APPENDIX B Contaminant Fate and Transport ModelingNo contaminant fate and transport modeling using...

APPENDIX B

Contaminant Fate and Transport Modeling

FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT Appendix B NMCB Building T-1416 Expanded Area Revision No.: 0 U.S. Navy, Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Date: 02/04/05 Contract No. N44255-02-D-2008 Page B-1 Delivery Order 0037

C:\Documents and Settings\kattol\Desktop\NMCB files\NMCB FINAL FFS February 4, 2005\Appendix B.doc

No contaminant fate and transport modeling using the Bioscreen Model was performed for this site due to its close proximity to surface water of Sweeper Cove.

APPENDIX C

Risk Assessments

FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT Appendix C NMCB Building T-1416 Expanded Area Revision No.: 0 U.S. Navy, Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Date: 02/04/05 Contract No. N44255-02-D-2008 Page i Delivery Order 0037

C:\Documents and Settings\kattol\Desktop\NMCB files\NMCB FINAL FFS February 4, 2005\Appendix C cvrs explanation.doc

Appendix C contains the complete risk assessment for the NMCB Building T-1416 Expanded Area. This appendix has been divided into two parts as follows: CI: Human Health Risk Assessment CII: Ecological Risk Assessment Sections 4 and 5 of the main report contain summaries of the results of the risk assessments for human health and ecological health, respectively.

APPENDIX CI

Human Health Risk Assessment

FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT Appendix CI NMCB Building T-1416 Expanded Area Revision No.: 0 U.S. Navy, Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Date: 02/04/05 Contract No. N44255-02-D-2008 Page CI-i Delivery Order 0037

C:\Documents and Settings\kattol\Desktop\NMCB files\NMCB FINAL FFS February 4, 2005\Appendix CI.doc

CONTENTS APPENDIX CI: HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

CI.1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ CI.1-1 CI.1.1 Site Description................................................................................... CI.1-2 CI.1.2 Source of Contamination .................................................................... CI.1-3 CI.1.3 Migration Pathways ............................................................................ CI.1-3

CI.2.0 DATA EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN .................................................................................... CI.2-1 CI.2.1 Selection of Data Applicable to Human Health.................................. CI.2-1 CI.2.2 Chemical Selection Process ................................................................ CI.2-5 CI.2.3 Results of Screening ........................................................................... CI.2-7 CI.2.4 Summary of Selected COPCs ........................................................... CI.2-10

CI.3.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................... CI.3-1 CI.3.1 Conceptual Site Model........................................................................ CI.3-1 CI.3.2 Exposure Point Concentrations........................................................... CI.3-5 CI.3.3 Calculation of Chemical Dose ............................................................ CI.3-9

CI.4.0 TOXICITY CRITERIA ........................................................................................ CI.4-1 CI.4.1 Oral Toxicity Criteria.......................................................................... CI.4-1 CI.4.2 Inhalation Toxicity Criteria................................................................. CI.4-4 CI.4.3 Dermal Toxicity Criteria..................................................................... CI.4-4

CI.5.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION............................................................................ CI.5-1 CI.5.1 Methodology for Assessing Noncancer Hazards................................ CI.5-1 CI.5.2 Methodology for Evaluating Cancer Risk .......................................... CI.5-2 CI.5.3 Risk Characterization Results for COPCs .......................................... CI.5-2 CI.5.4 Summary of Risk Characterization..................................................... CI.5-5

CI.6.0 CALCULATION OF RISK-BASED CLEANUP LEVELS ................................ CI.6-1 CI.6.1 Calculation Methods ........................................................................... CI.6-1 CI.6.2 ACL Exceedances............................................................................... CI.6-4

CI.7.0 UNCERTAINTIES IN RISK ASSESSMENT ..................................................... CI.7-1 CI.7.1 Data Collection and Evaluation .......................................................... CI.7-1 CI.7.2 Exposure ............................................................................................. CI.7-4

FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT Appendix CI NMCB Building T-1416 Expanded Area Revision No.: 0 U.S. Navy, Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Date: 02/04/05 Contract No. N44255-02-D-2008 Page CI-ii Delivery Order 0037

CONTENTS (Continued)


CI.7.3 Toxicity Assessment and Risk Hazard Calculations ........................ CI.7-10 CI.7.4 Summary ........................................................................................... CI.7-13

CI.8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................... CI.8-1 CI.8.1 Chemical of Potential Concern Selection ........................................... CI.8-1 CI.8.2 Exposure Assessment.......................................................................... CI.8-3 CI.8.3 Toxicity Assessment ........................................................................... CI.8-4 CI.8.4 Risk Characterization.......................................................................... CI.8-4 CI.8.5 Cleanup Levels Discussion ................................................................. CI.8-5

CI.9.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... CI.9-1

ATTACHMENTS

CI-1 Distribution Checks and Statistical Summaries of Data Used to Calculate EPCs CI-2 Default Exposure Factors CI-3 Chemical Toxicity Profiles for Human Health CI-4 Risk Calculation Spreadsheets

FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT Appendix CI NMCB Building T-1416 Expanded Area Revision No.: 0 U.S. Navy, Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Date: 02/04/05 Contract No. N44255-02-D-2008 Page CI-iii Delivery Order 0037



FIGURES

CI.1-1 Site Location and Vicinity Map............................................................................ CI.1-5 CI.2-1 Soil and Groundwater Sampling Locations, NMCB Building Area................... CI.2-11 CI.2-2 Human Health Conceptual Site Model, NMCB Building Area.......................... CI.2-12 CI.3-1 Proposed Future Land Use, NMCB Building Area, T-1416 Expanded Area..... CI.3-12 CI.3-2 Human Health Exposure Area, NMCB Building Area, T-1416 Expanded

Area..................................................................................................................... CI.3-13 CI.3-3 Conceptual Diagram of Vapor Transport from Contaminated Groundwater ..... CI.3-14 CI.6-1 ACL Exceedances................................................................................................. CI.6-5 TABLES

CI.2-1 Summary of Data Selection for Use in the Risk Assessment ............................. CI.2-13 CI.2-2 Summary of the Number of Samples by Analytical Method.............................. CI.2-14 CI.2-3 Chemicals With Sample Quantitation Limits Exceeding Screening Values ...... CI.2-15 CI.2-4 NMCB Building Groundwater, Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of

Chemicals of Potential Concern in Groundwater ............................................... CI.2-17 CI.2-5 NMCB Building Area Groundwater Frequency and Magnitude of

Exceedance for Chemicals With Detected Concentrations Greater Than the Screening Values........................................................................................... CI.2-19

CI.2-6 NMCB Building Soil, Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern in Soil................................................................................ CI.2-20

CI.2-7 NMCB Building Area Soil Frequency and Magnitude of Exceedance for Chemicals With Detected Concentrations Greater Than the Screening Values ................................................................................................................. CI.2-22

CI.2-8 Chemicals Selected as Chemicals of Potential Concern..................................... CI.2-23 CI.3-1 Summary of Exposure Point Concentrations (EPCs) ......................................... CI.3-15 CI.3-2 Input Parameters for Johnson and Ettinger Model for Predicting Vapor

Intrusion From Groundwater .............................................................................. CI.3-16 CI.3-3 Alaska DEC Default Petroleum Compositions................................................... CI.3-17 CI.3-4 Assumptions for Worker Exposure to Chemicals in Groundwater Through

the Vapor Intrusion Pathway .............................................................................. CI.3-18 CI.3-5 Construction Worker Exposures to Groundwater, Exposure Assumptions and

Intake Equations.................................................................................................. CI.3-19

FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT Appendix CI NMCB Building T-1416 Expanded Area Revision No.: 0 U.S. Navy, Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Date: 02/04/05 Contract No. N44255-02-D-2008 Page CI-iv Delivery Order 0037



CI.3-6 Construction Worker Exposures to Soil, Exposure Assumptions and Intake Equations............................................................................................................. CI.3-20

CI.3-7 Summary of Volatilization Factor and Particulate Emission Factor Inputs and Equations............................................................................................................. CI.3-21

CI.4-1 Carcinogenic Toxicity Criteria for the Chemicals of Potential Concern.............. CI.4-6 CI.4-2 Noncarcinogen Chronic and Subchronic Values Toxicity Criteria for

Chemicals of Potential Concern............................................................................ CI.4-9 CI.5-1 Summary of Total RME Risks and Hazards for the Building Worker ................. CI.5-6 CI.5-2 Summary of RME Risks and Hazards for the Construction Worker From Soil... CI.5-7 CI.5-3 Summary of Total RME Risks and Hazards for the Construction Worker

From Groundwater................................................................................................ CI.5-8 CI.5-4 Summary of Total RME Risks and Hazards for the Construction Worker

From Groundwater and Soil.................................................................................. CI.5-9 CI.6-1 Locations Where Soil Samples Exceed an ACL................................................... CI.6-7 CI.7-1 Summary of Revised Risks and Hazards for the Building Worker .................... CI.7-14 CI.7-2 Summary of Revised Risks and Hazards for the Construction Worker From

Groundwater and Soil ......................................................................................... CI.7-15 CI.7-3 NMCB Building Marine Sediment, Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of

Chemicals of Potential Concern......................................................................... .CI.7-16

FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT Appendix CI NMCB Building T-1416 Expanded Area Revision No.: 0 U.S. Navy, Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Date: 02/04/05 Contract No. N44255-02-D-2008 Page CI.1-1 Delivery Order 0037


APPENDIX CI: HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

CI.1.0 INTRODUCTION

The focused feasibility study identified chlorinated solvents and petroleum compounds in soil and groundwater above regulatory levels at the site from spills/leaks/work practices associated with vehicle maintenance, woodworking, and machine shop activities and likely leakage from subsurface fuel lines. This appendix provides an evaluation of whether potential health risks are present if people encounter these solvent and petroleum-impacted materials in their environment. Alaska DEC provides guidance for four methods of determining cleanup levels (beginning with Method 1) that increase in level of effort and site-specificity. Method 4 uses risk assessment to determine site specific cleanup levels (ADEC 2000c). Sufficient site information is available to determine Method 4 cleanup levels and the results are presented in this appendix and summarized in Section 4.

