## 4 7 ! 0 File: 17G D.P. 

# ELLSWORTH AFB SOUTH DAKOTA

ADMINISTRATI VE REC O RD C O VER SHEET

AR Fi l e N umb er q V ]

### File:

-- D.P. /

_ , ,_ ? - /)

_ ,
g 

## 4 7 1 I

_ Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota Final Focused Feasibility Study

_ for Operable Unit 1

- March, 199 5

Uni ted S t ates A ir Force

- Air Co mbat Command" " " " " Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota Final Focused Feasib i lit

_ Study for Operable Unit 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 7 1 2

"" Chapter P__age 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE A ND ORG A NIZ ATION OF REPORT ............................. 1-1 -- 1.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ........................................ 1-2 1.2.1 Facility Description .............................................. 1-2 1.2.2 Previous Investigations ........................................... 1-4 1.2.3 OU-1 Geology h -Iydrogeology ...................................... 1-6 1.2.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ............................. 1-7
,_ 1.2.5 Contaminant Fate and Transport .................................... 1-8 1.2.6 Baseline Risk Assessment Summary ................................ 1-10 1.2.7 Ecological Evaluation / Risk Assessment .............................. 1-11 2.0 INTERIM RESPONSE ACTION OBJECTIVES .............................. 2-1 -,- 2.1 REDUCE DEGRADATION OF GROUND WATER ............................ 2-1 2.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPL I CABLE OR RELE VANT AND

-- APP R OPRIA T E RE Q UIREMENTS (ARARs) ................................ 2-2 2.3 ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH T HE POSSIBLE FINAL REMEDIES ........... 2-2 3.0 GENERAL INTERIM RESPONSE ACTIONS ............................... 3-1 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ..................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Alternative I - No Action .......................................... 3-2 3.1.2 Alternative 2 - SVE for Source Soils and Source Removal and Downgradient Containment for Ground Water ......................... 3-2 4.0 EVALUAT I ON O F ALTERNATIVES ..................................... 4-1 4.1 CRITERIA 1 - OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE

_

, ENVIRONMENT 4-1 4 .2 CRITERIA 2 - COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs ............................... 4-1 4.3 CRITERIA 3: LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE ........... 4-3

•- 4.4 CRITERIA 4: REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, A N

D VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT .............................................. 4-3

w g('U 5202 hREPORTS k_SOU - 1 . F1N

_ March , 1995

## 4 7[ 3 '

-- Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota Final Focused Feasibili gJ Stud y for Operable Unit 1

-- 4.5 CRITERIA 5: SHORT - TERM EFFECTIVENESS ............................ 4-4 4.6 CRITERIA6: IMPLEMENTABILITY .................................... 4- 4 4.7 CRI T ERIA 7: COST ................................................... 4-5 "_ 4.8 CRITERIA 8 : STATE A CCEPTANCE ..................................... 4-5 4.9 CRITERIA 9: COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE ............................... 4-5 5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................ 5-1 "_ 6.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................. 6-1 LIS T O F TABL ES

, _ Table 4-1 Evaluation o f Federal and State ARARs That May Apply to OU-1 .......... 4-6
-,-- L IS T O F APPE NDICES App e ndix A Figures LI ST OF F I GURE S Figure 1-1 Area Location Map Fi gure 1-2 Site M ap

-- Figure 1 - 3 OU - 1 (FPTA) Site A re a Figure 1-4 OU-1 (FPTA) Location of Geologic Cross-Sections Figure 1-5 OU-1 (FPTA) N-S Cross-Section A-A' Figure 1-6 OU-1 (FPTA) E-W Cross-Section B-B' Figure 1-7 OU-1 (FPTA) W-E Cross-Section C-C' ,-- Fi gure 1 -8 Poten tiometric Surface C on tours Shallow A qui f er Figure 1-9 OU-1 Top of Pierre Shale Figure 1-10 Extent of Reported COC in Soil-Burn Pit Area

_

, Figure 1 - 11 General Area Where Organics Exceed MCLs Figure 2-1 OU- 1 Site Plan

W

.'_55202

_EPORTS

_ l

_SOU - 1 . FIN ii March, 1995-- 4 7 [ 4 Ellsworth Air Force Ba s e, South Dakota Final Focused Fea s ibility Stuclyfor Operable Unit I

_ 1. 0 INT RO D UC TI O N 1 .1 PURP O SE AND O RGANIZATI O N OF REP O RT Operab l e Un i t 1 (OU-1) i s th e c urrentdesignati o nfor an ar e a c omp ri s e d of the fi r e p rote c ti on training ar e a (FPTA ) whi ch is a 10-a cre area lo c ated northwe st of the a lert ap ron in the southwe st portion

_ of Ells w orth A i r For c e Bas e ( EAFB ).

- -- OU - I includes the former burn pi t areas and a steel aircraft mock - u p which was set on fire and

-- extinguished for training exercises. Fuels used during traini n g exercises included flammable products from various Base operational areas. Waste materials burned in the FPTA included solvents, oils and aviation fuels particularly JP-4jet fuel (USAF, 1989). Volatile org anic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and pesticides are

_ present in soils and gro und water at OU-1. Chlorinated so l vents and JP - 4 jet fuel are present in ground water beneath and to the south of the burn pit at OU-1. These compounds have been identified for an interim remedial action (IR A ) for control of the potential risks they pose. A brief summary of background information is provided in Section 1.2 of this document. Further information is availablein the "Final Remedial Investigation Report, Operable Unit 1 at El l sworth Air : - - F orce Base, So u th Dako ta" , U SAF , December, 199 4 (OU-1 RI Report). This Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) summarizes finding s of the RI conducted for OU-1. The FFS

-- was completed in response t o findings of the OU-1 K I Report submitted December, 1994 to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR). The purpose of the FFS is to develop and ex amine IRA alternatives to quickly address risks posed by OU-1 to human health and the environment , as identified in the RI Baseline Risk Assessment and -- E co l ogical Evaluation / Risk Assessment for OU - I. An interim remedial a ction is proposed at OU - 1 to initiate remedial action at the site while the full Feasibility Study (FS) process takes place and a Record of Decision (ROD) is signed for the final action. The IRA does not address all chemicals of "" concern at OU - 1 or all affected media. The full FS pro cess will evalu ate a broad range of altern ative actions for OU-1 in it's entirety. The IRA will reduce immediate risks and control potential haz ards at OU-1. Based on the findings of the Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) which addresses exposures to contaminants in the soil and ground water at OU-1, this interim action will decrease the risk by reducing the amount of contamination in the subsurface soil and ground water. This interim action will be consistent with and may be incorporated into the final cleanup actions at OU-1. Remedial action al ternatives were developed and screened based on applicable, relevant, or appropriate federal and state regulations and requirements and on the findings of the RI. The FFS was

- -- prepared to analyze and present relevant information concerning potential interim remedial action alternatives for OU-1. The USEPA Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) approach of using presumptive remedies was incorporated into this FFS. This approach streamlines the FFS. In _- accordance with EPA protocols, this document does not recommend an IRA, but rather, provides I4 d.'k5 5202 L o , EPORTSWFSOU - 1 . FIN 1 - I March 1995. . Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota 4 7 [ 5 Final Focused Feasibili

_ Stuc

_ for Operable Unit 1 ,i, su ffi cient information for decision-makers to compare alternatives , and se l ect an appropriate interim remedy for the site. Interim remedy selection is recommended in the ROD for Interim Action at OU-1. This alternative includes treatment of contaminated subsurface source area soils and ground water by Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) and ground water extraction wells in the area of historic a l fire

- - - protection training activities. In addition, this alternative would include containment of the downgradient ground water plume by operation of the existing interceptor trench (USAF, 1991) , located approximately 500 feet south of the fire training area. Vertical SVE wells would be installed "" in the fire training area and se l ected SVE wells would be constructed to act as ground water extraction wells. Extracted soil gas, condensate and ground water will contain both VOCs and

- hydrocarbons and will be treated at a centrally located treatment plant which will also provide " " treatment for waste streams generated by the OU-4 IR A and the Ottbase JP-4 Plume Early Action. Water and Condensate treatment will consist of gravity separation, air stripping, filtration and liquid

-- phase granular activated carbon, with monitoring of treated water and e ff luent discharge approximately 800 feet upstream to Pond 001.
, , , The ob j ectives for this interim acti o n and the alternati ves c o nsidered are discussed i n Secti o ns 2.0 and 3.0. Section 4.0 presents a compa ri son of the potential alternatives and ev a luation c ri teria. Section 5 . 0 is a listing of references of repo rt s on past investigations at OU-1. 1.2 BAC K GRO U ND INFORMA T ION !- The information provided in 1.2.1 through 1.2. 7 is excerpted and /

or summarized from the OU - 1 RI Report (USAF, 1994).

- -- 1.2. 1 Facility Description EAF B is aU . S . A i r Force Air Comb at Command (ACC ) instal l ation lo c ate d 1 2 miles e ast of R ap id

-- City, South Dakota, and adjacent to the small community of Box Elder (Figure 1 - 1). EAFB was officially activated in July, 1942 as the Rapid City Army Air Base, a training facility for the B-17 bomber crews. It became a permanent facility in 1948 with the 28th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing " " as i t s hos t unit. His t orically, EAFB h a s been the headqu a rters of operations for a va ri ety of aircraft , as well as the Titan I Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, and the Minuteman I and Minuteman II missile systems. The Base has provided suppo rt , training, maintenance, and /

or testing facilities. Presently, the 28th Bombardment Wing (B-1B bombers), the 44th Strategic Missile Wing (Minuteman II missile system), and the 99th Tactics and Training Wing are the host units of EAFB. The main Air Base covers approximately 4,858 acres within Meade and Pennington counties and includes ru nways and airfield operations, industrial areas, and housing and recreational facilities

-- (Figure 1 - 2). Open lan d, containing a fe w private residences, lies adjacent to EAFB o n the no rt h, south, and west, while residential and commercial areas lie to the east of the Base.

W

.' U5202

_.PORTSWFSOU - I

, FIN 1 - 2 March 1995

## 47t B v Ellsworth Air Force Base , South Dakota Final Focused Fea s ibilit y Stu d y for Operable Unit 1 ,,, On August 30, 1990 (55 FR 35509), EAFB was listed on the U.S. EPA's National Priorities List (NPL). A Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) signed in January 1992 went into effect on April 1 , 1992. The FFA identified 11 potential source area Operable Units (OUs) as well as a Base-wide ground

- - water Operable Unit. The 12 Operable Units are identified as f o ll o ws: OU-1 F ire Protecti o n Training Area O U- 2 Landfills N o s. 1 and 6 OU-3 Landfill No. 2 OU-4 Landfill No. 3 OU - 5 Landfill No. 4 OU-6 Landfill No. 5 OU-7 Low Level Radioactive Waste Burial Site '" OU-8 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Area (Pramitol Spill) OU-9 Old Auto Hobby Shop Area OU-10 North Hangar Complex OU- 11 Base-wide Ground Water OU- 12 Hard fill No. 1 Listing on the NPL and execution of the FFA required the U.S. Air Force to initiate a remedial investigation / feasibility study (RI / FS) to investigate these 12 operable units. (USAF, 1994) OU-1 contains the former FPTA located in the southwestern segment of E A FB , near the southern perimeter of EAFB northwest of the alert apron and east of Kenney (formerly Bismark) Road ,-" (Figure 1-3). OU-I covers approximately 10 acres and consists of a centrally located shallow, bermed bum pit and surrounding land. No containment (liner) was installed under the old FPTA. The FPTA was operated by the EAFB Fire Department at this location from 1942 to 1990. OU-1 includes the former burn pit areas and a steel aircraft mock-up which was set on fire and extinguished for training exercises. The location of the bum area within the former FPTA has changed

