODsana lyze<] _m an th e oth er app l i ca bl e t echnologies. Presump t ive R e med ies were a l so th o se r e m ed i es w h ere a _a= r amountof pedormanceda ta ontechnologyim p le m enta ti onwas available. Furth e rmore,SVE . cr

_ osee

_ - i n over two- th irdsof th e RODs analyz ed , wa s th e prim ar y p re sump ti vere m edy sel ec t ed . Identification of Sit es for Feasi b ility Study Analysi s

-- The purpose o f the FS ana ly sis was to d oc ument th e t ec hnolo g y scree n ing ste p in FSs o

_ VOC . con ta m i n a t ed soil / elu d e sit es a ndid en ti fyth e pri nci pa lmasons g i ven f or e l imina ti ngt echno logi esfrom f urtherconside rati on.To achieve• r e presen ta tivesa mp le o f FSs f ortheanalysis,siteswere s e*e cm_ usingR OD d ata accordingto t h e f ollowingc ri teria: d 

### 13

## APPENDIX A TECHNICAL BASIS FOR PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES i - (Continued) ' ii "

_ Table1 PresumptiveRemed y VOCSiteTreatment.. - - "" Summary T able,FY86 - FY91" -- TECHNOLOGIESUSEDTO TOTAL -

ADDRESSVOCsIN SOIL .... Bior e m ediation _;) 3 -- Inc i nera t ion 11 " So i l Flushino j Wa shi ng(') 3 -- SoiI . Va

_ ;0rExtraction 6 2

. . The rmal Treatment

_z) . 9 -- T ot a l 88 Source: ROD In f orma ti on Directory(RID),:FY86 - F Y91 Notes: (1) Relative ly limitedamount o f pedorman ce data av ai lable f orffte

_setechnologies versus th e presu m ptiv e remedi es.

__ - " (2) Thermal tre a tment i nclud esRODs e mployingthe r mal desorp ti on,thermal aeration, Iow-terrLo e rsture th_ 'rnal d esorp ti on,andthe ge n eric rem edy ' th ermal tr eatment ' . • A populationof 4 1 8 RODs was identi f iedfor th is studyb a sed

_ n]he para m e te rs : FY 1986 -1 991, and VOC contami na ti on of .

_ ource m edi a . • Siteswere chosen,basedon th e sel ect ed re m edy , toensurean evendisti'ibutionamongt h e five

.... tre a tme h ttechnologiesforVOCs insoil( i . e ., b iore m edia ti on, i ncineration, S VE, s o il f lushing,and th e rm al treatm e nt). • Wheneverpossibl e ,bo th VOC - onlysitesandVOCando th ercontaminationsites we re reDresent ed undereach tec h nology. • Sites wec e s e lect ed to ensur e a n even distribu ti o ning eographiclocation,ROD sign a ture date, a nclsit e siz e . -

. : ._: .. 

### F easibility Study Analvst_ Th e FS analysisinvolves a reviewof thet ec hnologyscre e ningphas e , i ncludingany pre - screeningste po , f

_ llow ed by a r e w ew of th e d e ta iled anah / sksand compar a_e analys is phas es i n ea ch FS a nd ROD. • Informa ti ond e rived fro m ea ch i; ev i e

wwas document ed onsit e- speciJicdate collect i onforms,whch are available for evaluation as part of the Ad m inistrat rveRecordfor thisdirec'dv e. (See " F eas i bilityStudy AnalysisforCERCLA SiteswithVola ti le Organ¢ Co mpo unds i n Soils', S e ptember1993, available atEPA H eadqua rt e rs anO R egional Offic es.) 1 4

# - ,, 50 1 1 59 APPENDIX A TECHNtCAL BASIS FOR PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES '_ (Continued) Forth e scr ee nin g phase , thefullrangeo f technologiesconsider edwas listedonthedatacoll ectionforms, a

_ ongw i t h the keyreasonsg u ven to t e l imi na tingte ch n ologiesf r o m furt h erconsideration . These r easons



### -- werecat egoriz ed ac c ord ing t o th e sc r ee ningc r it e r ia : cos _, e

ff ec ti v e n ess,o r i m plem e n ts bili ty• The • " f re q uencywithwhichsDecdi c reasonswereg t venforel i min a tinga tec h nologyfromfurt h erc o ns i dera ti on was th e n t alli ed a nd c o mp il ed into a scre e ning pha s e su mm a ry ta b l e (T ab l e 2) . F

o r the deta i led analys i s a nd co mpa r a tiveana l ysis,infor ma t i onon th e 're la tive perf o r m a nceo f e a_ technology/alt e rnativewith respectto th e nin e NCP criteri aw a s docu m entedon th e site-specificd a ta collection f orms • The adv a n ta g es and disadvan ta g esassoci a ted with eacfl clean-up option were highlight ed .Insomecases ,a VOCtechnologywasco mb inedwithoneormoretechnol og iesthat a ddr ess minorsite conta m inants intoon e or more alt e rnatives. Only the co m pon e ntof the alternat iv ewhich address edthe VOC co n tam inationwas e valuat edinthisanalysis . The disa dv antag esof a technology / al t e rnat ivew e r e then compil ed in to a detailed a nalysis/ co m p a rativeanalysissu mm a r y ta ble , under th e as s u m ptionthatt hes e d i sadva n ta g esc o ntnioute d t o non-s e l ec ti on • Alls um marytabl esar e availa b l ef o r review a s D art of the Ad m inistrativeR ecor d . The FS analysishas bee n co m pl e ted f or21 sites(repres e ntingapproxim a te ly 25% ofuniv e rsestu d i ed ). Th e info rma tionfrom th ese FSs has bee nco m p i l ed and sum m ariz ed in Table2. A d dition a lFS a nalys i s i s p lann ed and will b e_ dd ed to th e Acl m inistra ti veR ec ord , when available. Tabl e 2 d e m onstrat es tha t technologies,oth e rth an thepresumptiverem ed ies,areconsistent ly eli m inated f romfurther co nsid e ra tion i n the screening ph a se ' due to effect iv eness , imp l e m e ntabi l ity , or excess ive costs• I n addit i on,the ana.. ly sisindicates that, althoughcertaintechnologi esroutinelypilssed the s creeningph a se, these t ech nol og i es weresetect ed infreouen fl ybecause th ey didnot provideth e b est overaJlperformancewi th respectto th e ninec ri te ria . Toge th e r th ese analyses(App e ndixA to th isdireclJveand"FeasibilityStudy

-- -1 Analysis f orCERCLA Sit eswithVolatil e OrganicCompoundsinSoils'), a

_ ongwith th e scien ti ficanalysis of pe rf orman ce da ta (USEPA (In Progre ss )Cont am in a ntsand Re m . edialO pti ons at SolventSit es )will sup po r t th e de cision o f usingp r esu m ptiver e m edi es a nd b y p assing th e tec h nologyid e ntific ationand scr ee ningstep for a p a rlJcularsite• Asprevious ly indic at ed ,thisfactsh eetandac co mp a nyingana ly sis sh o u l d be p a r t o f th e Ad m inistrativeR ec ord f orthe sit e . Fu r th e r sup po r ting m a ter ials, no t foundin t h e Regionalf U es,-canb e Drovi d edbyHead q uarters,as n.

_ c ded . e v - , v

o . • vl 

### L 5i
i

i

# - _ 5_?I 16! 

# ii

6

w

m Q , _


## -- _ " _ 'k ° ° ° ° ° ° °



# - _ z < o o , 1:\

17

# 5C,I 162

, , j



# _ _ __ 

# _ % - _ o o
_



# !) - \% ; o o I



# _ _ 

# ] P ! °

1 8

## . :_ . i i  ̧ _



# _ 5_I IB3 

# ] ii

g, 

# - _-_ i _ g

rat -- O



# __ o o _:_

.... _

, _g_3 _

_



# - _ ! _._



# _ _.

1 9 "

# 5,.' ; 1 1 64

_ - _® - _._ =_'_ . _ _z •
_ . _:_e
__ . _ 

# .. _ _ _,_ . _ _:_
_ -



# . . - o

. _ _-=_== ._ = , _ _ . _-_._=._._,___ _._- ;
_ _ -

,7 , 

# ;. | . = - = . == o -= . = , ,,- "_ _ e L. ':"

_]'

_ " ;'

_ ¢ : j = _ " 

# =i :. _a _zs_& _.1
- -. _=" ,. . =_ =- > . =_ , _:= - _ . _ .=-= - . .= _- ,; o=_=' =.



# - : _°.!|L ..

!! 