According to Alaska DEC and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance, risk assessments are composed of four basic steps. The first step involves an initial screening of the sampling data to select the applicable data set for humans and, within that data set, select chemicals that could be a health concern. Secondly, chemical sources, pathways, receptors, exposure duration and frequency, and routes of exposure are evaluated to quantitatively assess the amount of exposure to the chemicals of potential concern (COPCs). Next, a toxicity assessment is performed, which qualitatively summarizes the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects associated with the COPCs and provides toxicity values that are used to calculate the dose-response relationship. The final step in a human health risk assessment (HHRA) is the risk characterization that integrates the quantitative and qualitative results of the data evaluation, exposure, and toxicity assessment sections. A fifth step is sometimes performed: after the risk characterization step, if there are chemicals found to be a health concern, site-specific alternative cleanup levels (ACLs) are calculated. ACLs were calculated for this site and a discussion is included in Section CI.6.

The accuracy of this assessment depends in part on the quality and representativeness of the available sample, exposure, and toxicological data. Where information is incomplete, conservative assumptions were made so that risk to public health was not underestimated. Section CI.7 presents a discussion of uncertainties in the HHRA. This report was prepared in accordance with current Alaska DEC and EPA guidelines for risk assessment (ADEC 2000a, 2000b, 2000c; USEPA 1989, 1991, 1997a, 1998). The evaluation followed the available science where appropriate regulatory guidance was not available to accommodate site-specific conditions.



This risk assessment is organized as follows:

• Section CI.1.0 contains an introduction, a site description, and describes the source of contamination.

• Section CI.2.0 evaluates and selects the data for the risk assessment and selects the COPCs.

• Section CI.3.0 provides the conceptual site models, the rationale for the selection/exclusion of exposure pathways, and the inputs used to calculate chemical dose.

• Section CI.4.0 describes the oral, inhalation, and dermal toxicity criteria used in the risk and hazard calculations.

• Section CI.5.0 provides the methodology used to calculate cancer risks and noncancer hazards.

• Section CI.6.0 provides the methodology used to calculate ACLs and discusses chemical concentrations in groundwater exceeding Alaska DEC Table C cleanup levels.

• Section CI.7.0 discusses the uncertainties in the risk assessment.

• Section CI.8.0 provides a summary and presents the conclusions of the risk assessment.

CI.1.1 Site Description

The NMCB Building Expanded Area site is located in downtown Adak on the north shore of Sweeper Cove (Figure CI.1-1). It consists of a large lowland area situated southeast of the southern end of Runway 18-36. The site extends from the East Canal of the airport ditch system on the northwest, south to Sweeper Cove, and east approximately 2,000 feet. To the west this site adjoins another petroleum release site: the South of Runway 18-36 Area site previously described. The East Canal of the airport ditch system is an engineered structure used to divert surface water from the vicinity of Runway 18-36.

Seawall Road bisects the site in an east-west direction. The primary physical features on the site include the NMCB Building (Building T-1416), a vehicle wash rack (Building 42094), the Pre-Engineered Building (PEB), the former Building T-1421 (now removed), the Vehicle Storage Building (Building 42069), and the Fish and Wildlife Building (Figure CI.1-1). In the area of



buildings (primarily south of Seawall Road) the ground surface is either gravel or paved. A riprap-covered berm associated with a breakwater is present along the southern edge of the site at Sweeper Cove. A utility corridor containing an underground storm sewer and overhead utilities are present along the southern edge of Seawall Road. An east-west trending sanitary sewer line is present south of Building T-1416. This sewer line connects to Sewage Lift Station No. 11 located in the southwestern portion of the site.

CI.1.2 Source of Contamination

No documented releases of petroleum hydrocarbons at the NMCB Building Expanded Area have been recorded. However, several sources of potential releases are present at the site. These sources include two abandoned 8-inch-diameter fuel transfer pipelines; one abandoned 12-inch-diameter fuel transfer pipeline (all situated along the north edge of Seawall Road); a used-oil collection underground storage tank (UST) T-1416-A, formerly located adjacent to the north wall of Building T-1416; and an oil-water separator located just west of UST T-1416-A (URSG 1998). In addition, no documented releases of chlorinated solvents are recorded. The presence of solvents observed at the site likely resulted through past practices that caused surface spillage during ship or vehicle maintenance, woodworking, or machine shop activities.

In September 1990, an abandoned JP-5 fuel line located near the southeast corner of Runway 18-36 was uncovered during installation of a new fuel line adjacent to Main Road. The abandoned fuel line reportedly was the source of a subsurface fuel release, and residual product was observed in the excavated trench (EMCON 1995). Subsequent site investigation activities indicated the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in subsurface soil and groundwater over a large area extending from the southern end of Runway 18-36 to Sweeper Cove near the NMCB Building. Measurable quantities of free-phase petroleum product have been periodically observed in groundwater monitoring wells located between the NMCB Building and Sweeper Cove. Free-product recovery has been ongoing at the site since September 1997. Approximately 200 gallons of free-phase petroleum product have been recovered at the site during this period.

In addition, petroleum sheens were reportedly observed in the past on ponded water between Building T-1416 and Seawall Road (EMCON 1996).

CI.1.3 Migration Pathways

Petroleum releases were primarily to surface or shallow subsurface soils. The free-phase petroleum product then migrated downward to groundwater. Releases of chlorinated solvents were likely surface releases, which then migrated downward to groundwater (ranging from 4 to 15 feet bgs). Groundwater flow direction at the site is south-southeast toward Sweeper Cove in the southern half of the site, north-northwest toward the East Canal in the northern half of the



site. Although petroleum sheens have not been reported on Sweeper Cove in the vicinity of the site, monitoring wells where product has been detected include wells located within 100 feet of Sweeper Cove.

WEST APRON

"E" TAXIWAY

ROAD

WHITING

ROAD

10279

10278

ROAD

MOFFETT

WAY

AMULETW

AY

ALE

UTIA

N

RO

AD

DIK

E

WAY

TRAVIS

"E" TAXIWAY (ABANDONED)

AURORA CIRCLE

AK

UTA

N W

AY

RUNWAY 5 - 23

PAVED AREA

SEAWALL ROAD

AGAGDAK

AMCHITKA

BIR

CH

WO

OD

AEROLOGY

MAIN

ROA

DTA

XIW

AY "

A"

RU

NW

AY

1

8-36

PAVED AREA

MAI

N R

OAD

TAXIWAY

RU

NW

AY

18

- 36

"A"

TAX

IWAY

CONC.

PAVED

C

PUBLIC WORKS ROAD

SEAWALL

SHOP

ME

CH

AN

IC R

OA

D

ROAD

ROAD

RAVEN STREET

MAI

N

TERMINAL ROAD

CRASH

RO

AD

RD.

RO

AD

ROAD

STATION

PA

VE

D A

RE

A

COURTCARIBOU

SEALCIRCLE

SEAL DR.KAGALASKA

DRIVE

CIRCLEUMAK

KULUK

LOOPHALIBUT

CIRCLE

PAVED AREA

G T

AX

IWA

Y

B T

AXIW

AY

C

TAXIWAY

RUNWAY 5

-23

C TAXIW

AY

BAYS

HO

RE

BA

YS

HO

RE

HIGHW

AY

MOOSE RD.

DRIVEVARDENDOLLY

DRIVE

DRIVECIRCLETANAGA

CIRCLEKISKA

CIRCLEKODIAK

HIG

HW

AY

CIRCLESHEMYA

BA

YS

HO

RE

HIG

HW

AY

10323

31005

V164

31500

V-153

10304

10294

10296

GARAGE

10295

10303

STORAGE42069

30016

30020

42217

4225

942

265

42270

42232

27058

2700

0

27993

42352

42376

42379

42387

42352

4235

6

FISH AND WILDLIFE

T-1451

42063

VEHICLE

42350

42073

42072

42355

BLDGTERMINAL

AIR 30003

42377

42378

42360

4235

9

4235

8

4235

7

30000

30010

30031

42514

10209

42453

4260

1

42515

27043

2704

4

10326

42516

10202

42207

4220

1

42257

T-1446

SCHOOL

42371

42372423734237442375

BMI

OFFICEALASCOM

CABLEVISION

3000

4

10324

42383

42365

42380 42381

42384

4238542386

42364

4236342362

42361

T-2776

42382

HIGHSCHOOL

42368

4236

9

42370

42367

42366

HOUSINGWILDLIFEFISH AND

4225

0

4224

7

30035

V-71T-1474

SHED

STORAGE

PAINT

4207642077

42015

42088

42078

T-1443

4220

8

T-1470

ELEM.