-- several times over the years. Aerial photographs of EAFB dated May 28 , 1952, October 8, 1954, A ugust 25, 1962 and June 19, 1968 show numerous areas of staining presumed to be a result of fire training activities within the former FPTA. The extent of the historical burn pit locations based upon "- aerial photos is illustrated in Figure I-3. The training exercises conducted at the FPTA involved simulation of aircraft fires and spills,and consisted of dispersing various fuels and solvents within the ,,, bum pit area and subsequently igniting and extinguishing the fire. Fuels used during training exercises included flammable products from various Base operational areas. Waste materials burned in the FPTA included solvents, oils and aviation fuels particularly JP-4 (USAF, 1989). Prior to 1972, training exercises were conducted by pouring fuels directly from 55 gallon drums onto the soil of the burn 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) wereconducted daily. In 1972, a 20,000 gallon above-ground fuel tank, a 1,000 gallon underground storage tank and underground lines connecting the tanks were installed and connec ted to the burn 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 burns (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 W..'t55202 5_. EPORTSWIzSOU - I. FIN 1 - 3 March 1995

## . - 4 7 [ . 7 Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota Final Focused Feasibilit y Stu d_ for Op erable Unit 1 w 1984 and 1990. the practice of pre-wetting bum pit soil with water prior to fuel application was implemented in the late 1980s. Extinguishing chemicals used during the fire training exercises have included aqueous film forming foam, ha/on, protein-foams, carbon dioxide, dry chemicals and v chlorobromomethane (USAF, 1989). The former FPTA at OU-I is no longer in use and all training activity now takes place at the new FPT A . " T he new FP TA was bu i lt 600 feet to the north-north east of th e f ormer FP TA i n 1992 and started operation in 1993. The burn pit of the new FPTA is an approximately 100 foot diameter circular concrete-lined depression. Water an d waste products associated with training activities flow through a collection system and are piped to a nearby oil / water separator. A 60 foot wide reinforced concrete apron surrounds the pe ri meter of the new bum pit. 1.2.2 Previ o u s Inve s tigati o n s

, _ Environmen t al i nvestigatio n activities at EAFB were i nitiated by the Air Forc e i n 1985 throug h the preparation of an Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Phase I Installation Assessment / Records Search. The IRP was a four-phased study program which included; Phase I, Installation v Assessment / Records Search; Phase II, Confirmation /

Quantification; Phase HI, Technology Base Development; and Phase IV, Operations / Remedial Actions.

- ," The Phase I study, dated September, 1985 , iden tified a to tal of 17 locations at E A FB where re l eases involving hazardous substances potentially oc curred. There was no sample collection or arialysis associated with the Phase I IRP study (USAF, 1985). As recommended in the Phase I IRP, a two-stage, Phase II IRP investigation was conducted between 1987 and 1989. Stage 1 of the Phase II IRP study was conducted in 1987 and 1988 (USAF, 1988). "- Ac tiv i ties i n thi s phase of th e investi gati on included soil vapor surve y s, geop h ysical and radiation surveys, soil borings , monitoring well installation, and subsurface soil, ground water, sediment , surface soil, and tank sampling and analysis. In Phase H, Stage 2 of the IRP investigation, field activities included soil vapor surveys, geophysical v surveys, soil borings , monitoring well installation, hydrogeologic testing, and subsurface soil, ground water, sediment, surface soil, and storm drain sample collection and analysis (USAF, 1989).

,, , Two soil vapor surveys were conducted at OU-1 as part of the Phase II IRP Study. The first consisted of 41 grid points, and was conducted in November, 1987. In general, samples were

- collected at depths of 1.5 and 4.0 feet Subsequently, a 32 point grid was established and additional soil vapor sampling was conducted in April, 1989. The depth of sample collection for these 32 samples ranged from 5 to 12 feet The results of these two separate soil vapor surveys indicated:

- - • Organic vapor readings were reported in soil vapor samples northeast, south, and s o utheast (within 100 feet) of the bermed burn pit. Movement 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 surfac e /

overland flow of product was concluded to be generally toward the south and southeast following the surface grade.
W:

_55202W , EPORTS _' FSOU - l.h " h V 1 - 4 March 1995"" 4 7 t 8 Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota • Final FoeusedFeasibili_ Studyfor Operable Unit I ,., • A trend of decreasing concentration with depth was observed at all sampling locations where multiple depth readings were obtained. A ccording to the IRP report, this trend was the result of fuel product vapor residue in the near surface. Atotal of 22 borings were drilled during the Phase I, Stage 1 and 2 field programs. Six borings were drilled during Phase II, Stage 1. Three soil samples were collected from each of the six Phase II Stage 1 borings for laboratory analysis. The resulting 18 soil samples were collected from evenly

spaced intervals from grade to boring termination and were analyzed for VOCs , SVOCs, oil and grease (O&G), extraction procedure (EP) toxicity metals , and EP toxicity pesticides. Sixteen v additional borings were drilled during Phase II, Stage 2, and 10 of these were logged, lithologically classified an d one sample from each boring was collected for VOC and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons ( T RPH) analysis. The remaining six borings were drilled to install piezometers. These borings were not sampled.

-- Soil borings drilled in the area during the IRP investigation indicate that the site is underlain by a si l ty clay layer, up to 15 feet 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 from 2 to 15 feet in thickness , and v - inter-fingered 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 training area. In particular, a 4 feet 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 feet 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 feet and overlies unweathered shale. Based on IRP Phase II study borings , the Pierre Shale "- surface appears to be sloping, generally to the sou th an d s o utheast. Organic compounds commonly associated with jet fuels (toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes)

-- were generally reported in soil samples from borings surrounding, and south of , the burn pit. Chlorinated solvents, including trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE) were reported in samples within and south of the burn area. Light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) was noted "

_ " in one of the monitoring wells during the Phase II, Stage 1 investigation.

-- TRPH was reported in ten often Phase II, Stage 2 soil samples; reported values ranged from 97 to 2, 600 mg / kg. T he highest T RPH concentrations were reported in the samples collected downgradient and south of the burn pit. The Phase II, Stage 1 soil samples were not analyzed for TRPH. O&G was reported in eighteen of eighteen Phase II, Stage 2 soil samples. The reported values ranged fi'om 180 to 3 , 200 mg / kg In general, samples obtained from borings located adjacent to the

_

, bum pit had the highest reported values. The O&G reported values were also higher in the samples obtained from downgradient (south of the burn pit) borings• The reported concentrations also generally decreased with depth. Phase II, Stage 2 soil samples were not analyzed for O&G. Naphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene were the two primary analytes reported from Phase II, Stage 1 soil samples• Acenaphthene, fluorene, and phenanthrene were also reported. g(.1 55202

_ REPORTS _- SOU - 1 . FIN 1 - 5 March 1995

## [ 9 v Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota Final Focused Feasibilit), Stud, vfor Operable Unit 1
,, A total of seven monitoring wells were installed during the IRP Phase II investigation at the area. Two wells were installed and sampled during Phase II, Stage 1. These samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, O&G, and priority pollutant metals. An additional five monitoring wells were

- - installed during Phase II, Stage 2 (Apri l -May, 1989). During Phase II, Stage 2, ground water samples were collected from all seven monitoring wells and analyzed for VOCs and T RPH. Based on IRP data, i t appears that relatively higher l evels of organic constituents occur in ground water samples primarily between the burn pit area and Pond 001 located south of the burn pit. Chlorinated solvents and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, toluene (BTEX) compounds were reported v in samples from the Phase II, Stage 2 sampling event. LNAPL was noted in one of the monitoring wells during Phase II, Stage 2 sample collection.

_ ' A ground water recovery system and treatment plant was installed, operated, and tested during September and October 1990 at OU-I as part of the IRP, Phase III Technology Base Development

-- Study at EAFB. The purpose of the test was to determine the feasibility of using a ground water pump and treat system at OU-1. This pilot system was still in place at the time of the RI field investigation and consists of an interceptor trench equipped with a pneumatic ejector pump. The trench is 115 feet long and 75 feet wide at its longest and widest points , and is approximately 22 feet deep. The treatment system is composed of an oil / water separator, chemical pre-treatment (to control the deposition and precipitation of iron and oth er cations in the air stripper), air stripper, bag _. filtration (to remove solids and precipitated metals), followed by activated carbon filtration. A Phase III pumping test conducted at the fire protection training area predicted that a yield of 0.437 , , - gallons per minute (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 (USAF, 1991). In 1993 and 1994, an extensive Remedial Investigation (RI) field program was conducted to

-- characterize site conditions at OU-1. The program inc l uded completion of 51 boreholes , installation of 11monitoring wells , geotechnical analysis of selected soil samples, ecological investigations , health risk assesment and review and compilation of previous IRP investigations. Collection and laboratory _" analysis of soil, ground water, surface water and sediment samples were included in the RI field program. The results of the ILl field program are summarized in Sections 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5 , 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 of this document. 1.2.3 O U - I Geology / Hydro g eology ,t The unc o nsolidated deposits at OU - 1 consist of silty clay (one to 15 feet thick) underlain by silty /

clayey gravel and sand (one to 20 feet thick). The upper Pierre Shale at OU- 1 is very weathered with few or no fractures to moderately hard with fractures (less than 0.10 to 0.25 inches wide). The

- , thickness o f the fractured / weathered shale unit is estimated to be approximately ten to 30 feet thick. However, it should be noted that because most RI borings did not penetrate into competent shale, the fractured / weathered shale unit may be thicker. The OU-1 geology is illustrated on Figures 1-4 through 1-9. W

...1 5 5 202

_EPORTSWFSOU - LF1N 1 - 6 March 1995Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota Final Focus ed Fe asi b ili ty 

### Stu dyfo r Operable Unit 1 

## \ "-'k, The depth of ground water at OU-1 ranges from approximately 10 to 20 feet below the ground 'surface. Ground water generally flows toward the south-southeast within the silty clay, sand and gravel and f ractured shale. The average ground water gradient is approximately 0.016 fl / R. The hydraulic conductivity based on slug test results ranges from 2.8 E-03 to 3.7 E-06 feet / minute (fl / min) with a median value of 7.0 E-05 tt / min. It is estimated that the saturated thickness ranges from approximately 15 to 30 feet. Ground water flow velocity was calculated as ranging from 0.64

-- feet/year in the fractured shale to 96 feet / year in the clayey sand and gravel. 1.2.4 Na t ure and Extent of Contamination The following text summarizes the nature and extent of petroleum and chlorinated VO C contamination in OU-1 soil and ground water in the area of and downgradient of the abandoned "" F PTA: So// w Both vadose zone (the unsaturated zone above the water table) and capillary fringe (the saturated v zone above the water table where water is held against gravitational forces by capillary forces) soil contain high concentrations of JP-4, BTEX, and chlorinated V O Cs. The following general concentration ranges of these compounds were found in the burn pit portions of the FPTA area soil v during the RI: v C ontaminant Vadose Zone (_z g /

kg) Capillar y Frin g e ( /z g /

kg) JP - 4 1 00,000s to 1,000, 000s 1 0 01000s to 1,000,000s Total BTEX ND to 100,000s 1,000s to 10,000s

_ Total chlorinated VOCs ND to 10s ND to 100s IP-4 concentrations are much higher than other compounds According to the RI, the distribution v o f JP-4 generally reflects the extent of organic comp o unds in soil. The extent of chemicals of c on cern (COC) in soil is shown on Figure 1-10. The RI indicated that light non-aqueous-phase liquids (LNAPLs) (JP-4 and the related BTEX compounds) were found in soil at the south end of the FPTA. Ground water ..., The RI reported that T CE, benzene, P C E, 1,1-dichloroethyelene (1,1 - DCE) and 1,2 - dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) were reported at or above their established Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in one or more ground water samples at OU-1. The RI also indicated that -- the 10 lzg / l c o ntour for benzene represents the extent of organic c o mpounds exceeding their MCLs. T

he extent of COCs in ground water at OU-1 is shown on Figure I-11.
W W .'_55202 _-J_ ORTSWFSOU - 1 . F1N 1 - 7 March 1995_. Ellsworth Air Force Base , South Dakota 4 7 _ I _ FinalFocusedFeasibilityStudyforOperable Unit 1 ,,, T h e RI indicated th at dense non -a queous-phase liquids (DN A PLs) were not prese n t in OU-1 ground water. The ILl indicated that LNAPLs (JP-4 and related BTEX compounds) were found in ground water at the southern end of the FPTA area (wells MW890105 and MW930102 shown on Figure

-- 1-11). 1.2.5 Con t aminan t Fate an d Transport The fate and transport of contaminants associated with OU-1 is governed by on and off-site transport of the contaminants in surface and ground water and transport in soil.

