IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT FINAL PROPOSED PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SITES CC-IAAP-001 AND CC-IAAP-002 OPERABLE UNIT NINE

Transcription

1 IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT FINAL FOR CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SITES CC-IAAP-001 AND CC-IAAP-002 OPERABLE UNIT NINE INTRODUCTION This Proposed Plan identifies the Preferred Remedial Alternatives for the closure of Construction Debris Site 001 (CC-IAAP-001) and Construction Debris Site 002 (CC-IAAP-002). These facilities are part of Operable Unit Nine (9) (OU-9) at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAAP) in Middletown, Iowa (Figure 1). Dates to Remember A) Public Comment Period - January 13, 2015 through February 11, 2015 B) Public Meeting February 9, 2015 The Army and EPA will accept written comments on the Proposed Plan during a 30-day public comment period. The Army will hold a public meeting to explain the Proposed Plan and the remedial alternatives in the Focused Feasibility Study. Oral and written comments will also be accepted at the meeting. The meeting will be held at the Burlington Public Library on February 9, 2015 from 4:30 to 6:00 pm to explain this proposed action and to answer questions and accept comments. Detailed information regarding this proposed action is available in the Administrative Record File, which is located online at A hard copy is located at the IAAAP Library. The Burlington Public Library has computers available to the public for those interested in viewing the electronic version of the Administrative Record. The library is located at: 210 Court Street Burlington, IA Figure 1. Site Location This work is being conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the IAAAP Federal Facility Agreement (FFA). This document is issued by the U.S. Army (Army), the owner of the IAAAP facility, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Army is the lead agency and the EPA is the primary regulatory agency. The State of Iowa is not a signatory to the IAAAP FFA. The Army and EPA are issuing this Proposed Plan as part of the public participation responsibilities under Section (f)(2) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and Section 117(a) of CERCLA. This Proposed Plan summarizes information that is presented in detail in the Focused Feasibility Study (PIKA International, Inc., 2014 [PIKA]) report and in the IAAAP Administrative Record File (see above). January

2 FINAL OU-9 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SITES The Administrative Record is a compilation of the information that was considered in making the proposal presented in this Proposed Plan, and presents a comprehensive description of the site investigation and proposed remediation activities. The Army, in conjunction with the EPA, will select the final remedy for the site after reviewing and discussing all available data, including information submitted during the 30-day public review period. This review period provides the public with an opportunity to provide comments on the alternatives and remedial action selected for Site CC-IAAP-001 and Site CC-IAAP-002. After public comments are addressed, the Proposed Plan will be finalized. The public is encouraged to review and comment on this proposed plan. IAAAP HISTORY The IAAAP is located in the southeastern part of Iowa, near the town of Middletown, Des Moines County, approximately 10 miles west of the Mississippi River. Figure 1 shows the location of the IAAAP in southeastern Iowa and Figure 2 shows the location of the two sites with respect to Line 2 and each other within the IAAAP. The IAAAP is a secured facility covering approximately 19,000 acres in a rural setting. Approximately 7,750 acres are currently leased for agricultural use, 7,500 acres are forested land, and the remaining area is used for administrative and industrial operations. The principal mission of IAAAP has been load, assemble, and pack (LAP) operations dealing with a variety of conventional ammunition and fuzing systems. IAAAP was initially developed in 1941 for the production of supplies for World War II and operated from September 1941 until August Production was resumed in 1949 and has continued to the present. Additionally, nitrogen fertilizer was produced at Line 8 from 1946 to From 1947 through mid-1975, the former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) occupied facilities on the site, which then reverted to Army control in 1975 (Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1987 in JAYCOR, 1996). Currently, IAAAP is a government facility, owned by the United States Army and operated by a private contractor, American Ordnance, LLC (AO). Figure 2. Construction Debris Site Locations SITE BACKGROUND CC-IAAP-001 was discovered in October 2007 at the intersection of roads H and A during work on a water line along Road H (Figure 3). The 1.34 acre site was used to discard construction and demolition debris. Visible debris includes scattered bricks, corrugated metal, metal parts, wire, and metal banding. Figure 3. CC-IAAP-001 January

3 FINAL OU-9 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SITES The site is bounded by a curving railroad spur that crosses Road H at the south end of the site and Road I at the northeast end of the site. The site slopes from north to south with steep embankments along Road H and the railroad spur. An unnamed drainage way bisects the site and flows from Road I, parallel to Road H, then to the railroad spur at the south end of the site. The drainage exits the site through a culvert under the railroad spur approximately 50 feet west of Road H. The discharge from the intermittent drainage ditch eventually flows into Brush Creek. CC-IAAP-002 was discovered by recreational users in March 2009 along a tributary to Brush Creek in a forested area south of Line 2 (Figure 4). The acre site was used to discard construction and demolition materials including sheets of metal, bricks, corrugated transite roofing/siding, wire, buckets, and wood. The debris was placed along the banks of an intermittent, unnamed drainage which discharges to Brush Creek. The end of the debris lies approximately feet from the confluence with Brush Creek. Figure 4. CC-IAAP-002 A Remedial Investigation (RI) was conducted at the two construction debris sites by PIKA in 2013 to identify the areas of potential contamination. s were collected from soil, surface water, sediments, and groundwater. Target analytes included explosives, metals, hexavalent chromium, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, herbicides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and asbestos (a component of the transite roofing/siding). In addition, visual and instrument aided radiological observations and geological and analog geophysical investigations were also conducted at both sites to identify and delineate areas of potential contamination or debris. The RI delineated the nature and extent of contamination of four media at CC-IAAP-001 and CC-IAAP-002: soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater. The four media investigated at CC- IAAP-001were soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater. Seven metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, total chromium, hexavalent chromium, lead, and selenium) and one pesticide (endrin aldehyde) exceeded their respective project action limit (PALs) or background concentrations. Soil - metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, total chromium, lead, and selenium) and one pesticide (endrin aldehyde) exceeded their respective PALs or background concentrations. Sediment - metals (arsenic, barium, total chromium, and selenium) exceeded their respective PALs. Surface Water metals (total and dissolved arsenic; total and dissolved barium; total hexavalent chromium, and total selenium) exceeded their respective PALs. Groundwater - metals (total and dissolved arsenic, total chromium, total hexavalent chromium, and total lead) exceeded their respective PALs. At CC-IAAP-002, seven metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, total chromium, hexavalent chromium, lead, and selenium) and 13 SVOCs (acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3- cd)pyrene, phenanthrene, and pyrene) exceeded their respective PALs or background concentrations. Soils, metals (arsenic, barium, total chromium, lead, and selenium) exceeded their respective PALs or background concentrations. Sediment - metals (arsenic, barium, total chromium, lead, and selenium) and thirteen SVOCs January