42352

42017

4224642245

42244 42243

42258

4226

6

42275

42269

4226

842

267

4227

642

277

4227

8

4224

242

241

4224

042

239

4223

8

4228

242

281

4228342284

42274

42285

4228

0

4228742288

4227

9

4223

742

236

4223

5

4223342234

42293

4229

0

27078

4224

8

422054220442203

4220

2

30022

27075

4228

9

27049

42065

4224

9

1032

8

10327

42518

2705

0

4229

2

4229

1

27074

10280

4230

2

42212

42446

42206

4220

9

4221042211

30027

42104

4231

0

42301

42300

4230

9

42064

42311

30015

30017

3001

8

30019

42213

42214

42215 42216

42251

42252

42253

42256

4225

5

4225

4

27061

27062

27068

27060

27057

2706

9

42297

27967

2797

6

42307 42306

42303

42294

42304

42305

4229642295

27966

27965

4230

8

2796

3

2797

2

2797

5

2797

1

2796

2

T-100

2797

4

2797

32796

4

4239842299

27055

27056

27052

27051

27980

27981

27987

2798

5

2799

9

2799

227

991

2799

0

2796

9

2797

8

2797

7

2797

0

2798

6

27979

2796

8

27080

10374

27087

V-202 1020

6

27081

42008

27994

4226

2

T-1441

30006

42061

HAZARDOUSWASTE

STORAGE

T-1440

10325 42079

42354

30032

4226

442

263

4222

442

225

4222

6

4227

242

271

4227

3

4222

842

227

4222

8

4222

9

4223

0422

31

4228

6

30046

B

B-7

B19

C

30014

30021

42218

4221942220 42221

4226

0

4226

1

4222

3

D

E

C

D

D

C

B

B

B

A

A

A

C

B

A

CD

CD

AB

AB

AB

CD

AB

B-8

B-9

B10

B14

B13

B12

B11

2706

5

27067

27064

27059

2703

0

B20

B21

B

A

B18

B17

B16

B15

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

2706

6

27063

E

D

D

CB

A

A

DB22

B23

CD

AB

2704

2

2703

7B

4

B3

B2

B1

B25

B26

B27

A

B

C

B

A

B

A

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

C

E

D

C

C

C

B

BB

A

A

A

B-6

B-5

B24

2703

8

DD

B

A

CD

AB

27008

2702

527

013

27033

27054

27053

27007

27982

2701

9

2701

827

017

2700

4

2700

3

2700

22700

1

2799

8

2799

7

2799

6

27995

2701

4

2700

627

00527

984

2798

927

988

2703

127

032

2798

3

27040

27009

2702

8

2702

4

2702

3

27022

27021

2701

2

2702

6

27020

2701

627

029

27027

2704

1

27034

27035

2703

6

2701

0

2703

9

27011

27015

10184

PAVED AREA

42494

T-1416T-1421

PEB

SEWAGE LIFT STATION NO. 11

42094WASH RACK

AMULET WAY

NMCB Building Area

South of Runway 18-36 Area

NORPAC Hill Seep Area

DOWNTOWN AREA

Figure CI.1-1Site Locations and Vicinity

Adak Island Alaska



CI.2.0 DATA EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

The initial step in the risk assessment has two parts: first, the available sampling data and site information are reviewed to select data applicable to human health; and second, chemical concentrations within the data set are evaluated to identify chemicals and affected environmental media (e.g., soil, groundwater) that are potential human health concerns requiring a more detailed assessment.

CI.2.1 Selection of Data Applicable to Human Health

Usually, not all the data available at a particular site are selected for inclusion in the risk assessment because not all are relevant to human health. For example, the quality of the data may be insufficient for the needs of the risk assessment, or the soil data may be from a depth interval for which there would be no human exposures. The data selected for inclusion or exclusion along with the rationale for exclusion in the risk assessments for this site is presented on Table CI.2-1 and Figure CI.2-1 shows the sampling locations of the data selected for inclusion in the risk assessment. A discussion of data issues from the perspective of human health risk assessment is provided in the sections below.

Data Quality and Usability

Optimizing data usability reduces uncertainty in environmental data used in a risk assessment. Data usability and quality issues are discussed below according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines (1992a), which provide practical guidance on how to obtain an appropriate level of quality of all environmental analytical data. All data have been collected following Navy and EPA requirements, and the data are generally of sufficient quality for use in risk assessment. Where multiple analyses of a sample exist, the highest detected or lowest nondetected value is selected as the single, most valid, analytical result for the sample collected. In addition, analytical results qualified as estimated values (i.e., J qualified results) are treated as valid results.

Data Usability. The four data application questions requiring an answer for risk assessment from EPA’s data usability guidance (USEPA 1992a) are as follows:

• What contamination is present, and at what levels? Sample numbers and sample locations were chosen based on an understanding of the sources of contamination and potential migratory pathways of chemicals, and according to Alaska DEC regulations for petroleum-contaminated sites (ADEC 2000b). The site characterization performed at this site identified two primary sources of



petroleum: (1) waste oils, which generally have an approximate carbon fraction range of C16 (waste oil tank and oil/water separator), and (2) JP-5, which has an approximate carbon fraction range of C9 to C16. Alaska DEC diesel-range organic (DRO) analyses, with an approximate carbon fraction range of C10 to C25, and Alaska DEC gasoline-range organic (GRO) analyses, with an approximate carbon fraction range of C6 to C10, cover the range of the majority of carbon compounds expected in the groundwater plumes and soils; therefore, these analyses were appropriate to use in evaluating contamination. A limited number (4 samples) of residual-range organic (RRO) (approximate carbon chain length of C25 to C36) analyses were also performed in soil to confirm the absence of significant amounts of heavy-end petroleum fractions. RRO is the least toxic fraction for human health. The most toxic portions of petroleum are the single ring aromatics—benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX)—found primarily in the GRO range, and the carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) found at the heavy end of the DRO range. The carcinogenic PAHs are virtually excluded from JP-5 and would not be expected in any significant amounts at any of the sites with JP-5 sources (ATSDR 1998). Analyses for BTEX and the PAH compounds were performed separately along with analyses for metals and other analyses for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs). Table CI.2-2 provides the analytical method and the number of samples (detects and nondetects) analyzed per method for soil and groundwater. The specific numbers of samples available for each potential COPC are discussed further for each site under item 4 of this list.

As discussed in Section 3 and depicted on Figure 3-2 of this FFS, some small, discontinuous amounts of free-phase petroleum product are present at the site. However, risk assessments typically only quantitatively evaluate dissolved concentrations in groundwater. Free-phase petroleum product is generally assumed to present a health risk. The extent of free-phase petroleum product and its potential effect on human exposures was qualitatively addressed in the risk characterization section (Section CI.5.0) of the risk assessment.

• Are site concentrations different from background? Concentrations of chemicals that occur on site in the absence of site activities are defined as background concentrations. Comparison of site data to background concentrations allows determination of the degree of contamination. Background concentrations are only available for metals. For the organic constituents, background was assumed to be zero. Lead is the only metal evaluated at this site



because of the waste oil and oil/water separator. Thus, lead concentrations in soil and groundwater used for screening were compared against the available Adak Island background values for lead (URS 1995a).

• Are all exposure pathways and areas identified and examined? Sufficient site knowledge exists to understand potential current and future exposure pathways, although in some cases the ability to quantify the pathway may be limited. Exposure pathways are identified and discussed in detail in Section CI.3.0. In addition, exposure pathways are illustrated on the CSM in Figure CI.2-2. Data limitations with respect to the potential pathways are discussed further below.

• Are all exposure areas fully characterized? Sufficient data exist to fully characterize on-site exposures to subsurface soil and groundwater at the NMCB Building Area. Soil samples were collected from 1993 to 2001, and groundwater samples were collected from 1992 to 2002. The soil and groundwater sampling locations at the NMCB Building Area are depicted in Figure CI.2-1. Four of the soil samples collected from the NMCB site technically meet Alaska DEC’s definition for surface soil (0 to 2 feet): one in 1996 (02-451), 2 in 1997 (02-453 and 02-461) and one in 1998 (02-817). However, the area of the site where these samples were collected contains a compacted gravelly surface extending to a depth of nearly 2 feet and the four samples were collected from beneath the gravel layer. Therefore, this gravel layer would minimize incidental contact with these soils by on-site workers. These data were included in the risk assessment, but were evaluated as subsurface samples in the quantitative evaluation of construction worker exposures. No other surface soil data are available at this site. While the source of solvents in soil and groundwater are likely due to surface spills to the compacted gravel or paving, all sources of petroleum contamination were due to subsurface leaks. In addition, nearly all of the ground surface at the NMCB site is paved or covered in gravel. Therefore, direct contact with surface soil is not likely (see also Section CI.3.1). No chemicals detected in the 4 surface soil samples had concentrations exceeding Alaska DEC Method 2 soil cleanup levels based on direct human contact. Therefore, concentrations of chemicals in surface soil are not likely to be present in concentrations that are a health concern. Vapor migration from shallow soils (0 to 2 feet) into ambient air is also likely insignificant (see also Section CI.3.1.). Therefore, while the lack of surface soil data does represent an uncertainty, it is unlikely to be a significant data gap at the site. For groundwater and subsurface soil, an adequate number of samples were collected to evaluate a range of chemical concentrations at the site.



Groundwater data are available from 50 locations across the site, and soil samples were collected from 102 sampling locations.

Data Quality: Sample Quantitation Limits. All data have been collected following Navy and EPA requirements; consequently, the data is generally of sufficient quality for use in risk assessment. Therefore, the focus of this section is to address any sample quantitation limit (SQL) issues that are specifically applicable to human health. SQLs are the laboratory quantitation limit (also referred to as the reporting limit) that is adjusted to reflect sample-specific factors such as dilution, use of a smaller sample aliquot for analysis, or for matrix interference. The method detection limit (MDL) is defined as the minimum concentration of an analyte that can be routinely identified using a specific method. The reporting limit is the minimum level at which an analyte can be accurately and reproducibly quantitated. SQLs are used in risk assessment data evaluations because they “take into account sample characteristics, sample preparation, and analytical adjustments” (USEPA 1989), and they are considered to be the most relevant quantitation limits for evaluating nondetected chemicals.