- Surface soils at O U -1 consist of naturally occurring clay loam and reworked silty clay. The primary physical routes of movement for contaminants associated with surface soils are transport of dissolved "" and particulate matter by surface water runoff and through infiltration to ground water. A nother potential physical route of transport of chemicals associated with surface soil is by wind-blown depos iti on. Surface water drainage adjacen t to OU-1 originates primarily upgradient of OU-1 as storm water

. . . runoff Runoff and ground water discharge originating within OU-1 contribute a small percentage of the total surface flow in the adjoining drainages. Surface water from OU-1 flows into Pond 001 and eventually leaves the Base to the south. Surface water may contribute some recharge to the

-- ground water during seasonally dry periods. Sediment in the drainages also originates primarily upgradient of the OU and is carried into and

- -- through OU-I with storm water from the west and north. Some sediment may originate from within OU-1 due to bank , channel or surface erosion. Soil particles found in the sediment naturally contain minor amounts ofhumic material / plant detritus and heavier trace metals. T he sediment in the streams •-- at OU-I will generally move with the surface water flow and move downstream where settlement in low flow are a s , especially Pond 001, will occur. Clay and other fine grain materials are more easily suspended, or re-suspended, in water and can be transported past Pond 001 and continue to move

-- downstream. Silt and larger pa r ticles will tend to reside on the pond bottom and transport of these particles past the pond will only occur as a result of physical disturbances , such as dredging. • " The shallow ground water aquifer has the highest potential to be impacted by former activities at OU-1. Thick sequences of Upper Cretaceous confining beds separate the shallow aquifer from deeper -- ground-water" aquifers and these deeper aquifers are not considered as potential pathways at OU-1.

- Data provided from the field investigation at OU-1 indicate that specific VOCs reported at the site , , _ are primarily aromatic hydrocarbon compounds of f u el origin (benzene and ethylbenzene); and chlorinated hydrocarbons ( T CE, 1 , 2-DCE, 1,1-DCE, 1,2-DC A , and vinyl chloride). VOCs are of particular concern due to their mobility in the environment. VOCs are known to move through the environment by means of the atmosphere, soil and water. Transport of individual VOCs is affected by their partition coefficient, sorption potential, aqueous solubility, and high Henry's Law constant. Volatilization, biodegradation, and sorption are the three potential fate and transport processes which

- - govern th e long-term distributio n and persistence of VOCs in th e enviro nment.

v W .'_55202 _v .EPORTSl h ' P - SOU - I. FIN 1 - 8 March 1995" " 4 7 [ 1 _ Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota Final Fo e used Feasibili g : Study for Operable Unit I Volatilization is the process by which chemicals are transported from th e aqueous and sorbed ph a ses to the vapor phase. The tendency to volatilize is prima ri ly determined by physical properties (molecular weight, solubility in water, Henry's Law constant, diffusion coefficient , and vapor v pressure) specific to a particular compound. In surface water and ground water , the rate of volatilization is controlled by the nature of the air-water interface (a function of flow velocity, depth, turbulence, sediment content, and the presence of dissolved organic carbon or other organic compounds). Resistance to mass transfer is thought to reside in the gas and liquid boundary layers associated with the gas-liquid interface. Volatilization from the aqueous phase can be defined by the Henry's Law constant (1 4 )for a particular compound, which describes the partitioning of a chemical

-- between the aqueous and vapor phases at dilute concentrations. The values of H provide someinsight into the controlling rate processes, and compounds with H values greater than 0.001 atmm3/ mole volatilize rapidly (Lyman, 1982). The VOCs reported at OU-1 have H values greater than " " 0.001; consequently, volatilization from the aqueous phase would be a potential environmental transport pathway. Volatilization from the LNAPL phase associated with soil is controlled by chemical, soil, and general environmental properties. Chemical properties affecting volatilization include: vapor pressure, solubility in water, basic structural type, and number / kind / position of functional groups. Other factors affecting volatilization rate from soil are: compound concentration in soil, soil-moisture content, humidity, temperature, sorptive and diffusive characteristics of the soil, soil organic matter content, ,_ soil porosity, soil density, and clay content. Volatilization from the LNAPL phase can be defined by the vapor pressure for a particular compound. Volatilization for the VOCs reported at OU-1 is considered an important transport pathway. Biodegradation is the second potential process VOCs can undergo in the environment. Several hydrocarbon compounds are readily biodegraded under aerobic conditions. The following example •_ f or benzene is illustrative of the general mechanism (Chiang, e t al., 1989): Benzene: C6H6+ 7.5 O2 _ 6CO2 + 3 H20 In the presence of suitable microbial populations and oxygen, benzene can be degraded to carbon dioxide and water. A demonstration project at Hill A ir Force Base showed that biodegradation can " contribute significantl yto the dissipation of hydrocarbons in the gasoline range. Laboratory studies, along with field measurements leads to the general conclusion that the ecological and environmental significance of anaerobic hydrocarbon degradation is very low compared with aerobic degradation v (Ward and Brock, 1978; Ward, et al., 1980; Delaune, et al., 1980). Most volatile aromatic hydrocarbons have a high water solubility and low affinity to sorb to soil. Therefore, attenuation of, for example, benz ene on soil, suspended material, or bottom sediment is not viewed as a significant fate process. Consequently, VOC are mobile in the environment. Data provided from the RI field investigation and risk assessment at OU-1 indicate that specific SVOCs present at unacceptable risk levels are primarily polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) ., , , type compounds (fluorene, benzo(a) anthracene, benzo(b)fluoroanthene 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 ,,, lon g term distribution and persis tence o f SVO C s at OU-1. I,V ..'_55202 _2EPOR T" S

_FFSOU - 1.FIN 1 - 9 March 1995.. ,, Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota i l 7 I 1 3 Final Focused Fea s ibility S tu @ for Operable Unit I

, , Based on their relatively small Henry 's Law c o nstants, PAIl are not expected to volati l ize from ground water and surface water to a significant extent. Furthermore, based on their low vapor pressures, PAH are not expected to volatilize from soil. The PAH compounds have a high tendency v to bind to dissolved organic carbon in the aque o us phase and sorb to soil organic carb o n. The primary environmental fate of PAH at OU-I is sorption to soil. The primary transport pathway for SVOC at OU-1 is via transport of suspended soil particles in storm water run off. Pesticide chemicals of concern at OU-I include: dieldrin, endrin, lindane, gamma-chlordane, alpha-chlordane, heptachlor epoxide, and p,p-DDT in surface soil due to unacceptable ecological risk; and heptachlor, alpha-BHC, and gamma-BHC in ground water due to unacceptable human health risk. Volafilization, biodegradation, and sorption are the three potential fate and transport processes which govern the long-term distribution and persistence of pesticides in the environment. The primary

-- fate of pesticides at OU-I is sorp tion to soil, however, percolation of lindane to ground water is considered possible. With the exception oflindane, the reported pesticides in ground-water samples are considered to be the result of elevated turbidity in the samples. The primary transport pathway f or pesticides at OU- I i s to streams through surface w ater ru n off. In general, metals can form both organic or inorganic compounds in soil and sediment. Metals may sorb to sediment and soil via interaction with organic matter or clay p articles to form stable complexes that are relatively insoluble in water. The fundamental factors that determine an analyte's

_

, affini ty for e ither so i l or w ater are th e soil - water chemistry and the adsorbent surface c h arge deficiency that requires an accumulation of ions near the solid / liquid interface to neutralize the surface charge. The cation exchange capacity (CEC) is most commonly controlled by the clay fraction of a soil matrix. The primary environmental fate of metals and inorganic analytes at OU-I is sorption to soil. The primary transport pathway for metals and inorganics is to the streams through surface water = run off. Metals and inorganics were reported at elevated levels in ground-water samples indicating = 7 that some percolation to ground water has o ccurre d. The e nvironmental fate of inorganics in gro und water is transport with the ground water to the south. Because inorganic analytes preferentially c omplex with common soil elements, inorganics and metals are not expected to be transported far

-- beyond their source area. 1 .2.6 Baseline Ris k Assessment Sum mar y T h e a s se s sm e nt of hum an h ealth ri s ks for thi s site c onsider e d the follo wi ng topi c s : (1 ) p ote nti al COCs in ground w ater , surfa cew ater, s e diment , and soi l samp l e s c olle c ted at OU- 1; ( 2 ) c urr e nt an d " " fu ture land -u se conditions; (3) po tential environmental pathways by which populations might be exposed; (4) estimated exposure point concentrations of potential COCs; (5) estimated intake levels of the potential COCs; (6) toxicity values of the COCs; and (7) uncertainties in the assessments of exposure, toxicity, and general risks. The levels of potential human health risk associated with OU-I were then quantified and discussed. The four potential exposure groups evaluated for OU-1 are: (1) current Base personnel engaged in site inspection who are exposed to surface soil, surface water and sediment; (2) future adults living o n - site who are expos e d to surface s oi l and ground water; ( 3 ) future adolescents liv i ng on - site wh o are exposed to surface water and sediment through wading activities; and (4) future adult construction workers who excavate on-site for building residences. Noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks were calculated for these four groups. W

..'I 55202 _t_ ORTSW2n'SOU - 1 . FIN 1 - 10 March 1995

## _ 7 t 14 e tt., or, ha*r Uo r e B *e ,So., hD ko, Final Focused Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1

_

, The methods used to characterize risks depend on whether a COC is a carcinogen or a noncarcinogen. For noncarcinogens, the potential effects resulting from exposure to COCs were estimated by comparing an exposure intake with the established RfD. The resulting ratio, known as the haz ard quotient (HQ) , was derived as: HQ= I_ where: HQ = Hazard quotient, ratio of average daily dose to acceptable dally intake level (unitless) Intake = Average d aily intake (mg / kg /

day) RfD = Reference dose (mg / kg /

day) Noncarcinogenic risks for the exposure groups are summarized as follows: Noncarcinogenic risks at OU-1exist for the future residential adult who either ingests shallow ground water or showers with shallow ground water. Risk is driven by the volatile compound 1,2-DCE. Carcinogenic risks were estimated as the incremental probability of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to a potential carcinogen. Risks are expressed as probabilities, e.g. , one-in-a-million. This level of risk is also denoted by 10"6or 1 E-06. Risks at or below this level cannot be differentiated from the background occurrence of cancer in the population. Risks "" calculated i n a risk assessment are po tential risks and are excess (i.e., over background) cancer ri sks due to exposure from the site.

" : Carcinogenic risks for the exposure groups are summarized as follows: Carcinogenic risks indicate the sources of risks in excess of 1 x 10.6are due primarily to the presence of several organic compounds (benzene, vinyl chloride, 1,1-DCE, 1 , 2-DCA, TCE, alpha-BHC, gamma-BHC, bis 2-ethylhexyl phthalate, chloroform, chrysene) and arsenic in the shallow ground

_ water, and are incurred during ingestion or showering by a future residential adult. In addition, there is risk greater than 1 x 10.6 associated with the ingestion of the PAH

. , benz o (a)pyrene in surface soil (ingeste d by a future res i d e ntial a dult), and c o mbined risks from dermal contact with surface soil in excess of 1 x 10"5,attributable to no single compound. Sediment-related risks greater than I x 106 are due to combined ri sk from arsenic and beryllium (ingested by a future ,-- residential adolescent), although neither inorganic analyte exceeds 1 x 10_5by itself 1.2.7 Ecological Evaluation / Risk Assessment The ecological evaluation of O U-I was based on a combination of data and literature reviews , field and laboratory analyses , analyte evaluation and screening, and preliminary risk screening. The w pertinent findings are summarized below.

W

...1 55 2 02 k REPO R TS WFSOU - I. FIN 1 - 11 March 1995

## , . I7t 15 Ellsworth Air Force Base , South Dakota Final Focused Feasibilit y Stuclyfor Operable Unit 1 In terms of ecological value, OU-1 presents a highly disturbed environment with dominant features such as the abandoned bum pit and surrounding gravel patchl Notwithstanding the high level of disturbance, habitat features such as grass fields, weedy old fields , and wetlands are prevalent in the eastern and southern sections of the OU. These could be used intermittently by some receptors. A variety of potential receptors were identified that could forage in OU-I habitats. These range from --- the benthic invertebrates and amphibians inhabiting the drainage channels to birds and mammals. Any of these are potential receptors of elevated chemical concentrationS.