4 FINAL OU-9 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SITES (acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3- cd)pyrene, phenanthrene, and pyrene) exceeded their respective PALs or background concentrations. Groundwater - metals (total and dissolved arsenic, total chromium, and total hexavalent chromium) exceeded their respective PALs. Figures showing the distribution of contaminants that exceeded their respective PALs or background concentrations are included in Attachment 1. Figures showing the distribution of contaminants that exceeded their respective PALs or background concentrations are included in Attachment 1. Attachment 2 includes two tables which list the RI PAL and Background Exceedances at each site. Table A2-1 lists the exceedances for Site CC-IAAP- 001 and Table A2-2 lists the exceedances for Site CC-IAAP-002. All soil, sediment, and water samples from both sites were scanned for radiation using a multi-spectrum detector (i.e. alpha/beta/gamma). The radiation measurements indicated all radiation levels were within normal background levels. Soil borings and geophysical data confirmed that no construction debris was buried at either site. The concentrations of all detected metals, pesticides, and SVOCs were further evaluated during the human health and ecological risk assessments. None of the detected concentrations exceeded acceptable risk levels. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTIONS No response action is proposed for CC-IAAP-001 because no human health or ecological risks were identified. The evaluation of risk is discussed in the next section. The proposed response action at CC- IAAP-002 is to remove the asbestos containing material (ACM) debris piles. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS Baseline Human Health Risk Assessments (BHHRAs) and Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessments (SLERAs) were conducted for the two sites (CC-IAAP-001 and CC-IAAP-002). No unacceptable human health or ecological risks were identified at either site. The BHHRA was consistent with the framework for risk assessment described in Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) (EPA, 1989) and the SLERA was completed in accordance with the Superfund Guidance Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments (EPA, 1997). The current and foreseeable future (industrial/recreational) land uses at both sites include: Current and future hunter exposure to soil, surface water and sediment; Future construction worker exposure to soil and soil derived dust; and Future commercial/industrial worker exposure to soil and groundwater hypothetically used as drinking water. The BHHRA evaluated potential exposures to surface soil, subsurface soil, groundwater, and surface water for current and future hunters, future outdoor workers, and future construction workers. This evaluation was performed using conservative exposure assumptions, which represent very cautious estimates of potential site exposure. The potentially complete exposure pathways evaluated in the BHHRA included direct contact (incidental ingestion and dermal contact) with soil, surface water, and sediment, inhalation of contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) in dust released from soil, and potable use of groundwater (ingestion with groundwater used as tap water in a commercial setting). Health risks for each of the current and future land use exposure scenarios were quantified using algorithms specified in USEPA guidance. The BHHRA characterized cancer and non-cancer risks associated with the COPC, media and potential receptors identified above. The results of the BHHRA indicate, for current and potential future land uses, that potential exposure to soil, surface water, and sediment at the Site would be associated with cancer risks that do not exceed USEPA s cancer risk range of 1x10-6 to 1x10-4 (for all receptors except for the Commercial/Industrial Worker, which falls within the acceptable range), and non-cancer hazard index (HI) values that are lower than EPA s threshold value of 1. January

5 FINAL OU-9 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SITES In addition, the results of the BHHRA indicate that combined exposures to soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater used as drinking water would not result in risks that exceed the upper bound of the USEPA Remedial Goal range or an HI of 1. Therefore, no response actions to mitigate cancer and non-cancer risks are required for these media. The SLERAs were performed using USEPA Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. The SLERA evaluated the potential for chemical constituents of concern detected in surface soil, surface water, and sediment to adversely affect ecological receptors. The SLERA identified complete exposure pathways and conducted a conservative assessment of all contaminants of potential ecological concern. Analytes with a Hazard Quotient (HQ) > 1 were considered Contaminants of potential ecological concern (COPECs) and were retained for further evaluation. The analysis of uncertainties found that the estimations of exposure and potential toxicity used in calculating the HQs are based on conservative assumptions of bioavailability, uptake, and toxicological threshold, resulting in HQs that overestimate the potential for risk to exposed individuals, The results of the SLERA indicate that given the uncertainties described above, the concentrations present an acceptable risk to ecological receptors and no further evaluation of risk is required. Although no human health or ecological risks were identified at either site, the transite roofing/siding material in debris piles located within CC-IAAP-002 are known to contain chrysotile asbestos (a CERCLA hazardous substance). With continued exposure to the elements the ACM debris will degrade and pose a future threat of exposure to friable asbestos. NFA will be recommended after the ACM is removed and subsequent site sampling verifies the site as not having unacceptable risk levels. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) describe what the proposed cleanup alternative is expected to accomplish and serves as the basis for development and evaluation of the selected remedial alternatives. No RAOs are necessary for CC-IAAP-001 because no unacceptable risk was identified. No further action (NFA) is recommended. The Army and EPA concluded that remedial action is necessary to protect public health, welfare, and the environment from future exposure to friable asbestos from the ACM debris piles at CC-IAAP-002. Site-specific Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for soil, sediment and surface water are as follows: Prevent direct media contact with human and ecological receptors; Prevent migration of friable asbestos through wind, surface water runoff, and erosion pathways; and Remove all ACM debris from CC-IAAP-002 to prevent exposure and allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposureafter removal of the ACM debris, NFA is recommended. SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES In the Feasibility Study (FS), four alternatives were developed to address the ACM debris piles at CC- IAAP-002. Alternative 1 - No Action The No Action alternative is required by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan for baseline comparison purposes (40 CFR [e][6]). Under this alternative, the site would remain in its present condition with periodic inspections to document any changes in site conditions that might affect the condition of the ACM debris piles. Although the No Action alternative is not recommended as a choice, it does provide value for comparing the other alternatives. Alternative 2 Security Fencing with Land Use Controls and Long-Term Monitoring This alternative involves the placement of a barbed wire fence around the debris piles. This option would involve long-term maintenance of the fence and periodic vegetation removal. Security fencing would limit access to the site and signs would be posted to warn of potential hazards. January