Some of the SQLs in the data set may not meet risk assessment requirements, i.e., SQLs could be above the screening value of the chemical. If a chemical is not detected in a sample, it could be present at a concentration just below the reported SQL, or it may not be present in the sample at all. If the quantitation limit is below the screening value, the resulting data set provides the risk assessor with a higher degree of certainty in identifying COPCs. SQLs exceeding screening values may be a particular concern for chemicals that are not selected as COPCs because those chemicals could potentially be present at levels that warrant a health concern. For chemicals selected as COPCs, a surrogate concentration of half the SQL is included in the risk calculations for nondetected samples (see Section CI.3), as per EPA (1989) guidance; thus, while the use of half the SQL could either under- or overestimate chemical concentrations, at least an attempt is made to quantify possible risks.

If the chemical is never detected, it will be assumed not to be present. However, if the chemical is detected at least once in any sample, then the range of SQLs will be further evaluated. Any detected chemicals with SQLs greater than their screening values are listed in Table CI.2-3. This table provides the number of “nondetected” values greater than screening values and the total number of nondetected samples for each chemical. If the total number of samples is large relative to the number of non-detects, then detection limits exceeding screening values are of less concern, because the majority of the data set contains detected values. Chemicals with low detection frequency and a high percentage of the non-detected values with SQLs exceeding screening levels represent a greater degree of uncertainty because a larger percentage of the data set could potentially be present above a screening level. The uncertainties surrounding the inadequate SQLs for these compounds and the potential effect on the selection of COPCs and the risk assessment results will be discussed in Section CI.7.



Twenty-four chemicals in groundwater had SQLs greater than the screening values. Of these 24 chemicals, 12 were ultimately selected as COPCs and quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment. The remaining chemicals were not selected as COPCs because of infrequent exceedance or low magnitude of exceedance over the respective screening value. It should be noted that six of the chemicals with quantitation limits over their screening values had quantitation limits that were very high, in some cases many times greater than the screening values. All six of these high quantitation limits were found in the same location, LC7A. This sample had the highest concentration of xylene and the high quantitation limits are likely a function of the laboratory needing to dilute the sample to get accurate xylene concentrations. Including half the SQL as a surrogate concentration for chemical data from this well in the risk assessment adds a level of uncertainty to the exposure point concentrations for the chemicals selected as COPCs and may bias concentrations high.

Eight chemicals in soil had SQLs greater than the screening values and all were selected as COPCs.

CI.2.2 Chemical Selection Process

Typically, not all chemicals present at a site pose health risks or contribute significantly to overall site risks. EPA guidelines (USEPA 1989) recommend focusing on a group of “chemicals of potential concern” based on inherent toxicity, site concentration, and behavior of the chemicals in the environment. To identify these COPCs, risk-based screening values are compared to site concentrations of chemicals. If site concentrations of a chemical exceed their respective screening concentrations, then further evaluation of their concentrations is conducted and the chemicals may be retained as COPCs for further evaluation in the risk assessment. EPA Region 9 residential soil preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) and tap water PRGs were used as the risk-based screening values in the COPC screening process (USEPA 2002a). For the petroleum compounds (GRO, DRO, and RRO), one-tenth of the Alaska DEC soil (Method 2, over 40-inch zone) and groundwater cleanup levels were used as the screening values (ADEC 2003). These values are derived using the toxicity criteria of surrogate compounds that represent the toxicity of the aliphatic and aromatic portions of each petroleum compound (ADEC 2001b). For chemicals without screening criteria, screening criteria for surrogate chemicals were used wherever possible, as per Alaska DEC (2001a) guidance.

COPCs were selected for impacted media at each site. The screening process consisted of the steps listed below, and the results are discussed in Section CI.2.3.

1. Determination of the frequency of chemical detection. EPA guidance allows the elimination of chemicals from the quantitative evaluation if they are detected infrequently and the magnitude of exceedance is not a concern (USEPA 1989). In



this assessment, a frequency of detection of 5 percent was used as a criterion for the elimination of chemicals as COPCs. In other words, if a chemical was detected in fewer than 5 percent of the samples for a particular medium, it was eliminated as a COPC if the magnitude of exceedance was not a concern. It should be noted that for data sets containing fewer than 20 samples, evaluation of the frequency of detection is generally not applicable.

2. Comparison of maximum detected chemical concentrations to background. The term “background” is used here to refer to chemical concentrations that would be expected to occur naturally in the environment without influence from humans. In general, comparison with natural background levels is applicable only to inorganic contaminants because the majority of organic contaminants are not naturally occurring (USEPA 1989). Background values for all VOCs, SVOCs, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) are assumed to be zero in this assessment. Background values for metals are site-specific values for Adak Island (URS 1995a).

3. Comparison of the maximum detected chemical concentration in a particular medium to the screening value. If the maximum detected chemical concentration exceeds the screening value (one-tenth EPA Region 9 PRGs for residential exposures for noncarcinogens, and the residential PRG for carcinogens), then Alaska DEC (2001b) recommends the chemical be retained for further evaluation in the risk assessment. In this step of the screening process, all chemicals with a maximum concentration exceeding a screening value are identified. The rationale behind comparing the maximum concentration against one-tenth of a risk-based value is explained by the default assumption that all toxic effects are additive. For example, two or more chemicals that are present at concentrations just below the levels of concern for the individual chemicals could be a health concern if their toxic effects are considered additive. Thus, it is important to select more, rather than fewer, chemicals to evaluate in the risk assessment due to potential cumulative effects. However, in some cases an exceedance of the screening value by a maximum concentration does not represent either an individual or an additive health concern within the context of a particular site, and consequently the chemical could be safely eliminated as a COPC and not affect the outcome of the risk assessment. The following two steps describe the process used to further evaluate the chemicals with maximum concentrations that exceed the screening level.

4. Evaluation of the frequency of exceedance over screening levels. The frequency of exceedance of concentrations above the screening level was also



evaluated. Estimates of risk are calculated using the 95 percent upper confidence limit (95UCL) of the mean concentration for each chemical because the risk calculations are based on an estimate of average exposure concentration over time, not the maximum concentration. Therefore, if only a handful of concentrations of a chemical exceed a screening level, and the magnitude of exceedance is not large, the chemical will not represent a health risk and can potentially be eliminated from the risk evaluation, particularly if the screening level is below a level that is a health concern. Chemicals with few concentrations exceeding their screening level, especially those with screening levels below risk-based levels, may be eliminated from further evaluation. In general, a frequency of exceedance of 10 percent or less was considered acceptable, thus warranting exclusion as a COPC.

5. Evaluation of the magnitude of exceedance over screening levels. If the frequency of exceedance was 10 percent or less, then the magnitude of exceedance was evaluated. A magnitude of exceedance of up to 10 times the screening level was considered potentially acceptable reason for exclusion as a COPC if the screening level was one-tenth of a risk-based value. However, exclusion as a COPC based on frequency and magnitude of exceedance are evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on the toxicity of the chemical, the specific screening level, and the magnitude of exceedances.

CI.2.3 Results of Screening

This section describes the results of the screening process, including the rationale for selecting or eliminating the chemicals.

Groundwater

Table CI.2-4 summarizes the screening process for groundwater. A total of 52 chemicals were detected in NMCB Building Area groundwater and compared to their respective screening values. Of the 52 detected chemicals, 31 had maximum concentrations greater than their respective screening values. These 31 chemicals were further evaluated, according to the steps outlined in Section CI.2.2, for natural background (inorganics only) and frequency and magnitude of exceedance above screening levels (Table CI.2-5). Nineteen were selected as COPCs because their frequencies and magnitude of exceedance above screening levels warrant in-depth evaluation in the risk assessment, according to screening Steps 4 and 5. The 19 selected chemicals are listed below.

• 1,2-Dichloroethane



• cis-1,2-Dichloroethene • 2-Methylnaphthalene • 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene • 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene • Benzene • Benzo(a)anthracene • Benzo(a)pyrene • Benzo(b)fluoranthene • Carbazole • Dibenzofuran • Ethylbenzene • Naphthalene • n-Propylbenzene • Toluene • Trichloroethene • Xylenes • DRO • GRO

The remaining chemicals, with the exception of lead, with maximum concentrations greater than the screening values were not selected because their frequency of exceedance above screening levels was less than or equal to 10 percent, and their magnitudes of exceedance were low (Step 4) or the magnitude of exceedance was less than 10 (Step 5), as summarized in Table CI.2-5. The exclusion of these chemicals as COPCs in groundwater is discussed further in the Uncertainty Section (Section CI.7.0).

Lead was not selected as a COPC, because the lead screening value is based on EPA’s tap water action level for lead and is protective of children, the most sensitive population to lead exposures, who drink tap water on a daily basis. At this site, the only complete exposure pathways to groundwater are inhalation and dermal contact during subterranean construction activities. Lead is not considered a volatile chemical and is not readily absorbed through the skin. Therefore, construction worker exposures to lead in groundwater would not be significant (USEPA 2003b) and exposures to lead in groundwater were not quantified.

Two selected PAH compounds—benzo(a)pyrene and benzo(b)fluoranthene—had frequencies of exceedance below 10 percent. They were selected because their combined cancer risk might be a concern due to their additivity with other carcinogens (e.g., benzene and ethylbenzene).



Soil

Table CI.2-6 summarizes the soil screening results for the NMCB Building Area. A total of 37 chemicals were detected in site soil and compared to their respective screening values. Of the 37 detected chemicals, 20 had maximum concentrations above their respective screening levels. These 20 chemicals were further evaluated, according to the steps outlined in Section CI.2.2, for natural background (inorganics only) and frequency and magnitude of exceedance above screening levels (Table CI.2-7). The 15 selected chemicals are listed below.