-- Ra r e, threatened, or endangered species are unlikely to use OU-I for more than very transient habitat. Most of these species would not be expected to occur on OU-I at all because of the high disturbance level and lack of habitat. Terrestrial vegetation and soil fauna communities sampled outside the bum pit and surrounding gravel area do not reveal patterns indicating chemical-related impacts. This finding is consistent with the

_ " relatively low levels and limited distribution of elevated concentrations in soil outside the burn pit area, and with the active and disturbed nature of the site which appears to be the primary control of biotic community structure. Surface water does not appear to present sufficient risk to ecological receptors to warrant further investigation on an OU-specific basis. Therefore, a Tier III assessment for potential OU-specific chemicals of concern in surface water does not appear to be warranted. Similarly, sediment does not appear to present sufficient risk to ecological receptors to warrant further investigation on an OU-specific basis. Therefore, an OU-specific Tier 171assessment for potential chemicals of concern in sediment does not appear to be warranted. The pattern of surface soil chemical concentration indicated that the burn pit was the source of elevated organic chemicals, containing elevated levels of jet fuel, pesticides, PAHs, and volatile

-- organics. Except for jet fuel , e levated concentrations in surfac e so i l w as restricted t o the burn pit and surrounding gravel area. An OU-specific assessment of suriicial soil chemicals of concern does not appear to be warranted. Potential chemicals of concern could be an important component of an installation-wide ecological risk assessment. These chemicals of concern would include silver in surface water, cyanide in sediments, and lead and cyanide in surface soil.

VEq55202

_ REPORTS _- SOU - 1 . FIN 1 - 12 March 1995Ell s worth Air Force Base, South Dakota _i i ' i _ 6 Final Focused F easibility Study for Operable Unit I •.,, 2.0 INTERIM RE S PON S E ACTI O N OBJE C TIVE S The IRA objec tives at OU - 1 are t o control the transport of so urce area contami n ation in the area of

- - historical fire pi t activities to groun d water and to remove and treat con t aminated gro u nd water downgradient of this source area. This action is not the final response action for OU-1; however, it is expected to reduce organic contaminant concentrations in ground water and to remove VOCs in " - subsurf a ce vadose and capillary fring e soils and reduce the risks associ ated with those con t aminants. The IR A being considered includes treatment of contaminated ground water and vadose and capillary

- fringe soils by ground water extrac tion and soil vapor extrac tion (SVE) wells , within the same borehole, in the area of historical fire pit activities and operation of the existing ground water interceptor trench (USAF, 1991). T he locations of the historical fire pit and the existing interceptor trench are shown in Figure 1-3. A preliminary layout of soil vapor extraction /

ground water extraction wells is shown in Figure 2-1 . Extracted ground water will contain VOCs , SVOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons and will be treated at a centrally located ground water treatment plant which will also provide treatment for waste streams generated by the OU - 4 IR A an d the Offbase JP - 4 Plume Earl y Action. Extrac ted soil gas and condensate wilt contain primarily VOCs and low molecular weight petroleum hydrocarbons. Condensate will be treated by the central ground water treatment plant. Soil gas will be treated by

--- , thermal oxidation and emissions wi l l be monitored p ri or to o ns i te discharge. Ground water tre atmen t plant effluent will be monitored p ri or to discharge approximately 800 feet upstream of Pond 001 (Fi gure 1 -3 ) The interim action does not fully address all contaminants in shallow ground water and the ri sks associated with those contaminants. The additional con t aminants must be addressed by any final -- action. The interim action also d oes not a ddress contaminated surface and near surface soi l s at OU-1. Remaining contaminated soils must also be addressed by any final action.

-- Because the interim action under consideration is not meant to be the final response for OU - 1, only two alternatives were considered. A more complete listing and review of potential alternatives will be co n sidere d in the full FS f or OU - 1. The primary objectives of the interim response action are presented below. 2.1 REDUCE DEGRA D AT IO N O F G RO UND WA TE R T h e ob j ecti v e o f the I RA is to remove VOCs andp e trol e um hydro c arb ons in sub sur f

a ce soils (vados e zone an d capillary fri nge contaminated soils wi thin the gravel unit are targeted for treatment) and ground water below the area of historical fire pit activities and to remove and treat contaminated ground water downgradient of the source area.

I4 Zq55202

_PORTSh_SOU - 1 . F1N 2 - 1 March 1995

## - 171 1 7 Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota Final Focused Feas ibili

_ / Stud

_ fo r Operable . Un ,! t 1

,, .. 2.2 COMPLIANCE WI TH APPLI C ABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQ UIREMENTS (ARARs) Any interim action should comply to the extent practicable, with ARARs in effect when the action is selected. Where compliance cannot be achieved, the interim action should not prevent compliance by the final remedy. 2. 3 EN S URE CO NSI ST EN C Y W ITH THE PO SS IBLE FINAL REMEDIES The interim action selected should not preclude the application of any potential final remedy for OU-1.

W

.'_55202 7_-. PORTSLnI

_ OU - 1 . FIN 2 - 2 March 1995

## - 471 18 ll*w o rthA rro rc eoe , So u th D ,, ko ta Final Focused Feasibilit

_ Study for Operable Unit I

_ - - 3 .0 GENERAL INTERIM RE S P O NSE ACTI O N S 3 .1 DES C RIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES Me d ia-specific actions consistent w i th the remedi al action objectives inc l ude any c o mb i nati o n of treatment, containment, excavation, extraction, disposal, institutional controls and no action. This action is not the final resp o nse action for OU-1; however , it is expected to reduce organic contaminant concentrati o ns in portions of OU-1 soils and ground water , contro l the movement of •" source (fire pit) area contamination in the FPTA to ground water and reduce the risks associated with those contaminants. The alternatives considered in this FFS are limited in scope because this is an interim action to reduce immediate risks and contain contamination at OU-1. A s explained in Presumptive Remedies: Policy and Procedures (OSWER Directive 9355.0-47FS), presumptive remedies are preferred technologies for common categories of sites. (USEPA, 1993A). "-- Presumptive remedies are based on the historical selection of remedi al ac ti ons f or c o mmon sites. T he EPA has evaluated the technologies that have been consistently selected against the selection criteria set out in the NCP; reviewed available performance data on the application of the remedy; and determined that a particular remedy, or set of remedies , is presumptively the most appropriate for addressing specific types of sites. The EPA notes that presumptive remedies are expected to be used at all appropriate sites. While specifying specific remedies, the directives recognize and allow for the examination of 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 co ns i derati o n of i nn o v ative techno l og i es should these techno lo gies prove to be as effective or supe ri or to the presumptive remedy. During the FS process, the presumptive remedy allows for the streamlining of the FS approach. This includes the elimination of treatment technology identification, screening of technologies, and the screening of alternatives. Refinement of alternatives and their detailed analysis is streamlined in the

- - " process. This approach is possible because the EPA has conducted an analysis of potentially available technologies for the presumptive remedies. The EPA determined that certain technologies are routinely and appropriately screened out based on effectiveness , Implementability, or excessive cost , or have not been selected under th e nine c rite ri a analysis i denti fi ed for th e F S process.

-- Pre su mptive Remedies: Site Characterization and Technology Select i on for CERCLA Sites with Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils (Directive 9353.048FS) was used to streamline the FS process for OU-I. (USEPA, 1993B). The directive establishes soil vapor extraction (SVE) , thermal

_ desorption, and incineration as presumptive remedies for VOC contaminated soil. The approach streamlines the detailed analysis of alternatives within the FS. The presumptive remedies are expected to be used for all VOC sites except under unusual circumstances. Data available for OU-1 does not v 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. Treatabi l ity studies conducted in 1994 confirmed W: I 55202W . l

_ ORTSWFSOU - I. FIN 3 - 1 March 1 9 95-- Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota Final Focused Feasibility Study for Op erable Unit 1

,, , , SVE to be a viable remediati on m ethod. (USAF, 1994) In s i tuations where SVE may not work, thermal desorption may be the more appropriate response technology. Incineration may be approp ri ate for a limited number of situations. A lthough no published guidance is available relating to presumptive remedies for ground water, a streamlined approach was employed at OU-! in a response to using focused FS approaches. The •- universe of successfully applied response strategies can be limited by examining the characteristics of OU-I. Alternatives should consider long-term extraction and treatment remedies for restoration and /

or containment. Discharge components should evaluate options for on-site (to surface water) "" or off-site (to publicly o wned treatment works) (POTW) discharge. Technologies for treatment include air stripping, activated carbon, chemical precipitation, biologic reactors, ion exchange, and chemical and/or ultra-violet (UV) oxidation. 3.1.1 Alternative I - No A ction The no action alternative represents the baseline condition at OU-1 and refers to taking no further action until the final remedy is selected and embodied in a ROD for OU-1. 3.1.2 Alternative 2 - SVE for Source Soils and S o urce Removal and Downgradient Containment for Ground Water This alternative includes treatment of contaminated source area subsurface soils (vadose zone and capillary fringe contaminated soils within the gravel unit are targeted for treatment) and ground water •
_ " by SVE and ground water extraction wells in the area of historical fire protection training activities. In addition, this alternative would include containment of the downgradient ground water plume south of the source area by operation of the existing interceptor trench (USAF, 1991) , located " approximately 500 feet south of the fire training area. The existing trench should intercept the highest concentration of contaminated ground water " - downgradient of the fire pit s o urce area but wil l not intercept all contaminated ground water. The trench was installed by excavating with a backhoe and installing 50 feet of 4-inch screened interceptor lateral, a 12-inch sump, cleanout, and gravel pack in the fall of 1990. The finished excavation was approximately 22 feet deep sloping from east to west (USA F, 1991). •.- , Organic sampling results from surface and near surface soils from the FPTA indicated jet fuel to be the primary contaminant. The highest concentrations of organics in soils were located from the surface to the capillary fringe beneath the FPTA and in the capillary fringe to about 800 feet to the south. Vertical SVE wells will be installed to intercept the gravel layer above the fractured shale in the fire training area and selected SVE wells will be constructed to act as ground water extraction wells. The estimated depths of the SVE wells would be from approximately 15 to 20 feet below ground surface (BGS). Extracted soil gas, condensate and ground water will contain both VOCs and hydrocarbons -,,- and will be treated at a centrally located treatment plant which will also provide treatment for waste streams generated by the OU-4 IRA and the Otibase JP-4 Plume Early A ction. Water and condensate treatment will consist of gravity separation, air stripping, filtration and liquid phase granular activated

- - carbon, monitoring of treated water with effluent discharge approximately 800 feet upstream of Pond W

.'_55202 h_EPORTSL V ' 17SOU - 1.FIN 3 - 2 March 1995

## - 17 [ 2 0 eUsw o r ,hAirFo rce B ase ,So .thO ako ta Final Focused Feasibility Study for 0t

_ erable Unit 1

,,, 00 1. The extracted so i l gas is expected to contain high c oncentrations of VOC initially and will be treated using thermal oxidation. The area targeted f or treatment by SVE is defined by the area of historical fire training exercises (Figure 1-3). The vertical dimension of the area targeted for treatment by SVE is defined by the gravel unit depicted in Figure 1-5. The volume of soil to be treated by SVE includes both vadose zone (unsaturated zone) and capillary fringe zone (saturated zone where ground water is held up by capillary forces against the force of gravity) soils. The ground water extraction included in the IRA will allow treatment of capillary fringe zone soils by SVE. The IRA will not address surface and near-surface soils in fire pit fill areas or portions of the vadose zone in native silty clay which may be a significant source of vadose zone and ground water contamination. The fire pit(s) were constructed by excavating within the upper si l ty clay and filling with a mixture of clay and gravel. The portion of the vadose zone in native silty clay below these fire

_ - pit fill areas is also expected to contain high concentrations of contaminants which are not targeted for treatment by the SVE system proposed under the IRA. The fire pits and the native silty clay are expected to be addressed by the final remedial action. Based on the 1994 pilot treatability study conducted in the fire training pit area (USAF, 1994), OU-1 appears to be a very good candidate for SVE. The treatability study reported high air flow rates and _ low vacuum pressures suggesting a favorable lithotogy, acceptable soil air permeabilities, excellent contaminant removal, and an acceptable radius ofinfiuence. All indications from the pilot treatability study are that SVE is feasible to implement at this site. The alternative would control /

contain movement of source area contaminants by removing soil gas containing volatile organic contaminants in the capillary fringe zone and intercepting the ground water contaminate plume downgradient of the source area. This will reduce i mme d iate risks associated with downward movement of volatile contaminants in the source area. Risks associated with organic COCs in surface and near surface soils in the source area and other organic COCs in source area soils

-- would not be addressed by the interim action. The alternative would address the organic COCs in the plume downgradient of the source area but will not address treatment of dissolved arsenic. Low concentrations of dissolved arsenic are expected to be present in the treated water and monitoring -- o f the w ater wil l b e necessary to e nsure c o mp li ance with applicable effluent limits. Addi tio nal control of the source area itself and of inorganic COCs must be evaluated during the development of the final remedial action for OU-1. This alternative will not impede implementation of the final remedy to reduce risks to acceptable levels.