6 FINAL OU-9 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SITES Alternative 3 Encapsulation/ Capping with Land Use Controls and Long-Term Monitoring This alternative involves the placement of a two foot thick cap of clean fill material over the ACM debris piles with a suitable overlap around the edges. Following placement, the material will be graded to ensure uniform application and compacted for stability. Suitable erosion control measures and revegetation will be implemented to ensure integrity of the cap material from potential run-off events within the unnamed drainage. Long-term monitoring will be required to ensure the integrity of the cap and the stability and effectiveness of the erosion control measures. Alternative 4 Removal and Disposal of ACM Debris Piles This alternative involves the removal of the ACM debris piles and disposing of the material at an approved off-site facility. After the material is removed, the site would be restored and revegetated. No additional action would be required. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with CERCLA regulations, the Army and EPA used the nine CERCLA Evaluation Criteria listed in Table 1 to determine the best alternative for addressing the ACM debris piles at CC-IAAP-002. Table 1 CERCLA Evaluation Criteria For Remedial Alternatives Threshold Criteria: 1) Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment: Does the alternative protect human health and the environment from exposure to risks above acceptable threshold levels? All retained alternatives must achieve the overall protection of human health and the environment. This evaluation criterion provides an overall assessment of each alternative s ability to protect human health and the environment, focusing on how each alternative addresses site risks from each exposure pathway through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls. 2) Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs): Does the alternative comply with all required laws, statutes, and regulations? The remedial alternatives are evaluated to determine whether they attain the ARARs that were presented in the FS. The ARARs are included in Attachment 3. To be selected for implementation, an alternative must meet all project ARARs. For an alternative to be selected, it must meet the two Threshold Criteria Balancing Criteria: 3) Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence: Is the alternative effective and permanent for the contamination at the site? This criterion evaluates the risk from hazardous materials remaining at the conclusion of remedial activities. The evaluation takes into account the volume, toxicity, mobility, and propensity of the residuals to bioaccumulate. This evaluation also includes assessment of the uncertainties associated with an alternative for providing long-term protection from the hazardous wastes and residuals, the potential need to maintain or replace technical components of the alternative, and the potential exposure pathways and risks posed should the remedial action need replacement. 4) Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of Contaminants through Treatment: Does the alternative reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the contaminants? This criterion evaluates the anticipated performance of the alternative to include the extent to which total mass, volume, and/or mobility of contaminants are reduced; the toxicity of residuals resulting from the remedy; and to what extent the effects of treatment are irreversible. 5) Short-Term Effectiveness: What is the risk to the community, workers, and the environment during implementation of the response action? This criterion measures the effects of the various alternatives on human health and the environment during implementation of the remedial action, as well as the effectiveness of the proposed measures to protect the community, workers, and the environment 6) Implementability: How difficult is it to implement the alternative? Implementability refers to administrative and technical feasibility of applying a proposed alternative. Administrative factors that were investigated during the January

7 FINAL OU-9 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SITES evaluation included construction permits, dust permits, and potential impacts on operations being conducted in areas adjoining the site. This evaluation was completed using input from IAAAP representatives, American Ordnance, LLC. representatives and discussion with project personnel. 7) Cost: What are the relative costs associated with the alternative? Cost estimates are developed for the purpose of comparing the remedial alternatives during the remedy selection process Modifying Criteria 8) State / Support Agency Acceptance: Do the regulatory agencies involved accept the remedy? This Proposed Plan solicits input and acceptance from the regulatory agencies involved with the remedial action. 9) Community Acceptance: Does the community accept the remedy as viable option? Community acceptance is evaluated based on issues and concerns the public, or representatives of the public, may have regarding each of the alternatives. Questions concerning the selected alternatives will be addressed during this phase of the project. Modifying criteria will be evaluated in the Record of Decision. At this time, IAAAP is aware of no objections to the preferred remedy, but community acceptance will be re-evaluated following agency and public comments on the Proposed Plan. The evaluation of each alternative for CC- IAAP-002 using the nine CERCLA criteria is summarized below. Threshold Criteria: Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment Because no action would be performed, Alternative 1 would not prevent the degradation of the ACM and potential future exposure to friable asbestos. Alternative 2 would deter access to the material but would not reduce potential degradation, mobility, or volume of debris. Alternatives 3 and 4 offer the best overall protection of human health and the environment by eliminating ACM degradation, mobility, and possible exposure to friable asbestos. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Under Alternative 1, since no action would be taken, the ARARs would not be met. Alternative 2 would not reduce the potential for degradation of the ACM or mobility of friable asbestos and, therefore, the ARARs would not be met. Compliance with the project ARARs (Attachment 3) is expected if either Alternative 3 or 4 are applied. Long-Term Effectiveness and Performance Alternative 1 would not limit site access and would not reduce or eliminate potential exposure, degradation, mobility, or volume of the ACM debris. In addition, it includes no long-term management (LTM) measures. Alternative 2 would limit site access and provide for LTM. However, Alternative 2 will not reduce potential degradation, mobility, or volume of the ACM debris. Therefore, all potential future risks from friable asbestos exposure would remain under Alternatives 1 and 2. Application of Alternative 3 or 4 will address the potential exposure to friable asbestos by encapsulating or removing and disposal of the ACM debris. With Alternative 3, the encapsulation of the ACM debris piles provides a physical barrier that provides temporary reduction to the future exposure as long as the integrity of the cap, the erosion control features, and the land use controls are maintained. The regular maintenance of the erosion control measures and effective application of land use controls will determine the long-term effectiveness and performance of this Alternative. Alternative 4 provides the best longterm effect and performance of a remedial action. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Alternatives 1 and 2 provide no significant reduction in toxicity, mobility, volume, or future potential exposure to the ACM debris piles. Alternative 3 does not reduce the volume of the ACM debris piles. However, the encapsulation or capping of the ACM debris pile provides a physical barrier that limits exposure. Alternative 4 provides maximum reduction in mobility and volume of the hazardous material by removing the ACM debris piles to an off-site facility. Short-Term Effectiveness and Performance Any disturbance of the debris would increase the risk of exposure to friable asbestos and limit short- January