# , _ov ..;,
_ ,o , , , ^ -,,o

_ " f 2 O

# 5 0 1 16 5

.



### •
_ z
_ - _._ _e_ _>
_ - _.- :
_

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



### __-. | o



# _ . _ o_ __
_



# _ o
_ 

# °_

_ -" NO H o UOS30"IV M U3HJ. . j 21

# 5 : J l . ! 66



# _ _ ] - _._ l_r, !_ _ '_ _._ 

# ] 

# _ __ _oo_ ___

..... _ _ . '_ 

## _- "

_ _ _._' - " #! '

_ _'- 

# -_ .-_! , 8_ _ _ '

_ _ -

NOLLVUgNIONI 22

# 501 1 6 7 APPENDIX C _j - U.S. Waste Exchanges



# - ii i 

### ' ,i CALIFORNIA WASTE EXCHANGE INDUSTRIAL WASTE INFORMATION Ro b ert Mc C ormi ck EXCHANGE ,i -- . • D epart m e n t o f He alt h S e rvices W il lia m E. Pa y ne _! Tox i c Su b st a ncesControl Divisi o n N e w J e rseyC h am b er of Com m e rce 

# ij 4 00 P St r ee t 5 Co mm erce St reet ,

-- S acra m ento,CA 95 812 N e wark , NJ 0 7 1 02 , ! t- (916) 3 2 4- 1807 (20 1) 623-.7 0 70 "i INDIANA WAS TE E X CHANGE MONTANA INDUSTRIAL WASTE EXCHANGE _i Enviro n mentalQ ua l ity C ontro l - " -_ Don I ng l es , ' i 

### 1220 Waterway Boul evar0 .... M ontana . Cha mb er o f Comme r c e I P.O. Box 12 20 P

_ O.B o x 1730 - - " Indi a n ap olis . I N 462 0 6 H e l e n a , MT 5 9 624.... : (31 7 ) 232-8188 (406) 44 2 - 2 405

-- INDUSTRIAL MATERIAL EXCHANGE NORTHEAST I NDUSTRIAL WASTE E X CHANG E! SERVI CE LewisM. CuR e r Diane Shockey 90 President ia lPl a za, Suite 122

_ 2200 Chur ch i llRoad , #31 Syracuse, NY t 3202 Sp nngf i e l d , IL 6 2794-92 7 6 ...._ ( 3 1 5) 4 22- 6572 (21 7) 782 - 0450 FAX: ( 315 ) 42 2-905 1 FAX: ( 2 1 7) 782-9142 = 

### SOUTH EAST WAS TE EXCHANGE INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS EXCHANGE Maxi May BillLawrence -_ Ur ban Institut e
-- 172 20th Avenue De p a rtm ent o f C ivil Eng i neering S eattle , WA 98 1 22 Unive rsi ty of NorthC a rolina (2 0 6) 296-4899 Ch a rlotte.NC 2 8 2 23

_ FAX : (206 ) 2 96-0 188 ( 7 04) 547 -2 30 7 . _ . PACIFIC MATERIALS EXCHANGE SOU TH ERN WASTE INFORMATION Bo bS m ee EXCHANGE 1 5 22 N o rth W as h ingtonS t r ee t, Suite 2 02 G o ne Jones
- Sp okane, W A 992 0 5 . :- P . O. Box960 .... ( 905 ) 32 5 -0551 Tallahass ee , FL 32313 -;- FAX: ( 509) 325 -2086 (904) 644 -5516 F AX : ( 9 04) 574 -6704 NATIONAL WASTE EX CHANGE NETWORK 1 - 8 00-85 8 -6625 -- RE N EW " Hop e C a stillo Texas Water Commiss i on P. O . Box 1 3087 Austin,TX 78711

- (5 12 ) 46 3-777 3 FAX : (5 12) 4 6 3 - 8 3 1 7- - , _,_-_ ,, " "

-. 23

# 5Sl 168 APPENDIX D i " GL OSS ARy . ] _ - I I AonlicableorRetevantandAnnrnDriateRe a uirements p_ecordof Decision (ROD) - A p ubli c d o c u ment t h a t i -- CA RA Rs )-C ERCL A Sect i on I1 ll d)a nd t h e NCP r equLr

_ e_ p i ai n s th e basis fo r s e: ec u n gt hec le an- u p altem au ve t s) ! th at ons tte re medi aJactions mustattam (or j us ti f yaw a| v e r th at wi l l be taken or serve d u n d e r CERCLA . o f ')re qutreme nts of e nvtron memaJ laws th at amd ete rmme d

. , • tobe Fe de r al o rmor e str i n gentSta te a p pl ic a bl eor re le vant _- Th e ru n.dial a c u o n tha t mvo l v es a nd appropnate r e qu iz ' emen t s , de s ign t ng a nd te st in g tode= man e wh e t herthe r e me dy wi ll be effec ti v e ata _at¢ .... De nse No n - A a u e ou s Ph ase Li o ui dmN APL_- DNAPLs .... a rei mm i s cib leh yd r oca rbo nli q uids t hata re dense r than Rem e d i aJI nves ti_at i o nf

RI ) -An i n-de pt hs t udydesign e d water , such a s ch l o n n a ted s o lv ents ( eithera s a si ng l e to ga the rt heda t anece ss ar y todetermine t henatureand c o mp o n en t o r as mix tur e s o f so lv ents), wood preservati v e e xten t o f the th reat p o sed by c o n t agu nati o n at a S up erf und was tes, coal t ar was tes . P C'B s and s ome p e s ticides, site . I t al s o he ips toe st ab l i sh the pre liminary, c ri teria fo r DNAPL s can s ink to great de p ths , can pen e trate in to c l eaning u p the site in the F S and s u pp o rts th e technical b e d r ock f r ac tures , can mov e as a . li qu id i n a dire c ti on and cos t anal y se s of th_"al ternauv es. I t is gene r al ly

. , . . diffe r en t f ro m the fl o w o f g round wate r an d c an ac t as a c o mpl e tedandcombi n edwi th the F S and refe rred to as th e -- c onti nual sou rc e o fgrou ndw am r conr
_m i nanon ov e r nn'_ . R I IFS. En_ineerin2Evaluation /Co st Assessment (E E./ CA) - Risk Assessment - The qua li t ati ve and / or quan t i t y . re

. . A n analys i s o f re mov al alte rn mi ves f or n on-ti me crl n cal e v al u an o n p erf o rme d in an e ffort to d efi ne the ris k po s ed remo v al a c ti o n s, to human ' h e alth an d / or the e n vtrontnem by actual and po tenu al e xposure s to specific pol lutants in ai r, wat e r. s oil " ,__ - Re t_oval of mam dal f r om th e gx ' o un d or oth er me di a . . -- f or treatment. . - - " " Su ne rfund ' Aecelenltted Clean un Model fSACM) - An

- A d es c r i ptio n and an alys i s o f the i niti ative d e s i g ne d toacc e leramall as pe ctso fthe Supe r f u nd, po t entialc l ean -u _altemanvesfo r a site . It

i sgenerally clean- up ro cess.
_ -- cond u cmd concurmu dy w ith th e re media l i nvest i g an o n - . . (RI) ;t o g e t her t hes tu die sar e refe r n=_cl t oasanRJ / F S. ( Se e _ - T he zo ne in s od t ha t l i esabove t he re me dial in v e sUgati on .) pern m_n t wate r table.

