INAAP former inert burning ground area site 55 report Jan 2003

Description:	The final report for former inert burning ground area site 55 at Indiana Army Ammunition Plant of Phase II RCRA facility investigation prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in January 2003.The United States federal government began acquiring land in Charlestown, Indiana in 1940 to build a smokeless powder ordnance plant to supply the US military during World War II. Indiana Ordnance Works (IOW) Plant 1 and Hoosier Ordnance Plant (HOP) began production in 1941. In 1944, IOW Plant 2 construction began. On 30 Nov 1945 at the end of WWII, the three plants were combined and renamed Indiana Arsenal. Between 1 Nov 1961 and 1 Aug 1963, the plant was designated Indiana Ordnance Plant. After this time, it became Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (INAAP). Production of ordnance continued at the plant until 1992. After that time, the land and facilities were leased to private industry. A large portion of the land became Charlestown State Park. In October 2016, all the land and facilities were officially sold by the government. This item is part of a larger collection of items from INAAP that are kept at Charlestown Library. F I N A L R E P O R TFORMER INERT BURNINGGROUND AREA – SITE 55INDIANA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANTPHASE II RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATIONPrepared forU.S. Army Corps of EngineersLouisville DistrictJanuary 2003Prepared by12120 Shamrock Plaza, Suite 300Omaha, Nebraska 68154TABLE OF CONTENTSSection PageQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA iExecutive Summary ...............................................................................................................................ES-1Section 1 Site Location and Description ...........................................................................................1-11.1 Operational History and Waste Characteristics ......................................1-11.2 Previous Investigations..........................................................................1-11.3 Report Organization ..............................................................................1-2Section 2 Field Activities Summary....................................................................................................2-12.1 Soil and Sediment Sampling..................................................................2-12.1.1 Soil............................................................................................2-12.1.2 Sediment....................................................................................2-22.2 Surface Water Sampling........................................................................2-22.3 Field Screening Results .........................................................................2-32.4 IDW Disposition ...................................................................................2-3Section 3 Physical Investigation Results ..........................................................................................3-13.1 Topography and Surface Features..........................................................3-13.2 Local Surficial Geology.........................................................................3-13.3 Shallow Hydrogeology..........................................................................3-2Section 4 Data Quality Review and Validation..................................................................................4-14.1 Phase I RI..............................................................................................4-14.2 Phase II RFI ..........................................................................................4-1Section 5 Chemical Investigation Results.........................................................................................5-1Section 6 Contamination Assessment...............................................................................................6-16.1 Near Surface Soils and Sediments .........................................................6-16.1.1 VOCs.........................................................................................6-16.1.2 SVOCs ......................................................................................6-16.1.3 Nitroaromatics/Nitramines.........................................................6-26.1.4 Metals........................................................................................6-26.2 Subsurface Soils ....................................................................................6-26.2.1 VOCs.........................................................................................6-26.2.2 SVOCs ......................................................................................6-36.2.3 Nitroaromatics/Nitramines.........................................................6-3TABLE OF CONTENTSSection PageQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA ii6.2.4 Metals and Cyanide ...................................................................6-36.3 Surface Water .......................................................................................6-46.3.1 Metals........................................................................................6-4Section 7 Human Health Risk Evaluation..........................................................................................7-17.1 Introduction...........................................................................................7-17.1.1 Purpose......................................................................................7-17.2 Risk Screen Process ..............................................................................7-1Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs)....................7-17.3 Exposure Point Concentrations..............................................................7-27.4 Results ..................................................................................................7-3Section 8 Ecological Risk Evaluation ................................................................................................8-18.1 Introduction...........................................................................................8-18.2 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................8-18.3 Overview of Ecological Evaluation Process...........................................8-28.4 Potentially Affected Habitats.................................................................8-2Section 9 Summary and Recommendations.....................................................................................9-19.1 Summary...............................................................................................9-19.1.1 Physical Characteristics .............................................................9-19.1.2 Contamination Assessment ........................................................9-19.1.2.1 Near Surface Soil and Sediment ..................................9-19.1.2.2 Subsurface Soil Samples .............................................9-29.1.2.3 Surface Water Samples................................................9-29.1.3 Human Health Risk Screen/Assessment .....................................9-29.1.4 Ecological Risk Screen / Assessment .........................................9-29.2 Recommendations .................................................................................9-3Section 10 References.........................................................................................................................10-1TABLE OF CONTENTSList of TablesQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA iiiTable 2-1 Summary of Phase I RI Samples for Chemical AnalysisTable 2-2 Summary of Phase II RFI Samples for Chemical AnalysisTable 2-3 Summary of Field Screening For Organic Vapors in Soil SamplesTable 5-1 Summary of Chemicals Detected in Soil and Sediment SamplesTable 5-2 Summary of Chemicals Detected in Surface Water SamplesTable 7-1 Comparison of Total Soil/Sediment Concentrations (All Depths) toScreening LevelsTable 7-2 Comparison of Maximum Surface Soil/Sediment Concentrations toScreening LevelsTable 7-3 Comparison of Surface Water Concentrations to Screening LevelsTable 7-4 Total Soil Exposure Point ConcentrationTable 7-5 Surface Soil/Sediment Exposure Point ConcentrationTABLE OF CONTENTSList of FiguresQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA ivFigure 1-1 Site Location MapFigure 1-2 Surface Features MapFigure 2-1 Sample Location MapFigure 3-1 Locations of Geologic Cross SectionsFigure 3-2 Geologic Cross Section A-A’Figure 3-3 Geologic Cross Section B-B’Figure 3-4 Geologic Cross Section C-C’Figure 6-1 Concentrations of Chemicals Detected in SoilFigure 6-2 Concentrations of Chemicals Detected in SedimentFigure 6-3 Concentrations of Chemicals Detected in Surface WaterTABLE OF CONTENTSList of AppendicesQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA vAppendix A Data Quality Review and ValidationAppendix B Human Health Risk Statistics and CalculationsAppendix C Boring and Trench LogsAppendix D Sample Collection Field SheetsAppendix E Summary of Analytical DataNote: Information contained in the Appendices is included in CD-ROM format. The CD-ROMmay be found at the back of this binder.TABLE OF CONTENTSList of AcronymsQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA viAGI American Geological InstituteASI Advanced Sciences, Inc.ASTER Assessment Tools for the Evaluation of RiskASTM American Society for Testing and MaterialsATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registrybgs Below Ground SurfaceBA BioavailabilityBCFs Bioconcentration FactorsBRAC Base Re-Alignment and ClosureBtu British Thermal UnitBW Body WeightCERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and LiabilityActCDI Chronic Daily IntakeCLP Contract Laboratory ProgramCMS Corrective Measures StudyCOC Chemicals of ConcernCOI Contaminant of InterestCOPC Chemicals of Potential ConcernCOPEC Chemicals of Potential Ecological ConcernCRDL Contract Required Detection LimitCRQL Contract Required Quantitation LimitsCTE Central Tendency ExposureCTV Critical Toxicity ValueDAF Dilution Attenuation FactorDBT Dibutyl phthalateDDD p,p’-DichlorodiphenyldichloroethaneDDE p,p’-DichlorodiphenyldichloroethyleneDDT p,p’-DichlorodiphenyltrichloroethaneDERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program2,4-DNT 2,4-dinitrotoluene2,6-DNT 2,6-dinitrotolueneTABLE OF CONTENTSList of AcronymsQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA viiDOD Department of DefenseDQO Data Quality ObjectivesDS Direct Push SoilDW Direct Push WaterEECs Environmental Exposure ConcentrationsEEQ Environment Exposure QuotientUSEPA United States Environmental Protection AgencyEPC Exposure Point ConcentrationEQP Equilibrium-PartitioningERA Ecological Risk AssessmentERAGS Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for SuperfundERL Effects – Range – LowERM Effects – Range – MediumERT Emergency Response TeamESV Ecological Screening ValueFSP Field Sampling PlanGOCO Government-Owned, Contractor-OperatedHDPE High-Density PolyethyleneHI Hazard IndexHSA Hollow Stem AugerHSDB Hazardous Substance DatabaseICI ICI Americas, Inc.ID inner diameterIDEM Indiana Department of Environmental ManagementIDL Instrument Detection LimitIDNR Indiana Department Natural ResourcesIDW investigation-derived wastesINAAP Indiana Army Ammunition PlantIRIS Integrated Risk Information SystemIWPCB Indiana Water Pollution Control BoardIWQC Indiana Water Quality CriteriaJ/UJ Qualified EstimatedTABLE OF CONTENTSList of AcronymsQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA viiikg KilogramL/day Liter per dayLD50 Lethal dose 50LDlo Lowest Lethal DoseLRA Local Reuse AuthorityMCL Maximum Contaminant LevelME Measurement Endpointmg/day milligrams per daymg/kg milligram per kilogrammg/m3 milligram per cubic meterMHSPE Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and the EnvironmentmL milliliterMS/MSD Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike DuplicateMSL Mean Sea LevelMW Monitoring WellNOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNRC National Research CouncilOD outside diameterORNL Oak Ridge National LaboratoryP&E Propellants and ExplosivesPA Preliminary AssessmentPAH Polynuclear Aromatic HydrocarbonPCB Polychlorinated BiphenylPEL Probable – Effects – LevelPPE Personal Protective Equipmentppm parts per millionPRG Preliminary Remediation GoalsPVC Polyvinyl ChlorideQA Quality AssuranceQAPP Quality Assurance Project PlanQC Quality Control“R” RejectedTABLE OF CONTENTSList of AcronymsQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA ixRAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for SuperfundRBC Risk-Based ConcentrationRCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery ActRDA Recommended Daily AllowanceRfD Reference DoseRFD-I Reference Inhalation DoseRFI RCRA Facility InvestigationRI Remedial InvestigationRISC Risk Integrated System of ClosureRME Recommended Maximum ExposureSARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization ActSB Soil BoringSCFS Sample Collection Field SheetsSD SedimentSOP Standard Operating ProcedureSP SpringSS Shallow SoilSVOC Semi-volatile Organic CompoundSW Surface WaterTAL Target Analyte ListTCL Target Compound ListTCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching ProcedureTNT TrinitrotouleneToxNet Toxicity Data NetworkTPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons“U” Qualified Nondetectμg/kg microgram per kilogramμg/L microgram per Literμg/m3 microgram per cubic meterUCL Upper Confidence LimitURSGWC URS Greiner Woodward ClydeUSACE U.S. Army Corps of EngineersTABLE OF CONTENTSList of AcronymsQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA xUSATHAMA U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials AgencyUSCS Unified Soil Classification SystemUSDA U.S. Department of AgricultureUSEPA U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyUSGS U.S. Geologic SurveyUTL Upper Tolerance LimitVOC Volatile Organic CompoundW-C Woodward-ClydeURS URS CorporationExecutive Summary Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA ES-1The following report includes the results of the Phase II RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI)completed at the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55) at the Indiana Army AmmunitionPlant (INAAP). The report also summarizes the results of the previously completed Phase IRemedial Investigation (RI).INAAP currently encompasses approximately 9,790 acres in south-central Clark County,Indiana. Its southern boundary is approximately 6 miles north of Jeffersonville, Indiana and 10miles from the Louisville, Kentucky metropolitan area, which lies to the south across the OhioRiver. INAAP is a Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated (GOCO), inactive militaryindustrial installation. The Army intends to transfer the property to the Local Reuse Authority(LRA) for commercial development or to the State of Indiana for inclusion in the state parksystem. The Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55) is one of 90 sites identified at INAAP.The Plant was originally constructed as three separate facilities: The Indiana Ordnance WorksPlant 1, the Hoosier Ordnance Plant, and the Indiana Works Plant 2. The three facilities wereconsolidated into the Indiana Arsenal in 1945. The Indiana Arsenal was redesignated as theIndiana Ordnance Plant in 1961; in August 1963, it was redesignated again as the Indiana ArmyAmmunition Plant.Topography at INAAP can be described as a middle-aged karst topography. Karst topography isproduced by the dissolution of limestone, gypsum, or other readily soluble