8 FINAL OU-9 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SITES term effectiveness. The implementation of Alternatives 1 and 2 would not disturb the ACM; therefore, there is limited short term risk to workers. However, the risk of exposure remains for hunters and trespassers if the ACM is disturbed. Alternative 1 could be implemented immediately and Alternative 2 could be implemented in several weeks. Alternatives 3 and 4 would take longer to implement (approximately two months for each alternative). Appropriate measures would be used during construction to limit workers exposure to friable asbestos generated during capping or removal activities. Risk to the operations at other active IAAAP sites, the surrounding community, or the adjoining ecosystem is not anticipated for either Alternative 3 or 4. All efforts will be taken to minimize the potential for these short-term risks through the use of dust control technologies, appropriate training, and use of personal protection equipment, when applicable. Implementability Alternative 1, since it requires no action, is the most implementable since no action would be taken. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 have varying levels of implementability. Alternative 2 would not require an access road or heavy equipment and would be relatively simple to implement. For Alternatives 3 and 4, conventional, commercially available heavy machinery and equipment would be used. As is typical with most mechanical equipment, certain wear and tear and maintenance is expected and might affect the implementability during the course of the remediation. Alternative 2 is the easiest to implement, while Alternative 3 and 4 have similar implementability due to the need to mobilize equipment and vehicles on site. For Alternatives 2 and 3, LTM and effective land use controls are required. Compared to Alternative 4, Alterative 2 and 3 would be more difficult to implement. The need to implement LTM for Alternative 2 or 3 has a negative impact on implementability. In contrast, no additional LTM will be required after completion of the removal action making Alternative 4 the most implementable remedy. Alternatives 2 and 3 do not achieve the remediation goal of site closure, whereas Alternative 4 does. Cost There are no projected costs associated with Alternative 1. The costs for implementation of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 vary based on the level of effort and overall time estimated for each alternative to achieve the remediation goals. The estimated costs for each alternative are provided in Table 2. Table 2 Estimated Costs for Remedial Action Alternatives ALTERNATIVE Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Security Fencing with Land Use Controls/ One Year of Long-Term Monitoring Alternative 3 Encapsulation or Capping with Land Use Controls/One Year of Long- Term Monitoring Alternative 4 Removal and Disposal of ACM Debris Piles RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATED COST No Cost $119, $ 269, $ 462, The Preferred Remedial Alternative for Site CC- IAAP-002 is the removal and disposal of the ACM debris piles due to the potential of future exposure to friable asbestos. Alternative 3 prevents exposure to potential friable asbestos by installing a barrier. However, this alternative also requires the use of effective long-term monitoring which will result in additional costs and effort following the implementation of the alternative. This alternative also leaves the potential for future exposure in the event of degradation of the cap or erosion control measures. Alternative 3 does not achieve site closure. Alternative 4 provides the best solution to eliminate the risk for future exposure and the costs incurred during remedial action could be offset by eliminating the need for incurring costs for longterm monitoring or future costs for maintenance that January

9 FINAL OU-9 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SITES may be required for Alternative 3. Following the detailed evaluation of Alternatives 3 and 4, Alternative 4 is the recommended remedial alternative for Site CC-IAAP-002. The Army and EPA support the Preferred Remedial Alternative stated above and believe it provides the best remedial alternative with respect to the evaluation criteria. The Army and EPA expect the Preferred Remedial Alternative to satisfy the following statutory requirements of CERCLA Section 121(b): 1) be protective of human health and the environment; 2) comply with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements; 3) be cost effective and 4) utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The Preferred Alternative can change in response to public comment or new information. For additional information, please contact: Mr. Jesse Kahler jesse.l.kahler.civ@mail.mil Phone: (319) COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Detailed information regarding this proposed action is available in the Administrative Record File, which is located online at A hard copy is located at the IAAAP Library. The Burlington Public Library has computers available to the public for those interested in viewing the electronic version of the Administrative Record. Announcements of the availability of this Proposed Plan were published in The Hawk Eye newspaper on January 9 and January 12, 2015, in accordance with CERCLA. The Army is seeking comments on the action recommended in this Proposed Plan. A public comment period running from January 13, 2015 through February 11, 2015 is open during which comments will be accepted and considered prior to a final decision on the construction debris sites. In addition, a public meeting will be held at the Burlington Public Library, 210 Court Street Burlington, Iowa, on February 9, 2015 from 4:30 to 6:00 pm to explain this proposed action and to answer questions and accept comments. A comment form has been included at the end of this document to submit input on the Proposed Plan. January