_

- The treatme nt or r eme di ation o f Vo latil e O r o_nie Comt_ouncls (VOCs) - A ny orgam c med ia o c cumn g i n -pl

_e = . compo und whi c h r e a di ly di ssipates in to th e aft . Innovativ e T re atment Te chnolo

_k

_ - Tec hnol o gi e s th at h av e be en teste d, s el e c te d, or us e d f o r treatme nt of - " h

_ ' _r dou s s

_ bsta n eesor contaminamd m = - , ri als but l ack - well-documented cost a M perf ormanc e
_ * _ u nder a v ariety

. o f ope r atin g co n di ti o n s . . .. L and Distmeai R_'trietlons (LDI_ - Th e Ha '

_r d o us and S ol i d Waste , _m_nd me n t s (HSWA ) to th e Re s ou rc e Cons ervation =,, i R e co v e ry A c t (RCRA) in c l u de sp e c i fic • r e s m ctio as on t h e land di sposa l of RC RA h a - _ ,d o us waste s. The se restri ct i o n s , known as L DR s , p r o h ibit the . -- land di sposal of re strictnd RCRA h_7_n: iousw as t e s unl e ss th ese wa s te s meet tte ammnt sta ndard s spe c i fie d i n 4 0 C F' R 2 68 or o the r comp l iance op ti on s . Li eh t Non-A o ueoe s Phase Liouid_ CLNAPL'I - Like DNAPL s . LNA P L s am i mm i scible liqu i ds, but a xe ligh te r than w ater an d the n=f ore float on w ater . A s the y ar e l ighter t han wat e r ,the y a re mo s ' t 'f reque n dy f ou nd at thegr ou n dwater tab|e 3 vadoze 

## zoneinterfac e. t 2 4

## -_.,.. : REFERE N CES *p

-- Pri m a w R efe r en ce: U. S . EP A , 1 991 . l a-Situ Soil V apor E xt raction Tr ea t ment En gi n ee nn g Bu lletin. E P M

540 F 2- 91 / 006. U.S. EPA ( I n -P r o_es s) . Co mannn ants and Remedial May.

Op tio ns at S o l v e nt Sites. U.S. EPA. 1991. Guide f or 

### Conduc ting Treat abi l ity C o mpo u nd Pr o p erti e s: Stu d ies Und er C E RCLA: Soil Vapor Extrac tion. RREL T re atability Dat a B as e - Avai l ab l e thr ough EP M

54 0 / 2-9 1 / O9 1 A . S e p tember. A T T I C ( C o n t act Glenn Shaul (51 3 ) 569 -74 0 8) U.S. EPA . 1992. A Technol o g y Assessme n t of Soil "_ G e neral Si te In ve s ti g ations: Vap o r Ex tr acuon and Ai r Sparg ing. EPA / 600 / R U.S. EPA . 1986. A Compendi um o f S up erfun d F ield 92 /173,.Sep te mb er Ope r au on M eth od s . EPA / 540 / 8 7

/ 001. . T hermal De s o r ptlon : U.S. EPA. 1988 Gui d ance for C o nduc ti n g Remedial

. ln v esu g au on s an d F easi b i l i ty S tu d ies Un d er U. S . EPA. 1991. The r mal D e sorp rio o T re atmen t

_ C E RCLA. E PA / 540 / G-89 / 00 4. Oc to b e r . E ngmee n n g B ull eti n. EPA / 5 4 0 / 2 -9 1 / 0 0 8, F ebruary . U .S. EPA, 1 989. Guid e for C o nducti n g T reatabi lity U.S. EPA, 1 99 1 . Gu i de for C o ndu c tin g Tr eatab ili ty S tu di es U nde r C E RCLA. interim Final . EPA / 5 4 0 - 2-89 / 058. S tu di e s Un de r CE R CLA: Thermal D esorp u on • " Re medy S e l ectio n - In terim Guid anc e . E PA / 5 40 / R U . S. E PA, 1 99 I. Soil Samp l in g an d An alysis f or V ol ati le 9 2 / 07 4A. S ep temb e r : -' "

_ j O r gani c Compo und s. E PA./ 540 / 4- 91 / 001 . Incinerati o n: - Additional Referenc e s: -

-- Demp sey. C.R. and Oppe tt. E .T.. "Incine r atio n of U .S. EPA, 1 991. A Gu i de to Pri n ci p al Th r eat an d L o w Hazar d ous Was te: A Cri tic al Review U p date" , Le v e l T h r eat W a s m s. S uperf und Pub l i c atio n Inte m au o nal Jo urnal of Ai r P ol lu tio n Conn' o l and 93 g o. 3 -06FS. Hazardou s Was te Management. Vo l u m e 4 3. J anuary , - :

-- i993. pp. 2 5 - 7 3. U.S. E PA . 19 9 1. Risk Ass¢ssmcn t Guidan ce fo r U .$ .EPA. 1990 . Mobi le / T ranspo rt a bleIn c i n er a ti o n S uper f u . nd . Vo lume l: Human He al th E val-_d o n Treatmen t En g inee ri n g B u ll et in. E P A / 5 4 0 / 2-90 / O1 4 , Man u a l , Part A . E P A / 5 40 1 1 -8 9 / 002 . Dece m be r. Feb ma_ , . U. S . "EPA, 19 8 9 . Ri s k As s e ssme n t GuM_nce for Pres u mp tive Re medie s : S uperf und . V ol ume 1 I: En vi ro nm en t al E valu au on M anual. EPAJ 5 4 0 1 1 - 8 9 / 00 1. March. U. S . EPA (In -P ro g ress L P res ump ti v e R emedi e s: Po licy an d P r o c e du r es. U .S. E .PA , 1 99 I.C omp en d ium of CERCLA A. R . A Rs U. S . EPA ( l n-Pro gress l . P resu mptive Re m e d i es: F acts beet s _d D i recti v es. EPA Pub l icatio n Remedial S trate g y and Tr eatm ent T ec h n ologi es f or 93 4 7. 3- 15 , Oc tober . CE R C L A Site s wi th Co ntami nated G r o u ndwate r . S oil V apor Ext rac tio n :

_ U.S. EPA . i99 1 . Soi l 

### V aporExtr actio n Techno logy Re f e r en c e Handl e>ok . EPA / 5 4 0 / ' 2 - 91 / 00 3 . Feb ruary . • i 25w 

# 501 170

v

• q w

w

F U nit eclS t ates EnvironmentalProtect i on Agen

_ .. - Was m ngton , D.C. 2 0 460
_.. Off ictalBus i ness . -, P e na

_ for Priv a t e Us e $300 ---

26

# 5 0 ! ITI 

# Appendix Tab

# - 501 172

w

w 

### Appendix B Referencesm



# - , : 50 1 1 7 3 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. A ir 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 C ity, 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 Characteriz ation 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: W

RO IX60 3 7 8 54_F S _OUI. F S W I N

A L'tREFS.F$ J uly 1 9 . 1995w 

# 501 17 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. Risk-Based Concentration Table, First Quarter 1994. U.S. EPA Region III f

Roy 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., C

helsea, MI.

F: L DRO P:o 0 375 9 4W S

_UI ._ 'SWIN A L

_RE' _. FS Ju ly 19 , 1 9 95

# 51 ) 1 1 7 5 

# Appendix Tab

# - 5,.,I17 6

w 

### Appendix C1 Detailed Direct Cost Report for Alternative No. 2

s

# -. .ate 03 / 17195 501 1 77 Pag e 1 Time 16:28 _ i : DETAIL COST REPORT )ject: _-_U -I#2 Ellsworth AFB SD - OU-1 Alternative No. 2 EA En g ineerin g 03 / 16 / 95 Project Comments: Site:

OU-I ALT 2 Source Area S o il Treatment with GW contain. EA Engineering

-- 03 / 16 / 95 Site Comments: Labor Equip Material _3 REMEDIAL ACTION 33.02 M o nitoring, 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 M o bilize C rew, Local, Per Person 8.00 EA 0 00 0 0 0 440.00 OVA Rental, Per Day 5.00 DAY 0 00 0 00 550.00 Monit o ring Port W / Gas M o nitor

_ 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 S a mple 5 . 00 EA 0 00 0 00 31.52 Decontamination Materials Per Sample 5.00 EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 28.88 5 0 Qu a rt 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 C osts 445 64 0.72 2,195.50 "-33.02.97.99 Sampling & Analysis - O&M C osts

# Date03117198 50[ 178 Page 2

_ Time 16:28 DETA I L COST REPORT Labor Equip Material _-- ; 33 REMEDIAL ACTION 33.02.97 Samplin g & Analysis 33.02.97.99 Sampling & Analysis - O&M Costs Field Technician 2,400 . 00 HR 3 0, 0 3 4.29 0.00 0 00 M o bilize 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 7 37 00 -- Prncpl Organ Haz C onstituents, Air (30 / 5040 / 8240) 121.00 EA 0.00 0.00 21 296.00 Total O&M Costs 30,034.29 0.00 104 60 3 .16 Tot a l Samplin g & 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 / Prot o col 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 1 4 1 .4 1 Hip Waders Rental 50 00 WK 0.00 0.00 i,I00.00 Do Meter, Di g ital, Portable, I0' Cable, Small Dia Probe 1 00 EA 0.00 0.00 1,028 . 50 Water Quality Parameter T e stin g Device 150.00 WK 0.00 0.00 34,650.00 Well Dev e l o pment Equipment Rental 20.00 WK 377.31 7.00 7,592.42