W..tS5202q

_EPOR T SWFSOU - I. FIN 3 - 3 March 1995

## - .- :I"' t i. 2 1 Etls wor b

Fo, 'ce ase, So , ,t h D akota Final Focused Fea s ibili

_ Study for Operable Unit 1

. _ 4.0 EVALUA T I O N O F A LT ERNA TI VES The National O il andHazardou s Sub s tan c e s Pollution C ontingency Pl an ( N C P ) include s nine cri teria that alternatives must be evaluated a gain st. T he alternati ves are evaluated agains t each of these crite ri a and then against each other to determine the preferred alternative. 4. 1 CRITERIA 1 - OVERALL PROTE C TION OF HUMA N HEALT H AND THE ENVIRONMENT Alternative 1 (n o action) does nothing to reduce thre ats and p o tenti al threats to human h e alth and the environment until the final remedy(ies) are selected and implemented. Alternati ve 2 (SVE an d ground w ater removal and tre atme nt ) provides f or remo val o f VOCs fro m soils in the capillary fringe beneath the FPTA to approximate l y 800 feet to the south and shallow downgradient ground w ater, which will reduce potential ri sks to human heal th and retard future transport of organic COCs from OU-1. The c o mb i natio n o f liqu i d and air p h as e re mo val will re su l t i n a p erm an en t red uc tio n i n s o urce c ontaminationin the s ub s urface s oil capillary frin g e area . In addition, liquid re mo val will e ff e c tively limit th e degree of down gradient tran s port . A s a re su l t , Alternati v e 2 will de cre ase con tamin ant conc e ntrations and the lateral exte n t of movement that presents a p o ten ti al health ri sk. 4.2 CRITE RIA 2 - COMPLIANCE WITH A RA Rs AR A Rs are applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. Applicable requirements include cleanup standards, standards of control and other substantive environmental protection requirements, c ri teria or limitati o ns pro mulgated un d er fed era l or s t ate laws that specifically address a hazard ous substance, pollutant , contaminant, remedial action, location or other circumstances at a CERCLA site. Relev ant and approp ri ate requirements address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at a CERCLA site that their use is well suited to the environmental and technical factors at a particular site. AR A Rs are grouped into these three categories:
-- • C h emical- S p e cific ARARs are heal th or ri sk-b a sed nume ri cal values or me thodologies which, when applied to site-specific conditions, result in establishment of the amount or concentration that may be found in, or discharged to, the environment.
• Lo c ati o n-S p e c i fic AR A Rs restrict the concentration of hazardous substances or the conduct of activ i ti es solely because the y are i n speci fi c locations such as flood plains, wetlands , histo ri c places and sensitive ecosystems or habitats. .- • Action-Specific A RA R s are usually tec hn olog y or a ctivity-b a sed requ iremen t s or limi tations on a c tion s taken wi th re s pe ct to h az ardou s wa s tes. The analysis of ARARs in this document has been limited to the scope of the interim action. Other AR A Rs may apply to final remedies. A summary and evaluation ofpotentiai federal and state AR A Rs is presented in Table 4-1 at the end of this section. V

K'I 55202 kr_PORTS bv FSOU - I. FIN 4 - I March 1995• - , Ellsworth Air Force Base , South Dakota 

## 47 t 2 2 FinalFocusedFeasibilityStudyforOeerableUnitl ,., Chemical-specific cleanup goals for soil and ground water at OU-1 are summarized as follows: OU-1 S o il and Gro und Water Cleanup Goals Parameter CleanupLevel Media JP- 4 1 0, 000 /

zg

/ kg Soil Benzene 5 /

zg

/ L Water 1 , 2-Dichloroethane 5 tzg / L Water 1,1-Dichloroethylene 7 /

zg

/ L Water 1,2-Dichloroethylene 70 /

zg

/ L Water Tetrachloroethylene 5 /

zg

/ L Water T

richloroethylene 5 /

zg

/ L Water 1 , 1,1-Trichloroethane 5 tzg / L Water Vinyl Chloride 2 _zg / L Water The basis for the soil cleanup level is the State of South Dakota regulation setting the maximum allowable JP-4 (as total petroleum hydrocarbons) concentrations at 10,000 /xg / kg to 100,000 / _g / kg, depending on site-specific criteria such as depth to ground water and permeability of geologic materials. The basis for the ground water cleanup levels are the Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs. An interim action waiver would need to be invoked for the chemical-specific ARARs in soil and ground w ater. Alternative 1 (no action) delays meeting ARARs until the final remedy is implemented. Alternative 2 (SVE and ground water removal and treatment) provides a preliminary step toward achieving chemical-specific ARARs for the shallow ground water downgradient of the burn pit areas

-- and site soils in the capillary fringe beneath the burn pit areas. Implementation of the IRA would prevent further transport of contaminants and quickly achieve significant risk reduction. Upgrade of the interim SVE and ground water removal system has the potential to achieve the chemical-specific ARARs for shallow ground water f arther downgradient , if selected as the final remedy. Ground water monitoring at OU-1 will be conducted during implementation of the IRA to determine the progress -- o f the IRA in me eti n g chemical-specific ARARs. No location-specific ARARs have been identified for the IRA. The site and any treatment facilities

_ that would be constructed are not located within a 1O0 year flood plain, wetland, historical site or sensitive ecosystem / habitat.

W

..._55202

__PORIS kh T_ OU - I. FIN 4 - 2 March 1995

## 4" 1 t 23 Ell s worth Air Force Base, South Dakota Final Focused Fea s ibility Study fo r Operable Unit 1

.- Action-specific AR A Rs that will be met include: • Design of the liquid treatment components to meet the substantive requirements of the

-- Cle an Water Act (CWA) and state and federal requirements for monitoring and discharge of treated ground water. • Design of the air treatment components to meet the substantive requirements ofthe Clean A ir Act an d state requirements and regulations (if developed) for the system air discharge. Discharge of treated ground water is subject to the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 0VPDES) permit for Pond 001. Monitoring of the treated water will be performed to ensure discharge of hazardous wastes does not occur. Discharge effluent limits will be proposed and developed as part of the remedial design element of the IRA and are subject to state and federal approvals and reviews in accordance with the provisions of the CWA. 4. 3 CRITERIA 3 : L O NG- T ERM EFFECTIVENESS AN D PERMANENCE A lternative 1 delays any a c tion u ntil the final remedy is selec ted and is unlike l y to provide long -term effectiveness and permanence. Contamination will move further outward into the environment, increasing the volume of contaminated materials and the subsequent cost of remedial actions. Alternative 2 will permanently remove and destroy most of the VOCs from the capillary fringe soils in the source area at the site. In addition, ground water extraction downgradient of the source area will reduce the concentrations of organic COCs by treatment (air stripping and carbon absorption) and contain further downgradient movement of COCs in ground water from the source area while the final remedy for the site is evaluated. Due to u ncertainties in the hydrogeological characteristics of the shallow aquifer and the extraction system design parameters, complete removal o f contaminants may require system expansion. Information provided by the system operation will be used to evaluate long-term effectiveness and permanence of the interim remedy and will provide useful information for developmen t of the final remedy for O U - 1. No residuals will be land disposed and al l wastes will be treated to meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. Inorganic COC:; must be addressed by the final action implemented at OU- 1. 4.4 CRI T ERIA 4: REDUCTI O N OF T OXI C rrY, MO B ILITY, AND V O LUM E THR O UGH ,_ T REATM E NT Alternative 1 delays reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume since no treatment would be taking

_ p lace. Contamin an ts will conti nue to move further into the environment, resulting i n a greater volume of contaminated materials.

-- Alternative 2 utilizes established treatment technology to reduce the risks posed by the organic COCs at depth in the capillary fringe beneath the source area and in ground water downgradient of the s o urce are a . The mass o f VO C s i n the subsurf a ce so i ls bene ath the s o urce area will be permanentl y reduced and the potential for further movement of VOCs to ground water beneath the source area wi l l be

-- decrease d . VOCs removed v i a SVE will be partitioned to the air phase and thermall y destroyed. W

. : 1 55202

_ ORTS

_PSOU - I. FIN 4 - 3 March 1995

## 471 2,1 Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota Final Focused Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1

,. , Other organic COCs will be remo ved by carb o n abs orption. The carb o n absorbent material will be periodically disposed or reactivated as needed. Liquid discharge from the treatment system will be monitored to verify state and federal discharge requirements are met. VOCs carried by the removed

-- soil gas will be thermally treated. No residuals from the treatment will remain on the site. 4 . 5 C RITERIA 5: SHORT-TERM EFFE C TIVENESS Alternative 1 offers no immediate risks to the community. Delay o f action allows f or contaminants to migrate further, offering a longer term concern and no reduction in risk. Alternative 2 will be designed to protect the community and workers during remedial actions. Worker protection will be consistent with the OSHA requirements in 29 CFR 1910.120 and the site

-- Health and Safety Pl an and C on tingenc y Plan during construction an d op eration. Construction of SVE and ground water recovery wells will be monitored to ensure safe ambient VOC concentrations outside of the active work areas. Removed, affected soil from construction of the wells will be placed back onto the burn pit areas of the FPTA, graded, covered with clean fill and left in-place until the final remedial action . All air discharges from the SVE treatment operations will be thermally treated to oxidize VOCs. No adverse environmental impacts are expected from implementation of Alternative 2 and risks associated with OU-1 source areas will be reduced. 4 . 6 CRI T ERIA 6: 1MPLEME NTA BIL I TY

-- A lternative 1 offers no implementability concerns since it is technically and administratively feasible and does not rely on the availability of services and materials. A l ternative 2 w i ll uti l i ze proven "off-the-shelf' technology and standard const ru ction methods. A dequate construction equipment and services are available. The equipment for on-site pretreatment is commercially available. Access to the site is available through existing roadways and the topography above the VOC plume allows access to construction and drilling equipment. Road construction will be limited to th at needed

-- to install the treatment facilities and provide access for system monitoring and maintenance. Off-Base access for imp l ementation of this IRA is not required since all SVE wells and the existing ground water recovery trench are located entirely on the Base. Uncertainties associated with this operation involve methods to maximize the effectiveness of soil gas

_ and grou n d w ater extraction. Changes in pumping rate s , alternating op erating wells an d /

or sporad ic pumping may be necessary to determine the most effective extraction methods.

,, , The action is administratively feasible. Discharge of the treated water will comply with substantive state and federal requirements. Amendment of the existing NPDES permit for discharge of treated water upstream of Pond 001 may be necessary. During the remedial design phases of the IRA, ,_ discharge effluent limits for the treated ground water will be evaluated, proposed and implemented. Monitoring of the treated water will be conducted to ensure compliance with federal and state discharge requirements. Also, discharge of treated air from the thermal oxidizer system at the thermal W

AS5 202

_ ORTS aFFSOU - I. FIN 4 - 4 March 1995

## ,. 71 25 , , , Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota Final Focused Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1

,, , o xidizer stack will be monitore d t o ensure c o mpliance with substantive federal and state air quali ty requirements. 4.7 CRITERIA 7: CO ST Alternative 1 does n ot result in any cost for des i gn or implementation.Operation and maintenance costs (quarterl y ground w ater monitoring) are $9,500 per monitori n g even t which resul t s in a present worth cost of $36,000 based on an annual interest rate of eight percent over one year. -- Alternative 2 is estimated to cost $ 1,266,000 in capital cos t and $686, 000 per year to operate which results in a present worth cost of $1,888 , 400 based on an annual interest rate of eight percent over one year. These costs are total costs for the treatment facilities and would be allocated among other

-- interim actions being considered at other OUs. 4.8 CRI T ERIA 8: S TA T E ACCEPTANCE This criteria will be a ssessed following commen t s on the RI / FS to d ate an d the Proposed P l an for this action. 4 .9 C RITERI A 9: CO M MU N ITY A CC EPT A N C E This criteria will be assessed following public comment on the focused feasibility study information and Proposed Plan.