10 FINAL OU-9 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SITES ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATIONS ACM Asbestos Containing Material AEC Atomic Energy Commission ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements BHHRA Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations COPCs Contaminants of potential concern COPCs Contaminants of potential ecological concern EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FFA Federal Facility Agreement FS Feasibility Study HI Hazard Index HQ Hazard Quotient IAAP Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (used in site identifiers) IAAAP Iowa Army Ammunition Plant LAP Load, Assemble, and Pack LTM Long-Term Management LUCs Land Use Controls NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan PAH Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons PAL Project Action Limit PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PIKA PIKA International, Inc. RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund RAOs Remedial Action Objectives RI Remedial Investigation SLERA Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound VOC Volatile Organic Compound January

11 FINAL OU-9 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SITES GLOSSARY OF TERMS 1. Administrative Record File A compilation of documents that serve as the basis for the decision in selecting a response action to be taken at a site. Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) The federal and state environmental laws that a selected remedy will meet. These requirements may vary among sites and alternatives. Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) The federal law that addresses problems resulting from releases of hazardous substances to the environment. Feasibility Study (FS) This CERCLA document develops and evaluates options for remedial action. The FS emphasizes data analysis and is generally performed concurrently in an interactive fashion with the Remedial Investigation (RI), using data gathered during the RI. Land Use Controls (LUCs) Physical, legal, or administrative mechanisms that restrict the use of, or limit access to, contaminated property to reduce risk to human health and the environment. Physical mechanisms encompass a variety of engineered remedies to contain or reduce contamination and physical barriers to limit access to property, such as fences or signs. The legal mechanisms are imposed to ensure the continued effectiveness of land use restrictions imposed as part of a remedial decision. Legal mechanisms include restrictive covenants, negative easements, equitable servitudes, and deed notices. Administrative mechanisms include notices, adopted local land use plans and ordinances, construction permitting, or other existing land use management systems that may be used to ensure compliance with use restrictions. Operable Unit A portion of a site separately considered for remedial or corrective action. Long-term Maintenance Measures required to maintain remedial systems to ensure the effectiveness of the response action. Proposed Plan CERCLA document that summarizes evidence to support the selection of a preferred remedial alternative at a CERCLA site. This document is intended for public distribution to solicit comments on the proposed action(s). Record of Decision (ROD) The CERCLA decision document that presents the cleanup remedy selected by the Army and EPA. Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) Sitespecific goals to protect human health and the environment. Remedial Investigation (RI) A process under CERCLA to determine the nature and extent of the problem presented by a contaminant release. The RI includes sampling, monitoring, and gathering of sufficient information to determine the necessity for remedial action. Remediation Goals (RGs) Contaminant concentrations used to identify the soil requiring excavation, treatment, and disposal to meet the RAOs and provide protection for human health and the environment. 1 This glossary provides a description of how the terms listed are used in this Proposed Plan. January

12 FINAL OU-9 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SITES USE THIS SPACE TO WRITE YOUR COMMENTS Your input to the Proposed Plan process is important to the Army. The comments that the Army receives are vital to select the cleanup remedy for the site. Changes to the Preferred Remedial Alternative can be made based on comments made by the public. Please use the space below to submit your comments on the Proposed Plan. If you need more space for your comments, attach additional pages. After you have completed the form, mail to the following address: Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, Attn: Mr. Jesse Kahler, 7571 DMC Hwy 79, Middletown, Iowa, Comments must be postmarked by February 6, If you have any questions about the comment period, please contact Jesse Kahler at (319) January

13 FINAL OU-9 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SITES ATTACHMENT 1 CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION FIGURES January

14 CC-IAAP-01-SF01-SS-00A LEAD 28 mg/kg Iowa Army Ammunition Plant Middletown, Iowa Construction Debris Site 1 SELENIUM 1.9 mg/kg SS-1 LEGEND CC-IAAP-01-SB05-SS-00A ARSENIC 9.7 mg/kg SELENIUM 2.5 mg/kg Site Boundary Surface Soil (SS) Soil Borings (SB) CC-IAAP-01-ST04-SS-00A ARSENIC 7.3 mg/kg BARIUM 92 mg/kg CHROMIUM 13 mg/kg SELENIUM 2.6 mg/kg CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-00A ARSENIC 11 mg/kg CHROMIUM 21 mg/kg ENDERIN ALDEHYDE 0.017N mg/kg LEAD 24 mg/kg SB-1 CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-00A / -00B ARSENIC 8.2 mg/kg LEAD * 22 mg/kg SELENIUM * 2.7 mg/kg Sediment (ST) Direction of Surface Water Flow "N" denotes tentatively identified values. * Duplicate result reported if higher than the primary sample result. SELENIUM 3.4 mg/kg LOCATION MAP CC-IAAP-01-ST03-SS-00A ARSENIC 4.6 mg/kg BARIUM 73 mg/kg SB-4 CHROMIUM 12 mg/kg SELENIUM 3 mg/kg ST4 SB-5 ST3 CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-00A IAAAP Location Iowa ARSENIC 10 mg/kg CHROMIUM 21 mg/kg LEAD 26 mg/kg SELENIUM 3.1 mg/kg SB-3 TITLE SB-2 ST2 CC-IAAP-01-ST02-SS-00A ARSENIC 8.4 mg/kg BARIUM 160 mg/kg CHROMIUM 17 mg/kg Remedial Investigation Surface Soil and Sediment PAL and Background Exceedances for CC-IAAP-001 CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-00A ARSENIC 11 mg/kg SS-2 ST1 SELENIUM 2.3 mg/kg NOTES & SOURCES CHROMIUM 25 mg/kg LEAD 26 mg/kg SELENIUM 2 mg/kg CC-IAAP-01-SF02-SS-00A ARSENIC 9.5 mg/kg CC-IAAP-01-ST01-SS-00A / -00B ARSENIC * 5.8 mg/kg BARIUM * 140 mg/kg CHROMIUM * 14 mg/kg SELENIUM 3.8 mg/kg Data Sources: ESRI Feet 1 inch = 38 feet CHROMIUM 20 mg/kg ENDERIN ALDEHYDE 0.017N mg/kg LEAD 22 mg/kg SELENIUM 2.9 mg/kg FIGURE A-1