• 2-Methylnaphthalene • 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene • 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene • Benzene • Benzo(a)anthracene • Benzo(a)pyrene • Benzo(b)fluoranthene • Dibenz(a,h)anthracene • Ethylbenzene • Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene • Naphthalene • Xylenes • DRO • GRO • RRO

The five other chemicals were not selected for the following reasons:

• The frequency of exceedance above screening values was less than or equal to 10 percent, as summarized in Table CI.2-7 (Step 4 eliminates all chemicals except carbazole).

• The magnitude of exceedance was less than 10, as summarized in Table CI.2-7 (Step 5 eliminates all chemicals).

It should be noted that the soil screening criteria are based on residential exposures, and only worker exposures to soil are evaluated at this site (see Section CI.3.1). Workers, even construction workers with high rates of soil contact, have much less exposure to soil than do residents. In addition, the working adult population does not contain sensitive subpopulations, such as children or the elderly, as do residential populations. Therefore, use of the residential



soil PRGs in the screening for COPCs is a conservative approach and allows for a certain degree of flexibility in the selection of COPCs. Furthermore, estimates of risk were calculated using an estimate of the average site concentration within the exposure area (the 95UCL of the mean), not the maximum concentrations. Thus, because of the low frequencies and magnitudes of exceedance above screening values, these five chemicals would result in exposure point concentrations that do not warrant a health concern. The exclusion of these chemicals as COPCs in soil is discussed further in the Uncertainty Section (Section CI.7.0).

Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and ethylbenzene, had maximum concentrations above screening values, but their frequencies of exceedance were below 10 percent. However, their magnitudes of exceedance were well above 10 times their respective screening values. Therefore, they were selected because their combined cancer risk might be a concern due to their additivity with the other carcinogens, benzene and benzo(a)pyrene.

CI.2.4 Summary of Selected COPCs

Table CI.2-8 summarizes the chemicals that were selected for quantitative evaluation by media. Nineteen chemicals in groundwater and 15 chemicals in soil were selected as COPCs. Twelve chemicals were selected as COPCs in both groundwater and soil.

STORAGE42069

FISH AND WILDLIFE

VEHICLE

T-1416T-1421

PEB

SEWAGE LIFT STATION NO. 11

42094WASH RACK

MRP-10

02-493

E-212 02-454

MRP-7

E-211MRP-MW6

LC7A (OLD 1)

E-210

ASB-215

ASB-305

NMCBSB6ASB-306R

ASB-306

NMCBSB2ASB-221

ASB-209 NMCBSB3ASB-222

NMCBSB4ASB-220

NMCBSB7NMCBSB8

NMCBSB17 ASB-218NMCBSB14

NMCBSB11

NMCBSB13NMCBSB9

ASB-219NMCBSB19NMCBSB12NMCBSB10ASB-211

NMCBSB16

ASB-217

ASB-208NMCBSB18

ASB-212NMCBSB15 ASB-207

02-486NMCBSB1

ASB-206

ASB-205

02-481

02-45902-485

02-482

02-458

02-487

AHA-314

AHA-ESBT-8

AHA-202

AHA-ESBT-9AHA-204

E-20402-473

02-45102-670

02-818

02-455

02-45302-475

02-497 02-300E-203

02-46302-816

02-81702-45202-489

02-47802-461

NMCB-04

02-819 02-815

02-479

02-81302-301

02-812E-201

02-302NMCB-01NMCB-03

02-814E-202

NMCB-06NMCB-05

ATP-209

ATP-210ATP-310

ATP-205ATP-204

E-701

E-214

ASB-307

ASB-308

ASB-223

ASB-310ASB-311

ASB-313ASB-312

ASB-315

ATP-304 ATP-302ATP-306ATP-307

ASB-226

AHA-313

AHA-307

AHA-203

E-219

NMCBSB5

TDEM-10

ATP-303AHA-201

ATP-206

ASB-225

ATP-208

ATP-207

ATP-314

ATP-309ATP-308

ATP-305

T1416A-S6

ASB-317

ASB-314ASB-316

ATP-301

ATP-316

P6-1B

ASB-319

ATP-315

ATP-203

Seawall RoadM

ain R

oad

ATP-202

NMCB Building Area

ASB-319

ASB-222ASB-209

ATP-201T1416A-S5

02-474

02-484

02-486

Figure CI.2-1Soil and Groundwater Sampling Locations

NMCB Building Area, T-1416 Expanded Area

Delivery Order 0037

Adak Island, AK0 125 250

SCALE IN FEET

Note: Data from only the bolded sampling locations were evaluated in the Risk Assessment. Data from faded sampling locations were not evaluated.

Sample

DirectionGroundwater Flow

Surface Soil

Hand Augar

Geoprobe Boring

LEGEND

Test Pit

Monitoring Well

Abandonded/ Bore Hole

Geoprobe Well

Lost Monitoring Well

Approximate Extent of Riprap

FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT Appendix CINMCB Building T-1416 Expanded Area Revision No.: 0U.S. Navy Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Date: 02/04/05Contract No. N44255-02-D-2008 Page CI.2-13Delivery Order 0037

Excluded Data Rationale for ExclusionSamples collected at depths greater than 15 feet bgs No human exposure to soils collected at depths greater than

15 feet bgs

Samples analyzed by Method 418.1 and "field" testing Method does not distinguish between fuel products (e.g., gasoline or diesel)

Excluded Data Rationale for ExclusionSamples analyzed by Method 418.1 Method does not distinguish between fuel products (e.g., gasoline

or diesel)Samples analyzed for toxicity characteristics leachate(TCLP-6010)

These two samples do not represent site conditions.

Samples analyzed by Methods EPH and VPH Usable data, but not compatible with ADEC definitions of TPH carbon fraction ranges

TDEM-10 Location is upgradient of the source and was collected as part of the saltwater intrusion study.

E-701 Well is unimpacted by site contamination.

Notes:ADEC - Alaska Department of Environmental Conservationbgs - below ground surfaceEPH - extractable petroleum hydrocarbonsTPH - total petroleum hydrocarbonsVPH - volatile petroleum hydrocarbons

GroundwaterLocations of Data Included in the Risk Assessment

02-300, 02-301, 02-302, 02-451, 02-452, 02-453, 02-454, 02-455, 02-458, 02-461, 02-463, 02-473, 02-474, 02-475, 02-478, 02-479, 02-484, 02-486, 02-487, 02-489, 02-493, 02-497, 02-670, 02-812, 02-813, 02-814, 02-815, 02-816, 02-817, 02-818, 02-819, E-201, E-202, E-203, E-204, E-210, E-211, E-212, E-214, LC7A, MRP-10, MRP-7, MRP-MW6, NMCB-01, NMCB-03, NMCB-04, NMCB-05, NMCB-06, E-219

02-300, 02-301, 02-302, 02-451, 02-452, 02-453, 02-454, 02-455, 02-458, 02-459, 02-461, 02-463, 02-473, 02-474, 02-475, 02-478, 02-479, 02-481, 02-482, 02-484, 02-485, 02-486, 02-487, 02-489, 02-493, 02-497, 02-670, 02-812, 02-813, 02-814, 02-815, 02-816, 02-817, 02-818, 02-819, AHA-201, AHA-202, AHA-314, AHA-ESBT-8, AHA-ESBT-9, ASB-208, ASB-209, ASB-211, ASB-212, ASB-215, ASB-218, ASB-220, ASB-221, ASB-222, ASB-225, ASB-305, ASB-306, ASB-306R, ASB-314, ASB-315, ASB-316, ASB-317, ASB-319, ATP-201, ATP-202, ATP-203, ATP-206, ATP-207, ATP-208, ATP-301, ATP-303, ATP-305, ATP-308, ATP-309, ATP-310, ATP-314, ATP-315, ATP-316, E-204, E-211, E-212, E-214, MRP-10, NMCB-01, NMCB-03, NMCBSB1, NMCBSB10, NMCBSB11, NMCBSB12, NMCBSB13, NMCBSB14, NMCBSB15, NMCBSB16, NMCBSB17, NMCBSB18, NMCBSB19, NMCBSB2, NMCBSB3, NMCBSB4, NMCBSB5, NMCBSB6, NMCBSB7, NMCBSB8, NMCBSB9, P6-1B, T1416A-S5, T1416A-S6, E-219

Table CI.2-1

Summary of Data Selection for Use in the Risk Assessment

SoilLocations of Data Included in the Risk Assessment

NMCB Building Area

C:\Documents and Settings\kattol\Desktop\NMCB files\NMCB FINAL FFS February 4, 2005\Table CI 2-1, CI 2-2

FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT Appendix CINMCB Building T-1416 Expanded Area Revision No.: 0U.S. Navy Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Date: 02/04/05Contract No. N44255-02-D-2008 Page CI.2-14Delivery Order 0037

MatrixSoil 6000/7000, 6010 - Total Inorganics (Pb only) 43

8020 - Volatile Organics (BTEX only) 1218021 - Volatile Organics (BTEX only) 648240 - Volatile Organics 48260 - Volatile Organics 148270 - Semivolatile Organics 168270 Mod - Semivolatile Organics 18015 Mod - TPH, Gasoline Range 728100 Mod - TPH, Diesel Range 778080 - Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Pesticides 2AK 101 - TPH, Gasoline Range 117AK 102 - TPH, Diesel Range 118AK 103 - TPH, Heavy Fraction Range 4

Groundwater 6000/7000, 6010 - Total Inorganics (Pb only) 137421, 7470 - Total Inorganics (Pb and Hg only) 18020 - Volatile Organics (BTEX only) 568021 - Volatile Organics (BTEX only) 218260 - Volatile Organics 198270 - Semivolatile Organics 508270 Mod - Semivolatile Organics 28015 Mod - TPH, Gasoline Range 378100 Mod - TPH, Diesel Range 38AK 101 - TPH, Gasoline Range 59AK 101 - TPH, BTEX only 7AK 102 - TPH, Diesel Range 59V-CLP - Volatile Organics 2

Notes:-- This analytical method was not used or matrix was not analyzed for this site.BTEX - benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenesTPH - total petroleum hydrocarbonsPb - leadHg - mercury

Table CI.2-2Summary of the Number of Samples by Analytical Method

aSamples analyzed by the following TPH methods are not included in this table: 418.1, AK 102 AA, AK 103 AA, EPH, and VPH.