rocks, commonlyalong joints, fractures, bedding planes, or other such features. The dissolution process results inthe formation of sinkholes, caves, and underground drainages. Numerous sinkholes and springsare found throughout much of INAAP.Approximately 96 percent of INAAP’s land surface drains directly into the Ohio River via sevendrainage basins. The remaining 4 percent reaches the Ohio River indirectly through the PheasantRun basin.Groundwater at INAAP is present in the bedrock formations of the upland areas and in theterrace/floodplain sand and gravel deposits located within the Ohio River valley. Thegroundwater present in the floodplain aquifer along the Ohio River is a major water supplysource. Groundwater is not usually found in the thin soil layer covering the bedrock surface inthe upland areas. When present, shallow groundwater typically mingles with surface water byflowing in and out of karst features.The Phase I and II investigations at the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55) included thecompletion of fifteen soil borings, the collection and analysis of 38 surface and subsurface soilsamples, one sediment sample and one collocated surface water/sediment sample. Chemicalanalyses included volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds(SVOCs), nitroaromatics/nitramines, metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) andnitrate/nitrite.The Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55) measures approximately 0.3 acres in size and islocated near the southern boundary of INAAP. The date the site was first used as a burningground and the types of materials burned is unknown; however, burning activities werereportedly halted in the 1950s. The site is situated in an upland area characterized by karstExecutive Summary Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA ES-2topography and is located in the Lentzier Creek drainage basin. The surface of the site is grass-coveredand slopes to the to the south/southwest with a total relief of approximately 40 feet. Thesite is currently used for cattle grazing.The local surficial geology of the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55) indicates thatmost of the site is overlain by about 0.5 feet of topsoil with fill or residual soils underlying thetopsoil. The greatest measured thickness of soil fill material was about 8 feet, while residualsoils varied from a few feet to nearly 15 feet in thickness. Fill material consisted primarily oflow plastic silty clay with a few thin layers containing ash, glass, metal and gravel, and theresidual soils varied from low plastic, silty clay to medium to high plastic clay. Depth tobedrock varied from about four to 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). During the initial Phase IRI sampling, groundwater was observed in one boring at about 9.5 feet bgs at the time ofdrilling. There was no groundwater encountered in any other boring during the two samplingevents. Surface water was observed in the drainage ditch at the southwest corner of the siteduring both sampling events.Contamination was evaluated in near surface soil and sediment, subsurface soil, and surfacewater. Concentrations of VOCs were detected at low levels in both surface and subsurface soils.Elevated levels of two SVOC and two nitroaromatic/nitramine compounds were detected in onesediment and one surface soil sample, respectively. SVOCs and nitroaromatics/nitramines weredetected at low levels in subsurface soil samples. Elevated levels of target compounds were notdetected in surface water samples. Several metals results exceeded background concentrationsfor all media sampled.A human health risk screen was performed on all contaminants found in surface soils/sediments,total soils/sediments, and in surface water at the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55).Human health Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) were not identified in surface water.Additionally, COPCs identified in soil and sediment did not exceed calculated risk screeninglevels; therefore, further human health evaluation of this site is not warranted.An ecological risk evaluation was performed at the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55).Based on the small size (0.3 acres) of the site and a lack of any significant exploitable habitatwithin the site, no unacceptable ecological risks are present and no further investigation forecological concerns is warranted.Data of sufficient quality and quantity to characterize the Former Inert Area Burning Ground(Site 55) has been collected. Physical and chemical investigation results were used to evaluatepotential human health and ecological risks at the site. Based on the results of these evaluations,no further action is recommended for the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55).Site Location and DescriptionSECTIONONE Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 1-1The Former Inert Area Burning Ground(Site 55) measures approximately 0.3acres in size and is located near thesouthern boundary of INAAP (seeFigure 1-1). The Former Inert AreaBurning Ground (Site 55) is borderedby:· North - grasslands, trees,railroad tracks, and spillarea (Site 86)· South - grassland andthe AdministrationPatrol Road· East - grasslands andtrees· West - access road,grasslands, and the westbranch of Lentzier CreekThe Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55) is grass covered and slopes to the south. Twodrainage ditches define the western and southern perimeters of the site (see Figure 1-2).1.1 OPERATIONAL HISTORY AND WASTE CHARACTERISTICSBased on interviews, aerial photographs, records review, and site reconnaissance, the followingoperational history and waste characteristics were determined:· The date the site was first used as a burning ground is unknown.· The types and quantities of materials burned are unknown.· Burning activities were reportedly halted in the 1950s (USATHAMA 1980).· Debris consisting of iron scraps, lumber pieces, and ceramic fragments wasobserved on the ground surface during the January 1995 site reconnaissance.· The site is currently used for cattle grazing.· The use of the land between the burning and cattle grazing periods is not known.1.2 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONSWoodward-Clyde completed a Phase I RI at this site in 1995 (W-C 1998).For additional information regarding the previous investigations completed at INAAP, refer toSection 3 of the Sitewide Work Plan (URSGWC 2000a).Site Location and DescriptionSECTIONONE Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 1-21.3 REPORT ORGANIZATIONThis report compiles the Phase I RI report (W-C 1998) with the results of the Phase II RFI (URS2002). The remaining portion of this report is organized as follows:· Section 2 – Field Activities Summary· Section 3 – Physical Investigation Results: reviews site topography, local surficialgeology, and shallow hydrogeology· Section 4 – Data Quality Review and Validation: summarizes the results of the 100percent quality control (QC) review and the ten percent full validation· Section 5 – Chemical Investigation Results: identifies the chemical analyses and fieldduplicate samples collected; summarizes the sample detections by sampleidentification number and matrix type in tabular form· Section 6 – Contamination Assessment: presents an evaluation, both in text and onfigures, of chemicals present at the site in elevated concentrations by matrix andchemical group· Section 7 – Human Health Risk Evaluation: examines the chemicals present invarious matrices at the site to determine if they pose a threat to human health· Section 8 – Ecological Health Risk Evaluation: examines the chemicals present invarious matrices at the site to determine if they pose a threat to the environment· Section 9 – Summary and Recommendations· Section 10 – ReferencesFor additional information regarding the rationale for and the objectives of the Phase II RFI,refer to the Sitewide Work Plan (URSGWC 2000a) and the Field Sampling Plan (URS 2002).Field Activities SummarySECTIONTWO Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 2-1Field activities for the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55) included surface andsubsurface soil, sediment, and surface water sampling. The locations of the sampling points areprovided on Figure 2-1. Sample location, identification, depth, matrix, and chemical analysesare presented in Table 2-1 for samples collected in 1995, and in Table 2-2 for samples collectedin 2002. All field activities were completed in accordance with applicable Standard OperatingProcedures (SOPs) (W-C 1998, URSGWC 2000b, URS 2002). Any deviations from the SOPsare noted on the Sample Collection Field Sheets (SCFS), provided in Appendix D.2.1 SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING2.1.1 SoilTwelve borings were located in areas of suspected contamination based on historicalinformation, site drainage and topography. Eight soil borings (55SB01 through 55SB08) weredrilled to maximum depths ranging from approximately 4 to 10.5 feet bgs using hollow stemaugers (HSA) (4 ¼-inch inner diameter, 8-inch outer diameter) and a 3-inch diameter stainlesssteel split spoon. The remaining four borings (55DS01 through 55DS04) were completed tomaximum depths ranging from approximately 5 to 15 feet bgs using a direct push system and1.75-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) liners. These boring were completed at thefollowing locations (see Figure 2-1):· 55SB01 – adjacent to Access Road and 70’ north of Administration Patrol Road onwestern edge of burning area· 55SB02 – approximately 110’ east of Access Road and 40’ north of AdministrationPatrol Road, on southern side of burning area· 55SB03 – approximately 230’ east of Access Road and 70’ north of AdministrationPatrol Road, on southeastern side of burning area· 55SB04 – approximately 90’ north of 55SB03 on eastern side of burning area· 55SB05 – approximately 160’ east of Access Road and 140’ north of AdministrationPatrol Road, in center of burning area· 55SB06 – adjacent to Access Road and 180’ north of Administration Patrol Road onwestern edge of burning area· 55SB07 – adjacent to Access Road and 260’ north of Administration Patrol Road onwestern edge of burning area· 55SB08 – approximately 170’ east of Access Road and 240’ north of AdministrationPatrol Road, in center of burning area· 55DS01 – in the southwest corner of the burning area, approximately 20’ northeast ofthe Access Road and Administration Patrol Road intersection· 55DS02 – approximately 40’ north of 55SB02 and 60’ south of 55SB05Field Activities SummarySECTIONTWO Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 2-2· 55DS03 – approximately 290’ east of Access Road and 300’ north of AdministrationPatrol Road, on northeastern side of burning area· 55DS04 – adjacent to Access Road and 380’ north of Administration Patrol Road onwestern edge of burning areaAdditionally, three surface soil samples were collected in areas of suspected contamination aspart of the Phase I RI field activities. The surface soil samples were collected to maximumapproximate depths of 2 feet bgs. The surface soil samples were collected at the followinglocations (see Figure 2-1) using a stainless-steel hand auger:· 55SS01 – adjacent to the Access Road and Administration Patrol Road intersection,in the southwest corner of the burning area· 55SS02 – adjacent to the Administration Patrol Road and 100’ east of Access Road· 55SS03 – on west side of Access Road and 10’ north of Administration Patrol RoadTypically, three samples were retained for chemical analysis from each soil boring, and onesample was retained for chemical analysis from each surface soil sampling location. However,due to their relatively shallow total depths, only two samples were collected from borings55SB01, 55SB08 and 55DS04. Additionally, due to a relatively deeper depth for borings55DS02 and 55DS03, four samples were collected. Sample identification, depth, matrix, andchemical analysis are presented in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. Boring locations are shown in Figure 2-1.2.1.2 SedimentTwo sediment samples were collected from surface drainage features along the southernboundary of the burning area. Surface water was present at 55SD01 at the time of sedimentsample collection, and the sediment was collected from beneath the standing water. Thesediment samples were collected from the following locations (see Figure 2-1):· 55SD01 – in drainage on west side of Access Road, across from the burning area, atthe Access Road and Administration Patrol Road intersection· 55SD02 – in drainage bordering the south side of the burning area, approximately250’ east of Access Road.Sediment samples were collected from 0 to 0.5 feet bgs using a hand trowel. Sampleidentification, depth, matrix, and chemical analysis are presented in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. Samplelocations are shown in Figure 2-1.2.2 SURFACE WATER SAMPLINGOne surface water sample was collected from an area of standing water in a drainage featurewest of the burning area. This sample was collocated with a sediment sample discussed inSection 2.1.2. The surface water sample was collected from the following location (see Figure 2-1):Field Activities SummarySECTIONTWO Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 2-3· 55SW01 – from the standing water on west side of Access Road, across from theburning area, at the Access Road and Administration Patrol Road intersectionSample identification, depth, matrix, and chemical analysis are presented Table 2-2. Samplelocations are shown in Figure 2-1.2.3 FIELD SCREENING RESULTSField screening was completed during both investigations using headspace analysis. Recoveredsoil from each boring and sediment sample was field screened using a photoionization detector(PID) to verify the presence or absence of organic vapors. Headspace results are presented inTable 2-3 and were recorded on the boring logs (see Appendix C) and the Sample CollectionField Sheets (SCFSs) (see Appendix D).2.4 IDW DISPOSITIONInvestigation-derived wastes (IDW), including soil cuttings, decontamination fluids, andpersonal protective equipment (PPE), were disposed in accordance with the Sitewide Work Plan(URSGWC 2000a) and the Field Sampling Plan (URS 2002).TABLE 2-1SUMMARY OF PHASE I RI SAMPLES FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSISSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDSampleLocationSampleIdentificationSampleDepth (ft bgs)SampleMatrix VOCs1 SVOCs2 Metals3Nitroaromatics /Nitramines4 Nitrate/Nitrite5 TPH6 Comments55SS01 5501SS02 0.0-2.0 Soil X X X X X X55SS02 5502SS02 0.0-2.0 Soil X X X X X X55SS03 5503SS02 0.0-2.0 Soil X X X X X X55SS04 5504SS02 0.0-2.0 Soil X X X X X X Duplicate (5503SS02)55SB01 5501SB02 0.0-2.0 Soil X X X X X X5501SB05 4.0-5.5 Soil X X X X X X55SB02 5502SB02 0.0-2.0 Soil X X X X X X5502SB06 4.0-6.0 Soil X X X X X X5502SB10 8.5-10.5 Soil X X X X X X55SB03 5503SB02 0.0-2.0 Soil X X X X X X5503SB06 4.0-6.0 Soil X X X X X X5503SB10 8.0-10.0 Soil X X X X X X55SB04 5504SB02 0.0-2.0 Soil X X X X X X5504SB06 4.0-6.0 Soil X X X X X X5504SB10 8.0-10.0 Soil X X X X X X55SB05 5505SB02 0.0-2.0 Soil X X X X X X5505SB06 4.0-6.0 Soil X X X X X X5505SB10 8.0-10.0 Soil X X X X X X55SB06 5506SB02 0.0-2.0 Soil X X X X X X5506SB06 4.0-6.0 Soil X X X X X X5509SB06 4.0-6.0 Soil X X X X X X Duplicate (5506SB06)5506SB10 8.0-10.0 Soil X X X X X X55SB07 5507SB02 0.0-2.0 Soil X X X X X X5509SB02 0.0-2.0 Soil X X X X X X Duplicate (5507SB02)5507SB06 4.0-6.0 Soil X X X X X X5507SB10 8.0-10.0 Soil X X X X X XParametersQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 1 of 2 1/28/03TABLE 2-1SUMMARY OF PHASE