15 CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-02A / -02B ARSENIC 9.4 mg/kg CHROMIUM 24 mg/kg SELENIUM 3 mg/kg CC-IAAP-01-SB05-SS-02A BARIUM 350 mg/kg CADMIUM 1.3 mg/kg CHROMIUM 22 mg/kg SELENIUM 4.3 mg/kg CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-02A ARSENIC 21 mg/kg CHROMIUM 25 mg/kg LEAD 27 mg/kg SELENIUM 4 mg/kg Iowa Army Ammunition Plant Middletown, Iowa Construction Debris Site 1 LEGEND CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-06A ARSENIC 12 mg/kg CHROMIUM 20 mg/kg SELENIUM 3.3 mg/kg CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-10A ARSENIC 9.5 mg/kg SELENIUM 2.8 mg/kg CC-IAAP-01-SB05-SS-06A ARSENIC 11 mg/kg SELENIUM 2.3 mg/kg CC-IAAP-01-SB05-SS-10A ARSENIC 7.9 mg/kg SELENIUM 3.3 mg/kg SB-1 CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-06A ARSENIC 9.1 mg/kg SELENIUM 3 mg/kg CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-10A ARSENIC 15 mg/kg CADMIUM 0.81 mg/kg SELENIUM 2.3 mg/kg Site Boundary Soil Borings (SB) Direction of Surface Water Flow Color Key 2 ft bgs 6 ft bgs 10 ft bgs LOCATION MAP SB-4 SB-5 CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-02A ARSENIC 14 mg/kg SELENIUM 2.6 mg/kg IAAAP Location Iowa CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-06A ARSENIC 10 mg/kg SB-3 CHROMIUM 20 mg/kg SELENIUM 2.5 mg/kg TITLE CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-02A SB-2 CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-10A ARSENIC 8.3 mg/kg SELENIUM 2.2 mg/kg Remedial Investigation Subsurface Soil PAL and Background Exceedances for CC-IAAP-001 CHROMIUM 23 mg/kg SELENIUM 1.8 mg/kg NOTES & SOURCES CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-06A Data Sources: ESRI ARSENIC 7.8 mg/kg CHROMIUM 21 mg/kg LEAD 18 mg/kg SELENIUM 2.7 mg/kg Feet 1 inch = 38 feet CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-10A SELENIUM 2.5 mg/kg FIGURE A-2

16 CC-IAAP-01-SB01-GW-14A ARSENIC (D) 1.5 J ug/l ARSENIC (T) 13 ug/l CHROMIUM (T) 16 ug/l LEAD (T) 16 ug/l GW1 Iowa Army Ammunition Plant Middletown, Iowa Construction Debris Site 1 LEGEND Site Boundary SF (Surface Water) GW (Groundwater) Direction of Surface Water Flow CC-IAAP-01-SB04-GW-33A ARSENIC (T) 2.1 J ug/l CHROMIUM (T) 15 ug/l Notes: (T) = Total (D) = Dissolved LOCATION MAP CC-IAAP-01-ST03-SW-00A ARSENIC (D) 1.5 J ug/l BARIUM (D) 130 ug/l ARSENIC (T) 1.2 J ug/l GW-4 ST3 BARIUM (T) 130 ug/l IAAAP Location Iowa GW2 TITLE ST2 CC-IAAP-01-ST02-SW-00A ARSENIC (T) 2 J ug/l BARIUM (T) 130 ug/l Remedial Investigation Surface Water and Groundwater PAL and Background Exceedances for CC-IAAP-001 SELENIUM (T) 1.8 J ug/l CC-IAAP-01-SB02-GW-17A ARSENIC (D) 4.1 J ug/l GW3 ST1 CHROMIUM (HEXAVALENT) (T) 16 J ug/l NOTES & SOURCES Data Sources: ESRI ARSENIC (T) 8.9 J ug/l CHROMIUM (T) 3.3 J ug/l CHROMIUM (HEXAVALENT) (T) 11 J ug/l Not d CC-IAAP-01-ST01-SW-00A / -00B ARSENIC (T) 1.4 J ug/l BARIUM (T) 130 ug/l Feet 1 inch = 38 feet FIGURE A-3

17 CC-IAAP-02-SB01-SS-00A LEAD 19 mg/kg SELENIUM 3.6 mg/kg Iowa Army Ammunition Plant Middletown, Iowa Construction Debris Site 2 LEGEND CC-IAAP-02-SF01-SS-00A Surface Soil (SS) LEAD 46 mg/kg SELENIUM 1.9 J mg/kg SS-1 ST1 Brush Creek ST (Sediment) Soil Borings (SB) Direction of Surface Water Flow Creek CC-IAAP-02-SB02-SS-00A SB-1 Site boundary ARSENIC 7.7 mg/kg SELENIUM 1.7 J mg/kg ST2 *Duplicate result reported if higher than the primary sample result. CC-IAAP-02-SF02-SS-00A ARSENIC 7.6 mg/kg LEAD 25 mg/kg SELENIUM 2.5 J mg/kg SS-2 SB-2 SB-4 CC-IAAP-02-SB04-SS-00A LEAD 23 mg/kg CC-IAAP-02-ST01-SS-00A / -00B ARSENIC * 14 mg/kg BARIUM * 380 J mg/kg CHROMIUM * 14 mg/kg LEAD * 150 J mg/kg SELENIUM * 3.5 mg/kg LOCATION MAP CC-IAAP-02-SB03-SS-00A ARSENIC 7.9 mg/kg LEAD 18 mg/kg SELENIUM 3.1 mg/kg SB-3 CC-IAAP-02-ST02-SS-00A ARSENIC 7.9 mg/kg BARIUM 120 J mg/kg CHROMIUM 14 mg/kg SELENIUM 2.2 J mg/kg ACENAPHTHENE * J mg/kg ACENAPHTHYLENE * J mg/kg BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE * 0.4 J mg/kg BENZO(A)PYRENE * 0.57 J mg/kg BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE * 1 J mg/kg BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE * 0.48 J mg/kg BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE * 0.34 J mg/kg IAAAP Iowa Location CHRYSENE * 0.81 J mg/kg DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE * J mg/kg FLUORANTHENE * 2.5 J mg/kg INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE * 0.54 J mg/kg TITLE PHENANTHRENE * 2.1 J mg/kg PYRENE * 1.8 J mg/kg Remedial Investigation Surface Soil and Sediment PAL and Background Exceedances for CC-IAAP-002 NOTES & SOURCES Data Sources: ESRI ST3 CC-IAAP-02-ST03-SS-00A ARSENIC 9.4 mg/kg BARIUM 170 mg/kg CHROMIUM 16 mg/kg SELENIUM 4.4 mg/kg ft 1 inch = 33 feet FIGURE A-4