W:

_55202 k_. EPORTS _FSOU - 1 . F1N 4 - 5 March 19 9 5

## _< 47 1 2 6

o _'_ _ 0 o <

_ _ _. _"
• r,
_ 0 -_ _ _ 0 -_ 0 - , _ c -q o o o_ _ o o o ow 

# _< 27 0 

# - _

r_



## _ ._o__,



# __ _ _ _ _ 

# - i !

_ _ _ -_ 

# ._. _ _. _o _ _ __._ _._ 

# - _ _o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ z -_

_ _ - .. ' _ _ . _ _


# _ .

# 4 7 1 28 0 

## - _ 

# - i _ °_i o__ ° • __._ __-_ 0

_ _ ,_ _ _i ._ 

## _ _ _ z_o_

0 

# I! ._ _ _ _ _ - . 

# _ _ _ _ o _ . _._ _ _ 0 _ _ _ __ ,._-_._ __ _ _._ ._ _ o_ _ _ ..


## _ _.__ ___ ._ o-_ • "_ _._ _ 0 "_ 

# _ _ _ . - _ ._o o0__ _i_ _

_ e ,I e ,I

_ ,. ._ ,, _ ' " ", 6 

# - __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D o Do Doo D_



## - 

# - _ _ _ _ _ .o

_ _ 7 e _ _ _o_

_ _ o_._ 

# - _ _ _ _ _._._ _ _ 8

## - 4 7 1 29 0

0 i i iiiill 

## o "_ 

# o ._

. _._ _._= ,,_. _ ¢
_ 0 _ _ 0



# _ 0

_ 

## o _ _ _. ¢. 

# - >_ ._ ._ _

# 47t 30 0

_ o


# o

_ "_ ._ 

### o

_ < < < < < < <



## ._ _ _ _ ._,o ,_ ._._ ._ :._ ._._ oe



# °!

.. o. S o F n o
¢ "I

_ _ _ ¢ ",1 ¢ "4 0 0 0 O 0 

# _ o o
_ _ _ o _ _
_ _

._ .



# °

## - 471 3t

°

_



## - _ "_ 

# _ o _



# - ._._ 0

_ 

## _ o "_

r . _ M 

## - N 

## o _ _ 0
1.1 

# - _ 

# - ____ 4 "_ [ 3 2 Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota Draft Final Focused Feasibility Stud y for Operable Unit 1 5.0 REFERENCES Chiang, C. Y , E.Y. Chai, J.P. Salanitro, V.D. Colthart , and C.L. Klein. 1989. Effects of Dissolved Oxygen

-- on the Biodegradation of BTX in a Sandy Aquifer. In Petroleum, Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground water: Prevention, Detection and Restoration - A Conference. Houston.

-- Delau ne, R.D., G.A. Hambrick , and W.H. Patrick. 1980. D egrad ation of Hydrocarbons in Oxidized and Reduced Sediments. Marine Pollution Bulletin 11:103-106.

-- DeYoe, John. 1993. U SAF. Personal Communication. Lyman, W.J., W.F. Reehl, and D.W. Rosenblatt. 1982 . Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation

-- Methods. McGra w - Hill, New York.

_ U.S. AirF orce (USAF). 19 8 5. Instal l ation Restoration Program. Ph a se 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 (USAF). 1988. Installation Restoration Program, Phase II, Stage 1 , Final Remedial Investigation Report. EIlsworth Air Force Base, Rapid City, South Dakota. Prepared for U.S. Army

-- Corps of Engineers - Omaha District , Omah a, Nebra ska. U.S. Air Force (USAF). 1989. Installation Restoration Program, Phase II, Stage 2, Final Remedial Investigation Report. Ellsworth Air Force Base, Rapid City, South D akota. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Omaha District, Omaha , Nebraska. U.S. Air Force (USAF). 1991. Draft Pilot Study Report. EUsworth Air Force Base, Rapid C ity, South Dakota. Prepared for US. Army Corps of Engineering - Omaha District , Omaha , Nebraska. U.S. Air Force. 1994. Final Remedial Investigation Report Operable Unit 1 at Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota. December 1994. U.S. Air Force. 1994. Treatability Studies Tech n ical Report, Operable Units 1, 2, and 4, Ellsworth A FB, South Dakota. November 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993 A Presumptive Remedies: Policy and Procedures (Directive 9355.0-47FS). U.S. EPA O ffi ce of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993B. Presumptive Remedies: Site Characterization and Technology Selection for CERCLA Sites with Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils. (Directive

-- 9355.0-48FS). U.S. EPA O ffi ce of Emergenc y an d Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. Ward, D.M., and T.D. Brock. 1978. Anaerobic Metabolism of Hexadecane in Marine Sediments.

-- Geomicrobiol . J 1:1 - 9.

W

.'_5202 7_. EPORTS

_ - - FSOU - 1 . FIN 5 - 1 March 1995

## 17! . 33 Ell s worth A i r Force Base, South Dakota Draft Final Focused Fea s ibili

_ Stud y for Operable Unit 1 •- Ward, D., R.M. Atlas, P.D. Boehm, and J.A. Clader. 1980. Microbial Biodegradation and the Chemical Evolution of Amoco Cadiz Oil Pollutants. Ambio 9:277-283.

m W ..'_55202q_. EPO R TS _" FSOU - I. FIN 5 - 2 March 1995

## 4 7 t 34 " Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota Draft Final Focused FeasibiligJ Stud)/for Operable Unit l

_ 6 .0 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACC: Air Combat Command

-- AF: Air Force AFB: Air Force Base

_ ARARs: Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act COC: Chemicals of Concern DNAPL: • Dense non - aqueous phase liquid EAFB: Ellsworth Air Force Base

-- EP: Extracti o n Procedure, the EPA 's stan d ard laboratory procedure for leachate generati o n. EPA: Environmental Protection A gency -- FFA: Federal Facilities Agreement FPTA: Fire Protection Training Area _ FTA: Fire Training Area GPR: Ground Penetrating Radar HQ: Headquarters IN SITU: In the original place. IRIS: Integrated Risk Information System IRP: Installation Restoration Program JP-4: Jet Propulsion Fuel Number Four; contains both kerosene and gasoline fractions. _ LNAPL: Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid MCL Maximum Contaminant Levels mgd: Million Gallons per Day /

zg

/ l: Micrograms per liter mg / l: Milligrams per liter -- MSL: Mean Sea Level NAPL : Non Aqueous Phase Liquid -- NCP: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act

_ NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDWR: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations NPL: National Priorities List OU: Operable Unit O&G: Symbols for oil and grease -- PAIl: P olynuclear Aro matic Hydrocarbon PCB: Polychlorinated Biphenyl; liquids used as a dielectrics in electrical equipment

_ PCE: Perchioroethylene; liquids used in degreasing or paint removal. W: I 55202 1 REPORTSWFSOU - I.F1N 6- I March 1995Ell s worth Air Force Base, South Dakota Draft Final Focused Feasibilit y Study for Op erable Unit 1 _ PL: Public Law ppm: Parts per million by weight 4 7 1 3 5 RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RI / FS: Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study SARA: Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

-- S A CM: Superfund Acc e lerated Cleanup M o del SVOC: Semivolatile Organic Compound

-- TCA: 1 , 1, 1 , -tetrachloroethane TCE: Trichloroethylene _ TCL: Target Comp o und List TCLP: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure TDS: Total Dissolved Solids TOC: Total Organic Carbon TSD: Treatment, storage or disposal sites / methods USAF: United States Air Force USEPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency

-- USDA: United States Department of Agriculture USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS: United States Geological Survey VES: Vertical Electrical Sounding VOC: Volatile Organic Compound

-- WQC: Water Quality Criteria WWTP: Wastewater Treatment Plant

W

.'_55202 _, EPORTS

_PsOU - 1 . FIN 6- 2 March 19 9 5Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota Draft Final Focused Feasibili

_ Stud y for Op erable Unit 1 

## 471 36 A PPE NDIX A F I GURES

W

.'_55202 7 UEPORTSW F SOU - I, FIN March 1995

# "i
- _" d FIG U RE I - I " _" ARE A LO CA TI ON MA P I,,.. I M
• m ' 0 E L LSWORTH AFB, S OUT H D AK OTA , PR EPAR E DFO R U . S . ARMY CO R P S , OF E NG I N E ERSI NS T

_ ¢L ,_ ' n O N 8OU N O AR Y W_O N S s' rO R/ U _E I OU -8 I I

-- ]

_ O U -3

_ , D EB RIS -- BUR I AL



# - l q o - , o 1 7 m H O U S IN G 

# " l

OU - I • OPERABLE UNITS GATE OU - I F I RE PR O T E CTI ON TRA IN I NG AR E A OU - 2 I' -- " ....

-- O U -2 LA ND F I LL S I 8 S I NO,,_._=L OU-:3 LANDF IL L 2 O U- 4 L ANDFI LL 3

- - OU - 5 LAN D FILL 4 OU - T LOW LEVEL RADIATION WAS TE BURIAL AREA • OU- B EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DI S POSAL AREA S PRA M ITOL SPILL OU-B OLD AUT O H O BBY SH O P AREA

-- OU-IO NORTH HANGAR COM PLEX ul -- OU- l l BASEWIDE GR O UN O WATER

___ I

_ ' %

_

_ OU - 12 NAR O FILL NO .I 

## "4 , NOTE_ 

# ELL SWO RTHAPB ,S ,2M,L_EAST RAP , O C, TY .

_ J UST NORTH O F AND ADJA CEN T TO B O ( _XELDE R " a SOUR C E: OU-4 RI R E PORT ( EA, 19 9 4 ) "_ I I i i



### _ _ ' F IG UR E I -2

" _" SITE M AP . UJ -' "- ' " E L L SWO RTH AFB , SO UT H DAKOTA P R EP AR E D F OR U.S. ARMY COR P S O F " ENGINEERS if _' . TE- -'_- " M o t- "" 07:"" " _8 IP ''_ PEN TA B LE= $:\]ABLESkR E IUSTN.TBL DON = f '. \ 1 32146\_ c\ hl f hs f_\ f i qll x 1 7. d qm 

## .," . ,,, ,

UNDERGR S TORAG E TANK ABOVE GROUND , ," "-" 

# -- _TORAGETANK f

r_ I 

# •" - - ----Z_ EXTENT _ \ UNDERGROU I _- _FUEL LINES 

# , ,....... '¢,._J J ; PIT AR E A _1 "_ OF BURN Pi _ ....

ING ARk FENCE TREI ALERT 

# ' APRON BASE II,,_.,,_ BOUNDARY

001 

# m ! _ .... _u_c_o_,_ ._<__ o

_ TOPOGRAPHIC ELEVATION

.... AB OVE MSL

;-r

. -i S OURCF" EPA 1991, BU RN P E HI S TORICA L AR_ F RO M A E RIAL PHOTO G RAPH S , 19 5 2 -1992 .. o- _$er _ ijril_ r_l._ II 1T ] ' - _" ' " ' i IIII i " iI 1 DATE:led Jan 25 15 : 38 : 58 1995 PEN TABLE= $ : \TABLESNDEFAULT.TBL DGN : t': \1321GGkb,asemap\ ffqllx IT. dqn

0 1 48 

## l t811i ALERT ) APRON
3 13 1 N 12 9

sBg30140 " -- I" 001

__ 0 IRP PIEZOMETER c ) (_ C LU S TE R / NEST i > rn " - # 

### _ z_ . [] S UR FA C E W ATE R/ SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION • 1 993 R I-MO NI TORING 

### o_ _ W ELL / SOILBORINGLOCATIOI '

_ _ (B 1 99 3 RI -F IEL D S C REEN / SOIl F - riO "hi BO R ING LOCATION m> 0

_ _ ) 1 A' 1 9 9 3 RI-S U RFACE S OIL , G RAB SAMPLE £"nC"_ml A IRP, PHASE II, S TA G E 1 &: 3 n n:_ C )3--_i l , , _ 2 M ONITORIN G LOC A TION -q "C R OSS SE C TION -r ; 10_ 