I RI SAMPLES FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSISSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDSampleLocationSampleIdentificationSampleDepth (ft bgs)SampleMatrix VOCs1 SVOCs2 Metals3Nitroaromatics /Nitramines4 Nitrate/Nitrite5 TPH6 CommentsParameters55SB08 5508SB02 0.0-2.0 Soil X X X X X X MS/MSD5508SB04 2.0-4.0 Soil X X X X X XNotes: Abbreviations:Samples were collected in 1996. bgs = below ground surfaceAll samples to be analyzed for chemical analysis were shipped EMAX Laboratory, Inc, of Torrance, California. ft = feet1 TCL Volatile Organic Compounds: Preparation Method 5030 / Analysis Method 8260A.2 TCL Semivolatile Organic Compounds: Preparation Methods 3520 (aqueous) and 3550 (soil/sediment) / Analysis Method 8270. MS/MSD = Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike Duplicate3TAL Metals: Preparation Methods 3010/3020 (aqueous) and 3050B (soil) / Analysis Methods 6010/7000. Duplicate = Quality Control Duplicate4 Nitroaromatics/nitramines were prepared and analyzed as identified in Method 8330. (original sample listed in parentheses).5 Nitrate/Nitrite was prepared and analyzed as identified in Method 300. SB = Soil Boring6 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons were prepared and analyzed as identified in Method 8015. SS = Shallow SoilNA = Not ApplicableQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 2 of 2 1/28/03TABLE 2-2SUMMARY OF PHASE II RFI SAMPLES FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSISSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDSampleLocationSampleIdentificationSampleDepth (ft bgs)SampleMatrix SVOCs1 Metals2Nitroaromatics /Nitramines3 Comments55DS01 5501DS02 0.0-2.0 Soil X X X5501DS04 3.0-4.0 Soil X X X5501DS06 5.0-6.0 Soil X X X55DS02 5502DS02 0.0-2.0 Soil X X X5502DS06 5.0-6.0 Soil X X X5502DS10 9.0-10.0 Soil X X X5502DS12 11.0-12.0 Soil X X X55DS03 5503DS02 1.0-2.0 Soil X X X5503DS06 5.0-6.0 Soil X X X5503DS11 10.0-11.0 Soil X X X5503DS15 14.0-15.0 Soil X X X55DS04 5504DS02 1.0-2.0 Soil X X X5504DS05 4.0-5.0 Soil X X X55SD01 5501SD00 0.0-0.5 Sediment X X X5501SW00 - Surface Water X X X5551SW00 - Surface Water X X X Duplicate (5501SW00)55SD02 5502SD00 0.0-0.5 Sediment X X XNotes: Abbreviations:1 bgs = below ground surfaceDS = Direct Push - Soil2 SW = Surface WaterSD = Sediment3 Nitroaromatics/nitramines were prepared and analyzed as identified in Method 8330. ft = feetSamples were collected in 2002. MS/MSD = Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike DuplicateParametersAll samples analyzed for chemical analysis were shipped to EMAX Laboratory, Inc, of Torrance,California.Duplicate = Quality Control Duplicate (originalsample ID in parentheses)TCL Semivolatile Organic Compounds: Preparation Method 3520C (aqueous) and 3550B(soil/sediment) / Analysis Method 8270C.TAL Metals: Preparation Method 3010A (aqueous) and 3050B (soil/sediment) / AnalysisMethod 6010B(7470A/7471A) (mercury liquid/solid).Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 1 of 1 1/28/03TABLE 2-3SUMMARY OF FIELD SCREENING RESULTSFOR ORGANIC VAPORS IN SOIL SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDBoring Number Sample Depth (ft bgs) Concentration (ppm)155SS01 0.0-2.0 ND55SS02 0.0-2.0 ND55SS03 0.0-2.0 ND55SB01 0.0-2.0 ND4.0-5.5 ND55SB02 0.0-2.0 ND4.0-6.0 ND8.5-10.5 ND55SB03 0.0-2.0 ND4.0-6.0 ND8.0-10.0 ND55SB04 0.0-2.0 ND4.0-6.0 ND8.0-10.0 ND55SB05 0.0-2.0 ND4.0-6.0 ND8.0-10.0 ND55SB06 0.0-2.0 ND4.0-6.0 ND8.0-10.0 8555SB07 0.0-2.0 ND4.0-6.0 ND8.0-10.0 ND55SB08 0.0-2.0 ND2.0-4.0 ND55DS01 0.0-2.0 ND3.0-4.0 ND5.0-6.0 ND55DS02 0.0-2.0 ND5.0-6.0 ND9.0-10.0 ND11.0-12.0 ND55DS03 1.0-2.0 ND5.0-6.0 ND10.0-11.0 ND14.0-15.0 ND55DS04 1.0-2.0 ND4.0-5.0 ND55SD01 0.0-0.5 ND55SD02 0.0-0.5 NDNotes:1 Measured response above background using a PID.2 Not available due to low sample recovery.Abbreviations:ft = feetbgs = Below Ground Surfaceppm = Part Per MillionSS = Shallow Soil SampleSB = Soil BoringDS = Direct Push Soil SampleSD = Sediment SampleND = Not DetectedSamples 55SS01 through 55SS03 and 55SB01 through 55SB08 were collected during the Phase I RI (1996), all other samples werecollected during the Phase II RFI (2002).Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 1 of 1 1/28/03Physical Investigation ResultsSECTIONTHREE Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 3-13.1 TOPOGRAPHY AND SURFACE FEATURESThe surface features of the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55) are shown on Figure 1-2. The site is situated in an Upland area characterized by karst topography associated withshallow limestone bedrock. The surface of the site is grass-covered and slopes to the to thesouth/southwest with a total relief of approximately 40 feet.The site is located in the Lentzier Creek drainage basin. Surface water from the site flows to thedrainage ditches located along the west and south sides of the site. The ditches converge at thesouth-southeast corner of the site. Surface water from the site then flows through drainageditches and culverts to the West Branch of Lentzier Creek, which flows to the Ohio River.Access to the site is by an access road on the west side of the site and by the AdministrationPatrol Road located on the south side of the site.3.2 LOCAL SURFICIAL GEOLOGYThe local surficial geology of the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55) has beeninterpreted based on twelve soil borings, three shallow soil samples, and two sediment samples.The surficial geology is presented on three geologic cross-sections. The locations of threegeologic cross-sections are shown on Figure 3-1. The geologic cross-sections are shown onFigures 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4.Borings 55SB02, 55SB04, 55SB05, 55SB06 and 55SB07 were drilled to 10-feet bgs and did notencounter bedrock. The remaining borings encountered refusal on limestone bedrock. Theborings indicate that most of the site is overlain by about 0.5 feet of topsoil. Fill or residual soilsunderlie the topsoil. The greatest measured thickness of soil fill material was about 8 feet.Residual soils varied from a few feet to nearly 15 feet in thickness. Depth to bedrock variedfrom about four to 15 feet bgs.The fill materials occurred near the asphalt road on the west side of the site. Fill material wasencountered at Boring 55SB06 to a depth of about 8 feet (Figure 3-2) and consisted primarily oflow plastic silty clay with a few thin layers containing ash, glass, metal and gravel. A thinsurface layer of fill material was identified in boring 55SB07.The residual soils vary from low plastic, silty clay to medium to high plastic clay. Traceamounts of chert and sand mixtures were observed in the residual soils. The chert contentincreased with depth. A layer of chert imbedded in residual clay was observed below the topsoilin Borings 55SB04, 55SB05, 55DS03, and 55DS04.Sediment/surface soil samples collected from the drainage ditches consisted of clayey silt andsilty clay. These soils are likely alluvial or colluvial sediments deposited in the ditch via surfacerun-off during and after precipitation events.Physical Investigation ResultsSECTIONTHREE Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 3-2In summary, the materials encountered were typically described as:· Fill - Stiff to very stiff, moist, red-brown, low plastic, silty clay (USCS symbol CL)with a few thin layers containing ash, glass, metal, or gravel.· Sediment – Soft, moist, brown, low plastic clayey silt to silty clay (USCS symbolML-CL)· Residuum – Soft to hard, moist, red-brown to yellow, low plastic, silty clay (USCSsymbol CL) to very stiff, moist, red-brown, medium to high plastic clay (USCSsymbol CH).A monitoring well (90MW03) was installed in the fall of 2001 approximately 300 hundred feeteast of the site, along the Administration Patrol Road, as part of the Site 90 BasewideGroundwater Investigation (see Technical Memorandum, URS 2001). Bedrock was encounteredat about 10 feet bgs.3.3 SHALLOW HYDROGEOLOGYDuring the initial Phase I RI sampling, groundwater was observed in Boring 55SB02 at about 9.5feet bgs at the time of drilling and at about 7.0 feet bgs about five hours after drilling wascompleted. Groundwater was not observed in any other boring during the two sampling events.Surface water was observed in the drainage ditch at sample location 55SW/SD01 during bothsampling events.The static water level at 90MW03 has been measured at about 18 feet bgs in two subsequentsampling rounds.Data Quality Review and ValidationSECTIONFOUR Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 4-14.1 PHASE I RINo data from the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55) were rejected. Reporting limitswere elevated due to analytes found in the associated method blanks, and due to moisturecontent, which ranged from 9 percent to 30 percent. See the Phase I RI (W-C 1998) report for amore detailed discussion of data review issues.4.2 PHASE II RFIAll chemical data were reviewed following procedures identified in the INAPP Site WideQuality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (URSGWC 2000). Based on the data reviews andvalidations, no analytical data collected at the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55) werequalified as estimated (J/UJ) or rejected (R) based on quality control (QC) criteria.Additionally, no analytical data were qualified non-detect (U) based on the presence ofcompounds in the laboratory method blank samples or based on professional judgement(common laboratory contaminants). Acceptable levels of accuracy and precision were achievedfor the data. A complete summary of the data review and validation is presented in Appendix A.The analytical data for samples collected at the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55)were determined to be acceptable for the intended data use.The nitrotoluene compounds 2,4-DNT and 2,6-DNT were reported using two different analyticalmethods, SW-846 Method 8270C and Method 8330. In some instances, the values reportedusing SW-846 Method 8270C were not comparable to those values reported using SW-846Method 8330. There was not a definitive bias using either method. While some of thediscrepancy may be due to inherent differences between the analytical methodologies (e.g.,sample volume of 2 grams for Method 8330 versus a sample volume of 30 grams for Method8270C), the differences are likely attributable to sample heterogeneity. Contaminated soils areoften extremely heterogeneous. While samples were homogenized in the field and again at thelaboratory prior to analysis, sample homogeneity is particularly difficult to achieve fornitrotoluenes due to their relative insolubility. As a conservative approach, the higherconcentration was used if more than one valid result was reported for any compound.Chemical Investigation ResultsSECTIONFIVE Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 5-1All samples collected from the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55) were analyzed forTarget Compound List (TCL) SVOCs, Target Analyte List (TAL) metals, andnitroaromatics/nitramines. Samples collected during the Phase I RI were also analyzed for TCLVOCs, TPH, cyanide and nitrate/nitrite. Field duplicate samples collected from this site areidentified below. Analytical results for field duplicate samples are presented in Appendix E.Field Duplicate Associated Sample5509SB06 5506SB065509SB02 5507SB0255SS0302 55SS04025551SW00 5501SW00Summaries of the chemical investigation results can be found as follows:· Surface and subsurface soil, sediment, and surface water samples collected from thissite and the types of analyses are summarized in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.· Chemicals detected, maximum concentration, and frequency of detects for soil andsediment samples collected from the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55) aresummarized in Table 5-1.· Chemicals detected, maximum concentration, and frequency of detects for surfacewater samples collected from the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55) aresummarized in Table 5-2.· Appendix E contains all analytical results.TABLE 5-1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDFIELD ID 5501DS02 5501DS04 5501DS06 5501SB02 5501SB05DATE COLLECTED March 30, 2002 March 30, 2002 March 30, 2002 November 9, 1995 November 9, 1995Maximum Frequency Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL QualVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)Acetone 40 1 / 25 < 12 U < 12 UChloroform 1 J 3 / 25 < 12 U < 12 UChloromethane 12 1 / 25 < 12 U < 12 UStyrene 3 J 4 / 25 < 12 U < 12 UToluene 100 7 / 25 < 12 U < 12 USEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 36000 1 / 40 < 400 U < 420 U < 410 U < 390 U < 390 U2,6-Dinitrotoluene 4400 J 1 / 40 < 400 U < 420 U < 410 U < 390 U < 390 UBenzo[b]Fluoranthene 56 J 1 / 40 < 400 U < 420 U < 410 U < 390 U < 390 UBis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 1500 14 / 40 < 810 U < 840 U < 810 U < 390 U < 390 UButylbenzyl phthalate 540 4 / 40 < 400 U < 420 U < 410 U < 390 U < 390 UChrysene 42 J 1 / 40 < 400 U < 420 U < 410 U < 390 U < 390 UDi-n-butyl phthalate 34000 12 / 40 < 400 U < 420 U < 410 U < 450 U < 390 UFluoranthene 96 J 1 / 40 < 400 U < 420 U < 410 U < 390 U < 390 UN-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1800 1 / 40 < 400 U < 420 U < 410 U < 390 U < 390 UPhenanthrene 86 J 1 / 40 < 400 U < 420 U < 410 U < 390 U < 390 UPyrene 88 J 1 / 40 < 400 U < 420 U < 410 U < 390 U < 390 UNITROAROMATICS/NITRAMINES (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 15000 2 / 40 < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U < 477 U < 470 U2,6-Dinitrotoluene 1100 1 / 40 < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U < 477 U < 470 UMETALS (mg/kg)Aluminum 47100 40 / 40 15300 24.5 11800 25.5 17700 24.6 10800 9930Antimony 6.12 J 11 / 40 2.96 12.3 J 2.8 12.7 J 3.43 12.3 J < 9.5 UJ < 9.4 UJArsenic 33.1 40 / 40 9.7 1.23 11.6 1.27 13.6 1.23 9.9 19.6Barium 317 40 / 40 134 1.23 80.2 1.27 93.5 1.23 104 123Beryllium 4.4 39 / 40 0.947 1.23 J 1.12 1.27 J 1.72 1.23 0.64 J 1.2 JCadmium 2.3 8 / 40 < 1.23 U < 1.27 U < 1.23 U < 0.95 U < 0.94 UCalcium 103000 40 / 40 2730 123 1670 127 3090 123 2470 1860Chromium 40.5 40 / 40 20.2 2.45 25.1 2.55 28.9 2.46 15 18.3Cobalt 179 39 / 40 15.3 2.45 13.2 2.55 14.7 2.46 11.2 J 32.9Copper 284 40 / 40 28.6 2.45 25 2.55 41.9 2.46 30.3 J 62.2 JQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 1 of 16 1/28/03TABLE 5-1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDFIELD ID 5501DS02 5501DS04 5501DS06 5501SB02 5501SB05DATE COLLECTED March 30, 2002 March 30, 2002 March 30, 2002 November 9, 1995 November 9, 1995Maximum Frequency Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL QualIron 68900 40 / 40 22000 24.5 26100 25.5 34700 24.6 20900 36500Lead 219 40 / 40 78.8 1.23 21.7 1.27 25.3 1.23 63.6 30.1Magnesium 11800 40 / 40 1540 123 970 127 1560 123 1290 727 JManganese 5540 J 40 / 40 1470 1.23 571 1.27 337 1.23 1060 2420Mercury 2.4 24 / 40 0.0618 0.123 J 0.0403 0.127 J 0.0566 0.123 J < 0.1 U < 0.1 UNickel 332 40 / 40 18.7 2.45 18 2.55 47.2 2.46 14.1 44.8Potassium 3650 40 / 40 917 613 532 637 J 1410 615 523 J 723 JSelenium 3.2 9 / 40 < 1.23 U < 1.27 U < 1.23 U < 1.2 U < 1.2 USilver 3.1 10 / 40 1.77 2.45 J 1.24 2.55 J < 2.46 U < 1.7 U < 1.6 USodium 415 J 12 / 40 < 123 U < 127 U < 123 U < 119 U < 118 UThallium 6.7 27 / 40 < 2.45 U < 2.55 U 1.33 2.46 J 2.3 J 3.6Vanadium 84.3 40 / 40 33.4 2.45 35.2 2.55 42.6 2.46 27.1 40Zinc 491 40 / 40 144 1.23 43.4 1.27 61.5 1.23 172 58.9OTHER PARAMETERS (mg/kg)Cyanide 0.46 J 2 / 25 < 0.29 U < 0.29 UNotes:ND = Not DetectedRL = Reporting LimitE = Value exceeds linear range.