Analytical Methoda NMCB Building Area

C:\Documents and Settings\kattol\Desktop\NMCB files\NMCB FINAL FFS February 4, 2005\Table CI 2-1, CI 2-2



Table CI.2-3 Chemicals With Sample Quantitation Limits Exceeding Screening Values

Exposure Medium Chemical Units

Range of Sample Quantitation Limits

ScreeningValue

No. of Nondetections

No. of Nondetects Exceeding Screening Value

Frequency of Exceedance (%)

Groundwater 1,2-Dichloroethane ug/L 0.5-200 0.12 31 31 100 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ug/L 1-11 7.3 15 14 93 2-Methylnaphthalene ug/L 0.2-2.17 0.62 19 14 74 Acetone ug/L 25-200 60.8 4 1 25 Benzene ug/L 0.2-200 0.34 56 43 77 Benzo(a)anthracene ug/L 0.2-11 0.092 39 39 100 Benzo(a)pyrene ug/L 0.02-11 0.0092 47 47 100 Benzo(b)fluoranthene ug/L 0.2-11 0.092 48 48 100 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ug/L 0.2-20 0.92 49 36 73 Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate ug/L 1-10 4.8 15 14 93 Carbon disulfide ug/L 0.5-200 104 32 1 3 Chrysene ug/L 0.2-20 9.2 39 2 5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L 0.5-200 6.1 25 6 24 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ug/L 0.02-11 0.0092 50 50 100 Dibenzofuran ug/L 0.2-11 2.4 10 4 40 Diesel-range organics ug/L 100-260 150 28 19 68 Gasoline-range organics ug/L 5-250 130 29 7 24 Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ug/L 0.2-11 0.092 49 49 100 Methylene chloride ug/L 1-200 4.3 31 21 68 Naphthalene ug/L 0.2-2.17 0.62 19 15 79 Pentachlorophenol ug/L 25-55 0.56 15 15 100 Styrene ug/L 0.5-200 164 32 1 3 Tetrachloroethene ug/L 0.5-200 0.66 32 22 69 Trichloroethene ug/L 0.5-200 0.03 30 30 100


Table CI.2-3 (Continued) Chemicals With Sample Quantitation Limits Exceeding Screening Values


Exposure Medium Chemical Units

Range of Sample Quantitation Limits

ScreeningValue

No. of Nondetections

No. of Nondetects Exceeding Screening Value

Frequency of Exceedance (%)

Soil Benzene mg/kg 0.005-4.5 0.6 127 2 2 Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.2-2 0.62 14 7 50 Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.2-2 0.062 14 14 100 Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.2-2 0.62 14 7 50 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.2-2 0.062 15 15 100 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.2-2 0.62 14 7 50 Diesel-range organics mg/kg 4-4090 825 44 2 5 Gasoline-range organics mg/kg 0.3-600 140 76 1 1 Notes: µg/L = micrograms of chemical per liter of medium mg/kg = milligrams of chemical per kilogram of medium

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future

Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Medium: Indoor Air and Groundwater

Exposure Point: Vapor Intrusion Inside Building and Subsurface Work

CAS Number Chemical Minimum (1) Concentration

Minimum Qualifier

Maximum (1) Concentration

Maximum Qualifier Units

Location of Maximum

ConcentrationDetection

Frequency Range of

Detection LimitsConcentration

Used for ScreeningBackground

Value (2) Screening Value (3)

Potential ARAR/TBC

Value

Potential ARAR/TBC

Source COPC Flag Screening Rationale (4)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 7 J 7 J ug/L LC7A 1/33 0.5 - 200 7 0 317 200 AkCL NO BSL

87-61-6 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene (5) 1.19 1.19 ug/L NMCB-05 1/17 1 - 10 1.19 0 19 70 AkCL NO BSL

95-63-6 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 2.33 752 ug/L 02-452 17/17 -- 752 0 1.2 12 PRG YES ASL

107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane 1.4 J 1.5 J ug/L E-201 2/33 0.5 - 200 1.5 0 0.12 c 3650 AkCL YES ASL

156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (5) 10.5 400 ug/L 02-474 8/33 0.5 - 200 400 0 6.1 70 AkCL YES ASL

108-67-8 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 2.41 241 ug/L 02-452 17/17 -- 241 0 1.2 12 PRG YES ASL

91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene (6) 0.02 J 130 ug/L 02-474 31/50 0.2 - 2.17 130 0 0.62 c 700 AkCL YES ASL

99-87-6 4-Isopropyltoluene (6) 3.93 48.9 ug/L 02-461 14/17 1 - 10 48.9 0 66 660 PRG NO BSL

83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.03 J 120 ug/L 02-474 26/51 0.2 - 20 120 0 36.5 2200 AkCL NO IFE, LME

208-96-8 Acenaphthylene (6) 1.9 J 3.75 J ug/L 02-474 3/51 0.2 - 20 3.75 0 36.5 2200 AkCL NO BSL

67-64-1 Acetone 10 150 ug/L 02-461 3/7 25 - 200 150 0 60.8 3650 AkCL NO LME

120-12-7 Anthracene 0.02 J 5 J ug/L 02-474 20/51 0.2 - 11 5 0 183 11000 AkCL NO BSL

71-43-2 Benzene 0.872 360 ug/L 02-493 47/103 0.2 - 200 360 0 0.34 c 5 AkCL YES ASL

75-15-0 Carbon disulfide 6.3 6.3 ug/L 02-813 1/33 0.5 - 200 6.3 0 104 3650 AkCL NO BSL

132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 0.4 68 ug/L 02-474 6/16 0.2 - 11 68 0 2.4 24 PRG YES ASL

100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 1.1 970 ug/L MRP-MW6 70/106 0.2 - 1 970 0 2.9 700 AkCL YES ASL

86-73-7 Fluorene 0.03 J 58 ug/L 02-474 28/51 0.2 - 20 58 0 24.3 1460 AkCL NO IFE, LME

98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene 1.61 93.3 ug/L 02-461 16/17 1 93.3 0 66 660 PRG NO IFE, LME

75-09-2 Methylene chloride 3 J 8 J ug/L 02-474 2/33 1 - 200 8 0 4.3 c 5 AkCL NO IFE, LME

91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.07 J 1100 ug/L 02-474 47/66 0.2 - 2.17 1100 0 0.62 700 AkCL YES ASL

104-51-8 n-Butylbenzene 1.47 6.25 ug/L 02-452 3/17 1 - 10 6.25 0 24 240 PRG NO BSL

103-65-1 n-Propylbenzene 2.9 88.5 ug/L 02-461 15/17 1 - 10 88.5 0 24 240 PRG YES ASL

85-01-8 Phenanthrene (6) 0.04 J 55 ug/L 02-474 31/51 0.2 - 11 55 0 183 11000 AkCL NO BSL

129-00-0 Pyrene 0.02 J 8 ug/L 02-474 24/51 0.2 - 11 8 0 18.3 1100 AkCL NO BSL

135-98-8 sec-Butylbenzene 1.65 11.7 ug/L 02-452 7/17 1 - 10 11.7 0 24 240 PRG NO BSL

108-95-2 Styrene 2.3 J 2.3 J ug/L 02-474 1/33 0.5 - 200 2.3 0 164 100 AkCL NO BSL

127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene 0.9 J 0.9 J ug/L 02-474 1/33 0.5 - 200 0.9 0 0.66 c 5 AkCL NO IFD, IFE, LME

108-88-3 Toluene 0.5 1600 ug/L LC7A 64/106 0.2 - 25 1600 0 72.3 1000 AkCL YES ASL

156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 3.2 J 3.2 J ug/L 02-474 1/17 1 - 10 3.2 0 12.2 100 AkCL NO BSL

79-01-6 Trichloroethene 12 J 24 ug/L 02-474 3/33 0.5 - 200 24 0 0.03 c 5 AkCL YES ASL

1330-20-7 Xylenes 1.1 J 5000 ug/L LC7A 73/106 0.2 - 2 5000 0 21 10000 AkCL YES ASL

Semi-volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)

105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol 17 J 180 ug/L 02-474 4/16 10 - 11 180 0 73 700 AkCL NO LME

121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 13 13 ug/L 02-452 1/16 1 - 11 13 0 7.3 1.25 AkCL NO IFE, LME

95-48-7 2-Methylphenol 44 90 ug/L 02-474 3/16 10 - 11 90 0 180 1800 AkCL NO BSL

108-39-4 3-Methylphenol (6) 23 130 ug/L 02-474 4/12 10 - 10 130 0 180 1800 AkCL NO BSL

NMCB Building GroundwaterOccurence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern

Delivery Order 0037

Table CI.2-4

Appendix CIRevision No.: 0

FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTNMCB Building T-1416 Expanded AreaU.S. Navy, Engineering Field Activity, NorthwestContracts No. N44255-02-D-2008

Date: 02/04/05Page CI.2-17

C:\Documents and Settings\kattol\Desktop\NMCB files\NMCB FINAL FFS February 4, 2005\Table CI 2-4, 2-6


Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Medium: Indoor Air and Groundwater

Exposure Point: Vapor Intrusion Inside Building and Subsurface Work

CAS Number Chemical Minimum (1) Concentration

Minimum Qualifier

Maximum (1) Concentration


Location of Maximum


Frequency Range of




Potential ARAR/TBC

Value

Potential ARAR/TBC

Source COPC Flag Screening Rationale (4)