# °

_ SURF A C E DRAINAG E

I " ' V ) '-- - --B A SE BO UNDARY FEN C E ,-4 --_ " TOPOGRAPHI C EL EV A TIO N AB OVE MS L z CONTOUR INTERV A L = I 0 ' iDATE=Wed Jon 25 13:57:33 1995 PEN TABLE= S:\TABLES\OEFAULT.TBL DON =f:\1321GG\bosem0p\fiqtlx17.dqn
ELEV (F-I')

, ._ e _ _ " -- S Bg 3 01 27 Z



# _ ov !i I ++O L O+ °_

_

o o (M W 8 9 001) 

# °

_ .a _1 " D

_ SB9301 21 _- (MW 9 3 0 105) z Q
-_ m S B 93 0 1 01 "_ _I (MW930101) o SBg30104 

# o o _-]

_ r - o SBg30105 Ln o u 3 o I o (2 1 --4 SBg30109

-- 2:] o F (M W 930102) Z I / o 

### >. / 8 v / (MW 93 01 05 ) 

# 9 f e_ SB930115 (M W9 30103)

. , . & U 1 0 0 SBg30119D ATE= W ed Jon 25 13:57:33 1995 PEN TABLE= 5;XT A BLESXDEF A ULT. TBL OGN = f:X1321GGkbosemop\ f lql Ixl7.dqn
_--X-H I I 11 ELEV (FT) -r I I I I _ _" _ t

_ '0_ t

_ _ t

_ 3 Z 0 0 0 0 0 l 'q 0 _E o l a I " F;:i"'

°

_ _ ' MW S 90107)

o 

# o \ \ _
• "r o \ \ SBg 3 014 3



# __ o \ X 

# ! \ z n\

_ o

_ 

# I \ " a la_ -1- T o o_ .......... SBg,30101 

# ° I ) * o / > N S593 0 103 t -- O •-r Z o 

## o =1 :_ I o SBg30106 

### o
_ m o 

# _ ° Z u_ I S5930107 I

.- n


# = / o " ( MWS 9 010,3) 

# o I I

0 0 rqrr- I"11 

# ° /

__ c

_ __I,,,,,,,,, :_,,,,,,,,,,,,, : S B9 301 16 m --r 0_ 0 "n l

_ ( M W93 0 1 07 1



# . ._ N_ o_ ,-,3=-I g_ "_"

_ _ I I_ • Z

_ 0 I .In '" _- ) -'_0 qqitser i_ ,jnKr, , ',,.,_ DATF'=We""-ddan'_"';"2"_ 13:"5"-7" T _4I_ _ "

_ _ _ ='-" " " ' ' PEN TABLE= S:\TABLES\D E FAULT.TBL DON =f : k1321GGkbosem a p\flqllxlT,d q n ELEV (FT)m D/ _TE--Wed Jan 25 15:43:14 i995 PEN TABLE= S:XT / _BLES\DEFAULT.TBL DON : f :\132166\basemapk f lqllxlT,dqn



# --.... .b " ,_ 0DATE:Wed Jon"n-'_'_ 14_0 19_ ,,, m , , = _ :. _ L _ ,, _ _ : ; ; ----- PEN TABLE: S:\TABLES\DEFAULT. TBL DGN =f:\13216 6\b o semepkflqllxl f .dqn

5 893 0 1 4 8

01 3 9 30 11 3 5 8 930 1 15 | 0 P9 3 0 111 

# /

3 0 145"

1 39 ]13 1 1 29

t 5 5 5

_ 0129 -- DPg

_ Ot27 LEGE N D: X I_ IRP PIEZOMETER C LUST ER / NES T 0 1993 RI-MONITORING W ELL / SOIL B O R ING L OC ATIO/

_ 1993 R I-FIELD S CR EEN / SOIL -- BORING LOCATION m.

_ • 19 9 3 R I-SU R F A CE SOI L -- GRAB SAMPLE _o,22 IRP , P H A S E I I , S TA GE 1 & : o_ g -_ A 2 MONITORING LOCATION ! 0 "1 1 --31 4 0 -- CROSS SECTION "11

--
_ : : 0 ..... SURFACE D RAINAGE ::o J '-_m

_ -- - -- B ASE B OU NDA R Y FENCE I'_I_--_ T _ TOPOGRAPHIC ELEVATION _ ,.0 AB O VE MSL

_ '

_

_ C ONTOUR I NT ER V A L= 1 0'r

### m %""_ser"- unK-:'""_ .... ' " .... :-- -- ....... : . DATE=We-d Jc n 25 15:4h34 1 9 95 ?5 - Z * " ' " ' PEN TABLE= S : \TABLESXDEFAULT . TBL DON =f : NI32 ...... " " " .- .

-.. ,_ "_,-,____ / 

# ._ J "---. __.. . ----.... . .k_,f ' --\ " ' \ \ • \ ", -..... 

## •," ,,,,, / ",,.. . . \ 

# f . . ............ ' l , -,, 1 r , I,I W ' : J3 0 10 8 "

_ 

## ---_ : _-- - " ____ __ _____ -.... .. A=., . _ ¢ _...-.



# --- : " -_-_ :- " """.-- -.. - "" 1 < \ .. c , 

# 1 1 '- , - > " "-- - . . .- .... . . • . . . ._. : - . . , \_ l - , , , , rn )WO tlO . . __ : :- , . _: " . , 

# ...............:-_ ....--. . ..u_.,,, :: , .. I r_ .%:_:

..... , _ , ,,_ , , ! _b-tJi 

# :::"-:": \ * -,) : ..< • / --: "" \l ] " . "-" : . 

# \\ , @ _: \ .:.. - ....,.. IF r = ]l. ,

. = - I :P Ii 3 0 112 

# -: \ I , ? -":: : :-. L .. \\LJ } @, , a,,, 

# . ¢ ._ : _:: - ; :: , .:..

.... . tr_ , _o , o, - " "/k. _- o ,_ " -: ...: :: --.:.- , _ . .- - \ : :

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

- _ _,_ -
_ . .

: -' , - _ ' - - - • "" "" " . . . '

_ -- SB II 3 DI( 8 " " 

### L-.. :, - / • . - _ -. .... .. __ - _ : - _ . - , _,_ o 7,2 ' , : " - : ...."

_ :

_ :: II' : ': I._I I t I I I . I " . . , . _ \ • : ,_.. - ,. .. - .-- - .._ . 

## •..........:, ... . . _. , , \ I _ \, " ' i-:- : " / _I • -.- " " :: . --- . :"""-'_'-.-. : '-" " "

" " I .... " " :.: " - . "C :. : _ .'-, , , , _ ' _- > - " / , , "" / -_ _ 

### . : . . . . . . " .L - . " "

_ 1 " " - : ., : :<' • . . .-_.-.-_'_ _ '" . ,.. / -, .: . , , . . ._ . ;.. . -. .

- .. : - :. ,': -' _-': . : . • ) 301 " ' _ ' .



# _ / \ ! ,, , . BI _ . ' _ -- l I I _- . • ] ,_ -,, _ _ _I_A , I_II._ 0127 

# i ' ll " " "

-. \ \ . .

-_ .................... - ........... ;,; -- ; . _.._ _[ :2 s_ o,4E ,-\_ _ _ "

_ -/



# ....

. \ ¢_, ', _;_ _ "', o

_2 o&_._ !---......_ , , o,o_ , ,, __ sBg30 1 25

_ . _r_ e 199 3 RI M ONITORING WELL ,/ _", ., .. ...._........ * f ( ,,. I

_-. 4 SO IL B O R ING LOCAT I O N

_ _ " - . . .. i

o n 1993 RI FI E LD SCREENING / . . .... _ _ " , , - I I'll

_ I_ 5 0 1 L BO R IN G LOCATI O N ] "" " " '-"---' - " I > C O _O I ......" ' " O _m_ o m a . """, % . " '- -n ; O C: 

## J=cmO_m: : o l ^ IRP, PHAS E II, STAGE I &

_ : _, , _'_'_ - -, 

### r :: o-o_ .- _ml -- 2 MO NITORING L OCATION -- --- :! ......_ - __ l_ZO i

-- I I o "U : _-- . _- : " I _j 

### i_

_ __m,c-4 v,

__ , l, n --. ---- SUR FAC E D RAIN AGE " _" ,a" 

# i= > o

.... B ASE BOU ND ARYFE N CE

_ , / if . . . F -,! . II° ::0£, _0>m -- TO POGRAP HI C EL EV ATI ON ""_ - J '-_ /

_ "'1 I"

' ' 

### > A BOVE: I _SL .....--.. _"" l "DATE=Wed Mar 22 07 :3 7:07 1995 PEN TAB LE = S : XTAB LE S\REIUSTN.TBL D CN = f:k1 3 214 6 XlercNhlthsft y kfiqllxlT. dqn /i % - - \\ _ _ \' -.. - '/" ,\ : i _ # \ " _ , . - o ,_ " \\ ......... _._! / ' i \ " \'% ..... " "_- 

### / J " \,,\ \ ................._ )J : , "j _ . "'-- ' ,, -. ', - .. . " - . . , / / \\, ". .s_ /// '. " l / " ' _ * ' _ ..... . 

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



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

. / \.\%., ' , ., \\ . " .,, + ." --,,\ ' .; ', 

# \\ d

_

, ', ." \! _ \ -, -,<_, , X t C! . . _..............." , ............ . Hn t / (, "Q'_\ - " / ......- ....... { I i lU . _ ! '_

..... _. __ -- C..... _. . . '\ .' ; . - '. " -, . ..... i / %E u n= au . ".


# - , __ . _, = ....... _., / .... ! . - . ................ t ; I \ I V,\ (. - . . ."_,'.' . _ . ' " -- ", •

_ I i. _ ' ;; "_ \ ", ..... ) " , " .'-.. 

### 1 _ I i t \ A t'. ', _ , " o \. / .- . \ / \- ' I " ' " _ i_ _ % .... rr_n ; ,i t . I ..... . . 1 : _ _ \ _, -- ' n'Pw a_s I I I I1" / l_ltii I 

## \ ',\\ I

_ C ' =_- -- - - =-.-. . ._ JH_J1 -" '\ \ \'- I 'kJ! ", _,, , i _h I C' 

## • _ " \ " " " 'l _1 --. 

# \ \ "h. _-- - /, /I k, ,



# _, / , L J L _t,...jI , 

# \ ((I;I , I • " t

_ _ _w 93 oto7 

## \_ A. w . < A_ . o,o, ..... , . .....

l /

_ " " " '° ................. Q , //

_ / 

### t\ 1 i .. //

t \\ x / t

\\ , k \ i Z " 

# t r }.\ %
" \ / - / i 

# l (

\ 

# ,, .v . ........... I \ \ .... 

# j \ " ' "t\

__ IRp LE G E ND : P IE ZO METER -- ", _ i • _ NR NOT H ING REPORTEDABOVE ......... ,. . . ", DETECTI ON LIMIT " ) \_C\, i , 0

_ _w_o_o ,, \_ . \ CLUS TER/ NEST ' _ '.-_ :t " 'i \ 

# \ .. e 1993 RI M ONIT O R I NGWE LL/ _............... ,, \\ i ; \ -, SO IL BORING L OCATION Ii ........... '}\N, t \ "\ "\ A IRP. PHASE il, ST AG E 1 & _ ....................... , ,\X_t , , \ _ \ 

### ............_ \.'., \ r,.' . ,__ /"/ -'\ \ 2 M O NI T O R ING L O C AT ION ......._ . .._. _ /, \, . ... _"'_ ; "'_ t I /

_ EXT E NT OF RE PORTABL E . . ..... _ .... - ,-.\ ./

_ _, . CO M P O U N DS % '" .............. "'t -.. . - :/

_ ....... I I E STIMATED EXT EN T O F , " ,. ,, ....... ._ ...... r m --- REP O RTABLEC OM POUNDS *

_ " ...."k = ,w

_ z om ........" -.' " -. . "- ,- o 0 1 2 D E TECT I ON L IM I T) @ "

_ ' "--" _- • ......... . _i _"'- .. _."- " '

_ ' . _ .