μg/kg = microgram per kilogrammg/kg = milligram per kilogramQual = QualifierJ = EstimatedR = RejectedU = NondetectUJ = Estimated NondetectThis table combines data from the Phase I RI (1995-1996) with data from the Phase II RFI(2002).Blank space for a set of analytes indicates that the sample was not analyzed for theseparameters.Analyte frequency information does not include dilutions and reanalyses.Results in the table represent the highest reported concentration for each analyte.Analytical data for samples collected prior to March 2002 was obtained from the ArmyEnvironmental Center database.Frequency indicates the number of times a given analyte was detected in the samples.Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 2 of 16 1/28/03TABLE 5-1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDFIELD IDDATE COLLECTEDMaximum FrequencyVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)Acetone 40 1 / 25Chloroform 1 J 3 / 25Chloromethane 12 1 / 25Styrene 3 J 4 / 25Toluene 100 7 / 25SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 36000 1 / 402,6-Dinitrotoluene 4400 J 1 / 40Benzo[b]Fluoranthene 56 J 1 / 40Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 1500 14 / 40Butylbenzyl phthalate 540 4 / 40Chrysene 42 J 1 / 40Di-n-butyl phthalate 34000 12 / 40Fluoranthene 96 J 1 / 40N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1800 1 / 40Phenanthrene 86 J 1 / 40Pyrene 88 J 1 / 40NITROAROMATICS/NITRAMINES (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 15000 2 / 402,6-Dinitrotoluene 1100 1 / 40METALS (mg/kg)Aluminum 47100 40 / 40Antimony 6.12 J 11 / 40Arsenic 33.1 40 / 40Barium 317 40 / 40Beryllium 4.4 39 / 40Cadmium 2.3 8 / 40Calcium 103000 40 / 40Chromium 40.5 40 / 40Cobalt 179 39 / 40Copper 284 40 / 405501SD00 5501SS02 5502DS02 5502DS06 5502DS10April 17, 2002 November 9, 1995 March 30, 2002 March 30, 2002 March 30, 2002Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual< 12 U< 12 U12< 12 U3436000 5800 < 390 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U4400 5800 J < 390 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U< 1200 U < 390 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U< 2300 U < 390 U < 810 U < 800 U < 800 U< 1200 U < 390 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U< 1200 U < 390 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U34000 5800 < 390 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U< 1200 U < 390 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U1800 1200 < 390 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U< 1200 U < 390 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U< 1200 U < 390 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U< 400 U < 477 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U< 400 U < 477 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U10200 35.4 12300 19000 24.5 19300 24.3 16400 24.24.09 17.7 J < 9.5 U 4.14 12.3 J < 12.1 U 3.51 12.1 J6.17 1.77 14.4 11.1 1.23 15.1 1.21 14 1.2181.4 1.77 70.9 117 1.23 133 1.21 64.4 1.210.689 1.77 J 0.82 J 1.03 1.23 J 1.82 1.21 2.91 1.21< 1.77 U < 0.95 U < 1.23 U 0.696 1.21 J < 1.21 U64200 177 2790 1950 123 807 121 2320 12116.2 3.54 20.3 19.6 2.45 21.2 2.43 22.3 2.428.86 3.54 18.4 13.4 2.45 27.4 2.43 34.7 2.4235.6 3.54 36.3 J 20.4 2.45 32.5 2.43 53.1 2.42Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 3 of 16 1/28/03TABLE 5-1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDFIELD IDDATE COLLECTEDMaximum FrequencyIron 68900 40 / 40Lead 219 40 / 40Magnesium 11800 40 / 40Manganese 5540 J 40 / 40Mercury 2.4 24 / 40Nickel 332 40 / 40Potassium 3650 40 / 40Selenium 3.2 9 / 40Silver 3.1 10 / 40Sodium 415 J 12 / 40Thallium 6.7 27 / 40Vanadium 84.3 40 / 40Zinc 491 40 / 40OTHER PARAMETERS (mg/kg)Cyanide 0.46 J 2 / 25Notes:ND = Not DetectedRL = Reporting LimitE = Value exceeds linear range.μg/kg = microgram per kilogrammg/kg = milligram per kilogramQual = QualifierJ = EstimatedR = RejectedU = NondetectUJ = Estimated NondetectThis table combines data from the Phase I RI (1995-1996) with data from the Phase II RFI(2002).Blank space for a set of analytes indicates that the sample was not analyzed for theseparameters.Analyte frequency information does not include dilutions and reanalyses.Results in the table represent the highest reported concentration for each analyte.Analytical data for samples collected prior to March 2002 was obtained from the ArmyEnvironmental Center database.Frequency indicates the number of times a given analyte was detected in the samples.5501SD00 5501SS02 5502DS02 5502DS06 5502DS10April 17, 2002 November 9, 1995 March 30, 2002 March 30, 2002 March 30, 2002Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual12800 35.4 30700 23200 24.5 32300 24.3 24600 24.298 1.77 34.2 28.6 1.23 34.7 1.21 18.8 1.2111800 177 1040 J 1770 123 1200 121 1240 121640 1.77 635 1140 1.23 3040 1.21 493 1.210.074 0.177 J < 0.1 U 0.128 0.613 J 0.05 0.121 J 0.0703 0.121 J17.3 3.54 21.1 23.1 2.45 41.5 2.43 169 2.421510 885 631 J 1210 613 1030 607 2060 606< 1.77 U 1.3 < 1.23 U < 1.21 U < 1.21 U< 3.54 U < 1.7 U 1.27 2.45 J 0.695 2.43 J 0.721 2.42 J119 177 J < 119 U < 123 U < 121 U < 121 U< 3.54 U 1.7 J < 2.45 U < 2.43 U 1.03 2.42 J24.5 3.54 40.8 37.1 2.45 42.7 2.43 24.6 2.42163 1.77 59.9 78.9 1.23 84.5 1.21 230 1.21< 0.29 UQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 4 of 16 1/28/03TABLE 5-1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDFIELD IDDATE COLLECTEDMaximum FrequencyVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)Acetone 40 1 / 25Chloroform 1 J 3 / 25Chloromethane 12 1 / 25Styrene 3 J 4 / 25Toluene 100 7 / 25SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 36000 1 / 402,6-Dinitrotoluene 4400 J 1 / 40Benzo[b]Fluoranthene 56 J 1 / 40Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 1500 14 / 40Butylbenzyl phthalate 540 4 / 40Chrysene 42 J 1 / 40Di-n-butyl phthalate 34000 12 / 40Fluoranthene 96 J 1 / 40N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1800 1 / 40Phenanthrene 86 J 1 / 40Pyrene 88 J 1 / 40NITROAROMATICS/NITRAMINES (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 15000 2 / 402,6-Dinitrotoluene 1100 1 / 40METALS (mg/kg)Aluminum 47100 40 / 40Antimony 6.12 J 11 / 40Arsenic 33.1 40 / 40Barium 317 40 / 40Beryllium 4.4 39 / 40Cadmium 2.3 8 / 40Calcium 103000 40 / 40Chromium 40.5 40 / 40Cobalt 179 39 / 40Copper 284 40 / 405502DS12 5502SB02 5502SB06 5502SB10 5502SD00March 30, 2002 November 10, 1995 November 10, 1995 November 10, 1995 April 17, 2002Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual< 12 U < 12 U < 13 U< 12 U < 12 U 1 J< 12 U < 12 U < 13 U< 12 U < 12 U < 13 U3 J < 12 U < 13 U< 420 U < 390 U < 410 U < 420 U < 950 U< 420 U < 390 U < 410 U < 420 U < 950 U< 420 U < 390 U < 410 U < 420 U < 950 U1500 850 21 J 180 J 23 J < 1900 U< 420 U < 390 U 270 J < 420 U < 950 U< 420 U < 390 U < 410 U < 420 U < 950 U< 420 U 2800 3600 1900 < 950 U< 420 U < 390 U < 410 U < 420 U < 950 U< 420 U < 390 U < 410 U < 420 U < 950 U< 420 U < 390 U < 410 U < 420 U < 950 U< 420 U < 390 U < 410 U < 420 U < 950 U< 400 U < 472 U < 491 U < 504 U < 400 U< 400 U < 472 U < 491 U < 504 U < 400 U12600 25.6 13300 10200 11700 16500 28.8< 12.8 U < 9.4 UJ < 9.8 UJ < 10.1 UJ 3.54 14.4 J9.96 1.28 8.5 33.1 15.9 10.4 1.4481.9 1.28 71.3 63.4 101 123 1.441.5 1.28 0.64 J 2.3 1.7 1.15 1.44 J< 1.28 U < 0.94 U < 0.98 U 1.4 < 1.44 U3790 128 618 J 1140 J 3030 14000 14421.2 2.56 16.4 30.2 34.6 18.5 2.8832.8 2.56 11.4 J 44.1 44.9 20.5 2.8836.5 2.56 21.2 145 56.2 32.4 2.88Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 5 of 16 1/28/03TABLE 5-1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDFIELD IDDATE COLLECTEDMaximum FrequencyIron 68900 40 / 40Lead 219 40 / 40Magnesium 11800 40 / 40Manganese 5540 J 40 / 40Mercury 2.4 24 / 40Nickel 332 40 / 40Potassium 3650 40 / 40Selenium 3.2 9 / 40Silver 3.1 10 / 40Sodium 415 J 12 / 40Thallium 6.7 27 / 40Vanadium 84.3 40 / 40Zinc 491 40 / 40OTHER PARAMETERS (mg/kg)Cyanide 0.46 J 2 / 25Notes:ND = Not DetectedRL = Reporting LimitE = Value exceeds linear range.μg/kg = microgram per kilogrammg/kg = milligram per kilogramQual = QualifierJ = EstimatedR = RejectedU = NondetectUJ = Estimated NondetectThis table combines data from the Phase I RI (1995-1996) with data from the Phase II RFI(2002).Blank space for a set of analytes indicates that the sample was not analyzed for theseparameters.Analyte frequency information does not include dilutions and reanalyses.Results in the table represent the highest reported concentration for each analyte.Analytical data for samples collected prior to March 2002 was obtained from the ArmyEnvironmental Center database.Frequency indicates the number of times a given analyte was detected in the samples.5502DS12 5502SB02 5502SB06 5502SB10 5502SD00March 30, 2002 November 10, 1995 November 10, 1995 November 10, 1995 April 17, 2002Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual21900 25.6 22600 68900 40900 21100 28.816.6 1.28 13.1 75 30.1 73.6 1.441400 128 1570 567 J 1050 J 2940 144814 1.28 735 J 870 J 1640 J 1330 1.440.0901 0.128 J < 0.1 U < 0.1 U 0.14 0.105 0.144 J99.2 2.56 14.4 74.8 133 32.7 2.882300 640 411 J 784 J 807 J 2190 720< 1.28 U < 1.2 U 3.2 2.3 < 1.44 U< 2.56 U < 1.7 U 3.1 < 1.8 U < 2.88 U< 128 U < 118 U < 123 U 249 J 85 144 J0.628 2.56 J 1.6 J 6.5 4.6 < 2.88 U22.9 2.56 29.2 84.3 33.8 36.4 2.88159 1.28 50.6 110 166 129 1.44< 0.29 U < 0.29 U < 0.3 UQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 6 of 16 1/28/03TABLE 5-1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDFIELD IDDATE COLLECTEDMaximum FrequencyVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)Acetone 40 1 / 25Chloroform 1 J 3 / 25Chloromethane 12 1 / 25Styrene 3 J 4 / 25Toluene 100 7 / 25SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 36000 1 / 402,6-Dinitrotoluene 4400 J 1 / 40Benzo[b]Fluoranthene 56 J 1 / 40Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 1500 14 / 40Butylbenzyl phthalate 540 4 / 40Chrysene 42 J 1 / 40Di-n-butyl phthalate 34000 12 / 40Fluoranthene 96 J 1 / 40N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1800 1 / 40Phenanthrene 86 J 1 / 40Pyrene 88 J 1 / 40NITROAROMATICS/NITRAMINES (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 15000 2 / 402,6-Dinitrotoluene 1100 1 / 40METALS (mg/kg)Aluminum 47100 40 / 40Antimony 6.12 J 11 / 40Arsenic 33.1 40 / 40Barium 317 40 / 40Beryllium 4.4 39 / 40Cadmium 2.3 8 / 40Calcium 103000 40 / 40Chromium 40.5 40 / 40Cobalt 179 39 / 40Copper 284 40 / 405502SS02 5503DS02 5503DS06 5503DS11 5503DS15November 9, 1995 April 6, 2002 April 6, 2002 April 6, 2002 April 6, 2002Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual< 12 U< 12 U< 12 U< 12 U100< 380 U < 400 U < 410 U < 420 U < 460 U< 380 U < 400 U < 410 U < 420 U < 460 U< 380 U < 400 U < 410 U < 420 U < 460 U< 380 U < 810 U < 820 U < 850 U < 930 U< 380 U < 400 U < 410 U < 420 U < 460 U< 380 U < 400 U < 410 U < 420 U < 460 U< 630 U < 400 U < 410 U < 420 U < 460 U< 380 U < 400 U < 410 U < 420 U < 460 U< 380 U < 400 U < 410 U < 420 U < 460 U< 380 U < 400 U < 410 U < 420 U < 460 U< 380 U < 400 U < 410 U < 420 U < 460 U< 463 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U< 463 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U < 400 U9000 26200 24.5 33000 25 23900 25.7 47100 28.1< 9.3 UJ 2.51 12.3 J 6.12 12.5 J 3.38 12.9 J < 14 U23.8 12.7 1.23 16.7 1.25 21.6 1.29 20.4 1.4115 105 1.23 189 1.25 131 1.29 253 1.41.8 0.93 1.23 J 1.45 1.25 3.3 1.29 2.47 1.4< 0.93 U < 1.23 U < 1.25 U < 1.29 U 1.01 1.4 J1540 1380 123 423 125 2300 129 31200 14019.4 20.9 2.45 22.6 2.5 18.9 2.57 34.8 2.8135 14.1 2.45 24.9 2.5 19.1 2.57 8.87 2.8166.8 J 22.4 2.45 37.4 2.5 68.8 2.57 47.6 2.81Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 7 of 16 1/28/03TABLE 5-1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDFIELD IDDATE COLLECTEDMaximum FrequencyIron 68900 40 / 40Lead 219 40 / 40Magnesium 11800 40 / 40Manganese 5540 J 40 / 40Mercury 2.4 24 / 40Nickel 332 40 / 40Potassium 3650 40 / 40Selenium 3.2 9 / 40Silver 3.1 10 / 40Sodium 415 J 12 / 40Thallium 6.7 27 / 40Vanadium 84.3 40 / 40Zinc 491 40 / 40OTHER PARAMETERS (mg/kg)Cyanide 0.46 J 2 / 25Notes:ND = Not DetectedRL = Reporting LimitE = Value exceeds linear range.μg/kg = microgram per kilogrammg/kg = milligram per kilogramQual = QualifierJ = EstimatedR = RejectedU = NondetectUJ = Estimated NondetectThis table combines data from the Phase I RI (1995-1996) with data from the Phase II RFI(2002).Blank space for a set of analytes indicates that the sample was not analyzed for theseparameters.Analyte frequency information does not include dilutions and reanalyses.Results in the table represent the highest reported concentration for each analyte.Analytical data for samples collected prior to March 2002 was obtained from the ArmyEnvironmental Center database.Frequency indicates the number of times a given analyte was detected in the samples.5502SS02 5503DS02 5503DS06 5503DS11 5503DS15November 9, 1995 April 6, 2002 April 6, 2002 April 6, 2002 April 6, 2002Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual45400 28600 24.5 34200 25 36100 25.7 44100 28.148.8 17.5 1.23 32.5 1.25 23.9 1.29 14.8 1.4421 J 2510 123 1480 125 1440 129 3970 1401660 993 1.23 3130 1.25 3810 12.9 3380 1.4< 0.1 U 0.0435 0.123 J 0.0499 0.125 J 0.0874 0.129 J 0.107 0.14 J35.9 20.8 2.45 36.8 2.5 162 2.57 116 2.81369 J 1670 613 1860 624 2140 643 3650 7011.2 < 1.23 U < 1.25 U < 1.29 U < 1.4 U1.7 J < 2.45 U < 2.5 U < 2.57 U < 2.81 U< 116 U 82.2 123 J 83.7 125 J 146 129 249 1404.3 < 2.45 U < 2.5 U < 2.57 U < 2.81 U57.3 46 2.45 59.5 2.5 48.8 2.57 81.1 2.8169.2 60.1 1.23 68.8 1.25 107 1.29 491 1.4< 0.28 UQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 8 of 16 1/28/03TABLE 5-1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDFIELD IDDATE COLLECTEDMaximum FrequencyVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)Acetone 40 1 / 25Chloroform 1 J 3 / 25Chloromethane 12 1 / 25Styrene 3 J 4 / 25Toluene 100 7 / 25SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 36000 1 / 402,6-Dinitrotoluene 4400 J 1 / 40Benzo[b]Fluoranthene 56 J 1 / 40Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 1500 14 / 40Butylbenzyl phthalate 540 4 / 40Chrysene 42 J 1 / 40Di-n-butyl phthalate 34000 12 / 40Fluoranthene 96 J 1 / 40N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1800 1 / 40Phenanthrene 86 J 1 / 40Pyrene 88 J 1 / 40NITROAROMATICS/NITRAMINES (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 15000 2 / 402,6-Dinitrotoluene 1100 1 / 40METALS (mg/kg)Aluminum 47100 40 / 40Antimony 6.12 J 11 / 40Arsenic 33.1 40 / 40Barium 317 40 / 40Beryllium 4.4 39 / 40Cadmium 2.3 8 / 40Calcium 103000 40 / 40Chromium 40.5 40 / 40Cobalt 179 39 / 40Copper 284 40 / 405503SB02 5503SB06 5503SB10 5503SS02 5504DS02November 10, 1995 November 10, 1995 November 10, 1995 December 4, 1995 April 6, 2002Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual< 12 U < 13 U < 13 U 40< 12 U < 13 U < 13 U < 13 U< 12 U < 13 U < 13 U < 13 U< 12 U 3 J < 13 U < 13 U< 12 U < 13 U < 13 U 3 J< 400 U < 420 U < 420 U < 420 U < 400 U< 400 U < 420 U < 420 U < 420 U < 400 U< 400 U < 420 U < 420 U < 420 U < 400 U31 J 530 19 J 91 J < 810 U< 400 U 540 < 420 U < 420 U < 400 U< 400 U < 420 U < 420 U < 420 U < 400 U390 J 2900 < 420 U 70 J < 400 U< 400 U < 420 U < 420 U < 420 U < 400 U< 400 U < 420 U < 420 U < 420 U < 400 U< 400 U < 420 U < 420 U < 420 U < 400 U< 400 U < 420 U < 420 U < 420 U < 400 U< 481 U < 516 U < 508 U < 508 U < 400 U< 481 U < 516 U < 508 U < 508 U < 400 U10400 22900 13700 12100 29200 24.5< 9.6 UJ < 10.3 UJ < 10.2 UJ < 10.2 U < 12.3 U6 20.7 19.9 8.7 13.7 1.23110 234 143 121 193 1.230.83 J 4.4 3.2 1 J 1.48 1.23< 0.96 U < 1 U 2.3 < 1 U < 1.23 U1490 1680 4580 13700 8180 12311.6 19.2 26.6 24.9 23.4 2.4514.8 179 15.8 < 8.2 U 22.5 2.4516.2 81.7 49.9 24.8 26.8 2.45Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 9 of 16 1/28/03TABLE 5-1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDFIELD IDDATE COLLECTEDMaximum FrequencyIron 68900 40 / 40Lead 219 40 / 40Magnesium 11800 40 / 40Manganese 5540 J 40 / 40Mercury 2.4 24 / 40Nickel 332 40 / 40Potassium 3650 40 / 40Selenium 3.2 9 / 40Silver 3.1 10 / 40Sodium 415 J 12 / 40Thallium 6.7 27 / 40Vanadium 84.3 40 / 40Zinc 491 40 / 40OTHER PARAMETERS (mg/kg)Cyanide 0.46 J 2 / 25Notes:ND = Not DetectedRL = Reporting LimitE = Value exceeds linear range.