# ', 5 01 17 9 age 3 bate 03 / 17 / 95 . : _ .

i me 16:28 DETAIL C OST REPORT

_ Labor Equip Material

3 REMEDIAL ACTION 33.02.98 Monitoring _3.02.98.99 Monit o ring - 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 Purg e able Halocarb o ns (EPA 601)

-- 1,200 . 00 EA 0.00 0 . 00 167 9 7 0.00 Base Neutral & Acid Extractable Or g anics (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 Si gna g e

33.03.05.01 Fencing and Signage - C apital Costs Secu r ity 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 T o tal C apital C o sts 10,454.95 7,454 . 54 31,367.52 T o tal Fencing and Signage 10,454.95 7,454.54 31,367.52 --_ 03.78 Access Roadsj_ .... Date 03 / 17 / 95 5 _'I 180 Page 4

__ Time 16:28 DETAIL COST REPORT Lab o r Equip Material

_w 33 REMEDIAL ACTION 33.03.78 Access R o ads 33.03.78.01 Access Roads - Capit a l Costs R o u gh 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, No rmal Soil , Hauloff Spoil 1 Mile 750.00 C Y 612.42 1,002.98 0.00 T o tal Capital Costs 1,029.64 1,669.76 D.00 Tot a l Access Roads 1,029.64 1,669.76 0.00 33.06 Gr o undwater Collection and C o ntrol 33.06.0 2 Subsurface Dr a ina g e Collecti o n Single Pass Trenching 15,5 0 0 .0 0 SF 5 0,2 3 5 . 21 1 0 0,471 . 00 6 4,587 . 1 1 Total C apital C osts 50, 23 5.21 100,471.00 64,587.11 Total Subsurface Draina g e / Collection 50,235.21 100,471.00 54,587.11 33.06.98 Extracti o n Wells 33.06.98.01 Extraction Wells - C apital 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 Gr o ut 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" PV C , 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- ,D ate 03 / 17 / 95 ! _ 50_ _81 Pa g e 5 ?ime 16:28 DETAIL COST REPORT _-_" Labor Equip Material

_3 REMEDIAL A C TIO N 33.05.98 Extraction Wells ._33.05.98.01 Extraction Wells - Capital Costs Standby F o r 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, Au g ers , S c reen (Ren t a l E quipment) 1.00 DAY 0 00 0 00 149 60 Furnish 55 Gal Drum For Drillin g Cuttin g s & Devel Water 2.00 EA 0 00 0 00 94 27 OVA Rental, Per Day 1.00 DAY 0 00 0 0 0 ii0 00 Split Spoon Sample, 2" x 24", During Drillin g i0.00 EA 0 00 0 00 275 00 (1-1 / 2",3") Stainless Steel Dbl Wall Pipin g , w / Fittings 2,000.00 LF 41,482 35 711 6 0 63,309 40 (1-1 / 2",3") PVC Double Wall Piping , w / Fitting s 2, 000 .00 LF 14,75 1.21 269 00 9, 3 64 3 0 GW Pump, 1 / 3 HP, 230V, C o ntrols , Pr o be 2.00 EA 358.81 4 78 9,559 00 PR Pump, 1 / 3 HP, 230V, Co ntr o ls , Pr o be, Hi g hly Corr Liq 2.00 EA 358.81 4 78 16,577 00 550 Gal Single Wall Steel Above G round Tank 1.00 EA 245.93 4 21 660 00 Electrical Charge (KWH) 441.00 KWH 0.00 0 00 24 26 Res t ri c ted Area, We ll Pr o t (W / 4 Pos t s & 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 Pr o duct Pump

-- 2 . 00 EA 77 .36 0 3 9 5 29 . 6 5 Total Capi t al C osts 58,779.83 2,911 77 103,813.40 33.06.98.99 Extracti o n Wells - O&M Co s t s Electrical Char g e (KWH) 57,485.00 KWH 0.00 0.00 3,161.58

mD ate 0 3 / 1 7 / 95 : 501 182 Page 6 Time 16:28 D E TAI L COST REPO R T L a bo r Equip Mate r ial "_-- 33 REMEDIAL ACTION 33.06 . 98 Extractio n Wells 3 3 . 06 . 98 . 99 Extra c tion Wells - O&M Costs Pump & Mot o r Maintenance / Repair 24.00 EA 4,794.72 1,564.08 0 . 00 T o tal O&M Costs 4,794.72 1,5 6 4.08 3,161.68 Total E x traction Wells 63,574.55 4,475.85 106,975.08 3 3.13 Physical Treatment 33 . 13.07 Air S t ripping 33 . 13 . 07.01 Air Strippin g - Capital Costs Install Air Strip Tower, 1'-3' Dia, 13'-20' Hi g h 1.00 EA 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 ' Dia x Ht, Pre-Fab, FRP, Air Strip Column / Shell Only 2 5 .0 0 FT 0.00 0 . 00 0.00 -- I" - 3.5" Pack i ng for A i r Strip Tower 128.0 0 C F 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 Internal P a rts fo r Air Stripper, < 20 ' Hi gh

_ 8.00 S F 0.00 0 . 00 0.00 750 CFM, 8 " Pressure, 1.5 HP , Bl o wer 1 . 00 EA 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 Electrical C ontrols For Air Stripper 1 . 00 EA 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 1,000 G al Horiz Plastic Sump W / 4" NPT Connect 1.00 EA 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hi g h Sump Level Switch For Avoidin g Overflow 1. 00 EA 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 I00 GPM , 2-1 / 2" Dischar g e, CI Sump Pump 1 00 EA 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 Gal B ypass Chem Shot Feeder, Floor Mnt , 175 PSIG 1 00 EA 0.00 0 . 00 0.00 6" Structur a l Slab On Gra d e 150 00 S F 0.00 0.00 0 . 00 3", Class 200 , P VC Piping i00 00 LF 0.00 0.00 0 . 00 3" Polyethylene 40' Joints, 60 PSI i00 0 0 LF 0.00 0 . 00 0 . 00 Elec t rical Charge (KWH) 1 , 1 74 O0 KWH 0 . 00 0 . 00 0.00

# 501 183 P a ge 

# 7 _ate 03 / 17 / 95 .... _ ime 16:28 DETAIL COST REPORT

__, / Labor Equip Material

3 REMEDIAL ACTION 33.13 . 07 Air S tripping _3.13.07.01 Air Strippin g - Capital Costs T o tal Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.1 3 .07.99 Air Strippin g - O&M C o sts Electrical Char g e (KWH)

1,000 , 000.00 KWH 0.00 0.00 55 , 000.00

-- Packing Reconditi o ning 60.00 EA 32 , 238.68 37,468.80 0.00 Bl o wer And M o t o r 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 Adsorpti o n (Liquid) 13.20.01 Carbon Adsorption (Liquid)- C apital C osts 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 Ch a rge (KWH) 3,339.00 KWH 0.00 0.00 0.00 w Total C api t a l Costs 0 . 0 0 0.00 0.00 )3.13.20.99 Carbo n Adsorption (Liqui d )-O&M C osts

-- Coal Based Gen Purpose,8X30 Sieve, 900 Iodine,2K-10K Lb 3 00 , 000.00 Ib 0 . 00 0.0 0 3 23,400 . 00 Rem o ve /R einstall C arbon Adsorber Un i t