Semi-volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) (Cont.d)

106-44-5 4-Methylphenol (6) 130 130 ug/L 02-474 1/2 11 130 0 180 1800 AkCL NO BSL

56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.02 J 1 ug/L 02-474 12/51 0.2 - 11 1 0 0.092 c 1 AkCL YES ASL

50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.01 J 0.14 J ug/L 02-474 4/51 0.02 - 11 0.14 0 0.0092 c 0.2 AkCL YES ASL

205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.01 J 0.5 J ug/L 02-474 3/51 0.2 - 11 0.5 0 0.092 c 1 AkCL YES ASL

191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (6) 0.02 0.04 J ug/L 02-474 3/51 0.02 - 11 0.04 0 18.25 1100 AkCL NO BSL

207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.01 J 0.1 ug/L 02-474 2/51 0.2 - 20 0.1 0 0.92 c 10 AkCL NO BSL

117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 4 J 4 J ug/L MRP-MW6 1/16 1 - 10 4 0 4.8 c 6 AkCL NO BSL

86-74-8 Carbazole 0.02 J 160 ug/L 02-455 25/46 0.2 - 0.22 160 0 3.4 c 40 AkCL YES ASL

218-01-9 Chrysene 0.02 J 0.6 J ug/L 02-474 12/51 0.2 - 20 0.6 0 9.2 c 100 AkCL NO BSL

53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.02 0.02 ug/L 02-474 1/51 0.02 - 11 0.02 0 0.0092 c 0.1 AkCL NO IFD, IFE, LME

206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.01 J 15 J ug/L 02-474 24/51 0.2 - 11 15 0 146 1460 AkCL NO BSL

193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.01 J 0.4 J ug/L 02-474 2/51 0.2 - 11 0.4 0 0.092 c 1 AkCL NO IFD, IFE, LME

87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 1 J 1 J ug/L 02-474 1/16 25 - 55 1 0 0.56 c 1 AkCL NO IFE, LME

108-95-2 Phenol 24 56 ug/L 02-474 3/16 10 - 11 56 0 2200 22000 AkCL NO BSL

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs)

na Diesel Range Organics 105 44500 J ug/L 02-475 71/99 100-260 44500 0 150 1500 AkCL YES ASL

na Gasoline Range Organics 55 33000 ug/L MRP-MW6 68/97 5-250 33000 0 130 1300 AkCL YES ASL

Metals

7439-92-1 Lead 1.6 J 330 ug/L MRP-MW6 13/14 1 330 11.8 15 15 AkCL NO TXT

Notes: Definitions: -- compound has 100 % detection frequencyChemicals bolded exceeded their screening value. ARAR/TBC - applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement/to be considered(1) Minimum/maximum detected concentration COPC - chemical of potential concern(2) Background is assumed to be zero for SVOCs, TPH, and VOCs. J - estimated concentration Lead background was taken from the Background Study Report for Adak Island (U.S. Navy 1995) ug/l - microgram per liter(3) Screening values are one-tenth the Region 9 PRG for noncancer or full value for cancer; unless otherwise marke na - not available(4) Rationale Codes NE - not established

Selection Reason: ASL: above screening level PRG - EPA's Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goal for tap waterDeletion Reason: BSL: below screening level AkCL- Alaska cleanup level

IFE: infrequent exceedance of screening valueIFD: infrequent detectionLME: low magnitude of exceedanceTXT: see text discussion Section CI.2.3

(5) 1,2-dichloroethene results were pooled with cis-1,2-dichloroethene results for screening. (6) The following surrogate chemicals were used for screening values:

Chemical Name Surrogate Chemical2-Methylnaphthalene Naphthalene4-Isopropyltoluene IsopropylbenzeneAcenaphthylene AcenaphthenePhenanthrene AnthraceneBenzo(g,h,i)perylene Pyrene3-Methylphenol 2-Methylphenol4-Methylphenol 2-Methylphenol1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

U.S. Navy, Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Date: 02/04/05Contracts No. N44255-02-D-2008 Page CI.2-18

FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT Appendix CINMCB Building T-1416 Expanded Area Revision No.: 0

Delivery Order 0037

Table CI.2-4 (Continued)NMCB Building Groundwater

Occurence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern




Table CI.2-5 NMCB Building Area Groundwater

Frequency and Magnitude of Exceedance for Chemicals With Detected Concentrations Greater Than the Screening Values

Chemical

Maximum Concentration

(ug/L)

Screening Concentration

(ug/L) Frequency of

Detection Frequency of Exceedance

Magnitude of Exceedance

Chemicals Not Selected as COPCs 2,4-Dimethylphenol 180 73 4/16 (25%) 2/16 (13%) 2.5 times screening 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 13 7.3 1/16 (6%) 1/16 (6%) 1.8 times screening Acenaphthene 120 36.5 26/51 (51%) 4/51 (8%) 3.3 times screening Acetone 150 60.8 3/7 (43%) 3/7 (43%) 2.5 times screening Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.02 0.0092 1/51 (2%) 1/51 (2%) 2 times screening Fluorene 58 24 28/51 (55%) 4/51 (8%) 2.4 times screening Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.4 0.092 2/51 (4%) 1/51 (2%) 4 times screening Isopropylbenzene 93.3 66 16/17 (94%) 2/17 (11%) 1.4 times screening Lead 330 15 13/14 (93%) 8/14 (57%) 22 times screening Methylene chloride 8 4.3 2/33 (6%) 1/33 (3%) 1.9 times screening Pentachlorophenol 1 0.56 1/16 (6%) 1/16 (6%) 1.8 times screening Tetrachloroethene 0.9 0.66 1/33 (3%) 1/33 (3%) 1.4 times screening Chemicals Selected as COPCs 1,2-Dichloroethane 1.5 0.12 2/33 (6%) 2/33 (6%) 12 times screening cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 400 6.1 8/33 (24%) 8/33 (24%) 66 times screening 2-Methylnaphthalene 130 0.62 31/50 (62%) 30/50 (60%) 210 times screening 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 752 1.2 17/17 (100%) 17/17 (100%) 627 times screening 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 241 1.2 17/17 (100%) 17/17 (100%) 201 times screening Benzene 360 0.34 47/103 (46%) 47/103 (46%) 1071 times screening Benzo(a)anthracene 1 0.092 12/51 (24%) 5/51 (10%) 11 times screening Benzo(a)pyrene 0.14 0.0092 4/51 (8%) 4/51 (8%) 15 times screening Benzo(b)fluoranthene1 0.5 0.092 3/51 (6%) 2/51 (4%) 5 times screening Carbazole 160 3.4 25/46 (54%) 10/46 (22%) 48 times screening Dibenzofuran 68 2.4 6/16 (38%) 3/16 (19%) 28 times screening DRO 44,500 150 71/99 (72%) 69/99 (69%) 297 times screening Ethylbenzene 970 2.9 70/106 (66%) 66/106 (62%) 333 times screening GRO 33,000 130 68/97 (70%) 64/97 (66%) 254 times screening Naphthalene 1,100 0.62 47/66 (71%) 46/66 (70%) 1773 times screening n-Propylbenzene 88.5 24 15/17 (88%) 9/17 (53%) 3.7 times screening Toluene 1,600 72 63/106 (59%) 23/106 (22%) 22 times screening Trichloroethene 24 0.03 3/33 (9%) 3/33 (9%) 857 times screening Xylenes 5,000 21 73/106 (69%) 64/106 (60%) 238 times screening

1While these chemicals meet the criteria for COPC deselection based on infrequent exceedance, they were selected as COPCs based on high magnitude of exceedance and their similar toxic endpoints to benzo(a)pyrene. Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern DRO - diesel-range organics GRO - gasoline-range organics ug/L - micrograms per liter

Table CI.2-6

Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern in Soil


Medium: Soil

Exposure Medium: Soil

Exposure Point: Construction Site/Trenching

CAS Number Chemical Minimum

Concentration (1) Minimum Qualifier

Maximum Concentration (1)


Location of Maximum


Frequency Range of




Potential ARAR/TBC

Value

Potential ARAR/TBC

SourceCOPC Flag

Screening Rationale (4)

Volatile Organic Compounds

95-63-6 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.006 J 130 J mg/kg 02-818 8/12 0.02 - 0.2 130 0 5.2 52 PRG YES ASL

108-67-8 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.008 J 61 J mg/kg 02-818 9/12 0.02 - 0.2 61 0 2.1 21 PRG YES ASL

91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene (5) 0.6 120 mg/kg 02-451 8/16 0.2 - 1 120 0 5.6 92 AkCL YES ASL

108-39-4 3-Methylphenol 0.1 J 0.1 J mg/kg 02-301, 02-302 2/10 0.2 - 2 0.1 0 310 3100 PRG NO BSL

99-87-6 4-Isopropyltoluene (5) 0.03 J 16 J mg/kg 02-818 4/12 0.0193 - 4.4 16 0 57 570 PRG NO BSL

83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.0175 190 mg/kg 02-451 4/17 0.2 - 2 190 0 370 5000 AkCL NO BSL

208-96-8 Acenaphthylene (5) 3 3 mg/kg 02-451 1/17 0.01 - 2 3 0 370 5000 AkCL NO BSL

120-12-7 Anthracene 0.0359 140 mg/kg 02-451 4/17 0.2 - 2 140 0 2200 24900 AkCL NO BSL

71-43-2 Benzene 0.007 J 80 mg/kg 02-474 14/143 0.005 - 4.5 80 0 0.6 c 6.4 AkCL YES ASL

67-66-3 Chloroform 0.004 J 0.004 J mg/kg 02-302 1/15 0.005 - 1.1 0.004 0 3.6 c 2.4 AkCL NO BSL