μg/kg = microgram per kilogrammg/kg = milligram per kilogramQual = QualifierJ = EstimatedR = RejectedU = NondetectUJ = Estimated NondetectThis table combines data from the Phase I RI (1995-1996) with data from the Phase II RFI(2002).Blank space for a set of analytes indicates that the sample was not analyzed for theseparameters.Analyte frequency information does not include dilutions and reanalyses.Results in the table represent the highest reported concentration for each analyte.Analytical data for samples collected prior to March 2002 was obtained from the ArmyEnvironmental Center database.Frequency indicates the number of times a given analyte was detected in the samples.5503SB02 5503SB06 5503SB10 5503SS02 5504DS02November 10, 1995 November 10, 1995 November 10, 1995 December 4, 1995 April 6, 2002Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual17900 39300 40900 19400 31300 24.521.5 27.1 26.5 76.7 28.2 1.231120 J 824 J 979 J 2240 2260 1231350 J 3930 J 739 J 967 2820 12.3< 0.1 U < 0.11 U < 0.11 U < 0.11 U 0.073 0.123 J16.8 332 301 21.3 35.2 2.45566 J 676 J 1100 J 1080 J 1940 613< 1.2 U < 1.3 U < 1.3 U < 1.3 U < 1.23 U< 1.7 U < 1.8 U < 1.8 U < 1.8 U < 2.45 U< 120 U < 129 U < 127 U 137 J 124 1231.8 J 6.7 5 < 1.3 U < 2.45 U22.9 49.3 36 27.4 55.3 2.4546 289 274 140 85.1 1.23< 0.28 U < 0.32 U < 0.31 U < 0.31 UQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 10 of 16 1/28/03TABLE 5-1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDFIELD IDDATE COLLECTEDMaximum FrequencyVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)Acetone 40 1 / 25Chloroform 1 J 3 / 25Chloromethane 12 1 / 25Styrene 3 J 4 / 25Toluene 100 7 / 25SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 36000 1 / 402,6-Dinitrotoluene 4400 J 1 / 40Benzo[b]Fluoranthene 56 J 1 / 40Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 1500 14 / 40Butylbenzyl phthalate 540 4 / 40Chrysene 42 J 1 / 40Di-n-butyl phthalate 34000 12 / 40Fluoranthene 96 J 1 / 40N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1800 1 / 40Phenanthrene 86 J 1 / 40Pyrene 88 J 1 / 40NITROAROMATICS/NITRAMINES (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 15000 2 / 402,6-Dinitrotoluene 1100 1 / 40METALS (mg/kg)Aluminum 47100 40 / 40Antimony 6.12 J 11 / 40Arsenic 33.1 40 / 40Barium 317 40 / 40Beryllium 4.4 39 / 40Cadmium 2.3 8 / 40Calcium 103000 40 / 40Chromium 40.5 40 / 40Cobalt 179 39 / 40Copper 284 40 / 405504DS05 5504SB02 5504SB06 5504SB10 5505SB02April 6, 2002 November 10, 1995 November 10, 1995 November 10, 1995 November 10, 1995Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual< 12 U < 12 U < 14 U < 12 U< 12 U < 12 U < 14 U 1 J< 12 U < 12 U < 14 U < 12 U< 12 U < 12 U 2 J < 12 U< 12 U 1 J < 14 U < 12 U< 460 U < 400 U < 390 U < 450 U < 400 U< 460 U < 400 U < 390 U < 450 U < 400 U< 460 U < 400 U < 390 U < 450 U < 400 U950 920 46 J < 390 U 57 J 77 J< 460 U < 400 U < 390 U < 450 U < 400 U< 460 U < 400 U < 390 U < 450 U < 400 U< 460 U 520 1300 < 450 U 470< 460 U < 400 U < 390 U < 450 U < 400 U< 460 U < 400 U < 390 U < 450 U < 400 U< 460 U < 400 U < 390 U < 450 U < 400 U< 460 U < 400 U < 390 U < 450 U < 400 U< 400 U < 491 U < 470 U < 552 U < 485 U< 400 U < 491 U < 470 U < 552 U < 485 U42100 27.9 14900 13300 21500 136004.87 14 J < 9.8 UJ < 9.4 UJ < 11 UJ < 9.7 UJ23.6 1.4 11.8 14.7 22 13.7285 1.4 118 120 155 1472.9 1.4 0.91 J 1.7 2.1 1.3< 1.4 U < 0.98 U < 0.94 U 1.3 J < 0.97 U10100 140 1030 J 2100 8180 877040.5 2.79 17.3 24.4 31.5 28.311.6 2.79 22 19.5 15.6 1941.6 2.79 25.6 58.6 47.6 284Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 11 of 16 1/28/03TABLE 5-1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDFIELD IDDATE COLLECTEDMaximum FrequencyIron 68900 40 / 40Lead 219 40 / 40Magnesium 11800 40 / 40Manganese 5540 J 40 / 40Mercury 2.4 24 / 40Nickel 332 40 / 40Potassium 3650 40 / 40Selenium 3.2 9 / 40Silver 3.1 10 / 40Sodium 415 J 12 / 40Thallium 6.7 27 / 40Vanadium 84.3 40 / 40Zinc 491 40 / 40OTHER PARAMETERS (mg/kg)Cyanide 0.46 J 2 / 25Notes:ND = Not DetectedRL = Reporting LimitE = Value exceeds linear range.μg/kg = microgram per kilogrammg/kg = milligram per kilogramQual = QualifierJ = EstimatedR = RejectedU = NondetectUJ = Estimated NondetectThis table combines data from the Phase I RI (1995-1996) with data from the Phase II RFI(2002).Blank space for a set of analytes indicates that the sample was not analyzed for theseparameters.Analyte frequency information does not include dilutions and reanalyses.Results in the table represent the highest reported concentration for each analyte.Analytical data for samples collected prior to March 2002 was obtained from the ArmyEnvironmental Center database.Frequency indicates the number of times a given analyte was detected in the samples.5504DS05 5504SB02 5504SB06 5504SB10 5505SB02April 6, 2002 November 10, 1995 November 10, 1995 November 10, 1995 November 10, 1995Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual44800 27.9 28900 42100 48200 3210021.1 1.4 25.5 29.4 17.8 1872810 140 1130 J 656 J 1890 13202260 1.4 2750 J 1920 J 1680 J 2130 J0.119 0.14 J 0.11 0.1 0.12 0.172.2 2.79 22.1 57.9 87.3 41.32420 698 595 J 687 J 1030 J 1010 J< 1.4 U < 1.2 U 1.2 2.4 1.9< 2.79 U 1.7 J < 1.6 U < 1.9 U < 1.7 U155 140 < 123 U < 118 U < 138 U < 121 U< 2.79 U 3.1 4.7 4.9 3.570.9 2.79 40.2 42.1 50 41.9171 1.4 69.3 103 154 280< 0.3 U 0.31 J < 0.34 U < 0.29 UQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 12 of 16 1/28/03TABLE 5-1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDFIELD IDDATE COLLECTEDMaximum FrequencyVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)Acetone 40 1 / 25Chloroform 1 J 3 / 25Chloromethane 12 1 / 25Styrene 3 J 4 / 25Toluene 100 7 / 25SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 36000 1 / 402,6-Dinitrotoluene 4400 J 1 / 40Benzo[b]Fluoranthene 56 J 1 / 40Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 1500 14 / 40Butylbenzyl phthalate 540 4 / 40Chrysene 42 J 1 / 40Di-n-butyl phthalate 34000 12 / 40Fluoranthene 96 J 1 / 40N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1800 1 / 40Phenanthrene 86 J 1 / 40Pyrene 88 J 1 / 40NITROAROMATICS/NITRAMINES (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 15000 2 / 402,6-Dinitrotoluene 1100 1 / 40METALS (mg/kg)Aluminum 47100 40 / 40Antimony 6.12 J 11 / 40Arsenic 33.1 40 / 40Barium 317 40 / 40Beryllium 4.4 39 / 40Cadmium 2.3 8 / 40Calcium 103000 40 / 40Chromium 40.5 40 / 40Cobalt 179 39 / 40Copper 284 40 / 405505SB06 5505SB10 5506SB02 5506SB06 5506SB10November 10, 1995 November 10, 1995 November 12, 1995 November 12, 1995 November 12, 1995Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual< 12 U < 13 U < 11 U < 12 U < 12 U1 J < 13 U < 11 U < 12 U < 12 U< 12 U < 13 U < 11 U < 12 U < 12 U< 12 U < 13 U < 11 U < 12 U 1 J< 12 U < 13 U < 11 U 0.9 J < 12 U< 400 U < 420 U < 370 U < 380 U < 380 U< 400 U < 420 U < 370 U < 380 U < 380 U< 400 U < 420 U 56 J < 380 U < 380 U69 J 34 J < 370 U < 380 U < 380 U94 J < 420 U < 370 U < 380 U < 380 U< 400 U < 420 U 42 J < 380 U < 380 U3000 1700 < 1200 U < 900 U < 380 U< 400 U < 420 U 96 J < 380 U < 380 U< 400 U < 420 U < 370 U < 380 U < 380 U< 400 U < 420 U 86 J < 380 U < 380 U< 400 U < 420 U 88 J < 380 U < 380 U< 491 U < 510 U 15000 < 466 U 34 J< 491 U < 510 U 1100 < 466 U < 467 U12700 14500 6980 11600 7490< 9.8 UJ < 10.2 UJ < 9.1 UJ < 9.3 UJ < 9.3 UJ17.6 16.4 5.9 13.5 14.987 121 129 105 2252.3 3.7 < 0.45 U 1.2 1 J< 0.98 U 1 J 1.5 < 0.93 U 0.99 J2090 2510 103000 1570 167016.7 16.3 19.4 16.4 17.813.4 46.9 8.9 J 25.4 18.483.7 111 71.2 J 41 J 45 JQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 13 of 16 1/28/03TABLE 5-1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDFIELD IDDATE COLLECTEDMaximum FrequencyIron 68900 40 / 40Lead 219 40 / 40Magnesium 11800 40 / 40Manganese 5540 J 40 / 40Mercury 2.4 24 / 40Nickel 332 40 / 40Potassium 3650 40 / 40Selenium 3.2 9 / 40Silver 3.1 10 / 40Sodium 415 J 12 / 40Thallium 6.7 27 / 40Vanadium 84.3 40 / 40Zinc 491 40 / 40OTHER PARAMETERS (mg/kg)Cyanide 0.46 J 2 / 25Notes:ND = Not DetectedRL = Reporting LimitE = Value exceeds linear range.μg/kg = microgram per kilogrammg/kg = milligram per kilogramQual = QualifierJ = EstimatedR = RejectedU = NondetectUJ = Estimated NondetectThis table combines data from the Phase I RI (1995-1996) with data from the Phase II RFI(2002).Blank space for a set of analytes indicates that the sample was not analyzed for theseparameters.Analyte frequency information does not include dilutions and reanalyses.Results in the table represent the highest reported concentration for each analyte.Analytical data for samples collected prior to March 2002 was obtained from the ArmyEnvironmental Center database.Frequency indicates the number of times a given analyte was detected in the samples.5505SB06 5505SB10 5506SB02 5506SB06 5506SB10November 10, 1995 November 10, 1995 November 12, 1995 November 12, 1995 November 12, 1995Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual37000 37400 16700 27900 2660020.6 29.8 219 37.6 J 13.6952 J 815 J 10300 786 J 652 J1230 J 2470 J 839 2120 19900.11 < 0.11 U 2.4 0.13 < 0.1 U104 270 12.9 30.4 54.2864 J 1140 J 812 J 669 J 588 J1.6 < 1.3 U < 1.1 U < 1.2 U < 1.2 U< 1.7 U < 1.8 U 2.1 J < 1.6 U < 1.6 U< 123 U < 127 U 116 J < 117 U 415 J4.5 5.8 1.6 J 3.1 2.540.9 40.3 15.9 37.3 23.5193 331 381 69.7 77.1< 0.28 U 0.46 J < 0.28 U < 0.29 U < 0.29 UQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 14 of 16 1/28/03TABLE 5-1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDFIELD IDDATE COLLECTEDMaximum FrequencyVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)Acetone 40 1 / 25Chloroform 1 J 3 / 25Chloromethane 12 1 / 25Styrene 3 J 4 / 25Toluene 100 7 / 25SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 36000 1 / 402,6-Dinitrotoluene 4400 J 1 / 40Benzo[b]Fluoranthene 56 J 1 / 40Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 1500 14 / 40Butylbenzyl phthalate 540 4 / 40Chrysene 42 J 1 / 40Di-n-butyl phthalate 34000 12 / 40Fluoranthene 96 J 1 / 40N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1800 1 / 40Phenanthrene 86 J 1 / 40Pyrene 88 J 1 / 40NITROAROMATICS/NITRAMINES (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 15000 2 / 402,6-Dinitrotoluene 1100 1 / 40METALS (mg/kg)Aluminum 47100 40 / 40Antimony 6.12 J 11 / 40Arsenic 33.1 40 / 40Barium 317 40 / 40Beryllium 4.4 39 / 40Cadmium 2.3 8 / 40Calcium 103000 40 / 40Chromium 40.5 40 / 40Cobalt 179 39 / 40Copper 284 40 / 405507SB02 5507SB06 5507SB10 5508SB02 5508SB04November 12, 1995 November 12, 1995 November 12, 1995 November 12, 1995 November 12, 1995Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual< 12 U < 12 U < 13 U < 13 U < 13 U< 12 U < 12 U < 13 U < 13 U < 13 U< 12 U < 12 U < 13 U < 13 U < 13 U< 12 U < 12 U 2 J < 13 U < 13 U< 12 U < 12 U 13 < 13 U < 13 U< 390 U < 400 U < 430 U < 430 U < 440 U< 390 U < 400 U < 430 U < 430 U < 440 U< 390 U < 400 U < 430 U < 430 U < 440 U< 390 U < 400 U < 430 U < 430 U < 440 U< 390 U < 400 U 32 J < 430 U < 440 U< 390 U < 400 U < 430 U < 430 U < 440 U< 390 U < 400 U < 430 U < 3700 U < 440 U< 390 U < 400 U < 430 U < 430 U < 440 U< 390 U < 400 U < 430 U < 430 U < 440 U< 390 U < 400 U < 430 U < 430 U < 440 U< 390 U < 400 U < 430 U < 430 U < 440 U< 473 U < 481 U < 517 U < 525 U < 535 U< 473 U < 481 U < 517 U < 525 U < 535 U13300 16700 18900 16100 27300< 9.5 UJ < 9.6 UJ < 10.3 UJ < 10.5 UJ < 10.7 UJ9.8 15.7 15.9 13.8 21.997.5 317 234 105 2130.69 J 1.7 1.6 0.96 J 2< 0.95 U < 0.96 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U5600 1240 6820 2940 895013.3 21 29.1 16.4 3110.8 J 37.8 25.8 9.5 J 8.7 J32.5 J 41.5 66.9 28.4 J 45.7 JQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 15 of 16 1/28/03TABLE 5-1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDFIELD IDDATE COLLECTEDMaximum FrequencyIron 68900 40 / 40Lead 219 40 / 40Magnesium 11800 40 / 40Manganese 5540 J 40 / 40Mercury 2.4 24 / 40Nickel 332 40 / 40Potassium 3650 40 / 40Selenium 3.2 9 / 40Silver 3.1 10 / 40Sodium 415 J 12 / 40Thallium 6.7 27 / 40Vanadium 84.3 40 / 40Zinc 491 40 / 40OTHER PARAMETERS (mg/kg)Cyanide 0.46 J 2 / 25Notes:ND = Not DetectedRL = Reporting LimitE = Value exceeds linear range.μg/kg = microgram per kilogrammg/kg = milligram per kilogramQual = QualifierJ = EstimatedR = RejectedU = NondetectUJ = Estimated NondetectThis table combines data from the Phase I RI (1995-1996) with data from the Phase II RFI(2002).Blank space for a set of analytes indicates that the sample was not analyzed for theseparameters.Analyte frequency information does not include dilutions and reanalyses.Results in the table represent the highest reported concentration for each analyte.Analytical data for samples collected prior to March 2002 was obtained from the ArmyEnvironmental Center database.Frequency indicates the number of times a given analyte was detected in the samples.5507SB02 5507SB06 5507SB10 5508SB02 5508SB04November 12, 1995 November 12, 1995 November 12, 1995 November 12, 1995 November 12, 1995Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual Result RL Qual20700 35900 38100 29500 4620046.9 45.3 64.2 22.1 17.61670 1100 J 1750 1140 J 1610875 5540 J 3490 J 1490 1760< 0.1 U < 0.1 U < 0.11 U < 0.11 U 0.1216.4 38.8 43.4 21 54.4710 J 903 J 944 J 1420 1150 J< 1.2 U < 1.2 U < 1.3 U 1.5 < 1.3 U< 1.7 U < 1.7 U 1.9 J < 1.8 U < 1.9 U< 118 U < 120 U < 129 U < 131 U < 134 U2 J 5 4.9 2.9 4.725.5 49.3 47.4 39.1 57.980.3 77.5 122 129 140< 0.29 U < 0.29 U < 0.32 U < 0.32 U < 0.33 UQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 16 of 16 1/28/03TABLE 5-2SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLESSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDFIELD ID 5501SW00DATE COLLECTED April 17, 2002Maximum Frequency Result RL QualMETALS (μg/L)Aluminum 418 1 / 1 418 200Arsenic 6.95 J 1 / 1 6.95 10 JBarium 117 1 / 1 117 10Calcium 94200 1 / 1 94200 1000Copper 9.47 J 1 / 1 9.47 10 JIron 3830 1 / 1 3830 1000Lead 24.1 1 / 1 24.1 10Magnesium 12700 1 / 1 12700 1000Manganese 3480 1 / 1 3480 100Potassium 13900 1 / 1 13900 5000Sodium 6190 1 / 1 6190 1000Zinc 33.3 1 / 1 33.3 20Notes:ND = Not DetectedRL = Reporting Limitμg/L = microgram per literQual = QualifierJ = EstimatedR = RejectedU = NondetectUJ = Estimated NondetectThis table contains data from the Phase II RFI (2002).Analyte frequency information does not include dilutions and reanalyses.Results in the table represent the highest reported concentration for eachanalyte.Frequency indicates the number of times a given analyte was detected inthe samples.Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 1 of 1 1/28/03Contamination AssessmentSECTIONSIX Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 6-1The chemical results of soil, sediment, and surface water samples were assessed to determine thenature and extent of contaminants at the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55). Chemicalconcentrations detected at or above 50% of the calculated, site-specific Industrial Closure Level(Level 2) values (discussed in Section 7, compared in Tables 7-1 through 7-3, and shown onFigures 6-1 through 6-3) were considered to be elevated. Detected concentrations less than 50%of the Level 2 values were considered to be low.6.1 NEAR SURFACE SOILS AND SEDIMENTSThe assessment of chemicals detected in near surface soils and sediments is based on 17 samplescollected from the top two feet of the 12 soil borings, from the top two feet at three surface soilsampling locations, and from sediment at two locations within the drainage ditch near the site’ssouthern boundary (see Figure 2-1). The one surface water sample, collocated with one of thesediment samples, is discussed in Section 6.4.Metals were generally detected in all near surface soil and sediment samples, SVOCs weredetected in approximately half of the near surface soil and sediment samples, andnitroaromatic/nitramine compounds were detected in one of the near surface soil samplescollected. VOCs were detected in approximately half of the near surface soil samples collectedas part of the Phase I RI. TPH, nitrates/nitrites and cyanide were not detected in any near surfacesoil samples collected as part of the Phase I RI.6.1.1 VOCsFour VOCs were detected at low concentrations in the near surface soil samples collected duringthe Phase I RI (see Table 5-1 and Figures 6-1 and 6-2). These VOCs were generally detectedbelow or just above reporting limits, with the exception of toluene. Although not considered anelevated level, toluene was detected up to 8 times the reporting limit.The presence of these VOCs may be related to historical burning and disposal operations at theFormer Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55). The detected VOCs were used in a risk screeningevaluation for soil and sediment (see Section 7.2).6.1.2 SVOCsTen SVOCs, including five polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), were detected in thenear surface soil and sediment samples (see Table 5-1 and Figures 6-1 and 6-2). Two SVOCswere detected at elevated levels. 2,4-dinitrotoluene (2,4-DNT) and 2,6-dinitrotoluene (2,6-DNT)were both detected in a single sample (5501SD00) at elevated concentrations. Neither of thesecompounds was detected by nitroaromatic/nitramine analysis (USEPA Method 8330) in thissample.The presence of these SVOCs may be related to historical burning and disposal operations at theFormer Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55). The detected SVOCs were used in a risk screeningevaluation for soil and sediment (see Section 7.2).Contamination AssessmentSECTIONSIX Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 6-26.1.3 Nitroaromatics/NitraminesTwo nitroaromatic compounds, 2,4-DNT and 2,6-DNT, were detected in a single near surfacesoil sample (5506SB02) at elevated levels (see Table 5-1 and Figures 6-1 and 6-2). Neither ofthese compounds was detected by SVOC analysis (USEPA Method 8270) in this sample.The presence of these nitroaromatic compounds may be related to historical burning and disposaloperations at the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55). The detected nitroaromatics wereused in a risk screening evaluation for soil and sediment (see Section 7.2).6.1.4 MetalsMetals were detected in all near surface soil and sediment samples (see Table 5-1). Since metalsare naturally occurring constituents of soil, the detected metal concentrations were compared toestablished background levels for Upland soils (see Section 7.2). The comparison of detectedmetal concentrations to background levels for all soil and sediment samples is provided in Table7-1.Based on this comparison, concentrations of nine metals (aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, copper,lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc) were determined to exceed the correspondingbackground levels (see Figures 6-1 and 6-2). The presence of these metals may be related tohistorical burning and disposal operations at the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55).6.2 SUBSURFACE SOILSThe assessment of chemicals detected in subsurface soil samples was based on twelve boringscompleted in the area of the site (see Figure 2-1). Twenty-three subsurface soil samples werecollected from these locations.Metals were regularly detected in all subsurface soil samples collected, while SVOCs weredetected in approximately half of the subsurface soil samples and nitroaromatics/nitramines weredetected in one of the subsurface soil samples collected during the two phases of theinvestigation. VOCs were detected in approximately half of the subsurface soil samples andcyanide was detected in two subsurface soil samples collected as part of the Phase I RI.Generally, concentrations were highest at the intermediate depth intervals (i.e., 5 to 10 feet bgs).TPH and nitrates/nitrites were not detected in any subsurface soil samples collected as part of thePhase I RI.6.2.1 VOCsThree VOCs were detected at low concentrations in the subsurface soil samples (see Table 5-1and Figure 6-1). These compounds were generally detected below or just above reporting limits.Contamination AssessmentSECTIONSIX Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 6-3The presence of these VOCs may be related to historical burning and disposal operations at theFormer Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55). The detected VOCs were used in a risk screeningevaluation for soil and sediment (see Section 7.2).6.2.2 SVOCsThree SVOCs, none of which include PAHs, were detected at low concentrations in thesubsurface soil samples (see Table 5-1 and Figure 6-1). These compounds were generallydetected below or just above reporting limits, with the exception of di-n-butyl phthalate, whichwas detected at 3 times the reporting limit, although not considered an elevated level.The presence of these SVOCs may be related to historical burning and disposal operations at theFormer Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55). The detected SVOCs were used in a risk screeningevaluation for soil and sediment (see Section 7.2).6.2.3 Nitroaromatics/NitraminesOne nitroaromatic compound, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, was detected in a single subsurface soil sampleat a low concentration (see Table 5-1 and Figure 6-1). This compound was detected below thereporting limit. This nitroaromatic compound was not detected by SVOC analysis (USEPAMethod 8270) in the subsurface soil sample.The presence of this nitroaromatic compound may be related to historical burning and disposaloperations at the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55). The detected nitroaromaticcompound was used in a risk screening evaluation for soil and sediment (see Section 7.2).6.2.4 Metals and CyanideMetals were detected in all subsurface soil samples collected during both phases of theinvestigation (see Table 5-1). Since metals are naturally occurring constituents of soil, thedetected metal concentrations were compared to established background levels for Upland soils(see Section 7.2). The comparison of detected metal concentrations to background levels for allsoil and sediment samples is provided in Table 7-1.Based on this comparison, concentrations of 14 metals (aluminum, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc) weredetermined to exceed the corresponding background levels (see Figure 6-1). The presence ofthese metals may be related to historical burning and disposal operations at the Former InertArea Burning Ground (Site 55).Cyanide was detected in two of the 14 subsurface soil samples collected during the Phase I RI(see Table 5-1). The detected cyanide concentrations were compared to the establishedbackground UTL for Upland soils (see Section 7.2). Based on this comparison, both cyanideconcentrations detected in the subsurface soil samples exceeded the established background soilContamination AssessmentSECTIONSIX Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 6-4UTL concentration (see Figure 6-1). The presence of cyanide may be related to historicalburning and disposal operations at the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55).6.3 SURFACE WATERThe assessment of chemicals detected in surface water was based on one sample collected fromthe drainage near the site’s southern boundary (see Figure 2-1). This surface water sample wascollocated with a sediment sample (see Section 6.2).There were no SVOCs or nitroaromatic/nitramine compounds detected in the surface watersample collected during the Phase II RFI. In general, fewer metals were detected in the surfacewater sample than were detected the corresponding in sediment sample.6.3.1 MetalsMetals were detected in the surface water sample (see Table 5-2). Since metals are naturallyoccurring constituents, the detected metal concentrations were compared to background levels(see Section 7.2). The comparison of detected metal concentrations to background levels isprovided in Table 7-3.Based on this comparison, concentrations of five metals (aluminum, arsenic, barium, lead, andmanganese) were determined to exceed background levels (see Figure 6-3). The presence ofthese metals may be related to historical burning and disposal operations at the Former InertArea Burning Ground (Site 55).Human Health Risk EvaluationSECTIONSEVEN Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 7-17.1 INTRODUCTION7.1.1 PurposeThis section provides a Human Health Risk Screen for contaminants identified at the FormerInert Area Burning Ground (Site 55). The risk screening process identifies Chemicals ofPotential Concern (COPCs) by comparing maximum site concentrations with conservative risk-basedconcentrations. Methods used in this risk screen are those specified by the IndianaDepartment of Environmental Management (IDEM) (IDEM Risk Integrated System of Closure(RISC) Guidance 2000), and are consistent with current USEPA risk guidance (USEPA 1989a).7.2 RISK SCREEN PROCESSIdentification of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs)COPCs, although a subset of all chemicals detected on-site, represent those chemicals that havethe greatest potential to pose health risks at the site. Through careful screening of site data, theCOPCs focus on the issue of whether the contaminants associated with past operations at the sitepose a potential health threat to site receptor populations without significantly underestimatingoverall site risks.Data from the Phase I RI (W-C 1998) and the Phase II RFI (URS 2002) were utilized in theidentification of COPCs. These data were considered representative of current conditions, andshould provide a conservative estimate of potential future conditions (i.e., in all likelihood futureconcentrations would be lower).Site data were segregated by exposure media (e.g., surface soil and sediment [less than 2 feetbgs], total soils [subsurface soil, surface soil, and sediment.], and surface water). The maximumdetected concentrations from each medium were compared to the following criteria in order toidentify the medium-specific COPCs:· Site-specific background levels (inorganic compounds only) developed as part of the Phase IRI Report (W-C 1998).· IDEM Industrial Default Closure Levels (Level 1)· Calculated site-specific Industrial Closure Levels (Level 2)· Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for essential nutrientsIn addition, given appropriate toxicity information, a Default Closure Level 1 was calculated forcompounds not listed by IDEM using the exposure equations listed in the IDEM RISC guidance(IDEM 2000). Site-specific Industrial Closure Levels (Level 2) were calculated using theindustrial/commercial exposure equations listed in the IDEM RISC guidance with the exceptionof the following:Human Health Risk EvaluationSECTIONSEVEN Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 7-2· Groundwater/surface water ingestion was considered to be incidental ingestion only(0.01 L/day) rather than a drinking water rate of ingestion of 1 L/day sincegroundwater/surface water in the vicinity of the site is not used as a drinking watersource.· A dilution attenuation factor (DAF) of 1 was used rather than 20 due to the karstgeology at the site.Adjustments made to the Level 2 numbers due to these site-specific parameters resulted in Level2 screening values 5 times higher than the Level 1 values for soil/sediment and 100 times higherthan Level 1 values for groundwater/surface water.In the case of organic compounds, a COPC was defined as any chemical that exceeded itsrespective Level 1 and Level 2 screening value. For inorganic compounds, a COPC was definedas any chemical that exceeded both its Level 1 and Level 2 screening value and the backgroundlevel or RDA. The screening values used in the COPC selection process for soil/sediment andsurface water are summarized in Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2. Supporting documentationfor development of screening values is included in Tables B-3 through B-5.The INAAP data and COPC selection process are summarized in Table 7-1 (total soil/sediment),Table 7-2 (surface soil/sediment), and Table 7-3 (surface water). These tables provide summaryinformation, including a list of all detected chemicals in each medium, the maximum detectedconcentrations, the frequency of detection, the screening values used for COPC selection, andidentification of those chemicals that fail the screening process (i.e., the COPCs). As noted inthese tables, three COPCs (2,4-DNT, 2,6-DNT, and aluminum) were identified for totalsoil/sediment and two COPCs (2,4-DNT and 2,6-DNT) were identified for surface soil/sediment.There were no COPCs identified for surface water.7.3 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL)Exposure point concentrations are the chemical concentrations to which a receptor is exposedwhen contact is made with a specific environmental medium, in this case, soil and sediment.Exposure point concentrations for the 0-15 foot depth interval are presented in Table 7-4.Exposure point concentrations for the shallow soils are presented in Table 7-5. Forsoil/sediment, the exposure point concentrations (EPCs) are based on the 95% Upper ConfidenceLimit (UCL) of the mean, or the maximum detected concentration, whichever is lower, perUSEPA guidance (1991a). The equation used to calculate the UCL concentration is presentedbelow:Equation 1:UCL = e( x+0.5s 2 +sH / n-1)Human Health Risk EvaluationSECTIONSEVEN Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 7-3where:UCL = 95% upper confidence limite = constant (base of the natural log, equal to 2.718)x = mean of the transformed datas = standard deviation of the transformed dataH = H statistic (e.g., from table published in Gilbert, 1987)n = number of samples7.4 RESULTSThe screening levels for 2,4-DNT and 2,6-DNT were conservatively calculated based oncarcinogenic effects of the 2,6-DNT isomer. The weight of evidence from animal bioassaysindicate that 2,4-DNT is probably a cancer promoter (not a carcinogen), whereas 2,6-DNT is acomplete carcinogen with both initiating and promoting activity. Tables 7-4 and 7-5 present thestatistics for the site data. The DNT isomers were only detected in 3 out of 40 samples. The95% UCL was much lower than the maximum detected concentrations but still exceeded thescreening values. However, calculation of the 95% UCL relied on using ½ the reporting limit fornon-detects, which may have resulted in an overestimation of the exposure point concentrations.Aluminum was identified as a COPC based on comparison with the calculated screening levels,which were considerably lower than background levels. The maximum aluminum concentration(29,200 mg/kg) slightly exceeded the background value (28,958 mg/kg); however, the mean(16,825 mg/kg) and 95% UCL (18,955 mg/kg) of the site data were considerably lower thanbackground. Only 4 out of 40 samples exceeded the background value, which indicates that thesample population distribution falls within the variability of the background range.The calculated Level 1 screening values for 2,4-DNT (33 ug/kg), 2,6-DNT (29 ug/kg), andaluminum (6550 mg/kg) were based on the Indirect Soil Closure Levels (soil to groundwaterpathway). The