_ 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 Maintenan c e / Repair w 16 . 00 EA 3 , 196 . 48 1 ,042 . 7 2 0 . 0 0

m

# Date03J17195 5 01 184 Page 8 -- Time 16:28 DETAIL COST REPORT Labor Equip Material _- 33 REMEDIAL ACTION 33.13.20 Carbon Adsorption (L i quid) 33.13.20.99 Carbon Adsorption (L_quid)-O&M C osts Total O&M Co sts 17,796.48 1,042.72 383 , 279.71 Total Carbon Ads o rption (Liquid) 17,796.48 1,042.72 383,279.71 33.13.23 Vap o r Extraction w 33.13.23.01 Vapor Extraction - Capital Costs 5 HP , 230V , 280 SCFM, Vap o r Recovery System 1.00 EA 196.79 2.50 8,250 . 00 Operational Lab o r Cost 4.00 DAY 1,720.21 76 88 0 80 DOT Steel Drum, 55 Gal 1.00 EA 0.00 0 0 0 4 7 1 4 Electrical Char g e (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 3 77 08 2" Well , Portlan d Cement Grout 60 00 LF 0 00 0 00 59 40 2" Screen, Filter Pack 7 2 00 LF 73 82 136 42 384 53 4" Iron Body Checkvalve 2 00 EA 90 54 1 69 353 i0 2" Well, Bent o nite Seal 6 00 EA 24 42 45 14 79 18 2" PV C , Sch 40, C onnection Piping 105 00 LF 160.74 2 9 3 68 15 2" PVC, 90 De g ree, Elbow 6 00 EA 66 . 28 1 21 3 83 4"x2" R educer, PVC Sch 4 0 6 00 EA 0 . 00 0 00 48 84 4" PVC , Sch 40 , Tee 6 00 EA 204.36 3 73 36 96 2" PV C , 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 69Pag e 9 

# 03/17/95 501 18 5 ime 16:28 .: :- : : . DETAIL COST RE P ORT Labor Equip Material 3 REMEDIAL ACTION 33.13.23 Vapor Extraction _3.13.23.01 Vapor E xtraction - Capital C o sts 2" PV C , Sch 4D, Well Casin g 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 Gau g e 5.00 EA 131.42 2 25 524.24 M o b / Dem o b 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 Decont a minate 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 C o sts 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 Vap o r Extraction 56, 55 1 .3 6 5,665.4 9 3 6,494 . 86 33.88 Contractor Oversight 33.80.01 Professi o nal Labor __33.80.01.01 Constructi o n Support Project En g ineer 32.00 HR 834.29 0.00 0.00 Staff Eng ineer 320.00 HR 6,340.57 0.00 0.00

w_Date 03 / 17 / 95 Page i0 w 

# Ti e 16 : 28 5 0I ' 18G DETAIL COST REPORT Labor Equip Material I 33 REMEDIAL ACTION 33.80.01 Professional Labor 33.80.01.01 Construction Support Staff Hydr o geologist 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 C o sts 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 Draftsma n 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 3 3 . 8 0 .01 . 0 5 Operat i on and Maintenance Manua l s 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 C osts 1.00 LS 0.00 0.00 8.80 33.80.01.06 Monitoring Reports Project Eng ineer 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 1 8 7 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 W o rd Processing / Clerical 32.00 HR 333.71 0.00 0.00

-- Other Direct C osts 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 Engin e er i0.00 HR 198 14 0.00 0.00 Staff Hydroge o logist i 0. 00 H R 198 14 0 . 00 0.0 0 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 Certifie d Industria l Hy g ienist 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 W o rk P lan Amendments Project En g ineer

-- 20.00 HR 521.43 0.00 0.00 Staff Engineer 40.00 HR 792.57 0.00 0.00

_ St a ff Hydr o g eologist 20.00 HR 396.29 0.00 0.00 Word Processing / Clerical 64.00 HR 667.43 0.00 0.00
iDate 03 / 17 / 95 " - _ [ Page 12 w Time 16:28 5_, [ [88 DETAIL COST REPORT Lab o r Equip Material k, - 33 REMEDIAL ACT I ON 33.80.01 Professional Labor 33.80.01.46 W o rk Pl a n Amend m ents Certified Industrial Hygienist i 0 .00 HR 260 . 71 0 . 00 0 . 00 Other Direct C o sts 1.00 LS 0.00 0.00 55.00 Total Capital C osts 26,292.51 0.00 551.10 Total Pr o fessional Labor 26,292.51 0.00 551.10 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS REMEDIAL A C TION 352,600.43 195,828.04 2,241,192.06 * * * * This System Intended F o r Government U se 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 1 9 1 Page 1 Time 16:05 DETAIL COST REPORT Dje c t: ._U-l#3 Ellsw o rth 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 0 3 / 16 / 95 Site Co mments: Labor Equip Material 3 REMEDIAL ACTION 3 3.02 Monitoring, S a mpling , Testing , Analysis __3.02.97 S a mpling & 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 D a y 5.00 DAY 0 O0 0.00 550.00 Monitoring P o rt 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 Dec o ntamination 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 C onstituents, Air (30 / 5040 / 8240) 4.00 EA 0 00 0.00 704.00 Total Capital C osts 4&5 64 0.72 2,183.41 "_3.02.97.99 Sampling & Analysis - O&M C osts

D

w

# 501 192 Date 0 3 / 1 7 / 95 _. , Pa g e 2

__ Time 16:05 DETAIL COST REPORT Labor Equip Material

_ - 33 REMEDIAL A C TION 3 3.02.97 Samplin g & Analysis 33.02.97.99 S a mpling & Analysis - O&M Costs Field Technician 1,200.00 HR 15,017.14 0.00 0 00 Mobiliz e 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 Disp o sable Materials Per Sa mple 121.00 EA 0.00 0.00 762 66 Dec o nta m ination 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 Or g an Haz C onstituents, Air (30 / 5040 / 8240) 121.00 EA 0.00 0.00 21 , 296 00 T o tal 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 Mobiliz e Crew, Local, Per Person 248 O0 EA 0.00 0.00 13,640.00 L o ad Supplies / Equipment 124 00 LS 16,825.08 31,088.04 0.00 Security Pass / Pr o tocol 124 00 LS 2,803.53 5,180.72 0.00 Furnish 55 Gal Drum F o r 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 Bo a t Without Motor, Rental 24 00 DAY 0.00 0.00 1,320.00 Do Meter, Digital , Portable, i0' Cable, Small Dia Pr o be 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

# 501 193 Page 

# 3 _Jat e 03 / 17 / 9 5 _i | _ _.

' ime 16:05 DETAIL COST REPO R T Labor Equip Material 3 REMEDIAL ACTION 33.02.98 Monitoring _3 .02.98.99 M o nitor i n g - O&M Costs Well Devel o pment Equipment Rental 10.00 WK 188.65 3.50 3 796.21 Pe r s o nal Low Flow Samplin g Pump, Monthly R ental 121.00 MO 0.00 0.00 24 623.50 Van Or Pickup Rental 3 72.00 DAY 0.00 0.00 12 276.00

-- Disposable Materials P er Sample 1,215.00 EA 0.00 0.00 7 664.45 Decontaminati o n Materials Per Sample 1,216.00 EA 0.00 0.00 7 022.40 60 Quart Ice Chest 7 2 .00 EA 0.00 0.00 5 456.88 Metals Screen, Furnace, Per Each (EPA 200S)

-- 4 8 0. 0 0 EA 0.0 0 0 . 00 13 200.00 Purgeable Halocarbons (EPA 601) 575.0 0 EA 0.00 0. 00 80 625.60

-- Base Neutral & Ac i d Extractable Or g anics (EPA 625) 480. 0 0 EA 0 . 00 0 . 00 264 000 .0 0 TAL Metals (EPA 6010 / 7000s), Water 480 . 00 EA 0.00 0.00 108 240.00 V o latile Aromatic Halocarb o ns, Air, TO-1 495.00 EA 0 . 00 0.00 136 400.00 Semivolatiles, Air (10 / 3 550 / 8270)

-- 496.00 EA 0.00 0 . 00 218 240.00 T o tal O&M Costs 45,446.52 36,272.26 914 630.35 T o tal Monitorin g 45,446.52 36,272.25 914,630.35 73.03 Site Work 3.03.05 Fencin g and Si g na g e 33.03.05 . 01 Fencing and Si g nage - C apital Costs Security Fence, I0' Galv W / 3 Strands Barb Wire

_ 2,100.00 LF 10,269.13 7,452.48 31,069.50 Hazar d ous Waste Si g nin g 11.00 EA 185.82 2.06 298,02

-- T o t al Capita l Co sts 10,45 4 . 95 7, 454 . 54 31,367.52 Total Fencin g a nd Signa g e 10,454.95 7,454.54 31 , 367.52