- lO -- m i

_ _ .........

_ _ -- I ll BA SE BOUND AR Y FENC E I C ull > '_i ; r _'- ' I >E r_ ........_ -- T O POGRA PH I CE LE VATI O NA B OVE % 71.-' I?ox > . t ,_ll"nzrrl MSL- C ONTO UR IN T ERVAL= IO' " """

_ . .....'7 , 

# I_ >_,,

_ : , > _TI -,., Tm _ -" I o rim I 

# r I =

¢

_ ' NO TE : _ OOTOBI_ R _3 J t_ FOI l MWI . IO I Ii B EC . , . A J___ E

_ IT

_ NO T . fPI P i.£1 ) iNNe C E ' I eEP ,. • NOT E: TH E SU B_'N:E _ _,- I O W N RI E

_£_1 E N TOU R Lrv j

_JAI l O N OFTHEMo s r PROS _I .E CONOm OI _ _i_ U P ON I _II ;, N_A " I'ION or PR

_ S D _I .Y A V N L

_ r DATA. SOME VARIATI

_ HS '. _ TH£ S f:l :O NI)llll_i_ _ fil l B (P_ P,_3ser___ unk _ __ E R E FILf = I I m_gn .... R Z - ---NCE .... E 0 7 'JTIL _ DATE = F r l Jon 2 7 16;01 : 24 1 9 9 5 Leve;s = 1-63 Levels = _ z _ .......... PEN TABLE= f = N132 1 66NtblNI66basem.lbl REFERENCE FILE 02 = borlngs,2d REFERENCE F ILE 04 = PLUME.dgn DON =f:XI32166\bosema slsltel.dqn" Levels = I-I 1 ,14-6 3 Levels = 1-63 _4 L4 41 0 0 0
- . , 0 0 i Z _ ;" ' ; ' ' ' ' ' "_ , . : .;'. - , , . , - ,, . . _ . . ,. ' . ,Z ',. Z ,_ " / ; i - .- . , .. : - . . . , , , . \ ..... . _ .. ........ ; i

_ / i Z i <,"," "_ .... , _ - : d Z " : - ." o " ,. : ., , / . .. .;. _ ' , . . :. . . • , . "-..

• : . , : , ; ; • . ! " I 

### .... • . ; .q ! [ " - "- , ! ; " ' . " . V _ " _ ' " i ....... - ........ -,. ................ , _ , :

_ :- , ,' / . " .. .; / . . i i ; . . • _ " . . " + . '.,. ' " , . " • " i t; ,'; ......... ' ................ -".......... ." , " "I-. . ;; 1 ,154 , 000 ",E ,. , _............._ , t -. '"7.............. . " : ; : t . f . , ,_ : "- r+" . ' • • ' ";" --'T ?" , I . / . . t : ? : . : ; ," # , • , " l " |

, . . . . _ .. . . _ • i . . . , _ , _ . _ .. . 0 _I_ ...... .. . .. . .. • ,. j- . .. . - . ; , : / / ; / " i '

_ !. .,- , -- : %,,?_-.."-- < ..= . \ .. I I-- O "'" ," :_t ; / " , ," ....... " ;' • " : ; .-', " " , I " w - -- -_. ...... Z ' l_

_ . ' " ........ i"
, _._ . . - --0 . - , . .... " O F , ,. - 0 .... _ . .. . ...... ; . : / : r " . " / / , " " ; . ;':" , . . / i / " ; ' : '. " - " .- .- ; / . " .-"' - . . - _ > "l : i r 'n "_.... <. , " # " : "

_ '

_ _ " • • . " ................... _. ..... . -" _-_.,_" --- -' ;- '" . ." d ", : " " : I , i ,, t. :. / . . . . . . .. ; : ._ ..... . . . , . .. .+ . . .._ . .- . . t#- " .- ., .-_- . . ........ u ',,,,_ ,; . ., . . ., . .,. .. t: , : -; . 1 . . ' i " . . ., . . / , " _ , :. . . . . , ...... y- . . - - -__ #_ . • ._ .. .. . . - ...... . t,

_ C ) . --"; . : ; . , . , -' . . . " . _ , _ .

. _ ; : r

_ / . ." / i , / i, ,, , ', " ,_ , ., . t " ," -, " " " ,",- ,' _" " - . ' '" - . I • - - - " " - - .... __ _ _"l " , , ' " . . , - . _ "

........... , , . / , .... ., . . ,..... J ....... .... ......... . , i , -- .--. . _ . _ . . __ . ,_ : ; ." : , _ - , ,' . ' ; ,._ , .. - - " ._''" ,. ' _ ...'" . ..... _ ' "-• -.. "

_--- - ._. , .... . .." ," I "'1,'_-,. " : • ,_ ; ; i ; i ,-" i

_ / ; : : r ": , ' , " -_ . -. , '; -::')--"- ....... ---: .' _,-. - _----_ : , --_"'L. , i ........... .,- .... t " _ / " ." .,J _1_ ," ;" _ , _ " "" ; 1 ' ' " '' " " ' " ' " " ':" " " ...... " ' _ ...... " _-" " ........... " """ " " "- "" ._ /_, ":i_ " "" " " ' 

### •. L. : , ; !,_:,._. I _.I L, ... -L :_ : . // - / . / ..:.s, , - , - : t."__,. ,1;}.:-----_......=::-:.z__.,_7---,_.. .-=-_,_.=_-'._:.-_-:?.,_-._p'i_. t -.- ( -- ,_ /< -_._:¢, = -_._._ / ._,._ L 4 , 5o_; , E

. :--. ". " " / : ¢ 4""; ' " ' -_, -- • • . " l . . ., " ...... , ; _- " . -
_ . . "" .-_ .... ..'- - . '---. : . " , • L - 

### • . , I ..... . , , , , , . . . ,. . ...... .. .. ........ .. . . . .- ..... . , _ /

=.; . _, ..... . ..... ,

_ . _f_ ': . !l ; : ; : : . ; : , " ; - _.. ' " Y .- - -.4 . "" , , n. . _":-_ - ;'" -" .. ". . - _' " ,. "', "" _ --'" "" ' 1" / • I- , t ; _ _ • --.."- , _ .. .- " " - . " --.'-,"_'=-.--:" .... . . ' _2.- - ,'_ . -.:-- " =" - , - " - " . .." ..... " " • t . - ,, , . , • .- - - . . . ...... ,_ '- -.' _--" " : , .,_, : / / : .. o ]7 "-_- - _. 

### ...,i._ ,.. / . .. . _ -' . :. , . .. ' • : / ; . . " =-"=", , r'_-.' - _ .... ' _-" '_ . "

. / f z , ;:. : : •

_ t: ; :/ ; ' " ': ....



## . ; . /, . ", ;;7::--, ; • " " "_+, ': " • " %, /. "_ , " 7- , : - . . / - ', ,TO G f. ;,:
- ,_.- : ._
...... ,.I t," :

_ "- : .b g._ 7

_ - ñ' 

## : : ?!.:.:::-- 7 -" " / , -.. ' Xt,:"7,\. . i

. ... /. . -. . , " ",, 1%---" ; " t ,: . -/ ' /

' . . . , " :, _ "-::i=- ' - I.' ' r. , -',_ , ,' I , $ "55,000 E


### - .... : -" .... -- ' " _ -r--",-_ " / !- ,',,. -

. > ;'. ....... : . _-. '" . .- . " , . .,... ... . , . - ", : '.- . _ .."- < " :'"..._ • " < i 

## ! - -:_.4 '. .... " "_"--:" "_ -. -i _ _ . _ '

. . • ,< .: . "; . _ ,_ . . "-, "" : " "": = " " , _':!- . ...... ".'2 " , '":'':- . :-'7.- =..._= . . "_" ..'I " - ! " t ' "I X • ,-, -- "

_ ; ,, \k.\ ,



### ...... " ' + ".r . :..... :':b . . : .. ; ; :., ,.." : _' ;

_ , ,!.:.

_\,,: , \" ," . " '

_ ,. " " e-. . ,, " ,* ' " . ' . ," . ' , - -l_'i_- ; ' i ; -, ._ ' -; ,,._ . •

_ . . • ,_ _ , .k ' -- -_...', ; ;'" ' " :._ %-, r _ . ; \ " " £' * "

- .'- _, • . _. . _ ..... .,-4_ _ o _ '..... ; - .. -"2 I " ' . . "._. . . :-_ ;

_ .] .: .- " ' _", _. . -. . 

### ........ "v?,,, ,_ .... ...... , : ' ..... . •.3 _ " ' :" " "" > "" " • , " - -} > ._ , i "

_ ' , " /i: ", " I

_ ' " ' " " " "" " :I " " // " / '" '= J _ " ;"" " _ "J IG-- I : _-- r t .', - .. . ._ • ...- _ u.., ._._ , .-., ' : • . . . . . . 0 I "_ - •
_ . " /" " " _ ,- i . : -." ,... _ ;

_ . = m - 4. .......': . . ' " " / , , < ';!-,- ; , . . i Y_" ",=. ": ' ;"_ . :'ei ( ' :-...... , _"--- ...... 

### : _-;:_'i " , ..... , ,,,t" ,- " - '

- -' " '=: , - ;- -" , _. .. .__ . _,_ ,,i '" ' _ _ .......... .: -r,_ . .-p ...... 1,155,.500--E 

# : "i: ' ..... / / _7 ..... _ - _i ;

_ ' ,..'- " - . " I . :- --

- ; I i " , ,. _' 4 - , <: _,, -... i' - ': .... t" l '-

_ i' : - '. ' : ..... " ' " . .'- :: l:i-: . . 2 ' - " . ___i > " "" i,_ , "\ .... ", "1 " ._ . , . ' ." t , . . .. , _ . I ; "

_ :i ' 'i : '_ ' '

_ > : , i ' ' : I_. ' : " "" ; ' " r l'l _.... " ""

. " " f / "_ "_ _ ; - _-H ' ' ">' '_'_ ' _ ' ," , : ,,'I........ . .-,-. ,-.: _- ..,-=: , '=-_i_l. , '"i : _ ; - " ' s/ , ;:" ,"- - 

# , ,, ,!.,> - , .:,, , : , ,, , ,,__- .. ........ . ..... I ' "' , I , _ ' ; t 0 " " " - , _' I.._ , , ..... ;_ - . -" ._ - 

### , , .. - _',;, ', :',: ..... ¢ - , V , L -': ,' - . " :, ; ! ": Z , . t l ; i . _ ._, / ,.- . . =
_ , -. : , .,_. .,_ _ , _. .: "-- 4 I _.... .. _ _...... _.,:_[ :.i , i , : - , . . . - '.. .- ......


### ......... __ - , , ,...... _ .,_ i i j. ., . .-'"., , , ,' ,. , ," ,' . ....... • o. . -" ,' -.,. " "- : '

_ : ,i * _' ;-; _ , -":, -_ - - .. . " ..... " __ . ._ , , . 

## >' ! " ' ". / \ :C-I-- I T I _ . :!' i " ,¢' ¥ ; ,:_'.' i :-'.: . "":_-" / " , ; ' . / "

" ,. : ,.- . , .. . - " ' . A ' ] / " . , . • " "" -- " ' ' " . , . , " o '" " " ITI II _, • ,i,. I"

_ | '-- _t : ., - ., {, I . .- .- - _ .. //

_ " _"" 7 _" ; ' ,. : :. :J_' " ' "" " '"' ¢ " " '" " " " ":" ; .... • -"" : : : I .... ,. r + .- . , , ,% f " . - Q . ... r-_ :_ . ; _ i : I i : - : , " _ . i_ , , Z i :' . ;: : ;' ",'.-'_. +/= _i / ...... ':._ . : : " " - ,. 1,15 G, ODO _ E 0 :;;ID ..4 0 -1- "1'1

o •T I- z 0 i.,i '--I "il ',2,0

## 4 71 4 9 

# - .... FINA L PA G E

AD MI N I S T RA T IVE RE C O RD


# FINAL PAGE

W

## 471 5 0 

# FI N AL PAGE

ADMIN I S TRAT I VE RECORD


# FINAL PAGE