Direct Soil Closure Level screening values (Table B-5) for 2,4-DNT, 2,6-DNT,and aluminum were 20,200 mg/kg, 20,200 mg/kg, 240,000 mg/kg, respectively.Exposure to soil contamination may occur through direct contact with skin, inhalation of COPCon soil particulates, soil ingestion, and migration of COPC from soil to groundwater andsubsequent groundwater ingestion and dermal absorption. Groundwater was not encountered inany of the soil borings and nearby wells and springs did not contain elevated explosives ormetals [see Site 90 Basewide Groundwater Investigation (Technical Memorandum, URS 2001)].Based on professional judgment, the soil to groundwater exposure pathway may be eliminatedfrom consideration for this site. The COPCs do not exceed the default closure levels for thedirect soil contact exposure pathway.Human Health Risk EvaluationSECTIONSEVEN Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 7-4Based on the quantitative and qualitative assessment of the results of this risk screen, thechemicals detected at Site 55, the Former Inert Area Burning Ground, do not warrant furtherassessment.TABLE 7-1COMPARISON OF TOTAL SOIL/SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS (ALL DEPTHS) TO SCREENING LEVELSSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDMaximum Daily Intake Recommended Daily Calculated COPC7Detected from the Site3 Allowance4 Industrial (Y/N)Concentrations1 (Essential Metals) (Essential Metals) Closure Level 2 1,6 Basis8VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)Acetone 1/ 25 40 41000 N,AChloroform 3 / 25 1 J 1200 N,AChloromethane 1 / 25 12 1110 N,AStyrene 4 / 25 3 J 720000 N,AToluene 7 / 25 100 240000 N,ASEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 1 / 40 36000 33C 167C Y,B2,6-Dinitrotoluene 1 / 40 4400 J 29C 145C Y,BBenzo(b)fluoranthene 1 / 40 56 J 15000 Y,BBis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 14 / 40 1500 980000 N,AButylbenzyl phthalate 4 / 40 540 930000 N,AChrysene 1 / 40 42 J 25000 N,ADi-n-butyl phthalate 12 / 40 34000 2000000 N,AFluoranthene 1 / 40 96 J 880000 N,AN-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1 / 40 1800 32000 N,APhenanthrene 1 / 40 86 J 170000S N,APyrene 1 / 40 88 J 570000 N,ANITROAROMATICS/NITRAMINES (ug/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2 / 40 15000 33C 167C Y,B2,6-Dinitrotoluene 1 / 40 1100 29C 145C Y,BMETALS (mg/kg)Aluminum 40 / 40 47100 28958 6550C 32750C Y,BAntimony 11 / 40 6.12 J 8.66 37 N,A,FArsenic 40 / 40 33.1 23.7 20 100 N,ABarium 40 / 40 317 415 5900 N,A,FBeryllium 39 / 40 4.4 2.5 2300 N,ACadmium 8 / 40 2.3 0.85 77 N,ACalcium 40 / 40 103000 10.3 1200 N,CChromium 40 / 40 40.5 45.5 10000 N,A,FCobalt 39 / 40 179 49.3 36.9C 185C N,ACopper 40 / 40 284 47.5 1700 N,AIron 40 / 40 68900 6.89 10 N,CLead 40 / 40 219 39.4 230 1150 N,AIDEM IndustrialClosure Level 11,5Frequency ofDetectionBackgroundConcentrations Chemical 2Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 1 of 2 1/28/03TABLE 7-1COMPARISON OF TOTAL SOIL/SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS (ALL DEPTHS) TO SCREENING LEVELSSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDMaximum Daily Intake Recommended Daily Calculated COPC7Detected from the Site3 Allowance4 Industrial (Y/N)Concentrations1 (Essential Metals) (Essential Metals) Closure Level 2 1,6 Basis8IDEM IndustrialClosure Level 11,5Frequency ofDetectionBackgroundConcentrations Chemical 2Magnesium 40 / 40 11800 1.18 400 N,CManganese 40 / 40 5540 J 13294 96.3C 482C N,FMercury 24 / 40 2.4 0.14 32 160 N,ANickel 40 / 40 332 70 2700 N,APotassium 40 / 40 3650 0.365 585 N,CSelenium 9 / 40 3.2 0.97 53 N,ASilver 10 / 40 3.1 87 N,ASodium 12 / 40 415 J 0.042 1000 N,CThallium 27 / 40 6.7 5.17 13 N,AVanadium 40 / 40 84.3 65 31.6C 158C N,AZinc 40 / 40 491 198 10000 N,AOTHER PARAMETERS (mg/kg)Cyanide 2 / 25 0.46 J 410 N,A(1) Organics are reported in μg/kg. Inorganics are reported as mg/kg. Maximum of all soil depths.(2) Detected background concentrations for inorganics.(3) Daily intake from site soil (mg/day) = maximum detected concentration (mg/kg) * ingestion rate of 100 mg/day * conversionfactor of 1x 10-6 Kg/mg.(4) National Research Council 1989.(5) IDEM Industrial soil values (Level 1) were used as screening criteria.(6) Level 2 values were calculated as described in Section 1.2.(7) Chemical of potential concern.For chemicals identified as a chemicals of potential concern, the entire row appears in boldface font.IDEM = Indiana Department of Environmental ManagementC = Calculated value per IDEM guidance.S = A toxicologically similar compound was used as a surrogate.(8) See A-F footnotes below.A = Does not exceed the screening level.B = Exceeds the screening value.C = The chemical is an essential nutrient; the calculated daily intake did not exceed the recommended daily allowance.D = Daily Intake exceeds the RDA.E = No toxicity value available to quantify risk. Chemical will be evaluated qualitatively in the risk assessment.F = Concentration is below background concentration.Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 2 of 2 1/28/03TABLE 7-2COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM SURFACE SOIL/SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS TO SCREENING LEVELSSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDMaximum Daily Intake Recommended Daily Calculated COPC7Detected from the Site3 Allowance4 Industrial (Y/N)Concentrations1 (Essential Metals) (Essential Metals) Closure Level 2 1,6 Basis8VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)Acetone 1 / 11 40 41000 N,AChloroform 1 / 11 1 J 1200 N,AChloromethane 1 / 11 12 1110 N,AToluene 4 / 11 100 240000 N,ASEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (μg/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 1 / 17 36000 33C 167C Y,B2,6-Dinitrotoluene 1 / 17 4400 J 29C 145C Y,BBenzo(b)fluoranthene 1 / 17 56 J 15000 N,ABis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 5 / 17 91 J 980000 N,AChrysene 1 / 17 42 J 25000 N,ADi-n-butyl phthalate 6 / 17 34000 2000000 N,AFluoranthene 1 / 17 96 J 880000 N,APhenanthrene 1 / 17 86 J 170000S N,APyrene 1 / 17 88 J 570000 N,ANITROAROMATICS/NITRAMINES (ug/kg)2,4-Dinitrotoluene 1 / 17 15000 33C 167C Y,B2,6-Dinitrotoluene 1 / 17 1100 29C 145C Y,BMETALS (mg/kg)Aluminum 17 / 17 29200 28958 6550C 32750C N,AAntimony 5 / 17 4.14 J 8.66 37 N,A,FArsenic 17 / 17 23.8 23.7 20 100 N,ABarium 17 / 17 193 415 5900 N,A,FBeryllium 16 / 17 1.8 2.5 2300 N,A,FCadmium 1 / 17 1.5 0.85 77 N,ACalcium 17 / 17 103000 10.3 1200 N,CChromium 17 / 17 28.3 45.5 10000 N,A,FCobalt 16 / 17 35 49.3 36.9C 185C N,A,FCopper 17 / 17 284 47.5 1700 N,AIron 17 / 17 45400 4.54 10 N,CLead 17 / 17 219 39.4 230 1150 N,AMagnesium 17 / 17 11800 1.18 400 N,CManganese 17 / 17 2820 13294 96.3C 482C N,FMercury 9 / 17 2.4 0.14 32 160 N,AIDEM IndustrialClosure Level 11,5Frequency ofDetectionBackgroundConcentrations Chemical 2Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 1 of 2 1/28/03TABLE 7-2COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM SURFACE SOIL/SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS TO SCREENING LEVELSSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDMaximum Daily Intake Recommended Daily Calculated COPC7Detected from the Site3 Allowance4 Industrial (Y/N)Concentrations1 (Essential Metals) (Essential Metals) Closure Level 2 1,6 Basis8IDEM IndustrialClosure Level 11,5Frequency ofDetectionBackgroundConcentrations Chemical 2Nickel 17 / 17 41.3 70 2700 N,A,FPotassium 17 / 17 2190 0.219 585 N,CSelenium 4 / 17 1.9 0.97 53 N,ASilver 5 / 17 2.1 87 N,ASodium 6 / 17 137 J 0.0137 1000 N,CThallium 10 / 17 4.3 5.17 13 N,A,FVanadium 17 / 17 57.3 65 31.6C 158C N,A,FZinc 17 / 17 381 198 10000 N,A(1) Organics are reported in μg/kg. Inorganics are reported as mg/kg. Maximum of 0-2 foot soil depths.(2) Detected background concentrations for inorganics.(3) Daily intake from site soil (mg/day) = maximum detected concentration (mg/kg) * ingestion rate of 100 mg/day * conversionfactor of 1x 10-6 Kg/mg.(4) National Research Council 1989.(5) IDEM Industrial soil values (Level 1) were used as screening criteria.(6) Level 2 values were calculated as described in Section 1.2.(7) Chemical of potential concern.For chemicals identified as a chemicals of potential concern, the entire row appears in boldface font.IDEM = Indiana Department of Environmental ManagementC = Calculated value per IDEM guidance.S = A toxicologically similar compound was used as a surrogate.(8) See A-F footnotes below.A = Does not exceed the screening level.B = Exceeds the screening value.C = The chemical is an essential nutrient; the calculated daily intake did not exceed the recommended daily allowance.D = Daily Intake exceeds the RDA.E = No toxicity value available to quantify risk. Chemical will be evaluated qualitatively in the risk assessment.F = Concentration is below background concentration.Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 2 of 2 1/28/03TABLE 7-3COMPARISON OF SURFACE WATER CONCENTRATIONS TO SCREENING LEVELSSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDMaximum Daily Intake Recommended Daily Calculated COPC7Detected from the Site3 Allowance4 Industrial (Y/N)Concentrations1 (Essential Metals) (Essential Metals) Closure Level 2 1,6 Basis8METALS (μg/l)Aluminum 1 / 1 418 356 102000C N,AArsenic 1 / 1 6.95 J 50 N,ABarium 1 / 1 117 60.3 7200 N,ACalcium 1 / 1 94200 0.94 1200 N,CCopper 1 / 1 9.47 J 11.3 3800 N,A,FIron 1 / 1 3830 0.038 10 N,CLead 1 / 1 24.1 42 4200 N,AMagnesium 1 / 1 12700 0.127 400 N,CManganese 1 / 1 12700 106 14300C 1430000C N,APotassium 1 / 1 13900 N,ASodium 1 / 1 6190 0.062 1000 N,CZinc 1 / 1 33.3 40.7 31000 N,A,F(1) Organics and inorganics are reported as mg/L.(2) Detected background concentrations for inorganics.(3) Daily intake of water (mg/day) = maximum detected concentration (mg/L) * ingestion rate of 10 ml/day * conversionfactor of 1x 10-3 L/ml.(4) National Research Council 1989.(5) IDEM Industrial groundwater values (Level 1) were used as screening criteria.(6) Level 2 values were calculated as described in Section 1.2.(7) Chemical of potential concern.For chemicals identified as a chemicals of potential concern, the entire row appears in boldface font.IDEM = Indiana Department of Environmental ManagementC = Calculated value per IDEM guidance.S = A toxicologically similar compound was used as a surrogate.(8) See A-F footnotes below.A = Does not exceed the lowest screening level.B = Exceeds the lowest screening value.C = The chemical is an essential nutrient; the calculated daily intake did not exceed the recommended daily allowance.D = Daily Intake exceeds the RDA.E = No screening value available to quantify risk; other data indicate chemical may be of concern. Chemical will be evaluated qualitativelyin the risk assessment.F = Concentration is below background concentration.Frequency ofDetectionBackgroundConcentrations Chemical 2IDEM IndustrialClosureLevel 11,5Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 1 of 1 1/28/03TABLE 7-4TOTAL SOIL EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDPARAMETERANALYTEUNITSResult LN RL Qual Result LN RL Qual Result LN RL Qual5501DS02 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 15300 9.64 24.55501DS04 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U 11800 9.385501DS06 0.205 -1.58 0.41 U 0.205 -1.58 0.41 U 17700 9.78 24.65501SB02 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U 10800 9.295501SB05 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U 9930 9.205501SD00 36 3.58 5.8 4.4 1.48 5.8 J 10200 9.23 35.45501SS02 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U 12300 9.425502DS02 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 19000 9.85 24.55502DS06 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 19300 9.87 24.35502DS10 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 16400 9.71 24.25502DS12 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U 12600 9.44 25.65502SB02 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U 13300 9.505502SB06 0.205 -1.58 0.41 U 0.205 -1.58 0.41 U 10200 9.235502SB10 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U 11700 9.375502SD00 0.475 -0.74 0.95 U 0.475 -0.74 0.95 U 16500 9.71 28.85502SS02 0.19 -1.66 0.38 U 0.19 -1.66 0.38 U 9000 9.105503DS02 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 26200 10.17 24.55503DS06 0.205 -1.58 0.41 U 0.205 -1.58 0.41 U 33000 10.40 255503DS11 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U 23900 10.08 25.75503DS15 0.23 -1.47 0.46 U 0.23 -1.47 0.46 U 47100 10.76 28.15503SB02 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 10400 9.255503SB06 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U 22900 10.045503SB10 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U 13700 9.535503SS02 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U 12100 9.405504DS02 0.2 -1.61 0.4 U 0.2 -1.61 0.4 U 29200 10.28 24.55504DS05 0.23 -1.47 0.46 U 0.23 -1.47 0.46 U 42100 10.65 27.95504SB02 0.2 -1.61 0.4 U 0.2 -1.61 0.4 U 14900 9.615504SB06 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U 13300 9.505504SB10 0.225 -1.49 0.45 U 0.225 -1.49 0.45 U 21500 9.985505SB02 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 13600 9.525505SB06 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 12700 9.455505SB10 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U 14500 9.585506SB02 0.185 -1.69 0.37 U 0.185 -1.69 0.37 U 6980 8.85EXPLOSIVES2,4-Dinitrotoluenemg/kgEXPLOSIVES2,6-Dintrotoluenemg/kgMETALSAluminummg/kgQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 1 of 2 1/28/03TABLE 7-4TOTAL SOIL EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDPARAMETERANALYTEUNITSResult LN RL Qual Result LN RL Qual Result LN RL QualEXPLOSIVES2,4-Dinitrotoluenemg/kgEXPLOSIVES2,6-Dintrotoluenemg/kgMETALSAluminummg/kg5506SB06 0.19 -1.66 0.38 U 0.19 -1.66 0.38 U 11600 9.365506SB10 0.19 -1.66 0.38 U 0.19 -1.66 0.38 U 7490 8.925507SB02 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U 13300 9.505507SB06 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 16700 9.725507SB10 0.215 -1.54 0.43 U 0.215 -1.54 0.43 U 18900 9.855508SB02 0.215 -1.54 0.43 U 0.215 -1.54 0.43 U 16100 9.695508SB04 0.22 -1.51 0.44 U 0.22 -1.51 0.44 U 27300 10.21Number 40 40 40Minimum 36.000 4.400 6980.000Maximum 36.000 4.400 47100.000Average 1.234 -1.422 0.331 -1.482 16948.571 9.629Standard Deviation 6.050 0.884 0.710 0.538 9154.544 0.449H Statistic 2.261 1.941 1.86995% UCL 0.491 0.310 19235.166RME 0.491 0.310 19235Total soil data from Appendix E.RL = Laboratory reporting limitRME = Lower of 95% UCL or maximum detectedLN = Natural logarithm of the result; used to calculate the 95% UCL of the mean.95% UCL = 95% Upper Confidence LimitQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 2 of 2 1/28/03TABLE 7-5SURFACE SOIL/SEDIMENT EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONSITE 55 - FORMER INERT AREA BURNING GROUNDPARAMETERANALYTEUNITSResult LN RL Qual Result LN RL Qual5501DS02 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U5501SB02 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U5501SD00 36 3.58 5.8 4.4 1.48 5.8 J5501SS02 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U5502DS02 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U5502SB02 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U5502SD00 0.475 -0.74 0.95 U 0.475 -0.74 0.95 U5502SS02 0.19 -1.66 0.38 U 0.19 -1.66 0.38 U5503DS02 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U5503SB02 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U5503SS02 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U 0.21 -1.56 0.42 U5504DS02 0.2 -1.61 0.4 U 0.2 -1.61 0.4 U5504SB02 0.2 -1.61 0.4 U 0.2 -1.61 0.4 U5505SB02 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U 0.2 -1.61 0.40 U5506SB02 