= -=_3.78 Access R o ads

# Da e03/ 17/ 95 501 194 Page 4

_ Time 16:05 DETAIL COST REPORT Labo r Equip Material -,_ 33 REMEDIAL ACTION 3 3.03.78 Access Roads 33.03.78.01 Access Roa d s - Capital Costs R ough Gradin g , 14G, 1 Pass 2 , 667.00 S Y 361.57 586.74 0.00 Fine Gradin g , 130G, 2 Passes 1,334.00 SY 55.65 80.04 0.00 Ditch Excavation, Normal Soil, H a ul o ff Spoil 1 Mile 750.00 CY 612.42 1 , 00 2 .98 0.00 Total Capital C osts 1, 0 29.64 1,669.76 0.00 Total Access Ro a ds 1 , 0 2 9.64 1,669. 7 6 0.0 0 3 3.06 Groundwater Collecti o n and Control 33.06 . 02 Subsu r face Drain a g e Co llection Sin g le Pass Trenchin g 19,500.00 SF 63,199.13 126,399.00 81,254.75 Total C apital Cos t s 6 3,199 . 13 126,399.00 81, 2 54 . 75 Total Subsurface Draina g e / Collection 6 3 ,199.13 126,399. 00 81,254.75 33.06.98 Extraction Wells 33.06.98.01 Extraction wells - Capital C osts H Stem, ii" OD Borehole For 4" Well 250.00 LF 2,010.24 3,715.15 0 . 00 4" Scre e n, Filter Pack 70.00 LF 126.65 234.05 659.74 4" Well, Bent o nite Seal 10.00 EA 101.79 188.11 3 2 9.98 4" Well, Portlan d C ement Grout 155.00 LF 0.00 0.0 0 230.18 4" PVC, Sch 40, Well Casing 180.00 LF 325.67 601.85 403.92 4" PV C , Sch 40, Well Screen 70.00 LF 169.71 313.63 6 3 9.72 4" PVC, Well Plu g 10 . 00 EA 2 6.53 49.04 216.78 Well Devel o pment Equipment Rental 10.00 WK 188.66 3.51 3,796.21-- D ate 0 3 / 17 / 95 _! i _ Pa g e 5 

# 501 195 ? ime 16:05 !" _ DETAIL COST REPORT Labor Equip Material _3 REMEDIAL A C TION 33.06.98 Extraction Wells --33.06.98.01 Extraction Wells - Capital C o s t s Standby F o r Dril l in g 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

-- Decontamin a te 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 Sa mple, 2" x 24", During Drilling 50 . 00 EA 0.00 0.00 1, 3 75 00 (1-1 / 2",3") Stainless Steel Dbl Wall Piping , w / Fit t ings 1,000.00 LF 20,741.18 355.80 31,654 70

-- (1-1 / 2",3") PV C D o uble Wall Piping, w / Fittings 1,000.00 LF 7,375.61 134.50 4,682 15 GW Pump, 1 / 3 HP, 230V, C ontrols, Probe 10.00 EA 1 , 794.04 23.91 47,795 00 PR Pump, I / 3 HP, 230V, C ontr o ls, Probe , Hi ghly Corr Liq 10.00 EA 1,794.04 23.91 82,885 00 550 Gal Single Wall Steel Above Gr o und Tank

-- 1.00 EA 245.93 4.21 660 00 Electrical Char g e (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 Pro o f Electrical Receptacle For Product Pump

-- i0.00 EA 386.78 1.94 2,648.25 Total Capital Co sts 38,462.29 7,538.65 189,292.79 33.06.98.99 Extracti o n Wells - O&M C osts Electrical Charge (KWH) 3 5 9,279.00 KWH 0 . 00 0 . 00 1 9, 7 60 .35

w J wDate 0 3 / 17 / 95 5 [_[ 1 9 5 Page 6 -- Time 16:05 DETAIL COST REPORT Lab o r Equip Materi a l 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 T o tal O&M C osts 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. 0 7 Air S t ripping 33.1 3 .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" Packin g for Air Strip Tower 128.00 C F 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 C onnect 1 00 EA 0.00 0 00 0.00

_ High Sump Level Switch For Av o iding Overflow 1 O0 EA 0.00 0 O0 0.00 i00 G PM , 2-I / 2" Dischar g e, C I 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", C lass 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 --Ja t e 0 3 / 1 7 / 95 _ _, _ , Pa g e 7

Time 1 6: 0 5 DETAIL COST R E PO R T k'- / J Labor Equip Material

_3 R EMEDIAL ACTION 33.13.07 Air Strippin g -33.13.07.01 Air Stripping - Capital Costs T o tal Capital C o sts 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.13.07.99 Air Stripping - O&M Costs Electrical Charge (KWH) 4 5 0 , 000.00 KWH 0 .0 0 0 . 00 24, 7 50 . 00

-- P a cking Recon d itionin g 25.00 EA 13,432.78 15,612.00 0.00 Blower And Motor Maintenance And Repair

__ 12 .0 0 EA 2 , 397.36 782. 0 4 0. 0 0 Total O&M C o sts 15,830.1 4 16, 3 94. 0 4 24,750.00 Total Air Strippin g 15,830 . 14 16 , 394.04 24,750.00 --33.13.20 Carbon Ad sorption (L i qu i d) 13.20.01 Carbon Adsorption (Liqu i d)- C apital C osts

_ i00 GPM, 3000 Lb Fill, HDPE Lined Steel , Permanent 1.00 EA 0 00 0.00 0.00 Saturation Ind i cator 1.0 0 EA 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

-- 12" Structural Slab On Grade 42 . 00 SF 0 00 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 GPM, 5 HP, Transfer Pump W / Motor , Valves, Pipin g

_ 1.00 EA 0 00 0.00 0.00 Electrical Char g e (KWH) 3,339.00 KWH 0 00 0.00 0.00 T o t a l Capi t a l Costs 0 00 0.00 0.00 33.13.20 . 99 Carbon Adsorp t ion (Liquid)-O&M C osts

-- C oal Based Gen Purpose,SX30 Sieve, 900 Iodine,2K-10K Lb 150 , 000.00 Ib 0.00 0.00 161 , 700.00 Remove / Reinstall Carbon Ads o rber Unit

_ 50.00 EA 7,300.00 0.00 0.00 Electrical Char g e (KWH) 544, 3 61.00 KWH 0.00 0.00 29,939.85 Pump & Motor Maintenance / Repair 8.00 EA 1,598.24 521.36 0.00

w

# Date 0 3/ 17/

95 

# 531 198 Page 8 -- T i me 16 :0 5 DETAIL COST REPORT Labor Equip Material _- 33 REMEDIAL ACTION 33.13.20 Carbon Adsorption (Liquid) 33 . 13.20.99 C arbon Adsorption (Liquid)-O&M Costs Total O&M C osts 8,898.24 521.36 191,639.86 Total C arbon Adsorption (Liquid) 8,898.24 521.36 191 , 639.86 3 3 . 1 3 .23 Vapor Extraction 33.13.23.01 Vapor Extracti o n - Capital Costs 5 HP, 230V, 280 SCFM, Vapor Re c overy 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 Char g e (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. 0 0 EA 0. 0 0 0 00 377.08 2" Well, P ortland Cement G rout 60.00 LF 0.00 0 00 59.40 2" Screen, Filter Pack 72.00 LF 73.82 136 42 384.53 4" Iron Bo dy Checkvalve 2 .00 EA 90.54 1 69 3 5 3 .10 2" Wel l , 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" P V C , 90 Degree , Elbow 6.00 EA 66.28 1.21 3 83 4"x2" R educer , 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" P V C, Well Plu g 6.00 EA 10.86 20.06 38 21 4" PV C , Sch 40, Manifold Pipin g 53.00 LF 174.69 3.19 99 69

# 50 1 1 99 _ate 0 3 / 17 / 95 Pa g e 9

ime 16:05 [ 

# DETAILC6sTREPORT Labor Equip Material 3 REMEDIAL A C TIO N 33 . 13.23 Vapor Extracti o n _3 . 13.23 . 0 1 V a por Extraction - Capit a l Cos t s 2 " PVC, Sch 40, Well Casin g 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 Gau g e 6.00 EA 131.42 2.25 524.24 Mob / Demob Drillin g Rig & Crew

_ 1.00 LS 361.83 668.56 0.00 Move Ri g / Equipment Aroun d Site 5.00 EA 56.54 104.46 0.00 Split Spoon Sample, 2" x 2 4", During Drillin g