100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 0.025 J 180 mg/kg 02-474 51/143 0.005 - 0.25 180 0 8.9 c 89 AkCL YES ASL

206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.167 260 mg/kg 02-451 5/17 0.2 - 2 260 0 230 3300 AkCL NO IFE, LME

86-73-7 Fluorene 0.0401 170 mg/kg 02-451 4/17 0.2 - 2 170 0 270 3300 AkCL NO BSL

98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) 4.1 J 11 J mg/kg 02-817 2/12 0.0193 - 4.4 11 0 57 570 PRG NO BSL

75-09-2 Methylene Chloride 0.08 J 2.09 J mg/kg NMCBSB9 3/15 0.01 - 2.2 0.1 0 9.1 c 135 AkCL NO BSL

91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.01 J 280 mg/kg 02-451 11/19 0.01 - 0.2 280 0 5.6 92 AkCL YES ASL

104-51-8 n-Butylbenzene 9.2 9.2 mg/kg 02-819 1/12 0.0193 - 4.4 9.2 0 240 sat 240 PRG NO BSL

103-65-1 n-Propylbenzene 4.3 J 14 J mg/kg 02-817 2/12 0.0193 - 4.4 14 0 240 sat 240 PRG NO BSL

85-01-8 Phenanthrene (5) 0.1 460 mg/kg 02-451 7/17 0.2 - 2 460 0 2200 24900 AkCL NO BSL

129-00-0 Pyrene 0.325 240 mg/kg 02-451 5/17 0.2 - 2 240 0 230 2500 AkCL NO IFE, LME

135-98-8 sec-Butylbenzene 3.5 J 5.7 J mg/kg 02-818 2/12 0.0193 - 4.4 5.7 0 220 sat 220 PRG NO BSL

108-88-3 Toluene 0.016 J 120 mg/kg 02-474 38/143 0.005 - 0.729 120 0 520 sat 180 AkCL NO BSL

1330-20-7 Xylenes 0.022 J 920 mg/kg 02-474 69/143 0.005 - 0.15 920 0 27 81 AkCL YES ASL

Semivolatile Organic Compounds

56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.0647 80 mg/kg 02-451 3/17 0.2 - 2 80 0 0.62 c 9 AkCL YES ASL

50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0464 40 mg/kg 02-451 3/17 0.2 - 2 40 0 0.062 c 0.9 AkCL YES ASL

205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0401 43 J mg/kg 02-451 3/17 0.2 - 2 43 0 0.62 c 9 AkCL YES ASL

191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (5) 0.0169 14 mg/kg 02-451 3/17 0.2 - 2 14 0 230 2500 AkCL NO BSL

207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0113 40 mg/kg 02-451 2/17 0.2 - 2 40 0 6.2 c 93 AkCL NO IFE, LME

117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 2 2 mg/kg 02-817 1/12 0.2 - 2 2 0 35 c 490 AkCL NO BSL

86-74-8 Carbazole 107 J 107 J mg/kg 02-451 1/9 0.2 - 0.8 107 0 24 c 340 AkCL NO LME

218-01-9 Chrysene 0.0506 80 mg/kg 02-451 4/17 0.2 - 2 80 0 62 c 930 AkCL NO IFE, LME

53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.0126 8 mg/kg 02-451 2/17 0.2 - 2 8 0 0.062 c 0.9 AkCL YES ASL

193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.0295 16 mg/kg 02-451 3/17 0.2 - 2 16 0 0.62 c 9 AkCL YES ASL

Appendix CIRevision No.: 0Date: 02/04/05

FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTNMCB Building T-1416 Expanded AreaU.S. Navy, Engineering Field Activity, NorthwestContract No. N44255-02-D-2008 Page CI.2-20

NMCB Building Soil

Delivery Order 0037


Table CI.2-6 (Continued)

Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern in Soil


Medium: Soil

Exposure Medium: Soil

Exposure Point: Construction Site/Trenching

CAS Number Chemical Minimum

Concentration (1) Minimum Qualifier

Maximum Concentration (1)


Location of Maximum


Frequency Range of




Potential ARAR/TBC

Value

Potential ARAR/TBC

SourceCOPC Flag

Screening Rationale (4)

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

na Diesel Range Organics 4.08 J 43000 J mg/kg 02-475 103/146 4-1100 43000 0 825 8250 AkCL YES ASL

na Gasoline Range Organics 2.1 27000 mg/kg 02-474 69/145 0.3-600 27000 0 140 1400 AkCL YES ASL

na Residual Range Organics 110 1310 J mg/kg 02-451 3/4 600 1310 0 830 8300 AkCL YES ASL

Metals

7439-92-1 Lead 0.0018 47.8 mg/kg E-219 40/40 -- 11 10.9 400 400 AkCL NO BSL

Notes: Definitions: -- compound has 100 % detection frequency

Chemicals bolded exceeded their screening value. na - not available

(1) Minimum/maximum detected concentration. COPC - chemical of potential concern

(2) Background is assumed to be zero for SVOCs, TPH, and VOCs. ARAR/TBC - applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement/to be considered

Lead background was taken from the Background Study Report for Adak Island (U.S. Navy 1995). PRG - EPA's Region 9, Preliminary Remedial Goals for residential soil

(3) Screening values are EPA Region 9 residential soil PRGs for VOCs and Alaska soil cleanup levels for TPHs. J - estimated value

One-tenth the PRG or cleanup level for noncancer, or the full PRG or cleanup level for cancer were used as screening values. c - cancer endpoint

(4) Rationale Codes sat - soil saturation

Selection Reason: ASL: above screening level

Deletion Reason: BSL: below screening level

IFE: infrequent exceedance of screening value

LME: low magnitude of exceedance

(5) The following surrogate chemicals were used for screening values:

Chemical Name Surrogate Chemical

2-Methylnaphthalene Naphthalene

4-Isopropyltoluene Isopropylbenzene

Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene

Benzo(ghi)perylene Pyrene

Phenanthrene Anthracene

FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT Appendix CINMCB Building T-1416 Expanded Area Revision No.: 0

Delivery Order 0037

NMCB Building Soil

U.S. Navy, Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Date: 02/04/05Contract No. N44255-02-D-2008 Page CI.2-21




Table CI.2-7 NMCB Building Area Soil

Frequency and Magnitude of Exceedance for Chemicals With Detected Concentrations Greater Than the Screening Values

Chemical

Maximum Concentration

(mg/kg)

Screening Concentration

(mg/kg) Frequency of

Detection Frequency of Exceedance

Magnitude of Exceedance

Chemicals Not Selected as COPCs Benzo(k)fluoranthene 40 6.2 2/17 (13%) 1/17(6%) 6.4 times screening Carbazole 107 24 1/9 (11%) 1/9 (11%) 4.4 times screening Chrysene 80 62 4/17 (24%) 1/17 (6%) 1.3 times screening Fluoranthene 260 230 5/17 (29%) 1/17 (6%) 1.1 times screening Pyrene 240 230 5/17(29%) 1/17 (6%) 1.0 times screening Chemicals Selected as COPCs 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 130 5.2 8/12 (67%) 5/12 (42%) 25 times screening 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 61 2.1 9/12 (75%) 5/12 (42%) 29 times screening 2-Methylnaphthalene 120 5.6 8/16 (50%) 6/16 (38%) 21 times screening Benzene2 80 0.60 14/145 (10%) 8/141 (6%) 133 times screening Benzo(a)anthracene1 80 0.62 3/17 (18%) 1/17 (6%) 129 times screening Benzo(a)pyrene 40 0.062 3/17 (18%) 2/17 (12%) 644 times screening Benzo(b)fluoranthene1 43 0.62 3/17 (18%) 1/17 (6%) 69 times screening Dibenz(a,h)anthracene1 8 0.062 2/17 (13%) 1/17 (6%) 129 times screening Ethylbenzene2 180 8.9 52/145 (36%) 12/141 (9%) 20 times screening Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene1 16 0.62 3/17 (18%) 1/17 (6%) 26 times screening Naphthalene 280 5.6 11/19 (58%) 5/19 (26%) 50 times screening DRO 43,000 825 101/146 (69%) 40/146 (27%) 52 times screening GRO 27,000 140 68/145(47%) 35/145 (24%) 193 times screening RRO 1,310 830 3/4 (75%) 1/4 (25%) 1.6 times screening Xylenes 920 27 71/145 (49%) 19/145 (12%) 1.6 times screening

1While these chemicals meet the criteria for COPC deselection based on infrequent exceedance, they were selected as COPCs based on high magnitude of exceedance and their similar toxic endpoints to benzo(a)pyrene. 2While this chemical meets the criteria for COPC deselection based on infrequent exceedance, it was selected as a COPC based on high magnitude of exceedance and the potential for chemical additivity. Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern DRO - diesel-range organics GRO - gasoline-range organics mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram RRO - residual-range organics



Table CI.2-8 Chemicals Selected as Chemicals of Potential Concern

Chemical Groundwater Soil

1,2-Dichloroethane X 2-Methylnaphthalene X X 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene X X 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene X X Benzene X X Benzo(a)anthracene X X Benzo(a)pyrene X X Benzo(b)fluoranthene X X Carbazole X cis-1,2-Dichloroethene X Dibenz(a,h)anthracene X Dibenzofuran X DRO X X Ethylbenzene X X GRO X X Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene X Naphthalene X X n-Propylbenzene X RRO X Toluene X Trichloroethene X Xylenes X X

APPENDIX B Contaminant Fate and Transport ModelingNo contaminant fate and transport modeling using...

Documents

Transcript of APPENDIX B Contaminant Fate and Transport ModelingNo contaminant fate and transport modeling using...