0.185 -1.69 0.37 U 0.185 -1.69 0.37 U5507SB02 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U 0.195 -1.63 0.39 U5508SB02 0.215 -1.54 0.43 U 0.215 -1.54 0.43 UNumber 17 17Minimum 36.000 4.400Maximum 36.000 4.400Average 2.603 -1.216 0.496 -1.356Standard Deviation 9.239 1.347 1.082 0.817H Statistic 3.293 2.39795% UCL 2.226 0.587RME 2.226 0.587Surface soil data from Appendix E.RL = Laboratory reporting limitRME = Lower of 95% UCL or maximum detectedLN = Natural logarithm of the result; used to calculate the 95% UCL of the mean.95% UCL = 95% Upper Confidence LimitEXPLOSIVES2,4-Dinitrotoluenemg/kgEXPLOSIVES2,6-Dintrotoluenemg/kgQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Site 55 Tables_Rev0.xls Page 1 of 1 1/28/03Ecological Risk EvaluationSECTIONEIGHT Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 8-18.1 INTRODUCTIONThere is no formally-promulgated, official state guidance for performance of ecological riskassessments (ERAs) at potentially contaminated sites in Indiana. USEPA has released guidancefor the conduct of ecological risk assessment, specifically USEPA (1998). These guidelines, “setforth current scientific thinking and approaches for conducting and evaluating ecological riskassessments.” The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) released Environmental QualityRisk Assessment Handbook, Volume II: Environmental Evaluation in 1996 that applies to ERAs“for all USACE HTRW investigations, studies, and designs under Department of Defense,Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC),U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Program, Civil Works, and Work forOthers” (USACE 1996). This is the primary resource of guidance for the ERA(s) withinINAAP. The EPA Emergency Response Team (ERT, Edison, New Jersey), under the authorityof OSWER Directive No. 9285.7-17 of August 12, 1994, has developed guidance for ecologicalrisk application at Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act(CERCLA, otherwise known as Superfund) sites, which is also applicable to ERAs performed atINAAP. The interim final was released in June 1997.As overall guidance for the performance of the ecological evaluation are the natural resourcemanagement goals for the INAAP facility and grounds (McClellan 1997, Indiana Department ofNatural Resources [IDNR] 1994, Tetra Tech EM 1999). The natural resources are managed sothat the wildlife, agricultural, recreational and industrial purposes of the INAAP grounds areaccomplished in concert with each other and in full compliance with a long term natural resourcestewardship responsibility (McClellen 1997). It is important to emphasize that not all areas willbe managed as natural or feral habitat for ecological resources. Some areas will be so managedwhile others are specifically designated as industrial and/or agricultural lands and will bemanaged as such (McClellen 1997). Still other areas (e.g., the Jenny Lind Pond and Run area)have been designated as sensitive areas due to the presence of endangered species and as naturalareas within the INAAP grounds (IDNR 1994, Tetra Tech EM 1999).8.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPEEcological risk assessment is:... the process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur orare occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors. (USEPA 1992a, USEPA1998).In the present context, “adverse ecological effects” are understood to be anthropogenic changesconsidered undesirable because they alter valued structural or functional characteristics ofecological systems (USACE 1996; USEPA 1998). The “stressors” at issue are chemicalcontaminants.Ecological Risk EvaluationSECTIONEIGHT Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 8-28.3 OVERVIEW OF ECOLOGICAL EVALUATION PROCESSThe first three steps of this ecological risk evaluation roughly correspond to a preliminary, orscreening level (Tier I) wherein: (1) the presence of an ecological component is determined; (2)the contaminated media to which the ecological component(s) could be exposed are identified;and (3) the magnitude of contamination in each applicable medium is compared to a levelconservatively assumed to constitute a hazard (ecotoxicological benchmark). Where anecological component is lacking, the process concludes that contaminants of interest (COIs) arenot of potential ecological concern within the site under consideration. Where an ecologicalcomponent exists, but COI concentrations in applicable media do not equal or exceed theecotoxicological benchmarks, the contaminants are not considered chemicals of potentialecological concern (COPECs). But, given the presence of an ecological component and at leastone COPEC, the site requires further evaluation.8.4 POTENTIALLY AFFECTED HABITATSThe Former Inert Burning Ground (Site 55) encompasses an extremely small area (0.3 acres),especially in the context of relevant ecological resources. The area is essentially a portion ofpasture, which is artificially maintained as pasture by agricultural practices. Based on the size ofsite, there are no resident consumers aside from a small number of insects and otherinvertebrates. The area is too small for even small mammals such as shrews and mice to beconsidered potentially “resident.” An individual shrew under the best of habitats requires 0.96acres to obtain sufficient forage to sustain itself. The area is insufficient in size to account forany significant production of biomass for any ecosystem or even ecological community presentin the area of the site. Nor does the site contain any significant habitat features such as uniquenesting areas or structures for shelter. It can be concluded based on the lack of any significantexploitable habitat due to the size and quality of habitat present within the Former Inert BurningGround area that no unacceptable ecological risks are present and no further investigation forecological concerns is warranted.Summary and RecommendationsSECTIONNINE Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 9-19.1 SUMMARYThe following discussion presents a brief summary of the major findings of the Phase I RI (W-C,1998) and the Phase II RFI (URS, 2002) of the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55).The investigations included the completion of fifteen soil borings, and the collection and analysisof 38 surface and subsurface soil samples, one sediment sample and one collocated surfacewater/sediment sample. Chemical analyses included VOCs, SVOCs, nitroaromatics/nitramines,metals, TPH and nitrate/nitrite.9.1.1 Physical Characteristics· The Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55) measures approximately 0.3 acres insize and is located near the southern boundary of INAAP. Two drainage ditchesdefine the western and southern perimeters of the site.· The Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55) is located in the Lentzier Creekdrainage basin. The surface of the site is grass-covered and slopes to the to thesouth/southwest with a total relief of approximately 40 feet. Surface water from thesite flows through drainage ditches and culverts to the West Branch of LentzierCreek, which flows to the Ohio River.· Local surficial geology indicates that most of the site is overlain by about 0.5 feet oftopsoil with fill or residual clay underlying the topsoil. The greatest measuredthickness of soil fill material was about 8 feet. Residual clays varied from a few feetto nearly 15 feet in thickness.· Bedrock was encountered below the residual clay at depths from about four to 15 feetbgs. Bedrock appears to slope to the southwest. Field investigations indicated therewere no significant karst or bedrock surface features.· During the initial Phase I RI sampling, groundwater was observed in one boring atabout 9.5 feet bgs at the time of drilling. There was no groundwater encountered inany other boring during the two sampling events. Surface water was observed in thedrainage ditch at the southwest corner of the site during both sampling events.9.1.2 Contamination AssessmentContamination was evaluated in near surface soil and sediment, subsurface soil, and surfacewater. Concentrations of detected chemicals were compared to calculated, site-specificindustrial closure levels (Level 2) and those exceeding 50% of the value were consideredelevated.9.1.2.1 Near Surface Soil and Sediment· Low levels of VOCs were detected.Summary and RecommendationsSECTIONNINE Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 9-2· 2,4-DNT and 2,6-DNT were detected at elevated levels by SVOC analysis (USEPAMethod 8270) in one sediment sample, and by nitroaromatic/nitramine analysis(USEPA Method 8330) in one near surface soil sample.· Nine metals were detected above background concentrations.9.1.2.2 Subsurface Soil Samples· VOCs, SVOCs and one nitroaromatic were detected at low levels.· Fourteen metals and cyanides were detected above background concentrations.9.1.2.3 Surface Water Samples· No SVOCs and nitroaromatics/nitramines were detected in the single surface watersample.· Five metals were detected above background concentrations.9.1.3 Human Health Risk Screen/AssessmentA human health risk screen was performed on all contaminants found in surface soils/sediment,total soil/sediment, and surface water at the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55). Whencontaminant concentrations exceeded risk screening values, the analyte was considered a COPCand was carried forward for further evaluation. The compounds 2,4-DNT, 2,6-DNT, andaluminum were identified as COPCs for soil and sediment in the screening process. There wereno COPCs identified for surface water. The identified COPCs were further evaluated bycomparing the EPC for each COPC to the Direct Closure Level screening values. For this site,groundwater was not encountered in any soil borings, and nearby wells and springs did notcontain elevated COPCs; therefore, the soil to groundwater exposure pathway (Indirect SoilClosure Levels) was eliminated from consideration.The identified COPCs do not exceed the default closure levels for the direct soil contactexposure pathway. Therefore, based on qualitative assessment of the results of this risk screen,the chemicals detected at the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55) do not warrant furtherassessment.9.1.4 Ecological Risk Screen / AssessmentAn ecological risk evaluation, roughly corresponding to a preliminary or screening level (Tier I)assessment, was performed at the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55). Based on thesmall size (0.3 acres) of the Former Inert Area Burning Ground (Site 55), the area is insufficientin size to account for any significant production of biomass for any ecosystem or even anecological community present in the area of the site. Additionally, the site does not contain anysignificant habitat features such as unique nesting areas or structures for shelter. Therefore,based on the small size and lack of any significant exploitable habitat within the site, noSummary and RecommendationsSECTIONNINE Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 9-3unacceptable ecological risks are present and no further investigation for ecological concerns iswarranted.9.2 RECOMMENDATIONSData of sufficient quality and quantity to characterize the Former Inert Area Burning Ground(Site 55) has been collected. Physical and chemical investigation results were used to evaluatepotential human health and ecological risks at the site. Based on the results of these evaluations,no further action is recommended for Site 55.ReferencesSECTIONTEN Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 10-1Abernethy, S.G., and D. Mackay. 1988. “Volume fraction” correlation for narcosis in aquaticorganisms: the key role of partitioning. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 7:469-481.Advanced Sciences, Inc. (ASI). 1994. Preliminary Site Inspection for Indiana ArmyAmmunition Plant Charlestown, Indiana. U.S. Army Environmental Center. AberdeenProving Ground, MD.Amdur, M.O., J. Doull and C.D. Klaassen. 1991. Casarett and Doull’s Toxicology, 4th edition,Pergamon Press.American Geological Institute (AGI). 1980. Glossary of Geology. Bates, R.L., and J.A. Jackson,eds. AGI, Falls Church, Virginia.ATSDR. 1990a. Toxicological Profile for Di-n-Butylphthalate. Agency for Toxic Substancesand Disease Registry (ATSDR), U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services, Public HealthService, Washington, DC.ATSDR. 1990b. Toxicological Profile for Copper. Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry (ATSDR), U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,Washington, DC.ATSDR. 1992a. Toxicological Profile for Aluminum. Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry (ATSDR), U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,Washington, DC.ATSDR. 1992b. Toxicological Profile for Thallium. Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry (ATSDR), U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,Washington, DC.ATSDR. 1992c. Toxicological Profile for Vanadium. Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry (ATSDR), U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,Washington, DC.ATSDR. 1993a. Toxicological Profile for Dieldrin. Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry (ATSDR), U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,Washington, DC.ATSDR. 1993b. Toxicological Profile for Di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate. Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services,Public Health Service, Washington, DC.ATSDR. 1993c. Toxicological Profile for N-Nitrosodiphemylamine. Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services,Public Health Service, Washington, DC.ReferencesSECTIONTEN Former Inert Area Burning Ground, Site 55Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 55\Final\Site 55 Secs 1-10 Text_Rev1.doc\28-Jan-03 /OMA 10-2ATSDR. 1993d. Toxicological Profile for Arsenic. Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry (ATSDR), U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,Washington, DC.ATSDR. 1993e. Toxicological Profile for Cadmium. Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry (ATSDR), U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,Washington, DC.ATSDR. 1993f. Toxicological Profile for Lead. Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry (A
Origin:	2003-01-30
Source:	http://indianamemory.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15078coll17/id/33758
Collection:	Clark County Collections
Rights:	http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/
Copyright:	Charlestown-Clark County Public Library provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes and makes no warranty with regard to their use for other purposes. The written permission of the copyright owners and/or holders of other rights such as publicity and/or privacy rights is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions. There may be content that is protected as works for hire copyright held by the party that commissioned the original work and/or under the copyright or neighboring-rights laws of other nations. Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item and securing any necessary permissions ultimately rests with persons desiring to use the item.
Geography:	Charlestown, Clark County, Indiana 38.4357546,-85.6577676
Subjects:	Maps Indiana Ordnance Works (U.S.) Hoosier Ordnance Plant Indiana Arsenal Indiana Army Ammunition Plant Explosives Industry--Indiana Gunpowder, Smokeless Ordnance manufacture Black powder manufacture Facility One ICI Americas Inc Clark County (Ind.) Charlestown (Ind.) United States. Army Ordnance and Ordnance Stores INAAP

Further information on this record can be found at its source.