-- 36.00 EA 0 . 00 0.00 990.00 Decontaminate Ri g , Au g ers, Screen (Rental Equipment) 2.00 DAY 0.00 0.00 299.20

-- H Stem , 8 " OD Bo r ehole Fo r 2" Well 156.00 LF 1,026.32 1,896.76 0.00 Total Capit a l C o sts 4,514.90 3,339.87 12,542.96 _3.13.2 3 .99 Vapor Extraction - O&M Costs Operati o nal Lab o r Cost

-- 121.00 DAY 52,036.46 2,325.62 0.00 Electrical Char g e (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 E x t raction 56,551.36 5,6 6 5.49 36 494.86 _3.80 Contractor Oversight 33.80.01 Pr o fessional Labor --_3.80.01.01 Construction Support Project En g ineer 32.00 HR 834.29 0.00 0.00 Staff Engineer 320.00 HR 6 , 340.57 0.00 0.00

wDate 0 3 / 17 / 95 Pa ge I0 -- 

# Tim e 16:05 501 200 DETAIL C OST R EP O R T Labor Equip Material

_ - - - ; 33 REMEDIAL A C TION 33.80.01 Professional Lab o r 33. 8 0.01.01 Constructi o n Support Staff Hydroge o logist 374.00 HE 7,410.54 0.00 0.00 Field Technician 160.00 HR 2,002.29 0.00 0.00 Certif i ed Industrial Hy g ienist 16.00 HR 417.14 0.00 0.00 Othe r Direct C osts 1.00 LS 0 . 0 0 0.00 358.60 33.80.01.04 "As Built" Draw i ngs Staff Eng ineer 4.00 HE 79.26 0.00 0 . 00 Survey o r 6.00 HR 93.86 0.00 0.00 -- Field Techn i cian 8.00 HR i00.ii 0.00 0.00 Draftsman 24.00 HR 300.34 0.00 0.00 Word Processin g / 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 a nd Maintenance Manuals Staff En g ineer 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 H R 104.29 0.00 0.00 Other Direct C osts 1.00 LS 0.00 0.00 8.80 3 3.80.01 . 06 Moni t oring Repor t s Project En g ineer 8.00 HR 208.57 0.00 0.00 St a ff En g ineer 24.00 H R 475.54 0.00 0.00 Staff Hydro g e o lo g is t 40.00 H R 792.57 0.00 0.00

# ate o3/17/95 : 5 01 2 Pa g e 

# ii ? ime 16:05 DETAIL C OST REPORT' Labor Equip Material )3 REMEDIAL ACTION 33.80.01 Professional Labor _33.80.01.06 Monitoring Reports Field Technician 48.00 HR 6 00.69 0.00 0.00 Draftsman

-- 48.00 HR 600 . 69 0 . 00 0 . 00 Word Processing / Clerical 32 . 00 H R 33 3 . 71 0 . 00 0 . 0 0

-- Other Direct C osts 1.00 LS 0.00 0.00 62.7 0 _33.80.01.24 Sampl i ng an d Analysis Plan Project En g ineer 4.00 HR 104.29 0.00 0.00 Staff En g ineer

-- i 0.00 HR 198 .1 4 0 . 00 0 .0 0 St a ff Hydro g eologist 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 D i rect 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

_ C ertified Industrial Hy g i e nist 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 Ame ndments Project En g ineer

-- 20.00 HR 521.4 3 0 . 00 0 .0 0 Staff En g ineer 40 . 00 HR 792. 57 0 . 00 0.00

__ S taff Hydro ge o l o g ist 20.00 HR 396 .2 9 0.00 0.00 W o rd Processin g / Clerical 64 . 00 HR 6 67 .4 3 0 . 00 0.00

uDate 03 / 17 / 95 P ag e 12 -- Time 16:05 D E TA I L COS T R E POR T L a b o r Equi p Mat e ria l "_J 33 R E M ED I AL ACTION 33. 80. 0 1 Professiona l Labor 33.80.01.46 Work Plan Amendments Certified Industrial Hy g i e nist i0 . 00 HR 260.71 0.0 0 0 . 00 Other Direct Costs 1 . 00 LS 0. 00 0 . 00 5 5 .0 0 -- Total Capital Costs 26 , 847.31 0 .0 0 563.20 Total Professional Lab o r 2 6 , 84 7.3 1 0 . 00 56 3. 20 TOTAL DIRE C T C OSTS REMEDIAL ACTION 314,147.18 212,343.02 1,560,823.03 * * * * This Syste m 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 5 01 20 5 P ag e 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 / 0 6 / 95 Site Comments: Quantity $ / UM Totals J3 REMED I AL ACTION

33.18 Disposal (Other than Commercial) --33.18.86 Injection Wells 18.86.01 Injection Wells - C a pital Costs

-- j Operati o nal Labor C o st 6.00 DAY 449.27 2 ,695.64 Electrical Charge (KWH) 7,960.00 KWH 0.05 437.80 Water Flowmeter 6.00 E A 167.20 1,003.20 Water Lvl Chart Recorder for Mon Wells o n Casing

-- 6.00 EA 29.68 178.13 Wa t e r Q u al i ty Pa r ame t er Te s ting Dev i c e 6 .00 WK 2 31.0 0 1 ,3 86 .0 0

__ i0 G PM, 1 / 2 HP, Ce nt Pump 6.00 EA 633.22 3,799.36 Surface Pad, Concr e te, 4' X 4' X 4" 6.00 E A 12.76 76.57

-- Fu r n i sh 55 Ga l Drum For Drillin g Cutt in g s & De v el Wa t er 9.00 EA 47.1 3 4 2 4.22 Well Development Equipment Rental 1. 0 0 WK 398.84 398.84 Mob / Dem o b Drilling Ri g & Crew 1.00 LS 1,030.39 1,030.39 Move Ri g / Equipment Around Site 5.00 EA 32. 2 0 161.00

vDate 07 / 17 / 95 Page 2 -- 

# Ti e8:S2 Z G DETAIL COST REPORT Quantity $ /U M Tota l s -- 33 REMEDIAL ACTION 33.18.86 Injection Wells 33 . 18 . 86 . 0 1 Inje c ti o n Wells - C a pital Co sts Split Spoon Sample, 2" x 24", Durin g Dr i llin g 36.00 EA 27.5 0 99 0 .00 Decontaminate Ri g , Augers, Screen (Rental Equipment) 3.00 DAY 149.60 448.80 OVA Ren t al, Per Day 4. 0 0 DAY 110.00 440.00 2 " Well, Bent o nite Seal 6.0 0 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" I r on Body Checkvalve 6.00 EA 120.72 724.37 H Stem, 8" OD Borehole F o r 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 Plu g 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 C osts 30,830.08 33.18.86.99 Injection Wells - O&M C osts Operational Labor Cost 180.00 DAY 449.27 80,869.22 E l e c tr i cal C har g e ( KWH) 258,349.00 KWH 0.05 14,209.2 0 Total O&M Costs 95,078.42 Total Injection Wells 125,908.50 TOTAL DI R E C T COSTS REMEDIAL A C TION 125,908.5 0 * * * * This System Intended For Government Use Only * * * *

# 5,;_! 2 ' .",7 

# Appe n dix Tab

# 50! 2'- ' 8

w

w 

### Appendix D

__ . SUMMERS Model Calculations

m

w

# 501 2"9

-- 2 rogram SUMIKERS "- V_rsion I. 0 (3 / 93) IGWMC / CSM, Golden, Colorado

................................................................................