18 CC-IAAP-02-SB02-SS-02A Iowa Army Ammunition Plant Middletown, Iowa Construction Debris Site 2 ARSENIC 9.3 mg/kg CHROMIUM 27 mg/kg SELENIUM 3.3 mg/kg LEGEND Soil Borings (SB) CC-IAAP-02-SB03-SS-02A CHROMIUM 24 mg/kg SELENIUM 2.4 J mg/kg CC-IAAP-02-SB02-SS-06A ARSENIC 8 mg/kg SELENIUM 2.1 J mg/kg CC-IAAP-02-SB02-SS-10A ARSENIC 12 mg/kg SELENIUM 1.5 J mg/kg SB-2 SB-1 SB-4 CC-IAAP-02-SB01-SS-02A Brush Creek ARSENIC 8.8 mg/kg CHROMIUM 25 mg/kg SELENIUM 4.3 mg/kg CC-IAAP-02-SB01-SS-06A / -06B ARSENIC 19 J mg/kg LEAD 22 J mg/kg SELENIUM 3.3 mg/kg CC-IAAP-02-SB01-SS-10A ARSENIC 7.5 mg/kg SELENIUM 1.9 J mg/kg Creek Direction of Surface Water Flow Site boundary Color key 2 ft bgs 6 ft bgs 10 ft bgs *No surface water present onsite LOCATION MAP CC-IAAP-02-SB03-SS-06A ARSENIC 21 mg/kg SELENIUM 4.5 mg/kg SB-3 CC-IAAP-02-SB04-SS-02A IAAAP Location Iowa CC-IAAP-02-SB03-SS-10A ARSENIC 7.6 mg/kg ARSENIC 13 mg/kg SELENIUM 1.7 J mg/kg CC-IAAP-02-SB04-SS-06A ARSENIC 16 mg/kg CC-IAAP-02-SB04-SS-10A ARSENIC 12 mg/kg BARIUM 390 mg/kg TITLE Remedial Investigation Subsurface Soil PAL and Background Exceedances for CC-IAAP-02 NOTES & SOURCES Data Sources: ESRI ft 1 inch = 33 feet FIGURE A-5

19 Iowa Army Ammunition Plant Middletown, Iowa Construction Debris Site 2 LEGEND CC-IAAP-02-SB01-GW-13A / -13B ARSENIC (T) 3.7 J ug/l CHROMIUM (HEXAVALENT) * (T) 11 J ug/l CC-IAAP-02-SB02-GW-13A ARSENIC (D) 1.2 J ug/l ARSENIC (T) 18 ug/l CHROMIUM (T) 39 ug/l GW-2 GW-1 Brush Creek Notes: (T) = Total (D) = Dissolved Groundwater (GW) Creek Direction of Surface Water Flow Site boundary *Duplicate result reported if higher than the primary sample result **No surface water present onsite LOCATION MAP IAAAP Iowa Location CC-IAAP-02-SB03-GW-11A ARSENIC (T) 3.2 J ug/l CHROMIUM (T) 13 ug/l GW-3 TITLE Remedial Investigation Groundwater PAL and Background Exceedances for CC-IAAP-002 NOTES & SOURCES Data Sources: ESRI ft 1 inch = 33 feet FIGURE A-6

20 Iowa Army Ammunition Plant Middletown, Iowa Construction Debris Site 2 LEGEND Brush Creek ACM Debris s Debris Pile ACM 1 CC-IAAP-02-WP01-DB-00A CHRYSOTILE 15 % Creek Site boundary Direction of Surface Water Flow *No surface water present onsite LOCATION MAP CC-IAAP-02-WP03-DB-00A CHRYSOTILE 15 % ACM 3 IAAAP Iowa Location CC-IAAP-02-WP04-DB-00A CHRYSOTILE 15 % ACM 4 ACM 2 CC-IAAP-02-WP02-DB-00A / -00B CHRYSOTILE 15 % TITLE Remedial Investigation Asbestos Results for CC-IAAP-002 NOTES & SOURCES Data Sources: ESRI ft 1 inch = 30 feet FIGURE A-7

21 FINAL OU-9 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SITES ATTACHMENT 2 SUMMARY OF THE RI PAL AND BACKGROUND EXCEEDANCES January