_ = fl # 1 _Vsz ............. Seepa g e vel o city in downward direction = 4 [ft^2] E - Void fraction (water volume / volume of s o lid) in soil = .33 Vdz ....... Downward specific dischar g e (Darcy velocity) = 1.3200[ft / d] _ Ap .................... Horiz o ntal area of p o nd or spill = 60000 [ft^2] Qp -- Volumetric flow rate of liquid transporting pollutant into aquifer = 79200 [ft"3 / d] Vsa ........................ Seepa g e velocity in aquifer = .26 [ft / d] -- Ea ...................... P o rosity of a quifer [fraction] = .25 Vda ..... Specific discharge (Darcy velocity) in aquifer = 0.0650[ft / d] Ha ................................ Thickness of aquifer = 25 [ft] -- Wp --- Surface pond f o r spill width perpendicular t o flow direction in aquifer = 200 [ft] Qa ................ Volumetric flow rate of ground water = 325 [ft_3 / d]

_ C a --- Initial or background concentration of pollutant in aquifer = 0 [mg / l] Cgw -- Maximum all o wable concentration in g round water (i.e., water quality g oal) = .07 [mg / l] Kd .................... Equilibrium partition coefficent = .589 [mi / g] Cmax -- Maximum allowable concentration in the w infiltr a ti o n (leachate) = 7.028725E-02 [mg / l] C s ............. Soil cleanup level (soil concentration) = 4.139919E-02 [mg / kg] End of calculations 12D C E.O UT [-2 Dichloroethylene (I,2-DCE)Program S_RS - Version 1 . 0 (3 / 93) - I G WM C / C SM, Golden, Color a do 5 5 'I 2 _ q --

................................................................................ Run # 4

Vsz ............. Seepa g e vel o city in downward direction = 4 [ft^2] E - Void fraction (water volume / volume of solid) in soil = .33 Vdz ....... Downward specific dischar g e (Darcy velocity) = 1.3200[ft / d] Ap .................... Horizontal area of pond or spill = 60000 [ft^2] Qp -- Volumetric flow rate of liquid transp o rting pollutant into aquifer = 79200 [ft^3 / d] Vsa ........................ Seepa g e 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 g r o und water = 325 [ft_3 / d] C a --- Initial or backgr o und concentration o f pollutant in aquifer = 0 [mg / l] Cgw -- M a x i mum a ll o wable conc e n t ration in g round 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] C s ............. Soil cleanup level (soil concentration) = 2.460054E-03 [mg / kg] End of calculations _. . __ BENZENE.OUT

# 5 0 1 2 11

-- P rogram S U MMERS - Version 1.0 (3 / 93) IGWMC / CSM, Golden, Colorado

................................................................................
v_h #l _'Vsz ............. Seepa g e v e locit y in downwar d d i rec t ion = 4 [ftA2] E - Void fraction (water volume / volume of solid) in soil = . 33 Vdz ....... Downward specific discharge (Darcy v e l o city) = 1.3200[ft / d] -- Ap .................... Horizontal area of pond or spill = 6 0000 [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 ...................... Poros i ty of aquifer [fraction] = . 25 Vda ..... Specific d i schar g e (Darcy velocity) in aquifer = 0.0650[ft / d] Ha ................................ Thickness of aquifer = 2 5 [ft] --Wp --- Surface pond for spill w i dth perpendicular to f l ow direction in aquifer = 2 00 [ft] Qa ................ Volumetric flow rate of g roun d water = 325 [ft^ 3 / d] _ Ca --- In i tial o r back g round concentration o f pollutant i n aquifer = 0 [mg / l] C gw -- Maximum allowable concentration in g round water (i . e., water quality g o a l) = .005 [mg / l] Kd .................... Equilibrium partition coefficent = i [ml / g ] Cmax -- Maximum allow a ble c oncentration in the infiltration (leachate) = 5.020517E-03 [mg / l] Cs ............. Soil cleanup level (soil concentration) = 5.020517E-03 [mg / kg]
En d of ca l culations BENZENEI.OUT

v m

# 5,I 212 Program SUMMERS - Versi o n 1 . 0 (3 / 93) - IGWMC / CSM , Golden, C olorado

................................................................................
Run # 1 _---

Vsz ............. Seepa g e ve l o c ity in d o wnward directi o n = 4 [ f t _2] E - Void fraction (water volume / volume of solid) in soil = .33 Vdz ....... Dow n ward 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 ........................ Seepa g e 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 spi l l width perpendicular to flow d ir e ction in aquifer = 20 0 [ft] Qa ................ volu m etric flow ra t e of g round water = 325 [ft^3 / d] Ca --- Initial or b a ckground concentration o f pollutant in aquifer = 0 [mg / l] Cgw -- Max imum 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) = 5.02 0 517E-03 [mg / l] Cs ............. Soil c leanup level (soil concentration) = 1.054309E-02 [mg / kg]

................................................................................ End of calculations PCE.OUT Tetrachloroethylene (P C E)

# 5 .;I •_'rogram S_RS _ _ r: - Ve_rsion 1.0 (3 / 93) - IGWMC / CSM, Golden, C olorado

................................................................................ _, # 1 "_Vsz ............. Seepage velocity in downward direction = 4 [ftA2] E - Void fraction (water volume / volume of solid) in soil = .33 Vdz ....... Downward specific dischar g e (Darcy velocity) = 1.3200[ft / d] _ Ap .................... Horizontal area of pond or spill = 50000 [ftA2] Qp -- Volumetric fl o w rate of liquid transporting pollutant into aquifer = 79200 [ft^3 / d] Vsa ........................ Seepage velocity in aquifer = .26 [ft / d] --Ea ...................... Porosity of aquifer [fracti o n] = .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 g round water = 325 [ft^3 / d] _Ca --- Initial or background concentration of p o llutant in aquifer = 0 [mg / l] Cgw -- Maximum allowable concentration in ground water

-- (i.e., water quality go a l) = .005 [mg / l] Kd .................... Equilibrium partition coeffioent = 3.6 [ml / g] Cmax -- Maximum all o wable concentration in the infiltration (leachate) = 5.020517E-03 [mg / l] C s ............. Soil cleanup level (soil concentration) = 1.807386E-02 [mg / kg] 7nd of calculations PCEI.OUT ?etrachloroethylene (P C E)

wProgra m S U MMI_RS - Version 1.0 (3 / 93) IGWI_C / CSM, Coiden, Colorado 

# 5 01 214

................................................................................
Run # 1 \_

Vsz ............. Seepage velo c ity in downw a rd direction = 4 [ft^2] w E - Void fraction (water volu m e / volume of solid) in soil = .33 Vdz ....... Downward specific discharge (Darcy velocity) = 1.3200[ft / d] Ap .................... Horizontal are a of pond or spill = 60000 [ft'2] Qp -- Volumetric flow rate of liquid transporting pollutant into aquifer = 79200 [ft'3 / d] Vsa ........................ Seepa g e velocity in aquifer = .26 [ft / d] Ea ...................... Porosity of aquifer [fraction] = .25 Vda ..... Specific dischar g e (Darcy velocity) in aquifer = 0.065O[ft / d] Ha ................................ Thickness of aquifer = 25 [ft] Wp --- Surface p o nd for spill width perpendicular to flow direction in aquifer = 200 [ft] Qa ................ Volumetric flow rate of g round water = 325 [ft^3 / d] Ca --- Initial or b a ckground concentration of pollutant in aquifer = 0 [mg / l] Cgw -- Maximum allowable concentration in ground water (i.e., water quality goal) = .005 [mg / l] Kd .................... Equilibriu m partition coefficent = .65 [ml / g] Cmax -- Maximum allowable concentration in the infiltration (leachate) = 5.020517E-03 [mg / l] C s ............. Soil cleanup level (soil concentration) = 3.263336E-03 [mg / kg]
End of calculations T C E.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 fl o w direction in aquifer = 200 [ft] Qa ................ Volumetric flow rate of g r o und water = 325 [ft_3 / d] Ca --- Initial or backgr o und c o ncentration of pollutant in aquifer = 0 [mg / l] Cgw -- Maximum allowable concentration in g round water (i.e., water quality g oal) = .005 [mg / l] Kd .................... Equilibrium partition coefficent = 1.3 [ml / g] Cmax -- Maximu m allowable c o ncentration 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 21 7

w 

### Appendix E

_ Calculations

### Soil Remedi ati o n Time Cal culation s 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

-- A rea 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 ft z ) * (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 C alculations Al ternative 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_ O 3 788 g', FS

_U I .]b_dW INAL_CAJ.. CS. '

_ C PD J uly 14, 1995

### Alternative 3: Flow Distance from s o urce to trench /

cuto ff 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) / ( 9 6 ft / yr) = 2.2 yrs Time to remove 5 flush volumes = (2.2 yrs) * (5) = 1t yrs Range: 10-15 yrs

/ -

F:_I ROI_ ?$g4 '_3

_ OUI .b' $_INA L_CALC S .W ' PD I u ly 1 4, 199 5

# 5nl 22n 

# FINAL PAGE

ADMINI STRATIVE RECORD


# FINAL PAGE

# 5 01 2 21
I I 

# F I NAL PAGE

i 

# ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD


# FIN AL PAGE