22 FINAL Table A2-1 Remedial Investigation PAL and Background Exceedances for CC-IAAP-001 OU-9 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SITES Number Location Type Start Depth (feet) End Depth (feet) Matrix Date Method Fraction (water samples) CAS ID Chemical Name Result Units Qualifier LOD PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-00A 01-SB-1 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 8.2 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-00B 01-SB-1 FD SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 6.2 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-00A 01-SB-1 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 17 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-00B 01-SB-1 FD SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 13 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-00A 01-SB-1 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T LEAD 19 mg/kg ECO PAL 17.7 CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-00B 01-SB-1 FD SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T LEAD 22 mg/kg ECO PAL 17.7 CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-00A 01-SB-1 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 1.9 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-00B 01-SB-1 FD SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 2.7 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-00A 01-SB-1 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW7471 T MERCURY mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-00B 01-SB-1 FD SO 6/11/2013 SW7471 T MERCURY mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-02A 01-SB-1 NS 2 2 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 21 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-02A 01-SB-1 NS 2 2 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 25 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-02A 01-SB-1 NS 2 2 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T LEAD 27 mg/kg ECO PAL 17.7 CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-02A 01-SB-1 NS 2 2 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 4 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-02A 01-SB-1 NS 2 2 SO 6/11/2013 SW7471 T MERCURY mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-06A 01-SB-1 NS 6 6 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 9.1 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-06A 01-SB-1 NS 6 6 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 18 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-06A 01-SB-1 NS 6 6 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 3 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-10A 01-SB-1 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 15 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-10A 01-SB-1 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T CADMIUM 0.81 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-10A 01-SB-1 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 13 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-10A 01-SB-1 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 2.3 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB01-SS-10A 01-SB-1 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW7471 T MERCURY mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-00A 01-SB-2 NS SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 10 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-00A 01-SB-2 NS SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T CADMIUM 0.43 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-00A 01-SB-2 NS SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 21 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-00A 01-SB-2 NS SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T LEAD 26 mg/kg ECO PAL 17.7 CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-00A 01-SB-2 NS SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 3.1 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-02A 01-SB-2 NS 2 2 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 14 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-02A 01-SB-2 NS 2 2 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 18 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-02A 01-SB-2 NS 2 2 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T LEAD 13 mg/kg ECO PAL 17.7 CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-02A 01-SB-2 NS 2 2 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 2.6 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-06A 01-SB-2 NS 6 6 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 10 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-06A 01-SB-2 NS 6 6 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 20 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-06A 01-SB-2 NS 6 6 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T LEAD 12 mg/kg ECO PAL 17.7 CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-06A 01-SB-2 NS 6 6 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 2.5 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-10A 01-SB-2 NS SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 8.3 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-10A 01-SB-2 NS SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 15 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-10A 01-SB-2 NS SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T LEAD 16 mg/kg ECO PAL 17.7 CC-IAAP-01-SB02-SS-10A 01-SB-2 NS SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 2.2 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-00A 01-SB-3 NS SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 11 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-00A 01-SB-3 NS SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T BARIUM 210 mg/kg ECO PAL 201 CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-00A 01-SB-3 NS SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 25 mg/kg HH PAL PAL Reference Bkg January

23 FINAL Table A2-1 Remedial Investigation PAL and Background Exceedances for CC-IAAP-001 OU-9 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SITES Number Location Type Start Depth (feet) End Depth (feet) Matrix Date Method Fraction (water samples) CAS ID Chemical Name Result Units Qualifier LOD PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-00A 01-SB-3 NS SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T LEAD 26 mg/kg ECO PAL 17.7 CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-00A 01-SB-3 NS SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 2 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-02A 01-SB-3 NS 2 2 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 6.5 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-02A 01-SB-3 NS 2 2 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T BARIUM 230 mg/kg ECO PAL 201 CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-02A 01-SB-3 NS 2 2 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T CADMIUM 0.61 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-02A 01-SB-3 NS 2 2 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 23 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-02A 01-SB-3 NS 2 2 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T LEAD 15 mg/kg ECO PAL 17.7 CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-02A 01-SB-3 NS 2 2 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 1.8 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-06A 01-SB-3 NS 6 6 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 7.8 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-06A 01-SB-3 NS 6 6 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 21 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-06A 01-SB-3 NS 6 6 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T LEAD 18 mg/kg ECO PAL 17.7 CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-06A 01-SB-3 NS 6 6 SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 2.7 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-10A 01-SB-3 NS SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 2.8 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-10A 01-SB-3 NS SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 16 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB03-SS-10A 01-SB-3 NS SO 6/13/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 2.5 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-00A 01-SB-4 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 11 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-00A 01-SB-4 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 21 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-00A 01-SB-4 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T LEAD 24 mg/kg ECO PAL 17.7 CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-00A 01-SB-4 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 3.4 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-00A 01-SB-4 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW ENDRIN ALDEHYDE mg/kg N ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-02A 01-SB-4 NS 2 2 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 9.4 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-02B 01-SB-4 FD 2 2 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 9.3 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-02A 01-SB-4 NS 2 2 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T BARIUM 250 mg/kg ECO PAL 201 CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-02A 01-SB-4 NS 2 2 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 24 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-02B 01-SB-4 FD 2 2 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 18 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-02A 01-SB-4 NS 2 2 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T LEAD 13 mg/kg ECO PAL 17.7 CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-02A 01-SB-4 NS 2 2 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 3 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-02B 01-SB-4 FD 2 2 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 3 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-06A 01-SB-4 NS 6 6 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 12 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-06A 01-SB-4 NS 6 6 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 20 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-06A 01-SB-4 NS 6 6 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T LEAD 12 mg/kg ECO PAL 17.7 CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-06A 01-SB-4 NS 6 6 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 3.3 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-10A 01-SB-4 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 9.5 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-10A 01-SB-4 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T CADMIUM 0.56 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-10A 01-SB-4 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 17 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-10A 01-SB-4 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T LEAD 13 mg/kg ECO PAL 17.7 CC-IAAP-01-SB04-SS-10A 01-SB-4 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 2.8 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB05-SS-00A 01-SB-5 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 9.7 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB05-SS-00A 01-SB-5 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T CADMIUM 0.39 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB05-SS-00A 01-SB-5 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T CHROMIUM 17 mg/kg HH PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB05-SS-00A 01-SB-5 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T LEAD 17 mg/kg ECO PAL 17.7 CC-IAAP-01-SB05-SS-00A 01-SB-5 NS SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T SELENIUM 2.5 mg/kg ECO PAL CC-IAAP-01-SB05-SS-02A 01-SB-5 NS 2 2 SO 6/11/2013 SW6020 T ARSENIC 6.4 mg/kg HH PAL PAL Reference Bkg January